Optimization Algorithm

12/21/2019 C: \ Users \ Amilkar \ Desktop \ 002 ___ 09-06.09.10 CORRECTED MARIA NATALIA VALLEJO AND OTHERS.
pmd
Page 1
ANALYSIS OF THE MINING OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS: CONE

FLOATING AND LERCHS-GROSSMANN USING GEMCOM SURPAC AND UPL
ANALYSIS OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS FOR MINING: FLOATING

CONE AND LERCHS - GROSSMANN USING GEMCOM SURPAC AND UPL
María Natalia Vallejo García, Juan Gabriel Baquero Chiquiza & Giovanni Franco Sepúlveda
Mining Planning Group
Faculty of Mines National University of Colombia, Medellín Headquarters
mnvallej@unal.edu.co; jgbaquer@unal.edu.co; gfranco@unal.edu.co
Received for evaluation: September 6, 2010 / Acceptance: October 4, 2010 / Received final version: October 21, 2010
SUMMARY
The final limits of an open pit can be determined with the help of various existing optimization algorithms
as they are: the one of the floating cone and the one of Lerchs-Grossmann; These techniques are based on iterative processes, for which
different computer programs that perform these processes have been developed.
This article presents the application of these two techniques to a hypothetical limestone deposit, an application that will be
executed by two different computational tools; the first an Excel macro called "UPL" Ultimate Pit
Limit, and the other is Gemcom's Surpac, this evaluation ultimately leads to the comparison of the results.
KEYWORDS: Surface Mining; Optimization; UPL; Lerchs-Grossmann; Pit Final Limit; Limestone.
ABSTRACT
The final limits of an open-pit mine may be designed by using the diverse optimizing algorithms available, such as the
floating cone and the Lerchs and Grossmann. These techniques are based on iterative processes, for which they have
developed several computer programs that perform these processes.
In this paper we will present the application of these two techniques in a hypothetical limestone deposite, by running two
different computer tools: an Excel macro called Ultimate Pit Limit (UPL), and Surpac by Gemcom. This hypothetical
evaluation will finally lead to the comparison of the results obtained.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 1/14
12/21/2019 C: \ Users \ Amilkar \ Desktop \ 002 ___ 09-06.09.10 CORRECTED MARIA NATALIA VALLEJO AND OTHERS.pmd
KEY WORDS: Surface Mining; Optimization; Algorithm; UPL; Lerchs-Grossmann; Final Pit Limit;
Limestone
BULLETIN OF SCIENCES OF THE EARTH - Issue 28, June to November 2010, Medellin, ISSN 0120 - 3630. pp 15-26 fifteen
Page 2
BULLETIN OF SCIENCES OF THE EARTH - Issue 28, June to November 2010, Medellin, ISSN 0120-3630.
1. INTRODUCTION
The economic evaluation of a rock mass is usually a rather cumbersome task faced by the
Most Mining Engineers, when it comes to proper planning, in the extraction sequence and
limits of exploitation of the material of a mining project that maximizes the income obtained, since it is done
it is necessary to know the majority of possible variables, to be able to make a prediction of the benefit of the extraction
With a good level of confidence.
There are different methods to evaluate these variables; This article will focus on the application of the algorithm of
Lerchs-Grossmann and that of the floating cone to a hypothetical tank, in which the optimum pit is generated by establishing the
limits of this at the point where income is maximized, and defining the sequence of material extraction
content within the limits of this pit.
These methods are widely used in massive and disseminated deposits, and to a lesser extent in deposits.
stratified as long as they are horizontal and sub horizontal.
Because one of the important parameters within the design of an open pit farm is the definition of
the physical limits of exploitation, these methods are used as a basis in the simulation and optimization software
mining company with the largest distribution in the world, and finally led to the management of these algorithms in Microsoft Excel.
In the final part of the article it will be shown that for the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm the tools (Surpac and
UPL) do not have large quantitative differences, in terms of the amount of blocks to be mined and net profit,
but they do differ graphically in the configuration of the pit, this mainly due to conditioning in the operation
of the UPL. On the other hand, the opposite is true for the floating cone method, since the final geometry of the pit given by
the two tools are quite similar, but the quantitative results, especially the profit, differ in a way
considerable from one tool to another being that of the UPL the most conservative.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Floating cone

The floating cone method is one of the most widely accepted techniques in the design of the final limits of a
pit, because it is fast, fast and easy to conceptualize.
The logic programming included is used after the conventional cross-sectional method, proceed
to use a so-called equilibrium point in the area radius to be converted as a basic optimization criterion.
The main difference with manual techniques is that it uses the concept of floating cone in three dimensions
(height, width, depth) to remove increments instead of vertical sections to generate the final geometry of the
pit. A pit is generated and analyzed by building a conical shape in the reverse direction and moving its
Vortex from one block of ore to another.
The shape of the cone is defined in such a way that it conforms to the pit slope design restrictions.
in the different areas of the warehouse. The computer is used in the generation of 3D conical configurations and
in the calculation of the net value of each cone, by adding the values of all the ore and sterile blocks
locked inside the cone Finally, a 3D limit of the pit is obtained by removing the frustrum of all
Cones with positive net worth.
The floating cone method is significantly restrictive, due to the large amount of computational effort
required. Certainly, the determination of mutual support between overlapping cones is not usually required.
because they use more implementations of the floating cone algorithm. The method ends its iterations after
that the cones have their vertices located in all the positive ore blocks that have been evaluated. By
For this reason, the heuristic method of the floating cone often fails to generate true final pit limits.
16
Page 3
Mining optimization algorithm analysis: floating cone and Lerchs-Grossmann using gemcom surpac and upl - Vallejo, Baquero & Franco
In an attempt to consider mutual support between cones, more efficient techniques apply sophisticated programming
mathematics. In addition to the application of conceptual analysis systems that have been developed.
2.2. Lerchs-Grossmann
This original dynamic programming algorithm was demonstrated in the design of the optimal block configuration
to be removed in a bi-dimensional cross section (2D) (Lerchs-Grossmann, 1965). Taking a section
2D transverse of a block model and the final wall angle restrictions defined. The algorithm proceeds
calculating the sum of the column of original block values for each block. This value of the sum of the
column represents a cumulative value, performing an extraction of a single vertical column, from the part of
above the block model for each individual block.
Next, column-by-column is assigned starting from any endpoint of a section column
transversal, a pit value representing the maximum potential 2D pit value is computed for each block. East
pit value is calculated from the sum of the values of the column blocks, and the default pit value of
a block adjacent to the previous column. This new value is the maximum possible contribution of the initial end of column
for the column that contains such a block for any possible 2D pit that contains the block in its outline. A
arrow is used to indicate the adjacent block that provides the maximum value to calculate the pit value of a
particular block. The final limit of the pit is then determined by tracing back the arrows obtained from the
block in the upper level that has the maximum pit value.
The approach to dynamic programming originally defined by (Lerchs-Grossmann 1965) is capable of generating
the optimal contour of the pit through 2D cross sections. A final 3D pit geometry is then determined
by joining the geometry determined by multiple cross sections through the pit. A true optimization
may not be obtained by assembling these 2D cross sections, and generally finds that the limit
final can also affect the value of the final pit angle.
The application of graphic theory to the design of pit boundaries was creatively introduced by (Lerchs-Grossmann.
1965) The algorithm model integrates zero-one problems within the branch network. The vertices are
equivalent to mined blocks, and the directed arcs imposed represent the limitations of the slope of the
pit. These directed arcs indicate the relationship between sterile blocks that must be removed before mining a
block of ore in particular. Then any feasible pit contour is obtained by closing the graph.
(Lerchs and Grossmann) recognized that the final pit is a problem of determining the closing of a graph with a
total mass
This algorithm starts for each vertex within each category of corresponding positive or negative node for each
block value (positive = low potential and negative = sterile).
Addressed arcs are generated to represent the limitations of the slope of a positive node to its node
negative superimposed. In general, the algorithm builds the initial tree graph from the blocks in the level
top of the block model and proceed down level by level. The initial tree is built by a set
of Dummy arcs connecting the reference Dummy node to all vertices. The tree will then be transformed
in successive trees following a set of rules. The transformation process continues until no other
transformation is possible. The algorithm ends in an infinite number of iterations.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Blocks Model

A hypothetical block model of a calcareous material was designed starting from a rectangular area of 1000m x
1000m, with a height of 250m. Within this area two zones of mineralization were defined freehand with
17
Page 4
Different qualities, there is a 10 m sterile layer on the mineralization. In figure 1, you can see a
plan view of level Z = 110m of said model.
As a sterile material, rock with CaCO 3 = 0 will be considered, the high quality mineral has a CaCO 3 content
between 80 and 95%, and the low quality mineral has a CaCO 3 content between 65 and 80%.
Low quality centroid Sterile centroid

(310, 550,110) (990, 990,110)
Sterile centroid High quality centroid

(10, 10,110) (630, 740,110)
Figure 1. Plan view of level Z = 110 m of mineralizations (High and Low quality of limestone), mesh and centroids.
For the generation of the x, y, z data of the model, a 20m x 20m mesh was generated in Autocad. About that area,
the coordinates of the centers of each block were extracted in three separate lists (sterile, high quality and low quality)
for each level Z, with an increase of 20m per level, between 0m and 250m. What results in the X coordinates,
And, Z of each block centroid with dimensions 20m x 20m x 20m and a total of 32,500 blocks within the model.
The generated lists were joined in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, to three columns X, Y, Z, to this list was added
a fourth column to which he% of carbonate content of each block is assigned according to the ranges
set using the random function of Microsoft Excel.
So that the results of the optimizations to be performed (using UPL and Surpac) can be comparable, the data list
previously described will be the one that feeds all the optimizations, with this same purpose then
define the technical and economic parameters to use.
3.2. Economic and technical parameters
Listed and described below are the parameters used in the input of the two tools, these data to
Like the model they are hypothetical.
to. Recovery: 95% (average acceptable recovery in industrial minerals of calcareous origin).
b. Mineral sale price: $ 7,604 / t, price in limestone bocamina (UPME, 2009)
c. Mineral extraction costs: $ 2,000 / t
d. Sterile extraction costs: Generally for calcareous mineralizations the sterile material has properties
similar to the mineral of interest, therefore the extraction price for sterile is considered to be the same
than for the ore
18
Page 5
and. End wall angle: 45 ° is considered as the final angle, with this angle the reliability of the
results thrown by the algorithms because 45 ° expressed in vertical - horizontal ratio is 1: 1, and
Geotechnically it is a stable angle.
F. Density of the sterile: The density of the sterile is considered to be 2.0 ton / m 3 , very close to that of the mineral of interest.
g. Density of the mineral: The density of the mineral is considered to be 2.1 ton / m 3 , since the calcareous materials
as limestone has a density range between (1.8 and 2.2 ton / m 3 )
Four. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
After the definition of the block model and the assignment of the technical and economic parameters, they are shown
then the results obtained using UPL and SURPAC.
4.1. Ultimate pit limit (upl)

UPL is a program (Excel macro) designed to calculate the final pit limit for open pit mining. Through
This program allows the generation of optimal pit limits with the Lerchs-Grossmann and cone algorithms
floating.
The Excel macro requires the following input information:
to. Model of blocks in spreadsheet.

b. Economic and technical parameters.
4.1.1. Pit limit generation with UPL
to. The block model in the spreadsheet was introduced under the format in which the UPL macro reads it: X, Z, Y,%
CaCO3.
b. Now the variables are fed:
I. Block size (x = 20, y = 20, z = 20)

II. Pit final angle: 45 °
c. It is necessary to convert the block model to an economic model so that optimization algorithms can
be applied The variables mentioned above are entered.
d. The algorithm to be used within the menu is selected, there are available the methods of: Lerchs-Grossmann;
Floating cone and Korobov. The results are cross sections where pit limits are shown
(in this hypothetical case it will deliver a section every 20m), and a text box with the number of blocks that enter
to the final pit and the total value or net gain.
Additionally, this macro also delivers the plan view of each level of optimization (in this case hypothetical
deliver a plan view every 20m)
19
Page 6
AND
C
B
TO
T
P
Figure 2: Cross section view (T), Plan view (P); Using UPL.
In Figure 2, you can see the format in which UPL delivers the cross sections and plan views of the pit
optimized by any of the available methods. From figure 2, you can see: A Blocks that do not enter
to the optimized pit, B Blocks that make up the optimized pit, C pit limit. In figure 2, you can see: D
Blocks that make up the optimized pit, E Blocks that do not enter the optimized pit.
The results can be exported to an Autocad file with format X, Y, Z, which can be used in a
surface generation program where you can see the final pit, in this case the results have been used
obtained with UPL for the optimization of the hypothetical block model using the Lerchs-Grossman methods
and floating cone. Their respective surfaces have been generated, which are shown below in Figure 3 and
4 respectively.
Figure 3. Final PIT, Lerchs-Grossman using UPL; data exported to Autocad.
twenty
Page 7
Figure 4. Final PIT, Floating Cone using UPL; data exported to Autocad.
The optimization results obtained by UPL are presented in Tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1. Data released by the UPL macro for the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm
Lerchs-Grossmann UPL
Useful Blocks 8513
VPN (COP) $ 134,063,653,616
Table 2. Data produced by the UPL macro for the floating cone algorithm.
UPL floating cone
Useful Blocks 7820
VPN (COP) $ 93,532,092,326
4.2. Surpac vision

The geological model information mentioned above was taken to a block model in SURPAC and was
They used the algorithms of Lerchs-Grossmann and floating cone to find the optimal pit by each of these.
The same economic and technical parameters used in UPL were used. Additionally, a parameter of
shrinkage for the blocks (shrinkage) close to zero: 0.05, with this it is sought that the walls are staggered
with the block size matching the results with those obtained by UPL.
The results obtained for optimizations using Lerchs-Grossman and floating cone are presented to
continued in tables 3 and 4, and figures 5 and 6.
Table 3. Data released by the SURPAC program for the Lerchs-Grossmann algorithm
Lerchs-Grossmann
Useful Blocks 8567
VPN (COP) $ 133,063,972,492
twenty-one
Page 8
Figure 5. Optimum pit Lerchs-Grossmann using SURPAC.
Table 4. Data released by the SURPAC program for the Floating Cone algorithm
Floating Cone
Useful Blocks 8364
VPN - (COP) $ 133,063,972,492
Figure 6. Optimal Floating Cone PIT using SURPAC VISION.
22
Page 9
4.3. Results comparison
The results obtained with SURPAC and UPL for each algorithm are compared, comparing the number of blocks
useful and pit value. Taking into account the following definitions:
Useful Blocks: Number of blocks with mineral content that remained within the optimum pit.
NPV: Net present value obtained in the case of mining or extracting the deposit according to the optimization in pesos
Colombians, can also be defined as Pit Value.
The results with these parameters for each algorithm and program are shown in Tables 5 and 6 below.
Table 5. Comparison of results produced by the UPL and SURPAC program for the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm
Lerchs-Grossman
Parameters UPL Surpac % Difference
Useful Blocks 8513 8567 0.63
VPN $ 134,063,653,616 $ 133,063,972,492 0.75
For the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm the differences in quantitative results between the two optimization programs
used are minimal, which allows us to infer that although there are graphic differences, the optimal solution to this
design problem by applying this method, should not differ greatly from the results obtained
For each program.
Additionally, the UPL method for the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm does not guarantee the angles of the walls of the
pit in the NS direction, because the program evaluates each profile in the EW direction, and then overlays the profiles to
form the optimum pit, this can be seen in figure 7. a.
In the EW sense, the graphic result obtained with UPL closely resembles the result produced by SURPAC, such
as seen in figure 7. b.
to
Figure 7: Profile NS (a) and EW (b); Optimum pit Lerchs-Grossmann: Surpac vs UPL
Table 6. Comparison of results produced by the UPL and SURPAC program for the floating cone algorithm.
Floating cone
Parameters UPL Surpac % Difference
Useful Blocks 7820 8364 6.50
Pit value $ 93,532,092,326 $ 133,063,972,492 29.71
2. 3
Page 10
For the floating cone algorithm it is observed that although the number of useful blocks are close quantities if
we take into account 32,500 the number of blocks that enter the optimization in the pit value there is a
noticeable difference between the two programs since it is not guaranteed that the distribution of the useful blocks is the same
In each method.
The floating cone algorithm limits the pit shape to always retain the shape of an inverted cone, guaranteeing
the wall angle in all directions therefore, the final optimal pit geometry generated by SURPAC and UPL are
very similar, this is evidenced in figure 8.
to
Figure 8: Profile NS (a) and EW (b); Pit cone floating Surpac vs UPL
5. CONCLUSIONS
Below are the main conclusions reached after performing the process described in this
Article and analyze the main results.
A. In the case in which the only problem to be solved is the definition of the final limits of the mining operation
using the open pit method, the use of the UPL macro to execute an optimization process is valid, but the
Optimization process must be executed by a qualified person who has criteria to accept or reject
The result obtained, because as can be seen in the results, this may not be the optimum.
B. The UPL macro shows better performance in terms of quantitative results, when applied with the algorithm
from Lerchs-Grossmann because this method is less restrictive than the floating cone algorithm. The
results produced by Surpac and UPL differ by less than 1% in number of useful blocks and pit value,
demonstrating the power of the algorithm independent of the complexity of the program that executes it.
C. The floating cone method although relatively easy to understand and apply is also quite rigid in its
results, that is, it has a very low level of flexibility, it does not work properly in geologies with distributions
physical and / or chemical irregular represented in the values of the blocks.
D. Optimization processes carried out in Surpac, although they have been developed by different methods and
deliver different pit settings give an equal final gain, this suggests that this is the optimal value
maximum to obtain with this block model and the economic and technical parameters used.
E. Surpac allows the user to define the number of interactions to be performed, unlike the UPL which brings them by
defect which ensures that the results shown by Surpac are more reliable in the case of
floating cone where the difference of useful blocks with respect to UPL was around 7% and the pit value of 30%.
24
Page 11
F. Although the methods presented here can be applied manually, this process can become something
very complex and long, especially when joining the sections on which you work, for example you can see
that in the profiles presented for Lerchs-Grossmann obtained with UPL, it will be seen that the superposition of these
Profiles are not accurate and the results may be poorly operational considering geotechnical restrictions,
logistics, operation, etc. For this reason they have to be smoothed manually, which does not guarantee the initial pit value
obtained.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Drew, D. 2000. UPL (Ultimate Pit Limit). [Online]. (Check March 10, 2010). Available online: <http: //
www.hydrowash.com.au/david/upl/>
GEMCOM WITTLE. Gemcom [Online]. (Check March 1, 2010). Available online: <http: //
www.gemcomsoftware.com/products/whittle/>
Hartman, HL 1992. SME mining engineering handbook. Society for mining, metallurgy and exploration. Vol 2. Littleton,
Colorado.
Lerchs, H. and Grossmann, I. 1965. Optimum desing of open pit mines. CIM Bulletin 58. pp47-54
UPME (Energy Mining Planning Unit) [Online]. Resolution No. 0818. December 28, 2009. (Consultation
April 28, 2010). Available online: http://www.upme.gov.co/Normatividad/SIMCO/0818_2009.pdf
25
Page 12
26

Optimization Algorithm

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Optimization Algorithm

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

12/21/2019 C: \ Users \ Amilkar \ Desktop \ 002 ___ 09-06.09.10 CORRECTED MARIA NATALIA VALLEJO AND OTHERS.

ANALYSIS OF THE MINING OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS: CONE

ANALYSIS OF OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS FOR MINING: FLOATING

2.1. Floating cone

3.1. Blocks Model

Low quality centroid Sterile centroid

Sterile centroid High quality centroid

3.2. Economic and technical parameters

Four. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Ultimate pit limit (upl)

to. Model of blocks in spreadsheet.

4.1.1. Pit limit generation with UPL

I. Block size (x = 20, y = 20, z = 20)

Figure 3. Final PIT, Lerchs-Grossman using UPL; data exported to Autocad.

4.2. Surpac vision

Figure 5. Optimum pit Lerchs-Grossmann using SURPAC.

Figure 6. Optimal Floating Cone PIT using SURPAC VISION.

4.3. Results comparison

Parameters UPL Surpac % Difference

Useful Blocks 8513 8567 0.63

VPN $ 134,063,653,616 $ 133,063,972,492 0.75

Parameters UPL Surpac % Difference

Useful Blocks 7820 8364 6.50

Pit value $ 93,532,092,326 $ 133,063,972,492 29.71

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen