Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Leighton Wahana 777D Dumping

Problems
July 23, 2012

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


Agenda
• Testing Procedure
• Data Recorded
• Analysis
• Scale Repeatability
• Data Interpretation
• Material Density Calculations
• Observations
• Recommendations
• Conclusion

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 2


Testing Procedure
• STEP 1 – Bring Truck onto Scales
• STEP 2 – Weight Front Axle Weight
• STEP 3 – Weight Rear Axle Weight
• STEP 4 – Connect and Measure STEP 1 STEP 4
Hoist Cylinder Hydraulic Pressure
• STEP 5 – Witness dumping
behaviour
• STEP 6 – Bring Truck Back onto
scales to measure Empty Vehicle
Weight (if not done already) STEP 2 STEP 5
• STEP 7 – Hoist body to check for
carryback
• STEP 8 – Weight Front Axle Weight
• STEP 9 – Weight Rear Axle Weight
• STEP 10 – Check again for
repeatability STEP 3 STEP 6
©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 3
Data Recorded
• Time • % Difference Between TPMS and
• Truck # (DR5178, etc) Actual Load
• Tray Style (ESCO, CAT X Body, • Able to Dump (Yes, No)
Dual Slope) • % Front Axle Split
• Visual Load (Flooded, Normal, etc) • % Rear Axle Split
• VMS/TPMS truck data (payload • % over Payload
reading) • Hoist Pressure at Gentle Dump
• Dry Weight (Empty Vehicle Weight) • Stall Pressure
• Front Axle Weight
• Rear Axle Weight
• Total Truck Weight
• Total Load (Payload)
• Difference +/- Between TPMS &
Actual Load

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 4


Analysis
777D with
777D with 777D with 785C with
Dual Slope
ESCO Body X-Body MSD body
body
1 Truck dry weight (tonnes) 67.2-69.2 68.8-72.6 59.2-78.3 99.3-112.3

2 Target payload (tonnes) 97 96 95-96 140

3 Average measured payload (tonnes) 114.3 115.9 110.7 167.9

4 Average % of target payload 118.0% 119.5% 116.5% 116.6%


Average loaded axle splits %
5 32.1/67.9 31.2/68.8 31.1/68.9 25/75
(front/rear)
6 Std deviation of loaded axle splits 1.69% 1.68% 2.31% 1.98%
Average 'normalised' axles split %
7 32.1/67.9 31.8/68.2 31.5/68.5 -
(front/rear)
Maximum variation between ground
8 scales and onboard payload 33.9% 48.0% 46.1% 18.9%
measurements

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 5


Analysis
• The target GMOW for 777D trucks is 163,360kg. The GMOW is calculated by adding
the truck dry weight to the payload. The target payloads are higher than standard
practice. This may vary for a number of reasons, (ie debris, varying tyres etc)

• Items 3 and 4 shows that the average payloads are similar for both the CAT and
ESCO body configurations, this allows for a fair comparison of the data.

• The average axles splits for the ESCO body are close to the optimum axle split 33/67
(0.9% difference)

• The axle splits for the 785C trucks with the MSD bodies showed an axle split of 25/75,
this is highly rear loaded, however the this result is not relevant to this study for 777D
trucks.

• When ‘normalised’ the axles splits are similar for both the CAT and ESCO body
configurations.

• It was observed that there is a significant difference in the ground scale and on-board
system weight measurements, understanding this difference in the measured weights
is key to assisting in managing the problem.

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 6


Scale Repeatability
Dry
Dry Weight Dry Weight
Weight Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry Weight
Truck # Front % Rear %
Front Front #2 Rear #1 Rear #2
Difference Difference
#1
DR5103 34.6 32.1 -7.8% 37.1 36.1 -2.8%
DR5178 33 34 2.9% 33.5 35.2 4.8%
DR5180 33 34 2.9% 33.4 34 1.8%
DR5181 34.5 33.8 -2.1% 33.3 33.4 0.3%
DR5182 31.8 32.9 3.3% 39.4 34.8 -13.2%
DR5184 34.1 32.9 -3.6% 34.8 35.1 0.9%
DR5188 33.5 33.7 0.6% 34.5 34.2 -0.9%
DR5189 33.7 33.2 -1.5% 34.2 36.1 5.3%
DR5231 31.4 33.3 5.7% 37.5 37 -1.4%

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 7


Data Interpretation

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 8


Data Interpretation (Cont)
• The spread of data for all body types is similar; there is no discernable
difference in the filling characteristics of the ESCO bodies when compared
with the OEM bodies.

• One case of ‘failure to dump’ has occurred with a Cat X-Body with a load that
is below dumping limit curve, this may be a function of low hoist stall
pressure, readings taken on that load showed 2400psi stall pressure.

• The remaining cases of failure to dump have all occurred when the truck has
been highly overloaded.

• There are two loads indicated (one OEM, one ESCO) as ‘hard to dump’,
where the truck was loaded less than 120% of target payload. We believe
these loads are within an acceptable range and this result is indicative of the
low hoist pressure readings taken on these trucks.

• All loads that were successfully dumped are below the curve, as expected.

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 9


Loads that did not dump ESCO Body #1

%
Total Total Difference
Able to % Axle % Axle % Over Gentle Stall
Tray Payload - Payload - Between
Date Time Truck # Dump Split Split Target Dump Pressu
Style Onboard Ground Onboard
? (Front) (Rear) Payload (psi) re (psi)
System Scales and Ground
Scales

NO
27/06/2012 2:23 DR5180 ESCO 120 126.4 5.3% 33% 67% 30.3% 2700 2700
DUMP

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 10


Loads that did not dump ESCO Body #2

%
Total Total Difference
Able to % Axle % Axle % Over Gentle Stall
Tray Payload - Payload - Between
Date Time Truck # Dump Split Split Target Dump Pressu
Style Onboard Ground Onboard
? (Front) (Rear) Payload (psi) re (psi)
System Scales and Ground
Scales

NO
27/06/2012 4:48 DR5182 ESCO 113 130.7 15.7% 33% 67% 34.7% 2700 2700
DUMP

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 11


Loads that did not dump CAT Body #1

%
Total Total Difference
Able to % Axle % Axle % Over Gentle Stall
Tray Payload - Payload - Between
Date Time Truck # Dump Split Split Target Dump Pressu
Style Onboard Ground Onboard
? (Front) (Rear) Payload (psi) re (psi)
System Scales and Ground
Scales

CAT-X- NO
28/06/2012 11:28 DR5224 115 116.1 1.0% 32% 68% 19.7% 2400 2450
BODY DUMP

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 12


Loads that did not dump CAT Body #2

GAUGE IMAGE
NOT AVAILABLE

%
Total Total Difference
Able to % Axle % Axle % Over Gentle Stall
Tray Payload - Payload - Between
Date Time Truck # Dump Split Split Target Dump Pressu
Style Onboard Ground Onboard
? (Front) (Rear) Payload (psi) re (psi)
System Scales and Ground
Scales

CAT-X- NO
28/06/2012 4:18 DR5234 95 127.4 34.1% 34% 66% 31.3% 2650 2650
BODY DUMP

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 13


Material Density Calculations

Calculated
Scanned Volume
Date Time Truck # Total Load Material Density
(m3)
(kg/m3)
26/07/2012 4:09 DR5188 124.5 75.61 1.65
27/06/2012 3:25 DR5182 107.5 70.42 1.53
27/06/2012 4:29 DR5188 121.3 69.87 1.74

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 14


Observations
• Both CAT and ESCO Bodies failed to dump

• During the testing the ramp was subject to degradation. In order to manage this,
regular maintenance was undertaken to ensure that the wheel levels were within
±25mm

• Drivers were fearful of dumping at full throttle for fear of damaging hydraulics.

• Of the 102 loads measured during the 3 days of operation, 4 loads were ‘unable
to dump’, 8 loads were ‘difficult to dump’. In total 12 loads were reported to have
had difficulty in dumping which is 11.7% of the total loads for this 3 day period. 4
of the 12 loads were ESCO bodies, 8 of the 12 loads were on CAT X-bodies.

• Significant difference between the onboard and ground scales were observed.

• The spread of loads are heavily biased over 110% of nominal payloads.

<0% >0% >10% >20%


1 16 44 38

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 15


Recommendations
• Calibrate On-board Payload Management System to read accurate
payloads
• Manage Body Payloads
• Maintain Hoist Pressures
• Understand Material Density

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 16


Conclusions
• The data clearly shows that the ESCO bodies are performing as
expected, and that there are no issues with the ESCO 777D body’s
configuration with regard to an inability to dump.

• The data shows that the inability to dump is a result of overloading of the
bodies, and this occurs for both the ESCO and OEM bodies.

• If the on-board payload system was accurate, and not reporting


significantly below the actual measurements, the reason for the dumping
problems would be self-evident. Not having an accurate method of
measuring the loads on a daily basis makes managing this problem
extremely difficult.

• The 777D truck is not engineered to dump loads above the 2750 psi line
as shown in figure 1. There were both CAT and ESCO bodies loaded in
excess of this curve, which failed to dump.

©2012 ESCO Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 17