See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265034321

Safe, Rapid Development Through the Application of Systems

Engineering Methods

Article

CITATIONS READS
0 238

3 authors, including:

P. Knights
The University of Queensland
78 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ACARP project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P. Knights on 18 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Safe, Rapid Development Through the Application of
Systems Engineering Methods
1 2 3
K Rafie , P Stewart and P F Knights

ABSTRACT
The net present value (NPV) of underground mining projects depends on the time from
capital development expenditure to revenue generation from production. The more
rapid the development stages the higher the project NPV. This paper investigates the
application of system engineering tools on safe rapid development and illustrates the
benefits and limitations of such tools in the real world.
Lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, Benchmarking and Simulation implementation
case studies from hard rock mines in Canada and Australia, as well as from the
construction of the Channel Tunnel in UK are examined. These case studies
demonstrate how the repetitive cyclic nature of underground development is well suited
to systems engineering methods, and explains how systems engineering methods have
been used to improve advance rates across a variety of projects.
The paper concludes by identifying the availability of reliable and appropriate data
as the most challenging aspect of applying these methods and suggests a number of
opportunities for developing systems engineering methods by utilising faster and more
reliable reporting systems. This approach was identified as key to sustained
implementation of systems engineering methods which offers the potential to
continuously improve development rates by incorporating systems engineering
methods into the system itself.

INTRODUCTION
According to Atlas Copco (2005), hard rock underground development rates have increased on
average by only 24 per cent over the last 25 years (Figure 1). This paper reviews the experience of the
hard rock mining community and civil tunnelling contractors in applying systems engineering
concepts to advance development rates. Systems engineering involves the systematic analysis and
improvement of processes through the development of process maps, measurement and simulation of
cycle times and application of Lean production and Six Sigma concepts to improve cycle time and
work quality.

BACKGROUND
Quick access to orebodies improves net present value (NPV). This is critical for block cave mining
where several kilometres of development is initially required at high capital cost (Suoreneni, Kaiser
and Henning, 2008). This paper presents a review of system engineering applications for safe rapid
development.

1. CRC Mining, The University of Queensland, PO Box 5234, Kenmore East Qld 4069. Email: [email protected]
2. CRC Mining, The University of Queensland, PO Box 5234, Kenmore East Qld 4069. Email: [email protected]
3. BMA Chair and Professor of Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, and Program Leader for Smart Mining
Systems, CRCMining, PO Box 5234, Kenmore East Qld 4069. Email: [email protected]

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 223

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

FIG 1 - Atlas Copco drill and blast diagram (2005).

Mines are capital-intensive business operations. They create wealth through the quality of their
mining processes and the machines that extract ore, however, it is human beings who manage
processes and operate the machines (Winchester, 2006).
System engineering methods are the business improvement methods of choice for many
manufacturing and processing industries around the world. Other systems engineering methods
applied to safe rapid underground development and discussed in this paper include: Lean
manufacturing, Six Sigma, benchmarking, process mapping, simulation and standardised work.
Suoreneni, Kaiser and Henning (2008) argue that data from the mining industry today indicates a
levelling off of advance rates since the 1890s at approximately 30 m/week. Figure 2 shows progress in
advance rates in drill and blast tunnelling with advances in drilling and explosive technologies.

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

Lean manufacturing
Lean manufacturing has its roots in the production systems developed by Toyota from the 1950s. The
Production System has contributed to the rise of Toyota as one of the most successful automotive
businesses in the world. ‘Problems’ in the Toyota and Lean manufacturing view of the world, are
sources of waste, where performance does not measure up to expectation. A formal definition of Lean
production techniques might be ‘the ceaseless elimination of waste’ (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford,
2006).
Taiichi Ohno (1912 - 1990) was a Toyota executive who pioneered Lean manufacturing
techniques by identifying seven types of ‘muda’ or waste. These are (Womack and Jones, 1996):
1. overproduction – producing goods ahead of demand;
2. waiting for the next processing step;

224 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

FIG 2 - Progress in advance rates in drill and blast tunnelling with advances in drilling and explosive technologies
– broken line is an extrapolation (Suoreneni, Kaiser and Henning, 2008).

3. unnecessary transport of materials;

4. over processing (rework) of parts due to poor tool or product design;
5. inventories (work in progress and materials) more than the absolute minimum;
6. movement by employees during the course of their work (looking for parts, tools, drawings,
help etc); and
7. production of defective parts.
Based on extensive research (Womack and Jones, 1996) added an eighth source of waste:
8. Design of goods or services which do not meet the user’s need.
Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford (2006) have done a comparison between resource/mineral businesses
and Automotives (Table 1) and document a number of successful case studies of the application of
Lean manufacturing techniques by Rio Tinto Aluminium, the Northparkes mine and the Hunter
Valley Coal Operations. In practice, Lean relies on:
• engaging workplace leaders,
• asking employees to set agreed standards for their work,
• empowering employees to write their own standards and improve them,
• the visual representation of key production performance data,
• empowering employees at the lowest level to make operational decisions based on the data,
• forming operations and maintenance employees into manufacturing teams, and
• application of a suite of business improvement tools.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 225

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

TABLE 1
Comparison between resource/minerals businesses (after Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006).

Resource and minerals business Automotive business

A smelter or refinery cannot be stopped so there is inherent An automotive assembly line can be stopped so there is the
production push in the process ability to create pull systems
Production is in continuous units and around the clock Production is in discrete units and often on less than one day
cycles
Generates considerable dust Little dust
Physically challenging environment Ambient conditions
Inherently variable environment Stable work environment
Remote locations Large centres
Impact of weather Indoor environment
Inherently variable raw materials Controlled raw materials
Geographically spread output teams Compact plants
Molten metal has a short shelf life before it solidifies Long-life components suitable for supermarket-style storage

Of particular note is the emphasis on the use of vision boards to inform all stakeholders of the
opportunities and progress made in business improvement. Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford (2006) quotes
John Sharman, an employee of Fluor Mondelphous, who stated that: ‘Having information visible and
available was a great help. It gave people visual clues and they could see how they were tracking as
opposed to how they thought they were tracking’. Similarly, the use of a concern board to capture
concerns, containment and countermeasures ‘catches issues before they become critical and do harm’.
Lean manufacturing as a system engineering method for rapid development has limited
applications because it does not consider the overall system nor does it consider interactions between
processes. Because rapid development has complex interactions between processes it is unlikely that
Lean manufacturing would be successful as a stand-alone method. That being said, Lean
manufacturing’s focus on waste would be applicable to certain processes in the development cycle
where waste is a problem. For example, Lean manufacturing would be well suited to reducing
wastage in particular ground control process. For example, reducing excessive bolting and
shotcreting by ensuring ground support designs are responsive to conditions. However, if applied to
isolated waste issues without considering the overall system then eliminating waste could adversely
affect development rates. For example, an attempt to reduce shotcrete wastage could make the
shotcreting process take longer thereby increasing ground control times.

Six Sigma
‘Six Sigma’ was pioneered by Motorola and later popularised by Jack Welsh, CEO of General
Electric Corporation. Its name derives from quality control principles relating to statistical process
control.
If product quality is regarded as being normally distributed, a manufacturer will typically impose
an upper control limit (UCL) and lower control limit (LCL) to define an acceptable quality range. In a
three sigma system, the distribution is such that ±3 standard deviations lie within the upper and lower
control limits. Thus, using standard normal tables, it can be seen that 2700 defective products per
million (0.27 per cent) can be expected to fail both the upper and lower limit tests (see the blue zone on
the left hand of Figure 3). Furthermore, if the process is such that the mean shifts by 1.5 sigma, then
the proportion failing the upper control limit will increase to 67 000 per million.

226 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

FIG 3 - Six Sigma product defect capability (source Harold, 2000).

To avoid such losses, Motorola defined their desirable product quality such that ± Six Sigma fall
between the upper and lower control limits. This means that only 3.4 defects per million are
acceptable at each of the distribution cut-offs. The methods chosen to achieve this aim became known
as the Six Sigma approach to continuous improvement.
Central to the Six Sigma approach is the use of a structured, disciplined, rigorous approach to
process improvement based on DMAIC (see Figure 4). DMAIC is an acronym meaning define,
measure, analyse, improve and control (this is a refinement of the famous plan-do-check-act loop
developed and championed by Edward Deming). The following explanation of the DMAIC cycle is
drawn from Rath and Strong (2000).

FIG 4 - Six Sigma DMAIC improvement cycle (after Rath and Strong, 2000).

The first phase is define. The project’s purpose and scope are defined. Background information on
the process and customer is collected. The output of this phase is:
• a clear statement of the intended improvement (the business case and team charter);

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 227

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

• a high level map of the process (this uses an input-output map called SIPOC, considering suppliers,
inputs, process, outputs, and customers); and
• a list of what is important to the customer (critical to quality or CTQ factors).
The second phase is measure. The goal of measure is to focus the improvement effort by gathering
information on the current situation. The output of measure is:
• baseline data on the current process performance,
• data that pinpoints problem location or occurrence, and
• a more focused problem statement.
These outputs provide the basis for the analyse phase. The goal of this phase is to identify the root
cause(s) and confirm them with data. The output is a theory that has been tested and confirmed. The
verified cause(s) forms the basis for the next phase.
The goal of the improve phase is to try out and implement solutions that address root causes. The
outputs are planned, tested actions that should eliminate or reduce the impact of the identified root
cause(s). Additionally, a plan is created for how the results will be evaluated in the next phase.
The goal of the control phase is to evaluate the solutions and the plan, maintain the gains by
standardising the process and outline steps for ongoing improvements including opportunities for
replication. The output is:
• before and after analysis,
• a monitoring system, and
• completed documentation of results, learning and recommendations
Like Lean production techniques, Six Sigma draws upon a suite of business improvement tools for
each of the DMAIC phases. Six Sigma relies on training a number of high level business improvement
specialists within an organisation. Using martial arts terminology, these specialists are referred to as
green, yellow and black belt Six Sigma practitioners.
Companies such as BHP Billiton and Caterpillar have successfully implemented Six Sigma
business improvement programs throughout their operational units.

Benchmarking
According to Hall and Harper (2005), benchmarking is a practical and effective method of measuring
operational performance, identifying performance gaps and providing and prioritising performance
targets. Furthermore, for benchmarking (or any performance improvement process) to add value, it
must consider the complexities of underground mining and work within the framework of the
strategic plan. Most benefit is derived from having the right plan; however the plan cannot provide
value if it is not implemented in an effective and sustainable way to be successful benchmarking must
adhere to a rigorous and structured process. The benchmarking process comprises the following main
components: data collection, data entry and report production, evaluation report preparation,
discussion of findings, improvement action plan and on-going monitoring (Hall and Harper, 2005).
To add value, benchmarking must incorporate the strategic goals of the organisation into the
process (Hall and Harper, 2005). These goals should be linked to the underlying cost and physical
drivers of operation performance. Hall argues that it will ensure that the implemented solutions will
add value to the operation. Undertaking a benchmarking project is a significant commitment and it is
essential that sufficient resources are allocated to the process to ensure the maximum benefit is
derived (Hall and Harper, 2005). The benefits derived from a properly conducted benchmarking
project will often far outweigh the costs.

228 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

FIG 5 - Benchmarking process.

Hall (2005) states that benchmarking is often used by site mining personnel to assess how well
mining systems and processes are operating relative to comparable sites. At this stage benchmarking
emphasises processes that appear to be performing less than predictions and picks out processes
where improvements could be achieved by other system engineering methods. On the other hand,
benchmarking outcomes can be employed more directly as part of the solution to processes that
perform less well than expected by providing samples of best practice and focusing on processes
where improvements are most likely to be made.

Process mapping
An underground mine can be considered as a process which transfers a mineral resource from the
ground into a product, concentrate or metal (Hall and Harper, 2005). Hall argues that the process is
made up of a number of sequential process steps which transfer ore from one stock type to another.
Each consecutive ore stock has a greater worth than the previous caused by less time and labour being
necessary to transform the ore into a product. Hall (2005) states that to achieve the performance
targets set during the planning process it is important that sufficient ore stocks are maintained to allow
for the uncertainties encountered during the normal course of the underground mining process. Ore
stocks need to be conserved at adequate levels for a mine to deliver the specified ore requirements in a
sustainable and efficient manner to the processing plant.

Standardised work
Variability in operating procedures within and between crews is often an accepted part of mining
operations. However, this variability is the enemy of high performance (Winchester, 2006).
Standardised work is a rigorous procedure to standardise, document and progressively improve the way
work is done and is applicable to all the other Lean tools. It is implemented through discussing existing
practices for a particular work process and documenting a baseline procedure. Through ‘kaizen’ or

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 229

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

brainstorming sessions or through suggestions made by employees at regular meetings, the procedure is
incrementally improved Standardised procedures and adherence to them is important if a mine is to
remain competitive with international best practice (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006).

Simulation and SPS tool

Simulation is an efficient and cost-effective tool for decision-making and analysing real-world
systems and repetitive construction processes. It models the behaviour or properties of processes to
predict behaviour. Simulation is especially useful where there are complex interactions between
processes making analytical solutions too complex to calculate.
Tunnelling and trenchless construction processes are excellent candidates for the utilisation of
computer simulation due to their repetitive nature. Management of infrastructure, underground, or
pipeline projects is challenging because of inherent uncertainties. The most effective way to deal with
uncertainty is to collect supplementary information and knowledge. When expensive or infeasible,
quantification of uncertainty may be performed using analytical or simulation techniques.
In mining operations simulations have been carried out for many years (Hall, 2000). Hall (2000)
comments that simulation is well suited to evaluating the effect of changes in complex dynamic and
interrelated systems. Engineering processes can be simulated using a vast array of commercially
available computer programs.
Special purpose simulation (SPS) tool was developed at the University of Alberta for designing,
planning, and analysis of tunnel construction projects. Two versions of the tunnelling tool were
initially developed the purpose of these tools is to accomplish the following:
• predict the tunnel advance rate, which depends on various deterministic and stochastic factors,
such as the length of the tunnel, depth of the shaft, muck car capacity, train speed, dirt volume and
removal method, and soil conditions (swell factors, penetration rate, etc);
• balance the construction cycles at the tunnel face and the shaft, and optimise the use of the TBM,
crane, and trains; and
• predict the productivity, cost, schedule, and resource use based on the simulation analysis.

RAPID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Lean production

The Northparkes Mines experience (Rio Tinto practice)

Barry Lavin (Managing Director, Northparkes Mines) reports:
Northparkes Mines, an underground block-caving copper mining operation in central
New South Wales, recently began developing first stage of a new underground mine at
its E48 project. This involves excavating 10 000 metres of tunnels using conventional
drill and blast mining methods. Reintroduction of underground development presented
challenges to project team. The majority of issues were associated with mine services,
equipment and work procedures and many of them were recurring.
Development of underground excavations follows a cyclical process that is repeated every 12 to
24 hours (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford 2006). The development cycle, undertaken by a crew of five or
six miners, consists of:

230 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

• drilling a pattern of blastholes into the rock face;

• charging blastholes with explosives and firing;
• mucking out broken rock;
• supporting the new section of tunnel with ground support elements including meshing, rock bolts
and spray-on concrete; and
• ventilation (cleaning blasting fumes).
Advance rates vary between three and five metres per cycle. This was the task that Lean was called
in to control and improve. A key feature of Lean is its ability to manage a large number and variety of
issues simultaneously using visual prompts to assist the communication of issues. A Lean
Information Centre was established in the project’s shift change centre (Figure 6). The metrics that the
development teams chose to track were safety, environment, employee availability, cycle completion
times, weekly development targets and utilisation of resources (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006).

FIG 6 - Lean information centre (after Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006).

Lean has proved to be a flexible and adaptive management tool. It is currently being used to track
more than 100 issues simultaneously (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006). It also allows for
communication of development rates and metrics. This could improve communication with team
leaders and crew members and let them see where issues are occurring. As a result, crew members are
more willing to contribute to identifying and solving issues that cause delays in the production cycle.
The Lean process facilitates a structured response to productivity issues, which has improved the
efficiency and effectiveness of shift changes. Overall, the benefits derived from implementing Lean
Information Centres at Northparkes have been significant (Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006), with
the process contributing to a 56 per cent improvement in the cycle time within the first 30 days of
adoption (Figure 7). They have provided a structured approach to improving productivity. The main
benefits are that development targets and performance against those targets are visible. Development
teams are actively involved in identifying and solving causes of delay.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 231

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

Development Rates
35
Weekly Development Improvement
30 Rate = 58%
Metres Developed

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Weeks of Trial

Pre Lean (15.4m/week) Post Lean (26.7m/week)

FIG 7 - Northparkes development rates (after Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford, 2006).

Six Sigma applications

Cadia East rapid tunnelling technologies
Willcox (2008) reports on a pre-feasibility study being undertaken by Newcrest Mining Limited, the
Cadia East implementation team has developed an access decline to the proposed underground
operation. Willcox (2008) discuss the components of Six Sigma methodology were applied to support
the systematic changes and demonstrated that development rates improved 60 per cent above the
comparable single heading benchmark. The initial step involved breaking down the development cycle
into the elements. The initial forecast of cycle time is 12 hours based on these elements (Table 2).

TABLE 2
Tunnelling cycle time (after Willcox, 2008).

Element Time
Fumes clearance 30 min
Water and inspect 30 min
Bog #1 (300 t) 90 min
Hydroscale and shotcrete 100 min
Bolt (27 bolts) 120 min
Bog #2 (200 t), clean up 90 min
Drill face (70 holes) 150 min
Charge and fire 90 rains
Total time 12 hr
Advance (assume 85% factor) 269 m/rn

Willcox (2008) found a number of improvements through lateral thinking exercises, by breaking
down face utilisation and face efficiencies and their contribution to the advance rate. The potential
improvements were then ranked using impact, likelihood and ‘Pareto’ rankings. Cycle times and the

232 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

individual components were analysed for each month with comparison to expectations. Common
cause events such as pumping issues (Figure 8) were identified, with positive and negative
contributions to cycle times discussed and actioned.

50.00
45.00
40.00
Cycle Tim e (Hours)

35.00
30.00
Power/Pumping Off Decline Stockpile Consistent cycles
25.00
issues
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
612

619

622
623
624
625
626
627

629
630

637

640
641
642
643
644
645

647
648
610
611

613
614
615
616
617
618

620
621

628

631
632
633
634
635
636

638
639

646

649
650
651
652
653
654
Cycle Number

FIG 8 - Cycle times – December 2006 (after Willcox, 2008).

Box plots (Figure 9) were used as an additional graphical method to present cycle components,
essentially showing the distribution of the data by using the median, quartiles and the extremes. The
box shows the middle 50 per cent of the data.

FIG 9 - Box plot for cycle components – December 2006 (after Willcox, 2008).

Overall Willcox (2008) found Six Sigma improvement processes have supported the adoption of
emerging technologies at Cadia East. Accurate long round, high performance drills coupled with
emulsion explosives and high-capacity materials handling have demonstrated single heading
tunnelling rates over 8 m/d (60 per cent above the current Australian benchmark of 5.25 m/d) are now
practically possible (Figure 10).

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 233

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

10
9
8
3.5 m
Metres per day

7
rounds
6
Cadiangulong/Foy Gibb 5.5 m
5
Faults rounds
4
3
2
1
0
Nov-05

Oct-06
Jun-05
Jul-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

Jul-06

Nov-06
Dec-06
Jan-07
Aug-05

Dec-05
Jan-06

Apr-06

Jun-06

Aug-06

Feb-07
May-05

Sep-05

May-06

Sep-06

Mar-07
Mar-06
Average Decline Chainage Metres/day Average Total Metres/day

FIG 10 - Cadia East single heading development rates 2005 - 2007 (after Willcox, 2008).

Falconbridge’s Kidston mine Six Sigma application

Lateral development improvements was one of six process improvement projects undertaken at
Falconbridge’s Kidston mine in Canada (Hughes, 2001). The lateral development improvement
process is defined in Figure 11. The following ranked customers were identified as part of the process
definition component of the DMAIC cycle described earlier in this paper:
• mine captain (shift supervisor),
• shifter,
• miner,
• maintenance,
• backfill, and
• geology.

FIG 11 - Process map for lateral development at Kidston mine (after Hughes, 2001).

234 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

The following ‘critical to quality’ factors were identified also as part of the process definition:
• number of available faces,
• face time,
• TBF for equipment,
• environment,
• other services performed,
• materials,
• environment at the face,
• drilling template,
• drilling accuracy, and
• explosive used.
Because attempts to obtain development cycle time data from crews were unsuccessful, cycle
times from an earlier study were used to measure cycle characteristics.
Table 3 lists the cycle times measured as part of a separate time and motion in the Kidd Lower
mine. Upon comparing to processes in Figure 11 it is clear that cycle time data is missing for a number
of important steps. For example scaling is not shown in and yet it forms part of the main loop shown in
Figure 11.

TABLE 3
Development cycle times measured as part of separate Falconbridge study (after Taylor, 1999).

Development cycle step Measured time (hours) Cumulative time (hours) Cumulative shifts
Face preparation 2:55 2:92 0.42
Drilling 3:23 6:30 0.90
Charge face 3:05 9:38 1.34
Mucking to stockpile 3:45 13:13 1.88
Muck to trucks 9:00 22:13 3.16
Bolt and mesh 6:41 28:82 4.12
Services 2:26 31:25 4.46

Hughes (2001) identified unplanned jumbo or bolter breakdowns associated with scaling damage
as a potential X (Potential Xs are assumed to be the same as the critical to quality factors). During
scaling the jumbo or bolter drill steel is used to knock down loose rock. The falling rocks damaged
equipment. Jumbos incurred breakdowns every other day and bolter every other shift. Lack of quality
control measures such as standard operating procedures for scaling, drilling and blasting were linked
to ‘unpredictable’ scaling times, rock blast damage and equipment damage. Because half of all rounds
were considered to be defective, Hughes (2001) estimated the sigma level to be 1.5. Using Six Sigma
analysis tools the following root causes for blast damage were identified:
• inaccurate drilling, and
• explosive types and loading.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 235

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

In the absence of cycle time data for scaling, Hughes must have relied upon qualitative accounts of
‘unpredictable’ scaling times to identify blast damage as major quality control issue for the drill and
blast cycle. As discussed earlier in this paper, an important part of the Six Sigma analysis is verifying
the root causes by testing and confirming with data. Unfortunately, it appears Hughes were unable to
obtain such data.
The next step in the DMAIC cycle is to improve by implementing solutions to quality control
issues. Hughes proposed the quality improvement methods shown in Figure 12.

FIG 12 - Quality improvement methods and predicted results (after Hughes, 2001).

A large number of quality control improvements were implemented at Kidston mine, and are
listed below:
• improved quality and availability for hydraulic hose exposed to damage during scaling,
• de-coupled explosives at perimeter,
• bit gauging to prevent excessive explosive densities,
• use cast primer for a more ‘square clean face’,
• reduced explosive density at the perimeter, and
• implement face mark-up procedures (drilling template).
According to Six Sigma, evaluation of improvement solutions is undertaken as part of the control
step in the DMAIC cycle (Hughes, 2001). Evaluations of improvement solutions suggests ‘scaling
time has reduced by 80 per cent in most instances’.
While this is a very good result for the Six Sigma project, the qualifier ‘most instances’ suggests the
improvements may not be this high if all data is included in the comparison of pre and post
implementation. Interestingly, Hughes concluded that the Six Sigma project resulted in sigma levels
going from 1.5 to 3.5. A sigma level of 1.5 corresponds to half of rounds being defective, while a sigma
level of 3.5 means corresponds to a defect rate of only one in 50. However, closer examination of the
control chart demonstrates how sigma levels can be deceptive if considered in isolation.
The control chart, shown in Figure 13 shows monthly average metres per manshift (pre and post
Six Sigma). While the sigma level for the last month in the series may be 3.5, the averages shown in
the control chart show a less dramatic result. It is clear that a single sigma level considered in isolation

236 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 J F M A M J J A S O N D

Metres/Manshift 0.27 0.36 0.33 0.31 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.42 0.46
Target 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
USL 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
LSL 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

FIG 13 - Process control charts (after Hughes, 2001).

at the end of a project may misrepresent the true extent of improvement. When defining a Six Sigma
project in a operational context where products are not literally rejected as they are in a manufacturing
environment, control chart trends and averages may be more useful for assessing the project success.
Earlier in this paper Six Sigma was described as a structured, disciplined, rigorous approach to
continuous improvement. Despite difficulties obtaining data to rigorously measure some processes,
the Six Sigma project was successful in improving cycle times. The success of this case study, in the
absence of a complete baseline data set, suggests that Six Sigma is a relatively robust system
engineering method. That being said, in the absence of complete baseline data, Six Sigma is more
reliant on team members’ understanding of key issues in the development cycle prior to Six Sigma
implementation. Their assessments can be considered subjective and possibly incomplete compared
to a more rigorous application of Six Sigma.

Benchmarking
Table 4 contains eight drill and blast development case studies used to estimate underground
development benchmarks. Neumann (2001) collated the majority of the case studies presented in
Table 4. The median advance rate for the eight case studies was 7.0 m/day and the average was
6.8 m/day. It is important to note that Table 4 contains both single and multiple heading development
case studies. Multiple heading developments have faster average advance rates because of better
equipment utilisation. Differences between mines can also be attributed to differing operational,
productivity and cost priorities (Neumann, 2001).
Benchmarking of not just the overall system performance, but also the individual processes across
numerous operations has identified ground support as the process with the most potential to increase
development rates. A survey by Laurentian University Mining Automation Laboratory (LUMAL,

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 237

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

TABLE 4
Drill and blast benchmark case studies (Neumann, 2001; Stewart, Ramezanzadeh and Knights, 2006).

Case study Country Average advance rate

Common infrastructure project – PT Freeport Indonesia 9.0 m/day (63 m/week)
(Barber et al, 2005)
Craviale Tunnel (Kalamaras et al, 2005) Italy 5.5 m/day (38.5 m/week)
Kidd Creek mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 5.3 m/day (37 m/week)
Holt McDermott mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 7.2 m/day (50 m/week)
Creighton mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 5.0 m/day (35 m/week)
Brunswick mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 5.8 m/day (40.6 m/week)
Dome mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 7.4 m/day (51.8 m/week)
Musselwhite mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 8.9 m/day (62.3 m/week)

FIG 14 - Comparison of development cycle activity times in drill and blast (after Peake and Rupprecht, 2002).

1997) shows that the greatest amount of development cycle time (36 - 46 per cent) is spent on support
installation (Figure 14). This observation is supported by evidence presented (Peake and Rupprecht,
2002) from the South African underground mines. For 30 years the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (formerly known as University of Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute of
Technology) has been collated, analysed and reported on tunnelling design, performance and cost
data for both drill and blast and TBM tunnelling. These studies indicate that for a 6 m by 5 m face
ground control comprises 32 per cent of the development cycle time (Figure 15) (Johannesson, 1995).

PROCESS MAPPING APPLICATION

Channel Tunnel
At the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project located in the United Kingdom, contractors responsible for
rebuilding St Pancras Station are integrating Lean construction and Six Sigma in order to achieve
critical construction milestones (Koerckel, Ballard and España, 2005). These include distributed
real-time production planning and control; development, use and continuous improvement of
standard processes; active measurements of the planning system performance and action on root
causes of failures; and cross-functional collaboration.

238 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

Charging
time, 27
Fixed lost
time, 19.6
Bolting, 90
Ventilation, 17

Rig time, 12.5

Scaling, 30
Lost time, Loading and
13.2 hauling, 106.5

NTNU Drill and Blast Cycle - Times in minutes

FIG 15 - Cycle time times for drill and blast development for a 6 m by 5 m face based on NTNU prognosis for
30 m2 prognosis. Total cycle time = 375 minutes. Ground control (scaling and bolting) represents 32 per cent
of cycle time.

Strategic Project Solutions (SPS) has developed production control software for implementing the
Last Planner System (Ballard, 2000), along with other ‘lean’ and modern business principles and
theories. The SPS software, SPS Production Manager, is a web resident database, allowing
coordination across all specialists, those on site and off site, and enabling data collection and analysis.
According to Koerckel, Ballard and España (2005), all work groups met daily to review and commit
to a production plan for the day and to record completions and non-completions for the previous day.
The ‘work flow reliability’ for the project, shown in Figure 16, has improved from 70 per cent to 80 per
cent over an 18 month period. Notable also is the reduction in variation.

FIG 16 - CTRL production reliability graph to 22 December 2004 (Koerckel, Ballard and España, 2005).

On top of these individual items, by using SPS Production Manager and 3D prototyping to
improve their control of the works and their short term planning, the West Deck team has targeted a
ten per cent productivity improvement over the East Deck.
Figure 17 presents a process map developed by the team to plan in detail what they need to do on a
daily basis.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 239

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

FIG 17 - Outline of the standard process map developed by West Deck team
(Koerckel, Ballard and España, 2005).

SIMULATIONS

CAMIRO drill and blast cycle simulations

Stewart, Ramezanzadeh and Knights used benchmarking in combination with simulation results to
estimate a theoretical limit for underground development rates of 19 m/day. This theoretical limit
assumes that it is theoretically possible to achieve the following technical developments and advances
while also assuming that the simulated 178 per cent increase can be directly translated to the
6.8 m/day benchmark average (Stewart, Ramezanzadeh and Knights, 2006):
• shielding to eliminate ground support time,
• successful long round drilling in all ground conditions,
• halve set-up times,
• three-boom jumbo can be configured to operate effectively at cross-sectional area of 35 m2 to 40 m2,
• container truck, and
• reduce explosive loading time by 30 minutes.
Simulation results for an idealised scenario including; halved set-up times, elimination of ground
support time, reduced drilling preparation time, using a three-boom jumbo, independent firing and
reduced explosive charging time has the potential to increase development rates by 90 per cent to
10.2 m/day (from the simulation base case 5.4 m/day). If the 90 per cent improvement directly
translates to the average advance rate for the drill and blast case studies from report by Stewart,
Ramezanzadeh and Knights (7.0 m/day), this scenario would increase advance rates to a theoretical
limit of 13.3 m/day.

SPS tool for tunnel construction operations

SPS tool has been used for project planning and the selection of the optimum construction alternative for
numerous tunnelling projects. The City of Edmonton used this tool extensively for planning and
construction of the South Edmonton Sanitary Sewer (SESS) project (Ruwanpura and Ariaratnam, 2007).

240 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

City of Edmonton engineers evaluated the productivity of the tunnel project and used simulation
to evaluate the effect of changing the number of trains. The use of two trains required an expansion in
the undercut area to allow manoeuvring the trains. The expansion would cost about $125 000.
Simulation was used to compare the productivity of using one or two trains with a constant number of
dirt removal cars for each train. The simulation results showed not only that using one train for this
short tunnel is more productive than using two trains, but also provided cost savings from the
reduction in undercut space. The City of Edmonton Construction Services Department won this
contract and completed the project in mid 2000 with a saving of approximately $100 000
(approximately 13 per cent of the total tunnel construction cost of the project). The predicted
productivity from the simulation was close to that observed during actual construction (Ruwanpura
and Ariaratnam, 2007), and was successfully completed in 2000.

SPS tool to predict soil transitions along the tunnel path

Predicting soil transitions along a tunnel path is a challenging, yet important task. The boreholes
driven for a tunnel construction project provide only a handful of deterministic data points at discrete
locations in either the tunnel alignment itself or adjacent to the tunnel trajectory (Ruwanpura and
Ariaratnam, 2007). This tool demonstrated an approach for modelling the transition of soils between
the boreholes for simulation purposes, and the highlights of this approach as laid down by Ruwanpura
and Ariaratnam (2007) are as follows:
• develop an approach for calculating the transitional probabilities to determine the transition from
one soil type to another in the tunnel trajectory,
• develop modelling algorithms based on the soil transition patterns included in the database of soil
transition scenarios,
• design a tunnel construction simulation tool to incorporate the modelling algorithms, and
• apply the tunnel simulation tool to an actual project to validate its accuracy.
The case study by Ruwanpura and Ariaratnam (2007) suggests that these modelling algorithms
not only provide a logical approach to predicting productivity based on the transition of soils but also
provide an accurate prediction given the fact that the end user inputs the actual data The successful
development and application of the soil transition modelling algorithms thus reduce the risk and
uncertainty in predicting the tunnel advance rate and productivity. Figure 18 shows that all 20
simulation runs had very similar results (several lines). The actual project productivity is very close to
the predicted rates of this model using 20 simulation runs.

DISCUSSION
Benefits
The case studies presented in this paper demonstrate how systems engineering methods have been
used to improve underground development rates across a variety of projects and using a variety of
methods. In summary, systems engineering methods have been attributed with the following
improvements or benefits:
• Northparkes achieved a 56 per cent improvement in cycle time using Lean;
• application of Lean software for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project increased production
reliability from 70 per cent to 80 per cent;
• Six Sigma supported application of emergent technologies that resulted in single heading tunnel
rates over 8 m/day (60 per cent above the Australian benchmark of 5.3 m/day);

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 241

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

FIG 18 - Tunnel advancement rate – actual versus simulation prediction (after Ruwanpura and Ariaratnam, 2007).

• simulation has been used to prioritise rapid development research areas to those with the most
potential to improve development rates;
• at Kidston mine, development m/manshift increased by 25 per cent from 0.31 to 0.39 m/manshift;
and
• use of simulation software to predict advance rates enables better tunnelling design and planning.

Implementation
Implementation strategies are keys to obtaining benefits from system engineering methods. Based on
the case studies presented in this paper, both Lean and Six Sigma appear most advanced in terms of
implementation strategies, while benchmarking and simulation are less developed in this regard. Both
benchmarking and simulation appear to be primarily undertaken by specialist outside consultants for
the purpose of decision making and mine planning. Hall (2000) reports how simulations have been
used by mine planning engineers to analyse truck and loader fleet requirements for different mining
scenarios, while CAMIRO (2002) used simulation to prioritise research areas. Hall and Harper (2005)
recognised the importance of bringing together a site benchmarking team including a ‘site champion
responsible for coordinating different departments’ who was considered key to successful
implementation (Hall and Harper, 2005). The ‘site champion’ role is key and yet, implementation
strategies are not defined for this role. Implementation of benchmarking outcomes depends upon the
leadership, authority and ability of the ‘site champion’. This contrasts with Lean which has detailed
strategies for operational implementation of improvement recommendations.
Six Sigma process mapping steps have been shown to be an effective method for identifying
processes where lack of quality control results in delays to the development cycle. That being said, the
complexity of the rapid development cycle processes and process interaction is such that it relies
considerably on experience and understanding to identify critical to quality factors. Hughes (2001)
experienced difficulty applying Six Sigma with the level of rigour usually associated with the method.
The issue of system complexity could be overcome by combining Six Sigma with a higher level
analytical method such as benchmarking or simulation.

242 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 SAFE, RAPID DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING METHODS

A common feature of all systems engineering methods is their reliance on reliable process
information upon which to base analysis and improvement. Hall (2000), Hall and Harper (2005) and
Hughes (2001) all discuss problems with data reliability and availability. Automated data
acquisition/capture systems require much data checking and validation. The possibility exists to
incorporate automated data validation and checking algorithms/programs which would enable more
timely response to process issues, in much the same way that minerals processing plants use real-time
data for process control 24 hours a day seven days a week.

Sustainability
Sustaining the benefits of system engineering into the future offers long-term benefits as opposed to
one-off improvements. Communicating benefits, performance and results of analysis both to
management and operators are factors mentioned by Spears (2001), Dunstan, Lavin and Sanford
(2006), Hughes (2001), Hall and Harper (2005) and Hall (2000) as being integral to ongoing or
sustained implementation.
Implementation of Lean manufacturing boosted underground development rates by providing
highly visible targets, performance monitoring, as well as, actively involving development teams in
identifying and solving the causes of delay. Lean’s use of boards to display performance metrics in
tables uses a style of communication familiar to underground employees and was shown to work well.
In addition, employees involved in different processes are invited to participate in the process, and the
system engineering method becomes part of the system. By contrast, Six Sigma’s performance graphs
are more abstract, and therefore more difficult to communicate.
While Lean has demonstrated benefits in terms of ongoing implementation, ideally it should not be
seen as a stand-alone systems engineering solution for improving rapid development. It is conceivable,
or even likely that over time a different set of performance metrics should be used. For example, as
development becomes deeper truck availability may become a new limit on development rates.
It is clear that all system engineering methods discussed use a project or study team, often using
consultants from off-site. A limitation of using one-off project or studies is that systems engineering is
implemented in a static way often to a situation that may no longer exist. As technology to capture data
in real-time advances the possibility exists to create real-time dynamic system engineering methods that
can respond quickly and potentially make system engineering part of the system. It is realistic to suggest
that developing automated data validation algorithms would capitalise on system engineering benefits
by making sustained implementation easier. In minerals processing plants this has been the case of
decades. While there are practical challenges to developing a dynamic system engineering solution for
rapid development, the benefits in terms of improved advance rates are well worth the expenditure.

CONCLUSIONS
Application of systems engineering methods in tunnelling and mine development has been shown to
improve development rates. And, the repetitive cyclic nature of underground development was well
suited to systems engineering methods.
Combining higher level analytical system engineering method such as, simulation and
benchmarking, with a method with well defined implementation strategies such as, Lean or Six Sigma,
offers the potential to deal with the complexity of underground development process interactions while
also offering practical and proven methods for implementation.
More reliable and faster data capture and reporting was identified as key to sustained implementation
of system engineering methods. Faster and more reliable data also offers the potential to continually
improve development rates by incorporating systems engineering methods into the system itself.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 16 - 18 September 2008 243

K RAFIE, P STEWART and P F KNIGHTS

REFERENCES
AtlasCopco, 2005. Rock and Soil Reinforcement, third edition (ed: M Smith) (Atlas Copco).
Ballard, G, 2000. The last planner system of production control, PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
Barber, J, Mennie, B, Poedjono, R and Coad, G, 2005. Common infrastructure project – Development for the
future of PT Freeport Indonesia, in Proceedings Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference, pp 313-322
(The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Dunstan, K, Lavin, B and Sanford, R, 2006. The application of Lean manufacturing in mining environment, in
Proceedings International Mine Management Conference, pp 145-158 (The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Hall, A J and Harper, P J, 2005. Benchmarking — A practical technique for measuring and improving operational
performance, in Proceedings Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference, pp 93-102 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Hall, B E, 2000. Simulation modelling of mining systems, in Proceedings MassMin 2000, pp 83-95 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Harrold, D, 1999. Designing for Six Sigma capability, Control Engineering, pp 62-70.
Hughes, G, 2001. A model for lateral development improvement, as applied at Falconbridge’s Kidd Mining
division, in Proceedings 15th Mine Operators’ Conference (The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum: Montreal).
Johannesson, O, 1995. Tunneling prognosis for drill and blast project report 2B-95 (The Norwegian University
of Science and Technology: Trondheim).
Kalamaras, G, Alessio, C, Chiaia, B, Ciravegna, P, Platania, P and Santucci, C, 2005. Up-to-date excavation,
support, and lining solutions meet timing requirements for the first two tunnels of the 2006 winter Olympic
Games, in Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), Seattle, 27 - 29 June.
Koerckel, A, Ballard, G and España, F, 2005. Channel Tunnel Rail Link – A Lean construction implementation
case study, in Proceedings ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement, 59:111-120.
Neumann, M, 2001. CAMIRO Safe and Rapid Development Project – Benchmarking of 12 Canadian Mine
(Neumann Engineering and Mining Services).
Peake, A V and Rupprecht, S M. 2002. Proceedings First International Seminar on Deep and High Stress
Mining, Perth, WA (Australia Geomechanics Research Centre: Perth).
Rath and Strong Inc, 2000. Rath and Strong’s Six Sigma Pocket Guide (McGraw Hill).
Ruwanpura, J Y and Ariaratnam, S T, 2007. Simulation modeling techniques for underground infrastructure
construction processes, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 22(5-6):553-567.
Spears, S J, 2001. How Toyota Turns Workers into Problem Solvers, Harvard Business School Case Study.
Stewart, P, Ramezanzadeh, A and Knights, P, 2006. Benchmark drill and blast and mechanical excavation
advance rates for underground hard-rock mine development, in Proceedings 2006 Australian Mining
Technology Conference, pp 41-64 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Suoreneni, F T, Kaiser, P K and Henning, J G, 2008. Safe rapid drifting – Support selection, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 23(6):682-699.
Taylor, R, 1999. Development Cycle Steps, Falconbridge Ltd, Lower Mine, Kidd Mining Division, Timmins, Canada.
Willcox, P, 2008. Rapid tunnelling technologies at Cadia East, in Proceedings Tenth Underground Operators’
Conference, pp 263-267 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Winchester, J, 2006. Saving time in heading development, Longwall Magazine, September.
Womack, J P and Jones, D T, 1996. Lean Thinking (Simon and Schuster: New York).

244 16 - 18 September 2008 Australian Mining Technology Conference

View publication stats