Determination of semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying (SMIPCC) system performance

Abstract

In-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) systems are currently receiving more attention as a result of the existing characteristics of open-pit mining operations and what is likely to happen in the future. The use of trucks and shovels for loading and hauling has been used as a dominant system in open-pit and open-cast mines due to their large-scale operations compared with other mining methods. Presently, it has become more required than ever to minimise the cost of truck haulage, which reports for approximately half of the operating costs of the mining operation. Therefore, trucking costs can be considerably minimised by installing the crushers inside the pits. With the increased popularity of IPCC systems, it is necessary to investigate the overall performance and productivity of the systems. This paper employs mine productivity index (MPi) to determine the productivity of semi-mobile IPCC. From this study, it is evident that a reduction of number of loading equipment necessitated an increase in shovel’s bucket size and reduction of the trucks by 33%. Additionally, this study found that the scenario with more than one loading equipment has a higher MPi of 71% compared with the scenario with one loading equipment having an MPi of 67%. Further, SMIPCC scenarios record better MPi compared with the current truck-shovel transportation system which has an MPi of 67.14%.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. Abbaspour H, Drebenstedt C (2019a) IPCC systems as a bulk material handling method in mines : a review regarding the technical , economic , environmental , Safety, and Social Factors. VIII International Symposium of Young Researchers TRANSPORT PROBLEMS, June 2019, Katowice, Poland

  2. Abbaspour H, Drebenstedt C (2019b) Truck-shovel vs IPCC systems : a technical evaluation in open pit mines, 1–14

  3. Anvari F, Edwards R, Starr A (2010) Methodology and theory evaluation of overall equipment effectiveness based on market. J Qual Maint Eng 16(3):256–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511011072907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arputharaj MEM (2015) Studies on availability and utilisation of mining equipmente - an overview. International Journal of Advanced Research in. Eng Technol 6(3):14–21

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atchison T, Morrison D (2011) In-pit crushing and conveying bench operations’. In: Proceedings of the tenth Iron Ore Conference, July 2011. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Perth, pp 123–131

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chadwick J (2010) New IPCC ideas. International Mining, 33-41

  7. Dean M, Knights P, Kizil MS, Nehring M (2015) Selection and planning of fully mobile in-pit crusher and conveyor systems for deep open pit metalliferous applications. AusIMM 2015 3rd International Future Mining Conference, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 4-6 Nov 2015. VIC, Australia: AusIMM

  8. Dzakpata I, Aminossadati SM, Kizil MS, Knights P, Nehring M (2016) Truck and shovel versus in-pit conveyor systems: a comparison of valuable operating time. In Proceedings of the 16th Coal Operators’ Conference, University of Wollongong, 10-12 Feb, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 463-476

  9. Elevli S, Elevli B (2010) Performance measurement of mining equipments by utilizing OEE. Acta Montan Slovaca 15(2):95–101

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ey (2014) Productivity in mining. Ey.Com, 1–8

  11. Fourie H (2016) Improvement in the overall efficiency of mining equipment: a case study. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 116(3):275–281

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hay E, Nehing M, Knights P, Kizil MS (2019) Ultimate pit limit determination for semi mobile in-pit crushing and conveying system: a case study. Int J Min Reclam Environ:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2019.1639006

  13. Konak G, Onur AH, Karakus D (2007) Selection of the optimum in-pit crusher location for an aggregate producer. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 107(3):161–166

    Google Scholar 

  14. Londoño JG, Knights PF, Kizil MS (2013) Modelling of in-pit crusher conveyor alternatives. Trans Instit Min Metall Section A Min Technol 122(4):193–199. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743286313Y.0000000048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lowrie RL (2009) SME Mining Reference Handbook. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. XVI, 448. ISBN 978-087335-297-0

  16. Mohammadi M, Rai P, Gupta S (2015) Performance measurement of mining equipment. Int J Emerg Technol Adv Eng 5(7):240–248

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mohammadi M, Rai P, Gupta S (2017) Performance evaluation of bucket based excavating, loading and transport (BELT) equipment - an OEE approach. Arch Min Sci 62(1):105–120. https://doi.org/10.1515/amsc-2017-0008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Morriss P (2008) Key production drivers in in-pit crushing and conveying (Ipcc) studies. South Afr Instit Min Metallurgy (Surface Mining) 2008:23–34

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nakajima S (1988) Introduction to TPM: total productive maintenance. Productivity Press, Inc., Cambridge, p 129

    Google Scholar 

  20. Norgate T, Haque N (2013) The greenhouse gas impact of IPCC and ore-sorting technologies. Miner Eng 42:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pekol A (2019) Evaluation and risk analysis of open-pit mining operations. BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte 164(6):232–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-019-0854-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pitkin GN (2014) Crushing and conveying - a new mining technique for the Hunter Valley. AusIMM Bull, (5)

  23. Rahmanpour M, Osanloo M, Adibee N, AkbarpourShirazi M (2014) An approach to locate an in pit crusher in open pit mines. Int J Eng-Trans C 27:1475

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rajput HS, Jayaswal P (2012) A Total Productive maintenance (tpm) approach to improve overall equipment efficiency. Int J Mod Eng Res 2(6):4383–4386

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ritter R (2016) Contribution to the capacity determination of semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying systems. PhD thesis, the Faculty of Geosciences, Geoengineering and Mining of the Technische Universität Bergakademie Freibergpp, 1–176

  26. Sağlam B, Bettemir ÖH (2018) Estimation of duration of earthwork with backhoe excavator by Monte Carlo Simulation. Journal of Construction Engineering. Manag Innov 1(2):85–94. https://doi.org/10.31462/jcemi.2018.01085094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Samanta B, Banerjee J (2004) Improving productivity of mining machinery through total productive managemenT, theammj.com/262pdf/tpmforproductivity.pd, 2004

  28. Sturgul JR (1987) How to determine the optimum location of in-pit movable crushers. International. J Mining Geol Eng Kluwer Acad Publ 5(2):143–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01560872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tavakoli M, Hashemi A, Moosakazemi F (2011) Review of the in-pit crushing and conveying (IPCC) system and its case study in copper industry. First World Copper Congress 11-14:2011

    Google Scholar 

  30. Terezopoulos NG (1988) Continuous haulage and in-pit crushing in surface mining. Min Sci Technol 7(3):253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9031(88)90777-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tonge J (2017) The implications of improved conveyor technology on in-pit crusher conveyor systems. Bachelor's Thesis, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland.https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2018.296

  32. Utley RW (2011) In-pit crushing. In: SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 3rd edn. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc, USA, pp 941–956

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Mombasa Cement Limited, Kenya for the provision of data used in this study.

Funding

The work reported in this paper is part of an MSc research study in the School of Mines and Engineering at Taita Taveta University. Financial support obtained from the Kenyan German Centre for Mining, Environmental Engineering and Resource Management (CEMEREM) for the MSc study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dickson Wachira.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Murat Karakus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wachira, D., Githiria, J., Onifade, M. et al. Determination of semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying (SMIPCC) system performance. Arab J Geosci 14, 297 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-06550-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Availability
  • Mine productivity index
  • Performance
  • Semi-mobile in-pit crushing and conveying (SMIPCC)
  • Utilisation