Journal of Mining Science, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2008
MINERAL MINING TECHNOLOGY
METHODICAL PRINCIPLES FOR PLANNING THE MINING AND LOADING EQUIPMENT CAPACITY FOR OPEN CAST MINING WITH THE USE OF DUMPERS. PART I
S. G. Molotilov, V. I. Cheskidov, and V. K. Norri
UDC 622.271
Based on the analysis of the known calculation methods for the capacity of shovels and loaders at open cast mines, the authors have shown the expediency of the development and computer realization of a procedure for planning the shovel and loader capacity at open cast mines thus increasing the open cast mine planning efficiency due to a large number of optimization parameters, high operational efficiency and accuracy of the calculations.
Excavators, loader, face, capacity, procedure
The opencast winning machine capacity, one of the key technical and economic parameters of the open cast mining, governs the fleet of the earthmoving machinery and largely influences the efficiency of mining with transportation and the resulting effect of the mining practice [1]. Numerous researches into the calculation method for the miningandhandling machinery capacity
have established that the latter depends on the totality of four main factors: rock properties, stope shape and dimension, mining machine design and mining organization. Considering the first three factors makes it possible to find a technical capacity, and the mining organization, which affects the machineuse time, governs a working capacity. The technical and working capacities of mining machines are studied thoroughly by many researchers (Academicians Mel’nikov, Rzhevsky, Trubetskoy and many others) who mainly concentrated though on the technical capacity. The less studied working capacity depends on the process flow chart of the miningandhandling machinery and the mining regime. The found laws for determining the technical capacity of an excavating machine, rock classifications in terms of excavation difficulty, equipment specifications, stopwatch readings and actual projects of organizing the earthmoving operations present the basis for the Standard Production Quotas (SPQ) now widely used in the open cast mine planning and operation. The rock classification in terms of excavation difficulty includes five categories [2]: rock categories I and II are mineable without preloosening; rock category III involves partial loosening, while rock categories IV and V need utter
shattering. The characteristics of a rock category are unit weight γ and unit digging resistance
For rock categories III and IV having compression strength = 10 − 90
from the following relation [3, 4]:
(1)
where
K .
F
K
F
σ
c
MPa, it is offered to find
K
F
= 0.018σ K μ ,
c
t
s
K
t
is fissuration factor,
m
−
1
;
μ
s is factor of the type and dimension of an excavator bucket.
Institute of Mining, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia, Novosibirsk, Russia. Translated from FizikoTekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Iskopaemykh, No. 4, pp. 5970, JulyAugust, 2008. Original article submitted May 16, 2008.
10627391/08/44040376 ^{©} 2008 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
376
It is difficult to determine how the quality of face preparation influences the technical capacity of
an excavator with using (1) as it gives no idea on the actual level of rock shattering. The shattering
level characteristics are average rockfragment size
author of [4, 5] established that these parameters have a great influence on the capacity and energy intensity of an excavating machine, rock caving ability in the face and, hence, on the operating of miningandhandling machinery, allowable face height, etc.
d
cr
and the rock fragmentation degree
K
r
[4]. The
Thus, the current rock classification in terms of the excavation difficulty under the actual SPQ does
not specify a real range of the unit digging resistance
for excavating operations does not relate the technical capacity of an excavator and the concrete rock characteristics. This complicates the rationing of operations in excavation and handling of shattered rocks (especially for newly designed excavators and loading machines). We think it expedient to pass on “The Generalized Ranging of Soils and Rocks by Difficulty of Mining with Shovel Excavators” offered by Yu. Belyakov [3, 4]. This ranging ranks rocks and soils by their structural state into two categories, i.e., in a rock mass and after shattering. It should be pointed out that SPQ are valid for only mine excavators (and not for all models available) and the standard use procedures under general operating conditions. Today the open cast mining widely involves other types of shovels, loading machines and hydraulic excavators (with specific standard use procedures). Besides, it is time to proceed to a refined rock ranging by excavation difficulty. In one word, SPQ in action requires a thorough correction work. This should be implemented based on the technical rationing and calculations of excavator capacities for effective process flow diagrams, stopwatch readings and historical statistics on excavation parameters. The updating should also cover the reference standards of maintenance and repair operations and of scheduled breaks, which are in use for calculating an operating capacity of mining and handling machinery. Below we review the known calculation techniques for the capacity of shovels and loading machines. The open cast mining experience and technical literature distinguish between a theoretical, technical and operating capacity of the shovels. The Theoretical Capacity Q (called “rating” in [1, 5, 6]) only depends on the design parameters of a shovel and mainly serves to compare the shovel models and dimension types. This capacity describes, under certain technological limitation, continuous excavation of a reference rock having its
actual excavation difficulty P and the rated excavation difficulty
K
F in a rock mass and in shattered rocks, and SPQ
P
sp
equal.
s
In a general case [3, 7]:
(2)
is geometric capacity of a shovel bucket; n is designestimated number of bucket dumps per
Q
= 60
E n
k
, m ^{3} /h,
where
minute. We have that
E
k
n
= 60 / t
c
( t
c is theoretical duration of machine running cycle, s), whence:
Q =
3600 E
k
t
c
, m ^{3} /h.
(3)
The Technical Capacity Q _{t} makes allowance for operating conditions of a shovel and is maximum
possible for a given model operation in the continuous mode under specific miningtechnical conditions.
It is recommended [5, 8] to calculate
Q
t
of a shovel or a loader from the relation:
377
Q
^{t}
=
3600 E K
k
s
t
c
, m ^{3} /h,
(4)
where
(5)
is bucket fill factor;
c is minimal technical duration of the machine
running cycle, including:
(6)
is the shovel
bucket dump time. Numerical values of
to be used in (4) – (6) are allowable in SPQ [2] though for only
shovels described in it. For other models of shovels and loading machines, it is possible to calculate the mentioned parameters with the help of the below formulas. Loading and handling sets have different design excavating machines and use different digging, maneuvering and loading flow schemes. Based on that, the excavation parameters of a shovel and a loader are calculated individually, by different formulas.
, the digging
[1, 6]. Thereat, we can approximately determine
resistance mainly depends on the fragment size shovel’s
K
s
= K
nk
/ K
rk
,
K
K
s
rk
is excavation factor (efficiency of the geometric capacity of the bucket);
is rock fragmentation degree in the bucket;
t
here,
t
w
is digging time;
t
pm
K
nk
t
c
= t
w
+ t
pm
+ t
r
,
K
nk
is total turning time of a shovel or a loader in the face;
, K
rk
,
K
s
,
t
c
t
r
The Shovel Bucket Fill Time t _{w} . When the rock fragmentation degree
t
w
as:
d cr
K
r
≥ 1.3 −1.4
t
w
=
194
d
2
сr
E
k
+
E
k
0.11
E
k
+
0.6
.
(7)
It is clear from (7) that the larger is the bucket capacity, the less effect has the rock fragment size
on the digging time. However,
for the largest shovels [6]. If the rock fragmentation factor ranges wide profilewise the rock
disintegration by blasting, it is suggested to calculate
properties of rocks and the unit digging resistance
E
w , considering the structural and strength
t w even
d cr
growing from 15 – 30 to 150 – 165 cm increases multifold
t
w
=
k
t
F [4, 9]:
K
K K
s
r
K
F
102
N
η
p
,
(8)
where
N
p
is shovel liftengine capacity; η is equipment efficiency.
The studies [3, 4] present empirical relationships for finding the excavation factor
K ; these
s
relationships allow calculating
K
was stated in [1, 6]. The results show that if
capacity buckets. Even when
interrelation between
K
nk
and K
rk
based on the averaged grain size characteristics of rocks. An
and geometrical capacity of the shovel bucket
K
increases largely and not only for small
goes up
and, hence,
,
K
rk
, average fragment size
d
cr
E
k
=
50
−
d
cr
nk
grows,
d cr
rk
80 m ^{3} , a rise in
from 15 to 165 cm causes that
K nk
K rk
by a factor of 1.3 – 1.35. Given the rock fragment size growth, the bucket fill factor
excavation factor
K
s
reduce significantly, especially if the bucket has a small capacity.
378
To calculate the rock fragmentation degree in (8), it is recommended to use the relationships
, for instance, “The Generalized Ranging of Soils and
Rocks by Difficulty of Mining with Shovel Excavators” sets such a relationship for rock category VI [3,
4]. The fragmentation degree
The Loader Bucket Fill Time t _{w} . Numerous experimental studies by Academician Trubetskoy resulted in correlated parameters of shattered rock digging by a loader. The most reliable related parameters
, and rock grain size. The engineering calculations
are digging time propose to find
between
K
r
and the average fragment size
d cr
K
r
and the shape of the shattered rock disintegration are related in [10].
K
rk
t
w
, rock fragmentation in a bucket,
t
w using the following empirical formula [11]:
t
w
=
19.91
−
2.78
E K
k
K rk
γ
nk
+
⎛ E K
k
⎜
⎝ rk
γ
nk
K
0.14 ⎜
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎠
2
.
(9)
in the loader bucket is determined from the relationship
The rock fragmentation degree
[11]. The
that governs the loader bucket crushing
,
in a shattered hard rock up to 0.5 m in size equals 0.8 – 1.1. It
should be taken into account that in rocks with a density range 2.7 – 3.5 t/m ^{3} , the geometrical hilllike fill of a loader bucket capacity is limited by the load rating of the machine [1, 7]. The Shovel Turning Time t _{p}_{m} :
(10)
where:
(11)
is actual turn of a shovel when loading a handling machine [3, 12]; n is shovel bed turn frequency,
;
is angle between center of face gravity, shovel rotational axis and the face endpoint when the bucket
is pulled out of it (found based on the face and shovel parameters) [12, 13]; _{β} is angle between the face endpoint, shovel rotational axis and the point of the bucket dump to a handling machine (depends on the handling machine location relative to the shovel). According to the known schemes of a dumper location relative to a shovel, depending on the type and width of cutting [6], the least _{β} is provided by putting the dumper alongside of the shovel (at the bucket exit from the face).
. The technical and economic efficiency of the open cast mining
depth
loader bucket fill factor
between the average fragment size
K rk
d
cr
and the geometrical loader bucket capacity
np
L
vk
= (1.85 − 1.9)
K
nk
E
k
K
nk
depends on the digging method K
L
vk
in the mined rock. The digging efficiency is optimal when
K nk
= 1.14 − 1.15
K = 1.55 −1.57 . According to [8],
2ϕ
p
t pm
=
360
n
,
+ β
ϕ
p
= ϕ
pz
s
− 1
ϕ pz
The Loader Maneuver Time
t pm
with the use of loaders as the main handling equipment in many ways depends on the loader operation in the face. We know 6 – 8 process flow charts for the mining and handling machinery [5, 8, 14]. The most widespread is a scheme of loading with partial turn of the loader in forward movement to the
is proposed to
face and return to the dumper located at an angle 10 – 20° to the face [11]. The value calculate from the following formula [8]:
t pm
t
pm
=
3.6(
g
dv
L
V
p
+
p
dv
L
V
g
)
V
g
V
p
,
(12)
L
where
it is assumed that
2.5 – 4 km/h [8]).
g
L
dv
and
p
are movement distances of the loaded and empty loader in a face, respectively, and
are the loaded and empty loader velocities, respectively (up to
dv
g
L
dv
p
≈ L
dv
;
V
p
and
V
g
379
TABLE 1. Shovel Bucket Dump Time t _{r}
Bucket dump time, s 
Bucket bottom powering and response time, s 

Bucket capacity, 
Loose and fractured 
Clayey, medium moisture 

m 
^{3} 
rocks 
and fractured rocks 
Clayey, 

( 
d 
cr 
≤ 
0.4 
3
E
k

) 
( 
d 
cr 
> 
0.4 
3
E
k

) 
viscous rocks 

Up to 0.5 
0.5 
1.1 
3.4 
– 4.2 
0.7 
– 0.8 

0.75 – 2.5 
0.6 
1.3 
4 – 4.5 
0.9 
– 1.1 

3 – 8 
0.8 
1.6 
4.3 – 5 
1.4 
– 1.5 

12 – 35 
1 
1.9 
5.3 
– 5.8 
1.7 
– 1.9 
To find the distance of loader movement from the face to the dumper, the author of [11] proposes an empirical formula below:
(13)
g
L
dv
=
0.261
L
p
+
0.172
R
p
+
0.799
L
a
sin ρ
,
p is the least turn radius of a
loader; с is angle between a dumper and the face. The Bucket Dump Time t _{r} . The shovel bucket dump time
V and
shovel bucket capacity
the bucket dump time grows due to the longer bucket leveling and placing above
the dumper. The average shovel bucket dump time may be taken as 2.5 – 3 s [6]. The loader bucket dump time, according to stopwatch readings is 3 – 4 s [8].
t c , shovel
bucket capacity efficiency
,
bucket dump time
and mining method on the technical capacity
basis to determine its operating capacity and efficiency of a given machine application to the concrete mining and technical environment. The Operating Capacity Q _{s} of a shovel or a loader is a characteristic of the amount of work a winningandhandling machine fulfills/can fulfill, considering real time spent for technical, technological, organizational operations and breaks. There are hourly, shiftly, monthly and yearly operating capacities [6].
[1, 4, 6]) describes a
depending on rock
shattered rock fragmentation
describes the influence of face type, its parameters
Q . The technical capacity of a winning machine is the
where L
p
and L
a
are overall lengths of a loader and a dumper, respectively;
E
k
< 3 − 4
V
t
as
E
k
≥ 3 − 4
t
r
R
at a ratio of dumper capacity
t
depends on the rock type (Table 1) [6].
When
So, the technical capacity of a shovel or a loader depends on the running cycle time
K , rock mass state in the face, which is characterized by grain size
s
d and
cr
K . The running cycle time has three components: bucket fill time
r
t
pm
t
t
w
t
r
and the third component
The Hourly Operating Capacity
Q
s
of a shovel (or effective capacity
Q
sf
Q
т
decrease in the operating capacity as against the designed technical capacity
heterogeneity, variation in the face parameters, grain size of rock mass, handling machinery
is helpful in the
dynamic scheduling of mining. As per [1, 2, 6, 8], in a general case:
availability, bywork fulfillment and machine operator experience. The capacity
Q sf
Q
sf
=
Q
т
K
s
1
K
s
2
s
K K
3
s
10
K
ng
K K
о
tr
K
vr
K
у
,
(14)
380
where
respectively, face height less than threefold bucket height, gummy formations and frozen rocks,
selective mining of dirt beds, operation on an unstable basis. These factors are involved into calculating
K _{1}_{0} are SPQgiven correction factors for the capacity decrease due to,
s
K _{1} ,
s
K _{2} ,
s
^{K} _{3}
,
^{s}
Q
sf
in case they are disregarded in determining the technical capacity Q [2].
t
The factor of rock oversizes influencing the operating capacity of a shovel is
oversize yield
P
n
is higher than 5 – 6 %, we calculate
K
ng
=
Р
n
K
1
ng
as [8]:
0.135
+
.
0.15
K ng
[2, 4, 8]. When
(15)
Otherwise, when
Р
n
≤ 5 − 6 %
K
ng
:
,
K
ng
is taken as 1, since shovel displaces oversizes during
, the study [4] recommends the
interchange of dumpers [2, 8]. For the oversize yield
following expression for
P
n
< 16%
^{=}
1
1 +
аР
n
,
K
ng
E
k
(16) 

= 4.6 
, 
8, 12.5, 
20 m ^{3} , 
where а is proportionality factor (it is 0.042, 0.065, 0.095, 0.125 for
respectively). The other way of finding
[15, 16]:
K ng
, considering time for sizing the oversizes in the face is also known
K ng
=
t
c
t
c
+ Δ
t
cn
,
(17)
where
Δt
cn
is growth of the machine running cycle duration due to oversizes.
Note that
so found values of
K ng
differ much, thus, they need an onsite experimental
confirmation.
To take into account a share of shovel operation in the caved and intact parts of a face, if disregarded in
the technical capacity calculation, we use rock heterogeneity factor
K
h
= (
n
h
+1) /
⎛
⎜
⎜ ⎝
⎞
⎟
⎟
1 ⎠
n
h
+1
,
K
K
h
[5]:
(18)
where
n
h
is ratio of caved rocks
V
h
to undermined rock
H , shovel digging height
z
h
w
and fragmentation factor
V
p
K
r
. The value of n
[5]. Higher
h depends on face height
in coherent
H
z
increases
n
h
loose rocks (
index
coefficient is
in rocks being undermined,
K
The factor for the shovel capacity decrease due to the loadedtoempty dumper interchange is [1, 6]:
K
r
= 1.2 −1.6
) and, thus, the shovel capacity. Given the face height
t
K
r
H
z
is set, the caving
n
h
depends mainly on the fragmentation factor
K
_{1} =
1
Q /Q
t
and grows as the latter increases. One more
1
Q , to the technical capacity
t
, ratio of the technical capacity in caved rocks,
Q
t
[5]. We disregard
K
h in relatively homogenous (in properties and by
K tr
F
) rocks and in case when
Q
t
was calculated with the weighted average cycle output t .
c
K
^{t}^{r}
=
Т
p
Т + t
p
оb
,
(19)
381
where
Т
p is dumper loading time [2]:
V a is amount of rock in dumper bucket;
Т
p
t оb
=
V t
a
c
60
E K
k
s
,
(20)
is minimum exchange time of the loaded and empty
dumpers, it is governed by the dumper placing for loading. The factor for shovel downtime due to bywork during and after face block mining is
where
Т
zb
К
=
Т
zb
vr Т
zb
+ Т
vr
,
is main operation time (winning and loading) within a face block:
V
zb
Т zb
=
V
zb
(
Т
p
+
t
оb
)
V
a
,
is face block volume (volume mined per one staying point of the shovel) [6];
T
vr
K vr
[1, 6]:
(21)
(22)
is total bywork
duration (cleaning of the shovel carrier and working site, displacement of oversizes, maneuvering and
cleaning of bucket, relocation and powering of cable, etc). As per [2],
synchronization during dumpers interchange) varies, depending on the shovel type, by 7.5 – 13.5 % of
the main cycle time
T vr
(on the mentioned byworks
t
c
; it is calculated as:
where
t
v
Т
vr
=
V
zb
t
v
E K
k
s
,
is unproductive time of the machine running cycle (found by SPQ [2]).
(23)
y takes into account larger duration of the main operations and bywork as
against their designed values; it depends on the mining sequence, operator experience, automation and
control equipment availability. Rzhevsky [6] recommended the allowable
y range 0.7 – 0.98, while it
is 0.67 – 0.86 in [17]. So we see that the useful hourly capacity
calculated considering all the mininggeological and
technical factors (inclusive of stopwatch readings and experimental tests) is a basis of an actual operating capacity of an excavating machine [6]. The Shift Operating Capacity Q _{с}_{m} is of current usage for shortterm quarrying planning and is determined in a generalized form as follows from [2 – 5, 8, 9]:
(24)
The check factor
K
K
Q sf
=
Q
sf
T
сm
60
Q
сm
K
5
K K
7
s
s
K
сm oj
K
g
, m ^{3} ,
are correction factors for the capacity reduction due to blasting and sprinkling
where
respectively, and are taken into account if the mining technology involves these operations
is shift duration depending on
(numerical values of these factors can be found in Table 15 in [2]);
an approved operating mode of overburden removal and mineral extraction.
^{K}
s
5
and
^{K}
s
7
T сm
The shift time efficiency
K
сm
:
K
сm
Т
сm
−
t
ro
= ,
Т сm
(25)
where
irregular arrivals of dumpers in case of an irregular pattern of transportation arrangement.
382
t
ro
is scheduled and organizational breaks;
K
oj
is truck expectation factors to take into account
depends on the haulage distance,
number of excavators and a dumper flow diagram, namely, with dumper assignment to a specified
shovel (closed cycle) and without dumper being assigned to a specified shovel (open cycle) and usage
of a dispatcher system (DS). When a dumper runs the closed cycle,
oj grows with shorter haulage
distance, greater load bearing capacity and larger shovel bucket capacity. In case a dumper runs the
depends on the number of dumpers, model of a shovel and a haulage distance. To find
may be taken from [18]. The analysis
shows that the shift operating capacity with allowance for the irregular arrival of dumpers differs much from the data of the common used calculation techniques and corresponds the best to the real conditions [4].
)
and the shovel service life. For shattered rock (
For the combined operation of a shovel and a dumper,
K oj
K
open cycle,
Q
сm
K
oj
with the known arrangement of shovels in an open cast,
K
oj
Parameter
K
g
is shovel availability factor to take into account mining conditions (the value of
d
cr
= 10 − 60
cm), it is possible to find empirically K
g
K
F
as:
(26)
It holds true for the year of the maximum machine capacity (usually the fourth operation year). For the
large service life of a shovel, it is recommended to correct the value of
of an excavating machine is an actual amount of a rock moved by
K
g
=
1
−
0.02
K
2
F
.
K
g as is given in [4].
The shift operating capacity
Q сm
the machine per shift. It is calculated considering unavoidable organizational and technical downtime
(time loss for shift taking over, machine inspection, interchange of dumpers) and reflects operation of the machine and its service equipment set.
The monthly
Q
mon
and yearly
Q
y
operating capacities serve for the shortterm and longterm
mining planning to determine the needs of an open cast in the winningandhandling machinery. The Monthly Operating Capacity Q _{m}_{o}_{n} of an excavating machine is determined on the basis of
the machine shift operating capacity
Q сm
:
where
n
Q
cm is number of shifts per day;
= Q
cm
n
cm
n
dm
K
m
tem
K
icm
, m ^{3} ,
mon
n dm
is calendar days per month.
(27)
Factor
K
m
tem
takes into account the influence of low temperatures on a shift output; its value is
accepted based on the average negative temperatures of a month [19].
Factor
K
icm is efficiency of a shovel (loader) with allowance for organizational and technical
scheduled downtime per month:
K
icm
= 1−
60
T ppm
T
cm
K
cm
n
cm
n
dm
,
(28)
is total organizational and technical scheduled downtime. These downtimes include scheduled
preventive and full repair per estimated month (repair duration may be accepted based on [3, 7, 20] or on the specified repair schedule of an open cast), climateinduce downtime (depending on geographical location of an open cast), daysoff and holidays per estimated month, blasting (as per mining operation plan of an open cast).
where
T
ppm
383
The Yearly Operating Capacity of a shovel is:
where
n dg
Q
y
is calendar days per year.
= Q
n
K
сm сm dg tem
n
g
K
icg
, m ^{3} ,
(29)
Factor
K
g
tem
accounts for the influence of low temperatures on the yearly output and is found as a
weighted average
K tem
per all months per year.
Factor
K
icg is excavating machine efficiency with allowance for total organization and technical
scheduled downtime per year:
K
icg
= 1−
60
Т ppg
Т
K
сm сm сm dg
n
n
,
(30)
where
The yearly operating capacity of an excavating machine is found as a sum of the monthly capacities:
(31)
Т ppg
is total organizational and technical scheduled downtime.
Q
y
=
i = 12
∑
Q
mon
, m ^{3} .
i = 1
CONCLUSIONS
1. The SPQ1989 now in force are unsatisfactory for the intensively developing mining industry
and need to be refined. We think the new SPQ should base on the following:
— “The Generalized Ranging of Soils and Rocks by Difficulty of Mining with Shovel Excavators”
offered by Yu. Belyakov, that explains in an unbiased manner the interconnection between the technical capacity of a winning machine and the rock properties;
— mining and haulage machinery with specifications and process flow diagrams, being in the current use and newly designed;
— stopwatch observations over mining and haulage machinery operation in a wider range of the mining and technical conditions;
— calculation procedure developed for an earthmoving machine with allowance for operation conditions variability.
2. The studies [1 – 20] present the approaches to determining a mining and loading machine
capacity and its calculation methods (with comprehensively taking in to account all mininggeological and miningtechnical factors), which sufficiently describe a machine operation on a concrete open cast.
These studies may be a foundation for the development of a machine capacity calculation procedure and the most sufficient assessment of the machine capabilities when in real conditions of a mining plant.
3. The new calculation procedure for a winningloading machine capacity should consider in full
the real production conditions, namely, variability of physicomechanical properties of rocks in plane and depthwise the open cast, total organizational and technical downtimes of equipment and irregular arrival of dumpers, decrease in the machine capacity due to wear of the key units and mechanisms (considering the machine service life), difficult operating conditions (low temperatures, selective mining, large amount of oversizes, etc.). Such a procedure will make it possible to optimize the quarrying planning.
4. The authors have proposed a procedure for calculating the capacity of shovels and loaders in the
given paper and are going to discuss the procedure realization in the future articles.
384
REFERENCES
1. 
V. V. Rzhevsky, Open Cast Mining Processes [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1978). 
2. 
Standard Production Quotas for Open Cast Mining Industries. Part IV: Rock Excavation and Dumper Haulage [in Russian], NII Truda, Moscow (1989). 
3. 
Open Cast Mining Engineer’s Handbook [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1989). 
4. 
Yu. I. Belyakov, Excavation Planning [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1983). 
5. 
Yu. I. Belyakov, Improvement of Excavation and Haulage at Open Cast Mines [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1977). 
6. 
V. V. Rzhevsky, Open Cast Mining [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1985). 
7. 
Open Mining. Handbook [in Russian], Gornoe Byuro, Moscow (1994). 
8. 
N. V. Mel’nikov, Open Cast Mining: Theory and Practice [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1973). 
9. 
Yu. I. Belyakov and V. M. Vladimirov, Improvement of Excavation at Open Cast Mines [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1974). 
10. 
A. V. Biryukov, V. I. Kuznetsov, and A. S. Tashkinov, Statistical Models in Mining [in Russian], Kuzbassvuzizdat, Kemerovo (1996). 
11. 
K. N.Trubetskoy, “Scientific bases for application of loaders to open cast mining,” Doctoral Thesis [in Russian], Moscow (1989). 
12. 
B. Kh. Yusupbekov, Interaction of Loading and Hauling Machinery at Open Pit Mines in Kazakhstan [in Russian], Nauka, AlmaAta (1972). 
13. 
Problems of Open Pit Field OpeningUp [in Russian], IGD SO AN SSSR, Novosibirsk (1972). 
14. 
Yu. I. Belyakov, Excavation and Loading at Open Pits [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1987). 
15. 
M. I. Shchadov, K. E. Vinnitski, M. G. Potapov, et al., Development of the Machinery and Technology for Open Coal Mining [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1969). 
16. 
B. R. Rakishev, Prediction of Technological Parameters for Shattered Rocks at Open Casts [in Russian], AlmaAta (1983). 
17. 
V. S. Kvaginidze, Operation of the Open Cast Mining and Haulage Equipment in the Conditions of the North [in Russian], MGGU, Moscow (2002). 
18. 
P. I. Tomakov, Overall Mechanization Structure for the Cyclic Open Cast Mining [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1976). 
19. 
Amendment to the Standard Production Quotas for Open Cast Mining Industries. Excavation and Haulage. Part III: Rock Excavation and Dumper Haulage [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1982). 
20. 
N. V. Mel’nikov, QuickReference Book for Open Mining [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1982). 
385
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.