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

net/publication/343682343

Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining

Conference Paper · May 2015

CITATION READS
1 693

4 authors, including:

Shiv Upadhyay Hooman Askari Nasab

University of Alberta University of Alberta
35 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS    198 PUBLICATIONS   1,364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Integrated Mine and Tailings Planning Optimization: Oil Sands Focus View project

Production planning strategy and waste management for oil sands View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hooman Askari Nasab on 20 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining
Shiv Prakash Upadhyay, Hooman Askari-Nasab, Mohammad Tabesh, and
Mohammad Mahdi Badiozamani
Mining Optimization Laboratory (MOL), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

ABSTRACT: Simulation has evolved as an effective tool to help achieve highest level of efficiency in
operations by accurately predicting the resultant outcome of any experimental change in the system.
The strength of simulation optimization lies within accurate modelling of the interacting processes
of the system. We present a discrete event simulation model for a large-scale open pit mine with a
focus on haulage simulation. Two critical issues have been taken into consideration to accurately
build the haulage simulation sub-model: 1. Interaction of haul trucks on common shared haul
roads and at intersections, and 2. Haul road characteristics such as rolling resistance and gradients
affecting speed of trucks. We also present a Mixed Integer Linear Goal Programming (MILGP)
Optimization model as the upper stage in a multi-stage dispatching system for shovel allocation
optimization. The mathematical model provides shovel assignments and target productions; as an
input to the discrete event simulation model while meeting the desired goals and constraints of the
mining operation. The MILGP model will be coupled with the simulation model as the link to
optimal short-term schedule and extraction sequence of mining-faces to assist in achieving high-
level of mine plan compliance across short-term planning and operational planning time horizons.
The main contribution of this work so far is the development of a MILGP model and development,
implementation and verification of a simulation model on a large scale oil sands open pit mine case
study. The results obtained so far prove the significance of accurate modelling of haulage network
and the overall simulation for an improved decision making in open pit mines.

INTRODUCTION
The highly competitive market and demand has forced mining companies to adopt new equipment
and technologies to improve the efficiency in operations to realize the short term and long term
objectives of the organizations. Mining operations being capital intensive and uncertain find it risky
to bring in changes to the operations. The simulation, in this regard, provides an alternate tool to
analyze the impact of technological changes to the overall operations; and thus help in decision
making purposes. Various experimental scenarios can be run prior to implementation to reach to
an optimal decision. The strength of simulation can be realized only if it can replicate the reality to
a considerable extent.
Open pit mining with a truck-shovel system is a conglomerate of interacting processes. The
individual processes have significant impact on the overall production operation. Truck travel,
loading, spotting, dumping, processing and dispatching are the major processes that need to be

532
 Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining 533

Figure 1. Interaction between simulation and MILGP optimization models

modelled precisely for a reliable simulation model of the entire mining system. The complexity of
modelling individual processes will also depend on the objectives of the simulation.
This paper presents the development of a simulation model with a focus on truck haulage.
The truck travel time constitute a major part of total operation time available. It depends on truck
speeds and interaction among trucks while travelling. The speed of trucks is characterized by cor-
responding rimpull characteristics, and haul road gradient and rolling resistance. It is also affected
by the interaction among trucks in platoons and at intersections. A haulage simulation model is
presented in this paper, by combining these factors, using the guided path transporters in Rockwell
Automation’s Arena Simulation package (Rockwell Automation 2010).
This research is aimed at developing a model to simulate the operations over longer time hori-
zons for better planning and decision making purposes. One major hurdle that voids the applicabil-
ity of simulation in longer time horizons is the unavailability of real time shovel assignments, within
the simulation models, conforming to the operational plans and extraction schedules. A mixed
integer linear goal programming (MILGP) model is also presented in this paper that is aimed at
bridging the gap between operational plans and short term extraction schedule by providing near
optimal shovel and truck allocations to the simulation model.
Figure 1 describes the interaction between simulation and MILGP models. The optimization
model provides the shovel assignments and production targets to the dispatching process in simula-
tion which assigns trucks to shovels in real time to achieve the set targets. The MILGP model reads
the available faces to be mined from the short term extraction schedule and determines the near
optimal allocation of shovels and production.
The main contribution of this research so far, is the development, implementation, and verifi-
cation of a simulation model of a truck shovel based mining system and development of a MILGP
model which is proposed to act as the upper stage in a multi-stage dispatching system, and a link
between simulation and optimal short-term mine schedule to assists in achieving high-level of mine
plan compliance across short-term and operational planning time horizons.
Simulation has evolved as a powerful tool for decision making in recent years. Ataeepour, et al.
1999; Sturgul, et al. 1987; Bonates, et al. 1988; Forsman, et al. 1993 and Kolonja, et al. 1994 used
simulation models to analyze various dispatching strategies and proved the positive impact of dis-
patching systems in mining. Peng, et al. 1988; Awuah-Offei, et al. 2003; Askari-Nasab, et al. 2007
and many others have used simulation for different purposes. Most simulation models, for truck
shovel based mining systems, do not model haulage system precisely but rather use probabilistic
functions for truck travel times. According to Jaoua, et al. 2012 the duration of truck travel is very
sensitive to the real-time traffic state as well as the road condition. As truck travel times constitute
the major portion of available production time, modelling the haulage system accurately is essential
for realistic estimations.
The MILGP optimization proposed in this paper acts as the upper stage in a multi-stage dis-
patching system. One of the very first uses of this approach was proposed by Elbrond, et al. 1987.
They emphasized on a two-step optimization proposed by White, et al. 1986. Soumis, et al. 1989
534 Mine Discrete-System Simulation II

proposed a three stage dispatching procedure, namely equipment plan, operational plan and dis-
patching plan. Based on the approach, similar procedures have evolved as multi-stage dispatching
systems. Soumis, Ethier and Elbrond 1989, Li 1990, Temeng, et al. 1998, Temeng, et al. 1997,
Gurgur, et al. 2011 and many others have used multi-stage dispatching for optimal decision mak-
ing purpose in the production operations.
The existing models, reviewed in literature, for optimal decision making in truck-shovel based
mining systems do not account for the short term production schedule. Accurate haulage model-
ling in simulation is another area which has not received sufficient attention. This paper is aimed
at working on these limitations and combining the simulation and optimization for an efficient
decision making tool and resource allocation model.
The following section presents the development of a MILGP model and its equations. A simu-
lation model is then presented, with a focus on modelling a haulage system. The implementation
and verification results of the simulation model are then presented using a large scale oil sand case
study, followed by conclusions and future work.

MILGP MODEL
This section presents the development of a MILGP optimization model for near optimal allocation
of shovels and target productions. The model is devised as the upper stage in a multi-stage dispatch-
ing system to provide shovel assignments and target productions to the truck dispatching system,
providing a link with the short-term extraction schedule and operational objectives.
Truck and shovel allocation optimization problem is formulated considering four operational
goals of the mining companies:

1. Maximize the shovel utilization (maximize the production)

2. Minimize the grade deviations at the ore destinations compared to desired grades
3. Minimize the deviation in tonnage supplied to the processing plants compared to the desired
tonnage feed
4. Minimize the operating cost of the mine (maximize the revenue)
The operational goals are combined as a single objective function and solved using non-preemptive
goal programming approach. The following section presents the development of the MILGP model
and constraint equations in detail. All the indices, parameters and variables used in the model are
presented in Appendix A.

Calculations

_ F xf 2 − F fx 1 i + ` F f 2 − F f 1j + _ F zf 2 − F zf 1 i 
2 y y 2 2
Γ fF1,f 2 = (1)

Γ Df, d = D FE ED
f + Dd  (2)

τ s, f = Γ FFs, f Ss  (3)

X +s = U +s # α Ss # X s # T # 3600 L s  (4)

X −s = U −s # α Ss # X s # T # 3600 L s  (5)
 Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining 535

# 1000 + b t60 t l + t t # / c Xs m 
D +E H L
T t, f, d = Γ df, d # c V +
Vt m
1 1 60
(6)
t S # 60 s s

MILGP Formulation
A mixed integer linear goal programming model has been formulated to optimize the goals repre-
sented by Equations (7)–(10), and in the order of their priority considered in this study.
Ψ1 = / x s 
−
(7)
s

Ψ 2 = / / (g −k, d o + g +k, d o)  (8)

do k

Ψ 3 = / (δ −d p + δ +d p)  (9)
dp

Ψ 4 = / / (Γ FFs, f # A s # a s, f + / B s # x s, f, d ) + / / / n t, f, d # Γ Df, d # (C t + C t )
s f d t f d
 (10)
+ / / / x s, f, d p # M d p − / / / / Pk # R k, d p # x s, f, d p # G f, k
s f dp s f dp k

Equation (7) represents the difference between the maximum target production and production
achieved by the shovels over a shift. Equation (8) represents the difference between the material
content received at the ore destinations and the desired material content based on desired grade of
each element. Equation (9) represents the difference between the amounts of ore supplied to the
processing plants compared to the amount of processing desired over a shift. And Equation (10)
represents the total cost of the operation, incorporating shovel movement cost (if any shovel is
reassigned to a new face), shovel operating cost, truck operating cost, processing cost and revenue
generated by the recovered metal of interest in the milling process.
The objective of the problem is formulated by combining all the goals and applying a non-
preemptive goal programming approach. It should be noted here that, as the goals have different
dimensions, it is necessary to normalize them into dimensionless objectives before combining them
together. Normalization is carried out by determining the Utopia and Nadir values for individual
goals. Normalized goals are then multiplied with weights to achieve the desired priority. The final
objective function, thus obtained, is given by Equation (11).
Minimize Ψ = W 1 # Ψ 1 + W 2 # Ψ 2 + W 3 # Ψ 3 + W 4 # Ψ 4
 (11)

Where
Ψ i = ^Ψ i − Utopia i h ^Nadiri − Utopia i h i ! 1, 2, 3&4  (12)

Constraints

/ a s, f # 1 6f  (13)
s

/ a s, f # 1 6s  (14)
f

/ / x s, f, d + x −s = X +s 6s  (15)
d f
536 Mine Discrete-System Simulation II

/ x s, f, d $ a s, f # X −s 6s&6f  (16)
d

/ x s, f, d # / n t, f, d # H t 6d&6f  (17)
s t

/ x s, f, d + J $ / n t, f, d # H t 6d&6f  (18)
s t

/ x s, f, d # a s, f # O f 6s&6f  (19)
d

/ x s, f, d o # a s, f # O f # Q f 6s&6f  (20)
do

/ x s, f, d w # a s, f # O f # (1 − Q f ) 6s&6f  (21)
dw

/ n t, f, d # H t # / b / x s, f, d + a s, f # J l # A t, s 6t&6f  (22)
d s d

/ / n t, f, d # T t, f, d # T # 60 # N t # α Tt 6t  (23)
f d

/ x s, f, d # ^T # 60 − τ s, f h # 60 # X s # α Ss # a s, f Ls 6s&6f  (24)
d

/ / x s, f, d p + δ −d p − δ +d p = Z d p # T 6d p  (25)
s f

δ −d p # Λ d p # T 6d p  (26)

δ +d p # Λ d p # T 6d p  (27)

/ / x s, f, d o #G f, k + g k−, d o − g k+, d o = / / x s, f, d o # G k, d o 6k&6d o  (28)

f s s f

g −k, d o # (G k, d o − G −k, d o) # / / x s, f, d o 6k&6d o  (29)

s f

g +k, d o # (G +k, d o − G k, d o) # / / x s, f, d o 6k&6d o  (30)

s f

Π − # / / / x s, f, d o # / / / x s, f, d w  (31)
s f do s f dw

Π + # / / / x s, f, d o $ / / / x s, f, d w  (32)
s f do s f dw

Constraints (13) and (14) assures that only one shovel is assigned to any face and also that any
shovel is assigned to only one face. Constraint (15) is a soft constraint on the production by any
shovel with a deviational variable that is minimized in the objective function. Constraint (16) is a
hard constraint that puts a lower limit on the production by any shovel. Constraint (17) assures that
total production by any shovel from its face to a destination is less than or equal to the total mate-
rial hauled by trucks between the face and the destination, which in turn is equal to the product of
number of trips between the face and destination, and the truck capacity. The inequality constraint
makes sure that total material hauled may not be an integer multiple of truck capacity and so
some trips may have slightly lesser load hauled. This constraint enables the model to excavate the
 Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining 537

faces completely and reduces infeasibility of the model to a great extent due to the tight equality
constraint. To counter the effect caused by the inequality, constraint (18) has been included which
puts a lower limit on production deviation as equal to a predefined value J. To optimize the case
considered in this study, J is considered as the minimum of the truck capacities in the truck fleet.
It means, at the end of the shift, the maximum allowed difference between the shovel production
from a face to a destination and the material hauled based on number of truck trips is J. In other
words, constraints (17) and (18) allow the shovels to load the trucks slightly less than the capacity of
the trucks if required. Constraints (19), (20) and (21) make sure that total ore or waste production
by any shovel from its assigned face cannot exceed the total available ore or waste material at that
face. This constraint also makes sure that no production is possible by the shovel from the face it
is not assigned to. Constraint (22) assures that a particular truck type will have zero trips from any
non-matching shovel. Part of the right hand side of the inequality is included to incorporate what
is modelled in constraint (18). Constraint (23) limits the maximum possible trips by any truck
type in a shift considering the truck availability and available shift time. Constraint (24) limits the
total production possible by a shovel taking into account its availability and the movement time
to the face (if assigned to a different face where it initially was).Constraints (25), (26) and (27)
are the processing constraints on the desired tonnage feed to the processing plants and maximum
allowable deviation in tonnage accepted at the plants. Constraints (28), (29) and (30) are the grade
constraints, which make sure that the average grade sent to the processing plant is of desired grade
and deviation is within the upper and lower acceptable limits. Constraints (31) and (32) keep the
stripping ratio within defined limits.
Constraints (29) and (30) put hard constraints on the lower and upper limits of the grade devi-
ation, which make the problem infeasible in case the limit range is tight and blending is unable to
provide the head grade in the desired range. To avoid infeasibility, instead of using these constraints,
a high preference weight can be assigned to the grade deviation goal in the objective function.
The MILGP model presented here is required to interact with a real time dispatching system,
to provide optimal shovel allocations based on the changes in the system state. The model has been
verified by optimizing one shift. Future work requires it to be integrated with the dispatching sys-
tem of a simulation model and verify against a case study.

TRUCK HAULAGE SIMULATION

A discrete event simulation model for a truck-shovel based large scale open pit mining system has
been developed in Arena simulation package (Rockwell Automation 2010), with an objective to
analyse the impact on total ore and waste productions and utilizations of resources for various
experimental changes in the system. To achieve the objectives, a precise modelling of various pro-
cesses such as truck travel, loading, spotting, dumping and processing was essential. This section
focuses on the development of a haulage sub-model for a better representation of the truck travel
behaviour on the haul roads.
The truck travel time is a direct function of speed of trucks, which is affected by a combination
of factors, including rimpull characteristics of the trucks, haul road gradients, rolling resistance,
drivers and various other environmental conditions present. The variations in speed of trucks fol-
lowing a common shared haul road segment may eventually lead to platoon formations, forcing the
trucks with higher speeds to move slower. Interaction among trucks at intersections also affect the
538 Mine Discrete-System Simulation II

travel times. The haulage simulation sub-model therefore must incorporate speed and interactions
while calculating travel times.
To incorporate haul road characteristics and interactions while travelling, it was essential to
model the movement of trucks through the haul road network in simulation. Therefore the haul
road network is modelled using intersections and network links in Arena simulation package using
a VBA code which reads in the formatted survey data points from an external file. Network links
are constructed as connection between consecutive intersections (survey points on the haul roads).
Interaction among trucks is included by modelling trucks as Guided path transporters and set-
ting a safe following distance as zone lengths for network links. The zone control rule is set to ‘start’
which means an occupied zone is made available to a following transporter, as soon as the leading
transporter seizes the next available zone. This enables the transporters (trucks) to maintain a safe
following distance and prohibit overtaking.
The speed of trucks on a network link is calculated based on the total resistance (gradient and
rolling resistance) of the road, and the rimpull characteristics of the truck. A relationship is estab-
lished between the total resistance and speed of each truck type and stored in a variable in Arena in
the beginning of the simulation.
A flow chart of the haulage simulation sub-model is presented in Figure 2. The trucks in the
beginning of the simulation are assigned their loading stations as destinations and sent to step 6 in
Figure 2. Based on the shortest path to destination, next node is assigned to move the transporter.
Based on the total resistance of the network link (haul road), a speed is assigned to the truck
using a variable which stores the relationship between total resistance and speed of each truck type
according to their rimpull characteristics. Before moving the truck to next node truck failure status
and end of shift status are checked. If truck is not failed and shift end is not reached, the truck is
moved to the next assigned intersection (node) through the network. As the truck is a guided path
transporter, it moves through the link seizing and releasing the zones. If it finds a truck in front of
it, moving slower, it won’t get the next zone to seize and eventually will have to move slower devel-
oping platoons. Once it reaches the next node, the node is checked against its destination node.
If the current node is the destination node, the truck is made to go through loading or dumping
sub-model corresponding to destination.

Validation Results
A simulation model with the haulage sub-model presented in this section is developed for a large
scale oil sands open pit mine with truck-shovel operations. The simulation model is being validated
against the recorded measures from the historical data. Some initial findings of the model are pre-
sented in this section. Due to confidentiality, no real data has been presented and all the results have
been normalized for illustration purposes.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the normalized qq-plots (quantile quantile plots) of empty truck
travel time and empty truck velocities respectively. Figure 5 and Figure 6 present the normalized
qq-plots of loaded truck travel time and loaded truck velocities. The plots obtained verify the appli-
cability of the haulage simulation sub-model for modelling truck travel times. The deviations at
higher speeds and travel times are accounted to the difference in dispatching procedure adopted in
simulation compared to recorded data. A brief summary of truck and shovel KPIs are also presented
in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively.
 Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining 539

Figure 2. Flow chart of the haulage simulation sub-model

Figure 3. Normalized qq-plot of empty travel time Figure 4. Normalized qq-plot of empty velocity

CONCLUSIONS
The validation results obtained have proved the applicability of the model for scenario analysis
purposes. All the required parameters in the model are read from an external file, providing enough
flexibility to change the road network or run various experimental scenarios with changes in equip-
ment or changes at the processing plants. The MILGP model has been verified by optimizing single
shifts with predefined system state.
540 Mine Discrete-System Simulation II

Figure 5. Normalized qq-plot of full truck travel Figure 6. Normalized qq-plot of full truck velocity
time

Table 1. Percent difference in truck KPIs between simulation results and recorded values over a
simulation run of 3 months
Parameter Mean Median Summation 25-Percentile 75-Percentile
Gross Operating Hours 0% 0% 0% –1% 0%
Haul Time 4% 1% 4% 2% 3%
Dump Time 10% 10% 10% 11% 7%
Physical Availability –2% –3% –2% –3% 0%
Use of Availability –1% 1% –1% 2% –2%
Operating Efficiency 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%
Effective Utilization –2% –1 –2% –3% 0%
Tonne/NOH –4% –9% –4% –11% 6%

Table 2. Percent difference in shovels KPIs between simulation results and recorded values over a
simulation run of 3 months
Parameter Mean Median Summation 25-Percentile 75-Percentile
Gross Operating Hours 1% 1% 1% 15% –4%
Load Time 2% –9% 2% –10% 2%
Net Operating Hours (NOH) 3% –1% 3% –7% –2%
Physical Availability 3% 2% 3% 10% –4%
Use of Availability –2% –2% –2% –3% –2%
Effective Utilization 1% 1% 1% 15% –4%
Tonne/NOH 3% 2% 3% 12% 1%

The MILGP model is required to be combined with the dispatching process of the simulation
model to verify its applicability in simulations for longer time horizons with a direct link to extrac-
tion schedules. The verification process will also prove the applicability of the MILGP model as the
upper stage in a dispatching system for an improved multi stage truck dispatching system for better
mine plan compliance across short term and operational planning time horizons.
 Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining 541

APPENDIX A

Index for Variables and Parameters

s index for set of shovels (s = 1, … St )
f index for set of faces (f = 1, … Ft )
t index for set of truck types trucks ( t = 1, …Tt )
k index for set of material types MatType (k = 1, … Kt )
d index for set of destinations (processing plants, stockpiles, waste dumps)
dp index for set of processing plants ( d p = 1, … Pt )
do index for ore destinations (processing plants and stockpiles)
index for waste dumps ( d w = 1, …W t )
dw
Decision Variables
To formulate all the system constraints and to represent the system as precisely as possible, while
keeping the model linear, following decision variables have been considered.
a s, f Assignment of shovel s to face f (binary)
n t, f, d Number of trips made by truck type t, from face f, to destination d (integer)
x s, f, d Tonnage production sent by shovel s, from face f, to destination d
x −s Negative deviation of shovel production from the maximum capacity in a shift
δ −d p, δ +d p Negative and positive deviation of feed at the processing plants d p compared to
desired feed
g k−, d o, g k+, d o Negative and positive deviation of tonnage content of material type k compared
to tonnage content desired, based on desired grade at the ore destinations d o

Parameters
Dt Dumping time of truck type t (seconds)
Et Spotting time of truck type t (seconds)
Nt Number of trucks of type t
Ht Tonnage capacity of truck type t
J  Flexibility in tonnage produced, to allow it not to be an integral multiple of truck capacity
(tonne) over optimization time T
Vt Average speed of truck type t when empty (Km/hr)
Vrt Average speed of truck type t when loaded (Km/hr)
Ct Cost of empty truck movement ($/Km)
r
Ct Cost of loaded truck movement ($/Km)
A t, s Binary parameter, if truck type t can be assigned to shovel s
Xs Shovel bucket capacity (tonne)
Ls Shovel loading cycle time (seconds)
U +s Maximum desired shovel utilization (fraction)
U −s Minimum desired shovel utilization (fraction)
Bs Cost of shovel per tonne production ($/tonne)
As Cost of shovel movement ($/meter)
Ss Movement speed of shovel (meter/minute)
542 Mine Discrete-System Simulation II

α Tt Truck availability (fraction)

α Ss Shovel availability (fraction)
Fs Face where shovel is initially located (start of the shift)
D FEf Distance to exit from face f
D dED Distance to destination d from the pit exit
Zd p Maximum capacity of the processing plants (tonne/hr)
Λd p Maximum acceptable deviation in tonnage received at processing plants (tonne/hr)
Md p Processing cost at the processing plants ($/tonne)
R k, d p Recovery of material type k at the processing plants
G k, d o Desired grade of material types at the ore destinations
G k−, d o Lower limit on grade of material type k at ore destinations
G k+, d o Upper limit on grade of material type k at ore destinations
F xf , F yf , F zf x, y, z coordinates of the faces available for shovel assignment (meters)
r f, k
G Grade of material type k at face f
Of Tonnage available at face f (tonne)
Qf 1 if material at face is ore, 0 if it is waste (binary parameter)
T Shift duration (hr)
−
Π Lower limit on desired stripping ratio
Π+ Upper limit on desired stripping ratio
Pk Price of recovered material k in the market
Wi Normalized weights of individual goals (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) based on priority

Calculated Parameters
Γ Ff 1, f 2 Distance between available faces (meters)
Γ Df, d Distance of destinations from faces, based on the haulage profile in short-term schedule
(meters)
τ s, f Movement time of shovel s from initial face to face f (minutes)
X +s Maximum shovel production calculated using availability and maximum desired utiliza-
tion (tonne)
X −s Minimum shovel production calculated using availability and minimum desired utiliza-
tion (tonne)
Trt, f, d Cycle time of truck type t from face f to destination d (minutes)

REFERENCES
Askari-Nasab, H.; Frimpong, S.; Szymanski, J. 2007. Modeling open pit dynamics using discrete simulation.
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 21 (1), 35–49.
Ataeepour, N.; Baafi, E.Y. 1999. ARENA simulation model for truck-shovel operation in despatching and
non-despatching modes. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 13 (3),
125–130.
Awuah-Offei, K.; Temeng, V.A.; Al-Hassan, S. 2003. Predicting equipment requirements using SIMAN simu-
lation a case study. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy Section A-Mining Technology,
112 (3), A180–A184.
 Simulation and Optimization in Open Pit Mining 543

Bonates, E.; Lizotte, Y. 1988.A Combined Approach to Solve Truck Dispatching Problems. In Computer
Applications in the Mineral Industry, Fytas, K.; Collins, J.L.; Singhal, R.K., Eds. Balkema, Rotterdam;
pp 403–412.
Elbrond, J.; Soumis, F. 1987. Towards integrated production planning and truck dispatching in open pit
mines. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 1 (1), 1–6.
Forsman, B.; Rönnkvist, E.; Vagenas, N. 1993. Truck dispatch computer simulation in Aitik open pit mine.
International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 7 (3), 117–120.
Gurgur, C.; Dagdelen, K.; Artittong, S. 2011. Optimization of a real-time multi-period truck dispatching
system in mining operations. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 4 (1), 57–79.
Jaoua, A.; Riopel, D.; Gamache, M. 2012. A simulational framework for real-time fleet management in inter-
nal transport systems. Simulational Modeling Practices and Theory 21, 78–90.
Kolonja, B.; Mutmansky, J.M. 1994. Analysis of truck dispatching strategies for surface mining operations
using SIMAN. Transactions - Society for Mining Metallurgy And Exploration Incorporated, 296, 1845–1851.
Li, Z. 1990. A methodology for the optimum control of shovel and truck operations in open-pit mining.
Mining Science and Technology, 10 (3), 337–340.
Peng, S.; Zhang, D.; Xi, Y. 1988. Computer simulation of a semi-continuous open-pit mine haulage system.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 6 (3), 267.
Rockwell Automation, I. Arena, 13.90.00000; 2010.
Soumis, F.; Ethier, J.; Elbrond, J. 1989. Evaluation of the New Truck Dispatching in the Mount Wright Mine.
21st Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Minerals Industry, SME, 674–682.
Sturgul, J.R.; Eharrison, J. 1987. Simulation models for surface mines. International Journal of Surface Mining,
Reclamation and Environment, 1 (3), 187–189.
Temeng, V.A.; Otuonye, F.O.; Frendewey, J.O. 1997. Real-time truck dispatching using a transportation algo-
rithm. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 11 (4), 203–207.
Temeng, V.A.; Otuonye, F.O.; Frendewey, J.O. 1998. A Nonpreemptive Goal Programming Approach to
Truck Dispatching in Open Pit Mines. Mineral Resources Engineering, 07 (02), 59–67.
White, J.W.; Olson, J.P. 1986. Computer-based dispatching in mines with concurrent operating objectives.
Mining Engineering, 38 (11), 1045–1053.

View publication stats