Minimizing Quarrying Costs by Correct Shotrock Fragmentation and In-pit Crushing

Oct. 2006, Rev A Jarmo Eloranta

Contents
• Quarry process in general • Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations • Comparison of different crushing methods

• Conclusions
• Enclosures

2

© Metso

Challenge in Quarry Development

‘real’ optimum

Source: Technical University Trondheim, Norway

$/to n What about the hauling distance?

3

© Metso

Distance

Quarry Process
Stationary Crushers

4

© Metso

Quarry Process Mobile Crusher(s) Mobile primary crushing All crushers mobile 5 © Metso .

Example of Quarry Cost distribution Crushing & Screening Drilling Blasting Loading Hauling 6 © Metso .

boulder handling .hauling .Approach Based on Two Phases • Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations. including: . semimobile .stationary . fully mobile Optimum crushing 7 © Metso .loading .drilling and blasting .inpit.crushing (traditional stationary) Optimum drilling and blasting Cost Effective Quarry Practise • Comparison of different crushing methods. including: .inpit.

Comparison of Different Shotrock Fragmentations .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Starting Point: Stationary Three-stage Plant with a Capacity of 1600t/h.76 290 Case 3 5 5.9 250 18-22 Case 4 6 4.5 / 0. Final Product 0-20mm MAIN DATA Drillig: Nr.3 1.of units Crushing: Primary crusher type Nr.of units Drilling pattern (m2) Blasting: Specific charge (kg/m3) K50 (mm).15 200 Case 5 8 3.of sec.&tertary units General Drillability & blastability Work index (kWh/t) Drill hole dia (mm) Bench height (m) Explosive Interest rate (%) / Quarry life (y) Fuel price ($/liter) / Energy ($/kWh) Wages ($/hour) Case 1 3 9 0.7 15 89 10 Anfo 10 / 20 0.of units Hauling by trucks: Pay-load (t) Distance (km) Nr. L Number of operators Loading by excavators Bucket size (m3) Nr.of primary units Nr.56 150 12 2-7 depending on blast configuration (or bigger buckets) 50 2 8-10 depending on blast configuration Nordberg C160 jaw 2 5 45 / 0.8 0.5 1.53 410 Case 2 4 6.4 0.1 17 All together more than 50 different cases were analysed 9 © Metso .

000 100.000 80.000 40.000 20.Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations General Selection of Drilling Method Compressive Strength.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Source: Metso Minerals & Tamrock studies Drillhole Diameter (‘’) 10 © Metso Rotary Pull-down Weight (lb) Top Hammer Down-the-Hole .000 50.000 60.000 10.000 30. UCS (psi) (Pneumatic & Hydraulic) (Pneumatic) 120.000 40.000 Rotary (Drag bits) Rotary (Roller bits) 20.

40 Costs [USD/t] Total costs [USD/t] Blasting 0.10 0.50 0.00 64 89 115 Drillhole diameter [mm] Source: Metso Minerals & Tamrock studies 11 © Metso .60 0.30 Drilling Drilling Blasting 0.10 1.40 0.50 1. drillability = medium.00 0.10 0.40 1.70 0.80 0.20 1.Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Impact of drillhole diameter to drilling and blasting costs Impact of drillhole diameter to drilling and blasting costs K50 = 250.90 0.00 0.20 0.30 1.50 0.20 0.30 0. blastability = good 1.

Lislerud Fines in feed 12 © Metso .pre/A.Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Impact of Drillhole Diameter Drill & Blast ( USD / ton ) Boulder count Quantity per ton Fragment elongation ratio % Fines in shotrock Micro-crack damage of fragments Blasting Drilling Hole Diameter (mm ) Source: Metso Minerals & Tamrock studies Hole Diameter (mm ) Cost1.

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Boulder Handling Sort boulders from muck pile Downsize the boulders Minimize boulder count using tighter drill patterns or reduced uncharged height 13 © Metso .

25 0.05 0.1 0.Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Example of Direct Costs Caused by Boulders.15 $/tonnes 0.2 0. breakage before loading Hammering Costs ($/tonnes) number of boulders/h 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0. Customer case.3 14 © Metso .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Key Issue • Removal of bolder breakage outside process • -> improved plant utilization 15 © Metso .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Impact of Blast Distribution on Loading Costs K50 definition 16 © Metso .

Examples Typical toe problem requiring auxiliary hyd.Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Loading Operations. excavator work and/or use of secondary blasting Auxiliary machines required for quarry floor cleanup after blasting for loaders with poor mobility Source: Metso Minerals & Tamrock studies Tight muckpile (poor diggability) due to insufficient heave and throw 17 © Metso .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Optimum Shotrock Profiles for Loading Operations Front Shovels Hmax High productivity Minimal cleanup area Safe for operator operator Wheel Loaders Low productivity Muckpile too tight Muckpile too high Dangerous for Hmax dependent on loader size and type for optimum loading capacity conditions Front Shovels Loaders Moderate productivity productivity Large cleanup area loose Safe for operator operator Wheel High Muckpile is Safe for Hmax Shotrock throw onto old (poor loadability) floor New floor Source: Metso Minerals & Tamrock studies 18 © Metso .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations And Feeding by Excavator Cat recommendations 19 © Metso .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Impact of Blast Distribution on Hauling Costs with Dumbers 20 © Metso .

more likely toe problems .more wear .Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Why Coarser Blast Distribution Impacts on Loading and Hauling Costs? • Material is more difficult to load due to: .bigger boulders • Scope of equipment changes due to more difficult and/or longer cycle times • With respect to the equipment there is .more maintenance 21 © Metso .

Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Results K50 is 50% point of fraction distribution Total costs / produced ton 4 Costs [USD/produced ton] Case Case 1 K50 (mm) 410 290 250 200 150 3 2 1 Hauling Loading Hammering Crushing Blasting Drilling Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 0 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 22 © Metso .

There are fewer micro cracks in the blasted rock. • The crushing cost share is almost unchanged with different K50 values because the blast impacts only on primary crushing • Even smaller drillhole diameters than used here (89mm) can be economical. due to more ‘gentle blasting’. In many cases. because: .Comparison of different shotrock fragmentations Conclusions of Shotrock Fragmentation • From the total product cost point of view. this generates better final aggregate quality • Boulder management is important 23 © Metso . there is an optimum shotrock fragmentation.Smaller drillhole diameters produce fewer fines. the optimum was k50 ~ 250 mm. In many cases this is considered waste .There are fewer boulders to be handled . In the case study.

Comparison of Different Crushing Methods .

No dump trucks are used. 25 © Metso .inpit. semimobile - • Material is transported by dump trucks into crushing plants • material is transported by dump trucks into the semimobile primary jaw crusher. and from there by conveyors to the secondary & tertiary crushing plants inpit. fully mobile • primary crushing done at a quarry face with a highly mobile track mounted jaw crusher.stationary: . and taken from there by conveyors into the secondary and tertiary crushing plants.Comparison of different crushing methods Starting Points for Crushing Method Comparisons • k50=250mm is being used as shotrock fragmentation • The following quarrying methods are under comparison: .

Comparison of different crushing methods Stationary Crushers Primary crusher cannot normally be moved Typical distance 2km 26 © Metso .

27 © Metso .Comparison of different crushing methods Semimobile Inpit Crushing Primary crusher can be moved but only on a non-frequent basis.

compact and movable within 5-10 minutes. 28 © Metso .Comparison of different crushing methods In-pit Fully Mobile Crushing Primary crusher is track mounted.

Comparison of different crushing methods In-pit Fully Mobile Crushing Movable and steerable Lokolink conveyor system is a key component 29 © Metso .

5 0.5 1.00 Truck. 30 © Metso .5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 L (km ) & Capacity (m illion t/y) Cost comparison between conveyor belt transport and dump truck haulage hauling distance and annual capacity.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 0.Comparison of different crushing methods Truck Transport Versus Conveyor Belt Horizontal Hauling USD/t Belt.50 1.0 0.5 1.00 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.50 0.0 5.5 1.0 5.0 4.0 5.50 USD/t 1.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 4.0 3. Cost per ton 2.5 0.0 3.5 0.00 0.0 2.0 4.0 2. Cost per ton 2.5 0.

Cost per ton Truck.5 200 0.80 0.5 100 0. 31 © Metso .00 50 0.Comparison of different crushing methods Truck Transport Versus Conveyor Belt i ng m et er s : 1 t o 8) Vertical Hauling USD/t 1.20 1.20 0.00 Belt.40 0. Cost per ton USD/t 0.60 0.40 1.5 50 1 100 1 150 1 200 1 50 5 100 5 150 5 200 5 50 10 100 10 150 10 200 10 H (m ) & Capacity (m illion t/y) Cost comparison between conveyor belt transport and dump truck haulage as a function of vertical hauling distance and annual capacity given a haulage length to height ratio of 8 : 1.5 150 0.

5 2 4 11 Primary crusher type Size Number of units Loaders.5 3 35 7 1 1 20 Secondaries: 2 * Nordberg OC 1560 Tertiaries: 3 * Nordberg HP500 Seven Screens: 10-20m2 As in previous drilling & blasting example 32 © Metso .Comparison of different crushing methods Starting Point: Three Different Plant Configurations with a Capacity of 1600t/h. excavators: Bucket size (m3) Number of units Dump trucks: Size (t) Number of units Haulage distance (km) Conveyor length (km) Number of operators Secondary & tertiary crushers and screens *) Other variables *) = K10 in Hong-Kong Fixed Jaw C160 2 12 2 50 8 2 20 Semimobile Jaw C140 2 5. Final Product 0-20mm Stationary plant Semimobile primary plant Fully mobile in-pit primary plant Track mounted Jaw C125 2 5.

5 Costs [USD/produced ton] 3 2. 33 © Metso .5 0 Hauling Loading Hammering Crushing Blasting Drilling Stationary Semimobile Fully mobile Difference between stationary and fully mobile is about 25%.Comparison of different crushing methods Results Total costs / produced ton K50 = 250mm. Feed rate 1600t/h 3.5 2 1.5 1 0.

5 2 2.Comparison of different crushing methods Another Example Total costs / produced ton Spreadsheet lines 141 .5 4 Case 6a: K50=410 Case 7a: K50=290 Case 8a: K50=250 Case 10a: K50=200 Case 11a: K50=150 Case 16a: K50=410 Case 17a: K50=290 Case 18a: K50=250 Case 19a: K50=200 Case 20a: K50=150 Drilling Total 2 Blasting Crushing Hammering Loading Hauling 34 © Metso Mobile primary crusher Stationary primary crusher .5 3 3.5 1 1.146 Costs [USD/produced ton] 0 0.

00 Total Cost vs. Opt(blast +…+ crush&screen) = Max($$$) 35 © Metso 2) Calculation & simulation tools Total Cost vs.00 . cost category 1.Tools Available 1) Process Integration and Optimization (PIO) Services This is not a case of… • Increasing the powder factor to increase plant throughput • Opt(blast) +…+ Opt(crush)  Max($$$) It is… The development of a quarrying and processing strategy which minimizes the overall cost per tonne treated and maximizes company profit.00 $/ton Utilities Crushing Haulage DT-system LT-system 1. work category 2.00 0.00 0.50 $/ton Capital Mainten an Energy DT-system LT-system 1.50 0.

• The crushing cost share is almost unchanged with different K50 values when the crushing method is the same. this is considered waste. • Whole quarry process optimization instead of the suboptimization of individual components • Inpit crushing can generate remarkable benefits 36 © Metso .‘Case-specific factors’ like the life of the quarry. investment possibilities etc. In many cases. • Oversize boulder frequency has a significant impact on capacity and cost.Rock type due to abrasion . The optimum selection is dependent on: . • A smaller drillhole diameter produces fewer fines.Work continues … Conclusions for Quarry Development • From the total product cost point of view. there is an optimum shotrock fragmentation.

Enclosures • Operational targets for a typical aggregate producer • K50 feed sizes • Example: Norwegian case 37 © Metso .

Shotrock fragmentation Return 38 © Metso .Operational Targets for a Typical Aggregate Producer USD / tonne Product price curve versus product quality Product cost curve Opt.

K50 Feed Sizes % 100 K410 K290 80 K250 K200 K150 60 40 20 0 Return 39 © Metso .

32 mm 35 Ø102 Ø114 weigh t 30 Ø89 20 Ø76 Large SUB’ from prior bench level 32 .Example: Norwegian Case Rock type Explosive shotrock Anorthosite Slurrit 50-10 ~50 000 Blast size tonnes 40 0 .32 mm 25 70 80 90 100 110 120 Hole diameter (mm) Return Source: Metso Minerals & Tamrock studies 40 © Metso .70 mm weigh t 0 .300 mm Percentage of 0 .

Basic Selection of Loading Equipment Source: Cat presentations 41 © Metso .

100 m Provides the possibility to mix feed from different parts of the face DIGABILITY REACH GENERAL COMMENT Can be considered In normal blast with fine blast where provides the lowest bigger capacity cost per tonne justifies bigger machine 42 © Metso .....10 m Very good 5. needed to be able to according to the to the capacity and reach to the feed capacity requirement distance hopper Very good 5.10 m Good 50.Guidelines to choose loading tools for primary Nordberg LT’s BACKHOE EXCAVATOR CONTROL OF OVERSIZE FEED CONSISTENCY SIZE vs CAPACITY Very good Very good FACE SHOVEL Good Very good WHEEL LOADER Mediocre Mediocre Oversize machine is Size is selected Size is selected acc.