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

net/publication/283521652

A discrete-event simulation tool for real-time management of pre-

production development fleets in a block-caving project

Article  in  International Journal of Mining Reclamation and Environment · September 2015

DOI: 10.1080/17480930.2015.1086548

CITATIONS READS

6 218

3 authors:

Jose Botin Alexander Nicholas Campbell

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile Colorado School of Mines
19 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ronald Guzman
University of Desarrollo
8 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Management and Evaluation of Mining investment risk View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Botin on 16 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION TOOL FOR REAL TIME
MANAGEMENT OF PREPRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT
FLEETS IN A BLOCK CAVING PROJECT

José Antonio Botín

Alexander Nicholas Campbell

Ronald Guzmán

Mining Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Correspondong autor:
José Antonio Botín
jabotin@puc.cl
Vicuña Mackenna 4860
Macul, 7820436 Santiago; Chile
A DISCRETE-EVENT SIMULATION TOOL FOR REAL TIME
MANAGEMENT OF PREPRODUCTION DEVELOPMENT
FLEETS IN A BLOCK CAVING PROJECT

The economic risk of the construction stage of a mining project results from the
uncertainty in its duration and capital expenditure. Block caving mining projects
are characterized by long lead time to production, often longer than 15 years, and
very high preproduction capital expenditure, resulting from large preproduction
development requirements. As a result, the size and performance of mine
development system are the parameters bearing most of the economic risk in the
construction stage of block caving projects. This paper summarizes the results of
a research aiming to develop a management tool for real time face allocation of
equipment and operation performance modeling. The tool combines stochastic
discrete-event simulation (DES) and Program Evaluation Review Technique
(PERT) to optimize the size and performance of mine development system, thus,
minimizing the duration of pre-production development, the highest risk
parameter in block-cave projects. Furthermore, the model has an ample
application potential in mining operations as a tool to assist management
decisions in short term planning and equipment dispatching system. The model
was validated through its application in the Chuquicamata Underground Mining
Project, in Chile.

Keywords: mining; mine development; simulation; real time allocation;

construction management.

INTRODUCTION

Discrete Event Simulation (DES) is a simulation method which captures the passing of

time within the system. DES models may be defined as a simplified representation of a

real-life system which allows to understand and solve a problem through a trial and
error approach. In addition, DES can incorporate the effects of system variability by

using probability distributions to characterize the system variables bearing uncertainty

and risk.

DES have been applied in mining to assess different planning scenarios and

alternatives [1]. However, its use is restricted by the difficulty of obtaining a realistic

model of the operating system and therefore, mining application of DES has been

limited to simple mining processes, such as truck-shovel system or equipment reliability

[2][3][4].

Techniques combining PERT (Program Evaluation Review Technique) and

Monte Carlo simulation have shown potential to evaluate risk in complex, large-scale

projects, where the sources of uncertainty are numerous [5][6][7] and complex

relationships under dynamic conditions are to be incorporated into the decision process.

In this investigation, Discrete-Event simulation (DES) combined with PERT

project schedule and Monte Carlo simulation, have been used to develop a simulation

tool capable of optimizing the performance of a mine development system of high

complexity. The resulting tool has been applied to optimize the size and performance of

pre-production development fleets in a world class block caving mining project. As the

result, the duration and cost of pre-production stage of the project were reduced, which

resulted in a significant increase in profitability. A Block-cave mining system was

selected since this mining method requires a very large amount of preproduction

development and therefore the duration of the preproduction stage is critical to project

economics. However, the resulting model is of general application to any mining

method and operational system.

THE SYSTEM

The system comprises of a complex equipment fleet which is composed of a number of

mining equipment of six types (drilling, blast loading, roof scaling, ore transport, and

roof bolting and concreting), in simultaneous operation for the development of the

production level of a “macroblock”1. The model includes a heuristic to optimally

determine the face to which each equipment should move after completion of a face

work, and a routing program to select the optimal route between faces. Once the

equipment is assigned a new face, a stochastic DES routine would take over to execute

the unit operation activity associated to the given face and equipment type.

PROGRAM LOGIC

The function of the main program is to determine which event will occur next. This is

done by processing the information in the array of "active faces", and then to transfer

control to the function of the corresponding event. The program will continue

performing iterations until there are no "active faces" to be developed, this is, once the

last element of the array is eliminated. Figures 1 and 2 show the functional sequence of

the program, which performs the following steps:

(1) Definition of input data

(2) Variable Initialization

(3) Determination of shifts

(4) Random constructive scenario generation

1 See the Case Study section for further information on a macro block configuration
 (5) Development of tunnel drifts

For each iteration, a constructive scenario is generated, under which the block

preparation will take place. A preparation is completed when all the drifts have been

developed, in other words, when the quantity of active faces is equal to zero.
Figure 1: Main Program Flowchart
Figure 2: Example of the Set of Functions performed After the Completion of the
Drilling Activities at a Face
THE SIMULATION MODEL

The operational logic of the system was developed using expert knowledge and

operational experience. The process involved the definition of the operating rules and

the parameters for decisions to be made based upon the current state of the system. Also

key in this process was the detailed definition of relevant system data, such as

equipment rates and process delays.

The model was programmed using Matlab ® software, which enables the user to

define variables such as: quantity of equipment units and crews and drifting sequences.

Construction scenarios were characterized by key input variables, such as equipment

availability and performance, and effective working hours per shift.

The development drifting cycle was broken down into six sub-activities: face

drilling, explosives loading, scaling, mucking, mesh and bolt support, and shotcrete

support. The duration of each of these activities was modeled taking into consideration

the main variables and sources of uncertainty affecting them. For example, drilling time

was characterized by a probability function of drilling speed, which, in turn, depends

largely on the effective power transferred and the energy efficiency of the drilling

hammer.

The following model elements were considered:

Working Area

The footprint of the production level was discretized in points, each characterized by its

position (x, y) and a logic state variable indicating whether the tunnel has been

developed up to that point or not. In order to facilitate the calculation of the optimal
transfer routes for the equipment and crews, routing nodes where defined in all

development intersections.

Equipment and Crews

Six equipment classes where created: Jumbo drill, Explosives equipment, Scaler, LHD,

Bolter and Shotcrete Equipment. Each class defines constituent members that enable its

instances (objects) to have their own state and behavior variables.

State Variables

State variables indicate the condition of a system at a given moment in time. They

enable the main program to decide how and where the resources are assigned. There are

three categories of elements possessing state variables in this program: points and nodes

of the footprint, segments of each tunnel drift and the equipment and crews.

Clock and Temporary Space

A clock was created to keep track of the simulation time "t", updating its value each

time an event occurs. A 12-hour shift system was established, which defines the time

period in which constructive operations can be executed. A shift is separated into 5

periods: i) entry to the work site, ii) first operating period, iii) lunch, iv) second

operating period and v) exit time. The entry to worksite, lunch and exit times are

considered to be operating time losses, so all drifting activities must take place during

the two effective operating periods. The loss time periods are subject to variability,

therefore the operating hours may vary from shift to shift. It is also assumed that
blasting and ventilation activities be carried out during the lunch hour and between

shifts, for which reason they are not considered to be unit activities.

Set of Possible Events

During simulation, six possible events might occur, corresponding to the completion of

each unit activity involved in a development cycle, i.e. i) drilling, ii) explosives

charging, iii) scaling, iv) mucking, v) rock bolting and vi) shotcrete support. The events

occur one at a time at specified geographic locations, and the order in which they occur

logically depends upon the instant in the time scale for which their completion was

calculated. The completion of a unit activity (or event) implies the assignment of the

resource to a new face, which is selected among the faces requiring the resource. The

program scans for the highest ranking drift, this is the one that is: i) physically

accessible, ii) has no unit operations currently occurring, and iii) has the highest

sequence priority and the largest remaining distance. If there are no faces available, the

resource is declared "inactive", and placed on standby until another event requires it.

Also, when a unit activity is completed, the program requests a new resource for the

purpose of performing the following unit activity at the face. The program scans for the

inactive resource that performs the activity subsequent to the one recently completed. If

available, the resource is assigned to the face involved, the completion time for the

activity is calculated and then stored in the array of future events. If there are no

inactive resources, then the face is added to a waiting list for this particular resource.
Array of "Active Faces"

Each time a jumbo drill is assigned to a face for drilling, a new "active face" is

generated. An active face is defined as a work face that is under development and not all

unitary advance activities have been completed. Active faces are stored in an "array of

active faces", where all relevant information, such as geographic position, the I.D of

equipment units that have worked in the face, working time data of the past activities

and of those in execution and other, is recorded. Faces which have been completed are

eliminated from this array.

THE CASE STUDY: THE CHUQUICAMATA U.G PROJECT

The model was validated through its application on the Chuquicamata Underground

Project in Chile, a world class mining project using the “Block Caving”, a mining

method where pre-production development is critical path for project start-up. A good

description of the Project was published by Ovalle [8].

The Project is planned for a production rate of 140 kt/day and production startup

in 2019. Production start-up occurs once the production level of the central macro-

blocks in level 1 (MB-N1 y MB-S1) have been fully developed (Figure 3 and 4).
Figure 3: Chuquicamata U.G. Project: Isometric View

Figure 4: Production Level Footprint

 In this Case Study, the model is applied to estimate the most likely production

start-up dates, under a set of construction scenarios. The simulation program was then

adapted in order to calculate the duration of construction for all possible equipment

combinations, considering a maximum of 5 pieces of equipment per unitary activity.

A financial risk model was developed to quantify the variation of project Net

Present Value (NPV) associated with the variability of production start-up. This NPV

model was used to evaluate scenarios with varying equipment fleet sizes, and to

determine the optimum preproduction equipment fleet. The optimum fleet was

determine as the economic break-even between the additional capex required to

purchase new equipment and the NPV increase resulting from the anticipation of the

start-up date which may be achieved.

The Case Study assumptions were the following:

• Each macro-block has independent development crews and equipment fleets.

• Blasting and ventilation occur during lunch-time and between shifts.

• Systematic bolt, mesh and shotcrete support will be installed.

• Production start-up will commence as soon as the construction of both blocks is

completed.

Operational variables which were key to equipment performance (e.g.

mechanical availability and utilization), were fit to triangular distributions where most

likely, maximum and minimum values were determined by expert judgment. Random

instances of these variables were used to generate the construction scenarios.

Correlation among these variables was also considered.

Equipment Fleet Optimization

Five thousand simulation runs were performed for each equipment fleet combination,

encompassing all possible scenarios under which the preparation of the macro blocks

could occur. The expected duration of construction was determined for each fleet

combination. For a fleet of one equipment per unit activity, the estimated mean duration

of the development was 39.9 months, with a mean range of 4 months between the early

and late start-up date.

The expected Project NPV associated to each fleet combination was calculated

considering the investment in new equipment. The information was arranged for the

purpose of estimating the Project NPV associated to adding one extra equipment to the

fleet. Here, it was assumed that the development is performed by the owner

(CODELCO) and hence, the equipment fleets are purchased by the project owner.

Figure 5 summarizes the results. The dotted line represents de NPV of the

project (primary vertical axis) and the continuous line represents the construction

duration (secondary vertical axis). The graph shows that fleet combination 2, which

simply adds a second rock bolter to the original fleet generates a 23.6% reduction of the

duration of the preparation and an increase of 6.6% of the project NPV. Clearly, the lack

of a second bolter acts as bottleneck, thus delaying all the subsequent activities.
Figure 5: Fleet Combination vs. NPV and Construction Time

From combination 3 through 11, the addition of equipment to the fleet generates

an increase of the NPV. From this point onward, investing in extra equipment exerts a

null or negative impact on the project's value, inasmuch as the positive effect on NPV

from bringing forward production start-up, does not compensate for the investment in

additional equipment. Combinations 11, 12, 13 and 14 were similar in terms of NPV,

but combinations 14 was considered strategically advantageous, inasmuch as in the case

of a catastrophic failure of a bolter (a high risk equipment operating under unsafe back),

there would be another unit available to minimize the negative effects. Should

combination 11 or 13 be selected, a catastrophic failure of a bolter would generate an

NPV drop of 49 MM US$, while for a similar failure with combination 14, the NPV
would only drop by 5 MM US$. In this regard, combination 12 is similar to 14, but is

higher in capex.

From the above analysis it can be inferred that proper equipment selection and

size of the development fleet and optimum allocation of development resources, would

generate a significant increase the expected value of a “block caving” mining project,

through optimizing equipment performance and minimizing the duration of the

construction stage of the project.

CONCLUSIONS

The work presented herein was part of a research project funded by Corporación Del

Cobre (CODELCO). The discrete-event methodology developed was applied to the

optimization of the size and operational performance of mine development fleets in the

Chuquicamata Underground Project. The methodology proved to be a powerful tool,

which significantly added value to the project, by bringing forward in 420 days the

expected project start-up date.

A case study on a block-caving mining project was selected since this mining

method requires a very large amount of preproduction mine development and therefore

the uncertainty on the duration of the preproduction stage is considerable. However, the

model is of general application to any mining project.

The DES model and methodology developed in this investigation has ample

potential as a continuous improvement tool in short term operations management.

Further work could focus on improving the system definition by including geological

and geotechnical data, costs and equipment reliability information. Furthermore, the
model is applicable as powerful production management tool to implement decision

taking capabilities in the short term planning and equipment dispatching system.

REFERENCES

1. Vagenas, N. (1999). Applications of Discrete-Event simulation in Canadian mining operations

in the nineties. Intl. Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 13(2), 77-78.

2. Yuriy, G., & Vayenas, N. (2008). Discrete-event simulation of mine equipment systems

combined with a reliability assessment model based on genetic algorithms. International Journal

of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 22(1), 70-83.

3. 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.

4. Wolgram, J., Li, Z., & Scoble, M. (2012). Application of simulation techniques in Oyu Tolgoi

underground development scheduling. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference and

Exhibition of Mass Mining, Sudbury, ON.

5. Mak, S., & Picken, D. (2000). Using Risk Analysis to Determine Construction Project

Contingencies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130-136.

6. Raftery, J. (2003). Risk analysis in project management. Routledge.

7. Knites, P.,Bonates,E. (1999). Applications of Discrete Mine Simulation Modeling in South

America. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 69-72.

8. Ovalle, A. W. (2012). Mass Caving Maximum Production Capacity. In Proceedings of the 6th

International Conference and Exhibition of Mass Mining, Sudbury, ON.

 Figure 1: Main Program Flowchart

Figure 2: Example of the Set of Functions performed After the Completion of the
Drilling Activities at a Face

Figure 3: Chuquicamata U.G. Project: Isometric View

Figure 4 :Production Level Footprint

Figure 5: Fleet Combination vs. NPV and Construction Time

View publication stats