Xecutive Ummary: Surface Mining System 432/532

21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to investigate and analysis mining processes and their key
drivers, and infrastructure and equipment requirements. A dimensioned diagram showing the
overall layout of the stages of the pit has been designed. Two hauling systems have been
evaluated in this report, the option 1 is the electric shovel and trucks hauling system, and
option 2 is the backhoe hydraulic excavator and trucks hauling system. This report
demonstrates a detailed description of the proposed material handling systems for the mine
together with a detailed equipment selection, labour and equipment schedules. For option 1
7945HD electrical shovel has been chosen, and the truck 793F and HD1500-7 have been
chosen as the hauling trucks to haul ore and waste respectively, and for option 2, the PC4000-
6 and 793D have been chosen as the excavator and the hauling trucks. Core risk identification
and mitigation have been researched related only to the system being considered, and it is not
a generic risk assessment, the risk assignment in this report are considering economic,
environmental, and social and OHS considerations. On completion of the project, we have
estimated of overall capital and operating cash costs and unit cost (A$/t) for materials
handing in ore and waste. The cost estimates have provided details of how they have been
derived, including referencing sources. According to the result of the estimation, even though
option 1 cost more in maintenance cost and capital cost, the overall cost of option 1 is less
than option 2. Option 2 requires more money on fuel consumption. Regarding to OHS and
the technical aspects, both of the options have their own advantages and disadvantages;
therefore, basing on the mining design, the requirements of productivity and feasibility and
efficiency requirement of the excavators, the final decision for this mine is option 1. This
report has also identified and evaluates core risks and sensitivities associated with each truck
or excavators combinations adopted to ameliorate the major risks. As a result, a realistic ore
and waste removal schedule in order to carry out a safe and efficient truck and shovel
operation for the mine has been given and recommend at end of the report.
SURFACE MINING SYSTEM 432/532 | Metal Project Final report

21
TABLE OF CONTENT
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................1
Table of content........................................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................4
List of Figures..........................................................................................................................................................5
Introduction and Assumptions.................................................................................................................................6
Assumptions:....................................................................................................................................................6
Mining System Design.............................................................................................................................................8
Pit design..........................................................................................................................................................8
Benches and pit slopes.............................................................................................................................8
Haul Road, waste dump and infrastructure designs.................................................................................9
Haul Road Profile and Development...............................................................................................9
Estimation of ramp length to waste dump..............................................................................10
Estimation of hill dimension..................................................................................................10
Estimation of total ramp lengths in year 1(on the side hill) and in year 20(in the pit)..........10
Schedule of ore and waste..............................................................................................................................12
Equipment Selection..............................................................................................................................................13
Electric shovels vs. Backhoe hydraulic Excavators.......................................................................................13
haul trucks..............................................................................................................................................15
Initial selection of equipment.................................................................................................................15
Fleet selection.................................................................................................................................................15
Selection of Option1 for Waste Rock....................................................................................................16
Estimation of material weight per bucket......................................................................................16
Equation 1..............................................................................................................................16
Estimation of Num. of passes to load a haul truck.........................................................................18
Equation 2..............................................................................................................................18
Selection of Option1 for Iron Ore..........................................................................................................20
Fleet size.........................................................................................................................................................21

21
Estimation of fleet size...........................................................................................................................22
Fleet production requirement.........................................................................................................................23
Replacement and supplementary equipment..................................................................................................24
Cost estimation.......................................................................................................................................................25
Assumptions...................................................................................................................................................25
Operating cost................................................................................................................................................26
Fuel.........................................................................................................................................................26
Other operating costs............................................................................................................................28
Capital cost.....................................................................................................................................................29
Cost summary.................................................................................................................................................31
Risk Assessment Risk Assignments:.....................................................................................................................33
Technical factors exert the greatest influence on both systems for the pit:...................................................33
Ultra-large electric shovels....................................................................................................................33
Back-hoe hydraulic excavators with trucks...........................................................................................34
Hydraulic oil tank...................................................................................................................................34
Hydraulic pump......................................................................................................................................34
Oil filter..................................................................................................................................................35
Relief valve............................................................................................................................................35
High pressure lines.................................................................................................................................35
Environmental factors impact the systems:....................................................................................................36
OHS issues arise from each system and mitigating factors:..........................................................................36
Risks foresee with each system and mitigating factors:.................................................................................37
Economic Risks:.............................................................................................................................................37
Conclusion and Recommendations........................................................................................................................38
Reference................................................................................................................................................................40
Appendices.............................................................................................................................................................41
Appendix 1:....................................................................................................................................................41
Selection of Option2 for Waste..............................................................................................................41
Selection of Option2 for Ore..................................................................................................................42

21
Appendix 2:....................................................................................................................................................43
Appendix 3:....................................................................................................................................................52
Appendix 4:....................................................................................................................................................54
LIST OF TABLESY
Table 1Haul distance to plant in year 1, 3, 5, 10, 20......................................................................................11
Table 2Haul distance to dump in year 1, 3, 5, 10, 20.....................................................................................11
Table 3Summary OF pit design specifications..............................................................................................12
Table 5Comparison of open pit loading equipment (Introductory mining engineering, P143).....................13
Table 6Evaluation of Shovels –CAT 7495....................................................................................................16
Table 7Typical bucket fill factors for an electric shovel (Introductory mining engineering, P260).............17
Table 8Evaluation of Shovels—CAT 7495 HD.............................................................................................17
Table 9 Cycle times under different digging conditions and bucket sizes for a shovel (Introductory mining
Engineering, P259).................................................................................................................................17
Table 10Num. of Passes when matching Shovel CAT 7495HD with Truck CAT 797F...............................18
Table 11No of Passes when matching Shovel CAT 7495HD with Truck CAT 793F...................................19
Table 12 Based on table 3 and the selected equipment, designing parameters of pit are summarised..........19
Table 13Truck parameters used in spread-sheet............................................................................................20
Table 14Ratios of capacity (struck) over ore volume based on different models..........................................20
Table 15Num. of Passes for ore when matching Shovel CAT 7495HD with Truck HD1500-7...................21
Table 16Truck parameters used in spread-sheet............................................................................................21
Table 17ancilliary equipment exclusive to electric reticulation....................................................................25
Table 1 Fuel Consumption Cost.....................................................................................................................27
Table 2 Total operating cost over the 20 years for option 1 and option2......................................................28
Table 3 Capital cost for option 1....................................................................................................................29
Table 4 Capital cost for option 2....................................................................................................................30
Table 5 Cost summary for option 1...............................................................................................................31
Table 6 Cost summary for option 2................................................................................................................32
Table 7 Production Cost for both option1 and 2............................................................................................32
Table 25Selection of Excavator—Komatsu PC4000.....................................................................................41

21
Table 26 No of Passes for waste when matching Backhoe Komatsu PC4000 with Truck CAT 793D.........41
Table 27 Main Parameters of CAT 793D......................................................................................................42
Table 28 Komatsu PC4000-modified model..................................................................................................42
Table 29 Num. of passes to laod cat 793D for ore.........................................................................................42
Table 30Truck parameters used in spreadsheet.............................................................................................42
Table 31Cycle times for two options.............................................................................................................43
Table 32 optuion 1 compare with option 2....................................................................................................43
Table 33 option 1 793 F for waste.................................................................................................................44
Table 34 Option1 HD1500-7 ore...................................................................................................................45
Table 35 Option2 793D Waste.......................................................................................................................46
Table 36 Option2 793D Ore...........................................................................................................................47
Table 37 pit distance......................................................................................................................................48
Table 38 Haul distance to plant in year 1, 3, 5, 10, 20...................................................................................49
Table 39 Haul distance to dump in year 1, 3, 5, 10, 20..................................................................................49
Table 40 Production List................................................................................................................................49
Table 41 Pit design parameter........................................................................................................................50
Table 42 Cost comparation of different equipment.......................................................................................52
Table 43Risk Assessment Matrix...................................................................................................................54
Table 44The risk assignment of Ultra-large electric shovels with suitable trucks........................................54
List of Figure
Figure 1Haul ROAD, WASTE dump and infrastructure design......................................................................9
Figure 2target production for ore and waste over 20 years............................................................................13
Figure 3Typical loading modes of an electric shovel (left) and a backhoe excavator (Right)......................16
Figure 4 fleet size variations unit requirement in 20 years............................................................................24
Figure 5 loading unit requirement in 20 years...............................................................................................24
Figure 6 Fuel price (Terminal Gate Prices)....................................................................................................27
Figure 7 Ramp travel distance changes in the 20 years to surface.................................................................29

21
INTRODUCTION AND ASSUMPTIONS

This project is a surface mining systems meal design, which is mainly in comparison with
two differing haulage fleets for an iron ore mine site during its long term operating plan that
is over 50 years. Since mining business is to pursue maximum profit at the lowest possible
cost, which leads to engineers have to confirm clear-cut objectives. To provide an optimum
haulage fleet for this mine, many factors should be taken into consideration, including
technical fit, environmental, social and OHS consideration, labour, capital and operating cost.
Based on this project, this mine has high grade iron ore, which located in 400kms east of Port
Hedland, also called Mt Wombat. In terms of this deposit, which above the surrounding area
around 40 meters, while continues under the natural surface in the depth exceeding 150
meters as well.
Sales of iron ore is determined as 20 Mtpa in a two-year period from now then increase in 30
Mtpa in year 3 continuing five years currently. Furthermore, the strip ratio is 2 to 1 by weight
in the first nine years, then chanced to 3 to 1 by weight as well in year ten after mine go
beneath the natural surface. In addition, waste dumps surround the pit area remains constant
in 20 years with other information, which are flat hauls along natural surface of 1.7 kms,
dump height of 30 m and along dump top surface is 0.7 kms. To meet the optimal fleet, many
elements will be considered, such as technical fit, environmental, social and OHS
considerations, labor, capital and operating costs. Additionally, all group members share
workload and have group meeting and discussions weekly to finish this project on time.
Pilbara region is the home to iron ore in WA. In 2012 iron ore was the State’s highest valued
sector, accounting for $51 billion (or 70 per cent) of total mineral sales. The iron ore deposit
known as Mt Wombat lies in Pilbara 400km east of Port Hedland and has a diameter of
3300m (approximate estimation about hill foundation diameter is attached in Appendix A). It
stands 40m above the surrounding flat plain and continues to a depth of more than 150m.
Open cut operation is started at the top of the hill and progressively mined downwards. Two
fleet options are explored, i.e. Option 1—ultra large electric shovels with large trucks; Option
2—backhoe hydraulic excavators with 200t capacity trucks. In this project, Terms Mountain
and hill are interchangeable
ASSUMPTIONS:

21
1. Assume terms mountain and hill are interchangeable

2. Assume the hill has a circular foundation.
3. Assume the total length of the level parts of the haul road is assumed to be constant for 20
years and equal to the length of the radius i.e. 1650 m
4. Assume the shape of the deposit is circular and the mined area in year 10 forms a cylinder
with a height of 4m.
5. Assume the hill is depleted at a uniform annual rate
6. Assume the ramp length is proportional to the hill height
7. Assume that it should take three to five passes to load a haul truck. However, with
different excavators and shovels, the range can be from three to seven (Kennedy 1990).
Where hydraulic backhoes are used, the number of passes is generally somewhat higher
(Introductory mining engineering, P262). Additionally, assume that the boundary between
waste rock and iron ore is well defined such that drilling and blasting of each is done
separately. The dilution is negligible. After drilling and blasting, loading and hauling of
waste and iron ore are done separately. Assume deswelling is 90% for waste rock and
iron ore after being loaded into haul trucks.
8. Assume the volumetric capacity is usually provided as a range and two options exist, i.e.
struck and heaped (SAE 2:1). In this project, the minimum value of struck capacity is
used.
9. Assume that in all cases, queue and spotting time is 2.0min, spotting time at shovel is
0.2min, dumping time is 1.0min, carry back is 3%, nominal capacity is 100%, moisture is
4%, productive hours/year is 6570hr, effective minutes/hour is 50min, 3 shifts/day,
8hr/shift.
10. Assume the electric shovel has a service life of 20 years; the hydraulic back-hoe has a life
of 10 years.
11. The hauling distance from the pit to dump which includes the level, the up and down
ramp would be as same as the calculation, and the traveling speed of the truck follows
ideally with the calculation.
12. Life for a truck is 10 years, life for a truck tire is 7000 hours, for an electric shovel is 20
years, for a hydraulic back-hoe is 8 years.
13. Assume there are enough stuffs and they are 100% available.
14. Assume the tax and royalty cost is negligible. Fixed cost, which including Depreciation,

21
interest, on investment taxes, and storage, and insurance are negligible.

15. Inflation rate: 3%
MINING SYSTEM DESIGN
PIT DESIGN
BENCHES AND PIT SLOPES
In this project the two massive iron ore bodies are dipping to the west 40° to the horizontal.
Therefore benches in the east are left inactive to maintain slope stability, in which case slope
angle can be larger. Benches except inactive ones are under progressive development with a
less steep slope. The overall slope should be set as steep as possible to reduce the waste
removal amount while not compromising production, safety or future plan. Given the general
data on rock strength, discontinuities, water presence, etc. the overall slope angle of inactive
benches is 67°; that of working benches is 54°.
Bench height, depending on the physical characteristics of deposits, selectivity requirement in

separating the ore and waste, production rate, sizes and models of equipment and climatic
conditions is set as high as possible within the reach of machinery. 15 meter high benches are
constructed for an electric shovel. Such benches also can be developed in two lifts if a
hydraulic backhoe excavator is used as the loading unit. Safety berms are built along crests of
benches with a height of 66% of the wheel height of the largest truck and a width of 4m for
health and safety reasons.
Working benches should be wide enough to accommodate the turning radius of the largest
haul truck plus the width of the safety berm, ranging from 30 m to several hundred meters
(SME Mining handbook, P858).

21
HAUL ROAD, WASTE DUMP AND INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNS
FIGURE 1HAUL ROAD, WASTE DUMP AND INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNS
Haul road length should be minimized with an average ramp grade of 10% for conventional
rear dump trucks. On two way straights and in two way bends haul roads with width 3-3.5
and 3.5-4 times the largest width of haul trucks are considered to provide space required for
the truck to make a 180° turn without backing. Conventional safety berms are left in place
along bench crests with a dimension mentioned above. Road surface is sloped 2% to sides to
allow for drainage. With the consideration of the convenience, two exits to waste dump have
been designed in this pit as the graph above shows. Ditches are recommended to facilitate
that purpose. Haul truck speed at corners should be limited to 15 km/h otherwise corners are
superelevated. Haul road profiles especially haul road length are discussed in the next
section.
H AUL R OAD P ROFILE AND D EVELOPMENT

Haul road profiles remain constant once the haul truck is off the mountain or out the pit. The
ore is hauled 2500 m along natural surface to a processing plant to the east of Mt Wombat.
The waste haul road consists of a flat haul along natural surface of 1700 m, a ramp
21
connecting waste dump of 301m and a flat haul along dump top surface of 700m. Two haul
roads are planned for waste haulage. Depending on the loading and hauling locations, trucks
can choose the closer haul road. One haul road is proposed for ore haulage straight to the
processing plant in the east.
E STIMATION OF RAMP LENGTH TO WASTE DUMP

Assume the ramp to the waste dump has a grade of 10%.
Height of dump 30
As the Figure shows, grade = => a= = 300m.
a 0.1
Using Pythagorean's theorem, l = √ 3002 +302=301 m
Haul road profiles on the hill and in the pit constantly change as the mining activity
progresses. To help estimate these distances, assume the hill has a circular foundation. A
radius of 1650 m is found.
E STIMATION OF HILL DIMENSION

Assume the shape of the deposit is circular and the mined area in year 10 forms a cylinder
with a height of 4m. Based on insitu densities of waste and iron ore, the density of the
“cylinder” is assumed to be 3.5 t/m^3. According to in year 10 a total of 120 Mt of material is
mined, the following equation is used to determine the radius of the “cylinder”:
Weight of the cylinder = bottom area *height*density
120∗106=π∗r 2∗4∗3.5=¿ r =1650 m
Hence the hill foundation has a radius of 1650 m.
E STIMATION OF TOTAL RAMP LENGTHS IN YEAR 1( ON THE SIDE HILL ) AND IN YEAR 20( IN THE
PIT )
Assume a ramp grade of 10% is adopted throughout the life of mine. As the initial height of
the hill is 40 m, using Pythagorean's theorem, total ramp length l:
l = √ 402 + a2=√ 402 + 4002=402m
So a 402 m long ramp is required in year 1 to reach the hill top. In year 20, the ultimate pit
depth is 40 m (Figure cross-section of ramp in year20). Using Pythagorean's theorem, total
ramp length s: s = √ 402 + a2=√ 402 + 4002=402m
So a 402 m long ramp is required in year 20 to reach the pit bottom.

21
For hill haul road in year 1, a 402 m long ramp is required to reach the hill top assuming a
ramp grade of 10% is used throughout the life of mine. Having compared the ramp length and
the radius, it is observed that a significant amount of level road segments or interim benches
on side hill are required to interconnect ramp segments. Because the height of the hill is
insignificant compared to the large size of the hill foundation, the total length of the level
parts of the haul road is assumed to be constant for 20 years and equal to the length of the
radius i.e. 1650 m. Therefore in year 1, length of haul road on side hill is approximated as the
sum of length of ramps and length of levels interconnecting ramps i.e. 402 + 1650 = 2052 m.
Assume the hill is depleted at a uniform annual rate i.e. for mountain mining, annual
height 40 40
shortening = = = 4.44m; for open pit mining, annual shortening = = 4m.
years 9 10
Besides, assume the ramp length is proportional to the hill height:
height ∈ year n
Haul road length∈ year n= ∗402+ 1650
40
TABLE 1HAUL DISTANCE TO PLANT IN YEAR 1, 3, 5, 10, 20
Year 1 3 5 10 20
Mountain/Pit Mountain Mountain Mountain Pit Pit
Haul distance on Up ramp 0 402
hill/in pit Down ramp 402 313 223
Level 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650
Haul distance to plant 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
Total 4552 4463 4373 4150 4552
TABLE 2HAUL DISTANCE TO DUMP IN YEAR 1, 3, 5, 10, 20
Year 1 3 5 10 20
Haul distance on Up ramp 0 402
hill/in pit Down ramp 402 313 223
Level 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650
Haul distance to Up ramp 301 301 301 301 301
dump Level 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400
Total 4753 4664 4574 4351 4753
In this project, waste dumps surround the pit area. For 20 years out of pit haulage profiles
remain relatively constant. The travelling distance to dump is calculated by adding up each
travel segment: the distance on the side hill—depending on hill height or the distance on the
21
pit side—depending on pit depth, the distance of flat hauls on natural surface of 1700m, the
slope of the waste dump of 301m, the dump top surface of 700m and the radius of 1650 m
accounting for level road distance on the mountain or in the pit.
The ore once out of pit is hauled 2500m along natural surface to a processing plant. The
travelling distance to the processing plant is calculated by adding up three travel segments:
the distance on the side hill—depending on hill height or the distance on the pit side—
depending on pit depth, a 2500m long haul along natural surface, and the radius of 1650 m
accounting for level road distance on the mountain or in the pit.
During the development of Mt Wombat, topsoil is stockpiled for the reclamation of the mined
area. The site must ensure convenient disposal and retrieval but must not interfere with
production or related auxiliary operations.
Pit design specifications are summarised in Table 3 for later reference once specific
equipment models are known.
TABLE 3SUMMARY OF PIT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Overall slope angle Inactive benches 67°

Working benches 54°
Bench Height 15m
Width Depending on specific working conditions, ranging from 30m to
several hundred meters
Safety berm Height 66% of the largest wheel height
Width 4m
Haul road (two Ramp grade 10%
lanes) Width on straight 3-3.5 times the largest truck width
Width in bends 3.5-4 times the largest truck width
SCHEDULE OF ORE AND WASTE

Based on the stripping ratio and sale schedule, the target annual ore and waste production can
be calculated in Figure 2target production for ore and waste over 20 years. It is worth
mentioning, because the mining area is very vast, different locations of loading and hauling
points exist, from where some trucks can experience longer trip than others. Hence as
mentioned above, length of haul road from any loading and hauling point is estimated as the
sum of ramp length in a specific year and the radius of 1650m.
21
120000000
100000000
80000000
60000000 Waste (Tonnes)

Ore (Tonnes)
40000000
20000000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
FIGURE 2TARGET PRODUCTION FOR ORE AND WASTE OVER 20 YEARS
EQUIPMENT SELECTION
ELECTRIC SHOVELS VS. BACKHOE HYDRAULIC EXCAVATORS
TABLE 4COMPARISON OF OPEN PIT LOADING EQUIPMENT (INTRODUCTORY MINING ENGINEERING, P143)
Machine Advantages Disadvantages

Electric shovel 1. Proven in hard, dense rock. 1. Lack of mobility.
2. Low operating cost. 2. High capital cost.
3. Less sensitive to poor 3. Poor clean-up
maintenance. capability.
4. Operator fatigue not a serious 4. Will not travel on
problem. steep grades.
5. Low ground pressures. 5. Affected by
6. Long lifetime. obsolescence.
Hydraulic 1. Excellent breakout threat. 1. Relatively short

excavator 2. Can mine selectively. lifetime.
3. High fill factor. 2. Relatively high
4. Good clean-up capability. maintenance.
5. Good load placement. 3. High initial cost.
6. Short assembly time.
Front-end loader 1. Excellent mobility. 1. Unsuitable for hard,
2. Very versatile. dense rocks.
3. Lower capital cost. 2. High tire and
4. Can operate on moderate operating costs.
grades. 3. Digging area must be
kept clean.
4. High operator fatigue.
5. Short lifetime.
21
Table 5 shows the relative advantages and disadvantages of common loading units. Both
electric shovels and hydraulic excavators serving in mining industry are track mounted thus
generate low ground pressure. Although the shovel has a much larger size compared to the
hydraulic excavator, the working life is shorter as it is less sensitive to poor maintenance.
Due to distinct electric configuration of the electric shovel, specialized technicians are
required. Consequently operations deploying shovels require high capital costs and low
operating costs (dependent on costs for electricity). The small size of the hydraulic excavator
certainly brings advantages such as better mobility, ability to mine selectively and short cycle
time. The front–end loader is usually proposed as a buck-up loading unit when the primary
one experiences unexpected downtime.
In the case of loading using an electric shovel, a typical operating cycle consists of a digging
cut, a loaded swing to the truck, and empty return swing to the digging face. The larger the
swing angle, the longer the cycle time. A similar operating cycle exists for backhoe excavator
including a cutting pass through the bank, a loaded swing to the truck, and empty swing back
to the digging face. Since the backhoe sits on top of the mineral and loads the truck which sits
on the bench below it at the bottom of the mineral, the swing angle can be reduced. If the
haul truck loading point can be located in the front and slightly to either side of the backhoe,
cycle time may be significantly reduced (Martin et al. 1982, P655). Typical loading modes
with an electric shovel and a backhoe excavator are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3Typical loading modes of an electric shovel (left) and a backhoe excavator (Right)
21
As Table 8 Cycle times under different digging conditions and bucket sizes for a shovel
(Introductory mining Engineering, P259).Shows in page17 E is Easy digging, loose, free-
running material; For example, sand, small gravel. M means Medium digging, partially
consolidated materials; e.g. clayey gravel, packed earth. M-H is Medium-hard digging; e.g.
well blasted limestone, weaker ores, gravel with large boulders. H means hard digging; e.g.
granite, strong limestone, strong ores.
HAUL TRUCKS
Mining trucks can fall into classes depending on the payload capacity. Ultra large class
usually refers to a capacity close to 300 t or beyond. With higher payload, capital costs
increase and certain models need specialized maintenance. Haul trucks in a fleet are usually
of the same models to give the same haulage cycle time.
INITIAL SELECTION OF EQUIPMENT

As Caterpillar has well established sale and service network in Australia, equipment are
primarily sourced from it with Komatsu as a minor supplier. It is worth mentioning that due
to the large density variations between waste and ore, there could be no set of suitable
equipment to be able to deal with both waste and ore. Thus tailored models are sought from
suppliers. Detailed selection process is presented in Equipment Selection.
Australian Mines Atlas suggests haul trucks can carry over 300 tonnes in Pilbara region.
According to that, the largest truck available—CAT 797F and the shovel with largest payload
—CAT 7495 are selected for Option 1. To fully compare the two options, in Option 2 a
medium sized backhoe is chosen – PC 4000 with a bucket capacity of 22 m^3, and CAT
793D with a nominal payload of 218 t.
FLEET SELECTION
According to mine management requirement, two fleet options are considered i.e. one
matching trucks with electric shovels and the other matching trucks with hydraulic backhoe
excavators. The method to find the matches is by trial and error based on the assumption that
it should take three to five passes to load a haul truck. However, with different excavators and
shovels, the range can be from three to seven (Kennedy 1990). Where hydraulic backhoes are
used, the number of passes is generally somewhat higher (Introductory mining engineering,
P262). Additionally, assume that the boundary between waste rock and iron ore is well
21
defined such that drilling and blasting of each is done separately. The dilution is negligible.
After drilling and blasting, loading and hauling of waste and iron ore are done separately.
Assume deswelling is 90% for waste rock and iron ore after being loaded into haul trucks.
SELECTION OF OPTION1 FOR WASTE ROCK

Following initial selection of the haul truck—CAT 797F and the shovel—CAT 7495,
calculations are summarised in spread-sheets and presented in Table 7. Bucket fill factor 0.85
is selected based on descriptions from Table 7. Other parameters used in Table 6 are found in
the manufacturer brochure.
TABLE 5EVALUATION OF SHOVELS –CAT 7495
Shovel CAT 7495

Parameters MIN MAX
Bucket fill factor (F) 0.85
Payload (t) 100
Dipper capacity(m3) 30.6 61.2
Loose ore density(t/m3) 4.25
Loose waste density(t/m3) 2.288
Waste weight (t/bucket) 59.5 119.0
Ore weight (t/bucket) 110.5425 221.085
If the shovel is fully loaded with blasted ore, the minimum weight exceeds its payload i.e.
110.54t>100t. Hence shovels with a similar payload but less dipper capacity are the next trial.
Shovel CAT 7495 HD is tried using Equation 1 and evaluation presented in Table
7Evaluation of Shovels—CAT 7495 HD
E STIMATION OF MATERIAL WEIGHT PER BUCKET

insitu density
Blasted material density = .
1+ swelling rate
2.7 2.5.17
Hence blasted waste density = = 2.288 t/m^3; blasted ore density = = 4.25
1+ 0.18 1+0.2
t/m^3;
Material weight per bucket=bucket dipper capacity∗blasted material density∗bucket fill factor
E QUATION 1
Min Blasted waste weight per bucket=30.6∗2.288∗0.85 = 59.5 t/bucket
Max Blasted waste weight per bucket=61.2∗2.288∗0.85 = 119.0 t/bucket

21
Min Blasted ore weight per bucket=30.6∗4.25∗0.85 = 110.54 t/bucket
Max Blasted ore weight per bucket=61.2∗4.25∗0.85 = 221.085 t/bucket

TABLE 6TYPICAL BUCKET FILL FACTORS FOR AN ELECTRIC SHOVEL (INTRODUCTORY MINING ENGINEERING,
P260)
Material Factor
Rock-soil mixtures 1.10
Easy digging material (sand, small gravel) 1.00
Medium digging material (coal, light clay, wet soil, soft ores) 0.90
Medium-hard digging material (iron ore, phosphate, copper ore, hard 0.85
limestone)
Hard digging material (blocky iron ore, sandstone, basalt, heavy clay) 0.80
TABLE 7EVALUATION OF SHOVELS—CAT 7495 HD
Shovel CAT 7495HD

Parameters MIN MAX
Payload (t) 81.8
Dipper capacity(m 3) 19.1 61.2
Loose ore density(t/m 3) 4.25
Loose waste density(t/m 3) 2.288
Waste weight (t/bucket) 37.1 119.0
Ore weight (t/bucket) 68.99875 221.085
Dumping height at maximum electric crowd limit 8.45
Table 8 suggests within certain dipper capacity ranges, the weights per bucket are under
payload i.e., 69.00t<81.8t. Hence Shovel CAT 7495 HD with a dipper capacity of 19.1 m3 is
selected for Option 1.
The cycle time of Shovel CAT 7495 HD is determined from Table 7Evaluation of
Shovels—CAT 7495 HD, i.e. 37s.
TABLE 8 CYCLE TIMES UNDER DIFFERENT DIGGING CONDITIONS AND BUCKET SIZES FOR A SHOVEL
(INTRODUCTORY MINING ENGINEERING, P259).
Bucket size and cycle time Digging conditions

B (m^3) E M MH H
3 18 23 28 32
4 20 25 29 33
5 21 26 30 34
5.5 21 26 30 34
6 22 27 31 35
8 23 28 32 36
21
9 24 29 32 37
11.5 26 30 33 38
15 27 32 35 40
19 29 34 37 42
35 30 36 40 45
As the table above shows E stands for easy digging, loose, free-running material; for
example, sand, small gravel. M stands for medium digging, partially consolidated materials;
for example, clayey gravel, packed earth. M-H means Medium-hard digging; for example,
well blasted limestone, weaker ores, gravel with large boulders. H represents hard digging for
example, granite, strong limestone, strong ores.
Next, test whether Truck CAT 797F matches with Shovel CAT 7495HD (a dipper capacity of
19.1 m^3) by using Equation 2. Table 9Num. of Passes when matching Shovel CAT 7495HD
with Truck CAT 797F displays the results.
E STIMATION OF N UM . OF PASSES TO LOAD A HAUL TRUCK

truck payload
Num . of passes ¿ load a haul truck = , Num . of passesis rounded down ¿ then
blasted material weight per bucket
E QUATION 2.
363
Num . of passes for waste ¿ load a haul truck= =9.78=9.
37.1
363
Num . of passes for ore ¿load a haul truck= =5.26=5.
69
TABLE 9NUM. OF PASSES WHEN MATCHING SHOVEL CAT 7495HD WITH TRUCK CAT 797F
Truck CAT 797F

Parameters
Payload (t) 363
Num. of passes for waste 9
Num. of passes for ore 5
Ideal Num. of passes for ore 3
Ideal truck capacity(t) 207
Num. of passes for waste is nowhere near expectation. Hence CAT 797F is not suitable. The
calculation suggests Num. of passes for waste is twice Num. of passes for ore. So ideally,
21
Num. of passes for ore is 3, so that No. of passes for waste would be 6 or 7 which is still
acceptable.
Based on the ideal truck capacity, Truck CAT 793F is tried. Table 11 shows Num. of passes
required using Equation 2.
TABLE 10NO OF PASSES WHEN MATCHING SHOVEL CAT 7495HD WITH TRUCK CAT 793F
Truck CAT 793F

Parameters
Payload (t) 226.8
Capacity-struck (m 3) 112
Loading height –empty (m) 6.5
Waste volume (m 3/truck) 87.669
Ore volume (m 3/truck) 43.835
Width (m) 7.605
Num. of passes from Table 10No of Passes when matching Shovel

CAT 7495HD with Truck CAT 793F lie within the acceptable range.
Equation 3 is used to calculate ore volume occupying the truck body as following shows. Ore
occupies only 40% of CAT 793F body. A model with a smaller body volume and more
payload would be suitable to haul iron ore. Last check: Shovel CAT 7495HD dumping height
at maximum electric crowd limit 8.45m> Truck CAT 793F loading height-empty 6.5m,
therefore, they match each other. Assumption: the volumetric capacity is usually provided as
a range and two options exist, i.e. struck and heaped (SAE 2:1). In this project, the minimum
value of struck capacity is used.
TABLE 11 BASED ON TABLE 3 AND THE SELECTED EQUIPMENT, DESIGNING PARAMETERS OF PIT ARE
SUMMARISED
Overall slope Inactive 67°

angle benches
Working 54°
benches
Bench Height 15m
Width Depending on specific working conditions, ranging from 30m

to several hundered meters
21
Width 4m

lanes)
Width on 22.8—26.6m in Option1; 22.8—26.6m in Option2
straight
Width in bends 26.6-30.4m in Option1; 26.6-30.4m in Option2
For Option 1—electric shovels and trucks, Shovel CAT 7495HD and Truck CAT 793F are
selected to load and haul waste rock. Truck parameters used in spread-sheet are presented in
Table 12Truck parameters used in spread-sheet Unloaded weight is

the sum of chassis weight and average body weight. Max truck weight is the sum of unloaded
weight and actual loading.
TABLE 12TRUCK PARAMETERS USED IN SPREAD-SHEET
Truck CAT 793F

Gross power – SAE J19950 (kW) 1976
Chassis weight (kg) 122300
Body weight range (kg) 26862-47627
average= 37244.5
Actual loading (t) 222.87408
Maximum truck weight, waste (t) 382
Overall tire width (m) 7.6
SELECTION OF OPTION 1 FOR IRON ORE

Because 1 bucket of ore weighs 69t, trucks with payloads equal to multiples of 69t would be
suitable. To find the optimum model, models from Cat and Komatsu are examined. The
capacity (struck,m3) is compared with the corresponding ore volume. Ratios of capacity
(struck) over ore volume are tabulated Table 13Ratios of capacity (struck) over
ore volume based on different models and the model with the smallest ratio is
chosen.
TABLE 13RATIOS OF CAPACITY (STRUCK) OVER ORE VOLUME BASED ON DIFFERENT MODELS
Truck type Payload (t) Struck No of Ore volume Capacity(struck)/ore volume

(m^3) passes (m^3)
CAT 793F 226.8 112 3 43.83 2.555065
CAT 797F 363 188 5 73.06 2.573316
21
CAT 795F AC 313 121.5 4 58.45 2.078842

CAT 793D 218 96 3 43.83 2.190056
CAT 789D 181 108 2 29.22 3.695719
CAT 789C 177 73 2 29.22 2.498032
CAT 785D 136 78 1 14.61 5.338078
CAT 777G 96 41.9 1 14.61 2.867899
HD785-7 91 40 1 14.61 2.737476
HD1500-7 144.1 54 2 29.22 1.84786
730E-7 183.73 77 2 29.22 2.634911
830E-1AC 221.648 117 3 43.83 2.66913
860E-1K 254 122 3 43.83 2.783196
930E-4 291.79 171 4 58.45 2.925778
960E-1 326.585 149 4 58.45 2.549362
The smaller the ratio is, the more the iron ore occupies the truck body. Hence HD1500-7
from Komatsu is chosen. Based on the model chosen 54% (29.22/54) of the dump body is
occupied. To further increase this percentage, consultancy with dealers is required. A tailored
truck body with smaller size (less self-weight) can bear more weight. A rugged and durable
dump body with high tensile strength high hardness is desirable considering special attributes
of iron ore.
TABLE 14NUM. OF PASSES FOR ORE WHEN MATCHING SHOVEL CAT 7495HD WITH TRUCK HD1500-7
Truck HD1500-7
Parameters
Capacity (t) 144.1
Ore volume (m3/truck) 29.223
TABLE 15TRUCK PARAMETERS USED IN SPREAD-SHEET
Truck HD1500-7
Gross Power – SAE J1995 (kW) 1109
Empty weight (t) 105.3
Max gross vehicle weight (t) 249.5
Loading height –empty (m) 4.965
Last check: Shovel CAT 7495HD dumping height at maximum electric crowd limit 8.45m>
Truck HD1500-7 loading height-empty 4.965m, therefore, they match each other.
Summary for Option1 selection

21
The selection process for Option 1 suggests no available truck models on market from
Caterpillar or Komatsu can efficiently haul iron ore. A consultancy with suppliers is
necessary to obtain models with a small truck body and larger payload capacity. The
selection process for Option2 is basically a repetition of the above in appendix 1.
FLEET SIZE
In our project, four cases are considered, each option with iron ore and waste rock. Assume
that in all cases, queue and spotting time is 2.0min, spotting time at shovel is 0.2min,
dumping time is 1.0min, carry back is 3%, nominal capacity is 100%, moisture is 4%,
productive hours/year is 6570hr, effective minutes/hour is 50min, 3 shifts/day, 8hr/shift.
Truck specifications used in spread-sheet are found in manufacturers’ brochures thus not
elaborated here. Loading time varies as Num. of passes differs in four cases (Refer to Table
22). The number of haul units required to keep the loading unit busy is given in following
along with the formulas.
ESTIMATION OF FLEET SIZE

Elements for a truck cycle time:
t1= waiting time at shovel t7= travel time--up ramp, empty

t2=spotting time at shovel t8= travel time—level, empty
t3= loading time at shovel t9= travel time--down ramp, empty
t4= waiting time at dump/processing plant t10= travel time--up ramp, loaded
t5= spotting time at dump/processing plant t11= travel time—level, loaded
t6= dumping time at dump/processing t12= travel time--down ramp, loaded
plant
Cycle time of a haul unit=t 1+t 2+ t 3+t 4+t 5+ t 6+t 7+t 8+ t 9+t 10+ t 11+t 12
LCT
Fleet size N is determined as:N =
STL+¿
LCT: Cycle time of a haul unit, min.

STL: Spot time at the loader, min.
LT: Load time of the haul unit, min.
Note: N is rounded up to the next higher integer
21
21
Fleet size comparison Option1 v.s Option2

60
50 50
44
40 41 41
36 36 35 35 35 35 35 36 36
33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
30 29
28
26 26 26
25 26
25 26
25
23 23 23 22
23 23
20 20 20 20
10
FIGURE 4 FLEET SIZE VARIATIONS UNIT REQUIREMENT IN 20 YEARS
Loading equipment comparation Option1 v.s Option2

8
7 7
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 3
FIGURE 5 LOADING UNIT REQUIREMENT IN 20 YEARS
FLEET PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT
Truck productivity in tonnes per year is calculated as:
effective minutes per hour

*capacity *productive hours per year
truck cycle time
21
Assuming 100% truck availability, fleet productivity in tonnes per year is calculated as:
truck productivity∈tonnes per year∗fleet Num .∈that year
Fleet productivities at 100% truck availability at year 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 are attached in Appendix
H.
If truck availability is k, fleet productivity in tonnes per year is calculated as:

truck productivity∈tonnes per year∗fleet Num .∈that year∗k
REPLACEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY EQUIPMENT
Assume the electric shovel has a service life of 20 years; the hydraulic back-hoe has a life of
10 years. Literatures indicate major components of the mining trucks can be serviced or
replaced except for the frame. Experience tells a mining truck can have a service life of 10
years. Support and auxiliary equipment and functions are mainly sourced from Surface
mining P401 and other literatures.
A dozer is required to perform clean-up around the shovel as well as for proper dump
construction.
A water truck is necessary to sprinkle haulage roads to control dust especially in arid areas
such as Pilbara.
One large rubber tired front-end loader or two of lesser bucket size is proposed when the
loading unit in either option experiences prolonged downtime
A rubber tired bulldozer can move rapidly from one site to other performing duties such as
cleaning up loading area, crowding the muck pile to facilitate bucket loading and keeping a
smooth haulage road in the close proximity of the shovel when there are no excessive lumps
of very large coarse rock.
The dozing power of a track mounted bulldozer exceeds that of the rubber tired one but has a
low mobility. This type is able to cut for new benches and haul roads.
The motor grader is indispensable to properly maintain haulage roads.
Other ancillary equipment include smaller dump trucks for miscellaneous use, mobile field
fuel/lube truck, mechanical field service truck, off-road tire service truck etc.
21
As far as two mining system is concerned, electrical reticulation related equipment are used
exclusively to Option1.
TABLE 16ANCILLIARY EQUIPMENT EXCLUSIVE TO ELECTRIC RETICULATION
Item Unit price Units required
P106 portable power canters including $90000/unit 3

transformers &output circuits 750 Kva
Stationary mine substation 5000Kva $358000/unit 3
Power transformers, dry type, three-phase $100000/unit 1
Circuit breakers, dust proof, three-pole $5000/unit 7
Safety switches, dust proof, three-pole $1000/unit 8
Electric power transmission lines None Total cost $400000
Electric cable, shielded, round, 3-conductor $20/m 2000 m
portable cable with ground check conductor.
Applied in shovels and other electric applicants
COST ESTIMATION
In order to provide a comprehensive evaluation for both option 1 and 2, another vital factor
should be taken into account in the process of the estimation is the cost. This feasibility study
will cover the capital costs, the operating costs for option 1 and 2 and the total production
cost. The estimation is made based on various assumptions.
The fuel price for diesel fuel is around168 c/liter in September 2013 based on the Terminal
Gate Prices for diesel fuel at Mt Wombat. In addition, the electricity would supplied by the
near-by power station called Kingston Power Station with a price of 24$/MWH .
ASSUMPTIONS
The life of the equipment and ancillaries could only be predicted and assumed.
Some assumptions made are listed as follow,
Assumptions:
 The hauling distance from the pit to dump which includes the level, the up and down
ramp would be as same as the calculation, and the traveling speed of the truck follows
ideally with the calculation.
 Life for a truck is 10 years, life for a truck tire is 7000 hours, for an electric shovel is
20 years, for a hydraulic back-hoe is 8 years.
 Assume there are enough stuffs and they are 100% available.
 Assume the tax and royalty cost is negligible. Fixed cost, which including
Depreciation, interest, on investment taxes, and storage, and insurance are negligible.
21
 Inflation rate: 3%
OPERATING COST
The fuel cost, the maintenance cost, the lubricant cost, the labor cost as well as tire replacement cost
are the main considerations to the total operating cost estimation. The major two factors that bring
significant influence to the total operating cost are the total fuel and lubrication cost as well as the
capital cost. This is due to different number of equipment have been used during the 20 years and the
price of the equipment various from each other especially the price of the electric shove 7495HD cost
greater amount of money than other equipment. The fuel consumption and lubrication consumption is
high in option 2.
FUEL
Diesel fuel cost could be one of the most significant factors that will contribute abundantly to the total
operating cost. The equation for fuel burn calculation could use are as follow,
Fuel burn=23.3 % Gross Engine Power × Engine Loading ×97 % +3 %,
Or, Fuel burn ( l )=fuel burn per productive hour ( hrl )∗total operating hour ( hr ) ,
Or, Fuel Cost ($ /h)=engine (kW )× 0.3(L/h per kW )× FJF ×unit cost ($ / L),
Where: FJF equals to 0.5 in this case.
The fuel burn rate depends on the truck engine power and engine loading as above shows. For a truck,
which travels up ramp and down ramp, the changes of traveling distance will significantly impacts the fuel
burn rate in unit of liter per hour (l/h) as the engine loading is constant according to the equation. In
addition, up ramp speed need to be find and calculated with the consideration of the ramp grade (0 for
level, 10% for up ramp, -10% for down ramp) and rolling resistance (2.5%) to find the engine loading as
equation of engine loading and up ramp truck speed shows.
Up Ramp Truck Speed × Total Truck Weight × 9.81∗( RampGrade+ Rolling Resistance)
Engine Loading= 0.5
3.6 ×GrossEnginePower ×TransmissionEfficientcy × ( 1+ RampGrade × RampGrade )
3.6 ×GrossEnginePower × 80 % × ( 1+ RampGrade × Rampgrade )0.5
Up Ramp Truck Speed=
Total ruckWeight × 9.81×(RampGrade × Rolling Resistance)
While the cycle time changes with the change of travel distance and travel speed.
With the process of production going on, the hauling distance up and down ramp distance of the pit would
change annually, shows how the ramp distance changed over the 20 years. However, the speed of the truck
would not always be as the same as the calculated speed. In reality, the trucks might travel to a different
dump side to dump when the original road has been blocked by a stop sign for construction purpose or
maintenance purpose, etc. The truck may have to speed down when there is a coming vehicle or there
might be some obstacles in front of the way along the travel that needs the truck to slow down to pass or
due to the wet surface.
21
Ramp distance to surface (m)

450
400
350
300
250
Travel distance
200
150
100
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
ar ear ear ear ear ar1 ar1 ar1 ar1 ar1
Ye Y Y Y Y Ye Ye Ye Ye Ye
FIGURE 6 RAMP TRAVEL DISTANCE CHANGES IN THE 20 YEARS TO SURFACE.
In terms of the total fuel consumption cost per year, option2 spends significantly greater amount of money
on fuel than option 1, which can be seen from following table. As the fuel cost per unit (168 cent/l) has
been assumed constant over the 20 year, the total liter of fuel consumption in option 2 is greater than fuel
consumption in option 1. There is about 223 M$ difference between option 2 and option 1.
Not only consuming diesel fuel is not environmental-friendly, the Australian government limits the carbon
emission from an industry and the exceeded carbon emission from the industry is obligated to pay the
government carbon tax. However, the carbon tax cost is negligible compare with the fuel consumption
cost.
TABLE 17 FUEL CONSUMPTION COST
Fuel Consumption Cost/ Year

Option 1 Option 2
Year 1 24,763,054 37,433,302
Year 2 29,394,570 37,282,679
Year 3 29,194,181 37,049,051
Year 4 21,690,925 36,807,682
Year 5 27,596,991 45,094,285
Year 6 27,382,666 33,118,184
Year 7 27,161,651 32,879,177
Year 8 26,933,620 39,062,728
Year 9 26,698,226 38,755,783
Year 10 37,944,039 49,739,186
Year 11 51,312,883 64,199,600
Year 12 47,405,720 64,365,122
Year 13 48,191,851 65,277,926
21
Year 14 48,945,070 58,873,840

Year 15 57,463,713 65,587,160
Year 16 58,265,934 66,324,107
Year 17 62,411,953 67,030,500
Year 18 63,196,224 67,708,210
Year 19 63,951,309 80,189,944
Year 20 64,678,855 80,974,972
844,583,435 1,067,753,438
OTHER OPERATING COSTS

Other considerations regarding to the operating cost includes mainly the tire replacement
cost, maintenance cost, lubrication cost as well as labor cost.
The equations have been used is summarized as below.
$
Maintenance Cost ( )=(Capital($)× 0.05a × RPJF )/¿,
h
Where: RPJF equals to 1, a equals to 0.5.
Electrical energy cost ($ /h)=average power( kW )× unit cost( $ /kWh),
Lubrication Cost ( $ )=Fuel Consumption Cost ( $ ) × 0.15,
30 $
Labor Cost ( $ )= ×total operating hour per year (h)
h
The hydraulic shovel is cheap compare to the electric shovel. Table 18 Total operating cost
over the 20 years for option 1 and option2.shows that in terms of the total maintenance cost
the option 2 cost less than option 1.
As similar number of trucks have been used in both option 1 and 2, the labor and tire
replacement cost is similar.
However, even though option 2 cost less on the maintenance cost, table X shows that the total
operating cost for both option 1 and 2 and option 1 cost great less than option 2. This is due
to the fact that besides the truck, the hydraulic shovel also need lubrication, which result in
the total operating cost for option 2 is about 260 M$ higher than option 1.
TABLE 18 TOTAL OPERATING COST OVER THE 20 YEARS FOR OPTION 1 AND OPTION2.
Operating Cost Option 1 Option 2

Fuel ($) 844,583,435 1,067,753,438
Lubrication ($) 126,687,515 169,058,769
Maintenance ($) 9,951,840 6,870,022
Labor ($) 121,807,800 118,851,300
Tire replacement cost ($) 37,600,000 37,360,000
1,140,630,590 1,399,893,529
The operating cost is not constantly increasing from the graph in Figure 7 total operating cost
21
in 20 years was due to the hauling distance is changing annually, which in addition will
change the annual cycle time and total fuel consumption. As the cycle time changed, the
number of truck would also be changed. The changes of total fuel consumption would mainly
contributed by the variation of the up and down ramp distance and the truck number.
It is obvious that in term of the total operating cost, option 1 which applying the electric
shovel and truck hauling system is much more favorable.
120,000,000
100,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000 Option 1
Option 2
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
FIGURE 7 TOTAL OPERATING COST IN 20 YEARS
CAPITAL COST
While different equipment have been chosen for option1 and 2, the number of trucks used would be
significantly different from each other with the associated capital cost. Different excavators with its
associated different ancillaries would be another factor that needs to be taken into account. Electric
shovel is expensive, Table 19 Capital cost for option 1 shows that total capital cost of option 1 is
about 90 M$ greater than the total capital cost of option 2
TABLE 19 CAPITAL COST FOR OPTION 1
Major Equipment Option 1 Capital cost

Electrical reticulation equipment Unit Cost $/unit $
Power Centre 3 90,000 270,000
Stationary mine substation 3 358,000 1,074,000
Power transformers 1 100,000 100,000
Circuit breakers 7 5,000 35,000
Safety switches 8 1,000 8,000
Electric power transmission lines 400,000 0
Electric cable (m) 2,000 20 40,000
Trucks
21
HD1500_7 20 3,088,800 55,598,400

793F 46 4,801,500 177,655,500
Water truck 3 2,400,000 7,200,000
Mobile field fuel/lube truck 3 2,200,000 6,600,000
Excavators
7495HD 7 15,727,140 110,089,980
Front-end loader 3 1,700,000 5,100,000
Motor Grader 3 900,000 2,700,000
Wheel dozer 3 1,400,000 4,200,000
Drills 3 1,000,000 3,000,000
Haul road construction 6 1,025,281 5,741,573
Sum 379,412,453
TABLE 20 CAPITAL COST FOR OPTION 2
Major equipments Option 2 Capital cost

Electrical reticulation equipment Unit Cost $/unit $
Power Centre 3 90,000 270,000
Electric power transmission lines 400,000 0
Trucks
793D 70 3,811,500 213,444,000
Water truck 3 2,400,000 7,200,000

Mobile field fuel/lube truck 3 2,200,000 6,600,000
Excavators
PC4000-6 5 7,850,700 39,253,500
Front-end loader 3 1,700,000 5,100,000
Motor Grader 3 900,000 2,700,000
Wheel dozer 3 1,400,000 4,200,000
Drills 3 1,000,000 3,000,000
Sum 288,766,073
COST SUMMARY
The total production cost consists of the capital cost and operating cost. Beside the capital cost and
operating cost for these two hauling systems, there are other capital cost and operating cost to run the
whole mine. The summary costs are listed in table Table 21 Cost summary for option 1 and Table 22 Cost
summary for option 2.
21
TABLE 21 COST SUMMARY FOR OPTION 1
Option 1 Capital cost Operating

Cost
Electrical reticulation Unit Cost $/unit $ $
equipment
Power Centre 3 90,000 270,000
Electric power transmission lines 400,000 400,000
Trucks
HD1500_7 20 3,088,800 55,598,400 254,043,137
793F 46 4,801,500 177,655,500 760,575,649
Water truck 3 2,400,000 7,200,000 19710000
Mobile field fuel/lube truck 3 2,200,000 6,600,000 19710000
Excavators
7495HD 7 15,727,140 110,089,980 29,987,436
Front-end loader 3 1,700,000 5,100,000 10117800
Motor Grader 3 900,000 2,700,000 8803800
Wheel dozer 3 1,400,000 4,200,000 13,402,800
Drills 3 1,000,000 3,000,000
Ancillary equipment cost 355,928,000
Drilling and Blasting cost 275,588,000
Labor cost 808,000,000
Miscellaneous cost 275,200,000
Summary 3,210,479,076
TABLE 22 COST SUMMARY FOR OPTION 2
Major equipments Option 2 Capital cost Operating

Cost
Electrical reticulation Unit Cost $/unit $ $
equipment
Power Centre 3 90,000 270,000
Electric power transmission lines 400,000 400,000
Trucks
793D 70 3,811,500 213,444,000 1,143,841,956
Water truck 3 2,400,000 7,200,000 19710000

Mobile field fuel/lube truck 3 2,200,000 6,600,000 19710000
Excavators
PC4000-6 5 7,850,700 39,253,500 196,505,298
Front-end loader 3 1,700,000 5,100,000 10117800
21
Motor Grader 3 900,000 2,700,000 8803800

Wheel dozer 3 1,400,000 4,200,000 13,402,800
Drills 3 1,000,000 3,000,000
Ancillary equipment cost 355,928,000
Drilling and Blasting cost 275,588,000
Labor cost 808,000,000
Miscellaneous cost 275,200,000
Summary 3,415,573,727
The average production cost is 1.6$/t and 1.7$/t for option 1 and 2 respectively in 20 years. It shows that
option 1 spend slightly less in average production cost per ton in the 20 years.
TABLE 23 PRODUCTION COST FOR BOTH OPTION1 AND 2
Option 1 Option2
Total production Cost
($/t) 1.60 1.70
Operating cost ($/t) 0.57 0.70
In conclusion, even though option 1 cost more in maintenance cost and capital cost, option 2 requires a great
higher cost on fuel consumption and lubrication consumption.
Above all, after considering both the operating cost and capital cost for both option 1 and 2, option 1 is much
more favourable and economy than option 2 with respect to the cost estimation in the 20 years.
RISK ASSESSMENT RISK ASSIGNMENTS :

Basing on how likely the hazards are going to happen and the consequences of the hazards,
the table in illustrates the risk assessment matrix. (Refer to Appendix 4).
TECHNICAL FACTORS EXERT THE GREATEST INFLUENCE ON BOTH SYSTEMS

FOR THE PIT:
Based on the different types of haulage equipment, many technical factors that influence the
haulage system should be taken into account. In terms of ultra-large electric shovels, factors
including temperature monitoring system drive programming and analysis software, control
logic software and input/output device monitoring and fault detection will affect the system
for the pit. Alternatively, many exerted elements, such as hydraulic oil tank, hydraulic pump,
oil filter and high pressure lines and low pressure lines influence the back-hoe hydraulic
excavator systems as well.
ULTRA-LARGE ELECTRIC SHOVELS

21
If factors identified above are not occurred during operating time, haulage system on the
basis of ultra-large electric shovels and suitable truck will reach the optimum production.
Firstly, optimized temperature control is the best approach to avoid shovels dysfunction.
Secondly, drive programming and analysis software would help to operators to work more
efficiently. Further, control logic software assist engineers to design proper station for the
shovels. Finally, input/output device monitoring and fault detection are the main resources to
prevent shovels from presenting potential dangers. There are still several technical factors
excepted the elements mentioned before affect the shovels operating, including automatic
boom soft sit-down and boom profile protection envelope, anti-swing-in-bank system and
automatic lubrication and compressed air systems control. However, all these factors are not
the major influences compared with others.
BACK-HOE HYDRAULIC EXCAVATORS WITH TRUCKS

In comparison with electric shovels, hydraulic excavators have a more complex mechanical
system, so that more technical elements should be taken into consideration.
HYDRAULIC OIL TANK

In a hydraulic system, the reservoir can perform many different functions. The first and most
important function is that it is the storage tank for the hydraulic fluid. Moreover, there are
numbers of different materials can be made for hydraulic oil tank, such as aluminium, plastics
and composites, mild steel, and stainless steel. Meanwhile, there is another major function for
storage tank assume the responsibility for the environmental elements, and maintain the fluid
integrity and provide a ready supply to the pump. (Netherton 1999) Besides, other side-
functions of the oil tank can be mentioned here, such as providing fluid cooling through the
process of thermal radiation, maintain positive pump head pressure, and suppression of fluid
turbulence.
HYDRAULIC PUMP
At present, there are three main types of hydraulic pumps used extensively, which are gear
pumps, axial piston pumps, and vane pumps. These three hydraulic pumps are positive
displacement pumps and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Hydraulic pump is a
main mechanical device with its function that converts energy from the prime mover (electric
motor or engine) to fluid power energy. The energy for pumps is rated by pressure and flow
and units for hydraulic pressure is in psi and bar. Furthermore, flow is measured in gpm
21
(gallons per minute) or 1/m (litres per minute) and is a result of volumetric displacement x
rpm. If the gear pumps are brand new, most of them have an actual efficiency of 85% to 90%
and would decrease after use. Moreover, the efficiencies for never used piston and vane pump
are almost 90% to 95% and will lose efficiency as the pump wears as well. The pump
lifetimes under industrial standards are approximately between 8000 to 1000 hours of
operation. All pumps work by mechanically squeezing the fluid between mating surfaces.
The function for gear pumps is to mesh of the gears pushing against the pump housing wall,
but in piston pumps it is the piston pushing in the piston silo against a valve plate, besides, in
vane pumps it is the vanes pushing against the pump housing wall. According to all studies
resulting from pump maintain, the pumps are dependent on maintaining lubricate between
mating surfaces to prevent material on material wear. Furthermore, all these three different
types of pumps are sensitive to fluid contamination, some more than others. Moreover, gear
pump is the least sensitive pump compared with the other two while piston and vane pumps
are the most sensitive. All pumps are also sensitive to fluid cavitation or air bubbles that form
in the fluid. These bubbles when compressed will explode creating pitting and pockets in the
pump material.
OIL FILTER
Well- functioning hydraulic system has its own important characteristic. Water glycol fluids
are compatible with most filter types. The main issue should be concern is the compatibility
of water glycol with paper media spin-on filters. The paper media reacts with the water in
water glycol causing the paper to dissolve. This property defeats the purpose of the filter and
actually adds contaminants into the system. Substitution of the paper media spin-on with a
fiberglass media spin-on is an easy fix for the problem. Water glycols are compatible with
other media types such as polypropylene. Filter ratings do not change when using water
glycol and remain the same μm rating as with the manufacturer’s recommendation for use
with mineral oils.
RELIEF VALVE
There is another major characteristic that can be added to help control hear and to conserve
energy, if the system did not come with one, is the install a bypass valve which can be also
called dump valve. The function of relief valve is to return hydraulic fluid back to the oil
reservoir when the system is unloaded without going over the pressure relief valve.
Furthermore, if the fluid can be allowed to return to the tank over the pressure relief it is
under full system pressure and will generate high heat as it travels over the valve. Although
this is easy to fix, it can add savings, reduce the water glycol fluid maintenance and
21
ultimately extend the life of the hydraulic system components. Moreover, there are three
functions of relief valve. Firstly, the relief valve if a safety device which is used to protect the
breaker when the pressure rises in the hydraulic circuit. Secondly, the operating pressure if
the breaker determines the setting of the relief valve in the pressure line. Thirdly, the relief
valve setting should be adjusted to the specifications of each Vulcan model.
HIGH PRESSURE LINES
The high pressure lines can be found in the hydraulic pressure system of aircraft fuel, shaft
hydraulic pressure stand, oil field exploiting, engineering machinery equipment. The main
requirement for the high pressure line is to transmit of engine oil, red oil etc. of high
temperature and pressure. Furthermore, the working conditions for high pressure pipes are
pretty high, because high pressure lines have to ensure long lasting, high impulse life and
wire braid reinforced pipe provides constant pressure, flexibility and amazing bend radius.
Moreover, the pressure lines have also need the reinforcement from the high tensile steel and
durability, resistant to abrasion, oil and temperature variations. According to the consumers
need, the high pressure hoses come in a variety of lengths to ensure the freedom of movement
and manoeuvrability. A lighter hose makes the whole unit easier to guide with regard to a
target area in need of the cleaning application. The High pressure hose also finds great use in
cleaning purposes and mobile spraying units. The premium nitrile tube of the hose minimizes
permeation and will not contaminate product going through the hose. Furthermore, the
premium nitrile tube is also suitable for defueling service at low pressures. The high pressure
lines has also make sure under a safety working environment, durability, and resistance to
extreme conditions of temperature and pressure.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IMPACT THE SYSTEMS:

Mining companies should be aware of the environmental factors when they pursuing the
profitability. Due to ore co-exited with rock or other materials, mining process always has a
influence on the local environment to some extent. For example, the enormous amount of
fossil fuel consumed in production has a detrimental impact on the air. Furthermore, tailings
dump into tailings dam are potential dangerous to the local inhabitants, if tailings are not
disposed properly. On the basis of two differing types of system for the pit, the environmental
impacts are different as well.
In terms of ultra-large electric shovel with suitable trucks, power consuming is the main
pollutant resource. Firstly, electric shovels produce heavy dust during mining process. The
dust from the mine site suspended in the air and breathed by workers and local residents.
21
Furthermore, the dust causes heavy net loss to the local agriculture. Moreover, trucks
consumed tones of fossil fuel daily, the emission is also another pollutant.
Compared with ultra-large electric shovels, back-hoe hydraulic excavators have a lighter
impact on the local environment. Since the power used to excavators running is oil, which
generates little emission. Besides, hydraulic excavators work more efficiently that means
fewer power consumed in production. According to this reason, hydraulic excavators is more
eco-friendly than electric shovels system.
OHS ISSUES ARISE FROM EACH SYSTEM AND MITIGATING FACTORS :

OHS is a common issue in mining operations. In the system of ultra-large electric shovels
with suitable trucks and the system of back-hoe hydraulic excavators with trucks of 200
tonnes nominal payload, this type of risk involve with usage oversize vehicles and
equipments. Large amount of trucks come into service definitely have a huge likelihood of
accidents. Moreover, oversize electric shovels, and hydraulic excavators create more
challenges for operators of their operating skills. Therefore, these equipment increase
dangerousness of OHS issues. In order to mitigating this factor, proving more free trainings
and road tests for operators to make sure that every single operator is following correct
procedure and proper level is needed. On the other hand, company should increase regular
maintain and enhance various monitoring facilities has proper functioning.
RISKS FORESEE WITH EACH SYSTEM AND MITIGATING FACTORS:

Geological risk is an unexpected that correlated to potential geological failure like Slope
failure and material fail, and leads to damage equipment or threaten the life of operator.
These risks exist on both of Ultra-large electric shovels with suitable trucks system and Back-
hoe hydraulic excavators with trucks of 200 tonnes nominal payload system, and geological
risks have grave threats to safety production. To reduce this risk, a carefully collect and
precise analyse geological data is essential for the mine design.
ECONOMIC RISKS:
For both of the systems economic risks will lead to the discrepancy of investment and
potential influence financially feasible. A key reason would be a growth of the capital
expenditure and operative budgets. To minimalize this threat and avoid the profit reduction, a
carefully and reasonable strategic should be done before the project begin, it is vital that the
21
company need keep the total operating expense below 20% of the total revenue to prevent
risk.
Another main factor would be the fluctuating of ore price. The decrease of ore price will lead
to the final revenue decrease. To minimize this risk, the company should set up a system to
research market and contracts to confirm a confident amount of ore can be sold in certain
time period.
Other uncertainties factor which effect on mining industries is the equipment and energy
prices rise by mining industry development, since mining is greatly equipment and energy
dependent, this risk also can influence on the mine profits. This risk can control by selecting
well-organized equipment group to decreases the consuming of equipment working and
maintenance. However, this risk can reduce by a reasonable mining method selecting and
mining design.
21
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the evaluation it is recommended that further actions need to be
undertaken to maximise the production and lowest the cost.
 Plan and schedule the position of the shovel in advance and cleans up the obsolescence
before conducting the operations.
 Keep monitoring and fault detection to avoid the potential hazards.
 Conduct the maintenance properly and keep monitoring.
 Haul road grade should be kept as low as possible to let the electrical shovel travel
safely.
CONCLUSION :
In conclusion, based on some critical assumption, a comprehensive evaluation of both options
has been made with consideration of the major aspects, such as OHS, social and
environmental, economic as well as the technical aspects, and recording to the result option 1
is the better option. Option 1 operating and hauling in comparatively environmental-friendly
form that also economical, longer life time and high in productivity make it is a favourable
choice for this iron ore mine. Due to the electrical shovel low in moveability and flexibility, it
is recommended that the electrical shovel need to place somewhere safe and need less
movement. Therefore, the bench height and bench width should be contrasted suitable for it
to conduct the operations, and the recommended bench height and width are 15m and 30m
respectively.
21
REFERENCE
Martin, J. W., T. J. Martin, T. P. Bennett, and K. M. Martin. 1982. Surface mining
equipment. Golden: Martin Consultants.
Kennedy, B.A., ed. 1990. Surface Mining. 2nd ed. Littleton: SME
Hustrulid, W., and M. Kuchta. 2006. Open pit mine planning &design. 2nd ed. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Darling, P., ed. 2011 SME Mining Engineering Handbook. 3rd ed. Littleton: SME.
Hartman, H. L., and J. M. Mutmansky. 2002. Introductory mining engineering. 2nd ed.
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
21
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
SELECTION OF OPTION 2 FOR WASTE
According to Table 5, hydraulic shovel (hydraulic excavator) has a higher bucket fill factor.
Assume bucket fill factor is 0.9 for the backhoe used in this project.
Hydraulic backhoe excavator Komatsu PC4000 and Truck CAT 793D are tried in this case.
Table 16 indicates weights per bucket for ore and waste. Lifting capacity is estimated using
bucket volume times 2.2t/m3, which gives 48.4t. Ore weight per bucket exceeds the lifting
capacity. Discussion is presented in the next section.
TABLE 24SELECTION OF EXCAVATOR—KOMATSU PC4000
Backhoe Komatsu PC4000 for waste

Parameters
Payload based on 2.2t/m^3(t) 48.4
Bucket capacity SAE Heaped 1:1 (m^3) 22
Loose ore density(t/m^3) 4.25
Loose waste density(t/m^3) 2.288
Ore weight (t/bucket) 84.2
Waste weight (t/bucket) 45.3
Cutting depth (m) 8
Table 9 indicates Num. of passes needed for waste rock to load a truck. Num. of passes for
waste is 4 hence acceptable. Waste volume per truck is close to and under truck payload
hence this match is acceptable to handle waste.
TABLE 25 NO OF PASSES FOR WASTE WHEN MATCHING BACKHOE KOMATSU PC4000 WITH TRUCK CAT 793D.
Truck Cat 793D for waste

Payload (t) 218
Body capacity struck (m^3) 96
Waste volume (m^3/truck) 71.28
Waste weight (t/truck) 181.2096
Komatsu Backhoe PC4000 is matched with Cat 793D to load and haul waste rock. Truck
parameters used in spread-sheet are presented in Table 18. Unloaded weight is the sum of
21
chassis weight and average body weight. Max truck weight is the sum of unloaded weight
and actual loading.
TABLE 26 MAIN PARAMETERS OF CAT 793D
Truck Cat 793D

Gross Power --SAE J1995 (KW) 1801
Chassis Weight (kg) 116707
Body Weight Range (kg) 21795-54431
average= 38113
Maximum Truck Weight, Waste (t) 336.03
SELECTION OF OPTION 2 FOR ORE

A tailored bucket with a capacity of 11 m3is tried and results delivered in Table next.
TABLE 27 KOMATSU PC4000-MODIFIED MODEL
Backhoe Komatsu PC4000 for ore

Parameters
Payload based on 2.2t/m^3(t) 48.4
Bucket capacity SAE Heaped 1:1 (m^3) 11
Loose ore density(t/m^3) 4.25
Ore weight (t/bucket) 42.1
Cutting depth (m) 8
Five passes of ore are needed to a load a truck (Table20).
TABLE 28 NUM. OF PASSES TO LAOD CAT 793D FOR ORE
Truck Cat 793D for ore

Payload (t) 218
Body capacity struck (m^3) 96
No. of passes for ore 5
Ore volume (m^3/truck) 44.55
Ore weight (t/truck) 210.375
Table 12.
Ore volume per truck is close to and under truck payload hence this match is acceptable to
handle ore.
21
TABLE 29TRUCK PARAMETERS USED IN SPREADSHEET
Truck Cat 793D for ore

Gross Power --SAE J1995 (KW) 1801
Chassis Weight (kg) 116707
Body Weight Range (kg) 21795-54431
average= 38113
Maximum Truck Weight, Waste (t) 336.03
Cycle time is the total time spent on loading a haul truck. A summary of cycle times is
presented in Table 22.
TABLE 30CYCLE TIMES FOR TWO OPTIONS
Option1- Option1-ore Opotion2- Option2-Ore

Waste Waste
Cycle time(s) 37 37 25 25
No of passes 6 2 4 5
Loading time(min) 3.7 1.23 1.67 2.08
APPENDIX 2:
TABLE 31 OPTUION 1 COMPARE WITH OPTION 2
year Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 optio

ore truck No 10 10 10 9 11 n1
waste truck No 10 10 16 20 30
total truck No for option 1 20 20 26 29 41
ore loading equipment No 1 1 1 1 1
waste loading equipment No 2 2 4 5 6
total loading equipment No 3 3 5 6 7
for option 1
Fleet Productivity (tonnes) per 21,241, 21,751, 17,828, 18,995, 17,797,
Year waste 728 233 625 699 471
Year ore 710 222 479 626 231
Total Fleet Productivity 52,604, 54,120, 51,271, 51,814, 49,892,
(tonnes) per Year for option1 437 455 104 325 701
Year Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20 optio
ore truck No 7 7 7 12 14 n2
waste truck No 16 16 16 21 30
total truck No for option 2 23 23 23 33 44
ore loading equipment No 1 1 1 2 2
waste loading equipment No 2 2 2 3 3
total loading equipment No 3 3 3 5 5
for option 2
Year waste 414 414 414 414 414
21
Year ore 809 857 730 473 942

Total Fleet Productivity 62,281, 63,124, 64,015, 61,513, 60,308,
(tonnes) per Year for option 2 223 271 144 887 356
TABLE 32 OPTION 1 793 F FOR WASTE
Truck Cycle Time and Fuel

Burn Calculations
Haul Distances Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Forward Trip (Loaded):
Queue & Spot
Load - - - - -
Level 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050
Up Ramp 301 301 301 301 703
Down Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Return Trip (Unloaded):
Dump - - - - -
Up Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Down Ramp 301 301 301 301 703
Level 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050
Total Metres 9,506 9,327 9,149 8,702 9,506

Burn Calculations
Cycle Time(min) Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Queue & Spot 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Load 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Level 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
Up Ramp - - - - 3.45
Down Ramp 0.82 0.64 0.46 - -
Dump 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Up Ramp 0.86 0.67 0.48 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 1.33
Level 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40
Cycle Time 15.98 15.61 15.24 14.30 19.08

Burn Calculations
Fuel Burn Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Queue & Spot 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
Load 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Level 18.37 18.37 18.37 18.37 18.37
Up Ramp - - - - 26.50
Down Ramp 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.02 -
Dump 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67 7.67
Up Ramp 6.61 5.14 3.67 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 0.31
Level 14.22 14.22 14.22 14.22 14.22
Litres/Cycle 40.7 39.2 37.7 33.9 60.7
Litres/Effective Hour 152.8 150.7 148.5 142.3 190.9
21
Truck Cycle Time and Fuel Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Burn Calculations
Truck productivity (tonnes) per 647 662 678 723 542
Productive Hour
Truck Fuel Burn (kilolitres) per 130 128 126 121 161
Productive Hour
Truck productivity (tonnes) per 4,248,346 4,350,247 4,457,156 4,748,925 3,559,494
Year
Sum of Loading and Spotting 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90

Time
No of Trucks 5 5 4 4 5
Fleet Productivity (tonnes) per 21,241,728 21,751,23 17,828,62 18,995,69 17,797,47
Year 3 5 9 1
Target Production (tonnes) per 40000000 40000000 60000000 90000000 90000000
Year
No of sets 2 2 4 5 6
Total number of trucks Waste 10 10 16 20 30
TABLE 33 OPTION1 HD1500-7 ORE
Truck Cycle Time and Fuel Burn

Calculations
Queue & Spot
Load - - - - -
Level 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150
Up Ramp - - - - 402
Down Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Dump - - - - -
Up Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 402
Level 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150
Total Metres 9,104 8,925 8,747 8,300 9,104

Calculations
Queue & Spot 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Load 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Level 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Up Ramp - - - - 2.30
Down Ramp 0.96 0.75 0.53 - -
Dump 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Up Ramp 1.01 0.78 0.56 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 0.72
Level 5.53 5.53 5.53 5.53 5.53
Cycle Time 14.06 13.63 13.19 12.10 15.12

Calculations
21
Queue & Spot 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26

Load 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Level 12.43 12.43 12.43 12.43 12.43
Up Ramp - - - - 9.90
Down Ramp 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.01 -
Dump 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31
Up Ramp 4.35 3.38 2.41 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 0.09
Level 9.46 9.46 9.46 9.46 9.46
Litres/Cycle 26.8 25.8 24.8 22.3 32.3
Truck Cycle Time and Fuel Burn Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Calculations
Productive Hour
Productive Hour
Truck productivity (tonnes) per Year 3,136,271 3,236,922 3,344,248 3,646,514 2,917,748
Sum of Loading and Spotting Time 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43
No of Trucks Ore 10 10 10 9 11
Fleet Productivity (tonnes) per Year 31,362,710 32,369,222 33,442,479 32,818,626 32,095,231
Target Production (tonnes) per Year 20000000 20000000 30000000 30000000 30000000
Total number of trucks Ore 10 10 10 9 11
TABLE 34 OPTION2 793D WASTE

Calculations
Queue & Spot
Load - - - - -
Level 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050
Up Ramp 301 301 301 301 703
Down Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Dump - - - - -
Up Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Down Ramp 301 301 301 301 703
Level 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050 4,050
Total Metres 9,506 9,327 9,149 8,702 9,506

Calculations
Queue & Spot 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Load 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
Level 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20
Up Ramp - - - - 3.33
Down Ramp 0.80 0.63 0.45 - -
21
Dump 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Up Ramp 0.91 0.71 0.50 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 1.33
Level 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40
Cycle Time 13.98 13.60 13.22 12.27 16.93

Calculations
Queue & Spot 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Load 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Level 16.19 16.19 16.19 16.19 16.19
Up Ramp - - - - 23.31
Down Ramp 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.02 -
Dump 6.99 6.99 6.99 6.99 6.99
Up Ramp 6.35 4.94 3.53 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 0.28
Level 13.61 13.61 13.61 13.61 13.61
Litres/Cycle 37.1 35.7 34.2 30.6 54.2
Truck Cycle Time and Fuel Burn Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Calculations
Productive Hour
Productive Hour
Year
Sum of Loading and Spotting Time 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87
Fleet Productivity (tonnes) per Year 31,715,414 32,602,678 33,541,014 31,623,794 32,745,37
9
Target Production (tonnes) per Year 40000000 40000000 60000000 90000000 90000000
Total number of trucks Waste 16 16 16 21 30
TABLE 35 OPTION2 793D ORE

Burn Calculations
Queue & Spot
Load - - - - -
Level 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150
Up Ramp - - - - 402
Down Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Dump - - - - -
Up Ramp 402 313 223 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 402
Level 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150 4,150
21
Total Metres 9,104 8,925 8,747 8,300 9,104

Burn Calculations
Queue & Spot 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Load 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1
Level 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Up Ramp - - - - 2.07
Down Ramp 0.86 0.67 0.48 - -
Dump 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Up Ramp 0.91 0.71 0.51 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 0.72
Level 5.53 5.53 5.53 5.53 5.53
Cycle Time 14.73 14.33 13.93 12.95 15.74

Burn Calculations
Queue & Spot 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Load 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44
Level 18.26 18.26 18.26 18.26 18.26
Up Ramp - - - - 14.48
Down Ramp 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.02 -
Dump 6.99 6.99 6.99 6.99 6.99
Up Ramp 6.39 4.97 3.55 - -
Down Ramp - - - - 0.15
Level 14.03 14.03 14.03 14.03 14.03
Litres/Cycle 39.7 38.3 36.8 33.2 47.8
Truck Cycle Time and Fuel Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
Burn Calculations
Productive Hour
Productive Hour
Year
Sum of Loading and Spotting 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.28

Time
Fleet Productivity (tonnes) per 30,565,809 31,408,857 32,299,730 29,798,473 28,592,942
Year
Target Production (tonnes) per 20000000 20000000 30000000 30000000 30000000
Year
Total number of trucks Ore 7 7 7 12 14
TABLE 36 PIT DISTANCE
Years 1 3 5 10 20
21
Height of hill (m) 40 31 22 0 -40

Grade of ramp 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Ramp distance(m) 402 313 223 0 402
Level distance (m) 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650
Haul road distance (m) 2052 1963 1873 1650 2052
TABLE 37 HAUL DISTANCE TO PLANT IN YEAR 1, 3, 5, 10, 20.
Year 1 3 5 10 20
Haul distance on Up ramp 　　　 0 402
hill/in pit Down ramp 402 313 223 　　
Level 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650
Haul distance to plant 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
Total 4552 4463 4373 4150 4552
TABLE 38 HAUL DISTANCE TO DUMP IN YEAR 1, 3, 5, 10, 20.
Year 1 3 5 10 20
Haul distance on Up ramp 　　　 0 402
hill/in pit Down ramp 402 313 223 　　
Level 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650
Haul distance to dump Up ramp 301 301 301 301 301
Level 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400
Total 4753 4664 4574 4351 4753
TABLE 39 PRODUCTION LIST
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Ore (Tonnes) 20000000 20000000 30000000 30000000 30000000
Waste (Tonnes) 40000000 40000000 60000000 90000000 90000000
Total tonnage 60000000 60000000 90000000 120000000 120000000
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Year 2014 2016 2018 2023 2033
Days 365 366 365 365 365
UOA 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00%
Hours/Day 19 19 19 19 19
Hours/Year 7008 7027 7008 7008 7008
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Ore (Tonnes/Day) 54795 54645 82192 82192 82192
Waste (Tonnes/Day) 109589 109290 164384 246575 246575
Total tonnage/Day 164384 163934 246575 328767 328767
Ore (Tonnes/Hour) 2854 2846 4281 4281 4281
Waste (Tonnes/Hour) 5708 5692 8562 12842 12842
Total tonnage/Hour 8562 8538 12842 17123 17123
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Ore sweel (Volume) 784314 784314 1176471 1176471 1176471
Waste sweel (Volume) 2666667 2666667 4000000 6000000 6000000
Total sweel Volume 3450980 3450980 5176471 7176471 7176471
21
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Ore Volume 4705882 4705882 7058824 7058824 7058824
Waste Volume 17481481 17481481 26222222 39333333 39333333
Total Volume 63450980 63450980 95176471 127176471 127176471
　　　　　　
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Year 2014 2016 2018 2023 2033
Days 365 366 365 365 365
UOA 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00%
Hours/Day 19 19 19 19 19
Hours/Year 7008 7027 7008 7008 7008
Years 1 3 5 10 20
Year 2014 2016 2018 2023 2033
Ore Volume / Day 12893 12858 19339 19339 19339
Waste Volume / Day 47894 47764 71842 107763 107763
Total Volume / Day 173838 173363 260757 348429 348429
Ore Volume / Hour 672 670 1007 1007 1007
Waste Volume / Hour 2495 2488 3742 5613 5613
Total Volume / Hour 9054 9029 13581 18147 18147
Drill and Blast 　　　　　

Years 1 3 5 10 20
Year 2014 2016 2018 2023 2033
Production rate 54795 54645 82192 82192 82192
Stripping Ratio 2 2 3 3 3
Ore powder factor 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305
(kg/t ore)
Waste powder factor 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331 0.331
(kg/t waste)
Explosive(ANFO) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
specificgravity
Hole diameter (cm) 15.24 15.24 15.24 15.24 15.24
Bench height (m) 4 4 4 4 4
Subdrilling (m) 1 1 1 1 1
Stemming (m) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Drill bit penetration 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
rate(m/min)
Drill bit consumption 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500
(m/bit)
Worker efficiency 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%
Drill relocation and 2 2 2 2 2
setup (min/hole)
Blast relocation and 4 4 4 4 4
setup (min/hole)
Explosive 　　　　　
consumption
ore (kg/day) 16712 16667 25068 25068 25068
waste (kg/day) 36274 36175 81616 81616 81616
Total (kg/day) 52986 52842 106685 106685 106685
Daily Drill-hole 66 66 133 133 133
volum (m^3/day)
Unit volume of blast 0.11969458 0.11969458 0.11969458 0.119694579 0.119694579
hole(m^3 per meter
of depth)
21
TABLE 40 PIT DESIGN PARAMETER
Overall slope angle Inactive benches 67°

Working 54°
benches
Bench Height 15m
Width Depending on specific working conditions, ranging from 30m to
several hundered meters
Width 4m
lanes) Width on 3-3.5 times the largest truck width
straight
Width in bends 3.5-4 times the largest truck width
APPENDIX 3:
TABLE 41 COST COMPARATION OF DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT
Fuel Price 159 Electricity $/MWH

Price
Option1
Ore Year 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year 20
HD1500-7 Fuel 10,955,967 10,686,713 9,425,110 9,211,567 12,783,089
Lubrication 1,643,395 1,603,007 1,413,767 1,381,735 1,917,463
Maintenance 239,320,994 239,320,994 212,729,773 212,729,773 239,320,994
Labor 1,773,900 1,773,900 1,576,800 1,576,800 1,773,900
Tyre 0 720,000 640,000 640,000 720,000
replacement
cost ($)
7495 HD Electricity 267,892 186,759 186,759 186,759 186,759
Maintenance 135,393,637 135,393,637 135,393,637 135,393,637 135,393,637
Labor 197,100 197,100 197,100 197,100 197,100
Waste
793F Fuel 13,807,087 18,507,468 18,171,881 28,732,472 51,895,765
Lubrication 2,071,063 2,776,120 2,725,782 4,309,871 7,784,365
Maintenance 413,357,130 496,028,556 496,028,556 826,714,260 1,033,392,826
　 Labor 1,971,000 2,365,200 2,365,200 3,942,000 4,927,500
Tyre 0 960,000 960,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
replacement
cost ($)
7495HD Electricity 535,784 803,675 803,675 1,339,459 1,339,459
Maintenance 270,787,273 406,180,910 406,180,910 676,968,183 676,968,183
Labor 394,200 591,300 591,300 985,500 985,500
1,092,476,421 1,318,095,339 1,289,390,249 1,905,909,115 2,171,586,539
Operating 18 22 14 16 18
cost ($/t)
Capital cost 7495HD 62,908,560
HD1500_7 27,799,200
343,343,880 793F 57,618,000
Ancillary Electrician 394,200 394,200 394,200 394,200 394,200
cost
Specialised 3,942,000 3,942,000 3,942,000 3,942,000 3,942,000
technican
Option 2
Ore Year1 Year3 Year5 Year10 Year20
793D Fuel 10,264,630 9,989,052 9,858,859 15,820,393 23,981,289
Lubrication 1,539,694 1,498,358 1,478,829 2,373,059 3,597,193
Maintenance 196,877,314 196,877,314 196,877,314 328,128,856 393,754,627
Labor 1,182,600 1,182,600 1,182,600 1,971,000 2,365,200
21
No. Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Mitigating

Tyre 0 480,000 480,000 800,000 960,000
replacement rate and controls
1 cost ($)
Truck tyre Possible Moderate High Frequent
PC4000-6 Fuel 2,118,037 2,118,037 2,118,037 4,236,073 4,236,073
burst
Lubrication 317,705 317,705 317,705 cleaning
635,411 of haul
635,411
Maintenance 67,586,021 67,586,021 67,586,021 135,172,043 135,172,043
Labor 197,100 197,100 197,100 roads
394,200 and
394,200
Waste
793D Fuel 22,932,599 22,823,926 28,881,316 regular
27,564,683 truck
50,639,574
Lubrication 3,439,890 3,423,589 4,332,197 4,134,702 7,595,936
Maintenance 525,006,170 459,380,398 590,631,941 tires inspection
590,631,941 787,509,254
2 Engine fire 3,153,600
Labor Possible Major
2,759,400 Extreme
3,547,800 Personnel 4,730,400
3,547,800
Tyre 0 1,120,000 1,440,000 1,440,000 1,920,000
replacement training and
cost ($)
PC4000-6 Fuel 4,236,073 4,236,073 6,354,110 regular engine
6,354,110 6,354,110
Lubrication 635,411 635,411 953,116 953,116 953,116
Maintenance 135,172,043 135,172,043 202,758,064 inspection 202,758,064
202,758,064
3 Collisions 394,200
Labor Possible Moderate 591,300
394,200 High Enforcing
591,300 591,300
975,053,087 910,191,227 1,119,586,311 1,327,506,752 1,628,147,791
on
Operating 16 15 12 safety
11 speed14
cost ($/t)
intersectio limit and
APPENDIX 4: n or ramp installing traffic
TABLE 42RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX sign on
potential risk
area or
intersection.
4 Slope wall possible Catastrophic Extreme Continuous
failures monitoring and
possible slope
wall
reinforcement if
required.
5 Electrical Possible Major Extreme Enforcing
hazards mandatory use
of safety
protective
equipment in
electrical hazard
area, especially
during
maintenance.
6 Electricity Possible Moderate High Regular
failure maintenance
and prepare
back-up
electrical power
source.
21
TABLE 43THE RISK ASSIGNMENT OF ULTRA-LARGE ELECTRIC SHOVELS WITH SUITABLE TRUCKS
21
No. Hazard Likelihood Consequence Risk Mitigating

rate and controls
1 Truck tyre Possible Moderate High Frequent
burst cleaning of haul
roads and
regular truck
tires inspection
2 Engine fire Possible Major Extreme Personnel
training and
regular engine
inspection
3 Collisions Possible Moderate High Enforcing
on safety speed
intersectio limit and
n or ramp installing traffic
sign on
potential risk
area or
intersection.
4 Slope wall possible Catastrophic Extreme Continuous
failures monitoring and
possible slope
wall
reinforcement if
required.
5 Electrical Possible Major Extreme Enforcing
hazards mandatory use
of safety
protective
equipment in
electrical hazard
area, especially
during
maintenance.
6 Electricity Possible Moderate High Regular
failure maintenance
and prepare
back-up
electrical power
source.
21
TABLE 2 THE RISK ASSIGNMENT OF THE BACK-HOE HYDRAULIC EXCAVATORS WITH TRUCKS OF 200 TONNES
NOMINAL PAYLOAD:
Component Failures Daily Monthl Overha Recommade

s Inspection y ul d actions
s and activitie activitie
checks s s
Hydraulic Broken and √ Repair the oil
oil tank leakege tank
Refill with √ Change the
contaminants oil
Cooling system √ Repair and
does not work adjust the
cooling
system
Humid √ Check the
enviroment condition of
ingest air tank and
containing water lines and
vapor into oil measure
tank humidty of
oil tank.
Replace or
clean the oil.
Oil filter Fail to clean √ Change the
oil filter
High High pressure √ √ Repair the
pressure line is broken hydraulic line
lines
Low Low pressure √ √ Repair the
pressure line is broken hydraulic line
lines
Foot pedal Dysfunction √ Adjust or
control repair the
Housing Not fix on √ Fix and
cylinder adjust the
housing
Low Provide lower √ Adjust the
21
pressure pressure accumulator

accumulato to the
r required level
High Provide higher √ Adjust the
pressure pressure accumulator
accumulato to the
r required level
Cylinder Cylinder is √ Repair the
broken cylinder
Piston Not make linear √ Adjust piston
movement rings and
Tie rod Not thread √ adjust the tie
components rod to right
position
Piston seal Not block and √ replace the
separate oil piston to fix
the piston
movement
Wiper Not clean dust √ Clean or
replace the
wiper
Front head Not give support √ Adjust the
front head
Thrust ring Not support √ Adjust and
entire breaker fix the trust
ring
Upper and Not hold the tool √ Adjust the
lower tool tool bushing
bushings
Tool Not locked √ Lock thr tool
retainer retainer ring
ring
Cap screws Not fasten √ Tighten the
cap screw
Dust seal Broken, aging or √ Replace the
lose seal dust seal
function
Tool Wear out √ Lubricate the
21
tool

Xecutive Ummary: Surface Mining System 432/532

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Xecutive Ummary: Surface Mining System 432/532

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xecutive Ummary: Surface Mining System 432/532

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21

SURFACE MINING SYSTEM 432/532 | Metal Project Final report

Introduction and Assumptions.................................................................................................................................6

Mining System Design.............................................................................................................................................8

Benches and pit slopes.............................................................................................................................8

Haul Road, waste dump and infrastructure designs.................................................................................9

Haul Road Profile and Development...............................................................................................9

Estimation of ramp length to waste dump..............................................................................10

Estimation of hill dimension..................................................................................................10

Schedule of ore and waste..............................................................................................................................12

Electric shovels vs. Backhoe hydraulic Excavators.......................................................................................13

Initial selection of equipment.................................................................................................................15

Selection of Option1 for Waste Rock....................................................................................................16

Estimation of material weight per bucket......................................................................................16

Estimation of Num. of passes to load a haul truck.........................................................................18

Selection of Option1 for Iron Ore..........................................................................................................20

SURFACE MINING SYSTEM 432/532 | Metal Project Final report

Estimation of fleet size...........................................................................................................................22

Fleet production requirement.........................................................................................................................23

Replacement and supplementary equipment..................................................................................................24

Other operating costs............................................................................................................................28

Risk Assessment Risk Assignments:.....................................................................................................................33

Ultra-large electric shovels....................................................................................................................33

Back-hoe hydraulic excavators with trucks...........................................................................................34

Hydraulic oil tank...................................................................................................................................34

High pressure lines.................................................................................................................................35

Environmental factors impact the systems:....................................................................................................36

OHS issues arise from each system and mitigating factors:..........................................................................36

Risks foresee with each system and mitigating factors:.................................................................................37

Conclusion and Recommendations........................................................................................................................38

Selection of Option2 for Waste..............................................................................................................41

Selection of Option2 for Ore..................................................................................................................42

SURFACE MINING SYSTEM 432/532 | Metal Project Final report

Table 2Haul distance to dump in year 1, 3, 5, 10, 20.....................................................................................11

Table 3Summary OF pit design specifications..............................................................................................12

Table 6Evaluation of Shovels –CAT 7495....................................................................................................16

Table 8Evaluation of Shovels—CAT 7495 HD.............................................................................................17

Table 13Truck parameters used in spread-sheet............................................................................................20

Table 16Truck parameters used in spread-sheet............................................................................................21

Table 17ancilliary equipment exclusive to electric reticulation....................................................................25

Table 1 Fuel Consumption Cost.....................................................................................................................27

Table 3 Capital cost for option 1....................................................................................................................29

Table 4 Capital cost for option 2....................................................................................................................30

Table 5 Cost summary for option 1...............................................................................................................31

Table 6 Cost summary for option 2................................................................................................................32

Table 7 Production Cost for both option1 and 2............................................................................................32

Table 25Selection of Excavator—Komatsu PC4000.....................................................................................41

SURFACE MINING SYSTEM 432/532 | Metal Project Final report

Table 27 Main Parameters of CAT 793D......................................................................................................42

Table 28 Komatsu PC4000-modified model..................................................................................................42

Table 29 Num. of passes to laod cat 793D for ore.........................................................................................42

Table 30Truck parameters used in spreadsheet.............................................................................................42

Table 31Cycle times for two options.............................................................................................................43

Table 32 optuion 1 compare with option 2....................................................................................................43

Table 33 option 1 793 F for waste.................................................................................................................44

Table 34 Option1 HD1500-7 ore...................................................................................................................45

Table 35 Option2 793D Waste.......................................................................................................................46

Weight of the cylinder = bottom area heightdensity