Wheel Loader Buckets & Digging Forces

Metin Özdoğan
İdeal Makine Danışmanlık Ltd. Şti., Ankara
Hakkı Özdoğan
İdeal Makine Danışmanlık Ltd. Şti., Ankara

ABSTRACT :

Evolution of Wheel loaders from farm tractors fitted with rigid boom and cable
controlled gravity buckets to self contained and articulated frame loaders is
given. Digging forces of Wheel loaders and consisting components penetration
(traction), lifting and curling (tilting) components are given, discussed and
illustrated. Furthermore, stability of the Wheel loaders are discussed with an
emphasis on operating load and static tipping load of the equipment. Favouring
application and operating conditions of Wheel loaders are cited and discussed.

Key Words: Wheel loader, History of Wheel loaders, digging force, digging
force components, bucket operating load, static tipping load, payload to static
tipping load ratio

1 INTRODUCTION

Ancestors of loaders are crawler or wheel farm tractors developed for cultivating
the vast farm fields in Europe and U.S.A. In the early stage of loaders, farm
tractors are fitted with rigid booms and buckets to load and unload and handle
the farm products. The movements of the bucket and booms were cable
controlled. The fist cable-controlled bucket-mounted tractor was invented in
Manchester, England by E. Boydell & Co. in 1930s. A loader bucket fastened on
with wire rope through a clutch operated winch, dumped by gravity through a
trip release operated winch, (Anon a, 2016).

By the advance of technology and hydraulic and hydraulic controls farm tractor
attached loaders evolved to today’s modern industrial wheel loaders (Ozdogan a,
1983). Evolve of solid rubber tyres to inflated tyres with compressed air in early
1930s, wheel loaders developed to a higher stage in terms of carrying heavier
loads at higher speeds (Ozdogan a, 1983). The biggest innovation made in wheel
loader design was articulated frame instead of the rigid frame. After this
innovation, wheel loaders have become standard construction and mining
equipment with higher maneuverability, higher capacity and higher digging
power (Ozdogan a, 1983).

Wheel loader has a wide bucket in order to protect tyres during penetration of
the bucket (Özdoğan b, 1983). Large wheel loaders used in big earthmoving
projects are designed to have four wheel drive system and oscillating rear axle.
The rear tyres oscillate 50 cm to 60 cm in vertical plane independent of each
other. Axle oscillation angle can be up to 30º degrees which prevents the
oscillations caused by ground irregularities to be transmitted to the chasis
(frame). Articulating angle of the loader can be 30º- 40º- 45º degrees to left and
right directions depending on the design, (Özdoğan a, 1983).

Frank G. Hough developed first self-contained (independent loader equipment)

rigid frame, two wheel drive, rubber tyred loader in 1939. It’s bucket was a
gravity bucket with a tiny volume of 0,25m3 only. The rigid frame loader design
had several disadvantages such as lack of maneuverability. Improvements to this
design led to the invention of articulated frame wheel loader (Anon a, 2016).

In 1953, Mixermobile Manufacturers in Portland, Oregon introduced the

articulated Scoopmobile Model L-5 with a bucket of 0,77m3 only. This
advancement gave the operator more control and maneuverability on both the
loader and bucket itself (Anon a, 2016).

The LD5 series was produced until 1965, and the LD10 was discontinued in the
late 1950s or early 1960s. Mixermobile went on to build an extensive line of
models, including a couple of loaders that were, during their production runs,
among the world’s largest. But despite its design advantages, the Scoopmobile
line never achieved its full potential for success, and it wasn’t until the Euclid
Division of General Motors introduced their version of articulated steering in
1959 that the design really took off to become today’s industry standard,
(Berry,T., 2013)
Figure 1. The first articulated wheel loader in year 1953, (Berry,T., 2013).

But the Wagners’( Ed Wagner & Sons Concrete Contractors of Portland,

Oregon) greatest contribution to wheel loader design came in 1953 when they
introduced the LD5 and LD10 Scoopmobiles. Rated at 0,77 m3 and 1,5 m3,
respectively, these were the world’s first articulated-frame wheel loaders. The
articulation allowed for up to 20 degrees “bucket swing,” as their sales literature
put it. Not only was the steering articulated, but the pivot point also provided left
and right oscillation from horizontal, (Berry,T., 2013).

In 1960s, loader manufacturers were focused on improving the strength and

productivity of the equipment. The aim was increasing size and payload of their
equipment. First rigid frame 2,1m3 and articulated frame 4,5m3 were
manufactured and introduced to the market, (Anon a, 2016).
Figure 2. A loader & truck operation in 1960s ( Anon a, 2016)

In the following decade (1970s),15,30m3 capacity wheel loader manufactured

and introduced to earthmoving equipment market by companies like Volvo,
Caterpillar, Komatsu, LeTourneau and JCB (Anon a, 2016).

During 1980s, large mining loader with 19 m3 bucket were introduced by

Kawasaki in Japan (Anon a, 2016).

Ever since, loaders have kept on increasing in size parallel to the manufacturing
of larger sizes off-higway trucks. During 2000s, loader payload capacities
increased even further to 54 tonnes and 73 tonnes with a standard bucket size of
31m3 and 71m3 matching to giant truck sizes of 236-327 tonnes to 290-363
tonnes. Depending on the size of the project, 14m3 (payload 25 tonnes), 19m3
(payload 35 tonnes), 23m3 (payload 41 tonnes), 31m3 (payload 54 tonnes) and
41m3 (payload 73 tonnes) capacity wheel loaders are available and being used in
large openpit mining and earthmoving projects Worldwide.

Today, wheel loaders are advanced, diverse and versatile. New electric wheel
loaders work much the same way as their diesel and gasoline-powered
counterparts do. Attachment options such as forks, grapples and various bucket
options mean that these machines work for any number of applications. Hybrid
models also have become popular due to new legislation and cost savings for
contractors and miners (Anon a, 2016).
2. DIGGING FORCES OF WHEEL LOADER BUCKETS

Wheel loader’s breakout force is created by lift and tilt cylinder; whereas,
penetration or crowding force is generated by the traction force of the tyres.
Penetration force of the bucket is dependent on traction force (Grant, 2014).
Since the traction force is key to wheel loader operation, a dry, level and stable
ground surface and a large area (approx. 25m or wider) are essential. The floor
must be maintained properly to protect the tyres, because the tyres are huge
investment. For wheel loader operation a large bench floor is needed because of
the nature of the operation work cycle involves back and forth movements of the
equipment. The cycle time segments consist of travel to dig, dig, travel to dump
and dump phase. The bench floor has to be stable because ground pressure is
comparatively higher than that of hydraulic shovels. Ground pressure is
typically 60 psi to 80 psi which is 4,22kg/cm2 to 5,62kg/cm2 or 413,69kPa to
551,60kPa.

Figure 3. Digging Forces of wheel loader (Anon f, 2016).

In Figure 3., “P” stands for penetration, “B” stands for breakout or curling (tilt)
and “L” stands for lift (raise) of bucket whereas “N” stands for the force
generated by the weight of the equipment which balances the bucket lifting force
“N”.
Figure 4. Bucket penetration force is created by tranction force of tyres (Anon f,
2016).

Ground engaging tools have dual functions; increasing penetration and

protecting wear and tear of the bucket. Selection of proper type of ground
engaging tools in concordance with the rock material and replacing them when
they are worn improves the cycle time of the equipment through better
penetration into rock material.

Lifting force of the equipment and the density of the material to be handled
governs the size of the bucket, See Figure 5. Therefore, bucket size to be
calculated density of the material and lifting capacity of the equipment in
question. Loader manufacturers usually determine the nominal payload capacity
of the bucket assuming the material density of 1,780 kg/m3. Having the same
lifting capacity, the equipment can handle a larger bucket with a lighter material
such as lignite, See Figure 5.
Figure 5. The lighter the material to be loaded, the larger the bucket size for a
specific Wheel loader.
Figure 6. Efective digging force is generated by the combination of traction,
lifting and breakout (tilting) forces (Anon f, 2016).

Some large mining loaders, having very low center of gravity, are able to
articulate with full turn angle to right and left from 40 º degrees to 45º degrees
with bucket payload depending on the design and model.

Loading time (digging time, bucket fill-in time) should take less than 16 seconds
regardless of the loading tool. Loading times longer than 10-16 seconds may be
an indication that the material/muckpile is not properly conditioned for the
loading tool. It could also be an indication of the operator skill level,
(Valintaopas & Kaivoslastaus, 2013).

3. NOMINAL BUCKET PAYLOADS AND STATIC TIPPING LOADS

Nominal payload is calculation is based on material density, hydraulic lifting

force and bare weight of the bucket. Nominal Payload of Bucket is the payload
designed and recommended for the Wheel loader in question. It is the target
payload of the bucket and the payload is recommended to be in the vicinity of
the target load. Underloading and overloading of the bucket should be avoided
as much as possible. Underloading implies not being able to make use of the
equipment potential, whereas overloading implies hardship on the mechanical
soundness (health) of the equipment in terms of premature wear and tear on the
parts of the EWL. As a rule of thumb, the devaition from the target load should
be in the vicinity of ± 5 %, (Ozdogan 2016).
Figure 7. Nominal payload and static tipping loads of Wheel loaders
Figure 8. Nominal payload to static tipping load ratio (Anon f, 2016).

The ratio of Nominal Payload (N-PYLD) to Static Tipping Load (STLD) varies
from 39 % to 50 % depending on the design and model of the Wheel loader, See
Table 1. below and Figure 7. above. Not to endanger the health of wheel loader,
deviation from the nominal payload should be closely monitored. Bucket
Payload fluctuations should be in the range of ± 5 % of nominal payload.
Underloads is waste of money whereas overloads and critical overloads can be
detrimental on the mechanical and electrical wellbeing of the equipment in the
long-run.

When sizing a bucket to your wheel loader, evaluate the bucket weight and
capacity first. Calculate the average density of the material to be moved and
compare it to the tipping load and lifting capacity of the wheel loader, (Yanik,
2018) , See Figure 9.
Figure 9. Static tipping load of Wheel loader (Anon f, 2016).

Static tipping load is comperatively lower in fully articulated position than

straight position, See Table 1. Some large mining loaders, having very low
center of gravity, are able to articulate with full turn angle to right and left from
40 º degrees to 45º degrees with bucket payload depending on the design and
model.

Table 1. Nominal Bucket payloads and static tipping loads of electric Wheel
loaders (Standard Lift Models) (Anon b, c, d and e, 2019).

Bucket Nominal Static N- Static N-PYLD/

Volume, Payload Tipping PYLD/ Tipping
m3 (NPYLD), Load Load @Full STLD@FullTurn,
tonne (STLD), STLD, Turn Angle %
tonne % of
Articulation

19,11 m3 35 81,29 43 71,20 @42º 49

L-1150

22,94 m3 40,82 102,06 39 81,65 @45º 49

L-1350

30,58 m3 54,43 122,47 44 108,86 50

L-1850 @40º

40,52 m3 72,57 184,30 39 172,10 42

L-2350 @42º

Rock Density (Design Density), 1,780 kg/m3.

Table 2. Wheel loader basic parameters and matching truck tonnages(Anon b, c,

d and e, 2019).

Bucket Equipment Engine Breakout Nominal Matching

3
Volume, m Operating Power, Force, Payload Trucks,
Weight, kN, (NPYLD), tonne
tonne kW (HP) STD-L tonne

19,11 m3 140,61 899 (1205) 975 32 109-181

L-1150

22,94 m3 183,71 1193 961 40,82 181-236

L-1350 (1600)

30,58 m3 242,67 1491 (200) 1228 54,43 240-360

L-1850

40,52 m3 266,62 1715 1173 72,57 290-363

L-2350 (2300)

Rock Density (Design Density), 1,780 kg/m3.

Table 3. Nominal Payload to Static Tipping Load ratios (Anon b, c, d and e,
2019).

Bucket Nominal Static Nominal Static Nominal

3
Volume, m Payload (N- Tipping Payload/ Tipping Load Payload/
PYLD), Load Static @Full Turn Static
tonne (STLD), Tipping Angle Tipping
tonne Load, % (articulation) Load@full
turn angle,
%

19,11 m3 32 81,29 44 71,20 @42º 43

L-1150

22,94 m3 40,82 102,06 39 81,65 @45º 49

L-1350

30,58 m3 54,43 122,47 44 108,86 @40º 45

L-1850

40,52 m3 72,57 184,30 39 172,10 @42º 41

L-2250

Rock Density (Design Density), 1,780 kg/m3.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Modern Wheel loaders are the industries’ most versatile workhorses from
construction sites to mining sites. It all started with the advent of new farm
tractors, diesel engines, articulated frames and bucket attachments and hydraulic
drive systems.

For a good Wheel loader performance, matching bucket and bucket teeth (GET)
to application is of prime importance. A properly matching bucket to the
material being dug may shorten the cycle time period and decrease the number
of bucket passes in filling the trucks. Specifying buckets based on the heaviest
material expected to encounter in the digging is recommended.
Digging force of loader bucket is composed of penetration (crowd), tilting
(curling) and lifting forces. Crowd force is balanced by tyre traction force and
bucket lifting force is balanced by the weight of the equipment. For a good
loader application bench floor should be even, flat and dry so that loader tyres
have good grip to generate traction and in turn penetration of bucket. For good
traction tyre treads, tyre rubber compound should be selected accordingly, and
tyres with worn treads to be replaced periodically.

Uneven loading of truck bed may cause premature wear on the tyres, therefore it
should be avaoided as much as possible. Operator’s eye level lower in Wheel
loaders, bucket dumping height is usually tight with respect to the height of the
truck bed. Operators should spend effort for balanced an evenly distributed
loading of trucks.

Nominal bucket payload to static tipping load ratio is approximately 40 to 50 %.

Static tipping load in articulated position (full turn) is smaller than the one in
straight position of the loader. Actual bucket payload should not fluctuate more
than 5 percent.

Both overloading and underloading of the bucket to be avoided. Overloading

violates the safety limits of the equipment whereas underloading implies loosing
Money. Furthermore, overloading decreases the life expectancy of the
equipment and its components.

REFERENCES

Anon a, 2016 ; https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/wheel-loaders-

solve-age-old-problem/29759

Anon b, 2019: https://mining.komatsu/product-details/l-1150

Anon. c, 2019; https://mining.komatsu/product-details/l-1350

Anon. d, 2019: https://mining.komatsu/product-details/l-1850

Anon e. 2019: https://mining.komatsu/product-details/l-2350

Anon. f, 2016: “Basic Loader Digging Forces Concepts’ Report.” SRLG Latin
America-Sales Convention, Jan. 10, 2016. Pdfslide.net/documents/sdlg-latin-
america-sales-convention-basic concepts.html

Berry, T., 2013: “The first Articulated Wheel Loader”

https://www.constructionequipment.com/first-articulated-wheel-loader ,
Jan.25th, 2013.
Grant, M., 2016: “Hydraulic Excavators vs Wheel loaders” , Quarry
Academy,https://www.911metallurgist.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/Hydraulic-Shovel-vs-Wheel-Loader.pdf

Stewart, L., 2010: “Take-Charge Wheel loader operators- Fill trucks faster”,
Construction Equipment, Sept. 28, 2010.
https://www.constructionequipment.com/take-charge-wheel-loader-operators-
fill-trucks-faster
Özdoğan, M., 1983a: “Yükleyiciler ve Madencilikte Kullanımları”, Madencilik, Mart 1983,
Cilt 22, Sayı 1, s.9-25, Mart 1983, Ankara

Özdoğan, M., 1983b: “Hidrolik Yerkazarlar”, Madencilik, Eylül 1983, Cilt 22, Sayı 3, s.5-19,
Eylül 1983, Ankara

Özdoğan, M & Özdoğan, H., 2017: “Cycle Time Segments and Cycle Time Distribution
Curves of Mining Size Wheel loaders-A Case Study”, Mining, 2017, 56(1), 13, 21, p.15,
March 2017, Ankara

Ozdogan, M., 2016: “Bucket Overloading REatio of Mining Size Wheel loaders and Load
Distribution Curves – A case Study” , https://dergipark.org.tr/somatbd/ issue/26739/281576

Valintaopas & Kaivoslastaus, 2013: “Surface Mining Primary Loading Tool” Loading
Equipment Selection, Cat Dealers, Finland.
https://www.witraktor.com/sites/default/files/media/Finland/Koneet/Kaivoskoneet/PDFs/valin
taopas_kaivoslastauslaitteet.pdf

Yanik, K., 2018: “Optimizing loader bucket efficiency”, Pit & Quarry, June 27, 2018, USA.