CAT Performance Metrics For Mobile Mining Equipment Version 1.1 PDF

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment
copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

May 2005 - version 1.1
Table of Contents
Preface
1. Philosophy
2. Introduction
3. Terminology & Definitions
3.1.
Basic Terms
3.1.1.
3.1.2.
3.1.3.
3.1.4.
3.1.5.
3.2.
Performance Metric
Key Performance Indicator
Target
Benchmark
Shutdown / Stoppage
Elements of Time
3.2.1. Total Calendar Hours

3.2.2. Scheduled Hours
3.2.3. Unscheduled Hours
3.2.4. Available Hours
3.2.5. Operating Hours
3.2.6. Stand-by Hours
3.2.7. Production Delay Hours
3.2.8. Operational Delay Hours
3.2.9. Downtime Hours
3.2.10. Repair Delay Hours
4. Top Tier Metrics

4.1.
11
Equipment Maintenance Management Metrics
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.
4.1.4.
4.1.5.
4.1.6.
4.1.7.
4.1.8.
Mean Time Between Shutdowns

Mean Time To Repair
Availability Index
% Scheduled Downtime
Asset Utilization
Maintenance Ratio
Top Problems / Pareto Analysis
PIP / PSP Completion Rate

11
15
18
21
24
27
31
37
4.2.
Application / Operational Metrics
4.2.1. Fuel Consumption

4.2.2. Payload Management
4.2.3. Haul Cycle Detail
4.3.
40
43
48
MARC / Customer Satisfaction Metrics
4.3.1. Contractual Availability
53
5. Appendix
5.1.
Delay Code Development and Usage
57
5.2.
Generic Pareto Reference
60

Preface
This document compiles the experiences of various individuals from the Caterpillars
Global Mining Division, field service consulting personnel, and other service and product
support staff who have contributed directly or indirectly to its content. The knowledge
gained from this experience has been applied in various locations and under varying
operating environments and conditions. Caterpillar believes it is appropriate to share this
information with those who own, operate and support mining equipment for the purpose
of creating more uniform criteria for the evaluation of product and project management.
We hope you will find this work useful in enhancing the continuous improvement efforts
at your respective project.

-1-
1.
Philosophy
The ultimate performance of any piece of mining equipment is primarily dependent upon
three critical factors: the design of the product, the application that it is used in, and the
maintenance that it receives during its time in service. To some degree each of these
factors can be controlled, but some much more than others.
The equipment design is basically set by the manufacturer based upon his knowledge of
the requirements in the market place. The mining equipment manufacturer has some
flexibility in its design and can use custom shop features to alter the base machine for a
particular set of operating conditions. However, the basic design is fixed based upon the
clear definition of a set of functional specifications that define the environment,
application and operation that the machine will be placed in. In order to have broad
market appeal and to assure that the cost of the product is not prohibitive, the
manufacturer is somewhat limited in terms of how far it can go. As such, a design
targeted at the 90th percentile of application severity is typically more reasonable than
one targeted at the toughest application that the equipment will ever be placed in.
Obviously, the design target is also a function of the consequences of failure therefore
products such as nuclear power plants and commercial aircraft are far less cost-sensitive
than mining equipment. Thus, they can afford to invest in a more rigorous design and
can justify redundant systems that tend to drive product reliability (and costs) much
higher. Manufacturers of mining equipment are far more restricted in terms of what they
can do and running modifications and improvements are typically limited to tweaking
the base machine.
The application in which mining equipment is used is also somewhat fixed although
mines do change over time, typically becoming more severe, i.e. deeper, steeper, longer
hauls, etc. Parameters such as altitude, ambient temperature, precipitation, and the
materials that are excavated and mined are pretty much fixed and it is up to the miner to
determine how he can best deal with the conditions hes faced with. He has some degree
of control in terms of the equipment he selects to do the job and the manner in which he
uses it but many of the challenges he has from an application standpoint he has to learn to
live with. To the extent that the mines Engineering and/ or Operations Departments can
establish criteria for haul road design and maintenance the mine plan (grades, haul
road layout, haul distances, traffic patterns, etc.), and operations (payload management,
speed limits, operator training, etc.) they can influence the performance of the
equipment significantly, provided those policies are adhered to.
Maintenance is the factor that offers management the best opportunity to influence and
control the resultant performance of its equipment. Equipment manufacturers and
suppliers do publish a set of recommendations for the maintenance of the equipment that
it sells but those recommendations tend to be very generic and are frequently based upon
that manufacturers understanding of the typical application for its equipment. The
end-user has enormous ability to influence the performance of the equipment he
purchased through the maintenance practices he establishes. The proper selection of oils
-2-
and lubricants, the contamination controls he implements, and the amount management is
willing to invest in facilities, tooling, support equipment, and training for its staff have a
direct bearing on the final results it derives from the equipment it purchases.
More importantly, the organization that is put in place to maintain and support the
equipment must be designed to involve all of the critical elements of that organization in
the equipment management process, e.g. Maintenance, Operations/ Production, Planning,
Scheduling, Parts, Training, etc. If the organization is structured such that each of the
problems and issues that impact equipment performance are known, quantified, and
communicated throughout the organization, the maintenance (actually, the equipment
management) effort can be extremely effective in managing problems or, better still, in
avoiding them altogether.
Maintenance is frequently thought of as drop oil, change filters, and perform the various
tasks defined by the equipment manufacturer in its maintenance recommendations.
Maintenance should also be viewed as predictive and corrective in order to be fully
effective. When maintenance is viewed in the broader sense of equipment management,
the predictive and corrective aspects of maintenance are emphasized since the term
equipment management implies a cohesive effort on the part of the entire organization
and not simply those routine activities performed by the Maintenance Department.
Communication, participation, contribution and accountability by each functional area
within the organization are fundamental to the overall success. With information
gathered and flowing across departmental boundaries, everyone involved knows and
understands what the key issues affecting performance are and maintenance can be
customized to focus on management, correction and avoidance of root causes of
problems. Obviously, this process requires regular and ongoing review of equipment
performance and appropriate revisions of maintenance and equipment management
routines to address the problems at hand. Each step in the maintenance/ equipment
management process should be targeted at identifying and addressing specific existing or
potential problem areas. Activities that are performed for no apparent or known reason
are oftentimes of questionable value. Clearly, maintenance has the greatest potential to
affect equipment performance of a given piece of equipment in any given application.
In order to quantify equipment performance, some set of performance criteria must be put
in place. The following holds true for most activities including the management of
mining equipment:
You cannot manage what you cannot control,
you cannot control what you cannot measure,
you cannot (or at least should not) measure without a target,
and, without a target, you cannot improve.

-3-
Management without metrics is, in reality, management by intuition. Benchmarking is

a process used to identify best practice for an industry or for specific functions or
processes within that industry. Benchmarking may be used to gauge performance
relative to competition (external) or to monitor progress toward a specific set of
objectives (internal). Benchmarking identifies weak areas, poor practices and areas for
improvement. It is a systematic, ongoing, continuous improvement process that requires
honest self-evaluation and analysis. For optimum results, benchmarking requires a longterm commitment from all levels in an organization and involvement and
communications among all the functional groups within the organization, i.e.
management must set the tone and all participants should understand what they are doing
and why it is important.
Benchmarks, the result of the benchmarking process, are standards, measurements,
metrics, or key performance indicators that quantify best practices of an operation.
Benchmarks for mining could be operational (payload management, delays, load times,
truck exchange times, production, cost per ton, etc.), application-related (grade/ grade
variation, rolling resistance, haul road maintenance, traffic flow, etc.), or maintenancerelated (availability, utilization, etc.). The benchmarks we established for equipment
management were designed to answer the following seven basic questions:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
How are we? Where do we stand today?

How much effort have we invested in getting where we are?
Is our situation the result of planned work?
What are the location and frequency of our pain?
Is our situation stable? Is it sustainable?
Are we using failures as an information source?
Can we forecast the future?
Irrespective of how good the product is, how good the maintenance is or how easy the
application is, sooner or later there will be problems. What distinguishes the successful
site from the less successful one is the organization that is in place and how it deals with
problems when they arise. Rather than ask, how long will it be down? or when can we
put it back in service?, the knowledgeable Equipment Manager should ask, why did it go
down? and what can we do to prevent this from happening again? Too frequently
management views unscheduled shutdowns as failures of the equipment and seeks out
technical solutions. Management should also view unscheduled shutdowns as potential
failures of the equipment management system. Properly used, performance metrics
enable management to distinguish product issues from project issues.

-4-
2.
Introduction
Performance metrics are some of the least understood and most often misused concepts in
mining. Our experience has shown that many mine tend to collect mountains of data
some of which they use, much of which they do not. Furthermore, much of the data that
is used is not used in such a way that it actually helps improve the operation. For the
most part, the data that is collected is presented in the form of purely informational
reports that present little more than a historical perspective as to how the product or
project has performed up to a given point in time.
While informational reports are important, they dont tend to be very useful in terms of
providing management with the kind of information that aids it in an understanding of
how and why an operation arrived at its present condition. The purely informational
report fails to give management a feel for the likelihood of a good situation remaining
good is the situation sustainable? Nor does it give any indication as to why the
situation may not be meeting expectations and what can be done to reverse the trend.
Clearly, the truly effective report format must be predictive and corrective as well as
informative. Reports should be viewed as powerful management tools and be used to
guide the combined efforts and resources of the entire organization in the development
and implementation of action plans targeted at achieving and maintaining acceptable
levels of performance over time.
Why do we use performance metrics? Valid uses are:
to provide a useful and meaningful delivery format for the data analysis process,
to assess, quantify and document as is performance relative to internal targets
and established benchmarks,
to facilitate the use of historical performance in the prediction of future
performance,
to highlight shortcomings and opportunities for improvement relative to design,
application, costs and maintenance,
to identify problems and corrective actions,
to establish priorities in the deployment of resources, and
to monitor progress of proposed solutions to identified problems.
Unfortunately, far too often performance metrics are used only to assign and fix blame.
Metrics should help us make sense of our situation and through their use we become
smarter and gain some degree of control over the outcome.
Although the calculation methods vary greatly, virtually every mine measures and reports
some form of availability. It is the basis on which Operations projects its equipment
needs (productive hours) in order to meet the mine's production goals. And, it is typically
-5-
a key yardstick by which mine management quantifies the performance of its equipment
fleet and/or that of the group responsible for providing maintenance to that equipment.
The overwhelming majority of mines also measure and report utilization in some form or
fashion whether it is utilization of availability, utilization of the asset or both. Neither of
these parameters provides much more than a historical view of the past and present status
or health of the product and project. That is, they fail to give the user any clear insight
into why things are the way they are and what needs to be done to ensure that a healthy
situation will remain healthy or how a problem situation got that way and what needs to
be done to correct the problems.
In addition to availability and utilization, mines frequently monitor and report any
number of other performance parameters that provide information but very little else that
could be viewed as either predictive (allowing the mine to be proactive) or corrective
(enhancing the mines ability to develop suitable action plans).
Reports serve three primary purposes: to provide basic performance information to top
management, to identify problems or needed action, and to set priorities for the problem
management (continuous improvement process. Only the latter two provide information
that directly helps to improve the operation. Unfortunately, many systems concentrate on
the first item and leave maintenance management searching for ways to develop data and
information for the remaining two.
So, what is wrong with what we have today? As previously mentioned, reports tend to be
purely informational offering no more than a historical perspective of the past and
present situation. In general they lack the analytical (why the situation is as it is),
interpretive (what it all means), corrective (what needs to be done? ... how do we manage
/ solve problems?), and predictive (what the consequences are or are likely to be)
qualities that are required to facilitate continuous improvement. They also lack
standardization, which minimizes their understanding making them difficult to use. And,
lastly, they tend to be driven far more by form than function attempts to
individualize reports limit their utilization and reduce their value. Altogether too often
we find that attempts to innovate places over-emphasis on format, which trivializes
content. Information should be presented in a style that best suits the content and
objectives of the report and, at the same time, meets the needs of the audience. Charts,
graphs and tables should be thought of only as a means to an end. The real meat of any
good report are the conclusions made from the picture of the data provided by the
graphics and the resulting action plans that are developed to address problems that are
identified.
What do we really want and need? Reports that identify problems (present and pending),
document product and project health and eliminate surprises, e.g. cost overruns,
availability shortfalls, customer dissatisfaction. Reports should also help set priorities for
problem management / continuous improvement activities in order to help focus the
effort of the limited resources at our disposal. They should inform and at the same time
possess analytical, interpretive, predictive, and corrective characteristics, stimulating
thought not simply reporting data. Reports need to be regular (typically monthly), timely
-6-
(management cant manage with old information), visual (easy to use and understand at a
glance), and concise (bigger is not always better; encouraging the audience to read).
Reports should be driven by functional objectives (results / action oriented!) and consider
design, application and maintenance. One very good Rule of Thumb is dont generate
more questions than you answer. If one thinks of reporting as, applying what you
know to what you want to know, the task becomes much simpler.
In the same sense that an airline pilot needs only five or six of the hundred or so sources
of information he has at his disposal to safely land a plane, our intent is to provide a
cockpit view of the handful of performance metrics, actually Key Performance
Indicators, that mine management needs to assess their situation. Obviously, in both
cases this cockpit view needs to be supported by sufficient secondary information to
permit the pilot or the mine manager to proactively take necessary action should a
potential problem be detected and to take the appropriate remedial steps to resolve any
existing problems. Without this supporting information we find that altogether too often
the strategy for curing the ills of a project is purely reactive and that frequently this knee
jerk approach drives the organization even deeper in the direction that created much of
the pain in the first place.
Caterpillar has invested a great deal of time, energy and resources identifying and
developing several metrics of performance (Key Performance Indicators) that we are
very comfortable with to quantify and trend product and project health. Understanding
what those metrics mean relative to site performance and how they interact with each
other was the initial focus in our development of the process. The next step was to devise
a presentation format that enables management to quickly and easily recognize critical
issues facing it in order to implement solutions to meet its overall objectives. The
primary objective of this document is to summarize a globally consistent measurement
and evaluation system for all mining operations that use Caterpillar equipment using the
measurement parameters presented herein as the basis for quantifying product and project
performance.

-7-
3.
3.1.
Terminology & Definitions
Basic Terms
Performance Metric: A term used to describe the outcome of any process used to
collect, analyze, interpret and present quantitative data. A measurement parameter that
enables performance against some pre-defined Target or Benchmark to be monitored. A
measurement used to gauge performance of a function, operation or business relative to
past results or others.
Key Performance Indicator: Also known as KPI; a top level Performance Metric. The
collection of KPI's used to describe performance of a particular project may vary from
site to site, by product, application and even one's perspective, i.e. dealer & customer,
Operations & Maintenance Depts., Project & Contract Controls Dept. NOTE: All KPI's
are Performance Metrics but Performance Metrics are not always KPI's.
Target: A desired goal; a standard by which a Performance Metric can be measured or
judged. The Target for a particular Performance Metric can be somewhat arbitrary and
will likely vary by product, application or specific site. The Target is frequently
determined by customer needs, his expectations and / or contractual commitments, and
manufacturers specifications.
Benchmark (noun): A world-class performance standard relative to a specific
Performance Metric; represents and quantifies "best practice" of an operation or of
specific functions within that operation according to a specified Performance Metric. A
Benchmark may vary by product but, by contrast, is much less arbitrary than a Target. A
Benchmark is determined by and represents actual, documented, sustainable performance
over time relative to some Performance Metric.
Shutdown / Stoppage: An event that takes a machine out of service. Shutdowns may be
scheduled or unscheduled and include all types of maintenance and repair activities
except daily lubes, refueling and inspections executed during lube or refueling activities.
Operational stoppages, e.g. shift changes, lunch breaks, etc., are not included as
shutdowns. Grouped repairs count as a single shutdown. Shutdown count is
independent of event duration or complexity, i.e. a five-minute event counts the same as a
100-hour event and a headlight replacement counts the same as a catastrophic major
component failure.
3.2.
Elements of Time
Many of the performance metrics in use today (most notably availability and utilization)
involve time or ratios of time as the fundamental calculation parameters. While the
formulae used to calculate these metrics are similar, the results often vary somewhat from
site to site due largely to differences in the interpretation of the elements of time that
-8-
comprise those equations. As such, it is important to define and document the individual
elements of time that make up the various categories of daily minesite operations.
Furthermore, many sites tend to use terms such as physical availability, mechanical
availability and simply availability interchangeably. Due to this lack of standardization,
it is impossible to tie these metrics to a global Benchmark. Therefore, we have not
attempted to use these metrics as key performance indicators for equipment management.
Simply put, physical availability formulae exclude all forms of downtime from the
calculation of available hours while mechanical availability formulae ignore the effects of
areas such as communications radios, dispatch system, fire suppression systems, tires,
etc. as non-mechanical downtime and exclude only elements pure mechanical downtime
in the calculation of available hours.
A similar and perhaps even more compelling argument could be made for contractual
availability since not only does the interpretation of the time elements vary from one site
to the next, the exclusions and limitations placed on downtime counted against
availability are highly variable from contract to contract. In spite of the fact that these
variations make global Benchmarking meaningless if not impossible, we do consider
contractual availability to be an equipment management KPI since it has not only
financial implications but also contributes significantly to customer satisfaction as it
relates to the product as well as the service organization responsible for its support.
It should also be noted here that even in the absence of a formal contract the end-user has
a set of expectations for equipment performance. A measure of these expectations will
likely include some variation of the physical, mechanical or contractual availability
formulae. Since the equipment managers ability to meet the expectations of his
customer are linked to that customer-specific metric, it should be viewed as an equipment
management KPI and treated in exactly the same way as contractual availability.
The following graphic and descriptions (figure 1) illustrate our interpretation of the
elements of time that make up the various categories of daily mining equipment
operations.
Figure 1: Elements of time for mining operations

-9-
Total Calendar Hours: Total time in the period to be analyzed, e.g. 8760 hours / year,
720 hours / 30 day month, 168 hours / week, etc.
Scheduled Hours: Time that a machine is scheduled for operations. Typically
determined by the mine Planning and Operations Departments in conjunction with their
overall production targets.
Unscheduled Hours: Hours outside the plan; lost time that result from accidents,
strikes, weather, acts of God, any holidays that are observed, etc. (typically defined by
the customer or contained in the Customer Support Agreement or MARC).
Available Hours:
operation.
Time that a machine is capable of functioning in the intended
Operating Hours: Time that a machine is actually operating in the intended function.
Stand-by Hours: Time that a machine is available for operation but is not being used,
e.g. no operator available, "over-trucked", etc. Also known as "Ready line" hours.
Production Delay Hours: Time that a machine is operational but is waiting with the
engine running due to blasting, loader wait time, etc. Production delay hours are
frequently not accounted for separately and are included in the operating hours
tabulation. One the other hand, some dispatch systems do track production delay hours in
an effort to minimize and manage them. In either case, lost hours that result from
production delays should be reconciled and not counted against machine availability.
Operational Delay Hours: Time that a machine is available for operation but is not
being used due to shift changes, lunch breaks, meetings, prayers, etc. Just as was the case
for production delay hours, lost hours that result from operational delays should be
reconciled and never counted against machine availability. On the other hand, policy at
many mines ignores operational delay hours altogether and therefore, does not credit
operational delay hours as either scheduled or available hours.
Downtime Hours: Time that a machine is not available for operation; out of service for
all forms of maintenance, repairs and modifications. Includes inspection and diagnostic
time as well as any delay or wait time for manpower, bay space, parts, tooling, literature,
repair support equipment, decision making, etc. May be scheduled or unscheduled.
Repair Delay Hours: Time that machine is waiting for repairs due to unavailability of
labor, parts, facilities, equipment or tooling. Typically not well documented in most
machine downtime histories but is nonetheless included, yet unrecognized, as part of the
machine downtime record.
NOTE: Please refer to Appendix 5.1, Delay Code Development and Usage for a more
complete discussion on production, operational and repair delays.
- 10 -
4.
Top Tier Metrics
4.1. Equipment Maintenance Management Metrics

4.1.1. Mean Time Between Shutdowns
Definition:
The average operating time between machine stoppages the average frequency of
downtime events, expressed in hours.
Description:
The most successful mining operations are those that manage and maintain equipment
such that it is available for extended periods of uninterrupted service. MTBS is a
measure that combines the effects of inherent machine reliability and the
effectiveness of the equipment management organization in its ability to influence
results through problem avoidance, i.e. defect detection, repair planning, scheduling
and execution. MTBS is the single most important measure of equipment
maintenance management performance.
Calculation Methodology:
MTBS (hours) = Operating Hrs + Production Delay Hrs*
(1)
Number of Shutdowns
Data Source(s):
Operating hours obtained from machine service meter reading. Note, hours obtained
from dispatch systems frequently do not agree with machine SMU due to coding of
production delays, etc. Note that hours taken from machine SMU will be higher than
those taken from dispatch, oftentimes by as much as 10 percent.
* Production delay hours may not be tracked and accounted for separately and are
therefore included in the total operating hours. Sites that use dispatch systems may
track and code production delay hours separate from operating hours hence they must
be acquired from dispatch.
Shutdown count obtained from machine workorder history and dispatch system.
Dispatch information must be used to account for shutdown events that are not
accompanied by a workorder.

- 11 -
Benchmarks:
MTBS benchmarks vary significantly by machine model, their relative size, age and
design maturity and complexity. MTBS for large Off Highway Trucks in the 785
793 size class is very well documented. The benchmark for a fleet of new trucks is
80 hours; that of a mature fleet (one that has undergone its first round of major
component rebuilds) is 60 hours.
Since by definition these benchmarks represent documented, best-in-class
performance sustainable over time, we are frequently asked to assess performance
through a range of results. The following table represents our best judgment in this
area.
MTBS
Assessment / Characteristics
50 to 60 hours
Excellent; high % of scheduled downtime; Equipment Mgmt. organization is highly proactive.
40 to 50 hours
Acceptable; majority of downtime is scheduled; substantial emphasis on Equipment Mgmt.
30 to 40 hours
Marginal; approx. half of all downtime is scheduled; Equipment Mgmt. disciplines not fully functional.
20 to 30 hours
Fair; < 40% downtime is scheduled; minimal effort on Equipment Mgmt.
< 20 hours
Poor; only PMs are scheduled; Equipment Mgmt. organization is purely reactive.
Table 1: Site performance through range of MTBS
Benchmarks for trucks smaller than the 785 and the 797 are less well known although
it is believed that MTBS for trucks in the 769 777 size class will be significantly
higher (as much 30 to 40%) while that of the 797 will be perhaps 10% lower.
Similarly, benchmarks for other large mining equipment are not well documented.
However, indications are that once MTBS data is collected, analyzed and validated,
the results will fall into the following ranges:
Machine / Model
MTBS
D10 / D11 TTTs
55 to 75 hours
992 / 994 WLs
55 to 75 hours
16 MG
95 to 105 hours
24 MG
55 to 75 hours
5000 HEX
55 to 75 hours
Table 2: MTBS guidelines for mining machines
Usage:
In order to make valid use of MTBS as an equipment management tool, it is assumed
that the organization accepts that a repair-before-failure philosophy is the most cost
efficient and effective maintenance strategy for ensuring maximized fleet
performance and optimum costs. Running to failure will result in excessive machine
downtime, inefficient use of resources and higher repair costs.

- 12 -
MTBS is used to gauge product reliability and, more importantly, the ability of the
equipment management organization to influence the end result. Since availability is
a function of the frequency and duration of machine downtime events, a lower than
desirable MTBS is symptomatic of low availability.
It is extremely important to note that problems arise when the calculation criteria are
not adhered to, e.g. arbitrary modifications in the shutdown criteria or using hours
other than operating hours for the purpose of artificially increasing MTBS
invalidates the results since the benchmarks and ranges of acceptability are based on
specific calculation methodology. Comparing results derived from one calculation
method to benchmarks or targets established by another is of questionable value.
Interpretation:
MTBS should be interpreted, at least initially, by model on the basis of the
consolidated fleet over a period of one month and trended over time (six to twelve
months). Recognize that MTBS will vary significantly from machine to machine
within a given fleet and from day to day during the period under investigation. As
such, analyzing results of small populations over short intervals will result in wide
variations that can be very misleading. Declining MTBS is a valid predictor of
pending problems. Likewise, MTBS can be used to gauge the impact of changes that
result from efforts in continuous improvement.
Action:
If MTBS is lower than desirable or declining over time, the organization should
review the following:
Investigate on the basis of individual machines. Pareto applies here and we

typically find that a relative small percentage of machines are operating well
below the overall fleet average. Attacking those machines and bringing them
up to standard will have a dramatic effect on overall fleet performance.
Use Pareto to determine which areas of the machine (components or systems)

are resulting in higher than anticipated repair frequency. Results of this type
of investigation will typically point out sources of chronic product
unreliability and/or equipment management shortcomings, e.g. repair redo,
inability to distinguish symptom from cause, inadequate Condition
Monitoring, etc.
Analyze machine history records to determine if unscheduled stoppages are

driving the result. If this is the case, it indicates gaps in the detect-planexecute cycle and revisions to the Condition Monitoring, Planning &
Scheduling and/or execution areas will be necessary.
Use machine history to calculate MTBS after PM. MTBS after PM should be
at least 50% greater than overall MTBS. If MTBS after PM is not sufficiently

- 13 -
high, investigate to determine cause(s) of premature stoppages and adjust the

PM plan accordingly to compensate for the shortcomings. Random audits of
PM execution may also be necessary.
Has Impact On:
Fleet availability & resultant production

Quantity & cost of supporting infrastructure
Efficient utilization of manpower & resources
Is Impacted By:
Chronic machine defects (lack of containment strategy)

Condition Monitoring (quality and/or quantity)
Planning (poor use of grouped repairs)
Repair quality (redo, addressing symptom not cause, lack of training)
Use of information (reactive vs. proactive)
Presentation Format:
Plotting monthly MTBS over a twelve-month period on an X-Y line graph (figure 2
below) is the most effective method to demonstrate trends in MTBS.
80
70
60
MTBS - (hours)
Target
50
40
30
20
10
0
Nov-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Se p-03
O ct-03
Month - Year
Figure 2: MTBS trend versus target for large OHTs

- 14 -
4.1.2. Mean Time To Repair (MTTR)

Definition:
The average downtime for machine stoppages the average duration of downtime
events, expressed in hours.
Description:
Repair planning, management and execution are all factors that contribute to the
duration of machine shutdowns. Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) is a performance
measure that quantifies repair turnaround time, i.e. how quickly (or slowly) a machine
is returned to service once a downtime incident occurs. MTTR combines the effects
of inherent machine maintainability / serviceability and the efficiency of the
equipment management organization in delivering rapid remedial action in the
execution of needed repairs.
MTTR (hours) =
Total Downtime Hours

Number of Shutdowns
(2)
Data Source(s):
Downtime hours obtained from machine workorder history and dispatch system.
Dispatch information must be used to account for downtime that is not accompanied
by a workorder. It is essential to note that repair delay time should be included in the
downtime history calculation. If delay times are known, MTTR should be calculated
both with and without delays.
Shutdown count obtained from machine workorder history and dispatch system.
Once again, dispatch information must be used to account for shutdown events that
are not accompanied by a workorder.
Benchmark:
MTTR benchmarks vary somewhat by machine model, their relative size and design
complexity but to a much lesser extent than MTBS; machine age is the primary driver
of MTTR. MTTR for large Off Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size class is very
well documented. The benchmark for a fleet of trucks in the 785 793 size class is 3
to 6 hours. MTTR for new trucks should be close to the low end of the range while
that of a mature fleet (one that has undergone its first round of major component
rebuilds) should be closer to the high end of the range. This is a result of the relative
complexity of the repairs seen on new versus mature machines.

- 15 -
it is believed that MTTR for trucks in the 769 777 size class will be slightly lower
(10 to 20%) while that of the 797 will be perhaps 10% higher.
However, indications are that once MTTR data is collected, analyzed and validated,
the results will fall into much the same range as large OHT fleets with larger
machines, e.g. 24H MG and 5000 series HEX, being as much as 30 to 40% higher.
Usage:
Just as it is with MTBS, valid use of MTTR as an equipment management tool
requires acceptance of a repair-before-failure philosophy as the most cost efficient
and effective maintenance strategy for ensuring maximized fleet performance and
optimum costs. Running to failure will result in excessive machine downtime,
inefficient use of resources and higher repair costs.
MTTR is used to gauge product serviceability but, more importantly, the ability of the
equipment management organization to influence the end result through efficient
repair execution. Since availability is a function of the frequency and duration of
machine downtime events, a higher than desirable MTTR is symptomatic of low
availability. Viewing MTTR in the context of delays will also assist management in
identifying sources of those delays and taking appropriate action to minimize them.
Here again, it is extremely important to note that problems arise when the calculation
criteria are not adhered to, e.g. arbitrary modifications in the shutdown criteria or
using hours other than downtime hours for the purpose of artificially reducing
MTTR invalidates the results since the benchmarks and ranges of acceptability are
based on specific calculation methodology. Comparing results derived from one
calculation method to benchmarks or targets established by another is of questionable
value.
Interpretation:
MTTR should be interpreted, at least initially, by model on the basis of the
consolidated fleet over a period of one month and trended over time (six to twelve
months). Recognize that MTTR will vary somewhat from machine to machine within
a given fleet and from day to day during the period under investigation. As such,
analyzing results of small populations over short intervals will result in wide
variations that can be very misleading.
High or increasing MTTR is an indication of problems in the detection, planning
and/or execution of repairs and inefficient use of resources while low or decreasing
MTTR is an indication of patching rather than fixing problems. It is also
worthwhile to note that availability can be bought by driving MTTR lower with the
deployment of excessive resources, e.g. manpower, facilities, parts, etc., however this
approach is results in additional costs that will impact profitability.
- 16 -
Action:
If MTTR is lower than desirable, the organization should review the following:
Focus on grouping repairs for execution during available windows of

opportunity, e.g. PM. This can be achieved through improved detection
(Condition Monitoring) and planning; backlog management is an effective
equipment management tool than should help in this area. It should be noted
here that shop-found defects are repaired far less efficiently than defects
that have been detected in advance and have benefited from the planning
process.
Devise audit procedures particularly for repetitive problems; this should

minimize patching rather than fixing problems.
If MTTR is higher than desirable, any or all of the following could achieve reduced
turnaround time, lower MTTR:
Increase the percentage of scheduled repairs; unscheduled repairs typically

result in higher than necessary downtime hours.
Improve personnel efficiency; control time to execute repairs; identify, focus

and train on the most inefficient areas, i.e. high repair time shutdowns.
Identify and document sources of delay time; address the causes of delay /
wait time.
Improve field service auxiliary equipment; fully equipped service trucks and
well-trained personnel can help reduce field repair times. The majority of
unscheduled stoppages occur in the field thus the organization should be well
prepared to handle them.
Control and improve PM execution time; while average PM execution times

area far less than major component exchanges, they occur far more frequently
and have a much greater influence on total downtime (availability).
Develop specialized staff for PM routines and major component exchanges.
Has Impact On:

Quantity & cost of supporting infrastructure
Efficient utilization of manpower & resources
Is Impacted By:
High percentage of unscheduled repairs (poor Condition Monitoring)

Inadequate resources (manpower, facilities, tooling, parts, etc.)
Excessive delay times
Inadequate Planning & Scheduling (minimal use of grouped repairs)
- 17 -
Lack of training (excessive and/or ineffective diagnostic / troubleshooting)

Use of information (reactive vs. proactive)
Plotting monthly MTTR over a twelve-month period on an X-Y line graph is the most
effective method to demonstrate trends in MTTR. (Refer to figure 3).
10
MTTR - (hours)
5
Targe t Range
4
0
Nov-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Se p-03
O ct-03
Month - Year
Figure 3: MTTR trend versus target range for large OHTs
4.1.3. Availability Index

Definition:
The ratio of MTBS (average shutdown frequency) to the sum of MTBS and MTTR
(average shutdown duration), expressed as a percentage.
Description:
Availability is the result of the frequency and duration of downtime events
(shutdowns). Since idle hours and specific availability calculation methods vary
significantly from site to site, a normalized variation of the general form was
developed for the purpose of comparison. The Availability Index formula is a
variation on both the mechanical and physical availability formulae therefore changes
will be proportional. The Availability Index does not take into account any stand-by
(idle) hours where the equipment may have been available but was not utilized by
- 18 -
production thus any effects of utilization are ignored (low utilization operations tend
to exhibit artificially higher availability since stand-by hours are essentially free).
Because of this mathematical relationship, if any two of the three factors are known,
the third can be calculated. In addition, when the Availability Index changes, this
mathematical relationship shows which of the other two factors had the greatest
influence upon that change. This allows management to react appropriately to
changes in the Availability Index and by focusing its effort and resources on the
frequency (MTBS) or duration (MTTR) of downtime events.
Availability Index (%) =
MTBS
MTBS + MTTR
X 100
Data Source(s):
Since Availability Index is derived from MTBS and MTTR, the data sources for those
two metrics are applicable here as well. (See previous two sections).
Benchmark:
Availability Index benchmarks vary significantly by machine model, their relative
size, age and design maturity and complexity. Availability Index for large Off
Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size class is very well documented. The benchmark
for a fleet of new trucks 92%; that of a mature fleet (one that has undergone its first
round of major component rebuilds) is 88%.
Benchmarks for truck smaller than the 785 and the 797 are less well known although
it is believed that the Availability Index for trucks in the 769 777 size class will be
somewhat higher (possibly 2 to 3%) while that of the 797 will be perhaps 1 to 2%
lower.
However, indications are that once the data is collected, analyzed and validated, the
results will fall into much the same range as large OHT fleets with larger machines,
e.g. 24H MG and 5000 series HEX, being as much as 3 to 4% lower and smaller
machines, e.g. 16H, being 1 or 2% higher.
Usage:
Since the Availability Index ignores the effects of utilization, invariably will yield a
lower result than physical, mechanical and contractual availability calculations.
Thus, it provides the organization a management tool that enables it to determine the
true affects of its equipment management efforts while ignoring any influence of
variations in machine utilization.

- 19 -
(3)
The standardized calculation methodology also facilitates realistic comparisons from

site to site for the purpose of benchmarking performance relative to similar sites in
other parts of the world. And by breaking availability down into its elements,
frequency (MTBS) or duration (MTTR) of downtime events, management is able to
react appropriately to changes in the Availability Index and by focusing its effort and
resources in the right areas.
Interpretation:
Since the Availability Index is purely a function of the frequency (MTBS) and
duration (MTTR) of downtime events and the effects of utilization are totally ignored,
management is able to quantify the impact of both on the end result and respond
accordingly. Availability Index should be analyzed, at least initially, by model on the
basis of the consolidated fleet over a period of one month and trended over time (six
to twelve months).
Recognize that Availability Index will vary somewhat from machine to machine
within a given fleet and from day to day during the period under investigation. As
such, analyzing results of individual or even small machine populations over short
intervals will result in wide variations that can be very misleading. Low or declining
Availability Index is a valid predictor of pending problems. Likewise, Availability
Index can be used to gauge the impact of changes that result from efforts in
continuous improvement.
Action:
Since Availability Index is derived from MTBS and MTTR, once the contributions of
each are known and understood, appropriate action can be taken to attack the
problems. Please see Action sections for MTBS and MTTR.
Has Impact On:
Production
Customer satisfaction
(Since Availability Index is derived from MTBS and MTTR, if either one or both are
contributing to a shortfall in the Availability Index, any influence will be similarly
felt by variations in Availability Index).
Is Impacted By:
MTBS
MTTR
(Please see contributing factors related to both MTBS and MTTR in previous
sections).

- 20 -
40
100%
35
98%
30
96%
25
94%
20
92%
15
90%
10
Availability Index
MTBS / MTTR - (hours)
Plotting monthly Availability Index over a twelve-month period on an X-Y line graph
is the most effective method to predict trends. Plotting MTTR and MTBS on the
same graph with Availability Index is the most graphic method to determine which
factor, MTTR (repair duration) or MTBS (repair frequency), is driving the end result.
(Refer to figure 4 below).
88%
Target Availability Inde x
0
Nov-02
86%
De c-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Se p-03
84%
O ct-03
Month - Year
Figure 4:Availability Index graphed with MTBS & MTTR
4.1.4. % Scheduled Downtime

Definition:
The percentage of total downtime hours performed in a given period that have been
planned and scheduled.
Description:
Work that has passed through the planning process is generally scheduled as the
last step in that process. By monitoring the amount of work that has been planned
and subsequently scheduled, the organization can assess its effectiveness in defect
detection, plan repairs and complete its work with a high level of efficiency. A
simple test to determine if a repair is truly planned and scheduled is to ask the
question, Are the parts and necessary resources allocated to the shop bay before the
machine is stopped?
- 21 -
A high percentage of unscheduled downtime incidents results in very inefficient use

of resources and excessive costs since personnel are frequently shuffled from job to
job and facilities and manpower requirements need to be sufficiently large to
accommodate huge swings in the number of machines down for repairs. Data
collected from mine studies has shown that the average downtime for unplanned /
unscheduled work is up to eight times greater than the downtime for planned /
scheduled activity. Aside from MTBS, % Scheduled Downtime Hours is the most
important measure of equipment maintenance management performance.
% Scheduled Maintenance =
Scheduled Downtime Hours

X 100
Total Downtime Hours
(4)
Data Source(s):
by a workorder. It is essential to note that repair delay time should be included in the
downtime history calculation.
Individual workorders should be coded as scheduled or unscheduled in order to
track the number of downtime hours that are scheduled.
Benchmark:
% Scheduled Downtime Hours for large Off Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size
class is very well documented. Mines with highly effective equipment management
processes in place are able to execute 80% of its maintenance and repair downtime
activity on a scheduled basis. We believe that this criterion holds true for other
mining equipment as well however requirements for less utilized, non-production
equipment may be somewhat less.
Usage:
% Scheduled Downtime Hours can be used to determine if an organization is in
control of the situation (proactive) or if it is simply responding to the immediate
needs of the equipment (reactive).
Interpretation:
The % Scheduled Downtime Hours should be analyzed, at least initially, by model on
the basis of the consolidated fleet over a period of one month and trended over time
(six to twelve months). A low % Scheduled Downtime Hours is indicative of gaps in
the detect-plan-execute cycle and revisions to the Condition Monitoring, Planning &
Scheduling and/or execution areas will be necessary. Declining % Scheduled
Downtime Hours is a valid predictor of pending problems and may very well predict
- 22 -
future shortages of manpower and facilities. Likewise, % Scheduled Downtime

Hours can be used to gauge the impact of changes that result from efforts to improve
the disciplines related to the detect-plan-execute cycle.
Action:
If % Scheduled Downtime Hours is lower than desirable or declining over time, the
organization should review the following:
Use Pareto to identify causes of machine unreliability that are resulting in

unscheduled stoppages. Devise an improved detection and/or containment
strategy to deal with these issues in order to minimize their influence or
eliminate them altogether.
Review Condition Monitoring practices to ensure that they are focused on

problems that are leading to unscheduled downtime events.
Refine Planning and Scheduling practices to ensure that once problems are
detected they receive full benefit from the planning and scheduling activity.
Employ Backlog Management as an equipment management tool to deal with

problems identified through Condition Monitoring.
Has Impact On:

Overall repair and maintenance costs
Manpower and infrastructure requirements
MTBS and MTTR
Is Impacted By:
Product unreliability
Condition Monitoring quality
Planning and Scheduling disciplines
Limited or inadequate use of Backlog Management
Plotting monthly % Scheduled Downtime Hours over a twelve-month period on an XY line graph is the most effective method to monitor and predict trends. (Please see
sample graphic, figure 5, on the following page).

- 23 -
Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Work

(Based on machine downtime hours)
50%
45%
40%
Percent Scheduled
35%
30%
25%
Tre nd
(rolling ave rage )
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Jun'99
Jul'99
Aug'99
Se p'99
O ct'99
Nov'99
De c'99
Jan'00
Fe b'00
Mar'00
Apr'00
May'00
Month/ Year
Figure 5: % Scheduled Work trend
4.1.5. Asset Utilization

Definition:
The proportion of time that a machine is operating (operating hours) divided by the
total calendar time in the period, expressed as a percentage.
Description:
How effectively the Operations Department schedules equipment and efficiently it
utilizes that equipment has significant implications for Maintenance. If machines are
scheduled for use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Maintenance must respond by
working with Operations to find windows of opportunity in which maintenance and
repairs can be performed without increasing downtime. These opportunities typically
occur during scheduled shutdowns but they may also come at shift change, lunch
breaks or during operational delays such as during blasting or fueling of equipment.
In all circumstances, Operations and Maintenance need to recognize that they are
working together toward common goals high availability, good machine reliability
and the lowest possible cost per unit of production.
Asset Utilization (%) =
Operating Hours
(5)
X 100
Total Calendar Hours

- 24 -
Data Source(s):
Operating hours are obtained from machine service meter reading and should include
production delay hours. Note, hours obtained from dispatch systems frequently do
not agree with machine SMU due to coding of production delays, etc. Note that
hours taken from machine SMU will be higher than those taken from dispatch,
oftentimes by as much as 10 percent.
Total calendar hours is equal to the total time in the period to be analyzed, e.g. 8760
hours / year, 720 hours / 30 day month, 168 hours / week, etc.
Benchmarks:
Asset Utilization for large Off Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size class is very
well documented. Mines with highly effective equipment management processes in
place are able to achieve Asset Utilization of 90%, over 7800 operating hours per
year. We believe that this Benchmark is valid for other production mining equipment
however the Benchmark for less utilized, non-production equipment, although
unknown, may be significantly less.
Usage:
Usage of the Asset Utilization metric varies substantially based upon the perspective
of the user. The mine Purchasing Department views it as an indication as to whether
additional equipment purchases are necessary or if Operations should simply make
more efficient use of the equipment it already has. The MARC development staff
views Asset Utilization as a prediction tool for contract revenue stream. The
Equipment Management staff utilizes Asset Utilization as a tool to predict staffing
levels as well as in the planning and scheduling of component replacement, i.e. as
machine usage increases, the quantity of maintenance manpower must be increased to
keep pace and components will come due for replacement sooner.
Interpretation:
Asset Utilization and availability are directly related, i.e. high availability generally
results in high Asset Utilization. For the equipment manager, high Asset Utilization
implies very good repair efficiency, a very low number of stand-by hours and, since
Maintenance Ratio is a function of operating hours, it dictates staffing levels required
to support the fleet. Furthermore, since component lives are a function of operating
hours, high Asset Utilization means that components will come due for replacement
sooner. Asset Utilization is a valid indicator of equipment management proficiency.
Action:
Lower than desirable Asset Utilization should be investigated in the context of the
parameters that define availability as follows:

- 25 -
If stand-by hours are excessive, it may be a result of excess haulage capacity or

ineffective scheduling of operators. This is not something that the equipment
manager will be able to influence but he should be aware of the issue and its
impact.
If operational delay hours are excessive, it may be the result of excessive time
lost at shift change, meals, etc. Once again, this is not something that the
equipment manager will be able to influence but he should be aware of the
issue and its impact.
If both stand-by and operational delay hours are within reasonable limits,
availability (too few operating hours) is most likely the cause and the
equipment manager should investigate to determine the root cause, e.g. repair
efficiency / effectiveness, machine reliability, etc.
Has Impact On:
Production, ... mine production results are related directly to Asset Utilization
(and operational efficiency).
Revenue, ... revenue stream in a MARC environment is related directly to

Asset Utilization.
Manpower requirements, maintenance and repair labor costs will increase

with Asset Utilization.
Component life cycles, components will reach their useful lives sooner as
Asset Utilization increases.
Is Impacted By:
Repair efficiency/ effectiveness, ... efficient and effective repair execution

results in less downtime, which in turn produces higher Asset Utilization.
Mine production goals, ... Asset Utilization is influenced directly by the mines
production requirements.
Operator scheduling, low Asset Utilization resulting from excessive standby hours (machine idle time) is affected by the mines ability to schedule and
assign operators to the equipment.
Data should be collected, analyzed and reported monthly. Plotting Asset Utilization
versus time over a twelve-month period on an X-Y line graph is an effective method
for identifying trends. Analyzing Asset Utilization in terms of its components and in
conjunction with availability and production can be an effective method for
determining cause-effect relationships. (Please see sample graphic, figure 6, on the
following page).
- 26 -
Asset Utilization / Availability Index - (% )
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
Oct-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Mar-03
May-03
Jun-03
Aug-03
Oct-03
Nov-03
Month - Year
Figure 6: Asset Utilization trend
4.1.6. Maintenance Ratio

Definition:
The dimensionless ratio of maintenance and repair man-hours to machine operating
hours.
Description:
Maintenance Ratio is an indication of the amount of effort required to keep
equipment in service as well as the efficiency with which labor is deployed and the
effectiveness of the workforce in carrying out its duties. Maintenance Ratio can be
calculated as either charged or direct. Charged Maintenance Ratio considers
only workorder man-hours (direct labor). Repair shop, e.g. Component Rebuild
Center, labor is not included in the calculation. Overall Maintenance Ratio
includes all the elements of charged Maintenance Ratio plus staff, supervision and
idle time.
Maintenance Ratio charged =
Maintenance & Repair Man-Hours

Operating Hours
(6)

- 27 -
Data Source(s):
Maintenance and repair man-hours are obtained from the work order history. The
result should include actual time spent working on all forms of maintenance, repairs
and modifications as well as inefficiencies that result from inspection and diagnostic
time or any delay or wait time for bay space, parts, tooling, literature, repair support
equipment, decision making, etc.
Operating hours are obtained from machine service meter reading and once again
should include production delay hours. Note, hours obtained from dispatch systems
frequently do not agree with machine SMR due to coding of production delays, etc.
Benchmarks:
Maintenance Ratio benchmarks vary significantly by machine model, their relative
size, age and design maturity and complexity. Maintenance Ratio for large Off
Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size class is very well documented. The benchmark
for a fleet of new trucks is 0.20 man-hours/ operating hour; that of a mature fleet
(one that has undergone its first round of major component rebuilds) is 0.30 manhours/ operating hour.
Since by definition these benchmarks represent documented, best-in-class
performance sustainable over time, we are frequently asked to assess performance
through a range of results. The following (table 3) represents our best judgment in
this area.
MR
Assessment / Characteristics
0.30 to 0.35
Excellent; high % of scheduled downtime; Equipment Mgmt. organization is highly proactive.
0.35 to 0.40
Acceptable; majority of downtime is scheduled; substantial emphasis on Equipment Mgmt.
0.40 to 0.50
Marginal; approx. half of all downtime is scheduled; Equipment Mgmt. disciplines not fully functional.
0.50 to 0.60
Fair; < 40% downtime is scheduled; minimal effort on Equipment Mgmt.
> 0.60
Poor; only PMs are scheduled; Equipment Mgmt. organization is purely reactive.
Table 3: Site performance through range of Maintenance Ratios
it is believed that Maintenance Ratio for trucks in the 769 777 size class will be
slightly lower while that of the 797 will be somewhat higher.
However, indications are that once Maintenance Ratio data is collected, analyzed and
validated, the results will fall into the ranges shown in the table below. It is important
to note here that machine application will play a role in Maintenance Ratio. This is
particularly true in the case of large Track-type Tractors that can be deployed as
either production or support equipment. (Refer to table 4 on the following page).

- 28 -
Machine / Model
MR
D10 / D11 TTTs
0.40 to 0.50
992 / 994 WLs
0.35 to 0.45
16 MG
0.10 to 0.15
24 MG
0.15 to 0.20
5000 HEX
0.50 to 0.60
Table 4: Maintenance Ratio guidelines for mining machines
Usage:
Valid use of Maintenance Ratio as an equipment management tool requires
acceptance of a repair-before-failure philosophy as the most cost efficient and
effective maintenance strategy for ensuring maximized fleet performance and
optimum costs. Running to failure will result in excessive machine downtime,
inefficient use of resources and higher repair costs.
Maintenance Ratio can be monitored over time to provide an indication of workshop
and manpower efficiency. It can also be used by the Maintenance Department to plan
manpower and budget needs. When Operations provides Maintenance with its
estimate of operating hours required to meet the production goals of the mine, the
Maintenance Department can use Maintenance Ratio to project the manpower
resources it must have to care for the equipment during that period.
Caution: While it is tempting to do so, the Project Manager should not use the
Benchmark levels to predict his manpower requirements unless he is certain that the
equipment management system in place is integrated and fully functional. The
Benchmark was measured at a site that was very well managed and all of the
processes that comprise the equipment management system were in place and
performing at a very high level. Unless this is the case, using Benchmark
performance to forecast manpower needs will result in significant delays waiting on
manpower thus increasing MTTR at the expense of availability. It is suggested that
Project Management use historical performance to predict future manpower
requirements and gauge the efficiency of its operation based on the Benchmark.
To be useful as a budgeting tool, Maintenance Ratio needs to be measured for each
family of machines, i.e. trucks, loaders, dozers, motor graders, etc., as each family of
machines has different maintenance requirements.
In addition, just as the
maintenance and repair requirements for equipment change with time, Maintenance
Ratio changes over time therefore Maintenance Ratio data must be analyzed relative
to the age of the equipment and where it is in the component replacement cycle. On
relatively new machines (those that have not yet started the component replacement
cycle) Maintenance Ratio is lower. However, once components are replaced, the
Maintenance Ratio will increase and remain essentially constant.

- 29 -
Interpretation:
In order to be best understood and utilized, Maintenance Ratio should be interpreted
by model on a fleet basis for a consolidated period of one month and trended over
time (six to twelve months). Recognize that Maintenance Ratio will vary somewhat
from machine to machine within a given fleet and from day to day during the period
under investigation depending upon the activities undertaken during the period. As
such, analyzing results of small populations over short intervals will result in wide
variations that can be very misleading.
Since Maintenance Ratio is an indication of the amount of effort required to keep
equipment in service, high or increasing Maintenance Ratio is an indication of
problems in the detection, planning and/or execution of repairs. Mining operations
that must deal with a high percentage of unscheduled repairs (low MTBS) require the
investment of excessive manpower and shop resources to keep up with the demands
placed upon them. This inefficient use of resources can only be dealt with through
the deployment of excessive manpower, facilities, parts, etc. (all costs to the project)
or by defining and correcting the shortcomings in the equipment management system.
Conversely, lower than required Maintenance Ratio will result in excessive delay
time waiting for manpower thus increasing MTTR and causing availability to suffer.
Action:
If Maintenance Ratio and the resultant cost of labor are too high, the organization
should investigate the following:
Analyze machine history records to determine if unscheduled stoppages are

driving the result. If this is the case, it indicates gaps in the detect-plan-execute
cycle and revisions to the Condition Monitoring, Planning & Scheduling and/or
execution areas will be necessary.
Improve personnel efficiency; control time to execute repairs; identify, focus

and train on the most inefficient areas, i.e. high repair time shutdowns.
In general, any steps taken to increase MTBS will reduce manpower

requirements driving Maintenance Ratio in the right direction.
Has Impact On:
Labor costs Maintenance Ratio too high.
Repair delays / excessive MTTR Maintenance Ratio too low.
Is Impacted By:
High percentage of unscheduled repairs.
MTBS (too low).

- 30 -
Inadequate Condition Monitoring.
Poor Planning & Scheduling.
Insufficient resources (shop bays, tooling, equipment, etc.).
Inadequate training.
Plotting monthly Maintenance Ratio versus time over a twelve-month period on an XY line graph is the most effective method to demonstrate trends in Maintenance
Ratio. Overlaying the Maintenance Ratio graph with the Percentage of Scheduled
Downtime and MTBS is the most graphic method to determine which factor is
driving the end result.
Maintenance Ratio
1.3
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.3
B e n ch m ark
Ran ge
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.0
Ju n -99
Ju l -99
Au g-99
S e p-99
O ct-99
Nov-99
De c-99
Jan -00
Fe b-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
"Overall" Maintenance Ratio
"Charged" Maintenance Ratio
793 OHT Fleet

1.0
0.3
May-00
Month/ Year
Figure 7: Maintenance Ratio trend
4.1.7. Top Problems / Pareto Analysis

Definition:
The distribution of problems affecting a fleet of equipment ranked in terms of MTBS,
MTTR, impact on Availability and Costs.

- 31 -
Description:
All mining support operations have limited resources. The most successful
operations are those that have a clear understanding of the problems and issues facing
them and are thus in a position to establish priorities in order to focus their efforts and
allocate the appropriate resources on remedial or containment strategies through
continuous improvement. The identification and quantification of top problems by
component (e.g. engine, transmission, ), system (e.g. hydraulics, electrical, ) or
even process (e.g. PM) facilitates the understanding of the extent that each area is
having an influence on various criteria that comprise the success of a mining support
operation, i.e. shutdown frequency (MTBS), shutdown duration (MTTR), impact on
Availability and Costs. With this knowledge the Project Manager is able to drill
down to the key issues facing his site and apply the necessary resources in the most
efficient manner to improve his situation.
Operating Hours
Number of Shutdowns (by system)
MTBS (by system) =

MTTR (by system) =
Downtime Hours (by system)

Number of Shutdowns (by system)
Impact on Availability (by system) = (1 Availability (total machine)) X
Cost per Hour (by system) =
(7)
(8)
Downtime Hours (by system)

Total Downtime Hours (machine)
Cost (by system)
(10)
Operating Hours
Data Source(s):
Operating hours are obtained from machine service meter reading. Note, hours
obtained from dispatch systems frequently do not agree with machine SMR due to
coding of production delays, etc.
Shutdown count is obtained from machine workorder history and dispatch system.
Dispatch information must be used to account for shutdown events that are not
accounted for by a workorder. Shutdown count must be determined individually for
each area of the machine as well as for the machine as a whole in order to assess not
only the contribution of each area but also to calculate Availability Index.
- 32 -
(9)
by a workorder. It is essential to note that repair delay times should be included in

the downtime history calculation. If delay times are known, MTTR should be
calculated both with and without delays. As is the case with shutdown count,
downtime must be determined individually for each area of the machine as well as the
machine as a whole in order to assess the contribution of each area.
Total cost to support and maintain each of the systems and components on the
machine. At a minimum it is vital to know the breakdown for costs of repairs and
rebuilds of each major component on the machine. Most recordskeeping systems we
have studied do a fairly poor job of documenting costs but if Project Management is
to have any opportunity to manage contract profitability, costs must be known.
Benchmarks:
There is no set of Benchmarks that is applicable to this metric. However, over the
course of investigation during EMRs we developed a collection of generic reference
guidelines for large Off Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size class that can be used
as a gauge to evaluate MTBS, MTTR and impact on Availability. This reference
defines what we believe to be a reasonable level of acceptability for frequency of
downtime events (MTBS), duration of downtime events (MTTR) and impact on
Availability for each of the major areas on the machine.
The data is representative of a site operating at an Availability Index of
approximately 90% and is, of course, generic since actual results achieved at any
given mine are site-specific because results of this kind are a function of not only
application severity but also of the operating environment, the maintenance the
equipment receives and product design shortcomings that are particular to machines
either by model or within a given range of serial numbers.
Appendix 5.2, Generic Pareto Reference Large Off Highway Trucks should be
used as a baseline until Project Management can use individual site experience and
history to determine how this reference can be modified to fit the application in
question.
Since there are many factors other than equipment management that influence costs
(labor rates, transportation costs, import duties, taxes, etc.), it is impossible to define
Benchmarks that are universally applicable to any given machine model. This being
the case, we recommend that budgetary cost and component life projections be used
to define target cost per hour figures and that actual cost performance be compared to
those targets in order to determine if any particular area is out of line with
expectations.
Usage:
Using the top problems distribution analysis enables Project Management to identify
and prioritize critical issues affecting success of the project for investigation and
resolution. The Pareto principle tends to hold true and we typically find that a
- 33 -
relatively small minority of potential issues is causing the overwhelming majority of

the grief on a project.
The output of this analysis should be viewed as input for the continuous improvement
process. As such, resources can be applied in the areas that will derive the maximum
benefit.
Interpretation:
In order to properly prioritize the four criteria each should be compared to some
baseline of performance. MTBS, MTTR and Availability can be evaluated relative to
predicted levels or acceptable historical data. If neither is available, the Project
Manager can use the generic set of guidelines defined in the Benchmark section
above until a set of references can be developed for his site.
MTBS and MTTR for each area under investigation should be viewed as the ratio of
target to actual demonstrated performance. In other words, if the MTBS (reliability)
for a particular area of a machine is significantly lower than expected or if MTTR is
higher, that area should be designated for analysis and investigation.
It is also very important to note that experience has shown that a relatively high
percentage of shutdowns of very short duration occur on many sites. We frequently
see that 40 to 50% of all machine stoppages are one hour or less in duration. While
our instincts tell us to attack the big hitters, it is critical and highly beneficial to
identify and correct these repetitive issues since they occur so frequently that their
influence on the end results can be very significant.
Availability for each area under investigation should be viewed as the difference
between target and actual demonstrated performance. That is, if the actual impact on
availability for a particular area of a machine is significantly higher than expected,
that area should be designated for analysis and investigation.
Cost data should be evaluated relative to budgetary cost calculations. Just as with the
impact on availability, the difference between actual and budgeted costs is the criteria
for selection.
When reviewing the list of potential issues for nomination onto the top problems
summary, it is important to consider not only the problem itself but also the
consequences of failure related to the problem. For example, an excessive number of
coolant leaks when taken alone may be looked upon as more of a nuisance item
however when one considers the consequences of failure and the potential for engine
overheating and subsequent reduction in engine life, the issue becomes far more
serious.
Action:
Once the top problems have been identified by component and system,
machine repair history should be reviewed to determine the nature of the
problems within each of those components and systems. In most instances we
- 34 -
find that the key specific issues result from a relatively small percentage of
machines and a small number of causes.
Submit the top problems to the Continuous Improvement process to determine

root cause and identify the containment and resolution strategy.
Compare the top problems at the site to those listed in the Caterpillar CPI
process as well as those covered under factory PIP/PSP programs. If the top
problems at the site do not align reasonably well with the list of global issues,
it is likely that the root cause is a result of site-specific conditions related to
application and/or maintenance. Specific problems should be submitted to the
Caterpillar CPI process for consideration and investigation.
Has Impact On:
Costs, ... operating costs can be better managed and contained when key
problems are known and can be effectively dealt with via the continuous
improvement process.
Manpower requirements, ... manpower can be deployed more effectively and

efficiently when top problems are identified and understood. Using intuition
(guessing) results in excessive expenditures of labor.
Availability / reliability, optimum availability and reliability can be

achieved when key issues are known and given appropriate attention for
resolution.
Is Impacted By:
Maintenance strategy, a repair-before-failure strategy focused on early

detection and failure avoidance plays a fundamental role in problem
management, i.e. Condition Monitoring (quality and quantity of inspections),
Planning & Scheduling, Backlog Management, etc.
Maintenance execution, resources (facilities and manpower) in adequate

numbers and of sufficient quality have a direct influence on the end results.
Application severity, ... drives the results e.g. excessive fuel burn rate will tend
to magnify engine-related downtime, overloading will accelerate power train
and structural deterioration, etc.
Operating environment, ... haul road conditions, ambient temperature extremes

and precipitation all have a role in determining which areas on the machine
will experience problems.
Charts and graphs can be used to analyze top problems but they tend not to be very
visual and typically become extremely busy. A tabulated summary is the preferred
presentation format. Data should be collected, analyzed and reported on a monthly
- 35 -
basis but it is also important to monitor trends over a six to twelve month interval in
order to verify that corrective actions are having the desired effect and to determine
when new issues are presenting themselves.
While it is important to collect, analyze and monitor data for each of the four criteria
on a monthly basis, cost data is subject to extreme variations due to the impact of
major component rebuilds which tend to occur in groups as fleets progress through
their life cycle. Consequently a plot of costs over time is stepped rather than linear
thus it is important to know and understand exactly where the machine is in its life
cycle to properly evaluate cost information.
Component / System
Total
Downtime
Total
Shutdowns
MTBS
(hours)
ref. MTBS
(hours)
ratio to ref.
MTBS
Cooling System
"unknown"
Electronics & Electrical
Chassis
Brakes
Air System & Starting
Engine
Differential
Hydraulic System
Tires & Rims
190.32
43.16
174.13
188.70
340.14
58.48
1265.92
68.85
169.28
348.61
366
23
109
39
93
52
172
12
63
128
82.25
1308.89
276.19
771.91
323.70
578.93
175.03
2508.71
477.85
235.19
1300
5850
1250
2850
1200
2100
550
6950
1250
550
15.80
4.47
4.53
3.69
3.71
3.63
3.14
2.77
2.62
2.34
Table 5: Top Problems by Repair Frequency - MTBS (hours)
Component / System
Total
Downtime
Total
Shutdowns
MTTR
(hours)
ref. MTTR
(hours)
ratio to ref.
MTTR
Dump Body
Final Drives
PM
Suspension
Accidents
Tires & Rims
Filters
Engine
Chassis
98.15
317.30
1350.46
97.95
57.79
348.61
174.13
5.21
1265.92
188.70
6
13
113
10
2
128
109
5
172
39
16.36
24.41
11.95
9.80
28.89
2.72
1.60
1.04
7.36
4.84
6.90
12.20
7.70
9.40
28.00
3.20
1.90
1.30
9.90
7.00
2.37
2.00
1.55
1.04
1.03
0.85
0.84
0.80
0.74
0.69
Table 6: Top Problems by Repair Duration - MTTR (hours)

- 36 -
Component / System
Total
Downtime
Total
Shutdowns
MTBS
(hours)
MTTR
(hours)
Impact on
Availability
(%)
ref.
Availability
Impact (%)
act. - ref.
Availability
Impact (%)
Engine
PM
Brakes
Tires & Rims
Final Drives
Chassis
Cooling System
Hydraulic System
Dump Body
1265.92
1350.46
340.14
348.61
317.30
174.13
188.70
190.32
169.28
98.15
172
113
93
128
13
109
39
366
63
6
175.03
266.41
323.70
235.19
2315.73
276.19
771.91
82.25
477.85
5017.42
7.36
11.95
3.66
2.72
24.41
1.60
4.84
0.52
2.69
16.36
3.52%
3.76%
0.95%
0.97%
0.88%
0.48%
0.53%
0.53%
0.47%
0.27%
1.61%
2.76%
0.45%
0.52%
0.52%
0.14%
0.22%
0.35%
0.35%
0.16%
1.91%
1.00%
0.50%
0.45%
0.36%
0.34%
0.31%
0.18%
0.12%
0.11%
Table 7: Top Problems by Availability opportunity -(%)
Component / System
Projected
Cost
(US $/ Hr)
Actual Cost
(US $/ Hr)
Cost
Difference
(US $/ Hr)
Final Drives (2)
$18.50
$21.37
$2.87
Hoist Cyl. (2)
$1.39
$2.88
$1.49
Engine
$13.32
$14.13
$0.81
Transmission
$4.68
$5.31
$0.63
Steering Cyl. (2)
$0.15
$0.40
$0.25
Differential
$1.75
$1.94
$0.19
Torque Converter
$2.03
$2.16
$0.13
Rear Susp. Cyl. (2)
$0.81
$0.93
$0.12
Front Susp. Cyl. (2)
$0.81
none
Table 8: Top Problems by Cost opportunity -(US $ / hour)
4.1.8. PIP / PSP Completion Status

Definition:
A tracking tool used to monitor the status of implementation of factory programs.
Description:
Although the design is basically fixed, mining equipment manufacturers will on
occasion alter the machine based on their experience over time and, as such, employ
running changes and improvements to the base machine. These factory programs
typically define an applicable machine serial number prefix, a range of machines
within that prefix and may be limited to machines within a particular hourmeter
range. They may also be deployed on a before or after failure basis. They may also
be mandatory or give management some latitude in determining if a particular
modification is applicable to his site-specific set of conditions. Programs are
typically issued for completion within a twelve-month timeframe. The best tracking
tools include the program identification number, dates of issue and termination,
scheduled date of execution, program type (priority, before / after failure, safety,
containment, unpublished, etc.), and some highly visual, graphical display of the
completion status on an individual machine basis.
- 37 -
Factory program completion status is calculated as the ratio of programs completed
on a machine-by-machine basis relative to the number of programs that are active and
applicable at the time under consideration. This ratio should be expressed as a
percentage. Programs that are defined as "after failure" should not be included in the
calculation.
Data Source(s):
Factory programs are received on site via the dealer Technical Communications staff
and include all of the information necessary to determine applicability and monitor
their completion status, i.e. program identification number, dates of issue and
termination, and program type. Machine serial number and hourmeter information
obtained from the machine history at the site.
Benchmarks:
Since factors such as parts availability can impact on management's ability to
complete a program and in some cases program execution can be delayed to coincide
with other related work (which may be a valid decision on the part of management),
there is no Benchmark that is applicable to this metric. However, compliance with
this discipline is viewed as critical to the success of a project and common sense
would dictate that a higher percentage of completion of outstanding programs is
desirable. Clearly, no program should be permitted to run beyond its termination date
without being addressed unless it is an after failure only program.
Usage:
Obviously, monitoring the completion status of factory programs enables Project
Management to track the execution status of those programs to ensure their timely
completion. Less obvious, perhaps, is the fact that management can also use this type
of information to determine and verify that programs are available to address those
critical issues identified as "Top Problems" in the Pareto analysis. This analysis can
also be used as input to the Backlog Management and the Continuous Improvement
processes.
Interpretation:
A low program completion percentage, a number of programs that are approaching
their termination date, or the existence of programs that are not planned and
scheduled for execution is indicative of poor management of factory programs. In
addition, if one or more programs are related to issues on the "Top Problems"
summary and are incomplete, management should reprioritize the scheduling and
execution of the program such that it is dealt with sooner.

- 38 -
Action:
If the percentage of factory program completion is low, the organization should
investigate the following:
Review all available information to determine if the shortfall is related to

Planning & Scheduling of the programs or if it is the result of inadequate
execution of the plan.
Take appropriate action to ensure that shortcomings in the Planning &

Scheduling and/ or execution phases of the cycle are re-emphasized and that
timely completion of factory programs receives the attention it deserves.
Has Impact On:
Costs, ... the inability to execute factory programs may result in failures that
include contingent damage that falls outside the scope of the program,
MTTR, ... programs that are implemented on a planned basis are inherently
more efficient since they derive the benefits of the planning process.
Is Impacted By:
Poor planning and / or scheduling, ... inadequate prioritization of programs,
Failure in execution, ... insufficient resources (personnel, shop bays, tooling,

equipment, etc.).
A spreadsheet analysis similar to the one below provides the most visual display of
factory program completion status. Data should be collected, analyzed and reported
on a monthly basis then compared month-to-month to trend improvement in this area.
Product Improvement/Product Support Programs - May /2000
793B Fleet
PS/PI
Percentage Done
Description
When
PI 3366
PI 3370
PS 4223
PS 4955
PS 5288
PS 5308
PS 5478
PS 5488
PS 5513
PS5765
Pending
Install New Software

EPTCII needs to be changed
Install new exhaus systems elbows
Reworking the wastegate
Repair the rear engine mounts
Rotated rod eye bushing
Repair cracks in fabricated wheels
Replacing aftercooler core
Replace the scavenge oil pump
Replacing the steering shafts
Priority
Priority
Before or after
Before or after
After failure
After failure
After failure
After failure
After failure
After failure
Description
When
Replace the Lock Up Valve Spring

Install New Software
EPTCII needs to be changed
Hoist Pump new to be replaced
Engine Blocks Need Needle Peened
Install new exhaus systems elbows
Reworking the wastegate
Repair the rear engine mounts
Rotated rod eye bushing
Replace the scavenge oil pump.
Replacing the steering shafts
Priority
Priority
Priority
After Failure.
Before or after
Before or after
Before or after
After failure
After Failure.
After Failure.
After failure
Pending
Pending
Claims are not registered
Pending
To Be Done at CRC
<Claim is not registered
To Be Done at CRC
Waiting Parts
793C Fleet
PS/PI
PI 30005
PI 3366
PI 3370
PS 20003
PS40174
PS 4223
PS 4955
PS 5288
PS 5308
PS 5513
PS5765
Percentage Done
Claim not registered
Pending
Pending
To Be Done CRC.
Claims are not registered
Pending
To Be Done at CRC
To Be Done at CRC
Waiting Parts
Table 9: Sample PIP / PSP Completion Summary

- 39 -
4.2.
Application / Operational Metrics
4.2.1. Fuel Consumption

Definition:
The fuel consumption (average engine fuel burn rate) for a fleet of equipment,
expressed in volume (gallons or liters) per hour.
Description:
The application that a piece of equipment is used in has a direct impact on the overall
performance of that equipment. Given the fact that applications do change with
respect to haul road grades (grades become steeper or shallower), time spent on grade
(increasing pit depth), haul distances (typically become longer), etc., we would expect
to see variation in application severity over time. These variations will be witnessed
by changes in fuel consumption. With this in mind, it has been determined that
engine life is much more a function of the cumulative amount of fuel burned over its
lifetime than simply by hours on the equipment. Thus average fuel burn rate (engine
load factor) should be considered a key performance indicator for assessing changes
in application severity for the operation of a fleet of equipment.
Maintenance must recognize the impact of changing operating conditions and modify
maintenance practices and maintenance management strategy, e.g. the component
replacement plan, accordingly. If application severity increases, the equipment will
experience accelerated wear resulting in shortened component lives (in terms of
operating hours) and increased costs. Fuel burn rate is one of the best application
severity indicators we know. Ongoing evaluation of mine operations via tracking,
trending and reporting fuel burn rate should be a normal practice of any Maintenance
Department.
Fuel Consumption =
Total Fuel Consumed

Operating Hours
(11)
Data Source(s):
Total fuel consumption during the period can be obtained from VIMS, the ECM or,
on machines not equipped with VIMS, from fuel addition records.
Operating hours are obtained from machine service meter reading. Note, hours
obtained from dispatch systems frequently do not agree with machine SMU due to
coding of production delays, etc. Note that hours taken from machine SMU will be
higher than those taken from dispatch, oftentimes by as much as 10 percent.
- 40 -
Benchmarks:
Since fuel rate is proportional to the relative severity of the application, there is no
Benchmark that is applicable to this metric. However, target fuel rate based on
historical data and / or levels generated from application modeling software such as
FPC or Mine EIA should be known, understood and the actual fuel rate relative to
that target monitored over time as an indication of changes in application severity.
Usage:
Application severity indicators such as fuel rate serve the following purposes: to
understand the application of the equipment, to determine when and why the
application changes, and to adapt or modify the maintenance strategy, when
appropriate, as dictated by changes in the application or operating environment.
Interpretation:
Engine fuel burn rate should be monitored and trended monthly on a fleet basis.
Since these changes are typically very subtle and take place over an extended
timeframe as the mine develops, results should be trended against similar data for the
previous 12-month period and compared to the target fuel rate level (or range)
predicted for the set of site-specific operating conditions used to develop the overall
maintenance strategy and the particular component replacement plan. Since fuel rate
is a primary criteria for forecasting major component life targets (specifically engine
and power train) any change in application severity as indicated by abnormal
variations in the engine fuel burn rate above or below the target should prompt
management to take appropriate remedial action.
Action:
Any deviation in fuel burn rate greater than 10% (above or below) historical levels or
those generated by application modeling software should be known and investigated
as follows:
Examine fuel burn rate on an individual machine basis to verify that deviations
are not related to a problem unique to a small portion of the fleet. (Some
degree of random variation from machine to machine can be expected but any
gross variation may be attributable to some malfunction of the fuel system or
data collection device on a small segment of the overall machine population).
Review the operating conditions in which the equipment is applied to

determine if the deviation above or below target is the result of actual changes
in the operation such that the model used to predict the fuel burn rate target is
no longer valid or if the assumptions made were invalid.
Review the operating conditions to determine if the change is related to a

tendency in the operation or if it is a result of some short term or isolated event.

- 41 -
If the deviation is determined to be long term or even a permanent trend,

management should re-evaluate its maintenance strategy and major component
life targets to verify that they mirror the operating characteristics and
application requirements of the site.
Has Impact On:
Costs, ... of major components taken on a cost per hour basis, maintenance
manpower, and repair facility requirements.
Component lives, ... useful life of engine and major power train components
will diminish as fuel rates increase.
Maintenance strategy, must be monitored and revised periodically to

accommodate changes in application severity indicated by deviations in fuel
rate.
Is Impacted By:
Mine maturation, ... application severity as indicated by increases in fuel burn

rate will increase as the mine develops, e.g. pit depth (maximum vertical lift)
and haul distances increase,
Mine operating efficiencies, ... application severity as indicated by increases in

fuel burn rate will increase with the addition of dispatch systems or loading
tools, i.e. reductions in idle or wait time will result in increases in fuel burn
rate,
Fuel system operation, a malfunctioning fuel system on one or more

machines may produce false indications of change in application severity in
terms of fuel burn rate.
Data should be collected, analyzed and reported monthly. Plotting monthly fuel
consumption versus time over a twelve-month period on an X-Y line graph is an
effective method to demonstrate trends in application severity. (Please see sample
graphic on following page).

- 42 -
240
230
220
210
Fuel Rate - (L/Hr)
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
Predicted Range
120
110
100
Nov-02
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Se p-03
O ct-03
Month - Year
Figure 8: 793 OHT Fuel Burn Rate trend
4.2.2. Payload Management

Definition:
An analysis of payload distribution for a fleet of Off Highway Trucks expressed in
terms of Caterpillars 10/10/20 truck overload policy.
Description:
performance of that equipment. Payload management, the extent to which haul trucks
are operated within safe and commercially acceptable limits, is an important
consideration when assessing application severity. The pressures of ever increasing
production demands have driven the mining industry to employ haul trucks and
loading tools of increasing size and capacity. Furthermore, mines have recognized
that reducing truck-loader pass match, frequently to three to four pass loading, will
yield production advantages, at least in the short term, by reducing the time that the
haul truck sits under the loading tool.
Unfortunately, the factors that tend to benefit production via reduced per unit haulage
costs also tend to reduce a mines ability to manage payloads within recommended
limits thus increasing operating costs due to their adverse impact primarily on the
engine and power train components, structures, the suspension system, dump body
and tires. Other factors such as normal variations in material density and moisture
content, material blast fragmentation, bucket size, loader operator skill level and
material carry-back/ debris add to variability thus complicating the task of payload
management. With this in mind, payload management should be considered a key
- 43 -
performance indicator for assessing application severity for a fleet of equipment and
the equipment manager should be diligent in the ongoing evaluation of a mines
payload management practices through ongoing documentation, tracking, and
trending of payload data.
Payload management can be quantified using one of the following methods:
Actual count analysis data from the Truck Payload Management System
(TPMS) or VIMS-TPMS reports can be used to count the actual number of
loads within each of the ranges defined by the 10/10/20 policy and compared
for compliance with the guidelines specified in the documentation. VIMS
Supervisor also has the capability to evaluate payload management in terms of
a histogram; cell size and cut-off limits are important considerations when
performing payload management analysis using the histogram.
Statistical analysis data from TPMS or VIMS-TPMS reports can also be

used to perform a statistical analysis for loads within each of the ranges defined
by the 10/10/20 policy for comparison with the guidelines specified in the
documentation. Software such as Excel makes this type of analysis relatively
simple. The analysis assumes that the data is represented by a normal
distribution (bell-shaped curve).
Before beginning the user should view a frequency distribution of the data to
verify that the data being modeled is indeed normally distributed since normal
variations and operating practices on a mine can cause the data to follow a bimodal, skewed or other distribution. If this is the case, the model predicted by
the statistical analysis will be invalid.
Once again, the cut-off limit is an important consideration when performing
payload management analysis using the statistical approach. Experience has
shown that ignoring loads that are less than 50% of the target payload will
closely duplicate the actual distribution of data. Eliminating zero and very
small loads is valid since it is the upper limits of the distribution that we are
interested in defining.
Data Source(s):
The specifications for gross machine weights can be obtained from the Caterpillar
Performance Handbook, machine specification sheets, and information contained in
the factory documentation for the 10/10/20 overload policy.
Since empty weights published by the factory represent generic approximations,
actual empty machine weight is best obtained from scale data. Factors such as body
design, tires, optional equipment, and carry-back or other debris accumulation can
have a significant affect on the accuracy of published estimates.

- 44 -
Payload data is obtained from the Truck Payload Management System (TPMS) or
VIMS-TPMS reports.
Benchmarks:
There is no Benchmark that is applicable to the payload management metric. Target
performance should be compliance with the 10/10/20 policy.
There is however a Benchmark that applies to the standard deviation of payloads in a
given population. Best performance that we have documented is a standard deviation
(which defines and limits the shape of the curve) equal to 6 percent of the target
payload. This level of variation among payloads, combined with a reasonably wellmatched bucket to body size capacity is most likely to result in optimum payload
management performance.
Usage:
Application severity indicators such as payload management enable the equipment
manager to gain an understanding of the application of the equipment, to determine
when and why the application changes, and to adapt or modify his maintenance
strategy, when appropriate, as dictated by changes in the application or operating
environment.
Interpretation:
Accurate analysis and interpretation of payload management requires an
understanding of the terminology used to quantify and define it. The target payload is
the difference between the gross machine operating weight and the empty operating
weight. The maximum (never to exceed) gross machine operating weight is 1.2 times
the target payload.
Caterpillars 10/10/20 truck overload policy states that The mean (average) of the
payload distribution shall not exceed the target payload, no more than 10% of
payloads may exceed 1.1 times the target payload, and no single payload shall ever
exceed 1.2 times the target payload. Due to the fact that optimum conditions result
in a payload distribution in which the standard deviation of loads is equal to 6
percent of the target payload, this level of performance represents the best possible
payload distribution in most applications. Hence, in most cases the mean of the
payload distribution will be something less than the target payload in order to achieve
compliance with the 10/10/20 policy. The exception occurs with a truck-loader pass
match of six or more (which compromises production and is therefore relatively rare)
or when trucks are loaded by conveyor.
It should be noted here that because of the distribution required to comply with
10/10/20, 50% of the loads will be less than the target payload and, as such, some
mines may view this as chronic underloading. A better approach is to view payload
management not only in terms of 10/10/20 but also as the percentage of payloads
occurring within a range (+/- 10%) about the target payload. In this case optimum
- 45 -
loading performance within the guidelines of 10/10/20 results in 80% of loads within
range, 10% > 1.1 times target payload, 10% < 0.9 times target payload, and no loads
> 1.2 or < 0.8 times target payload.
Action:
If payload management practices fall outside the limits of the 10/10/20 policy or are
trending in that direction, the equipment manager should investigate as follows:
Analyze payload management on an individual truck basis to determine if one

or more trucks are experiencing problems with the truck payload measurement
system. A malfunctioning system will induce errors that can cause the fleet
distribution to be skewed or perhaps even bi-modal, which will invalidate the
analysis. (Some degree of random variation is to be expected due to the
inherent inaccuracies of the system but gross variations are most likely a result
of system malfunction or calibration errors).
Work with Operations to determine the source of the overloading.

Overloading may be the result of variability in material density, the use of
loading tools of varying size and bucket capacity, or operator training issues.
In addition to TPMS, payload scoreboards and other aftermarket systems are
available to better define and manage the loading process. If the issues cannot
be resolved, the equipment manager should document the problem in writing to
the mine in the context of the MARC or other agreement since, in all likelihood
customer expectations will not be met.
Increase the frequency and quality of structural inspections. Overloading will

result in earlier than expected frame and structural damage particularly when
combined with rough haul roads and high-speed operation. More thorough
inspections will facilitate early detection and repair before failure.
Re-evaluate the component management strategy. Overloading has a

detrimental impact on component lives (and related costs) requiring increased
emphasis on condition monitoring and in some cases a revision of the
component replacement plan.
Review the condition monitoring plans for machine elements such as tires,
brakes and the steering system. Overloading will result in excessive tire wear
and failure due to heat separation, accelerated brake wear, and brake and
steering system overheating and failure. This may require that trucks are
rotated to less severe hauls or perhaps even pulled out of service temporarily
until stabilized and acceptable temperatures can be attained.
Has Impact On:
Production, ... optimized payload management will yield long-term production

advantages that result from better availability and higher speeds on grade. That
is, any short-term production benefits that may result from overloading will be
- 46 -
more than offset by the increase in machine downtime and reduction in loaded
travel speeds that result from overloading.
Maintenance costs, the cost per operating hour of engines, power train
components, structures, the suspension system, dump body and tires as well as
that of maintenance manpower and repair facility requirements will increase
with overloading.
Operating costs, ... fuel consumption and the associated fuel costs per operating
hour will increase with overloading.
Safety, overloading can result in a condition in which the machine is

operating outside the certification limits of the brake and steering systems.
Haul road maintenance, haul road damage as a result of overloading will

increase necessitating additional maintenance.
Is Impacted By:
Payload measurement system operation, ... any malfunction of the payload

measurement system, e.g. system calibration, strut charge, strut sensor
operation, etc., on one or more machines will result in erroneous load data that
will produce false indications of change in for the fleet.
Mine production requirements, ... an availability shortfall or increase in the

production demand may result in intentional overloading in the interest of
short-term production gains.
Operating practices, backing onto the toe of the cut, load placement in the
dump body, and tamping the load with the loader bucket will impact payload
measurement system accuracy. (NOTE: The second gear reweigh feature in
TPMS addresses this issue for capturing payload data, however this is still an
issue when TPMS is used to monitor payload during the loading process).
Material density, normal variations in material density as well as those that

result from variability in seasonal precipitation, i.e. material moisture content,
will complicate payload management control practices.
Truck-loader pass match, while it may yield short-term production

advantages, three to four pass loading will make the task of payload
management much more difficult.
Bucket fill factor, muck pile variation that results from blasting practices
and/or material loadability as well as normal variations in loader operator skill
levels may create problems for payload management.
Bucket-dump body capacity, loader buckets that incorrectly sized to the

dump body will result in problems for payload management.

- 47 -
Payload management data should be collected, analyzed and reported monthly.
Trending monthly payload management data over time for a twelve-month period as
illustrated by the graph below is the most visual and effective method to define trends
in payload management performance.
22%
2.20%
21%
20%
2.00%
19%
1.80%
17%
16%
1.60%
15%
14%
1.40%
13%
12%
1.20%
Management Limit (points below this line meet the "10-10-20" criteria)
11%
10%
1.00%
9%
8%
0.80%
7%
6%
0.60%
5%
4%
0.40%
3%
2%
0.20%
1%
Management Limit (points below this line meet the "10-10-20" criteria)
0%
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Sep-03
Oct-03
Nov-03
Dec-03
Jan-04
0.00%
Feb-04
Mar-04
Apr-04
DATE (Mo-Yr)
Figure 9: Sample OHT Payload Management trend
4.2.3. Haul Cycle Detail

Definition:
An analysis of the operations on a particular haul road layout for a fleet of Off
Highway Trucks that enables the Equipment Manager to isolate the most significant
factors affecting overall fleet performance and costs.
Description:
performance of that equipment. Tracking and reporting application severity
parameters such as haul cycle details should be a normal practice of the Maintenance
Department, specifically the Planning area. Proactive analysis and interpretation of
the trended results should be the first indication to management to initiate a more indepth investigation, e.g. modification of operational practices or of the maintenance
strategy. The reactive alternative is to wait until the equipment tells management
that something in the application has changed through premature component failures.
As is the case with payload management, factors in the haul cycle that tend to benefit
production frequently tend to have detrimental effects on machine performance and
operating costs. With this in mind, haul cycle definition should be considered a key
performance indicator for assessing application severity for a fleet of equipment and
- 48 -
% of Loads > 120% Target
% of Loads > 110% of Target
18%
the equipment manager must be diligent in the ongoing evaluation of operating

practices through his regular documentation, tracking, and trending of the haul cycle.
Haul cycle detail can be quantified using the following methods:
Average haul cycle distance, data from the Truck Payload Management
System (TPMS) or VIMS-TPMS reports can be used to determine the average
haul cycle distance. The average haul cycle distance is the sum of the total
empty and loaded travel distances divided by the count of actual loads hauled
during the period under consideration.
Average haul cycle times, average empty and loaded travel times are
calculated by dividing the total empty and loaded travel times from TPMS or
VIMS-TPMS reports and by the count of actual loads hauled during the period
under consideration. Average idle time is calculated by dividing the sum of the
total empty stop, total loaded stop and total load times by the count of actual
loads hauled.
Average haul cycle speeds, average empty and loaded travel speeds are
calculated by dividing the total empty and loaded travel distances by the total
empty and loaded travel times.
Data Source(s):
Haul cycle data is obtained from the Truck Payload Management System (TPMS) or
VIMS-TPMS reports.
Benchmarks:
There are no Benchmarks that are applicable to the operating haul cycle metrics.
There are however practical limits that apply to operational parameters such as
speeds, grades, and haul distances. The Equipment Manager should use the
assumptions made when the component life plan was established as well as the output
derived from FPC or other application modeling software as the basis for defining
operational targets for the purpose of future comparisons in the event the application
goes beyond those boundaries.
Usage:
Application severity indicators such as haul cycle details enable the equipment
manager to gain an understanding of the application of the equipment, to determine
when and why changes in the application occur, and to adapt or modify his
maintenance strategy, when appropriate, as dictated by changes in the application or
operating environment. Equipment health should always be analyzed in conjunction
with the elements application severity.

- 49 -
Interpretation:
The performance and operating costs of equipment is affected directly by the
operating conditions and application severity that the equipment experiences over the
course of its lifetime. The Equipment Manager must ask himself, How is the
equipment being applied? and be very much aware of the fact that application and
operating conditions do change over time. These changes are typically very subtle
and occur over time, as such, he must recognize when those changes occur and be
prepared to address those changes when they happen.
Many of the elements of application severity are due to equipment operations on the
haul roads that result in changes in haul cycle distances, cycle times and travel
speeds. In general, application severity increases with increases in haul cycle
distances, cycle times and travel speeds. There are however exceptions in that slower
travel speeds may be the result of an increase in the percentage of time on grade
which translates to an increase in application severity and the affect of increases in
the percentage of time at idle is a reduction in application severity. As changes in the
application are detected they should be reviewed in the context of their potential
influence of machine condition and acted upon appropriately.
Action:
If haul cycle metrics indicate a change in application severity, the equipment manager
should act as follows:
If the application is becoming less severe over time, the Equipment Manager
should review the maintenance strategy to determine if increases to the targets
defined in the component life plan are justified and feasible. Often times this is
not practical since major component life targets need to be large enough to
eliminate one rebuild from the machine life cycle. If an analysis of the factors
that brought about the reduction in application severity suggests that the
decrease is due to operational inefficiency, the Equipment Manager may want
to work with Operations to optimize the utilization of the equipment.
If the application is becoming more severe over time but the application-based
parameters for the haul cycle are still within the assumptions used to establish
the component life plan, the Equipment Manager should investigate to
determine the cause(s) of the increase in severity. If the trend indicates that the
increase in application severity is likely to increase beyond expected limits, he
should review the maintenance plan to determine how the increase will impact
component lives in anticipation of modifications to the component replacement
plan. He may also choose to discuss the change and its impact (on component
life expectations and costs) with the mines Operations staff in an effort to
bring the operation back in line with previous assumptions.
If one or more haul cycle-related application parameters have driven

application severity beyond the limits of the established component life plan,
the Equipment Manager must modify his maintenance strategy and the
- 50 -
component replacement plan to accommodate those tougher operating

conditions. He must also bring this to the attention of the mines Operations
group and discuss the implications of the increase on component lives and the
resultant maintenance costs.
Has Impact On:
Production, ... application and operational changes that increase haul distances,
reduce haul speeds or increase the percentage of idle time typically result in
decreased production.
Maintenance costs, the cost per operating hour of engines and power train
components as well as that of maintenance manpower and repair facility
requirements will increase with increases in haul cycle distance and average
speeds. Likewise, a reduction in the percentage of idle time (stopped empty,
stopped loaded and load times) for the cycle may also indicate an increase in
overall application severity since component idle time is far less likely to do
damage to or take life out of most major components.
Component operating temperatures, drive train components will tend to run

hotter and reach their equilibrium operating temperatures more quickly as
travel speeds and haul distances increase and idle times decrease.
Operating costs, ... cost per ton tends to increase with increases in haul cycle
distance since fuel consumption and the associated fuel costs per operating
hour will increase with haul cycle severity.
Tire lives, tire temperatures and resultant heat-related tire failures increase
with speed (and payload). Increases in average travel speeds, longer one-way
hauls, and reduced idle (cool-down) time all have the effect of increasing
application severity.
Is Impacted By:
Mine maturation process, ... as mines mature haul cycle distances tend to
become longer and pits become deeper (increased vertical lift). As a result, the
impact of the application becomes more severe in terms of its influence on fleet
performance and costs.
Grades, application severity increases as grades and the percentage of time

on grade increase.
Haul road maintenance, substandard haul road surfaces and increases in

rolling resistance have adverse affects on travel speeds, production and
application severity.
Dispatch system, the addition of a dispatch system should reduce the

amount of idle time that the fleet sees. Thus, as dispatch improves operational
- 51 -
efficiency, application severity increases since a smaller portion of each

operating hour will be spent at idle.
Data for quantifying the haul cycle should be collected, analyzed and reported monthly.
Trending the information monthly data over time (twelve-month period) as illustrated by
the graph below is the most visual and effective method to detect and define trends in
application severity related to the haul cycle. Overlaying the fuel consumption graphic
with a plot of the haul cycle detail (empty travel, loaded travel & idle times) is an
effective method for determining cause-effect relationships.
10
50
45
40
Empty Trave l Spe e d
35
30
25
20
Speed - (km/hr)
Distance - (km)
Cycle Distance
15
Loade d Trave l Spe e d
10
0
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Se p-03
O ct-03
Nov-03
De c-03
Jan-04
Fe b-04
Mar-04
0
Apr-04
Figure 10:Haul Cycle Distance and Speed trends

280
15
14
260
13
Loade d Trave l Time
Time - (mins)
Fue l Rate
240
11
Idle Time
10
220
Fuel Rate - (L/hr)
12
8
200
7
Empty Trave l Time
6
5
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Se p-03
O ct-03
Nov-03
De c-03
Jan-04
Fe b-04
Mar-04
180
Apr-04
Figure 11:Haul Cycle Time and Fuel Rate trends

- 52 -
4.3.
MARC / Customer Satisfaction Metrics
4.3.1. Contractual Availability

Definition:
The ratio of time that a machine is capable of functioning in the intended operation
(available hours) to total calendar hours in the period under consideration, expressed
as a percentage. The calculation of available hours is not a pure calculation since the
result is amended by downtime hours that are specifically excluded or limited by the
terms of the contract.
Description:
Contracts are written largely to ensure that production equipment is available for
operation a sufficient number of hours to enable the mine to meet its production goals
at a reasonable, predetermined operating cost. The specific provisions of a
contractual availability guarantee vary significantly from site to site, i.e. time that the
contractor will be given credit for (available hours), time that the contractor will be
held accountable for (contractual downtime), as well as specific exclusions, e.g. tires,
dump bodies, welding, etc. are defined in detail in the contract. Furthermore,
contracts frequently specify caps or limits on downtime that apply to things such as
delays waiting on facilities, repair equipment and or other support infrastructure that
the contractor is not expected to provide and has little control over. Because these
exclusions and limitations vary so widely from one site to the next, it is not possible
to link performance in this area to any kind of Benchmark nor does it make any sense
to attempt to make comparisons from one site to the next.
As mentioned previously, contractual availability formulae vary significantly from
site to site thus there is no unique calculation method that is applicable across the
board. Calculations for contractual availability are typically made using the
following general form:
Contractual Availability (%) =
Total Calendar Hours - MARC Downtime Hours

X 100 (12)
Total Calendar Hours
It is worthwhile to note that the determination of MARC Downtime Hours contributes

to the lack of standardization as does the use of Total Calendar Hours. Many sites
choose to use Scheduled Hours rather than Total Calendar Hours while others exclude
Operational Delay Hours from the calculation of Available Hours. Since both of the
elements in the equation are subject to individual site interpretation, the results can be
highly variable.

- 53 -
Data Source(s):
Total calendar hours is equal to the total time in the period to be analyzed, e.g. 8760
hours / year, 720 hours / 30 day month, 168 hours / week, etc.
If the available hours calculation involves the combination of operating hours, standby hours, production delay hours and operational delay hours (as it does in many
instances), that information can be obtained from the machine service meter reading
and information coded within the dispatch system.
MARC downtime hours are obtained from the machine workorder history as well as
the dispatch system. Dispatch information must be used to account for downtime that
is not accompanied by a workorder. It is essential that the machine repair history
contain detail sufficient to determine if individual downtime events are excluded from
the MARC downtime calculation.
Benchmarks:
There is no Benchmark that is applicable to the Contractual Availability performance
metric. Target performance should be compliance with the provisions defined within
the contract or, in the absence of a contract, with customer expectations.
Usage:
While it is a valid indicator of customer satisfaction, Contractual Availability has
very little value as an equipment management tool due primarily to the lack of
standardization in calculation methodology. It can be beneficial to monitor
Contractual Availability over time in conjunction with the Availability Index to detect
trends in performance that can enable the equipment manager to take appropriate
preemptive actions.
Interpretation:
Interpretation of Contractual Availability is very straightforward in that performance
trending downward toward or falling below target levels implies that some type of
corrective action(s) be taken. Availability Index is the equipment management tool in
this case thus the interpretation is common to both metrics.
Action:
If Contractual Availability is trending toward or falls below contractual guarantee, the
equipment manager should investigate as follows:
Analyze the Availability Index to determine if the decline or shortfall is the

result of frequency (MTBS) or duration (MTTR) of machine downtime events.
Assess performance on an individual machine basis to determine if the shortfall

is the result of overall fleet performance or if it is related to the performance of
a small percentage of the machines in the fleet.
- 54 -
Perform a Pareto analysis to define the cause of the shortfall on a component or

system basis.
Once the causes of the problem have been identified, .he equipment manager is
in a position to devise corrective actions or, at minimum containment strategies
until corrective actions can be identified.
Has Impact On:
Customer Satisfaction.
Production.
MARC financial risks, falling below the target may require the payment of
penalties or guarantees defined in the MARC agreement.
Is Impacted By:
MTBS & MTTR, since availability is a direct result of frequency and

duration of downtime events.
Asset Utilization, since low utilization sites tend to exhibit higher

availability and vice versa.
(Please see contributing factors in the previous sections on MTBS and MTTR.)
Contractual Availability data should be collected, analyzed and reported monthly. If
Contractual Availability is in decline or has dropped below guaranteed target levels, it
may be necessary to collect and analyze the data on a daily basis in order to track
progress of corrective actions and to reconcile performance. Trending monthly
Contractual Availability data over a twelve-month period in conjunction with MTBS,
MTTR and Availability Index as illustrated by the graph on the following page is the
most visual and effective method to define trends in performance.

- 55 -
40
100%
35
98%
30
96%
25
94%
20
92%
Target Contractual Availability
15
90%
10
88%
86%
0
Nov-02
Contractual Availability & Availability Index
MTBS / MTTR - (hours)
84%
Dec-02
Jan-03
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
May-03
Jun-03
Jul-03
Aug-03
Sep-03
Oct-03
Month - Year
Figure 12:Contractual Availability trend

- 56 -
Delay Code
Development & Usage
Delay Code Development and Usage:

Machine delay codes are used to identify and track machine utilization and to document
inefficiencies related to delays for mobile equipment in mining operations. These codes
have different usages within the various mine departments. As a result, their definition,
function, and usefulness may be diluted or even negated by a lack of understanding of
their value and utility within the equipment management system.
This document defines delay codes and their usage and provides guidance on how better
to structure a delay code system to aid the management of mobile equipment.
Machine Utilization and Delay Tracking:

Mines typically use two systems to track machine delays. Production control systems
such as Modular Mining, WENCO and MineStar are used by the Operations
Department to track production delays when a machine is mechanically available. A
second system used by the Maintenance Department addresses work order control and
has delay codes built into its structure related to field and work shop operations when a
machine is mechanically unavailable.
Getting the two systems to produce merged reports is only becoming possible with
modern data base systems. Historically, someone in the mine administrative area
merges reports from the two systems manually off line. Reconciliation of delay hours is
frequently a low priority and management tends to look at each system independently.
This approach allows delay coding to exist in parallel and does not force anyone to
address coding accuracy and recording processes. As such, much of the knowledge and
benefits that could be gained from this effort are lost and insight into problems affecting
the operation is minimal.
To define delay codes and identify where in the organization they should be captured
requires a basic understanding of what happens to a productive hour in typical mining
operations. Table 1 below reflects a basic breakdown of available hours to define usage
for mobile equipment. Delay code structure should be designed to define machine
status with respect to the mines management of hours within a structure defined in line
with this table.
Table #1
January 2005
version 1.0
- 57 -
Delay Code
Development & Usage
Systems, Coding, and Process Integration:
It is unlikely that a mine will throw out its current information management systems and
replace them with new state of the art systems. It is simply not economically viable.
Therefore, in all likelihood we must live with two systems (production control and work
order control) as they are today. To do this, we must establish a relationship between
the two systems. In most cases, the production system should take priority to track
delay codes relating to top-level machine utilization figures.
Code lists 1, 2 & 3 are a suggested list of codes to be used by the production control
system to monitor machine status. These codes have been distilled from a mix of code
lists observed on working mines throughout the world. You can have more or less
codes than the suggested list. The key is to keep them simple, clear and meaningful to
your day-to-day operations. Experience has shown that to have too many codes leads to
excessive data dilution and discourages use of the system by operators.
A completely separate code structure is needed to monitor delays within the work order
control system. Code List 4 provides a suggested list of what those codes should be.
Again, it is important to have sufficient codes to clearly identify the reason for any
delay but excessive coding will again lead to data dilution and a general lack of
usefulness for the system.
January 2005
version 1.0
- 58 -
Delay Code
Development & Usage
These work order system delay codes should not be confused with machine component
codes, which are used to identify those areas of the machine on which you are
performing work. The work order system will use this separate coding structure to
provide Pareto Analysis on those components causing the most cost, downtime, and
delays. The maintenance and repair delay codes are intended to overlay the component
/ system coding structure to facilitate an understanding of the impact of those delays on
repair efficiency.
Report Generation and Nesting of Information:

Daily reporting should identify to mine management all key performance indicators
which relate to machine availability and utilization. Referring to Table 1, elements
within Code Lists 1, 2 & 3 should be managed within the production control system.
Alerts or other report flags should be built into the production system reporting structure
to raise managements attention to out of norm conditions. The extent of delay needs
to be quantified, the source(s) defined and, if it is excessive, a corrective action plan put
in place to keep machines in service.
By their very nature, the majority of delays within Code List #4 imply unscheduled
maintenance and repair activity. Scheduled events should be included but should not
necessarily raise any significant red flags to demand action. On the other hand,
unscheduled events should ring every alert possible to draw focus on situations
requiring management intervention.
A report needs to be developed which will provide an analysis of delays recorded within
the production system (Code Lists 1, 2 and 3) and those delays recorded in the work
order system. Basically, all delay time recorded against Code Lists 1, 2 and 3 in the
production control system as well as those recorded in the work order control system
(Code List 4) should be analyzed to determine which areas are having the greatest
impact on machine downtime (lost production). If the information is not used in this
way, it has little value and is likely not worth the effort.
January 2005
version 1.0
- 59 -

for Large Off Highway
Trucks
Generic Pareto Reference for Large Off Highway Trucks:

The most successful mining support operations are those that have a clear understanding
of the problems and issues they are facing. The identification and quantification of
problems by component (e.g. engine, transmission, ), system (e.g. hydraulics,
electrical, ) or even process (e.g. PM) facilitates an understanding of the influence
each is having on the final outcome enabling management to focus its attention and
resources on key areas that will derive the maximum benefit.
Unfortunately there are no Benchmarks that are applicable to this kind of measurement.
However a collection of guidelines for large Off Highway Trucks in the 785 793 size
class is available to evaluate actual site performance in terms of MTBS, MTTR and
impact on Availability. While not actually benchmarks, the information contained in
this reference defines what we believe to be a reasonable level of acceptability for
frequency of downtime events (MTBS), duration of downtime events (MTTR) and
impact on Availability for each of the major areas on the machine.
The data is representative of a site operating at an Availability Index of approximately
90% and is, of course, generic since actual results achieved at any given mine are sitespecific because results of this kind are a function of not only application severity but
also of the operating environment, the maintenance the equipment receives and product
design shortcomings that are particular to machines either by model or within a given
range of serial numbers.
The table on the following page provides a baseline that can be used as a reference until
individual site experience and history can be documented. Using it to generate and
perform a top problems distribution analysis enables Project Management to identify
and prioritize critical issues affecting success of the project for investigation and
resolution.
January 2005
version 1.0
- 60 -

for Large Off Highway
Trucks

Large OHT's (785-793)
Component / System
ref. MTBS
(hours)
ref. MTTR
(hours)
ref. Availability
Impact (%)
Accidents
Air System & Starting
Air Conditioning
Auto Lube System
Base Machine
Brakes & Brk System
Cab / Operator Station
Chassis
Cooling System
Differential
Dispatch System
Dump Body
Engine
Filters
Final Drives
Front Wheels
Hoist System
Hydraulic System
Mirrors
miscellaneous
PM
Steering System
Suspension
Switches & Sensors
Tires & Rims
Torque Converter
Transmission
unknown
6750
2100
6650
6100
4000
1200
450
2850
1300
6950
800
3750
1250
550
2800
2100
6150
1350
1250
850
750
250
1950
3150
1950
550
7250
900
5850
28.00
2.80
0.30
0.90
0.30
6.00
2.60
7.00
5.10
12.90
0.60
6.90
1.90
9.90
1.30
12.20
5.30
3.10
4.90
0.20
2.70
7.70
6.20
9.40
1.90
3.20
5.10
5.30
6.20
0.37%
0.12%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.45%
0.52%
0.22%
0.35%
0.17%
0.07%
0.16%
0.14%
1.61%
0.04%
0.52%
0.08%
0.21%
0.35%
0.02%
0.32%
2.76%
0.29%
0.27%
0.09%
0.52%
0.06%
0.53%
0.10%
"BASE MACHINE":
Includes ladders, hand rails, sheet
metal, brackets and other
miscellaneous areas of the machine
not covered by one of the description
codes in the list.
CAB / OPERATOR STATION:
This description code includes
cab, windshield, seat,
windows, etc.
ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICAL:
Includes electrical / electronic
components & systems, e.g.
lighting, VIMS, wiring harnesses,
connectors, etc.
ENGINE:
Includes all engine and enginerelated components and systems
not covered by another
description code, e.g basic
engine, air intake & exhaust, fuel
system, etc.
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM:
This description code includes all pumps,
hydraulic actuators, hoses, lines, oil coolers,
tanks, etc not included in another description
code.
"MISCELLANEOUS":
Includes any shutdown event that
is not covered by one of the other
description codes.
NOTE: MTTR = 15.40 hours for a 500
hour PM interval. In other words, if
MTBS for PM = 500 hours, MTTR =
15.40 hours.
"UNKNOWN":
Stoppage is unidentified or data is
unavailable. An excessive number of
unknown events is an indication of
inadequate recordskeeping
practices.
January 2005
version 1.0
- 61 -

CAT Performance Metrics For Mobile Mining Equipment Version 1.1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CAT Performance Metrics For Mobile Mining Equipment Version 1.1 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

3. Terminology & Definitions

3.2.1. Total Calendar Hours

4. Top Tier Metrics

Equipment Maintenance Management Metrics

Mean Time Between Shutdowns

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Application / Operational Metrics

4.2.1. Fuel Consumption

MARC / Customer Satisfaction Metrics

4.3.1. Contractual Availability

Delay Code Development and Usage

Generic Pareto Reference

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Management without metrics is, in reality, management by intuition. Benchmarking is

How are we? Where do we stand today?

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Terminology & Definitions

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Figure 1: Elements of time for mining operations

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Time that a machine is capable of functioning in the intended

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Top Tier Metrics

4.1. Equipment Maintenance Management Metrics

MTBS (hours) = Operating Hrs + Production Delay Hrs*

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Excellent; high % of scheduled downtime; Equipment Mgmt. organization is highly proactive.

Acceptable; majority of downtime is scheduled; substantial emphasis on Equipment Mgmt.

Fair; < 40% downtime is scheduled; minimal effort on Equipment Mgmt.

Table 1: Site performance through range of MTBS

D10 / D11 TTTs

992 / 994 WLs

Table 2: MTBS guidelines for mining machines

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

Investigate on the basis of individual machines. Pareto applies here and we

Use Pareto to determine which areas of the machine (components or systems)

Analyze machine history records to determine if unscheduled stoppages are

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

high, investigate to determine cause(s) of premature stoppages and adjust the

Fleet availability & resultant production

Chronic machine defects (lack of containment strategy)

Figure 2: MTBS trend versus target for large OHTs

copyright 2005 Caterpillar Inc.

Performance Metrics for Mobile Mining Equipment

4.1.2. Mean Time To Repair (MTTR)