Sizing equipment for open pit mining – a review of critical parameters

Abstract

Over the past century, open pit mines have steadily increased their production rate. Larger equipment and new technologies make it possible to mine larger batches of materials in a shorter time. Low commodity prices have forced companies to decrease their unit cost, by using new technologies and improving productivity. In the late 20th century, with companies facing low commodity prices and competing with strong rivals globally, larger equipment with lower unit costs ensured survival. As a result, mine geometry and mining equipment have dramatically increased in size. To date, in terms of productivity, the mining industry continues to adhere to the 'bigger is better' mentality. There are indications that this strategy may not always be advantageous. This paper will discuss on-going research into understanding the effects of equipment size on surface mining. The research includes investigation of mine and mill construction and operating costs, mine productivity, mine design, and economic optimisation. It identifies the significant variables that need to be considered and suggests an approach to quantify their impact on the mine. The paper also proposes a new view to mine planning and equipment selection with respect to the sensitivity to equipment size factors.

Ways of increasing excavator fleet productivity in Russian coal open pits (Kuzbass case study)

“…Therefore, analysis of the Fig. 2 diagram shows that the excavator working productivity is in minor dependence on its bucket volume [10]. This conclusion is confirmed by analyzing another diagram (Fig.…”

Small Modular Infrastructure

“…Indeed, the size of the largest available haulers has increased by a factor 10 over the past 50 years. A general consequence of this trend is that smaller mines, which preclude the use of larger equipment, become less profitable, and hence mining operations tend to be more concentrated on large mines (Bartos 2007;Bozorgebrahimi et al 2003). It seems, however, that this trend has stagnated recently for several reasons.…”

A Practical Approach to Mine Equipment Sizing in Relation to Dig-Limit Optimization in Complex Orebodies: Multi-Rock Type, Multi-Process, and Multi-Metal Case

“…Sizes of selective mining unit (SMU) and clustering form the basis of the grade control model and the dig-limit geometry (Bozorgebrahimi et al 2003;Tabesh and Askari-Nasab 2013). SMUs have nothing to do with the size of the equipment, they are sized as a function of the geology and drill density of the deposit (Soltani-Mohammadi and Hezarkhani 2013).…”

“…Dilution is considered regarding the bench height; however, no analysis is carried out to define the impact of equipment size on the generation of dig-limits. Bozorgebrahimi et al (2003) generated this limits using a methodology such as best destination, reblocked the initial deposit into larger SMUs based upon the equipment used (Samanta et al 2002;Bozorgebrahimi et al 2005), and studied the parameters affecting equipment sizing extensively. These parameters are summarized in Figure 2.…”

“…Best practices as (Bozorgebrahimi et al 2003) taken into account, the desired productivity of the deposit and various parameters related to the maintenance and downtimes of the equipment by size. Dilution is considered regarding the bench height; however, no analysis is carried out to define the impact of equipment size on the generation of dig-limits.…”