Excavator
Excavator
Excavator
1, ISSN 1821-1259
pp. 43-56
Research paper
Mechanical Engineering Department, U. V. Patel College of Engineering, Ganpat University, Ganpat Vidynagar-384012, Dist. Mehsana, Gujarat,
India.
2 M. S. University of Baroda, Associate Professor, Faculty of Technology and Engineering, Vadodara - 390002, Gujarat, India.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
In the era of globalization and tough competition the use
of machines is increasing for the earth moving works,
considerable attention has been focused on designing of
the earth moving equipments [10]. Today hydraulic
excavators are widely used in construction, mining,
excavation, and forestry applications [1]. The excavator
mechanism must work reliably under unpredictable
working conditions. Poor strength properties of the
excavator parts like boom, arm and bucket limit the life
expectancy of the excavator. Therefore, excavator parts
must be strong enough to cope with caustic working
conditions of the excavator [8]. But in contradictory, now
a day weight is major concern while designing the
machine components. So for reducing the overall cost as
well as for smoothing the performance of machine,
optimization is needed.
Structural design has always been a very interesting and
creative segment in a large variety of engineering
projects. Structures, of course, should be designed such
that they can resist applied forces (stress constraints), and
do not exceed certain deformations (displacement
constraints). Moreover, structures should be economical.
Theoretically, the best design is the one that satisfies the
stress and displacement constraints, and results in the
least cost of construction. Although there are many
factors that may affect the construction cost, the first and
most obvious one is the amount of material used to build
the structure. Therefore, minimizing the weight of the
structure is usually the goal of structural optimization [7].
2. BACKGROUND OF WORK
Based on the market survey and reverse engineering and
authors expertise in the field of design a 3D model of
mini hydraulic backhoe excavator attachment is
developed using the Autodesk Inventor professional 2011.
The resistive forces offered by the terrain to the bucket
teeth are found by applying the fundamental knowledge
of soil mechanics and McKyes and Zeng models utilized
to find soil-tool interaction forces [3]. The developed
* Correspondence Authors Address: Mechanical Engineering Department, U. V. Patel College of Engineering, Ganpat University,
Ganpat Vidyanagar-384012, Kherva, Dist. Mehsana, State-Gujarat, India, bppmech@gmail.com
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
3. OPTIMIZATION OF BUCKET
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
Modifications
Part no.
Part name
Quantity
Thickness
Thickness
Weight
before
after
before
modification modification optimization
Weight of
optimized
model
Base plate
7.634
6.118
Side protector
3.898
3.118
1.311
0.903
3.052
2.542
Bucket mounting
lug
10
2.522
1.521
Bucket mounting
lug bush
20
10
0.568
0.2608
(1)
4. OPTIMIZATION OF ARM
The failure criterion states that the Von Misses stress
should be less than the yield stress 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
model of arm is analyzed to check that the optimized
model is within safe limit or not. Fig. 7 shows the static
force analysis of the bucket for maximum breakout force
(a)
(b)
Fig.6. Modified arm for optimization
45
BhaveshkumarP.P.Patel,
Patel,Jagdish
JagdishM.
M.Prajapati:
Prajapati:Structural
StructuralOptimization
OptimizationofofMini
MiniHydraulic
HydraulicBackhoe
BackhoeExcavator
ExcavatorAttachment
AttachmentUsing
UsingFEA
FEAApproach;
Approach;
Bhaveshkumar
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
Part name
Quantity
Thickness
after
modification
Weight
before
optimization
Weight of
optimized
model
10.676
10.8350
Bucket cylinder
mounting lug
10
1.19
0.9514
Bucket cylinder
mounting lug bush
10
0.434
0.1550
Arm cylinder
mounting lug
10
0.7738
0.6522
Arm cylinder
mounting lug bush
10
0.288
0.0913
2.975
1.4195
3.6116
1.9654
Arm collar-1
Arm collar-2
8
9
Arm reinforcement
Arm stiffener
Cylinder-10,
Collar
Stiffners-5
Cylinder-10,
Collar
Stiffeners -5
Cylinder-5,
Collar
Stiffeners -3
Cylinder-5,
Collar
Stiffeners -3
1.8007
1.2024
0.8587
0.5147
46
Thickness
before
modification
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
Part no.
Part name
Quantity
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Modifications
Dimensions
Dimensions
before
after
modification
modification
Modification in thickness
(mm)
5
4
Weight of
optimized
model
20.7780
16.6230
14
2.4670
2.2206
10
0.434
0.21524
16
10
3.556
2.6330
10
0.288
0.1172
17
14
0.3265
0.2131
3.9565
2.1579
135
131
0.9358
0.9081
135
131
1.0309
0.9928
135
131
6.2241
6.0396
135
131
5.7469
5.5766
3.6087
2.1021
2.2847
2.1376
12
Boom stiffeners
13
Boom collar
Modification in
width thickness (mm)
135 5
131 3
Modification in length (mm)
155
145
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
analysis.
(b)
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
Sr.
no.
Thickness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
t1
t2
t3
t4
t5
t6
t7
t8
Thickness
before
optimization
(mm)
50
50
40
50
50
75
20
30
Thickness
after
optimization
(mm)
40
40
40
40
40
35
15
14
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
7. OPTIMIZATION OF BACLHOE
ASSEMBLY
Fig.17. Static force analysis of swing link
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
9. SHAPE OPTIMIZATION
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
(a)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 28. Results of shape optimization for bucket
(b)
Fig. 30. Results of shape optimization for boom
(a)
(b)
Fig.29. Results of shape optimization for arm
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
(a)
(b)
Fig.31. Results of shape optimization for swing link
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
= 32.074 MPa
Force acting in X direction, F = 21066.71 N
Force acting in Y direction, F = 10927.65 N
Axial stress,
F CS
= 8.956 MPa
Shear stress,
F CS
= 4.646 MPa
Combined stress,
Twisting moment,
TM
half width of bucket
FD
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
J = 2 185 117 4
J = 173160 mm3
Shear stress due to twisting,
TMJ
12.045 N/mm2
Mean stress,
= 20515.5 MPa
Maximum principal stress,
= 41.9 MPa
(3)
(4)
Fig.35. Section plane A-A in the arm
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
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
= 11.71 MPa
Mean stress,
= 26.565 MPa
Maximum principal stress,
= 54.11 MPa
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
= 31.79 MPa
Force acting in X direction, F = 50022.81 N
Force acting in Y direction, F = 17097.38 N
Axial stress,
= 21.34 MPa
Shear stress,
= 7.29 MPa
Combined stress,
= 21.34 + 31.79
= 53.13 MPa
Twisting moment,
TM half width of bucket
= 2085711 N.mm
Where,
Width of bucket = 547 mm
54
(13)
Fig.41. Stresses at section plane B-B from FE analysis
(14)
(15)
FD
(16)
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
Name of
the part
1
2
3
Bucket
Arm
Boom
Swing
link
Weight before
optimization
(Kg)
Weight
after
optimization
(Kg)
Reduction
in weight
23
30.938
51.605
17.973
25.342
41.979
5.027
5.596
9.608
177.41
127.01
50.4
Total weight
70.631
Sr. no.
1
2
3
4
5
Name of
parts
Bucket
Arm
Boom
Swing link
Backhoe
assembly
223.45
Sr.
no.
1
2
3
Name of
parts
Bucket
Arm
Boom
Swing
4
Link
Total Weight
Weight
before
optimization
(Kg)
23
30.938
51.605
Weight after
optimization
(Kg)
Shape
Trial and
optimiza
error
-tion
method
(i.e. by
(i.e. by
changing
changing
geometr
thickness)
y)
17.973
17.722
25.342
25.888
41.979
42.126
%
Variatio
n in
results
by both
methods
1.39
2.10
0.34
177.41
127.01
118.24
6.90
282.953
212.304
203.976
3.92
12. CONCLUSIONS
FE analysis of backhoe parts shows that the parts with
welding provide higher strength. Structural weight
optimization carried out by trial and error method shows
the total reduction in weight is of 70.649 kg (24.96%) and
weight reduced by applying shape optimization is of
78.977 kg (27.91%). Comparison shows that the
variations in results of individual parts are very less and
total variation in result is of only 3.93% which reflect that
the results of structural weight optimization performed by
trial and error method are accurate and acceptable. The
differences in results of the Von Mises stresses and the
classical theory are very less and we can say that the
results are identical and acceptable.
REFERENCES
[1] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL, DR. J. M.
PRAJAPATI, Soil-Tool Interaction as a Review for
Digging Operation of Mini Hydraulic Excavator,
International Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, February 2011, pp 894901.
[2] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL AND J. M.
PRAJAPATI, A Review on FEA and Optimization of
Backhoe Attachment in Hydraulic Excavator,
IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5, October 2011, pp 505
511.
[3] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL, DR. J. M.
PRAJAPATI AND BHARGAV J. GADHVI, An
Excavation Force Calculations and Applications: An
Analytical Approach, International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5,
May 2011, pp 3831-3837.
[4] BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL AND J. M.
PRAJAPATI, Evaluation of Bucket Capacity,
Digging Force Calculations and Static Force
Analysis of Mini Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator,
MACHINE DESIGN The Journal of Faculty of
Technical Sciences, Vol.4, No.1, 2012, pp 59-66.
[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
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
56