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

net/publication/341379164

WHEEL LOADER'S PENETRATION (CROWD) FORCE AND IMPACTING

FACTORS

Preprint · May 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10081.94562

CITATIONS READS

0 157

2 authors, including:

Metin Ozdogan
Ideal Machinery & Consultancy ltd. Co., Ankara
58 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-AI-GLOBAL-PORTAL View project

Digging Forces of Wheel Loaders & Hydraulic Excavators View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Metin Ozdogan on 14 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WHEEL LOADER’S PENETRATION (CROWD) FORCE AND
IMPACTING FACTORS

Metin ÖZDOĞAN

Hakkı ÖZDOĞAN

ABSTRACT:

Creation of wheel loader bucket penetration force and factors affecting the
penetration are given and discussed. Penetration and other digging force
components of 20 m3 range mining size wheel loaders are given and depicted.
Factors impacting the penetration performance of wheel loaders like tread type
and composition of tyres and ground engaging tools, ground surface
characteristics are given and discussed. Wheel loader penetration and breakout
forces and specific forces are depicted and compared to that of hydraulic
excavators.

Key Words: Wheel loader, Penetration force, Tyre traction force, Tyre
protection chains, Ground engaging tools, Tilt cylinder force, Hoist cylinder
force, Breakout force, Factors affecting penetration forces, Comparison of
digging forces, Specific digging forces.

INTRODUCTION

Wheel loader’s, penetration (crowding) force is generated by the traction force

of the tyres. Therefore, penetration force of the bucket is dependent on traction
force, whereas breakout force is created by hoist and tilt (curling, rackback)
cylinders. Higher tractive tyres and sharp bucket teeth increase the penetration
of bucket. Consequently, better penetration improves cycle times, bucket fill
factors, reduces fuel consumption and improves overall production.

Mining size wheel loaders are major and/or standby workhorses of open-pit
mines and quarries. They are mobile, versatile digging and loading equipment.
The loaders even act as load and haul equipment in short haul distances to
bunkers of ore dressing plants or coal washeries.

Loose, well blasted, free flowing benches and muckpiles; Large and wide
loading areas (benches) (≥ 25 m); Level, stable and dry bench floors;
Comparatively lower benches (70% of that of hydraulic shovel bench);
Travelling among multiples digging and loading benches and muckpiles; No
selective digging is required at the bench; Cleanup at the bench floor is required
and non availability of cleanup buldozers; mines and quarries having
comparatively shorter life expectancy conditions dictate (necessiate) the
application of wheel loaders at quarries and open-pit mines.

On the other hand, hard digging conditions like compact and unblasted
formations, tight loading areas and poor underfoot conditions such as unlevel,
loose and wet benches unfavour the application of wheel loaders.

One of the drawback of mining wheel loaders is comparatively higher cycle

times due to its design feature. In order to complete its duty cycle it has to go
back and forth e.g. travel to dig (TTDG), dig (DG), travel to dump (TTDMP)
and dump (DMP) since it has not got a slewing upper frame rotating on a ring
gear as in the case of hydraulic excavators (Özdoğan and Özdoğan, 2019a, b).
Capital cost of a mining wheel loader is comparatively cheaper and life
expectancy is comparatively shorter, approximately 30,000 operating hours.

1. PENETRATION FORCES OF WHEEL LOADERS

Bucket penetration or crowd force is generated as a reaction to the tyre traction

force. It is the first phase of bucket filling, See Figure 1. Bucket lip length, type
and number of teeth tips on the lip and specifications of tyres are some of the
factors affecting the magnitude of the penetration force. Second phase is curling
of bucket and the final phase is raising the full bucket.

1.1. Bucket Penetration Forces

Since the traction force is key to wheel loader operation, a dry, level and stable
ground surface and a large area (approx. 25m or wider) are essential. The floor
must be maintained clean off sharp edged rocks to protect the tyres from cut and
wear failures, because the tyres are of huge investment items. For a wheel loader
operation a large bench floor is needed because of the nature of the operation
which involves back and forth movements for completion of duty cycle of the
equipment. The cycle time segments consist of travel to dig, dig, travel to dump
and dump phases. The bench floor has to be stable because ground pressure is
comparatively higher than that of hydraulic shovels. Ground pressure is
typically 413,69 kPa to 551,60 kPa, (60 psi to 80 psi) (4,22 kg/cm2 to 5,62
kg/cm2).

Figure 1. Traction, hoisting and curling forces of loader bucket filling phase
(Filla, 2014)

Bucket penetration (Ftrac), bucket hoisting (Flift) and breakout (Ftilt) forces are
shown in Figure 1. Bucket penetration force is generated by traction force of
tyres (Ftrac).

Figure 2. Front attachment nomenclature of a wheel loader (Anonymus, 2020)

Bucket filling is achieved by combination of bucket lifting (hoisting) (Flift) and
bucket curling (Ftilt) forces generated by hydraulic cylinders of front attachment
of loader, See figure 1 and 2. Bucket penetration force is balanced by traction
forces of tyres whereas lifting (hoisting) force is balanced by weight of
equipment, See Figure 2.

1.2.Tyre Traction Force

Traction or tractive force (rimpull) (Ftrac) is the force used to generate motion
between a body and a tangential surfaces through the use of dry friction and
shear force of the surface (Anon a, 2020). Tire traction breakaway equation is as
follows (Anon b, 2020):

Ftrac = μ0 Rw (1)

Where:

Ftrac = Horizontal force at which slipping occurs

μ0 = Coefficient of friction (adhesion)

Rw = Load on Wheel considered, (W1 + W2)

Figure 3. Curling (tilting) movement (rack back & dump motions) of wheel
loader bucket (Valintaopas & Kaivoslastaus, 2013 Modified)

Lifting (Hoist) force (Flift) is balanced by the weight of the machine. As a rule of
thumb, safe bucket payload is about 50% of the static straight tipping load of the
loader (Özdoğan and Özdoğan, 2019 a).

Table 1. Typical values of coefficient of friction (μ0) of some surface types

(Anon a, 2020)

Definition of Bench Surface Material Coefficient of Friction, μ0

Concrete, Asphalt, dry 0,8 – 0,9
Concrete, Asphalt, wet 0,4 – 0,7
Gravel, rolled, dry 0,4 – 0,7
Gravel, rolled, wet 0,6 – 0,7
Sand, loose 0,5 – 0,6
Clay, dry 0,3 – 0,5
Ice, dry 0,2
Ice, wet 0,1

Tire traction characteristics impact the performance of wheel loader bucket e.g.
bucket penetration into the muckpile.

The coefficient of friction is called traction coefficient in case of tyre-surface

interaction system. Traction coefficient of tyre is dependent on both internal
(composition of rubber material and physical structure of tyre) and external
factors (ground surface and environmental parameters and precipitation).
External factors include the affect of contaminants (oil, lubricant, rain, snow
etc.) and the normal force (weight of the equipment) pressing tyre and ground
surface together.

The higher the traction between the tyre surface and ground surface, the higher
the bucket penetration into the material being dug and loaded. Rain and
contaminants have negative impact on traction of tyres, whereas grip type tyre
tread patterns and tyre protection chains have positive impact on the traction
coefficient, thus increasing the bucket penetration into the rock material.
Figure 7. Wheel loader protection tyre chain (Anonymous, 2020).

Wheel loader tyre protection chains have dual functions, protecting the tyre
tread and sidewall from cut and wear and increasing the tyre traction (Anon
c&d, 2020); consequently, improving the bucket penetration capability.
Figure 4. Comparison of penetration and breakout forces of a 20 m3 mechanical
drive wheel loader (data Anon e, 2019).

1.3. Specific (Unit) Digging Forces

Specific or unit digging force is defined as the digging force exerted per unit lip
length and/or per tooth of the lip of bucket. It is a normalised parameter which is
independent of bucket capacity and size of the equipment of the loader therefore
may be used in comparing the digging forces of various loading equipment. The
unit of the specific digging force is either kN/m or kN/tooth.

The author of this article proposes an alternative (optional) specific digging

force concept which is defined as digging force exerted to the dipper teeth, the
unit being kN/tooth which is a parameter independent of machine design and
operating specifications, See Figure 5&6 (Özdoğan, 2002).
Figure 5. Digging and specific digging forces of a 20m3 capacity mechanical
wheel loaders (data Anon e, 2019).

What is understood from the above statement is that in order to increase the
digging force of the excavating equipment, dipper and/or bucket edge (lip)
length to be reduced or vice versa. Other option is to reduce the number of teeth
on the dipper lip or vice versa.
Figure 6. Unit breakout force comparison of 20 m3 range wheel loaders and
hydraulic shovels (Anon e &f, 2019).

2. GROUND ENGAGING TOOLS AND PENETRATION FORCES

The higher the penetration of the bucket into rock material the shorter the
digging (bucket filling) time. Consequently, has a positive effect in reducing the
duty cycle time of the loader.

Loading times longer than 10-16 seconds may be an indication that the
material/muckpile is not properly conditioned for the loading tool. It could also
be an indication of the operator’s skill level (Valintaopas & Kaivoslastaus,
2013). Load times are averaged and will vary cycle to cycle as the loading face
changes. Handling oversize pieces of material or digging the toe of a highwall
will increase individual dig times.

2.1. Impact of Bucket Lip Length on Penetration Forces

For a given wheel loader the shorter the bucket lip length, the higher the
penetration force is. Having teeth on the lip further reduces the length of lip
contacting the earth, consequently further increases the penetration force, See
Figure 7&8.
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7. Wheel loader bucket, bucket lip and teeth on the lip (Anonymous,
2020)

2.2 Impact of Bucket Teeth (GET) on Penetration Forces

Bucket lip length contact edge length is thus further reduced through the
mounting of bucket teeth. Thus, the penetration and breakout forces are
increased and bucket lip is protected against wear and tear. Sharp and custom
designed and selected bucket teeth have positive effect on reducing the duty
cycle of loader which contributes to productivity of equipment, See Figure 8.

(a)

(b)
Figure 8. Mounting of tooth adapter and tooth tips on the bucket lip and
fastening accessories (Anonymous, 2020).

In order to achieve the designed penetration and breakout forces of wheel loader
keeping sharp dipper teeth is a must. Furthermore, maintaining sharp teeth on
the dipper will assist increasing the productivity of the equipment and reducing
the stress on the equipment and wear and tear on the dipper. As it is known,
bucket teeth have two-fold function; increasing the digging forces and protect
the the lip and body of bucket. The bucket teeth have to be replaced with a new
one when it is dull and worn out prior to wear of lip and other wear plates etc.
Thus in the long run both bucket and equipment repair and maintenance costs
and fuel costs can be minimised.

In order to get the most out of the equipment and the bucket, it is extremely
important to choose the right ground engaging tools (GET) (teeth) suitable for
the application. An ideal tooth design would be the self-sharpening one and keep
on sharpening itself as it wears out.

In choosing the right ground engaging tool for the loader application, the
following factors to be considered:

Manufacturing process and material composition of the tooth, adapter, and

mounting accessories (wedges, clamps etc.), shape and design of the GET will
directly impact the wear life and strength.

Wear life of dipper tooth and accessories are mainly governed by the rock
material being excavated and/or loaded in other words abrasiveness of the rock
formation which is affected mainly by the quartz content of the material.
Especially, in abrasive formations the greater the wear surface, the longer the
life of the GET is.

Dipper tooth penetration is a function of tooth tip width. The smaller the tooth
tip width, the higher the penetration force is or vice versa. As discussed earlier,
the easy penetration of dipper teeth into rock material implies less fuel
consumption of the equipment and less stress on the components of the machine.
The dipper tooth for the wheel loader should be so selected that it penetrates the
material with a smaller resistance.

The mounted dipper teeth on the bucket should be monitored and checked
periodically and replaced by the new ones when they become dull and worn out.
This is important because keeping teeth sharp will shorten the duty cycle time of
machine thus increasing the productivity. Keeping the teeth sharp will reduce
the maintenance and repair costs and increase the economic life expectancy of
the equipment in the long run.

2. COMPARISON OF WHEEL LOADER DIGGING FORCES WITH

HYDRAULIC EXCAVATORS

Figure 9. depicts the specific breakout forces of 20 m3 range electrical and

mechanical wheel loaders; and hydraulic shovels and backhoes. For the
equipment studied breakout forces of hydraulic excavators are greater than that
of wheel loaders. Breakout force of mechanical wheel loader is bigger than that
of electric wheel loader. Hydraulic backhoe’s breakout force is bigger than that
of hydraulic shovel. This is due to the fact that backhoe bucket’s digging edge is
narrower than that of hydraulic shovel version bucket.

Figure 9. Comparison of specific breakout forces of Wheel loaders and

hydraulic excavators ,(Özdoğan, 2019,unpublished graph) (Data Anon e, f, g.).
Generation principles of penetration and breakout forces of Wheel loaders and
hydraulic excavators are summarized in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Creation of penetration and breakout forces in wheel loaders and

hydraulic front shovels (Grant 2016, Modified).
Equipment Type ► Wheel Loader
Digging Forces ▼
Penetration Force Generated by traction force
of tyres and dependent on
traction force.
Breakout Force Dependent on forces applied
by lift and tilt cylinders.
Generated by boom cylinder
(lift) and bucket (tilt)
cylinder and hoisting is
balanced by the weight of
equipment.
Hydraulic Excavator
(Shovel)
Generated by hydraulic
forces from front attachment
(dipper-arm cylinder and
bucket-cylinder forces) and
balanced by weight of
machine
Created by hydraulic forces
of hoisting and curling
cylinders in front attachment
and hoisting is balanced by
weight of machine.

Loading is the central part of any earthmoving process. The entire system’s
productivity is governed by the loading tool’s productivity ie cyle time (CT);
and CT is mainly impacted by the digging force magnitudes of loading
(earthmoving) equipment.
Figure 10. Penetration and breakout forces of wheel loader, hydraulic face
shovel and hydraulic backhoe of 20 m3 range (Özdoğan 2020, unpublished
graph).

Comparison of Figure 10 and 11 discloses the benefit of using specific (unit)

digging forces in comparing various equipment which gives a clear picture of
magnitude of forces exerted per unit lip length of buckets. For example rated
penetration and breakout forces (kN) of backhoe may be misleading, in this
case. As far as the real (specific) forces exerted per length of bucket lip, as seen
in Figure 11, the backhoe has got the highest exerted penetration and breakout
force into the material through the bucket lip consequently through the teeth.
Figure 11. Comparison of specific digging forces of wheel loaders and hydraulic
excavators (Özdoğan 2020, unpublished graph).

As a rule of thumb, the higher the digging forces the shorter the duty cycle time
of the loading equipment resulting a loader with higher productivity

What is understood from the above statement is that in order to increase the
digging force of the excavating equipment, dipper and/or bucket edge (lip)
length to be reduced or vice versa. Other option is to reduce the number of teeth
on the dipper lip or vice versa.
Figure 12. Comparison of digging forces of wheel loaders and hydraulic face
shovels (Özdoğan, 2020, unpublished graph).

Figure 12 depicts that wheel loader’s penetration and breakout forces are smaller
than that of hydraulic front shovel.

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Bucket filling is achieved by combination of bucket hoisting (Flift) and bucket

curling (Ftilt) forces generated by hydraulic cylinders of front attachment of
loader. Bucket penetration force is balanced by traction forces of tyres whereas
hoisting force is balanced by machine weight.

Wheel loader’s breakout force is created by lift and tilt cylinder; whereas,
penetration or crowding force is generated by the traction force of the tyres.
Consenquently, penetration force of the bucket is dependent on traction force.

Obviously, better penetration reduces the cycle times, requires less hydraulic
pressure, improves fuel consumption and increase bucket fill factor and overall
production. Sharp bucket teeth and high traction tyres and tyres with protection
chains contribute to higher penetration forces of the bucket into the rock
material. In order to avoid blunt teeth, if available, self-sharpening type teeth to
be preferred to keep penetration forces higher. Easy installation and quick
change-out type dipper teeth be favoured, if possible, for avoiding downtime.

Bucket lip length contact edge length is thus further reduced through the
mounting of bucket teeth. Thus, the penetration and breakout forces are
increased and bucket lip is protected against wear and tear. Sharp and custom
designed and selected bucket teeth has positive impact in reducing the duty
cycle of loader which contributes to productivity of equipment.

Loading is the central part of any earthmoving process, as it may be appreciated.

The entire system’s productivity is governed by the loading tool’s productivity
ie cyle time; and cycle time is mainly impacted by the digging force magnitudes
of loading (earthmoving) equipment. As a rule of thumb, the higher the digging
forces the shorter the duty cycle time of the loading equipment is.

Tyre traction force is a function of tire tread pattern and composition of rubber
and friction coefficient between tire surface and and surface of soil.

Tyre traction characteristics impact the performance of wheel loader bucket e.g.
bucket penetration into the muckpile. The higher the traction between the tyre
and ground surface, the higher the bucket penetration into the material being dug
and loaded is.

The higher the traction between the tyre surface and ground surface, the higher
the bucket penetration into the material being dug and loaded. Rainfall, snowfall
and contaminants have negative impact on traction of tyres, whereas grip type
tyre tread patterns and tyre protection chains have positive impact on the traction
coefficient, thus increasing the bucket penetration into the rock material.

Wheel loader tyre protection chains have dual functions, protecting the tyre
tread and sidewall from cut and wear and increasing the tyre traction thus
improving the bucket penetration capability.

Based on the loading equipment models studied the following conclusions may
be drawn: Wheel loader’s penetration force is smaller than its’ breakout force.
Mechanical wheel loader’s penetration force is bigger than that of electric wheel
loader of the same size. Specific penetration and breakout forces of wheel
loaders are smaller than that of similar sized hydraulic excavators’.

REFERENCES
Anon a, 2020 “Factors affecting coefficient of traction”
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/tire_traction_force_14721.htm

Anon b, 2020 : “Tire Traction Breakaway”

https://www.engineersedge.com/mechanics_machines/tire_traction_breakaway_
13634.htm

Anon c, 2020: “What is a Tire protection Chain?” http://web.rud.com/en-

us/products/tire-protection-chains/what-is-a-tyre-protection-chain.html

Anon d, 2020: “Why to use a Tire Protection Chain?” http://web.rud.com/en-

us/products/tire-protection-chains/why-to-use-a-tyre_protection_chain.html

Anon e, 2019: “Technical Specifications of WA-1200-6 HLFT Wheel Loader”

MWL#1 (18m3)(&.40m) = WA-1200-6 HLFT
https://www.komatsu.eu/en/wheel-loaders/wheel-loaders/wa1200-6

Anon f, 2019: “Technical Specifications of PC 4000” HSHV#1, https://komatsu-

mining.de/products/pc4000/

Anon g, 2019: “Technical Specifications of P&H L-1350 HLFT Wheel Loader”

EWL#2 (21.43m3)(6.40m) = L-1350 HLFT https://mining.komatsu/product-
details/l-1350

Filla, R., 2014 : “A Study to compare generation algorithms for automatic

bucket filling in Wheel loaders” Commercial Vehicle Technology Symposium,
March 2014, Kaiseralutern, Germany. DOI: 10.13140/R.G.2.1.3604.2723

Grant, M. 2016 : “ Hydraulic Shovel vs Wheel loader, Quarry Academy, USA.

Özdoğan M. & Özdoğan, H., 2019a: “Tekerlekli Yükleyici Kepçelerinin Kazı

kuvvetleri ve Makinanın Dengesini Etkileyen Kuvvetler”, İMMB Dergisi,
Temmuz-Ağustos-Eylül 2019, sayı:67, S:50-56, Ankara, ISSN 1306-6943

Özdoğan M. & Özdoğan, H., 2019b: “Hidrolik Küreğimsi Yer-Kazıcılar ve

Kepçe Kazma Kuvvetleri”, İMMB Dergisi, Ekim-Kasım-Aralık, 2019, sayı:68,
S:48-54, Ankara, ISSN 1306-6943.

Valintaopas & Kaivoslastaus, 2013: “Surface Mining Primary Loading Tool”

Loading Equipment Selection, Cat Dealers, Finland. https://www.witraktor.com

Özdoğan, M., 2002: “Elektrikli Yerkazı Makinalarının Kazı Gücü Etkileyicileri

ve Karşılaştırma Ölçütleri” Bilimsel Madencilik Dergisi, 2002; 41(4):10-3.
View publication stats