SURFACE MINE DEVELOPMENT

5.1
5.2

PIT PLANING AND DESIGN

the major engineering design task in the development of a surface mine is

the planning of the open pit. there are three groups of factors involved
the initial step in surface mine design is the compilation of a long range
mining plan or final pit design. in preparing the plan, plotting the location of
the various ore types and deposit boundaries based on refined exploration
data helps to establish the ultimate pit limits.
Long Range Mine Planing
in the reality, long range mining plans usually change over time to reflect the
effects of a changing economy, increased knowledge of ore body, and
improvements in mining technology. as a result, as discussed above, long
range mining plans should be updated at regular interval, using the computer
to compare alternative pit limits, such as show in figure.
The determination of the break-even ratio, based solely on economics, which
establishes the pit limits. Is defined as the ratio of overburden to ore at the
ultimate boundary of the pit where the profit margin is zero. Mathematically,
is computed as follows (Pfleider, 1973a):
Rumus SR

The value of ore in $/ton ($/tonne) is the recoverable value, and production
cost in $/ton ($/tonne) is overall cost through refining or final processing,
exclusive or stripping. The stripping cost in $/yd 3 ($/m3) is the cost of breaking
and handling a unit volume of standard overburden. Since value minus cost
normally equals profit, and the profit is assigned zero at the pit limit, the
numerator becomes the stripping allowance.
Because ore grades actually vary throughout the pit and the ore price
fluctuate, the maximu allowable stripping ratio can change with time. Thus it
is helpful for a given property to prepare a table or graph showing the
variation of SRmax with the ore grade and price.
The maximum allowable stripping ratio also has physical significance
(soderberg and Rausch, 1968; Pfleider, 1973a). it enables us to locate the
ultimate pit boundary or limit for prevailing economic conditions and for
existing physical and geometric conditions in the pit (e. .g., for agiven pit
slope and formation dip). Using computer graphics and Mathiesons
interactive made, various alternatives can be explored readily, even for
complex geometries and in three dimensions (figure 5.4). At the value of
SRmax where the cost of surface mining first exceeds that of underground
mining, the portion of the ore body lying beyond the ultimate pit limit would
have to be mined by underground methods. A copper pit designed in this
manner with varying ore grades and critical SRmax = 3.0 yd3/ton (2.5 m3/tonne)
is shown in figure 5.5. Ore occurring in the ore body beyond this maximum
stripping ratio will have to be left or mined underground, as indicated.

Short Range Mine Planning

Once a long-range surface mining plans has been established, it is essential
to develop a series of short-range mining plans ( Pfleider, 1973a). These plans
define the intermediate steps required to ascertain the final pit limits under
physical, operating and legal constraints. They also provide the pit boundary,
ore grade, stripping ratio, and anticipated profit information necessary for
future production forecasts and equipment needs.
In preparing a short-range plans, the engineer lays out on a set of horizontal
sections a series of proposed mining cuts. The location and extent of the cuts
reflects the engineers judgment of the various operational factors involved.
Very likely, more than one ore type occurs in the pit, and more than one pit
may be mined. In this case, an annual mining program is developed which
depicts the daily production rate scheduled for each ore type. A mining
schedule for a hypothetical copper deposit producing four different ore types
over a 12-year period is shown in figure 5.6.
The mining strategy for either the short or long range must reflect corporate
and management goals. For example, the time value of money suggests a
sequence of mining a uniform grade may be supported by improved mineralprocessing recovery and efficiency and income tax and depletion allowance
considerations. Corporate plans must also reflect operating strategies for
other of its mines.
Stripping sequence may be another operating variable to investigate; that is,
how far in advance should certain ores or portions of the ore body be
stripped? An important element of short-range planning is to program
stripping ratios over the life of the property so they are not excessive during
any period, especially at the outset of the exploitation. An operating
technique frequently utilized in the final years of mining is to steepen pit
slopes, thus improving the stripping ratio, a practice made feasible by the
foreshortened life span of the working benches (fig 5.7).
With the variety of operations research (OR) and computer simulation
techniques at their disposal today, mine engineers are able to develop,
evaluate, and optimize development strategies with ease. Monte Carlo
simulation, linear programing, and queuing theory are some of the methods
that permit the solving of even the most complex scheduling-optimization
problems (Crawford, 1979; Crawford and Hastrulid, 1979; Gibson et al., 1982;
Jeffreys and Hoare, 1985). Recalling cautions by Mathieson (1982), however,
computer-OR techniques are tools that optimize a model only, not an actual
mine.
5.3

Equipment and System Selection

The general principles of equipment selection and system design were set
forth in section 4.7. Now we apply them to the operating circumstances of
surface mining. It is not surprising that the selection of equipment is nearly
synonymous with specifying method, because material handling lies at the
heart of surface mining.
In selecting a particular stripping method and its corresponding equipment,
the ultimate aim is the removal of material (waste, overburden) at the least

possible cost (Pfleider, 1973a). Many factors are involved, of which the size of
the ore body, distribution of the values within the deposit, and consolidation
and compaction of the overburden are key and limit the range of method and
equipment choices. Other factors to be evaluated, however, are the presence
of geologic structures (faults, folds, shear zones, water-bearing zones, etc.)
and alteration products (which may render roads impassable or mineral
processing difficult); production rate and life; horizontal haul and vertical hoist
distances; and possible future uses for specialized stripping equipment
(subsequently during mining or reclamation or at other miners, etc.).
Pit geometry has a major effect on the type and size of equipment which can
operate effectively. Each major mechanical extraction method of surface
mining has its unique geometry; for example, open pit metallic and
nonmetallic miners are designed with many low benches, open cast and
auger coal miners generally consist of one or more highwall faces, and
dimensionstone quarries operate from a single high bench. Open pits tend to
be deep and laterally large, open casts are shallow and follow contours or
advance across the country in long narrow panels and quarries are usually
very steep and may be quite deep. These geometric distinctions definitely
favor or limit the kind of stripping equipment to be selected.
As a general rule, the largest equipment feasible and safe for the conditions is
also the best suited and lowest-cost equipment. Large materialshandling
machines especially possess productivity and cost advantages that seem to
have no upper limit, but practical limits (e.g., mobility) do prevail.
The choices of equipment and systems to mechanically strip ore, coal, or
stone deposits are many in theory but few in practice (Martin et al., 1982;
Atkinson, 1983) some of the machines employed in surface mining, arranged
by cycle of unit operations, are shown in figures 5.8a-e. There are three main
rock-breakage systems and six materials-handling systems in common usage
today, as follows, in order of popularity:
1. Rock breakage
a. No breakage necessary ( material: typical soil)
b. Drilling and blasting (usual choices: roller-bit rotary and ANFO or
slurry ; material: typical rock)
c. Ripping (material: stiff soil, weak rock-for scale of rippability, see
Pfleider, 1973, pp. 17-25)
2. Materials handling
a. Dragline (direct casting)
b. Power shovel or front-end loader and trucks
c. Dozer and front-end loader
d. Dozer and rubber-tired scrapper
e. Shovel or loader and hopper, crusher and conveyor
f.

Bucket wheel excavator and conveyor

Since the rock-breakage alternatives are limited drastically by material

characteristics, no further discussion is necessary. To assist in selecting the
optimal materials-handling system for stripping or mining, table 5.2 is
presented ( face preparation or rock breakage is specified, as are other
important operating conditions, to aid in selection). Currently, draglines are
favored for stripping in open cast mining, shovels and trucks in open pit
mining, And dozer and scrapers in quarrying. Specialized haulage-hoisting
equipment, such as hydraulic conveyors and skip hoists, are very limited in
application

Table 5.2

Prevailing relative costs for stripping systems are hard to obtain. For material
handling (haulage) equipment alone, the following are helpful as guides
(modified from Pfleider, 1973a, for an iron ore mine a 5.5-mi, or 8.9-km, haul)

Table

It may be significant that the wide, almost universal acceptance of truck

haulage today is not always supported by economic data; and that in spite of
its widely heralded flexibility and versatility, the truck may receive increasing
competition in the future from the belt conveyor. Further, in steep pits (<60 0),
high-angle conveyors are clearly advantageous (Dos Santos, 1984). Helpful
cost estimation procedures for surface mine development are provided for
coal by Weimer (1986) and for noncoal by Phelps (1968).
5.4

Stripping Ratios and Pit Limits

Maximum vs. overall Stripping Ratio

It is on the basis of calculating stripping ratios that we are able to locate pit
limits and express volumes of overburden to be moved per unit weight of ore,
coal, or stone uncovered. We must distinguish between two stripping ratios
( units: yd3/ton, or m3/tonne):
1.

Maximum allowable stripping ratio SRmax

=volume of overburden/ weight of ore at economic pit limit
=v/w

2.

Overall stripping ratio SRo

= volume of overburden/ weight of ore for entire ore body or cross
section
= V/W

In only instance does SRmax not establish the pit limit or exceed SR o in
magnitude, and that occurs when (1) the surface is flat, and (2) the deposit is

flat, tabular, and of constant thickness. In that singular case, SR max lacks
significance, and the pit limit are located at the property lines. Another
distinction is that SRo is an actual numerical ratio of yd3/ton (m3/tonne),
whereas SRmax is expressed in units of equivalent yards (see the next section).
Under long-range planning (section 5.2), we discovered that the maximum
stripping ratio, on the other hand, has mainly physical significance. It is
because of its economic basis that we can employ SR max to locate the pit
limits of a deposit in the general case, that is, an ore body of varying
thickness, dip, or grade occurring beneath an inclined or horizontal surface.
Equivalent Yardage2
In developing a relationship and procedure to locate the pit limits in an ore
body or coal deposit, we will employ a unit called the equivalent yard.
Equivalent yardage is the volume of overburden which costs a unit amount to
move (expressed in $/yd3, or $/m3) and is accepted as a standard for the mine
or district in which it occurs. It is a dimensionless unit. Examples of some
standards and typical cost are
Lake superior iron ranges (loaded and hauled)
Glacial till:

$0.25-0.5/yd3 ($0.33-0.65/m3)

Eastern U. S. coal fields (cast)

Soil or decomposed rock: $0.10-0.3/yd3 ($0.13-0.39/m3)
Western U. S porphyry copper district (blasted, loaded, and hauled)
Quartz monzonite porphyry:

$0.5-1.00/yd3 ($0.65-1.31/m3)

The equivalent yardage rating e of a material is calculatedwith reference to

the above standards, which are assigned a value of unity (e = 1). For
example, at an eastern U.S. surface coal mine, if it costs $ 0.4/yd 3 ($0.52/m3)
to cast well-blasted rock, then the rating of the rock is e = 2, based on an
average cost to cast oil of e = 1 of $0.20//yd 3 ($0.26/m3), the standard
material in that district. A table of typical equivalent yardage ratings follows:
Material

RATING

Dredged mud, water

0.5

Lose sand

0.7

Common soil (sand, loam, till)

1.0

Hard soil (clay, hardpan)

1.5

Shaley rock

1.5-2.5

Sandstone, limestone

2-3

Hard taconite

3-5

The concept of equivalent yardage is useful in dealing with a variety of

stripping materials in calculating the maximum allowable stripping ratio and
pit limits.
Relationships for Maximum Stripping Ratio and Pit Limit
The physical relationships of the maximum allowable stripping ratio at the pit
limit enables us to develop a mathematical expression to locate the pit limit.
Recalling that SRmax is an economic ratio but has physical significance, we can
use geometric relations in the pit to express the relationship.
Referring figure 5.9a, a simplified case of an inclined mineral deposit
intersecting a horizontal surface is presented in cross-sectional view and the
key parameters indicated. The deposit thickness is t, its dip is a , its tonnage
factors is TF, and its inclined length to the pit limit is m. The pit slope is , its
inclined length is l, its vertical height is h, and the horizontal distance from
the outcrop to the pit limit is d. Note that d is measured to the crest of the
bank and m to the toe. The volume of overburden on the cross section is V,
and the weight of ore is W. It is common practice to express the angles and
in degrees, but may also be given as a slope ratio (horizontal-to-vertical),
which then must be converted to degrees for the calculations that follow.
We can develop a geometric relation for SR max if we reason that the crosssectional view represents a unit dimension through the deposit ( 1 ft, or 1 m),
and that at the pit limit, the uncovering of a unit width of ore ( 1 ft, or 1 m)
requires the movement of b width of overburden (figure 5.9b). Thus at the pit
limit, moving a prism of overburden of volume v uncovers a prism of ore of
weight w. mathematically, we can write, for the overburden,
Rumus :
Where b and l, are in fit (m) and v is expressed in units of yd3 (m3, if the
conversion factor 27 is omitted); and for the ore,
Rumus:
Where t is in ft (m), TF is tonnage factor in ft 3/ton (m3/tonne), and w is
expressed in tons (tonnes). The ratio of the two is the maximum allowable
stripping ratio
Rumus SRmax : 5.4
(Again, in S.I. units, omit 27.) insertion of the equivalent yardage e will permit
us to use the ration when different overburden materials occur. Finally, a
geometric expression for b must be obtained; referring to the detailed view in
figure 5.9c, we see by inspection that the sum of the angles is
Rumus : 5.5

And that therefore

Rumus : 5.5
Since SRmax can be calculated from eq. 5.1 and substituted in eq. 5.4, we are
in a position to determine l, the inclined slope at the economic pit limit.

Rewriting eq. 5.4, we obtain

Rumus : 5.6

By trigonometry, we can find the vertical height of pit slope h in ft (m):

Rumus :5.7
The horizontal distance from the outcrop m, allowing for a berm of width a in
ft (m) as a safety feature (fig, 5.9d), is
Rumus : 5.8

Finally, the inclined length of ore from the outcrop m in ft (m) is

Rumus : 5.9
There are several variations possible in deposit geometry and overburden
composition that effect the determination of SR max and the pit limits, and two
of them are show in figure 5.10. in both, two different overburden formations
occur, with equivalent yardage ratings of e1 and e2, respectively. In figure
5.10a, the surface is horizontal, and the deposit dips; in figure 5.10b,
Gambar

The surface is inclined, and the deposit is flat. In writing a relation for
maximum stripping ratio, we maodify eq.5.4 as follows:
Rumus SR : 5.10

If the bank angle is constant in different overburdens, then b1 = b2. After

calculating a numerical value for l2 by trigonometry, the equation can be
solved for l1, the only unknown parameter. Then the-inclined pit slope l = l1 +
l2, and values of h, d and m can be found by eqs. 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9, modified
trigonometrically if the surface slopes. One caution: care should be exercised,
when calculating the value of b by eq. 5.5, always to measure the angles
and from the horizontal. Otherwise , an error in b will result when the
surface slopes, as in figure 5.10b.
If there are two variables in the deposit geometry