Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis and redesign of the bucket wheel excavator

two-wheel bogie
Srdan Bošnjak a, Zoran Petković a, Nenad Zrnić a,*, Milorad Pantelić b, Aleksandar Obradović a
a
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Belgrade 35, Serbia
b
Kolubara Metal Ltd., Diše Ðurd evića Rusa 32, 11560 Vreoci, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper discusses the cause of the failure in the vital part of the crawler travel gear of the
Received 29 July 2009 bucket wheel excavator (BWE) – two-wheel bogie (TWB). The results of the finite element
Accepted 6 September 2009 analysis (FEA) point out that the main reason of the TWB failure is its insufficient strength
Available online 11 September 2009
under lateral forces acting during curve travel. The weak points in the TWB structure are
removed by suitable redesign while keeping in mind all restrictions ensuing from installa-
Keywords: tion conditions and functionality of the existing crawler travel gear. In addition to the
Bucket wheel excavator
numerical analysis (FEA), a parallel experimental analysis of the original as well as the
Two-wheel bogie failure
Finite element analysis
redesigned TWB is conducted on a test board especially designed for this purpose. The
Redesign experimental results have confirmed the considerably improved response on lateral loads
Experimental strength investigation of the redesigned TWB. The exploitation of the redesigned TWB with no failures has con-
firmed the validity of the reconstruction design.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Constant exploitation of heavy duty machines such as bucket wheel excavator (BWE), under the action of highly pro-
nounced dynamic loads, may lead to the failures of its substructures and subassemblies, such as described in [1–3].
The BWE Sch Rs. 1760, Fig. 1, presents the basic machine for overburden digging in the open pit mine ‘‘Kolubara” – Serbia.
Intensive exploitation in extremely heavy conditions, Fig. 2, leads to the failure of vital parts in the crawler travel gear, Fig. 3.
Failures of crawler travel gear parts cause direct costs, as well as indirect costs due to the downtime that substantially
diminishes the effects of BWE exploitation. Furthermore, replacement of damaged parts is executed on site, often in hard
working conditions that essentially prolong the downtime of the complete surface mining system.
The following sections will present the results of the investigation into the reasons of the TWB structure failure and its
redesign, see Fig. 3a, as well as the numerical–experimental validation of the redesigned TWB structure.

2. Diagnosis of the cause of the TWB structure failure

Fig. 4 shows the main TWB subassemblies. It can be observed in Fig. 5 that there is no connection between the vertical
plates in the TWB structure under the hole for bedding the track wheel axles. On the other hand, based on how the TWB
damaged structure looks, shown in Fig. 3a, it is conclusive that the main cause of its failure is insufficient strength during
the action of lateral forces which are dominantly applied during BWE curve travel. The verification of this conclusion is done
by applying the linear FEA. Discretization of the 3D model shown in Fig. 5 is done by 10-node parabolic tetrahedron elements

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 11 3302454; fax: +381 11 3370364.

E-mail address: nzrnic@mas.bg.ac.yu (N. Zrnić).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.09.007
474 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Fig. 1. BWE Sch Rs. 1760: total weight (with mobile conveyor) 3150 t, theoretical capacity 6100 m3/h.

[4], Fig. 6. The load analysis of the TWB structure, Fig. 7, is carried out according to the rules given in [5–7]. Two load cases
are considered:

 The track wheel is affected by the average vertical load for maximum load on the crawler track Rz,m,max = 384.3 kN and the
corresponding horizontal loads: Hy,m,max = 230.6 kN and Hx,m,max = 15.5 kN – load case I.
 The track wheel is affected by extreme load Rz,max = 518.8 kN, Hy,max = 311.3 kN and Hx,max = 20.9 kN – load case II.

By comparing the look-out of the damaged structure and the deformation field, Fig. 8, it is conclusive that FEM model
truly simulates the structural behavior of the TWB under the action of external loads.
Maximum values of the von Mises stresses occur in the zone where vertical plates are clamped and form the fork for
track wheel axle bedding, Fig. 9. Even in load case I they are higher than the minimum value of tensile strength of the
steel the TWB structure is made of (rTS = 520 MPa, St 52.3, DIN designation). The validity of obtained results confirms
the look-out of the critical zone after the failure of the TWB structure – framed part in Fig. 9. To a high degree calculated
stress state is found in a relatively large part of the TWB structure shown in Fig. 10, which is used to explain its ‘‘crum-
pling”, Fig. 3a.

Fig. 2. Details of the crawler, length 11,280 mm, width 3700 mm.
 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485 475

Fig. 3. Failures of vital structural parts of the crawler: (a) two-wheel bogie structure; (b) chain link; (c) track plate.
476 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Fig. 4. Original TWB: 1 – structure; 2 – track wheel with axle.

Fig. 5. 3D model of the TWB structure: 1 – vertical plate; 2 – upper flange; 3 – tube for bedding the TWB in the construction of four-wheel bogie; 4 – ribs.

3. Redesign of the TWB structure

The redesigned TWB structure is shown in Figs. 11–13. By fitting in vertical ribs (5) and the central bottom connection
plate (6) which is shaped in such a way to get deeply into the structure of the fork used for track wheel axle bedding, the
compactness of the mid part of the TWB structure is realized. Horizontal ribs (7 and 8) substantially increase the fork’s stiff-
ness in the horizontal direction. Besides that, horizontal ribs (7) and the central connection plate (6) form together a stiff
bottom flange of the TWB structure. That eliminates the basic drawback of the original TWB structure – nonexistence of
the connection of vertical plates under the axis of track wheels axles. The increase of stiffness of the TWB structure in the
lateral direction significantly relieves the axial locking devices of track wheels axles. Finally, albeit that was not a priority
goal, the reconstruction of the TWB structure has resulted in an increase of bending stiffness in the vertical plane that
undoubtedly contributes to the decrease of stress state (see Fig. 14).

4. FEM analysis of the redesigned TWB structure

Discretization of the 3D model of the redesigned TWB structure is done as described in Section 3. Its response to the
external load defined in Section 3 is shown in Figs. 15 and 16. In the critical zone of the redesigned TWB structure, the max-
 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485 477

Fig. 6. FEM model of the TWB structure.

Fig. 7. Load configuration of the TWB.

¼ 355
y r
imum stress in load case I, Fig. 15b, is lower than the minimal values of the yield strength for S ¼ req;max;II 234
¼ 1:52 times,
while for load case II, Fig. 16b, for S ¼ req;max;II ¼ 355
ry
312
¼ 1:14 times. Based on in this way calculated factors of safety (S), it is con-
clusive that the redesigned TWB structure is sufficiently safe to the appearance of plastic deformations, i.e. it satisfies the
strength criterion.

5. Experimental analysis of the TWB structure

Testing of the original and the redesigned TWB is executed on the originally constructed test board, Fig. 17. Simulation of
lateral loads of track wheels, which are, as previously stated, the main cause of the TWB structure failure, is realized by
applying two hydro cylinders (1) whose maximum force is 2500 kN. They are hydraulically coupled, and the features of
the power supply aggregate are: installed power capacity 3 kW, maximum rate of flow 3 l/min and maximum operating
pressure 550 bar. Measurements are carried out by using the following equipment and devices, Fig. 17:

 Two force transducers (2), manufacturer HBM, type 6CA, measurement range 0–5000 kN.
 Two displacement transducers (3), manufacturer HBM, type WA, measurement range 0–100 mm.
 Universal measurement amplifier (4), manufacturer HBM, type GC+;
 Laptop (5).
478 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Fig. 8. Structural deformations of the TWB: (a) damaged structure and (b) model, load case I.

Fig. 9. The stress state of the original TWB structure in load case I (displacements magnitude factor 40).

Measurement software for HBM devices Catman Express is used for measurement data acquisition using a computer. The
dependence of the force realized by hydro cylinders (FHC) on the piston’s displacement (x), i.e. FHC = FHC(x), is recorded during
testing, Fig. 17.
Testing of the original TWB structure confirmed that the nearly linear dependence FHC(x) in the measuring point 1 is
observed up to FHC1 = 500 kN, and in measuring point 2 up to FHC2 = 515 kN, Fig. 18. Under the action of the 740 kN force,
a crack occurs in the vertical plate clamping zone, measuring point 2, framed detail in Fig. 19a. After the testing was
 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485 479

Fig. 10. Zones (shown in red) with the calculated stress in load case II is higher than the minimal values of tensile strength: (a) outside and (b) inside. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 11. Redesigned structure of the TWB.

480 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Fig. 12. Look-out of the TWB during reconstruction; (a) side view and (b) view from below.

Fig. 13. TWB after the reconstruction: (a) side view and (b) view from above.
 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485 481

Fig. 14. FEM model of the redesigned TWB structure.

Fig. 15. Stress–strain state of the redesigned TWB structure in load case I: (a) displacements field, max. 1.1 mm and (b) distribution of von Mises stresses,
req;max;I ¼ 234 MPa.
482 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Fig. 16. Stress–strain state of the redesigned TWB structure in load case II: (a) displacements field, max. 1.5 mm and (b) distribution of von Mises stresses,
req;max;II ¼ 312 MPa.

Fig. 17. Testing of the original TWB.

 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485 483

Fig. 18. Force–displacement curve during the original TWB testing: (a) measuring point 1 and (b) measuring point 2.

Fig. 19. Look-out of the original TWB structure after testing: (a) plastic deformation and crack in the vertical plate clamping zone and (b) shearing of the
nut.

completed, it showed plastic deformations of the TWB structure which correspond to the ones detected during BWE oper-
ation. Moreover, shearing of the track wheel axle nut occurred, Fig. 19b, also found in real life usage.
484 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485

Fig. 20. Force–displacement curve during testing the redesigned TWB structure: (a) measuring point 1 and (b) measuring point 2.

Fig. 21. Look-out of the redesigned TWB structure after testing: (a) track wheel fork and (b) nut.
 S. Bošnjak et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 473–485 485

In the redesigned structure of TWB, the nearly linear dependence of FHC(x) in measuring point 1 is observed up to
FHC1 = 1030 kN, and in measuring point 2 up to FHC2 = 1050 kN, Fig. 20. When forces reach the intensity of 1150 kN,
Fig. 20, significant deformations of the test board occur and, at a later stage, failure of welded connections of the test board
base elements. After that the testing was stopped. By visual inspection and a geometry check, plastic deformations in the
structure of the redesigned TWB are not detected, Fig. 21a. Shearing of the track wheel axle nut is not detected either,
Fig. 21b.

6. Conclusions

Based on the presented results of FEA obtained for the case of the calculating working load acting on the original and
redesigned TWB structure it is conclusive:

 The load distribution inside the redesigned TWB structure is more convenient;
 The stress level of the redesigned TWB structure is within the limits of allowed values;
 The displacements in the direction of lateral loads are substantially lower for the redesigned
TWB structure that significantly relieves the axial locking devices of track wheels axles.

The results of the experimental analysis of the structural response for the original and the redesigned TWB on a lateral
load (load in the direction of longitudinal axis of track wheels axles) lead to the following conclusions:

 Failures and plastic deformations of the original TWB structure occur under the load whose intensity is significantly lower
than the limit of proportionality of the redesigned TWB.
 Shearing of the track wheel axle nut occurred during testing the original TWB structure, while such an effect was not
detected during testing the redesigned TWB structure with substantially higher loads.

Therefore, the experimental results explicitly confirm the results obtained by FEA for both structures of the TWB – ori-
ginal and redesigned. Furthermore, after installing the redesigned TWB into the crawler travel gear and during the operation
of BWE in the same open pit mine (identical operating conditions), no failures have occurred. That finally and unquestion-
ably verifies the results obtained in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work is a contribution to the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia funded Project TR 14052.

References

[1] Bošnjak S, Zrnić N, Simonović A, Momčilović D. Failure analysis of the end eye connection of the bucket wheel excavator portal tie-rod support. Eng Fail
Anal 2009;16:740–50.
[2] Bošnjak S, Petković Z, Zrnić N, Simić G, Simonović A. Cracks, repair and reconstruction of bucket wheel excavator slewing platform. Eng Fail Anal
2009;16:1631–42.
[3] Rusiński E, Czmochowski J, Iluk A, Kowalczyk M. An analysis of the causes of a BWE counterweight boom support fracture. Eng Fail Anal.
2010;17:179–91.
[4] Zamani N. CATIA V5 FEA tutorials release 14. Windsor Ontario: University of Windsor, SDC Publication; 2005.
[5] DIN 22261-2, Bagger, Absetzer und Zuzatsgeräte in Braunkohlentagebauen. Teil 2: Berechnungsgrundlagen. Berlin: Deutsches Instituts für Normung;
1998.
[6] Durst W, Vogt W. Bucket wheel excavator. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications; 1989.
[7] Rasper L. Der Sshaufelradbagger als Gewinnungsgerat. Clausthal-Zellerfeld: Trans Tech Publications; 1975.