Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Soft Computing Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Open pit mine production schedule optimization using a hybrid of

maximum-flow and genetic algorithms
∗
Amol Paithankar , Snehamoy Chatterjee
Geological & Mining Engineering & Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA

highlights

• A new production scheduling method for the open pit mine is presented.
• A hybrid method using maximum flow and genetic algorithm is presented to determine the optimal extraction sequence.
• The method can solve complex objective function without any initial solution and can be easily implemented under uncertainty scenarios.
• Algorithm is applicable on real scale mining deposits.
• The results shows that the proposed method yield good solutions.

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Production scheduling is a critical activity for the long-term production planning of open pit mining
Received 22 November 2018 operations. It deals with the effective management of resources and maximizes cash flows to generate
Received in revised form 23 April 2019 higher profits over the life of a mine. Production scheduling problems determine that blocks be mined
Accepted 17 May 2019
and processed over a number of periods subjected to mining and processing constraints, which makes
Available online 20 May 2019
the problem more complex. The complexity is further increased due to the uncertainty in the input
Keywords: parameters. In this study, the maximum flow algorithm with a genetic algorithm is used to generate
Combinatorial optimization the long-term production schedule. The graph structure for maximum flow is created for multiple
Production scheduling periods under uncertainty, and the flow in the arcs is controlled by a genetic algorithm to develop a
Maximum flow production schedule. Numerical results for realistic instances are provided to indicate the efficiency of
Genetic algorithm the solutions.
Uncertainty © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on the extraction sequence of the blocks, an approach based on

the application of mathematical models and modern computing
An open pit mine refers to the extraction of raw materials technology is used.
from the surface. For a mining industry, mineral deposits are To extract the minerals from the surface, the blocks have to
the main asset, and the size, shape, depth, and geology of the be mined and then processed in a plant to recover the metal,
economic ore reserves are estimated based on the findings of ex- known as mining and processing respectively. The blocks are
ploration drill-holes. Traditionally orebody model is represented divided into two subsets; ore blocks, which can be extracted
as a three-dimensional array of blocks, and these blocks are
and processed profitably, and waste blocks, which include all the
referred to as the mining units. The estimates of the mining
remaining blocks. The economic value for each block is calculated
attributes are stored in those blocks. The three-dimensional array
which represents the net profit associated with it. The production
of the orebody model is the input for production scheduling. For
an industry to run a successful business, the mining of blocks schedule problem identifies the set of blocks that should be
should be scheduled to complete a mining project in a timely, mined in each period of the life of the mine to maximize the
efficient and profitable manner. Production scheduling for an net present value of the mining operation. Decisions on block
open pit mine aims to generate the most profitable extraction scheduling are subjected to various constraints, typically:
sequence of the mineralized material from the surface while sat-
isfying physical and operational constraints. To make the decision • Reserve constraints: a block can be mined at most once
during the life of the mine.
∗ Correspondence to: 608 Dow Environmental Sciences, 1400 Townsend
• Slope constraints: to extract a specific block, all the blocks
Drive, Houghton, MI 49931, USA. overlying it, known as predecessors, have to be removed
E-mail address: apaithan@mtu.edu (A. Paithankar). beforehand.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105507
1568-4946/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

• Mining constraints: the total weight of the blocks (ore and To solve large instances of the production scheduling prob-
waste) mined during each period should be at least equal lem in a reasonable amount of time, heuristic and metaheuristic
to the minimum requirement and must not exceed the methods are used, though their use does not guarantee the opti-
equipment capacity, known as mining capacity. mality of the solution. To improve the efficiency and robustness
• Processing constraints: the total weight of ore blocks pro- of these methods, they are integrated with other techniques.
cessed during each period should be at least equal to the Various hybrid methods have been developed over the years.
minimum amount required to feed the processing plant and Denby and Schofield [24] applied a Genetic Algorithm (GA) to
must not exceed the processing plant capacity. It is assumed the production scheduling problem. The method is able to solve
that ore blocks extracted in a specific period are processed the ultimate pit and production scheduling problem but pro-
in that same period. duced good results only for a small block model. Sevim and
• Metal production constraints: the amount of metal recov- Lei [25] created nested pits with maximum metal content and
ered from processed ore should not exceed the amount that employed dynamic programming to find a production schedule.
can be sold during a period and should not be less than a Kumral and Dowd [26] and Consuegra and Dimitrakopoulos [9]
minimum amount [1]. used simulated annealing (SA) to solve a similar problem. They
used a sub-optimal production schedule generated by conven-
We refer to reserve and slope constraints as physical constraints, tional methods and improved the solution using SA. To obtain
in this paper. Mining constraints, processing constraints and a sub-optimal solution, Kumral and Dowd [26] used lagrangian
metal production constraints are referred to as operational con- parameterization [27] and Consuegra and Dimitrakopoulos [9]
straints.
used a production sequence generated by Whittle software [28].
Production schedules are crucial for the mining industry as
Moreno et al. [29] introduced a method for solving the linear re-
they serve as a key factor in determining the financial return
laxation of the production scheduling problem, and consequently
on investments, which can be in the order of hundreds of mil-
applied LP-based heuristics to generate a feasible integer solution.
lions to billions of dollars. Finding the most profitable production
The method can solve only a single upper bound mining con-
schedule is a complex task.
straint or processing constraint while satisfying reserve and slope
Traditionally, a production schedule is developed using a de-
constraints. Bienstock and Zuckerberg [21] presented a method to
terministic model, where all the parameter values are precisely
solve the linear relaxed problem that can handle any number of
determined, but the presence of uncertainty leads to a misleading
constraints. Cullenbine et al. [30] used a sliding window heuristic
assessment of the deposit [1–5]. The complexity of production
to solve an integer programming formulation approximately. The
scheduling arises due to a large number of blocks, multiple con-
method can handle both lower and upper bound constraints but
straints, and uncertainty. Uncertainty in the production schedule
can tackle only instances up to 25,000 blocks and 15 periods.
is due to geological heterogeneity and commodity price volatility.
Chicoisne et al. [31] generated an initial feasible solution using
The mining industry is aware of risks and uncertainties, and
the method of Moreno et al. [29] followed by a heuristic step
solving these issues is attracting attention, as they are critical for
using a local search algorithm. The method can solve large in-
decision making and obtaining high productivity gains. To solve
stances, but cannot handle lower bound constraints. Lamghari
the production scheduling problem, a wide variety of approaches
have been proposed. A common practice in the mining indus- and Dimitrakopoulos [1] presented a diversified Tabu search ap-
try is to generate parametric pushbacks [6–12]. The parametric proach for the problem and used diversification strategies to
pushbacks do not consider operational constraints but serve only generate an initial solution, which was optimized by the Tabu
as a guide to create a production schedule. The pushbacks gen- search procedure under uncertainty. Lamghari et al. [22,32] pro-
erated do not take into account the time value of money and posed a metaheuristic method based on variable neighborhood
the revenue of a project can be significantly different from that descent (VND). The authors created the initial solution using dif-
found by existing procedures [13]. A review of different methods ferent heuristics, and improved the solution using VND. Shishvan
employed to solve mine planning and production scheduling and Sattarvand [33] and Gilani and Sattarvand [34] presented
issues since the 1960s is given by Newman et al. [14]. The solution a metaheuristic approximation approach based on ant colony
approach for the problem can be divided into exact, heuristic optimization (ACO). A sub-optimal mine schedule was generated
and metaheuristic methods, each with their own strengths and by traditional algorithms as an initial solution to assign the initial
weaknesses. pheromone variables and produce an optimal production sched-
Exact methods [15,16] are able to find optimal production ule. Liu and Kozan [35] proposed a graph-based algorithm in
schedules for small problems, but require prohibitive runtimes which an ultimate pit solution is obtained, and then a topological
to solve problems of realistic size. Exact methods are compu- sequence algorithm is used to develop the production sched-
tationally expensive due to the presence of a large number of ule. Jélvez et al. [36] used block aggregation and disaggregation
binary decision variables. To reduce the number of binary vari- heuristics in which at the initial stage the number of variables
ables, Ramazan and Dimitrakopoulos [17] and Leite and Dimi- is reduced using block aggregation and solved incrementally, and
trakopoulos [18] used a mixed integer formulation where only in the second stage solutions from the first stage are used to fix
the blocks with positive economic value are considered when variables in the original problem. Samavati et al. [37] strength-
creating binary variables. Another approach for handling a large ened the LP relaxation formulation by adding inequalities from
number of binary decision variables is block aggregation in which both precedence and knapsack constraints, and then used the
the blocks are divided into groups based on the structure of LP solution to generate effective weights to generate an optimal
the problem [19,20]. However, aggregation can compromise the production schedule. Most of the hybrid methods dependent on
validity and usefulness of the solution, as it causes a loss of an initial solution and the developed optimal production solution
profitability and may lead to infeasible solutions [19,21,22]. In an created are highly influenced by that initial solution.
integer programming formulation, Bley et al. [23] combined the A parametric application of maximum flow is well docu-
inequality constraints of the problem to eliminate the number mented and widely used in the mining industry [6–8,11,12,
of decision variables from the model before optimization. The 38–40]. A single multiplier λ is used to decrease the positive
results indicate that adding inequalities reduces the computation economic value of the blocks to generate a series of nested pits
time required for scheduling, but the experiments are based on within the ultimate pit to generate production pushbacks. The
instances containing hundreds of blocks and five or ten periods. drawback of this approach is the difference in the quantity of
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 3

material to be mined between the two successive pushbacks. optimization model, such as ore quantities, metal quantities, and
This difference happens due to the spatial distribution of grades, costs. The uncertainties in the attributes can be quantified using
which is not possible to control. The difference in the quantity of a set of joint scenarios Γ . The mathematical formulation (Eq. (1)
material to be mined can occur more than once. to Eq. (3)) presents the stochastic framework for the optimal
In this paper, a new hybrid method is presented to gen- ultimate pit problem under uncertainty [6–8]:
erate a production schedule for the deposit under uncertainty ∑∑
without any initial solution. The input for the method is the three- max vγ i xi (1)
dimensional array of blocks, economic parameters and technical γ ϵ Γ i∈N

parameters. The technical parameters refer to the lower and xi − xj <0, i ∈ N , j ∈ ξi (2)
upper bounds for the operational constraints. The parametric
xi ∈ {0, 1} , i ∈ N (3)
maximum-flow algorithm along with genetic algorithms are used
to generate the production schedule. As distinct from the exist- where, vγ i is the economic value associated with block i in the
ing parametric maximum flow application, in this novel hybrid uncertainty scenario γ , xi is a binary decision variable taking the
method, economic parameters and multipliers for the entire block value of 1 if the node i is in the closure and 0 otherwise, and ξi
array are used to create the graph structure for maximum flow. It is the set of predecessors to the node i, stating that block j ∈ ξi
should be noted that, in this novel hybrid method, the multipliers has to be extracted before extracting block i. N and Γ describe
are associated with all the blocks in the model irrespective of the the set of mining blocks and the set of uncertainty scenarios.
economic value of the block. A genetic algorithm is used to opti- The economic value for a mining block vγ i is affected by
mize the problem, which is solved in stages due to the presence of the presence of uncertainty. The generalized formulation for the
a large number of decision variables. This approach is based on re- economic value calculation where the uncertainty can be due to
ducing the size of the search space for individual design variables grade, tonnage, metal recovery and/or price is given as:
in each successive stage of the optimization process. El-Beltagy
vγ i =
[( ) ]
and Keane [41] compared the various optimization algorithms, Sγ − r gγ i yγ i − m − c Qγ i (4)
where the bump function [42], function on n-dimensional Eu- where, Sγ is the selling price in scenario γ , r is the selling cost or
clidean space which are both smooth and contains many peaks of marketing cost, gγ i is the grade of the block i in scenario γ , yγ i is
similar heights, is solved in stages, and concluded that the genetic the recovery of the block i in scenario γ , m is the mining cost, c is
algorithm showed superior performance. The most attractive fea- the processing cost, and Qγ i is the quantity of available material
ture of the genetic algorithm is that the optimization process in block i in scenario γ .
does not require any supplementary problem information [43]. However, the economic value of the block i can be adjusted
The genetic algorithm optimizes the multipliers by evaluating as:
the solutions obtained by parametric maximum flow. To evaluate
vγ i if vγ i > 0;
{
the solution, the problem is formulated as a Stochastic Integer vγ i = (5)
Program [1,44–46], where the objective is to maximize prof- −mQγ i if vγ i <0.
its while satisfying sets of physical and operational constraints. Block i with vγ i > 0 is identified as an ore block and block i
Introducing a multiplier for each block allows the quantity of with vγ i <0 is identified as a waste block.
material extracted to be controlled, which is not possible with
a single multiplier. Numerical results are presented to evaluate 2.1.1. The graph structure
the efficiency of the method with respect to upper bounds found The problem formulation (Eq. (1) to Eq. (3)) is presented as a
from optimal solutions to the problem’s linear relaxation. graph problem, and the optimal solution to this is obtained by
applying the maximum flow or minimum cut algorithm [47,48].
2. Open-pit mining production schedule The basic graph structure under uncertainty scenarios (Fig. 1)
consists of nodes representing mining block i under each uncer-
This section discusses a generalized open pit mining produc- tainty scenario γ and two additional nodes, the source node and
tion scheduling problem under uncertainty. Firstly, the graph sink node. For a block with vγ i > 0, the corresponding node
structure in a stochastic framework is discussed, followed by representing block i under uncertainty scenario γ is connected to
the stochastic integer programming formulation for the open the source node, otherwise, if vγ i <0 the node is connected to the
pit mine production scheduling problem. Then, our solution ap- sink node. The capacity of the arc connected to⏐ the⏐ source node is
proach using genetic algorithms is discussed. vγ i and for the node connected to the sink is ⏐vγ i ⏐. To ensure the
slope requirements are respected (Eq. (2)), infinite (∞) capacity
2.1. Maximum flow problem formulation arcs are connected from a node representing a mining block i
under each uncertainty scenario γ to the corresponding set of
The problem is formulated as a maximum flow problem in blocks in ξi . To ensure the optimal solution of the graph remains
which each block is represented as a node i, i ∈ N in the graph, on the same side of the cut over all scenarios Γ , an infinite (∞)
and the slope requirements for predecessor and successor blocks arc is connected among the nodes representing mining block i in
are represented by the arcs of A. A directed graph, G = (N , A) with all the uncertainty scenarios [6–8,11].
s and t being source and sink of G respectively, represents the The graph in Fig. 1 can be simplified (Fig. 2) by removing the
structure of the ultimate pit problem [47–49]. Maximum flow in bidirectional infinite (∞) arcs and representing the node for the
a directed graph G relates to finding the minimum cut separating mining block i over all uncertainty scenarios into a single node
s and t. The set of nodes that fall on the same side of cut as source [6–8,11]. The arc capacity for the nodes
{ connected to the source
}
s form a closure, and the capacity of maximum flow is equal to ∑Γ
are updated into the single node as v̂i = γ vγ i : vγ i > 0 and
the sum of nodes within the closure [6,47–49].
the arc capacity for the {nodes connected to the
} sink are updated
The maximum flow of a directed graph, defines the vertical ∑Γ
and horizontal extents of the economically mineable material into the single node as vi′′ = γ vγ i : vγ i <0 .
over the life of the mine, referred as the ultimate pit. For the Fig. 3 shows an example of a graph consisting of 15 blocks
stochastic framework, uncertainty attributes should be consid- and the corresponding maximum flow solution. The economic
ered. These attributes refer to the information of interest in the values of the blocks are indicated inside each block. The arcs
4 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

Fig. 1. The structure of a graph in a stochastic framework.

economic values have a connection from the source node to the

block nodes, and waste blocks with negative block economic val-
ues have a connection from the block to the sink node. There also
are ∞ capacity arcs, representing blocks extraction precedence or
slope requirements.

2.1.2. Problem formulation

The production schedule is developed to determine the ex-
traction sequence over a particular time horizon. To construct a
simplified graph of the form shown in Fig. 2 for a given produc-
tion scheduling problem, discounted block values are considered.
If t represents the period, then in Eq. (5), vγ i is replaced with vγ it .
If d represents the discount rate, the discounted { value of the
∑Γ
}
γ vγ i
mining block i over T periods is calculated as vγ it = (1+d)t
.
The{ capacities of} arcs connected to the source node are computed
v̂i
as v̂it = (1+d)t
, and the arc capacity of the nodes connected to
vi′′
{ }
the sink nodes is vit′′ = (1+d)t
.
The problem is formulated as an integer program with the
objective of maximizing profit while satisfying different sets of
physical and operational constraints [1,44,45,50]. The mathemat-
ical formulation used is:
max f (xit ) , xit ∈ {0, 1} (6)
t
∑
xit − xjτ <0, ∀t ; i ∈ N ; j ∈ ξi (7)
τ =1
T
∑
xit <1 (8)
t =1
∑
Gk < akγ i xit <Hk , ∀k ∈ K ; γ ∈ Γ (9)
i∈N

In Eq. (6), f (xit ) is the objective function calculating profit

Fig. 2. The structure of a simplified graph in a stochastic framework.
from the extraction sequence, Eq. (7) defines the slope constraints
to ensure that each block can be mined in period t only if its
predecessors have been mined before or during period t, Eq. (8)
are connected to the source and sink nodes, and absolute eco- defines the reserve constraints to ensure blocks cannot be ex-
nomic values define arc capacity. Ore blocks with positive block tracted more than once, and Eq. (9) represents the generalized
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 5

Fig. 3. Structure of the graph structure and the maximum flow solution.

formulation for operational constraints where the extractable population information in finding a search direction. GA is well
entities (i.e., ore availability, mine production, mill processing, documented in the literature [51–53]. GA typically requires prob-
mineral quality, etc.) lie within the predefined upper and lower lem states to be represented as a string called a chromosome.
limits. In Eq. (9), akγ i represents the extractable entity k in mining Chromosomes in the population evolve over successive genera-
block i under uncertainty scenario γ , Gk and Hk are the lower and tions using genetic operators called selection, crossover and mu-
upper limit respectively for the operational capacity of material k, tation. In this study, along with the genetic operators a parametric
and K represents the number of operational constraints. diversification strategy is used in which the entire chromosome is
In our novel hybrid method, a weight ŵit is assigned to all changed based on operational constraint violations. The fitness of
the arcs connected to the source node, and a weight wit′′ to all
a chromosome is evaluated using a function fitness (xit ). An indi-
the arcs connected to the sink node. These weights control the
rect chromosome representation [54–56] is used, where weights
flow capacity of the arcs and based on the defined weights, xit is
determined using maximum flow (for example refer to Fig. 5). The
ŵit and wit′′ represent the chromosome (w), and based on the
binary variable xit is 1 if the mining block i is within the pit and 0 chromosome (w ), maximum flow determines xit . The advantage
otherwise for the period t. The weights ŵit and wit′′ are bounded of the method is the simplicity of the chromosome and the
within [0, 1]. The stochastic framework used to solve the produc- genetic operators [57]. Maximum flow based on the stochastic
tion scheduling problem is shown in Fig. 4. To develop a realistic framework of (Fig. 4) computes xit on the basis of chromosome
production schedule, physical and operational constraints have to (w ) which satisfies the slope constraints (Eq. (7)). In period t,
be met, but the stochastic framework of Fig. 4 only accounts for if xi = 1, then to ensure that the reserve constraints (Eq. (8)) are
the physical constraints. To ensure the operational constraints are satisfied, for time periods from t + 1 to T , xi is set as zero. Thus,
followed, weights are optimized using a genetic algorithm (GA). the problem solved by GA maximizes the objective function and
Fig. 5 shows the impact of weights on the decision variable xit . satisfies the operational constraints (Eq. (9)).
The arcs are connected to the source and sink nodes, and arc Mine production scheduling problems are big and contain
capacity is the product of defined weights and absolute economic thousands to millions of mining blocks (N) to be scheduled for
values (wit ∗ vit ). In Fig. 5, two set of weights are used and the periods (T ) ranging from 5 to 30 or more. The integer formulation
corresponding maximum flow solution is reported. From Fig. 5, for the problem will contain (N ∗ T ) integer decision variables,
it can be observed that changing weights allows us to change which are computationally expensive.
the shape of the pit. The weights are optimized within the GA
Fig. 6 gives an example of a production scheduling problem
framework. A change in weights changes the shape of pit to
with 15 blocks, where the operational constraint is kept to extract
ensure that operational constraints are respected.
three blocks per period. The number of integer decision variables
2.2. Genetic algorithm (GA) for the mine production scheduling is 45 (15*3), and thus the number of weights (genes in a chromo-
problem some) is also 45. The weights using maximum flow determine xit
and the solution is evaluated. The weights for period 2 calculate
GAs are a class of evolutionary algorithm based on the prin- the pit size of period 1 and 2, and weights for period 3 calculate
ciples of natural evolution. GA is a population-based search algo- the pit size for period 1 to 3. As shown in Fig. 6, in the period 2
rithm and uses a structured but randomized approach to utilize solution, the solution of period 1 is respected, and in the period
6 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

Fig. 4. The stochastic framework used to solve the production schedule problem.

Fig. 5. Impact of weights on the maximum flow solution.

3 solution, both period 1 and 2 solutions are respected. Weights based on operational constraint violations. Parametric diversifi-
are optimized to generate an optimal solution. cation is used to change the parts of the chromosome, where the
In this study, a real-coded GA is used in which the variables operational constraints are violated, and is used to guide search.
are expressed as real numbers. Real-coded GA have proved their In general, it is not good practice to solve the entire problem
together as it is challenging to perform the suitable implemen-
efficiency [58] and are well suited for problems with a large
tation of GA for a complex problem. For a complex problem,
number of variables [59,60]. Godefroid and Khurshid [61,62] con-
a large number of offspring will be infeasible after any genetic
cluded that for very large problems an application of independent
operation [57]. The search space for the problem is very large,
heuristics for guiding a search can significantly outperform tra- but only a small portion of that is physically meaningful, and it
ditional random and systematic searches. Thus, along with the is not efficient to explore the entire search space. In this study,
crossover and mutation genetic operators, a parametric diversi- variable chromosome length GA using a multi-stage strategy is
fication strategy is used in which the chromosome is changed applied [63]. This reduces the size of the search space and gives
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 7

Fig. 6. Example of a production schedule problem with three production periods.

a direction to the search, which increases the likelihood of reach-

ing global optimal by gradually refining the search space. Thus,
the problem is divided into T stages based on the period. The
production scheduling problem is solved for a stage and the best
chromosome for a stage is used as the predecessor when solving
for the next stage. The chromosome for the previous stage is
added as a part while defining a chromosome for the next stage.
It should be noted that the chromosome from the previous stage
is just used to define new chromosomes, which are then allowed
to change based on the genetic operation. This allows us to keep
the number of generations and population size comparatively
small, relative to the sizes required while solving the problem as
a whole. For instance, Stage 1 solves for time period 1, Stage 2
solves for time period 1 and 2, Stage 3 solves for time period 1,
2 and 3, and so on until stage T, where period 1 to T is solved
(Fig. 7).

2.2.1. Initialization
A real-coded GA is used in which the variables are expressed
as real numbers. The population is usually randomly generated Fig. 7. Variable chromosome length GA using multi-stage strategy.
8 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

allowing us to create a wide range of possible solutions. In our the selected chromosome some genes are randomly changed
hybrid method, the problem is solved in stages, with the initial- based on a multiplier. Fig. 10 shows an example of the mutation
ization of a stage based on the solutions of previous stages. The operation using Eq. (11), where a new chromosome (z) is formed
initialization is randomly generated in the first stage of design. from an existing chromosome (w ) using a randomly generated
The optimal weights of this stage are transferred to the next stage multiplier (δ ).
that provides direction to the search. In this transition, random
weights are added as an extension to the optimal chromosome 2.2.4. Parametric diversification strategies
from the previous stage to generate the initial population of In addition to genetic operators, parametric diversification is
the next stage. For instance, in Stage 1, the initial population is introduced to increase the efficiency of GA and decrease compu-
generated randomly by assigning a random value between 0 and tational run time. In this step, the chromosome is changed based
1 to the chromosome (w ). In Stage 2, the chromosome (w ) is the on its deviation from the operational constraints. The deviation is
solution obtained in Stage 1 for period 1 and random values be- calculated as:
tween 0 and 1 are assigned to the next period. The chromosome
( )} )
∑ ∑ max 0,
{ (∑
i∈N akγ i xit − Hk
(w ) for the different stages is given in Fig. 8. While solving the ∆wt =
problem in stages, the solution obtained from the previous stage Hk
k∈K γ ∈Γ
is allowed to change based on the genetic operations. ( )} )
∑ ∑ max 0, Gk − i∈N akγ i xit
{ ( ∑
− (12)
2.2.2. Selection and crossover Gk
k∈K γ ∈Γ
GA uses a selection technique to select individuals from the
population into the mating pool. The individuals from the mating In period t, based on the chromosome, if the production sched-
pool are used to generate two new offspring using a crossover ule is over-producing, then ∆wt > 0. If the production schedule
operation. These offspring form the basis for the next generation. is under-producing, then ∆wt < 0. If there is no deviation
Roulette wheel selection [64] is used, where the probability is then ∆wt = 0. If the chromosome ŵt is the whole chromo-
assigned to each chromosome in a population based on the fitness some representing the arcs connected to the source nodes and
function value. The individuals with larger fitness values are chromosome wt′′ is the whole chromosome representing the arcs
assigned a higher probability. Then a random selection is made connected to the sink nodes in time t, the new chromosomes
similar to the roulette wheel and the individuals for mating are ŵt ,new and wt′′,new are calculated as follows:
selected. Roulette wheel selection is not the fastest computation-
⎨ŵt + εβ; if ∆wt < 0
⎧
ally, but it is used because of its ability to preserve diversity in the
population and its ability to work well with large size problems ŵt ,new = ŵt ; if ∆wt = 0 (13)
ŵt − εβ; if ∆wt > 0
⎩
[65,66].
A real-coded crossover operation is performed to generate
⎨wt − εβ; if ∆wt < 0
⎧ ′′
offspring from two parents [67,68]. For this crossover, a blend
crossover parameter (ω) is selected that extends on either side
wt′′,new = wt′′ ; if ∆wt = 0 (14)
wt + εβ; if ∆wt > 0
⎩ ′′
of the search interval. A random number α in that interval is
selected and crossover is performed based on the parameter where, ε is a multiplying factor to control the rate of diversifica-
( 2 If 2 the two2 )parents w =
1
interval
( 1 1 determined by the parents. tion and β is a random number between 0 and 1.
w1 , w2 , . . . , wN and w = w1 , w2 , . . .(, wN are used for
1
) 2
For example, assume the weights used in Fig. 11 are part of
crossover,
) then2 the two ( 2offspring wne
1
w = w1,ne
1
) w , w2,new , . . . ,
1
a population, and a chromosome is selected randomly. Fig. 11
wN1 ,new and wne w = w1,new , w 2
2,new , . . . , w 2
N ,new are computed shows the example of the Parametric Diversification operation
as: using Eqs. (12)–(14), where a chromosome (w ) using a randomly
generated multiplier (β ) gives a new chromosome (wnew ) based
wi1,new = αi wi1 + (1 − αi ) wi2 ; αi ∈ [−ω, (1 + ω)] ; ω ∈ [0, 1] ;
on the deviation from the targets (∆w ).
wi2,new = (1 − αi ) wi1 + αi wi2 ; αi ∈ [−ω, (1 + ω)] ; ω ∈ [0, 1] ;
(10) 2.2.5. Truncation procedure
To ensure the values of weights in a chromosome are within
For example, assume the weights used in Fig. 9 are part of the range of 0 to 1 after the crossover, mutation and parametric
a population and are the two chromosomes selected randomly diversification operations, the following truncation procedure is
for mating. Fig. 9 shows an example of a crossover operation applied to the chromosome variable wi :
using Eq. (10), where the two chromosomes (w 1 and w 2 ), using
⎨0; if wi <0
⎧
a randomly generated multiplier (α ), give two new chromo-
somes (wne
1
w and wnew ).
2
wi = wi ; if 0 < wi < 1 (15)
1; if wi >1
⎩
2.2.3. Mutation
A uniform mutation operation for the real-valued population 2.2.6. Constraint handling approach
is used for diversification [69,70]. This mutation generates a so- Constraint handling in optimization problems is a challenge.
lution within the vicinity of the original solution by adding or To obtain a feasible solution to the production scheduling prob-
subtracting small random variables. The small random variables lem, Eqs. (7)–(9) must be satisfied. The solution obtained by
are based on the mutation search interval, which is set as 0.1 maximum flow respects slope constraints (Eq. (7)) because of the
in this case. The variable wi is selected for mutation based on graph structure. The reserve constraints (Eq. (8)) are satisfied by
the probability of mutation and the new mutation value zi is removing blocks from the extraction sequence in future periods
computed as: if the block is scheduled to be extracted in period t. Thus, the
objective of the GA is to manipulate the chromosome to satisfy
zi = wi + (0.1 ∗ δ) ; δ ∈ [−1, 1] (11)
the operational constraints. For this study, the constrained prob-
For example, assume the weights used in Fig. 10 are part of lem is converted to an unconstrained problem using the exterior
a population, and a chromosome is selected randomly. Within penalty approach [71,72]. A penalty is added per unit violation of
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 9

Fig. 8. Chromosome representation for initializing a stage for production schedule.

Fig. 9. Example for the crossover operation.

Fig. 10. Example of the mutation operation.

operational constraints (Eq. (9)). The formulation of the problem the population. If the deviations in the operational constants are
is as follows: allowed, the penalties are p−K and p+K , indicating the penalty
coefficients corresponding to constraint k, which is the same as
fitness (xit ) = f (xit )
⎡ the objective function presented in the literature [1,50,73,74].
Γ ∑
T K
{ ( )}
1 ∑ ∑ ∑
− ⎣ p−K max 0, Gk − akγ i xit 2.2.7. Stopping criteria
Γ The genetic algorithm moves from one stage to another when
t =1 γ =1 k=1 i∈N

T Γ ∑
K
{ ( )}⎤ the fitness function value does not change for ñ iterations. The
∑ ∑ ∑ production scheduling problem is stopped when all stages are
+ p+K max 0, akγ i xit − Hk ⎦ (16)
solved, or if there is no change in the fitness function value
t =1 γ =1 k=1 i∈N
between the consecutive stages.
where, p−K is the penalty for lower limit violations and p+K is the
penalty for upper limit violations. In this problem, if deviations 2.2.8. Pseudocode
in the operational constraints are not allowed then the penalties In the following, the steps of our hybrid method for production
are set to ∞ so that the solution never becomes infeasible in scheduling are presented.
10 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

Fig. 11. Example for the parametric diversification operation.

Step 1: Set stage t = 1; while t ≤ T 3.1. Test instances from the actual mineral deposits
Step 2: Create a graph structure for stage t (Section 2.1)
Step 3: Initialize weights for the population (Section 2.2.1) and Two different sets of problems, P1 and P2, are used to com-
apply maximum flow to the graph structure in step 2 to get the plete the numerical experimentation. Each set includes three
solution (xit ). different problems based on real-life data. Problems in P1 are
Step 4: Calculate the fitness function value of the population from a copper deposit where blocks are of size 20 ×20 ×10 me-
using Eq. (16). ters and weigh 10,800 tons each. Problems in P2 are from a gold
Step 5: Perform Genetic Operations on randomly selected deposit where blocks are of size 15 ×15 ×10 meters and weigh
chromosomes 5625 tons each. The problem sets are associated with geological
uncertainty and 20 equiprobable scenarios representing the min-
5.1 Perform Crossover operation (Section 2.2.2)
eral deposit are used for developing a production schedule. For
5.2 Perform Mutation operation (Section 2.2.3)
both the copper and gold deposit, 20 equiprobable scenarios for
5.3 Perform Parametric Diversification (Section 2.2.4)
the mineral deposit were generated using the drilling informa-
5.4 Use Truncation to keep the weights between 0 and 1 (Sec-
tion and the geostatistical techniques of conditional simulation
tion 2.2.6)
[75,76]. Table 1 reports the problem sets.
5.5 Use the weights after genetic operations and apply max-
The initial population for all instances is selected such that
imum flow to the graph structure in step 2 to get the
increasing the population does not have any impact on the so-
solution (xit ).
lution. The initial population for all problems is set as 100. The
5.6 Calculate the fitness function value of the population using
parameter settings used in GA for the study in all instances are
Eq. (16).
set as crossover probability (pc ) = 0.8, blend crossover parame-
5.7 Add the genetically modified chromosome to the initial
ter (ω) = 0.5, mutation probability (pm ) = 0.01, probability for
population (Step 3) and select the best fit chromosomes
parametric diversification (pd ) = 0.2, and multiplying factor to
such that the selected chromosomes are equal to the pop-
ulation size. control the rate of diversification (ε ) = 1.
5.8 Continue the steps 5.1 to 5.7 until the stopping criteria is For each deposit, a finite set of equiprobable scenarios is con-
met (Section 2.2.7). sidered, where each scenario specifies the available metal content
in each block. For the set of problems, the mine capacity is fixed
Step 6: t = t + 1 and deviations are not allowed. For the processing constraints and
metal production constraints, the deviations from the targets are
3. Numerical results allowed by penalizing the shortage and surplus of material. Please
refer to [1] for a detailed problem formulation and reasoning for
The method described in this paper and all the numerical economic parameters. The economic parameters used to compute
experiments are performed using MATLAB. The method is tested the objective function coefficients are shown in Table 2.
with the instances generated from actual mineral deposits and The fitness function for the problem is as follows:
the benchmark instances from the literature. The actual mineral ⎧
Γ ∑
T N
⎫
deposits used for the study are associated with geological uncer- 1
⎨∑ ∑ ⎬
fitness (xit ) = vit xit
tainty and the average gap from the upper bound Linear Relaxed Γ ⎩
γ =1 t =1 i=1
⎭
solution is calculated. The benchmark instances lack uncertainty, ⎡
and the instances are used to compare the average gap from the Γ
T K
{ ( )}
1 ∑∑∑ ∑
upper bound Linear Relaxed solution presented in the literature. − ⎣ p−K max 0, Gk − akγ i xit
In this section, firstly, the instances and constraints used for Γ
t =1 γ =1 k=1 i∈N
the study are introduced before reporting the results. This is )}⎤
Γ ∑
T K
{ (
followed by sensitivity analysis of various parameters used in the ∑ ∑ ∑
+ p+K max 0, akγ i xit − Hk ⎦ (17)
study, and a discussion on the importance of having weight in
t =1 γ =1 k=1 i∈N
both source and sink nodes and of solving the problem in stages.
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 11

Table 1
Characteristics of the problem sets.
Set Problem # blocks (N) # periods (T ) # precedence # Scenarios (Γ ) Capacity Capacity Capacity
constraint constraints constraints
(mine) (processing) (metal)
per period per period per period
C1 4,273 3 13,920 20 ≤19.23 M ≤5.26 M ≤33,526
≥ 6.43 M ≥ 37,055
P1
Metal: Copper C2 7,141 4 24,392 20 ≤24.11 M ≤5.52 M ≤32,270
(in tons) ≥ 6.74 M ≥ 39,441
C3 12,627 7 44,664 20 ≤24.35 M ≤4.57 M ≤26,041
≥ 5.59 M ≥ 31,828
G1 18,821 7 68,096 20 ≤27.53 M ≤5.08 M ≤6.67 M
P2
≥ 6.21 M ≥ 8.15 M
Metal: Gold G2 23,901 8 87,160 20 ≤24.97 M ≤4.27 M ≤5.63 M
(in grams) ≥ 5.22 M ≥ 6.88 M
G3 30,013 9 110,160 20 ≤27.44 M ≤4.25 M ≤5.62 M
≥ 5.20 M ≥ 6.88 M

Table 2
Economic parameters used to compute the objective function coefficients.
Parameters P1 P2
Mining Cost $ 1/t $ 1/t
Processing Cost $ 9/t $ 15/t
Metal Price $ 4409.24/t $ 28.94/g
Selling Price $ 661.39/t $ 0.23/g
Penalty coefficient for shortage cost of ore (p−K ) $15/t $ 17/t
Penalty coefficient for the surplus cost of ore (p+K ) $ 15/t $ 17/t
Penalty coefficient for shortage cost of metal (p−K ) $ 440/t $ 2.89/g
Penalty coefficient for the surplus cost of metal (p+K ) $ 220/t $ 1.45/g
Discount rate 10% 10%
Penalty discount rate 10% 10%

Table 3 it over-produces during the middle periods and under-produces

Gap for the test instances from the actual mineral deposits. during the later periods (Fig. 12B). Since the method uses max-
Problem Av erage Gap (%) Min Gap (%) Max Gap (%) Standard dev iation (%) imum flow, it focuses on extracting the blocks with higher eco-
C1 1.89 0.91 2.76 0.93 nomic value in the initial periods. Also, as the penalty for metal
C2 1.69 1.25 2.56 0.75 production deviation is higher than those for processing capacity
C3 1.77 1.24 2.68 0.79
G1 0.93 0.39 1.87 0.82
deviation, the quantity of ore required to reach the metal targets
G2 2.21 1.71 2.67 0.48 is less in the initial periods. As time progresses, the method fo-
G3 3.68 3.68 4.02 0.20 cuses on the lower economic value blocks. Thus, the ore required
to meet the metal targets is higher. From Fig. 12C, it can be seen
that since p+K is set as ∞ for the mining capacity constraint, there
is no deviation from the targets.
p+K is set as ∞ for the mining capacity constraint. The penal-
In problem C3, deviations resulting in over and
ties p−K and p+K indicate the penalty coefficients corresponding
under-production of metal is highly penalized compared to pro-
to constraint k in case of under and over-production respectively
cessing capacity deviations, hence there is over-production of
for ore and metal (Table 2).
ore between period 3 and period 5, whereas metal production
The linear relaxed optimal solution for the problem is calcu-
remains on the higher side. However, when the penalty for
lated using Version 12.6 of the commercial solver CPLEX. Since
over and under-production of ore is highly penalized compared
the proposed method includes random choices, each instance is
solved five times. The average gap for the solution is the relative to the metal deviations, the solution changes and the model
gap between the average values of the five solutions generated will prioritize keeping the ore production deviation within the
(Zav erage ) and the optimal values of the linear relaxation (ZLR ), bounds. Fig. 13 shows the results of a production schedule with
calculated as: a higher penalty for processing capacity constraints, which is set
as $1000/t of deviation.
ZLR − Zav erage
% Av g Gap = × 100 (18)
ZLR 3.2. Benchmark instances: MineLib test instances
From the results (see Table 3), it can be seen that the average
gap in all cases is less than 4% and the standard deviation in all The dataset on which the proposed method is tested consists
problems is less than 1%. of instances from MineLib. These instances are publicly available
To show the effect of various constraints on the production open pit mining problems [77]. Espinoza et al. [77] refer to the
schedule under uncertainty, for all the scenarios in the prob- open-pit mine production scheduling problem as the constrained
lem C3, the metal production, ore production and total mining pit limit problem (CPIT). For this study, eight instances are used to
production are presented in Figs. 12 and 13. test our method. The available instances are deterministic (Γ =
It can be seen that metal production in the initial periods 1) in nature, i.e., there are no uncertainties in the model. Table 4
is towards the upper bound of the metal targets and it under- reports the characteristics of these instances.
produces in the later periods (Fig. 12A). Whereas the ore pro- The initial population for all instances is selected such that in-
cessed is less than the processing target in the initial period, creasing the population does not have any impact on the solution.
12 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

Fig. 12. Results of Production schedule problem C3.

Fig. 13. Results of Production schedule problem C3, with higher penalty for processing capacity deviations.

Thus the initial population for all the instances is set as 100, ex- variable neighborhood descent (SH-VND) to obtain the solution.
cept for larger instances (W23, Sm2 and Mclaughlin limit) where Liu and Kozan [35] solved the same problem using the graph-
the initial population is set as 200. It was observed for the larger based algorithm (CPIT Algorithm 2) based on network flow and
instances that when the population size is increased from 100 to conjugate graph theory. The authors first used maximum flow to
200, a noticeable improvement in solution quality was achieved;
calculate the ultimate pit and within the ultimate pit used topo-
however, no further improvement was observed when the pop-
logical sequencing based on conjugate graph theory to generate
ulation size was increased beyond 200. The parameter settings
used in GA for the study in all instances are as follows: crossover a production schedule.
probability (pc ) = 0.8; blend crossover parameter (ω) = 0.5; Since the proposed method includes random choices, the
mutation probability (pm ) = 0.01; probability for parametric problem is solved five times, and the average gap is calculated
diversification (pd ) = 0.2; and multiplying factor to control the using Eq. (18). The average gap in our method is compared with
rate of diversification (ε ) = 1. the Best Known Gap from the LP relaxation found using a modified
The objective function and the fitness function for the in- TopoSort method, the average gap from the SH-VND method and
stances are as follows: the gap from the CPIT Algorithm 2. The standard deviation of the
T N
∑ ∑ gap of the hybrid method is presented later in the paper.
max f (xit ) = vit xit ; (19) The data in Table 5 are promising as the results are improved
t =1 i=1
[ T K for 3 out of 8 instances when compared to the results from
T N
∑ ∑ ∑∑ minelib and CPIT Algorithm 2. Lamghari et al. [22] did not solve
fitness (xit ) = vit xit − p+K
the instance KD and Mclaughlin limited in their research and the
t =1 i=1 t =1 k=1
{ ( )}] results are improved for 3 out of 6 instances when compared to
∑ the SH-VND method.
× max 0, akγ i xit − Hk (20)
From the results, it can be noticed that the proposed hybrid
i∈N
method and SH-VND performed better than the LR + Modified
As deviations from the target are not allowed, p+K is set as ∞.
TopoSort for the same instances and vice-versa. This is because in
The optimal values for the linear relaxed problem and the
the proposed method, the initial solutions for SH-VND are based
Best Known Gap are not calculated but taken from [77]. The
authors reported that the best-known integer solution is obtained on the economic values of the blocks, whereas in the LR + Modified
by solving the LP relaxation using a modified TopoSort method. TopoSort method [31], a rounding heuristic based on topological
Lamghari et al. [22] used the same datasets to develop a produc- sorting is used on a linear relaxed solution to get an integer
tion schedule. The authors used sequential heuristics along with solution.
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 13

Table 4
Characteristics of the MineLib instances.
Instance Metal Type # blocks (N) # periods (T ) # precedence Discount rate Capacity Capacity
(d) constraints constraints
(mine) (processing)
Newman1 Unknown 1,060 6 3,922 8% ≤2M/period ≤1.1M/period
Zuck small Unknown 9,400 20 145,640 10% ≤60M/period ≤20M/period
KD Copper 14,153 12 219,778 15% unlimited ≤10M/period
P4HD Gold and 40,947 10 738,609 15% ≤52.5M/period ≤12.5M/period
copper
Marvin Unknown 53,271 20 650,631 10% ≤60M/period ≤20M/period
W23 Unknown 74,260 12 764,786 10% ≤68M/period ≤3.61M/period
(sulfide mill)
≤1M/period
(oxide mill)
Sm2 Unknown 99,014 30 96642 10% Variable/period Variable/period
Mclaughlin Gold 112,687 15 3,035,483 15% unlimited ≤3.3M/period
limit

Table 5
Comparing the results with the MineLib results, SH-VND and CPIT Algorithm 2.
Instance # blocks (N) # periods (T ) Maximum flow + GA LR + Modified TopoSorta SH-VNDb CPIT Algorithm 2c
Av g Gap (%) Min Gap (%) Max Gap (%) Best Known Gap (%) Av g Gap (%) Gap (%)
Newman1 1,060 6 1.81 1.47 2.02 4.10 1.68 1.38
Zuck small 9,400 20 2.33 1.92 2.63 7.70 1.80 2.98
KD 14,153 12 3.86 3.39 4.54 3.10 NA 2.28
P4HD 40,947 10 2.82 2.68 2.89 0.50 6.61 0.08
Marvin 53,271 20 1.57 1.51 1.68 5.00 1.87 1.66
W23 74,260 12 4.94 4.79 5.07 2.10 9.96 0.19
Sm2 99,014 30 9.65 9.18 10.27 0.20 5.85 0.10
Mclaughlin limit 112,687 15 5.83 5.28 6.50 0.50 NA 9.04
a
Espinoza et al. [77].
b
Lamghari et al. [22].
c
Liu and Kozan [35].

3.3. Sensitivity analysis with GA parameters to the best-known solution. The problem is solved using the
initial population of 100 and blend crossover parameter of 0.5.
The following section describes the sensitivity of the solution Crossover probability, mutation probability and probability for
to variations in its parameters. The objective of the study is parametric diversification are varied.
to view the effect of different parameters on the production To study the effect of crossover probability (pc ) on perfor-
schedule. mance, we fixed the mutation probability (pm ) as 0.01 and prob-
ability for parametric diversification (pd ) as 0.2 (see Table 7).
3.3.1. Population size A low crossover probability refers to low exploration rate of
Population size is one of the major parameters of the ge- the search space and the new structures are introduced slowly
netic algorithm. Different population sizes are considered to view into the population. However, with a very high crossover prob-
the effect of population on the production schedule. The initial ability important individuals who have higher fitness values can
population is considered at 25, 50, 75 and 100. Since for larger be lost [78,79].
instances the initial population is set as 200, hence they are not To study the effect of mutation probability (pm ) on the per-
used to perform the sensitivity analysis. The parameter settings formance, we fixed the crossover probability (pm ) as 0.8 and
probability for parametric diversification (pd ) as 0.2 (see Table 8).
used in GA for the study in all instances are set as crossover
As the mutation probability increases, the search becomes
probability (pc ) = 0.8, blend crossover parameter (ω) = 0.5,
random and changes occur more often, whereas at low mutation
mutation probability (pm ) = 0.01, probability for parametric
probability the changes are comparatively smoother [78,79]. If
diversification (pd ) = 0.2, and multiplying factor to control the
the mutation probability is too low there are not enough changes
rate of diversification (ε ) = 1.
to improve the solution.
From the results in Table 6, it can be seen that as the pop-
To study the effect of probability for parametric diversification
ulation size increases, the results become more stable and the
(pd )on the performance, we fixed the crossover probability (pm )
gap from the optimal solution decreases as well. With the larger as 0.8 and mutation probability (pm ) as 0.01 (see Table 9).
population, the gap from the optimal solution decreases but the As the probability for parametric diversification is high,
execution time increases. changes occur more often and eliminate high performing strings
before improvements can be made, whereas if the probability for
3.3.2. The rate of crossover, mutation and parametric diversification parametric diversification is low, changes occur less often and are
In this section, the effect of variation of crossover, mutation not enough to improve the solution.
and parametric diversification rates on the objective function is
studied. The instances P4HD and Marvin from the minelib datasets 3.4. Importance of weights in source and sink arcs
are used and compared [77]. The P4HD and Marvin instances are
selected because they are comparatively larger instances, with In the past, researchers have used a singular parametric func-
Marvin performing better and P4HD giving poor results compared tion for blocks with positive block economic value, i.e., the arcs
14 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

Table 6
Effect of population on the objective function.
Instance Population = 25 Population = 50 Population = 75 Population = 100
% Av g Standard % Av g Standard % Av g Standard % Av g Standard
Gap deviation (%) Gap deviation (%) Gap deviation (%) Gap deviation (%)
Newman1 3.63 0.192 2.54 0.591 2.11 0.358 1.81 0.245
Zuck small 7.63 4.136 6.07 1.373 2.47 0.090 2.33 0.28
KD 11.4 3.744 5.95 4.148 4.29 1.078 3.86 0.431
P4HD 3.09 0.163 2.94 0.077 2.88 0.077 2.82 0.086
Marvin 4.08 0.442 2.10 0.139 1.70 0.122 1.57 0.075

Table 7
Effect of crossover probability on the objective function.
Instance Gap (%) with Gap (%) with Gap (%) with Gap (%) with Gap (%) with
pc = 0.2 pc = 0.4 pc = 0.6 pc = 0.8 pc = 1
p4hd 3.21 3.06 3.02 2.75 2.78
Marvin 2.93 2.45 1.82 1.52 1.68

Table 8
Effect of mutation probability on the objective function.
Instance Gap (%) with Gap (%) with Gap (%) with
pm = 0.001 pm = 0.01 pm = 0.1
p4hd 2.90 2.75 3.05
Marvin 1.86 1.52 2.02

Table 9
Effect of probability for parametric diversification objective function.
Instance Gap (%) with Gap (%) with Gap (%) with
pd = 0.1 pd = 0.2 pd = 0.3
p4hd 2.83 2.75 2.79
Marvin 1.90 1.52 1.81

connected to the source. This parameter allows generating a

series of nested pits within the ultimate pit [6–8,11,12]. The
drawback of pit parameterization methodologies is the difference
in the size and quantity of material to be mined between succes-
sive pushbacks, and this can occur more than once. The size and
quantity of material is determined by the spatial distribution of
grades of the material, which is not possible to control.
In this hybrid method, weights for both the source and sink arc
are considered to generate the production schedule. The weights
in the source and sink nodes allow the quantity of material
extracted in each period to be controlled. Two datasets are solved
to compare the effect of the method when the weights for the
source and sink nodes are considered and when just the weight
of the source node is considered. As mentioned in the previous
section, the instances P4HD and Marvin from the minelib datasets
are used and compared [77] (see Table 10).
The results show that incorporating the weight for the sink
node as a variable or a fixed value has an impact on the final Fig. 14. Fitness function value when the problem is solved in stages and when
solution. The effect of the weights is case-specific and depends solved together.
on the spatial distribution of the material.

3.5. Solving the entire problem together From Fig. 14, it can be seen that the net present value obtained
by solving all problems together is significantly lower than the
In the proposed hybrid method, the problem is solved in solution obtained by solving the problem in stages. The small
stages. The problems for all time periods can be solved together, changes made in the chromosome affects the entire solution
but solving all the periods adds more complexity. For the pro- and may lead to the exclusion of the fit chromosome from the
duction scheduling problem, the operational constraint has to population. By solving the problem in stages ensures that there
be satisfied for each period. If the weights change the sched- is a direction to the search and reach the global optimal solution.
ule in the initial periods, the entire solution is affected by the
change, and a small change can render the solution infeasible 4. Conclusion
[57]. The instances p4hd from the minelib dataset [77] are solved
for the production schedule together and presented in this sec- The production schedule for an open pit mining operation is
tion. Fig. 14 shows the fitness function value over the iterations essential for determining the return on investment. Production
until the stopping criteria are achieved. scheduling problems are difficult to solve as they have a large
 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507 15

Table 10
Sensitivity of the model to the weights in source and sink nodes.
Instances Gap (%) when weight for sink Gap (%) when weights for sink
nodes are considered as variable nodes are considered as 1
P4hd 2.97 10.50
Marvin 4.23 4.14

number of blocks (in the order of millions) and are subjected to [5] P.J. Ravenscroft, Risk analysis for mine scheduling by conditional
various types of constraints, especially slope constraints, bounds simulation, Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A. Min. Ind. 101 (1992).
of mining constraints and bounds of processing constraints. In [6] M.W.A. Asad, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Implementing a parametric maximum
flow algorithm for optimal open pit mine design under uncertain supply
this paper, a hybrid method using maximum flow and a genetic and demand, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 64 (2) (2013) 185–197, http://dx.doi.org/10.
algorithm based on linear programming to solve the real-world 1057/jors.2012.26.
open pit mine production scheduling under uncertain scenarios is [7] M.W.A. Asad, R. Dimitrakopoulos, J.v. Eldert, Stochastic production phase
presented. The method does not depend on an initial solution and design for an open pit mining complex with multiple processing streams,
generates the production schedule without any initial assump- Eng. Optim. 46 (8) (2014) 1139–1152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305215x.
2013.819094.
tions. In this hybrid method, a genetic algorithm is used to control
[8] S. Chatterjee, M.R. Sethi, M.W.A. Asad, Production phase and ultimate pit
the flow in the arcs to the maximum flow algorithm to generate limit design under commodity price uncertainty, European J. Oper. Res.
an optimal production schedule. 248 (2) (2016) 658–667, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.012.
The performance of the method is assessed by comparing it [9] F.R.A. Consuegra, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Stochastic mine design optimisation
to the recent solution methods proposed in the literature (for based on simulated annealing: pit limits, production schedules, multiple
orebody scenarios and sensitivity analysis, Mining Technol. 118 (2) (2009)
deterministic problems) and using the upper bound solution pro- 79–90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/037178409X12541250836860.
vided by CPLEX (for stochastic problems). The results indicate [10] J. Gholamnejad, M. Osanloo, Incorporation of ore grade uncertainty into
that the solution obtained is robust and the average gap gen- the push back design process, J, South African Inst. Min. Metall. 107 (3)
erated from the upper bound solution is less than 6% in all the (2007) 177.
cases except for one. The evaluation of the proposed method on [11] C. Meagher, S.A. Abdel Sabour, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Pushback design of
open pit mines under geological and market uncertainties, in: Paper
a few deterministic instances (for an example, instances Sm2)
Presented at the of the International Symposium on Orebody Modeling
shows that the proposed method is not performing as well as and Strategic Mine Planning, Old and New Dimensions in Changing World,
some existing methods, which might be due to the following 2009.
reasons. Since the proposed method is based on the maximum [12] J. Whittle, Beyond optimization in open pit design, in: Paper presented
flow algorithm, thus it focuses on extracting more quantities of at the of Canadian Conference on Computer Applications in the Mineral
Industries, 1988.
ore and less quantities of waste at the initial periods, which leads
[13] K. Dagdelen, Open pit optimization-strategies for improving economics of
to extraction of less waste in the initial periods and more waste mining projects through mine planning, in: Paper Presented at the of 17th
in the later periods, affecting the entire solution. Performance of International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey, 2001.
the method is affected, as there is no lower bound constraints for [14] A.M. Newman, E. Rubio, R. Caro, A. Weintraub, K. Eurek, A review of
the deterministic problems, to pushes the method to extract more operations research in mine planning, Interfaces 40 (3) (2010) 222–245,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.1090.0492.
waste material during each period.
[15] L. Caccetta, S.P. Hill, An application of branch and cut to open pit mine
The interesting feature of the proposed solution method is scheduling, J. Global Optim. 27 (2) (2003) 349–365, http://dx.doi.org/10.
its flexibility. The method can be easily adapted to solve for 1023/A:1024835022186.
a deterministic model or any uncertainty modeling approaches [16] K. Dagdelen, T.B. Johnson, Optimum open pit mine production scheduling
and additional scheduling constraints. Future research will be by Lagrangian parameterization, in: Paper Presented at the Proc. of the
devoted to solving a more complex version of the problem with 19th APCOM, 1986.
[17] S. Ramazan, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Recent applications of operations research
other sources of uncertainty, additional operational constraints,
and efficient MIP formulations in open pit mining, in: Paper Presented at
multiple destinations, introducing stockpiles and cut-off grade the SME Transactions, 2004.
optimization. We are also interested in improving the perfor- [18] A. Leite, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Stochastic optimization of mine production
mance of the model by using different computer-programming scheduling with uncertain ore/metal/waste supply, Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol.
languages. 24 (6) (2014) 755–762, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.10.004.
[19] N. Boland, I. Dumitrescu, G. Froyland, A.M. Gleixner, LP-based disaggre-
gation approaches to solving the open pit mining production scheduling
Declaration of competing interest problem with block processing selectivity, Comput. Oper. Res. 36 (4) (2009)
1064–1089, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2007.12.006.
No author associated with this paper has disclosed any po- [20] S. Ramazan, The new fundamental tree algorithm for production schedul-
tential or pertinent conflicts which may be perceived to have ing of open pit mines, European J. Oper. Res. 177 (2) (2007) 1153–1166,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.12.035.
impending conflict with this work. For full disclosure statements
[21] D. Bienstock, M. Zuckerberg, Solving LP relaxations of large-scale prece-
refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105507. dence constrained problems, in: Paper Presented at the International
Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization,
References 2010.
[22] A. Lamghari, R. Dimitrakopoulos, .J.A. Ferland, A hybrid method based
[1] A. Lamghari, R. Dimitrakopoulos, A diversified Tabu search approach for on linear programming and variable neighborhood descent for scheduling
the open-pit mine production scheduling problem with metal uncertainty, production in open-pit mines, J. Global Optim. 63 (3) (2015) 555–582,
European J. Oper. Res. 222 (3) (2012) 642–652, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10898-014-0185-z.
j.ejor.2012.05.029. [23] A. Bley, N. Boland, C. Fricke, G. Froyland, A strengthened formulation
[2] R. Dimitrakopoulos, C.T. Farrelly, M. Godoy, Moving forward from tradi- and cutting planes for the open pit mine production scheduling problem,
tional optimization: grade uncertainty and risk effects in open-pit design, Comput. Oper. Res. 37 (9) (2010) 1641–1647, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Min. Technol. 111 (1) (2002) 82–88. cor.2009.12.008.
[3] P.A. Dowd, Risk assessment in reserve estimation and open-pit planning, [24] B. Denby, D. Schofield, Open-pit design and scheduling by use of genetic
Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A Min. Ind. 103 (1994). algorithms, Trans. Inst. Min Metall. A Min Ind 103 (1994).
[4] M. Godoy, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Managing risk and waste mining in [25] H. Sevim, D.D. Lei, The problem of production planning in open pit mines,
long-term production scheduling of open-pit mines, SME Trans. 316 (3) INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 36 (1–2) (1998) 1–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
(2004). 03155986.1998.11732339.
16 A. Paithankar and S. Chatterjee / Applied Soft Computing Journal 81 (2019) 105507

[26] M. Kumral, P.A. Dowd, A simulated annealing approach to mine production [54] J.F. Gonçalves, J.J.M. Mendes, M.G.C. Resende, A genetic algorithm for the
scheduling, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 56 (8) (2005) 922–930, http://dx.doi.org/10. resource constrained multi-project scheduling problem, European J. Oper.
1057/palgrave.jors.2601902. Res. 189 (3) (2008) 1171–1190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.06.
[27] K. Dagdelen, Optimum open pit mine production scheduling by Lagrangian 074.
parameterization, in: Paper Presented at the Proc. of the 19th APCOM, [55] R.H. Storer, S.D. Wu, R. Vaccari, New search spaces for sequencing prob-
1986. lems with application to job shop scheduling, Manage. Sci. 38 (10) (1992)
[28] J. Whittle, Four-x user manual, 1998. 1495–1509.
[29] E. Moreno, D. Espinoza, M. Goycoolea, Large-scale multi-period precedence [56] S. Uckun, S. Bagchi, K. Kawamura, Y. Miyabe, Managing genetic search in
constrained knapsack problem: A mining application, Electron. Notes job shop scheduling, IEEE Expert 8 (5) (1993) 15–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.
Discrete Math. 36 (2010) 407–414, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endm.2010. 1109/64.236477.
05.052. [57] M. Gen, R. Cheng, S.S. Oren, Network design techniques using adapted
[30] C. Cullenbine, R.K. Wood, A. Newman, A sliding time window heuristic genetic algorithms, Adv. Eng. Softw. 32 (9) (2001) 731–744, http://dx.doi.
for open pit mine block sequencing, Optim. Lett. 5 (3) (2011) 365–377, org/10.1016/S0965-9978(01)00007-2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11590-011-0306-2. [58] K. Deb, An efficient constraint handling method for genetic algorithms,
[31] R. Chicoisne, D. Espinoza, M. Goycoolea, E. Moreno, E. Rubio, A new Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 186 (2) (2000) 311–338, http://dx.
algorithm for the open-pit mine production scheduling problem, Oper. Res. doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(99)00389-8.
60 (3) (2012) 517–528. [59] J.V. Leite, S.L. Avila, N.J. Batistela, W.P. Carpes, N. Sadowski, P. Kuo-
[32] A. Lamghari, R. Dimitrakopoulos, J.A. Ferland, A variable neighbourhood Peng, J.P.A. Bastos, Real coded genetic algorithm for Jiles-Atherton model
descent algorithm for the open-pit mine production scheduling problem parameters identification, IEEE Trans. Magn. 40 (2) (2004) 888–891, http:
with metal uncertainty, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 65 (9) (2014) 1305–1314, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.2004.825319.
//dx.doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.81. [60] P. Subbaraj, R. Rengaraj, S. Salivahanan, Enhancement of self-adaptive
[33] M.S. Shishvan, J. Sattarvand, Long term production planning of open pit real-coded genetic algorithm using taguchi method for economic dispatch
mines by ant colony optimization, European J. Oper. Res. 240 (3) (2015) problem, Appl. Soft Comput. 11 (1) (2011) 83–92, http://dx.doi.org/10.
825–836, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.040. 1016/j.asoc.2009.10.019.
[34] S.-O. Gilani, J. Sattarvand, Integrating geological uncertainty in long-term [61] P. Godefroid, S. Khurshid, Exploring Very Large State Spaces using Genetic
open pit mine production planning by ant colony optimization, Comput. Algorithms, 2002.
Geosci. 87 (2016) 31–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.11.008. [62] P. Godefroid, S. Khurshid, Exploring very large state spaces using genetic
[35] S.Q. Liu, E. Kozan, New graph-based algorithms to efficiently solve large algorithms, Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 6 (2) (2004) 117–127.
scale open pit mining optimisation problems, Expert Syst. Appl. 43 (2016) [63] I.Y. Kim, O.L. de Weck, Variable chromosome length genetic algorithm for
59–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.08.044. progressive refinement in topology optimization, Struct. Multidiscip. Op-
[36] E. Jélvez, N. Morales, P. Nancel-Penard, J. Peypouquet, P. Reyes, Aggregation tim. 29 (6) (2005) 445–456, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00158-004-0498-
heuristic for the open-pit block scheduling problem, European J. Oper. Res. 5.
249 (3) (2016) 1169–1177, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.10.044. [64] T. Back, Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice: Evolution Strate-
[37] M. Samavati, D. Essam, M. Nehring, R. Sarker, A methodology for the gies, Evolutionary Programming, Genetic Algorithms, Oxford University
large-scale multi-period precedence-constrained knapsack problem: an Press, 1996.
application in the mining industry, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193 (2017) 12–20, [65] P. Fränti, J. Kivijärvi, T. Kaukoranta, O. Nevalainen, Genetic algorithms for
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.025. large-scale clustering problems, Comput. J. 40 (9) (1997) 547–554.
[38] F.D.M. Bongarcon, D. Guibal, Parameterization of optimal designs of an [66] N.M. Razali, J. Geraghty, Genetic Algorithm Performance with Different
open pit—Beginning of a new phase of research, Trans. SME AIME 274 Selection Strategies in Solving TSP, 2011.
(1984) 1801–1805. [67] L.J. Eshelman, J.D. Schaffer, Real-coded genetic algorithms and interval-
[39] F. Seymour, Pit limit parameterization from modified 3D Lerchs-Grossmann schemata, in: Foundations of Genetic Algorithms, vol. 2, Elsevier, 1993,
algorithm, in: Paper Presented at the of SME Annual Meeting, 1995. pp. 187–202.
[40] J. Whittle, A decade of open pit mine planning and optimization-the craft [68] F. Herrera, M. Lozano, A.M. Sánchez, Hybrid crossover operators for real-
of turning algorithms into packages, in: Paper Presented at the of the 28th coded genetic algorithms: an experimental study, Soft Comput. 9 (4)
International Symposium on Application of Computers and Operations (2005) 280–298, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00500-004-0380-9.
Research in the Mineral Industry, 1999. [69] H. Mühlenbein, D. Schlierkamp-Voosen, Predictive models for the breeder
[41] M.A. El-Beltagy, A.J. Keane, A comparison of various optimization algo- genetic algorithm i. Continuous parameter optimization, Evol. Comput. 1
rithms on a multilevel problem, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 12 (5) (1999) (1) (1993) 25–49.
639–654, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0952-1976(99)00033-0. [70] P.-H. Tang, M.-H. Tseng, Adaptive directed mutation for real-coded genetic
[42] A.J. Keane, Experiences with Optimizers in Structural Design, 1994. algorithms, Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (1) (2013) 600–614, http://dx.doi.org/
[43] F. Erbatur, O. Hasançebi, İ. Tütüncü, H. Kılıç, Optimal design of planar and 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.08.035.
space structures with genetic algorithms, Comput. Struct. 75 (2) (2000) [71] C.A.C. Coello, Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques
209–224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(99)00084-X. used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art,
[44] A. Khan, C. Niemann-Delius, Production scheduling of open pit mines using Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 191 (11) (2002) 1245–1287, http:
particle swarm optimization algorithm, Adv. Oper. Res. 2014 (9) (2014) //dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(01)00323-1.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/208502. [72] Ö. Yeniay, Penalty function methods for constrained optimization with
[45] M. Menabde, G. Froyland, P. Stone, G.A. Yeates, Mining schedule opti- genetic algorithms, Math. Comput. Appl. 10 (1) (2005) 45–56.
misation for conditionally simulated orebodies, in: Advances in Applied [73] R. Dimitrakopoulos, S. Ramazan, Stochastic integer programming for op-
Strategic Mine Planning, Springer, 2018, pp. 91–100. timising long term production schedules of open pit mines: methods,
[46] S. Ramazan, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Stochastic optimisation of long-term application and value of stochastic solutions, Min. Technol. 117 (4) (2008)
production scheduling for open pit mines with a new integer programming 155–160, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/174328609X417279.
formulation, in: Advances in Applied Strategic Mine Planning, Springer, [74] S. Ramazan, R. Dimitrakopoulos, Production scheduling with uncertain
2018, pp. 139–153. supply: a new solution to the open pit mining problem, Opt. Eng. 14 (2)
[47] D.S. Hochbaum, A. Chen, Performance analysis and best implementations (2013) 361–380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11081-012-9186-2.
of old and new algorithms for the open-pit mining problem, Oper. Res. 48 [75] J.-P. Chiles, P. Delfiner, Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty, vol.
(6) (2000) 894–914. 497, John Wiley & Sons., 2012.
[48] J.C. Picard, Maximal closure of a graph and applications to combinatorial [76] P. Goovaerts, Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation, Oxford
problems, Manage. Sci. 22 (11) (1976) 1268–1272. University Press, 1997.
[49] B. Tachefine, F. Soumis, Maximal closure on a graph with resource [77] D. Espinoza, M. Goycoolea, E. Moreno, A. Newman, MineLib: a library
constraints, Comput. Oper. Res. 24 (10) (1997) 981–990, http://dx.doi.org/ of open pit mining problems, Ann. Oper. Res. 206 (1) (2013) 93–114,
10.1016/S0305-0548(97)00008-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1258-3.
[78] G. Bakırlı, D. Birant, A. Kut, An incremental genetic algorithm for classifi-
[50] R. Dimitrakopoulos, Stochastic mine planning—Methods, examples and
cation and sensitivity analysis of its parameters, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (3)
value in an uncertain world, in: Advances in Applied Strategic Mine
(2011) 2609–2620, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.08.051.
Planning, Springer, 2018, pp. 101–115.
[79] S. Sundhararajan, A. Pahwa, Optimal selection of capacitors for radial
[51] B. Dengiz, F. Altiparmak, A.E. Smith, Local search genetic algorithm for
distribution systems using a genetic algorithm, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
optimal design of reliable networks, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1 (3) (1997)
9 (3) (1994) 1499–1507.
179–188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/4235.661548.
[52] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine
Learning, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
[53] M. Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press, 1998.