The 7 Deadly Sins of not considering Revamps in Mining – Capacity Adjustment (4/7)

The 7 Deadly Sins of not considering Revamps in Mining – Capacity Adjustment (4/7)

Over the lifetime of mining operations, operational parameters may differ from time to time demanding adjustments in equipment features and application planning. Quickly the request for additional or different equipment is stated from operations managers, not being aware of the wide opportunities and huge potentials in modifying the existing equipment park. This series shall address the key opportunities and features from revamping mining equipment.

Changing Production Parameters

A very usual evolution of assets in the mining environment is a re-evaluation after ramp-up and a period of smooth operation. Either from the continuous improvement process or driven by changed capacity demands due to adjusted production plans a modification of existing equipment might be required.

Looking into opportunities to adjust capacities at existing machines, the optimization measures represent a two-way road:

  • Optimization measures due to reduced capacity demand
  • Modifications to achieve higher capacities

Capacity Reduction

In case the actual capacity demand is lower than the nameplate value there is the chance to evaluate the different components of the machinery in terms of their actual utilization. Based on an assessment, components can be replaced with ones of less demanding technical specifications and lift potential for reduced expenditures for replacements and potentially also operational expenditures consequently, for example by a lower power consumption.

The financially best effect for capacity reduction measures is achieved at the end of a lifecycle, which typically is in a period between 15 to 20 years after commissioning for most components, when a replacement is due anyway.

Capacity Increase

Looking into a potential capacity increase, usually the majority of components allow a higher utilization and higher production rates already. As part of the evaluation of possibilities, therefore two questions must be answered: First, the actual component utilization and correlation between the originally simulated design and the actual appearing loads from reality need to be set into perspective. Second, based on the new “calibrated” design model, the “bottleneck components” will be identified and replaced to allow for the desired increased capacity, while a continuous analytics of operational data could back up a reliable operation.

Get in Contact

No matter what direction you would like to choose, in both ways the revamps team of thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions would take a look into correlations and utilization of the different plant components, for example by on-site assessments or data analytics.

If you would like to learn more about how we develop individual solutions to adjust capacities for your operation, please do not hesitate to get in contact.


Stefan Ebert, M.Sc. | thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions | Mining Technologies

Abhijit Das

Head of Engineering

3 年

A fantastic post which should be definitely thought of by end users. Most of the cases we end up with very less utilization of a machine at actual field and fixed losses eat up a significant share of profit. Either we don't pay attention to under utilization or don't explore to reduce fixed losses. There are of course some exceptions where machines are utilized fully. Fortunately, I am a proud designer of two grab type ship unloaders which are utilized to their maximum but those are exceptions. Most of the machines are seriously under utilized and we must look into to reduce even carbon foot print.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了