SOCIETY FOR

MINING, METALLURGY, AND

EXPLORATION, INC.
PREPRINT
, NUMBER
P.o. BOX 625002 . LITTLETON, COLORADO. 80162-5002
Cost- Effective EquipIllent
Application Zones
Bill Morgan
Equipment Application Consultant
Caterpillar Inc.,
Peoria,IL 61629-2430
2
This paper discusses the economic zones of application
for several different types of earthmoving equipment:
dozers. wheel loaders in load-and-carry applications,
wheel tractor scrapers, articulated trucks, rigid-frame
trucks and wagons. Only the medium to large pieces
of equipment were considered. From this chart
(Figure 1), you can see the size range, in tons of
carrying capacity, of Caterpillar equipment and the
specific models analyzed.
Figure 1
Dozers
~
Load-and-Carry
~
Articulated Trucks
~
Scrapers
Rigid-Frame Trucks
~
Wagons
2t 67t
~
D8N D11N
2t 35t
IJB:E
988F 994
20t 40t
~
D400D
13t 52t
lIEEIC
621E 633E 651El657E
35t 240t
E!i<. .
769C 777C
85Tt 300+t
7938
.
.,"""""
""""
.
'
,
'
,.
'
,.
'
,.
'
,.
'
,
"
.
"
.
"
.
"
.
"
.
"
,
'
.'.
. ...f'}".
,.""".
776C-WAGON
Capacity, Tons
Figure 2 shows the normal economic transport or haul
distance ranges for these various systems or types of
equipment. Let's explore why the different types and
sizes of equipment have definite economic zones.
Figure 2
Dozing
Load-and-Carry
Scrapers
Articulated Trucks
Rigid-FrameTrucks
Wagons
Om
Oft
100m
328ft
I
I
I
1000m
3,280ft
I
10000m
32,800ft
One-WayHaulDistance
3
Earthmoving can be broken down into the following five
phases:
I. Preparing
II. Loading
III. Hauling
IV. Dumping
V. Conditioning
These five phases need to be considered when looking
at the economics of earthmoving. The primary purpose
of this talk is to look at the cost comparison of loading,
hauling or transporting the material and finally,
dumping it. The initial preparing of the material by
blasting, ripping, adding water, or a variety of other
options as well as the final conditioning or placement
of the material upon dumping was not considered.
The cost of loading and dumping the material is usually
fairly constant regardless of the length of haul.
Figure 3 shows some representative costs for load,
dump and maneuver which are normally considered to
be the "fixed costs" of earthmoving. Figure 3 shows the
cost-per-ton for a dozer, wheel loader (load-and-carry),
self-loading scraper, push-loaded scraper, a medium-
sized truck and a smaller articulated truck, both loaded
by wheel loaders. Notice that the fixed costs generally
Figure 3
Fixed Costs
Load, Dump&Maneuver
$0.30
. Loading
MM Dump &
Maneuver
5 $0.20
~
w
0
0 $0.10
ascend over this range of machines. That is, a dozer
has the lowest fixed costs, while trucks generally have
higher fixed costs. Generally speaking, the hauling
costs are just the reverse. That is, trucks generally
have lower hauling costs than scrapers, and scrapers
have lower hauling costs than a wheel loader or a
dozer. This means that on short distances the dozer
starts with an advantage which it soon loses because of
its high hauling or transport cost.
Figure 4
Haul Conditions Effect
Tons/Hourfor 657E/PPScraper
1200
1000
I-
::J 800
0
J:
Us 600
c
0
~ 400
200
0
ft
(m)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000
(610) (1219) (1829) (2438) (3048) (3658)
One-Way Haul Distance
Let's use a self-loading 657 Push-Pull Scraper and look
at the effect of some of the hauling variables on
production and cost per ton. Figure 4 shows production
in tons per hour versus haul distance from 300 feet
(91 m) to 10,000 feet (3048 m) where the haul is level in
one case and the grade is uphill 8%in the second case.
The production hauling up the grade is substantially
lower than that hauling on the level, illustrating that the
hauling conditions do have a substantial effect on the
0
0
to 0'1 0'1 ....
0
.... 0) C1I ....
,1:10
....
.... ....
0
'Z m.
tn (1 0
"0
0
"0
Hauler
4
production and the resulting cost per ton (which is
shown in Figure 5). Generally, the most important
factor to be concerned with is how far the material has
to be transported; the secondary effect is the hauling
conditions over that distance.
Figure 5
$1.00
$0.80
c
0
S $0.60
tn
8 $0.40 I
$0.20
Haul Conditions Effect
Cost/Ton for 657E1PPScraper
0
ft
(m)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000
(610) (1219) (1829) (2438) (3048) (3658)
One-Way Haul Distance
Another important factor can be some of the component
limitations for different pieces of equipment. For
instance, for all rubber-tired machines, tire
temperature limitations can be a problem. For the
657E1PPScraper they can be quite severe depending on
the type of tires used. Figure 6 shows how the
production of the 657E1PPScraper has to be reduced
Figure 6
1200
1000
... 800
~
0
:J:
-
:!! 600
0
I-
400
200
0
ft
(m)
Tire Temperature Limitations
657E1PPScraper - Push-Pull Loading
2000
(610)
4000
(1219)
6000
(1829)
10,000
(3048)
8000
(2438)
One-Way Haul Distance
with bias ply tires which have a limit of 225 ton mile
per hour, and with radial tires which have a ton mile
per hour limit of 527. It was assumed that the
machines were working full bore - that is, they were
working at a 50-minute hour for a continuous period
of time within the tire ton mile per hour limitation.
Obviously, the radial tires have higher work capacity
than the bias ply tire. However, the radial tire mayor
may not have the same capability of resisting cutting,
etc. in rocky material. So the best choice of tire
depends on several factors including the ton mile per
hour capabilities.
Figure 7 points out the cost-per- ton for the various tire
configurations on the 657E1PPScraper with unlimited
production and the bias and radial ply tires. If cut-
resistant bias ply tires have to be used to resist rock
cutting, then the machine's performance has to be
limited to a very short distance to prevent tire
overheating. The same general trend is true on any
type of rubber tired product. Usually trucks are limited
on much longer haul distances, and wheel loaders in
load-and-carry applications could have tire overheating
problems on much shorter distances.
Tire Temperature Limitations
657E1PP Scraper - Push-Pull Loading
10,000
(3048)
12,000
(3658)
4000 6000 8000
(1219) (1829) (2438)
One-Way Haul Distance
12,000
(3658)
Figure 7
$1.00
c $0.80
:g $0.60
U
$0.40
$0.20
0
ft 2000
(m) (610)
5
Let's look at dozers and wheel loaders on load-and-
carryon relatively short distances. Here the dozer
is limited to 300 foot (91 m) distances and the wheel
loader to 500 feet (152 m). The bend in the cosVton
curve for the 988F and 994 reflect the effect of tire
temperature limitations. The dozer has lower cosVton
on short distances. On longer distances the wheel
loader shows lower costs. The way the material has to
be loaded and then dumped may have a significant
effect on the choice of these two types of equipment.
Figure 9 shows the cost-per-ton comparison for
the large dozer, the medium wheel loader, large
push-loaded scrapers and large self-loaded scrapers.
You can see that the self-loading scraper is the most
cost-effective from 300-1000 feet (91-305 m). The
main reason why the self-loading scraper has the
economic advantage in this distance range is the fact
that it does not have the cost burden of the pusher (on
the short cycles only two or three scrapers can be used
with one pusher).
Figure9 CostITon VS. Distance.
Dozers vs. Wheel Loaders vs. Scrapers
$0.40r;
$0.30
c:
0 ,
!;; $0.20.
U) I'.
0
0
$0.10
0
ft
(m)
200 400 600 800 1000
(61) (122) (183) (244) (305)
One-Way Haul Distance
1200
(366)
Figure 10 compares the cost-per-ton for two self-
loading scrapers (633E and 657E1PP) and two push-
loaded scrapers (621E pushed by a D8N Tractor and
the 651 Push-Pull Scraper pushed by the D11N). In
both cases, bigger is better. The 651 Scraper is the
most cost-effective beyond 7000 feet (2134 m) and the
most cost-effective scraper from 300-7000 feet (91-
2134 m) is the 657E1PPSelf-Loading Scraper.
Prior to Figure 10, all of the machines have been
independent units. That is, the dozer, the wheel loader
(on load-and-carry) and the self-loading scrapers all are
independent of a loading tool. The 621 and 651 both
require assistance during loading with a push tractor.
Figure 8
CostITon VS. Distance
Dozers vs. Wheel Loaders
$0.60 r
$0.50
5 $0.40
U) $0.30
0
0 $0.20
$0.1 0'
0
ft 100 200 300 400 500 600
(m) (30) (61) (91) (122) (152) (183)
One-Way Haul Distance
Figure 10
CostITon VS. Distance
$0.80
c: $0.60
0
U)
<3 $0.40.
$0.20
0
ft 2000 4000 6000 8000
10,000 12,000
(m) (610) (1219) (1829) (2438) (3048) (3658)
One-Way Haul Distance
6
This brings in another factor to consider: the match
between the loading tool and the number of haulers
that can effectively work with that loading tool. As you
might imagine, the longer the haul distance, the longer
the hauling cycle time, and the more scrapers that can
be effectively worked with the pusher. In this analysis,
the optimum number of haulers was used at any given
haul distance to give the lowest possible cost per ton.
[Caterpillar Fleet Production and Cost (FPC) software
was used to estimate the production and cost for all the
scrapers, trucks and loaders while Earthmoving
Fundamentals (EMF) software was used for the dozers.]
Let's switch now to a comparison between the self-
loading scrapers and articulated and rigid-frame trucks
loaded by a 988F Wheel Loader. In this particular
case, the capacity of all three units is about the same
so the size effect is minimized in this comparison on
Figure 11. The relative cost-per-ton of the two trucks
loaded by the same loader are about the same on this
particular set of hauling conditions. There are cases
where the higher flotation and greater mobility of the
articulated truck would show a distinct edge over a
rigid-frame truck that uses a narrow, high pressure
tire. This is one of the primary reasons why articulated
trucks have a place in the different operating
Figure11 CostITon VS. Distance
Trucks vs. Scrapers vs. Dumpers
$0.80
$0.60
!:
0
~
(/) $0.40
0
0
$0.20
0
ft
(m)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,00012,000
(610) (1219) (1829) (2438) (3048) (3658)
One-Way Haul Distance
conditions. The 633E Self-Loading Scraper has a
distinct economic cost advantage on the shorter
distances and the crossover is somewhere around
8000 feet (2438 m) in this particular set of conditions.
Beyond that distance the trucks would have the
economic advantage.
How would the larger scrapers stack up against the
even larger trucks? Figure 12 compares the 651E
pushed by a D11N, a 657E1PPSelf-Loading Scraper, the
35-ton 769C loaded by the 988F and finally an 85-ton
777C loaded by the 14 yard 992D Wheel Loader. This
points out a general trend on the trucks that bigger is
better - 85-ton truck having significantly lower costs-
per-ton than its 35-ton counterpart and we see an
economic crossover somewhere around 5000 feet
(1524 m) between the self-loading 657E1PPScraper
and the 85-ton 777C. The economic crossover with the
85-ton truck and push-loaded scraper is somewhere
around 3000 feet (914m).
Figure 12
$0.80
$0.60
!:
0
~ $0.40
(/)
0
0
$0.20
CostITon VS. Distance
Trucks vs. Scrapers
0
ft
(m)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10,00012,000
(610) (1219) (1829) (2438) (3048) (3658)
One-Way Haul Distance
7
Let's go one step further on the trucks and move all
the way up to the 793B 240-ton truck (one of the largest
trucks built in the world today) loaded by a 60 yard
cable shovel. This team has a significantly lower cost-
per-ton than the 85-ton 777C as shown in Figure 13.
You will notice that the distance range has been
extended out to 25,000 feet (7620 m). The 240-ton
truck class is now establishing a new benchmark in low
cost-per-ton for high quantity, long distance hauling.
CostITon vs. Distance
10,000 20,000
(3048) (6096)
One-Way Haul Distance
30,000
(9144)
Wagons can generally pull more material than trucks
can carry in good hauling conditions. Figure 14 shows
a comparison of the same size truck - one with a body
to carry the material- the 85-ton 777C, loaded by the
992D compared to a 1SO-tonwagon pulled by the same
horse - the 776C in which the body has been replaced
with a hitch. On the very short distances, the lower
fixed costs on the piggy-back truck make it the most
economical package, but out beyond about 7000 feet
(2134 m) the additional capacity of the 1SO-tonwagon
shows a lower cost-per-ton. It should be mentioned
that the hauling conditions were very, very favorable in
this particular comparison with a very firm road and a -
1% grade on the haul to represent very easy hauling
conditions. If the conditions toughen up with higher
rolling resistance or adverse grades, the wagon loses
the economic edge shown here.
Figure 14
$0.60
s:: $0.40
0
~
tn
0
0 $0.20
CostITon vs. Distance
Trucks vs. Wagons
0
ft
(m)
30,000
(9144)
10,000 20,000
(3048) (6096)
One-Way Haul Distance
Figure 13
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
s::
0
$0.60
tn
0
0
$0.40
$0.20
0
ft
(m)
8
The discussion so far has concentrated on trying to
show the general economic distances for the various
pieces of equipment involved. Obviously, the equipment
choice for a given set of conditions depends on many
other factors. Figure 15 shows cost-per-ton versus the
fleet production in tons per scheduled hour for 35-150
ton size trucks, all loaded by the best size wheel loader.
For instance, Line Drepresents the production for the
150-ton 785B Truck loaded by a 994 Wheel Loader
where the number of trucks working with the loader is
shown as a dot. If you have too few trucks for a given
hauling condition, the cost-per-ton is going to be high
and if you have too many trucks, which means trucks
are waiting, the cost will also be high. For this
Figure 16
particular haul, the optimum fleet size is six trucks with
the one 994 - although the cost-per-ton with 4-5 trucks
is almost as low. In this particular case, a production
rate of almost 2400 tons per hour was required and the
six trucks would just meet this production rate.
Looking at the next smaller truck size (777C), Line A
shows the production with one 992D Loader and a
second loader is added for Line E. This shows how the
fleet size can be increased to meet a given production
rate. In this particular example, nine of the 85-ton
777Cs would be required with two 992D Loaders. And
this also happens to be at the minimum cost-per-ton,
but the cost-per-ton for the 85-ton truck is substantially
higher than that for the 150-ton truck.
Cost vs. Production
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
c
~ $0.40
tn
<3 $0.30
$0.20
$0.10
0
1000 2000 3000
Tons/Scheduled Hour
/
9
Summary
The economic haul distances for these various types
of equipment are best illustrated in Figure 2. Other
job conditions, such as grades, underfoot conditions
or material appetite will influence you fmal choice.
Figure 2 I I !
Dozing
Figure 16 points out the general work envelope and
some important considerations for each type of
equipment. Select the equipment type first and then let
the quantity to be moved and the production rate
required dictate the size and number of equipment
required to most economically move that material.
Load-and-Carry
Wagons
Scrapers
ArticulatedTrucks
Rigid-FrameTrucks
Om
Oft
100m
328ft
One-WayHaulDistance
1000m
3,280ft
10000m
32,800ft
10
References
Journal Article
1. Morgan, W.e., and Peterson, 1.1., 1968,
"Determining Shovel-Truck Productivity," Mining
Engineering, Dec., pp 76-80.
SMEPapers
1. Dan Gove and Bill Morgan, 1994,
"Optimizing Truck-Loader Matching - Using
Fleet Production and Cost to Optimize Truck-
Loader Match."
2. John Wiebmer, SMEPaper 93-256,
"Different Horses for Different Courses."
Books/Papers
1. Cummins, A.B., Given, LA., Connel, James P., 1973
"Truck Haulage," SMEMining Engineering
Handbook, Society of Mining Engineers,
Vol. 2. pp 18-16 to 18-30.
2. John Ingle, 1993
"Mobile Mining Systems Fundamentals,"
International Mineral Development Sourcebook.
Software
1. Fleet Production and Cost 2.0 (FPC), 1993 and
Earthmoving Fundamentals 2.02 (EMF) are available
through Caterpillar dealers. The FPC2.0 single user
order number is SERD0344 and site license is
JERD2045. EMF 2.02 order number is JERD2038.
English is the standard language, but several other
languages are included. FPCand EMF are
copyrighted and proprietary to Caterpillar Inc.