Generally main factor is how frequently you want to move your plant. For me if your project is suitable for stationary it will be best.

Advantages of Stationary plant:

• Higher Efficiency
• Higher Capacity
• Lower production cost
• Tailor made But More flexible
• Less electronic (which is good for Kenya)
• Easy maintenance
• Higher stock pile
• If you have electricity on site low energy cost
• No additional equipment (like crawlers)

Generally if you don't move your plant more than one year you should go with stationary maybe on skid frame.

In Europe mobile becomes more popular since they are available for small project (like recycling) and after they finish project, it can be very easy to move equipment to the other place. Since diesel is more expensive, transportation of aggregate to customer become main issue.

 If you consider the crushing plant alone, mobile is +- 2 to 3 times more expensive to operate. Aside from whether you need to move your plant or not, the main saving on Mobile equipment is on the support equipment. For example a 100 tph fixed plant you will require say 2 Dump trucks transporting feed from the pit to your crusher, plus excavators loaders etc. With mobile you need need an excavator and a loader, and clients may be able to pick up the material in pit, saving you on Yellow metal.  Typically you would need a higher level of maintenance team for a mobile plant as there's a lot more hydraulics etc. and they can be slightly 'lighter duty' to keep weight down.

Correct, mobile crusher is toys for someone who don't know what to do with his money. This arrangement can be used in the city after disaster, or demolitions of the cities structures. Operation of those crusher is not economical at the quarries, please you just imagine blasting day!

Mobile has its place. If you are a Contractor who moves from Site to Site frequently then Tracked is by far the best choice. If you are Quarry Operator who has multiple Locations that you will want to move to every 3 or 4 Months then Tracked or Mobile is for you. If you have a Deposit that is going to last 10, 20, 30 Years then Static is what you need.

The idea behind Tracked Equipment is - Take the Equipment to the Deposit - Not the Deposit to the Equipment.

Obviously it is a big expense to have Operators and haul Trucks to carry material from the Mine Face to a static Plant which will get further and further away as you mine.

The Static Plant is usually better in a long term Quarry situation but you can also mix it up a little by putting a Tracked primary crusher at the Face and then using Overland Conveyors to get the Material to a Static Plant.
It costs a fraction of the cost to use Conveyors as opposed to Haul Trucks.

Mobile plant is OK when you need up to 200 tph in three grades. You can install it in quarry face and move with excavator. There will be three long stockpiles behind the plant. This is ideal job.
Generally mobile crawler plants more expensive in operation, this is true. At the same time such set eliminates the in-quarry transport tremendously which can make self-cost of aggregate nearly the same as with fixed installation. Of course it depends upon the deposit's conditions.
Mobile crawler crushers has a limited lifetime - around 16 000 - 20 000 working hours (engine lifetime) or up to ten years. Fixed plants has much better lifetime.
Mobile plants can be used to clear the location for fixed plant installation inside of a quarry. We had three projects in Russia where track machine were used for this purpose.
Mobile machines had normally less delivery period and ready to go as soon as arrived. Fixed plants need some time for commissioning.
I would not say that mobile machines are toys - I know plants made a few millions of aggregate since start.
Mobile plants are very easy to adjust - put screener between crushers or move it at the end and so on.

Just to summarize: Hope it helps to select a suitable configuration... depending on which 'site-need' is more pressing for you:

a)Stationary / Skid Mounted b) Wheel Mounted Portable c) Tracked Mobile

1. Mobility within mines

a) No b) No c) Yes (Drive right upto heap of blasted material)

1. Mobility / Shifting to different sites (once a while in year or two)

a) Dismantle/ Load on trailer b) Dismantle (less) / hook-on to a horse c) No Dismantle/ Load on trailer

* Feeding in Crusher

a) Dump Trucks b) Dump Trucks / Excavator c) Excavator only

* Civil Work

a) Ramp + Civil Footings b) Ramp + Civil Footings c) None

* Power Source

a) External (Grid / DG Set) b) External (Grid / DG Set) c) Inbuilt - Engine/Genset
* Power could be comparatively cheaper.

* Plant Layout/ Capacity / Machinery Design / Stockpile Heights

a) Custom-Designed (No Limitations) b) Standard Versions (Limitations) C) Standard Versions (Limitations)

* Productivity

a) High b) Medium c) Medium (due to loading constraints)

* Maintenace & Ease of Maintenance

a) Low & Easy b) Comparatively High & Fairly OK c) Comparatively High (Need Hydraulic Experts for troubleshooting)
* is from the point of view of Electric vs hydraulic Drives and maintenace space.

* Time to Set-up (subject to readiness of civil work / electric power source fo a & b)

a) High (2-4 weeks) b) Medium (2 Weeks) c) Immediate (with 1-2 days)

* Site Space Requirement (to set up plant)

a) High b) Medium c) Low

* Overall Capital Cost (for same capacity)

a) Medium b) Medium c) High

* Overall Operation Cost per ton

a) Low b) Medium c) Medium to High

One site requirement or other will over-ride all other parameters and one will be forced to purchase a specific configuration to meet the same. All the best.

On blasting preparations it is included evacuating of all equipment possible to be damage, so what ever is at the pit need to move out on good distance, so there will not be production.

Any moving from site to site we must use tires on the axles, if it on asphalt road if the distance is few kilometers.
So the skid or tracked is the some if this option of transferring was planed from beginning.
Taking Crushing equipment to the mining blasting deposits is take time, and as you are correcting your self my be good primary can fight just on re-sizing of boulders and crush for next processes. Please just agree crushed material needed to be transported to the crushing plant for proper aggregate selections, in conclusion who was working with all those situations will understand my points.
Also I agree with you long term of crushing of aggregates seed quarry operations no need toys!

Thanks again for detailed explanation of this topic there is not ideal setup from the factory which can feet the quarry site 100%, it need practical adjustment at the site. Capacity of tracked equipment is limited and can't compare with stationary.
It is needed to respect the professionalism, not to think the quarry operation is just braking stones on pieces, which newer bean tested to do.  Which stone, on which sizes, and which capacity?

Thank you all for your detailed inputs and all your comments have been tremendously helpful in making our decision. Thanks again

FYI. Most manufacturers make Tracked Crushers for the smaller Quarries and particularly Contractors doing Recycling, etc. There are also some manufacturers such as Kleeman, Metso and Powerscreen who make Tracked Crushers for the larger mines. Production rates in the 750 to 2000 tph.

Tracked and Fixed plants both have their place. Right now I'm in North Mozambique watching a mobile train being fed 300tph and producing between 140-180tph of ballast. In 2 months the train will be 15km away doing the same again. The newly developed quarry pit will eventually be turned into a permanent fixed plant in about 12 months time.

Mobile are advantageous to static for mobility, the cost is not that much different. We supply mobile and static for the African market and find all our customers prefer mobile transported to site hitched up to lorry and dropped off at site no lifting required. All our plants can be either skid or chassis mounted all for a similar price.

We can supply a 100tph plant on a 3 chassis arrangement. Primary jaw, cone and screen.

Both plants have their own advantages and disadvantages. In general, if you want to shift the plant very frequently ,than you have no choice and have to go for mobile plant. But , if you have the pit close to your plant and do not want to shift the plant frequently than the static or skid mounted plants are the perfect solution.

The limitations of mobile plants is accessibility of the parts for maintenance and lower capacity.

Yes, Metso ,Kleeman and others are offering high capacity track plants but at what cost?

Cost is also a deciding factor. Ultimate goal is to make the project commercially viable.

Our experience in the Midwestern US is of Quarry owners who have multiple Sites in rural areas. They will go to one quarry and crush enough in a month or two to last a year. Then move to the next quarry and do the same and so on.

Mobile Equipment suits their needs. If you have an unreliable Power Source such as in Kenya then Mobile Self-contained is an advantage. If you do not have well trained mechanics and good Distributor backup then it is a disadvantage.

Contrary to many nay-sayers Mobile Equipment can be capable of production levels up to 6 or 700 tph.

One has to understand peoples motivations when taking advise.
Some are promoting Static because that is primarily what Trio makes. Some do not understand the offerings some Mobile Manufacturers have or is also in the Static Equipment Business. Either way, some applications are suited to Static and some are suited to Mobile. Make sure you get your advise from a experienced, independent source.

Don't go for mobile plant if your project is for more than 6 months. Mobile will give you a lot of head aches while in operation. Only advantage I have seen in mobile plant its mobility only. You will be able to start the plant in few days time, but when start breaking down it will be taking days and months to get back in Operation. Too much of sophistication may it be in hydraulics, electronics will not work in areas like Quarry and Crusher.

You have more than mobile or stationary to choose from. A third and perhaps the best of both mobile and stationary is a portable system. These plants are equally flexible to stationary plants and add the advantage of easier set up and more serviceable. Our company manufactures all three options and we find that remote areas are better served by machines that are wheel mounted. The wheel mounted plants are easier to maintain in that there is more space on the machines for maintenance and service work. They can be equipped with on plant power but most often they use line power or a single generator so there is only one power plant to service. As an added feature they can be equipped to be both generated powered when line power is not available or accept power from the grid when it is available. This reduces operating cost with out the lose of flexibility.They lack the ability to be moved often on site but as with mobile machines they are delivered to the site by truck in a more completed stage than a stationary plant would be. Wheeled portable is generally higher capacity than tracked and lower cost to operate. But, yes mobile crusher is more economical for the aggregates plant.

Getting planning permission for Quarrying is difficult in the UK and some parts of Europe. I understand a lot of the demand for mobile is for recycling partly because landfill costs are high and there is even a landfill tax in the UK. If you're not using diesel then you have to connect it to the grid with which is only going to be economic with a larger quarry which are harder to get planning permission for.

What I don't understand is while there are Dual Electric/Diesel mobile crushers, why are there no natural gas powered crushers, particularly in North America where Natural Gas is cheap.

Both have a place in the aggregate production....if a road, airstrip etc is being built in a remote area mobile would be the way to go and if a certain product needs to be produced in a static quarry then a mobile screen plant could be brought in.

In the final analysis it how much money do you have to invest in the project, due to limited infrastructure in the area you are faced with how you plan to haul material to market, you need to determine a project from the end view, you determine you market how you will reach the market, that determines how you load out either via loaders or a truck load out, there are costs associated with both.

The resource life needs to be determined as well, how long a life will the mine have. Depending on that you can go mobile or static, both have good and bad points. If the resource is long life say 10 to 20 years static, if you are chasing pockets of material mobile.

But the reality is more information is required to determine what is best for you operation.
Is it a quarry or sand and gravel.. Another question is how dirty is your pit, does is have a lot of deleterious material in the matrix if so washing material is another can of worms.

You can get a lot of information, but common sense will tell you the best option for you. I have found that a salesman will sell you what you think you need, a good engineer will tell you the best option, equipment is based on what is cost efficiency that is for you to determine.

There are here many good thoughts in comments I just will add some opinion from Russian market, where people works in quarries normally in extreme conditions. It is not easy to take a decision which crushing plant is better because it depends from many factors which you have in your quarry and project.
However, general line is the following:
* in many cases modern mobile crushing solutions are effective up to the volume of material processing per a year around 3500000 - 4000000 tons.

* after this figure static solution is preferable.

* the volume of production takes affect to the type of means of transport for rock transportation and loading / unloading operations, which also takes affect to the type of hopper, which is always the first step in any crushing plant (mobile or static).

Other factors:
* static plant can be a tailor-made solution, however, the problem here is that not many companies in the world has really proven solutions and supplies a lot of crushers of one model for static, at the same time - mobile crushers (I mean crushing chambers) is the standardized solution and mass product, so reliability can be higher;

* mobile plant (crawler) can be easy relocated inside the quarry, so, there is no necessity to deliver rocks to the crushing plant for a long distance. Excluding of this necessity for preliminary transportation save a lot of money;

* also important how long you going to develop this deposit (1-5 years or 20 years). I wouldn't like to say that in case of 20 years choose 100% static plant. Just taking to the account this factor together with others and this will help to come to the correct decision;

* cost of electricity and/or diesel fuel in your country is also important factor similar as estimation how autonomous plant you need (mobile is autonomous, statics is not)

I hope this short additional explanation will help you take best decision:-)

I am in the NE USA. Lots of hard granite. I have had a lot of guys go with a large primary track jaw and then have a wheeled 6x20 triple deck with cone on it. They run a feed hopper that feeds 6x20. Allows for limited downtime and than if site is permitted go with overland conveyor.

if you are looking for some assistance in making a selection please feel free to contact me to have a discussion about your specific needs. There are many different types of equipment configurations available that can achieve your goals, but we should be focusing on how to meet your objectives at the lowest cost possible. Sometimes that can be accomplished with mobile or relocatable machinery where in other situations a fixed asset is your best solution.

No one talk about the maintenance costs. I'm interested there is some difference from static and mobile?

If you consider maintenance cost for each engine on each mobile + extra wear on liners and internal parts because of starved feed also extra costs for hydraulic equipment and other equipment. Maintenance cost for mobile is much more than static.

The difference between the costs of mobile vs static have to take the operational conditions into account. Mobile is more expensive & generally more skill is required to maintain them, but if you consider the potential savings in plant equipment mobile equipment can reduce the overall cost of per tonne. Consideration such as the number of Tippers required to feed a static plant vs a mobile plant where you can feed at the face of the quarry. Each tipper has engines and hydraulics that need maintenance too. Distance from the quarry to the static plant will play a big part in it. That said, as a rule of thumb I use the length/time of a project as a good starting point to decide, a mobile plant has mobility as a big plus factor while a fixed plant will generally have a much longer life span. A good compromise would be a semi-fixed wheeled or modular plant that can easily be relocated and is electrically driven.

If i talk about the vibrating system on the mobile( it's my work 😉 ) if i make a comparison between the hydraulic system and an electrical one the maintenance costs of the hydraulic it's much more higher than the electrical system.

I have worked with both types over the last 30 years. Mobile crushers have developed considerably over the last ten years, and now Kleemann make a diesel electric plant that can operate off its own power or plugged into mains or operate the whole plant off a single gen set. Mobile plants can also now be interlocked and have a control room. The only time I would use a modular or semi fixed plant is if the project was longer than 12 mths duration. Another thing to consider is mobile plants are more maintenance intensive mainly due to spillage.

I know very well the kleemann application ( I'm the guy that develop the vibrators of kleemann ) and in the end the result is that : they reduce a lot the maintenance costs. Usually for the pre screen and the post screen the other competitors use the eccentric shaft, and they drive it by hydraulic , but nothing is for ever and when is the moment to do some maintenance the hydraulic system it's a big problem!

If you going into model specifics then the choices become even more complex. On 'quarry' range mobile a lot of hydraulics are typically used, on the Sandvik Mobile Heavy range for example you have the choice of Diesel/Hydraulic or Diesel Electric on most of the range. On the diesel electric option All drives are electric with the only hydraulics being on cone crushers lube system and the tracks. Without a doubt 'quarry' class equipment is designed with an end-user price in mind where you need to remain competitive on cap-ex, whereas on heavier ranges the up time, overall cost of ownership and cost per tonne are more critical. Horses for courses.

I would say that modern electric drive crushers/screens including Kleemann machines are more electronic rather than electric. In reality they need more qualified personal for maintenance and fault finding rather than hydraulic drive machines. Frequency inverters and other electronics as well as cabling likes vibration very much and electric motors are found of dust ;). At the same time hydraulic systems for electronic men is a nightmare. But there are a lot of hydraulic driven machines in a quarry - excavators, loaders, etc. So we can expect more average knowledge in hydraulics on site as well as more parts.

If control system on machines have a good self-test capabilities and by-pass options the downtime on hydraulic driven machines can be eliminated. I think such system is the key point if the quarry is outside of so-called civilized places (and manufacture) and buyer should pay much more attention to this point.

Regarding operation and maintenance cost we have figures that diesel-hydraulic machines are 5-13% more costly compared to diesel-electric ones during first 2000 hours (warranty period and you have to pay to dealers to be safe), 3-8% - next 2000 hours (only CAT engine warranty) and nearly the same after 4000 hours. This is true if all machines are powered from its own diesels. But if you will look at the purchasing price difference - there is no advantage on electric machines except they are working from main supply for more than 3 years. But main supply eliminates mobility.

These figures are for Russia where filters, breathers, parts, etc are costly and imported but diesel fuel is relatively cheap. In our operation self-cost regular maintenance get more weight.

We have figures for truck type crushing/screening plant operation with every 250 hours maintenance (due to not very good fuel, it can be 500 hours interval):

• cost of service from dealer (engine oils, filters, flushing filters, breathers, labor) is around 19%,
• fuel cost - 44,5%,
• labor cost - around 35% (normally it is much less, and will be a half at least, personal are trained for another project),
• wear parts cost - 2% less.

There are five machines- three crushers and two screeners, 22 working hours per day with around 0,85 of equipment availability. Due to low in-quarry transportation cost (including fines and waist transportation) this plant even now produce aggregate 13% cheaper compared to existing fixed one. And better quality.

In Russia (and other countries) Kleemann sells McCloskey made screeners, with diesel-hydraulic or electric-hydraulic drive. What the problems did you get with hydraulic system maintenance? Specific to hydraulic system?

To give you a good idea on running costs... The Kleemann MC110R EVO jaw crusher (300t/h capacity), runs around 19 liters of diesel per hour. The MCO 9 S EVO cone crusher (closed loop operation, up to 260t/h capacity) runs around 26 liters per hour. These are current figures, at present from a site we are running at, with very hard quarry rock. That's exceptional. The bonus with these mobile machines is being able to move them around easily as needed. And they are easy to operate, much easier than the older models and the other machines out there. Maintenance is a breeze as the touch panel tells you what's wrong and all issues are identified and dealt with immediately. If you have a project that's 5 years or so, mobile machines are the best option. If you have a quarry that you are certain will be operational for more than 5 years, then stationary equipment running off electricity may be the better option. It's cheap to run machines direct with external power. BUT...if you have problems with erratic power supply, frequent power cuts, etc...then mobiles are a no-brainer. Of course the other bonus is being able to move the machines to a new project, or selling the machines eventually.

I always wonder where these figures about fuel consumption and capacity are coming from. Can you please help me to understand them correctly.

Here are the data for Scania engines:

http://scania.com/_system/img/doc/engines/i/DC983A_243kW_SCR.pdf
http://scania.com/_system/img/doc/engines/g/DC972A_248-300kW.pdf

We may see that specific fuel consumption is around 200 grams per kW per hour. MC110R EVO eats as you said 19 liters (fuel specific gravity - 0,86, equals 16 340 gram per hour) while 300 tph of hard quarry rock crushing. So engine produce around 82 kW. Feeder needs around 37 kW motor with such capacity (may be less - I don't have full spec for this machine). Conveyor motor should be around 11 kW. Both of them have a lot to do so it total they will need 48 kW from generator (let's guess - I am not saying about losses in genset and fluid coupling).

But it leaves us only 34 kW for crusher itself. Very strange figure. Even if feeder motor is less powerful we will get may by 45 kW on the crusher drive.

kW for 300 tph of hard quarry rock? Am I right?

I saw MCO 9 EVO (without S) in sand and gravel quarry. It produce around 110-120 tph and fuel consumption is around 42 liters per hour.

My opinion is: if you have no need to move a crushing plant, a stationary system is by far the better choice over a portable. Most portable plants focus on the portability of the plant, not the functionality of the actual crusher, feeder, screen etc. Example: track mounted or wheel mounted true portable jaw crushers tend to use shorter jaw crushers. This makes the nip angle of the jaw flatter, especially at tighter settings. A taller jaw gives a steeper nip angle and thus better performance and longer life from the actual jaw crusher. This same portable plant would use a shorter feeder and a shorter grizzly section. This causes much more inefficiency in the scalping process. Therefore finer material that should bypass the jaw crusher would be fed into the jaw crusher. This reduces total throughout of the jaw/feeder system, increases wear and maintenance in the jaw crusher. This is just one of many examples that would make me recommend a stationary system over a portable system.

The figures I posted are actual recorded on site. We take the liters the machines used devided by the hours of operation, on each fill up, then average it out. The jaw's engine is running 1500rpm, crushing at a gap of around 90mm. The cone is running at 1700rpm (faster than usual, because of excessive fines in feed), with a gap of 38mm. Standard coarse liners. Production in total on both machines averages about 150t/h to 250t/h, depending on what rock is fed. It ranges from normal quarry rock to very hard abrasive rock. So there are a lot of variables, hence we take the fuel used in each fill up, with the hours worked, and then average it all out.

PS: the EVO machines' crushers are both driven directly off the engines via fluid coupling connection. All the drives (conveyor motors, feeder motors, screen vibration motors) on the machines are electrically driven from an onboard generator (130kVA). The only time you use hydraulics is for the tracks when moving the machine or when setting the gap, etc. While operating, no hydraulics is used.
The bottom line is, if your project is going to be in one place, and one place only, and like 5 years or more...stationary equipment is best (if run off external power). Otherwise, if you have shorter projects, need versatility, want to move machines around, or be up and running in quick time, mobiles are best.
Plus, I do not know of "specially designed" crushers solely for use in stationary applications. All the big names like Kleemann, Metso, etc use the exact same jaw and cone crushers in stationary and mobile equipment.
Setting up stationary equipment can also prove to be pretty expensive...as you have to purchase all equipment, have a Civils company design and build your foundations and structures, and so on. With mobiles you get the machines on site, set them up, interlink them and away you go. You need 2 or 3 guys to run the entire show. You can also do the bigger mobiles in Dual Power, thus run them off external power too. It's very versatile.
I'd only consider stationary equipment if the project was 5 years or longer.
Modular systems can also be a good option, but most systems out there are not as robust as mobiles or complete stationary setups.

Alan,

Apart from set up costs etc, a critical, very important aspect depending on which crusher you will use, is the type of crusher backing you will use to protect the liners and the shell. If your specific brand of crusher requires backing then the type of backing you use will determine the period between liner replacements and the amount of downtime which will ultimately affect your throughput and yields. If you require some advice as which type of backing is required for different crushers please contact me. I will gladly assist as Nordbak has conducted various tests on a number of crushers over the years globally and assisted many mines to increase their throughput.

Alan, if you do not need to move your plant a static plant is more economic and more productive. Costs per ton are always lower, product quality is better.

Here is an article that explores the economic considerations http://www.pitandquarry.com/tracked-vs-wheeled-portable-plants/. Basically it is in alignment with what others have already stated: if you will be moving frequently and crushing low volumes of material, a track system is the right tool; otherwise a static plant has proven to yield more uptime and a lower cost-of-ownership.

Mobile Crushing Plant has benefits like- they reduce the need for hauling, cut operational costs, and are easily movable on and between production sites.