COMPUTER SIMULATION STUDIES TO ASSIST IN

MINE EQUIPMENT SELECTION

By
JOHN R STURGUL AND JOHN HARRISON

Abstract: The correct selection of equipment to use in a mine is a problem which constantly faces
the mining engineer. In some cases a wide choice of equipment with different operating
characteristics is available. If this equipment is to be used to assist in moving the ore it may be
possible to build a computer simulation model to predict how it will perform. Typical problems that
lend themselves to this type of analysis are presented. The computer models are constructed using a
recent form of the GPSS computer language, namely GPSS/PC for the personal computer. This language
allows the programmer to construct models in a very short time and at a low cost. Of great
importance is the easy way in which it is possible to change the models to answer any of the "what
if?" questions the engineer may pose.

Introduction ~imulation ~stem). A version of this, known as

Computer simulation models have a great number
of applications for a mine. They can be used to
determine the optimum number of trucks (Bauer
and Calder, 1973) or to determine the optimum
location of inpit crushers (Sturgul, 1987 ) to
name but a few examples. The mining engineer is
often faced with the problem of making a choice
of equipment from a variety of possibilities.
If the mine is operational the question of
eq ui pment replacement such as switching from
120 tonne trucks to 170 tonne trucks might be
of interest. The 170 tonne trucks can haul a
larger payload but are slower than the 120
tonne trucks. Will their increased cost offset
the increase in production? In addition all
equipment will be unavailable at different
times, this may be due to mechanical failure or
routine maintenance. How will the different
histories of these pieces of equipment affect
their performance. One front end loader may
cost less than another but it may not be as
reliable.
GPSS IpC is a vailable for personal computers
running under MS (or PC) DOS.
Use of the GPSS Language
GPSS is the most widely used simulation
language for discrete system simulation. By
this is meant a system when, during a short
time interval only one event will take place.
This might be a truck arriving at a shovel, a
truck finishing dumping, a loader breaking
down, etc. Although the language has been in
use since 1961 there have been few mining
applications, as summarised by Sturgul (1987).
This may be because early versions of the
language had certain defects. However the
language has evolved over the years and recent
versions of GPSS have overcome these
deficiencies. It is now a powerful tool to use
for modelling mining situations as shown by
Sturgul and Ren, (1987).
Typical Mining Problem

Problems relating to inventories of spare parts
are also important, especially for mines in
areas where replacement parts may have long
purchase lead times. One technique to assist
the engineer in answering questions to the
above problems is to construct a computer
simulation model. This model can be run under
varying parameters and conditions which would
indicate how the mine would operate. Several
computer simulation languages are available but
the one that appears best suited for mining
applications is GPSS (Q..eneral ~urpose
Consider the sketch of a simple surface mine
transportation system as shown in Figure 1.
This model is based on a working coal mine in
Queensland.
The mine consists of two loaders and two
dumping areas.
Trucks load at shovel A and travel either to
dump 1 or dump 2. For 30% of the time they
travel to dump 1 and 70% of the time to dump 2.

The AuslMM Kalgoorlie Branch. Equipment in the Minerals Industry: Exploration, Mining and Processing Conference.
Kalgoorlie. WA October 1987
155
156 J R STURGUL AND J HARRISON

~
D
Dc

A B

FIGURE 1 Surface Mine Transportation System

I-~ --_ .... -- ..... ,

I
I
I
I
I
I I
L .J ~t-+-+-I"""'+-+-+-+-4-~r-+-+-+~+-'l""-
working area track

\ crusher

FIGURE 2 Underground Haulage System

The AuslMM Kalgoorlie Branch, Equipment in the Minerals Industry: Exploration, Mining and Processing Conference,
Kalgoorlie, WA October 1987
 J R STURGUL AND J HARRISON 157

Trucks loading at shovel B will go to dump 1 dispatching - trucks originally assigned to

for 40% of the time and to dump 2 for 60% of shovel A or B remain there all day.
the time. All load times, travel times and dump
times are known from statistical tests. Trucks The' GPSS program to perform this simulation
that load at shovel A return to it as do trucks took less than 100 lines of code.
at shovel B. (A corresponding Fortran program would take
several thousand lines of computer code). The
The engineer would like to study the system to other programs discussed here will involve more
see if a dispatching system should be installed program lines but will not be much more
at p oi nt X f or the trucks returning to the complicated.
shovels. First a GPSS program will be written
to indicate how the system is currently The simulation was run for 200 days of 2 shift
working. This is important - before conclusions operation, starting with 3 trucks at Shovel A
can be drawn from the changed model, it must and 3 trucks at Shovel B. The simulation was
simulate the actual working situation. run ag ain, with 4 trucks at Shovel A and 3
trucks at Shovel B. More simulations were then
Data to represent the various load, haul, run with an additional truck at Shovel A until
travel and dump times has been found to follow a combination of 8 trucks at Shovel A and 3
the normal (Gaussian) statistical distrib~tion. trucks at Shovel B was reached. The results of
Therefore the mean and standard deviations of these simulations are given in Table 2.
the various times are specified as input data
as shown in Table 1. Average Wait No. of Average Ore % Shovel
in Queue Trucks Dumped/day Used
Truck # 1 Shovel A Mean Std. Dev.
A B A B A B A B
Spot # 1 30.0 4.0 30.17 30.8 3 3 12904 8567 .488 .499
Load # 1 58.7 7.5 31.8 30.4 4 3 17037 8573 .645 .499
Travel A-X 120.0 10.2 34.7 30.5 5 3 21069 8677 .791 .499
Travel X-C 130.0 7.0 41.59 31.1 6 3 24702 8653 .932 .498
Dump # 1-C 25.0 4.0 82.7 30.0 7 3 26529 8616 .978 .498
Travel C-X 90.0 9.5 168.0 30.6 8 3 26373 8567 .999 .498
Travel X-A 75.0 12.0
Travel X-D 149.0 16.0 Table 2. Preliminary Results of Simulations
Dump D 25.0 4.0
Travel D-X 110.0 12.0 With an initial allocation of 6 trucks (3 at
each shovel), the shovels are busy
Truck # 2 Spot # 2 28.0 3.0 approximately 50% of the time. For this
Load # 2 48.5 7.3 simulation the production of ore from Shovel A
Travel B-X 88.0 7.3 is 12904 cubic metres/day and 8567 cubic
Travel X-C 105.0 9.6 metres/day from Shovel B, with a total of 371
Dump # 2 at C 22.0 3.0 10 ad s of 0 re being dumped per day. Table 2
Travel C-X 73.0 6.0 shows the effect of each additional truck on
Travel X-B 70.0 7.2 production. The bUild-up of waiting time in the
Travel X-D 129.0 10.3 queue at Shovel A rises from 30.17 seconds for
Dump # 2 D 20.0 3.0 3 trucks to 168 seconds for 8 trucks.
Travel D-X 100.8 9.0
When eight trucks are used at Shovel A the
Table 1. Times Used in Coal Mine Model utilisation is up to 99.9%. the increase in
production for each truck initially is nearly
For this first model all of the trucks at linear, but becomes non-linear as more than 5
shovel A are considered to be identical, as are trucks are introduced. From Table 2 it can be
the trucks at shovel B. The trucks at A are concluded that either 6 or 7 trucks of type # 1
labelled # 1 and those at B are labelled # 2. should be allocated to Shovel A. The increase
The carrying capacity of the trucks at A is 70 of 25 loads per day in going from 6 to 7 trucks
cubic metres and for those at B is 46 cubic is offset by the additional waiting time in the
metres. Dump # 1 is for ore and Dump # 2 is for queue of 82.7 seconds per truck. The increase
waste. Only two trucks can dump simultaneously in production is not sufficient to justify an
at # 1, Whilst there are no restrictions on extra truck, thus a decision is made to have 6
dumping waste at # 2. trucks of type # 1 in the mine.

In this model none of the equipment fails (or
if it does, is replaced immediately). The mine
works for two shifts per day, each shift being
eight hours with fifty minutes operation per
hour, or 48000 seconds/day. There is no
Having determined that 6 trucks are the optimum
fo Shovel A, the number of trucks of type # 2
are increased at Shovel B, holding six trucks
constant at Shovel A. Table 3 presents the
results of these simulations.

The AuslMM Kalgoorlie Branch, Equipment in the Minerals Industry: Exploration, Mining and Processing Conference,
Kalgoorlie, WA October 1987
 158 J R STURGUL AtJD J HARRISON

Average Wait No. of Average Ore % Shovel will be loaded before the smaller truck.
in Queue Trucks Dumped/day Used Ho we ver , if a smaller truck is being loaded
when a large truck arrives at the shovel it
# 1 # 2 # 1 # 2 # 1 # 2 A B will continue to be loaded.
41.0 32.0 6 4 24716 11337 .932 .657
42.0 35.0 6 5 24777 14026 .932 .809 As there are now more travel paths additional
41.0 43.0 6 6 24772 16309 .932 . 941 data is required. This is presented in Table 4
41.0 82.0 6 7 24763 17317 .931 .999
-- - 1 - - - - Truck # 1 Mean Std. Dev.
Table 3. Results of Simulation for Coal Mine
Spot B 30.0 4.0
Table 3 shows the effect of increasing the Load B 55.2 7.3
number of type # 2 trucks at Shovel B. If 7 Haul B-X 108.0 15.4
trucks are used Shovel B is utilised 99. 9% of Return X-B 82.0 9.4
the time and the average wait in the queue is
82 seconds. There are 23 additional loads per Truck # 2
day in going from 6 to 7 trucks but it is again
concluded that 6 trucks are sufficient. Spot A 28.0 3.0
Load A 52.0 8.4
Hence, the mine is to have 12 trucks, 6 of type Haul A-X 109.0 11.1
# 1 and 6 of type # 2. The expected production Return X-A 70.0 8.0
from both is 41081 cubic metres/day with Shovel
A producing 24772 cubic metres/day and Shovel B Table 4. Additional Data for Dispatching
producing 16309 cubic metres/day.
The model was then run using dispatching to
Coal Mine with Dispatching determine if it was a feasible option for this
mine. Combinations of 5 and 6 trucks of types
Now that the initial allocation of trucks has # 1 and #2 were simulated. The results are
been optimised the next step is to determine if given in Table 5.
dispatching will improve output.
No. of Trucks Average Ore
A dispatcher will be installed at point X, and Dumped/day
as a truck reaches this point on its return
from either dump area, the dispatcher will # 1 # 2 # 1 # 2
route the truck to either Shovel A or Shovel B, 6 5 24964 14718
depending on which shovel will minimise loading 6 6 24872 16244
time. For example, if there are 2 trucks en 5 6 22785 16213
route to Shovel A, one in the queue at A and
another being loaded by Shovel A, whilst there Table 5. Results of Dispatching in a Coal Mine
are no trucks en route to Shovel B, one in the
queue at B and one being loaded by Shovel B, The results show that no increase in output is
the dispatcher will route the truck to Shovel B ,achieved by dispatching therefore the mine
regardless of whether it is a truck type # 1 or should be operated with 6 trucks of each type
a truck type # 2. without dispatching.

The dispatching cri~eria is as follows; Underground Haulage System

1. Determine the trucks en route to Shovel A.
2. Determine number of trucks in queue at A.
3. Determine if a truck is being loaded by
Shovel A.
4. Determine the expected time for trucks
to finish at Shovel A as given by
conditions 1,2 and 3.
5. Do similar calculations for trucks
associated with Shovel B.
6. Route a truck at X to the shovel where' the
expected queuing and loading time is
lowest.
The other factor to consider is maxlmlzlng
production, the larger 70m 3 trucks should have
priority over the smaller 40m 3 capacity trucks.
This means that if a larger truck arrives at a
shovel and a queue is formed, the larger truck
The next model describes an underground haulage
system and is based on a mine in North America.
Fi gu re 2 g i v es a schematic of the level on
which the haulage system is operating.
Trains are loaded in the working area, the mean
time for loading a train is 32 minutes,
exponentially distributed. It takes a loaded
train 6 + 1 minutes to travel from A to B
(uniformly-distributed) and 4 + 1 minutes to
return. The time to dump a train is normally
di st ri bu te d with a mean of 8 minutes and a
standard deviation of 1.1 minutes. There is a
single track and trains will be held up until
an approaching train has passed. After dumping
at the crushers, it takes. two minutes for a
train to loop around to point B where it is
ready to return to the working area. Only 4

The AuslMM Kalgoorlie Branch, Equipment in the Minerals Industry: Exploration, Mining and Processing Conference,
Kalgoorlie, WA October 1987

i
 J R STURGUL ArID J HARR I SON 159

trains at one time can be in the crusher and suggested one possibility would be to build a
loop area. If a train is at point A ready to siding in the middle of the drift to allow
travel to the crusher , it must first check for trains to pull over and wait while a train
oncoming trains. Also, it checks to see if passed in the opposite direction. It is also
there are already 4 trains in the crusher area. possible to enlarge the crusher area to allow
If either of these conditions is true, it must more than 4 trains to be there at the one time.
wait until both are false. If a train is at Once the optimum number of trains are
point A at the same time as a train is at point determined, there would not be any benefit in
B ready to come back into the working area the having more work crews on the level.
one at point A is given preference, providing
that there are not 4 trains in the crusher Should any of the above changes require
area. simulation, it is a simple matter to modify the
GPSS program to estimate what impact the
The mining engineer would like to determine the changes will have on production. Most changes
optimum number of trains to have working on the to a GPSS program can be made by changing only
level. Also, it is desired to study the system a few lines. Often this can be achieved in a
and see where bottlenecks might occur. This is matter of seconds.
important as it is possible to add equipment to
speed up the crusher or perhaps add more miners Conclusions
to the working area. It may even be possible to
put a siding at the midpoint of the drift to The use of computer simulation models can be of
allow more than one train to use the track at great assistance to the mining engineer in many
the same time. But before any these changes are ways. The simulation language used here can
to be implemented, it must be determined if even be used to build very accurate and rapid
they will increase production. models of complic!'!ted mining situations. The
models can be changed quickly to answer the
A GPSS program was written to do this "What if?" type questions that might be posed
simulation starting with 3 trains at the level. by the engineer. Although GPSS has not been
The number was increased in steps of one up to widely used by the mining engineer, with the
11 trains. The program to do this simulation availability of versions for personal
was only 43 lines, a corresponding Fortran computers, hopefully this will soon change.
program would consist of several thousand lines
of code and involve very complicated logic References
compared to programming in GPSS. The results of
the simulation are summarised in Table 6. Bauer A. and Calder P.N. ,"Planning Open Pit
Mining Operations Using Simulation", 10th
No. of Avg. loads of ore % time used APCOM, South Africa, (ed. M.D.C. Salamon and
Trains per 40 x 8hr shifts Crusher Trad F. H. Lancaster), South African Institute of
3 130.0 .436 .543 Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, 1973
4 166.7 .555 .696
5 195.2 .651 .815 St ur gu 1 J. R. ,"How to Determine the Optimum
6 215.3 .717 .899 Location of In-pit Crushers", International
7 228.6 .763 .953 Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering,
8 234.9 .784 .979 vol 5, No.2, 1987
9 238.4 .794 .993
10 239.8 .803 .999 St ur gu 1 J. R. ,"Simulating Mining Engineering
11 239.7 .790 1.000 Problems Using the GPSS Computer Language",
Proceedings, Australasian Institute of Mining
Table 6. Results of train simulation. and Metallurgy, vol 292, No.4, June 1987

From this table we can conclude that the Sturgul J .R. and Ren Yi., "Building Simulation
optimum number of trains is either 8 or 9 Models of Surface Mines Using the GPSS Computer
depending on whether the value of the extra 3.5 Language", The Coal Journal, No.15, 1987
loads of ore per 40 shifts is going to exceed
the increased operating cost. However, it is
clear that any increase beyond 9 trains does
not result in any increased production. The two
columns on the right side of Table 6 indicate
that the major source of delay in the system is
the single track. The restriction that trains
cannot tra vel in opposite directions on the
track causes delay at both points A and B.
Should any improvements be contemplated in the
haulage system, it should be in the area of
moving trains more quickly along the track. As,

The AuslMM Kalgoorlie Branch, Equipment in the Minerals Industry: Exploration, Mining and Processing Conference,
Kalgoorlie, WA October 1987