Backhoe or Loader

Matching the machine to the

application

Naoto Sannomiya
Engineer, HMAP Product Support
27/04/2010

Hitachi Construction Machinery Asia & Pacific Pte. Ltd.

Overview

Loader (Face Shovel)

Bucket facing the bank
Clam & Door combination
for easy dumping
Follows the traditional
mining style by rope shovels

Backhoe
Bucket facing machine
Based on the general
construction application

Page 2

Loader

Loader Operation
Page 3

Face Shovel (Loader)

Typical Operation

Basically, the excavator is

on the same surface as the
hauler.
Page 4

Face Shovel (Loader)

Benefits
Transition from mechanical shovel
(rope shovel) is smooth
Floor leveling/cleaning can be
carried out easily
Support machine (dozer) to clean
the haul road is not needed
Material does not stick to the
bucket: better loading efficiency
especially for the muddy/ sticky
material.
Easy to locate the seam; the seam
is in front of the operator

Page 5

Face Shovel (Loader)

Bench height
Minimum bench height
25% of max cutting height
3.8m
Material does not fall into the
bucket to obtain the good
bucket efficiency
Maximum bench height
75% of the max cutting height
11.3m
Anything higher might impose
the risk of falling rock to
damage the machine
Page 6

Face Shovel (Loader)

Bucket fill factors & bench

height
Top picture shows an optimum
bench height for good bucket fill
factor. Note that the bench height
is above the cab height
EX8000-6
max cutting height: 20.5m
recommended bench height: 12m
(58% of the max. cutting height)
This material falls into
the bucket

Bottom diagram explains the

effect of the bench height.
Note that the material above the
bucket plays an important role for
improving the bucket efficiency.
Page 7

Backhoe

Backhoe Operation
Page 8

Backhoe

Typical Operation

Excavator should be on a
bench for the optimum
production.
Page 9

Backhoe

Application
Benefits
Since the load point is closer to
the fulcrum as compared to the
loader, the bucket can be larger
without losing the stability.
Due to the versatile design, other
non-production job such as wall
cleaning is easily operated
Easy for the general construction
excavator operator to operate
Bucket may be produced locally
due to the low complexity of the
construction (need to consult
Hitachi for best result)
Page 10

Backhoe

Bench height

Optimum bench height

75% of max digging depth
6.4m
(when the material is well
blasted)
Optimum digging method
Digging by the arm;
maximum digging force at
the perpendicular angle with
the boom (direct digging)
90:maximum arm digging force

50

30
Page 11

Comparison

Backhoe vs. Loader

Pros & Cons

Page 12

Comparison
Backhoe
Optimum

Loading

cycle time is
obtained if truck is positioned
below the excavator
undercarriage
Due to the narrow bucket
configuration, positioning of
the bucket is easy; not much
preference as for the truck
size. Good machine stability at
digging obtains efficient
loading with less spillage.
BE configuration has the
equal loading capacity as the
loader.

Loader
Due

to the ample capacity of

the bucket with the bottom
dump configuration, optimum
loading efficiency can be
obtained when the material is
well blasted.

Page 13

Comparison
Backhoe
Due

Digging

to the digging bucket

position being close to the
machine, the machine weight
acts effectively to the digging
reaction force and utilize the
maximum cylinder thrust force
to obtain the high penetration
force.

Loader
Compared

to the tractor type

loading equipment such as
wheel loaders, the digging
force is higher and the digging
ability is superior.
Digging position is farther as
compared to the backhoe, and
utilization of the machine
weight as the reaction force
toward the digging force is
relatively inferior.

Page 14

Comparison
Backhoe
Mobility
between
benches
Bench
formation
Wall Root
Cutting

Loader

Usually

working on the
bench; mobility between
benches is inferior.

Since

In

order to operate
productively, bench formation
is a necessity.

Bench

Optimum

Not

for the wall root

cutting with the ample digging
force, digging reach, and the
backward digging direction.

machine is at the
same plane as the trucks,
mobility is superior.
formation is not
necessary since machine
works at the same plane as
trucks.
suitable due to the
forward digging direction.

Page 15

Comparison
Backhoe
Optimum

Wall
Cleaning

for the wall

cleaning (floating rock
removal, surface preparation,
root cutting).with the long
reach with ample digging
force.

Loader
As

compared to the tractor

type equipment such as wheel
loader, the digging force and
the reach is larger. Therefore,
necessity for the support
equipment is less.
As compared to the
backhoe, the operation
effectiveness is lower due to
the lower digging force.

Page 16

Comparison
Backhoe

Oversize
Handling

Wall
(Bench)
Height
Bench
width

Loader

Since

the operator can

visually identify the oversized
material, sorting of the
material by the size is easy and
less likely to load the oversize
material by mistake.

Not

Wall

(bench) height is
limited by the height of the
work bench and the reach.

Wall

Need

If

the width for the

working bench

optimum to carry the

material to a remote location
like a wheel loader, but easy
to sort the material within the
working range by the size
while loading the regular size
material onto the truck.
height is limited by the
reach, but more flexible as
compared to the backhoe.

swing radius is clear,

machine can work in the area.

Page 17

Comparison
Backhoe
More

Drilling,
Blasting

flexible toward altering

the drilling and blasting
pattern by utilizing the high
digging force for choosing
more options for optimum
mining system

Loader
As

compared to the
backhoe, altering the drilling
and blasting pattern is
difficult since it may increase
the stress toward the machine.

Page 18

Comparison
Backhoe
Track
Wear

Bucket
Wear

Operation

Loader

If

the operation does not

require much travelling, track
wear is minimal.

Since

Due

to the higher digging

force and severe working
condition, bucket wear is
prominent as compared to the
loader. Historical data shows
higher maintenance cost as
compared the loader operation.

Relatively

Relatively

Need

Due

easy to learn

to its versatility, the

stress condition could be
Maintenan severe to cause higher
ce Cost
maintenance cost

the traveling surface

is relatively smooth, track
wear is usually small.
moderate as
compared to the backhoe.

longer familiarization
time for effective operation
Relatively

moderate as
compared to the backhoe

Page 19

Production Data

Production Data

Page 20

Production Data (EX2500 LD)

<Site1 Information>
Location: Indonesia
Density of Material: 1.74 t/m3
Swell Factor: 1.3
<Machine Information>
Excavator
Model: EX2500 LD
Capacity: 14 m3
Truck
Payload: 91 tonne
Capacity: 60.3 m3

<Study1 Result>
Bucket efficiency: 65.8%
Dump Time: 4 sec
Average Excavator Cycle Time: 27.0 sec
Average Pass for 1 truck: 6.3
Average Loading Time 111.6 sec
Average Exchange Time: 59.0 sec
Total Truck Cycle Time: 170.6 sec
Average Number of Haulage: 21.1 / hour
Payload per Truck: 58.0 m3
Estimated Production: 1,253LCM/hour
964 BCM/hour

Page 21

Production Data (EX2500-5 LD)

<Site2 Information>
Location: India
Density of Material: 1.8 t/m3
Swell Factor: 1.3
<Machine Information>
Excavator
Model: EX2500-5 LD
Capacity: 15 m3
Truck
Payload: 95.1 tonne
Capacity: 60.0 m3

<Study2 Result>
Bucket efficiency: 85.0%
Dump Time: 3 sec
Average Excavator Cycle Time: 28.0 sec
Average Pass for 1 truck: 4.2
Average Loading Time 91.7 sec
Average Exchange Time: 101.8 sec
Total Truck Cycle Time: 193.5 sec
Average Number of Haulage: 18.6 / hour
Payload per Truck: 53.6 m3
Estimated Production: 996.3LCM/hour
766.4 BCM/hour

Page 22

Production Data (EX2500-5 BH)

<Site3 Information>
Location: Indonesia
Density of Material: 1.8 t/m3
Swell Factor: 1.3
<Machine Information>
Excavator
Model: EX2500-5 BH
Capacity: 13.8 m3
Truck
Payload: 91.0 tonne
Capacity: 57.3 m3

<Study3 Result>
Bucket efficiency: 100.0%
Dump Time: 5 sec
Average Excavator Cycle Time: 28.7 sec
Average Pass for 1 truck: 4.0
Average Loading Time 91.0 sec
Average Exchange Time: 67.2 sec
Total Truck Cycle Time: 158.2 sec
Average Number of Haulage: 22.8 / hour
Payload per Truck: 55.2 m3
Estimated Production: 1256 LCM/hour
966 BCM/hour

Page 23

Production Data (EX2500-5 BH)

<Site4 Information>
Location: Australia
Density of Material: 1.8 t/m3
Swell Factor: 1.23
<Machine Information>
Excavator
Model: EX2500-5 LD
Capacity: 17 m3
Truck
Payload: 136.0 tonne
Capacity: 78.0 m3

<Study4 Result>
Bucket efficiency: 84.7%
Dump Time: 4 sec
Average Excavator Cycle Time: 33.6 sec
Average Pass for 1 truck: 5.3
Average Loading Time 150.8 sec
Average Exchange Time: 48.5 sec
Total Truck Cycle Time: 199.3 sec
Average Number of Haulage: 18.1 / hour
Payload per Truck: 75.6 m3
Estimated Production: 1366 LCM/hour
1,110 BCM/hour

Page 24