2019
DOI: 10.1080/17480930.2019.1576576
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A robust mixed integer linear programming framework for underground cut-and-fill mining production scheduling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In such cases, the portion of the orebody near the earth surface is evaluated to be exploited by OP mining method to produce early revenue, while the deeper portion is either outrightly evaluated for UG mining or the evaluation is deferred for later years in the future [7]. In general, OP mining methods are characterized by relatively low mining and operating costs, high stripping ratio, and extended time in accessing the mineral ore [4,46] while UG mining is characterized by high mining and operating costs, high-grade ore, and earlier times in retrieving the ore [31,[47][48][49][50].…”
Section: Mineral Projects Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such cases, the portion of the orebody near the earth surface is evaluated to be exploited by OP mining method to produce early revenue, while the deeper portion is either outrightly evaluated for UG mining or the evaluation is deferred for later years in the future [7]. In general, OP mining methods are characterized by relatively low mining and operating costs, high stripping ratio, and extended time in accessing the mineral ore [4,46] while UG mining is characterized by high mining and operating costs, high-grade ore, and earlier times in retrieving the ore [31,[47][48][49][50].…”
Section: Mineral Projects Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the second stage is optimization of the nonlinear functional. To find the optimal solution, we use gradient descent [27,28] and penalty functions [29][30][31]. Then problem (10,18,22,23,28,29) takes the form (18,22,23,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)36) with the iteration rule: The stopping criterion will be considered the achievement of such a value of k so that the inequality Let us consider formulas (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)) in more detail.…”
Section: Stagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…To find the optimal solution, we use gradient descent [27,28] and penalty functions [29][30][31]. Then problem (10,18,22,23,28,29) takes the form (18,22,23,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)36) with the iteration rule: The stopping criterion will be considered the achievement of such a value of k so that the inequality Let us consider formulas (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)) in more detail. Formula (30) -objective function with penalties Constraint (31) reflects the difference between the volume of products delivered to the customer and the value of the demand of the same customer.…”
Section: Stagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, mine production scheduling is the determination of the sequence and processing of mineralized material that maximizes the overall net present value subject to technical and operational constraints, while shielding the mining operation from risk [1], [2]. Strategic mining decisions could be made at different time scales entailing varying objectives for long-term, medium-term, and short-term plans.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pourrahimian [9] and Pourrahimian and Askari-Nasab [10] proposed a theoretical optimization framework based on a MILP model for long-term production scheduling in underground block-caving aiming to maximize net present value (NPV) within acceptable technical and operational constraints. Huang et al [2] developed a MILP model for an underground cut-and-fill mining production scheduling, which aims to maximize the NPV and generate a practical, operational, and long-term mining schedule. However, these deterministic formulations described above consider a single estimated orebody model and are incapable of dealing with in-situ variability of orebodies [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%