GR-BMI-08-01 Biomax - Investigation - Report PDF

GR-BMI-08-01 Biomax Investigation Global Renewables 24 January 2014
Biomax Torque Arm Failure

Investigation: Comparing the Stresses in the Torque Arm Welds
before and after Gussets and Struts added.
For: Global Renewables
GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

PO Box 256 Forster NSW 2428 Page 1 of 40 dave@greenstorm.com.au
Engineering Investigation Report:
Comparing the Stresses in the Torque Arm Welds before and after
Gussets and Struts added.
Commissioned By:
Stephen Edwards
Global Renewables
Walgrove Rd, Eastern Creek, NSW 2766
Report Prepared By:
David Hayes, Beng Aerospace, Hons1
Revision Date Description
08-00 21 January 2014 Draft
08-01 24 January 2014 Draft, Line Change data added

Contents
1 Executive Summary:.............................................................................................................4
1.1Limiting Factors.............................................................................................................4
1.2Recommendations.........................................................................................................4
1.3Disclaimer.....................................................................................................................5
2 Methodology........................................................................................................................6
2.1Combining FEA & Strain Gauge Data.............................................................................6
2.2Key Assumptions in the Methodology............................................................................6
3 Experimental Investigation – Strain Gauging.........................................................................7
4 Experimental Results..........................................................................................................10
5 FEA Summaries and Results................................................................................................19
5.1Analysis: MS02_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_UPHILL...............................................................19
5.2Analysis: MS06_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_SCT_GUSS..........................................................23
5.3Analysis: MS19_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_SCTG..................................................................26
6 Fatigue Life Estimates.........................................................................................................31
7 Tips on Reading FEA Results..............................................................................................39
8 Quick Check FEA Results...................................................................................................39

1 Executive Summary:
a) The purpose of the investigation was to see if the fitting of struts to the Auger Assembly
reduces the risk of fatigue failure in the assembly.
b) Seven Struts were designed and installed on an assembly, along with strain gauges to
monitor the actual stresses.
c) Results are compared to stresses in the original design (no gussets or struts), and to the
SCT modified design (with gussets).
d) The analysis shows that the addition of the seven struts has increased the fatigue life by
many times, with the welds to the struts now acting as an early fatigue indicator.
e) This reduces the risk of failure dramatically. Even if Strut welds fail, the torque tube will
still be operational, reducing the risk of the augers ploughing into the sub-compost pipe
work.
f) Refer to the Results section for more details.
1.1 Limiting Factors

a) We still don't fully understand the forces operating on the augers when working in the
compost heap. The cyclic loads on the Augers are not synchronised with each other,
hence making it very difficult to simultaneously solve the force equations from the
measured strain data.
b) Instead, we have derived average force estimates on the augers. These estimates have
been used in the fatigue life analysis in this report. This means that the figures presented
in the report are not precise & should only be used to compare the results to each
other.
1.2 Recommendations
a) The addition of data from the longitudinal & transverse rail motor torques experienced
during the testing period on the 23 December 2013 would increase the accuracy of the
estimated forces.
b) We could consider the seven strut design a dirty solution to the overloading of the auger
tubes. A full redesign of the auger assembly would be preferable.

1.3 Disclaimer
a) Please note that Quick Check FEA is not suitable for certification purposes.
b) The purpose of Quick Check FEA is for investigative purposes only; it carries no
guarantee and is not covered by Professional Indemnity Insurance.

2 Methodology
2.1 Combining FEA & Strain Gauge Data
a) Our approach to understanding why the torque arm failed is to use both Finite Element
Analsyis & Strain Gauge data, together, to get a more complete picture of what is actually
happening.
i) The Finite Element Analysis (FEA) models theoretical forces on the Auger
assembly and shows the resulting stresses across the whole assembly.
ii) Strain Gauges mounted on some of the seven struts measure real stresses
experienced at a few specific locations during normal operations.
iii) The Strain Gauge data is then used to better estimate the forces assumed in the
FEA model.
iv) The calibrated FEA can then show us a more realistic picture of the stresses
being experienced across the whole assembly.
v) This gives us a picture of where the Auger Assembly experiences high stresses
and what causes them.
2.2 Key Assumptions in the Methodology

a) This investigation looks at the forces on the Auger assembly when it is working uphill and
downhill.
b) The data collected relies on a zeroing each strain gauge prior to measurements being
made. The zeroing was performed when the ADC Biomax was parked in the
maintenance bay with the augers in the working position (down).

3 Experimental Investigation – Strain Gauging

a) Sensitive instruments were mounted on the Auger Assembly to measure strain levels
during a series of test events.
i) Six Strain gauges were mounted on the locations shown below.
b) Normal uphill and downhill operations on the Biomax carriage were tested.
i) Measurements were recorded for ADC Lines 12, 13, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
ii) Data from E1 and W3 were not considered reliable. Potentially due to the corrosive
environment causing gauge bonding failure.



4 Experimental Results
a) Samples of the experimental data are shown below, starting with the larger data set and
zooming in to more detail with each progressive image.
b) Uphill and downhill operations are shown.
c) Observations from these images...
i) Stress levels vary significantly, even during steady operations like working uphill.
ii) The average stresses clearly change when working uphill and downhill.
iii) The loads are NOT Synchronised! The out of phase nature of the loads can clearly be
seen as the images zoom into more detail.
iv) All these cyclic variations will contribute to fatigue damage and shorten the life of the
Auger Assembly.









5 FEA Summaries and Results
5.1 Analysis: MS02_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_UPHILL

a) Date: 27 August 2013
b) Description: Original, No Gussets, No Struts.
c) Constraint Case: Fixed at pivot arms and control rod clevis.
d) Load Cases: Typical for all results in this report...
Load Load Factor for Load Factor for

Uphill Downhill
East Auger Drag 1.0 -0.5

10 kN resistance in direction of travel
East Auger Lift 0.9 0.15
10 kN upforce, normal to auger angle
West Auger Drag 0.5 -1
10 kN resistance in direction of travel
West Auger Lift 0.75 0.9
10 kN upforce, normal to auger angle
Auger Torque 0 0
3.4 kNm (+5% on lead auger, -5% on trailing
auger)
e) Geometry Added:
i) Auger Assembly modelled up to pivot from SCT drawings
f) Geometry Removed:
i) Carriage assembly, Augers, Auger Motors/Gearboxes
ii) Hydraulic control ram connecting to torque arm
g) Materials: Mild Steel
h) Simulated Features: Solid Elements, Bolt Elements - Contact on – carrying shear forces

i) Analysis Settings: Quick Check
j) Measured Results:
i) This result set forms a benchmark to compare the following cases
● Based on average stress uphill
k) Observations:
i) High stresses are observed around torque tube welds, consistant with the modes
of failure experienced in operation.



5.2 Analysis: MS06_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_SCT_GUSS

a) Date: 06 September 2013
b) Description: SCT's GUSSETS only, No Struts.
d) Load Cases: See Uphill and Downhill load factors in previous table.
e) Geometry Added:
ii) SCT's Gussets, scaled from photographs.
i) Analysis Settings: Quick Check
i) This result set forms a benchmark to compare the following cases
● Based on average stress uphill
k) Observations:
i) These Gussets solve the stress issues on the Torque Tube side of the connection.
ii) However, the additional stiffness on the Torque Tube side, transfers more stress
to the Auger Tube side of the connection.



5.3 Analysis: MS19_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_SCTG

a) Date: 21 January 2014
b) Description: 7 x STRUTS & SCT's GUSSETS
d) Load Cases: See Uphill and Downhill load factors in previous table.
e) Geometry Added:
ii) Seven Struts
i) Analysis Settings: Single Pass Adaptive
i) Stresses REDUCED significantly compared to MS02 Benchmark.
k) Observations:
i) There is now one outstanding stress area of high stress, where the strut block welds to
the main torque hydraulic ram arm.
ii) This is a good early warning fatigue indicator.





6 Fatigue Life Estimates

a) Date: 21 January 2014
b) Description: Strain Life Damage Models to compare Fatigue Life of designs with and
without Gussets and Struts.
c) Stress/Strain Inputs: Uphill and Downhill Strain data from collected from Strain Gauge E4
on 23 December 2013. Scaled to each stress location compared.


d) Stress Scale Factors:
FEA Line Travel Max Stress at Comparative Calculated Where

Analysis Direction chosen Stress at Strain Scale Factor
location Gauge E4
MS02... Uphill 300 68 4.4 Torque Tube Weld
MS02... Downhill 250 49 5.1 Torque Tube Weld
MS19... Uphill 400 63 6.3 Strut Block Weld
MS19... Downhill 260 36 7.2 Strut Block Weld
e) Stress Locations: See images of Uphill and Downhill FEA results for MS02, MS06 and
MS19 in previous section.
f) Materials: Mild Steel - “Steel_UML_UTS_400, Hot Rolled from nCode data set.
g) Analysis Settings: Mean Stress Correction – Smith/Watson/Topper

h) When does the Damage occur?
i) The Damage histogram shows that most damage occurs when the Biomax changes
direction from uphill to downhill.

ii) See following images, progressively zooming in on line change strains...



i) Results Comparison:
FEA Where Estimated Estimated Life Estimated Life (Weeks @ 5.5 days
Analysis Life (Hours) per week)
(LINES)
MS02... Torque Tube Weld 27,000 13,000 98
MS19... Strut Block Weld 6,100 3,000 23
j) Observations:
i) The addition of Gussets reduces the fatigue life of the assembly.
ii) The addition of Struts increases the fatigue life of the assembly.
iii) Unfortunately, it appears that the weld on the strut block is too sensitive to fatigue and
may crack too often.
iv) Reducing the travel speed during line changes should reduce the fatigue damage
occurring at each line change.

7 Tips on Reading FEA Results

a) Colour Legend:
i) Read the top and bottom black numbers on the legend.
ii) Anything Dark Red is GREATER THAN the the value of the top number.
● This means that the value of the result could be much higher than the top value.
iii) Anything Dark Blue is LESS THAN the value of the bottom number.
● This means that the value of the result could be much lower than the bottom
value.
b) Title Block Summary:

i) This is provided to help you line the result up with the run summary in this report.
ii) It is a brief summary only – refer to the report for more details
c) View Deformation:
i) View deformation is a great way to help you understand how the structure is moving or
changing shape under loads.
ii) Sometimes this makes things look like they are hitting each other or going crazy!
iii) The displacement results and it's legend is the best way to get a picture of the real
deformation.
iv) The title block states how much we have exaggerated the results like this...
● VIEW: Deformed 2x
● This means that the real displacements have been exaggerated 2x
d) Use of Blue Text:

i) Blue text is used to highlight changes from the previous FEA test.
Blue Text is also used to highlight particularly important things to you.
8 Quick Check FEA Results

a) This model used Pro/Mechanica to perform the analysis. An Option called “Quick Check”

FEA was used.
b) Quick Check FEA does a single pass (single analysis), using a fixed 3rd order polynomial
geometry shape function. This should be used as a Quick Check on a model prior to
conducting higher order analysis (increasing accuracy).
c) A Quick Check FEA can be useful for very large models which need to be run on a
resource-limited computer system.
d) A Quick Check is useful if absolute accuracy is not of prime importance, particularly if

the elements in important areas are quite small.
e) Indicative results can be achieved by just running a Quick Check analysis, but care
should be taken in interpreting the results.


GR-BMI-08-01 Biomax - Investigation - Report PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GR-BMI-08-01 Biomax - Investigation - Report PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GR-BMI-08-01 Biomax Investigation Global Renewables 24 January 2014

Biomax Torque Arm Failure

For: Global Renewables

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

Engineering Investigation Report:

Report Prepared By:

David Hayes, Beng Aerospace, Hons1

Revision Date Description

08-00 21 January 2014 Draft

08-01 24 January 2014 Draft, Line Change data added

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

2.1Combining FEA & Strain Gauge Data.............................................................................6

2.2Key Assumptions in the Methodology............................................................................6

3 Experimental Investigation – Strain Gauging.........................................................................7

5 FEA Summaries and Results................................................................................................19

6 Fatigue Life Estimates.........................................................................................................31

7 Tips on Reading FEA Results..............................................................................................39

8 Quick Check FEA Results...................................................................................................39

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

f) Refer to the Results section for more details.

1.1 Limiting Factors

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

2.2 Key Assumptions in the Methodology

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

3 Experimental Investigation – Strain Gauging

i) Six Strain gauges were mounted on the locations shown below.

i) Measurements were recorded for ADC Lines 12, 13, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

b) Uphill and downhill operations are shown.

c) Observations from these images...

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

5 FEA Summaries and Results

5.1 Analysis: MS02_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_UPHILL

b) Description: Original, No Gussets, No Struts.

c) Constraint Case: Fixed at pivot arms and control rod clevis.

d) Load Cases: Typical for all results in this report...

Load Load Factor for Load Factor for

East Auger Drag 1.0 -0.5

i) Auger Assembly modelled up to pivot from SCT drawings

i) Carriage assembly, Augers, Auger Motors/Gearboxes

ii) Hydraulic control ram connecting to torque arm

g) Materials: Mild Steel

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

i) Analysis Settings: Quick Check

i) This result set forms a benchmark to compare the following cases

● Based on average stress uphill

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

GreenStorm Solutions Pty Ltd T 0418 492 462 www.greenstorm.com.au

5.2 Analysis: MS06_GR_BMI_01_ASSY_SCT_GUSS

b) Description: SCT's GUSSETS only, No Struts.

c) Constraint Case: Fixed at pivot arms and control rod clevis.