Discrete-event simulation of mine equipment systems combined with a reliability assessment model based on genetic algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The combination of simulation with the maintenance analysis of mining equipment has been proven to be an effective tool to assess the impact of equipment failures on mining equipment. Genetic algorithms have been applied to multiple areas of mine design, mostly involving optimization solutions. With regard to maintenance analysis, past research in mining focused on the design of a genetic algorithm based modelling technique that is applied to the failure data of equipment to assess the reliability of a machine under study. The objective of this research is to develop, integrate and demonstrate that a methodology involving the combination of a reliability assessment model based on genetic algorithms with a discrete-event simulation model can be an effective tool for maintenance analysis of mining equipment. The reliability assessment model based on genetic algorithms provides input in the form of times between failures (TBFs) to a discrete-event simulation model. The simulation component emulates a typical mine development cycle to analyse the effect of load-haul-dump (LHD) equipment failures on production throughput, mechanical availability and equipment utilization. Furthermore, two equivalent simulation models, built in AutoMod and Simul8, are compared to evaluate the merits of employing one simulation software package over the other. This final component of the research offers the opportunity to assess two different simulation tools for the same mining problem. Keywords: ReliabilitySimulationMining equipmentGenetic algorithms
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it