Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Caterpillar Product Information

Performance Report
May 1997

Cat 793B vs. 793C

Job Study Purpose

To assess the performance and fuel consumption of the Caterpillar


793C Mining Truck and compare it to the Caterpillar 793B.

Study

February 17-20, 1997

Location

Southwestern U.S. Open Pit Copper Mine

Material

Blasted waste and ore rock with an estimated density of 2,700 lb/LCY

Field Data

Dave Berry - Peoria Proving Grounds


Bruce Fickett - Tinaja Hills Training Center
P. Craig Gardner - Construction Mining Truck Marketing
Tim Lemons - Construction Mining Truck Marketing
Dave Monroe - Corporate Mining Group
Mike James - Rust Tractor
Terry Sheean - Rust Tractor

For Dealer Sales Personnel

Executive Summary

Caterpillar conducted this study to provide a production and fuel


consumption comparison of the 793C versus the 793B. Engineers
weighed and timed the trucks on three haul profiles (uphill loaded,
downhill loaded, and flat loaded) to determine their productive
capabilities.
Overall, the 793C outperformed the 793B on all haul profiles
by demonstrating an average 15% improvement in the downhill
cycle and a 5% improvement on the uphill and flat cycles. Fuel
consumption per ton of material moved was less for the 793C as
well. On average, the 793C used 8% less fuel on downhill cycles,
6% less on uphill cycles, and 4% less on flat cycles.

Equipment Summary
Rated Gross Machine Weight
Gross Horsepower
Engine
Average Empty Weight
Average Loaded Weight
Body Volume
Tires
Machine Hours

Study Description

793C
830,000 lb.
2,300 hp
3516B
321,200 lb.
836,800 lb.
193 yd3
40.00R57
<2,000 smu

793B
830,000 lb.
2,160 hp
3516A
321,500 lb.
820,800 lb.
193 yd3
40.00R57
<8,000 smu

Caterpillar engineers set up computerized, electronic load-cell


scales for weight measurements. A Caterpillar engineer rode in each
truck cab recording both cycle times and fuel burned at marked
points along the truck cycle. The engineers used digital stop
watches calibrated in minutes and hundredths of minutes to time the
cycles. They used Caterpillar Service Tool fuel meters installed on
both trucks to measure fuel consumption. All hauls originated at a
common loading face. The loading tool, a P&H 4100 cable shovel
with a 56 yd3 bucket, was a three pass match for the trucks.
Three haul profiles were selected for the evaluation, called
Uphill loaded, Downhill loaded, and Flat loaded.
A brief description:
Distance
Vertical Rise

Uphill
5,541 ft
505 ft

Downhill
5,621 ft
505 ft

Flat
4,916 ft
28 ft

Engineers in the cab logged all delays, breaks, or wait times and
eliminated those times from analysis. Observers on the ground in
the load and dump areas recorded data in those parts of the cycle.
All scale weights were matched to each cycle and included related
weight, time, and on-board fuel meter data. Prior to the test,
engineers conducted a review of the haul roads to determine the
location of speed traps used to calculate grade horsepower. They
also verified the horsepower settings of the engine and overall
performance of the trucks. Both trucks checked out to be within
3% of nominal specifications during the test. The 793B was
2% above and the 793C was 1% above nominal specification.
This report is based directly on the measured data from the truck
study with no adjustments. Due to the moving face and dump area
an average of the load and dump times were assumed for each
truck to minimize impacts on either truck during the cycles.
The following tables indicate actual production as it occurred
during the study. Due to dump and face movement an average
was used for each of these areas for both the 793C and 793B. By
removing these areas of the cycle, only the segment of the haul and
return were examined. Production figures are shown in tons per hour.
Haul Condition
Downhill
Uphill
Flat

793C
1,261.1 t/hr
1,039.9 t/hr
1,820.5 t/hr

793B
1,098.2 t/hr
990.7 t/hr
1,739.7 t/hr

Caterpillar Service Tool fuel meters installed on each truck


measured fuel consumption. These meters use a turbine sensor
on the fuel supply and return lines to provide a digital read-out of
fuel consumption in the cab. The read-out was in U.S. gallons and
indicated continuous, cumulative fuel burned. Consumption figures
shown below are in tons per gallon.
Haul Condition
Downhill
Uphill
Flat

793C
16.56 t/gal
33.06 t/gal
45.65 t/gal

793B
15.61 t/gal
30.44 t/gal
44.10 t/gal

Discussion of Results

Actual Production

Advantage
15%
5%
5%

Fuel Consumption

Advantage
8%
6%
4%

Speed Trap Analysis

The haul cycles were segmented to include speed traps. The


downhill loaded haul included two speed traps. The uphill loaded
and flat loaded hauls included one each. The speed traps were
used to calculate grade horsepower. The calculation requires
taking the time to move through a specified distance and grade,
given a specified weight, to determine the horsepower the truck is
developing. With the use of fuel meters, cross checks of expected
horsepower readings can be done.
The hauls and speed traps were surveyed with GPS for accuracy.
Rolling resistance was estimated to be 0.7% - 1.7%. Data gathered
for each truck was very consistent.

Conclusions

This study indicates that the 793C is considerably more productive


than the 793B. The 793C showed advantages in improving
production while decreasing fuel consumption.
The gains in fuel efficiency can be attributed to improvements in
the 3516 B Series engine. This engine has a 6.5% higher horsepower
rating which can account for the 5% - 15% production improvements.
In this study, the 793C met or exceeded all machine specifications
and exceeded performance expectations.
Both trucks exhibited power train efficiencies expected of a
mechanical power train. These trucks demonstrated the ability to
put 82-84% gross engine horsepower to the ground. They were
equipped with lighter than standard weight bodies which allowed
the trucks to carry higher than rated tonnage without exceeding
gross machine weight ratings. Using the lighter weight bodies
allowed for normal deviation of payloads while maintaining
production expectations and without exceeding critical gross
machine weights.

Appendix A
Cycle Times and Fuel
Consumption
Flat Loaded

Load Area
Haul
Dump Area
Return
Total
Payload (tons)
Production (ton/hr)

Cycle Time (min)


793B
793C
Index
3.08
3.08
1.99
1.93
97
2.25
2.25
1.55
1.48
95
8.87
8.74
99
249.65
257.9
103
1,688.7
1,770.5
105

Avg. Fuel Burn (gph)


Tons per Gallon

793B
0.93
3.05
1.32
1.23
6.53
44.2
38.2

Fuel (gal)
793C
Index
10.93
13.11
102
11.32
11.39
113
16.75
103
46.34
105
38.21
100

The 793C had faster cycle times and moved more material per hour. The increased production could be
attributed to higher run out speeds in 6th gear. The increased production was produced with no additional
fuel consumption when looked at on a tons per gallon basis.

Cycle Times and


Fuel Consumption
Downhill Loaded

Load Area
Haul
Dump Area
Return
Total
Payload (tons)
Production (ton/hr)

Cycle Time (min)


793B
793C
Index
3.08
3.08
5.01
3.87
77
2.25
2.25
3.3
3.07
93
13.64
12.27
90
249.65
257.9
103
1,098.2
1,261.1
115

Avg. Fuel Burn (gph)


Tons per Gallon

793B
0.93
0.11
1.32
5.84
8.2
36.1
30.44

Fuel (gal)
793C
Index
10.93
0

11.32
15.55
95
7.8
95
38.14
106
33.06
109

In the downhill cycle the results demonstrated faster cycle times and more tons moved per gallon of fuel. The
793C was able to maintain one gear faster going downhill than the 793B. This improvement is attributed to
the improved efficiencies of the design of the hydraulic circuits and increased air flow through the radiator
due to faster fan speeds.

Cycle Times and Fuel


Consumption
Uphill Loaded

Load Area
Haul
Dump Area
Return
Total
Payload (tons)
Production (ton/hr)

Cycle Time (min)


793B
793C
Index
3.08
3.08
7.6
7.26
96
2.25
2.25
2.19
2.29
105
15.12
14.88
98
249.65
257.9
103
990.7
1,039.9
105

Avg. Fuel Burn (gph)


Tons per Gallon

793B
0.93
13.55
1.32
0.19
15.99
63.5
15.61

Fuel (gal)
793C
Index
10.93
13.28
98
11.32
10.04
21
15.57
97
62.78
99
16.56
106

The results demonstrate faster cycle times and more tons moved per gallon of fuel. The 793C numbers were
as expected in relation to the 6% increase in horsepower. The fuel consumed was less than expected and
attributed to the improvements of the 3516 B Series engine.

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.

TEXR0269
May 1997
1997 Caterpillar
Printed in U.S.A.