## 5 Validation Experiment and Discussion
### Validation Experiment
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Engine** \\ **Speed** \\ **(RFM)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Initial** \\ **Number** \\ **Volicity** \\ **(m s\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Displacement** \\ **of Wheel** \\ **(m s\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Displacement** \\ **of Wheel loader** \\ **In Section Phase** \\ **(mm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Operation** \\ **In Section Phase** \\ **Phase (mm)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Shoveling** \\ **Weight** \\ **(kg)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Fuel** \\ **Consumption** \\ **(mL)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Average Fuel** \\ **(mL)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Gravel} & \multirow{4}{*}{900} & 1 & 0.56 & 719 & 1690 & 10.99 & 4492 & 53.50 & \multirow{4}{*}{54.50} \\  & 2 & 0.53 & 713 & 1710 & 11.79 & 4602 & 51.91 & 54.50 \\  & 3 & 0.49 & 722 & 1703 & 11.20 & 4570 & 58.09 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & 1 & 0.83 & 702 & 1804 & 12.02 & 4641 & 67.64 & & \multirow{4}{*}{61.97} \\  & 2 & 0.81 & 704 & 1785 & 12.49 & 4713 & 58.68 & & \\  & 3 & 0.81 & 694 & 1748 & 12.55 & 4596 & 59.60 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & 1 & 1.14 & 726 & 1737 & 8.01 & 4388 & 45.09 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & 1500 & 2 & 1.12 & 704 & 1844 & 10.56 & 4414 & 47.30 & 44.59 \\  & 3 & 1.09 & 725 & 1745 & 7.33 & 3770 & 41.38 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Sand} & \multirow{4}{*}{900} & 1 & 0.52 & 826 & 1432 & 10.52 & 4232 & 49.24 & \multirow{4}{*}{49.98} \\  & 2 & 0.47 & 855 & 1342 & 9.85 & 5357 & 50.23 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 0.49 & 819 & 1436 & 9.90 & 5207 & 50.48 & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & 1 & 0.81 & 747 & 1668 & 9.31 & 4966 & 49.78 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2 & 0.77 & 758 & 1601 & 10.10 & 4550 & 47.54 & & 50.00 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 0.87 & 730 & 1643 & 10.39 & 4843 & 52.69 & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & 1 & 1.14 & 728 & 1594 & 10.65 & 6514 & 56.50 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & 1500 & 2 & 1.14 & 739 & 1603 & 11.12 & 6442 & 64.64 & & 57.42 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 1.15 & 749 & 1488 & 11.37 & 4758 & 51.11 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Validation experiment shoveling operation parameters and fuel consumption. model with three different engine speeds, the average fuel consumption of the validation experiment is reduced by 60.93%, 45.79%, and 49.10%, respectively, compared to the sample average fuel consumption. In the sand model with three different engine speeds, the average fuel consumption of the validation experiment is reduced by 30.93%, 35.56%, and 28.59%, respectively, compared with the sample average fuel consumption. The optimized shoveling trajectory effectively reduced the fuel consumption of the shoveling operation. To further compare the performance of the optimized shoveling trajectory, a comparison with the shoveling operation of a manually operated wheel loader is selected. In manually controlled shoveling, there are no restrictions on the parameters such as the engine speed of the wheel loader, displacement of the wheel loader in the insertion phase, and displacement of the wheel loader in the scooping phase. Wheel loader drivers will conduct random shoveling according to their driving habits and operating experience. To increase the comparability, two drivers are selected to carry out 10 shoveling operations on the gravel pile and sand pile, respectively, in the same experimental conditions and record the parameters during the shoveling operations. The parameters of shoveling operations are shown in Figure 14, and the fuel consumption of shoveling operations is shown in Table 10.