Chapter 12

A Blending-Based Approach to Mine Planning and Production Scheduling Mark Gershon

Temple University

I. Introduction Most recent work in the field of mine production scheduling has focused on either the computerization of the traditional methods or the development of sophisticated mathematical optimization models. Yet it is clear to all concerned that the optimizers need to be made more practical and the traditional approach needs to be made more optimal. This paper, along with another recent paper (Gershon, 85) open a middle ground between these two approaches. In that recent paper, a heuristic procedure for production scheduling was introduced. Here, a series of short term optimizations are used in a creative manner to approximate the true long term optimization. Since these small optimizations are aimed at blending to meet production quality specifications, this approach is most applicable to commodities where the blending function is very important such as coal, cement, phosphates or iron, to name a few.
The traditional and the optimization approaches are so far apart that their' advocates have difficulty identifying with the other approach. This is especially true concerning the difficulty of understanding the optimization models for those not trained in the field of operations research. This paper takes the position that the pro-

per role of the operations researcher is to provide not only useful and advantageous approaches, but practical, understandable and implementable ones as well. This is the goal of the paper in describing a new approach, consistent with the traditional methods and aimed at approximating the results of the optimizers. The method described herein relies on the best features of both current approaches. As an approximation technique, it falls into the operations research classification as a heuristic. It may or may not ultimately be the best heuristic that can be designed for mine production scheduling, but it has been applied successfully to operating mines and it continues this new area of study, heuristics, aimed at improving it in the future. Prior to describing the specifics of the approach, the scheduling problem itself is discussed along with some of the current approaches. The heuristic is then described, followed by a description of the possible implementations and the overall system for production scheduling in which it should be used.
11.

The Production Scheduling Problem

The production scheduling problem, in the mining context, is concerned

120

BLENDING-BASEDAPPROACH TO PLANNING
with the sequence of the removal of the mining blocks within the limits of the mine plan. In other words, the problem is one of block sequencing. The sesequence of mining that yields the largest net present value return is the one that should be chosen. While a discussion of the information system required for production scheduling is outside the scope of this paper, it is assumed throughout the discussion that the basic information contained in most block models is available. That is, the quantity and quality of each block have been estimated and are readily available to the production scheduler. The simplistic problem statement provided at the beginning of this section is not sufficient once the production scheduler considers the many limitations on the actual schedule. For a variety of reasons, only a small subset of all possible sequences can be implemented. The rest are not practical. These reasons include working and final slope considerations, restrictions on the mobility of equipment, the need to balance strip ratios, and blending considerations on the qualities. Thus, the problem becomes one of finding a practical schedule; one that meets all of these requirements. This is the level at which most production scheduling projects are conducted. The difficulty in achieving a practical schedule overrides the problem of finding the best schedule. With these considerations in mind, the problem definition used in this paper is: Find the schedule (sequence of mining blocks) that maximizes the net present value return within the physical, logistical and contractura1 limitations by which the scheduler is constrained.
111.

all of the restrictions; one that can n excellent descripbe implemented. A tion of the details of this approach can be found in Matheson (1982). This approach has traditionally been implemented manually, requiring a great deal of calculation and drawing of maps. Today, most companies are incorporating revolutionary changes into this same approach. The use of computers for the calculations as well as the graphics is helping to speed up the process. In a way, reducing the time required to produce each production schedule is also helping to produce better production schedules by providing the scheduler with the time to evaluate a variety of options. Examples of these approaches are described in Marek (1985) and Welhener (1985). . The most sophisticated implementation of these trial and error approaches involves the use of a complete computer simulation of the mining of the deposit. While the development of a simulator may require a very large initial investment, it puts in place a very powerful tool for quickly evaluating many scheduling options. While some companies have implemented simulators, most are building their simulators piece by piece. This is the computer assisted approach, but the ultimate goal is to use a complete simulation. The three examples mentioned above, in actuality, are all different forms of the same approach, that of "trial and error". This general approach is to try a schedule, modify it until it meets all of the specifications, find a few more that meet the specifications, and choose the best one. But bear in mind that the best of all possible schedules is not found. Only the best of those tried is found. In response to this desire for the optimal (best of all possible) schedule, many approaches based on mathematical optimization procedures (Johnson, 1969; Smith, 1978; Gershon, 1982, 1983a) have been developed. These are usually based on either linear programming or

Current Approaches

Every mine operates under some kind of production schedule, but as has been mentioned earlier, most have focused merely on finding a schedule that meets

19th APCOM SYMPOSIUM

integer programming (Hillier and Lieberman, 1980). While they do find the optimal solution to some mathematical model, the model assumptions are often such that the resulting schedules may not be entirely practical. Some massaging of the results is then required to achieve a useful and implementable schedule. Finally, a third group of approaches attempts to build some level of intelligence into a computer model to guide the scheduling process. Some of these use optimization for certain parts of the analysis (subobtimization) such as Lane (1964) or Baafi (1983). Others, such as Garg (1983) or Gershon (1985), attempt to build a schedule based not on optimization or suboptimization, but on some practical knowledge of what factors lead to good schedules. This "heuristic" approach exploits these factors to attempt to duplicate, or at least approximate, the optimization at a.much lower cost. A new heuristic approach, that utilizes the suboptimization concept is the subject of the remainder of this paper. IV. The Blending Approach to Production Scheduling The advantage of the use ofanoptimizer for production scheduling is obvious. The best possible schedule results. However, there are many advantages to using a heuristic approach for this same purpose. First, it uses a common sense approach that is easy to understand by the mine engineers who may have been using a manual or computer assisted method. Second, it is easily implemented within a computer assisted approach or a simulator. It can even be used to guide a manually derived schedule. In fact, the method described herein has been applied in exactly this way. Finally, since the optimization methods are so difficult to apply to this production scheduling problem (Gershon, 1983b), a method that can quickly and efficiently approximate the results of the optimizer is needed. The hepristic described here, which makes use of multiple small optimizations, accomplishes this task. Therefore, the heuristic provides most of the power of the optimization within the framework of the more traditional scheduling approaches. Prior to describing the approach, it is necessary to briefly describe the blending problem. In general, we assume that there are many sources from which to take the material to make the blend. For the sake of simplicity, assume that there are three sources. There will also be a set of quality specifications that the blend must satisfy. For coal, there may be ash, sulfur and BTU content, among others. Each commodity would have its own critical qualities. For example, iron mines may blend on percent iron, magnetite, limonite, weight recovery and a grindability index. Phosphate operations may blend on percent phosphate, moisture, per cent clay and a variety of rare .elements. Cement companies have possibly the strictest blending requirements and this list could be extended to most mining commodities. To complete this problem description, it must be assumed that an estimate is available that describes the actual quality characteristics of each source. This blending problem description contains all of the concerns that one would have in making blends. Most companies are still doing this by intuition, but the best way to do it is with linear programming. The linear model that solves this problem optimally is not developed here, since it is well known and has been in use for blending in industry for thirty years. However, it is this simple model that is the basis for the production scheduling approach. Let us start with a very bad idea, one that has seriously been suggested by some in the industry as practical. If the optimal blend is mined this week, and then the optimal blend is mined the next week, and in each succeeding week, the blending model essentially becomes a production scheduler. There can be no argument with this. What can be argued, however, is the quality of the resulting schedule. Certainly, it is not optimal

BLENDING-BASEDAPPROACH TO PLANNING
in the long run. A much larger linear programming model that solves all of the time periods simultaneously is needed for this. But in the approach developed here, no optimization is claimed. Therefore, a more serious question is whether the resulting schedule is a good one. Again, it is not. Every mining engineer knows the pitfalls of a short sighted approach and this is obviously short sighted. Mining the optimal blend in each time period will soon lead to a situation where .it is not possible to meet the specifications from the available material. As bad as this idea may be, it still has a strong appeal. It is simple to apply, requires very little computer time (can be micro-based), and gives the production scheduler full control over the development of the schedule. Even more important, there are many commodities, especially those mentioned previously (coal, iron, phosphite, cement), where a successful production schedule is driven by the ability to successfully put together a continuing sequence of blends. For these commodities, blending does drive the production scheduling process. The approach taken here is to take this bad idea and modify it so that it is a good idea, one that is useful in practice. The bad part of the idea thus far is that it is very short sighted. Therefore, our goal is to modify it so that long term considerations are incorporated. The key to accomplishing this task lies in the definition of the "optimal" blend, what the linear programmer calls the objectives. If it means that the blend is the best in terms of cost or profit, somehow the prices must be linked to the material quality and again this is too short sighted. A long term objective must be chosen. We make the assumption that the best long term schedule is one that allows the specifications to be met for the longest period.of time. While this, too, is rather simplistic, as an alternative to a time long term optimization, it has been proven to yield excellent results. What is the objective, then, that achieves this goal? It depends on the property. Since this approach was first applied to cement properties, let us consider that first. Limestone is the most important ingredient, so a suitable objective could be to minimize the amount of limestone used to meet the specification. This has the effect that, at the end of each period, the most limestone possible remains. In other words, the company has placed itself, at the end of each period, in the best possible position for long term mining success. More will be discussed on this case in the next section. For coal, it is really heat content (BTU's) that are bought, so it would seem that saving these for the future is to be the goal. But this is never the case, partially because of the heavy use of incremental contract prices tied to BTU's. In many U.S. properties, due to strict environmental laws on the burning of coal, the key ingredient is sulfur. While it seems odd at first thought, the appropriate objective to use is to maximize the sulfur mined, subject to staying within the sulfur limits. Again, this has the effect of leaving the least possible sulfur content in the property at any given time.
More specifics are provided in the

next section. However, there are a few steps that summarize the procedure. These are: 1. Model the single period blending problem; 2. Determine the appropriate long term objective; 3 . Select the available sites for mining (the sources); 4. Optimize the single period blend for these sources in terms of the long term objective; 5. Return to Step 3 until schedule is complete. The idea is to do a series of short term optimizations using a long term objective to approximate the .true long

124
term optimal schedule.

19th APCOM SYMPOSIUM

schedulers and mine planners chose to avoid the problem areas until there was nothing left with which to blend them. This rule leads to a helpful hint toward the selection of a suitable objective. Identify the most troubling problem in mining the deposit and-this will lead to an objective to overcome it, or at least to minimize the trouble that it causes. There are some less intuitive ways in which this approach can prove useful. For example, a long term (50 year) plan for a lignite deposit was developed with an objective of balancing the BTU production over time. This resulted in large fluctuations in the strip ratio over time. To overcome this problem, another schedule was developed aimed at a balanced strip ratio. As one might expect, this resulted in large fluctuations in BTU production. By viewing a combination of strip ratio and BTU's as . a "blendt', a more useful and practical schedule results that takes both factors into account. In addition to the objective, the rest of the linear blending model consists of the restrictions on the specifications. Any introductory operations research text (Gershon, 1987; Hillier and Lieberman, 1980) provides sufficient information to guide the reader in implementing this step. Another major consideration, with regard to the implementation, is the selectionxof the available blocks (sources) for e'ach run. In its most simplistic sense, we could use all exposed blocks. If this approach were to be used as an automated scheduler, this would be the way to do it. But a skillful engineer can guide the schedule by providing the model with only sources in selected areas. The scheduling process then becomes one of trial and error, with some runs responding that the specifications cannot be met from the sources used. Obviously, a decision made by the engineer early in the scheduling process will have an effect on the long term

V.

Implementation

Since the most critical step in implementing this approach is the selection of the appropriate long term objective, more discussion is needed on this point. In the previous section, the minimization of limestone usage was mentioned as the objective for a cement operation. While this is the best objective across all properties, it has not been used on any of the three cement projects conducted. In one case, it was most appropriate to attempt to make maximum use of a large dolomite deposit available at the same site, so this was chosen as the objective. At another site, significant costs resulted from having to track an overburden layer to a waste dump. Here, the objective was to use as much as possible of this material in the mix. At a third site, where the most extensive work has been done with this approach, management feared that the operation would have to be shut down in a few years due to a large amount of a contaminant, magnesium, in many areas of the deposit. The long term objective chosen was to maximize the magnesium content in each time period (in each blend) while staying within the maximum allowed. This resulted in an extended useful life for the deposit. This last case, where the contaminant magnesium was maximized (mined out as much as possible), is very similar to the case mentioned previously concerning the sulfur in coal. In each case, there is an element present in the deposit that makes the deposit less desirable. In each case, this approach is used to attack the problem and attempt to optimize the usefulness of the property. The results of this approach point up a rule that seems obvious but is not followed in many cases. That is: If a deposit has a contaminant, address the problem immediately. Don't put it off. There 'are many cases where a mine was forced to shut down because the responsible (irresponsible?) production

BLENDING-BASEDAPPROACH TO PLANNING
schedule that results. This is desirable since we must presume that this engineer knows the property for which helshe has responsibility. On the other hand, though, it brings into question the quality (the optimality) of the schedule. As soon as we accept that the schedule may not be optimal, it becomes necessary to question how close to optimal it may be. The way to do this (in a qualitative sense) is to use the approach to produce a few different schedules, each based on a different view of how the engineer sees the long term plan evolving. These different schedules can then be compared and the best one selected. This may even be more of a mine planning use of the approach than it is a production scheduling use. In either case, it is clearly using the approach to analyze various options, while attempting to optimize within each option. Thus, it is using the approach as a simulation, but with imbedded optimizations. VI. System Design and, in the other, any cross section. The data base window is used to display the one reserve model, so that the qualities of the blocks of interest are always available to the scheduler. The schedule summary window provides a continuously updated summary of the production schedule, including total tonnage, average qualities, waste-ore ratios, etc. While the heuristic is aimed at approximating the optimization of quality blends, it does not consider items such as strip ratio explicitly at each step. By using the heuristic within this environment, the engineer can use this summary data to help guide the scheduling process toward strip ratio goals. Finally, the control window is essentially the input window with prompts. It is here that the available sources are specified. In addition, the specifications can be modified through this window for any given run. Upon receiving the command to mine a given blend, all of the other windows are updated. The summaries are recalculated and the graphics windows convert the areas just mined to their new status, generally by a change of color in the display. Through the control window, it is also possible to step backward; that is, to put the blend back and choose another. VII. Summary

The discussion of the implementation in the previous section alluded to the fact that this procedure should be computerized. In this section, we briefly. discuss the environment in which the program is used, borrowing heavily from many ideas that now constitute a good computer assisted scheduling system. Essentially, the blending approach rests on top of, and becomes the focal point of, the computer assisted or simulation framework.
An essential point of the system design is that the scheduler must have as much information as possible in a readily available form. This may entail a multiwindow screen, multiple terminal screens or a terminal with a plotter. Assuming that the multi-window environment is most ideal, the system should consist of: two graphics windows a data base window a schedule summary window - control window

In specific terms, this paper has presented a new approach aimed at improving the mine production scheduling process. By combining a short term optimizer with a long term objective, what appears to be a simple blending model is converted into a powerful tool for production scheduling and mine planning. In more general terms, this paper opens up an area of investigation that has not been explored until now. It is conceivable that there are other ways of approximating an optimizer for this problem. There may also be many ways of adding intelligence to the traditional approach that are less formal then a true approximation. In either case, the optimizations need to become

The graphics windows provide the user with a quick view of the mine. In one window any plan view can be displayed

19th APCOM SYMPOSIUM

more ractical and the traditional approacges need to become more optimal. This paper is one step toward accomplishing both of these goals. References 1. Baafi, E., 1983. Application of Mathematical Programming Models to Coal Quality Control, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, 106 pp. Garg, 0 . . 1983. Personal Communication, Hanng Mining Company, Cleveland, OH. Gershon, M.E., 1982. "A Linear Programming Approach to Mine Scheduling Optimization," Proceedings, 17th Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry Symposium, Denver, Colorado, April 19-22, pp. 483-493. Gershon, M..E. 1983a. Mine scheduling optimization with mixed integer programming, Mining Engineering, 35, 351-4. Gershon, M.E. 1983b. Optimal Mine Production Scheduling: Evaluation of Large Scale Mathematical Programming Approaches, International Journal of Mining Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 315-329, December. Gershon, M.E., 1985. Developments in Computerized Mine Production Scheduling, SME Fall Meeting, Albuguerque, October 17-19. Gershon, M.E., 1987. Mining Operations Research, Chapman-Hall, London, to appear. optimum cutoff grade, Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, October. ll.Marek, J.M. and H.E. Welhener, 1985. Cutoff Grade Strategy - A Balancing Act, SME Fall Meeting, Albuguerque, October 17-19. 12.Matheson, G., 1982. Open Pit Sequencing and Scheduling, SME Fall Meeting, Honolulu, September 4-9. 13.Rose, W.L., 1985. An Approach to Computerized Open-Pit Production Scheduling, SME Fall Meeting, Albuguerque, October 17-19. 14.Smith, C.E. (1978) The Use of Mixed Integer Programming in Planning the Depletion of an Alluvial Diamond Deposit, presented to the Operations Research Society of South Africa, September 28-29, 94-102.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8 . Hillier, F.S. and Lieberman, G.J. (1980) Introduction to Operations Research, Holden-Day, Inc., San Francisco, 829pp. Johnson, T.B. (1969) Optimum Production Scheduling, Proceedings, 8th International Symposium on Computers and Operations Research, Salt Lake City, Utah, 539-62. Lane, K.F. (1964) Choosing the