Energy 230 (2021) 120703

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energy efficiency assessment of electric shovel operating in opencast

mine
Seema Ashishan Topno a, b, Lalit Kumar Sahoo a, *, B.S. Umre b
a
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research, Nagpur Research Centre, Nagpur, India
b
Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering, Nagpur, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Electric shovels are used for loading in opencast mines. Energy efficiency assessment of electric shovel is
Received 4 March 2020 important to minimise its electrical energy usage. Specific power consumption (SPC) has been used as
Received in revised form performance indicator to assess energy efficiency of shovel. A modelling framework is developed for
27 March 2021
estimating SPC of electric shovel from operating time and power measured for each process. The model is
Accepted 16 April 2021
Available online 3 May 2021
illustrated with a case study of 42 cu. m. P & H shovel operating in a large opencast mine of India. The SPC
of shovel is optimized for actual operating cycle time components (idle time and digging time). Results of
field measurements show that digging operation consumes maximum power in comparison to other
Keywords:
Energy efficiency
operations of electric shovel in a cycle. The model has been used to assess the energy saving potential of
Electric shovel electric shovel by using the real time operational data. The minimum SPC of electric shovel is 0.12 kWh/
Opencast mine cum for zero idle time and the energy saving potential is 13.45%. The optimization of SPC has also been
Cycle time done for different digging conditions. The model developed can help to set a target for energy con-
Power consumption sumption of electric shovel operating in a mine.
Energy savings © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the minimum energy consumption in any industry. Energy effi-

ciency benchmarking for mining system has been developed by
Energy efficiency has gained importance recently due to Wang et al. and Sahoo et al. [7,8]. Electric shovels consume about
increasing trend of energy cost as well as environmental concerns. 32% of the total electrical energy usage in an opencast mine [9].
Mining industry involves energy intensive operations for the pro- Energy efficiency indices have been used by researchers to assess
duction of ore. The energy consumption of mining activities is energy efficiency in mining process. Specific energy consumption
estimated to be 6.2% of the total global energy consumption [1]. In (SEC) has been used previously to describe the performance of
US, the energy used in mining operations accounts for 3.3% of the digging equipment and operators. Acaroglu et al. used specific
total industrial energy use [2]. South African mining sector con- energy of a disc cutter for predicting the energy performance of
sumes 6% of the total energy produced in the country [3]. Mining tunnel boring machines (TBMs) [10]. Sahoo et al. used specific fuel
being the main source of income for Chile, the energy consumption consumption (SFC) for benchmarking the energy consumption of
is dominated by its mining sector and accounts for 35% of its total dump trucks in opencast mine [11]. Specific energy consumption
energy consumption [4]. The energy cost of mining sector of Chile (SEC) has been used as energy efficiency indicator for assessing the
represent about 14% of the total production cost [5]. The energy cost energy performance of mine dewatering system by Sahoo et al.
in mining accounts for about 10e11% of the total cost of production [12]. Energy consumption in electric shovels varies with the ma-
in India [6]. terial handling rate. In this paper, authors have used specific power
Energy efficiency in the mining sector is important to minimise consumption (SPC) as energy efficiency index to assess the energy
the energy cost and the cost of production of ore. It delivers sig- performance of an electric shovels and is defined as the ratio of
nificant energy savings and minimizes the environmental impacts. energy consumed to the material handled.
Benchmarking energy consumption is a method for evaluation of Past studies show that operator's proficiency plays a significant
role in the productivity of shovels [13e16]. Energy efficiency of
loading and hauling operations depends on the equipment, oper-
* Corresponding author. ating conditions, mine planning and operator's performance [13].
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (L.K. Sahoo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120703
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

Nomenclature QM Material handled (cu.m./y)

QD Material handling demand (cu.m./y)
Cb Bucket capacity (cu.m.) QS Capacity of electric shovel
Ecycle Energy consumption in one cycle (kWh) SPCshovel Specific power consumption (kWh/cu.m.)
Es Energy saving potential (%) SPCw Specific power consumption with idle time (kWh/
ET Total energy consumption (kWh/y) cu.m.)
Fb Bucket fill factor SPCwo Specific power consumption without idle time (kWh/
H Annual working hours (h) cu.m.)
P Power consumption in shovel (kW) tcycle Cycle time (s)
Pdig Digging power (kW) tdig Digging time (s)
Pidle Power consumption during no load (kW) tswing;b Swing back time (s)
Pmax Maximum power consumption (kW) tswing Swing time (s)
Pswing Power consumption during swing (kW) tul Unloading time (s)
Pswing;b Power consumption during swing back (kW) Xb Number of buckets per hour
Pul Power consumption during unload (kW)

Oskouei et al. revealed that the operator's skill affect the energy 1.1. Working of electric shovels and its energy consumption
efficiency of the mining machinery [14]. The study done by Karpuz
et al. revealed that there is an increase in digging power con- 1.1.1. Working of electric shovels
sumption with an increase in the cutting depth and operator's An electric shovel operating in an opencast mine consists of a
performance [15]. The results of simulation experiments conducted large bucket which is connected by ropes and driven by electric
by Awuah-Offei, K. revealed that an operator, operating near the motors for different operations during loading. It has a revolving
optimal levels with a 44 cu. m bucket capacity can save over frame that supports a boom consisting of dipper handle supported
$114,000/- in the electricity costs for digging cycle alone as by a hoist rope. Four electric motors (hoist motor, crowd motor,
compared to an average operator [16]. swing motor and propel motor) along with their drive system
The performance of P & H electric shovel was studied by Pat- control the operations (digging, swinging and propelling) in a
nayak et al. by measuring the performance parameters (voltage, shovel. Motors and their operations are listed as follows:
current) and their variation during digging and hoisting operations
[17]. A dynamic model was developed for the performance evalu-
Hoist motor that drives the hoist drum and used for hoisting
ation of cable shovel using NewtoneEuler techniques. The effect of operation
both linear and angular motions of dipper handle and dipper on
Swing motor which swings the boom and dipper attached from
shovel performance has been studied [18]. The energy efficiency of side to side
a typical truck and shovel mining system has been modelled using
Crowd motor controls dipper handle by means of rope.
stochastic process simulation. A linear correlation between fuel
Propel motor for movement of the entire machine
consumption per cycle with cycle time components and payload of
trucks has been done. The fuel consumption per cycle for various The dipper of the electric shovel is first crowded into the soil,
operating strategies including effective shovel utilization, increased hoisted for digging and bucket filling. The filled bucket is then
shovel capacity and shorten haul roads has been calculated [19]. An swung over the dump-truck to unload the material. All the motions
analytical model was developed by Sahoo et al. for benchmarking of the shovel are controlled by the operator by using joystick con-
energy consumption of dump trucks using a linear optimization trollers attached near the operator's seat. The movement of dipper
technique [11,20]. The influence of the operator's technique on the of the electric shovel operating in an opencast mine showing the
digging efficiency and productivity of the machine has been ana- crowd, hoist and swing operations is shown in Fig. 1 [25].
lysed and the digging energy of shovel is calculated from the bail
force and crowd rate [21]. Awuah-Offei et al. has modelled energy
efficiency of cable shovel by optimising crowd and hoist speeds
using shovel kinematics and dynamics [22]. Wang et al. and Bi et al.
have optimized energy consumption of cable shovel through tra-
jectory planning for optimal excavation in mine [23,24].
In this paper, real time operational data has been used for
assessing the energy efficiency of electric shovel. Specific power
consumption (SPC) is optimized using a modelling framework from
the input field data of operating time and power consumption of
different operations of electric shovel in a large opencast mine.
Specific power consumption depends on the material handled by
the electric shovel. An optimization of the specific power con-
sumption has been done by varying digging time and idle time of
shovel for constraints of the maximum power consumption and
material handling demand. The parametric analysis and sensitivity Fig. 1. Dipper movement of the electric shovel [25].
analysis of the model has been done.

2
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

1.1.2. Power transmission in electric shovel

The power required for operating shovel is through electric
drives connected to hoist, crowd and swing motors. Power from the
main substation 132/33 kV grid is supplied through two nos. Of 36
MVA transformers for the mining process. Electric shovel is pow-
ered from a 33/6.6 kV, 16 MVA step down transformer at the sub-
station. Alternating current (AC) is supplied to the shovel through a
trailing cable, which is connected to the 16 MVA step down
transformer at mine switch house. The chain of distribution losses
from the main substation to the electric shovel consists of losses in
the 33 kV line and 6.6 kV trailing cable. The distribution losses in
33 kV high voltage line is assumed to be negligible in comparison to
the power consumed by electric shovel. The schematic diagram of
power system from the main AC power grid to the electric shovel
for different operation is shown in Fig. 2.
The P&H shovel has an on-board supply transformer of 3000
kVA, two hoist motors, one crowd motor, and two swing motors.
The DC motors are separately excited motors connected through
phase-controlled thyristor rectifiers which rectify the three-phase
AC waveform to DC of required voltage.
The total power required for digging operation is a sum of power
consumed by hoist motor and crowd motor. The elevation and
lowering operation of dipper during unloading is done through
Fig. 3. Energy consumption pattern of opencast mine.
rotation of the hoist drum. The hoist drum is coupled to two
identical DC hoist motors through reduction gear for hoist opera-
tion. Similarly, the power required for swinging operation and
swing back operation is through two swing motors. The drive
technology used in the shovel is a phase-controlled thyristor
rectifier [26,27].

1.1.3. Energy consumption pattern

The electrical energy consumption pattern of a typical opencast
coal mine of India is presented in Fig. 3 to analyse the percentage
share of electrical machines operating in the mine. The annual
average electrical energy consumption of the mine is about
40 GWh/year [9]. Electric shovels contribute to about 32% of the
total electrical energy usage in opencast mine.

2. Methodology for assessing energy efficiency of shovel

A simple mathematical model is formulated for assessing SPC of

shovel by co-relating different variables during the operation of
electric shovel. The information flow diagram for calculating SPC is
shown in Fig. 4. The operating time of different operations (digging,
Fig. 4. Information flow diagram for assessing SPC of electric shovel.
swinging, unloading and idling) of shovel and the power con-
sumption during these operations are measured during the study

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of power system of electric shovel.

3
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

period and a model is formulated to calculate SPC. The average

power consumption for each shovel operation, the time required Pj  Pmax ðj ¼ 1; 2; 3::Þ (11)
for different operations is taken as input parameters. The variation
of power consumption in each process is due to the fragmentation Pdig ¼ Phoist þ Pcrowd ððdigÞ; ðhoist; crowdÞÞ (12)
of material, density and operating skill of the shovel operator.
Hence, average power is used in the model for estimation of SPC.
The cycle time is defined as the sum of digging time (tdig ), swing
time (tswing ), swing back time (tswing;b ), unloading time (tul ) and idle
time tidle . 2.2. Optimization of SPC for different digging condition

tcycle ¼ tdig þ tswing þ tswing;b þ tul þ tidle (1) The cycle time varies with the digging time and major power is
consumed during digging operation. Hence, SPC is minimized for
Number of buckets excavated by the shovel per hour (Xb ) is different digging time assuming that digging time depends on the
calculated using Eq. (2). Energy consumption of electric shovel in digging difficulty during shovel operation as Eq. (13).
one cycle is estimated using average power drawn during different
shovel operations (dig, swing, unload, idle) and time of the oper- tdig  tdig;k ðk ¼ 1ðeasyÞ; 2ðmoderateÞ; 3ðdifficultÞ Þ
(13)
ation. The annualised energy consumption (ET ) for annual oper- k; denotes digging difficulty
ating hours (H) is given as Eq. (4). The material handled by shovel
The power consumed for total shovel operation is restricted by
per year with bucket capacity (Cb ) and fill factor (Fb ) is estimated
maximum rated power of connected electric motors supplying
using Eq. (5).
power where i; j indicates number of operations performed by
. electric shovels and number of connected electrical motors.
Xb ¼ 3600 tcycle (2)
X
N X
M
Pi  Pj (14)
Ecycle ¼ Pdig tdig þ Pswing tswing þ Pul tul þ Pswing;b tswing;b þ Pidle tidle
i¼1 j¼1
(3)
All variables are positive.
ET ¼ Ecycle Xb H (4)
3. Case study of an electric shovel operating in a coal mine
Qm ¼ Cb Fb Xb H (5)
The specific power consumption based on annual energy con- A case study of an electric shovel operating in Dipka opencast
sumption is shown in Eq. (6). coal mine of M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL), Bilaspur, India
has been presented to evaluate the energy efficiency. The installed
SPCshovel ¼ ET =Qm (6) production capacity of the mine is 25 MTPA with average stripping
ratio of 1 m3/T of coal. The annual electrical energy consumption of
the mine is 49.3 GWh/y in 2014e15 [28]. The connected load of the
electrical machinery in mine is 38.49 MW. The electric shovels (four
2.1. Optimization of specific power consumption numbers of 10 cu. m. And two numbers of 42 cu. m.) consume 32%
of the total electrical energy.
The minimum specific power consumption (SPCshovel ) of electric A field trial was conducted on a 42 cu. m P&H shovel to assess
shovel is calculated using Eq. (7) from annual energy consumption the energy efficiency from the cycle time study for 1-h loading cycle
and material handling demand. The overall electrical energy of the and actual power measured. The continuous power ratings for hoist
shovel in the model includes the losses of 6.6 kV line as power has motors, crowd motor, swing motor and propel motors of electric
been measured at 33/6.6 kV substation end. The objective function shovel are 1887 kW, 547 kW, 746 kW and 716 kW respectively [25].
to optimize specific power consumption of a single electric shovel The connected load of electric shovel is 7235 kW (2 hoist motors, 1
in a shovel-dumper combination mine is given as: crowd motor, 2 swing motors and 2 propel motors). The physical
Minimise parameters of P & H electric shovel are given in Table 1. Five dump
trucks were allocated to the shovel at the pit for hauling operation.
P
N
The loading cycle of shovel include five different operations; dig-
Pi ti Xb H
ging, swinging, unloading, swing back and positioning/waiting
SPCshovel ¼ i¼1 (7)
QD time. The time scales of different loading operations were
measured using a digital timer. During the same time of operations,
Subject to the following constraints:
power analyzer was connected at the electrical substation to
Cb Fb Xb H  QD (8) measure the electrical parameters such as power, current, voltage
etc.
Cb Fb Xb H  Qs (9)
Table 1
The idle time is considered as zero. Physical parameters of P & H electric shovel [25].

tidle ¼ 0 (10) Parameters/Model Value Unit

Model 4100C
Nominal dipper capacity 45.9 cu.m.
Nominal Payload 81.6 t
Rated suspended load 154.2 t
Bucket fill factor 0.80 (assumed)

4
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

3.1. Cycle time study

The cycle time of the electric shovel is defined as the sum of

digging time, swing time, unloading time, swing back time and
positioning/waiting time as defined in Eq. (1). The digging time was
recorded from the moment when the bucket touches the ground
for digging till the filling of the bucket. The swing time was
measured when the operator starts to swing the filled bucket to the
dump truck. Unloading time is when the coal or over burden is
unloaded from the bucket into the dump truck. After unloading, the
operator starts to swing back the empty bucket to its original po-
sition. The waiting time before loading the material into the dump
truck was recorded as the idle time of the electric shovel. The
summary of the variation of the cycle time studied for P&H shovel
during the study period for 50 cycles of shovel operation is given in
Table 2. The mean digging time (11s) accounts for 36% of mean cycle
time (30s) during the study period. Also, the power consumption Fig. 5. Histogram of digging time variation.
during digging operation was recorded highest in comparison to
the other shovel operations. Hence, the energy consumption during
digging operation is significant. The variation of digging time
(6se29s) during the loading cycle is recorded as maximum than the
variation in swing and unloading time as it depends on various
factors such as density of the material, depth of cut etc. The fre-
quency plot of the variations of the digging time of the bucket is
shown as histogram plotted in Fig. 5. The variation of the cycle time
is plotted in Fig. 6.
From the frequency plots shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, the digging
time varying between 8 and 12 s is considered as normal digging
cycle. The digging time exceeding 12 s is due to the effect of high
depth of cut, poor material fragmentation, higher density of the ore.
Similarly, the frequency of cycle time (26se32s) is normal cycle
time and the cycle time more than 32s is due to the increased
digging time, as swing time and unloading time do not change
significantly.

Fig. 6. Histogram of cycle time variation.

3.2. Power and current measurement

Power consumed and current drawn by a 6.6 kV, 42 cu. m. P & H

electric shovel was measured using a power analyzer (load man-
ager) at 33/6.6 kV substation. The power variation per second and
the current drawn by the shovel are shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. The
instantaneous power varies between 0 and 1933 kW. The power
consumption was recorded maximum during the digging operation
and its variation is significant. Hence, the mean of the minimum
and maximum power consumption is considered for energy effi-
ciency assessment and optimization. The mean power consump-
tion during the digging operation is calculated as 1050 kW whereas
the mean power consumed during swinging and unloading are
calculated as 250 kW and 65 kW respectively. The peak power of
electric shovel in a loading cycle is measured as 1933 kW for the Fig. 7. Per sec power variation in electric shovel.

digging operation whereas the peak current drawn is 275 Amps.

Table 2
Variation of the cycle time of P & H shovel during study period.

Digging Time (s) Swing Time (s) Unloading Time (s) Swing Back Time (s) Cycle Time (s) Waiting Time (s)

Maximum 29 10 7 13 48 287
Minimum 6 3 3 5 19 0
Average 11 7 3 9 30 24

5
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

Table 4
Estimation of SPC with and without idle time.

Parameters Without idle With idle

Qm (MCu.m/y) 26.61 14.78

ET (MWh/y) 3226 2071
SPC (kWh/Cu.m) 0.12 0.14

3.4. Solution procedure and illustrative results

The solution procedure and model results are presented for two
cases of an electric shovel:

Idle time optimization

Fig. 8. Per sec current variation in electric shovel.
Digging time optimization for different digging conditions

The SPC is initially optimized for zero idle time and average idle
3.3. Performance evaluation of electric shovel time of 11s. It is a linear optimization having linear constraints. The
SPC is then optimized for different digging conditions and the
Specific power consumption (SPC) is used as the energy per- constraints of the maximum power consumption given as Eq. (11).
formance index to assess the energy efficiency of electric shovel. The optimization problem is solved by excel solver using Eq. (7) to
Mean power consumption and the material handled calculated Eq. (12) including Eq. (1) to Eq. (6). The digging time optimization
from the cycle time have been used to evaluate SPC. The actual SPC for different digging conditions is solved using Eq. (1) to Eq. (14).
is calculated by considering the idle time of 24s during the study The minimum energy consumption per cycle in shovel for
period whereas the minimum SPC is calculated by minimizing the tidle ¼ 0 and average digging time of 11s is calculated as 4.07 kWh
idle time to zero. The power consumption varies in every instan- whereas annual energy consumption is 3226 MWh/y. Minimizing
taneous second from real time data taken using load manager the idle time is a no cost energy conservation measure whereas the
during the operating cycle of shovel as shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. minimisation of the digging time depends on density, fragmenta-
Therefore, the mean power is calculated from the average of tion of soil, depth of cut due to hoist and crowd movement of the
maximum and minimum power consumption for the range of each shovel. The operator's skill is required due to minimise both idle
operating cycle. The energy assessment of electric shovel with and time and digging time.
without idle time is given in Table 3.
The energy consumption per hour in total operating cycle of a
shovel is calculated as 315 units with idle time and 488 units
without idle time. The energy consumption for the digging opera-
tion is calculated as 215 units (68%) and 385 units (78%) respec-
tively for 2240 cu. m. and 4032 cu. m. per hour of the material
handled. The annual material handled, energy consumption and
SPC estimated without idle time and with idle time are given in
Table 4.
The material handling is calculated from mean cycle time of 30s
(From Table 2) using Eq. (5). The material handling is estimated to
be 26.61 Mcu. m/y assuming a bucket fill factor of 0.8 and annual
operating hours of 6600 h (20 h/d, 330 d/y). Material handling rate
decreases with the increase in cycle time. Fig. 9 shows the variation
of the material handling rate and the energy consumption with
increasing cycle time. The cycle time has been increased from 30s to
48s by increasing the digging time from 11s to 29s assuming zero
idle time and constant swing and unloads time.
Fig. 9. Variation of material handling rate and energy with cycle time.

Table 3
Energy assessment of shovel with and without idle time.

Parameters Digging Swinging Unloading Swing back Idle

Power (kW) 167e1933 200e300 60e70 120e140 50e140

Average power (kW) 1050 250 65 130 95
Average time (sec) 11 7 3 9 24
No of cycles with idle 67 67 67 67 67
No of cycles without idle 120 120 120 120 0
Average kWh/cycle 3.2 0.486 0.054 0.325 0.633
Energy with idle time (kWh) 215.0 32.57 3.63 21.78 42.43
Energy without idle time (kWh) 385 58.33 6.50 39 0

6
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

The minimum SPC obtained by idle time optimization is maximum material handling rate of 26.61 cu. m/y is obtained at
0.12 kWh/cu. m. The minimum SPC obtained for easy digging is zero idle time for a constant digging time. The material handled
0.0778 kWh/cu. m. , and 0.277 kWh/cu. m. for difficult digging. decreases with idle time as shown in Fig. 10. The material handled
is obtained for operating hours of 6600 h/y considering machine
4. Results and discussions breakdown and availability.
The SPC varies linearly with idle time and the minimum SPC is
4.1. Specific power consumption 0.12 kWh/cu. m at zero idle time. However, on actual operating
conditions, the average idle time is about 24s. This will result in
From the case study, the average cycle time for loading one energy loss due to idling of electric shovel. The SPC of shovel has
bucket of the material into the dump truck is calculated as 30s for been increased from 0.12 kWh/cu. m. at zero idle time to 0.14 kWh/
zero idle time and mean digging time of 11s. The actual operating cu. m at idle time of 24s. As electric shovel is highly energy inten-
SPC of the electric shovel in an opencast coal mine of India is sive equipment hence, a change in SPC of 0.02 kWh/cu. m. will save
0.14 kWh/cum whereas the minimum SPC is 0.12 kWh/cum for significant energy. An optimal operation of electric shovel by
tidle ¼ 0. Comparing the SPC with idle time and SPC without idle reducing idle time only can result in annual energy saving of
time, the energy saving potential is calculated as 13.45%. The result 295 MWh amounting to about $ 32,651/y.
is compared with the actual performance of a 42 cu. m. P & H The effect of digging time on SPC for zero idle time has been
electric shovel operating in Dipka opencast mine and found that studied in the present case study. The digging cycle include
minimizing the idle time from 27 min to 10 min decreases SPC from continuous motion of dipper employing crowding and hoisting
0.23 kWh/cu. m. to 0.15 kWh/cu. m for 116 cycles [28]. The digging operation to form a digging trajectory. The power consumption
operation consumes maximum share of energy consumed by during digging depends mainly on the suspended weight of the
electric shovel. The model result is compared with specific digging dipper (dipper and bucket), hoist speed and height raised by dipper
energy of electric shovel for blasted material. The specific digging during digging operation from start of digging to unloading of the
energy is calculated between 0.115 kWh/cu. m. to 0.205 kWh/cu. m. material. The digging operation contributes to actual production of
for easy and difficult digging [29]. The SPC can be further decreased electric shovel and consumes major share of energy consumption
by decreasing the average digging time. However, the digging time out of all other operations in a cycle. From Fig. 7, the variation of the
depends on the material hardness, density and type of the ore, power consumption during digging operation is significant and
depth of cut, fragmentation etc. The crowd and hoist speed during varies from 167 kW to 1933 kW. The mean digging time is calcu-
the shovel operation affect digging time. However, increasing the lated as 11s whereas the minimum and maximum digging time are
speed increases the power required for crowd and hoist operation. recorded as 6s and 29s as shown in Fig. 5. The variation of material
Hence optimal speed should be calculated to minimise the SPC and handled and SPC of the shovel with increase in digging time from
will be discussed in future research. 11s to 29s for tidle ¼ 0 are shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 13. Fig. 14 shows
the variation of energy consumption with digging time considering
4.2. Parametric analysis average power of 1050 kW. The total energy consumption increases
from 3226 MWh/y to 4615 MWh/y by increasing the digging time
The parametric analysis of the model has been done to inves- from 11s to 29s. The variation of SPC with material handled is given
tigate the effect of idle time and digging time on the SPC. The in Fig. 15. Assuming 0e6s for easy digging operation and 7se11s for
variation of the idle time and its effect on material handling and
SPC are given in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. The result shows that the

Fig. 11. SPC variation with increase in idle time.

Fig. 10. Material handling vs. idle time.

7
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

Fig. 15. Variation of SPC with material handled due to change in digging time.

Fig. 12. Material handling vs. digging time.

moderate digging operation and 11se29s for difficult digging

operation, the optimal SPC for material handling demand of 10
Mcu. m./y/shovel (minimum value) is calculated as 0.078 kWh/cu.
m., 0.12 kWh/cu. m. and 0.277 kWh/cu. m. respectively.

4.3. Optimization for different digging condition

The input data of 0e6s is considered for easy digging, 6e11s for
moderate digging and 12e29s for difficult digging. The value of k in
Eq. (13) is the upper limit of input range of digging time and is
known as the degree of digging difficulty. The optimal SPC is
computed as 0.078 kWh/cu. m for easy digging, 0.12 kWh/cu. m for
moderate digging and 0.277 kWh/cu. m for difficult digging
assuming zero idle time and constant swing and unload time.

5. Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis of the model for assessing the energy

Fig. 13. SPC variation with increase in digging time.
efficiency of a 42 cu. m. electric shovel has been done. The sensi-
tivity index is defined in Eq. (15) as the ratio of change in SPC
computed to the expected change in input base value.

ðSPC;Change from base inputSPC;base inputÞ

SPC;base input
Sensitivity Index ¼ ðChange from base inputBase inputÞ
(15)
Base input

A positive sensitivity index indicates that an increase in base

value increases the SPC of electric shovel and vice versa. A negative
sensitivity index indicates that an increase in base value decreases
the SPC of shovel and vice versa. The sensitivity analysis of the SPC
for a 42 cu. m. capacity shovel operating with idle time and without
idle time is shown in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively. For operating
electric shovel with idle time, an increase in base value of the
digging time by 5% increases SPC by 2.85% whereas decrease in base
value of digging time decreases SPC by 3.57% from Table 5. Similarly
for operating electric shovel without idle time, an increase in base
Fig. 14. Variation of energy consumption with digging time. value of the digging time by 5% increases SPC by 4.13% whereas
decrease in base value of digging time decreases SPC by also 4.13%
from Table 6.

8
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

Table 5
Sensitivity analysis of operating input variables-With idle time.

Input Base % Change Change SPC,base SPC, change SPC, change Sensitivity Sensitivity
value over over over base over base
base base
value value

parameter change (Upper) (Lower) value value index index

(kWh/cu.m.) (kWh/cu.m.) (Upper) (Lower)

(Upper) (Lower)

Idle time 24 5% 25.2 22.8 0.14 0.141 0.139 0.029 14.2857

Digging 11 5% 11.55 10.45 0.14 0.144 0.135 0.270 71.4286
time

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of operating input variables-Without idle time.

Input Base % Change Change SPC, change SPC, change Sensitivity Sensitivity
value over over over base over base
base base
value value

parameter change (Upper) (Lower) SPC,base value value index index

(kWh/cu.m) (kWh/cu.m) (Upper) (Lower)

(Upper) (Lower)

Idle time 1 5% 1.05 0.95 0.14 0.141 0.139 14.28 14.2857

Digging 11 5% 11.55 10.45 0.121 0.126 0.116 0.39 82.6446
time

6. Energy saving potential A modelling framework developed for optimising SPC by con-
trolling two input variables (idle time and digging time) is applied
The energy saving potential in an electric shovel (ES ) is esti- to a case study of P & H electric shovel of 42 cu. m. operating in a
mated using Eq. (16) by comparing the SPC without idle time large opencast mine of India (Dipka opencast mine at SECL mine
(SPCwo ) and SPC with idle time (SPCw ) in case of idle time optimi- located at Bilaspur, India). The results of the study indicate that the
zation. The SPC with idle time indicates the specific power con- energy saving potential of the mine case study is 13.45% by idle
sumption of shovel during actual operating cycle. Similarly, energy time optimization. The optimal SPC computed for easy, moderate
saving potential by digging time optimization is calculated by and difficult digging are 0.078 kWh/cu. m., 0.12 kWh/cu. m and
comparing the SPC obtained on average digging time and SPC ob- 0.277 kWh/cu. m for an assumption of zero idle time and constant
tained on actual digging time. swing time.
Energy saving potential is calculated using Eq. (16) as: This model can be used to assess the energy saving potential
using the real time operational data of electric shovel in any
ðSPCw  SPCwo Þ  100 opencast mine. The model developed can help to set target of po-
ES ¼ (16)
SPCw wer consumption of electric shovel operating in any opencast
Since the digging time varies widely due to its dependency on mines.
the material density, hardness and speed of the dipper, energy
consumption also varies with time. Hence, the average digging time
of 11s is considered as minimum value for moderate digging Declaration of competing interest
operation. The minimum SPC is calculated as 0.12 kWh/cu. m for
digging time of 11s. An energy savings of about 13.45% is obtained The authors declare that they have no known competing
by idle time optimization. In the present case study as the digging financial interests or personal relationships that could have
time varies between minimum time 6se29s, energy saving has appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
been estimated by minimizing the digging time below 11s. A
decrease in digging time by 1s will increase the energy saving
potential by 7.4%. The proposed energy saving during digging Acknowledgement
operation can be achieved by increasing the hoist and swing speed.
The authors acknowledge their thanks to Dr P.K.Singh, Director,
7. Conclusion CIMFR for giving permission to publish this paper. Authors are also
grateful to Dr P.B.Choudhury, Dr A K Singh of CSIR-CIMFR for their
The objective of the study was to assess the energy efficiency of support. We acknowledge our thanks to Department of Electronics
an electric shovel operating in an opencast mine. In the present and Information Technology and Head of Department, Electrical
study, specific power consumption (SPC) has been used as the en- Department of Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology. The
ergy efficiency index. Real time data of operating time and actual authors are also grateful to South Eastern coal fields Ltd. For
power consumption of each operation of a shovel has been used for providing data to study the specific power consumption of Dipka
estimation of specific power consumption. opencast mine for P & H electric shovel.
9
S.A. Topno, L.K. Sahoo and B.S. Umre Energy 230 (2021) 120703

References influence of depth of cut and blasting on shovel digging performance. Int J
Surf Min 1992;6(4):161e7.
[16] Awuah-Offei K. Dynamic modeling of cable shovel-formation interactions: for
[1] Holmberg K, Reponen P, Harkisaari P, Valtonen K, Erdemir A. Global energy
efficient oil sands excavation. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing; 2009. p. 168.
consumption due to friction and wear in mining industry. Tribol Int 2017;115:
[17] Patnayak S, Tennant DD. Performance monitoring of electric cable shovels. Int
116e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2017.05.010.
J Surf Min Reclamat Environ 2005;19(9):276e94.
[2] Energy and environmental profile of US mining industry. https://www.energy.
[18] Fringpong S, Hu Y, Awuah-Offei K. Mechanics of cable shovel-Formation in-
gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/overview.pdf. [Accessed 7 May 2019].
teractions in surface mining excavation. J Terramechanics 2005;42:15e33.
[3] Carvalho M, Millar DL. Concept development of optimal mine site energy
[19] Awuah Offei K, Osei B. Modeling truck/shovel energy efficiency under un-
supply. Energies 2012;5:4726e45.
certainty. Trans Soc Min Metall Explor 2011;330:573e84.
[4] https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/chiles-energy-problems-part-1-
[20] Sahoo LK, Bandyopadhyay S, Banerjee R. Benchmarking energy consumption
mining-sector-starved-electricity. [Accessed 29 January 2019].
of truck haulage. Energy Efficiency in the Mineral Industry; 2018. https://
[5] http://www.mining.com/chiles-mining-sector-to-double-energy-demand-by-
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54199-0_9.
2025-63345/. [Accessed 29 January 2019].
[21] Khorzoughi MB, Hall R. A study of digging productivity of an electric rope
[6] Energy efficiency in mining sector. http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/~rb/Research/
shovel for different operators. Minerals 2016;6(48):1e17.
Intwork_html/Presentations/Mining/Energy%20efficiency%20in%20mining%
[22] Awuah-Offei K, Frimpon S. Cable shovel digging optimization for energy ef-
20for%20Int.workshop.pdf. [Accessed 7 May 2019].
ficiency. Mech Mach Theor 2007;42:995e1006.
[7] Wang N, Wen Z, Liu M, Guo J. Constructing an energy efficiency benchmarking
[23] Wang X, Sun W, Li E. Energy-minimum optimization of the intelligent exca-
system for coal production. Appl Energy 2016;169:301e8.
vating process for large cable shovels through trajectory planning. Struct
[8] Sahoo LK, Bandyopadhyay S, Banerjee R. Benchmarking energy efficiency of
Multidiscip Optim 2018;58:2219e37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-
opencast mining in India. In: Proceedings of IVth international conference on
2011-6.
advances in energy research. Mumbai: Indian Institute of Technology Bom-
[24] Bi Q, Wang G, Wang Y, Yao Z, Hall R. Digging trajectory optimization for cable
bay; 2013. p. 1684e92.
shovel robotic excavation based on a multi-objective genetic algorithm. En-
[9] Topno SA, Sahoo LK, Junghare AS, Umre BS. Energy efficiency benchmarking of
ergies 2020;13(12):3118. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123118.
power consumption for an opencast mine. San deigo, USA: ECOS; 2017. 2-6
[25] Product review of komatsu mining corporation, 4100C DC drive electric
July 2017.
mining shovel. https://mining.komatsu/docs/default-source/product-
[10] Acaroglu O, Ozdemir L, Asbury B. A fuzzy logic model to predict specific en-
documents/surface/electric-rope-shovels/komatsu-ph-electric-mining-
ergy requirement for TBM performance prediction. Tunn Undergr Space
shovel-product-overview.pdf. [Accessed 8 May 2019].
Technol 2008;23(5):600e8.
[26] Houley L, Alahakoon S. Impact assessment of AC and DC electric rope shovels
[11] Sahoo LK, Bandyopadhyay S, Banerjee R. Benchmarking energy consumption
on coal mine power distribution system. Proceed AUPEC 2012:2012. Bali,
of dump trucks in mines. Appl Energy 2014;113:1382e96.
Indonesia 26-29 Sept.
[12] Sahoo LK, Bandyopadhyay S, Banerjee R. Water and energy assessment for
[27] Rodriguez J, Moran L, Pontt J, Espinoza J, Diaz R, Silva E. Operating experience
dewatering in opencast mine. J Clean Prod 2014;84:736e45.
of shovel drives for mining applications.Industry Applications. IEEE Trans
[13] Awuah-Offei K. Energy efficiency in mining: a review with emphasis on the
2004;40:664e71.
role of operators in loading and hauling operations. J Clean Prod 2016. https://
[28] CIMFR Technical Report. Benchmarking specific power consumption of Dipka
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.035.
opencast mine of South eastern Coalfields Ltd. SECL); 2016.
[14] Abdi Oskouei M, Awuah-Offei K. Statistical methods for evaluating the effect
[29] Karpuz C, Barosarir H. Excavatability assessment of surface coal mine. In:
of operators on energy efficiency of mining machines. Min Technol
Riaji MR, Gupta R, editors. Coal production & processing technology, vol. 132;
2014;123(4):175e82. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743286314Y.0000000067.
2015.
[15] Karpuz C, Ceylanoglu A, Pasamehmetoglu AG. An investigation on the

10