Report Summary Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

Prepared by:

Angel Rivera

Date:

21-Oct-2014

Description: During the trial in buckets, was carried out monitoring of the points below.
CONTENT: 1- Average Wear in the Buckets
2- Availability
3- Wear Rate
4- Production Test. CycleTime
5- CPH
6- Conclusions
7- Annexes

Start of Trial: 4-Aug-14

End of Trial: 13-Oct-14

Inspected Points in the Buckets.

D1
D2

F
G

E2
C1
E4
C2
E1
B1

E3

B2
B3

I 1,2
A 1,2,3,4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

J 1,2,3

Tips
Tips
Tips
Tips
Edge
Edge
Edge
Wear Plates RH
Wear Plates RH
Wear Plates LH
Wear Plates LH

A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
D1
D2

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

Side Plate RH
side Plate LH
Base Edge end Protection RH
Base Edge end Protection LH
Inner skin
Outer skin
wear strips
Side Protector RH, LH
Edge Segment
Edge Segment
Edge Segment

E1
E2
E3
E4
F
G
H
I
J1
J2
J3

RESULTS:
1- Average wear. Reached during Trial period, monitored points.
Measured Element.
Tips A1,A2,A3,A4
Edge B1,B2,B3
Wear Plates C1,D1
Wear Plates C2,D2
Side Plate E1,E2
Base Edge end Protection E3,E4
Inner skin F
Outer skin G
wear strips H
Side Protector I
Edge Segment J1,J2,J3

CAT
84%
2%
6%
3%
2%
94%
9%
3%
11%
10%
80%

Komatsu
65%
4%
5%
7%
10%
100%
19%
9%
34%
12%
34%

Note: Average life, were changed

to the Tip.

Average wear reached

120%
100%

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Tips
Edge
A1,A2,A3
B1,B2,B3
,A4

Wear
Plates
C1,D1

Wear
Plates
C2,D2

Base
Side Plate Edge end Inner skin
E1,E2
F
Protectio
n E3,E4

Outer
skin G

wear
strips H

Side
Edge
Protector Segment
I
J1,J2,J3

CAT

84%

2%

6%

3%

2%

94%

9%

3%

11%

10%

80%

Komatsu

65%

4%

5%

7%

10%

100%

19%

9%

34%

12%

34%

Note: Remember that Komatsu bucket before the trial began, had operating hours, Exactly 548 hrs.

2-Availability. Number of hours reached during the trial period. (70 days)
Real hours Worked
Equipment
CAT
KOMATSU

Hours
476
712

KOMATSU
CAT
0

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

200

400
HOURS

600

800

3-Wear rate. Based on measurements of wear rate measured element obtained in each bucket, which indicates how many
hours must pass for wear, 1% of the element measured.
Average rate of Wear. (Hrs/%)
Measured Element.
Komatsu
Tips A1,A2,A3,A4.
2.01
Edge B1,B2,B3
150.65
Wear Plates C1,D1
339.65
96.10
Wear Plates C2,D2
Side Plate E1,E2
48.77
Base Edge end Protection E3,E4
5.87
Inner skin F
43.84
Outer skin G
55.51
54.11
wear strips H
Side Protector I
41.19
29.08
Edge Segment J1,J2,J3

CAT
0.80
179.74
58.21
99.49
153.07
7.79
32.95
94.06
48.91
24.58
8.63

Average rate of Wear. (Hrs/%)

400.00

350.00

300.00

Hrs/%

250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00
Tips
Edge
A1,A2,A3
B1,B2,B3
,A4.

Wear
Plates
C1,D1

Wear
Plates
C2,D2

Side
Plate
E1,E2

Base
Edge end
Protectio
n E3,E4

Inner
skin F

Outer
skin G

wear
strips H

Side
Edge
Protecto Segment
rI
J1,J2,J3

Komatsu

2.01

187.26

339.65

96.10

48.77

5.87

43.84

55.51

54.11

41.19

29.08

CATERPILLAR

0.80

179.74

58.21

99.49

153.07

7.79

32.95

94.06

48.91

24.58

8.63

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

4- Production test. Assessment cycle times.

I Review all the information during the period where the machines worked in the same material (very loose).
*The average values with Cps used are as follows.
Equipment

Dump Time

Komatsu
CAT

0:03
0:02

Swing Time
Empty
0:06
0:10

Load Time
0:08
0:05

Swing Time
Loaded
0:08
0:10

CAT (75% Wear)

0:30
0:29

Komatsu (85% Wear)

Dump Time
7%

Swing Time
Loaded
37%

Total Cycle Time

Dump Time
12%

Swing Time
Loaded
33%

Swing Time
Empty
24%

Swing Time
Empty
37%
Load Time
19%

Load Time
31%

*The average values with new Cps are as follows.

Equipment

Dump Time

Komatsu(85%)
CAT(75% Wear)

0:03
0:02

Swing Time
Empty
0:06
0:08

Load Time
0:07
0:07

Swing Time
Loaded
0:10
0:10

0:29
0:29

Komatsu

CAT
Swing Time
Loaded
37%

Total Cycle Time

Dump Time
7%
Swing Time
Empty
30%

Load Time
26%

Dump Time
11%
Swing Time
Empty
25%

Swing Time
Loaded
37%

Load Time
27%

5- CPH: Value based on the wear elements changed during the trial period, calculated by OEMs and verified by me.
CPH ($/Hrs)
CAT
KOMATSU

To 13/10/14
24.12
15.59

CPH To 13/10/2014

50.00

0.00
CPH ($/Hrs)

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

CAT
24.12

KOMATSU
15.59

6- Conclusions:
1- The data presented are actual data measured during the trial of buckets.
2- The Komatsu tips, have good CPH, however, not 100% of your life is used, due to their uneven wear, causing loss
of penetration, so you should consider changing tip thereof OEMs, to evaluate, because the alloy has good
hardness.
3- Considering the real-time production (Availability of the machine), it is possible to say that during the test the PC800, was more productive.
4- Among the most important points, we find the wear rate, which indicates how fast can wear bucket for
measured element. This value allows us to make projections to 1000 or 2000 hours. It should be noted that the
values were obtained based on measurements, obtaining more posiBve values komatsu bucket.
Note: The OEMs did not have access to the value of other OEMs, for this reason was not presented.

5- Studying the test data production where both machines were subjected to the same conditions, to obtain
comparative data, much similarity was obtained as shown in the results, in the case of tips used in which the
charging time it is what makes the difference between the two machines. With new tips look equal cycle time.
Here it should be noted that the data were studied when the teams met a very fragmented blasting, in which
374 DL work for 2 hours and the PC-800, working less than 30 minutes. As analyzed 2 hours, increasing the
tendency of the error to compare cycle times.

6- This point without a doubt marks much difference between the two buckets and of great importance to the
investment cost in GET.
7- Undoubtedly it is established, the importance of correct use of GET-based choice for a correct and specific
application, which achieves make profits not only on cost, production or preservation of the machine, but also
to a better performance, based on the use correct and efficient cutting elements in this industry, which makes
clear that the balance of application and investments, will take us obtain better production, more cost
efficient.

8- A person constructive criticism, there are issues to be improved, mainly as the best use of the useful life of the
tips, but keeping the best cost per hour.
9- If this trial, it sought to obtain the best cost per hour of GET, there is no doubt who was the winnerhowever the
other data obtained during the period of the trial, are very important as they also support making better
decision.

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

7- ANNEXES
Profile Tip CAT

Profile Tip Komatsu

Difference profile.

Note:

A highlight was the value profile, that end up both Tips, it is recommended that tips komatsu, with more
penetration profile, to see if it improves the filling time of the bucket, while maintaining low CPH.

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

Tip CAT to 95% of wear

Tip Komatsu to 95% of wear

Comments:
*The CAT tips (from 0% to 90% worn) have similar times before filling loose material and not as loose.
*The Komatsu tips (from 0% to 90% worn)no have similar times before filling loose material and not as loose.

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

Data Bucket CAT

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu

Data Bucket HENSLEY o Komatsu

Bucket Trial Cat vs Komatsu