International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and

Environment

ISSN: 1748-0930 (Print) 1748-0949 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme20

A simulation model to study bunching effect of a

truck-shovel system

Weiguo Zeng , Ernest Baafi & David Walker

To cite this article: Weiguo Zeng , Ernest Baafi & David Walker (2017): A simulation model to
study bunching effect of a truck-shovel system, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and
Environment, DOI: 10.1080/17480930.2017.1348284

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2017.1348284

Published online: 04 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 67

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsme20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 06 August 2017, At: 23:19

 International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2017.1348284

A simulation model to study bunching effect of a truck-shovel

system
Weiguo Zeng  , Ernest Baafi and David Walker
Department of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Bunching usually occurs when faster trucks and slower trucks are mixed Received 30 August 2016
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

in a truck-shovel mining system. This paper presents the development of Accepted 26 June 2017
discrete-event simulation model to estimate the impacts of bunching on
KEYWORDS
the productivity and efficiency of a truck-shovel system. The bunching Discrete-event simulation;
effect on production, BEP, is defined to estimate the production sensitivity truck-shovel system; truck
to the bunching effect on the truck fleet. The simulation results show that bunching
the mixed truck fleets with varying performance can cause significant
bunching effect if the hauling trucks are from multiple loading sites or
dumps. Depending on whether the fleet is over-trucked or under-trucked,
the bunching has significant impact on both the fleet productivity and the
equipment utilisation. Furthermore, the fleet with higher BEP takes a priority
of overtaking the fleet with lower BEP to increase the productivity.

1. Introduction
A truck-shovel mining system generally consists of shovels and the associated trucks. Ore and waste
are loaded into trucks by shovels and the trucks haul between loading sites and dumps or crushers.
The main operational elements for one truck cycle include spotting, loading, hauling loaded, dumping,
hauling empty, queuing and operational delays. Although the maximum system productivity depends
on the output of the shovels, in real terms, this maximum productivity is reduced due to mismatch of
trucks and shovels and the bunching effect [1], which is the effect of a faster truck following behind
a slower truck if overtaking is prohibited or impossible.
Surplus trucks in the fleet cause queues at shovels and increase waiting time of the trucks, whereas
insufficient number of trucks in the system increases idle time of the shovels. The efficiency of the
haulage system is influenced significantly by the size of the truck fleet [2]. Match factor (MF) has
been widely used in the earthmoving industry for selecting the best fleet for truck-shovel system for
homogeneous truck-shovel fleets [3], using Equation (1).

(number of trucks)(loader cycle time)

MF = (1)
(number of loaders)(truck cycle time)

Bunching results in heterogeneous truck cycle times and the non-synchronisation in the truck-shovel
mining system [4]. In Equation (1), the bunching effect is ignored in the calculation of MF. In practice,

CONTACT  Weiguo Zeng  wz999@uow.edu.au

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2   W. ZENG ET AL.

reducing factors are used to account for the bunching effect in estimating both the efficiency and pro-
ductivity of truck-shovel system [5,6]. Burt and Caccetta [7] have proposed the need for further mod-
elling work on bunching effect for a better estimation of the performance of the truck-shovel system.
The complex and interactive features of the truck-shovel mining system determine that analytical
and deterministic approach is not feasible for model development [8]. The loading time and amount
vary according to the truck type, shovel type, material characteristics, operator’s performance, etc.
The truck hauling time is influenced by:
• the weight of the truck, the truck performance and retarder curves [9], truck driver’s skill,
• the haul routes design and conditions such as rolling resistance, haul grade and road mainte-
nance, and
• the traffic constraints including bunching effect, intersection passing priority and speed control,
etc.
With discrete-event simulation, it is possible to evaluate the stochastic and dynamic elements of a
truck-shovel mining system and also support management to estimate and compare alternatives for a
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

better decision-making [10]. According to the level of modelling detail, there are currently two kinds
of simulation approaches to the traffic control problem: the macroscopic and microscopic approaches
[11]. The macroscopic approach describes the traffic process via the low level detailed traffic objects
such as the traffic flow and density; while the microscopic approach is known as the high detailed
modelling approach, considering the traffic elements, for instance, individual vehicle units, haul routes,
the interaction between the vehicle units and the influence of the traffic network on the vehicle units.
Previous work on road transport [12–14] has pointed out that the macroscopic approach is not able
to reproduce the individual vehicle movement and to capture the traffic interaction on the haul route
networks. Furthermore, Jaoua et al. [15] proved that with no consideration of the real-time haulage
network constraints or traffic congestion and truck interaction, the macroscopic models could bias
simulation results and thus ‘can significantly increase the gap between simulated versus practical
algorithm performance’ [11]. However, the most of previous truck-allocation models [2,16–20] were
developed using the macroscopic approach. The microscopic traffic influences including the bunching
effect and the truck behaviour at the intersection area are simplified or ignored in those models. Jaoua
et al. [21] proposed a microscopic real-time fleet management model which reflected the haul road
network environment and the traffic congestion level of the haul route. Bastos et al. [22] also consid-
ered bunching as a delay in their time-dependent truck dispatching model with no truck overtaking.
However, the researchers [21,22] ignored the impact of road conditions and truck performance on
truck’s speed and did not explore the impact of the bunching on the productivity of the truck-shovel
system. Soofastaei et al. [23] estimated the relationship between the variability of the truck payload
and the increased cycle time caused by bunching. But the haul road network associated with the
interaction between trucks in the network system was not considered in their model.
This paper presents a microscopic discrete-event simulation model that is able to estimate the key
performance indicators (KPIs) of a truck-shovel system. The model considers not only the stochastic
and dynamic operational elements of the system but also the microscopic traffic behaviours, including
the interaction between the individual trucks and the impact of the haul road network. The bunch-
ing effect and the influence of the traffic at the intersection area on the system performance can be
evaluated and a more efficient strategic management support can be offered by the simulation model.

2.  Basic structure of the model

To consider the impact of the traffic conditions on the hauling trucks and the dynamic interaction
between the hauling trucks, the microscopic simulation approach should be applied by developing the
model at the single-vehicle level. The simulation model was developed using java-based open-source
simulation software JaamSim [24]. JaamSim provides interactive 3D graphics, input and output editors
and model development tools allowing the user to develop new palettes of highly detailed objects in
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   3

standard Java programming language. The framework of the developed model is composed of the
operational elements of a truck-shovel mining system, including material, loader, dump, queue, truck,
hauling route and the operator. The following simulation model objects were developed for modelling
a truck-shovel mining system in a microscopic approach:
(1)  OreEntity: material that flows through the system.
(2)  OreGenerator: generates the OreEntity.
(3)  OreSink: destroys the OreEntity.
(4)  Loader: receives the OreEntity from the OreGenerator object and sends it to the Truck object
for transportation.
(5)  LoaderOperator: interacts with the Loader object to represent the influence of the shovel
operator on the shovel performance.
(6)  Dump: receives the OreEntity from the Truck object. After process, it sends the OreEntity
object to the Sink object and releases the Truck object.
(7)  Truck: interacts with the Route object and transports the OreEntity objects between the
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

Loader object and the Dump object.

(8)  Route: receives the Truck object with the OreEntity object sent from the Loader object. After
transportation procedure, it sends the Truck object with the OreEntity object to the Dump
object.
(9)  RouteIntersection: connects the Route objects and forms the traffic network to allow the
Truck object to travel on different Route objects.
(10) RouteSafeZone: manages the traffic in the intersection area, including passing and turning
priority and the queuing and bunching in this area caused by the traffic rule.
(11) Queue: a storage area for the Truck object at the loading site or dump when the Loader object
or the Dump object is occupied.
(12) Dispatcher: assigns the Truck objects under certain dispatching rules.
Figure 1 shows the basic logic of the material handling process. The OreEntity generated by the
OreGenerator is added to the Loader if there are any available Trucks in the Queue of the Loader. After
being processed, the OreEntity is sent to Truck and delayed as the hauling loaded process. Then the
OreEntity is sent to the Dump and processed. After the dumping process, the OreEntity is sent to the
OreSink to be destroyed, and the Truck is removed from the Dump and delayed as the hauling empty
process. The Route, including the RouteLoaded (the route for the loaded truck) and the RouteEmpty
(the route for the empty truck), provides the route information that influences the travelling time of
the truck.

Figure 1. Material handling logic of the model.

 4   W. ZENG ET AL.

3.  Truck bunching module

The maximum velocity for a truck to haul under specific haulage conditions can be read from the
performance and retarder charts published by the truck manufacturers, which reflect that the perfor-
mance of truck is the result of the interaction between truck and route [4]. The performance chart is
used when the total resistance is positive and the retarder chart is employed when the total resistance
is negative. The gross truck weight, total resistance of the route and the specific truck type determine
the maximum hauling speed. According to the gross truck weight and the total resistance of certain
route segment, the rimpull of the truck can be calculated and the maximum hauling speed on this
route segment can be read from the performance and retarder charts. The total resistance, which is
the sum of the grade resistance and the rolling resistance, reflects the route design and conditions and
the truck weight is influenced by the performance of the shovel and the truck configuration.
After the maximum velocity is gained from performance and retarder charts, the average speed can
be calculated by multiplying the maximum velocity by a speed factor. The speed factor, determined by
experience, shows the influence of the truck acceleration and deceleration by considering the distance
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

of the haul section. In addition to the truck performance and retarder charts, the average hauling speed
is also affected by the speed limit on certain route imposed by management.
In the model, the Route object is divided into various segments according to the route conditions
such as grade, rolling resistance and traffic infrastructure. Trucks travel on divided segments of hauling
route with varied mean travelling speeds. Depending on whether the truck ahead (slower truck) and the
following truck (faster truck) are travelling in the same segment, there are three bunching possibilities:
three-stage bunching possibility, two-stage bunching possibility and safe correction distance possibility.
• Three-stage bunching possibility
When bunching occurs (refer to Figure 2), if the truck ahead is still within the route segment,
the speed change for the following truck to pass this route segment contains three stages or options:
hauling with its own speed in the current segment, bunching with the speed of the truck ahead in the
current segment and bunching with the speed of the truck ahead in the next segment. As shown in
Figure 2, in Stage 1, after reaching point A and before bunching occurs, Truck 2 travels with v2B, the
speed for Truck 2 to haul in segment B; after the bunching occurs and before Truck 1 arrives at point
B, in Stage 2, the bunching speed of Truck 2 is equal to the speed of Truck 1, v1B, the speed for Truck
1 to haul in segment B. When Truck 1 arrives at point B and Truck 2 is still in segment B, in Stage 3,
the bunching speed of Truck 2 is v1C, the speed for Truck 1 to haul in segment C. Therefore the sequent
hauling speeds for Truck 2 to pass segment B include v2B, v1B and v1C.
• Two-stage bunching possibility
When bunching occurs (refer to Figure 3), if the truck ahead is in segment C whereas the following
truck is still in segment B, the speed change for the following truck to pass the segment B contains
two stages: hauling with its own speed in the current segment and bunching with the speed of the
truck ahead in the next segment. As shown in Figure 3, in Stage 1, before the bunching occurs, Truck
2 travels with v2B, the speed for Truck 2 to haul in segment B; in Stage 2, after the bunching occurs,
although Truck 2 is still in segment B, as Truck 1 is already in segment C, the speed of Truck 2 changes
to v1C, the speed for Truck 1 to haul in segment C. Thus the sequent speeds for Truck 2 to pass segment
B include v2B and v1C.
• Safe correction distance possibility.
It may happen that the initial distance between the two trucks is shorter than the required safety
bunching distance. In this case, the following truck has to slow down to increase the distance to the
truck ahead to the required safety bunching distance. The reduced speed for the following truck (Truck
2), which ensures that the safety bunching distance can be obtained before the truck ahead (Truck 1)
leaves the segment (segment B), can be calculated by
Δd + v1B × Δt1 − v2 × Δt1 ≥ Δs (2)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   5

Figure 2. Three-stage bunching possibility.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

Figure 3. Two-stage bunching possibility.

Therefore the reduced speed v2 should satisfy the following condition:

Δd + v1B × Δt1 + Δs
0 ≤ v2 ≤ (3)
Δt1

where Δd =  initial distance, m; Δs =  safety bunching distance, m; v1B =  hauling speed for Truck 1 in
segment B, m/s; v2 =  modified hauling speed for Truck 2 increasing the bunching distance, m/s; Δt1 = 
time for Truck 1 to reach point B, s.

3.1.  Bunching algorithm for hauling on route

When bunching occurs, if there are more than two trucks in the bunch, the behaviour of the bunched
trucks is determined by the first truck in the bunch. Bunching may also disappear when trucks enter
a traffic intersection. In the model, the information of the bunched trucks is stored in a list and keeps
updated according to the state of each individual truck in the bunch.
The bunching algorithm for trucks to travel on the route is summarised in Figure 4. When a truck
enters a route segment, the model checks if there are any other trucks in this segment. If not, the truck
would travel without bunching; otherwise, the three following processes are considered. The condi-
tions are determined by the first stage of the two following processes, namely the time length for the
truck to reach the truck ahead, t, which equals the ratio of the distance between the two trucks to the
difference between the velocities, as shown in Equation (4). The safe correction distance programme
will be implemented if the distance of the two trucks is shorter than the safety bunching distance.
d
t= (4)
Δv
 6   W. ZENG ET AL.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

Figure 4. Bunching algorithm for trucks to haul on route.

where t =  time length for the faster truck to reach the slower truck, s; d =  distance between the two
trucks, m; Δv =  difference between the speed of the faster truck and that of the slower truck, m/s.
The chasing time for three-stage following is different from that for two-stage following, as the Δv
is different. Therefore the condition for applying the three-stage following process is
entry timecurrent + t3s < arrivetimefirst (5)
The condition for applying the two-stage following process is
entry timecurrent + t2s < arrivetimefirst (6)
where entrytimecurrent = time for the current truck to enter the segment, s; arrivetimefirst = time for the
first truck in the bunch to arrive at the next point on the route, s; t3s =  duration for the current truck
to reach the truck ahead in three-stage following, s; t2s =  duration for the current truck to reach the
truck ahead in two-stage following, s.
If the conditions for three-stage following and two-stage following are not satisfied, indicating that
the current truck is not fast enough to form a bunch before the truck ahead exits from the segment,
then the truck will travel in a normal situation.

3.2.  Bunching algorithm for hauling in intersection area

A traffic network is formed by haul routes and intersections, which is a common traffic environment in
a truck-shovel mining haulage system. The trucks hauling on the main road take a priority of passing
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   7

Figure 5. Trucks passing intersection area.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

Figure 6. Bunching algorithm at intersection area.

an intersection over the trucks hauling on other routes. When a main route truck is travelling within
the safe distance from an intersection, as shown in Figure 5, a non-main route truck at the intersec-
tion has to wait until the main route truck has passed through the intersection. The behaviours of the
non-main route truck, waiting, moving forward and entering the intersection, are highly influenced
by the dynamic traffic conditions in the intersection area.
The state of the non-main route truck (Truck 2 and Truck 3 in Figure 5) is specified by two variables:
waiting time and moving time. The waiting time is the expected waiting time for Truck 2 to queue
and the moving time is the expected hauling time either when the queue is moving or when Truck
2 is passing through the intersection. The two variables keep updated as the traffic condition in the
intersection area varies. Figure 6 shows the bunching algorithm at intersection area in a flow chart.
Initially when a truck enters a segment near intersection, the programme firstly checks if the truck
ahead is waiting or not. If it is waiting in a queue, then the waiting time of the truck ahead, tAw, will
be used to see if the following truck can reach it before it moves. If not, then the following truck will
firstly travel for tAw, and then this bunching algorithm will be repeated. If the truck ahead is moving
in a queue, then the hauling time of the truck ahead, tAh, will be used to see if the following truck can
reach the truck ahead before it stops. If not, then the following truck will travel for tAh, and then the
algorithm will be repeated to see if the truck ahead is waiting now.
 8   W. ZENG ET AL.

Figure 7. Truck turning situations.

In Figure 6, T = the following truck, TA = the truck ahead, tAw = the time for TA to wait in the queue,
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

s, tAh =  the time for TA to haul in the queue, s.

When a truck arrives at an intersection, there are always two options for the truck at each decision
point. The first option is to travel through the intersection; the second option is to turn, either through
the intersection or away from the intersection. In Figure 5, Truck 2 may travel straight through the
intersection or turn left (away from the intersection) and Truck 1 may go straight or turn right (through
the intersection). Figure 7 shows two Cases of truck turning in a four-way intersection (main-route
loaded truck hauling from right to left and main-route loaded truck hauling from left to right). In
Case 1, Truck 2 and Truck 3 may travel through or turn inside the intersection, thus Truck 1 has to
wait outside the safezone. However, Truck 4 has no impact on Truck 1 because, as a non-main route
truck, it can only turn away from the intersection. In Case 2, Truck 2 and Truck 3 may travel through
or turn away from the intersection. Whether Truck 1 waits outside the safezone depends on the states
of Truck 2, Truck 3 and Truck 4. If either Truck 2 or Truck 3 is travelling through the safezone, Truck
1 has to wait; if both Truck 2 and Truck 3 are turning, Truck 1 does not have to wait; if Truck 4 is
turning at the intersection, then Truck 1 also has to wait outside the safezone.
The traffic management policies used in the developed model for the trucks hauling through the
safezone can be summarised as follows:
(1) If the truck concerned is a main route truck, then it always passes through the safezone
without delay.
(2) For the truck travelling on the non-main route, it has to wait outside the safezone if the main
route trucks in the safezone travel through the zone in a straight line or make a turn inside
the intersection, or if the non-main route truck from the opposite direction turns inside the
intersection. If either the main route trucks in the safezone turn away from the intersection
or the non-main route trucks from the opposite direction travel straight through the inter-
section, there is no truck waiting outside the safezone.
The information of all the trucks in the safezone is stored and updated in a list referred to as entityIn-
Safezone in the RouteSafezone object. The truck delay at an intersection depends on the last truck that leaves
the safezone. Two Boolean variables, turnIn and turnout, were defined to determine the turning direction.
The value of turnIn is true if the truck is turning inside the intersection, the value of turnout is true if the
truck is turning away from the intersection, and both the values are false when the truck is hauling in a
straight line. The direction the truck takes depends on the path generated by the Dispatching module.

3.3.  Bunching effect on production

For a truck-shovel system with only one shovel and one truck, there is neither queuing nor bunching
in the system and both the truck utilisation and the truck productivity are 100%, although the shovel
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   9

Figure 8. Haul routes layout of Easter Ridge OB23/25.

productivity may be low. As more trucks are added into the system, the queue forms at the shovel
and there is a potential for bunching; both the efficiency and productivity for each truck are lowered.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

Without considering dispatching and other operation delays, it is clear that the main loss of truck
efficiency and productivity is due to truck queuing and bunching.
Consider two trucks hauling the same distance on the same haul route, Truck 1 (in front) with
average velocity v1 and Truck 2 (behind Truck 1) with average velocity v2, v1 < v2; the travelling time
for Truck 1 is t1 and that for Truck 2 is t2, obviously, t1 > t2. If bunching happens, Truck 2 continues
to follow Truck 1 with speed of v1, the lost time caused by bunching (or bunching time) Δt = t1 − t2.
Since v1 × t1 = v2 × t2, the lost time due to bunching (bunching time) can be written as:

t1 ⋅ (v2 − v1 )
Δt = (7)
v2

The queuing time and bunching time result in no production at all. For a truck-shovel system with
no bunching effect considered, the lost production is only due to truck queuing. However, if the
bunching effect is considered, the lost production can be the combined result of truck bunching and
queuing. To estimate the bunching effect, the bunching time and the increased queuing time due to
bunching should be considered. A factor, bunching effect on production (BEP, t∕s or min), is defined
to represent the changing rate of production caused by bunching. It can be expressed by Equation
(8). This factor shows the production change every lost time unit caused by bunching (including the
bunching time and increased queuing time due to bunching). For instance, if BEP of a truck is x t/
min, it indicates that shovel production change is x t every minute the truck spend on bunching and
queuing due to bunching.

Change of shovel production

BEP = (8)
Bunching time + Increased queuing time due to bunching

4.  Simulation model setting

The simulation model was validated based on the data collected by [25] which provides the information
of a truck-shovel mining operation in Australia and the time and motion study for model validation.
The mining operation used for validation was known as Easter Ridge OB23/25, consisting of four
loading sites, namely S4C, P3WC, P3EC and P4, and four dumps, called P1ED, P3WD, P4WD and
ROM Dump. The active haul routes are shown in Figure 8. The mining equipment available for this
truck-shovel mining operation is listed in Table 1.
The collected time and motion data includes:
(1) Truck cycle times on each active haul route including:
 10   W. ZENG ET AL.

• P3WC-ROM cycle times for the CAT 785C

• P4-ROM cycle times for the CAT 785C
• P4-P4WD cycle times for the CAT 785C
• P3EC-P3WD cycle times for the CAT 785C
• S4C-P1E cycle times for the CAT 789C
(2) Loading times captured by the observers located in the loading units including:
• The Liebherr 9250 loading the CAT 785C
• The Hitachi 1900BE loading the CAT 785C
• The Hitachi 1900BE loading the CAT 789C
• The CAT 993 Wheel Loader loading the CAT 785C
The probability distribution fits for the loading times are shown in Table 2.
(3) Dumping times including the CAT 785C and CAT 789C are shown in Table 3.
Based on the Easter Ridge OB23/25 operation, a truck-shovel network model has been built. The
model layout screenshot is shown in Figure 9. The haul route spatial data was input according to the
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

spatial information modelled in Vulcan, including the length and elevation of each segment of the
routes as well as the locations of intersections. The curves of the routes were not considered in the
model. In the validation model, the Liebherr 9250 works at P3WC, two Hitachi 1900BEs work at S4C
and P3EC, the CAT 993 works at P4. Four trucks (the CAT 785C) are assigned to route P3WC – ROM
Dump; four trucks (the CAT 789C) to route S4C – P1ED; four trucks (the CAT 785C) to route P3EC –
P3WD; one truck (the CAT 785C) to route P4 – ROM Dump; one truck (the CAT 785C) to P4 – P4WD.
The assumptions for the model implementation are:
• Each truck is assigned to a fixed route (non-dispatching mode).
• The simulation model performs for 11 h per shift during one simulation run, without consider-
ation of shift change and operational delays in the network system.
• The experiment is implemented with 100 simulation replications.

Table 1. Mining equipment for Easter Ridge OB23/25 operation.

Model SME Class Fleet Size

Liebherr 9250 Excavator 1
Hitachi 1900BE Excavator 2
CAT 993 Wheel Loader 1
CAT 785B Haul Truck 2
CAT 785C Haul Truck 11
CAT 789C Haul Truck 5

Table 2. Distributions of loading times.

Loader type Loading time(s)

Liebherr 9250 Normal(122.35, 18.08)
Hitachi 1900BE (loading 785C) LogNormal(5.19, 0.16)
Hitachi 1900BE (loading 789C) Normal(250.6, 33.14)
CAT 993 Wheel Loader (loading 785C) LogNormal(5.73, 0.12)

Table 3. Distributions of dumping times.

Truck type Dumping time (s)

CAT 785C Normal(35.77, 11.02)
CAT 789C Normal(46.88, 11.97)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   11

5.  Simulation model validation

By comparing the mean values of the truck cycle times for the five haul routes taken from the simu-
lation results with the mean values from the field data, an adjustment to the input parameters such as
rolling resistance has been made for model calibration.
Formally, a statistical test of the null hypothesis: H0:asim − areal = 0
Alternative hypothesis: Ha:asim − areal ≠ 0
where, asim =  average cycle time from simulation results; areal =  average cycle time from field data.
If H0 is not rejected, then it is not sufficient to consider the model invalid. If H0 is rejected, then
the current version of the model is rejected, and model calibration is implemented to improve the
model. The sample size n = 100, and the level of significance 𝛼 = 0.05. The testing of the hypothesis was
implemented using JMP statistical software [26]. In JMP data analysis, the null hypothesis is assumed
to be true and there is an indicator known as the P-value that interprets the result of the significance
test. Conventionally the confidence intervals are set to 95% in JMP and the decision rule is such that
if the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05 then it is concluded that the null hypothesis is credible,
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

and if the P-value is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4 shows the comparison of the actual cycle times and the expected values after 100 replications.
The maximum prediction error for all the output is 0.5% and the P-values for all the cycle times are
significantly greater than 0.05. It is sufficient to assume the model is valid.

Figure 9. Model layout screenshot.

Table 4. Simulation model validation.

Simulated cycle time (s)

Haul routes Actual cycle time (s) Mean Half-width Error P-value (P > |t|)
P3WC-ROM 831 829 4 −0.30% 0.24
P4-ROM 953 958 12 0.50% 0.41
P4-P4WD 684 683 28 −0.20% 0.92
S4C-P1E(789) 1432 1432 6 0% 0.96
P3EC-P3WD 1452 1453 6 0% 0.93
 12   W. ZENG ET AL.

6.  Experiment on bunching effect

In a truck-shovel mining system with a mixed fleet (or a homogeneous fleet with mixed performance),
the slower trucks reduce the average velocity of the truck fleet and can cause bunching. The experi-
mental model is based on the validation model. P3WC loading site, S4C loading site and ROM dump
associated with the haul routes are considered. There are two truck types in the model: CAT 785C
and Komatsu 860E. The main inputs are shown in Table 5.
In this study, three cases for experiment are considered:
• Case 1: one loader with a mixed fleet. The fleet consists of CAT 785C and Komatsu 860E hauling
between P3WC loading site and ROM dump. The number of CAT 785C trucks and the number
of Komatsu 860E trucks are varied to reflect the different level of truck mixture.
• Case 2: an under trucked system with two loaders and two truck fleets. Fleet 1 consists of 5 CAT
785C trucks hauling between P3WC loading site and ROM dump (MF = 0.76). Fleet 2 consists
of 6 Komatsu 860E trucks hauling between S4C loading site and ROM dump (MF = 0.89).
• Case 3: an over trucked system with two loaders and two truck fleets. Fleet 1 consists of 9 CAT
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

785C trucks hauling between P3WC loading site and ROM dump (MF = 1.37). Fleet 2 consists
of 10 Komatsu 860E trucks hauling between S4C loading site and ROM dump (MF=1.48).
The trucks are hauling in the system in a non-dispatching mode, hence the effect of dispatching
is not considered.

7.  Sensitivity analysis

• Case 1: one loader with a mixed fleet

7 trucks haul between Shovel 1 and the ROM dump with bunching. The number of CAT 785Cs and
the number of Komatsu 860Es were varied to estimate the bunching effect caused by the mixed truck
fleet. According to the simulation result, as shown in Table 6, as the number of CAT 785Cs decreased
from 6 to 1 and the number of Komatsu 860Es increased from 1 to 6, both the queuing time and
production increased. However there was no lost time caused by bunching, in other words, there was
no bunching effect in the system.

Table 5. Model input parameters.

Parameter Value
CAT 785C empty weight (kg) 102,150
CAT 785C capacity (kg) 147,330
Komatsu 860E empty weight (kg) 200,351
Komatsu 860E capacity (kg) 254,363
Shovel service time for CAT 785C (s) Normal(122, 18)
Shovel service time for Komatsu 860E (s) Normal(208, 21)
Safe bunching distance (m) 25
Dumping time for CAT 785C (s) Normal(35, 11)
Dumping time for Komatsu 860E (s) Normal(46, 12)

Table 6. One loader model simulation result.

No. of 785Cs No. of 860Es Bunching time (min) Queuing time (min) Shift production (t)
6 1 0 256 56,812.14
5 2 0 259 62,009.79
4 3 0 262 67,179.95
3 4 0 264 72,460.11
2 5 0 261 77,756.31
1 6 0 265 83,050.22
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   13

• Case 2: an under trucked system with two loaders and two fleets
In an under trucked system with two separate loading sites, when no overtaking rule was applied,
both fleets were influenced by the bunching effect. More specifically, the bunching only occurred
when the fleets were hauling from P3WC and S4C to ROM dump (from two separate loading sites
to the shared route), no bunching occurred when the fleets were hauling back from the ROM dump
(from a single dump site to the shared route), which confirms that the mixed truck fleets with varying
performance can cause significant bunching effect on the haul route if the hauling trucks are from
multiple loading sites or dumps.
Since the average velocity for fleet 1 to travel from P3WC to ROM dump (17.8 km/h) was greater
than the average velocity for fleet 2 to travel from S4C to ROM dump (16.2 km/h), when the bunching
effect was considered, the bunching time of fleet 1 (20.5 min), as shown in Figure 10, was significantly
greater than the bunching time of fleet 2 (1.2 min). The queuing time of fleet 1 increased from 40.8
min to 89.1 min, yet the queuing time of fleet 2 decreased from 107.3 min to 94.1 min, resulting in
the production decrease of fleet 1 (272.8 t) and the production increase of fleet 2 (662.4 t), as shown
in Figure 11. The faster trucks (CAT 785C) from fleet 1 were often blocked by the slower trucks
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

(Komatsu 860E) from fleet 2, which increased the queuing time and reduced the production of fleet 1
while decreased the queuing time and increased the production of fleet 2. Hence it can be summarised
that for fleet 1, the total lost time (sum of the bunching time and increased queuing time) is 68.8 min
and the decrease of shift production is 272.8 t; for fleet 2, the lost time is −12.1 min and the increase
of shift production is 662.4 t. The BEP of fleet 1 is 3.96 t/min and the BEP of fleet 2 is −s54.96 t/min.

Figure 10. Case 2 Bunching time and queuing time simulation results.

Figure 11. Case 2 Production changes.

 14   W. ZENG ET AL.

Figure 12. Case 3 Bunching time and queuing time simulation results.

This implies if a CAT 785C in fleet 1 is blocked by a Komatsu 860E in fleet 2, every minute lost due to
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

bunching for fleet 1 would cause 3.96 t production loss, while every minute saved from no overtaking
policy for fleet 2 would result in 54.96 t production increase. It is clear that fleet 2 should avoid being
delayed by bunching, and CAT 785C from fleet 1 should not overtake Komatsu 860E from fleet 2,
even if overtaking is allowed.
• Case 3: an over trucked system with two loaders and two fleets
In Case 3, the bunching effect was also significant when the loaders were over trucked. As shown
in Figure 12, the bunching time of fleet 1 was 30.8 min and the bunching time of fleet 2 was 1.8 min.
Different from Case 2, when overtaking is not allowed, both the queuing times of fleet 1 and fleet 2
increased. The increase in the queuing time of fleet 1 was 34.8 min and that of fleet 2 was 30.0 min.
However, both the productions of fleet 1 and 2 were not changed (50,468.6 t for fleet 1 and 89,560.4
t for fleet 2), and the BEPs for the two fleets are 0. Thus if the fleet is over trucked, the bunching has
no impact on the productivity, but efficiency of the fleet drops due to the significant increase in the
queuing time.

8. Conclusions
A truck-shovel simulation model has been developed for estimating the operational elements and
evaluating the performance of the entire truck-shovel mining system. The microscopic traffic simu-
lation approach allows the interaction between the mining equipment and the traffic environment to
be modelled realistically and dynamically. The bunching impact, including the bunching time and the
increased queuing time, on the productivity and efficiency of a truck-shovel mining system has been
estimated. According to the simulation results, there are three conclusions as follows:
(1) The mixed truck fleets with varying performance can cause significant bunching effect on the
haul route if the hauling trucks are from multiple loading sites or dumps.
(2) When bunching occurs, in the case of the under trucked fleets, both the bunching time and
queuing time of the blocked trucks increase, resulting in production decrease; yet for the
unblocked trucks, the bunching time is insignificant and the queuing time decreases, caus-
ing production increase. In the case of the over trucked fleets, both the bunching time and
queuing time of the fleets increase with no impact on productivity.
(3) The truck fleet with higher BEP has more significant bunching effect on the fleet production,
thus the delay due to bunching should be prevented for the truck fleet with higher BEP.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the truck bunching effect should be considered for mining
strategic planning particularly where it is envisaged that a mixed truck fleet will be employed or a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   15

homogeneous truck is employed with varying performance. The developed model provides the capabil-
ities to evaluate the bunching influence on the performance of a truck-shovel mining network system.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Weiguo Zeng   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4445-7657

References
 [1] S.D. Smith, Earthmoving productivity estimation using linear regression techniques, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 125
(1999), pp. 133–141.
  [2] S. Alarie and M. Gamache, Overview of solution strategies used in truck dispatching systems for open pit mines, Int.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017

J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 16 (2002), pp. 59–76.

  [3] W. Morgan and L. Peterson, Determining shovel-truck productivity, Min. Eng. December (1968), pp. 76–80.
 [4]  R.M. Hays, Trucks, in Surface Mining, 2nd ed., B.A. Kennedy, eds., Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Inc., Littleton, Colorado, 1990, pp 672–691.
 [5] J. Douglas, Prediction of shovel-truck production: A reconciliation of computer and conventional estimates, Tech.
Rep. no 37, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, 1964.
  [6] S.D. Smith, G.S. Wood, and M. Gould, A new earthworks estimating methodology, Constr. Manage. Econ. 18
(2000), pp. 219–228.
  [7] C. Burt and L. Caccetta, Match factor for heterogeneous truck and loader fleets, Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 21
(2007), pp. 262–270.
  [8] R. V. Ramani, Haulage systems simulation analysis, in Surface Mining, 2nd ed., B.A. Kennedy, eds., Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, 1990, pp. 724–742.
 [9]  K. Erarslan, Modelling performance and retarder chart of off-highway trucks by cubic splines for cycle time estimation,
Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A), 114 (2005), pp. 161–166.
[10] T. Ebrahim, S. John, I. Virginia, and T. Danny, Simulation and animation model to boost mining efficiency and
enviro-friendly in multi-pit operations, Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 25 (2015), pp. 671–674.
[11] A. Jaoua, D. Riopel, and M. Gamache, A framework for realistic microscopic modelling of surface mining transportation
systems, Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 23 (2009), pp. 51–75.
[12] R. Liu, D. Van vliet, and D. Watling, Dracula-Microscopic, Day-to-Day Dynamic Modelling of Traffic Assignment
and Simulation, Proceedings of the 1995 4th International Conference on Applications of Advanced Technologies
in Transportation Engineering, ASCE, New York, 1996, pp. 444–448.
[13] E.O. Larry, Z. Yunlong, R. Lei, and M. Gene, Street and Traffic Simulation: Traffic Flow Simulation Using CORSIM,
Proceedings of the 32nd conference on Winter simulation, Society for Computer Simulation International, Orlando,
FL, 2000.
[14] M. Ben-Akiva, D. Cuneo, M. Hasan, M. Jha, and Q. Yang, Evaluation of freeway control using a microscopic simulation
laboratory, Trans. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 11 (2003), pp. 29–50.
[15] A. Jaoua, M. Gamache, and D. Riopel, Comparaison d’approches de modélisation de problèmes tests pour le pilotage
du transport,, 7ème Conférence Internationale de Modélisation: Optimisation et Simulation des Systèmes MOSIM
08, Paris, France, 2008.
[16] Y. Lizotte and E. Bonates, Truck and shovel dispatching rules assessment using simulation, Min. Sci. Technol. 5
(1987), pp. 45–58.
[17] E.Y. Baafi and M. Ataeepour, Using arena? To simulate truck-shovel operation, Min. Resour. Eng. 07 (1998), pp.
253–266.
[18] A.S. Hashemi and J. Sattarvand, Simulation based investigation of different fleet management paradigms in open pit
mines-a case study of Sungun copper mine, Arch. Min. Sci. 60 (2015), pp. 195–208.
[19] M. Sofranko, G. Wittenberger, and E. Skvarekova, Optimisation of technological transport in quarries using
application software, Int. J. Min Miner. Eng. 6 (2015), pp. 1–13.
[20] S. Que, A. Anani, and K. Awuah-Offei, Effect of ignoring input correlation on truck–shovel simulation, Int. J. Min.
Reclam. Environ. 30 (2016), pp. 405–421.
[21] A. Jaoua, D. Riopel, and M. Gamache, A simulation framework for real-time fleet management in internal transport
systems, Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory. 21 (2012), pp. 78–90.
 16   W. ZENG ET AL.

[22] G.S. Bastos, L.E. Souza, F.T. Ramos, and C.H.C. Ribeiro, A Single-Dependent Agent Approach for Stochastic Time-
Dependent Truck Dispatching in Open-Pit Mining, Proceedings of 2011 14th International IEEE Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2011, pp. 1057–1062.
[23] A. Soofastaei, S.M. Aminossadati, M.S. Kizil, and P. Knights, A discrete-event model to simulate the effect of truck
bunching due to payload variance on cycle time, hauled mine materials and fuel consumption, Int. J. Min. Sci.
Technol. 26 (2016), pp. 745–752.
[24] D.H. King and H.S. Harrison, Open-Source Simulation Software JAAMSIM, Proceedings of the 2013 Winter
Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2013, pp. 2163–2171.
[25] G. Shaw, Proactive production estimation and fleet management of a surface mining operation, Unpublished B. E.
thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, 2012, pp. 33–58.
[26] R. Carver, Practical data analysis with JMP®, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 2010.
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 23:19 06 August 2017