330 Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 6, No.

3, 2009

Production optimisation using simulation models

in mines: a critical review

M. Govinda Raj and Harsha Vardhan*

Department of Mining Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka,
Surathkal, P.O. Srinivasnagar – 575025 (D.K),
Karnataka, India
Fax: +91 824 2474033
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Y.V. Rao
National Institute of Technology Warangal,
Warangal – 506004, Andhra Pradesh, India
Fax: +91 870 2459547
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The mining industry is faced with the task of responding to increased
demand for mineral resource products, decreasing ore grades, stringent quality
requirements and strict environmental regulations in trying to meet the
demands of the economy. This situation has necessitated the search for more
scientific and technological innovations that enable profitable mining like
simulation studies. In this paper, system simulation studies in underground
and open-pit mines, shovel–truck simulation have been discussed in detail.
The study shows wide applicability of simulation studies in various operations
in both underground and open-pit mines.

Keywords: mining industry; operation research techniques; production

optimisation; simulation studies; material handling; stoping operations;
shovel–truck selection criteria; drilling and blasting.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Govinda Raj, M.,

Vardhan, H. and Rao, Y.V. (2009) ‘Production optimisation using simulation
models in mines: a critical review’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp.330–359.

Biographical notes: M. Govinda Raj obtained his BTech in Mining

Engineering from Osmania University, MTech from Institute of Technology,
Banaras Hindu University and PhD from Mangalore University. He has worked
with Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, for more than
five years in the Power and Energy Division, dealing with the planning
and developmental aspects of the Energy Sector, in general, and the Coal and
Petroleum Sector, in particular. Presently, he is working as Faculty in the
Department of Mining Engineering, NITK, Surathkal.

Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 331

Harsha Vardhan obtained BTech in Mining Engineering from National Institute

of Technology Karnataka (NITK), Surathkal, in 1996 and PhD from Indian
School of Mines University, Dhanbad, in 2006. Presently, he is working
as Faculty in the Department of Mining Engineering, NITK, Surathkal, and
is actively involved in research. He is also a member of several professional
bodies. He is the recipient of “Career award for Young Teachers” from
All India Council for Technical Education; “Young Scientist Award” from the
Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India and “Engineering
Gold Medal” from Mining, Geological and Metallurgical Institute of India.

Y.V. Rao graduated in Mining Engineering from Osmania University and

obtained MTech from Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University.
Later, he did his research for a Degree of Dr-Ing in Mining Engineering from
Berg Akademie, Freiberg, in 1982. Presently, he is working as full-time
Director at National Institute of Technology, Warangal. He is member
of several professional bodies in India and abroad with active involvement
in Mining Research and Education.

1 Introduction

The increasing interdependence of the nations, for material and manpower resources,
coupled with a desire to achieve an accelerated socio-economic growth with the
consequent opening up of the national economies has led to a number of opportunities
and challenges. The opening up of the economies resulted in the industry and the
economy finding markets, the world over as well as facing international competition.
The international mining industry as such is now faced with the task of responding to
increased demand for mineral resource products, decreasing ore grades, stringent quality
requirements and strict environmental regulations in trying to meet the demands of the
economy. This situation has necessitated the search for more scientific and technological
innovations that enable profitable mining. The mining industry unlike other industries is
location specific, with little or no control over the deposit quality and quantity. The risks
involved in the decision-making process in a mining project are quite high due to the
unpredictable behaviour of the hidden ore body, the requirement of large capital
investments to make a project to reach ‘economics of scale’, fluctuating mineral markets,
peculiar geo-mining conditions, etc. Thus, the tolerable range of error is quite low in
a majority of cases.
The evolution of an array of Operation Research (OR) techniques since the Second
World War provided new tools for economising and optimising the mining operations.
The recent advances in computer hardware and software technology and the availability
of relatively inexpensive systems have given an impetus to the practical application of
a host of OR techniques. Material handling in opencast and underground mines is one
unit operation in mining that is very expensive, which has received a lot of attention from
operations research specialists.
As the size and complexity of a mining operation increases, the exact mathematical
definition of a problem ceases to be realistic. In fact reliable analytical methods of
solution for very complex situations can at best be an approximation. Computers
have played a very great role in reducing the uncertainty and unpredictability of a
large number of parameters involved in planning and operating a mining project.
332 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Today’s modern and mechanised mining projects of larger size and complexity cannot
function on notions of thumb rules. Hence, sophisticated computerised analytical
methods are common in the area of geological modelling, ore reserve estimation, pit
design optimisation, ventilation planning, underground excavation design, mineral
processing plant operation, control, etc.
A typical highly mechanised large open-pit mine working with shovel–truck
combination, using a variety of shovels and trucks of different sizes and makes, requires a
careful planning and operation for giving the maximum output. As a large number of
parameters are influencing the functioning of the system and are subjected to random
behaviour, development of a ‘probabilistic simulation model’ is the most effective one in
understanding the behaviour of the system. From such a model, a variety of ‘What If’
questions can be answered with confidence and clarity.

2 Simulation model and mines

Every operating open-pit and underground mine represents a large ‘working system’,
which is the result of a highly complex interaction of a considerable number of
‘sub-systems’ that may or may not be operating in an optimal manner. The increased
globalisation of the mineral markets the world over, has put an enormous pressure on the
international mining industry to seek and apply scientific methods for analysis of its
operations to reduce wastage, improve the efficiency and thereby become globally
competitive in terms of quality of the product as well as price competitiveness.
A large number of OR techniques like linear programming, dynamic programming,
system simulation studies and many more have been applied to better understand the
operations and find ways and means of improving them.

2.1 Simulation approaches

Mine systems containing stochastic or probabilistic elements are quite difficult to analyse
mathematically. Mine production systems engineering deals with evaluating the many
alternative designs and operational strategies that can be developed for a given
application. It helps one to identify good, perhaps, optimum choices. The unit operations
are collectively viewed as integrated systems, rather than independent operations.
The interfacing and interaction of the unit operations (drilling, blasting and material
haulage) is considered in totality with the overall relevance to mine management.
Mine time studies and performance statistics give a large amount of data regarding
the dynamic change of values for a large number of variables that are of interest
to the designer or analyst. By having a representative probabilistic distribution
of each stochastic element in the system, and using this in the simulation model,
enables the representation of a real-world situation to a very high degree of
accuracy. Law and Kelton (1991) discussed the three broad approaches to simulation
modelling of any problem, i.e., activity-oriented, event-oriented and process-oriented
modelling.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 333

2.1.1 Activity-oriented modelling

In this method of simulation, the system is represented as a set of activities. All the
entities within simulation engage activities, and prescribe the conditions in which
activities either start or end. This approach would involve describing the activity in which
entities are engaged and the set of conditions are a start or stop activity. Here, the
activities are initiated or terminated, when a set of conditions is met.

2.1.2 Event-oriented modelling

In this approach, the mining system is represented as a set of events. The perspective here
is that the entire logic of a system can be represented as a set of time-ordered events.
State changes within a system occur only at discrete points of time. The truck–shovel
cycle in an open-pit is the most important system that can be modelled using this
approach.

2.1.3 Process-oriented modelling

This approach models the flow of entities through the system. The basic distinction
between event-oriented and process-oriented approaches is that, in the case of
event-oriented modelling, the events are directly defined and actually, logically scheduled
by the modeller. In process orientation, the events are logically implied through a process
description and the simulation language translates the process into an appropriate
sequence of events and handles the scheduling of events in the sequence.
Simulation provides a predictive model of the system, which is used for investigating
alternative solutions and their economic impacts on the working of the system.

3 Classification of the literature on mine simulation

A number of simulation studies were carried out in mines since 1950s. Mine simulation
can be broadly classified into two categories based on whether simulation studies
have been carried for underground or opencast operations. Based on these criteria,
mine simulation can be classified into underground and open-pit simulation studies.
Though simulation studies were carried out for both underground as well as open-pit
mines in the past, maximum number of studies appears to have reported for
open-pit mines. This is mainly due to the necessity of obtaining the maximum/optimal
production from the highly capital intensive open-pit mine operations. The classification
of simulation studies in mines is shown in Figure 1. Underground simulation studies
were carried out in the areas of material handling and stoping operations (a stope is
a large production opening). Further, some studies are also reported pertaining
to complete simulation operation of underground mines. Similarly, open-pit simulation
studies were carried out on bucket wheel excavator, dragline, shovel–truck and
other miscellaneous systems.
334 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Figure 1 Classification of simulation studies in mines

3.1 System simulation studies in underground mines

Underground coal and metal mines operate under a large number of geo-mining
conditions and range from mines, producing ore/mineral of about 100 tonnes/day
to extremely large, mechanised mines with a capacity of 20,000 tonnes/day. System
simulation studies are the only methods of analysis for large and complex mines that have
a variety of production equipment functioning at different locations, and working
in unison to achieve the set production targets, under a set of constraints.

3.1.1 Material handling simulation

Underground mines depending on the level of mechanisation and size of the operation
have a wide variety of choices for the handling of ore/waste. As the level of complexity
of the operation increases, simulation becomes a very handy tool to study and understand
the system behaviour. A number of studies in the past have reported about the material
handling simulation studies in underground mines, the details of which are given in
Table 1.

Table 1 Salient findings of the research work carried out in material handling simulation
in underground mines

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Rist (1961) A model was developed for the main ore haulage level of the
Climax molybdenum mine in Colorado, where ore was hauled by
trains from the working area to an underground crusher
Achttien and Stine (1964) Technique of Monte Carlo Simulation to study the production
system
Harvey (1964) The first application of GPSS language. The 44,000 hours of
production was simulated that gave results within 1.5% of actual
production
Sanford (1965) Developed one of the first conveyor belt simulation models and
tested it on a ten feeder belt system and verified it on a 5% level
of significance
Suboleski and Lucas ‘Simulator’ program to simulate room and pillar mining
(1969) operations which was used by about 30 companies those days
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 335

Table 1 Salient findings of the research work carried out in material handling simulation
in underground mines (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Wilke (1970) Optimisation of underground traffic system from three mining areas to
a shaft
Touwen and Joughin Model to study underground gold mining operations:
(1972) a Model for rock breaking, clearing and support operations for a stope
involving more than 150 parameters
b Model for the transport system, which simulates the movement of
all vehicles running on rails
Chatterjee et al. Model of sub-level caving in underground metal mines
(1974)
Hanson and Selim An ‘event-based model’ to compare room and pillar mining with
(1974, 1975) longwall system
Ryder (1976) TRANSIM II was developed to model train loading, hauling and
dumping into bunkers. It was used to evaluate the interference and
other congestion for the movement of trains in underground mines.
The model allows incorporation of stochastic times for tipping,
loading, delays, etc.
Wilke and Klee (1976) Developed a model to determine whether a ‘dispatching criteria’ for
underground train haulage would improve the efficiency of the system
Talbot (1977) BELTSIM for simulating underground mining conveyor belt networks
Beckett et al. (1979) LHDSIM program to simulate room and pillar coal operations
Weyher and Suboleski Simulation languages GPSS and SLAM were used for planning the
(1979) materials handling system of an underground mine
Hancock and Lyons Description of various models for underground transport activities of
(1984) the National Coal Board (UK). The model SIMBELT 2 was described
in detail that can model face production, conveying belts and bunkers,
shafts and drifts
Haycocks et al. (1984) FRAPS program that can handle the operation of cutting, drilling,
blasting, bolting, and loading which can be interfaced with ground
control and geo-statistical data. Two versions were developed, one for
continuous mining and the other for conventional mining
Katsahanis et al. Program NTUSIM to simulate the underground room and pillar
(1984) bauxite mines of Central Greece. Equipment failures were
incorporated and it could give the optimum number of trucks to be
used in a particular situation
Macaulay and Notley A program UHSP to model an underground haulage system was
(1984) developed. Mining system was expressed as a ‘network of nodes’
connected by segments wherein ore is moved through the segments
either by equipment or gravity. Validated for an operational mine
within the 90% confidence limits
Bise and Albert (1985) Made a comparative study of the FACESIM model of Virginia Tech.
and UGMHS of Penn State and outlined the conditions of applicability
of the two models
Michalopoulos and Model to simulate mines using longwall methods. Used an
Topuz (1985) event-oriented model with equipment failure taken into account.
The model primarily deals with coal mining machines, transportation
system and roof support units
336 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Table 1 Salient findings of the research work carried out in material handling simulation
in underground mines (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Ren and Sturgul Description of the application of GPSS simulation language in the mining
(1987) industry
Harrison and Used GPSS language to simulate the change over from train haulage to rear
Sturgul (1988) dump truck haulage system, in an underground lead/zinc mine in NSW,
Australia. Also developed a model to study the operation of a coal bunker
system used for power plant
Tan and Ramani Developed a simulator for use in long wall coal mining. Applied to an
(1988) underground material handling system consisting of panel belts, a main belt
and a slope belt
Thompson and Developed the “Coal Mine Belt Capacity Simulator (CMBCS)” which
Adler (1988) considered the critical area of loading required for optimum belt
performance. A standard clock advance approach with Monte Carlo
technique was used
Golosinski Used SLAM II language to develop a model of mine hoisting operations
(1989) that incorporates randomness and models a variety of site specific
conditions for various load configurations. A discrete model and a
continuous model were developed. The results were compared with actual
data which were in good agreement
Lavrencic (1989) Used the “network theory and artificial intelligence techniques” to produce
the MINSIM model and used it to estimate production, training of
personnel in decision making and make daily time schedules for entire fleet
of equipment
Almgren (1990) Advantages of probabilistic time planning techniques, compared to
deterministic ones, were discussed and an approach to probabilistic
planning was presented. The approach includes an analysis of disturbancy
factors, and a method of estimating the distribution of project completion
time using Monte Carlo simulation
Gray (1990) Model to depict the underground coal clearance system from an
underground longwall face that gave the relationship of the storage bin size
vs. production capacity
Sevin and Ward Made a comparative study of the belt simulators available and pointed out
(1990) that, to design an optimum network of belt conveyors, an optimisation
model was necessary
Hoare and Willis Developed a model for Elura lead zinc mine in NSW Australia using the
(1992) SIMAN language and CINEMA for animation
Hunt (1993) Model in SLAM II to study the effect of ore transported from lower levels
on system performance for the Henderson Mine of Colorado, USA. Used to
obtain optimum mix of trains to front-end loaders
Litke et al. Developed model for an underground mine that includes drilling and
(1993) blasting, mucking and hauling, train movement and back filling in
Mamtobas, Canada. Attempted to understand the ‘system drivers’ i.e., the
influential factors affecting the output of the system. Demonstrated the
effect of changing certain parameters on system productivity
Sturgul and Demonstrated the application of GPSS/H language for simulation of
Smith (1993) complex underground mines by considering two Australian underground
mines
Medved and Development of simulation model in GPSS/H to study the truck
Runove (1997) transportation system at the ZIROVSKIVRH Uranium Mine in Slovania.
It was run on a number of alternative scenarios to study the traffic patterns,
trucks utilisation and operation costs
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 337

Table 1 Salient findings of the research work carried out in material handling simulation
in underground mines (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Erarslan (2000) Model for material flow from the mine to power plant in order to suggest
better production, stockpile organisation and management thereby
minimising the technical and economic problems encountered. It aimed at
minimising the penalty cost to the mine, as a result of quality variation
Kolonja and Simulation model for in-pit crushing and continuous mining system as an
Vasiljevic (2000) aid in operation planning and equipment selection
Pielage (2001) Underground freight transportation was introduced as a possible alternative
for transporting freight
Puhakka et al. Discussed the use of simulation in general and the way the OptiMine™
(2001) simulation tool operates and how it may be used for operation, technology
and material flow optimisation
Lebedev and The application of simulation modelling to the design of the entire materials
Staples (2002) handling system in a new underground mine using Witness™ simulation
software
Gamache et al. The problem of managing a fleet of load-haul-dump vehicles in an
(2005) underground mine was discussed. The problem consists of dispatching,
routing and scheduling vehicles whenever they need to be assigned to a new
task. The solution approach is based on a shortest-path algorithm
Zhang et al. The history of “Underground Freight Transportation (UFT)” in developed
(2005) countries was introduced and the current status and innovations of UFT
systems were discussed
Aydiner et al. Presented a simulation model that can be used to develop the production
(2006) subsystem model of an underground mining system. A mechanised
production system model and a decision analysis tool using a discrete event
simulation process were developed. The tool allows an engineer for
experimenting his or her design to generate a model that can meet the
targeted production rate
Beaulieu and An enumeration algorithm based on dynamic programming for optimally
Gamache (2006) solving the fleet management problem in underground mines. This problem
consists of routing and scheduling bidirectional vehicles on a haulage
network composed of one-lane bidirectional road segments. The method
takes into account the displacement modes of the vehicles, either forward or
in reverse, and makes sure that these vehicles move forward when they
arrive at their service point

3.1.2 Simulation of stoping operations and mine workings

The method of underground coal/metal mine working can range from a very simple
design for a small production capacity to a very complex network of active working
areas, for large mechanised mines. Analysis of large complex underground stoping
operations calls for a methodical model construction and the generation of sufficient
number of alternative working scenarios. Discrete event simulation models have been
developed to study and analyse very complex stoping operations that may have a variety
of goals related to production, quality, stability of excavations, safety, etc. A few
important contributions in this area are given in Table 2.
338 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Table 2 Salient findings of the research work carried out in simulation of stoping operations
and mine workings for underground mines

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Chatterjee et al. Digital simulation model of sub-level caving operations using Monte
(1974) Carlo Technique for “determination of duration of each job” to be
performed
Hatherly and Ruffles Model to simulate the mining operations for the Mt Isa underground
(1974) copper mine. It had three modules for extraction, haulage, crushing and
hoisting. Used to study changes in maintenance, optimum ore pass size,
diesel train usage and train size
Potter et al. (1988) Model of the broken hill underground mine of Australia using SLAM
II language for long hole open stoping and mechanical cut and fill
stoping. Drilling and blasting activities, chute operation and trucking
operations were modelled
Sturgul (1989) Model using GPSS to study the ore handling operations at mine port
interface
Sturgul et al. (1991) Simulation model of the Selwyn Gold-copper mine. Used to evaluate
alternative equipment purchase scenarios and modifications to the mine
plan. Specifically used to predict the change in production with
purchase of new loader and the economics associated with such a
decision

3.1.3 Simulation of a complete underground mine

Simulation of a complete underground mine in a model requires a considerable effort in
modelling all the unit operations of the mine. The drilling, blasting, mucking and
transport activities need to be modelled with sufficient details to make it a realistic
model. This perhaps is the only reason why simulation models are designed to address
a specific aspect of the problem and investigate alternative scenarios in detail. Manula
and Richard (1974) attempted to develop a comprehensive model of a coal mine taking
into account the environmental, geological, material handling, support and other
sub-systems. The result was the simulation program Under-ground Generalised Materials
Handling System (UGMHS). The objective of the model was to study the behaviour
of the system to gain insight into the problem of health, safety and productivity and
validate experimental conclusions.

3.2 System simulation studies in open-pit mines

Today’s large open-pit mines are highly mechanised deploying huge excavating and
transport machinery of very high capacity. The large variety of earth moving machinery
usage necessitates a very careful mine planning system that ensures the optimum
performance of all the sub-systems of the operation. In this regard, planning,
development and operation of a complex mechanised mine with a large variety and size
of machines can be done more effectively by developing a simulation model of the mine
and generating alternative feasible working scenarios to optimise the complete system.
A considerable number of simulation models have been developed for open-pit mines and
machinery with specific objectives.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 339

3.2.1 Bucket wheel excavator and dragline simulation studies

Bucket wheel excavators are used in the extraction of soft ore bodies. Same is the case
with draglines. A number of studies have been carried out by various investigators
for simulating the operation of bucket wheel excavators and draglines in combination
with trucks, conveyor belts, trains and stackers, the details of which are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Salient findings of the research work carried out in simulation of bucket wheel
excavator and dragline used in open-pit mines

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Venkataramani Developed a program based on stochastic operations which was tested
and Manula (1970) in the Illinois coalfields of the USA, with very encouraging results
Manula and Program for the simulation of surface mining operation utilising Bucket
Richard (1974) Wheel Excavators (BWE’s) in combination with trucks, conveyor belts
and trains. This was actually designed as a complex multi looped
feedback system
Wyman (1977) Model for the Tar Sands mining operations in Canada using GPSS-V and
Fortran IV. The models of the operations were complex systems
consisting of several bucket wheel excavators, draglines and conveyor
network of several miles
Panagiotou (1982) Program SIMKASR to simulate open cast coal mines operating with
BWE’s, conveyor’s and stackers. The Kardia open cast lignite mine in
Northern Greece was used to validate the program
Panagiotou (1983) Simulation program SIMPTOL was described which is used for opencast
lignite mines with bucket wheel excavators, conveyors and stackers.
The main objective was to select and match the equipment to fit material
characteristics while meeting production requirements and mine profiles
Golosinski and General model for Oil Sands mine in Alberta using SLAM II simulation
Griffin (1985) language. The model allowed upto five BWE’s and five extraction lines
from the storage bins
Doe and Griffin Model of an Oil Sand mining operation in SLAM with five BWE’s,
(1986) extraction lines, one ore bin and one bitumen cleaning plant. The effect of
different bin sizes on system performance was studied
Payne et al. (1994) GPSS/H language along with PROOF for system animation to model the
oil sand deposits of Alberta. Realistic aspects like preventive
maintenance, unscheduled downtime, emergency shut downs and adverse
weather were incorporated. Used to estimate production and manage the
increasing complexity of the ore transport network. In these operations,
the primary ore handling was through 90 cubic yard walking draglines
Michalakopoulos A discrete-event simulation model using the GPSS/H simulation language
et al. (2005) for a excavation system at a multi- level terrace mine. The continuous
excavation system consists of five BWEs and a network of 22 km of belt
conveyors. Ways of dealing with the continuous material flow and
frequent changes of material type are considered. The principal model
output variables are production and arrival rate at the transfer point of
mineral and waste
Zhang et al. (2006) Tried to create a virtual reality tool consisting of human, machine and
mines, using Pro/E and the 3D MAX software in order to evaluate
visually the operations of typical mining equipment, such as the BWE, the
shovel, the truck and the dragline. Within this virtual world, the behaviour
of the system, such as interaction, interference and potential risk can be
replayed and reviewed visually
340 M. Govinda Raj et al.

3.2.2 Shovel–truck simulation studies

The shovel–truck system continues to be the most widely used materials handling system
in open-pit mines, throughout the world. Though in-pit crushing and conveying is being
used for deeper pits, the shovel–truck system is still very popular. Starting from the 1930s
to the present day, the haulage truck sizes have increased many folds from 8 to 12 tonnes
to the present 250–350 tonnes. The technology used has also changed drastically with
complete electric drives and automatic electro-mechanical diagnostic features. Likewise,
the range of shovel sizes and the sophisticated computer-controlled electro-mechanical
devices make them machines of very high production capacity. The planning and
operation of these units to give the best performance is an exercise needing a careful
analysis of very minute details. Developments in this area concerning equipment
selection, equipment performance, truck dispatching and system optimisation with the
goals of higher reliability, higher utilisation and higher productivity are briefly reviewed
in Table 4. Some of the salient findings of the research work carried out in the simulation
of some other miscellaneous mining systems is given in Table 5.

Table 4 Salient findings of the research work carried out in simulation of shovel–truck
systems used in open-pit mines

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Madge (1964) First attempt to simulate truck movement in an open-pit mine at
Cominco in Canada, to decide the optimum fleet size, adequacy of the
proposed bucket size, feasibility of working one pit harder than the
other to obtain a desired ore mixture at the concentrator etc.
Neil and Manula Simulation model to study truck haulage problems in open-pit mines
(1967) using “Monte Carlo Technique” and “Clock Advance Approach”.
The first paper on computer simulation of a complete surface mine
Morgan and Peterson Simulation model that predicted the productivity of the shovel–truck
(1968) system under a new set of operating conditions. A stochastic
simulation was carried out using the histograms of the cycle segments
and the payloads from existing operations. A new term “Match
Factor” was introduced to study the effect on mismatching and
queuing
Cross and Williamson Simulation model of a working open-pit copper mine in south west
(1969) USA. It was found that in a dispatch system the production was
1250 tonnes/shift greater than in the non-dispatch case
Daud and Pariseau Studied the optimal truck/shovel assignment in an open-pit mine using
(1976) simulation model and Linear/Integer Programming. The model takes
into account the obstruction caused by the larger and smaller trucks
not being able to pass on some mine roads
Barnes et al. (1977) Attempted to use the theory of cyclic queues as developed by
Koenigsberg in the 1950s to mining operations. A simple
load/haul/dump/return system was considered and tested, after
incorporating a number of restrictions
Beaudoin (1977) Described the dispatching method used at Mount Wright Operations
in Canada where the objective was minimisation of truck and shovel
idle time with achieving target ore grades
Naplatanov et al. Described the dispatch system used at Medet mine where the objective
(1977) was to achieve maximum productivity with ore quality requirements
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 341

Table 4 Salient findings of the research work carried out in simulation of shovel–truck
systems used in open-pit mines (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Dixon and Kim (1978) Development of an event-oriented haul cycle simulation program
for trucks in a coal mine. The stochastic nature of the travel time,
presence of switch backs and interim stop points with various speed
limits imposed on the trucks were considered. Used the model to
determine the optimum choice of haulage equipment as well as layout
of mining system
Brake and Chatterjee Simulated a large complex load-haul-dump-system using ‘SIMUL’
(1979) language. The model could handle breakdown of equipment with
reallocation of resources under such conditions. Results indicated 30%
improvement in utilisation of trucks using the model
Hauck (1979) Formulated an Integer Programming Problem with the objective
of minimisation of truck and shovel idle time
Meyer (1979) Used a Linear Programming Dispatching Algorithm to optimise the
given objective function which was based on the short term
production schedule. The dispatcher uses the solution given by the
Linear program whereas the model attempts to minimise the total cost
per tonne
Chatterjee and Brake By minimising queuing time, overall truck utilisation increased by
(1981) 60% and production by 8.3% for the coal mine simulated in the
Queensland state of Australia
Kim and Ibarra (1981) Described the methodology of developing a simulation model for an
open-pit project. It was shown that dispatching increases the
productivity by approximately 10%
Marshall and Kim Described the simulation of a mine with two different size of shovels,
(1982) a fleet of two different trucks moving material from seven source
locations to ten possible dumping sites. The model consisted of two
programs CYCLE and PITSIM used for haul cycle computation and
the interaction of shovels and trucks, respectively
Wilke and Heck Simulated the Bong Mine in Liberia to minimise the truck haulage
(1982) costs. The simulation was fully stochastic, with breakdown of all
equipments given
Tu and Hucka (1985) Simulation of truck-shovel in open-pit mine using SLAM to evaluate
different haulage layout and alternate truck dispatch systems.
Incorporated shovel move times, truck down times as well as repair
times, but could only demonstrate a production increase of 2.5%
Sturgul and Harrison Application of simulation models to ‘equipment selection’ given a
(1987a) wide choice of equipment with different operating characteristics
Arnold and White Proposed a set of algorithms that forms the basis of the dispatch
(1986, 1988) system. It has two linear programming segments and the dispatch
system solves these two linear programming problems sequentially
in order to establish a short-term production plan. The first linear
programming model determines the optimum production rate of
shovels working at faces and stockpiles constrained by digging rate,
capacity of the processing plant and acceptable product quality.
The second linear programming model maximises production per unit
of haulage resource
Bonates and Lizotte Developed simulation models to compare the dispatching policies
(1988a) of maximise trucks, maximise shovels etc., augmented with mixed
heuristic rules. A new dynamic dispatching procedure was developed
like “adjusted maximise truck use”, “adjusted minimise cycle time”
and “adjusted cycle and wait time”
342 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Table 4 Salient findings of the research work carried out in simulation of shovel–truck
systems used in open-pit mines (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Bonates and Lizotte Computer simulation model to study the feasibility of continuously
(1988b) dispatching trucks in open-pit mines based on different operating
procedures. The model suggests the dispatcher the best assignment
according to each specific circumstances. Based on “advance-clock
increment” to allow the insertion of heuristic dispatching policies and
equipment reallocations when breakdowns occur. Dispatching
procedures taking into account long-term production objectives were
considered in its development
Peng et al. (1988) Program SCSMLT to simulate a complex open-pit iron ore mine
in North East China (Qidahan). The program incorporated the
crushers and shovel reliabilities
Bonates et al. (1989) Program for evaluating and determining the optimum equipment for
an open-pit operation considering both mining and economic
parameters as stochastic in nature
Srajer (1989) Developed the loading and handling equipment simulation model for
the mines in Western Canada by CANMET
Li (1990) Proposed a methodology for ‘optimum control’ of shovel truck
operation in a mine and considered the issue of ‘Haulage Planning’.
Soumis and Elbrond Used different varieties of heuristic rules to assign trucks based on a
(1990) linear and a non-linear programming model
Baunach et al. (1991) Showed, how a simulation model can be used to model a complex
truck and rail haulage system for coal from six mines. A substantial
savings to the company was revealed from this study
Vagenas and Forsman Used METAFORA software to evaluate the haulage system at
(1992) Boliden Mineral's AITIK mine. It was shown that ‘maximise trucks
rule’ give 9% higher production, than ‘fixed dispatch rule’
Forsman et al. (1993) Used the simulation software METAFORA to evaluate the haulage
system at AITIK mine in Sweden. A substantial reduction of time,
effort and cost of shovel–truck system design was demonstrated
through this study
Kolonja and Made study of truck dispatching and tested numerous dispatching
Mutmansky (1993) criteria like shovel saturation, minimising shovel waiting time etc.
Panagiotou (1993) Optimisation of the shovel–truck system through simulation and
queuing models using GPSS language
Sturgul and Thurgood Developed a simulation model for large strip mines in the Wyoming
(1993) State of the USA
Gove and Morgan Conducted studies on loader truck matching. Concluded that for wheel
(1994) loaders, 3–5 bucket loads per truck capacity are the most desirable and
for faster cycling machines like shovels, 5–7 loads per truck capacity
are the most desirable in order to achieve the highest performance
Xi and Yegulap (1994) Used a dynamic programming model to assign a truck and temporarily
delay the dumping activity, when the ore unloaded is expected to
result in a running average below the prescribed lower limit
Jacobson et al. (1995) Developed a simulation model for the Lihir Gold mine in Papua New
Guinea. The model was used to study the waste handling system to
determine the number of trucks, the size and number of barges, the
type of loader etc. The model was run to answer a large number of
questions posed by the engineers
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 343

Table 4 Salient findings of the research work carried out in simulation of shovel–truck
systems used in open-pit mines (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Michalakopoulos Various dispatching policies and systems were reviewed
(2001)
Awuah-Offei et al. Forecasted truck and shovel requirements in the Juno II Pit of Abosso
(2003) Goldfields Limited, South Africa for the years 2001–2004 through a
developed simulation model using SIMAN computer simulation
package
Cohen et al. (2004) Developed a system for dispatch assignments. The system includes a
plurality of vehicles, a plurality of sources, a plurality of processing
sites, and a base computer. The base computer is configured to provide
dispatch information to individual vehicles based upon a cooperative
assignment of multiple vehicles within the plurality of vehicles.
A plurality of possible dispatch assignments for each vehicle is
determined based on the production plan and costs associated with each
possible dispatch assignment
Lewis et al. (2004) The inherent capacity ceiling of a mine can only be increased through
reengineering. Autonomous haulage systems have the potential to
significantly increase a mine inherent and realised capacity. Realised
capacity may be maximised through the optimisation of soft factors
such as the processes, behaviours, and organisational systems
controlling asset utilisation, availability, and performance. Truck shovel
dispatching systems for utilisation of mobile assets, Global Positioning
Systems to optimise equipment performance and Real-time maintenance
management systems to revolutionise equipment availability and
significantly reduce cash costs
Ta et al. (2005) Truck allocation model using a chance-constrained, stochastic
optimisation approach that can accommodate uncertain parameters such
as truck load and cycle time. A real-time hauling framework, which
consists of the chance-constrained optimisation model and a model
updater, was developed to compensate for changes in the uncertain key
operating parameters. The use of the model updater helps the truck
allocation system to adapt to random operational changes
Tanzer and Yalcin Surface gravity vectors approach for open-pit mine optimisation
(2005) process. This approach uses an analogy between the universal gravity
law and open-pit mining. The economic values of the ore blocks are
assumed as their mass and the extraction sequence is determined by the
total gravity vector between the shovels and ore blocks
Wang et al. (2006) Proposed a new open-pit mine truck real-time dispatching principle
which is under macroscopic control. Results indicated that the
performance of this principle has certain advantage compared with the
dynamic programming method of dispatch system. The truck
dispatching system with this dispatching principle has run successfully
in a large scale open-pit mine in the early 2005
Burt and Caccetta Proposed a method of defining match factor (ratio of truck arrival rate to
(2007) loader service time) for heterogeneous fleets in particular, a
heterogeneous trucking fleet, a heterogeneous loading fleet, and the case
where both truck and loader fleets are heterogeneous
344 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Table 5 Salient findings of the research work carried out in the simulation of miscellaneous
mining systems

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Lee (1974) First contribution in the area of application of inventory theory to a
mining operation using Monte Carlo Simulation to determine the
‘Optimum Size’ of the stockpile
Chironis (1985) It was said that the intense competition in the coal industry and the
advances in computer technology have led several large mines to
consider computer dispatching systems as a means of optimising
production
Lua (1985) Simulation model on railway system for Lingbei surface coal mine in
north east China. The model used both a time-step method and an
event-step method and studied the effect of train dispatching on
production
White and Olson Discussed system aspects with emphasis on dispatching algorithm
(1986) needed to meet current objectives
Sturgul (1987) Studied the optimum location of in-pit movable crushers through
simulation models in GPSS
Sturgul and Harrison Application of GPSS to a variety of mining problems
(1987b)
Sturgul and Singhal Used GPSS language to develop models for determining optimum
(1988) height of tailing dam walls and for studying the bunker sizes for coal
storage
Baunach et al. Developed a model using SIMAN and CINEMA covering all aspects
(1989) of iron ore handling from the dumping of trains through the loading
of ships. The model was used as a training aid and to show the cost
effective solution to a complex mining situations
Harrison and Sturgul Model of a storage bunker in a mine and a complex system of clock
(1989) facility where ships are loaded from stockpiles using GPSS
Gray (1990) Discussed the utility of simulation models to understand a mining
operation and highlighted the use of animated models. Through case
studies it was shown, how a mine might upgrade their production at
minimum cost
Sevin and Ward Developed a dynamic cost model for the economics of contracting
(1990) equipment for overburden removal
Tsiflakos and Owen An interactive method for modelling mining systems through object
(1992) oriented modelling and graphic visualisation by building the model
of the system with “Object Oriented Graphical Primitives”
Sturgul (1994) Discussed the utility of animation to the mine management for
demonstrating the results of simulation study. Various animation
softwares which are part of simulation languages, were discussed
Basu and Sappington Combined the use of simulation models and expert system to develop
(1997) knowledge based applications
Kelton et al. (1998) Book titled “Simulation with ARENA” provides a comprehensive
treatment of simulation in general and the use of ARENA simulation
software in particular
Schofield (1998) Advances in visualisation using virtual reality and building a 3D
animation of a mine system simulation, in mine planning and design
Nick (1999) Described the application of “discrete event simulation models”
at Inco Ltd. Noranda and Falcon bridge Ltd
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 345

Table 5 Salient findings of the research work carried out in the simulation of miscellaneous
mining systems (continued)

Investigator(s) Salient findings

Sturgul (1999) Discussed the history of mine system simulation in the USA since 1950s.
The various software’s used and the types of mining problems solved
were discussed. Further, the current state of affairs was also discussed
with emphasis on the current software being used
Sturgul (1999) Brought out an excellent text entitled “Mine Design using Simulation and
Animation” with GPSS/H and PROOF software
Dessureault et al. Discussed that new technologies, sources of information, and business
(2001) paradigms developed and used in other industries should enable mine
optimisation opportunities that were previously unfeasible
Nelson and Discussed about the recent advances in computing technology combined
Peterson (2002) with the recent abilities of simulation to realistically simulate complex
systems and visually present results in 3D for the evaluation of mining
projects
Alarie and Discussed the dispatching systems in open-pit mines and the different
Gamache (2002) strategies that exist for solving the dispatching problems. Further, the
advantages and disadvantages of each of these strategies were also
discussed
Ramazan and Discussed the limitations of Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) for
Dimitrakopoulos optimising production schedules of open-pit mines like feasibility in
(2004) generating optimal solutions with practical mining schedules and inability
to deal with in-situ variability of ore bodies. A general production
scheduling method for multi-element deposits in open-pit mines was
described
Huang and Espley Developed a 3D simulation model for many different mine sites. Requires
(2005) different input data that characterise the mine. The model generates
development, production and performance data throughout mine life. It
also provides economic analyses such as operating cost, revenue, cash
flow, rate of return on investment, net present value, ore tons mined
and mine life. Further, it studies the sensitivity and risk for the
variation of parameters such as ore grade, dilution rate, market price
and pre-production investment
Askari-Nasab and Discrete stochastic simulation to capture the random field processes
Frimpong (2007) associated with open-pit design and materials scheduling. An Open pit
Production Simulator (OPPS), implemented in MATLAB, based on a
modified elliptical frustum was used to model the geometry of open-pit
layout expansion. The interaction of the open-pit expansion model with
the geological and economic block model returns the respective amount
of ore, waste, stockpile materials, and the net present value of the venture
Gholamnejad and Long term production scheduling problems by chance constrained binary
Osanloo (2007) integer programming in a stochastic environment to account for ore block
grade uncertainty. The probability distribution function of grade in each
block was used as a stochastic input to the optimisation model. It was said
that this formulation will yield schedules with high chance of achieving
planned production targets while maximising the expectation of net
present value and minimising the variance function simultaneously
346 M. Govinda Raj et al.

3.3 Current trends in mine system simulation

The manufacturing engineer routinely does simulation of discrete systems, with
numerous applications in other branches of engineering as well as other fields of
knowledge. Discrete system simulation is generally done using Monte Carlo techniques,
which involve the use of random numbers to simulate the actual statistical distributions
that represent the entities of the system.
There has been a vast change in the languages used for simulation. There is a
gradual acceptance of the simulation languages unlike in the past. Today, the number
of Fortran simulations is very less when compared with other languages of simulation
like SIMAN/SLAM/SIMSCRIPT or GPSS/H. In the field of mining engineering, the
application of GPSS to develop simulation models has seen a significant increase. Some
of the special simulation languages of the 21st century that were discussed in the 1998
winter simulation conference include Promodel, Denab, Autosim, Poses++, Awe Sim,
Witness, etc.
As the complexity of a system to be studied and analysed increases, the use of
simulation is the only tool available and with the developments in computer hardware
and software, the science of simulation would find a wider area of application.
Ersoy and Glebi (2000) described the MIS facilities developed for Soma open-pit
mines, that is comprehensive and is accessible across a wide spectrum of users, which
helps in timely decision making.
Automatic truck dispatch system is a real-time mine management system,
which continuously monitors the location and status of mining equipment and allocates
the right truck at the right time to the right place. The system uses automated data
acquisition and communication system. The location and movement of equipment is
tracked with Global Position System. Field’s computer systems are installed on mining
equipment with touch screen, user-friendly interface console for easy interaction with the
operators. Mines have been using this system to achieve different objectives. Some users
have maximised the fleet needed to maintain the production. Some are using for grade
control with blending to achieve consistency in the field to the process plant. A Global
Positioning System (GPS)-based, Operator-Independent Truck Dispatch System (OITDS)
has been implemented at Jayant Opencast Coal Mine, Northern Coalfields Ltd, India,
since September 2002. The mine management has recorded an overall increase of 7%
in the productivity (Tonne per available hour) of capital-intensive mining equipment like
excavators and trucks.

4 Evolution of shovel–truck systems

The slow evolution of manual open-pit mines to mechanised ones follows closely the
developments in the automobile engineering field. The focus in the early stages was to
develop machines capable of hauling larger payloads to improve productivity. This is
reflected in the growth of truck payload capacities from 15 to 360 tons during the period
1920–2006. The mechanical characteristics of the trucks, the control and the machine
diagnostic devices used have seen tremendous improvement over the period.
Shovel–Truck Systems were introduced in the Mosabi Iron range of USA in the 1930s,
which had a capacity of 15–20 tons with a flywheel H.P of 150. In the 1950s, trucks of
50 ton capacity were quite common. The first electric powered haulage truck of 75 tons
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 347

capacity was introduced at Anaconda Company in Montana USA in the late 1950s.
The early 1960s saw 7.6 m3 shovels working with the above trucks. The late-1960s saw
shovels of 11.5 m3 working with 100-tonne trucks. Plans are now on to produce trucks
capable of hauling payloads in the range of 300–400 tons and even more.
The high flexibility and versatility of these systems made them the most common
material handling machinery in a large number of open-pit mines. A typical large
open-pit mechanised mine would comprise shovels and trucks of different capacity and
sizes working at diverse locations in the project. Based on the depth and haul distances,
and road conditions for the trucks, the truck haulage costs can vary in the range of
45–60% of the total mining cost. Thus, there is an enormous scope to save/optimise the
operational cost of truck haulage systems.
Owing to the spiralling energy costs and increasing haul distances, with larger
and deeper pits, this cost is further accentuated. A number of approaches are available
to reduce the cost of materials handling (loading and hauling):
• Improving the operating conditions to increase the efficient use of trucks through
maintenance of haul roads, loading and unloading points, double back-up and
parallel loading where possible with proper loader–hauler matching.
• Increasing the size of the loading and the hauling equipment to achieve ‘economies
of scale’. However, there is a limitation here as there cannot be an infinite size
increase.
• Replacement of truck haulage fleets by in-pit crushing and conveying systems.
However, the main limitation here is the lack of flexibility.
• Continuous monitoring and control of loading and hauling activities to optimise the
effective utilisation of the fleet, i.e., truck dispatching.

4.1 Optimal shovel–truck combination

The excavation of ore and waste in an open-pit project at a certain production level
can be accomplished with several equipment combinations. Among the possible
combinations, a choice must be made regarding the best suitable combination. This is
achieved by a consideration of the large number of factors that play a role in the
equipment selection. Generally, these are classified as natural factors and economic
factors.
Among the natural factors, the location of the mineral deposit in a certain
geo-environmental setting defines the parameters like soil and rock type, ground
water situation, physico-mechanical properties of ore and waste, weather conditions,
topography, etc. These factors are generally not amenable for modification.
The project-related factors refer to the quantum of work involved like the annual tonnage
requirements, the size of the mineable reserves, types of materials handling system, etc.
The ‘economic factors’ are primarily the unit costs of the operations. Three basic
principles of cost reduction through capital investments, optimisation of equipment
scheduling and minimisation of unit production cost generally guide optimal equipment
selection.
In certain situations, a few factors will override the significance of all other
parameters. The economic analysis of a material handling system is primarily the
determination of the cost of mining and operation of the system. This aspect is dependent
348 M. Govinda Raj et al.

on and varies with project related peculiarities. The working capabilities of the materials
handling equipment vary and hence it is necessary to compare the different units
and haulage networks to estimate and establish the best and worst working conditions.
The general procedure is to initially calculate the production output of the equipment
fleet, under the conditions in which it will be used. Later examine all other alternatives in
the same manner. The actual operating costs are due to the direct use of the equipment,
and they are directly proportional to the actual hours of utilisation and include overhauls,
supplies, electricity, fuel, tyres and labour, etc. One of the most important requirements to
efficiently run a shovel–truck system is the relationship between shovel bucket capacity,
production and truck capacity and number of trucks in the circuit. This is frequently
expressed through the ‘match factor’ concept.

4.2 Shovel selection criteria

As the shovel is the main productivity controlling entity, great care must be exercised in
its selection. A mistake or error here will result in loss of production potential to that
extent, throughout the working life of the project. The set of factors to be considered
include among others the type of materials to be handled, the bench height, the angle of
swing, the clearances involved, the moving requirements, balance of haulage cycles,
volume of materials to be removed and the combination of financing options available.
The number of shovels required depends on the estimations of its capacity per shift,
total materials production that must be met and equipment utilisation and availability.
The production obtained from a shovel can be given as
VD × SF × FF × E × 3600 (sec/ hr)
Production = (1)
Shovel Cycle Time (sec)

where
VD: dipper capacity (volume or tonnage)
SF: swell factor
FF: fill factor
E: job efficiency.
The cycle time can be estimated as a function of the digging conditions of the shovel at
the bench and this is mainly composed of hoisting and swinging. The job efficiency
parameters take into consideration, the layout of the operations and the ability to maintain
sufficient flow for haulage unit.
No. of operating shovels required
Annual Tonnage
=
Annual Operating hours × Shovel Production (t / hr) (2)

TNWH × 100
Effective utilisation = (3)
TNH
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 349

where
TNWH: total number of truck work hours
TNH: total number of truck hours.
TNWH
Availability = (4)
TNWH+TSBH
TSBH: total number of truck stand by hours.
In general, about 65–70% is the effective utilisation of shovels. The total number of hours
includes working hours, repair hours and standby hours. When the fractions are rounded
up, it makes a big difference in the final selection and will determine the amount of slack
and amount of real equipment use. The final selection is also based on truck evaluation.
A large variety of transportation equipment (dozers, scrapers, trucks, railcars,
belt conveyors, spreaders, etc.) are available for material haulage and the selection must
take into account the compatibility with the loading machines, suitability of the
topography and the costs involved. As the main excavator/loading machine is the prime
mover in the whole operation, it must not be kept waiting for want of haulage units.
The number and size of the haulage units must be matching to the size of the loading
machine. It is always desirable to have a certain number of spare haulage units, so that
a breakdown does not radically affect system productivity.

4.3 Truck selection criteria

Trucks are the most common hauling units in a majority of open-pit mines, because
of their very high degree of flexibility and versatility. This in turn provides scope for
very efficient mine planning. No compromises in mine design are required, as there is
complete freedom with trucks, especially regarding the location, type, and grade of the
haul road on which they have to operate.
Haulage trucks are manufactured in a wide variety of sizes, capacities and drive
systems. The incorporation of a wide variety of electro-mechanical devices to monitor
sensitive components has raised the level of reliability of this equipment. The truck
management information system provides a wealth of information on the conditions
of truck components that are critical for its operation.
The decision to purchase a truck can be taken after a due consideration of the length,
type and condition of the haul road, the total tonnage to be moved, the size of the loading
device and the initial cost of the equipment. To calculate the truck fleet requirements
for a given work, it is necessary to determine the hourly capacity, based on the effective
payload and the theoretical cycle time.
E × P × 60 (min/ hr)
Production in tonnes per truck hour = (5)
CT
E: efficiency (fraction)
P: effective payload (tonnes)
CT: theoretical cycle time (min).
350 M. Govinda Raj et al.

The efficiency factor is also referred to as the productivity factor and is used to derate the
truck productivity because of the use of theoretical cycle time.
The truck cycle time is basically made up of four events: travel empty, loading,
travel loaded, dumping/unloading. Apart from these four, depending on the system
configuration and design, a truck may have to wait in a queue either at the loading point
or the unloading point. Thus, the number of operating trucks is given as
Hourly tonnage required
Number of operating trucks = . (6)
Tonnes per truck hour

The final determination of truck fleet requirements is based on the estimation of truck
utilisation, which is again a function of the location, job conditions and relates to its
actual truck availability.
No. of operating trucks
Truck fleet requirement = (7)
Truck utilisation × availability

or
No. of operating trucks
Truck fleet requirement = .
Effective utilisation
Generally, the effective utilisation of the trucks is based on the job conditions and
management practices and varies between 65% and 80%. The number of trucks assigned
to each shovel under ideal condition can be calculated on the basis of the “mean truck
cycle time” and “mean shovel loading time”. This is known as ‘matching’ of the loading
and hauling equipment and is important in selecting the truck fleet. The fleet productivity
drastically reduces if there are imbalances in the system like less number of shovels
or trucks. The required coverage can be expressed as
Average truck cycle time
No. of trucks per shovel circuit = . (8)
Average loading time

This is commonly designated as the ‘Match number’. Match factor is the ratio of actual
trucks to the match number. A match number below 1.0 signifies an under-trucked
situation, and above 1.0 represents an over-trucked situation.

4.4 Role of drilling and blasting in haulage system performance

To achieve the overall goal of global optimisation of an open-pit operation, the drilling
and blasting activity together needs to be optimised for providing ideal working
conditions for the loading machine. The performance of the loader/shovel depends on
the ease of diggability into the blasted muck, which in turn depends on the degree of
fragmentation, throw, profile of the muck pile and looseness of the muck pile.
Thus viewed, the combined performance of drilling and blasting operation is critical
to the performance of the material haulage sub-system.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 351

The performance of the drill machine is a function of the rockmass characteristics,

drill parameters and operator-related parameters. A highly complex interaction of these
three related domains determines the quality and quantity aspects of drilling.
Proper identification and selection of the significant variables and their optimum values
for a given condition will give the best performance. Laboratory, field and theoretical
studies of drill performance enable deeper understanding of the highly complex,
composite interaction of the rock, machine and human factors. The mineralogical
composition, the physico-mechanical properties (both static and dynamic) have a great
influence on the two major response parameters of drilling, namely penetration rate and
bit wear. Likewise, the rotation, thrust, nature and rate of flushing and the bit-type chosen
considerably alter the drilling performance. Finally, the experience, intuition and
judgement of the drill operator significantly alter the drilling performance.
Drillability of a rock is a very useful guide to predict the field drilling performance of
a given drill rig. Drillability studies on rotary and percussive drilling indicate the role of
parameters like surface hardness and abrasivity, physico-mechanical strength properties,
the rock texture, etc. that influence drillability values. For instance, Mikura (1983) used
the hardness of rock to predict the drillability with considerable success. Intensive
research investigations have been carried out, which enabled by and large accurate
prediction of field drilling rates with a high reliability, subject to some correction factors
to account for the field uniqueness. In view of the large number of rock, drill and operator
characteristics, determining the final outcome is highly difficult as we cannot
mathematically define a specific point of optimality. ‘Optimal drilling’ is a concept that is
site-specific and situation-specific and hence has a limitation in both time and space.
Nevertheless, near optimal drilling conditions can always be achieved, with adequate
care, attention and consideration of the influencing parameters.
The unit operation of blasting is a very complex dynamic phenomena that is very
inadequately understood even today. A highly complex interaction of explosive
parameters, blast design parameters, rock mass properties, and blast initiation systems
determine the final outcome of blasting. The results of a significant amount of research
worldwide have enabled a better understanding of the mechanics of rock breakage by
explosives.
A well-designed and efficiently executed blast should produce material of adequate
shapes and sizes that can be accommodated by the available loading and hauling
equipment and the crushing plant with little or no necessity of secondary
blasting/breakage. A number of constraints in regard to the environment, ground
vibrations, etc. must also be satisfied during the blast execution. Today, a variety
of explosives are available, which are loaded into drill holes either manually
or mechanically by various devices. In the realm of blast design (Chen and Huang, 2000),
the relative arrangement of blast holes, within a round must be properly balanced to take
advantage of the energy released by the explosives and the properties of the materials
being blasted. Mckenzie (1993) suggested the concept of ‘optimum blasting’ and
explained it as obtaining the proper degree of fragmentation to achieve the combined
lowest cost of drilling, blasting, loading, hauling and crushing operations. The actual
range of optimum fragmentation size will depend on the individual requirements of the
mining operation as well as the several design variables involved.
‘Fragmentation optimisation’ has been a target since the time of the first blast
in the mining and construction fields. Technical decisions, costs, productivity and
equipment performance have been associated with ‘optimum fragmentation’.
352 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Ovchterlony (1990) studied a number of production blasts for correlation between

fragmentation and specific charge, as well as structure and strength of the rock. It was
observed that the mean particle size is almost independent of specific charge in the range
0.30–0.56 kg/m3. This knowledge helps one in the assessment of drilling and blasting
costs.
An excellent primary blast is the result of the correct choice of explosives for
the rock mass and field condition, proper blast design parameters, appropriate
blast initiation systems and the correct execution of the blast. ‘Blast optimisation’ for
a given geo-mining, environmental and operational setting is possible through a careful
consideration and choice of the relevant parameters.

5 Conclusions

Model construction in mining operations is gaining increasing popularity and application,

partly due to the advances in computer technology and the increasing need to be more
competitive in the international mineral markets the world over. Models can range from
very simple to highly complex, depending on the objective of the model designer
with regard to the goals proposed to be addressed in the model. A mathematical model
or a computer model tries to duplicate the characteristics and features of the real system
to a certain degree and permit experimentation of the model to understand the behaviour
and visualise a variety of alternate operational scenarios.
Modelling of mining operations is a very handy tool for investigation situations where
direct study on the system becomes prohibitively expensive or is impossible.
Deterministic and stochastic models of loading and hauling operations in mines can be
used to predict changes in these systems with considerable insight being provided about
the functioning and the possible avenues for improvement. Process- and event-oriented
approaches have usually been recommended by simulation experts and have found
a variety of applications to mining problems.
Future research in the area of mine simulation should focus on some of the following
aspects like:
• stochastic mine planning, design and production scheduling framework
• enhanced ore and waste production management
• exploring, modelling and integrating grinding and processability characteristics
for mine production optimisation
• sustainable risk-based mineral resource management
• robust optimisation under uncertainty
• real options and financial aspects of mine production and mine valuation
• advanced visualisation.
An attempt was made in this paper to thoroughly review the simulation studies conducted
in the mining and mineral industry for the benefit of the researchers and readers.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 353

References
Achttien, D.B. and Stine, R.H. (1964) ‘Computer simulation of a haulage system’,
Mining Congress Journal, October, pp.41–46.
Alarie, S. and Gamache, M. (2002) ‘Overview of solution strategies used in truck dispatching
systems for open pit mines’, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment,
Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.59–76.
Almgren, T. (1990) ‘Probabilistic time planning for underground mines’, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.91–109.
Arnold, M.J. and White, J.W. (1986) ‘Computer dispatching improves open pit mining efficiency’,
American Mining Congress, 8 October, Quadrennial, Las Vegas, NN.
Arnold, M.J. and White, J.W. (1988) ‘Advances in computer dispatching’, Proceedings MINEXPO,
Intel 279-293, April.
Askari-Nasab, H. and Frimpong, S. (2007) ‘Modelling open pit dynamics using discrete
simulation’, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp.35–49.
Awuah-offei, K., Temeng, V.A. and Al-Hassan, S. (2003) ‘Predicting equipment requirements
using SIMAN simulation – a case study’, Mining Technology, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp.180–184.
Aydiner, K., Çelebi, N. and Paşamehmetoğlu, A.G. (2006) ‘A simulation model for mine
production sequences’, Proceeding on Applied Simulation and Modelling, pp.153–155.
Barnes, R.J., King, M.S. and Johnson, T.B. (1977) ‘Probability techniques for analyzing open
pit production systems’, Chapter 45, APCOM Proceedings, pp.462–476.
Basu, A. and Sappington, S. (1997) ‘Knowledge acquisition through simulation tools’,
in Gargunci, H. and Hood, M. (Eds.): Proceedings 4th Mine Mechanization and Automation
Conference, Brisbane, 6–9 July, pp.B9–41.
Baunach, G.R., Brown, D.N. and Jones, G.C. (1989) ‘Computer simulation of ore handling
operations’, in Port Hedland, W.A. (Ed.): Computer Systems in the Australian Mining
Industry, Symposium held at the University of Wollongong, NSW, September, pp.79–83.
Baunach, G.R., Grimson, K. and Wagstaff, R.J. (1991) ‘Evaluation of logistics and stockpiling
options – a computer simulation approach’, 2nd Australian Conference on Computer
Applications in the Mineral Industry, The University of Wollongong, pp.320–324.
Beaudoin, R. (1977) ‘Automatic truck dispatching-mount wright operations – CIM’, First Open Pit
Operations Conference, May, Paper No. 2.
Beaulieu, M. and Gamache, M. (2006) ‘An enumeration algorithm for solving the fleet
management problem in underground mines’, Journal of Computers and Operations
Research, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp.1606–1624.
Beckett, L.A., Haycocks, C. and Lucas, J.R. (1979) ‘LHDSIM – a load-haul-dump simulator
for room-and-pillar mining operations’, 16th APCOM, O’Neil, Technical Editor, University
of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Bise, C.J. and Albert, E.K. (1985) ‘Comparison of model and simulation techniques for production
analysis in underground coal mines’, Transactions SME-AIME, Vol. 276, pp.1878–1884.
Bonates, E. and Lizotte, Y. (1988a) ‘A computer simulation model to evaluate the effect
of dispatching’, SME-AIME, Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, Paper No. 88-17.
Bonates, E. and Lizotte, Y. (1988b) ‘A computer simulation model to evaluate the effect
of dispatching’, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 2,
No. 2, pp.99–104.
Bonates, E., Braz, E. and Singh, A. (1989) ‘A computer model for equipment selection analysis’,
Paper presented at SME Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, February.
Brake, D.J. and Chatterjee, P.K. (1979) ‘Evaluation of truck dispatching and simulation methods
in large-scale open-pit operations’, Proceedings, 16th APCOM, Tucson, AZ, USA, October,
pp.375–383.
354 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Burt, C.N. and Caccetta, L. (2007) ‘Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader fleets’,
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.262–270.
Chatterjee, P.K. and Brake, D.J. (1981) ‘Dispatching and simulation methods in open-pit
operations’, CIM Bulletin, Vol. 74, No. 835, pp.102–107.
Chatterjee, P.K., Ham, G.I. and Just, G.D. (1974) ‘Digital simulation model of sub-level caving’,
The Australian I.M.M. Conference, Southern and Central Queensland, July.
Chen, G. and Huang, S.L. (2000) ‘Analysis of ground vibrations caused by open pit production
blasts’, in Holmberg (Ed.): Explosives and Blasting Technique, Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp.63–70.
Chironis, N.P. (1985) ‘Computer monitor and controls all truck shovel operation’, Coal Age,
Vol. 90, No. 3, pp.50–53, 55.
Cohen, P.J., Alarie, S. and Gamache, M. (2004) Multi-Stage Truck Assignment System and Method,
U.S Patent Issued on May 25th, Assignee, Caterpillar Inc.
Cross, B.K. and Williamson, G.B. (1969) Digital Simulation of an Open-pit Truck Haulage System,
APCOM, Salt Lake City, Published by SME of AIME, pp.385–400.
Daud, B. and Pariseau, W.G. (1976) ‘Integer programming approach to truck/shovel assignment
in open pit mines’, Paper presented at SME Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV, February.
Dessureault, S.D., Scoble, M. and Dunbar, S. (2001) ‘A study of the synergy of new technology,
business tool and information to optimize mine production control’, International Journal
of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.6–32.
Dixon, W.C. and Kim, Y.C. (1978) ‘Development, validation and use of an event-oriented
haul-cycle simulation program’, Paper presented at SME-AIME Fall Meeting, Lake Buena
Vista, Florida, 11–13 September, Preprint # 78-AR-343.
Doe, D.C. and Griffin, W.F. (1986) ‘Experimental design and mining system simulation’,
in Golosinski, T.S. and Boehm, F.G. (Eds.): Continuous Surface Mining, Trans Tech
Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, pp.317–324.
Erarslan, K. (2000) ‘A simulation algorithm for material flow from open pit mine to power
plant – a case study’, in Panagiotou, G.N. and Michalakopoulos, A.A. (Eds.): Mine Planning
and Equipment Selection, Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp.793–797.
Ersoy, M. and Glebi, N. (2000) ‘Development of mining management information system for some
open pit mines’, in Panagiotou, G.N and Michalakopoulos, A.A. (Eds.): Mine Planning and
Equipment Selection, Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, pp.805–810.
Forsman, B., Ronnkvist, E. and Vagenas, N. (1993) ‘Truck dispatching computer simulation
in Aitik open pit mine’, International Journal of Surface Mining and Reclamation, Vol. 7,
No. 3, pp.117–120.
Gamache, M., Grimard, R and Cohen, P. (2005) ‘A shortest-path algorithm for solving the fleet
management problem in underground mines’, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 166, No. 2, pp.497–506.
Gholamnejad, J. and Osanloo, M. (2007) ‘Using chance constrained binary integer programming
in optimizing long term production scheduling for open pit mine design’, Mining Technology,
Vol. 116, No. 2, pp.58–66.
Golosinski, T.S. (1989) ‘Modeling and simulation of mine hoisting operations’, APCOM ‘89,
Las Vegas, NV, February, Published by Society of Mining Engineers, Littleton, CO,
Chapter 66, pp.711–718.
Golosinski, T.S. and Griffin, W.H. (1985) Modeling of an Oil Sands Plant Operation using SLAM
II Simulation Language, Bergund Huttenmannischer Tag 1985, Freiberg, G.D.R., June.
Gove, D. and Morgan, W. (1994) ‘Optimal truck loads matching’, Mining Engineering, Vol. 46,
AIME Littleton Co., No. 10, pp.1179–1185.
Gray, G.J. (1990) Maximizing the Operational Benefit of Capital Investment Via Computer
Simulation, MINCOST, Symposium Sponsored by the AusIMM, Parkville, Vie., Sydney,
5–7 June, pp.97–100.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 355

Hancock, W.E. and Lyons, D.K.G. (1984) Operational Research in the Planning of Underground
Transport, APCOM, London, pp.389–399.
Hanson, B.D. and Selim, A.A. (1974) ‘Probabilistic simulation of underground production
systems’, Paper presented at Annual Meeting, SME-AIME, Dalla-TX, February, SME Preprint,
74AR32, p.20.
Hanson, B.D. and Selim, A.A. (1975) ‘Probabilistic simulation of underground production
systems’, Transaction of SME/ AIME, Vol. 258, March, pp.19–24.
Harrison, J. and Sturgul, J.R. (1988) GPSS Computer Simulation of Proposed Underground Rear
Dump Truck Ore Haulage system at ZC Mines, Broken Hill, AusIMM Illawara Branch,
21st Century Higher Production Coal Mining systems – Their implications, Wollongong,
NSW, April.
Harrison, J. and Sturgul, J.R. (1989) ‘GPSS computer simulation of equipment requirements
for the iron duke mine’, Second Large Open Pit Mining Conference, Melbourne, Vie., April,
AusIMM, pp.133–136.
Harvey, P.R. (1964) ‘Analysis of production capabilities’, APCOM, Colorado School of Mines,
Published in Quarterly of Colorado School of Mines, pp.713–726.
Hatherly, R.N. and Ruffles, B.R. (1974) Simulation of Copper Ore Handling at Mt. Isa,
The AusIMM, NW, Queensland Branch, Regional Meeting, August, pp.155–162.
Hauck, R.F. (1979) ‘Computer controlled truck dispatching in open pit mines’, Computer Methods
for the 80’s in the Mineral Industry, AIME, New York, pp.739–742.
Haycocks, C., Kumar, A., Unal, A. and Osei-Agymana, S. (1984) Interactive Simulation for Room
and Pillar Mines, APCOM 18, London, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp.591–597.
Hoare, R.T. and Willis, R.J. (1992) ‘A case study of animated computer simulation in the
Australian mining industry’, Journal of Operation Research Society, Vol. 43, No. 12,
pp.1113–1120.
Huang, Y. and Espley, S. (2005) ‘A 3-D mine simulation model for decision making in mine design
and production’, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 19,
No. 4, pp.251–259.
Hunt, C. (1993) ‘Simulation model of ore transport at the Henderson mine’, Colorado, Computers
and Geoscience, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.75–84.
Jacobson, W., Sturgul, J.R., Ritter, K.C. and Fliess, T. (1995) ‘A simulation model of the waste
handling system proposed for the lihir project in papua New Guinea’, Paper presented
at APCOM 25, Brisbane, July.
Katsahanis, P., Michelopoulos, N., Panagopoulos, C. and Economopoulos, J. (1984) Simulation
of Room and Pillar Mining Systems: An Application at the Bauxite Mines of Parnasso,
Greece, APCOM 18, London, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy; pp.599–604.
Kelton, W.O., Sadowski, R.P. and Sadowski, O.A. (1998) Simulation with ARENA, McGraw-Hill,
p.547, ISBN -0-07-027509-2.
Kim, Y.C. and Ibarra, A.M. (1981) ‘Truck dispatching by computer simulation’, Bulk Solids
Handling, Vol. 1, No. 1, February, pp.10–18.
Kolonja, B. and Mutmansky, J. (1993) ‘Simulation analysis of dispatching strategies for improving
production of truck haulage systems’, Paper presented at SME Annual Meeting, Reno, NV,
February.
Kolonja, B. and Vasiljevic, N. (2000) ‘Computer simulation of the open pit transportation systems’,
in Panagiotou, G.N. and Michalakopoulos, T.N. (Eds.): Mine Planning and Equipment
Selection, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.613–618.
Lavrencic, J.B. (1989) ‘MINSIM – The MINE SIMULATOR’, APCOM 89, Las Vegas, February,
Society of Mining Engineers, Littleton, CO, Chapter 61, pp.653–661.
Law, A.M. and Kelton, W.D. (1991) Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
356 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Lebedev, A. and Staples, P. (2002) Simulation Benefits Underground Mine Infrastructure Design,
Available at [email protected]
Lee, T.A. (1974) ‘The mammoth quarry stockpiles and simulation’, 12th APCOM, Colorado
School of Mines, Golden, CO.
Lewis, M.W., Werner, J. and Sambirsky, B. (2004) ‘Capturing unrealized capacity’, CIM Bulletin,
Vol. 97; Paper No. 1076.
Li, Z. (1990) ‘A methodology for the optimal control of shovel and truck operations in open pit’,
Mining Science and Technology, Vol. 10, pp.337–340.
Litke, L.B., Laroche, D., Strong, D. and Szymanski, J. (1993) ‘A computer simulation model of
underground production mining: a tool for benchmarking’, in Eibrond, J. and Tang, X. (Eds.):
APCOM 24, October, Montreal.
Lua, Z. (1985) ‘Computer simulation of railway system in surface mines’, APCOM 18,
Institute of Metallurgy and Mining, London, pp.423–427.
Macaulay, D.C. and Notley, K.R. (1984) ‘Interactive simulation of underground haulage systems’,
Paper presented at Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Boston, July.
Madge, D.N. (1964) ‘Simulation of truck movement in an open pit mining operation’, Canadian
Operation Research Society, Vol. 11, pp.32–41.
Manula, C.B. and Richard, R. (1974) ‘A master design simulator’, 12th APCOM, Colorado School
of Mines.
Marshall, R.H. and Kim, Y.C. (1982) ‘Practical application of simulation to production
planning – a case study’, APCOM 17, Denver, CO, Chapter 55, pp.627–641.
Mckenzie, C.K. (1993) ‘Methods of improving blasting operations’, Comprehensive Rock
Engineering, Vol. 4, Pergamon Press, pp.71–94.
Medved, B. and Runove, F. (1997) Computer Analysis of Truck Transport in Uranium Mine,
Mine Sim 97, Paper MB 052 A.
Meyer, H.I. (1979) ‘Truck allocations to shovels in an open pit mine – a case study on the initial
attempt’, Computer Methods for the 80’s in the Mineral Industry, AIME, New York,
pp.637–641.
Michalakopoulos, T.N. (2001) ‘Truck dispatching systems’, Technical Chronical Science Journal,
TCG, Vol. 21, Nos. 1–2, pp.37–50.
Michalakopoulos, T.N., Arvaniti, S.E. and Panagiotou, G.N. (2005) ‘Simulation of a continuous
lignite excavation system’, International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment
Selection (MPES 2005), USA, pp.1694–1706.
Michalopoulos, N.G. and Topuz, E. (1985) ‘Simulation of longwall mining systems’, APCOM 18,
Institute of Metallurgy and Mining, London, pp.605–613.
Mikura, E. (1983) ‘Classification of the drillability of a rock mass’, 5th Proceedings of
International Society of Rock Mechanics, pp.115–121.
Morgan, W.C. and Peterson, L.L. (1968) Determining Shovel-Truck Productivity, Mining Engineer,
February.
Naplatanov, N.D., Sguren, V.S. and Petrov, P.A. (1977) ‘Truck control at Medet’,
Mining Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 8, July, pp.12–18.
Neil, T.J. and Manula, C.B. (1967) ‘Computer simulation of materials handling in open pit mines’,
Transactions AIME, Vol. 238, June, pp.137–146.
Nelson, M.G. and Peterson, B.J. (2002) ‘Simulation of truck/shovel operations with realistic
haul roads and 3-D animations’, Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on the
Applications of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry, Phoenix, AZ,
USA, 25–27 February, pp.805–807.
Nick, V. (1999) ‘Applications of discrete-event simulations in Canadian mining operations in the
90’s’, International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 13, No. 2,
pp.77–78.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 357

Ovchterlony, F. (1990) ‘Fracture toughness testing of rock with core based specimens’,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.351–366.
Panagiotou, G.N. (1982) Computer Simulation of the Mining Operations in Kardia Lignite
Mines – Ptolemais, Opencast Mining in Mineral Wealth, Greece, No. 17, pp.57–66.
Panagiotou, G.N. (1983) ‘Computer simulation of the mining operations in opencast lignite mines
operating bwe, conveyors and stackers’, in Aug, Y., Wang, J. and Sanford, R.L. (Eds.):
Proceedings of the First Conference on Use of Computer in the Coal Industry, Published
by SME, New York, pp.150–157.
Panagiotou, G.N. (1993) ‘Optimizing the shovel-truck operation using simulation and
queuing models’, in Almgren, K. and Vagenas, N. (Eds.): Proceedings, Mine Machine and
Automation, Lulea, Sweden, June, pp.601–607.
Payne, F.R., Heinz, D.A. and Ellis David, W.H. (1994) ‘Mine design using simulation modeling
at syncrude, Paper presented at the CIM Annual Meeting.
Peng, S., Zhang, D. and Xi, Y. (1988) ‘Computer simulation of a semicontinuous open pit mine
haulage system’, International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp.267–272.
Pielage, B.J. (2001) ‘Underground freight transportation – a new development for automated
freight transportation systems in the Netherlands’, Proceedings of Intelligent Transportation
Systems, IEEE, Oakland, CA, USA, pp.762–767.
Potter, M., Richardson, R., Hoare, R. and Koenig, R. (1988) Computer Simulation of Stoping
Methods at the Z. C. Mines Broken Hill Operations, The AusIMM Sydney Branch, Minerals
and Exploration at the Crossroads, Sydney, NSW, July, pp.117–121.
Puhakka, T., Ruotsalainen, A. and Kainulainen, V. (2001) ‘OptimineTM simulation tool and its use
for underground process and material flow optimization’, 6th International Symposium on
Mine Mechanization and Automation, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
pp.249–251.
Ramazan, S. and Dimitrakopoulos, R. (2004) ‘Traditional and new MIP models for production
scheduling with in-situ grade variability’, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and
Environment, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.85–98.
Ren, Y. and Sturgul, J.R. (1987) Application of Computer Simulation Using the GPSS Simulation
Language In the Mining Industry, World Coal Technology, Beijing, Vol. 132, No. 5,
May, pp.37–47.
Rist, K. (1961) ‘The solution of a transportation problem by use of a Monte Carlo technique’,
Mining World, November, Also Published in the Proceedings of the 15th APCOM held at the
University of Arizona in Tucson, pp.L2-1–L2-15.
Ryder, J.A. (1976) ‘TRANSIM II – a new generalized underground transport simulator’,
APCOM held at Pennsylvania State University, Chapter 10, pp.105–111.
Sanford, R.L. (1965) Stochastic Simulation of a Belt Conveyor System, APCOM Tucson, AZ,
March, pp.D1–D18.
Schofield, D. (1998) ‘Virtual haulage trucks’, Proceedings 3rd Regional APCOM Symposium;
Kalgoorlie, 7–9 December, pp.165–169.
Sevin, H. and Ward, Q. (1990) ‘Is simulation an answer to belt conveyor network design?’,
Paper presented at SME Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City.
Soumis, F. and Elbrond, J. (1990) ‘Truck dispatching software using mathematical programming
implemented on IBM-PC’, 22nd APCOM Symposium, Verlog, Glickonf, Germany,
September, p.10.
Srajer, V. (1989) ‘Review and evaluation of truck dispatching systems at surface mines in Canada’,
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Off – Highway Haulage in surface Mines,
Edmonton, Canada, May, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.9–29.
Sturgul, J.R. (1987) ‘How to determine the optimum location of in-pit moveable crushers’,
International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, Chapman and Hall, London,
Vol. 5, pp.143–148.
358 M. Govinda Raj et al.

Sturgul, J.R. (1989) ‘Computer simulation of mining operations’, MINTEC – Annual Review
of International Mining Technology and Development, March, Sterling Publishing Co.,
London, pp.282–284.
Sturgul, J.R. (1994) ‘Annotated bibliography of mine system simulation (1961–1995)’,
in Sturgul, J. and Panagiotou, G. (Eds.): Mine Simulation – Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Mine Simulation in the Mineral Industry Via Internet, Rotterdam,
A.A. Balkema, pp.212–236.
Sturgul, J.R. (1999) ‘Discrete mine system simulation in the United States’, International Journal
of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.37–41.
Sturgul, J.R. and Harrison, J. (1987a) ‘Computer simulation studies to assist in mine equipment
selection’, AusIMM Equipment in the Mineral Industry, Kalgoorlie, WA, October,
pp.155–159.
Sturgul, J.R. and Harrison, J. (1987b) ‘Simulation models for surface mines’, International Journal
of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, Vol. 1, No. 3, Balkema Pub. Co.,
Rotterdam, pp.187–189.
Sturgul, J.R. and Singhal, R. (1988) ‘Using the personal computer to simulate mining operations’,
First Canadian Conference on Computer Applications in the Mineral Industry (CAMI),
Laval University, Quebec City, Balkema Publishing Company, Rotterdam, March,
pp.439–442.
Sturgul, J.R. and Smith, M.L. (1993) ‘Using GPSS/H to simulate complex underground mining
operations’, in Almgran, K. and Vagenas, N. (Eds.): Mine Machine and Automation,
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.801–809.
Sturgul, J.R. and Thurgood, S.R. (1993) ‘Simulation model for materials handling system
for surface coal mine’, Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 13, No. 4, November, pp.817–820.
Sturgul, J.R., Stephanson, W. and MacLeod-Carey, L. (1991) ‘How a simulation model can assist
an underground mine’, 2nd Australian conference on computer Applications in the Mineral
Industry, The University of Wollongong, July, pp.315–319.
Suboleski, S.C. and Lucas, J.R. (1969) ‘Simulation of room and pillar face mining system’,
APCOM, Salt Lake City, SME of AIME, pp.373–384.
Ta, C.H., Kresta, J.V., Forbes, J.F. and Marquez, H.Z. (2005) ‘A stochastic optimization approach
to mine truck allocation’, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment,
Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.162–175.
Talbot, K. (1977) ‘Simulation of conveyor belt networks on coal mines’, 15th APCOM, Brisbane,
Australia, July, pp.297–304.
Tan, S. and Ramani, R.V. (1988) ‘Continuous materials handling simulation: an application
to belt networks in mining operations’, Transactions of AIME, Vol. 286, pp.1803–1836.
Tanzer, O. and Yalcin, C. (2005) ‘Surface gravity vectors – an approach for open pit
mine optimization’, Mining Technology: IMM Transactions Section A, Vol. 114, No. 3,
pp.185–192.
Thompson, S.D. and Adler, L. (1988) ‘New simulator for designing belt system capabilities
in underground coal mines’, Mining Engineering, Vol. 7, April, pp.271–274.
Touwen, F.H. and Joughin, N.C. (1972) ‘The simulation of underground stoping and transport
operations in gold mining’, in Salamon, M.D.G. and Lancaster, F.H. (Eds.): APCOM 10,
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, April, pp.231–236.
Tsiflakos, K. and Owen, D.W. (1992) ‘Simulation of mining system by object oriented graphical
modelling’, IMM Transactions, Section A, Vol. 101, pp.A75–A78.
Tu, J.H. and Hucka, V.J. (1985) ‘Analysis of open-pit truck haulage system by use of a computer
model’, CIM, Bulletin, Vol. 78, July, pp.53–59.
Vagenas, N. and Forsman, B. (1992) ‘A simulator for dispatching control of truck/shovel system in
surface mining’, Simulation Conference Society, 10–12 June, Lapeenranta, Finland, pp.55–66.
 Production optimisation using simulation models in mines 359

Venkataramani, R. and Manula, C.B. (1970) ‘Computer simulation of bucket wheel excavators’,
Transactions of SME, Vol. 247, pp.274–280.
Wang, Q., Zhang, Y., Chen, C. and Xu, W. (2006) ‘Open pit mine truck real time
dispatching principle under macroscopic control’, First International Conference on
Innovative Computing, Information and Control, Vol. 1, pp.702–706.
Weyher, L.H.E. and Suboleski, S.C. (1979) ‘Planning of underground materials handling systems’,
Computer Methods for the 80’s in the Minerals Industry, AIME, New York, pp.457–472.
White, J.W. and Olson, J.P. (1986) ‘Computer-based dispatching in mines with concurrent
operating devices’, Mining Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 11, pp.1045–1053.
Wilke, F.L. (1970) ‘Simulation studies of computer controlled traffic in underground large coal
mines’, Decision making in the Mineral Industry, 9th International Symposium Can IMM,
Special Vol. 12, pp.344–351.
Wilke, F.L. and Heck, K. (1982) ‘Simulation studies on truck dispatching’, 17th APCOM,
Chapter 54, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO and Published by SME, Littleton, CO,
pp.620–626.
Wilke, F.L. and Klee, H. (1976) ‘Determining priority-rules for underground rail-transport
by computer simulation’, Proceedings, 2nd IFAC Symposium on Automation in Mining,
Mineral and Metal Processing, Johannesburg, South Africa, September, pp.191–198.
Wyman, F.P. (1977) ‘Simulation of tar sand mining operations’, Interfaces, Vol. 8, No. 1, Part 2,
November, pp.6–20.
Xi, Y. and Yegulap, T.M. (1994) ‘Optimum dispatching algorithms for Anshan open pit mine’,
24th APCOM Proceedings, pp.426–433.
Zhang, M-J., Qian, Q-H. and Tang, J. (2005) ‘Current status and anticipated future use of modern
underground freight transport system’, Journal of Beijing University of Technology, Vol. 31,
No. 6, pp.580–584.
Zhang, R-X., Yu, D-F., Li, X-W., Yao, X-G. and Liu, Y. (2006) ‘Surface mine system simulation
and safety risk management’, Journal of China University of Mining and Technology, Vol. 16,
No. 4, pp.413–415.