International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, 1987, 5, 1-13

Heuristic approaches for mine planning and

production scheduling
MARK GERSHON
Departmentof Management, TempleUniversity,Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,PA 19122, USA

Received 7 February 1986

Summary

Traditional methods and optimization methods for mine planning and production scheduling have failed
to provide easy to use tools that yield improved results. Two new approaches, each combining the best of
the traditional and the optimization, are described.
Keywords: Production scheduling; mine planning; heuristics; blending; block sequencing

Introduction

Most recent work in the field of mine production scheduling has focused on either the
computerization of the traditional methods or the development of sophisticated mathematical
optimization models. Yet it is clear to all concerned that the optimizers need to be made more
practical and the traditional approach needs to be made more optimal. This paper opens a
middle ground between these two approaches.
The traditional and the optimization approaches are so far apart that their advocates have
difficulty identifying with the other approach. This is especially true concerning the difficulty of
understanding the optimization models for those not trained in the field of operations research.
This paper takes the position that the proper role of the operations researcher is to provide not
only useful and advantageous approaches, but practical, understandable and implementable
ones as well. This is the goal of the paper in describing two new approaches, consistent with the
traditional methods and aimed at approximating the results of the optimizers.
The methods described herein rely on the best features of both current approaches. As
approximation techniques, they fall into the operations research classification as heuristics.
They may or may not ultimately be the best heuristics that can be designed for mine production
scheduling, but they can be applied successfully at this time, and they open up a new area of
study aimed at improving these approaches in the future. This area of study is that of heuristic
techniques in general.
Two methods are described. The first, applicable in both surface and underground mining,
bases the scheduling decisions on blending concerns. As such, it is most applicable to
0269-.0136/87$03.00 + .12 ~ 1987Chapman and Hall Ltd.
2 Gershon

commodities that have difficult blending requirements such as coal, iron, cement or
phosphates. The second method can be applied in any mining situation, but seems most
applicable to open pit mines in the form described here.
Prior to describing the specifics of the approaches, the scheduling problem itself is discussed
along with some of the current approaches. The heuristics are then described, followed by a
description of their possible implementations and recommendations for the designs of the
overall system for production scheduling in which they should be used.

The production schedufing problem

The production scheduling problem, in the mining context, is concerned with the sequence of
the removal of the mining blocks within the limits of the mine plan. In other words, the problem
is one of block sequencing. The sequence of mining that yields the largest net present value
return is the one that should be chosen.
While a thorough discussion of the information system required for production scheduling is
outside the scope of this paper, it is assumed throughout this discussion that the basic
information contained in most block models is available. That is, the quantity and quality of
each block have been estimated and are readily available to the production scheduler. This
information, of course, is the basic information required for scheduling, whether or not a formal
block model is available.
The simplistic problem statement provided at the beginning of this section is not sufficient
once the production scheduler considers the many limitations on the actual schedule. For a
variety of reasons, only a small subset of all possible sequences can be implemented. The rest
are not practical. These reasons include working and final slope considerations, restrictions on
the mobility of equipment, the need to balance strip ratios, and blending considerations on the
qualities. Thus, the problem becomes one of finding a practical schedule, one that meets all of
these requirements.
This is the level at which most production scheduling projects are conducted. The difficulty in
achieving a practical schedule overrides the problem of finding the best schedule. With these
considerations in mind, the problem definition used in this paper is as follows.
Find the schedule (sequence of mining blocks) that maximizes the net present value return
within the physical, logistical and contractual limitations by which the scheduler is
constrained.
In other words, our goal is to find the best schedule and to make sure that it is practical.

Current approaches

Every mine operates under some kind of production schedule, but as has been mentioned
earlier, most have focused merely on finding a schedule that meets all of the restrictions, one
that can be implemented. An excellent description of the details of this approach can be found
Heuristic approaches to production scheduling
in Mathieson (1982). This approach has traditionally been implemented manually, requiring a
great deal of calculation and drawing of maps.
Today, most companies are incorporating changes into this same approach. The use of
computers for the calculations as well as the graphics is helping to speed up the process. In a
way, reducing the time required to produce each production schedule is also helping to produce
better production schedules by providing the scheduler with the time to evaluate a variety of
options. Examples of these computer assisted approaches are described in Rose (1985) and
Marek and Welhener (1985).
The most sophisticated implementation of these trial and error approaches involves the use of
a complete computer simulation of the mining of the deposit. While the development of a
simulator may require a very large initial investment, it puts in place a very powerful tool for
quickly evaluating many scheduling options. While some companies have implemented
simulators, most are building their simulators piece by piece. This is the computer assisted
approach, but the ultimate goal is to use a complete simulator.
The three examples mentioned above (manual, computer assisted, simulation), in actuality,
are all different forms of the same approach; that of 'trial and error'. This general approach is to'
try a schedule, modify it until it meets all of the specifications, find a few more that meet the
specifications, and choose the best one. But bear in mind that the best of all possible schedules is
not found. Only the best of those tried is found.
In response to this desire for the optimal (best of all possible) schedule, many approaches
based on mathematical optimization procedures (Johnson, 1969; Smith, 1978; Gangwar, 1982;
Gershon, 1982, 1983a) have been developed. These are usually based on either linear
programming, integer programming or dynamic programming (Hillier and Lieberman, 1980).
While they do find the optimal solution to some mathematical model, the model assumptions
are often such that the resulting schedules are not entirely practical. Some massaging of the
results is then required to achieve a useful and implementable schedule.
Finally, a third group of approaches attempts to build some level of intelligence into a
computer model to guide the scheduling process. Some of these are optimization for certain
parts of the analysis (suboptimization) such as Lane (1964) or Baafi (1983). Others, such as
Garg (1983), attempt to build a schedule based not on optimization or suboptimization, but on
some practical knowledge of what factors lead to good schedules. This 'heuristic' approach
exploits these factors to attempt to duplicate, or at least approximate the optimization at a much
lower cost. Two new heuristic approaches are the subject of the remainder of this paper. The
first uses the suboptimization concept and the other utilizes more of a common sense approach
to yield good schedules.

Heuristic No. 1 - the blending approach to production scheduling

The advantage of the use of an optimizer for production scheduling is obvious. The best possible
schedule results. However, there are many advantages to using a heuristic approach for this
same purpose. First, it uses a common sense approach that is easy to understand by the mine
engineers who may have been using a manual or computer assisted method. Second, it is easily
implemented within a computer assisted approach or a simulator. It can even be used to guide a
4 Gershon

manually derived schedule. In fact, the method described in this section has been applied in
exactly this way. Finally, since the optimization methods are so difficult to apply to this
production scheduling problem (Gershon, 1983b), a method that can quickly and efficiently
approximate the results of the optimizer is needed. The heuristic described here, which makes
use of multiple small optimizations, accomplishes this task. Therefore, the heuristic provides
most of the power of the optimization within the framework of the more traditional scheduling
approaches.
Prior to describing the approach, it is necessary to briefly describe the blending problem. In
general, we assume that there are many sources from which to take the material to make the
blend. For the sake of simplicity, assume that there are three sources. There will also be a set of
quality specifications that the blend must satisfy. Each commodity would have its own critical
qualities. For example, iron mines may blend on per cent iron, magnetite, limonite, weight
recovery and a grindability index. For coal, there may be ash, sulphur and BTU content, among
others. Phosphate operations may blend on per cent phosphate, moisture, per cent clay and a
variety of rare elements. Cement companies have possibly the strictest blending requirements
and this list could be extended to most mining commodities. To complete this problem
description, it must be assumed that an estimate is available that describes the actual quality
characteristics of each source.
Thus, the blending problem is to optimize cost (or some other factor) subject to quality
restrictions and quantity restrictions.
This blending problem description contains all of the concerns that one would have in making
blends. Most companies are still doing this by intuition, but the best way to do it is with linear
programming. The linear model that solves this problem optimally is not developed here, since
it is well known and has been in use for blending in industry for 30 years. However, it is this
simple model that is the basis for the production scheduling approach.
Let us start with a very bad idea, one that has seriously been suggested by some in the industry
as practical. If the optimal blend is mined this week, and then the optimal blend is mined next
week, and again in each succeeding week, the blending model essentially becomes a production
scheduler. There can be no argument with this. What can be argued, however, is the quality of
the resulting schedule. Certainly, it is not optimal in the long run. A much larger linear
programming model that optimizes the schedule for all of the time periods simultaneously is
needed for this. But in the approach developed here, no optimization is claimed. Therefore, a
more serious question is whether the resulting schedule is a good one. Again, it is not. Every
mining engineer knows the pitfalls of a short-sighted approach and this one is obviously short-
sighted. Mining the optimal blend in each time period will soon lead to a situation where it is not
possible to meet the specifications from the remaining available material.
As bad as this idea may be, it still has a strong appeal. It is simple to apply, requires very little
computer time (can be micro-based), and gives the production scheduler full control over the
development of the schedule. Even more important, there are many commodities, especially
those mentioned previously (coal, iron, phosphate, cement), where a successful production
schedule is driven by the ability to put together successfully a continuing sequence of blends.
For these commodities, blending does drive the production scheduling process.
The approach taken here is to take this bad idea and modify it so that it is a good idea, one
that is useful in practice. The bad part of the idea thus far is that it is very short-sighted.
Heuristic approaches to production scheduling 5
Therefore, our goal is to modify it so that long term considerations are incorporated.
The key to accomplishing this task lies in the definition of the 'optimal' blend, what the linear
programmer calls the objective. If it means that the blend is the best in terms of cost or profit,
somehow the prices must be linked to the material quality and again this is too short-sighted.
A long term objective must be chosen. We make the assumption that the best long term
schedule is one that allows the specifications to be met for the longest period of time. While this,
too, is rather simplistic, as an alternative to a long time optimization, it has been proven to yield
excellent results.
What is the objective, then, that achieves this goal? It depends on the property. Since this
approach was first applied to cement properties, let us consider that first.~Limestone is the most
important ingredient, so a suitable objective could be to minimize the amount of limestone used
to meet the specification. This has the effect that, at the end of each period, the most limestone
possible remains. In other words, the company has placed itself, at the end of each period, in the
best possible position for the long term mining success. More will be discussed on this case in the
next section.
For coal, it is really heat content (BTU's) that are bought, so it would seem that saving these
for the future is to be the goal. But this is never the case, partially because of the heavy use of
incremental contract prices tied to BTU's. In many US properties, due to strict environmental
laws on the burning of coal, the key ingredient is sulphur. While it seems odd at first thought, the
appropriate objective to use is to maximize the sulphur mined, subject to staying within the
sulphur limits. Again, this has the effect of leaving the least possible sulphur content in the
property at any given time.
More specifics are provided in the next section. However, there are a few steps that
summarize the procedure. These are the following.
(1) Model the single period blending problem.
(2) Determine the appropriate long term objective.
(3) Select the available sites for mining (the sources).
(4) Optimize the single period blend for these sources in terms of the long term objective.
(5) Return to Step 3 until schedule is complete.
The idea is to do a series of short term optimizations using a long term objective to approximate
the true long term optimal schedule.

Heuristic No. 1 - implementation

Since the most critical step in implementing this approach is the selection of the appropriate
long term objective, more discussion is needed on this point. In the previous section, the
minimization of limestone usage was mentioned as the objective for a cement operation. While
this may be the best objective across all properties, it has not been used on any of the three
cement projects conducted by the author. In one case, it was most appropriate to attempt to
make maximum use of a large dolomite deposit available at the same site, so this was chosen as
the objective. At another site, significant costs resulted from having to truck an overburden
layer to a waste dump. Here, the objective was to use as much as possible of this material in the
6 Gershon

mix. At a third site, where the most extensive work has been done with this approach,
management feared that the operation would have to be shut down in a few years due to a large
amount of a contaminant, magnesium, in many areas of the deposit. The long term objective
chosen was to maximize the magnesium content in each time period (in each blend) while
staying within the maximum allowed. This resulted in an extended useful life for the deposit.
This last case, where the contaminant magnesium was maximized (mined out as much as
possible), is very similar to the case mentioned previously concerning the sulphur in coal. In
each case, there is an element present in the deposit that makes the deposit less desirable. In
each case, this heuristic approach is used to attack the problem and attempt to optimize the
usefulness of the property. The results of using this approach illustrate a rule that seems obvious
but that is not followed in many cases. That is:
If a deposit has a contaminant, address the problem immediately. Don't put it off.
There are many cases where a mine was forced to shut down because the responsible
(irresponsible?) production schedulers and mine planners chose to avoid the problem areas
until there was nothing left with which to blend them.
This result leads to a helpful hint toward the selection of a suitable objective.
Identify the most troubling problem in mining the deposit and this will lead to an objective to
overcome it, or at least to minimize the trouble that it causes.
There are some less intuitive ways in which this approach can prove useful. For example, a tong
term (50 year) plan for a lignite deposit was developed with an objective of balancing the BTU
production over time. This resulted in large fluctuations in the strip ratio over time. To
overcome this problem, another schedule was developed aimed at a balanced strip ratio. As one
might expect, this resulted in large fluctuations in BTU production. By viewing a combination
of strip ratio and BTU's as a 'blend', a more useful and practical schedule results that takes both
factors into account.
In addition to the objective, the rest of the linear blending model consists of the restrictions
on the specifications. Any introductory operations research text (Hillier and Lieberman, 1980;
Gershon, 1987) provides sufficient information to guide the reader in implementing this step.
Another major consideration, with regard to the implementation, is the selection of the
available blocks (sources) for each run. In its most simplistic sense, we could use all exposed
blocks. If this approach were to be used as an automated scheduler, this would be the way to do
it. But a skilful engineer can guide the schedule by providing the model with a limited number of
sources in selected mining areas. The scheduling process then becomes one of trial and error,
with some runs possibly responding that the specifications cannot be met from the sources used,
providing guidance as to why they cannot be met, and allowing the scheduler to make additional
sources available.
Obviously, a decision made by the engineer early in the scheduling process can have an effect
on the long term schedule that results. This is desirable, since we must presume that this engineer
knows the property for which he/she has responsibility. On the other hand, though, it brings into
question the quality (the optimality) of the schedule. As soon as we accept that the schedule
may not be optimal, it becomes necessary to question how close to optimal it may be. The way to
do this (in a qualitative sense) is to use the approach to produce a few different schedules, each
Heuristic approaches to production scheduling
based on a different view of how the engineer sees the long term plan evolving. These different
schedules can then be compared and the best one selected. This may even be more of a mine
planning use o f the approach than it is a production scheduling use. In either case, it is clearly
using the approach to analyse various options, while attempting to optimize within each option.
Thus, it is using the approach as a simulation, but with embedded optimizations.

Heuristic No. 2 - an algorithm for block sequencing

The second heuristic presented here is much closer to the traditional (non-operations research)
approaches to mine scheduling. Still, by using a heuristic approach, it provides most of the
power of optimization within the framework of these more traditional scheduling approaches.
This heuristic is based on the concept of a ranked positiona ! weight. First developed for use in
the design of industrial production lines (Helgeson and Birnie, 1961), the concept is used here to
accomplish automatically many of the common sense ideas that every mine engineer takes for
granted.
In pit design, we g ~ e r a t e cones upward from each block to approximate the shape of a pit
and to determine whether or not the block in question should be part of the ultimate pit. This
same concept of generating cones is applied here, with one twist. From the view of the
production scheduler, there are many blocks that cannot yet be mined because one particular
block has not yet been mined. Until this key block is mined, all those behind it (or below it)
cannot be mined. Following a desired pit slope, the aggregate of all the blocks that a single block
prohibits from mining forms a cone with that single block at its apex. Thus, for each block, this
heuristic generates cones downward, not upward.
Fig. 1 shows one of these downward cones for a single block within the ultimate pit. No block
in this cone can be mined until this single block at its apex is mined. For every other block in the
ultimate pit, a similar cone can be generated downward.

Fig. 1. Downward cones (--- ultimate pit boundary; / / / area in cone; \ \ \ area in
ultimate p i t ; / \ / \ / \ cone used for block),
8 Gershon
Now we come to a key question facing the mine scheduler.
What makes it more desirable or less desirable to mine an exposed block at the present time?
The answer to this question within this heuristic is the same as it is in using a more traditional
approach. That is, if the block is an ore block, valuable in itself, it is more desirable than a block
of lesser quality ore. This is a short term reasoning. A long term reasoning is that a block must be
mined if it enables us to reach a high grade ore beneath it (within its cone). The mine schedule is
always trying to balance these short term and long term needs.
It would seem then, that the total quality of ore within a cone, in a simplistic sense, is a good
measure of the desirability of mining the block at the apex of that cone. As we will see later, the
calculation of this index of desirability will be refined to be more meaningful and more practical,
but clearly we now have a means to achieve the desired sequencing of blocks.
This index of desirability is called the positional weight. As developed thus far, it is the sum
of the ore qualities within the cone generated downward from a block within the ultimate pit.
That is, it is its own quality, plus the qualities of the blocks that would require stripping it. Once
these positional weights are determined for each exposed block, they are ranked. The block
having the highest positional weight should be mined first. Then the positional weights are
recalculated, based on the revised set of exposed blocks and the sequencing continues in this
manner.
Fig, 2 shows a cross section of an ultimate pit to demonstrate the most basic calculation. The
numbers in the blocks here represent ore grades, but these numbers could easily be generalized
to some priority values based on a combination of multiple qualities. The shaded area ( / J J j )
shows the cone used for the calculation of the positional weight for the ninth block on the first

Fig. 2. Downward cone calculations.

Block
quality: 0.3 0.2
Cone below
block: 7.7 4.2
Total in
cone: 8.0 4.4
Heuristic approaches to production scheduling 9
level. The other shaded area ( \ \ \ \ \ ) shows the cone used for the same calculation for the
fifteenth block on that same level. The cross-hatched area is used in both calculations.
While the entire calculation is provided in Fig. 2, it suffices here to say that the ninth block has
a positional weight of 8.0 and the fifteenth block has a weight of 4.4. Given this particular cross
section, common sense tells the engineer that an initial pit should be developed in a somewhat
central position within the ultimate pit and then this pit should be expanded to the right to reach
the best ore. This is exactly the sequence that results from the use of this heuristic, as shown in
Fig. 3.

\PHASI/

Fig. 3. Derived pit development.

In a general way, an approach to the mine scheduling problem has been developed. The steps
of this approach are as follows.
(1) Determine the set of blocks currently available for mining.
(2) Calculate the positional weights for each of these blocks.
(3) Decide which block to mine and return to Step 1.
The implementation of these steps is discussed in the next section of the paper.

Heuristic No. 2 - implementation concerns

The determination of the set of blocks available for mining, as mentioned earlier, is not as
simple as identifying all exposed blocks. The reason for referring to all exposed blocks earlier
was to simplify the discussion of the heuristic concept. Obviously, due to pit wall stability
concerns and equipment availability and other operational concerns, not all exposed blocks can
be mined. If the only consideration is pit slopes, then it is possible to automate the
determination of the set of blocks available. Otherwise, the set of blocks available can be
trimmed (but it is not necessary', as we shall see) by the engineer conducting the scheduling
10 Gershon
project. There may even be cases where, for purposes local to a given situation, the engineer
may wish to include some blocks in the rankings that are not yet exposed, as if they were
available. Of course none of these blocks can be ranked first, since there is always a block on the
next higher level with a higher rank. This is due to the way the positional weight has been
defined.
The positional weights are the key values in the scheduling algorithm, as they represent the
priority attached to mining each of the blocks. As such, it is desirable to calculate these priorities
such that they match most closely with the profitability concerns of the mine. Until this point,
the priorities have been calculated as the sum of the ore grades in the downward cone. This is
too simplistic for practical use. First, a high grade on the fifteenth level, for example, is not as
valuable, in present value terms, as a similar grade ore on the third level. To accurately model
this situation, a discount factor must be applied at each level so that the value of the blocks
decreases with depth. On many properties, distance across the property is also a factor which
must be considered. If the mine schedule is to be developed within a long term mine plan, as is
usually the case, this mine plan will also yield information concerning approximately how long it
will take to reach a given area of the mine. The use of this additional information provides the
best possible basis for the assignment of the discount factors. Thus, the positional weight of each
block is a function of the following.
(1) Quality of the block
(2) Position of the block
(3) Quality of ore behind the block
(4) Discount factors
In practice, the same set of discount values is not used at different mines. Their appropriate
assignment must be part of every implementation of this approach and local factors must be
considered.
It may seem at this point that the selection of the best block to mine is quite straightforward.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. While this heuristic approach is successful in considering
both long and short term factors in mine production scheduling, there are still many site specific
and time specific considerations that it fails to consider. For this reason, the best way to use this
approach is to use it interactively, with the engineer always deciding which block to mine next.
While the rankings provide useful guidance, the ultimate rule is:
Heuristic recommends - engineer decides
The ability of the engineer to accept or override the recommendation is a major feature of this
approach.
Fig. 4 shows a ranking for a small portion of a property. The best 10 blocks to mine at this time
are shown and the recommendation that block 1-4-7 is the best is provided. It can be mined or
another block can be mined. A quick look at the rankings shows that blocks 1-4-7, 1-5-8 and 1-5-
7 are much more important to mine at this time than any of the others. The scheduling engineer
may decide to mine these three before updating the priorities again.
While it is strongly recommended that this approach be implemented in the interactive
manner just presented, many would prefer the schedule to be generated automatically. This can
be accomplished by allowing the computer program to select automatically the highest ranking
Heuristic approaches to production scheduling 11

BEST 10 CHOICES: POS.WGT. BENCH ROW COLUMN

35738.50 1 4 7
34627.89 1 5 8
34346.14 1 5 7
27895.91 1 4 6
27655.89 1 6 8
27432.92 1 3 7
24906.60 1 6 7
24632.84 1 5 6
24094.t0 1 5 9
23898.40 1 3 6

THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES ARE: BENCH: 1-4

ROW: 1-8
COLUMN: 1-9
THE BEST BLOCK TO REMOVE IS BENCH:
ROW:
COLUMN:
DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT (Y = 1 OR NO = 0)?
1
THE CUMULATIVE MASS REMOVED AFTER 1 BLOCKS 784.68 TONS

THE BEST BLOCK TO REMOVE IS BENCH: 1

ROW: 5
COLUMN: 8

DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT (Y = 1 OR N = 0)?

DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT (Y = 1 OR N = 0)?

1
THE CUMULATIVE MASS REMOVED AFTER 2 BLOCKS 1676.47 TONS

THE BEST BLOCK TO REMOVE IS BENCH: 1

ROW: 5
COLUMN: 7

DO YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT (Y = 1 OR N = 0)?

1
THE CUMULATIVE MASS REMOVED AFTER 3 BLOCKS 3627.04 TONS

Fig. 4. Sample display with ranking.

block at each time. Since there is no engineer review, h o w e v e r , on a block by block basis, it is
required that an extensive review of the entire schedule be conducted after the fact. Most
probably, this review will yield a refinement and i m p r o v e m e n t of the schedule.
A compromise b e t w e e n the interactive and the a u t o m a t e d modes of use is to use the
automatic m o d e for, let us say, a few weeks' production at a time. This allows for all of the
interactive benefits while avoiding the tedious work of the block by block decisions.
12 Gershon

Another way to improve markedly the use of this heuristic and to take advantage of an
automated procedure is to build it into a simulator. The simulator thus gains some intelligence
in the form of the heuristic rules. It also provides the heuristic with more power by using it in an
environment where it can be tested quickly under a variety of assumptions.

System design

The discussion of the implementation in the previous sections alluded to the fact that this
procedure should be computerized. In this section, we briefly discuss the environment in which
either of the approaches described is used, borrowing heavily from many ideas that now
constitute a good computer assisted scheduling system. Essentially, either heuristic approach
rests on top of, and becomes the focal point of, the computer assisted or simulation framework.
An essential point of the system design is that the scheduler must have as much information as
possible in a readily available form. This may entail a multi-window screen, multiple termifial
screens or a terminal with a plotter. Assuming that the multi-window environment is most ideal,
the system should consist of two graphics windows, a data base window, a schedule summary
window, and a control window. The graphics windows provide the user with a quick view of the
mine. In one window, any plan view can be displayed and, in the other, any cross section. The
data base window is used to display the ore reserve model, so that the qualities of the blocks of
interest are always available to the scheduler. The schedule summary window provides a
continuously updated summary of the production schedule, including total tonnage, average
qualities, waste-ore ratios, etc. While the heuristic is aimed at approximating the optimization
of stripping ratios and quality blends, it really does not consider them explicitly at each step. By
using the heuristic within this environment, the engineer can use this summary data to help
guide the decision to override the recommendation of the heuristic toward blending and strip
ratio goals.
Finally, the control window is essentially the input window with prompts. The program
displays the ranked block priorities in this window and accepts responses concerning the choice
of which block is to be mined. Upon receiving the command to mine a given block, all of the
other windows are updated. The summaries are recalculated and the graphics windows convert
the block just mined to its new status, generally by a change of colour in the display. Through
the control window, it is also possible to step backward; that is, to put the block back and choose
another.

Conclusion

In specific terms, this paper has presented two new approaches aimed at improving the mine
production scheduling process. Based on the traditional approaches and on the use of
suboptimization, the new methods add an ability to look ahead and analyse how important it is
to mine in any area at the current time. The purpose of doing this is to approximate the results
that could be achieved through the use of mathematical optimization without leaving the logical
context of the traditional production scheduling procedures followed by most mining engineers.
Heuristic' approaches to production scheduling 13

The two methods provided are based on blending optimization and ranked positional weight as
alternative approaches.
In more general terms, this paper opens up an area of investigation that has not been explored
until now. It is conceivable that there are other ways of approximating an optimizer for this
problem. There may also be many ways of adding intelligence to the traditional approach that
are less formal than a true approximation. In either case, the optimizations need to become
more practical and the traditional approaches need to become more optimal. This paper is one
step toward accomplishing both of these goals.

References

Baafi, E. (1983) Application of mathematical programming models to coat quality control, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tuscon.
Gangwar, A. (1982) Using geostatistical ore block variances in production planning by integer
programming, Proceedings, 17th Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral
Operations Symposium, Denver, April 19-22, pp. 443460.
Garg, O. (1983) Personal communication, Hanna Mining Co., Cleveland, Ohio.
Gershon, M.E. (1982) A Linear Programming Approach to Mine Scheduling Optimization, Proceedings,
17th Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Operations Symposium,
Denver, Colorado, April 19--22, pp. 483-493.
Gershon, M.E. (1983a) Mine scheduling optmization with mixed integer programming, Mining
Engineering, 35, 351-4.
Gershon, M.E. (1983b) Optimal mine production scheduling: evaluation of large scale mathematical
programming approaches. InternationalJournal of Mining Engineering 1,315-29.
Gershon, M.E. (1987) Mining Operations Research, Chapman and Hall, London.
Helgeson, W.N. and Birnie, D.P. (1986) Assembly line balancing using the ranked positional weight
technique. The Journal oflndustrial Engineering, Vol. XII, No. 4.
Hillier, F.S. and Lieberman, G.J. (1980) Introduction to Operations Research, Holden-Day, Inc., San
Francisco, 829 pp.
Johnson, T.B. (1969) Optimum production scheduling, Proceedings, 8th International Symposium on
Computers and Operations Research, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 539-62.
Lane, K.F. (1964) Choosing the optimum cutoff grade. Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, 59,
No. 4.
Marek, J.M. and Welhener, H. E. (1985) Cutoff grade strategy - a balancing act, paper presented to SME
Fall Meeting, Albuquerque, October 17-19.
Mathieson, G. (1982) Open pit sequencing and scheduling, paper presented to SME Fall Meeting,
Honolulu, September 4-9.
Rose, W.L. (1985) An approach to computerized open-pit production scheduling, paper presented to
SME Fall Meeting, Albuquerque, October 17-19.
Smith, C.E. (1978) The use of mixed integer programming in planning the depletion of an alluvial diamond
deposit, presented to the Operations Research Society of South Africa, September 28-29, pp. 94-102.