Machine Design

machine design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259 pp.
43-56
* 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

Research paper

STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION OF MINI HYDRAULIC BACKHOE EXCAVATOR
ATTACHMENT USING FEA APPROACH

Bhaveshkumar P. PATEL
1, *
- Jagdish M. PRAJAPATI
2

1
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.

Received (23.08.2013); Revised (11.02.2013); Accepted (13.02.2013)

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
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].
There are many methods can be applied for the
optimization problems like, Linear Programming (LP),
Non-Linear Programming (NLP), Integer Linear
Programming (ILP), and Discrete Non-Linear
Programming (DNLP) and However, some newly
developed techniques, known as heuristic methods,
provide means of finding near optimal solutions with a
reasonable number of iterations. Included in this group
are Simulated Annealing, Genetic Algorithms, and Tabu
Search [7]. Finite Element Analysis is the powerful
technique for calculation of the strength of structure under
known working load and boundary conditions [6]. Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) is also one of the best powerful
methods which can be applied for structural weight
optimization. There are so many works done by other
researchers in the field of FEA and optimization of the
backhoe excavator machines which are covered in the
reference paper of [2]. For our case we have adopted FEA
approach for performing structural weight optimization of
mini hydraulic backhoe excavator attachment using trial
and error method and shape optimization method.
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
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
44
resistive forces must be less than that of the digging
forces offered by the actuators. Maximum resistive forces
offered by the ground for the proposed tool dimensions is
3916.7 Newton, and the breakout force calculated is 7626
Newton which is higher than the forces required to cut the
soil (3916.7 Newton), thus this calculated breakout force
is adequate and accepted for the job to be performed by
the proposed mini backhoe excavator i.e. light duty
construction work [3].
The digging force calculations carried out based on SAE
standards of SAE J1179 and static force analysis
performed for maximum breakout force condition
considering static equilibrium. The calculated bucket curl
or breakout force F
B
= 7626.25 Newton, and calculated
arm crowd force or digging force F
S
= 4427.419 Newton
[4]. Finite Element Analysis also performed on mini
hydraulic backhoe excavator attachment for the purpose
of verification of parts strength. The results shows that
the developed stresses are far less than that of the
designed stress limit [5]. Therefore, there is a scope to
perform weight optimization for backhoe attachment
using FEA approach based on strength criterion. Here, we
have consider thickness of plates as a variable and
adopted trial and error method to get optimized backhoe
excavator model based on standard available limiting
value of plate thickness and limiting safe stress criterion.
The optimized model also checked for limiting safe stress
and the results verified by applying classical theory. The
materials used for the different components are made
from HARDOX400 [11], SAILMA 450HI [12] and IS
2062 [9]. Structural optimization is performed for the
bucket, arm, boom and swing link which are covered one
by one in next coming sections using ANSYS software.
3. OPTIMIZATION OF BUCKET

Fig.1. Modified bucket for optimization

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
optimized model of bucket is analyzed to check that the
optimized model is within safe limit or not.

Fig.2. Static force analysis of bucket

Fig.3. Boundary conditions for bucket

Fig.4. Maximum stresses of the optimized bucket

Fig.5. Maximum displacement of optimized bucket
45
Table 1. Optimization data of the bucket
Part no. Part name Quantity

Modifications Total weight (Kg)
Thickness
before
modification
Thickness
after
modification
Weight
before
optimization
Weight of
optimized
model
1 Base plate 1 5 4 7.634 6.118
2 Side protector 2 5 4 3.898 3.118
3 Bucket top plate 1 6 4 1.311 0.903
4 Side shear plate 2 6 5 3.052 2.542
5
Bucket mounting
lug
2 10 6 2.522 1.521
6
Bucket mounting
lug bush
4 20 10 0.568 0.2608
Fig. 2 shows the static force analysis of the bucket for

maximum breakout force condition. Fig. 3 shows
boundary conditions applied to bucket for analysis
purpose.

Design stress for ductile materials,
VM

y
SaIcty Iactor
(1)

The maximum Von Misses stress is acting at the end of
the mounting lugs as shown in Fig. 4, which is made up
of Hardox400 material with the yield strength of 1000
MPa, by taking safety factor as 2, equation (1) yields =
227.52 MPa, [
y
] = 500 MPa, this clearly indicates
VM
<
[
y
], so the design of the optimized bucket is safe for
strength. Fig. 5 shows the maximum displacements on the
bucket of 2.9694 mm which is very small compare to
minimum thickness of the plate used in the bucket, therefore
it is safe for deflection.

4. OPTIMIZATION OF ARM

The failure criterion states that the Von Misses stress
VM

should be less than the yield stress
y
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

condition. Fig. 8 shows the boundary conditions applied
to arm for the purpose of analysis.
Fig. 9 shows the results of the Von Misses stresses on
optimized arm assembly at the arm cylinder mounting lug
and it is 229.79 MPa.

(a)

(b)

Fig.6. Modified arm for optimization

46
Table 2. Optimization data of the arm
Modifications (mm) Total weight (Kg)
Thickness
before
modification
Thickness
after
modification
Weight
before
optimization
Weight of
optimized
model
1 Arm side cover 2 4 4 10.676 10.8350
2
Bucket cylinder
mounting lug
2 10 8 1.19 0.9514
3
Bucket cylinder
mounting lug bush
2 10 5 0.434 0.1550
4
Arm cylinder
mounting lug
2 10 8 0.7738 0.6522
5
Arm cylinder
mounting lug bush
2 10 5 0.288 0.0913
6 Arm collar-1 1
Cylinder-10,
Collar
Stiffners-5
Cylinder-5,
Collar
Stiffeners -3
2.975 1.4195
7 Arm collar-2 1
Cylinder-10,
Collar
Stiffeners -5
Cylinder-5,
Collar
Stiffeners -3
3.6116 1.9654
8 Arm reinforcement 4 5 3 1.8007 1.2024
9 Arm stiffener 1 5 3 0.8587 0.5147

Fig.7. Static force analysis for arm

Fig.8. Boundary conditions for arm

Fig.9. Maximum stresses of the optimized arm

Fig.10. Maximum displacements of optimized arm
46
47
Table 3. Optimization data of the boom
Modifications Total weight (Kg)
Dimensions
before
modification
Dimensions
after
modification
Weight
before
optimization
Weight of
optimized
model Modification in thickness
(mm)
1 Boom side cover 2 5 4 20.7780 16.6230
2
Arm cylinder
mounting lug
2 14 8 2.4670 2.2206
3
Arm cylinder
mounting lug bush
2 10 5 0.434 0.21524
4
Boom cylinder
mounting lug
2 16 10 3.556 2.6330
5
Boom cylinder
mounting lug bush
2 10 5 0.288 0.1172
6
Boom to arm joint
bush
2 17 14 0.3265 0.2131
7
Boom
reinforcement
4 5 3 3.9565 2.1579
8
Arm cylinder
mounting plate
1 135 131 0.9358 0.9081
9
Boom cylinder
mounting plate
1 135 131 1.0309 0.9928
10 Boom top cover 1 135 131 6.2241 6.0396
11
Boom bottom
cover
1 135 131 5.7469 5.5766

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

Now, yield strength of the material of mounting lug made
up from HARDOX400 is 1000 MPa, by taking safety
factor as 2, equation (1) yields [
y
] = 500 MPa and
VM

= 229.79 MPa (Fig. 9), so
VM
< [
y
] and this indicates
that the design of the optimized arm is safe for strength.
Fig. 10 shows the maximum displacement on arm is
0.37072 mm at bucket-arm joint end which is very small
compare to minimum thickness of the plate used in the arm;
therefore it is safe for deflection.

5. OPTIMIZATION OF BOOM

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.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Modified boom for optimization

48

Fig.12. Static force analysis for arm

Fig.13. Boundary conditions for boom

Fig.14. Maximum stresses of the optimized boom

Fig.15. Maximum displacements of optimized boom

Fig. 14 shows the results of the Von Misses stresses on
optimized boom assembly in which the maximum Von
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 [
y
] = 500 MPa and
VM
=
287.11 MPa, so
VM
< [
y
] 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.

6. OPTIMIZATION OF SWING LINK

Fig.16. Modification of swing link for optimization

The Fig. 16 shown the thicknesses of swing link which
are modified to get optimum dimensions. Table 4 shows
thickness before modification and thickness after
modification. The total weight of the swing link is 177.41
kg and after modification we got the optimized weight of
the swing link is 127.01 kg. So, we achieved 50.4 kg
reduction in the weight of the swing link. Fig. 17 shows
the static force analysis of the swing link for maximum
breakout force condition. Fig. 18 shows the boundary
conditions applied to swing link for the purpose of
analysis.

Table 4. Optimization data of the swing link
Sr.
no.
Thickness
Thickness
before
optimization
(mm)
Thickness
after
optimization
(mm)
1 t
1
50 40
2 t
2
50 40
3 t
3
40 40
4 t
4
50 40
5 t
5
50 40
6 t
6
75 35
7 t
7
20 15
8 t
8
30 14

Fig. 19 shows the results of the maximum Von Misses
stresses acting on the cylinder mounting lug of optimized
swing link of 157.85 MPa. Cylinder mounting lug made
from HARDOX400 and its yield strength is of 1000 MPa.
The safety factor is taken as 2.
49

Fig.17. Static force analysis of swing link

Fig.18. Boundary conditions for swing link

Fig.19. Maximum Von Misses stresses of
optimized swing link

Fig.20. Maximum displacements of optimized swing link
Equation (1) yields [
y
] = 500 MPa, and
VM
= 157.52
MPa, so
VM
< [
y
] 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

Fig.21. Boundary conditions for backhoe assembly

Fig.22. Maximum Von Misses stresses in
optimized backhoe assembly

Fig. 21 shows the boundary conditions applied to the
backhoe assembly for the purpose to carry out FE analysis.
Fig. 22 shows the maximum Von Misses stresses produced
at the mounting lugs in the backhoe attachment assembly
of 227.64 MPa.
Mounting lugs are made from Hardox400 with the yield
strength of 1000 MPa, by taking safety factor as 2,
equation (1) yields
VM
= 227.64 MPa, [
y
] = 500 MPa,
this clearly indicates
VM
< [
y
], so the stresses produced
in the assembly of the backhoe are within the safe limits
and the design is safe for strength.
50
8. STRESS ANALYSIS OF OPTIMIZED
BACKHOE PARTS WITH
CONSIDERATION OF WELDING

bucket with welding

arm with welding

Fig.25. Maximum Von Misses stresses
of boom with welding

swing link with welding

Fig.27. Maximum Von Misses stresses of backhoe
assembly with welding

As seen in Fig. 23 to Fig. 27 maximum Von Mises
stresses developed in the mounting lugs and all mounting
lugs are made from HARDOX400 having yielding
strength of 1000 MPa. The developed stresses are very
less compare to the safe stress [
y
] = 500 MPa, with the
factor of safety is 2. Therefore the design of all the
backhoe parts and assembly is safe for strength.

9. SHAPE OPTIMIZATION

In this section shape optimization of backhoe excavator
parts is carried out with the help of shape optimization
tool of ANSYS. In the earlier section optimization is
carried out by changing variable parameter that is
thickness of plates.
In this section results of shape optimization shows the
area which can be remove from the part by changing the
geometry of the part, it also shows that how much weight
can be reduced from the particular part, so that the results
obtained from shape optimization will be compared with
the obtained results by changing parameter (thickness)
based on trial and error method performed in previous
section. The material of the parts, loading conditions and
constraints (i.e. boundary conditions), and meshing of all
the parts remain same as covered in previous all sections.

9.1. Shape optimization of bucket

Here, results of ANSYS shape optimization tool is shown
in the Fig. 28, it shows the area from which we have to
remove material to reduce the weight of the bucket but it
is not possible to change the geometry of the bucket.
Because if we change the geometry then it will lose its
basic functionality and will reduced in the capacity of the
bucket. So instead of changing the geometry of bucket,
we have changed the parameter (i.e. thickness) to reduced
the weight same as taken in the earlier section. Here, the
optimized weight obtained from the shape optimization is
17.722 kg and optimized weight achieved by trial and
error method (i.e. by changing thickness) is 17.973 kg, so
both results are very close to each other.
51

(a)

(b)

Fig. 28. Results of shape optimization for bucket

9.2. Shape optimization of arm

(a)

(b)

Fig.29. Results of shape optimization for arm
Fig. 29 shows the results of shape optimization of arm.
From Fig. 29 we can see that the material can be removed
from the arm coloured in red. Here the optimized weight
of the arm achieved by shape optimization is 25.888 kg
and optimized weight achieved by trial and error method
(i.e. by changing thickness) is 25.342 kg, so both results
are very close to each other.

9.3. Shape optimization of boom

(a)

(b)

Fig. 30. Results of shape optimization for boom

Fig. 30 shows the result of shape optimization of boom.
From Fig. 30 we can see that the material can be remove
from the boom coloured in red. Here, the optimized
weight of the boom obtained from shape optimization is
42.126 kg and optimized weight achieved by trial and
error method (i.e. by changing thickness) is 41.979 kg, so
both results are very close to each other.

9.4. Shape optimization of swing link

Here, results of shape optimization are shown in the Fig.
31 for swing link, it shows the area from which we can
remove material to reduce the weight of the swing link in
red colour. Here, the optimized weight obtained from
shape optimization is 118.24 kg and optimized weight
achieved by trial and error method (i.e. by changing
thickness) is 127.01 kg. The result indicates smaller
differences in weight of swing link, obtained by both the
52
methods. Here, we have gone through the weight of
127.01 kg of swing link because, the swing link carry the
entire weight of the all other parts of the backhoe
excavator attachment.

(a)

(b)

Fig.31. Results of shape optimization for swing link

10. VERIFICATION OF STRESS ANALYSIS
USING CLASSICAL THEORY

In this section the stresses produced in the optimized
model of backhoe excavator performed using ANSYS
software is verified with the stresses produced at the same
section in the part of excavator by classical method. The
classical theory applied to heavy duty backhoe excavator
to verify the developed stresses by Reena Trivedi [14].
Von Mises theory is applicable for ductile material
whereas the maximum principle stress theory is normally
applicable for brittle material, but in the present case for
validation of stress results of Von Mises, the maximum
principle stress theory is applied because the shear
stresses developed in the backhoe parts are very less
compare to its design shear stresses and it is the case of
bending and twisting stresses.

Let,
b
= Bending stress, N/mm
2

a
= Axial stress, N/mm
2

cmb
= Combined stress, N/mm
2

= Shear stress, N/mm
2

}
a
= Polar moment of inertia of arm, mm
3

The bucket having the complex shape and size therefore
not considered for the application of classical theory.
Here, arm is taken for the verification of the results of
optimized model which are obtained from the FE
analysis. For arm, a section plane A-A taken at 452 mm
from pivot A
3
, 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.

Fig.32. Section plane A-A in the front view
section at of the arm

Fig.33. Details of arm section plane A-A

Fig.34. Forces acting at the arm section

Angle of force at A
3
with horizontal axis is
A3
= 8.27

Angle of force at A
12
A12
=
98.29

53
Force acting at point A
3
is R
A3
= 22423 Newton
12
is R
A12
= 7783.7 Newton
Distance from neutral axis to the outer fiber, y = 92.5 mm
Cross section area of arm, CS
a
= 2352 mm
2
Perpendicular distance between A
3
pivot and centre of
section, L
A3
= 65 mm

12
pivot and centre of
section, L
A12
= 319 mm
Taking moment about point S
u
(centre of cross section of
arm), we get
Bending moment, BN
a
= R
A12
L
A12
+ R
A3
L
A3

BN
a
= 3940495.3 N.mm
Let,
I
xx
= moment of inertia about X axis for hollow
rectangular cross-section of arm = 11364144 mm
4

Bending stresses can be calculated using the following
formula,
b
=
y BM
a
I
xx
a
(2)

b
= 32.074 MPa
Force acting in X direction, F
x
= 21066.71 N
Force acting in Y direction, F
y
= 10927.65 N
Axial stress,

a
= F
x
CS
a

(3)

a
= 8.956 MPa
Shear stress,
a
= F
y
CS
a

(4)
a
= 4.646 MPa
Combined stress,
cmb
=
a
+
b
(5)
cmb
= 8.956 + 32.074 = 41.03 MPa
Twisting moment,
TN = (half wiuth of bucket) FB (6)
TM = 2085711 N.mm
Where,
Width of bucket = 547 mm
FB = Maximum digging force in Newton
FB = 7626 Newton
Polar moment of inertia,
}
a
= 2 b u t mm
3
(7)
}
a
= 2 185 117 4
}
a
= 173160 mm
3

Shear stress due to twisting,
twIst
= TN }
a

(8)
twIst
= 12.u4S N/mm
2

Mean stress,
mcan
=

b
+
a
2
=
o
cmb
2
(9)
= 20515.5 MPa
Maximum principal stress,

1
=
mcan
_
mcan
2
+
a
2
(10)
1
= 41.9 MPa

As per classical theory the value of maximum principal
stress is 21.039 MPa. For verification of stress results
obtained from classical theory applied for arm, a same
section plane is taken at a same distance of 452 mm from
the pivot A
3
and stresses developed at that section plane
A-A are between 32.837 MPa 49.25 MPa and its
average value is of 41.044 MPa, which indicates that the
results are remains identical with the results of classical
theory, as shown in Fig. 36. Fig. 35 shows the section
plane (A-A) taken for calculations and Fig. 36 shows the
result of stresses produced at that section plane A-A.
Now here, boom is taken for the verification of the result
of optimized model which is obtained from the FE
analysis. For boom, a section plane B-B taken at 440 mm
from pivot A
2
which is arbitrarily selected as shown in the
Fig. 37. 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 boom at section plane B-B taken
for study is shown in the Fig. 38. Force analysis at section
plane B-B shown in Fig. 39 for boom.

Fig.35. Section plane A-A in the arm

Fig.36. Stresses at section plane A-A from FE analysis

Fig.37. Section plane B-B in the front view of the boom

Angle of force at A
2
A2
= 18.87
0
2
is R
A2
= 26432 Newton
54
Distance from neutral axis to the outer fiber, y = 85 mm
Cross section area of boom, CS
b
= 2344 mm
2
2
pivot and centre of
section, L
A2
=142.30 mm

Fig.38. Details of boom section at section plane B-B

Fig.39. Forces acting on the right hand side of
the boom section

Taking moment about point S
b
(centre of cross section)
the bending moment,
BN
b
= R
A2
L
A2
(11)
BN
b
= 3761273.6 N.mm
Let,
I
xx
= moment of inertia about X axis for hollow
rectangular cross-section of boom = 10055421.33 mm
4

Bending stress,
b
=
y BM
b
I
xx
b
(12)
b
= 31.79 MPa
Force acting in X direction, F
x
= 50022.81 N
Force acting in Y direction, F
y
= 17097.38 N
Axial stress,
a
=
F
X
CS
b
(13)
a
= 21.34 MPa
Shear stress,
b
=
F
y
CS
b
(14)
b
= 7.29 MPa
Combined stress,
cmb
=
a
+
b
(15)
= 21.34 + 31.79
cmb
= 53.13 MPa
Twisting moment,
TN = half wiuth of bucket FB (16)
= 2085711 N.mm
Where,
Width of bucket = 547 mm
FD = Maximum digging force in Newton
FD = 7626 Newton
Polar moment of inertia,
}
b
= 2 b u t mm
3
(17)
= 2 170 131 4
}
b
= 178160 N.mm
Shear stress due to twisting,
twIst
= TN }
b
(18)
= 11.71 MPa
Mean stress,
mcan
=

b
+
a
2
=
o
cmb
2
(19)
= 26.565 MPa
Maximum principal stress,

1
=
mcan
_
mcan
2
+
a
2
(20)

1
= 54.11 MPa

Fig.40. Section plane B-B in the boom

Fig.41. Stresses at section plane B-B from FE analysis

Fig. 40 shows the section plane B-B taken for calculations
and Fig. 41 shows the results of stresses developed at
section B-B getting from FE analysis performed using
ANSYS. So as per classical theory the value of maximum
principal stress is 54.11 MPa. For verification of stress
results obtained from classical theory applied for boom, a
same section plane is taken at a same distance of 440 mm
from the pivot point A
2
and stresses developed at that
section plane B-B are between 41.028 MPa 61.535 MPa
and its average value is of 51.2815 MPa, Which indicates
that the results are remains identical with the results of
classical theory, as clearly shown in the Fig. 41.
55
11. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 5. Summary of weight reduction by trial and error
method (i.e. change in thickness) in different parts of
excavator

Sr.
no.
Name of
the part
Weight before
optimization
(Kg)
Weight
after
optimization
(Kg)
Reduction
in weight
1 Bucket 23 17.973 5.027
2 Arm 30.938 25.342 5.596
3 Boom 51.605 41.979 9.608
4
Swing
link
177.41 127.01 50.4
Total weight 70.631

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
error method (i.e. change in thickness) is 70.631 kg.
The FEA of the backhoe parts with the maximum
breakout configuration is carried out for optimized model
based on boundary conditions as calculated in chapter 7
are presented in this chapter. The maximum Von Mises
stresses acting on bucket, arm, boom and swing link are
227.52 MPa, 229.79 MPa, 287.11 MPa and 157.85 MPa
and the yield strength of these parts are 1000 Mpa, 450
Mpa, 1000 Mpa and 450 Mpa respectively, and by taking
safety factor = 2 all the parts are found to be safe. The
stress analysis of whole assembly is also carriedout and
the stress produced are within the safe limit.
Table 6 shows the comparison of sresses produced in the
model without and with considering welding. Comparison
shows that the backhoe model with welding having
reduced stresses, so it is clear that the welding improves
the strength of the parts.

Table 6. Comparision of stresses produced in the
optimized model with and without welding

Sr. no.
Name of
parts
Maximum Von Mises stress
produced (MPa)
Optimized
model
without
welding
Optimized
model with
welding
1 Bucket 227.52 206.45
2 Arm 229.79 221.01
3 Boom 287.11 277.84
4 Swing link 157.52 155.98
5
Backhoe
assembly
227.64 223.45

Table 7 shows the comparison of optimized weight
achieved by trial and error method (i.e. reduction in
thickness) and shape optimization achieved by ANSYS
tool, which shows that the results are very close to each
other and results from trial and error method are
acceptable.
The stresses produced in the optimized model by
performing FE analysis using ANSYS software is also
verified with the stresses obtained by applying classical
theory and the results obtained from both the methods are
identical.
Table 7. Comparision of optimized weight obtained by
trial and error method and shape optimization

Sr.
no.
Name of
parts
Weight
before
optimiz-
ation
(Kg)
Weight after
optimization
(Kg) %
Variatio
n in
results
by both
methods
Trial and
error
method
(i.e. by
changing
thickness)
Shape
optimiza
-tion
(i.e. by
changing
geometr
y)
1 Bucket 23 17.973 17.722 1.39
2 Arm 30.938 25.342 25.888 2.10
3 Boom 51.605 41.979 42.126 0.34
4
Swing
Link
177.41 127.01 118.24 6.90
Total Weight 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 894-
901.
[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.
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.
56
PRAJAPATI, Static Analysis of Mini Hydraulic
Backhoe Excavator Attachment Using FEA
Approach, International Journal of Mechanical
Engineering and Robotics Research, Submitted,
2012.
[6] C. S. KRISHNAMURTHY, Finite element analysis
theory and programming, Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited, 2007, pp 1-17.
[7] MOHSEN KARGAHI, JAMES C. ANDERSON
AND MAGED M. DESSOUKY, Structural
Optimization with Tabu Search, Senior Engineer,
Weidlinger Associates, Inc., 2525 Michigan Avenue,
D2-3, Santa Monica, California, 90404, 1997.
[8] MEHMET YENER, Design of a Computer Interface
for Automatic Finite Element Analysis of an
Excavator Boom, M.S. Thesis, The Graduate School
of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East
Technical University, May 2005, pp 1-4, 68-69.
[9] NARESHKUMAR N. OZA, Finite Element
Analysis and Optimization of an Earthmoving
Equipment Attachment - Backhoe, M. Tech. Thesis,
Nirma University, Institute of science and
Technology, Ahmedabad-382481, May 2006.
[10] MEHTA GAURAV K., Design and Development of

an Excavator Attachment, M. tech. Thesis, Nirma
University, Institute of science and Technology,
Ahmedabad-382481, May 2008, pp 1.
[11] SSAB, HARDOX400 data sheet,
http://www.hardox.com.
[12] STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
(SAIL), SAIL product panorama product brochure,
http://www.sail.co.in/sail_product/SAIL_FINAL/Sp
ecifications%20for%20Plates.htm, 2003.
[13] TIRUPATHI R. CHANDRUPATLA AND ASHOK
G. BELEGUNDU, Introduction to Finite Elements
in Engineering, Pearson Education Publication,
Delhi, India, 2005.
[14] TRIVEDI REENA, Calculation of Static Forces And
Finite Element Analysis of Attachments of An
Excavator, M. Tech. Thesis, Nirma University,
Institute of Science and Technology, Ahmedabad-
382481, May 2005.

Machine Design

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Machine Design

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

machine design, Vol.5(2013) No.1, ISSN 1821-1259 pp.

Part no. Part name Quantity

Fig. 2 shows the static force analysis of the bucket for

[10] MEHTA GAURAV K., Design and Development of

Você também pode gostar