Influence of Crushed Rock Properties on the Productivity of a Hydraulic Excavator
Source abstract
Abstract
Among many factors that influence an excavator’s performance and productivity, the volume of the bucket load and duration of the excavator working cycle are crucial. In this paper, both factors were investigated, including the granulometric composition of the excavated material. The volume of material in the bucket was determined by photogrammetric analysis while the excavator cycle time was measured by analysis of video recordings captured by a digital video camera during the excavator operation. Interconnections between the angle of repose, slewing angle, particle size distribution of material, and their effects on hydraulic excavator productivity were analyzed. It was found that a larger number of fine particles in granular materials with a higher coefficient of uniformity resulted in an increase in the volume of the bucket load. Correlation analysis revealed significant interconnection between the bucket fill factor and swell factor. It was also found that calculation of the production rate according to ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standards was more accurate for materials with a higher angle of repose while the CECE (Committee for European Construction Equipment) standard was more appropriate for materials with lower angles of repose.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Tunneling and Rock Mechanics · Belt Conveyor Systems Engineering · Mineral Processing and Grinding
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, Pierottijeva 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Rodríguez, R., and Bascompta, M. (2020). Vibration Analysis and Empirical Law Definition for Different Equipment in a Civil Construction. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10144689 ↗
2. Conceptual Development of the Transition from Drill and Blast Excavation to Non-Blasting Methods for the Preparation of Mined Rock in Surface Mining10.17794/rgn.2019.3.3 ↗
3. Optimization of the Process of Efficiency Management of the Primary Kaolin Excavation on the Curved Face of the Conditioned Area10.17794/rgn.2020.1.10 ↗
4. Graham, L.D., and Smith, S.D. (2021, February 20). A Method for Effectively Implementing Construction Process Productivity Estimation Models. Available online: https://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2004-1043-1052_Graham_and_Smith.pdf.
5. Mathematical-neural model for assessing productivity of earthmoving machinery10.3846/13923730.2007.9636418 ↗
6. Earthmoving productivity estimation using linear regression techniques10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(133) ↗
7. Analysis of earth moving systems using discrete event simulation10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)121:4(388) ↗
8. Optimization of shovel-truck system for surface mining
9. Simulation of Shovel-Truck Haulage Systems in Open-pit Mines by Considering Breakdown of Trucks and Crusher Capacity10.7474/TUS.2014.24.1.001 ↗
10. ESTIVATE: A model for calculating excavator productivity and output costs10.1108/eb021132 ↗
11. An artificial intelligent approach to calculating hydraulic excavator cycle time and productivity output
12. Artificial neural networks model for predicting excavator productivity10.1108/eb021238 ↗
13. Estimation of earthworks execution time and cost by means of artificial neural networks10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.004 ↗
14. An artificial intelligence approach for improving plant operator maintenance proficiency10.1108/13552510210439810 ↗
15. Analysis of interrelationships among excavator productivity modifying factors10.1108/IJPPM-02-2014-0026 ↗
16. Impedance control of a hydraulically actuated robotic excavator10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00056-X ↗
17. Franklin, J.A., and Katsabanis, P.D. (1996, January 23–24). Establishing a Quantitative Relation between Post Blast Fragmentation and Mine Productivity: A Case Study. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Montreal, QC, Canada.
18. Construction and testing of the measurement system for excavator productivity10.17794/rgn.2019.2.6 ↗
19. Lindgren, M. (2012). Excavation in Moraine and Dense Non-Cohesive Soil—Numerical Analysis of Soil Behavior. [Licentiate Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology].
20. Singh, S.P., and Yalcin, T. (2002, January 10–13). Effects of Muck Size Distribution on Scooping Operations. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
21. Factors Affecting Productivity of Loaders in Surface Mines10.1080/13895260500261574 ↗
22. On the Prediction of Mucking Rates in Metal Ore Blasting10.1007/s10913-010-0022-9 ↗
23. Estimation of Loader Capacity Based on the Heap Size Distribution Calculated by Using Numerical Models10.1134/S1062739149030118 ↗
24. Holmberg, R., and Rustan, A. (1983, January 22–26). The Kuz-Ram Model for Prediction of Fragmentation from Blasting. Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, Lulea, Sweden.
25. Prediction of Shovel Productivity in Gol-E-Gohar Iron Mine10.1007/s10913-005-0081-5 ↗
26. Panagiotou, G.N., and Michalakopoulos, T.N. (2000, January 6–9). Factors affecting loading performance of the excavators in Garp lignite enterprise. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Athens, Greece.
27. An eco-approach to optimise efficiency and productivity of a hydraulic excavator10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.110 ↗
28. Randell, R.E. (2006, January 25–28). Water Management during Mechanical Dredging of Contaminated Sediment. Proceedings of the WEDA XXVI Annual Meeting and 38th TAMU Dredging Seminar, San Diego, CA, USA.
29. Calculation analysis of bulldozer’s productivity in gravitational transport on open pits
30. (1990). SAE Standard J296—Excavator Hoe Bucket Rating. SAE Handbook 1990, Customer Service SAE.
31. ISO 7451:2007 (2007). Earth-Moving Machinery—Volumetric Ratings for Hoe-Type and Grab-Type Buckets of Hydraulic Excavators and Backhoe Loaders, International Organization for Standardization.
32. Caterpillar Inc (2013). Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Caterpillar Inc.. [43rd ed.].
33. Church, H.K. (1981). Excavation Handbook, McGraw-Hill.
34. Hartman, H.L. (1992). SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc.. [2nd Ed.].
35. Peele, R. (1961). Mining Engineers’ Handbook, John Wiley & Sons. [3rd ed.].
36. APAO (2000). Construction Aggregates Consumers’ Guide, Aggregate Producers’ Association of Ontario.
37. Du Pont, E.I. (1980). Blaster’s Handbook, E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. Inc.. [16th ed.].
38. (2015, February 07). Earthworks. Available online: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~des0www4/cal/roads/earthwk/earthwk.html.
39. (2015, February 07). Evenfallstudios.com. Available online: http://www.evenfallstudios.com/metrology/earthworkweights.html.
40. McNally, G. (2002). Soil and Rock Construction Materials, CRC Press.
41. Popescu, C.M., Phaobunjong, K., and Ovararin, N. (2003). Estimating Building Costs—Civil and Environmental Engineering, CRC Press. [1st ed.].10.1201/9780203912232 ↗
42. Observations on wind-blown superphosphate in native vegetation
43. Komatsu Inc (2009). Komatsu Specifications and Applications Handbook, Komatsu Inc.. [30th ed.].
44. Evaluation of Effect of the Excavator Cycle Duration on its Productivity