J

SOCIETY OF MINING ENGINEERS

TRUCK/SHOVEL DISPATCHING RULES ASSESSMENT USING SIMULATION

PREPRINT NUMBER
86-354
- ;p @ a

s AI?,E: z
B
~&G,NE*

Y. Lizotte
E. Bonates McGill University Montreal, Canada

For presentation at the SME Pall Meeting St. Louis, Missouri - September 7-10, 1986
A

Permission is hereby given to publish with appropriate acknowledgments, excerpts or summaries not to exceed one-fourth of the entire text of the paper. Permission to print in more extended form subsequent to publication by the Society must be obtained from the Executive Director of the Society of Mining Engineers. If and when this paper is published by the Society of Mining Engineers, it may embody certain changes made by agreement between the Technical Publications Committee and the author, so that the form in which it appears is not necessarily that in which it may be published later. These preprints are available for sale. Mail orders to PREPRINTS, Society of Mining Engineers, Caller No. D, Littleton, Colorado 80127,

PREPRINT AVAILABILITY LIST IS PUBLISHED PERIODICALLY IN MINING ENGINEERING

Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to describe a stochastic simulation program used to assess several dispatching rules applicable to small scale computerized systems for optimizing truck/shovel productivity. The system studied is semi-automated with a dispatcher communicating instructions by two-way radio. The simulation program is structured on an advance clock approach which enables the insertion of dispatching rules at various points in the haulage network. The rules tested include minimize shovel idle time, maximizing immediate truck use and assigning trucks to shovels to meet specific production objectives. A variation of the traditional "Match Factor" is implemented to maintain fleet balance throughout the shift. A mine case study demonstrates how the dispatching rules increase productivity of such semi-automated dispatching systems. Practical problems involved in the implementation of small computerized dispatching systems are also discussed. Introduction Truck and shovel operations continue to be the major form of materials handling system in use in open-pit operations. Although substantial progress has been achieved in the development of alternative forms, such as in-pit crushing and conveying, truck/shovel systems will continue to be important materials handling methods throughout this century. Haulage costs have been reported to exceed half of the total direct operating costs. In the 1960's and 1970's haulage costs savings were mainly . e . achieved by economies of scale, i doubling or even tripling truck and shovel capacities. Concurrent with these capacity increases, progress was made in increasing the reliability and performance of the large haulers.'Mechanical versus electric drive' remains a typical subject of this technological progress. Towards the end of the 1970's and still today, greater attention has been focussed on the utilization of haulage equipment. For an operating mine owning a fleet of trucks, short term improvements can only be achieved by a closer control of the use made of the haulers, given that the maintenance function performs to expectations, providing high equipment availability. Improving general operating conditions, such as more efficient loading procedures and improving haul road design, have been emphasized but more significant productivity increases have been realized by computerized monitoring oE hauler activities and continuously evaluating the best assignments as a function of the actual conditions at a specific time Nines operatinq fleets oE large trucks have realized that investment in

a computerized dispatching system is rapidly recovered by increasing truck productivity. These large systems, requiring large investments, have been used and proven economical since the late 1970's. Conversely, these large, fully automated systems cannot be economically justified for small to medium size openpit operations. Fortunately, computer technology has progressed tremendously over the last five years. A simple micro-computer based system can produce results which justify costs in a short period of time. Obviously one must accept the absence of electronic truck location and status apparatus, with associated precision. Furthermore, complex dispatching algorithms cannot be implemented on micro-computers. The dispatching system at Lac dlAmiante du ~ u G b e c ,described herein, has been developed to the stage where a heuristic dispatching procedure can be implemented to suggest to the operator the most appropriate truck assignments. Dispatching Systems Dispatching systems can be divided into three principal categories: manual, semi-automated and fully automated. Manual Dispatching. The crudest form of dispatching is to allocate trucks to shovels for the duration of the shift, based on production requirements, shovel locations, fleet availability, etc.. The dispatching rule used here is fixed or locked-in dispatching. Unless a shovel breakdown or extraordinary events occur, truck allocations are not modified. Bogert (1964) describes the benefits of two-way radio communications in manual dispatching. Mueller (1977) shows how a simple dispatching board can help monitor operations and subsequently increase productivity. The analog computer (dispatching board) described by Muel ler helps the dispatch operator keep track of truck. positions and each truck can be reassigned after each trip if necessary. Semi-Automated Diswatchina. This intermediate form of dispatching consists of a computer which is programmed to aid the operator by disglaying information and/or suggesting the most appropriate truck a1 location to meet a production objective. The system is semi-automated in the sense that the computer cannot respond directly to the truck operator, i.e. human intervention is necessary. T h e system p r e v i o u s l y used at Bougainville Copper Ltd., described by Swain (19791, is a semi-automated system with the computer recommending action to be taken throuqhout the shift. Hodson

and Barker (1985) also describe the implementation of a semi-automated system and the upgrading of a 'passive' system which only records information to one which recommends optimal truck allocations. The system in use at Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Ltd. (Lizotte et a1 (1985)) described below is presently a passive system. The first drawback of semi-automated systems which deserves mention here is the problem of receiving, recording and giving instructions faced by the operator when fleet sizes are 'large'. Byles (1984) justifies the switch to a fully automated system because the semi-automated system at Bousainville could not operate-efficiently,in real-time with a fleet of 44 trucks and 9 shovels. Fully Automated Dispatching. Human intervention is not essential in fully automated dispatching systems. The dispatch computer can send and receive information from the truck driver using display panels, truckmounted or located at strategic points in the operation. This category of systems has received a great deal of attention in recent literature. The category encompasses a wide range of systems. Crosson et a1 (1977) describe the system at Palabora based on an 8kbyte computer while Himebaugh (1980) describes the Tyrone mine system working on a 3Mbyte mainframe computer. Capital requirements vary between about SO.5M and $3.6M (US 1983 $s, Arnold and White (1983)) and depend on a variety of options and special requirements which may be necessary to include. The large systems are more than only useful for truck dispatching; systems are capable of recording tire performance and handling bus intercept routes with trucks for a smooth shift change (Clevenger (1983)). Sassos (1984a) describes Reserve Mining Co.'s system which integrates fully with the planning system and appropriately named the "Mine Management System (MMS)". The MMS includes micro-processor-based vehicle monitoring. The system perhaps best described in current public literature is the DISPATCH system marketed by Modular Mining Systems Inc.. Himebaugh (1980) describes the initial system installation at the Tyrone mine, White et a1 (1982) show the linear programming based algorithm at the heart of the truck assignment procedure and Clevenger (1983) demonstrates how the system is economical ly justified. Byles (1984) describes system acquisition and installation at Bougainville while Pelley (1985) states the problems associated with the initial use. An interesting comment is made by Byles (1984): "...the dump signpost could indicate arrival at the dump and an assignment could be given when the tray has been lowered.

However it was a conscience policy decision of the company to involve the driver in the system, giving him a feel of controlling his work." This decision typifies considerations which must be made even with fully automated systems: takinq into account labour force aesires and work motivation, Beaudoin (1977) t makes s i m i l a r ~ e n t sreaardina a - -h - -e decision to select a particular dispatching rule. Automated dispatching systems have been reported to decrease truck haulage requirements/costs anywhere between 5 and 35 percent. Benefits will vary with the type of materials handling fleet, haulage network configuration and specific dispatching procedures.
- a - - - -

Dispatching System a t dmAmiante du Qu6bec Ltd.

Lac

Lac dPAmiante du QuGbec is a medium size open-pit asbestos mine located in Black Lake, Qu6bec, Canada. Materials handling capacity is about 46000 mt (ore and waste) per day. Mixed fleets of loaders and haulers are used: 4.5 and lPcy shovels, 10 and llcy loaders and 85 and 100 ton trucks. The average haulage distance is approximately 2.5km with a 90m lift in elevation. Figure 1 illustrates the haulage road network configuration at the time of the study. A Hewlett Packard 9845 was purchased in 1982. High resolution of the eolour monitor was a factor in the selection of this computer. Mr. Aristide Lecbere, the mine superintendent, sponsored the project and largely because of him the initial project has been successful. The software was also entirely developed by Mr. Leclerc. The initial goal was to develop a 'passive' system which displayed materials handling machinery status and automated daily production reporting. Caution was exercised in presenting the system to the mine operators since it was their first exposure to computers. Figure 2 illustrates the main screen display which appears throughout the shift. At one glance of the screen the dispatcher knows the approximate location of each production unit. The main screen display resembles the dispatch board described by Mueller (1977). At the beginning of the shift, trucks are initially assigned to shovels to try to meet planned production. Truck and shovel numbers are displayed on the screen. The dispatcher enters events as they are communicated to him using the numeric keys on the computer. Shovel and truck blocks are also colour-coded; blue for waste, red for ore and white for returning empty trucks. Truck travel times are estimated and truck 'blocks' gradually move up and down the screenwhen updated (usually every minute). The dispatcher can use this information to re-allocate trucks to shovels when shovel moves, shovel breakdowns, coffee breaks, lunches, etc. occur during the shift.

Oviously the dispatcher must be familiar with the haulage routes since the display is only a schematic representation of the open-pit. Short and long haulage routes appear the same length on the screen, although screen updating moves the trucks at different rates. A menu appears at the bottom of the screen which corresponds to dedicated keys on the keyboard. The dispatcher can enter information rapidly with these keys and display other information being compiled by the computer. Several shift reports are also produced; truck and shovel productions, ore and waste production, scheduled and unscheduled breaks, water and fuel reports, etc,. All the operators are very satisfied with the system in its current state. Engineering calculations show that the system, only displaying information, has already increased fleet productivity by 5 percent, easily justifying the relatively small capital outlay. The n$xt logical step in improving the system is to devise procedures whereby the computer will suggest to the dispatcher truck assignments. This work was undertaken in collaboration with McGill University in the framework of a M.Sc. research project. Dispatching Rules Semi-automated and fully automated dispatching systems require a procedure for logical assignment of trucks, be it for suggesting to the dispatcher or direct instructions to the truck operator. Our initial intuition would be to assign trucks for maximum utilization. It can easily be demonstrated that maximum utilization will not always produce maximum production or maximum efficient utilization. Dispatching rules will seek different objectives, using varying degrees of sophistication. It should be pointed out that published papers rarely give complete descriptions of the procedures, for quite obvious reasons. Dispatching rules are broadly subdivided as follows. 1. Maximize Truck. In this simple rule the truck is assigned to the shovel where it is expected to be loaded first. Figure 3 schematizes the decision process. A decision is taken with the information available at the time of the decision: average load time, expected time the shovel will be free, trucks on route to each shovel and estimated travel time to each shovel. This rule will produce substantial increases in total productivity compared to locked-in dispatching by compensatinq for slower shovels and avoiding creation of long waiting* lines. Unfortunately productivity rs undifferentiated and specific desired production objectives, such as grade requirements and waste/ore ratios, are

not accounted for. Shovel utilization will also be disbalanced by the rule favoring truck assignments to shorter circuits, as stated by Tu and Hucka (1985).
2 . Maximize Shovel.

, Here the truck is sent to the shovel which has been waiting longest or expected to be idle next. Figure 4 schematizes the decision process. Note that travel time to each shovel is not considered in this rule and the criterion in case of conflicts should be total shovel idling to best reflect the under lying intent of the rule. As expected, this rule will tend to balance out shovel production more evenly and give results closer to objectives, considering shovels are a priori located to do so. Sassos (1984a) reports that Ebasco's Automated Truck Dispatch can handle a variation of this rule.
3. Match Factor.

Morgan and Peterson (1968) use the match factor (MF),first formulated by Caterpillar Co., to attempt to quantify the apparent balance which exists between the number of loading devices and the number of hauling devices. It indicates the relative 'coverage' in a system 'loaders' are getting from 'haulers' and is defined as: (No. of haulers)(loader cycle time)

MF =

..................................

(No, of 'loaders)(hauler cycle time) (1) The cycle times in either case do not include any waiting time at the loading area for either unit. A MF below 1 . 0 indicates a system (or subsystem) is under-trucked, MF greater than 1.0 means the system is over-trucked. Applying the MF as a dispatching rule is based on measuring MFs for different sub-systems or individual shovels and assigning trucks accordingly in various ways. At first, applying the MF concept to truck dispatching appears as a contradiction. M F is a static measure of equipment balance which does not consider waiting times. Truck dispatching is done because the system is dynamic and one objective is to minimize waiting times. Nevertheless MF can be applied by constantly updating the required MF values as conditions change throughout the shift (i.e, travel times are modified, a shovel is hampered by hard digging conditions, etc). The advantage of applying a MF rule compared to locked-in dispatching is apparent when one considers that lockedin dispatching is limited by integer values of trucks assigned to the shovel for the duration of the shift. As soon as slight variations in event times

occur, the MF rule enables trucks to be reassigned to shovels, producing shovel coverage closer to desired objectives. Swain (1979) indicates the MF rule is applied in part of the dispatching procedure, when additional trucks become available during a shift. M F values of individual shovels between 0.85 and 1 . 3 make a shovel eligible to accept another truck. Final assignment was based on production priority. Rodson and Barker (1985) a l s o apply the MF rule in a two-part dispatching procedure. The first step consists in measuring current MFs for subsystems defined in the operation. If the MF value is within acceptable limits (set to take into account production priorities) the truck is kept in the subsystem. The second part of the procedure "fine-tunes" the assignment by selecting a shovel to minimize truck waiting. Other authors have applied variations of the M F rule, referring to it simply as a "shovel coverage" rule. The MF rule was studied as a potential procedure at Lac dlAmiante. In this case, current MF values are computed based on the last five event times for each cycle. Current MF values are compared to desired coverage and the shovel with the lowest ratio is selected.
4. Mixed Heuristic Rules

scientists because of the numerous mathematical models which can bc tried to best solve the problem. In a strict sense, true optimization is not possible because of a) stochastic variability of individual elements such as work cycle components, unpredicted grade variations and general changes in digging and haulage conditions, and b) the short time available to take a decision, in real= time, even with powerful computers. ~ x e model1 ing effort is nonetheless valuable since it helps gain valuable insight in to the real nature of the problem. A generalized model will also point out economic implications of the forthcoming decisions. White et a1 (1982) formulated the dispatching problem as a form of network flow problem solved by 1 inear programming (LP). The objective is stated as a minimization problem: minimize the number of trucks to meet production requirements, represented by source and sink i n f l o w and o u t f l o w rates. F i g u r e 5 represents the simple example problem presented by White et al. Here, the possible cycles are shown this way to best indicate the intent of the LP. The LP formulation is as follows: Minimize
NP NT = I PiTi i=1

NS I PjSj j=1

NO (3)

Several dispatching systems use combinations of the heuristic rules described above or variations on the intent of these simple rules. These rules have no rigorous mathematical foundation and optimality is not guaranteed. Crosson et a1 (1977) use a simple relative priority number associated to each shovel: 3600

Subiect to:

Truck factor (tons)

Required shovel digging rate (tons per hour) Where P is the relative priority number and 3600 is an arbitrary number for computation purposes. When a truck is assigned to a shovel, the shovels priority number is appropriately decreased and priority numbers are then averaged in preparation of the next truck arrival. Naplatanov et a1 (1977) apply a heuristic dispatching rule to attempt to achieve strict ore grade and waste/ore ratios for the Medet operation. Cost savings attributable to the system include reduction of reagents in the concentrator. Beaudoin (1977) describes a procedure using shovel coverage, minimum truck cycle time and achieving target ore grades at the Mount Wright iron ore mine. 5 . Mathematical Programminq Dispatching problems are of particular interest to operations research

Where : NT = Number of trucks NP = Number of feasible paths NS = Number of non-rate limiting sinks N O = N u m b e r of rate limiting nodes P i = Aver. rate over path i (trucks/minl Ti = Aver. travel time over path i (min) = Sum of a l l sink input rates = Aver. sink processing time (min) R : = Limiting node rate (trucks/min) Considering this formulation and the example in Figure 5, it is apparent that the objective can be reduced to minimizing the number of trucks travelling empty (or minimize total truck empty travel time). Because flow rates are set at the sources (shovels), travel f u l l paths and sinks, only flow along travel empty paths can be adjusted. In Figure 5 three circuits are shown: a)the outer ) , b) the inner circuit (crusher-shovel l circuit (dump-shovel 2) and c) a horseshovel 2 - dumpshoe circuit (crusher shovel 1). White et a 1 (1982) show that the LP will select the horseshoe circuit and require only 13 trucks to achieve the same production as the two "closedout" circuits requiring 16 trucks. It should be pointed out that the LP is only part of the dispatching procedu-

'

re, Because the LP does not consider grade requirements and is based on averaged component times, inferring steadystate conditions, "heuristics based on shovel need are then applied in an attempt to reinforce the LP solutionn. Byles (1984) defines the subsequent step as an application of dynamic programming based on predicting truck requests for the next 20 minutes. The integer programming formulation made by Hauck (1979) is noteworthy. An objective of global minimization of truck and shovel idle time is made with cost coefficients used to formulate the problem with an economic objective. The solution is not straightforward, requiring hybridization of 1 inear and dynamic programming. No mathematical programming based algorithm was tested for the Lac dlAmiante mine since implementation on the present computer was deemed near impossible.

order to have data in a usable form by the stochastic simulation program. Three parameter Weibull distributions were selected to model load and dump times. This distribution is described by Mutmansky (1971) and is characterized by a probability density function,

Where

a = Shape parameter

= Location parameter The cumulative Weibull density function is,

a> o

= Scale parameter

The Simulation Program

The program used to test the various dispatching rules is written in FORTRAN 7 7 to work on a micro-computer with a minimum 512 kbyte RAM and preferably a numeric co-processor. T h e use o f simulation to assess dispatching procedures is a well established method. Cross and Williamson (1969) appear to be among the first. Other papers include work by Brake and Chatterjee (19811, Nenonen et a 1 (1981), Kim and Ibarra (1981), Wilke and Heck (1982) and Tu and Hucka (1985). Cross and Williamson (1969) eloquently summarized simulation as a "dynamic representation of reality - more specifically, a representation of selected ideas in a particular portion of reality". A decision must thus be taken o n how much of the intricacies of the real system should be included in the simulation model. Here this involves considering elements such as equipment breakdowns, lunch and coffee break scheduling and shift start/end procedures. Because the goal set out is for the computer to only suggest truck assignments while the operator makes decisions, it was decided to keep the simulation program fairly simple in the first stage. Figure 6 shows the general modular structure of the program. Separate versions were made for four different rules: locked-in, maximize truck, maximize shovel and match factor. A l l versions are supplied initial truck assignments while each version will differ in a subroutine (DECISION) which applies the dispatch rule selected for the durationof the shift. The haulage network is reduced to an array of travel times between load and dump points. Modelling Event Times. Statistical and engineering ana7 -1ses of time study results was necessary in

The Weibull distribution was selected because of its flexibility to model a wide range of experimental distributions and the ease of generating Weibull distributed random variables from decimal random numbers. Figures 7 and 8 show load and dump time distributions and the Weibull parameters which are used in the program. Haulage times are modelled by normal distributions and are expressed as means and coefficients of variance. A deterministic simulator was constructed to evaluate haulage times not determined during the time study; typical coef f icents of variance were then associated to these values to reflect the variability of these event times in the stochast ic simulation. Applying the Dispatching Rules Each version of the simulation program has a slightly different form and content of input data file. For example, the fixed dispatching has a simplified form of entering the travel array since truck circuits are fixed. Also, the MF rule requires initial mean event times to first set the desired coverage before current required coverage can be computed from new generated times. Output resu-lts are a l l in a similar format. Results include unit and total productions and idle times. An output option allows printing of a complete 'map' of the shift indicating the time and current shovel assignment of a truck when it is dispatched. It is thus possible to know at any time the number of trucks on any given circuit. This was particularlv useful in checking the correct functioning of the dispatching rules. It should be pointed out that no formal statistical validation of the program aqainst actual production results at Lac dfAmiante was done. The two main reasons preventing this were that operators presently use their heuristic dispatching rules and, as previously pointed out, not all the intricacies of the actual operation have been incorpo-

rated into the program. Nevertheless, the limited objectives of the project were achieved and results appear to concur with findings of other authors. Results To illustrate the effects of the dispatching rules on production and idle time a series of simulations were performed with 4 operating shovels and from 13 to 21 trucks working during a shift. Table 1 summarizes the input information supplied for this first series of tests. Because of the stochastic nature of the system 20 simulations were executed for each shovel-truck combination and each dispatching rule tested. Ehch simulation of each combination thus used a different seed for the random number generator. The inherent variability of the system renders quantitative analysis of the results more difficult. Table 2 summarizes the results of 400 simulations. As expected, all dispatching rules tested increase production as truck fleet increases. Production increase per truck added decreases as the truck fleet is increased since average truck waiting time during the shift triples for the range of fleet sizes tested. The 'maximize truck' rule always shows the highest ~roduction. The 'maximize shovel' and MF rules both produce fairly even shovel production; in this case the differences are attributed to shovels being on circuits of considerably different lengths. Analysis of total production compared to locked-in dispatching reveals somewhat surprising facts. Figure 9 illustrates the percent difference in production compared to locked-in dispatching. The deviation for fixed dispatching simulations is also shown to better appreciate the magnitude of the differences. 'Maximize truck' yields a regular increase in production but the percent difference decreases as fleet size is increased. 'Maximize shovel' presents a somewhat un-characteristic trough shaped curve with a low point for a 1 7 truck fleet. This can be explained by the fact that this specific fleet size is the closest to meeting the systems requirement and fixed dispatching may work well in this case. The MF rule as it was applied yielded lower production than fixed dispatching except for a fleet of 21 trucks which produces only a marginally higher value. The fact that a ratio is used in the decision made with the individual shovels requiring quite different coverages explains these results. The advantage of the maximize shovel and MF rules is best seen by examining the maximum difference in shovel production, as shown in Figure 10. These rules would be particularly useful when the production schedule dictates a tight grade or quality requirement. Assuming the shovels are strategically located,

one of these rules could be implemented. In all of the simulations previously described conditions were assumed stable throughout the shift. To illustrate the effect of changing conditions, 80 more simulations were performed with modified travel times for shovels 1 and 2 after 2 0 0 minutes, with a 1 7 truck fleet. Table 3 summarizes the results of this study. A 25 percent decrease in travel time has a similar effect on required coverage as increasing loading time. Ranking of the rules based on production is similar except all the rules p.roduce better results than locked-in dispatching since perturbations can be compensated by balancing truck assignments anew. The implementation of the 'maximize truck' rule (or a variation) was recommended t o Lac dqAmiante du Qu6bec Ltd. because of their fleet size and specific production objectives. Conclusions

It is possible to achieve gains in fleet productivity with a well-tailored semi-automated dispatching system which suggests assignments to the operator. The limitations of such systems should be well understood, production objectives clearly defined and the human element considered in implementing a dispatching rule. Economic analysis on an incremental basis may reveal the advantage of semi-automated systems for small to medium size open-pit operations.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Scientific0 e Tecnologico and NSERC (Canada) for their financial support of this research. The cooperation of Lac dtAmiante du ~ u 6 b e cLtd. and in particular Mr. Aristide Leclerc, is grateful ly acknowledged. The authors also thank Professor Malcolm Scoble of McGill University for his recommendations.

References 1 . Bogert, J . R . , Electronic eyes and ears monitor pit Operations, Metal Mining & Processing, March 1964, pp. 42-45. . R . , Simplified Dispatching 2 . Mueller, E Board Boosts Truck Productivity at Cyprus Pima, Mining Engineering, August! 1977, pp. 40-43. 3 . Swain, H . D . , Bougainville's EDP Techniques Up Mine Productivity, Simplify Planning, Mining Engineering, March 1979, pp. 265-268. . I . , Barker, K . S . , The De4. Hodson, D sign and Development of a Computerized Truck Despatching System, Mining Conference 85, Birmingham, United Kingdom, June 1985, pp. 83-90, . , Bonates, E . , 5 . Lizotte, Y., Scoble, M Application of Simulation to Assess Truck Shovel Dispatching Policies, Mining Equipment Selection Symposium, University of Calgary & CANMET, Calgary, November 1985, Paper No. 24. 6 . Byles, R . D . , The Installation of a Fully Automatic Truck Despatch System at Bougainville Copper Limited, Joint Meeting of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, October 1984. . C . , Tonking, M.J, Mof fat, 7. Crosson, C W . G . , Palabora system of truck control, Mining Magazine, February, 1977, pp. 74-82. 8 . Himebaugh, A . E . , Computer-Based Truck Dispatching in the Tyrone Mine, Mining Congress Journal, November 1980, pp. 16-21. 9. Arnold, M . J . , White, J.Wm., Computerbased truck dispatching, World Mining, April 1983, pp. 53-57. . A . , Cleven10. White, J.Wm., Arnold, J ger, J . G . , Automated Open-Pi t Truck Dispatching at Tyrone, E&MJ, June 1982, pp. 76-84. ll.Clevenger, J . G . , DISPATCH Reduces Mining Equipment Requirements, Mining Engineering, September 1983, pp. 12771280. 12. Sassos, M . P . , Reserve's Mine Management System, E&MJ, September 1984, pp. 42-49. 13. Pelley, M . H . , Quintette Coal Limited's Experiences to Date with its Computerized Truck Dispatch System, CIM-AGM, April 1985, Paper No. 6 . 14. Beaudoin, R . , Automatic Truck Dispatching Mount Wright Operations, CIM First Open-Pit Operators Conference, May 1977, Paper No. 2, 12 pp. 15. Tu, H.J, Eucka, V.J., Analysis of Open-Pit Truck Haulage System by use of a computer model, CIM Bulletin, July 1985, pp. 53-59. 16. Sassos, M . P . , Automatic dispatch system improves production, optimizes equipment utilization, E&MJ,-0ctober 1984, p . 71. . C . , ~etersori, L . L . , Deter17. organ, W mining Shovel-Truck Productivity, Nining Engineering, December 1968, pp. 76-80.

18. Naplatanov, N . D . , Sgurev, V . S . , Petrov, P . A . , Truck Control at Medet, Mining Magazine, July 1977, pp. 12-18. . F . , Computer-Controlled 19. Hauck, R Truck Dispatching in Open-Pit Mines, Computer Methods for the 80's in the Mineral Industry, AIME, New York, 1979, pp. 739-742. . B . , Digi20. Cross, B . K . , Williamson, G tal Simulation of an Open-Pit Truck Haulage System, 8th APCOM, AIME, New York, 1969, pp. 385-400. 21.Brake, D . J . , Chatterjee,P.K., Evaluation of Truck Dispatching and Simulation Methods in Large-Scale Open-Pit Operations, 16th APCOM, AIME, New York, 1979, pp. 375-383. 22. Nenonen, L . K . , Graefe, P . W . , Chan, A . W . , Computer-aided study of truck dispatching in an open-pit mine, NRC Canada, Mechanical Engineering Newsletter, Computers, Vol. 12, No. 1, January 1981. 23. Kim, Y . C . , Ibarra, M.A., Truck Dispatching by Computer simulation, Bulk Solids Handling, Vol. 1, No. 1 , February 1981. . L . , Heck,K., Simulation 24. Wilke, F Studies on Truck Dispatching, 17th APCOM, AIME, New York, 1982, pp. 620626. 25. Mutmansky, J.M., A DistributionFitting Method for General Use, 9th APCOM, CIM, 1971, pp. 486-491.

LEGEND
Shovab Crusher

0
9

OI

3%
56%

0
0
0

7%

6%
8.*

If'
I

Figurn 3. Maxlmize Truck Dispatching Rule

. Figure l.,Main

Haulage Roads at Lac d'Arniante du Quebec Ltd.

TRUCK TO BE DISPATCHED Figure 2. Main Screen Display on Dispatching System at Lac d'Arniante du Quebec Ltd. Figure 4. Maximize Shovel Dispatching Rule

0
D
min

COMPUTED FLOW RATE TRUCKSIMIK REQUIRED I N F L O W l O U T F L O W NO. O F TRUCKS O N SEGMENT AVERAGE EVENT TIME

MIN.

Frequency

Weibull parameters:

10%

\
\

Time ( m i d

Figure 5. L P I N e t w o r k Flow Formulation o f Dispatching-Problem (White e t 'aC (7982))

IWW DATA*

Figure 7 . Distribution of L o a d Time

- r s n z , srtn run uwwn annatn

l Q I .

cunem.

DOMTIOII.CLOC. 1 . I I U I S I ~ 01 SSOVELI.

mren or mwu m r m . mmrr

O r TllUCKI. LOAD T I U L PARIMLT L I S .DOH? T I H E PAIAULTERS. ARRAY or m v n TI=. 5TAP.T W I N 7 ?OR ALL TRUCKS RUfIBLR O r TRUCKS ASSIONLO TO m SrrOYCL.

Weibull parameters:
U =1.730

8 = 0232
Y = 0.534

GENLRATL TRAVEL T I R E S ?OR ?RUCK3 TO GO TO EACR SEOVEL INITIALIZE Pm)DOCTIOR S T A T I S -

Vtl(l?Y LOLO.

I? A TRUCK I S READY T O
TRAVEL POLL. DUMP OR

TMvn

m.

- mmum os~m a
-

VLRIYY TEAT A T I O R C&lt COMP r e m A C I C ~U L ~ O R X TEE END O? 3 E S I U ~ T I O MDURATIOU. IASCD O M AVLIAGL ACTIVITY TIns.

Time (min3

APPMIRIA~ m x v r n TIM n u m u mmrn GENLRATOR WITII S T I P U L A T E D 9 T A T I S T I U PRPAIIRLR2 TO1 TEE DECISIOU ?Un. WOATX p n o n u m r o n STATISTICS~ S E O P ~R O D ~ I O U . T R m x p m OUCTIOM. SIIOVZL I D L E T I X L .
RmCx I O U T I = Y L R I ~ Y wnr n o c l TI=.

Figure 8.Distribution of Dump Time

7RIHT PWDIIC7IRI STATISTICS.

Figure 6. General Structure o f SliTlulation Program

Travel Empty Coefficient of Variance: 0.10

Table 1. Summary of Input Data for Test Simulations.

DISPATCHING RULES: A = LOCKED-IN C = MAXIMIZE SHOVEL

B = MAXIMIZE TRUCK D = MATCH FACTOR

Table 3. Results of Modifying Travel Times During the Shift.

hail.

uu Z w i l ~ ~ w

PZ

m m w w w m m ~ o m m m m w ~ -

~ m s

m m o m m o o m s m ~ o m ~ d ~ o m m o m m o m s m m m m m d m m r 4 d r l r l
'f

@ h U

FOX

'2%:
-

a
~ m a m w s m m m m d + d
r(

m r

m m

m m t

+ o - d r

o m

m z

G B

m d

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
m d m m m m m m ~ r 4 0 m + m ~ -

Z'2F

~
W

n
M

C;

2 ; ~
J d E

C
g
~ Z O b

m
~

oaE&
E

3 O O

m
r

o ~

z ~

w 4

c m

m w

o m

m m + c w m m ~ + m m @ w m p c w d m m m w m w m m ~ w m w m m r 4 r 4 r 4 r 4

m ~

+ m

w m

a w m

m m

m w m

w m

w w r ( m m m 0 m m m ~ ~ m r

c
4

~
4 "

n
-

v ,

v
L .

U b

*
4 m U C d m U n 4 9 U ~ ' f ~ " C ' f a

3
[L

n 4 bl

2 s oa
a3
x U

c z W
U b d U n ~

g g 3 1 u
20

V) H

w
rl

m
C

0
. I
r 4

FlXEO DISPATCHING MAXIMIZE TRUCK MAXlMlZE SHOVEL MATCH FACTOR

Z

0 0
A
-@-

COEFFICIENT OF VARIANCE FOR FIXED DISPAT CHlNG

-.
NUMBER OF TRUCKS
---9---

--

-0

Figure Q.Relative Production Achieved for Each Dispatching Rule

0 0 0
A

FIXED DISPATCHING MAXIMIZE TRUCK MAXIMIZE SHOVEL MATCH FACTOR

0 1
13

15 17 NUMBER OF TRUCKS

19

21

Figure 10. Maximum D i f f e r e n c e in Individual Shovel Production