Bucket trajectory classification of mining excavators

Tiwari, Rashi; Knowles, J; Danko, G.

doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.006

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This choice was made both to simplify as much as possible the model, so to lighten the simulation, but also because in this way it is possible to bring back the geometry of the arms of an excavator to the geometry of a SCARA robot taken as a base of study for this comparative work [15,16]. To proceed with the simulation [17,18], once the components have been made and the necessary constraints and couplings have been set, it was decided to place a "motor" at the end of the stick, in correspondence of the fixing pin between the bucket and the stick going to set the law of motion. In this way the movement of the arms is induced by the movement and the position of the point where the motor is applied.…”

Section: Parameters For the Movement Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Excavator with two or three arms: Dynamical behavior and structural implications

Ceresoli¹

2020

FME Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this work is to compare, with the same digging diagrams, the velocity, accelerations and dynamic performances of two excavators with different arm configurations. In particular, constructive solutions involving the use of two and three mobile arms will be examined. For excavators the different construction geometry (2-3 arms) is mainly dictated by reasons of use, in fact the 3 arms solution is normally used in areas that allow poor mobility of vehicle and present obstacles during the excavation phase. The dynamic comparison between the two solutions is performed on real working conditions to which they can be subjected during the exercise. The elaborations are performed both analytically and numerically. Essentially the analysis shows that in the condition of leveling and lifting at minimum distance from the rotation axis the dynamic performances are similar, there are significant differences in the lifting condition at the maximum distance. The diversity also implies significant variations in the forces of the hydraulic cylinders used to move both the load and the arms, an aspect which finds greater emphasis even in the case in which the arms are made by adopting unconventional materials for their realization as aluminum and composites.

show abstract

Section: Parameters For the Movement Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Excavator with two or three arms: Dynamical behavior and structural implications

Ceresoli¹

2020

FME Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mitrev et al investigated the mechanical system of hydraulic shovel by means of CAD/CAE technique which was performed in Autodesk Inventor environment [6]. In 2013, Tiwari, et al investigated the bucket trajectory of the hydraulic shovels and its relationship to the coordination of machine links [7]. In 2011, Jin and Quan, who are members of our research team, investigated the swing motion of hydraulic shovel by means of AMESim and AMAMS co-simulation, and they pointed out that the variable inertia parameter works better to approach the practical situation than the constant inertia parameter does [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a dual displacement controlled circuit for hydraulic shovel swing motion

Huang

Zhang

Quan

et al. 2015

Automation in Construction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tiwari et al. 28 classified the bucket trajectories based on the location and angle of the bucket to obtain the dig patterns followed by the operator during a real-time dig and further to realize any control on an excavator. Kim et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task space-based dynamic trajectory planning for digging process of a hydraulic excavator with the integration of soil–bucket interaction

Zou

Chen

Pang

2018

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, a task space-based methodology for dynamic trajectory planning for digging process of a hydraulic excavator is presented, with the integration of soil–bucket interaction. An extended soil–bucket interaction model, which adds the resistive moment compared to the previous models, is provided in this research. This improved model is validated by comparing with the measurement data taken from field experiments before integrating it into a dynamic model of an excavator. Further, Newton–Euler method is used for the derivation of the dynamics of each link of the excavator to determine the joint forces, which can cause the machine damage. The position and orientation trajectories of the bucket in the task space are parameterized by using the B-splines, so as to achieve the task-oriented operations and ensure the operation flexibility. The joint space motion characteristics are obtained by solving the inverse kinematics of the working mechanism of an excavator. Moreover, to avoid the operation uncertainty for a given bucket tip position trajectory and reduce the computational effort, the self-motion parameters are introduced when solving the inverse kinematics of the redundant working mechanism. All these self-motion parameters are taken as a set of design variables in the trajectory optimization problem. Also, the limits on the hydraulic driving forces, joint angles, angular velocities and accelerations, as well as bucket capacity are considered as the optimization constraints for the digging process. Finally, optimization examples of two typical digging categories (i.e. level digging work and slope digging work) are given to demonstrate and verify the capabilities of the new methodology proposed in this research. The results show that the proposed method can effectively generate the optimal trajectories satisfying the following criteria: time efficiency, energy efficiency, and least machine damage. This work lays a solid foundation for motion planning and autonomous control of an excavator.

show abstract

Bucket trajectory classification of mining excavators

Cited by 23 publications

References 5 publications

Excavator with two or three arms: Dynamical behavior and structural implications

Excavator with two or three arms: Dynamical behavior and structural implications

Development of a dual displacement controlled circuit for hydraulic shovel swing motion

Task space-based dynamic trajectory planning for digging process of a hydraulic excavator with the integration of soil–bucket interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About