Simulation of an Open Pit Mine to Study Autonomous Haulage Trucks

Juliana Parreira, John Meech

Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering,
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T1Z4
Corresponding author: (jpareng@hotmail.com)

Abstract
This paper describes a simulation model that compares an Autonomous Haulage Truck (AHT) system to a
manual one by estimating benchmarked Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as productivity, safety,
maintenance and labour costs, cycle time, fuel consumption, and tire wear. The model extends
conventional shovel/truck simulation into a variety of truck sub-systems such as truck movement, driver
behaviour, fuel consumption, and tire wear to capture the mechanical complexities and physical
interactions of these sub-systems with the mine environment on a 24/7 time basis. Running the model in
identical scenarios for the two cases allows comparison of benchmarked KPIs that demonstrate the
utilization and adaptability of an AHT.
Biography
Juliana Parreira has a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and is currently completing a doctoral
program focused on autonomous haulage trucks at the Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering,
UBC. She has five years of experience in the oil industry and two years in the electric power industry.
John Meech is Professor of Mining Engineering at the Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering
where he teaches and conducts research in Automation and Process Control, Artificial Intelligence
techniques, and Mining and the Environment.

Introduction
Over the past decade, mining companies have been challenged by increasing global demand, fluctuating
commodity prices, difficult-to-access minerals due to location and harsh environments, as well as social
and environmental issues. Automation is one tool that can be used to maximize production, reduce costs,
and create a safer work environment in a customer-driven economy that demands rapid response. In
particular, automation of open pit haulage systems is receiving attention to remove workers from potential
dangers, to reduce costs, and to help improve mining equipment efficiency.
This research project is examining how an open pit mine can adapt itself to an autonomous haulage fleet
by creating a tool to compare conventional and Autonomous Haulage Truck (AHT) systems. What level
of improvement in KPIs can be achieved using an AHT? What aspects of a mine haulage system must
change to adapt to an AHT? In order to answer these questions, two discrete-event models (one manual
and one autonomous) were developed to predict benchmarked KPIs: productivity; safety; maintenance
and labour costs; cycle times; fuel consumption; and tire wear under different road and load conditions.
The scope of the work is limited to offline simulation software that project managers can use to guide
decision-making on the possible application of an AHT system in a specific mine.

Model Overview
The model has been built using the ExtendSim simulation software suite. ExtendSim is a graphical
discrete-event tool that can break a network down into unique components each having specific time
delays and characteristics with respect to maintenance, speed, fuel consumption, braking, acceleration,
etc. A system database is used to input model parameters such as route characteristics, weather,
equipment fleet parameters, driver behaviour, and stochastic sets (averages and variances) that
characterize different interruptions and delays. The data is held in a RAM-resident database that opens,
saves, or closes whenever the model is opened, saved, or closed respectively.
The test model consists of two shovels, one digging waste and one assigned to ore production. According
to a specified stripping ratio, one third of the fleet (9 trucks in total) are set to work with the waste shovel
with the other six are assigned to the ore shovel. The model can designate dedicated service or trucks can
be reassigned on-the-fly after dumping depending on the current delay situation. All trucks in the model
are CAT 793D, each having a nominal GMW of 383,749 kg, a total net power of 1,743 kW, and equipped
with standard radial tires 40.00R57. Different trucks can be easily configured through the database.
For each segment of a haulage route, the movement of each truck, its fuel consumption, and tire wear are
determined using a continuous (or deterministic) approach. The objective is to handle speed and
acceleration control issues at any point in time and to calculate fuel consumption and tire wear for each
time step (t = 0.1 seconds). The Gross Machine Weight (GMW), truck resistance forces, traction, and
drive axle forces are used to calculate the resultant force causing movement. For each t, a new force and
acceleration is calculated until the truck's cumulative travelling distance equals the total distance of the
segment. At the end of each road segment, data is initialized for the next segment with simulation
continuing until the truck reaches its final destination.
The mine being modeled is a partial haulage system at a real mine site. A total of 19 road segments were
distributed over 4 haulage routes: Ore Shovel to Crusher; Waste Shovel to Dump; Dump to Parking; and
Crusher to Parking. If the truck is set at the beginning of the simulation to attend the waste shovel, its
overall route is waste shovel to dump, while for trucks set to work on ore production, the route is ore
shovel to crusher. When a truck arrives at a shovel queue, it waits for the shovel to become free. Values
for spotting and loading times are set stochastically. After loading, the truck leaves the shovel and travels
to its dumping site. At the dump or crusher queues after waiting for the site to become free, the truck
reverses and dumps with reversing and dumping times selected stochastically. All queuing times depend
on the presence and number of other trucks in the queue. After unloading, the truck returns to its original
route and continues in this loop until an event or stochastic delay occurs unless the shovel is down for
maintenance. In that case, the truck is reassigned either to maintenance or the other shovel. The model is
run over a simulated real-time of at least 14 days of continuous operation.
A refuelling delay takes place whenever the tank level falls below a set minimum value (10% of a full
tank) when the truck is at a dumping location. When that occurs, the truck dumps its payload and is
reassigned to the refuelling station (Parking). A stochastic refuelling time is selected to characterize the
time to complete this event. If a truck requires maintenance or a driver needs a break (lunch, coffee, or
shift change), the truck drives to parking, but only after its load is dumped. When running in Autonomous
Haulage mode, driver breaks do not happen, but other event delays may occur such as tire cool-down.
After a truck is repaired, values for MTBF (mean time to failure) and MTTR (mean time to repair) are
reset. During the simulation, data is stored and managed in the internal database and the relevant run
results are exported to an Excel template spreadsheet when the simulation run is completed. The model
flowchart is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Overview of Model Flowchart.

Truck Movement
The truck movement model is based on the assisting and opposing forces such as Rimpull available,
usable, required (FRR) and drag forces (FD). Rimpull available is the force produced by the engine delivered
at the point that the tires contact the ground. Usable Rimpull deals only with the weight on the drive
wheels and the friction between the tire and the ground [King Fahd University, 2004/2005]. Feffective is the
lower value between rimpull available and rimpull usable. Knowing the resultant forces and payload,
acceleration can then be calculated [Parreira, et.al, 2011]. Acceleration is calculated deterministically for
each time step and distinguishes between acceleration responsible for movement and that responsible for
fuel consumption. When a truck is moving on a flat road, acceleration responsible for truck movement is:

Accresultant = (Feffective - Fresist) / M

Eq. 1.

where Feffective is the assisting force propelling the truck; Fresist is the force opposing movement; and M is
the truck weight and payload. If the grade is positive, Fresist = Fgravitational + Frolling Fdrag. If the grade is flat,
the equation becomes Fresist = Frolling Fdrag. The value of Fdrag depends on wind direction and speed which
may either oppose or assist with truck movement.

Figure 2: Truck Forces when Moving on a Grade = 0%.

Figure 3: Truck Forces when Moving on a Grade < 0% and > 0% respectively.

If the grade is negative and the gravitational force (normal component of truck weight plus payload) is
sufficient to trigger truck motion, then this force is used as the truck assisting force. However, if the
weight is not enough, an extra force (Rimpull available) must be produced by the engine. After
calculating Accresultant, the model applies a factor to this value dependent on driver behaviour. The value is
limited to the maximum acceleration of the type of driver in question as discussed below. When a truck
reaches the velocity set point for the road segment or the limiting velocity based on driver behaviour,
Accresultant is set to a value close to zero. A slight variation exists, also dependent on driver behaviour.
Driver Behaviour
The objective of the driver model is to generate stochastic differences in driver behaviour to obtain output
ranges for fuel consumption, tire wear, cycle times, and production for a manually-operated system that
mimics real mine site data. These ranges can then be compared to that achieved by a simulated AHT
system in which the variances and deviations from normal or accepted results are significantly reduced.
A parameter called the Aggressiveness Factor is used to represent how a person drives. A driver can be
aggressive, normal, or passive. A driver is very stable, stable, or variable such that 9 different behaviours
result. This factor is set at the beginning of the simulation with the fleet crew being distributed amongst
these 9 types. Autonomous trucks are set to the normal-stable driver behaviour with a smaller deviation
than a human. The Aggressiveness Factor is applied to the acceleration, velocity, and reaction time set
points for each driver/truck which can trend up or down during the shift [Meech et al., 2011] to reflect
slight changes in behaviour. Some drivers become more aggressive while others become more passive.
Figure 4 shows 3 different driver behaviours over a simulated 1,000 m segment with a -12% effective
grade. There are 9 different driver types but 3 are dominant: passive-very stable; normal-stable; and
aggressive-variable.

Figure 4. Acceleration and velocity of different drivers over a 1,000 m haulage segment
with a 12% effective grade from ExtendSim Model.

Fuel Consumption
For this sub-model, truck manufacturer data combined with fundamental physics is used to estimate fuel
use in L/hour. Instantaneous velocity is calculated for each time interval t. By knowing the desired
velocity, engine speed is calculated and then correlated to Power and BSCF [Parreira, et.al, 2011]. Fuel
consumption is estimated by the following equation:
Cf = Csf (Powerused / f)
where:
Cf
Csf
f
Powerused

Eq. 2.

= fuel consumption rate (L/h)

= Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) during time interval t (g/kWh) (see Figure 5)
= fuel density (g/L)
= power produced by the engine during time interval t (kW) based on Figure 5.

Figure 5. Instantaneous Power and BSCF vs. Engine Speed - from fuel consumption model.

In the example shown in Figure 6, using gear 1 at 1739 rpm consumes 451 L/h. However, if the driver
switches to gear 2, fuel consumption decreases to 383 L/h (a reduction of 15%). The model gives fuel
consumption according to which gear is in use. When human behavior is eliminated from the system,
there is an opportunity to redesign haulage roads based on this increased efficiency and more precise
engine speed changes and acceleration set points.

Figure 6. Using the correct gear leads to a 68 L/h reduction in fuel consumption.

Tire Wear
In general, tire wear for a 40.00R57 radial tire on a CAT 793D truck is about 75 mm over an operating
life of 6,000 to 6,500 hours. Tire treads are measured on a regular basis during routine maintenance and
tires are removed from service when the depth falls below about 25 mm from an initial depth of 100 mm.
We have created a sub-model based on fuzzy logic that correlates tire wear to truck velocity and payload.
The model can be calibrated to reflect known operating conditions at any specific mine site and can be
adjusted throughout the life of a set of tires to reflect the current tire condition on a truck. The model also
predicts changes in tire temperature as a truck operates in order to account for wear rate differences when
hauling under full load or returning to the shovel at a higher velocity with zero load. The idling time
during loading, dumping, and queuing is also accounted for in the temperature model. Figure 7 shows the
contour plot of tire wear rate in mm/10,000km (as a % of maximum), depending on payload and velocity.

Figure 7. Tire Wear vs. Payload at Different Velocities Accumulation Method of Defuzzification.
Calibration Factors: Maximum Speed = 40 kph; Maximum Payload = 400 t;
Maximum Tire Wear = 10 mm / 10,000 km

Note that the two boxes that represent typical ranges for full-load and empty conditions indicate similar
tire wear rates since one is at a higher GMW while the other is at a higher velocity. Three parameters are
required to calibrate the model - maximum tire wear rate in mm/10,000 km, maximum velocity in kph,
and maximum payload in tonnes.

Many mines use tire suppliers' TKPH model to reduce tire failures and avoid overheating tires during
operation. Using this model provides a reliable and practical constraint beyond which a truck must stop to
allow tires to cool-down or the truck is reassigned to a longer haulage route and restricted to 4th gear (to
prevent speeding). When the real-time TKPH calculation returns to normal, the truck is reassigned to
normal service. While this may help reduce failures from cut or blown tires, it doesn't provide a real-time
measure of temperature or wear rate. Furthermore, restricting gear changes will lead to increased fuel use.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 8. Effect of idling time on tire temperature during the haulage cycle.
Idling time as % of total cycle time: (a) 14.7%; (b) 9.3%; (c) 9.3% at elevated velocities.

We believe there is significant advantages to be gained from a system in which tire temperature is
monitored directly and used with an empirical model to provide a real-time measure of tire wear for
40.00R57 radial tires on a CAT 973D truck. Figures 8a and 8b shows the theoretical model predictions of

how a tire heats up and cools down under constant travelling conditions. The model is designed so it takes
about 60 minutes of constant driving at 16 kph under target payload conditions to arrive at a steady state
temperature of 75C from an initial ambient temperature of 35C, while cool-down under idling
conditions requires about 120 minutes to return to ambient conditions.
Figure 8a shows that when idling time represents about 15% of total cycle time, a steady state temperature
of 61 C is reached, whereas when the idling time is only about 10% of total cycle time, the steady state
temperature rises to 80 C as in Figure 8b. Figure 8c shows what can happen when truck velocities are
increased to 19 and 38 kph for loaded and empty conditions respectively. Although the rise in temperature
initially is lower than in Figure 8b, the system is unstable with the temperature continuing to rise well
above the danger point of 90 C after 9 cycles. Clearly, this truck will require cool-down.

Results and Validation

The model output shown in Tables 1 and 2 is based on a 14-day work period; the crew make-up was set to
33% aggressive, 44% normal, and 22% passive. In the autonomous model, all trucks were 100% normal,
i.e. best drivers, with a lower variance. The AHT system shows a 14.4% improvement in production, a
decline of 12.9% in fuel consumption (L/t) and a 7.2% decline in tire wear (mm/t). The tire wear model is
currently being validated against real mine data. Fuel consumption and truck movement are both close to
the measured data. These improvements are now being validated.
The set points for acceleration and speed according to driver behaviour have also been calibrated against
12 drivers at the mine; those who drive slower and those who are more aggressive. The tire wear model is
the most difficult one to validate since most mines simply measure tire wear based on TKPH. The tire
manufacturer sets a "theoretical" TKPH value and the mine dispatch system verifies if the real truck
TKPH is higher than this set point based on haulage distances and payloads. We believe that
improvements can be derived from direct measurement of tire temperature to predict tire wear rates. An
AHT fleet will work 24/7, so sensors on belt tires will be necessary to ensure tire cool-down is optimized
since an AHT fleet will operate for longer periods of time.
Table 1: Comparison of different drivers - from model template spreadsheet.
Element
Total Cycle Time
Idling and
Spotting Time

Passive
53.5
5.6
10.5

Normal
47.3
5.3
11.2

Aggressive
42.5
4.8
11.3

Autonomous
50.5
5.1
10.1

Fuel Consumption (Idling) L/hr

Fuel Consumption (Full) L/hr
Fuel Consumption (Empty) L/hr

26
366
134

27
415
138

28
437
179

27
410
127

Total Litres/cycle
% difference

261.2
-9.8

289.5
0.0

314.4
8.6

286.5
-1.0

min.
min.
%

Total Litres/tonne
% difference

<------------------------------ 1.55 ------------------------------>

<-------------------------------- 0.0 ----------------------------->

1.35
-12.9

Tire Wear Rate (Idling) mm/hr

Tire Wear Rate (Full) mm/hr
Tire Wear Rate (Empty) mm/hr

0.0032
0.0177
0.0096

0.0032
0.0253
0.0120

0.0032
0.0299
0.0164

0.0032
0.0212
0.0106

Tire Wear (mm/hr)

% difference

0.0139
-6.7

0.0149
0.0

0.0152
2.3

0.0138
-7.2

Tire Wear (mm/ 10,000 tonnes)

% difference

<------------------------------ 0.570 ---------------------------->

<-------------------------------- 0.0 ----------------------------->

0.536
-6.0

It is interesting to note in Table 1 that passive drivers have lower tire wear than do the aggressive drivers
and they use less fuel. Note that the AHT system matches the tire wear of the passive drivers and uses less
fuel than the average driver. This translates to an 8.1% reduction in fuel used per tonne of material
moved. Assumptions about maintenance have held delay times due to repairs relatively close to those
measured for the manual system except for unplanned maintenance which is expected to decline by about
10% as can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2: Productivity of Manual Haulage versus AHT System - from model template spreadsheet.
Manual
Autonomous
%Difference
hours
Hours
Number of Cycles/day
19.82
22.35
14.00
Ave. Total Cycle Time/truck - min.
46.8
50.5
5.71
Total Haulage Time/day/truck
15.46
18.79
23.13
Shift Change/day/truck
0.60
0.00
-100.00
Coffee and Break Time/day/truck
2.50
0.00
-100.00
Average Process Delay Time/day/truck
1.64
1.60
-2.44
Unplanned Maintenance/day/truck
1.16
1.04
-10.34
Planned Maintenance/day/truck
2.64
2.67
1.14
Percent Utilization (%)
63.6
78.3
23.14
Total Production (tonnes) /day/truck
4,235
4,844
14.35
Ave. Production / cycle/truck
213.7
216.7
1.40*
* this difference should be close to zero, meaning the simulation needs to be run for more than 14 days.
Element

Conclusion
This model is in verification/validation process and when finished, it will be able to provide a precise
comparison between manual and autonomous haulage trucks regarding KPIs such as productivity, safety,
maintenance, labour costs, cycle time, fuel consumption, and tire wear. The model is structured in a way
to allow quick adjustment to simulate any open pit mine that is considering an autonomous haulage fleet
in the future.

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank BHP-Billiton Nickel West Division for supporting this research.

References
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Construction Engineering & Management Department:
Construction Equipment & Methods (2004). Course: CEM 530 (Spring 2004/2005)
Meech, J., Parreira, J. (2011) . An interactive simulation model of human drivers to study autonomous
haulage trucks. Complex Adaptive System Conference. Procedia Computer Science, 6, 118-123.
Parreira, J., Meech, J. (2011) . Autonomous Haulage Systems Justification and Opportunity.
Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, International Conference IS-2011. Springer, 63-72