68 March, 2015 AgricEngInt: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 17, No.

A comparative theoretical study of three dozers` productivity

Ola Shalaby, M. A. A. Emam*, S. Shaaban and S. El-Demerdash
(Automotive and Tractor Engineering Dept., Helwan University.)

Abstract:Selection of earth moving equipment selected for a specific construction project is critical to the success of thistype
of work. As a step forward for enhancing the information related to such issue this research aims at clarifying the effect of
some dozers` design parameters on their productivity. In this regard, three tracked dozers of high reputation brands are
selected and some of their performance and design parameters are retrieved from manufacturers` published manuals.The
major design parameters we believe are much influencing the have been chosen in the study are; the dozer weight, the dozer
blade type, and blade capacity. The selected bulldozers` are having approximately same power to weight ratio. Empirical
equations for calculating the productivity for each brand have also been developed by using data-fit program. Finally, it has
been concluded that the blade capacity stands as the most significant parameter as the dozer productivity increases by 60% in
average whenever the blade capacity increases by 25%.

Keywords:earth moving equipment productivity, track type dozer, dozing distance, dozer design parameters productivity

Citation: Shalaby,O., M. A. A. Emam, S. Shaaban, and S. El-Demerdash. 2015. A comparative theoretical study of three
dozers` productivity. AgricEngInt: CIGR Journal, 17(1): 68-77.

The major dozer design parameters that might be used

1 Introduction 1

for selecting a proper dozer for a certain job are shown in

The productivity of dozers depends on their rim pull the Table 1; these data are being retrieved from the
which in turn is mainly affected by various parameters performance handbooks of the three dozer brands [1, 2,
such as; the terrain section grade, the rolling resistance to and 3].
dozer motion generated by the soil, the dozer travel speed,
Table 1 Selected design parameters of dozers
and the gear shift used. The main design parameters for from three different brands
selecting an appropriate dozer for a specific job are; the Dozer Dozer Capacity of dozer Blade, m3
designation Weight, kg Semi
dozer weight, the blade type, and the blade capacity. In Universal universal Straight
Brand A
the present study the three tracked dozers of different
A1 113000 43.6
weights, blade dimensions, and blade capacity have been A2 104600 34.4 27.2
A3 66451 22 18.5
used. The estimated productivity of each dozer has been A4 47900 16.4 13.5
theoretically calculated, and the dozer operator basic A5 38488 11.7 8.7
A6 25996 8.34 6.86 5.16
skills, the type of soil, the soil particles gradation, the
A7 25455 8.34 6.86 5.16
type of dozing, and the job efficiency havealso been A8 20580 4.2
considered. Brand B
B1 131350 45
2 Dozer design parameters and productivity B2 102500 34.4 27.2
B3 66990 22 18.5
B4 49850 16.6 13.7
B5 34560 11.9 9.4
B6 38800 11.8 8.8
B7 38700 11.8 8.8
Received date: 2014-11-05Accepted date:2015-01-25 Brand C
C1 35900 11.4 9.1
*Corresponding author:Assoc. Prof. M. A. A. Emam, C2 27000 7
Automotive Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Mataria, C3 20530 5.6 4
Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt., P.O. Box 11718. Email: C4 15010 4.1 3.1
mohemam_70@yahoo.com.
 March, 2015 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 17, No. 1 69

The dozers productivity figures as published in using two types of blades for each dozer (universal and
manufacturers` manuals for various dozing distances, semi universal) are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2 Productivity of dozers from different brands, equipped with universal blade
Dozer Dozing distance, m
Dozer Weight, kg
designation
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Productivity of dozers from Brand A, m3/h
A1 113000 3900 2375 1660 1300 1060 900 800 700 650 600
A2 104600 3450 2000 1450 1100 900 800 650 600 550 500
A3 66451 2300 1300 940 700 600 550 450 400 350 300
A4 47900 1600 950 650 550 450 350 300 290 270 250
A5 38488 1070 650 450 350 300 250 230 200 180 150
A6 25996 930 580 370 300 250 220 180 150 120
A7 25455 850 500 330 260 220 180 150 130 100
A8 20580 580 330 240 180 150 130 100 90 80
Productivity of dozers from Brand B, m3/h
B1 131350 2600 2000 1425 1200 1000 850 775 625 600
B2 102500 2200 1425 1100 900 775 625 580 500 420
B3 66990 2300 1225 810 620 520 425 390 350 300 250
B4 49850 1800 1000 625 500 400 350 300 250 225 200
B5 34560 1050 575 400 300 225 200 175 160 150 120
B6 38800 1000 560 350 250 200 175 150 125 100 80
B7 38700 900 450 300 225 180 150 130 100 80 70
Productivity of dozers from Brand C, m3/h
C1 35900 1250 750 550 420 350 270 230 190 180 160

Table 3 Productivity of dozers from different brands, equipped with semi-universal blade
Dozer Dozing distance, m
Dozer Weight, kg
designation
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
3
Productivity of dozers from Brand A, m /h
A1 113000
A2 104600 2730 1700 1220 950 800 700 600 550 500 450
A3 66451 1900 1180 870 700 580 500 450 380 350 300
A4 47900 1350 850 600 480 380 330 300 270 250 220
A5 38488 800 500 380 300 240 200 180 150 140 120
A6 25996 680 430 320 270 230 200
A7 25455 620 400 300 250 210 180
Productivity of dozers from Brand B, m3/h
B1 131350 2800 2025 1575 1225 1025 900 775 700 600
B2 102500 1800 1300 1000 750 600 550 450 400 375
B3 66990 2400 1225 800 600 500 425 375 300 275 250
B4 49850 1800 975 600 425 375 300 250 225 200 190
B5 34560 825 400 250 180 140 100 90 75 50 40
B6 38800 1000 500 350 250 200 175 150 120 100 75
B7 38700 900 450 300 225 175 150 130 100 75 50
Productivity of dozers from Brand C, m3/h
C1 35900 1050 700 500 375 290 250 230 210 180 160
C2 27000 625 390 270 200 150 125 110 100 90 85
C3 20530 425 250 180 140 120 100
C4 15010 325 200 146 105 90 80
 70 March, 2015 Determining physical and aerodynamic properties of garlic to design Vol. 17, No. 1

2.1 Effect of dozer weight of productivity increases as dozer operating weight increases, this is
The weight of the dozer is considered as the operating shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. This is because
weight including operator, lubricants, coolant, full fuel the dozer can push more as its weight increases and this
tank, hydraulic controls and fluids, front pull device and means more material being dozed and pushed so
standard service crankcase guard. It has been found that accordingly the productivity of the dozer increase.
the dozer weight affects its productivity; productivity

4500 15
30
4000
45
Estimated productivity, m3/h

3500 60
3000 75
90
2500
105
2000 120
1500 135

1000

500

0
113000 104600 66451 47900 38488 25996 25455 20580
Dozer weight, kg

Figure 1 Productivity of dozers from different brands, universal blade, Brand A

15
3000 30
45
2500 60
Estimated productivity, m3/h

75
2000 90
105
120
1500
135
150
1000

500

0
108080 66990 49850 34560 38800 38700
Dozer Weight, kg

Figure 2 Productivity of dozers from different brands, semi-universal blade, Brand B

 March, 2015 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 17, No. 1 71

1200
15
1000 30

Estimated productivity, m3/h

45
800 60
75
600 90

400

200

0
35900 26600 20530 15010
Dozer Weight, kg

Figure 3 Productivity of dozers from different brands, semi-universal blade, Brand C

It also can be concluded from the below Figures that A comparison between the dozers` productivity from
the dozing distance affect the dozer productivity; three different brands is shown in Figure 4. The dozers
productivity decreases as the dozing distance increases from each brand and using semi-universal blades are
that can be declared by as longer dozing distance means selected such that they have approximately same power to
more material needed to be pushed so the pushing force weight ratio; (0.0061 to 0.0065). It is clear from Figure 4
needed is bigger and the available force needed for that the dozers from brand (A) have highest productivity.
dozing is less.

2000
Brand A
1800
Estimated productivity, m3/h

1600 Brand B

1400 Brand C
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
15 30 45 60 75 90
Dozing distance, m
Figure 4 Productivity of dozers from different brands, semi-universal blade

2.2 Effect of type of blade on dozer productivity Figure 6 and Figure7. This can be explained as the blade
Effect of type of blade on dozer productivity is dealt capacity increases this means that the ability of the blade
with into two parts: the kind of blade and the capacity of to doze more material increase so correspondingly the
blade. It has been found that the dozer productivity of the productivity of the dozer increases. It is found that the
dozer increase as the blade capacity increase and this is effect of blade capacity is the same for all the three
true for various dozing distance as illustrated in Figure 5, different brands and for different blade types.
72 March, 2015 Determining physical and aerodynamic properties of garlic to design Vol. 17, No. 1

6000
15

Estimated productivity, m3/h

5000 30
60
4000 90
105
3000
120
2000 135

1000

0
43.6 34.4 22 16.4 11.7 8.34 8.34
Blade capacity, m3
Figure 5 Productivity at different dozing distance of dozer equipped with universal blade for brand (A)

4000
Estimated productivity, m3/h

3500
15
3000 30
45
2500 60
2000 75
90
1500 105

1000 120
150
500

0
5 10 15 20 25 30

Blade capacity, m3
Figure 6 Productivity at different dozing distance of dozer equipped with semi universal blade for brand (B).

1200
15
Estimated production, m3/h

1000
30
800
45

600
60

400 75

200 90

0
3.5 5.5 7.5 9.5 11.5 13.5
Blade capacity, m3
Figure 7 Productivity at different dozing distance of dozer equipped with semi universal blade for brand (C).
 March, 2015 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 17, No. 1 73

In Figure 8, the effect of shape of the blade used on universal blade, refer to Figure 9. As the surface area of
productivity is shown. It has been found that the dozers the dozing blade increases, the moved soil material in
from brand (A) equipped with universal blade have the front the blade will be more and accordingly the
highest productivity relative to dozers from the two other productivity of the dozer increases.
brands. This is due to fact that the surface area of the

1400
Estimated production, m3/h

1200 U-Blade

1000 SU-Blade

800
Straight
600

400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Dozing distance, m
Figure 8 Dozer productivity for various dozing distance and with different blade shapes attached

Straight blade

Semi Universal blade

Universal blade

Figure 9 Shapes of various dozer blades

 74 March, 2015 Determining physical and aerodynamic properties of garlic to design Vol. 17, No. 1

3Empirical equations for calculating dozers` Where:

productivity YA = productivity for brand A,
X1 = dozing distance,
In this study, data fit program is used to develop an
X2 = power to weight ratio,
empirical equation for each dozer brand that enables
X3 = width and
calculating its productivity. The dozer data such as;
X4 = blade capacity.
power to weight ratio, shoe width, blade capacity, and
aA= - 0.02027694731,
dozing distance are used as input data. The estimated
bA= -65.01613574,
productivity of the track-type dozer retrieved from dozers
cA= -2.277912459,
manuals has been compared against the results obtained
dA= 0.05894368162
from productivity empirical equations.
eA= 8.364750586.
3.1 Empirical equation for dozer brand A
For developing a productivity empirical equation
A comparison between the estimated productivity
(Equation 1) for dozer brand A, eight different models
retrieved from the performance handbook of dozer brand
were used, and their data have been introduced. Finally
A and the calculated productivity from the above
the following equation has been obtained;
empirical equation is shown in Figure 10 for five dozer
YA= exp (aAX1+ bAX2+ cAX3+ dAX4+eA) (1)
models.

4000
A1
3500 A1 Calculated
A2
3000 A2 Calculated
A3
2500 A3 Calculated
Production, m3/h

A4
2000
A4 Calculated
1500 A6
A6 Calculated
1000

500

0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Dozing distance, m
Figure 10 Comparison between estimated and calculated dozer productivity for brand A.

3.2 For brand B Where;

For developing an empirical equation to calculate aB= - 0.01679468253,
productivity for dozer brand B, seven different models bB= -62.41600132,
were used, and the empirical equation is written as cB= -4.786156406,
following Equation 2. dB= 0.07958380743
YB= exp (aBX1+ bBX2+ cBX3+ dBX4+eB) (2) eB= 9.211688575.
 March, 2015 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 17, No. 1 75

3000
B1
B1 Calculated
2500 B2
B2 Calculated
2000 B3
Production, m3/h

B3 Calculated
1500 B4
B4 Calculated

1000

500

0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Dozing distance, m

Figure 11 Comparison between estimated and calculated dozer productivity for brand B.

A comparison between the estimated productivity and the calculated productivity from the above empirical
retrieved from the performance handbook of dozer brand B equation is shown in Figure 11 for five dozer models.
3.3 For brand C bC= -38.86771788,
For developing an empirical equation to calculate cC= 1.2024502,
productivity for dozer brand C, four different models dC= 0.2207064179
were used, and the empirical equation is written as eC= 4.5772012.
following Equation 3. A comparison is shown between the estimated
YC= exp (aCX1+ bCX2+ cCX3+ dCX4+eC) (3) productivity taken from the performance handbook of
Where; brand C and the calculated productivity from the above
aC= - 0.01830648415, empirical equation for brand C is shown in Figure 12.

1200
C1
C1 Calculated
1000
C2
C2 Calculated
Production, m3/h

800 C3
C3 Calculated
600 C4
C4 Calculated
400

200

0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Dozing distance, m
Figure 12 Comparison between estimated and calculated dozer productivity for brand C.
 March, 2015 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 17, No. 1 76

3.4 Dozer productivity general empirical equation Where;

For developing dozer productivity general empirical a= - 0.0186489297,
equation data of twenty different dozer models from the b= -205.6459675,
brands were used and the following empirical Equation 4 c= -1.374016965,
has been obtained.(see Figure 13) d= 0.05296703336
Y= exp (aX1+ bX2+ cX3+ dX4+e) (4) e= 8.769771788.

4000
C1
3500 C1 Calculated
3000 B1
Productivity, m3/h

2500 B1 Calculated

2000 A1
A1 Calculated
1500
1000
500
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
Dozing distance, m

Figure 13 Comparison between the estimated and calculated productivity for dozers from three brands by using
the developed general empirical

productivity has been increases by 54% and with

4 Effect of dozer design parameters on
reduction of the dozer track shoe width by 12% the
productivity
productivity has been increased by 61%. In case the
By using the productivity empirical equation for brand power to weight ratio has been decreased by 15% the
(A), it has been found that with increasing the blade productivity would be increasing by 7%.
capacity by 25 % the dozer productivity has increased 65% For brand C, the following it has been found that the
approx. dozer productivity increases by 64% with increase of
On the other hand by decreasing of the dozer track blade capacity by 25%, and by reducing the dozer power
shoe width by 12% the productivity has been increased to weight ratio by 15% the productivity increases by 4.3%.
by 25%. Meanwhile, the dozer track shoe width has no significant
Reducing the power to weight ratio by 15% the effect on the productivity.
productivity has been increased by 7.5%. Figure 14 shows the evolution of dozer productivity
Similarly, the empirical equation for brand B has been with variation of blade shape, dozer power-to-weight
used and it has been found that by increasing the dozer ratio, and track shoe width.
blade capacity with same percent as brand A the
 77 March, 2015 Determining physical and aerodynamic properties of garlic to design Vol. 17, No. 1

6000
P1
P2
5000 P3
S1
Calculated productivity, m3/h

S2
4000 S3
BC1
BC2
3000
BC3

2000

1000

0
15 30 45 60
Dozing distance, m

Figure 14 Evolution of dozer productivity with variation of blade shape, dozer power-to-weight ratio, and track
shoe width.

reduced by 15%, the dozer productivity increases by only

5 Conclusions
6%.
Based on some design parameters of tracked dozers
from three different brands, four empirical equations for
References
calculating the dozer productivity have been developed;
Caterpillar performance handbook No.42, Caterpillar Inc, January
one for each brand and the last one is a general equation 2012.
for any brand. Three different dozer design parameters Komatsu performance handbook No. 27, Komatsu Ltd, August
2006.
have been considered in developing these equations; they
New Holland performance handbook, New Holland Construction,
are namely blade capacity, power to weight ratio and
September 2011.
track shoe width. Finally it has been concluded that the Construction planning, equipment and methods, Robert L. Peurifoy,
blade capacity is the most effective parameter that Clifford J. Shexandyer and AviadShapira, 2006.
Construction equipment management for engineers, estimators and
considerably affects dozers` productivity; it increases by
owners, Douglas D. Gransberg, Calin M. Popescu and
60% if its capacity increased by only 25%. The power to
Richard C. Ryan, 2006.
weight ratio has a least effect on productivity as if it is