You are on page 1of 5


Runge Pty Ltd

A.B.N. 17 010 672 321

RE: Notes on EFH

EFH (Effective or Equivalent Flat Haul) is a relative distance measure used to compare haulage routes. The usual definition accounts for the effect of grade, however it can be extended to include road condition and other features that impede the truck (e.g. rolling resistance, curvature).

Brisbane - Head Office Level 17 Central Plaza 1 345 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 GPO Box 2774 Brisbane Qld 4001 Ph: (617) 3221 1883 Fx: (617) 3229 3756 Email:

The basic principle is to assign an EFH value to a road segment that is the length of an equivalent flat segment. The most intuitive measure of equivalence is Travel Time. That is EFH is the distance the truck would travel on an idea flat segment in the same time it actually takes to travel the graded segment.

EFH is used as a comparative measure of haulage between routes, schedules and schedule periods. The purpose for which the EFH will be used should have an impact on how it is calculated. 2.1 Estimating Work Multiplying EFH by Tonnes (and accumulating) gives a measure of total work, similar to (Tonne*Kms) only with the Kms adjusted to account for different road conditions and therefore a more useful comparative measure. For this usage it may be more appropriate to use the EFH for the loaded and empty return trips separately. This equates to only using the loaded EFH as the tonnage on the return trip is zero and therefore does not contribute to the total. 2.2 Estimating Truck Numbers The average tonnage weighted EFH (Tonne*EFH/Tonne) for a period is sometimes used to estimate the changing trucking requirements. This average times the required production gives an absolute measure. This is similar to using Travel Time and should use the EFH for the full cycle (loaded and return trip) times the tonnes hauled in the cycle. The issue with using EFH, or Travel Time, to estimate truck numbers is that they do not correctly account for the component of the trucks working time spent loading, dumping and queuing. In fact if the average haulage distance is changing between periods, as is typical


across the life of a pit, then these measures have a bias. For shorter hauls the delays form a larger percentage of the total Cycle Time. The advantage of using EFH or Travel Time is that they can more easily be estimated. Generally an adjustment is made to the available truck hours to account for the average delays. It is preferable, however, to use a method for estimating truck hours that accounts for the full Cycle Time. For example TALPAC Cycle Times and Average Payload or alternatively Truck Productivity which is derived from them.

There are various methods used to calculate EFH, each requiring a different level of effort with subsequent gain of resolution. 3.1 EFH Grade Range Factors One simplified method of estimating EFH for a segment is to have a look-up table of EFH Factors for various ranges of road grade. The VULCAN Software has a module that uses this method. The user needs to estimate the EFH Factor for a ranges of grades (e.g. 0-2%, 2-4%, 4-6% etc.) covering both the loaded and return trip. This is normally done by surveying travel times over typical segments. The advantage of this method is that once the factors are determined an EFH can be calculated for many haulage routes in a systematic way (e.g. script) without requiring the running of any simulations in TALPAC. The disadvantages include that this method does not account for the initial or final speed or segment lengths, hence acceleration and deceleration. 3.2 Nominal Flat Speed For this method a nominal average flat speed is estimated from surveys and TALPAC simulations. This speed should be typical of the truck and haulage segments and usually is an average of loaded and unloaded speed. To determine the EFH of a haul route the TALPAC Travel Time over the route is multiplied by the Nominal Flat Speed. This method could be improved by considering the loaded and return trip separately with different Nominal Flat Speeds for each. It does not, however, account for the effects of varying segment lengths and road conditions. 3.3 TALPAC Flat Simulations The most accurate method to estimate EFH is to run 2 TALPAC simulations and compare the Average Speeds. The normal TALPAC simulation will give an estimate of actual Travel Time. For comparison all grades in the haul route are changed to zero and a second simulation run to determine the Average Flat Speed.


The EFH of the route is the total Distance times the ratio of the Average Flat Speed over the Average Speed. As the distance is the same in both simulations this ratio is equivalent to the ratio of the Travel Times. As a further refinement the Rolling Resistance values for the reference simulation could be reset to some nominal base value to account for differences in road surfaces. This method requires considerable more work than the previous methods. RUNGE is however considering including an estimate of EFH in a future version of TALPAC.


A simple example may help to illustrate the issue of bias in using EFH for estimating Truck numbers against a method that uses Cycle Time or Truck Productivity. Consider a trivial example of a single ramp. Grade is 10% out of the pit. Maximum Speed is 40 km/hr. On flat a loaded or empty truck averages around 30 km/hr taking into account acceleration and deceleration. Loaded going up the ramp the truck averages 10 km/hr. Loading, dumping and queuing are on average 3 minutes per cycle. For Period 1 the ramp is on average 1000m, for Period 2 it is 2000m. Period Distance Delays Travel Time Cycle Time Loaded EFH 2-Way EFH 1 2 Ratio 1000 2000 2 3 3 1 8 16 2 11 19 1.7 3000 6000 2 4000 8000 2

According to the Cycle Time increase, 1.7 times the working truck hours (and hence trucks) are required in Period 2 over Period 1. EFH overestimates this at twice the truck hours. This example also shows that the 2-Way EFH is not double the 1-Way EFH. This is because the effect on Travel Time of the grade is more significant for a loaded truck. In this example going down the ramp has an EFH Factor of 1 whilst going up has and EFH Factor of 3. In the above example Loaded EFH shows the same increase as 2-Way. This is not necessarily the case as the longer haul may have a different average profile and therefore speed. For example consider a variation on the above example when the addition 1000m is flat haul. The average loaded speed would increase to 20 km/hr with the results below. Period Distance Delays Travel Time Cycle Time Loaded EFH 2-Way EFH 1 2 Ratio 1000 2000 2 3 3 1 8 9.4 1.2 11 12.4 1.1 3000 3500 1.2 4000 5500 1.4


We believe the use of Tonnes * Loaded EFH is a reasonable relative indicator of total haulage work, with an advantage over Tonne Kms in that it adjusts for differences in the haulage profiles. In this usage the one way loaded EFH times the total delivered Tonnes is more appropriate than the round trip EFH. Truck requirements are better estimated using full Cycle Times, or Truck Productivities that are derived from them, than EFH or Travel Times. The discussion and examples above demonstrate how EFH may give misleading results if the average haulage lengths vary from period to period. Whilst the detailed method of calculating EFH using pairs of TALPAC simulations will give the best results, we suggest some simple trials to see if Nominal Flat Speeds can be determined that give reasonable close estimates of EFH by the more simple method of multiplying the TALPAC Travel Time by the Nominal Flat Speed.