机械毕业设计370英文翻译外文文献翻译369
收藏
资源目录
压缩包内文档预览：(预览前20页/共38页)
编号：531577
类型：共享资源
大小：14.38MB
格式：ZIP
上传时间：2015-11-25
上传人：QQ28****1120
认证信息
个人认证
孙**（实名认证）
辽宁
IP属地：辽宁
6
积分
- 关 键 词：
-
机械毕业设计英文翻译
- 资源描述：
-
机械毕业设计370英文翻译外文文献翻译369,机械毕业设计英文翻译
- 内容简介：
-
河北建筑工程学院 毕业设计（论文）外文资料翻译 系别： 机械工程系 专业： 机械设计制造及其自动化 班级： 机 094 姓名： 杨东胜 学号： 2009307413 外文出处： /locate/jterra （用外文写） 附 件： 1、外文原文； 2、外文资料翻译译文。 指导教师评语： 签字： 年 月 日 nts1、 外文原文（复印件） nts2、外文资料翻译译文 译文标题（ 3号黑体，居中） （小 4 号宋体， 1.5 倍行距） 。（要求不少于 3000 汉字） nts*,formexcavatorof position and transition from one stage to the other. During all stages of filling, DEM was able to predict the volume of material insidethe bucket accurately to within 6%.excavator bucket filling using the discrete element method(DEM).industry it is generally accepted that a 1% improvementin the eciency of a dragline will result in an R1 millionincrease in annual production per dragline 1. BucketsTo scale-up results from model experiments is problematicsince there are no general scaling laws for granular flows asdragline bucket filling experiments.According to Maciejewski et al. 6, in practical caseswhen the motion of a bucket or bulldozer blade is dis-cussed, plane strain conditions apply only in some defor-mation regions. The plane strain solution for such toolscan be assumed only with limited accuracy. Maciejewski*Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 808 4239; fax: +27 21 808 4958.E-mail address: ccoetzeesun.ac.za (C.J. Coetzee).Available online at Journal of Terramechanics 46JournalBuckets are found on a number of earthmoving machin-ery. Draglines are used to remove blasted overburden fromopen cut mines. Its removal exposes the coal depositsbeneath for mining. A dragline is a crane-like structurewith a huge bucket of up to 100 m3in volume suspendedby steel ropes. Draglines are an expensive and essential partof mine operations and play an important role in the com-petitiveness of South African mines. In the coal miningthere are for fluid dynamics 5.According to Cleary 5 the filling of buckets, in theabsence of very large rocks, is observed to be relativelytwo-dimensional with little motion in the transverse direc-tion. The flow pattern along a cross-section of the bucket inthe drag direction is the most important aspect of fillingand can be analysed satisfactorily using two-dimensionalmodels. Rowlands 2 made similar observations based onC211 2009 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionEarthmoving equipment plays an important role in theagricultural, earthmoving and mining industries. Theequipment is highly diverse in shape and function, but mostof the soil cutting machines can be categorised into one ofthree principal classes, namely blades, rippers and buckets(shovels). This paper focuses on the numerical modelling ofare also found on hydraulic excavators, loaders and shovelexcavators.The filling of a bucket is a complex granular flow prob-lem. Instrumentation of field equipment for measuringbucket filling is dicult and expensive. It is possible touse small-scale (usually 1/10th scale) experimental rigs toevaluate bucket designs 1,2 but they are expensive andthere are questions regarding the validity of scaling 3,4.The numerical modelling of excavatorC.J. CoetzeeDepartment of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, UniversityReceived 15 February 2007; received in revisedAvailable onlineAbstractThe filling of an excavator bucket is a complex granular flow problem.stand the dierent mechanisms involved. The discrete element methodactions and it was used in this study to model the filling process of anwhich the model predicted the bucket drag force and the developmentments, DEM predicted lower bucket drag forces, but the general trendin predicted drag force was 20%. Qualitatively, there was a good agreement0022-4898/$36.00 C211 2009 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2009.05.003bucket filling using DEMD.N.J. Elsof Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa25 February 2009; accepted 28 May 200925 June 2009In order to optimize the filling process, it is important to under-(DEM) is a promising approach to model soil-implement inter-bucket. Model validation was based on the accuracy withof the dierent flow regions. Compared to experimental measure-was accurately modelled. At the end of the filling process the errorbetween the observed and the modelled flow regions in /locate/jterra(2009) 217227ofTerramechanicsntsThe main objective of this study was to demonstrate theability of DEM to predict the drag force on the bucket andthe material flow patterns that develop as the bucket fillsup. The DEM results were compared to experiments per-formed in a soil bin.2. The discrete element methodDiscrete element methods are based on the simulation ofthe motion of granular material as separate particles. DEMwas first applied to rock mechanics by Cundall and Strack16. In this study, all the simulations were two-dimensionalandperformedusingcommercialDEMsoftwarePFC2D17.A linear contact model was used with aspring stiness knin the normal direction and a spring stiness ksin the sheardirection (Fig. 1). Frictional slip is allowed in the tangentialdirectionwithafrictioncoecientl.Thedampingforceactsonaparticleintheoppositedirectiontotheparticlevelocityand is proportional to the resultant force acting on the par-ticle with a proportionality constant (damping coecient)C 17. For a detailed description of DEM, the reader isreferred to Cleary and Sawley 18, Cundall and Strack16, Hogue 19 and Zhang and Whiten 20.3. ExperimentalTerramechanics 46 (2009) 217227et al. 6 also investigated the assumption of plane strainconditions in soil bins where the soil and tool motion isconstrained between two transparent walls. For measure-ments in such a bin, the force acting on the tool due tothe friction between the soil and the sidewalls has to be esti-mated or neglected. They have shown that for a high num-ber of teeth on the bucket, the teeth do not act as separatethree-dimensional objects but as one wide tool built upfrom several modules. The deformation pattern in frontof such an assembly of teeth was found to be plane straindeformation. The authors, however, concluded that thiswas true for the particular cohesive soil (sandy clay) andmay not apply to other (especially rocky and brittle) mate-rials. In this study the bucket had a full-width lip with noteeth and based on the findings by Maciejewski et al. 6,the assumption of plane strain was made and two-dimen-sional DEM models were used.Analytical methods 711 used to model soiltool inter-action are limited to infinitesimal motion of the tool andthe given geometry of the problem. These methods werenot expected to be valid for the analysis of the subsequentstages of advanced earth digging problems 12. The analyt-ical methods are based on Terzaghis passive earth pressuretheory and assumptions of a preliminary soil failure pattern13. Complicated tool geometry (such as buckets) and largedeformations cannot be modelled using these methods 14.The discrete element method is a promising approach tomodel soil-implement interaction and can be used to over-come some of the diculties encountered by analyticalmethods 15. In DEM, the failure patterns and materialdeformation are not needed in advance. The tools are mod-elled using a number of flat walls and the complexity of thetool geometry does not complicate the DEM model. Largedeformation in the granular material and the developmentof the granular material free surface are automatically han-dled by the method.Cleary 5 modelled dragline bucket filling using DEM.Trends were shown and qualitative comparisons made, butno experimental results were presented. The process ofhydraulic excavator bucket filling was investigated experi-mentally by Maciejewski and Jarzebowski 12. The aim oftheir research was optimization of the digging process andbuckettrajectories.Itisshownthatthemostenergyecientbucket is the one where the pushing eect of the back wall isminimized.Owenetal.21modelled3Ddraglinebucketfill-ing. In there approach, the bucket was modelled with thefinite element method and the soil with DEM. Ellipsoidsand clumped spheres were used to approximate the particleangularity. The bucket followed a prescribed path.Esterhuyse 1 and Rowlands 2 investigated the fillingbehaviour of scaled dragline buckets experimentally withthe focus on rigging configuration, bucket shape and teethspacing. They have shown that the aspect ratio of thebucket (width to depth) plays and important role in thedrag distance needed to fill a bucket. The bucket with the218 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els/Journal ofshortest fill distance was found to produce the highest peakdrag force.Two parallel glass panels were fixed 200 mm apart toform the soil bin. The bucket profile was fixed to a trolleywhich was driven by a ball screw and stepper motor. TheFrictionknksFig. 1. DEM contact model.ntscomplete rig could be set at an angle h to the horizontal asshown in Fig. 2a. The first arm was then rotated and fixedsuch that both arms remained vertical. The second armremained free to move in the vertical direction. First, coun-terweights were added at position A (Fig. 2a) to balancethe combined weight of the bucket profile and the secondarm assembly. This resulted in a weightless” bucket.Counterweights were then added at position B to set theeective” bucket weight. Since arm 2 was always verticaleven for rig angles other then zero, the eective bucketweight always acted vertically downwards (Fig. 2c). Bucketweights of 49.1 N, 93.2 N, 138.3 N and 202.1 N were used.When the bucket was dragged in the direction as indi-cated, it was also free to move in the vertical direction asa result of the eective bucket weight and the force of thegrains acting on it. The bottom edge of the bucket wasalways set to be parallel to the drag direction and the mate-rial free surface. This type of motion resembles that of adragline bucket which is dragged in the drag direction bya set of ropes, but with freedom of motion in all otherdirections 2.Spring loaded Teflon wipers were used to seal the smallopening between the bucket profile and the glass panels. Aforcetransducerwasdesignedandbuilt tomeasurethedragforce on the bucket. A set of strain gauges was bonded to asteel beam of which the position is shown in Fig. 2a. Thecalibration checked regularly to avoid drift in the measure-ments. For rig angles other than zero, the force transducerwas zeroed before the drag commenced. This compensatedforthecomponentofthebucketweightthatactedinthedragdirection. The vertical displacement of the bucket was mea-suredwithalinearvariabledierentialtransformer(LVDT)andusedasinputtotheDEMsimulation.Inboththeexper-imentsandtheDEMsimulationsthebucketwasgivenadragvelocity of 10 mm sC01. The dimensions of the bucket profileare shown in Fig. 2b.In this study corn grains were used. Although the corngrains are not real soil, Rowlands 2 observed that seedgrains are suitable for experimental testing and closelyresemble natural soil flow into dragline buckets.C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els/Journal of Terramechanics 46 (2009) 217227 219set of four strain gauges was used to measure the force inthe drag direction. Other force components were notmeasured. The force transducer was calibrated and theADirection of drag Direction of vertical motion 2ndArm1stArmBForce transducer 100 mm200 mm150 mm Max volume 35 mm45WbcosWbCounter weights abcFig. 2. Experimental setup.4. DEM parameters and numerical modelFig. 3 shows the range of measured grain dimensionsand the equivalent DEM grain. A normal distributionwithin the range of dimensions given was used to createthe clumped particles. Clumps can be formed by addingtwo or more particles (discs in 2D and spheres in 3D)together to form one rigid particle, i.e. particles includedin the clump remain at a fixed distance from each other17. Particles within a clump can overlap to any extentand contact forces are not generated between these parti-cles. Clumps cannot break up during simulations regardlessof the forces acting upon them. In the model 20,00030,000clumped particles were used.A calibration process, presented in another paper, wasdeveloped forcohesionlessmaterial. Theparticle size,shapeand density were determined from physical measurements.Thelaboratorysheartestsandcompressionstestswereusedtodeterminethematerialinternalfrictionangleandstinessrespectively. These tests were repeated numerically usingDEM models with dierent sets of particle friction coe-cientsandparticlestinessvalues.Thecombinationofsheartestandcompressiontestresultscouldbeusedtodetermineaunique set of particle friction and particle stiness values,Table 1.5 - 98 - 125 - 64 - 53 - 6R 2.5 - 4.5 R 1.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 5.0 abFig. 3. (a) Physical grain dimensions and (b) DEM grain model.Dimensions in (mm).ntsIn the software used, PFC2D, so-called walls are used tobuild structures. The test rig and the bucket, with the samedimensions as in the experiment, were built from walls. Thewalls are rigid and move according to prescribed transla-tional and rotational velocities. The forces and momentsacting on the walls do not influence the motion of the wall.During the experiments a constant drag velocity of10 mm sC01was applied while the vertical displacementwas measured. The vertical displacement was influencedby both the rig angle and the eective bucket weight. A typ-ical result is shown in Fig. 4. Except for the initial transi-tion, the vertical velocity was nearly constant, for a givensetup, and increased with an increase in bucket weight. Inthe DEM model, the drag velocity was set to 10 mm sC01end of the drag the error was 20%. The frictional forcebetween the Teflon wipers and the glass panels was mea-sured in a run without grains. This frictional force was sub-tracted from the measured drag force. Frictional forcesbetween the grains and the side panels would also havean influence on the measured results. These frictional forcescould not be measured or included in the 2D DEM modeland might be the reason why the model predicts lower dragforces 6.The drag energy was defined as the area under the dragforcedisplacement curve. Making use of dierent rigangles h and eective bucket weights Wb, the drag energyE700up to a displacement of 700 mm is compared in Fig. 8.The first observation that could me made was that withan increase in eective bucket weight, for a given rig angleh, there was a linear increase in required drag energy. Acloser investigation showed that with an increase in bucketweight, the bucket was forced deeper into the materialwhich caused a higher drag force when compared to abucket with less weight.The second observation that can be made is that with an220 C.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els/Journal of Terramechanand the measured vertical displacement was read from adata file and applied to the bucket.Standard functions build into PFC2Dwere used toobtain the forces and moments acting on individual wallsand on the bucket as a whole. For rig angles other thanzero, the rig was kept horizontal but the gravity compo-nents were set accordingly.5. Results and discussionIt is dicult to make quantitative comparisons regard-ing flow patterns. When comparing the material freesurface, some comparisons could however be made. Figs.5 and 6 show how the material flowed into the bucket forrig angles of h =0C176 and h =20C176, respectively. When com-paring the shape of the material free surface, the simula-tions were able to predict the general shape during theinitial stages of filling. The simulations however failed toaccurately predict the material free surface during the finalstages of filling.Curves were fitted to the experimental free surface andoverlaid on the numerical results in Figs. 5 and 6. The max-imum dierence between the two free surfaces (heapheight) was measured along the direction perpendicularto the drag direction. Two measurements were made, onewhere DEM predicted a higher heap height, and onemeasurement where DEM predicted a lower heap height.Table 1Summary of corn properties and DEM parameters used.Macro property Measured DEMInternal friction angle 23C176 24C176Angle of repose 25 2C176 24 1C176Bulk density 778 kg mC03778 kg mC03Confined bulk modulus 1.60 MPa 1.52 MPaMaterial-steel friction 14C176 14C176Calibrated DEM propertiesParticle stiness, kn= ks450 kN/mParticle density, qp855 kg/m3Particle friction coecient, l 0.12Other propertiesDamping, C 0.2Model width 0.2 mThe values and the positions where they were measuredare indicated in the figures. Taking the nominal particlesize as 10 mm, DEM predicted the heap height accuratelywithin 1.54.5 particle diameters.Fig. 7 shows typical drag forces obtained from experi-ments and simulations. The large jump in the drag forceat the beginning of the experiment was observed in mostof the runs and could not be explained and needs furtherinvestigation. From this result, it is clear that the DEMmodel captured the general trend in drag force, but it pre-dicted lower values compared to the measured values. Overthe complete drag of 800 mm, the model predicted a forcewhich was 1550 N lower than the measured force. At the0 100 200 300 400 500Drag displacement mm600 70020406080100Vertical displacement mm120Wb= 202.1 N138.3 N93.2 N 49.1 N Fig. 4. Measured vertical displacement of the bucket with h =10C176 andfour values of eective bucket weight Wb.ics 46 (2009) 217227increase in the rig angle, there is a decrease in drag energy.The eective bucket weight Wbalways acted verticallyntsTerramechanC.J. Coetzee, D.N.J. Els/Journal ofdownward (Fig. 2c) so that the normal force pushing thebucket into the material is given by WbC1 cos (h). Thus, withan increase in rig angle, there is a decrease in the normalforce pushing the bucket into the material. This caused areduction in the drag force, and hence a reduction in thedrag energy, when compared to results using a lower rigangle. The DEM simulations were able to capture the gen-eral trends, but it predicted drag energies lower than themeasured. The reason for this is that the predicted dragforces were too low due to the exclusion of the frictionforces between the grains and the glass panels. It would,however, still be possible to use the simulation results forqualitative
- 温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明，都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等，如果需要附件，请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸，网页内容里面会有图纸预览，若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑，并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容，请与我们联系，我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享，仅供网友学习交流，未经上传用户书面授权，请勿作他用。
川公网安备: 51019002004831号