See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265269501

An excavation force calculations and applications: An analytical approach

Article · May 2011

CITATIONS READS

9 1,892

3 authors:

Bhavesh Patel Jagdish Prajapati

Ganpat University, U.V.Patel College of Engineering, Mehsana, Gujarat, India The Faculty of Technology & Engineering, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Ba…
39 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bhargav Jagdishbhai Gadhvi

Simon Fraser University
13 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A new MEMS gyroscope design based on nonlinear coupling and internal resonance View project

Flat Panel Design & FMEA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bhargav Jagdishbhai Gadhvi on 30 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

AN EXCAVATION FORCE
CALCULATIONS AND APPLICATIONS:
AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH
BHAVESHKUMAR P. PATEL
Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, U. V. Patel College of Engineering,
Ganpat University (GNU), Kherva, Dist: Mehsana, Gujarat, 382711, India

DR. J. M. PRAJAPATI
Associate Professor, Faculty of Technology and Engineering
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda,
Vadodara - 390002, Gujarat, India

BHARGAV J. GADHVI
M. Tech. CAD-CAM student, U. V. Patel College of Engineering,
Ganpat University (GNU), Kherva, Dist: Mehsana, Gujarat, 982711, India

Abstract :
A better tool design in the excavation process has been always a challenging task for the engineers. A poorly
designed tool always results in poor excavation of the ground, higher wear of the tool, wastage of the time, and
power, and thus reducing the overall productivity of the excavation operation. But proper understanding of the
soil mechanics in context of the soil cutting process may help in a better tool design. Moreover; in designing the
control system for an excavator requires the dynamic model of an excavator, and it requires in turn the resistive
forces offered by the ground on the bucket. The excavation forces necessary to cut the soil by the excavator
bucket have been analyzed in this paper to improve the design of the bucket teeth, the leap plate of the bucket,
and the side cutting plates. The method used for calculating the excavation force is based on 2D analytical soil-
tool interaction models.
Keywords: Soil cutting, Excavation force, Excavator.

1. Introduction
The tool for the excavation process always experiences the large amount of resistive force offered by the soil (or
excavation force to cut the soil) while excavating because the surface mining of metals, quarrying of rocks, and
construction of highway requires the rapid removal of soil and rocks [Gadhvi (2010)]. So by the nature, excavation
involves forceful interaction with terrain. The nature of this interaction is most influenced by soil properties.
Moreover; it is obvious that digging in loose, dry sand is very different from digging in a compacted, clayey
medium. Indeed, this difference can be so large that strategies for digging in various media differ radically. So it
becomes extremely important to answer the two critical questions regarding the excavation. First question is:
What is the effect of the excavation tool on the soil? And second question is: What is the effect of the soil on the
excavation tool? [Patel Bhavesh (2011)] But to answer these both questions the basic knowledge of soil
mechanics is of a prime importance.
Due to the constant pressure on the field to improve the production rate of earthmoving machines like
hydraulic excavators, industries have now started to look for the parameters those directly affect the productivity
of an excavator. Hydraulic excavators are widely used earthmoving machines, and the bucket of the excavator
involves a very forceful interaction with the terrain. One of the parameters affecting the productivity of this
machine is the teeth of the bucket. A poor design of the bucket teeth results in poor excavation, thus reducing
the production rate and more number of cycles required for the operation to be carried out thus increasing the
time as well. But if the bucket teeth are designed properly, it will certainly increase the life of the teeth with an
improved excavation capacity per cycle. This can be done if the resistive forces acting on the bucket teeth can
be predicted accurately.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3831

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Moreover; for the automatic operation of an excavator a controller should be designed that takes the
trajectory planning data and the excavator dynamic model as an input, and controls the joints by the joint
actuators automatically. And, the mathematical dynamic model of an excavator requires the external forces
exerted by the working environment on the bucket, and these are resistive force offered by the soil, and
gravitational forces. This resistive force when resolved in the normal and in the tangential direction of the
bucket teeth leads into a load vector that can be directly utilized in the dynamic model. The work in this paper
has been divided into three parts in the first part (section 3) Calculations of excavation forces are presented
based on 2D analytical McKyes and Zeng models for soil cutting, in the second part applications of these forces
are briefly explained (section 4), and in the third part results of both the models are compared (section 5).

2. Related work for the development of the soil-tool interaction model

In the case of earth moving tasks, the soil is always brought to a state of complete failure and therefore the
principles of soil mechanics should be applicable [Reece (1964)]. Reece gave a generalized Fundamental
Equation for Earthmoving operations popularly known as an FEE as follows:
2 3 2 2
F ( N ) = cb N c + γ b N γ + qb N q + ca b N a
(1)
Where F = resistive force experienced at a tool, or excavation force necessary to cut the soil in N, c = soil
cohesion (N/m2), b = operating depth of the tool (m), γ = soil density (N/m3), q = the surcharge pressure (N/m2),
ca = soil to metal adhesion (N/m2), and Nc, Nγ, Nq, and Na are the factors describing the shape of the soil failure
surface, and depend upon the angle of internal shearing resistance ø, angle of soil to metal friction δ, and on the
shape of the structure and soil mass involved in the system.
McKyes [McKyes (1985)] developed a model on the basis of the method of trial wedges. He assumed the
exact shape of the lowest soil slip line caused by the cutting tool to be a straight line, and carried out the
excavation force in terms of the standard FEE form, while giving the exact equations of the N factors. The
detailed description of this model is given in the next section. After 1985, researchers have tried to develop the
soil-tool interaction model by doing some modifications to the Reece [Reece (1964)] model, and McKyes
[McKyes (1985)] model. H. Cannon [Cannon (1999)] developed a model that accounts for the terrain slope
angle while excavating.
D. Zeng et al. [Zeng et al (2007)] developed a soil-tool interaction model based on principles of soil
mechanics, which would be easy to use and parameters be easy to obtain using conventional soil test. They
developed the model to design excavation tools by predicting accurate excavation force for digging and pushing
lunar regolith for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) applications. The detailed description is given in the third
section. Note that the literature review presented here is the work carried out by the researchers in 2D (two
dimensional) analytical soil-tool interaction model only and only 2D models are considered in this study.

3. Excavation force calculations

In this section for calculating the excavation forces mainly two 2D soil-tool interaction models are used. In the
first section a systematic procedure to find the excavation force by McKyes model is presented, and in the
second sub section the procedure to find the excavation force by Zeng model is presented.

3.1. Excavation force calculation based on McKyes model

McKyes [McKyes (1985)] approximated the logarithmic spiral slip line (exact slip line) by a straight line, for
ease of resolution forces, and developed a single wedge model as shown in Fig .1. In this figure, the exact shape
of the lowest soil slip line, caused by a tool cutting the soil, is approximated by a straight line at an angle to the
horizontal, β (deg). He left the magnitude of the angle β undetermined. He assumed that soil slip is on the tool
surface and within the soil itself. So the frictional components of shear strength on the two slip lines have been
combined with perpendicular forces to form resultant forces P (N) and R (N) as indicated in the fig. 1, and
resistance forces due to soil to metal adhesion and soil cohesion are shown separately as caL and cL1
respectively.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3832

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 1. McKyes Soil cutting model

Where, P is the force required to move the blade or the resistive force (because in the equilibrium condition
the resistive force becomes an excavation force), L = blade length (m), L1 = length of failure surface (m), and
the rake angle is α (deg) also known as the blade angle, φ is the angle of internal shearing resistance in degree,
W = weight of the wedge per unit length (N/m), q is the surcharge pressure in N/m2, δ is the angle of soil to
metal friction in degree, d = operating depth of the tool in meter, γ is the soil density in (Kg/m3), g = 9.81 (m/s2)
is the acceleration due to the gravity of the earth, c is the soil cohesion in (N/m2), ca is the soil to metal adhesion
in (N/m2). Leaving wedge angle β undetermined yet, the net forces in the horizontal and vertical directions are
assumed to be zero because of equilibrium, and P solved as follows, for a unit tool width:
W +Q +cd [1+cot( β )cot( β +φ )]+ca d [1−cot(α ) cot( β +φ )]
P=
cos(α +δ )+sin(α +δ )+cot( β +φ ) (2)
Where the values for W, and Q are determined from:
2
d
W =γg ( cot α + cot β )
2 , and Q = qd ( cot α + cot β )
Where Q is the weight of the surcharge per unit length of the failure wedge in (N/m), and P is the force per
unit width of the tool (bucket in our case) in (N/m), when multiplied by the width of the tool gives the value of P
in N, W in N, and Q in N. When this equation is written in the form of FEE it yields the form:
( 2
P = γ gd N γ + cdN c + qdN q + ca dN a w ) (3)
Where w is the width of the tool in mm and N factors can be given by:
cot α + cot β
Nγ =
2 [cos(α + δ ) + sin(α + δ ) cot( β + φ )]
[1 + cot β cr cot( β cr + φ )]
Nc =
[cos(α + δ ) + sin(α + δ ) cot( β cr + φ )]
cot α + cot β cr
Nq =
[cos(α + δ ) + sin(α + δ ) cot( β cr + φ )]
[1 − cot α cot( β cr + φ )]
Na =
[cos(α + δ ) + sin(α + δ ) cot( β cr + φ )]
To find the most appropriate angle of the soil failure wedge, It is therefore logical to determine that value of
the angle, βcr (critical value of the angle of the soil failure wedge), which causes Nγ to be a minimum using the
Nγ equation. To find the force P the following procedure should be applied: Firstly for the range of 0 deg to 90
deg of the failure surface angle β different values of the factor Nγ are found out. Then plot β versus Nγ, and for
the minimum value of Nγ find the value of β, and set this β = βcr. Then find the other N factors, and put them
into the “Eq. (1)” along with the minimum value of the factor Nγ, and find the resistive force in Newton. Note
here γ is the soil density in (Kg/m3) not in (N/m3).
Table 1 describes the values of the soil properties along with the excavator tool (bucket) dimensions taken
for the test. The soil type taken in the test is sandy loam [Aluko (2000)] (640 gm sand per Kg, 190 gm silt per

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3833

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Kg, 170 gm clay per Kg, 17 gm organic matter per Kg according to FAO classification), and the soil series code
is S3. The tool properties are taken for the excavator bucket modeled in the CAD software, weight of the bucket
= 16Kg, length of the tool = 0.412m (Fig. 2), and depth of the tool = 0.236m (Fig. 2), width of the tool = 0.31m.

Table 1. The values of the soil properties along with the excavator tool (bucket) dimensions taken for the test

Description Symbol Value Unit

Rake angle α 35 Deg
Angle of internal shearing resistance ø 30 Deg
soil to metal friction angle δ 23.5 Deg
Angle of the soil failure wedge β 37 Deg
Soil density γ 1520, 14912 Kg/m3, N/m3
Acceleration due to the gravity of the earth g 9.81 m/s2
Soil cohesion c 23930 N/m2
Operating tool depth d 0.236 m
Soil surcharge pressure q 10 N/m2
Soil to metal adhesion ca 12020 N/m2
Length of the tool L 0.412 m
At rest Earth coefficient K0 0.573 -
Vertical acceleration av 0 m/s2
Horizontal acceleration ah 0 m/s2
Weight of the tool Wb 236 N
Width of the tool w 0.31 m

The whole McKyes model when programmed in MATLAB (A Math tool); the excavation force for the
parameters described in the table comes out to be 3916.7 N. The parametric study of the influence of important
soil-tool parameters such as rake angle, tool depth, internal shearing resistance angle, soil density, soil cohesion,
and soil to metal friction angle on the total excavation force of McKyes model are plotted in the section of
results and discussion.

3.2. Excavation force calculation based on Zeng model

Accurately predicting the excavation force that will be encountered by digging tools on the lunar surface is a
crucial element of in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) [Zeng et al (2007)]. Based on principles of soil mechanics
and soil cutting, Zeng developed an analytical 2D model that is relatively simple to apply and uses soil
parameters that can be easily determined by conventional soil strength tests. Due to the excavation force for
digging the lunar regolith should be calculated accurately, he developed the model for the excavation tool design
for digging lunar regolith.
Zeng considered that the total excavation force F (N) is composed of friction force on the blade Fblade,
passive earth pressure Pp, and the side friction force Fside. The total excavation force F can be resolved in X and
Y direction as shown in Fig .2 as follows:
2 2
F = ( Fx ) + ( Fy )
(4)
Where Fx, and Fy are the horizontal and vertical components of the total excavation force F respectively, and
can be given by:
W
Fx = − Fblade sin α + Pp cos(α − δ ) + Fside cos β + b
g h
a ( )
Fy = − Fblade cos α + Wb + Pp sin(α − δ ) + Fside sin
g v
a β (
+ ) Wb

Zeng ignored the frictional force due to cohesion of the soil because cohesion of the lunar soil is very small,
but while the soil of the earth is under consideration, the cohesive frictional force Fblade should not be ignored.
Apart from this there are basically three categories of lateral earth pressure: at rest earth pressure, active earth
pressure, and passive earth pressure. When the vertical wall (in our case it is blade) moves into the soil the soil
mass is compressed which also mobilize its shear strength and the passive pressure develops. Some engineers

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3834

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 2. Zeng’s Soil cutting model

might use this passive pressure that develops along this buried face as additional restraint to lateral movement,
but often it is ignored. But as the study of Zeng was for the lunar regolith he considered this passive pressure.
In our case we have ignored the passive earth pressure and have assumed the condition of at rest earth
pressure. The last force that contributes to the total excavation force is the side friction force Fside. So if these
two forces Fblade, and Fside are known then the total excavation force can be determined from Eq.(4). And these
two forces can be given by:
  Κ ο γ d tan φ 
2
Fside = L f  cd + K 0 qd tan φ + 
  3 
 , and Fblade = ca dw
Where K0 is the at rest earth coefficient = 0.573 [Zeng et al (2007)], w is the width of the excavation tool. Lf
is the length of the failure wedge and can be determined by:
L f = d ( tan α + cot β )
Zeng assumed the failure area is the same as the failure wedge in front of the blade and the direction of the
movement the same as the inclination angle of the wedge, that is β = αp, and given by:

α p = β = −ψ − φ + tan {
−1 [ tan(φ − ψ ) + C1 ]
C2 }
Where constants C1, and C2 are given by:
C1 = [ tan(φ + ψ ) {tan(φ + ψ ) + cot(φ + ψ + α )}{1 + tan(δ − ψ − α ) cot(φ + ψ + α )}]
C2 = 1 + [ tan(δ − ψ − α ) {tan(φ + ψ ) + cot(φ + ψ + α )}]
Where ψ is the inclination angle of the total acceleration (in our case it is zero) and can be given by:

ψ = tan
−1
( ah
g + av )
While using the parameters given in table 1 in the MATLAB program for Zeng model the excavation force
comes out to be 3872.8 N, which is very close to the value found from McKyes model that is 3916.7 N. The
parametric study of the influence of important soil-tool parameters such as rake angle, tool depth, internal
shearing resistance angle, soil density, soil cohesion, and soil to metal friction angle on the total excavation
force of Zeng model are plotted in the section of results and discussion, and compared with McKyes model
excavation forces.

4. Excavation force applications

The so found excavation forces can be utilized as a boundary condition while carrying finite element analysis on
the excavation tool (bucket teeth in our case) for the design of an excavation tool. The excavation force firstly
should be resolved in tangential direction (tangent to the bucket teeth tip radius), and in the normal direction
(perpendicular to the tangential direction). These two forces are now known as tangential reaction force and
normal reaction force acting on the bucket teeth. Then the FEA should be carried out on the 3D model of the
bucket teeth, and the design should be checked for the permissible strength of the material by taking appropriate
factor of safety into consideration.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3835

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Another application of this excavation force is in the mathematical dynamic model of the robotic excavation
machine (hydraulic excavator in our case). These two forces, tangential reaction force and normal reaction force
form the load vector depending upon the orientation of the bucket, and can be added up to the side of equation
of motion containing inertia matrix, centripetal and coriolis force matrix, gravity load vector. And this dynamic
model either can be directly utilized to find the joint torques of the robotic excavation machine’s mechanism, or
can be utilized as a whole in the designing of the close loop control system for the machine, to automate the
operation.

5. Parametric study of McKyes and Zeng models

The characteristics of both the models are shown in the Fig. 3 with influence of important parameters on the
total excavation forces. This parametric study of two soil cutting models of McKyes and Zeng have been carried
out in the way of comparison as shown in Fig .3
The first graph is the parametric study of variance with rake angle α. The graph shows the dichotomy
between the two models. As can be seen from Fig. 2 that rake angle for Zeng model is (π/2)-α, and for McKyes
model is α. So excavation force for the model of McKyes is directly proportional to the rake angle, while for the
model of Zeng it is inversely proportional to rake angle.
The second graph is the parametric study of variance with internal shearing resistance angle ø. For McKyes
model the excavation force increases linearly with an increment in ø, but this happens till ø = 25o, after that the
force of Zeng model decreases, and afterwards increases but at a much lower rate as compared to the McKyes
model.
The third graph shows that Zeng model becomes more sensitive to the soil cohesion after 26000 N/m2
increases at a much higher rate, and the point of intersection of both model’s forces is at 25000 N/m2. This
clearly indicates that Zeng model is more sensitive to soil cohesion as compared to McKyes model, as can be
seen from the equation of Fside that the soil cohesion c multiplies with the operating tool depth and with the
length of the failure wedge only. Whereas; in McKyes model soil cohesion c multiplies with the operating tool
depth d, tool width w, and N factor Nc, due to this reason McKyes model is less sensitive to soil cohesion as
compared to Zeng model.
The fourth graph shows the parametric study of variance with the soil density γ. The graph clearly shows that
McKyes model is more sensitive to the soil density as compared to Zeng model, which increases at a much
lower rate. This can be justified from the equation of Fside force, that the soil density multiplies with the at rest
earth coefficient K0 which is less than one, that in turn reduces the effect of the soil density γ in “Eq. (4)” and
thus reduces the total excavation force.
The fifth graph shows the parametric study of variance with the soil to metal friction angle δ. The graph
shows that the soil to metal friction angle δ has a direct linear relationship with Zeng model but for McKyes
model it is not increasing linearly. This is due to the fact that δ has a direct impact in Zeng model as can be seen
in “Eq. (4)”, but in McKyes model δ has an impact on all N factors, and those in turn have the impact on total
excavation force.
The last graph shows the parametric study of variance with the tool depth d. The graph shows that as the tool
depth d increases more than 0.3 m, Zeng model’s force increases rapidly, this is not the case with McKyes
model, as it increases linearly. This is due to “Eq. (4)” contains Fside, and Fblade forces, and those in turn have the
two d2terms, and two d terms all together, thus d has a huge impact in Zeng model as compared to McKyes
model that has one d2 term and three d terms as shown in “Eq. (1)”.

6. Conclusions:
A better understanding of the excavation force calculations and their utilization is presented. From the two
calculation procedures presented any of them can be applied to the soil, and tool parameters to accurately
predict the excavation or resistive forces. But depending on the type of soil to be cut, any one of the two models
can be utilized. As for an instance, if operating depth (d) of the excavation tool is so high then Zeng model will
give a higher value of the force required to cut the soil as compared to McKyes model. For our study both the
models hold close results in terms of the excavation force.
These excavation forces can be utilized in tool design, and controller design of the excavating machine as
described in Excavation force application section. By calculating the excavation force from these two
methodologies, then it can be utilized in the excavation tool design. When adding the load vector calculated
from the resistive force calculations into the dynamic model of the excavation machine such as hydraulic
excavator, an accurate controlling of the machine for the task of automating the excavating machine operation
becomes possible.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3836

 Bhaveshkumar P. Patel et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 3. Influence of important parameters on excavation forces and Comparison of excavation forces of McKyes and Zeng
models

References

[1] Gadhvi Bhargav J., Patel Bhavesh P., Patel P. M. (2010). Development of a Controller for Mini Hydraulic Excavator As a Review,
Proceedings of the National conference on Recent Advances in Manufacturing (RAM-2010), July 19th – 21st, S. V. National Institute of
Technology, Surat-395007.
[2] Patel Bhavesh P., Prajapati J. M., Gadhvi Bhargav J. (2011). A Review on the Development of the Analytical Soil-Tool Interaction
Model for the Earthmoving Operations, Proc. of the 4th National Conference on Emerging Trends in Mechanical Engineering, March
18th -19th, G. H. Patel College of Engineering & Technology, V. V. Nagar- 388120 , Gujarat, India, pp. 90-96.
[3] Reece A. R. (1964). The Fundamental Equation of Earth-moving Mechanics, Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, pp.
16-22.
[4] McKyes E. (1985). Soil Cutting and Tillage, Elsevier.
[5] Cannon H. (1999). Extended Earthmoving with an Autonomous Excavator, Master of Science thesis, The Robotic Institute Carnegie
Mellon University.
[6] Zeng D., et al. (2007). Calculation of Excavation Force for ISRU on Lunar Surface, Paper presented at the 45th American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition.
[7] Aloko O. B., Seig D. A. (2000). An experimental investigation of the characteristics of and conditions for brittle fracture in two-
dimensional soil cutting, International Journal of Soil and Tillage Research, 57, pp. 143-157.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 5 May 2011 3837

View publication stats