Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

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

net/publication/293825207

DRAW POINT CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT AT DEEP MILL LEVEL ZONE


(DMLZ) PT FREEPORT INDONESIA USING THE SIX SIGMA METHOD

Conference Paper · February 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 362

4 authors, including:

Andrew Parhusip
PT Freeport Indonesia
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Parhusip on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


DRAW POINT CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT AT DEEP MILL LEVEL
ZONE (DMLZ) PT FREEPORT INDONESIA USING THE SIX SIGMA
METHOD

Andrew Parhusip, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia


Fikky Hartono, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia
Mario Siray, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia
Rakhmat Mulyanto, former Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia

Abstract the 2570 level with column heights of roughly 500 m.


The Undercut is on 2590 level, some 20 meters above
PT Freeport Indonesia is preparing the Deep Mill the extraction level.
Level Zone (DMLZ) mine to be the successor of the
currently operating Deep Ore Zone (DOZ) mine. The
DMLZ is block cave mine situated 500 m below the
DOZ mine and approximately 1,600 m depth from
surface.

Both of the block caving mines require draw point


construction in the extraction level to extract the ore
from caved area above. Learning from the experience
in DOZ, the construction & maintenance of draw
points in the production panels is a significant
challenge in supporting consistent production.

The average DOZ draw point construction duration is


approximately 46 shifts per draw point. The time Figure 1 Future Underground Mine Layout at PTFI
frame for construction is dependent on several
variables; availability of the conventional forming The DMLZ mine will replace the production from the
system, material availability, and development DOZ mine, which is planned to be complete in 2021.
tolerances. The repair of concrete floors and lintel sets
causes production downtime. Reviewing the old DOZ The DMLZ mine initiated caving in September 2015
draw point design, there is an opportunity to increase and is continuing with production ramp-up activities.
constructability, durability, and reliability of DMLZ A significant amount of pre-production development
draw points. This paper discusses how the DMLZ has and construction work was required to get the DMLZ
improved draw point construction productivity and is to its current state and to initiate the cave.
on track to significantly reduce costs whilst increasing Development access began in September 2004 with
the quality by using the Six Sigma Improvement the initial blast of the AB Adit portals.
Method.
Introduction Looking at historical DOZ costs, it can be seen in
Figure 2 below that the largest percentage of
The DMLZ Mine is part of the PT. Freeport
Indonesia (PTFI) future expansion to its underground
mining complexes. It is the fourth vertical lift in the
East Ertsberg Skarn System (EESS) deposit (figure 1).

Currently, it is under development phase. The DMLZ


mine will be a block cave mine using an advanced
undercutting method. The DMLZ extraction level will
be approximately 1,600 meters below the surface on

1
expenditures is associated with draw point approximately 60% of the DOZ extraction level
construction and shotcreting activities. footprint.

With an identified issue around drawpoint availability,


a Six Sigma approach was applied in the DOZ and the
draw point design was improved to create a more
efficient construction method, at a lower total cost,
and a stronger and more durable product.

Definition Stage – Improvement Project


This first stage of the project charter, and describes the
background and actual data of the DOZ draw point
design, the working method and actual duration plus
cost of Draw point Construction. The graph below
Figure 2 Detail cost per activity on Production Sequences collected from actual data 2008-2010, indicates that
based on historical data the DOZ draw point
Draw Point Construction constructed an average of 9.2 DP’s/month,with
The draw points are the critical link in maximum achievement 14.9 DP’s a month and a
connecting the caved material to the extraction level minimum of 6.2 DP’s. This variation in achievement
and allowing for LHD’s to extract ore. These draw was due to several factors including the draw point
points consist of double steel lintel sets and formed construction process employed and production rate. At
concrete that are required to protect the drawpoint and that time DOZ production rate 80K per day on
keep it viable over its planned life. average.

Figure 3 Active Draw Point


Figure 4 DOZ Accomplishment 2008-2010 for Draw Point
Learning from the experience in the DOZ, the Construction
construction & maintenance of draw points in
production panels can have a significant impact to Reviewing the DOZ drawpoint construction data for
production. The construction and repair durations for 2008-2010 revealed that an average of 11.33 DP’s per
the DOZ draw points is dependent on availability of month were constructed that year from a plan of 12 per
key materials and logistical support. In addition, month. The average time taken to construct a DP was
roadway repair from ground movement and water measured at 1,432 man-hours per DP versus a plan of
damage can further impact draw point and panel 1,292 man-hours, or a 10% actual increase versus the
availabilities. Repeated secondary blasting activities plan. A review of the work method with the goal of a
can damage lintel sets and lead to major repair significant improvement in productivity was
activities being undertaken. undertaken as part of this improvement program.

Non-uniform roadways, drift profiles and lintel set The graph below in Figure 5 shows the actual
damage make it difficult for the tele-remote and distribution of time taken to construct a drawpoint in
automated LHD operations to be carried out in the DOZ. The graph indicates that there is quite a
spread in times taken per draw point and is indicative

2
of the impact of external influences such as logistical
support, actual drawpoint opening requirements,
development tolerances and variations in construction
methodologies. The average time take was 16 days per
drawpoint.

Figure 7 Average hour duration per Draw point activity

Figure 5 DOZ duration completion for 1 DP

The chart below in Figure 6 describes the detail


workflow of draw point construction work method that
was used in the DOZ mine.

Figure 8 Pareto chart for DOZ Draw point Construction

Actual Cost of DOZ draw point construction


Cost is an important factor to be improved upon. The
table and pie chart shown in Table 1 and Figure 9
shows the distribution of costs for the different actives
in a percentage of the total. From this data it is clear
that the concrete and steel works are the bulk of the
expenditure per drawpoint.
Figure 6 DOZ Drawpoint Construction Work Method
Table 1 Detail cost of DOZ Draw point
Measurement Stage – Target vs Plan
The graph below (Figure 7) indicates average
completion hours and standard deviation per sequence
for each activity. From this data it can be concluded
that the wall and roof meshing and forming is the
longest duration activity, followed by the steel
erection. These activities account for 41% of the total
draw point construction time as can be seen in Figure
8. Both of these activities also exhibit the highest
swings in standard deviation indicating potential
process issues to be improved.

Figure 9 Detail cost for Draw point DOZ

3
Analysis Stage – Root Cause Finding
Based on the DOZ historical data an analysis was
conducted to identify the root causes behind the DOZ
drawpoint duration and cost drivers.

From the analysis it was concluded that the wall & roof
meshing and forming was the longest sub process of
draw point construction. In addition, any significant
development over break at a drawpoint also caused
delays as the larger excavation required the installation
of more materials and concrete. A further delay factor
was the variable logistical supply efficiency in
providing materials to the work place to be used in the
manually intensive forming process Figure 10 Trial Draw point Modular forming

The DOZ drawpoints utilize a double lintel set with


each set having a double cap. This resulted in erection
issues when the excavation was tight in the shoulder
areas and required chipping by crews to make room
for sets to fit into the correct position. In some cases
the construction crews would need to burn holes in the
steels sets to fit tie rods to hold the plywood forms in
place.

At certain periods, rail was installed in the floor of the


drawpoints to help reduce wear in the concrete from
the LHD mucking action. Over time the rail was
exposed from excessive wear and lifted out of place, Figure 11 Trial Draw Point Modular forming at jobsite
requiring time consuming repair activities.
(Figure 12).
Other areas of concern identified were the abrasion
resistance of the concrete, the application of high
strength concrete products and the impact of water on
the roadways.

Improvement Stage – Reviewing and Selecting


Options

Drawpoint Construction and Formwork


Once the issues with the current drawpoint
construction process were identified then several Figure 12 DMLZ Drawpoint Concrete Slab design
options to help improve the process were selected for
review. Lintel Set Re-Design
The DMLZ lintel sets designs are significantly
It was decided to move away from the manual forming different from the sets used in the DOZ. Several key
process that utilized plywood and go to a modular and changes were adopted to help overcome some of the
re-usable forming system. This would reduce wastage problems encountered in the DOZ construction
of materials, provide a consistent and uniform product, process and for the higher stress levels anticipated in
and simplify and accelerate the construction process. the DMLZ, 500m below the DOZ.
A re-usable formwork system from PERI was adopted
in the DMLZ and is shown in Figures 10 and 11. The lintel sets are installed in pairs and the DMLZ
system utilizes four connector beams between the two
sets to provide additional stiffness and improve load
shedding. This will help the lintel set survive
anticipated higher ground stress, hang-up blasting

4
damage and loader impacts. Figure 13 illustrates the
results of FEM analysis by Beck Engineering on the
existing DOZ sets. The results of the analysis indicated
that the main failure mode was experienced in the
columns.

Figure 15 DMLZ Lintel Set Structural Analysis using Staad


Pro V8i

The other concern raised during the lintel set redesign


process was the impact of secondary blasting in the
drawpoints to bring down hang-ups and break up
boulders. This blasting process impacts the lintel sets
and can move them laterally. In order to stiffen the
dual lintel set package four connector beams were
Figure 13 Beck Engineering FEM analysis on DOZ lintel set
added (Casten, 2015), to connect the two lintel sets
To get a better analysis on the failure modes, the DOZ together, as can be seen in Figure 16.
and DMLZ lintel sets were compared using STAAD
Pro V8i, a structural steel analysis software. This Figures 16 and 17 show the DMLZ lintel set with the
resulted in failures occurring in the columns and following notable changes in the design:
reinforced the work by Beck Engineering. Figures 14
and 15 show the STAAD analysis. The DMLZ set uses a single 350 mm beam for the cap
An important factor for increasing the shear capacity versus two 327 mm stacked caps in the DOZ. This cap
of the columns is the cross sectional area of the web. has a 20 mm web versus a 10.5 mm web thickness and
By increasing the web size the lintel set capacity provides much greater strength in a more compact
increased from 262.5 KPa/lintel (in DOZ) to be 452.5 system. This change increased the capacity of the sets
KPa/lintel (in DMLZ) , an increase of 72%. The from 260 KPa in the DOZ to 450 KPa in the DMLZ.
redesigned DMLZ lintel set has a smaller actual ratio This also reduces overall height and helps avoid
overall (ratio of total load to structural capacity of the development tights which are a source of construction
steel member). A smaller actual ratio indicates a delay.
stronger structural capacity. The DOZ has a ratio of
0.958 while the DMLZ linte set has a ratio of 0.389,
over twice the shear stress capacity.

Figure 14 DOZ Lintel Set Structural Analysis using Staad Pro


V8i
Figure 16 Comparison of DOZ lintel set vs DMLZ lintel set

The lintel sets were designed to work with the PERI


formwork and incorporate holes for tie rods and
connectors (Figure 18).

5
and the LHD buckets were able to catch and move the
rail.

.
In the DMLZ mine the combination of AnvilTop and
embedded rail were substituted for high strength,
abrasion resistant concrete..
The high strength concrete planned for the DMLZ
draw point roadways underwent testing at the
University of Indonesia in Jakarta. It was shown that
80 MPa concrete with fiber (6kg/m3 plastic fiber) had
same performance on abrasion resistance to AnvilTop
and concrete in the 80-100 MPa range (Table 1). One
of the key challenges in producing the high strength
Figure 17 3D Design of DMLZ Lintel set fibrecrete is ensuring that the batch plant can provide
the correct level of quality on a consistent basis based
on the required concrete recipe (Table 2).

Table 1 Laboratory test on abrasive resistance of HPC

Figure 18 Actual Lintel set on DMLZ

Concrete Works Table 2 Mix Design and trial result for HPC
In the DOZ, the draw point floor was reinforced
concrete with a minimum thickness of 30 cm, a
compressive strength of 50 MPa with the addition of 4
cm of an iron aggregate mortar topping known
asAnvilTop for increased abrasion resistance. Based
on the vendor specifications from BASF, AnvilTop is
a heavy duty cement-based metallic-aggregate floor
topping. It provides heavy-duty protection in key areas
subject to abrasion and impact. Its energy absorbing
capacity is significantly greater than plain concrete,
integral fiber concrete, and high-strength natural-
aggregate toppings DMLZ Draw point Construction Performance
The DMLZ mine has applied all of the improvements
The road gradient was also kept at a minimum of 3% discussed to the draw point construction process.
in order to minimize water ponding. It was noted that Figure 19 shows a picture of a completed draw point
the presence of standing water greatly decreases the in the DMLZ mine.
durability of the road concrete. In some areas of the
DOZ mine used rail was installed as part of the
concrete process to provide additional wear protection
against bucket loading. This proved to be problematic
one the concrete wore down past the rail embedment

6
Table 3 Improvement List on DMLZ Draw point

Category Description

Lintel set already proven to hold static load with


overall static load max (452.5kPa or452.5kN/m2)
Air blast effect must be include on design
calculation (covering concrete) - add connector
beam on cross beam and column beam
put additional hole on cross beam and column for
Lintel set
PERI modular system
Eliminate tight risk on lintel installation by
improving design reduce height of double beam
Improving material procurement and reducing 4
column different marking and 2 beam different
marking to be 1 column and 1 beam marking to
eliminate factor lack of material
Figure 20 Comparison of histogram DOZ vs DMLZ (Duration
wall & roof
Find alternate design which enable to apply completion)
modular system which have standard work method-
forming
subtituted by PERI modular forming system The reduced construction duration in DML and the
Find concrete technologies to increase water, redesign has resulted in a reduction in cost and man-
Rail Installation & impact & abrasive resistance on concrete floor-
hours needed per draw point as shown in Figure 21.
Anvil top subtituted with High Perfomance concrete (HPC)
with minimum requirement UCS test 80 Mpa The DMLZ has achieved an average of 14 draw points
constructed per month which equates to annual
savings of several millions dollars in materials and
labor.

Figure 19 Complete draw point construction on DMLZ

A comparison of draw point construction durations


based on the draw points constructed in DMLZ in
2015 and DOZ data is shown in Figure 20. In
summary the DMLZ average time to construct one
draw point is 410 hours compared to 444 hours for
the DOZ. Figure 20 also shows the standard deviation Figure 21 Cost Comparison DMLZ vs DOZ
between the two statistical distributions. The DMLZ
mine has a lower variation on construction timing than
DOZ which is attributable to the new method and also
the impact to construction in DOZ from other
activities such as production and caving activities,
currently not present in DMLZ.

7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank to management teams


of PT Freeport Indonesia for permission to prepare and
publish this paper,and Underground DMLZ
Construction team for support and sharing knowledge.

REFERENCES
1. Mulyanto, Rakhmat. Six Sigma Method for Draw
point Construction. MBA-ITB Thesis, (2011).
2. Manggala, D. Mengenal Six Sigma Sederhana.,
(2013).
3. Tarigan, A., Widiyanto, F., Ramirez, M., & Osborne,
K., (2010). The Deep Ore Zone (DOZ) Mine– Cave
Sequence Modifications. SME Annual Meeting
2010
4. Beck Engineering, Beck Engineering Analyis on
Lintel set Drawpoint DOZ. 2013
5. BASF. MasterTop 300 Technical Data Guide.
(2014).
6. Casten, Tim, personal discussion, 2015,

View publication stats