See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320807074

Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations

Chapter  in  Green Energy and Technology · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54199-0_7

CITATIONS READS

6 8,028

4 authors, including:

Ali Soofastaei P. Knights

VALE The University of Queensland
69 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   676 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

M. S. Kizil
The University of Queensland
110 PUBLICATIONS   936 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Mining VR Group View project

A study of the selection and rigour of failure analysis methodology effecting the accuracy and expediency of the decision-making process. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Soofastaei on 05 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 7
Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling
Operations

Ali Soofastaei, Elnaz Karimpour, Peter Knights and Mehmet Kizil

Abstract Approximately, 40% of the total energy used in surface mines is related
to diesel consumption. Truck haulage is responsible for a majority of this. This
chapter introduces the principal equipment used to load and haul materials in mines,
namely trucks, electric rope shovels, hydraulic excavators and crushing and con-
veying systems. The chapter discusses factors that contribute to the energy-efficient
operation of such equipment. Based on gross weight hauled per unit weight of
payload, belt conveyors appear to be the most energy-efficient means of trans-
porting material in surface mines. However, a number of factors, including large
upfront capital expenditure and limited ability to relocate and scale up belt
capacities, currently restrict their widespread applicability.

Keywords Energy
Efficiency
Mining
Loading
Hauling

7.1 Introduction

In the 2012–2013 financial year, some 603 PJ of energy was consumed in the
mining and quarrying industry in Australia. The three biggest consumers of energy
in the Australian mining industry are as follows (in decreasing order) [1]:

A. Soofastaei (&)
E. Karimpour
P. Knights
M. Kizil

The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
e-mail: ali@soofastaei.net
E. Karimpour
e-mail: elnazkarimpoor85@gmail.com
P. Knights
e-mail: p.knights@uq.edu.au
M. Kizil
e-mail: m.kizil@uq.edu.au

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018 121

K. Awuah-Offei (ed.), Energy Efficiency in the Minerals Industry, Green Energy
and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54199-0_7
122 A. Soofastaei et al.

• Crushing and grinding (40.5%),

• Materials handling (20.6%), and
• Mine ventilation (10.1%)—underground mines only.
This chapter provides an overview of the current knowledge on energy used for
materials handling during the extraction phase of mining operations and identifies
opportunities to reduce energy consumption associated with these processes. The
mining method (shovel/truck, conveyor, etc.) and associated equipment dictate the
quantity of energy consumed in any mining operation. In the following, the dis-
cussion is organised based on the type equipment.

7.2 Haul Trucks

Approximately, 40% of the total energy used in surface mines relates to diesel
consumption [2]. Truck haulage is responsible for a majority of this diesel con-
sumption [3]. Haul trucks are used in combination with other equipment such as
excavators, diggers and loaders, depending on the production capacity and site
layout.
Trucks in surface mines are used to haul ore and overburden from the pit to a
stockpile, dump site or the next stage of a mining process. Trucks are expensive to
purchase, operate and maintain and use a major proportion of diesel in surface
mines.
Many parameters, such as production rate, age and maintenance of the vehicle,
operator practices, payload, speed, cycle time, mine layout, mine plan, idle time,
tyre wear, rolling resistance, dumpsite design, engine operating, parameters and
transmission shift patterns, affect the productivity of trucks in surface mining. This
knowledge can be merged into mine plan costing and design procedures to improve
effective process control. The major truck types used in surface mining are shown in
Fig. 7.1.

7.2.1 Types of Trucks

There are three main types of trucks: rear, bottom and articulated dump trucks.
In rear dump trucks, the tray is mounted on the truck frame. Dumping is carried
out by a hydraulic hoist system raising the tray. These are very flexible units
capable of handling all types of material. They have good grade ability and are
easily manoeuvred [5]. They are the most common haulage truck globally (see
Fig. 7.2).
The standard rear dump haul truck has two axles with two wheels on the front
axle and four wheels on the rear axle. The rear wheels are usually the only ones
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 123

Haul Truck

Dumping Steering Drive Axles Power Train

Front Wheel Steer Rear Wheel Mechanical

Rear Dump Two Axles

Articulated Steer All Wheel Three Axles Electrical

Bottom Dump
Centre Wheel More Than Three Axles

Fig. 7.1 Haul truck classifications [4]

Fig. 7.2 Rear dump truck

driven. Three-axle trucks are less common in mines but are used for on/off highway
hauls.
Bottom dump trucks provide faster dump times and higher payload for the same
engine horsepower, but at the cost of grade ability and manoeuvrability. This type
of truck has three axles, two tyres in front, four drive tyres at the rear of the tractor,
and four tyres on the rear of the trailer (see Fig. 7.3) [5].
In general, they are used in strip coal mines where the ramp gradients are kept at
five percent or less.
Articulated dump trucks tend to be smaller and of lighter construction.
Maximum size is in the order of 50 t (see Fig. 7.4).
The main application of this type of trucks is in wet and poor road conditions.
Their lighter construction results in a shorter life [5].
Some advantages and disadvantages of the types of trucks mentioned above
have been tabulated in Table 7.1.
124 A. Soofastaei et al.

Fig. 7.3 Bottom dump truck

Fig. 7.4 Articulated dump truck

7.2.2 Effective Parameters on Truck Productivity

Table 7.2 shows some parameters that influence haul truck productivity in mines.

7.2.3 Haul Truck Fuel Consumption

Haul truck fuel consumption is a function of various parameters, the most signif-
icant of which have been identified and categorised into six main groups (see
Fig. 7.5).
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 125

Table 7.1 Advantages and disadvantages of popular mine haul trucks [4]
Truck type Advantages Disadvantages
Rear dump • Mobile and flexible in • Require good road surface for efficient
truck moving to other working operation and tyre protection
areas • Higher operating labour component (Compared
• Handle a range of material to conveyors)
properties and sizes
• Medium transport distance
• Can effectively operate
gradients up to 12%
Bottom • Higher speed on flat hauls • Better on flatter gradients <5%
dump truck • Mobile and flexible in • Require good roads
moving around working • Requires a drive over dump hopper to discharge
area • Suited to lighter and finer materials due to light
trailer and dump doors (e.g. Coal, Bauxite)
Articulated • Can handle difficult floor • May require higher maintenance
dump truck conditions—rough, boggy • Try can roll sideways safety
• Handle a range of material • Higher capital cost/capacity
properties and sizes
• Can handle steeper
gradients

Table 7.2 Effective parameters on haul truck productivity [4]

Parameter Detail
Truck model and Each type and model of the truck has special characteristics, and these
type can affect haul truck productivity
Material Material which is hauled
Bucket density The density of the material being loaded
Swell factor The swell factor is the volume increase after the material has been
disturbed
Bucket load Estimated bucket load that the loading unit can carry in BCM
Calculated passes Estimate of how many bucket loads (passes) is required to fill the truck
to fill to its nominal capacity
Calculated truck Estimated average payload that the truck will carry after considering all
payload the above factors
Load factor Percentage of truck fill compared to its nominal or rated payload
Time per pass Time taken for a loading unit to complete one pass
Load time Time taken to load the truck
Spot time The time during which the loading unit has the bucket in place to dump,
but is waiting for the truck to move into position. Spot time will depend
on the truck drivers’ ability and the system of loading. Double-side
loading should almost eliminate spot time
(continued)
126 A. Soofastaei et al.

Table 7.2 (continued)

Parameter Detail
Dump time Time taken for the truck to manoeuvre and dump its load either at a
crusher or dump
Fixed time The sum of load, spot and dump time. It is called ‘fixed’ because it is
essentially invariable for a truck and loading unit combination
Travel time Time is taken to haul and return the load
Cycle time Round trip time for the truck, it is the sum of fixed, travel and wait times
Efficiency A measure of how much productive time is achieved in 1 h of operating
time. The sort of activities that the efficiency factor includes is Clean-up
by the loading unit or dozer, Crusher and dump slowdowns, Fuelling,
Inspections, Loading unit movement, Operator experience, Under
trucking, Unusual delays due to weather
Queue factor Accounts for time lost due to queuing. It is another measure of wait time
Productivity Tonnes of production hauled in an operating hour (t/h)
Productivity = (Efficiency/Cycle time)  Truck payload  Queuing
factor
Physical Measure of time available to work divided by calendar time
availability
Utilisation Operating time divided by available time
Production Hourly productivity  operating hours

Of these, the most significant factors affecting haul truck fuel consumption are as
follows (see also Fig. 7.6):
• The gross vehicle weight (GVW), which is sum of the weight of an empty truck
and the payload;
• The haul truck velocity (V);
• The total resistance (TR), which is equal to the sum of rolling resistance
(RR) and the grade resistance (GR) when the truck is moving against the grade
of haul road; and
• The rimpull force (RF), which is the force available between the tyre and the
ground to propel the truck.
Figure 7.7 illustrates the variation of maximum truck velocity (Vmax) and fuel
consumption (FC) with GVW for six values of total resistance (TR). The results
show that for all values of total resistance, truck velocity decreases and fuel con-
sumption increases as the GVW increases. It should be noted that the rate of fuel
consumption is calculated based on the best performance of the truck as recom-
mended by the manufacturer (calculate at maximum achievable truck velocity and
corresponding rimpull).
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 127

Tyres

Aerodynamics

Truck characteristics Weight

Transmission

Engine

Tyre management

Fuel management
Fleet management
Driver management

Truck maintenance

Truck speed

Route
Operator
Haul truck fuel Braking
consumption
parameters Gear selection

Grade

Layout

Haul road Corner characteristics

Road maintenance

Quality

Road layout

Mine plan Traffic management

Production

Environmental conditions

Fig. 7.5 Parameters affecting haul truck fuel consumption [6]

128 A. Soofastaei et al.

Payload

Surface Component of GVW*

*Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) = Load + Truck Weight

Fig. 7.6 Effective parameters on haul truck productivity and fuel consumption [6]

Fig. 7.7 Variation of Vmax

and FC with GVW for
different TR (Caterpillar
793D) [4]

7.2.3.1 The Effect of Payload on Haul Truck Fuel Consumption

The loading process in truck and shovel operations is often modelled as a stochastic
process due to the high variability. An analysis of the haul truck payload data
obtained from some mine sites around the world shows that the payload distribution
can be estimated by a normal distribution [7]. The variance associated with haul
truck payloads is typically large and depends on some parameters such as particle
size distribution, swell factor, material density, truck–shovel matching, the number
of shovel passes and the bucket fill factor. Many attempts have been made to reduce
the payload variance by using technologies such as on-board truck payload mea-
surement systems, shovel payload management systems and fleet monitoring sys-
tems. Also, to load a truck in an effective manner, the shovel operator should load
the truck within optimal payload limits using the minimum number of passes. The
optimal payload can be defined in different ways, but it is always designed so that
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 129

Fig. 7.8 The variation of

FCIndex with standard
deviation (r) (CAT 793D) [9]

the haul truck will carry the greatest amount of material with lowest payload
variance. The range of payload variance can be defined based on the capacity and
power of truck. The payload variance in a surface mine fleet can significantly
influence productivity due to truck congestion, or “bunching” phenomena,1 in large
surface mines [8].
The increasing of payload variance decreases the accuracy of a scheduled
maintenance programme. This is because the rate of equipment wear is not pre-
dictable when the mine fleet faces a large payload variance. Minimising the vari-
ation of particle size distribution, swell factor, material density and fill factor can
decrease the payload variance but it should be noted that it is not always possible to
control all these parameters.
The effect of payload variance on haul truck fuel consumption in different haul
road conditions is illustrated in Fig. 7.8.
In this chapter, we use the fuel consumption index (FCIndex) as a measure of haul
truck fuel efficiency. This index represents the quantity of fuel burnt by a haul truck
to move one tonne of mined material (ore or overburden) in an hour (L/(h tonnes)).

7.2.3.2 The Effect of Rolling Resistance on Haul Truck Fuel

Consumption

The rolling resistance (RR) is a major component of total resistance (TR), and it is
one of the main controllable effective parameters for haul truck fuel consumption.

1
This is where trucks loaded at rated payloads are forced to travel slowly up ramp because they are
stuck behind heavily loaded trucks which travel at low speeds.
130 A. Soofastaei et al.

Fig. 7.9 Grade resistance [4]

Fig. 7.10 Rolling resistance and the most influential parameters [10]

TR is equal to the sum of RR and grade resistance (GR) when the truck is moving
against the grade of the haul road.
RR depends on the tyre and hauling road surface characteristics and is used to
calculate the rolling friction force, which is the force that resists motion when the
truck tyre rolls on the haul road. GR is the slope of the haul road, measured as a
percentage and is calculated as the ratio between the rise of the road and the
horizontal length (see Fig. 7.9).
GR is positive when the truck is travelling up the ramp, and it is negative when it
travels down the ramp.
RR is defined as a measure of the force required to overcome the retarding effect
between the tyre and road. This resistance is predominantly measured as a
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 131

Table 7.3 Influential parameters on rolling resistance

Rolling resistance Group Categorya Parameter
D C O M
Road ✓ ✓ Roughness
✓ ✓ ✓ Defects
✓ ✓ ✓ Material density
✓ Moisture content
✓ Road maintenance
Tyre ✓ ✓ ✓ Tyre penetration
✓ Tyre diameter
✓ Tyre pressure
✓ ✓ ✓ Tyre condition
✓ Tyre loading
✓ Tyre temperature
System ✓ Truck speed
✓ Driver behaviour
Weather ✓ Humidity
✓ Precipitation
✓ Ambient temperature
a
D: Design C: Construction O: Operational M: Maintenance

percentage of the GVW, but can also be expressed as energy divided by a distance
or force.
Tyre RR can also be characterised by a rolling resistance coefficient (RRC), a
unit-less number. RR manifests itself predominantly in the form of hysteresis losses
described as the energy lost, usually in the form of heat, when a section of vul-
canised rubber is regularly deformed, such as during the operation of a haul truck.
The parameters affecting RR can be categorised into four groups: road, tyre,
system and weather properties. Figure 7.10 illustrates the most influential param-
eters on RR.
The effective parameters on RR are also categorised into the design (D), con-
struction (C), operational (O) or maintenance (M) parameters. Table 7.3 illustrates
the parameters affecting RR, and their categories.
The surface material of the haul road is a major contributor to RR. Table 7.4
shows the RR associated with different surface types.
Estimating fuel consumption rate requires some assumptions. Figure 7.11
illustrates the relationship between the haulage operation parameters and truck fuel
consumption.
The relationships between three main effective parameters on RR and FCIndex
have been illustrated in Fig. 7.12.
132 A. Soofastaei et al.

Table 7.4 Surface type and associated rolling resistance [11]

Type of surface Rolling resistance (%)
In situ clay till 4–6.7
Compacted gravel 2–2.7
Compacted clay gravel 3.9
Subsoil stockpile 4.4–8.3
Compacted clay till 4.1
Subsoil on mine spoil 7.3

Fig. 7.11 Variable relationships required for truck fuel consumption estimation [4]

7.3 Loading Units

Loading equipments are applied to dig and load material in surface and under-
ground mines. They are often regarded as critical equipment because there is
typically no extra loader capacity contrary to trucks that tend to have excess
capacity. Therefore, their availability and productivity can constrain production.
Efficient loading process can lead to improved production, energy efficiency and
decreased costs.

7.3.1 Operations of Major Loading Units

The major loading units are rope shovels, hydraulic excavators and front-end
loaders (Fig. 7.13). Other loading equipment includes draglines, surface miners,
dozers, scrapers and bucket wheel excavators.
Hydraulic excavators can be configured as either front (or shovel) or backhoe
configurations. Face shovels allow for either front or bottom dumping. A backhoe’s
bucket is typically smaller in volume compared to that of a face shovel on a similar
sized machine. Backhoe shovels are capable of loading trucks located either on the
same bench level or at a lower bench (elevation) to the shovel.
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 133

(a) (b)

FCIndex (L / (hr. tonnes))

FCIndex (L / (hr. tonnes))

(c)
FCIndex (L / (hr. tonnes))

Fig. 7.12 a The relationship between maintenance interval and FCIndex (Caterpillar 793D) [4].
b The relationship between tyre pressure and FCIndex (Caterpillar 793D) [4]. c The relationship
between truck speed and FCIndex (Caterpillar 793D) [4]

The hydraulic excavator uses diesel engines or electric motors to drive hydraulic
pumps, motors and cylinders that in turn actuate the motions required to dig and
load material and propel the machine (see Fig. 7.14).
The electric shovel uses electric motors, gear reducers, drums and wire rope to
actuate the motions required for digging, loading and propelling (see Fig. 7.15).
The three primary parts of the hydraulic and electric shovel are the lower, upper
and the attachment. A large electric mining shovel is capable of maximum propel
speeds of nearly 1.6 km per h (1.0 mph) and a practical grade climbing capability
of 20%. The average work cycle of electric mining shovel can take approximately
25–45 s depending on the machine, load, swing angle, bank conditions and oper-
ator proficiency [12].
Although hydraulic face shovels provide a high degree of flexibility and can
generally produce high digging forces low in the bank, electric mining shovels are
inherently more capable of consistently generating higher production rates through
134 A. Soofastaei et al.

Loading units

Rope Hydraulic Front end

Other
Shovel excavator loader

- Dragline
Front shovel Backhoe shovel - Surface miner
- Dozer
- Scraper
- Bucket wheel excavator
Front dump Bottom dump

Fig. 7.13 Loading units’ classifications

Stick
Bucket Cylinder Stick Cylinder

Boom

Operator’s cab
Machinery House

Attachment
Upper
Boom Hoist
Cylinder

Lower

Crawler Frame Crawler Belt

Bucket
Slewing Ring

Fig. 7.14 Typical hydraulic mining shovel assemblies

a combination of consistent dig forces throughout the digging phase, high fill
factors, low cycle time and reduced operator fatigue [12].
The four primary motions executed by the shovel are propelling, swinging,
hoisting and crowding/retracting. In the cable shovel, the crowd and hoist motors
attain the crowd/retract and hoist motions, respectively. The hoisting equipment on
the cable shovel involves a rope drum which is reeled in or spooled out by the
electric motor-driven hoist transmissions.
Figure 7.16 depicts a typical shovel dipper trajectory. The shovel cleans free
material from the starting point (A) in the direction of the bench toe (B). Then the
position of the shovel dipper teeth changes from (B) to the start point of the
coasting phase (C). The task of moving the dipper into the final coasting phase (C–
D) is to make the bank clear [13].
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 135

BoomSuspension Rope
Gantry

Boom
Machinery House
Hoist Rope

Attachment
Upper

Operator’s cab
Dipper

Dipper handle

Lower
Crawler Belt

Crawler Frame

Slewing Gear

Fig. 7.15 Typical electric mining shovel assemblies

Coasting
Phase

Excavator Pad
Elevation

A B
Undercutting

A: Excavation start-up B: Bench hoe

C: Coasting start-up D: Bench Crest

Fig. 7.16 The three separate digging phases accomplished by a cable shovel [14]
136 A. Soofastaei et al.

Effective parameters on loading energy efficiency

Machine design and Mine plan Operator skill Operating

intelligent system and design and practices condition

- Drive system design - Dig methods - Digging practice - Rock fragmentation

and control - Truck and shovel - Hoist & crowd speed - Limitation
- Digging support - Pass matching - Bucket cut depth & Engine speed - Material dig ability
- Spotting support - Backhoe configurations -Position of bucket - Road settings
- Swinging support - Double-side loading - Dump height
- Loading support - Payload management

Fig. 7.17 Effective parameters on loading energy efficiency

7.3.2 Effective Parameters on Loading Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency of loading operations can be improved by enhancing the equip-

ment, ensuring better-operating conditions, selecting proper mine planning and
design, and training the operator (Fig. 7.17).
The equipment defines how the machines transform energy efficiently into useful
work in specified circumstances, although difficult operating conditions such as
sub-optimal rock fragmentation, material digability and road settings lead to con-
siderably higher energy input per unit of useful work. The mine plan and design
(which defines in how equipment is organised) have influenced on the operating
conditions, relations between equipment components, and how efficiently the
equipment is used. The combination of all of these parameters can either improve or
diminish the energy efficiency. Last but not least, operator skill and practices have a
substantial impact on energy efficiency. Research evidence exists to demonstrate
that this parameter significantly affects energy efficiency independently of the
influence of other factors [14].

7.3.2.1 Machine Design and Intelligent System

To enhance the energy efficiency of loading operations, intelligent automated

digging, spotting, swinging and loading support should be considered.
Typically, for the shovel, three aspects can improve cycle time: greater pull
torque, greater peak power and increased speed to swing and to move the dipper.
The shovel operator should have greater power and the capability to go faster from
side to side in the bank. Therefore, enhancing excavating equipment can lead to
machines that more efficiently transform energy into useful work.
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 137

Fig. 7.18 Energy

consumption with different
starting points [17]

Energy (J)

L0 (m)

The digging torque has a significant influence on the hoist and crowd move-
ments during the excavation period. Critical energy savings can be reached using
regenerative AC drives in mining shovels. Particularly in the swing and hoist
movement, the regenerated energy increases to 80 and 22%, respectively. The
overall energy savings attained by implementing regenerative AC drives in com-
parison with non-regenerative drives is approximately 26% [15].
Moreover, it is necessary to raise the torque and horsepower for the propel task
to avoid getting stuck. Since the same motors carry out hoist and propel tasks, a
structure which reduces hoist–propel switchover time would improve the energy
efficiency. The propel task and digging operation of the shovel influence cycle
times [16].
Trajectory of the bucket (Digging Trajectory)
When it comes to the digging trajectory, both defining the optimum starting point
and choosing the appropriate type of trajectory curves can increase the energy
efficiency.
The three curves shown in Fig. 7.18 illustrate the difference in energy con-
sumption with various starting points and consequently three digging distances:
D = 3.5, 4 and 4.5 m. L0 is the distance between the new starting point and the end
of the soil pile. For every digging distance, energy consumption changes and there
is an ideal starting point which minimises energy consumption.
Swing trajectory
It is essential to optimise the position of the shovel in relation to the truck. Large
swing angles extend shovel cycle time and waste swing energy, while small swing
angle cause swing cycles to become hoist dependent [18]. With the better coordi-
nation of the shovel’s hoist and crowd tasks, the cycle time could be decreased
through the loading period. Passing through the bank and filling the bucket rapidly
138 A. Soofastaei et al.

would be desired, but not so quick that the hoist motors get blocked and halted. In
other words, the hoist and crowd tasks should be controlled, simultaneously.
Control the hoist and crowd functions together
During the digging process, the shovel operator retracts the crowd before the hoist
motors stall and then crowds as hard as possible against the bank to fill the dipper.
If the shovel’s hoist and crowd functions are better coordinated, the cycle time
could be reduced during the loading phase. The aim would be passing through the
bank and filling the bucket quickly, but not so fast that the hoist motors stall. Mines
need a system that combines these two motions and can be controlled together. We
suggest that further research should be conducted to develop algorithms that could
control hoist and crowd together during digging. When the hoist speed falls off, it
retracts until hoist speed picks up again [16].
Collision-free trajectory
A semi-automated load assistance system (Auto Load) and a collision avoidance
system (Truck Shield) are two sample technologies based on three self-reliant
approaches which estimate the position of the haul truck corresponding to the
shovel, initially assisted by global positioning system (GPS), ultra-wideband
(UWB) ranging receivers and 3D scanning LIDAR [18, 19].
Shovel load assist program (SLAP) technology has numerous benefits such as
shovel safety, accessibility, efficiency and lower maintenance as well as faster
shovel cycle times, lower machine duty, enhanced material delivery in trucks, fewer
influences between truck and shovel and lower operator workload. SLAP is
developing equipment that will assist operators of electric mining shovels to load
trucks with higher productivity and safety.
An appropriate organisation for supporting the operator of an electric mining
excavator to avoid collisions with identified obstacles within the workspace of the
excavator is essential. This can be achieved by applying a receding horizon avoidance
filter. In this technology, the command provided by the operator is adjusted for
collision avoidance. The receding horizon avoidance filter computes the filtered
command using a receding horizon control framework. A collision-free trajectory,
which is the lowest variation from the operator’s proposed trajectory, is considered,
and the first command from the trajectory converts the filtered command [20].

7.3.2.2 Mine Plan and Design

The mine plan and design have an impact on the operating conditions, relations
between equipment components, and well-organised practice of equipment. This
combination either improves or deteriorates energy efficiency. For example,
research results show that higher production is achievable by double, rather than
single, benching. Similarly, double-side loading is proved to be slightly more
complicated than single-side loading but more productive [16]. Although
double-sided loading requires additional care to keep safety criteria, it is possible to
excavate more material per shift and to increase truck efficiency. For instance,
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 139

spotting times in trucks loaded with double-sided loading are frequently around
35 s compared to 65 s with single-sided loading. A 30-s decrease in truck cycle
time has a non-negligible impact on production rate [21].
Truck and shovel pass matching has a critical influence on loading efficiency.
Shovels and buckets should be sized so as to fill a truck tray within 3–4 passes.
Each pass beyond this waste cycle time and energy. Cycle times for backhoe
configurations can be marginally faster in comparison to front–shovel configura-
tions [16].

7.3.2.3 Operator Skill and Practice

The operator influences vital factors and consequently defines the production rate
and energy consumption, for example, bucket fill factor and cycle time. Significant
energy inefficiency in loading operations is as a result of operator practices. The
best operators use 40% less energy per tonne of production in comparison with the
other operators. Probably, extra savings could be achieved since there is nothing
that assures that the best operator operates at the optimum energy efficiency [12].
Operator practices have an excessive influence on shovel performance; conse-
quently, operator practices should be optimal. The result of the best operator
practice is a greater proportion of cycles in the lower digging energy classifications
while keeping an appropriate loading ratio. Digging energy is a function of both
muck pile digging states and primarily digging practice. It has been observed that
the operator with the lower hoist speed and higher crowd speed accomplishes
dipper cuts in the bank and consumes greater energy during digging.
Figure 7.19 illustrates the optimization problem with the objective function
being energy per unit loading rate. The objective function reduces when the hoist

Fig. 7.19 Energy per unit 0.70

loading rate (kJ s per kg) [23] 0.68

+1 1.2
+

0.66

0.64
Hoist Rope Speed (ms-1)

0.62

0.60
1.4
0.58
+

0.56

0.54 0.4
+ + 1.4
0.6 1.6
0.52 + +

0.50
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Crowd Arm Speed (ms-1)
140 A. Soofastaei et al.

Bucket Cut Depth (%)

Engine Speed (RPM )
Fuel ConsumpƟon ProducƟvity

Fig. 7.20 The productivity and fuel consumption [25]

speed increases and crowd speed decreases. The primary inference obtained from
Fig. 7.19 is that the best operator practice is accomplished when the dipper is
moved at low crowd speeds and high hoist speeds [22].
For draglines, research has suggested that the most effective factors that cause
variation in the energy efficiency of operators include dump height and
engagement/disengagement position of the bucket. Cycle time, payload and swing
in time are the less efficient parameters which lead to variation in operator energy
efficiency [23].
It has been observed that engine speed and bucket cut depth
(BCD) arrangements have an impact on fuel efficiency and productivity of a
hydraulic excavator.
By applying the map showing the influence of RPMs and BCDs on productivity
and fuel consumption, manufacturers can provide operators support with an auto-
mated system built into the excavator. Thus, the system is enabled to adjust the
engine speed and the bucket dig depth during excavating, automatically.
Figure 7.20 demonstrates the result of engine speed and bucket cut depths
(BCD) on cycle time, fuel consumption and output. To make the map simpler, cycle
time and output were joint into one unit: productivity (m3/h). The fuel consumption
design is laid over productivity to clarify the unexplored correlation between these
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 141

variables. The x-axis and y-axis depict the engine speeds, BCDs (in percentage),
respectively, and z-axis shows two variables, fuel consumption (litres) and pro-
ductivity (m3/h). The dependent variables are presented as a percentage gain in 5%
intervals. The behavioural configuration of the dependent variables is described
with two various coloured lines on the map. Fuel consumption (litres) is charac-
terised in blue and productivity (m3/h) in red. This map can be implemented as a
supportive database in automation process of an excavator. The engine speed and
the bucket dig depth during excavating can be arranged. To accomplish the best
likely productivity and fuel consumption rate, engine speed and BCD should be
adjusted to 1660 RPM and 50%, respectively. However, the operator will have to
consciously select between low fuel consumption and high productivity excavation
strategies [24].
Payload controlling, or filling the dipper to the proper weight, also affects the
digging cycle time. If the shovel operator could know the weight of the material in
the bucket throughout the digging procedure, then he/she could stop loading after
the desired point, and the break-out and load phase of the cycle could begin. Some
digging plans that try to minimise cycle time have a tendency to fill the bucket to
only 80% of capacity which results in more passes that would be essential if the
bucket was always filled to 100% [16].

7.3.2.4 Operating Condition

Excavator performance is significantly affected by material digability, which

depends on blasting. Material digability can be measured by excavator dig time,
which is defined as the period from when the bucket engages the muck pile to when
it begins to swing the boom across to the truck. Material digability can be influ-
enced by the equipment operator, material characteristics (rill properties, looseness,
fragmentation, etc.) and excavator type. It has been reported that a 7–58%
improvement in excavator dig time is possible from improvements to the muck pile
characteristic and operator skill [26–28].

7.4 Conveyor Transport

Conveyors are a very efficient, low-cost means of transporting sized materials in

high volumes. The most common type of conveyor used in mining is the trough
conveyor, which consists of a head pulley, drive motor and torque coupling, a
take-up mechanism, a belt constructed as a rubber ply structure or using embedded
steel cords, a set of troughs with carry and return idlers, and a tail pulley plus
transfer chutes to channel material onto and off the belt. Belts can be up to 2 m in
width, a few kilometres long and run up to 7 m/s in speed. This enables transport
capacities of up to 20,000 tonnes per h, typical of the large German lignite mines.
142 A. Soofastaei et al.

Fig. 7.21 Semi-mobile IPCC system in an Australian mine

There are many different types of conveyor systems used in mining applications.
Conveyors typically handle materials sized below 300 mm, so it is necessary to
employ a crusher at the feed end of the conveyor. At the discharge end of the
conveyor, there is a need to employ either a stacker or spreader. In between, the
feed and discharge stations, a variety of bench, ramp and overland conveyors are
employed (Fig. 7.21).
Mining systems are referred to as either in-pit or ex-pit systems, dependent on
the crusher location. If the crusher station is located within the pit, there are some
alternatives: fixed in-pit crushing and conveying systems (FIPCC), semi-mobile
in-pit crushing and conveying systems (SMIPCC) or fully mobile in-pit crushing
and conveying (FMIPCC) systems. Fixed crusher stations are designed to be a
permanent fixture in the life of mine. Semi-mobile crusher plants are designed in
modular architecture so that they can be periodically relocated (at intervals of say,
every 3–5 years) as a mine deepens. Truck–shovel systems work in collaboration to
feed both fixed and semi-mobile IPCC systems. In fully mobile IPCC systems, the
shovel directly feeds a mobile system comprised of a hopper, apron feeder and
low-profile crusher, commonly a hybrid roll crusher or sizer. The mobile crusher
then feeds a bench conveyor via a stinger conveyor connected to a hopper car,
mounted on rails or tracks above a relocatable bench conveyor.
The material is conveyed ex-pit via a ramp conveyor. Dependent on material
characteristics, including size distribution, bulk density and moisture content, a
ramp conveyor can manage inclinations of between 15° and 18°. This is substan-
tially more than a truck haul road, which averages only 10% gradient. Other than a
dedicated conveyor ramp, other pit exit strategies include construction of a dedi-
cated conveyor decline, shared conveyor access via widening an existing truck
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 143

haulage route, the use of a slot conveyor in the cusp of two of the pit walls or the
use of a high angle conveyor. The latter type of conveyor consists of novel pipe or
sandwich design and are capable of transporting materials up the slope of around
35°. To date, however, they have been restricted to lower capacity systems not
exceeding 3000 tonnes per h.
Once outside of the pit, the material will usually be transferred to an overland
(fixed) conveyor. If it is a valuable mineral or energy material, it will proceed to a
stacker discharge station that feeds the mill or handling and preparation plant. If it is
waste material, it will proceed to the waste dump, where it will be transferred to a
bench conveyor linked to a tripper car feeding a spreader. The tripper car provides a
variable off-loading point along the length of the bench conveyor, thus enabling the
spreader to travel along a waste pad systematically filling using both up-cast and
down-cast spreadings.

7.4.1 Power Efficiency

A mining truck with a 327-tonne payload capacity has an empty vehicle mass of
around 246 tonnes, dependent on the tray wear packages installed. As part of its
duty cycle, the truck needs to expend energy to vertically lift its empty vehicle mass
plus payload out of a mine and then to return the empty vehicle weight back into the
mine in preparation for the next loading cycle. This means that the total mass
moved in one round trip is approximately 2  246 + 327 = 819 tonnes. Thus the
ratio of moved material to total weight moved is 1:2.7, or only 38% efficient.
A troughing conveyor that has a capacity of 10,800 tonnes/h and a belt speed of
5 m per s must deliver 3 tonnes of material per second. These 3 tonnes are dis-
tributed over a belt length of 5 m. The mass of 5 m of the belt, plus a 5 m section of
the return belt, is around 600 kg. Thus, the ratio of moved material to belt mass for
the conveyor is just 1:1.2 or 81%. To this, we can add the fact that the conveyor belt
is driven by electric motors, which are around 95% energy efficient.
Belt conveyor power is measured as a function of belt velocity multiplied by
equal force. The latter is made up of the sum of main resistances, secondary
resistances, slope resistance, special main resistances and special secondary resis-
tances. Of these, the first three are the most important. Main resistances refer to the
indentation and rolling resistance of the belt; the flexure resistance of the belt and
the rotational resistance of the idlers and bearings. Secondary resistances refer to
inertial and frictional resistances due to accelerating material at the loading point
and resistance due to friction at the side walls of chutes, pulley bearing resistance
and resistance due to the wrap of belts around the pulleys. Slope resistance refers to
the potential energy required to lift the load up an inclined slope.
144 A. Soofastaei et al.

7.4.2 Conveyor Belt Applications in Mining

Apparently, then, conveyor belts offer a more energy-efficient means of transporting

bulk materials. Belt conveyor operation also enhances mine safety, as around
one-third of all fatalities in Australian surface mines are related to vehicle colli-
sions. Truck operations require a significant logistics chain to supply fuel, tyres and
spare parts to a mine. Fewer supply trucks are necessary to support conveyor belt
operations, which can be beneficial for mines operating in areas with sensitive
community concerns.
With all of the advantages offered by conveying systems, why do we not see
them in use more frequently in mining operations? The answer to this question has
to do with
• Material type and sizing;
• Upfront capital expenditure;
• Flexibility (mine design limitations, ability to relocate and scale up or down);
and
• System reliability.
First, for material to be transported by conveyor belt, it must be sized to below
300 mm. While this is financially viable for ore which needs to be crushed anyway
before processing, it is regarded as an unnecessary cost for waste materials.
Second, IPCC systems require significant upfront capital investment. Total
system cost can amount to around US$80 million for systems with capacities of up
to 10,000 tonnes per h. A crusher station costs around US$15 million, and a typical
10,000 tonnes per h system might employ two such crusher stations at the cost of
some US$30 million. A spreader will cost around US$16 million. The remainder of
the system costs is then divided between bench, ramp, overland and dump con-
veyors plus the ancillary hopper and tripper cars. This upfront capital investment
has a significant influence on project Net Present Value (NPV), despite IPCC
systems offering significantly reduced operational expenditure (in the order of
between 15 and 25% less total mining cost, dependent on SMIPCC or FMIPCC
system type). Truck systems have the advantage of being able to be scaled up as
mining pits grow.
Thus, a mine can begin operations with a relatively small truck–shovel fleet and
purchase additional units to add capacity as the mine progresses. Over the life of
mine, due to shovel and truck fleet replacements, total capital expenditure is
roughly similar to that of the IPCC system. However, for truck–shovel systems
expenditure is distributed over the mine life which can lead to an NPV advantage.
Financial analysis shows that the NPV of IPCC systems wins out in the case of long
life deposits.
Third, IPCC systems require significant changes to be made to a mine plan in
comparison to a plan employing truck–shovel systems. For a start, a viable con-
veyor exit strategy is required. If a ramp conveyor is used, then the wall on which
this conveyor is located must be relatively immobile over the life of mine; this is not
7 Energy-Efficient Loading and Hauling Operations 145

always the case. Frequent movements of the bench (and dump) conveyors consume
large quantities of productive time, and so the optimal mine design for FMIPCC
systems will employ long linear benches. This does not suit all deposit types. The
capacity of installed IPCC systems is fixed and cannot easily be scaled up or down
to suit prevailing economic conditions (unlike truck–shovel operations, for exam-
ple, where a time of low commodity prices equipment can simply be parked up to
save money).
Finally, IPCC systems are complex series connected systems. Downtime any of
the system components will cause a system outage and stop material movement.
This includes both availability losses due to maintenance and utilisation losses due
to the bench or dump conveyor relocations. It is estimated that FMIPCC-effective
utilisation is around 64%, equivalent to 5600 productive hours per year [29]. Of
this, about one-third of the system losses are due to maintenance or repairs. The
remaining losses are utilisation losses.

7.5 Conclusions/Summary

As a result of these limitations, truck–shovel systems continue to be a predominant

system of choice for most surface mines. However, around the world, most notably
at the Technical University of Freiberg, Germany and at The University of
Queensland, Australia, research efforts are underway to address the limitations
identified above. In a world becoming more fossil fuel constrained, solving such
issues is imperative to continue the level of supply of minerals and energy com-
modities that the world currently enjoys.

References

1. BREE, Australian energy update (2014) Australian Government, Bureau of Resources and
Energy Economics, Canberra, Australia, pp 9–11
2. DOE, Mining industry energy bandwidth study (2012) Department of Energy, USA
Government, Washington DC, USA, pp 26–33
3. EEO, Energy-Mass Balance: Mining (2010) Australian Government, Department of
Resources Energy and Tourism, Canberra, Australia, pp 21–28
4. Soofastaei A (2016) Development of an advanced data analytics model to improve the energy
efficiency of haul trucks in surface mines. The University of Queensland, School of
Mechanical and Mining Engineering, Australia
5. Caterpillar (2013) Caterpillar performance handbook, 10 ed., vol 2. US Caterpillar Company,
New York City
6. Soofastaei A, Aminossadati SM, Arefi MM, Kizil MS (2016) Development of a multi-layer
perceptron artificial neural network model to determine haul trucks energy consumption. Int J
Mining Sci Technol 26(2):285–293
7. Soofastaei A, Aminossadati SM, Kizil MS, Knights P (2014) Payload variance plays a critical
role in the fuel consumption of mining haul trucks. Aust Resour Invest 8(4):64–64
 146 A. Soofastaei et al.

8. Soofastaei A, Aminossadati SM, Kizil MS, Knights P (2015) Simulation of payload variance
effects on truck bunching to minimise energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In:
2015 Coal operators’ conference, The University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW,
Australia, pp 338–347
9. Soofastaei A, Aminossadati SM, Kizil MS, Knights P (2016) A discrete-event model to
simulate the effect of payload variance on truck bunching, cycle time and hauled mine
materials. Int J Mining Technol 2(3):167–181
10. Soofastaei A, Aminossadati SM, Kizil MS, Knights P (2016) The influence of rolling
resistance on haul truck fuel consumption in surface mines. Tribol Int J 2(1):215–228
11. Kecojevic V, Komljenovic D (2011) Haul truck fuel consumption and CO2 emission under
various engine load conditions. SME annual meeting and exhibit, CMA 113th National
Western mining conference, SME, USA, pp 186–195
12. MinePro P (2003) Peak performance practices: excavator selection 2(1):185–198
13. Stavropoulou M, Xiroudakis G, Exadaktylos G (2013) Analytical model for estimation of
digging forces and specific energy of cable shovel. 2(1):23–51
14. Awuah-Offei Kwame (2016) Energy efficiency in mining: a review with emphasis on the role
of operators in loading and hauling operations. J Clean Prod 117(1):89–97
15. Valenzuela GM, Valenzuela, MA (2014) Integrated mechanical-electrical modeling of an AC
electric mining shovel and evaluation of power requirements during a truck loading cycle.
IEEE industry application society annual meeting, Australia IEEE
16. Fiscor Steve (2007) Productivity considerations for shovels and excavators. Eng Min J 208
(7):38–49
17. Wei B, Gao F (2012) Digging trajectory optimization for a new excavating mechanism of
electric mining shovel. In: International design engineering technical conferences and
computers and information in engineering conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
18. Reid A, Smith Z, McAree P, Cloete S, Horberry T (2013) Shovel load assist. 2(1):145–158
19. Cloete Steven, Horberry Tim (2014) Collision avoidance and semi-automation in electric rope
shovel operation. Ergon Australia 4(2):423–439
20. Kearney MP, Smith ZV, McAree PR (2015) Receding horizon collision avoidance for large
excavators. In: 14th IFToMM World Congress, Taipei International Convention Center,
Taiwan
21. Benchmarking the productivity of Australia’s black coal industry, Tasman Asia Pacific
Australia, pp 85–101 (1998)
22. Awuah-Offei Kwame, Frimpong Samuel (2011) Efficient cable shovel excavation in surface
mines. Geotech Geol Eng 29(1):19–26
23. Oskouei Maryam Abdi, Awuah-Offei Kwame (2016) A method for data-driven evaluation of
operator impact on energy efficiency of digging machines. Energ Effi 9(1):129–140
24. Ng Felix, A Harding Jennifer, Glass Jacqueline (2016) An eco-approach to optimise efficiency
and productivity of a hydraulic excavator. J Clean Prod 112(2):3966–3976
25. Brunton I, Thornton D, Hodson R, Sprott D (2003) Impact of blast fragmentation on hydraulic
excavator dig time. In: Proceedings of the 5th large open pit conference, AusImm (The
Minerals Institute), Australia
26. Hawkes PJ, Spathis AT, Sengstock GW (1995) Monitoring equipment productivity
improvements in coal mines. In: EXPLO 95, AusIMM, Brisbane, Australia
27. Grant JR, Little TN, Bettess D (1995) Blast driven mine optimisation. In: Explosives in
mining conference, Australia
28. McGill M, Freadrich J (1994) The effect of fragmentation on loader productivity. International
Society of Explosives Engineers, Cleveland, United States of America, pp 112–121
29. 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. In: Future Mining,
AusIMM, The University of New South Wales, Australia

View publication stats