365
Figure 2. (a) flow rate going into process plant ‘A’ after re-running Flow Planner at 13:00; (b)–(c) flow
rates from blocks to their associated dumps after the re-run.
Table 1. A comparison between the technique developed by White and Olson (1986) and Flow Planner.
Instance
Number of
runs needed
by LP
Number of
runs needed
by flow planner
Total target
achievement
by LP
Total target
achievement
by flow planner
1
11
1
61.8%
93.4%
2
12
1
58.3%
96.5%
3
9
1
73.6%
98.4%
4
16
1
51.6%
93.7%
5
7
1
68.2%
95.9%
Mean
…
…
62.70%
95.58%
by the LP. The third column indicates that Flow Planner simply needs to be run only once to
provide a plan for the shift. Having to run the LP several times and manually updating the state
of the mine across the shift is not the only disadvantage of the old LP; not considering the
upcoming events can result in a plan that is far from optimality. The fourth and fifth columns
crusher A flow rate
Time
(a)
~---- ---------,
!
j
l
j----j
!
!
Excavator
~ ·- r - - - - - ------=====n
i 2
£ 0 011:00:oo o7,oo:OO oe:oo:oo e&:oo:oo 1o:oo:oo n :oo:ao 12:00:00 uoao:oo 1•:oo:oo 15:oo:oo 16:oo:oo n :oa:oo 11.:oo:oo
LJump•cru"""'"·
Tot~i Pi ~ nned •O. OO~T
-
D,
::.',;'~"~~c':i;~io~OJ .. - 5.oo«T/h,
Mimmym Oump R• te CQnotr .. inl (k T/t>~
--· M&~ imum Du mp R&te Con.,r&rnt(kT/h)
Tote ~ acrossa !l d umi)Sand tiiOCH:
E>
r a rgH• $O.OOkT.
Pl'o)e<:ted• l&.OOkT
~~:~~-'l.~~~~tor R.ato Constrarnt(Hih)
lll<><:k•Bl,
Dump-crusr.erA,
-
~~~i!~~;~-4,;pkr.
Pl'ojected• O.OOkT
Haui CycleTim e•4 1.93mins
- -
BockOigPeriO ~
r-:==========:::-,·-~
(j
mm nnmmr
lllock•B2,
Oump•stockpilel,
_ i~;;~!~~;~~kT.
Pl'ojectiKI•IB.OOkT
Haui CycleTime•41.93mlns
- -
&loclr: DigPerlor:I I0<&2
~-------------------------------------------LL-N~~~
(b)
Excavator
I
"
1 1 I I
I
r r-r t
(c)
Total acroualldumpsandblocl
rarg•t .. 40.00kT,
Pl'ojact
Block• Ell.
Oump•stockplle2
- ~~;;!~~o~~rr.
~iG Ct
BlockDigPeriodforBJ
BIOCk•BS,
Oump•crusherc.
E>
l'l'ojectRd•ll .2SkT
Hi>u1Cycl eTlme •41.93mins
•••BiockDigl'eriodforBS
Figure 2. (a) flow rate going into process plant ‘A’ after re-running Flow Planner at 13:00; (b)–(c) flow
rates from blocks to their associated dumps after the re-run.
Table 1. A comparison between the technique developed by White and Olson (1986) and Flow Planner.
Instance
Number of
runs needed
by LP
Number of
runs needed
by flow planner
Total target
achievement
by LP
Total target
achievement
by flow planner
1
11
1
61.8%
93.4%
2
12
1
58.3%
96.5%
3
9
1
73.6%
98.4%
4
16
1
51.6%
93.7%
5
7
1
68.2%
95.9%
Mean
…
…
62.70%
95.58%
by the LP. The third column indicates that Flow Planner simply needs to be run only once to
provide a plan for the shift. Having to run the LP several times and manually updating the state
of the mine across the shift is not the only disadvantage of the old LP; not considering the
upcoming events can result in a plan that is far from optimality. The fourth and fifth columns
crusher A flow rate
Time
(a)
~---- ---------,
!
j
l
j----j
!
!
Excavator
~ ·- r - - - - - ------=====n
i 2
£ 0 011:00:oo o7,oo:OO oe:oo:oo e&:oo:oo 1o:oo:oo n :oo:ao 12:00:00 uoao:oo 1•:oo:oo 15:oo:oo 16:oo:oo n :oa:oo 11.:oo:oo
LJump•cru"""'"·
Tot~i Pi ~ nned •O. OO~T
-
D
::.',;'~"~~c':i;~io~OJ .. - 5.oo«T/h,
Mimmym Oump R• te CQnotr .. inl (k T/t>~
--· M&~ imum Du mp R&te Con.,r&rnt(kT/h)
Tote ~ acrossa !l d umi)Sand tiiOCH:
E>
r a rgH• $O.OOkT.
Pl'o)e<:ted• l&.OOkT
~~:~~-'l.~~~~tor R.ato Constrarnt(Hih)
lll<><:k•Bl,
Dump-crusr.erA,
-
~~~i!~~;~-4,;pkr.
Pl'ojected• O.OOkT
Haui CycleTim e•4 1.93mins
- -
BockOigPeriO ~
r-:==========:::-,·-~
(j
mm nnmmr
lllock•B2,
Oump•stockpilel,
_ i~;;~!~~;~~kT.
Pl'ojectiKI•IB.OOkT
Haui CycleTime•41.93mlns
- -
&loclr: DigPerlor:I I0<&2
~-------------------------------------------LL-N~~~
(b)
Excavator
I
"
1 1 I I
I
r r-r t
(c)
Total acroualldumpsandblocl
rarg•t .. 40.00kT,
Pl'ojact
Block• Ell.
Oump•stockplle2
- ~~;;!~~o~~rr.
~iG Ct
BlockDigPeriodforBJ
BIOCk•BS,
Oump•crusherc.
E>
l'l'ojectRd•ll .2SkT
Hi>u1Cycl eTlme •41.93mins
•••BiockDigl'eriodforBS