See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278393778

Determination of excavator type according to rock and excavator characteristics

in soft formations that can be excavated directly

Article  in  Journal of Mining Science · March 2014

DOI: 10.1134/S1062739114020185

CITATION READS

1 979

1 author:

Abdurrahman Tosun
Dokuz Eylul University
14 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a New Technique For Reducing The Peak particle velocity Arising From The Blast View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdurrahman Tosun on 21 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1062-7391, Journal of Mining Science, 2014, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 349–361. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2014.

______________________________ MINERAL MINING ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TECHNOLOGY
Determination of Excavator Type According to Rock
and Excavator Characteristics in Soft Formations
That Can Be Excavated Directly1
A. Tosun
Dokuz Eylul University,
Cumhuriyet Blv. 144, Alsancak-Izmir, 35210 Turkey
e-mail: abdurrahman.tosun@deu.edu.tr
Received May 5, 2014

Abstract—Characteristics of the rock mass and the excavators affect the excavatability considerably. Many
researchers have previously carried out the studies suggesting suitable excavator types according to rock
mass characteristics. However, they didn't use much the excavator characteristics in this study. Many new
excavators are manufactured today with developing technology and this situation makes difficult the
utilization of the excavator type proposed according to rock excavatability methods developed previously.
Also, since the excavator type is proposed only according to rock mass characteristics in developed rock
excavatability methods, mining enterprises cannot use the excavator type according to their production
capacity but use only proposed excavator type. In this study, two relations were developed, predicting
maximum power reached by the excavator during the excavation and working capacities according to
uniaxial compressive strength values of the rock and the bucket volume of the excavator by using two flat
bucket electric excavators with different bucket volumes and powers in five different sites with a soft
formation and doesn't contain a discontinuity characteristics. Later, these developed relations were used for
predicting maximum power and working capacities reached by two pieces of backhoe type hydraulic
excavators with different bucket volumes and powers.
Keywords: Electric excavator, hydraulic excavator, excavatability, working capacity, selection of excavator
type.
DOI: 10.1134/S1062739114020185

INTRODUCTION
Excavation operations in open quarry mining are carried out in three types such as pre-relaxation
mechanical excavation, removal, and direct excavation. In the excavation with pre-relaxation, the
rock is loosened with blasting initially in hard rock whose direct excavation is impossible and then the
excavation is carried out. However, excavation operations are carried out directly in rock excavations
with low mechanical characteristics and poor structural characteristics. Excavation type selection
according to the parameters affecting the excavatability and excavator type proposal according to
determined excavation method has been examined by many researchers. Common conclusion in these
studies is that mechanical and structural characteristics of the rock affect the performance of the
excavators considerably.
Franclin et al [1] created a graphic by using the values of discontinuity range, point load strength
and uniaxial compressive strength, and tried to determined excavatability method of the rock
according to the graphic. Later, Pettifer and Fookes [2] detailed and updated the graphic determined
by Franclin. Weaver [3] assigned points to each of the parameters of seismic rate, uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock, discontinuity continuity, discontinuity range, and direction and
inclination orientation between each other and proposed directly extractor bulldozer types for the
excavatability of the rocks according to the said parameters. Kirsten [4] emphasized that excavator

1
The article is published in the original.
349
350 TOSUN

bulldozer types must be used according to the parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength of the
rock, rock quality demonstrator (RQD), number of discontinuity sets, ground structure, roughness of
the discontinuities, and alteration of the discontinuities. Abdullatif and Cruden [5] determined
excavatability methods of the rocks by using the RMR [6] rock mass classification system used in
sizing the support system in underground structures. Again related to the subject, Müftüoğlu and
Scoble [7] established a scoring system with the parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength of
the rock, point load strength, discontinuity range, stratification thickness, and disintegration degree,
and determined the types of excavator according to score status. Singh et al. [8] assigned scores to the
rock structure to be excavated with the parameters such as seismic rate inside the rock, tensile
strength of the rock, discontinuity range, disintegration degree, and abrasiveness of the rock, and
proposed some excavator types again according to these scores. Karpuz [9] created a scoring system
with the parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, point load strength,
discontinuity range, disintegration degree, and seismic rate inside the rock, and determined the
method of excavation and the types of the excavator according to score status. Göktan and Eskikaya
[10] determined rock mass removability index with the values of discontinuity stratification, joint
sets, uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, and established net excavation rate of the bulldozer
according to this index.
As is understood from the studies above, the most important parameters determining the
excavatability of the rock are strength characteristics of the rock and discontinuity characteristics of
the site. Researchers have proposed the excavator types used in that period only according to the said
values while determining the excavatability of the rocks, but didn't use the characteristics of
excavator. Many new excavators are manufactured today with developing technology and this
situation makes difficult the utilization of the excavator type proposed according to rock
excavatability methods developed previously [11].
Also, since the excavator type is proposed only according to rock mass characteristics in developed
rock excavatability methods, mining enterprises cannot use the excavator type according to their
production capacity but use only proposed excavator type. Therefore, the determination of working
capacity of the excavator according to rock mass characteristics is important. Working capacity of the
excavator can be defined by the amount of excavation performed in a unit time by means of following
equation:
V
Q= , (1)
t excavation + t shoveling + t cycle

where Q—working capacity of the excavator, t/s; V—bucket volume of the excavator, m3; t excavation —
excavation time, s; t shoveling —material unloading time of the excavator, s; t cycle —cycle period of the
excavator except for excavation and material unloading times, s.
Bucket volume of the excavator given in the equation 1 can be measured easily by using the
excavator characteristics of material unloading time and cycle time. The important parameter here is
to be able to determine excavation period of the excavator. The said parameter will be changed
depending on rock mass characteristics, bucket volume and power of the excavator. The excavator
will be forced in the formations with hard rock mass characteristics and in excavator types with large
bucket volume and low power of the excavator during the excavation, in other words, excavation time
will be increased but in the contrary case, excavation time will be reduced by making easy
excavation. Therefore, lowness or highness of the excavation time of the excavator will also
determine the excavatability of the rock. Accordingly, excavator characteristics must also be used
besides the rock mass characteristics in the determination of the excavatability of the rocks. Thus,

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

 DETERMINATION OF EXCAVATOR TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ROCK 351

mining enterprises will be able to determine the most economical excavator type according to both
rock mass characteristics of the site and their own production capacities. Also, knowing the effect of
bucket volume and power of the excavator on the excavatability of rock, they will be able to
determine the excavator type according to rock mass characteristics of the site by using all of the
excavators to be manufactured in the future.
In this study, maximum powers reached by the excavators during the excavations and working
capacities have been recorded through measurements and observations by using two different flat
bucket electric excavators in five different sites with a formation that can be excavated directly and
doesn't contain a discontinuity range. The relations determining maximum power reached by the
excavators during the excavation and working capacity according to uniaxial compressive strength of
the rock and the bucket volume of the excavator by using these recorded values. Subsequently, these
relations formed were used for the determination of maximum power reached and working capacity
by two different backhoe type hydraulic excavators.
1. RESEARCH AREAS AND EXCAVATOR CHARACTERISTCS
Excavatability tests have been carried out in sites containing five different rock mass
characteristics belonging to G.E.L.İ. (Southern Aegean Lignite Enterprises) located in Yatağan
District, Muğla Province, Turkey. Figure 1 presents the northern region showing the research area.
Coal production is realized after having carried out the overburden process at the coal enterprise
where the research is performed. The coal excavated from the quarry is first collected in the coal
stock and then carried to the thermal power plant. Tested regions of the site have a formation not
contain any discontinuity properties and rock strengths different from each other. These regions were
given numbers from 1 to 5 for distinguishing them from each other. While direct overburden
excavation was carried out in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd regions by the excavators, coal excavation were
carried out in the 4th region. However, loading process was carried out from coal stock does not
contain any rock strength to the thermal power plant (Figs. 2–4).

Fig. 1. The location of the research site.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

352 TOSUN

Fig. 2. The view of (a) region 1 and (b) region 2 belonging to the research site.

Fig. 3. The view of (a) region 3 and (b) region 4 belonging to the research site.

Fig. 4. The view of region 5 belonging to the research site.

Two flat bucket electric excavators and two backhoe type hydraulic excavators with bucket
volumes and powers different from each other have been used in research tests. Electric excavators
are electrically driven while hydraulic excavators are diesel driven. The first excavator called as flat
electric excavator has a motor power of 547.42 kW with a bucket volume of 7.65 m3 while the second
excavator known as flat bucket electric excavator has a motor power of 659.27 kW with a bucket
volume of 11.48 m3. However, the first hydraulic excavator has a motor power of 485 kW and a
bucket volume of 3.98 m3, the second one has a motor power of 565 kW and a bucket size of 6.80 m3.
Table 1 shows in which regions of the research are these excavators are used.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

 DETERMINATION OF EXCAVATOR TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ROCK 353

Table 1.Working place of excavators

Working site Excavator type

Region 1 • Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)

Region 2 • Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
• Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
• First flat bucket electric excavator (547.42 kW)
Region 3
• Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator (565 kW)
• First backhoe type hydraulic excavator(485 kW)
• Second flat bucket electric excavator(659.27 kW)
• First flat bucket electric excavator (547.42 kW)
Region 4
• Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator (565 kW)
• First backhoe type hydraulic excavator(485 kW)
• Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
Region 5
• First flat bucket electric excavator(547.42 kW)

2. FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES

Maximum power amounts reached by the excavators in the scope of field studies were measured
and subsequently material volumetric values excavated by the excavators in a unit time were
determined in a sensitive manner in site regions. Unit volumetric weight and uniaxial compressive
strength of the rock in the regions where the tests have been carried out in the scope of laboratory
studies were determined.

Fig. 5. (a) The view of circuit breaker and (b) electrical panel.

Fig. 6. The electric excavator’s transfer connection of the electric energy taken from electrical panel.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

354 TOSUN

Fig. 7. The view of ampere meter of electrical panel.

2.1. Determination of Maximum Power Reached by the Excavators during the Excavation
In this study, two different types of excavators, namely electrically and diesel driven excavators
have been used. Maximum power value reached by the excavator during the excavation determines
the power needed by that excavator. Since the motors of the electric excavators are electrically driven,
the electric energy needed by the excavators is supplied from a transformer by means of a circuit
breaker. The duty of the electric circuit breaker is to reduce high electric energy received from the
transformer and conduct it to an electrical panel (Fig. 5).
The electric energy taken from the electrical panel by means of cables is also supplied to the
motors of the excavators (Fig. 6).
Amperage values spent by the electric excavators during the excavation can be seen
instantaneously on a meter available on the electrical panel (Fig. 7). These amperage values were
recorded by means of a camera in the regions excavated by the excavators and then transferred in the
computer environment. Voltage value of the system was taken as 6300 volt in a continuous and fixed
manner.
Maximum amperage values consumed by the electric excavators during the excavation were taken
for each working area and maximum power values reached by the excavations during the excavation
were calculated by means of the formula (2) given below (Table 2):
P = 3UI cosθ / 1000, (2)
where P — maximum power of excavator during excavating, kW; U —volt (taken as 6300 V);
I—maximum ampere value, A; cos θ = 0.8 .
Table 2. The data used so as to calculate the maximum power of electric excavator reached
during excavating
The maximum power of
Working site Maximum ampere value, A Volt value, V excavator reached during
excavating, kW
Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
Region 1 43.79 6300 382.25
Region 2 56.10 6300 489.73
Region 3 48.80 6300 426.00
Region 4 48.12 6300 420.22
Region 5 25.90 6300 226.10
First flat bucket electric excavator(547.42 kW)
Region 3 44.93 6300 392.25
Region 4 43.02 6300 375.54
Region 5 23.41 6300 204.35

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

 DETERMINATION OF EXCAVATOR TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ROCK 355

Table 3. The data used in order to determine the maximum power of hydraulic excavator reached during excavating
The average The maximum
Average fuel The maximum engine
Working power of Average engine power of
consumption of the speed of excavator
site excavator during speed, rpm excavator
hydraulic excavator, l/h during excavating, rpm
excavating, kW measured, kW
First backhoe type hydraulic excavator (485 kW)
Region 3 45.40 446.15 1755.40 1831.00 465.37
Region 4 41.70 409.79 1740.10 1822.00 429.08
Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator(565 kW)
Region 3 52.70 517.89 1792.45 1855.00 535.97
Region 4 47.50 466.79 1780.25 1842.00 482.98

Since the motors of the hydraulic excavator are diesel driven, consumed average fuel amounts,
average motor revolution numbers, and maximum motor revolution numbers during the excavation
have been used for the determination of maximum power reached by these excavators during the
excavation. Fuel tanks of the excavators were first filled completely before starting the excavation for
determining average fuel consumption and then the fuel tanks were re-filled completely after a certain
period of time and average fuel amounts consumed by the excavators in l/h (Table 3). The monitor
available in the excavator cabin was utilized for the determination of motor revolution numbers of the
hydraulic excavators during the excavation. Motor revolution numbers being changed continually in
the excavator's monitor were recorded for each working area by means of a camera system.
Subsequently, these values were transferred and assessed in the computer environment.
The energy amounts obtained as a result of combustion of the fuel are defined by the TEB. The
meaning of the TEB is the energy value occurring as a result of the combustion of one ton of fuel. An
energy of approximately 11840 kW·h is generated as a result of the combustion of one TEB of diesel
oil (if the density of the diesel oil is taken as 0.83 kg/l, one ton of diesel oil is calculated as 1205
liters). In the light of this information, it was determined that an energy of 9.827 kW·h/l is liberated as
a result of consumption of one liter of diesel oil.
Primarily, average power values of the excavator during the excavation were determined by using
average fuel amounts consumed by the excavators. Since an energy of 9.827 kW·h/l is liberated as a
result of the consumption of one liter of diesel oil, average power values needed by the excavators for
the excavation were calculated for each working area through the multiplication of average fuel value
consumed by the excavators per hour (l/h) by the value 9.827 (kW·h/l). Motor revolution number of
an excavator is directly correlated with the power it consumed. Therefore, maximum power values
reached by the excavators during the excavations were found by using average power calculated for
the excavators, average motor revolution numbers, and reached maximum motor revolution
numbers (Table 3).
2.2. Determination of Working Capacity of the Excavator
Truck chassis volumes and loading time values of a unit truck were used for the determination of
the material amounts excavated by the excavators in the unit time. In the said enterprise, two different
trucks with capacities of 36 and 88.88 m3 are used. The truck having a chassis capacity of 36 m3
carries out the overburden and the transportation of coal excavated from the quarry while the truck
having a chassis capacity of 88.88 m3 carries the coal in the stock to thermal power plant.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

356 TOSUN

Table 4. Determination of the working capacity of excavators

Truck chassis
Working The average truck loading time, The number of Bucket Working
volume,
site s/truck truck loaded volume, m3 capacity, m3/h
m3/truck
Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
Region 1 36 102.55 85 11.48 1263.77
Region 2 36 134.44 94 11.48 964.00
Region 3 36 115.92 74 11.48 1118.01
Region 4 36 107.55 105 11.48 1205.02
Region 5 88.88 240.42 58 11.48 1330.87
First flat bucket electric excavator (547.42 kW)
Region 3 36 135.85 117 7.65 953.99
Region 4 36 127.65 81 7.65 1015.28
Region 5 88.88 295.22 76 7.65 1083.83
First backhoe type hydraulic excavator(485 kW)
Region 3 36 204.15 112 3.98 634.83
Region 4 36 185.44 86 3.98 698.88
Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator(565 kW)
Region 3 36 158.18 98 6.80 819.32
Region 4 36 150.22 73 6.80 862.73

Loading times of many trucks by the excavator during the excavation in working areas were
determined by means of a chronometer in a very sensitive manner, loading times on unit truck were
found, and these values were averaged. And then excavation amounts per hour were calculated for
each excavator by dividing truck chassis volumetric values by loading periods on unit truck (Table 4).
Important parameters here are filling ratios, experience of excavator operator, and manufacture year
of the excavators. Utmost attention was paid in realized tests so that truck filling rates should be the
same. Loading periods of the trucks whose full filling ratios couldn't be caught were not taken into
account. The same excavator operator was continually used for all of excavation tests. Electric
excavators and hydraulic excavators have the same manufacture year among themselves respectively.
Samples were taken from each working region where the tests are carried out; unit volumetric
weight and uniaxial compressive strength values were determined by carrying out many tests in rock
mechanics laboratory. Table 5 gives average, standard deviation, and test numbers belonging to the
said tests.
Table 5. Physical and mechanical characteristics of the studied material

Average unit Average uniaxial

Number of Number of
Working site volume compression
tests tests
weight, g/cm³ strength, MPa

Region 1 1.34±0.003 22 2.70±0.3 16

Region 2 1.42±0.004 24 6.80±0.4 13
Region 3 1.38±0.005 12 4.81±0.3 18
Region 4 1.36±0.003 14 3.60±0.2 11
Region 5 1.36±0.007 7 - -

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

 DETERMINATION OF EXCAVATOR TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ROCK 357

Table 6. The data belong to rock and electric excavator

Average uniaxial The maximum power of
Working The working capacity of
compression strength, Bucket volume, m3 electric excavator measured,
site electric excavator, m3/h
MPa kW
Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
Region 1 2.70 11.48 382.25 1263.77
Region 2 6.80 11.48 489.73 964.00
Region 3 4.81 11.48 426.00 1118.01
Region 4 3.60 11.48 420.22 1205.02
Region 5 0.00001 11.48 226.10 1330.87
First flat bucket electric excavator (547.42 kW
Region 3 4.81 7.65 392.25 953.99
Region 4 3.60 7.65 375.54 1015.28
Region 5 0.00001 7.65 204.35 1083.83

3. EVALUATION
The excavatability of the rocks is considerably affected by the type of an excavator such as flat
bucketed or backhoe type bucketed. Flat bucketed excavator transfers its own weight on the
excavatability of the rock positively by excavating on the ground it is located while backhoe type
bucketed excavator uses only a part of its own weight as a positive effect on the excavatability of the
rock. Therefore, flat bucketed electric and backhoe type bucketed hydraulic excavators were
separately assessed in this study.
In the scope of the evaluation, first of all, Table 6 presents two formulas predicting maximum
power reached by electric excavators during the excavation and working capacities according to
uniaxial compressive strength values of the rock and belonging to excavator bucket volume and
working regions by using the data measured in the tests carried out with flat bucketed electric
excavators (Eqs. (3) and (4)). Maximum power value reached by the excavator during the excavation
determines the power needed by one excavator. Since loading is carried out from the coal stock in the
5th region where the studies are carried out, no rock compressive strength value whatsoever is
available in this region. Uniaxial compressive strength value was taken as 0.00001 MPa for
neutralizing the rock compressive strength of this region. Subsequently, the formulas developed
according to flat bucketed electric excavators were used for the prediction of maximum power
reached by reverse bucketed hydraulic excavators during the excavation and working capacities:
Pe = 146 + 38.8σ + 9.04v , (3)
Qe = 757 − 44.8σ + 50.5v , (4)
where Pe —maximum power of electrical excavator calculated according to Eq. (3), kW; Qe —
working capacity of electrical excavator calculated according to Eq. (4), m3/h; σ —average uniaxial
compression strength, MPa; v —bucket volume, m3.
Table 7 shows maximum power values reached by electric excavators during the excavation
measured from the region they work and calculated according to the Formula 3. The highest
percentage error amount occurs in loading process carried out in the 5th Region by the one having the
biggest bucket volume among the electric excavators. Besides, in other tests, proposed formula
predicts real-like values.
A correlation coefficient of 0.945 was formed between maximum power values of the electric
excavator measured from working regions and calculated according to Eq. (3) in Fig. 8. The fact that
the coefficient x in the equation seen in the figure takes a value very close to the value 1 shows that
the slope of the line is very close to 45 deg.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

358 TOSUN

Table 7. Comparison of the maximum power of electric excavator during excavating

measured and calculated
The maximum The maximum power
power of electric of electric excavator
Working site Error, %
excavator calculated according to
measured, kW Eq. (3)
Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
Region 1 382.25 354.54 7.25
Region 2 489.73 513.62 -4.88
Region 3 426.00 436.41 -2.44
Region 4 420.22 389.46 7.32
Region 5 226.10 249.78 -10.47
First flat bucket electric excavator (547.42 kW)
Region 3 392.25 401.78 -2.43
Region 4 375.54 354.84 5.51
Region 5 204.35 215.16 -5.29

Fig. 8.The maximum power of electric excavator measured and calculated according to Eq. (3).

Table 8 shows working capacity values measured from the region they work and calculated
according to Eq. (4). The formula proposed in these tests predicts the values very close to the reality
as is also understood from percentage errors. It is also seen in Fig. 9 that there is a correlation
coefficient of 0.8933 between measured and calculated working capacities.
Table 8. Comparison of the working capacity of electric excavator measured and calculated
The working capacity The working capacity of
Working site of electric excavator electric excavator calculated Error, %
measured, m3/h according to Eq. (4), m3/h
Second flat bucket electric excavator (659.27 kW)
Region 1 1263.77 1215.78 3.80
Region 2 964.00 1032.10 -7.06
Region 3 1118.01 1121.25 -0.29
Region 4 1205.02 1175.46 2.45
Region 5 1330.87 1336.74 -0.44
First flat bucket electric excavator (547.42 kW)
Region 3 953.99 927.84 2.74
Region 4 1015.28 982.05 3.27
Region 5 1083.83 1143.33 -5.49

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

 DETERMINATION OF EXCAVATOR TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ROCK 359

Fig. 9.The working capacity of electric excavator measured and calculated according to Eq. (4).
Table 9.The data belong to rock and hydraulic excavator
The maximum power of
Average uniaxial Bucket The working capacity of
Working site hydraulic excavator
compression strength, MPa volume, m3 hydraulic excavator, m3/h
measured, kW
First backhoe type hydraulic excavator (485 kW)
Region 3 4.81 3.98 465.37 634.83
Region 4 3.60 3.98 429.08 698.88
Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator (565 kW)
Region 3 4.81 6.80 535.97 819.32
Region 4 3.60 6.80 482.98 862.73

Table 9 gives bucket volume, maximum power reached during the excavation, working capacity
and uniaxial compressive strength values of the rock belonging to studied regions.
Formulas (5) and (6) predicting maximum power reached by hydraulic excavators during the
excavation and working capacity values were developed by using Eqs. (3) and (4) developed in the
tests carried out with electric excavators.
Ph = 1.35[146 + 38.8σ + 9.04v] , (5)
Qh = 0.9[757 − 44.8σ + 50.5v], (6)
where Ph —maximum power of electrical excavator calculated according to Eq. (5), kW; Qh —
working capacity of electrical excavator calculated according to Eq. (6), m3/h; σ —average uniaxial
compression strength, MPa; v —bucket volume, m3.
Table 10 and Figure 10 show the comparisons of maximum power values reached by hydraulic
excavators measured from working regions and calculated according to Eq. (5). However, Table 11
and Fig. 11 show the relations of working capacities belonging to hydraulic excavators each other,
measured from working regions and calculated according to Eq. (6). Once these comparisons are
examined, it is understood that Eqs. (5) and (6) makes good predictions.
Table 10. Comparison of the maximum power of hydraulic excavator during excavating measured and calculated
The maximum power of hydraulic The maximum power of hydraulic excavator
Working site Error, %
excavator measured, kW calculated according to Eq. (5), kW
First backhoe type hydraulic excavator (485 kW)
Region 3 465.37 497.62 -6.93
Region 4 429.08 434.24 -1.20
Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator (565 kW)
Region 3 535.97 532.04 0.73
Region 4 482.98 468.66 2.97

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

360 TOSUN

Fig. 10. The maximum power of hydraulic excavator measured and calculated according to Eq. (5).
Table 11. Comparison of the working capacity of hydraulic excavator measured and calculated
The working capacity of hydraulic The working capacity of hydraulic excavator
Working site Error, %
excavator measured, m3/h calculated according to Eq. (6), m3/h
First backhoe type hydraulic excavator (485 kW)
Region 3 634.83 668.25 -5.27
Region 4 698.88 717.04 -2.60
Second backhoe type hydraulic excavator (565 kW)
Region 3 819.32 796.42 2.79
Region 4 862.73 845.21 2.03

Fig. 11. The working capacity of hydraulic excavator measured and calculated according to Eq. (6).

Mining enterprises shall be able to pre-determine the power and the working capacities of needed
excavator by using uniaxial compressive strength values of the material to be excavated and the
bucket volume of the excavator in the sites having a formation that can be excavated directly and does
not contain any discontinuity characteristics through this study. Therefore, they shall be able to select
in advance the characteristics of the excavator required for their won enterprises by also considering
the production amounts belonging to their own enterprises. In other words, they shall know
beforehand they type of excavator (flat bucketed or backhoe type bucketed), the bucket volume, and
required power of the excavator they needed according to the characteristic of the rock from which
the production will be made. Thus, especially the excavators having a redundant power value shall not
be used. However, this condition shall optimize the production costs of the enterprise. This study
must be expanded to the sites containing discontinuity characteristics by using excavators having
more different excavator characteristics.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

 DETERMINATION OF EXCAVATOR TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY ACCORDING TO ROCK 361

CONCLUSIONS
Excavatability tests have been carried out by using four different excavator types having a soft
formation and not contain any discontinuity characteristic whatsoever in this study. Two of the
excavators used are of flat bucketed electric type and other two are of backhoe type bucketed
hydraulic type. Maximum power reached by the excavators during the excavation and working
capacities were measured from working regions and then recorded. While maximum amperage and
voltage values consumed by the excavator during the excavation were used for the determination of
maximum power values in the electric excavators, average fuel consumption consumed during the
excavation, average and maximum motor revolution numbers were utilized in case of hydraulic
excavators. Working capacity values of the excavators in working regions were recorded by using a
chronometer and during the loading by the excavators to the trucks in a very sensitive manner.
Physical and mechanical characteristics of the rock belonging to the working area where the
excavatability tests have been carried out were determined in the rock mechanics laboratory by using
sufficient amount of samples.
Two formulas predicting maximum power reached by the electric excavators during the excavation
and working capacities according to uniaxial compressive strength of the rock and bucket volumetric
values of the excavator were developed. Subsequently, these relations formed were used for the
determination of maximum power reached by two different backhoe type hydraulic excavators and
working capacity. It was determined that prediction models are very close to the reality. It is also seen
that although backhoe type hydraulic excavators reach a power value of approximately 35% higher
than electric excavators, they excavate approximately 10% lesser materials.

REFERENCES
1. Franklin, J.A., Broch, E., and Walton, G., Logging the Mechanical Character of Rock, Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 1971, vol. 80, A1–A9.
2. Pettifer, G.S. and Fookes, P.G., A Revision of the Graphical Method for Assessing the Excavatability of
Rock, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 1994, vol. 27, pp. 145–164.
3. Weaver, J.M., Geological Factors Significant in the Assessment of Rippability, Die Siviele Ingenieur in
Suid-Afrika, 1975, vol. 17, pp. 313–316.
4. Kirsten, H.A.D., A Classification System for Excavation in Natural Materials, Die Siviele Ingenieur in
Suid-Afrika, 1982, vol. 82, pp. 293–307.
5. Abdüllatif, O.M. and Cruden, D.M., The Relationship between Rock Mass Quality and Ease of
Excavation, Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geology, 1983, vol. 28, pp. 183–187.
6. Bieniawski, Z.T., Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses, The Civil Engineer in South Africa,
1973, vol. 15, pp. 335–343.
7. Muftuoglu, Y.V., and Scoble, M.J., Determination of Excavability Methods in Coal Open Pits, Proc. 9th
Turkey Mining Scientific and Technical Congress, Ankara, 1985, pp. 29–37.
8. Singh, R.N., Denby, B., Egretli, I., and Pathan, A.G., Assessment of Ground Rippability in Opencast
Mining Operations, Mining Magazine, University of Nottingham, 1986, vol. 38, pp. 21–34.
9. Karpuz, C., A Classification System for Excavation of Surface Coal Measures, Mining Science and
Technology, 1990, vol. 11, pp. 157–163.
10. Göktan, R.M. and Eskikaya, Ş., Prediction of Ripping Machine Performance in Terms of Rock Mass
Properties, The Civil Engineer in South Africa, 1991, vol. 31, pp. 13–24.
11. Göktan, R.M. and İphar, M., Rock Rippability Assessment Methods in Surface Mining, Journal of
Underground Resources, 2013, January, pp. 1–17.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 50 No. 2 2014

View publication stats