The purpose of the study was to determine the performance differences between The Cat (r) 993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel loaders. The study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE. The 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 purpose of the study was to determine the performance differences between The Cat (r) 993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel loaders. The study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE. The 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 purpose of the study was to determine the performance differences between The Cat (r) 993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel loaders. The study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE. The 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 purpose of the study was to determine the performance differences between The Cat (r) 993K and the Komatsu WA900-3 wheel loaders. The study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE. The 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.
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. Cat
993K vs. Komatsu WA900-3 July 2010 2 Study Purpose Study Dates Field Data By Location Written By Weather Conditions Tested Units Material Scale System Calibration Date Business Unit The purpose of the study was to conduct economic analysis of current feet, 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. April 12 15, 2010 Randy Aneloski Cat Global Mining Tom Grill Cat QSID Reed Garretts Tucson Proving Grounds Jamie Wintzel Cat Global Mining Bill Olsen Tinaja Hills DAC Kent Clifton Cat Global Mining Gold mine in Nevada, USA. Altitude was approximately 1280 m (4,200 ft). Randy Aneloski CGM Temperatures ranged from 1 C to 21 C (35 F to 70 F). Dry Conditions. Cat
993K (Mine Owned feld follow)
Komatsu WA900-3 (Mine Owned) Gold ore ranging in density between 971.03 1040.4 kg/m (2,800 3,000 lb/yd). A study was also done in crushed ore which had an average density of 1079.2 kg/m (3,112 lb/yd). The scale system used for this test was the Cat THDAC set of Transcale AS300 weigh system. March 2009 This study was completed by Cat Global Mining with assistance from QSID, Cashman Equipment and Cat Product Development COE. 3 Key Findings Executive Summary 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. The Cat 993K was tested in three separate segments. Production and fuel was measured in each segment. The same customers 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).
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 cycles averaged between 28.02 28.32 seconds. 4 Machine Comparison Model 993K High Lift WA900-3 High Lift Serial Number LWA00426 n/a Unit Number n/a n/a Hours 20,800 18,000 Tires Front Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5 Rear Bridgestone 50/65-51 62PR L5 Bridgestone 45/65-45 58PR L5 Year Manufactured 2006 2006 Engine Model C32 ACERT Tier 2 Manufacturer Caterpillar Cummins Rated Engine RPM 1900 Displacement 32.1 L (1,959 in 3 ) Cylinders 12 12 Hp Rated 708 kW (950 hp) Hp/L 29.4 hp/L Transmission Cat Komatsu Forward Gears 3 3 Reverse Gears 3 3 Top Speed 22.1 km/h (13.7 mph) CD 28 km/h (17.4 mph) Machine Weight as Confgured Bucket High Abrasion Spade Rock Bucket Capacity SAE 2:1 13 m 3 (17 yd 3 ) SAE 2:1 13 m 3 (17 yd 3 ) Additional Options Fire Suppression ASR, ASRC, Exhaust Brake Spec Sheet Weight Estimate 135 586 kg (298,968 lb) 107 350 kg (236,670 lb) Scale Actual 137 212 kg (302,500 lb) n/a Fuel Level 100% n/a 5 Test Procedure Fuel Consumption and Measurement 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. 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. 6 Truck payload information was collected using portable scale system from Tinaja Hills, the certifed 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%. Payload Measurement 7 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. Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study Segment #1 The 993K was operated in light density ore by the customers operator. The operator was consistently 6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free fowing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was very effcient and fuid in his movements. The loading foor was hard packed and fat. Excellent truck queuing and spotting was observed consistently. This operation in the loading area should be considered World Class. Cycle Times Test Results 8 Test Results (continued) Cycle Segment Cycle time minutes Load/Dig 0.114 Travel Loaded 0.161 Dump 0.075 Travel Empty 0.12 Total 0.47 Truck Loading Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 21.65 (23.86) Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 129.85 (143.14) Truck Exchange Time Minutes 0.79 Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2278.1 (2,511.15) Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time 2489.22 (2,743.9) Fuel Consumption L/hr (Gal/hr) 143.09 (37.8) Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 15.92 (66.4) 9 Test Results (continued) Productivity and Fuel Results Summaries by Study Segment #2 The 993K was operated in heavier density ore but in the same pit as above by the customers operator. The operator was 6 pass loading Cat 785 Trucks. Material was well shot, free fowing and very consistent in fracture size. The operator was very effcient and fuid in his movements. The loading foor was hard packed and fat. Cycle Segment Cycle time minutes Load/Dig 0.158 Travel Loaded 0.075 Dump 0.12 Travel Empty 0.119 Total 0.472 Truck Loading Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 23.2 (25.57) Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 139.2 (153.44) Truck Exchange Time Minutes 0.66 Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2702.87 (2,979.4) Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time n/a Fuel Consumption L/hr (Gal/hr) 158.61 (41.9) Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 17.04 (71.1) 10 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 mines operator. Density of this crushed ore was heavier than earlier segments in the pit. The loading foor was hard packed and fat. 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 Cycle time minutes Load/Dig 0.167 Travel Loaded 0.075 Dump 0.121 Travel Empty 0.103 Total 0.466 Truck Loading Average Bucket Payload Tonnes (Tons) 24.0 (26.45) Average Truck Payload Tonnes (Tons) 144.0 (158.71) Truck Exchange Time Minutes 2.61 Tonnes/60 min hour (Tons/60 min hour) 2015.76 (2,222) Tonnes/hr (Tons/hr) with 0.7 Truck Exchange Time 2601.35 (2,867.5) Fuel Consumption L/hr (Gal/hr) 151.04 (39.9) Tonnes/L (Tons/gal) 13.35 (55.7) Test Results (continued) 11 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.
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 confgured to operator preference and layout of the information clusters. Komatsu information board is at an inconvenient position near the operators 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. Diffcult 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 fll 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). 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. Operator Comments Conclusion TEXR0154 July 2010 www.cat.com 2010 Caterpillar All Rights Reserved Printed in U.S.A. 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.
