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 optimi-
zation models. Yet it is clear to all
concerned that the optimizers need to
be made more practical and the tradi-
tional approach needs to be made more
optimal. This paper, along with an-
other recent paper (Gershon, 85) open
a middle ground between these two ap-
proaches. 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 approxi-
mate 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 es-
pecially 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-
120
per role of the operations researcher
is to provide not only useful and ad-
vantageous approaches, but practical,
understandable and implementable ones
as well. This is the goal of the paper
in describing a new approach, consis-
tent 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 tech-
nique, 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 improv-
ing 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 des-
cription 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
 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 se-
sequence of mining that yields the lar-
gest net present value return is the
one that should be chosen.
While a discussion of the information
system required for production schedul-
ing 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 sec-
tion is not sufficient once the produc-
tion scheduler considers the many limi-
tations on the actual schedule. For a
variety of reasons, only a small subset
of all possible sequences can be im-
plemented. 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 con-
siderations 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 pro-
duction scheduling projects are con-
ducted. The difficulty in achieving a
practical schedule overrides the pro-
blem of finding the best schedule. With
these considerations in mind, the pro-
blem definition used in this paper is:
Find the schedule (sequence of min-
ing blocks) that maximizes the net
present value return within the
physical, logistical and contractur-
a1 limitations by which the schedu-
ler is constrained.
111. 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
all of the restrictions; one that can
be implemented. An excellent descrip-
tion of the details of this approach
can be found in Matheson (1982). This
approach has traditionally been imple-
mented manually, requiring a great
deal of calculation and drawing of maps.
Today, most companies are incorpor-
ating revolutionary changes into this
same approach. The use of computers for
the calculations as well as the gra-
phics is helping to speed up the pro-
cess. In a way, reducing the time re-
quired to produce each production sche-
dule 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 implementa-
tion of these trial and error appro-
aches 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 evalua-
ting many scheduling options. While
some companies have implemented simula-
tors, most are building their simula-
tors piece by piece. This is the com-
puter assisted approach, but the ulti-
mate goal is to use a complete simula-
tion.
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
 19th APCOM SYMPOSIUM
integer programming (Hillier and Lieb-
erman, 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 mas-
saging 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 in-
telligence 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 suboptimi-
zation, 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 optimiza-
tion 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 ofanopti-
mizer for production scheduling is ob-
vious. The best possible schedule re-
sults. However, there are many advan-
tages 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 com-
puter 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 optimiza-
tions, accomplishes this task. There-
fore, the heuristic provides most of the
power of the optimization within the
framework of the more traditional sched-
uling approaches.
Prior to describing the approach, it
is necessary to briefly describe the
blending problem. In general, we as-
sume that there are many sources from
which to take the material to make the
blend. For the sake of simplicity, as-
sume that there are three sources.
There will also be a set of quality
specifications that the blend must sat-
isfy. For coal, there may be ash, sul-
fur and BTU content, among others. Each
commodity would have its own critical
qualities. For example, iron mines may
blend on percent iron, magnetite, lim-
onite, weight recovery and a grindabil-
ity index. Phosphate operations may
blend on percent phosphate, moisture,
per cent clay and a variety of rare
.elements. Cement companies have pos-
sibly the strictest blending require-
ments 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 char-
acteristics of each source.
This blending problem description
contains all of the concerns that one
would have in making blends. Most com-
panies are still doing this by intui-
tion, 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 need-
ed for this. But in the approach de-
veloped here, no optimization is claim-
ed. 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 ob-
viously short sighted. Mining the op-
timal 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 commod-
ities, blending does drive the pro-
duction 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 considera-
tions 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 alter-
native 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 it-
self, 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 blend-
ing 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 ob-
jective;
5. Return to Step 3 until sched-
ule is complete.
The idea is to do a series of short
term optimizations using a long term
objective to approximate the .true long
124 19th APCOM SYMPOSIUM
term optimal schedule.
V. Implementation
Since the most critical step in im-
plementing this approach is the selec-
tion of the appropriate long term ob-
jective, 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 ob-
jective across all properties, it has
not been used on any of the three ce-
ment 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 result-
ed from having to track an overburden
layer to a waste dump. Here, the ob-
jective 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 con-
taminant, 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 max-
imum allowed. This resulted in an ex-
tended useful life for the deposit.
This last case, where the contamin-
ant magnesium was maximized (mined out
as much as possible), is very similar
to the case mentioned previously con-
cerning 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 at-
tempt 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, ad-
dress the problem immediately.
Don't put it off.
There 'are many cases where a mine was
forced to shut down because the respon-
sible (irresponsible?) production
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 ob-
jective.
Identify the most troubling pro-
blem in mining the deposit and-this
will lead to an objective to over-
come 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 pro-
duction 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 fluctua-
tions 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 con-
sists of the restrictions on the speci-
fications. Any introductory operations
research text (Gershon, 1987; Hillier
and Lieberman, 1980) provides sufficient
information to guide the reader in im-
plementing this step.
Another major consideration, with re-
gard to the implementation, is the sel-
ectionxof 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 be-
comes 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
 BLENDING-BASEDAPPROACH TO PLANNING
schedule that results. This is desir-
able 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 op-
timal it may be. The way to do this (in
a qualitative sense) is to use the ap-
proach 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 ap-
proach 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
The discussion of the implementation
in the previous section alluded to the
fact that this procedure should be com-
puterized. 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 de-
sign is that the scheduler must have as
much information as possible in a readily
available form. This may entail a multi-
window 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
The graphics windows provide the user
with a quick view of the mine. In one
window any plan view can be displayed
and, in the other, any cross section.
The data base window is used to display
the one reserve model, so that the qual-
ities of the blocks of interest are al-
ways available to the scheduler. The
schedule summary window provides a con-
tinuously updated summary of the pro-
duction schedule, including total ton-
nage, 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 es-
sentially the input window with prompts.
It is here that the available sources
are specified. In addition, the speci-
fications can be modified through this
window for any given run. Upon receiv-
ing 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
In specific terms, this paper has
presented a new approach aimed at im-
proving 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 plan-
ning.
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 tradi-
tional approach that are less formal
then a true approximation. In either
case, the optimizations need to become
 19th APCOM SYMPOSIUM

more ractical and the traditional ap-
proacges need to become more optimal.
This paper is one step toward accom-
plishing both of these goals.
References
1. Baafi, E., 1983. Application of
Mathematical Programming Models to
Coal Quality Control, Ph.D. Dis-
sertation, University of Arizona,
Tucson, 106 pp.
2. Garg, 0.. 1983. Personal Communica-
tion, Hanng Mining Company, Cleve-
land, OH.
3. Gershon, M.E., 1982. "A Linear
Programming Approach to Mine Sched-
uling Optimization," Proceedings,
17th Application of Computers and
Operations Research in the Mineral
Industry Symposium, Denver, Colorado,
April 19-22, pp. 483-493.
4. Gershon, M..E. 1983a. Mine schedul-
ing optimization with mixed integer
programming, Mining Engineering, 35,
351-4.
optimum cutoff grade, Quarterly of
the Colorado School of Mines, Octo-
ber.
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 Sequen-
cing and Scheduling, SME Fall Meet-
ing, Honolulu, September 4-9.
13.Rose, W.L., 1985. An Approach to
Computerized Open-Pit Production
Scheduling, SME Fall Meeting, Albu-
guerque, 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.

5. Gershon, M.E. 1983b. Optimal Mine

Production Scheduling: Evaluation
of Large Scale Mathematical Pro-
gramming Approaches, International
Journal of Mining Engineering,
Vol. 1, pp. 315-329, December.

6. Gershon, M.E., 1985. Developments

in Computerized Mine Production
Scheduling, SME Fall Meeting, Albu-
guerque, October 17-19.

7. Gershon, M.E., 1987. Mining Opera-

tions Research, Chapman-Hall, Lon-
don, to appear.

8. Hillier, F.S. and Lieberman, G.J.

(1980) Introduction to Operations
Research, Holden-Day, Inc., San
Francisco, 829pp.

Johnson, T.B. (1969) Optimum Pro-

duction Scheduling, Proceedings,
8th International Symposium on
Computers and Operations Research,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 539-62.

Lane, K.F. (1964) Choosing the