A Critical Case Study on Draglines Operating in Vertical Tandem in a Coal Mine

Dr P Rai, Fellow
The tandem operation of draglines is understood to enhance the production and productivity related aspects in a surface mine. Keeping the importance of popularly used vertical tandem operation of draglines, the present study has been undertaken in a large Indian opencast coal mine in order to critically investigate the vertical tandem operation of draglines on a moderately hard and high (about 42 m) sandstone bench overlying 15 m thick coal seam. The study has revealed that although preparation of balancing diagram for planning of dragline operations is the first and the most important process, the actual implementation of the productivity parameters, as stipulated by the balancing diagram, need to be rigorously monitored in the field. The chief productivity parameters to be closely monitored, and, which, significantly affect the performance of dragline operations have been identified as actual efficiency of draglines operation, cycle time, availability, utilisation, linear advance rate and the rehandling percentage.
Keywords : Cycle time; Swing angle; Availability; Balancing diagram; Rehandling percentage; Coal exposure

INTRODUCTION At present, Indian coal mines have about 43 draglines, in operation. The bucket size of these draglines ranges1 from 5 m 3 to 30 m 3 . Dragline has gained tremendous appreciation as versatile equipment for stripping huge amount of overburden especially for large capacity projects producing 10 Mt - 14 Mt of coal annually at high stripping ratios of up to 1 in 4 to 1 in 6, in Indian context. The walking draglines offer several merits in open pit mining project where long reach, deep digging and high output are essential requisites, at high stripping ratios2. For instance, a 1 m coal seam may have 30 m thick overburden cover, which may still be an economic proposition with application of draglines. Reclamation is facilitated by application of draglines3. Further, absence of auxiliary haulage units, higher mineral recovery, easy maneuverability, low maintenance costs and operational advantages under adverse pit conditions are also cited as the merits of deploying draglines4. With the deployment of this huge and capital- intensive equipment, it is imperative to keep a strict vigil on the performance of this equipment under the prevalent operating conditions in order to diagnose the operational efficiencies and adopt the corrective measures to improve upon it5 . Looking at the importance of the dragline operations and the costs involved therein, the present work aims at critically investigating the dragline performance through rigorous field monitoring. The present study was undertaken to investigate the vertical tandem mode of dragline operations in order to quantitatively assess the
Dr P Rai is with the Department of Mining Engineering, Technology echnology, University, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005. This paper (modified) was received on September 26, 2006. Written discussion on this paper will be entertained till April 30, 2007.

annual output capability, rate of coal exposure, annual linear advancement, and rehandle percentage. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The specific objectives of the research programme for the draglines operating in vertical tandem mode of operation are enumerated below. 1. To evaluate the output of dragline in terms of the, annual output, rate of coal exposure, linear advance, and rehandle percentage with the help of balancing diagram. 2. To compute the aforestated dragline output parameters in the field for a cut width of 85 m. 3. To investigate the influence of cycle time, availability, utilisation and cut width on the performance of draglines. 4. To critically analyse the case under study and to suggest practical recommendations for improvements. CASE DESCRIPTION The present case study has been carried out in mine 1 of a major opencast coal mine of Northen Coalfields Ltd, Singrauli, India. In the mine 1, the dragline bench was divided into two vertical benches, ie, upper bench (top bench) and lower bench (main bench). The upper bench height was about 14 m and lower bench height was about 28 m. A 15/90 dragline (dragline1) seated on upper bench excavated the overburden and casted the spoil into the decoaled area to form a level pad to be rehandled subsequently. When the upper bench was advanced sufficiently, it provided the seat to excavate the key cut for coal exposure. Thereafter, the lagging 24/96 (dragline 2) on lower bench excavated the first dig to fully expose the coal seam subsequent to which it marched towards the spoil side to sit on the previously formed level pad, from where it rehandled the spoil to a greater height and 3

Vol 87, February 2007

distance. From the description it is obvious that the draglines were operating in typical vertical tandem mode of operation. The mode of operation exerts tremendous influence on the productivity of draglines6. The 24/96 dragline was, Rapier and Ransome make with horizontal range of 88 m, whereas, 15/90 dragline was of Russian make with a horizontal range of 82 m. The overburden bench was almost 42 m high, comprising medium to fine grained sandstone. The coal seam was about 15 m thick. The dragline cut width was 85 m. The sectional and plan view of vertical tandem operation are shown in Figures 1 and 2. STUDY METHODOLOGY Step by step methodology is explained here to explain the approach to the problem, field observations and procedures. Preparation of Balancing Diagram for Draglines to Obtain the Rate of Coal Exposure and Rehandle Percentage Based on the standard procedures7, the balancing diagram for draglines operating in vertical tandem operation was prepared using the key parameters given in Table 1.

The balancing diagram for draglines operating in vertical tandem was prepared to the scale, by using the given field parameters as registered during the field study and tabulated in Table 1. The prepared balancing diagram for vertical tandem operation is illustrated in Figure 3, which reveals that the 42 m thick cover of the overburden bench is divided in two portions, namely, upper portion (14 m
Axis no 3 Axis no 2 Axis no 1

R R

Spoil domp

Top cut Level First dig Key pad cut Coal rib Coal seam

Upper bench

Figure 1 Sectional view of draglines operating in vertical tandom

Blasted over burden on upper bench

Drilled holes Blasted over burden on lower bench

Exposed coal seam Drilled holes Blasted coal

Coal floor Figure 2 Plan view of draglines operating in vertical tandom

IE(I) Journal-MN

Table 1 Salient field parameters for the dragline bench Parameters Dragline make and operational mode Details One 15/90 Russian make and one 24/96 Rapier and Ransome make working in vertical tandem mode Bench height Approximately 42 m (14 m as top portion and 28 m as bottom portion) Cut width, m 85 Strip length , m 2000 Highwall slope angle, degree 70 Over burden bench slope angle, degree 60 Angle of repose for loose material, degree 38 Coal bench slope angle, degree 80 Gradient of coal seam, degree 3 Key cut width at top , m 38 Key cut width at bottom, m 5 Coal rib Left for full height
D/L axis no 2 P II D/L axis no 1 PI D/L axis no 3 P III

that, equivalent solid area removed by this dragline is almost 702 m2. By this operation of lagging dragline the entire overburden is finally casted in the decoaled area as VWNLKRSTUV to expose the 85 m cut of coal. A rib of coal is left for the full seam height for safety reasons, as shown in the figure. The explanation and coal exposure computation is summarised in Table 2. The coal exposure is computed as per the equation (8) as explained later. Time, Collection of Field Data for Cycle Time, Availability and Utilisation Computations Field observations for cycle time were precisely recorded on the basis of time and motion study using stopwatch. The stopwatch cycle times were recorded for dragline to execute a complete typical cycle of operation (C ), which was splitted into four discrete segments, namely, digging segment, swing to segment, unloading segment and swing back and bucket positioning segment. For computing the availability and utilisation factors, the field observation for actual working hours (WH), idle hours (IH), maintenance hours (MH) and breakdown hours (BH) were meticulously registered for a prolonged period, for both the draglines in the given mode of operation.

88 m V U
73 m

82 m 82 m

38 W N

P IA 638 m2

S Rib T 3 R Q 85 m

15 m

Rib

B 1190 m2 35 m D H 520 E C m2 1860 m2 60 70 G F 5m Coal seam 80 85 m

28 m 14 m

Availability, utilisation and overall utilisation factors were calculated by using the standard equations, namely,

(1)

Figure 3 Balancing diagram as prepared for the case study

(2) Overall utilisation factor (K ) = AU (3)

high) and lower portion (28 m high). A 15 m thick coal seam underlies the overburden cover. The 15/90 leading dragline is seated on the top of the upper portion of overburden bench. This seating location is designated as D/L Axis No 1 (PI) in the diagram. From this seating position the dragline excavates the top cut to remove the blasted cut area ABCDA (1190 m2) and side casts it at a distance of 82 m in the decoaled (dump) area as IJKQPI. The maximum horizontal reach of 15/90 draglines is 82 m (as 90 m long boom is inclined at about 30 ). After removing the top cut, this dragline sits at the top of the exposed lower portion of the bench (D/L Axis No 2 PII) from where it excavates the key cut area EFGHE (520 m2) to side cast it again at a distance of 82 m in the decoaled area as PQROP. Now, the 24/96 lagging dragline is seated at its designated location (D/L Axis No 3 PIII) in the diagram from where it excavates the first dig cut area GHIJG (1860 m2) and also rehandles the loose overburden area IJLNI (638 m2) casted earlier by the leading dragline. Additional 10% area has been considerd to be handled by this dragline on account of the swelling factor of the loose overburden, such

where SSH is the scheduled shift hour; MH, maintenances hours; IH, idle hours; and BH, breakdown hours.
Table 2 Summarised results from the prepared balancing diagram Dragline nomenclature E x c a v a t i o n Cut area worked out Dump Equivalent a r e a annual O/P estimated from the balancing diagram, Mm3 IJKQPI 1.725 0.755

15/90 leading dragline no 1

Topcut and Keycut

24/96 lagging dragline no 2

First dig and Rehandle

ABCDA (1190 m2) and and EFGHE PQROP (520 m2) GHIJG VWNLK(1860 m2) RSTUV and IJLNI{+10%} (702 m2)

2.67 1.11

Total annual output =(1.725+0.0755+2.671+1.1) Mm3 = 6.26 Mm3

Vol 87, February 2007

Weighted Time Computations of Weighted Cycle T ime for the Draglines After collection of field data for cycle time, availability and utilisation, the weighted cycle time was computed by a formula, proposed by the authors, based on the amount of overburden removal at different swing angles, as observed during the field work. This formula is

was done by using the standard equation (6), namely,

(6) where B is the bucket capacity of dragline, m3; C , overall cycle time of dragline, s; K , overall utilisation factor (AU); S , swell factor for loose, easy digging sandstone (0.719); F , fill factor for loose, easy digging sandstone (0.933); M , machine travelling and positioning factor (0.8); Nh , number of hours in a shift (8 h); Ns , number of shifts in a day (three shifts); and Nd , number of days in a year (365 days). In the present case study, the individual values of overall cycle time (COA), A and U were substituted for each dragline as per the field observations. Remaining factors in the equation (6) were substituted as per the norms prescribed by the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd9 for Indian coal mines formations (as given within the parenthesis), to compute the annual output (P1) on the basis of field observations. Computation of Efficiency for Draglines The computation of efficiency for each dragline was done by using the equation (7) as given

(4) where C1 is the average total cycle time upto 90 swing; C2, the average total cycle time for 90 to 120 swing; C3, the average total cycle time for 120 to 150 swing; and C4, the average total cycle time for 150 to 180 swing. During the cycle time data gathering for both the draglines, it was observed that being seated at one position the draglines operated at swing angles varying between 90-180. It is well appreciated that swing angle and time element accounts for the major share in the total cycle time8, hence swing angle and time variations were recorded with extreme caution. Through the study it was interestingly revealed that the percentage of the blasted muck removed from one sitting position by the draglines was almost 50.5% upto 90 swing, 26% in between 90 120, 14% in between 120 - 150 and 9.5% in between 150 -180.This data was generated by averaging the swing time studies for both the draglines. Thus, equation (4) was developed, though it is case specific and depends on the actual field performance in terms of swing angle variations. During the field studies it was estimated that approximately 40% of the total muck handled by the lagging dragline was loose, as it operated on the already handled (loose) muck also. The total cycle time for excavating the loose portion was always significantly less than that for the blasted muck. Hence, the overall cycle time for the lagging dragline was computed by giving objective cognizance to its operation in the blasted muck and in the rehandled muck (loose overburden). Accordingly, the formula used for computation of overall cycle time for lagging dragline was developed as (5) where CWL is the weighted cycle time for rehandled muck; and CWB , weighted cycle time for blasted muck. The overall cycle time for leading dragline COA was taken as equal to CW as it always operated on the blasted muck only. Computation of Annual Output Computation of annual output in Mm3 for each dragline 6

(7) Computation of Coal Exposure The coal exposed (Mt) by the draglines working in tandem operation was estimated by using the generalised eqaution (8) as per the balancing diagram concept7 (8) where CE is the coal exposure, Mt; PFD , annual output of the dragline from the first dig, Mm3; A, area of first dig, m2; W , cut width, m; T , thickness of coal seam, m; D , specific gravity of coal; and R , recovery factor.

In equation (8) the term

represents the annual

linear advance of the draglines. The values of W, T and D were fixed as 85 m, 18 m and 1.52, respectively, under the given field conditions, whereas, the value of R was assumed as 0.9. On substituting the values of the linear advance , as obtained from the balancing diagram, the coal

IE(I) Journal-MN

exposure (Ce1) value was obtained. For estimating the coal exposure (Ce2) value under the field operations, the actual average linear advance for the draglines was observed and recorded during the study period based on which, projection has been made for annual linear advance by substituting this value in equation (8), keeping the values of W, T, D and R fixed, as described earlier. The values of the annual linear advance as computed from the balancing diagram, and, as projected on the basis of field observations, are summarised in Table 3. Computation of Rehandling Percentage The rehandling percentage was computed by using the equation (9)

comparison to the rehandled muck which, being loosened already can be excavated quickly. Looking at the results of weighted cycle time and overall cycle time it is essential that this feature must be considered while planning the tandem balancing operation, which considers the ratio of bucket capacities only for the workload distribution on respective draglines irrespective of the seating locations. Another important feature, which is evident from the cycle time results, is the increased cycle times (weighted as well as overall cycle time), for the draglines under study, in comparison to the standard norm of 60 s, which is used for estimating the dragline output in the balancing diagram. Through the field monitoring it was observed that from one seating position, the dragline operated at swing angle of 90-180. Earlier field work in Indian coal mines also proposed the changes in cycle time of dragline with respect to swing angles10. However, variation in swing angle from 90-120 were considered for the production computations. Earlier studies11,12 also reported higher total cycle time for different draglines in different coal projects of India due to swing angle variations. Availabilty and Utilisation Results The field observations pertaining to the break up of scheduled
Table 3 Annual linear advance for mine 1 Annual linear advance as per the balancing diagram, m 1442.57 Projected annual

(9) where KRH is the rehandling percentage; A1, rehandle area, m2; and A2, total excavation area [Key cut + First cut + First dig area], m2. RESULTS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Cycle Time Results Individual time for each segment and total cycle time observation was carried out and recorded in the field at various swing angles for the leading as well as lagging dragline. It is consequential to mention at this stage again, that in the vertical tandem (VT) mode of operation, leading dragline works on the blasted muck portion only, while, the lagging dragline excavates the blasted muck and rehandles the loose overburden also. Overall cycle time for individual draglines was computed based on the weighted values, at different swing angles for blasted muck and rehandled muck (loose overburden), by using equations (4) and (5), respectively. The cycle time results are tabulated in Tables 4 and 5 . Tables 2 and 3 reveal that weighted cycle time on rehandled muck (loose overburden) is less than weighted cycle time for blasted muck. This is due to the easy diggability in rehandled muck. Further, the overall cycle time results as given in Tables 4 and 5 clearly indicate that the leading dragline has higher overall cycle time in comparison to lagging dragline. This is because leading dragline operates only on the blasted muck which is always harder to dig in

linear advance under study, field study, m 1248.3

Weighted Table 4 W eighted and overall cycle time of 15/90 leading dragline operation hence, C O A = C W for this dragline Dragline S w i n g O b s e r v e d We i g h t e d angle, cycle cycle degrees time, s time (C W),s Upto 90 74.58 > 90 120 81.03 >120 150 89.38 80.58 >150 180 96.26 Overall cycle time ( C OA ),s* 80.58

Leading Leading Leading Leading

Note : * Leading dragline

only in vertical tandem

operates on the blasted muck

Weighted Table 5 W eighted and overall cycle time of 24/96 lagging dragline Mode of operation Swing angle, degrees Observed cycle time on blasted muck, s 76.67 83.26 94.97 96.69 Observed cycle time on rehandled muck, s 65.11 73.07 76.27 84.35 W eighted cycle time on blasted muck( C WB ), s W eighted cycle time on rehandled muck ( C WL ), s 70.70 Overall cycle time for 24/96 ( C OA ), s 78.12

VT VT VT VT

Upto 90 >90 120 >120 150 >150 180

83.06

Vol 87, February 2007

Ta ble 6 Break-up of schedule shift hours (SSH) for different capacity draglines under study Equipment 15/90(Le D/L) 24/96 (La D/L) Mode of operation VT VT Schedule shift hours (WH) 40 40 Wo r k i n g hours (SSH) 32.42 31.67 Maintenance hours (MH) 3.17 4.25 Breakdown hours (BH) 1.75 1.75 Idle hours (IH) 2.66 2.33

shift hours is tabulated in Table 6 based on which, the results for A, U and K were computed and given in Table 7. However, the results from Table 7 indicate that the values of A, U and K for the draglines are low in comparison to the international standards.The A and U for capital intensive machines like draglines should normally lie in the range of 0.9 0.956. Earlier studies13 also reported low A and U values for some draglines in opencast projects of India. Hence, there exists a scope to further improve upon the maintenance planning of the dragline in order to minimise the emergency breakdown hours. Analysis of Idle Hours In order to improve the utilisation factor (U ) the reasons responsible for the poor utilisation of the available hours must also be categorically analysed for improving the dragline utilisation. It has been stressed upon the need of keeping the idle hours to bare minimum for the optimum utlisation of draglines14.On the basis of field observations and records, the important reasons responsible for idling of the draglines under study were identified and have been illustrated in the Figures 4 and 5. A perusal of Figures 4 and 5 reveal that main reasons responsible for poor utilisation of draglines are dozing operation, shifting of cable, switch and junction box drilling and blasting operations at coal face, surveying, related adjustments prior to machine marching, non-availability of power, site inspection etc. Again, as with availability there exist a scope to improve the utilisation by improved and better planning of face operations, say, for instance shifting of cable, surveying, site inspection, setting marks for machine marching and other related activities may be implemented during the planned preventive maintenance or during the shift changeover period. Special attention needs to be given to the blasting operations and its related planning. Performance Comparison Results On the basis of preparation of balancing diagram, field work and related computations as already described results in terms of annual output, efficiency of O/B removal, coal exposure and rehandle percentage are tabulated in Tables 8 and 9.
vailability, Table 7 Availability, utilisation and overall utilisation factor results for draglines under study Equipment Mode of Availability Utilisation Overall factor (U ) utilisation operation factor (A ) factor (K ) 15/90 (Le D/L) VT 0.877 0.8100 0.7104 24/96 ( La D/L) VT 0.850 0.7916 0.6730

From the results of Table 8, the computed annual output on the basis of field study is 5.37 Mm3, whereas, annual output as per the balancing diagram comes out to 6.26 Mm3 the ratio of these two outputs has been considered as
30 25
Idle hours, %

20 15 10 5 0 A B C D E Main reasons for idling F

Figure 4 Break - 1up of idle hours for 15/90

in

vertical tandem: (A) dozing operation, (B) shifting of cable, (C) shifting of field switch and junction box,(D) blasting operation at coal face, (E) setting mark for machine marching, and (F) site inspection. 45 40 35
Idle hours, %

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 A B C D E Main reasons for idling F

Figure 5 Break-up of idle hours for 24/96

in

vertical tandem: (A) dozing operation, (B) surveying, (C) blasting operation at coal face, (D) setting mark for machine marching, (E) shifting of cable, and (F) site inspection. Table 8 Comparison of annual output Output as per the balancing diagram, Mm 3 Computed output as per the field study, Mm 3 study, Output efficiency, efficiency, %

Blasted Rehandled Total Blasted Rehandled Total (P2) (P1) 5.15 1.11 6.26 4.47 0.9 5.37

85.78

IE(I) Journal-MN

Table 9 Comparison percentage

of

coal

exposure

and

rehandling

Coal Coal Coal Rehandling Computed e x p o s u r e e x p o s u r e e x p o s u r e p e r c e n t a g e rehandling efficiency, as per as per efficiency, as per percentage balancing balancing the field %, as per

Utilisation of the draglines must be properly documented and monitored on a regular basis in order to reveal the lapses. Dozing operations, blasting operations, surveying and its related activities, manpower management during shift changeover and cable shifting appear to be potential areas which need proper attention for enhancing the utilisation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to convey immense gratitude towards the staff and management of the Northern Coalfields Ltd (NCL), Singrauli, Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh, for providing their permission and excellent support during the fieldwork. Further, the assistance rendered by Shri A Kumar, a Former Post-Graduate Student, Department of Mining Engineering, Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, in carrying out the necessary field work, for the present research project, is greatly acknowledged. REFERENCES
1. P Balamadeswaran, P Sen and A K Mishra. Blasting Practices in Indian Dragline Benches: A Review. Minetech Journal of CMPDIL, vol 25, no 4, July August 2004, p 36. 2. T Atkinson. Surface Mining Past, Present and Future. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, vol 30, June 1982, p 241. 3. H Huddart and I C Runga. Pit Design Optimized for Dragline Productivity. Section A, Transactions Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, vol 88, 1979, p A 6. 4. Y P Chugh. Surface Mining of Minerals by Draglines in the USA. Section A, Transactions of Mining and Metallurgy , The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, vol 89, London, 1980, p A 198. 5. K Jonah. Syncrude Mine Production Planning. Proceedings International Seminar on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Balkema Publications, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1988. 6. N P Chironis. Smaller Versatile Draglines Reach Deep Seams Efficiently. Coal Age, vol 91, December, 1986, p 48. 7. V K Rai. Balancing Diagram: A Basic Planning Tool for Dragline Operation. Proceedings National Seminar on Emerging Technology in Surface Mines and Environmental Challenges, MGMI of India, Mangalore, 1997, p 85. 8. M Tuksuk. Factors Affecting Loading Performance of the Excavators in Garp Lignite Enterprise. Proceedings International Seminar on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Balkema Publications, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1988. 9. CMPDIL Report. Operational Plan for Jayant Opencast Mine. April 1998, p 2. 10. S P Mathur. Coal Mining in India. MG Consultants, Bilaspur, 1999, p 96. 11. M Naganna and P Rai. Swing Time Study on Large Capacity Draglines. CMTM Journal of Indian Institute of Coal Management (IICM), vol 8, no 3, July 2003, p 2. 12. P Rai. Performance Assessment of Draglines in Opencast Mines. Indian Journal of Engineering and Material Sciences , CSIR Publication, vol 11, December 2004, p 493. 13. R Nath and P Rai. Dragline Operations in Indian Opencast Mines a Case Study. Proceedings of Int Second International Symposium on Mine Mechanization and Automation , Balkama Publication, Lula, Sweden, June 1993. 14. M Lal, M R Agrawal and R L Rai. Suggested Method of Working for Jayant Opencast Mine Operation of Dragline in Tandem. Proceedings National Symposium on Mine Planning and Design, Benaras Hindu University, Varanasi, November, 1988, p 101.

diagram, Mt,(C e1) 2.51

study, study, Mt,(C e2) 2.18

diagram, % 19.66

study, field study, % 20.14

86.85

efficiency of the dragline in vertical tandem, which is 85.78% in the present case study. From the output and efficiency results, it is quite evident that there is discrepancy between the actual performance of the dragline and the planned performance as per the balancing diagram. Similarly, Table 9 represents the discrepancies between the coal exposure and the rehandling percentages also. It is evident that the computed annual output, coal exposure and the rehandling percentage have always been less than the values projected for these parameters from balancing diagram. The reasons for discrepancies are mainly attributable to higher overall cycle times (due to the reasons already explained ), and lower availability as well as utilisation of the dragline in the field in comparison to the prescribed norms. The results are suggestive of tremendous scope for improvement in the actual performance, which call for day-to-day careful monitoring, supervision and cautious planning for extremely cost sensitive draglines under the field conditions. CONCLUSIONS Balancing diagram is a very important tool to plan and analyse the key performance parameters for draglines. It must be used as ready reckoner for evaluation of dragline perfomance. The discrepancies between the balancing diagram results and the results obtained from actual field performance study must be thoroughly examined in order to improve the productivity. In the present case through the rigorous field monitoring, the discrepancies were diagnosed, which could largely be attributed to variations in swing angle, overall cycle time, availability and utilisation factors. The swing angle seems to be the major contributor towards the overall cycle time, hence, there must be an effort to minimise the swing instead of minimising the marching of draglines. Unnecessarily trying to reduce the dragline marching results in excessive swinging time, and thus exorbitant cycle time. Furthermore, due consideration needs to be given to the variations in the overall cycle time of draglines while working on the blasted muck, and, while working on the rehandling portion of the blasted muck, which is quite loose and easier to handle by the lagging dragline.

Vol 87, February 2007