Optimal Pitwall Shapes to Increase Financial Return and Decrease Carbon Footprint of Open Pit Mines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The steepness of the slopes of an open pit mine has a substantial influence on the financial return of the mine. The paper proposes a novel design methodology where overall steeper pitwalls are employed without compromising the safety of the mine. In current design practice, pitwall profiles are often planar in cross-section within each rock layer; i.e., the profile inclination across each layer tends to be constant. Here instead, a new geotechnical software, OptimalSlope, is employed to determine optimal pitwall profiles of depth varying inclination. OptimalSlope seeks the solution of a mathematical optimization problem where the overall steepness of the pitwall, from crest to toe, is maximized for an assigned lithology, geotechnical properties, and factor of safety (FoS). Bench geometries (bench height, face inclination, minimum berm width) are imposed in the optimization as constraints which bind the maximum local inclination of the sought optimal profile together with any other constraints such as geological discontinuities that may influence slope failure. The obtained optimal profiles are always steeper than their planar counterparts (i.e., the planar profiles exhibiting the same FoS) up to 8° depending on rock type and severity of constraints on local inclinations. The design of a copper mine is first carried out employing planar pitwalls, secondly adopting the optimal pitwall profiles determined by OptimalSlope. The adoption of optimal slope profiles leads to a 34% higher net present value and reductions of carbon footprint and energy consumption of 0.17 Mt CO 2 eq and 82.5 million MJ respectively due to a 15% reduction of rockwaste volume.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".