International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering, 1987, 5, 143- 148

SHORT COMMUNICATION

How to determine the optimum location of in-pit

movable crushers

Introduction

In-pit crushing and conveying has been successfully implemented in several large open pit
copper mines, such as the Sierrita mine in the Southwest of the USA (Woody, 1982). The US
Bureau of Mines has been doing research on this subject to improve mine productivity, reduce
haulage costs, increase mineral availability and conserve energy (Frizzell and Utley, 1983). A
discussion of the factors that are important in considering the changeover from traditional truck
(or train) to a combination truck/crusher/ conveyor belt system is presented by Fernie (1985).
Less consideration has been given to the best location of these crushers once a decision has
been made to introduce them in a mine.

Statement of Problem

Suppose the area where the in-pit crusher is to be located has 4 shovels that load trucks with ore.
All trucks are the same, in the sense that they haul the same tonnage and the various load , haul,
dump and return times are the same. This requirement is chosen to allow rapid solution of the
problem. In practice, different load, haul , dump and return times for each truck could easily be
incorporated. This would make the computer program longer, but not more difficult to write.
In general, there will be many possible locations for the crusher. Suppose this particular area
of the mine has 3 feasible locations for the crusher. If more areas are feasible, these can be
considered by slight modifications in the computer program. Fig. 1 presents a schematic of the
situation in this area of the mine.
The crusher is initially considered located at position 1. The other two feasible locations are
shown by the dashed sketches as 2 and 3. Next, data is needed to define the various times as the
trucks cycle through the system as presented in Fig. 1. By doing time studies for the trucks, data
was determined for each of the four 'events' that take place for each truck, namely, load at a
shovel, haul to the crusher, dump at the crusher and return to one of the four shovels. This data
is presented in Table 1.
It was found that the statistical distributions of the trucks for each of the four operations
(load, haul, dump and return) was normal. Thus, the mean time and standard deviation need to
be specified as given in Table 1. The first column gives the various mean times and associated
Keywords: In-pit crushers; Computer optimized location.
0269--0316/87 $03.00 + .! 2 1987 Chapman and Hall Ltd .
144 Sturgul

I
I I
\ \ ! ------
\ \/
\/

I
I I
\ \ !------ I
I
\ \/
\/
\

-- - ~
/

Fig. 1. Representation of four shovels and moveable in-pit crusher. Only three
position are feasible for the crusher.

standard deviations in minutes if the crusher is located at position 1. The second column gives
the relevant data for the second possible position. The dashed lines indicate that the data does
not change when the crusher is moved. Similarly, the third column gives the data for the third
feasible position.
A computer program was written in GPSS language (see Bauer and Calder, 1973) to simulate

Table l. Data for in-pit crusher problem. All times are in minutes.
Crusher at Crusher at Crusher at
location 1 location 2 location 3
mea n std. dev . mean std. dev. mean std . dev.
Load at shovel l 3 0.2
Travel shovel I - crusher 12 1.8 14 2 17 3.2
Return to shovel l 8 0.7 10 0.9 14 2.1
Return to shovel 2 7 0.5 7 0.5 9 0.6
Return to shovel 3 9 1.2 8 l.l 6 1
Return to shovel 4 14 1.5 10 l.l 8 1.1
Dump at crusher 1.2 0.1
Load at shovel 2 4 0.25
Travel shovel 2 - crusher 10 1.2 8 1.0 7 1.0
Load at shovel 3 2.5 0.1
Travel shovel 3 - crusher 12 I 10 8 1.1
Load at shovel 4 2 0.2
Travel shovel 4 - crusher 16 2 12 1.7 10 1.5
Short communication 145

the mine for 4 days production (8 hours per day at time unit of 0.1 min. or
1 x60x8x4=19200). Initially, 15 trucks were assumed to be working in the area and
positioned in a queue in front of shovel 1. As the simulation begins, the first truck starts to be
loaded by shovel 1. The program determines a loading time by means of Monte Carlo
sim ulation. When it is loaded, it travels along the road to the crusher and a second truck is
loaded by the shovel. The queue now consists of 13 trucks. Eventually, all the trucks are loaded
by shovel 1. When the first trucks is through dumping, a test is made to see how many trucks are
in the return-queue-load portion of the cycle for each of the 4 shovels. For the first truck this
might be 13, 0, 0, 0. The reason it is not 14 might be that the second truck has been loaded and is
travelling to the dump. The computer program then dispatches the first truck to shovel 2, which
is the minimum shovel number. The program could have just as easily sent the truck to shovel 3
or 4. In fact, it would be very easy to change the program so that the truck is dispatched at
random to a shovel whenever the test for trucks in the return-queue-load cycle indicates that 2
or more have the same number of trucks.
Eventually, all 15 trucks are in the mine and hauling from all 4 shovels. The simulation ran for
I hour to position the trucks throughout the mine. Then it was terminated and all relevant
statistics set to zero, except for the position of the trucks. The simulation was then continued for
the 4 days. After the program was finished, it was re-run twice, with different data to simulate the
crusher at position 2 or position 3. Table 2 presents selected portions of the output.
Thus, the optimum location of the crusher is at position 3, since this allows more loads to be
hauled. In the event that more positions are feasible, it would be a simple matter to modify the
program to test these.
It is now possible to look at the 4 shovels and crusher and see if J 5 trucks gives optimum
production . The program was then re-run for 14 up to 21 trucks in increments of I. The results of
these simulations are presented in Table 3.
As can be seen, if more than 20 trucks are assigned to this area, little increase in loads would
be found. Considering that the simulation was for 4 days and only 5 more loads were hauled
(1583-1572), this is only an average of 1.2 more loads per day. Hence, the optimum number of
trucks can be taken as 20. Thus, the solution to this problem is to place the crusher in position 3
and to assign 20 trucks to work in the area.

The Computer Program

GPSS (General Purpose Simulation System) is a powerful computer programming language to

rapidly simulate systems where discrete events take place. In the case of the example presented

Table 2. Proportion of output from CRUSHER.

Loads from Loads from Loads from Loads from Total
Shovel 1 Shovel 2 Shovel 3 Shovel 4 Loads
Positio n 1 253 345 293 198 1071
Positio n 2 219 362 334 267 1182
Position 3 182 324 415 321 1242
146 S turgul

Table 3. Results from CRUSH ER to determine optimum number of trucks.

No. trucks Loads from Loads from Loads from Loads from Total
in area Shovel 1 Shovel 2 Shovel 3 Shovel 4 Loads
14 170 296 393 306 1165
15 182 324 415 321 1242
16 184 349 439 337 1309
17 193 37 1 463 354 138 1
18 197 387 499 369 1452
19 206 399 527 388 1520
20 206 410 547 409 1572
21 208 411 558 406 1583

here, these discrete events are the tru cks loading, hauling, dumping and returning. The progra m
was written, de-bugged and run in less than o ne half an hour. It consists of only 65 basic
co mma nds and a few control cards. A listing of it is presented in Appendix A to illustrate its
co mpactness. T o consider any other feasible location fo r the crusher would require less than
5 min to modify the program. N o t many applicatio ns of GPSS fo r mining engineering are
available, but th is sho uld change as more mining engineers become a ware of its po tential. Bauer
and Calder (1973 ) indica te how GPSS ca n be used to determine the correct number of trucks for
each shovel in a n open pit mine by considering the load-haul-dump circuits. Bo rkovic (1 984)
was a ble to simula te the Bo uga inville copper mine and estimate the number of trucks needed for
future years.

Conclusions

The optimum location fo r the crusher was rapidly determined fo r the example presented here.
Larger and mo re complicated problems could be solved in simila r sho rt time periods in less than
an ho ur. After fi nding the optimum locatio n, the same computer program was modified and
used to find the o ptimum number of trucks fo r the mining a rea.

Appendix A

Listing of GPS S Computer Program

* PROGRAM CRUSHER
*
*
* PROGRAM TO ASSIST IN LOCATING INPIT CRUSHER AT OPTIMUM SPOT
*
* THERE ARE FOUR SHOVELS, EACH LOADING TRUCKS WITH ORE
* TRUCKS TRAVEL TO CRUSHER AND ARE DISPATCHED BACK TO
* THE SHOVEL WHERE LEAST QUEUE IS EXPECTED
Short communication 147

* THERE ARE ONLY THREE POSS I BLE LOCATIONS FOR THE

* CRUSHER TO BE PLACED (MORE COULD EASILY BE CONSIDERED)
* THIS PROGRAM CONSIDERS ONE OF THESE POSSIBLE LOCATIONS
* OTHERS, NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THIS, BUT WITH DIFFERENT TRAVEL
* TIMES ARE THEN USED TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF LOADS
* OF ORE HAULED EACH DAY.
* INIITALLY THERE ARE 15 TRUCKS IN THE MINE
* THIS CAN BE CHANGED LATER TO DETERMINE OPTIMUM NUMBER
* ONCE THE BES T PLACE FOR THE CRUSHER I S FOUND
* FOR DETAILS SEE TEXT
*
SIMULATE START SIMULATION
RMULT 333 SEED RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR
SNORM FUNCTION RN1 , C25 NORMAL DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION
0,-5/ . 00003,-4/ . 00135,-3/.00621 ,- 2.5/.02275,-2
.06681,-1.5/.11507,-1.2/.15866,-1/.21186,-.8/.27425,-.6
.34458,-.4/ .4 2074 ,- . 2/ . 5,0/ .57926, . 2/ . 65542, .4
. 725 7 5, . 6 I . 7 8 814 , . 8 I . 8 413 4, 1 I . 8 8 4 9 3, 1 . 2 I . 9 3319, 1 . 5
. 97725 , 2/.99379,2.5/ . 99865,3/.99997,4/1,5
TESTl VARIABLE W$PATHl+Q$SHVLl +W$0RESl TRUCKS WITH SHOVEL 1
TEST2 VARIABLE W$PATH2+Q$SHVL2+W$0RES2 TRUCKS WITH SHOVEL 2
TEST3 VARIABLE W$PATH3+Q$SHVL3+W$0RES3 TRUCKS WITH SHOVEL 3
TEST4 VARIABLE W$PATH4+Q$SHVL4+W$0RES4 TRUCKS WITH SHOVEL 4
GENERATE , , , 15 ,, lPH PUT 15 TRUCKS IN THE MINE
BACKl QUEUE LINEl TRUCKS FORM QUEUE AT SHOVEL 1
SEIZE SHVLl SEIZE SHOVEL 1
DEPART LINEl LEAVE QUEUE AT SHOVEL l
ADVANCE 2*FN$SNORM+30 LOAD A TRUCK AT SHOVEL 1
RELEASE SHVLl LEAVE SHOVEL 1
ORESl ADVANCE 18*FN$SNORM+l20 TRAVEL TO CRUSHER
BACK3 QUEUE OREO JOIN QUEUE AT CRUSHER
SEIZE CRUSH SEIZE CRUSHER
DEPART OREO LEAVE QUEUE AT CRUSHER
ADVANCE FN$SNORM+l2 DUMP ORE INTO CRUSHER
RELEASE CRUSH LEAVE THE CRUSHER
TEST LE V$TEST1,V$TEST2 ,NEXT1 TEST PATHl WITH PATH2
TEST LE V$TEST1,V$TEST3,NEXT1 TEST PATHl WITH PATH3
TEST LE V$TEST1 ,V$TEST4,NEXT1 TEST PATHl WITH PATH4
PATHl ADVANCE 7*FN$SNORM+80 RETURN TO SHOVEL 1
TRANSFER ,BACKl JOIN QUEUE AT SHOVEL 1
NEXTl TEST LE V$TEST2,V$TEST3,NEXT2 TEST PATH2 WITH PATH3
TEST LE V$TEST2 , V$TEST4,NEXT2 TEST PATH2 WITH PATH4
PATH2 ADVANCE 5*FN$SNORM+70 RETURN TO SHOVEL 2
QUEUE LINE2 JOIN QUEUE AT SHOVEL 2
SEIZE SHVL2 SEIZE SHOVEL 2
DEPART LINE2 LEAVE QUEUE AT SHOVEL 2
ORES2 ADVANCE 2*FN$SNORM+40 LOAD A TRUCK AT SHOVEL 2
RELEASE SHVL2 LEAVE SHOVEL 2
ADVANCE 12*FN$SNORM+l00 TRAVEL TO CRUSHER
TRANSFER , BACK3 JOIN QUEUE AT CRUSHER
NEXT2 TEST LE V$TEST3 , V$TEST4,PATH4 TEST PATH2 WITH PATH4
PATH3 ADVANCE 12*FN$SNORM+90 RETURN TO SHOVEL 3
QUEUE LINE3 JOIN QUEUE AT SHOVEL 3
SEIZE SHVL3 SEIZE SHOVEJ, 3
DEPART LINE3 LEAVE QUEUE AT SHOVEL 3
148 Sturgul

ORES3 ADVANCE FN$SNORM+25 LOAD A TRUCK AT SHOVEL 3

RELEASE SHVL3 LEAVE SHOVEL 3
ADVANCE 10*FN $SNORM+120 TRAVEL TO CRUSHER
TRANSFER ,BACK3 JOIN QUEUE AT CRUSHER
PATH4 ADVANCE 15*FN$SNORM+140 RETURN TO SHOVEL 4
QUEUE LINE4 JOIN QUEUE AT SHOVEL 4
SEIZE SHVL 4 SEIZE SHOVEL 4
DEPART LINE4 LEAVE QUEUE AT SHOVEL 4
ORES4 ADVANCE 2*FN$SNORM+20 LOAD TRUCK AT SHOVEL 4
RELEASE SHVL4 LEAVE SHOVEL 4
ADVANCE 20*FN$SNORM+160 TRAVEL TO CRUSHER
TRANSFER ,BACK3 JOIN QUEUE AT CRUSHER
GENERATE 600 SIMULATE FOR AN HOUR
TERMINATE 1 END SIMULATION
START 1,NP STOP, DISCARD RESULTS so FAR
RESET KEEP TRUCKS IN THE MINE
START 24 SIMULATE FOR 24 HOURS
END SIMULATION OVER

References

Atkinson , D.C., Davidson, W. a nd Smith, L. (1973) Optimizing medium-term operational plans for a
group of copper mines, 10th APCOM, 1973, South Africa (edited by M .D.C. Salamo n and F.H.
Lancaster) South African Institute of Mining a nd Metallurgy, Johannesburg.
Bauer, A. and Calder, P .N. (1973) Planning open pit mining operations using simulation, 10th APCOM,
1973 , South Africa (edited by M .D.C. Salamon a nd F.H. Lancaster) So uth African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg.
Borkovic, A. (1984) Computer Simulation of Truck and Conveyor Haulage at Bougainvil/e Copper l td.'s
Panguna Mine. M .S. Thesis, University of New South Wales, 1984.
Fernie, A.D. (1985) Pit to plant- Current trends, Mining Engineer, January 1985, pp. 49- 54.
Frizzell, E.M. a nd Utley , R.W. ( 1983) US BM designs in-pit movable crusher based on mine personnel
survey, Mining Engineer , April 1983, pp. 317-321.
Woody, R. (1982) Cutting Crushing Costs, World Mining, October, pp. 76-7.

School of Mining and Metallurgy , JOHN R. STURGUL

South Australia In stitute of Technology,
P.O. Box I ,
Jn glefarm ,
S.A ., 5098, Australia

Received 30 June 1986