Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: F. R. Albor Consuegra & R. Dimitrakopoulos (2010) Algorithmic approach
to pushback design based on stochastic programming: method, application and comparisons,
Mining Technology, 119:2, 88-101
y25%. The purpose of this research is to make use of a stochastic integer programming model to
integrate uncertainty into the process of pushback design. The approach is tested on porphyry
copper deposit. Results show the sensitivity of the NPV to the design of starting and intermediate
pushbacks, as well as the pushback design at the bottom of the pit. The new approach yielded an
increment of y30% in the NPV when compared to the conventional approach. The differences
reported are due to different scheduling patterns, the waste mining rate and an extension of the
pit limits which yielded an extra y5500 t of metal.
Keywords: Mine production scheduling, Stochastic optimisation, Pushback design, Pit limits
1 a difference of NPV forecasts due to difference in design of starting pushbacks and b cross-sections of pushback
designs
stochastic optimisers have been reported;3–5 in such through a search for nested pits at incremental depths, in
cases, production targets are met. Relevant topics to the other words, maximal closures of a graph that lie on the
methodology proposed in this paper are briefly convex hull. The reader is referred to Seymour11 for
described below. further details on this topic.
The problem of defining optimum pit limits was first Although the design of nested pits may be used to
addressed in optimisation as finding the maximum define a sequence of extraction, it is not necessarily
Downloaded by [181.65.132.130] at 11:46 09 March 2016
closure of a graph.6 Later, the problem was formulated optimal for the problem at hand. This is due to:
as that of finding a minimum cut7 which may be solved (i) not considering grade blending or metal pro-
by maximum flow algorithms.8 However, the design of duction requirements
an open pit is not complete because one encounters the (ii) large variations in the size of nested pits
problem of defining the best way to reach the final (iii) ignoring uncertainty of the economic value of a
contour. Considering that there are many ways to do so, block
it is of interest to define the sequence of extraction to (iv) nested pits not being sufficiently spaced apart to
reach the final contour that maximises the value of the provide a minimum mining width that allows
project. The design of intermediate pits is traditionally the access to mining equipment
used to guide the sequence of extraction. To generate (v) the lack of economic discounting in the
such pits it is a common practice to find maximal objective function.
closures on a graph with resource or capacity con- An objective function that maximises the discounted
straints, each closure representing a different intermedi- value of the project leads to the definition of a
ate pit. Solving this problem requires the dualisation of production schedule. Ore, waste, metal, grade blending
the constraints, which yields a Lagrangian relaxation and stockpiling requirements are easily integrated into
problem.9 Now, the problem changes into finding the production scheduling approaches. Nested pits may
value of the Lagrangian multiplier which reduces the undergo a conversion into pushbacks; they can be
gap of optimality. A number of methods are readily naively grouped into pushbacks by analysing a pit by pit
available to solve this problem.10 Another approach to graph, a graph that plots the cumulative economic value
designing intermediate pits relates to what is known as and tonnage versus each pit. Such an approach relies on
parameterisation6 which consists of generating closures the subjectivity of the planning engineer and is based on
on a graph as a function of another parameter related to the assumption that each pushback is mined out
the properties of the blocks of the orebody model, e.g. completely before moving on to the next. In mining
finding pits that maximise the economic value for operations, different pushbacks may be mined out
different desired volumes. The process is carried out simultaneously.
2 a difference of NPV forecast due to different pit limits and b cross-sections of corresponding scheduling patterns
block l is to be mined out in period t and equal to 0 if the risk of deviating from metal and grade targets; the
otherwise; E ðNPVÞtl is the expected NPV to be reader is referred to an example in Dimitrakopoulos and
generated if block l is mined in period t considering Ramazan.14
simulation s, cto0 and ctu0 are the unit costs for excess and
deficient ore production respectively, and dso t0
and dsut0
are Case study at porphyry copper deposit
the excess and deficient amount of ore production in The approach described in the previous section is tested
period t considering simulation s. The objective function on a porphyry copper deposit. The technical and
is subject to reserve, mining, processing, slope and grade economic information related to the case study are
constraints. For purposes of completeness, the proces- shown in Table 2.
sing constraints are defined below. Consider Osl to be
the ore tonnage of a given block l conditioned to Stage I
simulation s, dummy variables atsu0 and atso0 to balance the To discretise the pit space, the industry common practice
equality, and the maximum and minimum ore produc- is to make use of an implementation of the Lerchs–
tion expected per production period of the LOM; then, Grossman algorithm available commercially in Whittle
ore tonnage production must lie within lower and upper software. Their idea is to parameterise the space through
bounds, Omin and Omax. The variables and parameters the variation of the ratio of metal price to extraction
described above lead to define the processing constraint cost.17 In this case, a wide range of values of the
PL PL parameter provides enough information to analyse the
as Osl btl zdsu
t0
{atsu0 ~Omin and Osl btl zdso
t0
{atso0 sensitivity of the pit size to the price of the commodity.
l~1 l~1
~Omax . Risk management is accomplished by the The information in Table 2 and a conventionally
introduction of a geological risk discounting rate into estimated orebody block model created through ordin-
the calculation of the costs for excess and deficient ary kriging are provided to the Whittle software in order
production.14 Aside from a grade cut-off, a probability to generate a set of 17 nested pits.
cut-off is used to classify the blocks as ore or waste. Stage II
Furthermore, this SIP implementation takes into con- The total number of possible pushback designs is
sideration a different way of defining binary variables.15 216565536. Figure 4 shows the possible number of
This consists of reducing the amount of binary variables designs as a function of the target number of pushbacks
by setting the waste blocks to linear variables and the
ore blocks to binary variables. Ramazan and
Dimitrakopoulos15,16 also show a case study where such Table 3 Grouping of pits based on given target number
of pushbacks: grouping criterion is maximum
Table 2 Economic and technical parameters economic value
5 Performance of LOM production schedule based on 3 pushback design in terms of a ore production, b waste produc-
tion, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
Downloaded by [181.65.132.130] at 11:46 09 March 2016
for the case where the number of available nested pits is the 17 different pushback designs available from the set
17. For the case study, the nested pits are grouped based of 17 nested pits. Nevertheless, as it will be explained the
on the maximisation of the economic value of each approach is tested only for six different pushback
design. The value of each pushback is discounted based designs, TPB53, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. The case of TPB51 is
on its life and the time required for depletion. Note that ignored because it equals to not considering pushback
since there are 17 nested pits available, at most there are design. Although the cases of TPB52, 4, 8 were initially
17 different pushback designs that may be tested in stage part of the case study, solutions in stage III were not
III. In other words, there exists a unique pushback obtained in a feasible amount of time. Regarding a
design, mj ~maxj~1...J ff (mj )g, for each TPB that yields TPB.10, recall that defining a sequence of extraction
the highest economic value. Then, in this case study, the based on the available set of nested pits is neither
number of possible groupings of nested pits reduces to necessary optimal nor feasible for the case at hand. As
17. TPB approaches the number of available nested pits, the
production schedule presents greater deviations from
Stage III production targets and leads to smaller ultimate pits,
Twenty simulated orebody models are fed to the SIP which is illustrated in the cases of TPB59, 10. Therefore,
model described in the previous section to generate a the approach is tested until.
LOM production schedule for each one of the pushback
designs in Table 3. The orebody models were generated Analysis of solutions
using the direct block simulation algorithm.3 The SIP For the case of three pushbacks TPB53 the grouping
model described above could be solved for each one of that yields the highest economic value is shown in Fig. 5.
8 Performance of LOM production schedule based on five pushback design in terms of a ore production, b waste pro-
Downloaded by [181.65.132.130] at 11:46 09 March 2016
The starting pushback contains the 1st, 2nd and 3rd during the 3rd and 4th periods there is a y5% deviation
nested pits. The starting pushback allows the scheduling (over production) from the ore production target and a
of the 1st and part of the 2nd production period. y2% deviation (under production) during the 5th
Regarding the performance of the production schedule, period, as shown in Fig. 5. The risk of not meeting the
10 Performance of LOM production schedule based on six pushback design in terms of a ore production, b waste pro-
duction, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
12 Performance of LOM production schedule based on seven pushback design in terms of a ore production, b waste
production, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
Table 4 Global proportions of ore–waste tonnage extraction, NPV, maximum deviation from ore production targets and
maximum stripping ratio of LOM production schedule based on different pushback designs
14 Performance of LOM production schedule based on nine pushback design in terms of a ore production, b waste pro-
duction, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
production target during the 6th period is higher than When the third pushback is scheduled, the optimiser is
that observed in the other production periods; note that not able to meet the ore production target for the 4th
the risk profile is wider. period without mining the huge amounts of waste left
The design of five pushbacks TPB55 is shown in behind from the previous pushbacks, leading to an
Fig. 6. The starting pushback contains the 1st and 2nd infeasible waste production rate.
nested pits; there are clear physical differences, regard- The design of six pushbacks TPB56 is shown in Fig. 9.
ing the starting pushback, between this case and the The starting pushback is designed as in the previous case
previous design leading to different scheduling patterns leading to the same scheduling patterns during the 1st
as shown in Fig. 7. The risk analysis of the LOM production period. The intermediate pushbacks contain
production schedule in Fig. 8 shows that there are no different nested pits from the previous cases as shown in
major deviations of the ore production target. Table 3. This leads to different scheduling patterns in
Nevertheless, the schedule is not necessarily feasible the subsequent production periods. Figure 10 shows a 3
due to the increment of the waste mining rate during the and 4% deviation (over production) from the ore
4th production period; the waste tonnage extracted in production target during the 4th and 5th periods and a
the 3rd period increases from 11?3 to 29?2 Mt in the 4th 3% deviation (under production) during the 6th period
period. This result relates to the grouping of pits selected which results in a y15% reduction in the metal
for the five pushback design; recall that the grouping production during the 6th period, when compared to
criteria is the maximisation of the economic value, and previous periods. Table 4 shows that the overall ore–
different criteria would have suggested a different waste tonnage extracted in this case is the same as the
design. Furthermore, for the case study under consid- one in previous cases; this is reflected in the identical
eration the waste production rate is not constrained, ultimate pit contours as shown in Fig. 5.
allowing it a free variation. Scheduling the first two The design of seven pushbacks is shown in Fig. 11.
pushbacks satisfied the ore production target of the 1st, Figure 12 shows that its corresponding LOM production
2nd and 3rd periods; the schedule defers waste mining. schedule presents a y6% deviation (over production)
16 Performance of LOM production schedule based on 10 pushback design in terms of a ore production, b waste pro-
duction, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
from the production target during the 3rd and 4th the cash flows become negative. This leads to a smaller
periods. The average grade of the ore fed to the mill is ultimate pit than that obtained in the previous case.
constant throughout the LOM, resulting in a constant Figure 15 shows the ultimate pit contour and Fig. 16
metal production rate. Table 4 shows that the overall shows the differences in the performance of the LOM
tonnage extracted in this case is higher than the previous production schedule.
cases resulting in a different ultimate pit contour as
shown in Fig. 11. This is due to the difference in the Selecting pushback design
pushback design which yields a different cash flow
pattern and therefore a different physical point in which Table 4 shows the overall tonnage extracted, NPV, the
the cash flows become negative. maximum deviation from the ore production target, and
The design of nine pushbacks is shown in Fig. 13. The the maximum stripping ratio presented throughout the
total tonnage extracted with this schedule is 4% lower LOM for the production schedules discussed above. The
than that in the previous cases, which implies that the positive (z) and negative (2) signs used in the column
operation is stopped at different times. A proof of this of the maximum deviations from ore production targets
result is the physical difference in the pit limits between express over and under production respectively. The
this case and the previous cases (see Fig. 13). The waste overall tonnages may be used as a basis for comparison
mining rate of the 3rd production period (Fig. 14) of different pit limits presented in the cases above. The
affects the performance of the schedule by restricting the cases of nine and ten pushback designs extract
availability of ore during the 5th production period. considerably less tonnage than the previous cases, with
Owing to the pushback design which causes the ore NPV differences of the order of y3%. To analyse these
shortage during the 5th production period, the optimiser results one must consider that deviations from ore
extracted the ore within the 17 nested pits in eight production targets are in the order of 13%, leading to an
periods. The 8th production period yielded negative cash erroneous NPV forecast. Similar observations apply for
flows; therefore, mining stops at the 7th period. This the design with five pushbacks; erroneous NPV forecast
highlights the importance of pushback design and its caused by the operational infeasibility is due to the high
effect on the definition of ultimate pit limits. stripping ratio, 3?89%.
The design of 10 pushbacks is shown in Fig. 15. The
main difference between this and the previous design lies Design of starting, intermediate and
on the pushbacks that discretise the bottom of the pit. In
this case, the bottom of the pit is broken up into three
bottom pit pushbacks
pushbacks, defined by the nested pits [12 14 16 17]. Such The design of starting pushbacks in this case study
discretisation provides more information about when consists of three possible groupings: 1st, 2nd and 3rd
19 Performance of LOM production schedule based on design with seven pushbacks in terms of a ore production,
b waste production, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
design. The 5th period is scheduled mainly on the 4th design is considered through the following grouping of
pushback defined by the nested pits [6 7], and the 6th nested pits: [1 4 6 8 14 16 17]. The design is based on
period is scheduled mainly in the 5th pushback defined seven pushbacks and it is shown in Fig. 18. The physical
by the nested pits [7 12]. To avoid ore shortage issues, patterns of the LOM production schedule are shown in
the 4th and 5th pushbacks are enlarged to envelope the Fig. 18. Figure 19 shows the performance of the LOM
8th and 14th nested pit respectively, which thus forces production schedule and that the ore production rate
the optimiser to mine additional waste and ore tonnage meets the ore production target except for the 4th and
during the 5th production period in order to facilitate 6th production periods which present a y4% deviation
the access to ore blocks during the 6th production (over production). The waste and overall rate of
period. Note that the extension of the 4th pushback production fluctuates between time periods; however,
provides ore and waste alike, hence avoiding ore the percentage of idle capacity of the mining fleet is 3–
shortage issues as in the cases of nine and ten pushbacks. 4% at the most, which is at this stage of planning
Following the previous discussion, another pushback practically insignificant.
20 Performance of conventional LOM PS based on ordinary kriging model in terms of a ore production and b cumulative
discounted cash flows
21 Performance of conventional LOM PS based on E-type model in terms of a ore production and b cumulative dis-
counted cash flows
Conventional versus stochastic approach: scheduler that does not account for uncertainty, the
performance and comparison performance of its key parameters will be deficient. To
Conventional practices do not integrate geological illustrate this, Fig. 22 shows the performance of a LOM
uncertainty into the process of pushback design. In production schedule based on the pushback design
Figs. 20 and 21 the broken line shows the expected shown in Fig. 18. The schedule is generated by the
Downloaded by [181.65.132.130] at 11:46 09 March 2016
performance of a conventional LOM production sche- Milawa NPV Algorithm in the Whittle Software. The
dule, generated by the Milawa NPV Algorithm in the ore production targets are never met. In comparison to
Whittle software, based on an estimated orebody model the production schedule shown in Fig. 18, the conven-
and an E-type model respectively. The risk analysis tionally generated schedules shown in Figs. 20–22
shows that ore production targets are never met and that present the following issues: they require one extra year
grades are underestimated at the bottom of the pit to mine the deposit, they do not meet ore production
resulting in a misleading NPV forecast as shown in targets and the NPV forecasts are misleading because
Figs. 20 and 21. Furthermore, consider a pushback the extra maintenance and operational costs incurred
design obtained through the methodology presented through idle mineral processing capacity are not
herein, if a LOM production schedule is generated by a considered. When compared to the conventional
22 Performance of conventional LOM PS based on design with seven pushbacks, shown in Fig. 17, in terms of a ore
production, b waste production, c cumulative metal production and d cumulative discounted cash flows
10. B. Tachefine and F. Soumis: ‘Maximal closure on a graph with 14. R. Dimitrakopoulos and S. Ramazan: ‘Uncertainty based produc-
resource constraints’, Comput. Oper. Res., 1997, 24, (10), 981–990. tion scheduling in open pit mining’, SME Trans., 2004, 316, 106–112.
11. F. Seymour: ‘Pit limit parameterization from modified 3D Lerchs- 15. S. Ramazan and R. Dimitrakopoulos: ‘Recent applications of
Grossman algorithm’, SME Paper, 1994, 11. operations research and efficient MIP formulations in open pit
12. P. J. Ravenscroft: ‘Risk analysis for mine scheduling by conditional mining’, SME Trans., 2004, 316, 73–78.
simulation’, Trans. IMM A, Min. Ind., 1992, 101A, A104–A108. 16. S. Ramazan and R. Dimitrakopoulos: ‘Production scheduling with
13. S. Ramazan and R. Dimitrakopoulos: ‘Stochastic optimization of uncertain supply: a new solution to the open pit mining problem’,
long term production scheduling for open pit mines with a new Technical Report No. 1, COSMO Laboratory, 2006, 257–294,
integer programming formulation’, ‘Orebody modelling and McGill University, Montreal.
strategic mine planning’, Spectrum Series, 2nd edn, Vol. 14, 353– 17. J. Whittle: ‘Beyond optimisation in open pit design’, Proc.
360; 2007, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Canadian Conf. on ‘Computer applications in the mineral
Melbourne. industries’, 331–337; 1988, Rotterdam, Balkema.
Downloaded by [181.65.132.130] at 11:46 09 March 2016