Modeling and Simulation
Modeling and Simulation
Modeling and Simulation
Mining Science, vol. 22, 2015, 183−191 (previously Scientific Papers of the Institute of Mining
of the Wroclaw University of Technology.
Mining and Geology)
ISSN 2300-9586
www.miningscience.pwr.edu.pl
previously 0370-0798
Abstract: The article considers the problems posed by the application of 3D simulation analysis to the
modeling of production processes in surface mining. The issues here focused on include the possibilities
of creating the representations of mining exploitation elements in a three-dimensional environment as
well as the description of the influence that spatial characteristics of surface mines has on simulation
processes. The paper also discusses the sense for employing simulation techniques in the design of sur-
face mining production processes and presents the results of analysis performed for a model production
system. In conclusion the advantages and disadvantages of the described solutions are compared and the
perspectives for their further development and popularization are described.
INTRODUCTION
doi: 10.5277/msc152215
184 Sebastian CHĘCIŃSKI, Andrzej WITT
solutions are best for a particular deposit and how accurately it is possible to estimate
the efficiency of the designed systems.
Presently this question is addressed by engineers who design exploitation systems
and prepare deposit development plans. Nonetheless, even optimal determination of
the parameters that a mining production system should meet does not limit the wide
range of its specific elements. One illustration of that issue might be utilizing either
motor or conveyor transport systems. In some cases, from the perspective of design
quality both transport types are suitable for operation in the mine, and hence the selec-
tion of one of them will be determined by other factors, such as cost of operation, reli-
ability, investment possibilities etc. (Witt, 2011). In this case, making the right choice
from among various acceptable components that comprise the production system de-
pends on correct illustration of the system’s operation along with the advantages and
disadvantages that may influence the decision-making process. Simulation techniques
are a useful solution in this case, being first and foremost a source of information on
the dynamics of the analyzed system, and at the same time allowing to trace the his-
torical dynamics of changes, study those dynamics and effectively design the system’s
future operation (Beaverstock et al., 2011).
Simulation tools have been already used for more than half a century. The first ap-
plication allowing for simulations, called the General Simulation Program, was cre-
ated in 1960 (Kocher, Owen) and soon after, the first simulation programming lan-
guage (GPSS - General Purpose Simulation System by G. Gordon). Allowing for fast
and easy construction of basic simulation models, the techniques were soon adapted to
aid solving production problems (Pawlewski, 2010).
It is worth mentioning at this point that production in a surface mining plant is
largely dependent on the space, in which it occurs. This applies to deposit geometry,
designing of mining faces progress, as well as to the location of processing plant,
which directly impacts transport distances. That scope of spatial variability dynamics,
as compared to other production systems, entails the necessity to employ tools that
would allow for such dynamics in the calculations, so that the potential of simulation
technologies can be maximized.
Taylor ED – the first application enabling simulations to be performed in full
three-dimensional environment – was created relatively recently, in 1998 in the United
States (Beaverstock et al., 2011). This event commenced the period of continuous
evolution and popularization of such tools, further intensified by the dynamic devel-
opment of computer technology and wider access to PC computers. The fact that new
simulation tools enable spatial variables to be included in the calculations allows for a
suggestion that problems of mining production may well be addressed using computa-
tional capabilities of the here described solutions. The first attempt at Wroclaw Uni-
versity of Technology to model mining production in 3D environment was made in
2014. It was aimed at analyzing the distribution of truck traffic generated by mining
plants (Chęciński, 2014).
Modeling and simulation analysis of mine production in 3D environment 185
To meet the demand for effective mining production design solutions, the Research
Centre for Economics of Industry and Geoeconomics together with “Poltegor-
Instytut” Institute Of Open Cast Mining undertook an initiative to build a 3D-
environment simulation model of a schematic production system in a surface mine.
Until now simulation analyses and employment of optimization techniques in min-
ing (including 3D environment) have remained within the area of research concerning
optimal deposit extraction. The key objective of the research has been to define ade-
quate mining exploitation procedures from the perspective of changing quality pa-
rameters and geological and mining conditions (Jurdziak & Kawalec, 2007). The ap-
plications employed for that purpose aid modeling of deposit variability (e.g. CAE
Studio), or optimal scheduling of exploitation works progress (e.g. NPV Scheduler).
The production modeling and simulation technology here described go a step further
in that they aim at selecting the best production system for a predefined progress of
mining faces. Ability of use three dimensional simulation system seems to have an
essential value, mostly because of the fact that mining production environment is
changing dynamically. It is caused not only by deposits exploitation, which impacts
on haulage distances, but also by changing location of some system elements (for ex-
ample place of unloading the trucks).
Due to the fact that basic editions of applications used in 3D simulations are not
equipped with models illustrating the elements of mining production systems (trucks,
intake hoppers etc.), it was necessary to build appropriate 3D models (Fig. 1). Testing
the ability to simulate production was performed in FlexSim application environment.
In case of FlexSim environment, modeling particular elements of mining production
system, as well as accurate reproduction of the excavation may be performed in any
three-dimensional graphic environment. As the manufacturer’s instructions require the
models to be adequately simplified (FlexSim’s User Manual), the construction was
performed with Trimble SketchUp application, which is sufficient even for building
very complex 3D mining models (Chęciński, 2014). During the preparation of indi-
vidual system elements, basic object class were used (TaskExecuter, Separator, Queue,
Conveyor), available at standard FlexSim application library.
The first stage of simulation model construction was to prepare a general outline of
surface mine production system (Fig. 2). It has been assumed that the constructed
model would be based on a system designed with intake hopper and pre-crusher, as
well as a second-stage crushing system with a screen. The exploitation technology
model includes loosening of the rock material with explosives, transporting it to the
first crusher, and then using conveyor belts to pass it to the next crushing stage.
Crushed material is fed to a set of screens, which directs the streams of material on
conveyor belts to the place where separate fractions are stored (Fig. 1). Due to
FlexSim limitations, it's quite hard to build a mechanism of sending material between
186 Sebastian CHĘCIŃSKI, Andrzej WITT
two running vehicles (excavator - truck). Because of the problem, this element of the
system was simplified, and represented just by using the variable time of loading
process (truck object parameter).
During modeling stage, the exploitation pit area was simplified to have only two
excavation levels together with approach ramp. The analysis covered loosening of four
sectors in two shortwalls (Fig. 3). The construction of the model includes changing the
illustration of the sectors from the monolithic block layout to loosened rock layout,
which is represented by a set of packets intended for transportation. Employing such
mechanism allows to illustrate the movement of the mining face and the reduction of
deposit resources.
Modeling and simulation analysis of mine production in 3D environment 187
Fig. 4. Crusher model, with chart showing its work type during processing
ANALYSIS RESULTS
At described analysis, every scenario was focused only on the different values of
truck capacity. All other parameters were the same (number of trucks, maximum
speed, schedule of exploitation, production value, crushing systems efficiency etc.).
Production schedule contains creation of four equal sets of 10 packages (equivalent of
four mining sectors), at equal time intervals. The generated report of scenarios analy-
sis results (Table 1) shows explicitly that the crusher performs most of idle work at the
time when the truck’s transport box is set to minimum capacity. The obtained values
are within the range from 95.36% to 95.39% of the crusher’s total work. The best re-
sults were obtained with the truck’s transport box set to maximum capacity; they were
within the range from 73.76% to 74.62% of the crusher’s total work.
Modeling and simulation analysis of mine production in 3D environment 189
The results of the analysis support a rather obvious conclusion that the greater the
load-capacity of the truck’s transport box, the more material is transported at a given
time, which directly affects the crusher’s effective operation time. However, for par-
ticular terrain conditions the direct influence of the truck’s transport box capacity may
be difficult to estimate, while the presented model allows for its precise estimation. By
the fact that result of the analysis represents clearly an actual logic of mining produc-
tion, it might be assumed that model was built correctly.
It is also worth to be mentioned (Fig. 5) that for the last two production configura-
tions (Scenarios 5 and 6) the change of the truck’s transport box did not have signifi-
cant influence on the change of the amount of the separator’s idle work (difference
between 0.35% and 0.61%). This demonstrates clearly that the ability to use the trans-
port box’s capacity to control idle work has reached its maximum. Thus, other inter-
ruptions of the separator’s operation depend solely on the scheduling of the shooting
of individual sectors in the shortwall. Huge values of idle work in scenarios 5 and 6
shows that production intervals were probably scheduled too widely.
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Task is co-financed by the European Union as part of the European Social Fund.
Modeling and simulation analysis of mine production in 3D environment 191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BEAVERSTOCK M., GREENWOOD A., LAVERY E., NORDGREN W., 2011. Applied Simulation.
Modeling and Analysis using Flexsim.
CHĘCIŃSKI S., 2014. Simulation of congestion forming in mineral mining transport. Gospodarka Mate-
riałowa & Logistyka, No 6, 33-38 (in Polish).
CHĘCIŃSKI S., 2014. Simulation analysis of traffic congestion in mineral mining transport. Process
simulation and optimization in sustainable logistics and manufacturing, Springer, cop. 99-109.
JURDZIAK L., KAWALEC W., 2007. Using modern IT tools for optimisation of open pit mine function-
ing, with particular consideration of conveyor belts. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi, No 23,
97-110 (in Polish).
JURDZIAK L., KAWALEC W., 2013. New trends in mining - virtual reality and simulations. Kruszywa,
No 4, 30-34 (in Polish).
WITT A, 2011, Possibilities of using innovative systems equipped with mobile crushing-screening and
transporting machines in polish mineral mining, Górnictwo Odkrywkowe, No 6, 129-134 (in Polish).
PAWLEWSKI P., 2010, IT technologies used in logistics process simulations, Logistyka, No 1, 59-63 (in
Polish).