Fuel Economy

http://www.schwing.com/home/Schwing_Fuel_Test.pdf

I was told to run my schwing wide open when pumping, it is a 2007 32 XG. Is this true ?

All pumps are designed to operate at the maximum rpm as set by the manufacturer.  This setting matches the peak engine HP to the rpm the pumps are supposed to run at (usually 2150 rpm).  Both of these requirements are maintaned via the ratio of the gearbox.  Both the engine and the hydraulic pumps are designed to operate at X rpm  running the pumps at an rpm higher or lower than this can and will damage the units. 

art I operate the new schwing 52z my pump has an automatic feul selector in the cab when I engage the PTO it sucks feul from the outrigger therefor I can run offroad diesel. When I disengage the PTO it aotomaticly switches back to the saddle tanks while driving.

shrek52z

That is the way it is supposed to be done.

When will the rest of the mfg's figure it out?

EVER???

read the fuel test by schwing ,let me say i am a schwing man,but it seemed all the competitors pumps had larger engines,doesn't seem like a very fair test,show me same pump size, same engine size, and that would give a fair comparison.

Todd was that sarcasm or is Schwing really a sponsor,being I don't see any Schwing adds on this site.

No i was not Joking, Schwing runs a large campaign with us almost every year, right now they sponsor 100% of our video site. http://video.concretepumping.com/

its funny that site always does really well, right now 1102 people are watching videos as i am typing. Schwing is still the biggest contributor to my combined web sites. I have 3,

ConcretePumping.com, video.concretepumping.com and the photo site, yes they are all linked but they make a great trio.

Here is what i have heard, 

The PM closed loop system draws more horsepower and therefore burns more fuel.  Its not about how much horsepower the truck has, but rather how much horsepower is used to pump the concrete.  If anyone else has any results that differ than that please let me know. I wonder if PM any stats?

Right now the diesel prices are about $4.40 a gal here in Ventura ca.

Fuel Consumption:  This I couldn't believe.   Went out of town for a series of pours. filled up just before I pulled on job Thursday.  Pumped apartment slab 6 hours (set up to wash out complete) 140 yards. 3 DAYS consecutively then filled up 29 GALLONS!!!! for 3 140 yard pours totle 18 hours.  Less than 2 gls.per hour!! this on older shwing with 275 h.p...

Surprised me never checked pumping with no drive time.

And yes I run high gear and 1400 rpm to get same pto speed

Brundage Bone Independent Fuel Test

Over the last five years we have seen the cost of diesel fuel nearly quadruple in price. This has been compounded with the inability to receive the substantial tax refunds for off road fuel consumption that we were able to receive in the past but are now unable to realize because of changes in the IRS tax laws. Fuel economy in the past had not been of great concern to us but as the cost of fuel has gone from 2.5% of our gross revenues in 2003 to over 10% and rising it has come to the forefront of our endeavor to efficiently operate our business.

There has been much conversation over the last six months about better fuel economy of one brand of concrete pump over another. It is no secret that in a documented test published by Schwing that they claim to get as much as 63% better fuel economy than an unnamed competitor. Prior to Schwing publishing the findings of their test on fuel economy we received the test procedures and results. After reviewing the procedure of the test and their findings it caused enough concern within our organization that we determined that we should do our own independent test to determine for ourselves if there is reason to believe that one manufacturer had a concerning fuel economy advantage over the other. The results of this test would determine the direction of our quest to improve fuel economy in general.

Currently BBCP operates several hundred Schwing and several hundred Putzmeister concrete pumps so it stands to reason that we would match them against each other for our test.

Test #1

We chose a mid size pump for our first test with similar boom lengths, common pipe size and identical years and engine sizes. Our only concern with our selection was the pump kits giving Schwing a slight advantage because of the greater concrete material cylinder volume causing the Putmeisters valve to shift more frequently.

Procedure:

Both pumps were serviced in the yard the morning of the test changing all filters.
Both pumps were pressured out to bring oil temperatures up to working ranges.
Both pumps were primed and pumping for several minutes into each other in similar boom configurations and then both trucks were turned off for fueling.
Both trucks were fueled carefully ensuring that tanks were filled to capacity.
Both trucks had the Mack trip module reset.
With the precision of an orchestra maestro both trucks were started and brought up to 1600 RPMs.
Pumping began.
Every half hour each truck and pump was inspected for:

• Truck RPM
• Truck water temperature
• Truck oil pressure
• Pump hydraulic pressure
• Pump temperature

Finish Pumping (3 ½ hrs.)
With the same precision as start up turn off pump, idle down truck and shut down engine
Run report off truck computer
Fuel the trucks with a mobile fueling truck with the same care as previous fueling.

Results: The certified fuel receipts from the supplier showed 22.2 gallons of fuel used by the Schwing and 21.4 gallons of fuel used by the Putzmeister showing in this test that the Putzmeister was 3% more fuel efficient than the Schwing.

Conclusion: The result from this test indicates to us that the fuel consumption of the two main brands of concrete pumps which we use is very similar. We will conduct one more test in the future to confirm our findings and we will post the results of that test as well. We will continue our efforts to find efficiencies in our fuel consumption treating this as an industry concern not focusing on a particular brand of concrete pump.

I agree with Art on those rpms.....I keep it low and smooth....less fuel consumption, less bounce, less stress on parts, less noise, more time on the clock, smoother pour, nice relaxed pace.....

Just looking from a pedestrian standpoint.

What the mfg supplies in the way of a power plant is what you get. If brand X has (???) hp engine and brand Y has a (???) hp engine, the hp difference is not the issue; the mfg is the difference.

In response, all realize that engines make power in two ways torque and horsepower.  It is imperative that the hydraulic pumps run at a certain rpm as set by the manufacture to ensure the oil exchanges at the proper rate, failure to do so causes damage in many area’s, bottom line. It is the torque that provides the power and the horsepower that delivers the rpm’s.  All Concrete Pump manufactures are captured by the truck chassis and engine manufactures and we have to adapt to what is available. Over the years we have taken the Tim the Tool Man approach “More Power”. Now we re-think this as we go from muscle to efficiency.   Sound familiar? Remember the 454-V-8 to a 4 cylinder, just the thought would make any guy sick, for us that would never be caught in a 4 banger, we now all have them. 

Manufactures need to hear from all, as to what is wanted/needed and not to produce products that do not meet the market needs.  I think of all the owners of pumps that have units that never or rarely pump over 100 cubic yards an hour but yet they must have a machine that does 200 + yards per hour. (tim the tool-man)  Except on large commercial projects how many of you can depend on the ready-mix supplier to give you more then 100 cy’s per hour or how many placement crews can handle that  ( I know there are always hero’s)

Does it make sense ???  I now often hear about how an old 275 hp truck in the fleet that gets great fuel efficiency and pumps just fine, It’s the workhorse, but just a few short months ago, a 275 hp truck, no way not me, not enough power to get down the highway. Also during those days of when a  275 hp engine was used anyone remember a concrete sales quote from a ready mix company 3000 psi mix and a 3000 psi “pump-able” mix.  So where do we go from here ???  

We all build/built muscle machines and said it will pump any thing, no need for the two different mixes. (tim the tool man).  Typical concrete mixes are designed 1^st to meet a minimum water/cement ratios to achieve strength psi of a specification written by a PE,  Ready Mix producers design and adjust the mix matrix to make the best economy for themselves while meeting the required spec, these adjustments in the balance delta to make 27 cubic feet of material (1 cubic yard) allows them to add items like admixtures the make air ( 6% air - that’s right its air space taking up 6% percent of 27 cubic feet of total material in the mix ) / water reducers (reduce your water/reduce your cement need) and other chemicals and adjust the coarse and fine aggregate amounts to make the best economy.  It’s simply a task make a mix that will finish and meet the strength and durability requirement at the least expense and not a penny more.  For any of you that are in the ready mix business you know what a true cut throat business it is, a simple nickel a yard can lose you the job, all talk service but have to sell on price.   If the placement contractor requires a mix that will do other things, setup quicker – retard- flow- higher durability - or pump better (less stress, less hp, better fuel economy)  they can do that, but at an extra cost to them and we all know how that goes. 

Could/would/should the billing rate of a 36 or whatever meter with muscle head power and a high output 200 cy per hour or more bill higher then a 36 meter with lesser output, why not there are operational costs differences. 

As shown in this recent published test their are smaller pump cells that can be used on most pumps and are available from most manufactures who design and build their own products and they require less engine power, hence better fuel efficiency (454 vs. 4 banger).  So when you make comparisons make it apples to apples, don’t compare like “looking” machines but have different years or mechanical characteristics.  I think we called this snake oil salesmanship or smoke and mirrors.    

You can’t always burn rubber with these smaller pump cell machines, but you will get there.  In many countries you will find booms that output of 120cy’s is not uncommon and seem to work just fine.  No I am not saying this may be the right direction for some or the big booms, but again we all see a lot of 40 meters and under that never or rarely see half of their output potential.

It’s like this; You can rent the same car in a standard model and a GT model, both still the same basic car and will get you from point A to B, you voluntary opted to pay more but you knew the laws/limits for speed and safety, so the GT is 95% all show and limited on the available of it’s true potential go……… it may be built on the same basic platform but totally different in mechanical, performance and operating costs.  

For most this industry is a rental business, choices to your operational costs are openly made on your call ,  Testing and looking for better ways is a very good thing, and it great this is being done as we all need to do so,  we can test – test and retest and all get different results to present as their are many variables to consider.  Be sure to read all test data carefully and fully understand what you are comparing and ask questions to the tester on how it was done and any possible things that you may not understand and ask if there was an independent certifying agency on record as witness to the test.     

Bob Miller

CIFA USA, Inc.   

I like the idea of working a machine at 50% of capacity.

If the valve only shifts 10 to 15 times per min the wear parts are going to last a long time ($$$)

 When you run ANYONES pump at 100% it is a heat generator - at 50% it is a sweetheart. All that heat is wasted energy ($$$)

And when it is time to kick ass you need the capability.

When you pump concrete, you are burning up more than just fuel.

Give me a big pumpcell every time. ;~)

Bob I agree with You !

I have a Schwing 2525 longrock and it pumps much smoother and less boombounce....

When it was new I was told that i should run it at full rpm (1650 rpm) (VOLVO D12 420 hp 2000 n/m) for the oilflow....

But I reduced the rpm down to arond 1000-1100 rpm and on a 8 hour pour it went from about 2/3 tank of diesel to 1/3 tank (300 liter tank) saved about 80-100 liter in 8 hour ! and we dont see some damage of the hydraulicpumps...

The last oilsample didnt show some strange particels in the oil....And I have run it so for 6 year now...many liter of diesel has been saved ! Many dollars has been saved ! Probably have We saved more than what a couple of hydraulicpumps cost to change....

The older "single circuit" machines needed to run at the mfg' suggested RPM. If you slowed the engine down they had too much of a lazy shift - or not complete shift. Todays machines all have an accumulator circuit of some sort and perform very well at below the suggested RPM levels. The boom pumps (hyd) seem to be sized to operate well at lower RPM as well.

As far as I am concerned, Vasa, you have the right idea. ;~)

The test that I want to see is as follows:

pump #1 = Big 300yph kick ass pump cell and 400 or 450 HP engine

pump #2 = Small, candy ass pump cell and economy sized engine

Pump from one to the other @ 100yph(3)

Who uses more fuel?

Who wears out the valve and wear plates

Which pump is the real winner.

I ask this because I do not know; but I expect the big pump cell to win the day.

     Oh Bob,you and Many know more than anyone else,it ain't the caliber......it's the placement that counts..........

Biz,

I am an EFP

Earth First Pumper

open loop rules!!!

Bob,did I hear my name mentioned.But I didn't do anything!!!.

I personally like the 350 engine but prefer a 13 spd to the 9 spd.This allows for better highway driving in mountains.I would be inclined to say up to a 42m,weight compareable.

60 to 80 yds an hour is like rocking chair pumping,loved it.Less mental fatiuge and less time in shop.

Mr Miller made some very agressive statements which makes good sense.The one point that comes to my mind is this is a on/off road piece of equipment.With today's speed limits (some 75 mph) it needs to have the ability to at least get close.

An observation of sorts: The OTR trucks have found higher horsepower engines and the use of low profile tires increased the fuel mileage (go figure).

 All Concrete Pump manufactures are captured by the truck chassis and engine manufactures and we have to adapt to what is available.

Perhaps it's time for the manufactures to tell the factories it just ain't good enough fellows.But then I hated castor oil.

Back to nap time.

art and bob you can get fined for running dye fuel in the outrigger tank on the job. the return line goes to the saddle tank and the dye will stay there for months. schwing has been doing the fuel valve for years since the first 52m in the us.

You have lost me (easy to do)

Are you saying that when the Schwing is pulling fuel from the outrigger tank that it is dumping return fuel into the saddle tank........ or........... that if you put OFF ROAD fuel in anyone elses outrigger tank that it would return to the saddle tank??????? I know the answer to the last question, but not the first.

Can you put off road fuel into a Schwing outrigger tank and have it return to the outrigger tank?

we have had both situations return line going to saddle tank and return line to outrigger tank. the main problem comes from when you switch tanks there is still dye fuel in the lines. so if return lines go to both tanks ie when on outrigger return to outrigger then on saddle return to saddle the extra dye in the lines and in the motor will return to the saddle tank. the dye stays in there for a long time to catch people that run dye fuel once in a while to cheat the system.

Splash,

Thanks for the answer. ;~)

I was hoping that someone had isolated the two fuel systems; feed, return, filtration, the works. The idea that the residual 'red' fuel would return to the saddle tanks upon returning to the truck supply pretty much negates that program.

Thanks again

no problem we tried to figure a way of doing it years ago. the only way is the old 2 engine approach. but we all know how that was. tow the pump to the job pump the job and tow it home sometimes.

I REALLY HATE TO WRITE THIS!!!!!!

That makes the Putz trailer a more viable program

Here in Ontario Canada no plates/tags required no circle check required every company runs there pumps on died diesel if the scale is open we dont even have to drive through it if we dont want to. There are no road restriction in fact there are no rules for concrete pumps I have spoken a few times to the MTO here and concrete pumps are refered to as road building equipment.... figure that but The only thing that governs pumps here is the ACPA. and only about 60 % of the companies are members

So yes fuel is expensive died or clear I can pump all day and travel around 150 km in any direction and my average fuel use is about 160 litres and in a average day my stroke time is normally around 2 hrs. It seems I spend more time waiting for concrete than pumping it.

Oh the last thing with the toll highway that runs east and west through the GTA no plates no charge  :o) Ontario has it easy other provinces well some are so harsh you cant even carry water in your tank because you are over weight.

Gravity feed from a tank into a highway vehicle is illegal DOT wise, unless an approved "normally closed" fuel solenoid is included. However, valving is not that big a challenge should the outrigger itself not be fully tested/ approved for its usage in either the USA or Canada.

I'd be more interested to know how new product (broken record right?) chalks up when compaired to pre 2007 dirty trucks. (did I just hear soulful whispers of "Mack / Cat" ?)

I suspect Cummins will keep more operators from experiencing the most extreme of fuel saving situations which is that which takes place when you've achieved a level 4 derate when "regeneration" won't take place and you get towed and parked for some R&D time at the local dealership. Rumour has it that all such visits are "One Week" minimum.

This would be a good time for some hard clear data to surface in order to substantiate those infrequent stories of MRU's mated with MP engines that actually run dependably enough you don't have to stay prepared for that looming boom party.

Well the only way I could see the outrigger tank being easier to use notaxable. Is to use an electric pump with its own return line, teed at the throttle body. It would also need its own filter system but, if it had only a primary and, one secondary filter that would be fine for its intended prupose. That way there wouldnt be enough dyed fuel to really contaminate the hwy tank.

 I love the fule test though. And I agree with most of the operators that running the RPMs as needed for each job is how it is supposed to be. I rarely run flat out on my machine and, have had no problems with it tearing up the hydralic system. I operate a 94" Schwing 32M 1200 and if anything it is better at low revs compared to high. The only major thing I have had to have replaced is the seal on one of the pumps, otherwise my pump has been a champ. But then again this pump is 14 years old so, you kind of expect something to wear out eventually.

Did anyone from the Brundage Bone team pull the information off of the Mack engine software and compare that to their findings?  When you fill a multi-tank unit with fuel, it takes time for the tanks to stabilize.  If you don't wait for this to happen, you might think your tank is full and it really isn't.  This could easily change your numbers on how much fuel a concrete pump uses.  Just a thought for those performing these tests.