Gregory B S, 2002.

12th International Symposium on Mine Planning and

Equipment Selection. Kalgoorlie.

Excavator Selection
By B S Gregory 1

Abstract
The excavator selection process is quite complex due to the large number of influencing factors, many
of these are variable and difficult to accurately define. The majority of mining companies prepare a
tender of general specifications and suppliers will then match a product to those specifications. The
mining company will then evaluate the tenders on the basis of the best available deal.

In this paper, the importance of open pit excavator selection in terms of its impact on operating costs
is analysed and discussed. A rigorous process for selection is then outlined.

The Authors Relevant Experience

loaders, draglines, bucket wheel excavators, scrapers and
The author has been personally involved in excavator selection continuous miners may be valid alternatives in specific
analyses resulting in purchases for the following operations: applications but these will not be discussed in detail.

Bougainville Copper Limited, Panguna; The selection of the type, size and operating mode of a loading
unit can be a complex task governed by a number of factors that
Murrin Murrin; may be variable and poorly defined depending upon the
Cadia; maturity of the mining operation. Selection of an excavator is
often dependent upon factors such as:
Telfer.
mine design;
He has also been involved in numerous other analyses
involving truck selection considerations including the following mine production schedule;
operations: geology;
material characteristics and expected blasting
Tarmoola; performance;
Mt Keith; climate and/or environment;
Harmony. expected reliability of the excavators;
capital cost and operating cost;
Introduction required mobility of the excavator;
In this paper the importance of the open pit excavator selection maintenance support analysis;
process is examined and a suggested methodology is outlined. power costs vs fuel costs.
The term "excavator" is used here as a collective term covering
face shovels and backhoes. (The author is aware that the term The costing analysis presented in this paper has been performed
"excavator" is sometimes used as an alternative to "backhoe".) using Australian Mining Consultants Pty Ltd's (AMC's)
A general observation is that there is no accepted industry OPMincost cost estimation model. The version utilised was
standard methodology for the selection of the most suitable based on a mine with the following attributes:
excavator for an open pit.
20 year mine life;
As is discussed in this paper, excavator selection can have a
significant impact on the efficiency and profitability of a maximum uphaul of 500m;
mining operation and hence a comprehensive systematic total movement averaging 50 Mtpa;
approach is warranted.
average dry density of material ~2.5 t/bcm.
This paper primarily focuses on the selection of face shovels
and backhoes for medium to large scale, hard rock open pit OPMincost is a comprehensive, spreadsheet-based model,
mining. Other types of loading equipment such as front end which has been developed over a number of years by AMC and
has been utilised successfully on about 20 projects. For the
version used in this analysis, the following basic assumptions
were used:
1. Principal Mining Engineer, AMC Consultants Pty Ltd, 9 Havelock Street,
West Perth, WA. Email: [email protected]
owner mining;
Excavator Selection

owner maintenance; insufficient selectivity may result in grade, dilution

fuel price after rebate of A$0.36; and ore loss;
interest rate of 7.5% per annum; poor matching with haul trucks results in increased
haulage costs;
365 day, 24 hour operation with a two and one FIFO
roster. loading inefficiency can cause downstream problems
including a poor match with processing plant capacity
and haulage fleet inefficiencies;
Cost inputs were based on May 2002 budget quotations from
equipment suppliers. Considerable effort has been made to poor excavator reliability can cause significant
validate cost inputs and model outputs, including reference to inefficiencies downstream including haulage fleet
recent benchmarking data and checking with various relevant redirection, haul truck stand-down and/or production
industry professionals. Although the model is based on a real shortfalls;
project, it is not appropriate or necessary to name the project. poor loading performance can directly impact on ore
production and hence revenue;
The Importance of Excavator Selection poor loading performance can result in insufficient
For Operational Profitability waste stripping which may cause ore production
delays and reduced revenues;
To put this subject in context, we should examine the sub-optimal sizing of excavators will result in
importance of excavator selection in terms of its impact on opportunity costs, especially with regard to loading
operational profitability. Firstly, let us look at the proportion of and hauling activities.
total mining costs, represented by the loading activity. Using
OPMincost, the contributions of the various mining activities to The effects mentioned above are discussed in more detail below
total mining costs were analysed. Results are summarised and in order to examine the significance of these effects, an
below in Figure 1. order-of-magnitude profit impact has been calculated based on
the example project mentioned above (low grade open pit gold,
Figure 1 - Total Mining Cost by Activity 20 year mine life, 50 Mtpa total movement). Of course, the
5%
relative magnitude of these impacts will vary significantly for
12% different operations but the intention here is simply to illustrate
10% the importance of excavator selection.
Other Drill

6% Blast Dilution and ore loss effects

Management Because geology and the nature of the occurrence of ore varies
& Supervision widely between operations, the potential for excessive dilution
12% and ore loss, resulting from sub-optimal excavator selection,
Load will also vary. In narrow vein deposits this can be a major issue
Ancillary but in disseminated orebodies excavator selectivity may be
17% irrelevant. In operations where selectivity is an issue, the effect
of ore dilution and ore loss that could result from inappropriate
excavator selection will likely outweigh any mining cost effects
on profitability. For example, an indicative calculation showed
Haul that if ore dilution at the example operation mentioned above
increased from 10 to 20%, the loss in annual revenue would be
equivalent to approximately 50% of the total annual mining
cost.

38%
Effect of poor match with haul trucks
These proportions will obviously vary from operation to In most cases in the author's experience, excavators are firstly
operation but a check on AMC's database confirmed that selected by matching excavator production characteristics with
loading costs typically make up between 15 to 20% of total operational requirements and then haul trucks are matched to
mining costs for large open pits. the selected excavators. So it could be argued that poor
matching of trucks and excavators is usually a truck selection
Based on this analysis, it appears that loading costs may not be issue. However, instances do occur where excavators need to
as important as haulage costs and it could be mistakenly be matched to an existing truck fleet so the following is
concluded that less effort may be warranted in selection of relevant here.
loading equipment. However, because of the pivotal nature of
the loading activity in a mining operation, excavator To analyse and illustrate the effect on mining costs of
performance affects the efficiency of the whole operation, excavator/truck matching, five different truck sizes were
including the processing plant and excavator selection often matched with three different excavator sizes. A particular
requires as much or more effort than truck selection. mining scenario - mining bulk waste from a particular bench -
was selected and the total cost of loading and hauling
In addition to its impact on the cost of the loading activity, sub- (excluding ancillary, supervision and administration costs) was
optimal excavator selection may impact on operational determined. These costs were converted to an index for
profitability via the following mechanisms: comparative purposes. The results from this analysis are listed
in Table 1. This table shows:

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 2

Excavator Selection

number of passes to load the truck; It is very unlikely that mining operations would select an
load time (which includes truck exchange time); excavator that is more than one class away from the optimal
match, so for this analysis it is assumed that the sensitivity to a
the cost index. shortfall in this aspect is the difference between the cost indices
of two adjacent classes. The approximate average magnitude of
Research by the Parker Bay Company has shown that the this difference is 5%. The effect of this truck selection shortfall
industry average number of passes per truck load is five. The on total mining costs would be approximately 2.5% because
results shown in Table 1 tend to support this. See also Figure 2 load and haul accounts for roughly 50% of total mining costs as
which shows a minimum cost index around four to five pass defined in this analysis.
loading for the 650t and 400t excavators but an unexpected
result for the 100t excavator where cost efficiencies of larger
trucks override the excavator/truck match effect.

Table 1 - Analysis of the effects of excavator/truck matching on load and haul costs

Excavators
Operating Weight (t) 100 400 650
Bucket Capacity (cu.m) 6.5 20 34

Truck Size Number Load Cost Number Load Cost Number Load Cost
(Payload) of Time Index of Time Index of Time Index
(t) Passes (min) (%) Passes (min) (%) Passes (min) (%)

49 4 2.13 200%
91 7 3.48 144% 2 1.25 125% 2 1.25 135%
146 12 5.73 130% 3 1.72 114% 3 1.72 115%
187 15 7.08 126% 4 2.18 104% 3 1.72 102%
230 18 8.43 134% 5 2.65 101% 4 2.18 100%
353 8 4.05 110% 6 3.12 106%

Figure 2 - Excavator cost index vs number of truck passes

230%

210%

190%

170%
Cost Index (%)

150%
100 tonne excavator

130%

400 tonne excavator

110%

650 tonne excavator

90%

70%

50%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of Truck Passes

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 3

Excavator Selection

Effect of loading inefficiency on hauling costs and To quantify these potential effects, the following arbitrarily
total mining costs determined parameter changes were made to the OPMincost
model:
In this scenario inefficiencies that relate to sub-optimal
matching of excavators to digging conditions is examined. 10% increase in excavator maintenance costs
Examples here include:
Increase of 10 minutes per shift in trucks waiting for
Poor match of excavators to bench height. There is a excavators.
bench height range where each size of face shovel These resulted in a:
and backhoe performs at maximum efficiency.
Outside that range inefficiencies relate to problems 2% increase in haulage costs
like poor bucket fill and frequent repositioning where 4% increase in loading costs
the bench is too low, or rilling and safety problems if
the bench is too high. For reasons of selectivity 1% increase in total mining costs.
and/or operational efficiency, bench (or flitch)
heights cannot always be adjusted to suit the digging As for the effects of reduced ore production, again the relative
characteristics of the excavator. importance compared to other cost impacts will vary greatly
Inappropriate excavator attachment configuration from operation to operation but generally this effect is the most
resulting in insufficient breakout force and/or digging serious in terms of potential impact on profitability. For
power. This situation can arise during the selection example, an indicative calculation showed that if annual ore
process where insufficient attention is paid to production was reduced by 5% for the example operation
material characteristics such as expected density, mentioned above, the loss of revenue would be equivalent to
fragmentation and swell factors. approximately a 20% increase in annual mining costs.

Effect of excavator sizing on load and haul costs

To analyse this effect the digging efficiency factor within
OPMincost was reduced by 10%. The result of this was: The OPMincost model was used to analyse the effect of
excavator sizing on load and haul costs. It was not considered
10% increase in loading costs appropriate to compare loading costs in isolation. This is
because of the effect that changes in loading time have on
1% increase in hauling costs
haulage costs and because haulage costs usually make up about
2% increase in total mining costs. 40% of total mining costs whereas loading costs only account
for about 15 to 20% for large hard rock open pit mines.
Effect of poor excavator reliability on hauling costs
and total mining costs Load and haul costs for five different excavator sizes and four
truck sizes were calculated on the basis of a fixed mining
Poor reliability is defined here to mean frequent breakdowns. schedule. To simplify analysis, auxiliary equipment costs were
The most common measure of this aspect is the mean time not included in this analysis. In general, inclusion of auxiliary
between failures (MTBF). Reliability is related to availability costs would tend to make the larger excavators look more
(the time the machine is available for productive use divided by attractive because the number of loading units and hence clean-
calendar time) but reliability reflects the level of operational up dozers would be lower.
disruption (inefficiency) caused by breakdowns.
Load and haul costs were converted to indices relative to the
Poor excavator reliability can be related to excavator selection lowest cost alternative and these results were plotted as shown
if the problem is a function of the excavator design, suitability in Figure 3. Equipment matches that were not seen as practical
of the machine for its duties, performance of parts suppliers or were not included.
technical backup of equipment suppliers. All these issues need
to be thoroughly researched and responded to in the selection Conclusions that were drawn from this analysis are:
process.
Truck size is a more dominant driver of load and haul
A mining operation can be affected by poor excavator than excavator size.
reliability in the following ways:
The lowest load and haul cost was achieved with the
combination of the largest mining equipment
Increased maintenance costs, especially through
analysed.
inefficient use of maintenance resources. This is
because poor reliability implies frequent unplanned Given a particular truck size, the largest excavator did
maintenance activities. not always result in the lowest cost index. This was
due mainly to the fact that lowest costs are generally
Production shortfalls caused by reduced effective
achieved where shovel bucket and truck tray
excavator hours. The most serious potential
capacities are well matched. For a good
consequence of this would be loss of revenue due to
excavator/truck match, each swing of the excavator
interruption of ore supply to the processing plant.
delivers the maximum bucket payload and load time
Haulage fleet inefficiencies, especially where is not excessive. As mentioned previously, usually
unexpected excavator breakdowns cause unplanned four to six pass loading delivers the best results.
re-allocation of haulage resources.
Given a particular truck size, load and haul costs
varied in a range of +5% with different excavator
sizes.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 4

Excavator Selection

Figure 3 - Load and haul cost indices

135%

125%

115%

Truck Payload

91.2 t
146 t
105%
187 t
230 t

95%

85%

75%
100 180 250 500 700
Excavator Sizes (Tonnes Op. Wt.)

Summary of potential impacts on profitability Figure 4 - Potential impacts on profitability

The abovementioned indicative potential impacts on (in terms of percentage of total mining costs)
profitability that could be caused by excavator selection
shortfalls are summarised below in Table 2.
50%
Table 2 - Summary of potential impacts on profitability 45%
40%
Effect Type of Potential Impact on 35%
Impact Profitability 30%
(converted 25%
to equivalent total 20%
mining 15%
cost percentage) 10%
Dilution due to Revenue 50.0% 5%
poor selectivity 0%
Dilution Poor Reliability Truck Match Inefficiency
Poor match with Mining cost 2.5%
haul trucks
Inefficient Mining cost 2.0% Description of a Rigorous Process For
loading
Loading Unit Selection
Poor excavator Revenue 20.0%
reliability
Key considerations
Please note, the profitability effects relating to dilution and The following key considerations need to be addressed in the
reliability were quantified in terms of loss of revenue. These selection process:
quantities were converted to an equivalent total mining cost for
comparison purposes. Obviously these effects are potentially Selectivity requirements
very significant and their magnitude highlights the importance geological occurrence of the ore will influence
of excavator selection. selection of the mining method and excavator
size and type required to minimise dilution and
Refer to Figure 4 for a graphical representation of these effects. ore loss effects.
Maximum production requirements of various
material types.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 5

Excavator Selection

Blending requirements E. Develop/customise cost estimation model.

may require ore from several sources to be F. First pass analysis and maintenance cost estimation.
delivered at specified feed rates. G. Prepare and distribute tender requests for excavator
Matching to haul trucks supply.
considering capacities and loading heights. H. Prepare and distribute tender requests for contract
maintenance.
Expected digging characteristics of material to be
mined I. Finalise analysis.
for example, loose density, fragmentation, swell
factor. A - Assemble a cross-functional team
Minimum mining width required. Ideally, the following fields of expertise would be represented
on the excavator selection team:
Excavator mobility requirements
how often does the excavator need to relocate Operations.
and how far does it have to move?
Maintenance.
Electric rope shovel versus hydraulic excavator
Mine planning.
electric rope shovels are most competitive in
bulk mining situations and where power costs Financial analysis.
are reasonably low. Contract administration.
Face shovel versus backhoe configuration
usually driven by selectivity considerations. B - Determine key operational requirements and
Face shovels require higher bench heights for analyse where necessary
efficient digging. In hard rock mining the three main operational requirements to
Reliability of excavator. be considered for excavator selection are production rate,
selectivity and flexibility.
Reliability of suppliers/support.
Operating costs: Production rate - to match waste stripping schedules
life-cycle maintenance and required ore delivery rates to the process plant.
In mature operations the estimation of production
fuel/power and lubrication
rates should be fairly reliable because of experience
operator costs with the diggability of materials to be mined.
GET. However, for a greenfields operation, estimation can
be more difficult because of uncertainty in predicting
Capital costs.
the main productivity factors such as:
Lead time for delivery.
New versus second-hand equipment. swell factors which are related to material
Residual/salvage values. characteristics and blasting performance
(fragmentation);
Cost analysis (preferably Net Present Cost).
bucket fill factors which vary according to
Industry trends. material characteristics, blockiness,
fragmentation, operator performance, bench
Suggested process heights etc;
Different circumstances may require markedly different cycle times which can be affected by digging
approaches to that described below. The following process is conditions.
based on a situation where:
In estimating these factors it is useful to have access to a
Time constraints (in relation to the selection process) database of comparable, measured examples. That is, previous
are not overly onerous. performance in similar material-types may be the best starting
There are no special relationships between the point for estimation factors.
purchaser and any particular supplier group.
Note that, in relation to production rates, mine planning and
Excavators would be owned (or leased) by the mine excavator selection can, in some situations, be an iterative
owner. process comprising variations of the following steps:
Mine life exceeds the economic life of the excavators.
a mine plan is developed to satisfy production
In summary, the suggested process would be: targets;
excavators are selected that best meet the mine
A. Assemble a cross-functional team. plan requirements and satisfy other criteria, eg
B. Determine key operational requirements and analyse least cost;
where necessary. the mine plan may be adjusted to take advantage
C. Review industry trends. of any excess excavator capacity.
D. Request detailed information from equipment
suppliers.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 6

Excavator Selection

Selectivity. As discussed in the previous section, the Figure 6 - Effect of mining block size on ore grade -
importance of mining selectivity for operational reef deposit
profitability varies widely between mines according
to the style of occurrence of mineralisation. Where 102%
selectivity is an issue, careful analysis is warranted
because of the need to find the appropriate trade-off 100%
21 cubic metre backhoe
between dilution/ore loss and mining costs.
26 cubic metre shovel

Ore Grade relative to base case

98%
35 cubic metre shovel
This aspect can be analysed using standard integrated mine 38 cubic metre rope shovel
96%
planning software such as Datamine. The methodology for this 50 cubic metre rope shovel
analysis can be summarised as follows. For each excavator
94%
type and size:

92%
re-block the resource model to match the
excavator's selective mining unit dimensions,
90%
producing uniform blocks with diluted grade;
apply appropriate mining and processing costs 88%
to orebody model blocks; 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
SMU Volume (Bcm)
apply appropriate metallurgical recoveries for
calculated grade ranges;
This graph shows that with this type of deposit, the larger the
apply profit algorithm; block size the more dilution of ore grade.
calculate total operating cashflow;
plot results of operating cashflow versus Figures 7 and 8 show the same relationships as described above
excavator size. (ie, cashflow versus excavator bucket size and ore grade versus
mining block size) for more disseminated (actually a quartz
stockwork deposit in this example) ore deposits where
An example of such a graph is shown below in Figure 5. selectivity is less important. As can be seen in Figure 7, the
economics of using larger mining equipment balance out the
Figure 5 - Operating surplus versus excavator bucket benefits of selectivity and, on the basis of this graph, it would
size - reef deposit be equally valid to select a 21m3 backhoe or a 50m3 rope
shovel. Clearly other operational factors should be considered
110% in conjunction with this analysis in order to make the
appropriate selection.
105%
21 cubic metre backhoe
26 cubic metre shovel Flexibility. In this context, flexibility relates to the
100% 35 cubic metre shovel ability of an excavator to respond to changes in
Cashflow relative to base case

38 cubic metre rope shovel

digging requirements. These requirements may
95% 50 cubic metre rope shovel
involve selectivity issues and/or the need to relocate
the excavator between different material types or
90%
mining areas on a regular basis.
85%
In terms of selectivity, backhoes are more flexible than face
shovels and hydraulic faced shovels are more flexible than
80%
electric rope shovels, due to the digging actions of the
machines. Backhoes can better selectively mine flat-dipping
75%
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 deposits than face shovels and backhoes can also selectively
SMU Volume (Bcm) mine to steeply dipping contacts. Face shovels can usually
mine selectively to steep dipping contacts. Rope shovels have a
fairly restrictive digging action because the bucket must mainly
Please note that the shape of the curves will vary from
be lifted vertically through the face so selective mining is
operation to operation in accordance with geological, usually not suited to these machines.
operational and cost variations.
In terms of flexibility to relocate, hydraulic excavators are more
Also, the curves on the graph have resulted from analysis of a mobile than electric rope shovels because they typically travel
reef type deposit where selectivity is a significant factor. The
at about 2 kph compared to 1 kph for rope shovels. Also, the
average diluted ore grade resulting from selective digging with cable-handling work required when relocating rope shovels
the smaller excavator, is higher than for the larger excavators. necessitates the use of more resources.
In this case the 21m3 backhoe should be selected because it
would provide the best operating surplus.
To better balance the comparison between electric rope shovels
and hydraulic excavators it should be noted that rope shovels
Figure 6 shows an example of the effect of mining block size remain the loading tool of choice for a significant proportion of
on diluted ore grade in a reef type deposit where selective applications worldwide. These machines are especially suited
mining is desirable.
for bulk mining applications where frequent shovel-moves are
not required and where power costs are attractive.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 7

Excavator Selection

Figure 7 - Operating surplus versus excavator bucket D - Request detailed information from equipment
size - quartz stockwork deposit suppliers
This request would generally include the following:
110%

Reason for request.

105%
Description of operation including:
Operating Cashflow relative to Base Case

100% description of loading duties;

material characteristics such as density, swell
95%
factors etc;
90% mine life;
21 cubic metre backhoe
26 cubic metre shovel mining rate;
85%
35 cubic metre shovel
estimated number of excavators required.
38 cubic metre rope shovel
80%
50 cubic metre rope shovel Budget pricing.

75%
Component replacement schedule and parts pricing.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Maintenance labour hours estimate to match
SMU Volume (Bcm)
component replacement schedule.
Average fuel consumption rates.
Figure 8 - Effect of mining block size on ore grade -
Lubrication consumption rates.
quartz stockwork deposit
Technical specification.
Maximum suspended load and bucket weight.
102%
A listing of equipment numbers in the state, country
100% and worldwide.
Estimated delivery time from time of order.
Ore Grade relative to base case

98%

96% E - Develop/customise cost estimation model

21 cubic metre backhoe
This model needs to cover all costs that would be affected by
94%
26 cubic metre shovel
the excavator selection decision so that the total cost of
alternatives can be compared. It is usual practice that Net
92% 35 cubic metre shovel
Present Costs (NPC's) are calculated and compared so that the
38 cubic metre rope shovel
90%
time value of money is taken into account.
50 cubic metre rope shovel

88%
Development of comprehensive cost estimation models can be
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 a time-consuming process. AMC's approach is to minimise this
SMU Volume (Bcm) time by customising the OPMincost model for each application.
A flow diagram representing OPMincost methodology is
C - Review industry trends presented in Figure 9. In brief terms OPMincost calculates
equipment productivities and hourly operating costs and
It is useful to understand trends within the industry because combining the two calculates the total cost of the respective
these will reflect the opportunities that are available currently activity such as load and haul.
and in the future as a result of excavator selection. For
example: Inputs to the cost estimation model, eg OPMincost include:

Is the trend towards electric rope shovels or hydraulic Truck travel times and average fuel consumptions for
excavators? Why? each haul profile.
What is the most popular excavator size? Mining schedule.
What cost-cutting developments are being Truck specifications.
implemented?
Excavator specifications.
What new technological developments are likely to
Equipment maintenance costs.
be available in the near future?
Calendar and operating roster parameters.
Is owner-maintenance or OEM maintenance
becoming more popular? Material characteristics.
Which makes and models of excavators are selling Equipment operating cost parameters.
the most and how happy are current users? Wage rates.
Operating delay estimates and efficiency factors, etc.
Methods of review are many and varied, including literature
search, suppliers' information, field visits, conferences, internet
Outputs required from the cost estimation model to compare
searches, magazines, utilising specialist consultants and visiting
alternatives include:
manufacturing plants.

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 8

Excavator Selection

Excavator productivities and numbers required to It is also preferable to produce the following outputs to provide
meet the mining schedule. a clear understanding of equipment combination scenarios and
Number of trucks required to meet the mining allow for reality checks, eg comparing with statistics from other
schedule. operations:

Total load and haul operating costs. Total annual operating hours.
Total load and haul ownership costs. Total operating personnel requirements.
Total load and haul cash flows. Total maintenance personnel requirements.
Load and haul NPC. Hourly maintenance costs.

Figure 9 - OPMincost flow diagram - load and haul costing version

Set Basic Determine Talpac Talpac

Inputs Haul Inputs Analysis
Profiles

Costing Parameters

Productivity Parameters Truck Travel

Material Characteristics Times and Fuel
Consumptions

Calendar Parameters

Excavator
Calculate Calculate Truck
Productivity Productivities
Excavator
Load Time and Match to
Productivities Excavators
Payload

Truck and Excavator

Productivities

Calculate Available Calculate

Annual
Equipment Equipment Equipment Truck and Mining Schedule
Hourly and Labour Excavator Quantities
Hours
Costs Hours Hours

Annual Operating
Labour Hours Hours

Caculate Calculate
Calculate Maintenance Excavator
Operator Labour and Truck
Numbers
Numbers Numbers

Calculate Calculate
Misc. Calculate
Truck and Wages
Fixed Ownership
Excavator Costs
Costs Costs
Costs

Calculate
Load and
Haul NPC

F - First pass analysis and maintenance cost gaining an understanding of issues and opportunities and
estimation developing a tender request short-list.
Carry out a first pass analysis using the cost estimation model
and discuss options with equipment suppliers, with a view to

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 9

Excavator Selection

It is during this phase of the analysis that maintenance cost new fleets of mining equipment are acquired. Possible reasons
projections are developed. This is a very important exercise for this are:
(maintenance costs account for approximately 50% of loading
costs), especially if owner-maintenance is being considered but The risk of maintenance costs being underestimated
even if contract maintenance is preferred, results provide a is reduced.
useful check on tendered contract maintenance rates. A The problems associated with the owner recruiting
checklist for items to be included in maintenance costs follows: and managing the maintenance crew is largely
eliminated.
Freight.
Outcomes from contract maintenance from the
Lubrication fluids. owner's perspective have been quite good in terms of
On-site and/or off-site labour costs. maintenance costs and equipment availability.
Unscheduled maintenance allowances.
Bucket maintenance. I - Finalise analysis
Supervision and management. The steps involved here include:
Tooling.
Review of tender responses.
GET replacement costs.
Discussion and negotiation with tenderers.
Cranage.
Validation of key aspects of tender responses by
Oil sampling. checking actual industry experience.
Servicing costs. Calculate NPCs using the cost estimation model,
incorporating tender responses.
Projected from time to time, these items may either be included Carry out a risk analysis.
or excluded from suppliers life-cycle maintenance cost
projections. If necessary, prepare a decision matrix to assist in
finalising the selection.
Major component lives should be checked against
experience from other operations and from truck to Conclusion
truck to improve confidence in the numbers.
It is preferable to have projections checked by an The main messages to be noted when planning an excavator
experienced haul truck maintenance professional. programme are that:

The potential operating cost and production revenue

G - Prepare and distribute tender requests for impacts of excavator selection shortfalls are
excavator supply significant.
Prepare and distribute requests for tenders for the supply of A rigorous process should be followed in an effort to
excavators. make the best possible selection.
Thorough research needs to be carried out to
H - Prepare and distribute tender requests for determine the status of the market, industry trends
contract maintenance and to validate suppliers' information.
Prepare and distribute requests for tenders for the provision of
contact maintenance services, if required. In open pit mining
there is currently a definite trend in the industry towards
contract maintenance in preference to owner-maintenance when

AMC Reference Library www.amcconsultants.com.au 10