Thesis Title - Time Utilisation Modelling of FMIPCC Systems

Time Utilisation Modelling of Fully Mobile
In-Pit Crushing and Conveying Systems
Mr. Isaac Kwasi Dzakpata

BSc (Hons) Mining Engineering
Supervision
Professor Peter Knights (Principal)

Associate Professor Mehmet Kizil
Associate Professor Saiied Aminossadati
Dr. Micah Nehring
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in 2020
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering
6 March 2020
Time Utilisation Modelling of Fully Mobile In-pit Crushing and Conveying Systems
Abstract
A comprehensive review of literature published during the last two decades shows that Fully-
mobile In-pit Crushing and Conveying systems (FMIPCC) systems in surface mines have been
increasingly studied by the mining industry and have been adopted more often by mines having
tabular deposits. In Australia, the majority of FMIPCC implementations have failed to address
persistent problems of overestimation of FMIPCC efficiency over the past few decades, leading
to low confidence in the uptake of the system. Additionally, current time utilisation models
predict single-point values and do not account for the dynamic relationship with the variability
of key mine design inputs (including bench width, bench height and bench length) on system
utilisation.
This research focuses on investigating the influence of key mine design variables (geometry
approaches, sequencing and scheduling) on the performance of FMIPCC systems in open pit
and open cut applications. The methodology used in this research first establishes the
relationship between key mine design variables and FMIPCC performance and then develops
a novel approach for predicting FMIPCC utilisation using stochastic variables derived from
historic operational data. This research further investigates of the impact of open pit
exploitation schemes on FMIPCC utilisations using a case study typical of Australian coal
mining. The study result predicts FMIPCC operating time ranging from 3,379 – 5,233 hours
and 4,347 – 4,963 hours based on a confidence interval (CI) of 95% and 50% respectively.
The novel contributions of this research include the development of an improved stochastic
approach to time utilisation modelling of FMIPCC systems. The potential exists to extend its
use to other alternative continuous haulage systems remains. Additionally, this is the first work
to comprehensively evaluate the effects of mine planning variables on the overall effective
utilisation of FMIPCC systems. A comprehensive historical equipment performance data set is
used to document system performance ranges along with simple statistical distributions.
Finally, the research has developed the first stochastic tool for modelling the utilisation of
FMIPCC, considering variability of the key modelling inputs. This research successfully fulfilled
its objectives by providing evidence to support the hypothesis that a source of
underperformance is linked to overestimation of productive hours and throughput of FMIPCC
systems. Future work should extend this research work to investigate the application of
FMIPCC beyond in-pit material handling, including ex-pit environment and integrated study of
multiple open pits.
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) ii
Declaration by author
This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly
stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical
assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional
editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my
thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the
commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a
substantial part of the work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree
or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my
thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library
and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made
available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of
embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright
holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the
copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-
authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.
Isaac Dzakpata
6 March 2020
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) iii

Publications included in this thesis

No publications included
Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

No manuscripts submitted for publication
Other publications during candidature

Dzakpata I, Knights P, Kizil MS, et al. (2016) Truck and shovel versus in-pit conveyor systems:
a comparison of the valuable operating time. In: Aziz N and Kininmonth B (eds) 16th Coal
Operators' Conference. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, 463-476.
Contributions by others to the thesis

No contributions by others
Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree
No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.
Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

No animal or human subjects were involved in this research.
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) iv
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the providence of God almighty, the sole-giver of life, for
granting me the grace to start, do and complete this research work without any complications
whatsoever. Without Him, I am and have nothing.
Secondly, I would like to thank my family, for enduring with me and the unwavering supporting
over the period of my research. Thank you.
Thirdly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my principal advisor, Professor Peter
Knights for the continued support during PhD study and related opportunities that have
eventuated, for his patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped me at
the time of research and writing of this thesis. I could not have imagined having a better advisor
and mentor for my PhD study.
In the same breath, I would like to thank the rest of my supervisory team: Associate Professor
Mehmet Kizil (Great motivator), Dr Micah Nehring (Great collaborator) and Associate Professor
Saiied Aminossadati (Great manager), for their insightful comments and encouragement, but
also for the hard question which incentivised me to widen my research from various
perspectives.
I am indebted to the University of Queensland, Metso Australia and CRCORE for the co-
sponsorship arrangement that made it financially possible for this research work to be done. I
also owe a huge gratitude to RWE International for the internship opportunity provided with
their mines in Hambach, Indene and Gazweiller, Germany. My time with RWE was very pivotal
to the success of the work.
My sincere thanks also go to Dr. Erik Isokangas, who provided me with the opportunity to work
and learn along with his team as an industry intern (Metso and Mining3), and who gave access
to the real-life projects and data to validate this piece of work.
I thank my fellow RHD colleagues (Greg, Ed, Chunshan, Dean, Royal, etc.) for the stimulating
discussions, comradery and for all the support we have had in the last four years.
Thank you all.
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) v
Financial support
This research was co-funded by:
• The School of Mining and Mechanical Engineering, The University of Queensland
• Metso Australia.
• CRC Ore
Keywords
Utilisation, modelling, fully-mobile, in-pit, crusher, conveyors, fmipcc, crusher-conveyor, ipcc,
operating time
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 091405, Mining Engineering, 100%
Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 0914, Mining Engineering, 100%
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) vi
I dedicate this work to Eli (my best friend),

Eslie, Ephraim and Ezra. You are the reason
why this whole effort has been worthwhile.
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) vii

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. XI
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................XIV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................XV
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 TRENDS IN IN-PIT CRUSHING CONVEYING ......................................................................................... 2
1.2 TYPES OF IN-PIT CRUSHING CONVEYING SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 2
1.3 LIMITED KNOW-HOW AND UNDERSTANDING OF FMIPCC................................................................... 3
1.4 CURRENT RESEARCH GAPS ............................................................................................................. 4
1.5 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................ 4
1.6 AIM OF RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.7 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 5
1.8 CONTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH ......................................................................................................... 5
1.9 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ............................................................................................................. 5
2. CURRENT STATE OF FMIPCC RESEARCH .................................................................................... 9
2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON FMIPCC ............................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Historical background of In-pit Crushing in Mining .................................................. 11
2.1.2 Brief History of Fully Mobile In-Pit Crusher Conveyor in Australia ............................ 12
2.1.3 System Design, Selection and Configuration ............................................................. 13
2.1.4 Mine Design, Layout, Planning and Scheduling ........................................................ 16
2.1.5 System Maintenance, Reliability and Safety ............................................................. 18
2.1.6 System Performance, Productivity and Utilisation .................................................... 20
2.1.7 Summary: Part 1 ....................................................................................................... 23
2.2 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF FMIPCC SYSTEMS ............................................................................ 25
2.2.1 Configurations of FMIPCC systems............................................................................ 26
2.2.2 Support Equipment and Operating Area ................................................................... 27
2.2.3 The Digging and Loading System .............................................................................. 28
2.2.4 Types of Loading Equipment ..................................................................................... 29
2.2.5 Sizing and Crushing System ....................................................................................... 37
2.2.6 Belt-Conveying System .............................................................................................. 41
2.2.7 Material Discharge (Stacking or Spreading) System ................................................. 49
2.2.8 Summary: Part 2 ....................................................................................................... 58
3. TECHNICAL, OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS OF FMIPCC ............................................................ 60
3.1 OVERVIEW OF COLLABORATIVE LEARNING RWE INTERNATIONAL, GERMANY ........................................ 60
3.2 MINING OPERATION AT HAMBACH, INDENE AND GARZWEILLER MINES, GERMANY ............................... 61
3.2.1 Complexity of Conveyor-intensive Operations .......................................................... 62
3.2.2 Compilation of observations and Lessons Learnt ...................................................... 62
3.2.3 Effect of Material Characteristics in Belt Conveying ................................................. 63
3.2.4 Specification of FMIPCC systems ............................................................................... 65
3.2.5 Under-specification vs. Over-specification of Critical Components .......................... 66
3.2.6 Standardization of FMIPCC Equipment ..................................................................... 68
3.2.7 Modular Conveyor Structure ..................................................................................... 69
3.2.8 Tooling & Infrastructure Requirements..................................................................... 70
3.2.9 Reliability vs. Innovative Technology (Automation and Remote Technology) .......... 71
3.2.10 The Need for Integrated Mine Planning .................................................................... 72
3.2.11 Considerations for Belt Conveyor Shifting ................................................................. 74
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) viii

3.2.12 Belt Conveyor Shifting – Planning, Preparation and Implementation ...................... 75

3.2.13 Planning of Belt Conveyor Shifting ............................................................................ 75
3.2.14 Minimising Downtime Due to Belt Conveyor Shifting ............................................... 78
3.2.15 Shifting in the shadows (opportunistic maintenance and belt shifting) ................... 79
3.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 80
4. CURRENT TIME CLASSIFICATION AND UTILISATION MODELS .................................................. 83
4.1 TIME-BASED PERFORMANCE METRICS AND CLASSIFICATION MODELS ................................................. 83
4.2 INCONSISTENCIES IN TIME CLASSIFICATION MODELS ......................................................................... 84
4.3 TIME CLASSIFICATION MODEL ...................................................................................................... 87
4.3.1 Mission Time versus Calendar Time .......................................................................... 88
4.3.2 System or Equipment Downtime ............................................................................... 89
4.3.3 Equipment Operating Time ....................................................................................... 92
4.4 STANDARDISATION FOR TIME-STAMPED DEFINITION ........................................................................ 93
4.5 PROPOSED TIME CATEGORISATION MODEL ..................................................................................... 94
4.6 REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCING OF DATA FOR TIME UTILISATION ........................................................ 96
4.7 DATA COLLECTION, PREPARATION AND INPUT MODELLING ............................................................... 97
4.7.1 Variability of Mine Operational Data ........................................................................ 97
4.7.2 Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 99
4.8 PREPARATION AND ORGANISATION OF DATA ................................................................................ 100
4.9 TIME UTILISATION MODELLING ................................................................................................... 101
4.10 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 102
5 FORMULATION OF TIME UTILISATION MODEL FOR FMIPCC.................................................. 104
5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 104
5.2 MINE DESIGN AND TIME UTILISATION .......................................................................................... 104
5.3 MINE DESIGN INPUT 1: ULTIMATE DEPOSIT AND PIT EXTENTS ......................................................... 106
5.4 MINE DESIGN INPUT 2: SPECIFIC BENCH GEOMETRY ...................................................................... 110
5.4.1 Bench Shape .............................................................................................................. 110
5.4.2 Bench Width .............................................................................................................. 114
5.4.3 Bench Height and Stacking ........................................................................................ 115
5.4.4 Modifying Factors for Impact of Bench Geometry .................................................... 116
5.4.5 Bench Height Correction Factor ................................................................................ 117
5.4.6 Swing Correction Factor ............................................................................................ 118
5.4.7 Blast Quality Correction Factor ................................................................................. 118
5.4.8 Bench Shape Correction Factor ................................................................................. 119
5.4.9 Using the Bench Geometry Modifying factors. ......................................................... 119
5.5 MINE DESIGN INPUT 3: OVERALL MINING STRATEGY - SEQUENCE AND APPROACH ............................... 119
5.5.1 Multiple Working Faces and Direction of Approach ............................................... 121
5.5.2 Bench Development Strategy .................................................................................. 121
5.5.3 Mining Selectivity and Blending Requirements ....................................................... 123
5.5.4 Material Sequencing and Schedule ......................................................................... 124
5.6 MINE DESIGN INPUT 4: EQUIPMENT SET, SIZING, MATCH AND SELECTION........................................... 126
5.6.1 Loading and Crusher System Capacity .................................................................... 126
5.6.2 Conveyor Handling Requirements ........................................................................... 127
5.7 MINE DESIGN INPUT 5: BLASTING (AND BLAST SAFETY) REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 129
5.7.1 Risks and Requirements for Surface Mine Blasting ................................................. 129
5.7.2 Time Losses Associated with Mine Blasting ............................................................ 130
5.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 131
6 STRUCTURE OF FMIPCC INTEGRATED TIME UTILIZATION MODEL ......................................... 133
6.1 INTEGRATED TIME UTILISATION MODEL (ITUM) ........................................................................... 133
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) ix
6.2 USE OF UNCERTAINTY MODELLING TOOL ..................................................................................... 134

6.3 INPUTS MODELLING OF TIME USAGE (OPERATIONAL) DATA ............................................................ 134
6.3.1 Time Block 1: Downtime (DT) .................................................................................. 136
6.3.2 Time Block 2: Uptime (UT)....................................................................................... 137
6.3.3 Stochastic Modelling of Inputs ................................................................................ 138
6.3.4 Choosing a Representative Statistical Distribution ................................................. 139
6.4 MODELLING WORKFLOW AND WORKLOAD .................................................................................... 140
6.5 MODEL (ITUM) STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................... 141
6.5.1 MODELLING DOCUMENTATION (MODELLING CONCEPTS AND INSTRUCTIONS) .................................... 142
6.6 INPUTS MODELLING .................................................................................................................. 142
6.7 REFERENCE TABLES ................................................................................................................... 142
6.8 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION AND CONFIGURATION ......................................................................... 143
6.9 BENCH AND DUMP PARAMETER SET ............................................................................................ 143
6.10 TIME USAGE INPUT MODELLING ................................................................................................. 145
6.11 MODEL FUNCTIONALITY ............................................................................................................ 146
6.11.1 Monte Carlo Simulation .......................................................................................... 146
6.11.2 Scenario Modelling and Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................... 146
6.11.3 Output and Result Modelling .................................................................................. 147
6.12 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 149
7 APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED TIME UTILIZATION MODEL TO CASE STUDIES ........................ 151
7.1 INTRODUCTION TO MODELLING CASE STUDY ................................................................................ 151
7.2 MINE DESIGN INPUT 1: ULTIMATE DEPOSIT AND PIT EXTENTS ........................................................... 152
7.3 MINE DESIGN INPUT 2: SPECIFIC BENCH GEOMETRY ...................................................................... 153
7.3.1 MINE DESIGN INPUT 3: OVERALL MINING STRATEGY - SEQUENCE AND APPROACH .............................. 154
7.4 MINE DESIGN INPUT 4: EQUIPMENT SET, SIZING, MATCH AND SELECTION ........................................ 158
7.5 MINE DESIGN INPUT 5: BLASTING (AND BLAST SAFETY) REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 160
7.6 INPUTS MODELLING (MODEL INPUTS TAB) ................................................................................... 161
7.7 TIME ELEMENTS AND INPUTS...................................................................................................... 163
7.8 MODELLING RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 165
7.9 IMPLICATION OF RESULTS FOR FMIPCC PERFORMANCE FORECASTING.............................................. 166
7.10 CONTRIBUTION TO VARIANCE OF FMIPCC SYSTEM UTILISATION ...................................................... 167
7.11 VARIANCE IN UTILIZATION OF LOADING SYSTEM COMPONENTS ........................................................ 169
7.12 VARIANCE IN UTILIZATION OF BELT CONVEYOR AND SPREADER SYSTEMS ........................................... 170
7.13 VALIDATION OF MODELLING RESULTS .......................................................................................... 171
7.14 DISCUSSIONS ON RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 172
7.15 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 173
8 IMPACT OF OPEN CUT EXPLOITATION SCHEMES ON FMIPCC UTILISATION ........................... 175
8.1 INTRODUCTION TO MODELLING CASE STUDY ................................................................................ 175
8.2 SHORTLISTING OF GEOMETRIC FACTORS AND IMPACTED ITUM DELAYS ............................................. 176
8.3 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT............................................................................................................. 177
8.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................................ 179
8.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 184
9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 186
9.1 RESEARCH SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 186
9.2 SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. 187
9.3 STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION .................................................................................... 190
9.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH................................................................................ 190
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) x
List of Figures
FIGURE 2-1 GLOBAL HISTORIC INSTALLATION OF FMIPCC SYSTEM SINCE 1956 ................................................... 11
FIGURE 2-2 HISTORY OF FMIPCC INSTALLATIONS IN AUSTRALIA SINCE 1971 ...................................................... 15
FIGURE 2-3 OVERALL MINE DESIGN OBJECTIVES THROUGH LIFE STAGES (GRENON AND LAFLAMME (2011) .............. 17
FIGURE 2-4 CATEGORISATION OF IN-PIT CRUSHER CONVEYOR SYSTEMS (THOMPSON, 2005). ................................ 25
FIGURE 2-5 FOUR SUBSYSTEMS AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT OF IN-PIT CRUSHER-CONVEYOR SYSTEMS ....................... 26
FIGURE 2-6 FOUR GENERIC FMIPCC CONFIGURATIONS FOR EARTHMOVING INDUSTRY.......................................... 26
FIGURE 2-7 EXAMPLE OF COMPLEX IN-PIT CONVEYOR NETWORK AT HAMBACH MINE IN GERMANY ......................... 27
FIGURE 2-8 MATCHING OF CONTINUOUS AND DISCONTINUOUS LOADING EQUIPMENT (THOMPSON, 2005) ............. 29
FIGURE 2-9 TYPICAL LOADING EQUIPMENT FOR FMIPCC SYSTEMS (CATERPILLAR, 2019) ..................................... 30
FIGURE 2-10 TIME USE BY ACTIVITY - LARGE HYDRAULIC SHOVEL (HALL AND DANESHMEND, 2003) ........................ 31
FIGURE 2-11 OPERATING RANGES (M) OF LARGE SURFACE MINING LOADING EQUIPMENT ...................................... 33
FIGURE 2-12 FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTIVITY OF LOADING SYSTEM ............................................................... 33
FIGURE 2-13 BASIC PARAMETERS OF A MINING BENCH (FOURIE AND DOHM, 2011) ............................................ 35
FIGURE 2-14 INFLUENCE OF MMW ON THE WORKING BENCH GEOMETRY .......................................................... 37
FIGURE 2-15 FIVE COMMON MECHANISM OF SIZING ROM MATERIAL FOR THE MINING INDUSTRY .......................... 38
FIGURE 2-16 BASIC COMPONENTS AND PERFORMANCE FACTORS OF COMMON MOBILE CRUSHING SYSTEMS ............. 38
FIGURE 2-17 GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF FMIPCC INSTALLATIONS GROUPED BY WALKING MECHANISM .................... 39
FIGURE 2-18 CATEGORISATION OF MOBILE CRUSHERS BASED ON TRAVEL MODE AND CONSTRUCTION ...................... 39
FIGURE 2-19 RELATIVE CRUSHER SIZE RELATIVE TO AVERAGE MAN MMD (2016) ................................................ 40
FIGURE 2-20 TRANSFER OF MATERIAL TO AND FROM BELT CONVEYOR BY (A) HOPPER CAR; (B) TRIPPER CAR ............ 41
FIGURE 2-21 BASIC NOMENCLATURE OF A BELT CONVEYOR SYSTEM (CONTITECH, 2012) ...................................... 42
FIGURE 2-22 CAPACITIES VERSUS BELT; (A) ANGLE AND (B) SPEEDS. (THOMPSON, 2005; CONTITECH, 2012) .......... 43
FIGURE 2-23 LONG AND SHORT CROSS-SECTIONS OF A TROUGHED BELT-CONVEYOR (CONTITECH, 2012) ................. 44
FIGURE 2-24 BASIC TYPES OF CONVEYING SYSTEMS (NOVA, 2006) ................................................................... 45
FIGURE 2-25 TWO TYPES OF MOBILE CONVEYORS. (A) BELT-WAGONS AND, (B) BRIDGE-CONVEYORS....................... 46
FIGURE 2-26 PARALLEL AND RADIAL SHIFTING OF A BENCH CONVEYOR (LANGMAID, 2014) ................................... 47
FIGURE 2-27 SECTIONAL VIEWS OF A SIMPLE SHIFTABLE CONVEYOR FRAME (GOLOSINSKI AND BOEHM,1985) .......... 48
FIGURE 2-28 SINGLE AND MULTIPLE CONVEYOR DISTRIBUTION STATIONS (LANGMAID, 2014) ................................ 49
FIGURE 2-29 THREE TYPES OF SPREADERS TYPICALLY USED IN THE MINING INDUSTRY (LANGMAID, 2014) ................ 50
FIGURE 2-30 SIMPLE RAIL-MOUNTED TRIPPER CAR ASSEMBLY (ADAPTED: THYSSENKRUPP, 2015) ......................... 51
FIGURE 2-31 COMMON TRIPPER-SPREADER CONFIGURATIONS (ADAPTED: MEYER, 1988) ..................................... 52
FIGURE 2-32 BASIC MATERIAL DEPOSITION STRATEGIES IN SURFACE MINING........................................................ 54
FIGURE 2-33 APPLICATION OF MATERIAL DEPOSITION STRATEGIES WITHIN OPEN PIT EXCAVATION ........................... 54
FIGURE 2-34 DEVELOPMENT OF DUMP WITH SPREADER (ADAPTED: LEE, 2013) .................................................. 55
FIGURE 2-35 TWO BASIC DUMP OPERATIONS WITH SPREADERS (ADAPTED: MEYER, 2015).................................... 55
FIGURE 2-36 HIGH AND LOW DUMP DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES (LEE, 2013) .................................................... 56
FIGURE 2-37 VARIABLE SPEED AND ELEVATION FOR DUMPING UNSTABLE MATERIAL (JAETZEL, 2016) ...................... 57
FIGURE 3-1 SCHEDULE AND SCOPE OF INTERNSHIP AND SITE VISITS (JAETZEL, 2016) ............................................ 60
FIGURE 3-2 IMPACT OF WET BELT-CONVEYING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 63
FIGURE 3-3 FACTORS AFFECTING MINE EQUIPMENT’S SPECIFICATION.................................................................. 65
FIGURE 3-4 LIFE-CYCLE STAGES OF MINING EQUIPMENT (FOURIE AND DOHM, 2011) .......................................... 66
FIGURE 3-5 BLOCKED COOLING FINS OF A DRIVE STATION MOTOR (SCHMITTEN, 2016) ......................................... 67
FIGURE 3-6 SCHEMATICS OF A MODULAR CONVEYOR FRAME AND BELT ASSEMBLY ................................................ 69
FIGURE 3-7 BELT SPLICING EQUIPMENT (A, B) AND GARLAND HANDLING EQUIPMENT (C). ...................................... 70
FIGURE 3-8 EXCAVATOR AND WHEEL LOADER ARM FITTED WITH DIFFERENT FRONT END ATTACHED ......................... 71
FIGURE 3-9 EXAMPLE OF WEIGHTOMETER AT RWE’S INDEN MINE (RWE, 2016) ................................................ 72
FIGURE 3-10 DIFFERENT LEVEL OF THE MINE PLAN LEVEL OF GRANULARITY KEY INPUTS AND OUTPUTS ..................... 73
FIGURE 3-11 INTERACTION OF INPUTS AND OUTPUTS INTO AN IPCC MINE PLAN (SCHMITTEN, 2016) ..................... 73
FIGURE 3-12 EXAMPLE OF INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM FOR MANAGING CONVEYOR SHIFTING (SCHMITTEN, 2016) ....... 75
FIGURE 3-13 FACTORS AFFECTION CONVEYOR SHIFTING (ADAPTED: GOLOSINSKI AND BOEHM, 1986) ..................... 76
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xi
FIGURE 3-14 FOUR MAIN STAGES OF BELT CONVEYOR SHIFTING (JAETZEL, 2016) ................................................. 76
FIGURE 3-15 SHIFTER REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIAL BELT CONVEYOR SHIFTING ...................................................... 78
FIGURE 3-16 LOGISTIC AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENT FOR CONVEYOR SHIFTING (JAETZEL, 2016) ........... 78
FIGURE 3-17 GPS-ENABLED SHIFTERS TO IMPROVE NET SHIFTING TIME OF CONVEYOR (JAETZEL, 2016) .................. 79
FIGURE 3-18 CONVEYOR REPAIR WORKS – (A)CABLES, (B) GROUNDS (C)RAILS & PIPES (JAETZEL, 2016) .................. 79
FIGURE 3-19 KEY EVENTS RECORD DURING 2ND OPERATING YEAR OF AN FMIPCC SYSTEM .................................... 80
FIGURE 4-1 TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF TIME CLASSIFICATION MODEL (MICHAUD, 2007)............................................. 83
FIGURE 4-2 INCONSISTENCIES IN TIME CLASSIFICATION MODEL USED BY MINING INDUSTRY .................................... 84
FIGURE 4-3 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CLASSIFICATION OF TIME ELEMENTS (LUKACS, 2001) ................................. 86
FIGURE 4-4 WORKING SCHEDULE FMIPCC TORR WORKS QUARRY, UK (LARSON, 1986). .................................... 88
FIGURE 4-5 DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF DOWNTIME ......................................................................................... 90
FIGURE 4-6 DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF UPTIME .............................................................................................. 90
FIGURE 4-7 THREE MAIN CATEGORIES OF SYSTEM REDUNDANCIES ..................................................................... 91
FIGURE 4-8 SERIES-PARALLEL CONVEYOR CONFIGURATION OF MACHINE IN CONTINUOUS OPERATION ...................... 91
FIGURE 4-9 DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF OPERATING TIME ................................................................................. 93
FIGURE 4-10 GENERIC TIME CLASSIFICATION FOR FMIPCC............................................................................... 94
FIGURE 4-11 PROPOSED DECISION MATRIX FOR CLASSIFYING EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 95
FIGURE 4-12 EXAMPLE OF OPERATIONAL DATA GATHERING METHODS (A, B) AND ASSOCIATED ERRORS (C) ............... 97
FIGURE 4-13 CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP OF FACTORS CAUSING VARIATIONS IN EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE .......... 97
FIGURE 4-14 SCHEMATIC OF DATA SOURCES, SCOPE AND VALIDATION ................................................................ 99
FIGURE 4-15 SUMMARY OF THE DATA PREPARATION AND INPUT MODELLING PROCESS........................................ 100
FIGURE 4-16 SUT APPROACH MODELLING OF CONTINUOUS MINING EQUIPMENT (CZAPLICKI (2010)) ................... 101
FIGURE 5-1 MAPPING OF PRIMARY TIME ELEMENTS TO KEY MINE DESIGN PARAMETERS ....................................... 105
FIGURE 5-2 GENERIC REPRESENTATION OR OPEN PIT IN A BLOCK OF ROCK MATERIAL (HUSTRULID ET AL., 2013) ..... 107
FIGURE 5-3 GEOMETRIC REPRESENTATION OF SURFACE MINE EXCAVATIONS ...................................................... 107
FIGURE 5-4 SCHEMATICS OF COMMON SURFACE MINE PUSHBACK STRATEGIES ................................................... 108
FIGURE 5-5 EXAMPLE OF CHANGE IN GEOMETRY OF ADVANCING MINING FACE (GOOGLE EARTH, 2018)................ 109
FIGURE 5-6 BASIC GEOMETRIC PROFILES OF COMMON SURFACE MINING BENCHES .............................................. 111
FIGURE 5-7 REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF THESE THREE BASIC BENCH PROFILES (MAP: GOOGLE EARTH, 2018) ......... 112
FIGURE 5-8 BENCH CONVEYOR SHIFTING FOR THE THREE BASIC BENCH GEOMETRIES ........................................... 113
FIGURE 5-9 LT 1200E FMIPCC SYSTEMS WITH CONVEYOR LINKS (ADAPTED, METSO, 2014) .............................. 114
FIGURE 5-10 MAXIMUM REACH AND CAPACITY OF PRIMARY LOADING EQUIPMENT (DATA: CAT, 2017)................ 115
FIGURE 5-11 OPTIMUM BENCH HEIGHT AND CAPACITY OF LOADING EQUIPMENT (DATA: CAT, 2017) .................. 117
FIGURE 5-12 SAMPLE LOM MATERIAL SCHEDULE WITH FOUR DISTINCT PHASES ................................................. 120
FIGURE 5-13 SEQUENCING OF MULTIPLE BENCHES FROM BOX CUT TO THE LOWEST CUT (SANDVIK, 2014) ............. 121
FIGURE 5-14 THREE EXAMPLES OF BENCH DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES .............................................................. 122
FIGURE 5-15 SELECTIVE LOADING ABILITY OF THABAZIMBI OPERATIONS (AFTER SWANEPOEL, 2003) ..................... 124
FIGURE 5-16 DELAYS ASSOCIATED WITH LOADER-HOPPER INTERACTIONS (DATA: RITTER 2016) ........................... 126
FIGURE 5-17 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BLAST PARAMETERS AND BLAST EXCLUSION ZONE DETERMINATION ........ 129
FIGURE 5-18 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BLASTING TIME AND BENCH OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY LEVELS. ....................... 130
FIGURE 6-1 TIME CLASSIFICATION MODEL AND LOGIC FOR RE-CLASSIFYING OPERATIONAL DATA ............................ 135
FIGURE 6-2 BREAKDOWN OF INDIVIDUAL DOWNTIME CODES .......................................................................... 136
FIGURE 6-3 BREAKDOWN OF INDIVIDUAL UPTIME CODES ................................................................................ 137
FIGURE 6-4 WORKFLOW AND WORKLOAD FOR INTEGRATED TIME UTILISATION MODELLING ................................ 140
FIGURE 6-5 HIGH-LEVEL MODEL STRUCTURE BASED ON “MUST HAVE” FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS ..................... 141
FIGURE 6-6 INPUTS MODELLING FLOW AND DATA ENTRY FOR TIME USAGE MODEL ............................................ 144
FIGURE 6-7 STRUCTURE OF DATA INPUT MODELLING FOR ITUM .................................................................... 145
FIGURE 6-8 SPECIFICATION OF STOCHASTIC DISTRIBUTIONS FOR INPUT VARIABLES .............................................. 146
FIGURE 6-9 OUTPUT AND RESULT MODELLING FOR INTEGRATED TIME UTILISATION MODEL (ITUM) ..................... 147
FIGURE 6-10 SAMPLE OUTPUT CHARTS FOR INVESTIGATING THE CORRELATION OF INPUT AND OUTPUT VARIABLE .... 148
FIGURE 7-1 PLAN SECTION OF CASE STUDY DEPOSIT EXTENTS .......................................................................... 151
FIGURE 7-2 VERTICAL SECTION OF CASE STUDY DEPOSIT EXTENTS ..................................................................... 152
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xii

FIGURE 7-3 IN-PIT CONVEYOR LAYOUT FOR THE FMIPCC SYSTEMS AT FULL PRODUCTION CAPACITY - YEAR 5 .......... 153
FIGURE 7-4 RESULTING PHASE-BY-PHASE PROGRESSION OF OPTIMAL DEPOSIT EXPLOITATION SCHEME ................... 154
FIGURE 7-5 PROPOSED EXPLOITATION APPROACHES FOR CASE STUDY DEPOSIT (WD – WASTE DUMP) .................. 155
FIGURE 7-6 SELECTED OPTIMAL OVERALL MINING STRATEGY – SEQUENCE AND APPROACH ................................... 155
FIGURE 7-7 PROPOSED LOM MATERIAL MOVEMENT SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 156
FIGURE 7-8 OPERATING RANGE OF 42 M3 CAPACITY HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR (PC8000 - KOMATSU, 2017) .......... 158
FIGURE 7-9 BENCH CONFIGURATION FOR MINE DESIGN OF CASE STUDY ............................................................ 160
FIGURE 7-10 GRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF THIS BASELINE PERFORMANCE OF THE FMIPCC SYSTEM COMPONENTS ...... 164
FIGURE 7-11 SUMMARY REPORT OF THE INTEGRATED TIME UTILISATION MODEL (ITUM)................................... 165
FIGURE 7-12 ESTIMATED OPERATING HOURS RANGES FOR FMIPCC PERFORMANCE ........................................... 166
FIGURE 7-13 BOX PLOT OF OPERATING TIME VARIABILITY FOR FMIIPCC SYSTEM COMPONENTS ........................... 167
FIGURE 7-14 TOP 10 CONTRIBUTORS TO THE VARIANCE IN FMIPCC OPERATING TIME ........................................ 168
FIGURE 7-15 FMIPCC TIME INPUTS RANKED BY IMPACT ON OUTPUT MEAN OF OPERATING TIME ......................... 168
FIGURE 7-16 TOP 10 CONTRIBUTORS TO THE VARIANCE IN OPERATING TIME – LOADING UNIT ............................. 169
FIGURE 7-17 TOP 10 CONTRIBUTORS TO THE VARIANCE IN OPERATING TIME – MOBILE CRUSHING UNIT ............... 169
FIGURE 7-18 TOP 10 CONTRIBUTORS TO THE VARIANCE IN OPERATING TIME – BELT CONVEYOR SYSTEM ............... 170
FIGURE 7-19 TOP 10 CONTRIBUTORS TO THE VARIANCE IN OPERATING TIME – SPREADER UNIT ............................ 170
FIGURE 8-1 EXPLOITATION SCHEMES TO STUDY EFFECTS OF BENCH GEOMETRY ON FMIPCC UTILISATION ............... 177
FIGURE 8-2 IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL BENCH GEOMETRY FACTORS ON OVERALL UTILISATION OF FMIPCC SYSTEM ..... 179
FIGURE 8-3 INTERACTIONS OF BENCH GEOMETRY FACTORS ON FMIPCC UTILISATION ........................................ 180
FIGURE 8-4 3D SURFACE PLOT OF FMIPCC UTILISATION VS. PANEL WIDTH AND PANEL LENGTH .......................... 180
FIGURE 8-5 COMBINED IMPACT OF BENCH GEOMETRIC FACTORS ON FMIPCC UTILISATION ................................. 181
FIGURE 8-6 BENCH GEOMETRY IMPACT ON FMIPCC UTILISATION AT 15M AND 20M BENCH HEIGHTS................... 182
FIGURE 8-7 BASIC SCHEMATICS OF BENCH SEQUENCING ................................................................................. 183
FIGURE 9-1 KEY AREAS OF FMIPCC RESEARCH WHICH HAVE RECEIVED LITTLE ATTENTION .................................... 191
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xiii

List of Tables
TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF IPCC INSTALLATIONS IN AUSTRALIA SINCE 1971(RITTER, 2016B) .................................... 3
TABLE 2-1 RELEVANCE RANKING MATRIX USED FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW FOR THIS RESEARCH.............................. 9
TABLE 2-2 CATALOGUE OF REVIEWED LITERATURE CATEGORIES BY SUBJECT MATTER GROUPS.................................. 10
TABLE 2-3 SPECIFICATION OF FMIPCC CAPACITIES IN AUSTRALIA (FOLEY, 2013B; RITTER, 2016) ......................... 12
TABLE 2-4 RELEVANCE RANKING OF LITERATURE ON FMIPCC DESIGN, SELECTION AND CONFIGURATION .................. 14
TABLE 2-5 RELEVANCE RANKING OF LITERATURE ON FMIPCC MINE DESIGN, PLANNING AND SCHEDULING ............... 17
TABLE 2-6 RELEVANCE RANKING OF LITERATURE ON FMIPCC RELIABILITY, MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY .................... 19
TABLE 2-7 RANKING OF LITERATURE ON FMIPCC PERFORMANCE, PRODUCTIVITY AND UTILISATION ........................ 20
TABLE 2-8 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SMIPCC AND FMIPCC (MORRISS, 2008) .................................................. 21
TABLE 2-9 TIME USAGE BREAKDOWN FOR FMIPCC SYSTEMS (MORRISON, 2017) ............................................... 22
TABLE 2-10 COMMON PRIME MOVERS AND HAULING UNIT SURFACE MINING METHODS ........................................ 28
TABLE 2-11 TYPICAL OPERATIONAL RANGES OF PRIMARY DIGGING AND LOADING EQUIPMENT .............................. 30
TABLE 2-12 DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATING TIME OF LOADING EQUIPMENT ON COMMON TASKS PERFORMED ............. 31
TABLE 2-13 TYPICAL BENCH PARAMETERS USED ACROSS THE MINING INDUSTRY (THOMPSON, 2010)...................... 35
TABLE 2-14 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENCH HEIGHT AND LOADER CAPACITY (THOMPSON, 2010) .......................... 35
TABLE 2-15 PRIMARY BENCH PARAMETERS AND THEIR MAIN DRIVERS ................................................................ 36
TABLE 2-16 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE THREE MAIN FMIPCC WALKING MECHANISM .................... 39
TABLE 3-1 CAPACITY ACROSS THE THREE RWE OPERATIONS NEAR COLOGNE, GERMANY (JAETZEL, 2016) ............... 61
TABLE 3-2 EXAMPLE OF SHIFTING REQUIREMENT, ANCILLARY AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................... 77
TABLE 3-3 ESTIMATED TIME BELT CONVEYOR SHIFTING TASKS (GOLOSINSKI AND BOEHM, 1987)............................ 77
TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF THE DISCREPANCIES ................................................................................................. 86
TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF TIME ELEMENT DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................... 87
TABLE 4-3 OPTIONS ANALYSIS OF REDUNDANCY UTILISATION OF MACHINE IN CONTINUOUS OPERATION ................... 91
TABLE 5-1 BREAKDOWN OF THE MINE DESIGN FACTORS AND RELATED IMPACT ON THE ITUM ELEMENTS ............... 106
TABLE 5-2 BENCH SHAPE FACTORS RELATING BENCH SHAPE TO CONVEYOR SHIFTING TIME ................................... 113
TABLE 5-3 RULES OF THUMB FOR OPTIMUM WORKING BENCH (FACE) HEIGHT.................................................... 116
TABLE 5-4 BENCH HEIGHT CORRECTION FACTOR - ATKINSON (1992). ............................................................. 117
TABLE 5-5 COMBINED EFFECT OF SWING ANGLE AND BENCH HEIGHT OF LOADING UNIT (ASSAKKAF, 2003) ............ 118
TABLE 5-6 BLAST QUALITY CORRECTION FACTOR (ATKINSON, 1992) ................................................................ 118
TABLE 5-7 BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL ANNUAL MATERIAL MOVEMENT BY MINE PLANNING TERMS ............................. 125
TABLE 5-8 ANNUAL BREAKDOWN OF HOPPER DOWNTIME OF FMIPCC (DATA: RITTER 2016) ............................. 127
TABLE 6-1 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS - USER REQUIREMENT & FUNCTIONALITY MATRIX [11-MAR-2016]..... 133
TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF EQUIPMENT DOWNTIME (RITTER, 2016) ....................... 138
TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF EQUIPMENT DOWNTIME (RITTER, 2016) ....................... 139
TABLE 7-1 BENCH CONFIGURATION FOR MINE DESIGN OF CASE STUDY .............................................................. 153
TABLE 7-2 SUMMARY OF MINE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR MINING CASE STUDY DEPOSIT ..................................... 157
TABLE 7-3 COMPARISON OF OPERATION RANGES OF 42M3 LOADING UNIT IN HEX AND HFS CONFIGURATIONS ...... 159
TABLE 7-4 SELECTED EQUIPMENT SET FOR CASE STUDY APPLICATION ................................................................ 159
TABLE 7-5 DIRECT IMPACT OF BLASTS ON ADJACENT BENCHES......................................................................... 161
TABLE 7-6 INDIRECT IMPACT OF BLASTS ON ADJACENT BENCHES ...................................................................... 161
TABLE 7-7 SUMMARY OF THE INPUT MODELLING OF MINE AND DUMP DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................ 162
TABLE 7-8 SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED INPUTS FOR THE PRIMARY LOADING UNITS .............................................. 163
TABLE 7-9 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE WITH DIRECT REFERENCES TO IPCC (OR COMPONENT) UTILISATION .............. 171
TABLE 8-1 SHORTLISTING OF KEY VARIABLES FOR INVESTIGATIONS .................................................................... 176
TABLE 8-2 SUMMARY OF THE FULL-FACTOR EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN – TEST 1..................................................... 177
TABLE 8-3 SIMPLIFIED LOGIC FLOW (TOP TO BOTTOM) FOR DETERMINING CONVEYOR SHIFTING FREQUENCY ........... 178
TABLE 8-4 IMPACT OF THE TWO EXPLOITATION SCHEMES FOR A ~20M BENCH HEIGHT ........................................ 183
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xiv

List of Abbreviations
Abbreviations Meaning (Full Phrase)
IPCC: in-pit crushing and conveying
FMIPCC: Fully-Mobile in-pit crushing and conveying
SMIPCC: Semi-Mobile In-pit rushing and conveying
FIPCC: Fixed In-pit rushing and conveying
OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure
OPEX: Operating Expenditure
NPV: Net Present Value
EMPC: engineering, procurement, construction and management
TUM: Time Utilisation Model
iTUM: Integrated Time Utilisation Model
CT: Calendar Time
MT: Mission Time
NT: Non-mission Time
UT: Uptime
DT: Downtime
PD: Planned Downtime
UD: Unplanned Downtime
OS: Operating Standby
OT: Operating Time
PT: Productive Time
OD: Operating Delays
DC/AC: Direct Current/Alternating Current
T-S: Truck – Shovel
MMW: minimum mining width
ROM: Run-off-Mine
CMM: continuous mining method
BWE: Bucket Wheel Excavator
FPS: Function and Performance Specification
SR: strip ratio
LOM: Life of Mine
FEL: front-end loader
HEX: Hydraulic Excavator
HFS: Hydraulic Face Shovel
CNV: Conveyor
TCM: Time Classification Model
KPI: key performance indicators
CT: Calendar Time
CMS: Campaign Maintenance Strategies
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xv
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the framework of the thesis. It presents the background of
the research problem, research gaps, aims, objectives and scope of the research.
The chapter also provides a statement of scientific and industrial contributions
and concludes the structure of the thesis.
Key Terms: Fully-Mobile, In-pit Crusher, Utilisation, Stochastic, Variable
I. K. Dzakpata (2020) 1
1. Introduction
1.1 Trends in In-pit Crushing Conveying
Over the last three decades, the concept of in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) in surface
mines have been increasingly analysed by the mining industry and adapted to mines having
tabular deposits. As surface mines (pits) mature and become deeper and wider, haulage costs
increase disproportionately while productivity decreases. Another challenge for maturing pits
is the relative increase in stripping ratio and its effect on the total cost of mining per tonne of
ore or coal. This has a significant impact on the truck and ancillary fleet requirements for the
operation. In response to increased haulage costs, the mining industry has generated a
number of solutions, including the implementation of IPCC, which involves the combined use
of rock-sizing or crushing equipment and conveying equipment within the confines of an open
pit excavation.
1.2 Types of In-pit Crushing Conveying Systems
The primary feature of an IPCC system is the location of the crusher and connecting conveyors
within the perimeter of the surface mine excavation. The difference between fixed, semi-mobile
and fully-mobile configurations relates to the relative location of the crusher to the loading
system. In the fully-mobile case, the loading system directly feeds the crusher which constantly
follows the loading unit. For the fixed and semi-mobile cases, the crusher is located in a
stationary position and is fed by discrete hauling units, which are in turn loaded by mining
shovels, front-end loaders or excavators as in the case of the conventional truck and shovel.
IPCC haulage promises significant advantages over traditional truck haulage operations,
including improved safety, reduced operating costs, reduced dust and noise emissions and
energy savings related to greenhouse emissions. One significant difference between the Fully-
Mobile In-pit Crusher and Conveyor (FMIPCC) and the non-mobile configurations is the need
for the crusher or sizer to move synchronously with the loading unit, following the active mine
face. This requirement involves very complex manoeuvres and interactions between the
loading system, mobile crusher and other support equipment. The complexity is due to the
restricted mobility of the mobile crusher. This significantly affects equipment performance both
in terms of throughput and in terms of effective utilisation.
1.3 Limited Know-how and Understanding of FMIPCC
Fully mobile crushers have been used in mining since the early 1960s Larson (1986). Belt
conveyers on the other hand been applied to mining since 1892 (Thain and Broumels, 1983).
In contrast to the conventional truck-shovel system, there is relatively limited literature on the
challenges and complexities surrounding the design, planning and operation of FMIPCC
systems. A review of literature shows that most existing FMIPCC applications are in quarries.
In Australia, the first FMIPCC system was installed in 1971. Recent Australian mining industry
reports and literature indicate that most of the IPCC applications have underperformed, which
has resulted in low confidence in the uptake of the system in Australia. Table 1-1 provides a
summary of key IPCC installations in Australia since 1971, showing a trend towards higher
capacity fully mobile crushing systems in the last decade (2001 - 2010). The data in Table
1-1indicated a significant number of IPCC installations in the WA region of Australia.
Table 1-1 Summary of IPCC installations in Australia since 1971 (Ritter, 2016b)
Year State Mine Type Capacity (t/h)

2013 WA Cape Preston Mine SM Gyratory 2 x 4250
2012 WA Roy Hill SM Jaw 5600
2012 WA Cape Preston SM Gyratory 4250
2011 WA Cape Preston SM Gyratory 4250
2010 NSW Boral Peppertree FM Jaw 800
2009 QLD Clermont FM Sizer 12000
2009 WA Spinifex Ridge (Moly mines) SM Gyratory 8,000
2007 WA Cloud Break (FMG) FM Sizer 4 x 4000
2001 QLD Goonyella Riverside FM 10000
1995 WA Robe River Mesa J Semi-Fixed 5500
1989 WA Nimingara Mine (Fe) SM 3330
1986 WA Boddington Gold FM 1350
1986 WA Mt Whaleback SM Jaw 6000
1982 NSW Ulan Mine FM (Tyres) 2300
1982 WA Boddington Gold FM (walking) 2000
1975 WA Huntly Mine (Alcoa) FM (walking) 1700
1971 WA Huntly Mine (Alcoa) FM (walking) 1500
The following sections use an industry evaluation of FMIPCC systems to advance the potential
benefits of applying a risk-based approach to mine equipment acquisition decisions, while
emphasising the drawback of using current approaches based on central estimates or best-
average-worst case scenarios.
1.4 Current Research Gaps
Historically, many Fully-Mobile IPCC systems have failed to perform to expectation for a
number of reasons (Ingmarsson, 2014). In Australia, two primary reasons for poor performance
of FMIPCC include the over-estimation of system productivity and lack of understanding of the
impact of mine design variables on FMIPCC utilisation (Dean et al., 2015b; Morris, 2008;
Morrison, 2017). A detailed review of literature points to a recurring issue of over-estimation of
system productivity, which is primarily a function of overall system time utilisation and
throughput (Choudaha et al., 2012; Knights, 2015; Ritter et al., 2014; Ritter, 2016b). The key
issues identified as part of poor system time utilisation include one or a combination of the
following:
• Underestimation of system delays and time losses
o Lack of historic equipment performance data
o Feasibility studies performed by consultants with vested interests
• Failure to capture the stochastic variability of key modelling inputs
• Lack of understanding of the impact of mine design parameters on utilisation
• Lack of available industry-ready tools for modelling IPCC performance
1.5 The Research Questions
This research will seek to provide answers to the following questions:

a) How can we better estimate system performance (availability and utilisation)
for an In-pit crushing and conveying system?
b) What key mine planning variables affect the utilisation of IPCC system?
c) How can we model the relationship between mine planning variables and
FMIPCC time usage?
d) What time usage elements determine the effective utilisation of IPCC?
e) How can we stochastically model variability of key model inputs?
f) Can we use this model to predict the productive hours and throughput of an
IPCC system?
1.6 Aim of Research
The aim of this research study is to advance an improved approach to time utilisation modelling
of In-pit Crushing and Conveying systems. This covers the complete fully mobile systems from
the digging face to the dumping area, with the potential to extend its use to other alternative
continuous haulage systems.
1.7 Research Methodology
This research study focuses on the time utilisation modelling and determination of the impact
of key mine design variables (geometry approaches, sequencing and scheduling) on the
performance of fully mobile input crusher conveyor (IPCC) system in open pit and open cut
applications. Therefore, the methodology adopted in this research study is to:
a) Investigate current approaches to time utilisation modelling of IPCC systems
b) Identify key mine design variables that affect the performance of FMIPCC.
c) Use historic operational data to establish the variability of key time loss events
d) Apply stochastic and risk modelling techniques to IPCC utilisation modelling.
e) Develop a user-friendly tool for predicting the effective utilisation of IPCC systems,
considering stochastic variability.
1.8 Contribution of Research
The significance of this research work is to:

a) Provide evidence to support the hypothesis that a source of underperformance is linked to
overestimation of productive hours and throughput of FMIPCC systems.
b) Provide the first work to comprehensively evaluate the effects of mine planning variables
on the overall effective utilisation of FMIPCC systems.
c) Current time utilisation approaches depend heavily on consultant and “gut feel” point
estimates which show great departure from actual equipment performance data. The
research will use available historical data to document system performance ranges along
with simple statistical distributions.
d) To date, available tools for modelling and predicting productivity and throughput are
deterministic and typically limited in their ability to model input variability. This research
aims to develop a stochastic tool for modelling capacity of the IPCC, considering variability
of the key modelling inputs.
Further, the developed time usage model has the potential to become a widely used tool for
modelling IPCC system performance and other mining systems within the mining industry.
1.9 Structure of the thesis
Chapter 1 provides an introduction and framework of the thesis. It presents a background of

the research problem, research gaps, aims, objectives and scope of the research. The chapter
also provides a statement of scientific and industrial contributions and concludes with Structure
of the thesis.
Chapter 2 looks at the current state of FMIPCC research in three parts. Part 1 provides a
critical, but succinct literature review on FMIPCC research. Part 2 of this Chapter provides a
functional description of the FMIPCC System. Chapter 2 particularly emphasises the
interaction between the mining face, loading system and in-pit crushing system.
Chapter 3 provides a catalogue of technical and operational constraints of In-pit conveying

systems resulting from a 3-month experience gathering within RWE’s large coal operations in
the North Rhinish area of Germany - a collaborative learning agreement between RWE
international and the School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, University of Queensland;
Chapter 4 discusses existing industry time classification and utilisation models IPCC systems.
The chapter then provides a rational for the Time usage modelling approach adopted for this
research systems. The Chapter provides an overview of operational data (sources, treatment
and limitations) used for the analysis is presented in this research.
Chapter 5 looks at some mine design consideration for FMIPCC systems with emphasis on
five (5) key mine design parameters that influence the utilisations of FMIPCC and how these
factors are accounted for in the methodology presented in the research.
Chapter 6 provides a detailed discussion of the structure of the integrated Time Utilisation
Model (iTUM), the data input requirements and output reports that are generated from the
modelling approach described in this research.
Chapter 7 presents an application of the iTUM methodology to a real-world case study with a
complete step-by-step walk-through from inputs to results. The results are then verified with
previous FMIPCC/IPCC evaluation results from available OEM-type feasibility studies.
Chapter 8 presents a conceptual study of FMIPCC strip mining layouts and exploitation
approaches, relevant to a typical Australian coal deposit. The aim of the study is to investigate
the impact of bench geometry on the time utilisations of the FMIPCC as applied to coal pre-
stripping strategies.
Finally, Chapter 9 presents a summary of work completed in this research in line with the
research objectives initially defined, key findings, statement of contribution, and outlook for
future research work.
CHAPTER 2:
CURRENT STATE OF
FMIPCC RESEARCH
This chapter presents the current state of FMIPCC research in three parts.
Part 1 provides a critical but succinct literature review on FMIPCC research.
Part 2 discusses the functional description of the FMIPCC System
components, and Part 3 concludes with a catalogue of technical and
operational constraints of FMIPCC systems.
Key Terms: Fully-Mobile, In-pit Crusher, Utilisation, In-pit crusher
PART 1:
Literature Review
Part 1 of the literature review provides a succinct literature review on
FMIPCC research. The literature review covers the five (5) main subject
matter areas aligned with the main staged of a mine life cycle. The
literature groups are then ranked based on scope and relevance using a
scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being highest and 5 being lowest.
2. Current State of FMIPCC Research
2.1 Review of Literature on FMIPCC
The following section provides a summary literature review of key aspects related to the
design, operation and economic performance of FMIPCC systems. While much of the literature
considers sub-components of the FMIPCC, in many cases the context was unrelated to the
FMIPCC. The general functioning of those components is considered relevant to their
operation within an FMIPCC system.
The literature reviewed has been ranked based on a “relevance” matrix which indicates how
closely related the reference is to the FMIPCC technology as a unique mining system. Table
2-1 shows the relevance matrix used for filtering the literature.
Table 2-1 Relevance ranking matrix used for the literature review for this research
Rank Relevance Description/Classification
1 Direct - High Direct relation to FMIPCC as a unique/complete mining system
2 Direct - Low Direct relation to sub-components of the IPCC and applicable to FMIPCC
3 Indirect Indirect relation to sub-component of other continuous mining systems
4 Generic - High Generic relation to open-pit mining (design, planning and operation)
5 Generic - Low Generic relation to mining equipment (design, planning and operation)
Literature reviewed in this research has been grouped by subject areas as follows:
[A] Historical development and general overview
[B] System design, selection and configuration
[C] Mine design, layout planning and scheduling
[D] Maintenance, reliability and safety
[E] System performance, productivity and utilisation
[F] Energy and environment
[G] Mine specific technical and application studies
[H] Cost (CAPEX and OPEX)
Table 2-2 provides a catalogue of reviewed literature categorised by subject area as listed
above. While a brief historical background is given in a few instances, the bulk of the literature
review focuses on blocks [B], [C], [D], and [G] of Table 2-2. Capital expenditure (CAPEX) and
operation expenditure (OPEX) are considered out of scope for this research.
Table 2-2 catalogue of reviewed literature categories by subject matter groups
Subject Area List of References

Historical (Plattner, 1986; Kahrger, 1989; Radlowski, 1965; Bearman and Munro, 2010; Turnbull and
[A] Development and Cooper, 2010; Londono et. Al. 2013; Knights, 2015; Saperstein, 1980; Kok, 1980; Kok, 1982;
General Overview Nielsen and Tyson, 2013; McCarthy, 2014; Ritter, 1990)
(Ritter, 2016; Dean et al., 2015; Kozan and Liu, 2014; Richter, 2013; Winkel, 2013; Ananth
et al., 2013; Wolpers, 2013; Lu, 2011; Grima et al., 2011; McEwen, 2008; Hugo and
System Design, Bunduwongse, 2007; Bozorgerbrahimi et al., 2005; Bozorgerbrahimi et al., 2003; Sauer,
[B] Selection and 2001; Sastri, 1994; Richmond et al., 1991; Golosinski and Boehm, 1986; Plattner, 1986;
Configuration Golosinski and Boehm, 1985; Korak, 1985; Freeh and Iles, 1985; Frizzell and Martin, 1984;
Craighead, 1982; Spilker et al., 1980; Anon, 1978; Olender, 1971; Risler, 1958; Morgan and
Anderson, 1955)
(McCarthy, 2016; Dean et al., 2015; Kozan and Liu, 2014; Sari et al., 2014;
Mine Design, Johnson and Hoang, 2014; Knights and Nehring, 2014; Lee, 2014: Lee, 2013; Oberrauner
[C] Layout Planning and Ritter, 2013; Nanjari and Golosinski, 2013; Atchison and Morrison, 2011; Hem, 2012;
and Scheduling Kumral, 2012; Grenon and Laflamme, 2011; Soltanmohammadi et al., 2010; Heinio, 1999).
(Schenkelberg, 2017; Asbjörnsson et al., 2016; Summit and Halomoan, 2015;
Schenkelberg, 2015; Velmurugan et al., 2014; Dean and Ryde, 2014; Harwini and Singh,
2013; Johnsen, 2011; Fraser, 2011; Barabadi et al., 2010; Johnsen, 2018; Barabady and
Kumar, 2008; Kumar et al., 2007; Chan and Kuruppu, 2006; Knights and Oyanader, 2005;
Hall and Daneshmend, 2003; Montenegro and Lellis, 2003; Vagenas et al., 2003; Kim and
Maintenance, Seong, 2002; Knights, 2001; Samanta, 2001; Shultz and King, 2001; Steinberg, 2001; Roy et
[D] Reliability and al., 2011, Roman and Daneshmend, 2001; Paraszczak, 2000; Nave, 2000; Elerath, 2000;
Safety Nolan, 1999; Krellis and Singleton, 1998; Surtees, 1996; Fernie, 1993; Stahura, 1992(a);
Stahura, 1992(b); Mackie and Rider, 1990; Nelson et al., 1985; Brouwer, 1979; Bonar; 1978;
Myntti, 1978; Anon, 1976; Tomlingson, 1973; McIndoo and Woodle, 1968; Bowley, 1963;
Willis, 1963; Pundari, 1962; McNickle, 1961; Mason, 1961; Thompson, 1950)
(Morrison, 2017; Ritter; 2016; Lukacs, 2016; Fourie, 2016; Tynan, 2016; Khorzoughi and
Hall, 2016; Mohammadi et al. 2015; Arputharaj, 2015; Kalra et al, 2015; Bruno and Suglo,
2015; Sankha and Dey, 2015; Lumley and McKee, 2014; Lanke et al., 2014; Rodovalho and
System Eyer Cabral, 2014; Choudaha et al., 2012; Mahdi and Morteza, 2014; Ritter, 2014; Adadzi,
Performance, 2013; Yilmaz, 2013; Alvarez, 2012; Zammori et al., 2011; Evelvi and Evelvi, 2010; Morriss,
[E]
Productivity and 2008; Muchiri and Pintelon, 2008; Callow, 2006; De Ron and Rooda, 2006; Paraszczak,
Utilisation 2006; Frimpong et al, 2005; Workman-Davles and Van Loggerenberg, 2003; Gurgenci et al.,
2002; Sense, 1968; Sense; 1964).
Energy and (Raaz and Mentges, 2011; Beavers, 2013)

[F]
Environment
(Morrison, 2017; Ritter, 2016; Ritter, 2014; Oberrauner, 2013; Groeneveld and Topal, 2011;
Mohammadi et al. 2011; Kressner, 2011; Hollingsworth and Harris, 2010; Lucio et. al., 2009;
Morrison and Lourel, 2009; Tutton and Streck, 2009; Leite, 2008; Kempas, 2007;
Mine Specific Zimmermann and Kruse, 2006; Corriveau, 2004; Goodnough, 2004; Flannery, 1985; Scott,
Technical and 1988; Ferguson, 2004; Tejchman and Hegde, 1989; McCarthy, 2014; Iles, 1985; Mentges,
[G]
Application 2008; Stanisic et. al. 1997; MacPhail and Richards, 1994; Dowall and Linde, 1993(a); Dowall
Studies and Linde, 1993(b); Linde and Allen, 1990; Miller, 1989; Coleman, and De Broglio, 1986;
Larson, 1986 Talbot, 1977; Baker, 1973)
(Wentzel, 2012; Turnbull, 2011; Wolpers, 2014; Szalanski, 2010; Shafiee et al, 2009; Balt
Cost (CAPEX 2007; Oxley and Myers, 2003; Calebi, 1998; Althoff and Clark, 1986; Larson, 1986; Iles,
[H]
and OPEX) * Lamb & Hunt; 1984; 1983; Schweitzer and Dykers, 1976)
* In many mining operations, CAPEX and OPEX are often confidential and required non-disclosure arrangements
in order to discuss in public domain, hence these are considered out of scope this research.
2.1.1 Historical background of In-pit Crushing in Mining
Historically, the application of crushers and belt conveying systems as specialised mining
equipment units dates back to the late 19th century (Ewald and Kahrger, 1989; Gregory, 1972).
However, a review of literature indicates that the earliest application of a complete, fully mobile
in-pit crushing system was in 1956 (Frizzell and Martin, 1984b; Kok, 1980; Kok, 1983; Plattner,
1986). This involved the installation of a crawler-mounted mobile crusher at a North Cement
limestone quarry close to Hanover in Germany. The 250 tpa system (built by KRUPP, a
manufacturer of mining equipment) was equipped with an apron feeder and was capable of
crushing at a ratio of 1:5. A decade later, four similar-sized units were deployed in limestone
quarries nearby. Figure 2-1 shows a global historic installation of FMIPCC system in the last
six decades. Figure 2-1 also shows an increasing trend of units installed, having capacity over
the last decade.
Figure 2-1 Global historic installation of FMIPCC system since 1956
This represents the evolution of FMIPCC capacity over the last six decades, showing a wider
range of mobile crushing capacities over the last three decades. The increase in higher
capacity FMIPCC systems could be explained by the general trend towards larger mining
equipment (Darling, 2011; Binning, 2009; Garner, 2005; Dhar, 2000). The right hand side of
the broken line on the capacity scale indicates apparent increase in throughputs greater than
3,500t/hr. Dean et al. (2015b) noted that because off-the-shelf IPCC systems for mining
applications are unavailable, prospective users of FMIPCC require extensive engineering,
procurement, construction and management (EMPC) arrangements, adding an extra layer of
cost and lead time delays.
This cost disincentive to early adopters and extra work for the OEM in relation to design and
engineering is apparent in the shift from EMPC driven systems to off-the-shelf solutions.
Furthermore, this shift, coupled with the recent post-GFC market conditions have seen the
recoil of several prominent OEMs from the EMPC-type IPCC solutions (Dyson, 2017;
Solomons, 2017). This industry position is supported by the lack of interest as a result of
operational optimisation and efficiency initiatives by many large mine operators
2.1.2 Brief History of Fully Mobile In-Pit Crusher Conveyor in Australia
In Australia, the earliest recorded use of the FMIPCC was in 1971 at Huntly Mine in Western
Australia (Foley, 2013b; Foley, 2013a). The FMIPCC system was a 1,500 tph gyratory
crusher equipped with a 3-cylinders Walking Mechanism which enabled the crusher to propel
itself following the loading unit and the dig face. Table 2-3 shows the chronological installations
of FMIPCC systems in Australia since 1971.
Table 2-3 Specification of FMIPCC capacities in Australia (Foley, 2013b; Ritter, 2016)
Year Mine Commodity Type of In-pit Crusher Capacity (t/h)

2013 Unknown Aggregate FM Jaw 1,500
2010 Boral Peppertree Aggregate FM Jaw 8,00
2009 Clermont Coal FM Sizer 1,2000
2007 Cloud Break (FMG) Iron Ore FM Sizer 4 x 4000
2001 Goonyella Riverside Coal FM 10,000
1986 Boddington Gold Gold FM 1,350
1982 Ulan Mine Coal FM (Tyres) 2,300
1982 Boddington Gold Bauxite FM (walking) 2,000
1975 Huntly Mine (Alcoa) Bauxite FM (walking) 1,700
1975 Del Park Dwellingup Bauxite FM (walking) Gyratory 1,500
1971 Huntly Mine (Alcoa) Bauxite FM (walking) 1,500
Source data: Foley (2013) b; Ritter (2016)
Evidence from the literature review suggests that, although these equipment were designed
with full mobility, most of them have not been used to full capacity or in the fully-mobile mode
as per design. The review also reveals that most of the FMIPCC units installed in Australia
over the last three decades have not performed to expectation largely due to a mix of
operational and technical reasons listed as follows (Dean et al., 2015b; Foley, 2013b):
• Problem related to material characteristics
• Suitability of deposit geometry
• Unsuitable mine designs, layouts and plans
• Mismatching of equipment capacities
• Poor implementation strategies (with resistance to change by users)
• Failure to prepare and plan for the system
• Lack of operational data to support claims of benefits and advantages
• Challenges with scalability of IPCC system compared to Truck-Shovel
• High CAPEX (Initial) and OPEX uncertainties (related system maintenance)
• Lack of unified voice of experts and OEMs
Other reasons attributed to the poor utilisation of the FMIPCC in Australia include the
dependency of proven methods in truck and shovel which offers comparatively more flexibility
and for the fact that most of the existing mines have been designed with trucks and shovel in
mind. With the stalling of many Greenfield projects, several OEMs have discharged some
aspect of their FMIPCC portfolios to focus on the more traditional or core products (Dyson,
2017; Reuters, 2015). Despite these misgivings, with the recent implementation of a 4-unit
FMIPCC systems at Vale’s planned 230 Mt/yr S11D project (the world’s largest iron ore mines)
in Caracas, will further proof of concept and operational value for FMIPCC application in a
large throughput and metalliferous deposit (McRoberts, 2016; Jankovic, 2015; Leonida, 2019).
As part of implementing the new paradigm of complete FMIPCC production scheme, the pre-
implementation planning involved extensive period (over 20 years) of capacity building,
customised training, immersive simulator and virtual operator training (McRoberts, 2016).
2.1.3 System Design, Selection and Configuration
The literature review shows a wide coverage of five key aspects of FMIPCC systems design,
selection and configuration. Notably, only a few of the literature provides in-depth insights of
the FMIPCC system as a complete mining system. Table 2-4 shows a ranking of literature on
FMIPCC system design, selection and configuration. Grey-shaded cells indicate literature with
higher relevance to FMIPCC.
Table 2-4 Relevance ranking of literature on FMIPCC design, selection and configuration
Functional Design & Sizing & Technical Operational

Specification Engineering Selection Constraints Limitations
Ritter (2016b) 1 2
Ritter et al. (2014) 1 1 1
Dean et al. (2015a) 1 1 1
Kozan and Liu (2016) 3
Dotto (2014) 5
Schutzhold et al. (2014) 5
Oberrauner (2013) 2 2
Ananth et al. (2013) 2 2
Londoño et al. (2013) 2
Lu (2011) 3
Grima et al. (2011) 3 3 3 3
Morrison and Laurel, 2009
Tutton and Streck (2009) 1 1
Seehoefer (2009) 2 2 2
McEwen (2008) 3 3
Bozorgebrahimi et al. (2005) 4 4 4
Bozorgebrahimi et al. (2003) 4
Sauer (2001) 5
Tsalidis and Dentsoras (1997) 3 3
Sastri (1994) 2
Frizzell and Martin (1992) 1 1 1
Richmond et al. (1991) 3 3
Carnahan et al. (1991) 3 3 3
Thompson et al. (1991) 3 3
Clarke et al. (1990) 5
Ewald and Kahrger (1989) 1
Radlowski (1988) 2
Golosinski and Boehm (1986b) 1 1 1 1 1
Golosinski and Boehm (1986a) 1 1 1
Korak (1985) 1 2 2 2 2
Freeh and Iles (1985)
Atkinson (1985) 2
Frizzell and Martin (1984a) 2 2 2
Frizzell and Utley (1983) 3
Craighead and Adamson (1982) 3 3 2
Spilker et al. (1980) 2
Loeffler et al. (1980) 3 3 3
Olender (1971) 3 3 3
Stahura (1992a) 5
The literature review shows that, even where some literature shows high relevance to FMIPCC,
only specific sub-components of the system are discussed in-depth; for example, conveyor
belts and conveyor shifting operations (Golosinski and Boehm, 1986c; Ritter et al., 2014;
Tutton and Streck, 2009; Ritter, 2016b). This review also indicates relatively more coverage of
FMIPCC system functional descriptions and selection criteria compared to the technical and
operations constraints of the system. This may be explained by the fact that most of literature
originates from authors with extensive OEM background or affiliation. This strong OEM
literature supports the widespread notion of exponential FMIPCC operational and financial
benefits for the use of FMIPCC in surface mining. However, the limited coverage of technical
and operational constraints, based on actual operation performance of FMIPCC present a
significant gap in the knowledge base for FMIPCC assimilation. The particular case of the
Australian mining industry is noted, where available data shows that installation of FMIPCC in
Australia peaked in 2007 at four. Figure 2-2 shows the history of FMIPCC installations in
Australia since 1971.
Figure 2-2 History of FMIPCC installations in Australia since 1971
The review further indicates that, despite the number of previous FMIPCC installations in
Australia, very little information (operational and performance) is available on the performance
of these systems. A practical understanding of system capability, specification and their
limitations is critical to a well-informed equipment purchase decisions (Dzakpata et al., 2016).
The lack of operational information (performance data, constraints and lessons learnt), could
therefore be detrimental to the acceptance of FMIPCC, potentially heightening the risks of
rejection of FMIPCC technology.
2.1.4 Mine Design, Layout, Planning and Scheduling
As with most mining machinery, a significant part the FMIPCC system operates within the open
pit excavation. The design, geometry and scheduling of an open pit mine has significant
influence on the performance and utilisation of all mine machinery deployed within the pit
(Ritter, 2016b; Thompson, 2005). Similarly, the sizing and capacities are key consideration for
determining the layout and geometry of an open pit (Bozorgebrahimi et al., 2005;
Bozorgebrahimi et al., 2003; Radlowski, 1988). The review shows that open pit parameters
including bench height, bench width and mining sequence influence the productivity and
utilisation of FMIPCC. Table 2-5 lists reviewed literature with relevance to mine design, layout,
planning and scheduling for FMIPCC systems. The list of references is chronologically grouped
in five subject areas as follows:
• Open Pit Design
• Bench Geometry
• Sequencing & Scheduling
• Access & Haulage
• Material Handling
Two schools of thought emerge on the impact of mine design and planning on viability of
FMIPCC from the literature review. One view suggests that the FMIPCC is unviable due to
inflexibility of the current paradigm of mine design and planning methods which often leads to
sub-optimal performance (Morrison, 2017; Tutton and Streck, 2009). The opposing view
argues that FMIPCC could be highly feasible with use of technology (including automation)
and engineering of various components of the system. For example, a complete overhaul of
existing pit optimisation and mine design techniques (Morrison, 2007; Morrison, 2013;
Morrison, 2017). The latter ideology argues that, the FMIPCC could be equally productive in
circular-shaped pit as in non-circular open pits with a good rigour in mine planning practice
(Foley, 2013b).
Table 2-5 Relevance ranking of literature on FMIPCC mine design, planning and scheduling
Open Pit Bench Sequencing Access & Material

Design Geometry Scheduling Haulage Handling
McCarthy (2016) 3
Dean et al. (2015a) 1 1
Kozan and Liu (2016) 4
Mahdi and Morteza (2014) 4 4
Johnson and Hoang (2014) 2
Nehring and Knights (2014) 1 1
Lee (2014) 2 2 2
Gerlach and Mentges (2013) 1
Lee (2013) 2 2 2 2
Oberrauner and Ritter (2013) 2 2
Nielsen and Tyson (2013) 2 2 2 2 2
Nanjari and Golosinski (2013) 4
Foley (2013a)
Hem (2012) 4 4
Atchison and Morrison (2011b) 1 1 1
Elkington and Durham (2011) 4
Kumral (2012) 4
Grenon and Laflamme (2011) 4
Soltanmohammadi et al. (2010) 4
Halatchev and Lever (2005) 4
Kose (2005) 4
Ural (2001) 3
Grenon and Laflamme (2011) have suggested that, the progressive change of mining
objectives during the mine life contribute to how mine design, planning and scheduling might
influence the overall performance of an FMIPCC system, and therefore should be a key
consideration when planning for an FMIPCC system deployment. Figure 2-3 shows a
schematic of overall mine design may be driven by long, medium and short objective at
different stages of a mine life.
Figure 2-3 Overall mine design objectives through life stages (Grenon and Laflamme (2011)
Figure 2-3 also shows that mining projects typically focus on very diverging business objectives
over the life of the project. These may further get disrupted when mine operations changes
ownership during its exploitation cycle. Foley (2013b) and Morrison (2017) have suggested
that most of the FMIPCC units installed in Australia over the last three decades have failed
largely due to unsuitable mine designs and plans, mismatching of equipment capacities and
failure to prepare and plan for the system. From the literature review, the follows observations
are made:
• Available literature indicates sparse coverage of how in-pit mine design, layout and
scheduling affect the utilisation and productivity of FMIPCC systems.
• Experts and researches have largely attributed this outcome to poor mine planning and
design, lack of evaluation of potential impact on other components of the mining
system.
• The Impact of mine planning variables on performance of FMIPCC has not been
sufficiently understood or adequately modelled due to lack of existing industry tools.
• An understanding of the impact of key mine planning variables on the effective

utilisation of FMIPCC can help quantify and potential risk with FMIPCC.
2.1.5 System Maintenance, Reliability and Safety
The ability for an equipment to maintain consistent performance at the designed capacity is
function its reliability, which is ultimately a reflection of how well the equipment or system is
designed, operated, maintained and the operational response to unscheduled equipment
downtime (Dhillon, 2008a; Dhillon, 2008b; Tomlingson, 2009). The review of industry literature
shows wide coverage of sub-components of IPCC systems discussed as standalone mine
equipment. Table 2-6 provides a summary of reviewed literature with relevance to FMIPCC
maintenance, reliability and Safety.
While the knowledge of these sub-components is highly applicable in various system of fully-
mobile configurations, only a few of the literature considered the interactions of component
systems as integral units within an FMIPCC system. For example, Asbjörnsson et al. (2016),
Barabady and Kumar (2008) and Roy et al. (2001) looked at various aspects of different types
of crushers within mining operations. Similarly, Velmurugan et al. (2014), Li et al. (2013),
Hirwani and Singh (2013), Niţescu (2012), Zhao (2011), Zimroz and Król (2009), Ottjes et al.
(2014), focused their work on belt conveyor reliability. Remarkably, none of the literature
reviewed exclusively covered the maintenance, reliability and performance of mobile crushing
systems, which lies at the heart of any FMIPCC system.
Table 2-6 Relevance ranking of literature on FMIPCC reliability, maintenance and safety
Equipment System MTTR/MTBF System

Downtime Maintenance Failure Rates Reliability
Ritter and Stoyan (2018) 3 3
Schenkelberg (2017) 5
Asbjörnsson et al. (2016) 3
Schenkelberg (2015) 5
Velmurugan et al. (2014) 3 3
Dean and Ryder (2014) 5
Li et al. (2013) 3 3
Hirwani and Singh (2013) 3
Summit and Halomoan (2013) 5
Niţescu (2012) 3
Yingkui and Jing (2012) 5
Johnsen (2011) 5 5
Zhao and Lin (2011) 3 3
Fraser (2011) 5 5
Barabadi et al. (2011) 5
Zimroz and Król (2009) 2 2 2
Barabady and Kumar (2008) 2 2
Kumar et al. (2007) 5
Kuruppu (2004) 5
Knights and Oyanader (2005) 5
Ottjes et al. (2014) 2 2 2
Hall and Daneshmend (2003) 5
Montenegro and Lellis (2003) 5
Vagenas et al. (2003) 5 5
Kim and Seong (2002) 5
Knights (2001) 5 5
Samanta et al. (2001) 3
Schulz and King (2001) 5 5
Lewis and Steinberg (2001) 5
Roy et al. (2001) 3 3
Roman and Daneshmend (2001) 5 5
Paraszczak (2000) 5 5
Nave (2000) 3
Elerath (2000) 5
Nolan (1999) 5 5
Krellis and Singleton (1998) 5
Owen (1997) 3
Vagenas et al. (1997) 5
Surtees (1996) 3 3 3 3
Tomlingson (1994)
Fernie (1993) 3
Stahura (1992a); Stahura (1992b) 3 3
Mackie and Rider (1990) 3
Nelson et al. (1985) 5
Tomlingson (1982) 5
Brouwer (1979) 5
Anonymous (1978) 3
Myntti (1978) 5
McIndoo and Woodle (1968) 5
Bowley (1963) 5
Pundari (1962) 5
Mason (1960) 3
Thompson (1950) 3
2.1.6 System Performance, Productivity and Utilisation
Similar to observations made in previous sections of this chapter, a critical review of IPCC
literature shows limited coverage of system performance, productivity and utilisation of
FMIPCC systems. Table 2-7 provides a summary of reviewed literature with relevance to
FMIPCC performance, productivity and utilisation. Table 2-7 also shows a marked contrast
between the number of papers discussing the application and potential benefits versus the
reliability and limitations of the FMIPCC in Table 2-4.
Table 2-7 Ranking of literature on FMIPCC performance, productivity and utilisation
System Time Operation Performance

Productivity Utilisation Scheduling Measures
Morrison (2017) 1 1
Ritter (2016b) 2 2 2
Fourie (2016) 5 5
Tynan (2016a); Tynan (2016b) 5 5 5
Khorzoughi and Hall (2016) 3 3
Mohammadi et al. (2015) 3 3
Arputharaj (2015a); Arputharaj (2015b) 3 3
Kalra et al. (2015) 5 5
Kansake and Suglo (2015) 5
Sarkhel and Dey (2015) 5 5
Lumley and McKee (2014) 5 5 5
Lanke et al. (2014) 5 5
Rodovalho and Cabral (2014) 5
Mahdi and Morteza (2014) 5 5
Ritter et al. (2014) 2 2
Adadzi (2013) 5
Yilmaz (2014) 2 2
Steven (2012) 2
Choudaha et al. (2012) 2 2
Zammori et al. (2011) 5 5
Elevli and Elevli (2010) 5
Morriss (2008) 1 1
Muchiri and Pintelon (2008) 5 5
Callow (2006) 5
De Ron and Rooda (2006) 5
Singh and Narendrula (2006) 5
Paraszczak (2005) 5
Siegrist and Morris (2005) 5 5 5
Bozorgebrahimi et al. (2005) 5 5
Workman-Davies and Van Loggerenberg 5 5 5
(2003)
Gurgenci et al. (2002) 5
Lukacs (2001) 5
Radlowski (1988) 2 2
Sense and Pfleider (1968) 5 5
Sense (1964) 5
Two authors have provided an in-depth discussion on FMIPCC utilisation and performance.
Morris (2008) considered the key production drivers of IPCC systems, by using a deterministic
spreadsheet-based tool to determine the overall operation time (hours) and throughput of
FMIPCC and SMIPCC configurations. Table 2-8 summaries the results of Morris (2008) study.
His results show that the FMIPCC achieves a slightly lower utilisation compared to the
SMIPCC. Similarly, the throughput of the FMIPCC in similar material was on average 40%
lower than the SMIPCC. Morris (2008) findings shows that the variance between the two IPCC
systems is mainly due to the aggregated effect of breakdowns and operational delays.
Table 2-8 Comparative study of SMIPCC and FMIPCC (Morriss, 2008)
Time Efficiency SMIPCC FMIPCC

Calendar Time 8,760 8,760
Scheduled non-work time 96 96
Wet weather losses 192 192
Crusher relocations 336 192
Industrial losses 0 0
Scheduled Hours 8,136 8,280 → A
Daily Service 365 365
Weekly Maintenance 312 312
Annual maintenance 336 336
Scheduled maintenance 1,013 1,013
Scheduled availability 87.5 87.5
Breakdown as % of Sched. availability - -
Breakdowns (Total) 407 678
Overall availability 82.6% 79.6% →B
Available Hours 6,716 6,589
Shifts per day 2 2
Hour per shift 12 12
Minutes per shift 720 720
Effective Operating time/shift (mins) 610.7 577.44
Equipment Utilisation 84.8% 80.2% →C
Availability (%) 82.6% 79.6%
Utilisation (%) 84.8% 80.2%
Effective Operating Time (Hrs) 5,697 5,285 →AxBxC
Throughput Mtpa t/hr Mtpa t/hr % of SMIPCC
Annual Capacity - 50mpa Material 45.58 8,001 29.07 5,500 64%
Annual Capacity - 25mpa Material 51.27 8,999 29.07 5,500 57%
Annual Capacity - Clay Material 54.12 9,500 31.71 6,000 59%
Converse to Morris’s (2008) central value approach, Morrison (2017) investigated the
productivity and utilisation of FMIPCC using a worst-central-best case approach. Morrison’s
(2017) approach is based on his argument that, FMIPCC systems have underperformed due
to engineering optimism in productions rates and assumptions of continuity in operating
conditions, most of which does not hold true. Morrison’s (2017) notes that the utilisation of the
FMIPCC in the first two years was the worst-case results. Table 2-9 summaries the results of
Morris ‘s (2008) study; which the author links to some basic financial analysis to debunk the
whole financial viability of FMIPCC. Comparing the modelling approaches of Morris (2008) and
Morrison (2017), it is apparent that the latter provides a more objective results - at least from
a financial perspective. It is also evident from the two methods that, determining the
performance of mining systems is heavily dependent in time utilisation models (TUM).
Table 2-9 Time usage breakdown for FMIPCC systems (Morrison, 2017)
Equipment Worst case Central Best case

Calendar time 8760 8760 8760
Annual maintenance shutdown 336 336 336
Weekly maintenance 600 600 600
Daily service 175 175 175
B'down loss (BL) 1500 600 450
Down time 2,611 1,711 1,561
Available time 6,149 7,049 7,199
Scheduled loss 48 48 48
Industrial 360 120 0
Weather 480 34 120
No Power 24 24 24
Not Manned 0 0 0
Safety/Training 25 25 25
Meal Break 0 0 0
Blast 50 50 50
Shift change 171 171 171
Other 9 0 0
Operating Standby 1,158 472 438
Utilised time 4,991 6,577 6,761
Face conveyor moves 216 108 36
dump conveyor moves 144 48 24
Face positioning 743 495 327
Wait dozer 171 171 171
Cables 50 50 50
Prestart checks 114 114 114
Operating delay 1,438 986 722
Operating time/Year 3,554 5,591 6,039
2.1.7 Summary: Part 1
The literature review shows a narrow scope relating to FMIPCC research and technology,
planning and achievable system utilisation. This shows that industry coverage of FMIPCC
subject is not detailed, particularly from an operational perspective. The review also indicates
that, many FMIPCC systems have underperformed for a number of reasons including issues
related to poor mine design, overestimation of system utilization and productivity. Recent
Australian mining industry reports and literature indicates that the majority of IPCC applications
have underperformed. This has led to low confidence in the uptake of the system in Australia.
In Australia, two primary reasons have been cited for the poor performance of FMIPCC
including the over-estimation of system productivity and lack of understanding of the impact of
mine design variables on FMIPCC utilisation.
The review of literature points to a recurring issue of over-estimation of system productivity,

which is primarily a function of overall system time utilisation and throughput. The key issues
identified as part of poor system time utilisation include one or combination of the following:
• Underestimation of system delays and time loses
• Lack of historic equipment performance data
• Feasibility studies performed by consultants with vested interested
• Failure to capture variability of inputs (modelling)
• Lack of understanding of the impact of mine design parameters on utilisation
• Unavailability of industry ready tools for modelling IPCC performance
PART 2:
Functional Description
of FMIPCC Systems
Part 2 of this Chapter provides a functional description of the FMIPCC
System. While all system components are discussed, more emphasis is
placed on the interaction between the mining face, loading equipment and
the material sizing or crushing equipment.
2.2 Functional description of FMIPCC Systems
This part of Chapter 2 provides a functional description of the FMIPCC, with emphasis on the
interaction between the system components including loading system, material sizing system,
belt conveyor system and material discharge system. Figure 2-4 shows the three primary
categories of IPCC systems, under which all other system arrangements may be defined
(Thompson, 2010). As shown in Figure 2-4 (c), the most distinguishing feature of the FMIPCC
is relative location of the material sizing unit (or crusher) to the loading system. This relative
position requires direct interaction and synchronous moves with the loading system. The
relative positioning of the crusher to the loading system requires the crusher to relocate once
the loading system attains its maximum reach and begins to move. The minimum requirement
of the crusher is to continually size loaded material onto the conveyor as well as self-propel
synchronously with the loading system as required (Korak, 1985). Table 2-4 in Part 1 of this
Chapter revealed literature that describe several IPCC systems configurations with most
originating from OEMs.
Figure 2-4 Categorisation of in-pit crusher conveyor systems (Thompson, 2005).
Figure 2-5 shows the four basic components (sub-systems) and support equipment common
to most IPCC systems. As shown in Figure 2-4, all three categories of IPCC involve these four
basis components, irrespective of the configuration (layout) or position in the mining system
relative to each other. The specific configuration of any operational system will however
depend on mine specific conditions.
Figure 2-5 Four subsystems and support equipment of In-pit crusher-conveyor systems
2.2.1 Configurations of FMIPCC systems
While the four components in Figure 2-5 are found in most IPCC designs, there are many
variants of configurations observed throughout literature. The arrangement and continuity
between the components tend to vary significantly depending on the distance, material
handling requirements and overall mine production targets. Figure 2-6 shows four generic
FMIPCC configurations commonly used for earthmoving.
Figure 2-6 Four generic FMIPCC configurations for earthmoving industry
Routing of material from source to destination may vary in increasing complexity. This
increasing complexity is often dependent on the number of pit-side conveyors, number of
dump-side conveyors, overall conveying distance, conveyor specification and material
handling requirement. Figure 2-9 shows one of the most extensive belt conveyor routing
system, located at the Hambach mine in Germany. The use of conveyor distribution station
increases the overall throughput and efficiency of the system by adding redundancy and
flexibility in the entire system. For example, using a distribution station on four single conveyor
lines would create 16 possible routing options for the resulting system. The choice of system
configuration would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, applying a long to medium
term operational perspective rather than a short-term perspective.
Figure 2-7 Example of complex in-pit conveyor network at Hambach Mine in Germany
2.2.2 Support Equipment and Operating Area
At the active mining face, the required operating areas increases with increasing complexity of
interactions between the component systems. Additional working area is required for
manoeuvring around the often rigid and preferably long span conveyors which are not easily
extended or relocated. At the dump face or stockpile where strict material handling may be
required, the conveyor system and material discharge system may require additional support
equipment in order to operate efficiently, potentially resulting in a different approach to mining

and dumping strategies. The following section provides an in-depth discussion of the four basic
system components of the FMIPCC described in Figure 2-5, with a focus on the interaction
between the loading, crushing and conveying components.
2.2.3 The Digging and Loading System
Traditionally, digging and loading of in-pit material have been achieved using mechanically
propelled machinery with bucket attachments. Table 2-10 provides a matrix of primary loading
equipment and hauling equipment combinations commonly used in surface mine operations.
Draglines, rope shovels, wheel loaders, and hydraulic excavators (which feature single bucket
attachments) remain the predominant equipment for removal of topsoil and waste materials
before and during the production phases of most surface mine. Often referred to as cyclic
loading equipment, they offer more “flexibility and probability of achieving production and cost
targets” (Humphrey and Wagner, 2011). Bucket wheel excavators operate on the principle of
continuously digging with multiple buckets coupled to a large rotating wheel. This same
principle underlines the bucket chain excavator, with multiple buckets attached to rotating
chain.
Table 2-10 Common prime movers and hauling unit surface mining methods
Loader Type
Bucket Wheel Exc./Reclaimer
Electric Rope Shovel (DC/AC)
Hydraulic Excavator/Shovel
Wheel Tractor - Scrappers

Bulldozers/Wheel Dozers
Front End Loaders

Highwall Miners
Surface Miners
Draglines
-Commonly used
-Rarely used (Special cases)
-Emerging Technology
Articulated Trucks         
Hauler Type
Off-Highway Trucks         
Crusher/Sizer/Trap - Conveyor- Spreader         
Rail-mounted Trucks/Trains/Bins         
Throw Blast/Direct dump/Carry-dump         
The surface miner, which uses a rotating drum with pick attachments on the drum surface has
found significant application in the road, construction industry and recently in some major
mining operations. The next few sections provide detailed discussion of loading equipment.
2.2.4 Types of Loading Equipment
Loading equipment in surface mining are categorised generically into two main groups; (a)
cyclic or discontinuous and (b) continuous. Figure 2-8 shows the groupings of loading
equipment and hauler combinations under cyclic and continuous methods. The grouping at
“Level 1” is based on the ability to continuously excavate the material. The type, size, geometry
and configuration of the loading equipment has a significant impact on the performance of all
other equipment (secondary and ancillary), operating around the loading equipment. Atchison
and Morrison (2011a) stresses the need to carefully and strategically select loading equipment
and cautions against selecting the loading equipment without proper testing of material
properties prior the selection and during operation of the equipment. The primary objective of
the loading equipment should therefore be to maximise throughput at optimal operating time
over maximum economic life (Newman et al., 2010).
Figure 2-8 Matching of continuous and discontinuous loading equipment (Thompson, 2005)
There are often design differences and variable conditions of application for the loading
equipment, capital costs and operating costs per unit of production may vary significantly. For
this reason, the selection of loading equipment based entirely on Net Present Value (NPV)
could be meaningless in the long run (Runge, 1998). Along with the NPV of the complete
mining system, the operational performance of the loading equipment would depend on factors
including capacity, equipment geometry (dimensions, size and design) mobility, flexibility,
equipment life, and support equipment requirements. Current market offerings indicate a wide
range of capacities for the three most common cyclic loading equipment. Table 2-11 provides
a summary of operational ranges and notional lives of the three main types of cyclic loading
equipment. Figure 2-9 shows potential candidate loading units considered for this FMIPCC
research work. In order to cover open pit application, continuous loading equipment are out of
scope for this research.
Table 2-11 Typical Operational Ranges of Primary Digging and loading Equipment
Typical Operational Ranges

Loading Equipment Time Capacity (t) bcm/yr/Unit Capacity Notional Life (yr)
Wheel loader 27 - 45 330,000 5–7
Hydraulic shovel 27 - 81 350,000 7 – 10
Shovel (Cable/Rope) 54 – 100 400,000 ≥ 15
Source: Compiled from (Humphrey and Wagner, 2011)
Figure 2-9 Typical Loading equipment for FMIPCC systems (Caterpillar, 2019)
2.2.4.1 Specific Applications of Loading Equipment
During loading equipment selection and acquisition, productivity estimates are primarily based
on the assumption that loading equipment would be used for its designated primary function(s).
An analysis of over fifty-nine (59) loading equipment from five large surface mining operations
shows that loading equipment perform tasks which are often not accounted for, earlier on
during equipment evaluation and selection. Table 2-12 shows a breakdown of the operating
time for 59 loading equipment with capacities ranging from 23 m3 – 56 m3. The data shows that
approximately 10% of the loading equipment time is spent performing non-loading task. For a
6,000 hrs annual operating time, the time spent performing non-loading task is equivalent to
600 hrs and 1 hour per every 224 bucket loads of the loading equipment. For a large 45m 3
capacity rope shovel and using 25 loads per operating hour, this implies 1 hour lost to non-
loading task for every 9 hours of active loading activity. A common industry approach to
minimising the utilisation losses is to assign specific equipment (often smaller in capacity) to
perform tasks like clean up, pulling batters, face prep, bench prep and drainage work.
Table 2-12 Distribution of operating time of loading equipment on common tasks performed
ERS FEL HEX -L HFS -S FS -L FS -L
Active Loading Cycle 91.92% 89.15% 89.82% 87.66% 94.16% 82.40%
Clean Up/Pulling Batters 6.08% 1.24% 4.78% 4.17% 2.26% 5.36%
Move to New Location (Benches) 1.93% 3.55% 1.68% 2.52% 0.81% 5.80%
Face/Bench Prep & Drainage 0.05% 4.48% 0.90% 3.97% 0.13% 3.63%
Fuel/Lube/Water 0.01% 1.58% 2.82% 1.68% 2.64% 2.81%

ERS – Electric Rope Shovel, FEL – Front End Loader, HEX – Hydraulic Excavator, HFS – Hydraulic Face Shovel, L – Large and S – Small
Hall and Daneshmend (2003) identifies three primary reasons for low utilisation of the loading
tool’s operating time as follows:
• Walking - e.g. repositioning the excavator with respect to the face;
• Inefficient matching of hauling units to the excavator – e.g. under-trucking
• Housekeeping - e.g. clean-up activities with front-end dozers etc.
Hall and Daneshmend (2003) showed that only 62% of the excavator’s time was spent
operating. While this characterisation does not distinguish between non-productive tasks like
clean-ups, face preparation and bench drainage, accounting how much of the loading tools
time is spent on non-productive tasks is critical to not overestimating the effective utilisation of
the loading equipment.
Figure 2-10 Time use by activity - large hydraulic shovel (Hall and Daneshmend, 2003)
In general, as the loading equipment gets to the ends of the working face, where the operating
area may become restricted, task like pulling batters and wall clean-up become necessary. In
particular, during mining of the final pit wall, it is required to properly clean the wall to the
expected slope angle before moving to successive lower benches. Some of these non-loading
tasks are also due to due to poor pit layout (geometry, design and dimensions) which may
ultimately result in long swing angles, excessive moves, restricted working areas and other
workarounds. The following strategies are recommended to minimise the time lost to non-
loading tasks:
• Clean Up/Pulling Batters: Dedicate a smaller equipment for this task for multiple
loading units. A loading unit that is already due for retirement could be reconditioned
and assigned to these tasks on a full-time basis.
• Other non-loading tasks: Where practical, these tasks should be included

preschedule into planned stoppage like blasting time, routine maintenance and pre-
emptive (or opportunistic) standby and idle time.
2.2.4.2 Selecting a Loading System
Because most of loading equipment perform the same function, selection of loading equipment
is rather a delicate balance between operational limitations of the equipment and a mix of
qualitative characteristics including flexibility, mobility, and capacity, life, and support
requirements. Selecting the right equipment for the right mining approach is very essential for
the profitability of the mining venture as it involves substantial financial outlays. Understanding
the amount of the resource and reserve to be mined and over how much time the reserve can
be mined also form a critical facet of defining what kind, size and capacity of mining equipment
should be deployed. Determining the planned production rate is essentially the initial step in
loading equipment selection process.
Another consideration in selecting a loading system is the application (and limitations). This
must be looked at in for the perspective of deposit geometry, material characteristics and
number of mining faces per period. Figure 2-11 shows a graphical comparison of the operating
ranges (m) of some of the largest surface mining loading equipment and their limitations in
some operating scenarios. On the contrary, in operation where high working benches are
required, the face shovel and rope shovel configuration have a clear advantage over the
backhoe configuration. In this instance, other equipment may be required to perform other
tasks such as wall battering, and floor drainage works. The utilisation of the loading system is
therefore dependent of its application. The specific application of the loading equipment must
therefore be accounted for when selecting the loading system.
Figure 2-11 Operating ranges (m) of large surface mining loading equipment
Source: OEM Specification Sheets (Komatsu, 2019; P&H, 2016)
2.2.4.3 Factors affecting the performance (productivity) of loading system
The productivity of the loading system often measured by material moved per unit time (bcm/h
or t/h), is influenced by a complex mix of technical, human and operational factors. Figure 2-12
shows the combination of factors that affect the productivity of a loading system, grouped into
three.
Figure 2-12 Factors affecting productivity of loading system
Group-A represent technical and mine specific factors while Group B are factors that relate
how well the equipment is utilised. Finally, Group-C covers factors that indicate how well the
various loader tasks are performed. Since all three groups of factors are interrelated, a simple
change in bench height (BH) without additional change in operator training, may result in further
operational delays instead of yielding an increase in system productivity. Therefore, changes
in any one of the factors be implemented holistically, with due consideration of other relevant
factors that may interact with that factor. For example, Siegrist and Morris (2005) investigated
sources of variation in the operation of a large hydraulic shovel and found that operator factor
had the biggest effect on loader productivity, contributing to a 20% variation in loader payload
and a 25% variation in load cycle times above material diggability and bench heights.
2.2.4.4 Loading Equipment Capacity
The impact of capacity differences is often very apparent in annual achievable throughputs
due to the interplay between bucket capacity and unit cycle-times. The productivity of a loading
equipment is however a combined effect of its, volumetric capacity, time utilisation (i.e., portion
of time used in performing the “productive” function), consistency of operating environment
and the efficiency of application (influenced by operator skills and experience). Equation 2-1
shows the relationship between loader equipment capacity and the key elements of volumetric
capacity, utilisations and efficiency factors.
𝑄
𝐿𝑏𝑐 = ( 2-1)
𝐶 𝑥 𝑃 𝑥 𝑆 𝑥 𝐴 𝑥 𝑂 𝑥 𝐵𝑓
Where:
Lbc - bucket/dipper capacity (volume) C - Cycles per hour @ 90° swing
P - Propel time factor O - The job operational factor
S - Swing factor Bf - Dipper factor
Q - Production required (bank volume per hour)
A - Mechanical availability as a percentage of scheduled hours of work
2.2.4.5 Bench Parameters versus Loading Equipment Productivity
The digging and loading system are the component that interact with the working bench. In
surface mining, a ledge formed from a single level of operation above which mineral or waste
materials are mined back to a bench face is referred to as a mining bench (Fourie and Dohm,
2011). More than one bench may be mined simultaneously in successive elevations or in
different elevations in a single or different surface mine excavation. The selection of optimum
bench parameters is one of the most critical mine decision factors during the mine design and
planning stage (Fourie and Dohm, 2011; Hustrulid and Kuchta, 1998b; Thompson, 2010).
Figure 2-13 shows the basic parameters of a mining bench.
Figure 2-13 Basic parameters of a mining bench (Fourie and Dohm, 2011)
As shown in Figure 2-12, the specification of a loading system and bench parameters influence
the productivity of the loading system. Higher and wider benches present opportunities for
fewer equipment set-up, improved supervision, higher mining rates (due to larger blasted
stock), higher productivity and efficiency; particularly with larger machines. Since the material
removal takes place along the bench, the volume of material mined-out and the rate of mining
are a function of the bench height, bench width and bench length. Table 2-13 and
Table 2-14 shows some typical bench parameters used across the mining industry and
relationship between bench height and loading system capacity respectively. In general, larger
the loading system, the larger the bench area required to achieve sustained optimum
productivity. The bench height is influenced by the capacity, physical dimensions and operating
ranges of the loading system and other qualitative factors of material being loaded material
density, Bucket Fill Factor (BFF) and quality of fragmentation. Table 2-15, shows the primary
bench parameters and their main drivers.
Table 2-13 Typical bench parameters used across the mining industry (Thompson, 2010)
Bench Height (m) Bench Width (m) Bench Slope (O)

Copper 12 - 18 24 - 38 50 - 60
Iron 9 -14 18 - 30 60 - 70
Non-Metallic 12 - 30 18 - 45 50 - 60
Coal 15 - 23 15 - 30 60 - 70
Table 2-14 Relationship between bench height and loader capacity (Thompson, 2010)
Bucket Size m3 < 5.0 5.1 - 8.0 8.1 - 20.0 20.1 - 30.0 > 30.0
Bench height 9 12 14 16 18
Table 2-15 Primary bench parameters and their main drivers
Bench Parameter Main Driver / Influenced by Bench Parameter Main Driver / Influenced by
Deposit character and geology: Geo-technical conditions (stability)
Selectivity (type of mineralisation) Hydrogeological condition (ground water)
Bench slope/
Strip ratios (Waste:Ore Distribution) Bench height
face Angle
Production strategy: Overall Slope
Pushbacks and Sequence Dilution contsraints
blending requirements, Grade Control requirements Minimum operating width
No. of concurrent working faces/benches Desired advance (production) rate
Bench Width
Bench Height Operating/capital costs, etc. Blending requirements,
Overall material handling strategy No. of concurrent working faces/benches
Slope stability considerations No. of concurrent working faces/benches
Equipment Specification (limitations/capability) Desired advance (production) rate
Maximum Digging/Cutting Height Orebody extent
Bench Length
Maximum Digging/Cutting Reach Digging Pattern/plan
Maximum Digging Depth Grade Control requirements
Blasting requirements/constraints of Drilling machine Overall material handling strategy
In term of comparing form the conventional Shovel-Truck (T-S) and IPCC, no significant
change is introduced to the interaction between the loading system and the bench height. This
assumption is considered reasonable since the optimum bench height is more a function of
equipment size, dimension and configuration, than the type of hauler and transporter
combination. Since the bench would affect the productivity and ultimately the advance rate of
the loading system in the same way in both IPCC and S-T, two bench parameters are further
explored in the remainder of this research. These two parameters are Bench width and Bench
Length.
2.2.4.6 Bench Width and Minimum Mining width
This is the minimum width (MMW) is minimum distance measured on the same bench from
crest to active mining face where personnel and machinery can operate safely and is often
legally mandated through health, safety and operating procedures in most mines
(Dimitrakopoulos and Ramazan, 2004; Wharton and Whittle, 1997). The MMW provides an
adequate working floor room for the working the active bench efficiently and safely. The MMW
varies with the loading method, the size of the equipment, complexity of interaction between
all the production equipment at face number of benches and the number faces being mined
simultaneously. Figure 2-14 shows the influence of MMW on the working bench geometry. The
MMW is required to be maintained during the mining of the active bench in order to
progressively adjacent mining cuts.
Figure 2-14 Influence of MMW on the working bench geometry
2.2.5 Sizing and Crushing System
Fully mobile crushers have been used in surface mining since 1956 (Planttner, 1986). The
traditional arrangement in most surface mines, is to have the loading and hauling unit within
the confines of the mine excavation and mined out material transport with the hauling units via
the main access outside the open excavation. The waste material may be dumped elsewhere
within the pit or outside the pit while the ore (full quality or marginal quality) is transported to a
desired location where the actual beneficiation process usually including crushing can take
place. Transporting the material to the crusher which is often located ex-pit, becomes more
expensive as the mine matures and get deeper. Additionally, this would require more hauling
units to make up for the new increased depth, making operating costs exorbitant.
By functional description, IPCC refers to a combination of crusher (or sizer) and conveyor-
based units located within the confines of the surface mine excavation zone. The IPCC system
may be stationary, moveable or self-propelled; the essential definition is that it is located
somewhere within the pit (open-pit or open-cut excavation). The term “crusher” is used loosely
to refer to any size-reduction mechanism that used to reduce the mined material to a
conveyorable size range (from 1.5m lump size, down to 4-6mm). This may include, mineral
sizers, screens and heavy-duty crusher. Figure 2-15 shows the five-common mechanism of
sizing ROM material for the mining industry. The primary basis for selecting the crushing or
sizing system is the material characteristics including lump size of the mined material. The
lump size of the material discharged from the crusher determines the design and construction
of the belt conveyor system required for the FMIPCC system. These would typically lose up
to 25% available to interruptions associated with unsuitable feed, electrical and mechanical
delays. Figure 2-16 shows the basic components of common mobile crushing units and the
factors that affect the design, operation and performance the mobile crushing systems.
Figure 2-15 Five common mechanism of sizing ROM material for the mining industry
Figure 2-16 Basic components and performance factors of common mobile crushing systems
2.2.5.1 Factors Affecting Performance of the Fully Mobile Crusher System
One major difference between in-pit and ex-pit crushing is that, the in-pit crusher is primarily
aimed at making the material conveyable while the ex-pit is often serves as the starting step
of the comminution process. The FMIPCC is required to self-propelled itself in order to follow
the loading unit along the working bench. The implication of this requirement is that the mobile
crusher must be repositioned as often as the loading system reaches its maximum digging
reach. Therefore, the travel speed and manoeuvrability of the mobile crusher are essential the
system system’s effective utilisation. For some mobile crushers, the feed hopper needs to be
emptied and crusher shut down for Relocation. Table 2-16 summarises the advantages and
disadvantages of the three main FMIPCC walking mechanism. Figure 2-18 shows
Categorisation of mobile crushers based on travel mode and construction.
Table 2-16 Advantages and disadvantages of the three main FMIPCC walking mechanism
Travel Advantages Disadvantages

Mechanism
Most common for Mobile Crushers. Difficulty to manoeuvrer in small areas/corners
Crawlers Well suited to work Shovels/Excavator Larger systems may have to travel as split
mounted Minimal ground preparation required
units
Travel in any directions with little difficulty Slow and has to be activated before moving
Walking system cheaper than Hopper/Crushers have to emptied to relocate
Walking crawler/wheel
tub-mounted Replacement of tubs or legs takes time Some require shutdown prior to relocation
Requires equipment to be on level ground Requires significant ground preparation
Wheels fully steerable in all directions High ground pressure crusher is moving.
Wheel mounted Allows fast movement in any direction Limited by total equipment weight.
Minimal group preparation required Wheels may require retraction during crushing
Figure 2-17 shows the global distribution of FMIPCC installations grouped by walking
mechanism (Frizzell and Martin, 1992; Ritter, 2016b). It is apparent from Figure 2-17 that the
unknowns represent more than a third of the known about FMIPCC installation. This gap
availability of operational data on FMIPCC system performance and utilisation is observed
throughout industry literature
Figure 2-17 Global distribution of FMIPCC installations grouped by walking mechanism

Source: Frizzell and Martin (1992); Ritter (2016a)
Figure 2-18 Categorisation of mobile crushers based on travel mode and construction
2.2.5.2 Performance requirement of Crushing and Sizing Systems
Fully mobile crusher units are required to be self-propelled in order to follow the loading unit
along the active mining face (Frizzell and Martin, 1992). The implication of this requirement is
that the mobile crusher has to be repositioned as often as the loading system reaches its
maximum digging reach. The mobile crushing units can be mounted on crawlers, rubber-tired
wheels, or hydraulic walking tabs. Therefore, the travel speed of the mobile crusher is essential
to its effective utilisation. For some mobile crushers, feed hopper needs to be emptied and
crusher shutdown for relocation. Other mobile crushers are so large that they must split up into
2 or more relocatable units for ease of relocation and reduction in capital cost. It follows that
while smaller crushers may be serviced by simple overhead hoist, larger machines jaw crusher
requires larger crane with dual- directional to handle parts adequately. Figure 2-19 depicts the
relative crusher size (relative to average person) and Table 2-17 shows typical output
characteristics and applications of mining crushers respectively.
Figure 2-19 Relative crusher size relative to average man MMD (2016)
Error! Reference source not found.
2.2.6 Hopper Car and Tripper
Two main utility equipment (electrically powered cable car equipped with electrical switchgear
and a cable drum) are required in order to transfer material to and from the conveying system.
At the mining face, the hopper cars transfer material from a mobile crushing unit to the shiftable
conveyor often rail-mounted or on tracks and traveling along the bench or shiftable conveyor
in the direction of mining. At the dump face, the track-mounted or rail-mounted tripper car
transfers material from the shiftable conveyor to the spreader or stacker via a discharge boom
as it travels along bench conveyor which is on the material being dumped. Figure 2-20 shows
an example each of each of hopper Car (loading-side) and tripper car (dumping-side)
transferring of material to and from belt conveyor.
Figure 2-20 Transfer of material to and from belt conveyor by (a) Hopper Car; (b) Tripper Car
2.2.7 Belt-Conveying System
Conveyor systems have been in use since the 1868 and have since been applied in many
industries (Velmurugan et al., 2014) including mining because they offer a convenient, lower
cost and continuous transport of bulk material from one point to another. In simple terms, a
belt-conveyor entails a functional assembly of conveyor belt, drive station, tail station and
support frame members including steel structures and various load-bearing parts, to keep the
belt suspended while moving the material from one end to the other. When located within the
confines of an open pit, this assembly is referred to as In-pit conveyor. Outside the rim of the
open pit, the belt conveyor is commonly referred to as Overland Conveyor. Figure 2-21 shows
the basic nomenclature of a belt conveyor system.
The transported material typically travels on the belt from the tail station of the conveyor
towards head station where it is either discharged or transferred onto successive conveyor
segments. Troughed conveyors are the most commonly used type of belt-conveyors in surface
mine applications. Other special types like the Air-supported conveyors, suspended conveyors
and pipe conveyors have found application in bulk material movement but are not discussed
in this research. Detailed information on these special belt-conveyor systems are covered by
industry and OEM literature including Contitech Handbook (2013), Fenner Dunlop (2014),
Frizzell and Martin (1984a) and Richmond et al. (1991).
Figure 2-21 Basic nomenclature of a belt conveyor system (Contitech, 2012)
2.2.7.1 Belt Conveyor Specification
The productivity of the belt conveyor system is determined by the belt speed, average cross-
sectional area of the material on the belts and longitudinal profile (inclination, number of
segments and vertical curvature) of the belt-conveyor system. Different configurations of belt
conveyors may be required for a particular IPCC application. Figure 2-22 shows the
relationship between belt conveyor capacities and (a) angle of inclination and; (b) belt speeds.
Figure 2-22 Capacities versus belt; (a) angle and (b) speeds. (Thompson, 2005; Contitech, 2012)
Due the existence of multiple benches, grade variations and sometime many load locations
within open pits, an IPCC system may require multiple inclined and vertical curve conveyors
within a single system. The effect of the associated varying load conditions may thus affect the
carrying capacity of the belt-conveyor system and ultimately, the throughput of the entire
system.
Recently, the use of horizontally curved conveyors has been used in open pits as a way of
minimising the number of transfer points and hence increasing the reliability and efficiency of
the conveyors, while reducing the cost and downtime commonly associated with conveyor
transfer points. A minimum allowable radius of 900BW (BW – belt width in metres) is a
recommended threshold, with requisite changes to idlers in the transition area. Figure 2-23
shows a long and short cross-sectional profile of a troughed belt-conveyor.
Figure 2-23 Long and short cross-sections of a troughed belt-conveyor (Contitech, 2012)
2.2.7.2 Belt Conveyor Span and Connectivity
In general, belt conveyors can be very long with a single segment spanning up to 17 km in
length (the longest single flight conveyor is 17,000 m long with 34,500 m of belt, conveying
limestone plant in Bangladesh). However, the layout and geometry of surface mines may
preclude the use of very long span conveyors. In open pit operations, lengths of a few 100 m
up to 5 km can be observed. The material exchange point (transfer point) between conveyors
segments allow the safe passing of the material being conveyed from one segment onto
another.
McEwen (2008) notes that transfer points requires significant attention and may reasonably
become the high maintenance areas in long conveyor systems, noting among other things the
following prominent issues:
1. Off- centre loading on conveyor belt
2. Material flow in opposing direction to belt
3. Material backup in chute
4. Excessive carry-back
5. Lack of material removal at head end, causing excessive material build-up
6. Recessive wear of chute walls and belt clear near transfer points
7. Dislodging of overflow material due to build-up or blockage
2.2.7.3 Belt Conveyor Types
Belt conveyors are generally categorised based on their mobility. Three main categories are
discussed as follows:
1. Mobile (e.g. portable Belt conveyors)
2. Semi mobile (e.g. Shiftable conveyors, relocatable semi-fixed conveyors)
3. Immobile (e.g. fixed belt conveyors, overland belt conveyors)
Figure 2-24 below shows some basic types of conveyor systems. In FMIPCC application,
conveyor system may be as simple as a single conveyor length or a complex series of mobile
conveyor units of variable lengths – sometimes referred to as “grasshoppers” or piggyback
conveyors.
Figure 2-24 Basic types of Conveying systems (Nova, 2006)
2.2.7.4 Mobile Belt Conveyors
As with mobile crushing units, mobile conveyors are equipped with travel mechanism (skid or
rail, track or wheel) which are incorporated into the main structure to enable them to be
relocated either by self-propulsion or aided by other equipment. Mobile conveyors find
application in areas where there is a need to frequently remove or reposition the conveyors for
example, heap leach pads, along with FMIPCC or on active material stockpiles. Mobile
conveyors may also be used to extend the reach of other equipment (e.g. surface mine, loading
units, spreaders or stockpile handling infrastructure), to minimise downtime and delays
incurred by that equipment if required to move frequently. Figure 2-25 shows two common
types of mobile conveyors: (a) Belt-wagons and; (b) Bridge-conveyors. Other types of mobile
conveyors include elevated mobile (horizontal or inclined) belt conveyors. Again, these types
are equipped to tracks, wheels or skids, making them independently slewable or lifetable and
equipped with receiving hoppers and sometimes discharge boom. The horizontal types are
often used at stockpiles, dumps or heap leach pad. The inclined types, also referred to as
grasshoppers are equipped with non-powered wheels at one end and skids or actuated
hydraulic supports at the other end. Some large designs may incorporate crawler, tracks
allowing them to be self-propelled. Individual mobile conveyor units may be relocated singly
or in combination with multiple units.
Figure 2-25 Two types of mobile conveyors. (a) Belt-wagons and, (b) Bridge-conveyors
2.2.7.5 Semi-Mobile Belt Conveyors
Comparatively, Semi-Mobile Belt Conveyors require infrequent relocation or repositioning

compared to the mobile conveyors. However, to make up for the fewer relocation, Semi-mobile
conveyors may require extension or shortening particularly where they have been used on
ramps, in bench or truck conveyors. To enhance conveyor extension, shortening and assembly
(and relocation) time, the conveyor is made up of 4 – 7m modular frames, spaced at regular
intervals along the length of the conveyor. The modular frames are mounted on sleepers
(concrete or steel) and girded along the conveyor length by rails. On the same operating bench,
the complete assembly can be shifted (without dismantling) either by pulling (pivoted, parallel
or combination) to the new location.
In order to relocate the full segments of the conveyor to a new working elevation (bench), the
individual frames are taken apart and then reassembled in the new location. Where the
benches are successive with the right face angle, the relocation may be achieved by shifting
down the face slope. Conveyors that are shiftable are commonly referred to as shiftable
conveyors. The shifting of the conveyors is achieved using pipe laying dozers equipped with
special shifting units. Conveyor shifting can be time consuming and highly influenced by
ground conditions, quality of planning and labour availability.
2.2.7.6 Conveyor belt shifting
It is often the case that when the active strip or bench reaches its full extent, it becomes a
requirement to move the full conveyor length parallel or radially to the length of the conveyor
by moving each idler structure module by a fixed maximum distance. Figure 2-26 (a) shows
the construction of the bench conveyor (with modules) and (b) the radial shifting of a bench
conveyor. This is achieved using a pipe-laying dozer as depicted in Figure 2-26 (a). A review
of the available literature indicates that there are sometimes significant losses (availability,
shutdown and start-up) associated with the shifting of the conveyors (Knights, 2015; Golosinski
and Boehm, 1987; Ritter et al., 2014; Terezopoulos, 1988).
Figure 2-26 Parallel and Radial shifting of a bench conveyor (Langmaid, 2014)
Key factors that affect the duration of a conveyor shifting activity includes the following:
1. Shifting distance (width).
2. Total length of conveyors shifted.
3. No of shifting equipment used.
Depending on the number of conveyors involved, human and equipment resource available,
shifting of belt conveyor can be very complex, and incurring significant time losses on the entire
FMIPCC system. Therefore, careful planning, organisation and execution every time a shifting
operation is required.
Loeffler et al. (1980) describe belt conveyor shifting as the lateral movement of the head, tail
and connecting sections, often designed to be extremely rigid construction when assembled.
The primary objective of belt conveyor shifting is the rapid repositioning and realignment of the
required conveyor segment with minimal disruption (downtime) of the entire mining system.
The shifting is accomplished by the attachment of a shifting head to the rail. The shifting head
which is integrally attached to a pipe-layer dozer, is designed to raise slight and drag the
conveyor the dual-direction of the dozer. The resultant displacement enables the conveyor
segment to be reposition in the desired path which pre-demarcated through detailed surveying
and levelling work. Golosinski and Boehm (1986c), Golosinski and Boehm (1987) and
Terezopoulos (1988) provide detail discussions of the selection, planning and calculations for
belt conveyor shifting process and equipment requirements and associated utilisation
implications. Error! Reference source not found. shows the sectional (longitudinal and
transvers) views of a simple shiftable conveyor frame.
Figure 2-27 Sectional views of a simple shiftable conveyor frame (Golosinski and Boehm,1985)
2.2.7.7 Immobile (Fixed) Belt Conveyors
In cases where no relocation of conveyors is required over very long periods, conveyors are
installed in permanent positions, requiring removal only during pit expansions. This is often the
case with overland conveyors and sometime parts of a ramp conveyors. Overland conveyors,
which often traverse difficult ex-pit terrain are permanently installed with other civil structures
to compensate for uneven terrain. High angle conveyors (HAC) which are often steeply inclined
(greater than 20° and near-vertical conveyors) often utilise corrugated sidewall belts for their
suitability at efficiently conveying bulk material on uphill and downhill gradients. Sandwich belts
may also be used as a suitable alternative to corrugated sidewall belts as they offer high
stability in the conveying direction. In general, in-pit conveyors are seldom designed fixed
conveyors. However, some lignite mines like Hambach, Inden and Garzweiler, the modular
frames are used in building the fixed segments of the in-pit conveyors for ease of disassembly
when the need arises.
2.2.7.8 Belt Conveyor Routing and Material Handling
Conveyor systems are composed of many moving and non-moving parts including drive units,
pulleys, the idlers, take-ups, skirt boards, scrapers, safety devices, etc. Unlike the truck and
shovel system where the trucks are discrete units, the use of conveyors in FMIPCC is typically
in a series arrangement – lending itself to loss of availability whenever there is a critical failure
in any of the major components. Between the loading unit and the dump location, an FMIPCC
system may feature any at least one or a combination of the following conveyor system
components:
1. Discharge Conveyor
2. Mobile Transfer Conveyor (Belt wagon)
3. Bench Conveyor (Shiftable)
4. Trunk conveyor
5. Ramp Conveyor
6. Mobile Conveyors
In most cases there are different systems of conveyors emanating from the loading area and
leading into different systems of conveyors leading to the material destination. The distribution
between these lines of conveyor system using distribution points known as the junction stations
are shown in Figure 2-28.
Figure 2-28 Single and multiple conveyor distribution stations (Langmaid, 2014)
2.2.8 Material Discharge (Stacking or Spreading) System
Spreaders and stackers are primarily used in combination with conveyor systems for
discharging and distributing mined ore or overburden material from the mining face at the
stockpile or waste dump. Spreaders and stackers are more often equipped with rail or crawler
mounted Tripper cars and form an integral part of the spreader and forming a bride to take the
material from the conveyor system and transferring it to the spreader. Three main type’s
spreaders as listed and described in this section as follows:
1. Cross Pit Spreader
2. Spreader (standard)
3. Spreader (compact)
Spreaders are typically the terminal material handling equipment in the continuous loading and
transportation of mined out material. Figure 2-29 shows three types of spreaders typically used
in the mining industry. Spreaders are typically the terminal material handling equipment in the
continuous loading and transportation of mined out material. Discussions in this chapter will
focus on the standard spreader configuration.
Figure 2-29 Three types of spreaders typically used in the mining industry (Langmaid, 2014)
2.2.8.1 Tripper car and spreader assembly.
From the loading unit to the mobile crusher assembly, the conveyable run-off mine material
travels the full length of the conveyor system and then arrives at the dump or stockpile, where
the incoming material is to be discharged based on predetermined plant, blending,
geotechnical and environmental requirements. For continuous material handling, a tripper-
spreader system is the final link from the system of conveyors. The primary function of a
spreader is to continuously place material within a designated special location on the waste
dump or stockpile. The tripper car travels along the shiftable dump face conveyor, picking up
the material from the dump conveyor unto the spreading unit via a loop of conveyor belts. The
spreader then discharges the material into its final location as required by the mine plan. Figure
2-30 shows a rail-mounted tripper car with flow of material (ThyssenKrupp, 2015).
Figure 2-30 Simple rail-mounted tripper car assembly (adapted: ThyssenKrupp, 2015)
To meet specific material handling requirements at the dump (further use of “dump” refers
loosely to all material discharge locations), various configurations of the tripper-spreaders
combination are used to form an integrated material handling system. The objective in
selecting a particular configuration is to maximise the working ranges of the equipment
designs, optimise operational performance and minimise downtime due to frequent moves or
system unavailability. A number of different types of machines are used for dumping
operations. The most important factors to consider when specifying or selecting a tripper-
spreader system includes; (a) the operating weight (and related ground pressure); (b) cost
versus benefits; (c) operational Safety; (d) availability and resulting reliability of the system.
Figure 2-31 shows six configurations and corresponding dumping profiles of tripper-spreader
systems. Figure 2-31 (1a/2a) is the simplest form of the tripper-spreader assembly known as
the compact machine. This crawler-mounted system achieves very good manoeuvrability
because the tripper car is integrated with a slewable discharge conveyor unit, enabling the
assembly to function as a spreading Tripper Car (Meyer, 1988). This type of system has two
key advantages as follows:
• Relatively lower operating weight compared (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), thereby allowing
the machine to work safely closer to the edge of the dump.
• Minimal number of transfer points, allowing Material flow directly from the dump face
conveyor to the discharge conveyor.
One limitation of the compact system is that, its maximum reach is dependent on the length of
the spreading boom. The shorter the spreading boom the smaller the reach of the spreading
(dumping). To extend the reach of the spreader, a mobile conveyor bridge can be placed
between the spreading unit and the dump face conveyor.
Figure 2-31 Common tripper-spreader configurations (adapted: Meyer, 1988)
Tripper cars can be mounted on crawlers or rails. Rail mounting provides for a lighter
construction and easier alignment of the tripper car to the conveyor belt and guiding the car by
the rails. This however implies that additional track-shifting rails have to be provided, on the
other side of the conveyor to support the tripper which results in additional cost due to longer
and more frequently placed and longer rail sleepers. Additionally, the extra and longer sleepers
may cause the dump face conveyor to be less flexible during track shifting.
In configurations (1b, 2b) and (1c, 2c), the conveyor bridge is supported either by a rail-
mounted carriage moving on the same two rails as the tripper car shown in (1b, 2b), or it may
be mounted on a set of crawlers as show in (1c, 2c). Without support, the example shown in
(1b, 2b) comparatively has lower operating weight compared to (1c, 2c), thus allowing better
control of material transfer from the tripper to the bridge. However, special tooling is required
to disconnect the assembly from the dump face conveyor. On the other hand, the crawler-
mounted bridge is simpler to manoeuvre and disconnect from the dump conveyor but, the
additional transfer point may introduce further reliability issues.
The direct coupling of the conveyor bridge to the face conveyor means, the entire tripper-
spreader assembly has to move to its new spreading location to allow shifting of face conveyor
to occur. This allows for opportunistic maintenance on spreader assembly while conveyor
shifting is in progress; contingent on spreader having an independent power supply.
Alternatively, the Conveyor Bridge may be coupled to the tripper car (1d, 2d), in which case
the tripper would be crawler-mounted. In frame (1e, 2e) of Figure 2-31, the transfer point
between the tripper assembly and receiving conveyor is suspended without ground support,
enabling easier manoeuvre around the tripper and dump conveyor.
2.2.8.2 Material Deposition Strategies (Dumping Procedures)
In surface mining, deposition of material on a dump is achieved by two basic strategies or a

combination of the two, namely: (a) Horizontal, then vertical; (b) vertical, then horizontal. Figure
2-32 shows a schematic of the two main approaches of material deposition with the circled
numbering explaining sequence of deposition of material. The design, layout and extent of the
dump is a function of mine planning, geotechnical, environmental and geopolitical constraints
as well as equipment limitations, cost and mine life projections. The combination of the
strategies in Figure 2-32 may be used especially when special materials are being handled, or
when operational requirement dictate a more optimised mix of strategies.
Figure 2-32 Basic material deposition strategies in surface mining
Figure 2-33 shows a schematic of the application of material deposition strategies for in-pit
dumping and the backfilling of a depleted open pit. The latter is more suited to steeply inclined
deposits while the former is traditionally used when mining tabular deposits. Unlike the
traditional truck and shovel operation where misplaced material can be retrieved and re-
dumped elsewhere, continuous mining and dumping of material may be irretrievable if dumped
in the wrong place. This implies that continuous dumping with spreader would require careful
planning and deposition of material along with the timely characterization of geochemical
properties of all waste materials inflow from the pit on an ongoing basis. Materials that are
unsuitable for final slopes may require meticulous scheduling to avert disruption for short term
operations due to unavailability of dump area.
Figure 2-33 Application of material deposition strategies within open pit excavation
The spreading of material on the dump is achieved by slewing the extending arm (boom) of
the spreader unit within the specified operating range. Spreading can therefore be radial or
parallel to the direction of movement of the spreader. The spreader boom length is a function
of the desired; (a) dump design parameters including height, width, slope, extent and
geometry; (b) block width; and (c) method of dump build-up. Figure 2-34 shows the
Development of dump with spreader (Lee, 2013).
Figure 2-34 Development of dump with spreader (Adapted: Lee, 2013)
Two modes of operation results from the tripper-spreader assembly are commonly used in
industry as follows; (a) Single Block Operation and; (b) Multiple Block Operation. Figure 2-35
shows the two basic dump operations with spreaders. In the Single Block Operation, the boom
length of the spreader determines the block width that can be achieved.
Figure 2-35 two basic dump operations with spreaders (Adapted: Meyer, 2015)
The maximum reach is therefore achieved only when the boom length is fully perpendicular to
the axis of movement. In the full block operation, the largest block widths are also achieved
with the machine systems in Figure 2-31 (b) – (f), which are equipped with a connecting
conveyor. A combination of radial and parallel spreading is used in both methods to achieve
the most effective results. The use of Conveyor Bridge extends the operating range of the
spreader.
2.2.8.3 Dump-side Belt Conveyor Shifting and Spreaders
As with the pit-side requirement for Belt conveyor shifting, belt conveyors on the dump would
require shifting when the tripper-spreader assembly has attained maximum reach. In Figure
2-31 it is apparent that some tripper-spreader configurations have an advantage over others
in achieving maximum possible track shifting distances, which can be several times the single
block width, depending on the length of the connecting conveyor bridge. In the case of system
Figure 2-35(1a) and Figure 2-35(1b), the shifting distance is the same as the single block width.
In order to achieve the required dump profile, minimise the frequency of belt conveyor shifting
and maximise the full operating range of the tripper-spreader assembly, the maximum
achievable dump height is increased by operating the tripper-spreader on a level higher than
the track level of the spreader tracks. Stockpiles or dumps can be constructed (a) below the
elevation (low dump) of the spreader tracks or (b) above the elevation (High dump) of the
spreader tracks. Figure 2-36 shows both high and low dump development approaches. The
choice between methods depends on the purpose of the construction, material characteristics
and the geotechnical requirements imposed on the construction.
Figure 2-36 High and low dump development approaches (Lee, 2013)
2.2.8.4 Spreader Dump development with unstable and challenging material
In some cases, material from the pit may exhibit unstable, inhomogeneous characteristics by
the time of arriving at the dump face, due to a number of reasons:
• Moisture content: extensive wet weather events or water from dust suppression may
render dry material from the pit, very wet and sticky.
• Deposit geology: In tabular deposits where there may be significant layering and
hydrogeological properties, loading across multiple layers of material may result in an
unstable mix of material being transported to the dump. In other cases, the geo-
mechanical characteristics of the material is just challenging.
• Extremely long belt conveyors: When many flights of conveyors, and transfer points
are encountered during conveying the vibration from the belts, and churning effect at
the transfer point may turn an originally dry material pulpy, sticky or had to convey.
Selective dumping the only option to ensure stability of the dump. For example, dry and stable
material is dumped in a row to form a pocket into which unstable, wet material can be placed
and then covered with more dry and stable material. Figure 2-37 shows use of the variable
operating range (speed and reach) to manage unstable material inflow from the pit. Other
factors that are essential to consider in the design and layout of dumps for the operating the
tripper-spreader assembly include:
• angle of repose of waste or overburden material
• operating range, limitations and reach of the equipment
• dump height and block width
• material deposition strategy (dumping or spreading method)
• availability of support equipment and maintenance tooling
Figure 2-37 Variable speed and elevation for dumping unstable material (Jaetzel, 2016)
2.2.9 Summary: Part 2
This chapter provided a detailed functional description of the FMIPCC System with more
emphasis on the interaction between the mining face, loading equipment and the material
sizing or crushing equipment. Detailed capacity and performance specifications of four main
subsystems and support equipment of the FMIPCC system were discussed for four generic
FMIPCC configurations, based on routing of material from source to destination and level
increasing complexity of the system. The interaction between the four subsystems is noted to
focus at the active mining face and dumping face, with the required operating areas increases
with increasing complexity of interactions between the component systems.
This reviewed the digging and loading system as the first subsystem and prime mover, with
performance highly reliant on of factors such as capacity, bench geometry (dimensions, size
and design), available operating area, flexibility, mobility, equipment life, and support
equipment requirements. The influence of minimum mining width on loading system
performance and working bench geometry is emphasised. This chapter presented the belt-
conveying system as a critical subsystem, requiring careful selection and thorough planning,
due to the need for shifting the belt synchronously with the loading and sizing system. Finally,
the sizing-crushing and material discharge (stacking or spreading) subsystems are generally
specified as function above-named subsystems and the mine material handling requirements.
This chapter concludes with a review of material deposition strategies and approaches for
managing unstable and challenging material (e.g. material with inhomogeneous, very high
moisture), highlight the importance of correct specification of the FMIPCC system components,
with the capability to adequately handle variability of material characteristics, deposit geology
and extremely unpredictable and harsh operational conditions.
CHAPTER 3:
TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL
CONSTRAINTS OF IN-PIT
CONVEYOR SYSTEMS
As part a collaborative learning agreement between RWE international and The
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, University of Queensland, The
Author spent 3months across RWE’s large coal operation in North Rhinish area.
This Chapter catalogues lesson learnt, technical and operational constraints of In-
pit conveying systems.
3. Technical, Operational Constraints of FMIPCC
3.1 Overview of collaborative learning RWE International, Germany
As part of this research work, a 3-month practical Internship and operational visit was facilitated
by the RWE International (specialist mining consultancy of RWE Power) and The University of
Queensland (School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering). RWE Power is Germany's largest
mine operator and power producer, generating electricity from coal, nuclear energy and gas.
The trip covered 3 Large open cast lignite mines in North Rhenish mining area and one
limestone operation near the city of Cologne, in Germany. Figure 3-1 shows the scope and
deployment to Hambach Mine (1), followed by Inden Mine (2) and finally Garzweiller (3) with
the RWE Head office in Frechen (serving as main base) from April to June of 2016.
Figure 3-1 Schedule and Scope of internship and site visits (Jaetzel, 2016)
3.2 Mining Operation at Hambach, Indene and Garzweiller Mines, Germany
Mining at RWE’s three large open cast lignite mining operations in Rhenish area of Germany,
is primarily achieved by continuous mining method (CMM), using 20 medium-large bucket
wheel excavators, a complex and long network of belt conveyors. While all the three open cast
operations, mine lignite (coal) of different qualities, there were significant differences with
respect to geology of the deposited, material characteristics and blending requirement of
material to the three main power stations. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the combined
capacity of RWE’s operations near Cologne, Germany.
Table 3-1 Capacity across the three RWE operations near Cologne, Germany (Jaetzel, 2016)
Description Capacity (Units)
Coal production, total 100 Mt/a

Overburden removal 455 Mbcm/a
Stripping ratio 4.6 bcm: 1 t
No. of BWE 20
No. of Spreader 18
Number of conveyor flights 180 (total)
Total length of conveyors 240 km
Max. length of conveyor flight 5.6 km
Although the primary loading tool (BWE) and mobile crusher are the main two points of
difference between a typical FMIPCC and continuous mining at RWE, the scale, extent and
complexity of the conveying system makes the three examples a good learning ground.
Hambach mine, which is by far the largest of the three mines entails a total length of 110km of
belt conveyors, 8 large BWEs and 7 large spreader units. The fact that Hambach opencast
mine provides the most beneficial coal qualities for refining plants, the sheer scale of operation,
and characteristics of the deposit geology presents some operational challenges including the
following:
• Overburden-disposal issues related to clay ironstone and unstable material
• Requirement of complex infrastructure, tooling and related planning issues
• Dewatering and handling of 180 in-pit wells and ~ 200 piezometric wells
• Selective mining of 9 different coal qualities –blending to 3 main coal plants
• Mass-flow management of overburden and lignite from sources to destinations
• Operation constraints and downtimes related to unpredictable geology
3.2.1 Complexity of Conveyor-intensive Operations
Conveyor systems in general are complex (Viren and Alspaugh 2005). This complexity is partly
because, each application could be entirely different, even within the same mining operation.
The complexity is also due to the interaction of belt conveyor (continuous haulage system) with
other primary (discontinuous) surface mining equipment like the loading unit and crusher or
sizer. This interaction between sub-systems and the operational requirement to maintain
increasing production rates year-on-year can further result in major planning, operational and
maintenance challenges. The following sections look at some of the major planning,
operational and maintenance constraints associated with the interaction of conveyor systems
and other primary surface mining equipment. The intention is to catalogue field observations
and lessons learnt from the operational visits in Germany. The discussion in the next sections
are grouped into five themes as follows:
• Integrated Mine Planning
• Effect of Material Characteristics in Belt Conveying
• Operational Planning of Belt Conveyor
• Equipment and System Specification
• Change Management – Personnel and Process
3.2.2 Compilation of observations and Lessons Learnt
During the operational visits, the candidate was opportune to various conversations,
presentations and reports, many of which cannot be published due to existing non-disclosure
arrangements between the candidate, the University and RWE in place. The use of the word
“observations” in this Chapter, refers to a combination of visual experience, verbal discussions
and information gathered from company literature (operational records, data, reports,
operational procedure, photographs and electronic files).
Due permission has been obtained from the involved parties where propriety information has
been used. Where applicable, some literature review has been performed to substantiate or
counter the observation. Additionally, solution from industry and literature have been proposed,
especially where observation imply an operational challenge to FMIPCC operation. A summary
of all the observations are presented at the end of the Chapter. Some of the observations are
then referenced in the following chapters and form the basis for the formulation of key modeling
assumptions used in this research.
Observation 1. Before the equipment begins to mine, adequate time and effort should be
expended to understand and characterise material properties (physical, geochemical,
hydrogeological). In some cases, archaeological and past mining activities should be carefully
surveyed and mapped-out prior to the commencement of any mining activity. This upfront work
minimises undue operational stoppages and enhances operational efficiency.
3.2.3 Effect of Material Characteristics in Belt Conveying
In general, wet, sticky and sloppy material pose a significant challenge to conveying with belt
conveyors (Velmurugan et al., 2014). Material conveyed on the belt conveyor may vary in
characteristic over a short or extended space of time due to varying geological properties
(Michaud, 2016). The composition, behavior and distribution of bulk material on the belt
conveyor has significant impact on the overall performance of conveyor systems, particularly
when the belt conveying system is very long or is laden with several transfer points. Literature
review suggests that on the same belt conveyor, different material bulk densities could result
in different capacities and coupling factor of the bulk load (Lodewijks, 2002).
The angle of repose, surcharge angle, material flowability, abrasiveness and bulk density are
identified as the most important material factors that affects the behavior of material on the
Belt Conveyor (Pitcher, 2015). Material with very high coupling factor and moisture content
would tend to stick onto the belt surface, resulting in significant carry back (Velmurugan et al.,
2014). This can further result in misalignment of belts and unstable material deposition on the
waste dump. Figure 3-2 shows the impact of wet material on a bench conveyor. The left shows
a wet material sandwiched two beds of dry composition.
Figure 3-2 Impact of wet belt-conveying systems

Wet material on an upper mining bench loaded on to the conveyor belt (left) and;
appearance of the same material on the dump-side conveyor after 40 minutes (right).
This problem may additionally influence the performance of the spreader and material build-
up at the transfer stations along the conveying route. Dumping of this material on the waste
dump using the spreader poses several challenges including frequent stoppages due to belt
slippage, misalignment and dump failures particularly for in-pit dumps. Experts suggests
spraying of the sticking material water aided by cleaner blades, as an effective a way of dealing
wet and sticky material in bulk conveyor handling (Grima et al., 2011, p. 1; Velmurugan et al.,
2014, p. 25). The downside to these approaches is that, they could be expensive due to
increased water consumption and unknown downstream impacts on product beneficiation
(Grima et al., 2011). Other post-installation measures for dealing with wet, sticky, unstable or
wet material includes:
• Installation of belt cleaners at the head pulleys.
• Installation of scrapers continuous and even contact to the belt.
• Application of rubber lagging to the head and snub pulleys.
• Covering return idlers with plastic sheets to minimise material build-up.
Abrasive, lumpy, hard and sharp-edged the material on the belt conveyor may therefore
present challenges for most the components of an FMIPCC. Very hard and abrasive material
may impact the loading unit, by decreasing the throughput of the entire system by increasing
dipper (or bucket) cycle time, operational delays and wear of ground engagement tools (GET).
The effect of these material characteristics on the fully mobile crusher include: de-rating of the
crushing rate; increasing crusher downtime due to blockage; secondary breaking, belt damage
(cuts, rips and perforations). The problem results in further downtime loses, when the damage
requires unloading of the crusher, splicing of the belts with associated shutdown before re-
starting the system. The problem of materials that are abrasive, lumpy, hard and bulky is better
managed, with best practice blasting techniques and the selection of appropriate equipment
specification to match the material characteristics.
A proactive way of dealing with adverse material characteristics starts with the correct and
comprehensive identification of the various material properties that make up the deposit within
which the exploitation will take place. This would require extensive material property
investigation during advanced explorations drilling, ground clearing and specific geotechnical
assessment of the deposit. Once this kind of information is available within the geological
model, it serves three main purposes:
• With regular updates, provides real-time insight during material excavation
• Enhances pre-mining dewatering efforts and dump profile design:
• Provides technical basis for design of active mining benches
Observation 2. Since some of the system components are rigid in construction, flexibility in
capacity can be built into the operational phase through careful component selection and
specification. Capacity redundancy, standardisation of components, function and performance
specification (FPS) are just a few of the ways to improve operational flexibility, minimising
unnecessary cost and reducing downtime.
3.2.4 Specification of FMIPCC systems
The Function and Performance Specification (FPS) simply tells what a piece of equipment has
to do and to what extent it has to do it. Improper or poor equipment (or component)
specification is commonly the root of many equipment problems when it comes to operation
and performance (Deering, 2014). Apart from cost benefit analysis, equipment specifications
should vitally consider the present and future need to achieve the required operational
performance. Specifications should be reviewed periodically to ensure they are kept up to date
with existing operating conditions, though ongoing condition monitoring (Frizzel and Martin,
2011). Using an old out-of-date specification may frequent downtimes and require excessive
maintenance or repair time and dangerous to safety of mine personnel. In most mining
operation, different types, classes and size of mine equipment are used. Equipment
specification involves the detailing of the physical dimensions, technical capabilities and
operational ranges (including limitations and options), relevant to mine-specific conditions. It
considers the life of mine (LOM) of the operation, mine design and layout, functional
requirements of the mine and finally the operating environment (climate, geology and
topography). Figure 3-3 depicts the key aspects of mine equipment’s specification. Mining
equipment specification is often a balancing act between the four main drivers on the one side
and the opportunities on the other side.
Figure 3-3 Factors affecting mine equipment’s specification
Among many other factors, the following key factors require careful attention when specifying
a piece of equipment:
1. Scope and functional requirements (Including operation range and limits)
2. Suitability of Materials of Construction to specific conditions
3. Design, Engineering and Fabrication
As equipment age and parts wear out, their ability to keep up with early-life performance with
changing operating conditions become reduces significantly. For operations where, extreme
weather conditions are experienced, the impact on equipment performance may be even more
apparent. This is influenced by the prevailing stage of the mine life and Life-cycle stages of
mining equipment. Figure 3-4 shows the Life-cycle phases for equipment (Darling, 2011).
There is therefore the need to review the function and performance specification on a regular
based through condition monitoring.
Figure 3-4 Life-cycle stages of mining equipment (Fourie and Dohm, 2011)
3.2.5 Under-specification vs. Over-specification of Critical Components
Mine machinery is composed of critical and non-critical components. The performance

(reliability and availability) of the equipment and mining systems is a function of the how well
critical parts and components of the equipment are designed (specified) and maintained. For
conveyor systems like FMIPCC, component such as drive motors (for drive stations), belts and
pulleys are critical to the efficient operation of the entire conveyor system (Risler, 1958). The
improper specification (under-specification or over-specification) may result in significant time

loses and cost to the operation. For example, the downtime due to unplanned failure of the
drive motors on the S-belts in a mine shows a failure rate of up to 33.3%.
The average downtime due to the engine by each motor failure is approximately 20hrs. For a
case of an average of two motor failures per year, this could mean a 40hr production loss per
year. Analysis of failure data attributes the cause to inadmissibly high heating due to
insufficient cooling further due to dirty and blocked cooling pipes. Work Order analysis
indicates an average cost of AUD 75,715 (repair, engine, personnel, crane and transport costs
as well as expenses due to loss of production) associated with restoring the motor to working
order. The analysis indicates a resulting cost of approximately AUD 150,000 for two motor
failures per operating year. Figure 3-5 shows blocked cooling fins of a drive station motor,
which forms from splatter of wet fine material from the belt.
Figure 3-5 Blocked cooling fins of a drive station motor (Schmitten, 2016)
From operational experience it was also determined that, because the motor was specified to
function between 30O - 40O, slight variation from the operating range resulted in overheating.
Subsequently, new motors ordered were “over-specified” to operate between 80O - 90O. This
approach allowed the system to function normally for longer (campaign) periods even when
ambient temperatures increased up to 50O - 80O. This approach eliminated the 20hrs
downtimes and motors run safely and throughout the mission time until wash-down or routine
maintenance was performed.
In addition to changing the specification, other changes were made to the design of the motor,
including changing from water-cooled to air-cooled fins and improved maintenance access.
These changes cost the operations a total of AUD 20,000 and with some economy of scale
negotiation, the 40hr downtime was eliminated resulting in annual savings of AUD 151,430 to
the mine. Risler (1958) provides some practical insights on the importance of motor selection
for belt conveyor systems. This example reinforces the need to carefully consider the criticality
of components when performing equipment specifications.
The primary objective of equipment specifications is to ensure that the specifier acquires the
required equipment, instead of what the equipment manufacture has already manufactured. It
is therefore very important for a continuous mining system like FMIPCC that critical equipment
and component specification is performed carefully to optimise operational performance and
system reliability. Over-specifications above the standard options may initially be appear
impractical, unnecessarily expensive and useless but for critical components of the FMIPCC,
this strategy may prove to be very optimal and cost-effective in the end. Risler (1958) has
suggested a few ways to deal with the issue of over-specification.
Observation 3. Standardisation of equipment, parts and components can improve

maintenance response time, cost and infrastructure requirements. It also improved operational
flexibility and can potentially reduce equipment (or part) replacement cost as some parts can
be re-used or shared across multiple locations.
3.2.6 Standardization of FMIPCC Equipment
Equipment standardization involves restricting the variety (in terms of dimension and features)
of equipment or components to a minimum for the purpose of achieving any or a combination
of the following (Dhillon, 2008a):
• minimise differences and enhance interchangeability of standard components,
• maximise the use of common parts in different equipment across operations,
• minimise system inefficiency due to poor capacity matching
Some of the benefits of equipment standardization includes, ease of use, maintenance by

operator and crews, improved equipment reliability and maintainability, reduction in incorrect
use of parts, reduction in manufacturing costs, design time, maintenance time and cost and
warehousing requirements. Interchangeability of parts and components is particularly useful
where there are several of the same equipment or where the same mine has more than one
or more operation in close proximity. A typical example is the use of only 2-size conveyor
frames across RWE’s three mines in Hambach, Inden and Garzweiler, within the North
Rhenish mining area of Germany. This enables frames from one mine to be used on the other
mine on demand without major operational hold-ups.
3.2.7 Modular Conveyor Structure
The belt conveyor structure is one of the most critical components of the FMIPCC conveying
systems as it provides the required firm and stable support upon which the pulleys, idlers,
conveyor tooling and accessories are mounted. Belt conveyor structures may be mobile, fixed,
semi fixed or shiftable. Shiftable conveyors are often manufactured as portable modules for
ease of handling and assembly. Figure 3-6 depicts a simple schematic of a modular conveyor
frame and belt assembly. The simplicity of constructions and standardization of the modules
ensures that:
• Ease of assembly the frames on site as and when required;
• Minimise the need to ship in long sections of prefabricated conveyor structure;
• Ease of handling by smaller-sized ancillary equipment; and
• Ease and cost efficiency of replacement of damaged conveyor frames.
Figure 3-6 Schematics of a modular conveyor frame and belt assembly
The types, size and number of ancillary equipment required for handling these frames is a
function of the dimension of the frames and the belts. The standardization of conveyor frames
for instance allows new frames to be assembled quickly onsite while older frames or partly
damages frames are decommissioned, dismantles and used as spares for repairing newly
damaged frames. This allows the same frames to be used in shiftable, semi-fixed and fixed
configuration using the same module units.
Observation 4. As conveyor modules and components get larger, maintenance

infrastructure and support equipment become very critical to the whole system performance.
In some cases, idlers and garlands may be so heavy, becoming impractical for handling by
mine personnel. In such instances, other support equipment would be required.
3.2.8 Tooling & Infrastructure Requirements
Figure 3-7 shows a modern belt splicing equipment (a) and garland handling equipment (b).
Considering the relative size of these machinery, careful consideration must be given to
equipment specification, especially for remote sites where access to contractor equipment or
operating terrain may be very challenging. Another aspect of standardisation is multi-tooling.
This is often the case for some the ancillary equipment like the Front-End Loader (FEL). It was
observed from the visit that, the FEL was arguably the most versatile tool when it comes to
working around the belt conveying system.
Figure 3-7 Belt splicing equipment (a, b) and garland handling equipment (c).
(a) And (b) Belt splicing equipment for 3200mm wide belt, requires the use of cranes to install.
(c) Change out of (heavy) worn trough idlers using specialised hydraulic equipment.
The FEL is easily adapted to multiple tool heads. This provides the means for one FEL to
perform many functions simultaneously as lifting and installing idler sets, act as forklift.
Equipment standardisation also enables operators to move across operations with significant
training in new skill sets. Within the same belt shifting operation, a single FEL manned by a
single operator performed many different functions just by changing the front attachments that
were hauled in tractor unit by the same FEL. Figure 3-8 shows an excavator and wheel loader
arm fitted with different front end attached performing similar functions (a, c) replacing trough
idlers on the conveyor frame and; (b, d) aligning conveyor frames after shifting has been
completed. The key to achieving this was the proactive step of planning and scheduling of
ancillary equipment and not only primary equipment. When there was insufficient owner
equipment to perform the work, contractor equipment which were also adaptable were used.
Figure 3-8 Excavator and wheel loader arm fitted with different front end attached
Different front end attached performing similar functions (a, c) replacing trough idlers on the conveyor
frame and; (b, d) aligning conveyor frames after shifting has been completed.
Observation 5. While innovation (new technology) and automations may enhance system
reliability of a continuous mining system, the primary function objective and overall reliability
of the system must always be the driver for adopting new technology innovations.
3.2.9 Reliability vs. Innovative Technology (Automation Technology)
Another operational constraint is the need for a balancing act between system reliability and
technology innovations. This is pivotal on a critical assessment of what the operational
requirements are. Introducing new equipment or critical components or immerging technology
aimed at cost reduction and automations is now common. However, early adoption of some of
these could also pose great risks when the technology is not fully proven, particularly for critical
equipment or component of the FMIPCC. The tipping point for these two options should
however be determined by the system reliability as frequent stoppages to repair the
weightometer could imply significant downtime for the entire system. A simple example is the
belt conveyor scale or weightometer, which provides a measure of conveyor throughput by
constantly weighing material that passes the weighing point. Since weightometers or scales
are often fixed installations, Michaud (2015) notes that a basis design requirement is one of
maximum flexibility, to easy conversion from original load capacity to other capacities or
multiple conveyor belt sizes with minimum downtime and least expense. Error! Reference
source not found. show a sample weightometer at RWE’s Inden Mine. It was observed that
the weightometers was the same as was first installed in excellent operating condition with
accuracy of performance – even more reliable than some of the newer models on the mine.
Figure 3-9 Example of weightometer at RWE’s Inden mine (RWE, 2016)
Observation 6. In continuous mining (including FMIPCC) mine planning requires careful

integration of data, processes, tools and monitoring systems at all three levels of planning
(long term, medium term and short-term planning).
3.2.10 The Need for Integrated Mine Planning
As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, a mine plan includes material movement schedule, which
is inextricably linked to the equipment specification. Fourie and Dohm (2011) notes that, mine
planning (previously considered distinct activities or process) should in fact become integrated
into a single definition. An integrated mine plan implies that the mine plan should encompass
the following key elements:
• Geological deposit information
• Material movement schedule (demand vs. capacity)
• Primary Equipment schedule (uptime and downtimes)
• Mine Maintenance Plan (Mechanical and Electrical)
• Ancillary equipment plan (availability and allocation)
• All other operation support task – dewatering, blasting, conveyor shifting, etc.
• Contractor resource plan (availability & allocation)
Figure 3-10 shows the different levels and granularity for each stage of the mine planning
process. The figure shows key inputs and outputs of an integrated mine plan. Since the mine
planning process is often iterative, major changes to the system configuration and capacities
of the primary equipment must always be reflected in the final (updated) mine plan.
[LTP: long-term plan, MT: Medium Term Plan, AOP: Annual operating Plan and, OP: Operating Plant]
Figure 3-10 Different level of the mine plan Level of granularity key inputs and outputs
Figure 3-11 shows the interaction between the various inputs of the mine plan. Spatial and
geological knowledge of the deposit plays a major role in how practical the mine plan is to the
operational team and ultimately, how well the mine plan is implemented. The mine plan tells
the operational team what material (behavior and characteristics) is to be mined and if there is
adequate room on the waste dump for each class of material that is being mined from the
loading face.
Figure 3-11 Interaction of inputs and outputs into an IPCC mine plan (Schmitten, 2016)
Observation 7. Shifting of belt conveyors is one of the most time consuming and directly
influences other operational activities and therefore requires coordination of interdisciplinary
mine teams often from four main departments. In some operating conditions, unplanned and
poorly-resourced belt conveyor shifting can incur significant time losses as result of unforeseen
pre-shifting and post shifting requirements.
3.2.11 Considerations for Belt Conveyor Shifting
Surface mining equipment are designed to operate within specified operating ranges. During
the cause of excavation, loading unit (shovel and excavators) reach maximum operating radius
and therefore required to move with the face in order to maintain its productivity. In T-S mining,
the trucks naturally follow the loader and spot nearest to the loading point. In FMIPCC however,
the belt conveyor on the active bench (near the mining or dumping face) must be shifted in
consonance with the loading unit and fully mobile crusher.
Shifting of belt conveyors is one of the most time consuming requirements for fully mobile
crushing and conveying (Golosinski and Boehm, 1987). Left unplanned and poorly resourced,
belt conveyor shifting can incur significant time losses and operation delays, which would
ultimately result in the poor utilisation performance of the entire system. The four main
objectives when planning, scheduling and implementing conveyor-shifting operations include:
• Increasing equipment availability and effective utilisation
• Maintaining productivity and efficiency of system (shovel and mobile crusher)
• Minimising system downtimes (loading equipment) due to inability to convey
• Minimising damage to conveyer frames and components.
Belt conveyor shifting directly influences other operational activities and therefore requires
coordination of interdisciplinary mine teams often from four main departments. To achieve a
well-planned and executed conveyor shifting operations, these departments must assign
dedicated personnel to relevant tasks during the shifting operation. Figure 3-12 shows the
composition of interdisciplinary team responsible for conveyor-shifting activities. The conveyor
shifting team convenes to manage four aspects of the operation as follows:
• Coordination: Planning, Scheduling and organisation
• Pre-shifting: Civil works, component repair and sequenced shutdown
• Shifting: Active repositioning of conveyor segments using shifters
• Post Shifting: Adjustment, alignment, start-up and fine-tuning
The composition of interdisciplinary would take the form of a fully-embedded projectised matrix
team which convenes to delivery each conveyor shifting activity as and when required.
Figure 3-12 Example of interdisciplinary team for managing conveyor shifting (Schmitten,
2016)
In mines where there are multiple conveyor units, these four processes become iterative and
sometimes require a standing department to handling all matters related to conveyor shifting.
In such cases, this department may double up as the ancillary department particularly where
personnel are limited. The success of such a department would relies heavily on the quality
and level of communication between the contributing departments.
3.2.12 Belt Conveyor Shifting – Planning, Preparation and Implementation
As noted earlier in Chapter 2, conveying systems in surface mines may either be in fixed, semi-
fixed, suitable and relocatable configurations (Ritter, 2016b). Belt widths up to 3,200 mm and
capacities of 25,000 m³/h have been reached. Golosinski and Boehm (1986c); Golosinski and
Boehm (1986b) outline three (3) approaches to belt conveyor shifting; (a) parallel, (b) slewing
or (c) combination of the parallel and radial method. Parallel shifting is achieved by shifting the
head station (HS) and tail station (TS) together and the stretch of belt conveyor (including)
frames to an equal distance. On the other hand, a slewing shift when either the head station
or the tail station is shifter by a distance longer than the other end.
3.2.13 Planning of Belt Conveyor Shifting
Figure 3-13 shows the factors that affect belt conveyor shifting. To enable the shifting of the
entire segments of conveyor, the frames modules are equipped (or fastened to) steel sleepers
and rails to allow easy shifting. The shifting procedure is done by shifting dozer (pipe laying
dozer) which travel up and down the of the conveyor segment, move the rail-fastened frames
in small steps of up to 0.5 – 1.5 m until the desired position is achieved. The shifting dozer has
a special attachment for rail clamping, the shifting head. Figure 3-14 depicts the four main
stages of belt conveyor shifting by which the shifting head engages with the rail-fastened
frames and pulls in the desired direction.
Figure 3-13 Factors affection conveyor shifting (adapted: Golosinski and Boehm, 1986)
Figure 3-14 Four main stages of belt conveyor shifting (Jaetzel, 2016)
Belt conveyor shifting may easily result in significant downtime and may be very logistically
demanding (Ritter et al., 2014). Table 3-2 shows the typical shifting requirement and the
number of ancillary and support equipment that may be required to handle such a demand.
The schedule clearly provides and into the potential time, logistic and cost implications of belt
conveyor shifting operations.
Table 3-2 Example of shifting requirement, ancillary and support equipment

Operational Scenario/Requirement Support Equipment QTY
Pipe Laying Dozer 4-5
▪ 7 active mining benches Standard Dozer 2-3

Multi – FEL/Utility 2
▪ 8 active waste dump benches
Rubber track dozer/Tractors 2 -3
▪ 60 shift events/year
Transporter Crawler - L 2
▪ 45 km of Conveyors In-pit
Transporter Crawler - S 2
▪ 2.5 – 3.0 km Avg. per conveyor
Hyd. Excavator - S 1
▪ 120 -180 km shift/year
Hyd. Excavator - L 1
Utility Trucks 1-2
Table 3-3 shows estimates of time requires for pre-shifting and post-shifting tasks for different
lengths of belt conveyor segments (Golosinski and Boehm, 1987). Where both parallel and
slewing shift have to be performed either simultaneously or in quick succession, care and
detailed planning is required, as it may involve significant logistic and personnel workload.
Table 3-3 Estimated time belt conveyor shifting tasks (Golosinski and Boehm, 1987).
Time in Hours by Conveyor Length

Up to 500m Up to 1,000m Over to 1,000m
Preparation for shifting (before shifting) 2-7 3-7 4 - 12
Preparation for start-up (after shifting) 4 - 22 12 - 26 16 - 30
Conveyor start-up (including adjustment) 2-4 3-5 3-5
Belt conveyor shifting requirement is often expressed in terms of square meter of area covers.
The net pace of shifting is a function of shifting speed, shifting distance, conveyor length and
the number of shifters performing the task. Figure 3-15 depicts the relationship between
shifting units, shifting distance and length of conveyor segment for a radial shift. Since the
shifting dozers are specialized equipment (may also be used for lifting), shifting pace may be
highly constrained by number units available. While conveyor shifting not be an exact science
as it may depend a number of other factors other factors like shifting conditions and roster
arrangements, If the planning and execution is done well, much of the post-shifting time can
be save through good sequencing and early advance testing after shifting.
Figure 3-15 Shifter requirements for radial belt conveyor shifting
3.2.14 Minimising Downtime Due to Belt Conveyor Shifting
Minimising the downtime due to conveyor shifting can significantly improve the productivity of
the entire system (Ritter et al., 2014; Ritter, 2016b; Golosinski and Boehm, 1987). Error!
Reference source not found. shows a scene at conveyor shifting event involving a
combination of parallel and radial shifting techniques. The arrowheads point to the location of
ancillary and support machinery involved with the shifting activity. Figure 3-17 shows the use
of GPS-enabled shifters to improve net shifting time of conveyor. The use of GPS-enabled
shifter aims at improving accuracy of shifting and the minimisation of downtime due to the
shifting operation (Ritter et al., 2014).
Figure 3-16 Logistic and support equipment requirement for conveyor shifting (Jaetzel, 2016)
In order to minimise conveyor downtime, civil or repair works (rails, grounds, cables and pipes)
may be required in ahead of conveyor shifting activities. Figure 3-18 shows other pre-shifting
and civil type work, which can be performed during normal operations before the actual shift
occurs. These civil works may also be required when the loading units or mobile crusher must
cross over the conveyor system.
Figure 3-17 GPS-enabled shifters to improve net shifting time of conveyor (Jaetzel, 2016)
Figure 3-18 Conveyor repair works – (a)cables, (b) grounds (c)rails & pipes (Jaetzel, 2016)
Observation 8. Opportunistic belt conveyor shifting during an unscheduled failure or

unplanned repair and pre-planned maintenance tasks, can significantly improve operational
readiness and equipment utilisation of the complete FMIPCC system.
3.2.15 Shifting in the shadows (opportunistic maintenance and belt shifting)
Shifting of belt conveyor may cause significant downtime and loss of production for the
FMIPCC system particularly if the loading and crushing units are in uptime mode. Scheduling
of shifting activities to align with major maintenance or downtime events of loading or crushing
units, presents a great opportunity to minimise system downtime and maximize productivity.
This strategy however calls for a higher level of operational readiness for the shifting team.
The conveyor-shifting department must be prepared to plan and carry out conveyor shifting
upon short notice. For example, discovery of an imminent unplanned major crusher lining
replacement just two weeks before the conveyor shifting is due. Figure 3-19 shows a snapshot
of key events recorded during an operating year of a mine. It clear that, performing activity [b]
in the “shadow” of the crusher liner repair would minimise the downtime of the system due to
conveyor shifting by two shifts.
The use of contractor equipment and personnel can greatly minimise the cost implications for
such a shifting demand and improves operational readiness. The following five strategies
approaches could help minimise the impact of system downtime due to belt conveyor shifting:
1. Integrated planning involving four key departments
2. Shifting in the shadows (opportunistic shifting during major maintenance)
3. Performing conveyor repair works (rails and idlers) during normal operations
4. Cross-functional team tasked with coordinating shifting activities
5. Use of contractor resource to support conveyor shifting tasks.
Figure 3-19 Key events record during 2nd operating year of an FMIPCC system
3.3 Chapter Summary
This Chapter catalogues key lesson learnt, technical and operational constraints of In-pit
conveying systems as part an embedded internship in continuous mining operation, covering
three of RWE’s Largest open-cast lignite mines in North Rhenish mining area and one
limestone operation near Cologne, in Germany. Eight key observations are summarised.
Firstly, at the feasibility stage or prior to the adoption of a conveyor-based system like FMIPCC,
adequate time and effort should be expended to understand and characterise material
properties (physical, geochemical, hydrogeological) and in some cases, historic
(archaeological and past mining activities) should be carefully surveyed and mapped-out. This
will help minimise undue operational stoppages and will enhance operational efficiency.
Secondly, since some of the system components are rigid in construction, flexibility in capacity
can be built into the operational phase through careful component selection and specification.
Capacity redundancy, standardisation of components, function and performance specification
(FPS) are just a few of the ways to improve operational flexibility, minimising unnecessary cost
and reducing downtime.
Thirdly, standardisation of designs for equipment, parts and components can improve
maintenance response time, cost and infrastructure requirements. This would also improve
operational flexibility and can potentially reduce equipment (or part) replacement cost as some
parts can be re-used or shares across multiple locations. Fourth, as conveyor modules and
components get larger, maintenance infrastructure and support equipment become very
critical to the whole system performance. In some cases, idlers and garlands may be so heavy,
becoming impractical for handling by mine personnel. In such instances, other support
equipment would be required. And fifth, while innovation (new technology) and automations
may ultimately enhance system reliability of a continuous mining system, the primary function
objective and overall reliability of the system must always be the driver for adopting new
technology innovations. In continuous mining (including FMIPCC) mining planning requires
careful integration of data, processes, tools and monitoring systems at all three levels of
planning (long term, medium term and short-term planning).
Sixth, shifting of belt conveyors is one of the most time consuming and directly influences other
operational activities and therefore requires coordination of interdisciplinary mine teams often
from four main departments. In some operating conditions, unplanned and poorly-resourced
belt conveyor shifting can incur significant time losses as result of unforeseen pre-shifting and
post shifting requirements. Finally, opportunistic belt conveyor shifting during an unscheduled
failure or unplanned repair and pre-planned maintenance tasks, can significantly improve
operational readiness and equipment utilisation of the complete FMIPCC system.
CHAPTER 4:
CURRENT TIME CLASSIFICATION
AND UTILISATION MODELS
This chapter discusses existing industry time classification and utilisation
models in order to select or propose suitable model for IPCC systems. The
aim of this chapter is to outline and provide a rational explanation for the
Time usage modelling approach adopted for this research systems.
4. Current Time Classification and Utilisation Models
4.1 Time-based Performance Metrics and Classification Models
Time-based performance metrics have been used widely for predicting, measuring and
benchmarking the performance, productivity and reliability of equipment across the mining
industry over the past few decades. Time-based metrics enable comparison of equipment
performance across the mining industry (Ritter and Stoyan, 2018; Lukacs, 2001; Michaud,
2008). Some common time-based performance metrics include availability, utilisation and
operational efficiency (Dhillon, 2008a; Hustrulid and Kuchta, 1998a; O'Connor and Kleyner,
2012). These metric are highly subjective to how time-stamped event (records) are classified
and grouped, therefore discrepancies are commonly observed between performance
measures across various mine operators (Lukacs, 2001).
Discrepancies in performance metrics implies that, benchmarking of equipment would be

meaningless without a common framework for the classification of the basic time-stamped
events that define the time metrics (Lukacs, 2001; Michaud, 2008). While there is consensus
on a common “language” for defining some of these time-stamped events, there is vast
difference and divergence when it comes to the elementary building block that allows the
comparison of metrics like availability and utilisation (Michaud, 2007). Figure 4-1 shows typical
example of Time Classification Model (TCM) and related time-based performance metrics that
are used as key performance indicators (KPIs) for mining equipment.
Figure 4-1 Typical example of Time Classification Model (Michaud, 2007)
4.2 Inconsistencies in Time Classification Models
Despite the great efforts by the mining industry to standardise current approaches to
classifying and modelling of equipment time usage, huge differences still exist when it comes
defining the meanings of the basic building element that make up the time-based metrics; even
for equipment of the same model and class. Figure 4-2 shows three distinct and commonly
used examples of time classification systems for the mining industry. Figure 4-2 also show the
common definitions of availability and utilisation. From these equations and Figure 4-2, It is
apparent that the underlying classification of contributing elements of the time-based metrics
like availability and utilisation would result in different outcomes.
Figure 4-2 Inconsistencies in time classification model used by mining industry

(a) Nel et al. (2011) (b) Hustrulid et al. (2013) (c) Ritter and Stoyan (2018)
(4-1)
(4-2)
As noted earlier, the discrepancy between the time-based metrics often stem from the
definition of underlying time elements such as idle time and standby time. From Figure 4-2 and
noting the relative location of the common numerator of Utilisation in Equation 4-1, it is clear
that comparing utilisation across between a site using the model in Figure 4-2 (a) and Figure
4-2 (c) could result in huge discrepancies even when value obtained equally turns out to be
60%. It is therefore noted that, unless the underlying classification models are similar, a
superficial comparison of such time-based metrics could be erroneous. In one case
application, the models in Figure 4-2(a) and Figure 4-2(c) were used by two different mine
operators for a single operation over a period of six years.
To determine the extent of this discrepancy in common Time Utilisation Models (TUM) used
by the mining industry, Lukacs (2001) surveyed 99 surface mine operations in Canada (44)
and the United States (55). Lukacs (2001) study showed that the most common pattern of
almost all the models surveyed could be simplified into two primary themes based on the types
of times losses involved. Error! Reference source not found. shows the primary and
secondary classification of time elements based on Lukacs’ (2001) survey results. Table 4-1
provides a summary of the discrepancies Lukacs (2001) observed. Compared to the
availability metrics, Lukacs (2001) found that variation in terminologies for utilisation was
comparatively more, although the basic formulas for metrics were quite similar.
Lukacs’ (2001) conclusion of his investigation of TUMs in mining is as follows:
• Inconsistencies in the allocation of events to time classifications diminished the validity

of any comparison of operating parameters.
• Utilisation metrics were highly influenced by the classification of events between

standby, operating delay and downtime.
Figure 4-3 Primary and secondary classification of time elements (Lukacs, 2001)
Table 4-1 summary of the discrepancies
Time Element Observed Discrepancies

• Inconsistencies in the allocation of events to time classifications
diminished the validity of any comparison of operating
parameters.
General Observation • Utilisation metrics were highly influenced by the classification of
events between standby, operating delay and downtime
• While there was a large variation in terminology for utilisation
metrics, the basic formulas for metrics were quite similar.
Calendar Time • Common to majority of Respondents
• 50% of respondents did not classify scheduled outage separately.
• Included statutory holidays, planned shutdowns and scheduled
down shifts.
Scheduled Outage • Planned shutdowns and scheduled downshifts sometimes
classified as scheduled outage
• Scheduled outages sometime capture unforeseen (e.g. weather)
events
• Distinction between downtime and available time was quite
Downtime
throughout
• Idle (or Standby – these terms were used interchangeably).
• Some respondents Included (safety, crew meetings, lunch breaks
Idle (or Standby) and power outages)
• Planned shutdowns and scheduled downshifts sometime
classified as idle time
• Operating Hours meant entire time when delays were

Operating hours incorporated
• Gross Operating Hours • Gross or Net used to indicate whether delays were included or not
• Net Operating Time • Operating Delay, generally available and manned, but not
involved in production.
The discussion in the sections so far provide a premise for two major observations about key
factors to consider for time utilisation modelling:
1. Huge difference exist in how each mining operation defines its time classification models
for the purpose of measuring time-based performance.
2. Any equipment comparison or benchmarking effort across operations must take cognisant
of and resolve the following:
a. Operational context of equipment data – material type and operational practices and
time gaps (Dimitrakopoulos and Abdel Sabour, 2007).
b. Differences (if any) between time utilisation models in use at the operations being
compared or benchmarks (Lukacs, 2001).
4.3 Time Classification Model
A piece of mining equipment is either able to perform its designed function or not.
Subsequently, an equipment is said to be in “downtime mode” when it becomes “inoperable”
with regards to performing its primary designed function, be it planned or unplanned (Hastings,
2010). Conversely, a mining equipment is said to be in “Uptime mode” when is safely operable.
These two definitions imply that the equipment is available when it is in uptime mode. On the
other hand, the equipment is unavailable when it is in downtime mode. Figure 4-4 shows the
importance of this binary equipment functional modes for classifying the common operational
states of an equipment. Table 4-2 provides a summary of resulting time definitions that are
used for the time utilisation modeling in the remainder of this research.
Table 4-2 Summary of time element definitions
Time Element Definition/Explanation

Calendar Time Total usable Time (7day X 24 Hours x 52wks = 8,760 Hrs.)
Mission Time Equipment is rostered/scheduled to work
Non-mission Time Equipment is not rostered/scheduled to work.
Uptime Equipment is operable (Hastings, 2010, p. 284)
Downtime Equipment is not operable (Hastings, 2010, p. 284)
Planned Downtime Equipment NOT operable due to planned event/repair
Unplanned Downtime Equipment NOT operable due to unexpected event/failure/repair
Idle/Standby/wait Equipment is available but not in use due to external factors
Operating Time Equipment is working within its designed function
Productive Time Equipment is in active production cycle.
Operating Delays Delays associated with active production cycle.
4.3.1 Mission Time versus Calendar Time
In earlier sections of this chapter, the definition of Calendar Time (CT) is noted to be common
to most time classification models (Lukacs, 2001). CT is often estimated as the total sum of
hours in 365 days of a calendar non-leap year (8,760 Hours) or 366 calendar days of a leap
year (8,784 Hours). The Mission Time (MT) is that portion of CT during which a piece of
equipment or system is scheduled or allocated to perform its specified function (Dhillon,
2008b). The use of the term mission time suggests a campaign-driven usage, where a piece
of equipment is guaranteed to operate for a period of time without failure or downtime as a
measure of the reliability-driven maintenance already performed on the equipment.
Various authors (Dhillon, 2008a; O’Connor and Kleyner, 2012) applies the concept of mission
time by referring to operating time in term of mission hours (e.g. 800 h mission) rather than
operating hours. Nielsen (2016) notes that this idea of mission time could be aimed at
minimising the total manning time and frequency for a piece of critical equipment. For example,
where periodic inspection or condition monitoring is vital for early failure detection and timely
maintenance, this could result in higher reliability and longevity of the critical equipment. This
campaign-style operational strategy is particularly common to oil platforms (Nielsen, 2016),
quarries and with some mining contractors. For example, there may be no operation on
weekends or in other cases only the first two of the three 8hr shifts are used for operation while
the third shift is solely reserved for maintenance, resting equipment and operators for a more
effective and well-planned operational shifts. Figure 4-4 shows the working schedule for one
of the earliest FMIPCC units installed at the Torr Works Quarry in 1984 (Larson, 1986).
Figure 4-4 Working schedule FMIPCC Torr Works Quarry, UK (Larson, 1986).
In this research, the use of MT instead of CT is explored to emphasise the practical benefits in
the following key areas of equipment performance measurement, operations and maintenance
management:
1. Scheduled time and non-schedule time: the use of calendar time (or total time) pre-
supposes that all equipment must work for the total 8,760 h. This idea is reflected in
the use of calendar time (or Total time) as the denominator for calculating time-based
metrics like availability and utilisation (sometimes referred to as effective utilisation).
This approach of estimating utilisation may result in low utilisation metrics, where
significant redundancy has been built into the system by way. The performance of an
equipment is be measured over the period when the equipment is allocated and
resourced to work.
2. Campaign Maintenance Strategies (CMS): This kind of maintenance approach is

often common with military operations (non-maintenance restraints take priority). This
approach is akin to planned maintenance but in this case, maintenance activities are
geared towards maintaining optimum equipment reliability over a limited periods
(Fraser, 2011). The operational advantages of campaign maintenance are enumerated
as follows:
a. Efficiency of limited crews of multi skilled/tasked teams: Campaign
maintenance is particularly suited for remote mining operations where dedicated
campaign maintenance teams (personnel with expertise who fly-in, fly-out) convene
for key maintenance tasks aimed at a specific mission time. For example, for small
specialised teams carrying out both frontline maintenance and breakdowns
maintenance, the campaign team can schedule a planned scope of work to be
carried out during pre-determined times of the day, week or fly-in fly-out roster.
b. Use of mining contractor equipment: Some mining operations depend more on
contractor equipment. This strategy could minimise cost associated with owner
maintenance personnel, parts inventory management, and operational flexibility
and in some instance operation efficiency. The contractual terms in this case would
allow for a roster structure which requires limited work on some days like weekends.
For aging equipment this may result in significant reduction in OPEX.
4.3.2 System or Equipment Downtime
Equipment downtime mode may arise due to scheduled maintenance including major
overhauls, routine time-based service, daily machine checks and inspections. An equipment
may also fall into downtime mode due to unscheduled failure, breakdown or loss of function.
Other reasons for equipment downtime may include safety shutdown, incident response
stoppages and equipment protection trips. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show a detailed
breakdown of downtime and uptime time elements. This definition of downtime is clearly
distinguished from instances when an equipment is not rostered to work or other instances
where it is on standby due to system redundancy (not scheduled to work).
DOWN TIME
FORCED DOWNTIME [DTF] UNPLANNED DOWNTIME [DT U] PLANNED DOWNTIME [DT P]

Unscheduled | Unplanned |Downtime Unscheduled | Planned |Downtime Scheduled | Planned |Downtime
» Failure /Loss of Function » Triggered by condition monitoring » Preventive Maintenance
» External Factors » Stoppage due to iminent failure/damage » Planned System Upgrade
• Human Errors » Event related to operation safety » System Re-design/Re-Engineering
• Enviromental Agents » Failure leading into Preventive Maintenance
• Loss of utility/function • e.g. Belt damage 24hrs before overhaul
• Labour conflicts
• Acts of sabbotage/Activist
• Natural/Operational distaster
A B C
High Variability Low Variability
Figure 4-5 Detailed breakdown of downtime
In Figure 4-6 an equipment in uptime mode, may or may not be scheduled to work. If it is not
scheduled to work and not in use, then it is either not required or it may be a built-in redundancy
to allow for flexibility in capacity. Where the equipment is operable and not scheduled to work,
then it is considered to be idle or exhibiting redundancy. In this case redundancy would simply
imply a means of meeting a given operational objective of the system (e.g. additional capacity).
UP-TIME
IDLE/REDUNDUNCY TIME [RT] STANBY/WAITING TIME [ST] OPERATING TIME [OT]

Non-scheduled | NOT Operating | Uptime Scheduled | NOT Operating | Uptime Scheduled | Operating | Uptime
» No required production » No Operator (Including crew/maintainer) » Productive Time
» Equipment Redundancy » No dump /product storage capacity » Production (Active) Delay Time
• Additional Capacity » Load management/System optimisation » Process (Passive) Delay Time
• Production advantage (e.g. free dig) • Reduced strip ratio
• No adequate feed
A B C
Equipment hours NOT running Equipment hours running
Low Variability High Variability
Figure 4-6 Detailed breakdown of Uptime
Figure 4-7 shows three main types of redundancies, explaining how the failure rate of the
primary item(s) and how it affects the remaining item(s) within the system. The appropriate
level of redundancy (capacity and personnel) for a system of equipment would require a
thorough cost impact analysis to arrive at optimum redundancy strategy.
Figure 4-7 Three main categories of System redundancies
While the idle and redundancy mode may often connote “wasted time” for the system,
redundancy may be a deliberate provision in a system to ensure reliability. Figure 4-8 and
Table 4-3 show the schematic and options analysis of a simple parallel-series conveyor
configuration for delivering mineral from two in pit sources to an ex-pit destination. The
objective here is to assess the redundancy utilisation of the system.
Figure 4-8 Series-parallel conveyor configuration of machine in continuous operation
Table 4-3 Options analysis of redundancy utilisation of machine in continuous operation
Redundancy Utilisation Some known issues

(1) Symmetric pair (Standby)
1. Line A works; Line B is in reserve (a cold one). • Over a long wear out is at same
2. Line A fails, Line B commences work and Line intensity
A goes into repair mode • Failures occur rarely on reserve and
3. Upon repair, Line A goes into reserve, Line B over a long time, parts like belt sag
keeps producing between idlers and local belt
A failure in Line B will now trigger a reversal of roles. deformations occur.
A failure of the system occurs failure occurs in the • Unsafe and uneconomical to keep a
working element while the second element is down. mechanical system in a standstill state
prolonged period of time.
(2) A pair in order (back-up)
1. Line A works; Line B is in reserve (a cold one). • Reserve does not work for the majority
2. Line A fails, Line B commences work and Line of the time.
A goes info repair mode • Re-start generates problems and
3. Upon repair (renewal) Line A returns to work, intensity of failures during operation
Line B goes in reserve again • Over a long time, pairs become
Failure of the system is the same as in point (a). identical (different).
(3) Half loaded Pair (Reduced Load)

1. Both Line A and Line B are in production on • Higher reliability may NOT pay for
half load. redundancy
2. 2x times longer than one line working alone. • Increase in reliability is usually small
3. Line B takes the full load, when in Line A Fails • operational cost could exceed cold
or vice versa reserve solution
Failure of the system is the same as in (a) and (b). • Method is not recommended.
(4) Improved symmetric pair (Standby)

1. Line A works; Line B is in reserve (a cold one). • Similar failure and wear
2. Line A fails, Line B starts work and Line A • Similar to symmetric pair in term of
goes into repair reliability
3. Switch Line A & Line B work periodically at
optimal frequency
4. Switching triggered PM and CM; NOT
unplanned failure
4.3.3 Equipment Operating Time
When the equipment is in uptime mode, adequately resourced and operating, then it is either
in production or delayed. An active delay defines production-related stoppages or disruptions
that are related to the designed function of the equipment or other tasks external to the
equipment in question. For example, tasks like blasting, conveyor shifting, face clean-up, wall
battering, box cuts and bench drainage works are often undesirable and rate-reducing but, are
key aspects of the mine production cycle and must be done in order to achieve best
performance of equipment on the bench. Active delays are a function of duty cycle of the
equipment and indicative of material movement at full, partial or reduced capacity.
Passive delays on the other hand involve no material movement although they still occur while
the equipment is operating (at least engine hour is running). Delays of this nature includes
moving between mining faces or benches, waiting for other equipment (e.g. dozer, grader,
water bowser, refueling etc.) to perform a must require function. Passive delays are deemed
also necessary task but, do not generate material movement are all. However, failure to
perform these tasks may hamper production or reduce throughput form the equipment or mine,
while in some case, it may lead to catastrophic damage or safety risks to equipment and
personnel. Figure 4-6 shows a detailed breakdown of operating time.
OPERATING TIME
PRODUCTION TIME - OPERATING [OT] ACTIVE DELAY TIME - OPERATING [ODA] PASSIVE DELAY TIME - OPERATING [ODP]
Operating | Producion | Time Operating | Production Delay | Time Operating | Process Delay | Time
» Operational Time » Operational Stoppage Time » Operational support time
• Loading/Hauling • Lunch breaks/Fatigue management • Moving between locations
• Face Cleanu/Preparation • Shift change/Hot Seating • Standby for other equipment
• Transporting Material • Blasting delay • Other non-production function
• Boxcut/Bench development • Dozer works/Floor clean up • Services (Fuel/water/safety)
• etc. • Belt Conveyor Shifting • Safety related (e.g. Old mine workings)
A B C
Partial or Reduced Capacity No material moved by equipment
Low Variability High Variabity

Figure 4-9 Detailed breakdown of Operating Time
4.4 Standardisation for Time-stamped Definition
Figure 4-10 shows the resulting time accounting utilisation framework that will form the basis
for classifying, analysing and modelling of FMIPCC utilisation in the later chapters of this thesis.
The grouping of uptime and downtime under mission instead of available time, scheduled time
or working time seeks to emphasis the operational interaction between uptime and downtime.
Consequently, the measure of downtime incurred by a mining equipment is a function of its
usage during uptime. The overall uptime is the cumulative sum of mission time periods
equating to a maximum of CT. While planned downtime is aimed at maximizing equipment
uptime, inefficient and inappropriate stoppage for “planned repair” of equipment could incur
significant unplanned downtime. This means that the systems for planning and managing
downtime must be dynamic and flexible to accommodate unplanned operational requirements.
Merely demanding an equipment for planned repairs at the peak of ore removal at maximum
demonstrated performance may be detrimental to productivity. It is therefore impractical to
delink equipment uptime and downtime as argued by Hustrulid et al. (2013). The rational for
proposing this model is that, it adequately accounts for all time elements associated with both
cyclic and continuous mining equipment as discussed earlier.
Figure 4-10 Generic time classification for FMIPCC
Nodes (M, A, U, R, P, X, and Y) represent commonly used performance measures for time efficiency
4.5 Proposed time Categorisation Model
Figure 4-11 shows a proposed decision matrix for classifying equipment time stamped event,
for time utilisation modelling. The left half of the figure shows a four standard equipment
performance metrics (labeled A, B, C and D) that can be calculated from the connected time
elements. The model can be extrapolated to other time-base metrics like Overall Equipment
Efficiency (OEE) where quality-related performance within the productive time are accounted
for. OEE losses may be elusive to determine, as they rely heavily equipment instrumentation
and more detailed data capture.
Figure 4-11 Proposed decision matrix for classifying equipment
4.6 Requirements and Sourcing of data for time utilisation
Data on machine history can be obtained from many sources. In some cases, the data is
available from the mine control and monitoring systems (e.g. dispatch), which keep track of
what equipment is doing at any given instant, including downtime and maintenance response
time. One shortcoming of data from dispatch system is that, it is more production-focused and
therefore details of downtime information may not be adequately captured. Moreover, these
systems typically do not include cost information. Therefore, generating accurate cost
information related to downtime events requires cross referencing with work order system.
Some of the practical reasons for this are:
• Many mines have a pre-set repairs costs within the work order system and over time,
these costs remain unchanged, resulting in the failure to capture the true repair cost
information associated with these downtime or equipment failure events.
• The necessary information to cross reference to a work order is not entered into the
dispatch system. For instances when a machine goes down for one reason multiple
repairs are performed. Consequently, if the downtime, repair and costs details are not
identified separately the initial reason for going down will indicate a high repair cost
than the actual.
• Despite the need to account for repair activity as separate items (cost and duration) the
overall time downtime has to be accounted for as a single event.
On equipment with poor instrumentation and operator interaction, operational data have to be
obtained manually by going through operator’s panel, worksheets, mechanic’s log etc.
Obtaining data in this manner requires even more effort, time, and adding to complexity of
interpreting data during processing.
In some cases, the manual recording of information and entry on a digital system are handled
by completely different mine personnel who may not have adequate context of the information
being entered. For example, on a drilling data sheet entry ‘‘no water’’ could mean a failed
pump, hose, coupling, or no water supply (which is not an equipment failure!). Another issue
with respect to data is its resolution. Often data has already been aggregated in days, weeks
or months. To generate hourly rates of this information, multiple calculations may be performed
although it may not represent the true variability the actual operational data on an hourly basis.
Figure 4-12 show an example of operational data gathering methods (a, b) and associated
errors (c).
Figure 4-12 Example of operational data gathering methods (a, b) and associated errors (c)
4.7 Data Collection, Preparation and Input Modelling
4.7.1 Variability of Mine Operational Data
Mine operational data in general, exhibits huge variability primarily due to the constantly
evolving nature of the operating conditions and an unpredictable mix of economic, technology,
human and non-human factors (Lumley, 2005; Lanke et al., 2014; Siegrist and Morris, 2005).
Figure 4-13 shows the cause and effect relationship between key factors that often results in
the variations observed in equipment performance data. From Figure 4-13, it is apparent that
the complex interaction between high level and lower level causal factors would make one
mine potential unique to another even when the same types, size and class of equipment are
involved.
Figure 4-13 Cause-effect relationship of factors causing variations in equipment performance
Operational performance of equipment varies with stage of the mine life, equipment
dimensions, and age of equipment and specific application of the equipment (SME Handbook,
2011). Research has shown that the various mine machinery which make up the components
of an FMIPCC system show random behavior as follows:
1. Variations in operating time, influenced by the aggregated effected of downtime,

standbys and delays (Lumley, 2005; Lanke et al., 2014).
2. Cycle time and payload variations, influenced by material characteristics, equipment

size, mine design parameters, bench configuration and operator efficiency, bucket
geometry and critical equipment dimensions (Ritter, 2016b).
3. Capacity variations, induced by of cyclic loading systems, equipment specification

issues and poor matching of hauling units to loading units (Barabadi et al., 2011).
Variations in operator efficiency often results from job set-up factors, operator skill and training
levels. While improved operator skilling and automation may reduce this variability between
operators (Lumley, 2005), operational data would still show huge variations due to variable
operating conditions and practices. These variations may become more pronounced as
operating condition, geology and operating practices differ from mine to mine. Other source of
variability in mine equipment performance relate to; availability, quality and storage of spare
parts resulting in the poor reliability of the equipment (Lanke et al., 2014).
The implications of these potential variations in equipment performance highlight the need to
apply caution when using historical equipment data for forecasting, benchmarking or predicting
future equipment performance, particularly for greenfield mining project. Key issues that make
the use of historical equipment data challenging include the following inherent assumptions:
1. Steady-state conditions or constancy: The use of history data to predict future

presumes that historical data is a sufficient representation of steady state performance
of the equipment or system. This implicit assumption is that historical patterns are going
to repeat in the future.
2. Known unknowns: The use of historical data assumes inclusion of all key variables
around the data set. However, irrespective of how variables have been captured, there
is always chances that some critical variables have not been accounted for especially
when human factor is involved.
3. Average performance: Derived trends from historical data may assume average
estimates which may turn out to be overly-optimistic or misleading for use in simulation
models.
Notwithstanding the contentious issues with historic equipment data and its associated
uncertainties with predicting future performances, useful equipment and mine operational data
has been collected and used for this research with the purpose of:
1. Defining and formulating a practical framework for the system configuration.
2. Capturing and including observed data trends in input modelling process.
3. Providing a means to verify and validate modelling results.
4. Providing a stock assumption FMIPCC operational data is inaccessible.
In view of the above discussions, much care is to be taken to prepare (compile, treat and
validate) the data as per acceptable engineering standards. This research gathered significant
operational data in order to understand the performance of the various FMIPCC components
under different operating conditions.
4.7.2 Data Collection
For this research, data has been collected from several mining operations, equipment
databases, published operation data, OEM equipment specification, handbooks and
performance guidelines. Figure 4-14 shows a schematic of data sources, scope and validation.
As shown in Figure 4-14, the data behind the model includes a vast array of mining equipment
types, class and fleet which provides a rich basis for determining robust data trends and
probability distribution for each group of equipment in the model.
Figure 4-14 Schematic of data sources, scope and validation
The data gathered for this research spans 47 months between January 2011 to June 2016.
Most of mines operated 24 hours and 7 days week. Given the focus on FMIPCC and the fact
that trucks data show higher variability (they are assigned to different areas in the mine in real-
time and keep changing their destination), truck data has not been included along with ancillary
equipment such as graders, water bowsers and cranes.
4.8 Preparation and Organisation of Data
In general, historical data is not used directly in simulation models. To treat (cleans and filter)
the data, context information is applied to remove periods of missing data, major operational
transitions and equipment assembly and testing. Based on the site-specific time classification
models, individual site data is then mapped to the TUM shown in Figure 4-11 to create a
standard time definition for all the data. The second stage of data mapping is aimed at creating
data associations between operational data and maintenance data. The complete data set is
then aggregated in to one file (Flat file) to group data under similar data field definitions. By
pivoting that data, it is then possible to sort, and re-filter based on equipment type, class and
fleet as required.
From this point, it is relatively easier to estimate the probability distribution for critical inputs to
the time simulation model. The process of identifying appropriate probability distributions for
key variables based historical data provides a basis to validate the simulation results. This
forms one of the means for validating the simulation model. Figure 4-15 shows a summary of
the data preparation and input modelling process.
Figure 4-15 Summary of the data preparation and input modelling process

4.9 Time Utilisation Modelling
During the 1970s, Polish researchers investigated empirical and theoretical processes of
changes of states of the work-repair regimes of various continuous mining equipment including
many different types of conveyors multi-belt units - belt wagons, stackers and reclaimers
resulted in two distinct approaches (Czaplicki, 2010); one by (a) Wroclaw University of
Technology and another by (b) Silesian University of Technology. The usefulness of their
approaches in reliability analysis formed the basis for determining the following:
• Effective total work time – entire system or single element of the system.
• Effective production (hauling and dumping) of equipment and their systems.
• Number of failures and total repair times for the system and subsystem.
Czaplicki (2010) notes that, in order to determine the above three output performance KPIs,
three key scenario modelling perspectives must be covered including:
a. System under different methods of utilisation,
b. system by applying elements with different parameters and
c. applying different system configurations - different reliability structures.
Czaplicki (2010) further outlines an eight-step process for performing time utilisation
calculations. Figure 4-16 shows the Silesian University of Technology’s (SUT) approach
modelling of continuous mining equipment (Czaplicki, 2010).
Figure 4-16 SUT approach modelling of continuous mining equipment ( Czaplicki (2010))

4.10 Summary
This chapter outlined the inadequacies of existing industry time classification and utilisation
models for predicting FMIPCC performance. This research gap provided a strong rationale for
advancing an improved approach to modelling the time-usage of FMIPCC systems that meets
the needs for both greenfield operations (with little or no data) and brownfield operations where
certain operational data may be available. The chapter also identified 3 primary sources of
equipment output variability often attributable to: (a) aggregated downtime effects and delays;
(b) cycle time and payload variations, affected by material characteristics, machine size, mine
design parameters, bench configuration and operator efficiency; and (c) capacity variations
caused by cyclic loading and poor capacity matching.
Furthermore, the chapter addressed key issues related to the lack of standardisation of time
classification models and definitions as noted by several researchers, and suggested an
evidence-based time categorisation model based on the equipment's function. This chapter
then covered the collection, preparation and modelling inputs data for FMIPCC performance,
covering operational data from 42 loading units, 6 IPCC units, 66 conveyors and 21 spreading
systems and extending 47 months (between January 2011 and June 2016) from active
operating mines in Australia, Asia, Europe and Africa.
The chapter then ends with a brief overview of earlier research work by Silesian University of
Technology (SUT) where researchers advanced key benefits of using probability distributions
derived from historical operational data to model the output of continuous mining equipment.

CHAPTER 5:
FORMULATUION OF TIME
UTILISATION MODEL FOR FMIPCC
This chapter outlines five mine design areas of consideration that influence
the utilisations of FMIPCC and how these factors are accounted for in the
methodology presented in the research. A number of modifying factors are
then formulated to account for this variability and to allow the stochastic
modelling of their impact on the utilisation of FMIPCC systems.

5. Formulation of Time Utilisation Model for FMIPCC
5.1 Introduction
In formulating the Integrated Time Utilisation Model (iTUM) for FMIPPC, a number of primary
mine design consideration and associated parameters need to be accounted for, including
ultimate deposit and pit depth, sequence of development and mining, specific optimum
geometry and equipment set (capacity matching and selection). These require careful
weighting of the parameters that have the most direct impact on the effective utilisation of the
optimum equipment set. The use of the word “optimum” presupposes that acceptable
equipment selection procedures would have been followed (including optimum matching of
material handling capacities) during the selection of system components. This chapter does
not discuss equipment selection methods for FMIPCC equipment as it falls out of scope for this
research. Notwithstanding, the proposed approach in this chapter would greatly enhance the
specification and the selection of the various FMIPCC components.
5.2 Mine Design and Time Utilisation
Mine equipment utilisation is ultimately a function of the interaction between the mine design
parameters, specifications of the mining equipment set and operating conditions. The impact
of mine design on the system utilisation is seen in Equation 5.1.
𝑄𝑡𝑦 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑄𝑡𝑦)

𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 ( )= (5.1)
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑬𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑)
Where:
Qty: Bank Cubic Metres (BCM) or Tonnes (t)

Periods: Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or years
4.
The numerator (Total System Production) is typically expressed in Bank Cubic Metres (BCM)
or Tonnes (t) while the denominator (Total Effective Operating Time) is commonly expressed
in periods of seconds, minutes, hours, days, month or year. The use of the word “effective”
reflects the extent to which the operating time has been reduced to “pure” production time.
Depending on how the time classification model is defined, some lower level time losses like
process losses and rate loses (e.g. time losses due to starting and stoppage of equipment) are
not accounted for. This is however left to the modeler to decide.

Figure 5-1 Mapping of primary time elements to key mine design parameters
Error! Reference source not found. shows a pie diagram which maps the primary time usage
elements to the key mine design and planning considerations which directly influences them.
The approach presented in this chapter uses statistical distributions derived from historic mine
operational data to stochastically simulate equipment downtime losses. Initial observations
from data analysis showed relatively lower variability in planned downtime (often dictated by
OEM, safety, warranty and condition monitoring regimes), compared to the downtime
associated with unplanned downtime data which showed significant variability. Unfortunately,
in the absence of operational context, historic equipment data alone may not adequately
explain changing operating conditions. Notwithstanding, for the purpose of this research,
statistical distributions derived from historic operational data also considered adequate to
represent time losses due to equipment downtime, operational standby and delays.
This research therefore focuses on investigating and modelling the impact of mine design on
system moves, relocation and repositioning and the flow on effect on the effective operating
time to an FMIPCC systems. There are of course other knock-on effects of excessive moves,
repositioning and relocation on equipment wear, damage and failure resulting in downtime.
However, these relationships are not modelled in this research due to the limitations (e.g.
context) of the operational data. Table 5-1 provides a detailed breakdown of the mine design
factors and the nature of impact on the iTUM elements that are most affected.

Table 5-1 Breakdown of the mine design factors and related impact on the iTUM elements
General and sub-parameter groups Impact iTUM metric

(1) Ultimate deposit and pit extents I N/A
a) Deposit character and geology I N/A
b) Ore/waste ratios I N/A
c) Slope stability considerations I N/A
(2) Overall mining strategy D OT/OD
a) Bench development strategy D OT
• no. of working faces D OT
• direction of approach D OT
• bench and loading configuration D OT
b) Selectivity and blending requirements D OT/OD
c) Material movement schedule D OT
(3) Specific Bench geometry D OT/OD
a) Bench Shape D OT/OD
b) Bench Length D OT/OD
c) Bench Height D OT/OD
d) Bench stacking D OT/OD
(4) Equipment set, sizing, match and selection D OT
a) Loading system capacity D OT
b) Haulage system capacity D OS/OD
c) Support equipment requirements D OS/OD
(5) Blasting (and blast safety) requirements D OS/OD
D – Direct, I – Indirect, OT – Operating Time and DT – Downtime
5.3 Mine Design Input 1: Ultimate Deposit and Pit Extents
The maximum extents (width, length and depth) of the mine must be account for in the early-
life, mid-life and end-of-life of the mine as these may vary significantly. These mine extents are
often determined by complex economic evaluations including breakeven analysis, product cut-
off values and operational cost. The phase-by-phase mining of a surface mine excavations
(often referred to as pushback) may require quite different mining and waste dumping
strategies, which ultimately results in different advance rates and productivity rates.
The ultimate deposit and pit extent are primarily a function of character and geology of the
deposit and ore-waste ratios also known as strip ratios. The determination of mineable volume
and tonnage of the material in the pit can therefore be equal to the volume of material bound
by the volumetric space between the top surface areas and the bottom surface area of the pit
(a truncated frustum). Where there is significant material to mine above ground, then this can
be expressed as a percentage of the total material mined below a set reference level. Figure
5-2 shows a generic representation of open pit in a block of rock material.

Figure 5-2 Generic representation or open pit in a block of rock material (Hustrulid et al., 2013)
Figure 5-3 shows the representation of the pit geometry as a truncated frustum. This
representation in Figure 5-3 (a) is particularly useful where material movement targets are
unknown over the changing phases of the mine life. The important assumption is to be able to
approximately determine the material movement per phase over a period using the formulation
in Figure 5-3 (b). As most of the deposit reviewed for this research tend to be more towards
the right half of Figure 5-3 (c), the volume determination formula used in this research is the
right hand side equation which makes room for widths and lengths (instead of radius) for the
top and base of the mine excavation.
Figure 5-3 Geometric representation of surface mine excavations

(5-2)
Where:
H: Depth of active pit
A1 and A2: surface area of top and bottom benches of active pit
The volume within the shell is subdivided in into a series of horizontal layers at optimal
thickness often termed benches (Hustrulid, et al., 2013). These layers are either depleted in a
single level (single benching) at a time or as multiple-levels at time (multi-benching). Once the
bottom of the current shell (phase) is reached, another shell (pushback) is commenced until
the ultimate excavation limit is attained. In order to optimise the extraction and maximise
revenue in face of fluctuating commodity prices, concurrent mining of multiple pushbacks is
common across the industry. Since the height (h) in Figure 5-3 represent the depth of the pit
at any particular phase every significant change in pit depth must be accounted for especially
if production targets are levelled and without any increase in mine production throughput or
plant capacity. Figure 5-4 shows three common surface mining pushback strategies which
influence the overall mining strategy. As shown in Figure 5-4, ore to waste ratio (strip ratio or
SR) in each pushback may vary significantly. Apart from multiple-level mining, there remains
the other challenge of splitting each horizontal layer into sizable sectors to maintain a desired
rate of advance both vertically and laterally.
Figure 5-4 Schematics of common surface mine pushback strategies
From Figure 5-4, it becomes apparent that the overall geometry of pit is dependent on a
number of factors including characteristics of overlying material (or overburden thickness),
minimum operating area requirement for the equipment, economic and efficient sequencing of

mining areas (blocks), target production rates, total available ore reserves and life of mine.
Therefore, the overall mine geometry tends to be more dynamic than static, thereby requiring
a good understanding of the basic geometric elements which ultimately influence the utilisation
of the selected mining equipment set at any given point in time. A fleet of mining equipment
would therefore operate at optimal productivity and utilisation, when matched with a pit-bench
geometry which corresponds to its physical size, technical specification, practical operational
capabilities and prevailing operational constraints. Figure 5-5 shows an example of the change
in pit geometry and advancing mining face (including the conveyor routes and the waste
material destinations). From Figure 5-5, it can be seen that the different pit and bench geometry
would significantly affect the configuration of the FMIPCC components, the associated system
requirements like conveyors and the overall material handling strategy. These differences may
be significant for mines with multiple phases being mined concurrently; especially if the mined
phases are completely decoupled (have no interaction).
Figure 5-5 Example of change in geometry of advancing mining face (Google Earth, 2018)

5.4 Mine Design Input 2: Specific Bench Geometry
Following from the previous section, it is important to understand the influence of the pit
geometry on the geometric dimensions of the mining benches including bench length, bench
width and bench height. In most operations the average bench height tends to be the same
within a particular set of geotechnical parameters and for extended periods of time during the
life of mine. The next few sections investigate and discuss the impact of bench shape on
system utilisation and propose various modifying factors to account for these influences when
modelling FMIPCC utilisation.
As noted earlier, the bench length is primarily a combined effect of the extent of the deposit,
overall pit geometry, pushback strategies and mining production rates. The bench length tends
to be highest in upper benches and decreases proportionally to the overall slope of the pit limit.
Longer benches are enablers for higher production rate while shorter span benches result in
comparatively lower production rates due to constrained mobility of the loading system. Longer
benches allow for bigger blasts which may imply fewer blasts per week (sometime as few as
once a week for some operations).
5.4.1 Bench Shape
Another aspect of bench geometry that must be accounted for is the influence of geometric
shape of the active working bench floor on the utilisation of the equipment set, including the
interaction between the loading system, mobile crushing system and conveyor. Error!
Reference source not found. shows a schematic of three basic and distinct bench floor
profiles that are commonly observed in surface mine operations. Other complicated floor
profiles found in very challenging mining environments are variants or combinations of these
basic geometric shapes named to align with parts of circle. Following from the concentric shape
concept of mine excavation introduced earlier, three basic profiles are described as follows:
A. Parallel-shaped benches: These are commonly associated with tabular deposits

where longer span benches can be accommodated.
B. Sector-shaped benches: These are commonly associated with inclined deposits as

in the case of many metalliferous mines. This profile can also be found in tabular
deposits where the mining approach follows a radial pattern.
C. Chord-shaped benches: These are commonly associated with circular-shaped

excavation where the next with cutbacks or ongoing pushback.

Figure 5-6 Basic geometric profiles of common surface mining benches
While the geometric shape of the active working bench floor would have an impact on shovel
productivity in terms of advance rate and instantaneous throughput (for the same bench
height), in the case of the FMIPCC the key consideration should be the impact on the conveyor
system which tend to rather rigid, linear and long span. Of all the components of the FMIPCC
system, the belt conveyor has the least mobility. In general, conventional belt conveying
performance is enhanced when configured in a linear layout - permitting the maximum span of
the conveyors and minimising the number of transfer points along the conveyor system. From
the three geometric profiles presented in Figure 5-6, the parallel-shape offers the best
opportunity to have maximum span, linear and minimum transfer points for equal volume of
material moved.
Figure 5-7 shows real-world examples of these three basic bench profiles. Profile (A) and (B
are very apparent from Figure 5-7(a) while two variants of profile (C) can been seen in Figure
5-7(b). It should be noted that the bench profile in Figure 5-7 (a) shows a progressive change
depending on the phase of the mine life. It is apparent from Figure 5-7(a) that the shapes of
the working bench floors evolve over time, affected by the direction of approach within the final
pit limits. The geometric shapes of working benches in Figure 5-7(b) tend to be the same within
the same pushback, reducing in width and length from upper benches down to lower benches.
From these observations, it is clear that placing bench conveyors on these very different
benches would attract varied level of complexity with conveyor movements on the bench and
a corresponding impact on the utilisation of equipment set on these benches. The influence of
the overall pit geometry on, the working bench geometry and resulting effect on bench shape,

length and widths can be observed, especially in Figure 5-7 (b) where two pushbacks are being
mined concurrently.
Figure 5-7 Real-world examples of these three basic bench profiles (map: Google Earth, 2018)
From Figure 5-7(a), it is also apparent that while the bench surface area between conveyors
(A - B) and Conveyors (D - E) may be approximately similar, the belt conveyor shifting and
extension requirements could differ significantly. With the FMIPCC, the belt conveyor
constantly requires shifting whenever the loading-crusher assembly attains the maximum
reach at the active mining face. Since the conveyor shifting requirement is a function of the
surface area of the active bench (Golosinski and Boehm, 1986b; Golosinski and Boehm,
1986a), careful consideration is required to ensure that significant geometric shape changes
during the life of mine. Since in general terms, the pushback limits, the optimum bench height
and length are set, it leaves the interaction between the bench width and bench shape which
affect the utilisation of the belt conveyor system.
Figure 5-8 shows a schematic plan (top) view of an active bench with a shiftable bench
conveyor in initial position for the three bench shapes identified earlier. The effect of the bench
shape is further explored in the following considerations. Assuming a constant bench height
(BH) and a constant bench length (BL) for a particular working bench, then the conveyor shifting
requirement becomes a function of the bench shape and bench width (BW). The circled
numbers show the positions of the shiftable conveyor as mining progresses at the face with
“0” being the original conveyor position. For the same bench length, bench height and material
volume, the sector-shaped geometry requires three times the shifting efforts (time) compared
to the parallel-shaped bench. Since the conveyor shifting width remains the same, the
conveyor shifting requirements for the chord-shaped bench geometry is similar to that of the
parallel profile but with an introduction of two short segments of conveyor at positions 2 and 3.

Figure 5-8 Bench conveyor shifting for the three basic bench geometries
If the effort of introducing an extra segment of conveyors is counted as twice the shifting effort,
then the net impact on the chord-shaped bench geometry will be five times the shifting
requirements of the base case (parallel shifts). By introducing a shape factor to account for the
impact bench geometry on FMIPCC utilisation is very essential to modelling process.
Where complex bench geometry is in question, an approximation one of the three generic
shapes similar to the proposed bench would provide an adequate starting point for modelling
the impact of the bench shape on system utilisation. Therefore, for a constant bench height
(BH) and constant bench Length (BL),
Shift PT = Shifting time of conveyor in parallel-shaped geometry
Shift ST = Shifting time of conveyor in sector-shaped geometry
Shift CT = Shifting time of conveyor in chord-shaped geometry
Shift ST = 3 x Shift PT
Shift CT = 5 x Shift PT
Tabulating the shape factor as a measure of the influence of bench floor geometry on the
utilisation of the conveyor system results in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Bench Shape factors relating bench shape to conveyor shifting time
Parallel Sector-shape Chord-shape
Shape Factor 1 3 5

5.4.2 Bench Width
Bench Width is typically a function of the minimum and maximum required operating area and
the operating range of equipment set at the mining face. In the case of the FMIPCC this area
requirement will have to include the complete assembly of the loading unit, fully mobile crusher
and the conveyor system directly adjacent to the loading system at the mining face. Figure 5-9
shows a schematic representation of the Metso LT 1200E FMIPCC systems including the
crushing unit and conveyor system and without the loading system. Depending how the bench
is set out, additional reach may be achievable with the different types of conveyor and loading
systems discussed earlier.
Figure 5-9 LT 1200E FMIPCC systems with conveyor links (adapted, Metso, 2014)
Figure 5-10 shows the relationship of maximum reach and loader capacity of three types of
loading equipment from the same OEM (Caterpillar, 2017). The maximum reach in this graph
does not factor in extended reach due to the mobility of the equipment. The front-end loader
attaining comparatively more reach due to its mobility (tyre driven). In general, for the same
operating weight of loader, an increase in bucket or dipper capacity is compensated for in
reduction of reach of the loading equipment. The overall reach (R2) of the entire bench
assembly can be improved by using mobile conveyors with associated time losses proportional
to the number of transfer point.

ERS
HFS
HEX
Figure 5-10 Maximum reach and capacity of primary loading equipment (Data: CAT, 2017)
5.4.3 Bench Height and Stacking
Swanepoel (2003) notes that bench height is a key variable of interest with direct impact on
the productivity, utilisation, costs, and ore recovery for the different mining equipment options.
An example of a generic rule-of-thumb for determining the loading equipment bench height is
designed bucket height of an equipment plus 3 m (Swanepoel, 2003). This rule is premised on
the simplistic calculation of the bucket or dipper volume is calculated by multiplying Width x
Height x Length or cross-sectional area of the end x Length. With the recent trends in digging
optimisation, it is commonly agreed across the industry that the cross-sectional area of the
buckets or dipper is not a simple geometric (e.g. square) shape.
The important implication here is the effect of placing and operating the loading equipment in
a suboptimal bench height. Table 5-3 provides some generalised industry rules of thumb for
the four classes of loading equipment (Swanepoel, 2003; Thompson, 2010; Hustrulid, 2006).
In accounting for the effect of sub-optimal bench height on loading unit performance, the above
rule of thumb will be adequate. Where a more specific optimal bench height has been
determined through field studies, empirical observations or specified by the OEM, this should
be used for the specific case modelling.

Table 5-3 Rules of thumb for optimum working bench (face) height
Loader Industry Rules of thumb for Face height and bench height
• Optimum design bench = height above the floor of the boom point sheave.
• Reduced by 10% - 20% if the material is not well blasted.
• Fill factor of bucket/dipper improved with increased bench height
Electric • Minimum face should not result digging cycle should not exceed +15 Sec.
Rope
Shovel • Minimum and maximum productive face heights between 8m and 17m.
• Ultimate minimum of 4m face height = is equal to the dipper height.
NB: Adverse influence on the productivity
• Operate efficiently in face height ≤ 16m; well fragmented material.

• Fill factor of bucket/dipper improved with increased bench height
• Bench height is not as critical to the hydraulic shovel compared to rope
Hydraulic
shovel.
Face Shovel
NB: Combined crowd, breakout and hoist actions – Does not rely on raking
action over full face.
• Bench height ≤ Equipment stick length (typically 5-8m); ≥ is Sub-optimal

• 30% (easy; e.g. loam) - 50% (poorly blasted, sticky, clay) of Maximum
digging depth
Hydraulic • Stick length and bucket size are negatively correlated
Backhoe
Excavator • increased stick length implies reduce the bucket size
• Higher bench height is best achieved in multiple passes.
NB: Might result excessive dilution and reduce selectivity.
• Operates efficiently in face height ≤ 10m; free-flowing, well fragmented rock.

Front • Lowest effective bench height is equal to the bucket height.
End • Maximum bench height not to exceed the hinge pin height at full lift.
(or wheel)
Loader • Undermines of face when exceeded.
Sources: compilation from Swanepoel (2003); Thompson (2005) and Hustralid (2003)
5.4.4 Modifying Factors for Impact of Bench Geometry
In most surface mining operation, the primary interaction between the mining system and the
material mined happens between the production loading equipment and the active mining face
(Hustrulid, et al., 2013). The bench (or face) height is therefore a key parameter that influences
the utilisation and the productivity of the entire mining system. This influence is primarily
associated with the dig-swing-dump-return (cycle) time of the loading unit. Each dig-swing-
dump-return to the loading face is known as cycle time. Atkinson (1992) and Hustrulid et al.
(2013) derived a number of modifying factors for correcting the influence of the bench height
and swing angle on the actual cycle time of the loading unit. Using these modifying factors, it
would be possible to account for the effect of bench geometry on the time utilisation of the
FMIPCC system as explained in the following sections.

5.4.5 Bench Height Correction Factor
Since the mine geology, orebody geometry, material characteristics of the mining system may
not always allow for an optimal operating environment, a bench height correction factor
provides the means to compensate for the placing equipment (primary loading equipment) in
a suboptimal environment. Table 5-4 shows the relationship. In the top row of Table 5-4, the
ratio of planned bench height over optimum bench height is associated with a bench height
correction factor in the bottom row. Given a particular material being mined and bucket capacity
of the loading unit, the optimum bench (BHO) for maximising productivity (BCM/hr) is a function
loader bucket specification (capacity or dimension). When digging in a bench height less than
optimum bench height, the cycle times must be multiplied by a bench correction factor. Figure
5-11 shows the relationship between optimum cutting heights, loading capacity for three types
of loading equipment from the same OEM (Caterpillar, 2017). For loading equipment form this
OEM, placing the loading equipment below the relevant solid line implies a suboptimal
environment and as such would incur additional cycle time.
Table 5-4 Bench Height Correction Factor - Atkinson (1992).
% of Optimum Cut Height 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Height correction factor 1.25 1.175 1.10 1.06 1.02 1.01 1.00
Figure 5-11 Optimum Bench height and capacity of loading equipment (Data: CAT, 2017)

5.4.6 Swing Correction Factor
The general industry rule of thumb for optimal swing angle for most loading units is considered
to be 700 – 900 and resulting in the theoretically ideal cycle time.
Table 5-5 shows the relationship between loader swing angles and correction factors for the
resulting cycle times. The cycle time tends to be less for swing angles less than 90◦ and more
for swing angles greater than 90◦. The new idea here is that the bench floor geometry would
favour some swing angles over others. The arrangement of the mobile crusher (s) relative to
the loading unit would also influence the swing angle.
Table 5-5 Combined effect of swing angle and bench height of loading unit (Assakkaf, 2003)
% of Optimum Swing Angle (Degrees)

Cut Height 45 60 70 90 120 150 180
40 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.59
60 1.10 1.03 0.96 0.91 0.81 0.73 0.66
80 1.22 1.12 1.04 0.98 0.86 0.77 0.69
100 1.26 1.16 1.07 1.00 0.88 0.79 0.71
120 1.20 1.11 1.03 0.97 0.86 0.77 0.70
140 1.12 1.04 0.97 0.91 0.81 0.73 0.66
160 1.03 0.96 0.90 0.85 0.75 0.67 0.62
The percentage of optimum height is determined by dividing the actual (or planned) planned height of
cut by the optimum height of cut and then multiplying the resulting value by 100
5.4.7 Blast Quality Correction Factor
Apart from the inherent characteristics of the rock material like abrasivity and moisture content
that affect the performance of the loading equipment, other attributes from quality of
fragmentation can significantly impair or enhance the diggability, cycle time and ultimately the
average payload per pass. Table 5-6 below shows a set of correction factor to account for the
effect of poor fragmentation of the cycle of the loading unit. In order to use these correction
factors effectively, due consideration must be given to the abrasiveness of blasted material.
These correction factors are not included in context of this research.
Table 5-6 Blast quality correction factor (Atkinson, 1992)
Material Condition M
Light Blasted 0.9
Medium Blasted 1.0
Heavy blasting 1.1
Poor Fragmentation 1.2

5.4.8 Bench Shape Correction Factor
These empirical shape factors relate to the measure of effort required to handle conveyor
shifting due to the shape of the bench geometry at that point in time. The higher the bench
shape factor, the higher the impact with the least shape factor being 1 for parallel conveyor
shifting. This approach allows the modeller to account for more complex bench geometry. The
baseline shape factors (discussed earlier in Table 5-2) are used in the iTUM to account for the
influence of bench shape on the conveyor system component of the FMIPCC system.
5.4.9 Using the Bench Geometry Modifying factors.
Apart from the bench shape correction factors to account for actual time losses associated
with manoeuvrability and mobility of the system components - mainly the conveyor, the
remaining correction factors do not result in time losses. However when placing loading
equipment in a suboptimal bench more time is expended for the same number of load cycles.
The converse holds; for the same loading time, fewer load cycle would be realised under sub-
optimal bench height conditions. In the iTUM approach this is used as a means of verifying the
productivity of the entire system by simply multiplying the number of load cycles by the cycle
time per load. From the perspective of time losses, only the bench correction factor would have
a significant effect on the model results.
In using the discussed modifying factors, care is taken to not double count or penalise the
mining system twice. Since the loading unit is also the prime mover for the conventional truck
and shovel operation, the modifying factors for swing angle, and bench height are allowed for,
but left at default values, during the modelling. Moreover since the primary focus of this
research is on the time utilisation of the FMIPCC system, production-related modification
factors are only used to validate the system effect on the production as a function of the
effective operating time. Finally if the new components of the FMIPCC system are the belt-
driven units, the most significant impact from the modifying factors would be from the modifying
factors that account for the impact of the direct mine design parameters.
5.5 Mine design input 3: Overall mining strategy - Sequence and approach
To account for the effects of progression of intermediate and ultimate pit extents on the time
utilisations of the FMIPCC, a mine design and corresponding schedule is produced to include
the most significant phase changes. The schedule parameters from these phase changes then
form the modelling parameters (minimum, most likely and maximum) for the system under a

long-term consideration. Using this approach ensures that the FMIPCC performance estimates
accounts for both peak and non-peak demand of the material movement schedule. Figure 5-12
shows a sample material schedule with four distinct phases.
Figure 5-12 Sample LOM material schedule with four distinct phases
Some of the key phase changes that must be included in the phase to phase mine schedule
include significant change in material destination (e.g. location of waste stockpiles, change
from external waste dump to internal waste dumps or vice versa), increase in pit depth of more
than three times the height of mining benches, starting of a new pushback, change in primary
haul route and change in waste to ore ratios result in a different material handling strategy. In
this case it is apparent that change in quantity and haul distance are the phase markers.
Ensuring that that all pertinent information is considered is particularly important. In Figure 5-12
an important detail which is not highlighted on the LOM is the change in depth from phase 3
to phase 4 of the LOM. The sharp drop in haul distance is triggered by the start of an adjacent
pushback but small enough to progress quickly to return the haul distance back to near normal.

5.5.1 Multiple Working Faces and Direction of Approach
The typical sequence of excavation starts with a boxcut on the lowest bench in the stack. The
top cut then proceeds and with the successive benches depleted at the required mining rate
in order to open up the lowest bench for mining. The cycle continues until the next boxcut is
required. Mining multiple faces on the same bench is less disruptive that mining multiple faces
on different benches. To minimize the effect on system utilisation, conveyor movement across
benches is best kept to the barest minimum. Figure 5-13 shows the sequencing of multiple
benches from box cut to the lowest cut.
Figure 5-13 Sequencing of multiple benches from box cut to the lowest cut (Sandvik, 2014)
5.5.2 Bench Development Strategy
Following from the previous section, it is clear that the order in which successive benches are
arranged (stacked) and mined is very critical component of a bench development strategy. If
we simplistically represent the geometry of a bench stack with a sector-shaped cut, mined in
a radial fashion, then the successive cuts will be similar to those shown in Figure 5-13. Figure
5-14 shows a schematic example of three bench development strategies for a 30m bench.

From the schematics, it shows that to maintain a consistent mining rate of the active benches,
multiple mining benches could be mined at the same time, resulting in relatively different rates
of advance.
Figure 5-14 Three examples of bench development strategies

Observation: Poor bench stacking strategy can significantly affect the effective utilisation and
overall productivity of the mining system especially where is not consistent across the same
bench horizon. Bench stacking therefore required dynamic designs with changing phases of
the mine design. This aspect of mine design is discussed separately and represents future
research work.
5.5.3 Mining Selectivity and Blending Requirements
Mining selectivity involves a deliberate strategy to selectively excavate specific blocks of ore
(in most cases) and waste (rarely) during the material excavating process. This is often aimed
at minimising ore dilution, high-grading ore or maximising ore recovery. While selective mining
is more common to metalliferous operations than tabular deposits, the gains appropriated from
selective mining are site specific and are often driven by plant and process requirements
including material blending.
Some of the key enablers of selective mining include the geometry and geological complexity
of the ore and waste distribution and the nature of ore mineralisation. However not all deposits
lend themselves to selective mining and the choice of a particular selective mining approach
could also significantly impact the blasting requirements of a mining operation. In general, the
higher the selectivity required the slower the mining advance rate with an associated decrease
in loading equipment productivity rates. This is often due to increased passes to achieve the
required payloads. In this regard, the choice and specification (including mobility) of the
conveyor system linkage between mobile crusher and shiftable bench conveyor plays a vital
role in how well multiple faces and benches can be mined selectively without adverse impact
on overall advance rate and system productivity.
Other important factors that support mining selectivity include pit, bench height and direction
of mining approach. An adequate operating area would easily permit high selectivity by
allowing quick adaptation of mining approach to sudden change in the pattern of mineralisation
of deposit geometry. While the relationship between bench parameters and mining selectivity
of a system cannot be expressed quantitatively, the impact of bench geometry on selectivity
can be assessed through empirical observations.
Figure 5-15 shows a graphical relationship between bench height and selective loading ability
of various loading units (15m3 - 19m3) at the Thabazimbi operations (Swanepoel, 2003).
Swanepoel notes that the rope shovel is generally poor at selective loading, although some
selectivity is achievable with increasing bench height. The other types of loading units shown
in Graphs (b), (c) and (d) are able to have good selective loading ability within optimum
operating ranges. For minimal dilution, this must however be in single-pass excavation.

.
Figure 5-15 Selective loading ability of Thabazimbi operations (after Swanepoel, 2003)
5.5.4 Material Sequencing and Schedule
The process of mine design and scheduling starts with larger mining blocks for long term
planning, which are then subdivided into medium sizes for medium term planning and finally
divided into minable block suitable for scheduling in small time periods of shifts days, weeks
for short term mine planning. In some cases the short-term block is sized to the average
capacity of available loading units for easy scheduling with dependencies of support activities
like grade control, drilling, blasting etc.
Table 5-7 shows a sample breakdown of total annual material movement from long term mining
blocks to the short-term bench by bench blocks. Working from the right to the left side of the
table, the short-term blocks are stacked into group A, B and C and showing an average bench
height of 15m for all the short-term mining block. It can be observed that there is a 330m height
difference between bench stack (A – B) and 180m between bench stack (B-C). It is apparent

that these differences in height would have significant implication for system specification,
relocations and overall utilisation. The following are example of the likely implications:
• If for example these three bench stacks are being excavated in three different
pushbacks or pit sectors, it may require completely three separate FMIPCC systems
even if it would imply significant redundancies.
• If the three mining areas are within the same pit and a single system has to do the mine
across all three stacks, then some excessive estimates of relocation time and conveyor
shifting have to be factored into the model.
• Where high selectivity, blending and hardrock blasting are required in a single
pushback, then these other losses would have to be accounted for since extra time
losses associated with support operational activities will adversely impact the utilisation
of the entire system.
• Merely estimating material movement average based on the 20.4 Mt without careful
consideration of the lower level detail could mean that the specifications are made for
the FMIPCC system without mine schedule implication. Thompson (2005) refers to this
approach as “primitive scheduling” as it does not consider the required equipment set.
Greenfields operations that intend to bank entire operational targets and throughputs
on a system like the FMIPCC, should pay detailed attention to planning and
specification for the system. Thompson (2003) suggests using scheduling process
which steps through the mine plan with increasing details.
Table 5-7 Breakdown of total annual material movement by mine planning terms
Long Tem Planning Medium Term Planning Bench Short Term Mine Planning
Qtly Mining Block Monthly Blocks Stack Bench (RL) Ore Tonnes Waste Tones Total
Tonnes Mined (t) Tonnes Mined (t) Tonnes Mined (t)
3880 77,205 499,057 576,262
5,102,124 1,580,905 A 3865 137,525 340,253 477,778
3850 374,409 152,456 526,865
x 4 Quarters 3520 212,871 178,256 391,127
3505 321,855 98,245 420,100
20,408,495 1,880,237 B 3490 162,594 159,354 321,948
Annually 3475 117,905 268,394 386,299
3460 172,871 187,892 360,763
3280 181,713 253,456 435,169
1,640,981 C 3265 254,143 321,452 575,595
3250 176,530 453,687 630,217
A detailed review of FMIPCC literature and feasibility studies indicates for ease of passing the
evaluation results, current methods for FMIPCC evaluations often fail to adequately consider
material sequencing and scheduling. After purchasing the system, unplanned additional capital
is then expended aimed at making up for the production shortfalls and improving suboptimal

operational utilisation. One of the key mine design input for the iTUM is the material movement
schedule.
5.6 Mine design input 4: Equipment set, sizing, match and selection
5.6.1 Loading and Crusher System Capacity
Ritter (2016) mentions loader and crusher capacity variation as showing random
characteristics within IPCC systems. At the heart of this variability is the attempt by the loading
system to continually match the capacity of the adjacent receiving equipment (hauler). In the
case of the FMIPCC the receiving unit is the hopper-apron-feeder component of the mobile
crusher. A key consideration of this random variability is the interaction between bucket
payloads, bucket fill levels, material lump size distribution and the blockage of the crusher gap
by oversize lumps of material. Time losses associated in variability in loader-hauler capacity
interactions must be given due consideration when modelling the utilisation of an FMIPCC
system. Figure 5-16 shows a real-world example of operational delays associated with loader-
hopper capacity interactions in the first three years of operation.
Figure 5-16 delays associated with loader-hopper interactions (Data: Ritter 2016)
It can be seen from Figure 5-16 that the top two delays (cleaning spillage, material build-up
and clearing of blockage in hopper) contribute up to 85% of the time losses incurred at the
hopper. During these delays, the loading unit, conveyors and spreader system would have to
be in standby or delayed mode whole the problem is resolved. This points to the fact that a

mismatch (oversizing or under sizing) of the mobile crusher hopper to the loading unit could
significantly affect the performance and the overall utilisation. Table 5-8 shows the drilldown
distributions of the top two delays.
Table 5-8 Annual breakdown of hopper downtime of FMIPCC (Data: Ritter 2016)
Events Average (Hours) Total (Hours)

Year -1
Cleaning Spillage or Build-up 9 0.3 2.8
Clearing Blockage 10 1.1 11.0
Year -2
Year -3
Table 5-8 shows that while average delay event time remained unchanged over the three-year
period, the frequency of events increased significantly in the third year resulting in higher
downtime in the third year. A significant change in the geology of the mining areas or perhaps
change in blasting practices could easily result in such a hike.
5.6.2 Conveyor Handling Requirements
With the FMIPCC, the most important requirement of the conveyor system is the need to be
relocated (shifted) anytime the adjourning assembly of loading unit(s), mobile crusher and
bridging conveyors systems reach its max reach. The total time lost to these conveyor moves
is the aggregated move at both the mining side and the dumping side of the excavation as
shown by the following equation sequence. Golsinski (1986) provides a number of basic
formulas for estimation the shifting requirements are the same except that for the dumping
side?
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑺𝒉𝒊𝒇𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝐏𝐞𝐫 𝒀𝒆𝒂𝒓 = 𝐌𝐒𝐀 + 𝐃𝐒𝐀 (5-3)
TSA - total shifting requirements per year (m2)

MSA - shifting requirements mining side (m2)
DSA - shifting requirements dumping/stacking side (m2)
𝒏 (𝑽𝒋 × 𝑵𝒋 )
𝑴𝑺𝑨 = ∑ (5-4)
𝒊−𝟏 𝑯𝒋
Vj - volume of jth distinct benches/material/layer mined unto on shiftable conveyors, bcm
Nj - number of active shiftable conveyor levels jth distinct benches/material/layer

Hj - total height of jth distinct material/layer/benches mined onto shiftable conveyor, m

Nj - number of conveyor levels in overburden
𝒏 (𝑽𝒋 ⁄𝑺𝑭𝒋 ) × 𝑵𝒋
𝑫𝑺𝑨 = ∑ (5-5)
𝒋−𝟏 𝑯𝒋
Vj - volume of jth distinct benches/material/layer mined unto on shiftable conveyors, bcm

Nj - number of active shiftable conveyor levels jth distinct benches/material/layer
Nj - number of conveyor levels in overburden
SFj - Swell Factor of mine material
𝐍𝐏𝐒 = 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 + 𝑵𝑺 + 𝒔 + AVSS + SEFF (5-6)
NS - number of conveyor shifters

s - step of shifting, m
AVSS - average shifter speed, km/h
SEFF - efficiency of shifting operation
The number of conveyor moves (repositioning or relocations) per year for a complete FMIPCC
system can therefore be expressed as an aggregate of the total production through that system
(numerator) over the bench volumetric geometry of the material that is mined through the
system shown in (equation 5.7) below:
𝒏 (𝑨𝑷𝑹𝑯𝒊 × 𝑶𝑻𝒊 )
𝑵𝑪𝑹𝑩 = ∑ (5-7)
𝒊−𝟏 (𝒍 × 𝒘 × 𝒉)
NCRB - No. conveyor repositioning per year

APRHi - average productivity of the ith system (bcm/Hour)
OTi - annual Operating time per year of ith System (Hours)
n - No. of Loading Units per System
l - average Bench length (m)
h - Avg. Bench height (m)
w - Avg. lateral width of conveyor shift (m)
For the NCRB, the simplistic use of average bench length (l), average bench height (h) and
average lateral width of conveyor shift (w) for expressing the volumetric geometry without
accounting for the spatial (floor) geometry could result in inaccurate estimation of the system
utilisation especially for bench geometries that not parallel.

5.7 Mine Design Input 5: Blasting (and Blast Safety) Requirements
5.7.1 Risks and Requirements for Surface Mine Blasting
Production and specialised blasting in surface mine generally invoke safety risk to mine
personnel and equipment, even under best practice precaution. This is primarily due to the
potential effects of airblast, ground vibration, flyrock beyond mine boundary, or unplanned
flyrock events odour, dust and fume emissions. These risks would typically result in for
example, mandatory stopping traffic on haul road and benches within a prescribed radius of
the blasts (e.g. 500m) and strict protocols for blasting near fixed and key mine and plant
infrastructure (including dumps and stockpiles).
To ensure the safety of personnel and prevent damage to equipment, a safe clearance
distance (blast exclusion zone) for personnel, equipment and other in-pit infrastructure
(considering “line of sight” or in some cases statutory stand-off distances) is established by
most mining operations. These exclusion zones are largely influenced by availability of a free
face, the type of explosive in use and the size of the blast, the height (or face height) of the
blasted bench and the stemming height of the blast holes. Figure 5-17 shows the relationship
between the key blast parameters and blast exclusion zone determination. From Figure 5-17
it is apparent that successive working benches in mine where blasting occurs very frequently
and in close proximity, would require meticulous blast design regimes to minimise the impact
of blast related time losses on the FMIPCC utilisation and entire system productivity.
Figure 5-17 Relationship between the blast parameters and blast exclusion zone determination

Unlike truck and shovel operations where trucks can easily drive away from the blast areas
when required, belt conveyors do not allow the luxury of relocating at will. Good mine planning
and blast design will therefore allow sufficient lead between blast zones and active working
benches. Adequate time for blast associated delays is required.
5.7.2 Time Losses Associated with Mine Blasting
These blast safety and risk management measure may incur significant time losses for the
people and equipment involved in the bench operation. Some mines may adopt very
conservative exclusion zones (for example 500m front of a face blast (direct line of sight and
300m in all other directions), to mitigate such risks. While current approaches typically account
for the actual time lost to blasting, time lost to the operation during pre-blasting and post
blasting are often not neglected. Typically, FMIPCC feasibility studies estimate a time of 5-6
minutes lost per blast, yet a review of mine operational data shows that time lost to blast events
could range between 10 - 35 minutes.
Figure 5-18 shows deconstruction of blast direct and indirect time loss associated with mine
blasting. From Figure 5-18, it is easy to see that, estimating the time loss associated with shot
firing alone and ignoring time lost to blast clearance, blast inspection and actual operation
recovery can be detrimental to system evaluation if allowances are not including to account for
the impact during the planning stages. Lastly, the blast frequency is directly influenced by the
material characteristics and the size per blast. A review of blast management plans of over 10
operating mines in Australia, shows an allowable blast frequency of 1-2 blast per a day.
Figure 5-18 Relationship between blasting time and bench operational activity levels.

5.8 Chapter Summary
This chapter outlined five key mine design factors that influence the utilisations of FMIPCC
and provided a detailed theoretical construct of factors are accounted for in the methodology
presented in the research for modelling FMIPCC utilisation. To address the impact of the mine
design factors discussed, this chapter advanced a number of modifying factors including bench
shape factor, to account for the variability of key modelling parameters, enabling the stochastic
modelling of the influence of the mine design factor on FMIPCC systems utilisation.
This chapter also discussed the influence of the overall pit geometry on the working bench
floor geometry and resulting effect on bench shape, length and widths are key considerations
when modelling the utilisation and productivity of FMIPCC systems. Similarly, the geometric
shape of the active working bench floor significantly impacts the utilisation, productivity and
advance rate of the FMIPCC, a key consideration should be the impact on the bench conveying
system in terms of frequency of shifting. Bulk handling conveyors in mining tend to be rigid,
linear and long span.
This chapter also addressed the use of FMIPCC on multiple working faces in direction of
approach and proposed some bench development strategies and schemes for resolving
challenges relating to mining selectivity and blending requirements. The chapter concludes by
considering Blasting (production and Safety) Requirements in relation to FMIPCC utilisation
and proposed a modelling approach to manage FMIPCC time losses associated with mine
blasting.

CHAPTER 6:
STRUCTURE OF FMIPCC INTEGRATED
TIME UTILIZATION MODEL
This chapter outlines detailed discussion of the structure of the integrated
Time Utilisation Model (items), the data input requirements and output
reports that are generated from the modelling approach described in this
research. Several examples of modelling output (tables, graphs and charts)
are provided in this chapter in support of the methodology in this research.

6. Structure of FMIPCC Integrated time utilization model
6.1 Integrated Time Utilisation Model (iTUM)
It is apparent from discussions in Chapter 4 that existing time utilisation approaches often
include equipment time usage without accounting for the dynamic relationship and variability
of key mine design variables including bench width, bench height and bench length.
Table 6-1 shows the results of a stakeholder (4 - Academics, 1 - Industry representative and
3 - Industry subject matter experts) survey conducted to determine the following critical
functional requirements:
1. Model (iTUM) must accommodate both cyclic and continuous mining equipment
operating in single systems.
2. Model (iTUM) must dynamically associate key bench parameter set with time
utilisation of the entire FMIPCC system.
3. The integrated model should capture and allow basic user inputs including probability
distribution of key time elements.
Table 6-1 Stakeholder Survey results - User Requirement & Functionality Matrix [11-Mar-2016]
General Architecture: Must* Nice**
Integrates with Excel Plugin like @Risk, Model Risk, Crystal Ball   
Ease of use - # screens & keystrokes   
Single Document Application (no external Links)   
Usability/User Interaction:  
Logical naming conventions   
Debugging tools available and effective in usage   
Logical and intuitive workflow for each job function   
Minimised "jumping between" modules required   
Quality Control & Reporting:  

Documents and stores model inputs   
Documents and stores model assumptions   
Maintainability/Flexibility/Security  
System documentation available.   
Operating documentation available.   
Training documentation available.   
User documentation available.   
User documentation clearly defines procedures for all processes.   
System documentation includes design and setup information.   
Support / Training  
Availability of support   
User training required before use   
*Must: functions and feature that must be included in the model
**Nice: functions and feature that would be nice to include in the model

Stakeholders: 4 Academics, 1 Metso Representative and 3 Industry Experts
6.2 Use of Uncertainty Modelling Tool
In line with the stakeholder survey conducted and the need to focus on using a spreadsheet-
based uncertainty modelling methodology, four current excel-based stochastic modelling tools
including Crystal Ball (by Oracle), @Risk (Palisade), Model Risk (Vose) and Risk Solver
(Frontline) were considered. The minimum required features for evaluating these tools
included (1) integration with MS tools (very common across most mining operations), (2) ease
of use (not requiring excessive training or significant change management), (3) uncertainty
modelling capabilities, (4) capability to perform advanced sensitivity analysis with scenario
modelling and (5) license access cost (from a student point of view).
The results of the evaluation showed that all spreadsheet-based tools are capable of achieving
the above minimum requirement with varying degrees of performance. In this research, @Risk
(by Palisade) is used for the following reasons:
a) Integration with Microsoft tools: @RISK allowed Integration with Microsoft Excel (for
main iTUM model) and Project (material and conveyor shifting schedules).
b) Ease of Use: 100% Excel calculations for simulation with ability to swap excel functions
and formulas (Remove and later restore @RISK functions for sharing models with non-
@RISK users).
c) Uncertainty Modelling Capabilities: Capable of Monte Carlo simulation with over 90

in-built distribution functions enable the definition of uncertainty parameters of inputs
variables and allows for distribution fitting existing and additional time usage data.
d) Advanced Sensitivity and Scenario Modelling: Allows for standard sophisticated

methods for correlating uncertain input and output variables. Provides drill-down
capabilities for investigating sensitivities in output variables.
e) License access cost: @Risk offered a considerable period of free trial, and
discounted licensing for unlimited academic use, which is an important factor from an
accessibility point of view.
6.3 Inputs Modelling of Time Usage (Operational) Data
As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, operational data from more than 15 operations (across
Europe, Asia, Australia and Africa) was used to derive an array of statistical distributions as a
way to generating stochastic random variables for the integrated time utilisation modelling. The

vast array of equipment use data based on very unique and mine-specific time classification
model meant that a new and all-inclusive time classification model had to be developed.
The logic for reclassifying the discrete time event had to be simple yet robust to sort and
regroup over one million lines of records of operational data as a single line item. Figure 6-1
shows the unified time classification model that was used in for organising the operational data.
Figure 6-1 Time classification model and logic for re-classifying operational data
Note the introduction of the term “Mission Time” to denote predictive hours. This, in turn, has
important implications on the maintenance strategies applied to system components. This
time-consuming effort of analysing and dissecting the operational data provides an adequate
database which now serves as the engine for generating stochastic inputs for the individual
time element. The operation data behind the models provides data for all time elements except
for those that are directly mapped to the mine design parameters.
Since the default time usage behind the model resulted from several different operating mines
with significantly different operating conditions, site-specific time elements (e.g. like weather
delays) are not prepopulated. The advantage of including operational data is that it provides a
rich and diverse set of time codes that are not limited to a single mine operation or geographical
location. Although not all-time codes are used in the modelling at one time, provision is made
for nearly all-time codes that were discovered through the data analysis.

6.3.1 Time Block 1: Downtime (DT)
Figure 6-2 shows a breakdown of individual downtime codes that are available to model using
the integrated time utilization model. Time usage elements in block A2-2 are considered
unique to FMIPCC component which are predominantly driven by belt conveyors. Since the
approach for downtime reporting vary across operations, the downtime elements shown in
Figure 6-2 enhance the segregation of the downtime events in more manageable component
elements (Mean Time To Fail [MTTF], Mean Time To Respond To Failure [MTTRF1], Mean
Time To Repair Failure [MTTRF2] and Mean Time To Recover From Failure [MTTRF3]). For
example, events like “washdown” and “breakdown leading to planned maintenance” in block
A2-1 may be inputted separately, can be modelled for a specific operation if required.
Pre-starts Checks & Inspections

A1-1 Daily/Wkly Routine Service
Weekly Service/Lubrications
Planned Downtime [PD]
Scheduled Maintenance Tasks - Annual

Major Periodic maintenance
(Weekly repairs, inspections, damage repairs, Scheduled Maintenance Tasks - Quarterly
A1-2
re-fab of guards and minor component change Scheduled Condition Monitoring
outs)
Maintenance Testing/adjustments
Scheduled Maintenance Tasks - Overhauls
Overhauls/Alterations System Upgrades/Infrastructure Repair
A1-3 (includes major upgrades of engine, hoist
system, gantry and undercarriage) Maintenance Washdown
Testing/adjustments
Bucket/Tray/Dipper/GET Change-out or Maintenance
A1-4 Special - Loading Unit
Other Reasons
Planned Downtime [PD]
Electrical Breakdown (Critical Parts)
Down-Time [DT]
Mechanical Breakdown (Critical Parts)

Hydraulic Breakdown (Fluids, Piping & Hoses)
Machine/System Fire /Dust Suppression
Maint Response/Maint Assess
Operational Trips/Emergency Trip/Machine Alarm
Unplanned Downtime [UD]
A2-1 General Accidental Damage

(All Primary Equipment)
Fault Troubleshooting/Investigations/Testing
Comms/PLC/Electronics/Radio/Camera/Cabin
Air Conditioning/Pneumatic or Air/Cooling System
Fuel/Oils and lubrications System
Washdown/Cleaning before planning maintenance
Breakdown leading into planned maintenance
Major - Belt Damage (Cuts, Rips, Wear & Tear)
Minor - Belt Damage (Cuts, Rips, Wear & Tear)
Failure - Belt Cleaning /Transfer Station
Specific Application Conveyor Safety/Belt Sensor Trips
A2-2
(Equipment heavily reliant of belt -conveyor) Spillage/Blockage/Build-up/Foreign object
Belt Drift or Mis-alignement of belt and frames
Belt conveyor overload (Mechanical/Electrical)
Fire Incidents/Stoppages due to Overheating
Others Reasons
Unplanned Downtime [UD]
Figure 6-2 Breakdown of individual downtime codes

6.3.2 Time Block 2: Uptime (UT)
Figure 6-3 shows a breakdown of individual uptime codes that are available to model using the
integrated time utilization model. The greyed-out elements in B2-1 are considered unique to
FMIPCC component which are predominantly driven by belt conveyors. This block includes
operating standby considerations for operations where extreme weather events require
modelling. Some of the listed time elements in B1-2 are for SMIPCC systems where trucks are
used to haul material to the crusher.
Shift change/break/crib/Training/Meetings
Standby - Redundancy
(System or equipment is on standby or Not required/redundancy
B1-1
becomes redundant due to operator absence or No operator/operator swap/Hot Seating Other
system oprtimisation)
Operating Standby & Waiting [OS]
Fatigue/Load Management/System Optimisation

Blasting/blast inspections
Delays from drilling/blasting (Move/Return)
Safety shutdown/incident
Troubleshooting/machine checks
Heavy rain/wind/snow/hail
Fog/Poor visibility
Wait - External Factors Electrical or other storm
(Factors that form key aspects of mining
operations but out of control of System under
No appropriate material
B1-2 consideration) Upstream/Downstream Equipment Downtime
Activation of additional/adjacent units
Environmental control/dusty conditions
Wait - support equipment
Wait - for trucks/loader
Up-Time [UT]
Wait - unsuitable material

Wait - no storage/capacity
Other Reasons
Operating Standby & Waiting [OS]
Face/bench prep work/drainage work
Wall Scaling/ Clean up/pulling batters
Wast Dump/Stockpile Management
Aiding other equip/Boxcut/ramping
Operating Time & Delays [OD]
Major Moves/Shifting/Relocations (different benches)

Minor Moves/Relocations (same bench)
Moves Across Bench Conveyor (s)
In-Cycle Delays
Delays that form intergral part of primary Move from Maint/ for Maint
operating cycle, hinged to mine plan and Belt Shifting/Extension
B2-1 resource scheduling of equipment
Time losses due to conveyor start-up/shutdown
Re-Fueling/lubrication/water re-fill
Cable move/works/handling
Dewatering/Geotechnical/Voids
Operational Adjustments/Set-Up
Production Washdown
Blocked access/bogged/bad ground
Other Reasons
Operating Time & Delays [OD]
Total Time Losses (TTL)
B2-2 Effective Operating Time Productive Time (Loading or Hauling)
Figure 6-3 Breakdown of individual uptime codes

6.3.3 Stochastic Modelling of Inputs
Table 6-2 shows a summary of equipment downtime (failure plus repair) distribution from a
number of mining sites by Ritter (2016), which shows that equipment downtime may take on a
range of values dependent on site-specific application, maintenance regimes and asset
management strategies. Other factors that may result in the differences in distribution of
downtime data includes the duration over which the data has been collected or sampled. When
using distributions such as the exponential, lognormal and Weibull which are commonly used
for representing equipment failure data, adequate and representative historic operational data
is required to prevent erroneous inferences based on faulty analysis.
Table 6-2 Summary of statistical distributions of equipment downtime (Ritter, 2016)
IPCC Component Mine Downtime (Min) Best-Fit Distribution
Loader Coal 236 - 588 Lognormal
Loader Coal - Weibull 3P
Loader Copper - Gamma/Weibull
Crusher Coal - Weibull 3P
Crusher - 120 Weibull
Crusher (Gyratory) Bauxite - Lognormal
Conveyor Coal 10.2 - 29.4 Lognormal
Conveyor Bauxite 1.42 Lognormal
Conveyor Coal 84 - 90 Exponential
Conveyor Coal (Lignite) 16 - 60 Exponential
Conveyor - 114 Weibull
Conveyor (Fixed) - 42 - 72 Exponential
Conveyor (Mobile) - 24 - 48 Exponential
Spreader Coal 32.4 Lognormal
Spreader Coal 78 Exponential
Spreader Coal (Lignite) 15 - 60 Exponential
Spreader - 90 Exponential
Spreader - 162 Weibull
Trucks Copper 230 - 321 Lognormal
Trucks - 480 Lognormal
Trucks Coal - Weibull 3P
Trucks - 317 - 355 Lognormal

Treating the downtimes (Mean Time Between Usage - MTBU) and uptimes (Mean time
between stoppages - MTBS) as a discrete time series that occurs in continuous time (or space)
implies that for every sample of events taken, it is possible to construct approximate probability
distribution that represent the outcome of future events based on the sample information (albeit
very limited).
Ritter (2016) also notes that individual operational conditions of system elements tend to be
variable, which implies that large downtimes may account for certain deficiencies of the
maintenance organisation including, for example, missing spare parts and personnel
inadequacy. Table 6-3 shows summary of statistical distributions of equipment uptime from 6
different sources from Ritter (2016). As with the observations made from the downtime
compilation by Ritter (2016), there are varied ranges and associated distributions for the same
equipment from different sources.
Table 6-3 Summary of statistical distributions of equipment downtime (Ritter, 2016)
IPCC Component Mine Uptime (min) Best-Fit Distribution

Loader Coal - Weibull
Crusher (Gyratory) Bauxite - Weibull
Conveyor Coal 1,559 - 3,155 Lognormal
Conveyor Bauxite 15.25 Lognormal
Conveyor Coal 1,710 - 2,040 Exponential
Spreader Coal 8,950 Weibull
Spreader Coal 900 Exponential
Truck Coal - Gamma
Truck - 688 - 869 Lognormal
Trucks - 120 Exponential
6.3.4 Choosing a Representative Statistical Distribution
Following discussions in previous sections and following this research's goal of providing a
method that can (in practise) be used by industry; whether Greenfield or Brownfield. Using a
three-point estimate approach (for a triangular distribution: a= best-case estimate, m = most
likely estimate, b = worst-case estimate) implies that the modeller can use inputs based on
prior experiences or best guess or available historical data. For ease of use, iTUM used the
simplest form of stochastic distribution (triangular distribution) as the default input.

The advantage here is that, modellers who are estimating operating time for FMIPCC operation
in the Greenfield settings may not have adequate operational data to start with. Using a
potentially skewed data through inapplicable statistical distributions could be misleading if
planning for an entirely different operation. The risk modelling capabilities of the earlier
mentioned excel plugin tools provides the ability to test many different stochastic distributions
that may be envisaged.
6.4 Modelling workflow and workload
In Chapter 4, the modelling of key mine design inputs that are required for the time utilisation
modelling of FMIPCC systems was discussed and include:
• Ultimate deposit and pit extents
• Overall mining (material movement) strategy
• Specific Bench geometry
• Equipment set, sizing, capacity matching and operating ranges
• Blasting (and blast safety) and belt conveyor shifting requirements
The approach used in this research involves upfront work in the modelling key inputs from
mine design, time usage data, equipment specification and material movement schedule.
Figure 6-4 shows a summary of the workflows and workload for the time utilisation modelling.
The shaded bands provide a measure of relative effort required in this research approach.
Figure 6-4 Workflow and workload for integrated Time Utilisation Modelling

6.5 Model (iTUM) Structure
Given the results of the stakeholder survey on the functional requirements, a number of model
structures were proposed and reviewed. Figure 5-5 shows a mapping of the model structure
which satisfied most of the must-have functional requirements including some “nice-to-have”
functions identified in the survey. The model is organised and tabbed in a logical flow as shown
in Figure 6-5. The following sections discuss the main component of the Integrated Time
utilization Model (iTUM) in relation to input modelling, model workings and output modelling
Figure 6-5 High-level model structure based on “must have” functional specifications

6.5.1 Modelling Documentation (Modelling concepts and instructions)
The modelling documentation gives general information about using the approach purpose,
and limitations of the methodology. The section requires the modeller to acknowledge and
agree appropriate use of the extensive operational data that is used to prepopulate the historic
time usage records which serves as a default starting point for cases where historic operational
data may not be available. The documentation then provides the model concepts, a step by
step walkthrough guide on how to input data into the model and instructions on where
additional operational data can be added to model. Finally, the documentation outlines the
improvements that are intended for further research relating to the methodology. The preferred
end goal is to compile all this information into short instructional video to embed within the
modelling tool.
6.6 Inputs Modelling
As noted earlier in Chapter 5, the methodology proposed in this research requires upfront work
in modelling the mine design inputs which include bench and dump design parameters sets,
equipment specification and life of mine planning schedules of key phases of mine life. It is
noted that, while the modelling approach in this research focused on time utilisation, the
relationship between time usage and productivity is used as a means of investigating the
impact of time utilisation on system productivity. This “utilisation-productivity” relations are
often more apparent in continuous mining equipment systems (where the same material is
handled in series by consecutive continuous hauling units of the mining system), compared to
discrete mining system where different parts of the same material are handled in parallel by
discrete hauling units within the mining system. This “utilisation-productivity” relationship forms
an integral thread through all aspect of the methodology mentioned in Section 6.5.
6.7 Reference Tables
The reference tables provide basic and standard material characterisation data including
material densities, material swell factors and fill factors for various material digging (or loading)
conditions. These serve as default dropdown material selection for commonly mined material.
The second set of information included in the reference data section is the relationships
between material lump size and conveyor belt width, conveyor gradient. These reference table
allow the modeller to specify matching conveyor capacities using theoretical “lump size-belt
width’ relationships. The operational data in the reference tables are covered under a non-
disclosure arrangement and therefore are not provided within this research report.

The final set of prepopulated data within the model are the modifying factors for cycle time
correction and loading capacities at the mining and dumping face. These modifying factors,
discussed earlier in Chapter 4, are used to compensate for the adverse impact of mine design,
scheduling, poor capacity matching and equipment sizing on the potential utilisation and
productivity of the FMIPCC system components.
6.8 Equipment Specification and Configuration
This part of the model captures the essential specifications of the equipment productive
capacity relative to time factors such as cycle time, manoeuvring time and operating ranges
including dimensions (optimum working heights, reach and depths), minimum operating area
etc. While this part of the model is prepopulated with typical equipment common to surface
mining, the approach allows for additional information to be added for new or specific models
of equipment that are not already available in the tool. The configuration of the equipment
relates to the material flow relationships that exist between the components of the FMIPCC
system. The default configuration of this research is set to a single series system. The bench
and dump parameter set are a function of equipment specification and material properties.
6.9 Bench and Dump Parameter Set
This part of the model is where most of the inputs are supplied for the modelling. Some mine
design and scheduling understanding and upfront work is required to generate the bench and
dump parameter set. The most important aspect of preparing the inputs is to include time
periods and corresponding mine schedule that is representative of the life of mine operational
requirements in terms of conveyor shifting, haulage routing and total material movement split
by bench. The primary objective of the bench and dump parameter set is to deduce the net
conveyor shifting requirements over the mine life. Once defined, these inputs are entered into
“input modelling” section of the iTUM. Figure 6-6 shows the Inputs modelling flow and data
entry for Time Usage Model.
The blue shaded cell contains the formulation and logic discussed earlier in Chapter 5, in
relation to mine design considerations while clear cells require data entry form the modeller.
The amount of work required in preparing the bench and dump parameter set is dependent on
the availability of life of mine material movement schedule. The mine design parameters
required for the iTUM modelling approach can be deduced from life of mine plans prepared for
pre-feasibility or feasibility study. Loading equipment specifications and bench design
information are often available in the equipment manufacturer’s technical specification sheet.

Figure 6-6 Inputs modelling flow and data entry for Time Usage Model

6.10 Time Usage Input Modelling
As noted earlier in Chapter 5, the modelling tool is pre-populated with a rich database of
equipment performance and operational data which spans a period of 60 months. The time
usage data has been categorized into event time durations and event frequencies. For both
durations and frequencies, entries for triangular distributions are supplied. Figure 6-7 shows
the dummy template of input table which contains the default (Raw) data from the equipment
performance database. For ease of testing and practicality, the default statistical distribution is
set to triangular for all time elements throughout the modelling process. Alternative statistical
distributions can be specified.
NB: Context of ‘best-case’ and

‘worst-case’ is interchangeable
Figure 6-7 Structure of Data Input Modelling for iTUM for MTBU and MTBS
Two tables are used for modelling time usage inputs as shown in Figure 6-7:
• The “Raw inputs” table overlies a flat table which links to equipment utilisation data
which serve as the default time usage data. In the raw inputs section, the modeller can
specify preferred values for the distribution for the time duration (A’) and event
frequencies (B’). The 3-point estimates for the modelling are supplied as follows:
o best-case estimate (minimum value in Figure 6-7)
o most likely (Central) estimate (average value in Figure 6-7)
o worst-case estimate (maximum value in Figure 6-7)
• The “Ready Inputs” part of Figure 6-7 is linked directly with the @Risk stochastic
modelling plugin, which allows the modeller to specify the desired statistical distribution
to be used for each time modelling element. Changes made to the iTUM overrides any
default input prepopulating the model inputs. The randomly generated event duration
(A”) and frequencies (B”) are therefore defined within triangular distribution parameters
defined in A’ and B’ respectively.
• The column “C” represents the product of the stochastic event duration (A”) and number
of events per year (B”). The grouped summaries under each time block thus represent
the total for that category of time usage.

6.11 Model Functionality
6.11.1 Monte Carlo Simulation
The underlying stochastic simulation engine is “@RISK” a Microsoft Excel-based plugin that
allows the modeller to investigate all possible outcomes for any situation (defined set of input
values) using Monte Carlo simulation. By specifying the limits and type of statistical distribution
for each time element, random samples from different possible inputs are generated and used
by @RISK formulas to calculate thousands of possible outcomes (chances of them occurring
and the degree to which they might occur). Figure 6-8 provides a sample screen showing the
specification of multiple statistical distribution in the input modelling window.
Figure 6-8 Specification of stochastic distributions for input variables
6.11.2 Scenario Modelling and Sensitivity Analysis
The primary driver of this research methodology is the ability to explore the stochastic influence
of uncertainty of variable inputs on the predicted performance of the FMIPCC system. To this
end, the ability to test and investigate other mine schedule scenarios over the life of mine is
very critical for estimating the time utilization of the FMIPCC. The scenario modelling table
compiles a set of substitute values into a replica of the of the main iTUM tab. The modeller
can, therefore, create and save different groups of values as scenarios, and switch between
the scenarios to view and analyse the different results. In addition, different statistical
distributions are tested to investigate the impact of different operating conditions (e.g. test
different bench height parameters relative to different rock-specific cycle times) may have on
the system. This is left to the modeller to determine which scenarios require further testing.

6.11.3 Output and Result Modelling
For the purpose of this research, a simple one-page report has been compiled to show the total system time utilisation, along with the breakdown
by time categories for each system component. The level of uncertainty of the total system performance and that of the individual system
components are also captured. Figure 6-9 shows the system utilization report (bottom left corner) and an array of drill-down graphical reports (top
and right-hand side) that show the influence of input variables on system utilisation.
Figure 6-9 Output and result modelling for Integrated Time Utilisation Model (iTUM)

In addition to the predefined modelling reports, there other customizable one-page reports that enable a drill-down into each contributing time
element with sensitivity analysis and correlation of input variables. Figure 6-10 shows some of the other output charts for investigating the influence
of input variables on the output variable. Chapter 7 discusses the application of the iTUM methodology to real case studies.
Figure 6-10 Sample output charts for investigating the correlation of input and output variable

6.12 Chapter Summary
This chapter focused on addressing the earlier research gap that; Current time utilisation
modelling approaches (including those for FMIPCC) do not account for the dynamic
relationship with the variability of key mine design inputs (including bench width, bench height
and bench length) on system utilisation. This chapter outlines detailed discussion of the
structure of the integrated Time Utilisation Model (items), the data input requirements and
output reports that are generated from the modelling approach described in this research.
The chapter also presented a comprehensive overview of the development and structure of an
Integrated Time Utilisation Modelling (iTUM) approach which uses of simple and industry
accepted methods for uncertainty Modelling of FMIPCC utilisation. The key aspects covered
in this chapter include, Inputs Modelling of Time Usage (Operational) Data, Modelling workflow
and workload, Model (iTUM) Structure, Inputs-output Modelling. This chapter also discussed
a survey which aimed at understanding the key functional requirements of a stochastic tool for
modelling FMIPCC utilisation. The results of the evaluation showed that all spreadsheet-based
tools are capable of achieving the above minimum requirement with varying degrees of
performance.
The chapter further provides a summary of treatment for historic operational data within the
iTUM; categorized into event time durations and event frequencies based on user-defined
statistical distribution distributions are supplied. The chapter concludes by showcasing several
examples of modelling output (tables, graphs and charts) are provided in this chapter in support
of the methodology in this research.

CHAPTER 7:
APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED TIME
UTILIZATION MODEL TO CASE STUDIES
This chapter presents an application of the iTUM methodology to a real-
world case study with a complete step-by-step walkthrough from inputs to
results. The results are then verified with previous FMIPCC/IPCC evaluation
results from available OEM-type feasibility studies.

7. Application of Integrated Time Utilization Model to Case Studies
7.1 Introduction to Modelling Case Study
The case study involves a 4.5km x 3.6km coal deposit with a relatively flat topography. The
climatic condition around the deposit is generally dry with average rainfall around 350 mm
mainly within the third quarter of each year. Temperature in the mining area typically reaches
a maximum of +30°C and can fall as low as -1° in the winter months. From the surface, the
upper 1 - 20 m cover consists of quaternary sand cover, followed by 5 - 50 m thick tertiary
sands/silts, trailing with up to ±350 m thick Cretaceous formation with 8 coal seam zones and
shale/sandstone inter- and overburden. Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2 show the plan and vertical
extents of the deposit respectively. The cretaceous layer below the top layer (with average
cumulative thickness is roughly 60m) and the coal require blasting to improve its diggability.
Moisture varies between 5 and 20% with an average value of 10% with Ash (dried) content
ranging from 15% - 50% and an average value of 25%. With coal reserves within the final pit
shell up to 568 Mt (with interbeddings), the proposed coal processing plant is to be designed
to a maximum annual coal production of 15 Mt over an approx. 40 years mine life.
Figure 7-1 Plan section of case study deposit extents

Figure 7-2 Vertical section of case study deposit extents
7.2 Mine design input 1: Ultimate deposit and pit extents
From Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-2, it can be see that the 3-dimensional extents of the
deposit is 4.2km long, 3.6km wide and 350m deep (at deepest part). It is also apparent
from the profile of the deposit that, merely dividing the depth of the deposit by a
predetermined bench height to work out average volumes per year and distance of
conveyors on an annual basis would be flawed in the first instance.
In the earlier steps of order magnitude study, the following top three objectives are
determined as the primary drivers of the long-term planning strategy.
1. Generate the least overburden extraction in the first years,
2. Provide favourable annual stripping ratios over life of mine
3. Earliest transition to in-pit dumping or least external waste dump volume
From the orientation of the coal seams relative to the topography, it is apparent that a
vertically stacked set of pushbacks would not yield a favourable result relative to the
primary planning objectives dictated above. In order to meet objective (1), the initial
boxcut would have to be towards the shallowest side to the deposit. To meet objective
(2) the boxcut would have to open up to the full width of the pit and expose the deepest
part of the deposit (where the coal seams are concentrated) from where the strip ratio
is sustained until the full depths of deposit is fully mined out. This implies a clockwise
radial swing from the initial box through the full width and to the other half of the boxcut.
Naturally, these two approaches will allow the third objective to be achieved within the
earliest timeframe.

7.3 Mine Design Input 2: Specific Bench Geometry
In order to outline the specific bench geometry for the time utilisation modelling, the appropriate
slope parameters for both mining and dumping are determined based on geotechnical
constraints. Table 7-1 provides a summary of slope inputs for the mine design.
Table 7-1 Bench configuration for mine design of case study
Mining-Side Dump-Side
slope angle Material Type
Final Working Final Working
Overall All 26.6° 21.8° 21.8° 18.4°
Tertiary and Quaternary 33.7° 45° 33.7° -
Single
Cretaceous 45° 60° - -
As shown in Figure 7-9, the advancing bench face is configured with a hydraulic face shovel
on the top stack and bottom stack. The middle bench stack is mined using a hydraulic backhoe
excavator. Three of the loading units are specified at a bucket capacity of 42 m3 and have front
end attachments configurable to a face shovel of backhoe. Figure 7-3 overleaf shows the In-
pit conveyor layout during these four phases of mine life and Figure 7-4 shows the resulting
phase-by-phase progression of optimal deposit exploitation scheme.
Figure 7-3 In-pit conveyor layout for the FMIPCC systems at full production capacity - year 5

Figure 7-4 Resulting phase-by-phase progression of optimal deposit exploitation scheme
7.3.1 Mine Design Input 3: Overall mining strategy - Sequence and approach
With these primary conditions well satisfied, a number of overall mining strategies are further
explored to find the best variant which will bring mine production and the plant to full capacity
in the earliest timeframe. By understanding the overall mining sequence, the phase by phase
schedule are also determined. Figure 7-5 shows the four basic mining approaches that are
considered relative to the mine planning objectives and Figure 7-6 shows one of the best of
12 variants of the overall mine strategies that is considered to meet the mining planning
objectives both economically and operationally.
In all, a total of 12 variant of these four-basic direction-based strategies are evaluated. The
waste dump (WD) is shown as a location reference. The numbered sequence shows the order
in which the blocks will are exposed and mined. The optimal plan found to meet the mine
planning objectives and also give the highest net present value (NPV) is a central pivoted case
variant of Figure 7-5 (C) labelled (E) in Figure 7-6. The mine is opened with a boxcut 600 m
wide and 3.9km long (1), along the southern subcrop of the deposit. The boxcut runs parallel
to the long edge of the deposit from where the mine is developed in a clockwise radial direction
around the pivot point in the northwest end of the boxcut.

Figure 7-5 Proposed exploitation approaches for case study deposit (WD – Waste Dump)
Figure 7-6 Selected optimal overall mining strategy – sequence and approach

While the parallel approaches (A and B) of mining this deposit did not meet the primary mine
planning objectives, these approaches are common for the Australian coal mining where
dragline strip mining and truck-shovel pre-stripping are used in combination to mine long and
relatively shallow dipping tabular coal deposits. This approach meets the requirements of
achieving the least overburden extraction in the first years, earliest transition from the external
to internal waste dump and maintaining an annual stripping ratio remains favourable through
the mine life.
Since the sole aim of this case study is to investigate the impact of bench geometry on the
time utilisations of the FMIPCC as applied coal pre-stripping strategies, Chapter 8 presents a
more detailed study of FMIPCC strip mining layouts and exploitation approaches, relevant to
Australian coal deposits. With the geometric approach in hand, a detailed mass (or volume)
balance is then performed to understand how much material is taken to the external waste
dump (WD) and determine the turnaround time from external dumping to internal dumping of
waste. At this point, the LOM blocks are large and local bench geometries have not been
considered in the material movement schedule. Figure 7-7 shows the projected LOM material
movement schedule for the optimal exploitation approach shown in Figure 7-6.
Figure 7-7 Proposed LOM material movement schedule

From Figure 7-7, four transition points are visible in the material movement schedule. Point (1)
is the first year of production at full capacity shown by first dashed line in Figure 7-7. At that
same point the strip ratio becomes stable. Point (2) is another significant point, where dumping
of waste material transitions from ex-pit dumping to in-pit dumping and at the same time the
pit reaches full depth at ~350m. Point (3) is where the pit geometry is longest with a slight
increase in strip ratio, and point (4) is the end of mine life where the geometries of the pit
reduces in all three dimensions (length, width and depth).
Table 7-2 shows a summary of the mine schedule at these four stage gates. From Table 7-2,
it can be seen that while material movement remains the same from year five (5) through to
year twenty (20) at about 76M BCM, the overall depth and width of excavation vary significantly
over that period of time. Subsequent analysis will examine what this means for the belt
conveyor system. It can also be observed from the year 20 to year 40 that, a decrease in depth
and length of the surface excavation is compensated for by an increase in pushback width.
Table 7-2 Summary of Mine design Parameters for mining case study deposit
Line # Mine Phase Units Yr-05 Yr-10 Yr-20 Yr-40

A1 Overall Mine Depth (Lowest RL) m 838 765 756 715
A2 Length of Pushback/Bench m 3,500 3,760 3,760 2,567
A3 Max width of Pushback/Bench m 635 400 745 1,025
A4 Total Material Movement (TMM) MBCM 76.0 76.0 80.0 66.0
A5 External Waste Dump Volume MLCM 75.0 75.0 - -
A6 Internal Waste Dump Volume MLCM - - 81.0 63.00
The top two material horizons, composed of tertiary and quaternary overburden layers,
reaching down to depths of 50m to 70m, are considered relatively easier to dig (require no
blasting to lead-out). For this relative ease of dig, there is a need to decouple the blasted
material from the easy dig sand cover and maintain a good advance rate. This top cover is
best mined with a fully continuous mining system. A bucket wheel excavator (BWS) with
commensurate capacity, dumping onto belt conveyor systems is therefore specified as part of
the overall mining fleet. The Bucket Wheel Excavator (BWE) system is not discussed in detail
as it is somewhat out of scope for this research. Since the overall interest for modelling the
utilisation of the FMIPCC system is to avoid overestimation and underestimation of system
performance, the topmost bench below the BWE territory is considered the worst-case
scenario. In this particular case study, using the pushback and overall mining strategy defined
earlier, any given active mining bench remains open through much of the LOM except for the
first 5 years and last 5 years where the mine excavation has not reached full depth.

In view of these considerations, a complete stack of 30m benches from RL975 down to RL945
is used as the test working bench for modelling system utilisation. This is particularly useful
because the RL975 - RL945 bench stack is open and mined throughout the four phases of the
mine life which have been identified as the primary performance milestone for the proposed
FMIPCC system. Using a flat bench stacking height of 30m (maximum consecutive working
face heights), the detailed work benches are designed. At this point key inputs 1 (Ultimate
deposit and pit extents) and input 2 (overall mining strategy – sequence and approach) for the
iTUM model can be determined.
7.4 Mine Design Input 4: Equipment Set, Sizing, Match and Selection
With the envisaged annual average coal production of 15 x106 t and average annual total
overburden volume of about 65 x106 m3, a shovel volume capacity of 40 m3 is selected for the
waste (overburden) material while a 26 m3 bucket capacity is selected for the coal. As the
operation is constrained by its remote location and with minimal access to consistent electricity
supply, coupled with the need for highly flexible machines, only diesel-powered equipment is
feasible. A medium size diesel-powered plant is used to supply the power for the BWE, belt
conveyors spreaders. The operation is therefore a combination of fully continuous mining
systems, and cyclic continuous mining systems (FMIPCC – Waste, Truck-Shovel and SMIPCC
– Coal). Figure 7-8 shows the operating range of the selected 42m3 capacity equipment in both
Hydraulic Excavator (HEX) and Hydraulic Face Shovel (HFS) configurations.
Figure 7-8 Operating range of 42 m3 capacity hydraulic excavator (PC8000 - Komatsu, 2017)
Table 7-3 provides a summary of the operating range of a 42m3 capacity loader in both
Hydraulic Excavator (HEX) and Hydraulic Face Shovel (HFS) configurations and Table 7-4
shows a summary of the selected mining equipment set (without ancillary equipment). The
initial equipment selection is purely based on volumetric capacities

Table 7-3 Comparison of operation ranges of 42m3 loading unit in HEX and HFS configurations
PC8000 - HEX PC8000 - HFS

Max. Material Density 1.8 t/m3
Bucket Capacity 42,0m3
Boom length 11.5m Boom length 8.15m
Stick length 5.50m Stick length 5.75m
Break-out force (ISO) 2.077 kN Break-out force (ISO) 2.331 kN
Tear-out force (ISO) 1.813 kN Crowd force (ISO) 2.353 kN
Max. digging height 16.9m Max. cutting height 20.9m
Max. dumping height 11.2m Max. dumping height 13.9m
Max. digging depth 8.0m Max. digging depth 3.0m
Max. digging reach 20.7m Max. digging reach 17.8m
Max. digging reach at ground level 19.6m Level crowd at ground level 5.8m
Table 7-4 Selected equipment set for case study application
Application Equipment Specification Qty

Excavation of top cover (upper benches) 4,600 t/h capacity BWE 2
Excavation for hard rock material ± 40 m³ hydraulic face shovel/Excavator 3
Excavation of hard rock material ± 26 m³ hydraulic face shovel/Excavator 3
Material Sizer/Crusher (Waste) 6,700 t/h capacity FMIPCC 3
Haulage of waste to dumping side 1,800 mm belt conveyor lanes, 5
Dumping of waste 7,000t/h spreaders with tripper cars 5
Excavation of coal 25 m³ hydraulic excavators, 2
Haulage of coal Mined 1,800 mm width Belt CNV 1
The standard vertical bench configuration is shown in Figure 7-9. Considering that face shovels
have a limited ability to develop inter-bench ramps and below-grade boxcuts, a key advantage
of having the backhoe excavator in the middle horizon is to support activities such as
constructing access ramps for mobile crushing units and face shovels. Alternatively, a
dedicated smaller capacity unit can be used for inter-bench access ramps and face or wall
battering to secure higher productivity of the primary loading units. In Figure 7-9, the positions
with suffix (a) show the first positions of the loading units, while the (b) positions represents
second positions of the loading units once the upper flitches have attained.

Figure 7-9 Bench configuration for mine design of case study
7.5 Mine Design Input 5: Blasting (and Blast Safety) Requirements
From the previous sections and progression of the mining face, it is apparent that the benches
are stacked on top of each other. The implication of this bench configuration is that, successive
benches above or below the particular bench to be blasted will always fall within the blast
exclusion zone. Two types of blast are considered for this case study. Primary blast are blast
events that directly affect the active mining bench, whilst the secondary blast events are blast
activities on an adjacent bench (below or above) the active bench, which results in a standby
time loss for the conveyor system. Table 7-5 and Table 7-6 provide a summary breakdown of
the respective blast-related delays that make up the total time lost to blasting events.
A key consideration of the estimates is the assumption that a third of the average of 2 blast
events per week for the three waste bench horizons. In a different scenario where there is at
least one blast a week, that could impact an upper or lower bench horizon in such that it results
in additional blast-related time losses. Considering the way, the conveyor lines are configured,
any blast on a particular bench would preclude mining activities on the upper or lower benches
within the exclusion zone of active blast. The minimum, average and maximum serve as
boundaries for blast delays. For the example presented, the blast frequencies would range
between 1 and 3 per week with the most like value of 2 blasts per week that would impact the
entire mining activities across the three bench horizons.

Table 7-5 Direct impact of Blasts on adjacent benches
Minimum Average Maximum

Primary Blasts: Direct Impact
[min] [Hrs] [min] [Hrs] [min] [Hrs]
Equipment Relocation 15 20 30
PRE-BLAST
Personnel Evacuation 5 0.42 10 0.62 15 0.92
CLEARNACE
Final Clearance/Preparation 5 7 10
Radio Silence/Blast Initiation 2 2 2
ACTUAL
Blast Initiation/Inspection 5 0.20 10 0.28 15 0.37
BLASTING
Remove Blast Exclusion Zone 5 5 5
Personnel Return 5 10 15
POST-
BLAST Start-up/Equipment Relocation 5 0.29 12 0.62 20 1.08
RECOVERY Face/Bench Prep/Clean-up 8 15 30
Min. Avg. Max.

Lost Time /Blast (Direct Impact) 0.91 1.52 2.37
Table 7-6 Indirect impact of Blasts on adjacent benches
Minimum Average Maximum

Secondary Blasts: Indirect Impact [min] [Hrs] [min] [Hrs] [min] [Hrs]
Equipment Relocation 0 5 10
PRE-BLAST
Personnel Evacuation 5 0.12 10 0.33 15 0.53
CLEARNACE
Final Clearance/Preparation 2 5 7
Radio Silence/Blast Initiation 2 2 2
ACTUAL
Blast Inspection 5 0.20 10 0.28 15 0.37
BLASTING
Remove Blast Exclusion Zone 5 5 5
Personnel Return 5 10 15
POST-BLAST Start-up/Equipment Relocation 3 5 7.5
0.13 0.33 0.54
RECOVERY
Face/Bench Prep/Clean-up 0 5 10
Min. Avg. Max.

Lost Time/Blast (Indirect Impact) 0.44 0.95 1.44
7.6 Inputs Modelling (Model Inputs Tab)
Now that all the key mine design parameters are generated, the various inputs are pulled
together into the modelling parameter sheet. Table 7-7 shows the key outputs from the mine
design parameters modelling that feed into the “input modelling Tab” of the iTUM. These inputs
apply only to the most critical components to present double counting of the impact on the
entire FMIPCC system. Table 7-8 shows the overall summary of the input modelling of the key
mine and dump design parameters as from earlier sections of this chapter. Inputs in block A
are the primary inputs supplied by the modeller.

Table 7-7 Summary of the input modelling of mine and dump design parameters
[A] MATERIAL MOVEMENT SCHEDULE

LIN E #
Mine Design@RL 975 1 2 3 4

A1 Mine Phase Yr# Yr-05 Yr-10 Yr-20 Yr-40
A2 Overall Mine Depth m 838 765 756 715
A3 Bench Elevation RL 975 975 975 975
A4 Length of Pushback/Bench m 3,500 3,760 3,760 2,567
A5 Max width of Pushback/Bench m 635 400 745 1,025
A6 Shiftable Conveyor Length - Mine m 3,060 3,400 3,157 2,444
A7 Shiftable Conveyor Length - Dump m 3,610 1,617 3,528 3,227
A8 Average Bench Height m 30 30 30 30
3
A9 Total Material Mined (TMM) m 15,973,680 10,835,595 19,497,780 24,177,645
A10
[B] BENCH DESIGN - MINE FACE

B1 Description UoM Yr-05 Yr-10 Yr-20 Yr-40
B2 Stacked Bench height per Conveyor Line # 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
B3 No. Flitches Per Coveyor Line # 3 3 3 3
B4 Average Bench Length m 3,500 3,760 3,760 2,567
B5 Bench Width m 635.0 400.0 685.0 1025.0
B6 Shape of Bench (Approx) - Radial Radial Radial Radial
B7 Bench Shape Factor - 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
B8
Converyor Shifting - Mining Face BELT CONVEYOR SHIFTING – MINING FACE

C1 Yr-05 Yr-10 Yr-20 Yr-40
C2 Max reach Load/Dump System m 170 170 170 170
C3 No of Shifts/Year/System # 11 7 12 18
C4 Area Shifted/Year/System m2 1,064,912 722,373 1,299,852 1,611,843
C5 Conveyor Duty (Weight vs. Size) - OB-Average OB-Average OB-Average OB-Average
2
C6 Net Pace of Conveyor Shifting m /hr 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
C7 Avg. Pre-Shifting Time/Shift Hrs 8 8 8 8
C8 Average Time/Shift Hrs 16 17 18 15
C9 Avg. Post-Shifting Time/Shift Hrs 28 28 28 28
C10
[C] BENCH DESIGN - DUMP FACE

D1 Description UoM Yr-05 Yr-10 Yr-20 Yr-40
D2 Stacked Bench height per Conveyor Line # 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
D3 No. Flitches Per Coveyor Line # 1 2 3 4
D4 Average Bench Length m 2,154 1,940 3,760 3,187
D5 Bench Width m 1047.0 870.0 712.0 934.0
D6 Shape of Bench (Approx) - Parrallel Parrallel Parrallel Parrallel
D7 Bench Shape Factor - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D8
Converyor Shifting - Dumping Face BELT CONVEYOR SHIFTING – DUMPING FACE

E1 Yr-05 Yr-10 Yr-20 Yr-40
E2 Max reach Load/Dump System m 70 70 70 70
E3 No of Shifts/Year/System # 15 12 10 13
E4 Area Shifted/Year/System m2 1,064,912 722,373 1,299,852 1,611,843
E5 Net Pace of Conveyor Shifting m2/hr 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000
E6 Avg. Pre-Shifting Time Hrs 8 8 8 8
E7 Avg. Post-Shifting Time Hrs 9 7 16 15
E8 Total Shifting Time/System/Year Hrs 28 28 28 28
E9

7.7 Time Elements and Inputs
Table 7-8 summary of integrated inputs for the Primary loading units

The input configuration in Table 7-8 serves as the baseline of the overall system operating
time, which is achievable by the FMIPCC (without simulation). This initial baseline performance
is set using a single random selection of variables from the stochastic distributions of the
parameters that have been supplied into the inputs modelling table. Figure 7-10 shows a
graphical summary of this baseline performance of the FMIPCC system components with the
loading unit (HEX_01) and spreader (SPR_01) from the bottom and top of the Y-Axis
respectively. From the baseline estimates, the loading unit of this systems is the bottleneck
followed by mobile crusher and then the spreading unit. From this point of view, the system
would be able to achieve at least 4,869 operating hours in a year.
Figure 7-10 Graphical summary of this baseline performance of the FMIPCC system
components
The baseline performance also suggests very high performance for the conveying systems
(ranging between 6,642 and 8,206 hours) with the least performer being the conveyor adjacent
to the mobile crusher. Based on operational experience, the conveyor closest to the mining
face (receiving material from the loading system) would be expected to work at the highest
load factor for the following reasons:
• Fluctuating output from the crushing system due to loader-hopper interactions
• Additional requirement of shifting the conveyor system at the mining face
• Uneven impact of discharge material size distribution
The next section looks at the modelling results after 10,000 individual Monte Carlo simulation
using the stochastic distributions provided during the input modelling stage.

7.8 Modelling Results
Figure 7-11 shows the summary results of the final set of simulation runs. Each set of
simulation run consisted of 100 simulations, each of 10,000 iterations of individual random
data sets that were generated from the stochastic distributions supplied in the iTUM. Aside the
testing and verification runs, 10 sets of experiments were investigated. Figure 7-11 indicates
that the bottleneck would be the loading excavator system, followed by the spreader. The
results show that the FMIPCC system is expected to achieve a system utilisation of 66.91%
and a mean operating time of 4,539 hours relative to the baseline value of 4,869 hours. The
most significant contribution to FMIPCC time losses were associated with unplanned
downtime, operating standby and operating delays.
[OT]; 66.91%
Figure 7-11 Summary report of the Integrated Time Utilisation Model (iTUM)
The lower half of the modelling report provides a breakdown (into four main time blocks: Non-mission Time
[NT], Planned Downtime [PD], Unplanned Downtime [UD], Operating Standby [OS], Operating Delays [OD]
and Operating Time [OT]) of the time utilisation of individual components of the FMIPCC system.
The aim of using stochastic inputs is to generate a range of output values, and not just a single
value estimate. In similar fashion, an interval estimate without specifying degree of confidence
does not provide sufficient rigour for engineering design of an operating system. Restating the
results above for, the case-study FMIPCC system, is predicted to achieve a mean operating
time value of 4,539 hours, and a range of 3,379 – 5,233 hours at 90% confident interval (CI) –
which is a more acceptable engineering estimate. Nonetheless, this range is too large and
poses a risk to the targeted system utilisation if the lower value of 3,379 hours is more likely.

7.9 Implication of Results for FMIPCC Performance Forecasting
Figure 7-12 shows an overlay of the overall system utilisations of the FMIPCC – (top) 90%
confidence interval, and (bottom) 50% confidence interval value estimates. Since an “estimate”
represents a prediction of equally likely possibilities, either above or below the estimated value,
the “most likely value” in this case implies a 50%-50% chance of the value’s occurrence. A
50% confidence interval would therefore be considered as the base case for the estimated
performance of the FMIPCC system. From the results in Figure 7-12, the system has a 50%
chance of achieving an operating time between 4,347 and 4,963 hours. This range represents
a more realistic value range for planning for FMIPCC system utilisation. Based on a 90%
confident interval (CI), the predicted system operating time of 3,379 – 5,233 hours would be
an optimistic and very “loose” forecast. The difference between the upper limits of the 50% CI
and 90% CI should be a reasonable stretch operational target, while the difference between
the lower limits of the 50% CI and 90% CI is an operational risk that should be managed.
Figure 7-12 Estimated operating hours ranges for FMIPCC performance

Figure 7-13 shows a box plot of the variability in operating time of the various FMIPCC systems
components. The results showed a higher variability in the utilisations of the mobile crushing
and spreading units, compared to the other system components. Conversely the loading unit
and conveyors showed little variability in operating time. A marked difference is also apparent
between the bench conveyors and trunk conveyors – the bench conveyors incur more time
losses than the trunk conveyors. This could reasonably be explained by the fact that; bench
conveyors suffer more wear and tear as they are at the receiving end of the crusher and are
also subject to shifting compare to the other conveyors.
Figure 7-13 Box plot of operating time variability for FMIIPCC system components
7.10 Contribution to Variance of FMIPCC System Utilisation
Figure 7-14 and Figure 7-15 show the Top 10 contributors to the variance in FMIPCC operating
time, ranked by impact on output mean of operating time. From the results, the biggest
contributor the variance includes delays associated with the frequency and duration of
conveyor sensor and safety trips (up to 22.61% and 8.71% respectively) – total impact of
31.32% variance on the overall utilisation of the FMIPCC system. The results also show that
in the scheme of time losses, conveyor moves, shifting or relocation have comparatively low
impact on the system operating time. Another interesting observation from the results shown
in Figure 7-15 points to the fact that, for each pair of time loss contributor, the average duration
of the time loss event (MTTR) has more impact on the overall system operating time, than the
frequency at which the same events occur. The frequency of events results in production rate
losses due to shut-down and start-up impact of the belt-driven components.

Figure 7-14 Top 10 contributors to the variance in FMIPCC operating time
This implies that any effort made to reduce the duration of the time loss event would
significantly improve overall system utilisation. From Figure 7-14 it can be seen that the top 5
contributors to variance of FMIPCC Utilisation are associated with the combined effect of the
frequency and duration of both scheduled and unscheduled failure of the FMIPCC system
components. It is also apparent that, in general operational time losses have a relatively lower
impact on the entire system utilisation compared to availability time losses. For a continuous
system like FMIPCC, this may be critical to achieving the targeted effective utilisation.
Figure 7-15 FMIPCC Time Inputs Ranked by impact on output mean of operating time

7.11 Variance in Utilization of Loading System Components
Figure 7-16 and Figure 7-17 show the contributions to the variance in the operating time of
the loading and mobile crushing units. For loading unit, the largest source of variance is idling
to due to unavailable (or un-mineable) material and “redundancy”. Other issues relate to wet
weather events which makes the mined material too wet for the conveyor. For the mobile
crushing system, approx. 50% of the variance comes from conveyor belt sensor trips. As seen
earlier with the bench conveyors, issue with material surge, fugitive material and shutdown-
startup not only impact the bench conveyors but also affects the performance of the mobile
crusher. The use of a long discharge conveyor on the crusher or bridge conveyor between the
crusher and bench conveyors can often compound this problem.
Figure 7-16 Top 10 contributors to the variance in operating time – Loading Unit
Figure 7-17 Top 10 contributors to the variance in operating time – Mobile Crushing Unit

7.12 Variance in Utilization of Belt Conveyor and Spreader systems
Figure 7-18 and Figure 7-19 show the top ten contributors to the variance in the operating time
of the belt conveyor systems and the conjoining spreading units respectively. The results show
the impact of scheduled maintenance and time lost to maintenance response. it was observed
during the field visit that, due to the span of the conveyor systems and the spreader units, a
considerable amount of time is lost responding to maintenance issues as the primary causes
of stoppage is not immediately obvious. This should a key consideration when laying out the
conveyor lines in the mine – ensuring good access to facilitate quicker fault-tracing of the belt-
driven systems.
Figure 7-18 Top 10 contributors to the variance in operating time – Belt Conveyor System
Figure 7-19 Top 10 contributors to the variance in operating time – Spreader Unit

7.13 Validation of Modelling Results
As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, the unavailability of publicly available operational data on

FMIPCC performance is a challenge in setting benchmark utilisation and for validation of
system perforce with real example. In view of this constraint, this section makes reference to
various direct references to FMIPCC operating time and utilisation captured during the
literature review for this research. Table 7-9 presents a summary of various industry literature
with direct references to IPCC (entire system and individual component) utilisation in terms of
achievable operating.
Table 7-9 Summary of literature with direct references to IPCC (or component) utilisation
System/Component Operating Time

Literature/Reference Study Type
System Type Value Ranges (Hours)
FMIPCC 3,554
Morrison, D. (2017) SM-IPCC 5,591 Comparative Analysis
F-IPCC 6,039
Shovel 5,903
SM Crusher 6,048
FM Crusher 5,965
Morris, P. (2008) Conveyors 7,106 Comparative Analysis
Spreader 6,758
SM-IPCC 5,697
FMIPCC 5,285
Oberrauner, A (2013) IPCC 4884 Project Case Study
FMIPCC –E1 4,675
Oberrauner & Ritter (2013) Project Case Study
FMIPCC –E2 5,993
Lee, R (2013) Spreaders 6,615 Project Case Study
Arputharag, M (2015) Rope Shovel 3,442 Operational Review
From Table 7-9, the follow observations are made:
i) The result obtained from the case study application of the modelling methodology
proposed in this research aligns well with typical value of FMIPCC system operating
time and utilisation
ii) As shown in Table 7-9, typical system operating time values in industry literature tend
to be single value estimates primarily, because the variability of input variables are not
modelled stochastically.
iii) Since the input and approach used in this research were all stochastic, it possible to
investigate not only the variability of the key inputs but to show their impact on the entire
system utilisation performance, but also the system operating time was predicted with
improved confidence. This is an improvement on the current methodologies used for
modelling FMIPCC system utilisation.

7.14 Discussions on Results
Having established the influence of key inputs variables on the overall time utilisation of the
entire FMIPCC system and the primary system components, the following summary inferences
are made for the case study used:
i) The overall system utilisation is a net function of the time usage profile of each
individual system component, with comparatively more availability time losses than
utilisation time losses.
ii) Based on a 90% confident interval (CI), the predicted system operating time of 3,379
– 5,233 hours would be an optimistic and very “loose” forecast. On the other hand,
for a 50% CI, predicted system operating time range of 4,347 – 4,963 hours would
be a pragmatic and “anchoring” estimate. The following are implicitly for forecasting
the performance of the FMIPCC for this case study:
a. Since the estimated utilisation is highly dependent of the accuracy and reliability
of the assumptions used, the 50% CI estimate is suggested to be a realistic
planning the expected performance of the FMIPCC System.
b. The difference between the upper limits of the 50% CI and 90% CI should be a
reasonable stretch operational target, while the difference between the lower
limits of the 50% CI and 90% CI is an operational risk that should be managed.
iii) The loading system (Loader, Fully Mobile Crusher and extensions) are likely to be
the utilisation bottleneck of the FMIPCC system – in term of annual operating time.
iv) The results showed a relatively higher variability in the utilisations of the Fully Mobile
Crusher unit compared to the other system components, followed by the spreader
system. Conversely loading system and conveyors showed little variability in
operating time.
v) While time losses associated with belt conveyor shifting, bench blasting and
relocation (on bench and inter-bench) significantly contribute to operational delays
of the Loading system (described above), their influence on the overall FMIPCC
system utilisation is insignificant relative to the combined impact of unscheduled loss
failure of the belt-driven components of the FMIPCC.
vi) The impact on FMIPCC utilisations by belt conveyor shifting and bench blasting
should be the subject of further studies, as these could vary significant based the
configuration of the mine and bench design.
The next Chapter focused on examining the impact of various bench exploitation approaches
on the overall utilisation of the FMIPCC system and individual components.

7.15 Chapter Summary
This chapter illustrated an application of the iTUM methodology to a real-world case study with
a full step-by-step walkthrough from inputs to outcomes, as a means of validating the
suggested approach to FMIPCC usage modelling. The chapter used a case-study linked to a
4.2 km long, 3.6 km wide and 350 m deep coal deposit with total coal reserves within the final
568 Mt pit shell (with interbedding), with a maximum annual coal production of 15 Mt over its
40-year Life of Mine (LOM).
This chapter followed the proposed methodology for modelling the use of FMIPCC by
preparing all the key inputs needed and the different modelling scenarios. The results indicated
an optimistic overall FMIPCC system operating time of 3,379 – 5,233 hours, based on a 90
percent confidence interval (CI). The chapter also examined the contributing factors to the
FMIPCC output variance; showing that the loading system contributed most to the Fully Mobile
Crusher use variability relative to the other system components.
Finally, the chapter compared the case study with previous FMIPCC / IPCC assessment
results from available OEM-type feasibility studies and provides a comprehensive discussion
of the results.

CHAPTER 8:
IMPACT OF OPEN PIT EXPLOITATION
SCHEMES ON FMIPCC UTILISATION
This Chapter provides a conceptual study of FMIPCC strip mining layouts
and exploitation approaches, relevant to Australian coal deposits. The aim
of the study is to investigate the impact of bench geometry on the time
utilisations of the FMIPCC as applied to coal pre-stripping strategies.
Key Terms: Fully-Mobile Crusher, Exploitation, Utilisation, Bench Geometry

8. Impact of Open Cut Exploitation Schemes on FMIPCC utilisation
8.1 Introduction to Modelling Case Study
In Chapter 7, the integrated Time Utilisation Modelling approach was applied and verified using
a coal deposit. The result of the case study showed that the FMIPCC utilisation is highly
impacted by availability losses (scheduled and unscheduled) compared to utilisation (delays
and operating standbys). In this Chapter, a number of open cut exploitation schemes are
investigated, to understand their impact on FMIPCC utilisations, as applied to coal pre-
stripping strategies. This conceptual study focuses on bench geometry in relation to mining
layouts and advance approaches, which are typical to Australian coal deposits. To override
the key business objectives that often constrain the design, sequencing and exploitation of a
coal deposit, a number of key assumptions are made as follows:
1. No requirement to generate minimum overburden extraction in the first ith years of
operating the mine. Ideally, this assumption would not be valid, since early access to
coal is key to Cashflow and higher Net Present Value (NPV) on capital.
2. Both exploitation schemes can deliver a favourable mining strip ratio over life of mine.
In most cases, a levelled strip ratio with a consistent coal production is preferred. An
increasing strip ratio and decreasing coal output is avoided at all cost.
3. There is no constraint on dumping of all waste material ex-pit. Typically, an earlier

opportunity is sought to dump in-pit, rather than ex-pit waste dumping with the aim of
reducing waste haul distances, reducing the mine footprint and lowering the overall
cost of handling waste material (including rehabilitation cost).
4. For all scenarios considered, the same set of mining equipment are considered capable
and adequate to achieve the annual material movement schedule rates and targets for
both waste material and coal.
5. Loading system productivity is unaffected, irrespective of suitability of the bench height

and technical limitations of the loading system. This assumption is not valid in practice,
since it has been shown earlier in the Chapter 5 that, bench height influences the cycle
time and productivity of the loading unit.
6. For ease of modelling the mining sequence in the iTUM, it is assumed that the topmost
benches are fully exploited before successive lower benches can be mined. In practice,
this assumption will not be valid since multiple benches and faces are required to be
mined concurrently (including blasting and conveyor shifting activities) – to meet plant
demand and to achieve coal uncovering rates.

8.2 Shortlisting of Geometric factors and impacted iTUM delays
For this conceptual modelling, three primary bench geometries are investigated and explored
based on two exploitation strategies, for the same coal deposit discussed in Chapter 7. Based
on the results from Chapter 7, availability and operational time losses are presumed to be the
same, except for operational delays which are a direct function of the bench geometry. These
delays are part of primary operating cycle of the loader, and often a function of mine scheduling
of equipment. Table 8-1 provides a shortlist of time elements that were reviewed for the
conceptual study. From Table 8-1 it can be seen that only two system delays (frequency and
duration), are directly impacted by the bench geometry Belt conveyor shifting (with extensions)
and Blasting.
Table 8-1 shortlisting of key variables for investigations
Operating Standby & Waiting [OS] Impact Remarks/Comments

Face/bench prep work/drainage work Indirect Loader cycle time/productivity
Wall Scaling/ Clean-up/pulling batters Indirect Loader cycle time/productivity
Bench Development/Box cut/Ramping Indirect Loader cycle time/productivity
Major Moves/Relocations (different benches) Indirect Loader cycle time/productivity
Minor Moves/Relocations (same bench) Indirect Loader cycle time/productivity
Moves Across Bench Conveyor (s) Indirect Loader cycle time/productivity
Belt conveyor Shifting/Extension Direct Entire system utilisation
Blasting (Indirect/indirect) Direct Entire system utilisation
Time losses due to conveyor start-up/shutdown Indirect Conveyor utilisation/rate loss
Cable move/works/handling Indirect No significant impact
Operational Adjustments/Set-Up Indirect Conveyor utilisation/rate loss
Further focus is provided for the conceptual study by a number of key observations made and
discussed in previous chapters as follows:
Chapter 6
• Section 6.10 – for loading with capacities 19m3 - 55m3, optimum bench heights range
between 12m for hydraulic excavators and 18m for rope shovels. This forms the basis
of testing bench heights from 10m to 20m.
Chapter 7
• Section 7.10 - The top 50-60m of overburden is easy to dig with blasting to necessary
to improve the diggability of the loaded material from the 70m and lower.
• Section 7.10 - In the scheme of time lime losses, conveyor moves, shifting or relocation
have comparatively low impact on the overall system operating time and utilisation,
with a mean operating time of 4,539 hours and 66.91% respectively.

8.3 Design of experiment
Figure 8-1 shows the two exploitation schemes that are investigated in this conceptual study.
Scheme A involves a parallel advance along the south-eastern boundary of the deposit while
scheme B involves a radial approach, pivoting around the south-eastern corner entry into the
deposit. Since the south western boundary of pit excavation is approximately 4000 m, panel
lengths of 2000 m – 8000 m with 1000 m increments was applied. Therefore, for both
exploitation schemes tested, 2000 m represented the half panel mark. Panel width is
constrained by the maximum reach of the complete assembly of loader-crusher and extension
to the bench conveyor. Widths of 100m - 300m in increments of 100m are tested.
Figure 8-1 Exploitation schemes to study effects of bench geometry on FMIPCC utilisation
For exploitation scheme, three levels of each bench geometry factor are examined. This results
in 36 unique configurations for each of two exploitation schemes – a total of 72 test points.
Based on the 72 geometric configurations, a full multi-level factorial design of experiment is
set up with the primary objective of assessing the impact of the direct bench geometric factors
on belt conveyor shifting frequency within a single operating year. Table 8-2 shows a summary
of the full-factor experimental design. The levels of factors considered are based on practical
system limitations and typical values in practice (including literature).
Table 8-2 Summary of the full-factor experimental design – Test 1
Mine Exploitation Scheme

Bench Geometry Factor
Scheme A - Parallel Scheme B - Radial
Bench Height 10 15 20 - 10 15 20 -
Panel Width (Max reach) 100 200 300 - 100 200 300 -
Panel Length 2000 3000 4000 5000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Error! Reference source not found. shows a simplified spreadsheet logic flow (top to bottom)
of how the belt conveyor shifting frequency is determined. The values in the greyed cells
represents derived inputs, while the values in the white cells represent raw (direct) input data.
Table 8-3 Simplified logic flow (top to bottom) for determining conveyor shifting frequency
Pit Orientation SE-->NW SW-->NE

Face Approach Parallel Radial
Pit Extent Full-Width Full-Width
Scheme Scheme 1 Scheme 2
A1 Avg. Length of mined Bench m 4,750 4,040
A2 Max. Reach Bench Mining System (IPC Unit) m 170 170
A3 Avg. Height of mined Bench m 30 30
A4 Avg. Volume of Mined Block m3 24,225,000 20,604,000
A1 Avg. Length of Dumped Bench m 1,800 1,800
A2 Max. Reach of Dumping System (Spreading Unit) m 160 160
A3 Avg. Height of mined Bench m 30 30
A7 Avg. Volume of Dumped Block m3 31,492,500 26,785,200
A8 Panel Widths of Mining Bench m
A9 Panel Widths of Dumping Bench m
A10 No. Mined OB Blocks /yr - 2.8 3.3
A11 No. Mined ORE Blocks /yr - 0.4 0.5
No. OB Dump Blocks /yr - 10.3 10.3
B1 Annual Volume of OB loaded unto Shiftable conveyor m3 68,250,000 68,250,000

B2 No. Conveyor levels in Overburden material - 3 3
B3 Overall height of Overburden Material m 90 90
C1 Annual Volume of Ore loaded unto Shiftable conveyor m3

C2 No. Conveyor levels in Ore material - 3 3
C3 Overall height of Dump Material m 30 30
D1 Annual Volume of Ore loaded unto Shiftable conveyor m3 88,725,000 88,725,000

D3 No. Conveyor levels in Ore material - 1 1
D4 Overall height of Dump Material m 120 120
E1 No. Available Belt Shifters - 4 4

E2 Steps of Shifting m 1 1
E3 Avg. Shifting Speed km/hr 7 7
E4 Job factor of shifting operation % 80% 80%
E5 Net Shifting Pace m2/hr 22,400 22,400
F1 Conveyor Length m 1,500 1,500

F2 Pre-Shifting (floor and Equipment preparation) Hrs 12 12
F3 Post Shifting (Allignments, Tidying-up and connections) Hrs 30 30
F4 Conveyor Startup & Adjustmenst Hrs 5 5
Conveyor Extensions Hrs 8 8
F5 Additional Lost per Shifting Event Hrs 55 55
G1 Total Yearly Shifting Requirements m2/yr 5,589,643 5,589,643

G2 No. Conveyor Shifting events/yr - 14 14
Total Time Lost to Conveyor Shiftings/yr Hrs/yr 250 250
Avg. Time Spent Per Conveyor shift event Hrs/Event 18 18
H1 Avg. Time Per Convetor Shifting Event Hrs 73 73

H2 Ang. Total Lost Time Per Shifting Event Hrs 994 1,025

8.4 Results and Discussions
Figure 8-2 show various levels of impact of the three bench geometry factors, on the overall
utilisation of the FMIPCC system. From the results, it is apparent that individually the bench
height has the greatest impact, followed by panel width and finally, the panel length. It can also
be inferred from Figure 8-2 that, the impact of varying the bench geometries is comparatively
more pronounced in the radial exploitation scheme compared to the parallel approach of
mining. This observation is important since, for constant panel length, parallel conveyor shifting
typically involves some extension, whereas the radial scheme may not require any extension
- if the pivoted station is set up to anchor.
Figure 8-2 Impact of individual bench geometry factors on overall utilisation of FMIPCC system
Figure 8-3 and Figure 8-4 show the impact of bench geometry factors interactions on the
FMIPCC utilisation. From the results shown in Figure 8-3, the following inferences are made:
• Panels with average length of 2,000m or below incur more utilisation losses due to
increased conveyor shifting compared to the longer panels above 2,000m. Similarly,
the results also show that with increasing panel length, the impact of the panel width
begins to diminish with respect to conveyor shifting requirements.
• As expected, the interaction of the panel width and length has the largest impact on the
entire system as shown in Figure 8-3.
• The general trend in all the interaction plot indicates that smaller bench geometry would
easily incur significant system utilisation losses, especially is the loading unit is of a
high capacity. This implies that, for small open and circular surface mine excavation
where the lateral geometry of the mining benches is constrained, excessive conveyor
shifting could significantly affect the utilisation of the FMIPCC.
• In all cases, the bench height of 10m incurs very significant utilisation losses due to the
high frequency of shifting of the conveyor system.

Figure 8-3 Interactions of Bench Geometry Factors on FMIPCC utilisation
Figure 8-4 3D Surface plot of FMIPCC utilisation vs. Panel width and Panel Length

Figure 8-5 shows the combined effect of bench geometry on system utilisation. The shaded
bulbs around the box bars portray the relative zones of impact with parallel scheme to the left
of the bars, and the radial scheme to the right of the bars. It is immediately apparent in Figure
8-5 that, longer panel (length and width) with a bench height of 20m incurs the least impact on
utilisation. Also, 10m benches significantly impact on the radial scheme.
Figure 8-5 Combined impact of bench geometric factors on FMIPCC Utilisation
Some further useful observations are apparent in Figure 8-5:
• For longer benches the combined effect of bench height and the panel width is
diminished as the panel exceeds 4,000m. This re-enforces the need to not only choose
just a high capacity mobile crusher but carefully set the optimal bench and mine
application. For example, an open cut with pushback benches of no longer than 1000m
and less than 200m in width is very likely to incur very high time utilisation losses (~30%
-40%) of system operating time.
• For parallel exploitations scheme of mining, bench panel lengths of greater of equal to
4000m provide a good opportunity to minimise the effect of frequent shifting conveyor
and its likely impact on the FMIPCC utilisation.

• For radial exploitations scheme of mining, bench panel length of greater or equal to
5,000m would provide a good opportunity to maximise the FMIPCC utilisation by
minimising delays caused by frequent shifting of conveyors.
Figure 8-6 shows the result of the repeated experiment in Figure 8-5 with an extension of the
panel length to investigate where the optimum panel geometry lies. From Figure 8-6, is shown
that minimal impact of less than 13% are possible for the parallel exploitation scheme, while
~15% was a reasonable asymptote for the radial exploitation scheme. An attempt to reduce
this impact below these thresholds would come at a cost of sacrificing minimum operating
widths, large enough to accommodate three FMIPCC system working a multi-bench
configuration with three active mining faces moving concurrently.
Figure 8-6 Bench geometry impact on FMIPCC Utilisation at 15m and 20m bench heights
Figure 8-7 shows a basic schematic of bench sequencing. From the figure, it is apparent that
to keep 3 mining levels and face producing concurrently, a minimum of 6 bench panels (A-1 to
A-6), would have to be mined initially. Similarly, for a 2-level advancing face, a minimum of 3
panel would have to be mined-out in advance to maintain adequate mining width for the
complete assembly of loading and crushing equipment. Table 8-4 shows the resulting impact
of the two exploitation schemes for a ~20m bench height. While recent ultra-class loading units
like the P&H 4800XPC, EX8000-6, R 996 B may exceed the 20m bench height, most standard
large excavators and shovels would optimally work an 18-20m bench.

Figure 8-7 Basic schematics of bench sequencing
The results in Table 8-4 back these observations. It shows that a panel length of 2000m
-6000m offer the least impact on FMIPCC utilisation depending on the maximum reach
(panel width) of the loading system assembly. The results also show that an impact
15% -16% of operating time would be a reasonable expectation for exploitation
schemes based on a panel width of 200m. Where a longer panel width of approx. 300m
can be reached using bridge conveyors or linked belt feeders like Metso’s Lokko-link
extensions, then shorter panel length of 2000m – 3000m may yet offer similar utilisation
as the interaction of longer panel and widths.
Table 8-4 Impact of the two exploitation schemes for a ~20m bench height
Exploitation Bench Geometry Impact on FMIPCC Utilisation

Scheme Height (m) Width (m) Length (m) Shifts/Yr Hours/Yr Impact (%)
Parallel 20 100 5000 6 690 15%
Parallel 20 100 6000 6 662 15%
Parallel 20 200 3000 6 662 15%
Parallel 20 300 2000 6 662 15%
Radial 20 200 6000 6 749 16%
Radial 20 300 4000 6 749 16%
Radial 20 200 5000 6 769 17%
Radial 20 300 3000 6 783 17%
It is also noted that adequate separation by stacking benches above and below the conveyor
level would also offer an opportunity to minimise the frequency of conveyor shifts in a year. In
this instance, the planned 30m bench could be a 20m-10m bench or 15m-15m configuration
depending on which loader type is being used.

8.5 Chapter Summary
This chapter expanded the findings of Chapter 7 to undertake a conceptual analysis of

FMIPCC strip mining layouts and extraction approaches, applicable to Australian coal
deposits, with the purpose of the research being to examine the effect of bench geometry on
the FMIPCC time uses as applied to coal pre-stripping strategies. The conceptual study
discussed parallel as well as radial FMIPCC system usage schemes for bench production. The
results of the study generally support the hypothesis that smaller FMIPCC bench geometry
generally resulted in more usage losses compared to larger FMIPCC bench geometry -
especially when the loading system capacity was large.
Results of the study in this chapter indicated that bench panels with an average length of 2,000
m or less incur more utilisation losses compared to longer panels above 2,000 m, with a bench
height of 10 m resulting in very significant usage losses due to the high frequency of the
conveyor system shifting in all cases. The results also showed that the impact of the panel
width is starting to diminish with increasing panel length and widths in respect of conveyor
shifting requirements. For a parallel bench exploitation schemes, bench panel lengths of more
than or equal to 4000 m provide a good opportunity to reduce the effect of regular conveyor
changes, although panel lengths of 2000 m -6000 m provided the least impact on FMIPCC use
depending on the maximum loading device assembly reach (panel width).

CHAPTER 9:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter present a summary of work completed in this
research relative to the research objectives, key findings,
statement of contribution, and outlook for future research.

9. Conclusions and Recommendations
9.1 Research Summary
Over the last two decades, the concept of using IPCC systems in surface mines have been
increasingly analysed by the mining industry and adapted by mines having tabular deposits.
Historically, many FMIPCC systems have failed to perform to expectation primarily due to:
over-estimation of system productivity (a key function of utilisation and throughput) and lack of
understanding of the impact of mine design variables on FMIPCC utilisation. Current time
utilisation approaches depend heavily on consultant and “gut feel” point estimates, which often
significantly vary from actual equipment performance data. This is underpinned by the lack of
historic equipment performance data, failure to capture stochastic variability of inputs
(modelling) and the limited understanding of the impact of mine design parameters on FMIPCC
utilisation. To date, available tools for modelling and predicting productivity and throughput are
deterministic and are limited in their ability to model input variances.
The research work was designed to:
1. Provide evidence to support the hypothesis that a source of underperformance is linked

to overestimation of productive hours and throughput of FMIPCC systems.
2. Provide the first work to comprehensively evaluate the effects of mine planning variable
on the overall effective utilisation of FMIPCC systems.
3. Use available historical data to document system performance ranges along with
simple statistical distributions.
4. Develop a stochastic tool for modelling capacity of IPCC, considering variability of the
key modelling inputs.
This research focused on investigating the impact of key mine design variables (geometry
approaches, sequencing and scheduling) on the performance of FMIPCC systems in open pit
and open cut applications. The methodology adapted in this research involved:
1. A review of current approaches to time utilisation modelling for FMIPCC
2. Identify key mine design variables that affect the performance of FMIPCC.
3. Use historic operational data to establish the variability of key time loss events
4. Apply stochastic and risk modelling techniques to IPCC utilisation modelling.
5. Developing an approach and tool to predict FMIPCC utilisation using stochastic
variables.

9.2 Significant findings
The following findings are presented based on this research work:

1. In Australia, the majority of IPCC implementations have failed to address persistent
problems of overestimation of FMIPCC efficiency over the past few decades. This has
led to low confidence in the uptake of the system in Australia.
2. A literature review shows a lop-sided coverage of FMIPCC technology, planning and
application. The review found that industry coverage of FMIPCC research is not
detailed, from an operational perspective. Most studies were performed by consultants
with some vested interest.
3. Because FMIPCC system components are rigid in construction, flexibility in capacity
can be built into the operational phase through careful component selection and
specification. Capacity redundancy, standardisation of components, Function and
Performance Specification (FPS), are just a few of the ways of improving operational
flexibility, reducing downtime and minimising unnecessary cost.
4. As conveyor modules and components get larger, maintenance infrastructure and
support equipment become very critical to the whole system performance. In some
cases, idlers and garlands may be so heavy, thus becoming impractical for mine
personnel to handle. In such instances, the additional cost of acquiring support
equipment could easily erode the proposed financial benefits.
5. Mine planning for FMIPCC requires careful integration of data, processes, tools and
monitoring systems at all three levels of planning (long term, medium term and short-
term planning). A complete change of “mine planning paradigm” is imperative for
switching from the conventional Truck-Shovel to an FMIPCC only operations.
6. The use of available historic equipment data provides a more robust basis for
determining the optimum system configuration of an FMIPCC system. For FMIPCC
system, two operational approaches are proposed:
o No data (Greenfields): In cases where mining has not started and historic
equipment data may not be available, reasonable estimates may be deduced
using operational data from similar sites, industry literature or published data.
o Available data (Brownfields): These scenarios often require integration of new
equipment with existing equipment or completely replace existing methods. In
this case, historic data would be available for benchmarking the existing system
performance and specifying the capability and functional requirements of the
additional equipment or new system. A staged implementation is recommended
for a full system replacement.

7. The influence of the overall pit geometry on the working bench floor geometry and
resulting effect on bench shape, length and widths are key considerations when
modelling the utilisation and productivity of FMIPCC systems.
8. While the geometric shape of the active working bench floor significantly impacts the
utilisation, productivity and advance rate of the FMIPCC, a key consideration should
be the impact on the bench conveying system in terms of frequency of shifting. Bulk
handling conveyors in mining tend to be rigid, linear and long span.
9. Current approaches to modelling FMIPCC (or IPCC system in general) grossly
underestimate key operational time delays which form the basis of estimating overall
system utilisation. For example:
o Typically, FMIPCC feasibility studies estimate a time of 5-6 minutes lost per
blast. This does not account for pre-blast and post blast delays. A review of
mine operational data shows that time lost to blast events could range between
10 - 35 minutes. For 1 blast event per day and 350 days per year, this implies
an under estimation of 29 hours – 170 hours (292% - 483%) per year.
10. Current time utilisation modelling approaches (including those for FMIPCC) do not
account for the dynamic relationship with the variability of key mine design inputs
(including bench width, bench height and bench length) on system utilisation.
11. A survey of key stakeholders to determine the modelling functional requirements shows
a preference for a spread-sheet based model with the capability to:
o Accommodate discrete and continuous mining equipment operating in single
systems.
o Dynamically associate key bench parameters with time utilisation of the entire
FMIPCC system.
o Capture and Integrate basic user-specified inputs based on probability
distribution of key time elements.
12. Based on a 95% confidence interval (CI), the predicted system operating time of the
case study is 3,379 – 5,233 hours. Using the same inputs, a 50% CI predicts a system
operating time range of 4,347 – 4,963 hours. Since the estimated utilisation is highly
dependent of the accuracy and reliability of the assumptions used, it is suggested to
use a 50% CI estimate for the planned performance of the FMIPCC System.
13. Current Time utilisation models predict single-point value estimate ranging between
3,554 Hours and 5,993 Hours. These estimates are not only too wide in range, but also
do not convey any measure of confidence in the estimated value. From an engineering
and planning point of view, this is an operational risk that goes unnoticed.

Further investigations of the impact of open pit exploitation schemes was performed, to
understand their impact on FMIPCC utilisations revealed the followed:
• Panels with average length of 2,000m or below incur more utilisation losses due to
increased conveyor shifting compared to the longer panels above 2,000m.
• In all cases, the bench height of 10m incurs very significant utilisation losses due to the
high frequency of shifting of the conveyor system. 10m benches significantly impact
radial exploitation scheme more than parallel exploitation schemes.
• The impact of the panel width begins to diminish with respect to conveyor shifting
requirements with increasing panel length and widths. A panel length of 4,000m –
6,000m is suggested as optimal for 18m-20m benches
• Smaller bench geometry would easily incur significant system utilisation losses,
especially is the loading unit is of a high capacity. This implies that, for small open and
circular surface mine excavation where the lateral geometry of the mining benches is
constrained, excessive conveyor shifting could significantly affect the utilisation of the
FMIPCC.
• For longer bench panels the combined effect of bench height and the panel width is
diminished as the panel exceeds 4,000m. This re-enforces the need to not only choose
a high capacity mobile crusher but carefully set the optimal bench and mine application.
For an example, an open pit with pushback benches of no longer than 1000m and less
than 200m in width is very likely to incur very high time utilisation losses (~30% -40%)
of system operating time.
• For a parallel exploitations scheme of mining, bench panel lengths of greater of equal
to 4000m provide a good opportunity to minimise the effect of frequent shifting conveyor
and its likely impact on the FMIPCC utilisation.
• Panel length of 2000m -6000m offer the least impact on FMIPCC utilisation depending
on the maximum reach (panel width) of the loading system assembly.
• Impact 15%-16% of operating time would be a reasonable expectation for exploitation

schemes bases on a panel width of 200m. Where a longer panel width of approx. 300m
can be reached using bridge conveyors, then shorter panel length of 2000m – 3000m
may offer similar utilisation as the interaction of longer panel and widths.
• For radial exploitations scheme of mining, bench panel length of greater or equal to
5,000m would provide a good opportunity to maximise the FMIPCC utilisation by
minimising delays caused by frequent shifting of conveyors.

9.3 Statement of Original Contribution
The research objectives outlined for this research have been successfully fulfilled by:
• Providing evidence to support the hypothesis that a source of underperformance is

linked to overestimation of productive hours and throughput of FMIPCC systems.
• Providing the first work to comprehensively evaluate the effects of mine planning
variable on the overall effective utilisation of FMIPCC systems.
• Using available historical equipment performance data to document system

performance ranges along with simple statistical distributions.
• Developing the first stochastic tool for modelling effective utilisation of FMIPCC,
considering variability of the key modelling inputs.
Additionally, the research has also:
• Documented technical and operational and constraints of continuous mining systems

(lessons learnt from RWE operations in Germany)
• Developed an integrated TUM approach which implicitly considers the effect of mine
design and operational parameters on FMIPCC Time Usage.
• Organised and documented operational data from over 15 operations (across Europe,
Asia, Australia and Africa) which spans a period of 47 months (January 2011 to June
2016).
• Explored productivity and Time usage changes as a function of mine planning

parameters.
9.4 Recommendations for Future Research
This work advances an improved stochastic approach to time utilisation modelling of Fully-
mobile In-pit Crushing and Conveying systems, with the potential to extend its use to other
alternative continuous haulage systems remains. Since the approach presented in this
research was heavily fixated on time utilisation of the FMIPCC system, an opportunity exists
to extend the use of this approach and the iTUM to other alternative continuous haulage
systems. Additionally, the potential for including alternate cost modelling features could be
investigated. Figure 9-1 below shows some of key areas of FMIPCC research which have
received little attention. From the summary of research done in FMIPCC, very little is
understood relative to the energy and environmental opportunities of using IPCC for handling

of both ore and waste material, during and after core mining activities are completed. Other
areas of research that have lagged behind are (1) detailed mine design, layout planning and
scheduling, (2) capital cost and operational cost modelling and (3) analysis of actual
operational performance.
Figure 9-1 Key areas of FMIPCC research which have received little attention
Based on the literature review performed in this body of work, there is an opportunity to extend
this research work to investigate the application of FMIPCC beyond in-pit material handling
including ex-pit waste crushing and conveying system. Ex-pit waste crushing presents a good
opportunity for operations that are constrained by growing near-pit waste dumps, to maximise
resource utilisation by crushing and conveying waste far (distance in excess of 8km from) from
the nested pit areas.

List of References
Adadzi E. (2013) Stochastic-optimization of equipment productivity in multi-seam formations.

Mining Engineering. Missouri, USA: Missouri University of Science and Technology, 171.
Ananth KNS, Rakesh V and Visweswarao PK. (2013) Design and selecting the proper
conveyor belt. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology 4: 43-49.
Anonymous. (1978) How to Maintain Your Mine Belt Conveyors. The American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers.
Arputharaj MM. (2015a) Effect of equipment utilisation on Economics of mining project-a

case study. Journal Impact Factor 6: 7-13.
Arputharaj MM. (2015b) Studies on Availability and Utilisation of Mining Equipment-an

Overview. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology 6: 14-
21.
Asbjörnsson G, Bengtsson M, Hulthén E, et al. (2016) Modelling of discrete downtime in

continuous crushing operation. Minerals Engineering 98: 22-29.
Assakkaf I. (2003) Construction Planning, Equipment, and Methods. University of Maryland.

Maryland.
Atchison T and Morrison D. (2011a) In-pit crushing and conveying bench operations. Iron
Ore Conference. Perth, WA, Australia, 35-40.
Atchison T and Morrison D. (2011b) In-pit crushing and conveying bench operations. 157-
163.
Atkinson T. (1985) Stripping operations using belt conveyor systems. Southern Queensland
Conf.: The Austr. Inst. Min. Metallurgy Sydney, Australia, 87-97.
Atkinson T. (1992) Selection and sizing of excavating equipment. SME mining engineering
handbook 2: 1311-1333.
Barabadi A, Barabady J and Markeset T. (2011) Maintainability analysis considering time-

dependent and time-independent covariates. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96:
210-217.
Barabady J and Kumar U. (2008) Reliability analysis of mining equipment: A case study of a
crushing plant at Jajarm Bauxite Mine in Iran. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93:
647-653.
Bowley KB. (1963) Planning and Scheduling of Maintenance Work at the Milliken Mine.
Annual General Meeting. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum,
536-544.
Bozorgebrahimi A, Hall R and Morin M. (2005) Equipment size effects on open pit mining
performance. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment 19: 41-
56.
Bozorgebrahimi E, Hall RA and Blackwell GH. (2003) Sizing equipment for open pit mining –
a review of critical parameters. Mining Technology 112: 171-179.

Brouwer J. (1979) Computer-Scheduled Preventive Maintenance System. Society for Mining,

Metallurgy & Exploration, 903-907.
Callow D. (2006) The impact of mining conditions on mechanized mining efficiency. Journal
of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 106: 821-830.
Carnahan J, Thompson S and Webster P. (1991) Sizing segregation bins in bulk conveyor
systems with discrete loading sources. Engineering costs and production economics 21: 69-
80.
Choudaha S, Tiwari SK and Pande S. (2012) Improving Productivity of Jaw Crusher through
OTIF Delivery by Reducing Down Time. International Journal of Emerging Technology and
Advanced Engineering 2: 403-410.
Clarke MP, Denby B and Schofield D. (1990) Decision making tools for surface mine
equipment selection. Mining Science and Technology 10: 323-335.
Craighead D, C. and Adamson S. (1982) Overland conveyor systems. CIM Bulletin: 105-108.
Czaplicki JM. (2010) Mining Equipment and Systems:Theory and Practice of Exploitation and
Reliability, London: CRC Press.
De Ron AJ and Rooda JE. (2006) OEE and equipment effectiveness: an evaluation.
International Journal of Production Research 44: 4987-5003.
Dean DW and Ryder JA. (2014) An Equipment Maintenance System. Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: 291-295.
Dean M, Knights P, Kizil M, et al. (2015a) Selection and planning of fully mobile in-pit crusher
and conveyor systems for deep open pit metalliferous applications. Future Mining, AusIMM,
The University of New South Wales, Australia 146.
Dean M, Knights P, Kizil MS, et al. (2015b) Selection and Planning of Fully Mobile In-pit
Crusher and Conveyor Systems for Deep Open Pit Metalliferous Applications. AusIMM, 219–
225.
Dhillon BS. (2008a) Mining Equipment Maintenance. In: Pham H (ed) Mining Equipment
Reliability, Maintainability, and Safety. 3 ed. London: Springer London, 115-132.
Dhillon BS. (2008b) Mining equipment reliability. In: Pham H (ed) Mining Equipment
Reliability, Maintainability, and Safety. Ottawa: Springer, 57-70.
Dimitrakopoulos RG and Abdel Sabour SA. (2007) Evaluating mine plans under uncertainty:
Can the real options make a difference? Resources Policy 32: 116-125.
Dotto MS. (2014) Impact of hauler scale in mine planning. Civil and Environmental
Engineering. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta, 42-73.
Dzakpata I, Knights P, Kizil MS, et al. (2016) Truck and shovel versus in-pit conveyor
systems: a comparison of the valuable operating time. In: Aziz N and Kininmonth B (eds)
16th Coal Operators' Conference. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, 463-476.
Elerath JG. (2000) Specifying reliability in the disk drive industry: No more MTBF's. Annual
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2000 Proceedings. International Symposium on
Product Quality and Integrity (Cat. No. 00CH37055). Los Angeles, CA, USA, USA: IEEE,
194-199.

Elevli S and Elevli B. (2010) Performance measurement of mining equipments by utilizing

OEE. Acta Montanistica Slovaca 15: 95-101.
Elkington T and Durham R. (2011) Integrated open pit pushback selection and production
capacity optimization. Journal of mining science 47: 177-190.
Ewald G and Kahrger R. (1989) Development of Mobile Crusher Plants to Large-scale

Installations with throughputs of more than 3500 Tons Per Hour. Western Surface Coal
Mining. Western Surface Coal Mining, 105-114.
Fernie AD. (1993) Belt Replacement Methods for Long Conveyors. In: Evans MP (ed)
Conveyor Belt Engineering for The Coal and Mineral Mining Industries. Vancouver: Society
of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), 135-142.
Foley M. (2013a) Experts put pros and cons of in pit crushing and conveying. Australian
Journal of Mining: 22-26.
Foley M. (2013b) Sceptism for IPCC parallels Longwalls history, Sanvik says. Australian
Journal of Mining: 26-27.
Fourie GA and Dohm GCJ. (2011) Open Pit Planning and Design. In: Darling P (ed) SME
mining engineering handbook. 3 ed. Englewood, Colorado: Society For Mining, Metallurgy,
Exploration (SME), 877-901.
Fourie H. (2016) Improvement in the overall efficiency of mining equipment: A case study.
Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 116: 275-281.
Fraser K. (2011) Maintenance and reliability is strategic to most organisations: So why is

there so little empirical research? School of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical
Engineering. Mawson Lakes, SA, Australia: University of South Australia, 15-98.
Freeh E and Iles C. (1985) Experience with Operating and Controlling an In-pit Portable
Crushing and Conveying System. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 18: 153-158.
Frizzel E and Martin TW. (2011) In-Pit Crushing and Conveying. In: Darling P (ed) SME
mining engineering handbook. 3 ed. Englewood, Colorado: Society For Mining, Metallurgy,
Exploration (SME), 1343-1351.
Frizzell E and Utley R. (1983) USBM designs in-pit movable crusher based on mine
personnel survey. Mining Engineering 35: 317-321.
Frizzell EM and Martin TW. (1984a) Mine-Run-Rock and High-Angle Conveyors Increase
Mining Efficiencies. Mining Engineering.
Frizzell EM and Martin TW. (1984b) Mine-Run-Rock and High-Angle Conveyors Increase
Mining Efficiencies. Mining Engineering. 1407-1412.
Frizzell EM and Martin TW. (1992) In-pit crushing and conveying. Mining engineering
handbook. Hartman et al., Eds., Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration 1343: 1343-
1351.
Gerlach T and Mentges U. (2013) First Mobile Crushing Plants in a Brazilian Iron Ore Mine
…. and further Mobile Footsteps. In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) 2013. Cologne, 33.
Golosinski TS and Boehm F. (1986a) Belt conveyor shifting. Continuous Surface Mining
Transanctional Technical Publication: 561-568.

Golosinski TS and Boehm FG. (1986b) Selection Belt Conveyor Shifting Equipment. SME
Annual Meeting: 1-13.
Golosinski TS and Boehm FG. (1986c) Selection of belt conveyor shifting equipment. SME
Annual Meeting 282: 1832-1839.
Golosinski TS and Boehm FG. (1987) Belt Conveyor Shifting. material Transport, Continous
Surface Mining. Louisiana, USA: Society of Mining Engineers (SME), 561-568.
Gregory ET. (1972) Conveyor Belting in the 70’s. Mining Engineering. Society of Mining
Engineering (SME ), 30-40.
Grenon M and Laflamme A-J. (2011) Inter-ramp and bench design of open-pit mines: the
Portage pit case study. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 48: 1601-1615.
Grima AP, Fraser T, Hastie DB, et al. (2011) Discrete element modelling: trouble-shooting
and optimisation tool for chute design. Beltcon 16. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of
Wollongong, 1-26.
Gurgenci H, McAree R, Meehan P, et al. (2002) How to Manage Machine Duty to Sustain
High Production Rates. CMMI Congress. Cairns, QLD, Australia: Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy 135-139.
Halatchev RA and Lever PJ. (2005) Risk model of long-term production scheduling in open
pit gold mining. CRC Mining Technology Conference. Fremantle, WA, Australia: The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1-12.
Hall RA and Daneshmend LK. (2003) Reliability modelling of surface mining equipment: data
gathering and analysis methodologies. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation
and Environment 17: 139-155.
Hem P. (2012) Open Pit Mining and Quarrying. Available at:

http://technology.infomine.com/reviews/pitsandquarries/welcome.asp?view=full.
Hirwani K and Singh SK. (2013) Scheduling of Preventive Maintenance for Iron-Ore
Conveyor System. International Journal of Recent Trends in Mechanical Engineering
(IJRTME) 1: 16-19.
Humphrey J and Wagner J. (2011) Mechanical extraction, loading, and hauling. In: Darling P
(ed) SME mining engineering handbook. Englewood, Colorado: Society For Mining,
Metallurgy, Exploration (SME), 903-929.
Hustrulid WA. (2006) Open pit mine planning & design / William Hustrulid, Mark Kuchta.
2006, London: Taylor and Francis.
Hustrulid WA and Kuchta M. (1998a) Open pit mine planning & design Rotterdam: A.A.
Balkema.
Hustrulid WA and Kuchta M. (1998b) Open pit mine planning & design / William Hustrulid,
Mark Kuchta, Rotterdam: Rotterdam : A.A. Balkema.
Hustrulid WA, Kuchta M and Martin RK. (2013) Open pit mine planning & design / William
Hustrulid, Mark Kuchta, R. Martin: Boca Raton, Fla. : CRC Press
London : Taylor & Francis distributor.

Ingmarsson K. (2014) IPCC Mine Fields: Why isn't IPCC Broadly Embraced? 10 Challenges
to Overcome. In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) -2014. Johannesburg, South Africa:
ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions, 1-42.
Jaetzel T. (2016) Hambach Mine-Planning (Confidential). Niederzier, Germany: RWE Power,

27.
Jankovic A. (2015) Developments in iron ore comminution and classification technologies.

Iron Ore.
Johnsen JS. (2011) Operational Data and Maintenance Reliability. In: Johnsen JS (ed)
Canadian Mining Institute (CIM) Maintenance Engineering - Mine Operators’ (MEMO)
Conference. Saskatoon, Canada: Modular, 1-6.
Johnson M and Hoang J. (2014) Impacts of IPCC on Pit Shell Optimisation. In-Pit Crushing
and Conveying (IPCC) -2014. Johannesburg, South Africa, 28.
Kalra V, Thakur T and Pabla B. (2015) Operational Analysis of Mining Equipment in

Opencast Mine using Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE). National Conference of
Advances in Engineering (AETM '15). IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
(IOSR-JMCE) (IOSR-JMCE), 27-31.
Kansake BA and Suglo RS. (2015) Impact of Availability and Utilisation of Drill Rigs on
Production at Kanjole Minerals Limited. International Journal of Science, Environment and
Technology 4: 1524-1537.
Khorzoughi MB and Hall R. (2016) Diggability assessment in open pit mines: a review.
International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering 7: 181-209.
Kim MC and Seong PH. (2002) Reliability graph with general gates: an intuitive and practical
method for system reliability analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 78: 239-246.
Knights P. (2015) Conveyors vs. Trucks. Trucks Queensland Mining Energy Bulletin Summer
pp: 118-123 SRC - GoogleScholar.
Knights P and Oyanader P. (2005) Best-in-class maintenance benchmarks in Chilean open

pit mines. CIM Bulletin 98: 93-100.
Knights PF. (2001) Rethinking Pareto analysis: maintenance applications of logarithmic

scatterplots. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 7: 252-263.
Kok HG. (1980) The Use Of Mobile Crushers In The Minerals Industry. AIME Annual
Meeting. Las Vagas, Neveda: Society of Mining Engineers (SME), 80-91.
Kok HG. (1983) Open-Pit Haulage By Belt Conveyors. SME-AEME Mini Symposium 6.
Society of Mining Engineers (SME), 1584-1588.
Korak J. (1985) In-Pit Crushing and Conveying Systems. SME Annual Meeting. New Mexico,
USA: Society of Mining Engineers (SME), 1-14.
Kose T. (2005) Economic evaluation of optimum bench height in quarries. The Journal of
The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 105: 127-135.
Kozan E and Liu SQ. (2016) A new open-pit multi-stage mine production timetabling model
for drilling, blasting and excavating operations. 2014 Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine
Planning Symposium Perth, WA, Australia: Mining Technology, 47-53.

Krellis O and Singleton T. (1998) Mine maintenance-the cost of operation. COAL 98 - Coal
Operators Conference. Wollongong: University of Wollongong & AusIMM, 80-90.
Kumar S, Chattopadhyay G and Kumar U. (2007) Reliability improvement through alternative

designs—A case study. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92: 983-991.
Kumral M. (2012) Production planning of mines: optimisation of block sequencing and

destination. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 26: 93-103.
Kuruppu M. (2004) New technologies available to maximizing equipment reliability. MPES

2004. Wrocław, Poland: The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 455-459.
Lanke A, Hoseinie H and Ghodrati B. (2014) Mine production index (MPI): new method to
evaluate effectiveness of mining machinery. International Scholarly and Scientific Research
& Innovation 8: 755-759.
Larson KM. (1986) Use of Mobile Crushing and Conveying to Reduce Production Costs
Foster Yeoman Limited's Torr Works Quarry Somerset, England, United Kingdom. 115th
AIME Annual Meeting. AIME Society of Mining Engineers, 1-8.
Lee R. (2013) Dump Development with Spreaders. In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC)
2013. Cologne, 22.
Lee R. (2014) Understanding Mine Planning. In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) -2014.
Johannesburg, South Africa, 22.
Leonida C. (2019) IPCC Steadily Gains Traction. Engineering and Mining Journal 220: 68-
73.
Lewis MW and Steinberg L. (2001) Maintenance of mobile mine equipment in the information
age. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 7: 264-274.
Li X, Qian J and Zhao Z. (2013) Special Event Time Predication for Mine Belt Conveyor
Based on Hidden Markov Model. Journal of Software 8: 142-150.
Lodewijks G. (2002) Two decades dynamics of belt conveyor systems. Bulk Solids Handling
22: 124-132.
Loeffler FJ, Smith RC and Vaka GA. (1980) Shiftable-overland-belt-conveyors-strip-mining.

Skillings' Mining Review 69: 2-11.
Londoño JG, Knights PF and Kizil MS. (2013) Modelling of In-Pit Crusher Conveyor
alternatives. Mining Technology 122: 193-199.
Lu JZ. (2011) Practical Belt Conveyor Design Decisions. Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIMM), 1-9.
Lukacs ZW. (2001) Standardization of Definitions for Benchmarking of Availability and

Utilization. Available at: http://www.smartmines.com/benchmarking/equipbenchmark.html
Lumley G. (2005) Reducing the variability in dragline operator performance. Coal Operators'
Conference. Wollongong: University of Wollongong & the Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 97-106.

Lumley G and McKee M. (2014) Mining for efficiency. Brisbane: PricewaterhouseCoopers,

Sydney, 1-28.
Mackie D and Rider J. (1990) Better maintenance of belt conveyors through good design.
CIM Bulletin 83: 61-64.
Mahdi R and Morteza O. (2014) Determining the Most Effective Factors on Open Pit Mine
Plans and Their Interactions. Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES) 2014 20: 197-
207.
Mason J. (1960) Coal - Daily Maintenance and Complete Overhaul of Continuous Miners.
AlME Transactions (Mining),. New York: The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, 58-66.
McCarthy P. (2016) Integrated mine planning. Integrated Mine Planning - AusIMM Bulletin.
68.
McEwen R. (2008) Thirty-Year-Old Transfer Point Challenge. Case studies of Large Belt
Conveyance Projects: 89-91.
McIndoo RN and Woodle MG. (1968) Maintenance Facilities For Surface Mine Operations
(C10.0). SME Mining Handbook. The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, 683-722.
McRoberts P. (2016) Counting on the Connected Mine. Engineering and Mining Journal 217:
158-164.
Meyer T. (1988) Comparison of tripper-spreader combinations. International Journal of

Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment 2: 123-127.
Michaud L. (2008) Equipment Performance Benchmarking. Mine Planning and Equipment

Selection (MPES 2008). SurfaceMining Association for Research and Technology (SMART)
244-250.
Michaud LD. (2015) Rock Crusher History. Available at:

https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/rock-crusher-history.
MMD. (2016) A Comparison of 1,000 Tonnes Per Hour Crusher Dimensions. MMD Sizers. 1-
13.
Mohammadi M, Rai P and Gupta S. (2015) Performance measurement of mining equipment.

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering 5: 240-248.
Montenegro I and Lellis M. (2003) Planning and Modelling Maintenance Activities for. Mine
Planning and Equipment Selection. Kalgoorlie, WA: AusIMM, 245-250.
Morris P. (2008) Key Production Drivers In In-Pit Crushing And Conveying (IPCC) Studies.
Surface Mining 2008. The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Morrison D. (2007) The Use of Continuous Materials Handling Equipment at the Open Cut
Mine Face. Sinclair Knight Merz.
Morrison D. (2013) The Next Step Change In The Size Of Mining Projects. SME Annual
Meeting. SME-AEME, 1-4.

Morrison D. (2017) The full picture of IPCC system implementation; The reason why they fail.
Mining Engineering. Austrlia: Mining Engineering Magazine, 15-19.
Morriss P. (2008) Key Production Drivers in In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC)Studies.
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: pp 23-35.
Muchiri P and Pintelon L. (2008) Performance measurement using overall equipment

effectiveness (OEE): literature review and practical application discussion. International
Journal of Production Research 46: 3517-3535.
Myntti DC. (1978) An Advanced Open Pit Mining Equipment Maintenance Program. AIME
Annual General Meeting. Nenva, Colarado, USA: Society for Mining, Metallurgy &
Exploration, 1-6.
Nanjari EL and Golosinski TS. (2013) Optimising open pit mine scheduling taking into
consideration time value of money and mining restrictions. International Journal of Mining,
Reclamation and Environment 27: 156-165.
Nave ML. (2000) Condition Monitoring of Mining Belt Conveyors. Bulk Material Handling by
Conveyor Belt Ill. Pittsburgh, Pa: Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 71-78.
Nehring M and Knights P. (2014) Using Simple Block Models to compare IPCC and Truck
Shovel Planning Methods. In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) -2014. Johannesburg,
South Africa: University of Queensland, 44.
Nel S, Kizil MS and Knights PF. (2011) Improving Truck-Shovel Matching 35th APCOM
Symposium-Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Minerals Industry.
Wollongong: Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), 381-391.
Nelson PP, apos, Rourke TD, et al. (1985) TBM System Downtime - Causes, Frequency,
And Duration On Six Tunnel Projects. 1985 RETC Conference. Society for Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration, 751-770.
Newman AM, Rubio E, Caro R, et al. (2010) A Review of Operations Research in Mine
Planning. Interfaces 40: 222-245.
Nielsen I and Tyson N. (2013) Scenario Based Analysis of IPCC Trade-Offs. In-Pit Crushing
and Conveying (IPCC) 2013. Cologne, 43.
Niţescu F-M. (2012) The Influence of Increasing Reliability of Belt Conveyors Upon The
Productivity of Lignite Quarries. Annals of the University of Petroşani. Economics 12: 179-
186.
Nolan CC. (1999) Auxiliary Equipment For Reduction Of Mill Downtime. Society for Mining,
Metallurgy & Exploration.
O'Connor PDT and Kleyner A. (2012) Practical Reliability Engineering, Chichester, West
Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Oberrauner A. (2013) In Pit Crushing & Conveying in hard rock applications; Todays’
challenges – future’s chances. 23rd World Mining Congress. Montreal, Canada, 1-20.
Oberrauner A and Ritter R. (2013) IPCC-Mine Planning - How it is supposed to work. In-Pit
Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) 2013. Cologne, 28.

Olender FB. (1971) Conveyor Idlers - A Look At Engineering, Operating & Maintenance.pdf.
SME Annual Meeting: 1-26.
Ottjes JA, Lodewijks G, Systems A, et al. (2014) Reliability of Large Scale Conveyor
simulation Approach. Malaga Conference pp: 324-329.
Owen P. (1997) Condition Monitoring for Conveyor - A tool for increased productivity.
(accessed 25/09/2016).
Paraszczak J. (2000) Failure and downtime reporting-A key to improve mine equipment
performance. CIM Bulletin 93: 73-77.
Paraszczak J. (2005) Understanding and assessment of mining equipment effectiveness.

Mining Technology 114: 147-151.
Planttner J. (1986) History and Design of Mobile In-Pit Crushers For Open-pit Mines. Large
Open Pit Mining Conference. AusIMM/lE Aust Newman Combined Group, 17-21.
Plattner J. (1986) History and design of mobile in-pit Crushers for open-pit mines. In:
Planttner J (ed) Large Open Pit Mining Conference October 1986. AusIMME, 17-21.
Pundari N. (1962) Selection and maintenance of conveyor belts for transportation of coal in
mines. Department of mining Engineering. Arizona: University of Arizona, 116.
Radlowski JK. (1988) In-pit crushing and conveying as an alternative to an all truck system in
open pit mines. Mining and Mineral Process Engineering. Vancouver, Canader: University of
British Columbia, 286.
Richmond A, Atkinson T and Scoble M. (1991) Conveyor systems design and application for
surface mining. CIM Bulletin: 67-71.
Risler CB. (1958) Factors In The Selection Of Motors And Speed Reducers For Conveyor
Drives. Annual General Meeting. New York, USA: SME-AIME, 1-15.
Ritter R. (2016a) Contribution to the capacity determination of semi-mobile in-pit crushing

and conveying systems.
Ritter R. (2016b) Contribution to the Capacity Determination of Semi-Mobile In-Pit Crushing

and Conveying Systems. Freiberg: University of Freiberg, Germany, 160.
Ritter R, Herzog A and Drebenstedt C. (2014) Automated Dozer Concept Aims to Cut IPCC
Downtime. Engineering and Mining Journal 215: 52-55.
Ritter R and Stoyan D. (2018) Modelling Calendar Time Structure for Open Pit Mining
Equipment Performance Calculations. Aspects in Mining and Mineral Science 2: 220-219.
Rodovalho EdC and Cabral IE. (2014) Estimate of hourly productivity applied to elaboration
and implementation of mining plans. Rem: Revista Escola de Minas 67: 221-227.
Roman P and Daneshmend L. (2001) Integration and enhancement of mine operations and
maintenance: A structured analysis approach. CIM Bulletin 94: 58-62.
Roy SK, Bhattacharyya MM and Naikan VNA. (2001) Maintainability and reliability analysis of
a fleet of shovels. Mining Technology 110: 163-171.

Runge IC. (1998) Integrated Economics Into Mining. In: Runge IC (ed) Mining economics
and strategy. Littleton, Colorado.: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), 1-
16.
Samanta B, Sarkar B and Mukherjee SK. (2001) Reliability analysis of shovel machines used
in an open cast coal mine. Mineral Resources Engineering 10: 219-231.
Sarkhel S and Dey U. (2015) A critical study on availability and capacity utilization of side
discharge loaders for performance assessment. 4: 251-258.
Sastri SRS. (1994) Capacities and performance characteristics of jaw crushers. Minerals and
Metallurgical Processing 11: 80–86.
Sauer B. (2001) Selection of ac induction motors for mining applications. Mining Engineering
53: 47-50.
Schenkelberg F. (2015) Popular Reliability Measures and Their Problems. Available at:
http://nomtbf.com/2015/10/popular-reliability-measures-and-their-problems/.
Schenkelberg F. (2017) 10 Reasons to Avoid MTBF. Available at:

http://nomtbf.com/2017/05/10-reasons-avoid-mtbf/.
Schmitten C. (2016) Main mine equipment operation Equipment scheduling (Confidential).

Niederzier, Germany: RWE Power, 94.
Schulz R and King K. (2001) Operators use first-out fault detection to dramatically reduce
equipment downtime. SME Annual Meeting Feb. 26-28. Denver, Colorado: Society of
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), 1-12.
Schutzhold J, Benath K, Muller V, et al. (2014) Design criteria for energy efficient belt
conveyor drives. International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion. Dresden, Germany: IEEE, 1256–1263.
Seehoefer F. (2009) Fully mobile crawler-mounted crushing plant for large open-pit mines.
Coal Mine Machinery 7: 77.
Sense JJ. (1964) Determination of Equipment Availability. 32-37.
Sense JJ and Pfleider E. (1968) Equipment Scheduling - Including Utilization and Availability
(C10.2 ). In: Pfleider E (ed) Surface Mining,. The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,
and Petroleum Engineers, 659-670.
Siegrist P and Morris F. (2005) Sources of Variation in the operation of a large hydraulic
shovel. 2005 Australian Mining Technology Conference. Fremantle, Australia, 199-212.
Singh SP and Narendrula R. (2006) Factors affecting the productivity of loaders in surface
mines. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 20: 20-32.
Soltanmohammadi H, Osanloo M, Sami A, et al. (2010) Selection of practical bench height in

open pit mining using a multi-criteria decision making solution. Journal of Geology and
Mining Research 2: 48-59.
Spilker EC, Albers TJ and Lordi AC. (1980) Technical Aspects Of Overland Belt Conveyors.
SME Annual Meeting: 1-18.

Stahura R. (1992a) Conveyors you can live with: designing, installing and maintaining Clean,
stable, and efficient belt conveyor systems. SME Annual Meeting. Phoenix, Arizona: Society
of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), 1-9.
Stahura R. (1992b) Designing, installing and maintaining clean, stable and efficient conveyor
belt systems. Mining Engineering 44: 1117-1120.
Steven R. (2012) How to Increase Conveyor Capacity. Engineering and Mining Journal
(E&MJ) 213: 28-36.
Summit RA and Halomoan D. (2013) Reliability modelling for maintenance scheduling of

mobile mining equipment. ANZIAM Journal 55: 526-540.
Surtees A. (1996) Conveyor system commissioning, maintenance and failure analysis using
black box techniques. Bulk Solids Handling 16: 209-218.
Swanepoel W. (2003) The influence of bench height and equipment selection on effective
mineral resource utilization. School of Engineering, Faculty Engineering, Built Environment
and Information Technology. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 190 (pp. 180-196).
Terezopoulos NG. (1988) Continuous haulage and in-pit crushing In surface mining.
Thain L and Broumels J. (1983) Belt Conveyors - Design, Operation and Optimization.
International Material Handling.
Thompson JR. (1950) Conveyor Belt Maintenance. 658-662.
Thompson RJ. (2005) Surface Strip Coal Mining Handbook, Johannesburg: South African
Colliery Managers Association (SACMA).
Thompson RJ. (2010) Surface Strip Coal Mining Handbook. Johannesburg South African
Colliery Managers Association SACMA Mining In Loading Crushing Cycles at the Face sl
Sandvik Mining and Construction.
Thompson SD, Carnahan JV and Webster PL. (1991) Determining gathering belt capacities
for bulk conveyor networks with multiple discrete loading sources. International journal of
production economics 22: 81-91.
Tomlingson PD. (1982) EffectiveMaintenance– An Essential Ingredient of Successful Mining

Operations. 34: 1673-1676.
Tomlingson PD. (1994) Effective Maintenance Downsizing Techniques: The Starting Point.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 1156-1156.
Tomlingson PD. (2009) Equipment management: Key to equipment reliability and

productivity in mining: SME.
Tsalidis S and Dentsoras A. (1997) Application of design parameters space search for belt
conveyor design. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 10: 617-629.
Tutton D and Streck W. (2009) The application of mobile in-pit crushing and conveying in
large, hard rock open pit mines. Mining Magazine, Canada. Niagara, Canada: Mining
Magazine Congress, 28.
Tynan J. (2016a) Fundamentals of Cost Part 1: The Time Usage Model. Available at:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fundamentals-cost-time-usage-model-john-tynan.

Tynan J. (2016b) Fundamentals of Cost Part 3: Production and the Time Model. Available at:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/further-time-usage-model-john-tynan.
Ural S. (2001) The Effects of Operational Parameters on the Output Efficiency of the Bucket
Wheel Excavator. 17th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey- IMCET.
Âdâna, Turkey, 8.
Vagenas N, Kazakidis V, Scoble M, et al. (2003) Applying a Maintenance Methodology for

Excavation Reliability. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment
17: 4-19.
Vagenas N, Runciman N and Clément SR. (1997) A methodology for maintenance analysis
of mining equipment. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment
11: 33-40.
Velmurugan G, Palaniswamy E, Sambathkumar M, et al. (2014) Conveyor Belt Troubles

(Bulk Material Handling). International Journal of Emerging Engineering Research and
Technology 2: 21-30.
Workman-Davies CL and Van Loggerenberg BJ. (2003) Examining the Concept of Capacity
Utilisation and Efficiency as Applied to Mining Equipment. Mine Planning and Equipment
Selection (MPES). Kalgoorlie, WA, Australia: The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 369-370.
Yilmaz E. (2014) Field monitoring and performance evaluation of crushing plant operation.
Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing 50: 615-630.
Yingkui G and Jing L. (2012) Multi-State System Reliability: A New and Systematic Review.
Procedia Engineering 29: 531-536.
Zammori F, Braglia M and Frosolini M. (2011) Stochastic overall equipment effectiveness.

International Journal of Production Research 49: 6469-6490.
Zhao L. (2011) Typical Failure Analysis and Processing of Belt Conveyor. Procedia
Engineering 26: 942-946.
Zhao L and Lin Y. (2011) Typical failure analysis and processing of belt conveyor. Procedia
Engineering 26: 942-946.
Zimroz R and Król R. (2009) Failure analysis of belt conveyor systems for condition
monitoring purposes. Mining Science 128: 255-270.

Thesis Title - Time Utilisation Modelling of FMIPCC Systems

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Thesis Title - Time Utilisation Modelling of FMIPCC Systems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time Utilisation Modelling of Fully Mobile

In-Pit Crushing and Conveying Systems

Mr. Isaac Kwasi Dzakpata

Professor Peter Knights (Principal)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

I. K. Dzakpata (2020) iii

Publications included in this thesis

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

Other publications during candidature

Contributions by others to the thesis

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Thank you all.

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

I dedicate this work to Eli (my best friend),

I. K. Dzakpata (2020) vii

I. K. Dzakpata (2020) viii

3.2.12 Belt Conveyor Shifting – Planning, Preparation and Implementation ...................... 75

6.2 USE OF UNCERTAINTY MODELLING TOOL ..................................................................................... 134

I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xii

I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xiii

I. K. Dzakpata (2020) xiv

Key Terms: Fully-Mobile, In-pit Crusher, Utilisation, Stochastic, Variable

1.1 Trends in In-pit Crushing Conveying

1.2 Types of In-pit Crushing Conveying Systems

1.3 Limited Know-how and Understanding of FMIPCC

Year State Mine Type Capacity (t/h)

1.4 Current Research Gaps

1.5 The Research Questions

This research will seek to provide answers to the following questions:

1.6 Aim of Research

1.7 Research Methodology

1.8 Contribution of Research

The significance of this research work is to:

1.9 Structure of the thesis

Chapter 1 provides an introduction and framework of the thesis. It presents a background of

Chapter 3 provides a catalogue of technical and operational constraints of In-pit conveying

Key Terms: Fully-Mobile, In-pit Crusher, Utilisation, In-pit crusher

2. Current State of FMIPCC Research

2.1 Review of Literature on FMIPCC

Rank Relevance Description/Classification

1 Direct - High Direct relation to FMIPCC as a unique/complete mining system

3 Indirect Indirect relation to sub-component of other continuous mining systems

Table 2-2 catalogue of reviewed literature categories by subject matter groups

Subject Area List of References

Energy and (Raaz and Mentges, 2011; Beavers, 2013)

2.1.1 Historical background of In-pit Crushing in Mining

Figure 2-1 Global historic installation of FMIPCC system since 1956

2.1.2 Brief History of Fully Mobile In-Pit Crusher Conveyor in Australia

Year Mine Commodity Type of In-pit Crusher Capacity (t/h)

2.1.3 System Design, Selection and Configuration

Functional Design & Sizing & Technical Operational

Figure 2-2 History of FMIPCC installations in Australia since 1971

2.1.4 Mine Design, Layout, Planning and Scheduling

Open Pit Bench Sequencing Access & Material

• An understanding of the impact of key mine planning variables on the effective

2.1.5 System Maintenance, Reliability and Safety

Equipment System MTTR/MTBF System

2.1.6 System Performance, Productivity and Utilisation

Table 2-7 Ranking of literature on FMIPCC performance, productivity and utilisation

System Time Operation Performance

Table 2-8 Comparative study of SMIPCC and FMIPCC (Morriss, 2008)

Time Efficiency SMIPCC FMIPCC