Selecting The Right Mining Trucks

SELECTING THE RIGHT TRUCKS FOR A MINE
By Dr Graham Lumley BE(Min)Hons, MBA, DBA, FAUSIMM(CP), MMICA, MAICD, RPEQ

Draft of paper to be presented at Best Practices in Mine Haulage Conference. 27-28
November, 2008, Brisbane Australia.
What is the problem?
For many mines the issue of matching truck capacity to loader capacity is problematic and more
often than not results in a majority of trucks being either under-loaded or over-loaded. As trucks
and loading units increase in size the number of passes required to fill the truck is decreasing and
the difficulty in attaining the match is becoming more difficult. The goal of getting the majority of
trucks +/- 5% of the rated capacity just doesnt happen. Under-loaded trucks result in reduced dig
rates while over-loaded trucks reduce speed and increase damage and the occurrence of sudden
failure.
Clearly an innovative process is needed.
The first stage in innovative thinking is to
benchmark what is currently being done.
Benchmarking Performance
Benchmarking is a widely accepted business tool to identify position and performance against
previous performance and the rest of the world. It is the process of seeking out and studying the
best practices that produce superior performance.
Benchmarking identifies your strengths and
weaknesses, to determine strategic areas for opportunity. Showing what can, and is achievable.
(Best Practice). The two phases to benchmarking are; determining best practice and how your
equipment compares, and secondly, identifying and learning from leading practitioners?
Can you accurately benchmark mining trucks?

The simple answer is yes. The total output from a truck (measured as rate multiplied by digging
hours) is an important component in the overall productivity equation for a mine. Then digging
hours and the different components of it can be broken out. The dig rate can be broken into load
and cycle time. Each of these can be broken down further. The analysis may be as broad or as
specific as required. At the end of the exercise a mine will get specific data about their trucks
and loaders.
Prepared by: Dr Graham Lumley BE(Min)Hons, MBA, DBA, FAUSIMM(CP), MMICA, MAICD, RPEQ
Ph. +61 (0)7 3147 8300, email Graham.Lumley@gbimining.com
Variation in Truck and Loader Performance

Compounding the problem is the variation in truck and loader performance. It is a simple fact
that different makes and models work better than others. In fact performance varies between
makes and models of truck by up to 81%. This means that the average performance of one
model moves 81% more than the average of another model. Clearly a hard rock mine which is
400 metres deep is going to have lower truck productivity than a coal mine where the trucks are
being used in prestrip. However, it should be noted that the difference in average performance
for excavator models is up to 66% and that is not dictated by the geometry of the pit where
they are working.
It has been known for some time that payload is the key for dragline productivity. This has
been determined from the strength of the relationship between payload and annual output.
With trucks and loaders there is a much greater dependence on the number of hours the
equipment is scheduled to operate. It is a little perplexing that mines can spend many millions
of dollars on equipment and then not schedule to use it. The best practice mines use their
equipment. They dont have it sitting around idle. When the piece of equipment is operating,
payload is again the key to productivity.
Added to the equation is the variation in performance from mine to mine. The available data
includes 11 excavator models with over 200 years of data, 8 front end loader models with nearly
150 years of data, 6 electric rope shovels with a little under 100 years of data, 28 truck models
with well over 1,500 years of data, and 19 drill models with over 200 years of data. They are all
the same - the bell curve of performance is flat.
Best practice (defined as the average of
the top decile) for mining trucks is up to 50% higher than average. There is also one model of
excavator where best practice is 41% higher than average and one shovel model where the
difference is 37%. It doesnt matter what the piece of equipment is, the picture of underutilisation of capacity is prevalent.
But my operation is different It is the standard response when talking about benchmarking
trucks and loaders. Every operation is different. Some dig deep and others are shallow. Some
dig ore and some dig prestrip. Some have hard digging and others soft digging. Some have long
hauls and some are short. Benchmarking wont answer all your questions. In fact it will raise
quite a few questions which the mine will need to answer. The key to benchmarking trucks and
loaders is to take the glass half-full attitude. What can I learn about areas for improvement?
What are others achieving which I should be able to do? Many mines are shocked by first time
benchmark results and justify it through But my operation is different.
consigned to mediocrity.
These mines are
Those mines that say What can I do to improve? inevitably do
improve through the intangible process of simply focussing on performance.
Process
improvements come on top of attitude-based improvements.
2007 Truck Benchmark

Annual Production
7
T15
6
T22
T23
T7
5
TARGET PRODUCTION ZONE
Annual Production - (Mt)
T18
T11
T13
T4
T5
T17
T20
T3
T21
T25T8
T27
T28
T24
T9
T19
T6
T14
T2
T16
T10
T1
100
200
300
400
Nominal Payload (t)
Figure 1. Truck Benchmark Plot
The following is a sample of real data from 2007. This is also shown in a very simple
waterfall chart. These can be made as complex or as simple as the mine requires.
Ph. +61 (0)7 3147 8300 email Graham.Lumley@gbimining.com
Table 1. Sample Truck Data
Figure 2. Simple Truck Waterfall Plot
What is the problem with payload?

It was stated previously that payload is the key (when trucks and loaders are scheduled to
operate). The problem is that truck and loader capacities are being selected so badly that the
optimal match is only achieved by luck (and most mines are not lucky). Mines generally use one
of five methods for selecting equipment size/capacity.
1. Allow the supplier to decide. Suppliers love this because they can sell the mine the
same as someone else has received which cuts down their costs significantly. However,
if the mine abrogates their responsibility to run their mine they get what they deserve.
2. Guess. There are a number of forms which this takes. Most people in the selection
process will create the matching spreadsheet but will make a number of guesses about
key factors on density, fill factors, etc.
Often this process is aimed at justifying a
particular capacity to management.

3. Existing Data.
This is an extension on guessing.
Data is collected on existing
performance and this is extrapolated to new equipment. This is certainly a quantum

leap up from options 1 and 2 but can fall down when data is sketchy or non-existent or
when different equipment is ordered.
4. Computer modelling. This is actually an extension on point 1. Some suppliers have flow
models for simulating material flow into their equipment but while being good for
research and development, they are of minimal value for commercial decision-making.
This is due to the models not being far enough advanced to simulate specific spoil (as
opposed to generic spoils).
5. Physical Modelling.
In 1977, D.J. Schuring, released Scale Models in Engineering:
Fundamentals and Applications, Pergamon Press, New York, N. Y.
In this book, he
devoted a section to earthmoving in general, (eg. Bulldozers, excavators, etc), in which

he confirmed the accuracy of physical modelling in earthmoving applications.
Scale
models have been used successfully on dragline buckets and rigging since 1985. Similar
techniques have been applied to rope shovels since 2000 and excavators since 2005.
Schuring (1977) found that the key to accurate results from scale models in earthmoving
was that the behaviour of the spoil was accurately simulated. This will be expanded
upon later in this paper.
What is the problem with truck capacity?

SAE Standard J-1363 is still used by most suppliers of truck bodies to define the capacity.
However, with the advent of larger and larger trucks (and loaders) more sophistication is
demanded of the truck tray capacity.
Many mines simply cant achieve the trucks rated
capacity on average without the addition of a door on the rear and/or hungry boards.
calculation of the geometry shows that the field volume can be 5-15% below the SAE rated
volume. The main error in SAE Standard J-1363 is that the capacity requires a 2:1 heap from all
sides and 1:1 slope off the rear to the point where it intersects the top of the body sides. The
problems with this are;
1. There are virtually no materials which will stack at 1:1.
2. To put the 2:1 heap on top of the 1:1 at the rear is wrong. Some manufacturers will take
the spoil off the back at 2:1.
3. Spoil when dumped will form a cone.
Therefore the angular top of the truck body
cannot be filled completely.

These three points are demonstrated in the following figure.
Figure 3. Real Truck Load (Hagenbuch, 2000)

4. The angle of repose is almost never 2:1 (26.6o).
The following table demonstrates
typical angles of repose.

Table 2. Angle of Repose of Various Materials (Catrental, n.d.)
The problem is magnified the larger the angle is.
Interestingly enough dragline
engineers are taught that the angle of repose is 37o. In reality it is rarely that high.
Most angles of repose are between 30 and 35o.
Figure 4 demonstrates different spoils dumped next to each other showing different
angles of repose.
Figure 4. Different spoil, different angle of repose

The material dumped in the truck operates in a fluid dynamic state and the interaction
against the sides of the tray causes varying degrees of boiling up. Consequently, all
angles in the truck are flatter than the true angle of repose. The different angles of the
sides and the base causes different responses of the spoil which leads to the next
problem.
5. The angle towards the front is almost always shallower than the angle at the rear and
the angles on the sides.
The difference between front and rear is up to 7o. The
difference on the sides is not consistent and has been measured from -7o to +6o
compared with the rear angle, (Hagenbuch 2000).
Figure 5. Load on a Truck Body (Hagenbuch, 2000)

When the five issues are considered the actual volume can be 5-15% below the SAE 2:1 Heap
Standard.
The final difficulty then is the determination of density of material in the truck. This is again
broken into three confounding variables;
1. Different material has different density.
2. Different materials will have different swells upon loading, which will often be different
to that in the dipper or bucket, and
3. The operators loading technique may alter the density in the truck.
As an extreme example coal is much lower density than say a mudstone which is lower than a
basalt.
Figure 6. Different Truck Body Designs
As a further confounding issue, the operators placement of spoil in the truck may reduce the
effective capacity due to loading on the axles. This is not covered in this paper but is very
important in the optimisation process.
What is the problem with loader capacity?

Most of the work in this area has been done on rope shovels but recently work has commenced
on excavator buckets. Consequently, comments are more related to rope shovel dippers but in
many cases have relevance across loading unit types. Factors which impact the payload (and
consequently the dipper/truck match) are broken into dipper / bucket issues and operational
issues;
Dipper / Bucket Issues (all of these points are included in the comparison between dippers
from different suppliers)
o
Tooth Attack Angle
Dipper shape
Depth / width ratio
Height / width ratio
Hoist rope connection (bail vs bail-less)
Lip arrangement
Tooth angle
Tooth coverage
Void in the rear
Operational Issues
o
Type of spoil
Power
Digging method
Crowd
Disengage
Bench height
Shovel distance from the face
Summary of Optimising Truck and Loader Matches?

All the previously listed factors can and do impact payload. The list demonstrates why the
options of guessing, letting the suppliers decide and doing a little computer mining on a
spreadsheet are appealing.
It is not easy (in fact it is just about impossible) to get the right match between dipper / bucket
and truck size. For example, if a 300 tonne truck load (assuming the truck will take 300 t and it
is not just the nominal capacity) was required in three passes and the suppliers decided that
48.4 CuM was the correct capacity on the basis that the existing dipper of this capacity was a
really nice match, the following would result;
Dipper A (poorly performing dipper, widely used) would achieve average truck payloads of
approximately 275 tonnes.
If the mine wished to purchase this dipper it would need a
heavier 53.5 CuM dipper to give an average 100 tonne payload in this spoil.
Dipper B (better performing dipper, just released, not widely used) would produce truck
loads which were consistently 10%+ overloaded with the associated tyre problems and
spillage. This dipper could be set with a shallower tooth angle but problems in dumping
would occur. The better result would be for the mine to choose a lighter 43.5 CuM dipper
which averages 100 tonne payloads in this spoil.
A better way
The use of scale models is well established in the area of commercial decision-making on shovel
and backhoe capacities. A little work has been done with truck trays. The correct application
of testing techniques can account for nearly all previously defined impacts on payload. To
ensure a valid outcome the following must be accounted for in a scale modeling program.
Build the model dippers / buckets accurately
Get spoil from the site or access similar spoil from nearby
Set up the bank to be dug accurately
Simulate the loading unit accurately
Analyse the data in an appropriate manner
The only factor which is not recommended for simulating is the positioning of the loading unit
near the bank and the uncontrolled operation which takes place at most mines. For modeling,
in the absence of a multitude of site productivity data about position and distance from the
face, controlled testing is recommended. What this means is that the digging is optimised every
time and the modeling result can have an operational factor applied to it which equals average
payload / trend peak payload. This is shown in Figure 7.
First Location
Second Location
Modelling result
100
Payload (t)
95
90
85
80
75
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Cycle Number
Figure 7.
Payload Variation for a Single Shovel Location Showing Modelling Result
The end result of modeling is a value for Dipper Efficiency Ratio (DER). The DER equals the
payload divided by the rated capacity and is expressed in units of tonnes / cubic metre. The
optimized capacity is calculated by
Optimum Capacity = Target Payload / DER
There is a further confounding variable which must be considered at this stage. Some larger
loading units are demonstrating a glass ceiling on payload.
It is believed that this is a
function of the size of the dipper relative to the available power. As a real case study, a mine
with a P&H4100XPB with 56 CuM dipper wanted 100 tonne payloads but was only averaging 95
tonnes. The low DER (even for the dipper design being used) indicated that the glass ceiling
effect was occurring. It was recommended that the mine look at different designs of dipper or
model increasing the power and keeping the existing dippers.
The mine did neither and
purchased a 60 CuM dipper of the same design with no increase in shovel power. The 60CuM
dipper averaged 95 tonnes payload.
Figure 8.
Models Used for Commercial Decision Making
Case Study - Shovel fills trucks perfectly in two and a

half passes
The mine had two large shovels with 44 CuM dippers. The average payload was 85 tonnes. The
original methodology for determining the match was not known but the performance of the
dipper was quite good. More recent dipper designs would be expected to achieve around 75
80 tonnes. It appears likely that the original aim was to fill the 218 tonne trucks in three
passes. Two passes sent trucks away with an average of 170 tonnes payload. The decision was
not to put the third pass into the trucks due to the loss in productivity, damage caused to trucks
by overloading and the increased spillage.
Desired average payload was 109 tonnes. Mine had a quote from supplier to change the boom
geometry of the two shovels and provide two new dippers. Quote was for $6M+.
Using a combination of data analysis and physical modeling four stages of work were undertaken
with the following outcomes;
Stage 1
Analyse data. Process changes were recommended

Result - Payload increased to 95 tonnes on average which was in line with best
practice dipper performance.
Stage 2
Physical modeling of the existing dipper, the suppliers recommended dipper and
two boom geometries.
Result Modelling proved accurate. Modelling demonstrated under-performance
of suppliers recommended dipper relative to existing dipper. Recommendation
not to change boom geometry. Recommendation not to purchase new dipper due
to substantial under-performance. Recommendation to test changes to existing
dipper.
Stage 3
Physical modeling of changes to the dipper.

Result A number of changes had a positive impact on payload but none gave
enough by themselves to increase payload to 109 tonnes. Recommendation to
conduct further testing combining various options to modify the dipper.
Stage 4
Four options were presented which met the target 109 tonne average payload,
(Figure 9).
The mine chose the preferred option with a slight change, engaged a structural engineer to
design the modifications and a local business undertook the changes to one dipper (Figure 10).
120
122%
115
118%
Payload (t)
110
117%
Target 109 t Payload

115%
105
109%
114%
109%
108%
107%
100
95
100%
90
85
BNS
BSS
BBS
BNI
BSI
BBI
LNS
LSS
LNI
LSI
Dipper Option
Figure 9.
Models Combined Options with Predicted Payload
Figure 10.
End Result
Model of Recommended Changes
All up cost $350,000, Average Payload 111 tonnes. Value to mine $8M per
annum.
Consequently a second dipper was modified for the second shovel.
All up cost was $470,000 with two dippers achieving 111 tonnes and 109 tonnes average
payload. Value to the mine $15M per annum.
References
Catrental, n.d., Angle of Repose of Various Materials, Viewed at
http://www.catrental.net.au/uploads/angle%20of%20repose%20of%20various%20materials.pdf
Hagenbuch, L.G. 2000, Adapting the Off-Highway Truck Body Volumetric Process to Real World
Conditions, SAE Technical Paper Series No. 2000-01-2652, International Off-Highway &
Powerplant Congress & Exposition Milwaukee, Wisconsin September 11-13, 2000
Schuring, D.J. 1977, Scale Models in Engineering: Fundamentals and Applications, Pergamon
Press, New York, N. Y.

Selecting The Right Mining Trucks

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Selecting The Right Mining Trucks

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SELECTING THE RIGHT TRUCKS FOR A MINE

By Dr Graham Lumley BE(Min)Hons, MBA, DBA, FAUSIMM(CP), MMICA, MAICD, RPEQ

Clearly an innovative process is needed.

The first stage in innovative thinking is to

benchmark what is currently being done.

Benchmarking identifies your strengths and

Can you accurately benchmark mining trucks?

Variation in Truck and Loader Performance

Best practice (defined as the average of

These mines are

Those mines that say What can I do to improve? inevitably do

improve through the intangible process of simply focussing on performance.

improvements come on top of attitude-based improvements.

2007 Truck Benchmark

Annual Production - (Mt)

Nominal Payload (t)

Figure 1. Truck Benchmark Plot

Table 1. Sample Truck Data

Figure 2. Simple Truck Waterfall Plot

What is the problem with payload?

Often this process is aimed at justifying a

particular capacity to management.

This is an extension on guessing.

Data is collected on existing

performance and this is extrapolated to new equipment. This is certainly a quantum

In 1977, D.J. Schuring, released Scale Models in Engineering:

Fundamentals and Applications, Pergamon Press, New York, N. Y.

devoted a section to earthmoving in general, (eg. Bulldozers, excavators, etc), in which

What is the problem with truck capacity?

Many mines simply cant achieve the trucks rated

Therefore the angular top of the truck body

cannot be filled completely.

Figure 3. Real Truck Load (Hagenbuch, 2000)

The following table demonstrates

typical angles of repose.

The problem is magnified the larger the angle is.

Interestingly enough dragline

Figure 4. Different spoil, different angle of repose

The difference between front and rear is up to 7o. The

Figure 5. Load on a Truck Body (Hagenbuch, 2000)

Figure 6. Different Truck Body Designs

What is the problem with loader capacity?

Tooth Attack Angle

Hoist rope connection (bail vs bail-less)

Summary of Optimising Truck and Loader Matches?

If the mine wished to purchase this dipper it would need a

Payload Variation for a Single Shovel Location Showing Modelling Result

It is believed that this is a

The mine did neither and

Models Used for Commercial Decision Making

Case Study - Shovel fills trucks perfectly in two and a

Analyse data. Process changes were recommended

Physical modeling of changes to the dipper.

Target 109 t Payload

Models Combined Options with Predicted Payload

Model of Recommended Changes

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi