Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 166 views

    5110B Performance Report I (PR00263)

    Uploaded by

    suwarjitechnic
    The document compares the productivity of a Caterpillar 5110B mass excavator to a Hitachi EX1100. It found that the Caterpillar was 25-32% more productive due to faster cycle times and higher payloads. The Caterpillar had significantly faster swing times and could load trucks both on the same level and below more quickly than the Hitachi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    5110B Performance Report I (PR00263)

    Uploaded by

    suwarjitechnic
    166 views5 pages
    The document compares the productivity of a Caterpillar 5110B mass excavator to a Hitachi EX1100. It found that the Caterpillar was 25-32% more productive due to faster cycle times and higher payloads. The Caterpillar had significantly faster swing times and could load trucks both on the same level and below more quickly than the Hitachi.

    Original Description:

    suwarjitechnic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document compares the productivity of a Caterpillar 5110B mass excavator to a Hitachi EX1100. It found that the Caterpillar was 25-32% more productive due to faster cycle times and higher payloads. The Caterpillar had significantly faster swing times and could load trucks both on the same level and below more quickly than the Hitachi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    166 views5 pages

    5110B Performance Report I (PR00263)

    Uploaded by

    suwarjitechnic
    The document compares the productivity of a Caterpillar 5110B mass excavator to a Hitachi EX1100. It found that the Caterpillar was 25-32% more productive due to faster cycle times and higher payloads. The Caterpillar had significantly faster swing times and could load trucks both on the same level and below more quickly than the Hitachi.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    A productivity test was conducted comparing a Caterpillar 5110B mass excavator to a Hitachi EX1100. The Caterpillar machine was found to be 25-32% more productive due to faster cycle times and higher payloads.

    A Caterpillar 5110B mass excavator and a Hitachi EX1100 mass excavator were compared.

    The Caterpillar 5110B had faster cycle times, especially during the swing component, as well as higher payloads which resulted in fewer passes. This led to a 25-32% higher productivity compared to the Hitachi EX1100.

    Caterpillar Product Information

    Performance Report
    September, 2000

    Caterpillar 5110B ME

    Job Purpose Compare productivity of Caterpillar 5110B ME to that of an


    Hitachi EX1100

    Job Site Gulf state lignite mine, U.S.A.

    Study Date 15 August, 2000

    Material Unconsolidated Overburden Sands 2500 lbs/LCY

    Loading Tools Caterpillar 5110B Mass Excavator 9.4 yd (7.2 m)


    Hitachi EX1100 Mass Excavator 8.5 yd (6.6 m)

    For Dealer Sales Personnel


    Haul Units Komatsu 330 (100 ton)

    Observers John Ingle, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.


    Grant Allen, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.
    Scott Shaffer, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.
    Joline Grose, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.

    Written By James Humphrey, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.

    Significant Results The 5110B was 25% to 32 % more productive than the Hitachi
    EX1100. The 5110B advantage came from cycle time and bucket
    payload.

    Test Procedure Machine cycles were timed using a portable computer and software.
    During each cycle four separate time segments were collected. The
    sum of the segment averages was taken as the total cycle time per
    pass, then a standard truck exchange time of 0.7 minutes was used to
    develop the production estimate.

    Trucks were loaded both on the bench with the shovel and on the
    level below. Payload was gathered from a truck weigh scale system.

    Machine Configuration 5110B


    Boom 24.9 ft (7.6m)
    Stick 11.1 ft (3.4m)
    Bucket 9.4 yd (7.2 m)
    Machine Weight 275,000 lb. (125 tonne)
    Net Power 696 hp (519 kW)
    Breakout Force 112,725 lb. (501 kN)
    Crowd Force 98,775 lb. (439 kN)
    Rated Bucket Payload 15.1 ton (13.7 tonne)

    2000 Caterpillar PR00263


    Job Description The EX1100 worked the same face as the 5110B, the face height
    varied somewhat but was in the order of 10 12 feet (3.5 meters)
    tall. Trucks were loaded from two different levels, one with the
    trucks on the same level of the excavators and another with the
    trucks on the floor of the cut, below the excavators. In both cases
    the trucks were loaded in a pass-by style.

    Example of Hitachi EX1100 loading on the same level

    Example of 5110B loading below the level

    2000 Caterpillar PR00263


    Results As the summarized data in the tables show the, 5110B was
    considerably more productive than the Hitachi EX1100. The 5110B
    was from 25 to 32% more productive depending on the truck loading
    position. The production advantage was primarily due to cycle time
    and payload.

    The 5110B was consistently faster in the swing component of the


    cycle, approximately 15% faster on the average. This was
    particularly evident when the machines were hoisting while
    swinging to the trucks on the same level. The 5110B clearly showed
    the benefit of superior horsepower and hydraulic flow rate with
    better balanced hoist and swing motions. On same level loading the
    EX1100 operator had to delay swing and wait for the boom to hoist.
    Average cycle times for the 5110B ranged from 20 to 24 seconds.

    The 5110B larger payload resulted in fewer passes, over 30% fewer
    passes in the case when loading the truck below level.

    It should be noted that the 5110B was configured with a rock bucket
    and was operating below rated tonnage capacity. The productivity
    would have been enhanced if it had been fitted with a lighter weight
    medium duty bucket more suited to these unconsolidated sands.

    Production Comparison

    1800
    Trucks on Same Level Trucks Below Level
    1600
    1400
    Tons per 50 min hr

    1200
    1000
    800
    600
    400
    200
    0
    EX1100 5110B 1
    EX1100 5110B

    2000 Caterpillar PR00263


    Results

    Trucks on Same Level


    Hitachi EX1100 CAT 5110
    Avg Dump Time (sec) 3.9 3.5
    Avg Swing Empty Time (sec) 6.6 6.2
    Avg Load Time (sec) 6.5 6.6
    Avg Swing Loaded Time (sec) 9.1 8.2
    Avg Cycle Time (sec) 26.17 24.46
    Avg. Truck Cycle w/0.7 min exchange (min) 3.94 3.39
    Avg. # of Passes 8.3 7.4
    Avg. Bucket Load (tons) 11.1 13.3
    Avg. Truck Load (tons) 91.8 98.9
    System Production (tons/50 min. hr) 1166 1461
    System Production (BCY/50 min. hr)* 706 885
    Metric Summary
    Avg. Bucket Load (tonnes) 10.1 12.1
    Avg. Truck Load (tonnes) 83.3 89.7
    System Production (tonnes/50 min. hr) 1058 1326
    System Production (BCM/50 min. hr)* 540 677
    * Volumes based on 3300 lbs/BCY (1.96 tonnes/BCM)

    Trucks Below Shovel Level


    Hitachi EX1100 CAT 5110
    Avg Dump Time (sec) 2.6 3.3
    Avg Swing Empty Time (sec) 5.5 5.0
    Avg Load Time (sec) 6.6 6.6
    Avg Swing Loaded Time (sec) 5.6 5.3
    Avg Cycle Time (sec) 20.21 20.19
    Avg. Truck Cycle w/0.7 min exchange (min) 3.4 2.7
    Avg. # of Passes 8.8 6.7
    Avg. Bucket Load (tons) 9.4 13.0
    Avg. Truck Load (tons) 83.4 87.1
    System Production (tons/50 min. hr) 1231.8 1625.1
    System Production (BCY/50 min. hr) 746.5 984.9
    Metric Summary
    Avg. Bucket Load (tonnes) 8.6 11.8
    Avg. Truck Load (tonnes) 75.7 79.0
    System Production (tonnes/50 min. hr) 1118 1475
    System Production (BCM/50 min. hr) 571 753
    * Volumes are estimates based on 3300 lbs/BCY (1.96 tonnes/BCM)

    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.

    2000 Caterpillar PR00263

    You might also like