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

net/publication/329702924

Optimisation of Materials Handling Fleet Performance at Nchanga Open Pit

Mine

Research · November 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11532.36483

CITATIONS READS
0 115

2 authors:

Gift Dembetembe Victor Patson Mutambo

University of Zimbabwe University of Zambia
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Exploring possibility of e-waste mining View project

Artisanal and small scale mining View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Patson Mutambo on 16 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 First Zambia National Conference
On
Geology, Mining, Metallurgy and Groundwater
Resources:

The Future Mining in Zambia

Held at Mulungushi International Conference
22nd – 23rd November 2018, Lusaka, Zambia

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

167
 Optimisation of Materials Handling Fleet Performance at Nchanga Open Pit Mine
*G. Dembetembe1 and V. Mutambo2
1
Department of Mining Engineering, School of Earth and Mineral Sciences, University of
Zimbabwe.
2
Department of Mining Engineering, School of Mines, University of Zambia.
(*Email: giftdembetembe@gmail.com)
Abstract
Nchanga open pit (NOP) has been facing low machine performance levels of 63.7% and 40.7%

less than target for loading and hauling machines respectively. This study was therefore,

undertaken in order to optimise the fleet in terms of its performance. To achieve this objective,

production planning, fleet optimisation and fleet management were investigated based on Overall

Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), Production Loss Analysis and queuing theory. Results of study

indicated that the fleet optimisation problem at NOP had six interacting factors which contributed

to low fleet performance. These factors were machine deterioration, waiting on dozer clean ups,

mismatch between loaders and truck fleet sizes, double handling of ore, a costly dust suppression

system and a flawed maintenance system. Furthermore, based on fleet deterioration, assessment

of fleet performance using OEE showed low scores of 7.2% for shovels, 13.6% for backhoes and

17.6% for trucks against an industrial benchmark of 85%. Measures to improve fleet performance

were suggested and these include: equipment recapitalisation by purchasing new equipment to

replace the deteriorated ones, increasing the number of bulldozers from 3 to 6 to avoid bulldozer

delays and increasing the number of trucks from 15 to 28 so as to achieve matching capacities

between loaders and haulers. The eradication of double ore handling could be done through direct

tipping after redesigning the tipping point to accommodate the huge 240t trucks. Solution to the

costly dust suppression system was replacement of the water cart dust suppression system with a

sprinkler system. To meet machinery maintenance requirements it was suggested that savings from

168
direct tipping and the more cost effective dust suppression method could be reallocated to the fleet

maintenance budget. The six suggested solutions were recommended to the mine.

Keywords: Fleet performance, Overall Equipment Effectiveness, Production Loss Analysis,

Queuing theory.

Introduction
In open pit operations which account for more than 60% of all surface output (Hartman &
Mutmansky, 2002), haulage costs account for as much as 60% of the total operation costs (May,
2012). This goes to show how imperative it is to maintain an efficient materials handling system.
In fleet management there is no one size fits all concept applicable to solving all fleet problems.
The reason is the stochastic nature of fleet optimization problems. They can be statistically
modelled but cannot be precisely predicted by statistical means. There are always some on-the-
ground realities such as unscheduled down time for critical equipment; operator error or efficiency;
adverse weather; on-site operational deviations from established procedure and equipment
purchase budget limitations. Practically, what constitutes an optimized fleet tends to differ from
site to site (Russell, 2012). As a result, there is need to establish some particular site’s needs and
priorities then assess how closely a system’s capabilities can match site requirements. Another
option will be to design a new algorithm specific to a particular site.

Examination of the productivity of the loading and haulage fleet in use at NOP yielded the trends
shown in Figures 1 and 2. Actual productivity could be seen to be trailing way below budget for
every month by a wide margin.

169
 Productivity of loading equipment for 2015
1600
1400
Productivity t/h

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0

Months

Budget Actual

Figure 1: Average loader productivity for 2015

Truck productivity for 2015

400
350
Productivity t/hr

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Months

Budget Actual

Figure 2: Average truck productivity for 2015

170
The fleet optimization problem at NOP had at least 6 interacting factors shown in Figure 3 that
needed modelling either individually or in batches. The modelling of these sub-problems could
not be done by simple application of available software or existing algorithms. Furthermore, there
were loads of on-the-ground realities beneath each named factor all of which indicated a need for
a tailor made solution. Consequently, it became imperative to do an independent research aimed
at solving the NOP fleet problem.

Fleet Maintenance
deterioation management

Dust Mismatching
suppression fleet

Ore Low fleet

productivity Dozer delays
rehandling

Figure 3: Factors interacting in NOP fleet optimization problem

Materials and Methods

An assessment of current fleet performance was done through an analysis of data captured through
observations during operations as well as data from mine records on availability and utilization.
Availability and utilization were reviewed as budget against actual values for the 2015/16
Financial Year (FY). Determination of root causes for poor performance and suggestions for
solutions subsequently followed! OEE was used to do an overall assessment of fleet performance
(Elevli & Elevli, 2010). Time and motion studies for loading & hauling cycles data was analyzed
using queuing theory. The results of queuing theory analysis were confirmed by a simulation done
using Talpac software. Since NOP equipment performance seemed to be impacted by the whole
array of factors from availability, utilization and productivity, a production loss analysis was done
using Microsoft excel to determine the main contributors to poor fleet performance.

171
Data Collection and Manipulation
Data used in this example was collected and analyzed for a financial year (FY) beginning April
2015 and ending March 2016. The OEE estimation approach suggested in this paper uses
availability as calculated by the SAP system (System, Applications and Products). This is a
software that receives raw data from mine dispatch and computes monthly availabilities.
Utilization used was captured through mine dispatch system and processed in Microsoft excel.
Speed losses were calculated from Accutrak system. Accutrak is a mining fleet monitoring system
that does real time tracking of equipment on the mine. The quality parameter was determined by
talpac software as bucket fill factors for the different machines.

Determination of OEE for Shovels

The following equation was used to determine OEE:

𝑂𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗ 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦

[1]

Performance is given by:

𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒−𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ∗ 100
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

[2]

Availability
Average availability for all shovels for the 2015/16 FY is shown in Figure 4 and is 62%.

172
 Total Shovel Availability for 2015/16 FY
120

100
Availability

80

60

40

20

0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Months

Budget Actual

Figure 4: Total shovel availability for the 2015/16 FY

Performance
Performance as interpreted by OEE considers both utilization (a parameter that has nothing to do
with inherent capabilities of the machine e.g. job conditions) and speed losses (which now
considers inherent capabilities of the machine). Figure 5 gives the ‘utilization parameter’ of shovel
performance with an average monthly utilization of 19.6%.

Total shovel utilization for the 2015/16 FY

80
Utiization/%

60

40

20

0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Months
Budget Actual

Figure 5: Total shovel utilization for the 2015/16 FY

173
Figure 6 gives a Talpac cycle time distribution for the loader from which a mean value of 49.8
seconds was taken and used to calculate shovel performance. This cycle time is against a database
value of 30 seconds hence a subsequent speed loss of 19.8 seconds

Figure 6: Bucket cycle time distribution for the P&H XPA 2300 shovels

Based on Equation 2,

𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 − 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ∗ 100
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

49.8 − 19.8
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ∗ 100
49.8

= 60.2%

Incorporating the ‘utilization parameter,’

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.196 ∗ 0.602 ∗ 100

= 12%

174
Quality
Figure 7 shows a loader template from Talpac software. Of interest from Figure 7, is the
operational data for the P&H 2300 XPA shovel which showed available bucket capacity of
20.93m3 for the selected material against a database bucket capacity of 21.40m3. These two figures
were then used to determine a value for quality of the loaded material.

Figure 7: Loader template parameters for the P&H 2300 XPA shovel

Considering bucket fill factor as shown in Figure 7, a value of 97% can be obtained for quality.

𝑂𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗ 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑂𝐸𝐸 = 0.62 ∗ 0.12 ∗ 0.97 ∗ 100

= 7.2%

175
The calculated OEE value is then compared with an industrial benchmark value of 85%
(Littlefield, 2012).

OEE for Large Excavators

Availability
Average availability for all large excavators for the 2015/16 FY from Figure 8 is 53.2%.

Availability for Large Excavators for 2015/16 FY

80
70
60
Availability

50
40
30
20
10
0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Month

Budget Actual

Figure 8: Availability for large excavators for the 2015/16 FY

Performance
The utilization parameter for large excavator performance is 55% as extracted from Figure 9.

176
 Total utilization for large excavators for the 2015/16
FY
90
80
70
Utilization/%

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Months

Budget Actual

Figure 9: Total utilization for large excavators

In the studied case large excavators constituted of two CAT 6030 backhoes and one HITACHI EX
2500 each with a bucket capacity of 15m3. Their utilization was planned at 75% which for most
of the 2015/16 FY was never achieved due some industrial challenges. The target was only
achieved in the months of May and October. However in October utilization went above budget
by about 3%. Elimination of the loader utilization inhibitors could only have raised utilization to
the 75% budget plan. Therefore, foregoing some calendar based activities such as planned
maintenance, preventive maintenance, blasting clearance (in cases where blasting had to be halted
as mining was being done on soft overburden), bulldozer clean up, pre-shift service and increased
availability of rubber tired vehicles could have contributed to the overshot. Figure 10 shows bucket
cycle time distribution with a mean of 60 seconds.

177
 Figure 10: Bucket cycle time distribution for large excavators

The given mean cycle time distribution of 60 seconds is against a database value of 30 seconds
hence,

60 − 30
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ∗ 100
60

= 50%

Incorporating the ‘utilization parameter:’

𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.55 ∗ 0.50 ∗ 100

= 27.5%

Determining Quality
The determination of quality was based on the bucket fill factor shown in Figure 11.

178
 Figure 11: Excavator operational data

From Figure 11 quality can be calculated from bucket fill factor which is 93.2%.

Hence,

𝑂𝐸𝐸 = 0.532 ∗ 0.275 ∗ 0.932 ∗ 100

= 13.6%

Again the calculated OEE value is then compared with an industrial benchmark value of 85%.

179
Further investigation of loader utilization
Utilisation of both large excavators and shovels was impacted by mostly industrial challenges.
Industrial challenges observed during field surveys include substation relocation, waiting on
geology, waiting on blast, waiting on bulldozer, fuel and service, shifting loader position, absence
lighting and cable re-routing. All together the delays contributed 30% towards low shovel
utilization as shown in Figure 12. The biggest delay observed came from bulldozer clean-up
operations (Figure 13). This factor alone had a 40% share among all the industrial delays put
together.

Figure 12: Distribution of factors underpinning low loader utilization

180
 Figure 13: An analysis of the industrial delays lowering loader utilization

Most of the activities making up industrial delays are almost inevitable except for some portion of
the wait on bulldozer component. This component needs to be broken down to distinguish between
the inevitable bulldozer clean up and the avoidable wait on bulldozer. Bulldozer clean up just has
to be allowed as shovel needs heaped material for operation and trucks require not a boggy area
nor deep soft earth on loading bay. Now waiting on bulldozer can be avoided through ensuring an
optimum number of bulldozers in the feet.

OEE for trucks

Availability
Average availability for trucks as reflected in Figure 14 is 84.25%.

181
 Total truck availability for 2015/16 FY
120

100

80
Availability

60

40

20

0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Months

Budget Actual

Figure 14: Total truck availability for the 2015/16 FY

Performance
Performance as interpreted by OEE considers both utilization (a parameter with nothing to do with
inherent capabilities of the machine e.g. job conditions) and speed losses (which now considers
inherent capabilities of the machine). Utilization for the 830E trucks for the 2015/16 FY is shown
in Figure 15 and has an average value of 37%.

182
 Total truck utilization for 2015/16 FY
80

Utilization/%
60

40

20

0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Months

Budget Actual

Figure 15: Total 830E truck utilization for the 2015/16 FY

Average speed calculated for 3 trucks hauling waste from one loading point to a temporary dump
on site of study gave a value of 14.24 km/hr. Different speeds per each section of the haul route
were extracted from an Accutrak time line. The calculated vehicle speed is against an allowable
maximum of 20km/hr for the haul route.

Performance in terms of speed losses is therefore,

14.24
= ∗ 100%
20

= 71.2%

However this value should not be taken alone as there is a utilization parameter missing. Including
utilization, performance becomes:

= 0.37 * 0.712 * 100

= 26%

183
Quality
Rated payload for the trucks is 240t yet actual payload is 190t from mine operational data. Hence
quality is:

190
= ∗ 100%
240

= 79.2%

OEE = 0.792 * 0.26 * 0.8425

= 17.6%

Further investigation of truck utilization

Filed observations showed that truck utilization was lowered by environmental delays which
comprised of boggy ground and dusty rumps. Boggy ground was witnessed only once in the
selected month while dusty ramps contributed the bigger chunk of the environmental delays. The
issue of dusty ramps required an action plan.
NOP was using a single water cart as means of suppressing dust. Two water carts were supposed
to be doing the job but apparently budget limitations kept the other one in its broken down state.
Owning and operating costs calculated using a Microsoft excel model showed that total dust
suppression cost/year was amounting to $1 033 495.32. Apart from the high owning and operating
costs for this system, it was observed that the method needed recurrent application of water after
every 3 to 4 hours on ramps for two pits that were 15km apart.

Results and Discussion

Fleet performance was analyzed using OEE and low percentages of OEE for shovels, large
excavators and trucks obtained were:

𝑂𝐸𝐸 = 𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗ 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑄𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦

• Shovels 7.2%

• Large Excavators 13.6%

• Trucks 17.6%

184
Calculated OEE values should be compared with an industrial benchmark value of 85%
(Littlefield, 2012). It is very difficult for any company to reach that level but it can be taken as a
ceiling close to which an industry’s equipment can be said to be performing effectively. Since the
estimated OEE values were all below the benchmark, it revealed a need for operational as well as
equipment conditional improvements. The question posed was on which areas were improvements
needed? Tackling the first two input variables of OEE that is availability and utilization (embedded
in performance), production loss analyses were done for loaders and trucks as shown in Figures
16 and 17 respectively.

Production loss analysis for loading equipment

600000
500000
400000
300000
Tonnage

200000
100000
0
-100000
-200000
Y15 Y16 Y32 FR301 FR304 FR305 FR306
Avail loss -23436 -93744 468720 248052 100440 260921 75330
Util loss 362477 379142 390600 294224 142290 40712 -47430
Prod loss 176774 475751 390600 390558 266082 135594 307346
Metric & equipment

Avail loss Util loss Prod loss

Figure 16: Production loss analysis for loading equipment

185
 Production loss analysis for trucks
350000
300000
250000
Tonnage

200000
150000
100000
50000
0
-50000
830E Old 830E New1 830E New2
Avail loss 285216 284162 312636
Util loss 136298 70733 45984
Prod loss 128477 5797 -7461
Metric & Category

Avail loss Util loss Prod loss

Figure 17: Production loss analysis for trucks

Both utilization and availability were found to be contributive towards poor fleet performance as
indicated in Figures 16 and 17. Investigating utilization showed three dominant contributors. These
were industrial challenges, environment and shortage of Rubber Tired Vehicles (RTVs).

Industrial challenges noticed offered not much opportunity for optimization but the bulldozer
operation delays required attention. However, the precise study on NOP bulldozer requirements
was left out of the scope of this study but generally each dump and each loader needed to be
equipped with a bulldozer. This left NOP generally short of 3 bulldozer for the equipping of all
loading and dumping points.

Environmental challenges consisted mainly of dusty ramps. From the field surveys, loading and
hauling operations were seen to be at times halted due to dust which decreased visibility thereby
increasing risk of machine accidents. The current dust suppression system of using two water carts
had inefficiencies in terms of availability and high owning and operating costs. In cases of water
cart break downs, a single water cart would be overwhelmed since water as a dust suppressant is
effective only for 3 or 4 hours in the hot season. Again the demand consists of two pits that were

186
altogether about 15km apart. The second draw back of the current system was cost. Calculations
done for the 2015/16 FY showed total (owning and operating) dust suppression cost/year to be
USD 1 033 495.32.

The most economic and environmentally friendly solution was found to be the installation of
sprinklers alongside the haul road. In underground mining operations, a formula for estimating
cost of piping systems was suggested by Adler (1992) as:

Cost of pipe installation = $2.80 L0.9C0.3, [3]

Where L is length of haul road and C is compressed air pressure. Using this formula, total pipe
installation for the whole NOP was $16 823.25.

The mismatch between loading and hauling fleet sizes apparently meant a shortage of rubber tired
vehicles. Shortage of rubber tired vehicles in turn resulted from two factors i.e. availability and
quantity. An investigation into the required quantity using queuing theory on a case study done at
the 135mb in COP F&D section of NOP showed that 7.86 trucks were needed to fully utilize the
P&H shovel in that section (Figure 18). This was approximately equal to the 8 trucks required by
the same shovel as determined by an independent Talpac software analysis for COP F&D waste
haulage (Figure 19). A Talpac software simulation for the whole mine followed and showed that
an additional 15 trucks were needed to fully utilise the available loading units.

No. of trucks against arrival rate

12.0

10.0
Number of trucks

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Truck arrival rate (trucks/hour)

Figure 18: Number of trucks against truck arrival rate

187
 Figure 19: Talpac Software screen shot showing truck fleet size for COP F&D Section at NOP

Availability factors were then investigated through a root cause analysis on equipment failures.
The root cause analysis results of Figure 20 proved beyond doubt that machine deterioration was
the single most significant cause of poor machine performance or in particular low availability.
This identification goes to justify the consideration of equipment recapitalization.

188
 Root Cause Analysis
80
70
60
Frequency

50
40
30
20
10
0
Violation of Violation of Machine Weakness in Lack of
basic condition operating deterioration design skill/knowledge
condition
Root cause category

Figure 20: Root cause analysis for machine break downs in the 2015/16 FY

With equipment purchase budget limitations and facing an ending LOM (4 years) it was necessary
to consider making do with the same old or new but limping equipment after some mechanical
upgrades. To go ahead with equipment recapitalization it was necessary to assess the inherent,
individual fleet component health of the available machines and see if at all some fleet components
could either be straight away roped into the new fleet or rather overhauled or revamped for
inclusion in the new fleet. Another perspective was the adoption of a conveyor transportation and
then allocate the available haulage equipment to satellite pits. This was a consideration because
truck haulage costs increase with pit deepening and conversely in-pit crushing and conveying
systems become economically attractive (Hartman, 1992).

Adoption of an In-Pit Crusher and Conveyor system (IPCC) could bring savings of above $708,
000 per year through eradication of double ore handling. $708, 000 per year was the cost of running
one front end loader for ore re-handling purposes. However, the IPCC comes with two major
disadvantages to the NOP fleet optimization problem. Firstly the capital expenditure is too
exorbitant for a mine approaching the end of its mine life. Secondly, the IPCC system has high
reusability and in this case would be left with high salvage value after 4 years. As a way of avoiding
the IPCC yet saving the $708,000 from double ore handling, direct tipping was suggested. Operator
189
training would enable direct tipping on the narrow sized tipping point and boulder seclusion in the
ore that enters the crusher.

If the current fleet components were going to be considered for continued use they had to be
assessed on two metrics – reliability and maintainability. This assessment, though omitted in this
research, can be carried out using Weibull analysis through Microsoft Excel or Matlab software
among other methodologies.

Conclusions

Assessing current fleet performance using OEE showed percentages of 7.2 for shovels, 13.6 for
large excavators and 17.6 for trucks against an industrial benchmark of 85%. This revealed a
serious need to do equipment conditional and operational diagnosis. The study revealed six
underlying causes of the low fleet performance. These causes and their respective solutions were:
 Machine deterioration - A root cause analysis done on a number of machines picked at
random showed that machine deterioration was the main cause of poor fleet performance,
particularly low availability. Scraping these machines proved impractical in the light of
equipment purchase budget constraints and an almost ending LOM. Two possible solutions
envisioned were replacing the truck haulage system with a conveyor system or rebuilding
all the available machines though this could only be ascertained after a reliability analysis.
The latter option was more preferred since it is significantly more economic than the
former.
 Bulldozer clean up delays – The mine needed 3 additional bulldozers to equip every dump
and loading point.
 Mismatch between loading and hauling fleet sizes – Both Queuing theory and Talpac
simulation indicated that an additional 15 Rubber tired vehicles were needed to fully utilise
the available loading units.
 Double ore handling – this problem could have been easily solved by IPCC adoption but
since IPCC required a huge capital injection, direct tipping with the same trucks in use was
suggested. Direct tipping could be made possible after specialised operator training on both
tipping and loading. This move could save the mine a minimum of $708, 000 per year.

190
  Dust suppression - One possibility was to scrape the water cart dust suppression system,
costing the mine $1, 033 million per year and replace it with sprinklers costing $16, 823
along the haul road.
 Maintenance management – there was nothing wrong with the maintenance schedule itself
but adherence to it. Lack of funds to maintain the equipment could be solved by channeling
some of the savings from direct tipping and sprinkler dust suppression into the maintenance
budget.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Konkola Copper Mines plc for enabling the researchers to
undertake this study at NOP. Many thanks go to the staff at the Universities of Zimbabwe and
Zambia, Departments of Mining Engineering for valuable support during period of the research.

References
Adler, L., (1992). SME Mining Engineering Handbook. 2nd ed. Littleton: Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc, ISBN 0-87335-100-2, pp. 411-420.

Çetin, N., (2004). Open-Pit Truck/Shovel Haulage System Simulation, Ankara: Middle East
Technical University.

Elevli, S. & Elevli, B., (2010). Performance Measurement of Mining Equipments by Utilizing
OEE, Kosice: FBERG.

Hartman, H. L., (1992). SME Mining Engineering Handbook. 2nd ed. Littleton: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., ISBN 0-87335-100-2, pp. 1343-1346.

Hartman, H. L. & Mutmansky, J. M., (2002). Introductory Mining Engineering. 2nd ed. New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., ISBN 978-0-471-34851-1, pp. 515-516.

Hui, V., (2012). Portfolio and Musings of a Mining Enginerd. [Online]

Available at: http://miningenginerd.com/?p=162 [Accessed 29 July 2016].

Littlefield, M., (2012). Overall Equipment Effectiveness Benchmark Data by Industry. [Online]

191
 Available at: http://blog.lnsresearch.com/[Accessed 17 January 2017].

May, M. A., (2012). Applications of Queuing Theory for Open-Pit Truck/Shovel Haulage
Systems, Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Runge, (2007). Truck and Loader Productivity Analysis Software. Brisbane: Runge Limited.

Russell, C. A., 2012. Fleet Management: Challenges and Choices. Engineering and Mining
Journal, 213(3), pp. 28-32.

192

View publication stats