See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272494423

Hybrid Pits — Linking Conditional Simulation and Lerchs-Grossmann

Through Set Theory

Chapter · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

6 141

1 author:

David Whittle
University of Melbourne
21 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Underground Mine Plan Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Whittle on 17 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Hybrid Pits — Linking Conditional Simulation and
Lerchs-Grossmann Through Set Theory
D Whittle1 and A Bozorgebrahimi2
ABSTRACT
The authors have developed and tested a technique that leverages some of
the statistical properties of conditionally simulated models and the
technical characteristics of Lerchs-Grossmann pits. The result is not one,
but a nested set of pits, which are named Hybrid Pits in this paper, each
of which has a definable statistical characteristic, which ultimately
reflects risk.
In terms of application of these Hybrid Pit designs, one further element
is introduced, that being the propensity for knowledge to increase over
time. At the time of planning, a certain amount of orebody data is
available, leading to an estimable degree of uncertainty in the model. As
time passes and mining progresses, the amount of information increases
(due to additional drilling, etc) so the degree of model uncertainty should
decrease. This paper includes an explanation of how the hybrid set of pits
can be used as design guides to allow a degree of risk avoidance,
associated with the higher uncertainty in early times.
The benefit of applying this methodology is a managed reduction in
risk, contributing to higher project values.
INTRODUCTION
In applying Lerchs-Grossmann (LG) pit optimisation (Lerchs
and Grossmann, 1965) to an orebody model, you are applying a
process that will guarantee to find the optimal pit outline that
maximises the dollar value, for a given input orebody model and
a given set of economic and geotechnical conditions. The LG
method can only be applied to a single orebody model and
cannot directly take account of uncertainty associated with that
model.
Conditional simulation has emerged as a methodology to
provide more meaningful models of orebodies, taking into
account the uncertainty inherent in the sampling and
interpolation process, and providing multiple representative
models for any given set of data.
The question that arose early in the development of
conditional simulation is, how does one use the additional
information that the process provides, to better design mines?
Van Brunt and Rossi (1997) describe the general nature of
conditionally simulated models and their application in mine
design, and describe a construct and an analysis method that are
both relied upon in this paper. These are:
• the probabilistic framework within which simulated models
exist; and
• the evaluation of a mine design against multiple simulated
models.
Van Brunt and Rossi (1999) expand on their earlier work and
describe the generation of optimal pit shells for each of a set of
simulated models. Dimitrakopoulos, Farrelly and Godoy (2001)
extend the application of the Van Brunt and Rossi (1999) method
including analysis techniques described in the context of a case
involving 50 simulations of a typical disseminated low-grade
epithermal quartz breccia-type gold deposit.
1. MAusIMM, Whittle Product Manager, Gemcom Software
International Inc.
2. Business Analyst – Mine Engineering, Gemcom Software
International Inc.
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004
Dimitrakopoulos (2003) outlined a technique similar to one
described above (Van Brunt and Rossi, 1999) but extended to
include the evaluation of each simulated model against each of
the multiple LG pits. The objective of this approach was to find
the LG pit that delivered the highest average dollar value when
evaluated against the full set of simulations.
Existing methods involve the generation of optimal pits, each
for a separate model. The value of these methods revolves around
the way in which the multiple optimal pits are generated and
evaluated. In each case, the pit that is finally chosen will be an
LG pit that has been generated for a single model:
• a pit that is optimal for a representative model, such as a
kriged model or E-Type model, described by Van Brunt and
Rossi (1999); or
• a best performing pit as described by Dimitrakopoulos
(2003).
In early 2000, one of the authors (Whittle) commenced work
on a methodology that would lead to the creation of pits that
were directly influenced by a set of conditionally simulated
models, and produced some preliminary software specifications
to enable the technique to be developed. The expectation at the
time was that methodology, called Hybrid Pits in this paper,
would provide a useful mechanism for relating the variance
information inherent in conditionally simulated resource models,
into a Reserve context.
In March 2004, Whittle undertook the completion of the Set
Theory model for hybrid pits, which provides mathematical
rigour to the ideas that were hitherto based on intuition. Having
then a sound theoretical basis for hybrid pits, the next step was to
trial the technique using a small database.
Dr Bozorgebrahimi joined Gemcom Software International Inc
in June 2004, as a Business Analyst – Mining Engineer, the same
office as Whittle. With Bozorgebrahimi’s training and experience
in conditional simulation, the opportunity to collaborate on this
next phase of the development of the hybrid pits concept
emerged. Whittle and Bozorgebrahimi immediately commenced
work on the project. The trial was successful, leading to
refinement of, and support for the mathematical models.
HYBRID PITS
Conditional simulation produces multiple orebody models, each
being an equally probable estimate of the real resource. It is
possible to generate optimal pit outlines for each of these
orebody models using the Lerchs-Grossmann method (Lerchs
and Grossmann, 1965), where each pit is optimal for its
corresponding orebody model, meaning:
• the pit obeys the pit slope constraints as modelled by the
structure arcs in the graph model; and
• the $ value of the pit is maximised.
The value of the pit can then be estimated by applying the
whole family of models to the pit and recalculating the $ value
(Dimitrakopoulos, 2003). However, the optimality of the
Lerchs-Grossmann (LG) pit relates to the individual orebody
model that was used in its generation, rather than to the family of
pits. In the creation of the shape of the pit, there was no account
taken of the family of models.
399
D WHITTLE and A BOZORGEBRAHIMI
The authors propose the use of hybrid pits, which are derived
from the family of pits that are generated from the family of
orebody models. The hybrid pits are derived from LG pits,
are technically feasible and have specific probabilistic
characteristics. In order to describe the derivation of the hybrid
pits, it is necessary to establish certain principles, and Set Theory
provides a useful framework for doing this.
Set theory model for hybrid pits
Let the Universal Set be the set of blocks in a block model
framework.
Universal Set U {x|x is a block in the model framework}
A {x|x is a block being a member of pit A, which is
optimal for simulation a}
B {x|x is a block being a member of pit B, which is
optimal for simulation b}
C {x|x is a block being a member of pit C, which is
optimal for simulation c}
D {x|x is a block being a member of pit D, which is
optimal for simulation d}, etc
The sets defined above will be referred to as the ‘o-sets’
(original sets representing LG pits for single simulations), to
make the distinction between this type of set and other types of
sets that will be discussed.
In o-set A, for any block x, it can be said that the set includes
all the blocks that must be mined if x is to be mined. This is true
because the application of the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm,
through which the set was defined, requires it to be true. The
same can be said for o-sets B, C, D, etc.
Let us call the set of all blocks that must be mined if x is
mined, X. It is true to say that for any given x, X is unique. There
cannot be two sets of blocks that satisfy the condition of needing
to be mined if x is mined.
Principle 1 – intersections of o-sets represent
feasible pits
An illustration of an intersection of three pits is shown in
Figure 1. In the Set Theory model, this is the intersection of three
o-sets.
If block x is an element of o-sets A and B, then both A and B
must include X (all the blocks that must be mined if x is mined).
If X is a subset of both A and B, then it follows that that x must
include X. This is true for all X sets, for all incidents of x that are
members of both A and B. Accordingly A B (the intersection of
o-sets A and B) will constitute a pit that can be mined, as it
obeys the precedence rules of mining. The same can be said of
B C, C D, etc.
FIG 1 - An intersection of technically feasible pits will produce a
technically feasible (hybrid) pit.
400 Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004
With the application of the Associative Law, the intersection of
any combination of o-sets will lead to a set that represents a
feasible pit.
Principle 2 – unions of o-sets represent feasible pits
An illustration of a union of three pits is shown in Figure 2. In
the Set Theory model, this is the union of three o-sets.
A union of o-sets will constitute a feasible pit. For any block x,
the o-set or o-sets to which it is a member must include X (all the
blocks that must be mined if x is to be mined). The pit can only
become unfeasible if blocks are removed from an o-set, and
determining the unions of sets will not lead to the removal of any
blocks.
FIG 2 - A union of technically feasible pits will produce a
technically feasible (hybrid) pit.
Principle 3 – the set of all blocks which are members
of more than or equal to m o-sets (A, B, C, D, etc)
represents a feasible pit
Principle 3 is explained fully for the case in which there are four
(A, B, C and D) o-sets, but the logic is extendable to any number
of o-sets. The explanation is included in Table 1.
Principle 4 – the set of blocks which is a member of
m or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks
which are members of m-1 or more o-sets
Principle 4 is explained fully for the case in which there are four
o-sets (A, B, C and D), but the logic is extendable to any number
of o-sets. The explanation is included in Table 2.
GENERAL BEHAVIOUR OF HYBRID PITS AS
APPLIED TO CONDITIONALLY SIMULATED
MODELS
The real resource is the actual mineralisation that exists in the
ground, but which cannot be absolutely known by the modeller,
as the modeller only has samples of it, rather than absolute
knowledge of it. Conditional simulation seeks to generate n
equally probable models of the real resource, where n is
sufficiently large that the full set of simulations is representative
of the whole population of possible models. The models are
equally probable representations of the real resource, which at
the time of modelling is not absolutely known, it is only know
through the samples of it. One of the conditionally simulated
models will be the most representative of the real resource, but it
is not known which model this is. If n is sufficiently large, then it
is highly probable that at least one of the models will be
sufficiently representative of the real resource, such that in the
process of mining, the real resource should behave for all
economic and operational purposes, exactly like that model. The
chance of any of the models being the most representative of the
real resource is 1/n.
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning
 HYBRID PITS — LINKING CONDITIONAL SIMULATION AND LERCHS-GROSSMANN THROUGH SET THEORY

TABLE 1
Explanation of Principle 3 as it relates to four sets (A, B, C and D).

Symbols
∩ ‘intersection’. The intersection of two sets, A and B (A B), is the set of all elements that are common to both A and B.
∪ ‘union’. The union of sets A and B (A B), is the set of all elements that are members of set A and/or set B.
The set of blocks that are members of one or more o-sets
All elements of A B C D (the union of sets A, B, C and D) must be a member or one or more o-sets.
The set of blocks that are members of one or more o-sets is equal to A B C D which, in accordance with Principle 2, is a feasible pit.
The set of blocks that are members of two or more o-sets
If x is a member of two or more o-sets, then it must be a member of one or more of the following:
A B A C A D B C B D C D
All members of one or more of the above sets are members of two or more o-sets. Accordingly, the set of all blocks that are members of two or more
o-sets is equal to:
(A B) (A C) (A D) (B C) (B D) (C D)
With the application of both Principle 1 and 2, it follows that the set of all blocks that are members of two or more o-sets represents a feasible pit.
The set of blocks that are members of three or more o-sets
If x is a member of three or more o-sets, then it must be a member of one or more of the following:
A B C A B D A C D B C D
All members of one or more of the above sets are members of three or more o-sets. Accordingly, the set of all blocks that are members of three or more
sets is equal to:
(A B C) B D) (A C D) (B C D)
With the application of both Principle 1 and 2, it follows that the set of all blocks that are members of three or more o-sets represents a feasible pit.
The set of blocks that are members of four sets (all sets)
If x is a member of four o-sets, then it must be a member of A B C D. With the application of Principle 1, this represents a feasible pit.

TABLE 2
Explanation of Principle 4 as it relates to four sets (A, B, C and D).
Additional Symbol
(Also refer also to Table 1 for the explanation of symbols)
⊂ ‘is a subset to’. Indicates that the set on the right of the symbol contains (at least) all the elements that are members of the set on the left of the
symbol. For example G H means that all elements in set G can also be found in set H.
U ‘The Universal Set’. This is the set of all elements that could be members of any of the sets under consideration. In the context of this discussion,
the Universal Set is the set of all blocks in the block model.
The set of blocks that is a member of one or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of zero or more o-sets.
(A B C D) U

The set of blocks that is a member of two or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of one or more o-sets.
(A B) (A C) (A D) (B C) (B D) (C D) (A B C D)

The set of blocks that is a member of three or more o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of two or more o-sets.
(A B C) (A B D) (A C D) (B C D) (A B) (A C) (A D) (B C) (B D) (C D)

The set of blocks that is a member of four (all) o-sets, is a subset of the set of blocks that are members of three or more o-sets.
(A B C D) (A B C) (A B D) (A C D) (B C D)

Pit optimisation generates sets of blocks that represent the
reserve and necessary stripping, such that the $ value of the pit is
maximised. If you generate an optimal pit for each of n models
and if n is sufficiently large, then any one of these pit
optimisations has a 1/n chance of being optimal for the real
resource.
If a pit is suboptimal for the real resource, then it must include
material that should not be mined and/or it must not include
material that should be mined. In other words, if the real resource
was absolutely known, and the pit optimisation proceeded on the
basis of a precise model of it, the pit would be different to, and
have a higher value than any of the suboptimal pits.
With the application of Principle 3 (established above), and if
n is sufficiently large, the set of all blocks that are members of m
or more o-sets, represents a feasible pit, which has m/n
probability of being a subset of the optimal pit for the real
resource.
With the application of Principle 2 (established above), and if
n is sufficiently large, the union of all o-sets is a feasible pit,
which is a superset to the optimal pit for the real resource.
With the application of Principle 4 (established above), the set
of blocks for m≥1, m 2, m 3, …, m n, are progressively more
likely to be subsets of the optimal outline of the real resource.
Principle 4 also establishes that the pits represented by the set of
blocks for m≥1, m 2, m 3, …, m n progressively nest (they are
each supersets to the next).

Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 401
D WHITTLE and A BOZORGEBRAHIMI
PROJECTED APPLICATION OF HYBRID PITS
With reference to the above discussion, a Hybrid Pit will now be
defined:
H-Pit(m) is the set of all blocks that are members of m or more
o-sets. The set represents a feasible pit, which has m/n
probability of being a subset of the optimal pit for the real
resource.
Where:
n is number of o-pits
Outer-bound pit – H-Pit(1)
You can produce a pit outline that is feasible, by finding all
blocks that are members of any of the original pits. This is
referred to as H-Pit(1), meaning that it includes all blocks that
are members of one or more o-pits. If n is sufficiently large, this
pit will almost certainly include the pit outline, which would be
optimal for the real resource. Such a pit provides an outer bound
for the optimal outline.
Inner-bound pit – H-Pit(n)
You can produce a pit outline that is feasible, by finding all
blocks that are members of all of the original pits. This is
referred to as H-Pit(n), meaning that it includes all blocks that
are members of all o-pits. If n is sufficiently large, the resulting
outline will almost certainly be a subset of the optimal outline for
the real resource, and you can be highly confident that H-Pit(n)
will not exceed the boundaries of the optimal outline for the real
resource. Such a pit provides an inner bound for the optimal
outline for the real resource.
High confidence reserve pit
The inner-bound pit H-Pit(n) may be used as a type of High
Confidence Reserve pit. You can be highly confident that this pit
will not over-mine the real resource. By the time you have mined
the High Confidence Reserve pit, you will have better geological
data available for the remaining resource, and will be in a much
better position to determine the direction in which to expand the
pit. This is an example of the mechanism by which the Hybrid
Pits technique can be used as design guides to allow a degree of
risk avoidance, associated with the higher uncertainty in early
times.
Estimator of the impact of geological uncertainty
One of the impacts of geological uncertainty is that it leads to
uncertainty as to the shape and size of the final pit. With the
application of the Hybrid Pit approach, as is discussed above:
• you can be highly confident that the optimal pit for the real
resource will be a superset to H-Pit(1); and
• you can be highly confident that the optimal pit for the real
resource will be a subset to H-Pit(n).
The area bounded by H-Pit(1) and H-Pit(n) represents the area
in which the optimal outline for the real resource can exist. If the
area is large, it indicates that the orebody model variance, as
expressed in the simulations, leads to a high degree of
uncertainty as to the position of the optimal pit boundary. If the
area is small, it indicates that there is a low degree of uncertainty
as to the position of the optimal pit boundary.
The above principles can be generalised as follows:
The probability of the optimal pit for the real resource
being a superset to H-Pit(m) is m/n.
This is the manner in which specific probability estimates can
be applied. It means that there is a quantifiable degree of
402 Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004
uncertainty associated with any hybrid pit H-Pit(m). As m
increases:
1. the size of the pit decreases, and
2. the probability that it does not over-mine the optimal pit for
the real resource increases.
The authors envisage that this model will be applied in future
to determine pit shapes that exhibit a known and acceptable
compromise between certainty (risk reduction) and size (reserve
maximisation).
INITIAL TRIAL OF HYBRID PITS TO A
CONDITIONALLY SIMULATED MODEL
Methodology of the trial
In order to check the theory of Hybrid Pits, a block model related
to a gold deposit was selected. Based on this original model, five
separate block models were created using a simulation program.
For normal modelling purposes, five simulations are not
adequate, but five are adequate for the purposes of testing the
mathematical propositions put forward in this paper.
Each of these simulated models has a chance to represent a
possible real resource. In the next step, Whittle software was
utilised to perform optimisation analysis on simulated models. In
order to be consistent in optimisation, the same parameters were
applied in analysis. The optimised pit shells were then exported
to GEMS software where they were used to modify new
attributes within block models. The values of these attributes
were then exported into spreadsheets with their block numbers.
Using the theory explained above, a pit-list file for Hybrid Pits
was created. This pit list then was imported into Whittle and
there a cash flow analysis was performed for each simulated
model and Hybrid-Pits.
Figure 3 shows the procedures of this experiment.
Simulation
Optimisation
analysis
Pit shells exported
to GEMS
Attribute
modification
Hybrid-Pit
creation
Cash Flow
analysis
Conclusion
FIG 3 - Procedure of the experiment.
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning
 HYBRID PITS — LINKING CONDITIONAL SIMULATION AND LERCHS-GROSSMANN THROUGH SET THEORY

Simulation The test for nesting, was performed by a visual inspection of

the pits bench by bench, and section by section. It was possible
Due to the lack of a real variance distribution model within the to verify that there was no violation of the nesting rule by this
block model that we had, we applied the following methodology method.
to create simulated block model. Using a random generator, a
normal distribution was applied to the original block model with The test to determine whether any pit slope constraints were
the following parameters: violated by the hybrid pits was performed with a modified
version of the Whittle Mining Width module. The module
µ = Original _ Grade re-applies the pit slope constraint to each shell and changes block
allocation in the event that a pit slope constraint is violated. By
σ = 0.3 × Original _ Grade
running the hybrid pits through this module it was possible to
Using this method five different simulated block models were verify that no pit slope constraints were violated.
created. The grades were controlled in order to avoid entering
into the negative territory. All simulated models have the same Results of the trial
origin and block size.
The five original optimal pits and the five Hybrid Pits were all
evaluated against the five simulated models, giving a total of fifty
Optimisation analysis
evaluations. The results are summarised in Table 4. In the table,
Optimisation analysis was performed on models using Whittle Pit 1 is the pit which is optimal for Simulation 1; Pit 2 is the pit
3.2. The same parameters were applied on each analysis. Table 3 which is optimal for Simulation 2, etc.
shows the parameters that were used for this analysis. As is to be expected, for each of the simulations, the pit which
Based on this analysis, five optimal pit were extracted into performs best is the corresponding original optimal pit.
GEMS. Using GEMS, some new attributes were defined and then H-Pit(5) is the inner bound pit. This can be used as a high
modified by these optimal pits. These attributes actually confidence reserve pit, in that you can be highly confident that
contained a value of 1 or 0 that defined whether the related cell is the optimal pit for the real resource will be a superset to H-Pit(5).
part of the pit or not. H-Pit(1) is the outer bound pit. You can be highly confident
that the optimal pit for the real reserve does not extend beyond
Hybrid pit creation the perimeter of H-Pit(1).
The calculation has been done on the attribute explained above to Refer to the section Projected Application of Hybrid Pits for a
create hybrid pits. discussion of the intended interpretation and application of these
results.
Hybrid pits were found to be technically feasible Figure 4 shows the spatial relationship between H-Pit(1) and
H-Pit(5) in an elevation view. As can be seen the effect of the
The mathematics indicated that the hybrid pits would be variance in the model, as expressed in the five simulations, leads
technically feasible – they would nest and they would not violate to uncertainty as to the position of the pit wall on the right hand
pit slope constraints. The authors found that the trial supported side of the diagram, as well as some minor uncertainty as to the
this. pit wall position on the left hand side.
Table 4 also provides:
TABLE 3 • The average value of each o-pit (Pits one through five) as
Parameters used in optimisation analysis. evaluated against the five simulated models. With the
application of the Dimitrakopoulos (2003) technique pit
Parameter Value number two could be chosen as a design pit, as it provides
Block size 10*10*8 the highest mean value (meaning that it is the most likely to
return the highest value) of all the o-pits.
Number of blocks in each model 63 296
Gold price 380 $/oz
• The average value of each of the hybrid pit as evaluated
against the five simulated models. In this trial H-Pit(2)
Mining cost 1 $/tonne produced the highest average value. It is interesting that,
Processing cost 22 $/tonne evaluated in this way, an H-Pit outperforms all of the o-pits
Mining recovery 95% in this trial. However, it is not a central aspect of this paper,
and the authors have not attempted to determine theoretically
Processing recovery 95%
whether this may always be the case.

TABLE 4
Summary results of the Hybrid Pit trial.

Pit 1 Pit 2 Pit 3 Pit 4 Pit 5 H-Pit(5) H-Pit(4) H-Pit(3) H-Pit(2) H-Pit(1)
mT 19.5 20.5 19.3 20.3 20.3 18.2 19.6 20.2 20.6 21.3
$'000's Pit 1 Pit 2 Pit 3 Pit 4 Pit 5 H-Pit(5) H-Pit(4) H-Pit(3) H-Pit(2) H-Pit(1)
Sim 1 27 098 25 943 25 770 25 911 25 928 25 157 25 951 26 479 26 578 26 486
Sim 2 25 294 26 589 25 091 25 387 25 291 24 106 25 213 25 955 26 164 26 214
Sim 3 24 702 24 972 26 218 24 851 25 088 24 219 24 872 25 565 25 689 25 487
Sim 4 25 756 26 054 25 973 27 365 25 669 24 707 25 895 26 602 26 756 26 857
Sim 5 23 509 23 871 23 666 23 884 25 240 22 691 23 570 24 386 24 745 24 766
Ave 25 272 25 486 25 344 25 480 25 443 24 176 25 100 25 797 25 986 25 962

Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004 403
D WHITTLE and A BOZORGEBRAHIMI
FIG 4 - Section showing the spatial relationship between H-Pit(5)
and H-Pit(1).
CONCLUSIONS
Considering uncertainties presented in any geological models
this paper showed that the Hybrid Pits technique leads to the
creation of pit outlines with quantifiable probability
characteristics, with respect to their spatial relationship to the
optimal pit for the real resource. The Hybrid Pits can be used as
design guides to allow a quantifiable degree of risk avoidance,
associated with the higher uncertainty in early stages of a mine
development.
The validity of the Hybrid Pits technique is supported by the
set theory model explained in this paper, and by the trial of the
technique on a small data set. The pits were found to obey the pit
slope constraints, so they are technically feasible. The pits were
also found to nest, which is an inherent quality of the pits if they
are to conform to the theory presented in this paper.
The trial produced Hybrid Pits which were quite similar in
terms of overall size. It is not known on the basis of this sample
of one, whether this is common, or whether it is more common
for the gap between H-Pit(n) and H-Pit(1) to be great. The size of
404 Perth, WA, 22 - 24 November 2004
View publication stats
the gap will certainly be a function of the variance of the models,
but it will also depend on a great many other economic,
geotechnical and geological factors.
The operations required to complete the trial were found to be
relatively straightforward, though large in number. For this very
small trial, there were five pit optimisations performed, and fifty
life-of-mine schedules, with a good deal of associated data
manipulation in Whittle, GEMS and Excel. To repeat the exact
same exercise for a family of 25 simulated models, would require
only 25 pit optimisations, but 1250 economic evaluations.
Generally speaking, the trial produced results which were in
line with the expectations of the authors. There was one pleasant
surprise – that when evaluated against the family of simulated
models, one of the Hybrid Pits outperformed all the original
optimal pits. Prior to the trial, the authors were unable to form a
hypothesis as to whether Hybrid Pits would outperform original
Optimal Pits in this manner, but in this one case, it was found to
be so. Only experience will tell whether it is a common or an
uncommon outcome.
REFERENCES
Dimitrakopoulos, R, 2003. Personal communication. November.
Dimitrakopoulos, R, Farrelly C T, Godoy, M, 2001. I’d rather be
approximately right than precisely wrong: grade uncertainty, risk
effects and decision making in open pit design, in Proceedings
Strategic Mine Planning Conference, pp 35-42 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Lerchs, H, Grossmann, I F, 1965. Optimum design of open pit mines, The
Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, 58(January):47-54.
Van Brunt, B H, Rossi, M E, 1997. Optimising conditionally simulated
orebodies with Whittle 4D, in Proceedings Optimizing with Whittle
Conference, pp 119-128 (Whittle Programming: Vancouver BC).
Van Brunt, B H, Rossi, M E, 1999, Mine planning under uncertainty
constraints, in Proceedings Optimizing with Whittle: Strategic Mine
Planning Conference, pp 181-196 (Whittle Programming: Vancouver
BC).
Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning