Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling
for open pit mine design
S. Ramazan, K. Dagdelen and T. B. Johnson
Mathematical programming models are well suited to
optimising long-term production scheduling of open pit
mine designs; however, it is not possible in most cases to
solve the scheduling problem as a mathematical
programming model because the number of integer
variables required becomes too large. New methods are
required that will reconstruct the mining blocks and
decrease the number of integer variables in scheduling
without reducing the resolution of the model or optimality
of the results. The fundamental tree algorithm proposed
herein addresses this issue effectively. A fundamental tree
is defined as any combination of blocks such that the
blocks can be profitably mined, the blocks obey the slope
constraints, and the chosen blocks do not have a proper
subset that meets the first two conditions. A set of linear
programming (LP) formulations is developed to find a set
of fundamental trees (FTs) that exist for a given mine
deposit. It is shown in this paper that the LP model
generates FTs with the defined properties. The proposed
method is illustrated in optimisation of the long-term
production schedule of a multi-element large open pit
INTRODUCTION
In developing a mining project, an orebody model is
generated from drillhole data to represent the deposit,
usually through the application of geostatistical
techniques.7 Mineable reserves are determined by
defining the final pit limits for a set of economic
parameters, using commonly the Lerchs and Grossmann
algorithm12,23 for pit optimisation. Subsequently, to
formulate the mine’s production scheduling, the material
within the final pit limits must be partitioned into
smaller volumes, termed ‘pushbacks’ or ‘incremental
cuts’, that can be developed using any of the pushback
design algorithms, such as minimising stripping ratio
within pushbacks,15 maximising dollar value,20
maximising the amount of contained metal by double
parameterisation,4 etc. Pushbacks allow the
determination of the yearly production scheduling for
the life of a mine.
Mixed integer programming (MIP) or linear
programming (LP) mathematical optimisation models
have the flexibility to be able to consider multiple ore
processors, such as milling and leaching, and multiple
elements during optimisation. This flexibility of
mathematical programming models may result in
production schedules generating significantly higher net
DOI 10.1179/037178405X44511 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A45
copper deposit in Peru, South America. The results show
that after generating FTs, the mixed integer programming
(MIP) model can be used to optimise large open pit
mines. The case study presented shows the financial
benefits of the capabilities of MIP to consider multi-
processors and multi-elements in mine optimisation.
Salih Ramazan is at Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines,
Open pit, PMB 27, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia 6433,
Australia (for correspondence – Fax: +61 8 90221855; E-mail:
sramazan@kalgold.com.au); Kadri Dagdelen is in the Mining
Engineering Department, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
CO 80401, USA; and Thys B. Johnson is at the Natural
Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota, USA.
© 2005 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Published
by Maney on behalf of the Institutes. Manuscript received 13
October 2004; accepted in final form 24 March 2005.
Keywords: Fundamental tree algorithm, production scheduling,
open pit mine design; mixed integer programme
present value (NPV) than those generated by the other
traditional methods that are not based on mathematical
programming techniques. However, MIP formulations
for optimisation of production scheduling require too
many binary variables, which makes the MIP models
too difficult or impossible to solve for actual open pit
mining operations. This paper presents a new approach
to production scheduling of open pit mines based on the
development of the so-termed ‘fundamental tree
algorithm’ (FTA).14 The key contribution of this paper
is the FTA based on an LP model that effectively
combines blocks without compromising the achieve-
ment of optimality and that decreases the number of
binary variables required to formulate production
scheduling of large open pit mines. FTA makes the MIP
models applicable for optimisation of production
scheduling of large open pit mines.
Notable attempts to formulate and solve open pit
mine production scheduling using MIP or LP
mathematical models exist in the technical literature,
including the ones referred to below. Johnson11
developed a mathematical model for long-term
production scheduling that included the time value of
money and different processing types. This development
uses Dantzig–Wolfe decomposition principles5 to
Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design
1 Steps of the mine planning method based on the
fundamental tree algorithm
decompose the complex formulation into a master
problem and a set of subproblems, which are solved
using a maximum network flow (maxflow) algorithm.
However, this approach uses linear variables and leads to
the mining of fractional blocks.10 Dagdelen3 developed
an MIP model and applied the Lagrangian
decomposition method to decompose the multi-time-
period problems into single-time-period problems, which
are then solved using the maxflow algorithm. The
drawback of this approach is that the Lagrangian
method might not always converge on an optimum
solution if the Lagrange multipliers cannot result in a
feasible solution. Gershon9 discussed an LP approach
combined with MIP models, that allowed partial block
mining on the condition that the entire block preceding
the partially mined block has been mined. The author
suggested that the models for optimising production
scheduling of open pit mines require too many binary
variables and cannot be solved. Alternative efficient
methodologies for long-term production scheduling using
MIP models are presented in Ramazan and
Dimitrakopoulos.16 Tolwinski17 proposed a method that
combines the blocks on the same bench, termed ‘atoms’,
and uses the Lerchs and Grossmann method to generate
pushbacks combining these atoms. The approach
generates a production schedule using dynamic
programming. However, combining blocks into atoms
may strongly reduce any possibility of the optimal
solution depending on the size of the atoms. The goodness
of the schedule in this method also strongly depends on
how the nodes in the trees are generated using the atoms,
which is an approach based on trial-and-error in this case.
The Milawa19 algorithm considers a few benches at each
pushback as a variable and uses a search technique called
the ‘step and stride’ algorithm18 to identify the regions of
high value, rather than identifying individual mining
blocks. This is a heuristic approach and does not
guarantee an optimal solution.
The next section of this paper discusses the
application of the FTA as a procedure for optimising
production scheduling of an open pit mine. Then, the
FTA is presented in five steps, which are illustrated
using a small 2-D model of an orebody. The LP
formulations used to generate fundamental trees are
A46 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
then illustrated, and the functionality of the LP model
constraints discussed. In the subsequent section, a case
study on a multi-element copper deposit is presented,
and a comparative analysis is performed between the
FTA-based MIP scheduling method and three
commonly used programs: MINTEC’s M821V,13
Earthworks’ NPV scheduler,6 and Whittle’s Milawa
schedulers in the Four-X program.22 In the final section,
the significant economic benefits of mathematical
programming models, due especially to their flexibility
in handling multiple ore processors, are discussed.
FTA APPLICATION
Optimisation of open pit mine production scheduling
based on the fundamental tree algorithm
This section presents a general overview of the
procedure for optimising a long-term production
scheduling of open pit mines using the fundamental
tree algorithm. The FTA is based on an LP model that
effectively combines blocks without compromising the
achievement of optimality and that decreases the
number of binary variables required to formulate
production scheduling of large open pit mines. Ore
body deposit models containing more than 10 000
blocks within the final pit limits can be considered as
‘relatively large’ for mathematical optimisation
models. Blocks are combined conditional upon them
having three properties: (i) total economic value of the
combined blocks must be greater than zero; (ii) the
combined blocks must be able to be mined without
violating the wall slope requirement; and (iii) the
combined blocks cannot be partitioned without
violating the conditions in parts (i) and (ii). If one
block or a set of blocks combined together has the
three properties, the block or the set of blocks is called
as a ‘fundamental tree’ (FT).
The method of open pit mine production scheduling
based on FTA is summarised in Figure 1. A cone
template representing the wall slopes of the open pit
mine has to be generated at some stage before the LP
model formulations are set up during the process. After
a few pushbacks are generated (depending on the size of
the orebody model), the FTs are found within each
pushback by applying the FTA as discussed below.
While generating the trees, all the blocks that have zero
or negative economic value are considered as waste
blocks. However, during production scheduling, a cut-
off grade is used to decide if a block should be processed
as ore or dumped as waste. Then, the precedence
relationships between FTs within a given pushback are
determined using the cone template. This relationship
identifies the FTs that need to be extracted before a
given tree can be mined out. The extraction sequence of
these trees is determined by an MIP model that contains
the periodical operational requirements of a mine, such
as mining and milling capacity, grade blending, tree
sequencing, and stripping ratio.
After finding the FTs, the long-term production
scheduling problem is formulated as an MIP model.
During the MIP formulation, each FT is treated like a
 Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design

mining block containing a certain ore tonnage, metal

content, grade and quality parameters, and each FT is
assigned a binary variable for each production period
except the last period. Because an FT cannot be
divided into smaller volumes having positive
economic values without violating slope constraints,
many FTs that are formed within the final pit limits
for large open pit mines require too many binary
variables for the formulation of long-term production
scheduling as an MIP model that uses all the FTs
within the final pit limits at once. To avoid using too
many binary variables in an MIP formulation, the
material within final pit limits is divided into smaller
volumes by determining 3–5 pushbacks as in
traditional methods. In the proposed method of long-
term production scheduling based on FTA, haul
roads are designed after generating annual production
schedules, as opposed to traditional methods in which
haul roads are designed before the schedule.
Designing haul roads and smoothing the schedule
for the mine equipment accessibility constitute the last
process in the proposed methodology. During haul 2 Steps of the fundamental tree algorithm
road design, some waste blocks that are outside the
ultimate pit limits may have to be mined to have the same cone value, the coefficients are assigned
accommodate equipment access, even though these randomly, and two ore blocks should not be assigned
waste blocks do not have a positive economic the same coefficient.
contribution to the mining operation. Since the FTs
within a pushback are found by using an LP model, Step 3
and this LP model requires that ore blocks be able to Set up an LP formulation to generate the FTs, as
support all the overlying waste blocks, the haul road detailed in the next section. When the problem
design is left to the end of the process. formulation is complete, any solver suitable for large
models may be used to solve it.

STEPS IN THE FTA Step 4

To combine the mining blocks within the ultimate pit
limits or a pushback into FTs, the FTA uses the five
steps shown in Figure 2, as follows:
Step 1
Find the cone value for each ore block (positive block)
within a given pushback, or within the ultimate pit
limits. For this, the apex of a cone is set over each ore
block, and the economic values of all the ore and
waste blocks that are within the cone and have to be
mined before mining the block at the apex are
summed. This total economic value of a given block, i,
is said to be the cone value of the block i, CVi.
Step 2
Assign coefficients to the ore blocks according to their
cone value, which may also be considered as a ranking
of the ore blocks by bench. On the uppermost bench
where one or more ore blocks exist, 1 is assigned to the
ore block with the highest cone value, 2 is assigned to
the ore block with the second highest cone value, and
so on. If there are three ore blocks on that bench, 3 is
assigned to the ore block with the smallest cone value.
Then, the ranking process moves one bench down. If
there are some ore blocks on that bench, 4 is assigned
to the ore block with the highest cone value. The
process is performed for all the ore blocks within a
given pushback. If two ore blocks on the same bench
If the number of trees obtained is the same as the
number of the trees obtained from the previous
solution, the solution is considered to be optimal, and
the algorithm can go to the next step. If the number of
trees is higher than the previous solution, keep the
currently found connections between blocks and
repeat all the steps as illustrated in the next section.
Initially, just for being theoretically correct, assume
that whole pushback is one tree.
Step 5
Stop the algorithm.
The steps in the FTA are now illustrated using a 2-
D example. This example can be considered as a
simple network representation, at a cross-sectional
view, of a set of blocks from an orebody model on two
consecutive benches as shown in Figure 3. These
blocks, or nodes, are considered to form an optimum
ultimate pit. The arcs in the figure show the node
precedence relationships based on the slope angle
requirements. For example, to mine block 6, blocks 2
and 3 must be mined, or to mine block 5, blocks 1 and
2 must be mined, and so on. The node numbers are
written inside each node and the expected economic
value of a block is written on the top-left of each
block. A dummy source node (s) and sink node (t) are
added to the network for use in balancing the flows

Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A47
Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design

around ore and waste nodes during the LP

formulations, which are discussed further in a
subsequent section. The steps of the FTA are applied
to the 2-D example as follows:

Step 1
Since nodes 5, 6 and 7 have positive economic values
as shown in Figure 3, cone values are calculated for
these nodes as discussed earlier. Since node 5 has arc
connection to nodes 1 and 2, CV5 is the total of the
economic values of the three nodes (5, 1 and 2), that is
CV5 = +2 –1 –1 = 0. Similarly, CV6 = +3 –1 –1 = +1,
and CV7 = +2 –1 –1 = 0.

Step 2
Since node 6 has the highest CV value for the example
problem, C6 is 1. Since CV5 is the same as CV7, the C-
values of 5 and 7 can be set as C5 = 2 and C7 = 3. If C5
were set to 3 and C7 to 2, the number of FTs generated
would be the same.

3 Network representation of a 2-D block model. A
source node (s) and a sink node (t) are added to the
model
Step 3
The initial problem formulation and its solution are
given in Figure 4A and the network representation of
the solution is in Figure 4B. The LP formulation,
terms and notations used on the figure are explained
in the next section.
Step 4
Figure 4B shows that the number of the trees from the
current solution is 3, which is bigger than the previous

4 (A) The LP fundamental tree problem formulation on the left-hand side is the first iteration and the solution on
the right-hand side is for the model given in Figure 2. (B) The network representation of the solution contains
three fundamental trees surrounded by dashed lines

A48 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
 Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design

5 (A) The LP fundamental tree problem formulation on the left-hand side is the second iteration and the solution is the right-
hand side. (B) The network representation of the solution contains three fundamental trees surrounded by dashed lines.

number of the trees, 1. Therefore, the answer to the Step 5

question ‘is the current solution the same as the previous
solution?’ is ‘no’, and the algorithm goes to Step 1 again.
Step 1
Figure 4B shows that node 2 does not have to be mined
before mining node 5 since there is no arc connection
between these nodes. Only the blocks that are connected
to each other by arcs are considered to have a
precedence relationship and, therefore, to be included in
the economic value calculation. Figure 4B illustrates
that only node 1 has to be mined before mining node 5;
nodes 2 and 3 have to be mined before mining node 6;
and node 4 has to be mined before mining node 7. CV-
parameters are calculated for the positive value nodes:
CV5 = +1, CV6 = +1 and CV7 = +1.
Step 2
Assign C-parameters randomly since CVs are all the
same: C5 = 2, C6 = 1 and C7 = 3.
Step 3
Iterative formulations and the solutions can be generated
the same way as the initial solution, using the current
solution as a network of node precedence between
blocks. Formulations and solutions are discussed in
more detail in the following sections and illustrated in
Figure 5.
Step 4
Since the number of the trees, 3, is the same as the
previous solution, the algorithm goes to the next step.
The algorithm stops.
It should be noted that the trees generated by the
FTA are ‘fundamental trees’ because they have the
three conditional properties: (i) all the trees have
positive values; (ii) the trees can be mined in an order
of tree 2, tree 1 and tree 3 without violating the slope
constraints; and (iii) none of the trees can be divided
into smaller sub-trees that can have the above two
properties.
LP FORMULATIONS FOR GENERATING
FUNDAMENTAL TREES
This section discusses Step 3 of the FTA, which
contains the LP formulations and solution for
generating the fundamental trees. As discussed in the
previous section, a 2-D example is used to illustrate
the steps and, since the LP formulations are also one
of these steps, the formulations are also illustrated.
The objective function and all the model constraints
for the example problem are given in Figure 4A. The
objective function is:
n w
Minimise ! !C i x ij Eq. (1)
i j
where, i is the ore block index, j is the overlying waste
block index for block i, n is the number of ore blocks,
w is the number of waste blocks overlying a given ore
block i according to pit slope constraints, Ci is the
coefficient discussed in the previous section, and xij is

Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A49
Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design
used in the network to activate an arc, which is set
from node i to node j. If there is a positive flow going
through the arc between i and j, the arc is activated by
setting the xij parameter to a number greater than
zero. If there is no flow going through the arc, the arc
is not activated by setting xij to 0. So, the objective
function is the minimisation of the connections
between blocks, taking into consideration the assigned
coefficients as discussed previously. The objective
function is followed by a set of constraints in the
model.
Upper bound constraints from the source node (s)
to positive nodes are expressed as:
f si # v i, for all i values Eq. (2)
where s is the source node, i is the block identification
number for a positive value (ore) block, fsi is the flow
sent from source node s to node i, and vi is the
economic value of block i. These constraints ensure
that an ore block cannot support the cost of mining
more waste blocks than its own positive value.
Constraints on flows from negative nodes to the
sink node (t) are expressed as:
f jt =- v j + p Eq. (3)
where ξ is a small positive decimal number, j is a waste
block identification number, and t is the sink node. ξ is
assigned to a very small number that will not be
ignored by the solver used, such as 0·001, or smaller.
The total flow coming to a waste block must be
equal to the flows leaving that waste block. If Oj is the
number of ore blocks underlying waste block j, this
equality is written as:
Oj
! f ij - f jt = 0 Eq. (4)
i
The total flow coming to an ore block from the source
node is equal to the total flow leaving that ore block.
This equality is written as:
Wi
f si - ! f ij = 0 Eq. (5)
j copper ore (milling ore), oxide copper ore (leaching
where wi is the number of waste blocks overlying
positive node i.
Arc activation indicator constraints are expressed as:
f ij - Mx ij # 0 Eq. (6)
where i is an ore block, j is a waste block, and M is a big
number, which is bigger than the biggest possible flow
on any arc. The big M number in these constraints is to
ensure that, if there is a flow on any arc, the x-parameter
will be set to a number greater than 0, and if there is no
flow on an arc, x would be set to 0.
The LP formulation is generated for the example 2-D
orebody model given in Figure 3. The LP formulations
and the solution are illustrated in Figure 4A, in which
three trees are identified from the solution. Figure 4B is
generated by deleting the arcs whose x-parameters are
zero, or on which there is no flow. For example, since f52
is zero (which means x52 is zero), the arc a52 is deleted
from the network. Since nodes t and s are imaginary
nodes, they can be ignored. The nodes, or blocks, that are
connected to each other are called a tree and have to be
mined together. There is no more iteration needed for
A50 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
this example because each tree contains only one ore
block and any further division of trees to smaller sub-
trees is not possible. However, for illustrative purposes,
iterative formulations are developed.
In calculating the cone values, the network of the
current solution in Figure 4B is used as a guide. The only
nodes that are considered to be overlying nodes of a
positive node are those that are connected to it.
Therefore, the cone values are calculated as discussed in
the previous section in Step 1: CV5 = v1 + v5 = –1 + 2 =
+1. Similarly, CV6 = v6 + v2 + v3 = +3 –1 –1 = +1 and
CV7 = v7 + v4 = 2 –1 = +1. The ranking parameters are
assigned randomly as C5 = 1, C6 = 2 and C7 = 3. Figure
5A shows the iterative formulations and Figure 5B shows
the solution, which is the same as Figure 4B.
It should be noted that alternative solutions may be
available to find the FTs, which means the same
number of FTs may be determined with a different
configuration of blocks. However, determining all the
possible configuration of the trees and measuring
their effect on the scheduling are not performed. A
significant difference in the scheduling results for a
different block configuration of FTs is not expected,
because the structure of the FTA makes the higher
cone value blocks feasible to mine before the other
blocks.
After generating the FTs for a given orebody
model, the long-term production scheduling can be
formulated as an MIP model, treating each tree as a
block having certain attributes, such as ore tonnage,
metal content, waste tonnage.14 The MIP model
formulations for optimising the long-term production
scheduling for open pit mines are well illustrated in
several publications,3,11,16 and are not repeated here.
CASE STUDY
The FTA-based scheduling model is applied to a
copper–gold–silver deposit that contains sulphide
ore), and also gold and silver in South America. The
mine started operation in 1984 with 30 Mt of ore
reserves and 2% copper within the final pit limits. Ore
reserves were estimated to be around 44 Mt of
sulphide at 0·5% cut-off with an average grade of 1·5%
copper in recent studies. The production was
increased from 8000 t day–1 to 15 000 t day–1 in later
years of operation. The mine can consider processing
17 000 t day–1 of sulphide material at the mill and 3·5
Mt of oxide ore per year by the leaching process.
The orebody model representing the deposit
contained 871 875 blocks with dimensions 20 m by 20
m by 10 m. For this deposit model, four pushbacks are
generated using the Whittle 3-D program that uses the
Lerchs and Grossmann method12,23 to find the nested
pits, as discussed in the Whittle 3-D software user
manual.21 The number of ore and waste blocks, and
tonnages of sulphide ore (SO), oxide ore (OO), and
waste within each pushback (PB) are given Table 1.
For the purpose of finding FTs, the blocks that have
greater than zero economic value are considered as
ore, and the others are waste. It should be noted that
 Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design

Table 1 Tonnages and blocks within each pushback

Tonnage (Mt) Number of blocks

PB No. SO OO Waste Total Ore Waste Total

1 3·43 8·56 28·90 40·90 2100 2582 4682

2 9·85 5·78 66·70 82·33 2349 6712 9061
3 19·64 2·26 99·49 121·39 2844 9739 12 583
4 11·68 0·36 104·88 116·92 1457 10 674 12 131
Total 44·60 16·96 299·97 361·53 8750 29 707 38 457

PB, pushback; SO, sulphide ore; OO, oxide ore.

Table 2 Fundamental tree and LP model information for the copper deposit

PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 Total

LP information for the first iteration

Constraints 50 884 143 945 337 481 629 595
Variables 87 722 260 707 637 213 1 222 797
Objective non-zeros 41 520 125 823 312 315 605 333
RHS non-zeros 4682 9061 12,583 12,131

Fundamental tree numbers

Iteration 1 1883 1644 1624 321
Iteration 2 1883 1661 1640 328
Iteration 3 1661 1640 328 5512
The ratio of FTs to ore blocks 0·90 0·71 0·58 0·22

PB, pushback.

the values given in the table are prior to designing haul
roads.
FTs are found individually for each pushback. The
resultant FT and LP model information are given in
Table 2. All the LP and MIP models in this case study
are solved using CPLEX software.2 Initially the total
number of blocks requiring an integer variable for
each scheduling period (last period may be excluded)
was 38 457, as reported in Table 1. This number is
almost impossible to optimise through an MIP model.
With application of FTA, this number is decreased to
5512, thus allowing optimisation through the
formulation and solution of an MIP model. Table 2
shows that, as the deposit becomes deeper towards
pushbacks 3 and 4, the ratio of the FTs to ore blocks
decreases. This decrease is expected because there are
more waste blocks to be supported, which requires
joint support from more ore blocks.
Although the LP formulation was very large, the
solution time was always less than 5 s on a PC with
600 MHz processor. It should be noted that Table 2
shows only the first iteration parameters. As the
problem is reformulated, the model becomes smaller
and solution becomes faster because the arc
connections in the network are progressively reduced.
Because no integer variable is used in the formulation
of the FTs, a much bigger orebody model can be very
efficiently processed with the LP model. However, this
means that the orebody model cannot be formulated
and solved as an MIP model for the scheduling
problem of large open pit mines at once, because the
scheduling problem requires binary variables. The
number of binary variables required in the scheduling
model depends on the number of FTs generated and
the number of periods in which the material in a given
pushback can be scheduled. According to this
relationship, as the deposit gets bigger, the number of
periods in which the material can be scheduled will
increase, as will the number of FTs. As a result, the
number of binary variables in the scheduling model
will be too large to generate an answer. To keep the
number of binary variables to a level that allows
solution, the model is processed in smaller volumes,
which are defined by pushbacks.
Table 3 provides details of the MIP scheduling
model and shows that the largest MIP model is set for

Table 3 MIP scheduling model information for the copper deposit

PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4

Constraints 5719 10 158 41 256 3171

Variables – linear 5711 10 459 13 557 1335
Variables – binary … 3322 4920 328
Variables – total 5711 13 781 18 477 1663
Objective non-zeros 2735 8433 10 108 996
Percentage optimality (%) 100·00 99·3 94·5 100·00
Run time (h:min:s) 00:00:01 00:04:40 00:36:24 00:00:04

Run time was measured on a 600 MHz PC.

PB, pushback.

Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A51
Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design

Table 4 The smoothed annual mine production schedule

Periods Sulphide Sulphide grades Oxide Oxide grades Waste Total

1 6258 1·451 10 033 1·316 58 654 74 945

2 6121 1·461 1896 1·227 67 018 75 035
3 6212 1·492 2682 1·044 66 395 75 289
4 6036 1·543 350 1·131 68 573 74 959
5 6134 1·387 1132 0·913 67 414 74 680
6 6325 1·580 487 0·827 67 090 73 902
7 6277 1·951 316 0·889 52 744 59 337
8 1197 2·117 51 0·57 9368 10 616
Total 44 560 1·568 16 947 1·209 457 256 518 763

Tonnages are in 1000 t and grades are in percentages.

the third pushback, which contains 4920 binary

variables, 13 557 linear variables, and over 41 000
constraints. The problem is stopped when the integer
solution reaches a 5·5% gap. Figure 6 shows that the
mine production schedule is produced with nearly
constant mining rate for the first 6 years of mine life
after designing the haul roads. Table 4 shows that
there are very small amounts of fluctuation in mill
feed during the 6 years. During years 7 and 8, total
mining rate and ore production decrease as the mine
moves towards closure. It should be noted that
although about 10 Mt of oxide copper is produced
during the first period, leach capacity is only 3·5 Mt.
It is assumed that the extra oxide ore is stockpiled and
processed during future periods as shown on the
destination schedule in Table 5.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 6 Smoothed annual mine production schedule

The mine was also scheduled using MINTEC’s
M821V,13 Earthworks’ NPV scheduler,6 and Whittle’s
Milawa mine scheduling programs.22 More details on
how production schedules are generated using these
three methods can be found in Bernabe.1 The same
production and blending constraints as in the FT-based
MIP scheduling method are applied for all these cases.
The discounted cash flows at a 10% rate for each
scheduling technique are given in Table 6. Total
undiscounted dollar value of the deposit varies within
a short range for the different methods. It is around
$610·8 million in the NPV scheduler, $612·6 million in
the schedule obtained by FTA, $614·6 million in the
Whittle Milawa and $620·2 million in the M821V. The
discounted total NPV values generated by the three
traditional methods are similar to each other, around
$400 million as shown in Table 6. However, the total
NPV generated by the schedule based on the FTA is
$22·2 million more than the Milawa scheduler in the
Whittle Four-X program, which resulted in the highest
NPV among the three traditional methods and about
$29·5 million more than the NPV scheduler.

Table 5 The smoothed annual destination schedule

Sulphide Oxide Waste

Mill Leach pad Stockpile Waste Total

Years Tons Grade Tons Grade Tons Grade Dump Tons

1 6258 1·451 3500 1·316 6533 1·316 58 654 68 412

2 6121 1·461 3500 1·268 4929 1·316 67 018 76 639
3 6212 1·492 3500 1·108 4111 1·316 66 395 76 107
4 6036 1·543 3500 1·298 961 1·316 68 573 78 109
5 6134 1·387 2093 1·098 67 414 75 641
6 6325 1·580 487 0·827 67 090 73 902
7 6277 1·951 316 0·889 52 744 59 337
8 1197 2·117 51 0·570 9 368 10 616

Total 44 560 1·568 16 947 1·209 457 256 518 763

Tonnages are in 1000 t and grades are in percentages.

A52 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
 Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design

Table 6 Discounted cash flows at 10% rate CONCLUSIONS

Although MIP mathematical methods are well suited
Periods Mintec Earthworks Whittle FTMIP
for optimisation of the open pit production scheduling
1 43·22 51·13 46·45 82·41 process, application of these methods in actual mining
2 33·55 38·61 43·47 74·94
operations is negligible due to the requirement for
3 74·55 63·11 66·69 66·52
4 55·16 53·40 69·40 65·94 large numbers of binary variables in the formulations,
5 62·40 53·98 55·32 40·23 which makes it almost impossible to solve the
6 57·52 55·35 53·63 35·91 formulations for large open pit mines. A new
7 63·38 58·98 50·29 49·33 mathematical programming model is presented in this
8 12·21 21·36 17·92 10·09
paper for open pit mine production scheduling using
Total 401·98 395·90 403·17 425·37
only linear variables to produce FTs. This model does
All values as 1 million US$. not include any integer variables so that it can solve
large problems without running into time constraints.
The number of integer variables required for the MIP
All the traditional methods commonly aimed to feed scheduling formulation is decreased significantly by
the mill plant as much as possible. Table 7 shows that the finding the FTs. This reduction in the number of
traditional methods ignored the leaching process from variables also reduces the MIP model size
the system since they can only consider one processor. significantly. In particular, reductions in the number
For example, M821V does not mine enough oxide ore to of sequencing constraints are massive. Therefore, large
set up a leaching pad for the first 3 years; NPV open pit production scheduling can be optimised by
scheduler mines enough oxide ore for leaching during an FT approach to maximising NPV of a given mine
the first period, but mines very low amounts during the project, or to solving hard ore quality and grade
next 3 years; and Whittle Milawa also does not mine blending problems.
enough oxide to install a leach pad during the first year. The case study in a multi-element copper deposit
The ability to consider multiple processors and multiple showed that application of an MIP model using the
elements are two of the major advantages of the FTA significantly improved the total NPV of the
mathematical programming methods, besides the project. The FTA reduced the number of total
optimality of the defined objective. So the schedule required binary variables from (38 457 ∗ periods)
based on the FTA and use of mathematical pro- down to (5512 ∗ periods). It also shows that mathe-
gramming techniques resulted in substantially higher matical modelling is a very flexible tool in terms of
NPV value than other schedules that are not based on being able to consider multiple-processors and
mathematical programming methods. multiple-elements. Application of the MIP model

Table 7 The scheduling results of four methods by years

Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total

FTA
Total 74·9 75·0 75·3 74·9 74·7 73·9 59·3 10·6 518·7
Waste 58·6 67·0 66·4 68·6 67·4 67·1 52·7 9·4 457·2
Oxide grades 1·32 1·23 1·04 1·13 0·91 0·83 0·89 0·57 1·21
Oxide 10·0 1·9 2·7 0·4 1·1 0·5 0·3 0·0 16·9
Sulphide grades 1·45 1·46 1·49 1·54 1·39 1·58 1·95 2·12 1·57
Sulphide 6·3 6·1 6·2 6·0 6·1 6·3 6·3 1·2 44·6
Whittle 4X Scheduler
Total 74·1 74·7 74·4 74·5 74·8 72·9 72·1 6·5 524·0
Waste 66·2 64·7 67·2 65·4 68·1 63·1 62·5 5·2 462·4
Oxide grades 1·37 1·16 0·98 1·59 1·58 1·07 0·99 0·52 1·20
Oxide 1·7 3·8 1·0 2·9 0·4 3·6 3·4 0·0 16·9
Sulphide grades 1·50 1·43 1·43 1·38 1·60 1·70 1·74 2·46 1·57
Sulphide 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 1·3 44·7
NPV Scheduler
Total 77·5 76·1 76·5 76·1 75·5 74·7 51·7 8·3 516·5
Waste 66·3 68·8 69·7 69·7 67·4 66·1 40·7 65·7 455·4
Oxide grades 1·48 0·88 0·99 2·26 1·06 1·20 1·03 1·42 1·21
Oxide 4·8 1·1 0·6 0·1 1·9 2·4 4·8 0·9 16·7
Sulphide grades 1·50 1·43 1·43 1·38 1·60 1·70 1·74 2·46 1·56
Sulphide 6·4 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 0·8 44·40
Mintec’s Scheduler
Total 78·3 77·2 76·2 78·2 77·2 76·2 56·5 2·4 522·2
Waste 71·7 69·6 68·7 67·9 68·6 64·8 48·0 1·2 460·6
Oxide grades 1·23 1·38 1·53 1·16 1·27 1·14 1·12 0 1·21
Oxide 0·4 1·4 1·3 4·1 2·4 5·2 2·2 0 16·9
Sulphide grades 1·50 1·35 1·57 1·45 1·65 1·71 1·84 1·51 1·57
Sulphide 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 6·2 1·1 44·6

Tonnages are in Mt and grades are in percentages.

Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114 A53
Ramazan et al. Fundamental tree algorithm in optimising production scheduling for open pit mine design
based on the FTA considered mill and leach ore
processors simultaneously in the optimisation, with
the result that the schedule generated significantly
higher NPV, around $22 million, than the schedules
generated by other methods.
Further work needs to be done to integrate the risk
caused by geological and market variations, specifically
uncertainty in grade and price, with mathematical
optimisation of the production scheduling process for
both open pit and underground mining operations.
Dimitrakopoulos et al.8 show the significant impact of
grade variability and resultant risk on the economics of
the mining projects and emphasise the necessity of
developing new mathematical programming models
incorporating the geological risk in optimisation of
open pit mine design. The FTA can be used in
developing mathematical models to deal with uncer-
tainties in geological and market conditions in
optimising mining operations.
REFERENCES
1. D. BERNABE: ‘Comparative analysis of open pit mine
scheduling techniques for strategic mine planning of a
copper mine in Southern Peru’, Unpublished MSc Thesis,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 2001, 1–236.
2. CPLEX. ‘Using the CPLEX callable library, including using
the CPLEX base system with CPLEX barrier and mixed
integer solver options’, ILOG, Inc., Incline Village,
Nevada, 1998.
3. K. DAGDELEN: ‘Optimum multi-period open pit mine
production scheduling by Lagrangian parameterization’,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Colorado School of Mines,
Golden, Colorado, 1985, 1–325.
4. K. DAGDELEN and D. A. FRANCOIS-BONGARCON: ‘Towards
the complete double parameterization of recovered
reserves in open pit mining’, APCOM ‘82, Colorado
School of Mines, 1982, 288–296.
5. G. B. DANTZIG and P. WOLFE: ‘Decomposition principle for
linear programs’, J. Operations Res., 1960, 8, 101–111.
6. DATAMINE. ‘Introductory training course notes – design
too’, Datamine Australia, 2001.
7. M. DAVID: ‘Handbook of applied advanced geostatistical
ore reserve estimation’, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, 1988,
1–216.
8. R. DIMITRAKOPOULOS, C. T. FARRALLY and M. GODOY:
‘Moving forward from traditional optimization: grade
uncertainty and risk effects in open-pit design’, Min.
Technol. (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A), 2002, 111,
A82–A88.
9. M. E. GERSHON: ‘Optimal mine production scheduling
evaluation of large scale mathematical programming
approaches’, Int. J. Min. Eng., 1983, 1, 315–329.
10. D. S. HOCHBAUM and A. CHEN: ‘Performance analysis and
best implementations of old and new algorithms for the
A54 Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) March 2005 Vol. 114
open-pit mining problem’, Operations Res., 2000, 48,
894–913.
11. T. B. JOHNSON: ‘Optimum open pit mine production
scheduling’, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, California, 1968, 1–120.
12. H. LERCHS and I. F. GROSSMAN: ‘Optimum design of open-
pit mines’, Trans. CIM, 1965, LXVII, 47–54.
13. MINESIGHT/MEDSYSTEM: ‘General training workbook’,
Mintec, Inc., 1999.
14. S. RAMAZAN: ‘Open pit mine scheduling based on
fundamental tree algorithm’, Unpublished PhD thesis,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, 2001,
1–164.
15. S. RAMAZAN and K. DAGDELEN: ‘A new push back design
algorithm in open pit mining’, (ed. R. K. Singhal), The
Seventh International Symposium On Mine Planning And
Equipment Selection, Calgary, University Laval, 1998,
119–124.
16. S. RAMAZAN and R. DIMITRAKOPOULOS: ‘Recent
applications of operations research in open pit mining’,
SME Trans., 2004, 316, 73–78.
17. B. TOLWINSKI: ‘Scheduling production for open pit mines’,
APCOM ‘98, London, Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, 1998, 651–662.
18. C. WARTON: ‘Add value to your mine through improved
long term scheduling’, Whittle North American Mine
Planning Conference, Whittle, Colorado, 2000.
19. D. WHITTLE: ‘Proteus environment: sensitivity work made
easy’, Whittle North American Strategic Mine Planning
Conference, Whittle, Colorado, 2000.
20. J. WHITTLE: ‘Beyond optimisation in open pit design’, Proc.
Canadian Conference on Computer Applications in the
Mineral Industries, Rotterdam, Balkema, 1988, 331–337.
21. WHITTLE PROGRAMMING: ‘Three-D Whittle open pit
optimization software: user manual’, Copyright 1992
Whittle Programming Proprietary Limited, Melbourne,
1995.
22. WHITTLE PROGRAMMING: ‘Four-X Whittle multi-element
open pit optimisation software – user manual’, Whittle
Programming Proprietary Limited, Melbourne, 1996.
23. Y. ZHAO and Y. C. KIM: ‘A new optimum pit design
algorithm’, APCOM ‘92, The University of Arizona, 1992,
423–434.
Authors
Salih Ramazan holds PhD and MSc degrees from Colorado
School of Mines, USA, an ME degree from Ecole Nationale
Supérieure des Mines de Paris, France, and is a mine
planning engineer at KCGM, Kalgoorlie, Australia.
Kadri Dagdelen is a professor at the Colorado School of
Mines, USA.
Thys B. Johnson was Director of the Natural Resources
Research Institute and a professor at the University of
Minnesota, USA before retirement.