Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jurnal Analisa Kegagalan Pada Rangka Truk
Jurnal Analisa Kegagalan Pada Rangka Truk
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 March 2014
Received in revised form 15 November 2014
Accepted 17 November 2014
Available online 27 November 2014
Keywords:
Wide-body mining dump truck
Frame
Crack failure
Dynamic test
Stress concentrations
a b s t r a c t
The wide-body mining dump truck is a type of heavy-duty, off-highway truck that is
mainly used for transporting rock and ore in open-pit mines. Because of various potholes,
obstacles, slopes and curves on the bumpy road, the frame of the truck is impacted by the
multiform large loads from ground. After ve to six months in service, cracks tend to
appear in the frame of the truck, near the rear seating of the front leaf springs. To identify
the cause of these failures and propose an approach for improving the design, a practical
method combined with nite element analysis (FEA), as well as static and dynamic testing,
was applied. FEA was used to analyze the cause of the cracking, after which the design of
the frame was improved. Static and dynamic tests were conducted to verify the FEA results
of the improved frame. Analysis results indicated that the stresses are concentrated in the
frame near the rear seating of the front leaf springs, which results in the premature appearance of fatigue cracks. A solution for preventing the appearance of these cracks was proposed. The improved frame has been in service for more than twelve months in the
mine and no cracks have appeared to date.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The wide-body mining dump truck (WMDT) is used in many small-scale mines in China. Considering the bad mine roads
having potholes, obstacles, slopes and curves, and the inuence of manufacturing cost and service cycle, with a short designlife of 2 years, the WMDT uses leaf spring for its suspension instead of hydro-pneumatic suspension. Hence it is a transition
vehicle between traditional mining dump truck and the highway heavy dump truck. One type of WMDT is shown in Fig. 1.
The model that was the subject of this study has an unladen weight of 24 t, a maximum load capacity of 72 t, and a normal
speed of 10 km/h when carrying a full load or 50 km/h when empty. However, after ve to six months in service, cracks tend
to appear in the frame near the rear seating of front leaf spring (RSFLS), which results in signicant downtime.
Either nite element analysis (FEA) or testing alone could not fully analyze the causes of these frame failures. Rather, any
analysis of the cracking would require a method that combined both FEA and testing [14]. Mi et al. presented a method for
predicting the fatigue life of the frame of a 220-t mining dump truck through multibody dynamic analysis and the application of the nite element method [5,6]. Feng et al. analyzed the static, modal, and response spectra of the FEA model and
conrmed its feasibility as a means of verifying the failure of a dump trucks push rod [7]. Shao et al. presented an analysis
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 130 6920 1036.
E-mail address: 66227616@qq.com (J. Wang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.11.013
1350-6307/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
154
method based on dynamic strain measurements of actual road surface conditions combined with FEA, which was applied to
the analysis of the failure of the drive axle housing of a mining dump truck, using ANSYS software [8].
These previous efforts provided important guidelines for this study, given that the application of the nite element model,
the loads to be applied, and the boundary conditions can be referenced in these papers [914]. The interaction between the
frame and the leaf springs also plays an important role in the appearance of cracks in the frame. The design of the frame must
not only provide sufcient mechanical strength, but also satisfy the technical process requirements. With a goal of solving
these practical problems, we set out to devise an effective method of improving the design of the frame. To identify the reasons for the frame cracking and improve the mechanical strength, FEA and static/dynamic tests are carried out. The frame
was analyzed using FEA, after which measures were implemented to improve the stress distribution. A static test was conducted to verify the improvement in the frame design by comparing the measured results with those obtained with FEA. A
dynamic test was performed to further conrm the improvement, after which the results were compared with those of the
static test to determine a matching coefcient. Based on the FEA and static test results, the dynamic test data for the original
frame could be acquired by multiplying the FEA results by the matching coefcient. The research conducted during this
study is shown in Fig. 2.
2. FEA models
2.1. Frame and leaf spring seating
The frame, which connects the engine, cab, dump body, and other major parts, is a supportive and connective component
of a mining dump truck. The frame supports its own weight and other complex loads, such as impact loads from the suspension and gravitational loads imposed by other components. Therefore, the reliability of the frame directly affects the service
life of the WMDT and the technology that it employs. As shown in Fig. 3, the frame consists of two side rails and seven
welded crossbeams of different thicknesses. The side rails are designed as D-type box beams, and the second and third crossbeams are connected to the side rails through the leaf spring seatings. The other crossbeams, however, are welded to the
inner plates. The frame is fabricated from high-strength, low-alloy quenched and tempered Q460CFD steel, the specications
of which are listed in Table 1.
The leaf springs transfer forces and torques from the ground over which the WMDT is traveling. The leaf springs are rigidly xed to the front axle by two U-bolts, and their ends are connected to the frame through the leaf spring seatings, which
are bolted to the bottom surface and outside plates of the frame. Fig. 3 shows the openings in the frame near the RSFLS that
are required in order to access and tighten the xing bolts. When the truck travels over rough ground, the frame is subject to
alternating dynamic loads that cause bending and twisting. The leaf springs are connected to each RSFLS with pin rolls,
which bear more force than the slide of the front seating of the leaf spring, as shown in Fig. 3. Based on the results obtained
for the combined effects of TX, TY, TZ and RX, RY, RZ, it is clear that each RSFLS plays a pivotal role in transferring loads.
When the WMDT is turning or traversing a tilting surface, there is an X-direction force in the spring seating, which acts
toward the outer plate of the frame, while the main loads in the Y direction are the weight of the WMDTs dump body,
its payload, and its powertrain. When the WMDT starts to move or brakes, an inertia force is generated in the forward
direction, that is, the Z direction. Given the tight interfaces between the bolts, seating and frame, a torque is applied that
is a function of the distances, in the X, Y, and Z directions, between the bolts in this area. As a result, forces are generated
between the leaf spring and the side rail in all three directions [15,16].
155
Table 1
Physical properties of Q460CFD.
Material
Density (kg/m3)
Poissons ratio
Q460CFD
7850
200
0.3
460
510
156
Z directions of the translational DOF at the trunnion shaft are coupled. In addition, the translational DOF limits the leaf
springs in the X direction at the corresponding positions. If no special instruction is given, the previously mentioned loads
and constraints are applied to the following operating conditions, as shown in Fig. 5.
3. Static analysis
3.1. FEA of the original frame
Due to the versatility of the truck and the diversity of the conditions in which it is operated, several typical cases were
carried out in detailed analyses.
3.1.1. Static case with full load
The frame experiences pure bending when the WMDT is static on at ground. The deformation and stress in the frame
were analyzed for this case. It was observed that the maximum stress at that point in the side rail where a crack appears
is 165 MPa, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The overall strength of the model is expressed by the von Mises stress.
3.1.2. Hoisting condition
When the dump body is being hoisted up, the stress in the frame varies as the angle of the dump body increases. The
frame experiences the maximum bending load when the dump body is lifted up at the hoisting moment, which corresponds
to a typical pure bending working condition. From Fig. 6(b), the frame experiences large amounts of stress, peaking at
197 MPa.
157
A.140MPa
A.88MPa
B.197MPa
B.165MPa
A.166MPa
B.200MPa
B.235MPa
A.132MPa
B.143MPa
158
D-type
159
A.13MPa
B.23MPa
A.100MPa
B.24MPa
A.47MPa
B.43MPa
strain gauge rosettes to observe the stress distributions in the X, Y, and Z directions. The single strain gauge was used to measure the unidirectional bending strength of the frame. Two crucial locations near the crack were studied, with the aim of
obtaining the stresses labeled 6 and 8. Some of the measuring points are shown in Fig. 11.
As shown in Fig. 12(a)(d), the static full loads and hoisting loads were symmetrical. The values obtained show that the
stresses increased with the load. In the static test under the full-load condition, the maximum stress at measuring point 6
was 12 MPa, while that at measuring point 8 was 22 MPa. Similarly, for the hoisting condition, the maximum stress at
measuring point 6 was 19 MPa while that at measuring point 8 was 22 MPa. The data were reset to zero at 0 t under both
160
A.45MPa
B.53MPa
A.83MPa
B.85MPa
Table 2
Comparison of the FEA results between the original and improved frames (unit: MPa).
Position
Position A original
(see Fig. 6)
Position A improvement
(see Fig. 8)
Position B original
(see Fig. 6)
Position B improvement
(see Fig. 8)
140
88
166
139
132
13
100
47
45
83
165
197
235
200
143
23
24
43
53
85
working conditions. As shown in Fig. 12(e)(h), under the obstacle surmounting and sinking conditions, the data obtained at
measuring points 6 and 8 showed that the stresses on the frame were smaller.
To check the validity of the results of FEA, the FEA stress value was compared with the peak stress obtained in the static
test, as shown in Table 3. This comparison revealed that the maximum stress value obtained with the FEA most closely corresponded to the static test results, indicating that the nite element model of the frame was reliable.
161
162
on a long route which included combinations of curves and slopes. During this period, the truck stopped to make way for
other trucks for about 1000 s. Then, between 6501 s and 7000 s, the truck stopped to weigh and unload. The sampling frequency was 100 Hz, and the average speed was 10 km/h. The data collection system was DH5902, in which the strain signals
are amplied, ltered, and converted to digital signals. The conversion of the principal stress is done using the following
formula:
163
Error (%)
Error (%)
13
100
47
45
12
19
46
34
8.3
373
2.2
32.3
23
24
43
53
22
22
40
50
4.5
9.1
7.5
6.0
q
rmax Ee0 e90
E
One strain gauge was afxed to the frame upper surface at measuring point 6, and another was afxed to the bottom surface of the side rail at measuring point 8, both near the crack position. Fig. 14(a) and (b) show the three stages of the test. The
rst stage was the loading period, during which the main impact was the payload being dropped into the dump truck, when
the maximum stress was 55 MPa at measuring point 6 and 42 MPa at measuring point 8. The second stage was the full-load
driving stage, during which the main impacts on the frame originated from the complex and irregular road conditions
including uphill and downhill, the tilting road surface, and the uneven ground. The maximum stress was 62 MPa at measuring point 6 and 54 MPa at measuring point 8. The third stage was the unloading of the truck, during which the maximum
stress was 77 MPa at measuring point 6 and 55 MPa at measuring point 8.
4.3. Determining the matching coefcient for the static and dynamic tests
To determine the relationship between the static and dynamic tests, a matching coefcient is proposed for the two
results. This is obtained from the improved frame by the application of the following equation. Furthermore, the dynamic
stress of the original frame can be calculated by multiplying the FEA results by the matching coefcient. Matching
coefcients of static and dynamic test are showed in Table 4.
Cm
rdmax rbasic
rstc
rstc
n
X
ri =n
i1
164
Table 4
Matching coefcients of static and dynamic test (unit: MPa).
Position
26.5
77.0
8.5
3.2
29.3
55.0
17.9
2.5
Table 5
Dynamic stress of the original frame based on matching coefcients (unit:MPa).
Position
451.8
283.9
535.7
448.5
425.9
410.8
490.5
585.1
497.9
356.1
165