Hindawi

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2019, Article ID 4718456, 17 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4718456

Research Article
Dynamic Analysis of a Planar Hydraulic Rock-Breaker
Mechanism with Multiple Clearance Joints

Ke Chen, Guojun Zhang , Rui Wu , Li Wang , Hongmei Zheng , and Shunhua Chen
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, Anhui, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Hongmei Zheng; hongmeizh@hfut.edu.cn

Received 2 November 2018; Accepted 13 January 2019; Published 4 February 2019

Academic Editor: Davood Younesian

Copyright © 2019 Ke Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Clearance exists in the joint of a mechanism because of the assemblage, manufacturing tolerances, wear, and other conditions, and
it is a focus of research in the field of multibody dynamics. This study built a planar hydraulic rock-breaker model with multiple
joint clearances by combining the hydraulic cylinder model, the clearance joints based on the Lankarani–Nikravesh contact force
model, and the Lagrange multiplier method. Dynamic simulation results indicated that multiple clearance joints can degrade the
dynamic responses of a rock-breaker model, which can be decomposed to rapid vibrations and slow movements. The rapid
vibrations are excited by coupling the spring-mass system of hydraulic cylinder and clearances. The effects of the clearance size,
input force, damping coefficient, and friction on the dynamic behaviour of the rock-breaker mechanism are also investigated. The
friction could reduce the rapid vibration state significantly, which is feasible for practical engineering applications. As compared
with the traditional models without clearances, the present model provides not only better predictions for the theoretical study of
the hydraulic rock-breaker but also useful guidance for reducing the vibrations of the hydraulic rock-breaker in practical
engineering applications.

1. Introduction complex hydraulic and mechanical subsystems, the mech-

A hydraulic rock-breaker is a multibody mechanism, which
is a powerful percussion breaker fitted to an excavator for
demolishing rocks or concrete structures. It is widely applied
in mining and construction engineering. The asymmetric
hydraulic cylinder is used as the activator for a hydraulic
rock-breaker, which attracts many research interests in
recent years. Zhao et al. used the wavelet packet analysis
method to distinguish different levels of leakage in the
hydraulic cylinder [1]. Chen et al. developed a hydraulic
cylinder with adaptive variable clearance and studied the
static and dynamic performance, which can be applied to the
hydraulic system with high frequency response and high
speed [2]. Nizhegorodov et al. studied the vibratory problem
driven by a hydraulic cylinder [3]. Ylinen et al. presented a
model for a linear hydraulic actuator for multibody simu-
lations considering the state variables, such as the trans-
lational degrees of freedom and the cylinder chamber
pressures [4]. Because of the various loading conditions and
anisms of hydraulic breakers similar to drifters or drills have
attracted attention from the researchers. Giuffrida et al. built
a model of a hydraulic breaker and used experimental data to
verify the model predictions [5, 6]. Ficarella et al. optimized
the impact energy of the breaker and minimized the power
requirement to the feeding system [7]. Then, they used an
experiment to test a hydraulic breaker’s blow impact energy
and formulated a theoretical model to analyze the energy
release during the impact of the piston against the chisel [8].
Kim et al. redesigned a urethane-steel-urethane multilayer
upper cushion to replace the monolithic piece of the ure-
thane cushion to absorb the noises and vibration of the
hydraulic breaker system [9]. Oh et al. studied the hydraulic
circuits of the drifter and analyzed the impact capability with
regard to the penetration rate and varying kinetic energy,
which is dependent on rock stiffness [10]. Li et al. built a
model of a hydraulic rock drill. Thereafter, the team
designed the overlapped reversing valve and proposed a fault
diagnosis method [11, 12]. Song et al. used the transfer path
2 Shock and Vibration
analysis method to estimate the striking forces delivered to
the hydraulic breaker housing [13].
With regard to rock-breaker and excavator dynamics,
Arai et al. considered the base, boom, and arm of the ex-
cavator to linearize the model and study the coupling vi-
bration between the operating handle and body [14].
Tremblay et al. used a simplified model of a rock-breaker for
the purpose of real-time control applications, which reduced
the complexity of the dynamic model while preserving its
accuracy and simplicity [15]. They assumed the revolute joints
in the excavator to be ideal to simplify the mathematical
modeling, simulation, and analysis of the dynamics of the
mechanical system. In reality, however, revolute joints always
have clearances to permit relative motion between connected
bodies, manufacturing tolerances, and assemblage. Journal-
bearing joints can have a radical clearance. When fracturing
rock, a rock-breaker is subjected to impact forces with a
certain frequency. Under such serious and heavy-load con-
ditions during work, the joint clearance increases in size. The
expanding clearance makes the operator feel vibration and
noise, which could deteriorate dynamics of the hydraulic
rock-breaker mechanism. However, although Zhang et al.
have studied the nonlinear dynamics of an excavator with one
clearance [16], the little literature on the effect of clearance on
the dynamic performance of rock-breaker has rarely been
reported, especially under multiple clearance joints.
Clearance has attracted a considerable amount of research
interest since the 1970s [17]. Erkaya and Uzmay assumed that
the journal is always in contact with the internal surface of the
bearing and substituted the clearance with a virtual massless
link that connects the journal center to the bearing center [18].
Seneviratne and Earles found that the clearance can dra-
matically change the dynamic behaviour of a mechanical
system [19]. Flores calculated the accuracy and efficiency of
the presented approach by evaluating the total computation
time consumed in each simulation. The result found that the
dynamic responses of multibody systems are sensitive to the
clearance size and the operating conditions [20]. The contact
force model, which is commonly referred to as the penalty or
elastic approach [21], allows the relative indentation of bodies
and evaluates the reaction contact force that changes the
acceleration of bodies in the Lagrange multiplier method,
which is a mainstream approach for easy programming of a
general multibody system. A series of contact force models
have been investigated to describe the clearance in joints. In
the nonlinear Hertz model [22], the contact forces are
evaluated depending on the indentation between contacting
bodies pressed against each other. However, this model
cannot depict energy dissipation, and a damping factor has
been introduced to address this weakness. Contact force
models by Lankarani and Nikravesh [23] and Hunt and
Crossley [24] are the most prevailing models and accepted by
researchers widely. Recently, Ma and Qian developed a hybrid
contact force model based on the Lankarani–Nikravesh
contact force model and an elastic foundation model. They
applied the discrete element theory to calculate the pene-
tration of each point individually and obtained the total
contact force by integrating the discrete forces in the contact
area [25]. The effect of friction on the dynamic characteristics
of clearance joints has also been investigated. Marques et al.
compared several friction force models for a dynamic analysis
on multibody mechanics [26]. Ambrósio proposed a modified
Coulomb’s friction law that has been widely applied to
prevent the direction of the friction force from changing at a
tiny relative velocity [27]. Machado et al. compared the
contact force models systematically and provided the in-
formation on selection of an appropriate model for different
contact scenarios [28]. Tian et al. surveyed the most frequently
utilized models of planar and spatial multibody mechanical
systems with clearance joints. Then, they discussed the
phenomena commonly associated with clearance joint
models, such as wear, nonsmooth behaviour, optimization,
control, chaos, uncertainty, and links’ flexibility [29].
The abovementioned literature is mainly focused on
mechanisms with only one clearance joint. Since the actual
multibody systems have multiple clearance joints, the
analysis can become much more complex, and more than
one clearance joint needs to be considered. Megahed and
Haroun [30] compared a slider-crank mechanism with two
clearance joints to an ideal articulated pair model and found
that the clearance has a significant effect on the system
dynamics curve. Li et al. studied the dynamic response of a
planar slider-crank mechanism with two clearance joints
considering harmonic drive and link flexibility [31]. Lu et al.
analyzed the dynamics of the steering mechanism and ve-
hicle shimmy system with multiple clearance joints [32, 33].
Wei et al. studied the 9-DOF dynamics of a vehicle shimmy
model based on Lagrange’s equation [34]. A series of factors
have been considered in the literature to decrease the vi-
bration dynamics due to clearances, such as the effect of
flexible linkages and fluid lubricant on the mechanisms with
clearances [35, 36]. Chen et al. [37] investigated the dynamic
behaviours of a 4-UPS-RPS parallel mechanism considering
joint clearances and flexible links. The flexible linkage and
fluid lubricant have been shown to introduce effective
stiffness and damping that stabilize the performance of
multibody mechanical systems. Erkaya and Şefkatlioğlu used
a spatial slider-crank mechanism as a numerical example, in
which a multiaxis small-length flexural pivot named
“pseudo-joint” is used to ensure the necessary mobility. The
pseudo-joint is a good solution to decrease undesired re-
flections of joints with clearance on the system outputs [38].
Thereafter, Erkaya used computational and experimental
investigations and discovered that a similar flexible con-
nection between the adjacent mechanism links could
minimize the clearance-induced vibration [39]. This is be-
cause the flexible connection and flexible link have a clear
suspension on the dynamics of mechanism. However, the
hydraulic rock-breaker is designed for a low-velocity and
heavy-loading situation because the flexible connection and
flexible link are unrealistic in practice as the flexible parts
could not afford to handle the heavy loading. The clearance
joint in a hydraulic rock-breaker is lubricated by grease. The
thin grease film could bring damping to dissipate un-
desirable mechanical vibrations [40]. The hydraulic rock-
breaker is under heavy-load conditions. When the journal
reached the bearing surfaces, the lubricant film thickness is
close to zero. Therefore, the journal and bearing will cause
Shock and Vibration 3

elastic deformation, which will make the reaction forces Hydraulic

between the journal and bearing increase suddenly. Flores P3 cylinder 2
P4
et al. proposed a force transition model to smooth the re-
action forces [41]. When the clearance size becomes bigger P2 O2
and bigger with the use of rock-breaker, it is difficult to solve P5 Hydraulic
O1 cylinder 3
the dynamic equation. Bannwart et al. developed a hydro- Boom Arm
dynamic lubrication model to deal with the problem [42]. Hydraulic Link 1
Zhao et al. employed a simulation and revealed that the cylinder 1 P6 Link 2
P1
clearance could help to reduce the slap noise and wear [43].
Y B
The damping related to hydrodynamic lubrication is still too A
O3
tiny. As a result, an innovative method to decrease the
O X Breaker
clearance-induced vibration should be found.
Nevertheless, the effect of multiple joint clearances on Fb
the dynamic properties of a rock-breaker in practical en-
gineering applications has rarely been reported. Under ac- Pb
tual working conditions, the clearances existing at joints
Figure 1: Rock-breaker model with clearance joints.
interact with the hydraulic cylinders, which can cause the
dynamic characteristics of the rock-breaker to deteriorate.
Therefore, the changes in the rock-breaker dynamic re-
sponse with multiple radical clearances need to be studied in Bearing 3 Clearance 3 Bearing 4 Clearance 4
the scientific and industrial fields for understanding the Journal 3 Journal 4
V1 A1 A2 V2
effect of clearance. In this work, we focus on a planar hy- p1 p2
draulic rock-breaker model with multiple joint clearances. P3 P4
x20 l20
First, the hydraulic cylinder model, Lankarani–Nikravesh
x2
contact force model, and Lagrange multiplier methods are
introduced in Section 2. Second, a planar hydraulic rock- Figure 2: Model of a hydraulic cylinder with clearance on the top.
breaker model with multiple joint clearances and its pa-
rameters are applied as a numerical example in Section 3. chamber, and a return chamber. Rod 2 moves relative to
Subsequently, a series of simulations based on the different cylinder 2, which makes volumes V1 and V2 of the chambers
clearance size, inputting force, damping coefficient, and change. The radii of the bearings are larger than those of the
friction on the dynamic performance of the hydraulic rock- journals. Thus, the centers of the bearings have the clear-
breaker were studied, respectively, in Section 4. Finally, we ances P3 and P4, so the revolute joints are imperfect.
illustrate the conclusion of the study in Section 5. When the piston is moving, the continuity equation for
the piston forward chambers can be written as follows [44]:
2. Dynamic Model of a Rock-Breaker dx V + A1 x2 dp1
System with Clearance q1 � A1 2 + Cip p1 − p2 􏼁 + Cep p1 + 1 ,
dt βe dt
A rock-breaker consists of a boom, arm, and breaker, which (1)
are driven by hydraulic cylinders, as shown in Figure 1. A where q1 is the load flow; A1 is the area of the piston in the
model of a rock-breaker is presented here to demonstrate how forward chamber; βe is the effective bulk modulus; V1 is the
clearances affect its dynamic behaviour. The rock-breaker initial volume of the forward chamber; p1 and p2 are the
model includes ten revolute joints with clearance. The pressures of the forward and return chambers, respectively;
joints at the top and bottom of boom cylinder 1 are denoted as x2 is the piston displacement; and Cip and Cep are the internal
P1 and P2. Similarly, the joints on the arm and breaker cyl- and external leakage coefficients.
inders are designated as P3, P4, P5, and P6, respectively. The When the valve is off and leaking is neglected, q1 is equal
revolute joints, O3, A, and B, connecting the arm to the to zero. Then, equation (1) can be integrated in the [0, t]
breaker also have clearances. Note that point P6 has two joints interval:
P6 and P6′ that are homocentric. The bearing of joint P6
connects to the rod of breaker cylinder 3, and the bearing of V + A 1 x1
0 � A1 x2 − x20 􏼁 + 10 p1 − p10 􏼁, (2)
P6′ connects to link 1. Meanwhile, the sharing journal and link βe
2 are bonded together. The other joints in the clearance model
where x20 is the initial piston displacement.
are ideal revolute joints. The clearance model is the rock-
The pressure p1 of the forward chamber can be calculated
breaker model with ten clearance joints. In contrast, all
from equation (2):
revolute joints in the ideal model are at an ideal condition.
βe A1 x2 − x20 􏼁
p1 � p10 − . (3)
V1 + A1 x2 − x20 􏼁
2.1. Model of the Hydraulic Cylinder. Hydraulic cylinder 2,
which drives the arm, is taken as an example of a submodel. The pressure p2 of the return chamber can be determined
As shown in Figure 2, it includes cylinder 2, rod 2, a forward in the same manner:
4 Shock and Vibration

βe A2 x2 − x20 􏼁
p2 � p20 + , (4)
V2 + A2 x2 − x20 􏼁
where A2 is the return tank flow, V2 is the initial volume of
the return chamber, and p20 is the initial pressure of the e
return chamber. δ (j)
(i)
The force Fp on the piston is described by Newton’s t
equation: sPj n
siP Gj
Fp � p1 A1 − p2 A2 � m2 x€2 + cx_ 2 + k2 x2
(5) rjP
Gi riQ
+ F2 x2 􏼁 − m2 g sin θ2 , rj
riP rQ
j
where m2, c2, and k2 are the total mass, viscous damping ri
coefficient, and stiffness, respectively, of rod 2. F2(x2) is the Y
decomposition of the impact force Fk on the journal along X
the axial direction of the hydraulic cylinder, as described in O
the following section. It is evaluated as Figure 3: Revolution joint with a clearance model.
cos θk sin θk
Fk xk 􏼁 � 􏼢 􏼣Fk, (k � 1, 2, 3, . . . , 10).
−sin θk cos θk e � rPj − rPi � 􏼐rj + Aj sPj 􏼑 − 􏼐ri + Ai sPi 􏼑, (13)
(6)
where Ai and Aj are the transformation matrices of the
The change in length of x2 relative to the initial value x20 bearing and journal, respectively, from the local coordinate
is defined as system to the global coordinate system XOY and sPi and sPj
Δx2 � x2 − x20 . (7) are the position vectors of the contact points. The absolute
value of the eccentricity vector is given by
The change in volume caused by x2 is very slight 􏽰���
e � eT e . (14)
compared with V1. Thus, the change in amplitude of the
pressure p1 is described by The magnitude of the penetration depth is given by
β A Δx
Δp1 � p1 − p10 � − e 1 1 . (8) δ � e − c. (15)
V1
The unit vector n along the eccentricity direction is
The pressure fluctuation of the other chamber is given by defined as
β A Δx e T
Δp2 � + e 2 2 . (9) n � � 􏽨 ex ey 􏽩 . (16)
V2 e
The variation in the force on the piston can be denoted as The angle φ between the vector n and global x-axis is
β A Δx β A Δx defined as
ΔF2 � Δp1 A1 − Δp2 A2 � − e 1 2 A1 − e 2 2 A2 . e
V10 V20 φ � arctan x . (17)
ey
(10)
Then, the total stiffness of hydraulic cylinder 2 is cal- The angle φ transformation matrix is given by
culated by cos φ −sin φ
Aφ � 􏼢 􏼣. (18)
ΔF2 β A2 β A2 sin φ cos φ
Kh2 � � − e 1 − e 2. (11)
Δx2 V10 V20
The contact point Q vectors ri and rj can be denoted as
The natural frequency of hydraulic cylinder 2 is obtained rQ P
(19)
k � rk + Ak rk + Rk n, (k � i, j).
as follows:
􏽳�����
�� �� The relative tangential velocity vT and relative normal
��Kh2 ��
f2 � . (12) velocity vN are needed to calculate the contact force, where
m2 the relative velocity is projected along the parallel and
normal directions of a collision:
T
ν � 􏼂 ]N ]T 􏼃 � Aφ 􏼐r_Q Q
j − r_i 􏼑. (20)
2.2. Clearance Joint Model. The center points of the journal
and bearing are Oi and Oj, respectively. The contact force model can be decomposed into the
In Figure 3, the eccentricity vector e can be written in the normal and tangential contact forces FN and FT, respectively.
global coordinate system XOY with respect to the bearing FN is evaluated with the Lankarani–Nikravesh contact force
and journal as follows: model, which considers the contact deformation, relative
Shock and Vibration 5

velocity, geometry, and material properties to evaluate the

normal contact force: FP P4
P3 φ4
e4
_
FN � Kδn + Dδ. (21) FT3
e3 FN4
FN3 FT4
The stiffness K can be evaluated with equation (21), and δ_
θ2
is the velocity of the relative penetration δ:
φ3
4 Ri Rj 1/2
K� 􏼠 􏼡 , (22) Figure 4: Forces on hydraulic cylinder 2.
3􏼐σ i + σ j 􏼑 Ri − Rj

where Ri and Rj are the radii of the journal and bearing, Φ qr , t􏼁 � 0, (28)
respectively. σ i and σ j can be calculated using the following
equation: where qr is the position and orientation vectors of the bodies
1 − v2k in global coordinates and t denotes the time. The virtual
σk � , (k � i, j), (23) power principle can be used to obtain the motivation
πEk
equation of the system in Cartesian coordinates:
where ]i , Ei and ]j , Ej indicate Poisson’s ratio and Young’s
q + ΦTq λ � g,
M€ (29)
modulus of each collision body. The damping D can be
obtained using the following equation: where M is the system mass matrix. The components of M
3K 1 − c2e 􏼁 indicate the masses and moments of inertia of each body in
D � χδn � (−)
, (24) the system. ΦTq represents the transformation matrix. λ is the
4δ_
(−)
vector of Lagrange multipliers that determines the reactive
where δ_ is the initial velocity when the impact occurs, ce is forces and moment vector at ideal joints. g represents
the restitution coefficient, and the exponent n is usually 1.5 generalized forces, which include the external driving tor-
for a collision between metal bodies. ques or forces, the centrifugal force, the Coriolis force, and
Finally, the contact force can be evaluated as follows: the impact forces of clearance joints. The matrix of differ-
ential algebraic equations that describe the motion of a
3 1 − c2e 􏼁 δ_
FN � Kδn 􏼢1 + (−)
􏼣. (25) multibody system can be written as
4 δ_
M ΦTq q€r g
When relative sliding occurs, the tangential friction force ⎡⎢⎣ ⎤⎥⎦􏼢 􏼣 � 􏼢 􏼣. (30)
Φq 0 λ γ
FT affects the journal and bearing to avoid sliding. This is
described by Ambrósio [27] as follows:
⎪
⎧
⎪ 0, vT ≤ v0 , 3. Numerical Examples
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ �� ��
⎪
⎨ ��v �� − v0 The parameters and initial state of the planer rock-breaker
FT � ⎪ −cf T F , v0 < vT < v1 , (26) model with multiple clearance joints are listed below.
⎪
⎪
⎪ v1 − v0 N
⎪
⎪ Table 1 presents the mass parameters of the rock-breaker
⎪
⎪ model according to its geometric dimensions. Table 2
⎪
⎩ −c F ,
f N vT ≥ v1 , presents the point coordinates of the rock-breaker in the
initial state. Table 3 lists the parameters of the hydraulic
where cf is the friction coefficient and vT is the relative cylinders. The rod radius of the boom cylinder was 65 mm,
tangential velocity. v0 and v1 are the given tolerances for the and the piston radius was 110 mm. The arm cylinder and
tangential velocity. The tolerances for tangential velocity in breaker cylinder had the same rod and piston to simplify the
equation (26) are selected as v0 � 0.01 mm/s and number of components and for easy maintenance. The rod
v1 � 0.001 mm/s. radius was 55 mm, and the piston radii of the two cylinders
In summary, equations (13)–(26) can be used to describe were both 85 mm. Thus, the piston areas of the forward and
the contact force Fk as return chambers were equal. The planar rock-breaker
FNk mechanism was modeled with ten joint clearances.
Fk � 􏼢 􏼣, (k � 1, 2, 3, . . . , 10). (27) Table 4 presents the geometric and physical parameters
FTk
of all joint clearances. Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and
Figure 4 illustrates the forces on hydraulic cylinder 2, friction coefficient were the same for each joint because the
which include the force Fp on the piston and impact force Fk. joints were made of the same material. The clearance size c
was adjusted by varying the radius of the journal of joints.
In the simulation, the breaker cyclically struck the
2.3. Dynamic Constraint Equations. The kinematical con- ground to induce the periodic input force Fb in each cycle
straints of a multibody system are independent and holo- parallel to the y-axis, which is shown in Figure 5. The force Fb
nomic and can be expressed as can be expressed as
6 Shock and Vibration

Table 1: Mass and moment of inertia parameters of the rock- Fb

breaker model.
Fmax
Body Mass (kg) Moment of inertia (kg·m2)
Boom 595 486
Arm 386 136
Breaker 198 23
t1 t2 t3 Time (s)
Link 1 22 0.53
Link 2 16 0.29 Figure 5: Input force Fb in each period when the breaker strikes the
ground.

Table 2: Points of the rock-breaker in global coordinates.

changing points of time in every period and were set to 0.03,
Point Coordinates (m, m) Point Coordinates (m, m)
0.06, and 0.11 s, respectively.
O1 [0.57, 1.66]T P4 [3.37, 3.38]T
O2 [3.26, 2.98]T P5 [3.64, 2.95]T
O3 [3.64, 1.48]T P6 [3.87, 1.89]T 4. Calculation and Analysis of Results
P1 [0.79, 1.32]T A [3.93, 1.53]T
P2 [1.58, 2.76]T B [1.58, 2.76]T A set of initial conditions, positions, and velocities was
P3 [1.80, 3.26]T Pb [4.24, 0.11]T assigned to the dynamic model equations for simulation in
Section 3. The simulation time step was set to 0.0001 s for
balanced computational efficiency and accuracy, and the
Table 3: Parameters of the hydraulic cylinders. Newmark method was utilized for integration in the soft-
Body Boom Arm Breaker ware ADAMS. At the beginning of the simulation, the
Initial length (m) 0.25 0.45 0.21 bearings of the clearance joints were concentric with the
Mass of the rod (kg) 29.7 26.1 20.7 journals. The total simulation time was set to 10 s in order to
Moment of inertia of the rod (kg·m2) 2.91 2.63 1.36 reach a steady state. The simulation parameters of the rock-
Piston area of the forward chamber breaker model are illustrated in Table 5.
9503 5675 5675
(mm2) The motion of hydraulic cylinder 2, which moves the arm,
Piston area of the return chamber (mm2) 6185 3299 3299 was taken as an example and is shown in Figure 6. As shown
Initial volume of the forward chamber (L) 2.376 2.554 1.192 in Figures 6(a) and 6(b), the displacement x2 of rod 2 clearly
Initial volume of the return chamber (L) 4.02 2.144 2.639 differed in the ideal and clearance models. All clearances c in
the clearance model were 0.5 mm. Figures 6(c) and 6(d) show
the hydraulic force on the piston Fp, which was very similar to
Table 4: Geometric and physical parameters of the revolute
the displacement x2 in Figures 6(a) and 6(b). The relationship
clearance joints.
between the hydraulic force on the piston Fp and rod 2
Radius of the Young’s displacement x2 is described in equation (10) by a linear
Joint Joint Poisson’s Friction
bearing modulus relationship. Figures 6(e) and 6(f) illustrate the amplitudes of
no. position ratio coefficient
(mm) (GPa) the change in pressure with the movement of rod 2 in each
1 P1 30 207 0.3 0.01 hydraulic cylinder chamber. The initial pressure p1 was
2 P2 30 207 0.3 0.01 0.5 MPa, and the other chamber’s pressure p2 was 1 MPa. The
3 P3 25 207 0.3 0.01 piston connected to rod 2 caused the volumes of the chambers
4 P4 25 207 0.3 0.01 to change with the motion of x2. The bulk modulus βe
5 P5 25 207 0.3 0.01
connects x2 and the pressures, as shown in equations (8) and
6 P6 25 207 0.3 0.01
7 P6′ 25 207 0.3 0.01 (9). The results showed that the compression and expansion
8 A 25 207 0.3 0.01 of the oil caused a linear change in pressure according to the
9 B 25 207 0.3 0.01 displacement x2.
10 O3 30 207 0.3 0.01 Figure 7 illustrates the frequency distribution of x2
according to the Fourier transform. The peak frequency was
9.1 Hz in the ideal model. In contrast, the frequency dis-
0, t0 < t ≤ t1 , tribution of x2 for the clearance model had the same peak of
⎪
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪ 9.1 Hz but also another peak frequency of 175 Hz. The latter
⎪
⎪ was the natural frequency for the spring-mass system of
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ F hydraulic cylinder 2, which consisted of compressible oil and
⎨ max t − t1 􏼁, t1 < t ≤ t2 ,
Fb (t) � ⎪ t2 − t1 (31) the masses of the rod and piston, and can be calculated using
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ equation (12).
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ F Figure 8 shows the velocity and acceleration of rod 2 for
⎪
⎩ max t3 − t􏼁, t2 < t ≤ t3 ,
t3 − t2 4.5–5.75 s to give more detail on the movement. The velocity
and acceleration of rod 2 were smoother in the ideal model
where Fmax is the maximum impact force and was set to 4, 8, than those in the clearance model. The velocity amplitude of
12, and 16 kN in this example. t1, t2, and t3 denote the the ideal model was less than 0.11 m/s, while the velocity
Shock and Vibration
Table 5: Simulation parameters of the rock-breaker model.
Description Value
Restitution coefficient 0.9
Dynamic friction coefficient 0.01
Integration step size (s) 1 × 10−4
Integration tolerance 1 × 10−6
amplitude of the clearance model was 3.9 m/s, which is 35.5
times greater. The maximum acceleration of rod 2 in the
ideal model was 22.1 m/s2 and is plotted in Figure 8(b). The
acceleration of the clearance model had more peaks, and the
maximum peak of 29,260 m/s2 was 1324 times bigger than
that of the ideal model.
In this study, the velocity analysis method was used to
determine which period movement was the rapid vibration.
The velocity was defined to be equal to 0 at a peak point,
which means that x2 was at a peak. The interval time of the
peak points was less than 0.006 s for the rapid vibration
period considering the natural frequency of 175 Hz. The
other interval was the slow movement period. Figures 8(a)
and 8(c) show the results of the velocity analysis. The velocity
in the clearance model had two alternating modes of motion:
rapid vibration (red line) and slow movement (blue line).
The rapid vibration corresponded to the frequency of
175 Hz, which was the natural frequency of hydraulic cyl-
inder 2 as noted above. The acceleration of the clearance
model was also divided into rapid vibration (blue) and slow
movement (red) based on the above velocity analysis. The
two movements can clearly be distinguished, which dem-
onstrates the feasibility of the velocity analysis method.
When the hydraulic breaker was working, the input force
Fb acted on the rock-breaker and caused the arm to rotate
counterclockwise. In the ideal model, the arm and rod 2
connected by an ideal joint caused the velocity of rod 2 to be
related to the angular velocity of the arm. The arm slowly
rotated clockwise because of gravity, and thus, the accel-
eration of rod 2 was nearly 1 m/s2. The velocity of rod 2 was
smaller than that in the clearance model because of the
greater moment of inertia of the arm and lack of impact
forces caused by nonideal joints.
The clearance model contained clearances between
bearings and journals. Therefore, the velocity and acceler-
ation of rod 2 demonstrated more peaks produced by impact
forces. Figure 9 shows the four periods t1, t2, t3, and t4, which
were extracted to demonstrate the movement of rod 2 in the
clearance model. According to the literature, the movement
x2 can be classified into three states: freedom, collision, and
contact [22].
In order to compare the distances from journals P3 and
P4 to x2 based on the same initial value, the length l20 in
Figure 2 was subtracted from the distance so that the two
curves would coincide at the same reference. The black
dotted line in Figure 9 is the distance between the two
journals of the hydraulic cylinder after adjustment. In the
clearance model, the clearances in joints P3 and P4 were
0.5 mm each. Thus, the sum boundary of the two clearances
was 1 mm. Figure 9 plots two boundary lines as red dashed
lines. The time spans obtained from the above velocity
7
analysis were used to segment the movement x2 into rapid
vibration (blue) and slow movement (red).
Figure 9 illustrates the significant rapid vibration (blue
line) when the displacement amplitude of rod 2 was less than
the sum clearance of 1 mm. In contrast, when the dis-
placement amplitude of rod 2 was more than 1 mm, the
journal began to connect with the bearing (red line) and
created the penetration depth δ. The penetration depth δ in
Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 is too tiny and near to the clearance
boundary line. In the study, the penetration depth δ is
exaggerated 500 times in order to illustrate the penetration
clearly. The hydraulic cylinder began to connect with the
arm and move together with it, which is similar to the
mechanism in the ideal model.
The two clearances P3 and P4 at the top and bottom of
hydraulic cylinder 2 were examined. Figure 10 illustrates the
trajectories and impact forces in the clearances, within which
the penetration depth δ was also exaggerated. The impact
forces were divided into the free/collision state (red line) and
the contact state (blue line) in correspondence to the rapid
vibration and slow movement based on the velocity analysis
method described previously. As shown in Figures 10(b) and
10(d), the red lines represent relatively gentle contact forces
with maximum contact forces of 26,771 and 27,788 N, which
are very close to each other. The blue lines indicate free and
impact forces. The maximum impact force was 280,162 N for
clearance P3 and 212,041 N for clearance P4. The contact
forces in the slow movement were smaller than the impact
forces in the rapid vibration. The dynamics of hydraulic
cylinder 2 became worse with input force as reported in the
literature [30].
Figure 11 shows the details of the hydraulic cylinder. There
are five columns and four rank pictures according to the four
periods t1–t4 in Figure 9. Each rank illustrates the P3 impact
force, clearance P3 trajectory, force Fp on the piston, clearance
P4 trajectory, and P4 impact force. The clockwise motion of the
arm in periods t1 and t3 is shown in Figures 11(a)–11(e) and
11(k)–11(o). Figures 11(f)–11(j) and 11(p)–11(t) indicate the
counterclockwise movement in periods t2 and t4.
As the arm moved clockwise, the distance between the
journals P3 and P4 increased. Then, the bearings moved to the
middle of the hydraulic cylinder, as shown in Figures 11(b),
11(d), 11(g), 11(i), 11(l), 11(n), 11(q), and 11(s). The blue
triangle indicates the starting point of the rapid vibration
trajectories, and the red dot on the other side represents the
end of the slow movement trajectories. The bearings con-
tained clearances that supplied free space for the journal to
move during the rapid vibration. The journal and bearing
collided and caused an impact force depending on the
penetration depth when the bearing reached the rim of the
journal, which can be determined using equation (21). The
impact force was greater than the force Fp on the piston when
hydraulic cylinder 2 was in free motion, so the direction of rod
2’s motion changed. The hydraulic oil bulk modulus βe acted
on rod 2 just like a spring-mass system with the fixed fre-
quency of 175 Hz, which triggered the rapid vibration (blue)
shown in Figure 11. Subsequently, the vibration amplitude of
rod 2 decreased because of the internal damping and clear-
ance constraints. In Figure 11, the red lines illustrate the slow
8 Shock and Vibration

Rod 2 displacement (m)

Rod 2 displacement (m)

0.45 0.45

0.449 0.449

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Hydraulic force (kN)

Hydraulic force (kN)

20 20

0 0

–20 –20

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)

Chamber pressure (Mpa)

Chamber pressure (Mpa)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
p1 p1
p2 p2

(e) (f )

FIGURE 6: Differences in loads and displacements for the ideal and clearance models: rod 2 displacement x2, hydraulic force Fp on the piston,
and hydraulic chamber pressure p1/p2 of the hydraulic cylinder in the ideal model (a, c, e) and clearance model (b, d, f ).

25
8
20
Amplitude (m)

Amplitude (m)

6
15

10 4
175Hz

5 2

0 0
0 10 20 30 0 100 200 300
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b)

Figure 7: Frequency distribution of x2 in the ideal model (a) and clearance model (b) (c � 0.5).

movement stage when the bearing was in contact with the chaotic trajectories in blue were affected by the impact force,
journal. This produced a continuous contact force that was friction, and gravity. When the bearing arrived at the edge of
nearly equal to the force Fp on the piston, so rod 2 moved the journal, a continuous contact force was generated that
smoothly as shown in Figures 11(a), 11(c), 11(e), 11(f), 11(h), was equal to the force Fp on the piston.
11(j), 11(k), 11(m), 11(r), 11(o), 11(p), and 11(t).
Figures 11(f )–11(j) and 11(p)–11(t) display the coun-
terclockwise motion of the arm, which shortened the dis- 4.1. Effect of the Breaker Input Force. The influence of the
tance between the journal and bearing. The trajectories were breaker input maximum force at Fmax � 4, 8, 12, and 16 kN
separated from the middle of the hydraulic cylinder. The was investigated, as shown in Figure 13. At Fmax � 4 kN,
Shock and Vibration 9

Rod 2 acceleration (m/s2)

Rod 2 velocity (m/s)
0.1 20
0.05
10
0
0
–0.05
–0.1 –10
4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)

×104

Rod 2 acceleration (m/s2)

Rod 2 velocity (m/s)

2
2
0 1

–2 0
–1
–4
4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.6
Time (s) Time (s)

Rapid vibration Rapid vibration

Slow movement Slow movement
(c) (d)

Figure 8: Movement of rod 2: velocity and acceleration in the ideal model (a, b) and clearance model (c, d) (c � 0.5 mm, 4.5 s < t < 5.75 s).

hydraulic cylinder 2 stabilized after 7 s because the impact

Rod 2 displacement (m)

force of the breaker was too small to resist the influence of 0.451
gravity on the arm. The extension of hydraulic cylinder 2
provided a tensile force that eventually balanced with
gravity. When Fmax � 12 and 16 kN, the input maximum 0.45
force was large enough to oppose gravity and cause the arm
to rotate counterclockwise. Hydraulic cylinder 2 provided a 0.449
propulsive force that prevented the arm from rotating t1 t2 t3 t4
counterclockwise. Note that less time was required to enter 5.5 5.55 5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75
the stable state when Fmax was 16 kN than that when it was Time (s)
12 kN. This is because the former provided a larger moment
to the arm, which caused the arm to move faster. Rapid vibration
However, Fmax � 8 kN did not stop vibration because the Slow movement
impulse moment of the force of the breaker was approximate Figure 9: Displacement x2 of rod 2 in the clearance model
to the impulse moment of the effect of gravity on the arm. (c � 0.5 mm, 5.5 s < t < 5.75 s).
The random impact force of the clearance joint made it
difficult for the simulation to converge to a stable state at
8 kN. 173,012 N, which represents a fluctuation of 123.5%. The P4
Figure 12 shows the trajectories of Fmax � 4 and 16 kN impact force varied from 183,253 to 242,387 N, which has a
reached the stable state in 5–10 s. The bearing was in contact fluctuation ratio of 132.3%. The contact forces were smaller
with the journal and penetrated the journal periodically. The than the impact forces in the rapid vibration stage.
trajectories of Fmax � 4 kN were separated from each other, Based on the above velocity analysis, the rapid vibration
which indicates the extension of the hydraulic cylinder, as total time (VTT) for the whole simulation process should be
shown in Figures 12(a) and 12(b). Figures 12(c) and 12(d) decreased to diminish the impact force caused by the
illustrate the hydraulic cylinder in the stroke state. clearance, which will aggravate joint wear. The velocity was
Figure 14 shows the maximum forces in the rapid vi- obtained by differentiating the displacement x2 with time
bration and slow movement stage at a clearance of 0.5 mm. because this is easily measured in actual experiments. In this
The maximum contact force at P3 (red line) ranged from work, the rapid vibration quit time (VQT) and VTT were
27,788 to 31,542 N. The maximum contact force at the defined and used as measurement parameters for collisions.
opposite side P4 was 26,771–37,028 N. The fluctuation ratios As shown in Figure 15, the force vibration quit time (FVQT)
for the forces with the two clearances were 138.32% greater and force vibration total time (FVTT) were obtained
than the minimum force of 26,771 N. With the rapid vi- according to the free/collision and contact states of the P3
bration, the maximum P3 impact force was 140,088– (diamond) and P4 (square) impact forces. The VQTand VTT
10
0.5
Force (kN)
∆Y (mm)
–0.5
–0.5 0.5
∆X (mm)
(a)
0.5
Force (kN)
∆Y (mm)
–0.5
–0.5 0.5
∆X (mm)
(c)
Figure 10: Trajectories and impact forces in clearance joints P3 (a, b) and P4 (c, d) (c � 0.5 mm).
of rod 2 were close to the FVQT and FVTT, which verifies
that the VQT and VTT can be used as parameters for the
impact force.
4.2. Effect of the Clearance Size. The influence of the clear-
ance size is needed to be analyzed because the clearance
increases gradually during rock-breaker operation, which
increases the free space between the bearing and journal. The
velocity analysis method was used to investigate the VQT
and VTT.
At Fmax � 4 kN, the VQT and VTT remained small when
each clearance was less than 2.5 mm. VQT was 6.3 s and
VTT increased when the clearance was 3.0 mm. When the
clearance was greater than 3.0 mm, rod 2 could not stop
vibrating. The whole simulation process was not stable at
any clearance when Fmax � 8 kN. The VTT increased with
the clearance. As shown in Figures 16(c) and 16(d), the
VQT and VTT increased with the clearance size when
Fmax � 12 kN and 16 kN. Instability eventually occurred
when the clearance was greater than 3.0 mm. When
Fmax � 12 and 16 kN, the motions became chaotic when the
clearance was 3.5 mm or greater. Figures 16(c) and 16(d)
show that the VQT and VTT were shorter when Fmax was
16 kN than those when Fmax was 12 kN. The simulation
outputs show that the dynamics of the system become
worse. Meanwhile, VQT and VTT prolong with the
clearance size [16, 20].
Thus, the clearance should be limited to 2.5 mm to
prevent the rock-breaker from vibrating. This is because
Shock and Vibration
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Rapid vibration
Slow movement
(b)
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Rapid vibration
Slow movement
(d)
2.5 mm was a key changing value for the clearance models
VTT and VQT at different input forces. The following
sections discuss how to reduce the VTT and VQT for the
2.5 mm clearance model when Fmax � 8 kN.
4.3. Effect of Damping Coefficient. Figures 17 and 18 show
that increased damping coefficient did not shorten the VQT
until the damping was 4 kN/(m/s). In contrast, the VTT was
reduced. Rod 2 demonstrated some rapid vibration until the
stable state was reached, but it quickly decreased when the
damping was 4 kN/(m/s). When D � 5 and 6 kN/(m/s), the
VQT and VTT clearly decreased. However, this approach is
difficult to use in engineering practice because of the large
damping values required.
4.4. Effect of Friction. A friction force of less than 150 N in
the hydraulic cylinder did not clearly reduce the VQT, as
shown in Figures 19 and 20. Only the VTT was reduced.
When the friction reached 200 N, the movement of rod 2
reached a stable state, but some rapid vibration remained.
The VQT and VTT rapidly decreased when the friction was
greater than 200 N. This friction value is smaller than the
internal friction of a traditional hydraulic cylinder. It can be
feasibly realized in engineering practice by adjusting the
O-ring parameters of the hydraulic cylinder.
In the preceding part of the paper, Section 2 introduced
the hydraulic cylinder model, Lankarani–Nikravesh contact
force model, and Lagrange multiplier method, and a planar
hydraulic rock-breaker model with multiple joint clearances
Shock and Vibration 11

30 30 30

Force on piston (kN)

Impact force (kN)

Impact force (kN)

0.5 0.5

∆Y (mm)

∆Y (mm)
20 20 20

10 10 10
–0.5 –0.5
0 0 0
5.54 5.56 5.58 –0.5 0.5 5.54 5.56 5.58 –0.5 0.5 5.54 5.56 5.58
Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s)

Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid

vibration vibration vibration vibration vibration
Slow Slow Slow Slow Slow
movement movement movement movement movement
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Force on piston (kN)

Impact force (kN)

Impact force (kN)

0.5 0.5
40 40 40
∆Y (mm)

∆Y (mm)
20 20 20

–0.5 –0.5
0 0 0
5.6 5.62 5.64 –0.5 0.5 5.6 5.62 5.64 –0.5 0.5 5.6 5.62 5.64
Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s)

Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid

vibration vibration vibration vibration vibration
Slow Slow Slow Slow Slow
movement movement movement movement movement
(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
Force on piston (kN)

0.5 0.5
Impact force (kN)

Impact force (kN)

6 6 6
∆Y (mm)

∆Y (mm)

4 4 4

2 2 2
–0.5 –0.5
0 0 0
5.66 5.68 –0.5 0.5 5.66 5.68 –0.5 0.5 5.66 5.68
Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s)

Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid

vibration vibration vibration vibration vibration
Slow Slow Slow Slow Slow
movement movement movement movement movement
(k) (l) (m) (n) (o)
Force on piston (kN)

0.5 0.5
Impact force (kN)

Impact force (kN)

40 40 40
∆Y (mm)

∆Y (mm)

20 20 20

–0.5 –0.5
0 0 0
5.7 5.72 5.74 –0.5 0.5 5.7 5.72 5.74 –0.5 0.5 5.7 5.72 5.74
Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s) ∆X (mm) Time (s)

Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid

vibration vibration vibration vibration vibration
Slow Slow Slow Slow Slow
movement movement movement movement movement
(p) (q) (r) (s) (t)
Figure 11: Impact forces and trajectories of the piston for four periods: (a, f, k, p) P3 impact force, (b, g, l, q) clearance P3 trajectory, (c, h, m,
r) force Fp on the piston, (d, i, n, s) clearance P4 trajectory, and (e, j, o, t) P4 impact force.

were investigated in Section 3. The effect of the different hydraulic rock-breaker are sensitive to the varying param-
clearance size, inputting force, damping coefficient, and eters. The present findings are of significance to the theo-
friction on the dynamic performance of the clearance joint retical study of the nonlinear dynamic response of the
was studied, and they illustrated the dynamics of the hydraulic rock-breaker.
12 Shock and Vibration

0.5 0.5

∆Y (mm)

∆Y (mm)
–0.5 –0.5

–0.5 0.5 –0.5 0.5

∆X (mm) ∆X (mm)
(a) (b)

0.5 0.5
∆Y (mm)

∆Y (mm)
–0.5 –0.5

–0.5 0.5 –0.5 0.5

∆X (mm) ∆X (mm)
(c) (d)

Figure 12: Trajectories in clearance joints P3 and P4 when Fmax is 4 kN (a, b) and 16 kN (c, d) (c � 0.5 mm, t � 5–10 s).
Rod 2 displacement (m)

Rod 2 displacement (m)

0.45 0.45

0.449 0.449

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Rod 2 displacement (m)

Rod 2 displacement (m)

0.45 0.45

0.449 0.449

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)

Figure 13: Displacement x2 of rod 2 with different Fmax.

5. Conclusions multiple clearance joints was proposed based on the combi-

This study investigated the dynamic responses of a planar
rock-breaker mechanism with multiple joint clearances, and
the stiffness of the hydraulic cylinder was caused by the
effective bulk modulus. The model of the rock-breaker with
nation of the hydraulic cylinder model, the clearance joints
based on the Lankarani–Nikravesh contact force model, and
the Lagrange multiplier method. The main results of the
numerical simulation and dynamic analysis are summarized as
follows:
Shock and Vibration 13

Maximum force (kN)

200

100

0
4 8 12 16
Fmax (kN)

P3 contact force P4 contact force

P3 impact force P4 impact force

Figure 14: Maximum contact and impact force in P3 and P4 with different Fmax.

10
Time (s)

4 8 12 16
Fmax (kN)

VQT VTT
P3 FVQT P3 FVTT
P4 FVQT P4 FVTT

Figure 15: Vibration quit time (VQT) and vibration total time (VTT) based on an analysis of the velocity and impact force with different Fmax.

10 10
Time (s)

Time (s)

5 5

0 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Clearance size (mm) Clearance size (mm)
VQT VQT
VTT VTT
(a) (b)
10 10
Time (s)

Time (s)

5 5

0 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Clearance size (mm) Clearance size (mm)

VQT VQT
VTT VTT
(c) (d)

Figure 16: Vibration quit time and vibration total time based on an analysis of the velocity of rod 2 with different Fmax: (a) Fmax � 4 kN;
(b) Fmax � 8 kN; (c) Fmax � 12 kN; (d) Fmax � 16 kN.
14 Shock and Vibration

displacement (m)

displacement (m)
0.455 0.455

Rod 2

Rod 2
0.45 0.45
0.445 0.445
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
displacement (m)

displacement (m)
0.455 0.455
Rod 2

Rod 2
0.45 0.45
0.445 0.445
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
displacement (m)

displacement (m)
0.455 0.455
Rod 2

Rod 2
0.45 0.45
0.445 0.445
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) (f )

Figure 17: Displacement x2 of rod 2 with different damping coefficients D with c � 2.5 and Fmax � 8 kN: (a) D � 1 kN; (b) D � 2 kN;
(c) D � 3 kN; (d) D � 4 kN; (e) D � 5 kN; (f ) D � 6 kN.

10
Time (s)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Damping (kN m/s))

VQT
VTT
Figure 18: Vibration quit time and vibration total time of rod 2 with different damping coefficients (c � 2.5, Fmax � 8 kN).
displacement (m)

displacement (m)

0.455 0.455
Rod 2

Rod 2

0.45 0.45
0.445 0.445
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 19: Continued.
Shock and Vibration 15

displacement (m)

displacement (m)
0.455 0.455

Rod 2

Rod 2
0.45 0.45
0.445 0.445
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
displacement (m)

displacement (m)
0.455 0.455
Rod 2

Rod 2
0.45 0.45
0.445 0.445
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) (f )

Figure 19: Displacement x2 of rod 2 with different frictions f with c � 2.5 and Fmax � 8 kN: (a) f � 50 N; (b) f � 100 N; (c) f � 150 N;
(d) f � 200 N; (e) f � 250 N; (f ) f � 300 N.

10
Time (s)

0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Friction (N)

VQT
VTT
Figure 20: Vibration quit time and vibration total time of rod 2 with different frictions (c � 2.5, Fmax � 8 kN).

(1) The rod of hydraulic cylinder 2 was taken as an friction can significantly reduce the rapid vibration
example, and the dynamic response of the rod clearly state of rod 2 and is feasible for practical engineering
changed with clearances by alternating between applications.
rapid vibration and slow movement. This is in
The present work gives more insight into the changing
contrast to the ideal model without clearances. The
dynamics of the planar hydraulic rock-breaker mechanism
stiffness of the hydraulic cylinder caused the rod to
with multiple clearance joints and provides a theoretical
vibrate rapidly in correspondence to the natural
support for the further study of the hydraulic rock-breaker.
frequency.
(2) When the rapid vibration coincided with impact
forces, the dynamic response of the planar rock-
Data Availability
breaker mechanism degraded and aggravated wear. The data used to support the findings of this study are
A series of scenarios indicated that the rapid vi- available from the corresponding author upon request.
bration total time and rapid vibration quit time of the
rod movement increase with the clearance size.
Meanwhile, some certain values of the impact force
Conflicts of Interest
could maximize the total time and the quit time The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
mentioned above. regarding the publication of this paper.
(3) Two approaches to reduce the rapid vibration were
considered: increasing the damping coefficient and Acknowledgments
increasing the friction. The simulation results
showed that damping can reduce rapid vibration but This research was supported by a grant from the National
is difficult to be used in practical engineering because Natural Science Foundation of China under research project
of the large values involved. However, increasing the no. 51801049.
16
References
[1] X. Zhao, S. Zhang, C. Zhou, Z. Hu, R. Li, and J. Jiang,
“Experimental study of hydraulic cylinder leakage and fault
feature extraction based on wavelet packet analysis,” Com-
puters and Fluids, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 33–40, 2015.
[2] K. Chen, J. Deng, C. Zhan, and F. Zheng, “Research on key
technology of hydraulic servo cylinder with adaptive variable
clearance,” in Proceedings of Chinese Automation Congress
IEEE, pp. 1922–1925, Wuhan, Hubei, China, 2016.
[3] A. I. Nizhegorodov, A. N. Gavrilin, and B. B. Moyzes, “Hy-
drostatic vibratory drive of the test stand for excitation of the
amplitude-modulated vibrations,” Journal of Physics: Con-
ference Series, vol. 671, Article ID 012037, 6 pages, 2016.
[4] A. Ylinen, H. Marjamäki, and J. Mäkinen, “A hydraulic
cylinder model for multibody simulations,” Computers and
Structures, vol. 138, no. 6, pp. 62–72, 2014.
[5] A. Giuffrida and D. Laforgia, “Modelling and simulation of a
hydraulic breaker,” International Journal of Fluid Power,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 47–56, 2005.
[6] A. Ficarella, A. Giuffrida, and D. Laforgia, “Numerical in-
vestigations on the working cycle of a hydraulic breaker: off-
design performance and influence of design parameters,”
International Journal of Fluid Power, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 41–50,
2006.
[7] A. Ficarella, A. Giuffrida, and D. Laforgia, “Investigation on
the impact energy of a hydraulic breaker,” in SAE Technical
Paper, pp. 1–13, 2007.
[8] A. Ficarella, A. Giuffrida, and D. Laforgia, “The effects of
distributor and striking mass on the performance of a hy-
draulic impact machine,” in SAE Technical Paper, , pp. 1–11,
2008.
[9] B.-S. Kim, M.-G. Kim, S.-H. Lee, M. G. Lee, and B. S. Kim,
“Design of a vibration-isolated cushion to reduce the noise
and vibration of a hydraulic breaker,” in Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems
and Control Engineering, vol. 224, 1, pp. 1–9, 2010.
[10] J.-Y. Oh, G.-H. Lee, H.-S. Kang, and C.-S. Song, “Modeling
and performance analysis of rock drill drifters for rock
stiffness,” International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 2187–2193, 2012.
[11] Y. Li, Y. Luo, and X. Wu, “Fault diagnosis research on impact
system of hydraulic rock drill based on internal mechanism
testing method,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2018, Article ID
4928438, 2018.
[12] Y. Li, Y. Luo, and X. Wu, “Impact system dynamic charac-
teristics of hydraulic rock drill based on an overlapped re-
versing valve,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2018, Article ID
8963750, 11 pages, 2018.
[13] C. Song, D. J. Kim, J. Chung, W. L. Kang, S. K. Sang, and
Y. K. Kang, “Estimation of impact loads in a hydraulic breaker
by transfer path analysis,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2017,
Article ID 8564381, 15 pages, 2015.
[14] F. Arai, J. Tateishi, and T. Fukuda, “Dynamical analysis and
suppression of human hunting in the excavator operation,”
Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers,
vol. 66, no. 641, pp. 394–399, 2000.
[15] L.-F. Y. Tremblay, M. Arsenault, and M. Zeinali, “Simplifi-
cation of the dynamic model of a hydraulic rockbreaker for
implementation in a model-based control scheme,” Trans-
actions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering,
vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 38–48, 2018.
[16] S. X. Zhang, L. X. Xu, X. J. Liu, and S. J. Hou, “The nonlinear
analysis of a pure rolling low-noise excavating system with
Shock and Vibration
one-pair clearance,” Journal of Vibration and Control, vol. 21,
no. 5, pp. 1004–1011, 2013.
[17] S. W. E. Earles and C. L. S. Wu, “Motion analysis of a rigid link
mechanism with clearance at a bearing using Lagrangian
mechanics and digital computation,” Mechanisms (Pro-
ceedings, Institution of Mechanical Engineers), vol. 1, pp. 83–
89, 1973.
[18] S. Erkaya and İ. Uzmay, “Optimization of transmission angle
for slider-crank mechanism with joint clearances,” Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 493–
508, 2008.
[19] L. D. Seneviratne and S. W. E. Earles, “Chaotic behaviour
exhibited during contact loss in a clearance joint of a four-bar
mechanism,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 27, no. 3,
pp. 307–321, 1992.
[20] P. Flores, “A parametric study on the dynamic response of
planar multibody systems with multiple clearance joints,”
Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 633–653, 2010.
[21] H. Movahedi-Lankarani, “Canonical equations of motion and
estimation of parameters in the analysis of impact problems,”
Ph.D. thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 1989.
[22] H. Hertz, On the Contact of Rigid Elastic Solids and on
Hardness, Chapter 6, Assorted Papers, MacMillan, New York,
NY, USA, 1882.
[23] H. M. Lankarani and P. E. Nikravesh, “A contact force model
with hysteresis damping for impact analysis of multibody
systems,” Journal of mechanical design, vol. 112, no. 3,
pp. 369–376, 1990.
[24] E. B. Hunt and F. R. E. Crossley, “Review and prospectus,”
Artificial Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 440–445, 1975.
[25] J. Ma and L. Qian, “Modeling and simulation of planar
multibody systems considering multiple revolute clearance
joints,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 1907–1940,
2017.
[26] F. Marques, P. Flores, J. C. Pimenta Claro, and
H. M. Lankarani, “A survey and comparison of several friction
force models for dynamic analysis of multibody mechanical
systems,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 1407–1443,
2016.
[27] J. A. C. Ambrósio, “Impact of rigid and flexible multibody
systems: deformation description and contact models,” Vir-
tual Nonlinear Multibody Systems, vol. 103, pp. 57–81, 2003.
[28] M. Machado, P. Moreira, P. Flores, and H. M. Lankarani,
“Compliant contact force models in multibody dynamics:
evolution of the Hertz contact theory,” Mechanism and
Machine Theory, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 99–121, 2018.
[29] Q. Tian, P. Flores, and H. M. Lankarani, “A comprehensive
survey of the analytical, numerical and experimental meth-
odologies for dynamics of multibody mechanical systems with
clearance or imperfect joints,” Mechanism and Machine
Theory, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 1–57, 2018.
[30] S. M. Megahed and A. F. Haroun, “Analysis of the dynamic
behavioral performance of mechanical systems with multi-
clearance joints,” Journal of computational and nonlinear
dynamics, vol. 7, no. 1, Article ID 011002, 2012.
[31] Y. Li, G. Chen, D. Sun, Y. Gao, and K. Wang, “Dynamic
analysis and optimization design of a planar slider-crank
mechanism with flexible components and two clearance
joints,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 99, pp. 37–57,
2016.
[32] J. Lu, Y. Xu, C. Hu, A. F. Vakakis, and L. A. Bergman, “5-DOF
dynamic model of vehicle shimmy system with clearance at
universal joint in steering handling mechanism,” Shock and
Vibration, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 951–961, 2013.
Shock and Vibration 17

[33] J. Lu, J. Jiang, J. Li, and M. Wen, “Analysis of dynamic

mechanism and global response of vehicle shimmy system
with multi-clearance joints,” Journal of Vibration and Control,
vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 2312–2326, 2016.
[34] D. Wei, K. Xu, Y. Jiang, C. Chen, W. Zhao, and F. Zhou, “Hopf
bifurcation characteristics of dual-front axle self-excited
shimmy system for heavy truck considering dry friction,”
Shock and Vibration, vol. 2015, Article ID 839801, 20 pages,
2015.
[35] E. Zheng, R. Zhu, S. Zhu, and X. Lu, “A study on dynamics of
flexible multi-link mechanism including joints with clearance
and lubrication for ultra-precision presses,” Nonlinear Dy-
namics, vol. 83, no. 1-2, pp. 137–159, 2015.
[36] J. Hou, G. Yao, and H. Huang, “Dynamic analysis of a spatial
mechanism including frictionless spherical clearance joint
with flexible socket,” Journal of Computational and Nonlinear
Dynamics, vol. 13, no. 3, Article ID 031002, 2018.
[37] X. Chen, Y. Jia, Y. Deng, and Q. Wang, “Dynamics behavior
analysis of parallel mechanism with joint clearance and
flexible links,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2018, Article ID
9430267, 2018.
[38] S. Erkaya, S. Doğan, and E. Şefkatlıoğlu, “Analysis of the joint
clearance effects on a compliant spatial mechanism,” Mech-
anism and Machine Theory, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 255–273, 2016.
[39] S. Erkaya, “Experimental investigation of flexible connection
and clearance joint effects on the vibration responses of
mechanisms,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 121,
no. 14, pp. 515–529, 2018.
[40] J. Frêne, D. Nicolas, B. Degneurce, D. Berthe, and M. Godet,
“Hydrodynamic lubrication - bearings and thrust bearings,”
Tribology and Interface Engineering Series, vol. 33, no. 12,
pp. 157–163, 1997.
[41] P. Flores, J. Ambrósio, and J. P. Claro, “Dynamic analysis for
planar multibody mechanical systems with lubricated joints,”
Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 47–74, 2004.
[42] A. C. Bannwart, K. L. Cavalca, and G. B. Daniel, “Hydro-
dynamic bearings modeling with alternate motion,” Me-
chanics Research Communications, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 590–597,
2007.
[43] B. Zhao, X.-D. Dai, Z.-N. Zhang, and Y.-B. Xie, “A new
numerical method for piston dynamics and lubrication
analysis,” Tribology International, vol. 94, no. 37, pp. 395–408,
2016.
[44] H. E. Merritt, Hydraulic Control Systems, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NY, USA, 1967.
 International Journal of

Rotating Advances in
Machinery Multimedia

The Scientific
Engineering
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi
Sensors
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Volume 2018
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
in Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of
International Journal of Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Chemical Engineering Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018