These values must be transferred from tin; vertical sections to the horizontal sections

as illustrated in the plan view of Bench A, shown in the figure. If interpolations were
made, solely in the horizontal direction from drillholes 2 to 3 to 4,.the150 % highgrade zone between drillholes 2 mill 3 and the 0.80% /.one between drillholes 3 and
-1 would both be missed.
Tit disseminated-type orebodies such as most of the porphyry coppers,
horizontal interpolations can be made to accurately arrive at true values
for each level. However, at contacts between ore values and waste values,
bemuse of change in format inn, horizontal interpolations cannot be made
from u drillhole in the waste formal ion to a drillhole in the ore. For exam
ple, the Bingham orebody is largely in a porphyry intrusion. On the
north side, the porphyry in cut nil' by quartzite. Horizontal interpolation
of copper values in the porphyry cannot be made across the contact
with the values in the quartzite to get reliable values between two such
drillholes.
In disseminated orebodies, more reliable interpolative values would be
obtained if values above and below the particular level being considered were taken
into account. For example, the drillhole spacing in a largo orebody way be on the
order of 200 to 400 ft. Horizontal interpolations for a 50-ft level will, accordingly, be
over the distance corresponding to the distance between holes, i.e., 200 to 400 ft,
respectively. No weight is given by this method for the values in each hole above or
below the .specifie level on which the interpolations are being made. Where values
are rather uniform, this is of little concern. Where values vary widely, interpolations
should be influened by values in the drillholes above and below the given level for at
least the same distance vertically as the horizontal distance between holes. This
sophistication requires the use of computerized programming.
With all ore values properly set out on the plan maps, one map for
each level, the project is ready for pit design.
I
4.1-5. Stripping Ratio.
To develop a pit design requires the establishment
of the break-even striping ratio. This ratio is applied only at the surface
of the final pit and must, not be confused with the overall ratio, which
is always less; otherwise there would be no profit to the operation. The .|
break-even stripping ratio is determined by the formula:
Break-even Stripping Ratio :
Recoverable_Value/ton ore Production cost/ton ore
Stripping cost/ton waste

\vhere production cost is the total of nil costs through to the refined metal, exclusive
of stripping cost. Ratios must be developed for variations in the grade of ore and
market price of the end product, as shown in Table 4.1-1.

Figure 4.1-3 charts the application of the formula to varying grades of a copper ore
and varying market prices for copper.
The factor most dificult to determine is market price, particularly long-range
price. high prices have the effect of expanding the pit, while low prices do the reverse
and contract the pit. However, this is true only to the point where stripping ratios raise
the cost of open pit mining above that of under ground methods. In the ease
illustrated, tins is assumed to be 3:1. If price and grade permit a higher ratio, 3:1 is,
nevertheless, fixed as the maximum in the design of the ultimate pit. In actual current
practice, most open pit mining cost Is permit ratios in excess of 3:1 before going
underground.
Where advisable, a minimum profit factor can be included in the breakeven
striping ratio formula:
Break-even striping ratio :
Recovable value/ton ore (production cost/ton ore + minimum profit /ton ore)
Stripping cost /ton waste
More sophistication can be obtained in these calculation by use of computers,
incluiding such items as 1) production cost by levels to reflect cost according to leght
of ore waste hauls, and 2) treatment cost relative to grade of ore because of varying
percentage recoveries, etc. This sophistication is of no value unless the input data are
accurate. Because of lack of actual operating and cost experience, such sophistication
is not advisable in the design of a pit for a new property.

Fig. 4.1-3. Break even stripping ratio related la grade of ore and market
price,
.
Care, should be taken in the use of kinds of costs. It is obvious that nil direct
cost should be used. Depreciation coat should also be included, although it may be
assumed this has been fully recovered by the time the final pit limits are reached. Its
exclusion will set the pit limit beyond its economic cutoff. On the other hand,
preproduction and financing costs should not be inclueded, because. such cost are
recovered before the end of the life of the mine..
4.1-6. Ultimate Pit Slope.
After fixing the allowable stripping ratios, the final pit slope must be
determined. Degree of slope is a critical factor, but unfortunately is the most diflicult
to determine--particularly in the initial stages of pit design. To minimize the overall
stripping ratio, the slope should be us steep us possible and still remain stable.
Geological structure such as joint and slip planes, faults, rock strength, etc., are key
factors. These should he analyzed as completely as possible from the geological
information available.
Time and the presence of water are also elements of slope stability. Drainage
should be provided for surface water. Underground waters must| also he dealt with in
a manner to relieve build-up of water pressure. A. typical method is to drive drainage
drifts.
The time element, must also be considered. Many comparatively steep slopes
will stand for periods of several months or even years. In such eases, mining plans
should be designed to remove waste as rapidly as possible and recover the ore so
made available. The pit should lie designed to a conservative slope angle for the ore
to be removed and fixed at the economical stripping ratio. In actual practice, a steeper
slope can be attempted over a short period of time. Should the steeper slope show
signs of failing (usually ample warning is given by the appearance of failure cracks},
stripping operations run be resumed to the designed flatter slope.

Fig. 4.1-4. Common

surface intercept of two
different pit slopes at the

same allowable
stripping ratio.
An interesting fact is inherent in the application of the economic or allowable
final stripping limit to the degree of slope. The surface intercept of the pit limit is
often the same for varying degrees of slope. The surface intercept of a 45 final (or
ultimate) slope at say a 3:1 stripping ratio will be the same as for a 50 slope. The
3:1 limiting ratio applied to the steeper slope often permits the mining of ore of
depth, thus leaving the surface intercept at the same point fixed by the 45 slope
(Fig. 4.1-4).
The relationship of structure to stability of slopes is illustrated 4.1-5.
This is from an actual situation in a very competent rock formation (most
porphyry copper pits require much fatter slopes). The dual pit slop was designed to
53o, with the individual bank slopes at 1/4 : 1 (76 O). Forty-foot safety berms were
designed at 80ft vertical spacing. A detailed study of structure as mining progressed
(at must flatter operating slopes) showed prominent joint planes dipping at 73. It
seemed appareat that the assumed 76 bank slope would fail to the 73 slope. Over
a period of time the1. shaded area a-b-c would sluff off as rubble onto the safety berm
and possibly cover it completely. The final slope was therefore designed to 50 to
permit a stable bank slope of 73 and maintain a rubble-free berm As mining
progresses in a pit, a careful record should be made of structure weaknesses indicated
by prominent joint and slip planes, formation contacts, and faults to unable periodic
review of the designed final pit slope
The possible application of soil and rock mechanics us a design tool in fixing
safe slopes is currently under extensive study by mining companies, schools, and
governmental mining bureaus the world over. It is primarily u problem of long-range
basic research, as discussed in Chapter 12.1. Development of successful methods of
instrumentation to predict impending slope failure before it becomes visually
apparent would be a most valuable tool in developing safe 'pit designs. Unrealistic pit
design results in economic waste of ore reserves cither by excess stripping or loss of
ore that should have been recovered.
4.1-7. Grade Cutoff
For material that must be moved either as ore or waste, the grade cutoff is the
break-even cost between sending it to the mill or to the waste dump. For example
Kadar
Peraolehan
per
ton Cu
Biaya

This table can in: expanded to show the grade cutoff at various market prices.
For the initial approach to designing an open pit operation, this kind of

analysis is made to determine grade cut off fur estimating total reserves exclusive of
stripping ratio. In this example, a 0,437% Cu cutoff cannot carry the cost of any
stripping. If this material were sent to the waste dump at a stripping cost of 30 cent,
ores above this cutoff would bear the 30 cent mining cost as additional stripping
cosL. The important interrelationship of grade cutoff and stripping ratio is evident.
4.1-8. Pit Design.
Since market price is, a key factor in fixing the final pit limits, the long-range
estimate must, be on a conservative basis because nil design ran always be expanded
should future prices and costs justify the change. A more realistic approach is to look
at the long-range spread between cost and market price. The trend over the longrange past of increasing copper prices has certainly been accompanied by increased
costs; the converse would less likely pertain to the future. There inevitably must be a
reasonable spread between costs and. prices on an industry-wide basis. For the
hypothetical ease designed hereunder, the long-range price for copper is assumed at
30 cent.
With the establishment of limiting stripping ratios, ultimate degree of pit
slopes, and grade cutoff, the project is ready for developing the geometry of the
design.

Fig. 4.1-6. Plan of orebody. Fig. 4,1-7. Typical parallel trial section
The design is developed from vertical sections on which the surfaces topography and
ore limits, out to the adopted grade cutoff, are shown. To begin with, the sections
should be spaced at regular parallel intervals normal to the long axis of the orebody
(Fig. 4.1-6).
The pit limit, at the adopted degree of slope, is placed on the trial sections at a
point that results in the allowable stripping ratio for the grade of ore in that area. This
is illustrated in Fig.4.1-7.
The pit slope line XYZ is fixed at I he point that results in a stripping ratio of
1.8 waste :1 ore.
Length of XY Waste
Length of YZ ore
This is economic ratio for the indicated ore grade of 0.6% Cu in this area, as
taken from Table 4.1-1 at 30 cent market price for copper. For the other side of the
sections, the indicated grade is 0.8% Cu. from Table4.1-1. the allowable stripping
ratio is 4.2 : 1. However, at the assumed break-even stripping ratio of 3:1 when
compared to underground cost, the pit slope limit is fixed at the 3 : 1 ratio.
Each trial section is similarly analyzed, and surface intercepts of..