A New Algorithm for Stope Boundary Optimisation
J Sens1,2 and E Topal3
ABSTRACT
Stopes are used in several underground mining methods. Boundary
determination of these stopes is generally based on simple rules of thumb.
While several stope boundary optimisation techniques are available, they
fail to guarantee true optimum results.
The first part of this paper reviews some important stope boundary
optimisation studies and proposes a new algorithm to optimise stope
boundaries and layouts for underground operations. The second part
applies the proposed algorithm to a block model to test its ability to
produce optimum results and demonstrate its applicability in a number of
different scenarios. The results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm
can find optimum stope boundaries and layouts in three dimensions for
different stope sizes and economic conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1960s, optimisation techniques have been applied
to a variety of mining problems. Currently, surface mine
optimisation practices are commonly used and several computer
packages are available that guarantee optimum solutions for
ultimate pit boundaries and scheduling. Comparatively however,
underground mine optimisation has thus far received very little
attention. The main reason for this is that all underground mining
methods are different and even the use of one method can vary
from mine site to mine site. This results in more constraining
factors which are not all quantifiable and/or generalised enough
in advance, making the development of underground
optimisation tools more difficult. In future however, greater effort
and focus will need to be placed on underground mining as
shallow deposits, which are amenable to surface mining, are
increasingly exploited and thus eventually diminished.
Underground optimisation can be divided to three main
categories. These are:
1. optimisation of development and infrastructure,
2. optimisation of stope boundaries, and
3. optimisation of production schedules using predefined
stope boundaries.
Numerous researchers have advanced the knowledge on
underground mine optimisation for development and mine
production scheduling. Some of the main studies can be found in
the following literature: Topal, 2003; Topal, 2008; Nehring and
Topal, 2007; Little, Nehring and Topal, 2008; Brazil et al, 2003;
Brazil et al, 2008. While a number of studies have been
conducted into the areas amenable to underground optimisation,
this paper is primarily focused on stope boundary optimisation.
Ground conditions and the method used to drill and blast ore
in advance of excavation will dictate the dimensions of the
stopes. For narrow and steeply dipping orebodies a single stope
will mine the full orebody width. This reduces the stope
optimisation problem from three dimensions to one dimension.
For wider orebodies however, multiple stopes are required to
mine the full width of ore. Some studies regarding 3D stope
1. SAusIMM, Exchange Student, School of Engineering, The University
of Queensland, Brisbane Qld 4072.
Email: s4160757@student.uq.edu.au
2. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
3. Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, CRC Mining, The University
of Queensland, Brisbane Qld 4072. Email: e.topal@uq.edu.au
The AusIMM New Leaders Conference Brisbane, QLD, 29 - 30 April 2009
optimisation have been noted in this paper, or implemented in
commercial mining packages (Alford, Brazil and Lee, 2007).
Alford (1995) has developed a method called floating stope.
The floating stope is an algorithm used in the mine design
package, Datamine, to determine the optimal boundary for
minable ore. The algorithm uses a cut of grade to discriminate
between ore and waste rock. A stope with minimum stope
dimensions is floated throughout the orebody. The algorithm
selects all the stopes with a positive value. Two envelopes are
created. The minimum envelope is generated by taking the union
of all best grade stope positions for every ore block. The
maximum envelope is the combination of all possible economic
stope positions. The optimum stope mine design is located in
between these two envelopes. A major problem with the floating
stope algorithm is that the outer envelope can contain overlapping
stopes. These overlapping stopes, while profitable individually,
may be uneconomical to mine together.
To help overcome the shortcoming of the floating stope
algorithm, the multiple pass floating stope process (MPSFP) was
introduced. The process relies on the principals of the floating
stope algorithm. The MPSFP is a tool that allows extra envelopes
to be included into the results generated by the floating stope
algorithm. These extra envelopes, displayed as wireframes in the
floating stope output, can locate specific areas as requested by
the user. For example an envelope containing higher revenue per
tonne can be located. These extra envelopes can provide extra
information during the mine design phase. Although the method
can assist in stope boundary selection and design, it does not
generate optimum stope layouts (Cawse, 2001).
Ataee-pour (2000) has introduced the maximum neighbourhood
value (MNV) algorithm for stope boundary optimisation. The
MNV algorithm uses a 3D fixed economic block model. In this
block model the algorithm locates the best neighbourhood of a
block guaranteeing the maximum net value. It starts looking for a
stope around the first block in the block model which is located in
one of the corners. After analysing the value of the first block, it
moves to the second block and systematically goes through all of
the blocks. The MNV algorithm does not allow partial blocks to
be included in the stopes, thus the stope size has to be rounded up
to be able to contain a positive integer number of stopes. Although
it provides a theoretical basis for a stope boundary optimisation
algorithm, it contains a number of fundamental shortcomings and
lacks a number of important requirements needed to find the
optimum stope design. For instance, varying the starting point can
provide various sets of stope layouts for the same orebody. In
addition, the algorithm does not necessarily give a single output
and provides an unfair advantage to blocks processed earlier in the
optimisation process. Finally, it also has a static economic block
value which means it does not allow stope costing factors to be
taken into account. In reality, the stope size in which a certain
block is located determines the overall mining costs. For example,
a larger stope size allows the start-up costs to be divided over more
blocks resulting in lower mining costs per block.
Ovanic and Young (1995; 1999) use a mixed integer
programming (MIP) technique known as type two special order
sets (SOS2) to optimise stope boundaries. The optimum stope
boundary is established by determining the optimal starting and
ending location for mining within each row of blocks within a
block model. To determine the optimum starting and ending
location for each row, two piece-wise linear cumulative functions
are calculated the first summing block values for inclusion
within the stope, the second summing block values for exclusion
within the stope. The difference between the two functions is the
25
J SENS and E TOPAL
sum of the blocks value lying between starting and ending
locations within each row. These two locations define the stope
boundary location. The advantage of this technique compared to
the others noted is that the block geometry is not required to be
regular or orthogonal. Its disadvantage is, however, that the
algorithm has been developed to optimise the stope boundary
along the row of blocks in only one dimension. There is no
example of 3D applications. In addition, this technique allows
the user to optimise the design of extraction rows only. As the
location of these rows is predetermined, it only partially
optimises the mine design.
A NEW STOPE BOUNDARY OPTIMISATION
ALGORITHM
The new stope boundary and layout optimisation methodology
consists of three basic elements. These are:
1. a block converter,
2. a stope optimiser, and
3. a visualiser.
It generates optimum stope layouts and boundaries based on the
revenue that is generated by extracting the blocks. The mining
costs of each stope are calculated by summing the stope start-up
costs and the mining costs which vary with the size of the stope.
Block converter
In order for the stope boundary and layout optimiser to work, the
block model that is used can only contain blocks with a common
size. Therefore, a block converter is created which can convert a
block model containing blocks with multiple sizes into a block
model containing blocks with only one size. It also allows blocks
of each possible size to be created, thus enabling stopes of each
possible size to be generated.
The block converter works by analysing which blocks and
which part and volume of the block is positioned inside the new
block. It then calculates the new values of the block by taking the
product of the value of each block inside the new block and the
volume of the part that is located inside the new block. These
values are then summed and divided by the total volume of the
new block. It does this for all the blocks in the new block model.
Stope boundary optimiser
The optimiser uses the block model generated by the block
converter. The input parameters include the range of all the
possible stope sizes (or the stope sizes that have to be used), ore
price(s), mining costs per cubic metre as well as stope start-up
costs. From these values, the algorithm determines the optimum
stope boundaries and layout for a given orebody. Figure 1
presents the logic of the algorithm (Sens, 2008).
The Stope boundary optimiser was made using Matlab and
performs the following actions;
The program first loads the block model with uniform block
sizes which is generated by the block converter. After the block
model is loaded the optimiser starts plotting the smallest available
stope in the block model on every possible location. Of all the
stopes with positive revenue their location and revenue are noted
down in the stope list. The next largest stope is then chosen and
the same actions are performed. This is repeated until all the
different stope sizes have been analysed. A table is formed
containing all the possible stopes and their revenues. From this list
the first stope is chosen, the stope can be selected on several
different criteria.
Examples of criteria on which the stopes can be selected are:
stope profit,
stope profit per square metre, and
26 Brisbane, QLD, 29 - 30 April 2009
stope profit divided by its total mining time (in order to do
this an extra calculation is carried out that estimates the
mining time of the stope).
After a stope is selected its revenue and location are noted
down in the final stope layout table. This table contains all stopes
that are selected for the final stope boundary layout with their
respective revenues. The blocks from the block model used in the
selected stope recieve a special tag. The block model that has
been used is now removed from the stope list so it can not be
selected again.
Again the best possible stope available in the stope list is
selected, now it is also checked if any of the blocks in this stope
are tagged, if so the stope is removed from the stope list and the
next best stope is selected, if not, the stope is noted down in the
final stope boundary layout table and removed from the stope
list. In this way all the stopes in the stope list are analysed.
After this the final stope layout table contains only positive
non-overlapping stopes chosen in the order of the users preference.
Stope visualiser
The stope visualiser is a program that generates a 3D model of
the final layout all the stopes. The revenue from the stopes is
indicated with a colour and legend linking revenue to its
respective colour is provided.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED
ALGORITHM
The proposed algorithm allows stope boundaries and layouts to
be generated according to a number of different stope design
strategies. The optimiser can:
generate optimum stope boundaries using one given fixed
stope size,
generate optimum stope boundaries using a range of given
stope sizes,
find the optimum stope size and generate the stope mine
layout based on that stope size, and
make a stope design starting with stopes having the highest
profit per cubic metre.
Two implementations were generated to analyse the proposed
algorithm. The block model used contains 40 000 blocks and is
illustrated in Figure 2.
Case 1
Case 1 was based on the following input parameters:
stope sizes set to 30 m 30 m 30 m,
commodity price: $20 000/tonne,
mining cost: $3/m3, and
stope start-up cost: $20 000/stope.
For Case 1, only the locations of the stopes were optimised by
introducing a single possible stope size
The optimiser identified 97 176 possible stopes and of these,
1753 were identified as having a positive value. From these
positive stopes, 194 stopes were selected for the final stope mine
layout. This layout produced a revenue of $45 845 000. The
proposed design can be seen in Figure 3.
Case 2
Case 2 was performed using the same orebody but allowed a
larger range of stope sizes to be used. This case was based on the
following input parameters:
The AusIMM New Leaders Conference
 A NEW ALGORITHM FOR STOPE BOUNDARY OPTIMISATION

FIG 1 - The logic of the algorithm for stope optimiser.

FIG 2 - Visualisation of test block model.

The AusIMM New Leaders Conference Brisbane, QLD, 29 - 30 April 2009 27

J SENS and E TOPAL
FIG 3 - Optimised stope layout with single design option.
stope range 15 15 15 to 45 45 60 (step-size = 15),
commodity price: $20 000/tonne,
mining cost: $3 /m3, and
stope start-up cost: $20 000/stope.
The optimiser identified 3 498 301 possible stopes and of
these, 64 886 were identified as having a positive value. From
these positive stopes, 96 stopes were selected for the final stope
mine layout. This provided a revenue of $54 073 000.
As expected, the overall profit is higher than Case 1 at
$8 228 000. This is because the optimiser had a larger range of
stope sizes to choose from and thus more flexibility. The
generated stope layout can be seen in Figure 4.
These two cases have proven that the proposed algorithm gives
optimum stope layout with no stope overlapping problem.
FIG 4 - Optimised stope layout with multiple design options.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, the use of surface mine optimisation is common
practice which is evidenced by the of several commercially
available computer packages that guarantee an optimum solution
for ultimate pit boundaries as well as scheduling. Comparatively
28 Brisbane, QLD, 29 - 30 April 2009
the development of optimisation tools for underground mines has
thus far received very little attention. In future however, more
effort will be conducted into underground mining as shallow
deposits, which are amenable to surface mining, are increasingly
exploited and thus eventually diminish.
Some studies for 3D stope optimisation have been reported in
this paper. None of these methods however are capable of
generating true optimum stope boundary in three dimensions. In
order to determine optimum stope boundaries and layouts, this
paper presents a new algorithm. It has been shown that this
algorithm and methodology provides optimum stope boundaries
and layouts in three dimensions.
FURTHER RESEARCH
In order to generate a true optimal underground mine plan, further
research into development and infrastructure optimisation, stope
boundary optimisation and stope production scheduling
optimisation need to be considered together in one model.
REFERENCES
Alford, C, 1995. Optimisation in underground mine design, in
Proceedings 25th International APCOM XXV, pp 213-218 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Alford, C, Brazil, M and Lee, D H, 2007. Optimisation in underground
mining, in Handbook of Operations Research in Natural Resources,
pp 561-577 (Springer).
Ataee-pour, M, 2000. A heuristic algorithm to optimise stope boundaries,
PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong.
Ataee-pour, M, 2005. A critical survey of the existing stope layout
optimisation techniques, Journal of Mining Science, 41:447-466.
Brazil, M and Grossman, P A, 2008. Access layout optimisation for
underground mines, in Proceedings 2008 Australian Mining
Technology Conference, pp 119-128 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Brazil, M, Lee, D H, Van Leuven, M, Rubinstein, J H, Thomas, D A and
Wormald, N C, 2003. Optimising declines in underground mines,
Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, Mining
Technology, 112:A164-A170.
Cawse, I, 2001. Multiple pass floating stope process, in Proceedings
Strategic Mine Planning, pp 87-94 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Little, J, Nehring, M and Topal, E, 2008. A new mixed integer
programming model for mine production scheduling of sublevel
stopping operation, in Proceedings 2008 Australian Mining
Technology Conference, pp 157-172 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Nehring, M and Topal, E, 2007. Mixed integer programming model for
mine production scheduling of sublevel stoping operation, in
Proceedings 2007 Australian Mining Technology Conference,
pp 135-150 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne).
Ovanic, J and Young, D S, 1995. Economic optimisation of stope
geometry using separable programming with special branch and
bound technique, in Proceedings Third Canadian Conference on
Computer Applications in the Minerals Industry, pp 129-135.
Ovanic, J and Young, D S, 1999. Economic optimisation of open stope
geometry, in Proceedings 28th International APCOM Symposium,
pp 855-862 (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Sens, J J, 2008. Stope boundary optimisation, BSC thesis, University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
Topal, E, 2003. Advanced underground mine scheduling using mixed
integer programming, PhD Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines,
Golden.
Topal, E, 2008. Early start and late start algorithms to improve the
solution time for long term underground mine scheduling, Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Journal, 108(2):99-107.
The AusIMM New Leaders Conference