Factors affecting theoretical truck performance

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Janssen, Menssen, 1937-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material

is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.
Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as
public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited
except with permission of the author.

Download date 09/09/2020 18:12:42

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551641

FACTORS AFFECTING THEORETICAL TRUCK PERFORMANCE

by
Menssen Janssen

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND

METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1963
 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­

ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University
of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be
made available to borrowers under rules of the Library=
Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable
without special permission provided that accurate acknowledg­
9

ment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended

quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole
or in part may be granted by the head of the major department
or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment
the proposed use of the material is in the interests of
scholarship. In all other instancess however permission
8

must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:
1/

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown

below:

ELMER R D R E V D A H L Date
Associate Professor of Mining Eng.
 ABSTRACT

A systematic order of evaluating factors affecting

theoretical truck performance is presented in order to arrive

at a grade ability value,corresponding to an apparent road

speed. Each one of the resistances opposing the movement

of a vehicle is expressed as absorbed engine horsepower. -
■

The main concept is an expression which balances the power

output against the power absorbed by the various resistances

to motion.
With results of on-the-job time studies on decelera­

tion and acceleration times, factors are derived for the

correction of maximum to average speed depending on the

overall haul distance. Correction factors obtained by con­

sidering acceleration and deceleration times of equal dura­

tion are compared to factors resulting when acceleration and

deceleration are studied independently.

In order to answer the question, "What is the cost

of lifting one cubic yard of material 1 0 0 feet by means of a

truck with a defined capacity and weight to horsepower ratio,"

a cost estimating procedure is detailed and a curve giving

the total .ownership and operating cost per hour according to

the truck’s capacity is developed. The theoretical perform­

ance, is compared to the actual grade ability in order to

establish' an optimum grade range and thereby define a minimum

haulage cost to lift one cubic yard of material 1 0 0 feet.
 S"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii

INTRODUCTION viii

I GRADE ABILITY ' 1

T Fundamental Relation 1

Basic Formulas 3
Elevation and Temperature Correction 6

Rolling Resistance Horsepower 8

Air Resistance Horsepower 9

Internal Friction Horsepower 20

Horsepower Distribution 20

Grade Ability 21
Summarizing Example 23

II AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED 29

III THEORETICAL -OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING COST
PER HOUR 44
Total Initial Investment 44

Economic Life 45

Average Annual Investment • 46

Depreciation 46

Interest, Taxes, Insurance and Storage 47

Total Fixed Cost 47

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER PAGE

Repairs, Maintenance and Supplies 47

Fuel, Lubrication and Miscellanea- 48

Tire Cost 50

Labor Cost 51

IV TRUCK HAULAGE ON INCLINES 57

Theoretical Vehicle Speed 57

Truck Grade Ability 59

Time to Gain 100 ft. in Elevation 61

Analysis of Actual Performance 63

Cost of Elevating One Cubic Yard 100 ft. 6 6

CONCLUSIONS 73

APPENDIX A 74
APPENDIX B 78

RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY. 81

v
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE SUBJECT PAGE'

1 TIRE FACTORS 5
2 ALTITUDE-TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS 7

3 VARIATION OF THE VELOCITY FACTOR

(with speed) 1 2

4 GRADE FACTOR 24

5 CORRECTED GRADE ABILITY ABOVE 20% 25

6 ROAD FACTORS 26

7 ACCELERATION RATE FOR A 1 TON LOAD

(approx.) 32

8 AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS (approx.)37 •

9 f COMPARISON OF CORRECTION FACTORS 43

10 TIRE LIFE CORRECTION FACTORS 50

11 ROLLING RESISTANCE FACTORS 58

12 TRUCK GRADE ABILITY (various Wt/HP). 59

13 INCLINED DISTANCES (according to
percent grade) .63

vi
 LIST' OF ILLUSTRATIONS

GRAPH SUBJECT PAGE

1 AREA FACTORS (approximate) 11
2 ALTITUDE CORRECTION (air resistance) 15
3 EFFECTIVE AIR SPEED AND ANGLE OF YAW 16

4 EFFECTIVE AIR SPEED (various conditions) 17

5 ANGLE OF YAW (values for) 18

6 VARIATION OF AERODYNAMIC COEFFICIENT 19

7 INTERNAL FRICTION HORSEPOWER 22

8 ACCELERATION TIMES (approximate) 35

9 ACCELERATION TIMES (approximate) 36

10 DECELERATION DISTANCES 40

11 AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS I. ’’ 41

12 AVERAGE SPEED CORRECTION FACTORS II 42

13 CAPITAL COST VS CAPACITY OF TRUCKS 53

14 TOTAL OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING COSTS

PER HOUR 56

15 THEORETICAL TRUCK SPEEDS ON GRADES' 60

16 THEORETICAL TIMES TO GAIN 100 FEET

• IN ELEVATION 62
17 ACTUAL TIMES TO GAIN 100 FEET IN ELEVATION 65

18 OPTIMUM GRADE RANGES ON THEORETICAL TIME

CURVES 67

19-22 COST TO ELEVATE ONE CU„ YD. 100 FEET

(four graphs) 69 - 72

vii
 INTRODUCTION

In Open Pit*Mining and other types of surface

excavations the primary problems faced by the operators
are of an economic nature„ The proper use of loading and

transporting equipment to obtain optimum overall efficiency

for the operation and a minimum cost of material handling

is - the engineer's goal.

For this matter, the mining engineer concerned

with the problem of equipment selection must have a knowl­

edge of the factors affecting performance, be able to

adapt previous practical experience to problems of theoreti

cal character and have a practical understanding of cost .

estimating procedures.

This work is designed to assist anyone concerned

with the problem of truck selection as it discusses per­
formance features, cost estimation and validation of theo«

retical results by comparison with actual performance and

cost data. The large number of variables affecting truck

performance account for the relative value of the results,

which may be used on a comparative basis but which will

always diverge from actual performance data.

VI Xi
 CHAPTER I

GRADE ABILITY

Fundamental Relation:

The basic performance formula is obtained by balanc­

ing the corrected net engine horsepower against the horse­

power absorbed by the various resistances to motion:
NEHPC = RRHP + ARHP + IFHP + GRHP (1)

Equation in which:

NEHPC . is the corrected net engine horsepower under prevail­

ing conditions of temperature and elevation.

RRHP is the horsepower used to overcome rolling resistance.

ARHP is the horsepower used to overcome air resistance.

IFHP- is the horsepower used to overcome., internal friction.

GRHP is the horsepower used to overcome grade resistance.

Some of the terms used in the preceding equation may

be interpreted in an incorrect manner and since they will be

used continually in this paper 9 a thorough understanding of

them is necessary at this point.

1. Corrected net engine horsepower is the brake horse­

power available and measured at the clutch or its equivalent

when an engine is operating with all of its normal accessories

such as fan, air compressor, generator and muffler, and the

prevailing conditions of temperature and elevation are taken

into consideration.

1
 2
2.. Rolling resistance is the effect of several
resistances to motion that are caused by friction in the
wheel bearings 9 friction in the tire walls and tread as
their shape is distorted when rolling along the road surface,
deformation of the road surface, impact resistance due to
irregularities of road surface and churning of air by the

wheels=
The amount of net engine horsepower needed to over­

come this resistance is called "Rolling Resistance Horsepower"

and will be referred to as RRHP.

3„ Air resistance is the force hindering the movement

of a vehicle through still air. This factor will vary in

inverse proportion to the elevation above sea level since the

air is more rarefied at higher altitude. The influence of

wind on air resistance is investigated.

. The amount of net engine horsepower absorbed by this

resistance is called "Air Resistance Horsepower".and will be

referred to as ARHP.
MV Internal friction is the resistance encountered

in the chassis as power is transferred from the clutch or its

equivalent to the driving wheels.

The power absorbed due to this friction is called

"Internal Friction -Horsepower" and will be referred to as IFHP.

5. Grade resistance is the component of the, gravita­

tional force 9 parallel to the road surface when moving on

a grade and is therefore directly proportional to the gross

vehicle weight.
 3

"Grade Resistance Horsepower" is the amount of net

engine horsepower used to overcome the grade resistance

and will be referred to as GRHP,
Since in an established operation, three of the
mentioned resistances to motion are fairly well known, the

GRHP constitutes the balancing factor in the performance

formula and it can. be translated into "Grade Ability,"

"Acceleration Power," or the combination of both„ ,

The grade ability is the percent grade that a vehicle

can negotiate at a sustained road speed and acceleration

power is the force available to increase speed in terms of
feet per second per second. When considering a combination
of these two concepts, reference is made to the ability of
accelerating on a favorable or adverse grade.

Basic Formulas:

In order to arrive at the foregoing concepts, it is

necessary to consider and relate various original values.

A brief definition of these values is given in the following

paragraphs including the accepted units by which they are

measured. ■ ■

APPARENT. ROAD SPEED: '

RPM
MPH = .. (2)

GR x TF
 4

where:

MPH is the apparent road speed of the vehicle in miles

per hour.
RPM is the engine speed in revolutions per minute.
GR is the total gear reduction, a product of trans­

mission, auxiliary transmission and axle ratios.

TF is the tire factor representing the revolutions

per minute a tire makes at a speed of 1 MHP. Its

values are based upon the average loaded radius of
leading makes of tires in each respective size.
Table 1 gives applicable tire factors.
 Table 1...

TIRE FACTORS

Tire Size Loaded Radius . Tire Factor

12 o00 x 20 21.3 8.0

12.00 x 25 23.0 7.3

.14.00 x 25 25.3 6.7

16.00 x 25 28.0 6 . 0

18.00 x 25 29.4 5.7

18.00 x 33 33.3 5.0

21.00 x 35 35.6 4.7

The tire factors are obtained from the following relation

Tire Factor =
Loaded Radius
 6

Elevation and Temperature Correction;

T - 60
NEHPn = (1. - 0.01 (0.004 E + (_________))-) x MEHP (3)
1 0 s
where:

NEHPC is the corrected net engine horsepower available

under prevailing conditions of temperature and

elevation.

E is the elevation above sea level, given in feet. ■

T is the temperature, given in degrees Fahrenheit,

NEHPS is the net certified engine horsepower available

under standard conditions of elevation and temperature.

The above formula is derived considering a 4% decrease

in net engine horsepower output .for every 1 0 0 0 feet of eleva­

tion above sea level and a 1 % increase or decrease in net

engine horsepower output for every 1 0 degrees below or above

a standard temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

This applies to four-cycle gasoline engines and

Diesel engines; in case of two-cycle gasoline engines, the

altitude correction amounts to only 1% per 1 0 0 0 feet eleva­

tion. When the engine is fitted with a turbocharger, no

correction is necessary for the first 5000 feet of elevation.

 Table 2

ALTITUDE - TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTORS

Elevation Temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit

1 1 0 90 70 60 50 40 2 0 0 - 2 0

00
Sea Level .95 .97 .99 1.04 1.06

H
o
o
1 . 0 0 1 . 0 1 1 . 0 2

1 0 0 0 feet• .91 .93 .95 .96 .97 .98 1 . 0 0 1 . 0 2 1.04

2 0 0 0 feet .87 .89 .91 .92 .93 .94 .96 .98 1 . 0 0

3000 feet .83 .85 ; .87 .88 ■ .89 .90 ‘ .92 .94 .96

4000 feet .79 .81 .83 .84 .85 ■.86 .88 .90 .92

5000 feet .75 .77 .79 .80 .81 .82 .84 .86 .88

6000 feet .71 .73 .75 .76 .77 .78 .80 , .82 .84

7000 feet .67 .69 .71 .72 .73 .74 .76 .78 .80

8000 feet .63 .65 .67 .68 .69 .70 .72 .74 .76

9000 feet .59 .61 : .63 .64 .65 .66 .68 .70 .72

1 0 , 0 0 0 ft. .55 .57 .59 .60 .61 . 162 .64 .66 . 6 8

1 1 , 0 0 0 ft. .51 .53 .55 .56 .57 .58 .60 .62 .64
1 2 , 0 0 0 ft. .47 .49 .51 .53 .53 .54 .56 .58 . .60

13,000 ft. ' .43 .45 .47 .48 .49 .50 .52 .54 .56

14,000 ft. .39 .41 .43 .44 .45 .46 .48 .50 .52

15,000 ft. .35 .37 .39 .40 .41 .42 .44 .46 .48
Rolling Resistance Horsepower:

A certain amount of the original engine horsepower is

used to overcome the resistance to motion occurring between

the wheels and the road surface. This resistance can either

be considered as a constant or as a function of the travel

speed but it is in both cases directly proportional to the
gross vehicle weight.

The above function is expressed as "Rolling Factor” and

determined as follows:

RF _ (7.6 f 0.09 MPH) MPH -v, ( .4 ) .

375

where: .

RF is the,rolling factor.
MPH is the vehicle speed in miles per hour.

This rolling factor is determined for first class roads

in a good state of maintenance. For other road conditions a

correction must be applied.

When multiplied by the gross.vehicle weight expressed in

thousands of pounds, a figure representing the horsepower

absorbed by rolling resistance is obtained, that has to be

subtracted from the corrected net engine horsepower.

(7.6 + 0.09 MPH) MPH x.GVW . (4a)

RRHP =
375
 9

where:

RKHP is the rolling resistance horsepower,

MPH" is the vehicle speed in miles per hour,

GVW is the gross, vehicle weight in thousands of pounds,

Air Resistance Horsepower:

Air resistance horsepower is the power necessary to

propel a vehicle through still air. It is a function of the

effective frontal area of the vehicle, the travel speed and

the density of the air for the elevation above sea level at

which the operation takes place.

The area factor is given by the following relation:
(H — 1 1/2) x W
AF = ' ~TTi ’ <5)

where:
AF is the area' factor,

H is the height of the vehicle in feet,

W is the width-of the vehicle in feet.

By using average dimensions approximate area factors

have been figured out for vehicles- of diverse payload-capaci­

ties, These factors are presented on graph (1)» •.

The velocity factor is the product of the cube of the

travel speed and an aerodynamic coefficient, Although this

 10

coefficient is a function of the particular vehicle,

0 , 0 0 2 can in most cases be considered as a constant since

it represents the safe extreme between 0 , 0 0 1 and 0 ,0 0 2 ,

VF = 0,002 (MPH ) 3 (5a)

where
VF is the velocity factor. It is a dimensionless

factor whose variation with speed will be

presented in Table 3.
150
 Table 3

VARIATION OF VELOCITY FACTOR

MPH Velocity MPH Velocity MPH Veloc:

Factor Factor Fact<

1 0 . 0 0 2 1 18.5 41 138
2 0= 0 2 2 2 21.3 42 148
3 0.05 23 24.3 43 159
4 0.13 24 27.6 44 170
5 0.25 25 31.3 45 182
6 0.43 26 35.-1 46 195
7 0.69 27 '39.4 47 208
8 1 . 0 2 2 8 43.9 48 2 2 1

9 1.46 . 29 48.8 49 235

1 0 2 . 0 0 30 54.0 50 250
1 1 2 . 6 6 31 59.6 51 265
1 2 3.46 32 65.5 52 281
13 4.39 33 71.9 53 298
14 5.49 34 78.6 54 315
15 6.75 • 35 . 85.7 55 333
16 8.19 36 93.3 . 56 351
17 . 9.83 37 1 0 1 57 370
18 11.7 38 1 1 0 58 390
19 135 7' 39 119 59 411
2 ’0 ' IS5 0 40 128 60 432

Velocity Factor = 0.002 (MPH ) 3

 13

. ^ The remaining factor to be considered is the altitude

correction. This correction is necessary because the air's

density is inversely proportional to the elevation above sea

level. Graph (2) gives the altitude correction factors.

The product of the three listed factors gives the

ARHP:

, ARHP ..= Area Factor x Velocity Factor x. Altitude Factor (5b)

To this point the effect of wind on air resistance

has not been mentioned. However, ambient wind influences the

air resistance horsepower because the effective wind velocity

differs from the vehicle speed except when the wind direction

forms an angle of 90 degrees with the direction of vehicle

motion. With this exception, the effective speed may be

greater or less than the vehicle speed. An angle of yaw is

formed by the two velocities and their relative directional

orientation affects the magnitude of the air resistance

coefficient.

On page 16 a vector diagram is given for the vehicle

and wind velocities showing the effective air speed and

angle of yaw as related to these speeds and the wind direction

angle,iEffective air speed for various conditions can be

determined from graph (4), and the angle of yaw can be found

on graph (5),

When observing the corresponding graphs it should be

noted that when the wind is striking head on at zero degrees,

 14

or following at 180 degrees, the angle of yaw is equal to

zero, but the effective air speed will either be the differ­

ence between, or the sum of the vehicle speed and the wind vee

locity. As the angle of yaw increases from 0 - 2 5 degrees,

the aerodynamic coefficient will increase rapidly, but after

such an angle the coefficient decreases until passing through

zero. See graph ( ),

6 .
The wind's speed and direction angle affect the .
velocity factor by modifying the aerodynamic coefficient, and

consequently also change the air resistance horsepower. A

new term, "Effective Air Speed," is introduced, which repre­

sents the algebraic summation of the vehicle speed and the

wind velocity. The two variants affect formula (5b) as

follows: ■

3
K x EAS x Area x Altitude Factor
ARHP = ___! (5c)
375

where:

ARHP is the air resistance horsepower,

K is the wind affected aerodynamic coefficient, a

dimensionless value,

EAS is the effective air speed in miles per hour.

Area is the effective frontal area of the vehicle in

square-feet.
Si.

ude

UDE CORRECTION

tic
 16
11 4

20MPH

A s Wind Direct
,V. g—Wind.VtelOcl
9

Effective
Air Sjpeed
_ d MPH
6

ME
__ An^l£_Q.:-Yaw

VECTiOR; D IA G flA h OF I):

-------------
C T IIV StiEED AND
L '
W
30 MPH Wind
 HO"MPH Wind" 50 'MPH' Wind"

9OP 90P

60

cn

IU

30

5.0 40 30 i 40 : 50___30 40
H
Vehicle Speed in MPH oo
 r -TT- -TT" -!-L Lj p r r
;r U;' 1r m
i •••
in:
... i ■[tl r
i
i-i;;
i - ■• 1• « "
Ittj
1 1
: 1
it |i' | i
;I; 1 ■• 1 ,
*-
i
- y
1. rf'' 1'.
— i— .

. i-•
■ " : ini s :: 1 :n 7

It.: y
11r r r • - 4
|i ; n
---- r $ G r m h ( 6 )
tl'.l
t S R a ­

n t a :
- 44-1-
;";1
tlj
i r

! 'j
■>! 4l I t itl a..

S -n-
~ T " — 7
y 1- >
;!; 1
;;

■:
t n i S I
.n_- --- -—
-- -— —
r— -
---- 7
t*»
, n m
• !;•• ' « 1‘F
r*4 •
i;
— — - t
T-----1 r — 4-rir
a
•r~
T 1 i '

l i t . •r
|:. . n r
T I :.
i j
4 7.
■ * *. y
— .—
— f-
1
!. - .
r '
n 1 *: - I f ;
. Q 2
T ~ ~ ' c
L _ — ----- -
- 7—
• ! I ! . c
i
— "E
■ ■■
ft 1 ' i"
h" " "
c
7---- — r — — — * — 7- — 7-7 -T
> V

:li i :! '

---- — .QJ
™ r -— - 7T" <
..— ,
—
7 --- -
.!
:? = ■
i•
-—

nj] •
— —
-— r — — " -— u — 77-
-
r
n

o
” — r~
°
1C 2 ( 0 3f 4-7— T~rj
— T T f n r
/ . n p 1 6 o f Y i iw n i l . :

:::
‘ 11 ''
i ■
■— — — . ^ — -i
n n
nn- n't n n :: n :.l:
, ! 1
.. -

:— - — —
-jrrpr:- — 77—

V A R ] A T fOI\ 0 F I H E A E : R 0D Y f A M r c C O m ' I Q I Z l T is*

•i ::..
. 1 : . . — ~ — 4- - -—7 s — — 7— -— — :— .
, '; •
. : !■ ■ i; -

— — — t-- — — — 77- — t" S - t -

. i ::

1::
1 —
S f r — — 7 ™ TTT“ 7—
T i 11
-; t j• .
1: ■ -;it: |;:T
iri i|i:
Tl!

T H i n !
;.t! i it;:
4— 7

s
:in
7,r. j j M
tit
t. :n|
'ii‘ n
-U.:- ji-ff in! j n t e i |j
! j1
..in; till. #
it flti S I S li-iii m i S t ! t-ttH \i In: : Li i jiiy rrji
i :
 20

Internal Friction Horsepower;

Internal friction horsepower represents the loss of

power occurring in the moving parts between the clutch or its
equivalent and the wheels» It is a function of the gross
vehicle weight and the revolutions per minute at which the
engine is operating. Investigation of this loss has been

restricted to actual tests on smaller vehicles than those being

considered in this paper. Values for larger vehicles have

been obtained by extrapolation with consequent introduction

of an error.
Graph (7) gives tentative horsepower corrections due

to internal chassis .""friction. The Society of Automotive

Engineers recommends the use of the following equation for the

determination of internal friction power losses:

IFHP = 1 + (0.0000002 RPM x GVW) ( )

6

where:
IFHP is the internal friction horsepower.

RPM is the engine speed in revolutions per minute.

t'--

GVW is the gross vehicle weight in pounds.

Horsepower Distribution:

While traveling over a level road a vehicle is

affected by three resistances to motion. These resistances

have been previously discussed and their summation leads to

the mMMc term, "Level Road Horsepower".

 21

The difference between the corrected net engine horse­

power and the level road horsepower is called "Reserve

Horsepower", This reserve horsepower represents a potential

for climbing a grade' or accelerating the vehicle. ' If the

difference is a negative value 9 the corrected net engine

horsepower is insufficient to attain the apparent road speed =

The power available to negotiate a grade at a specified

road speed is the grade resistance horsepower 9 and is used
in- grade ability calculations .

Grade Ability:

Grade ability represents the vehicle's potential to

climb a grade.9.and is inversely proportional to the gross

vehicle weight.

The grade ability is obtained by multiplying the

grade resistance horsepower per 1 0 0 0 pounds of gross vehicle

weight by the grade factor. This grade factor is obtained

1 " ■
from the expression: .

37.5 ,7,
Grade Factor = '

Grade factors for various speeds are given in

Table 4. The values in this table apply only to class I

roads in good condition, defined in Table 6 . When it is

necessary to determine the grade ability on roads other

than class I roads in good condition a road factor is applied

to the one computed for class I roads in good condition

 ;-4

2400

2 2 0 0 f— --

2000;

1800

1600 . I

00,000
 23

in order to obtain the net grade ability. Table 6 gives the

road factors to be applied.

Summarizing Example:

For easier visualization of the subject discussed in

this chapter, a worksheet is presented on page 2 8 . This

worksheet presents a logical sequence of the calculations

involved in grade ability prediction, and is applied to an

actual case taken from appendix A.

 Table 4

GRADE FACTOR

MPH Grade ■ MPH Grade MPH ' Grade

Factor Factor Factor
1 37»50 2 1 1.78 41 0.91
2 18.75 2 2 1. 70- - 42 0 .89
3 12.50 23 1.63 43 0.87
4 9.38 24 1.5.6 44 0.85
5 7.50 25 1.50 45 0.83

6 6.25 26 1.44 46 0.82

7 5.36 27 1.3 9 47 0.80
8 4.68 28 1.34 48 0.78
9 4.17 29 1.29 49 0,77
1 0 3.75 30 1.25 50 0.75

1 1 3.41 31 1 . 2 1 51 0.74
1 2 3.12 32 1.17 52 0.72
13 2 . 8 8 33 1.14 53 0.71
14 2 . 6 8 34 1 . 1 0 54 0.69
15 2.50 35 1.07 55 0 . 6 8

16 2.34 36 1.04 56 0.67

17 2 . 2 0 37 1 . 0 1 57 0 . 6 6

18 2.08 38 0.9 9 58 0.65

19 1.97 39 0.96 59 0.64
2 0 1.87 40 0.94 60 0.62

Note: For grade abilities over 2 0 % this table is to

used with Table 5„
 25

Table 5

CORRECTED GRADE ABILITY ABOVE 20%

Computed Corrected Computed Corrected Computed Corrected

Grade . Grade Grade Grade • Grade Grade
Ability Ability Ability Ability Ability Ability .

2 0 20.4 27 28.0 34' 36.2

2 1 21.5 28 29.2 35 37.4
2 2 ■ 2 2 . 6 29 30.3 36 38.8
23 23.6 30 31.5 37 39.8
24 24.7 31 32.6 38 41.1
25 25.8 32 33.8 39" 42.4
 26

Table 6

ROAD FACTORS

Factor
Road r Condition of Surface
Class______ Road-Surface Type___________ Good Fair Poor
Cement concrete
Brick
Asphalt block
Asphalt plank
I Granite block 0 . 0 0 . 1 ’ 0 . 2

Sheet asphalt
Asphaltic concrete
Bituminous macadam (high type)
Wood block

Bituminous macadam (low type)

II Bituminous (tar)' 0 „2 0 . 6 1 . 0

Oil mats (oiled macadam)

Treated gravel

Sand-clay
III Gravel 0.5 1 . 0 1.5
Crushed stone
Cobbles

Earth
IV Sand. 1 . 0 1.5 2.5

Note: As accepted by SAE Recommended Practice

 27

Vehicle Characteristics:

Vehicle Identification: Make Model _________ .

Vehicle Overall Maximum.Dimensions:
(a) Height 14 ft., (b) Width 13 ft.
Total Gross Weight in Pounds: 240,000

Gear Ratios: (a) Transmission 2.32, (b) Torque Converter,

torque multiplication 6:1. , (c) Rear Axle 16.86

(d) Total Gear Reduction 235.

Hre Size of the Driving Wheels: 18.00 x 33

Net Engine Power at Sea Level: 52 5 hp , at 22 50 RPM engine

speed. -

Altitude: 2,800 ft.

Road Surface Type and Condition: Asphaltic Concrete in Fair

Condition.
 WORKSHEET
Apparent Road Speed in MPH
Engine Speed 2250
- _Z____ $___;
______ = 1.9
Total Gear Reduction x Tire Factor 235 x 5.0
Corrected Net Engine Horsepower -
NEHP x Altitude-Ternperature .
Correction.= 525 x 0.86 = 450

Rolling Resistance Horsepower

Rolling Factor x GVW in 1000’s of lbs. = 0.04 x 240 = 10

Air Resistance Horsepower

Area Factor x Velocity Factor x Altitude Factor

0.365 x 0.02 x 0.91 = negligible 0

Internal Friction Horsepower

.By extrapolation from graph (7) 110

Level Road Horsepower

RRHP + ARHP''+ IFHP = 10 + 0 + 110 • 120 '

Reserve Horsepower
NEHPc~ Level Road Horsepower = 450 - 120 = 330

Grade Resistance Horsepower per 1000 lbs. Weight

Reserve- Horsepower 7 GVW in 1000 ’s of lbs.=
330 4- 240 = 1.37

Grade Ability on Class I Roads in Good Condition

GRHP per 1000 lbs. x Grade Factor = 1.37 x 18.75 = 27.5%

Grade Deduction for Road Type and Condition

Road Factor taken directly from Table 6 0.1%

Net Grade Ability

Grade Ability on Class I Roads in Good Condition minus

Road Factor taken from Table .,; 27.5 - 0.1 =
6 27.4%
 CHAPTER II

AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED

The overall haul distance is divided into three parts:

The distance travelled during the period of acceleration, the

distance travelled at maximum sustained speed, and the dis­

tance travelled during the period of deceleration.

At’a certain rated engine speed a vehicle will be able

to deliver its maximum road speed and it will maintain the

speed only at that specific number of revolutions per minute

since the engine’s efficiency will deereasSpat any other number

of revolutions =

The lapse of time during which the vehicle builds up

to its road speed is called acceleration time, This time

interval will depend upon the power available for this purpose.

Having accelerated to the maximum sustained speed the vehicle

will travel a certain distance at this speed until entering

the deceleration stage,. •

The time required to bring the vehicle to a complete

stop from its maximum sustained road speed is called, the

deceleration period. The distance travelled during this

period is accordingly the deceleration distance.

During the complete acceleration and deceleration

periods the vehicle is moving at a speed that is below the

29
 30

maximum sustained road speed and therefore reduces the

overall haul speed to an "Average Travel Speed." . A correc­
tion factor is obtained by dividing this average.travel speed
by the maximum sustained road speed. The values of this
factor will never be greater than 1 . 0 and 9 when multiplied

by the maximum sustained road speed, will give the average

travel speed used in cycle time predictions. The defined ■

factor will change according to three variables: the travel

distance, the maximum sustained road.speed, and the power

available for acceleration purposes.

The correction factor will obviously be of more

significance when calculating the average travel speed for

short distances, since the combined acceleration and

deceleration time will, in this case, he a relatively major

part of the total travel time. As the distance increases

the correction will gradually approach 1 . 0 and becomes

negligible at distances over three to five miles.

When attempting high speeds the acceleration and

deceleration periods will accordingly be of a longer duration,

and the correction factor will be more pronounced.

The third variable affecting the correction factor

is the available power. For comparative purposes the avail­

able power is generally expressed as pounds of gross vehicle

weight per horsepower. A vehicle- with a low weight to

horsepower ratio will have more power available for accelera­

tion purposes, therefore reducing the acceleration time and

 31

presenting a less important .-correction factor than a vehicle

with a high weight to horsepower ratio for the-, same distance.

There always exists a difference between the theo­

retically obtained acceleration, or deceleration time and. the

actual times determined by means of time studies. This is

because there are a number.of variables that cannot be evalu­

ated in a scientific manner. These variables are introduced

by the person driving the vehicle since no two drivers will

accelerate at the same rate nor apply an identical force on

the brake pedal when trying to come to a complete stop.

Since it is not possible to arrive at identical

results by the two proceduresthe alternative to be chosen

in a theoretical approach is to consider the deceleration

time of equal duration as the acceleration time. The error

introduced is again of a relative nature and depends upon the

overall travel distance that is being considered. Acceleration

in this instance is treated in the following manner and

results are obtained that prove useful for performance-

estimating purposes. .
Newton’s second law of motion is the basis for

calculations:
W
F = a ( )
8

. g
 32

where:

F is the accelerating force.in pounds'

W is the weight to be accelerated in pounds»

g is the acceleration of gravity (32.2 Ft,/sec„/sec.)

a is the acceleration of the weight W (in Ft./sec./sec.)

By using this relationship the values in the follow­

ing table were computed:

Table 7

APPROXIMATE ACCELERATION RATE- FOR A 1 TON LOAD

Pounds of Rimpull Available Acceleration Acceleration
for Acceleration Rate Rate
(Ft./sec./sec.) . (MPH-per min.)
10 0.161 6.6
0.322 13.2
30 0.483 19. 8

40 0.644 26.4
59 0.80 5 33.0
60 0 .966 39.7
70 1.127 46.3
80 1.288 52.9
90 1.449 59.5
100 1.610 66.1
150 2.415 99.1
200 3.220 132.2
250 4.025 165.3
300 4.830 198.3
400 6.440 264.4
500 8.050 330.5
600 9.660 39 7.0
7'50 12.075 495.8
100 0 16.100 661.0

The above values are used to calculate the approximate

acceleration time required to reach the maximum speed in the

 33

various gears« Nevertheless, as was pointed out earlier,

in actual operations not all of the theoretically calcu­

lated rimpull is available due to the driver’s reluctance

to apply full power. Also, the increased mechanical losses

in the lower gears must be considered.

In order to allow for these losses the theoreti­

cally available rimpull in the low gears should be derated

before computing, acceleration time. This can be'-'done by
taking the next lower rimpull value on the above table.

If a vehicle is equipped with a torque converter

and governor, the theoretically computed rimpull will

probably be available in full since the engine will be

running at its optimum speed practically all the time,

except for a short period at the beginning of acceleration.

The total acceleration time is composed of variable

and fixed times. The variable times qre the periods

actually used for accelerating to the maximum attainable

speed in each gear. The fixed times pertain to the gear

changes. .
It must be pointed out that this method of computing

acceleration time is not more than a rough estimate.

However, it is of practical use in performance comparisons

of various trucks.
In accordance with this procedure, the graphs ( 8 , 9 )

have been prepared. These graphs show acceleration times

 34

on a level haul for trucks of weight to horsepower ratios

varying between 1 0 0 and 60 0 to attain maximum speeds of

from 5 to 30 MPH. In each one of the graphs a certain

amount of rolling resistance has been included. A compari­

son between, the graphs ( , 9) will enable the visualization
8

of the effect of rolling resistance on accelerating

capability. In case of grade hauls, every 1% of prevailing

grade has an effect on acceleration equivalent to 2 0 lbs.

rolling resistance.
 Gb aph (

im.

6 1 Acceleration Time (rnin.) 1 XX

cr
APFROXTMATC ACCELERATION TT
 MPH

25 MP

30 MP

0-%

40 lb Resist ance

cele Time (min.) 3.0

IXCCELEPATTOM TIl^ES
 37

Table 8

APPROXIMATE CORRECTION FACTORS

MAXIMUM HAUL SPEED TO AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED

Assuming: Unit starring from stop.

Level haul.

60 pounds per ton rolling resistance.

Deceleration time same as acceleration time.

< (Haul Distance (in feet))

Max. Wt . 250 500 750 1 0 0 0 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3000 4000 5000 1 0 0 0 0

Speed Hp.

1 0 0 .91 .95 .97 .98 .98 .98 .98 ■ .99 .99 .99 1 . 0 0

2 0 0 .82 .90 .93 .95 .97 .97 .97 .98 .98 .98 .99
.OMPH 300 .73 .84 .89 .91 .9.4 .95 .95 .96 .96 .97 .99
400 .63 .77 .84 .87 .91 .93 .95 .95 .95 .96 .98
500 .53 .70 -.77 .82 ',.87 .90 .92 .93 .94 .95 .98
600 i60 .69 .75 .82 . 8 6 . 8 8-.90 .92 .93 .97

1 0 0 ~53 .70 .78 .82 .87 .90' .92 .93 .95 .96 .98
!0MPH 2 0 0 .56 .63 .72 .77 .81 .84 .87 .89 .95
300 .53 .60 .65 .69 .75 .79 . 8 8

400 .53 .59 .74

1 0 0 .54 .64 .70 .75 .78 .82 .85 .94

10MPH 2 0 0 .50 .57 .63 .64

For conditions where no value is shown, combined acceler­

ation and deceleration distance is greater than the total length

of haulo Where weight to horsepower ratios are omitted (20 and

30 MPH), vehicle with this ratio cannot attain the maximum haul

speed under prevailing conditions.

 38

The main reason for considering the deceleration■

time of equal duration as the acceleration'period is -because

very little information is available on braking capability.

The following formula interrelates the variables that deter­

mine the unit decelerating force:

GVW x MPH
pp = __ -
; x Stopping Time (9)
Decel. Diet.
where:

D F is•the deceleration force'in pounds per ton of vehicle

weight. • -

GVW is the gross vehicle weight in tons.

MPH is the vehicle speed when starting deceleration, in

miles per hour.

Decel. Dist. is the distance travelled during the deceleration

• period in feet. i
Stopping Time is the .time in minutes required to come to a

complete stop.
The deceleration force- is a variable figure since its

value will change with different types of brakes. Even for

the same type of brake it will be difficult to obtain two

identical deceleration forces since the driver factor has a

strong influence; Some equipment companies give a value of 339

lbs/ton to be accepted as a constant deceleration force. The

validity of this value is proven in the following instance.

Time studies were made on trucks of a weight to

 39

horsepower ratio of 150 and 300 traveling over a level

surface with an accepted rolling resistance of 60 lbs„ per

ton. Emphasis was placed on the study of deceleration times

and the resulting deceleration forces were reasonably close
to that given by the equipment companies so that this value
could be taken as a constant.

The braking data were gathered by clocking the speed

of the truck between two stakes of known separation. At the

instant the second stake was reached, the driver would begin

the braking period. This period was timed and measured.

The supporting data is included in appendix B.

The result of this time study on deceleration is

given in the graph ( 1 0 ), and upon accepting this new approach

for determining deceleration, a set of curves was developed

on two graphs corresponding to a 150 lbs./ton - truck (11)

and a 30 0 lbs./ton - truck (12). The graphs give new

correction factors for the conversion of maximum haul speed

to average travel speed. The approach for determining

acceleration has not been changed $ therefore, any variation

in the average speed correction factor is only due to the new

approach used to determine deceleration.

To make the comparison visible two sets of correction

factors have been extracted from the corresponding sources.

The first set represents the results obtained when treating ’

deceleration as being of equal duration as acceleration and

 Graoh ( 10 )

rt

i3C 0 i
! ; WOO— ___
Distance Iin feet
DECELERATION DISTANCES
 Eorsdpower_Ra±i

in

CORRECT FACTORS
.-£— 2.0
I20MPH
15

LC

1 0

ee

ERjAGE S PE^D CORRE

 43

the second set corresponds to the results obtained by

treating deceleration as a separate matter.

Table 9

COMPARISON OF CORRECTION FACTORS

Haul Distance (in feet)

Speed HP. 500 1 0 0 0 ' 2 500 5000 1 0 0 0 0

CD
00
300 .84 .91 .95 .96
10 MPH
CO
CD

300 .925 .97 .985 .995

-
O-

00
CO
CD

300 - . .65
20 MPH
CO
^3

300 , — .575 .775 .93

Since the deceleration time is shorter when being

considered separately, the factors obtained by this approach

are of less importance than those obtained when considering

deceleration and acceleration of equal duration.

In the lower speed range the difference is not as

pronounced since the acceleration period is minor when

compared to that needed for higher speed ranges and a pre­

determined haul distance.

As the haul distance increases the difference will

be less since the influence of acceleration and deceleration

on the average travel speed gradually loses its importance.

 CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING COST PER HOUR

The purpose of this chapter is to develop'a curve

which will give an average hourly ownership and operating

cost for trucks of various capacities »• These costs will be

used in Chapter IV.

The cost estimating procedure is similar to that

used by Elmer R. Drevdahl , and shall be detailed hereafter

to present the necessary background for the preparation of

graph (14).
A worksheet designed to estimate the ownership and

operating cost is given on page 55 on which the various

factors affecting this cost are listed. In accordance with

this worksheet, the influencing items are explained and

discussed in the following paragraphs:

Item 1 . Total'Initial Investment

This investment includes the factory list price

(F.O.B. factory) and the cost of transportation from the

factory to the operation. The cost of tires is deducted

from this total to be treated as a separate item. The cost

of transportation is a widely varying factor according to

the distance between the factory and the delivery site.

. —
Elmer R . Drevdahl, "Profitable Use of Excavation
Equipment." Desert Laboratories, Inc.., Tucson, Arizona, 1961.
 45

Values of $1.00 to $ 6 . 0 0 (per cwt) should be used for esti­

mating purposes when the exact freight rate is unknown. The

cost of tires is deducted because the life of the equipment

is much longer than the tire life and it is therefore more

appropriate to threat this item as an operational cost.

Item 2. Economic Life

Economic life is reached when it is established

that the future cost per hour will be higher than the average .
hourly cost for all previous operations. At that point, even

though the truck is in seemingly good condition, it should be

replaced by one with up-to-date features. The duration of

this economic life is variable, depending on the conditions

under which the equipment is working. When considering
Diesel-powered trucks of 15 or more tons capacity, the expected
life should be 9 years or 18,000 hours when operating under

excellent working conditions; 7 years or 14,000 hours when

working conditions are average; 5 years or 10,000 hours under

severe working conditions. This may be accepted when the

equipment is operated one shift per day. In cases where the

same truck is used for two or three shifts per day, the

economic life of that truck should be decreased. One shift

per day represents 2000 hours per year (50 weeks @ 40 hours).

Practical experience shows that the economic life is not

exactly halved when working two shifts per day but is reduced
 46

to 67% of the economic life expected for the one shift per

day operation; in case of a three shift per day operation it

will be reduced to approximately 57%„

If the accepted economic life for a one shift per day

operation is 9 years, the accelerated economic life for a two

shift per day operation will be 9 x 0.67 = 6 years, and for

a three shift per day operation, 9 x 0.57 = 5.15 years.

Item 3. Average Annual Investment

Average annual investment is a concept introduced as

a means of maintaining a constant yearly charge, over the
life of the truck, for items such as interest, taxes, insur­

ance and storage, and is represented by the following

expression:
n '+ • 1
Average annual investment •= ________ x initial investment (10)
. n
2

where:

n is the economic life of the equipment in years.

Item 4. Depreciation

Depreciation is an allowance made for exhaustion and

wear of the equipment, including a certain allowance for ■

obsolescence. This item may be handled in many different ways

but the accepted method for this paper is the "Straight Line

Depreciation."
 47

total initial investment -

residual value (
1 1 )
Annual depreciation rate = ■■
. life in years

Item 5 . Interest, Taxes, Insurance and Storage

These items are expressed as a constant percentage of

the average annual investment. Although this percentage may

vary slightly from one case to the other, a fixed value of

1 2 % is taken for the purpose of this paper, of which 6 %

covers interests, 2% taxes, 3% insurance, and the remaining

1 % for storage charges,

Item 6 . Total Fixed Cost,

The total fixed cost is equivalent to the ownership

cost and represents the summation of items 4 and 5,

Item 7, Repairs, Maintenance and Supplies

Repairs, maintenance and supplies are generally con­

sidered to be an amount equal to a certain percentage of the

reserve for depreciation. It is largely dependent upon the

working conditions under which the vehicle is operating. For

that reason a wide rapge of variation must be admitted. For

the type of vehicles herein discussed the range lies between

40 and 90% of the annual depreciation rate.

Item 8 . Fuel, Lubrication and Miscellaneous Items

When estimating fuel consumption, the accepted

relationship is the following:

'lbs. of fuel/HP/hr x BHP x load factor (1 2 )

G.P.H. - weight of fuel / gal.

where:

G.P„.H. is the Diesel-fuel consumption in gallons per hour.

, , The weight of this fuel is approximately 7.2

pounds per gallon.

BHP is the brake horsepower taken at the flywheel before

transmission losses.

The weight of fuel consumed per horsepower is approxi­

mately 0.5 lbs. /hr. and the load factor will vary between
0.50 and 0.6 0 depending on the job conditions.

The lubrication oil used is estimated on an hourly

basis by the relationship

lbs.of oil/hp/hr x BHP x load factor vol.of oil changed

G.P.H . — ^
weight of oil per gallon hrs.between
changes

(13)

For an engine over 100 hp, the normal use is 0.007

lbs./HP/hr., and the weight of the lubrication oil is approxi­

mately 7.4 pounds per gallon. The volume of oil changed
 49

includes the capacities of the crankcase, the cooler and

the filter.
The hourly cost of transmission oil, hydraulic oil,

differential oil, converter oil and grease is estimated at

50% of the lubricating oil cost. Filter charges are added

as a miscellaneous item, its hourly cost varying between

1.5 and 6.5 cents.

 50

Item 9o Tire Cost

■ This cost is a very difficult item to be estimated

due to the large number of variables that must be considered

Under excellent working and maintenance conditions, one can

assume an optimum tire life of 500 0 hrs. This optimum tire

life must be derated to the conditions of a given job, and

the various influencing factors are listed below together

with the applicable correction factors,

Table 10

TIRE-LIFE CORRECTION FACTORS

Condition Factor Condition Factor
Maintenance Loading
Excellent 1.0 80% of normal load 1.5
Average 0.9 Within capacity 1.0
Poor 0.7 1 % overload
0 0 . 8

20% overload 0.7

30% overload 0 . 6

Maximum Speeds Curves

10 MPH 1.0 None 1.0
20 MPH 0.8 .Medium 0.9
30 MPH 0.6 Severe 0 . 8
Over .30 MPH less
than 0.6 Grades
Surface Conditions Level haul 1.0
. Soft earth - % maximum grade
6 0.9
no rocks 1.0 15% maximum grade 0.7
Same with some rocks 0.9
Good gravel road 0.9 Tire Inflation
Blasted sharp rock 0.6 >At specified pressure 1 . 0

10% underinflated 0.9

Wheel Position 30% underinflated 0.5
Trailing 1.0
Front 0.9 Other Miscellaneous Combinations
Driver (rear dump) 0.8 None 1.0
Driver (end dump) 0.7 Medium 0.9
Severe 0.8
 51

Item 10 o Labor Cost

The wage of the driver is usually known in any type

of operation but there are several fringe benefits which

have to be evaluated such as Social Security, Workmen’s .

Compensation Insurance,■hospitalization insurance, life

insurance, and paid vacations. All these benefits may be

grouped into one figure representing 25 to 40% of the wages.

All the individual cost factors are compiled in a

logical sequence on the worksheet on page 55 . By following

this procedure, a complete range of trucks was analyzed to

determine the variation of costs per hour versus capacity.

The first step is to determine an average capital

qost vs. capacity relation. This is accomplished by gather­

ing cost data from the various producers of off highway

trucks, and plotting the graph (13).

In order to compare the trucks under equal conditions,

the adopted standard values given below are used. All condi­

tions not listed are to be considered average.

The worksheet on page 55 gives an example of a cost
estimation and in this manner trucks of various capacities
were analyzed in order to arrive at the curve presented on

graph (14). This curve shows the variation of hourly cost

with capacity.

The "Commodity Index" for this year is given on the

graphs. This should enable a person to bring these costs

to date at any time.

 OLD.

100

I VH
i gj. aotQo.a Cost-by 2Tard
Kinimujn
Average _
Maximum.

cii:y

30 4C _ I 50 60. 80 90
Max im.ijiiiL.Ca]>aci l
± 5
 54
Considered Operation Conditions
1 tem Cost
Diesel Fuel $ 0 . 2 0 per gallon
Lubricating Oil $ 1 . 0 0 per gallon
Freight $ 1.25 per cwt.

Operators Wages - $ 3.50 per hour

Oil Change Every 100 hours

Overtime None
Insurance S Misc. 20% of labor charge

Repairs S Supply Average

Tire Life
Condition Factor Condition Factor

Maintenance 0.9 Curves 0.9

Speed • 0.8 Grades 1.0

Surface
Conditions 0.9 Tire inflation 1.0

Loading 1.0 Miscellaneous

Combinations 1.0

The product of these factors 9 which does not include

the factor wheel position 5 is 0.5832.

Wheel Positions Factor Life in House

Trailing 1.0 2916

Front 0.9 2624

Driver (rear .dump) 0.8 2333

Driver (end dump) 0.7 2041

Tire life = (5000) x (0.5832) x (Wheel Position Factor)

 55
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

TRUCK DESCRIPTION: 40 cu-yd Tractor Trailer 525 HP

Production per hour
Weight £ price, fob fact, 99000 $110,000 ____ tons or yds,
Freight $1.25 (Tot. cwt) 990 1,250
Subtotal $111,250 No. of shifts in
Deduct Tire cost 14,00 0 operation 1

Item 1. Total Investment $ 97,250

Item 2. Economic Life 7 yrs. 14,000 hrs,
Item 3. Ave.Invest. 57.1% of item 1 $55,500
Cost/yr, Cost/hr,
Item 4. Depreciation 14.3% of item 1 $ 13,900
Item 5. Int.,Taxes S Ins.12% of item 3 6,650

Item . Total fixed cost 4 £ 5

6 Total $ 20,550 $ 10.30
Item 7. Repair, maintenance £ supplies
7 5% of item 4 per year $ 10,400 $ 5,20

Item 8Fuel, Lubrication £ Misc.

Consumption Cost/gal, Cost/hr,
a. Fuel/hr. 20.8 $ .20 $ 4,16
b. Lub./ hr. ,19 $ ,00 1$ .19
c. Spec.Lub, 50% of b , $ .10
d. Miscellanea (filter) $ .05
e. Total Fuel,Lubrication £ Misc, $ 4.50 $ 4.50
Item 9. Tires Cost/tire
a. No. tires_2 Life 2624 hrs.(free) $ 1.400 1.07
b. No, tires_4 Life 2333 hrs.(driver) $ 1.400 2.40
c. No. tires_4 Life 2916 hrs.(trail.) $ 1.400 1.93
d. Total Tire Cost plus 15% Repaif, etc. 6.20

Item 10. Labor per hr,

a. Driver $ 3.50
b . Overtime of a,
Subtotal (wages plus
overtime) $ 3.50
Liability, Insurance 20%
; of c. $ .70
Total labor $ 4,20 $ 4.20

Item 11. Total Direct Cost ,7, ,9 £ 10

6 8 ' Total $ 30.40
Item 12. Indirect Cost, Engr. Overhead, etc! ~
Item 13. Total Cost 11 £ 12

Item 14. Cost per ton or yard (Cost/hr.) Per ton or

$
(Prod/hr.) yard
 24

20

18

16
o

1:2 anuai’y 19(

10

StrydkCai»ac.

L .X C LR _±R .yC K a__

 CHAPTER IV
TRUCK HAULAGE ON INCLINES

Theoretical Vehicle Speed

The theoretical vehicle speeds are calculated for

various weight to horsepower ratios at different grades by-

accepting a constant rolling resistance of 60 pounds per ton

as given in Table 11.

Net HP at Drive Wheels x 375

MPH * :
--- -------------- --- — (14)
GVW x (RR + 20 x % Grade)

where:

MPH is-the theoretical vehicle speed in miles per hour.

GVW isthe gross vehicle weight in tons.

RR isthe rolling resistance of 60 pounds per ton.

The net horsepower at the drive wheels is equal to

the maximum engine horsepower at the governed speed when

multiplied by 0.7. This factor accounts for the power trans­

mission. efficiency in rubber tired vehicles.

Max. engine HP x 0.7 x 375

MPH = — ----------------- (14a)
eVW x (60 + 20 x % Grade)

When introducing the weight per horsepower ratio

concept the formula becomes:

MPH = 1 X ° - 7 * 3 7 5

lbs./HP x ( 6 0 + 20 x % Grade) (14b)

2000

57
 58

The preceding expression was used to develop graph (15)

giving vehicle speed on various grades for different It/HP.

Table 11

ROLLING RESISTANCE FACTORS

Type of Surface Pounds per ton Percent of

of gross weight gross weight

Smooth Concrete 30 1.5

Smooth Asphalt 36 1 . 8

Smooth Hard Gravel 45 2.3

CO
o
Smooth Hard Dirt 60

Earthy Roads, dry and dusty 1 1 0 5.5

Unplowed Earth, Terrain 150 7.5

Plowed Earth 190 9.5

Earth Road, rutted and uneven 2 1 0 .10.5

Loose Sand and Gravel 280 .14.0

Deeply rutted or soft spongy base 350 17.5

Note: Taken from "Profitable Use of Excavation Equipment," by-

Elmer R. Drevdahl, listed in Recommended Bibliography.
 59

Table 12

TRUCK GRADE ABILITY FOR DIFFERENT

RATIOS OF WEIGHT TO HORSEPOWER*

* Assuming a rolling resistance of 60 pounds per ton.

Weight to Horsepower Ratios

600 500 400 300 200 100

SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR

1 1 0 .9 13.1 16.4 21.9 32.8 65.6
2 8 . 8 10.5 13.1 17.5 26.3 52.5
3 7.3 8 . 8 10.9 14.6 21.9 43.8
4 6.3 7.5 9.4 12.5 18.9 37.5
5 5.5 6 . 6 8 . 2 10.9 16.4 32.8

6 4.9 5.8 7.3 9.7 14.6 29.2

7 4.4 5.3 6 . 6 8 . 8 13.1 26.3
8 4.0 4.8 ' 6 . 0 8 . 0 11.9 23.9
9 3.6 4.4 5.5 7.3 10.9 21.9
1 0 3.4 4.0 5.0 6.7 1 0 . 1 2 0 . 2

1 1 3.1 3.8 4.7 6.3 9.4 18.8

1 2 2.9 3.5 .4.4 5.8 8 . 8 17.5
13 2.7 3.3 4.1 5.5 8 . 2 16.6
14 2 . 6 3.1 3.9 5.1 7.7 15.5
15 2.4 2.9 3.6 4.9 7.3 14.6

16 2.3 2 . 8 3.5 4.6 6.9 13.8

17 2 . 2 2 . 6 3.3 4.4 6 . 6 13.1
18 2 . 1 2.5 3.1 4.2 6.3 12.5
19 2 . 0 2.4 3.0 4.0 6 . 0 11.9
2 0 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.8 5.7 11.4
 ~ : rr~r ^ i Lj

6 • 0 0 HO - — I i -f.
0 — — i l l T
560 300 200 ; Itis/ iRLOO Weight to. Horsepower Ratios

OO Ibs./toh Rol ihg Resistance

__4 Speed in.JMPH 25 .4 - -30

4 i m
HEOR TICAl TRu k SPEEDS (t)N GRADES
6
CT)
O
 61

Time to Gain 10 0 Feet in Elevation

Considering the speeds calculated for trucks of

different weight to horsepower ratios on various grades ». the "

times to gain 1 0 0 feet in elevation are computed by the

following formula:

Inclined Distance
_______ _[________ )(15)
Time to gain 100 ft. in elevation = MPH x 8 8ft./min.

The times are obtained in minutes and given in graph

(16).
The inclined distances corresponding to different

percent grades result from:

Inclined Distance
100 feet A

100
. _ (16)
in Inclined Distance AB
or
100
Inclined Distance = ------- (16a)
Sin A

tytieee A is the angle that corresponds to the various percent

grades.
 , 5( 0 6 Jt Weight
0 1 :c Horsepower 1 0 s

ling
_

Time tq Gair 1 0 0 ft in Elevfatioh (min.)

■JHEDRfiTICAU TIMtis TO GAIN 100 ft IN ELEVATION

 63

Table 13
INCLINED DISTANCES

Grade. Inclined % Grade Inclined % Grade Inclined

Distance Distance Distance

1 1 0 1 0 0 ML .., 914 2 1 486

- 2 5000 1 2 838 2 2 466
3 ' 3367 13 775 23 446
4 2492 14 722 24 428
5 2 0 0 0 15 67 4 . 25 412
6 1670 16 634 26 398
7 1433 = 17 597 27 383
8 1256 ' 18 565 28 371
9 1114 19 537 29 359
1 0 1004 2 0 510 30 348

Distances given in feet

Analysis of Actual Performance

Actual performance charts are furnished by the produ­

cers of the various brands of off highway trucks. These

charts were constructed on the basis of field observations.

Due to variables of mechanical nature several performance

charfs may be presented for a certain type of truck depending

upon the kind of transmission used in each, case„ Average

performance is used for the purpose of this study.

Once the average performance curves have been defined

for trucks of the 3009 400•and 500 pounds per horsepower

range, the grade ability is taken in each case and the time

to gain 100 feet in elevation is computed^ The resulting

 64

values are plotted against the various grades and the

curves are shown on graph (17).

When comparing the average performance curves with

those obtained by the theoretical approach, it should be

noted that for a certain percent grade there is a verydefi­

nite increase in the time necessary to gain 1 0 0 feet in

elevation. This increase does not appear on the curves

obtained by the theoretical approach.

This increase in time or decrease in maximum vehicle

speed is mainly due to a drop in horsepower output occurring

at engine speeds other than the rated speed. The increase

in the time necessary to gain 1 0 0 feet in elevation defines

a range of optiflium grades for trucks of any weight to horse­

power ratio.
By further analyzing the curves, although regular

curves have been adapted to the overall performance, a number

of inflections appear in the actual data. These inflections

are due to gear changes performed in an incorrect manner since

the optimum number of revolutions per minute is surpassed, and

the decrease in horsepower output becomes visible in the form

of these inflections.
A declining performance is noted between 9% and 11%

grades following a peak performance. The peak performance

represents one of the suboptimum grade ranges shown on

graph (17). The suboptimum grade range situated in the upper

part of the graph is not applicable in actual practice since

 Graph ( 17 > I

Weight to:.Horsepower Ratios

lbs •/

Id.JLhs
num Grade R

Times Lievat ion (min.)

L TIMES: TO GAIN 1 0 0 fti_IR ELEVATE

 66

the braking power constitutes a limiting factor when

returning on such steep grades. With correct timing of gear

changes and constantly maintaining the rated engine speed,

the continuous and regular curve "can be approached, the

inflections are eliminated and this amplifies the suboptimum

grade ranges to one overall optimum grade range.■
The grade range that has been determined on the ■

curves of actual performance is transferred onto the theoreti­

cal performance curves, defining the grades on which trucks
of different weight to horsepower ratios will gain 1 0 0 feet
in elevation in the shortest time. See graph (18).

Cost of Elevating One Cubic Yard 100 feet

Having determined the shortest times necessary to

gain 1 0 0 feet in elevation for trucks of the various weight

to horsepower ratios, the next step to be taken is to include

the factor cost as determined in chapter III. On graph (14)

the total ownership and operating cost per hour is found for
trucks of capacities ranging between 10 and 40 cu. yds.

The transportation cost per cubic yard per minute is

calculated and multiplied by the time to gain 1 0 0 feet in

elevation given on graph (18), thereby obtaining the cost of

elevating one cubic yard 1 0 0 feet on various grades by means

of trucks with different capacities and weight to horsepower -

ratios.
Weighty to _Horse.pt>wer Ratios Graph C 18 )
100 I 200 | 300 4 500 600

/ton ing KeSjis

e to jgain 100 ft in Elevation (min.)

OPtXMUM; GRADt RANGES

p..--t 0-^1
|-nTHEORETICAL
.. j TtME
m.,,.... CURVES
... . -.
fr... , -
• I lT 1 . . ' I I i i i . ! i ! ■ i -t . ;
 68

The results of the above calculations are summarized

on graphs (19 through 22), for trucks with a struck capacity

of 10, 20, 30, and 40 cubic yards.
By taking the percent grade as the ordinate and the
cost to elevate one cubic yard 1 0 0 feet as the abscissa, four

curves were plotted for each truck capacity =, .. These curves

represent four different weight to horsepower ratios- and

cover the range between 200 and 500 pounds per horsepower».

The range of grades which represents the most economical

haulage conditions in each case is indicated on the graphs.

By means of interpolation, the minimum cost to ele­

vate one cubic yard 1 0 0 feet may be found for other combina­

tions of ratios and capacities occurring in off highway

trucks„
200 300 uoo! too Weight to Horsiepower Ratios

' | : -4-
t
-

_j i
— ph _ Jl _ j__ l__-.

iStruclk trujck CajpaGitjv * I

i L ‘ 1
9-fitjmuffl-Gra^e

os er Yard deviation
12

COST OF; ELEVATING 1 iCU.YDl. 1 0 0 ft CD

to
 200 306 400 j500 Weight tp Horsepower Raitios

Graph ( 2 0 )

jstffuc{k_.iruigk_Caka.cil,

i t Optimum --Grade- Rarge

T.J
Cpst per Yajrd to gain 100 ft in Elevation
10 12

COST OF iELpMTT N’G 1 CU. YD*. 100

 200 300140 0 500 powejr Ratios

-St^ruck—Iru c J c - -Ca,paci^t

osj per IYard:to g a m 100 Ift in Eievfrtion' ( US

1 1 2

OF EL VATING 1 U.YD. 100 ft III

 W e i g h t to H o r s e p o w er R a tilos

S±ruck_Track

Optimum Gita-de-H^an-ge

Yard tc gair| 100 ift iq Elevatior US

OF EL EVATING 1
 73

CONCLUSIONS

The important conclusion to be drawn from this

work is that a prediction of performance and cost will

always differ from actual data due to the large number of

variables involved <, and the difficulty of properly evalu­

ating some of these variables. However, the obtained^ results

remain within the accuracy needed by the engineer for field

operation predictions. Moreover, these predictions have a

value for comparative purposes since standard procedures

are established to evaluate the various alternatives.

Additional study of the variables involved in

performance and cost predictions may give more accurate

results s It is recommended that special emphasis be placed

upon the study of the variables affecting power losses due

to internal friction in vehicles of the type discussed in

this paper.
APPENDIX A

74
 75

Field Data

The data contained in this appendix have been

collected in a two week time study performed on a fleet of

six semitrailer Diesel trucks with a 525 net engine horse­

power and a capacity of 40 cubic yards„

The total haul distance of 4.2 miles was divided

into ten sections corresponding to major grade changes, The

extensions and percent grade of these sections are given below:
Haul Section, % Grade Extension in ft.

1 • - .
1 2 0 0 0

2 - 1.5 3700
3 1. 3200
4 - . 8 , 2200
5 1.2 3200
6 1. 2200
7 2.5 2800
8 2. 1400

Besides the above sections on the haul road there are

two additional sections in the total haul distance, a 550 feet

level haul distance inside the pit perimeter, and a 1500 feet
distance with a (-). % grade near the crusher.
6

By closely following the trucks on their complete

cycle, the travel times for each section were taken with a

stopwatch and then converted to speed in miles per hour. The

computed speeds for each of the haul sections represent an

average of six trucks and 6 6 individual checks.

 76

Haul speed's .with a 240 9 0 0 0 pounds gross vehicle weight

Section % Grade Speed in MPH

1 - .
1 24.8
2 - 1.5 33.5
3 1. 30.4
4 - . 8 31.1
5 1 . 2 .26.9
6 1. 2 8 . 2

7 2.5 13.4
8 2. 13.0

Return speeds with a 100,000 pounds net vehicle weight

Section ■ % Grade Speed in MPH

8 - .
2 34.6
7 — 2.5 33.4
6 - .
1 33.3
5 — 1 . 2 ’
a 33.2
4 .
6 8 33.4
3 - .
1 34.1
2 1.5 33.1
1 1. 33.0

A governor was installed to limit the engine speed

to the rated 22 50 RPM and the drivers were instructed to

change into another gear at 1600 RPM.

 77

Special attention was given to deceleration times and

distances. They were taken on a level haul and the results
are shown below:

Normal stop with a total vehicle weight of 240,000 pounds

Speed DeceloDist» Decel.Time Gear Decel,Rate

ft/seco feet sec. ft/sec/sec.
i
2 0 0 52 5.6 1 3.57
29.4 80 6.4 2 4.60
41.6 175 7.2 3 5.78
55.5 2 92 9.0 4 6.17

Emergency stop with a total vehicle weight of 240,000 lbs

2 0 . 2 2 1 2 . 8 1 7.21
29.. 4 • 52 3.4 2 8.65
41,, 6 103 4.2 3 9.90
55.5 188 5.9 4 9.41

Normal stop with a total vehicle weight of 100 ,000 pounds

29.4 108 . 7.4 2 3.97
41.5 205 9.6' 3 4.32
56.0 273 8.5 4 6.59

Emergency stop with a total vehicle weight of 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 lbs

29.4 44 3.6 2 8.17

41.5 67 4.0 . 3 10.40
56.0 135 4.6 4 1 1 . 2 2

These braking data were gathered by clocking the speed

of the truck between two stakes of known separation. At the

instant the second stake was reached the driver would begin

the braking period. This was timed and measured.

 APPENDIX B

78
5
 79

Held Data

Time studies were performed on a 45 ton truck having

a weight to horsepower ratio of 150 when empty and 300 when

loaded, The following are the results of the time study:

Total Total
Accel,S Accel,g
Max, Accel, Decel„ Decel, Accel, Decel, Decel,
Speed Dist, Dist, Dist, Time Time, Time
in MPH in ft, in ft, in ft, in min, in min. in min.

For a 150 pounds per horsepower ratio':

1 % 40 2 0 60 0.05 0.06 0 . 1 1

2 0 195 80 275 0 . 2 2 0.09 0.31

30 855 ■ 19.5 1050 0.65 0.19 0.84

For a 300 pounds per horsepower ratioi:

1 0 50 2 0 70 0 . 1 1 0 . 0 6 ' 0.17

2 0 670 80 7 50 0.76 0.09 0.85

30 3000 195 3200 2 . 1 0 0.19 2.29

These figures have been elaborated in order to obtain

average speed correction factors for the two studied weight

to horsepower ratios and various haul distances. See next

page for elaboration of data.

 80
Dist . Time Average Average
ax at at Time Total Speed Speed Correcti'
peed Haul Max. Max. Acc. Haul in ft/sec in MPH Factor
PH Dist . Speed Speed Dec. 8 Time
For a 150 pounds per horsepower ratio:
1 0 500 440 0.50 0 . 1 1 0.61 825 9.4 0.94
2 0 500 225 0.13 0.31 0.44 1140 12.9 0.645
30 500 ■ —

1 0 1 0 0 0 940 1.07 0 . 1 1 1.18 . 850 9.65 0.965

2 0 1 0 0 0 725 0.41 0.31 0.72 1390 15.8 0.79
30 1 0 0 0 -
1 0 2500 2440 2.77 0 . 1 1 2 . 8 8 865 9.8 - 0.98
2 0 2500 2225 1.26 0.31 1.57 1590 18.1 0.91
30 2500 1450 0 .55 0.84 1.39 1800 20.5 0 . 6 8

1 0 5000 4940 5.61 0 . 1 1 5.72 870 9.9 0.99

2 0 5000; 4725 2 . 6 8 0.31 2.99 1675 19.0 0.95
30 5000 3950 1.50 0.84 2.34 2140 24.3 0.81
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9940 11.30 0 . 1 1 11.41 880 1 0 . 0 1 . 0 0

2 0 1 0 0 0 0 9725 5.53 0.31 5.84 1710 19.4 0.97

30 1 0 0 0 0 8950 3.39 0.84 4.23 2360 2 6 . 8 0.895

For <a 300 pounds per horsepower :

1 0 500 430 0.49 0.17 0 . 6 6 760 8 . 6 0 . 8 6

2 0 500 -

30 500
1 0 1 0 0 0 930 1.06 0.17 1.23 815 9.25 0.9 25
2 0 1 0 0 0 250 0.14 0.85 0.99 1 0 1 0 11.5 0.575
30 1 0 0 0 —
1 0 2500 2430 2.76 0.17 2.9 3 855 9.7 0.97
2 0 2500 1750 0.99 0.85 1.84 1360 15.3 0.775
30 2500 -
1 0 5000 4930 5.61 0.17 5.78 867 9.85 0.985
2 0 5000 4250 2.42 0 .85 3.27 15 30 17.4 0.87
30 5000 1800 0 . 6 8 2.29 2.97 16 75 19.1 0.635
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9930 11.30 0.17 11.47 875 9.95 0.995
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 . 9250 5.26 0.85 6 . 1 1 1635 18.6 0.97.
30 1 0 0 0 0 6800 2.58 2.29 4.87 20 50 23.3 0.78

Note: The figures are given with slide rule approximation,

 81

RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Drevdahl, E. R. "Profitable Use of Excavation Equipment,"

Desert Laboratoriess ,Inc», Tucson, Arizona, 1961.

Saal, Carl. "Evaluation of Factors Used to Compute Truck

Performance." SAE Quarterly Transactions, Vol. 3,
No. 2, April, 1949.

________ . "Truck Road Performance - Actual vs. Computed."

SAE Quarterly Transactions, Vol. 5, No. 1,
January, 1961.

Stamm, A. E ., and Lamb, E. P. "Predicting Road Performance

of Commercial Vehicles." SAE Quarterly Trans­
actions , Vol. 4, No. 2, April, 1850.
"Off Highway Trucks." Automotive Industry, 126 : 84 - 87
June 15, 1962,

"Truck Ability Prediction Procedure." SAE Recommended Practice

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. ■