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

net/publication/281457548

Performance Measurement of Mining Equipment

Article · July 2015

CITATIONS READS
4 5,556

3 authors:

Mousa Mohammadi Piyush Rai

Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi
10 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Suprakash Gupta
Banaras Hindu University
67 PUBLICATIONS   302 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Use of maximum likelihood sparse spike inversion and probabilistic neural network for reservoir characterization: a study from F-3 block, the Netherlands View project

Optimization of Capacity Utilization of Draglines deployed in NCL through Big data Analytics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mousa Mohammadi on 04 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)

Performance Measurement of Mining Equipment

Mousa Mohammadi1, Piyush Rai2, Suprakash Gupta3
1
Research Scholar, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India & Faculty
Member, Department of Mining Engineering, Sirjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sirjan, Iran.
2
Professor, 3Associate Professor, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (BHU), Varanasi, India
Abstract-- Achieving the high production and productivity
target is one of the biggest challenges for mining companies, in
order to remain competitive in the global market. As such, it
entails proper performance measurement of huge and capital
intensive equipment which are deployed in mining industries.
The present paper aims at reviewing the available pertinent
literature in the subject field and deals with various aspects of
performance measurement of excavating, loading and
transporting equipment in the mining industry.
Keywords-- Availability, Dragline, Maintainability, Mining
Equipment, Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE),
Performance Measurement, Production Index, Reliability,
Shovel, Utilization
I. INTRODUCTION
Minerals are one of our basic needs as they are used in
tools, machines and provide us power and energy. The ever
increasing demand for minerals, owing to rapid
industrialization and population explosion has forced the
surface and underground mines to produce more of it. As
such, a large number of Bucket based Excavating, Loading
and Transporting (BELT) equipment such as dragline,
shovel, dumper, Side- Discharge-Loader (SDL), Load-
Haul-Dump (LHD) and Low-Profile-Dump-Truck (LPDT)
are deployed to meet the demand. With deploying these
huge and capital intensive equipment, improving their
overall effectiveness and performance are absolutely
important in order to achieve high production and
productivity target. As such, it entails proper measurement
of equipment efficiency.
In this light, various indicators such as cycle time,
bucket-fill factor, material-swell factor, reliability,
availability, maintainability, utilization, and production
efficiency have been in vogue since long for evaluating the
performance of BELT equipment. The present paper aims
at reviewing the available pertinent literature in the subject
field and deals with various aspects of performance
measurement of BELT equipment in the mining industry.
These indicators which are used for evaluating the
performance of BELT equipment are described herewith.
It is worthy to note that, the term of „BELT‟ has been
introduced as acronym, in the present work, to cover the
entire variety of equipment that have bucket, which is
capable of excavating, loading, hauling and dumping or
even for transporting the excavated material (as in trucks).
II. AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION
Availability and utilization are the key performance
indicators of equipment and this is a usual tool for
decision-making by management in the mine operation.
Rate of production is highly sensitive to the equipments‟
availability and utilization [1,2,3,4]. Therefore, serious
efforts should be made by the mining companies to achieve
and maintain the level of higher availability and utilization
for capital intensive equipment.
By closely scrutinizing the pertinent literature, field
visits and investigations in the case study mines, various
events in the BELT equipment operation were identified,
and classified which are used in definition of availability
and utilization concept (see figure 1).

FIGURE 1: Breakup of total calendar time under different time head

240
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
Where, TT is total calendar time, PSDT is planned
shutdown time or non-scheduled time for operation, POT is
planned operating time or loading time, BDT is breakdown
time, AT is available time, IT is idle time, S&A T is set-up
and adjustment time and UT is utilization time.
Various forms of availability are defined depending on
its applicability and consideration of the time duration,
such as operational availability and inherent availability.
A. Operational Availability
Operational availability is associated with the operation
of an equipment or system. It can be represented by the
total number of hours „within a period‟ that machinery is fit
for work [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].
However, there are a few inconsistencies in the
definition and utility of the term „within a period‟, e.g.
some researchers proposed calendar-time based approach
which considers this period based on scheduled and non-
scheduled time for operation [1,7,11]. Other researchers
have propounded loading-time based approach which
considers this period based on planned/scheduled operating
time [12,13,14]. The main differences between the two
approaches lie in the consideration of total accountable
time for evaluating the operational availability.
Mathematically, the difference between these two
approaches can be understood by the equations 1 and 2.
Where, Ao is operational availability (calendar-time
based),
Where, Ao' is operational availability (loading-time
based),
Loading-time based approach provides higher
availability values than calendar-time based approach.
Therefore, it is important to be very clear about the
selection and application of one of these approaches before
proceeding for evaluation of availability.
Besides, while scrutinizing the review of literature, it is
found that there are some inconsistencies in the definition
and classification of events that affect the value of
availability and ability to compare results. For instance, the
term "maintenance" has been invariably used to depict
routine maintenance, planned maintenance or even
corrective maintenance. It is important to make an exact
definition of each event.
241
Anvari et al. [15] consider routine maintenance activities
(such as cleaning and lubrication) as Planned-Shut Down-
Time (PSDT), while CMPDI [11], considered them as
preventive maintenance which comes under the Break
Down Time (BDT). Shift changing, lunch break and non
availability of operator are considered as idle time by
Mirabediny [5], CMPDI [11] and Rai [16], while Zoltan
[6], Anvari et al. [15] and Dal et al. [17] consider such
activities as PSDT.
B. Inherent Availability
Inherent availability (Ai) is associated with the in-built
characteristic of the equipment or its parts. It ignores the
downtimes due to other sources which are not directly
caused by the equipment design and are generally beyond
the control of the designer. Hence, it is recommended to
assess design characteristics during the design process that
can be used as an important tool for framing preventive
maintenance schedule, spare parts management and optimal
replacement strategies [8,18,19,20]. Mathematically the Ai
may be expressed as:
Where, Ai is inherent availability, MTTF is Mean Time
To Failure, and MTTR is Mean Time To Repair.
From the above definition, it is clear that the inherent
availability is a function of reliability parameter (how often
a unit fails) and maintainability parameter (how fast the
unit can be restored after failure) [3,19,21, 22]. Hence, it
can be expressed as:
Ai=f (MTTF, MTTR) (4)
or,
Ai = f (R,M) (5)
Where, R is reliability characteristic of item or system
measured in terms of MTTF, and M is maintainability
characteristic of item or system measured in terms of
MTTR.
Reliability investigations are usually helpful in deciding
the optimal maintenance intervals and the patterns of spare
parts consumption. Therefore, one of the most effective
ways of increasing equipment‟s inherent availability is to
improve its reliability and maintainability, either by
reducing the number of unplanned shutdowns, or by
minimizing the length of scheduled turnarounds [19,23].
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
A lot of research related to Reliability, Availability and
Maintainability (RAM) of mining equipment with the aim
of improving inherent availability has already been
reported. Tregelles and Worthington [24] pointed out the
importance of reliability assessment of mining equipment
throughout its life starting with specification and design,
through manufacture and testing and finally during
installation, commissioning and operation.
Kumar [18] studied in detail, the Time To Failure (TTF)
and Time To Repair (TTR) data for major subsystem for
evaluating performance and effectiveness analysis of Load-
Haul-Dump (LHD) machines. The data was collected from
Kiruna mine, the largest and most modern underground
iron ore mine in the world. Mean of TTF and TTR data was
calculated for the best fit distribution, with the aim of
analysis of inherent availability.
Vagenas et al. [25] deployed graphical, analytical and
statistical tools in RAM analysis to study the failure and
repair characteristic of the system and its subsystems. They
further used these tools for enhancing the availability of
mine trucks.
Nanda [26] estimated the availability of a drilling system
using Markov model assuming failure and repair rates to be
constant. Paraszczak [27] identified reliability and
maintainability are the key constraints to improve the
availability and hence productivity of LHDs. He proposed
that MTTF can also serve for benchmarking of mining
equipment performance. Hall et al. [28] stated that
reliability and inherent availability are the design
characteristic of an equipment and therefore much space is
not available to improve them from users‟ viewpoint. As
such, it should be taken care of during design and user
should put reliability as a criterion in the selection and
evaluation of surface mining equipment.
Grujic et al. [29] pointed that operating environment has
a significant role on the system‟s reliability and efficiency.
Observing the dynamic nature of the operating environment
and quality of repair, a genetic algorithm based reliability
assessment has been proposed by Nuziale and Vagenas
[30] for mining equipment. Hall and Daneshmand [31]
used Pareto analysis to identify the principle subsystems of
haul trucks, responsible for high maintenance and
downtime cost. They performed a comparative study of the
MTTF and MTTR of hydraulic and electrical shovels
deployed in surface mines.
Gupta et al. [32] discussed the methodologies to evaluate
the effectiveness of the active maintenance polices to frame
an importance measure based maintenance and replacement
schedule for availability improvement of long-wall shearer.
242
Marquez [33] studied the critical failures of heavy duty
earth moving machines to design maintenance policy.
Barabady [2] analyzed TTF and TTR data for studying the
reliability of crushing plant at Jajarm Bauxite mine. Elevli
et al. [34] analyzed the maintainability of mechanical
systems of electric cable shovel.
On the basis of all these studies it may be appropriate to
state that RAM approach has been effectively used for
identifying the Ai of various equipment since last 40 years
in mining industry. The idea has evolved over these years
to improve the equipment performance by the proper
investigation of reliability and maintainability aspects.
C. Utilization
Utilization signifies the productive use of available
hours. A machine may be available but still may not be
working during the available hours due to inordinate and
idling conditions. Thus, utilization represents a loss in
available hours [3,9,10,35]. Utilization of available hours
can be expressed as the ratio of UT & AT. Mathematically,
it can be expressed in equation 6.
It is also revealed by the review of literature
[5,6,9,11,16,36] that there are some inconsistencies in the
definition and classification of events that affect the value
of utilization and ability to compare results.
It is worthy to note that, the low utilization of
excavating, loading and transport equipment operation in
surface mines, is largely due to the problem in their control
or management. This is particularly pronounced in large
and deep open pits with large fleet of trucks and many
dump points. Different methods of truck control and truck
allocation have been classified as non-dispatching (locked-
out or fixed-assignment mode) and dispatching mode by
Pfleider [37] and Burton [38]. To optimize utilization of
shovel and truck operation, dispatching system (manual,
Semi-automatic and Automatic) is being effectively applied
in mining industry [39,40, 41,42,43,44].
Trivedi et al. [45] in their study used the approach of
queuing model to optimize the shovel truck operation. They
critically analyzed the relation between the length of
queues, waiting time in queue, utilization of shovel,
approximate output from the shovel-truck combination and
the cost involved in the system with respect to variation in
the number of trucks.
Rai et al. [46] evaluated Computerized Truck Dispatch
System (CTDS) in order to improve utilization and
performance of shovel-truck combination.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
Benjamin et al. [47] conducted an investigation to
improve the utilization time of trucks based on an operating
mine in South-east Queensland using a commercially
available GPS collision avoidance system. The approach
was to use the GPS collision avoidance system to collect
the truck positioning, speed, and timing data, which gets
automatically recorded as part of its normal function in
order to translate this information in a conventional time
and motion study.
Operation Research (O.R.) is another popular technique
used widely in mining industry since 1960s in the areas of
mine planning, design, production scheduling, equipment
selection, and dispatching, etc. O.R. helps us in making a
correct decision where a number of alternative solutions are
available and is thus helpful in choosing the optimum
policy. It is the application of mathematical methods for
obtaining optimum and/or exact solution for the problems
of economic, planning and management [48]. Burt and
Caccetta [49] discussed the use of operational research to
solve equipment selection problem in the context of surface
mining. Fitspatrik [50] cited methods used by mining
industry in the evaluation and selection of new haulage
equipment and in increasing the utilization of existing fleet.
White et al. [51] suggested an operational truck-dispatching
system based on network models, linear programming, and
dynamic programming. Dash [52] discussed a linear
programming model for energy optimization. Brahma [53]
studied application of operational research techniques in an
open cast mining. Martinez and Newman [54] proposed a
mixed-integer program to schedule long- and short-term
production at LKAB‟s Kiruna mine, an underground
sublevel caving mine. The proposed model minimizes
deviations from monthly pre-planned production quantities
while adhering to operational constraints.
III. CYCLE TIME OF OPERATION
It must be borne in mind that with the huge and capital-
intensive BELT equipment, every second of its life time is
very important from the production and productivity point
of view. The BELT equipment performs tens of thousands
of cycles daily. Therefore, a small improvement in its
overall cycle time will definitely have a significant effect
on its overall performance.
In this line, Mirabediney [5] analyzed the cycle time data
of dragline operation in open-cast coal mine in Australia.
AbouRizk et al. [55] fitted Beta distribution to analyze the
cycle time data for dozer and truck operation. Howard [56]
suggested the use of automation and robots in deciding the
bucket placement position during the digging operations for
optimum filling and reduction of cycle time of operation.
243
Rai et al. [57] reported the cycle and idle time analysis
for draglines operation in field. On the basis of image
analysis, Osanloo and Hekmat [58] reported the influence
of degree of fragmentation on the dig-ability of excavators.
Influence of geometry and dimension of excavation face
on the digging time of excavators operating in surface
mines has been reported by Rai [16], Erdem and
Pasamehmetoglu [59], Erdem and Baskan [60], Patnayak et
al. [61], Erdem and korkmaz [62], Mohammadi et.al. [63].
Benjamin et al. [47] did investigation to optimize truck-
shovel fleet cycle using GPS collision avoidance system
focused on the speed and timing data of a selected fleet of
coal trucks at an open cast mine.
IV. BUCKET-FILL FACTOR
Bucket-fill factor indicates how well the available room
in the bucket is used. This is the percentage of the bucket
capacity that is actually filled with material.
Mathematically, it is expressed as:
The bucket-fill factor depends on bucket size & shape,
dig-ability of material (dragging and filling the bucket),
fragmentation (particle size, shape and distribution of
material in the bucket), the angle of repose of the material
on top of the bucket, operator skills, etc. [5,58,64].
Misra [65] stated that the Bucket-fill factor for dragline
operation is 0.95-1.10 for easy digging conditions, 0.80-
0.90 for medium digging conditions, 0.65-0.75 for
medium-hard digging conditions and 0.40-0.65 for very
hard digging conditions. Mirabediny [5] pointed out that
bucket-fill factor may vary from 0.4-1.2 in practice
V. MATERIAL-SWELL FACTOR
Material once excavated becomes loose and its original
volume increases. The material-swell factor is defined as
the ratio of volume (m3) of equal weight of material before
and after blasting/excavation as:
The swell factor may vary between 0.6-0.9, depending
on the nature of material (stickiness, moisture content),
fragmentation (shape, size and distribution of material), etc.
[5,64].
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
VI. PRODUCTION INDEX
Production index (PI) is another indicator in mining
industry which serves to control day-to-day and shift-to-
shift operations. Rai [16] termed it, as Production
Efficiency in respect of the studies performed by him on
shovel-truck and dragline operations in surface mines.
Production Index for any earthmoving equipment may
be understood as the ratio between the actual production
(output) and its potential production (rated output) of the
equipment during the period of its operation [3,65].
However, PI does not indicate the reasons for low
production. Mathematically, it can be expressed as:
Misra [67] stated that production efficiency of any
excavator has two components: machine operating
efficiency and the job management efficiency. Operating
efficiency of a machine depends on the condition of
operation, environmental conditions, experience and ability
of the operator, and the state of maintenance of the machine
itself. But usually such machines operate in conjunction
with other equipment. In such cases the output also
depends on the job management efficiency that controls the
extent of utilization of the machine in the system.
Chironis [68] suggests that the efficiency of shovels
should lie in the range of 85 to 90 percent. Misra [67]
found that power shovels have a utilization of 31 to 77
percent with a production efficiency of 25-60 percent in
Indian mines. Carter [69] pointed that the shovels in Lee
Ranch mines, are operating at efficiencies of 80-85 percent.
Rai [16] reported production efficiency of shovel in large
surface mines, in the range of 58 and 66 percent.
To compute potential production, CMPDI [11] proposed
equation 10 for BELT equipment.
Where,
O is potential production per period (m3),
BC is bucket capacity (m3),
f is bucket-fill factor,
s is material-swell factor,
TT is total calendar time (h),
A is operational availability,
U is utilization,
CT is cycle time (s), and
m is factor to be allowed for travelling, positioning,
etc. (m=0.8 for dragline operation at Northern Coalfield
Limited, India.)
244
Pundari [66] pointed that potential production per hour
can be computed by equation 11 as:
Where,
O' is rated output per hour (m3),
d is depth of cut (m),
a is factor of swing angle, and
r is stripping ratio.
Misra [67] proposed that output of shovel and
dragline (m3) can be obtained from the equation 13.
Where,
α is angle of swing factor, and
D is depth of cut factor.
VII. PROBLEMS OF STATED INDICES AND SUGGESTED
SOLUTION
Although, many improvements have been reported by
using these indices, but these concepts are capable of
providing only a tunnel view to the scope of the problem by
considering the equipment in isolation from the system and,
as such, are unable to address the performance
measurement in a holistic manner. In this light, the concept
of Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) seems to be
contemporary and truly relevant to address the growing
demands on production and productivity. In other words,
the OEE concept can bring together all the aforesaid
indices under the domain of a comprehensive index.
Managers appreciate such an aggregated metric instead of
many detailed indices [70].
VIII. BASIC CONCEPT OF OEE
OEE is one of the most widely used performance
indicator in production industries to assess how effectively
the manufacturing operations utilize the facilities, time and
material. It is a good indicator and compares the status of
the performance with the designed capacity and the best
practices in the industry. OEE analysis distinctly highlights
the areas which need improvement, to optimize the
manufacturing process.
Nakajima [12] introduced the concept of OEE to
measure the performance of machine/equipment in
manufacturing industries which considers the various
sources of production losses.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
He expressed OEE as a function of availability,
performance and quality rates as given in equation 14.
FIGURE 2: OEE components based on Nakajima’s concept [12].
From the figure 2, it is evident that the time component
of any operating system suffers from three losses namely,
downtime, speed and quality losses, which have been
further divided on the basis of ascribing the reasons. Given
this, „six big losses‟ are clearly described as:
1. Equipment failure losses refer to the breakdown of
equipment.
2. Set-up and adjustment time losses, occur when the
production of one item ends and the equipment needs to
be adjusted to meet the requirements to produce another
item.
3. Idling and minor stoppage losses occur when the
production is interrupted by a temporary malfunction or
when a machine is idle.
4. Reduced speed losses refer to the difference between the
speed for which the equipment is designed (standard
speed) and the actual operating speed.
5. Defect in process and rework are considered as losses in
quality which are caused by the malfunction of
production equipment.
6. Reduced yield occurs during the early stages of
production as the machine takes time to stabilize after its
start up.
By closely scrutinizing in literature [7,14,15,17,71,72], it
is clear that OEE has been used by various industries to
provide meaningful solutions to real-time problems since
1988.
IX. CONCEPT OF STATE OF ART „OEE‟ IN MINING
INDUSTRY
Unfortunately, the excavation and mining industry in
general has lagged behind other industries in the adoption
of OEE as a good performance measurement and only a
few studies [3,73,74,75,76] have been reported.
245
This concept accounted „Six big losses‟ for computing
availability, performance and quality rates which is
illustrated in figure 2.
Emery [73] described the application of the Total
Productive Management (TPM) technique, to improve OEE
for a coal mining operation through loss analysis.
Samanta and Banerjee [75] investigated the
improvement in productivity of mining machinery through
TPM and OEE. Based on Nakajima‟s concept, they
proposed OEE as a function of availability (A),
performance (P) and utilization (U) for mining equipment.
They stated that Nakajima‟s concept have given equal
weights to A, P and U for calculating OEE, whereas it is
not applicable in mining industry. So they assume some
weight for A, P and U as 0.3, 0.5 and 0.2 respectively, for
computing the OEE of mining equipment as given in
equation 15.
Dhillon [3] proposed that OEE is a function of
availability, utilization and production index as equation
16.
Elevli and Elevli [76] reported that, there was no study
in literature regarding how to use OEE metric for mining
equipment. They tried to identify causes of time losses for
shovel and truck operations, and classified these losses into
three categories i.e. availability, performance, and quality
losses.
X. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE LITRATURE AND
RESEARCH ISSUES
Scrutiny of literature in performance evaluation of
BELT equipment shows that all the indices (availability,
utilization, cycle time, bucket-fill-factor, material-swell-
factor, production index) have been in vogue since long in
evaluation of equipment‟s performance in order to improve
the same.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
Although, many improvements have been reported by
using these indices, but traditional indices for measuring
performance of BELT equipment are capable of providing
a tunnel view to the scope of the problem by considering
the equipment in isolation from the system.
However, the concept of OEE holds promise in bringing
together the aforesaid indices in a comprehensive index for
its evaluation and further improvement. In other words,
OEE is a simple and clear overall indicator, which
managers appreciate such an aggregated metric instead of
many detailed indices.
Unfortunately, the excavation, construction and mining
industry in general has lagged behind other industries in the
adoption of OEE as a good performance measurement and
only a few studies have been reported. Although, these
studies are suggestive of improvement to the adoption of
OEE‟s concept in performance evaluation of mining
equipment, they do not address the need to standardize the
concept of OEE and its applicability to the BELT
equipment to indicate how well the equipment was run in a
holistic manner. In other words, the true benefit of OEE
concept and its application has not been fully realized in
BELT equipment because of the absence of a standard
methodology to estimate OEE for BELT equipment.
Given the reasonably comprehensive (holistic) approach
of the OEE and also keeping in mind its successful
application in the manufacturing industry, the path forward
is, to suitably translate the concept of OEE for BELT
equipment by evolving appropriate methodologies and
tools for the measurement of OEE in mining operations.
REFERENCES
[1] Rai P. “Performance assessment of draglines in open cast mines”,
Indian journal of Engineering & Material Science, 11, 493-498,
2004.
[2] Barabady J., “Production Assurance, Concept, Implementation and
Improvement”, Ph.D. diss., Lulea University of Technology, 2007.
[3] Dhillon B.S., “Mining Equipment Reliability, Maintainability, and
Safety”, Springer-Verlag London Limited, London, 2008.
[4] Osanloo M., “Surface mining method”, (VOL.2), Amir Kabir
University Press, Tehran, 2005.
[5] Mirabediny H., “A dragline simulation model for strip mine design
and development”, Ph.D. diss., University of Wollongong, Australia,
1998.
[6] Zoltan W., “Standardization of Definitions for Benchmarking”,
MTech. diss., Department of Mining and Petroleum Engineering,
University of Alberta, 1999.
[7] Jeong K.Y. and Phillips D.T., “Operational efficiency and
effectiveness measurement”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 21 (11), 1404-1416, 2001.
[8] Bhadury B. and Basu S.K., “Terotechnology; reliability engineering
and maintenance management” Asian Books Private Limited, Delhi,
2003.
246
[9] Rai P., Yadav U. and Kumar A., “Productivity analysis of draglines
operating in horizontal tandem mode of operation in coal mine: A
case study”, Journal of Geotech Geol Eng, 29, 493-504, 2011.
[10] Mohammadi M., Rai P., Oraee K., and Kumar M., “Analysis of
availability and utilization of dragline for enhancement of
productivity in surface mines-a case study”, Proceeding of 23rd
World Mining Congress, Montreal, Paper 598, 2013.
[11] Central Mine Planning and Design (CMPDI), “Norms and
methodology for the calculation of the productivity of excavators
and dumpers”, Singrauli, India, 2000.
[12] Nakajima S., “Introduction to TPM: total productive maintenance”,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1988.
[13] Jonsson P. and Lesshammar M., “Evaluation and improvement of
manufacturing performance measurement system: the role of OEE”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19
(1), 55–78, 1999.
[14] Wibowo H., “Analysis overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) in
improving productivity in the machine processing creeper hammer
mill crumb rubber”, International Journal of Engineering and
Science, 3 (2), 52-60, 2012.
[15] Anvari F., Edwards R. and Starr A., “Methodology and theory
evaluation of overall equipment effectiveness based on market”,
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 16 (3), 256-270,
2010.
[16] Rai P., “Dragline and shovel-dumper operations in opencast mines”,
MTech. diss., Department of Mining Engineering, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi, India, 1992.
[17] Dal B., Tugwell P., and Greatbanks R., “Overall equipment
effectiveness as a measure of operational improvement: a practical
analysis”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 20 (12), 1488–1502, 2000.
[18] Kumar U., “Availability studies of Load-Haul-Dump machines”,
proceeding of 21st Application Operation Research and Computers in
Mineral Industry, SME,AIME, Las Vegas, USA, 323-335, 1989.
[19] Sutton I.S., “Process Reliability and Risk Management”, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1992.
[20] Ebeling E.C., “An introduction to reliability and maintainability
engineering”, McMraw Hill Education, Sixteen re-print 2013, New
Delhi, India, 2000.
[21] Dhillon B.S. and Singh C., “Engineering Reliability”, John Wiley &
Son, New York, 1981.
[22] Kumar U., “Reliability technique: A powerful tool for mine
operators”, Mineral Resource Engineering, vol.1, 13-28, 1988.
[23] Kumar U., “Reliability analysis of Load-Haul-Dump machines”,
Ph.D. diss., Lulea university of technology, Sweden, 1990.
[24] Tregelles P.G. and Worthington B., “Reliability assessment as an aid
to the development of mining equipment”, The mining engineer,
142(250), 95-103, 1983.
[25] Vagenas N., Kumar U. and Ronnkvist E., “Analysis of truck
maintenance characteristics in a Swedish open pit mine”,
International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and
Environment, 8, 65-71, 1994.
[26] Nanda N.K., “The need of reliability analysis of drilling system”,
The Indian Mining & Engineering Journal, 25-33, 1998.
[27] Paraszczak J., “Failure and downtime reporting -A key to improve
mine equipment performance”, CIM Bulleting, 93(1044), 73-
77,2002.
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
[28] Hall R.A., Daneshmend L.K., Lipsett M.G. and Wong J., [46] Rai P., Trivedi R., Nath R., “Computerized Truck Despatch”, Coal
“Reliability analysis as a tool for surface mining equipment International, 97-100, 2000.
evaluation and selection”, CIM Bulletin, 93(1044), 78 – 82, 2000. [47] Benjamin D Knights B.D., Kizil M.S. and Seib W., “Truck-shovel
[29] Grujic M. Milos, Grujic M. Miodrag and Ivkovic D.M, “The impact fleet cycle optimization using GPS collision avoidance system”,
of multi-element external Coal transportation on reliability of the Coal Operators‟ Conference, The University of Wollongong, 361-
system and on environment”, Mine Planning and Equipment 370, 2012.
Selection, Panagiotou & Michalakopoulos, Balkema, Rotterdam, 569 [48] Pathak J.R., “Operations research applications to mining”, Journal of
– 572, 2000. Mines, Metals & Fuels, 15(2), 7-11, 1967.
[30] Nuziale T. and Vagenas N., “Reliability assessment of mining [49] Burt C. and Caccetta L., “Equipment Selection for Surface Mining:
equipment using genetic algorithms”, Mine Planning and Equipment A Review”, www.optimization-online.org, 2013.
Selection, Panagiotou & Michalakopoulos, Balkema, Rotterdam, 841
[50] Fitspatrik J.J., “Truck performance by computers”, C.I.M. Bull.,
– 846, 2000.
913, 1967.
[31] Hall R.A. and Daneshmend L.K., “Evaluation of reliability and
[51] White J.W., Arnold M.J. and Clevenger J.G., “Automated open pit
availability of surface mining equipment”, Journal of Mines, Metals
truck dispatching at Tyrone”, Engg. Min. J., 183 (6), 76-84, 1982.
& Fuels, 395-399, 2002.
[52] Dash A., “A linear programming model for energy optimization”,
[32] Gupta S., Ramkrishna N. and Bhattacharya J., “Replacement and
Report. Department of Mining Engineering, BHU, (Unpublished),
maintenance analysis of a Longwall Shearer using Fault Tree
1990.
Technique”, Mining Technology, 2(115), 49-58, 2005.
[53] Brahma K.C., “A study on application of strategic planning models
[33] Marquez C.A., “Applications and case studies modeling critical
and operations research techniques in opencast mining”, Ph.D. diss.,
failures maintenance- A case study for mining”, Journal of Quality
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, 2007.
in Maintenance Engineering, 11( 4), 301-317, 2006.
[54] Martinez, M. and A. Newman, “A Solution Approach for
[34] Elevli S., Uzgoren N. and Taksuk M., “Maintainability analysis of
Optimizing Long- and Short-term Production Scheduling at LKAB's
mechanical systems of electric cable shovels”, Journal of Scientific
Kiruna Mine” European Journal of Operational Research, 211(1):
and Industrial Research, 67, 267-271, 2008.
184-197, 2011.
[35] Vamshi K. K., “Standardizing Availability Definition”, M.Tech.
[55] AbouRizk S. M., Halpin D.W. and Wilson J.R., “Fitting beta
diss. University Of New Orleans, USA, 2000.
distributions based on sample data”, Journal of Construction
[36] Rai P. “A Critical Case Study on Draglines Operating in Vertical Engineering and management, 120(2), 268-304, 1994.
Tandem in a Coal Mine”, Journal of the institution of engineers
[56] Howard N.C., “Extended Earthmoving with an Autonomous
(India), 87, 3-9, 2007.
Excavator”, MSc.diss. The Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon
[37] Pfleider E.P., “Surface mining”, Mining Engineering, the American University, Pittsburgh, 1999.
Institute of Mining Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineering
[57] Rai P., Trivedi R. and Nath R. “Cycle time and idle time analysis of
(AIMMPE), New York, 1968.
draglines for increased productivity- a case study”, Indian Journal of
[38] Burton A.K., “Off-Highway Trucks: How to Calculate Truck Fleet Engineering & Material Sciences, 7 (6), 77, 2000.
Requirements”, Mining Engineering, the American Institute of
[58] Osanloo, M., and Hekmat, A., Prediction of shovel productivity in
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers (AIMMPE), New
the Gol-e-Gohar iron mine, Journal of Mining science, 41 (2), 177-
York, 1975.
184, 2005.
[39] Lizotte Y., Bona Tes E. and Leclerc A., “Design and
[59] Erdem B. and Paşamehmetoğlu A.G., “Dragline cycle time Analysis
Implementation of a Semi-automated Truck/Shovel Dispatching
- case study”, International Mining Congress and Exhibition of
System”, Proceedings of the Twentieth International Symposium on
Turkey-IMCET, Turkey, 2003.
the Application of Computers and Mathematics in the Mineral
Industries. Volume I: Mining. Johannesburg, SAIMM, pp. 377 - 387, [60] Erdem B. and Baskan D.H.F., “Dragline cycle time Analysis”,
1987. Journal of scientific and Industrial Research, 64, 19-29, 2005.
[40] Victor A.T., “A computerize Model For Truck Dispatching In Open [61] Patnayak S., Tannant D., Parsons I., Del Valle V. and Wong J.,
Pit Mines”, PhD diss., Michigan Technological University, 1997. “Operator and dipper tooth influence on electric shovel performance
during oil sands mining”, International Journal of Mining,
[41] Alarie S. and Gamache M., “Overview of solution strategies used in
Reclamation and Environment, 22 (2), 120-145, 2008.
truck dispatching systems for open pit mines”, Int. J. Surface
Mining. 16, 59-76, 2002. [62] Erdem B. and korkmaz F., “Analysis of Dragline cycle time
components”, Journal of Mining Science, 48, 545-558, 2012.
[42] Xing J., Sun X.Y., “The open-pit truck dispatching method based on
the completion of production target and the truck flow saturation”, J. [63] Mohammadi M., Rai, P., and Oraee K., “A Critical Investigation of
China Coal Society. 977-980, 2007. Digging Time Segment of Draglines in a Large Surface Mine”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering”, 33, 763-771,
[43] Blouin S., Guay M. and Rudie K., “An application of discrete-event
2015.
theory to truck dispatching”, CEJOR, 15:369–391, 2007.
[64] Doktan M., “Impact of Blast Fragmentation on Truck Shovel Fleet
[44] Kaveh Ahangaran D., Yasrebi A.B., Wetherelt A. and Foster P.,
Performance”, 17th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of
“Real time dispatching modeling for trucks with different capacities
Turkey, 375-380, 2001.
in open pit mines”, Arch. Min. Sci., 57 (1), 39–52, 2012.
[65] Misra G.B., “Surface Mining”, Dhanbad publishers, Dhanbad, India,
[45] Trived, R., Rai, P. Nath, R., “ Shovel- truck optimization study in an
1979.
open cast mine- A queuing approach” , Indian Journal of
Engineering and Material Science, 6, 153-157, 1999. [66] Pundari N.B., “Selecting and using large walking draglines for
deeper overburden stripping”, Mining Engineering, AIMMPE, 1981.
247
 International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015)
[67] Misra G.B., “Surface Mining”, Geominetech Publisher, [72] Tsarouhas P.H., “Evaluation of overall equipment effectiveness in
Bhubaneswar, India, 2006. the beverage industry: a case study”, International Journal of
[68] Chironis N.P., “Smaller versatile dragline reach deep seems Production Research, 51 (2), 515-523, 2013.
efficiency”, Coal Age, 91(12), 1986. [73] Emery J.C., “Improving coal mining production performance
[69] Carter R.A., “Lee Ranch turns to dragline for increase production”, through the application of Total Production Management”, Coal
Coal Age, 96 (6), 1991. Operators' Conference, University of Wollongong, 71-80, 1998.
[70] De Ron A.J. and Rooda J.E., “OEE and equipment effectiveness: an [74] 73. Samanta B., Sarkar B., “TPM and Assessment of Overall
evaluation”, International Journal of Production Research, 44 (23), Effectiveness for Mining Equipment”, Coal Mining Technology and
4987–5003, 2006. Management, 8(2), 10-21, 2003.
[71] Zandieh S., Nilipuor Tabatabaei S.A. and Ghandehary M., [75] 74. Samanta B., Banerjee J., “Improving Productivity of Mining
“Evaluation of overall equipment effectiveness in a continuous machinery through Total Productive Management”,
process production system of condensate stabilization plant in theammj.com/262pdf/tpmforproductivity.pd, 2004.
Assalooyeh”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in [76] Elevli S. and Elevli B., “Performance Measurement of Mining
Business, 3 (10), 590-598, 2012. Equipments by Utilizing OEE”, Acta Montanistica Slovaca Ročník,
15 (2), 95-101, 2010.

248

View publication stats