RE: Notes On EFH
RE: Notes On EFH
RE: Notes On EFH
R u n g e P ty L td
A .B .N . 1 7 0 1 0 6 7 2 3 2 1
B ris b a n e - H e a d O ffic e
L evel 17
C e n tra l P la z a 1
3 4 5 Q u e e n S tre e t
RE: Notes on EFH B ris b a n e Q ld 4 0 0 0
G PO B ox 2774
B ris b a n e Q ld 4 0 0 1
P h : (6 1 7 ) 3 2 2 1 1 8 8 3
F x : (6 1 7 ) 3 2 2 9 3 7 5 6
1 DEFINITION OF EFH E m a il: r u n g e @ r u n g e .c o m .a u
2 USAGE OF EFH
EFH is used as a comparative measure of haulage between routes, schedules and schedule periods.
The purpose for which the EFH will be used should have an impact on how it is calculated.
The advantage of using EFH or Travel Time is that they can more
easily be estimated. Generally an adjustment is made to the available
truck hours to account for the average delays.
It is preferable, however, to use a method for estimating truck hours that accounts for the
full Cycle Time. For example TALPAC Cycle Times and Average Payload or alternatively
Truck Productivity which is derived from them.
3 CALCULATION OF EFH
There are various methods used to calculate EFH, each requiring a different level of effort with
subsequent gain of resolution.
4 EXAMPLES
A simple example may help to illustrate the issue of bias in using EFH for estimating Truck
numbers against a method that uses Cycle Time or Truck Productivity.
Consider a trivial example of a single ramp.
Grade is 10% out of the pit.
Maximum Speed is 40 km/hr.
On flat a loaded or empty truck averages around 30 km/hr taking into account acceleration
and deceleration.
Loaded going up the ramp the truck averages 10 km/hr.
Loading, dumping and queuing are on average 3 minutes per cycle.
For Period 1 the ramp is on average 1000m, for Period 2 it is 2000m.
Period Distance Delays Travel Time Cycle Time Loaded EFH 2-Way EFH
1 1000 3 8 11 3000 4000
2 2000 3 16 19 6000 8000
Ratio 2 1 2 1.7 2 2
According to the Cycle Time increase, 1.7 times the working truck hours (and hence trucks) are
required in Period 2 over Period 1. EFH overestimates this at twice the truck hours.
This example also shows that the 2-Way EFH is not double the 1-Way EFH. This is because the
effect on Travel Time of the grade is more significant for a loaded truck. In this example going
down the ramp has an EFH Factor of 1 whilst going up has and EFH Factor of 3.
In the above example Loaded EFH shows the same increase as 2-Way. This is not necessarily the
case as the longer haul may have a different average profile and therefore speed. For example
consider a variation on the above example when the addition 1000m is flat haul. The average loaded
speed would increase to 20 km/hr with the results below.
Period Distance Delays Travel Time Cycle Time Loaded EFH 2-Way EFH
1 1000 3 8 11 3000 4000
2 2000 3 9.4 12.4 3500 5500
Ratio 2 1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4
-4-
5 RECOMMENDATIONS
We believe the use of ∑ Tonnes * Loaded EFH is a reasonable relative
indicator of total haulage work, with an advantage over Tonne Kms in that it adjusts for differences
in the haulage profiles. In this usage the one way loaded EFH times the total delivered Tonnes is
more appropriate than the round trip EFH.
Truck requirements are better estimated using full Cycle Times, or Truck Productivities that are
derived from them, than EFH or Travel Times. The discussion and examples above demonstrate
how EFH may give misleading results if the average haulage lengths vary from period to period.
Whilst the detailed method of calculating EFH using pairs of TALPAC simulations will give the
best results, we suggest some simple trials to see if Nominal Flat Speeds can be determined that
give reasonable close estimates of EFH by the more simple method of multiplying the TALPAC
Travel Time by the Nominal Flat Speed.