You are on page 1of 15

Generic approach to developing an algorithm for

mining- related problems

J. Githiria and A.S. Nhleko

University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa

Developing an algorithm is the first step when devising a mathematical model to optimise
mining operations. An algorithm is a systematic procedure to accomplish a specific task. It
is the idea behind any reasonable computer programme. Mining has reached a stage
where mine planners have embraced optimisation when planning their operations. Mine
planning for any operation (surface or underground) is aimed at maximising the value
realized from the ore body. Consequently, most mines use computer-programming tools
to optimise the ore extraction processes.

The challenge faced by researchers in the mining industry when solving mining-related
problems, is in the design of algorithms that solve problems accurately, quickly and
efficiently. These algorithms need to apply to real mining environments. Hence, this
paper provides a guideline to be employed when developing an algorithm for mining-
related problems. There is no one process to develop an algorithm due to the unique
quality of the ore body setting environments; however, the material presented in this
paper provides generic thought processes.

Keywords: algorithm development, mathematical model, optimisation, open pit mining,


underground mining.

INTRODUCTION

An algorithm is a procedure that takes any of the possible input instances and transforms them to the
desired output. It must solve a general but well-specified problem. An algorithmic problem is specified
by describing the complete set of instances it must work on and of its output after running on one of
these instances. Determining the type of problem is a first step towards finding a solution.

Generally, mining-related problems involve exploration, mining, processing and refining. It is worth
noting that exploration has not been fully developed as a problem, however, it is imperative to develop
algorithms to determine how and where to explore. Currently, optimisation problems are categorised
into surface and underground mining problems.

Mining-related problems generate along the mining process, which has three major stages: mining,
processing and refining. Most optimisation problems in surface mining operations are found when
undertaking production scheduling and cut-off grade optimisation. The major hurdles encountered
when optimising underground mining operations is optimising development, stope outlining, and ore
production scheduling in a single run.
Mining companies must advocate and develop global strategic mine plans that optimise both surface
and underground operations to manage any changes that may affect the operations according to their
profiles of operations. In order for mine plans to incorporate such changes, optimisation methods need
to be adopted and applied (Musingwini, 2016).

Most professional programmers are not well prepared to tackle algorithm design problems related to
mining. This can be attributed to the complexity of mining processes. The techniques of algorithm
design form one of the core practical technologies of computer science. Designing correct, efficient,
and implementable algorithms for real-world problems requires access to two distinct bodies of
knowledge: resources and techniques (Skiena, 2008).

Good algorithm designers understand several fundamental algorithm design techniques such as
heuristics, sorting and searching, dynamic programming, data structures and linear programming. The
most important algorithmic design technique is modelling. It involves conceptualizing a messy real-
world application into a clean problem that is defined in an algorithm. It is prudent to first figure out
what is known about the particular problem, rather than labouring from scratch to produce a new
algorithm for every task. Existing algorithms serve as a starting point rather than re-implementation of
the algorithms. They provide sufficient source material to model most any application (Skiena, 2008).

Operation research
Operation research is a mathematical science commonly applied to optimisation problems that are
concerned with improving the performance of an original. It determines the maximum (of profit,
performance, or yield) or minimum (of loss, risk, or cost) of some real-world objective. When operation
research is undertaken, these steps are followed (Little, 2012):

i. Define the problem and gather relevant data;


ii. Construct a mathematical model that represents the problem;
iii. Develop a procedure or algorithm that provides solutions to the problem;
iv. Test the model and modify as required;
v. Implement the solution.

In operation research, a mathematical model is used to represent a real-world problem by


mathematical formulations. It is created using mathematical optimisation techniques to find a solution
to optimisation problems. There are various components found in most models such as the objective
function; decision variables; constraints and data used in the model. The objective function represents
the function to be optimised; for instance, maximising the net present value (NPV) or minimising
costs. Decision variables are the unknown parameters that the model seeks to determine their optimal
values within an optimisation problem. They can be continuous, semi-continuous, binary or integer.
The values set in the parameters are varied in order to optimise the objective function. Constraints
consist of equalities and inequalities that limit the values that any decision variable can assume. The
data represents the constants of the model. The mine planner will then come up with data that will be
used in the model. It is important to note that when developing a mathematical model, consideration
must be given to the size of the industry-relevant problems. This depends on the solution time of the
algorithm and the choice of model formulation technique. Mine planning optimisation models are
applied in both open pit and underground mining as described in the following sections.

The paper shows the major algorithms developed in both surface and underground mining operations
to show the importance of applying operation research on mining optimisation problems. The
combination of these existing models is important as it strategically and tactically solves the problems
on a global scale, generating optimal solution. For instance, underground scheduling is commonly
done in a sequential manner in that the output from one planning process is the input to the next. This
is mostly applicable when using manual methods that generate non-optimal NPV, thus the need to
optimize the whole process. For example, Little (2016) developed an integrated solution for
underground mining operations with two major areas of concerns: stope layout and boundary and

138
production scheduling. There are various studies which aim to optimise development and
infrastructure along with stope layout and the production scheduling.
There are studies focusing on combining these common algorithms to get an optimal solution for both
surface and underground mining operations. These combined approaches are applied in mining
software such as Whittle 4X, Surpac, and Maptek Vulcan.

Construction of an economic block model


Ore body modelling is the geological basis of mine planning where drill hole data from exploration
processes are used to gather quantitative and qualitative information required to develop a geological
block model. This geological block model can be developed in three-dimensional (3D) space along the
x, y, and z-axes. Geological models assist in determining the spatial position of the orebody, which aid
in the determination of the optimum mining method (surface and/or underground). Consequently, the
geological block model is converted to an economic block where each block has a block value to be
realised if the block is extracted. Figure 1 shows a hypothetical economic block model in two-
dimensional (2D) space. There are several parameters considered during the conversion of a geological
block model, including grade, price, mining cost, processing cost and recovery. Equation 1 can be
applied to convert the geological model into an economic block model. If the block economic value
(BEV) is positive, then it is economic to mine, else it is uneconomic to mine.

Figure 1. Hypothetical economic block in two-dimension.

Block economic value (BEV) = Block revenue — cost

BEV = [(block tonnage × grade × recovery × price) — (mining cost + processing


cost)]

BEV ij = [(T ij ×G ij ×R ij × P ij) - (MC ij + PC ij)] [1]

Where: Tij is tonnage of block Bij


Gij is the grade of block Bij
Rij is the % of metal recovered from block
Bij Pij is the unit price of the metal
MCij is the cost of mining block Bij
PCij is the cost of processing block
Bij i, j Є Z

Mine planners use the economic block model to select blocks that should be included in the optimum
extraction of the orebody with an objective function to maximise the value. There are various
techniques used to determine which blocks are to be included in the final layout, most common are the
operations research techniques (algorithms). There are numerous algorithms developed to optimise
layout for either surface or underground mining.
Algorithms developed in surface mining
The development and implementation of mathematical formulations to solve complex optimisation
problems in mine planning has been progressive, especially in surface mining. Algorithms developed in
surface mining involves production scheduling which embodies several major aspects that affect the
overall mine output. These include cut-off grade optimisation, block economic evaluation, slope design
and requirements, pit design and optimisation and pushback design.

The main objective in open pit production scheduling is to maximise the net present value of
future cash flows with slope, bench or block precedence, grade blending and production capacities
(mining and milling capacities) as the constraints. It identifies the sequence of extraction then
undertakes a pushback/cutback/phase design and block-by-block production schedule based on
the constraints.

A mining complex constitutes a mine, ore processing stream and metal refinery. In order to avoid
losses in a mining system, these areas should be optimally planned (Githiria et al., 2016). Modelling of
these optimisation problems related to mining operations follow the same thought-process. They
follow the same conventional mining layout as shown in Figure 2. The changes arising along the
process depends on the nature of the problem, if surface or underground mining related.

Figure 2. Layout of an ideal mining system.

Block economic evaluation and cut-off grade optimisation


The basis of calculation for block economic evaluation is the cut-off grade and net value of material
being mined. Net value of material is considered as a function of grade, whereby, the grade at which
net value is equal to zero is breakeven cut-off grade. Block economic values vary when the material
mined has either single or multiple material destinations along the conventional layout of an ideal
mining system, as shown in Figure 2.

Cut-off grade is defined as the grade that is normally used to distinguish between ore and waste within
a given ore body. It also distinguishes between various ore types before processing takes place for
different metallurgical processing options. Lane (1964, 1988) came up with a 3D algorithm in
calculating cut-off grades. Lane’s process accounts for economic and geological parameters and
production capacities in the calculation of cut-off grades. Lane’s theory uses mathematical derivations
to get six cut- off grades, which are then sorted using a sorting algorithm to get an optimum cut-off
grade. Three of the cut-off grades are limiting cut-off grades, derived by assuming that the three stages;
mining, processing and refining are each independently constraining throughput. The limiting cut-off
grades are based upon capacities, costs, and price. The other three are balancing cut-off grades that are
determined by assuming that two of the three stages are operating in unison at their capacity limits.
They are based on the grade, and capacities of the production stages. The rate of production in a
mining system is determined by the production capacities (Githiria and Musingwini, 2018).

The optimal cut-off grade approach (Lane 1964, 1988) has been modified in several studies by
incorporating different mining scenarios. For instance, Githiria, Muriuki and Musingwini (2016)
focussed on optimising cut-off grade under deterministic variables and developed a computer-aided
application using Lane’s algorithm. The application is useful in mine planning when coming up with a
cut-off grade policy. The cut-off grades are dynamic since Lane’s approach accounts for the change in
the grade-tonnage curve. This ensures that the cut-off grades used in mine planning are proportional
to the rate of ore depletion.

Pit and pushback design and optimisation


A feasible pit outline has a dollar value which depends on the slope, block and bench requirements. No
block may be added or removed to/from a feasible pit outline which will increase the value without
violating the slope constraints. The optimal pit outline carries maximum dollar value. The common
algorithms used in generating the optimal pit design are floating cone (Carlson, et al., 1966), Lerch-
Grossman (LG) algorithm (Lerch and Grossman, 1965) and pseudoflow network model (Hochbaum,
1998, 2001, 2002; Hochbaum and Chen, 2000). They require an economic block model as an input.
This is undertaken by converting the block grades to block economic values.

Floating cone is one of the common pit limit calculation methods. It is developed by Kennecott Copper
Corporation during the 1960s that entailed a series of interlocking frustum shaped removal increments
(Carlson, et al., 1966). It is a computerized method and thus is easy to understand by engineers
coupled with a simple computational algorithm. It is a better method than the trial and error method
as it produces fairly good results for mine planning, however it misses combinations of profitable
blocks and extends or shrinks the ultimate pit beyond optimal limit. Wright (1999) and Elahi, et al.
(2011), further modified it.

Lerch-Grossman (L-G) algorithm (Lerch and Grossman, 1965) involves modelling of an ore body, by
pit planning, using the algorithm to plan for an open pit mine. It obtains the ultimate pit limits and
pushback regions, and then obtains scenarios of subsequent production scheduling that should be
followed to maximise the mine value with emphasis on maintaining consistent production. Mining
software programmes such as Whittle 4X have incorporated the algorithm.

L.G 2D algorithm is based on dynamic programming while the 3D version of the algorithm is based on
graph theory. The L-G 3D Algorithm, a graph closure solution, is implemented in Whittle 4X to
generate the ultimate pit from the orebody model. Nested pits are thereby created within the ultimate
pits by changing capacities of arcs between the nodes of the graph. The nested pits are combined and
finally a production schedule can be properly obtained. Any feasible pit outline has a cash value and to
compute it, a mining/ production schedule must be decided upon and then the pit mined out,
progressively accumulating the revenues (Whittle, 1990).

The LG algorithm is widely applied in the industry due to its efficiency. However, recently newer
algorithms for network flow have been developed theoretically more efficient than the LG algorithm.
examples of the network flow algorithms include push-relabel and pseudoflow algorithms. Hochbaum
(1998, 2000, 2002) generalised the LG algorithm to a pseudoflow network model. It proved to be
theoretically more efficient than LG algorithm since it did not allow selection of constraints in its
calculations (Muir, 2004).

Other methods that have been applied in generating ultimate pit limits include; maximum flow
algorithm (Johnson, 1968; Asad and Dimitrakopoulos, 2013), Zhao and Kim algorithm (Zhao and Kim,
1992), Roman’s method based on dynamic programming (Roman, 1974), variations of Lerch-
Grossman algorithm using graph theory, and other methods/models based on linear programming.

Milawa NPV, Milawa Balanced and Fixed lead algorithms are some of the algorithms applied in
production scheduling using Whittle 4X software. They implement mathematical models that combine
pit shells to generate a pushback design. Using Whittle 4X along with calculated mining parameters,
the periodic production and mine value can be predetermined thereby showing elimination of
guesswork and its subsequent effects on mining results (Whittle, 2000). Table I presents the summary of
the algorithms commonly applied in surface mining optimisation problems.
Table I. Summary of some of the algorithms applied in surface mining
Algorithms developed in underground mining
Unlike surface mining, extraction of an underground orebody presents mine planners with great
challenges, as there are numerous possible options. The optimisation problem for underground mining
can be divided into four sub-problems, that is, development and infrastructure placement, stope
layout, equipment selection and deployment, and production scheduling. The circular logic presents
difficulty in deciding which part of the underground optimisation subsets should be a starting point of
optimisation (Figure 3). However, Erdogan et al. (2016) argued that stope layout be considered as the
initial point. The preferred optimisation process will be to optimise the underground mining problem
simultaneously. However, there are numerous constraints to be considered, which will increase the
solution time exponentially and making the problem NP-hard. Numerous algorithms have been
developed for optimisation of infrastructure and development placement, and production scheduling.
This paper presents a summary of algorithms that have been developed to generate stope layouts
(Table II).

Figure 3. Circular logic of underground optimisation (Adopted from Musingwini, 2016).


Table II. Comparison of the common stope layout optimisation algorithms (Nhleko et al., 2018).
Only the branch and bound approach and dynamic programming algorithm generate optimal stope
layouts in 1D and 2D, respectively. However, these algorithms do not yield optimum stope layouts in
3D. The number of constraints considered in the optimisation problem vary from algorithm to
algorithm, with the network flow algorithm having the highest number of constraints at four. It is
worth noting that as the number of constraints increases, the solution time increases exponentially.
Current studies in operations research are focused on developing algorithms that can generate
optimum stope layout in 3D for underground mining. The next section discusses the thought-process
to be followed when developing an algorithm for optimisation of a mining problem.

Developing a mining-related algorithm


Designing an algorithm for a given application is an art that requires creativity, as it involves taking a
problem and extracting a solution from it. In arriving at an algorithm, there are many choices present,
thus presenting the designer with various complex options. There are two parts to designing an
algorithm: techniques which provide the basic ideas underlying all combinatorial algorithms, and
modelling the application to the relevant problems.

Algorithms are developed for a specific problem, thus cannot be generalised. This becomes a
constraint, for example, particle swarm optimisation (PSO) is used to solve a mechanical problem but
to optimise stope layout it will have to be modified accordingly.

The thought-process in solving problems in mining requires two aspects, strategy and tactics. Strategy
represents the quest for developing a framework around which the path to the goal is constructed while
tactics are used to win the minor challenges encountered in the process to generating a solution. When
articulating the reasoning as to why the application is not working, the first thing is to check is whether
you have maximised all possibilities in coming up with a solution.

It is crucial to have a global strategy plan when designing an algorithm in order to come up with tactics
along the solution path. The strategic question is what kind of algorithmic problem the application will
be modelled into. The problem will define the technique used in modelling. The tactical decisions made
along the algorithmic path are critical to the ultimate quality of the solution, but they depend on the
success of the global strategy. The most important questions or decisions made when designing an
algorithm are based on a detailed understanding of the problem and do not require specific expertise.
However, one needs the know-how to come up with an algorithm development procedure. The
thought-process on designing an algorithm involves the following step- by- step procedure:

1. Identify and understand the problem by undertaking the following steps:


a. Define the problem
b. Define the input data to the problem
c. Define the desired output of the problem or expected results from the application
d. Define the problem using a simple flowchart/flow diagram showing the algorithmic
process and attempt to solve the problem by hand
e. Identify the size of the problem by defining how many items will be involved in the algorithm
f. Identify the importance of speed in which the application solves the problem, or the time taken
to run the application
g. Define the level of accuracy desired from the application
h. Identify the nature of the problem for easy formulation. Is it a numerical problem, graph
algorithm, geometric problem, string problem, etc.? This will determine the technique used in
formulation of the algorithm
i. Define complexity of the problem depending on individual/simple approach applied or
complex/several approaches used in solving the problem
2. Description of the algorithmic design whether the problem can be solved using an exact or
heuristic algorithm
a.
Decision on whether a simple algorithm will suffice depends on whether the algorithm will be
able to correctly search through all subsets or arrangements and pick the optimal one. The
problem needs to be defined correctly in the algorithm to enable solution time and capability is
adequately sufficient.
b. A heuristic algorithm is applied when the problem is defined in such a way that the algorithm
searches for random subsets in the defined path. Heuristic algorithms in the mining industry
are mostly applied to optimise the entire orebody and provide a 3-D analysis of the problem.
3. Literature on the other existing algorithms applied on the specific related problems in question.
The algorithms form a basis of knowledge of the problem which can be used to solve the existing
problem.
4. Identify whether there are special cases in the algorithmic problems that will allow manipulation
of the input parameters. Changes made in such algorithms to simplify the problem must be
accounted for.
5. Identify the standard algorithm design paradigms relevant to the problem. The following
examples illustrates the relevant algorithm design models used for the specific problems.
a) A set of items in a problem that can be sorted by size or some key will probably be solved
easily by a sorted order.
b) A divide-and-conquer algorithm may be applied if a problem can be split in two smaller
problems by doing a binary search then partitioning the elements into big and small, or left and
right.
c) Dynamic programming is applied if the input objects or desired solution have a natural left-to-
right order, such as characters in a string, elements of a permutation, or leaves of a tree.
d) Simulated annealing is used when applying random sampling to select which object to pick next
and selecting the best configuration out of the random configurations.
e) Linear programming models (such as mixed integer programming, integer programming and
binary integer programming) are applied if the problem can be defined as a linear problem and
the variables in the mathematical model are integer or linear values.
f) Data structures are used where the operations are done repeatedly such as searching or finding
the largest/smallest element in a set of items faster.
g) The problems may seem something like satisfiability, the traveling salesman problem, or some
other NP-complete problem thus having an inefficient algorithm.

The algorithmic process gears to solve the problems arising in any operation in a step-to-step format as
shown in Figure 4. The mining engineering related problems are first identified, whether open pit or
underground, then later the model to be applied is determined. Selecting the right jobs and reasoning
about correctness matters most when coming up with an algorithm. A good algorithm designer does
not necessarily reinvent the wheel. There is a catalogue of algorithms developed to solve problems
which can be used as a reference when solving the specific problem in question.

In summary, there is a great need for improvement in mine planning through integrated optimisation
of the whole mining process. Mathematical optimisation techniques have been used in the mining
industry to develop several optimisation software options to maximise profits. Examples of these
mathematical optimisation techniques used in implementing algorithms include:

i. Linear programming techniques: mixed integer programming, integer programming, binary


integer programming;
ii. Heuristic methods such as random sampling, local search, simulated annealing, genetic
algorithms, tabu search, parallel algorithms, and Greedy method;
iii. Dynamic programming;
iv. Sorting and searching algorithms;
v. Combinatorial search algorithms: backtracking, search pruning;
vi. Graph traversal and Weighted graph algorithms; and
vii. Intractable problems and approximation algorithms.
The developed algorithm needs to be tested to validate its applicability in the mining industry. The
algorithm is coded on an integrated development environment or platform on a standard computer
then tested using relevant input data. Implementation should be done first into a small data set to
check the model is working correctly before application of large-scale data set.

Figure 4. Flowchart showing the thought-process on designing an algorithm.


CONCLUSIONS

Exploration drilling results are used to produce a geological block model which is delineated into
thousands in some cases millions of mining blocks in 3D space. Thereafter, a suitable mining method
is selected. Subsequently, mine planners start with generation of mining layouts that are aimed at
maximising the value realised from the orebody. Generating an optimum mining layout is of the
outmost importance as the layout serves as input into the production scheduling process. Thus,
inputting a non-optimal layout into the formulation of production schedules could result in unrealistic
expectations being incorporated into the schedules. Accordingly, having a negative influence on the life
of mine and value realised.

Numerous algorithms have been developed to aid in decision making with regards to mining layout.
However, underground mining has been lagging behind and no known algorithm can guarantee
optimal solution in the 3D space. The challenge faced by mine planners when solving mining related
problems is in the design of algorithms that solve problems accurately, fast and efficient. These
algorithms need to applicable in a real mining environment. The generic approach in solving mining
optimisation problems involves formulating a mathematical model in form of an algorithm. Linear,
quadratic functions or any other mathematical function of the mining parameters against time and/or
any other relevant parameter are used to achieve the algorithmic procedure. However, there is no
single process used in developing an algorithm due to the uniqueness of the mining environment.

REFERENCES

Asad, M. W. A. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. (2013). Implementing a parametric maximum flow algorithm


for optimal open pit mine design under uncertain supply and demand. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Volume 64, No. 2, pp. 185. http://doi:10.1057/jors.2012.26.

Carlson, T. R., Erickson, J. D., O’Brain D. T. and Pana, M. T. ( 1966). Computer techniques in mine
planning, Mining Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 53-56.

Elahi Zenyi E, Kakaie R, Yousefi A.( 2011). A new algorithm for optimum pit design: floating cone
method III, Journal of Mining Environment, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.118–25.

Erdogan, G., Cigla, M., Topal, E., Yavuz, M. ( 2016). Implementation and comparison of four stope
boundary optimisation algorithms in an existing underground mine, 6th International
Conference on Computer Applications in the Minerals Industries, Istanbul, Turkey, 5–7
October 2016

Githiria, J., Muriuki, J. & Musingwini, C. ( 2016). Development of a computer-aided application using
Lane’s algorithm to optimise cut-off grade, Journal of the Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 116, No. 11, pp. 1027-1035.

Githiria, J., Musingwini, C. ( 2018). Comparison of cut-off grade models in mine planning for
improved value creation based on NPV, Proceedings of the 6th Regional Conference of the
Society of Mining Professors (SOMP), Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 347–362.

Hochbaum, D. S. and Chen, A.( 2000). Performance analysis and best implementations of old and new
algorithms for the open-pit mining problem, Operations Research, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 894-
914.

Hochbaum, D. S. ( 1998). The pseudoflow algorithm and the pseudoflow-based simplex for the
maximum flow problem, Proceedings of 6th International Integer Programming and
Combinatorial Optimization Conference. Heidelberg: Springer; 1412:325–37.
http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540- 69346-7_25.

Hochbaum, D. S. ( 2001). A new-old algorithm for minimum cut and maximum-flow in closure graphs,
Networks, special 30th anniversary paper, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 171-193.
Hochbaum, D. S. ( 2002). The Pseudoflow algorithm: a new algorithm for the maximum flow problem,
UC Berkeley manuscript, December.

Johnson, T. B. ( 1968). Optimum open pit mine production scheduling. PhD Thesis, Department of
IEOR, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Koenigsberg E. ( 1982). The optimum contours of an open pit mine: an application of dynamic
programming, Proceedings of 17th International Symposium Application of Computers and Operation
Research in the Mineral Industry. pp. 274–87.

Lane, K.F. (1964). Choosing the optimum cut-off grade, Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, Vol. 59,
No.
4, pp. 811–829.

Lane, K.F., (1988). The Economic Definition of Ore: Cut-off Grade in Theory and Practice. Mining
Journal Books, London.

Lerchs, H. and Grossmann, I. F. ( 1965). Optimum design of open pit Mine, CIM Bulletin, No. 58(633),
pp. 47 – 54.

Little, J. ( 2012). Simultaneous optimisation of stope layouts and production schedules for long-term
underground mine planning, PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Muir, D. C. W. ( 2004). Pseudoflow, New Life for Lerchs-Grossmann Pit Optimisation, Orebody
Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning, Spectrum Series, Vol. 14, pp. 97-104.

Musingwini, C. (2016). Presidential Address: Optimization in underground mine planning –


developments and opportunities. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Vol. 116, No. 9, pp. 1–12.

Nhleko, A.S.; Tholana, T. and Neingo, P.N. ( 2018). A review of underground stope boundary
optimization algorithms. Resource Policy, Vol. 56, pp. 59 – 69.

Roman, R.J. ( 1974). The role of time value of money in determining an open pit mining sequence and
pit limits, Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Application of Computers and
Operation Research in the Minerals Industries (APCOM), pp. 72-85.

Skiena, S.S. (2008). The Algorithm Design Manual, 2nd ed., DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84800-070-4 10, Springer-
Verlag London Limited.

Whittle, D. ( 2000). Proteus environment: Sensitivity work made easy. Whittle North American Mine
Planning Conference, CO.

Whittle, J. ( 1990). Open Pit Optimization, Surface Mining, 2nd Edition, SME-Online Digital Library.
Wright, E. A. ( 1999). MOVING CONE II - A Simple Algorithm for Optimum Pit Limits Design,
Proceedings of the 28th Symposium on the Application of Computers and Operations Research in
the Mineral Industries (APCOM), pp. 367-374.

Zhao, H. and Kim, Y.C. ( 1992). A new optimum pit limit design algorithm, Proceedings of the 23rd
International Symposium on the Application of Computers and Operations Research in the
Mineral Industries, pp. 423-434.
Joseph Muchiri Githiria

PhD Student
University of the Witwatersrand

J. Githiria is currently doing his PhD in Mining Engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand. He
holds a Master of Engineering Science (Mining) in Curtin University (Western Australia School of
Mines) and a Bachelor of Science in Mining and Mineral Processing Engineering. His research
interests include mine planning and optimisation in surface and underground mining and mine design
with aid of computer and operations research applications. He is a Member of the Australian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
(SAIMM).

150
View publication stats

You might also like