Accepted Manuscript

Improving fleet management in mines: The benefit of heterogeneous

match factor

Patarawan Chaowasakoo , Heikki Seppälä , Heikki Koivo ,

Quan Zhou

PII: S0377-2217(17)30178-9
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.039
Reference: EOR 14276

To appear in: European Journal of Operational Research

Received date: 4 July 2016

Revised date: 15 December 2016
Accepted date: 25 February 2017

Please cite this article as: Patarawan Chaowasakoo , Heikki Seppälä , Heikki Koivo , Quan Zhou ,
Improving fleet management in mines: The benefit of heterogeneous match factor, European Journal
of Operational Research (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.039

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Improving fleet management in mines: The benefit of heterogeneous match

factor

Patarawan Chaowasakooa, Heikki Seppäläb, Heikki Koivoa1, Quan Zhoua2

a
Department of Electrical Engineering and Automation, School of Electrical Engineering,
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, P.O.Box 15500, 00076 Aalto Finland, +358 44 9636407,
patarawan.chaowasakoo@aalto.fi;

T
b

IP
Department of Mathematics and Systems Analysis, School of Science, Aalto University,
Espoo, Finland, P.O.Box 11100, FI-00076 Aalto Finland, +358407211527,

CR
heikki.seppala@aalto.fi;

1
, heikki.koivo@aalto.fi ,

2 US
, quan.zhou@aalto.fi
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC


Corresponding author. Email: patarawan.chaowasakoo@aalto.fi
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mining requires large, expensive equipment: it is known that transportation costs from
50-60% of total operational costs. Mixed-fleet optimization is essential to support
business sustainability. A new approach, based on differences in the match factor, is
proposed: a heterogeneous truck fleet, a heterogeneous shovel fleet, and a fleet
comprising both heterogeneous truck and shovel. Simulation study provides evidence
that the match factor can be used to determine ranges for numbers of different types of
trucks in an optimal fleet. Choice of heuristic truck dispatching methods has a
significant influence on the performance. Additionally, the simulated results reveal

T
differences in production with different heterogeneous fleet types.

IP
Keywords: simulation; match factor; heuristic truck dispatching methods;

CR
heterogeneous fleets

1. Introduction

US
Capital intensive businesses, such as mining, require large and expensive equipment. Typically the
equipment of open-pit mines consists of 50-70 trucks, 10-20 shovels, and 10-15 auxiliary units. The
AN
annual capital and operation costs of these large fleets can be as high as a few hundred million US
dollars (Christina N Burt & Caccetta, 2014; Topal & Ramazan, 2010). Operational tasks of open-pit
mine include drilling, loading, hauling, dumping, and auxiliary services. Of these, the most critical
M

task is to allocate truck-shovel resources in an efficient manner, since huge amounts of coal and
overburden must be delivered from the pit to their destinations through relatively long and steep
ED

haulage routes. Many prior research studies indicate that the transportation costs are high,
representing about 50-60% of the total operational costs (Aksoy M. and Yalcin E, 2000; Alarie &
Gamache, 2002; Bonates E.J.L., 1996; Niemann-Delius C. and Fedurek B., 2004; R.M. Hays, 1990;
PT

Temeng V.A., 1997). The methods for truck allocation are discussed extensively in the literature with
the aim to minimize the number of trucks at the same time to meet production goals (Montiel &
CE

Dimitrakopoulos, 2015; Newman, Rubio, Caro, Weintraub, & Eurek, 2010; Souza, Coelho, Ribas,
Santos, & Merschmann, 2010; Chung H. Ta, Ingolfsson, & Doucette, 2013). Thus, all aspects of the
AC

mining operation process must be managed in an optimal way in order to sustain the business in a
financially strong and stable manner. To achieve success in any business, the decision maker needs to
know how well the business performs, and where improvement is needed in the process. Good pre-
planning not only helps to obtain the target production, but also yields savings in equipment costs.
Therefore, finding a close to optimal mixed truck-shovel fleet is extremely important.
The match factor, developed in early 1960’s, is the ratio of the truck arrival rate and the
shovel service time, which has been used to determine the overall efficiency of truck-shovel
operations, especially a homogeneous fleet (Douglas J, 1964; Smith S., Osborne J., 1995; W. Morgan
and L. Peterson, 1968). However, in the real world, the system is complex and mixed fleets are
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

common. An improved match factor for heterogeneous fleets is derived by Burth and Caccetta (C N
Burt & Caccetta, 2007), which is a sensible extension from the original equation. Nevertheless, using
the match factor to improve fleet operations based on actual field data has not been reported earlier.
This paper studies the truck and shovel fleet problem using a novel approach based on the
differences between match factors in three heterogeneous fleet types: a heterogeneous truck fleet, a
heterogeneous shovel fleet, and a fleet comprising both heterogeneous truck and shovel resources.
This approach is investigated by conducting a stochastic simulation study with a classic truck
dispatching strategy and heuristic truck dispatching methods. These methods mostly deal with the

T
main uncertainties in open-pit mines, and the decisions in most of the dispatching system are taken in

IP
real-time (Alarie & Gamache, 2002; G.S. Basto, 2010; C. H. Ta, Kresta, Forbes, & Marquez, 2005).
The extensive empirical data was collected through the global positioning system (GPS) technology

CR
from an open-pit mine, PT. Kitadin Tandung Mayang in Indonesia. The production of the mine is
approximately three million tonnes of coal per annum with a total movement of overburden of fifty
million bank cubic metre (bcm) using a fleet of 115 machines. However, the actual production of the

US
mine in each month is relatively low compared to the equipment capacity. It is of great interest to find
the reasons behind this, which would allow decision makers to plan better the production process and
AN
decide any possible improvements. The simulation results show that a) the match factor ratio is a
fundamental indicator to verify overall efficiency of the fleet; and b) a theoretical match factor ratio of
1.0 may not correlate with an actual match factor ratio of 1.0 due to truck bunching effects. The
M

results also reveal remarkable differences in production figures under different heterogeneous fleet
types and rules of heuristic truck dispatching methods.
ED

2. Problem formulation

One key factor in a profitable open-pit mine is an efficient overburden transport system. The amount
PT

of overburden to be daily transported within and from a site is massive. The ability to reduce
operation costs has been made directly to utilize trucks and shovels in an efficient manner. In the
CE

open-pit mine operation under consideration, a truck receives a dispatching order and then travels to
the assigned shovel. Thereafter, the shovel loads the overburden on the truck, which drives it to a
dump point. Finally, the truck waits for another dispatching order. Figure 1 shows the sequence, in
AC

which it is repeated until the end of the eight-hour shift. In general, one cyclic operation of truck is
short, that is 12-16 minutes, compared to the length of the shift. Moreover, the time between truck
assignment requests at each loading point is typically 2-3 minutes. More details about the operating
times for each type of truck and shovel are presented in Tables B.1-B.4, Appendix B. The challenge
of the operation is generating a truck dispatching order under the highly stochastic environment.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1. A cyclic operation of truck and shovel.

T
IP
2.1 Process properties

CR
The stated problem is studied by setting up a discrete event simulation model by using the truck
dispatching strategy ‘the m-trucks-for-n-shovels’ (Figure 2 and Table 1), based on heuristic truck
dispatching methods. The basic heuristic truck dispatching methods in this study are explained in the
following.

US
MSWT (Minimising Shovel Waiting Time): an empty truck is assigned to the shovel with the
AN
longest idle time or to the shovel that is expected to be idle first with the purpose to maximise
the utilization of both trucks and shovels.
 MTCT (Minimising Truck Cycle Time): an empty truck is assigned to the shovel that allows
M

the shortest truck cycle time in order to maximise the total tonnage productivity.
 MTWT (Minimising Truck Waiting Time): an empty truck is assigned to the shovel where
ED

the loading operation starts first with the aim to maximise the utilization of a shovel by
minimising truck waiting time.

PT

MSC (Minimising Shovel Saturation and Coverage): an empty truck is assigned to the shovel
at equal time intervals to keep shovels busy.
CE
AC

Figure 2. The truck dispatching strategies.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. The general assignment of the truck dispatching strategies.

Strategy The 1-truck-for-n-shovels
Assignment The single stage approach,
A truck operator asks for a
new assignment,
considering n possible
shovels where the truck
could be sent. The truck is
sent to the shovel offering
The m-trucks-for-1-shovel
The multi stage approach,
Truck dispatching decisions
will be made by taking into
account the m next trucks to
dispatch, considering one
shovel at a time. More
specifically, the shovels are
The m-trucks-for-n-shovels
The multi stage approach,
One simultaneously
considers the assignment of
m forthcoming trucks to
dispatch in the near future to
n shovels in the field. Only
the assignment of the current

T
the highest potential. first sorted according to a asking truck is answered,

IP
priority scheme based on other assignments are
how much they are behind discarded. The system will

CR
their production schedule. repeat the same steps for the
Subsequently, the dispatcher next dispatching solicitations.
assigns the best truck to the Consequently, it follows that

US
shovel that is first on the
priority list.
m should be greater or equal
to n in this formulation.
AN
2.2 Match factor for heterogeneous fleets

Burth and Caccetta derived an improved match factor for three different cases, which provide a
M

sensible extension to the original equation of match factor and bring greater accuracy to the cases
where queue and waiting times are included in the cycle times. These three cases are presented below.
ED

(1) A heterogeneous truck fleet refers to the case where there are different types of trucks in the
fleet, while the shovels remain uniform in type. The match factor ( MFt ) is illustrated by
PT

equation (1):
(i nt i )i (nt i tl i )
MFt  , (1)
ns i (nt i tc i )
CE

where nt i is the number of trucks of type i  X ( X is the set of all truck types), tl i is the
AC

time required for loading truck type i with shovel, ns is the number of shovels, and tc i is the

cycle time for truck type i .

(2) A heterogeneous shovel fleet refers to the situation where only one type of trucks operates in
the fleet, while shovels are of different types. The match factor ( MFs ) is addressed in

equation (2):
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(i nt i )lcm (ul )

MFs = , (2)
lcm (ul )
 j (ns j ul )tc
j

where lcm (ul ) is the least common multiple of unique loading times for all shovels of type j ,

ul j is the cycle time of the shovel type j when working with one truck type, ns j is the number

of shovels of type j  Y ( Y is the set of all shovel types), and tc is the average cycle time for
all trucks in the current period.

T
(3) Heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets refer to the case of multiple types of trucks and shovels
operating in the fleet. The ratio of match factor ( MFts ) is presented in equation (3):

IP
(i nt i ) j [(i nt i )lcm (ul ) ]

CR
j
MFts = , (3)
 lcm (ul j ) 
  ns j  nt i tc i 
 j ul  i
 ij 

US
where lcm (ul ) j is the least common multiple of all truck loading times for shovel type j ,

lcm (ul j ) is the least common multiple of the cycle time of the shovel type j when working
AN
with a truck type i , and ul ij is the cycle time of the shovel j when working with truck type i .

3. Modelling algorithm
M

The conceptual simulation model is presented in Figure 3. The starting point is the analysis of the
collected data from the actual mine: the statistical data sets gathered from the mine are the inputs for
ED

the simulation model. First, the data sets of truck-shovel activity times between June and October
2014 were observed and collected using the GPS system. The collected data was rich enough for
statistical analysis. Second, the distributions of the activity times of trucks and shovels were
PT

visualised in order to identify the shapes of the probability density functions. A log-normal
distribution is chosen because it is sufficiently close to the empirical distribution of the activity time
CE

to which the distribution is fitted. The fitting is based on the sample mean and the standard deviation
(For more details, see Appendix A).
AC

All data variables are calculated and categorized in the defined sets as the input data sets for
the optimization model. The optimization model based on the heuristic truck dispatching methods is
applied for three heterogeneous fleet types, see Appendix C. The main idea of the simulation model is
to formulate the system in order to reflect how much overburden can be produced if heterogeneous
fleets and dispatching rules are changed. The implementation of the proposed model was carried out
using MATLAB®.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
Figure 3. The conceptual model of the heterogeneous fleet production.

CR
The overburden operation fleet in the actual open-pit mine consists of mixed truck types (32
of size 23 bcm and 36 of size 41.5 bcm) and mixed shovel types (16 of size 7 m3 and 4 of size 14 m3).
The dispatching rule currently used by the mine is the simplex algorithm, which computes a set of

US
optimal paths between shovels and the waste dump. The actual strategy not only tries to satisfy the
linear programming requirement to minimise the total cost but also actively minimises shovel idle
time. The experimental simulations of the truck dispatching strategies ‘the 1-truck-for-n-shovels’ with
AN
MTCT and ‘the m-trucks-for-1-shovel’ yield similar results as the actual production of the mine, see
Figure 4(a) and (b), when using the collected operating time data. This clearly shows the difference
M

between ‘the 1-truck-for-n-shovels’ and actual production is 7%, while the difference for ‘the m-
trucks-for-1-shovel’ appears to be 8%. Figure 4(c) shows the model fitted by adjusting velocities of
ED

trucks (Tables B.5-B.7, Appendix B) and tested by comparing simulations to the actual production. It
shows that the difference between the fitted model and actual production is 3%.
PT
CE
AC

Figure 4. The simulated results of overburden production for (a) ‘the 1-truck-for-n-shovels’ with
MTCT, (b) ‘the m-trucks-for-1-shovel’, and (c) the fitted model.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

One major change in the status of the fleet model is the case caused by the breakdown of
trucks or shovels. The broken-down equipment will not be considered for assignment until they
become operational again. The model is therefore re-evaluated with an additional input parameter,
which is ‘inactive time’ of truck and shovel. The total overburden production in each month for each
of one thousand simulations was recorded and compared with the plan and the actual production
under ideal conditions and under scenario where truck or shovel can break down.
4. Results

The results of the simulation can be divided into three main parts: (i) the case of heterogeneous truck

T
fleet and homogeneous shovel fleet, (ii) the case of homogeneous truck fleet and heterogeneous

IP
shovel fleet, and (iii) the case where both truck and shovel fleets are heterogeneous. The detailed
analysis of the results is presented in the following.

CR
4.1 A heterogeneous truck fleet
In this section, two scenarios are considered based on the total number of trucks and shovels, which

US
operate in the real mine except the types of resources are changed. The first scenario consists of two
types of trucks (small size 23 bcm and large size 41.5 bcm), while the shovels remain small (7 m3).
The number of resources in the experiment is 32 small trucks, 36 large trucks, and 20 small shovels.
AN
The second scenario is similar to the first scenario, but the type of shovel is changed to be uniformly
of the large type (14 m3). The first scenario yields match factor ratios in June to October as 1.106,
M

1.066, 1.139, 1.185, and 1.239 respectively, which are similar to the results from the second scenario.
The correlation between match factor and overall efficiency in these circumstances demonstrate that
over-trucking occurs so the trucks are arriving faster than they are being served, and the trucks are
ED

waiting in queues.
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5. The simulated results of overburden production for a heterogeneous truck fleet (a) with
small shovel type, (b) with large shovel type, and (c) the comparison of MSWT with small and large
shovel type under the ideal operation and the breakdown event.
Figure 5(a) presents the simulated results of overburden production for a heterogeneous truck
fleet with small shovel type. All the methods give the same production figures in this case. Figure 5(a)
also shows variability of 95% in the average of production, which is represented by a dashed line. The
95% figures are the values that are exceeded in 95% of simulated paths, that is, the production is more
than this with 95% probability. On the other hand, Figure 5(b) points out the results caused by change

T
in the type of shovel to the larger type. The simulated results of MSWT yield high production in each

IP
month, while MTCT, MTWT, and MSC are equivalent and yield equal production. This clearly shows
that the change in the type of shovel has a high impact on MSWT, the larger shovels increasing

CR
production by approximately 10-20%, while in MTCT, MTWT, and MSC the production is increased
by 1-4%. Figure 5(c) shows the comparison of simulated results of overburden production based on
MSWT with small and large shovel type under the ideal operation and breakdown event. The

US
production when the breakdowns are included is 27% lower compared to the ideal condition.
4.2 A heterogeneous shovel fleet
AN
The fleet model consists of one type of truck and mixed types of shovels. The model is applied on two
scenarios. The first scenario consists of 68 small trucks (23 bcm), 16 small shovels (7 m3), and 4 large
shovels (14 m3), which is the same total number of trucks and shovels operating in the actual mine,
M

but the types of resources are changed. This model determines the match factor ratio of a
heterogeneous shovel fleet, which is calculated from June to October as 1.095, 1.040, 1.077, 1.094,
ED

and 1.143 respectively. In this case, the result indicates that the overall fleet is slightly over-trucked.
The second scenario is conducted under the same conditions except that the type of truck is changed
to be large (41.5 bcm). The match factor ratio of this model results from June to October as 1.117,
PT

1.090, 1.201, 1.279, and 1.339 respectively.

CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
Figure 6. The simulated results of overburden production for a heterogeneous shovel fleet (a) with

IP
small truck type, (b) with large truck type, and (c) the comparison of MTCT with small and large

CR
truck type under the ideal operation and breakdown event.
The average overburden productions based on MTCT, MTWT, and MSC in Figure 6(a) are
equivalent and yields equal production figures, while the performance of MSWT is about 10% lower.

US
Figure 6(b) shows the simulated results of overburden production for a heterogeneous shovel fleet, in
which large trucks and mixed shovels operate. The performance of MSWT is 17% lower than that of
AN
MTCT, MTWT, and MSC. The change of truck type to larger trucks has a high impact on MTCT,
MTWT, and MSC, increasing the simulated production approximately by 100% while for MSWT the
increase is 96%. The cyclic operation time of the truck is a significant factor, especially hauling and
M

travelling times are of high significance. Figure 6(c) shows the comparison of simulated results of
overburden production based on MTCT with small and large truck types under the ideal operation and
ED

breakdown event. The average production is lower if the breakdown events are included, which
resulted respectively in 9% and 13% production decrease compared to the ideal operating condition.
4.3 Heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets
PT

This is the real fleet model, which is used in the actual open-pit mine operation. The fleet consists of
32 small trucks (23 bcm), 36 large trucks (41.5 bcm), 16 small shovels (7 m3), and 4 large shovels (14
CE

m3). The results of match factor ratio from June to October are 1.106, 1.066, 1.139, 1.185, and 1.239
respectively. The ratio in each month exceeds 1.0, which indicates that the trucks are arriving faster
than shovels are able to serve. Under these circumstances, the trucks must queue. An extension of the
AC

simulation model is derived by reducing the number of each truck type in the fleet by 10%, and in this
case the match factor ratio from June to October is 0.976, 0.941, 1.006, 1.046, and 1.094 respectively.
These ratios are close to the theoretically perfect match factor 1.0. The solution yields a good result in
terms of the overall efficiency and productivity of the fleet, which is close to the plan. Figure 7(a)
shows the average production of MTCT, MTWT, and MSC are equivalent, while MSWT is 7%
lower. When the breakdown of truck or shovel is considered, the average production from each
heuristic method decreases gradually by 25%, see Figure 7(b). The production decrease is due to the
fact that the broken trucks or shovels are not considered for assignment until they become operational
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

again. Alternatively, in the event of reducing the number of each truck type in the fleet by 10% with
no breakdowns, the production of the fleets prescribed is 7% lower than in the scenario (b) of Figure
7. The comparison results of three scenarios are presented in Figure 7(c).

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 7. The simulated results of overburden production for heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets (a)
under the ideal operation, (b) under the breakdown event, (c) the comparison of MTCT under the
M

ideal operation, breakdown event, and reduction number of truck type.

4.4 Optimal boundary of heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets
ED

To explore potential fleet formation leading to better productivity and efficiency measures
than the real fleet, 18 decision scenarios are examined varying around the real fleet. Each scenario is
composed of a different number of truck types as presented in Table 2 (start from S1 with 68 small
PT

trucks, S2 with 64 small trucks and 4 large trucks, S3 with 60 small trucks and 8 large trucks, S4 with
56 small trucks and 12 large trucks, continuing stepwise until the last scenario S18 with 68 large
CE

trucks). The number and type of shovels remain the same for all scenarios (16 small shovels and 4
large shovels). The goal is to maximise the production while placing a different number of truck
types. The simulated results of overburden production are compared with the plan and the actual
AC

operation based on one class of the heuristic methods, MTCT.

The model carries out a simulation with the same input parameters as used for the month of
October 2014. The travelling distance and hauling distance are available in Table B.7 (Appendix B).
The operating cost in dollars per hour of a small truck, a large truck, a small shovel, and a large
shovel are assumed based on the historical costs in the actual mine, that is, 90$, 130$, 185$, and 350$,
respectively. Table 2 shows the simulated results of the overburden production and the match factor
ratio of each scenario. These scenarios indicate that the operating cost under the ideal operation
increases when the number of large trucks increases. When the event of truck or shovel breakdown is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

considered, it is clear that the average overburden production from scenario S1 to scenario S18
decreases gradually towards 15%, which is presented in Figure 8(a). Moreover, the match factor ratio
of each month exceeds 1.0, and the average result of match factor ratio of the 18 scenarios is 1.145, as
presented in Figure 8(b). This indicates that over-trucking occurs, so the trucks are arriving faster than
shovels are able to serve. Under this circumstance, the trucks are on queue.
Table 2. The simulated results of the 18 decision scenarios
Scenario Small Large Operating cost under Overburden production * Overburden production under A match factor
trucks trucks ideal operation under ideal operation the event of breakdown of ratio
(unit) (unit) (USD/month) (bcm) truck or shovel (bcm)

T
1 68 0 7,545,600 2,691,000 2,537,636 1.143
2 64 4 7,660,800 2,837,700 2,358,784 1.153

IP
3 60 8 7,776,000 2,585,880 2,110,632 1.163
4 56 12 7,891,200 2,340,720 1,910,424 1.173
5 52 16 8,006,400 2,118,780 1,675,116 1.184

CR
6 48 20 8,121,600 1,872,000 1,454,934 1.195
7 44 24 8,236,800 1,987,020 1,555,796 1.205
8 40 28 8,352,000 2,146,860 1,693,900 1.216
9 36 32 8,467,200 2,281,860 1,831,324 1.228
10
11
12
13
32
28
24
20
36
40
44
48
8,582,400
8,697,600
8,812,800
8,928,000
US 2,433,420
2,608,200
2,768,040
2,982,600
1,999,114
2,165,438
2,343,620
2,541,634
1.239
1.251
1.263
1.275
AN
14 16 52 9,043,200 3,379,320 2,928,298 1.287
15 12 56 9,158,400 3,731,220 3,299,522 1.300
16 8 60 9,273,600 4,157,820 3,685,772 1.312
17 4 64 9,388,800 4,571,100 4,088,746 1.326
M

18 0 68 9,504,000 4,706,100 4,474,364 1.339

* The actual overburden production is 1,261,861 bcm and the plan is 1,678,208 bcm
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
Figure 8. The comparison of simulated results of overburden production in each scenario (a) under the

CR
ideal operation and breakdown event, and (b) the comparison of match factor ratio in each scenario
under the ideal operation.
In the mine operation under consideration, the mine haul roads are designed to provide two-

US
way traffic for the trucks. More than one truck can travel along different roads. Trucks are allowed to
overtake each other along the roads. However, faster trucks can be delayed behind slower trucks when
AN
travel along the same road, which is known as truck bunching. The true effect of bunching, however,
remains elusive. Mixed fleets may exacerbate bunching due to payload variances. For this reason,
only the scenarios S7-S12 are considered. The bunching effects of these scenarios should resemble
M

the original decomposition of the truck fleet closely enough. Figure 9 (a) shows the comparison of
simulated results of overburden production and operating costs based on (i) the simulation and
ED

optimization model and (ii) the specific model. The results show the simulation and optimization
model (MTCT line) increases the production about 4% when increasing the number of large trucks by
2 and decreasing the number of small trucks by 2, see Table 3.
PT

Table 3. The results of simulation and optimization model.

Truck type 42 Small, 40 Small, 38 Small, 36 Small, 34 Small, 32 Small, 30 Small, 28 Small, 26 Small,
CE

(unit) 26 Large 28 Large 30 Large 32 Large 34 Large 36 Large 38 Large 40 Large 42 Large

MTCT (bcm) 2,075,770 2,154,852 2,202,255 2,245,442 2,339,616 2,422,171 2,523,883 2,595,000 2,678,254

MTCT 95% 1,705,809 1,765,746 1,787,461 1,818,977 1,896,435 2,012,153 2,076,366 2,174,122 2,256,600
AC

Operating cost
($/month) 8,294,400 8,352,000 8,409,600 8,467,200 8,524,800 8,582,400 8,640,000 8,697,600 8,755,200

A Match factor 1.130 1.134 1.137 1.140 1.144 1.147 1.150 1.154 1.157
ratio
Productivity 0.250 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.274 0.282 0.292 0.298 0.306

Target plan 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208 1,678,208

On the other hand, Figure 9(a) illustrates the results of specific model (OMTCT line), which
is conducted by fixing the production requirement to 10% above the target plan with respect to the
fleet decomposition. Figure 9(b) shows the results of match factor ratio in the specific model (OMatch
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Factor line) decreases when the production is out of the target range. The results in Table 4 show the
scenario of 22 small trucks and 36 large trucks has the potential to be useful for the mine operation, in
which the productivity ratio of this scenario equals to 1 based on a mathematical expression used to
calculate the productivity and the productivity ratio, as equations (4) and (5).
production
productivity = , (4)
Operating cos t

productivity
productivityratio = , (5)
max productivity

T
Using this scenario, a substantial operating cost reduction of trucks of some 532,800 USD per month

IP
or 6.29% can be achieved.

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure 9. (a) The comparison of simulated results of overburden production and operating costs based
on the simulation and optimization model (MTCT and Operating cost) and the specific model
(OMTCT and OOperating cost) under the ideal operation, and (b) the comparison of match factor and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

productivity ratio based on the simulation and optimization model (Match Factor and Productivity
ratio) and the specific model (OMatch Factor and OProductivity ratio) under the ideal operation.
Table 4. The results of specific model.
Truck (unit) 42 Small, 38 Small, 36 Small, 34 Small, 30 Small, 26 Small, 22 Small, 20 Small, 18 Small,
24 Large 26 Large 28 Large 30 Large 32 Large 34 Large 36 Large 38 Large 40 Large

OMTCT (bcm) 1,860,430 1,821,427 1,865,903 1,910,709 1,904,271 1,877,772 1,886,916 1,869,677 1,826,748

OMTCT 95% 1,528,048 1,468,924 1,496,377 1,526,769 1,532,629 1,545,207 1,536,251 1,516,118 1,507,275

OOperating cost
($/month) 8,107,200 8,035,200 8,092,800 8,150,400 8,078,400 8,006,400 7,934,400 7,992,000 8,049,600

T
OMatch factor 1.063 0.999 1.070 1.006 1.013 0.949 0.956 0.828 0.835
OProductivity 0.229 0.227 0.231 0.234 0.236 0.235 0.238 0.234 0.227

IP
5. Discussion

One of the primary problems in an open-pit mine is to determine the required number of trucks and

CR
shovels as well as their types, to make the best matched between them in order to satisfy the
production target. This study addresses this problem within three different fleet types, including a

US
heterogeneous truck fleet, a heterogeneous shovel fleet, and heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets by
measuring match factor ratios and modelling the truck dispatching approaches. The findings provide
evidence that the match factor is a decision tool for determining an appropriate fleet size of trucks and
AN
shovels, in an equipment selection phase, so that the truck fleet productivity would match that of the
shovel fleet. On the other hand, when the fleet is already selected or in place, the match factor can be
used to estimate relative efficiency of the fleet.
M

As the result, it was shown that the match factor ratio in the actual mine exceeds 1.0, which is
over-trucking. An extension of the simulation model is derived by reducing the number of each truck
ED

type by 10%, which yields better results in terms of overall efficiency and productivity of the fleet.
Additionally, the 18 decision scenarios illustrated the simulated results of overburden production with
PT

a different number of mixed truck types. Under the ideal operation, the number of 22 small trucks and
36 large trucks yields a good result. In this case, the production is above the target plan by 10% and
the substantial cost reduction is 6%. However, in reality each truck has its own reliability, availability,
CE

and maintainability. These characteristics play a crucial role in the production and operating costs.
Therefore, it is better to have buffer trucks for the real implementation, or in the proposed model an
AC

additional input parameter of scheduled maintenance must be included.

In this study, the choice of the heuristic truck dispatching methods has a significant influence
on the performance of the mine. Operationally, the mine is over-trucked. With such a criterion, the
corresponding dispatching method, MSWT always assigns a truck to the shovel that has been waiting
the longest. This situation does not produce efficient result since the probability that a shovel will wait
is slightly low. Conversely, MTCT, MTWT, and MSC yield high production. The simulation studies
reveal remarkable differences in production figures under different heterogeneous fleet types. As an
example of a heterogeneous shovel fleet, the production of MTCT, MTWT, and MSC increases
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

dramatically by 100% when changing the size of trucks to be large, while for MSWT the increase is
96%. On the other hand, in the case of a heterogeneous truck fleet, changing into the large shovel type
increases the production of MSWT by 10%, while using other heuristic truck dispatching methods the
production is increased by 2%.
As the input data for the simulation model varies based on the collected data from only one
mine operation, and naturally each mine is unique in its topography and in its operations. However,
data was collected over a period of 5 months to give a significant data harvest, from June to October,
and the selected months allowed observation of significant effects caused by the weather changes

T
during the operation. June and July fall in the season of heavy rains with an average rainfall of 200

IP
mm on 14 days totalling 49 hours per month. August, September, and October fall in the season of
moderate rains with an average rainfall of 113 mm on 10 days totalling 25 hours per month. Heavy

CR
rainfall has an effect on operations making truck travel more difficult and leading to more equipment
breakdowns than during the dry season.
6. Conclusions

US
Generally, the size of truck fleet problem does not occur only in the mining operations, but also in
many industries, such as shipping, taxis, and the package delivery, that face the similar problem in the
AN
fleet. The simulation and optimization models conducted in this study could give guidelines of the
volumes of improvement also for other industries to avoid being over-trucked or under-trucked, based
M

on the differences in the heterogeneous fleet types. Moreover, the dispatching approaches are
typically used to minimize the queuing time. The proposed model in this study provided the
pioneering analysis of the differences between the heterogeneous fleet types, based on heuristic truck
ED

dispatching methods. Nevertheless, there is a need for continued investigation of the problem more
comprehensively. First, the simulation model should be extended to quantity and quality of coal by
PT

including several options for loading and dumping, which contain stockpiles and crushers. Moreover,
the coal blending is of major interest to fleet allocation for maximising cash flow. Second, the average
CE

uphill/downhill velocity of trucks and the average hauling distances use in the two models: a
heterogeneous shovel fleet and optimal boundary of heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets are
assumed based on the fitted model. To deal with this limitation and make the results more accurate, it
AC

needs to consider the haul road profiles and different velocities in each segment of haul roads.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Banpu Public Company Limited for their valuable support throughout
this study and for providing the data used in the experiments.

References
Aksoy M. and Yalcin E. (2000). A computer program for open pit mine equipment selection:
TruckMac. (T. N. Panagiotou, G.N. and Michalakopoulos, Ed.) (Mine Plann). Balkema,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Rotterdam, Netherland.
Alarie, S., & Gamache, M. (2002). Overview of Solution Strategies Used in Truck Dispatching
Systems for Open Pit Mines. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Environment, 16(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1076/ijsm.16.1.59.3408
Bonates E.J.L. (1996). Interactive truck haulage simulation program. (W. T. Hennies & A. P. Ayres,
L.A., Silva, D.A. and Chaves, Eds.) (Mine Plann). Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherland.
Burt, C. N., & Caccetta, L. (2007). Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader fleets.
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 21(4), 262–270.

T
https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930701388606

IP
Burt, C. N., & Caccetta, L. (2014). Equipment Selection for Surface Mining: A Review. Interfaces,
44(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.2013.0732

CR
Douglas J. (1964). Prediction of shovel-truck production: a reconciliation of computer and
conventional estimates.
G.S. Basto. (2010). Methods for truck dispatching in open-pit mining. São José dos Campos.

US
Montiel, L., & Dimitrakopoulos, R. (2015). Optimizing mining complexes with multiple processing
and transportation alternatives: An uncertainty-based approach. European Journal of
AN
Operational Research, 247(1), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.002
Newman, A. M., Rubio, E., Caro, R., Weintraub, A., & Eurek, K. (2010). A review of operations
research in mine planning. Interfaces, 40(3), 222–245. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.1090.0492
M

Niemann-Delius C. and Fedurek B. (2004). Computer-aided simulation of loading and transport in

medium and small scale surface mines. (M. Hardygora, M., Paszkowska, G. and Sikora, Ed.)
ED

(Mine Plann). London: Taylor & Francis Group.

R.M. Hays. (1990). Truck in surface mining. (B. A. Kennedy, Ed.) (Society fo). Littelton, CO.
Smith S., Osborne J., and F. M. (1995). Productivity estimation in backacter/dump-truck earth-
PT

moving operations. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Transport, 111, 125–131.

Souza, M. J. F., Coelho, I. M., Ribas, S., Santos, H. G., & Merschmann, L. H. C. (2010). A hybrid
CE

heuristic algorithm for the open-pit-mining operational planning problem. European Journal of
Operational Research, 207(2), 1041–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.031
AC

Ta, C. H., Ingolfsson, A., & Doucette, J. (2013). A linear model for surface mining haul truck
allocation incorporating shovel idle probabilities. European Journal of Operational Research,
231(3), 770–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.016
Ta, C. H., Kresta, J. V., Forbes, J. F., & Marquez, H. J. (2005). A stochastic optimization approach to
mine truck allocation. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment,
19(3), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13895260500128914
Temeng V.A. (1997). A Computerized Model for Truck Dispatching in Open Pit Mines. Michigan
Technological University.
Topal, E., & Ramazan, S. (2010). A new MIP model for mine equipment scheduling by minimizing
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

maintenance cost. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 1065–1071.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.037
W. Morgan and L. Peterson. (1968). Determining shovel-truck productivity. Min. Eng., 76–80.

Appendix A
Fitting probability densities
The probability distribution used for simulations is the log-normal distribution due to the fact that it
fits to the data better than many other parametric distributions, such as the exponential distribution.

T
The fit of the log-normal distribution to the empirical distribution calculated from the data is

IP
illustrated by Figure A.1, where also the commonly used exponential distribution is shown. Only the
results for June/small truck combination are shown, because the different activities and also figures

CR
for other months and for large trucks look almost identical.

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure A.1. The distribution of a cyclic operating time of small truck in June.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix B
Table B.1. A cyclic operating time (in minutes) of small trucks in June to October, 2014.
Cyclic Value Waiting Spotting Loading Hauling Queuing Backing Tipping Travelling Inactive
activity/
Month
June Data points 38,466 23,591 40,997 41,492 28,334 27,948 36,499 45,048 9,772
Mean 1.899 0.629 1.602 5.435 0.225 0.285 0.803 4.750 49.502
SD 2.061 0.802 0.648 2.430 0.636 0.621 0.705 2.714 129.263
July Data points 30,112 18,629 33,837 33,945 24,064 23,591 30,576 38,358 8,884
Mean 2.031 0.646 1.638 5.349 0.256 0.297 0.829 4.705 57.097
SD 2.146 0.739 0.704 2.761 0.711 0.655 0.787 2.930 159.043
August Data points 31,039 18,831 33,960 34,640 26,564 24,884 30,779 37,308 8,619
Mean 1.954 0.617 1.673 4.937 0.308 0.295 0.844 4.786 64.283

T
SD 2.022 0.746 0.708 2.818 0.894 0.660 0.768 2.962 172.572
September Data points 32,053 19,884 35,365 36,021 27,611 25,209 31,196 38,482 8,607
Mean 1.974 0.621 1.762 4.974 0.357 0.281 0.873 4.907 53.449

IP
SD 2.087 0.771 0.846 2.808 1.015 0.645 0.844 3.078 156.718
October Data points 33,312 21,611 35,754 36,162 27,414 25,150 31,889 38,151 7,559
Mean 1.837 0.619 1.722 4.611 0.252 0.331 0.828 4.350 65.434

CR
SD 1.923 0.645 0.684 2.620 0.745 0.801 0.737 2.799 194.224

Table B.2. A cyclic operating time (in minutes) of large trucks in June to October, 2014.
Cyclic
activity/
Month
June
Value

Data points
Mean
Waiting

37,222
1.832
Spotting

22,553
0.499
Loading

40,784
1.913
USHauling

41,254
5.518
Queuing

32,101
0.260
Backing

29,923
0.406
Tipping

38,116
0.681
Travelling

45,418
4.554
Inactive

9,382
56.878
AN
SD 1.901 0.709 0.775 2.166 0.665 0.686 0.504 2.397 151.331
July Data points 41,738 26,075 45,483 46,127 35,297 33,249 42,511 50,780 10,372
Mean 1.911 0.497 1.780 5.438 0.276 0.422 0.664 4.264 51.999
SD 1.919 0.743 0.689 2.152 0.715 0.708 0.479 2.309 138.568
August Data points 43,640 26,976 45,787 46,379 37,530 33,875 43,384 50,852 9,662
M

Mean 1.649 0.464 1.759 4.793 0.284 0.380 0.657 4.101 53.920
SD 1.702 0.687 0.657 2.158 0.690 0.528 0.453 2.300 134.245
September Data points 38,858 25,041 40,659 41,093 34,044 29,374 38,923 44,893 7,831
Mean 1.777 0.470 1.819 4.349 0.247 0.349 0.702 4.071 60.635
ED

SD 1.772 0.618 0.709 1.937 0.546 0.448 0.585 2.327 190.130

October Data points 33,945 21,904 35,649 36,095 29,542 27,301 33,613 38,439 6,426
Mean 1.693 0.446 1.708 3.894 0.203 0.421 0.687 3.609 71.807
SD 1.655 0.605 0.621 1.607 0.504 0.752 0.528 2.077 204.946
PT

Table B.3. A cyclic operating time (in minutes) of shovels in June to October, 2014.
Cyclic activity/ Value Small shovel Large shovel
CE

Month Loading Waiting Inactive Loading Waiting Inactive

June Data points 49,462 52,436 941 27,597 28,660 235
Mean 1.930 2.831 185.330 1.698 1.978 195.797
SD 0.999 6.582 313.398 0.616 5.683 309.424
July Data points 41,585 43,970 746 34,726 35,969 238
AC

Mean 1.920 3.063 201.747 1.648 1.897 157.927

SD 0.956 7.266 342.239 0.525 5.770 257.238
August Data points 39,025 41,259 786 38,056 39,508 337
Mean 1.925 3.122 176.650 1.650 1.878 115.453
SD 0.972 7.311 316.457 0.556 5.500 167.519
September Data points 41,398 43,568 733 31,804 32,810 186
Mean 2.033 3.198 156.364 1.648 1.789 135.325
SD 1.087 7.583 293.255 0.453 5.784 271.105
October Data points 38,788 40,661 624 30,630 31,594 218
Mean 1.927 2.965 214.551 1.621 1.787 137.961
SD 0.942 7.542 384.843 0.508 5.734 261.823
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table B.4. Service loading time (in minutes) of truck and shovel in June to October, 2014.
Cyclic activity/ Truck Size Small shovel Large shovel
Month Mean SD Mean SD
June Small 1.828 0.842 1.663 0.619
Large 1.911 0.834 1.825 0.705
July Small 1.807 0.809 1.650 0.606
Large 1.827 0.759 1.722 0.622
August Small 1.786 0.784 1.661 0.593
Large 1.817 0.745 1.708 0.598
September Small 1.875 0.876 1.677 0.525
Large 1.896 0.807 1.733 0.602
October Small 1.811 0.731 1.641 0.481
Large 1.802 0.703 1.661 0.538

T
Table B.5. Comparison performance of ‘the 1-truck-for-n-shovels’ with MTCT, ‘the m-trucks-for-1-

IP
shovel’, and the fitted model.
Month/Index (%) June July August September October

CR
The 1-truck-for-n-shovels 66 69 74 72 78
(MTCT)
The m-trucks-for-1-shovel 67 70 75 74 79
The fitted model
Plan
Actual
58
100
55
US 60
100
58
88
100
82
73
100
70
78
100
75
AN
Table B.6. The input operating parameters of small and large trucks.
Month Small truck Large truck
M

Mean of SD Mean of SD Average Mean of SD Mean of SD Average

travelling hauling velocity travelling hauling velocity
distance distance uphill/downhill distance distance uphill/downhill
(m) (m) (km/hr) (m) (m) (km/hr)
June 3,527.81 655.39 1,648.92 781.31 25/31 2,406.82 1,025.60 1,527.73 380.64 20/26
ED

July 3,527.81 655.39 1,837.57 1,260.40 25/31 2,303.26 873.71 1,430.86 364.18 20/26
August 2,476.03 639.08 1,626.67 943.05 30/40 1,899.54 850.34 1,306.80 478.02 25/35
September 3,753.61 539.77 1,835.54 1,078.79 37/45 3,273.16 1,010.77 1,330.26 412.11 32/40
October 3,933.62 715.32 1,820.92 1,282.08 37/45 2,995.92 979.12 1,209.45 368.60 34/42
PT

Fitting distance
To obtain accurate individual times of travelling and hauling in each decision scenario, the operation
CE

would have to be observed at both load and dump ends, which was not easy to accomplish. A
collective of travel and haul times in the study ‘a heterogeneous shovel fleet’ and ‘optimal boundary
AC

of heterogeneous truck and shovel fleets’ was calculated by averaging travelling and hauling distances
of all trucks types in Table B.7. Figure B.1 shows the distribution of travelling distance and hauling
distance in June to October, 2014.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table B.7. The input operating parameter of travelling and hauling distances (in metres) of all truck
types.
Month Mean of travelling distance SD Mean of hauling distance SD
June 2,924.2 1,029.90 1,588.8 618.93
July 2,868.4 986.67 1,613.5 909.46
August 2,165.6 801.00 1,453.1 745.61
September 3,486.7 1,049.90 1,591.1 863.99
October 3,446.0 970.81 1,538.6 1,019.90

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure B.1 The distribution of travelling and hauling distance in June to October.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix C
Table C.1 The data variables.
Parameter Description Parameter Description
vi volume of truck type i vd _ t i average downhill velocity of truck
type i
s shift t _ si simulated spotting time of truck type
i
nt i number of trucks of type i t _ bi simulated backing time of truck type
i

T
ns j number of shovels of type j ts j simulated loading time of assign
truck to shovel j

IP
d _ ti simulated travelling distance pi probability of spotting time and
of truck type i backing time of truck type i

CR
h _ ti simulated hauling distance bi simulated indicator of truck type i ,
of truck type i where
bi = binomial distribution (1, p i )
vu _ t i average uphill velocity of
truck type i
US
i X
j Y
X is the set of truck types
Y is the set of shovel types
AN
1. Defined sets
tt j set of expected arrival time of truck type i from dispatching point to loading area, which is
M

d _ ti
+ bi  t _ si  , where vud _ t i = vu _ t i  v d _ t i 
1
calculated as: tt j =
vud _ t i 2
ED

tr j set of time when the assigned truck type i hauls its load from shovel j to the waste dump

h _ ti
+ bi  t _ bi  .
PT

and tipping, which is calculated as: tr j =

vu _ t i
tc j set of truck cycle time for shovel j , which is calculated as: tc j = tt j + tr j + ts j
CE

2. The simulation and optimization model

The objective function is maximizing production, which is applied for three heterogeneous fleet types
AC

and the 18 decision scenarios, as follows:

Max VT[i , j ] R[i , j ] (C.1)

iX jY

The constraint conditions:

VT
iX jY
[i , j ] R[i , j ]  VS j  j Y (C.2)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

VT
iX jY
[i , j ] Oi  P i  X (C.3)

 R
iX jY
[i , j ]  1 (C.4)

 R
iX jY
[i , j ] 0 if i  i' with i' X (C.5)

 R
iX jY
[i , j ] 0 if j  j ' with j ' Y (C.6)

R[i , j ] = 1 if truck i is assigned to shovel j

T
IP
0 otherwise (C.7)
where VT[ i , j ] is the volume of truck i on the selected shovel j in bcm; R[ i , j ] is the binary which

CR
indicates the possible shovels where the truck could be sent based on the selected heuristic truck
dispatching methods; VS j is the total volume of shovel j when it has completed loading of the

US
assigned truck in bcm; Oi is the analysis number of trips of each type of trucks in one month; and P

is the production requirement in bcm.

AN
The meaning of each constraint is as follows. Constraint (C.2) ensures that the production of
truck associated to the shovel j should not exceed the total volume of the shovel when completed
loading. Constraint (C.3) enforces that the total production should be equal to or greater than the
M

production requirement. Constraint (C.4) avoids the duplications, once truck i is assigned to shovel j

, it cannot be assigned to another shovel. Constraint (C.5) is activated when truck i ' is temporarily
ED

inactive, and it is deactivated when truck i ' returns to operation. Constraint (C.6) is activated when
shovel j ' fails, and it is deactivated when shovel j ' returns to operation. Constraint (C.7) is a binary
PT

decision variable representing assignment of truck i to shovel j based on the selected heuristic truck
dispatching methods. The heuristic truck dispatching methods used in the optimization model are
CE

listed below.
(1) MSWT: The selected trucks are assigned to the shovels that are expected to have the longest
idle time:
AC

d  arg max j max j tt j  ts j ,0, (C.8)

where d is the shovel that the truck is assigned for, tt j is the expected truck travel time from

dispatching point to the shovel, and ts j is the time for the shovel to complete loading all the

trucks in the queue including the one being loaded and those that are en route to this shovel,
but have not yet reached it. When waiting time tt j  ts j is 0, it means that the truck has

positioned and is ready for loading at the same time as the shovel finished loading the
previous truck. If waiting time is positive, it corresponds to the shovel waiting time for this
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

truck. Negative waiting time means that the truck arrived at the shovel, which is still loading
another truck.
(2) MTCT: The selected trucks are assigned to the shovel that allows the shortest truck cycle
time. The decision making criteria for assigning truck is

d  arg min j tc j , (C.9)

(3) MTWT: the assignment of the selected trucks is to the shovel in which the loading operation
starts first. The decision-making criterion is as follows:

T
d  arg min j max j tt j , ts j , (C.10)

IP
(4) MSC: the first few trucks with the smallest expected time are selected for assignment to the

CR
shovel at equal time intervals to keep the shovel non-idle. The decision making criteria for
assigning a truck is
d  arg min j tt j  ts j , (C.11)

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC