Discussion - Large Dozer Stripping Case Studies - Hrebar, M. J.

Discussion by B. Beatty This is a response to M.J. Hrebar's paper, which tracks in detail the highly productive stripping capabilities of modern large bulldozers at two separate installations. It proves the old adage "economies of scale" and quantifies the advantage of being able to move large loads of dirt over comparatively short haul distances by sliding rather than carrying the load. This discussion examines whether a bulldozer is the most efficient way of using this geotechnical principle. Case 1 - Study eastern US: Contour coal stripping application The energy consumption for the Case 1 mining method (eastern US contour stripping operation) shows the D11 averaged 117 L (31 gal) of diesel fuel per scheduled hour, and produced 333.3 bank m3 (436 bank cu yd) per scheduled hour (0.351 L/m3). Assuming 1 L (0.26 gal) of diesel fuel contains 10.4 kW-hr of energy, the unit expenditure of fuel energy for Case 1 Study was 3.66 kWh/m3. Another way of shifting this material is by using an overburden slusher (OS), as shown in Fig. 1. The OS as shown in Fig. I. The OS is electrically powered and consists of a manned low wall winch (LW ), a remote controlled (radio telemetry) highwall winch (HW) and a hoe. The winches operate to pull the hoe back and forth across the pit. The hoe carries load in the forward direction ahead of a rear mounted blade and returns empty. A spreadsheet (Lotus 123) simulation package, BOSSIM, models the OS operation on a load by load basis over a wide range of pit configurations. The geometry shown in Fig. 2 of the paper was modeled using BOSSI M and the results are summarized in Table1. Table 1 shows a LW with 150 kW (200 hp) and a HW of 120 kW (160 hp) installed power, towing a 15-m3 (19-cu yd) hoe, would accomplish the Case 1 stripping task at about the same scheduled stripping rate (D11=333 m3/hr or 433 cu yd/ hour, OS=342 m3/hr or 447 cu yd/ hour). It was assumed the winches in this equipment have an electromechanical efficiency of 90%. This gives an average electrical energy expenditure rate of 151 kW-hr, and a unit energy expenditure level of 0.44 kWhr/m-3(0.57 cu yd/kWh)-an improvement of 8291%- over the D11 alternative. The energy comparison illustrates the importance of using more efficient electric power if possible, ahead of the internal combustion engine, and delivering power from a fixed ground position rather than through a moving track system. Another important energy observation is the comparative action of the dozer blade and the OS hoe. The former implement continuously digs and spills as it works the load forward. The OS hoe digs the load until full, the blade then lifts due to the contained load pressure and a shear plane forms under the mass, enabling it to slide forward in a force reduced - transporting mode. Economic comparison Table 2 operating cost per scheduled hour and unit cost comparison follows a format used in Tables 2 and 3 of Hrebar's paper and compares Case 1 Study with the OS alternative. Drill and blast costs are kept constant in both cases, although when larger OS units are considered, it is expected these costs will reduce because bigger hoe sizes will permit larger rocks to be transported efficiently.