Get more from your Ground Engaging Tools (GET)

If you’re involved in earthmoving, then you probably need at least some understanding of Ground Engaging Tools – or GET. It’s something we take very seriously because we have firsthand experience on projects where getting it right made the difference between just breaking even and exceeding forecast cost rates.

The role of GET in your production rates

While many projects get their GET right, there are just as many that don’t. Too often, we see plant hire agreements where the client has sought the easy way out by specifying that all GET is to be supplied by the plant owners. Placing responsibility on a supplier might be fine for GET elements that have little to no impact on production rates, like shank protectors on a dozer or a straight edge on a scraper, but when it’s for GET elements that directly impact production rates, like excavator teeth or ripper boots, leaving it to suppliers is tricky territory.

For GET elements that directly impact production rates, such as the teeth and boots I just mentioned, there is nearly always a trade-off between production and longevity. The more aggressive the GET shape, the better your production rates will be, but the lower the lifespan too. When you make the plant owner responsible for supplying GET, what do you think they will do? It’s natural they will fit GET that have longer lifespans because that lowers their costs. As a result, you the user end up working with a machine that’s running below its optimum.

Engage your supplier in solving the challenge

So how can this be managed? In our experience, it’s all about communication. Tell your supplier you want to maximise production and are willing to work with them to achieve that goal. Often the easiest solution is to fit GET on a ‘cost plus’ contract model. That way, neither party needs to take extra commercial risk.

Use trials to inform decisions

The next step is to look at trials. When we trial GET, we’ve seen instances where adopting aggressive GET that lasts only a single shift is the most cost-effective option from a $/bcm perspective. Whenever we trial GET, we keep a few things in mind:

Time – does the project have sufficient time to trial and evaluate options? Remember, we need to attack the same material with differing GET to gain meaningful results. Anything less than a full day of production with each type is unlikely to produce useful data. We recommend targeting at least three days with each option.
Preparation – what options are available and can you have them all on site at the right time for the trial? To keep it simple, having three different options is typically plenty to start with.
Monitoring – how will you measure production? It’s common to compare loads per hour or ripping depths but, if you can, consider a survey pickup.
Evaluation – can you show senior managers so they can inform the final decision? For this we suggest filming trials so you can record meaningful comparisons. As you’re making your final decisions, remember the golden rule with earthmoving is to minimise the energy expended. Don’t forget to account for extra fitting times and standby times if you are considering very aggressive options.