Simulation Modeling of a Fleet of Remote-
Controlled/Automatic Load-Haul-Dump
Vehicles in Underground Mines
Nick Vagenas
School of Engineering
Laurentian University
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
nvagenas@nickel.laurentian.ca
In the last
few years, a concept for
automating Load-Haul-Dump (LHD)
vehicles has stimulated considerable interest
in the world mining industry. In this
concept, the tramming and dumping
operations of an LHD should be automatic.
During loading, an operator from a control
room fills the bucket of a vehicle via remote-
control aided by a television system. The
application of such a Remote-controlled/
Automatic LHD (RAL) system in
underground hard rock mines exhibits some
operational and traffic control characteristics
that have not been studied previously in
mining (e.g., vehicle motion in bidirectional
lane segments). This paper presents a
discrete-event simulation model developed
for studying and evaluating the operation of
a fleet of RALs. This model integrates
graphical modeling and presentation of
RAL transport layouts with animation of
the motion of vehicles during simulation.
The model is used to evaluate the capacity of
a future fleet of RALs which can operate in
a typical transport layout at the LKAB
Swedish iron ore mine in Kiruna.
Keywords: Underground hard rock
mines, LHD vehicles, automation,
mining
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
1. Introduction
During the past few years, the concept of integrating
automation and teleoperation on Load-Haul-Dump
(LHD) machines (Figure 1) has attracted considerable
interest in the international mining community. In
this concept, the transport (tramming) and dumping
operations of an LHD should be automatic. During
loading, an operator from a control room fills the
bucket of a vehicle via remote-control aided by a
television system; see Figure 2. Using such a Remote-
controlled/Automatic LHD (RAL) system, several
advantages can be foreseen, e.g., better utilization of
the vehicles, a better working environment for the
operators, and better transport control [1, 2].
At present, the general practice in most of the
mines is one LHD machine to operate in a limited
transport area with little or no traffic interference
from other vehicles. This practice is applied mainly
for safety reasons since the vehicles operate in
tunnels with a width that prohibits two-way traffic.
Even though LHD machines have been used for
several decades in mining, the utilization of a fleet of
RALs exhibits a number of operational and traffic
control characteristics that have not been studied
previously in mining. These characteristics may be
described as follows:
-
Vehicle motion in bidirectional lane-lane ents
(vehicles can move in either direction, but if two or
more vehicles are moving in opposite directions
inside a bidirectional lane segment, they will collide);
331
Figure 1. A diesel LHD

Figure 2. The concept of a Remote-controlled /Automatic LHD (RAL) system

(An ore pass is a dumping point)
~
Absence of sidings for avoiding bidirectional conflicts; · An algorithm that will find the shortest allowable
~
Operation of vehicles in
a route restricted network path by time from origin to destination (using
since mining transport layouts generally offer a Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm [4]);
very limited number of alternative routes for the ~
An algorithm that will check when a vehicle
movement of a vehicle to a destination; must slow down due to the presence of another
~
Stochastic nature of an RAL system due to human slower vehicle
moving in the same direction;
involvement in the loading operation. · An for
algorithm solving bidirectional conflicts;
For the efficient operation of a fleet of RALs, a · An algorithm for crossing a traffic zone (e.g., an
dispatch and traffic control procedure that can resolve intersection);
conflicts among vehicles due to the traffic conditions · An algorithm that will select a destination for an
in a transport layout and plan collision-free routes RAL under dispatch consideration (e.g., selection
has been developed and discussed in detail in [1] and of a destination based on the minimum travel time
[3]. This dispatch procedure consists of the following in the network).
algorithms:

332

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015

 To test the dispatch procedure and model the
operation of a fleet of RALs, a discrete-event simula-
tion model has been developed. With this model,
called PROFITIS Version 2.0 [3], it is possible for a
system planner to alter several operational character-
istics of an RAL system and study the behavior and
performance of the system. This model possesses the
following general features:
.
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) to create and
display graphs of RAL transport layouts;
· Graphical animation to animate the motion of
vehicles during a simulation run and display
the events executed;
. Text output simulation for fast execution of a
simulation run, displaying only the final text
output information.
At present, most of the work on LHD automation is
only hardware oriented (e.g., selection of navigation
techniques and choice of data communication
systems). It focuses on the development of prototype
vehicles. None of this work is concerned with traffic
management and simulation modelling of a fleet of
vehicles. In general, the currently applied practice is
the utilization of a single vehicle in a limited area
containing a few loading and dumping points.
On the other hand, the manufacturing industry has
experienced a dramatic growth in Automated
Guided Vehicles (AGV) technology. Work in traffic
management and modelling of industrial AGV
systems has been described in the literature; see, for
example, [5-9]. This research, however, is mostly
applicable to AGV systems in which unidirectional
or two-way unidirectional guidepaths are usually
considered.
In unidirectional lane segments, vehicles can move
in one direction only. Using a two-way unidirectional
lane segment, vehicles moving in opposite directions
never collide. In general, there are major differences
between underground mining and other industries
with regard to automation of vehicle-based systems;
for a discussion, see [3].
2. The Problem Statement
In this paper, problems concerning the utilization of
a fleet of RALs in an underground mining transpor-
tation network will be discussed. The problems
considered are the following:
Given a mining transport layout, how many
(a)
RALs are required to handle a given volume of
production?
(b) Given a mining transport layout, how many RALs
can operate simultaneously without creating
traffic saturation?
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
(c) Given mining transport layout, how many
a
operators are necessary for loading and for
efficient operation of a fleet of RALs ?
The above problems are concerned mainly with the
effects of mining transport layouts on the perfor-
mance of an RAL system. Other problems can also be
considered, as for instance, the problem related to the
effect of utilizing electric RALs powered by trailing
cables, due to the limited cable length of the electric
LHD and the precautions taken for preventing the
vehicle from crossing over the cable. A detailed
discussion can be found in [3].
In general, an RAL system is not a fully automatic
system since teleoperation of the loading activity
requires human involvement. The number of opera-
tors, coffee and lunch breaks, as well as shift changes
may therefore affect the performance of a fleet of
RALs. In general, it is not always feasible to find an
optimal system performance that can satisfy all the
various operating conditions in a mine. The develop-
ment and utilization of a simulation model that
provides a system planner with an opportunity to
alter the operational characteristics of an RAL system
and experiment with alternative operational policies
can be a powerful and useful tool. It is also possible
to apply stochastic mathematical models using other
operations research techniques (e.g., queuing net-
work theory) instead of simulation.
3. Rules, Constraints, and Assumptions Used
in the Construction of the Simulation Model
3.1 Introduction
PROFITIS Version 2.0 is a discrete-event simulation
model programmed in Turbo Pascal. The variables of
the model change at a discrete set of points in time.
The state of the model can be altered by events
scheduled to occur in future time. A simulation clock
is used to keep track of events and the current value
of time as the simulation proceeds.
The occurrence of an event causes the execution of
logics for changing the status of the model variables,
updates the simulation time, and collects statistics of
interest.
The simulation time is far smaller than the actual
operating time (a six hour operating time (shift)
of an RAL system takes less than 100 seconds of
simulation time on an IBM compatible 486-66 MHz
computer). The event scheduling algorithm used in
the model for advancing the simulation clock is based
on the variable time increment method in which
simulation time is advanced by the amount necessary
to cause the next most imminent event to take place.
Three principal groups of input to the model can be
identified:
333
Mining transport layout configuration (location of
loading points, dumping points, distances, traffic
zone specifications, direction of pathways, etc.);
· Transport system production specifications (ore
qualities at loading and dumping points, number
of operators for the teleoperation of the loading
activity, shift durations, and lunch breaks);
· Vehicle specifications (length, speeds, safety
distances, breakdown characteristics, number of
operating and stand-by vehicles, loading and
dumping times, and bucket volume).
Some input data is stochastic in nature, e.g.,
loading times. For the representation of this data,
one of six probability distributions may be selected
by the user, namely the exponential, normal, lognor-
mal, Poisson, Weibull, and uniform distributions.
The mining transport layout or, more specifically,
the RAL guidepath layout, is modeled as a collection
of nodes and segments. Nodes are control locations
on the guidepath at which an RAL can stop. Nodes
include not only the repair station, loading, and
dumping points, but also points where the paths
merge, diverge, or cross (traffic nodes). Segments
represent the aisles on which vehicles can move. A
segment is a directed section of the guidepath between
two adjacent control locations. A segment is always
drawn as a straight line. Consequently, curves are
represented as a sequence of straight segments.
Positions within the layout are identified by using a
rectangular cartesian-coordinate system. For every
node, a point location is given in terms of (x, y)
coordinates. Generally, modeling and crleation of the
guidepath rely on well-known CAD graphics tech-
niques, [10].
Several performance outputs are gathered during a
simulation. In general, the output information deals
with the following items:
· Vehicle statistics (e.g., utilization, operating times,
blocking times due to traffic congestion, service
times, and number of breakdowns);
· Traffic zone statistics (e.g., number of vehicles
passed through a traffic zone and occupation times
in a zone);
· RAL system performance statistics (e.g., production
achieved and loading and waiting times at the
loading points).
The model does not deal with the dynamics of
vehicle motion. It does not simulate motor propul-
sion mechanisms and the dynamics of an RAL during
motion. It considers the motion of vehicles only in
discrete time intervals.
334
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
3.2 Traffic Considerations in the Simulation Model
In the simulation model, vehicles move from seg-
ment to segment until they arrive at their destination.
In the selection of any routes in a layout, it must be
remembered that LHD machines cannot turn en route
and that the bucket of the vehicles must, of course,
always be presented to both the loading and dump-
ing points; for more details, see [3]. Dijkstra’s shortest
path algorithm is used to find the shortest path from
an origin to a destination; see [3] and [4]. A vehicle in
the model can be in either of the following states:
operating, on stand-by, or at the repair station for
service. During operation, an RAL can perform the
following activities:
(a) Pick up its load at a loading point;
(b) Move along a segment;
(c) Cross a traffic zone;
(d) Dump its load at a dumping point.
During motion, the activities of the vehicles may be
described as follows.
· Before entry to a segment, the vehicle checks the
traffic conditions in the segment. If it is allowed to
enter, the RAL then begins to move in the segment.
· Move along a segment: When a vehicle enters a
segment its movement is regulated by the traffic
conditions in this segment. z
· End of a segment: When reaching the end of a :
segment, a vehicle may be in one of the following
locations:
At a dumping point: The dumping event is
(a)
executed. The overall dispatch and traffic
control procedure is then called to determine
the next route of the RAL to a loading point.
(b) At a loading point: The loading event is
executed. If an operator is not available to
teleoperate the loading activity, the vehicle
waits at thisloading point until an operator
becomes available. Here, the performance of an
RAL system is related to the number of available
operators for supervision of loading. After the
loading activity is completed, the dispatch
control procedure is called to determine the
next route of the RAL to a dumping point.
At a non-traffic node: The vehicle will check if
(c)
it can enter the next segment and, if so, it
begins to move in this segment.
At a traffic node entering a traffic zone: The
(d)
vehicle checks the status of this traffic zone. If
the zone is free, the vehicle enters the zone and
starts to move in the next segment. Otherwise,
the RAL stops at the traffic node (entering the
zone) until the zone will be free.
 (e) At a traffic node leaving a traffic zone: The
vehicle begins to move to the next segment.
3.3Constraints for Network Design in the Simulation Model
The following are considered by the simulation
model for the design of an RAL network.
· Each path traveled by a vehicle is composed of a
number of segments. Each segment is a section of
the guidepath between two adjacent nodes.
· A node is a control location on the
guidepath at
which anRAL can stop and/or perform loading
or dumping activities.
· Each segment can be either of the following types:
unidirectional, two-way unidirectional, or
bidirectional.
· Three safety distances are considered.
(a) Safety distance between stopped vehicles.
(b) Safety braking distance between vehicles in
moving in the same direction.
motion
(c) Safety distance between a stationary (stopped)
vehicle in a given segment and the node of the
end of this segment to which the vehicle
motion is directed. The point in this segment at
which the vehicle stops is called the check
point for the node. This safety distance must be
’
sufficiently large to prevent collision between
the stationary vehicle at the node and another
vehicle crossing the node. This situation is
illustrated in Figure 3.
· The minimum length of a segment is at least equal
to the length of a vehicle plus twice the safety
distance between a stopped vehicle at a check point
and its associated node.
Figure 3. Illustration of the safety distance between a
stationary vehicle at the check point of a segment and the
next node N at the end of this segment
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
· Every possible route from a loading point to a
dumping point and vice versa must contain only
one vertex defined as a loading point and only one
vertex defined as a dumping point.
· The ore quality for each loading and dumping
point must be specified as input data in the model.
· A trafficzone consists of a maximum of six non-
unidirectional segments and four traffic nodes, as
shown in the following illustration (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Traffic zone with four traffic nodes
Another example of a traffic zone having three traffic
nodes is shown in Figure 5.
· No vehicle is allowed to wait inside a traffic zone
because the zone will be blocked. The vehicle
length prohibits any vehicle waiting inside the
zone considered.
· One vehicle at a time crosses a traffic zone.
· Traffic zones are not overlaid. They do not share
their traffic nodes. Traffic zones are used to prevent
collisions at intersections and merge points. If two
or more RALs arrive at a zone simultaneously or
are waiting at the
entry points of this zone, a traffic
rule canbe used to determine which vehicle will
cross the zone first and to supervise the traffic
movement in this zone. In this research, three
traffic rules are applied: The First In First Out
(FIFO), the Last In First Out (LIFO), and the
Loaded vehicle First (LF). In FIFO cases, the
vehicle that arrives first at a traffic zone can cross
the traffic zone first. The LIFO rule represents the
opposite situation of FIFO. When the LF rule is
applied loaded RALs have priority, and these may
enter a traffic zone first. The most commonly
applied traffic rule in this work is the FIFO rule.
335
 · If two vehicles have stopped one after the other in
the network (for instance in a segment or
due to a breakdown of a vehicle in front of them),
then, when the first vehicle starts to move, the
motion of the second vehicle will be made to
comply with one of the two following rules.
Case A. The second vehicle will move at the same

speed the first vehicle if and only if the

as
―――
second vehicle can travel faster or at the
same speed as the first RAL.

Case B. It will move at its

predetermined (input)
speed in that
specific segment if and
only if the second RAL is slower than the
first vehicle. This rule is also valid for more
than two vehicles in the queue. An example
is given in Figure 6. In this figure, vehicles
Figure 5. Traffic zone with three traffic nodes Vl, V2, V3, and V4wait to enter and travel
A detailed discussion of traffic rules and their
along segment (1 - 2).
characteristics can be found in the literature [11]. In
PROFITIS, it is possible to apply different traffic rules
in different traffic zones for the same transport layout.
Thus, a system planner can evaluate the effects of
combining various rules for different traffic zones.
3.4 Basic Rules for Vehicle Motion in the Simulation Model
-
Each vehicle has the capacity for only one load, and
a load is transported by only one vehicle.

· Vehicles cannot pass each other on the same

segment headed in the same direction.

· Vehicles cannot turn en route.
· The bucket of a vehicle must always be presented
to both the loading and dumping points.

· Empty vehicles are not kept idle while the

transportation system is operating.
· One vehicle at a time loads at a loading point or Figure 6. An example of a possible traffic situation
dumps at a dumping point.
· All input speeds for the vehicles are those that
comply with our rule described above (for
To
reasons of collision avoidance), the actual speeds of
comply with the manufacturer’s specifications. The these vehicles in segment (1 2) will be: -

input speeds of a vehicle moving on sequential

segments should change gradually from segment Vi will travel through segment (1 2) at 10 km/h. -

to segment according to the acceleration or V2will travel through segment (1 2) at 5 km/h -

deceleration of the vehicle. (Case B).

· Fuelling and vehicle inspection are assumed to be V3will travel through segment (1 2) at 4 km/h -

performed before the start of a shift or at (Case B).

the end. Vehicles are parked at the repair station
V4will travel through segment (1 2) at 4 km/h -

(node R) in the network. The dispatch algorithm (Case A).

controls the motion of the vehicles from/to the
repair station. This station is assumed to be always 3.5 Assumptions for Simulation Events in the Simulation
accessible by humans. Model
An RAL system is basically semi-automatic since
humans are engaged in the teleoperation of the

336

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015

loading activity. The model can simulate the effect of
coffee breaks, lunch breaks, and shift changes on the
performance of an RAL system. The following logics
are implemented in the occurrence of these events:
Coffee break and shift change events: Whenever these
events occur operators are not available for the
time duration of a break or a shift change. On
completion of one of these events, operators become
available for supervision of a loading operation.
Lunch break event: The model can simulate two types
of lunch breaks:
· Two lunch break periods for two groups of operators;
· One lunch break period for all operators
simultaneously.
Whenever two lunch breaks for two groups is to be
considered, the model sets the operators of the first
group as non-available until their lunch break is
finished. The second group of operators then com-
mences their lunch break. The operators belonging to
the first group are now available for the loading
activity. When the lunch break of the second group
of operators is over, then these operators are also
available for supervision of loading activities.
In the case when one lunch break is taken by all
operators simultaneously, the procedures applied are
the same as those for coffee break or shift change
events. An important assumption is introduced to
model the events described above:
-
If
a coffee or a lunch break or a shift change occurs
during a loading activity, the operator involved in
the activity will not leave until this activity is completed.
Many researchers who model the traffic and dispatch
control of AGV transport systems do not consider
vehicle breakdowns in their models; see, for example,
[7, 8,12,13]. In mining, equipment servicing and
maintenance costs form a significant portion of the
mine’s total operating costs. In this model, vehicle
breakdowns are modelled. Whenever a breakdown
occurs, however, the procedures taken by mining
staff must be assumed, since an RAL system has not
yet been employed in the mines. For RAL break-
downs, the following assumptions are therefore
made:
· It is forbidden for humans to enter a layout where
an RAL system is operating;
· Since RAL system is a new concept, it is
an
expected thatsimple maintenance policies will be
applied whenever vehicle breakdowns occur;
· In the current version of PROFITIS, it is assumed
that specially developed automatic towing vehicles
are not available for the removal of a defective RAL
from the network.
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
The current version of the model assumes that when
an RAL is broken down then the system’s operation
is halted and maintenance personnel will remove the
vehicle from the guidepath and the system will then
resume operation. The overall traffic and dispatch
controller is informed of the vehicle breakdown and
takes appropriate action to ensure safe motion of the
remaining vehicles in the system. In the meantime, a
stand-by vehicle is requested for operation from the
repair station. If there is a stand-by RAL, this vehicle
commences operation immediately. The RAL system
otherwise operates with fewer vehicles until a broken
RAL is repaired and returned to operation.
Whenever a breakdown occurs, the RAL system is
shut off mainly for safety reasons and also to reduce
traffic congestion. In future versions of PROFITIS, it
might be possible to send unmanned towing vehicles
supervised by the same overall traffic controller in
the transport area. In such cases, the towing vehicles
could avoid collision with the operating RALs, reach
the broken vehicle and remove it from the transport
area. Another type of interruption that might occur is
related to obstacle avoidance during vehicle motion.
In underground mines it is possible that a boulder
might fall in the path of an oncoming RAL. These
interruptions are not simulated in the current version
of the model; however, they can easily be modeled as
discrete events (e.g., like vehicle breakdown events).
When this event occurs for a given vehicle, the
segment occupied by this moving vehicle must be
blocked. No other RAL can enter this segment. With
the current state of technology, obstacle avoidance is
considered as a rather complicated task for imple-
mentation on automatic RALs. It is therefore expected
that prototype RALs will be equipped with hardware
and software for obstacle detection and later with
technology for obstacle avoidance.
4. A Case Study
4.1 Introduction
A case study will now be discussed in this paper. It is
concerned with the possible future utilization of a
fleet of RALs in a mining transport layout in the
Swedish iron ore underground mine of LKAB at
Kiruna. At present, manually operated electric LHDs,
the Toro 500E vehicles manufactured by ARA Inc.,
Finland, are used in the Kiruna mine. The transport
layout used for the case study consists of three
loading points and two dumping points as shown in
Figure 7. Five traffic zones have been created for
this layout. All road segments are of the bidirectional
type. The RALs are assumed to transport material
from the loading points and dump it at the two
dumping points (or ore passes). It is also assumed that
337
the RALs resemble conventional Toro 500E LHDs
presently used in the Kiruna mine with respect to the
vehicle length (10.6 m) and bucket load (15 tons).
The production figures are expressed as Total Tons
Dumped (TTD) per six hour shift. Input data for the
transport layout of Figure 7 is based on records from
the Kiruna mine. In this case study, an attempt is
made to investigate the following problems:
· Given the transport layout of Figure 7, how many
RALs can operate simultaneously until traffic
saturation is reached?
· Given the transport layout of Figure 7 and a fleet of
RALs, how many operators are necessary to
supervise the loading operation of RALs for
efficient operation of the RAL system in a given
time period?
The most interesting measures of performance in
this case study are the following:
· Total production achieved (per six hour shift);
· Vehicle waiting times at loading points;
· Vehicle waiting and blocking times.
Figure 7. A transport layout in the Kiruna mine, generated
by PROFITIS Version 2.0 with graphical representation of
the road network of an RAL system (T denotes a traffic
node, D denotes a dumping point, R denotes a repair
station and L denotes a loading point). All road segments
are bidirectional.
4.2 Input Data and Definitions of Relevant Performance
Measures
Since an RAL system is not yet available, assump-
tions must be made about the speed in the network
and the loading and dumping times of the vehicles
with respect to conventional LHDs. These assump-
tions and reasons for their adoption have been
discussed elsewhere [14]. These assumptions are
selected so that the operation of a future RAL system
338
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
may be simulated as accurately as possible:
(a) The average speed of an RAL is approximately
the same as the average speed of a conventional
LHD of comparable size; i
’
(b) The time for the loading operation of an RAL
should not exceed that of a conventional LHD of
comparable size by more than 30%;
(c) The time for the dumping operation of an RAL
should not exceed that of a conventional LHD of
comparable size by more than 30%.
Assumption (b) is taken into consideration since an
RAL is anew/prototype system and thus time is
required by the operators to familiarize themselves
with and take full advantage of the RAL system’s
capabilities. Early experimentation with RAL systems
have indicated that the above mentioned assump-
tions are appropriate, see [14]. The case study pre-
sented in this section does not deal with the eco-
nomic aspects of installing and operating an RAL
system. The general input data related to the trans-
port layout of Figure 7 are shown in Table 1.
For convenience, the following definitions are used.
· The Total Travel Time of a vehicle while traveling
Empty (TTTE) is the total time that a vehicle spends
traveling from dumping points to loading points.
· The Average Travel Time of all vehicles while
traveling Empty (ATTE) is
where n is the total number of vehicles.
· The Total Travel Time of a vehicle while traveling
Loaded(TTTL) is the total time that a vehicle spends
traveling from loading points to dumping points.
· The Average Travel Time of all vehicles while
traveling Loaded (ATTL) is
where n is the total number of vehicles.
-
The Total Blocking Time (TBT) of a vehicle is the
total time that a vehicle stops at intersections or is
blocked by another vehicle due to traffic conditions
in the network.
The
-
Average Blocking Time (ABT) of all vehicles is
.
 Table 1. Input data for the RAL vehicles

Loading time: 36 - 60 seconds, Uniform probability distribution

Dumping time: 18 - 30 seconds, Uniform probability distribution
Bucket load: 14-15 tons, Uniform probability distribution
Average speed in the network: 10 km/h
Length of a vehicle: 10.6 m (same as a conventional TORO 500 E)
Effective working time in a shift is 6 hours
Traffic rule applied in the traffic zones is First In First Out (FIFO)
In Figure 7:

where n is the total number of vehicles.

.
The Traffic Factor (TF) of a vehicle (TF) is defined
as
where k is the total number of loading points visited.
Simulation output analysis of the case study is
based on the method of independent replications;
-
The Average Traffic Factor (ATF) of all vehicles is
see [15].
defined as
4.2.1 Case Study Results. In this case study, we
evaluate the performance of a fleet of RALs by
increasing the number of vehicles until traffic satura-
tion is reached. In the layout of Figure 7, it is possible
to operate two vehicles simultaneously without
where n is the total number of vehicles. traffic interaction (by sending each vehicle to a
different loading and dumping point). Since one of
-
The Waiting Time (WT) at a loading point is the
the purposes of this particular case study is to
average time that vehicles spend waiting to be evaluate the effects of traffic interference among
loaded by an operator.
vehicles, then the first two vehicles are set to run
-
The Average Waiting Time (AWT) at all loading between the same loading and dumping points
points is (loading point 27 and dumping point 24 in Figure 7).

339

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015

 Table 2. Output from 10 simulation runs (95% confidence interval)
Simulation time (hours) : 6.0 (One shift)

ATTE is Average Travel Time of Empty vehicles in hours

ATTL is Average Travel Time of Loaded vehicles in hours
ABT is Average Blocking Time of vehicles in hours
ATF is Average Traffic Factor of vehicles in %
AWT is Average Waiting Time at loading points in minutes
TTD is Total Tons Dumped in tons

340

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015

This also indicates that, thanks to automation, it is
possible to operate two vehicles between the same
loading and dumping points, a situation not cur-
rently possible for manually driven LHDs due to
safety precautions. We also vary the number of
operators for the loading activity from one to three.
The transport layout in Figure 7 includes three loading
points. The maximum number of operators needed is
three. The output from ten repeated runs using
different random number seeds and 95% confidence
limits, is shown in Table 2. The value of the t distribu-
tion with (10-1) degrees of freedom, which produces a
95% confidence interval, is t(100-95)/2 = 2.26 [15].
The dispatch procedure manages to supervise a
maximum of five RALs in the layout of Figure 7.
Traffic saturation is reached with six RALs. This is
mainly due to the lack of available loading points
and the short cycle times of the vehicles (cycle time
loading time + transport time loaded + dumping
time + transport time empty). Since the dispatch
procedure cannot send the sixth vehicle to a loading
point, then the waiting time for the sixth vehicle
increases rapidly. Furthermore, the short cycle times
of the other vehicles eliminate the chances of the
sixth RAL finding a feasible route to a loading point.
The production varies from 2543 tons/shift for two
RALs with one operator to 5945 tons/shift for five
vehicles and three operators. Thus, by adding three
vehicles to a fleet of two RALs and using three
operators instead of one for the loading activity, the
production is increased by a factor of 2.34. Five RALs
with one operator, however, produce only 6% less
than five vehicles with three operators.
Furthermore, by studying the results presented in
Table 2, it can be seen that there is no significant
contribution to the production if the number of
operators is increased from two to three for all
simulation runs. This is true, since the maximum
average waiting time for all cases in Table 2 does not
exceed 0.28 minutes < 17 seconds (Table 2, the case of
five RALs with one operator). Waiting times at
loading points of less than 17 seconds are very short
and will not affect the production significantly.
Interesting results are also related to the Average
Blocking Time (ABT) of the vehicles. The ABT varies
from 0.81 hours 49 minutes to 1.08 hours 65
= =
minutes as shown in Table 2. Thus, on average, for
one hour from a total of six operating hours, the
vehicles are blocked less than 17% (1/6 hours) of
the total operating time. This is better illustrated if
the Average Traffic Factor (ATF) is used. The ATF
varies from 73% to 87% according to Table 2. These
values are quite satisfactory if we consider that these
vehicles are running in a network with bidirectional
road segments. In the manufacturing industry,
Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015
typical values of the traffic factor for AGVs range
between 85% and 100% [10]. From the above discus-
sion, we may draw the following conclusions for this
case study.
~
The effect on production of using more than one
operator for the teleoperation of the loading
is substantial.
activity not
~
The increase in production is due mainly to the use
of additional vehicles in the layout of Figure 7.
Capital investment and operating costs of the
vehicles therefore become very important when we
wish to evaluate the economic feasibility of installing
an RAL system with several vehicles in simultaneous
operation.
~
The dispatch procedure can supervise a maximum
of five vehicles before traffic saturation is reached.
= ~
The traffic factor of vehicles in the system, even
with five RALs, is considered to be acceptable;
AWT is less than 17% of the total operating time,
with ATF ranging between 73% and 87%.
It is interesting to mention that recently reported
results and benefits from a demonstration of
teleoperation of two automatic LHDs by one operator
on the surface by INCO Limited, a mining company
in Canada, see [2], indicate agreement with the
conclusions reported in this paper. Baiden and
Henderson in [2] reported an expected increase in
productivity gains (in tons/person-shift) by a factor
of 2.4 in the case of teleoperation of five automatic
LHDs from the surface by one operator instead of
teleoperation of two automatic LHDs by one opera-
tor. This simulation study indicates (see Table 2) that
an increase in the production by a factor of 2.2 is
possible when we are operating five RALs with one
operator (5608 tons/shift) instead of two RALs with
one operator (2543 tons/shift).
5. Conclusions
This paper discusses simulation modelling of a fleet
of remote-controlled/automatic LHDs in under-
ground mining. A discrete-event simulation model
(PROFITIS Version 2.0) has been developed for
this purpose. This model integrates graphical model-
ling and presentation of RAL transport layouts, as
well as animation of vehicles during simulation. The
application environment of the model corresponds to
that found in a real underground transport layout
consisting of several loading points and dumping
points (ore passes). The simulation model is applied
to evaluate the capacity of a future RAL system in a
typical transport layout at the LKAB Swedish iron
ore mine in Kiruna.
341
 The interpretation of the conclusions derived from [11] Egbelu, P.J. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. 1986. "Potentials for
the case study is made within the limits and the bi-directional guide-path for automated guided vehicle
based systems." International Journal of Production
assumptions of the input data employed. Decisions Research vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1075-1097.
must therefore be based not only on the inferences
drawn above but also on economic factors. [12] Wang, S.-P.T. 1985. "Animated graphic simulation of
an automatic guided vehicle system." Proceedings of the
The separation of the simulation of the operational 1985 Winter Simulation Conference pp. 252-255.
behavior of an RAL system from the cost aspects [13] Taghaboni, F. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. 1988. "A LISP-
offers an opportunity to the mining companies to based controller for free-ranging automated guided
calculate and analyze the economic consequences of vehicle systems." International Journal of Production
several possible alternatives for operating a fleet of Research vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 173-188.
RALs in an underground hard rock mine. Each mine [14] Vagenas, N. 1988. Remote-Controlled/Automatic Load-
has, of course, its own characteristics. A careful study Haul-Dump (LHD) System in Underground Mining.
Licentiate Thesis, Lule&aring; University of Technology,
is therefore necessary to determine the feasibility of Division of Mining Equipment Engineering, Lule&aring;,
applying an RAL system. The author hopes that the Sweden, 01L, ISSN 0280-8242.
work presented in this paper will be seen as an [15] Banks, J. and Carson, J. 1984. Discrete-Event System
attempt to increase awareness of the potential and Simulation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. p. 514.
limitations of utilizing RAL systems in underground
hard rock mines.
NICK VAGENAS received a BSc in
6. References Mining Engineering from the National
[1] Vagenas, N. 1991. "Dispatch control of a fleet of remote- Technical University of Athens in Greece
controlled/automatic load-haul-dump vehicles in in 1985 and his PhD in the field of Mining
underground mines." International Journal of Production Automation from Lulea University of
Research vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 2347-2363. Technology, Lulea, Sweden in 1990. He is
[2] Baiden, G.R. and Henderson,E. 1994. "LHD presently Associate Professor in the
teleoperation and guidance - Proven productivity School of Engineering at Laurentian
improvement tools." CIM Bulletin October, pp. 47-51. University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.
He is the head and founder of the
[3] Vagenas, N. 1990. A Dispatch Procedure for Traffic Control Laurentian University Mining Automation Laboratory
of a Fleet of Remote-Controlled/Automatic LHDs in
Underground Hard Rock Mines. Doctoral Dissertation, (LUMAL) which is supported by the Department of Mines
Lule&aring; University of Technology, Division of Mining Research of INCO Limited. His research interests are in the
Equipment Engineering, Lule&aring;, Sweden, 77D, ISSN field of mining automation, simulation of mining systems,
0348-8373. and maintenance of mining equipment.
1950. "A note on two problems in Tel: (705) 675-1151, ext. 2341; FAX: (705) 675-4862
[4] Dijkstra, E.W. E-mail: NVAGENAS@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA
connection with graphs." Numerische Mathematik vol. 1,
Internet site: h t tp : / / www . 1 aur en t i an . c a / www / LUMAL
pp. 269-271.
[5] Blair, E. 1980. "Vehicle routing and material handling
subject to stochastic demand." ORSA-TIMS Bulletin p. 72.
[6] Maxwell, W.L. 1981. "Solving material handling design
problems with OR." Industrial Engineering vol. 13, no. 4,
pp. 58-69.
[7] Egbelu, P.J. 1982. A Design Methodology for Operational
Control Elements for Automatic Guided Vehicle Based
Material Handling Systems. Doctoral Dissertation,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
[8] Lin, J.T. 1986. Development of a Graphic Simulation Model
for Design of Automated Guided Vehicle Systems. Doctoral
Dissertation, Lehigh University.
[9] Dhouib, K. and Ait Kadi, D. 1994. "Expert system for
AGV managing in bidirectional networks: KADS
methodology based approach." International Journal of
Production Economics vol. 33, pp. 31-43.
[10] Groover, M. and Zimmers, E. 1984. CAD/CAM -
Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing. Prentice-Hall
International Editions.

342

Downloaded from sim.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on July 10, 2015