LHD Towing Project – Jan 2013

PIT – Mechanical Engineering Miss S.M. Naudé

TUGO 2 SEAM NORTH

1. Background

2. Objective

3. Methodology

4. Investigation

5. Findings

6. Conclusion

1. Background

2. Objectives

2. Objective

The objective of this project was to:

• Quantify the capability of the machine in current use

• Analyse equivalent machines in the market

• Compare quantified capabilities

• Evaluate the difference in impact it will have on our operation

Title slide

3. Methodology

3. Methodology 6 - STEPS

Diagram 1: Methodology steps.

Equipment being towed

Different scenarios & Max Pulling Force Required to pull equipment

Machine A

Machine Specs – Max TE

Max TE [kN] vs Max [kN] required to pull equipment

Machine B

Machine Specs – Max TE

Max TE [kN] vs Max [kN] required to pull equipment

Comparison

STEP 1 :

STEP 2 :

STEP 3 :

STEP 4 :

STEP 5 :

STEP 6 :

4. Investigation

STEP 1 : Equipment being towed

What equipment is typically pulled with the LHD?

What do they weigh?

4. Investigation

Table 1: Equipment pulled by LHD.

STEP 2: Three Scenarios & Max Pulling Force Required to pull equipment Scenario 1: Towing on a STRAIGHT surface

4. Investigation

Figure 1: LHD pulling equipment on a straight surface.

Scenario 2: Towing UP an incline

4. Investigation

Figure 2: LHD pulling equipment up an incline.

STEP 2: Three Scenarios & Max Pulling Force Required to pull equipment

Scenario 3: Towing DOWN an incline

4. Investigation

Figure 3: LHD pulling equipment down an incline.

STEP 2: Three Scenarios & Max Pulling Force Required to pull equipment

Shaft incline used in calculations:

4. Investigation

Figure 4: Incline shaft at TUGO 2 Seam North.

STEP 2: Shaft incline & Chain used

Chain Spec: Grade 80

20 mm

2 legs; 2m length

17500 kg @ 90˚

Figure 5: Chain used during towing operation.

The two different machines that were compared:

• Machine A

4. Investigation

Figure 6: Sandvik ED10 LHD Tractive Effort curve

STEP 3 & 4: Machines

• Machine B

4. Investigation

Figure 7: Wright LHD Tractive Effort curve

STEP 3 & 4: Machines

Incline example:

4. Investigation

Table 2 : LHD Comparison for CRR = 0.065 & RR = 637 N/t on an incline going UP.

STEP 5 & 6 : Max TE [kN] vs Required [kN] to pull equipment & Comparison

ED10 Sandvik

5. Findings

New Caterpillar Machine 5. Findings

Figure 8: SH640D Caterpillar machine TE output graph.

New Caterpillar Machine 5. Findings

Table 4: Comparison between the three machines.

ED10 Sandvik SH640D

6. Conclusion

21

• The machine with the most [kW] is not necessarily the best machine.

• The current machine used and the equivalent machine in the market pulls the same

amount of equipment although the Sandvik machine can accelerate approximately 0.5-3

[m/s^2] faster.

• The TE of the SH640D CAT machine exceeds the other two machines by more than 90

[kN].

• The CAT machine accelerate approximately 2.6-15 [m/s^2] faster then the current LHD

used.

• The weight to weight ratio between the CAT LHD an the equipment are not less than

approximately 1.5:1.

• The CAT SH640D machine will only be used for towing purposes underground

especially with belt extensions and when section are moved.

• This LHD simulation can now be used in the future when similar investigations need to

take place when purchasing new towing equipment.

• A chart for pulling with an LHD has also been compiled for operator to use, emphasising

the important aspects to remember when towing equipment underground.

6. Conclusion

22

Questions & Comments