Dynamic short term production scheduling

and machine allocation in underground

mining using mathematical programming
M. Nehring*1, E. Topal2 and P. Knights3
Maximising value is the main objective when developing long term mine production schedules.
These results provide input for the development of a short term schedule that aims to meet
process plant feed requirements so as to produce a quality saleable product. This paper reviews
previous work on optimised short- and long term production scheduling and real time fleet
management systems. A new dynamic mathematical model using mixed integer programming is
proposed to optimise short term production scheduling and machine allocation for application in
sublevel stoping operations. The objective of the model is to minimise deviation from targeted
metal production. The dynamic nature of the model not only optimises the shift based schedule
but also allows rapid equipment reassignment to take place as underground operating conditions
change. Optimal results are generated in less than 1 min when trialled on a conceptual sublevel
stoping dataset.
Keywords: Mixed integer programming, Short term production scheduling, Underground mine optimisation, Machine allocation

Introduction solutions in real time have traditionally been implemented

The production scheduling process for both open cut and
underground mining operations is a complex integrated
multistage system. While currently available models may
need further development, a widely accepted approach to
solve the optimal long term production scheduling
problem is via mathematical programming techniques,
whereby the objective is to maximise net present value.
This will generally be compiled at a sufficient level of detail
to, in the case of sublevel stoping, specify the tonnes and
grade of ore produced from each stope over monthly or
quarterly intervals over a period that may span 3–5 years.
Following on from this, optimised short term scheduling
and machine allocation may also be solved using
mathematical programming techniques. Unlike long term
scheduling, the objective of short term scheduling is
generally to minimise the deviation from predefined metal
production targets, thus maintaining a constant mill
feedrate. The short term schedule must be highly detailed
and, in the case of sublevel stoping, assign equipment
items such as trucks and load–haul dumps (LHDs) for
each shift to various ore movements spanning 1–
2 months. In open pit mining, machine allocation
1
PhD Candidate, CRCMining and School of Mechanical and Mining
Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
2
A/Prof. and Head of Mining Engineering Department, Western Australia
School of Mines, Curtin University of Technology, Kalgoorlie, Australia.
3
Professor, Executive Director – Mining Education Australia, BMA Chair
and Head of Division of Mining Engineering School of Mechanical and
Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
*Corresponding author, email m.nehring@uq.edu.au
using dispatch systems which use heuristics or a dynamic
programming (DP) approach to minimise machine travel
or queue time. Current underground production schedul-
ing and machine allocation practises tend to rely heavily
on manual processes that are both time consuming and
provide little guarantee of optimal results. Because of the
highly complex and dynamic nature of the underground
mine environment, it is important to generate fast and
accurate shift based schedules.
This paper seeks to address the current shortfall in
available tools for improved decision making in under-
ground mine production scheduling by introducing a
new short term production scheduling and machine
allocation tool using mixed integer programming (MIP).
The focus is on the underground mine environment and
more specifically on sublevel stoping operations. In
recognising that the underground environment in most
cases is rigid as well as its ability to provide rapid
machine reassignments has resulted in a tool capable of
providing updated reassignment data in real time.
The paper reviews previous work into short- and long
term mine production scheduling and fleet manage-
ment systems. A new dynamic short term production
scheduling and machine allocation model using MIP is
proposed, which is trialled on the conceptual Kelvin
operation. Results of this trial are discussed in the final
section of the paper.
Previous studies
Long term scheduling is the first process to be carried out
in the natural sequence of scheduling mine production.

ß 2010 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
Received 6 November 2009; accepted 13 September 2010
212 DOI 10.1179/1743286310Y.0000000001 Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4

Previous studies on optimal long term underground mine
production scheduling have demonstrated its usefulness in
aiding scheduling processes.1–6
Short term scheduling should reflect the long term
objective of maximising the net present value of the
project. In order to do this, the objective of the short
term schedule should be to minimise deviation from
longer term operational targets. Results of the short
term production scheduling process may be implemen-
ted in real time with the aid of fleet management and
dispatch systems. The objective of these systems is to
optimise machine utilisation or travel time.
Due to constantly changing circumstances within the
underground environment as a result of any number of
occurrences including machine breakdowns, ore pass
failures or draw point hang-ups, any short term
scheduling and machine allocation tool must itself, or
through its interface with a real time fleet management
or dispatch system, be capable of handling these rapidly
changing conditions. As such, personnel and equipment
may need to be reassigned in order to minimise
disruption to meet production targets.
Few studies deal with the underground mine environ-
ment while in open pit mining, real time machine
allocation to cater for these dynamic circumstances has
traditionally been handled by fleet management and
dispatch systems. Most notably, White et al.7 present the
algorithms used by Modular Mining Systems’ computer
based DISPATCH system which is reported to be fully
implemented at more than 30 open pit mining opera-
tions around the world. The DISPATCH system
comprises of three subsystems. Using raw mine topology
of locations, elevations and roads and distance data a
best path algorithm generates the shortest path between
all pairs of locations in the mine road network. Taking
travel time and optimal routing data as well as pit
configuration, available trucks and shovels, blending
requirements and machine priority data from the best
path, a linear programming (LP) subsystem model is
then used to generate optimal path flowrates in tonnes
per hour to minimise haulage requirements. Given a list
of trucks needing an assignment and current travel times
and distances, a DP subsystem model finally provides
assignments for each truck in real time. Significant
improvements in productivity between 7 and 20% have
been reported in the literature at 13 open pit mining
operations after installation of the system.
Zhang et al.8 compare and discuss linear and objective
programming truck flow optimisation methods arguing
that having multilevel objectives with different priority
levels which can be classified, weighted and optimised
respectively should be combined with the LP approach. A
new truck flow optimisation model is therefore proposed
which has as its objective to maximise all loaded truck
flowrates. The authors trial their model on a large scale
open pit iron ore operation utilising 10 excavators and 43
trucks with three available unloading points and claim to
have reduced the number of required trucks by 10% in
comparison to the manual scheduling method while
meeting all feasibility requirements. However, no men-
tion is made in regard to the number of variables required
to model the system or final solution times. The model
also seems to assume a homogeneous truck fleet which
therefore raises doubts over its ability to cater for fleets
containing trucks of varying capacities.
Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming
In the work of Osanloo and Saidy,9 a simple
semidispatch system using LP is generated with the
objective of minimising the total number of trucks
required to meet production targets. Variables in this
case relate to the number of trucks assigned to each
individual haulage path. The model was trialled on the
Sarcheshmeh open pit copper mine in Iran which was
required to produce 80 000 t of ore and waste daily over
three production shifts. LINDO software was used to
solve the final problem which showed that daily
production could be achieved with just 30 t, as opposed
to 37 and 120 t capacity trucks.
A stochastic programming approach for open pit
truck allocation is presented by Ta et al.10 The objective
in this case is to minimise the operating and capital cost
of ore delivery. The advantage of using a stochastic
approach over conventional linear approaches is that
uncertainty is explicitly incorporated into the numerical
solution rather than heuristically accommodated by
increasing available resources beyond the optimal
solution. The authors simulate two operations with
different size trucks to demonstrate that stochastic
optimisation can be successfully applied to the truck
allocation problem. It was acknowledged, however, that
the model could be improved by including ore blending
constraints and constraints to ensure a smooth transi-
tion of truck solutions between periods.
While there may be some scope for altering and
reworking open pit programmes for application in the
underground mine environment, as pointed by Beaulieu
and Gamache,11 managing underground fleets with
software developed for open pit operations is not a
simply process due to some significant differences
between the two contexts. Unlike open pit haulage
systems which seek to match trucks to shovels for a
particular working face, the use of LHD units in
underground mining differs in that loading and hauling
may be carried out by the same unit. The nature of the
haulage network in underground mining is also more
rigid and far less accommodating. While multiple
machines may navigate the same haul route in an open
pit mine, comparable underground haul routes have the
capacity to only accommodate a single machine.
Beaulieu and Gamache11 propose an enumeration
algorithm based on DP for solving the fleet management
problem in underground mines. From an initial starting
position, the objective is to find the best route and
schedule for each machine such that their destination is
reached in the shortest possible time. The solution
approach is tested on 60 instances on three networks
comprising of 20 instances per network with four
machines in operation in each instance. The authors
go into extensive detail about routing and displacement
of machines throughout the network of underground
drives and haul routes in a concerted attempt to remain
in a conflict free state. The reality is that the under-
ground mine environment is very rigid. As such, in most
cases there is only a single route a machine can feasibly
take in the working of an ore movement. Unlike open
pit dispatching, instances where multiple production
machines are simultaneously operating on the same
route are generally avoided, thus providing little
justification for such a stringent focus on routing.
In the work of Tsomondo,12 an underground active
dispatch model based on LP and goal programming is
Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4 213
Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming
developed to optimally allocate machines at the start of
a shift based on static operating conditions. The active
programme allocates machines to a single trip job after
which it is free to request another job. A total of six
dispatching polices are implemented into the under-
ground active dispatch model, with each able to be
interchanged at will. They include shortest travel time,
earliest expected service time, minimum server–client
slack time, maximum product quality, maximum quality
with minimum slack time and critical work site ratio.
While not all policies may be applicable in practice, the
author compares the productivity of each policy as LHD
fleet size is increased concluding that each policy has a
unique optimal fleet size for a given mine layout.
With an objective of maximising the total tonnes of
ore produced, Saayman et al.13 simulate the layout of a
diamond mine implementing a block caving technique
for the purpose of optimising an autonomous vehicle
dispatch system. Five different dispatching strategies
were used over 1 week of simulated production with an
emphasis on keeping the difference in ore levels between
adjacent draw points as low as possible. The system
however is yet to be implemented into a real case
scenario with the authors noting some uncertainty in
regard to the cost of installing such a system to provide
the necessary quantity and quality of data required if
objectives are too ambitious.
The use of simulation software for determining truck
and shovel fleet sizes in open pit mining is very common.
Similar processes have also been reported for sizing
underground truck and LHD fleets. Runciman et al.14
compare the productivity improvements gained from
using a chute/truck loading system as opposed to an
LHD/truck loading system in an underground hardrock
mine in the Subury mining region in Ontario, Canada.
While significant productivity improvements were
reported, no economic evaluation was performed com-
paring the capital and operating costs of each system.
It is apparent that significant research efforts have been
directed toward the development of optimised long term
production scheduling models as well as real time fleet
management and dispatch systems. In proceeding
through the natural scheduling sequence, commencing
with long term scheduling, moving through to short term
scheduling and then implementing this in real time, there
appears to be a clear shortfall in the middle area of
optimised short term production scheduling and machine
allocation. The short term scheduling process reduces
long term production data into shift intervals and thereby
provides the input data for real time dispatch systems. It
therefore plays a crucial role in the overall scheduling
process linking the long term to the present. Even more
importantly, a link between the real time dispatch system
and the optimised short term scheduling and machine
allocation model should ensure that any real time
assignment of an item of equipment also remains the
optimal strategy over the short term. This paper proposes
a new optimal short term scheduling and machine
allocation model that due to its dynamic nature and
rapid solution times has some capacity to also be able to
provide machine assignments in real time.
Proposed short term scheduling model
A combination of LP and integer programming, known as
MIP, is used in the construction of this model to represent
214 Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4
the mining process including all practical limitations and
to ultimately provide the results to aid short term
scheduling and machine allocation decision making
process. When formulated correctly, MIP is widely
recognised as being capable of achieving optimal results.
The construction of this short term scheduling and
machine allocation model has taken place solely for use
in sublevel stope mining. As such, a number of features
are contained within the model to deal with issues
inherent to the sublevel stope mining method. Reference
to ‘ore movements’ is made throughout this paper and
this term has been given to all main production activities
when ore is hauled from one location to another whether
by truck or LHD unit. Two main types of ore
movements may take place, ore taken from the draw
point of a stope and hauled either to the crusher or to an
ore pass is referred to as a ‘primary ore movement’ and
is the first movement of the blasted ore material to
occur. Ore that requires rehandling must flow through
‘secondary ore movements’ such as those between ore
passes. The distinction between primary and secondary
ore movements is required by the model in the
calculation of items such as metal tonnes produced
during each shift, which should only consider ore moved
from primary ore movements.
Unlike the longer term scheduling process which
generally uses just a single average grade over each stope
value to enable scheduling to take place, over the short
term, it becomes important to maintain a greater control
over grade fluctuations. As such, the use of an average
grade over the life of the stope is no longer appropriate.
Primary ore movements need to be broken up into
smaller more definable volumes. The natural firing
sequence over the life of a stope lends itself to dealing
with this issue through the use and definition of ‘blast
blocks’. Each blast block contains an ore tonnage at a
certain grade making these suitable for the short term
scheduling process. The firing of blast blocks will
generally occur when sufficient void becomes available
within the stope as a result of draw down of the last blast
block to contain the next block of blasted ore. As a
result of this, there will generally be a time overlap
between the full completion of draw down of the
remaining blast block ore movement and the draw
down commencement of the new block of blasted ore.
This model has been constructed to optimally
schedule production and provide machine allocations
across all primary and secondary ore movements over
2 months (y60 days) for each shift (two 12-h shifts
daily, y120 shifts in total) with the objective of
minimising deviation to predefined production targets.
The dynamic nature of this model allows it to reassign
equipment very rapidly when the need arises.
Indices
m machine identification: m51,2,3…, M. Includes all
LHDs and trucks.
N m9 refers only to LHDs.
N m0 refers only to trucks.
o ore movement identification: o51,2,3…, O. Includes
all primary blast block ore movements as well as all flow
on secondary ore movements.
N o9 refers only to primary blast block ore move-
ments.
N o0 refers only to flow on secondary ore movements.
 Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming

N h refers to those ore movements within So not able X

xmo’t ƒmsct Vt (3)
to simultaneously share the same machine with ore
m,o’
movement o.
t interval period: t51,2,3…, I. X
Ymot ƒmtm V m,t (4)
Sets o

Po set of intervals in which ore movement o is available X

for production Ym’ot ƒnmlo V o,t (5a)
m’
No set of intervals in which ore movement o is
unavailable for production X
Lm set of ore movements that are not conducive to Ym’’ot ƒnmlo V o,t (5b)
m’’
haulage by machine type (e.g. trucks are used when
hauls are over 1000 m in length, and LHDs are used for X
everything else) xmot |disto ƒmacmt V m,t (6)
o
Qt set of intervals that include all intervals up to and
including the current interval X X
Ro9 the primary blast block ore movement o9z1 that xmo’’t ~ xmo’t V o’’,t (7)
m m,o’[Io’’
must proceed primary blast block ore movement o9 in
order to maintain the natural stope extraction sequence !
X X
Io0 set of primary blast block ore movements o9 that xmo’t’ { reso’ Ym,o,t §0 V o’,t (8)
flow on into each secondary ore movement o0 m,t’[Qt m,o[Ro’
So set of ore movements h that are not conducive to
simultaneously sharing the same machine with ore Ymot zYmht ƒ1 :Vm,o,t,hjh[So (9)
movement o

Parameters Ymot mlm {xmot ƒ0 V m,o,t (10)

tart metal production target for interval t
reso9 ore reserve contained within ore movement o9 Ymot M{xmot §0 V m,o,t (11)
grao9 ore grade of ore movement o9 X
msct ore tonnage capacity of haulage shaft in interval t Ymot ~0 V o (12)
macmt capacity of machine m in interval t. Expressed m,t[No
in tonne metres per shift [bucket capacity (t) multiplied X
by average working speed (m h21) multiplied by Ymot ~0 Vm (13)
operating time (h) per shift/interval] o[Lm, t
disto length (m) of ore movement o
nmlo number of LHDs able to work simultaneously on xmot , Ymot §0
ore movement o (14)
nmto number of trucks able to work simultaneously on Ymot ~binary integer
ore movement o The objective function seeks to minimise deviation from
mtm task limit (number of assignments) for machine m targeted production for each interval t across the
mlm lowest feasible machine movement (t) scheduling horizon. It does this by summing the metal
M large number, M510 000 000. tonnes produced above at and below bt the predefined
target for each interval.
Decision variables Constraint (1) ensures that the tonnage of metal
xmot ore tonnes extracted by machine m from ore produced across all machines from primary blast block
movement o in interval t ore movements in each period balances with the targeted
Ymot 1 if extraction by machine m of ore movement o production rate while accounting for all over production
takes place in interval t, at and under production bt. Constraint (2) ensures that
0 otherwise ore production from each primary blast block ore
at metal tonnes produced above the predefined movement does not exceed its reserve. Primary blast
target in interval t block ore production in any period cannot exceed the
bt metal tonnes produced below the predefined haulage shaft capacity as enforced by constraint (3).
target in interval t In order to limit the amount of productive time
wasted by machines tramming between jobs, a machine
Objective function will generally be assigned to no greater than two ore
X movements during any given time period, as enforced by
Minimise : ðat zbt Þ
t
constraint (4). Constraints (5a) and (5b) ensure that the
number of machines (LHDs m9 and trucks m0 respec-
Subject to tively) operating simultaneously on any given ore
X movement in any interval does not exceed the physical
xmo’t |grao’ {at bt ~tart Vt (1)
m,o’
limitation of the ore movement itself. Constraint (6)
ensures that the amount of ore tonnes moved by each
X production machine in each period cannot exceed their
xmo’t ƒreso’ V o’ (2)
individual capacity.
m,t[Po’

Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4 215

Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming
1 Kelvin operation ore flow overview (not to scale)
Constraint (7) ensures that throughput across each
secondary ore movement balances with ore from inflow
primary ore movements in each interval. Constraint (8)
ensures that full reserve production from each primary
blast block ore movement before production from the
proceeding primary blast block ore movement can
commence, thus maintaining the natural sequential
transition into production from one blast block to the
next. Constraint (9) ensures that all pairs of ore move-
ments that are not located in close proximity to each
other and therefore do not feed into the same ore pass
system are not able to share the same machine. Constraint
(10) ensures that a minimum tonnage must be moved (in
this case 10 t) for it to be feasible for a machine to be
allocated to an ore movement. This constraint also
ensures that if xmot50, Ymot50. Constraint (11) ensures
that if xmot is utilised, Ymot must equal 1.
The production availability of ore movements is taken
into account courtesy of constraint (12). Constraint (13)
ensures that LHDs are not assigned to truck routes and
trucks are not assigned to LHD routes. Finally,
constraint (14) enforces non-negativity and integer
values of the appropriate variables.
Model application
Applications of this model are tested on the conceptual
Kelvin underground sublevel stoping operation. While
conceptual in nature, production data, parameters and
constraints reflect other operations of a similar produc-
tion rate and thus justify its use for testing and
validation purposes.
Operation overview
The Kelvin operation itself uses conventional sublevel
stoping to extract copper ore with some byproduct gold
from three main east–west striking lenses dipping at 75u
reaching depths of 1200 m below surface. Current ore
216 Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4
reserves total 65 Mt grading 2?4%Cu for 1?5 Mt Cu,
which will be exhausted at a rate of 5?4 Mt ore over the
operation’s remaining 12 year mine life. Once extracted
from draw points via LHD, ore is channelled to an
underground crusher station through a series of ore
passes before being hoisted to the surface via the haulage
shaft as illustrated by the ore flow overview diagram
shown in Fig. 1, with each ore pass being labelled in
bold print. As illustrated also, depth extensions to the
main lens have resulted in mine expansion activities
below the crushing horizon. As a result, K6OP, K5OP
and M5OP ore passes channel ore to a central truck
loading facility from where it is hauled up the haul route
to the crusher station.
An important consideration in assigning trucks and
LHDs to ore movements is the rehandle required in
order to get ore to the crusher. While one LHD may be
extracting ore from draw points, the services of another
LHD may be required to transport the same ore between
ore passes at a lower level. For the purpose of this
demonstration, all stopes that will form the basis for a
2 month schedule are labelled above each ore pass.
Using stope F267 (far left of Fig. 1) as an example, ore
from this stope is initially tipped into F6 ore pass
(F6OP). From the base of F6OP, ore is then hauled via
LHD and tipped into F5OP which feeds directly to the
crusher. As such, Table 1 presents the complete route
(including primary and secondary ore movements) that
ore from each stope must take in order to reach the
crusher and the respective round trip LHD and truck
cycle distances associated with each primary and
secondary ore movement.
Main production equipment items for the Kelvin
operation include five LHD units consisting of one
Toro 2500 (25 t bucket capacity), three CAT 2900s
(24 t bucket capacity) and one CAT 1700 (12?5 t bucket
capacity), as well as three trucks consisting of two AD45s
(45 t tray capacity) and one AD30 (30 t tray capacity).
 Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming

Short term scheduling from long term scheduling in reality comprises of three
individual blast blocks, including 1000 t at 2?4% copper,
Having ideally run a long term optimised production 5000 t at 2?2% copper and 1000 t at 2?7% copper.
scheduling tool and obtained its monthly results, data Determination of all blast block availabilities has thus
for months 1 and 2 (Table 2) will form the basis of the increased the initial 16 primary stopes into a total of 50
short term scheduling process. It should be noted that primary blast block ore movements for consideration
stopes are at various stages of their production life; some across various shifts over the 2 months period.
are just commencing while others are in their final phase Anticipating the timeframe that each blast block
of production. within a stope will be available for a particular operation
As shown, a total of 16 stopes are available for to a high level of accuracy is not an easy task. The
production purposes across the 2 months. These stopes further away a particular blast block is from production,
form the primary ore movements that either feed directly the more difficult this becomes. This is an activity that
to the crusher or onto one of the 10 secondary ore relies on the judgement of an experienced person. The
movements before reaching the crusher. advantage in using a dynamic short term production
While it is sufficient in long term scheduling to assume scheduling and machine allocation tool is that as soon as
an average grade for each stope, it becomes vital in short updates on blast block availabilities are made, this can
term scheduling to break down a stope into smaller, be rapidly accounted for by rerunning the model and
more definable blocks in order to appropriately reflect reassigning equipment for immediate production as well
the grade fluctuations that naturally occur within the as for the remaining interval.
stope and thus aid the short term objective of minimis- Unlike the long term scheduling process that uses fleet
ing deviation to metal production targets over each capacities to implement equipment and resource con-
interval. As a result of this, the tabulated long term straints, short term production scheduling that seeks to
production data for each stope need to be further allocate machines to ore movements requires a signifi-
reduced into its individual primary blast block ore cantly greater level of detail about individual machines.
movement availabilities before being presented to the Once again, some of this detail can only come from
mathematical model for evaluation. This is an activity experience and close interaction with the operation and
that should be carried out in any case by any operation machines over a period of time. Details of main short
seeking reliable grade controls even under a manual term parameters which are multiplied together to
scheduling regime. For demonstration purposes, generate a capacity value for each major production
Kelvin’s months 1 and 2 blast block production equipment item and placed to the model are listed in
availabilities for selected stopes are presented in Table 3. Table 4. It should be noted that in some shifts, machines
As shown, the initial 7000 t at 2?3% copper from stope are taken out of service according to Kelvin’s weekly
R359 (the first stope in Table 2) for month 1 produced preventative maintenance regime as well as carrying out
other non-core clean-up work that needs to take place to
Table 1 Ore movements required for ore from each stope ensure continued operational efficiency. For time
to reach crusher periods such as this, machine capacities are set to zero
and are not assigned to an ore movement.
Machine Cycle
Stope Ore movement type distance, m The haulage shaft is another vital piece of infrastruc-
ture and during full operational mode has a 12 000 t
R359 1. R359–R5OP LHD 240 capacity per shift. It is also routinely removed from
2. R5OP–S6OP–crusher LHD 320 service for two half shifts every week (two shifts out of
S465 1. S465–S6OP–crusher LHD 400 every 14 shifts) for preventative maintenance purposes. It
T161 1. T16–S6OP–crusher LHD 140
should be noted that all other equipment and shaft
T358 1. T358–T5OP LHD 360
2. T5OP–S6OP–crusher LHD 360 outages while expected to a certain extent to occur are to
S235 1. S235–S3OP–crusher LHD 180
S634 1. S634–S3OP–crusher LHD 480 Table 2 Long term monthly stope production scheduling
B453 1. B453–B4OP LHD 620 results for Kelvin operation for months 1 and 2
2. B4OP–G4OP–crusher LHD 280
C263 1. C263–C6OP LHD 120 Month 1 Month 2
2. C6OP–G4OP–crusher LHD 460
D657 1. D657–E5OP LHD 180 Stope Tonnes, t Grade, %Cu Tonnes, t Grade, %Cu
2. E5OP–G4OP–crusher LHD 310
F249 1. F249–G4OP–crusher LHD 320 R359 7000 2.3 17 000 2.4
F267 1. F267–F6OP LHD 260 S465 22 000 2.8 40 000 2.4
2. F6OP–F5OP–crusher LHD 440 T161 49 000 2.6 55 000 2.1
G753 1. G753–I4OP LHD 420 T358 52 000 2.2 31 000 2.5
2. I4OP–G4OP–crusher LHD 330 S235 24 000 2.5 0
I168 1. I168–I6OP LHD 160 S634 31 000 2.4 24 000 2.2
2. I6OP–H5OP–crusher LHD 490 B453 7000 2.2 15 000 2.5
K472 1. K472–K6OP LHD 280 C263 22 000 2.1 40 000 2.2
2. K6OP–load truck LHD 20 D657 49 000 2.9 55 000 2.3
3. Haul route–crusher Truck 4800 F249 52 000 2.1 3100 1.7
L252 1. L252–K5OP LHD 380 F267 43 000 2.1 34 000 1.7
2. K5OP–load truck LHD 20 G753 34 000 2.5 28 000 1.7
3. Haul route–crusher Truck 4800 I168 28 000 2.3 15 000 2.3
M653 1. M653–M5OP LHD 500 K472 15 000 2.9 0
2. M5OP–load truck LHD 20 L252 0 5000 2.2
3. Haul route–crusher Truck 4800 M653 5000 2.4 18 000 2.4

Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4 217

Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming

do with unplanned issues. At these times, a dynamic short
term production scheduling and machine allocation tool
such as this would be able to quickly be rerun and
equipment rapidly reassigned in order to cause minimal
deviation from metal production targets both immedi-
ately and for the remaining scheduling horizon.
It is also important to consider in short term
scheduling and machine allocation the number of
simultaneously operating LHDs each ore movement is
able to physically contain. In most cases, the physical
limitations and rigidness of the haul route itself is able to
reasonably support only a single LHD operating at full
speed and capacity. This is also true across all Kelvin’s
ore movements. Multiple trucks, however, are able to
simultaneously operate on the haul route.
Each ore movement’s ability to share an LHD unit
with another ore movement is another important
consideration. This becomes ideal when ore movements
are located in close proximity to each other with ore
from the shared ore movements possibly being directed
into the same ore pass, or where ore that requires
rehandling is tipped into an ore pass and again moved
from the base of the ore pass by the same LHD. The
Kelvin ore flow network allows LHD sharing between
all flow-on ore movements from primary to secondary,
as well as sharing between all secondary ore movements.
It should also be noted that primary blast block ore
movements within the same stope can share LHDs with
preceding and proceeding blast blocks to ensure a
smooth transition between such ore movements in any
given time period.
The maximum number of tasks or ore movements
that each LHD is allowed to operate in during any given
shift has also been limited to 2. Finally, a metal
production target of 180 t of copper per shift over all
120 shifts has been defined as an appropriate target
reflecting Kelvin’s operational objectives.
Model implementation
Having determined all main operating parameters for
the Kelvin operation, the model was constructed using a
mathematical programming language. All data were
appropriately formatted and placed to the dynamic
short term production scheduling and machine alloca-
tion model for evaluation. The optimal solution was
found using CPLEX 10?3 and yielded an objective of
1489 t which was reached in less than 1 min on a
standard office PC. This equates to an average deviation
of 12?4 t or 6?5% from the 180 t target being achieved
per shift over the entire 120 shift period. Task assign-
ments for the first 10 intervals across all relevant
primary and secondary ore movements for all machines
and their respective ore movement tonnages as well as
the resulting metal tonnes and deviation are shown in
Table 5. The footnote shown beneath Table 5 indicates
the letters (a–h) associated with each individual equip-
ment item.
It is evident from these positive application results
that the short term dynamic production scheduling tool
is able to significantly aid the machine assignment
decision making processes. Any change to underground
operating conditions including machine or draw point
failures is able to be readily accounted for and within
minutes provide optimal machine reassignments so as to
minimise deviation from targeted metal production both
now as well as over the entire scheduling horizon. This is
a significant improvement on traditional manual sche-
duling techniques which are far more time consuming
with little, if any, guarantee of optimality.

Table 3 Selected blast block ore movement reserve and availability

Month 1 Month 2

Stope Blast block Tonnes, t Grade, %Cu Tonnes, t Grade, %Cu Shift availability

R359 7000 2.3 17 000 2.4

R359a 1000 2.4 1–20
R359b 5000 2.2 10–55
R359c 1000 2.7 6000 2.7 51–89
R359d 11 000 2.3 81–120
S465 22 000 2.8 40 000 2.4
S465d 18 000 2.9 1–53
S465e 4000 2.6 17 000 2.6 48–80
S465f 23 000 2.3 69–120
M653 5000 2.4 18 000 2.4
M653a 5000 2.4 2000 2.4 48–65
M653b 4000 2.2 62–80
M653c 12 000 2.6 75–120

Table 4 Individual machine capacities

Machine Bucket/tray capacity, t Average work speed, m h21 Time/shift, h Capacity, t m

LHDs CAT 1700 12.5 10 000 8 1 000 000

CAT 2900a 24 10 000 8 1 920 000
CAT 2900b 24 10 000 8 1 920 000
CAT 2900c 24 10 000 8 1 920 000
Toro 2500 25 10 000 8 2 000 000
Trucks AD30 30 12 000 8 2 880 000
AD45a 45 12 000 8 4 320 000
AD45b 45 12 000 8 4 320 000

218 Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4

 Table 5 Machine assignments for shifts 1–10 (tonnes/grade)*

Interval

Ore movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Primary b453aB4OP 2000 (d)/2.2

b453bB4OP 1238 (b)/2.1
c263cC6OP 3190 (b)/2.7 3800 (a)/2.7
d657eE5OP 221 (c)/2.9 2969 (d)/2.9 1327 (e)/2.9
f249gG4OPcr 10 (c)/2.2 6000 (d)/2.2
f267iF6OP 2742 (b)/2.1 10 (a)/2.1
g753jI4OP 3746 (d)/2.5 4751 (e)/2.5 4571 (c)/2.5
i168lI6OP 4081 (c)/2.3 3918 (c)/2.3
k472nK6OP 900 (e)/3.0 900 (d)/3.0 2400 (a)/3.0
s465dS6OPcr 1655 (a)/2.9 938 (d)/2.9 5000 (e)/2.9
t161gS6OPcr 6667 (c)/2.7
t358jT5OP 5333 (e)/1.7
Cu metal, t 180 180 180 180 148.2 180 145 180 172 162.1
Deviation, t 0 0 0 0 31.8 0 0 0 8.0 17.9
Secondary B4OPG4OPcr 2000 (c) 1238 (b)
C6OPG4OPcr 3190 (c) 3800 (e)
E5OPG4OPcr 221 (d) 2969 (c) 1327 (b)
F6OPF5OPcr 2742 (b) 10 (e)
Nehring et al.

I4OPG4OPcr 3746 (b) 4751 (c) 4571 (b)

I6OPH5OPcr 4081 (e) 3918 (d)
T5OPS6OPcr 5333 (d)
Load truck 900 (b) 900 (c) 2400 (b)
Haul crusher 900 (g) 900 (g) 600 (f)
900 (g)

Mining Technology
900 (h)
*(a): CAT 1700; (b): CAT 2900a; (c): CAT 2900b; (d): CAT 2900c; (e): Toro 2500; (f): AD30; (g): AD45a; (h) AD45b.

2010
VOL
119
NO
4
219
Underground mining using mathematical programming
Nehring et al. Underground mining using mathematical programming
Conclusions
This paper presents a new dynamic short term produc-
tion scheduling and machine allocation model using
MIP. The model is specifically designed for application
in sublevel stoping operations as it contains a number of
short term scheduling and machine allocation features
inherent to this mining method. The objective function
seeks to minimise deviation from targeted metal
production for each shift across the entire scheduling
period. Its dynamic nature allows rapid machine
reassignments to take place whenever changes to
underground operating conditions occur for both
immediate and short term optimal results.
The new model was implemented on a conceptual
sublevel stoping copper operation. A total of five LHD
units and three trucks were assigned to 50 primary blast
block ore movements and 10 secondary ore movements
over a 120 shift period. The optimal solution was found
using CPLEX 10?3 in less than 1 min and achieved an
average deviation of 12?4 t of copper metal or 6?5%
from the 180 t of copper metal target being achieved per
shift over the entire 120 shift period and represents a
vast improvement over current manual scheduling and
allocation practices.
Future improvements
At present, there is no capacity in the model for ore
inventory tracking to take place. Ideally such a process
could work well if it is brought about in unison with a real
time monitoring system whereby data are automatically
feed to short term scheduling and machine allocation tools
which continually update machine assignments in order to
optimise the objective over the scheduling period.
Both long term and the current short term scheduling
and machine allocation tools are separate programmes.
Results generated from long term scheduling would need
to be reformatted and placed to the short term model for
further evaluation. Integration between the two models
could significantly improve and speed up the overall
scheduling process by providing the option of complet-
ing the whole process in a single phase without
interruption. This would ideally be carried out through
a user friendly interface for data input.
220 Mining Technology 2010 VOL 119 NO 4
References
1. L. P. Trout: ‘Underground mine production scheduling using
mixed integer programming’, Proc. 25th Int. Symp. on ‘Application
of computers and operations research in the minerals industries’,
Brisbane, Australia, July 1995, The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, 395–400.
2. M. Nehring and E. Topal: ‘Production schedule optimisation in
underground hard rock mining using mixed integer programming’,
Proc. Project Evaluation Conf. 2007, Melbourne, Australia, June
2007, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 169–
175.
3. J. Little, M. Nehring and E. Topal: ‘A new mixed-integer
programming model for mine production scheduling optimisation
in sublevel stope mining’, Proc. 2008 Australian Mining
Technology Conf., Brisbane, Australia, September 2008, The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 157–172.
4. E. Topal: ‘Early start and late start algorithms to improve the
solution time for long term underground mine production
scheduling’, S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. J., 2008, 108, 101–107.
5. G. McIsaac: ‘Long-term planning of an underground mine using
mixed-integer linear programming’, Can. Inst. Min., 2008, 98,
(1089), 1–6.
6. M. Carlyle and B. C. Eaves: ‘Underground planning at stillwater
mining company’, Interfaces, 2001, 31, 50–60.
7. J. W. White, J. P. Olson and S. I. Vohnout: ‘On improving truck/
shovel productivity in open pit mines’, CIM Bull., 1993, (9), 43–49.
8. Y. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Q. Lu and W. Xu: ‘Optimisation model of
truck flow at open-pit mines and standards for flexibility test’,
J. Univ. Sci. Technol. Beijing, 2004, 11, (5), 389–393.
9. M. Osanloo and S. H. Saidy: ‘The possibility of using semi-
dispatching systems in Sarcheshmeh copper mine of Iran’, Proc.
28th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer applications in the minerals
industries’, Golden, CO, USA, October 1999, Colorado School of
Mines, 243–252.
10. C. H. Ta, J. V. Kresta, J. F. Forbes and H. J. Marquez: ‘A
stochastic optimisation approach to mine truck allocation’, Int. J.
Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ., 2005, 19, (3), 162–175.
11. M. Beaulieu and M. Gamache: ‘An enumeration algorithm for
solving the fleet management problem in underground mines’,
Comput. Oper. Res., 2006, 33, 1606–1624.
12. C. M. Tsomondo: ‘A flexible underground mining system with
active dispatching model – a solution for the next millennium’,
Proc. 28th Int. Symp. on ‘Computer applications in the minerals
industries’, Golden, CO, USA, October 1999, Colorado School of
Mines, 463–473.
13. P. Saayman, I. K. Craig and F. R. Camisani-Calzolari:
‘Optimisation of an autonomous vehicle dispatch system in an
underground mine’, S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. J., 2006, 106, 77–
86.
14. N. Runciman, N. Vagenas and T. Corkal: ‘Simulation of haulage
truck loading techniques in an underground mine using
WITNESS’, Simulation, 1997, 68, (5), 291–299.