TECHNICAL SESSION ON RIPPER DOZER

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 GEOLOGY OF OUR MINERAL DEPOSIT

Limestone persistence : upto an average depth of 30 m below overburden.

Nature of limestone : yellowish brown, hard compact and amorphous in

nature.
Water Table : shallow water table and water seapage starts from
6m from the surface
The limestone is made up of calcareous matrix with numerous shell fragments.

LITHO STRATIGRAPHY

3 - 5 m thickness of black cotton soil

3-5 m overburden (gray friable sand stone and the calcareous sand)
30 m thick gray to yellowish brown in colour with GRYPHAEA shells
Standing out prominently.
Below 30 m the limestone becomes highly ferruginous with the iron
content varying from 4% to 9%.
Beyond LS deteriorates to calcareous sand stone and finally to fine
grained grayish coloured pure sand stone (friable in nature).

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 PHYSIOGRAPHY OF THE SITE

› Gradually sloping from north west to south

east part of the lease.

› 40 m above the m ean sea level.

› M arudaiyar River (seasonal stream ) at 1 km

on the southern direction

› No perennial nallah or stream s are seen within

the lease area.

› Velliperigiyam village is situated within 300

m ts north west.
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
 PROBLEMS FACED
BUILDINGS/DWELLINGS NOT BELONGS TO OWNER WITHIN THE
300M FROM MINES

50% OF MINERAL IS BLOCKED IN THE ZONE OF 300M FROM THE

VILLAGE

SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH

BLASTING

NOT ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE HYDROGRADIENTS WITH DRILLING

AND BLASTING

PROBLEMS OF SEAPAGE WATER IN BLASTING

THREAT FROM THE VILLAGERS WHILE BLASTING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 MEASURES TAKEN
ADOPTED THE CONTROLLED BLASTING BY
USING SHOCK TUBES(NONEL)

INVESTIGATION INTO GROUND VIBRATIONS &

FLY ROCK PROBLEMS CAUSED DUE TO
BLASTING

OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM ‘DGMS’FOR

CONDUCTING BLASING BEYOND 100M FROM
THE DWELLINGS

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 ALTERNATIVE TO DRILLING & BLASTING

SURFACE MINERS

RIPPING

ROCK BREAKING

SCRAPERS

EXCAVATOR WITH RIPPING BUCKET

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 TECHNICAL COMPARISION

Sl. Parameter Drill & Surface Ripper Rock

No Blast Miner Breaker
01 CAPITAL LOW HIGHEST HIGHER HIGH
02 OPERATING COST LOW HIGHEST HIGHER HIGH
03 MANPOWER HIGHEST HIGH LOW HIGHER
04 ENV.IMPACT HIGHEST LOWEST LOW LOWER
05 DEVELOPMENT LOW HIGHEST LOW LOW
COST

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 TECHNICAL COMPARISION
Sl. Parameter Drill & Surface Ripper Rock
No Blast Miner Breaker
06 BLENDING POSSIBLE DIFFICULT POSSIBLE POSSIBLE

07 WORKABILITY IN POSSIBLE DIFFICULT POSSIBLE POSSIBLE

HIGH MOISTURE
CONDITIONS
08 CRUSHING REQUIRED NEGLISABLE DESIRABLE REQUIRED

09 SECONDARY NECESSARY NOT REQUIRED NOT

BREAKING REQUIRED REQUIRED
10 MONOVERABI- HIGH LOW MODERATE HIGH
LITY
11 RELIABILITY HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH

CONCLUDED THE RIPPER DOZER IS MOST SUITABLE

FOR OUR DEPOSIT
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
 FIELD/LABORATORY TESTS
• RIPPABILITY TEST
– SOUND VELOCITY
– UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
– PROTODYAKNOV STRENGTH INDEX
– POINT LOAD STRENGTH INDEX
– TENSILE STRENGTH (BRAZILIAN TEST)
– LONGITUDINAL WAVE VELOCITY
– ABRASIVENESS INDEX
– ROCKMASS CLASSIFICATION BASED ON RIPPABILITY
– ROCKMASS RATING

• FIELD VISITS
• TRAIL RUNS
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
 LABORATORY TEST FINDINGS
Sam Location of sample Density* Sound ** Tensile St.*** PI+ Comp. Comp. St+++
ple. velocity St++ (Indirect)
No (Direct)

gm/CC mm/s kg/Sq.cm kg/Sq.cm kg/Sq.cm kg/Sq.cm

1 3rd Bench –Middle 2.42 820 16.70 32.7 93.75 97.09

(South)

2 3rd Bench –toe portion 2.2 730 16.03 29.5 87.05 91.74

3 2nd Bench -Middle layer 2.30 840 10.50 36.64 103.79 112.68
(East)

4 2nd Bench Toe portion 2.10 680 10.58 36.10 138.40 150.94
East

5 2nd Bench –Middle 2.45 870 15.38 38.43 185.26 195.12

Layer West

6 2nd Bench Toe portion 2.37 1160 23.38 44.24 237.72 242.42
West

7 1st Bench Toe portion 2.27 1180 32.64 55.41 301.83 307.69

8 1st Bench Toe portion 2.37 1210 28.4 72.39 341.52 357.14

9 1st Bench Toe portion 2.40 1330 30.5 42.21 225.44 216.22

10 1st Bench Toe portion 2.48 1240 20.0 67.03 270.09 275.86

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 LABORATORY TEST FINDINGS
Rock Mass Classification
Sl Location Uniaxial Tensile. Weathering Sound Velocity, Abrassiveness Discontinuity Total Assessment
No of sample St, in MPa m/s Spacing, m Rati
. Rating Rating Rating Rating ng
Valu Value Rati Valu Value Valu
e, ng e e
1 1st bench 3.26 4 Moder 8 1180 6 Low 5 1-1.5 18 45 Moderat
toe portion ate ely
Rippable
2 1st bench 2.80 3 Moder 8 1210 7 Low 6 1-1.5 22 46 Moderat
toe portion ate ely
Rippable
3 1st bench 3.05 4 Moder 7 1330 8 Low 5 1-1.5 22 46 Moderat
toe portion ate ely
Rippable
4 1st bench 2.0 3 Moder 8 1240 7 Low 5 1-1.5 22 47 Moderat
toe portion ate ely
Rippable
5 2nd bench 1.53 2 High 4 870 4 V- 3 0.5-1 17 30 Easily
middle Low Rippable
layer
6 nd
2 bench 1.05 2 High 4 840 4 V- 3 0.5-1 17 30 Easily
middle Low Rippable
layer (east)
7 2nd bench 2.33 3 Mode 6 1160 6 V- 3 0.5-1 16 34 Moderately
toe portion rate Low Rippable

8 2nd bench 1.05 2 High 4 680 3 V- 3 0.5-1 17 29 Easily

toe portion Low Rippable
9 3rd bench 1.67 2 High 4 820 4 V- 2 0.5-1 17 28 Easily
middle Low Rippable
10 3rd bench 1.60 2 High 3 730 4 V- 2 0.5-1 17 28 Easily
toe portion Low Rippable

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 LABORATORY TEST FINDINGS
Rock Mass Classification Based On Rippability
Index (Singh Et Al., 1987)

Rippability Index Rock Mass Classification

< 30 Easily Rippable
30-50 Moderately Rippable
50-70 Difficult
70-90 Marginal
> 90 Blast

Rock Mass Classification value of our mines falls under < 50 range

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 LABORATORY TEST FINDINGS
Rock Mass Rating is also good indicator of
Rippability of rocks. Parameters considered
are
Uni-axial Compressive Strength of
intact rock material
Rock Quality Designation
Discontinuity Spacing
Joint Condition
Ground Water Condition
Joint Orientation

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 LABORATORY TEST FINDINGS
Rippability nature of Rock Mass based on RMR
(Abdullatif and Cruden,1983)
RMR Value Excavation Method
< 30 Digging
31-60 Ripping
61-100 Blasting

RMR value of our mines falls under 31-60 range

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 RIPPABILITY vs. SISMIC VELOCITY
T O P S O IL
MODERATELY
C LA Y RIPPABLE
IG N E O U S R O C K S RIPPABLE NOT RIPPABLE
G R A N IT E

B AS A LT

S E D IM E N T A R Y R O C K S

S H ALE

S AN D S TO N E

S IL T S T O N E

C LA YS TO N E

C O N G LA M E R A TE

B R E C C IA

C A L A C IT E

L IM E S T O N E

M E T O M O R P H IC R O C K S

S C H IS T

S H ALE

M IN E R A L S & O R E

C O A L

IR O N O R E
S IS M IC V E L O C IT Y 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 ( m /s )

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ( X 1 0 0 0 f t/s )

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 OUT PUT vs. SISMIC VELOCITY
Actual Production = Standard
Production X Job efficiency

Job Efficiency (E)

Good = 0.75(45min out of an hour)
Avg = 0.58 (35min out of an hour)
Rather Poor = 0.50 (30min)
Poor = 0.40 (25 min)
Note :
1) Ripping Production only
2) Single shank rippers
3) 100% job efficiency
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
 METHODS OF RIPPING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 METHODS OF RIPPING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 METHODS OF RIPPING
HARD ROCK RIPPING

RIPPING CAN BE DONE RIPPING CANNOT BE DONE

EQUIPMENT STALLING EQUIPMENT SHOE SLIPPING EQUIPMENT MOVING BACKWARDS

SELECT SHANK LOWER SLOT RIPPING LIMIT

RIPPING CAN BE DONE RIPPING CANNOT BE DONE

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 METHODS OF RIPPING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 METHODS OF RIPPING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 METHODS OF RIPPING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 METHODS OF RIPPING

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 COST COMPARISION
Sl. DESCRIPTION DRILL & BLAST RIPPING
No. (in Rs./MT) (in Rs./MT)

01 Capital Cost 0.31 3.56

02 Operating 4.98 7.49

Cost

03 Blasting Cost 3.96 0.00

Total Cost 9.25 11.05

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 COST COMPARISION
Intangiable cost benefits with ripper:
Hauling unit fill factor increased by 12%.
Crusher output increased.
Crusher power consumption reduced.
Smooth bench floors and slopes.
Social problems minimized.
Reduction in Manpower.
Able to produce total plant limestone
requirement in two shifts economically.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

 ENVIRONMENTAL & SAFETY
EGRONOMICALLY DESIGNED OPERATOR CABIN
OIL DRAINING BY HOSE & VALVES
OIL CONSUMPTION IS LESS THAN 0.001% FUEL
CONSUMPTION
MEETING EURO-II EMMISSION NORMS
NOISE AND VIBRATIONS IN AMBIENT AIR
REDUCED
LOW DUST EMMISSIONS COMPARED TO
DRILLING & BLASTING
ENHANCED SAFETY DUE LESS EXPOSURE OF
MANPOWER.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com