Block Cave Production Scheduling Using PCBC: Typical Project Workflow
Block Cave Production Scheduling Using PCBC: Typical Project Workflow
Block Cave Production Scheduling Using PCBC: Typical Project Workflow
1
between production (tons and grade produced) framework has proven invaluable over the years and
and development scheduling (tunneling and has allowed our development efforts to focus on the
development). PCBC does production block cave part of the problem minimizing the need
scheduling. This provides the tons and grade to develop and maintain the underlying graphical and
forecasts for the project which has been database subsystems.
described as “the mine planners promise to the
shareholders as to what the mine can produce”.
• Advanced schedules. No schedule is ever
complete or final. During the project evaluation
stage, new pricing or geometrical options will be
considered and new geological models generated
as the exploration drilling progresses. During
production, new schedules are generated
whenever the actual production varies from the
plan (which is always). So the need for a
scheduler which can run in typically less than 20
to 30 minutes per run is important.
• Operating mine set up. Once a mine is going
into production, then it is possible to set up a
Figure 1 Typical view of PCBC running inside the GEMS
database to store production tons and draw point
general mine planning package
assay and other observational data. The
importance of accurately recording and Components of PCBC are described below
managing the tonnages extracted from each draw including initial assessment of footprint location,
point has long been recognized. model set up and mineable reserve assessment, then
• CMS can be used to help manage the daily (or scheduling and production management.
shift based) draw order. This is the daily
tonnage target set for each draw point. This is Foundation
essential if a managed block cave is to be
maintained. This is the framework within which PCBC
operates. The various components are summarized
• Geological/geotechnical monitoring. Tools have
as follows:
been developed within PCBC to help store,
display and analyze observed data • Graphical interface
• Least Squares (LSQ) and grade reconciliation • Blocks
can be used to base schedules on observed assay • Lines
data instead of block model data for more • Points
accurate schedules • Triangulations
• During the above process, it is essential to have • SQL database / workspaces
appropriate tools to interrogate and query the • Profile editors / parameter management
results generated. Over the years, a substantial
toolbox has evolved based on project and user Footprint Finder
requirements.
Input for Footprint Finder utility comes from a
In this paper geological block model together with mining costs,
revenue factors, etc. The program will look at each
This paper describes the various components in level in the block model and then construct vertical
the PCBC product. It is not intended to provide any columns accumulating the dollar value. Vertical
explanation as to how these components work or are mixing is applied to each column using an algorithm
used. based on Laubscher’s mixing method (Laubscher,
1994).
Components of PCBC
This is very useful to obtain an initial idea of
The various components of PCBC have evolved where to locate a footprint and what the initial
to support the above project workflow. PCBC runs footprint shape might be. Figure 2 shows
inside the Gemcom GEMSTM mine planning package accumulated columns plotted according to value.
developed by Gemcom Software International Inc.
(Figure 1) The ability of PCBC to work inside of this
2
with the process of defining a reasonable
economically and geotechnically feasible outline.
PCBC
Overall steps of a typical project (from the
program, not project perspective) are as follows:
• Set up the initial working environment inside a
GEMS project.
• Slice file construction (Figure 5). This is an
integral part of the process. Utilizing user-
defined draw cone shapes, a column of rock
above each draw point is simulated and stored in
what is termed a slice file. The term slice as the
total column is broken into slices which match
the vertical spacing of the geological block
model.
Figure 2 Footprint Finder example on one level
1,000 9,000
900 8,000
800 7,000
Dollar Value (M$)
700 6,000
Tonnage (Mt)
600
5,000
500
4,000
400
300 3,000
200 2,000
100 1,000
- -
Figure 5 Schematic of block model to slice file conversion
2560
2620
2680
2740
2800
2860
2920
2980
3040
3100
3160
3220
3280
3340
3400
3460
3520
3580
3640
3
Figure 7 shows that the results from Footprint
Finder and Best HOD tools are typically quite similar
as one would hope.
Once the basic preparation work has been done,
production schedules can be generated.
A typical schedule requires input of the
following key components (Figure 8):
• Sequence to develop the draw points (and
undercut)
• Constraints on the maximum draw rate which
can be applied to draw points
• Tonnages required in each scheduling period
• Information to control the cave shape. It is usual
to look at different strategies and compare
• Numerous other inputs, constraints and reporting
control options
4
The production scheduler can just as easily be Each draw point can be categorized in a variety
used for forward looking schedules or for analysis of of ways (Figure 10), including over-draw, under-
past performance. This is very useful for grade draw, normal, draw-bell development, wet muck
calibration and reconciliation purposes. (which is a safely concern) or as requiring special
treatment. The tonnage for each category is set
Cave Management System accordingly.
CMS was originally developed for Freeport
DOZ mine and then further refined for use at Finsch
mine. Currently there are seven mines using or
planning to use CMS. CMS aims to generate a draw
order for each draw point every day or shift. It uses
the recent historical (actual) tonnages to adjust and
manage the draw and provides the supporting
database, reporting and user interface to facilitate this
process. At De Beers Finsch mine, CMS has been
closely integrated with the Sandvik Automine® Figure 11 Excel “map” format for draw point result display
system.
Figure 11 shows an example of daily production
data displayed using Excel. It is important to have a
clean interface between the CMS database and Excel
for ease of analysis by the draw control personnel.
LSQ
The LSQ tool is intended for operating mines.
Once a mine has been in operation for a few years, it
will likely have a draw point sampling program. The
draw point assay values can be stored and sorted per
draw point and then composited into 10m or 15m
intervals to provide some averaging of the highly
variable assays.
Figure 9 How CMS fits in between historical tons and
future plans Subject to a variety of constraints, a least
squares trend line is put through the composites and
Figure 9 shows how CMS fits in between the then this can be extrapolated for a short distance up
historical tons mined and the requirement to adjust the draw column into what is essentially the un-
the plan of the next few months (using PCBC mined part of the column (Figure 12).
schedules) in a process called “Catch-up” to fit in
with the long term plan. (Diering, 2004) This becomes particularly useful when the draw
point assays suggest that the draw point should
remain open (usually after 100% draw) when the
slice file values suggest that the draw point should be
closed. For draw points where the sample trend
differs from the slice file, then the slice file values are
replaced with the sampled values for selected draw
points. This is somewhat similar to the open pit
practice of taking blast-hole samples to improve the
local grade of a bench about to be blasted and mined.
Figure 12 shows a single draw column with
sampled values at various heights (HOD) above the
draw point. The graph shows these together with the
trend line and some extrapolated points. Maximum
and minimum grade values are set so that steep up or
Figure 10 Categorization of draw points for priority downward trends do not generate unrealistic grade
assignment values.
5
Figure 12 Sample compositing and trend line analysis in
LSQ
6
Method Ease Linear? Comment
of use
7
Figure 19 Block model used for PCBC/REBOP calibration
1.00
to keep them as independent as possible to facilitate 0.80
Cu%_M3P3
future development. 0.60 Cu% Tm4
0.40
0.20
0.00
Jan-08
Jan-09
Jan-10
Jan-11
Jan-12
Jan-13
Jan-14
Jul-08
Jul-09
Jul-10
Jul-11
Jul-12
Jul-13
Jul-14
Figure 18 REBOP results displayed in PCBC (Markers left The original version of PCBC used what we
and cones to right) term “Laubscher mixing” (Laubscher, 1994). This
was replaced by pre-vertical and sequential mixing
Figure 18 shows two examples of REBOP
options in 1994 in PCBC. However, there are still
results plotted within the PCBC program. The results
projects (or people) who like to be able to compare
from REBOP are used directly in the production
back against the Laubscher mixing. So it was re-
scheduler and also for modification of the slice file.
introduced into PCBC in 2008. It is also useful for
As a separate, but related project, Gemcom comparison against Footprint Finder results which
worked with Rio Tinto to calibrate PCBC and use the same mixing.
REBOP against one another. Figure 19 shows the
geometry of the calibration problem. 50 fictitious
draw points were located in this block model for
testing purposes.
8
Figure 22 Excel map transfer utility example
Playback Utility
This tool is used to “playback” or study results
from a production schedule. Display options include
Triangular Irregular Networks (TINs), contours, pie
charting, and 3D columns. Playback examples are
shown in the later sections on Freeport DOZ and
Palabora.
Display tools
Over the years, a variety of different graphical
display tools have been developed. The more recent
ones are the Excel interface which allows any draw
point related data to be exported directly into Excel in
the correct cell row and column positions for direct
display in Excel as shown in Figure 22 Figure 23 Example of Pie chart display
9
Figure 26 Height of draw profile at Freeport DOZ mine
from Playback tool
Freeport Grasberg
The Grasberg block cave is scheduled to start
Figure 24 CMS “control panel” with right click and production as the Grasberg open pit slows down at
display information
the end of its life. (Figure 27) (Brannon, Casten, &
Other options are size based plots (Figure 13), Johnson, 2004) This will be a very large block cave
3D draw columns (Figure 14) and plotting of draw with production up to 160,000t/d. Numerous
points in appropriate shapes. scheduling options have been evaluated using PCBC
and particular emphasis has been placed on effective
modeling of large open pit failures which will
Project examples generate additional dilution material.
Freeport DOZ
PT Freeport Indonesia has been using PCBC
since around 2000. They are currently mining close
to 80,000 t/d, making it a large block cave mine (T.
Casten, 2008). PCBC and CMS are used extensively
for planning and scheduling at the DOZ mine as well
as for daily draw control. Figure 25 shows a plot of
forecast rock types at one step during a production
schedule. Figure 26 shows a plot of HOD for the
same mining step. Figure 27 Grasberg block cave in close proximity to the
large open pit
10
Salvador
The Salvador mine in Chile has used PCBC
both for the detailed scheduling of individual mining
panels (Figure 30) as well as for combined
scheduling of multiple mining blocks (Figure 31).
Figure 28 gives an idea of the variability of the Figure 30 Slice file display and layout at Salvador Mine
orebody edges and also alludes to the difficulties in
sequencing and scheduling such a large orebody (grid
size above is 200m!).
Northparkes
PCBC was first used for Northparkes E26 Lift 1
around 1994 and then for Lift 2 planning and
currently for Lift 2 North (Figure 29) (Ross, 2008)
and E 48. Each lift has provided surprises and
challenges from a modeling perspective.
11
Andina
Figure 32 View of three panels (lifts) at Andina mine Figure 34 Monthly tonnage display (poor draw control
(top) and good draw control (bottom)
12
Figure 38 Schematic of open pit, cave zone and Block 4
draw points at De Beers Finsch mine
Figure 36 Section of Ridgeway deeps block cave model Figure 39 shows a section with some of the
showing irregular cave propagation on right side residual draw columns. These are trimmed against
the known topography and the new failure material
Different scenarios were modeled to see the
(red) then starts to mix with the existing material
effect of limited cave propagation on the East side of
(blue). The mixing zone is shown by the
the cave.
intermediate colors.
Cadia East
The Cadia East project of Newcrest provided
interesting modeling challenges as it is a large multi-
lift project. (Figure 37) Extensive use has been made
of the Footprint Finder tool to assist with
determination of elevations together with more
accurate schedules from PCBC.
13
Geological observations are made routinely at
draw points of up to 8 different rock types. These
were also fed into the geological block model so that
comparisons could be made of the observed vs model
rock types. Figure 43 shows the modeled rock types
vs time and Figure 44 the observed rock types vs
time. A detailed study of the differences between the
two can be very informative and lead to ways to
improve the model which may not be apparent from
the grade model / assays. The geological modeling
thus provides another “dimension” into the
calibration process.
Figure 40 Addition of new failure material without
additional mixing
Calibration examples
Freeport DOZ
A detailed description of the calibration curves
in figures Figure 41 and Figure 42 is beyond the
scope of this paper. (Villa, Prasetyo, & Diering,
2008) Figure 41 is for grade and it shows the extent
to which the PCBC model can be changed to improve
the fit actual against actual observations.
Figure 43 Geological composition from block model and
PCBC production schedule
Palabora
Work has been done at Palabora to improve the
short term grade estimates using the LSQ tool
described above. Figure 45 shows the improvement
in the short term comparing the PCBC LSQ forecast
vs Samples.
14
Figure 47 Various PCBC runs vs assayed results for IW
sector, Salvador mine for 8 years
Figure 46 shows a similar set of graphs, but Figure 48 Various PCBC runs vs assayed results for ICE
comparing hang up frequency. In this case, there was sector, Salvador mine for 17 months
no initial model forecast for hang-ups, but based on
the LSQ approach, a reasonable forecast for short Example of block model adjustment
term hang up frequency was achieved. In this example (Figure 49Figure 35), various
attempts were made to calibrate the PCBC results
with the observed mill feed grades. However, the
PCBC grades were too high irrespective of the
mixing parameters used. This is an example in which
the underlying block model is “at fault”. Re-
estimation of the block model with different
interpolation parameters has largely resolved this
discrepancy.
Salvador
Various calibration runs were done at Salvador
mine. Two examples are shown in Figure 47 and
Figure 48. A detailed explanation of the curves is
beyond the scope of this paper, but the graphs show
how mixing parameters were adjusted to improve
both the model results and the confidence in other
Figure 49 Calibration example in which the block model
forecast results.
required re-estimation
15
The calibration examples also clearly show the
benefits to be gained from doing a calibration
exercise using both grades and rock types. In each
case, a clearer understanding caving mechanisms is
gained from the work. This type of calibration also
strongly justifies the effort of taking draw point
samples for grade and rock types.
The development process for PCBC has been
significantly enhanced by collaborative projects with
key clients and this assistance is gratefully
acknowledged.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following
mining companies for permissions to publish
information and figures pertaining to their projects in
Figure 50 Grade curves measured vs PCBC before
adjustment for mined out area
this paper: Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.,
Rio Tinto, Newcrest Mining Limited, De Beers
Consolidated Mines – Finsch mine, Codelco División
Salvador, Codelco División Andina and Palabora
Mining Company.
The authors also gratefully acknowledge
assistance with the development of the software from
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., PT
Freeport Indonesia, Rio Tinto, De Beers
Consolidated Mines – Finsch mine, Codelco División
Andina and Palabora Mining Company.
References
1. Brannon, C., Casten, T., & Johnson, M. (2004).
Design of the Grasberg block cave mine.
MassMin, (pp. 623 - 628). Santiago.
Figure 51 Grade curves measured vs PCBC after 2. Burgio, N., & Diering, T. (2008). Simulating
adjustment for mined out area irregular cave propagation using PCBC.
MassMin, (pp. 1033 - 1042). Lulea.
Concluding remarks
3. Diering, T. (2004). Combining long term
scheduling and daily draw control for block cave
PCBC has been applied to a variety of different
mines. MassMin, (pp. 486 - 490). Santiago.
block cave projects and mines over the last 20 years.
Every project has its own unique challenges some of 4. Diering, T. (2000). PC-BC: A block cave design
which have been described in this paper. As the and draw control system. MassMin, (pp. 469-
program has evolved to meet these new problems, its 484). Brisbane.
capability has been enhanced.
5. Diering, T. (2007). Template Mixing: A
A key component of the modeling and program Depletion Engine for Block Cave Scheduling.
development process has been the ongoing APCOM, (pp. 313 - 320). Santiago.
calibration of PCBC against observations / sampling.
This process has clearly indicated that it is not always 6. Laubscher, D. (1994). Cave Mining: State of the
the material mixing which required the most Art. SAIMM , October, 279 - 293.
adjustment. Careful attention is also required in areas 7. Moss, A., Russell, F., & Jones, C. (2004).
of past mining, or for open pit failure material or Caving and Fragmentation at Palabora:
even to the geological block model itself.
16
Prediction to Production. MassMin, (pp. 585 -
590). Santiago.
8. Pretorius, D., & Ngidi, S. (2008). Cave
management ensuring optimal life of mine at
Palabora. MassMin, (pp. 63 - 72). Lulea.
9. Richter, O., & Diering, T. (2004). Production
Scheduling at Finsch Diamond Mine. MassMin,
(pp. 453 - 458). Santiago.
10. Ross, I. (2008). Northparkes E26 Lift 2 block
cave – A case study. MassMin, (pp. 25 - 34).
Lulea.
11. T. Casten, L. R. (2008). P.T. Freeport Indonesia's
Deep Ore Zone mine - expanding to 80,000
tonnes per day. MassMin. Lulea.
12. Villa, D., Prasetyo, R., & Diering, T. (2008).
Calibration of mixing model to predict grade at
Freeport’s DOZ Mine. Massmin, (pp. 1053 -
1062). Lulea.
17