Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Scale Model Experimental Study for Estimating the Productivity of Bulk Push Dozer Operations in Hard Rock Mining

  • Published:
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A 1/20 scale experimental dozer push test rig was designed and constructed to quantify the expected production rates (loose cubic metres per hour) for dozers operating in hard rock bulk push applications. The particle size distribution of the material employed in the test rig was modelled on a fragmented muckpile representative of that for a typical surface copper/gold mine overburden. A commercially available road base material was found to be highly representative of site conditions. Buckingham Pi theory was applied to mathematically develop factors for scaling up dozer productivity parameters, including blade loads and push times. Dozer production rates were investigated for various dozing distances and slope angles. A series of instantaneous productivity curves were produced which are applicable for use in hard rock dozer push operations. Currently, it is difficult to estimate dozer push productivity in hard rock environments due to dozer productivity correction factors that are empirical in nature and provide only discrete, end-point values for a range of operating conditions. The productivity curves produced demonstrate that dozer productivity declines rapidly over the range of 10 m to 40 m. As such, it is recommended that efficient bulk dozing operations in hard rock mining blocks should not exceed 40 m dozing distance. Further testing of muckpile conditions with increased clay and moisture content would be beneficial in order to better understand and quantify the effects of cohesion on hard rock dozer push productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The experimental data is not available to the general public.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

BCM:

Bank Cubic Metres

DC:

Direct Current

DEM:

Discrete Element Method

DoE:

Design of Experiments

IPCC:

In-Pit Crushing and Conveying

FMIPCC:

Fully-Mobile In-Pit Crushing and Conveying

LCM:

Loose Cubic Metres

PFC:

Particle Flow Code

PSD:

Particle Size Distribution

SATS:

Semi-Autonomous Tractor System

SMIPCC:

Semi-Mobile In-Pit Crushing and Conveying

References

  1. Hays RM (1990) Dozers. In: Kennedy BA (ed) Surface Mining, 2nd edn. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Littleton, Colorado, pp 716–723

    Google Scholar 

  2. Medland D, Mether R (2006) Radical Mining Process Change Is Possible. 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference 'Value through Cost Control'. Hunter Valley, NSW: The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. (AUSIMM), pp 397–410

  3. Aspinall TO, Davidson AL, Hagan TN, Isles PT, McManus DA, Smith GH (1993) Strip Mining Australia Cola Mining Monograph 12, Martin CH, Hargraves AJ (eds) Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp 203–223

  4. Doktan M, Scott A, Cocker A (1998) Optimisation of Dozer Operations in Open Cut Mines, pp 89–105 (Australian Coal Association Research Program: Brisbane), Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, (JKMRC)/ACARP Project C5008

  5. MEC Mining, (2017) Dozer Bulk Push Training Program Presentation by T Boulton. mecmining.com.au/how-to-plan-dozer-push. Accessed 20 Jul 2020

  6. Isles JJ (2003) Implementing production dozing at Tarong coal mine, Honours thesis (unpublished), University of Queensland, Brisbane

  7. Cunningham J (2013) Economic optimisation of dozer push operations for typical open cut coal mines, Honours thesis (unpublished), University of Queensland, Brisbane

  8. N Sinclair, M Nehring (2019) Dozer ‘side-cutting’ versus excavator side-casting on the highwall in dozer bulk push operations” Journal of SAIMM 119:71–80

  9. Uren Z, Nehring M (2015) Development of dozer push optimisation software for Commodore coal mine. Min Technol 124(4):231–238. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743286315Y.000000001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Osanloo M, Paricheh M (2020) In-pit crushing and conveying technology in open-pit mining operations: a literature review and research agenda. Int J Min Reclam Environ 34(6):430–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Knights P (2017) “Dozers the answer to IPCC woes”. http://www.miningmagazine.com/top-articles/dozers-the-answer-to-ipcc-woes/. Accessed 15 Aug 2017

  12. Atchinson T, Morrison D (2011) In-Pit Crushing and Conveying Bench Operations, Proc. AusIMM Iron Ore Conference, Perth, WA, 11–13 July 2011

  13. Beilby P (2009) Iluka Resources Ltd presentation at AJM Mineral Sand Conference, Mildura, Dec 2009, available at www.iluka.com/docs/company-presentations/ajm-mineral-sands-conference---mildura-presentation-by-peter-beilby-gm-murray-basin-december-2009. Accessed 8 Aug 2017

  14. Medland D (2020) The Art and Science of Dozer Mining: A Personal Review and Commentary, 3rd Ed., Medland Mining Services Pty Ltd, available from dozerdave@medlandmining.com.

  15. Klanfar M, Kujundžić T, Vrlian D (2014) Calculation analysis of Bulldozers's Productivity in Gravitational transport on Open Pits. Tehnicki vjesnik/Technical Gazette 21(3)

  16. Caterpillar (2017). Caterpillar performance handbook 47, pp19–1–19–57 (Caterpillar: Peoria)

  17. Wismer RD (1982) Soil dynamics: a review of theory and practice. SAE Transactions, Vol 91, Section 2: 82024–820688, 2266–2278

  18. Reece A (1984) A rational approach to the design of earth-moving machines. J Terramech 21(1):69–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ur Rehman A, Awuah-Offei K (2020) Understanding how speed, tractive effort, digging height and rake angle affect bucket penetration and resistive forces for rubber tyred loaders. Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration 37:1423–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ghorbani S, (2019) Simulation of Soil-to-Tool Interaction Using Discrete Element Method (DEM) and Multibody Dynamics (MBD) Coupling

  21. Nezami EG, Hashash YMA, Zhao D, Ghaboussi J (2007) Simulation of front end loader bucket-soil interaction using discrete element method. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 31(9):1147–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Garrity RJ, Kolthoff CP, Reaves CA, Schafer RL (1968) A test comparison of model and full-sized bulldozer blades, SAE Paper 680612

  23. Sullivan RJ (1964) Earthmoving in miniature. SAE paper 897B. J Terramech 1(4):85–106

  24. Leonard S, Lever P, Shekar R (2009) “Development of a semi-autonomous scale dragline excavation research tool”, 2009 Australian Mining Technology Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, 27–28:45–54

  25. Castro R, López S, Gómez R, Ortiz S, Carreño N (2021) Experimental study of the influence of drawbell geometry on hang-ups in cave mine applications. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02247-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Onederra I, Mardones F, Scherpenisse C (2010) Application of stochastic approach to blast fragmentation modelling. Min Technol 119(4):221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Buckingham E (1915) Model experiments and the forms of empirical equations. Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 37:263–296

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moinfar AM, Shahgholi G (2018) Dimensional analysis of the tractor tractive efficiency parameters. Acta Technologica Agriculturae 3:94–99. https://doi.org/10.2478/ata-2018-0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ur Rehman A, Awuah-Offei K, Sherizadeh T (2020) Discrete Element Modelling of Scaled Bucket Excavation. 54th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, 28 June - 1 July, American Rock Mechanics Association

  30. Hanche-Olsen H (2004). "Buckingham's pi-theorem" NTNU. Available at https://folk.ntnu.no/hanche/notes/buckingham/buckingham-a4.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2020

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would also like to express their gratitude to Mr Allan Atkinson and Mr Eric Muhling, recently retired from his role as Underground Mine Manager for the UQ Experimental Mine, who greatly assisted with the design and fabrication of the experimental dozer push rig.

Funding

The research leading to these results was funded by Newcrest Mining Limited under a University of Queensland/Newcrest Mining Limited PhD scholarship agreement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Royal Rea, Peter Knights & Mehmet Kizil

Authors
  1. Royal Rea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Knights
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Kizil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Knights.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

The authors and Newcrest Mining Limited consent to the publication of this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no financial interests associated with this publication.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rea, R., Knights, P. & Kizil, M. A Scale Model Experimental Study for Estimating the Productivity of Bulk Push Dozer Operations in Hard Rock Mining. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 39, 63–75 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-021-00505-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-021-00505-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation