European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Decision Support

Importance of verifying queue model assumptions before planning

with simulation software
Kenneth David Strang
State University of New York, USA
APPC Research, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This case study uses empirical data gathered at an Australian renery to verify the assumptions for queue
Received 11 March 2011 distributions before using special-purpose software to plan the off-road-truck hauling of titanium dioxide
Accepted 4 October 2011 to a renery (n = 773). Easy-to-use spreadsheet software is utilized to verify assumptions for queue mod-
Available online 22 November 2011
els. Managers are able to make decisions based on economic implications of queue models to avoid mak-
ing costly planning mistakes. Analysts can use nonparametric hypothesis-testing techniques to verify
Keywords: distribution assumptions for optimization without having to write hard-to-maintain and complex alge-
Empirical surface mine case study
braic linear equations or nonlinear search routines.
Queue model
Statistical nonparametric hypothesis testing
Published by Elsevier B.V.
Goodness of Fit
Spreadsheet software

1. Introduction software. For example, one relevant study proposed gathering

This is a case study of an Arabian-owned titanium dioxide ren-
ery in Australia. A business motive is that mining company stake-
holders should be aware of the hidden assumptions and potential
economic consequences when line managers rely on complex soft-
ware programs. In particular, this study emphasizes the economic
productivity associated with accepting incorrect planning model
distribution assumptions for off road mining trucks and reners.
Thus the purpose is to demonstrate why decision makers should
validate the assumptions which are hidden within commercial
simulation programs or special-purpose optimization techniques.
Finally decision makers are shown how to use common spread-
sheet software to validate these underlying model distribution
assumptions.
The closest comparable empirical study to this was the Brazilian
surface mine mathematical programming model by Souza et al.
(2010). They created four heuristic search routines written in the
AMPL language and compiled in C++ for trial-and-error testing. A
somewhat related and interesting conceptual study by Kleijnen
and Sargent (2000) developed a 10-step meta-model validation
methodology grounded on linear regression analysis (r2) as an indi-
cator of model t to simulated data. Interestingly he collaborated
on a number of studies to demonstrate various methods for vali-
dating the underlying models of operations research simulation
Tel.: +1 518 636 0603.
E-mail address: kenneth.strang@gmail.com
real-world data and applying SchrubenTuring estimates, t-tests,
regression, and sensitivity analysis (Kleijnen, 1995). Extant queue
theory studies such as those of: Ghomi and Jaafari (2011), Lian-
zhang and Zhang (2009), Snipas and Valakevicius (2010), examined
algebraic formulas (and proposed variations) within their theoret-
ical models but none of these researchers validated if their con-
structs were appropriate for operational situations.
This study addresses this validation gap in operations logistics
and complexity theory literature and departs from mathematical
programming. A shortcoming in the literature is that operations re-
search focuses heavily on technical or hypothetical/abstract mod-
els instead of practical advice (Mercer, 1977; Sharp and Dando,
1979). Rather than apply a mathematical system of equations, lin-
ear programming, or nonlinear search approach to identify feasible
solutions, a nonparametric hypothesis testing methodology is ap-
plied to validate the probability assumptions underlying the mine
planning software. When operation managers in the case study
were shown recent queue literature they stated is was unusable
in the workplace due to mathematical complexity and abstract-
ness; they also preferred to continue to use existing mining simu-
lation and planning software. There is a documented need to
improve the operational research literature to make it more prac-
tical (Mercer, 1977; Sharp and Dando, 1979). For example, it has
been pointed out that: often in the past the approach has been
concentrated on providing technical solutions to well-dened
hypothetical problems, rather than on attempting to tackle the
decision-makers real problems of trying to make sense of the
complex situations in which they nd themselves (Sharp and

0377-2217/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.054
494 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
Dando, 1979). This rationale is also argued to be applicable in small
mining operations that may not have the budget or the engineering
expertise to create software for the mathematical optimization of
complex problems; additionally, in cases (like this one) where sim-
ulation software is in use, program assumptions should be
validated.
Thus, while it is acknowledged that linear/integer programming
is more commonly used to optimize known constraints
(Patriksson, 2008), here observational data are collected and fac-
tored as stochastic distributions (probabilistic not deterministic
or heuristic) to verify commercial underlying constraint and
distribution assumptions. It is further accepted that mathematical
programming can be used to search for feasible solutions of com-
plex operational problems (Vidal, 1992) yet this study instead
leverages the semi-structured easy-to-use context of spreadsheet
software to verify queue model assumptions using hypothesis test-
ing techniques based on probability density distribution shape.
This is done by observing empirical data, leveraging probability,
modeling a renery with queue theory, and then using spreadsheet
software to test the requisite hypotheses before employing any
further logistical operations planning.
2. Literature review
Contemporary mining typically uses underground or surface
mounted equipment that extract aggregate, which is dumped onto
panzer conveyors, and then loaded into trucks to transport materi-
als to the rst milling stage (Sturgul, 1999). It is at this point and
each milling stage (or in this case the renery stage which for all
intents and purpose is identical to milling queues). There is no per-
ceivable inventory component in these types of queue models
since the rening stages are usually integrated with conveyor-belt
feeding systems designed for continuous service. Thus, it is primar-
ily the rst stage where input bottlenecks occur. This is particularly
likely when several trucks are bringing materials from different
parts of the mine, up different elevation grades, experiencing de-
lays for refueling, maintenance or other events, arriving at as-
sumed random intervals to the rst rening stage.
Studies of mining companies indicate a variety of operations re-
search techniques are applied for analysis and planning purposes.
As noted during the introduction, deterministic approaches such
as integer or linear programming are often been used for produc-
tion planning situations where constraints such as the number of
trucks and operators are known (Shakeri and Logendran, 2007; Ste-
cke and Toczylowski, 1992; Zhang and Xu, 2010). Mathematical
programming techniques are often applied to nonlinear, context-
specic complex operations, and paradoxical (NP-hard) situations
where an optimal solution is difcult to identify (Shakeri and Log-
endran, 2007; Souza et al., 2010). Markov chains and other general
search techniques are widely used in operations research (Gupta
and Albright, 1992; Yeh, 1997). Goal programming is a multi-
criteria deterministic solution search technique, which combines
linear and nonlinear principles, that has been applied to solve a dis-
patching model in a coal/ore mine (Temeng et al., 1998). Function
modeling has been used as an optimization technique in some
operational production problems (Mati et al., 2011; Patriksson,
2008). Actually, Patriksson (2008) surveyed the history on mixed-
models concluding generalized search procedures are most com-
monly used to solve complex unique problems. Flow/scheduling
approaches have been applied to solve routing and sequencing
operational problems (Chen et al., 2007; Davies, 1997; Mati et al.,
2011). Petri nets and other nearest-neighbor heuristic-based search
techniques could be considered a variant of ow analysis, which
have also been used to solve scheduling or shortest-route problems
(e.g. Proth and Sauer, 1998). Interestingly, more statistically-
oriented approaches have not commonly been applied for opera-
tions research outside of the aforementioned studies of Kleijnen
(1995) and Kleijnen and Sargent (2000). An exception to this was
a couple of studies using regression in banking (Boufounou,
1995) and articial intelligence models (Pierreval, 1992).
Several of the studies cited above and earlier present relevant
ideas for analyzing the surface mine trucking-rening queues in
this case. First of all, the work of Souza et al. (2010) show many
of the relevant factors and heuristics. Secondly, readers should
appreciate the statistically-grounded techniques suggested in the
simulation work of Kleijnen (1995) and Kleijnen and Sargent
(2000). Although Kleijnens models are not focused on the mining
industry, his ideas of validating the conceptual models underlying
simulation software are relevant principles to consider. Thus, at
this point it would be logical to review relevant queue theory
and the underlying statistical distributions.
2.1. Queue theory
As conceptually shown in Fig. 1, queue models are constructed
by several key parameters: an input arrival rate k, an average, con-
stant or arbitrary service rate l (occasionally a standard deviation
r), along with one or more servers (sometimes called channels, de-
noted by the # symbol in Fig. 1 or as s in later sections). Queue
models cannot represent every situation as most implementations
are designed on a rst-come-rst-serve (FIFO/FCFS) philosophy, in
a steady-state system without balking (no customers jumping into
other queues). Here we will assume a FIFO based model.
The key principle in this model (from queue theory) is Littles
Law which states that the total length of (number of objects in)
the system [L] equals the arrival rate per specied interval (num-
ber of people, trucks, etc.) also known as Lambda k multiplied
by the mean time an object spends in the system which is known
as W (Little, 1961). In short format the formula for total queue
length is: L = k W. The average utilization of the system refers
to the probability the system is busy (active) which is typically cal-
culated as the arrival rate Lambda k divided by the service rate l;
statistically this is the complement of being idle, or in short for-
mat: U = 1  P(0) = k/l. The remaining key variables refer to the
length of the service queue or number of objects waiting in the ser-
vice queue (Lq), and the mean time waiting in the service queue
(Wq). The difference between W and Wq is that the latter are a por-
tion of the former time in the system (in the waiting queue itself),
while in similar principle, L represents the total length of the sys-
tem and Lq is the time-length of the queue within L. As noted
above, the probability the system is idle or not busy is P(0) which
refers to the probability of zero objects in the system (the mutually
exclusive complement of busy). Note that other utilization proba-
bilities such as P(1), P(2), P(n) are distinct from busy (1  P(0))
and from idle P(0) status.
The formulas to estimate the aforementioned measures vary by
the queue model conguration and assumptions of the underlying
distributions. Several queueing models are considered in the liter-
ature in order to standardize a server conguration. M/M/1 repre-
sents a single server queue model that has unlimited queue
capacity, with both arrivals and service are Poisson processes (i.e.
the inter-arrival times and the service times are the exponential
distributed). The M/M/1 queuing model is the most common mod-
eling choice. The M/G/1 model represents a single server that has
unlimited queue capacity, exponentially distributed inter-arrival
rates, while service times may follow any general statistical distri-
bution. The M/D/1 is a special case of the general model with deter-
ministic service times. While in the case of a M/M/1 model the
distribution of the waiting time is available, explicit expression
for the M/G/1 waiting-time distribution can be computed only
for special classes of long-tail service-time distributions (see
 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
Fig. 1. Conceptual queue theory model.
Boxma and Cohen, 1997; Abate and Whitt, 1999) or it can be
approximated (see Shortle et al., 2004).
In this paper we assume a general service rate (time between
service start and nish). We will try to nd the best approximate
for the real operational service time distribution among one of fol-
lowing distributions: Poisson (most popular), normal (including
Student t), uniform, Gamma (including Erlang), Weibull, triangular,
lognormal, Bernoulli (binomial), and chi-square. For example, in a
Gamma distribution with a truck arriving on average every 10 min-
utes (l = 10/60 = 0.17 hours), the arrival rate per hour would be 6
(1/k = 1/0.17 = 6). The service rate (time between service start
and nish) is assumed to behave as any one of the distributions
mentioned above if converted from an interval to a continuous in-
ter-interval rate. The exponential distribution is the most common
for modeling service rate. For example, in an exponential distribu-
tion when 5 trucks are being serviced on average every hour, the
mean service time-rate (l) = 1/k = 1/5 = 0.2 hours. However: to
analyze a queuing system, both arrivals and service must be in
compatible units of measure (Taylor, 2010); therefore the mean
(l) of 5 in the above example would be entered into the model
as the exponential service rate.
One popular statistical probability distribution which is not
used in queue models is the Hypergeometric because the theory
is based on sampling population non-replacement which means
that if a truck services an arrival or service queue it would not stay
in the system to be used again, but this idea does not mirror how
mining operates since trucks continually leave and re-enter
queues. The provisioning (service/replenishment) discipline refers
to a FIFO/FCFS (most common), LIFO (Last In First Out) or SIRO
(Service In Random Order) basis (Taylor, 2010; Worthington,
2009). The calling population (incoming arrivals) can be innite
or nite; the latter applies with inherent sample size limits 630
(Strang, 2009) such as a xed number of truck service bays at a gar-
age. Service channels are expressed as one or more servers. Queue
length could also be limited in size (in addition to the calling
population).
Queue server model congurations have been somewhat stan-
dardized in the literature. M/M/1 represents a single server queue
model that has unlimited queue capacity and innite calling
population, both arrivals and service are Poisson (or random) pro-
cesses, meaning the statistical distribution of both the inter-arrival
times and the service times follow the exponential distribution.
However, since the models are congured to model arrival rates,
these are assumed to approximate a Poisson distribution, and since
service is congured to be a time, these are assumed to approxi-
mate an exponential distribution. The M/M/1 queuing model is
the most common as it is simple and often represents many queue
theory situations. The M/G/1 model represents a single server that
495
has unlimited queue capacity and innite calling population, and
while the arrival rates are assumed to approximate a Poisson dis-
tribution, service times may follow any general statistical distribu-
tion (it could be an exponential or any of the ones mentioned
above). The M/D/1 is a special case of the general model but where
the service times are constant. There is a multiple server variation
of each of the aforementioned models, which use an s instead of
the 1 in the above notations (these are beyond the scope of this
case study since there is only one renery per surface mine as the
server).
Note that in surface mining operations (as in this case), most
systems are considered innite since trucks, loaders, and other
equipment have a great degree of freedom to roam (if desired)
and there are usually more queue capacity available than what
the rening units can process (thus the bottleneck is the server
not the calling population). If queue systems are in sequence this
is different than multiple servers and may be treated as dependent
queue systems with their own arrival and service components. Of-
ten it is easier to analyze a queuing problem in the mining industry
by isolating the components of a single system at a time.
2.2. Simulation software
Contemporary mining industry operations are composed of
physical processes that can be conceptually modeled using soft-
ware. This allows the variables to be captured and manipulated
in order to locate weak points and try new approaches, without
affecting actual production (wasting time or money). Managers of-
ten recognize this as what-if analysis, articial intelligence, or
goal-seeking models. A good example is the well known Flight
Design Simulator software that allows engineers to experiment
with designs without crashing real planes. Examples used in the
mining industry include: GPSS (General Purpose Simulation
System), Bethlehem Steels BETHBELT-1 (written in GASP V),
WebConSim, Caterpillars FPC/IAC, Runge Systems Talpac, along
with Rockwells Arena (Sturgul, 1999). Many of these simulation
programs have been revised but they still make assumptions.
A weakness with using queuing model simulation software is
that while they incorporate Monte Carlo techniques, Markov
chains, and apply queue systems theory, they usually cannot be
easily expanded beyond the original code, and they can be expen-
sive (Sturgul, 1999). Furthermore, simulation software, mathemat-
ical programming, and/or integer/linear programming techniques
often assume discrete events occur at known times, they often
use deterministic constraints with simulated values, without
sampling real data to rst verify theoretical model assumptions.
Additionally, linear/integer, mathematical programming and gen-
eralized search techniques are complicated for mining staff to
496 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
use. Therefore, a goal of this study is to allow operational analysts
to continue to use simulation software, but at the front end verify
the underlying distribution model assumptions using uncompli-
cated techniques. In this way, operational analysts can statistically
verify distributions then select the best arrival and service queue
conguration to use in the planning software, or if none are appro-
priate they could either make a documented educated guess or in-
stead recongure the actual renery queue.
2.3. Arrival and service distributions
Manufacturing queue processes (such as Fig. 1) conceptually
represent a system that leverages an underlying statistical distri-
bution to represent the input, process and output ow. In some
cases a process has complete certainty (100% probability) which
means it can be modeled deterministically without including
variables to estimate chance or variability. These are called deter-
ministic or constant queues (represented by the queue identica-
tion labels: M/D/1). When rates are constant or unknown they
are often assumed to model a uniform distribution. The uniform
distribution (also called rectangle distribution) is used to model
random events that do not conform to any pattern (which is rarely
the case in a real production plant). The probability of any value in
the uniform distribution is exactly the same as any other value
(Levine et al., 2005). In most situations where a queue has a deter-
ministic rate (such as when using highly reliable robots feeding
into a manufacturing process), it is argued here that there is still
often a stochastic component in the service process or output
queue (such as a chance of a defect, delay or a change in mean
time).
It is common to experience variation in arrival rates and service
times for queues. These variations are assumed to approximate one
of the well known probability distributions. Therefore, the mean
taken from production data (or simulated in software) is assumed
to be similar to the underlying distribution of the queue model,
otherwise the model inference-based estimates would be incor-
rect. The normal distribution is often used for service rate probabil-
ities when the data follows the bell curve on a histogram (Levine
et al., 2005), with a standard deviation for variance, such as the
general queue model identied by the label: M/G/1. The M/G/1
model assumes a Poisson distribution for arrival rates but it as-
sumes the service times are arbitrary (the times could be random
or any statistical distribution). In the mining industry, the normal
distribution is often used to model travel times, particularly if vehi-
cles have a maximum speed due to terrain or equipment limita-
tions (Sturgul, 1999).
The Poisson distribution is not symmetrical (Levine et al., 2005)
and is often used to represent arrival rate probabilities for queues
(input interval or service product demand). This is a discrete distri-
bution (whole numbers only) representing the probabilities for
arrivals in the interval. The mean can be approximated by the
Lambda k (Levine et al., 2005). For most equipment, the probability
of a Poisson mean typically is highest in the 15 event range and
rarely goes beyond 10 events to reach zero. The exponential distri-
bution is also unsymmetrical based on mean which can be calcu-
lated from the reciprocal of the long run average Lambda k
(Levine et al., 2005). Exponential distributions can model the con-
tinuous probabilities of rates between the arrivals, known as inter-
arrival times, or time between events, such as service queues. It is
also effective for estimating processes that normally take very little
time, but occasionally could take a very long period of time. For
example, an exponential distribution with a Lambda k = 0.5 has a
high probability for 1 and 2 events to occur, but it is not improba-
ble for the value to be close to 4 or beyond. In the mining industry,
exponential distributions are often used to model equipment that
is geared to typically perform a service in a known manner which
varies based on source material composition or as a result of the
feeding queue (Sturgul, 1999). As noted, exponential distributions
are often used to model service rates. A typical mining industry
single-channel queue with Poisson arrivals and exponential service
times would use the label: M/M/1 (M/M/s: would refer to multiple
servers).
The Erlang distribution is similar to Poisson and Gamma
distributions, to represent both arrival and service time rates.
Additional (unusual) distributions that have been applied to arrival
rates and/or service times, which include: beta, lognormal, gamma,
triangular and Weibull (Dragut and Bertrand, 2008; Fukunari and
Malmborg, 2009; Rybko and Shlosman, 2008; Snipas and Valakev-
icius, 2010). Finally, as Souza et al. (2010) demonstrate, when the
arrival and/or service distributions have constant or general varia-
tion, the standard deviation (r) can be used, setting r = 0 for situ-
ations with no variability such as robotic assembly lines. Luckily all
of these distributions can be modeled in ofce spreadsheet soft-
ware (e.g., Excel or OpenOfceCalc), as will be shown later.
2.4. Contemporary queue research
Contemporary research illustrates that queue theory can be
conceptually analyzed in creative ways, but empirical applications
are scarce. One of the few empirical studies in the literature was by
Dragut and Bertrand (2008) whereby they created an improved
micro-lithography process for a new product development project
based on a simple queuing model. They used averages for nite
engineering design tasks in the project with general server queue
models. What was insightful about their research was the applica-
tion of the KolmogorovSmirnov Goodness-of-Fit test to show the
model was statistically equivalent to several sets of experimental
data gathered from the case study company. This goes beyond a
conceptual queue model by proving a new design could produce
the same result as existing production.
Another empirical study of queue systems stood out in the lit-
erature due to the data collection methods. Minton (2008) used
ethnography (exploratory case study interviewing participants)
to determine the important queue behaviors by customers waiting
at Thompson Fly and First Choice Airways ticket-check-in counters
located in the Manchester (NH) Airport.
In terms of conceptual work, an interesting network queuing
model was designed and simulated to measure a vehicle storage
and retrieval system (Fukunari and Malmborg, 2009). An innova-
tive model was constructed by integrating queuing theory with
the Analytical Hierarchy Process and Value Engineering (Azadeh
et al., 2009). The study by Azadeh and associates proposed a sched-
uling solution for a mixed priority queue that did not rely on any
traditional probability distribution. Other studies have demon-
strated simple input queues can be applied to most logistical prob-
lems (Rybko and Shlosman, 2008).
The conceptual paper by Ghomi and Jaafari (2011) was typical
in the extant literature as it focused on abstract queue models.
They produced 15 derived formulae that they believed could esti-
mate the queue waiting time for material ow. Snipas and Valak-
evicius (2010) developed a Markov queue model for a multi-class
computer system and like most researchers they assumed Poisson
arrivals (yet they did not verify this from production data). Lian-
zhang and Zhang (2009) completed a similar queue model for a
computer system. Demiriz et al. (2009) designed a balanced con-
sumer service model using a simple queue. In similar fashion,
Koo and Fishbach (2010) gathered ve samples of consumer
behavior to create a queue model that showed their perceived pur-
chase value increases as more people line up behind them which
has interesting implications in marketing. El-Sherbiny et al. (2010)
proposed a transient solution for innite server queues by assum-
ing Poisson arrivals and exponential service times but their equa-
 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504 497

tions were extremely abstract with respect to managerial use in
operations planning.
Finally the long string of research by Bettonvil et al. (2009),
Kleijnen (1995, 2005, 2009), Kleijnen et al. (2010, 2011), Kleijnen
and Deandre (2006), Kleijnen and Sargent (2000) and Kleijnen
and van Beers (2005) has demonstrated that validating operations
research model assumptions by using statistical techniques
(regression, F-tests, and t-tests) is applicable for at least front-
end of generic operations planning. However, in Kleijnens manu-
scripts, the work is theoretical with simulated data, and although
he investigates one queue model (specically M/M/1); his research
focuses on economic order quantity (inventory) scenarios rather
than queue theory. Finally, while his ideas are brilliant, they may
be too complicated and abstract for mining managers to apply,
and his complexity is beyond the scope of this research.
2.5. Research questions
The rst conclusion drawn from the above review is that queue
models in the extant literature are often conceptual (not empiri-
cal), and they are not pragmatic for use by non-scientic manag-
ers in the mining industry (especially mining businesses with
limited resources). This is asserted due to the formula complexity
which stakeholders stated would be difcult to apply in a mining
operation. Additionally, the ideas for using statistical techniques
to verify operational planning models are relevant here but their
frameworks were developed for mostly EOQ models using simu-
lated data.
Simulation software was also briey reviewed to show what
commercial programs were being used within the mining industry.
However the goal of this case study was to demonstrate a method
to verify the underlying model assumptions of the commercial sim-
ulation software. To that end, it was argued that software users
should be aware of all input and service queue parameters. Further-
more, a goal of this study was to provide exibility and reduce soft-
ware costs, by validating queue assumptions using standard ofce
spreadsheet software such as OpenOfceCalc and Microsoft Excel.
A third more serious issue raised in the literature review is that
the studies cited above assumed production data approximated
whatever distributions were used by default in the queue congu-
ration, which is not a reliable methodology. A recent study demon-
strated input queues do not necessarily follow a Poisson
distribution (Rybko and Shlosman, 2008), therefore default input
queue assumptions should be veried. Kleijnen and his colleagues
pointed out that with the M/M/1 queue model variance is de-
nitely not constant when the trafc load changes (2005) which
eliminates a M/D/1 model and suggests that the actual distribution
of the data should be estimated.
There are several possible alternatives for input and for service
queues: yet different assumptions can produce very different
results. More to the point, results will not be accurate if assump-
tions for the arrival rate distribution and/or service time distribu-
tion do not match the production situation. For example, Table 1
illustrates an 8-hour work-shift for several queue distributions
using the SAME hourly parameters: one truck driver and fuel cost
per hour = $100 (8 hours), l = 24, r = 0.1, k = 12, S = 1, n = 30. The
example shows waiting in an M/M/f queue is expensive ($933), as
compared to an M/G/1 queue ($146), with the cheapest being a sin-
gle channel M/M/s queue ($67). The differences between these
three models are the assumptions of their underlying distributions.
During the literature review, it was rare to see operational plan-
ning studies of interest to business managers. Furthermore, the ex-
tant literature on queuing theory focuses on abstract models with
formula proofs derived from simulations (Demiriz et al., 2009; Dra-
gut and Bertrand, 2008; Fukunari and Malmborg, 2009; Ghomi and
Jaafari, 2011; Lian-zhang and Zhang, 2009; Rybko and Shlosman,
2008; Snipas and Valakevicius, 2010). It is argued that practitioners
need pragmatic models that can be applied in situ (on-site) by plant
managers and engineers. As noted by Worthington (2009) practical
models are especially relevant for businesses that lack know-how
or funds to hire scientists to concentrate on developing, testing,
rationalizing and implementing mathematical models for an opti-
mal logistical solution. Most importantly, underlying queue distri-
bution assumptions (used in any model or software program) must
be veried with real data. Planning mistakes can be costly.
From the above, the research question which emerges is: can
simple statistical tests in spreadsheet software be used to validate
the assumptions of a queue model in the mining industry (in order
to identify opportunities for improvement in operations productiv-
ity)? Can a nonparametric hypothesis testing methodology be uti-
lized as a technique to verify the queue model assumptions?
3. Material and methods
The action research methodology was applied on a single case
study. Statistical techniques and management science queuing
models were applied on data observed at the company.
3.1. Participants
Cristal Global is a large surface mining multinational company
with over 4000 employees. They are Arabian-owned, based in Sau-
di Arabia. They have large mining plants located in most continents
including these countries: Australia, USA, South Korea, PRC (China),
Singapore, Belgium, France, United Kingdom (England), and Brazil.
Cristal Global primarily mines titanium dioxide which is used to
provide super-white color to appliances or any plastic material.
They also produce coatings such as paints and tints. Their main re-
source is sand crystals which they mine to extract the color
pigments.

Table 1
Mining truck variable operating costs for three queue congurations.

M/M/f exponential service times nite Output M/M/s exponential service times multiple Output M/G/1 single server average population Output
population servers service
Average server utilization (Pw) 1.0000 Average server utilization (Pw) 0.5000 Average server utilization (Pw) 0.5000
Average number of customers in the queue 27.000 Average number of customers in the queue 0.5000 Average number of customers in the 1.6900
(Lq) (Lq) queue (Lq)
Average number of customers in the system 28.0000 Average number of customers in the system 1.0000 Average number of customers in the 2.1900
(L) (L) system (L)
Average waiting time in the queue (Wq) 1.1250 Average waiting time in the queue (Wq) 0.0417 Average waiting time in the queue (Wq) 0.1408
Average time in the system (W) 1.1667 Average time in the system (W) 0.0833 Average time in the system (W) 0.1825
Probability (% of time) system is empty (P0) 0.0000 Probability (% of time) system is empty (P0) 0.5000 Probability (% of time) system is empty 0.5000
(P0)
Effective arrival rate 24.0000
Total waiting cost W  8 hours  $100 $933.33 Total waiting cost W  8 hours  $100 $66.67 Total waiting cost W  8 hours  $100 $146,00
498 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
This case study is based on the Cristal Global mining plant lo-
cated in west Australia outside Bunbury WA Australia (on the coast
just south of Perth). The plant is located near the Bunbury River
delta beside the Indian Ocean. Cristal Global extract sand crystal
from a surface pit in Bunbury (sometimes they purchase it), trans-
port it through a multi-stage rening process, and rene the con-
centrate into purity grades grouped by density and color
(customized for particular manufacturing uses).
3.2. Theory and calculations
In surface mining operations, three main cash-ow productivity
measures are: truck payload, cycle time and operator efciency,
whereby cycle time includes waiting time at the shovel, truck, loa-
der, and dumping tip. Cycle time is a function of service compo-
nents, machine characteristics (e.g. loader bucket size, truck
ability to travel on grade, electric vs. mechanical drive of truck/loa-
der), machine efciency (fuel consumption, shovel cycle time,
truck dumping time), material characteristics (e.g. sand crystalline
material density), loading units bucket ll factor/swell and system
characteristics involving issues like number of servers and waiting
time variances/delays in the queue system. In a queue model all of
these factors must be encompassed in the underlying distribution
(or measured in separate variables).
To answer the research question of can spreadsheet software be
used to create and validate a simple pragmatic queue model sim-
ilar models have been readily applied to a nuclear energy project
(Strang, 2011). In this case, the most critical bottleneck was se-
lected as the server: the sand rener which by default denes
the trucks as the input (arrival rate) and the loading platforms as
the service rate component. Load-and-haul systems such as this
case with ample trucks and loaders could be considered innite
with Poisson arrival characteristics (based on literature). A Poisson
distribution has been assumed in this case since based on records
the probability is high that there could be zero, one or two trucks
arriving per hour.
The maximum 793C truck payload is 215.46 tonnes, the haul
roads have a maximum 4% rolling resistance, but the loading
ramps at the sand rener have a 6% grade resistance and there is
a delay for weighing which requires the truck remain still, before
dumping onto the sand rener conveyor. Since there is only one
ramp currently activated in this particular rst-stage aggregate
sand rener, this becomes the service component, with an as-
sumed exponential distribution. Based on records the probability
of a truck being serviced (weighed, dumped) very quickly is high,
but if there is a delay, it could postpone servicing up to an hour
on average (or possibly longer if something gets stuck while dump-
ing, or the truck cannot position correctly until several attempts).
There are typically 34 trucks and 11 loaders in a eet to service
operations. The round-trip between the pit and sand rener is on
average 1000 meters (1 kilometer) at a 4% grade which would take
roughly 3 minutes using an effective speed of 12 meter/hour which
is equal to 20 kilometers/hour (D = T R; T = D/R; T = 1/
20 60 minutes = 3 minutes). The actual duration from pit to sand
rener is typically triple that due to maneuvring and having the
shovel load the truck (which takes only a few minutes when the
truck is properly positioned).
There are many legitimate reasons why variability occurs in
manufacturing project activities (Strang, 2010). Truck arrival rates
and sand rener service ramp loading rates vary due to shift start
up, lunch breaks, shut-downs, refueling, weather, operator mood,
and special events (e.g., unknowns). Required random equipment
inspections (trucks, ramps and sand rener) also impact this. Large
equipment periodically has to be relocated (e.g., shovel, high volt-
age electrical cables, blasting buffers) which can impact any nearby
operations. Other obvious delays include equipment breakdown-
repair, maintenance (greasing is very commonly done daily in
the eld to both trucks and sand rener hydraulic joints). Finally
lighting impacts service rates.
In reality probability distributions representing service times
and inter-arrival rates can follow any standardized distribution ex-
plained in the literature review (Strang, 2010). Therefore, observa-
tions must be taken of each process and then compared with the
known distributions. Since the two queue models (M/M/1 and M/
G/1) were chosen to represent vastly different congurations, only
the appropriate model should be used, based on results of this
testing.
4. Results
A simple spreadsheet model was constructed to implement the
queue model formulas dened earlier and in the literature (Taylor,
2010), for two common models: M/M/1 (a simple single channel/
single server assuming Poisson arrivals and exponential service)
and M/G/1 (a single channel server with general distribution
assumptions that can accept variation). The distribution assump-
tions were tested by observing the truck arrivals and sand rener
queues (gathering data) and comparing the resulting distributions,
then using Excel functions such as POISSON, EXPONDIST, NORM-
DIST, GAMMADIST, WEIBULL to create distributions which were
compared with model expectations using Goodness of Fit (CHIDIST
in Excel) since this was a nonparametric design (Strang, 2009).
Once the correct distributions were identied, the queue model
was populated, and then varied using sensitivity analysis to dis-
cover how productivity could be improved (by adding wage and
fuel costs to the parameters as multipliers on the system waiting
time variable W).
First, the expected time for the arrival to the queue is 7.92 min-
utes, from the Fleet Costing and Planning User Guide (Caterpillar,
2003). A eet of Caterpillar 793C Off-Highway Trucks and several
992G Wheel Loaders with High Lifts are being used in a simple
route where mining takes place at a maximum depth of 10 meters,
which involves an average rolling resistance of 4%, with a specied
maximum grade of 8% (data indicates grade was 6% maximum)
over an average one-way distance of 500 meters. Arrivals are time
spotted (using RFID) from the departure point (at the service park-
ing lot beside the sand rener plant), drive to the pit, prepare for
loading, shovel cycle (load, pat down, level), maneuvring, and haul-
ing to sand rener ramp (for weighing and dumping which is not
part of the arrival queue as the timing was clocked upon arrival
to the ramp). This arrival time is a duration so it must be converted
to an interval per hour k = 60 minutes/7.92 minutes = 7.576 (arri-
val rate).
 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504 499

Table 2
Mining truck arrival rates analyzed as Poisson and normal distributions.

Events x Truck observations Observed probability P(x) Poisson distribution Normal distribution
ExpectedP ExpectedO Poisson r ExpectedP ExpectedO
0 1 0.0013 0.0005 0.0000 0.4 0.0294 0.0319 24.7
1 3 0.0039 0.0039 0.0039 3.0 0.1678 0.0361 27.9
2 11 0.0142 0.0147 0.0294 11.4 0.4570 0.0402 31.0
3 29 0.0375 0.0372 0.1115 28.7 0.7771 0.0439 33.9
4 53 0.0686 0.0704 0.2815 54.4 0.8984 0.0471 36.4
5 81 0.1048 0.1066 0.5331 82.4 0.7060 0.0497 38.4
6 105 0.1358 0.1346 0.8077 104.1 0.3332 0.0515 39.8
7 121 0.1565 0.1457 1.0199 112.6 0.0479 0.0525 40.6
8 89 0.1151 0.1380 1.1037 106.6 0.0251 0.0526 40.6
9 79 0.1022 0.1161 1.0452 89.8 0.2364 0.0517 40.0
10 68 0.0880 0.0880 0.8798 68.0 0.5182 0.0500 38.7
11 51 0.0660 0.0606 0.6665 46.8 0.7116 0.0475 36.8
12 35 0.0453 0.0383 0.4590 29.6 0.7496 0.0444 34.3
13 22 0.0285 0.0223 0.2898 17.2 0.6565 0.0408 31.5
14 13 0.0168 0.0121 0.1689 9.3 0.4982 0.0368 28.4
15 5 0.0065 0.0061 0.0914 4.7 0.3360 0.0326 25.2
16 4 0.0052 0.0029 0.0462 2.2 0.2048 0.0284 21.9
17 1 0.0013 0.0013 0.0219 1.0 0.1142 0.0243 18.8
18 1 0.0013 0.0005 0.0097 0.4 0.0588 0.0204 15.8
19 1 0.0013 0.0002 0.0041 0.2 0.0282 0.0169 13.1
Totals 773 1 1.00 7.5732 <EV mean 2.7485 M 30.3949
Mean minutes between arrivals l = 7.92 Interval k = 7.5758 SD 8.6278

4.1. Arrival rate analysis tribution standard deviation which is a signal that this is not
appropriate to t the production data.
The medians for 10 eight hour shifts were randomly sampled Similar estimates were calculated for all other relevant distribu-
from mining records during a busy summer season and used to tions to represent arrivals (Gamma, Erlang, triangular, and lognor-
establish the observations for this study (see Table 2). In this chart mal). All arrival distributions were compared using the Goodness of
the Events column refers to the discrete interval observed, such Fit hypothesis testing methodology so as to determine if the ob-
as 0 (meaning how many times were there zero trucks at the sand served mining company data could be properly modeled with each
rener ramp during the interval), 1 (meaning how many counts of the respective arrival distributions. A few extra steps were re-
were there of one truck at the sand rener ramp during the inter- quired to setup the data for each respective distribution to meet
val), and so on. For example, the busiest interval in the data was 7, the assumptions for the Goodness of Fit test (Levine et al., 2005).
meaning that there were 121 trucks observed arriving at the sand First the total frequency counts (N) must be P10 (which certainly
rener ramps during an hourly interval. This appears to follow a was the case here with over 700 observations). The number of
Poisson curve, rising rapidly, and dropping off to low probability interval (expected event) classes P3 (no problem as here we have
after the 10th event interval. 19). Finally all cells should have at least 5 observations (or proba-
In Table 2 the observed probability refers to the actual data bilities P0.25), which was not the case in the distributions. Since
observations. The observed probability was calculated by totaling the Poisson distribution typically has very low frequencies at zero
all observations and dividing by the observation for the x event and after 10, the data must be aggregated to ensure the statistical
interval (e.g., zero interval was 1/773 = 0.0013). The next three col- assumptions are met (Strang, 2009). To achieve this, the rst three
umns in the table reect the a priori Poisson distribution calculated rows (events 0, 1 and 2) and last ve rows (events 15, 16, 17, 18,
using a known distribution for the Lambda k interval of 7.576 19) were collapsed to form summary rows for events having low
(which was earlier derived from the data).
Each Poisson P(x) can be calculated using the formula
k x
Px e x!k where e = 2.71828. Table 3
As an example, for row P[x = 7]: [2.71828^[1 7.5758]] Poisson arrival distribution data-t analysis.
7.5758^7]/[7 6 5 4 3 2 1] = 0.1457 rounded ( is Goodness Of Fit Poisson distribution
multiply, ^ means exponent). It is simple for a manager to calcu-
Intervals Observed Expected X2
late this with the Excel POISSON function by specifying the
k = 7.576, e.g., POISSON(7, 7.576, 0) = 0.1457). The ExpectedP in 02 15 14.8 0.003507508
3 29 28.7 0.002713887
the Poisson section is the P(x) multiplied by x per row (e.g., in 4 53 54.4 0.035800131
row P[x = 7]: 0.1457 7 = 1.0199). The ExpectedO is the simulated 5 81 82.4 0.024376007
observations under Poisson probabilities calculated by multiplying 6 105 104.1 0.008448359
the P(x) in each row by the total observations (e.g., in the row 7 121 112.6 0.623303438
8 89 106.6 2.920752426
P[x = 7] again: 0.1457 773 = 112.6). The mean for a Poisson distri-
9 79 89.8 1.292585028
bution is the expected value calculated using the formula 10 68 68.0 1.23487E06
P
x  Px giving l = 7.92, yet in an Excel spreadsheet it is easier 11 51 46.8 0.369783504
to sum all the P(x) values. The Poisson standard deviation is the 12 35 29.6 0.99727718
q
P 13 22 17.2 1.319462589
2
square root of variance using the formula x x  l  Px. 14 13 9.3 1.448779183
This evaluates to r = 2.75 (see Table 2). The last two columns 1519 12 8.5 1.42357377
5% Estimate Hypothesis result 10.47036424
show the same exercise applied to the normal distribution
X2 10.47036424 0.655092583 No diff. normal
(l = 30.9, r = 8.63 both rounded) and note the large normal dis-
500
140
Frequency of trucks arriving
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 1
frequencies. A caveat with this methodology is that the last arrival
time-rate frequencies of the rst three (02) and the last ve (15
19) were collapsed meaning they were grouped together (due to
low cell frequencies to support the statistical test, as explained
above) which can skew the distribution shape if one is examining
or comparing frequency polygons for data-t analysis. This was
systematically done for all arrival and service probability distribu-
tions (Poisson, Gamma, normal, Erlang, lognormal, exponential,
etc.).
Table 3 lists the Goodness of Fit analysis comparing the observed
truck arrival rates with a Poisson distribution of expected arrival
P 2
rates (using the Excel formula CHITEST) for the X2 is: ki1 Ai E
Ei
i
In the above formula, i is the low-to-high ordered interval row
(event), A is the observed frequency, E is the expected Poisson dis-
tribution frequency, and k is the degrees of freedom. Although the
literature may mention dividing the data into bins based on k, this
is not necessary with a distribution of discrete frequencies in
queue theory associated with an event having sequential intervals
(the whole minutes expressed as integers are the intervals). The
test for signicance compares the estimated chi square to a stan-
dardized value based on the k degrees of freedom (calculated by
subtracting number of empty cells or those below 5 frequencies
from the number of distribution parameters as a precaution it
is advisable to combine any cells with frequency counts below 5
to avoid this problem). This chi square CHITEST formula is also
used in the same way to test the signicance of the service times
(actual observations versus the expected exponential distribution).
As noted earlier, the observed arrival rates were taken from
data. As explained above, the expected arrival rates were calcu-
lated by multiplying each P(x) probability by the total observa-
tions. Table 3 shows that the mining truck arrival rate data ts
the Poisson probability distribution (null hypothesis accepted),
based on the high chi square value at the 5% level of signicance
(X2 = 10.47, p > 0.05). Note that before compressing the low fre-
quency cells that that (X2 = 16.37, p > 0.05) which was also indi-
cated the distributions were signicantly similar. Thus the best
recommendation for the operations analyst is to congure a Pois-
son distribution for the OFC truck arrival rates in their special-pur-
pose software.
The other distributions failed to support this hypothesis with
exception to the Erlang (l = 7.38, r = 2.8). By comparing the stan-
dard deviations, the Poisson distribution was found to be a better
t to the truck data (l = 7.92, r = 2.75) due to less variance be-
tween the expected versus observed frequencies. Obviously the
normal distribution does not adequately represent the truck arrival
rates. One question which often arises from mining industry man-
agers is could another test be used to determine the suitability of
arrival rate queue distributions? Other good techniques exist, but
K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
Truck (observations)
Poisson (expected)
Normal (expected)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Observation event at mine refinery ramps
Fig. 2. Frequency polygon of truck arrival rate distributions.
the chi square technique for queue model data-t analysis is rec-
ommended as it is simple to implement in a spreadsheet for busi-
ness situations (such as the mining case study). It is worth
mentioning that other simple-to-use nonparametric sample distri-
bution procedures have been used in similar projects, namely Ken-
dalls Tau for comparing samples of interval-ranked data types
(Strang and Chan, 2010), as well as the AndersonDarling test
(which is an extension of the KolmogorovSmirnov KS-test but this
may be used with discrete interval distributions). The formula for
P
the AD-test A2 statistic is: Ni1 2i1
N
1nFY i 1n1  FY N1i .
In the above formula, N is the degree of freedom, n is the num-
. ber of observations, i is the ordered interval from low to high, F is
the cumulative distribution frequency for Yi (ordered data points).
Although most spreadsheet software do not implement an AD-test,
often add-ins are available, and most statistical software programs
do incorporate this test so the observations could be imported
(along with the expected frequencies of the Poisson distribution).
To demonstrate this point and to service as statistical method tri-
angulation, the data from Table 3 was imported into SPSS then ana-
lyzed, giving A2 = 0.334 (p = 0.459); which corroborates the earlier
X2 hypothesis test result. However, caution should be mentioned in
that since the order of the intervals must be kept as they are to
support the arrival rates in the queue theory model, nonparametric
techniques which change the order of the data points cannot be
used. For this reason, it is best to use the X2 technique Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 is a frequency polygon comparing the actual off road truck
arrival rates with the two distributions: Poisson (expected) and a
normal (expected). For example, Fig. 2 indicates that the busiest
time with most trucks arriving (approximately 120) was at the 7
minute interval. In this distribution, the cells were not collapsed
but instead the actual observations were retained, to preserve
the tail. Visually it is possible to see the actual truck distribution
shape is very similar to the expected Poisson distribution shape
(based on probability theory). Thus the Poisson distribution can
be assumed to be valid for planning purposes (which corroborates
with the X2 test estimates above). However, another issue which
can arise is that from experience a Poisson distribution from a large
sample (n > 99) will take on a normal distribution shape, thus vi-
sual inspections may not be reliable.
4.2. Service rate analysis
A similar exercise like the aforementioned arrival rate analysis
was conducted to examine the service times at the sand rener
loading ramps. Queue theory often assumes that the exponential
distribution can be applied in conjunction with a Poisson k arrival
or service rate. The service process involved driving up the ramp,
positioning the truck properly, weighing, dumping, and leaving,
 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504 501

Table 4
Exponential service distribution data-t analysis.

Service time Exponential completion (service) rate 27.9069767 773

Minutes Hours Cumulative P(x) Expected trucks Actual Cumulative NormDist NormExpectec Expon X2 Norm X2
1 0.02 0.3719 287.51 20 20 0.046537422 35.97342685 3578.027 7.09274561
2 0.03 0.6055 180.57 90 110 0.078669596 60.81159773 91.14941 14.0098741
3 0.05 0.7523 113.41 130 240 0.114463587 88.48035261 2.11689 19.4832081
4 0.07 0.6444 71.23 210 450 0.14334535 110.8059555 91.70168 88.7990038
5 0.08 0.9023 44.74 180 630 0.154509681 119.4359833 101.6459 30.7110137
6 0.10 0.9386 28.10 70 700 0.14334535 110.8059555 25.08351 15.0274053
7 0.12 0.9615 17.65 40 740 0.114463587 88.48035261 12.49167 26.5634632
8 0.13 0.9758 11.08 20 760 0.078669596 60.81159773 3.975403 27.3892904
9 0.15 0.9646 6.96 13 773 0.046537422 35.97342685 2.805365 14.671339
10 0.17 0.9904 4.37 1 774 0.023694827 18.31610125 11.3699 16.370698
11 0.18 0.9940 2.75 1 775 0.010383902 8.026756495 3.047966 6.15133982
12 0.20 0.9962 1.72 1 776 0.003916729 3.027631174 0.524987 1.3579224
Totals 765.617471 776 0.920541589 711.5786487 3923.94 267.627303
Goodness of Fit 5% Signicance Hypothesis result Goodness Of Fit 5% Signicance Hypothesis result
X2 3923.94 0.00000 Different independent sample X2 267.6273034 0.00000 Different independent sample

350
Frequency of trucks serviced

300 Trucks serviced (observations)

250 Exponential (expected)

200
Normal (expected)
150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Service time in refinery (minutes)

Fig. 3. Frequency polygon of truck service time distributions.

which according to the Fleet Costing and Planning User Guide (Cater-
pillar, 2003) a truck payload should be completed every 2.15 min-
utes (k = 60/2.15 = 27.9 per hour). The standard deviation of an
exponential distribution is the same as the mean which is 1/k (Le-
vine et al., 2005); thus in this case the exponential distribution ser-
vice interval rate l and r are both 0.0358 hours (1/27.9) which is
quick service.
Care must be taken in the methodology to test the service time
distribution using statistical techniques and then convert the con-
tinuous service time rate to a start-nish service rate for use in
queuing models. Frequency intervals can be constructed for any
continuous probability distribution (e.g., service rate times for
queues) using interval classes such as zero to 0.19, 0.2 to 0.29
and so on (standard procedure for constructing a cumulative nor-
mal probability histogram). A cumulative probability distribution
was constructed using the data from the sand rener ramps then
tested using the Goodness of Fit, as shown in Table 4. The standard
deviation of the sample data was 0.733 trucks per hour. The results
indicated that the exponential distribution was not a good t for
the service rates. Other distributions were tested (Gamma, lognor-
mal, and Erlang) but the normal distribution was the best t. A ca-
veat with this methodology is that the last service time grouped all
remaining times after 9 minute up to and including 60 since their
frequency was very low, which can skew the distribution shape if
one is examining or comparing histograms for this type of data-t
analysis.
Finally, Fig. 3 shows a frequency polygon of the truck service
time distribution shape, using the same notational conventions
as the previous diagram for the Poisson distribution. Fig. 3
compares the actual trucks observed to the exponential expected
distribution and normal expected distribution. The actual observa-
tions were the trucks observed to be serviced during each minute
interval (e.g., below 60 seconds, from 01 minutes, and so on). For
example, the highest number of trucks actually completed at the
renery was 210 trucks at the 4 minute service-time interval. As
compared to this, the expected exponential distribution was
approximately 71 trucks at this same interval. The exponential dis-
tribution shows a rapidly dropping trend from the high of almost
288 trucks in the rst 60 seconds, which proved to be far from
the actual case. Based on the hypothesis test, the actual observa-
tions were statistically different from the expected exponential
distribution at the 5% level of signicance (X2 = 3923.94,
p < 0.05). In fact, the service time-rate visually looks closer to a
normal curve, although the actual service distribution was also sta-
tistically different from the expected normal expected distribution
(X2 = 267.63, p < 0.05), but a closer t than an exponential distribu-
tion was.
In fact this statistical analysis indicated that none of these dis-
tributions as tested (exponential or normal) are a good t with the
actual data for truck service time. In this situation, where we are
unable to verify any assumed statistical distribution model for
the service rate-time of the renery queue, it is recommended that
the managers select the best case distribution, using either the
lowest chi square value (from the statistical data-t comparison
test) or use the visual method of inspecting the distribution shapes,
to identify the closest match. Since the chi square results are so
large, the visual methodology is recommended. When comparing
the distribution shapes in Fig. 3, it is obvious that the normal dis-
502 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504

Table 5
M/M/s queue assuming Poisson arrivals and exponential service times.

Queues Model: M/M/s (exponential service times with multiple servers)

Queue input data Arrivals and service System operating estimates Hour Formula
Arrival rate (k) 7.5758 Arrivals/hour Average server utilization (Pw) 0.2715 Pw = k/(l s)
Service rate (l) 27.9000 Finished rate/hour Average number of customers in the queue (Lq) 0.1012 Lq = (1  U(k/l)s U)/s!(1  U)2
Servers (s) 1 Average number of customers in the system (L) 0.3727 L = (k/l) + Lq
Mean arrival rate (k), mean service rate (l); rates same units; Average waiting time in the queue (Wq) 0.0134 Wq = Lq/k
total service rate > arrival rate: l  s > k Average time in the system (W) 0.0492 W = (1/l) + Wq
Unit of measure: hour Probability (% of time) system is empty (P0) 0.7285 idle = P0 = 1  Pw
Cost of unit waiting per W $100 Total cost of waiting in queue (W) for 8-hour shift $39.36

Table 6
M/G/1 queue assuming Poisson arrivals and normal distribution service times.

Queues Model: M/G/1 (single server with average population service times)
Queue input data System operating estimates Hour Formula
Arrival rate (k) 7.5758 Arrivals/hour Average server utilization (Pw) 0.2715 Pw = k/l
Service rate (l) 27.9000 Finished/hour Average number of customers in the queue (Lq) 21.0428 Lq = ((k2 r) + (k/l))/
(2 (1  (k/l))
Standard deviation (r) 0.7300 Finished/hour Average number of customers in the system (L) 21.3143 L = (k/l) + Lq
Mean arrival rate (k), mean service rate (l) and service time (r) must Average waiting time in the queue (Wq) 2.7776 Wq = Lq/k
be in same units; l > k Average time in the system (W) 2.8135 W = (1/l) + Wq
Unit of measure: Hour Probability (% of time) system is empty (P0) 0.7285 idle = P0 = 1  Pw
Cost of unit waiting per W $100 Total cost of waiting in queue (W) for 8-hour shift $2250.79

tribution is a closer match to the observed data of the truck service
times. Another point to keep in mind is that the normal distribu-
tion is better known for modeling human behavior so this may in
fact be a good choice for off road truck servicing rates since truck
drivers are human so they will vary behavior. Thus the best choice
for the operations analyst is to congure a normal distribution for
the renery service times (which would mean choosing an M/G/1
general purpose queue) in their mining software.
However we must still keep in mind that while this was an ade-
quate sample size (n = 773 observations), it was a special purpose
activity at a surface mine, so other factors could be impacting these
service times (such as amount of sun/glare, renery functioning,
amount of moisture in sand, and so on). None of these other factors
were captured or entered into this model, which opens up another
avenue of research, to bring this simple model closer to a system of
equations by adding more factors as constraints or variables. This
may point out the need to hire subject matter experts to apply lin-
ear or nonlinear mathematical programming so as modify their
special-purpose mining software.
Finally it should be reiterated that a number of other nonpara-
metric statistical tests could be used to compare the actual versus
expected service time distribution. While the generic Goodness of
Fit (chi square) works ne and is easy to understand as well as
implement, more powerful approaches from the family of non-
parametric statistical tests include: AndersonDarling Goodness-
of-Fit test (AD-test), KolmogorovSmirnov test (KS-test), and the
ShapiroWilk normality test (SW-test). It is also possible to
visually compare probability plots in frequency polygons or histo-
grams. The AD-test was mentioned earlier. The KS-test is appropri-
ate to for comparing the distribution shape of continuous data such
as decimal numbers but not ordinals such as ranks (Strang, 2009).
The KS-test formula for the D statistic is:
Z N
i1 i
D max FY i  ; FY i :
i N N
5. Discussion
Based on the above results, the Poisson distribution can be con-
sidered an appropriate estimate for the arrival rate, while the nor-
mal distribution can be considered for the service rate in a queuing
model. In this way we can illustrate the difference of these two
assumptions using the M/M/1 model (which assumes an exponen-
tial service distribution (this does not t the sample data so it is not
correct), as compared with a subclass of the M/G/1 model having a
service rate that is normally distributed. These models are ex-
plained below. The model formulae are taken from the operations
research literature, namely based on Little (1961).
In order to analyze the cost implications, a standard assumption
of $100 per hour of waiting time is utilized for the trucks (repre-
senting diesel fuel, operator wage, and other overhead costs such
as oil and maintenance). This facilitates sensitivity analysis (chang-
ing values) and scenario analysis (with costs).
These two models show that the projected waiting cost of the
second model (M/G/1 in Table 6) is over 57 times more expensive
than the rst one (M/M/s in Table 5), using a conservative $100 per
hourly rate for a mining truck, operator (and overhead) in an 8
hour shift. The rst model (M/M/s) assumes that service times at
the sand rener are exponentially distributed, while the second
model makes the assumption (based on sample data measures)
that the service times are not exponentially distributed but rather
approximate a normal distribution. The implications are that if a
company in any industry mistakenly assumes the wrong statistical
distribution, this could incorrectly model a queue, with obvious
nancial repercussions. In this case it may be warranted to change
to ramp conguration at the sand rener to lower the standard
deviation (or possibly improve the weighing process through more
automation).
6. Conclusions

In the above formula, F is the theoretical cumulative (continuous) This paper attempted to build a practical queue model to plan
distribution being tested at a particular signicance level, Yi are cost-benets and verify simulation software assumptions in a ren-
ordered from smallest to largest value, N is the number of observa- ery. This was in answer to the case study stakeholders and in the lit-
tions. i is the number of points less than Yi. erature. In the literature Worthington (2009) noted the need for
 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
practical models especially for businesses that lack know-how or
funds to hire scientists to concentrate on developing, testing, ratio-
nalizing and implementing mathematical models for an optimal
solution. The managers and operations analysts in the case study
expressed the same desire. This is in line with other literature that
encouraged a practical understanding and application of operations
research theories (Mercer, 1977; Sharp and Dando, 1979).
Most importantly, the case conrmed that the underlying
queue distribution assumptions (used in any model or software
program) must be veried with data to avoid costly planning er-
rors. Validation testing was developed here for the front end of
operations research, such that small-to-large businesses could con-
tinue to use commercial or programmed software when assump-
tions are veried.
More specically, the surface mine truck arrival rates and ren-
ery service times were observed (n = 773) and their distributions
compared to the expectations of the underlying planning software
(namely, Poisson for arrivals, and exponential for service times).
This was done using nonparametric Goodness of Fit hypothesis-
testing statistical technique. Although other nonparametric tests
are available, it was pointed out that procedures that change the
order of the data points (e.g., ranking) will not work for this pur-
pose (such as the AD-test or KS-test) since the observation interval
order is critical (it makes a big difference if a more trucks arrive in
the rst minute as compared to later on). When the hypothesis test
fails (meaning the observed distribution does not match the one
used in the planning software), visual inspection of the distribution
shapes can be used to make an educated guess in order to select
the best queue model available. However, as the implications re-
vealed, selecting the wrong queue model could result in an expen-
sive mistake considering the cost of OFC truck drivers, fuel, and
other overhead expense factors. In certain cases the procedures
outlined here could indicate that the actual production data do
not meet any of the required assumption in the special-purpose
mining planning software in that situation traditional linear/inte-
ger programming or general feasible solution search heuristics
would be recommended (which may require hiring expensive sub-
ject matter experts).
On the other hand, if the procedures and models outlined in the
study show that the production data support the underlying queue
theory distributions, then analysts could use the spreadsheet soft-
ware to continue to model the economic factors, in parallel with
their special-purpose mining software. Additionally, as data and
factors change, it will be easy to change the spreadsheet software.
Finally, if it is accepted that the techniques are relatively easy to
apply, this would be of interest to businesses in any manufacturing
industry as a less-costly alternative to using any simulation soft-
ware, or at least to ensure assumptions are veried.
The key limitation with this research is that the sample data
estimates do not necessarily apply to any other mining operation.
The other limitation is that taking a non-mathematical program-
ming approach to operational problem solving could decrease
innovation (if propagated widely in the mining industry). It is log-
ical to point out the alternative research of polynomial linear and
non-linear algebraic search techniques that could provide innova-
tive solutions to complex operations research problems (such as:
Kleijnen et al., 2010; Souza et al., 2010), beyond just hypothesis-
testing.
In reection of this case, the distribution-test spreadsheet was
given to the case study company, and they have implemented this
for planning. The feedback is the model is easy to use and to
change the model is considered useful (and it is grounded in pro-
ven theory). The company managers stated this was a successful
bridge between academic theory and operations research practice,
in that analysts have models they can understand and utilize by
gathering/applying actual production data.
503
Future research should transform the wholly-conceptual algo-
rithms of other researchers cited in this manuscript, so as to codify
them into easy-to-use spreadsheets, which would allow mining
analysts to test real production data when searching for an optimal
solution to operational problems.
References
Abate, J., Whitt, W., 1999. Explicit M/G/1 waiting-time distributions for a class of
long-tail service-time distributions. Operations Research Letters 25 (1), 2531.
Azadeh, A., Haghnevis, M., Khodadadegan, Y., 2009. An improved model for
production systems with mixed queuing priorities: An integrated simulation.
AHP and value engineering approach. International Journal 4 (5), 536553.
Bettonvil, B., del Castillo, E., Kleijnen, J.P.C., 2009. Statistical testing of optimality
conditions in multiresponse simulation-based optimization. European Journal
of Operational Research 199 (2), 448458.
Boufounou, P.V., 1995. Evaluating bank branch location and performance: A case
study. European Journal of Operational Research 87 (2), 389402.
Caterpillar, 2003. Caterpiller Systems Inc. Off Road Truck Manual. CA, Caterpiller.
Available from: <www.caterpiller.com>.
Chen, L., Bostel, N., Dejax, P., Cai, J., Xi, L., 2007. A tabu search algorithm for the
integrated scheduling problem of container handling systems in a maritime
terminal. European Journal of Operational Research 181 (1), 4058.
Davies, M.N., 1997. A generic model for simulating ofce process ows. European
Journal of Operational Research 99 (2), 267277.
Demiriz, A., Kula, U., Akbilek, N., 2009. A framework for balanced service and cross-
selling by using queuing science. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 20 (2),
249257.
Dragut, A.B., Bertrand, J.W.M., 2008. A representation model for the solving-time
distribution of a set of design tasks in new product development (NPD).
European Journal of Operational Research 189 (3), 12171233.
El-Sherbiny, A., Zamani, H., Ismail, N., Mokaddis, G., Ghazal, M., El-Desokey, A., EL-
Sherbeny, M.S., Al-Esayeh, E., Olotu, O., 2010. Transient solution to an innite
server queue with varying arrival and departure rate. Journal of Mathematics
and Statistics 6 (1), 13.
Fukunari, M., Malmborg, C.J., 2009. A network queuing approach for evaluation of
performance measures in autonomous vehicle storage and retrieval systems.
European Journal of Operational Research 193 (1), 152167.
Ghomi, S.M.T.F., Jaafari, A.A., 2011. Simulation A queuing theory based approach.
Journal of American Science 7 (1).
Gupta, A., Albright, S.C., 1992. Steady-state approximations for a multi-echelon
multi-indentured repairable-item inventory system. European Journal of
Operational Research 62 (3), 340353.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., 1995. Verication and validation of simulation models. European
Journal of Operational Research 82 (1), 145162.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., 2005. An overview of the design and analysis of simulation
experiments for sensitivity analysis. European Journal of Operational Research
164 (2), 287300.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., 2009. Kriging metamodeling in simulation: A review. European
Journal of Operational Research 192 (3), 707716.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., Beers, W.v., Nieuwenhuyse, I.v., 2010. Constrained optimization in
expensive simulation: Novel approach. European Journal of Operational
Research 202 (1), 164174.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., Deandre, D., 2006. Validation of regression metamodels in
simulation: Bootstrap approach. European Journal of Operational Research
170 (1), 120131.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., Pierreval, H., Zhang, J., 2011. Methodology for determining the
acceptability of system designs in uncertain environments. European Journal of
Operational Research 209 (2), 176183.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., Sargent, R.G., 2000. A methodology for tting and validating
metamodels in simulation. European Journal of Operational Research 120 (1),
1429.
Kleijnen, J.P.C., van Beers, W.C.M., 2005. Robustness of Kriging when interpolating
in random simulation with heterogeneous variances: Some experiments.
European Journal of Operational Research 165 (3), 826834.
Koo, M., Fishbach, A., 2010. A silver lining of standing in line: Queuing increases
value of products. Journal of Marketing Research 47 (4), 713724.
Levine, D.M., Stephan, D., Krehbiel, T.C., Berenson, M.L., 2005. Statistics for
Managers using Microsoft Excel, fourth ed. Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Lian-zhang, Z., Zhang, H., 2009. Method of queuing network models analysis based
on CPN. Journal of System Simulation, 23.
Little, J.D.C., 1961. A proof of the queuing formula: L = AW. Operations Research 9
(3), 383387.
Mati, Y., Dauzre-Prs, S., Lahlou, C., 2011. A general approach for optimizing
regular criteria in the job-shop scheduling problem. European Journal of
Operational Research 212 (1), 3342.
Mercer, A., 1977. An education in operational research: A personal viewpoint.
European Journal of Operational Research 1 (6), 352360.
Minton, H., 2008. Waiting and queuing in the check-in hall: An ethnographic study
of queuing and waiting for check-in services at Manchester Airport. Journal of
Airport Management 2 (3), 249264.
Boxma, O.J., Cohen, J.W., 1997. The M/G/1 Queue with Heavy-Tailed Service-Time
Distribution. CWI, Amsterdam.
504 K.D. Strang / European Journal of Operational Research 218 (2012) 493504
Patriksson, M., 2008. A survey on the continuous nonlinear resource allocation
problem. European Journal of Operational Research 185 (1), 146.
Pierreval, H., 1992. Rule-based Simulation Metamodels. European Journal of
Operational Research 61 (12), 617.
Proth, J.-M., Sauer, N., 1998. Scheduling of piecewise constant product ows: A
Petri net approach. European Journal of Operational Research 106 (1), 45
56.
Rybko, A.N., Shlosman, S.B., 2008. Phase transitions in the queuing networks and the
violation of the Poisson hypothesis. Moscow Mathematical Journal 8 (1), 159
180.
Shakeri, S., Logendran, R., 2007. A mathematical programming-based scheduling
framework for multitasking environments. European Journal of Operational
Research 176 (1), 193209.
Sharp, R.G., Dando, M.R., 1979. Decision resource management and practical
intervention in conicts A model and its implications. European Journal of
Operational Research 3 (4), 283295.
Shortle, J.F., Brill, P.H., Fischer, M.J., Gross, D., Masi, D.M.B., 2004. An algorithm to
compute the waiting time distribution for the M/G/1 queue. Journal on
Computing 16 (2), 152161.
Snipas, M., Valakevicius, E., 2010. Markov model of multi-class, multi-server
queuing system with priorities. Journal of Communication and Computer 7 (1),
62.
Souza, M.J.F., Coelho, I.M., Ribas, S., Santos, H.G., Merschmann, L.H.C., 2010. A hybrid
heuristic algorithm for the open-pit-mining operational planning problem.
European Journal of Operational Research 207 (2).
Stecke, K.E., Toczylowski, E., 1992. Prot-based FMS dynamic part type selection
over time for mid-term production planning. European Journal of Operational
Research 63 (1), 5465.
Strang, K.D., 2009. Using recursive regression to explore nonlinear relationships and
interactions: A tutorial applied to a multicultural education study. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14 (3), 113.
Strang, K.D., 2010. Radiology manufacturing projects and politics: Scientist and
politician normalized risk decision processes. International Journal of
Management and Decision Making 11 (3), 94106.
Strang, K.D., 2011. Portfolio selection methodology for a nuclear project. Project
Management Journal 42 (2), 8193.
Strang, K.D., Chan, C.E.L., 2010. Simulating e-business innovation process
improvement with virtual teams across Europe and Asia. International Journal
of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation 1 (1), 2241.
Sturgul, J.R., 1999. Discrete mine system simulation in the United States.
International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment 13 (1),
3741.
Taylor, B.W., 2010. Introduction to Management Science, 10th ed. Prentice-Hall, NY.
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 7 (1), 5967.
Vidal, R.V.V., 1992. History of mathematical programming A collection of personal
reminiscences. European Journal of Operational Research 62 (1), 124125.
Worthington, D., 2009. Reections on queue modelling from the last 50 years.
Journal of the Operational Research Society 60, S83S92.
Yeh, R.H., 1997. Optimal inspection and replacement policies for multi-state
deteriorating systems. European Journal of Operational Research 96 (2), 248
259.
Zhang, J., Xu, C., 2010. Inverse optimization for linearly constrained convex
separable programming problems. European Journal of Operational Research
200 (3), 671679.