Four-Pass Loading Must-Have or Myth?

R J Hardy
1
ABSTRACT
It is hypothesised that increasing the number of loading passes will
produce a reduced range of truck payload outcomes compared with
four-pass loading. The paper provides analysis to support this hypothesis.
It is shown that, hypothetically, loading trucks with five or more passes
will result in reduced tendency for overloading and reduced confidence
interval for truck payloads that increase the confidence level of
containing high end payloads within safe and commercially acceptable
limits. Furthermore, increased number of passes provides for more
precise bucket load spotting and so improves distribution of payloads
within truck bodies. Truck-loading issues examined by the paper include:
Improvement in life of driveline components and tyres. Generally
tyre costs are relatively moderate; but tyres tend to become an
increasingly sensitive performance/cost component as truck scale
increases;
Reduction of site severity effects flowing on to suspensions, truck
frames and structural components generally with potential for
reduced long-term repair costs;
Less physical body damage due to smaller load increments;
Reduced risk of non-compliance with payload limitations for safe
braking standards;
Increase in loading cycle times tend to increase with scale of loading
machinery within the limits of a specific type of equipment (ie rope
shovels or hydraulic shovels). Production increase with increased
bucket capacity is, to a degree, offset by slower loading cycle times.
This is particularly pronounced with front-end loaders but tends to
be less noticeable with hydraulic excavators/shovels and electric rope
shovels.
Decrease in loading time, as a proportion of total truck-cycle time as
open pits deepen and dump reaches increase. The production and
cost benefits of four-pass loading tend to diminish as truck cycle
times increase.
The paper also discusses the implications for loading-equipment
philosophy to satisfy the future needs of the industry. Cost benefits from
upscaling tend to diminish as truck scale increases, so increasing
management diligence and close monitoring are required to ensure that
expected outcomes are realised.
These truck-loading issues have been researched to assess the benefits
(positive or negative) of four-pass loading in practical scenarios. An
attempt is made to determine whether four-pass loading is a must-have
or merely a myth.
INTRODUCTION
Four-pass loading has been a time-honoured de facto industry
standard for matching loading equipment to off-highway haulers.
There are exceptions. Some operators favour three-pass loading.
A privately-owned NSW open pit coalmine has a long history of
favouring single pass loading for a special short haul of
sandstone over- and interburden to backfill and has invested in
large loading equipment to achieve this performance.
Justification for four-pass, as opposed to five, six or more passes,
is to limit loading time and overall cycle time for productivity
and cost benefits. Notwithstanding this general industry support
for four-pass loading this paper questions this de facto standard.
Detailed consideration of the related issues, particularly for large
mining trucks, reveals that four-pass (or less) loading of
off-highway trucks (hereinafter referred to as trucks) does not
always deliver expected cost benefits. It is shown that expected
benefits are offset partially or wholly by disadvantages that
impose marginal, latent costs, particularly as scale of trucks
increases.
BACKGROUND
Real-terms values of mining products have been steadily
diminishing. Figure 1 illustrates this trend for some 150 years to
the present time. Mining costs have followed the downward trend
to sustain diminishing profit margins to justify investment in
mining projects. The mining industry has accommodated revenue
and cost pressures by increasing scale of projects. Consequent
increased production demands have been met by increased scale
of mining equipment. Particularly for mining haulage trucks,
increased scale has realised diminishing cost benefits see
Figure 2 (Gregory, 2002).
Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 55
1. Research Associate, Western Australian School of Mines, 39 George
Road, Lesmurdie WA 6076. E-mail: rayhardy@ozemail.com.au
FIG 1 - Commodity prices long term trend.
Diminished cost benefits with scale of mine haulage trucks has
resulted in higher sensitivity to marginal and, increasingly
significant, latent costs that need to be considered in equipment
selection and any cost analysis of mine haulage.
Truck haulage costs are a substantial proportion of open pit
mining costs typically some 38 per cent compared with 17 per
cent for drill and blast and 12 per cent for truck loading Figure
3 (Gregory, 2002). It must be stressed that the cost breakdown
shown in Figure 3 is typical only. Actual proportions will change
with truck haulage as pits deepen, haul distances extend and
cycle times increase. However it can be assumed that combined
load and haul costs typically contribute about half total open pit
mining costs a proportion that will tend to increase as
indicated. The interrelationship between loading and truck
haulage is crucial in elemental cost analysis for loading or truck
haulage or combined load and haul.
In practice, analysis of either of these elemental functions, ie
loading or hauling, requires consideration of the operational
contribution, constraints and limitations of the related function.
Mining haulage trucks have been increasing in scale to realise
the benefits of reduced unit cost of production. Accordingly,
there has been demand for loading equipment that can
four-pass-load larger trucks to yield cost savings through lower
unit loading costs.
Original equipment manufacturers (OEM) of off-highway
trucks generally offer a nominal 240 ton (480 000 lbs) payload
truck. OEMs are now offering larger trucks of 260 ton, 280 ton,
340 ton and 360 to 400 ton with mechanical and electrical
drivelines, both DC and AC. For the largest trucks, four-pass
loading equipment must have a genuine live bucket capacity of
90 to 100 short tons. Allowing for practical bucket fill factors,
bucket capacities must be in the range of 95 to 105 tonnes metric.
An increase in the number of passes to load a truck, say to five,
six or seven will obviously tend to increase loading and total
cycle times, reduce productivity and increase unit cost due to
extra loading time and truck haulage time. However the
quantified increase in cost due to increased number of loading
passes is apparent only. A number of relevant cost offsets must
be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively.
The salient unit cost drivers for truck haulage are:
1. Intrinsic costs of operating trucks, ie owning and operating
costs of trucks per hour of productive operation.
2. Nett-of-downtime hours available mechanical availability;
ie nett of daily fuelling and top-ups and routine services
(preventative maintenance), which is a function of mean
time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair
(MTTR).
3. Efficiency of utilisation of available hours, ie efficiency of
operations management in addressing available equipment
to productive work by planning and scheduling. In addition
the level of operator diligence and skill addressed to
presenting available equipment to productive work in
compliance with plans and schedules.
4. Inherent variability in performance in as-new equipment
and as varying with time; that is a combination of:
engine output that can vary 3 per cent from new or
after rebuild;
mechanical and electric drivelines from engine flywheel
to wheel rims that can vary by a similar amount; and
tyres where tread wear can reduce wheel diameter by
three to four per cent so increasing rimpull (torque) but
reducing speed at the tyre periphery.
These three variables collectively contribute to queuing and
potential loss of productivity. Albeit individually of small
effect they have collective potential to become significant.
5. Support services and facilities to accommodate and deliver
the necessary equipment servicing, maintenance and repair
enabling on-going haulage operations. Facilities that need
to increase in scale (and cost) as the scale of truck/support
equipment increases. Essentially five maintenance
functions need to be considered:
preventative maintenance (routine service);
main workshop (breakdown and component exchange);
welding and fabrication (bodies, buckets, frames and
superstructure);
tyres (maintenance, repairs and replacement); and
wash down facilities (for mobile equipment and light
vehicles).
6. Specific performance of trucks, where intrinsic
performance is dependent on physical characteristics of the
application. Physical characteristics include site-specific
conditions both occurring naturally and generated by
mining activity; including spatial configuration of the open
pit and stockpile/dumps and efficacy of interrelated mining
activities, such as, drilling, blasting and rigours of selective
mining.
56 Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference
R J HARDY
Drill
Blast
Load
Ancillary
Management &
Supervision
Other
Haul
10%
12%
17%
6%
12%
38%
5%
FIG 3 - Total mining costs by activity (Gregory, 2002).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
49 91 146 187 230 353
Truck Payload (t)
Cost Index (%)
FIG 2 - Haul cost index versus truck size (Gregory, 2002).
7. Varying latent costs for the not-so-obvious
accommodations of increasing scale of truck haulage
equipment including:
sensitivity to potential overloading and effects of
loading distribution in terms of increased maintenance
and tyre costs;
volume mined for haul ramp width that increases with
scale of trucks most often absorbed in general
mining costs and not attributed to truck selection; and
sensitivity to operational inefficiency.
The paper focuses on sensitivity to potential overloading and
increasing volume mined for the access and haul ramp as truck
scale increases.
PERFORMANCE AND COST RELATIONSHIPS
The following elemental relationships need to be comprehensively
understood in order to determine the relationship between
performance and operating cost of mine haulage trucks:
1. Fuel burn versus load and/or speed, ie fuel burn versus
power relationship (load factor) over a range of truck
loading; also increased fuel burn translates as reduced
operating life before engine overhaul.
2. Mechanical driveline parts life and cost versus truck loading.
3. Tyre (integral with mechanical driveline parts) life versus
truck loading. Tyre survival is relative to TKPH, ie sensitive
to speed while tyre life is relative to TK, ie sensitive to
static load and distance travelled.
4. Suspension and frame life versus truck loading and
site-severity profile. Suspension and frame life is sensitive
to rolling resistance and running surface faults with
potential for incipient failure due to dynamic stress
corrosion and structural frame racking).
5. Truck body design and life versus truck loading and
efficacy of accommodating the differing characteristics of
loading equipment, ie rope shovel versus hydraulic shovel
versus backhoe versus wheel loader.
6. Segmental speeds and time for separate functional sections
of truck cycles and the interrelationship between loading
and truck performance leading to an understanding of
best-application criteria.
7. Truck loading variance and the confidence level of
achieving OEM specification, owner target, warranty or
guarantee limits and safe operating load limits for brakes
and intrinsic operating speeds. In particular, how the
number of bucket passes affects realised confidence interval
for truck payloads.
8. OEM-specified truck loading limits and the circumstances
and purposes of such stipulations.
9. Truck dimensions versus scale and affect on mine facilities
in terms of performance and costs.
The list is not necessarily exhaustive but includes most of the
issues that need to be absolutely understood to, firstly, plan and
design material transport by trucks for open pit mines and
secondly, to enable reliable cost profiles to be estimated and
developed.
Analysis has addressed a limited suite of Varying Latent
Costs to quantify the significance of the listed issues.
Particularly sensitivity to potential overloading of mine haulage
trucks using current industry practice standards is reviewed and
the mining cost of in-pit ramps to accommodate increasing scale
of trucks are investigated.
As indicated above, the focus of this paper is the mechanics of
variation of truck loading, particularly the value of the
quasi-industry standard of four-pass loading as compared with,
say, six-pass loading in terms of truck haulage performance and
operating costs.
It is necessary to look beyond obvious intrinsic performance
and cost to marginal and latent cost components that tend to
become increasingly significant with increased scale of
equipment. To effect the analysis, four-pass loading will be
compared with six-pass loading, to test performance and cost
values. In general cost analysis is in terms of unit costs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Accuracy limitations
It is expected that the confidence interval for values of truck
payloads for any given truck capacity will be greater for
four-pass loading compared to six-pass loading.
Samples of estimated truck payload data are readily available
from on-board sensing and recording equipment within truck
management systems of which TPMS (Truck Payload
Management System) and VIMS (Vital Information Management
System) are typical systems developed and supplied by
Caterpillar. TPMS, originally a separate system, is now
incorporated in VIMS. Throughout this paper all on-board
management and recording systems from all OEM will be
referred to as VIMS when used in generic context.
Data for individual bucket loads such as confidence interval,
median, mean, variance and standard deviation is difficult to
obtain if not, currently, virtually not available. OEM and their
dealers are addressing real-time, comprehensive recording of
data on all relevant performance and economic management
functions of mobile equipment, particularly trucks. Data is
available for truck payloads from VIMS for Caterpillar trucks as
well as truck payload data from equivalent recording systems for
other OEM. Limited weighing studies have also been used to
reconcile on-board payload sensing to standards.
Accuracy of on-board payload-sensing data for actual
observations is currently claimed by OEM to be 5 per cent
maximum (weighing reconciliation often shows lower
confidence levels) compared with weigh bridge observations,
where individual wheels (single or dual) are weighed typically
using weighing pads (with load-cell-based sensing) calibrated
against standard weights (Clement, 2003). Weighing equipment
and the process adopted also likely has inherent small errors that,
although minimised, may add to the overall error in
reconciliation of VIMS data against site weighing. A typical
confidence interval for such small weighing errors is not known.
Limited experience with weighing studies indicates that less than
one per cent is a reasonable assumption.
More recent versions of VIMS have a reweighing facility that
check weighs the payload when second range engages. Real time
observation of limited data using Caterpillars MineStar facility
at WesTrac (WA Caterpillar dealer) in South Guildford indicates
that cumulative individual bucket loads tend to be adjusted down
by two to five per cent on the fly.
Varying quantities of debris and carry back also affect
accuracy of payload measuring. Caterpillar recommends
assumption of four per cent of truck chassis weight (translates as
1.2 per cent of GMW) for debris and carry back; but makes
no recommendation about allowance for carry back in the body.
An on-site weighing study of 240 ton trucks (Maloney, 2002)
measured total debris and carry back. More than 100 trucks
were weighed before and after washing down and clearing carry
back from body. Results yielded average carry back of
10.7 tonnes, equivalent to 2.7 per cent of GMW. Experience
indicates that the weight of debris and carry back varies from
Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 57
FOUR-PASS LOADING MUST-HAVE OR MYTH?
zero to more than ten tonnes depending on truck scale and
specific site conditions. For the purposes of analysis, Caterpillar
recommendations will be adopted, but the contribution to GMW
by debris and carry back requires consideration in terms of
site and operational specifics.
To preserve limitation of GMW for safe braking and
life-of-driveline components, including tyres, VIMS assumes
empty machine weight EMW, commonly termed tare, as a
constant (including the standard four per cent of chassis weight
for debris and carry back). EMW of the truck is manually
calibrated with VIMS at delivery and should be re-calibrated
regularly to retain accuracy. Carry back in the body and
additional debris post calibration is included in the payload and
is a source of error that requires monitoring. Payloads recorded
by VIMS, by default; include carry back in the body in the first
bucket load. This has been observed in real time observations
using MineStar.
In essence, it seems that truck payloads recorded by VIMS are
in the range of +5 to zero per cent of the absolute payload data
due to variability in debris and carry back. Payload data from
physical weighing is likely in the range of 5 per cent from
on-board sensing values due to intrinsic inaccuracies in the
system. Payload and bucket load analysis and subsequent
conclusions must be considered in context with these limited
levels of accuracy.
Data availability
Limited small samples of payload data from dated truck
weighing campaigns are available together with data from
on-board load measuring equipment. Reconciliation is available
in some cases. Substantial samples of more recent payload data
from VIMS linked to truck performance have been used to verify
a proportion of the total hypothesis. At present reliable
bucket-load data is being pursued through industry contacts. It
seems bucket load data may not be readily available in databases
at this stage of VIMS development. However, it is possible to
view truck accumulation by bucket load in real time using
MineStar. It may be necessary to sit at a screen for some hours
recording bucket load data. Until actual case data is available,
analysis and projections in terms of bucket loads in the following
discussions must be considered as hypothetical.
Observations, assumptions and analysis
facilitation
It has been observed or, is intuitively believed, that:
Operators endeavour to fill buckets as much as possible
without regard to spillage over the sides of the bucket,
regardless of shovel/excavator/loader size.
Truck payloads are based largely on visual judgement but
aids are currently available (VIMS) to provide payload data
in real time to confirm operator judgement.
Bucket loads of material prepared for loading by drilling and
blasting or ripping and pushing by dozer are basic elemental
data for open pit production. Loading equipment borrows
from the bank of material and places it onto transport. For the
purposes of this paper, transport is by trucks.
Variability of bucket loads (as evidenced by standard
deviation and other statistics) is proportional to designed
bucket volume, ie a bucket designed to bail 60 tonnes will
have statistics that are double those of a bucket designed to
bail 30 tonnes.
Variability in bucket loads is a manifestation of the combined
independent variability of:
in situ material density from point to point in bank
material;
degree of bulking or swell that follows after blasting,
dozing or otherwise preparing material for loading;
disturbance experienced by bank material in the
process of free-digging material; and
differing slopes to which material gravitates on the free
upper surface of the bucket load in the process of
filling the bucket;
Loading utilises wheel loaders, hydraulic excavators,
hydraulic shovels or rope shovels to place materials onto
trucks. From a large quantity of material (population of
bucket or truck payloads) a large sample of bucket loads is
extracted and loaded onto trucks. Truckloads are, in effect,
small samples of bucket loads.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS
Basis of hypothesis
Evidence and assumptions for the purpose of hypothesis include:
1. Large samples of truck payloads from weighing studies and
VIMS data exhibit frequency distributions that can be
modelled by a normal distribution. This evidence is
supported by the work of others (Govindan et al, 1999).
2. It is hypothesised that the underlying bucket payloads can
also be modelled by a normal distribution. This is not
self-evident and is yet to be confirmed by actual data.
3. For purposes of hypothesis, statistical rules for small
samples are assumed to apply to small samples of bucket
loads that accumulate as truck payloads.
4. Variability of bucket loads arises from:
Different bulk density of material conditioned for
loading onto transport as a result of natural variation in
the in situ rock density and variation in bulking with
interstitial air space.
Further relevant factors include the natural in situ
condition of rock such as jointing direction and
frequency and normal variability in drilling and
blasting techniques.
Different degrees of bucket fill that, notwithstanding
the best efforts of the operator to maximise bucket
payload, tend to vary randomly and continuously for
reasons beyond control of the operator.
Occasional operator intervention that biases the degree
of bucket fill for practical reasons such as perceived
need to top up truck loads with a partial bucket load.
Practical experience indicates that this obviously
biased loading practice is relatively infrequent and
likely inconsequential in the context of the hypothesis.
Application of small sample theory to bucket and
truck payloads
Considering the general relationship between truck payloads and
bucket loads; and assuming that normal distribution models
apply to all actual recorded data we have:
=
s p
/ N (1)
where:

s
= standard deviation of the small sample mean of bucket
loads, ie the mean of bucket loads in a truck payload

p
= standard deviation of truck payloads
N = the number of bucket loads (small sample) in a truck
payload
58 Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference
R J HARDY
Sample theory provides that small samples (N) from a large
sample (N
p
, where N
p
>N) that:

s
= [/N][{(N
p
N)/(N
p
1)}] (2)
where:
= standard deviation of bucket loads in the total
bucket-load sample, ie all the bucket loads in all truck
payloads sampled
N
p
= number of bucket loads in the total bucket-load sample (a
large number)
When N
p
>>N or when N
p
, for practical purposes the
above equation simplifies to:

s
= /N (3)
For small samples:

s
= (4)

s
= /N (5)
where:

s
= mean of bucket loads in a small sample (truck payload)
= mean of bucket loads in the total bucket-load sample
So with:
N = 4: 2
s
= (6)
N = 6: 2.45
s
= (7)
By applying Equations 1 and 6 to four-pass bucket load
statistics the following relationships can be derived:
Four passes: Mean truck payload (Target Payload) = 220 tonnes

p
14 tonnes assumed typical
standard deviation
From Equation 1:
s
14/4 = 3.5 tonnes
From Equation 6: = 2
s
= 2 3.5 = 7 tonnes (8)
Estimated truck payload confidence interval are derived as
follows:
Confidence level of truck payloads for:
P
99.73
= 3 = 220 42 = 178 262 tonnes 19.1%
P
100
= 3.9 = 220 54.6 = 165.4 274.6 tonnes 24.8%
and estimated bucket payload confidence intervals are derived as
follows:
Confidence intervals of bucket loads for:
P
99.73
= 3 = 55 21 = 34 76 tonnes 38.2%
P
100
= 3.9 + 55 27.3 = 27.7 82.3 tonnes 49.6%
where:
P
99.73
is the confidence level of 99.73 per cent that any bucket
load will be in the specified confidence interval
P
100
is the confidence level of 100 per cent to a precision of
1:10 000
Assuming that the mean of bucket loads for six passes to
achieve the same truck payload is proportionally similar to that
for four passes, then:
Six passes: Mean truck payload (Target Payload) is derived as
follows:
Four-pass = 7 tonnes
Therefore:
Six-pass = 7 4/6 = 4.67 tonnes
For six passes:

s
= /2.45 = 4.67/2.45 = 1.91 tonnes
(c.f. 3.5 tonnes for four passes)

p
= 6 x
s
= 1.91 x 6 = 11.46 tonnes
(c.f. 14 tonnes for four passes) (9)
Continuing on to derive truck payload confidence intervals:
Confidence interval of truck payloads for:
P
99.73
= 3 = 220 34.4 = 185.6 254.4 tonnes 15.6%
P
100
= 3.9 = 220 44.7 = 175.3 264.7 tonnes 20.3%
Therefore six-pass loading can be expected to result in a
narrower confidence interval than four-pass loading. This will
reduce the risk of non-compliance with the Caterpillar 10/10/20
rule or similar protocol for braking safety; and the risk of not
realising expected driveline-component and tyre life.
For comparison estimated bucket load confidence intervals for
six-pass loading are derived as follows:
Confidence interval of bucket loads for:
P
99.73
= 3 = 36.67 14.0 = 22.7 50.7 tonnes 38.2%
P
100
= 3.9 = 36.67 18.2 = 18.5 54.9 tonnes 49.6%
Derivation of fundamental six-pass bucket-load data is based
on the assumption that fundamental bucket loads for six passes
will have a similar statistical profile to four-pass data.
The analysis shows that, at a confidence level of 99.73 per cent
truck-payload confidence intervals decreased from 19.1 per
cent for four-pass loading to 15.6 per cent for six-pass loading.
Similarly at a confidence level of 100 per cent confidence
intervals decrease from 24.8 per cent to 20.3 per cent. It is noted
that the confidence intervals for total bucket loads relative to
bucket capacity are similar for both four-pass and six-pass
loading.
INTERPRETATION OF HYPOTHETICAL RESULTS
Overload and productivity
Additional load in excess of target payload on trucks does not
translate as a simple and full production benefit to the cost
bottom line. Review of GMW and varying payload versus speed
at various effective grades indicates that increased productivity is
practically offset by speed fall off. Particularly at elevated GMW
caused by overloading, ie in excess of target payload, the rate of
productivity benefit tends to diminish. (Shexnayder et al, 1999).
There may be some modest benefit from overloading for
loaded-travel haul segments, where effective grades are small. In
general overloading with the objective of increasing production
is disadvantageous. The aim of management should be to achieve
close-to-target payload with limited confidence interval that
minimises potential for attracting latent costs.
Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 59
FOUR-PASS LOADING MUST-HAVE OR MYTH?
Overload and fuel burn
Increased GMW increases power demand from a discrete limited
power source. In general, overloading of trucks results in more
payload at slower speed.
Power available in a truck is discrete and practically fully
utilised for the majority of the loaded proportion of total haul, ie
for 50 per cent of the distance and 65 per cent of the travel time,
the latter varying with the specific spatial arrangements of the
operation. For the full-power proportion of loaded travel,
variations of truck payload influence torque demand at the tyre
periphery that, given discrete power available, will determine the
speed.
Fuel burn for overloaded mechanical drive trucks will remain
at maximum for a slightly longer time because of reduced speed,
particularly, on ramps, if the overload causes a transmission
down shift or drop out of lockup to converter drive in first range.
Electric drive trucks will tend to convert more power to heat as
increased torque reduces wheel motor speeds.
Trucks travelling overloaded, but not at full power, will
experience increased power demand in loaded travel stages. Fuel
burn will increase to maintain speed generally, production may
increase, but only marginally, because of the overload speed
reduction effect; and more fuel will be used. The ultimate result
is that apparent increased productivity and consequent cost
benefit from overload will be substantially offset or will realise a
loss due to extra fuel burn and reduced engine life. Engine life
before overhaul is proportionally related to fuel burn.
Overload and component life
Driveline-component life is directly related to GMW and thus is
affected by truck overloading as illustrated in Figure 4
(Caterpillar 2003). Figure 4 indicates that truck payloads in the
distribution exceeding target payload result in reduction of
component life that are not fully compensated by payloads which
are less than the target payload.
The consequences of overload are indicated in Table 1.
The reductions in component life, in combination with other
cost penalties for overload, are significant.
The effect on component life of increased confidence interval
of truck payloads is not so marked. Calculations based on the
relationship in Figure four, indicate that for a shift in confidence
interval from 15 to 25 per cent there would be a nett reduction
in component life of only one per cent. However, in combination
with other overload cost penalties, driveline component costs
driven by increase in payload confidence interval may warrant
consideration.
Overload and tyres
Figure 5 (Michelin, 2003) illustrates the relationship between
tyre life and static load for each tyre. For each one per cent of
static load, tyre tread wear accelerates by 1.5 per cent. The
relationship between static load and tread wear is essentially
linear.
Excess payload increases GMW, ie static tyre loads. To sustain
the tyre cross-sectional profile and footprint, tyre pressures must
increase, which, in turn, increases the potential for tread cutting
and penetration through the tread.
In terms of the concepts and analysis herein accelerated tread
wear, premature failure from cuts and penetration are risks that
should be readily managed. So cost considerations should be
limited to consistent and significant overload conditions. For
long hauls, speeds are relatively high. Even with appropriate
specification tyres, the proportion of trucks in excess of ten per
cent overload must be minimal. Tyre costs will tend to become a
larger proportion of overall haulage costs for longer, higher
speed hauls. For such applications reducing payload confidence
interval and avoiding even relatively small overloads will
minimise tyre costs.
Safe operation and braking
Generic procedures for safe operation of trucks in open pit mines
are well established and effective. Braking is the only significant
safety issue related to payload confidence interval and
overloading of trucks. The following evidence has been noted:
For large trucks, 150 tonnes upwards, standard braking
criteria are in effect in some countries that require regulation
of loading confidence interval of truck loads; and
60 Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference
R J HARDY
FIG 4 - Component life versus payload (Caterpillar 10/10/20 Policy,
2002).
% overload Indicated component life reduction
per one per cent overload
At 0% overload 1.9%
At 5% overload 2.5%
At 10% overload 3.1%
At 15% overload 3.7%
At 20% overload 4.2%
TABLE 1
Consequences of overload.
100
85
70
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Z nom Z nom
+10%
Z nom
+20%
Z nom
+30%
T
r
e
a
d
L
i
f
e
FIG 5 - Influence of load on average tyre life (constant inflation
pressure and Z = load carried) (Michelin, 2003).
Caterpillar has developed a standard policy for loading, the
10/10/20 policy, whereas no more than ten per cent of the
loads can exceed 110 per cent of target payload (relevant for
component life) and there should be no load that exceeds 120
per cent of the target payload. Target payload is defined as
the designed maximum gross machine weight (GMW) less
the tare of the truck as shown in Figure 6 (Caterpillar, 2003).
Maintaining safe operations is of paramount importance in any
industrial endeavour. Large mining trucks with 250 to more than
600 tonnes GMW have to comply with standards for braking
systems in North America. OEM design reliable and safe
retarding/braking systems to meet the standards. An obvious
fundamental criterion for design is GMW. OEM can be expected
to build in some safety margin by way of ability to accommodate
excess GMW; also designed braking performance can be
expected to exceed the minimum standard by sufficient margin to
allow for some moderate, safe level of deterioration before
maintenance must be effected. Excess payload must be limited to
ensure that the mandatory safe GMW is not exceeded. Caterpillar
policy specifies a maximum payload for any individual truckload
of 120 per cent of target payload. This establishes the upper limit
of the distribution range. Normal distribution models of truck
payload frequency distributions have theoretical limits of 0 and
. For practical limiting reasons, actual statistics for payloads
are finite and vary in confidence interval between 2 to 4.
Payload data exhibiting higher confidence intervals can usually
be reconciled with specific site conditions not fundamentally
related to load and haul operations (such as wide variation in
material fragmentation).
For a maximum payload limit of 20 per cent and 220 tonne
target payload the following standard:
For a confidence level of 2, is limited to ten per cent,
which corresponds to 22.0 tonnes
For a confidence level of 3, is limited to 6.67 per cent,
which corresponds to 14.7 tonnes
For a confidence level of 4, is limited to five per cent,
which corresponds to 11.0 tonnes
In each case the payload confidence interval is 176 tonnes to
264 tonnes.
Data from large truck operations indicates that:
For hard rock operations with special fragmentation problems
in the order of seven per cent of target payload is considered
normal.
For soft rock operations with substantial free dig material,
in the order of 4.5 to five per cent is a reasonable expectancy.
These statistics indicate that to practically model truck
payloads a truncated normal distribution with limits of 3 is
appropriate. Where conditioning of material for loading is
favourable and particularly where six-pass or higher loading is
acceptable, operators should be able to work within a range
narrower than 20 per cent to realise the advantages of having a
substantial safety buffer, for emergency braking; and of
economic benefits.
The case for six-pass loading
The overall thrust of the discussion is that six-pass loading is a
risk treatment that will deliver payload control with manifest
safety and cost benefits. Additional loading time for an extra two
passes (in addition to four-pass loading) will be in the order of
one minute. Review of cycle times recommended by OEM
indicates that cycle times generally increase with scale of loading
equipment. The additional cycle time for 700 tonne hydraulic
shovels to four-pass load, and 470 tonne hydraulic shovels to
six-pass load 220 tonne trucks can be in the order of ten per cent.
Large trucks are generally used on longer hauls with truck cycles
of 15 to 30 minutes or more. An additional one minute of loading
time represents a truck production decrease of some seven per
cent to three per cent or less respectively with similar increases
in unit cost of production.
For six-pass loading there is additional unit loading cost for
smaller-scale loading equipment than required for four-pass
loading. This additional loading cost should be considered in the
overall cost analysis. It has been argued that the extra costs of
additional loading time for six-pass loading are substantially
offset by the accumulated benefits of reducing the several
identified latent costs.
In summary, it is reasoned that four-pass loading should not be
considered as a de facto industry standard. Four-pass loading
may be favoured by production and cost analysis when haul
distances and truck cycle times are short, where loading time is a
significant proportion of the truck cycle. In these circumstances
economic benefits from containing latent costs are limited and
less attractive. As haul distances and cycle times increase, cost of
extra loading cycles reduce in significance. In these
circumstances six-pass loading will become more attractive.
Certainly, in appropriate circumstances, six-pass loading could
be a useful risk treatment to reduce potential to overload trucks,
reduce payload-distribution confidence intervals in the interests
of self-regulating; and to comply with contractual requirements
for a maintain-and-repair-contract (MARC) executed with an
OEM.
One possibly attractive strategy could be to commence
operations using loading equipment that loads medium-scale
trucks for the short hauls in three to four passes. At a time when
cost analysis indicates favourable cost benefit, the operation
could scale up to larger trucks while retaining existing loading
equipment to load larger trucks in nominal six passes. Large
loading equipment is more difficult to dispose of at sale prices
that cover written down value, which would constitute an
incentive to utilise to complete write off. Trucks are less difficult
to sell or trade compared with loading equipment. OEMs are
likely to favourably consider guaranteed buy back schemes for
trucks, particularly if replacement is planned.
TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS
Data collection truck payloads
Actual data is essential to test any hypothesis. Recently
substantial advance has been made with onboard payload
measuring of trucks. Equipment management systems such as
VIMS sense and record all vital information and make it
Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 61
FOUR-PASS LOADING MUST-HAVE OR MYTH?
FIG 6 - Approved generic target rating
(Caterpillar 10/10/20 policy, 2002).
available to be downloaded at intervals or in real time. There are
two separate functions:
1. an onboard system for collection of data, available to the
operator and saved for future analysis, eg Caterpillars
VIMS; and
2. a transmission system that can download and forward data
from equipment by radio and/or telephone to local or
remote observation terminals, eg Caterpillars MineStar
facility.
Data from several open pit mining operations have been
reviewed and analysed to support or verify elements of the
hypotheses propounded in this paper.
Measuring bucket loads
Methods of measuring bucket loads have been on the agenda for
all OEM for some years. Accurate weighing of bucket loads in
loaders, hydraulic excavators and shovels is currently in a state of
constant evolution. Technology does exist for weighing of bucket
loads for hydraulic loading equipment. Historically systems
marketed have been of indicative value only requiring
reconciliation with some other more precise measuring process.
Reconciliation options include conveyor belt weighing, vehicle
weighbridge, onboard truck payload measuring devices and
physical truck weighing. Electric-rope-shovel OEM are
researching bucket-load measuring systems (in the case of P&H
to be released in February 2004) that have proved difficult to
develop with acceptable accuracy. Claims of 1 to 2 per cent
accuracy for onboard bucket-load measuring systems are yet to
be verified in practice. An onboard device for weighing bucket
loads will likely need to be reconciled through onboard sensing
and physical weighing of truck payloads for certainty of data to
be used as absolute values. Where data is to be used
comparatively the output of current load sensing in on-board
systems (eg Cat VIMS) is considered to be acceptable for most
management purposes.
COMMENTS ON LARGEST TRUCKS AND THE
FUTURE
Cost benefit diminishes with scale
One of the encouragements to produce this paper was the issue
of diminishing cost benefits with increasing scale of trucks.
Figure 2 shows that with nominal 50 tonne trucks assigned an
intrinsic operating cost of 100 per cent, 230 tonne trucks have a
comparative cost of 36 per cent and 345 tonne trucks only realise
a modest cost benefit to 34.7 per cent. Larger trucks are thus
more sensitive to latent costs. Cost relativities illustrated in
Figure 2 are intrinsic costs only, very necessary as the basis of
comparative cost analysis. Adding latent costs to intrinsic costs
will affect cost-sensitive larger trucks more than smaller trucks.
The modest intrinsic cost benefit between, say, 230 tonne and
345 tonne trucks shown by Figure 2 can be quickly offset by
identified latent costs.
Haul ramp costs attributed to trucks
Mining of the material above the haul ramp is a significant
mining cost normally absorbed in the general mining costs for
feasibility studies and budgets. The cost of ramp excavation
increases with scale of trucks and, hence, should be accounted
for in comparing investments in the process of truck selection.
Order of magnitude calculations indicate that, at 300 m depth,
ramp costs constitute an additional four per cent on hauling costs.
This increases to some seven per cent at 500 m depth. For a large
deep pit already 300 m deep currently running 220 tonne trucks,
changing up to 350 tonne trucks would attract an additional
excavation cost in the order of $A 30 M. This cost should be
accounted for in any estimated cost comparison leading to
consideration of moving up to larger trucks. Figure 2 indicates a
cost benefit for 350 tonne class trucks of some 3.6 per cent
(1.3 per cent/0.36) compared with 230 tonne trucks. The
additional cost for the ramp to, say, 500 m represents some three
per cent increase in hauling costs. So the apparent intrinsic cost
benefit for larger trucks, in this example, is almost completely
offset.
The message for management is that, as trucks increase in scale,
there is an ever increasing need for diligence and close monitoring
of all production and cost elements to ameliorate the risk of latent
costs completely offsetting expected cost benefits of scale.
Future development of larger trucks
Payload/GMW ratio for the generic model range of mining
trucks historically offered by OEM has been generally about
0.55. With similar power/GMW ratios trucks of larger scale are
backwards compatible in terms of rimpull/speed performance
(with a few notable exceptions) to enable operation of mixed
fleets with the aim of limiting queuing frustrations and resulting
production loss. OEMs have tended to sustain generic designs
that are essentially scaling up of trucks with similar
configurations. One OEM has broken out of the generic
constraint and produced a truck with a payload/GMW ratio of
0.66. Innovative features of this truck include: independent rear
suspension, utilisation of the truck body as an adjunct structural
element allowing reduction in frame (chassis) weight, and
improved suspension characteristics. Like all innovative designs
the concept is taking some time to gain acceptance and work up
to traditional levels of reliability. But the concept is a positive
step towards the next generation of mining trucks. Mining
equipment of the future will be expected to continue to
accommodate ever-reducing commodity prices (Figure 1) and the
consequent need for mining costs, including haulage, to move
down to provide acceptable profit margins.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The developed hypotheses are based on statistical reasoning and
provide a foundation for future research.
Currently truck payload data consisting several thousand
records is being gathered and analysed to test the hypotheses
developed above. With such large actual data bases, distributions
of passes can be filtered to remove anomalous data and select
individual sets for a given number of passes that still constitute a
meaningful sample of truck payloads. Bucket by bucket payload
building can also be observed and analysed to collect reasonable
samples of fundamental bucket load data to test the hypotheses.
CONCLUSIONS
In broad summary:
1. The de facto industry standard of four-pass loading has
been challenged, particularly for loading large trucks in the
larger open pit mines where haul distances and truck cycle
times are extended.
2. A number of performance and latent cost relativities have
been identified that need to be analysed and assessed.
3. Data collection including accuracy limitations, availability,
assumptions, observations and analysis has been considered.
4. Hypotheses have been developed to establish potential
control, quality, safety and potential latent cost benefits of
six-pass as compared to four-pass loading of trucks using
statistical analysis criteria.
62 Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference
R J HARDY
5. Interpretations of the hypotheses and related discussion
have been developed in terms of overload effect on fuel
burn, driveline component life, tyres and braking safety.
6. A case has been made for six-pass rather than four-pass
loading in appropriate circumstances.
7. Outcomes of the hypotheses have been discussed at some
length to catalogue what is required to test them.
8. Cost benefit limitations for current largest trucks and even
larger trucks in the future have been discussed, including;
assigning ramp costs in the process of developing cost
analysis for the purposes of truck selection; limitations of
current truck designs, and potential for future innovation in
design.
It is concluded that four-pass loading is not necessarily a must
have. In certain circumstances four-pass loading will deliver to
satisfy expectancy, but as pits become deeper, hauls longer and
truck cycle times extend, perceived benefits tend to diminish and
possibly totally evaporate. In specific circumstances six-pass (or
more) loading can deliver advantages, particularly in containing
latent costs.
Data review has revealed that many operations conceived as
four-pass loading have a distribution of passes per truck payload
range from three to seven. Even where favoured by cost studies,
experience indicates that four-pass loading is not factual; but
reality is a range of passes. So the conclusion is that four-pass
loading is often a mere myth.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The management and staff of WesTrac, Caterpillar dealer in
Western Australia, have provided material information and data,
particularly Mr Adrian Clement, Trends Analysis Specialist and
Mr Fred Haynes, Mining Sales Representative. Other OEM
including Liebherr, Terex Unit rig, Komatsu and Mine Power
(P&H) have been supportive with information on their products.
Michelin Australia has supplied valuable technical information
on large earthmoving tyres.
Quality advice on the technical concepts, particularly the
statistical mathematical hypotheses, has been received from Dr
Ritu Gupta, a statistician in the Mathematics Department of
Curtin University. But the assumptions, hypotheses, any errors or
invalidity are the authors responsibility alone. Where the paper
may appear to draw a long bow in mathematical reasoning, the
author accepts full responsibility for any assumptions and logic.
Dr Emmanuel Chanda, Senior Lecturer, Mining Department,
WA School of Mines, has generously provided advice, support
and encouragement for the research that initiated this paper.
REFERENCES
Caterpillar Mining Truck Marketing Support Group, 10/10/20 Policy,
2002. April 2002, pp 1-7, Decatur, Illinois, USA.
Clement, A, 2003. Personal communication, WesTrac Equipment, South
Guildford (1998).
Govindan, K, Vorster, M, Martinez, J and Rakes, T, 1999. Improving
Mine Management through Data Mining, in Proceedings 28th
International Symposium on Computer Applications in the Minerals
Industries, (Ed: K Dagdelen) pp 637-645 (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Colorado).
Gregory, B, 2002. Truck selection, driving down operating costs, AJM
Conference Kalgoorlie WA, August.
Michelin Australia Pty Ltd, Extract from: Earth Mover Seminar
presentation slides 1-7, June 2003.
Shexnayder, C S, Weber, L and Brooks, B T, 1999. Effect of Truck
Payload Weight on Production, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, ASCE, 125(1):1-7.
Fifth Large Open Pit Mining Conference Kalgoorlie, WA, 3 - 5 November 2003 63
FOUR-PASS LOADING MUST-HAVE OR MYTH?