0 views

Uploaded by David Halomoan

2007-302 Fgc Dl Comparison

- Documentation of the Calculations
- Aspen-Getting Started Using Equation Oriented Modeling
- Class Notes
- Optimization of Laminate Composite Structures_1
- 06255 Raheel Abbas MS76
- Design of Controlled Elastic and Inelastic Structures
- 01 APC Overview CTS
- Mine Planning & Design and ItsComponents
- ClearGreenCPM Presentation
- Simultaneous Optimization and Heat Integration of Chemical Processes
- mc0079
- Branch and Bound Methods.pdf
- 01338519
- 73-220-Lecture12
- 147-FP
- ms-51
- Tolio
- POM chap 2 - 8
- Computational Models for Reduction of Quarry Waste for Breakwater Construction Projects
- 585-932-1-SM

You are on page 1of 10

Grade Control

School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering

University of Alberta

Predicting recoverable reserves before mining commences is an important problem in ore reserve

estimation. Automatic ‘dig limits’ are reasonable; however, they require significant professional time. A

new method called Feasibility Grade Control (FGC) has been proposed that is more automatic and applies

at the time of feasibility studies. It eliminates the time consuming practice of creating an initial dig limit

and is able to establish dilution and lost ore. It is shown that the results of each method are nearly

identical, with the results of FGC being more realistic.

Introduction

Accurate grade control is an important part of any mining feasibility study. The goal of the study is to

determine the quantity and quality of the ore in place. Simulating many realizations of the variables of

interest is the best way of determining this. Creating an expected profit model from the realizations will

give an idea of the project economics. It also enables the classification of material as ore or waste through

various methods. The most common method of classification has been through manually creating dig

limits. This process is tedious and time consuming. Researchers at CCG developed a method which

automatically determines the optimal dig limits. The limitation with this method is the need for the user to

specify an initial dig limit for every bench in every realization. This can be quite expensive in terms of

professional time. An additional disadvantage to the dig limit method is the equipment dependence

inherent in the digability penalty function.

The goal has been to develop a grade control methodology which is completely automatic; there is no need

for any time-consuming input by the user. This goal has been achieved through the development of

Feasibility Grade Control (FGC). This method has been explained in depth in an earlier paper by the

authors. (see Wilde & Deutsch, 2007) A comparison of these two methods is undertaken herein, with brief

description of the methodology of each, along with examples of the results generated by each.

Methodologies

Common as input to each method is a model of the expected profits if ore. The details for creating this

model will not be dealt with here, but the user is referred to the Guide to Geostatistical Grade Control and

Dig Limit Determination published by the Centre for Computational Geostatistics (CCG). (see Neufeld,

Norrena, and Deutsch, 2005) This guidebook also explores the dig limit methodology in depth. The

expected profit model can be created by any method and using any software as is applicable to the mine of

interest.

Dig Limits

As mentioned, the dig limit method requires an initial digging limit to be input by the user. It is this limit

that is perturbed numerous times in order to find the optimal limit. A dig limit is found to be optimal if it

maximizes the profit within the limit. The profit is found by taking the sum of the profits for each block

within the limit, accounting for those blocks only partially within the limit by multiplying their profit by the

fraction of the area within the limit.

302-1

The possibility exists for the dig limits to be unrealistic when the abilities of the mining equipment are

considered. For example, a very small angle between adjacent vertices would not be realistic for large

mining equipment whose selectivity is limited. As such, a penalty function termed digability is used to

adjust the profit appropriately. Digability is equipment dependent with small selective equipment able to

achieve a low digability and large unselective equipment restricted to a high digability. The user specifies

an equipment factor from 0 – 1 with 0 being for very small, extremely selective equipment and 1 being for

large indiscriminate equipment. A dig limit is termed to have low digability when the angles between

adjacent vertices are small and high digability when angles between adjacent vertices are large.

The optimization of the dig limit proceeds as follows:

• Choose random vertex

• Move the vertex to a new random location

• Calculate the profit and digability

• If profit increases, accept the change

• If profit decreases, either accept or reject the change

This process is repeated over and over until an optimum profit is achieved. Classification is then performed

by labeling the blocks according to whether they fall within or without the dig limit.

The dig limits methodology has not proven itself to be a worth while grade control technique at the

feasibility stage. This is due to one main factor and that is the large amount of time required to input the

initial dig limits. This step must be performed manually and can take a good deal of time. Multiply the

time required by the number of benches and realizations and we can quickly see how unsuitable this

method is at the feasibility stage. This factor can also influence the results. Often there are numerous small

or minor pods of ore or waste which do not warrant the time necessary to create and optimize their initial

limit. If these pods are isolated enough, there is no chance for the dig limits algorithm to account for them.

This leaves a number of profitable blocks classified as waste and unprofitable blocks classified as ore, in

other words, we have dilution and lost ore.

The advantage of the dig limits method is that it is better able to account for equipment selection abilities.

This makes it better able to correctly classify blocks by accounting for the equipment’s ability to reach

them.

FGC

Feasibility Grade Control has some important differences from dig limit grade control. FGC utilizes

mining units composed of 2, 3, or 4 blocks and aims to optimize the way in which the blocks are

accumulated to mining units such that the unit is either all ore or all waste.

The first step in the process is to assign every block to a mining unit. The mining units are composed of

blocks which are adjacent and are as compact as possible. The initial shapes of the units for 2-, 3-, and 4-

block units are shown in Figure 1. Initially, these units can be composed of ore, waste, or a combination of

the two. The units are accumulated purely by shape, with no consideration of the block values.

Figure 1: Initial accumulation of blocks into mining units for 2, 3 and 4-block units, respectively.

The profit for each mining unit is calculated by taking the sum of the profit values of the blocks within the

unit. Each block’s profit is the expected profit if that block were treated as ore. This means that for very

302-2

low-grade blocks, the profit will be equivalent to the sum of the ore mining and milling costs. Mining units

with a profit value of less than zero are called waste and mining units with a profit value greater than zero

are called ore. The objective function aims to maximize the profit from ore blocks and to minimize the

profit from waste blocks. The objective function is defined as the sum of the ore units minus the sum of the

waste units:

No Nw

PT = ∑ PO − ∑ PW

i =1 j =1

where PT is the total profit, PO is the profit of the ‘ore’ mining units, No is the number of ore mining units,

PW is the profit of the ‘waste’ mining units, and Nw is the number of waste mining units.

The optimization procedure aims to maximize the profit by re-arranging the way the blocks are

accumulated into units. Every block is visited randomly throughout the model. At each block, a random

neighbor is chosen, the unit numbers of the two blocks are switched, and the profit is re-calculated based on

the new configuration. If the profit has increased the switch is kept. If the profit has decreased or is equal

to the previous profit, the switch is reversed. A new block is visited and the process repeated.

Left to itself, this process will create mining units that may have any shape and the blocks in the unit could

be spread a great distance. This cannot happen because for this method to be meaningful, the mining units

must be in a configuration amenable to mining. The best way to understand this is to think of each unit as a

truck load and each block in the unit as a scoop by the loading equipment. Each scoop in a load is located

close to the others in the load in an easily extractable shape. Therefore, the mining units must adhere to

some special constraints. To accomplish this, an index of acceptable unit shapes has been generated for

each of the 2, 3, and 4-block mining units as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Acceptable unit shape configurations for 2-, 3-, and 4-block units.

302-3

Associated with each index is a penalty. The penalty is based on the unit shape. Mining units which have

an undesirable shape receive a larger penalty than those with a desirable shape. The penalty is the percent

decrease in profit the unit will receive due to its shape. As the optimization process proceeds, these

penalties are assigned to the corresponding units and are included in the profit calculation. The

optimization process will proceed until each block in the model has been visited 5-8 times, as specified by

the user. No significant improvements in profit are realized by visiting the blocks additional times.

Once the optimization process is complete, the opportunity exists to classify blocks as dilution and lost ore

in addition to ore and waste. A block is classified as dilution if it has a negative profit value, but belongs to

a unit with positive profit. Conversely, a block is classified as lost ore if it has a positive profit value, but

belongs to a unit with negative profit.

Comparison Examples

The goal of this note is to compare the results of these two grade control methods. It will be shown that the

two methods create remarkably similar outputs with very different inputs. The first comparison example is

performed using data from a copper porphyry bench. This data is shown in Figure 3. Variograms were

calculated and 50 simulated realizations were created. From these realizations, a model of the expected

profit was created. The copper e-type and expected profit models are shown in Figure 4. This profit model

will be used to test each grade control method.

Dig limit grade control will be examined first. An initial polygon is required as the first step. This is

shown in Figure 5. The polygon is created by roughly encircling the area where ore (positive profit) exists.

The polygon and profit model are then input into the diglim program which optimizes the dig limit using

the method described previously. An equipment factor of 0.3 and 50,000 perturbations was used to

generate the final dig limit, also shown in Figure 5. The profit in the dig limit increased from $92,366.81 to

$121,894.02. The optimized polygon is used to classify blocks as either ore or waste. The dig limit

classification is shown in Figure 6.

FGC requires only the profit model and a penalty file as input. For this example, two-block units were

used. The program visited every block 5 times and created the final classification also shown in Figure 6.

The only differences between the results are found where there are small pods of either ore or waste where

the dig limits method was not able to account for them. FGC performed better because it was able to more

correctly account for these small pods. The more pod-like the deposit, the more applicable FGC becomes.

More detailed results of these methods for this example are given in Table 1.

A profit model along with initial dig limits for a second example is shown in Figure 7. This example will

better illustrate the weakness of the dig limits method. This profit model contains a number of different

‘pods’ of ore. The weakness of the dig limits method is that each individual pod must have an initial dig

limit drawn around it. When considering multiple realizations of multiple benches, this can require a great

deal of professional time. Also adding to professional time is the time necessary to optimize each dig limit

as each must be done separately. These two processes are the major downfall of the dig limits method at

the feasibility stage.

Each of the six dig limits were optimized with the same parameters as the first example; an equipment

factor of 0.3 and 50,000 perturbations. The optimized dig limits are shown in Figure 8. From these dig

limits a category model is created where those blocks within the limits are classified as ore and those

without are classified as waste. This category model is shown in Figure 9.

For this example, FGC was performed using four-block units. Every block was visited five times during

the optimization process whereby the final classifications were created as shown in Figure 10. We can

compare this model with the one produced by the dig limits method (see Figure 9). Again, they are quite

similar. FGC was able to account for the minor pods of ore where dig limits did not. But overall, the

classifications produced by each method are quite similar.

302-4

Figure 3: Blasthole locations on copper porphyry bench.

302-5

Figure 5: Expected profit model with initial and final dig limits.

Figure 6: The results of dig limit and feasibility grade control compared. It is easily seen that they are

very similar.

302-6

Table 1: Comparison of Grade Control Methods for Example 1.

Method Tonnes – Ore Tonnes - Waste

Truth 5252 5926

Dig Limits 5430 5748

FGC 5212 5966

Figure 7: Expected profit model with initial dig limits for a second example.

302-7

Figure 8: Profit model with optimized dig limits.

302-8

Figure 10: Category model produced by FGC.

Table 2: Comparison of Grade Control Methods for Example 2 along with the results of simply up-scaling

the truth profit model.

Method Option Tonnes‐ Tonnes‐ Grade of Quantity of Profit

Ore Waste Ore Metal

Truth Point Scale 9963 4437 3.7 36905 208152

0.1 digability 9927 4473 3.68 36568 205515

Diglim 0.5 digability 9942 4458 3.68 36564 205317

0.9 digability 9966 4434 3.66 36519 204644

2 units 10014 4386 3.69 36934 207858

FGC 3 units 10126 4274 3.66 37031 207499

4 units 10168 4232 3.65 37081 207480

10x10 10228 4172 3.63 37092 206926

SMU 15x15 10494 3906 3.55 37270 205598

20x20 10704 3696 3.50 37460 204997

25x25 10875 3525 3.45 37560 204016

302-9

Conclusions

Dig limit grade control and feasibility grade control provide good optimized classifications. Dig limit

grade control is a good method because it accounts for equipment abilities and therefore does not classify

material as ore which cannot reasonably be extracted. Its main disadvantage is the need for the user to

specify initial dig limits and the time it takes to do this as well as optimize the limits. Feasibility grade

control’s advantages include the ability to report dilution/lost ore and the absence of time consuming user

input. The limitation of FGC is the sometimes erratic classification boundaries, though as a method for use

at the feasibility stage, this limitation is of little consequence. When clearly defined classification

boundaries are needed, which is typically during short-range planning, the professional time for using dig

limits is available. As a method for performing grade control at the feasibility stage on many benches and

for many realizations, Feasibility Grade Control is the method of choice.

References

Deutsch, C.V. and Journel, A.G. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User’s Guide. Oxford

University Press, New York, 2nd Edition, 1998.

Neufeld, C.T., Norrena, K.P. and Deutsch, C.V. Guide to Geostatistical Grade Control and Dig Limit

Determination. Centre for Computational Geostatistics, Edmonton, Guidebook Series Vol. 1, 2005.

Wilde, B. and Deutsch, C.V. Feasibility Grade Control (FGC): Simulation of Grade Control on

Geostatistical Realizations. Centre for Computational Geostatistics, Edmonton, 2007.

302-10

- Documentation of the CalculationsUploaded bymissesspeedy
- Aspen-Getting Started Using Equation Oriented ModelingUploaded bySurya Budi Widagdo
- Class NotesUploaded byBittu
- Optimization of Laminate Composite Structures_1Uploaded byАндрей Пятыгин
- 06255 Raheel Abbas MS76Uploaded byBrian Thompson
- Design of Controlled Elastic and Inelastic StructuresUploaded byndjedoui
- 01 APC Overview CTSUploaded bySreekanthMylavarapu
- Mine Planning & Design and ItsComponentsUploaded byAryan Anand
- ClearGreenCPM PresentationUploaded bypablodiazpro
- Simultaneous Optimization and Heat Integration of Chemical ProcessesUploaded byLads
- mc0079Uploaded byManish Kumar
- Branch and Bound Methods.pdfUploaded byfwlwllw
- 01338519Uploaded byapi-3697505
- 73-220-Lecture12Uploaded byapi-26315128
- 147-FPUploaded byKenny Ruiz
- ms-51Uploaded bykvrajan6
- TolioUploaded byDocente Fede Tecnologico
- POM chap 2 - 8Uploaded byPatrice Elaine Pilla
- Computational Models for Reduction of Quarry Waste for Breakwater Construction ProjectsUploaded byAlexandra Sandu
- 585-932-1-SMUploaded byTushar K Gohel
- TCST2005Uploaded byRakesh Padikkat R
- 20.09080502Uploaded bySrikant Aggarwal
- Jie 481285619400Uploaded byAnurag Kesarwani
- brand awareness_309706814.pdfUploaded bySaloni Anand
- libro1Uploaded byValencia Luis Ernesto
- Evaluating Three DOE Methodologies Optimization of a Composite Laminate Under Fabrication ErrorUploaded by5landers
- 1-Introduction-dan-Network-I.pdfUploaded bykhamaludin
- 6-11Uploaded byKrishnaPavan
- Sensitivity Analysis of Linear ProgrammingUploaded byRj Malayao
- Modified Non-stationary Critical Input Excitation by a Design Oriented Objective FunctionUploaded byrezakamgar1363

- Open Pit Mine Planning Fundamentals EPUploaded byErland Prasetya
- VanDxFAnem Mines 0052E 11167Uploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Open Pit Optimisation and Design a Stepwise ApproachUploaded byzerg
- Bsc ThesisUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- 119319077-Optimum-Cut-Off-Grades-Modeling-Atporphyry-Copper-Deposits.pdfUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Mining ProductivityUploaded byykharchi
- 150903_Presentation_Iron_Ore_Seminar_Sydney.pdfUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- 2003-116-smuselect.pdfUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Blending of High-Mn Ore With Low MnUploaded byAishwaryaKMenon
- 1-s2.0-S2300396017301386-mainUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Eng Opt 2016 PaperUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- 327725557-Optimisation-of-Open-Pit-Mine-Block-Sequency-pdf.pdfUploaded byanonimo
- Stp Review 2018 PreprintUploaded byArl Slz
- Scheduling MineUploaded byMario Hezkeea
- Mixed Integer Linear Programming Formulations for Open Pit ProductionUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- MiningEngineering-DrillingandBlasting-December2003Uploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Gleixner2008_Solving_Large_scale_OPMPSPs_by_Integer_Programming.pdfUploaded bycajimenezb8872
- Cegmr09 or SubmittedUploaded byMc Hunt
- block size.pdfUploaded byFernando Miralles
- 2017 PPT-Strategic Schedule Optimisation Approach Introduction NBUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- 2017 PPT-Strategic Schedule Optimisation Approach Introduction NB v2–Alexey TsoyUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- 01. LumwanaCaseStudyUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Magy Reg Doc Final 17 Jan 2018.pdfUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- qnsl_three_year_plan_eng.pdfUploaded byDavid Halomoan
- Talpac Tutorial - AwsersUploaded byrtt
- 48405816-the-science-of-mining.pdfUploaded byIswardi Hidayat
- GEMS62_PitDesignUploaded byTessfaye Wolde Gebretsadik
- TEREX-60Uploaded byFrederiko Molan

- Bad PharmaUploaded byRandom House of Canada
- Vaccine Preservatives - Whats the Big Deal 0702Uploaded byF4AR
- data & informationUploaded byDave Dearing
- Project PlanUploaded byajervin2141
- A New Concept of Matrix Algorithm for MST in Undirected Interval Valued Neutrosophic GraphUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- 13. Testing of Hypothesis.Uploaded bySanjeev Gautam
- lectr14Uploaded byHira Masood
- COMPUTER-AIDED DRUG DESIGNUploaded byAnand Barapatre
- Nature of PsychologyUploaded bybijay
- what is science cornell notes exampleUploaded byapi-240096234
- Cross-National Epidemiology of DSM-IV Major Depressive EpisodeUploaded byJames Oneill
- Employee Intention to leave.pdfUploaded byRicky Setiawan
- Physics of the TractorUploaded byRohit Chauhan
- Customer SatisfactionUploaded byRyn Qaseh
- summary pd needs assessmentUploaded byapi-364236121
- 2014New Graduate Nurses' Experiences in Their First Year of PracticeUploaded bykitsil
- researchreport2011_1Uploaded byNitya Priya
- Sundar_Aparna_201011_PhD_thesis-2.pdfUploaded byMax Martin
- Problems and Prospects of Small Business Development in BangladeshUploaded byManik Saha
- 2019-9015-003EN0117Uploaded byRadu Stratila
- Hai_SOPUploaded byPhuongdung Le
- Catgut on Plantar FasciitisUploaded byAswadi Ibrahim
- Chapter 04 Seitel Pr11eUploaded byProfJ259
- Technology Management GroupUploaded byRameez Rashid
- Auditing TheoriesUploaded byDanDavidLapiz
- 04 BMAC5203 Course GuideUploaded byAli Alshwal
- Bird strikeUploaded byrs0004
- Content Analysis of Cyber Insurance PoliciesUploaded byArunabh Ray
- Development Research Traditions and Global Communication(1)Uploaded byUsman Saeed
- Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Applied BayesianUploaded byRai Laksmi