This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 04 February 2015, At: 02:13

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation

and Environment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme19

Using dynamic programming for aggregating cuts in a

single drillhole
a

Mark E. Gershon & Frederic H. Murphy

School of Business, Temple University , Philadelphia, Pa., 19122, USA

Published online: 27 Apr 2007.

To cite this article: Mark E. Gershon & Frederic H. Murphy (1987) Using dynamic programming for aggregating cuts in a single
drillhole, International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 1:1, 35-40, DOI: 10.1080/09208118708944100
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09208118708944100

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

35

International Journalof Surface Mining1 (1987): 35-40

Using dynamic programming for aggregating cuts in a singledrillhole

MarkE.Gershon & Frederic H.Murphy
SchoolofBusiness, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.19122, USA

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 02:13 04 February 2015

ABSTRACT: In planning a mine with layered deposits one must decide what to mine as ore or waste, Because
ther-e are minimum widths for waste and ore cuts, the decision for a depth interval depends on the ore
quality of neighboring intervals. We present a dynamic programming approach that optimizes the cuts for a
single dril.lhole from wh1ch the ore qual.ities are evaluated. We implement a trial version using Lotus 123 to
illustrate the properties of the solution.

INTROUUCTlON

Complex layered mineral deposits consist of many

layers of ore interspread with layers of waste
(interburden). These layers vary in both thickness
and ore quality. To mine this type of deposit, one
attempts to mine the or~ and the waste layers
separately, bllt a problem arises when the layers are
relatively thin, smalJer than a minimum mining
thickness. In this case. one needs a decision model
for aggreeaUng the smaI .l e r layers into ones large
enough for mining. This means that some waste may
be mined as ore and. some ore may be mined as waste.
There are deposits where the layers are not pure
mineral or pure waste, that is, there is a continuous range of quality. In this case it is not so
clear whether any given layer is to be defined as
ore or waste. Examples would include oil shale. tar
siinds or certain uranium deposits. Aggregation of
layers in these deposi t s cannot be accomp.lished by
considering seam thickness only. We have to consider
a combination of thickness and ore quality.

A large majority of mining operations use a fixed

cutoff grade without regard to the adjacent Laye r s .
That is, any ore above this grade is pr-occs se.' and
any ore below 1s sent to a waste dump. Even in the
case when marginal material is sent to a leach dump
wher-e the marginal o re can be concentrated, a mine
uses a doub l e-ct i er-ed cutoff where the fixed dec f s Lnn
t-u l e is:
If grade < Co' thell waste;
If Co < grade < CI' then leach;
and

If C1 < grade, then process.

But Lane (1964) and others have challenged this

practice, advocating the use of a flexible cutoff
grade instead, Although a flexible cutoff grade is
more di ff j cu l t t.o implement and manage, it does provide a production manager the additional flexibility
to vary the cutoff grade from time t.o time to keep
the whole operation running smoothly.
The r-e suj

r;s of the appJ.ication described here support the argument of those who advocate a flexi.ble
uut.o r f grade (Marek and We1henne r . 1985). The op t t
mal aggregation provided is based on a minimum
average grade over the ac-gregated SP-tim. Th.is averag~
sometimes con t a ins segments that ar-e ~>1 ightly below
>

1987 A.A.Balkema, P.O. Box 1675,3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands

"cutoff" and. if the surrounding high grade segments

are high enough, may even contain segments that are
far below the assumed cutoff. Thus, for the problem
defined here, the identification of one particular
segment as ore or waste depends not only on its
grade, but on the grade of the surrounding segments
as well. In a larger context, ita 1so depends on
production schedules, customer contract requirements
and plant processing settings.
Traditionally, the decisions of what to process and
how deep to mine have been treated snparately. The
ultimate pit limit problem (Meyer, 1969; Johnson,
1973) defines the deepest economical mining penetration at any point in an open pit mine. In practice,
the ultimate pit is found first and then production
schedUling is conducted Within this pit. Ollr results
show that the decisions must be made simultaneously.
Many linear programming applications in mining
(Albach, 1969" Barbaro and Raman!, 1983) develop
production schedules without introducing the location of the wast.e and ore to the problem. Various
quantities of ore at different grndes are assumed to
be available, almost as if they harl already been
mined and were sitting in stockpiles. These applications are useful for higher level planning, but in
light of the difficult sequencing problems (Gershon,
1983) between production (m.ining ore) and overburden
removal (mining waste), the position of the ore must
carry equal importance with its grade in order to be
able to actually implement a production schedule.
But it should now be apparent that the true ul timate
pit cannot be found until production scheduling has
been completed. The analysis herein also considers
both position and gt-ade . since if either one were
ignored, the results would have no meaning.
The goal of this paper is to optimize the aggregations into m.ineable layers of are and interbul'den.
The model developed and presented here also yIelds
results that have a bearing on t~ree important
aspects of mine planning and mine production scheduling, namely the role of
cutoff grades
- ultimate pit Ijmits
- posJtion and grade in production scheduling

36
The next section deHcribes a dynamic programming
model developed for this purpose. The remainder of
the paper provides an example, applying the methodology to an oil shale deposit. The example is implemented in LOTUS 123, which we use as a shell to test
various formulations. We also discuss extensions to
other aspects of mine planning.

Figure 1 illustrates the characterization of are

and waste layers resulting from the strict use of
grade cutuffs with no minimum size cut. For example,
are layers C, D and E may each be too narrow to mine
individually, but the average grade for these three
layers. including the two waste layers that separate
them. may be above the cutoff. The r e su I t wou.ld be
to mine this segment as one seam.

Model Statement

Similarly, if the waste layer between seams F and G

is too narrow, then part of the useful material from
either F or G needs to be included in the lnterhurden. Thus, this good material is lost. Dynamic
programming allows us to take these interactions
into consideration.

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 02:13 04 February 2015

The data for the problem consists of the assay

results token at regular intervals of depth using a
core drawn from a single drillhole. For each sample
we know the depth at which i t was taken and the ore
QUAlity. This measure of quality is represented by a
single value. In the case of oil shale. the measure
of quality can be simply the oil content per unit
volume of rock. As an alternative, we can define an
economJ c measure that combines var-Ious ore par-aeev
tel's. In the case of coal, the measure includes
sulfur, Btu and ash cumbined Into 8n estimate of
profitability,
In add! tion to the geological data, there are
operating parameters that must be defined for each
particular mining operation, These include the minimum thickness allowable for a minable ore layer, the
minimum thickness for a waste layer, and the costs
and prices that determine profitability.
The thickness of an indiv.1dual cut cannot be determined independently of the other cuts. For example,
expanding the size of an are cut may reduce the size
of an lnterburden cut to below the minimum width,
necessitating that it be mined as an ore layer. We.
therefore, resort to dynamic programming techniques.

'Dynamic programming, a tool for solving problems

that can be viewed as a sequence of related decisions, has been used in the mining industry for a
variety of problems. One example is the ultimate pit
problem (Le rchs and Grossmann. 1965: Konigsberg,
1982), Another is the production scheduling problem
(Davis and Williams, 1979).
Dynamic programs have the following structure.
Decisions' can be ordered :in a sequence, such as time
or depth. At each step, or stage, in the sequence
there are states that describe the potential
situations in which one has to make decisions.
Associated with each state and decision is a rule
that describes the resulting state in the next step
in the sequence. Dynamic programming yields,the
optimal set of decisions for each state and step,
tak.tng into account current benefits and future
benefits from subsequent stages. The benefits are
expressed in terms uf an equation known as a dynamic
programm.tng recurs ion. (See Wagner, 1975.)

In many mining opp.rations, a fixed cutoff grade is

used to separate the or-e fl'om the Int erburden .

With a Quality Cutoff

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

~
a
:J

u
0

0.01

fA

I ~

U
V
D

20

40
Depth

Figure 1

Ore Quality Versus Depth

37
The Dynamic Program

Solution Acceleration

The decisi.ons made are to mine as are or waste or to

abandon the mine. There are two states to the
system in which decisions are made. mining as ore
or waste. Once the decision is to abandon there are
no further deci sions.

This is a relatively simple model, yet we can

improve on the computational efficiency. This is
worthwhile because each drillhole can be partitioned
Into as many as 1500 one-foot sections, and if one
wanted to use this model as part of a larger model
for planning mining benches, one would want to solve
the dynamic program repeatedly.

Let
state
-1

not state

o indicates waste
indicates ore.

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 02:13 04 February 2015

The stage of the system, t, represents the depth.

The depth is divided into uniform segments, indexed
by t , t=I, ... ,D.
The return depends on whether we decide to remain in
the same state or whether we decide to change states
from one interval to the next. If we are in state i
and tile action is to remain in i then the return is
the value (cost) of including one unit depth in
action i (ie. discard or process). Denote this
return by Rt{i,i). If we are in state i and the
action is to change to state -i, then the return is
the value (cost) of following action -1 for the
minimum thickness of a cut, m(-i). The decision to
abandon at stage t has the value at (negative if a
cost for closing the mine).
Let ft(i) be the future return from being in state i
at depth interval t through the planning horizon.
The dynamic programming recursion can then be stated
as follows:

(I)

ft(i) = min
at

We take advantage of the minImum cut width to eliminate computations at the beginning and ending states. For 2 < t < min[m(O) ,m(I)), that is at the
surface, there Is no optimization since we must take
a cut at least equal to the smaller of m(O) or m(l)
at stage 1. Restating the recursion for stage 1:
RI(O,I) + fm(I)+I(I)
fl

min

RI(I,O) + fm(O)+I(O)

There is a property of the model that allows us to

improve the efficiency of the solution within the
context of the dynamic program. Again, this property
is based on the existence of the minimum cut interva.l, m(i). For example, say we are in the situation
that, for some stage t, we mine no matter what state
we have been in and the are being mined in this cut
is of a uniformly high grade. We then will continue
to mine as ore the succession of earlier stages in
the dynamic program until the grade drops below a
certain cutoff level of quality. Conversely, if we
are in a situation where we discard the material
because the are quality is uniformly inferior no
matter what has been the starting state, we discard
all stages until the are quality reaches the same
cutoff. This situation is guaranteed to occur whenever there is a cut length greater than or equal to
m(l) + m(O) as either waste or ore. The cutoff can
be determined by finding the ore grade that makes
the user indifferent between processing the material
or discarding it. We now make these notions more
precise and more general.
We make the follOWing assumption for the remainder
of the paper:
Ore quality can be translated into an economic
value and this value increases monotonically
with the quality.
This assumption allows us to establish a single
cutoff point, distinguishing between the profitable
and unprofitable ore for processing.
Note that the
single' cutoff is reI evant for the stretch where
mining continues. The decision of whether to continue mining or to stop mining altogether involves
different cutoffs. There is no single cutoff grade
to determine when to abandon. This decision depends
not only on the average grade over future stages but
also on the distribution of grades. To understand
this, note that if the ore quality is highly
variable, much of what is mined is discarded and
processing costs are saved. Thus, the average grade
required to continue mining is lower than if the are
is of uniform quality and all of it incurs processing costs.

Note that if m(O)=m(I)=I, that is, there is no mini

mum cut size, then there is a single cutoff level,
C, where all material of grade greater than C will
Rl(O,l) is the value of mining the first cut as are
be processed as ore and all material below this
grade will be discarded as waste. By having no miniRi(l,O) is the cost of removing the first cut as overbur mum cut size, each segment can be evaluated independently. Since the value increases monotonically with
Also, assume, for example, that m(l) > m(O). Then,
the ore quality, there is a single are quality, c,
if we are in state I with m(O) < t < m(l), the only
wheve we are indifferent between processing and
feasible decision is to remain in state I, otherd~scarding. This c applies to each segment.
wise, we would violate the minimum cut requirement.
A simlJle consequence of this is tilat if all
For t > D - m(l) we face special considerations in
segments above the cutoff grade are longer than m(l)
formulating the dynamic program. There is no minimum
and all segments below the cutoff grade are longer
cut for waste at the bottom of the hole, since the
than m(O), then the aggregation of intervais into
minimum cuts are defined for the purposes of mining
mining cuts can be done according to cutoff grade.
but the waste at the bottom of the hole will not be
mined. The only reason far mining waste is to enable
This leads us to conclude that in the optimal soluthe mining of allY ore below. For t > 0 - m(l), if
tion, all cuts that are processed have an average
i e-O then the decision is to abandon w l th a total
quality greater than or equal to c and all cuts that
return af O. and R(O,l) is not allowed.
ur-e discarded have an average qual ity below c.
where

38
DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING SOLUTION FOR DETERMINING MINE CUTS

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 02:13 04 February 2015

immediate return
stage

data

state 0
dec 0

state 0
dec 1

state 1
dec 0

state 1
dec 1

abandon

30
29
28
27
26
2S
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
IS
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
1

0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.009
0.008
0.013
0.016
0.018
0.039
0.061
0.027
0.017
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
O.OlS
0.003
0.001
0.004
0.003
O.OOS
0.004
0.006
0.009
0.011
0.012
0.010
0.007

-S
-S
-S
-S
-S

-999
-999
-999
-38
-29
-22
-9
6
IS
46
94
lOS
104
66
7
-19
-34
-20
-19
-19
-17
-29
-27
-24
-22
-16
-10
-2
2
-0

-999
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10

-10
-9
-10
-9
-1
-2
3
6
8
29
Sl
17
7
-9
-8
-9
-8
S
-7
-9
-6
-7
-S
-6
-4
-1
1
2
0
-999

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-s
-S

-s
-s
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-999

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

optimal solution

total return
state 0
dec 0

state 0
dec 1

state 1
dec 0

state 1
dec 1

abandon

state 0

state 1

-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
-S
1
10
41
92
109
116
111
106
101
96
91
87
82
79
74
69
64
S9
S6
S9
62
-932

-999
-999
-999
-38
-29
-22
-9
6
IS
46
97
114
121
112
104
9S
87
92
92
87
84

-999
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-10
-4
S
36
87
104
111
106
101
96
91
86
82

0
0
0
0
0
0
3
9
17
46
97
114
121
112
111
106
101
106
99
90
84

77

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
IS
46
97
114
121
116
111
106
101
96

77
72

-10
-9
-10
-9
-1
-2
3
9
17
46
97
114
121
112
104
102
98
106
99
90
84
77

66
62
61
64
67
67
64

74
69
64
S9
S4
Sl
54
57

72

68
6S
64
6S
67
67
-932

92

87
84'
79
74
69
64
61
64
67
67
64

77

74
69
6S
64
6S
67
67
0

39
as a Function of Depth

0.07

0.06

0.05

..

:>.

'0

0.04

;,

0
u
0

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 02:13 04 February 2015

..

0.03

0.02

0.01

12

Figure 2
'rhcae resul ts are the most simplistic cases of this
pr'ob l em , cases where the solutions are obvious. Our

main result, which follows. while not leading to a

complete solution of the problem, provides the basis
for our simplification.
Assume that the decision at stage t is to process
the ore both when we enter stage t processing the
o r-e and when not. Then for stage t-l the optimal

decision is to

'6

20

24

28

Depth

proc~ss j f

quality above c.

the segment has an ore

LJkewise, if the decision is to

discard no matter what the initial state, then the

decision for stages t-l, etc .. Is to discard at
least until a segment having qualjty greater than C

Ore Quality
dynamic programs since the recursive structure of
Lotus adapts to the recursion in dynamic programming
(see; for example Ho, 1986). The columns in Table 1
are the stage, da ta, the immediate returns for all
combinations of decisions and states, the values of
the functional equations for all combinations of
decisions and states (with the functional equation
replicated for each Lotus cell using a stngle Lotus
command), and the value of the optimal solution
determined with the Lotus MAX operator. The -999
eliminates infeasible decisions. Figure 2 plots the
are qualities and the solid bars indicate the ore to
be processed. (A weakness of Lotus is that it cannot
display the maximizing argument).

is r-eache d .

The benefit of this result is that evaluations of

the functionnl equation are necessary only for the
appropriate decision and not both alternatives when
there is a long stretch of are that is mineable or a
long stretch of waste to be discarded.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Table 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the results from
using the dynamic program to determine when to mine
as ore or waste and when to abandon. The data on are
quality is adapted from measurements of oil-shale
concentrat.ions. The return function from mining and
processing is

The solution illustrates the properties of the model

shown above. First, the lowest leveJs of the
resource are not mined because of the low quality of
the ore grade. The ore grade has to reach .01 before
mining is profitable. Notice that in the interval
from stages 14 to 30 the intervals above and below
the minimum cutoff grade (.05) are larger than the
minimum cut widths so that whether to mine or not
depends only on the e-rade quality. Stages 10-13 are
mined because of the high grade at stage 13, Note
that the stages comh.tned wi th 13 to create the mini-mum size are cut are the adjacent stages that pro.duce the highest' average ore quality. This wi.lJ
always be the case when this are cut is surrounded
by st~v.es with grades below the cutoff for a minimum
waste cut and minimum cut widths of ad-jacent cuts
arp. unaffected.

IODO(g - .01),
the cost of mining waste is 5 and the cost of abandunment Is zero, The mjniml1m ore cut is 4 and the
minimum waste cut is 2, The dynamic program is
l ap t cmenteu in Lotus 123 wit.hout any of t.he acceleration rnsu I ts be i ug used. Lotus tur-ns out to be
an uxnet l eut. she lJ for ao l viug t.ns t ve rs iou s of

Extensions
l fy 3 areas for pnt en t t a 1 ext ensIons or
nppljcations of the mndel beyond the present context:

We can Lden t

40
1.

Add capability to incorporate grades from

multiple commodities,

2.

Use for mine planning with more than one

drlllhole,

3.

Use 8S basis for three dimensional aggregation.

Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 02:13 04 February 2015

The first of these fits into the same approach presented here, but the profit function would need to
reflect jointly the grades of the various commodities that would be refined from the are.
The second item, mine planning with multiple
drillholes, illustrates a higher level use of the
model. In this paper, the mining levels are
designed for one drillhole only, but the practical
use of such an approach is limited to the commodities mentioned earlier such as uranium, all
shale and tar sands. To apply the same approach in
more common seam deposits such as coal or phosphates, it is necessary to apply this algorithm to each
drill hole and then to develop an approach to correlating the results between drill holes. Such an.
approach toward mine planning could greatly enhance
the production planning process. Work to date in
this area (Rendu, 1982) has focused on geological
correlation between the drillholes without the benefit of the economic framework provided here.

The third item applies to both mine planning and

production schedu ling. In ei ther- case, planning
decisions are often based on sequencing the removal
of three dimensional blocks of are. Smaller blocks
yield better ~etajl, but larger blocks are easier to
schedule. Too often, the tradeoffs involved lead to
the use of larger aggregated blocks. The algorithm
developed here performs this type of aggregation,
but In only one dimension. The manner in which the
aggregation takes place can have a strong effect on
the production schedules produced. At this time, no
methods of block (3-0) aggregation other than
guessing have been developed, but an extension of
the approach described here could provide a basis
for doing so.

A model has been developed that solves the problem

of aggregating mine cuts into mineable seams in a
single drlilhole. Dynamic programming solves this
problem readily due to the small dimension of the
state space. We have also provided the means to
make the dynamic programming algorithm more efficient by taking advantage of the special structure
of the problem. These efficiencies become more
important when this procedure needs to be implemented within the context of more complex are deposits requiring more drillholes. In addition to the
problem of aggregation In a single hole. the
approach has implications for related mining
problems. Among these are cutoff grade strategies,
mIne planning and production scheduling. The next
direction of the research involves extensions of the
model to analyzing more complex ore deposits having
more drillholes. This problem focuses on how to
correlate the resulting seams at each drillhole in a
practical fashion for mining.
References

Albach, H" 1967, "Long Range Planning in Open Pit

Mining", Management Science, 13, B549-68.
Barbaro, R. W. and R. V. Rama.ni, 1983. "A General.ized
Multiperiod MIP Model for Production Scheduling",
SME Preprint #83-123, SME Annual Meeting, Atlanta,

March 6-10.
Davis, R.E. and C.E. Williams, 1979, "Optimization
Procedures for Open Pit Mine Scheduling",
ProceeQings, 16th Symposium on the Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Minerals
Industry, Tucson, Arizona, October.
Gershon, M., 1983. "Optimal Mine Production
Scheduling: Evaluation of Large Scale Mathematical
Programming Approaches", International Journal of
Mining Engineering, I, 4, 315-329.
Ho , James, 1986. "Optimacros: Optimal Decisions with
Spreadsheet Macros". ORSA/TlMS Miami. October.
Johnson, T. B., 1973. "A Comparative Study of Methods
for Determining Ultimate Open-Pit Mining Limits,"
Proceedings, 11th Symposium on the Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Minerals
Industry, Tucson, Arizona, April.
Koenigsberg, E., 1982. "The Optimum Contours of an
Open Pit Mine: An Application of Dynamic
Programming," Proceedings, 17th Symposium on the
Application of Computers and Operations Research
in the Minerals Industry, Golden, Colorado, April.
Lane, K., 1964. Choosing the Optimum Cutoff Grade,
QuarterlY of the Colorado School of Mines,
October.
Lerchs, H. and I. F. Grossman, 1965. "Optimum Des ign
of Open Pit Mines," Canadian Institute of Mining,
Bulletin, Vol, 8, No, 633, January, pp. 47-54.

Marek, J.M. and H.E. Welhener, 1985. "Cutoff Grade

Strategy-A Baiancing Act", SME Preprint #85-320,
SME Fall Meeting, Albuquerque, October 17-19.
Meyer, M., 1969. "Applying Linear Programming to the
Design of Ultimate Pit Limits," Management
Science, 16, BI21-35.

Rendu, J.M., 1982. "Computer Estimation of Ore and

Waste Zones in Complex Mineral Deposits", SME
Preprint #82-95, SME Annual Meeting, Dallas,
February 14-18.
Wagner, H.M., 1975. Principles of Operations
~esearch, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.