Mine-to-Mill Optimization of Aggregate Production

Adel, Greg ; Kojovic, Toni ; Thornton, Darren

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

关键词: Computerized Simulation;    Comminution;    Energy Conservation;    32 Energy Conservation, Consumption, And Utilization;    Granular Materials;   

DOI  :  10.2172/914568
RP-ID  :  None
RP-ID  :  FC26-04NT42084
RP-ID  :  914568

美国|英语

来源: UNT Digital Library

【 摘 要 】

Mine-to-Mill optimization is a total systems approach to the reduction of energy and cost in mining and processing. Developed at the Julius Krutschnitt Mineral Research Center in Queensland, Australia, the Mine-to-Mill approach attempts to minimize energy consumption through optimization of all steps in the size reduction process. The approach involves sampling and modeling of blasting and processing, followed by computer simulation to optimize the operation and develop alternatives. The most promising alternatives are implemented, and sampling is conducted to quantify benefits. In the current project, the primary objective was to adapt Mine-to-Mill technology to the aggregates industry. The first phase of this work was carried out at the Bealeton Quarry near Fredericksburg, Virginia. The second phase was carried out at the Pittsboro Quarry south of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Both quarries are operated by Luck Stone Corporation of Richmond, Virginia. As a result of the work, several conclusions can be drawn from the project which should assist DOE in assessing the applicability of the Mine-to-Mill approach to the aggregates industry. 1. Implementation of MTM guidelines at Pittsboro has resulted in tangible improvements in productivity. It is clear that MTM guidelines represent an energy savings of around 5% (primary and secondary) and an overall energy savings of 1%. This 1-5% energy savings is also consistent with simulated results for Bealeton had side-by-side shots used to evaluate the technology been carried out in the same rockmass. 2. Luck Stone clearly runs their operations at a high standard. Hence the percentage improvement realized in this project may represent the lower end of what might be expected overall in the aggregates industry. 3. Variability in ore types across both Bealeton and Pittsboro suggests a 2:1 difference in hardness which contradicts the misconception that quarry rock is homogenous. Therefore, the idea of comparing side-by-side blasts is not viable and long term comparisons stand the best chance of confirming the benefits of optimized blasting. 4. There are clear limitations on how much improvement can be made in the aggregate industry due to the fixed feed size that reports to the tertiary section of a typical aggregate plant. These limitations restrict the MTM approach from exercising significant increases in blasting which would only serve to increase fines and reduce product yield. 5. The key to success at Pittsboro was the development of MTM guidelines for the modified blasting practice in consultation with the drill & blast crew. Their full buy-in was necessary to implement optimized blasting in a sustained manner. 6. The JKSimBlast and JKSimMet models have proven to be effective tools for examining blasting and processing at Bealeton and Pittsboro. These models should enable Luck Stone to transfer the MTM approach to other sites.