Modelling and Analysis of Dragline OE and its Impact on EE and CE

This chapter details the modelling procedures and their analysis concerning the
operational efficiency (OE) of dragline mining System followed by measuring the
impacts of overburden removal on environmental and cost efficiency.

4.1. General

In India, over 150 million tonnes (Mt) of coal are produced annually from dragline
operated surface coal mines. Singrauli coalfields of India which produced over 120Mt
coal in the Financial Year (FY) 2019-2020 (April – March) deployed more than 25
dragline for OB removal. Located between the longitude of 81o48’E to 82o52’ E and
latitude 23o47’N to 24o12’N, the Singrauli coalfield covers the area of 2202 sq. km.
(Figure 4.1a and 4.1b). The coalfield represents a composite basin comprising of two
basins namely, ‘Moher Sub-basin’ in the east and ‘Main Basin’ on the west separated by
a concealed Basement High (Figure 4.1b). Main Basin covers an area of 1890 sq. km,
and Moher Sub-basin an area of about 312 sq.km. The disposition of coal seams in the
two basins are entirely different. The coal seams of main basin are generally of less
thickness than the Moher sub-basin, therefore, less attractive from surface mining point
of view.

Moher sub-basin is having a coal bearing area of approximately 190 sq. km. with an
extent of about 25 km along east-west (general strike direction) and about 8 km along
north-south. Raniganj and Barren Measures formations are exposed in the north-eastern
part of the Moher sub-basin over a small area while the major part of the Moher sub-
basin is covered by Barakar rock formations. (Figure 4.1c). The thickest coal seam of
India viz. Jhingurdah Seam (up to 138m thick) in Raniganj formation has been
encountered in the Moher Sub-basin. However, this seam occurs only in Jhingurdah
Project which is nearing exhaustion.
 (b)

(a) (c)

Figure 4.1: Geological map of Singrauli coalfields

A typical geological borehole section showing the coal seam sequence of Moher sub-
basin is shown in Figure 4.2.

Fig. 4.2: Typical bore-hole section showing sequence of coal seams in Moher sub-
basin

Due to favorable geological conditions and presence of thick coal seams the entire
Moher Sub-basin is mined by surface mining methods. At present, 11 large surface coal
mines are operated in Moher Sub-Basin, out of which 8 surface mines deploy dragline
of various sizes to remove thick inter-burden of over 50m above Turra coal seam
(Figure 4.2.). Turra coal seam is of high quality and its efficient exploitation is crucial

3
for meeting the production and quality targets of coal from the various mines of this
coalfields.

The general dip direction of coal seams in Moher sub-basin is northerly towards the
center of the sub-basin. However, the dip swings westerly in eastern part, northerly in
southern part to easterly in the western part of the sub-basin. All surface coal mines
have been developed along the in-crops of coal seams. Mines are advancing towards the
center of the sub-basin, as a result the available strike length of working front is
reducing progressively.

The present mining operation along the strike length of the deposit has reached up to a
depth of over 225m causing a space constraint, particularly in the deeper horizon on the
dip side, and causing bottlenecks for the provision of long-haul roads required for
extraction and transportation of lower coal seam and Inter-burdens. Increasing
operational efficiencies (OE) of large dragline for OB removal in the deeper horizons
will help overcome these challenges due to the advantages of high bench operations
with side casting (no use of dumpers) by dragline, and consequently a reduction in the
fleet size of dumpers for transportation of OB on the long hauls.

4.2. Selection of Site and Geo-Mining Conditions

In consonance with the first objective of this study, research was carried out to improve
OE of OB removal process and measure its impact on the EE and CE is done in one of
the largest surface coal mines of Moher sub-basin which produced over 15.50 Mt coal
and removed 54.55 million m3 (Mm3) of OB during FY 2018-19. The mine had 3 coal
seams Turra, Purewa bottom and Purewa top (Figure 4.3.). The strike length of the mine
was 3.3 km along the E-W direction, and the mine is operating at a depth of
approximately 225m. The top and middle OB of the mine was moved entirely by the
shovel-dumper system. The inter-burden (55m) between Turra and Purewa bottom
coal seams lying at the deeper horizon was removed by a combination of dragline and
shovel-dumper system which formed the system boundary of this study. The mine was
divided into two sections - east and west having two draglines each of 24m 3 bucket size
and 96m boom length (DL- 1 and DL-2) operating in horizontal tandem method as

4
shown in Figure 4.4. The system boundary deployed shovel-dumper system for pre-
stripping of top 13m OB and 4 draglines in two sections for direct casting the rest 42m
OB (combined equipment system). Diesel-powered dumpers of 100te capacity were
deployed for transportation of pre-stripped OB.

Figure 4.3: Geo-mining conditions of the coal mine and system boundary of
research

Figure 4.4: Horizontal tandem dragline operation of the mine

5
Given the inherent advantages of dragline mining system for the given geo-mining
conditions, it was desirable to minimize pre-stripping by shovel-dumper, and maximize
dragline side-casting of OB to achieve superior environmental and economic
performance of OB removal within the system boundary in a complex and constrained
geo-mining conditions at the deeper horizons. Assuming OE of shovel – dumper system
uniform, the goal of the experiment was to enhance the OE of OB removal as per the
methodology proposed in the chapter 3, section 3.1.

4.3. OE of Dragline Mining System

As discussed in the chapter 3, section 3.1.4. OE of dragline mining system depends on
a number of parameters, namely, Gv: Geological factors, Ev: Equipment factors, Mi:
Mining Method, Ov: Operating factors, and Bv: Blast factors. For a given geo-mining
condition (Gv, and Ev), the choice of mining methods would depend on dragline
configuration (Ev) and vice versa. Figure 4.5 defines the dragline configuration
showing the various parameters affecting the OE of dragline equipment system.

Figure 4.5: Dragline operational parameters

 Clearance radius (CR): It is the minimum distance from the dragline positioning
centre which have to be free from all sides for safe dragline rotation.
 Clearance height (CH): It is the minimum height from the dragline sitting level
for swing or rotation.
 Dumping clearance (DC): It is the distance between the highest position of
dragline bucket possible and the boom point end.

6
  Dumping height (DH): It is the height from the dragline sitting level to the
position of dragline bucket during dumping.
 Dragline positioning (PD): It is the position of the centre of tub of dragline and it
is assumed to be the position of dragline for all calculation purposes.
 Boom point height (BP): The height from the dragline sitting level to boom
point end
 Digging depth (DD): It is the depth from dragline sitting level to the roof of coal
seam for key and box cut and to the floor of coal seam for no-coal cut.
 Tub diameter (TD): The diameter of the dragline tub outer to outer.
 Boom angle (BA): Maximum angle of the boom from horizontal.
 Fairlead Height (FH): Height of fairlead pulley (centre) from the dragline sitting
level.
 Fairlead radius (FLR): Radius of fairlead pulley (centre) from the dragline
positioning centre.
 Tub Clearance from the face (TCF): It is the minimum safe distance from the
edge of the free face to the dragline position (tub centre). It is usually 75% of
dragline tub diameter.
 Operating radius (OR): Operating radius is the maximum operating or distance
of swinging from the centre of a dragline in both dragging and spoiling
operations.
 Minimum Bench Width (MBW): It is the minimum bench width required for the
dragline to operate and it varies with the dragline.
 Minimum Dig Width (MDW): It is generally equal to the width of the dragline

All these parameters are the essential parameters to model OE of dragline mining
system.
4.4. Data collection, processing, and interpretation
Previous 12 years working and production data of four dragline in the mine were
collected and reviewed to understand their performances in terms of worked hours,
annual volume of overburden, re-handling and productivity (m3/hr.), (Figure 4.6).

7
Figure 4.6: Past performance of dragline: (a) Working hours of dragline fleet (Hours); (b) Prime OB Removal by dragline fleet
(million m3); (c) OB Re-handling by dragline fleet (million m3); (d) Productivity of dragline fleet (m3/hr.).

8
As the mine practiced different dragline mining methods in previous years - form
vertical tandem to horizontal tandem. It was decided to consider 12 months data of
financial year (FY) 18-19 (from April 2018 to March 2019) for this study during which
the mine practiced horizontal tandem method. Working and performance data of
dragline and shovel-dumper systems such as the energy consumption, production, costs,
hours worked, etc., for (FY18–19) within the system boundary formed the basis for
initial evaluation of OE of OB removal and measure the impact on EE and CE (Table
4.1.).

Table 4.1.: Performance data of dragline and shovel – dumper systems

Performance data FY2018-19
Dragline system
Average OE (m3/hr..) per dragline 451
Each dragline specific electricity consumption 1039
(kwh/hr.)
Each dragline operating cost (₹/hr.) 35782
Specific charge of explosive for dragline bench with 0.59
stand-up blast (kg/m3)
Shovel – Dumper system
Shovel capacity (m3) 10
Shovel OE (m3/hr.) 440
Shovel specific electricity consumption (kwh/hr.) 232
Shovel operating cost (₹/hr.) 29928
Specific charge of explosive for shovel bench (kg/m3) 0.58
Dumper payload capacity (tonnes or te.) 100
Dumper hauling distance (km) 5
Tare weight of Dumper (te) 64.6
Gross weight of Dumper with payload (te) 160.4
Dumper OE (m3/hr.) 93
Dumper specific diesel consumption (kg/hr.) 49
Dumper operating cost (₹/hr.) 18937
Cost of explosive (₹/kg) 29

To measure the emissions of TSP and PM 10 from the OB removal operations, the
following meteorological and environmental data were obtained from the field study
(Table 4.2.).

9
 Table 4.2: Meteorological and environmental data for estimating TSP and PM10
emission.
Description Quantity
Moisture content of the loading material (%) 4.8
Maximum wind speed (m/s) 5.5
Minimum wind speed (m/s) 0.6
Average wind speed (m/s) 2.0
No. of rainy days with rainfall >0.254mm (2018-19) 61
Average dumping height of material by dragline 1 and 2 23 & 24.5
respectively (m)
Silt content of the handled material on surface of the road (%) 20
Efficiency of emission controls for spraying water (%) 0.72

Out of the total OB thickness of 55m of the system boundary, the zone allocated to
dragline and shovel-dumper systems were 42m (9.4Mm 3) and 13m (3.96 Mm3)
respectively, and total coal exposed from Turra coal seam was 7.0 Mt during FY2018-
19. Figure 4.4 shows the horizontal tandem method of dragline operation at the mine.

4.5. Sources of GHGs emissions and calculation of emission inventory

To study the impact of OB removal process on the environment for climate change and
ambient air quality, it was essential to create the site-specific emission inventories based
on the working data of various unit operations of OB removal within the system
boundary.

Emission inventories of OB removal for 7.0 Mt coal production in FY 2918 – 19 were

calculated according to the methodologies laid down in chapter 3, section 3.1, 3.2, and
3.3, and presented in Table 4.3 for initial evaluation and then planning for the
improvement in OE, EE, and CE of OB removal process.

10
 Table 4.3: GHG, TSP, and PM10 emission inventory data in the defined system
boundary (2018-19).
Parameters Quantity GHG TSP PM10 Cost (₹)
emissions emissions emissions
(te CO2- (te) (te)
eq)
Coal exposed 7
(Mt)
OB removed by 9.54
3
Dragline (Mm )
Shovel-dumper 3.96
3
system (Mm )
Dragline hours 21171 18055 1011.24 133.56 773164920
(hr.)
Shovel hours 8800 1602 1.23 0.55 220360800
(hr.)
Dumper hours 42128 8689 1140.48 384.12 701220560
(hr.)
Dragline bench 5734000 952 160552000
Explosive (kg)
Shovel-dumper 2019600 335 56548800
bench explosive
(kg)
Dragline System 9.4 (42m) 19007 1011.24 133.56 933716920
(Mm3)
Shovel-dumper 3.96 10626 1141.71 384.67 978130160
3
system (Mm ) (13m)
Total (Dragline 13.36 29633 2152.95 518.23 1911847080
+ Shovel-
dumper) (Mm3)

Emission rates and unit operating costs of shovel-dumper system and dragline system
derived from Table 4.3 are presented in Table 4.4.

11
 Table 4.4: Emission rates and unit operating cost from equipment systems
Parameters GHG TSP emission PM10 emission Unit
emission rate rate rate operating
(kg CO2- (kg/m3) (kg/m3) cost (₹/m3)
eq /m3)
Dragline system 2.02 0.107 0.014 99.30
Shovel-dumper 2.68 0.288 0.097 247.00
system
Total 2.22 0.161 0.039 143.10

Table 4.4 shows that the shovel-dumper system emitted 33% more GHGs, 2.7 times
more TSP, 7 times more PM10 than the dragline system indicating a much higher
environmental footprint. Even the unit cost of OB removal by shovel-dumper system
was found 2.5 times more than the dragline system. Therefore, it was concluded that, if
for OB removal within the system boundary, the dragline were allotted more work (OB
volume) than shovel – dumpers without compromising the coal production targets of the
mine by bringing innovations in dragline mining methods and OB removal strategy, the
OB removal process would become environmentally and economically more efficient.

Further field investigations were carried out on the planning and operation of the
dragline system in the mine. It was found that the existing dragline planning process
lacked sophistication in terms of application of technology for simulation and
optimization of dragline operation. The existing planning and simulation process of
dragline operation was based on the traditional method of developing 2 – D dragline
balancing/range diagram to balance the dig-dump volumes, digging depth, dumping
radius, and dumping heights etc. This method had a limited ability to optimize OB
removal process of dragline system and optimize the zones of dragline and shovel –
dumper resulting into in-efficient deployment of equipment systems for OB removal.
Therefore, it was decided to review the deployment of equipment systems (Dragline and
Shovel – Dumper combination) for OB removal within the system boundary to improve
OE using computer-based simulation of dragline operation and scenario analysis.

12
4.6. Development of computer simulation model of dragline operation
As discussed in chapter 3, section 3.1(Simulation of Dragline operation), the
operational data for simulation of dragline operation were collected from the mine
(Table 4.5.).

Table 4.5: Operational parameters at the mine used for computer simulation
Machine parameters Units Value
Dragline operating radius Meters 88.00
Digging Depth Meters 45.00
Dumping height Meters 44.00
Tub clearance from the face Meters 11.00
Minimum bench width Meters 30.00
Bucket size Cubic meter 24.00
Minimum dig width Meters 5.00
Production parameters
Bucket fill factor - 0.65
Dig position time Seconds 7-10
Bucket fill time Seconds 18-25
Dump time Seconds 10-14
Set up time before and after walk Seconds 450 & 450
Factor for swing and hoist - 1.05-1.25 & 1.20-1.25
Machine utilization hours (2018-19) Hours 21171
Operator’s efficiency % 85
Pit parameters
Dig face angle Degree 45
Dig low wall angle Degree 45 – 55
Dig high wall angle Degree 70
Thickness of coal seam Meters 20
Pit Width Meters 80
Bench height Meters 42
Strip length Meters 3300
Spoil Configuration
Angle of repose Degree 37
Safety corridor at roof level of coal seam Meters 10
Safety corridor at dragline sitting level Meters 20
Swell to final spoil % 30
Maximum permissible spoil height Meters 80

13
In consideration of the existing dragline mining method of the mine (horizontal
tandem), 3-D computer simulation model was developed using DragSimTM software to
measure OE of OB removal in the system boundary (Figure 4.7a, 4.7.b).

Figure 4.7a: Dig-dump sequence of dragline 1.

Figure 4.7b: Dig-dump sequence of dragline 2.

---Dig area DSL---Dragline Sitting Level (m)

---Dump area BH---Bench height (m),

SA-Swing angle (0)

The Figure(s) show various digging positions and swing angles of two dragline
operating in horizontal tandem method.

Dragline Command Language (DCL) codes used to define the various dragline
positions and dig-dump sequences to model the dragline operations at the mine are
shown in Figure 4.8 to 4.11.

14
 Figure 4.8: DCL codes for dragline simulation

Fi
g. 4.9: Geological data and spoil configuration

15
 Fig. 4.10: Pit, production and machine parameters

Fig. 4.11: Cycle time data - Swing and Hoist

Results of the simulation model for a dig block length of 20m is presented in Figure
4.12(a, b and c).

16
Figure 4.12a: Simulation outcomes of 7 Mt. coal production (DL-1)

17
Figure 4.12b: Simulation outcomes of 7 Mt. coal production (DL -2)

18
Figure 4.12c: Simulation outcomes of 7 Mt. coal production (Combined)

19
The results of simulation model were integrated for OB removal by 4 dragline two each
operating in horizontal tandem in the system boundary for meeting a coal exposure
targets of 7 Mt from Turra coal seam in FY 2018-19, and validated against actual
performance data. The accuracy level was found to be above 95% on the key result
parameters of the dragline system (Table 4.6.). Hence the same operational data of
Table 4.5 were to be used for planning and simulation of dragline operation to make
improvements over the existing dragline mining methods and operating plan.

Table 4.6: Validation of simulated model

Performance Actual figures achieved Results of Variation
parameters in the field (2018-19) Simulated model
Dragline OE (m3/hr.) 1804 (451 *4) 1872 (468*4) 3.70 %
Prime volume handled 7372273 7586973 2.9%
by Dragline (m3)
Re-handling quantity 22.7% 23.7 % 4.4 %
(%)
Total volume handled 9540000 9950511 3.6%
by Dragline (m3)
Coal Exposed (te) 7000000 7088544 1.26%

Table (4.6) indicated that the current dragline mining method was not the efficient one,
as there was large amount of re-handling (22.7%) involved with this method. Re-
handling of OB is an un-productive cycle that reduces the OE of dragline system.
Dragline operations should be so designed to reduce the re-handling to the minimum
possible level. Thus, there was an opportunity to modify and bring improvement on the
dragline mining methods and its operating plan to enhance the OE of OB removal in the
system boundary.

4.7. Development of base line data of emission inventory of overburden removal

The mine had fixed a coal production target of 8Mt from Turra coal seam in FY 2020-
21 which required faster OB removal rate in the system boundary. To achieve this
target, the mine made a strategy to add extra fleet of shovels and dumpers and reduced
the OB allocation to the dragline system from existing 42m thickness to 35m thickness
without altering the mining method. This meant that the pre-stripping by the shovel-
dumper system would increase to 20m. Based on the past performance and health of

20
dragline machines, the mine assumed 20400 annual working hours for dragline (4 nos.
@ 5100 hours per machine)) in FY 2020-21. Considering all the above parameters, a
computer simulation model to achieve 8Mt coal production target (base case or base line
scenario) was developed in DragSimTM software to predict OE of OB removal. Results
of simulation model for a dig block length of 20m is presented in Figure (s) 4.13 (a, b
and c).

The results of simulation model were integrated for OB removal for 4 dragline operating
in horizontal tandem of two each in the two sections of the mine within the system
boundary for meeting coal exposure targets of 8.00 Mt from Turra seam in FY 2020-21.
The impact of producing 8 Mt of coal, with existing planning and operating practices
resulting into higher pre-stripping by shovel – dumper system (20m), on the EE and CE
of OB removal process of the system boundary is presented in Table (4.7).

Table 4.7: Predicted emission inventory for 8Mt coal in FY 2020-21 with the
existing dragline method (Base line data)
Parameters Quantity GHG TSP PM10
emissions (te emissions emissions
CO2-eq) (te) (te)
Coal exposed (Mt) 8.07
OB removal by Dragline 9.48
(Mm3)
Dragline hours (hr.) 20400 17397 881.64 113.76
Shovel hours (hr.) 13356 2431 1.86 0.84
Dumper hours (hr.) 63936 13187 1730.88 582.97
Dragline Bench Explosive 5630300 935
(kg)
Shovel-dumper bench 3065100 509
explosive (kg)
Dragline System (Mm3) 9.23 18332 881.64 113.76
(35m)
Shovel-dumper system (Mm3) 6.01 16127 1732.74 583.81
(20m)
Total (Dragline + Shovel- 15.24 34459 2594.38 697.57
Dumper) (Mm3)
Total cost of operation 2387
(Million ₹)
Dragline system OE (m3/hr.) 1810

21
EE of OB removal (kg/m3) 2.26 0.170 0.046
CE of OB mining (₹/m3) 156.63

22
Figure 4.13a: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with existing methods (DL-1)

23
Figure 4.13b: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with existing methods (DL-2)

24
Figure 4.13c: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with existing methods (Combined)

25
Comparing the environmental and economic performance of 7.0 Mt (Table 4.3.) and 8.0
Mt (Table 4.8) coal production targets, the results shows that there was an overall
deterioration in the EE and CE of OB removal process within the system boundary -
GHG emission rate increased by 2.2%, TSP emission rate by 5.6%, and PM 10 emission
rate by 15.2%. CE of OB removal is also deteriorated by 9.4%. The deterioration
occurred primarily because of the increase in pre-stripping quantity by shovel-dumper
system (Table 4.8.),

Table 4.8: Comparison of EE and CE of 7 Mt. and 8 Mt. coal production

Coal production targets 7.00 Mt (FY 8.00 Mt (FY Increase
2018 – 19) 2020-21) (+) /
Decrease (-)
OB removal by Dragline 9.56 (42m) 9.48 (35m) - 0.8%
(Mm3)
Pre-stripping by shovel – 3.96 (13m) 6.01 (20m) + 51.7%
dumpers (Mm3)
EE of OB removal (kg/m3)
GHG 2.20 2.26 + 2.7%
TSP 0.161 0.170 + 5.60%
PM10 0.039 0.046 +17,94%
CE of OB mining (₹/m3) 143.19 156.63 + 9.38%

4.8. Improving operational efficiency of dragline mining system

As the current OB removal operation by dragline were not operationally and
environmentally efficient due to large quantity of re-handling and high pre-stripping of
20m by the shovel-dumper system. It was, therefore, decided to modify the dragline
mining method based on the knowledge acquired from previous research and computer
simulation to optimize dragline operating plan. A new and innovative dragline mining
method (a combination of in-pit and vertical tandem method) now named as In-Pit
Vertical Tandem (IPVT) method which could reduce the amount of re-handling and at
the same time ensure high bench dragline operation. Scenario analysis of the new
method (IPVT) with different operating plans was carried out at 2m increment (from
38m to 50m) in OB thickness allocation to the dragline which showed that OB thickness
allocation to dragline system beyond 48m didn’t not achieve the coal production target
of 8Mt. To show this trend of increase in OE of OB removal and measure the impacts

26
on EE and CE within system boundary while achieving coal production target of 8Mt,
three variants (variant 1 (38m), variant 2 (42m), and variant 3(48m) of computer
simulation models are presented for dragline operation (Figure 4.14).

Figure 4.14: Existing method Vs. Variants

4.8.1. Variant 1: Measurement of OE, EE and CE

In this variant, as shown in Figure 4.15, the dragline OB zone was increased to 38m
from 35m and the two-dragline operating in horizontal tandem were made to work in
vertical tandem at a 15m level difference (Figures 4.15a, 4.15b). This method reduced
the re-handling from 22.7% in the base case to 11.5 % causing an improvement in the
OE. DCL codes for dragline simulation of variant 1 is shown in Figure 4.16 and the
simulation outcomes are shown in Figure (s) 4.17 (a, b and c).

Figure 4.15a: Dig-dump sequence of dragline -1

27
Figure 4.15b: Dig-dump sequence of dragline-2

Figure 4.16: DCL codes for variant 1

28
Figure 4.17a: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 1(DL -1))

29
Figure 4.17b: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 1(DL-2)

30
Figure 4.17c: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 1(Combined)

31
The results of simulation model were integrated for OB removal by 4 dragline two each
operating in combination of in-pit vertical tandem in the two sections of the mine within
the system boundary (Figure 4.11a and 4.11b) for meeting a coal exposure target of 8.00
Mt from Turra coal seam in FY 2020-21. The improvement in OE and its impact on EE
and CE of OB removal in the system boundary is presented in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Measurement of OE, EE, and CE in variant-1 for FY 2020-21.

GHG TSP PM10
Parameters Quantity emissions emissions emissions
(te CO2-eq) (te) (te)
Coal exposed (Mt) 7.98
OB removal by Dragline (Mm3) 9.29
Dragline hours (hr.) 20400 17397 966.16 120.77
Shovel hours (hr.) 11756 2140 1.64 0.74
Dumper hours (hr.) 56277 11608 1523.52 513.13
Dragline Bench Explosive (kg) 6069500 1008
Shovel-dumper bench explosive 2697900 448
(kg)
Dragline System (Mm3) 9.95 18405 966.16 120.77
Shovel-dumper system (Mm3) 5.29 14196 1525.16 513.87
Total (Dragline + Shovel- 15.24 32601 2491.32 634.64
Dumper) (Mm3)
Total cost of operation (Million ₹) 2221.8

Dragline system OE (m3/hr.) 1957

EE of OB mining (kg/m3) 2.14 0.163 0.041
CE of OB mining (₹/m3) 145.78

Variant 1 resulted in an increase of dragline system OE by 8% (from 1810 to 1957

m3/hr.), reduction in GHG by 5.4%, TSP by 4%, and PM 10 by 9% from the base case.
Improvement in CE was reported at 6.9% from the base case.

4.8.2. Variant 2: Measurement of OE, EE and CE

In this variant, as shown in Figure (s) 4.18 (a and b), the dragline OB zone was
increased to 42m with further improvement in dragline operating plan as shown in
(Figures 4.17a, 4.17b). Dragline-1 operated closer to the old high wall and dragline-2
operated 15m below dragline-1 towards the low wall to reduce re-handling and cycle
time of operation. There was a minor change in the DCL code of simulation of variant 2

32
from variant 1, therefore, not shown separately. However, the impact in outcomes is
shown in Figure (s) 4.19 (a, b and c), showing a reduction in the volume of rehandling
to 3.8%.

Figure 4.18a: Dig-dump sequence of dragline-1

Figure 4.18b: Dig-dump sequence of dragline-2

33
Figure 4.19a: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 2 (DL-1)

34
Figure 4.19b: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 2 (DL-2))

35
Figure 4.19c: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 2 (Combined)

36
The impact on EE, and CE within the system boundary was calculated in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Measurement of OE, EE, and CE in variant-2 for FY 2020-21

Parameters Quantity GHG TSP PM10
emissions emissions emissions
(te CO2-eq ) (te) (te)
Coal exposed (Mt) 8.17
OB removal by Dragline 9.44
(Mm3)
Dragline hours (hr.) 20400 17397 1132.8 132.16
Shovel hours (hr.) 8711 1586 1.22 0.55
Dumper hours (hr.) 41702 8601 1128.96 380.24
Dragline Bench Explosive 6905200 1146
(kg)
Shovel-dumper bench 1999200 332
explosive (kg)
Dragline System (Mm3) 11.32 18543 1132.8 132.16
Shovel-dumper system (Mm3) 3.92 10519 1130.18 380.79
Total (Dragline + Shovel- 15.24 29062 2262.98 512.95
Dumper) (Mm3)
Total cost of operation 1906.8
(Million ₹)
Dragline system OE (m3/hr.) 2232
EE of OB mining (kg/m3) 1.91 0.148 0.034
CE of OB mining (₹/m3) 125.12

Variant 2 (Table 4.10) resulted in OE gain of 23.3 % in dragline system (from 1810 to
2232 m3/hr.) from the base case, reduction in GHG by 15.7%, TSP by 12.7%, and PM 10
by 26.5%. CE improved by 20.12% from the base case scenario.

4.8.3. Variant 3: Measurement of OE, EE and CE

As discussed in chapter 2 (Literature Review), and model equation of Section 4.3, cast
blasting is an integral component of dragline mining system and has got a significant
impact on the OE of dragline operation. Up to 30 – 35 % of OB removal could be
directly cast to the final dump by cast blasting without the use of mechanical excavation
by dragline. Though the mine under study didn’t practice the cast blast, but the

37
adjoining mine with similar geo-mining conditions used cast blasting extensively to
obtain up-to 35% overburden casting. A detailed study on the integration of cast
blasting with dragline system and its impact on the OE of the adjoining mine is
presented in chapter 5 of this thesis. Cast blasting carried out in the adjoining mine
had a marginal increase in the quantity of explosives from 0.59 kg to 0.75 kg (10%) of
emulsion explosives per m3 of OB rock which caused a marginal increase (<2%) in the
emissions because of higher explosive consumption, but the corresponding gain in EE
due to reduction in transport quantity of OB by dumpers was significantly higher.
Therefore, considering these advantages of cast blast, the dragline operation in variant 3
was simulated with cast blast integration with a blast drop of approximately 6m. The
OB zone allocation to dragline system could be increased to 48m, thereby further
reducing the shovel-dumper OB zone from 20m in the base case to 7m in variant 3.
This was indeed a very significant gain. The results of simulation of variant 3 are
presented in Figure 4.20 a, and 4.20 b. DCL codes for dragline simulation of variant 3 is
shown in Figure 4.21 and the simulation outcomes are shown in Figures 4.22 (a, b, and
c).
.

Figure 4.20a: Dragline-1 operation

38
 Figure 4.20b: Dragline-2 operation

Figure 4.21: DCL codes for variant 3

39
Figure 4.22a: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 3 (DL-1)

40
Figure 4.22b: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 3 (DL-2)

41
Figure 4.22c: Simulation outcomes of 8Mt. coal production with variant 3 (Combined)

42
The improvement in OE and its impact on EE and CE of OB removal in the system boundary
in variant 3 is presented in (Table 4.11).

Table 4.11: Measurement of OE, EE, and CE in variant-3 for FY 2020-21.

Parameters Quantity GHG TSP PM10
emissions emissions emissions
(te CO2-eq) (te) (te)
Coal exposed (Mt) 8.07
OB removal by Dragline (Mm3) 9.24
Dragline hours (hr.) 20400 17397 693 101.64
Shovel hours (hr.) 5267 959 0.73 0.33
Dumper hours (hr.) 25213 5200 682.56 222.89
Dragline Bench Explosive (kg) 9652500 1602
Shovel-dumper bench explosive 1208700 201
(kg)
Dragline System (Mm3) 12.87 18999 693 101.64
Shovel-dumper system (Mm3) 2.37 6360 683.29 230.22
Total (Dragline + Shovel-Dumper) 15.24 25359 1376.29 331.86
(Mm3)
Total cost of operation (Million ₹) 1600.2
Dragline system OE (m3/hr.) 2534
EE of OB mining (kg/m3) 1.66 0.09 0.021
CE of OB mining (₹/m3) 105

As expected, variant 3 resulted in a gain of OE by 40% (from 1810 to 2534 m 3/hr.), reduction
in GHG by 26.4%, TSP by 46.9%, and PM 10 by 52.4%. CE improved by 32.96% from the
base case scenario.

4.9. Results and Discussions:

The objective of the study was to measure the impact of OE on EE and CE of OB removal
process in a dragline operated coal mine.

The study was conducted in one of the largest dragline operated coal mine in India that
removed more than 54.55 Mm3of OB to produce 15.50 Mt coal per annum. The system
boundary selected for the study deployed a combination of shovel-dumper and dragline
systems to remove 15.24 Mm3 and expose 8Mt coal per annum. The present practice of OB
removal within the system boundary was pre-stripping of top 20m OB thickness by the
shovel-dumper system and the balance 35m by dragline system. The pre-stripped OB was
hauled (2.5km) by dumpers to place it behind the top of the dragline dump. Dragline system

43
placed the OB into the void of the previous strip directly (direct casting) without the need for
haulage transport. Horizontal tandem method of dragline operation was practiced where two
dragline operated from the same sitting level. Initial evaluation of OB removal process
revealed that the existing horizontal tandem method involved huge re-handling (22.7%)
making it less efficient, and also the shovel-dumper system emitted 33% more GHGs, 2.7
times more TSP and 7 times more PM10, and incurred 2.5 times more cost than dragline
system. To make OB removal process more sustainable the OB allocation to the dragline
system needed to be maximized and pre-stripping minimized. Therefore, an effort was made
to innovate dragline mining methods to a combination of in-pit and vertical tandem methods
(IPVT) which enhanced OE of OB removal by reducing re-handle and dragline cycle time.
In the new method, the first dragline operated relatively closer and along the high wall and
the second dragline operated away from the high wall (in-pit) at a level 12-15m below the
first dragline. This method significantly reduced the re-handle and improved OE. The
simulation model was further optimized with the new method in three variants using
DragSimTM software on actual mine operation data in the increasing order of OE to measure
their impacts on EE and CE (Figure 4.23).

Figure 4.23: Performance chart of Existing and Proposed variants

Considering the best case (variant 3) and the base case scenarios, the followings were drawn
from this study:

44
 1. The simulated outcome of OB removal was found to be consistent with the field
operation as it considered practical aspects and was based on actual field data having
an accuracy of above 95%.
2. There was an annual saving of approximately ₹ 787 million (33%) on operating
expenditure of OB removal.
3. There was an additional coal production of 0.07 Mt. At a nominated coal price of
about ₹ 1300 per tons, would result in additional revenue of ₹ 91 million.
4. An increase in annual productivity of the dragline system by 3.64 Mm3.
5. Resultant annual decrease in the shovel-dumper system by 8089 shovel hours and
38723 dumper hours.
6. Associated environmental benefits due to an increase in OE of dragline system were,
a. Reduction in annual GHG emissions by 9100 te CO2-eq (26.40%).
b. Reduction in annual fugitive dust emissions of TSP and PM 10 by 1218.09 te
(46.90%), and 365.71 te (52.40%) respectively.
7. Transport of OB by dumpers was found to be the most polluting activity emitting 2.19
kg CO2-eq, 0.288 kg TSP and 0.097 kg PM10 per m3 of OB removed.

4.10. Summary
In dragline operated coal mine, the pre-stripping should be minimized by innovating dragline
mining methods. With deep domain knowledge and computer- simulation of dragline
operation, the OE of OB removal can be enhanced through innovations in dragline mining
methods and operating plans for significant gains in EE, and CE. In a typical scenario of
dragline mining, a 40% increase in OE was obtained by changing the dragline operating plan
and mining method. The impact of increase in OE has resulted in gains in EE by 26.4%
reduction in GHG, 47% reduction in TSP, and 52% reduction in PM 10. The gain in CE was
33%.

45