A OPEN PIT MINING AÇIK OCAK MADENCİLİĞİ

A OPEN PIT MINING AÇIK OCAK MADENCİLİĞİ A OPEN PIT MINING AÇIK OCAK MADENCİLİĞİ

28.04.2014 Views

A. Wood 91 Tonne payload truck 3600 Seconds in one hour 90% Operator Efficiency Loading cycles Use equation 1. Time to load truck Use equation 2. Trucks Loaded Per Hour Use equation 3. Hourly Production Use equation 4. Productivity Example 3 21m³ Hydraulic Excavator 38 Tonne wheel loader payload 91 Tonne payload truck 3600 Seconds in one hour 90% Operator Efficiency Loading cycles Use equation 1. Time to load truck Use equation 2 Trucks Loaded Per Hour Use equation 3. Hourly Production Use equation 4. In this illustration, a 19m³ payload, electric drive wheel loader, is equally as productive as a 15m³ hydraulic excavator with similar production availability. (Binns, 2012) The capital purchase costs and life expectancy are similar. The advantage of electric drive wheel loaders is seen in the operational costs, which are presented in the next section. (Binns, 2012) A 21m³ hydraulic shovel compared to the 19m³ electric drive wheel loader will be more productive if matched for three pass loading, but will have a higher capital cost and higher operational cost per tonne loaded. 3 OPERATIONAL COSTS Fuel consumption is a major cost for all diesel powered loading tools, compared to electric powered equipment such as rope shovels, and to a lesser extent electric powered hydraulic shovels. Fuel consumption is minimized on electric drive wheel loaders through efficient use of regenerated energy. Mechanical systems waste this potential energy saving through heat in friction disks for braking. Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is a measure of fuel efficiency within a shaft reciprocating engine. It is the rate of fuel consumption divided by the power produced. It may also be thought of as power-specific fuel consumption, for this reason. BSFC allows the fuel efficiency of different reciprocating engines to be directly compared. Equation 5 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption P = Power produced in kW C f = Fuel Consumption (L/hour @ RPM for stated power) 6

23 rd D f = Fuel Density A typical value of fuel density is 854g/liter. (Range 849-960g/l) A typical BSFC value for mining duty diesel engines in loaders, excavators and trucks is 200g/kW.hr. (Range 180g/kW.hr for highly efficient engines to 250g/kW.hr for less efficient engines) Transposing the formula to give max fuel burn at 100% engine load, on typical BSFC. Example 4. Fuel consumption at 100% Engine Load Engine Power = 940kW @ 1800RPM BSFC = 200g/kW.hr Df = 854g/L A typical electric drive wheel loader has an average engine load factor of 39%(Fleet 2012), compared to 60%+ for mechanical systems. This is due to regenerated power being fed back on electric drive wheel loaders, and used to power the units hydraulic systems. On power regeneration, fuel to the engine is cut off, resulting in the significantly lower average engine load factor. Fuel cost comparison of a typical 15m³ Hydraulic shovel versus 19m³ electric wheel loader, as described in the productivity details on previous page. Hydraulic shovel 15m³ Engine Power 940kW@1800 RPM Fuel Consumption:- at 100% Engine Load = 220 lph at 65% Average Cycle Load = 143 lph Over 5000 hours = 715,000 litres Fuel Consumption 19m³ Electric Drive Wheel Loader Engine Power 899kW @ 1800RPM Fuel Consumption at 100% Engine Load = 208 lph at 39% Average Cycle Load = 81 lph Over 5000 hours = 405,000 litres Fuel Consumption Showing a 310,000L fuel saving for the same production, over a 5000 hour / one year period. Major engine overhauls are typically based on fuel consumed. While life-to-overhaul can be expressed in hours, some diesel engine manufacturers prefer to focus on average design life-tooverhaul in terms of liters of fuel consumed as a more accurate measure which better reflects high engine load operating factors. Depending upon duty cycle, the average design life-to-overhaul for a 2MW mining duty engine exceeds 3,785,000 liters of fuel consumed and for 1.5MW this is 3,312,000 liters. (Cummins, 2008) Electric drive wheel loaders having fuel saving technology, provide major engine overhaul at over 20,000 operational hours. Fewer mechanical parts on an electric drive wheel loader, result in reduced parts and lubrication usage and reduced maintenance costs. 4 MAINTENANCE Critical components to maintain on an electric drive wheel loader are the engine, tires and hydraulic systems. (Fleet, 2012) Tire life can be extended with use of tire chains. (Ozdogan, 2012) Engine, hydraulic and welding maintenance requirements are similar to any other hydraulic excavator or mechanical wheel loader Switched Reluctance wheel motors only require new bearings on high hour overhauls. (Fleet, 2012) Modern electronic control systems on electric drive wheel loaders provide a stable electrical maintenance platform. As primary loading tools, electric drive wheel loaders are equipped with full service operational and maintenance trouble shooting controls systems, to assist with productivity and maintenance management. 7

A. Wood<br />

91 Tonne payload truck<br />

3600 Seconds in one hour<br />

90% Operator Efficiency<br />

Loading cycles<br />

Use equation 1.<br />

<br />

<br />

Time to load truck<br />

Use equation 2.<br />

<br />

Trucks Loaded Per Hour<br />

Use equation 3.<br />

<br />

<br />

Hourly Production<br />

Use equation 4.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Productivity Example 3<br />

21m³ Hydraulic Excavator<br />

38 Tonne wheel loader payload<br />

91 Tonne payload truck<br />

3600 Seconds in one hour<br />

90% Operator Efficiency<br />

Loading cycles<br />

Use equation 1.<br />

<br />

<br />

Time to load truck<br />

Use equation 2<br />

<br />

Trucks Loaded Per Hour<br />

Use equation 3.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Hourly<br />

Production<br />

Use equation 4.<br />

<br />

<br />

In this illustration, a 19m³ payload,<br />

electric drive wheel loader, is equally as<br />

productive as a 15m³ hydraulic excavator<br />

with similar production availability. (Binns,<br />

2012)<br />

The capital purchase costs and life<br />

expectancy are similar. The advantage of<br />

electric drive wheel loaders is seen in the<br />

operational costs, which are presented in the<br />

next section. (Binns, 2012)<br />

A 21m³ hydraulic shovel compared to the<br />

19m³ electric drive wheel loader will be<br />

more productive if matched for three pass<br />

loading, but will have a higher capital cost<br />

and higher operational cost per tonne loaded.<br />

3 OPERATIONAL COSTS<br />

Fuel consumption is a major cost for all<br />

diesel powered loading tools, compared to<br />

electric powered equipment such as rope<br />

shovels, and to a lesser extent electric<br />

powered hydraulic shovels.<br />

Fuel consumption is minimized on electric<br />

drive wheel loaders through efficient use of<br />

regenerated energy. Mechanical systems<br />

waste this potential energy saving through<br />

heat in friction disks for braking.<br />

Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC)<br />

is a measure of fuel efficiency within a shaft<br />

reciprocating engine. It is the rate of fuel<br />

consumption divided by the power produced.<br />

It may also be thought of as power-specific<br />

fuel consumption, for this reason. BSFC<br />

allows the fuel efficiency of different<br />

reciprocating engines to be directly<br />

compared.<br />

Equation 5 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption<br />

<br />

<br />

P = Power produced in kW<br />

C f = Fuel Consumption<br />

(L/hour @ RPM for stated power)<br />

6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!