SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA

Preprint 12-142

OPTIMIZING THE NUMBER OF OPEN PIT MINE PUSH BACKS

M. Rezaee, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

M. Osanloo, Amirkabir Univ. of Tech., Tehran, Iran
R. Q. Honaker, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

ABSTRACT algorithms, the optimum number of open pit mine push backs is
determined by analytical and MADM methods. The results are then
Push backs used in the production planning of open pit mines evaluated in an iron open pit mine.
play an integral role in generating annual cash flow. Although several
algorithms for push back designs have been proposed, none have DISCUSSION OF SOME PUSH BACK DESIGN ALGORITHMS
studied the optimum number of push backs. In this paper, different
algorithms have been implemented for the push back design of a cross In this study, Ramazan-Dagdelen, Gershon, Whittle, and
section of a copper deposit and the results discussed. Moreover, the Gholamnejad-Osanloo algorithms are applied to push back design of a
optimum number of push backs has been determined using analytical copper deposit cross section. The 2D block model configuration
and multiple attribute decision making (MADM) methods based on containing the average grade and standard deviation of each block is
minimizing the risk associated with grade uncertainty, and minimizing depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The UPL, determined by LG
stripping ratio, while maximizing net present value (NPV). According to algorithm, is also shown in Figure 1.
the findings, the optimum number of push backs has been proposed to
be between three and six, as lower quantities of push backs are more
likely to achieve the calculated net present value, and have smoother
stripping ratios for different pushbacks. This approach was examined
in an operating mine and the optimum number of push backs
determined to be four.
INTRODUCTION
Open pit mining production planning is conducted based on push
back design. In other words, to reduce the planning problem size, defer
waste stripping, and maximize the net present value (NPV), the
ultimate pit limit (UPL) is broken into some smaller pits, called nested
pits or incremental pits. To make the nested pits more practical and Figure 1. Cross-section view of the copper deposit showing the
manageable, they are considered as mining constraints, such as average block grade (%).
required operating bench width, slope stability, ramp and hauling
accesses. These practical pits are known as push backs. Since long
term production planning is performed based on push back design,
optimum push back design has a significant role in determining annual
cash flow.
In order to maximize NPV, the best ore should be extracted in the
first push backs. The definition of the best ore has evolved with time.
Whittle used the definition of the best ore as the one with the highest
grade in his algorithm [1, 2]. Ramazan and Dagdelen defined the best
ore as the material that has the highest grade and the least amount of
waste stripping [3], while Gholamnejad and Osanloo defined it as
Material that has high grade, a low amount of uncertainty, and needs
a low waste stripping for extraction [4,5].
Figure 2. Cross-section view of the copper deposit showing the
2
Several algorithms have been suggested for push back design standard deviations (% ).
[6]. The methods applied in these algorithms are categorized as
heuristic or simulation, linear programming, Lagrangian Ramazan-Dagdelen algorithms concluded that the traditional
parameterization, or trial and error [7]. Most of these algorithms have push back design algorithms, like Whittle, does not always maximize
been discussed in Table 1 (see Appendix). With computerized the NPV of the mining projects, because they do not necessarily take
methods for mine sequencing, push backs are designed based on trial into account the waste stripping required to extract the highest grade
and error, and the optimum number of open pit mine push backs has ore. Therefore, they developed their algorithm based on minimizing the
not yet been studied. Optimization can save time and result in more stripping ratio criteria [3]. This algorithm utilizes dynamic programming,
efficient sequencing, which leads to optimal production scheduling and which is difficult to apply. The result of this algorithm is illustrated in
higher annual cash flow. Figure 3, with the stripping ratios rounded to one decimal placed.

In this study, based on the latest definition of the best ore, the
optimum number of push backs is the one that has the minimum risk
associated with grade uncertainty, the highest NPV, and the lowest
cumulative stripping ratio of push backs (CSRP), while satisfying
mining constraints such as minimum push back width, haul roads, and
geotechnical parameters[6]. After evaluating some push back design
The result shows that blocks with the same stripping ratio can be
categorized in different nested pits, but the stripping ratios of the
blocks in this cross section are descending. Therefore, the minimizing
stripping ratio algorithm is not applicable to push back design of this
cross section. For this mine, earlier exploitation of the upper blocks
with higher stripping ratios is obligatory. It could be generally said that,

1 Copyright 2012 by SME


minimizing stripping ratio algorithm are not applicable for reserves that
are very deep with a large amount of overburden, because upper
blocks have higher stripping ratio than lower blocks. Furthermore, this
algorithm just considers the stripping ratio of blocks for exploitation
sequence, and it does not take into account the block grades.
Therefore, for some ore reserves like iron or even copper deposits
which have been leached and have higher grade zones in lower levels,
this algorithm cannot lead to achieving high NPV. In other words, this
algorithm generally suggests that upper blocks with lower stripping
ratio should be extracted earlier, but for these deposits extracting the
lower blocks even with higher stripping ratio results in getting higher
NPV. However, using this algorithm in conjunction with the algorithms,
which consider the ore grades in push back design, results in obtaining
a higher NPV for certain open pit mine projects [3].
Figure 3. Stripping ratios of the copper Cross-section.
The Gershon algorithm was also applied to the push back design.
This heuristic algorithm is based on ranked positional weight, and first
determines the block sequences based on the order of index of
desirability, which is also called the positional weight or the positional
grade. This index is the sum of the ore qualities within the cone
generated from a block within the ultimate pit. Since the value of blocks
decreases by depth, a discount factor should be applied to block
values at each level [17, 18]. The positional grades and block
exploitation sequences are shown in Figures 4, and 5, respectively. It
should be noted that the discounted factor was assumed to equal 1.
Figure 4. Positional grades of the copper deposit cross section
calculated by the Gershon method.
Figure 5. Block exploitation sequences determined by the Gershon
algorithm.
As the results indicate, one of the disadvantages of this algorithm
is that some waste blocks are extracted earlier than some valuable ore
2 Copyright 2012 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
blocks. This unnecessary waste stripping results in decreasing the
NPV. The reason for this problem is that the positional grade of those
waste blocks is higher just because they are located in upper levels
and their downward cone contains more blocks. For instances, block
14 should be extracted before 12, and 13; the blocks 16, 17, and 21
can be extracted before block number 15; 30 before 27 and 28; 47
before 44, 45, and 46; 122,123,124,125, and 127 before 115 up to
121. Besides, earlier exploitation of some waste blocks with even lower
positional grade could lead the earlier access of valuable ore blocks, if
the slope stability allows the exploitation, e.g., block 19 could be
extracted before 18. After determining the blocks sequences, push
backs were designed for the copper cross section. For the push back
design, the approach of the Wang and Sevim algorithm, which uses a
different set of nested pits with a nearly constant size increment, was
used. Different push backs lives years from 3 to seven were
considered for the design. To compare the results for a final decision,
the cumulative discounted push back risk indicator (DPRI), the
cumulative stripping ratio of push backs (CSRP), and the NPV were
determined. The values for the first push back were also calculated,
because they are more critical than the values for other push backs.
Since the blocks sequence has already been determined by the
Gershon algorithm, the overall NPV of the designs is the same and is
equal to $249281. In this paper, to determine the NPV, a 15%
discounted ratio is considered in the calculation. It was also assumed
that 5 blocks are extracted in each year. To determine blocks
economic values (BEV), the copper price of $7,000/ton was
considered. In addition, based on data obtained from the Sarcheshmeh
copper mine in Iran, a mining cost of $13/ton, a processing cost of
$600/ton, and an 80% recovery were applied in block economic value
(BEV) calculation.
In order to calculate the discounted push back risk indicator which
is the index of risk associated with grade uncertainty, a risk indicator
should first be defined. This indicator is set to estimate the variance of
each block (?2). Blocks with a higher variance have a higher risk. The
sum of the undiscounted uncertainties associated with the push backs
is considered as push back risk indicator (PRI) and can be calculated
as follows:
nk nk nk
PRI k = i2 + cov(i, j ) i j (1)
i =1 i =1 j =1
Where PRIk is undiscounted risk indicator for kth push back and k = 1,
2,, K. K is total number of push backs within the optimum pit limit,
Cov (i,j) is the covariance between block i and block j within the kth
push back, and nk is the total number of blocks within the k push back.
th
Because the risk in the early years of the production period is more
critical, a discount rate should be applied to each push back risk
indicator. The discounted push back risk indicator (DPRI) for a series
of push backs can then be calculated as:
K
PRI k
DPRI =
(2)
k =1 (1 + ik )
tk
where tk is the year at which the exploitation of the kth push back is
finished, and ik is the discount rate for kth push back. By knowing the
yearly discount rate and also each push backs life, ik is easily
determined [4, 5]. In calculations the values of covariance have been
neglected.
A summary of the values for the different designs is shown in
Table 2. Mine designers could select one of these options based on
the parameters values, or combine different push backs of different
options and do more analysis. Multiple attribute decision making
(MADM) methods could be also helpful in making the final decision.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA

Table 2. Summary of the Values for the Designed Push Backs in while considering 45 degree for slop stability. The NPV was $258,142
Gershon Algorithm for 27 year life of this mine.
Number of 1st push back
Life of
Number blocks/nested
each
of nested pits (except CSRP DPRI
nested Stripping DPRI NPV ($)
pits last nested ratio
pit (year)
pit)
9 15 3 4.00 1.08 36,614 9.66 18.88
7 20 4 2.33 1.65 59,908 6.53 18.34
6 25 5 1.50 4.75 92,075 5.42 17.58
5 25 5 1.50 4.75 92,075 4.03 17.36
5 30 6 1.31 5.83 94,511 4.07 16.77
4 30 6 1.31 5.83 94,511 3.15 15.69 Figure 6. Nested pits designed by the Whittle algorithm.
4 35 7 1.06 6.06 110,519 3.28 14.95 Table 3. Summary of the Values for the Nested Pits Designed by the
3 35 7 1.06 6.06 110,519 2.27 13.56 Whittle Algorithm.
Nested Ore Waste Stripping
No. of Blocks Life PRI DPRI
The block economic value (BEV) which is applied in different Pit Blocks Blocks Ratio
algorithms is defined in Equation 3: 1 34 18 16 0.89 6.80 30.39 11.75
2 6 5 1 0.20 1.20 3.49 1.14
(3)
3 6 3 3 1.00 1.20 12.56 3.47
4 1 1 0 0.00 0.20 2.89 0.78
where TOi is the total amount of ore in the block I, is the average 5 1 1 0 0.00 0.20 3.24 0.85
estimated grade of ith block, R is the percent of total recovery by 6 6 3 3 1.00 1.20 12.57 2.78
processing the ore; P is the price per unit of the final product, PC is the
7 16 14 2 0.14 3.20 15.00 2.12
cost of processing the block as ore rather than treating it as waste; TRi
is the total amount of rock (ore and waste) in the ith block, and MC is 8 11 9 2 0.22 2.20 15.15 1.57
the cost of mining a ton of material (the material can be ore or waste. 9 9 7 2 0.29 1.80 9.86 0.80
in case of waste, the BEV will become negative). 10 7 3 4 1.33 1.40 12.98 0.86

The Whittle algorithm has been widely used in push back design. 11 8 5 3 0.60 1.60 4.66 0.25
Whittle realized that mining and processing cost would probably be 12 8 4 4 1.00 1.60 3.89 0.17
affected equally by inflation, but metal price is more subjected to the 13 7 2 5 2.50 1.40 8.41 0.29
uncertainty, and therefore has a greater impact on the blocks values.
14 8 2 6 3.00 1.60 2.69 0.08
To minimize the risk due to changes in economic conditions; and also
minimizing the massive quantity of data processing by changing all the 15 7 1 6 6.00 1.40 3.61 0.08
economic factors in calculating BEVs and determining nested pits, Total 135 78 57 18.17 27.00 141.38 26.98
Whittle reduced the number of factors in the BEV, and reduced the
number of economic variables by dividing equation 3 by MC, As Figure 6 indicates, some of them nested pits are too small and
are not applicable for the push back design. Furthermore, the first
(4) nested pit in the Whittle algorithm is much larger than the others. This
problem is called gap problem, which is the large difference between
Or, the numbers of blocks of two adjacent push backs. One of the
sequencing goals is minimizing the scheduling problem size, and if
(5) there is a gap problem in push back design, the size problem still
exists and affects the role of push backs in effective yearly production
planning.
In Equation 5, Vi represents the value generated by ith block per
unit cost of mining. There are only two factors in the Whittle equation. Lastly, the push back design algorithm incorporated with grade
The first one is P/MC, or , which is the main variable. 1/ is called uncertainty was used in this study [4,5]. Dimitrakopoulos[10]
Metal cost of mining and is the amount of product which must be sold categorized the uncertainties of mining projects in three groups:
to pay for the mining a ton of waste. The second one is PC/MC, , or
cost ratio, which changes only if new mining or processing methods Uncertainty of the ore body model and related in-situ grade
are introduced. variability and material type distribution.
Uncertainty of technical mining specifications such as slope
For push back design, is changed step by step and LG constraints, excavation capacities, etc.
algorithm is implemented on the new block economics values. Uncertainty of economic issues including capital and
Whenever ultimate pit limit changes, a new nested pit is generated. To operating costs, and commodity prices.
design push backs of the copper cross section based on Whittle
algorithm, has been changed from 539 (calculated at $7,000/ton) Gholamnejad and Osanloo [4] recognized that the optimal
down to 30, for which no pit is generated. Fifteen nested pits were scenario for push backs is sensitive to the uncertainties concerned with
generated with? values of 539, 343, 214, 179, 107, 84, 67, 51, 45, 40, the inputs to the optimization model. They realized that the uncertainty
39, 36, 34, 32, and 31. These nested pits are illustrated in Figure 6. ofan ore body model and grade variability is the major issue for not
Table 3 reflects the values calculated for the nested pits designed. achieving the anticipated production planning in the early stages of
These nested pits are considered for the mine constraint such as mining projects. Consequently, they developed the method of grade
minimum push back width required, slop stability, and ramp for the final parameterization with variance to push back design. In the BEV
push back design. equation, instead of average grade they used grade of blocks which
can be obtained from average grade and its standard deviation. The
To determine the NPV, production planning was performed on block economic value in this algorithm is calculated as below:
these nested pits based on the worst case production planning. In
other words, exploiting each nested pit cannot be started unless the (6)
exploitation of the previous one has been finished. Also, blocks in each
nested pit are extracted from the least to the highest economic value
3 Copyright 2012 by SME

where n is a constant number, which its variation results in generating
the different pits, and i standard deviation of ith block grade. For
estimating the range of n when the normal curve is used, n belongs to:
(7)
In other cases where there is no information about the probability
distribution of block grade, according to the Chebyshevs theorem, n
should be less than 4.5 since mean and variance values are available.
The first step of this approach is calculating the block values
using the lowest value of n (zero), and determining UPL by applying
LG algorithm. Blocks outside of the UPL can be excluded from further
calculation. Then n is further increased step by step and UPLs are
determined. Nested pits are generated by comparing the UPLs for
different n values. By increasing the n value, average grade of ore
blocks decreases, and consequently the block economic values are
reduced. The higher standard deviation of the blocks, the greater
decreasing in block economic values. Therefore, smaller nested pits
contain more valuable, and less uncertain, ore blocks [5].
By analyzing the grade parameterization with variance method,
it has been observed in this study that this algorithm is flexible to
generate different number of push backs if different n values are
applied. Different numbers of nested pits generated by this algorithm
were subjected to the optimization of the number of open pit mine push
backs. After determining UPL for the copper cross section in n=0, BEV
values and their related UPLs for different n values (from 0 to 4.5 in
increasing increments of 0.1 in each step) were determined. The 45
UPLs were compared by applying different n values. To evaluate the
effect of price inflation, optimization was performed for two different
copper prices. In the first trial, $1,100/ton was used,with a $5/ton
mining cost, and a $20/ton for processing cost [6]. A price of
$7,000/ton was then applied, while keeping mining cost, processing
costs, and other variables the same as the data obtained from the
Sarcheshme Copper mine in Iran. For the $7,000/tonprice, different
numbers of nested pits from 1 to 23 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17,
and 23 nested pits) were generated. Some ?n values resulted in the
same number of nested pits, while sizes of the nested pits were
different. For example, all the values in range of 2 to 3.9 for ? n
generate 3 nested pits. Among these scenarios, one can select the
final option regarding desirable NPV, risk, and stripping ratio. For
example, one can choose the nested pits with the least amount of
DPRI for further analyses and optimization. One of the nested pit
series designed by this algorithm is shown in Figure 7. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, and 24 nested pits were generated at the copper
price of $1,100/ton.
Figure 7. Five push backs designed for n =1.3 by applying grade
parameterization method at price of $1,100/ton.
As figure 7 shows, the first nested pit of this method is much
smaller than that with the Whittle algorithm, and the gap problem has
been decreased. The reason is that in this algorithm the values of the
blocks do not decrease at the same rate, unlike the Whittle algorithm.
By increasing the value of n, the economic values of the blocks with
smaller standard deviation decrease less than the values of the blocks
with the bigger standard deviation. As a result, by decreasing the BEVs
4 Copyright 2012 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
there are still some blocks that are worth being extracted and they
generate a nested pit, since they have a high grade and small standard
deviation. Although the NPV of the first push back of this algorithm is
smaller, since it has fewer blocks, the DPRI(1.08%) of the first push
back of this algorithm is much lower than that with the Whittle algorithm
(11.75%). Consequently, the planning based on this push back design
could be more reliable, because of less risk associated with grade
uncertainty in the first years of operation after start up.
The sequence for extracting the blocks in this algorithm would
occur in this order: high grade zones with low amount of uncertainty,
high grade zones with medium amount of uncertainty, high grade
zones with high amount of uncertainty, medium to low grade zones
with low amount of uncertainty, and finally medium to low grade zones
with a high amount of uncertainty. This ordering is related to the
change of the value of n in the equation 6, and brings into higher
achievable NPV [4,5].
ANALYTICAL METHOD
After designing different numbers of nested pits by grade
parameterization with variance, discounted push back risk indicator,
cumulative stripping ratio and net present values have been
determined for each number of nested pits, because the defined
optimum number of push backs in this study is related to these values.
The correlation of DPRI, NPV, and CSRP with the number of nested
pits, are illustrated in Figures 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Since having
the ultimate pit limit, or two nested pits are not usually suitable for push
back design, analyses were performed for nested pits equal to or
larger than 3.
Figure 8. Correlation of DPRI with the number of nested pits.
Figure 9. Correlation of NPV with the number of nested pits.
The results show that there is no significant change in the NPV
after ten nested pits, and that DPRI increases, but cumulative stripping
ratio increases more. Therefore, as an initial estimation, it could be
stated that the maximum number of push backs is ten and there is no
benefit in designing more than ten nested pits. Since ten nested pits
did not exist with a copper price of $7,000/ton, eleven nested pits can
be considered as the maximum number. Further analyses were
performed by calculating the relative percent change in the NPV,
DPRI, and CSRP as compared with the values at ten or eleven nested
pits. In both of the price ranges, it was observed that by decreasing
nested pits from 10 to 6, the NPV decreases by around 5%, while
DPRI and CSRP decreased by approximately 12% and more than
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA

30%, respectively. Hence, for the maximum number of push backs, it TOPSIS METHOD
can be said that the maximum number of nested pits for this open pit
mine is six, and now the nested pits, in the range of 3 to 6, can be Multiple attribute decision making methods were applied for
applied for push back design. These analyses are independent of the ranking of the nested pits. Hwang and Yoon [29] developed the
mine size or tonnage, and significant different price differences have Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
the same results. In conclusion, the optimum number of open pit mine (TOPSIS) method based on the concept that the chosen alternatives
push backs is suggested to be in the range of 3 to 6. Among these four should have the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and
options, a designer can select the final option with regards to risk the longest distance from the negative ideal solution. Descriptions of
desirability, cumulative stripping ratio of push backs, and desirable net the fundamentals of TOPSIS method and related applications can be
present value. The final option is considered for mine constraints to readily found in [29].
design the push backs. The stripping ratio graphs for some of the For implementation of TOPSIS, three main attributes (DPRI, NPV,
nested pit designs are presented in Figures 11 to 13. These figures and CSRP) and also possible alternatives (different number of nested
show that decreasing the number of push backs leads to smoother pits) are used. Each appraisal attribute cannot be assumed to have
stripping ratios for the push backs, allowing for better production equal importance because each appraisal attribute has various
planning. Decreasing the number of push backs also increases the meanings. There are many methods that can be employed to
push back sizes, and larger equipment could be used for exploitation, determine weights, such as the eigenvector method, weighted least
resulting in higher annual production. square method, entropy method, AHP, as well as linear programming
techniques for multidimensional analysis preference (LINMAP). The
method that is chosen depends on the nature of the problem.
In this study, the Entropy method was chosen for the attribute
weighting. Subsequently, the TOPSIS method is implemented for
ranking alternatives. The positive-ideal solution must have the least
amount of DPRI, the least amount of CSRP, and the highest amount of
NPV, and vice versa for negative-ideal solution. The ranking of the
different numbers of nested pits, based on three mentioned
attributes,is shown in Table 4. Based on alternatives ranking, three
nested pits is the best number and 24 is the worst number. Also,
Alternatives 10, 9, and 8 (4, 5, and 6 nested pits, respectively) are the
Figure 10. Correlation of cumulative stripping ratio with the number of second, third, and fourth ranking in Table 4. Also, the large jump
nested pits. between the ranking of 6 nested pits and next one, and also the jump
between the 10 or 11 and the next ones, verify the steps of the
analytical method.
Table 4. Ranking of cross-section view different numbers of nested
pits by TOPSIS method.
Results at the price of $1100/ton Results at the price of $7000/ton
Alternative Alternative
Di+ Di- Ci Di+ Di- Ci
s s
A1(24 NP) 0.172 0.036 0.174 A1(23 NP) 0.182 0.039 0.176
A2(17 NP) 0.128 0.058 0.311 A2(17 NP) 0.137 0.063 0.316
A3(14 NP) 0.108 0.082 0.432 A3(13 NP) 0.116 0.084 0.419
A4(10 NP) 0.075 0.117 0.608 A4(11 NP) 0.088 0.110 0.556
Figure 11. Stripping ratios for the 23 nested pit design. A5(9 NP) 0.071 0.122 0.631 A5(9 NP) 0.073 0.127 0.635
A6(8 NP) 0.070 0.119 0.629 A6(8 NP) 0.070 0.132 0.654
A7(7 NP) 0.064 0.127 0.663 A7(7 NP) 0.072 0.132 0.646
A8(6 NP) 0.054 0.144 0.728 A8(6 NP) 0.057 0.148 0.723
A9(5 NP) 0.040 0.150 0.791 A9(5 NP) 0.041 0.158 0.795
A10(4 NP) 0.039 0.155 0.798 A10(4 NP) 0.036 0.164 0.819
A11(3 NP) 0.036 0.172 0.826 A11(3 NP) 0.039 0.182 0.824
1. NP: Nested pits, 2. Di+, and Di-: Distance of each alternative from positive and negative ideal
solution, 3. Ci: the relative closeness to the ideal solution

VALIDATION

Figure 12. Stripping ratios for the 7 nested pit design. This approach has been tested for Chadormaloo iron open pit
mine in Iran. After determining the UPL with LG algorithm, different
numbers of push backs have been designed for this mine. The blocks
dimensions 25 m x 25 m x 15m, and the iron price, mining cost, and
processing cost are $497/ton, $3/ton, and $90/ton, respectively. The
cutoff grade for this mine is 20% with an average ore output rate of 1.4
x 107 ton/year. A discounted rate of 15% was used for NPV
calculation. The correlation between NPV and CSRP with different
number of push backs are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 shows that the cumulative stripping ratio increases with
the number of push backs. The NPV increases steeply up to 3 push
backs, while the NPV from 3 to 5 push backs increases moderately.
Beyond 5 push backs, the NPV remains flat. Therefore, 3, 4, and 5
Figure 13. Stripping ratios for the 23 nested pit design.
5 Copyright 2012 by SME
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA

push backs are considered for more analyses. The graph of the
cumulative NPV for 3, 4, and 5 push backs is shown in Figure 15.

Figure 16. Plan view of 4 push backs.

Figure 14. The correlation between NPV, and CSRP with different
numbers of push backs

Figure 17. Cross section view of four push backs.

CONCLUSION
Usually, the ultimate pit limit of an open pit mine is divided into
some nested pits. Considering the minimum push back width, access
Figure 15. Cumulative NPV Vs. push backs for 3, 4, and 5 push to pit, and other constraints, these nested pits can be converted to
backs. push backs for use as a guide during the scheduling process. In
computerized open pit production planning, push backs are designed
Figure 15 shows that 4 push backs, as compared with 3 push by trial and error. This paper presents a study on optimizing
backs, have a higher total NPV, and also higher NPV of the first push thenumber of push backs. First, some of the push back design
back, which is very critical in mining projects. Furthermore, the NPV of algorithms were applied to a 2-D configuration for a copper mine. The
the first three push backs in the 4 push back design is much higher results showed that the push backs algorithm based on minimizing the
than those of the 5 push back design. Table 5 reflects the values for stripping ratio is not applicable for all mine reserves, especially for
the 4 push back design and shows that the lives of the push backs are those like copper and iron that have been leached. In other words, the
close together with no gap problem. Therefore, 4 push backs would be higher grades zones, which cause a higher NPV, are located in lower
the best option for production planning. These four push backs have a levels with these types of deposits, and their exploitation requires a
total NPV of $14,708,007,549, with an overall stripping ratio of 0.83. large amount of the waste stripping. The Gershon algorithm could
The cross section and plan views of the 4 push backs areshown in cause unnecessary waste stripping, while some valuable ore blocks
Figures 16, and 17, respectively. could be extracted at the same time. Moreover, designing push backs
by this algorithm needs a trial and error method and a high level of
Table 5. Values determined for four push backs in Chadormaloo iron
design experience. The Whittle algorithm has a gap problem.
open pit mine.
Moreover, the block economic values in this algorithm decrease at the
Number of First Push Second Push Third Push Fourth Push
Push backs Back Back Back Back
Total same rate to a point where there is no pit to extract, while there are still
a set of valuable blocks that can be extracted. This is because this
Ore Tonnage 92,710,488 107,117,636 83,011,933 32,061,503 314,861,367 algorithm does not take into account the uncertainty of the ore body
model and its related in situ grade variability, and the material type
Waste distribution. The method of parameterization of grade with variance
48,380,800 28,891,816 64,725,937 119,796,386 261,794,841
Tonnage also has been applied for push back design. This algorithm minimizes
the gap problem, and extracts high grade zones with low amount of
NPV ($) 9,211,237,431 3,987,525,187 1,316,982,371 192,262,559 14,708,007,549 uncertainty in the earlier production periods. Consequently, it
minimizes the risk associated with grade uncertainty and is also
Stripping
Ration
0.522 0.270 0.780 3.736 0.832 flexible for generating different numbers of push backs. Different
numbers of push backs generated by this algorithm were subjected to
Life Time optimizing the number of open pit mine push backs. The optimum
5.5 5.3 5.76 5.92 22.49
(Years)
number of push backs in this study was defined as the one with the
lowest risk associated with grade uncertainty, the lowest amount of
6 Copyright 2012 by SME

cumulative stripping ratio of push backs, and the highest net present
value. It also considers mining constraints, such as minimum push
back width, haul roads, and geotechnical parameters. The analytical
and TOPSIS method showed that the optimum number of open pit
mine push backs is in the range of 3 up to 6. Lower numbers of push
backs have a less discounted push back risk indicator and higher
probability of achieving the calculated net present value. Also the less
number of push backs has smoother push backs stripping ratios,
which is more effective for production planning. A lower number of
push backs causes an increase in push back dimensions which leads
to using larger equipment for exploitation and thus higher annual
production in open pit mines.
REFERENCES
1. Whittle J. (1999), A Decade of Open Pit Mine Planning and
Optimization The Craft of Turning Algorithms into Packages,
Proceeding of the 28th Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industry, pp 15-23.
2. Whittle J. (1988), Beyond Optimization in Open Pit Design,
Proceedings of the first Canadian conference on computer
applications in the mineral industry, pp. 331-337.
3. Ramazan S. and Dagdelen K. (1998), A New Push Back Design
Algorithm in Open Pit Mining, Proceeding of the 17th
international symposium on Mine planning and equipment
selection, Calgary, Canada, pp.119-124.
4. Gholamnejad J. and Osanloo M. (2007), Incorporation of Ore
Grade Uncertainty into the Push Back Design Process, The
Journal of Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
107(3), pp.178-185.
5. Gholamnejad J. and Osanloo M. (2007), Uncertainty Based Push
Back Design Algorithm in Open Pit Mining, SME Annual Meeting,
Denver, CO, Preprint 07-095.
6. Rezaee M., Osanloo M. and Aghajani Bazzazi A. (2009), The
Optimum Number of Open Pit Mine Push Backs, Proceeding of
the 18th international symposium on Mine planning and
equipment selection (MPES), Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 684-
691.
7. Kim Y.C. and Zhao Y. (1994), Optimum Open Pit Production
Sequencing - The Current State ofthe Art, SME Annual Meeting,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, Preprint 94-224.
8. Lerchs, H. and Grossman, L. (1965), Optimum Design of Open
Pit Mines. Transaction CIM, Vol. LXVIII, pp. 17-24.
9. Coleou T., (1989) Technical Parameterization of Reserves for
Open Pit Design and Mine Planning, Proceeding of the 21st
Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral
Industry, pp. 484-494.
10. Dimitrakopoulos R. (1998), Conditional Simulation Algorithms for
Modeling Orebody Uncertainty in Open Pit Optimization,
International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Environment, Vol. 12, pp. 173-179.
11. Vallet R. (1976), Optimisation mathmatique d'une Mine ciel
ouvert ou le probkme de I'enveloppe, Annales des Mines de
Belgique, pp. 113-135.
12. Matheron G. and Formery P. (1962), Recherche d'optimum dans
la reconnaissance et la mise en exploitation des gisements
miners, Centre de Gostatistique, Fontainebleau, France.
7 Copyright 2012 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA
13. Matheron G. (1973), Le krigeage disjonctif, Centre de
Gostatistique, Fontainebleau, France.
14. Matheron G. (1975), Paramttrage des contours optimaux,
Centre de Gostatistique, Fontainebleau, France.
15. Matheron G. (1975), Complments sur le parantttrage des
contours optimaux, Centre de Gostatistique, Fontainebleau,
France.
16. Matheron G. (l975), Paramtrage technique des reserves,
Centre de Gostatistique, Fontainebleau, France.
17. Gershon M.E. (1987), An Open Pit Production Scheduler:
Algorithm and Implementation, Mining Engineering Journal, pp.
793-796.
18. Helgeson W.E. and Birnie D.P.(1961), Assembly Line Balancing
Using the Ranked Positional Weight Technique The Journal of
Industrial Engineering, Vol. XII. No 4.pp. 394-39.
19. Wang Q. and Sevim H. (1995), Alternative to Parameterization in
Finding a Series of Maximum Metal Pits for Production Planning.
Mining Engineering, pp. 178-182.
20. Franpois-Bongarcon D. and Guibal D. (1980), Open Pit
Optimization by Parameterization of the Final Pit Contour, New
Advances and Applications, Proceeding of the 17th Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry
(APCOM), Moscow.
21. Francois-Bongarcon D. and Guibal D. (1981), Parameterizing of
Optimal Design of Open Pit Beginning of a New Phase of
Research, SME Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, Preprint 81-31.
22. Francois-Bongarcon D. and Guibal D. (1982), Algorithms for
Parameterizing Reserves Under Different Geometrical
Constraints, The 17th International Symposium on the
Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral
Industry (APCOM), pp. 297309.
23. Dagdelen K. and Francois-Bongarcon D. (1982), Towards the
Complete Double Parameterization of Recovered Reserves in
Open Pit Mining, The 17th International Symposium on the
Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral
Industry (APCOM), pp. 288296.
24. Couzen, T.R. (1978), "Aspects of Production Planning: Operating
Layout and Phase Plans", Open Pit Mine Planning and Design
Workshop Proceedings Sponsored by SME-AIME, Denver, CO.
25. Mathieson G.A. (1982), Open Pit Sequencing and Scheduling,
SME Annual Meeting, Preprint 82-368.
26. Iles C.D. and Perry G.A. (1981), Sierrita Incremental Pit Design
System, Mining Engineering, pp. 152-155.
27. Tolwinski B.and Golosinski T.S., (1995), Long Term Open Pit
Mine Scheduler, Proceeding of International Symposium on Mine
planning and equipment selection (MPES).
28. Tolwinski B. (1998), Scheduling Production for Open Pit Mines,
Proceeding of 28th International Symposium on Computer
Applications in the Minerals Industries
29. Hwang C.L. and Yoon K. (1981), Multiple Attribute Decision
Making Methods and Applications, a State of the Art Survey,
(Springer-Berlin Heidelberg: New York).
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 19 - 22, 2012, Seattle, WA

APPENDIX
Table 1. Push Back Design Algorithms.
Author (publish
Method Some Advantages and/or Disadvantages
year)
Adv.: Generates a more optimum ultimate pit limit.
Learchs - Economical parameterization (Maximization of P =
Disadv.: Repetitive and time consuming, does not consider uncertainties
Grossmann (LG) aQ bT cV with different values of parameters to
1 in mine projects [10], has gap problem, and only considers economic
(1965) [8] obtain a set of nested pits) [9].
parameters, especially exploitation cost.
Adv.: Generates a set of nested pits in one run.
Vallet
Modification of LG 3D Graph Tree algorithm Disadv.: the same as the LG algorithm, except this algorithm is not as
(1976) [11]
time consuming.
Adv.: Provides a nested sequence of optimal pits for mine scheduling
Reserve technical parameterization (Searches for [9], is mathematically approved,
Matheron
the set of nested pits maximizing the Disadv.: has gap problem, ore mining and processing costs vary with the
(1962, 1973, 1975)
parameterization function of Q-T-V for each project size and production rate and cannot be determined precisely
[12,13,14,15, 16]
value of and ) [9].
1
without knowing the ultimate pit limit (UPL), and does not consider
uncertainties.
Adv.: The exploitation of higher grade zones in initial years, sensitivity
analysis of UPL with regard to metal price, and only one variable
Economical parameterization (Finds a set of nested
Whittle required to solve the problem.
pits Maximizing P = aQ bT cV while a/c ratio
(1988) [1,2] 1 Disadv.: Not applicable for multiple metal ores, has gap problem, does
varies) [9]
not consider the risk of grade variation, and the assuming of the same
processing and exploitation rate of change is questionable.
Adv.: Gives an idea for block sequence exploitation in short and long
Heuristic algorithm (Based on positional ranked
term.
Gershon weight and considering the quality of ore, the
Disadv.: Strips some unnecessary waste blocks while there is access to
(1989) [17] position of ore blocks, and the quality of the blocks
ore blocks, is difficult to apply to push back design, and does not
under the desired ore block) [17,18]
consider uncertainties.
Adv.: Solves the gap problem in mine sequencing.
Heuristic algorithm (Obtains a set of nested pits and
Wang Sevim Disadv.: does not assure the optimum UPL and maximum NPV, and
simultaneously determines UPL, production rate,
(1995) [19] does not consider uncertainties.
and mine life)
Adv.: Causes a higher NPV as compared with other methods like
Ramazan Whittle, especially at high interest rates.
Dynamic algorithm (based on the graph theory and
Dagdelen Disadv.: Difficult to apply, is not applicable for multiple metal ores, just
minimizing the push backs stripping ratio)
(1998) [3] considers blocks as ore or waste, does not take into account blocks
grades, and does not consider uncertainties.
Gholamnejad - Grade parameterization with variance (incorporates Adv.: Minimizes the risk associated with grade uncertainty, minimizes
Osanloo the grade uncertainty with push back design, and the gap problem, and is applicable for multiple metal ores.
(2007) [4,5] applies LG algorithm) Disadv.: Does not consider technical and economic uncertainties.
Notes:
1 - In the parameterization equations, a, b, and c parameters are commodity price, processing cost, and exploitation cost, respectively. V, Q and T
are the amount of material contained in the project, the amount of ore, and the metal content, respectively [9]. and have the same dimension
as cut-off grade [20].
2 - Matheron algorithms have been extended or discussed continuously by different researchers such as Francois-Bongarcon, and Guibal [20, 21,
22], Dagdelen and Francois-Bongarcon [23][9].
3 - A disadvantage of most of the push back design algorithms is that they do not consider average grade for push backs, which may not achieve
the yearly mine scheduling targets. Also, most of the mentioned algorithms do not consider the minimum required run-of-mine material for
processing plants. Therefore, they may fail to reach an optimum solution.
4 - The trial-and-error approach in push back design, which is applied in computerized sequencing, has been well discussed by several authors:
Couzens [24], Mathieson [25], Ilies and Perry [26], Whittle [1,2], Kim and Zhao[7], and Tolwinski [27,28].

8 Copyright 2012 by SME