Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/316923714
CITATIONS READS
11 2,391
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Bhavesh Patel on 15 May 2017.
Abstract: Excavators are heavy duty earthmoving machines and normally used for excavation task. During the
excavation operation unknown resistive forces offered by the terrain to the bucket teeth. Excessive amount of these
forces adversely affected on the machine parts and may be failed during excavation operation. Design engineers have
great challenge to provide the better robust design of excavator parts which can work against unpredicted forces and
under worst working condition. Thus, it is very much necessary for the designers to provide not only a better design of
parts having maximum reliability but also of minimum weight and cost, keeping design safe under all loading
conditions. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is the most powerful technique for strength calculations of the structures
working under known load and boundary conditions. FEA approach can be applied for the structural weight
optimization. This paper focuses on structural weight optimization of backhoe excavator attachment using FEA
approach by trial and error method. Shape optimization also performed for weight optimization and results are
compared with trial and error method which shows identical results. The FEA of the optimized model also performed
and their results are verified by applying classical theory.
Key words: Digging Forces, Autonomous Excavation, Resistive forces, Heaped capacity
The Fig. 1 shows the bucket with different parts which are
modified to get optimum dimensions based on available
standard thickness of plates. Table 1 shows the name of
the parts of the bucket which are modified to get the
weight optimized model. It also shows the dimensions
and total weight of the parts before modification and after
modifications. The total weight of the bucket is 23.143 kg
and after modification we got the optimized weight of the
bucket is 17.973 kg. Therefore, we achieved 5.027 kg
reduction in the weight of the bucket. Based on the known
boundary conditions calculated as in reference [4], the Fig.5. Maximum displacement of optimized bucket
44
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Table 1. Optimization data of the bucket
4. OPTIMIZATION OF ARM
(a)
The failure criterion states that the Von Misses stress σ
should be less than the yield stress σ of the material by
taking appropriate safety factor into consideration. This
indicates for the design of a part to be safe, the condition
shown in equation (1) must be satisfied [13].
The Fig. 6 shows the arm with different parts which are
modified to get optimum dimensions based on available
standard thickness of plates.
Table 2 shows the name of the parts of the arm which are
modified to get the optimized model. It also shows the
dimensions and total weight of the parts before
modification and after modifications. The total weight of
the arm is 30.938 kg and after modification we got the
optimized weight of the arm is 25.342 kg. So, we
achieved 5.596 kg reduction in the weight of the arm.
Based on the known boundary conditions which are
calculated as provided with reference [4], the optimized (b)
model of arm is analyzed to check that the optimized
model is within safe limit or not. Fig. 7 shows the static Fig.6. Modified arm for optimization
force analysis of the bucket for maximum breakout force
45
BhaveshkumarP.P.Patel,
Bhaveshkumar Patel,Jagdish
JagdishM.
M.Prajapati:
Prajapati:Structural
StructuralOptimization
OptimizationofofMini
MiniHydraulic
HydraulicBackhoe
BackhoeExcavator
ExcavatorAttachment
AttachmentUsing
UsingFEA
FEAApproach;
Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56 Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Table 2. Optimization data of the arm
Fig.7. Static force analysis for arm Fig.9. Maximum stresses of the optimized arm
Fig.8. Boundary conditions for arm Fig.10. Maximum displacements of optimized arm
46 46
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Table 3. Optimization data of the boom
Modifications Total weight (Kg)
Dimensions Dimensions
before after Weight Weight of
Part no. Part name Quantity
modification modification before optimized
Modification in thickness optimization model
(mm)
1 Boom side cover 2 5 4 20.7780 16.6230
Arm cylinder
2 2 14 8 2.4670 2.2206
mounting lug
Arm cylinder
3 2 10 5 0.434 0.21524
mounting lug bush
Boom cylinder
4 2 16 10 3.556 2.6330
mounting lug
Boom cylinder
5 2 10 5 0.288 0.1172
mounting lug bush
Boom to arm joint
6 2 17 14 0.3265 0.2131
bush
Boom
7 4 5 3 3.9565 2.1579
reinforcement
Arm cylinder
8 1 135 131 0.9358 0.9081
mounting plate
Boom cylinder
9 1 135 131 1.0309 0.9928
mounting plate
10 Boom top cover 1 135 131 6.2241 6.0396
Boom bottom
11 1 135 131 5.7469 5.5766
cover
Modification in
width × thickness (mm)
12 Boom stiffeners 4 135 × 5 131 × 3 3.6087 2.1021
Modification in length (mm)
13 Boom collar 1 155 145 2.2847 2.1376
5. OPTIMIZATION OF BOOM
(a)
The Fig. 11 shows the boom with different parts which
are modified to get optimum dimensions based on
available standard thickness of plates.
Table 3 shows the name of the parts of the boom which
are modified to get the optimized model. It also shows the
dimensions and total weight of the parts before
modification and after modifications. The total weight of
the boom is 51.605 kg and after modification we got the
optimized weight of the boom is 41.997 kg. So, we
achieved 9.608 kg reduction in the weight of the boom.
Fig. 12 shows the static force analysis of the boom for
maximum breakout force condition. Fig. 13 shows the
boundary conditions applied to boom for the purpose of (b)
analysis. Fig. 11. Modified boom for optimization
47
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Misses stresses is acting on the mounting lug and it is
287.11 MPa. Mounting lug is made from HARDOX400
and its yield strength is 1000 MPa, by taking safety factor
as 2, equation (1) yields [σ ] = 500 MPa and σ =
287.11 MPa, so σ [σ ] and this indicates that the
design of the optimized boom is safe for strength. Fig. 15
shows the maximum displacement in the boom reported is
2.4149 mm at the boom cylinder mounting lug which is
very less compare to minimum thickness of the plate used
in the boom; therefore it is safe for deflection.
Fig.13. Boundary conditions for boom Fig.16. Modification of swing link for optimization
48
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Equation (1) yields [σ ] = 500 MPa, and σ = 157.52
MPa, so σ [σ ] and this indicates that the design of
the swing link is safe for strength.
Fig. 20 shows the maximum displacement in the swing
link reported is 0.18208 mm at the boom to swing link
joint which is very less compare to minimum thickness of
the plate used in the swing link; therefore it is safe for
deflection.
7. OPTIMIZATION OF BACLHOE
ASSEMBLY
49
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
8. STRESS ANALYSIS OF OPTIMIZED
BACKHOE PARTS WITH
CONSIDERATION OF WELDING
9. SHAPE OPTIMIZATION
(a)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 28. Results of shape optimization for bucket
(b)
Fig. 30. Results of shape optimization for boom
51
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
methods. Here, we have gone through the weight of The bucket having the complex shape and size therefore
127.01 kg of swing link because, the swing link carry the not considered for the application of classical theory.
entire weight of the all other parts of the backhoe Here, arm is taken for the verification of the results of
excavator attachment. optimized model which are obtained from the FE
analysis. For arm, a section plane A-A taken at 452 mm
from pivot A3, which is arbitrarily selected and shown in
the Fig. 32. The calculations are made based on classical
theory. It is the case of bending and twisting together.
Since, the corner tooth is in action it will cause twisting.
The cross section of the arm taken for study at section A-
A is shown in the Fig. 33. Force analysis at section A-A
shown in Fig. 34 for arm.
(a)
(b)
Fig.31. Results of shape optimization for swing link
52
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Force acting at point A3 is R = 22423 Newton plane (A-A) taken for calculations and Fig. 36 shows the
Force acting at point A12 is R = 7783.7 Newton result of stresses produced at that section plane A-A.
Distance from neutral axis to the outer fiber, y = 92.5 mm Now here, boom is taken for the verification of the result
Cross section area of arm, CS = 2352 mm2 of optimized model which is obtained from the FE
Perpendicular distance between A3 pivot and centre of analysis. For boom, a section plane B-B taken at 440 mm
section, L = 65 mm from pivot A2 which is arbitrarily selected as shown in the
Perpendicular distance between A12 pivot and centre of Fig. 37. The calculations are made based on classical
section, L = 319 mm theory. It is the case of bending and twisting together.
Taking moment about point (centre of cross section of Since, the corner tooth is in action it will cause twisting.
arm), we get The cross section of the boom at section plane B-B taken
Bending moment, BM R L R L for study is shown in the Fig. 38. Force analysis at section
BM = 3940495.3 N.mm plane B-B shown in Fig. 39 for boom.
Let,
I = moment of inertia about X axis for hollow
rectangular cross-section of arm = 11364144 mm4
Bending stresses can be calculated using the following
formula,
σ (2)
σ = 32.074 MPa
Force acting in X direction, F = 21066.71 N
Force acting in Y direction, F = 10927.65 N
Axial stress,
σ F ⁄CS (3)
σ = 8.956 MPa
Shear stress,
τ F ⁄CS (4)
τ = 4.646 MPa Fig.35. Section plane A-A in the arm
Combined stress,
σ σ σ (5)
σ = 8.956 + 32.074 = 41.03 MPa
Twisting moment,
TM half width of bucket FD (6)
TM = 2085711 N.mm
Where,
Width of bucket = 547 mm
FD = Maximum digging force in Newton
FD = 7626 Newton
Polar moment of inertia,
J = 2 b d t mm3 (7)
J = 2 × 185 × 117 × 4
J = 173160 mm3
Shear stress due to twisting,
τ TM⁄J (8)
τ 12.045 N/mm2 Fig.36. Stresses at section plane A-A from FE analysis
Mean stress,
σ σ
σ (9)
= 20515.5 MPa
Maximum principal stress,
σ σ
σ τ (10)
σ = 41.9 MPa
53
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
Distance from neutral axis to the outer fiber, y = 85 mm FD = Maximum digging force in Newton
Cross section area of boom, CS = 2344 mm2 FD = 7626 Newton
Perpendicular distance between A pivot and centre of Polar moment of inertia,
section, L =142.30 mm J = 2 b d t mm3 (17)
= 2 × 170 × 131 × 4
J = 178160 N.mm
Shear stress due to twisting,
τ TM⁄J (18)
= 11.71 MPa
Mean stress,
σ σ
σ (19)
= 26.565 MPa
Maximum principal stress,
σ σ
σ τ (20)
σ = 54.11 MPa
Fig.38. Details of boom section at section plane B-B
54
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
11. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 7. Comparision of optimized weight obtained by
trial and error method and shape optimization
Table 5. Summary of weight reduction by trial and error Weight after
method (i.e. change in thickness) in different parts of optimization
excavator Weight
(Kg) %
Shape Variatio
Weight before Trial and
Weight before Sr. Name of optimiza n in
Sr. Name of after Reduction optimiz- error
optimization no. parts -tion results
no. the part optimization in weight ation method
(Kg) (i.e. by by both
(Kg) (Kg) (i.e. by
changing methods
changing
1 Bucket 23 17.973 5.027 geometr
thickness)
2 Arm 30.938 25.342 5.596 y)
3 Boom 51.605 41.979 9.608 1 Bucket 23 17.973 17.722 1.39
Swing 2 Arm 30.938 25.342 25.888 2.10
4 177.41 127.01 50.4 3 Boom 51.605 41.979 42.126 0.34
link
Total weight 70.631 Swing
4 Link
177.41 127.01 118.24 6.90
Total Weight 282.953 212.304 203.976 3.92
Table 5 shows the weight of the all parts before
optimization and weight of the all parts after optimization,
table shows the total reduction in the weight by trial and
12. CONCLUSIONS
error method (i.e. change in thickness) is 70.631 kg.
FE analysis of backhoe parts shows that the parts with
The FEA of the backhoe parts with the maximum
breakout configuration is carried out for optimized model welding provide higher strength. Structural weight
based on boundary conditions as calculated in chapter 7 optimization carried out by trial and error method shows
are presented in this chapter. The maximum Von Mises the total reduction in weight is of 70.649 kg (24.96%) and
stresses acting on bucket, arm, boom and swing link are weight reduced by applying shape optimization is of
227.52 MPa, 229.79 MPa, 287.11 MPa and 157.85 MPa 78.977 kg (27.91%). Comparison shows that the
and the yield strength of these parts are 1000 Mpa, 450 variations in results of individual parts are very less and
Mpa, 1000 Mpa and 450 Mpa respectively, and by taking total variation in result is of only 3.93% which reflect that
safety factor = 2 all the parts are found to be safe. The the results of structural weight optimization performed by
stress analysis of whole assembly is also carriedout and
trial and error method are accurate and acceptable. The
the stress produced are within the safe limit.
Table 6 shows the comparison of sresses produced in the differences in results of the Von Mises stresses and the
model without and with considering welding. Comparison classical theory are very less and we can say that the
shows that the backhoe model with welding having results are identical and acceptable.
reduced stresses, so it is clear that the welding improves
the strength of the parts.
REFERENCES
Table 6. Comparision of stresses produced in the
optimized model with and without welding [1] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL, DR. J. M.
Maximum Von Mises stress PRAJAPATI, Soil-Tool Interaction as a Review for
produced (MPa) Digging Operation of Mini Hydraulic Excavator,
Name of Optimized International Journal of Engineering Science and
Sr. no. Optimized
parts model Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, February 2011, pp 894-
model with
without 901.
welding
welding [2] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL AND J. M.
1 Bucket 227.52 206.45 PRAJAPATI, A Review on FEA and Optimization of
2 Arm 229.79 221.01 Backhoe Attachment in Hydraulic Excavator,
3 Boom 287.11 277.84 IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and
4 Swing link 157.52 155.98 Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5, October 2011, pp 505 –
Backhoe 511.
5 227.64 223.45
assembly [3] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL, DR. J. M.
PRAJAPATI AND BHARGAV J. GADHVI, An
Table 7 shows the comparison of optimized weight Excavation Force Calculations and Applications: An
achieved by trial and error method (i.e. reduction in Analytical Approach, International Journal of
thickness) and shape optimization achieved by ANSYS Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5,
tool, which shows that the results are very close to each May 2011, pp 3831-3837.
other and results from trial and error method are [4] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL AND J. M.
acceptable. PRAJAPATI, Evaluation of Bucket Capacity,
The stresses produced in the optimized model by Digging Force Calculations and Static Force
performing FE analysis using ANSYS software is also Analysis of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator,
verified with the stresses obtained by applying classical MACHINE DESIGN – The Journal of Faculty of
theory and the results obtained from both the methods are Technical Sciences, Vol.4, No.1, 2012, pp 59-66.
identical. [5] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL AND J. M.
55
Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati: Structural Optimization of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA Approach;
Machine Design, Vol. 5(2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-1259; pp. 43-56
PRAJAPATI, Static Analysis of Mini Hydraulic [10] MEHTA GAURAV K., Design and Development of
Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA an Excavator Attachment, M. tech. Thesis, Nirma
Approach, International Journal of Mechanical University, Institute of science and Technology,
Engineering and Robotics Research, Submitted, Ahmedabad-382481, May 2008, pp 1.
2012. [11] SSAB, HARDOX400 data sheet,
[6] C. S. KRISHNAMURTHY, Finite element analysis http://www.hardox.com.
theory and programming, Tata McGraw-Hill [12] STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
Publishing Company Limited, 2007, pp 1-17. (SAIL), SAIL product panorama product brochure,
[7] MOHSEN KARGAHI, JAMES C. ANDERSON http://www.sail.co.in/sail_product/SAIL_FINAL/Sp
AND MAGED M. DESSOUKY, Structural ecifications%20for%20Plates.htm, 2003.
Optimization with Tabu Search, Senior Engineer, [13] TIRUPATHI R. CHANDRUPATLA AND ASHOK
Weidlinger Associates, Inc., 2525 Michigan Avenue, G. BELEGUNDU, Introduction to Finite Elements
D2-3, Santa Monica, California, 90404, 1997. in Engineering, Pearson Education Publication,
[8] MEHMET YENER, Design of a Computer Interface Delhi, India, 2005.
for Automatic Finite Element Analysis of an [14] TRIVEDI REENA, Calculation of Static Forces And
Excavator Boom, M.S. Thesis, The Graduate School Finite Element Analysis of Attachments of An
of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Excavator, M. Tech. Thesis, Nirma University,
Technical University, May 2005, pp 1-4, 68-69. Institute of Science and Technology, Ahmedabad-
[9] NARESHKUMAR N. OZA, Finite Element 382481, May 2005.
Analysis and Optimization of an Earthmoving
Equipment Attachment - Backhoe, M. Tech. Thesis,
Nirma University, Institute of science and
Technology, Ahmedabad-382481, May 2006.
56