International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering

Volume 2, Issue 11, July-2015 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

OPTIMIZATION OF THE HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR BOOM USING

FEA APPROACH
Amol B. Bhosale1, Dr. Maruthi B H2, Dr. Channakeshavalu K3
1
M.Tech scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, EWIT, Bangalore, India
2,3
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, EWIT, Bangalore, India

Abstract: Normally for excavation task, heavy duty
earthmoving machines called excavators are used.
Unknown resistive forces are offered by the terrain to the
bucket teeth while excavation operation. Adverse effect on
machine parts occurs due to excessive amount of these
forces and may be failed during excavation operation.
Providing the better robust design of excavator parts is a
challenging task for design engineers. So that it can work
against unpredictable forces and under worst working
condition. The vital importance should be given not only to
better design of parts having maximum reliability but also
to minimum weight and cost, keeping design safe under all
loading conditions. For strength calculations of the
structures working under known load and boundary
conditions, the best powerful technique is finite element
analysis (FEA). The analysis of the existing design and
optimize the excavator boom is the main objective of this
paper. The stress induced in the excavator attachments vary
during its operation at different positions. The forces were
calculated which were applied in the analysis. And it shows
that the stresses in excavator attachment are coming under
allowable limit. The thickness of the material is reduced in
the modeling for optimum weight of the excavator.
Keywords: Excavator Boom, FEA, Displacements, Von
mises stresses, Reaction Forces, Optimization
landscaping, mining, river dredging, snow removal with
snowplow and snow blower attachment, digging of holes,
trenches, foundations, solid waste management, cleaning of
canals and ditches. The material considered for the excavator
boom is Hardox400. Hardox is also called as high strength
steel. Hardox has a great combination of hardness &
toughness. Hardox has the yield strength of 1000 MPa.
II. METHODOLOGY
For excavation operation, three major components are
involved boom, arm and bucket. Within these three, boom
component is considered. So the literatures related to stress
analysis, design and optimization of boom component are
studied and the optimization of the boom of an excavator is
carried out.
A. GEOMETRIC MODEL
Catia V5 software is used to create the 3D geometric model
of boom of an excavator as shown in figure. 3D and 2D view
of geometric model of the boom of an excavator is shown in
figure 1.

I. INTRODUCTION
The use of machines is increasing for the earth moving works
in the era of globalization and tough competition. So the
design of earth moving equipments is getting attention.
Trackhoes is another name for tracked excavator. Generally
excavator is used to excavate the soil from earth by applying Fig.1. 3D view of geometric model of the boom of an
the force on the surface of earth using hydraulic system. With excavator
the help of hydraulic force, the bucket is lifting the gravel.
Gravel is generally the mixture of the sand and rock B. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
fragments, approximately 15 mm size. The excavator bucket Meshing is carried out in Hypermesh software. The meshed
is replaceable. So bucket can be exchanged with any other or FE model is as shown in figure 2.
attachments like hammer, 360º scrap shear and multi
processor to enhance the performance. Excavator comes in
various sizes depending on size of bucket, boom length, arm
length and operation speed. Production cycle is the measure
of the performance of the excavator. The time taken by the
excavator to load the bucket from source, swing, dump,
return back and then dig again is called production cycle.
Hence the production cycle will increase with the faster
operation speed, as the one cycle will complete faster. Today
hydraulic excavators find wide applications in the field of
material handling, forestry work, demolition, general Fig.2. Meshed or FE model of the boom of an excavator

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2015.All rights reserved. 2521

International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering
Volume 2, Issue 11, July-2015
C. LOADS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The bucket of the hydraulic excavator is of model 329D
chosen from CAT catalogue with a mass of 896 kg and a
capacity of 1.2 mᶾ. Also the breakout force acting on bucket
teeth while digging the terrain is 222 kN. [11]
Mass of gravel, mgravel
mgravel = 3420 kg
Mass of Arm, marm
Density of Hardox400, ρhardox = 7870 kg/mᶾ
marm = ρhardox × 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑚
marm = 940 kg
Mass of Boom, mboom
mboom = ρhardox × 𝑉𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑚
mboom = 1964 kg
Total mass acting on boom, M
M = mass of gravel + mass of bucket + mass of arm
M = 5256 kg
Force applied on boom, F
F = Force acting due to total mass acting on boom +
Breakout force
F = 273.56 kN
Fig.3. Boundary conditions applied on boom of an excavator
Boundary conditions are applied in Hypermesh software
only. The model with boundary conditions is shown in figure
3.
D. EXISTING MODEL
The linear static analysis is done on the existing model to
study the maximum displacement, maximum stresses acting
on boom and also to get reaction forces at supports (i.e. at
boom end & cylinder end). The figure 4 shows the maximum
and minimum displacement occurred in the boom when the
thickness of the boom plates is 8mm and lug plates thickness
is also 8 mm. The maximum displacement occurred in the
boom is 54.28 mm and minimum displacement is 0 mm when
the load applied on the boom is 273.56 kN. The maximum
displacement occurred where the load is applied, the free end
of the boom.
. maximum stress lies below the allowable stress. The reaction
Fig.4. Displacement of Boom with Boom & Lug thickness
8mm
www.ijtre.com Copyright 2015.All rights reserved.
ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718
The figure 5 shows the maximum and minimum stress
occurred in the boom when the boom plate’s thickness is
8mm and lug plates thickness is also 8mm. The maximum
stress induced in the boom is 511.5 MPa and minimum stress
induced is 1.041 MPa. The maximum stress occurred in the
lug plates, where the hydraulic cylinders are attached. The
allowable stress for boom is 666 kN with the 1.5 as a factor
of safety. So the boom component is safe with the 8mm
boom plate thickness and 8mm lug thickness, because the
maximum stress lies within the allowable stress.
Fig.5. Stresses in Boom with Boom & Lug thickness 8mm
The figure 6 shows the reaction forces occurred at the
supports, at cylinder end and boom end when the boom plate
thickness is 8 mm and lug plates thickness is also 8 mm. The
reactions occurred at the cylinder ends are 556.9 kN & 556.4
kN and at the boom end it is 820.5 kN but in the opposite
direction when the load applied is 273.56 kN.
Fig.6. Reaction Forces on Boom with Boom & Lug thickness
8mm
E. OPTIMIZATION
The linear static analysis is done on the existing model with
4 cases to optimize the boom of a hydraulic excavator. The
optimization is done with the varying thickness of the boom
plate and lug plate thicknesses. The maximum and minimum
stress occurred in the boom when the boom plate’s thickness
is 5mm and lug plates thickness is 10 mm. The maximum
stress induced in the boom is 610.1 MPa and minimum stress
induced is 1.628 MPa. The maximum stress occurred in the
lug plates, where the hydraulic cylinders are attached. The
allowable stress for boom is 666kN with the 1.5 as a factor
of safety. So the boom component is safe with the 6mm
boom plate thickness and 8mm lug thickness, because the
forces occurred at the supports, at cylinder end and boom
2522
International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering
Volume 2, Issue 11, July-2015 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

end when the boom plate thickness is 5mm and lug plates IV. RESULT AND DISSCUSSION
thickness is 10 mm. The reactions occurred at the cylinder The finite element analysis of the boom of an excavator with
ends are 521.2 kN & 519.5 kN and at the boom end it is the maximum breakout force consideration is done for
755.0 kN but in the opposite direction when the load applied optimized model based on boundary conditions calculated
is 273.5 kN and self weight of boom is 1964 kg. previously.
Table IV. Numerically Calculated Maximum Displacement,
III. ANALYTICAL VALIDATION Maximum Stress
INPUT DATA: Thickness
Reaction Force, F = 755 kN
Maximum Maximum
Boom Lug Displacement Stress
Plates Plates

(mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa)

Base
8 8 54.28 511.5
Design

Case 1 6 6 72.6 677.5

Fig.7. Schematic diagram showing the boom and reaction Case 2 6 8 70.85 574.6
force.
Case 3 6 10 69.53 511
Case 4 5 10 82.35 610.1
Table IV shows the maximum von mises stresses acting on
optimized boom is 610.1 MPa and yield strength of boom is
1000 MPa and by considering factor of safety as 1.5, the
stress produced is within the safe limit.

Table V. Numerically Calculated SPCF

SPCF

Fig.8. Cross-section of the boom at x-x section. Boom End Cylinder End
SOLUTION:
bһᶾ 𝑏1 h1 ᶾ
I𝑥 = − (kN) 1st End 2nd End
12 12 (kN) (kN)
hbᶾ h1 b1 ᶾ
I𝑦 = − Base
12 12 -820. 5 556.9 556.4
MB = F × Y Design
MB = 377.1225 × 106 N-mm
MB y Case 1 -820.2 554.2 554
σ=
Iy
Analytically, σ = 70.58 MPa Case 2 -795.8 542.4 541.5
From Numerical analysis, σ = 71.38 MPa
Case 3 -774.3 531.9 530.5

Case 4 -755 521.2 519.5

Table V shows the reaction forces occurred at the supports

(i.e. at boom end and cylinder end) for existing model and
also for all cases considered for optimization. Table VI
shows the weight of the boom of an excavator of an existing
design and weight of the boom of an excavator after
Fig.9. Maximum stress Obtained at point B from Numerical optimization, table shows the total reduction in weight by
Analysis trial and error method (i.e. change in thickness) is 715 kg.

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2015.All rights reserved. 2523

International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering
Volume 2, Issue 11, July-2015 ISSN (Online): 2347 - 4718

Table VI. Weight reduction of boom part of an excavator in which shows that the result of structural weight optimization
different cases performed numerically is accurate and acceptable.
Thickness REFERENCES
Weight of
the [1] Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati,
Boom Lug component Machine Design, Vol.5 (2013) No. 1, ISSN 1821-
Plates Plates (Kg) 1259, PP. 43-56.
(mm) (mm) [2] Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati, A
Review on FEA and Optimization of Backhoe
Based Attachment in Hydraulic Excavator, IACSIT
8 8 1964
Design International Journal of Engineering and
Case 1 6 6 1473 Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5, October 2011, pp. 505-
Case 2 6 8 1482 511.
Case 3 6 10 1490 [3] Sachin B. Bende, N. P. Awate, Computer Aided
Design of Excavator Arm: FEM Approach,
Case 4 5 10 1249 Mechanica Confab, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2013,
PP. 56-62.
Table VII. Comparison of stresses produced in the boom of [4] Rahul Mishra, Vaibhav Dewangan, Optimization of
an excavator using Numerical and Analytical method Component of Excavator Bucket, IJSRET, Volume
Thickness of Maximum Von mises stress 2 (2013), Issue 2, ISSN 2278-0882, pp. 076-078.
plates (mm) produced (MPa) [5] Sachine B. Bende, Nilesh P. Awate, Design,
Modeling and Analysis of Excavator Arm, IJDMT,
Numerical Analytical Volume 4 (2013), Issue 2, ISSN 0976-7002, pp. 14-
Boom Lug 20.
Approach Approach
[6] Shiva Soni, S. L. Ahirwar, et al., Simulation and
Based
8 8 71.38 70.58 Static Analysis on Improved Design of Excavator
Design
Boom, IJETAE, Volume 4 (2014), Issue 3, ISSN
% Deviation in Von mises 2250-2459, pp. 49-55.
1.12
Stresses [7] Bhaveshkumar P. Patel, Jagdish M. Prajapati,
Evaluation of Bucket Capacity, Digging Force
Table VII shows the comparison of stresses produced in the Calculations and Static Force Analysis of Mini
boom with numerical & analytical method solution. Hydraulic Backhoe Excavator, Vol. 4(2012) No. 1,
Comparison shows that the stress found out by numerical & ISSN 1821-1259, pp. 59-66.
analytical method are very close. Stress values are deviated [8] Bikash Rai, Chandra Shekhar Basnett, et al., Design
by 1.12% from each other. and Analysis of Rotating Bucket Arm of Excavator,
Volume 2 (2013), Issue 4, ISSN 2319-3189, pp.
V. CONCLUSION 134-136.
The work is carried out on the boom component of the [9] Luigi Solazzi, Design of Aluminum Boom and Arm
hydraulic excavator. The linear static analysis is done to find for an Excavator, Journal of Terramechanics 47
out the linear static characteristics of the boom component. (2010) p. 201-207.
From those static characteristics, the structural weight [10] Andrzej Neimitz, Ductile fracture mechanics in the
optimization is carried out. The 3D geometric model is high-strength steel Hardox-400, Microscopic
created in Catia V5 software and finite element model is observations and numerical stress-strain analysis,
developed in Hypermesh software. The size of elements and Procedia Material Science 3 (2014) 270-275.
quality of mesh is maintained. Then boundary conditions are [11] CAT 329D/329D L, Hydraulic Excavator
applied on existing model and on 4 cases considered for Catalogue, www.cat.com
weight optimization using varying thickness of boom plates. [12] HARDOX Wear Plate, Data Sheet: HARDOX400,
The load to be applied on boom is calculated analytically. www.ssabox.com
From linear static analysis, the displacements, Von Mises [13] Fjodor Sergejev, Mihhail Petrov, Assessment of
stresses and reaction forces at supports are found out for residual stresses in steels and carbide composites by
existing model and for the another 4 cases. The maximum load and depth sensing indentation with spherical
value of stress is considered in each case and weight indenter, Estonian journal of Engineering, Volume
optimization is done with factor of safety as 1.5. Results 18 (2012), Issue 3, pp 259-269.
obtained by numerical analysis are validated analytically. [14] [14] Trivedi Reena, Calculation of Static Forces and
Structural weight optimization gave the total weight Finite Element Analysis of Attachments of an
reduction of 715 kg (36.4%). Comparison in results of the Excavator, M.Tech Thesis, Nirma University,
Von Mises stresses obtained by numerically and analytically Institute of Science and Technology, Ahmedabad-
is very less and total variation in result is of only 1.12% 382481, May 2005.

www.ijtre.com Copyright 2015.All rights reserved. 2524