Skip to main content
. 2025 Apr 15;13:1107. Originally published 2024 Sep 30. [Version 2] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.152986.2

Table 3. Literature review of mining polygons modelling.

Dig-limit polygons Approaches Authors Results
Clustering Techniques Hierarchical clustering ( Tabesh and Askari-Nasab 2011; Tabesh and Askari-Nasab 2013) Cluster shapes not controlled and non-practical clustering patterns and similarity index takes only one element into account
( Tabesh and Askari-Nasab 2019) Cluster shapes-controlled similarity index takes into account multi elements and grade uncertainty
K-Means Clustering ( Salman et al. 2021) Mineable cluster shapes, high destination homogeneity, rock unity. Possibility to extend complex multi-element, multi-destination deposits and to incorporate grade uncertainty
Dig-limit optimizations Genetic algorithms ( Ruiseco et al. 2016) The dig-limits constraints equipment incorporated, performs better than simulated annealing and works with multiple rock types, processes and metals
Simulated annealing ( Norrena and Deutsch 2001; P et al. 2002; Neufeld et al. 2003) Dig-limits constraints incorporated, maximizes the profit and penalizes smaller angles of operation taking into account the digability. Solution space search algorithm moves toward non-improving solutions with a certain probability.
Grade control strategy of SMUs using Mixed Integer Linear Programming ( Sari and Kumral 2018; Nelis et al. 2022; Nelis and Morales 2022) Dig-limits constraints incorporated by Sari and Kumral (2018), cut-off grades not used and the model minimizes the loss associated with misclassification of SMU’s
Greedy search: Feasibility grade control
Floating Circle algorithm
( Wilde and Deutsch 2007) Requires an initial solution and attempts to optimize the profit iteratively by re-arranging the form of blocks accumulated into units.
Local search algorithm ( Richmond and Beasley 2004) Dig-limits constraints incorporated, minimize ore loss and mining dilution by using a payoff function per block
Heuristic approach: Floating cone algorithm ( Richmond and Beasley 2004; Vasylchuk and Deutsch 2019) Dig-limits constraints incorporated, minimize ore loss and dilution. Multiple ore types and objective functions taken into account to maximize the net present value (NPV), no guarantee of optimality. Dig-limit optimization in 2-D