FEM Analysis:

Hydraulic Excavator Bucket

Dan Marks*
Jorge Rodriguez*
Brian Zajac

Final Presentation
MAE 470 Spring 2007
Subrata Mukherjee

* Fulfilling MAE 429 Design Requirement

Oct, 19 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 1

 OVERVIEW
• Background
• Problem Statement
• Modeling
• Load Conditions
• Finite Element Analysis
• Validation
• Optimization

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 2

 ONLINE TUTORIALS
• Introduction to ANYS

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 3

 BICYCLE COMPONENT
• Mechanical Property and Performance
Laboratory (M&AE 327)

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 4

 PROBLEM STATEMENT

• Model a bucket used on

the hydraulic excavators
designed by Caterpillar®
• Analyze stresses under
normal loading conditions
• Optimize for increased
load capacity
– Maintain a safety factor
– Maintain bucket volume

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 5

 BASELINE MODEL
• Caterpillar®
Model # 221-3381

• Specifications
– Volume = 2 m3
– Bite Width = 1.397 m
– Rated Digging Force = 200 kN

• Modeled using pictorial guide

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 6

 FEM MODELS

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 7

LOAD CONDITIONS

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 8

 LOAD CONDITIONS

P
1. Digging Load 2. Carrying Load

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 9

 VALIDATION
1. Closed Form Comparison
• Use closed form analysis on simplified
model with simple loads
• Compare results to FEA models
2. Model complexity
3. Alternate elements
4. Mesh convergence
5. Load application

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 10

 CLOSED FORM MODEL
• Specifications to Match h
– Volume = 2 m3 b
a
– Bite Width = 1.397 m
– Digging Force = 200 kN

• V = ½ π a2 t
– areq = 0.95 m

• Assume h = 2.5 cm
Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 11
 DIGGING ANALYSIS
• Curved Beam Analysis Using Linear Elasticity b
Deformable Bodies and Their Material Behavior h
H. Haslach, R. Armstrong, 2004, pg. 185
a
 4M   a 
2

 tb N   b 
 r    a   b 
2
   r    2  1  2 1  ln    1  2  ln 
 a    r   a 
M
 4 M   a   r   a   b 
2 2
 r  r    2  1  2  ln   1  2  ln 
 tb N   b   a   r   a 

 a2 
2
 a2   b 
N  1  2   4   2  ln 2  
P
 b  b  a
• P = 200 kN
• M = P a = -137,500 Nm
• B.C.’s = Fixed / Free

ANSYS (Pa) Closed Form (Pa) % Error

σ (r = a) 1.00 x 109 0.957 x 109 4.35
σ (r = b) -1.01 x 109 -0.934 x 109 7.56

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 12

 CARRYING ANALYSIS
• Classic Beam Theory L h
– Curvature is small compared to length r
– Model pressure load as a linear
distribution
th3
1
M  L2 q c
h
2
I
12

Mc
I
P
3
• ρstone = 2750 kg/m3
M q
• P = V ρload g = 53,900 N
h L
• L = ½ π r = 1.08 m
• 53,900 = ½ L q q = 99,814 N/m

• B.C.’s = Fixed / Free

ANSYS (Pa) Closed Form (Pa) % Error

σ max 3.09 x 108 2.67 x 108 13.69

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 13

COMPARISON TO FEA MODEL
• Closed form results consistently 1 order of magnitude less than FEM
– Actual stress reduced considerably by side walls

Digging Carrying

ANSYS (Pa) Closed Form (Pa) ANSYS (Pa) Closed Form (Pa)
σy -2.0 x 107 -7.3 x 108 σy 1.2 x 106 1.4 x 107

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 14

 MODEL COMPLEXITY
Distributed Digging Load – Octahedral Stress Distribution

σ = 0.98e7 Pa σ = 0.826e7 Pa
Percent Difference = 15.7%

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 15

 MODEL COMPLEXITY
Carrying Pressure Load – Octahedral Stress Distribution

σ = 0.36e7 Pa σ = 0.342e7 Pa
Percent Difference = 5%

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 16

 ALTERNATE ELEMENTS
• Tetrahedral vs. Hexahedral
– Hex elements may overlap

Solid 92 Solid 187 Solid 148

• 10-node tet-element • Similar to 92 • Error – Forces on mid-
side nodes
• P-element method
• Cannot solve

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 17

ALTERNATE ELEMENTS
Solid 92 Solid 187

Same stress results!

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 18

MESH CONVERGENCE

Mesh Progression: Coarse  Fine

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 19

M a x im u m D is p la c e m e n t ( m m ) ) MESH CONVERGENCE

Mesh Convergence
1.07
1.07
1.06
1.06
1.05
1.05
1.04
1.04
1.03
1.03
1.02
1.02
1.01
1.01
1.00
2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500
Number of Elements

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 20

 MESH CONVERGENCE
Max. Von Mises Stress vs. # of Elements

21.5

21.0
Max. Von Mises Stress (MPa)

20.5

20.0

19.5

19.0

18.5
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Number of Elements

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 21

 LOAD APPLICATION
Point vs. Uniform Distributed Front Load

• Very similar contours

– As expected far from application area

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 22

 OPTIMIZATION
• Consider alternate cross sections

• Vary baseline model parameters

• Add stress reducing features

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 23

 SQUARE CROS SECTION
• Specifications to Match L
– Volume = 2 m3
– Bite Width = 1.397 m h
– Digging Force = 200 kN

• V = L2 t Lreq = 1.26 m

• Assume h = 2.5 cm

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 24

 DIGGING ANALYSIS
• Classic Beam Theory h
– Broke the box into two
beams (Side and Bottom)
2
L
1

• P = 200 kN M’
• M = P L = 252,000 Nm P
P’
• B.C.’s = Fixed / Free

ANSYS (Pa) Closed Form (Pa) % Error

σ 1 max -1.95 x 109 -1.73 x 109 11.2
σ 2 max 1.73 x 109 1.74 x 109 0.42

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 25

 CARRYING ANALYSIS
• Classic Plate Theory
Theory of Plates and Shells L h
Timoshenko and Woinowsky-Krueger, pg. 197 - 202
– Homogeneous, Isotropic Plate
q
– Uniform Pressure Load

• ρstone = 2750 kg/m3

• P = V ρload g = 53,900 N
• q = P / (L t) = 30620 N/m2 P
• B.C.’s = Simply Supported

ANSYS (Pa) Closed Form (Pa) % Error

σx 2.93 x 107 2.59 x 107 11.8
σz 2.67x 107 2.30 x 107 13.8

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 26

 CARRYING WITH CORNERS
• Can’t easily model closed form
– Corners induce stress
concentrations
– σmax, FEM = 2.51 x 10 8 Pa
– Order of magnitude increase
• Reduce stress by filleting
– Shape approaches curved cross
section

• Curved cross section better

– Better emptying performance
– Lower stress for checked loads

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 27

 PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION
• Optimized Design Parameters
– a = 0.532 m
– b = 0.572 m
h
– h = 0.04 m b
– t = 2.25 m a
• Found using closed form techniques t = length into the
developed during analysis phase page (bite width)

• FS min = 2 with respect to σ yield

• Ideally, no horizontal section coming Digging Stress (CFA)

off the semi-circular bucket (dotted line
region) σ max 1.75 x 108 Pa
– Only increases the bending σ min -1.67 x 108 Pa
moment
Carrying Stress (CFA)
σ max 2.08 x 107 Pa

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 28

PARAMETER OPTIMIZATION

Optimized Design (Left); Baseline Design (Right)

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 29

STRESS REDUCING FEATURES

Stress Concentrations

Areas for design

improvement

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 30

 STRESS REDUCING FEATURES
To Reduce Stress Concentrations:

Round corners

Reinforce holes

Thicken loaded members

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 31

 FINAL DESIGN
Final Design Concept Actual Design

Our application of closed form theory and FEM analysis justify the shape of
buckets already in use

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 32

 Fatigue Analysis

Fatigue life is a function of the induced stress

amplitude (σA) and the material properties
σ MAX − σ MIN
σ A= =stress amplitude
2

Endurance Limit ~ Infinite Life (1x106 cycles)

Endurance Limit > Stress Amplitude  “Infinite Life”

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 33

 Yield Analysis

Function of stresses induced (σVM) and the

material yield strength (σYIELD)

Maximum σVM ≈ 115 MPa

Material σYIELD = 760 Mpa

Factor of Safety ≈ 6.61

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 34
 Questions?

Oct 19, 2007 MAE 470 Final Presenation 35