SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO

Preprint 13-089

TAKE TIME FOR PIT PHASE DESIGN

A. Eccles, Consultant, Spokane, WA

ABSTRACT However, access and geotechnical considerations are the highest

Phase designs are the foundation upon which all open pit mine
sequence optimizations and budgets should be built. Unfortunately, at
times, mine engineers skip the step of developing realistic pit phase
designs - designs that include access ramps and mineable widths.
Without mineable phase designs, their optimized schedules are based
on theoretical pit shells or “quick-and-dirty” plans with no ramps. The
output from such optimizations is almost always overly optimistic.
Without mineable designs, the production estimates are
misleading, because they overestimate ore, and underestimate waste
stripping requirements. Worse yet, when plans are not based on
realistic phase designs, they can point to exactly the wrong decision in
feasibility studies (i.e. “go” when it should be “no-go”).
This paper discusses the importance and features of good pit
phase design, and demonstrates the pitfalls of relying on optimized
production sequences that are not based on properly designed pit
phases.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years there has been a focus on utilizing software
applications to automate mine scheduling. As computing capability has
evolved over the past 40 years, universities, mine software companies,
and even mining companies themselves have endeavored to develop
computer programs that identify the “best” mine sequence for a given
ore body and economic parameters.
These optimizers often use the Lerches Grossman (LG) pit limit
analysis algorithm to generate a series of nested pit shells. The pit
shells are a guide to the theoretical economic ranking of zones of the
deposit, but they have no consideration of mineability. Selected groups
of pit shells are mined as pseudo-phases by schedule optimizers.
Some software packages let engineers “tweak” the shells to
approximate minimum mineable widths. Others use the shells as-is.
Although optimizers might help engineers and management
understand the potential value of projects, the limitations of the results
need to be respected. Optimizers might be appropriate for ranking the
relative economics of multiple scenarios; but in order to truly assess a
project’s economic viability, cash flow analyses need to be performed
on realistic mine plans.
This document begins with the basic definition of a designed pit
phase. It goes on to cover characteristics of good phase design and
provide visual comparisons of actual phase designs to their theoretical
pit shells.
DEFINITION OF A DESIGNED PIT PHASE
A pit phase is a collection of sequential mining benches in which
mining of each bench is dependent upon removal of the benches
above. Additional material can be mined with earlier phases to set up
access to later phases.
Sometimes a deposit’s phases are physically independent of one
another; but usually one phase leads to another. For sequential
phases, a given bench of an earlier phase must be mined before (or
concurrent with) the later phase.
Where possible, phase designs follow economic LG pit shells.
Normal yearly phases are more profitable than subsequent phases.
1 Copyright © 2013 by SME
priority, and usually require the engineer to deviate from the LG shells.
CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD PHASE DESIGN
Realistic, reduced-risk phase designs include the following
characteristics, not necessarily in order of importance:
• Bench-by-bench access
• Adequate mining width
• Consideration of access to subsequent phases
• Adherence to geotechnical criteria
• Reasonable bottom bench size
• Allowance for other factors such as service access, water
management, and post-mine configuration
Bench-by-Bench Access
With few exceptions, every bench within the designed phase must
be accessible by haul trucks.
Access is easily attained with “drop-cuts” after a phase has
dropped below the daylight elevation, and for deposits that occur on
flat ground.
Most deposits, however, are in areas of more interesting
topography, and require a creative approach such as development of a
cut and fill road to the top benches. By placing the initial access road
within the phase limits, bench-by-bench access becomes a simple
matter of backing down the hill. Figure 1 illustrates proper road
placement relative to the mining area, and Figure 2 shows how the
road reaches two example benches. Notice that if the road were
developed around the back side of the hill, along the dashed line, it
would provide access to only the topmost bench – not the other 10 to
15 upper benches.
Figure 1. Internal bench access road.
Adequate Mining Width
Minimum mining width will depend on equipment size. The phase
width should allow for multiple loading faces; meaning haul trucks need
to be able to drive past active dig areas to reach loading zones
beyond. This also allows operators to plan to always be faced-up to a
variety of material types. Multiple loading faces increase opportunities
to balance the truck fleet, especially where there are different haul
distances to the dump and plant. When operators can choose to mine
ore vs. waste, they reduce the need for short-term stockpiling in front
of a mill.
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO

Figure 2. Internal access road provides efficient mining.

The absolute minimum mining width is that required for a single,
efficient loading face. Any less, and the loader would need to tram to
where the trucks are, trucks would need to do three-point turns and
back-up long distances, etc.. Tight configurations cannot always be
avoided, but they should be minimized in the design. Another
disadvantage: when phases are designed for a single loading face,
operators must take whatever material they are faced up to, so they
have less flexibility to optimize equipment utilization and feed the plant
steadily. Figure 3. Consider combining separate, narrow phases.
When phases are designed for a single loading face, production
will be loader-limited.
When phases are designed for multiple loading units, production
scheduling is much more flexible and is limited by the physical cycle of
drill, assay, blast, load and haul, and clean-up. Given an efficient
working area, if there are no equipment limitations operators can
typically advance priority headings at a rate of one bench per month.
An added drawback of designing to the minimum theoretical
mining width is that there is no good fallback position if the operation
runs into problems digging back to designed limits during the life of the
phase. Ground conditions can be unpredictable. If the phase width
pinches down, potential advance rates will slow. The zone that can no
longer be mined could, perhaps, be mined by a later phase; but the
production profile would be affected. If this is the final phase, the
economic viability of remediation to regain access to a failed area Figure 4. Avoid mining our future access.
would need to be assessed. In extreme cases, the phase would need Planning engineers need to work closely with geotechnical
to be abandoned. engineers to understand the geotechnical constraints. For example, is
Figure 3 shows an example of phases designed using the a fault zone composed of gouge that must be laid back regardless of
theoretical minimum mining width. The minimum width extends over its strike, or is the fault only of concern if it parallels the pit wall? Where
long distances; and mining rates on the limbs of each phase would be pits operate around historical underground workings, the design needs
limited to whatever one loading unit could produce. Pit wall creep or to allow pit operators to mine safely around voids.
failure would render these phases inaccessible. A less-risky design It is important for the engineer to manually check and adjust all
would combine the phases even though, on paper, separate phases wall designs. If this step isn’t taken and the computer’s interpretation is
usually show earlier ore deliveries and better economics. relied on, the dig limits through fault zones will probably be
Access to Subsequent Phases unattainable. In this case, production targets would be difficult to
Ensure that early phases don’t mine out ground that is needed to achieve, and future planners would need to repeatedly redesign the
efficiently drive to later phases. Sometimes this means ore is deferred phases in reaction to field conditions.
to a later phase to ensure mineability of the entire ore body. On the Figure 5 illustrates the effect of a fault on the high wall design.
other hand, there are places that a little extra mining early-on, while a This design needed to be manually adjusted on every bench, because
nose is easy to smooth off or a ramp to the hilltop is easy to leave the narrow fault zone was not recognized by the computerized
behind, saves a lot of trouble re-establishing access in the future. planning system.
Figure 4 illustrates a case in which mining of Phase 3 becomes Bottom Bench Size
inefficient because the inner phases mined out its southeastern Long-term planners should leave the bottom bench for the short-
access. This situation should be avoided when possible. term planner. By the time mining reaches the pit bottom, these
Avoid leaving haul ramps along high walls in locations where they benches could be impossible to mine anyway due to water
will be mined out in the future using a “ramp retreat”. If this type of management and geotechnical issues; and remember that with mid-
phase design strategy is unavoidable, consider leaving an extra-wide bench designs these tiny shapes represent only the top of the drop-cut
ramp – as wide as a single mining face – so operations will be as into the bench.
efficient as possible while retreating the ramp. Other Factors
Adherence to Geotechnical Criteria To be truly realistic, designed phases need to incorporate the
Design tools assist engineers to project pit walls according to accesses and step-outs that accommodate dewatering facilities and
slope criteria. Where narrow fault zones cut across the pit, the LG power transmission. The pit configuration should also consider means
algorithm and slope projection tools do a reasonable job of to direct water around and out of the pit during operations, and to
incorporating the criteria; but the computer’s estimate is not perfectly control post-mining surface water.
reliable.
2 Copyright © 2013 by SME
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO

Figure 5. Manually adjust wall design through fault zone.

Figure 7. Mining waste outside the pit shell to provide on-bench

access to ore zones within the shell.

Figure 6. Exclude pit bottom benches from phase designs.

Although this level of detail is important to incorporate before a
plan is implemented, it is unlikely to affect economic decision-making.
PHASE DESIGN VS. PIT SHELLS
When we consider all the factors that go into designing mineable
pit phases, it becomes apparent that designs can differ considerably
from the LG pit shells. This section provides several examples to
illustrate the potential magnitude of differences.
In Figure 7, an existing pit is to be expanded along its eastern
edge due to increased metal prices. The LG cone accounts for mining
overlying blocks necessary to reach deeper ore; but the algorithm has
no way to presuppose how the operation will access ore laterally. This
case illustrates that in order to mine the ore within the pit shell,
additional waste must be stripped along the bench, which will affect
both the cost and the extraction schedule.
Figure 8 compares designed phases with the pit shells upon
which they’re based. The distance between pit shells varies around the
pit. The shells are nearly stacked on top of one another on the east
side. The southern end of the pit (not shown) necks down, so it isn’t
possible to develop more than two efficient phase entrances to the
west side of the pit. While the final phase follows the outermost pit Figure 8. Comparison of nested pit shells to phase designs.
shell, and Phase 3 follows pit shell 3 for the most part; the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 designs aren’t based on a particular economic shell. Instead, PHASE DESIGN VS. QUICK-AND-DIRTY PLAN
they emphasize operational efficiency over the LG shell’s theoretical
economics. It can be tempting, given time pressures, to draw up “quick-and-
dirty” (Q&D) plans for use in schedulers and optimizers. An example of
Figure 9 provides another example of phase designs that differ a Q&D plan would be:
significantly from the pit shells. For this deposit, there is almost no
difference in the LG shells for the southwestern section of the deposit. • One that shows final ramps but does not provide access to
The width remaining between Phase 1 and the ultimate pit limit is initial benches and to every bench along the way.
narrow; so it would have been risky from an operational and • One that uses the computer’s geotechnical projection, which
geotechnical perspective to mine more than one phase along the can be overly steep, instead of adjusting the slopes in fault
southwestern side. In this case the final southwest wall was set with zones and ensuring enough waste is included in the plans.
Phase 2 mining. Crescent-shaped phases were designed for the pit’s • One that follows pit shells too strictly, without adjusting for
northerly extensions, and care was taken to ensure the phases’ ramps mineable widths.
would tie together. The resultant phase limits differ significantly from • One that doesn’t consider how all the phases fit together,
the nested pit shells. and ensure that early phases leave a mineable configuration
for later phases.
3 Copyright © 2013 by SME
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24 - 27, 2013, Denver, CO

Figure 11. Fully accessible phase design.

Figure 9. Comparison of nested pit shells to phase designs.
Figure 10 and Figure 11 compare a Q&D plan with a full design
used to determine whether a deposit should be expanded north. The
Q&D design would be applicable if the area were mined concurrent
with the main pit, so access would not be a concern; but because the
zone is less profitable, mining should be deferred. As a stand-alone
phase, it would require additional cost to develop haul roads onto the
benches from several levels. The haul profiles for the stand-alone
phase wouldalso cost more due to the additional climbs required.
These costs are not easily accounted for in the LG run.
CONCLUSION
Mine Engineers have a variety of pit design and scheduling tools
at their disposal. It is important to respect the limitations of these tools.
Feasibility studies and budget plans should be based on designed
pit phases.If production schedulesuseonly LG shells or even quick and
dirty phase plans, they will invariably be over-optimistic. When mining
companies rely on this type of mine planning, they are less likely to
deliver on their stated goals.
The output from pit schedulers can be useful for budgeting and
decision-making, but only if the schedules are based on realistic pit
phase designs.

Figure 10. “Quick and Dirty” phase plan.

Mining engineers and managers need to resist the temptation to
base pit schedules on Q&D plans. Q&D plans usually underpredict
waste stripping requirements. Their earlier phases tend to include too
much ore and too little waste. Schedules based on Q&D plans are
liable to be overly optimistic.

4 Copyright © 2013 by SME