See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308305875

DETERMINATION OF SHOVEL -TRUCK

PRODUCTIVITIES IN OPEN -PIT MINES

Conference Paper · November 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 698

1 author:

Hoang Nguyen
Hanoi University of Mining and Geology
5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hoang Nguyen on 19 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DETERMINATION OF SHOVEL - TRUCK
PRODUCTIVITIES IN OPEN - PIT MINES
NGUYEN Hoang1*, DOAN Trong Luat2, LE Thi Thu Hoa1,
DO Ngoc Hoan1, PHAM Van Viet1
1
Hanoi University of Mining and Geology, Hanoi, Vietnam
2
Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Quangninh, Vietnam
*
Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

Abstract: In the open-pit mines, in order to improve operations in two open pit mines and comparing
productivity, they used to large numbers of heavy their productivities.
equipment. Due to the huge investments involved, no 2. THE CORNERSTONE OF SELECTION
mine can afford to have invested then its equipment OF EQUIPMENT
inefficient work, increased the idle time of equipment.
Improved productivity can be achieved
Therefore, in during the selection process of equipment,
consideration must be given to the proper matching of through the mechanization of all levels of
equipment. By comparing truck and shovel productivities, productivity in open-pit mines. This requires must
it can be seen whether they match or not. The paper deals be selection of proper equipment (including
with the productivity analysis of different shovel-truck operational cost and adaptability directly affects
combination conducted for two open pit coal mines and cost of productivity). Selecting proper equipment
then will compare their productivities. depends on: the size of project, the nature of
material handled, the project size conditions, the
Key words: Equipment selection, Open pit mine,
Matching of equipment, Shovel - truck productivity. lead for unloading excavated material, the type of
equipment available on the market, and the
1. INTRODUCTION comparative price of equipment.
With the advent of larger machines capable of In open-pit mines, the primarily equipment
handling material at greater pace from deeper open pits, fleet used are shovel and truck, depending on the
open pit mining has become of greater importance nature of the rock, overburden and working
compared to underground methods. It also means the conditions. The size of the trucks will depend on
costs of capital is larger, the maintenance costs is higher, shovel size, and the idle time of shovel and
etc. bunching of truck at the shovel is to be avoided
Based on the correct choice of capital equipment, base on selection of equipment fleet.
probabilistic analysis of open pit haulage and loading In selection process of a truck fleet, need to
gives an optimal grade for haulage, and an economic
attention the following points:
upper and lower bound for the truck fleet size and the
1. The truck payload capacity should match
productivity rate of a single shovel operation at each
with capacity of shovel.
working site. The purpose of stochastic analysis of
2. The physical features of truck (ruggedness
loading and haulage is to minimize the sum of the loading
of construction, horse-power provided, grade
and haulage units cost at a given work site. This is
accomplished by: ability, etc.) should suit the job conditions.
1. Choosing the best shovel and truck types for the 3. It should have reasonably high availability
mine conditions. ratios.
2. Selecting the corresponding optimal grade for the 4. The unit’s price and operating costs should
given truck type. be the lowest.
3. Selecting the correct economic range of truck 5. The material characteristics (density, swell
fleet size, and productivity rate for the operating shovel at factor, size of fragmentation), as well as the
a given work site. climatic conditions (altitude and rainfall) should
The improvement of mine productivity, by be taken into consideration.
minimizing the idle time of equipment, creates the 6. The haul road characteristics (length,
necessity of analyzing complex problems associated with gradient, surface and type) should also be
the mining operations. The present study deals with the considered.
analysis of productivity field data for shovel-truck The suitability of an excavator to a hauling
unit is based on the following points:
 1. The minimum capacity of hauling unit should be 3.1. The mismatch of shovel-truck
approximately four times large than be bucket capacity. When the truck productivity just matches the
2. The maximum capacity of hauling unit depends shovel productivity, this is generally known as the
on the mine conditions (differs from mine to mine). In perfect match point and at this point match factor
general, it should not exceed 6-8 times the bucket is equal to 1. If fewer trucks are used, then there
capacity. will be an excess of loader capacity and the loader
An “efficient” mining operation is defined as: the will have unnecessarily high idle times. If more
moving of maximum amount of rock/overburden in trucks are used, then there will be an excess of
shortest period of time, at the lowest possible cost. A truck capacity, which will cause one or more
number of factors contribute to mining efficiency and trucks to be shut down. An unutilized
area related to the areas of machine activity (loading area, loader/hauler unit is due to what is called a
haul area, and dump area). mismatch.
In order to increase efficiency in the loading area, 3.2. The bunching of trucks
can be achieved by: proper equipment selection (loader- The irregular arrival of trucks at the loading
truck combination), and properly equipped loading point is known as bunching which causes
machines. For example, when loading material from a set reduction of the operating efficiency, and higher
stockpile, teeth mounted on the loader bucket can aid in idle time for the truck fleet. The greater the
penetration on the rock. Proper rock size will add to bunching, the greater is the loss in efficiency.
efficient operation of the loader. A smooth floor area will Some of the factors leading to bunching of hauling
help to prevent premature loader and tire failures. units includes: changes in the working conditions
When transport the materials, the proper spotting of (rain, poor visibility, etc.), hauling units not
a hauling unit before loading will aid in optimizing uniformly spaced, hauling units of using different
productivity processing. Proper matching of the loader to capacities, poor fragmentation or variations in the
the truck, with the loader having sufficient jump height ore characteristics resulting to increased loading
and reach is important. The reaching back of the bucket time, and clear the pit area time elements.
to full jumping position before loader starts positioning
should not be necessary. Bucket width-truck bed ratio 4. DETERMINING OF PRODUCTIVITY
should be correct to ensure a proper load distribution in INDEX
the truck. The productivity Index (P.I) has been
Improvements to the dumping area, should include successfully utilized by modem management as a
finishing the haul road as far as possible into the dump tool to indicate shift performance. It serves to
area, to minimize the haul units travelling areas of high control day-to-day and shift-to-shift operations in
rolling resistance. The jumping point should be so located open-pit mines. The ratio of actual productivity to
such that a minimum of maneuvering and waiting time is the potential productivity is termed as productivity
involved. index, and it is expressed through:
Actual Pr oduction
3. THE MATCH FACTORS OF EQUIPMENTS P. I  x 1000
Potential Pr oduction
Caterpillar’s computer field analysis of a number of
shovel-truck operations indicated that the primary cause
for inefficiency is the mismatching and bunching of 5. SOME OF CASE STUDIES IN OPEN-PIT
trucks at the loading points. From this analysis it is MINES
possible to predict the effect of mismatching and In the open-pit mines, the most of equipment
bunching. The term used in this theoretical prediction is to load and haul are excavator and truck, includes:
called “Match Factor” and it is defined as: EKG, KOMATSU, HD, CAT, VOLVO… etc. In
this paper, the authors were survey at the two
open-pit coal mines referred to in the text as Case
# loader x load cycle time
Match Factor  I and Case II. The particulars are as given below:
# haulersx haulercycle time
Case I: [2], [3]
The perfect match point from the theoretical stand Excavator: Type: Power Shovel
point is at 100 percent truck-shovel fleet efficiency, Capacity: 4.6 m3
which occurs when the match factor equals 1. This Truck: Type: HD785-3
requires the elimination of bottlenecks in the loading and Capacity: 50 tons
dumping areas, and on the haul roads. This can be Number: 5
achieved by the spacing of trucks at the beginning of each Haul distance: 1.04 Km
shift. It also requires that the trucks have the weight Grade: 1:16
appropriate to horsepower ratio to handle the haul road Overburden: soft rock and poorly fragmented
grades.
Case II: [2], [3] Table 3. Average Loading and Truck cycle time
Excavator: Type: Power Shovel
Shovel
Capacity: 4.6 m3 Truck
Truck: Type: CAT – 769D Shovel average
average
Capacity: 35 tons Case # cycle time loading
Number: 3 cycle time
(sec.) time
Haul distance: 0.6 Km (min.)
Grade: 1:18 (min.)
Overburden: hard rock, and poorly fragmented I 29.96 1.72 8.78

5.1. The cycle time of the shovel and truck in open-pit II 36.62 3.74 9.47
mines
Productivity is dependent both on the number of 5.2. Determining of the matching Shovel-Truck
trucks in use and the number to trips they make per shift.
The latter, it depends on time to complete one cycle of Productivity
operation consisting of loading time, hauling time, The potential truck productivity has been
dumping time, and time of back to the load point. This
cycle time also continually changes as the face advances, plotted against the number of truck as shown in
since both hauling and return times will increase. When Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 for case I and II respectively.
analysis productivity of shovel-truck fleet under a new set
of conditions, requires time studies to be completed in Sample calculations are given below for Case I:
order to find the time for each segment of cycle time. Payload x 60
This data is required for the shovel as well as the trucks Truck Pr oductivity  ( t / hr )
in each shift, so as to get representative data. This cycle Cycle Time (min .)
time is input data for subsequent calculations including:
matching truck productivity, effects of bunching, finding 45 x 60
mismatch, predicting future cycle times, as well as  (t / hr)  310t / hr
compare of productivities under different sets of 8.78
conditions.
Payload x 60
Table 1. Average cycle time of each segment for shovel Shovel Pr oductivity  ( t / hr )
Average Loading time (min .)
Case I Case II
(sec.) (sec.)
Bucket opening, 45d x 60
4.50 4.36  1570(t / hr)
unloading into truck 1.72
Finish unloading swing
9.38 10.53
and touch soil
Digging and Filling
7.67 11.65
bucket
Swing and take
8.39 10.06
position to unload
Total cycle time 29.96 36.62
= 0.49 min = 0.61 min

Table 2. Average cycle time of each segment for truck

Case I Case II
(sec.) (sec.)
Reverser and take
18.17 22.19
position
Wait for loading 103.20 224.28
Clear pit area 35.21 28.23
Load journey 137.61 113.94
Unloading 76.82 57.14
Empty journey 155.46 122.61
Fig. 1. Potential productivity rate, for Case I
Total cycle time 527.05 568.42
= 8.78 min = 9.47 min
 Case II
It is observed that 14 trips are made by 3
trucks with the total productivity by these 3 trucks
in an hour are:
= 14 x 33 = 462 t/hr.
So the actual productivity per truck in an
hour is:
= 462/3 = 154 t/hr.

6.1. The method to find a mismatch of

equipment
The calculations made to get the match factor
for trucks are given below for Case I:
Trucks (5 in number) = 50 tons capacity
Fig. 2. Potential productivity rate, for Case II The loading time = 1.72 min.
Average truck cycle time = 8.784 min.
From the figures, can be made the derivations
Payload = 45 tons.
following:
Shovel productivity = 30 trips of truck
1. The potential truck productivity exceeds the
shovel productivity when more than 5 trucks are used in
Case I and more than 2.5 trucks in Case II. AverageTruck Cycle time
Match Number 
2. The productivity of 5 trucks and 2.5 trucks in AverageShovel Load time
Case I and Case II respectively, just matches the shovel
8.78
productivity.   5.11
3. If fewer trucks are used there will be an excess of
1.72
shovel capacity as represented by the shaded area to the
left of the match point. Number of Trucks
Match Factor 
4. If there are more trucks than required for a perfect Match Number
match there is an excess of truck capacity which is
5
represented by the shaded area to the right of the perfect   50.979
match point. 5.1069
The potential truck productivity will increase, but it
cannot exceed the potential shovel productivity. This loss Similar calculations for Case II, but the
of productivity is due to mismatch. If more trucks are number of trucks are different Case I.
used and the shovel potential could not be attained, it
would mean that addition loss of productivity is due to
the bunching of trucks.

6. EFFECTS OF BUNCHING
The shovel and truck potential curves are as shown
in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, but the predicted actual curve is
drawn as shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for Case I and Case
II respectively. The relevant calculations are shown by
equations below. The difference between the potential
productivity of the fleet and the predicted productivity as
represented by the shaded area is the losses due to the
bunching of trucks.

Case I
It is observed that 20 trips are made by 5 trucks with
the total productivity by these 5 trucks in an hour are:
= 30 x 34 = 1350 t/hr.
So the actual productivity per truck in an hour is:
= 1350/5 = 270 t/hr. Fig. 3. Predicted actual curve, for Case I
 efficiency of the combined system, for case I and
case II respectively.

Fig. 4. Predicted actual curve, for Case II Fig. 5. Effect of mismatch, for Case I

From the fig. 3 and fig.4, the match factor 0.979 is

match factor for 9 trucks in Case I. Similarly match factor
for different number of truck can be calculated and is
given in Tables 4 and 5. Tables 4 and 5 show the match
factors for different numbers of trucks, for case I and case
II respectively.

Table 4. Match factors for Case I

Number
Match factor % Efficiency
of trucks
1 0.196 19.58 Fig. 6. Effect of mismatch, for Case II
2 0.392 39.16
3 0.587 58.74 From the figures, it is clear that percent
4 0.783 78.32 efficiency of the system equals 100%, when the
5 0.979 97.90 match factor equals 1 and called the perfect match.
6 1.174 82.52 Anything greater or less than 1.0 is an indication
7 1.371 62.94 of mismatch. From Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, when the
8 1.566 43.36 match factor is less than 1.0, there is an excess of
loader capacity indicating 100% efficiency of
Table 5. Match factors for Case II hauler and reduced efficiency of loader. On the
Number other hand, with a match factor of greater than 1.0,
Match factor % Efficiency
of trucks the loader efficiency is 100% while the hauler
1 0.394 39.43 efficiency drops off.
2 0.789 78.80 6.2. Prediction of future cycle time
3 1.183 81.70 Assuming that all segments of a truck cycle
4 1.577 42.30 time remain the same, except loaded and empty
5 1.972 2.85 travel times, we can predict the future cycle times
for trucks in the new operating conditions.
Supposing face advances is ‘y’ meters/month
From the calculated values it is known that the
hence the new haul distance will be the old
productivity of the truck fleet can be varied by changing distance, ‘x’ + the new distance, ‘y’ meters.
the number of trucks and using the above mentioned Generally, trucks operate at 20 km/hr., therefore
the haul and return times can be calculated and
match factor. In this manner, the efficiency of various
necessary corrections can be made, based on the
combinations can be predicted. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show the above calculation and the practical average cycle
graph performed the match factor versus percent time.
 6.3. Comparative study of productivity in Case I and 7. CONCLUSIONS
II This study leads us to the conclusion that the
Case I consists of soft, well fragmented rock and
productivity and efficiency of a shovel and truck
case II consists of hard, poorly fragmented rock. A
comparative study of productivities for case I and II is combination can be achieved by the proper
shown in Fig. 7. allocation and matching of trucks to a given
Case I: 5 – 50 tons capacity trucks shovel. This will also reduce losses in the potential
1 – 4.6 m3 electric shovel productivity. The efficiency of the same shovel-
Case II: 3 – 35 tons capacity trucks
truck system can also be affected by variations
1 – 4.6 m3 electric shovel
material properties of the overburden of the mine.
Though the comparison is inconclusive because of A random increase in the number of trucks, in
differences in the characteristics of the overburden, it hopes of increasing the productivity may result in
certainly reflects how poorly a combination can work in loss in productivity. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 indicate the
two different types of materials. It is thus very important
number of trucks that can be added or removed
to select proper equipment, so that the utilization of
equipment is at a maximum and efficiency is optimized. from the fleet to improve productivity, minimize
idle time of equipment in open-pit mines.

REFERENCES
[1] D.K. Shama & L.Ekka, 1989. Shovel-truck
productivity in open-pit copper mines, Off-
Highway Haulage in Surface Mines, Freiberg,
Germany.
[2] Caterpillar Performance Handbook.
[3] Komatsu Performance Handbook.

Fig. 7. Comparison of productivity curves

View publication stats