Cat® Product Information

Performance Report
February 2015

Cat® 6050 FS
and 6060 FS at
La Herradura
Gold Mine
(Sonora, Mexico)

Cat® 6050 FS

Cat 6060 FS

For Dealer Sales Personnel

Study Purpose The purpose of the study was to measure the productivity and
the cycle times of various 6050 FS (RH200) and 6060 FS with
various operators.

Job Site Location Fresnillo, Minera Penmont S. de R.L. de C.V.

La Herradura Gold Mine, Sonora, Mexico

Study Dates October 24th–31st, 2014

Field Data By Alfredo Eguiarte – Empresas Matco

Mark Kafarela – HMS Operator Trainer, Australia
Volker Boernke – Caterpillar Global Mining, Dortmund

Written By Volker Boernke – Caterpillar Global Mining, Dortmund

Tested Units “Pala 201” – RH200 (SN 200135) 26 m³ FS 21,885 wh

“Pala 3” – 6050 FS (SN 200157) 26 m³ FS 9,043 wh
“Pala 4” – 6060 FS (SN 340158) 34 m³ FS 6,090 wh
“Pala 5” – 6060 FS (SN 340159) 34 m³ FS 8,218 wh

Trucks Cat 785C Target payload 136 t (+10%, – 5%)

Cat 789C and D Target payload 177 t (+10%, – 5%)
Cat 793F Target payload 220 t (+10%, – 5%)

Material Blasted rock with a loose density of approximately 1.8 t/m³

2
The La Herradura gold mine operates a large mining fleet Mine Site Information
of more than 300 Cat machines. The loading and hauling
fleet consists of:
• Five (5) hydraulic mining shovels
• 11 large wheel loaders (994, 993, 992)
• 86 trucks

The production per day is approximately 500 000 tonnes.

Cat MineStar™ is used as dispatch system to define the loading

and dumping targets of the trucks.

The current depth of the pit is approximately 300 m.

The standard bench height in the mine is 8 m, to allow safe Bench Height
loading operations of the wheel loaders. This is also acceptable
for the hydraulic mining shovels, however their production
would be higher at about 12 m high benches (in rolling material)
as less repositioning would be necessary.

Machine cycles were timed using a portable computer and Test Procedure
software. During each cycle, four separate time segments were
collected. The sum of the segments is combined to produce
the total cycle time per pass.

The truck payloads had been reported by the truck drivers

via radio.

3
Executive Summary of Results
a) RH200 and 6050 FS Studies
Shovel Pala 201 – RH200 Pala 3 – 6050 FS
Date Oct. 28, 2014 Oct. 29, 2014
Operator Julio Julio Mark Julio Mark Julio Mark
Galvez Galvez Kafarela Galvez Kafarela Torres Kafarela
Duration 80 min 90 min 92 min 93 min 85 min 55 min 92 min
Special condition Toes at ground Better Old waste dump, but compacted and
than stands straight-up; thus not so easy
Julio’s to dig
Cycle Times
Evaluated number of cycles 97 94 96 127 125 79 128
Average swing empty 7.0 s 8.1 s 7.1 s 8.0 s 7.0 s 7.6 s 7.7 s
Average bucket fill 10.7 s 11.5 s 9.6 s 11.6 s 10.5 s 11.2 s 10.9 s
Average swing loaded 7.0 s 7.9 s 6.7 s 7.4 s 6.7 s 6.8 s 7.2 s
Average dumping 2.7 s 2.8 s 2.6 s 2.9 s 2.6 s 2.6 s 2.4 s
Total average cycle time 27.4 s 30.3 s 26.0 s 29.9 s 26.8 s 28.2 s 28.2 s
Productivity
Evaluated number of trucks 30 30 30 30 30 19 30
Actual average 70 s 86 s 103 s 60 s 57 s 57 s 62 s
truck spotting time
including delays
Actual production at 3264 t/h 2895 t/h 2949 t/h 3536 t/h 3953 t/h 4003 t/h 3684 t/h
above spotting times @ 70 s @ 86 s @ 103 s @ 60 s @ 57 s @ 57 s @ 62 s
including delays
Theoretical production 3490 t/h 3379 t/h 3827 t/h 3536 t/h 3884 t/h 3942 t/h 3717 t/h
at equalized spotting time @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
of 60 seconds
Theoretical production 3874 t/h 3735 t/h 4267 t/h 3838 t/h 4251 t/h 4301 t/h 4050 t/h
at equalized spotting time @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s
of 45 seconds

4
 Executive Summary of Results
b) 6060 FS Studies
Shovel Pala 4 – 6060 FS Pala 5 – Pala 5 – 6060 FS
6060 FS
Date Oct. 30, 2014 Oct. 30, Oct. 31, 2014
2014
Operator Julio Mark Mark Diego Mark Dioscoro Mark
Galvez Kafarela Kafarela Fierros Kafarela Rangel Kafarela
Duration 73 min 82 min 52 min 85 min 72 min 96 min 79 min
Special condition Reasonable
fragmentation
Poor and good Poor
fragmentation fragmentation
Poor and good Poor
fragmentation fragmentation
Good fragmentation

Cycle Times
Evaluated number of cycles 81 89 50 85 75 80 81
Average swing empty 8.4 s 7.1 s 7.3 s 7.9 s 8.0 s 8.4 s 7.1 s
Average bucket fill 12.2 s 12.4 s 13.9 s 11.6 s 12.8 s 14.3 s 12.8 s
Average swing loaded 7.4 s 7.0 s 6.7 s 6.6 s 7.4 s 7.7 s 7.0 s
Average dumping 3.0 s 2.9 s 3.2 s 3.2 s 3.2 s 3.0 s 2.8 s
Total average cycle time 31.0 s 29.5 s 31.1 s 29.3 s 31.4 s 33.4 s 29.8 s
Productivity
Evaluated number of trucks 22 27 15 23 22 28 30
Actual average 87 s 85 s 105 s 116 s 88 s 110 s 78 s
truck spotting time
including delays
Actual production at 4093 t/h 4420 t/h 3618 t/h 3575 t/h 3924 t/h 3825 t/h 4802 t/h
above spotting times @ 87 s @ 85 s @ 105 s @ 116 s @ 88 s @ 110 s @ 78 s
including delays
Theoretical production 4727 t/h 5111 t/h 4602 t/h 4748 t/h 4568 t/h 5039 t/h 5419 t/h
at equalized spotting time @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
of 60 seconds
Theoretical production 5154 t/h 5640 t/h 5058 t/h 5204 t/h 5010 t/h 5567 t/h 6054 t/h
at equalized spotting time @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s
of 45 seconds

5
Mine Overview – Oct. 27, 2014
Pala 4 and 5 – 6060 FS Pala 4 and 5 load area Pala 201– RH200 Pala 3 – 6050 FS
Oct. 30/31 with better blast

Pala 10 – RH200 (not tested)

Studies – Oct. 28, 2014 Pala 201 – RH200 General Conditions

Pala 201 – RH200 • Bench height approximately 8 m
with 26 m³ FS • Fair fragmentation of material, however with some
compacted material at the lower part towards the ground
• Confined space for truck spotting

6
Pala 201 – RH200 Comments on Tests with Julio Galvez
• During both tests with Julio Galvez in the morning, it
appeared that the material was more compacted at the lower
part of the bench
• He achieved good bucket fills when digging out of the bench
• When digging from ground or doing clean-up in front of
tracks the bucket fill could be improved
– However, this could had been also affected by toes in the
ground as a dozer was ripping the ground later on

Pala 201 – RH200 Comments on Test with Mark Kafarela

• During Mark’s test in the afternoon, the conditions seemed
to be better than the conditions during Julio’s test in the
morning
– Especially no compacted areas at lower end of face
• Mark achieved visually good bucket fill factors
– As per dispatch screen in cab Mark often achieved
117–130 t with the first three (3) passes (he guessed
about 50% of the 785 loads) and decided to load another
last pass with 30–50% capacity to achieve 136 t plus
– 117–130 t would mean 83%–93% bucket fill
• The actual production per hour was affected by a
seven (7) min break due to mine surveyors

7
 Pala 201 – RH200 Test Results – Truck Spotting
Operator Julio Julio Mark
Galvez Galvez Kafarela
Number of trucks evaluated 30 30 30
Average truck spotting time 70 s 86 s 103 s*
including delays
Average of all regular truck 55 s 66 s 65 s
spotting times
Fastest regular truck 28 s 43 s 40 s
spotting time
*Includes a seven (7) min break due to mine surveyors

The regular truck spotting times are negatively affected by the

confined space in the spotting area, especially during Julio’s 2nd
test and Mark’s test in the afternoon.

Pala 201 – RH200 Test Results – Production

Operator Julio Julio Mark
Galvez Galvez Kafarela
Number of trucks evaluated 24x 785s 22x 785s 24x 785s
6x 789s 8x 789s 6x 789s
Average cycle time 27.4 s 30.3 s 26.0 s
Average bucket fill 73.9% 73.9% 79%*
Average no. of passes 4.2 3.9 4.0
On
Average loading time 90 s 90 s 80 s
785s
Average payload 140.5 t 139.0 t 147.4 t
Average no. of passes 4.5 4.9 5.0
On
Average loading time 95 s 118 s 107 s
789s
Average payload 169.7 t 171.3 t 183.3 t
Actual average truck spotting 70 s 86 s 103 s
including delays
Actual production at 3264 t/h 2895 t/h 2949 t/h
above spotting @ 70 s @ 86 s @ 103 s
Theoretical production at 3490 t/h 3379 t/h 3827 t/h
60 seconds spotting @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
Theoretical production at 3874 t/h 3735 t/h 4267 t/h
45 seconds spotting @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s
*Often last bucket was filled ≤ 50%

8
Pala 201 – RH200 Test Results – Cycle Times
Operator Julio Julio Mark
Galvez Galvez Kafarela
Evaluated number of cycles 97 94 96
Average swing empty 7.0 s 8.1 s 7.1 s
Average bucket fill 10.7 s 11.5 s 9.6 s
Average swing loaded 7.0 s 7.9 s 6.7 s
Average dumping 2.7 s 2.8 s 2.6 s
Total average cycle time 27.4 s 30.3 s 26.0 s

Both operators had been working very fast and consistent,

which is also shown by the following cycle time charts.
Mark’s conditions in the afternoon had been a bit better
than those of Julio in the morning.

Pala 201 – Julio Galvez #1 Pala 201 – Julio Galvez #2

Number

Number

Cycle Times Cycle Times

Pala 201 – RH200 – Mark Kafarela

Number

Cycle Times

9
Studies – Oct. 29, 2014 Pala 3 – 6050 FS General Conditions
Pala 3 – 6050 FS • Old waste dump with 15 m high face
with 26 m³ FS • Material quite compacted and stands straight-up and
therefore was not so easy to dig as expected from a waste
dump (Material did not flow down on its own)
• Wide space for truck spotting
• Shovel #3 was slow on boom-up and even more on boom-
down which was slightly affecting cycle times

Pala 3 – 6050 FS
Comments on Test with Julio Galvez (1st in the morning)
• When digging from ground Julio Galvez seemed to be very
careful but fill factors could be improved here
– Maybe Julio should leave some more material in front of
tracks before clean-up
• Very dusty conditions during this test so that it was difficult
to see the face on some occasions
• Occasionally a last quick bucket was filled ~50% only

Pala 3 – 6050 FS
Comments on Mark’s First Test (2nd in the morning)
• Conditions had been very similar to the previous test,
but less dusty
• Mark often did a last quick bucket which was filled
30–50% only
– As per dispatch screen in cab he often achieved 160–172 t
with the first four (4) passes (he guessed about 50% of the
789 loads) and decided to load another last pass with
30–50% capacity to achieve 180 t plus
– 160–172 t at four (4) passes would mean 85–92% bucket fill

10
Pala 3 – 6050 FS
Comments on Test with Julio Torres (1st in the afternoon)
• Very similar conditions to previous tests in the morning
• Julio Torres worked very consistent and fast. He loaded also
some last 30–50% capacity passes similar to Mark.
• Julio Torres achieved slightly higher production figures than
Mark, which is remarkable

Pala 3 – 6050 FS
Comments on Mark’s Second Test (2nd in the afternoon)
• Similar conditions to previous tests but with more tails in the
spot areas
• Loading of those tails restricted the quantity of high material
within reach and thus affected the achieved average bucket
fill factor

Pala 3 – 6050 FS Test Results – Truck Spotting

Operator Julio G. Mark Julio T. Mark
Number of trucks evaluated 30 30 19 30
Average truck spotting time 60 s 57 s 57 s 62 s
including delays
Average of all regular truck 51 s 49 s 44 s 49 s
spotting times
Fastest regular truck 36 s 38 s 36 s 36 s
spotting time
Number of spotting times 11 12 11 13
less than 45 s

• Pala 3 was fully trucked-up which is reflected in the average

spotting time of all four tests of approximately 60 s
• During each test there had been only one (1) or two (2) trucks
which arrived late
• Delay times are mainly caused by shovel repositioning
or auxiliary works
• There was a wide open space for truck spotting which
is reflected by the really good average of all regular truck
spotting times and the high number of spotting times
with less than 45 s

11
 Pala 3 – 6050 FS Test Results – Production
Operator Julio G. Mark K. Julio T. Mark K.
Number of trucks 26x 789 26x 789 15x 789 27x 789
evaluated 4x 793 4x 793 4x 793 3x 793
Average cycle time 29.9 s 26.8 s 28.2 s 28.2 s
Average bucket fill 75.8%* 77.6%* 81.6%* 76.5%
Avg. no. of passes 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1
On
Avg. loading time 120 s 107 s 112 s 116 s
789s
Avg. payload 179.6 t 182.8 t 186.8 t 184.5 t
Avg. no. of passes 6.5 6.5 6.3 5.1
On
Avg. loading time 191 s 155 s 150 s 183 s
793s
Avg. payload 225.3 t 219.0 t 235.0 t 225.0 t
Actual average truck 60 s 57 s 57 s 62 s
spotting including
delays
Actual production at 3536 t/h 3953 t/h 4003 t/h 3684 t/h
above spotting @ 60 s @ 57 s @ 57 s @ 62 s
Theoretical production 3536 t/h 3884 t/h 3942 t/h 3717 t/h
at 60 seconds spotting @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
Theoretical production 3838 t/h 4251 t/h 4301 t/h 4050 t/h
at 45 seconds spotting @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s
*Often last bucket was filled ≤ 50%

12
Pala 3 – 6050 FS Test Results – Cycle Times
Operator Julio G. Mark Julio T. Mark
Evaluated number of cycles 127 125 79 128
Average swing empty 8.0 s 7.0 s 7.6 s 7.7 s
Average bucket fill 11.6 s 10.5 s 11.2 s 10.9 s
Average swing loaded 7.4 s 6.7 s 6.8 s 7.2 s
Average dumping 2.9 s 2.6 s 2.6 s 2.4 s
Total average cycle time 29.9 s 26.8 s 28.2 s 28.2 s

Again all operators had been working very fast and consistent,
which is also shown by the following cycle time charts.

Pala 3 – Julio Galvez Pala 3 – Mark Kafarela #1

Number

Number

Cycle Times Cycle Times

Pala 3 – Julio Torres Pala 3 – Mark Kafarela #2

Number

Number

Cycle Times Cycle Times

13
Studies – Oct. 30, 2014 Pala 4 – 6060 FS General Conditions
Pala 4 and 5 – 6060 FS • 8 m bench
with 34 m³ FS • The fragmentation had been varying considerably within
the bench

Reasonable and later in the day Poor fragmentation at the

good fragmentation at the left berm against the low wall side
side of the bench (pit edge)

• Quite narrow space for truck spotting and Pala 4 and 5 had
been working in so close proximity that truck spotting of
both machines had been interfering with each other

Pala 5 and truck for Pala 5 Pala 4

14
Pala 4 – 6060 FS Comments on Test with Julio Galvez
• Reasonable fragmentation with few interlocked sections
• Quite good fill factors when digging out of the bench
• Occasionally a last quick bucket was filled ~50% only

Pala 4 – 6060 FS Comments on Mark’s Test 1 and 2

Test 1
• Poor fragmentation for trucks 1–12 at the berm against the
low wall side (pit edge)
• Good fragmentation starting with truck #13

Test 2
• The mine site requested Mark to move back to the berm side
of the bench
• Poor fragmentation during the entire 2nd test

Pala 4 – 6060 FS Comments on Test with Diego Fierros

Similar to Mark’s 1st test Diego Fierros had been working
in two different load areas.
• Good fragmentation for trucks 1–13
• Poor fragmentation starting with truck #14 at the berm
against the low wall side (pit edge)

15
 Pala 5 – 6060 FS Comments on Mark’s Test
On Oct. 30th Mark did another test on Pala 5.
• Reasonable blast but with interlocked sections and some
really big boulders

• Worst material of all tests during the entire week

Pala 4 – 6060 FS Test Results – Truck Spotting

• The long actual truck spotting times are mainly caused by
truck delays. There had been waiting times up to six (6) min
before the next truck arrived.
• The long regular truck spotting times are mainly caused by
confined space and that Pala 4 and 5 had been working in so
close proximity that truck spotting of both machines had
been interfering with each other
• Some long truck spotting times had been caused by shovel
operators before they presented the first bucket

Shovel Pala 4 Pala 5

Operator Julio Mark Mark Diego Mark
Galvez Kafarela Kafarela Fierros Kafarela
Number of trucks evaluated 22 27 15 23 22
Average truck spotting time including delays 87 s 85 s 105 s 116 s 88 s
Average of all regular truck spotting times 63 s 66 s 86 s 95 s 60 s
Fastest regular truck spotting time 42 s 41 s 60 s 50 s 41 s

16
Pala 4 – 6060 FS Test Results – Production
Shovel Pala 4 Pala 5
Operator Julio G. Mark K. Mark K. Diego F. Mark K.
Number of trucks evaluated 2x 789 5x 789 5x 789 2x 789 27x 789
20x 793 22x 793 9x 793 21x 793 3x 793
Fragmentation Reasonable Poor & good Poor Poor & good Poor
Average cycle time 31.0 s 29.5 s 31.1 s 29.3 s 31.4 s
Average bucket fill 81.0% 86.4% 80.2% 78.5% 80.0%
Average no. of passes 4.0 3.4 3.4 4.0 5.1
On
Average loading time 105 s 78 s 80 s 91 s 116 s
789s
Average payload 165.0 t 184.4 t 167.8 t 194.5 t 184.5 t
Average no. of passes 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.8 5.1
On
Average loading time 118 s 105 s 150 s 113 s 183 s
793s
Average payload 238.8 t 236.8 t 242.9 t 228.5 t 225.0 t
Actual average truck spotting including delays 87 s 85 s 105 s 116 s 88 s
Actual production at above spotting 4093 t/h 4420 t/h 3618 t/h 3575 t/h 3924 t/h
@ 87 s @ 85 s @ 105 s @ 116 s @ 88 s
Theoretical production at 60 seconds spotting 4727 t/h 5111 t/h 4602 t/h 4748 t/h 4568 t/h
@ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
Theoretical production at 45 seconds spotting 5154 t/h 5640 t/h 5058 t/h 5204 t/h 5010 t/h
@ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s

In order to compare the results achieved

just in the good fragmented and the poorly
fragmented material, we have split Mark’s 1st
test and Diego’s test accordingly.

Operator Mark Kafarela Mark K. Diego Fierros

Number of trucks evaluated #1–12 #13–27 #1–13 #14–23
2x 789 3x 789 5x 789 2x 789
10x 793 12x 793 9x 793 13x 793 8x 793
Fragmentation Poor Good Poor Good Poor
Average cycle time 28.5 s 30.5 s 31.1 s 28.3 s 30.5 s
Average bucket fill 79.5% 93.0% 80.2% 80.3% 76.1%
Average no. of passes 4.0 3.0 3.4 4.0
On
Average loading time 90 s 78 s 80 s 91 s
789s
Average payload 183.5 t 185.0 t 167.8 t 194.5 t
Average no. of passes 4.9 4.2 5.0 4.7 4.9
On
Average loading time 114 s 98 s 150 s 107 s 183 s
793s
Average payload 240.7 t 233.6 t 242.9 t 230.6 t 225.0 t
Actual average truck spotting including delays 112 s 64 s 105 s 111 s 104 s
Actual production at above spotting 3750 t/h 5152 t/h 3618 t/h 3803 t/h 3587 t/h
@ 112 s @ 64 s @ 105 s @ 111 s @ 104 s
Theoretical production at 60 seconds spotting 4905 t/h 5295 t/h 4602 t/h 4960 t/h 4485 t/h
@ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
Theoretical production at 45 seconds spotting 5381 t/h 5874 t/h 5058 t/h 5448 t/h 4904 t/h
@ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s

17
Pala 4 – 6060 FS Test Results – Cycle Times
Shovel Pala 4 Pala 5
Operator Julio G. Mark K. Mark K. Diego F. Mark K.
Evaluated number of cycles 81 89 50 85 75
Average swing empty 8.4 s 7.1 s 7.3 s 7.9 s 8.0 s
Average bucket fill 12.2 s 12.4 s 13.9 s 11.6 s 12.8 s
Average swing loaded 7.4 s 7.0 s 6.7 s 6.6 s 7.4 s
Average dumping 3.0 s 2.9 s 3.2 s 3.2 s 3.2 s
Total average cycle time 31.0 s 29.5 s 31.1 s 29.3 s 31.4 s

Again all operators had been working fast and consistent, which is also shown by the following cycle
time charts.

Pala 4 – Julio Galvez Pala 4 – Mark Kafarela #1

Number

Number

Cycle Times Cycle Times

Pala 4 – Mark Kafarela #2 Pala 4 – Diego Fierros

Number

Number

Cycle Times Cycle Times

Pala 5 – Mark Kafarela

Number

Cycle Times

18
Pala 5 – 6060 FS General Conditions Studies – Oct. 31, 2014
• Bench height approximately 8 m Pala 5 – 6060 FS
• Really well blasted and well fragmented material with 34 m³ FS
– Mine stated to have used a higher powder factor to blast
this area
– Best fragmentation of all tests during the entire week
• Although more space than the day before, Pala 4 and 5 had
still been working in so close proximity that truck spotting
of both machines had been interfering with each other

Pala 5 – 6060 FS Comments on Test with Dioscoro Rangel

• Despite the first three (3) trucks loaded in harder
conditions, all remaining trucks had been loaded
in very well fragmented material
• Consistent 4-pass loading on 793s and 3-pass loading
on 789s in well fragmented material
• Dioscoro Rangel achieved some very good bucket fills

19
 Pala 5 – 6060 FS Comments on Mark’s Test
• Very well fragmented material during the entire test
• Mark was also consistently 4-pass loading on 793s and
3-pass on 789s with the exception of 4 passes on 789s
during clean-up in front of tracks
• Also achieved some very good bucket fills

Pala 5 – 6060 FS Test Results – Truck Spotting

Operator Dioscoro Rangel Mark Kafarela
Number of trucks evaluated 28 30
Average truck spotting time 110 s 78 s
including delays
Average of all regular truck 76 s 55 s
spotting times
Fastest regular truck 50 s 40 s
spotting time

• Although more space than the day before, Pala 4 and 5 had
still been working in so close proximity that truck spotting
of both machines had been interfering with each other
• Pala 5 was under-trucked during both tests, in particular
during Dioscoro’s test

20
Pala 5 – 6060 FS Test Results – Production
Operator Dioscoro Dioscoro Mark
first 3 trucks
Rangel not considered Kafarela
Number of trucks evaluated 7x 789s 7x 789s 11x 789s
21x 793s 18x 793s 19x 793s
Average cycle time 33.4 s 33.1 s 29.8 s
Average bucket fill 93.8% 96.4% 95.0%
Average no. of passes 3.0 3.0 3.2
On
Average loading time 67 s 67 s 68 s
789s
Average payload 189.6 t 189.6 t 182.2 t
Average no. of passes 4.1 4.0 4.0
On
Average loading time 109 s 103 s 92 s
793s
Average payload 232.1 t 231.2 t 234.2 t
Actual average truck spotting 110 s 102 s 78 s
including delays
Actual production at 3825 t/h 4053 t/h 4802 t/h
above spotting times @ 110 s @ 102 s @ 78 s
Theoretical production at 5039 t/h 5177 t/h 5419 t/h
60 seconds spotting @ 60 s @ 60 s @ 60 s
Theoretical production at 5567 t/h 5742 t/h 6054 t/h
45 seconds spotting @ 45 s @ 45 s @ 45 s

Pala 5 – 6060 FS Test Results – Cycle Times

Operator Dioscoro Rangel Mark Kafarela
Evaluated number of cycles 80 81
Average swing empty 8.4 s 7.1 s
Average bucket fill 14.3 s 12.8 s
Average swing loaded 7.7 s 7.0 s
Average dumping 3.0 s 2.8 s
Total average cycle time 33.4 s 29.8 s

Pala 5 (Oct. 31) – Dioscoro Rangel Pala 5 (Oct. 31) – Mark Kafarela
Number

Number

Cycle Times Cycle Times

21
Conclusion Operators
All operators were well skilled and worked effectively and
fast. There had been very few things where the operators
might improve, however this would not lead to significant
higher production.

Truck Spotting
The biggest potential to improve the productivity would have
been the reduction of truck delay times but also an improvement
of regular spotting times. During the four tests with Pala 3 on
Oct. 29, 2014 the average of all 105 truck spotting times had
been 59 s including delays and the average of the regular truck
spotting times had been 48 s. The tables used above to summarize
the production results show what production figures could have
been achieved a) at 60 seconds spotting as this had been achieved
with Pala 3 and b) at an ideal spotting time of 45 seconds.

The following diagram is based on the data of the 6060 FS test

with Dioscoro Rangel on Oct. 31, 2014 in order to show the
potential how much the productivity could be increased just
by improving truck spotting times.

Pala 5 – 6060 FS – Dioscoro Rangel – Oct. 31, 2014

5567 t/h
at 45 sec
5039 t/h
at 60 sec
Productivity

3825 t/h
in test

110 sec (1.83 min) 60 sec (1.0 min) 45 sec (0.75 min)
during this test Truck Spotting Time during Pala 3 tests ideal

22
Material Fragmentation
The results achieved on the 30th and especially on the 31th of
October in better fragmented material, due to a higher powder
factor used here for blasting, show clearly the positive affect on
the achieved productivity. This is the result of the high (<95%)
bucket fill factors achieved and consequently the even number
of passes per truck.

A better fragmentation would also reduce stresses not only for

the loading tools but also for the haul trucks to increase lifetime.

Thus fragmentations as shown in the photos should be avoided

when possible.

23
The information contained herein is intended for circulation only to Caterpillar and dealer employees whose duties require knowledge of such reports and
is intended exclusively for their information and training. It may contain unverified analysis and facts observed by various Caterpillar or dealer employees.
However, effort has been made to provide reliable results regarding any information comparing Caterpillar built and competitive machines. Effort has been
made to use the latest available spec sheet and other material in the full understanding that these are subject to change without notice. Any reproduction
of this release without the foregoing explanation is prohibited.

CAT, CATERPILLAR, SAFETY.CAT.COM, their respective logos, “Caterpillar Yellow” and the “Power Edge” trade dress, as well as corporate and product
identity used herein, are trademarks of Caterpillar and may not be used without permission.

TEXR0591
February 2015
www.cat.com

© 2015 Caterpillar
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A.