Geosystem Engineering

ISSN: 1226-9328 (Print) 2166-3394 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tges20

Optimization of truck-loader haulage systems in

an underground mine using simulation methods

Sebeom Park, Yosoon Choi & Han-su Park

To cite this article: Sebeom Park, Yosoon Choi & Han-su Park (2016): Optimization of truck-
loader haulage systems in an underground mine using simulation methods, Geosystem
Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/12269328.2016.1176538

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2016.1176538

Published online: 20 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tges20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 10 June 2016, At: 10:21
 Geosystem Engineering, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2016.1176538

Optimization of truck-loader haulage systems in an underground mine using

simulation methods
Sebeom Parka, Yosoon Choia and Han-su Parkb
a
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Pukyong National University, Busan, Republic of Korea; bDaesung Mining Development INC.,
Seoul, Republic of Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study developed a program to simulate a haulage system with trucks and loaders for an Received 10 February 2016
underground mine using the GPSS/H simulation language. The Daesung MDI limestone mine Accepted 6 April 2016
located in Korea was selected as the study area. Using the developed program and parameter values
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016

KEYWORDS
determined by a field survey, simulations of the truck-loader haulage system were performed to Truck-loader haulage
optimize the number of trucks dispatched at three loading points in the study area. The simulation system; underground mine;
results showed that maximum production can be expected by dispatching four, seven, and three simulation; GPSS/H
trucks to each loading point, respectively. Because the developed program was found to properly
simulate the haulage system, it could be used for practical purposes in the study area.

1. Introduction environments and haulage systems are more complicated

than those of open-pit mines. Among the few studies
The cost of haulage operations in mines is increasing
on underground mine simulation, Salama and Greberg
due to longer haul routes and increased fuel consump-
(2012) simulated the loading-haulage system with LHD
tion caused by deepening mines. Accordingly, design-
and trucks to optimize the number of trucks used in the
ing an efficient haulage system for ores and wastes is
haulage system for an underground mine. They also pro-
crucial when planning open-pit or underground mines
posed a plan of system operation to improve the efficiency
(Berkhimer, 2011; Choi, Sunwoo, & Park, 2007; Park
of the haulage system and satisfy production targets. Park,
& Choi, 2013). In mines, the ores and wastes are usu-
Choi, and Park (2014b) developed a program to simulate
ally hauled by trucks, conveyers, rails, shuttle cars, load
a truck-loader haulage system in an underground lime-
haulage dumps (LHDs), or skips. In particular, haulage
stone mine using the GPSS/H simulation language, and
systems with trucks and loaders are widely used in both
they proposed a measure to maximize the production of
open-pit and underground mines due to their advantages
the study area using the program. However, these studies
including haul route flexibility and high productivity
were only able to perform a simple form of simulation
(Salama, Greberg, & Schunnesson, 2014; Thomas, Gregg,
consisting of a single loading point, failing to represent the
& Hartman, 1987).
multiple loading points of the actual underground mines.
Various simulation techniques have been developed to
The objective of this study is to design a model for the
date by many researchers to prepare measures to increase
simulation of truck-loader haulage systems in an under-
the productivity of open-pit mine haulage systems (Aksoy
ground mine and develop a simulation program based
& Yalcin, 2000; Alarie & Gamache, 2002; Blackwell, 1999;
on the model using the GPSS/H simulation language.
Bonates, 1996; Choi, 2011; Ercelebi & Bascetin, 2009;
The Daesung MDI limestone mine located in Korea was
Krause & Musingwini, 2007; Niemann-Delius & Fedurek,
selected as the study area. Using the developed program,
2004; Oraee & Asi, 2004; Park, Choi, & Park, 2014a; Park,
simulations of the truck-loader haulage system were per-
Lee, Choi, & Park, 2014; Temeng, 1997; Yan & Lai, 2007;
formed to optimize the number of trucks dispatched at
Zhang, 2008). However, the research on simulations for
multiple loading points. This paper describes the details
underground mines is relatively lacking since their work

CONTACT  Yosoon Choi  energy@pknu.ac.kr

© 2016 The Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers (KSMER)
 2    S. Park et al.
of model and the results of applying the developed simu-
lation program to the study area.
2.  Study area and field survey
In this study, we selected the Donghae Office of Daesung
MDI Co., Ltd to design the model and develop the pro-
gram to simulate an underground mine haulage system.
This mine is located in Daepyeong-ri, Singi-myeon,
Samcheok-si, Gangwon-do, Korea, on administrative
divisions (see Figure 1). The Donghae Office operates as
two districts, Daepyeong and Magyo, and produces 1.5
million tons of limestone per year. The produced lime-
stone is mostly supplied to POSCO (KORES, 2011).
To design a simulation model that represents the
field characteristics of the study area, we conducted
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016
field surveys of the study area. The haulage system at the
Daepyeong district in August of 2014 consisted of three
loading points (470, 540, and 590 ML), a crush site (two
crushers with 200-tph capacity), a storage yard, and a
truck scale, as shown in Figure 2. A fixed number of trucks
were dispatched to each loading point (i.e., four (470 ML),
six (540 ML), and four (590 ML)) to haul the limestone
ore. In addition, in the storage yard, loaders loaded and
hauled the stored ore to the crushers.
The hauling tunnels leading from the mine portal to
each loading point are extremely narrow due to the char-
acteristics of the underground mine. Therefore, spaces
to avoid oncoming trucks are provided in the tunnels at
Figure 1. Aerial view of Daesung MDI underground limestone mine, Samcheok-si, Gangwon-do, Korea (image source: Vworld, http://
map.vworld.kr/map/maps.do).
regular intervals. When an empty truck returning to a
loading point after dumping the ore meets a loaded truck
heading to the crush site, it stops at the space and gives
way to the oncoming truck, causing a waiting time.
Parameters required for simulating the truck-loader
haulage system were also obtained from the field surveys.
The time required for each work unit was repeatedly meas-
ured with a stopwatch up to 20 times and summarized in
the form of the mean ± standard deviation.
3.  Design of simulation model
The simulation model is comprised of discrete events of
objects (machinery)—including loading, traveling, dump-
ing, and waiting—and it can be explained by the truck
cycle time theory proposed by Suboleski (1975) (see (1)).
TCT = STL + LT + TL + STD + DT + TE + AD (1)
Here, TCT denotes the truck cycle time, STL (spotting
time at the loader) denotes the time spent for a truck to
access a loader, LT (loading time) denotes the time spent
for loading the ore, TL (travel time of loaded truck)
denotes the time spent for a loaded truck to move to a
crusher, STD (spotting time at dumping area) denotes
the time spent for a truck to access a crusher or the stor-
age yard, DT (dumping time) denotes the time spent for
dumping the ore, TE (travel time of empty truck) denotes
the time spent for an empty truck that has finished dump-
ing to return to a loading point, and AD (average delay

Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016
Figure 2. Haulage system in the study area: (a) Haulage system from dumping area to portal, (b) Haulage system from portal to each
loading point.
time) denotes the time spent for a truck to wait during ore
loading or hauling. Here, AD includes the waiting time for
a truck in a queue at a loading point or crush site and the
waiting time for a truck to give way to oncoming trucks
in a hauling tunnel.
As shown in Figure 3, the simulation model can include
up to three loading points in the same condition as the
study area. Once simulation begins, trucks are put in
the fixed dispatch system in accordance with the initial
dispatch interval for trucks. The truck put in the system
Geosystem Engineering   3
travels from the crusher to the portal and then travels to
the crossroad (TE). When trucks travel from the portal to
the crossroad and meet a loaded truck on the way, the time
required to give way to the oncoming truck (waiting time)
is added. That is, AD occurs. When trucks travel from the
crossroad to each loading point and meet a loaded truck
on the way, both TE and AD occur.
The trucks that arrive at a loading point determine
whether loaders are available, and if they are, trucks access
the loaders and perform loading. In this process, STL and
 4    S. Park et al.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016
Figure 3. Model for simulating truck-loader haulage systems in the study area.
LT occur. If a loader is performing another truck’s loading,
the truck that arrives later should wait in the queue until
the loading is over, in which case AD occurs. The truck
loaded with the ore travels through a hauling tunnel and
along a road to the crush site (TL). When the loaded truck
arrives at the truck scale, the time required to weigh the
ore occurs additionally (AD).
Upon arriving at the crush site, trucks determine
whether crushers are available for use at the time. If they
are, trucks perform dumping (AD, STD, DT). If crushers
are not available, they travel to the storage yard to store the
ore (AD, STD, DT). The trucks that have completed dump-
ing check the simulation time, and determine whether
they should travel back to the loading point or finish the
simulation.
The following additional conditions are put forth to
incorporate the specific conditions of the study area.
• At a loading point, only one truck can perform
loading at a time, however at the crush site with
two crushers, two trucks can perform dumping at
a time.
• The trucks that are put in the system have the same
performance.
• The section between the crush site and the portal is
a two-lane road, and the section between the portal
and the loading points is a single-lane road. A sin-
gle-lane road does not allow multiple trucks to pass
a point simultaneously.
• The weight (in tons) of the ore that can be hauled by
a truck is said to have a normal distribution with a
mean of 25 tons and a standard deviation of 5 tons,
and only the ore that has been crushed or dumped
in the storage yard is included in the production.
• The maximum capacity of the storage yard is 5,000
tons, and when the yard contains more than 200
tons of dumped ore, the ore is hauled to a crusher
by a loader located in the yard. At this time, the
hauling amount of the loader (in tons) has a normal
distribution with a mean of 8 tons and a standard
deviation of 1.6 tons.
4.  Development of simulation program
The previously designed simulation model was imple-
mented into a program using the GPSS/H simulation
language. The language provides a powerful simulation
environment, and it is used in various industries, includ-
ing transportation, logistics, and mining (Choi, 2011).
GPSS/H is one of the specialized simulation languages,
and it can write a logic into an easy-to-understand, fast,
and concise program. Compared to Fortran, a procedural
programming language, GPSS/H has several advantages
(e.g., simulator implementation time, execution time, ease
of changing programs, and length of program code), as
shown in Table 1. Simulation programs can be devel-
oped with text editing programs such as Notepad (see
Table 2). In other words, GPSS/H commands are written
in an ASCII-type text file with parameters that compose a
simulation algorithm. The simulation results can be shown
as an output on the PC screen using a Windows 32 console
 Geosystem Engineering   5

Table 1. Comparison of GPSS/H and FORTRAN for simulator implementation (Sturgul, 2000).
GPSS/H FORTRAN
Time to implement a simulator Few days Many months
Ease of changing program Trivial Up to a week
Execution time <1 min 3–4 h
Lines of computer code 300–400 20,000–50,000
User friendly? Yes No

Table 2. Part of GPSS/H program for simulating truck-loader haulage systems in an underground mine.
GENERATE &TDIA,,0,&TRUCKA
BLET &ODD1=0
ENTER RCP
GTA ADVANCE RVNORM(1,4.28,0.77)
LEAVE RCP
RCA BLET &NTJP=S(RJP)
BLET &NDJPA=&NDJPA+S(RJP)
BLET &DTPJA=&NTJP*RVNORM(1,0.62,0.12)
ENTER RPJ
ADVANCE RVNORM(1,4.54,0.72)
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016

ADVANCE &DTPJA
LEAVE RPJ
BLET &NTAJ=W(RAC)
BLET &NDAJ=&NDAJ+W(RAC)
BLET &DTJA=&NTAJ*RVNORM(1,0.62,0.12)
ADVANCE RVNORM(1,6.88,0.60)
ADVANCE &DTJA
QUEUE QLPA
TEST E FNU(SHOVELA),1,WSQA
SEIZE SHOVELA
DEPART QLPA
ADVANCE RVNORM(1,0.49,0.09)
ADVANCE RVEXPO(1,2.94/3)
ADVANCE RVEXPO(1,2.94/3)
ADVANCE RVEXPO(1,2.94/3)
RELEASE SHOVELA
TRANSFER ,RAC
(the rest is omitted)

depending on the user settings, or it can be saved as a text
file (see Figure 4).
Figure 5 shows a schematic view of the input and out-
put data of the simulation program. Generally, program
input data have the following parameter sets: parameters
to execute a simulation (e.g., number of machines, simu-
lation period, number of work hours per day), and time
parameters (e.g., truck dispatch interval, required time
for each work unit). The output data show the following
parameters: the mean number of times trucks give way
to other trucks, average utilization of machinery, average
queue length per machine, average waiting time, average
number of hauls, and average amount of hauled ore per
day.
5. Application
To reduce hauling cost, which accounts for a significant
portion of mining cost, the layout of the haulage sys-
tem components and the number and performance of
machines allocated in the system must be properly inte-
grated. In this study, we conducted simulations to opti-
mize the number of trucks for the truck-loader haulage
system using the developed simulation program by incor-
porating the conditions of the study area (Table 3).
The simulation period was set to 1,000 days based
on 8.5 h a day for work, and the initial truck dispatch
interval was set to 3 min (i.e., one truck is put in every
three minutes sequentially once simulation begins).
This was to prevent the excessive queues and waiting
times caused by putting in all trucks at the beginning
of the simulation. The number of loaders put in the
system was set to four (i.e., one loader at each loading
point (470, 540, 590 ML), and one loader at the storage
yard). Because the study area has 14 trucks, the number
of trucks that could be put in for each loading point
was set to 0–14.
As a result, a total of 120 simulations were conducted
that represent the total number of applicable combinations
considering the number of trucks suggested in the simula-
tion conditions. The simulation results were sorted based
on the average daily production, and part of the results are
shown in Table 4. The haulage system in the study area was
most productive when each loading point had four trucks
(470 ML), nine trucks (540 ML), and one truck (590 ML) put
in, respectively. However, this result may not be applicable to
 6    S. Park et al.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016

Figure 4. View of Win32 console for displaying simulation results on PC.

Figure 5. Input and output data of simulation program developed in this study.

the actual site, because the utilizations (%) of the loader at the
540 ML loading point and the crushers are very high. Because
the loaders and crushers require some time for maintenance,
their utilizations are restricted up to 70% according to the
regulations in the study area. Therefore, it is believed to be
reasonable to put in four (470 ML), seven (540 ML), and
three trucks (590 ML) by restricting the utilization of appli-
cable machinery to 70%. With this setting, 3,588 tons of
ore can be produced daily.
The simulation results suggest that production increases
when a relatively large number of trucks are dispatched
to the 540 ML loading point, which is the closest loading
point, and vice versa. In addition, it was found that when
trucks were concentrated to a specific loading point, the
machinery utilization and truck waiting time for the load-
ing point increased.
A validation of the simulation program was performed
by comparing between the simulation results and real
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016

Table 3. Parameter settings for truck-loader haulage simulations in the study area.
Parameter Value
Simulation parameter Number of days to simulate for 1000 (day)
Daily working time for each day 510 (min)
Truck dispatch interval 3 (min)
Capacity of each truck 25 ± 5 (ton)
Capacity of each loader 8 ± 1.6 (ton)
Time parameter At loading point Spotting time (wait in the queue) .80 ± .16 (min)
Spotting time (no wait in the queue) .49 ± .09 (min)
Loading time 2.94 ± .58 (min)
At crusher Waiting time in the queue .84 ± .16 (min)
Spotting time (wait in the queue) .87 ± .17 (min)
Spotting time (no wait in the queue) .47 ± .09 (min)
Dumping time .59 ± .11 (min)
At storage yard Spotting time .76 ± .15 (min)
Dumping time .59 ± .11 (min)
On hauling tunnel and road Loaded truck Travel time (loading point 470 ML – crossroad) 10.45 ± .44 (min)
Travel time (loading point 540 ML – crossroad) 7.10 ± .90 (min)
Travel time (loading point 590 ML – crossroad) 12.78 ± .79 (min)
Travel time (crossroad-portal) 7.59 ± .84 (min)
Travel time (portal-dumping area) 6.26 ± .70 (min)
Empty truck Return time (dumping area-portal) 4.28 ± .77 (min)
Return time (portal-crossroad) 4.54 ± .72 (min)
Return time (crossroad-loading point 470 ML) 6.88 ± .60 (min)
Return time (crossroad-loading point 540 ML) 5.00 ± .61 (min)
Return time (crossroad-loading point 590 ML) 9.80 ± .43 (min)
Etc. Time for measuring the weight of ore or cleaning the wheels .37 ± .07 (min)
Waiting time for a truck to give way to oncoming trucks .62 ± .12 (min)
Geosystem Engineering 
 7
 Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016

8 
  S. Park et al.

Table 4. Simulation results for truck-loader haulage systems in the study area.
At hauling tunnel At loading point
Avg. number of times trucks give way
Number of trucks to other trucks 470 ML 540 ML 590 ML At crusher At storage yard Avg.
amount
Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. of hauled
Avg. wait- waiting queue Utili- waiting queue Utili- waiting queue waiting queue ore per
Crossroad – Crossroad Crossroad Utiliza- ing time Avg. queue Utiliza- time length zation time length zation time length time length day
Case ID 470 ML 540 ML 590 ML 470 ML – 540 ML – 590 ML tion (%) (min) length (unit) tion (%) (min) (unit) (%) (min) (unit) (%) (min) (unit) (min) (unit) (tons)
1 4 9 1 2.57 3.42 .00 28.10 .71 .06 71.79 2.22 .44 6.76 .00 .00 72.74 .01 .00 .21 .03 3615.69
2 4 8 2 2.53 3.20 2.05 28.07 .71 .06 64.40 1.76 .32 13.62 .27 .01 71.09 .01 .00 .24 .04 3608.46
3 3 9 2 2.33 3.41 2.10 21.20 .51 .03 71.81 2.22 .44 13.59 .27 .01 72.00 .01 .00 .22 .03 3606.78
4 5 8 1 2.85 3.25 .00 35.11 .89 .09 64.35 1.72 .31 6.75 .00 .00 72.37 .01 .00 .21 .03 3604.37
5 5 9 0 2.92 3.46 .00 35.06 .87 .09 71.79 2.20 .44 .00 .00 .00 73.78 .01 .00 .18 .03 3603.47
—
11 4 7 3 2.48 2.98 2.14 28.07 .71 .06 56.86 1.41 .23 20.27 .50 .03 69.30 .01 .00 .25 .04 3588.15
12 5 7 2 2.77 3.00 2.02 35.02 .88 .09 56.79 1.38 .22 13.60 .28 .01 70.37 .01 .00 .24 .04 3587.25
13 6 7 1 3.15 3.07 .00 41.74 1.03 .12 56.88 1.37 .22 6.73 .00 .00 71.79 .01 .00 .20 .03 3586.21
14 2 10 2 2.20 3.61 2.15 14.16 .27 .01 78.78 2.83 .62 13.55 .28 .01 72.95 .01 .00 .18 .03 3583.64
15 3 7 4 2.28 3.01 2.37 21.04 .50 .03 56.83 1.40 .22 26.86 .72 .06 69.00 .01 .00 .23 .04 358.48
16 2 8 4 2.13 3.22 2.42 14.21 .25 .01 64.64 1.73 .31 26.81 .73 .06 70.00 .01 .00 .20 .03 3579.77
17 1 9 4 .00 3.43 2.43 7.16 .00 .00 71.94 2.18 .44 26.88 .74 .06 70.86 .01 .00 .17 .03 3566.53
18 7 7 0 3.49 3.10 .00 48.49 1.19 .16 57.05 1.36 .22 .00 .00 .00 72.90 .01 .00 .17 .03 3563.95
19 1 8 5 .00 3.25 2.68 7.13 .00 .00 64.56 1.70 .31 33.14 .90 .09 69.45 .01 .00 .18 .03 3559.62
20 4 6 4 2.47 2.80 2.34 28.05 .70 .06 49.22 1.11 .15 26.93 .69 .05 67.50 .01 .00 .24 .04 3557.53
21 1 10 3 .00 3.60 2.27 7.12 .00 .00 78.82 2.83 .62 20.42 .53 .03 72.25 .01 .00 .16 .02 3557.40
22 2 7 5 2.12 3.04 2.66 14.28 .28 .01 57.07 1.39 .22 33.08 .89 .08 68.39 .01 .00 .20 .03 3556.29
23 5 6 3 2.74 2.79 2.11 34.92 .86 .09 49.19 1.11 .15 20.41 .52 .03 68.27 .01 .00 .25 .04 3554.14
24 6 6 2 3.09 2.82 2.00 41.75 1.02 .12 49.13 1.12 .16 13.60 .30 .01 69.75 .01 .00 .23 .03 3551.09
25 3 11 0 2.44 3.76 .00 21.16 .47 .03 84.97 3.78 .88 .00 .00 .00 74.62 .01 .00 .15 .02 3550.11
—
116 2 0 12 1.91 .00 4.39 14.48 .26 .01 .00 .00 .00 75.63 2.73 .57 51.87 .00 .00 .10 .01 2999.17
117 0 1 13 .00 .00 4.61 .00 .00 .00 8.49 .00 .00 80.75 3.38 .76 51.82 .00 .00 .09 .01 2956.69
118 1 0 13 .00 .00 4.58 7.31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 80.97 3.42 .76 51.04 .00 .00 .08 .01 2906.80
119 14 0 0 4.90 .00 .00 89.24 5.34 1.30 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 60.68 .00 .00 .05 .00 2898.67
120 0 0 14 .00 .00 4.72 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 85.66 4.39 1.03 49.76 .00 .00 .06 .01 2796.53

Table 5. Comparison between measured and simulated values.
Avg. waiting time of trucks at each loading point (min) At 470 ML
At 540 ML
At 590 ML
Avg. amount of loaded ore (tons/day)
data measured in the study area. As of the field survey
in August of 2014, four (470  ML), six (540  ML), and
four trucks (590 ML) were operating at the three loading
points. Table 5 shows the daily production and average
waiting time for trucks at each loading point, which were
measured at the study area. The study area was producing
3,575 tons of ore at 8.5  h of work per day. This is very
similar to the simulation result (3,558 tons) when four,
six, and four trucks were dispatched to the 470, 540, and
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016
590 ML loading points, respectively. In addition, the wait-
ing times of the trucks measured at the loading points
(.32 min (470 ML), .79 min (540 ML), .88 min (590 ML))
were found to be similar to the simulation results (.70 min
(470 ML), 1.11 min (540 ML), .69 min (590 ML)).
6. Conclusions
In this study, we designed a model for the simulation of
truck-loader haulage systems in an underground lime-
stone mine, Korea and developed a simulation program
using the GPSS/H simulation language. Using the devel-
oped program, simulations of the truck-loader haulage
system were performed to optimize the number of trucks
dispatched at three loading points. Results showed that
considering the number of trucks retained in the study
area currently, the largest amount of ore (3,616 tons)
could be produced within the range of 70% of utiliza-
tion of machinery when four (470 ML), seven (540 ML),
and three trucks (590 ML) were dispatched to respective
loading points. In addition, considering that the simula-
tion results and the measured results from the field survey
conducted in August of 2014 were similar, the simulation
program is believed to properly simulate the haulage sys-
tem of the study area.
This study is significant, in that it simulated a truck-
loader haulage system by expanding to underground
mines for which research has been scarce, and it presented
the optimal combination of machinery for production
improvement of the study area. The simulation program
developed in this study can be used for practical purposes
in actual mining sites, because the program was found
to simulate by properly representing the haulage system
in the site. However, the developed program has limita-
tions; for example, users must enter commands line by line
and conduct simulations repeatedly, because it conducts
simulations using a Windows console. Therefore, in the
Geosystem Engineering   9
Measured value Simulated value Absolute error value
.32 .70 .38
.79 1.11 .32
.88 .69 .19
3,575 3,558 17
future work, it needs to be developed into a user-friendly
Windows-based program.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Ener-
gy Technology Evaluation and Planning [grant number
2013T100100021].
References
Aksoy, M., & Yalcin, E. (2000). A computer program for
open pit mine equipment selection: TruckMac. In G. N.
Panagiotou & T. N. Michalakopoulos (Eds.), Mine planning
and equipment selection 2000 (pp. 499–503). Rotterdam:
Balkema.
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, 59–76.
Berkhimer, E. N. (2011). Selection and sizing of excavating,
loading, and hauling equipment. In P. Darling (Ed.), SME
mining engineering handbook (3rd ed., pp. 931–939).
Englewood, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration.
Bonates, E. J. L. (1996). Interactive truck haulage simulation
program. In W. T. Hennies, L. A. Ayres Da silva, & A. P.
Chaves (Eds.), Mine planning and equipment selection 1996
(pp. 51–57). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Blackwell, G. H. (1999). Estimation of large open pit haulage
truck requirements. CIM Bulletin, 92, 143–149.
Choi, Y. (2011). New software for simulating truck-shovel
operation in open pit mines. Journal of the Korean Society
for Geosystem Engineering, 48, 448–459.
Choi, Y., Sunwoo, C., & Park, H. D. (2007). Analysis of optimal
haulage routes for dump trucks in large open pit mines.
Journal of the Korean Society for Geosystem Engineering,
44, 477–491.
Ercelebi, S. G., & Bascetin, A. (2009). Optimization of shovel-
truck system for surface mining. The Journal of the Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 109, 433–439.
KORES (Korea Resources Corporation). (2011). Technical
data analysis of Donghae Mine of Daesung MDI Co., Ltd.
[PDF]. Retrieved from http://http://www.kores.net/main.do
Krause, A., & Musingwini, C. (2007). Modelling open pit
shovel-truck systems using the machine repair model. The
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 107, 469–476.
 10    S. Park et al.
Niemann-Delius, C., & Fedurek, B. (2004). Computer-aided
simulation of loading and transport in medium and small
scale surface mines. In M. Hardygora, G. Paszkowska, & M.
Sikora (Eds.), Mine planning and equipment selection 2004
(pp. 579–584). London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Oraee, K., & Asi, B. (2004). Fuzzy model for truck allocation
in surface mines. In M. Hardygora, G. Paszkowska, & M.
Sikora (Eds.), Mine planning and equipment selection 2004
(pp. 585–591). London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Park, S., & Choi, Y. (2013). Simulation of shovel-truck haulage
system by considering truck dispatch methods. Journal
of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources
Engineers, 50, 543–556.
Park, S., Choi, Y., & Park, H. S. (2014a). Simulation of shovel-
truck haulage systems in open-pit mines by considering
breakdown of trucks and crusher capacity. Tunnel &
Underground Space, 24(1), 1–10.
Park, S., Choi, Y., & Park, H. S. (2014b). Simulation of truck-
loader haulage systems in an underground mine using
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 10:21 10 June 2016
GPSS/H. Tunnel & Underground Space, 24, 430–439.
Park, S., Lee, S., Choi, Y., & Park, H. S. (2014). Development
of a windows-based simulation program for selecting
equipments in open-pit shovel-truck haulage systems.
Tunnel & Underground Space, 24, 111–119.
Salama, A., & Greberg, J. (2012). Optimization of truck-loader
haulage system in an underground mine: A simulation
approach using SimMine. Proceedings of MassMin 2012
(6th international Conference & Exhibition on Mass
Mining), Sudbury, Canada.
Salama, A., Greberg, J., & Schunnesson, H. (2014). The use of
discrete event simulation for underground haulage mining
equipment selection. International Journal of Mining and
Mineral Engineering, 5, 256–271.
Suboleski, S. C. (1975). Mine systems engineering. Lecture
notes. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University-
University Park.
Sturgul, J. R. (2000). Mine design: Examples using simulation.
Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration.
Temeng, V. A. (1997). A computerized model for truck
dispatching in open pit mines (Doctoral dissertation).
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.
Thomas, N., Gregg, A. J., & Hartman, H. L. (1987). Comparative
performance study of diesel and electric face-haulage
vehicles. International Journal of Mining and Geological
Engineering, 5, 405–417.
Yan, S., & Lai, W. (2007). An optimal scheduling model for
ready mixed concrete supply with overtime considerations.
Automation in Construction, 16, 734–744.
Zhang, H. (2008). Multi-objective simulation-optimization for
earthmoving operations. Automation in Construction, 18,
79–86.