IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v56y2018icp59-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review of underground stope boundary optimization algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • Nhleko, AS
  • Tholana, T.
  • Neingo, PN

Abstract

Optimization is a key aspect of the mine design and planning process. A number of algorithms and techniques have been developed to optimize mines. However, most of these techniques focus on open pit optimization to an extent that some authors argue that open pit limit optimization has reached saturation level. Optimization of underground mines only received attention in recent decades and has been focused on three main areas including stope boundary optimization. This paper reviews and analyzes literature on algorithms developed to date for stope boundary optimization. There has been an increase in the number of algorithms developed to optimize stope layout. Most of these algorithms are heuristic, consider stope dimension as one of the constraints and optimize layouts in three dimensional space. However, all these algorithms are based on deterministic orebody models, therefore, fail to consider uncertainty intrinsic in ore deposits. Also, none of these algorithms guarantee optimal stope layout solution in three dimension. Consequently, there is a need for further research in the field of stope boundary optimization.

Suggested Citation

  • Nhleko, AS & Tholana, T. & Neingo, PN, 2018. "A review of underground stope boundary optimization algorithms," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 59-69.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:56:y:2018:i:c:p:59-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420717303495
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E A Silver, 2004. "An overview of heuristic solution methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(9), pages 936-956, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Furtado e Faria, Matheus & Dimitrakopoulos, Roussos & Lopes Pinto, Cláudio Lúcio, 2022. "Integrated stochastic optimization of stope design and long-term underground mine production scheduling," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Mousavi, Amin & Sellers, Ewan, 2019. "Optimisation of production planning for an innovative hybrid underground mining method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 184-192.
    3. Foroughi, Sorayya & Hamidi, Jafar Khademi & Monjezi, Masoud & Nehring, Micah, 2019. "The integrated optimization of underground stope layout designing and production scheduling incorporating a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Bierlaire & M. Thémans & N. Zufferey, 2010. "A Heuristic for Nonlinear Global Optimization," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 59-70, February.
    2. Jerzy Grobelny & Rafal Michalski, 2016. "A concept of a flexible approach to the facilities layout problems in logistics systems," WORking papers in Management Science (WORMS) WORMS/16/11, Department of Operations Research and Business Intelligence, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
    3. Nasreddine Saadouli, 2021. "Stochastic programming model for production planning with stochastic aggregate demand and spreadsheet-based solution heuristics," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 31(4), pages 117-127.
    4. Alidaee, Bahram, 2014. "Zero duality gap in surrogate constraint optimization: A concise review of models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(2), pages 241-248.
    5. Kevan W. Lamm & Lauren Pike & Lauren Griffeth & Jiyea Park & Andrews Idun, 2023. "Critical Issues Facing the Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources Industries in the State of Georgia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, June.
    6. Ertem, Mustafa A. & Buyurgan, Nebil & Pohl, Edward A., 2012. "Using announcement options in the bid construction phase for disaster relief procurement," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 306-314.
    7. E Bustamante-Cedeño & S Arora, 2008. "Stochastic and minimum regret formulations for transmission network expansion planning under uncertainties," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(11), pages 1547-1556, November.
    8. Menezes, Mozart B.C. & Ruiz-Hernández, Diego & Verter, Vedat, 2016. "A rough-cut approach for evaluating location-routing decisions via approximation algorithms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 89-106.
    9. Ranaboldo, Matteo & Ferrer-Martí, Laia & García-Villoria, Alberto & Pastor Moreno, Rafael, 2013. "Heuristic indicators for the design of community off-grid electrification systems based on multiple renewable energies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 501-512.
    10. Jeet, V. & Kutanoglu, E., 2007. "Lagrangian relaxation guided problem space search heuristics for generalized assignment problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1039-1056, November.
    11. A Nilsson & E A Silver, 2008. "A simple improvement on Silver's heuristic for the joint replenishment problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(10), pages 1415-1421, October.
    12. Van Volsem, Sofie & Dullaert, Wout & Van Landeghem, Hendrik, 2007. "An Evolutionary Algorithm and discrete event simulation for optimizing inspection strategies for multi-stage processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(3), pages 621-633, June.
    13. Drótos, Márton & Erdos, Gábor & Kis, Tamás, 2009. "Computing lower and upper bounds for a large-scale industrial job shop scheduling problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 296-306, August.
    14. Kandula, Shanthan & Krishnamoorthy, Srikumar & Roy, Debjit, 2021. "Learning to Play the Box-Sizing Game: A Machine Learning Approach for Solving the E-commerce Packaging Problem," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    15. Jäger, G. & Goldengorin, B., 2005. "How to make a greedy heuristic for the asymmetric traveling salesman problem competitive," Research Report 05A11, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    16. Becher, Michael, 2009. "Simultaneous capacity and price control based on fuzzy controllers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 365-382, October.
    17. Inderfurth, Karl & Langella, Ian M. & Transchel, Sandra & Vogelgesang, Stephanie, 2017. "A heuristic solution method for disassemble-to-order problems with binomial disassembly yields," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 266-274.
    18. Silver, Edward A., 2009. "Some ideas on enhancing research productivity," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 352-360, March.
    19. Benedikt Martens & Frank Teuteberg, 2012. "Decision-making in cloud computing environments: A cost and risk based approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 871-893, September.
    20. repec:dgr:rugsom:05a11 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jannatul Ferdous & Farid Bensebaa & Abbas S. Milani & Kasun Hewage & Pankaj Bhowmik & Nathan Pelletier, 2024. "Development of a Generic Decision Tree for the Integration of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) Methods under Uncertainty to Facilitate Sustainability Assess," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-21, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:56:y:2018:i:c:p:59-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.