Mbd 04 multi-body_simulation_of_earthmoving_equipment_l&t


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mbd 04 multi-body_simulation_of_earthmoving_equipment_l&t

  1. 1. Multi-Body Simulation of Earthmoving Equipment using MotionView / MotionSolve Amit Srivastava Gopikrishnan. M Manager Assistant Manager Larsen & Toubro IES Larsen & Toubro IES Knowledge City, NH8 Knowledge City, NH8 Vadodara 390 019, India Vadodara 390 019, India Abbreviations : MBD: Multi Body Dynamics Keywords : Multibody Simulation, MBD, Excaavtor, MotionView, MotionSolve AbstractExcavators are mobile machines that are moved by means of either crawler track or rubber-tired undercarriage. Excavator digs,elevates, swings and dumps material by the action of its mechanism, which consists of boom, arm, bucket and hydrauliccylinders. The design of various components of an excavator is complex due to the fact that the reaction forces, displacementsand stresses vary with time throughout the full cycle of operation. Conventional methods of design in this case results inoverdesigned models since the designer is forced to use a higher factor of safety due to lack of availability of data for full cycleof operation. However, Multi-Body Simulation in MotionView/MotionSolve facilitates system level kinematic and dynamicanalysis of the whole excavator, making it possible to study the reaction forces and stress variation in every component of thesystem throughout the cycle of operation. It helps in predicting the maximum stress at each location during the cycle and thusoffers a way to optimize the design.The scope of this paper is to simulate a full cycle of operation of a 30 ton excavator using Multi Body simulation capabilities ofAltair MotionView/MotionSolve and compare the results with available test data. Pressures of hydraulic cylinders, Strokes ofhydraulic cylinders, Bucket load and excavated mass of soil are applied as input. The full cycle of operation consists of threemajor phases, Digging, Swing and Dumping. By defining the component under study as a flexible body, it is possible to retrievestress values at gauge locations used in actual testing, which can be used to calculate fatigue life of welds which is of utmostinterest to the designer. Furthermore, it is possible to generate load cases for detailed static analysis from the reaction forceoutput. The stress results at gauge locations are compared with both actual testing and static FEA by other commercialsoftware. It is also worth noting that in the current simulation, many assumptions in similar previous simulations are updatedwith actual values from field tests, like bucket tip force.IntroductionAn excavator or earth moving machinery in general, is a very good example of a mechanical systemwhich can be considered a multi body system. A multi body system consists of rigid bodies and idealjoints, which facilitates relative movement between individual components. The primary concern fordesigners in a multi body system is the reaction forces at these joints, which eventually leads to thedesign of individual components. Traditionally, analytical calculations are used to find out the reactionforces and other parameters related to a mechanical system. But this approach takes time and thereis a limitation of the complexity of the mechanism under study. This is where computer simulationcodes specifically designed for multi body dynamics come to the fore. 1Simulation Driven Innovation
  2. 2. The advantage of computer simulations performed MBD simulation tools is that they allow one topredict the kinematic and dynamic behavior of all types of multi body systems in great detail during allthe design stages from the first design concepts to the final prototypes. The analyst is interested invisualizing a whole set of successive responses of the multi body system, with a simulation of itsbehavior and operation over all the workspaces and over a certain period of time necessary to obtaina real-time response.MotionSolve is system level, multi-body solver that is based on the principles of mechanics. There arevarious programs available to simulate the kinematics of various real time applications. But themodeling and simulation tools in MotionSolve enable to create realistic, physics-based simulations ofcomplex mechanical systems. The interesting part of MotionSolve is to help the designer to visualizethe response of system for the complete operating cycle in all directions. MotionView is a graphicalpre-processor to create complex models that can be solved using MotionSolve. Robust integrationwith popular Altair products such as HyperMesh is an added bonus.This paper focuses on the problem definition, solution and result correlation of a Hydraulic Excavator.The methodology used to approach the problem is explained in detail, and in the subsequent section,result correlation with experimental data is presented. Finally, the conclusions as derived and futurescope of work are mentioned.Problem DefinitionThe working cycle of an excavator consists of digging, swinging, dumping and swinging back to theinitial position. The objective is to simulate the entire cycle of operation. A 30 ton hydraulic excavatoris used for this particular study. Final output desired is the reaction forces at all joints and to evaluatethe stresses at all gauge locations.Input available 1. 3D Geometry or mesh data of every link to be modeled in the assembly. 2. Mesh data of parts to be analyzed for stress (flexible body). 3. Pressure on cylinder side and piston side of all cylinders during cycle of operation. 4. Stroke of all cylinders during cycle of operation. 5. Swing motor rotational speed during cycle of operation.Output required 1. Reaction forces at each joint across the whole timeframe of analysis. 2. Load case generation for detailed FE Analysis. 3. Animation of action and reaction forces at all times. 4. Displacement and Stress plots of flexible link(s) of the assembly during the complete cycle. 5. Severe position based on stress levels at specified strain gauge locations. 6. Trace path of bucket tooth tip. 2Simulation Driven Innovation
  3. 3. MethodologyAn excavator consists of many links and joints (Fig.1). The analyst has to segregate the mechanisminto different links and decide what kind of joints these links are connected with. The procedure to setup the problem is explained as follows.All the links of the mechanism are imported and assembled with appropriate joints in MotionView11.0.The lower frame is grounded. Both geometry and mesh files can be imported for rigid bodysimulation, but in case of flexible bodies, mesh files are required. Input data that are available, areapplied in the next step. This mainly consists of strokes of cylinders and rotation of swing motor withrespect to time for the whole cycle of operation. Cylinder pressures are converted into forces andapplied at respective bodies. Flexible bodies are imported by using the Flextools>flexprepenvironment in MotionView. Here, various parameters such as synthesis type, Interface node list areselected. Craig-Brampton method was used for this particular simulation. Then, the outputs that werequire from the simulation are specified. Quasi static analysis is used for simulation taking intoconsideration the fact that this is not a problem involving high velocity or acceleration, which might callfor transient dynamic approach.The next step is to solve the model in MotionSolve11.0. Output frequency is chosen as 10Hz. Duringthe solution, solver calculated the DOF of mechanism and performed number of iterations to calculateequilibrium conditions at all time steps. The next section contains discussions on Results obtained. Fig.1 Various parts of an excavatorResults & DiscussionsThe output of the solver is post-processed using HyperView11.0. Reaction forces are generated ateach joint due to application of cylinder displacements and pressures. Based on stress levels, severeposition of both Arm and boom is found out as shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3 respectively.The reaction forces are plotted for magnitude and direction as shown in Fig.4 for this worst position ofboom. These reaction forces can be used for further detailed FE analysis of boom. These reactions 3Simulation Driven Innovation
  4. 4. are validated by plotting summation of forces acting on boom at all time steps, which suggested thatthe Boom is in equilibrium throughout the cycle.Another form of output provided by HyperView is the trace path of a point during the entire simulation.This helps in validating the mechanism and also helps in ascertaining the working space of themachine. Fig.5 shows the trace path generated at the bucket tip.Reaction forces and were also compared with Static FEA using another commercial FEA softwareand analytical calculations. The comparison of reaction forces at various joints are given in table1. Fig.2 Worst case position of Arm 4Simulation Driven Innovation
  5. 5. Fig.3. Worst case position of Boom. Fig.4. Reaction forces visualized in HyperView 5Simulation Driven Innovation
  6. 6. Fig.5. Trace path of Bucket Tip for entire cycleJoint Analytical (KN) FEA (Static) (KN) MBD (KN)C 302 291 308B 296 289 306F 558 573 591H 466 474 488J 576 595 5925 838 528 525 Table 1. Reaction forces comparison. Fig.6. Joints of an excavator 6Simulation Driven Innovation
  7. 7. Stresses at gauge locations in Arm and Boom were extracted using Tensor plots in HyperView andcompared with static FEA results from another commercial software, and field test values. Table 2and table 3 give a sample result comparison, taken at a gauge location on Boom (gauge B1). Time (s) Field Test (MPa) MBD Result (MPa) Difference (%) 2 32.86 37.10 -11.42 3 54.92 58.36 -6.27 4 58.29 64.14 -10.03 5 66.85 73.64 -10.15 6 59.08 63.98 -8.30 7 46.17 53.47 -15.81 8 70.34 51.06 27.41 9 30.50 23.92 21.57 Table 2. Stress results comparison – Field and MBD Field Test MBD Static FEA Difference (MBD- Difference (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Field) (%) (Static FEA- Field) (%) 65.96 75.36 69.00 12.470 4.405 Table3. Stress results comparison – Static FEA, field and MBDStress variation at gauge locations in Arm and Boom throughout the cycle of operation was alsostudied. This was compared to Stress variation observed during actual Field testing. Fig.7 and Fig.8shows variation of stress at gauge location A1 on Arm, in MBD and Actual field test respectively. Fig.7. Stress variation at Gauge location A1 – MBD output 7Simulation Driven Innovation
  8. 8. Fig.8. Stress variation at Gauge location A1 – Field test outputBenefits SummaryMulti Body Simluation from HyperWorks helps the designer in many ways 1. Kinematic validation of mechanism in initial design phase. Animations, trace paths and other tools can be used to effectively validate design. 2. Iterations can be done very fast to reach the final kinematic design before proceeding to individual component design. 3. The output from multi body simulation (Reaction forces) can be used in detailed design of individual components. 4. Stress results of flexible bodies help in design iterations of individual components of the mechanism. 5. It is easy to identify the high stress locations on individual components during the entire cycle. 6. Weld fatigue life calculation for the entire cycle of operation can be done using stress output.Conclusions 1. Multi body Simulation using MotionSolve / MotionView is a very effective tool for kinematic design. The designer can carry out iterations on the mechanism to achieve desired results. 2. Prototype costs are considerably reduced by using Multi body simulation 3. The stress results on flexible bodies are satisfactorily matching the actual test results. These can be used as input for design changes to individual components of the mechanism. 4. The stress variation with actual tests and static FEA is about 20%, which may not be adequate for some applications, where higher accuracy is desired. 8Simulation Driven Innovation
  9. 9. Future PlansFuture scope is to consider more real world factors in the analysis and extending the application offlexible bodies since stress output is available across the timeframe of the entire cycle, unlike staticFEA. 1. Currently the lower frame is fixed, while in actual scenario, it can move slightly. 2. Comparing transient dynamic analysis results with quasi-static analysis and hence conclude whether is cost effective considering the accuracy changes observed. 3. The bucket tooth experiences forces during soil excavation. Coupled Eulerian Lagrangian capabilities of Radioss can be used to find out the variation of Forces experienced by the bucket tip, and this can be used as input for Multibody simulation. This more closely resemble actual conditions. REFERENCES [1] HyperWorks11.0 User’s Guide [2] Joseph Shigley, Gordon Pennock, John Uicker, Theory of Machines & Mechanisms Third Edition [3] Frankel Joe, Backhoe Kinematics & Dynamics, Georgia Institute of Technology, 20 August 2003. 9Simulation Driven Innovation