Draw Control Optimization along the Production Drift in Sublevel

Draw Control Optimization along the
Production Drift in Sublevel Caving Mines
Shekhar, G.(1), Gustafson, A. (1), Boeg-Jensen, P. (2) and
Schunnesson, H. (1)
1. Luleå University of Technology, (Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering), Sweden.
2. LKAB, LKAB Kiruna, Sweden.
Improved resource efficiency through dynamic loading control, is a
joint project between Luleå University of Technology, LKAB, ABB,
Boliden Mineral AB and Agio System och Kompetens AB
Division of Mining & Geotechnical Engineering
Lulea University of Technology
Research Areas: Mining & Rock
Engineering
Kiirunavaara mine, LKAB
Largest underground iron
ore mine
Introduction
Mine design
Grade calculations
Model
Results
Conclusions
Loading process in SLC
Courtesy
LKAB
Loading process in SLC
Continuous mixing of
ore and waste
Courtesy
LKAB
Loading process in SLC
Continuous mixing of
ore and waste
Flow of material from a
restricted opening
Courtesy
LKAB
Draw control
regulates
loading
process
Draw control
regulates
loading
process
Amount of
material to be
loaded
Draw control
regulates
loading
process
Amount of
material to be
loaded
When to stop
loading
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
Fragmentation
Ore grade
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
Fragmentation
Ore grade
Research focus
Factors
Draw control
Optimization
Parameters
Ore geometry
and geology
Ore grade
Mine design
and layout
Final extraction
ratio
Research focus
Factors
Draw control
Optimization
Ore geometry
and geology
Mine design
and layout
Parameters
Ore grade
π‘‡π‘œπ‘‘π‘Žπ‘™ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘Žπ‘™ π‘™π‘œπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘
π‘ƒπ‘™π‘Žπ‘›π‘›π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘›π‘›π‘Žπ‘”π‘’
Final extraction
ratio
Introduction
Mine design
Grade calculations
Model
Results
Conclusions
Kiirunavaara mine- a typical ring
Silo shaped ring
Kiirunavaara mine- a typical ring
Hole length: 22m-52m
Side angle: 73°
Borehole diameter: 4.5 inch
(115mm)
Hole
length
Side angle
Simplified diagram of Kiirunavaara ore body
Production drift
Drill design variation
Drill design variation
Horizontal section for first blast
Drill design variation
Drill design variation
Better fragmentation in
transition zone
Drill design variation
Cave breach
point
Cave breach
ring
Drill design variation
Cave breach
point
Cave breach
ring
Drill design variation
Cave breach
point
Cave breach
ring
Drill design variation
Cave breach
point
Cave breach
ring
Drill design variation
Cave breach
point
Cave breach
ring
Bucket weight
LHD bucket arm cylinder
Pressure transducer
Bucket weight
LHD bucket arm cylinder
Pressure transducer
Hydraulic pressure
Bucket weight
Bucket grade
Principle for grade calculation at Kiirunavaara mine:
Iron ore (4.6 t/m3 ) has a higher density than waste
(2.7 t/m3 )
Bucket grade
Inputs :
οƒ˜Fully filled bucket
with waste
οƒ˜Fully filled bucket
with ore
Principal graph
Bucket grade
47,733 sample points
Inputs :
οƒ˜Fully filled bucket
with waste
οƒ˜Fully filled bucket
with ore
Principal graph
Bucket grade
Bucket
weight
(t)
Bucket
grade
(Fe%
Or
waste%)
WOLIS - Wireless Online Information System (LKAB)
Ore grade plotted
against extraction ratio
Introduction
Mine design
Grade calculations
Model
Results
Conclusions
Grades used for analysis
Average grade
Moving average grade
(last 20 buckets)
Grades used for analysis
Average grade
Overall ore grade of a
production ring
Moving average grade
(last 20 buckets)
Grades used for analysis
Average grade
Overall ore grade of a
production ring
Moving average grade
(last 20 buckets)
Ore grade of the
material being
loaded
Introduction
Mine design
Grade calculations
Model
Results
Conclusions
Proposed model for zonal division
Proposed model for zonal division
Zone 1
Rings not
connecting
with cave
Safety
loading
Proposed model for zonal division
Zone 2
Rings with
ore
recovery
potential
Proposed model for zonal division
Zone 3
Normal
rings
Proposed model for zonal division
Zone 4
Rings with
internal
dilution
Total number of rings = 5903
Percentage of rings in each zone
9%
Zone 1 (near Hanging wall)
28%
Zone 2
36%
Zone 3
27%
Zone 4 (near Footwall)
Draw point distribution
Model assumptions
Average
mine grade
45%
Model assumptions
Average
mine grade
45%
Model assumptions
Average
mine grade
45%
Model assumptions
Shut-off
grade
30%
Model assumptions
Shut-off
grade
30%
Model assumptions
Shut-off
grade
30%
Ideal draw point performance
Introduction
Mine design
Grade calculations
Model
Results
Conclusions
Zone 2 - 1379 production rings
Zone 2 - 1379 production rings
Zone 2 - 1379 production rings
Percentage of
total rings in
Zone 2
Zone 2 - 1379 production rings
Percentage of
total rings in
Zone 2 having
οƒ˜ average grade
between 35% to 55%
οƒ˜ Grade when ring was
closed less than 30%
Comparison between zones
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 3
Controlling early closing of
rings reduced ore loss
Introduction
Mine design
Grade calculations
Model
Results
Conclusions
Conclusions
1. Average grade of a ring must be considered along with
shut-off grade
Conclusions
1. Average grade of a ring must be considered along with
shut-off grade
2. Zone 2 & Zone 4 has potential to increase ore recovery
Conclusions
1. Average grade of a ring must be considered along with
shut-off grade
2. Zone 2 & Zone 4 has potential to increase ore recovery
3. Using real time data for efficient decision making at LKAB
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LKAB are gratefully acknowledged for financial support of this project.
Thanks are due to the staff and management of the Kiirunavaara and
Malmberget mine for their support and valuable inputs to the study.
Agio System och Kompetens AB, Boliden Mineral AB and ABB are
acknowledged for valuable input to the project. Vinnova, The Swedish
Energy Agency and Formas are acknowledged for financing this project
through the SIP-STRIM program.
Thanks
Grades calculation for analysis
Average grade
Moving average grade
(last 20 buckets)
𝑛
𝑖=1 𝐺𝑖
Aπ‘£π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘”π‘’ π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’ =
𝑛
Gi = Bucket grade
n = Number of buckets loaded from a ring
Grades calculation for analysis
Average grade
Moving average grade
(last 20 buckets)
π‘€π‘œπ‘£π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘Žπ‘£π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘”π‘’ π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’(π‘™π‘Žπ‘ π‘‘ 20 π‘π‘’π‘π‘˜π‘’π‘‘π‘ ) =
m = mth bucket loaded from a ring
G (m-i) = Bucket grade for bucket number (m-i)
19
𝑖=0 𝐺(π‘šβˆ’π‘–)
20
Draw control strategy
Increase ore
recovery
Improve safety
Objective
Minimize costs
Minimize dilution
Factors influencing draw control
Material flow
Mine design &
layout
Ore geology
and geometry
Proximate
draw points
Production
planning
Draw
control
Cut-off & shutoff grades
Dilution
behavior
Factors influencing draw control
Material flow
Mine design &
layout
Ore geology
and geometry
Proximate
draw points
Production
planning
Draw
control
Cut-off & shutoff grades
Dilution
behavior
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
Fragmentation
Brow width
Width
Height
Ore grade
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
π‘‡π‘œπ‘‘π‘Žπ‘™ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘Žπ‘™ π‘™π‘œπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘
π‘ƒπ‘™π‘Žπ‘›π‘›π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘›π‘›π‘Žπ‘”π‘’
Fragmentation
Ore grade
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
Fragmentation
Hang-ups, brow failure etc.
Ore grade
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
Fragmentation
Assessment via image analysis, material sieving method &
boulder count method
Ore grade
Draw point performance parameters
Draw point
dimension
Final extraction
ratio
Loading
stoppage issues
Fragmentation
Iron % in the material loaded
Ore grade
Model Target for a ring
β€’ Final extraction ratio target – 105%
β€’ Average grade between 35% Fe to 55% Fe to achieve an overall
mine average grade target of 45% Fe
β€’ Moving average grade between 30% Fe to 45% Fe to maintain
the shut-off grade target for a given draw point of not less than
30% Fe.
Introduction
SLC at Kiirunavaara Mine
Methodology
Model
Results
Zone 1 – Draw point distribution (%)
(Near Hanging Wall)
Many rings were
closed early
causing ore loss
Introduction
SLC at Kiirunavaara Mine
Methodology
Model
Results
Zone 2 – Draw point distribution (%)
Reduced ore loss
Potential for ore
recovery from
upper levels
Introduction
SLC at Kiirunavaara Mine
Methodology
Model
Results
Zone 3 – Draw point distribution (%)
Efficient loading
Timely closing of
Draw points
Introduction
SLC at Kiirunavaara Mine
Methodology
Model
Results
Zone 4 – Draw point distribution (%)
(Near Footwall)
Potential for ore
recovery
Balance
Overloading is a
prevalent
problem
Special loading conditions
Near hanging wall
Poor performing
rings
Near footwall
Safety
Loading issues
Ore recovery
No loading in
open cavern
Stop
loading
Higher extraction
ratio targets