Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 1295–1307 | Cite as

The Effect of Important Fragmented Rock Properties on the Penetration Rate of Loader Bucket

  • S. M. Mahdi Mirabedi
  • A. Khodaiari
  • A. Jafari
  • M. Yavari
Original paper


Loading and haulage costs make up the majority of the expenses—almost half of its total costs at many mines. At many mines, loading and haulage costs make up the majority of the expenses—almost half of its total costs, in fact. Many researchers believe that the properties of fragmented rock are one of the most important factors that affect the productivity of loading machines. The purpose of this paper is to study the effects of fragmented rock properties on the penetration rate of a loader’s bucket as one of the parameters of loading productivity. The study will be done using a simulated loader in the laboratory. For the study, 25 samples of fragmented rock with previously defined Rosin–Rammler’s size-distribution function, including the defined mean particle size (d50) and uniformity index (n), were built. Then, bulk-specific gravity and angle of repose of the samples were measured using standard laboratory tests. The relation of n and d50 and the measured properties of the samples with each other and with the penetration rate of the loader’s bucket were analysed. The results showed high correlation between pre-determined size distribution parameters and the measured properties of fragmented rock, including bulk-specific gravity and angle of repose. Also, the penetration rate is inversely correlated to the uniformity index, the angle of repose, and consequently, internal friction angle. And, it is in direct correlation with the mean particle size of the fragmented rocks and bulk specific gravity. It is obvious from the results that uniformity has more effect on the penetration rate than the mean particle size does.


Fragmented rock Size distribution Bulk-specific gravity Angle of repose Internal friction angle Loader bucket penetration rate Uniformity Mean particle size 


  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (2000) Stanndard test method for measuring the angle of repose of free-flowing mold powders, C pp 1444–14499Google Scholar
  2. Blair D (2004) Curve-fitting schemes for fragmentation data. In: Fragblast conferenceGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunton I, Thornton D, Hodson R, Sprott D (2003) Impact of blast fragmentation on hydraulic excavator dig dime. In: Proceeding of fifth large open pit mining conferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Chung SH, Lee HN, Hunter CJ (1991) A blast design analysis for optimizing productivity at inco limited’s thompson open pit. Int Soc Explos Eng 02:119Google Scholar
  5. Doktan M (2001) Impact of blast fragmentation on truck shovel fleet performance. 17th International mining congress and exhibition of Turkey-IMCET, p 375Google Scholar
  6. Ghazikalayeh AR, Amirafshari M, Mkrchyan H, Taji M (2013) Application of fuzzy hybrid analytic network process in equipment selection of open-pit metal mines. Int J Res Ind Eng 2:35–46Google Scholar
  7. Hanspal S, Scoble M, Lizotte Y (1995) Anatomy of a blast muckpile: influence on loading machine performance. Int Soc Explos Eng, p 57Google Scholar
  8. Hendricks C, Scoble M, Peck J (1989) Performance monitoring of electric mining shovels. Inst Min Metall 98:A151–A159Google Scholar
  9. Hustrulid W, Kuchta M, Martin R (2013) Open pit mine planning and design, two volume set & CD-ROM pack, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Baca RatonGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahriman A, Özer Ü, Karadogan A, Özdemir K, Tuncer G, Kaya E (2008) Effect of particle size distribution on loading performance. Int Soc Explos Eng 34:279Google Scholar
  11. MacKenzie A (1967) Optimum blasting. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual minnesota mining symposiumGoogle Scholar
  12. McGill MD, Freadrich J (1994) The effect of fragmentation on loader productivity. Int Soc Explos Eng, p 173Google Scholar
  13. Meulenkamp F, Alvarez M (1999) Grima, application of neural networks for the prediction of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oraee K, Asi B (2006) Use of solution strategy in open cast mining truck. In: 5th international symposium on mine planning and designGoogle Scholar
  15. Osanloo M, Hekmat A (2005) Prediction of shovel productivity in the Gol-E-Gohar iron mine. J Min Sci 41:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Özdemir K, Tuncer G, Kahriman A, Özer Ü, Karadogan A (2007) The relation between excavator bucket loading time and particle size distribution of shot rock. Int Soc Explos Eng 33:303Google Scholar
  17. Sanchidrian J, Ouchterlony F, Moser P, Seggara P, Lopez L (2011) On loader productivity: rock strength and explosive energy in metal mining. In: 6th EFEE world conference on explosives and blasting, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  18. Sarı M, Lever P (2007) Effect of blasted rock particle size on excavation machine loading performance. In: 20th intenational mining congress and exhibition of Turkey, ISBN, no. ISBN, pp 978–9944Google Scholar
  19. Sarkar K, Tiwary A, Singh T (2010) Estimation of strength parameters of rock using artificial neural networks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 69:599–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scoble MJ, Lizotte Y, Hendricks C, Mohanty B (1991) Fragmentation interaction with underground mining systems and productivity. Int Soc Explos Eng, p 79Google Scholar
  21. Singh S, Narendrula R (2005) Characteristics of the blasted muck and the loaders’ productivity. In: International socity of explosive engineering, 31st international conference on explosives and blasting techniques, Orlando, FL, USA, pp 347–353Google Scholar
  22. Singh S, Narendrula R (2006) Factors affecting the productivity of loaders in surface mines. Int J Min Reclam Environ 20:20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh S, Yalchin T (2002) Effect of muck sizes distribution on scooping operations. Int Soc Explos Eng 1:315Google Scholar
  24. Singh S, Yalchin T, Glogger M, Narendrula R (2003) interactions between the size distribution of the muck and the loading equipment. In: Proceeding of 4th international Conference on computer applications in mineral industries, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh S, Narendrula R, Duffy D (2005) Influence of blasted muck on the performance of loading equipment. In: Brighton conference proceeding, p 347Google Scholar
  26. Terzaghi K, Peck R, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  27. Tosun A, Konak G (2013) Estimation of loader capacity based on the heap size distribution calculated by using numerical models. J Min Sci 49:441–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tosun A, Konak G, Karakus D, Onur A, Toprak T (2012) Investigation of the relationship between blasting pile density and loader productivity. Rock Fragm Blast Fragblast 10:385CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Mahdi Mirabedi
    • 1
  • A. Khodaiari
    • 1
  • A. Jafari
    • 1
  • M. Yavari
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Mining EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations