MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR

DRAGLINES AND DOZERS AT

SURFACE COAL MINES
26 August 2015
Sedat Esen – Specialist Technical Services Engineer, Orica

Document reference: FRAGBLAST11

INTRODUCTION 3
CASE STUDY 1 – MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR
DRAGLINES 6
CASE STUDY 2 – MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR
DOZERS 16
CASE STUDY 3 – MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR
DOZERS 20
CONCLUSIONS 23

2 © Orica Limited Group

INTRODUCTION
• Challenges with open cut coal mining:
– Coal prices plunging over the last three years
– Reducing the cost of production:
› Reduce cost inputs or
› Improve productivity
• We are looking at improving productivity.
• Three case studies:
– One Dragline operation:
– Two dozer operations

3 © Orica Limited Group

INTRODUCTION
IMPROVING PRODUCTIVITY
• Case study 1:
– Changing blast parameters for a dragline operation for muckpile
shaping
› Increased cast;
› Reduced rehandle;
› Reduced the need for dozers to aid in pad preparation.
• Case study 2:
– Changing blast parameters for a dozer operation for muckpile
shaping
› Increased cast;
› Increased centre of mass displacement;
› Suitable profile for dozer.
• Case study 3:
– Maximise the dozer usage over truck & shovel

4 © Orica Limited Group

INTRODUCTION
ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES
• SHOTPlus5™ blast design software
• Electronic Blasting System (i-kon™ II, uni tronic™ )
• A software for muckpile shaping (DMC)

5 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR DRAGLINES
• Aim: improve the productivity of the main digging equipment.

• Project scope:
– Establish a good QA/QC process;
– Improved muckpile profile (optimum height of ~28m) for reducing
rehandle and improving advance along strip;
– Increased cast percentage;
– Identify the coal loss and implement methods to reduce coal loss; and
– Implement changes to the drill and blast process with a continuous
improvement imperative.

6 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
BLAST DESIGN PARAMETERS
• Hole diameter : 251mm;
• Burden : 7.5m;
• Spacing : 14m;
• Blasthole angle : 15 degrees;
• Hole depths : 30-45m; and
• Full strip fired.
• Weathered interbedded sandstone overlying sandstone/siltstone layers.

7 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING MUCKPILE PROFILES
• DMC was calibrated using the base case (Measured cast: 23.1%)

8 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING MUCKPILE PROFILES

Base
Burden (m) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Case
Row 1 7.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5
Row 2 7.5 5.5 6.0 6.0 5.5
Row 3 7.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 5.5
Row 4 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.0
Row 5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.0
Row 6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.5
Row 7 6.7 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.0
Row 8 5.2 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.0
Row 9 7.5
Average Burden(m) 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 6.3
Spacing (m) 14.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 11.0
Powder Factor
0.49 0.53 0.53 0.57 0.70
(kg/m3)

9 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING MUCKPILE PROFILES
• Case 1 was decided for implementation.

Base case

10 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING MUCKPILE PROFILES
• Key changes with Case 1:
– Blast pattern, bulk product choices, electronic blasting (timing)
Pre QA/QC
Base Case Actual Case 1
process

Spacing (m) 14 14 13

Powder
Factor 0.49 0.49 0.53
(kg/m3)
Initiation
Non-electric Electronic Electronic
System

Mostly FortanTM Mostly FortanTM Mix of FortanTM Coal 12

Bulk product
Coal 12 Coal 12 and AquachargeTM Coal

Actual Cast
21.1 23.1 25.1
(%)

Modelled cast %: 25.5

11 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
RESULTS
• 4% increase in cast;
• Improved muckpile
profile that reduced
rehandle significantly
(from 45% to 30%);
• Dragline productivity
bcm/h was similar;
• Improved dragline rate
of advance (two weeks
ahead of schedule).

12 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING FOR THE DRAGLINE ENTRY –
SIDES OF THE STRIP

• Site asked for a profile that looks like a ramp (ten degrees, 100mx35m)
at the end of the strip.

Dragline
entry

13 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING FOR THE DRAGLINE ENTRY –
SIDES OF THE STRIP
• Three cases:
– Case 1: Stand-up timing;
– Case 2: Stand-up timing and 5m air deck; and
– Case 3: Stand-up timing and 10m air deck.

Base case

14 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING FOR THE DRAGLINE ENTRY –
SIDES OF THE STRIP
• First half of the ramp area: 10m air deck and stand-up timing.
• The rest: 5m air deck and stand-up timing.
• Site was happy with the result: reduced dozer work, less downtime for
dragline

Dragline
access

15 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 1
MODELLING FOR THE DRAGLINE ENTRY –
MIDDLE OF THE STRIP
• Similar approach.
• Modelling and electronic blasting timing were essential to the delivery.

Dragline
access

16 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 2
MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR DOZERS
• 100% dozer operation;
• Strip width: 50m
• Strip length: 200-800m
• Hole diameter: 229mm
• Hole angle: 20 degree
• Average hole length: 17m
• 7 rows
• Design powder factor: 0.33 kg/m3
• Spacing: 10m
• Bulk product: ANFO and Fortan™ Coal 11 (10-40%)

17 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 2
• Key requirement: Cost reduction through
– increased cast % at design powder factor
– improved dozer muckpile profile for better dozer performance

• Project scope:
– Baselining of the non-electric blasts
– Trial and data collection process for electronic (UT600) blasts
– Report all data collected

18 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 2
RESULTS

19 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 2
KEY FINDINGS
• Muckpile profile was key to making the dozer push more effective.
• Uni tronic™ 600 Electronic Blasting System was essential to achieve
the required results.

20 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 3
MUCKPILE SHAPING FOR DOZERS
• 25% of the overburden is blasted.
• Prior to the project, blasting was carried out for truck and shovel.
• Site asked if we can design the blasts for their dozers to reduce the total
mining cost.
• Project scope:
– At the absence of the muckpile profile, we started using a calibrated
DMC model for a similar operation in the same coal basin.
– Pre-blast and post-blast surveys;
– TOC identification;
– Design service;
– Baseline hole diameter: 165mm, hole length: 17m.

21 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 3
RESULTS

Measured cast %: 11.4

22 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 3
RESULTS

Hole diameter Face angle Hole angle Cast

(mm) (%)
Base Case 165 60 10 11.4
(Calibrated)

Simulation 1 165 70 10 13.6

Simulation 2 165 70 20 16.9

Simulation 3 229 70 20 20.4

23 © Orica Limited Group

CASE STUDY 3
RESULTS
• Cast percentage: 10.1-
13.2% using 165mm drills
• Centre of mass
movement: 10.1-13.5m
• Excellent fragmentation
• Good dozing productivity
(operator feedback)
• Site happy with the cost
reduction program.

24 © Orica Limited Group

CONCLUSIONS
• Reduction in the total cost of mining with the help of productivity
improvements;
• Improved understanding of the post-blast muckpile profile;
• Muckpile profiles are unique to each site;
• Blast Movement Modelling;
• Electronic blasting systems are providing great flexibility with the timing
required in any muckpile shaping project.

25 © Orica Limited Group