Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 459–462
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Discussion

Comments on ‘‘Design of aluminium boom and arm for an excavator”

Srdan M. Bošnjak ⇑
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Belgrade 35, Serbia

Received 26 June 2011; received in revised form 18 September 2011; accepted 22 September 2011
Available online 13 October 2011

Abstract

This paper comments on the recently published work dealing with the problem in the design of the backhoe excavator working device.
It also includes remarks on the inadequacy in the problem approach to the device weight optimization and synthesis, and highlights
mistakes in the mathematical model. This work points out the demand for a much wider approach to the optimization problem of
the backhoe excavator working device.
Ó 2011 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Backhoe excavator; Working device; Weight optimization

1. Introduction 2.1. Comment 1

The recently published paper by Solazzi [1] is devoted to
the important problem of the backhoe excavator (BE)
working device (WD) design. In his references, Solazzi [1]
has omitted to cite the literature dealing with excavators
and optimization. And that is probably the reason of
certain inadequacies occurring during problem solving.
The intention of the author of this contribution is to point
out the complexity of the BE WD design and to offer sug-
gestions for finding suitable solutions to the problem
brought up by Solazzi [1].
2. On problem definition
Based on the Section 1 [1] analysis, it can be concluded
that the paper deals with weight reduction of the steel-
made BE WD. Solazzi’s basic idea was to substitute the
material: “. . . an aluminium alloy instead of steel alloy”
[1] and, by that, “. . . to use a bigger bucket in comparison
with the original one” which, in his opinion, leads to the
increase of machine capacity.
⇑ Tel.: +381 11 3370831; fax: +381 11 3370364.
E-mail address: sbosnjak@mas.bg.ac.rs
The idea of using aluminium alloys for manufacturing
machine structures is not new. Speaking of one-bucket
excavators and related machines, that idea, for example,
was elaborated in Ref. [2], whilst Ref. [3], published
40 years ago, includes the statement that “. . . nowadays
exist a significant number of cranes whose structures are
made of aluminium”. A nowadays widely acknowledged
book [4], published as long ago as 1969, is devoted to the
problems of applying aluminium alloys in crane structures.
In the cited reference, the effects of using aluminium alloy
instead of a steel one are analyzed more widely than in [1].
2.2. Comment 2
The BE WD weight reduction and installment of a big-
ger bucket may lead to machine performances decreasing
due to the complexity of WD synthesis. Namely, as the
effect of the WD weight reduction, the maximal break-
out force will be reduced as well, and that fact prevents
the realization of a designed soil chip thickness. In that
case, and in order to excavate the same volume of soil,
the total number of cycles needs to be increased, which
inevitably leads to the decrease of machine capacity.

0022-4898/$36.00 Ó 2011 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2011.09.001
460 S.M. Bošnjak / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 459–462

3. On load conditions 4.1. Comment 4

In Section 2 [1], Solazzi adopted the following as repre- Having in mind the title and goals of the paper [1] it is
sentative load conditions: levelling (load cases 1 and 4), lift- not quite clear whence the necessity for “. . . optimization
ing (load cases 2 and 3) and, as an exceptional load the safety factor for each component ...” of the original
condition – cases of the maximum active/reactive hydraulic WD structure, especially since the recommended factors
cylinders’ forces actions. of safety (S) for the steel and aluminium alloy structures
are not of the same value. Ref. [6] recommends
3.1. Comment 3 S St
min ¼ 1:2  1:4 for WD structure parts made of carbon
steel, and S Al
min ¼ 1:4  1:6 for the same WD structure
As widely known, the BE WD is a typical representative of elements made of aluminium alloy. So, the values of the
structures with changeable geometry configuration. Albeit coefficient
BEs can be used to perform various operations in civil engi-
S Al
neering, their primary purpose is soil excavation below the m¼ ; ð1Þ
reliance level of the excavator. Consequently, their design is S St
max S Al min S Al
required to be based exactly on the demands imposed by are between mmin ¼ min
max S St
¼ 1:6
1:4
¼ 1:14 and mmax ¼ min
min S St
¼
1:4 min min
the above mentioned primary purpose – soil excavation. 1:2
¼ 1:17:
The strength validation of WD parts should be done in
the case of maximal concentrated load acting upon one 5. On criteria for preliminary design of the component
tooth in the most unfavourable direction, supposing that
the bucket encounters an obstacle while hydraulic cylinders In the introductory part of Section 4 [1] Solazzi states
induce maximum active/reactive forces. Inter alia, these that, in order to obtain at least the same safety factor
forces are limited by static stability and slipping of the and deformability of the original geometry, each compo-
machine. nent has been studied while each panel in particular was
Wide working area limits as well as a wide field of pos- theoretically studied by applying different actions which
sible obstacle direction for every WD geometric configura- can stress the panel. At the end of the above mentioned sec-
tion, cause the number of load cases to be infinity. Because tion the author writes that “The first step is to impose the
of that, identifying critical WD configurations and loads same safety factor both for the original geometry (steel
which cause maximal stresses, without the aid of a com- alloy) and for the new geometry (aluminium alloy),
puter, is nowadays inconceivable. Theoretical elements of  
ryield  ryield 
the static and dynamic BE WD analyses, as well as algo- ¼ ": ð2Þ
rithms and examples of calculation, can be found even in
literature over 30 years old, for example [5].
Based on the above presented, it is conclusive that differ-
ent WD geometric configurations are relevant for different
WD parts’ critical loads identification. Even so, Solazzi
didn’t identify WD parts for which load conditions from
1 to 4 are relevant (see Section 2 in [1]). Besides that, for
load condition 5, the basic BE WD working load, not
one data is submitted for WD relevant geometric configu-
ration. The only one presented is the data of maximum
forces generated by hydraulic cylinders.
In Section 2 [1] Solazzi stated that data which were used
“. . . in each load conditions” have been acquired by mea-
suring. Durations and loads’ intensities for load conditions
from 1 to 4 are shown, but the method of loads’ intensities
measurement is not described. Also not presented, for load
condition 5 (collision with an obstacle), is the way of sim-
ulation of working regimes in which hydraulic cylinders
generate maximal forces.
4. On Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour concerning the
original geometry
r  cr r 
STEEL cr ALUMINIUM
5.1. Comment 5
The paper does not contain nomenclature and formulas
nor are the expressions numerated, which presents difficul-
ties during its studying.
Based on the following facts:
1. Cross-sections of the main WD parts are of the box
type, i.e. they consist of four plates;
2. As a rule, the main WD parts are subjected to com-
plex loads which, besides forces, also include bending
moments in two plains and the torsional moment;
it is conclusive that by theoretically studying “in particular
each panel” the weight optimization problem cannot be
solved successfully – for example, see [7–14].
Expression (2) stood immediately above the Subsection
4.1 title. It is in collision with recommendations given in
[6]. By introducing the ratio of the recommended factors
of safety values – formula (1), expression (2) yields:
   
ryield  ryield 
In Section 3 [1], as a step in the problem solving algo- ¼m : ð3Þ
r  cr ALUMINIUM r  cr STEEL
rithm it is stated “. . . optimization the safety factor for each
component ...” of the original WD structure. The third expression in the first column on page 204 [1],
 S.M. Bošnjak / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 459–462 461

 
2 E b2 þ a2  ryield AL 2 E b2 þ a2  behaviour of the open cross-sections is drastically different
h ¼ h ;
1  m2 ab3 AL ryield STEEL 1  m2 ab3 STEEL compared to that of closed cross-sections.
ð4Þ
6. On final geometry of the arm
Al
is not correct even on the assumption that m ¼ SS St ¼ 1; in
that case it should be written as In the introductory passage of Section 5 [1] Solazzi sta-
  ted that “the final geometry of the component presents a
2 E b2 þ a2 b a 
h þ reduction in weight of about 50%”.
1  m2 ab3 a b AL
 
ryield AL 2 E b2 þ a2 b a  6.1. Comment 6
¼ h þ : ð5Þ
ryield STEEL 1  m2 ab3 a b  STEEL
Having in mind the constraint stated in Section 6 [1] that
The first formula in the second column on page 204 [1] “. . . the hydraulic system does not change and so, for
Mf instance, the maximum load from the hydraulic cylinder
rf ¼ 1 3 ; ð6Þ
bh and the maximum torque at the tower are the same which
6
are present in the original geometry”, weight reduction
is incorrect. It should be written as may lead to the decrease of one of the key excavating
Mf machine parameters – the maximum break-out force. For
rf ¼ 1 2 : ð7Þ
bh example, in the case of identical hydraulic system character-
6
istics, decreasing of the WD parts’ weight momentum for
The mistake occurring in formula (6) unavoidably leads the articulated joint between the lifting arm and the slewing
to the mistake in the second expression of the second platform inevitably leads to the decrease of the maximum
column on page 204 [1], break-out force. Also, weight reduction of the WD pins,
ryield STEEL which is achieved by their cross-section optimization (using
b3AL hAL ¼ b3STEEL hSTEEL : ð8Þ the hollow circular section) without changing the material,
ryield AL
has the same effect. Besides that, outer diameters of the opti-
S Al
Under Solazzi’s assumption m ¼ S St
¼ 1 it should be written mized pins are greater than the diameters of the original
as pins, thus imposing the necessity of a joint redesign. The
ryield STEEL paper does not provide sufficient information for the esti-
b2AL hAL ¼ b2STEEL hSTEEL : ð9Þ mation of the pin optimization final effect.
ryield AL
The conjugation of steel pins and aluminium WD parts
The fifth expression in the first column of page 205 [1], may lead lo local electrochemical corrosion. Because of
 1   1  that, some special insulation coatings or spacers should
b2 E  syield STEEL 2 E 
 ¼ h  ; ð10Þ be used. This fact was not taken into consideration in [1].
h 2
1  m 2  s yield AL 1  m 2 
AL STEEL
7. On volumetric capacity of the bucket
is incorrect. It should be written as
 1   1  Section 6 [1] states that WD parts’ weight reduction
1 b2 E  1 b2 E 
 ¼  enables the increase of bucket volumetric capacity. The cri-
k h2 1  m 2  k h2 1  m 2 
AL STEEL
syield STEEL
 ;
syield AL
because coefficient k depends on the panel dimension ratio
(a/b).
In the first sentence on page 203 [1] Solazzi stated that
load condition 4 “. . . is more important in order to evaluate
the torsional behaviour of the components”. However,
problem of the WD parts’ torsion was not solved in Section
4 nor anywhere else in the paper. This is of the utmost
importance because torsional behaviour of the components
presents excellent confirmation of the already stated fact
that the problem cannot be successfully solved by theoret-
ically studying “in particular each panel”. Namely, the
panel cross-section belongs to the class of open cross-sec-
tions, while the box cross-section belongs to the class of
the closed cross-section. As it is well known, torsional
terion adopted for the new bucket capacity determination
is “the total moment of inertia at the tower”.
ð11Þ
7.1. Comment 7
Solazzi [1] did not consider constraints imposed by the
basic function of the machine – soil excavation. Besides
that, in the considered case increasing bucket capacity
leads to the increase of its width. That way, possible load
eccentricity i.e. the torsional load of the WD parts, may
be greater.
8. On conclusions
In the second passage of Section 7 Solazzi [1] states that
the optimization process “. . . can be extended to other ele-
ments like the hydraulic cylinders whose weight is not neg-
ligible at all”.
462 S.M. Bošnjak / Journal of Terramechanics 48 (2011) 459–462
8.1. Comment 8
In Ref. [15] where the problem of BE WD optimal
synthesis is considered more widely than in [1], one of the
optimization criterions listed is the minimization of the
actuators’ weight.
9. Concluding remarks
Solazzi’s paper [1] presents a praiseworthy attempt to
reduce the weight of the BE WD structure and in that
way enable the volumetric capacity increase of the bucket,
which in Solazzi’s opinion leads to the increasing of
machine capacity. Despite that, based on the presented
comments and analyses, some observations should be
made, as follows:
 The investigated problem – weight optimization – is
relatively old, and therefore related extensive litera-
ture should have been taken into consideration;
besides that, literature dealing with BE WD synthesis
and design should also be considered.
 Neither the mathematical formulation of the objective
function nor the constraint functions, which are “con-
ditio sine qua non”, are presented in the paper.
 When it comes to BE WD, defining of the constraint
functions should be done by taking into account,
among other things, the maximum break-out force,
in order to conserve basic machine performance; this
fact is ignored during the calculation of the new
bucket capacity.
 The problem of weight optimization of BE WD which
consists of box cross-section parts could not be suc-
cessfully solved by studying each panel in particular.
 Solazzi has omitted the fact that for the same WD
structure parts made of different materials, the factors
of safety are also different.
 The mathematical formulations presented include
considerable mistakes.
 Albeit it was stated that the torsional behaviour of the
structure is very important, the paper does not give
any solution to the WD parts’ torsion problem.
 Change of mass impact on the WD response is not
considered, although WD parts are exposed to loads
of dynamical character.
 The fact that conjugation of steel pins and aluminium
WD parts may lead lo local electrochemical corrosion
was not taken into consideration.
Finally, the purpose of this contribution was to point
out the need for a much wider approach to the BE WD
optimization problem than that of Solazzi.
Acknowledgment
This work is a contribution to the Ministry of Education
and Science of Serbia funded Project TR 35006.
References
[1] Solazzi L. Design of aluminium boom and arm for an excavator. J
Terramech 2010;47:201–7.
[2] Pankratov SA, Ryakhin VA. Elements of the design of the construc-
tion machines metal structures. Moscow: Mashinostroenie; 1967 [in
Russian].
[3] Dukel’skiy AI, editor. Handbook for cranes – tome 1. Leningrad:
Mashinostroenie; 1971 [in Russian].
[4] Levitin BS, Vorontsov GA. Usage of aluminium alloy in the metal
structures of cranes. Moscow: Mashinostroenie; 1964 [in Russian].
[5] Malinovskiy EYU, editor. CAD of construction machines. Moscow:
Mashinostroenie; 1980 [in Russian].
[6] Volkov DP. Dynamics and strength of one-bucket excavators.
Moscow: Mashinostroenie; 1965 [in Russian].
[7] Serra M. Optimum design of thin-walled closed cross-sections: a
numerical approach. Comput Struct 2005;83:297–302.
[8] Banichuk NV, Ragnedda F, Serra M. Optimum shapes of bar cross-
sections. Struct Multidisc Optim 2002;23:222–32.
[9] Selmic R, Cvetkovic P, Mijailovic R, Kastratovic G. Optimum
dimensions of triangular cross-section in lattice structures. Meccanica
2006;41:391–406.
[10] Mijailović R, Kastratović G. Cross-section optimization of tower
crane lattice boom. Meccanica 2009;44:599–611.
[11] Atanacković TM. On the rotating rod with variable cross section.
Arch Appl Mech 1997;67:447–56.
[12] Atanacković TM. On the optimal shape of a compressed rotating rod.
Meccanica 2004;39:147–57.
[13] Jelicic ZD, Atanackovic TM. On an optimization problem for elastic
rods. Struct Multidisc Optim 2006;32:59–64.
[14] Gašić M, Savković M, Bulatović R, Petrović R. Optimization of a
pentagonal cross section of the truck crane boom using Lagrange’s
multipliers and differential evolution algorithm. Meccanica
2011;46:845–53.
[15] Janošević D. The design of mobile machines, 1st ed., University of
Niš – Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Niš; 2006 [in Serbian].