Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Dynamic modelling of hydraulic excavator motion using

Kane's equations
S. Šalinić ⁎, G. Bošković, M. Nikolić
University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Mechanical and Civil Engineering in Kraljevo, Dositejeva 19, 36000 Kraljevo, Serbia

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

Article history: This paper presents differential equations of motion of a hydraulic excavator in the form of Kane's equations. The
16 July 2013 equations proposed allow studying the excavator dynamics in the digging, lifting and unloading transport
19 March 2014 operations. The influence of soil foundation deformability is considered. The detailed presentation of the proce-
Accepted 27 March 2014
dure for determination of generalised forces of hydro-cylinders is given. The equations obtained are compared
Available online xxxx
with the similar ones from the literature.
Keywords:
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Hydraulic excavator
Dynamics
Multibody
Deformable soil foundation

1. Introduction On the other hand, reference [6] analysed excavator vibrations caused
by the elasticity of structural elements of the excavator. In papers [8,9]
Hydraulic excavators are the machines whose primary task is exca- the accent was placed on the dynamics of the hydraulic subsystem. In
vation of soil and other material, and their secondary task is transporta- references [10], the bond graph method was used to analyse the dynam-
tion of excavated material at relatively short distances to the deposit site ics of the mechanical and hydraulic subsystems of the excavator as well
or loading onto special transportation vehicles. They are used for all as their interactions within a computational method. On the other
types of soil excavation in the field of civil engineering and mining. Cre- hand, reference [11] used the linear-graph method for the purpose of
ation of an adequate mechanical model for an excavator and the corre- accomplishing this interaction.
sponding differential equations of motion which describe the excavator In this paper, differential equations of motion for the excavator are
kinematics and dynamics in its working tasks with sufficient precision is formed by using Kane's equations [12]. Unlike the Newton–Euler formu-
of significant importance from the aspect of solving the design and op- lation of equations, Kane's equations are advantageous because they do
timization problems of the excavator structural elements as well as not require computation of workless constraint forces and moments,
solving problems related to the excavator control components, such as which makes this method of formulation of equations more computa-
hydro-cylinders. Thus, the Newton–Euler approach was used in refer- tionally efficient compared with the other methods (for details see
ences [1–4] in forming differential equations of motion for the excava- [13]). The paper presents the realization of an idea to obtain differential
tor. The differential equations were formed only for the working equations of motion which would cover, as special cases, the digging,
operation of digging. In references [5,6], the excavator dynamics was lifting and returning transport operations with simultaneous involve-
analysed on the basis of the Lagrange equations of the second kind ment of the influence of soil foundation deformability. Also, the goal of
while in [7] the dynamics of arm-bucket mechanism of a hydraulic ex- the paper is to explicitly include the forces of the hydro-cylinders in
cavator was studied by Lagrange equations of the first kind. Reference the equations of motion and thus avoid their subsequent determination
[5] analysed the influence of elastic deformation of the base on the ex- by means of the moments introduced at the joints, as done in [1–4].
cavator dynamics during the digging task, where the differential equa- From the aspect of calculation efficiency, this implies a more efficient ap-
tions did not explicitly include driving forces of the hydro-cylinders. proach in the analysis of excavator dynamics. This paper is organised as
follows: Section 2 describes the excavator kinematics, giving the corre-
sponding recursive kinematic relations by using 3 × 3 coordinate trans-
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +381 36 383269.
formation matrices. Section 3 shows formulation of Kane's equations
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Šalinić), [email protected] for the hydraulic excavator with a detailed presentation of the procedure
(G. Bošković), [email protected] (M. Nikolić). for the determination of the corresponding generalised forces. Section 4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.024
0926-5805/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. Šalinić et al. / Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62 57

analyses the influence of the deformable foundation on the excava- local frame. Also, since the Rodriguez matrix is orthogonal [14], the fol-
tor dynamics and indicates how the equations derived in Section 3 lowing holds [14–16]
should be corrected in order to take this influence into account.
−1 T T
Section 5 presents a numerical example. The conclusions are drawn Ai; j ¼ Ai; j ⇒A j;i ¼ Ai; j ð2Þ
in Section 6.
where the superscript T denotes matrix transposition. In Fig. 1 it is obvious
2. Kinematic description of a hydraulic excavator that the vectors ei(i = 1, …, 4) have the following components:
8
Let us suppose that a hydraulic excavator is placed on a rigid hor- > T
< ½0; 0; 1 ; i ¼ 1
ði Þ ði−1Þ
izontal soil foundation (see Fig. 1). The excavator can be modelled as ei ¼ ei ¼ ½1; 0; 0 ; i ¼ 2; 4 :
T
ð3Þ
>
:
an open kinematic chain formed by five rigid bodies interconnected T
½−1; 0; 0 ; i ¼ 3
by revolute joints. In Fig. 1, the bodies (Vi),i = 0, …, 4 represent, re-
spectively, chassis with caterpillars, rotating platform with driver's Now, in regard to [13], the angular velocities ωi(i = 1, …, 4) and the
cab, boom, arm, and bucket. The motion of the excavator with re- angular accelerations εi(i = 1, …, 4) of the bodies (Vi)(i = 1, …, 4) can
spect to the fixed inertial reference frame Oxyz is described by the be calculated recursively, respectively, as follows:
generalised coordinates qi(i = 1, …, 4). The coordinate qi represents
the relative rotation of body (Vi) with respect to (Vi − 1) carried out ðiÞ T ði−1Þ ðiÞ
ωi ¼ Ai−1;i ωi−1 þ q̇i ei ; i ¼ 1; …; 4; ð4Þ
about the joint axis determined by the unit vector ei. This vector is
fixed to the body (Vi − 1). In Fig. 1, the point Oi is placed on the direc-
tions ei and represents the centre point of the ith joint connecting the ði Þ ði−1Þ ðiÞ
T T
e ði−1
εi ¼ Ai−1;i εi−1 þ q̇˙i ei þ q̇i Ai−1;i ω
i−1Þ ði−1Þ
ei ; i ¼ 1; …; 4; ð5Þ
bodies (Vi − 1) and (Vi). The local coordinate frames C0ξ0η0ζ0 and O-
iξiηiζi (i = 1, …, 4) that are fixed to bodies (Vi),i = 0, …, 4, respective-
where, since the body (V0) is in a rest condition than ω(0) T
0 = [0, 0, 0] and
ly, are introduced (see Fig. 1).
ε(0)
0 = [0, 0, 0] T
. Based on the previous relations, the velocities VC i
In the case of rigid soil foundation and immovable caterpillars, the co-
ordinate frames C0ξ0η0ζ0 and Oxyz coincide; the vertical z axis is directed ði ¼ 1; …; 4Þ and the accelerations aC i ði ¼ 1; …; 4Þ of the mass centres
upwards and the x axis represents the axis of material symmetry of body Ci(i = 1, …, 4) of the bodies (Vi)(i = 1, …, 4), respectively, are given
(V0). The point C0 denotes the mass centre of the body (V0). Without loss by the following recurrence relations (for proof see [13]):
of generality, it is assumed that the configuration q1 = q2 = q3 = q4 = 0 is   
ði Þ ði−1Þ
a reference configuration of the excavator and that, in this configuration,
T
e ði−1
VC i ¼ Ai−1;i VC i−1 þ ω
i−1Þ ði−1Þ ði−1Þ
e ði iÞ ℓðCiÞ ;
ℓi−1 −ℓC i−1 Þ þ ω i ¼ 1; …; 4;
i
the axes of all local coordinate frames are parallel to the corresponding ð6Þ
axes of the inertial reference frame, that is, ξi ∥ x, ηi ∥ y, and ζi ∥ z. According
to this, the transformation matrix Ai,j(i = 0, …, 4; j = 1, …, 4) from Ojξjηjζj
to Oiξiηiζi reference frames (i = 0 corresponds to the frame C0ξ0η0ζ0) has
the form [14,15]:       
ðiÞ ði−1Þ ði−1Þ ði−1Þ ði−1Þ i−1Þ 2
T
aC i ¼ Ai−1;i aC i−1 þ e εi−1 ℓi−1 −ℓC i−1 þ ω e ði−1 ði−1Þ ði−1Þ
ℓi−1 −ℓC i−1 ð7Þ
 2
j j h  þe
ðiÞ ðiÞ
ε i ℓC i þ ω e ði iÞ ℓðCiÞ ; i ¼ 1; …; 4;
r ðkÞ 2 ðkÞ
Ai; j ¼ ∏ Ak ¼ ∏ I þ ð1−cos qk Þ e
ek Þ þ e
ek sin qk ; ibj; ð1Þ i

k¼iþ1 k¼iþ1
where ℓi ¼ O! ! !
i Oiþ1 ði ¼ 1; …; 3Þ, ℓ0 ¼ C 0 O1 , ℓC ¼ Oi C i ði ¼ 1; …; 4Þ, and
i
ð0Þ ð0Þ
ℓC 0 ¼ ½0; 0; 0T . Note that for the body (V0), VC ¼ ½0; 0; 0T and aC ¼
where Ark ∈ R3× 3 is the Rodriguez matrix [14], I ∈ R3× 3 is the identity ma- 0 0
ðkÞ T
trix, and e
ek ∈R
33
is the skew-symmetric matrix [14,16] associated with ½0; 0; 0 holds. In further considerations, the notations ℓi(i = 1, …,
the vector e(k)
k . Note that the right superscript (k) indicates that compo- 3) and ℓC i ði ¼ 1; …; 4Þ will represent the magnitudes of the vectors
nents of the corresponding vectors and matrices are given in the Okξkηkζk ℓi(i = 1, …, 3) and ℓC i ði ¼ 1; …; 4Þ, respectively.

z,

q1
(V2)
A3 A4
C2 (V3)
e1 A2 O3 A5
e2 q3
C3
O2 q2 e3
O1 A6
(V1)
C1 A8
A7
A1 O4
C4 (V4)
e4
C0 O K
(V0) x q4
y

Fig. 1. Multibody model of a hydraulic excavator.

58 S. Šalinić et al. / Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62

3. Kane's dynamical equations of the hydraulic excavator 3.2. Determination of generalised forces Qj,(M)

Kane's dynamical equations [12,13] of the considered hydraulic ex- The generalised forces arising from internal driving forces in the first
cavator read: joint are determined by the following relation ([15])

in
Q j þ Q j ¼ 0; j ¼ 1; …; 4; ð8Þ  ð0ÞT ð0Þ
Q j;ðMÞ ¼ M1 e1 ; j ¼ 1 ð14Þ
0; j ¼ 2; 3; 4
where Qj and Qin
j are, respectively, the generalised active force and the
generalised inertia force associated with the generalised coordinate qj. h iT
ð0Þ
The generalised inertia forces Qin j (j = 1, …, 4) can be expressed as where M1 ¼ 0; 0; M1ζ 1 denotes the moment of the inertial driving
(see [13]) force couple in the first joint. By this driving force couple, the motion
of rotating platform with driver's cab relative to chassis with caterpillars
!ðpÞ !ðpÞ
X4 ∂VC p 4 
X  ∂ωp is achieved.
in ðpÞT ðpÞ ðpÞ ðpÞ T
Q j ¼ − mp aC p − e p IC ω p
IC p ε p þ ω ; j ¼ 1; …; 4;
p¼ j
∂q̇j p¼ j
p
∂q̇j

ð9Þ
3.3. Determination of generalised forces Qj,(w)

where mp is the mass of the body (Vp), and IC p is the centroidal inertia During the excavation phase, modelling of the soil resistance to the
tensor of the body (Vp) expressed in the local frame Cpξpηpζp whose motion of the bucket represents a very complex task. The reason lies
axes are chosen so that Cpξp ∥ Opξp, Cpηp ∥ Opηp, and Cpζp ∥ Opζp hold. Tak- in the fact that it is very difficult, within one model, to identify, include
ing this into account, the projections of vectors in both coordinate and interconnect all relevant factors in the process of interaction be-
frames, Cpξpηpζp and Opξpηpζp, are the same. Based on Eqs. (4) and (6), tween the bucket and the soil. It is commonly assumed in the available
and considerations in [13,17], the partial angular velocities ∂ωp =∂q̇j literature that the total resistance to the digging (cutting) force Fw acts
and the partial velocities ∂VC p =∂q̇j can be expressed as follows: on the centre K of the cutting edge of the bucket (see Fig. 2).
In Fig. 2, θdg is the digging angle and θb is the angle between the
!ðpÞ ( bucket bottom and the η4-axis. According to [1,2], the angle δ varies in
ðpÞ T ð j−1Þ
∂ωp e j ¼ A j−1;p e j ; j≤p; the interval 0.1 ≤ δ ≤ 0.45, and depends on the digging angle, digging
¼ ; ð10Þ
∂q̇j T
½0; 0; 0 ; j Np condition, and the wear of the bucket cutting edge. In simulations, it is
often taken that this angle is constant and equal to δ = 0.1 (see e.g.
[1–4]). In literature, there are various expressions for the magnitude
8 X  Fw of the force Fw, which are the results of different approaches and as-
>
> eðpÞ
ej
p−1 T ðkÞ ðpÞ
A ℓ þ ℓC p ; j b p;
!ðpÞ >
> k¼ j k;p k sumptions in forming a model of interaction between the bucket and
>
<
∂VC p the soil. The force Fw depends on various factors such as the depth of
¼ eðpÞ ðpÞ ð11Þ
∂q̇j > ep ℓC p ; j ¼ p;
> the bucket tip K, the width of the bucket, the terrain slope, and the
>
>
>
: T soil physical characteristics. Different expressions for Fw can be found
½0; 0; 0 ; j Np: in [19–22]. The paper further presents the procedure for determination
of expressions of the generalised forces Qj,(w)(j = 1, …, 4). These expres-
The generalised active force Qj can be resolved into the following sions enable us to introduce any of the existing expressions for the mag-
components: nitude Fw into these expressions.

Q j ¼ Q j;ðgÞ þ Q j;ðMÞ þ Q j;ðwÞ þ Q j;ðhcÞ ; ð12Þ

where Qj,(g), Qj,(M), Qj,(w), and Qj,(hc) are the generalised forces due to, re-
spectively, the gravity forces, the internal driving forces in the first joint,
the resistance digging force, and the hydraulic cylinder forces. The de- O4
termination of these generalised forces will be shown in the next
subsections.

3.1. Determination of generalised forces Qj,(g)

Based on [14], the generalised forces arising due to the gravity forces
are given by:
Fn
!ðiÞ !ðiÞ Fw terrain surface level
X4 ∂rC i X
4 ∂VC i
Q j;ðgÞ ¼ ½0; 0; −mi g A−1;i ¼ ½0; 0; −mi gA−1;i ; j ¼ 1; …; 4;
i¼ j
∂q j i¼ j
∂q̇j K
ð13Þ
dg Ft

where g is the gravitational acceleration and the subscript − 1 corre- b

sponds to the frame Oxyz. Let us observe that A− 1,0 = I holds. Note
that in Eq. (13) the first Lagrange relation ∂rC i =∂q j ¼ ∂VC i =∂q̇j is used
(see e.g. [18]). During the lifting operation, the mass m4 should be in-
creased by the value of the soil mass in the bucket. Fig. 2. Interaction between the bucket and the soil.
 S. Šalinić et al. / Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62 59

In accordance with Fig. 2, the force Fw can be written as

hc
ð4Þ T
F4,3
Fw ¼ ½0; − F w cosðδ þ θb Þ; F w sinðδ þ θb Þ : ð15Þ
A4
On the other hand, the velocity of the point K can be calculated as
 !
HC2 (V3)
e 4 O4 K −ℓC Þ:
VK ¼ VC 4 þ ω ð16Þ
p4
4

Further, the generalised forces due to the force Fw are calculated as O3

follows: hc p3
F3,4 r4
!ð4Þ !ð4Þ A3
ð4ÞT ∂rK ð4ÞT ∂VK e3
Q j;ðwÞ ¼ Fw ¼ Fw ; j ¼ 1; …; 4 ð17Þ q3
∂q j ∂q̇j
(V2) r3 z
where rK is the position vector of point K relative to the frame Oxyz and
the partial derivative of the velocity VK is given by
!ð4Þ !ð4Þ
∂VK ∂VC 4   O
¼ þe
ej
ð4Þ !ð4Þ ð4Þ
ðO4 K Þ −ℓC ; j ¼ 1; …; 4: ð18Þ y
∂q̇j ∂q̇j 4

x
Note that the generalised forces Qj,(w)(j = 1, …, 4) are equal to zero
Fig. 4. Multibody model of boom–arm mechanism.
during the lifting and returning tasks.

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3.4. Determination of generalised forces Qj,(hc)
s5;6 ¼ p25 þ p26 −2p5 p6 cosðθ3 −δ3 Þ; ð22Þ
Figs. 3, 4, and 5 show the multibody models of rotating platform– 
!
boom, boom–arm, and arm–bucket mechanisms, respectively. By means where p6 ¼ A8 A6 , pj(j = 1, …, 5) are the vectors fixed to the corre-
of the hydro-cylinders HCi(i = 1,2,3), the bodies (Vi) and (Vi + 1) interact sponding bodies (see Figs. 3, 4, and 5), δ1 and δ2 are the angles be-
by the forces tween the vectors p 1 and p 2 and p 3 and p4 , respectively, in the
configuration q2 = q3 = q4 = 0, and pi(i = 1, …, 6) are the magni-
hc hc
F2i−1;2i ¼ −F2i;2i−1 ¼ −F 2i;2i−1ðuÞ u2i−1;2i ;
hc
i ¼ 1; 2; 3 ð19Þ tudes of the vectors pi(i = 1, …, 6). The angles δ3 and θ3 are indicat-
ed in Fig. 6 and the angle θ3 can be expressed as a function of the
! generalised coordinate q 4 . Namely, using the four-bar linkage
where u2i−1;2i ¼ A2i−1 A2i =s2i−1;2i is the unit vector of the axis of the hydro-
! A8 O4 A7A6 shown in Fig. 6 and applying the loop closure on the
cylinder HCi, s2i − 1,2i is the magnitude of the vector A2i−1 A2i determined by
loops A8O4A7 and A6A7A8 yield the following vector relations:
the following expressions:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p7 ¼ p8 þ p; ð23Þ
s1;2 ¼ p21 þ p22 −2p1 p2 cosðq2 þ δ1 Þ; ð20Þ

p9 ¼ p þ p6 : ð24Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s3;4 ¼ p23 þ p24 −2p3 p4 cosðq3 þ δ2 Þ; ð21Þ
hc
F5,6
A5
(V2)
HC3
e2 A6 hc
q2 p2 F2,1
hc
O3 p5 F6,5

(V1) O2 A2
A7
p1 A8
r5
p8 (V4)
HC1
F1,2
hc
r2 r6 O4
A1 z (V3)
z e4
q4 K
r1
q4 η4
O y O y
x η3
x

Fig. 3. Multibody model of rotating platform–boom mechanism. Fig. 5. Multibody model of arm–bucket mechanism.
60 S. Šalinić et al. / Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62

A6 transport operations performed by the excavator. In this case, the set

p9 of generalised coordinates qi(i = 1, …, 4) should be augmented by the
2
A7
generalised coordinates x, y, and z, which determine the position of
d
the mass centre of the chassis with caterpillars with respect to Oxyz as
p6 p8 well as the generalised coordinates φ1, φ2, and φ3, which represent
p q4 the Bryant angles [16]. These angles specify the orientation of the
p5 frame Coξ0η0ζ0 relative to Oxyz where the transformation matrix A−1,0
3
3
3 p7 1 has the form [16]:
A8 O4 2 3
3
cφ2 cφ3 −cφ2 sφ3 sφ2
A−1;0 ¼ 4 cφ3 sφ1 sφ2 þ cφ1 sφ3 cφ1 cφ3 −sφ1 sφ2 sφ3 −cφ2 sφ1 5
−cφ1 cφ3 sφ2 þ sφ1 sφ3 cφ3 sφ1 þ cφ1 sφ2 sφ3 cφ1 cφ2
Fig. 6. Four-bar linkage with corresponding loops. ð34Þ

where the following denotations are used: c ≡ cos and s ≡ sin. In the case
The vector relations (23) and (24) can be written in scalar form as of small deformations of the soil foundation, cosφi ≈ 1 and sinφi ≈ φi
follows: hold for the angles φi(i = 1,2,3). The mutual products of these angles
are neglected as small values of a higher order. Now, in Eqs. (4), (5),
p7 ¼ p8 cosθ1 þ pcosθd ; ð25Þ and (6) it should be taken that:

dA−1;0
e ð00Þ ¼ AT−1;0
ω ; ð35Þ
0 ¼ p8 sinθ1 −psinθd ; ð26Þ dt

T 2
p9 cosθ2 ¼ p6 cosθ3 þ pcosθd ; ð27Þ ð0Þ dA−1;0 dA−1;0 T d A−1;0
ε0 ¼ þ A−1;0 ; ð36Þ
dt dt dt 2

p9 sinθ2 ¼ p6 sinθ3 −psinθd ; ð28Þ

ð0Þ T T ð0Þ T :: :: :: T
VC 0 ¼ A−1;0 ẋ;ẏ;ż ; aC 0 ¼ A−1;0 ½x; y; z ; ð37Þ
where p, p7, and p8 are the magnitudes of the vectors p, p7, and p8,
respectively. It is easy to show that Eqs. (25)–(28) yield the following where Eq. (5) represents the well-known relation between an angular
relations: velocity and a transformation matrix (see [14,15] for details). Also,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Eq. (8) must be augmented by the following equations:
p8 sinθ1
p¼ p27 þ p28 −2p7 p8 cosθ1 ; sinθd ¼ ; ð29Þ
p in
Q χ i þ Q χ i ¼ 0; i ¼ 1; …; 6 ð38Þ

where [χ1, …, χ6] ≡ [x,y,z,φ1,φ2,φ3]. The differential Eqs. (8) and (8) de-
p29 −p2 −p26 scribe the dynamics of the hydraulic excavator on a deformable soil
cosðθ3 þ θd Þ ¼ ; ð30Þ
2pp6 foundation. The generalised forces in Eq. (38) are determined by the fol-
lowing expressions:
where in Fig. 6 it is obvious that θ1 = π − q4 − γ3 − γ4. Finally, from
!ð jÞ  
Eqs. (29) and (30) one has 4 h
X i ∂VC j ð4ÞT ∂VK ð4Þ
! Q χi ¼ 0; 0; −m j g A−1; j þ Fw
  ∂χ̇i ∂χ̇i
−1 p29 −p2 −p26 −1 p8 sinθ1
j¼0
ð39Þ
θ3 ¼ cos −sin : ð31Þ
2pp6 p ∂Π ðsf Þ ∂D
− − ; i ¼ 1; …; 6;
∂χ i ∂χ̇i
The total virtual work of the forces Fhc hc
2i − 1,2i and F2i,2i − 1 is

     T  T
hc hc hc hc !ðpÞ !ðpÞ
δA F2i−1;2i þ δA F2i;2i−1 ¼ F2i−1;2i δr2i−1 þ F2i;2i−1 δr2i ¼ X4
ðpÞT
∂VC p X 4 
ðpÞ
T ∂ω
in
Q χi ¼ − mp aC p − e ðppÞ IC ωpp
IC p ε p þ ω
p
; i ¼ 1; …; 6;
 T   ∂s2i−1;2i ∂χ̇i p
∂χ̇i
hc hc p¼0 p¼0
¼ F2i;2i−1 δ s2i−1;2i u2i−1;2i ¼ F 2i;2i−1ðuÞ δqiþ1; i ¼ 1; 2; 3
∂qiþ1 ð40Þ
ð32Þ
where m0 is the mass of body (V0), IC 0 is the centroidal inertia tensor
where r2i − 1 and r2i are the position vectors of the points A2i − 1 and A2i, expressed in the frame C0ξ0η0ζ0, χ̇1 ; …;χ̇6  ≡ ẋ;ẏ;ż; φ1 ; φ2 ; φ3 , Π(sf)(χ1,
respectively, relative to the frame Oxyz. Note that s2i − 1,2i is only a func- …, χ6) is the potential energy of the deformed soil foundation, and D
tion of the generalised coordinate qi + 1. Finally, from Eq. (32) it follows χ 1 ; …; χ 6 ;χ̇1 ; …;χ̇6 Þ is Rayleigh's dissipation function, which describes
that generalised forces of hydraulic cylinders are given by: energy dissipation during the deformation of a soil foundation. The ex-
pressions for the functions Π(sf) and D can be found in [5].

hc ∂s2i−1;2i ð33Þ
Q 1;ðhcÞ ¼ 0; Q iþ1;ðhcÞ ¼ F 2i;2i−1ðuÞ ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3: 5. Numerical example
∂qiþ1
It should be pointed out that the accuracy of results obtained
4. The excavator on a deformable soil foundation by using Eq. (8) is considerably influenced by the accuracy of data for
the values of excavator physical parameters, which appear in these
When the elasticity of the soil foundation is taken into account, the equations of motion. Difficulties in determination of these parameters
coordinate frames Coξ0η0ζ0 and Oxyz no more coincide during the are caused by the complex geometry of the excavator parts. Various
 S. Šalinić et al. / Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62 61

20

100
15

(u) (kN)
Fw (kN)

10 50

F 4,3
hc
5
0

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
time (s) time (s)

Fig. 7. Magnitude of resistance digging (cutting) force Fw versus time. Fig. 9. Force in the hydro-cylinder HC2 versus time.

distances between the points and various angles can be determined by 18.097 t2 + 35.9936t kN. The graph of the magnitude Fw is shown in
direct measuring on the analysed excavator. Further, supposing that the Fig. 7. The results of the numerical simulation are shown in Figs. 8, 9,
hc
excavator parts are homogeneous bodies and having data about the di- and 10. The values of the projections F2i,2i − 1(u)(i = 1, 2, 3) at the initial

mensions of the parts (accompanying technical documentation) and moment t = 0 determine the necessary values of hydro-cylinder forces
the type of material from which they have been made, the moments so that the configuration q1 = q2 = q3 = q4 = 0 represents the equilibri-
of inertia and the mass centres can be approximately calculated by um position of the excavator. In Figs. 8 and 9 it can be noticed that during
using certain CAD programmes. By approximating complex geometrical the digging process the forces Fhc hc
2,1 and F4,3 change the directions. In Fig. 10

shapes of the excavator parts by simple geometrical shapes, the approx- it can be observed that during the small initial time interval, the bucket
imative values of these parameters can also be obtained (see [1,2]). Note weight has a dominant influence if compared to the digging force (nega-
hc
that the rotating platform with the driver's cab, the boom, the arm, and tive value of the projection F6,5(u) ) and with the further increase in the
the bucket represent a robotic mechanism in the form of an open magnitude of the force Fw, the action of the digging force Fw becomes
kinematic chain. In accordance with this, in order to determine the ex- dominant in relation to the bucket weight (positive value of the projec-
cavator inertial parameters, the existing experimental identification tion Fhc
6,5(u)).

techniques for robotic systems (see e.g. [23–25]) can be applied. Note
that a measurement technique for determination of the inertial param- 6. Conclusions
eters of the cabin was developed in [26,27].
On the basis of the data from references [1–3], in determination In this paper, the differential equations of motion of the hydraulic
of the forces of the hydro-cylinders necessary for realization of the excavator in the form of Kane's equations have been presented.
task of taking soil with a bucket the following values of the excavator The equations proposed allow the analysis of the excavator dynamics
parameters are used: m2 = 1566 kg, m3 = 735 kg, m4 = 432 kg, The during the following working transportation tasks: digging, lifting and
2
value 14250.6 should be placed in one line IC 2 ξ2 ¼ 14250:6 kg m ,IC 3 ξ3 ¼ returning as well as the influence of the base elasticity on the excavator
2 2
727:7 kg m , IC 4 ξ4 ¼ 224:6 kg m , p1 = 0.7 m, p2 = 2.71 m, p3 = 2.8 m, dynamics. Note that during the dumping task, Eq. (8) must be corrected
p4 = 0.77 m, p5 = 1.93 m, p6 = p9 = 0.5 m, p7 = 0.365 m, p8 = 0.378 m, in order to take into account the change of the bucket mass with soil.
ℓ1 = 0.05 m, ℓ2 = 5.16 m, ℓ3 = 2.59 m, O4 K ¼ 1:33 m, ℓC 2 ¼ 2:71 m, The differential equations explicitly include the forces of the hydro-
ℓC 3 ¼ 0:64 m, ℓC 4 ¼ 0:65 m, δ1 = 1.423, δ2 = 0, δ3 = 0.1222, γ3 = cylinders as well as the moment of internal driving force couple in the
0.1047, γ4 = 1.92, ∠ ℓC 2 ; η2 Þ ¼ 0:2566 , ∠ ℓC 3 ; η3 Þ ¼ 0:3316 , joint O1, which allows motion of the cab relative to the chassis with
∠ ℓC 4 ; η4 Þ ¼ 0:3944 . The quantities IC i ξi ði ¼ 2; 3; 4Þ represent second- caterpillars. This fact allows the determination of necessary magnitudes
order inertial moments about the axes through the gravity centres of driving forces for different laws of change of generalised coordinates
Cpξp(p = 2, 3, 4), respectively. At that, as in [5], it is taken that the time in- qi(i = 1, …, 4) directly from these equations. The forces of hydro-
terval of the considered digging task reads 0 ≤ t ≤ 3 s and that q2 = cylinders represent a connection between the dynamics of the hydraulic
−0.1744, q3 = 0.436, q4 = 0.1744 t3–0.7848 t2, and Fw = 2.1812 t3– subsystem and the dynamics of the mechanical subsystem of the

100
150

80
100
(u) (kN)

(u) (kN)

60
50
F 2,1

F 6,5
hc

hc

40
0
20
-50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
time (s) time (s)

Fig. 8. Force in the hydro-cylinder HC1 versus time. Fig. 10. Force in the hydro-cylinder HC3 versus time.
62 S. Šalinić et al. / Automation in Construction 44 (2014) 56–62

excavator. Having this in mind, by expressing forces in the hydro- [7] E. Assenov, E. Bosilkov, R. Dimitrov, T. Damianov, Kinematics and dynamics of work-
ing mechanism of hydraulic excavator, Annual of University of Mining and Geology
cylinders from Eq. (8) and replacing thus obtained expressions in the “St. Ivan Rilski”, Part III, Mechanization, Electrification and Automation in Mines, 46,
corresponding equations of dynamic behaviour of the excavator hy- 2003, pp. 47–49.
draulic subsystem, the corresponding differential equations which de- [8] P.H. Chang, S.-J. Lee, A straight-line motion tracking control of hydraulic excavator
system, Mechatronics 12 (1) (2002) 119–138.
scribe the behaviour of both subsystems of the excavator can be [9] Q.-H. He, P. Hao, D.-Q. Zhang, Modeling and parameter estimation for hydraulic sys-
obtained. In that way, the problem of creating a unique model for tem of excavator's arm, J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. 15 (3) (2008) 382–386 (English
these two subsystems, which was treated in [10,11] by applying the Edition).
[10] D. Margolis, T. Shim, Instability due to interacting hydraulic and mechanical dynam-
bond-graph method and the graph theory, would be solved. In compar-
ics in backhoes, J. Dyn. Syst. -T. ASME 125 (3) (2003) 497–504.
ison with the procedure in references [28,3], the procedure described in [11] E. Papadopoulos, B. Mu, R. Frenette, On modeling, identification, and control of a
this paper is more efficient from a computational point of view because heavy-duty electrohydraulic harvester manipulator, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.
8 (2) (2003) 178–187.
it uses the 3 × 3 transformation matrices instead of the 4 × 4 ones and
[12] T.R. Kane, P.W. Likins, D.A. Levinson, Spacecraft Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York,
does not require determination of reaction forces in the joints. If it is 1983.
necessary to determine the reaction force in a joint of the excavator, it [13] J. Angeles, O. Ma, An algorithm for the inverse dynamics of n-axis general manipu-
can subsequently be accomplished by the procedure presented in [29]. lators using Kane's equations, Comput. Math. Appl. 17 (1989) 1545–1561.
[14] A.A. Shabana, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, third ed. Cambridge University Press,
The paper does not analyse the influence of the mass of hydro- New York, 2005.
cylinders on the excavator dynamics. This influence may be examined [15] V. Čović, M. Lazarević, Mechanics of Robots, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
by treating the pistons and cylinders of hydro-cylinders as additional University of Belgrade, Belgrade, 2009. (in Serbian).
[16] P. Nikravesh, Computer-aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems, Prentice Hall,
bodies which, with the other bodies of the excavator, form a kinematic Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.
chain with closed loops. The comparison between the results of simula- [17] J. Angeles, On the numerical solution of the inverse kinematic problem, Int. J. Robot.
tion on the basis of equations which would refer to such a kinematic Res. 4 (1985) 21–37.
[18] H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York,
chain with closed loops and the proposed differential equations would 1980.
show in which transport operations it would make sense to work with [19] T.V. Alekseeva, K.A. Artem'ev, A. Bromberg, Machines for Earth Moving Work:
the excavator model with closed loops. Theory and Calculations, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992.
[20] E. Mckyes, Soil Cutting and Tillage, Elsevier, 1985.
[21] S.P. DiMaio, S.E. Salcudean, C. Reboulet, S. Tafazoli, K. Hashtrudi-Zaad, A virtual
Acknowledgement excavator for controller development and evaluation, Proceedings of the 1998
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Leuven, Belgium, vol.
1, 1998, pp. 52–58.
Support for this research was provided by the Ministry of Educa-
[22] H. Cannon, S. Singh, Models for automated earthmoving, Experimental Robotics VI,
tion, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 250, Springer Verlag, 2000,
Serbia under Grants No. TR35006 and No. TR35038. This support is pp. 163–172.
gratefully acknowledged. [23] S. Tafazoli, P.D. Lawrence, S.E. Salcudean, Identification of inertial and friction pa-
rameters for excavator arms, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 15 (5) (1999) 966–971.
[24] Y.H. Zweiri, L.D. Seneviratne, K. Althoefer, Parameter estimation for excavator arm
References using generalized Newton method, IEEE Trans. Robot. 20 (4) (2004) 762–767.
[25] Y.H. Zweiri, Identification schemes for unmanned excavator arm parameters, Int. J.
[1] P.K. Vähä, A.J. Koivo, M.J. Skibniewski, Excavation dynamics and effects of soil in dig- Autom. Comput. 5 (2) (2008) 185–192.
ging, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics [26] S.A. Lukowski, K.A. Sebert, D. Ryba, Measurement of the inertial properties of the
in Constructions, ISARC-8, Stuttgart, Germany, 1991, pp. 297–306. cabin of a heavy highway vehicle, SAE Technical Paper 872296, 1987, http://dx.
[2] P.K. Vähä, M.J. Skibniewski, Dynamic model of excavator, J. Aerosp. Eng. 6 (1993) doi.org/10.4271/872296.
148–158. [27] J.S. Cho, K.U. Kim, H.J. Park, Determination of dynamic parameters of agricultural
[3] A.J. Koivo, M. Thoma, E. Kocaoglan, J. Andrade-Cetto, Modeling and control of exca- tractor cab mount system by a modified DSIM, Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 43 (6)
vator dynamics during digging operation, J. Aerosp. Eng. 9 (1996) 10–18. (2000) 1365–1369.
[4] S. Frimpong, Y. Hu, H. Inyang, Dynamic modeling of hydraulic shovel excavators for [28] A.J. Koivo, Kinematics of excavators (backhoes) for transferring surface materi-
geomaterials, Int. J. Geomech. 8 (2008) 20–29. al, J. Aerosp. Eng. 7 (1994) 17–32.
[5] Z. Towarek, Dynamics of a single-bucket excavator on a deformable soil foundation [29] S. Šalinić, Determination of joint reaction forces in a symbolic form in rigid
during the digging of ground, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 45 (2003) 1053–1076. multibody systems, Mech. Mach. Theory 46 (2011) 1796–1810
[6] O. Lazarević, V. Batinić, Analysis of hydraulic excavator dynamic behaviour, in: S.
Maksimović, T. Igić, N. Trišović (Eds.), 4th International Congress of Serbian Society
of Mechanics, Vrnjačka Banja, Serbia, 2013, pp. 135–140.