OptDesignHelicalCompressSpringTampingRamm
OptDesignHelicalCompressSpringTampingRamm
OptDesignHelicalCompressSpringTampingRamm
24 - 25 September 2009
1. INTRODUCTION
The tamping rammers (Figure 1) are
equipments used for compaction in confined
areas, where the utilization of similar
equipments is not possible. They also ensure a
high degree of compaction.
280
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Considering the conditions of activity of the
machines and also their technological
destination, the optimal parameters for
reliability, maintainability and ergonomics must
be ensured beginning with the projection stage.
To most of machines the dynamics and
reliability parameters are determined by the
presence of the antivibrating elements in their
structure.
Among the applications of the helical
springs to the vibrating machines are: damping
the impact energy and vibrations, accumulation
of energy that must be released gradually,
changes the characteristic frequency of the
parts.
The springs are subjected to centric axial
forces, of compression or stretching. The
helical springs are formed by wire, with round
or rectangular section, coils being made
F1
Fn
Fb
Hb
H1
Hn
H0
Dm
D
fb
fn
f1
(1)
3
16 D n 1 + cos 2
where:
E
=
1
(2)
2G
and for < 80 we use the equation:
G d4
ky =
(3)
8 D3 n
If the free length of the spring exceeds four
times the springs diameter, the stability of the
spring during functioning becomes critical, and
the compressive buckling of the spring can
appear. The stability of the spring, defined by
slenderness ratio, is also influenced by the way
the spring is fixed to its ends. To improve
rigidity we need to recalculate the spring, or to
guide it to bolts or through a tube. This solution
H0
R m1
R m2 d 2
281
Optimizations of the helical compression
springs have been made by several authors [8],
[9] but optimal design of two springs ensemble
from vibrating machines has never been
achieved so far.
282
The minimum load was chosen so that it
ensures pre compression of the springs because
of the weight of the machine. This condition
applies to the inside spring, the minimum load
is established by the equation:
Fn1 Fn 2
=
(6)
F11 F12
The working range of the spring was
determined based on the geometrical
characteristics of the rammers elements as well
as based on studying its behavior during
functioning [10].
The genes defined for the optimization
problem are: the wires diameters: d1, d2, the
springs indices: i1, i2, coefficient of the distance
between coils, at maximum load, from the
inside spring: k1.
The constraints imposed in this problem are:
1. The admissible strength (two constraints):
g1, 2 =
SF min y
SF1, 2 y
(7)
3 t1, 2
=
1
2 D1, 2 m
(12)
CFF f
1
f1, 2 Hz
(13)
(14)
5 1t _ max 2t _ max
(15)
0.60
Mn
0.60
0.80
P
max.
0.020
S
max.
0.020
Si
1.20
1.60
Cr
0.50
0.80
Table 1
Cu
max.
0.10
283
Table 2
Parameter
Symbol
Outside
spring
INPUTS
Maximum load [N]
F1,2max
3080
Minimum load [N]
F1,2min
1950
Stroke (working range)
H1,2
55
[mm]
Wire steel density
7.87
10-6
[kg/mm3]
Youngs modulus [MPa]
E
2.06105
Rigidity modulus [MPa]
G
78000
End support parameter
0.5
Work frequency [Hz]
f
6
GENES
Wire diameter [mm]
d1,2
9
Spring index
i1,2
8.87
Coefficient of the
k1
0.14
distance between coils
Mass of the springs [kg]
M1,2
0.951
SPRINGS PARAMETERS
Spring stiffness (spring
c1,2
20.545
rate) [N/mm]
Minimum deflection
f1,2min
94.912
[mm]
Maximum deflection
149.912
f1,2max
[mm]
Spring mean diameter
D1,2m
79.830
[mm]
Spring outside diameter
D1,2e
88.830
[mm]
Spring inside diameter
D1,2i
70.830
[mm]
Number of active coils
n1,2c
6
of the spring
Number of end coils of
n1,2r
1.5
the spring
Total number of spring
n1,2t
7.5
coils
Spring solid length
H1,2b
67.5
[mm]
Pitch of unloaded spring
t1,2
35.245
[mm]
Spring free length [mm]
H1,20
224.972
Spring mounted length
130.06
H1,2min
[mm]
Spring length at
H1,2max
75.06
maximum load [mm]
Helix angle of the
1,20
8
unloaded spring []
Wire length [mm]
l1,2s
1899.4
Deflection at solid limit
f1,2b
157.47
[mm]
Load at solid limit [N]
F1,2b
3235.3
Slenderness ratio
1,2
2.818
Coefficients of the
c1,2f
0.805
critical slenderness ratio
Critical slenderness ratio
2c
Proper frequency [Hz]
f1,2Hz
82.381
Inside
spring
1090
690
55
7.87
10-6
2.06105
78000
0.5
6
5.3
9.2
0.309
7.273
94.912
149.912
48.760
54.060
43.460
9
2.5
11.5
60.95
23.525
224.972
130.06
75.06
8.731
1782.26
157.47
1145.24
4.614
6.980
5.284
130.036
6. REFERENCES
284
[3] Belegundu, A. D. A Study of
Mathematical Programming Methods for
Structural Optimization, Dept. of civil and
environmental engineering, University of
Iowa, 1982.
[4] Broman, G., Jnsson, A. The nonlinear
behaviour of a rammer soil compaction
tamping machine, Proceeding of 14th ASCE
Engineering Mechanics Conference, Austin,
Texas, 21-24 May 2000.
[5] Haupt, R. L., Haupt, S. E., - Practical
genetic algorithms, 2nd ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2004.
[6] Michalewicz Z. Genetic Algorithms +
Data Structures = Evolution Programs,
Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
[7] Raymond, G.P. Prepared Notes for
Geotechnical
Engineering,
Queens