Improving Truck-Shovel Matching S Nel’, MS Kizil? and P Knights? ABSTRACT ‘Truck/shovel operations constitute 50 - 60 per cent of the eost of open pit mining operations. Mining companies, therefore, are constantly seeking to close the gap between actual truck/shovel produetive capacity and maximum potential truck/shovel capacity. This paper analyses the performance of a mixed truck/shovel fleet in an open cut coal mine in ‘Australia, It analyses operating delays, and proposes a novel graphical means of determining truck- limited or shovel-limited operations. A goal seeking algorithm is advanced in order to maximise ‘truck/shovel mateh factors (MF) and hence optimise fleet productivity. INTRODUCTION ‘The terms ‘truck and shove’, ‘shovel-truck-’ or ‘truck-shovel’ refers to a load-haul-dump mining system, involving any combination of loading units and trucks (Figure 1). Truckand shovel operations, generally involve high costs. In surface mining operations, truck haulage is the largest item in the operating costs, constituting 50 to 60 per cent of the total mining cost (Alarie and Gamache, 2002; Ereelebi and Bascetin, 2009; Hartman, 1992). In a competitive market environment, coupled with the current pressing economic climate, mining companies must seek to add value by reducing costs. ‘Truck-shovel operations can achieve operational efficiencies and consequently reduce costs through fleet optimisation. If a truck-shovel system is optimised, the gap between current production and potential capacity will become narrower, with further improvements only realisable through re~ SHOVEL | Loaded Hal ——— veuing (7) py Hat FIG -Schematicftrucshoel operation (ater Camicha, 1986) 1. aang he Unive of Qn Shelf Hecania 2d Mng tu 46072 Emal Stephen Negara 2, WA, sn ogam ede; Te siresty of ueensan haf Mecha nd eng tc 472. Em mene. 3 MA, ead orn Ds, heUnivesty of doen Sel of Meu an Mngt 4072 pg 30 [35TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24~30 SEPTEMBER 20 a8SSNEL, MS KIZIL AND P KNIGHTS engineering (Carmichael, 1986). Optimising a truck-shovel operation might appear straightforward in theory; however, it is quite complex due to the interdependent nature of the system. That is, the operation of the loading, unit(s) will affect the performance of the haulage unit(s) and vice versa (Macleod, 2008). Therefore, the fleet can only be optimal if all of its components are performing, optimally, Optimising a truck and shovel fleet involves consideration of all the factors affecting the equipment’s costs and productivity (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993). ‘The objective of this paper is to analyse the principle source of delay in a truck-shovel fleet in a surface coal mine in Australia and to propose means for improving fleet productivity. STANDARD TIME DEFINITIONS Figure 2 graphically illustrates the relationships between components of time, whilst Table 1 defines each of the time classifications. Note the proportion of total calendar time that is consumed by operating time. ola Calendar Time econ Planned Breakdown Time Maintenance | Maintenance en ‘on em (eM) FIG2- Atypical time usage model rabte Stade detrivons [Time Definition — - - ia ~tlealbietine oo | iT Time during which an item is scheduled to perform its required production function {UT —___ [Time during which an ite snot scheduled to perform ts required production function Schevedtinelesidetine — | is Time during which equipment isavaable but ot wise duet intemal and extemal factors oi Fiennes nein cu | Timeallated for equipment maintenance — | lor “Time during which an ites performing its required reduction function | % Tine en ede sping ttn date ae | [pm Schedule compnent of maintenance ine a | aM Unscheduled component of manterance time | {5TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24~ 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 aaIMPROVING TRUCK-SHOVEL MATCHING PRODUCTIVITY Productivity is a measure of the effectiveness in producing physieal goods or services from a given quantity of inputs; the ratio of outputs to inputs (Pinnock, 1997). The terms ‘input’ and ‘output’ have different meanings across different industry sectors, In the mining industry productivity is typically expressed as production (output), in tonne or bank cubic metres (BCMs), per operating hour (input). An operating hour is defined as the time during which the engine of the machine is running, otherwise known as working time (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty 14d, 1993). Working time includes delays and thus by minimising delays to the operation, one can increase productivity. Equation 1 shows the mathematical expression for productivity (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993). Productivity = 57 @ Kesimal (1998) identified that productivity is primarily a function of the number of working cycles in a period of time and the number of BCMs in each dump. The number of eycles depends on factors such as scheduled time, availability, utilisation and cycle time, Kesimal (1998) believed that productivity is best expressed as an index, as shown in Equation 2, allowing a better measure of fleet performance. This is because it takes into account the availability, utilisation and efficiency of the operators and equipment (Georgieff, 2006). Productivity Index = @) Potential or Capacity Production Atruck-shovel flect’s productivity is often determined using two methods. The first is by conducting atime and motion study, sometimes also referred to as cycle time analysis. ‘The second is by computer simulation (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993). A time and motion study is a business efficieney technique built on the work of Frederick Winslow ‘Taylor, who was deemed the father of scientifie management. The aim of such a study is to minimise the number of motions in performing a task (Robbins et al, 2003). Its certainly applicable to a truck and shovel operating cycle, which consists of many unnecessary cycle components ~ commonly referred to as operational delays. Software packages or macro-embedded spreadsheets are often used to record truck-shovel eycle data that are then further analysed. Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd (1993) argued that this approach is somewhat simplistic and inherently deficient when a detailed assessment is needed. A more accurate means for estimating productivity is using computer simulation software. Such software tends to consider the complete system or combined fleet (loading, and haulage units), which better accounts for the randomnesssurrounding truckandshovel operations (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993). A commonly used computer simulation method is the Monte Carlo simulation technique. This technique considers several factors influencing productivity, including the queuing of trucks; shift wind-down; over and under-loading practices; and variability in truck availability. Factors influencing truck-shovel productivity Several factors can affect the productivity of a truck and shovel fleet, including: + truck-shovel match and allocation; shift operating schedules; haul road design and ramp gradients; haul road rolling resistance; and mix truck sizes in the fleet (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993). ‘This paper only focused on the foremost. & case study was applied to a surface coal mine in the Bowen Basin in Queensland, Australia. CASE STUDY A three-month historical data sample was obtained from the case study mine’s fleet management system (FMS). ‘The FMS is semi-automatic, meaning the system monitors and records data from 35TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24-30 SEPTEMBER 2011, 303SSNEL, MSKIZIL AND P KNIGHTS the equipment in the field wirelessly and in real time, but does not allocated trucks to loaders. Truck allocation is manually assigned by production coordinators at the start of the shift. These allocations orassignments may change throughout the shift. The truck and shovel fleet at the case study mine is comprised of four excavators, two shovels and a mixed haul truck fleet of 27 trucks. More detail on the fleet is shown in Table 2. The shovels are mainly used for prestripping, with the excavator fleet reserved for coal mining. DATA AND METHODOLOGY The data was obtained from the site's FMS. The sample consisted of 90 operating days totalling 180 shifts and was taken between 7:00 am on 1 November 2008 to 7:00 pm on 31 January 2009. Activity, eycle and production data were collected. This was done for each of the machines in the fleet. ste? Caresdy ek and shoe eet Code Machine | Model | (opacity 01 Hylauiceroatr | ux I 2am m0 | ‘Hydraulic ewcavator | Liebherr R996 | um B03 | Hydraulic excavator I 08K RHI20 [ 165m 04 [tiauiceraetor | Ui 96 I Mm HOt | lect rope shovel | ‘Marion 3010 [ 35m sHO2 I Hydraulic shovel I Lebher R996 [ 34m 01 (Reardampuke | Yonatsu 8306 | win | TAO I Rear dump tuck | omatsu 830E | 147m? | oa | feardump tuk Xonasu Ne roy | moe | fear dump tuck Komatsu 80 | ai [ms a vain |e [tries | cass ran! | 107 | eardump ck cares Ba R08 | feardimpinck | Terex 400 | Wn 709 | Rewdampink | wm imo | Reardamp rc an? fa a va TR | Rear dump truck | 4m ma | Rearumpirck | TerexT400 vane ‘i erdumpuck | Terex 1400 wie [rms Feardumpuck | Terex Ta00 rg | m6 Feardumptud | Terex 400 ee hen Ferdumpmck | Terex 4400 rey Te Heardumptueh | TerexT400 wen? Ts Reréunpuc | Terest4400 | wn a0 ear ump tek Terect400 Van! rt ear dump tuck cause an | ez [eardump muck cause | ram Tm. [ Rear dump tuck { cues [ Tan? Te | Reardomp track aT “05m Tes | feardump tok carTe5¢ 105m wae | Reardump ck aT 105m Tr | Ferdump track cars | ram STH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24-30 SEPTEMBER2011 304INePROVING TRUCK-SHOVEL MATCHING Data anomalies and outliers ‘Two trucks were excluded from the study; namely TRog and TRo6 (Table 2). The first had ongoing problems with its dispatch-recording module, which affected the quality of the data communicated to the system. The other was damaged in an accident and consequently underwent significant maintenance and repairs. A quick estimate of TR06's performance showed that 56 per cent of operating delays was attributable to accident damage. For this truck, operating delays constituted 68 per cent of total calendar time. The latter is not representative of a typical operating cycle and was excluded on those grounds. Seasonal effects ‘The data sample suffers from seasonal effects. The case study mine is geographically located in a region thatis prone to high rainfall in summer, which coincides with the sample period. Consequently, operational delays and idle time due to wet weather were significantly greater during this period, compared to the rest of the calendar year. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ‘The operating cycles of the truck and shovel fleet were analysed so as to identify which delays had the ‘most significant impact on production. Excavator and shovel fleet ‘The exeavator fleet (EXo1, EXo2, EXog and EXo4) operated 77 per cent of the time for which it was scheduled. However, it was performing its primary production function for only 53 per cent of this time. The fleet had an overall utilisation of 69 per cent and a mechanical availability of 87 per cent. Operating and shutdown delays respectively consumed 24 per cent and 12 per cent of scheduled time. Figure 3 shows the most significant operating delays for the excavator fleet during the sample period. ‘Wait on truck’ delays accounted for 14 per cent of total operating delays. The shovel fleet (SHo1 and SHo2) had a mechanical availability of 91 per cent and an utilisation of 64 per cent. The fleet was operating 51 per cent of the time for which it was scheduled. Shutdowns were relatively low, consuming only eight per cent of scheduled time. Operating delays were significant at 29 per cent. In this case, ‘wait on truck’ delays were the greatest component of operating delay: Truck fleet ‘The case study mine’s haul truck flect was mixed. The fleet was made up of seven Terex MT4400 trucks, five Komatsu 830E trucks, five Caterpillar 785 trucks and four Caterpillar 789C trucks. An F1G3- Operating day summary forthe excavator eet “dal Te a en | ona Wet — pee nade I oe | Vetoes! | Santy Naot 35TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24-30 SEPTEMBER 2017 atsSSINEL,MS KIZIL AND P KNIGHTS The mine's largest fleet, the Terex MT4400 fleet, operated 44 per cent of its scheduled time and 33 per cent of the scheduled time was taken up by operating delays. 'Wait loading unit’ and ‘queue at loader’ delays collectively amounted to 29 per cent of total operating delays, which can be seen in Figure 4. Shutdown and idle time durations were proportionately similar, around 11 per cent of total scheduled time. The fleet, due to its size, will have the greatest impact on overall productivity. The Terex MT'4400 fleet had an availability and utilisation of 87 per cent and 57 per cent, respectively. The other truck fleets shared similar results, with the considerable time spent waiting on the loading unit and/or queuing at the loader. DELAY INTERPRETATION ‘Three delays are noteworthy; namely ‘queue at loader’, ‘wait loading unit’ and ‘wait on truck’. The reason these are so significant can potentially be explained by an incorrect match between trucks and shovels and/or a less-than optimal truck-shovel assignment. When trucks are not optimally assigned and matched to loading units, the following operational characteristies can be observed (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993) ‘+ excessive truck queuing times at the loading unit, ‘+ excessive shovel wait on trucks, * abnormal queue times at the dump, and ‘truck bunching (typically observed during with mixed fleet haulage). lt. Toa Tine (h), sey Pat querer: aewtie H Ne pent sitchen sendy score sectetonee L otLaadrguoe Ceestoter Wate att Opes oe | oe | Saal 1G 4 Operating dela surat fr the Trex M4400 truck fet. Queue at loader/wait loading unit Whena truckis queuing at the shovel waiting to be serviced, itis still classed as being in an operational ‘mode; operational but not productive. During these times, the operator is still getting paid while the truck burns diesel fuel at an unforgiving rate. If this delay is a prominent one, it can mean that the truck-shovel fleet is generally over-trucked (too many trucks). For the purpose of this study, assume that a typical modern rear dump truck operates at A$400 per hour (Western Mine, 2006). Table 3 shows the potential cost reduction that can be realised if this delay is minimised. Wait on truck When a loader is waiting on trucks, itis a strong indication that there is an insufficient number of trucks assigned to it in the circuit, a phenomenon often referred to as under-trucking, To put it in perspective, assume an excavator and shovel cost AS800 and A$600 per hour to operate (Western Mine, 2006). Table 3 shows the cost attributable to this delay for the truck-shovel fleet. 35TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW24~ 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 386IMPROVING TRUCK-SHOVEL MATCHING TaBLe3 Costimplatians of ruckshovel wai, Fleet Sample peiod ast Projected anal cost ] Queue atioader | Cterpllar 785 I size (a) | aterplor 9K | 23110433 | saver | Yana BOE | sass |‘ | | Teexaaco | sexs | 5168869155 | Subtotal I $903 978.78 I s3ensons.2 | | ‘Wait on truck 7 | [cra 7 iar I n@mR sre sr7euan | seas Subtotal $3692.22 | $1477 648.88 [ett ane $5073 56400 Natehoecat nae deve om det pods Wee ing 6) Atughinacte othe ase sty, salsa aca co ta, OPTIMISATION By analysing the data it is clear that three operating delays have a significant impact on fleet performance and productivity, namely: queue at loader; wait on truck; and wait on loader. Not only are the latter notable, these delays are potentially inter-related, stemming from a common problem ~ truck and shovel allocation. As mentioned before, autonomous dispatch systems allow for optimum allocation of trucks to loaders, which maximises productivity and operating efficiency. Unfortunately, the case study mine has a semi-automatic FMS that does not have this technology. Instead, trucks are manually assigned. The data indicated that these assignments have been less than optimum in the past, with considerable cost implications. To make the truck and shovel fleet more optimum on the basis of productivity improvements and associated cost reductions, it was essential to caleulate the best match factors and truck-shovel assignments (or flect size) for the system. However, before that could be completed it was necessary to determine whether the fleet truck or shovel limited. Truck or shovel limited ‘The data indicates that there are occurrences of over and under-trucking, meaning that sometimes here is an excess supply of trucks in the haul circuit and other times there are not enough trucks. his is more than likely due to allocation but can also mean that there is simply not enough trucks (truck limited) or not enough shovels (shovel limited) in the fleet. Figure 5 shows a scatter plot of truck wait as a percentage of available time versus shovel wait as a percentage of available time. Each data point represents the shovel and truck waits, as a percentage of available time, for the entire fleet for a shift. The green dots on the graph represent day shift and the blue, night shift. The plot was uses only the data from the month of November 2008, as it was the month with the least produetion into four quadrants; namely Quadrants 1 to 4. If the majority of the points fall in the first quadrant, the fleet is shovel limited. If it falls in the fourth quadrant itis truck limited. If these points predominantly lie in Quadrants 2 and 3, the fleet is not limited by one or the other. Rather, it is an allocation or assignment issue. From the plot it ean be seen that the fleet is neither truck nor shovel limited with the majority of the points on the plot falling in Quadrant 2. In other words, the amount of time that trucks spent queuing is proportionate to the time spent by the shovel waiting on the trucks. Truck-shovel match Truckshovel match in this contest, refersto how well trucks are suited toa particular shovel. Itusually refers to operating parameters such as truck height, shovel reach and bucket/tray capacities to name a few. Given that the mine uses a mixed truck fleet, certain trucks in the fleet would perform better when serviced by certain shovels. One particular aspect that constitutes most of the loading time in ast SEPTEMBER 2011, 37 {COM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSISSNEL, MS KIZIL AND PKNIGHTS 6% 4% oH 11% o% % o% 2 é 2 8 ” ™% Blo |_| | | | | | | ae | il i rr er ee ee ee ee ‘Shovel Walt(% of Available Time) © Nott shit © Day sit FAG Scatter pot showing truck shovel walt a truck-shovel cycle, is the time taken to complete each and all of the passes to fill a truck. Table 4 shows how many passes (theoretically) it would require each loading unit to completely fil a specific truck. These were calculated using TALPAC®s database values for each of the machines. The reason ‘TALPAC® values were used instead of manufacturing specifications, was to ensure that factors such as bucket fill and material swell were taken into account, thus yielding a more accurate representation of actual working conditions. Also note that these might differ from actual values, due to the fact that buckets might have been replaced, repaired or custom ordered. Referring to the values in Table 4, it ‘would take EXog and EX01 10 and 12 passes to fill the Komatsu and Terex trucks, respectively. If production decisions allow for optimal truck-shovel match, specifically relating to pass count, significant increases in productivity can be realised through a reduction in loading time and subsequent cycle time. Having said that, the data obtained from the ease study mine signals that the main inhibitors of productivity and production efficiency are operating delays ~ queuing and waiting times. These are due to truck-shovel assignments, since the fleet is not limited by the number of trucks or shovels. TABLES Feet pas count summary. Shovel Truck fleet TS 7896 0 inresao 956 (0) | 3 I 4 ‘ 6 | 15964) 3 4 6 | ‘ | ‘ox R120 6 9 2 | a | 08K R170 5 L 7 I 10 I 0 Marion 301M z | 4 4 35TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24-30 SEPTEMBER2011 208IMPROVING TRUCK-SHOVEL MATCHING Truck-shovel assignment ‘To obtain the appropriate and optimal number of trucks that can be assigned to a loader is rather complex, due to many variables such as haul distance, production target and material type. An autonomous FMS does this best; however some manual calculations and/or computer simulations can provide good estimates. Examining the cycle data, it was possible to deduce the average loading and haulage components of the total cycle time for each of the shovels. An average haul was also determined for the month of November 2008 for the haulage fleet. Applying Equation 3 (Kesimal, 1998; Hanby, 1991), the MF was calculated for each of the shovels; and using Goal Seck in Microsoft® Excel, the optimum number of trucks was calculated. No. of Trucks x Loader Cycle ‘ (0. of Loaders x Truck Cycle ‘The results are summarised in Table 5. There are some inherent flaws using the MF method for determining optimal truck-shovel assignments. It does not consider changes in working conditions and is based on the overall truck fleet, rather than each type of truck; which does make a difference. Moreover, it does not account for the type of material that is being hauled. MF @) UBLES (Optimal ruck umber based on match fact. [shovel TRadel) Thue ] 1956100 1 2 «| | 9s) 1 186 I 882 [ + [oexaraa 1 5 | 6a I 3 | [oukwiro | 1 v7 5 I 5 | [won 301 I 1 18 106 I 6 | TALPAC® was used to recalculate the truck-shovel assignments, this time allowing for material type densities, and variations due to changes in haul distances and for various truck types. In the following section, only the assignments or allocations involving the Liebherr R996 backhoc-configured excavator will be discussed. The results obtained should be considered as a general guide only, since a number of assumption were made during the simulation process and TALPAC*’s database values for the machine types were used. The simulation was conducted at various haul distance intervals, ranging from 0.5 km to 5.0 km, Initially a flat haul was considered, however the results were not representative of real conditions. Rather, it was assumed that 50 per cent of the haul distance was at a gradient of 5.7 per cent, or one in ten. Figure 6 shows the optimum number of trucks for the Liebherr Ro96 excavator when it is digging prestrip or post-strip material with a specific gravity range of 2.1 to 2.2 t/BCM over a varying haul distance. These densities are specific to the material at the case study mine. Itwas clear that more Caterpillar 785 trucks are required than any other for th specific case. These results hold if there was no limit to the number of truck in the fleet. However, this was not the case. Taking the latter into consideration and trying to assign the same truck type to one excavator, the Caterpillar 785 fleet is unsuitable for prestrip haulage — except for haul distances less than 0.5 km. The 789C fleet is suitable up to 1.5 km whilst the 830°: fleet is optimal up to 2.0 km. The ‘MT4q00 flcet is well suited with the optimum number of nine trucks at 5.0 km. Figure 7 is similar to Figure 6 but shows the results obtained for coal (coking and thermal) with a density ranging between 1.3 and 1.7 t/BCM. ‘The graph can be interpreted in the same fashion, but this time it is for coal haulage. It should be noted that these results were obtained by modelling the fleet in TALPAC®, with a focus on obtaining the optimal match between trucks and shovels for a given haul distance and ‘material type. This simulation might yield different results if it is executed with an aim to meet a certain production target per shift or if cost data is included in the study. Moreover, the optimisation study focused predominantly on enhancing productivity and reducing costs associated with queuing and waiting delays; which were deemed significant. This was done by addressing one of the major factors affecting productivity; namely truck shovel match (or assignments). This study holds under 38TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG. NSW, 24-30 SEPTEMBER 2011 209SSNEL, MS KIZIL AND P KNIGHTS. Be 5 21 E 1 5 oo 05 10 16 20 25 30 35 40 45 60 Haul Distance (km) —e-cateilor75 —©-Caterpilr780C | -*-Komaisu 830 —e-Terex MTA4400 FG 6-Tckalocatin fer iether 96 on pestip materia 5 205 2 E10 oo 05 10 18 20 28 90 35 40 48 So Haul Distance (km) e-catoriliar 785 -®-Catempillar 789 —e-Komatsu 830E | ~e-Torox MT4400 F1G7- Optimum truck alocaton for Liebherr 996 on oa the assumption that a shovel only services one truck type/model (eg Terex), s0 as to eliminate the effects of mixed fleet haulage; such as truck bunching and queuing (at dump). CONCLUSIONS ‘The analysis of a three-month historical data sample revealed key factors which affected the performance of the truck-shovel fleet at the case study mine. These factors (delays) were ‘queue at loader’, ‘wait loading unit’ and ‘wait on truck’ and were more than likely attributable to the improper match between the loading and haulage units. Focusing predominantly on productivity improvements through optimising truck-shovel match and allocation, this paper identified the best possible truck-shovel solution for a given haul distance and material type. All operating and shutdown delays were characterised for the fleet. Shift change and crib break delays were also very significant but can be managed and are inherent to the operation. Staggered crib breaks and hot-seat shift changeovers could potentially reduce the shift change and crib break delays. The overall fleet ‘mechanical availability was 88 per cent. This figure reflects the quality of maintenance practices and 35TH APCOM SYIAPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG, NSW, 24-30 SEPTEMBER 2011 390IMPROVING TRUCK-SHOVEL MATCHING the reliability of the equipment. The utilisation on the other hand, was low at 59 per cent. Reducing unnecessary delays will improve utilisation whieh in turn will enhance productivity and increase production, making the fleet more optimal. his in turn could lead to significant cost reductions of up to $5.09 M annually, REFERENCES Alarie, S and Gamache, M, 2002. Overview of solution strategies used in truck dispatching systems for open pit mines, International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 16(1):59-76. Carmichael, D G, 1986. Optimal shovel-truck operations, Engineering Optimization, 1051-63 Ercelebi, $ G and Bascetin, A, 2009. Optimization of shovel-truck system for surface mining, Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 109(7):433-439. Georgieff, D, 2006. Improving Truck Utilisation During Shovel Delays (The University of Queensland: Brisbane). Hanby, IR, 1991. Enhancement of dump truck operating efficiency, Transactions ofthe Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, Mining Technology, 100:42-47. Hartman, H L, 1992. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, second edition, volume 1 (Soci! ‘Metallurgy and Exploration Inc: Littleton). ty for Mining, Kesimal, A, 1998. Shovel-truck productivity and efficiency studies for overburden removal in an open-pit coal mine, Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, Mining Industry, 107:37-40. Macleod, K, 2008, Case study ~ Truck and shovel haulage [online]. Available from: [Accessed: 6 May 2009]. innock, M, 1997. Productivity in Australian coal mines [online]. Available from: (Accessed: 31 March 2009] Robbins, SP, Bergman, R, Stagg, Land Coulter, M, 2003. Management, third edition (Prentice-Hall: Sydney). Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd, 1993. Section 6: Truck and loader productivity estimation, section 7: Factors affecting truck and loader productivity, section 10: Sample TALPAC output, Planning and Operation of Truck and Loader Mining Systems ~ Technical Training Course Notes, Course Ref: 1593, pp 59-81, 83-100, 125-141 (Runge Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd: Mackay ‘Western Mine, 2006. Mining Cost Service 2006 (InfoMine United States of America (USA) Inc: Washington), 35TH APCOM SYMPOSIUM / WOLLONGONG NSW, 24~ 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 30