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

net/publication/319066687

Equipment Replacement Analysis of Manual Trucks with Autonomous Truck

Technology in Open Pit Mines

Conference Paper · August 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 316

2 authors:

Onur Gölbaşı Kadri Dagdelen

Middle East Technical University Colorado School of Mines
16 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Onur Gölbaşı on 09 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Gölbaşı, O. and Dagdelen, K. (2017). Equipment Replacement Analysis of Manual Trucks with Autonomous Truck Technology in Open Pit Mines. In K. Dagdelen (Ed.), Proceedings of the
38th International Symposium on the Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry (pp. 19-9 – 19-20). Golden, The US: Colorado School of Mines.

Equipment Replacement Analysis of Manual Trucks with Autonomous Truck

Technology in Open Pit Mines
Onur Gölbaşı1* and Kadri Dagdelen1
1
Colorado School of Mines Department of Mining Engineering, the United States
*Corresponding author: golbasi@mines.edu

This paper proposes an Integer Programming (IP) algorithm to evaluate feasibility of replacing
existing truck fleet with the autonomous trucks for any given mine layouts and for any given
production targets. Truck productivity is estimated by integrating haul road profiles of sequential
production periods to equipment performance which variates year to year. Two comparative cases
are built separately in the study for autonomous and manual operations. For each case, optimal fleet
configuration with long-term replacement policy is obtained by minimizing material haulage cost
while meeting the production requirement for the mine. The algorithm gives comparative results for
both cases. A general review on equipment replacement and autonomous trucks is also provided in
the paper with some remarkable statistics gathered for operations using autonomous trucks.

1. Introduction
Equipment fleet performance is the main determinant of operating cost and production rate in a mine. Operability and
efficiency of an individual equipment, its task within a fleet, and mutually-inclusive or -exclusive dependencies among
equipment affect unit extraction cost of ore and overburden. Operating cost of an equipment fleet is expected to add
up 20-35 percent of total operating cost in a mine. Equipment operating cost is a time-dependent cost function of fuel
and tire consumption, costs of spare parts, lubricants, maintenance crew wages, auxiliary tools, etc. Maintenance
expenditures alone contribute to 40-50% of total operating cost of equipment. Deterioration of working components
due to both equipment utilization rate and equipment age leads to increasing failure frequency and decreasing
availability. This condition enhances fuel consumption, maintenance expenditures, and production losses. To keep the
operating cost under control and to meet the periodic production requirements, some decisions should be taken when
equipment enters a wear and tear period. At that point, the following options may be considered for that equipment:
i) complete overhauling, ii) replacement with a new one, and iii) purchasing a new one while keeping the old one.
These decisions are generally taken subjectively by mine manager by regarding equipment manufacturer advices and
rough estimations gathered from the mine site. However, dynamic dependencies between repetitive and multi-
equipment replacements throughout mine life, changes in periodic production targets, and variations in mine road
profiles can make equipment replacement problem more complex. In addition to these conventional factors,
automation option has also been started to be considered when deciding on equipment replacement. Since any
changeover from manual to autonomous operation revolutionizes mining culture for the related company, this decision
may move beyond a classical replacement problem.

Mining autonomation was initially started at underground mines at 1960s. The first motivation in the automation was
safety but then the factors such as, i) being competitive with another mining companies, ii) increase in production
demand, iii) economic extractability of low grade ore, and iv) necessity to improve equipment productivity and to
decrease operational costs have highly motivated mining companies to investigate on autonomous operations not only
at underground but also at surface mines. In the recent decades, tele-robotic, semi-autonomous, and full-autonomous
systems developed for mining activities have created a challenging market in the industry. In the meantime,
autonomous off-highway trucks have been one of the most attractive mining equipment with an increasing market
share. The initial reports from the mines using autonomous trucks announced that the mine productivity has been
increased by 15-20 percent compared to the manual truck operations. Since trucks play a key role in surface mine
operations and they reserve almost half of the total equipment operating cost, any increase in truck productivity can
help mining companies to save millions of dollars. The findings from real mines also revealed that autonomous trucks
have provided a substantial reduction in tire and fuel consumption per ton of production and employee cost. These
promising results are expected to trigger medium to large scale surface mines to cogitate on autonomous truck option.

A decision on autonomous trucks can be taken either in project feasibility stages of new mines or at ongoing mining
operations when planning the remaining mine life. This kind of a decision requires a long-term financial validation by
analyzing cost constraints, required truck capacities and numbers, deviations in equipment performance due to ageing,
periodic changes in haul road profiles, and time-dependent fluctuations in production targets. Correlation among these
factors highly differs for manual and autonomous trucks. Although autonomous truck market has been continuously
increasing its share within haulage systems of surface mines, the literature that can help mine managers in their
decisions when investing autonomous truck operations is very limited. In this sense, most of the previous researches
have covered qualitative management advices without offering any quantitative tool for the investment validation.
Here, the current paper offers a roadmap in comparative evaluation of autonomous and manual truck operations by
integrating periodic variations in both haul roads and production targets into its methodology. To provide a
background, equipment replacement concept and its applications in mining will be presented in Section 2. A general
review on mine truck automation will be given in Section 3. The proposed model and a numerical example will be
provided in Section 4. The main conclusions of the study will be discussed in Section 5.

2. Mining Equipment Replacement

Equipment replacement is the replacement of entire asset in case that equipment deterioration due to ageing causes a
substantial availability decrease which results in high operating and downtime cost. In this situation, operational
benefit of equipment cannot satisfy productional and financial plans. There are various mathematical models which
discuss equipment replacement problem by regarding different factors. In a literature review by [1], these factors are
classified under the topics given in Figure 1.

Continuous Change
Technological Changes
Discontinuous Change
Uncertainity

Equipment Utilization and

FACTORS
Stochastic Deterioration

Tax Considerations
Series Dependency
Operational Dependency
Parallel Dependency

Figure 1: Considerations in mathematical equipment replacement models (After [1])

The models concentrating on technological improvement investigate the impact of the challenging technological
change in equipment as discrete or continuous. Mining equipment can be fitted into discrete case since the
manufacturers generally announce their new mining technology with different time intervals. On the other hand,
uncertainty factor has been taken as uncertainty in cash flow or uncertainty in effective time horizon of the
replacement. In some other models, influence of equipment utilization rate and the resultant deterioration have been
analyzed. Tax is another factor whose deviation effect on replacement decision has been evaluated. If more than one
equipment replacement is required, operational dependencies within fleet should also be considered. In case that each
equipment operates independently from each other, multi-replacement can be analyzed by evaluating individual
equipment. When any operational and financial dependency appears between equipment, factors such as, economies
of scale, capital budget constraint, and demand constraint should be examined holistically. Economies of scale is the
motivation to purchase large quantity of equipment since unit equipment price may decrease due to group discount.
Capital budget is the limiting constraint for an investor when deciding on the number of equipment to be replaced. On
the other hand, demand constraint is utilized to specify fleet configuration which can satisfy the production
requirement. In mining, there is a low to high-scale operational dependency within the equipment fleets so that
replacement of any equipment can affect the productivity and utilization of other equipment. Therefore, replacement
decisions at mines should be investigated together with their long-term effects on total cost and total productivity.

Prior to building up a replacement policy in mining, it can be useful to clarify the following topics: i) expected
production rates for remaining mine life, ii) production increase or decrease requirements, iii) effectivity of
overhauling option for old equipment, iv) adequacy of remaining ore reserve to support the purchase of new
equipment, v) available condition of both spare part inventory and maintenance crew, vi) additional requirements for
maintenance crew, spare part inventory, and maintenance shop if a new equipment is purchased, vi) convenience of
new equipment geometry to mine plan, and vii) disposal type of old equipment (selling to another company, keeping
as spare unit, moving to another operation within same company or removing as salvage).
Although production rates and mine plans are highly correlated with equipment performance and availability,
researches on mining equipment replacement are rarely observed in the literature. Qualitative evaluation of mining
equipment replacement decision has been made by various authors [2-8]. These papers generally covered management
advices without offering any solution algorithm. On the other hand, Sherer and Gentry [9,10] used two methods to
optimize mine equipment replacement strategy. These methods are the shortest path network formulation of
replacement-in-kind alternatives and integer programming solution including some constraints. The shortest path
algorithm in the study did not cover any constraint and it minimized the total equipment cost by offering three different
alternatives for equipment annually: i) Keeping the equipment for another year, ii) replacing the equipment with a
new one, and iii) overhauling the equipment and keeping it for the next year. The same problem was modelled using
integer programming with the constraints such as, production amount, maintenance hour, and capital budget. In the
study, dynamic changes in mine layout and resultant variations in cycle times and performances of equipment were
neglected. In addition, the model made a comparison among very limited types of equipment. In another study, Wang
et al. [11] developed a dynamic algorithm to optimize truck replacement policy by including fleet configuration, i.e.
number and ages of trucks, and cumulative overproduction. The algorithm tried to find out optimum fleet capacity for
each year so that cumulative overproduction was kept higher than zero for the concerning year. By this way, minimum
annual production requirement was ensured. Constant capital and annual operating costs and replacement with in-kind
equipment were assumed in the model. Dynamic changes in mine haulage roads and production amounts were
neglected. Tamenti [12] discussed the feasibility of replacing bottom-dump trucks with rear-dump trucks in a mine.
Ownership and operating costs of trucks were included in the analysis. Advantages and disadvantages of both types
of trucks were discussed. The study used an available software in the comparison and it didn’t offer any optimization
algorithm. Sethi et al. [13] developed an algorithm to solve shovel replacement problem. At most two-shovel was
assumed to be operated together and only in ore production. Production capacity and equipment availability were
taken constant while other operational factors were neglected.

Previous studies have generally ignored dynamic structure of mining and replacements were done among limited
number of equipment types. For instance, there are substantial effects of haul road distances and profiles on utilization
of haulage equipment, its cycle time, and its productivity. Therefore, haul road changes in different phases need to be
considered to achieve a realistic replacement optimization. In addition, periodic changes in production targets that can
be obtained with long-term mine plans should be introduced to the models. Moreover, since a haulage equipment
exhibits variation in its performances for different road profiles depending on its capacity and its specifications, a
large range of different equipment should also be introduced into the model for a holistic approach. Additionally, if a
replacement study is performed among not only manual equipment but also autonomous ones, operational measures
of autonomous equipment need to be reflected to the model realistically. The stated researches didn’t discuss
automation factor in their models.

3. Open Pit Mine Truck Automation

Although the initial trials on mine equipment automation were started at 1960s, autonomous off-highway trucks have
been available in surface mining operations since 2008. The first autonomous truck trials were started by Komatsu at
Gabriela Mistral Mine of Codelco in Chile. Since that day, Komatsu, Caterpillar, and Hitachi have been the prominent
investors of autonomous trucks. An autonomous truck is a truck equipped with i) wireless communication system, ii)
navigation and obstacle detection sensors, iii) local on-board sensor data processing hardware for accelerator, iv)
steering and braking of trucks, controller hardware for coordination of these movement actions, v) GPS system to
detect real-time location of truck, and vi) software system for local and supervisory control [14]. The autonomous
truck suppliers provide the required hardware with their fleet management systems. In this basis, Komatsu, Caterpillar,
and Hitachi use the fleet management systems called Modular Mining Systems, Minestar, and Wenco International
Mining Systems, respectively. Observed operational statistics for these suppliers and their partners in mining can be
viewed in Table 1.

Integration of a mine to autonomous truck operation may be capital intensive since any changeover from manual to
autonomous requires special trainings, supporting infrastructure and information systems, and servicing skill. It may
also be sociologically-difficult because people at top-to-bottom levels of management and service at the mine should
be prepared to change their mining culture and vision. Since autonomous operations revolutionize every aspect at the
mine sites, some mines may prefer to sustain their autonomous truck decisions and to see the managemental and the
financial risks that will be observed from autonomous operations in the other mines. Since this technology is
comparatively new, decision-makers at these mines may want to be sure about their investment decisions with
analyzing and comparing the outcomes.
 Table 1: Current Implementation of Autonomous Trucks in Operating Mines
Start Year Mining Company Mine Site Location Manufacturer Truck Type Capacity Number
2008 Codelco Gabriela Chile Komatsu 930E-AT 320 tons 17
2008 Rio Tinto West
Mistral
Angelas Australia Komatsu 930E-AT 320 tons 5
2011 BHP Navajo Mine New Caterpillar Cat 793F 250 tons 3
2012 Rio Tinto Yandicoogina Mexico
Australia Komatsu CMD
930E-AT 320 tons 22
2012 Rio Tinto Hope Downs Australia Komatsu 930E-AT 320 tons 19
2012 Fortescue Solomon Australia Caterpillar Cat 793F 250 tons 54
2013 Rio Tinto Nammuldi Australia Komatsu CMD
930E-AT 320 tons 30
2014 BHP Jimblebar Australia Caterpillar Cat 793F 250 tons 18
2017 Stanwell Meandu Queensland Hitachi CMD
EH5000AC-3 326 tons 3

On the other hand, mines that prefer to adapt automation technology to their operations will most likely have a chance
to be technological leader in the sector and have an advantage in local and global competition. Truck automation takes
benefit in four main topics: Safety, equipment utilization, performance, and cost. One of the most remarkable benefit
is safety since autonomous operations eliminate the most of human factors from the operation site. Control of these
trucks is managed in safe and indoor areas. For instance, Rio Tinto controls its autonomous truck operations in Pilbara
region of Australia, Yandicoogina and Nammuldi Mines, from the operations center in Perth which is almost 1,200
kilometers away from the operation area. Moreover, improved sensor and communication systems mounted on the
trucks help the detection of whole anomalies on the haul roads including human. The second motivating factor,
equipment utilization, has been detected to be increased substantially because autonomous trucks don’t require any
stop for driver breaks and shift changes. These trucks can operate with almost 90 percent availability in their first
years where it is almost 80 percent for manual trucks. The initial reports from Fortescue Mine where haulage operation
is fully-automated announced that the mine productivity was increased by 21 percent compared to the manual truck
operations. Moreover, Rio Tinto reported that a productivity increase by 13 percent was obtained with autonomous
operations between July 2014 and July 2015. Thirdly, removing driver factor helps more consistent movement of
trucks since the subjective human factors such as, experience, aggressiveness, and mode changes due to
monotonousness of the job are eliminated. Lastly, operating cost per ton hauled material is decreased dramatically.
One reason of that is the eliminating driver cost which can be higher than $130,000 for the developed countries. If the
other expenses such as, catering, fly-in/fly-out, infrastructure, insurance, etc. are added to the salary factor, this creates
a very costly burden for the companies which use manual trucks. Moreover, Parreira [14] states that the consistent
movement of autonomous truck can create a reduction in fuel consumption by 5-7 percent and in tire wear by 7 percent.
If a truck is considered to have 6 tires at an approximated cost of $33,000 each, a decrease in tire wear alone can help
a saving in millions of dollars. Moreover, in a financial evaluation report by Credit Suisse Group made for Rio Tinto
Company [15], potential of cost saving for autonomous truck operation is reported to be 30 percent where maintenance
saving can be up to 17 percent thanks to tire life extension and better data generation for preventive maintenance. This
report also stated that the percentile share of autonomous trucks in the company’s whole truck fleet was increased
from 9.2 percent to 17 percent between 2014 and 2015. According to the given observations, expected financial and
operational benefits of autonomous trucks compared to manual ones can be summarized as in Figure 2.

15-20%
Productivity
Increase
30% 90%
Operating Expected
Cost Saving Availability

Autonomous
Truck Decision
5-7%
17%
Fuel
Maintenance
Consumption
Saving
Reduction
7%
Tire Wear
Reduction

Figure 2: Expected Benefits of Autonomous Mining Trucks

All statistics shared in this chapter points to that financial and productional benefit of autonomous truck operations
cannot be neglected in mining sector anymore. Most probably, the mining companies which uses this technology will
extend their autonomous fleets where the other mining companies will start to think about autonomous truck option.
In this basis, there is not any observed decision tool which can help decision-makers in their autonomous truck
investments compared to manual trucks. This research study aims to develop an Integer Programming (IP) based
decision algorithm to help determine a replacement and timing of open pit haulage equipment with the autonomous
ones such that the productivity at a given operation is maximized while the haulage costs are minimized.

4. The Proposed Model

The proposed model considers periodic changes in mine layouts and production targets for long-term financial
validation of autonomous truck decisions. Variations in both cost and productivity of old trucks (defenders) for given
period and for given haul road profile are evaluated dynamically when replacing with new trucks (challengers). The
algorithm offers a multi-selection in the replacements with different capacity and different types challengers. The
objective function of the model minimizes total haulage cost for the studied mine life by regarding operating cost,
capital cost, downtime cost, and tax considerations of both defenders and challengers throughout the mine life.
Comparison among manual and autonomous trucks is carried out with two cases which minimizes this cost value
separately. In the first case, challengers are selected from autonomous trucks alone. In the second case, only manual
trucks are considered as challenger candidates for the same mining conditions. The study methodology is given in
Figure 3.

• Divide mine life into periods and determine usable road routes for each period
• Discretize the routes into road segments where road gradient changes
Haul Road
Profiles • Locate start and end points on each route, e.g. loading, dumping, parking, maintenance, etc. points

• Determine production requirement of each period from long-term mine plans

• Estimate the periodic waste and ore productions
Production • Allocate shovels to waste and/or ore production and relocate them in every periodic change

• Digitize Speed-Grade-Rimpull curves of trucks and determine representative speed functions for each truck
• Adapt assisting and resistive force formulations and effective speed factors
Truck Speed • Create a dynamic dependency between road profiles and truck performance

• Determine cycle times of different trucks for observed road routes at each period
• Estimate effective factors in truck availability and in mine operability
Truck Number • Determine truck fleet configuration which satisfies the production targets for the given routes

• Adapt fuel consumption model to truck fleet configuration decision

• Estimate operating and capital costs and indirect costs due to production losses
Total Truck
Cost • Calculate periodic cost flows for individual trucks with varying age, capacity, and Rimpull characteristics

• Repeat the methodology seperately for both manual and automated trucks
• Obtain total haulage cost values
Investment
Decision • Compare the changes in productivity, cost, cycle times, and required fleet configuration

Figure 3: Methodology of the Study

Autonomous and manual operation cases can be formulated separately by using the following model:

Indices:
𝑝 ∈ ℤ>0 : ID numbers of periods with a specific interval for the remaining mine life
𝑐 ∈ ℤ>0 : ID numbers of challenger trucks
𝑑 ∈ ℤ>0 : ID numbers of defender trucks
𝑎 ∈ ℝ>0 : Ages of given challenger and defender trucks at the end of given period, measured in year

Data:
𝑐 :
𝑃𝑝,𝑎 Achievable hauling capacity of challenger truck 𝑐 with an age of 𝑎 in period 𝑝
𝑑 :
𝑃𝑝,𝑎 Achievable hauling capacity of defender truck 𝑑 with an age of 𝑎 in period 𝑝
𝑄𝑝 : Total production requirement scheduled for period 𝑝
𝑃𝐼: Period interval, measured in year (e.g. if the interval is 3 months, PI=0.25 year)
𝑅𝑝 : Minimum allowable ratio between production requirement and total hauling capacities
𝑐
𝑇𝐶𝑝,𝑎 : Total cost of challenger truck 𝑐 with an age of 𝑎 for period 𝑝
𝑑 :
𝑇𝐶𝑝,𝑎 Total cost of defender truck 𝑑 with an age of 𝑎 for period 𝑝

Decision Variables:
𝑐 :
𝑋𝑝,𝑎 Binary: 1 if challenger 𝑐 with an age of 𝑎 is kept in the operation for period 𝑝; 0 otherwise
𝑑 :
𝑋𝑝,𝑎 Binary: 1 if defender 𝑑 with an age of 𝑎 is kept in the operation for period 𝑝; 0 otherwise

Objective Function:

𝑘 𝑟 𝑝 𝑘 𝑚
𝑑 𝑋𝑑 ) 𝑐 𝑐
𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∑ ∑(𝑇𝐶𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 + ∑ ∑ ∑(𝑇𝐶𝑝,(𝑎=𝑏×𝑃𝐼) 𝑋𝑝,(𝑎=𝑏×𝑃𝐼) ) (1)
𝑝=1 𝑑=1 𝑏=1 𝑝=1 𝑐=1

Constraints:
𝑟 𝑝 𝑚
𝑑 𝑋 𝑑 + ∑ ∑ 𝑃𝑐
∑ 𝑃𝑝,𝑎 𝑐 (2)
𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,(𝑎=𝑏×𝑃𝐼) 𝑋𝑝,(𝑎=𝑏×𝑃𝐼) − 𝑅𝑝 𝑄𝑝 ≥ 0 ∀ 𝑝 ∈ ℤ>0
𝑑=1 𝑏=1 𝑐=1
𝑘−𝑝+1
𝑐 𝑐 (3)
∑ 𝑋(𝑝=𝑏+𝑝−1),(𝑎=𝑏×𝑃𝐼) = (𝑘 − 𝑝 + 1) 𝑋𝑝,(𝑎=𝑃𝐼) ∀ 𝑐, 𝑝 ∈ ℤ>0
𝑏=1
𝑘
𝑐
∑ 𝑋𝑝,(𝑎=𝑃𝐼) ≤1 ∀ 𝑐 ∈ ℤ>0 (4)
𝑝=1

𝑑 − 𝑋𝑑
𝑋𝑝,𝑎 (𝑝+1),(𝑎+𝑃𝐼) ≥ 0 ∀ 𝑑, 𝑝 ∈ ℤ>0 ; ∀ 𝑎 ∈ ℝ>0 (5)

𝑐 𝑑
𝑋𝑝,𝑎 , 𝑋𝑝,𝑎 𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑦 ∀ 𝑐, 𝑑, 𝑝 ∈ ℤ>0 ; ∀ 𝑎 ∈ ℝ>0 (6)

The objective function (Equation 1) minimizes total haulage cost along the studied mine life. In the formulation,
available trucks at the mine are called defender where new trucks are called challenger. The algorithm finds out
optimal truck configuration of defenders and challengers for each year by minimizing long-term haulage cost. It is
assumed in the algorithm that if a challenger is selected for operation in any period 𝑝, then, it should be operated for
the remaining periods. Defenders can be replaced with any challenger or kept in the operation. Therefore, cumulative
truck fleet cost is the total cost of defender and challenger trucks decided to be operated along the studied mine life.
In this basis, the concerned mine life is divided into periods with a constant interval of 𝑃𝐼 and these periods are
numbered as 𝑝 = 1, 2, … , 𝑘. Defenders can be at any age of 𝐴 at the beginning of period-1. Therefore, ages of given
defenders in period 𝑝 can be calculated as 𝑎 = 𝑝 × 𝑃𝐼 + 𝐴 where 𝑃𝐼 is period interval in terms of year. On the other
hand, challengers start operation with an age of zero when they are selected and their ages are incremented by 𝑃𝐼 after
each period. Equation 2 sets a ratio (𝑅𝑝 ) between periodic production target and total hauling capacities for a given
period. For instance, if it is assumed that production is achieved without any overwait for truck arrival, the ratio is set
equal or higher than 1 since the total hauling capacity should be equal or higher than the production target for the
given period. This ratio is a kind of production sustainability ratio to maintain the continuous production. Equation 3
ensures that once a challenger is selected, it should be kept in the operation for the following periods. Since a
challenger can be selected in any period, its first-year values of production capacity and periodic cost relocates to the
subsequent period after each period where it is not selected. This condition leads to different scenarios for each
challenger. For instance, if a challenger is selected at the beginning of period-3 when period interval is 1 year, it shows
𝑐
its first-year productivity in the third period with 𝑃𝑝=3,𝑎=1 . In this sense, Equation 4 satisfies that at-most one scenario
can be selected for each challenger. In addition, Equation 5 imposes that once any defender is disposed, it cannot
return to operation again.

This model is computed for two separate cases. In the first case, challengers are selected among autonomous trucks
where manual trucks are considered alone in the second case. For the feasibility of an autonomous truck operation for
given mining condition, its minimized cost value calculated in Equation 1 should be smaller than the one for manual
trucks. Evaluation of each alternative case requires the estimation of truck performances on different haul road
profiles, truck production rates, and resultant truck cost values.

Detection of Haul Road Profiles: An open pit haulage road network covers different routes to integrate maintenance,
refueling, loading, dumping, crushing, material storage area, and similar destinations. These routes differ from each
other according to their service types and haul road profiles. A truck exhibits a changing performance with respect to
road grade, equipment age, capacity, and its available Rimpull force. Therefore, it is required to discretize routes into
road segments with different road gradient to be able to measure individual truck performance and to obtain a
representative cycle time for each truck for given route at a specific period. In this basis, mid-bench haul road routes
and their profiles are determined for each period from source to destination. Road segments of each route are sequential
with different grades and distances. Pit is divided into periods and enumerated with a ID. Distance of available routes
in period 𝑝, from 𝑖 node to 𝑗 is shown with 𝐷𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 . A sample illustration is given in Figure 4. In the figure, for the given
period and for the source & the destination nodes, there are seven possible routes where trucks can travel. These are
i) from either of two waste shovels to dump site, ii) from dump site to either of the shovels, iii) from dump site to
refueling/maintenance area, iv) from refueling/maintenance area to either of the shovels. In the example, although the
crusher offers a destination node, there is no route to crusher since both shovels are operated in waste production.

Figure 4: A sample haul route network in an open-pit mine

As mentioned before, road segments differ from each other with their gradients. Therefore, summation of segment
lengths between source and destination for each possible route should be equal to the distance of given route as shown
in Equation 7. In the equation, 𝐷𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 is the total distance of route in period 𝑝 from node 𝑖 to 𝑗. 𝑆𝑝,𝑖,𝑗,𝑠 is the segment
distance in period 𝑝, on a route from node 𝑖 to 𝑗, with a segment ID of 𝑠.
𝑟

∑ 𝑆𝑝,𝑖,𝑗,𝑠 = 𝐷𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 ∀ 𝑝, 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ ℤ>0 (7)

𝑠=1
Determination of Cycle Times: For the trucks in a production cycle, the cycle time is the cumulative of time passed
for queuing and positioning for loading, loading cycles of shovel, travelling between source and destination points,
reversing and dumping the material to dump site or crusher, and travelling back to the assigned shovel (Equations 8-
9). In the equations, 𝑆𝑇𝑝𝑐 , 𝐿𝑇𝑝𝑐 , 𝐷𝑇𝑝𝑐 , 𝑆𝑇𝑝𝑑 , 𝐿𝑇𝑝𝑑 ,and 𝐷𝑇𝑝𝑑 are spot, loading and dumping times of challenger truck 𝑐 and
𝑐,𝑙 𝑑,𝑙
defender truck 𝑑 in period 𝑝, respectively. 𝑇𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 and 𝑇𝑇𝑝,𝑎 are travelling time of challenger 𝑐 and defender 𝑑 with
a specific age for period 𝑝 on the route from 𝑖 to 𝑗 with a loading condition of 𝑙 (𝑙 is 0 if truck is empty, 1 otherwise).
𝑐 𝑑
The resultant 𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 and 𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 are the total cycle time of challenger 𝑐 and defender 𝑑 with a specific age for period
𝑝 on the route from 𝑖 to 𝑗. Travelling is the longest part of cycle time which can deviate depending on truck capacity,
truck performance and condition of the roads. Moreover, autonomous trucks are expected to move more consistently
compared to manual trucks. Although the other factors of cycle time can be obtained within an estimated range from
the observations, this can be difficult for the travelling time. For each segment in each period, performance of trucks
with different age, capacity, and available Rimpull should be evaluated separately.
𝑐 𝑐,𝑙 𝑐,𝑙
𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑆𝑇𝑝𝑐 + 𝐿𝑇𝑝𝑐 + 𝑇𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑇𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑗,𝑖 + 𝐷𝑇𝑝𝑐 (8)

𝑑 𝑑,𝑙 𝑑,𝑙
𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑆𝑇𝑝𝑑 + 𝐿𝑇𝑝𝑑 + 𝑇𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑇𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑗,𝑖 + 𝐷𝑇𝑝𝑑 (9)

Estimation of Truck Production: Trucks can contribute to production only if they make a cycle between loading and
dump site/crusher nodes. Any travel to refueling, maintenance or similar locations cannot contribute to production.
Moreover, maintenance downtime which increases due to equipment age and the other mandatory halts reduce truck
availability. These halts are less effective in autonomous trucks since human-based stops are eliminated. In brief,
production amount is affected from both available operable hours in mine for period 𝑝 and availabilities of challenger
𝑐 and defender 𝑑 for the given period. Equations 10-11 can be used to define truck productions. 𝐻𝑝 is the operable
hours in mine for the given period 𝑝 and it can be estimated by considering weather, holiday, and other time off
𝑐 𝑑
conditions at mine site. 𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 and 𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,𝑖,𝑗 are the truck cycle times estimated previously in Equations 8-9. In addition,
𝑐 𝑑 𝑐 𝑑
𝐴𝑝,𝑎 , 𝐴𝑝,𝑎 , 𝐶 ,and 𝐶 are the availabilities of challenger 𝑐 and defender 𝑑 with a specific age for the given period and
their bucket and dumper capacities, respectively.

𝑐 = [
𝐻𝑝 𝐴𝑐𝑝,𝑎
𝑃𝑝,𝑎 𝑐 ] 𝐶𝑐 (10)
𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,(𝑖=𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒),(𝑗=𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒)

𝑑 = [
𝐻𝑝 𝐴𝑑𝑝,𝑎
𝑃𝑝,𝑎 𝑑
] 𝐶𝑑 (11)
𝐶𝑇𝑝,𝑎,(𝑖=𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒),(𝑗=𝑑𝑢𝑚𝑝 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒)
𝑐 𝑑
Cost Estimation: As given in Equations 12-13, summation of operating cost (𝑂𝐶𝑝,𝑎 , 𝑂𝐶𝑝,𝑎 ), ownership cost
𝑐 𝑑 𝑐 𝑑
(𝑂𝑊𝐶𝑝,𝑎 , 𝑂𝑊𝐶𝑝,𝑎 ), and production loss due to unoperated time (𝐷𝐶𝑝,𝑎 , 𝐷𝐶𝑝,𝑎 ) for challenger 𝑐 or defender 𝑑 with a
specific age for period 𝑝 gives the total periodic cost for the concerned truck. Moreover, since an autonomous truck
is equipped with a new technology, its capital cost is expected to be higher than an in-kind manual truck. Its periodic
operating cost is also expected to be higher compare to the manual one since it works with a higher availability.
However, it should be noted that autonomous trucks can achieve more production and their operating costs for unit
hauled material decrease even though their periodic costs are higher.
𝑐 = 𝑂𝐶 𝑐 + 𝑂𝑊𝐶 𝑐 + 𝐷𝐶 𝑐
𝑇𝐶𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 (12)

𝑑 = 𝑂𝐶 𝑑 + 𝑂𝑊𝐶 𝑑 + 𝐷𝐶 𝑑
𝑇𝐶𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 𝑝,𝑎 (13)

Numerical Example: A mine with a remaining life of 10 years is assumed. One defender with 3-years old is currently
operated in the mine. There are two challengers, one is manual and the other is autonomous truck. Analysis period
intervals, 𝑃𝐼, is taken as 1 year and 𝑝 = 1,2, … ,10. Hauling capacities of both defender and challengers are given in
𝑑=1
Table 2. It should be noted that production amount of the defender should be taken after its 3th year value (𝑃𝑝=1,𝑎=4 =
1,060) since it is already 3-years old. Some hypothetical values are assumed in Table 3 for the periodic production
requirements (𝑄𝑝 ) and truck cost in period 𝑝 for the given 𝑄𝑝 values. Truck costs are highly changeable according to
the production of given year and truck age. For instance, if autonomous challenger is selected at the beginning of
𝑐=1
period-4, its first-year cost for given production (𝑇𝐶𝑝=4,𝑎=1 ) will be $1,672,000. If this challenger is selected at the
 𝑐=1
beginning of sixth period, its first-year cost (𝑇𝐶𝑝=6,𝑎=1 ) will be $1,760,000 for the production at that year. Since the
defender is currently available in the mine, a single row for the cost values is given. It is important that the defender
𝑑=1
cost in the first period is its four-years old cost (𝑇𝐶𝑝=1,𝑎=4 = $1,624,000). On the other hand, there are 10 different cost
rows for each challenger since its operation start period is not clear. Therefore, any delay in selection of challengers
moves the related cost and truck production capacity values to the following periods. In addition, capacity ratio (𝑅𝑝 )
was assumed as 1 in this example.

Table 2: Hypothetical Values for Truck Production Capabilities (103 tonne)

Equipment Age (Year)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Maximum Truck Production Capacities (103 tonne)
Defender 1,210 1,160 1,135 1,060 1,010 970 950 870 850 800 720 600 505
Autonomous Challenger 1,550 1,500 1,450 1,400 1,350 1,300 1,250 1,200 1,150 1,100 1,000 920 710
Manual Challenger 1,275 1,225 1,175 1,125 1,075 1,025 975 925 875 825 750 635 555

Table 3: Hypothetical Values for Required Production and Truck Cost

The Studied Period (Year)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Required Production - 𝑸𝒑 (103 tonne)
800 850 900 950 950 1000 950 900 800 800
3
Total Truck Costs (10 $)
d
Defender (TCp,a) )
1 1,624 1,832 2,052 2,282 2,405 2,670 2,679 2,950 3,230 3,620
c
Autonomous Challenger (TCp,a )
1 1,408 1,576 1,789 2,008 2,128 2,360 2,362 2,358 2,216 2,336
2 1,496 1,669 1,888 2,008 2,240 2,242 2,238 2,096 2,216
3 1,584 1,761 1,888 2,114 2,128 2,124 1,989 2,096
4 1,672 1,761 1,987 2,008 2,016 1,888 1,989
5 1,672 1,854 1,888 1,902 1,792 1,888
Operation Start Periods of Trucks

6 1,760 1,761 1,789 1,691 1,792

7 1,672 1,669 1,590 1,691
8 1,584 1,483 1,590
9 1,408 1,483
10 1,408
c
Manual Challenger (TCp,a )
1 1,328 1,496 1,709 1,928 2,048 2,280 2,282 2,278 2,136 2,256
2 1,411 1,584 1,804 1,928 2,156 2,166 2,162 2,025 2,136
3 1,494 1,672 1,804 2,030 2,048 2,052 1,922 2,025
4 1,577 1,672 1,899 1,928 1,940 1,824 1,922
5 1,577 1,760 1,804 1,827 1,725 1,824
6 1,660 1,672 1,709 1,624 1,725
7 1,577 1,584 1,519 1,624
8 1,494 1,408 1,519
9 1,328 1,408
10 1,328

Computational results are given in Table 4. In case-1, the defender is detected to be replaced with autonomous
challenger truck at the end of period-4 so that total haulage cost is minimized to $18,786 where the defender is replaced
with manual challenger truck at the end of period-3 for case-2 so that a minimized total haulage cost of $18,270 is
obtained. These results point that for given production requirements and for truck capacity and cost values, operations
can be continued with manual challenger truck.
 Table 4: Hypothetical Truck Performance and Cost Values for a Mine
Case The Studied Period (Year) Total Haulage Cost
Trucks
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (103 $)

Defender + + + + - - - - - -
#1 18,786
Autonomous Truck - - - - + + + + + +
Defender + + + - - - - - - -
#2 18,270
Manual Truck - - - + + + + + + +

5.Conclusions
This study highlights the developments in autonomous mining truck technology and the observed productivity and
cost reduction outcomes from the real mines using autonomous trucks. Basics of equipment replacement modelling,
its applications in mining, and their shortcomings are also discussed. The current study also proposes an Integer
Programming (IP) algorithm to compare manual and autonomous truck performances for changeable mining
conditions. This algorithm optimizes truck replacement policy with two separate cases by minimizing material haulage
cost for varying mine road network and production targets. In the first case, challengers are selected among
autonomous trucks where manual trucks are considered alone in the second case. By this way, it is aimed to show
feasibility/infeasibility of autonomous truck operations for a given mine in terms of cost and productivity.

References
[1] J. C. Hartman and C. H. Tan, “Equipment Replacement Analysis: A Literature Review and Directions for Future
Research”, The Engineering Economist, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 136–153, 2014.
[2] H. Schwellenbach, “Replacement of Capital Equipment”, Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, 1959.
[3] S. F. Willey, “Mobile Equipment Replacement Phosphate Mine”, Proceedings of AIME Annual Meeting, 1972.
[4] J. W. Hughes, “Using Availability Figures to Schedule Replacement”, 1978.
[5] E. L. Atkinson and G. W. Leach, “Replacement of Conventional Gathering-Arm Loaders and Shuttle Cars with
Diesel-Operated Load - Haul - Dump Units at Greenside Colliery”, Journal of the South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 241–248, 1979.
[6] J. L. Kearns, R. E. Buckley, R. R. Dimock, S. Silber and B. H. Slothower, “Taking the Guesswork out of
Equipment Replacement Decisions”, Proceedings of SME-AIME Annual Meeting, 1979.
[7] W. Mckay and E. Laatio, “Replacement of an Ageing Mobile Equipment Fleet”, CIM Bulletin, 1989.
[8] B. M. Matzl, “Refurbishment and Modernization - The Proven Alternative to Replacement of Large Materials
Handling Equipment”, Proceedings of 2nd Large Open Pit Mining Conference, pp. 289–292, 1989.
[9] H. E. Sherer and D. W. Gentry, “The Practical Aspects of Mine Equipment Replacement Analysis”, Proceedings
of 1st International SME-AIME Meeting, pp. 1-15, 1982.
[10] H. E. Sherer and D. W. Gentry, “An Operations Research Approach to the Equipment Replacement Problem”,
Proceedings of the 17th APCOM, pp. 161-169, 1982.
[11] Q. Wang, H. Sevim and G. De Tomi, “A Solution to the Problem of Scheduling and Replacement in Open-Pit
Mines”, Proceedings of the 21st APCOM, pp. 819–826, 1989.
[12] T. Tamenti, “Feasibility Study of Replacing Bottom Dump Trucks with Rear Dump Trucks at Kleinkopje
Colliery,” Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 107, no. 4, pp. 265–279, 2007.
[13] S. P. Sethi, H. M. Yeh, R. Zhang, and A. K. S. Jardine, “Optimal Maintenance and Replacement of Extraction
Machinery”, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 416–431, 2008.
[14] J. Parreira, “An Interactive Simulation Model to Compare an Autonomous Haulage Truck System with a
Manually-Operated System”, PhD Thesis, 2013.
[15] Credit Suisse. (2013) Financial Report on Pilbara Operations of Rio Tinto. Available: https://goo.gl/LqHqNR
Proceedings of the 38th Interna onal Symposium on the Applica on of
Computers and Opera ons Research in the Mineral Industry
(APCOM 2017)

Copyright ©2017 by Colorado School of Mines

Copyrights for manuscripts contained herein are held by the authors of such manuscripts.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by
any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the
copyright owners.

ISBN: 978-0-692-91737-4

Printed and bound in the United States of America

Trademarked names may appear in this publication. Rather than use a trademark symbol
with every occurrence of a trademarked name, the names are used only in an editorial
fashion and to the bene t of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of
the trademark.

Editor: Dr. Kadri Dagdelen

Published by: Colorado School of Mines, Continuing and Professional Education

Services, 1600 Jackson Street, Golden, Colorado 80401 USA, 303.279.5563,
space@mines.edu

ii
Keynote
Building the Business - From Concept to Commercial K-1
Optimized Project Targeting Using Conditional Simulation Post-processing for the Los —
Sulfatos Underground Porphyry Copper Project in Chile
Classi cation and Dilution Study by Simulation of a Large Copper Deposit, Peru K-11
Mining Sequence and Mine Capacity in Open Pit Mining K-19

01 Op miza on Tools for Strategic Mine Planning and Scheduling

SimSched Direct Block Scheduler: a New Practical Algorithm for the Open Pit Mine 1-1
Production Scheduling Problem
Evolution of the Scheduling Process “… a New Approach to Mine Scheduling.” 1-9
An Ef cient Algorithm for Open-Pit Mine Production Scheduling in Presence of Multiple 1-13
Capacity Constraints
Knowledge Based Production Optimization in Open Pit Mining Using Big Data Analytic 1-21

02 Characterizing Uncertain es of Geologic Models for Resource Es ma on

Accessing Implicit Geologic Model Uncertainty Using Signed Distances 2-1
Express Modelling of Geology, the Road Without a Map 2-9
Con dence Limits Versus Drill Spacing - Sandstone Hosted Uranium Deposit 2-17
Developing an Optimization Framework for Drillhole Planning 2-29

03 Towards Op mizing Ore Control in Open Pit Mining

A Branch and Bound Algorithm for Open Pit Grade Control Polygon Optimization 3-1
Integrating and Reconciling Short Term and Long Term Mine Plans in a Complex Multi- 3-9
Pit, Multi-Process Operation
Integrated Ore Control Process for Decision-Making Updating in Mine Planning Systems 3-15
Developing a Computer Model for Optimization of Drilling and Blasting in Open Pit Mines 3-27
from the Viewpoint of Technical, and Environmental Parameters

v
04 New Technologies for Opera onal Environments
Aerial Rock Fragmentation Analysis in Low-Light Condition Using UAV Technology 4-1
Stockpile Volumetric Survey Using Aircraft Surveying In Comparison with Traditional 4-9
Methods
Virtual Planning Room, Intelligent Cloud Software Platform for Mine Planning 4-17
Utilizing a Mobile 3D LiDAR Scanner for Infrastructure Sizing Purposes 4-23

05 Opera ons Research for Improving E ciency in Mining

Implementation of BIM (Building Information Modeling) at the German - Polish 5-1
Construction Company HOCHTIEF Polska S.A. Case Study
Using Operations Research Techniques to Increase Ef ciency in German Potash Mining 5-9
The Necessity of Futures Studies Approach Implementation in Mine Planning 5-17
A Conceptual Approach to 4D Modeling of Mining Technology Objects 5-25

06 Integra on of Geometallurgy and Mine Planning

Geometallurgical Variables Characterization Using Hyperspectral Images and Machine 6-1
Learning Technics
Introducing Geometallurgical Constraints into the Simultaneous Stochastic Optimization of 6-7
Mining Complexes: Application at the Copper-Gold Mining Complex
Dynamic Neural Network Based Model for SAG Mill Power Prediction 6-15
Cavitation Venturi Tube Design for Nano Bubble Column Flotation Using Computational 6-23
Fluid Dynamics

07 Push Back Design Fundamentals

MIP-Based Procedure to Pushbacks Selection 7-1
A Comparison of DBS and Nested Pit Stage Design as a Basis for Strategic Planning 7-9
Open Pit Layback Design at Newmont’s Twin Creeks Mine 7-17

08 Stochas c Simula on Techniques for Uncertainty Characteriza on (I)

Merging Multiple Secondary Data with Response Surface for Collocated Co-Simulation of 8-1
Geometallurgical Niobium Data
Hybrid Wavelet and Support Vector Machine (SVM) Clustering Algorithm for Non- 8-9
Stationary Geostatistical Simulation
A Case Study on Geostatistical Simulation with a Trend 8-17
vi
09 Stochas c Op miza on for Mine Planning
Mine Planning Under Grade Uncertainty and Slope Angle Evaluation 9-1
New Approaches for Commodity Price Uncertainty Incorporation in Production Planning 9-9
of Open-Pit Mines
Open Pit Stochastic Optimisation with In-Pit Tailings Storage 9-17
Simultaneous Stochastic Optimization of an Open Pit Mining Complex 9-25

10 Op miza on Techniques for Underground Mining Applica ons (I)

Uncertainty and Geometric Parameters of an Underground Target: Implications for Mineral 10-1
Exploration
Optimizing Room and Pillar Recovery and Production Rates as a Function of Panel 10-17
Dimensions
Determination of Friction Factor using Digital Method 10-25
in Mine Ventilation Laboratory Network
Numerical Modelling of Gas Explosions in a Development Heading of Underground Coal 10-35
Mine

11 The Use of Simula on in Mine Planning

Using a Microscopic Simulation to Study the Impact of Match Factor in a Truck-Shovel 11-1
Mining System
An Integer Linear Programming Model For Optimizing Open Pit Ramp Design 11-9
Application of Discrete-Event Simulation to Long-Term Mine Planning 11-17
Simulation and Optimization of Mine Operations for Desired Grade Blending in Open Pit 11-25
Mines

12 Applica on of Customized Opera ons Research Techniques in Mining

Solution Algorithms for the Multiple Time Period Block Sequencing Problem as a Max 12-1
Flow Problem and Solving it by the Lerchs-Grossman and Pseudo ow Algorithms
Max Flow – Lagrangian Based Phase Design - Application to Improving Mine Planning 12-15
and Process Blending at Newmont’s Carlin Operations
Dynamic Mid-Term Optimization of a Mining Complex Under Uncertainty 12-21
Systemic Approach to Solve Mining Technology Tasks Based on Modeling 12-29
Its Objects and Processes

vii
13 Applica on of Customized Opera ons Research Techniques in Mining
A New Linear Programing Approach to Determining Risk-Quanti ed Open Pit Mine 13-1
Production Schedules Incorporating Mineral Resource Classi cation Categories
SIMPLAN a Mineplanning Tool to Facilitate Planning Under Uncertainty Through the Use 13-11
of Machine Learning Algorithms
Risk Control in Production Scheduling By Considering Uncertainties in Resource 13-19
Estimation
A Two-Stage Stochastic Model for Open Pit Mine Planning Under Geological Uncertainty 13-27

14 Short Term Mine Planning with Stockpiles

Building a Stockpile Model for Modeling Gold Grade, Increasing 14-1
Con dence and Reducing the Risk in Short-Term Mine Planning at Akyem
Mine, Ghana
Haulage Impact on Mine Cut-Off Grade Strategy at Freeport McMoran Sierrita 14-11
Application of Cut-off Grade Optimization for Hierarchical Oil Sands Production and Dyke 14-19
Material Scheduling with Stockpiling
Open Pit Mine Planning with Degradation Due to Stockpiling 14-33

15 Techniques to Improve Grade Es mates During the Resource Modeling

Identi cation and Capping of Local Outlier Grades 15-1
Utilizing Probability Assigned Constrained Kriging (PACK) and Leapfrog to Construct the 15-7
Çöpler Resource Model, East-Central Turkey
Applying Tests of Spatial Dependence in Mineral Resource Exploratory Data Analysis 15-15

16 Op miza on Techniques for Underground Mining Applica ons (II)

Optimization of Mining Planning in Block / Panel Caving Mines Including Development 16-1
Activities
A Sliding Time Window Heuristic to Solve Large Underground Mine Production 16-9
Scheduling Problems
Optimal Limit Analysis of Underground Mine Using Floating Stope Algorithm 16-17

viii
 17 Mathema cal Models and Algorithms for Solving Large Scale Op miza on
Problems
An Intuitive Exposition of the Bienstock-Zuckerberg Algorithm as Applied to the Open-Pit 17-1
Mine Production Scheduling Problem
A Genetic Algorithm Based Approach for Simultaneous Optimization of Open Pit Mine 17-17
Planning Parameters
Analytical Properties of the Feasible and Optimal Pro les in the 17-25
Binary Programming Formulation of Open Pit
Characterizing the Optimal Pro le of the Open Pit Problem in the Continuous Framework 17-33

18 Stochas c Simula on Techniques for Uncertainty Characteriza on (II)

A Comparative Study of Indirect and Direct Localized Conditioning Modelling Techniques 18-1
for Assessment of Recoverable Resources for Medium and Long-Term Mine Planning
Block Models Validation Using Distance Matrix, Multidimensional Scaling, and 18-9
Hierarchical Clustering Analysis
Sensitivity Study of the Estimation Variance Approximation of a Quotient – Comparison 18-19
with Conditional Simulations in the Mn Deposit of Bangombé (Gabon)
Evaluating the TBM Utilization by Simulation Models 18-27

19 Autonomous Loaders and Trucks - Evalua ng Their Impact on Economics of Mining

Opera ons
Current State of the Art of Assisted and Autonomous Loading 19-1
Equipment Replacement Analysis of Manual Trucks with Autonomous Truck Technology 19-9
in Open Pit Mines
Investigation of the Production Assurance Strategies for Shovel-Truck Haulage Systems 19-21
Through Discrete Event Simulation
An Investigation into Dispatch Optimizers using Truck-Shovel Simulation and a New Multi 19-29
Objective Truck Dispatching Technique

Author Index

ix

View publication stats