Andreev Rodion 201508 MSC PDF

Evaluation of Hydraulic Excavator and Rope Shovel Major Maintenance
Costs in Operation
by
Rodion Andreev
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of
Master of Science
in
Mining Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

University of Alberta
© Rodion Andreev, 2015

ABSTRACT
In this thesis, results of a comparison study of rope shovels and hydraulic

excavators undertaken by the author between September 2014 and May 2015 is
presented. The study was implemented by a literature search, collecting data
from KMG (Komatsu Mining Germany) which is the Komatsu Limited
manufacturing facility for super large hydraulic mining shovels (16 to 42m3
Bucket Capacity) in Europe, and receiving and analyzing information from a
coal mining company about performance parameters of rope and hydraulic
shovels with bucket capacities ranging from 10 up to 33m3.
The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of two types of

excavators in surface mining during their life cycle from 0 up to 60,000
operational hours. Each machine performance was surveyed on a month by
month basis and involved assessing such parameters as: operational hours,
scheduled inspections and maintenance, unscheduled repairs, number of
failures, production. Consequently it allowed calculating general indicators to
have to be priced in the study and their change with increase of total
operational life. These indicators were: physical availability and hourly output
of an excavator (normalized to 1m3 of bucket capacity). Moreover,
expenditures related to possession of mining shovels (spare parts, fuels,
lubricants, electricity, consumables) were also taken into consideration to
calculate and compare life cycle costs of machines.
The results obtained from the investigation show that use of hydraulic
excavators in open cast mining allows to get considerably higher production
ii
rates in comparison to rope shovels of the similar age. Electric cable shovels,
however, compensate their high initial purchase cost by comparatively low
service expenditures and, wherefore, 1m3 of excavation with use of rope
shovels become cheaper by about 5 years (30,000 hours) of operation.
For confidentiality, no mining site names can be found in this thesis.

However, description of geological, engineering and climatic conditions of the
sites is presented in the thesis.
iii
AKNOWLEGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Tim Joseph

for his kind assistance, valuable advices, warm-hearted and friendly
supervision during my studies.
I cordially would like to thank Komatsu Mining Germany GmbH.,

especially all members of the Product marketing & planning, application
department, Service department, Parts marketing department for their help and
warm attitude during my stay at KMG.
I would also like to express my special thanks to the manager of the

Product marketing & planning, application department Mr. Jens Klopmeier,
Vice President Mr. Peter Buhles, and the President of the company Dr. Norbert
Walther for giving me the opportunity to work for the company and use the
data available for carrying out the study.
Finally, but most deeply, I would like to thank my wife and daughter for
their support and patience during preparation of this thesis.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….…. ii
AKNOWLEGEMENTS…………………………………………… iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………….…. v
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………… x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………….….. xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………... xvii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………...…. 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem ..…………………………... 1
1.2 Objectives of the Thesis……………………………… 2
1.3 Methodology of the Thesis…………………………... 2
1.4 Thesis Outline………………………………………... 3
2. LITERATURE SURVEY………………………………..….. 5
2.1 Introduction…………………………………………... 5
2.2 Mining Shovel Design……………………………….. 7
2.2.1 General Overview………………………….… 7
2.2.2 Rope Shovels………………………………… 9
2.2.3 Hydraulic Excavators………………………... 11
v
2.2.4 Buckets………………………………………. 13
2.2.5 Rope Shovel Crowding Mechanism……….... 16
2.2.6 Slewing Mechanism and Rotating Support…. 16
2.2.7 Control Systems and Mechanisms…………… 19
2.2.8 Undercarriage………………………………... 21
2.2.9 Upper Works ………………………………. 23
2.3 Digging Conditions…………………………………... 25
2.4 Mining Shovel Productivity…………..……………… 26
2.5 Maintenance Strategies………………………………. 31
3. MINING SHOVELS UNDER THIS INVESTIGATION……. 33
3.1 KMG’s Hydraulic Excavators………………………... 33
3.1.1 Sources and Nature of the Data Collected…… 33
3.1.2 General Overview of the Excavators………… 37
3.1.3 PC 3000……………………………………… 38
3.1.4 PC 4000……………………………………… 40
3.1.5 PC 5500……………………………………… 42
3.1.6 PC 8000……………………………………… 44
3.2 Data From Industry………………..…………………. 46
3.2.1 Sources and Nature of the Data Collected…… 46
3.2.2 Description of the Site……………………….. 47
vi
3.2.2.1 General Overview…………………… 47
3.2.2.2 Stratigraphy and Lithology………….. 48
3.2.2.3 Hydrogeology………………………... 51
3.2.2.4 Coal Seams…………………………... 52
3.2.2.5 Overburden Operations, Drilling and

Blasting…………………………….. 53
3.2.3 EKG Rope Shovels…………………………... 54
3.2.3.1 General Overview…………………… 54
3.2.3.2 EKG-10……………………………… 55
3.2.3.3 EKG-12……………………………… 58
3.2.3.4 EKG-15……………………………… 60
3.2.3.5 EKG-18……………………………… 62
3.2.3.6 EKG-20……………………………… 64
3.2.4 P&H Rope Shovels………………………….. 65
3.2.4.1 General Remarks……………………. 66
3.2.4.2 P&H 2300…………………………… 66
3.2.4.3 P&H 2800…………………………… 69
3.2.5 Hydraulic Excavators………………………... 71
3.2.5.1 General Remarks…………………….. 71
3.2.5.2 PC 2000……………………………… 71
vii
3.2.5.3 R 994………………………………… 74
4. COMPARISON PARAMETERS APPLIED TO THE

DISCUSSED MINING SHOVELS……………………...…... 76
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………... 76
4.2 Investigated parameters………….…………………... 78
4.2.1 Physical Availability………………………… 78
4.2.2 Production…………………………………… 85
4.2.3 Correlation between Physical Availability and

Production……………………………….……….… 92
4.2.4 Operational Cost.…………………………….. 93
4.3 Discussion……………………………………………. 101
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…...……… 108
5.1 Conclusions…………………………………………... 108
5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies.………………. 112
REFERENCES……………………………………………………. 114
viii
APPENDICES
A. Individual physical availability values…………………… 119
B. Individual productivity values…………………………… 129
C. Individual expenditure cost values……………………….. 135
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
3.1 List of the estimated parameters and data collected for the
comparison study………………………………….………. 36
3.2 PC 3000: Main specifications……………………………… 39
3.6 List of mining company shovels involved in the study……. 47
3.7 Overall thickness and percentage of country rocks and coal

seams set……………………………………….………….. 49
3.8 EKG-10: Main specifications……………………………… 57
3.9 EKG-12: Main specifications……………………………… 59
3.10 EKG-15: Main specifications..…………………………… 61
3.11 EKG-18: Main specifications………………………..…… 63
3.12 EKG-20: Main specifications………………………..…… 65
3.13 P&H 2300: Main specifications………………………..… 68
3.14 P&H 2800: Main specifications………………………..… 70
3.15 PC 2000: Main specifications…………………………..… 73
x
3.16 R 994: Main specifications……………………………..… 75
4.1 Hydraulic excavators’ mutual physical availability values… 80
4.2 Rope shovels’ mutual physical availability values………… 80
4.3 Physical availability values of hydraulic excavators

working at the site “A”……………………………………. 81
4.4 Physical availability of rope shovels with operational

lifespan exceeding 60.000 hours…………………………... 82
4.5 Physical availability values of hydraulic excavators

working in metal mines……………………………………. 84
4.6 Hydraulic excavators’ mutual productivity………………… 87
4.7 Rope shovels’ productivity………………………………… 88
4.8 Productivity of hydraulic excavators operating at site “A”... 89
4.9 Productivity of hydraulic excavators operating at an iron

mine………………………………………………………... 89
4.10 Productivity of rope shovels with operational lifespan

exceeding 60.000 hours………………………………........ 90
4.11 Rope shovels’ operation costs (lease included)………….. 95
4.12 Hydraulic excavators’ operation costs (lease included)…. 95
4.13 Operation costs of rope shovels with operational lifespan

exceeding 60.000 hours (lease included)............................ 96
4.14 Rope shovels’ operation costs (lease excluded)................. 98
xi
4.15 Hydraulic excavators’ operation costs (lease excluded)…. 98
4.16 Operation costs of rope shovels with operational lifespan

exceeding 60.000 hours (lease excluded)............................ 99
4.17 Summary of the compared parameters................................ 103
A.1 Physical Availability: PC 3000............................................. 119
A.5 Physical Availability: PC 2000 and R 994............................ 126
A.6 Physical Availability: Rope shovels 0÷60.000 hours........... 127
A.7 Physical Availability: Rope shovels 60.000÷150.000 hours 128
B.1 Production: PC 4000............................................................. 129
B.2 Production: PC 5500............................................................. 130
B.3 Production: PC 8000............................................................. 131
B.4 Production: PC 2000 and R 994............................................ 132
B.5 Production: Rope shovels 0÷60.000 hours............................ 133
B.6 Production: Rope shovels 60.000÷150.000 hours................. 134
C.1 Expenditure costs (lease included): Hydraulic excavators.... 135
C.2 Expenditure costs (lease excluded): Hydraulic

excavators............................................................................. 136
xii
C.3 Expenditure costs (lease included): Rope shovels 0÷60.000
hours...................................................................................... 137
C.4 C.3 Expenditure costs (lease excluded): Rope shovels 138

0÷60.000 hours.....................................................................
C.5 Expenditure costs (lease included): Rope shovels

60.000÷150.000 hours.......................................................... 139
C.6 Expenditure costs (lease excluded): Rope shovels

60.000÷150.000 hours.......................................................... 140
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
2.1 Machine arrangement of a sliding stick shovel…………….. 9
2.2 Machine arrangement of a hydraulic excavator with

changeable attachments…………………..…………….…… 12
2.3 O&K’s TriPower geometry………………………………… 13
2.4 Rope shovel free-falling pendulum doors dipper with a

curved shape front lip................................................................... 15
2.5 Rope shovel lower works....................................................... 17
2.6 Rope shovel upper works - revolving frame.......................... 18
2.7 Rope shovel rotating circle and cylindrical rollers................ 19
2.8 Change of the production level with time at Muruntau……. 28
2.9 Change of the cost of excavation with time at Muruntau….. 28
2.10 Change of shovels failure downtime at Muruntau……..…. 29
2.11 Average hourly production (m3/hr) for R-9350 (a HEX

with 3.554 lifetime hours) and EKG-15 (a RS with 18.272
hours lifetime)………………………..……………………... 30
3.1 PC 3000: Basic dimensions………………………………… 38
xiv
3.5 Stratigraphic column for Mine “A”………………………... 49
3.6 EKG-10: Basic dimensions………………………………… 56
3.10 EKG-20: Basic dimensions……………………………… 64
3.11 P&H 2300: Basic dimensions……..……………………… 67
3.12 P&H 2800: Basic dimensions……..……………………… 69
3.13 PC 2000: Basic dimensions……..………………………… 72
3.14 R 994: Basic dimensions……..…………………………… 74
4.1 Quantity of the examined hydraulic excavators according to

minerals they extract………………………………………... 76
4.2 Cumulative average physical availability change of mining

shovels in relation to their operation lifetime………………. 82
4.3 Cumulative average physical availability changes of RSs

and HEXs in coal and metal mines in relation to their
operation lifetime…………………………………………… 83
4.4 Cumulative average production change of mining shovels

in relation to their operation lifetime……………………….. 90
4.5 Correlations between Availability and Production

92
xv
cumulative average values…………………………………..
4.6 Cumulative average excavation cost change (including

lease) in relation to shovels’ operation lifetime…………….. 99
4.7 Cumulative average excavation cost change (excluding

lease) in relation to shovels’ operation lifetime…………….. 99
4.8 Hydraulic excavators and rope shovels excavation costs

related to servicing categories………………………………. 100
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
KMG Komatsu Mining Germany
FS Front Shovel
BH Backhoe
MTBF Mean Time Between Failures
MTTR Mean Time To Repair
HEX Hydraulic Excavator
RS Rope Shovel
HMR Hour Meter Readings
S.M.A.R.T. Surface Mining Association for Research and Technology
OMZ United Engineering Factories (Obedinyonnye

Mashinostroitelnye Zavody)
LL Liquid Limit
PL Plastic Limit
PI Plastisity Index
DC Direct Current
PA Physical Availability
r Correlation Coefficient
Stdev Standard Deviation
CAD Canadian Dollar
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of the Problem
One of the most typical machines used in surface mining for excavating
and loading material is a single-bucket mining shovel. In turn, there are two
essential types of this heavy equipment, which are rope shovels and hydraulic
excavators. Both can be found at virtually all modern large-scale surface
mining sites.
To provide optimal production rates on site and consequently to ensure a

company`s profitability, it is important to employ the most suitable pieces of
mining equipment including mining shovels. High cost of machines (to
purchase, maintain and service them) makes a large impact on the capital and
operational investment of a company, so the selection of excavating equipment
is a vital aspect of every mine design.
Both rope shovels and hydraulic excavators have advantages with respect
to one another and depending on the conditions (geotechnical, engineering,
climatic, etc.). In this study analysis of performance of both types of excavator
was made as well as determining expenditures associated with their possession
and utilization.
1
1.2 Objectives of the Thesis
This study has three main objectives. The first one was to collect as much
data as possible about performance of rope shovels and hydraulic excavators -
uptime hours and downtime causes, productivity rates and excavation costs.
The second objective was to assess the application conditions in each

operational case and try to find a correlation between such conditions and
machine performance.
The third purpose has two stages, as follows: 1) to summarize all the
obtained information in order to analyze performance parameters change with
life and estimate overall cost of ownership of an excavator; 2) to provide a
comparison of mining shovels classified as “Rope Shovels” (RS) and
“Hydraulic Excavators” (HEX) based on the results of the study and the
parameters examined.
1.3 Methodology of the Thesis
The study has been carried out in four steps. As a first step, an extensive
literature survey was performed. It included review of existing single-bucket
mining shovels, their design and kinematics, application pros and cons, factors
affecting productivity and applied maintenance strategies.
2
The second step included data collection at Komatsu Mining Germany
(which is Komatsu Ltd. Manufacturing facility for super large hydraulic
mining excavators) in regards to their machines operating around the globe.
The third stage of information gathering related to a field study of ten

hydraulic excavators and twenty rope shovels operating at three directly
adjoining coal mining sites called in this thesis Mine “A”.
The final stage comprised analysis of each dataset brought together for
examination and comparison of such surface mining equipment models under
consideration.
1.4 Thesis Outline
Following the introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 comprised a review of

modern hydraulic excavators and electric cable shovels, their design and
kinematics, favorable and unfavorable application conditions, factors affecting
productivity and employed maintenance.
Chapter 3 contains information about KOMATSU heavy duty excavators

and the field conditions in which they work, as well as specific field sources of
data obtained at Komatsu Mining Germany (KMG). Description of Mine “A”
where production, expenditure costs, uptime and downtime indicators for thirty
excavating machines of different types and bucket capacities were gathered can
also be found in this chapter.
3
A comparison of the excavators was made on the examination results of
the following indices: 1) physical availability; 2) productivity; 3) operation
cost. The results can be found in Chapter 4.
Finally, conclusions related to this study and recommendations for future

studies are summarized in Chapter 5.
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 Introduction
Surface mining today is not possible without the use of large excavation
equipment which is an integral part of the mining process. The most common
class of excavation machines working in surface mines are single-bucket
excavators. Their duty cycle consists of digging operations, moving the filled
bucket to an unloading point, unloading the excavated material from the bucket
into a vehicle and returning to the digging face. Duration of the duty cycle
depends on the capacity and type of excavators and the working conditions,
varying from 20 to 80 seconds [1]. Production level for 1m3 of equivalent
bucket capacity varies significantly and depends on the operating conditions.
Heavy-duty excavation equipment is related to the instability of the mining
conditions, loading activity and wear of equipment.
Rope shovels and hydraulic excavators are used to dig any (including the
strongest and heterogeneous) earth broken rock materials with large solid
inclusions. To work in a soft soil shovels and excavators can be supplied with
dippers or buckets of a larger capacity. Hard rocks and frozen ground are
usually loosened by means of blasting prior to excavation, and mining shovels
are fitted with smaller buckets reinforced for better wear protection.
5
Development of open cast mining has moved towards a concentration of
operations in smaller number of operating machines, increasing the unit power,
capacity and consequently amount of the handled material per unit time for
shovels. The feasibility of using a particular type of excavation equipment is
based on the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of
existing factors. The factors influencing choice may include: production
capacity of the mine; physical and mechanical properties of overburden and
minerals, the condition of their occurrence; the accepted mine plan; operating
floor slope angles, bench heights; etc. [2].
In turn, indicators for performance assessment of each particular type of

excavator could be assessed as follows [3]:
availability — the proportion of time the equipment is available to work;
maintenance needs — the proportion of time required for general

maintenance, overhauls and unexpected maintenance (unavailability);
cost per unit of production.
Because of the high number of variables influencing open pit mine

equipment selection, in open pit mines not one, but several kinds of excavation
and loading equipment are used, each of which best meets the given conditions
of a specific operation and provides a high efficiency to the mining operation.
Typically, electrical rope shovels are considered to be more reliable and

long-lived machines, they are assumed to be easier and cheaper to maintain [4,
6
5]. For major long-life sites with well-developed electrical supply networks,
where mining and geological conditions do not require selective excavation at
one horizon, these machines are often used.
Conversely, where complicated geological conditions exist, hydraulic

excavators are usually more preferable as technologically more flexible. The
weight of a hydraulic excavator is less, and it can be equipped as a "front
shovel" or a "backhoe". It generally has greater power delivery for excavation,
considerably higher mobility, and provides qualitative selective excavation [5].
Clearly, differences in design and kinematics make hydraulic excavators

and rope shovels successful by application case. This chapter is the result of a
literature review focused on comparing the two principle types of surface
mining excavation machines.
2.2 Mining Shovel Design
2.2.1 General Overview
Any rope shovel or hydraulic excavator consists of three major assemblies

which are an upper structure, a lower structure, and an attachment. The upper
structure consists of a machinery house, an operator’s cab and a counterweight.
The lower structure contains the propel drive and crawler system as well as
provides a stable base for the machine.
7
The main features that are the base for classification of existing open-mine
rope shovels and hydraulic excavators are their bucket capacity or theoretical
productivity and attachment power delivery for excavation. Unlike
construction or other types of excavators, machines used in surface mining are
crawler mounted.
Power delivery for heavy-duty open mine excavators is mainly electrical,

however, machines of lower power class use diesel - electric, diesel - hydraulic
and electro-hydraulic power mechanisms.
Depending on the application, operational equipment to single bucket

shovels has different designs and kinematics. Rope shovels have operational
equipment in form of front shovels only, whereas hydraulic excavators can be
either front shovels or backhoes. Usually hydraulic excavators in open pit
operations use one type of attachment during their working life, in contrast to
universal smaller construction excavators using up to ten interchangeable
attachments for different tasks.
Four general configurations of front shovels are known at this moment.

They are a front shovel with sliding stick, a toggle linkage front shovel, a
hydraulic front shovel, and a “Super Front” configuration shovel. “Super
Front” shovels are rather rare among machines used in surface mining, while
toggle linkage designs are used in powerful striping front shovels and are not
wide spread in mining because of low kinematic effectiveness. Therefore, as
two commonly utilized front shovel configurations a sliding stick rope shovel
and a hydraulic front shovel are discussed below.
8
2.2.2 Rope Shovels
A sliding stick rope shovel (Figure 2.1) consists of a dipper (1), a stick (2)
supported by a saddle block (3), and components of a crowding gear. A boom
is abutted by a swinging platform with a pivot hinge (4) and supported by a
support cable (5). A hoist cable passes from a hoist (O1) through a heading
block (6) and at the point (B) joins a dipper (7).
Figure 2.1 Machine arrangement of a sliding stick rope shovel. Adapted from
Mechanical equipment for surface mining (p. 149) by Poderny R.,
2007, Moscow. Copyright 2007 by Poderny R..
Depending on a crowding gear system and a boom design sliding stick

rope shovels can be divided into four main groups:
9
- With a rack-and-gear crowding mechanism (Figure 2.1, a) sited on
the boom (8) and transferring the force with a rack gear (10) (rotation
axis (O2)) on a rack bar (9) sited on the stick (2).
- With a rope crowding mechanism (Figure 2.1, b) and a boom

divided by a joint (O2) into two segments – the upper (8) and the lower
(9) supported by a brace (10). A crowding winch (11) is sited on the
platform. Back and forth movement of the stick is provided by cables
(12, 13) enveloping central blocks (14) (rotation axis O2) and pulleys (15,
16) sited on the stick.
- With a rope crowding mechanism (Figure 2.1, c) and an all-in-one-

piece boom (8). A saddle block (3) and central blocks (14) have the
rotation axis O2 and are sited inside the boom. Back and forth movement
of the stick is provided by a crowding winch (11) in the same manner as
on the scheme shown in Figure 2.1, b.
- With a rope crowding mechanism (Figure 1, d) and a double-girder

boom (8). A saddle block (3) is installed in a frame (9) unjointed of the
boom. The frame is supported by a brace (10). A crowding winch (11) is
sited in front of the platform. Back and forth movement of the stick is in
the same manner as on the scheme shown in Figure 1, b.
Positioning of the stick in the saddle block allows it to rotate on the axis
O2 by the hoist cable acting force, as well as to slide inside the saddle block by
the crowding mechanism action. Moreover, it provides rotation around the
stick center-line. Thereby, three last groups of rope shovels have sticks with
10
three degrees of freedom. A dipper motion is determined by summarizing
movement vectors caused by the crowd and hoist mechanisms.
Dipper dumping is implemented by the dipper door opening at the rear.

After dumping the dipper is retracted to the lowest point of a bench by means
of its own weight and the weight of the stick. The dipper door at the same time
closes and the bucket is ready for a new dig cycle.
Rope shovels are intended for mining operations above the machine
ground level. Nevertheless, they are able to dig slightly below that level which
is enough only for the machine to embed itself when trenching (ditching) and
creating a downward ramp.
2.2.3 Hydraulic Excavators
Hydraulic front shovels with a swiveling (curling) bucket are illustrated

below (Figure 2.2, a) and has the following elements of the operational
equipment: a boom (1) (rotation axis O1), a stick (2) (rotation axis O2), a bucket
(3) (rotation axis O3). Rotation relative to O1, O2, O3 axes is provided by a
hydraulic cylinder of hoist and descent boom movement (4), a stick crowd
cylinder (5), and a bucket swiveling cylinder (6). The bucket swiveling
cylinder can be attached either to the stick or the boom.
11
Figure 2.2 Machine arrangement of a hydraulic excavator with changeable
attachments. Adapted from Mechanical equipment for surface
mining (p. 153) by Poderny R., 2007, Moscow. Copyright 2007 by
Poderny R..
From the kinematical point of view, a swinging platform is a fixed

element of the executing mechanism of an excavator. The excavating trajectory
is a combination of motion of the main operational equipment elements.
Bucket dumping is implemented by the bucket jaws opening. For this

purpose there are two hydrocylinders attached to the bucket rearwall (clam)
and rotating the front part of the bucket on O3 joint axis. The rearwall is a fixed
element of the bucket.
Configuration of a hydraulic backhoe (Figure 2.2, b) boom (1) and a stick

(2) differ from a hydraulic front shovel. Rotational motions of a boom, a stick,
and a bucket are implemented on the axes O1, O2, O3 by forces provided with
hydraulic cylinders 4, 5, and 6. Pull bars 7 and 8 are for the bucket bonding.
Both front shovel and backhoe attachments can be removed and installed
on the same machine.
12
Hydraulic front shovel configurations developed different manufacturers
are similar. However, the arrangement of hydrocylinders for different
excavator model purposes creates optimal kinematics as a function of
application.
For instance, the Orenstein & Koppel (O&K) company (now part of
Caterpillar) designed a TriPower system (Figure 2.3) which comprised a three-
part rotatable arm sited on the boom and connected to the boom and bucket
cylinders. This design provides the bucket to be activated horizontally for each
dig height and keeps the angle of the loaded bucket constant to varying
positions of the boom and stick.
Figure 2.3 O&K`s TriPower geometry [7]
2.2.4 Buckets
The bucket is a working body of an excavator which is a cup-shaped

container normally equipped with bucket teeth and is for ground penetration,
scoop and loading.
13
Bucket configurations for mining shovels depend on their connection to
the handle or stick. Depending on application, buckets are classified as heavy,
medium and light and are used for working in heavy duty, normal, light
conditions or coal loading, respectively.
Ninety percent of rope shovels for open pit mining placed on the global
market these days have dipper capacities between 30 m3 and 45m3 [8].
However, smaller and larger models from about 10m3 (P&H 1900AL – 10,7m3,
EKG-10 – 10m3) to up to almost 80m3 (P&H 4800XPC – 77,6m3) also exist.
Moreover, at many mining sites of former Soviet Union countries smaller old
models of rope shovels with dippers capacities of 8m3 (EKG-8) and even 5m3
(EKG-5A) are still commonly used.
As for rope shovels, hydraulic excavators have seen recent bucket capacity
increases in the past two decades, but the creation a large hydraulic excavator
is limited for a number of reasons. The main reason is that technological
advantages of hydraulic machines such as mobility and selective excavation
decrease with size increase. Therefore, hydraulic excavators have capped at a
bucket capacity limit of 42m3 [8].
Depending on dumping methods, buckets can be classified as those with a

free-falling pendulum doors, jaw-like buckets, and buckets unloaded by
tilteling. The first class is commonly used on rope shovels, because of its
comparatively rapid dumping. The second class is used when a lower dump
height is needed for hydraulic front shovels. The third is mainly applied at
hydraulic backhoes.
14
Modern rope shovel dippers usually have a back wall considerably lesser
than a front one. The front lip has a flat or a curved shape in order to provide
better material pickup and dipper fill. Dippers for hard rock application have
higher lip curvatures. Buckets cutting edges are reinforced with high-
manganese steel for higher resistance and durability.
Figure 2.4 Rope shovel free-falling pendulum doors dipper with a curved shape
front lip (The picture was kindly provided by Dr. Tim Grain Joseph,
University of Alberta)
Bucket teeth for surface mining excavators are consumables. Often they
have symmetrical shapes along the longitudinal axis. After a tooth has worn, it
can be easily chanced in the field.
In terms of metal consumption, the most rational is a multiple-piece tooth

configuration with a changeable nose. This configuration has a tooth consisting
of several segments, where each of these segments can be changed when it is
worn-out.
15
2.2.5 Rope Shovel Crowding Mechanism
Crowding forces to a rope shovel dipper is generated by a crowding

mechanism which is used to raise and lower the bucket. The force created by a
crowding mechanism drive is transferred by the rope-and-pulley system or by
the rack-and-gear system to the stick traveling in a saddle block.
Siting the crowd mechanism on a boom increases required moment of

inertia, the overturning moment of the excavator, as well as the counterweight
magnitude. This requires reducing the bucket capacity or the excavating bucket
trajectory. A higher dynamic moment of inertia and radius of mass rotating
combined with the rope shovel lower works gives rise to inertial loads in the
rotating mechanism components. Acceleration and deceleration time increases,
which causes increasing increments in cycle time.
2.2.6 Slewing Mechanism and Rotating Support
The slewing mechanism is a turntable with machinery and work

equipment. Slewing mechanism of an excavator provides rotary movement of
the upper works for digging or dumping.
Modern excavators in open pits have a slewing mechanism with an

individual drive consisting of two or more (up to 10) independent assemblages
in the upper works operating around a rotating circle fixed to the lower works.
16
The rotational frequency of a lower works for a heavy single bucket
excavator should not exceed 0,02 sec-1 (50 seconds for one complete rotation
[1]).
Swinging a loaded bucket to a truck and returning it back to the cycle start
after dumping are two components that take the most time for a rope shovel or
hydraulic excavator duty cycle. Therefore, increasing the rotational speed of
the lower works can increase in machine productivity significantly.
Figure 2.5 Rope shovel lower works (The picture was kindly provided by Dr.
Tim Grain Joseph, University of Alberta)
17
Figure 2.6 Rope shovel upper works - revolving frame (The picture was kindly
provided by Dr. Tim Grain Joseph, University of Alberta)
“The cycle time for hydraulic front shovels in normal digging conditions is
about 25 to 30 seconds. The “backhoe” configuration cycle time can be rather
faster. When an excavator is set up correctly on the upper level and the swing
angle is between 20 and 30 degrees the cycles time can be as little as 20 to 23
seconds.” “Electric rope shovels with a swing angle of 70 degrees would have
the cycle time close to 34 seconds”, says Koellner [9].
Rotational support comprises vertical and horizontal components of loads

acting on the lower works, transfers these loads (or a portion of them) to the
undercarriage frame, provides abutment of the lower works on the
undercarriage frame through the slewing ring or rotating circle, and provides
minimal resistance between the lower works and the base section during
rotating. If a slewing mechanism configuration requires a rotating circle, this
rotating circle takes horizontal moments of force.
18
The majority of single-bucket excavators have slewing mechanisms with
loose rollers whose axes are fastened in holders. The rollers have cylindrical or
conical shape with one or two bearing ribs. Conical rollers for heavy duty
machines create some crowning on the roller path contact surface with the
rotating circle. Conical rollers wear slower than cylindrical ones, but they are
more difficult to manufacture.
Figure 2.7 Rope shovel rotating circle and cylindrical rollers (The picture was
kindly provided by Dr. Tim Grain Joseph, University of Alberta)
2.2.7 Control System and Mechanisms
Modern rope shovels have an attachment manipulation circuit which is

part of the electrical automated control system.
19
Auxiliary mechanisms such as brakes are managed by a pneumatic or
hydraulic system. Such systems can be called electro-pneumatic and electro-
hydraulic.
Electro-pneumatic systems are distinguished by their insensitivity to

ambient temperature changes. These systems are applied for remote brake
control of main machine drives (slewing, hoisting, hauling, crowding, etc.); as
well as for audible signals, lifting and dropping access ladders, etc.
Hydraulic systems with power cylinders are compact, have high

efficiency, independently sited elements, high operating speed, and ability to
transfer large wattage. These systems are sensitive to ambient temperatures,
which require use of different working fluids in summer and winter periods.
Hydraulic excavators are provided with hydraulic control systems such as

pump systems and electro-hydraulic systems. The hydraulic pressure necessary
for operational mechanisms activation is created by a pump system. Working
fluid flow is directed with control arms through hydraulic distributors.
Electro-hydraulic systems compared to hydraulic systems allow reducing

fluid conduit length, simplifying valve controls, and wider application of
automatic elements. This system uses valves management through
electromagnets in the general electrical control circuit of an excavator.
20
2.2.8 Undercarriage
The undercarriage is to move an excavator and the basis for supporting all
the upper machine parts. Common crawler undercarriage for mining shovels is
two parallel crawler mechanisms with linked pads, drive sprockets, bottom and
upper (supporting) rollers and idlers. Among the main characteristics required
from an undercarriage is: sufficient moving force, speed and maneuverability;
ability to handle given grades and inclinations; low weight in addition to
providing specific ground force; excavator stability for any position of the
center-of-gravity, and lack of detrimental dynamical loads in a machine during
traveling; low resistances during machine traveling; minimal number of high-
wear parts; operability and durability.
Crawler track type undercarriages are generally used today on electrical

rope shovels and heavy hydraulic excavators working on mining sites not
requiring frequent or lengthy relocation.
This type of undercarriage provides good stability, ability to handle slopes

up to 23°, and low ground pressure. Disadvantages are high weight (with the
main frame up to 50% of total weight); high motive force (30% to 40% of the
excavator weight); structural complexity and high wear for traveling elements.
Travel speed of excavators in surface mining depends on their power,

however it does not normally exceed 3.5 km/h to 4.0 km/h, and rope shovels
travel speed is lower (often lower than 1.0 km/h). It should be also noted that
hydraulic excavators are smaller and 40% to 60% lighter than rope shovels
21
with the same bucket capacity, and this is what gives them an advantage in
mobility and maneuverability.
Travel path slopes usually do not exceed 15°; where maximal generated
loads acting on the ground surface can reach 0.9 MPa (130 psi) [1].
Depending on the way load distribution on the ground during duty cycle is
invoked, crawlers can be either closely or remotely supported.
“Closely sited supports” means that the ratio of tracks on the ground to the
amount of the bottom rollers is less than two In this case individual track links
do not sag at all and provide uniform pressure distribution on the ground under
the rollers as well as between them. “Remotely sited supports” configuration
has the ratio greater than two: individual track links sag easily forming a wavy
line. Pressure values under the rollers and between them differ significantly in
this case. Because of such differences in pressure distribution configurations of
crawler track undercarriages are selected for weak and hard rock application as
“close” and “remote”, respectively.
“Remotely sited supports” crawlers sink deeper in ground when used in

soils and weak rocks; however, they better bear concentrated loads when used
in hard rocks, since they have bigger and stronger rollers. These crawlers are
usually provided with four or five large diameter rollers; “closely sited
supports” crawlers have six – eight rollers of a relatively small diameter.
Where loose and weak ground rocks are encountered under an excavator
drive sprockets and idlers can be raised above the ground level such that the
22
crawler from the front and back rollers to the sprockets and idlers would be
inclined 10 to 20 degrees from the horizontal.
Unit power for modern crawler propelling motors applied in open pit
excavators (shovels) is approximately 0.18 kW to 0.46kW per ton of machine
weight [1].
Maintenance of crawler track type undercarriages includes bolt joint

tightening, lubricating, and crawler track chains tensioning.
2.2.9 Upper Works
The metal structure or upper works of a shovel (excavator) is its skeleton,

on which all operational equipment drives and control systems are installed.
Such metal frames are normally made welded and where necessary they are
connected with bolts and pins. Considerable part of excavator metal structure
does not carry any load and serves only as machine room frames and to provide
safe working conditions for people.
In general, bearing “in contact” metal structures of an excavator include

the following components: a boom, a stick, a bucket, upper works and an
undercarriage frame (lower works).
Metal structures used in low ambient temperatures require especially

careful maintenance. The history of application of mining machines in open
23
pits where temperatures below -30°C dominate gives rise to a large amount of
brittle failure during initial operations [10].
For cold temperatures resistance, not only appropriate steel should be used,
but correct metal structural design is needed. Since brittle failures occur when
component load profiles reach limit resistance of a material, they may give rise
to overall locally concentrated stresses. Such local concentrations can cause a
change of geometry (abrupt change of the element cross-section, notches, cuts,
etc.) and poor fabrication (poor welding, inobservance of the assemblage
processes), as well as by locally adverse applied forces [2, 8].
Inability for stress relief for stationary components can significantly

decrease cold temperature resistance.
Initial break-in (70 to 100 hours) of upper works with stresses lower than
normal working conditions and with temperatures allowing plastic
deformations to take place, reduces stress peaks in their concentration zones.
This, in turn, increases fatigue resistance of the material and provides better
cold temperature resistance.
Wind speed and gustiness can promote cold brittleness. In climatology it is

believed that each 1m/sec wind speed enhancement above 7m/sec influences a
temperature decline by 2°C. Also each 140m altitude increment translates to an
ambient temperature fall by 1°C [2, 10].
It is believed that due to the structural simplicity of electric cable shovels,

their use in harsh environments is more effective than the use of hydraulic
24
machines. However, existing experience of hydraulic excavators in Northern
Canada (at temperatures of -40°C to -50°C), as well as in Siberia, Russia
(where for several months the temperature does not rise above -30˚C and
sometimes drops to -50˚C) shows that with correct service and the use of
special hydraulic fluids, oils and greases, as well as systems and tools to
preheat working fluids, the service life of hydraulic excavators, and
productivity and reliability can be superior [8, 13,14].
2.3 Digging Conditions
Both types of surface mining excavator machines can operate in a variety

of digging conditions which include different excavated material types,
abrasiveness, moisture content, and fragmentation. Although modern mining
shovels have higher cutting forces and are often able to dig unblasted rock,
they benefit from properly fragmented material attaining better fill factor and
lesser machine component fatigue.
It is assumed that hydraulic excavators create higher cutting forces than

rope shovels, moreover they can remove material layer by layer starting from
the top of a bench. This ability results in comparably less excavated material
fragmentation requirement, which in turn reduces drilling and blasting costs.
The inherent heavier weight of rope shovels allows, with better dipper
wear protection, working in highly abrasive materials. A heavy duty bucket
design for hydraulic excavators leads to a significant decrease of bucket
25
capacity, since these machines are lighter and more sensitive to a bucket
weight change.
As for the excavated bench height, both shovel types have comparable
indices. However because of hydraulic excavator`s dimensions, its lower boom
and stick lengths, it needs to work closer to a digging face, which is not so
good from a safety point of view, because of potential rock fall damage. A rope
shovel, in turn, has a larger excavating and loading area which allows it to
position further from the digging face when operating and requires less
machine relocation. Nonetheless, it is recommended to frequently move a
shovel to minimize digging beyond a reference vertical line draw from the
boom heading block sheave wheel axis. This recommendation is discerned
from the fact that working with a large stick handle extension increases the
crowding duration, wear of ropes and crowd mechanism, and generates large
bending, boom and stick, stresses [8].
2.4 Mining Shovel Productivity
Among others some of the major factors affecting mining shovels

productivity are:
- Difficulty of excavation which depends on rock type and state [6]. For
instance, when moist clay (or improperly fragmented frozen material in
winter) is dug it sticks to the bucket and thus reduces subsequent payload
volume as well as increases cycle time due to longer dumping;
26
- Technical parameters, condition, and reliability of the machine [2];
- Operator`s skill [2, 6];
- Excavation face quality (bench height, rock fragmentation, truck

maneuvering path width, illumination, etc.) [6, 11];
- Overall management including truck fleet size, roadways conditions,

well-timed fuel supply, spare parts, electricity, consumables supply, etc. [6, 11]
Often with increasing depth of existing open pit mines problems of an

increased concentration of mining equipment in a confined area arises. This
leads to production decreases as a consequence of delays in truck availability,
speed, necessity of power line frequent relocation. In these circumstances use
of autonomous and more maneuverable hydraulic excavators is preferable to
provide higher production. This type of machine also gives an opportunity for
faster mining parameter adjustment in a changing mining environment or for
full and qualitative extraction of thin and faulted coal layers to minimize
mineral loss.
Failure downtimes are one of the main causes of production decline. A

comparison analysis of hydraulic excavators and rope shovels carried out at
Muruntau Gold Mine in Uzbekistan indicated that intensity of production
declines with working life of a machine, which was significantly higher for
hydraulic excavators than for rope shovels [12]. The analysis showed that on
the initial stage of exploitation of 15m3 Russian EKG rope shovels and 15m3
Caterpillar, O&K, and Hitachi hydraulic excavators the average production of
27
the latter was 30% to 35% higher. However, with lifetime augmentation the
difference dropped to 10% to 15%. Incremental costs a hydraulic excavators’
preventive maintenance and repairs at the same time increased mining prime
costs per 1m3 of excavated rock double that for EKG shovels which had
remained constant for several years (Figures 2.8 and 2.9).
Figure 2.8 Change of the production level with time at Muruntau [12]
Figure 2.9 Change of the cost of excavation with time at Muruntau [12]
28
In the case of the Muruntau Mine for the period reviewed, failure
downtime of hydraulic excavators increased dramatically, whereas there was
no change in average failure downtime for rope shovels (Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.10 Change of shovels failure downtime at Muruntau [12]
This indicates a better repairability for rope shovels, nevertheless, data

analysis undertaken 7 years later (in 2011) and at another mining company
indicated that in the case of appropriate technical support and equipment
maintenance services, the parameters of the actual performance and reliability
of hydraulic excavators were not inferior, but maybe superior compared to rope
shovels [5]. This was despite the fact that the equipment operated in extreme
low temperatures (where for a few months in the operation area the
temperature did not rise above -30˚C and sometimes dropped to -50˚C)
physical availability and average hourly production of 15m3 Liebherr R9350
and 15m3 EKG-15 were, respectively, 95% to 83%, and 670 m3/h to 523m3/h
(Figure 2.11).
29
Figure 2.11 Average hourly production (m3/hr) for R-9350 (a HEX with 3.554
lifetime hours) and EKG-15 (a Rope Shovel with 18.272 hours lifetime) [5]
Among other studies [3] showed that:
- The reliability of a hydraulic drive and thus a hydraulic excavator as a

whole depends significantly on the quality of service;
- Components of a hydraulic system and the system in general have high

reliability, but low availability;
- Hydraulic system components` resource and reliability is mainly

determined by the properties of the working fluid (primarily its cleanness
and viscosity).
For productive use of an excavator, a number of operational and technical

measures must be undertaken in order to ensure efficient and trouble-free
operations.
30
Properly prepared mining areas promote a long-term, non-stop operation
of a machine. Constant operations can be possible if enough sloughing and
proper blasting fragmentation is provided.
An excavator path in a pit should be carefully leveled and cleaned from

large rock boulders and debris to protect undercarriages from damage. Dozers
serve well for these purposes when rope shovels are in use, while the geometry
of attachment motion of hydraulic excavators allows them to clean up the mine
floor on their own [15]. The mine floor in front of the digging face should be
horizontal in order not to overstress slewing mechanisms of a machine.
Keeping excavator uptime largely determines its production capability

which is achieved by well-timed and correct maintenance.
2.6 Maintenance Strategies
Maintenance is carried out to maintain the excavator in good functional

condition. Maintenance activities may include reactive, preventive, predictive,
and proactive approaches. Reactive maintenance implies corrective activities
after a failure has occurred. Downtime caused by the failure in such case is
unscheduled and leads to unplanned expenses (repair costs as well as
production losses). Preventive maintenance is based on an excavator`s required
component change schedule based on statistical service life. This strategy
keeps scheduled uptime of a machine. The exception is when some component
of the machine fails prior to its statistical service life ends. Predictive
31
maintenance is a strategy for minimizing maintenance costs by undertaking
corrective activities based on an excavator`s condition. “Routine and complete
medical examinations are to the human body as predictive maintenance is to
equipment” [16]. Proactive maintenance focuses on determining causes of a
failure and providing improved working conditions when those causes are
minimized.
Non-observance of maintenance frequency and its poor quality leads to a

significant reduction of the working life of any excavator, as well as increase
the number of failures, loss of power, increase the cost of operation.
Acceptable non-observance of maintenance frequency should be within five to
ten percent [10].
Maintenance activities related to the disassembly of diesel engines as an

example may be held indoors for protection from dust and dirt in the internal
cavity of a diesel engine. Hydraulic system components also have a higher
sensitivity to dust. Repair or maintenance of hydraulic excavators requires
more careful protection measures against dirt and dust, than for rope
excavators.
Shovel maintenance includes: periodic inspection of its active elements

(according to a service manual). Well-timed and reliable mechanisms
lubrication, periodic adjustment of the wear mechanisms and connections,
mechanisms cleaning, and their timely replacement and repairs are all required
service strategies.
32
CHAPTER 3
MINING SHOVELS UNDER THIS INVESTIGATION
In this chapter information about the mining shovels within the scope of
this study is given. It includes basic dimensions, main specifications, etc.
Furthermore, for the following analysis and correlation between digging
conditions and main maintenance issues faced at different mining sites, the
chapter also contains description of the sites (location, geology, technological
parameters, etc.).
For confidentiality no companies` or mining sites` names are given in the

description.
3.1 Komatsu Hydraulic Mining Excavators
3.1.1 Sources and Nature of the Data Collected
In order to improve design, aid to perform adequate service and

appropriately update component life expectancy charts, operation and
maintenance manuals, etc. Komatsu Mining Germany tries to encourage its
customers and distributors to submit monthly reports with detailed failure
downtime and performance (availability, mean time between failures, etc.)
records for each supplied machine. By collecting the technical problems and
33
related down-times, these reports help to recognize abnormal tendencies of a
machine`s work and to provide the impetus to solve problems as early as
possible.
According to existing templates all failures occurred should be ranked by

failure code: 1-electric; 2-hydraulic; 3-auto lube; 4-air-conditioning; 5-motor;
6-cable drum; 7-bucket/attachment; 8-other. Each of these categories, in turn,
has a list of sub-categories. Scheduled breakdowns as well as breakdowns
caused by reasons irrelevant to a machine itself (accidents, misoperation,
mismaintenance, etc.) should be also included in a report. Consequently, such
forms of monitoring allow not only careful track of excavators` performance
parameters, but the more important, bring to light weaknesses of a design to
permit design improvement.
However, in spite of the existence of forms developed and provided by

Komatsu Mining Germany, not all customers and distributors fill in these
forms appropriately. Alternatively, they use their own forms (individual for
each customer or even each machine) and submit final numbers for availability,
mean time between failures and (or) mean time to repair with no qualitative
data about technical problems arising during the period under reported. This
fact leads to a significant reduction of the data quality that could be used in this
study.
Nevertheless, the performance history of one hundred and six items of

equipment (8 items of PC 3000, 35 - PC 4000, 34 - PC 5500, 29 - PC 8000)
with various degrees of refinement was found acceptable for this analysis.
Machines’ lifetime period under investigation was decided to be limited to
34
60,000 hours of operation which is roughly equal to ten years of normal
intensive work at a mine site and which is usually declared as a typical service
life of a hydraulic excavator by a manufacturer.
For each excavator it was tried to collect as much data per Table 1 as
possible. The major portion has received from product marketing & planning,
application, service, and parts marketing departments. The other main sources
of information were service managers from different parts of the world, who
kindly provided necessary data by request.
35
Table 3.1 List of the estimated parameters and data collected for the
comparison study
Parameters
to be Data to be collected
estimated
1. Geological conditions (FACE and UNDERFOOT)
1.1 Rock description (a geological description including rock type,
bedding and jointing is desirable)
1.2 Physical and mechanical properties of rock
1.2.1 Density
1.2.2 Uniaxial Compression Strength
1.2.3 Moisture content
1.2.4 Cohesion
Application
1.2.5 Abrasiveness (or scratch hardness by Moh`s scale)
Conditions
2. Engineering conditions
2.1 Blasting fragmentation
2.2 Travel time
2.3 Swing angle
3. Climatic conditions
3.1 Average annual temperature
3.2 Average annual high temperature
3.3 Average annual low temperature
1. Operation life (total number of hours an excavator has operated)
Availability 2. Operating hours (hours a month)
3. Off-schedule repairs hours (hours a month) by categories *
MTBF * Use the attached failure codes for help
4. Number of failures of each failure code (per month)
MTTR 5. Scheduled services and inspections hours (hours a month)
6. Preventive maintenance hours (hours a month)
1. A new machine cost
2. Repairs costs
2.1 Spare parts
Life Cycle
2.2 Consumables
Cost
3. In-service attendance costs
3.1 Fuels and lubricants
3.2 Electricity
Production
1. Tons per hour (for each evaluated month)
Rate
36
3.1.2 General Overview of the Excavators
As one of the main parts of the performance data study for super large
hydraulic mining excavators produced by Komatsu Mining Germany (KMG),
operating around the globe were collected. Standard bucket capacities of these
excavators range from 16 to 42 cubic meters where customers utilize machines
from Canada and Russia, where the ambient temperature can drop in winter
from -50 to Australia and Africa where the “-” turns to “+” sign. Moreover,
these shovels are employed in all types of material and mine a range of
commodities from soft coal and kimberlite to metal and uranium ores.
As for design, each model has found implemented as a front shovel or

backhoe with alternatively light, standard and heavy duty bucket wear
packages to meet abrasiveness of digging materials and mine conditions.
Excavators working at different mines were provided with diesel engines or
electric motors. This diversity of example designs met in different working
environments presented a relevant data set for the comparison study performed
here.
PC 3000, PC 4000, PC 5500 and PC 8000 models with front shovel bucket
capacities of 16m3, 22 m3, 29 m3 and 42 m3, respectively, are the excavator
models manufactured and supplied by KMG at present.
37
3.1.3 PC 3000
Despite of considerable number of PC 3000`s being globally in use the

study discussed only eight units were selected with respect to fullness and
quality of the available reports containing information about performance. All
these shovels are owed by the same company and work in the same conditions.
To be more specific, they are involved in coal mining at one of the equatorial
regions of the world. They are PC 3000-6 backhoe diesel drive shovels with
basic dimensions and main specifications presented on Figure 3.1 and in Table
3.2, respectively.
Figure 3.1 PC 3000: Basic dimensions [17]
38
Table 3.2 PC 3000: Main specifications
Electric Power Output KW 900

Operating Voltage V 6000 / 7200
Undercarriage Overall Length of Crawler
mm 7910
Assembly
Crawler Length (Centres) mm 6000
Track Pads Width mm 1000 / 1200
Travel Gradebility ° (%) 29,5 (57)
Propel Speed km/h 2,4
Attachment Front
Backhoe
Shovel
Boom Length m 6,0 8,6
Stick Length m 4,3 4,0
Bucket Capacity (Standard) m3 16,0 15,0
12,0 ÷
Bucket Capacity (Range) m3 12,0 ÷ 16,0
16,5
Standard Cutting Width mm 3600 3260
Crowd / Tear-out Force kN 1100 800
Break-out Force kN 1000 850
Max.Cutting Height m 15,1 14,1
Reach at Ground Level m 12,7 15,5
Clean-up Path at Ground Level m 4,7 -
Weight Operational Weight t 250 252
Swing Swing Speed rpm 4,6 4,6
Tail swing mm 6410 6410
Comparison Electric Motor output per m3 kW/ m3 56,3 60
Ratio Operating Weight per m3 t/ m3 15,6 16,8
Diesel Drive Engine - Make KOMATSU
Engine - Model SSA12V159
Rated Power (SAE) kW 940
Engine Revolution rpm 1800
Hydraulic Max. Flow Main Pump l/min. 3 x 910
System Hydraulic Pressure Slew bar 310
Max. Flow Slew Pump l/min. 800
39
3.1.4 PC 4000
PC 4000 excavators involved in the study comprised 35 units. Among

these machines: five are standard package backhoes working at a coal mining
site in a hot alpine environment; eight front shovels and three backhoes at an
equatorial region coal mining; five electrically driven machines at African
collieries; and ten diesel shovels with predominately Heavy Duty wear
packages for metal ore extraction at dry and extremely hot parts of the world.
40
Electric Power Output KW 1350

mm 8375
Assembly
Attachment Backhoe
19,0 ÷
23,0
Reach at Ground Level m 14.0 16,5
Comparison Electric Motor output per m3 kW/ m3 61.4 61.4
Engine - Model SDA16V160
Max. Flow Slew Pump l/min. 1035 + 555
41
3.1.5 PC 5500
Among the thirty-four pieces of PC 5500 involved in the analysis there are
predominately (31 out of 34) excavators operating in ore (copper, iron and
uranium) mines. These mines in their turn are located in environmental
conditions ranging from a dry and extremely hot (up to + 55C°) to a humid
climate with average minimum of -15 C° to -20C° during the winter time. Both
“front shovel” and “backhoe” modifications are among these machines and
majorly with a diesel drive. Below some of the basic dimensions and main
specifications for PC 5500 hydraulic excavator model are presented.
42
Electric Power Output KW 2 x 940

mm 9720
Assembly
Attachment Backhoe
26,0 ÷
29,0
Comparison Electric Motor output per m3 kW/ m3 64,8 64,8
Engine - Model 2 x SDA12V159E-2
Rated Power (SAE) kW 2 x 940
43
3.1.6 PC 8000
This model is presently the largest hydraulic mining shovel manufactured

by KMG. Data used in this study was assumed to be the most comprehensive
and reliable. It is largely resulted from the fact that in some cases with
purchasing a fleet of several shovels customers get a permanent attendance and
service of high level KMG service engineers who not only provide better
service but also a higher quality of reports. Twenty-nine front shovels and two
backhoes with electric and diesel drives and mostly in copper and coal mines
were used in the study.
44
Electric Power Output KW 2 x 1450

mm 10735
Assembly
Attachment Backhoe
Bucket Capacity (Range) m3 28,0 ÷ 42,0 42,0
Comparison Electric Motor output per m3 kW/ m3 69,0 69,0
Engine - Model 2 x SDA16V160E-2
Rated Power (SAE) kW 2 x 1500
Hydraulic Max. Flow Main Pump l/min. 8280
45
3.2 Data from Industry
3.2.1 Sources and Nature of the Data Collected
As long as the main purpose of the study discussed was to compare

electric rope shovels against hydraulic excavators on the basis of a range of
parameters it was clear that definite efforts had to be done in order to collect
data for cable shovel performance. Moreover, in order to improve reliability of
the comparison it was good to have data for different types of machines
operating at the same sites. Such an approach would minimize difference in
operational environment between compared units. Therefore, it was decided to
make an attempt to gather data personally from a coal mining site.
After a month of data collection, the major part of the required information
had been received from the company`s geologists, surveyors, mechanical
service and operational (processing) departments. The lacking data in regard to
production numbers and performance parameters, as well as expenditures
related to the possession of a particular shovel were gradually obtained over
further months. Just as it was expected getting numbers for spare parts, fuels,
lubricants, electricity, consumables and other costs was the most challenging
task in the context of cooperating with a mining company.
As a consequence of the above described activities thirty mining shovels

were engaged in the analysis. Twenty of them were electrically driven rope
shovels with buckets capacities from ten to thirty-three cubic meters. The other
ten machines were hydraulic excavators with buckets from ten to twenty-nine
cubic meters. A list of RS and HEX (model names, bucket capacities and
46
quantity of units) involved in the study with assistance from a coal mining
company is presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 List of mining company shovels involved in the study
Model name Bucket Capacity (m3) Quantity of Items

EKG-10 (OMZ) 10,0 3
EKG-12 (OMZ) 12,0 3
EKG-12.5 (OMZ) 12,5 1
Rope Shovels
EKG-15 (OMZ) 15,0 3

EKG-20A (OMZ) 20,0 4
P&H 2300 (Joy) 16,0 2
P&H 2300XPC (Joy) 16,0 1
P&H 2300XP (Joy) 20,0 1
P&H 2800 (Joy) 33,0 2
R-994 (Liebherr) 11,0 4
Excavator
Hydraulic
PC 2000 (KOMATSU) 10,0 4

PC 4000 (KOMATSU) 22,0 1
s
PC 5000 (KOMATSU) 29,0 1
3.2.2 Description of the Site
3.2.2.1 General Overview
The mining site is located at an upland chain elongated along the strike of
a coal deposit. The mine is oriented north-west with highest mountain altitude
at +610m, to south-east at +580m.
Coal-bearing sediments on site include coal seams with a monoclinal dip

of 6° to 15°. The strike of the coal seams is north-east at azimuth 35° to 45°.
47
Monoclinal layering of sedimentary rock is insignificantly complicated by the
presence of minor wavy folding. All folded structures have minor size and
rapidly fade. Overburden rocks are mainly presented as sandstone and, to a
lesser degree, siltstone and argillite; quaternary sediments are clay and loam.
The climate is continental with long winters and short hot summers. The
duration of the winter with snow and low temperatures is 6 to 6.5 months.
Maximum temperature is + 35°C (July), the minimum is - 45°C (January). The
thickness of snow cover in some years is up to 170cm. The depth of ground
frost penetration does not exceed 0.5m. The average annual rainfall is 880mm.
The winds have prevailing south-east direction and low speeds of 2 m/sec to
5m/sec. The maximum speed winds have a north-west direction.
3.2.2.2 Stratigraphy and Lithology
The mined formations include twenty coal seams. By thickness they are
divided into thin (0.5m to 1.3m), average (1.3m to 3.5m) and thick ones (3.5m
and above). The structure of the seams involves 1 to 3 and some up to ten
layers of rock. Most of the coal seams are assigned to groups of complex and
very complex structure. Interburden layers are sandstones, argillaceous
sandstones, siltstones, coaly siltstones, argillites and conglomerates. Often
interburden layers have variable lithology and thickness. The thickness changes
from 1 to 3m up to 10 to 35m with the maximum value of 40m to 50m. In
many cases at the base of these interbeds, thin layers of conglomerates and
gravelites can be found. Overall thickness of the set is 370m, the coal
48
percentage is 10.6%. The lithological composition and percentage are
presented in Table 3.7. A stratigraphic column is given in Figure 3.5.
Table 3.7 Overall thickness and percentage of host rocks and coal seams set
Overall Conglomerates Sandstones Siltstones Argillites Coal

thickness,
m m % m % m % m % m %
370 1.2 0.3 219.7 59.4 107.0 29.0 2.9 0.7 39.2 10.6
Figure 3.5 Stratigraphic column for Mine “A”
49
Sandstone is the most prevalent host rock on site. They are presented
layers of up to 50m thickness with intrusions of argillaceous sandstone and
siltstone. They are fine or medium grained (sparsely coarse-grained) with
laminated massive structures. The cement is mainly argillaceous and to a
smaller extent carbonaceous or carbonate-argillaceous. The cement
composition consist of illite with some sericite, braize, carbonates, and sparse
chlorite. The quantity of cement is in the range of 11% to 18%.
Siltstone is less common than sandstone. Mostly liying at the bottom and
top of coal seams. The thickness of siltstones reaches 8m to 11m (sparsely at
20m). They have thin-layered of micro-layered texture. The composition and
nature of the cement is similar to the sandstone cement. The most common
cement is argillaceous at 18% to 30%. The carbonate-argillaceous cement is
rarely observed.
Argillites have a limited distribution and lie as interburden and lenticles

amongst rocks and on the contacts of coal seams and country rocks. The
texture is generally massive and, to a lesser degree laminar. With increase of
coal content (to more than 25%) the rock becomes a coaly argillite.
Gravelites and conglomerates are minor distributed and can be found as

stringers inside the sandstones. Such detritus material majorly consists of
sedimentary rocks. The jointing material is silty and, in many cases carbonized.
In bedrocks, three zones with varying degree of weathering can be noted:
50
A zone of intense weathering and fracturing is to a depth of 1 to 6 meters.
In the upper part, it is characterized by the presence of debris of 0.05m to 0.4m
size. The thickness of this layer is 0.5m to 2.0 m. Coal represented as a feasible
soot is in the upper portion of the layer. The lower part of the intense
weathered zone is characterized by open, clearly visible, assystematic cracks.
The strength of the rock is low, permitting excavation without blasting.
A noticeable weathered zone located below the identified zone of intense

weathering. Thickness of the zone is from 5 to 8 meters to 10 to 15 meters.
Open fractures are more systematic here. Such cracks are particularly well
visible in sandstones and form blocks in the rock mass. Rock strength is
reasonably high although resistance is lowered. Blasting is required for
successful excavation practice.
The third zone is the zone of minor fracturing. It is characterized by an

almost complete absence of open cracks; small intervals of fractured rocks are
rare. In tectonically quiet carboniferous sediments there are only perpendicular
intersecting cracks. Mining is only carried out with drilling and blasting.
3.2.2.3 Hydrogeology
In unconsolidated sediments there are two water tables. The first aquifer
presents poorly; it is confined to a light silty loam. It is seasonal and fed by
rainfall and meltwater. The filtration coefficient of the loam is 0.01m/day to
0.00035m/day. The second aquifer is confined to the lower part of Quaternary
sediments occurring at the contact with bedrock. This horizon is characterized
as a permanent regime and is hydraulically connected with the bedrock
51
groundwater. The water inflow does not exceed 0.1 L/sec to 0.3L/sec. Ground
water quickly drains and does not affect the water inflow to mine openings.
However, despite the low water content in the unconsolidated sediments, even
a small presence reduces the bearing capacity of the soil and leads to pit wall
instability.
The unpredictable water content of coal-bearing deposits depends on the

degree of fracturing, lithology and geomorphology. The deposit is essentially
saturated to a depth of 80m. Intrusive rocks are saturated only in upper cracked
regions to depths of 40m to 50m from surface. At lower elevations, due to
reduction in fracture, they are almost dry.
3.2.2.4 Coal Seams
The main pit has fourteen coal seams with thicknesses from 0.8m to 8.0 m.
They have a complex structure, with dip of 6° to 15°. Thickness of rock
interburden in coal seams and coal layers varies from site to site. Sudden
thickness changes are local progressing to split seams, minor faults, magmatic
intrusions and intraformational erosion. The number of intrastratal layers of
siderite, siltstone, and sandstones with thickness from 0.01m to 0.25m varies
from 2 to 17 layers.
Broken rock and coal are excavated by mining shovels then loaded in
trucks. All coal seams are mined with benches of 40 meters width. In cases
52
where the thickness of an intraformational rock layers exceeds 0.4 meters,
selective mining of the coal seam is performed.
3.2.2.5 Overburden Operations, Drilling and Blasting
Working levels are developed by hybrid mining methods:
1. Upper levels are developed by rope shovels and hydraulic excavators with
loading rock to heavy trucks.
2. At the same time some interlayers are developed by draglines with internal
dumping.
Parameters of the principle mining equipment, use of blasting for

preparation for overburden excavation, physical and mechanical properties of
rock, and opening-up schemes predetermine bench heights of 15 meters.
To reduce the amount of work on road construction on benches, the

acceptable bench width is 40 meters, and the operating angle of the slope is
75º.
According to the geological description, 90% of overburden as well as

individual coal seams require preliminary fragmentation by drilling and
blasting. Given the constituents of the overburden, its physical and mechanical
properties and the type of excavation equipment, rotary blasthole drilling is
adopted at site. Blastholes are inclined at angles of 75° to 90º and drilled using
216mm rotary roller bits.
53
The coal is brittle and easy to blast. Thick layers of sandstone interbeds are
the least-fractured, strong, and dense and even after blasting can form blocks of
2m3 to 3m3.
Mining methods require transverse and diagonal blasting layouts providing

a minimum width of loosen blasted rock mass with short-delay series of 7 blast
holes and inter-hole delays of 20msec to 50msec.
3.2.3 EKG Rope Shovels
3.2.3.1 General Overview of the Shovels
EKG shovels are single bucket, electric, full-circle slewing, crawler

mining rope shovels for excavation and loading ore and overburden, including
blasted heavy rock.
In the Russian language the abbreviation “EKG” is interpreted as “a

crawler excavator for surface mining”. The following figure (e.g. EKG-5)
denotes the bucket capacity in cubic meters. The letter code following the
figures below indicates options, e.g. an EKG-5U excavator has a 5 m3 bucket
and an attachment for top loadings, and also indicates the manufacturer's code
(N - Novokramatorsk Heavy-Machinery Factory (Novokramatorsky
Mashinostroitelny Zavod)).
54
Fourteen EKG machines of different age and dipper capacity from 10m3 to
20m3 were used in the study.
3.2.3.2 EKG – 10
Crawler mining rope shovel EKG – 10 with a standard bucket capacity of

10m3 used for excavation and loading ore and overburden into trucks in surface
mines as well as for loading operations at ore storage facilities.
Four units of this model were used in the study. Two had a relatively long
operational life of nearly 25 years, and a third which started operating in 2005.
The fourth unit (EKG-12,5) is a modified EKG-10. EKG-12,5 was
commissioned in 1990.
Some of its basic dimensions and main specifications are presented in

Figure 3.5 and Table 3.8, respectively.
55
Figure 3.6 EKG-10: Basic dimensions [21]
56
Table 3.8 EKG-10: Main specifications
Electric Supply Transformer Power kVA 800

Operating Voltage V 6000
mm 8470
Assembly
Travel Gradebility ° (%) 12 (21)
Attachment Bucket Capacity (Standard) m3 10
Max.Cutting Height m 13,5
Max.Cutting Radius m 18,4
Reach at Ground Level m 12,6
Max.Dumping Radius m 16,3
Max.Dumping Height m 8,6
Crowd Force kN 500
Hoist Rope Pull kN 1000
Weight Operational Weight t 410
Comparison Electric Motor output per m3 kW/ m3 80
Ratio Operating Weight per m3 t/ m3 41
57
3.2.3.3 EKG – 12
Three EKG-12 units were reviewed during the study. All had a standard
bucket capacity of 12m3 and were commissioned in 2003, 2004 and 2005,
respectively. The model is supplied with the rope type crowding mechanism,
electric direct current (DC) drive, guy line supported boom and a polyspastless
bucket lift mechanism.
58

mm 8250
Assembly
Crowd Force kN 500
Comparison Electric Motor output per m3 kW/ m3 83,3
Ratio Operating Weight per m3 t/ m3 34,2
59
3.2.3.4 EKG – 15
The operation history for 3 EKG-15 machines was analyzed for the study.
All shovels were of different age (10, 15, and 25 years) and were involved in
waste rock excavation with only minor coal extraction.
60

mm 9400
Assembly
Track Pads Width mm 1600
Crowd Force kN 650
61
3.2.3.5 EKG – 18
A new EKG-18 mining shovel with rack-and-pinion gear crowding

mechanism was supplied to the focus mining company recently and started
operating in mid-2013. Some of the machine basic dimensions and
specifications are presented below.
62

mm 12000
Assembly
Crowd Force kN 750
63
3.2.3.6 EKG – 20
Among the 4 machines here under consideration two EKGs – 20 started

their work life in 1988 whereas another two – in 1990. It is worth noting that
three of these pieces of equipment are still in use. They excavate mostly blasted
waste rock; predominately 80% to 90% of sandstone and about 10% to 20% of
siltstone.
64

mm 12000
Assembly
Crowd Force kN 750
3.2.4 P&H Rope Shovels
3.2.4.1 General Remarks
For the study six P&H electric cable shovels was used. Bucket capacities of
those excavators ranged from 16m3 (P&H 2300) to 33m3 (P&H 2800). The
oldest started operating in 1983, whereas the newest one was commissioned in
65
late 2012. With EKG shovels, P&H shovels are used principally for blasted
waste rock excavation.
3.2.4.2 P&H 2300
Four out of six P&H machines studied in this work are modifications of
the P&H 2300.
The newest shovel with a bucket of 16m3 commissioned in 2012 is the

latest variant of the P&H 2300 model – P&H 2300XPC, with a 20m3 dipper.
Two P&H 2300 machines started their work life at the mining site between
1983 and late 1984 and were written off with twenty-four and twenty-five
years life.
Some of the basic dimensions and main specifications of the model are
illustrated below in Figure 3.10 and Table 3.13.
66
Figure 3.11 P&H 2300: Basic dimensions [22]
67
Table 3.13 P&H 2300: Main specifications
Electric Power Output kW 2 x 1860

Frequency Hz 50 / 60
3300, 5000, 6000 of 7200
Operating Voltage V – for 50 Hz
4160 or 6000 – for 60 Hz
mm 9900
Assembly
Attachment Bucket Capacity (Standard) m3 25,5
68
3.2.4.3 P&H 2800
In 2006 two P&H 2800 units were supplied to the mining company. Both
these machines are still in use and have an operational life time approaching
50,000 hours. They are equipped with 33m3 dippers and excavate fine-grained
and medium-grained blasted sandstones and, to a lesser extend, siltstones.
The basic dimensions and main specifications of the P&H 2800XPC

model are presented in Figure 3.11 and Table 3.14.
Figure 3.12 P&H 2800: Basic dimensions [23]
69
Table 3.14 P&H 2800: Main specifications
Electric Power Output kW 2 x 1860

Frequency Hz 50 / 60
5000, 6000 of 7200 – for
Operating Voltage V 50 Hz
4160 or 6000 – for 60 Hz
mm 10800
Assembly
Attachment Bucket Capacity (Standard) m3 32,7
70
3.2.5 Hydraulic Excavators
3.2.5.1 General Remarks
Ten hydraulic excavators were taken into consideration for the analysis, of
which there were four different models from two manufacturers; PC 2000, PC
4000, and PC 5500 from Komatsu and the R 994 from Liebherr. Smaller
shovels such as the PC 2000 and R 994 were provided with diesel main drives
and excavated waste rock and coal. PC 4000 and PC 5500, however, were
electrically driven and were predominately involved in waste rock excavation.
Since an overview of the PC 4000 and PC 5500 has been given earlier,
below is information on the Komatsu PC 2000 and Liebherr R 994 only.
3.2.5.2 PC 2000
Four units of this model were operating at the mine site. All were
relatively young machines with commissioning dates from late 2011 and 2012
and operational lives of about 14 to 15 and 23 to 24 thousand hours. All
machines were equipped with backhoe attachments of bucket capacity 10m3.
They predominately excavated fragmented coal into heavy trucks.
Some of the basic dimensions and main specifications of this model are
given in Figure 3.13 and Table 3.15.
71
72

mm 7445
Assembly
Attachment Front Shovel Backhoe
Max.Dumping Height m 9,7 8,7
Max.Digging Depth m 3,2 9,2
Max.Cutting Reach m 13,2 15,8
Min. Crowd Distance m 7,1 -
Swing Swing Speed rpm 4,8
Tail swing mm 5980
Comparison
Operating Weight per m3 t/ m3 17,7 16,6
Ratio
Engine - Model SSA12V140E-3
Hydraulic Max. Flow – attachment,
l/min. 2317
System swing, travel
Max. Flow – fan drive l/min 324
73
3.2.5.3 R 994
Four R 994 backhoes started operating at the mine site in 2007. All the
machines had buckets of 11m3 and excavated loosened coal.
In Figure 3.13 and Table 3.16 the basic dimensions and main
specifications of the R 994 are shown.
Figure 3.14 R 994: Basic dimensions [25]
74
Table 3.16 R 994: Main specifications

mm 8250
Assembly
Track Pads Width mm 850
Travel Gradebility ° (%) n/a
Attachment Front Shovel Backhoe
Bucket Capacity Range m3 15,3÷18.0 15,3÷18.0
Max.Dumping Height m 11,2 10,2
Max.Digging Depth m 3,6 9,5
Max.Cutting Reach m 14,5 17,0
Swing Swing Speed rpm 3,7
Tail swing mm 6525
Comparison
Operating Weight per m3 t/ m3 16,6 16,4
Ratio
Engine Engine - Model QSK45
Hydraulic Max. Flow – attachment l/min. 4 x 754
System Max. hydraulic pressure –
bar 320
attachment
Max. Flow – swing l/min. 2 x 390
Max. hydraulic pressure –
bar 350
swing
75
CHAPTER 4
COMPARISON PARAMETERS APPLIED TO THE DISCUSSED

MINING SHOVELS
4.1 Introduction
In this chapter mining shovels discussed earlier are compared on the base
of a range of performance parameters as well as estimated cost of possession of
a machine in regards to its productivity. Among the performance parameters
ones of the greatest interests for the study are as follows: physical availability;
productivity; and expenditures related to the possession and servicing of a
machine.
During the analysis the total amount of 4,731 monthly records (which are
equal to about 3,400,000 calendar hours of operation history) in regards to
performance of 136 pieces of HEXs’ and RSs’ were revised. All the electric
cable shovels under the examination operates at a coal mine, whereas
application distribution among the hydraulic excavators is as it is shown in
Figure 4.1
76
Figure 4.1 Proportion of examined hydraulic excavators by ore mined
The above parameters were determined. For each shovel model by

application (ore or coal) and attachment design (“front shovel” (FS) or
“backhoe” (BH)), average values for shovels were calculated. As a next step,
the arithmetic “mean” for BH and FS hydraulic excavators as well as for rope
shovels were computed for each machine type regardless of number of shovels
and shovel manufacturer. The “backhoe average” and the “front shovel
average” were finally taken to count a hydraulic excavators’ “grand average”.
In this study such performance parameters as physical availability and

production were analyzed on a monthly basis and results presented as average
monthly values.
77
4.2 Investigated Parameters
4.2.1 Physical Availability
“Availability is a performance criterion for systems not removed from

operations for maintenance purposes, which accounts for both the reliability
and maintainability properties of a component or system. Availability can be
defined as “a percentage measure of the degree to which machinery and
equipment is in an operable state at the point in time when it is needed.” [26]
Availability has different meanings and can be calculated in various ways.

In this study, however, mining shovel availability was calculated using the
following formula and definition adopted by Komatsu Mining Germany
(KMG) [27]:
(4.1)
“Hours worked” and “Hours down for repair” are defined as follows:
“Hours worked” is equal to total calendar hours, unless lesser work hours
had been scheduled by a mine.
“Hours down for repair” includes:

a. Scheduled preventive maintenance and servicing
b. Mechanical repairs
c. Electrical repairs
78
This term calculation results in a “physical availability” (PA), a term
which the author finds reasonable and uses in this thesis.
Based the calculations, an average physical availability for hydraulic

excavators in coal mining at different locations around the globe changes from
95.8 to 66.1 per cent with a total global mean of 89.4% for operational lives of
60,000 hours.
Rope shovels within an operating period of 60,000 hours indicate lower

indices which constitute a PA global mean value of 80.3%. However, since all
rope shovels investigated operate in a single coal mine location, it was decided
to compare these figures with ones belonging to the 10 large hydraulic
excavators operating at the same site. The gap between RS and HEX working
at the same mine was small. With a maximal operational life of 48,000 hours
hydraulic excavators indicated an average physical availability of 83.7%,
whereas cable shovels had a value of 81.6% for the same period.
All data are reflected in tables 4.1 to 4.3. Actual values obtained for each
individual piece of equipment are given in Appendix A.
79
Table 4.1 Hydraulic excavators’ common physical availability values
Table 4.2 Rope shovels’ physical availability values
80
Table 4.3 Physical availability values of hydraulic excavators working at the
site “A”
In addition to the units of equipment at the coal mining site, there as

information for 10 rope shovels with an operational lifespan of 60,000 to
150,000 hours. Physical availability values for those machines are given in
Table 4.4 and the cumulative average availability changes for all categories of
shovel shown in Figure 4.2.
81
Table 4.4 Physical availability of rope shovels with operational lifespan exceeding 60.000 hours
82
Figure 4.2 Cumulative average physical availability change of mining shovels
in relation to their operation lifetime.
It is worth noticing that, although cumulative average physical availability

values differ for all the examined groups of mining shovels, their regression
trends up to 30,000 hours are similar (see Figures 4.2 to 4.3 and Tables 4.1 to
4.5). During the initial 5 years of operation cumulative average physical
availability decrease by 1.6 per cent annually for all groups. After 30,000 hours
hydraulic excavators from ore and coal mines (except of Mine A) indicate
stabilization of cumulative average physical availability, whereas excavation
equipment (both HEX and RS) from Mine A continues to display a slow
decline of 0.8 per cent annually in cumulative average physical availability.
Availability of the hydraulic machines in iron ore and cooper mining are
essentially 5 to 6 per cent less than those working in coal mines; however,
cumulative average availability change with time is similar (Figure 4.3).
83
Detailed information in regard to PA values of shovels from metal mines is
summarized in Table 4.5.
Figure 4.3 Cumulative average physical availability changes of RSs and HEXs
in coal and metal mines in relation to their operation lifetime.
Table 4.5 Physical availability values of hydraulic excavators working in metal

mines.
84
4.2.2 Production
In order to determine and compare productivity of mining shovels, a

production history of 41 hydraulic excavators and 10 rope shovels of various
size and bucket capacity and of operational age up to 60,000 working hours
was compiled. This history includes 2,060 monthly records of different HEXs
and 921 records of RSs. Additionally, 587 records for ten older rope shovels
(with operational life more than 60,000 hours) were included in the analysis.
In some design practices at surface mines a specific index representing

proportion of volume of material annually excavated by a mining shovel to one
cubic meter of its bucket capacity (m3 per year / 1m3 of bucket capacity) was
used [29]. This indicator allows performing a productivity comparison between
all types of excavators regardless of bucket size. For this study, however, the
average volume of material excavated monthly had used in the calculation (m3
per month / 1m3 of bucket capacity).
Results of these calculations indicate an average excavated target by

hydraulic excavator bucket capacity fluctuates from 9,595m3 to 22,954m3. The
cumulative average for the total period is 16,760m3. The cumulative average
monthly hours are 532. These numbers yield 31.5m3 per hour per 1m3 of
bucket capacity as the cumulative average production rate during the 60,000
hour period.
The equivalent rope shovels analysis shows that the productivity mean is
14,383m3 (4,623m3 to 25,588m3). The average monthly available hours for
85
rope shovels is somewhat less than hydraulic machines at 467 hours. Or 30.8m3
per hour per 1m3 of bucket capacity.
It should be noted here that to calculate a “GRAND AVERAGE” value

between 18,000 and 36,000 for PC 4000 and PC 5500 working in Mine “A” a
weighted mean depending of the number of units representing each HEX
model was used. The decision mentioned above was made in order to avoid an
overestimation of low indices (which are likely to be a consequence of
contradictory information provided in reports) in the overall assessment and
because there were only single pieces of equipment representing each model.
All data is presented more closely below in Tables 4.6 to 4.8. Actual
values obtained for each individual piece of equipment are given in Appendix
B.
Cumulative average production (for 30,000 operational hours) of hydraulic

front shovels in iron ore is 9% less than ones from collieries (Table 4.9).
86
Table 4.6 Hydraulic excavators’ common productivity
In addition to the shovels mentioned above, information concerning

production of 10 rope shovels with operational life between 60,000 and
150,000 hours was also studied with the results summarized in Table 4.10.
87
Table 4.7 Rope shovels’ productivity
88
Table 4.8 Productivity of hydraulic excavators operating at site “A”
Table 4.9 Productivity of hydraulic excavators operating at an iron ore mine
89
Table 4.10 Productivity of rope shovels with operational lifespan exceeding 60.000 hours
90
In order to track and compare average production levels variability with
shovel life, a cumulative average production plot (Figure 4.4) was prepared. It
can be seen from the plot that although there is a difference in production
values for the analyzed equipment from coal mines, regression trends for
cumulative average production of all of them are essentially the same and can
be described by the following equation:
Production = -29.2*a + b (4.2)
where:
Production – amount of monthly excavated material per 1 cubic meter of bucket

capacity (m³ per month / 1 m³)
a – prediction operational lifetime (thousands hours);
b – cumulative average production after 6,000 hours of operation (m3 per month / 1m3)
Figure 4.4 Cumulative average production change of mining shovels in relation

to their operation lifetime.
91
4.2.3 Correlation between Availability and Production
It is commonly assumed that performance of a mining machine, its

production numbers among other factors, depends majorly on the availability
of the machine [30]. In other words, high availability provides high uptime-
hours, which in turn provides (with invariable hourly production) better
productivity.
Relations between cumulative average values of availability and

production by category of equipment are presented in Figure 4.5 and can be
expressed as follows.
Rope shovels in coal mines (from the coal mine “A”):
Production = 384.5 * Availability - 17186 (4.3)
Hydraulic excavators in coal mines:
Hydraulic excavators in metal mines:
The correlation for HEX operating at coal mine site “A” was expected to
vary from the slope for machines evaluated in coal mining. Indeed, the
correlation for this category was found to be:
Production = 101.9 * Availability + 6787 (4.6)
92
Figure 4.5 Correlations between Availability and Production cumulative
average values
4.2.4 Operational Cost
Expenditure cost for mine “A” was related to the cost for 30 mining
shovels of varying age and size over 8 years (2008 to 2014). Of 10 hydraulic
excavators 8 were diesel and 2 larger were electric motor driven.
The expenditures used did not include labor costs but lease costs were
included to partially take into account purchasing costs for new pieces of
equipment.
Operational costs were assessed as the cost incurred by mine “A” for
excavating 1m3 of material (CAD/1m3). For convenience, operational costs
were translated in Canadian Dollars (CAD).
93
According to the calculations performed on operational life of machines
less than 60,000 hours, the maximal cost of excavation for rope shovels was
2.06 CAD per 1m3 (P&H 2300XPC between 6,000 and 12,000 operation
hours), whereas the minimal cost was 0.06 CAD per 1m3 (EKG-12 between
18,000 and 24,000 operation hours). Hydraulic excavators indicate the
maximum and minimum of 1.09 CAD/1m3 (PC 5500) and 0.18 CAD per 1m3
(PC 4000), respectively.
Despite these figures being strongly dependable on lease conditions and

payments made by a mining company to a lessor by year, cumulative average
expenditure costs seem to be a more relevant indicator than independent
average values for any of the periods. Cumulative average expenditures show
that for a period of 48,000 operational hours or about 8 calendar years, 1 m3 of
material excavated by rope shovels was equivalent to 0.38 CAD, whereas HEX
excavation reached 0.48 CAD/1m3, corresponding to being 25% more
expensive.
To further investigate the parameter for RS, it was seen that at 150,000
hours operation (25 years of operation) expenditure costs decreased gradually,
converging on 0.24 CAD per m3 of excavation.
All data has been provided in Tables 4.11 through 4.13. Actual values
obtained for each individual piece of equipment are given in Appendix C.
94
Table 4.11 Rope shovels’ operational costs (lease included)
Table 4.12 Hydraulic excavators’ operational costs (lease included)
95
Table 4.13 Operational costs of rope shovels with operational lifespan exceeding 60,000 hours (lease
included)
96
In order to assess poor correlation in service expenditures, the average cost
of excavation were recalculated excluding lease costs. Only such things as
consumables (teeth, ropes, electric cables, hoses, etc.), fuel, lubricants,
electricity, etc. were included. It was found out that the cumulative average
excavation costs were as follows. For a period of 48,000 operational hours the
cost of excavation by a rope shovel was equivalent to 0.14 CAD/1m3, whereas
cost of excavation by a hydraulic machine reached 0.31 CAD/1m3,
corresponding to being 116% more expensive.
The results of the calculation are summarized a Tables 4.14 through 4.16
and Figures 4.6 through 4.7.
To determine major contributors for such a significant excavation cost

discrepancy between rope shovels and hydraulic excavators, a more thorough
analysis was made. The analysis comprised the following items of service
expenditures:
- routine maintenance and repairs;
- major overhauls;
- fuel;
- electricity;
- lubricants;
- consumables.
Comparison of costs for each of these categories showed that servicing of

HEX is from 11% (routine maintenance) to 180% (major overhaul) more
expensive. Moreover, if to compare cost of electricity required to excavate 1m3
by RS versus cost of diesel fuel required to excavate 1m3 by HEX, the
difference would constitute 322%. Details are given in figure 4.8.
97
Table 4.14 Rope shovels’ operational costs (lease excluded)
Table 4.15 Hydraulic excavators’ operational costs (lease excluded)
98
Table 4.16 Operation costs of rope shovels with operational lifespan exceeding 60,000 hours (lease
excluded)
99
Figure 4.6 Cumulative average excavation costs change (including lease) in
relation to shovels’ operational lifetime.
Figure 4.7 Cumulative average excavation costs change (excluding lease) in

relation to shovels’ operational lifetime.
100
Figure 4.8 Hydraulic excavators and rope shovels excavation costs related to
servicing categories.
4.3 Discussion
For each mining shovel analyzed in this study all the available information
with respect to design, application, commissioning date, machine-hours,
performance indicators and cost of operation were combined and taken into
consideration. The results of this investigation are presented in Appendices A,
B, and C. Also the summary results of the analyzed parameters are tabulated
below in Table 4.17.
A comparison of physical availability (PA) and trends for mining rope

shovels and hydraulic excavators suggests that Mine A has relatively poor
maintenance practices for HEX. Such an assumption is supported by
comparatively lower physical availability values for machines working in the
mine to the average values of 67 analyzed coal mining HEX units. Moreover,
decreasing physical availability trends are distinctly different for these two
101
groups of excavators. All coal mining HEX have cumulative average PA
stabilized after 30,000 operational hours, whereas, Mine A HEX availability
decreases constantly over a 48,000 hours period.
Availability (and subsequent production) differences of hydraulic

machines excavating coal and ones dealing with ore should likely to be
explained by various types of digging environment. Coal is assumed to be an
easy excavated material; it is not abrasive and comparatively soft. Coal typical
host rocks (sandstone, argillite, siltstone, shale) are also not as hard and
abrasive as metal ores and related rocks (e.g. granite). Thus, a carried out
failures analysis shows that more severe digging conditions in ore mines lead
to more frequent wear of buckets, their teeth, protective lips and strips.
Moreover, average monthly amount of hours spent for undercarriage repairs is
about 8 times more for ore mining HEX than for coal mining HEX. This means
that digging conditions (coal mines, metal mines, oil sands, phosphate, etc.)
greatly influence on the durability and performance of a machine.
The analysis indicated that an hour of productivity for mining shovels

normalized to 1m3 of a bucket capacity does not depend on the life-time of a
machine regardless of natural or technological conditions. Therefore, the
degree of excavation executed by a piece of equipment is highly dependent on
the machine uptime hours during a reviewed period. This finding is also
supported by previous studies for electrical rope shovels with operation life of
18 to 22 years [31].
102
Table 4.17 Summary of the compared parameters
103
Production variations are often related not only to operational hours, but
result from many other factors. Whereas uptime hours and availability may
have high indices, production values may suffer from, for example, operator’s
proficiency and tactics [32, 33], inherent properties of the excavated material
or blast quality [34]. Moreover, for the equipment at mine “A”, utilization (or
the time when a machine excavates) is often cut by such things as: absence of
spare parts (especially for HEXs), loss of electrical supply, climatic conditions,
lack of service crew availability, lack of truck fleet, etc.
The analysis shows that hydraulic excavators demonstrate, generally, 15%

higher production indicators. Comparatively low production levels of machines
working at the same location, such as cable shovels is a consequence of poor
data for the PC 4000 and PC 5500. However, these machines consist only 3%
of the overall quantity of HEX analyzed, dealing with coal extraction, so their
influence on the final assessment should not be overestimated.
With better production parameters hydraulic shovels (even those ones

provided with high maintenance practices) by 60,000 hours of operation lose
10% of their cumulative average production. During the same period rope
shovels display a decrease of 12 %.
As mentioned previously, in order to assess the actual difference of life

cycle cost for the loading machine types in the context of mine “A”, equipment
lease was included in the expenditures. However, lease by case may have
different agreement conditions between a customer and a supplier [35, 36].
Therefore an additional effort has been undertaken to compare that influence of
104
the initial capital cost of rope shovels on their life cycle cost and to compare
service expenditures for HEX and RS.
Basic prices for OMZ rope shovels and Komatsu hydraulic excavators
with comparable bucket capacities have been evaluated. It has been found that
average price for a new EKG rope shovel is about 71.5% higher than for a new
Komatsu PC excavator. However, it should be mentioned that the durability
normally guaranteed by hydraulic excavator manufacturers is 60.000 hours of
operation or 10 years, whereas mining rope shovels usually extends to 18 to 23
years.
It is clearly seen from Figures 4.6 and 4.7 that a rope shovel ownership
requires considerably greater expenditure during the initial 30.000 hours (5
years) of operation. However, by that point the cumulative average cost of
excavation decreases to 0.47 CAD per 1 m3 of excavation, and reaches the
point where operational cost of hydraulic machines start to exceed (0.49
CAD/1m3). The cumulative average cost of excavation for hydraulic shovels
reaches a plateau of 0.49 CAD/1m3; this magnitude fluctuates between 30,000
and 48,000 operational hours from 0.48 CAD/1m3 to 0.50 CAD/1m3.
Such a rapid fall of excavation cost for RS and simultaneously a rise for
HEX both can be explained with help from Figure 4.7 showing service cost
(not taking into account the amount of money spent for purchasing a new
pieces of equipment) change in time. Whereas support for cable shovels
remains constant (nearly 0.14 CAD/1m3), after the third year of utilization,
cumulative average service cost of a hydraulic machine indicates a firm
increase and by 48,000 hours of operation exceeds more than twice the
105
cumulative service costs for competitors – 0.31 CAD/1m3 in comparison to
0.14 CAD/1m3.
Moreover, a carried out analysis of categorized service costs indicates that

hydraulic machines versus rope shovels are significantly more expensive in
each category. For excavation expenditures in “consumables”, “major
overhaul” and “routine maintenance” the difference can be explained by import
taxes for spare parts and consumables supplied from abroad for all HEX,
whereas for a predominant portion of RS they are supplied from local
manufacturers (except of JOY shovels).
It is worth noticing that spare parts and consumables manufactured and

supplied by domestic companies often require less time to be delivered when
necessary (more available). This fact in turn influences equipment physical
availability and consequently productivity.
Nevertheless, expenditures for fuel and lubricants, as well as electricity

costs do not depend on import taxes; therefore they are of high interest.
Although only two electrically driven hydraulic excavators were involved

in the study, the data analysis displays that for 1m3 of excavation by a HEX
twice more electricity is required than with use of a RS. Comparison of fuel
and electricity costs for 8 diesel hydraulic and 20 electric rope shovels,
respectively, resulted to a finding that electricity was by 322% more efficient
than diesel fuel.
Expenditures for lubricants included in 1m3 excavation costs were found to

be 173% higher for hydraulic excavators than for cable shovels.
106
Thus, due to the contribution of service costs differences, considerably
higher initial investments for purchasing rope shovels, in comparison to
hydraulic machines, led to lower cumulative expenditure costs for company
“A” by the end of the fifth year of utilization.
It should be noted that the behavior and proportions of productivity and

servicing cost indices of HEX and RS obtained during the study are very
similar to ones detected at Muruntau gold mine in 2004 [12] (see Chapter 2).
By the end of an eight year period of operation for hydraulic excavators (by
Caterpillar, Orenstein & Koppel, Hitachi) and electrical rope EKG-15, they
determined almost the same trends and differences of production and service
cost values as defined in this study.
Despite such disadvantages for hydraulic excavators, in reality they can be

partially a consequence of improper service, low experience of engineers and
technicians in operating maintenance of hydraulic machines. On the contrary,
EKG shovels had been used extensively in post-Soviet territory for several
decades and rich maintenance experience had been gained. Moreover, absence
of high-precision connections in rope shovels, absence of high requirements of
machining accuracy as for hydraulic systems, and old-fashioned design
allowed repairing EKG components (even producing spare parts) in Mine “A”
maintenance and repair shops.
107
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main purpose of this study was to implement an effectiveness

evaluation of hydraulic excavators versus rope shovels in surface coal mining.
The results of the study can serve as additional arguments for selecting the
appropriate excavation-loading equipment for a coal mine as well as a tool for
predicting changes in the parameters affecting a shovels’ lifetime.
Physical availability, productiveness, and possession expenditures for

mining shovels of different sizes and designs operating all the way around the
globe were examined, with an operational history of 3,400,000 calendar hours
investigated.
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the investigations carried out with the scope of the study the
following can be concluded:
1. From physical availability, hydraulic excavators demonstrate larger

values in comparison to electric cable shovels. Total average mean values
for a period of 60,000 hours were 89.4% for hydraulic excavators and
80.3% for rope shovels. It can be noted that from 36,000 hours of
operation cumulative average availability of HEX in coal mining remains
108
almost unchanged, whereas RS indicator undergoes a gradual decrease
until 60,000 operational hours, where it is plateaued and remains stable
almost by 150,000 hours. It is noticeable that although hydraulic
excavators in coal mines have 5 to 6 per cent higher cumulative average
availability, than those in metal ore and granite, and 11 per cent higher
than cable shovels dealing with coal and coal overburden, their
parameters change little.
2. Monthly production analysis of 41 hydraulic excavators and 20 rope

shovels resulted in finding that the average cumulative volume of
excavation normalized to 1m3 of bucket capacity is about 16.5% higher
for coal mining HEX than for RS. Production differences between
hydraulic shovels in coal mining and those in metal mining were found to
be 3% (only two pieces of iron ore mining machines were involved in the
assessment).
Cumulative average production of the analyzed coal mining shovels

groups has very similar regression trends. It allows predicting
productivity of equipment at different stages of life using an integrated
regression trend:
Production = - 29.2 * a + b (4.2)
where:
a - prediction operational lifetime (thousands hours);
109
b - average monthly production (normalized to 1m3 of bucket capacity)
after 6,000 hours of operation.
Having an empirical background the equation could become a valuable

tool for the industry in predicting production change in time for a
particular shovel. With more data available in regard to performance of
mining shovels dealing with different excavated materials the same
approach could be utilized not only for coal mining but for any type of
commodity.
3. Correlation between physical availabilities of excavators and their

productivities have been detected and are as follows:
Rope shovels in coal mines (from the coal mine “A”):
Hydraulic excavators in coal mines:
Hydraulic excavators in metal mines:
Hydraulic excavators in coal mine “A”:
Production = 101.9 * Availability + 6787 (4.6)
4. Cumulative average expenses related to the possession of a hydraulic

excavator after 48,000 operational hours exceeds ones related to the
110
possession of a rope shovel by 25%. Whereas initial cost of a cable
shovel is considerably higher (e.g. between KMG excavators and OMZ
shovels differ by 71.5%) than a hydraulic machine of comparable
capacity, for 30,000 operational hours the integral average cost of
excavation equalizes for both mining machine types. This is a result of
much higher service expenditures of hydraulic excavators, including cost
of spare parts, consumables, fuel, lubricants, etc. However, from 30,000
to 48,000 operational hours cumulative average cost of excavation by
HEX stabilizes and displays only a slight year-on-year fluctuation.
Service costs normalized to 1m3 of excavation for cable shovels increases

gradually by about 30% during the initial 18,000 hours of life (roughly 3
years) and after that remains almost unchanged up to 150,000 hours
(around 25 years), while the same indicator for hydraulic equipment
displays a gradual rise with no stabilization in the analyzed period.
Consequently, the cumulative average servicing expenditures related to
one cubic meter of excavation for 48,000 operational hours at 2.15 times
higher for HEX versus RS.
5. Comparatively low availability and productivity numbers of HEX

operating in Mine A versus common HEX indicators are likely to be a
result of rather poor culture of utilization and maintenance of this type of
equipment existing in the region where HEX came into a mining
extensive use only about 20 years ago.
6. All the data and analysis obtained and discussed above indicate that the
RS’s main advantages over HEX are lower cost of excavation and longer
111
expected life. HEX, in turn, are significantly cheaper, technologically
more flexible, and provide larger production numbers, although they
require higher-quality maintenance and servicing.
Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the life cycle cost of

equipment was evaluated here on the basis of information from only one
mining company (Mine “A” in this thesis). Taking into consideration that
availability and productivity parameters for Mine “A” are considerably
lower compared to global indices calculated for all coal mining
excavators in the study, it can be concluded that expenditure cost trends
may also differ in other mines. Therefore, further efforts need to be made
in order to receive data from industry and improve the reliability of the
data and outcomes obtained in this study.
It is believed by the author that the results of the study discussed provide
a decent picture of hydraulic excavators and rope shovels performance
and costs differences. However, inclusion of new pieces of information
about shovels operating in various working conditions around the globe
may consequently provide better understanding of what to expect from a
particular excavation equipment unit on a particular mining site.
5.2 Recommendations for Future Studies
1. In this study the information, regarding performance and life cycle cost
for 136 mining shovels, predominately involved in coal mining, was
112
examined. In future studies more items of equipment of various
manufacturers and capacities dealing with different types of excavated
material and for alternative climatic and technological environments
should be included.
2. For further studies, key maintenance issues for hydraulic excavators and
rope shovels should be determined. Relationships between problematic
components, failures occurrence frequency and average duration of
repairs; together with the associated expenditures and comprehensive
information about operating conditions should be investigated. Such
connections would become an additional clue for the excavation
equipment selection in surface mining.
3. As an ultimate goal of such a high level investigation, a template for

excavation equipment selection in surface mining can be created. The
template based on empirical relationships between application
conditions, mine design, and mining shovels effectiveness would require
input of base data (e.g. underfoot and digging face materials, blast
fragmentation, bench height and width, etc.). With base data input and
after following a precise algorithm, the template would provide forecast
productions and extraction cost numbers for different mining shovels
relative to the determined working conditions.
Having an empirical background and being constantly updated such a

template would become a highly valuable tool for the industry.
113
REFERENCES
1. Poderny R., 2007. Mechanical equipment for surface mining.

Publised by Moscow State Mining University, Moscow.
2. Trubetskoy K.; Potapov M.; Vinitsky K.; Melnikov N., 1994.

Surface mining. Reference manual. Mining desk, 590p.
3. Burt C., Caccetta L., 2014. Equipment Selection for Surface Mining:
A Review, Interfaces, 44(2), pp. 143-162
4. P&H Mining Equipment, 2007. Electric versus hydraulic. Mining

Magazine. Pp. 42-51
5. Horeshok А., Kudrevatyh A., 2011. Comparison analysis of

electrical rope shovels and hydraulic backhoes performance at coal
mines of “KuzbassRazrezUgol Mining Company”. Coal of
Kuzbass, 3 (Published on-line).
6. Frimpong S., Hu Y., 2010. Parametric simulation of shovel oil sands

interactions during excavation. International Journal of Surface
Mining (Published on-line Aug. 9, 2010)
7. RH40-E Hydraulic mining excavator. TEREX / O&K, brochure.
8. Kelsh H., 2008. Parameters of hydraulic mining excavators for

successful rope shovels replacement in low ambient temperatures.
Mining informational and analytical bulletin, 11, pp. 76-79
114
9. Fiscor S., 2007. Productivity Considerations for Shovels and
Excavators. Engineering & Mining Journal, 208, p.38.
10. Saponenko U., 2007. Single-bucket shovel operator. Publised by

“Academia”, Moscow
11. Karpuz C., Ceylanoglu. A., Pasamehmetoglu A.G., 1992. An

investigation on the influence of depth of cut and blasting on
shovel digging performance. International Journal of Surface
Mining and Reclamation, 6, pp. 161-167
12. Shemetov P., Rubtsov C., Shlylov A., 2005. Exploitation of rope
shovels and hydraulic excavators at Muruntau open pit. Mining
Industry, 5 (Published on-line).
13. Merzlyakov V., Slesarev B., Shteinzayg W., 2013. Exploitation of

Komatsu Mining Germany hydraulic excavators at mining sites in
Russia. Equipment and Electromechanics. 5.
14. Jovanović V., Janošević D., Petrović N., 2014. Analysis of slewing
bearing load of a rotating platform drive in hydraulic excavators.
Technical Gazette, 21, pp. 263-270
15. P&H Mining Equipment, 2007. Peak performance practices –

excavator selection (Edited summary). Mining Magazine, pp. 42-51
115
16. Ritzel T., Lenz M., 1997. Shovel maintenance at Sierrita. Mining
Engineering, 49, pp. 29-34
17. PC 3000-6 Hydraulic excavator. Komatsu, brochure. 2013 Komatsu

printed in Germany

printed in Germany

printed in Germany

printed in Germany
21. EKG IZ KARTEX, http://www.iz-kartex.com/new-product-line/

(accessed March 15, 2015)
22. P&H 2300XPC Electric mining shovel – DC Drive. Product

overview. Joy Global / P&H, brochure. 2012 Joy Global Inc.
23. P&H 2800XPC Electric mining shovel – AC Drive. Product

overview. Joy Global / P&H, brochure. 2012 Joy Global Inc.

printed in USA
116
25. R 994 B Hydraulic excavator. Technical description. Liebherr.
Brochure. 2004 Printed in Germany by Eberl
26. Vamshi K. Katukoori “Standardizing Availability Definition”,

University of New Orleans (www.plant-
maintenance.com/articles/Availability Definition.pdf downloaded
on March 6, 2015)
27. KMG Back-to-Back Availability Guarantee
28. Tomlingson, Paul D., 2010. Equipment management: Key to

equipment reliability and productivity in mining. Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, USA, 317p.
29. Borsch-Komponiets V.I., 1996. One method for prompt evaluation

of mining shovels efficiency. Mining Industry, 1, pp. 29 -37
30. Samanta B., Sankar B., Mukherjee S.K., 2001. Reliability analysis of
shovel machines used in an open cast coal mine. Mineral Resources
Engineering, 10(2) pp. 219-231
31. Anistratov, K., Konopelko, S., 2009. Optimal service life of electric
mining shovels. Mining (www.gornoe-
delo.ru/articles/detail.php?ID=7512 downloaded on March 2, 2015)
117
32. Hendricks C, Scoble M., Peck J., 1989. Performance monitoring of
electric mining shovels. Transactions of the Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 98, p. A151-A159
33. Patnayak S., Tannant D.D., Parsons I., Del Valle V., Wong J. 2008.
Operator and dipper tooth influence on electric shovel performance
during oil sands mining. International Journal of Mining,
Reclamation and Environment, 22(2), pp. 120-145
34. Mol O.,Danell R., Leung L., 1987. Studies of rock fragmentation by
drilling and blasting in open cut mines. Rock Fragmentation by
Blasting, Second International Symposium, pp. 381-392
35. O’Sullivan A., Steven M., 2003. Economics: Principles in action.

Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 541p.
36. Gazman V., 2008. Financial leasing and factoring. Higher School of
Economics, Moscow, 342p.
118
APPENDIX A
INDIVIDUAL PHYSICAL AVAILABILITY VALUES
Table A.1 Physical Availability: PC 3000
119
120
Table A.2 Continued
121
122
Table A.3 Continued
123
124
Table A.4 Continued
125
Table A.5 Physical Availability: PC 2000 and R 994
126
Table A.6 Physical Availability: Rope Shovels 0 ÷ 60.000 Operation Hours
127
Table A.7 Physical Availability: Rope Shovels 60.000 ÷ 150.000 Operation Hours
128
APPENDIX B
INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTIVITY VALUES
Table B.1 Production: PC 4000
129
130
131
Table B.4 Production: PC 2000 and R 994
132
Table B.5 Production: Rope Shovels 0 ÷ 60.000 Operation Hours
133
Table B.6 Production: Rope Shovels 60.000 ÷ 150.000 Operation Hours
134
APPENDIX C
INDIVIDUAL EXPENDITURE COST VALUES
Table C.1 Expenditure Costs (lease is included): Hydraulic excavators
135
Table C.2 Expenditure Costs (lease is excluded): Hydraulic excavators
136
Table C.3 Expenditure Costs (lease is included): Rope shovels 0 ÷ 60.000 Operation Hours
137
Table C.4 Expenditure Costs (lease is excluded): Rope shovels 0 ÷ 60.000 Operation Hours
138
Table C.5 Expenditure Costs (lease is included): Rope shovels 60.000 ÷ 150.000 Operation Hours
139
Table C.6 Expenditure Costs (lease is excluded): Rope shovels 60.000 ÷ 150.000 Operation Hours
140

Andreev Rodion 201508 MSC PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andreev Rodion 201508 MSC PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andreev Rodion 201508 MSC PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Hydraulic Excavator and Rope Shovel Major Maintenance

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

© Rodion Andreev, 2015

In this thesis, results of a comparison study of rope shovels and hydraulic

The objective of the study is to compare the effectiveness of two types of

For confidentiality, no mining site names can be found in this thesis.

I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Tim Joseph

I cordially would like to thank Komatsu Mining Germany GmbH.,

I would also like to express my special thanks to the manager of the

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………….….. xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………... xvii

1.1 Statement of the Problem ..…………………………... 1

1.2 Objectives of the Thesis……………………………… 2

1.3 Methodology of the Thesis…………………………... 2

1.4 Thesis Outline………………………………………... 3

2.2 Mining Shovel Design……………………………….. 7

2.2.1 General Overview………………………….… 7

2.2.2 Rope Shovels………………………………… 9

2.2.3 Hydraulic Excavators………………………... 11

2.2.5 Rope Shovel Crowding Mechanism……….... 16

2.2.6 Slewing Mechanism and Rotating Support…. 16

2.2.7 Control Systems and Mechanisms…………… 19

2.2.9 Upper Works ………………………………. 23

2.3 Digging Conditions…………………………………... 25

2.4 Mining Shovel Productivity…………..……………… 26

2.5 Maintenance Strategies………………………………. 31

3. MINING SHOVELS UNDER THIS INVESTIGATION……. 33

3.1 KMG’s Hydraulic Excavators………………………... 33

3.1.1 Sources and Nature of the Data Collected…… 33

3.1.2 General Overview of the Excavators………… 37

3.2 Data From Industry………………..…………………. 46

3.2.1 Sources and Nature of the Data Collected…… 46

3.2.2 Description of the Site……………………….. 47

3.2.2.2 Stratigraphy and Lithology………….. 48

3.2.2.4 Coal Seams…………………………... 52

3.2.2.5 Overburden Operations, Drilling and

3.2.3 EKG Rope Shovels…………………………... 54

3.2.3.1 General Overview…………………… 54

3.2.4 P&H Rope Shovels………………………….. 65

3.2.4.1 General Remarks……………………. 66

3.2.4.2 P&H 2300…………………………… 66

3.2.4.3 P&H 2800…………………………… 69

3.2.5 Hydraulic Excavators………………………... 71

3.2.5.1 General Remarks…………………….. 71

4. COMPARISON PARAMETERS APPLIED TO THE

4.2 Investigated parameters………….…………………... 78

4.2.1 Physical Availability………………………… 78

4.2.3 Correlation between Physical Availability and

4.2.4 Operational Cost.…………………………….. 93

4.3 Discussion……………………………………………. 101

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…...……… 108

5.1 Conclusions…………………………………………... 108

5.2 Recommendations for Further Studies.………………. 112

A. Individual physical availability values…………………… 119

B. Individual productivity values…………………………… 129

C. Individual expenditure cost values……………………….. 135

3.2 PC 3000: Main specifications……………………………… 39

3.3 PC 4000: Main specifications……………………………… 41