The document details a study on optimizing dumper cycle time at the Katamati iron ore mine, focusing on factors affecting efficiency, current performance metrics, and the need for improvement. It presents data on average cycle times for two dump sites, highlighting issues such as long waiting times, operator absence, and safety concerns. Recommendations include increasing operator numbers, staggering shifts to reduce idle time, implementing advanced fleet management systems, and ensuring safety compliance with speed regulations.

1. PREPARED BY:
MOUSOM SINGHA
B.E MINING ENGINEERING
IIEST SHIBPUR
MAY, 2016
Study of Dumper Cycle Time
Katamati Iron Ore Mine

2. Objective and Targets
 Objective: To optimize dumper cycle time
 Targets:
 To observe and collect data sample
 To analyse current level of dumper efficiency
 To identify means for improving cycle time

3. Dumper – Shovel Mining System
Costs 50 – 60% of the total mining costs

4. Standard Time Definition

5. Factors affecting Dumper efficiency
 Truck-shovel match and allocation;
 Shift operating schedules;
 Haul road design and ramp gradients ;
 Haul road rolling resistance ;
 Cycle Time.

6. Cycle Time Study
 The following factors were considered for the study:
 Waiting at the face
 Positioning
 Loading
 Travel(loaded); from face to dump
 Waiting at the dump
 Unloading
 Travel(empty); from dump to face
 Waiting at weigh bridge
 Weighing time

7. Cycle Time Study
 The following data were also collected, though not
directly related to dumper cycle:
 Weight of load in dumper
 Maximum and minimum speeds of dumpers

8. Cycle Time Study
 It has been observed that two different kinds of ore
based on their composition were mined
simultaneously at the Katamati mine.
 The two different ores were dumped at two different
dump sites, namely, the Wet plant facility and the
DCMP dump.
 Hence, the cycle time study has been conducted
separately for the two different dump sites.

9. For Wet Plant Dump
 Average total waiting time: 4.13 minutes
 Average positioning time: 1 minute
 Average loading time: 5.07 minutes
 Travel time (loaded): 8.92 minutes
 Travel time(empty): 9.35 minutes

10. For Wet Plant Dump
 Average weighing time: 1.50 minutes
 Average unloading time: 1.78 minute
 Average observed cycle time: 32.35 minutes

11. For Wet Plant Dump
Time Breakdown
Waiting at face
Waiting at dump
Waiting at wt. bridge
Weighing
Positioning
Travel(empty)
Travel(loaded)
Loading
Unloading

12. For DCMP Dump
 Average total waiting time: 7.35 minutes
 Average positioning time: 1 minute
 Average loading time: 3.5 minutes
 Travel time (loaded): 9.64 minutes
 Travel time(empty): 8.85 minutes

13. For DCMP Dump
 Average weighing time: 1 minute
 Average unloading time: 0.78 minute
 Average observed cycle time: 32.42 minutes

14. For DCMP Dump
Time Breakdown
Waiting at face
Waiting at dump
Waiting at wt. bridge
Weighing
Positioning
Travel(empty)
Travel(loaded)
Loading
Unloading

15. Other Data
 Average travel time from OK line to face at start of
shift: 6 minutes
 Average lead distance: 5 km
 Average weighted maximum speed: 36.21 km/hr
 Average load carried: 95.72 T
 Average number of swings of shovel: 9

16. Analysis
 It is observable that the cycle time for both the dumps
are almost identical; this can be owed to the fact that the
distance covered by the dumpers are almost same – an
average lead distance of 5kms from face to either of the
plants.
 Waiting time exceptionally long at DCMP; an average of
6 minutes
 The number of operators is the same as that of dumpers;
hence an absence of operators translates to a dumper
being idle for the whole shift

17. Analysis
 In one shift, shovel servicing was not completed
during the preceding 1 hour of break time and 3
dumpers had to wait in queue for 10 minutes for the
servicing
 Even though the maximum speed allowed is 30
km/hr, the rule is often broken. This behaviour is
more pronounced as the shift progresses. This can be
attributed to fatigue of operators and consequent
disregard of rules.

18. Analysis
 In some cases, there is a dilemma of safety versus
pressure of production. In a certain case, a dumper
overtook a water-sprinkling truck even though over-
taking is banned on the haul roads.
 The DCMP breaks down often. In some cases,
dumpers wait for a few minutes before they are
finally instructed to dump near the DCMP and move
along. This wait time can be reduced if DCMP
informs the dumpers on time.

19. Recommendations
 More operators should be employed in a shift, even as
standby. Often, an absence of a single operator leads to a
dumper being idle for the whole shift further resulting
loss in production.
 Starting time for shifts should be aimed towards a
staggered format. This means that shifts for different
operators should start at different times so that
“bunching” effect is avoided whereby a total of about 1
hour of idle time is experienced at the start and end of
the shift. Similarly time is lost during the break time.

20. Recommendations
 Swarm-based truck-shovel dispatch system¹ or
efficient Fleet Management Systems(FMS) like
TALPAC, CAT FPC etc. should be installed.
¹Bissiri Y., Dunbar S., Hall A., Swarm –Based Truck-Shovel Dispatching System
in Open Pit Mine Operations, Department of Mining and Mineral Process
Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

21. Recommendations
 Both side loading should be aimed. A sample
schematic is given for example in the following
slides:

24. Recommendations
 All dumpers should be fitted with equipment
checking the speed to prevent going above 30 km/hr,
instead of only 1 dumper as is the case presently.
However, since all observed dumpers cross this limit,
further safety studies should be carried out to
consider the possibility of raising this limit
marginally, if regulations permit.

25. Thank you