See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/293825207

DRAW POINT CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT AT DEEP MILL LEVEL ZONE

(DMLZ) PT FREEPORT INDONESIA USING THE SIX SIGMA METHOD

Conference Paper · February 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 362

4 authors, including:

Andrew Parhusip
PT Freeport Indonesia
2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Parhusip on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DRAW POINT CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT AT DEEP MILL LEVEL
ZONE (DMLZ) PT FREEPORT INDONESIA USING THE SIX SIGMA
METHOD

Andrew Parhusip, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia

Fikky Hartono, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia
Mario Siray, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia
Rakhmat Mulyanto, former Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Papua, Indonesia

Abstract the 2570 level with column heights of roughly 500 m.

The Undercut is on 2590 level, some 20 meters above
PT Freeport Indonesia is preparing the Deep Mill the extraction level.
Level Zone (DMLZ) mine to be the successor of the
currently operating Deep Ore Zone (DOZ) mine. The
DMLZ is block cave mine situated 500 m below the
DOZ mine and approximately 1,600 m depth from
surface.

Both of the block caving mines require draw point

construction in the extraction level to extract the ore
from caved area above. Learning from the experience
in DOZ, the construction & maintenance of draw
points in the production panels is a significant
challenge in supporting consistent production.

The average DOZ draw point construction duration is

approximately 46 shifts per draw point. The time
frame for construction is dependent on several
variables; availability of the conventional forming
system, material availability, and development
tolerances. The repair of concrete floors and lintel sets
causes production downtime. Reviewing the old DOZ
draw point design, there is an opportunity to increase
constructability, durability, and reliability of DMLZ
draw points. This paper discusses how the DMLZ has
improved draw point construction productivity and is
on track to significantly reduce costs whilst increasing
the quality by using the Six Sigma Improvement
Method.
Introduction
The DMLZ Mine is part of the PT. Freeport
Indonesia (PTFI) future expansion to its underground
mining complexes. It is the fourth vertical lift in the
East Ertsberg Skarn System (EESS) deposit (figure 1).
Figure 1 Future Underground Mine Layout at PTFI
The DMLZ mine will replace the production from the
DOZ mine, which is planned to be complete in 2021.
The DMLZ mine initiated caving in September 2015
and is continuing with production ramp-up activities.
A significant amount of pre-production development
and construction work was required to get the DMLZ
to its current state and to initiate the cave.
Development access began in September 2004 with
the initial blast of the AB Adit portals.
Looking at historical DOZ costs, it can be seen in
Figure 2 below that the largest percentage of

Currently, it is under development phase. The DMLZ

mine will be a block cave mine using an advanced
undercutting method. The DMLZ extraction level will
be approximately 1,600 meters below the surface on

1
expenditures is associated with draw point
construction and shotcreting activities.
Figure 2 Detail cost per activity on Production Sequences
Draw Point Construction
The draw points are the critical link in
connecting the caved material to the extraction level
and allowing for LHD’s to extract ore. These draw
points consist of double steel lintel sets and formed
concrete that are required to protect the drawpoint and
keep it viable over its planned life.
Figure 3 Active Draw Point
Learning from the experience in the DOZ, the
construction & maintenance of draw points in
production panels can have a significant impact to
production. The construction and repair durations for
the DOZ draw points is dependent on availability of
key materials and logistical support. In addition,
roadway repair from ground movement and water
damage can further impact draw point and panel
availabilities. Repeated secondary blasting activities
can damage lintel sets and lead to major repair
activities being undertaken.
Non-uniform roadways, drift profiles and lintel set
damage make it difficult for the tele-remote and
automated LHD operations to be carried out in
2
approximately 60% of the DOZ extraction level
footprint.
With an identified issue around drawpoint availability,
a Six Sigma approach was applied in the DOZ and the
draw point design was improved to create a more
efficient construction method, at a lower total cost,
and a stronger and more durable product.
Definition Stage – Improvement Project
This first stage of the project charter, and describes the
background and actual data of the DOZ draw point
design, the working method and actual duration plus
cost of Draw point Construction. The graph below
collected from actual data 2008-2010, indicates that
based on historical data the DOZ draw point
constructed an average of 9.2 DP’s/month,with
maximum achievement 14.9 DP’s a month and a
minimum of 6.2 DP’s. This variation in achievement
was due to several factors including the draw point
construction process employed and production rate. At
that time DOZ production rate 80K per day on
average.
Figure 4 DOZ Accomplishment 2008-2010 for Draw Point
Construction
Reviewing the DOZ drawpoint construction data for
2008-2010 revealed that an average of 11.33 DP’s per
month were constructed that year from a plan of 12 per
month. The average time taken to construct a DP was
measured at 1,432 man-hours per DP versus a plan of
1,292 man-hours, or a 10% actual increase versus the
plan. A review of the work method with the goal of a
significant improvement in productivity was
undertaken as part of this improvement program.
The graph below in Figure 5 shows the actual
distribution of time taken to construct a drawpoint in
the DOZ. The graph indicates that there is quite a
spread in times taken per draw point and is indicative
of the impact of external influences such as logistical
support, actual drawpoint opening requirements,
development tolerances and variations in construction
methodologies. The average time take was 16 days per
drawpoint.

Figure 7 Average hour duration per Draw point activity

Figure 5 DOZ duration completion for 1 DP

The chart below in Figure 6 describes the detail

workflow of draw point construction work method that
was used in the DOZ mine.

Figure 8 Pareto chart for DOZ Draw point Construction

Actual Cost of DOZ draw point construction

Cost is an important factor to be improved upon. The
table and pie chart shown in Table 1 and Figure 9
shows the distribution of costs for the different actives
in a percentage of the total. From this data it is clear
that the concrete and steel works are the bulk of the
expenditure per drawpoint.
Figure 6 DOZ Drawpoint Construction Work Method
Table 1 Detail cost of DOZ Draw point
Measurement Stage – Target vs Plan
The graph below (Figure 7) indicates average
completion hours and standard deviation per sequence
for each activity. From this data it can be concluded
that the wall and roof meshing and forming is the
longest duration activity, followed by the steel
erection. These activities account for 41% of the total
draw point construction time as can be seen in Figure
8. Both of these activities also exhibit the highest
swings in standard deviation indicating potential
process issues to be improved.

Figure 9 Detail cost for Draw point DOZ

3
Analysis Stage – Root Cause Finding
Based on the DOZ historical data an analysis was
conducted to identify the root causes behind the DOZ
drawpoint duration and cost drivers.

From the analysis it was concluded that the wall & roof
meshing and forming was the longest sub process of
draw point construction. In addition, any significant
development over break at a drawpoint also caused
delays as the larger excavation required the installation
of more materials and concrete. A further delay factor
was the variable logistical supply efficiency in
providing materials to the work place to be used in the
manually intensive forming process Figure 10 Trial Draw point Modular forming

The DOZ drawpoints utilize a double lintel set with

each set having a double cap. This resulted in erection
issues when the excavation was tight in the shoulder
areas and required chipping by crews to make room
for sets to fit into the correct position. In some cases
the construction crews would need to burn holes in the
steels sets to fit tie rods to hold the plywood forms in
place.

At certain periods, rail was installed in the floor of the

drawpoints to help reduce wear in the concrete from
the LHD mucking action. Over time the rail was
exposed from excessive wear and lifted out of place, Figure 11 Trial Draw Point Modular forming at jobsite
requiring time consuming repair activities.
(Figure 12).
Other areas of concern identified were the abrasion
resistance of the concrete, the application of high
strength concrete products and the impact of water on
the roadways.

Improvement Stage – Reviewing and Selecting

Options

Drawpoint Construction and Formwork

Once the issues with the current drawpoint
construction process were identified then several
options to help improve the process were selected for
review.
It was decided to move away from the manual forming
process that utilized plywood and go to a modular and
re-usable forming system. This would reduce wastage
of materials, provide a consistent and uniform product,
and simplify and accelerate the construction process.
A re-usable formwork system from PERI was adopted
in the DMLZ and is shown in Figures 10 and 11.
Figure 12 DMLZ Drawpoint Concrete Slab design
Lintel Set Re-Design
The DMLZ lintel sets designs are significantly
different from the sets used in the DOZ. Several key
changes were adopted to help overcome some of the
problems encountered in the DOZ construction
process and for the higher stress levels anticipated in
the DMLZ, 500m below the DOZ.
The lintel sets are installed in pairs and the DMLZ
system utilizes four connector beams between the two
sets to provide additional stiffness and improve load
shedding. This will help the lintel set survive
anticipated higher ground stress, hang-up blasting

4
damage and loader impacts. Figure 13 illustrates the
results of FEM analysis by Beck Engineering on the
existing DOZ sets. The results of the analysis indicated
that the main failure mode was experienced in the
columns.
Figure 13 Beck Engineering FEM analysis on DOZ lintel set
To get a better analysis on the failure modes, the DOZ
and DMLZ lintel sets were compared using STAAD
Pro V8i, a structural steel analysis software. This
resulted in failures occurring in the columns and
reinforced the work by Beck Engineering. Figures 14
and 15 show the STAAD analysis.
An important factor for increasing the shear capacity
of the columns is the cross sectional area of the web.
By increasing the web size the lintel set capacity
increased from 262.5 KPa/lintel (in DOZ) to be 452.5
KPa/lintel (in DMLZ) , an increase of 72%. The
redesigned DMLZ lintel set has a smaller actual ratio
overall (ratio of total load to structural capacity of the
steel member). A smaller actual ratio indicates a
stronger structural capacity. The DOZ has a ratio of
0.958 while the DMLZ linte set has a ratio of 0.389,
over twice the shear stress capacity.
Figure 14 DOZ Lintel Set Structural Analysis using Staad Pro
V8i
5
Figure 15 DMLZ Lintel Set Structural Analysis using Staad
Pro V8i
The other concern raised during the lintel set redesign
process was the impact of secondary blasting in the
drawpoints to bring down hang-ups and break up
boulders. This blasting process impacts the lintel sets
and can move them laterally. In order to stiffen the
dual lintel set package four connector beams were
added (Casten, 2015), to connect the two lintel sets
together, as can be seen in Figure 16.
Figures 16 and 17 show the DMLZ lintel set with the
following notable changes in the design:
The DMLZ set uses a single 350 mm beam for the cap
versus two 327 mm stacked caps in the DOZ. This cap
has a 20 mm web versus a 10.5 mm web thickness and
provides much greater strength in a more compact
system. This change increased the capacity of the sets
from 260 KPa in the DOZ to 450 KPa in the DMLZ.
This also reduces overall height and helps avoid
development tights which are a source of construction
delay.
Figure 16 Comparison of DOZ lintel set vs DMLZ lintel set
The lintel sets were designed to work with the PERI
formwork and incorporate holes for tie rods and
connectors (Figure 18).
 and the LHD buckets were able to catch and move the
rail.

Figure 17 3D Design of DMLZ Lintel set
.
In the DMLZ mine the combination of AnvilTop and
embedded rail were substituted for high strength,
abrasion resistant concrete..
The high strength concrete planned for the DMLZ
draw point roadways underwent testing at the
University of Indonesia in Jakarta. It was shown that
80 MPa concrete with fiber (6kg/m3 plastic fiber) had
same performance on abrasion resistance to AnvilTop
and concrete in the 80-100 MPa range (Table 1). One
of the key challenges in producing the high strength
fibrecrete is ensuring that the batch plant can provide
the correct level of quality on a consistent basis based
on the required concrete recipe (Table 2).

Table 1 Laboratory test on abrasive resistance of HPC

Figure 18 Actual Lintel set on DMLZ

Concrete Works Table 2 Mix Design and trial result for HPC
In the DOZ, the draw point floor was reinforced
concrete with a minimum thickness of 30 cm, a
compressive strength of 50 MPa with the addition of 4
cm of an iron aggregate mortar topping known
asAnvilTop for increased abrasion resistance. Based
on the vendor specifications from BASF, AnvilTop is
a heavy duty cement-based metallic-aggregate floor
topping. It provides heavy-duty protection in key areas
subject to abrasion and impact. Its energy absorbing
capacity is significantly greater than plain concrete,
integral fiber concrete, and high-strength natural-
aggregate toppings DMLZ Draw point Construction Performance
The DMLZ mine has applied all of the improvements
The road gradient was also kept at a minimum of 3% discussed to the draw point construction process.
in order to minimize water ponding. It was noted that Figure 19 shows a picture of a completed draw point
the presence of standing water greatly decreases the in the DMLZ mine.
durability of the road concrete. In some areas of the
DOZ mine used rail was installed as part of the
concrete process to provide additional wear protection
against bucket loading. This proved to be problematic
one the concrete wore down past the rail embedment

6
 Table 3 Improvement List on DMLZ Draw point

Category Description

Lintel set already proven to hold static load with

overall static load max (452.5kPa or452.5kN/m2)
Air blast effect must be include on design
calculation (covering concrete) - add connector
beam on cross beam and column beam
put additional hole on cross beam and column for
Lintel set
PERI modular system
Eliminate tight risk on lintel installation by
improving design reduce height of double beam
Improving material procurement and reducing 4
column different marking and 2 beam different
marking to be 1 column and 1 beam marking to
eliminate factor lack of material
Figure 20 Comparison of histogram DOZ vs DMLZ (Duration
wall & roof
Find alternate design which enable to apply completion)
modular system which have standard work method-
forming
subtituted by PERI modular forming system The reduced construction duration in DML and the
Find concrete technologies to increase water, redesign has resulted in a reduction in cost and man-
Rail Installation & impact & abrasive resistance on concrete floor-
hours needed per draw point as shown in Figure 21.
Anvil top subtituted with High Perfomance concrete (HPC)
with minimum requirement UCS test 80 Mpa The DMLZ has achieved an average of 14 draw points
constructed per month which equates to annual
savings of several millions dollars in materials and
labor.

Figure 19 Complete draw point construction on DMLZ

A comparison of draw point construction durations

based on the draw points constructed in DMLZ in
2015 and DOZ data is shown in Figure 20. In
summary the DMLZ average time to construct one
draw point is 410 hours compared to 444 hours for
the DOZ. Figure 20 also shows the standard deviation Figure 21 Cost Comparison DMLZ vs DOZ
between the two statistical distributions. The DMLZ
mine has a lower variation on construction timing than
DOZ which is attributable to the new method and also
the impact to construction in DOZ from other
activities such as production and caving activities,
currently not present in DMLZ.

7
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank to management teams

of PT Freeport Indonesia for permission to prepare and
publish this paper,and Underground DMLZ
Construction team for support and sharing knowledge.

REFERENCES
1. Mulyanto, Rakhmat. Six Sigma Method for Draw
point Construction. MBA-ITB Thesis, (2011).
2. Manggala, D. Mengenal Six Sigma Sederhana.,
(2013).
3. Tarigan, A., Widiyanto, F., Ramirez, M., & Osborne,
K., (2010). The Deep Ore Zone (DOZ) Mine– Cave
Sequence Modifications. SME Annual Meeting
2010
4. Beck Engineering, Beck Engineering Analyis on
Lintel set Drawpoint DOZ. 2013
5. BASF. MasterTop 300 Technical Data Guide.
(2014).
6. Casten, Tim, personal discussion, 2015,

View publication stats