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

net/publication/292965108

Measuring the effectiveness of mining shovels

Article  in  Mining Engineering · March 2016

DOI: 10.19150/me.6501

CITATIONS READS

10 2,304

3 authors:

Saeid R Dindarloo Elnaz Siami-Irdemoosa

MERS Missouri University of Science and Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS   498 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   243 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Samuel Frimpong
Missouri University of Science and Technology
183 PUBLICATIONS   903 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shovel Crawler-Formation Interactions in Excavation Science and Engineering View project

Dissolution-enlarged fractures imaging in karst terrains View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saeid R Dindarloo on 29 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Technical Papers

Measuring the effectiveness

of mining shovels
by S.R. Dindarloo, E. Siami-Irdemoosa and S. Frimpong

Abstract ■ Electric and hydraulic shovels are the dominant loading machinery in surface mining
operations. Despite their critical role in production and their high capital and operating costs,
no reliable and comprehensive quantitative performance metric is available. In this paper, a
stochastic shovel effectiveness (SSE) measure is proposed for the purpose of quantifying the
performance effectiveness of these shovels. The SSE is based on the widely used method of
overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) in the manufacturing industry. The OEE measures the
performance effectiveness of equipment by multiplying its mechanical availability, utilization
and production quality. In manufacturing processes, quality rate is the ratio of the total number
of products minus the number of defective products – equivalent to the number of acceptable
products – to the total number of products. The SSE similarly uses the mechanical-availability
and utilization terms, but instead of quality rate it uses a new parameter named bucket rate.
The variability or randomness of the input data, that is, availability, utilization and bucket
rate, are further incorporated into the SSE, and a final stochastic SSE distribution is derived in
the form of a probability density function. One hydraulic and one electric shovel in a surface
mining operation were selected to test the validity of the proposed method. The SSE scores
for the two shovels, operating continuously for one year, were derived and compared. As with
the OEE, the three-parameter SSE method yielded more representative results for overall
performance measurement than a single-parameter approach. Using Monte Carlo simulation,
a three-parameter Weibull and a normal distribution were derived for quantifying the overall
effectiveness of hydraulic and electric shovels, respectively. As a decision aid, the proposed
methodology promises to render a more informative tool than traditional metrics for mine
equipment maintenance and management.

Mining Engineering, 2016, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 45-50.

Official publication of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc.
http://dx.doi.org/10.19150/me.6501

S.R. Dindarloo and E. Siami-

Introduction equipment availability, A; performance,
In today’s highly competitive eco- P; and quality rate, Q. The OEE is de-
Irdemoosa are Ph.D. candidates
nomic world, productivity maximiza- fined as OEE = A × P × Q. Since the
in the Department of Mining
tion plays a key role in the survival and three parameters of A, P and Q have
and Nuclear Engineering and
advancement of almost every industry values between zero and unity, the
Department of Geosciences
(Tomlingson, 2014). The most critical overall OEE of a piece of equipment is
and Geological and Petroleum
determinant of the competitiveness assigned a score between zero and one
Engineering, respectively, and
of a manufacturing company may be that quantifies its level of effectiveness.
S. Frimpong is professor of mining
the availability and productivity of its The OEE’s goal is to maximize the
engineering in the Department of
equipment fleet (Fleischer, Weismann productivity and quality of outputs at
Mining and Nuclear Engineering
and Niggeschmidt, 2006). Perhaps the the equipment level by first identifying
at Missouri University of Science
most widely appreciated method of the major losses in the current system
and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA.
measuring equipment effectiveness and consequently proposing efficient
Email: srd5zb@mst.edu. Paper
stems from the seminal work of Naka- corrective actions. The major losses in
number TP-15-022. Original
jima (1988) on total productive mainte- the effectiveness of a piece of equip-
manuscript submitted July 2015.
nance, within the context of which the ment can be categorized into the three
Revised manuscript accepted
concept of overall equipment effective- classes of downtime, speed and quality
for publication November 2015.
ness (OEE) was first proposed. OEE losses (Pintelon, Gelders and Puyvelde,
Discussion of this peer-reviewed
provides a reliable, easy-to-measure 2000). The major losses, known as the
and approved paper is invited
and practical metric for quantifying the six big losses, include breakdowns and
and must be submitted to SME
overall performance of equipment. The setup, which are downtime losses, idle
Publications by June 30, 2016.
three major components of OEE are: times and reduced speeds, which are

www.miningengineeringmagazine.com Mınıng engıneerıng    march 2016 45

Technical Papers

Abstract ■ Las eléctricas e hidráulicas son la maquinaria de carga dominante en las operaciones
mineras en superficie. A pesar de su rol clave en la producción y su alto capital y costos de
operación, no hay disponible no existen métricas cuantitativas integrales de su desempeño. En
este trabajo proponemos una medida de efectividad estocástica de pala minera (SSE por sus
siglas en inglés) con el propósito de cuantificar el rendimiento de la efectividad de estas palas. El
SSE se basa en el ampliamente usado método de efectividad del equipo en general (OEE por sus
siglas en inglés) en la industria manufacturera. La OEE mide el rendimiento de la efectividad del
equipo multiplicando su disponibilidad mecánica, uso y calidad de producción. En procesos de
manufactura, el índice de calidad es la relación del número total de productos menos el número
de productos defectuosos – equivalente al número de productos aceptables – con el número total
de productos. De manera similar el SSE usa la disponibilidad mecánica y las condiciones de uso,
pero en lugar del índice de calidad usa un parámetro nuevo llamado tasa de cubeta (bucket rate).
La variabilidad o aleatoriedad del input de datos, es decir, disponibilidad, uso y tasa de
cubeta, son incorporados al SSE, y se deriva una distribución estocástica final SSE en la forma
de una función de densidad de probabilidad. Se seleccionó una pala hidráulica y una pala
eléctrica en una operación minera en superficie para probar la validez del método propuesto.
Los resultados SSE para las dos palas, operando de forma continua durante un año fueron
derivados y comparados. Al igual que la OEE, el método SSE de tres parámetros dio mayores
resultados representativos para una medición de rendimiento general que un enfoque de un
solo parámetro. Usando una simulación Monte Carlo, un Weibull de tres parámetros y una
distribución normal se derivaron para cuantificar la efectividad general de la pala hidráulica y
la pala eléctrica, respectivamente. Como una ayuda para la decidir, la metodología propuesta
promete ser una herramienta más informativa que las métricas tradicionales para mantenimiento
y administración de equipos de minería.;

speed losses, and output defects and reduced yields, which
are quality losses (Fig. 1). OEE can be used to improve
equipment effectiveness by recognizing the root causes of
the above losses (Bulent, Tugwell and Greatbanks, 2000;
Tomlingson, 2010).
Although the OEE was originally proposed for manu-
facturing processes, other industries have developed cus-
tomized and task-specific definitions based on the nature
of their particular industries such as overall factory effec-
tiveness, overall plant effectiveness, and production equip-
ment effectiveness (Muchiri and Pintelon, 2008). Despite
its widespread application in different industries, there are
few published research studies in the field of mining engi-
neering. Our literature review yielded only three relevant
publications. Paraszczak (2005) discussed the possibility of
applying OEE in the effectiveness quantification of mining
equipment and postulated that the third term, quality rate,
of the original OEE is not pertinent to mining equipment,
being initially proposed to measure quality in the manu-
facturing industry. In this paper, we propose an equivalent
mining equipment term called bucket rate. Elevli and Elevli
(2010) investigated two mining equipment examples, trucks
and shovels, using the original OEE with some assumed val-
ues for different times. They did not address the issue of the
quality term, Q, in the particular case of mining equipment,
and hence no specific alternative was proposed. Norden and
Ismail (2012) evaluated the OEE of an underground bord-
and-pillar mine by mimicking a typical batch process using
the traditional OEE.
The main goal of our study is to propose a customized
OEE for mining shovels. The variability of availability, per-
formance and quality is incorporated into the proposed sto-
chastic OEE, and a new task-specific term, named bucket
rate, is proposed to replace quality rate. This is the first study
for the case of mining shovels and holds potential for use
in benchmarking the effectiveness of these shovels. The cur-
rent benchmark OEE for the manufacturing industry is 85
percent. For mining shovels, further research and more case
studies are required to propose a reliable benchmark.

Figure 1 Methods
A methodology for measuring stochastic shovel effec-
The six big losses of OEE at the equipment level (Muchiri and tiveness (SSE) is proposed based on the original OEE. Me-
Pintelon, 2008). chanical availability, utilization and bucket rate are the key
performance indices (KPIs) incorporated into the method.
The KPIs and their effective factors are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Shovel technology/manufacturer, dealership support, main-
tenance quality and operator skills in using the machinery
are the four major known factors that affect the mechanical
availability, which is therefore influenced at the equipment,
operation and management levels. Operation management,
operator skills and experience, production policies, mineral
processing tonnage and grade requirements, and weather
conditions affect utilization, representing performance, so it

46 march 2016    Mınıng engıneerıng www.miningengineeringmagazine.com

 Technical Papers
is mostly affected by actions or decisions at the managerial Figure 2
level. The bucket rate is specifically defined to replace qual-
ity rate, which in the original OEE is defined as the percent- Structure of the SSE.
age of acceptable products per specified time interval out of
the total number of products. For mining shovels, buckets
of material are excavated and dumped instead of units of
goods being produced. The effective factors influencing the
quality, which is the amount of material in the case of mining
shovels, are therefore the bucket’s fill factor, operator skill,
quality of working face, and work load, including operator
fatigue and readiness.

Availability. Availability is perhaps the most widely used

KPI for evaluating mining shovels. It is generally defined as
the ratio of shovel uptime to total scheduled hours. A key pa-
rameter in the definition of shovel availability is their sched-
uled or planned downtimes, but the original OEE method
does not incorporate these downtimes in the efficiency mea-
surement at the equipment level. Several researchers subse-
quently tried to account for these downtimes by including
the mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to
repair (MTTR) concepts into the original OEE (Muchiri
and Pintelon, 2008). This approach is used in this study to
achieve a more representative availability index for the case
of mining shovels. The most important effective factors in-
fluencing shovel mechanical availability are robustness of
technology/manufacturer, dealership support, maintenance
quality and operator skills. Of the four, maintenance quality
at least is not a deterministic value. The variability or ran-
domness of the maintenance quality results in variability of
a shovel’s mechanical availability. Equation (1) is the deter-
ministic definition of the availability variable:
(1)
In Eq. (1), both MTBF and MTTR are averaged values
in specified periods, for example, during a year, and hence
one value will be assigned to the equipment availability. Al-
ternatively, random mechanical availability per time interval
can be written as:
(2)
where Ai is the mechanical availability during the ith interval,
such as day, week or month; AOH is the total available work-
ing time, equivalent to scheduled operating hours minus
scheduled preventive maintenance hours; TTRj is the repair
time of the jth failure in the ith interval; m is the total number
of failures in the ith interval; and n is the total number of in-
tervals, for example, 52 weeks per year.
Because every time a shovel fails it takes a random
amount of time, TTRj, to repair, the resultant mechanical
availability, Ai, is a random variable. To define the probabilis-
tic characteristics of the availability, the probability density
function of the TTRjs should be derived by constructing the
histograms of historical data and fitting theoretical probabil-
ity density functions. In the next step, a Monte Carlo simula-
tion program solves Eq. (2) for the availability by repetitive
independent random sampling from the probability density
function of the input. After many iterations, usually on the
order of several thousands, the parameters of the availabil-
ity’s probability density function will be defined from a his-
togram of its obtained random values.
Effective utilization. Effective utilization, U, is the per-
centage of scheduled production times that a shovel is work-
ing, or effective production, which is equivalent to the per-
formance rate of OEE in manufacturing:
(3)
where CT is the loading cycle time, including shovel posing,
digging, swinging, dumping and returning; NL is the num-
ber of cycles per specified time interval; and OT is the total
available operation time.
Similar to availability, the independent variables of utili-
zation are random in nature. Particularly, both the cycle time
and number of cycles are random variables that depend on
several factors, such as availability of dump trucks, perfor-
mance quality of auxiliary machinery, weather conditions,
drilling and blasting performance, operator skill and opera-
tor fatigue (Dindarloo, Osanloo and Frimpong, 2015). Thus,
a random utilization parameter is defined in:
(4)
where CTt,j is the jth cycle time in period t, NLt is the number
of cycles in period t, and OTt is the available operating time
in period t.
Bucket rate. The third term in the original OEE relates
to the production quality of equipment, Q, which is defined
as the percentage of the total number of products that are
acceptable products. In each time period, some units might
be rejected due to defects, such as poor quality or malfunc-
tions, so Q is equal or less than unity. For mining shovels,
the product units are passes of material, such as overbur-
den, waste or ore, to dump trucks. Because every pass will be

www.miningengineeringmagazine.com Mınıng engıneerıng    march 2016 47

Technical Papers
hauled by the dump trucks, an assumption of product quality
is not relevant, so a new customized metric is defined in the
proposed SSE as the bucket rate. The quality of a shovel’s
production can be measured in terms of the percentage
of its practical bucket capacity that is filled in each single
loading or dumping of materials. This practical capacity is
determined by multiplying a bucket fill factor by the nomi-
nal capacity of the bucket. The bucket fill factor is mainly
controlled by the size distribution of fragmented rock and
the digging skill of the shovel operator. Though in practical
applications, a deterministic value of 0.85 to 0.95 is usually
considered for the fill factor, the nature of the variable is
random, with both temporal and spatial variabilities:
(5)
(6)
where Bt,s is the random bucket rate variable at time interval
t and location s; NC is the nominal capacity of the shovel’s
bucket; PQt,s is the working face’s quality factor, for example,
the size distribution of rock fragments, which is a random
variable of both t and s; AOt,s is the auxiliary operations qual-
Figure 3
Failure frequency of the electric shovel.
Figure 4
Failure frequency of the hydraulic shovel.
48 march 2016    Mınıng engıneerıng www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
ity factor, for bench and face cleaning and preparation for
loading; ORt is the operator’s readiness factor, which is a
random variable of time, including changes due to the op-
erator’s fatigue or work load.
SSE. Because the three determinants of the SSE are ran-
dom variables between 0 and unity, the resulting SSE is also
a random variable within the same range as defined by:
(7)
where SSEt,k is the overall stochastic effectiveness of the kth
shovel in time interval t; At,k is the random value of the kth
shovel’s availability in t; Ut,k is the random value of the kth
shovel’s utilization in t; and the final term is the random val-
ue of the kth shovel’s bucket rate in t that is averaged over m
different working faces.
Using Eq. (7), the probability density function
can be defined by repetitive Monte Carlo random sampling
from the individual probability density functions of the inde-
pendent variables.
Case study
To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed meth-
odology, automated data collected during one year of con-
tinuous operation of a Bucyrus BI495HR electric rope shov-
el and a RH400 hydraulic O&K shovel are used to validate
the model. The two shovels were operating in the same mine.
The histograms of failure types of the shovels are shown
in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively. The hydraulic shovel failed 242
times during the year. The three most frequent failures of
the hydraulic shovel included: swing system, 22 percent; hy-
draulic links, hoses and piping, 15.7 percent; and engine, 10
percent. The electric shovel failed 119 times, and the most
frequent failure was the electric system, 38.1 percent.
The step-by-step procedure of data analysis and SSE ap-
plication are summarized as follows:
Step 1: Stochastic characterization of TTRs. The histo-
grams and best theoretical probability density functions of
TTRs are plotted for the electric and hydraulic shovels (Figs.
5 and 6). The specified time interval for all calculations is one
week of three shifts of operations per day, so the individual
TTRs are one-week-aggregated data (n = 52).
The best theoretical probability density function among
16 different candidates was identified using Minitab statis-
tical analysis software. A three-parameter Weibull distribu-
tion (shape = 2.41, scale = 100.9, threshold = −2.69) achieved
the highest P-value (P-value = 0.32 > 0.05) at 95 percent con-
fidence level and was selected as the best theoretical repre-
sentative of the TTRs of the electric shovel (Fig. 5). For the
hydraulic shovel (Fig. 6), a two-parameter exponential distri-
bution (scale = 35.60, threshold = 55.25) was identified as the
best fit at 95 percent confidence level (P-value = 0.09 > 0.05).
Step 2: Stochastic characterization of effective utilizations.
Using the automated data collected from the shovels and Eq.
(4), the histograms and probability density functions of ef-
fective utilizations are plotted for the electric and hydraulic
 Technical Papers

Figure 5 Figure 6
Histograms and best theoretical probability density functions Histograms and best theoretical probability density functions
of TTRs, in hours, for the electric shovel. of TTRs, in hours, for the hydraulic shovel.

shovels (Figs. 7 and 8). All operating delays, including shovel
idle times due to unavailability of dump trucks, are consid-
ered. The best probability density function at 95 percent confi-
dence level was a normal distribution (N(60.92,16.75), P-value
= 0.41) for the electric shovel (Fig. 7). The best theoretical
probability density function at 95 percent confidence level
was a log-normal distribution (location = 4.1, scale = 0.18, P-
value = 0.48) for the hydraulic shovel.
Step 3: Stochastic characterization of bucket rates. The
three determinants of U (PQt,s × AOt,s × ORt) are all random
variables that need to be probabilistically defined before
one can calculate the SSE from Eq. (7). In this study, because
of unavailability of the required measurements and without
loss of generalizability of the methodology, a normal distri-
bution (N(85,5)) was assumed for the two shovels.
was considerably more than that of the electric rope shovel
during one year of operation: 242 versus 119. The traditional
way of comparison showed that the electric shovel was more
reliable than the hydraulic shovel in this case study. Though
in the primary single-KPI approach, in terms of reliability or
availability only, the electric shovel was demonstrated to be
more reliable than the hydraulic shovel, a more comprehen-
sive approach, such as OEE, is required to obtain greater in-
sight into the effectiveness issue of the shovels. The hydrau-
Figure 7
Histograms and best theoretical probability density functions
of utilization, in percent, for the electric shovel.

Step 4: Calculation of SSEs. Using Eq. (7) and the results

of the three previous steps, the probability density functions
are calculated using Monte Carlo simulation for the hydrau-
lic and electric shovels (Figs. 9 and 10).
After 2,000 random samplings from the probability den-
sity functions of the TTRs, utilizations and bucket rates, the
best theoretical probability density function for the hydrau-
lic shovel’s SSE was identified as a three-parameter Weibull
at 95 percent confidence level (Fig. 9). For the electric shov-
el, an N(41.9, 13.2) was fitted to the histogram of SSEs (Fig.
10). Figures 9 and 10 characterize the SSE variability and
its likelihood. For instance, the SSE score of the electric
Figure 8
shovel (Fig. 10) is within one standard deviation, 13.16, away Histograms and best theoretical probability density functions
from the mean value, 41.86, with a probability of 68 percent. of utilization, in percent, for the hydraulic shovel.
Similarly, different likelihood scenarios for the range of SSE
scores can be extracted from Figs. 9 and 10. The SSE prob-
ability density functions can serve as decision aids in shovel
comparison, allocation and maintenance planning in a prob-
abilistic approach.

Discussion
Descriptive statistics of the two shovels showed that
the electric rope shovel with MTTR per week of 86.8 hr
was more mechanically available than the hydraulic shovel,
with MTTR of 90.8 hr under the same working conditions.
Furthermore, the number of failures of the hydraulic shovel

www.miningengineeringmagazine.com Mınıng engıneerıng    march 2016 49

 Technical Papers
Figure 9
Histograms and best theoretical probability density functions
of SSE, in percent, for the hydraulic shovel.
lic shovel had more variability in both equipment failures,
which is the first big loss in Fig. 1, and TTRs (Fig. 6), resulting
in considerable loss in the category of maintenance effec-
tiveness. In terms of production effectiveness, the average
utilization per week was nearly the same for both shovels.
However, the probability density function of the hydraulic
shovel (Fig. 8) was more skewed to the right, showing more
variability in the random weekly utilization of the equip-
ment compared with the electrical shovel (Fig. 7). The major
parameter of the hydraulic shovel’s utilization variability
was idling and minor stoppage, the third big loss. The pro-
duction effectiveness losses in shovel operation are mainly
due to production or operation management issues. Overall,
in terms of SSEs, the electric shovel looks more promising,
with a nonskewed probability density function and mean
weekly SSE of nearly 42 percent during the year of study
(Fig. 10). On the other hand, the hydraulic shovel’s SSE is
considerably lower, with a mean SSE value of less than 25
percent (Fig. 9). The effect of the new parameter, bucket
rate, was not analyzed due to lack of data. Future research is
recommended for benchmarking the bucket rate measure to
be able to propose a more comprehensive SSE.
Practical applications
A comprehensive shovel effectiveness metrics is re-
quired for optimal equipment management. Furthermore,
data variability needs to be incorporated in the metric to
be able to examine the effect of real-world situations on
equipment productivity. The proposed stochastic hybrid
metric promises to render greater insight into the problem
of shovel management than single-metric approaches, such
as availability or utilization. The method can be applied to
shovel selection, allocation and maintenance planning for
the goal of achieving maximum productivity. Shovels can be
clustered based on their SSE scores and allocated to specific
parts of a surface mine for improved productivity.
Conclusions
The effectiveness of mining shovels needs to be bench-
marked with quantified metrics. Noting that the tradition-
al OEE approach shows potential for use as the basis for
proposing a more task-specific metric for mining shovels, a
first attempt to customize the OEE method for shovels was
proposed and tested with real shovel data for one electric
50 march 2016    Mınıng engıneerıng www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
View publication stats
Figure 10
Histograms and best theoretical probability density functions
of SSE, in percent, for the electric shovel.
rope shovel and one hydraulic shovel. The results showed
that a three-parameter effectiveness metric, such as the met-
ric proposed in this study, is more appropriate than tradi-
tional single-parameter measures, such as availability only.
Input variability was taken into account in the development
of the new metric. The stochastic shovel effectiveness (SSE)
measure proposed here is promising for use in several real
shovel operations to benchmark shovel effectiveness in the
industry.
Further research
Despite the considerable effect of mining shovels in the
success of any surface mining project that uses shovels, there
is little evidence in the available literature of an attempt to
quantify and benchmark the effectiveness of mining shovels.
Comprehensive task-specific OEEs are required for other
major mining equipment, particularly off-road haul trucks
and drills. The OEE needs to be benchmarked for mining
equipment to be useful in improving industry practices. ■
References
Bulent, D., Tugwell, P., and Greatbanks, R., 2000, “Overall equipment effectiveness
as a measure of operational improvement: a practical analysis,” Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage, Vol. 20, pp. 1488-1502.
Dindarloo, S.R., Osanloo, M., and Frimpong, S., 2015, “A stochastic simulation framework
for truck and shovel selection and sizing in open pit mines,” Journal of the Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 209-219.
Elevli, S., and Elevli, B., 2010, “Performance measurement of mining equipments by
utilizing OEE,” Acta Montanistica Slovaca, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 95-101.
Fleischer, J., Weismann, U., and Niggeschmidt, S., 2006, “Calculation and optimisation
model for costs and effects of availability relevant service elements,” Proceedings
of LCE2006, 2006.
Muchiri, P., and Pintelon, L., 2008, “Performance measurement using overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE): literature review and practical application discussion,”
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46, No. 13, pp. 3517-3535.
Nakajima, S., 1988, Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Norden, C., and Ismail, J., 2012, “Defining a representative overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) measurement for underground bord and pillar coal mining,”
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 112, No.
10, pp. 845-851.
Paraszczak, J., 2005, “Understanding and assessment of mining equipment
effectiveness,” Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, Section
A: Mining Technology, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp. A147-A151.
Pintelon, L., Gelders, L., and Puyvelde, F.V., 2000, Maintenance Management, Acco,
Leuven, Belgium.
Tomlingson, P.D., 2010, Equipment Management: Key to Equipment Reliability and
Productivity in Mining, 2nd Edition, Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration
Inc., Littleton, CO.
Tomlingson, P.D., 2014, Maintenance in Transition: The Journey to World Class
Maintenance, Independent Publisher Services.