Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra
Review
Received 8 September 2008; received in revised form 3 March 2010; accepted 9 March 2010
Available online 28 April 2010
Abstract
The aim of this work is to study the boom and the arm of an excavator in order to replace the material, which they are usually made
of, with another material. In particular, the study wants to substitute the steel alloy for an aluminium alloy. This change lightens the
components of the arm, allows to increase the load capacity of the bucket and so it is possible to increase the excavator productivity
per hour.
For this purpose many different load conditions have been studied numerically on the original excavator in order to estimate a safety
factor and the deformability or flexibility of each component. These parameters have been used in order to design a new arm.
The excavator which has been analyzed is composed of three elements and the load conditions assumed, in order to evaluate the stress,
are five (lifting at the maximum and minimum distance from the axis of rotation, maximum load induced by hydraulic cylinders, spin of
the arm of the excavator and collision with an obstacle, etc.).
As regards to the safety factor and deformability in order to maintain the original value the new geometry of the arm involves an
increase of the dimension and so the lightness is not correlate only to the variation of the material density.
The weight of the final geometry of the aluminium arm is 1080 kg whereas the one of the steel arm is 2050 kg and consequently it has
been possible to increase the capacity of bucket from 1 m3 to the 1.35 m3.
With reference to the manufacturing cycle of the aluminium arm with the new pins, the price increased about € 2.500–3.000 and this
aspect could be justified if we consider that the productivity per hour increased about 35%.
Ó 2010 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B C D E F L N
4171 1030 2720 9370 3100 450 2480
Fig. 2. First load condition: (a) initial position and (b) final position.
Fig. 3. Second and third load conditions: lifting at the maxima and minima distance from axle of rotation.
L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207 203
Fx=478kN; L=2900 mm
Fy=91.8kN
Y
X
L=675 mm
Fx=534kN;
CG Fy=28.2kN
Boundary conditions
by gap elements
F=20 kN
Fig. 6. Forces on the first element.
Fig. 4. Four load condition. of the software used is Mecad (it has been developed by the
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering of
the University of Brescia). This program can supply the
kinematic and dynamic information in every point (and
Penetration cylinder at any time of the movement) of the elements of the exca-
vator arm.
Positioning arm For example Fig. 6 shows the forces in the first element.
The next step concerns the FEM analyses on each com-
Bucket cylinder ponent in order to have both the stress state (and conse-
Positioning
quently the safety factor) and the deformability for the
cylinder Connecting rods arm. The first results show that same elements present a
Lifting cylinder Bucket cylinder very high value of the stress in localized zone. For example,
Lifting arm
bucket in the junction zone of the plate, to fasten the pin for the
hydraulic cylinder to the main structure. These observation
allowed to improve the component through a local rede-
Fig. 5. Schematization of the arm.
sign, for example by means of a reduction in the stress coef-
ficient factor. Fig. 7 shows the stress state.
After this optimization the safety factor for each compo-
regards to the axle of the arm. This load condition is more
nent, in comparison with the yield stress of the material, is
important in order to evaluate the torsional behaviour of
about 2.5. It has been assumed that the material used to
the components. On the basis of the maximum hydraulic
make the arm is the steel alloy S355 JO EN 10025.
torque, assumed that the distance of the bucket is 4 m,
the maximum orthogonal force is 20 kN (Fig. 4).
4. Criteria for preliminary design of the component
The last load condition examined is an exceptional condi-
tion. In this case the force applied to each component of the
The evaluation of the new geometry of the arm with the
excavator arm is the maximum force generated by the
different material has been studied in order to obtain at
hydraulic cylinders both in tension and both in compression
least the same safety factor and deformability of the origi-
(lifting cylinder Fcompression 390 kN, Ftension 200 kN;
nal geometry. For this purpose each component has been
positioning cylinder Fcompression 560 kN, Ftension 350 kN;
studied and in particular each panel was theoretically stud-
penetration cylinder Fcompression 455 kN, Ftension 210 kN
ied applying the different actions which can stress the panel
and bucket cylinder Fcompression 330 kN, Ftensionl 180
(see Fig. 8).
kN).
The first step is to impose the same safety factor both for
Fig. 5 shows the components of the excavator arm and
the original geometry (steel alloy) and for the new geome-
the name of each part.
try (aluminium alloy) [1–5].
The data used in each load conditions have been
acquired both by measuring the geometry and both by
ryield ryield
the load diagram of the excavator while the duration of ¼ :
each operation and the working distance have been rcr STEEL rcr ALUMINIUM
acquired through experimental tests.
4.1. Axial force
3. Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour concerning the
original geometry N
In this case, the axial stress is obviously ra ¼ hb and so
the relationship between the thickness and the height of the
After having carried out the operations stated above, panel is:
each load condition has been implemented in a software
program in order to obtain the force (inclusive of inertia ryield STEEL
bAL hAL ¼ bSTEEL hSTEEL :
effect) for each component of the excavator arm. The name ryield AL
204 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207
If there are buckling phenomena, the critical stress is: 4.2. Bending moment
2
p2 D b a The stress induced by this action is:
ra inst ¼ þ ;
h b2 a b Mf
rf ¼ 1 3 ;
where 6
bh
and so the relationship between the thicknesses is:
E h3 ryield STEEL
D¼ ; b3AL hAL ¼ b3STEEL hSTEEL :
12 ð1 v2 Þ ryield AL
In case of buckling phenomena, the critical stress is:
represents the stiffness of the panel; in this case the relation- 2
ship between the geometric dimensions of the panel is: p2 D 2b a 1
rf inst ¼ 2
þ ;
hb a 2b 1 a=2
E b2 þ a2 ryield AL
h2 ¼ where a is the ratio between the maximum tensile stress
1 v2 a b3 AL ryield STEEL
and the maximum compression stress; in this case, the rela-
2 E b2 þ a2 tionship between the geometric dimensions of the panel is
h ;
1 v2 a b3 STEEL the same of the conditions of load stated above.
if only the thickness of the plane can be changed, the 4.3. Shear load
expression becomes:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The maximum shear stress in the panel is:
ryield AL ESTEEL ð1 v2 ÞAL 3 T
hAL ¼ hSTEEL : s¼ ;
ryield STEEL EAL ð1 v2 ÞSTEEL 2 hb
L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207 205
25⇒25
A
15⇒20
590⇒625
A’
410⇒415
Table 2
Comparison of the total weight of the arm.
Element Weight (kg) original Weight (kg) optimized Difference in percentage compared
geometry geometry to the original geometry (%)
Elements of the arm 2050 1080 47.3
Pins 335 195 41.8
Bucket (filled) 2150 2785 +29.5
7. Conclusions
[3] Bloom F, Coffin D. Handbook of thin plate buckling and post [5] Timoshenko SP, Gere J. Theory of elastic stability. McGraw-Hill; 1988.
buckling. Chapman & Hall; 2001. [6] Murray GT. Introduction to engineering materials: behavior, proper-
[4] Sae fatigue design handbook. 400 Commonwealth Drive, 3rd ed. ties, and selection. Marcel Dekker Inc.; 1993.
Warrendale (PA, USA): Society of Automotive Engineers Inc.; [7] Davis JR. Aluminum and aluminum alloys, ASM specialty handbook;
1997. 1993.