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

net/publication/261214668

Haul truck fuel consumption and CO2 emission under various engine load
conditions

Article  in  Mining Engineering · December 2010

CITATIONS READS

43 9,076

2 authors:

Vladislav Kecojevic Dragan Komljenovic

West Virginia University Hydro-Québec
76 PUBLICATIONS   878 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   746 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Other activities View project

Collision avoidance in surface mines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vladislav Kecojevic on 31 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Technical Papers

Haul truck fuel consumption

and CO2 emission under various
engine load conditions
by V. Kecojevic and D. Komljenovic

Abstract n Environmental and economic costs related to equipment fuel consumption and
carbon dioxide (CO2) emission present a substantial challenge to the mining industry. Haul
trucks are an integral part of the overall surface mining system and they consume a significant
quantity of fuel. Consequently, they produce a significant amount of CO2. The objective of
this research is to (i) establish a mathematical relationship among a truck’s fuel consumption,
power and engine load factors and (ii) determine the amount of a truck’s CO2 emission and
the associated cost that may arise from potential CO2 legislation. In order to achieve these
objectives, the authors have considered original equipment manufacturer (OEM) haul trucks,
which are commonly used in surface mining operations. The research presented here may
be used by mining professionals to help determine the cost and environmental burden of the
trucks’ application and efficiently manage energy consumption.

Introduction operator’s driving style, outside tem- where P is engine power (kW), 0.3
Haul trucks account for the major perature, weather and adequacy of a is unit conversion factor (L/kW/hr) and
share of overall surface mining equip- truck’s maintenance program. The ma- LF is an engine load factor (the portion
ment costs. Fuel consumption is always jority of these factors can be controlled of full power required by the truck).
the primary operating cost associated to a certain extent by mine operators. Values for the truck engine load factors
with trucks. Fundamental changes in Adequate management of these fac- range from 0.18 to 0.50 (Runge, 1998),
fuel conservation, efficiency and re- tors may significantly reduce truck fuel while Filas (2002) states that engine
ducing negative environmental impact consumption while providing required load factors typically range between
related to CO2 emission are of crucial truck performance, without important 0.25 and 0.75, depending on the equip-
importance. investments or operational changes. It ment type and use level.
A number of factors contribute to translates into decreased engine load, A similar equation for fuel con-
fuel consumption. These factors include which allows for the same performance sumption was suggested by Hays (1990):
truck load, speed, power, weight (empty with lower fuel consumption and, con-
and gross), accelerations, idle time, fuel sequently, a lower CO2 footprint. Thus, FC = (CSF × P × LF) / FD (2)
quality, aerodynamics, road surface this study will analyze the impact of
and tire quality, wheel alignment and truck power and engine load factors where CSF is the engine-specific
tires’ inflation pressure, road grade, the on fuel consumption and on the subse- fuel consumption at full power (0.213
quent CO2 emissions and cost. – 0.268 kg/kW/hr) (0.35-0.44 lb/hp per
hr), P is power (kW), LF is engine load
V. Kecojevic, member SME, is Fuel consumption factor and FD is the fuel density (0.85
associate professor of mining The most accurate method to deter- kg/l [7 lb/gal] for diesel). Hays recom-
engineering at West Virginia mine the fuel consumption of trucks is mends the following values for engine
University, Morgantown, WV, and D. to obtain data from actual mine opera- load factors: 25% (light: considerable
Komljenovic is a reliability engineer tions. However, if no such opportunity idle, loaded hauls on favorable grades
at Hydro-Quebec, University of exists, various equations and data pub- and good haulage roads), 35% (aver-
Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Montreal, lished by the truck original equipment age: normal idle, loaded hauls on ad-
QC. Paper number TP-10-015. manufacturer (OEM) can be used for verse grades and good haulage roads)
Original manuscript submitted April estimation purposes. and 50% (heavy: minimum idle, loaded
2010. Revised manuscript accepted According to Runge (1998) and Fi- hauls on steep adverse grades).
for publication August 2010. las (2002), an hourly fuel consumption Liebherr has developed a method
Discussion of this peer-reviewed and (FC) (L/hr) can be determined from the to determine the truck fuel consump-
approved paper is invited and must following equation: tion per hour. According to this OEM,
be submitted to SME Publications by the fuel consumption rate is direct-
Feb. 28, 2011. FC = P × 0.3 × LF (1) ly proportional to delivered power
44 DECEMBER 2010 Mınıng engıneerıng www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
 Figure 1
Relationship between fuel consumption of Liebherr trucks and their engine
power at a load factor of 100%.
(Baucom, 2008). An 100% load factor is
assumed and the following fuel consump-
tions were obtained: 455 L/hr (120 gal/hr)
for 1,864 kW (2,500 hp) truck power, 490
L/hr (129 gal/hr) for 2,013 kW (2,700 hp),
522 L/hr (138 gal/hr) for 2,163 kW (2,900
hp), 547 L/hr (146 gal/hr) for 2,237 kW
(3,000 hp), 617 L/hr (163 gal/hr) for 2,610
kW (3,500 hp) and 640 L/hr (169 gal/hr)
for 2,722 kW (3,650 hp). Figure 1 shows
a relationship between engine power P
(kW) and fuel consumption FC (L/hr) for
Liebherr trucks at 100% engine load fac-
tor. Analyzing Fig. 1, it can be concluded
that an increase in truck power at a load
factor of 100% will lead to an average
increase in fuel consumption at the rate
of 0.2139 L/hr (0.056 gal/hr) per kW. It
should be noted that as engine ratings ap-
proach and exceed 2,237 kW (3,000 hp),
fuel efficiency (L/hr per kW) continues
to improve (Baucom, 2008). A high value Figure 2
of R = 0.9964 indicates a strong positive
2
The relationship between fuel consumption (L/hr) and gross power (kW) for
linear correlation between engine power
Caterpillar trucks.
and fuel consumption for Liebherr trucks.
Analyzing Eqs. (1), (2) and the results
depicted in Fig. 1, the following can be ob-
served: the gradient of an increase in fuel
consumption is 0.300 L/hr (0.079 gal/hr)
per kW, from 0.250 L/hr (0.066 gal/hr) per
kW to 0.315 L/hr (0.083 gal/hr) per kW,
and 0.214 L/hr (0.056 gal/hr) per kW, re-
spectively. Equations 1 and 2 can be used
for approximate calculation of fuel con-
sumption, while the result obtained using
OEM data reflects modern and more ef-
ficient truck engine designs, and is a more
relevant and accurate for calculation of
fuel consumption at 100% load factor.
Caterpillar (2009) provides data on
fuel consumption for its trucks and vari-
ous engine load factors. According to
Caterpillar (2009), an engine continuously
producing full-rated horsepower is oper-
ating at a load factor of 100%. Trucks may
reach 100% load factor intermittently, but
seldom operate at this level for extended pe- • High: 40%-50% (Continuous operation at or above
riods of time (Caterpillar, 2009). During acceleration, the maximum recommended gross weight. Overloading.
engine usually operates at full power with a load factor of Poor haul roads, high load factor.)
100%. While idling, a truck engine operates at about 10% of
full power (Hays, 1990). Data on engine load factors given by Caterpillar are simi-
Values of engine load factor are given by Caterpillar lar to those provided by Hays (1990) and Runge (1998).
(2009) as follows: A sample of 10 mining truck models from Caterpillar
were selected for this study. All data of Caterpillar trucks re-
• Low: 20%-30% (Continuous operation at an average lated to design characteristics (gross and net power, gross and
gross weight less than the recommended. Excellent empty truck weight, payload, body volume) and hourly fuel
haul roads. No overloading, low load factor.) consumption are available from the manufacturer’s hand-
• Medium: 30%-40% (Continuous operation at an av- book (Caterpillar, 2009). Based on these data, the relation-
erage gross weight approaching the recommended. ship among fuel consumption, power and load factor was
Minimal overloading. Good haul roads, moderate established (Fig. 2). The obtained results show that fuel con-
load factor.) sumption increases in average from 0.050 L/hr (0.013 gal/hr)
www.miningengineeringmagazine.com Mınıng engıneerıng DECEMBER 2010 45
 Figure 3
Change in fuel consumption as a function of engine load factor.

per kW at a load factor of 20% to 0.075 L/hr (0.02

gal/hr) per kW at a load factor of 30%. It can also
be seen that the fuel consumption increases from
0.100 L/hr (0.026 gal/hr) per kW at a load factor
of 40% to 0.125 L/hr (0.033 gal/hr) per kW at a
load factor of 50%. High values of R2 indicate a
strong positive linear correlation between power
and fuel consumption for Caterpillar trucks.
Figure 3 shows the change in fuel consump-
tion as a function of load factor for all Caterpillar
trucks. It is to be noted that fuel consumption
is a linear function of the load factor. However,
the former increases faster in absolute values for
larger trucks. Also, it can be observed, for exam-
ple, that the increase in fuel consumption for the
smallest truck (Cat 770) is 10.2 L/hr (2.69 gal/
hr) for each 10% increase in the load factor. The
largest model (Cat 797B) has an increase in fuel
consumption of 66.7 L/hr (17.6 gal/hr) for each
10% increase in the load factor. This is an impor-
tant finding, because mine operators can control
factors that influence the load factor (road qual-
ity, operator’s driving style, load, maintenance,
Figure 4 etc.).
Potential annual savings ($/year) for 10% reduction in load factor. Figure 4 shows an example of total annual
savings if the load factor is reduced by only 10%.
It is assumed that the cost of fuel is $0.8/L ($3/
gal). The total number of truck operating hours
per year is considered to be 5,000, which is con-
sistent with average data obtained from an oper-
ating coal mine in the southern U.S. The number
of hours can also be considered as a means of
approximately estimating the cost. Therefore,
reducing the load factor by 10% can result in
$40,800 savings per year for the smallest truck
(Cat 770) and almost $267,000 per year for the
largest truck (Cat 797B).

Determination of CO2 emission

The CO2 emission from combusted fuel can
be determined by on site metering. However,
on site metering units that continuously moni-
Figure 5 tor equipment emission can be expensive and
require permanent maintenance (Mining En-
The CO2 emission (t/hr) of Caterpillar trucks for various engine load vironmental Management, 2008). The other al-
factors. ternative is to determine CO2 emission by using
mathematical equations.
The CO2 emission from diesel fuels in t/hr can
be written as:

CO2 = FC × CF (3)

where FC is diesel fuel consumption (L/hr),

and CF is the conversion factor. The conversion
factors of CO2 emission for diesel fuel can be cal-
culated as:

CF = CC × 10-6 × 0.99 × (44/12) (4)

where CC is carbon content for the diesel fuel

(g/L), and 0.99 is the oxidation factor.
46 DECEMBER 2010 Mınıng engıneerıng www.miningengineeringmagazine.com
 Figure 6
The CO2 cost ($/hr) for various engine load factors (%).

According to the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA, 2005), the
conversion factor for diesel fuel CF is
0.00268. This factor is calculated based
on the carbon residue in one liter of die-
sel. The carbon content for the diesel
is CC = 733 g/L (EPA, 2005). The oxi-
dation factor for all oil and its products
is 0.99. Practically, this means that 99%
of the fuel burns out, while 1% remains
unoxidized.
Figure 5 shows CO2 emission (t/hr)
of Caterpillar trucks for various engine
load factors. These values are calcu-
lated using an hourly fuel consumption
and conversion factor of CF = 0.00268
for diesel. The value of CO2 emission
ranges from 0.0547 t/hr (0.0601 st/hr) to
0.1367 t/hr (0.1507 st/hr) for load fac- Figure 7
tors of 20% and 50%, respectively, for Relationship between power and the cost of CO2 emission.
the smallest truck (Cat 770), and from
0.3578 t/hr (0.3944 st/hr) to 0.8940 t/hr
(0.9835 st/hr) for load factors of 20%
and 50%, respectively, for the largest
truck (Cat 797B).
There are many empirical models
with a range of values for the cost of
CO 2 emission, and they are based on
potential CO 2 legislation. Two of the
most recognized models include the U.S.
Energy Information Agency’s (EIA)
National Energy Modeling System
(NEMS) model and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Emis-
sions Prediction and Policy Analysis
(EPPA) model. These models consider
a cost of CO2 that ranges from $17 to
$50 per ton of CO2 emitted (Aziz and
Kecojevic, 2008). For the purpose of this
study, the value of $50 per ton was con-
sidered.
Figure 6 shows the cost of CO2 emis-
sion per hour for various engine load
factors. The cost of CO2 emission ranges
from $2.73 to $6.83 per hour for load
factors of 20% and 50%, respectively, for the smallest truck are obtained by averaging the values given in Fig. 8 for re-
(Cat 770) and from $17.89 to $44.70 per hour for load fac- ducing the load factor by 10%. The results show that savings
tors of 20% and 50%, respectively, for the largest truck (Cat per 10% load factor may range from approximately $7,000
797B). Figure 7 depicts the mathematical relationship be- per year per truck for the smallest model (Cat 770), to ap-
tween the cost of CO2 emission ($/hr) and truck power (kW). proximately $45,000 per year per truck for the largest model
Figure 8 shows the cost of CO2 emission on an annual ba- (797B).
sis, assuming 5,000 operating hours per year. The costs range A study by Leslie (2000) indicates that there is a decrease
from $13,668 to $34,170 per year for load factors of 20% and in fuel consumption when we move to larger and more pro-
50%, respectively, for the smallest truck (Cat 770), and from ductive trucks that have more efficient engines. The author
$89,445 to $223,512 per year for load factors of 20% and also states that, since the production of CO2 is directly pro-
50%, respectively, for the largest truck (Cat 797B). Assuming portional to fuel consumption, the amount of CO2 released
that large-scale surface mining operations may have a fleet of into the atmosphere decreases by 21.4% when moving from
10 Cat 797B trucks, the cost for CO2 emission may run from a 154-t (170-st) capacity truck to a 218-t (240-st), and another
$900,000 to almost $2.3 million. 16.3% from a 218-t (240-st) to a 290-t (320-st) truck capac-
Figure 9 shows a potential cost savings related to CO 2 ity. It should be noted that Leslie’s study (2000) relates to
emission for the analyzed Caterpillar trucks. These savings specific values of fuel consumption (lb/hr per ton of truck
www.miningengineeringmagazine.com Mınıng engıneerıng DECEMBER 2010 47
 Figure 8
The CO2 cost ($/year) for various engine load factors (%).

Figure 9
Potential annual savings ($/year) for a 10% reduction in load factor.

capacity), while this study has focused on absolute values of mining industry and the potential costs of CO2 legislation,” Mineral
fuel consumption (L/hr) and CO2 emission (t/hr) for various Resources Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 111-129.
Baucom, J.W., 2008, “Optimizing powered haulage investment in surface
engine load factors. coal applications,” available at www.minexpo.com/Presentations/bau-
com.pdf
Conclusions Caterpillar, 2009, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 39, Caterpil-
This research was carried out to study the fuel consump- lar Inc., Peoria, IL.
tion and CO2 emission of haul trucks under various load Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, “Average carbon dioxide emission
conditions and to determine the associated costs of such resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel,” Office of Transportation and
consumption and emission. OEM trucks were considered Air Quality, Washington, DC, available at: http://www.epa.gov/oms/
climate/420f05001.htm.
for this study and it was determined that fuel consumption Filas, F.J., 2002, “Excavation, loading, and material transport,” in SME
bears a strong correlation with power and engine load factor. Mining Reference Handbook, Lowrie, R.L., ed., Society for Mining,
It was determined that a reduction in load factor of 10% can Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, CO, pp. 215-241.
significantly decrease fuel consumption and CO2 emission Hays, M.R., 1990, “Trucks,” in Surface Mining Handbook, Kennedy, B.A.,
and, consequently, reduce operating costs. Future studies ed., Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, CO,
pp. 672-691.
may focus on specific factors (acceleration, idle time, road Leslie, D.R., 2000, “Diesel emissions evaluation for the surface mining in-
grade, maintenance and quality of road surface, the opera- dustry,” available at: http://www.smartmines.com/DiesEm.html.
tor’s driving style) to determine the potential savings in fuel Mining Environmental Management, 2008, “CO2 calculations – adding it
consumption and CO2 emission. n up,” available at: http://www.mining-journal.com/Journal_Article.asp
x?articleid=21496&sectionid=58&mid=5.
References Runge, I., 1998, Mining Economics and Strategy, Society for Mining, Metal-
Aziz, A.M., and Kecojevic, V., 2008, “Carbon dioxide footprint of the U.S. lurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, CO.

48 DECEMBER 2010 Mınıng engıneerıng www.miningengineeringmagazine.com

View publication stats