International Journal of Geosciences, 2023, 14, 689-709

https://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg
ISSN Online: 2156-8367
ISSN Print: 2156-8359

Cycle Time Analysis of Open Pit Mining Dump

Trucks

Baatarchuluun Enkhchuluun1, Bat-Ochir Batgerel2, Cao Ping1

School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China
1

Mining Institute, Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

2

How to cite this paper: Enkhchuluun, B., Abstract

Batgerel, B.-O. and Ping, C. (2023) Cycle
Time Analysis of Open Pit Mining Dump This study demonstrates a practical cycle time analysis of dump truck haulage
Trucks. International Journal of Geosciences, system of “Ukhaa Khudag” open-pit coal mine located in Umnugobi Prov-
14, 689-709. ince, Mongolia. It examines the possibility of minimizing the cycle time of the
https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2023.148037
haulage system as well as factors impacting the speed of the dump truck. The
Received: July 3, 2023 current study divides the open pit mine road for the dump trucks into five
Accepted: August 14, 2023 sections which are bench road, ramp, surface road, dump road uphill, and
Published: August 17, 2023 dump road. Meanwhile, it investigates the influence of the length, the grade,
and the rolling resistance of the road section on the cycle time. The data is
Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. analyzed using mathematical regression methods via Microsoft Excel program.
This work is licensed under the Creative For each of the five road sections, we compare the statistical calculations of
Commons Attribution International three regression models: linear, quadratic and exponential; thus, a total of
License (CC BY 4.0). thirty regression models are obtained in this research. Accordingly, the cycle
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
time for each road section is predicted by the most accountable model. The
Open Access
loaded and empty direction of the movement is measured and calculated for
each road section, and it appears that the difference between the calculated
mean value and the actual cycle time of the models is 0.82 seconds with a rel-
ative error of 2.51 percent.

Keywords
Dump Truck, Cycle Time, Mine Haul Road, Regression Analysis

1. Introduction
Mining is one of the costly and complicated industries. Widespread studies have
been conducted in relevant sections such as geology, canalization, and excava-
tion planning and operation process [1]. Particularly, transportation costs amount
to 50 to 60 percent of the total investment costs and 70 percent of the operation
costs [2] [3] [4]. In open pit mining, the movement of raw materials is consi-

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 Aug. 17, 2023 689 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

dered one of the most challenging tasks with the truck transportation representing
the most influential factor of mining costs [5]. The deeper the open pit, the
longer the open pit road is needed; thus leading to higher transportation cost.
Accordingly, in order to reduce the transportation cost, it is necessary to inves-
tigate the potential strategies to improve the open-pit mine cycle time of the
dump trucks.
The current study analyzes the dump truck haulage system of “Ukhaa Khu-
dag” Open Pit Mine in Umnugobi Province, Mongolia which started its opera-
tions in 2009 and produced ten million tons of coals in 2018. Due to its potential
growth and expected long life cycle, we aim to conduct a detailed survey on cycle
time of the dump truck. The main contribution is to identify the potential op-
portunities to reduce the costs of dump truck systems by evaluating the mining
road conditions in Mongolia which had not been rigorously studied. Specifically,
this study surveys 13 trucks of CAT 785 model. Two main channels to improve
the efficiency of the dump trucks are to increase truck capacity and to reduce
cycle time [6]. As the movement time is the most important factor of overall
cycle time, it is crucial to understand which factors significantly affect the speed
of the movement so that we can optimize the speed and increase the efficiency of
the dump truck [6]. To improve the efficiency of the dump truck, an optimal use
regime for open-pit mining trucks should be established [7] [8]. The determi-
nant of the optimal use regime includes the movement regime which is directly
related to the speed of the dump truck.
The type of the road pavement and the grade of the road have a great influ-
ence on the speed of the dump truck [9] [10]. If the speed of the dump truck is
accurately determined, the production amount as well as the number of trucks
required will be calculated correctly [6] [2]. The speed of the dump truck can be
controlled by optimizing the condition of each road section. Examining the ef-
fects of the open pit mine dump truck in the aspect of the movement regime can
help us determine which parts bear the most cost and which strategies should be
implemented to reduce the costs [7].
The road pavement expresses the direct rolling resistance of the road. Rolling
resistance is a measure of the extra resistance to the motion that a haul truck ex-
periences, and it is influenced by tyre flexibility, internal friction and most im-
portantly, wheel load and road conditions [9].
Roger J. Thompson (2013) has thoroughly researched various mining road
conditions and reported that the optimal overall road resistance of the dump
truck is at 8 to 11 percent.
The current study employs regression technique. Our goal is that the equa-
tions resulting from our calculations are only applicable to this open pit mine.

2. Methods
2.1. Cycle Time of Dump Truck
Cycle time is defined as the time required for any equipment to complete one

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 690 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

cycle of operation. For a truck, cycle time comprises the time to spot and load,
travel to the dump site, maneuver, spot and dump, and drive back to the loading
point, also inclusive of predictable delays and unpredictable waiting times (Li-
neberry, 1985) [11] [12].
Principally, cycle time is a direct measure of process and equipment perfor-
mance in waste material transport for open-pit mining and other processes [13]
[14].
Cycle time analysis was conducted starting with identification of the activities
to be analyzed, for which the cycle times of seven activities were determined and
recorded. In accordance with Samwel Victotmanyele (2017) [13], the total cycle
time for the truck was appointed as per Equation
Tct = tq + tsp + tld + t fh + tdp + thg + teh (1)

where tq : queuing time at the excavator, tsp : spotting time, tld : loading time,
t fh : full haul time, tdp : dumping time, thg : hanging time and teh : empty haul
time.

2.2. Determine the Road Parameters and the Total Resistance

Road conditions affect the technical and economic performance of open pit
mine dump truck. The road of the open-pit mine is classified by its character.
Relevant characters include:
Structure: paved and unpaved;
Movement direction: one lanes, two or more lanes in traffic;
Time using: permanent and temporary;
Location: bench road, ramp, surface, dump road.
Rolling resistance is defined as the force required to maintain a vehicle at a
steady speed on the ground level, and is a function of not only the gross vehicle
mass and driving characteristics, but also the type and conditions of the tires and
the road surface on which the vehicle is operated [9]. The characteristics of the
road pavement are expressed as a coefficient of the rolling resistance.
Empirical estimations of the rolling resistance are based on tire penetration,
and it turns out that 0.6 percent increase in rolling resistance per centimeter of
tire penetration into the road typically result in 1.5 to 2 percent minimum resis-
tance [9].
Figure 1 shows that rolling resistance for mine haul road depends on road
conditions. Calculations of the rolling resistance are categorized as shown in
Table 1.
According to B. Purevtogtokh (2018), the average value of the road rolling re-
sistance in the direction of the load section j is defined as follow.

∑ i =1 li ∗ wi , N/kN
n
l ∗ w1 + l2 ∗ w2 +  + ln ∗ wn
=wlj 1= (2)
l1 + l2 +  + ln ∑ i =1 li
n

The average value of the road rolling resistance in the direction of the empty
section j is set as:

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 691 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Figure 1. Rolling resistance.

Table 1. Calculation of rolling resistance for mine haul road.

Rolling resistance
Road surface conditions (built from unbound gravel materials)
(%)

Strong layerworks and hard, compacted well-built and maintained

2
road, no tire penetration/deflection discernable

Intermediate strength layerworks, compacted, well-built and

2-3 frequently maintained road, with minimal (<25 mm) tire
penetration/deflection

Weak layerworks or surfacing material, 25 - 50 mm tire

3-5
penetration/deflection, rutted and poorly maintained

Weak layerworks or surfacing material, 50 - 100 mm tire

5-8
penetration/deflection, rutted and poorly maintained

w=
ej wlj ∗1.25 , N/kN (3)

At the same time, the average slope of the road in the load and empty section j
is specified as:

∑ i =1 li ∗ ii , ‰
n
l1 ∗ i1 + l2 ∗ i2 +  + ln ∗ in
=ij = (4)
l1 + l2 +  + ln ∑ i =1 li
n

where
wi : the rolling resistance of the road in the load of direction;
li : the length of the road section i for traffic j, km;
ii : the slope of the road section i for traffic j, ‰.
Meanwhile, the total resistance of the movement is described as:
Pl1 ( wl1 + il1 ) ∑ ll1 + Pe1 ( we1 + ie1 ) ∑ le1
Wj = ,N (5)
L1

where: Pl1 , Pe1 : the weight of the dump truck in the load and empty direction,
tons;
wl1 , we1 : the rolling resistance of the road in the load and empty direction,
N/kN;

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 692 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

ll1 , le1 : the length of the road in the load and empty direction, km;
il1 , ie1 : the slope of the road in the load and empty direction, ‰;
L1 : the total distance of road.
It is essential to develop a methodology to optimize the utilization regime in
connection with the increase in the volume of transport. Consequently, a scien-
tific assessment of the organizational level, operating conditions and quality
characteristics should be conducted; otherwise it is impossible to maximize the
efficiency of the dump truck.

2.3. Multiple Linear Regression

Multiple linear regression analysis is a statistical method used for determining a
formula that explains the prediction of a dependent (unknown) variable by its
relationship to a set of independent (known) variables. A weighting is assigned
to each independent variable to reflect the portion of its impacts on the value of
the dependent variable; thus, the weighting is referred to as the coefficient of the
variable in the equations [15] [16].
Multiple R. Multiple R is the Correlation Coefficient, illustrating the strength
of the linear relationship. For instance, a value of 1 signifies a perfectly positive
relationship while a value of 0 expresses no relationship between a certain inde-
pendent variable and the dependent variable. Multiple R is the square root of R
squared.
R squared. R squared (r2) is the Coefficient of Determination, representing the
proportion of the variance for a dependent variable that is explained by the in-
dependent variables included in a regression model. For instance, R squared
value of 80 %describes that 80 percent of the variations of the value of y fall on
or closed to the regression line (the mean) are explained by the value of x; thus,
implying that 80 percent of the values calculated are fit to the model.
Adjusted R square. Adjusted R-square (adjusted R2) shows how well the data
points fit the regression line, but adjusts for the number of terms in a regression
model.
Standard Error of the Regression. Standard Error of the Regression is an esti-
mate of the standard deviation of the error μ, which is not similar to the stan-
dard error in descriptive statistics. The standard error of the regression is the
precision that the regression coefficient is measured; if the coefficient is large
compared to the standard error, then the coefficient is probably different from 0.
Observations. Observations report the number of observations in the sample.

2.4. Simplification of the Road Scheme

In order to minimize the amount of road sections, a summary of the road para-
meter must be checked to ensure the road conditions for possible tractive forces,
define the speed of movement and the time as well as the efficient usage fre-
quency. Afterwards, the principle road scheme is simplified in accordance with
associated parameters.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 693 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Before the road is simplified, following road conditions must be taken into
account.
• Summarized roads must be a same type of road section (bench road, ramp,
surface road, dump road).
• Pavement and structure of road must be the same.
• Road gradient and rolling resistance are nearby for dump trucks operating in
the same regime.
• The speed of the dump truck is nearby.
• Safety conditions must be the same.
The R radius curved sections is converted to the slope of straight section. The
curved sections of radius R are defined as the curve resistance according to the
equation:
200 − R
∆iR = 30 ∗ , ‰ (per mille) (6)
200
where: R: turn radius, m.
The radius R curve in section j is defined according to the equations:
i j = i ′j + ∆iR , ‰ (7)

where: i j : slope of the j section curve converted into slope, ‰;

i ′j : Slope of the j section curve, ‰.
The road has to be subdivided into sections of the road, namely bench road
(BR), ramp (R), surface road (SR), dump road uphill (DRU), and dump road
(DR).
For each section of road, the average length, the average slope and the average
rolling resistance are defined. In addition, the amount of charge is considered.
For example; weighted average length of the bench road:

LBR =
∑ LBRj ∗ Q j , km (8)
∑ Qj
Weighted average slope of the bench road:

iBR =
∑ LBRj ∗ iBRj , km (9)
∑ LBRj
Weighted average rolling resistance of the bench road:

wBR =
∑ LBRj ∗ wBRj , N/kN (10)
∑ LBRj
where; LBRj: length of bench road in j section, km;
IBRj: slope of bench road in j section, ‰;
Qj: quantity of transport load by section j, tn/m3;
WBR: rolling resistance bench road in j section, N/kN (‰).

3. Practical Experiments of Transport Process

The test of dump truck regime determines the dimensions of the road and the

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 694 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

speed (time) of each road section. Testing process consists of measuring chips in
each dump truck and recording the cycle time. The determination of rolling re-
sistance is based on the knowledge on the road surface and the current road de-
fect. Meanwhile, road gradient and road length are determined by the measure-
ment of the open-pit mine surface.
The road description from the excavation point to the discharge point is
shown in Table 2.
Figure 2 exhibits the scheme of an open-pit mine road for a dump truck. Points
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are loading positions and Point 12, 15, 18 are discharge positions.

Simplifying the Calculation of the Road Section

For the sake of simplicity, the same type of road is considered for this open pit
mine. The road with five bench roads, three ramps, three surface roads, three
dump uphill roads and three dump roads are combined and calculated for this
open pit. The average length, average slope, and average rolling resistance of
each road are calculated and the following equations are derived. The results of
the simplified transport system calculations are shown in Table 3.
Weighted average length of the bench road:
Q1 ∗ L1− 6 + Q2 ∗ L2 − 7 + Q3 ∗ L3−8 + Q4 ∗ L5−8 + Q5 ∗ L4 − 7
=LBR = 0.26 km (11)
∑Q
Weighted average length of the ramp:
Q1 ∗ L6 − 7 + Q2 ∗ L7 −8 + Q4 ∗ L8−9
=LR = 0.358 km (12)
∑Q
Weighted average length of the surface road:

Table 2. Haulage systems description.

Parameter/ Bench road Ramp Surface road Dump road uphill Dump road
Position 1_6 2_7 3_8 5_8 4_7 6_7 7_8 8_9 9_13 9_10 9_16 10_11 13_14 16_17 11_12 14_15 17_18

length, km 0.043 0.135 0.795 0.055 0.191 0.55 0.72 0.432 0.975 0.126 0.699 0.331 0.332 0.34 0.3 0.36 0.5

slope, ‰ 0 13.5 0 −86 51 51 68.5 100 0 19 0 51 55 55 0 0 0

rolling
80 80 80 80 51 27.5 30 60 30 30 46.5 152 152 152 152 152 152
resistance,‰

radius, m 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 100 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 2. Scheme of the road section.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 695 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

∑ Q ∗ ( L9 −13 + L9 −10 + L9 −16 )

=LSR = 0.600 km (13)
∑Q
Weighted average length of the dump road uphill:
∑ Q ∗ ( L10 −11 + L13−14 + L16 −17 )
=LDRU = 0.334 km (14)
∑Q
Weighted average length of the dump road:
∑ Q ∗ ( L11−12 + L14 −15 + L17 −18 )
=LDR = 0.387 km (15)
∑Q
Weighted average slope of the bench road:
i1− 6 ∗ L1− 6 + i2 − 7 ∗ L2 − 7 + i3−8 ∗ L3−8 + i5−8 ∗ L5−8 + i4 − 7 ∗ L4 − 7
=iBR = 8.39 ‰ (16)
∑L
Weighted average slope of the ramp:
i6 − 7 ∗ L6 − 7 + i7 −8 ∗ L7 −8 + i8−9 ∗ L8−9
=iR = 78.43 ‰ (17)
∑L
Weighted average slope of the surface road:
i9 −13 ∗ L9 −13 + i9 −10 ∗ L9 −10 + i9 −16 ∗ L9 −16
=iSR = 1.33 ‰ (18)
∑L
Weighted average slope of the dump road uphill:
i10 −11 ∗ L10 −11 + i13−14 ∗ L13−14 + i16 −17 ∗ L16 −17
=iDRU = 59.62 ‰ (19)
∑L
Weighted average rolling resistance of the bench road:

=wBR
∑
=
LBRj ∗ wBRj
75.46 , N/kN (20)
∑ LBRj
Weighted average rolling resistance of the ramp:

=wR
∑
=
LRj ∗ wRj
40.99 , N/kN (21)
∑ LRj
Weighted average rolling resistance of the surface road:

=wSR
∑
=
LSRj ∗ wSRj
36.41 , N/kN (22)
∑ LSRj
Weighted average rolling resistance of the dump road uphill:

=wDRU
∑
=
LDRUj ∗ wDRUj
152 , N/kN (23)
∑ LDRUj
Weighted average rolling resistance of the dump road:

=wDRU
∑
=
LDRj ∗ wDRj
152 , N/kN (24)
∑ LDRj
In this case, three roads have a curve radius and have been converted to a
straight road gradient as illustrated in Table 4.
Figure 3 shows a simplified representation of road sections. Measured values

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 696 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

of road are grouped into bench road, ramp, surface road and dump road.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Factors That Influence the Movement Process of Dump
Trucks and the Mathematical Model
The current study observes every road section and dump truck movement. Sub-
sequently, the data is analyzed via multiple mathematical regression models us-
ing mathematical statistical methods. The data regarding five bench roads, three
ramps, three surface roads, three dump uphill roads and three dump roads are
combined and calculated and accordingly the measurement of “UkhaaKhudag”
open-pit mine has been summarized. The results show the estimated ranges ob-
tained via Microsoft Excel application as outlined in Table 5.
The Microsoft Excel program compares statistical calculations with of regression
models: linear, quadratic and exponential. Factors are validated by the F-test. Table
6 shows comparisons of road moving time regression models in each section in the
loaded direction.

Table 3. Simplified Haulage systems description.

Rolling resistance, Average duration, Speed,

Direction Road section Grade, ‰ Length, km
N/kN seconds km/hour

Bench road 8.39 75.46 0.244 38.72 22.73

Ramp 78.43 40.99 0.355 77.47 16.48

Loaded Surface road 1.33 36.41 0.600 53.19 40.59

Dump road uphill 59.62 152.00 0.334 53.23 22.61

Dump road 0.00 152.00 0.387 62.12 22.41

Dump road 0.00 190.00 0.387 62.08 22.42

Dump road uphill −59.62 190.00 0.334 35.61 33.80

Empty Surface Road −1.33 45.51 0.600 44.05 49.01

Ramp −78.43 51.24 0.355 44.04 28.98

Bench Road −8.39 94.32 0.244 30.86 28.51

Table 4. Converted slope for the curved sections of radius R.

Road section Radius, m Slope for R, ‰ Total slope, ‰

Bench road 4_7 80 18 69

Ramp 8_9 100 15 115

Dump road uphill 11_10 80 18 69

Figure 3. Simplified scheme for road sections.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 697 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of road sections with duration of movement.

Bench road Ramp Surface road Dump road uphill Dump road
Parameters
loaded empty loaded empty loaded empty loaded empty loaded empty
Mean 38.71 30.86 77.47 44.04 53.19 44.05 53.23 35.61 62.11 62.08
Standard error 3.51 2.95 4.83 2.24 4.63 3.85 1.81 0.58 1.34 0.76
Median 24.90 18.79 80 47.5 73 60 58 36 63 62.5
Mode 3.28 5.36 30 19 10.63 9.26 60 38 65 65
Standard Deviation 39.53 29.81 32.76 15.21 34.71 28.82 10.56 3.39 7.86 4.46
Sample Variance 1563.2 889.1 1073.5 231.3 1205.2 831.1 111.6 11.51 61.8 19.9
Kurtosis −0.128 0.219 −0.956 −0.685 −1.834 −1.819 −0.882 −1.146 −0.343 −0.524
Skewness 1.195 1.340 −0.278 −0.502 −0.374 −0.362 −0.863 0.004 −0.222 −0.338
Range 127.20 110.70 109 54 82.47 71.58 31 11 33 17
Minimum 2.02 4.31 23 16 10.52 8.12 34 30 45 52
Maximum 129.22 115.02 132 70 93 79.70 65 41 78 69
Sum 3949 3148 3564 2026 2978.9 2467 1810 1211 2112 2111
Count 102 102 46 46 56 56 34 34 34 34
Largest 129.22 115.02 132 70 93 79.70 65 41 78 69
Smallest 2.02 4.31 23 16 10.52 8.12 34 30 45 52
Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.76 0.85 0.73 0.51 0.29 0.72 0.68 0.18 0.74 0.55

Table 6. Comparisons of the moving times regression model of the road in each section (loaded).

Notice Mark Linear Quadratic Exponential

Bench road
1 Multiple R R 0.9905451 0.9900295 0.989893331
2 R Square R2 0.981179595 0.98015841 0.979888807
3 Standard Error E 3.506487648 3.65390383 3.692186238
4 Observations n 102 102 102

T =6.53 + 39.96 ∗ L2
T =21.12 + 140.50 ∗ L T=
−64251.68 + 90.61 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T −0.02 ∗ D 2 + 22.04 ∗ L
+0.043 ∗ i − 279.68 ∗ w +1.85 ∗ ei + 59226.97 ∗ e w
∗D − 69.01 ∗ L − 1.05 ∗ D
Ramp
1 Multiple R R 0.986360259 0.986317476 0.986356668
2 R Square R 2
0.97290656 0.972822164 0.972899477
3 Standard Error E 3.582549638 3.591237708 3.583279283
4 Observations n 46 46 46

T= −569.25 − 0.91 ∗ D 2
T= −36.99 + 134.67 ∗ L T=
−171.48 + 77.32 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T −88.52 ∗ L ∗ D + 994.92
+0.79 ∗ i + 121.69 ∗ w +0.0005 ∗ ei + 114.91 ∗ e w
∗L + 68.97 ∗ D

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 698 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Continued

Surface road

1 Multiple R R 0.994184897 0.993602695 0.99419007

2 R Square R 2
0.988403609 0.987246315 0.988413895

3 Standard Error E 3.844788064 4.032076969 3.84308244

4 Observations n 56 56 56

T=
−0.71 − 39.8 ∗ L2
T = 24.43 + 53.73 ∗ L T=
−217.12 + 23.23 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T +0.02 ∗ D 2 + 7.43 ∗ L ∗ D
−1.45 ∗ i + 247.3 ∗ w −6.67 ∗ ei + 239.17 ∗ e w
+107.31 ∗ L − 1.3 ∗ D
Dump road uphill

1 Multiple R R 0.901037479 0.901422382 0.901034437

2 R Square R2 0.811868539 0.812562311 0.811863057

3 Standard Error E 4.806587274 4.797716463 4.806657299

4 Observations n 34 34 34

T=
−25287.04 − 256924.76 ∗ L2
T= 257.62 + 90.9 ∗ L T = 976.09 + 64.96 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T −1.03 ∗ D 2 + 570.85 ∗ L ∗ D
−1.38 ∗ i − 1000.9 ∗ w −0.02 ∗ ei − 859.8 ∗ e w
+160942.16 ∗ L − 156.76 ∗ D
Dump road

1 Multiple R R 0.807370366 0.795962535 0.803396018

2 R Square R2 0.651846908 0.633556357 0.645445161

3 Standart Error E 4.785962235 4.910070586 4.829763306

4 Observations n 34 34 34

T= 6385.91 − 212.3 ∗ L2
T = 254.87 + 72.88 ∗ L T= 1461.95 + 48.11 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T +250973.44 ∗ W 2 − 762.51 ∗ L
−1457.53 ∗ w −1264.04 ∗ e w
+6645.97 ∗ L ∗ W − 80170.28 ∗ W

Table 7. Comparisons of the moving times regression model of the road in each section (empty).

Notice Mark Linear Quadratic Exponential

Bench road

1 Multiple R R 0.978383333 0.971925706 0.978418247

2 R Square R 2
0.957233945 0.944639578 0.957302266

3 Standard Error E 3.259765985 4.122102196 3.254763857

4 Observations n 102 102 102

T = 42.88 + 39.7 ∗ L2
T =23.47 + 107.44 ∗ L T = 101.37 + 66.31 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T +0.18 ∗ D 2 + 18.13 ∗ L ∗ D
+0.059 ∗ i − 238.17 ∗ w +0.0004 ∗ ei − 147.25 ∗ e w
−109.44 ∗ L − 5.82 ∗ D
Ramp

1 Multiple R R 0.948316493 0.924445685 0.948314643

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 699 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Continued

2 R Square R2 0.899304171 0.854599825 0.899300661

3 Standard Error E 3.99627532 4.003756713 3.996362388

4 Observations n 46 46 46

T = 232.49 − 584.97 ∗ L2
T =−5 + 64.74 ∗ L T=
−100.56 + 70.26 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T +2.34 ∗ D 2 − 136.72 ∗ L
−0.29 ∗ i + 52.44 ∗ w −4064.02 ∗ ei + 49.23 ∗ e w
∗D + 84.1 ∗ D
Surface

1 Multiple R R 0.993477756 0.991812291 0.993478402

2 R Square R 2
0.986998051 0.98369162 0.986999336

3 Standard Error E 3.380615642 3.786142721 3.380448564

4 Observations n 56 56 56

T=
−21.46 − 45.38 ∗ L2
T =28.7 + 39.94 ∗ L T=
−34.25 + 17.25 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T −0.48 ∗ D 2 + 1.62 ∗ L ∗ D
−1.42 ∗ i + 65.22 ∗ w −6.12 ∗ ei + 62.36 ∗ e w
+117.98 ∗ L + 5.45 ∗ D
Dump road downhill

1 Multiple R R 0.794361298 0.80374 0.794363088

2 R Square R 2
0.631009871 0.646002716 0.631012716

3 Standard Error E 2.161998317 2.154490499 2.161989982

4 Observations n 34 34 34

T=
+578.552 − 13619.0271 ∗ L 2

T= −214.9 + 818.18 ∗ L T=
−510.78 + 584.69 ∗ e L
5 Regression model T −0.168448 ∗ D 2 + 288.4464 ∗ L ∗ D
−0.29 ∗ i − 213.16 ∗ w −1334.16 ∗ ei − 228.95 ∗ e w
+2913.8509 ∗ L − 95.6335 ∗ D
Dump road

1 Multiple R R 0.534138299 0.570484006 0.549175541

2 R Square R 2
0.285303722 0.325452001 0.301593775

3 Standard Error E 3.891124185 3.780252076 3.84652343

4 Observations n 34 34 34

T=
−1040.43 + 448.69 ∗ L 2

T = 90.43 + 27.75 ∗ L T = 251.1 + 18.93 ∗ e L

5 Regression model T −16221.3 ∗ W 2 + 1304.72 ∗ L
−206.13 ∗ w −179.52 ∗ e w
−8663.95 ∗ L ∗ W + 9209.55 ∗ W

Table 7 shows comparisons of road moving time regression models in each

section in the empty direction.
By comparing the regression models described in each road section, the mod-
els with greater correlation coefficient and smaller standard errors are selected;
therefore the prediction models are acquired.
For the modeling variables: L: the length of the section on the road, km;
i: the grade of the section on the road (‰);

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 700 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

w: rolling resistance of the section on the road, N/mN (m-mega).

4.2. Demonstrating the Model of Each Road Section

Bench road in loaded direction
T=21.12 + 140.50 ∗ L + 0.043 ∗ i − 279.68 ∗ w (25)
Road length and grade have a direct effect on moving time of cycle whereas
rolling resistance has an indirect effect.
Figure 4 and Figure 5 prove that the regression model described in the direc-
tion of the bench road is similar to the value of the actual measurement.
Bench road in empty direction
=T 101.37 + 66.31 ∗ e L + 0.0004 ∗ ei − 147.25 ∗ e w (26)
The model indicates that an increase of 179.7 seconds movement time results

Figure 4. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of bench road loaded direction.

Figure 5. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of bench road empty direction.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 701 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

in one unit increase of the road length. Furthermore, one unit increase of pave-
ment road leads to a decrease of 399 seconds movement time.
Ramp in loaded direction
T=
−36.99 + 134.67 ∗ L + 0.79 ∗ i + 121.69 ∗ w (27)
The regression model reveals that one unit increase of the rolling resistance
causes an increase of 121.69 seconds movement time. One kilometer increase of
the road length contributes to an increase of 134.67 seconds movement time. In
the meantime, one unit increase of the road slope per mille conduces to an in-
crease of 0.79 seconds movement time.
In summary, three factors included in this model significantly impact the
cycle time.
Figure 6 reflects the similarities between the regression model described in
the direction of ramp and the value of the actual measurement.
Ramp in empty direction
T=
−5 + 64.74 ∗ L − 0.29 ∗ i + 52.44 ∗ w (28)

The regression model demonstrates that one unit increase of the rolling resis-
tance and the length of the road lead to the increase of the movement time for
52.44 and 64.74 seconds respectively.
As evidenced in Figure 7, the differences in the values of the errors have a
higher value compared with the other figures.
Surface road in loaded direction
T=
−217.12 + 23.23 ∗ e L − 6.67 ∗ ei + 239.17 ∗ e w (29)

Surface road in empty direction

T=
−34.25 + 17.25 ∗ e L − 6.12 ∗ ei + 62.36 ∗ e w (30)

The regression models shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 are drawn from

Figure 6. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of ramp loaded direction.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 702 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Figure 7. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of ramp empty direction.

Figure 8. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of surface road in loaded direction.

Figure 9. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of surface road in empty direction.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 703 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

related exponential functions. It is obvious that the road pavement has larger in-
fluence on the movement time. Hence, the pavement should be highly consi-
dered as the surface road length increases.
Dump road uphill in loaded direction
T=
−25287.04 − 256924.76 ∗ L2 − 1.03 ∗ D 2 + 570.85 ∗ L ∗ D
(31)
+ 160942.16 ∗ L − 156.76 ∗ D

Dump road uphill in empty direction

T=
+578.552 − 13619.027 ∗ L2 − 0.1684488 ∗ D 2 − 288.4464 ∗ L ∗ D
(32)
+ 2913.8509 ∗ L − 95.6335 ∗ D

The regression models portray the values of the slope while main resistance
factors on the road are expressed in the term of D;
D= ( i + w ) 10 (33)

where: i: the grade of the section on the road (‰);

w: the rolling resistance of the section on the road, N/kN.
Figure 10 and Figure 11 manifest that the difference between the calculations
and actual measured values varies from 0.32 to 0.55 in the loaded direction and
0.34 to 0.52 in the empty direction; however, the proportion is comparatively
small.
Dump road in loaded direction
=T 254.87 + 72.88 ∗ L − 1457.53 ∗ w (34)
Dump road in empty direction
T=
−1040.43 + 448.69 ∗ L2 − 16221.3 ∗ w2 + 1304.72 ∗ L
(35)
− 8663.95 ∗ L ∗ w + 9209.55 ∗ w

The turning radius and the slope of the dump road are relatively small, for this

Figure 10. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of dump uphill road in loaded direction.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 704 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Figure 11. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of dump uphill road in empty direction.

Figure 12. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of dump road in loaded direction.

reason, the regression model should be determined by including only two va-
riables: rolling resistance and the road length.
The regression models emphasize that one unit increase of rolling resistance is
attributed to a reduction of 1457.53 seconds movement time in loaded direction.
Simultaneously, one kilometer increase of the road length is the cause of an in-
crease in the movement time for 72.88 seconds and 36.25 seconds in the loaded
direction and the empty direction respectively. As a result, it is necessary to de-
fine the road exactly as the length increases. Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the
comparison of the calculated and measured values of the defined models in the
loaded and empty direction.

4.3. Research of the Dump Truck Stop Times

This section measures the waiting time of the excavator, spotting time, loading

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 705 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Figure 13. Comparison of measured time and calculated time of dump road in empty direction.

Table 8. Load and dump time of dump trucks (seconds).

Parameters average min max

Waiting time 64.61 0 279

Load spot time 29.45 8 68

Loading time 127.38 81 165

Dumping spot time 26.6 10 56

Dumping time 52.5 22 70

time, dumping time, and dumping spot time. The experimental measurement
exemplifies the combination of Excavator R9250 and Truck CAT785, and the
results are displayed in Table 8.
It is affirmed that waiting usually takes longer time than most of the other
processes. Moreover, the difference between the minimum and the maximum
records of the waiting time appears extremely large. Thereby, it is necessary to
optimize the combination of trucks and shovels.
Corresponding to Table 9, the difference between the actual and mathemati-
cal model of the mean time is 0.82 seconds. Regarding the errors, the absolute
error of 0.82 seconds with the relative error of 2.51 percent confirms the proba-
bility value of the mathematical models. Table 10 shows the total cycle times of
the dump trucks.

5. Conclusion
• The results of the study on movement duration reveal that it is possible to in-
crease the productivity by 34.19 percent according to the comparison between
the maximum duration and average duration. Regarding the practical experi-
ments, the regression equations are derived and can be used for defining the
movement time of both loaded and empty direction for each road section.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 706 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Table 9. Comparison of actual and calculated time for road section (seconds).

Error
Road section Actual Calculated
Absolute Relative
Bench road loaded 38.72 38.72 0 0
Bench road empty 30.86 30.76 0.1 0.3240
Ramp loaded 77.48 77.45 0.03 0.0387
Ramp empty 44.04 43.77 0.27 0.6131
Surface road loaded 53.2 53.22 −0.02 −0.0376
Surface road empty 44.05 44.08 −0.03 −0.0681
Dump road uphill loaded 53.24 53.58 −0.34 −0.6386
Dump road uphill empty 35.62 34.8 0.82 2.3021
Dump road loaded 62.12 62.13 −0.01 −0.0161
Dump road empty 62.09 62.09 0 0.0000
Total 501.42 500.6 0.82 2.5175

Table 10. Cycle time of dump trucks (seconds).

№ Component Minimum Average Maximum

1 Loading time 81 127.38 165
2 Moving time 445.9975 501.42 580.7639
3 Dumping time 22 52.5 70
4 Waiting time 0 64.61 279
Loading 8 29.45 68
5 Spotting time
Dumping 10 26.6 56
6 Total cycle time 566.9975 801.96 1218.7639

• Experimental results disclose that it is feasible to reduce the waiting time

while emphasizing the advancement of spotting method and the combination
of trucks and shovels.
• The mathematical models developed during the current study can be utilized
for future open pit mine planning of which the key factors generally include
the type of pavement, the slope of the road, and the cycle time.
• In general, improvement of the road increases the speed; however, for min-
ing, the roads are usually for temporary use so that not much investment is
dedicated to road construction. As reported by this study, it is crucial to pay
attention the road built by focusing on its expected life cycle.
• Specifically, the equations obtained via the regression analysis clearly identify
which road sections significantly influence the speed of the trucks.

Acknowledgements
My thanks go to Dr. Boryo Orkhontuul from the Mining Department of the

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 707 International Journal of Geosciences

B. Enkhchuluun et al.

Mongolian University of Science and Technology, who gave me great help in

writing this project. My deepest thanks go to the mining engineers who worked
at the Ukhaa Khudag (UHG) open pit mine.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] Eskandari, H., Darabi, H. and Hosseinzadeh, S.A. (2013) Simulation and Optimiza-
tion of Haulage System of an Open-Pit Min. Summer Computer Simulation Confe-
rence, Toronto, July 2013, Article No. 13.
[2] Purevtogtokh, B. and Orkhontuul, B. (2015) Determination of Operating Regimes
of Dump Truck on “Ukhaakhudag” Open Pit Coal Mine. Research Report.
[3] Thompson, R.J. and Visser, A.T. (1999) Designing and Management Unpaved Opencast
Mine Haul Roads for Optimum Performance. SME Annual Meeting, Denver, 1-3
March 2013, 90-99.
[4] Liu, G.W. and Chai, S.L. (2019) Optimizing Open-Pit Truck Route Based on Mini-
mization of Time-Varying Transport Energy Consumption. Mathematical Problems
in Engineering, 2019, Article ID: 6987108. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6987108
[5] Alegre, D.A.G., Peroni, R.L. and Aquino, E.R. (2019) The Impact of Haulroad
Geometric Parameters on Open Pit Mine Strip Ratio. REM, International Engineering
Journal, 72, 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/0370-44672018720136
[6] Purevtogtokh, B. (2018) Transport of Open Pit Mining Trucks. Study Book.
[7] Orkhontuul, B. (2006) Definition Methods of Parameters of Truck Exploitation in
Open Pit Mining. Ph.D. Thesis, Mongolian University of Science and Technology,
Ulaanbaatar.
[8] Orkhontuul, B. (2007) Analysis of Truck Dismounting Process. IEEE International
Forum on Strategic Technology, Ulaanbaatar, 3-6 October 2007, 457-458.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IFOST.2007.4798630
[9] Thompson, R.J. (2015) Principles of Mine Haul Road Design and Construction. Study
Book.
[10] (2018) Caterpillar Performance Handbook 48. Peoria, Illinois, U.S.A. Mining &
Off-Highway Trucks 10-21, Mining and Earthmoving-28-6.
https://wheelercat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SEBD0351_ED48.pdf
[11] Coronado, V. and Pablo, P. (2014) Optimization of the Haulage Cycle Model for
Open Pit Mining Using a Discrete-Event Simulator and Context-Based Alert Sys-
tem. Master Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
[12] Rahimel, M.J., Mirzaei, M., Sattervand, J. and Hoseinie, S.H. (2017) Health Risk of
Whole Body Vibration in Mining Trucks during Various Operational Conditions.
Journal of Central South University, 24, 1808-1816.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-017-3589-3
[13] Manyele, S.V. (2017) Analysis of Waste-Rock Transportation Process Performance
in an Open-Pit Mine Based on Statistical Analysis of Cycle Times Data. Engineer-
ing, 9, 649-679. https://doi.org/10.4236/eng.2017.97040
[14] Krause, A.J. (2006) Shovel-Truck Cycle Simulation Methods in Surface Mining.
Master Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 708 International Journal of Geosciences

 B. Enkhchuluun et al.

[15] Chatterjee, S. and Hadi, A.S. (2006) Regression Analysis by Example 4th Edition.
Study Book.
[16] Chanda, E.K. and Gardiner, S. (2010) A Comparative Study of Truck Cycle Time
Prediction Methods in Open-Pit Mining. Engineering, Construction and Architec-
tural Management, 17, 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981011074556

DOI: 10.4236/ijg.2023.148037 709 International Journal of Geosciences