Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Review

Design of aluminium boom and arm for an excavator

Luigi Solazzi *
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Industriale, Facoltà di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy

Received 8 September 2008; received in revised form 3 March 2010; accepted 9 March 2010
Available online 28 April 2010

Abstract

The aim of this work is to study the boom and the arm of an excavator in order to replace the material, which they are usually made
of, with another material. In particular, the study wants to substitute the steel alloy for an aluminium alloy. This change lightens the
components of the arm, allows to increase the load capacity of the bucket and so it is possible to increase the excavator productivity
per hour.
For this purpose many different load conditions have been studied numerically on the original excavator in order to estimate a safety
factor and the deformability or flexibility of each component. These parameters have been used in order to design a new arm.
The excavator which has been analyzed is composed of three elements and the load conditions assumed, in order to evaluate the stress,
are five (lifting at the maximum and minimum distance from the axis of rotation, maximum load induced by hydraulic cylinders, spin of
the arm of the excavator and collision with an obstacle, etc.).
As regards to the safety factor and deformability in order to maintain the original value the new geometry of the arm involves an
increase of the dimension and so the lightness is not correlate only to the variation of the material density.
The weight of the final geometry of the aluminium arm is 1080 kg whereas the one of the steel arm is 2050 kg and consequently it has
been possible to increase the capacity of bucket from 1 m3 to the 1.35 m3.
With reference to the manufacturing cycle of the aluminium arm with the new pins, the price increased about € 2.500–3.000 and this
aspect could be justified if we consider that the productivity per hour increased about 35%.
Ó 2010 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Lifting equipment; Excavator; Design with aluminium alloy

1. Introduction not the base of machine (tracked wagon) in order to not

The excavator examined in this work is a classical
machine represented in Fig. 1. It is composed of three dif-
ferent arms, the power is 110 kW and the rated weight is
about 21.500 kg. This machine is mainly used to demolish
and move material in applications concerning civil and
industrial field. Fig. 1 shows the main dimensions of the
machine.
Since the productivity per hour of the machine is corre-
lated to the volumetric capacity of the bucket, the main
subject of this work is to lighten the arm in order to allow
to use a bigger bucket in comparison with the original one.
Obviously the lightening operations concerns the arm and
*
Tel.: +39 303715577; fax: +39 303702448.
E-mail address: luigi.solazzi@unibs.it
compromise the stability of the machine.
This work is divided in different steps. First step is to eval-
uate the dimension of the each component of the arm; the
second step concerns the generation of the machine cad
model and the evaluation of the main load conditions which
mainly stress or deform each component. Third step is to
estimate the safety factors and the stiffness of the original
machine (these values has been used to perform a new design
of components with an aluminium alloy instead of steel
alloy). According to classical mechanics theory the cross-
section of the arms are designed and consequently verified
by means of cad model and FEM analyses. The next step
concerns the lightness of the pins and the new bucket is cho-
sen on the base of this reduction in weight.
Last step concerns the economic as regards to the light-
ening operations.

0022-4898/$36.00 Ó 2010 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2010.03.002
202 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207

B C D E F L N
4171 1030 2720 9370 3100 450 2480

Fig. 1. Photography and main dimensions of the excavator in exam.

F=13 kN (a) F=13 kN (b)

Fig. 2. First load condition: (a) initial position and (b) final position.

2. Load conditions the load applied in opposite direction to the movement

Five different load conditions have been checked in
order to establish the stress conditions in each component
of the excavator arm.
The first load condition concerns the levelling operation
which allow to start the bucket at the maximum and min-
imum distance from the axle of rotation. The distance of
the bucket from the surface does not change in this
roto-translation (Fig. 2). The main parameters for this
operation are: total length = 7000 mm, time = 4 s and
is 13 kN.
The second and third load conditions are similar. The sec-
ond concerns the lifting operation with the maximum load at
the minimum distance from the axle of rotation, Fig. 3a
(total length = 4300 mm, time = 7 s and force is 20 kN).
The third load condition concerns the lifting operation at
the maximum distance from the axle of rotation, Fig. 3b
(total length = 4150 mm, time = 4 s and force is 20 kN).
The fourth load condition is a usual operation which
concerns the levelling in the orthogonal direction as

(a) second load condition

(b) third load condition

Fig. 3. Second and third load conditions: lifting at the maxima and minima distance from axle of rotation.
 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207
F=20 kN
Fig. 4. Four load condition.
Penetration cylinder
Positioning arm
Bucket cylinder
Positioning
cylinder Connecting rods
Lifting cylinder Bucket cylinder
Lifting arm
bucket
Fig. 5. Schematization of the arm.
regards to the axle of the arm. This load condition is more
important in order to evaluate the torsional behaviour of
the components. On the basis of the maximum hydraulic
torque, assumed that the distance of the bucket is 4 m,
the maximum orthogonal force is 20 kN (Fig. 4).
The last load condition examined is an exceptional condi-
tion. In this case the force applied to each component of the
excavator arm is the maximum force generated by the
hydraulic cylinders both in tension and both in compression
(lifting cylinder Fcompression  390 kN, Ftension  200 kN;
positioning cylinder Fcompression  560 kN, Ftension  350 kN;
penetration cylinder Fcompression  455 kN, Ftension  210 kN
and bucket cylinder Fcompression  330 kN, Ftensionl  180
kN).
Fig. 5 shows the components of the excavator arm and
the name of each part.
The data used in each load conditions have been
acquired both by measuring the geometry and both by
the load diagram of the excavator while the duration of
each operation and the working distance have been
acquired through experimental tests.
3. Evaluation of the mechanical behaviour concerning the
original geometry
After having carried out the operations stated above,
each load condition has been implemented in a software
program in order to obtain the force (inclusive of inertia
effect) for each component of the excavator arm. The name
203
Fx=478kN; L=2900 mm
Fy=91.8kN
Y
X
L=675 mm
Fx=534kN;
CG Fy=28.2kN
Boundary conditions
by gap elements
Fig. 6. Forces on the first element.
of the software used is Mecad (it has been developed by the
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering of
the University of Brescia). This program can supply the
kinematic and dynamic information in every point (and
at any time of the movement) of the elements of the exca-
vator arm.
For example Fig. 6 shows the forces in the first element.
The next step concerns the FEM analyses on each com-
ponent in order to have both the stress state (and conse-
quently the safety factor) and the deformability for the
arm. The first results show that same elements present a
very high value of the stress in localized zone. For example,
in the junction zone of the plate, to fasten the pin for the
hydraulic cylinder to the main structure. These observation
allowed to improve the component through a local rede-
sign, for example by means of a reduction in the stress coef-
ficient factor. Fig. 7 shows the stress state.
After this optimization the safety factor for each compo-
nent, in comparison with the yield stress of the material, is
about 2.5. It has been assumed that the material used to
make the arm is the steel alloy S355 JO EN 10025.
4. Criteria for preliminary design of the component
The evaluation of the new geometry of the arm with the
different material has been studied in order to obtain at
least the same safety factor and deformability of the origi-
nal geometry. For this purpose each component has been
studied and in particular each panel was theoretically stud-
ied applying the different actions which can stress the panel
(see Fig. 8).
The first step is to impose the same safety factor both for
the original geometry (steel alloy) and for the new geome-
try (aluminium alloy) [1–5].
 
ryield  ryield 
¼ :
rcr STEEL rcr ALUMINIUM
4.1. Axial force
N
In this case, the axial stress is obviously ra ¼ hb and so
the relationship between the thickness and the height of the
panel is:
ryield STEEL
bAL  hAL ¼ bSTEEL  hSTEEL  :
ryield AL
204 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207

Fig. 7. Stress state (Von Mises) in the first element.

b

h a Axial Bending Shear

Stress Stress Stress

Fig. 8. Geometry of a panel and the stress state.

If there are buckling phenomena, the critical stress is: 4.2. Bending moment
 2
p2  D b a The stress induced by this action is:
ra inst ¼  þ ;
h  b2 a b Mf
rf ¼ 1 3 ;
where 6
bh
and so the relationship between the thicknesses is:
E  h3 ryield STEEL
D¼ ; b3AL  hAL ¼ b3STEEL  hSTEEL  :
12  ð1  v2 Þ ryield AL
In case of buckling phenomena, the critical stress is:
represents the stiffness of the panel; in this case the relation-  2
ship between the geometric dimensions of the panel is: p2  D 2b a 1
rf inst ¼ 2
 þ  ;
 hb a 2b 1  a=2
E b2 þ a2  ryield AL
h2   ¼ where a is the ratio between the maximum tensile stress
1  v2 a  b3 AL ryield STEEL
 and the maximum compression stress; in this case, the rela-
2 E b2 þ a2  tionship between the geometric dimensions of the panel is
h   ;
1  v2 a  b3 STEEL the same of the conditions of load stated above.

if only the thickness of the plane can be changed, the 4.3. Shear load
expression becomes:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The maximum shear stress in the panel is:
ryield AL ESTEEL ð1  v2 ÞAL 3 T
hAL ¼ hSTEEL    : s¼  ;
ryield STEEL EAL ð1  v2 ÞSTEEL 2 hb
 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207 205

and so the relationship between the thickness and the Table 1

height of the panel is: Main properties of the material used in the original and the optimized
geometry.
syield STEEL
bAL  hAL ¼ bAL  hSTEEL  ; Material rR ryield A% E q
syield AL (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/dm3)
if we consider that the ratio between the shear yield stress Aluminium 6101_T6 221 193 15 67,000 2.7
syield and the yield stress ryield is equal for different materi- UNI9006/2
S 355 JO EN 10025 510 355 22 210,000 7.8
als, the final relation coincides with the relationship of the
geometric dimensions in the axial load.
If there are buckling phenomena, the critical stress is:
b3AL  hAL  EAL ¼ b3STEEL  hSTEEL  ESTEEL :
2 2
9 ð1 þ b Þ p2  D
sinst ¼   2 ;
32 b3 b h 5. Final geometry of the arm
where
a On the basis of the relationships state above between the
b¼b ; geometry of the steel alloy panel and the geometry of the alu-
b
minium alloy panel, for each component of the arm has been
and so developed a new cross-section. With this cross-sections
p2  D (Fig. 9) it has been numerically modeled the whole element
sinst ¼ k  ; of the arm. The consequent step is to perform the FEM anal-
b2  h
yses in order to verify both the safety factor and the flexibility
therefore the correlation between the geometric dimensions of the component as regards to the original value. This last
of the panel is: operation has been repeated iteratively until the goal has
 1   1  been achieved. The final geometry of the component pre-
b2 E  syield STEEL 2 E 
  ¼ h   ; sents a reduction in weight of about 50%.
h2 1  v2  syield AL 1  v2 
AL STEEL The aluminium alloy chosen for the new arm is 6061 T6.
if the height b does not change the relationship is: The criteria adopted for this choice are the mechanical
properties (in particular the yield stress) and the costs.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Table 1 shows the mechanical properties for steel and alu-
syield AL ESTEEL ð1  v2 ÞAL minium alloy.
hAL ¼ hSTEEL    :
syield STEEL EAL ð1  v2 ÞSTEEL Other important elements are the pins which connect the
arms between them and these ones with the hydraulic
cylinders.
4.4. Bending
These components have a small weight in comparison
with the weight of the arm; nevertheless in order to mini-
The classical relation to evaluate the bending in a panel mize the weight it is possible to improve also these
is: components.
M The main pins have a 80-mm-diameter and the material
y 00 ¼ j j:
EJ is a high resistance steel alloy: the length varies from
720 mm to 180 mm and the weight from 10 kg to 35 kg.
where M is the moment, and J is the moment of inertia of The optimization may be performed in two ways: the first
the cross-section, the relationship which correlates the geo- is to use an aluminium alloy and the second to perform a
metric dimensions of the panel is: hollow section [6,7]. The first choice is impossible because

25⇒25
A
15⇒20
590⇒625

A’

410⇒415

Fig. 9. Final geometry (mm) of the first element.

206 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207
Table 2
Comparison of the total weight of the arm.
Element Weight (kg) original
geometry
Elements of the arm 2050
Pins 335
Bucket (filled) 2150
770 kg
800 kg
480 kg
2050 kg
390 kg 420 kg 270 kg
2785 kg
Fig. 10. Different weights of the elements of the excavator arm.
in this case the diameter of the pin is very big and the
reduction in weight is very small (these options generate
many technological problems). If we use pins with hollow
circular section, there is a significant reduction in the total
weight of the pins. The new geometry is obtained by eval-
uating the maximum bending and shear load acting on the
pins and imposing the same safety factor. In particular the
final external diameter for the big pin is about 110 mm and
the inner diameter is about 75 mm: in this case the weight
of the pins varies from 8 kg to 25 kg.
Fig. 10 shows different weight concerning the two solu-
tions for the components of the arm.
6. Volumetric capacity of the bucket
On the basis of the solutions stated above, in order to
reduce the weight of the arm it is possible to increase either
the capacity of the bucket or the length of the single com-
ponent of the arm. The new capacity of the bucket has been
chosen considering that the hydraulic system does not
change and so, for instance, the maximum load from the
hydraulic cylinder and the maximum torque at the tower
are the same which are present in the original geometry.
Another important variable for the choice of the bucket
is the total moment of inertia at the tower (evaluated at
the maximum distance of the bucket from the axis of rota-
tion, this variable do not change compared to the original
Weight (kg) optimized Difference in percentage compared
geometry to the original geometry (%)
1080 47.3
195 41.8
2785 +29.5
solution). This value is, obviously correlated to the veloc-
ity, or rather to the rapidity of the rotation of the assembly
made up of the arm and the bucket.
With these constraints it is possible to increase the
capacity of the bucket from 1 m3 to 1.35 m3. The weight
of the 1 m3 bucket is about 650 kg while the weight of
1.35 m3 is about 760 kg. If we consider that the material
density is about 1500 kg/m3, in the original geometry the
total weight to be moved is 2150 kg and in the optimized
geometry the final weight is about 2800 kg. The Table 2
compares the total weight for the original and the final
geometry.
7. Conclusions
This work shows the results concerning the lightening of
the excavator with the goal to increase the volumetric
capacity of the bucket. In particular the first step concerns
the study of the excavator geometry with reference to the
different load conditions. These results (with the theoretical
formulae) can be used in order to design a new geometry
for elements of the excavator structure with an aluminium
alloy instead of steel alloy.
As regards to the original geometry the result of this
optimization is an arm 50% lighter. Optimizing also the
weight of the pins it is possible to increase the capacity
of the bucket from 1 m3 to 1.35 m3 and so to increase
the productivity per hour of the excavator. We think
that the process can be extended to other elements like
the hydraulic cylinders whose weight is not negligible
at all.
If we consider the economic aspect, the increase in the
cost of about € 2.500–3500 may be accepted if we take into
consideration that the total weight of the arm is reduced of
about 50% and the capacity of the bucket increased of
about 30%. We think that these results may be obtained
in the different types of excavators.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the mechanical engineer
Mr. Morabito Andrea (BS-ITALY) for his kind and valu-
able collaboration in this work.
References
[1] Progettazione strutturale con l’alluminio, Edimet (Brescia) vol. I e II;
2001.
[2] Davis JR. Aluminum and aluminum alloys. ASM specialty handbook;
1996.
 L. Solazzi / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 201–207 207

[3] Bloom F, Coffin D. Handbook of thin plate buckling and post
buckling. Chapman & Hall; 2001.
[4] Sae fatigue design handbook. 400 Commonwealth Drive, 3rd ed.
Warrendale (PA, USA): Society of Automotive Engineers Inc.;
1997.
[5] Timoshenko SP, Gere J. Theory of elastic stability. McGraw-Hill; 1988.
[6] Murray GT. Introduction to engineering materials: behavior, proper-
ties, and selection. Marcel Dekker Inc.; 1993.
[7] Davis JR. Aluminum and aluminum alloys, ASM specialty handbook;
1993.