Caterpillar Product Information

Performance Report
February 2002

Cat 5110B ME

Job Purpose Compare productivity of Caterpillar 5110B ME to that of an

Hitachi EX1200.

Job Site Nickel mine, Western Australia

Study Date 25 October, 2001

Material Unconsolidated Overburden and Ore 1.35 tonne/LCM

(2280 lbs/LCY)

Loading Tools Caterpillar 5110B Mass Excavator 7.6 m3 (9.9 yd3)

Hitachi EX1200 Mass Excavator 5.6 m3 (7.3 yd3)

For Dealer Sales Personnel

www.CAT.com
Haul Units Komatsu 785-3 capacity 77 tonne (85 ton)

Observers Jim Humphrey, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.

John Merlo, William Adams Pty. Ltd.
Murray ODea, WesTrac Equipment
Darryl Burton, WesTrac Equipment
Ben Dekoning, WesTrac Equipment
Peter Soderstrom, Caterpillar of Australia

Written By Jim Humphrey, Mining Shovel Group, Caterpillar Inc.

Significant Results The 5110B was 20% more productive than the Hitachi EX1200.
The 5110B advantage came from bucket payload.

Test Procedure Machine cycles were timed using a portable computer and
software. During each cycle four separate time segments were
collected. Trucks were on the level below the shovel. Payloads
were gathered from a truck weigh scale system. Over 75 trucks
were weighed and times taken for over 600 hundred cycles.

Machine Configuration
5110B EX1200
Boom 7.6 m (24.9 ft) 7.55 m (24.8 ft)
Stick 3.4 m (11.1 ft) 3.4 m (11.1 ft)
Bucket Capacity 7.6 m3 (9.9 yd3) 5.6 m3 (7.3 yd3)
Machine Weight 125 tonne (275,000 lb) 109 tonne (240,000 lb)
Net Power (SAE) 514 kW (689 hp) 478 kW (641 hp)
Bucket Breakout
Force (SAE) 501 kN (112,725 lb) 500 kN (112,500 lb)
Stick Breakout
Force (SAE) 439 kN (98,775 lb) 402 kN (90,450 lb)
Rated Bucket Load 13.7 tonne (15.1 ton) 11.2 tonne (12.3 ton)

2
This operation mines irregularly shaped laterite deposits in 1.8 m Job Description
(6 ft) benches. Each bench includes both waste and ore. The waste
material consisted of an unconsolidated grey magnesite and an
unconsolidated red ferrous laterite. The material was not prepared
by ripping or blasting. The digability across the face was relatively
consistent and easy.

The material had a fairly high swell factor and a very low density.
Densities varied from about 1.2 tonnes/lcm (2000 lbs/lcy) to
about 1.6 tonnes/lcm (2700 lbs/lcy). Average density was about
2300 lbs per loose cubic yard (1.35 tonnes/lcm).

The face was linear and about 150 yards (150 m) in length, each
shovel made two passes on the entire length of the face. The bench
height was a fairly consistent 6 feet (1.8 meters). The trucks were
positioned on the bench below so the shovels dumped over the
tailgate with a very consistent average 90 degree swing.

For this study, two operators were utilized, a customer operator

who normally operated the EX1200 and a Caterpillar demonstrator
operator whos familiarity, prior to this test, with the EX1200
and 5110B was limited. The operators loaded trucks with both
excavators and the results were averaged.

Example of 5110B loading

3
 Example of Hitachi EX1200 loading

Results As the summarized data in the following table shows, the 5110B
was considerably more productive than the Hitachi EX1200. The
5110B provided 20% more production. The production advantage
was primarily due to payload. This demonstrated productivity
advantage of the 5110B was virtually the same with both
operators, between the operators there was only a 1% point
advantage difference.

Both machines were configured with manufacturer recommended

size rock buckets. Though given the material densities the shovels
were carrying about 20-25% less than rated bucket payloads.
The productivity of both machines would have been enhanced
if the machines had been fitted with a lighter weight medium
duty bucket more suited to these materials.

The digging face in this study favored the smaller EX1200. The low
face height required the 5110B to extend further to insure maximum
bucket fills. Additionally the low bench height and easy digging
didnt give the 5110B the opportunity to demonstrate its superior
digging power and the advantage of PPPC (Proportional Priority
Pressure Compensating) hydraulics when simultaneously using
multiple functions. During the cycles in the more consolidated
materials the 5110Bs additional power was clearly evident.

4
The sum of the segment averages was taken as the total cycle time
per pass, then a standard truck exchange time of 0.7 minutes was
used to develop the production estimate. Average cycle time for
the 5110B was about 22 seconds as compared to about 19 seconds
for the EX1200.

The 5110B larger payload resulted in fewer passes per truck. The
5110B averaged 7.2 passes per truck and the EX1200 averaged
10.6 passes.

The 5110B had slightly slower cycle times, but with 4% better
bucket fill and 30% larger bucket it had a 20% greater production
rate. A larger bucket would have a negative impact on cycle time
particularly in more difficult digging conditions, so production
increase would not be proportional to bucket increase.

Hitachi Cat Cat

EX1200 5110B Advantage
Avg Dump Time (sec) 2.6 2.9
Avg Swing Empty Time (sec) 5.8 7.0
Avg Load Time (sec) 5.9 7.0
Avg Swing Loaded Time (sec) 4.5 4.9
Avg Cycle Time (sec) 18.8 21.9
Avg. Truck Cycle (min) 3.71 2.99
w/0.7 min exchange (min)
Avg. # of Passes 10.5 7.1
Avg. Bucket Load (tons) 8.5 12.1 42%
Avg. Truck Load (tons) 89.5 87.6
System Production (tons/50 min. hr) 1204 1449 20%
System Production (BCY/50 min. hr)* 817 982
Metric Summary
Avg. Bucket Load (tonnes) 7.7 11.0 42%
Avg. Truck Load (tonnes) 81.2 78.4
System Production (tonnes/50 min. hr) 1093 1315 20%
System Production (BCM/50 min. hr)* 624 751
* Volumes based on 3000 lbs/BCY (1.75 tonnes/BCM)

The 5110B demonstrated a 20% productivity advantage in Conclusion

an application favorable to the smaller competitive machine.
This was primarily because the 5110B had larger payloads,
fill factors, and was a better truck match.

5
The information contained herein is intended for circulation only to Caterpillar and dealer employees whose duties require knowledge of such reports and
is intended exclusively for their information and training. It may contain unverified analysis and facts observed by various Caterpillar or dealer employees.
However, effort has been made to provide reliable results regarding any information comparing Caterpillar built and competitive machines. Effort has been
made to use the latest available spec sheet and other material in the full understanding that these are subject to change without notice. Any reproduction
of this release without the foregoing explanation is prohibited.

TEXR0388
February 2002
www.CAT.com
2002 Caterpillar
Printed in U.S.A.