Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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?
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
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.
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
Process
T15
6
T22
T23
T7
5
TARGET PRODUCTION ZONE
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
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.
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
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
In this book, he
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.
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
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.
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
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.
difference on the sides is not consistent and has been measured from -7o to +6o
compared with the rear angle, (Hagenbuch 2000).
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
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
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.
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
Dipper shape
Depth / width ratio
Height / width ratio
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
purchased a 60 CuM dipper of the same design with no increase in shovel power. The 60CuM
dipper averaged 95 tonnes payload.
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
Figure 8.
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
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
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).
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
120
122%
115
118%
Payload (t)
110
117%
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.
Figure 10.
End Result
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.
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
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.
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