Multiple case studies follow the same sequence:

1. Build a geological block model and estimate resources in Surpac.
2. Export the block model to Whittle, define realistic economic and geotechnical parameters, and run Lerchs–Grossmann optimization to generate nested pit shells (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Biao, 2013).
3. Select a pit shell that is both technically feasible and economically robust, not just the largest shell, often via sensitivity tests to commodity price and costs (Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
4. Import the chosen shell back into Surpac for detailed pit design (ramps, benches, pushbacks) and scheduling (Deressa et al., 2024; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Mbah et al., 2020; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015).

This integrated loop is reported for gold, copper–cobalt and other deposits, with the explicit goal of finding a pit that is technically feasible and economically profitable in the long term, rather than merely maximizing tonnage (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Mukombo, Kisumpa and Kalej, 2020; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015).

Preparing the Block Model in Surpac

Studies using Surpac emphasize that the block model must capture:

• Geological structure and grade distribution, built from drillhole databases and wireframes of mineralized solids (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Smirnova, Chen and Mikhaylova, 2022; Cheng, 2021; Wu et al., 2025).
• Block dimensions that balance geological accuracy with mining practicality; overly large blocks can cause ore–waste misclassification and dilution, while very small blocks may be computationally heavy (Mbolela et al., 2022; Smirnova, Chen and Mikhaylova, 2022; Mussin et al., 2025).
• Grade estimation using kriging or inverse distance, with careful variogram or interpolation setup to get reliable in‑situ grades (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Cheng, 2021).
• Economic attributes per block (cut‑off grade application, mining, processing, and selling costs, recoveries, revenues) so that Whittle can compute block values (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Mbah et al., 2020; Mussin et al., 2025).

A resource/“reserve” model that explicitly accounts for cut‑off grade, ore losses, and dilution is recommended before pit optimization, to ensure realistic economic evaluation (Mussin et al., 2025).

Exporting to Whittle and Setting Strategic Parameters

The Surpac model is exported (typically as a block file) and set up in Whittle for pit limit optimization using Lerchs–Grossmann 3D algorithms (Deressa et al., 2024; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Díaz et al., 2021; Mussin et al., 2025; Biao, 2013). Case studies highlight the importance of realistic inputs:

• Commodity price and revenue factors:
  • Several projects generate pit shells over a range of metal prices by applying revenue factors or price scenarios, from stressed “worst case” to optimistic “best case” (Mbolela et al., 2022; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
  • Grouping pits by price “families” (low, medium, high prices) is used to explore how pit size and value respond to market conditions (Mbolela et al., 2022; Mukombo, Kisumpa and Kalej, 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
• Operating and processing costs:
  • Mining, processing, and selling costs are compiled from site data or analogue operations and are used to compute block net values and NPV (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
  • Sensitivity analysis shows NPV can be very sensitive to metal price but only moderately to mining cost in some gold projects, reinforcing the need to test multiple cost scenarios (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
• Slope and geotechnical parameters:
  • Wall and bench slope angles are usually constrained in Whittle based on geomechanical studies, sometimes supported by separate 3D geomechanical modelling to verify stability (Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Agafonov and Porshneva, 2020; Quansah, Anani and Adewuyi, 2024).
  • Work on geomechanical models stresses that choosing safe slope angles is integral to pit design and may constrain the “ultimate” pit boundary (Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Agafonov and Porshneva, 2020; Quansah, Anani and Adewuyi, 2024).
• Discount rate and capacity constraints:
  • Final pits are selected by maximizing NPV at a chosen discount rate (often ~10%) and under mining and processing capacity constraints (Deressa et al., 2024; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
  • Some studies treat Whittle optimization as the economic second stage after a more purely technical Surpac-based pit estimate (Mbolela et al., 2022; Mukombo, Kisumpa and Kalej, 2020).

Figure 1: Slope and Geotechnical Whittle Parameters

The literature repeatedly notes that these parameters must be realistic and site-specific, or the optimized pit shells will not be reliable for investment decisions (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Díaz et al., 2021; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020; Biao, 2013).

Interpreting Nested Pit Shells and Cashflow

Whittle typically generates a series of nested pit shells at increasing revenue factors or price levels (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020). Research emphasizes:

• Many shells can be economically mineable; there is not always a single obvious pit (Díaz et al., 2021; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
• Revenue factor 1.0 is often used as a starting criterion for the “ultimate pit”, but in practice:
  • The NPV–shell curve may peak at a shell with RF ≠ 1 (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Kržanović et al., 2025; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
  • Statistical or heuristic analysis may be needed if no shell cleanly meets conventional criteria (Mbah et al., 2020).

Graphical analysis of pit shell vs. NPV or cashflow is used to:

• Identify the NPV-maximizing shell (often at some intermediate RF) versus the largest, most extended “ultimate” pit (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
• Study sensitivity of the optimal shell to price and cost variations, to avoid pits that are profitable only under very optimistic conditions (Mbolela et al., 2022; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).

Guidance from these studies is to critically evaluate:

• Whether the NPV plateau suggests multiple nearly equivalent shells, allowing selection of one that is more geotechnically robust or operationally simple (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
• How each shell affects strip ratio, ore grade, and life-of-mine profile, not just headline NPV (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).

Figure 2: Interpreting Nested Pit Shells

From Ultimate Pit to Practical Final Design

Several authors underscore that the Whittle ultimate pit is a strategic limit, not a detailed design (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Kržanović et al., 2025; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Biao, 2013). Before adopting a shell as a final design limit, engineers are advised to consider:

• Geotechnical stability and slope optimization:
  • 3D geomechanical models are used to refine slope angles and confirm wall stability, sometimes leading to adjustments to Whittle-derived contours (Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Agafonov and Porshneva, 2020; Quansah, Anani and Adewuyi, 2024).
  • Adaptive approaches link monitoring data and updated geotechnical models to review overall slope angles while maintaining acceptable risk and NPV (Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Quansah, Anani and Adewuyi, 2024).
• Mining sequence and pushbacks:
  • Pit shells are used to design a sequence of pushbacks that move from higher value, lower strip areas into deeper, lower value zones, aiming to maximize early cashflow (Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
  • Studies show that well‑planned pushbacks can materially improve overall project NPV and manage risk (Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Díaz et al., 2021; Mbah et al., 2020; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020).
• Production capacity and life-of-mine scheduling:
  • Long‑term planning integrates ultimate pit selection with direct block scheduling or pushback scheduling to respect processing constraints and geometallurgical variability (Sinha and Choudhary, 2020; Morales et al., 2019).
  • Stochastic and geometallurgical models can significantly alter optimal pit limits and schedules compared with deterministic averages (Morales et al., 2019).
• Sustainability and external constraints:
  • Work on pit contour optimization notes that surface facilities, allotment boundaries, and environmental constraints may require excluding certain areas from optimization or subsequent design (Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023).
  • Some authors explicitly evaluate scenarios to improve project resilience to price fluctuations and to maintain high technical and economic indicators over the mine life (Mbolela et al., 2022; Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Díaz et al., 2021; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020; Wu et al., 2025; Mussin et al., 2025).

Importing the Selected Shell Back into Surpac

Once a preferred pit shell is selected, case studies import that shell to Surpac for detailed pit design:

• Whittle contours are exported as surfaces or strings and then recreated as design pit walls in Surpac (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Mbah et al., 2020; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Biao, 2013).
• Engineers design:
  • Benches, berms, and ramps, ensuring access, equipment maneuverability, and compliance with geotechnical recommendations (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Mussin et al., 2025; Agafonov and Porshneva, 2020).
  • Pushbacks and phases consistent with the optimized sequence, which can change stripping ratios, ore losses, and dilution compared with the idealized Whittle shell (Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Mbah et al., 2020; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Mussin et al., 2025).

Studies comparing Whittle pits with fully designed Surpac pits report:

• Higher waste and slightly lower ore grade in the engineered design due to practical requirements (ramp placement, pit bottom widening), which must be fed back into the economic model (Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Mussin et al., 2025).
• The need to see Surpac and Whittle as complementary tools: Whittle for strategic limit and phase selection; Surpac for geometric realism and operational detail (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Biao, 2013).

Synchronizing Strategic and Tactical Planning

Recent work emphasizes closing the loop between strategy (Whittle) and tactics (Surpac and scheduling tools):

• Digital deposit and block models in Surpac enable dynamic updates of cut‑off, ore shapes, and grades as new data arrive, which then feed back into Whittle for updated economics (Smirnova, Chen and Mikhaylova, 2022; Wu et al., 2025; Mussin et al., 2025).
• Geomechanical block models built in Surpac are used to iteratively refine slope designs as monitoring or new investigations change the understanding of rock mass behavior (Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Agafonov and Porshneva, 2020; Quansah, Anani and Adewuyi, 2024).
• Stochastic planning frameworks show that incorporating geological and geometallurgical uncertainty at the strategic level can shift both ultimate pit limits and detailed schedules, underscoring the need for iterative, integrated planning rather than a one‑off optimization (Morales et al., 2019).

Key Claims & Evidence

Claim	Evidence Strength	Reasoning
Surpac–Whittle integration is standard for optimal open‑pit design	Evidence strength: Strong (9/10)	Multiple case studies use Surpac for block modelling and Whittle for optimization, then return to Surpac for detailed pit design.
Realistic economic and geotechnical parameters are essential for trustworthy pit shells	Evidence strength: Strong (8/10)	Studies stress site‑specific prices, costs, slopes, and discount rates, with sensitivity analyses to ensure robustness.
The NPV‑maximizing shell is often smaller than the largest (ultimate) pit	Evidence strength: Moderate (7/10)	NPV vs. shell analyses show intermediate shells can yield higher or more robust NPV than the largest shell.
Detailed design in Surpac modifies Whittle shells and must be re‑evaluated economically	Evidence strength: Moderate (7/10)	Designed pits show increased waste, ore loss, and changes in grade relative to Whittle shells.

Figure 3: Evidence summary for Surpac–Whittle optimization workflow

Summary

Research strongly supports the conceptual message you want to convey: optimization is not about choosing the largest pit, but about selecting the configuration that is realistic, economically robust, geotechnically safe, and operationally sustainable (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Díaz et al., 2021; Kržanović et al., 2025; Sinha and Choudhary, 2020; Morales et al., 2019; Quansah, Anani and Adewuyi, 2024). Surpac and Whittle are shown as complementary tools; the engineer’s responsibility is to define realistic parameters, scrutinize Whittle’s nested shells and cashflow responses, and translate the chosen shell into a detailed Surpac design that can be executed safely and profitably in the field (Deressa et al., 2024; Mbolela et al., 2022; Akisa and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Tyo and Zeitinova, 2023; Tolovkhan et al., 2022; Mbah et al., 2020; Appianing and Mireku-Gyimah, 2015; Biao, 2013).

---

References

Deressa, G., Bulushi, I., Choudhary, B., & Teshome, B., 2024. Integrated Approach to Reserve Estimation and Optimal Open Pit Design for Hydrothermal Gold Deposit. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 106, pp. 569 – 581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-024-00776-8

Mbolela, K., Mukombo, M., Kisumpa, N., & Kalej, M., 2022. Optimization of Open-pit Mining Under Surpac and Whittle. Journal of Innovation and Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.53469/jissr.2022.09(08).08

Mukombo, M., Kisumpa, N., & Kalej, M., 2020. Literary Review on Optimizing Open Pit Mining under Surpac and Whittle. **.

Akisa, D., & Mireku-Gyimah, D., 2015. Application of Surpac and Whittle Software in Open Pit Optimisation and Design. Ghana Mining Journal, 15, pp. 35-43. https://doi.org/10.4314/gm.v15i1

Tyo, S., & Zeitinova, S., 2023. Optimizing the contours of open pit mining with the use of mining and geological information systems and technologies. Kompleksnoe Ispolʹzovanie Mineralʹnogo syrʹâ/Complex Use of Mineral Resources/Mineraldik Shikisattardy Keshendi Paidalanu. https://doi.org/10.31643/2023/6445.39

Smirnova, A., Chen, S., & Mikhaylova, T., 2022. Geological Mathematical Block Modelling in Kuzbass Mining Industry. 2022 IEEE International Multi-Conference on Engineering, Computer and Information Sciences (SIBIRCON), pp. 1970-1973. https://doi.org/10.1109/sibircon56155.2022.10017106

Díaz, A., Álvarez, I., Fernández, C., Krzemień, A., & Rodríguez, F., 2021. Calculating ultimate pit limits and determining pushbacks in open-pit mining projects. Resources Policy, 72, pp. 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102058

Tolovkhan, B., Demin, V., Amanzholov, Z., Smagulova, A., Tanekeyeva, G., Zairov, S., Krukovskyi, O., & Cabana, E., 2022. Substantiating the rock mass control parameters based on the geomechanical model of the Severny Katpar deposit, Kazakhstan. Mining of Mineral Deposits. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining16.03.123

Kržanović, D., Jovanović, M., Rajković, R., Gomilanović, M., & Stojanović, M., 2025. NPV based optimization of final pit contours in the Cementacija mining complex. Proceedings – 56th International October Conference on Mining and Metallurgy – zbornik radova. https://doi.org/10.5937/ioc25090k

Mbah, T., Ye, H., Zhang, J., & Long, M., 2020. Implementation of Statistical Analysis to Determine Optimum Ultimate Pit. Open Journal of geology, 10, pp. 1262-1279. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojg.2020.1012063

Sinha, S., & Choudhary, B., 2020. Pit Optimization for Improved NPV and Life of Mine in Heterogeneous Iron Ore Deposit. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series D, 101, pp. 253 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40033-020-00236-z

Morales, N., Seguel, S., Caceres, A., Jélvez, E., & Alarcón, M., 2019. Incorporation of Geometallurgical Attributes and Geological Uncertainty into Long-Term Open-Pit Mine Planning. Minerals. https://doi.org/10.3390/min9020108

Cheng, J., 2021. Construction and visualization of a three-dimensional model of an engineering geological body. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06600-x

Appianing, E., & Mireku-Gyimah, D., 2015. Open Pit Optimisation and Design : A Stepwise Approach. Ghana Mining Journal, 15, pp. 27-35. https://doi.org/10.4314/gm.v15i2

Wu, W., Ren, Z., Liu, W., Zhu, Y., & Deng, J., 2025. Visualized dynamic analysis of digital deposit model in mine economic evaluation. Advances in Engineering Innovation. https://doi.org/10.54254/2977-3903/2025.20941

Mussin, R., Yachsishin, M., Golik, A., & Akhmatnurov, D., 2025. Block modeling reserves estimation. Kompleksnoe Ispolzovanie Mineralnogo Syra = Complex Use of Mineral Resources. https://doi.org/10.31643/2026/6445.44

Agafonov, A., & Porshneva, T., 2020. Substantiation of stable parameters of dumps on the basis of a geomechanical model of designed objects. Mining informational and analytical bulletin. https://doi.org/10.25018/0236-1493-2020-31-0-5-20

Biao, Y., 2013. Application of Whittle in open pit mining limit optimization. Nonferrous Metals.

Quansah, E., Anani, A., & Adewuyi, S., 2024. Optimizing Overall Slope Angle and Net Present Value (NPV) Through the Utilization of Ground-Based Pit Wall Monitoring Data. 58th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. https://doi.org/10.56952/arma-2024-0509