Determination of Transition Time from Truck-Shovel to an IPCC System Considering Economic Viewpoint by System Dynamics Modelling

  • Hossein AbbaspourEmail author
  • Carsten Drebenstedt
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering book series (SSGG)


The conventional transportation system of mining projects is one of the significant parts of mining designs, which is considered as the most costly part of the mining operation with approximately 30%–50% of the total operating costs. Accordingly, it is worth to rethink about other transportation system alternatives that have not been properly investigated. Fixed (FIPCC), Semi-Fixed (SFIPCC), Semi-Mobile (SMIPCC) and Fully Mobile In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (FMIPCC) systems, as the crushing and transportation methods in mines, can be occasionally an alternative for Truck-Shovel system. Despite the general thinking about the high CAPEX of these systems, they impose much lower OPEX to the project. This finding is investigated in the literature but in a static way, which the time is not considered through evaluation. This study presents an economic comparison of Truck-Shovel and IPCC systems in a dynamic condition by system dynamics modeling and defining an economic index (EcI) that allows the designers to have better understanding about the whole of the project. As a result, it was shown whereas Truck-Shovel system is preferable at the first five years of the project, FMIPCC system shows a higher economic index in the rest of the mine’s life.


Truck-Shovel system In-Pit Crushing and Conveying (IPCC) system Economic index (EcI) System dynamics modelling 



This study was supported by “Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit”.


  1. 1.
    Kammerer, B.A.: In-pit crushing and conveying system at Bingham Canyon Mine. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2(2), 143–147 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Radlowski, J.K.: In-pit crushing and conveying as an alternative to an all truck system in open pit mines. The University of British Columbia, Cracow, Poland (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martin, T.W.: Large rock conveying systems and their application in open pit mines. In: Mini Sysmposium: Open Pit Haulage Systems in the 80’s, SME AIME Anuual Meeting, Chicago (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Utley, R.W.: Component analysis for movable in-pit crushers. In: AIME 44th Annual Mining Symposium, 56th Annual Meeting of the Minnesota Section, Dulluth, Minn (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Terezopoulos, N.: Continuous haulage and in-pit crushing in surface mining. Min. Sci. Technol. 7(3), 253–263 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lieberwirth, H.: Economic advantages of belt conveying in open-pit mining. In: Mining Latin America, pp. 279–295. Springer, Dordrecht (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Inthavongsa, I., Drebenstedt, C., Bongaerts, J., Sontamino, P.: Real options decision framework: strategic operating policies for open pit mine planning. Resour. Policy 47, 142–153 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abbaspour, H., Drebenstedt, C., Badroddin, M., Maghaminik, A.: Optimized design of drilling and blasting operations in open pit mines under technical and economic uncertainties by system dynamic modelling. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 28, 839–848 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abbaspour, H., Drebenstedt, C., Dindarloo, S.R.: Evaluation of safety and social indexes in the selection of transportation system alternatives (Truck-Shovel and IPCCs) in open pit mines. Saf. Sci. 108, 1–12 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abbaspour, H., Drebenstedt, C.: Environmental comparison of different transportation systems—Truck-Shovel and IPCCs—in open-pit mines by system dynamic modeling. In: Widzyk-Capehar, E., Hekmat, A., Singhal, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection - MPES 2018, pp. 287–305. Springer Nature, Switzerland (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abbaspour, H., Drebenstedt, C.: IPCC systems as a bulk material handling method in mines: a review regarding the technical, economic, environmental, safety and social factors. In: Sladkowski, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium of Young Researchers Transport Problems 2019, pp. 785–796. The Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hustrulid, W., Kuchta, M., Martin, R.: Open Pit Mine Planning and Design. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Mining and Special Civil EngineeringFreiberg University of Mining and TechnologyFreibergGermany

Personalised recommendations