Cat Product Information
Performance Report July 2010
Cat® 993 993K K vs. vs. Koma Ko mats tsu u WA90 WA9000-33
For Dealer Sales Personnel This document supplements information in the Specalog. Marketing content will be available only on secured dealer extranets and by accessing the PDF in the Electronic Sales Library.
Study Purpose
The purpose of the study was to conduct economic analysis of current �eet, as well as determine the performance differences between the Cat® 993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel loaders, identify areas of opportunity and to verify total production, fuel burn and machine availability.
Study Dates
April 12 – 15, 2010
Field Data By
Randy Aneloski Tom Grill Reed Garretts Jamie Wintzel Bill Olsen Kent Clifton
Location
Gold mine in Nevada, USA. Altitude was approximately 1280 m (4,200 ft).
Written By
Randy Aneloski
Weather Conditions
Temperatures ranged from 1° C to 21° C (35° F to 70° F). Dry Conditions.
Tested Units
Cat® 993K (Mine Owned field follow) Komatsu WA900-3 (Mine Owned)
Material
Gold ore ranging in density between 971.03 – 1040.4 kg/m³ (2,800 – 3,000 lb/yd³). A study was also done in crushed ore which had an average density of 1079.2 kg/m³ (3,112 lb/yd³).
Scale System
The scale system used for this test was the Cat THDAC set of Transcale AS300 weigh system.
Calibration Date
March 2009
Business Unit
This study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE.
2
Cat Global Mining Cat QSID Tucson Proving Grounds Cat Global Mining Tinaja Hills DAC Cat Global Mining
CGM
The Komatsu WA900-3 was inoperable with a hydraulic system problem the entire time that we were on site. Because of that we were not able to get any production or fuel data from that loader.
Key Findings
The Cat 993K was tested in three separate segments. Production and fuel was measured in each segment. The same customer’s operator was used for all segments.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Cat 993K 6 pass loaded the 785 trucks to weights ranging between 129.8 – 144 tonnes (143.1 – 158.7 tons).
Executive Summary
The 993K bucket payloads ranged between 21.7 – 24 tonnes (23.9 – 26.5 tons). Measured loader production ranged between 2237.2 – 2676.8 tonnes/hr (2,466.1 – 2,950.7 tons/hr). Extrapolated production using constant truck exchange time ranged between 2489.2 – 2702.9 tonnes/hr (2,743.9 – 2,979.4 tons/hr). 993K fuel consumption ranged between 142.7 – 158.6 l/hr (37.7 – 41.9 gal/hr). 993K cycles averaged between 28.02 – 28.32 seconds.
3
Machine Comparison Model Serial Number Unit Number Hours Tires Front Rear Year Manufactured Engine Model Manufacturer Rated Engine RPM Displacement Cylinders Hp Rated Hp/L
993K High Lift LWA00426 n/a 20,800
WA900-3 High Lift n/a n/a 18,000
Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 2006
Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5 2006
C32 ACERT™ Tier 2 Caterpillar 1900 32.1 L (1,959 in 3) 12 708 kW (950 hp) 29.4 hp/L
Cummins
12
Cat 3 3 22.1 km/h (13.7 mph) CD
Komatsu 3 3 28 km/h (17.4 mph)
Additional Options Spec Sheet Weight Estimate
High Abrasion Spade Rock SAE 2:1 13 m 3 (17 yd3) Fire Suppression 135 586 kg (298,968 lb)
SAE 2:1 13 m3 (17 yd3) ASR, ASRC, Exhaust Brake 107 350 kg (236,670 lb)
Scale Actual
137 212 kg (302,500 lb)
n/a
Fuel Level
100%
n/a
Transmission Forward Gears Reverse Gears Top Speed Machine Weight as Con�gured
Bucket Bucket Capacity
4
For the purpose of creating consistent and accurate data the Cat 993K was measured using the same operator and the study team utilized the same cycle time taker. Fuel system data was gathered using the TPG Engineer for consistency.
Test Procedure
Fuel consumption data was gathered using Cat day tank system. This system was plumbed into each loaders factory fuel system and then isolated from the main tank so that the loader would burn only fuel from the day tank as well as return un-burnt fuel to the day tank. The tank was then weighed before and after the testing period and the difference between the beginning and ending weight was correlated to the amount of fuel burnt during the test. Temperature measurements were also gathered and used to calculate fuel expansion.
Fuel Consumption and Measurement
5
Payload Measurement
Truck payload information was collected using portable scale system from Tinaja Hills, the certified Transcale AS300. In order to ensure the accuracy of the scale system the earthen pads that the scales rest on were constructed to be level within one tenth of a foot. These measurements were checked during the construction of the pads as well as after the scales were set using a tripod mounted laser and grade rod. The same method and accuracy was applied to the ramps leading to the scale pads. Throughout the duration of the study the scale pads and ramps were checked to ensure they remained level. This was done using both the laser and grade rod and also by completing a “Site Level Test.” During a Site Level Test a loaded haul truck is weighed one axle at a time in the usual manner and then re-weighed in the opposite direction. The weight is recorded and must match within ±0.5%.
6
During the study all loader cycle times were recorded. A dedicated cycle timing program was used to gather all study loader cycle times and all clocks were set to assure proper matching between payloads, truck loads and loader cycles.
Cycle Times
Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study
Test Results
Segment #1
The 993K was operated in light density ore by the customer’s operator. The operator was consistently 6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free �owing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was very efficient and �uid in his movements. The loading �oor was hard packed and �at. Excellent truck queuing and spotting was observed consistently. This operation in the loading area should be considered “World Class.”
7
Test Results (continued)
Cycle Segment
Load/Dig Travel Loaded Dump Travel Empty Total Truck Loading Average Bucket Payload – Tonnes (Tons)
Average Truck Payload – Tonnes (Tons) Truck Exchange Time – Minutes Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time Fuel Consumption L/hr (Gal/hr) Tonnes/L (Tons/gal)
8
Cycle time – minutes
0.114 0.161 0.075 0.12 0.47 21.65 (23.86) 129.85 (143.14) 0.79 2278.1 (2,511.15) 2489.22 (2,743.9) 143.09 (37.8) 15.92 (66.4)
Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study Segment #2
Test Results (continued)
The 993K was operated in heavier density ore but in the same pit as above by the customer’s operator. The operator was 6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free �owing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was very efficient and �uid in his movements. The loading �oor was hard packed and �at. Cycle Segment
Load/Dig Travel Loaded Dump Travel Empty Total Truck Loading Average Bucket Payload – Tonnes (Tons) Average Truck Payload – Tonnes (Tons)
Truck Exchange Time – Minutes Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time Fuel Consumption L/hr (Gal/hr) Tonnes/L (Tons/gal)
Cycle time – minutes 0.158
0.075 0.12 0.119 0.472 23.2 (25.57) 139.2 (153.44) 0.66 2702.87 (2,979.4) n/a
158.61 (41.9) 17.04 (71.1)
9
Test Results (continued)
Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study Segment #3
The 993K was loading crushed ore from a stock pile into Cat 785 Trucks. As before, the loader was being operated by the mine’s operator. Density of this crushed ore was heavier than earlier segments in the pit. The loading �oor was hard packed and �at. Truck exchange was not as good as it was in the pit because of limited access to the loading area by the trucks. Cycle Segment
Load/Dig Travel Loaded Dump Travel Empty Total Truck Loading Average Bucket Payload – Tonnes (Tons)
Average Truck Payload – Tonnes (Tons) Truck Exchange Time – Minutes Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time Fuel Consumption L/hr (Gal/hr) Tonnes/L (Tons/gal)
10
Cycle time – minutes
0.167 0.075 0.121 0.103 0.466 24.0 (26.45) 144.0 (158.71) 2.61 2015.76 (2,222) 2601.35 (2,867.5) 151.04 (39.9) 13.35 (55.7)
993K HL Power – Stronger into bank and faster lifting than Komatsu. Better than a 992C, 993K has more power than any other machine he has ran. Cat can dig into a tough wall of hard material when the Komatsu would struggle. Easier to load the bucket off the wall.
Operator Comments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hydraulics and Controllability – Faster and easier to load truck than Komatsu. Komatsu is jerky, when going into load a truck, when he hits the de clutch on the Komatsu he gets a hard stop, the Cat does not do that – it is very smooth and easy to control. Operator Information Board – Likes how Cat can be configured to operator preference and layout of the information clusters. Komatsu information board is at an inconvenient position near the operator’s right back. Reliability – No question, Cat is more reliable. Cab – Likes Cat visibility and room in the cab and the ability to have a passenger. Difficult to train someone on the Komatsu since there is no buddy seat. Seat – Control position on the Cat is great, very comfortable relaxed position. Komatsu control position is very uncomfortable, elbows are positioned too far backward resulting in uncomfortable operating arm position. Cab Sound – Cat sound is very quiet, can have a conversation with passenger and not have to raise voice.
The 993K had the power and weight to get very good fill factors in this application. The combination of well shot material and excellent operator resulted in short wheel loader cycle times. Add to this, good truck exchange and the 993K was able to produce between 2278.1 – 2702.87 tonnes/hr (2,511.15 – 2,979.4 tons/hr).
Conclusion
This information can be used as a baseline for determining production and fuel consumption for other 993K applications. Keep in mind that each application will have its own conditions that will affect the production and fuel consumption.
11
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.
TEXR0154 July 2010 www.cat.com © 2010 Caterpillar All Rights Reserved Printed in U.S.A.
