Chapter 36

THE LERCHS GROSSMAN ALGORITHM FROM A DUAL SIMPLEX VIEWPOINT

ROBERT UNDERWOOD' AND BOLESLAW TOLWINSKl2
'DEPT. OF MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER SCIENCE, COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, GOLDEN, CO 80401; 20PERATIONS RESEARCH EXPERTS, GOLDEN, C O 80401

In 1965 Helmut Lerchs and lngo Grossmann presented to the mining community an algorithm to find the optimum design for an open pit mine. In their words, "the objective is to design the contour of a pit so as to maximize the difference between total mine value of the ore extractedand the total extraction cost of of ore and waste." They modeled the problem in graph theoretic terms and showed that an optimal solution of the ultimate pit problem is equivalent to finding the maximum closure of their graph based model. In this paper. we explain how a dual simplex algorithm can be used to solve the same problem. We show how this algorithm is closely related to Lerchs and Grossmann's and how the steps in their algorithm can be viewed in mathematical programming terms. This analysis adds insight to the algorithm of Lerchs and Grossmann and shows how it can be simplified. INTRODUCTION

Consider Lerchs and Grossmann's approach to finding the ultimate pit. At each step of the algorithm, it ignores some of the pit slope requirements, and as a consequence is able to find a profitable pit. As the algorithm progresses. the pits selected violate fewer slope requirements. When the algorithm finally obtains a feasible pit, it can be shown that the pit is also optimal. It is our observation that thisapproach closely resemblesthe logic of a dual simplex algorithmwhich also moves towards feasibility while maintaining "optimality conditions." We will begin the paper with a description of the new algorithm in its simplified graph theoretic setting and then compare the new procedure with the Lerchs Grossmann algorithm. In the next section, we will outline the pertinent mathematics behind the new viewpoint and describe its relationshipto the dual simplex algorithm. Lastly, we will go over our empirical experiences. TERMINOLOGY

A problem of central concern to the mining industry is to determine the most profitable material which can be feasibly removed from an open pit mine. The approach most frequently used to determine this material is the one developed by Helmut Lerchs and lngo Grossmann in 1965. The algorithm which they developed is a pivotalcontributionbut it is difficult for a practitioner who is not well versed in their graph theoreticapproachto have an intuitive understanding of its structure and operation. For instance, they need a routine to "NormalizeTrees." One can see from their proofs that this feature is necessary but its essential nature is not clear from a pragmatic viewpoint. Another approachto determine an ultimate pit has been to look at the problem from a mathematical programming viewpoint as in [8] and [6]. While these algorithms have nice convergence properties, if they are implemented as mathematicalprogramstheir data storage requirements are immense. In this paper we will show how the two viewpoints can be merged. We will see that the there is a dual to the ultimatepit problem which can be viewed as a minimum cost network flow program. We develop a dual simplex algorithm around this observation to solve the primal problem. We will show how this algorithm is closely related to Lerchs and Grossmann's and show how the steps in their algorithm can be viewed in mathematical programming terms. It will be shown that the "NormalbeTrees" procedure can be circumvented and the overall algorithm simplified. Some efficiencies are gained from this new approach. More importantly, the algorithm is simpler and can be understood from a mathematicalprogramming perspective.

Suppose we have a block model of a mine. A block,

z,depends on other blocks. V(z),which must be removed . We will assume prior to z in order to gain access to z that the collection of blocks V(z)can be represented by an

upward facing cone. The slopes of the cone correspond to the physical restrictions on pit slopes and may vary according to the rock mechanics of the location. Consider a graph G with a collection of nodes X and arcs A where the nodes correspond to the blocks in the model and the arcs describe the dependencies amongst the nodes. In light of our previous comments, a node z depends on a node y if y belongs to V(z).This dependency y ) . The collection of all is represented by the arc a = (z, such arcs is A. Throughout this paper we will assume that we have n nodes and that our nodes are numbered 21,. . ,2 . Likewise the arc (z,, zj) will be denoted by ai,,. We will associate a blocks value v; with each of the nodes. A) together with the nodal values In this manner. G = (X, will be used as the data structure to describe ultimate pit problem. The closure of a collection of nodes Y c X is the collection of all nodes on which the nodes in Y depend. Thus, the nodes in a closure represent a feasible mining configuration. The ultimate pit problem is find the closure which has the maximum value. Both Lerchs and Grossmann's and our algorithm require the introduction of an artificial node and arcs connectingthe artificial node to the original set of nodes. Later we will see that this modification will-allow us to view the problem

26TH APCOM PROCEEDINGS

as a network where any two nodes in the graph can be "connected" by "chain" of arcs. We will label the artificial node as 20 and define X ' = X u (20). The set of arcs will be extended by introducingthe arcs ai.0 from node zi to the artificial node 20 for all nodes z, E X , and the arcs ao,, from node 20 to node 2 , E X. The notation for these extensions will be given by

Thus. Ain consists of the arcs pointing into the artificial node and Aout consists of the arcs pointing out ofthe artificial node. A very simple example will clarify the situation. Suppose we wish to consider the removal of four blocks { Z ~ , Z ~ , Z ~ as ,Z~ depicted ) in FigureOB (1). The node 20 is the artificial node. For later analysis we will assume that the values for these nodes are V, = LQ = y = -1 and v 4 = 4. The original dependencies are described by the arcs A = {(24,21), (z4.z2), (24,23)). In this example Ain = (at,o,az,o,as.o,a4.0) and AoUt = (ao.c,ao.n,ao.s,ao.4).
20,

Figure 2. A Solution. To determine which blocks will be removed and which will be left behind we need the concept of strong and weak nodes. The definition of these terms is related to the idea strong and weak branches. To define a branch of a tree, observe that a tree T = (X1,C') can be subdivided into two connected subgraphs by removing a single arc ai,, from T's collection of arcs C'. Suppose we remove the arc a,,, = (zi, 2,) from C' and denote the resulting graph by T. This graph consists of two subgraphseachof w h i i is a tree. There is no chain connecting nodes from one subgraph to nodes in the other subgraph. Only one subgraph contains the artificial node zo. We will refer to the subgraph not containing zo as a branch of T. In our example portrayed in Figure (2) if we removed the arc a4.0, we would have created the branch consisting of the nodes ( ~ 4 ~ 2 3 ) . For our purposes, we will only consider partitions where the arc removed has zo as either the head or the tail of the arc. If the arc removed is ao,, we refer to the subgraph containing 2 , (and therefore not containing 20) as a weak branchof T at 2 , and denote it by P(z,). If the arc removed is ai.0, we refer to the subgraph containing zi as a strong branch of T at zi and denote it by p(zi). In both cases, zo g p(zi) and zo g p(zi). Thus, a weak branch is formed when the arc cut points away from zo and a strong one is formed when the arc cut points towards zo. For the s~lution shown in the example depicted in Figure (2), the branch P(24) = ( ~ 4 ~ 2 3 is)Strong and the branches P(z1) = (21) and P(22) = {z2) are weak. The argument 2; of P(z;) will be referred to as the root of the branch. At any stage of the dual simplex algorithm, it will be shown that the nodes in the union of all strong branches in tree correspond to the nodes being "removed." We will refer to the nodes in these strong branches as strong nodes. Similarly, the nodesin the union of all weak branches are those we are currently leaving behind. We refer to them as weak.nodes. Since the dual simplex algorithm is moving towards feasibility while maintaining the conditions necessary for optimality, the strong nodes will not represent a feasible solution until the last step. For the solution shown in Figure (2). the strong nodes ) . this are the set (24.23) and the weak nodes are { z ~ . z ~At stage in the algorithm, we only plan to remove the nodes (24.23) which of course is not feasible. At each step of the algorithm, we will move towards feasibility until the ultimate pit is obtained. The solution is optimal when no strong nodes depend on weak nodes.

Figure 1. An Example. We need some preliminary definitions. The definitions below of chains, branches, and closure are consistent with those given by Lerchs and Grossmann in [A.Consider the augmented graph G' = (X', A'). An edge in G' is a set of two nodes 2, y E X ' such that (2, y) E A' or (y, 2) E A'. Therefore, orientation makes no difference for an edge but does make a dierence for an arc. Let E' be the set of all edges for the graph G'. A chain is a sequence of edges {el, e2, ... ,ek) E E' where each edge has a node in common with the succeeding edge. A cycle is a chain {el, e2,. ..,ek) E E' in which the initial edge e l and the final edge ek have a node in common. A subgraph H' = (Y', B') ' E A'. A subgraph of G' is a graph for which Y' C_ X ' and B H' = (Y', B') is connectedif there is a chain between any two nodes in Y'. By adding the artificial node zo, we have guaranteed that G' is a connected graph. A tree T related to G' is a connected subgraph of G' which has no cycles. A spanning tree for G' is a tree where T = (X',C1) and C' G A', i.e all of the nodes in G' are included. In our discussion that follows, we will distinguish the artificial node 20 as the root of any spanning tree T. An example of a spanning tree is shown in Figure (2). Later we will see that a spanning tree will correspondto an intermediate (typically unfeasible) basic solution to the dual program (a minimum cost flow network).

LERCHS GROSSMAN ALGORITHM FROM DUAL SIMPLEX VIEWPOINT

THE DUAL SIMPLEX VIEWPOINT Recall that finding an ultimate pit is equivalent to finding the maximum valued closure of its corresponding graph. Now let us interpret the problem from a mathe'matical programmingviewpoint. Suppose the mine consists of a collection of n blocks M.As in the previous section we will denote D(z) as the cone of blocks which must be removed to gain access to z. Thus, zi depends on zj when zj E D(zi). Let ui denote the value of the block zi. The primal program can be stated as max subject to zi zi

231

C vizi

= 0 or 1, and
= 1 implies zj = 1 forall z j E D(z,).

while it receives value from nodes {zs,z4) via the flow = 3. This intermediate solution correspondsto removing just the nodes {23,24), i.e. the blocks on the "branch" with the flow directed into the artificial node. Of course, this solution is not primal feasible. However, each step of the dual simplex algorithm tries to reduce the flow into the artificial node. thereby, forcing as much of the value as is possible into the support of positive nodes. In all of our examples, the nodes representedby "squares" in the figures are those being removed and the ones represented by circles are those being left behind. Suppose we have a basic solution for the dual program (3). Let B be the basic matrix for this solution, N the nonbasic m a t r ~ Denote . set of indices correspondingto the basic variables as B, and denote set of indices corresponding to the nonbasic variables as N. Following the standard simplex procedure, we express cost in terms of the nonbasic variables this leads to
f4.0

Now we will describe the dual of this program. Consider ' = (X1,A') where X' and A' have been the graph G extendedto include the artificial node .TO as describedin the previous section. Let fi,, be the flow in this graph across the arc a,., E A'. It has been shown in (1I ] that the dual to primal program (2 ) is
n
m

h, E Sn and bg,fs, O8 E Sn are subvectors of where b ~ b, f , 0 related to t3 and N in the obvious manner. Here, r e = 0s = b$ - ~ $ B - ~ rN B , = bz - b$B-'N, and
zo

=~BB-'V

min i=l j=l subject to

bi,jfi,j

(3)

f,,j

1 0 for

a,,,

E A',
A'

fi,j = 0 for ai,j

A primal solution correspondingto this dual solution can be found by setting xT = b$B-'. The dual solution is optimal when r = (rB,r,q) 1 0. When this occurs, it can be shown that the corresponding z is primal feasible and optimal. The details of this analysis can be found in [I 1). In general a dual simplex algorithm moves from one dual basic solution to another. At each step the primal solution is computed from the current dual solution. If the primal solution, is feasible an optimal solution has been found. Otherwise, a new basic solution with lower dual cost is found. The steps are repeated until an optimal solution for the dual is reached. The dual simplex algorithm can now be stated below: 1. Find an initial collection of feasible basic variibles with indices B. Compute the flows f. 2. Solve for x. If x is primal feasible, then x is the optimal solution to the primal program and we stop. Otherwise, continue to step (3). 3. Compute

The cost parameters biVj = 1 if the c~rrespondinga~.~ E Ain and b ; , = 0 for all other components. Thus, the dual program seeks to minimize flow into the artificial node zo while maintaining a conservation of flow through out the graph's network. Our earlier example will clarify the situation. Suppose we wish to consider the removal of four blocks as depicted in Figure (1). The conservation of flow for node z4 is

rz.

4. If r,qalV4 < 0,introduce the flow f,qm4,, into the basis.

and thereby, decrease the dual cost zo.

5. Determine the flow f ~ , ~ that .~ leaves the basis, and

thereby, form a new basis t3. Here the first three flows have indices corresponding to ar.1, a4,2, and a4.s in A. The arc a4,o is in Ain and the arc is in Aout. Consider solution where foVl = 1, foez = 1, frS3 = 1, f4.0 = 3, and for all other flows set f;,, = 0 . The nonzero flows are displayed in Figure (2). From the definition of b in (3). we have 64.0 = 1 (since a4.o E Ah). 64.1 = 6 4 . 2 = b4.3 = 0 (since they are associated with A), and bo,4 = 0 (since ao,4 E Aout). The dual cost for this solution is 3. We can also see that the artificial node has to supply value for nodes {zl, 22) with the flows f0,( = 1, ~ O . Z= 1
6. Compute the new flows and return to step (2).

THE NEW ALGORITHM

We willnow describe our algorithm. It was shown in [ I 1) that a spanning tree correspondsto a basic feasible solution,

232

26TH APCOM PROCEEDINGS line Figure (2 ) ) into the tree, the cycle ({24,23}, { z s , ~ ~ } , {ZO, z 4 } ) has been introduced. To assure conservation of flow around the cycle, an increases in flow of 6 across the arc (24, z3) must be accompanied by a decrease in flow of 6 across the arcs (z4,20) and (20,zl) of opposite orientation. From (6) we see that 6 = minil ,4} = 1. Consequently, the flow fo.3 is reduced to zero and the arc ~ O , Sis removed from the spanning tree. The new spanning tree is formed by adding the arc ( 2 4 , ~ s to ) the inlial spanning tree and The branch P(z4) is strong, and deleting the arc ( 2 0 , ~ s ) . therefore. any nodes in the branch that are weak must be reclassifiedas strong. In this case, zs b e m e s strong. The new tree is depicted in Figure (2 ). Now we see that, z4 is a strong node and it depends on the weak node z2. By adding the arc (24, z2) to the tree, the cycle ({24, a}, {z2, ZO}, {ZO, z4})has been introduced. We adjust the flows as before. In this case 6 = 1 and the arc (20,zl) is removed from the graph. Continuing in this manner, we see that the ultimate pit removes the blocks
{21, 2 2 12 3 1 24).

the binary values for z in the .primal program are 1 if the node is strong and 0 if it is weak. a spanning tree with lower cost can be found by introducing an arc between a strong node and a weak node. Thus, we never need to actually compute B , x or r since these values are automatically known from the structure of the tree. Steps (2). (3), and (4) of the algorithm can be easily implemented using these observations. However, steps (5) and (6) require some further comments. Suppose our current basis corresponds to the C'). We see that when we introspanning tree T = (X', duce the flow fa,, into the basis in step (4) of the dual simplex algorithm, we have introduced a single cycle into the graph T ' = T u {a.,,}). Let 6 be the change in flow about this cycle. Hence, fa,, = 6. The arcs with the same orientation as fa,, will increase by the amount 6. Those with the opposite orientation will decrease by the amount 6. There must be some arc with the opposite orientation for otherwise the program is unbounded. Let R E A' be the arcs in the cycle of T' with their orientation the reverse of f a , , , . Sincel; flows must remain nonnegative, the increase in 6 is blocked by the smallest flow in the opposite direction, i.e. 6 = min{f.;., ((i, j) E R}. (6) With this in mind the dual simplex algorithm for the ultimate pit problem can be restatedas:
1. Form an initial feasible spanning tree. 2. Search for a strong node which depends on a weak

THE LERCHS GROSSMANN ALGORITHM

The problem which both our algorithm and that of Lerchs Grossmann address is to find the- maximum value closure

node. If no such node exists, then an optimal solution has been found and exit. Otherwise. set Z. to the strong node and 2, to the weak node. 3. According to (6) increase the flow 6 along the arc (z., z,) as much as possible. 4. Determine what arc should be removed from newly formed cycle. 5. Compute the new flows and spanning tree and return to step (2). Consider the example displayed in Figure (1 ). The graph represented by the solid lines in Figure (3 ) is an initial spanning tree for this graph with a strong branch
N.4).

Figure 4. The Second Step of a graph as previously described. Both approaches solve the problem by.forming a sequence of spanning trees which are partitioned into strong nodes and weak nodes. The strong nodes correspond to the nodes which are desirable to remove. The goal of both algorlhms is find a collection of strong nodes which are feasible. Recall that a strong nodes is feasible when there are no weak blocks above it which must first be removed in order to allow access to the block. When this is not the case, there is a strong node which depends on a weak node. At each stage of either algorithm, a new arc is introduced connecting a strong node to a weak node with the hope of forming a new tree which will be feasible. When a new arc is introduced, a cycle is formed which must be subsequently broken in order to have a spanning tree for the next stage. The major difference between LerchsGrossmann's algorithm and the one presented in the previous section is the manner in which the cycle is broken. In the discussion that follows, we will continue to use our definlions for strong and weak branches. This deviates somewhat from Lerchs and Grossmann's terminology but the description that follows is fundamentally the same. The interested reader should consult their paper (7).

Figure 3. The Initial Spanning Tree The branches P(zl), P(22), and P(23) are weak. There4 is fore the nodes z1,22, and 13 are weak and the node 2 strong. Thus, 2 4 is a strong node and it depends on the weak node 2s. By adding the arc (24, z3) (see the dashed

LERCHS GROSSMAN ALGORITHM FROM DUAL SIMPLEX VIEWPOINT Suppose a strong node z. depends on a weak node and the arc (z.,~,) is added to the current spanning tree thereby creating a cycle. For our algorithm, the cycle is broken by analyzingthe change in flow, 6, around the cycle. The value of 6 is chosen so as to increase this flow as much as possible while maintaining dual feasibility. The Lerchs Grossmann algorithm implicitly chooses 6 using a different strategy. Rather than compute 6, they follow a simple rule for removingthe arc. Consider the strong branch containing 2 . Suppose z , , is the root for this strong branch. Since it is a strong branch, the arc joining the branch to the artificial node zo is ( 2 , . ,ZO),i.e. it points towards 20. Lerchs Grossrnann always remove this arc. From our viewpoint this means that the flow. 6, around the cycle is chosen so as to reduce the flow across (z,.,zo) to zero. Hence, 6 is chosen to be the flow across (2,. ,zo), i.e. 6 = f..,~, which when subtracted from the flow across (z,, ,zo) reduces it zero. The remainder of the flows around this cycle are changed by +6 or -6 depending on the orientation of their ) , becomes arcs. As with our algorithm the flow along (z., z +6. Since no effort is made at this stage to guarantee dual feasibility, the resulting flows may become negative. Three things may happen. After we describe these situations, we will step through an example.
zw

Figure 5. Lerchs Grossmann before Correction arc (23, 20). The correspondingchange in flows is shown in Figure (8). Observe that we have two negative flows. We can correct the flow across the arc (z4,zO) by changing its direction as shown in Figure (9). However, the flow across (26, z3) is unaffectedby this change. We add the arc (z3,zo) accordingto the normalize tree procedure. and the change in flow causes the cycle to break across ( ~ 6 , ~ s ) .

1. The flows around the cycle remain nonnegative. In 2 , . ,20) is removed from the spanthis case, the arc ( , is weak. ning tree and the new branch rooted at z 2. All the flows around the cycle remain positive with the exception of the flow along the arc (20, zr,). Again ( 2 , . ,ZO)is removed from the spanning tree but in order to have the new dual solution , ) is reversed. remain feasible the arc across(zo, z , . becomes Correspondingly, the branch rooted at z strong. 3. More than one flow around the cycle becomes nonpositive. When this occurs, the routine Normalize Tree as described below is used to correct the infeasible flows. The Procedure Normalize Tree Suppose the flow across (z,, 2,) is negative and has flow f,,,. Introduce the arc (z,,zo) into the spanning tree. Change the flow around the cycle introducedby this arc by 6=-f , , , . This results in a new strong branch rooted at z,. The change in flows around the cycle are changed by or -6 as before. This procedure is repeated until all flows are nonnegative, and therefore, dual feasible. Now we will go back to our example depicted in Figures (I), (2). and (3). As before the strong node 2 4 depends on ). to the weak node 23, and we add the arc ( 2 4 , ~ ~According Lerchs Grossmann we automaticallydelete the arc ( 2 4 , ~ ~ ) . This means we must adjust the flows around the cycle {24,23), {z~,zo),{ZO, 2 4 ) by 6 = -4. This results in the graph shown in Figure (5) Becausethe flow across arc (20,~s) is negative according to situation 2 described above we change the direction of the flow across this arc as shown in Figure(6). To demonstrate the normalie tree procedure requires a slightly more invoked example. Consider the example show in Figure (7). The Lerchs Grossmann strategy requires that we choose 6 = +4 and that we remove the

Figure 6. Lerchs Grossmann after Correction

Figure 7. The Normalize Tree Procedure

Figure 8. The Negative Flows

234

26TH APCOM PROCEEDINGS anvwhere from 50 to 250 blocks. We have observed that examining block dependencies in this manner is the single most time consuming task in any ultimate pit algorithm. In testing the two algorithms described in this paper we found that for the dependency cones of practical size as previously mentioned, 95 to 98 percent of the overall run time was spent on checking block dependencies. One should keep this fact in mind when interpreting results of computationalexperiments. We compared the two algorithms on two block models which we shall referto as A and B . Model A was 82x 118x 24 and B was 77 x 106 x 50.The total run time in minutes for mine A was 19 : 28 for the dual simplex and 20 : 06 for Lerchs Grossmann. In the case of mine B,the times were 33 : 13 for the dual simplex and 35 : 04 for Lerchs Grossmann. Both algorithms search for a strong node's dependence on a weak node in the same manner. The algoriihms differ in how the change in flows are updated once the new arc between the strong and weak node is introduced. It is this last modification which is responsible for the improved performance. The real contribution of this work is to provide an interpretation of the graph theoretic methodology in a mathematical programming setting. Now the convergence and implementation issues can be analyzed from the dual simplex viewpoint. In future work, we would like to explore various rules for the order in w h i i we inspect the nodes in the trees to see if there are any further algorithmic modiiications w h i i will improve performance. For instance other network flow algorithms may be of interest. Lastly, we note that from a pragmatic viewpoint how one implements the checks on dependencies between nodes can have a significant effect on overall performance.

The graph after the normalize tree procedure is completed is shown in Figure (10). To demonstrate the normalize tree procedure requires a slightly more involved example. Consider the example shown in Figure (7). The Lerchs Grossmann strategy requires that we choose 6 = +4 and that we remove the arc(z3, zo). The correspondingchange in flows is shown in Figure (8) Observe that since the branch P(z,) has zero value it has become weak. CONCLUSIONS Both the dual simplex and LG algorithms have been implemented and tested extensively on real mines having

Figure 9. The Normalize Tree Procedure up to 2,500,000 blocks. All of the experiments were run an Intel 486 (66 MHz) processor. For the largest block models the computation time was approximately 5 hours. The codes differed only in so far as the algorithms differed.

References
[I] Bazaraa, M. J. Jarvis, and M. Sherali, Linear Programming and Network Flows, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York. NY 1990.

[2]Bond. G. A MathematicalAnalysis of the Lerchs and

Grossmann Algorithm and the Nested Lerchs and Grossmann Algorithm PhD Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, May 1995.

[3] Dagdelen, K. Optimum Multi-periodmenPit Mine ProFigure 10. The Completion of the Normalize Tree Procedure The critical aspect of correctly modeling the ultimate pit problem is an appropriate view of the dependencies between blocks. Recallthat each block in the mine depends on the blocks above it. The exact nature of the dependency is determined by the angle of the pit slopes. The slopes may vary throughoutthe mine as engineeringconsiderations dictate. To obtain a pit with required pit slopes, for each block, b, we need to know which blocks need to be removed prior to b. The accepted manner of describingthese blocks is to form an inverted cone with vertex at b and require that all blocks in this cone be removed before b. Depending on the slope angles and block dimensionsthese cones may involve duction SchedulingPhD Dissertation. Colorado School er of Mines, ~ e ~ t e m b 1985.

[4] David, M,P.A. Dowd, and S. Korobw ForecastingDeparture from Plannmg in Open Pit Design and Grade Control Proceedings of APCOM 1974. Golden, Colorado. April 1974.

[5] Dowd, P.A. and A.H. Onur Optimizing Open Pil Design and Sequencing Proceedings of APCOM 1992. Tucson, AZ,April 1992. [6]Johnson, T A Comparative Study of Methods for Detenninhg Ultimate Open-Pit mining Limits, l l th Conference on Application of Computer Methods in the mineral Industries, Department of Mining Engineering. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ April 1973.

( 7 1 Lerchs. H and I. F. Grossman, Optimum Design of

LERCHS GROSSMAN ALGORITHM FROM DUAL SIMPLEX VIEWPOINT

Open-Pit Mines Transactions, Canadian Institute of Mining, Volume 68, 1965, p17-24.
[8] Picard. Jean-Claude Maximal Closure of a Graph and Applicetion to Combinatorial Problems Management Science Volume 22, Number 11, July 1976. [9] Tolwinski. B. and R. Underwood An algorithm to estimate the optimal evolution of an open pit mine Proceedings of APCOM 1992, Tucson, Arizona, April 1992. [lo] Tolwinski. B. and R. Underwood A Scheduling Algorithm for Open Pit Mines to appear in IMA Journal of Mathematics Applied in Business and Industry..

235

[ I 11 R. Underwoodand TolwinskiA DualSimplex V l ~ p o i n t for Solving the Ultimate Pit Problem under review. (121 Whittle, J. Beyond Optimization in Open-Pit Design Proceedings of the First Canadian Conference on Computer Applications in the Mineral Industries, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p331-337. [13] Zhao, Y. and Y.C. Kim, A new Optimum Pit Limit 08sign Algorithm. Proceedingsof APCOM 1992. Tucson. Arizona, April 1992.