Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Columbia International Publishing Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

doi:10.7726/jmsic.2013.1006

(2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88 doi:10.7726/jmsic.2013.1006 Research Article Spatial Kinematics Modeling and Simulation

Research Article

Spatial Kinematics Modeling and Simulation of Wheel Loader

Ying Li 1 * and Wenyuan Liu 2

Received 4 April 2013; Published online 3 August 2013

© The author(s) 2013. Published with open access at www.uscip.org

Abstract

The wheel loader is modeled as a mechanical manipulator with four degrees of freedom (DOFs), which comprises a seven-bar linkage using the symbolic notation of Denavit and Hartenberg. Homogeneous transformation matrices are used to capture the spatial configuration between adjacent links. The forward kinematics method is used to formulate the kinematics equations by attaching Cartesian coordinates to the schematic wheel loader diagram. A three-dimensional virtual prototype of the wheel loader is built in ADAMS environment to kinematics simulation. The model is validated with the numerical analysis of the simulation results. This research provides a solid foundation for further dynamics modeling wheel loader study.

Keywords: Wheel loader; Kinematics modeling; Mechanical manipulator; Seven-bar linkage; Virtual prototype; Simulation; Motion visualization; Numerical analysis

1. Introduction

Wheel loaders are employed to load-transport-dump materials in surface mining operations. Spatial kinematics modeling of the wheel loader is an important tool for analyzing and synthesizing the functional properties of the wheel loader system.

In previous researches, the theory of machinery kinematics (Wilson and Sadler, 1991) was used to establish the kinematics models of the mining machinery. Daneshmend et al. (1993) developed a cable shovel kinematics model with two links for investigating the two-dimensional (2D) motion of front end components. The dynamic models of Load-Haul-Dump loader (Hemami, 1994; Takahashi et al., 2004) and backhoes excavator (Koivo, 1992) were built in three-dimensional (3D) space based on the robot kinematics (Ho and Sriwattanathmma, 1989). The spatial relationships between structure members were achieved.

Recently, Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical Systems (ADAMS) software (MSC Software Corp., 2005) has been applied to the dynamic simulation of mining machinery. A kinematics

*Corresponding e-mail: liyinglzh@yahoo.com

1*

Bucyrus International Inc., USA

2

Washington University in St. Louis, USA

78

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

virtual 3D model of hydraulic shovel has been created and simulated in surfacing mining environmental (Frimpong and Li, 2005). Based on our above research, the primary objective of this study is to investigate dynamic behavior of wheel loader in a virtual 3D environment. The virtual prototype consists of seven links connected by joints with multi-degrees of freedom. The linkage kinematics relationship is governed by equations established in Cartesian coordinate systems with symbolic notation of Denavit and Hartenberg (Ho and Sriwattanathmma, 1989) and Homogeneous transformations.

In this paper, the mathematical model and virtual prototype 3D model for a wheel loader are developed. Section 2 contains a description of the wheel loader system structures. Section 3 contains the kinematics modeling of the machine. The virtual prototype modeling is carried out in Section 4. The model is validated in Section 5 and conclusions are given in Section 6.

2. Basic Structure of the Wheel Loader

Fig 1 illustrates the wheel loader (988B) (Martin et al., 1982), which has a front-mounted bucket and a linkage that loads material into the bucket through forward motion of the machine and then lifts, transports, and discharges this material. The wheel loader consists of two components including a rear vehicle body and a front end with lift arm, bellcrank, bucket link, and bucket. The front end is articulated at point B of rear vehicle body. The hydraulic cylinder drives the front end at articulating hinge point B in result of articulating steering. Lift hydraulic cylinder lifts the lift arm, while bucket cylinder controls, through bellcrank and bucket link, the position of the bucket. Thus, the final displacement of the bucket is controlled by two mechanisms: one is the mechanism for lift the arm, and the other is for rotation of the bucket. The first is an inversion of slider-crank mechanism. The second is a four-bar linkage, in which linkage I is a crank, link H is a coupler, and the bucket is a follower link. If the two motions, lift arm and bellcrank are given, then the, positions of the bucket can be obtained.

given, then the, positions of the bucket can be obtained. Fig 1. Wheel Loader Schematic Diagram

Fig 1. Wheel Loader Schematic Diagram (Martin et al., 1982) A: Engine, B: Articulating Hinge Point, C: Lift Arm, D: Lift Cylinders, E: Bucket Hinge Pin, F: Bucket, G: Bucket Teeth, H: Bucket Link, I: Bellcrank, J: Bucket Cylinder and K: Cap

79

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

3. Kinematics Modeling of the Wheel Loader

1 No. 2 pp. 78-88 3. Kinematics Modeling of the Wheel Loader Fig 2. Kinematics schematic

Fig 2. Kinematics schematic diagram of the wheel loader (Vinogradov, 2000)

Fig 2 shows the schematic diagram of the wheel loader kinematics (Vinogradov, 2000). The wheel loader is regarded as the robotic manipulator of seven-bar linkage, including a ground considered as the frame (L), rear vehicle body (L 0 ), front end (L 1 ), lift arm (L 2 ), bellcrank (L 5 ), bucket link (L 6 ), and bucket (L 7 ). The robotic links are connected by one translational joint (O) and eight revolute joints (O 0 , O 1 , O 2, O 3 , O 4, O 5 , O 6, and O 7 ). Points b and d attached to the tip of bucket, respectively. The manipulator has four degrees of freedom identified by the loader propelling, front end steering, arm lifting and bucket rotating.

Nine position point coordinate systems are defined on the manipulator based on the Denavit- Hartenberg conditions (Hemami, 1994), i.e. vertical Y axes for L, L 0 and L 1 and horizontal Y rotational axes for other links, as following.

O (X, Y, Z) coordinate system: at point O of the ground is the reference coordinate system.

O 0 (X 0 , Y 0 , Z 0 ) coordinate system: at point O 0 of the rear vehicle body where axis Y 0 and Z 0 are coincident with axis Y and Z only for x=0.

O 1 (X 1 , Y 1 , Z 1 ) coordinate system: at joint O 1 of the front end where axis Y 1 is coincident with axis Y 0 only for θ 1 =0.

80

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

O 2 (X 2 , Y 2 , Z 2 ) coordinate system: at joint O 2 of the lift arm where the X 2 axis is chosen along O 2 O 3 .

O 3 (X 3 , Y 3 , Z 3 ) coordinate system: at joint O 3 of bucket where the X 3 axis direction is parallel with bucket edge ab.

O 4 (X 4 , Y 4 , Z 4 ) coordinate system: at joint O 4 , of the lift arm where the X 4 axis direction is chosen along O 4 O 5 .

O 5 (X 5 , Y 5 , Z 5 ) coordinate system: at joint O 5 of bellcrank where the X 5 axis direction is along O 5 O 6 .

O 6 (X 6 , Y 6 , Z 6 ) coordinate system: at joint O 6 of bucket link where the X 6 axis is chosen along O 6 O 7 .

O 7 (X 7 , Y 7 , Z 7 ) coordinate system: at joint O 7 of bucket where the X 7 axis direction is parallel with bucket edge cd.

The transformation matrix relating two adjacent coordinate systems is expressed as equations

1-8 using a 4×4 homogeneous transformation matrix (Ho and Sriwattanathmma, 1989). n Is

the transformation matrix which transforms the coordinate from O n (X n , Y n , Z n ) to O m (X m , Y m , Z m ). θ n is defined as the angle between X m and X n . It is taken that the positive angle is always directed counterclockwise and is measured from the positive direction of the x-axis.

m A

A

0

Trans x ,0,0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

x

0

0

1

(1)

0 A 1

1

A

2

2

A

3

1

A

4

(

Rot y

(

Rot z

,

(

Rot z

Rot

(

z

,

,

,

1

)

Trans

0,

2

)

Trans l

x 1

l

y

0

,

l

y

1

,0

,0

cos

  sin


0

0 1

0

0 0

1

1

sin

1

0

cos

0

1

cos



sin

2

2

sin

cos

2

2

0 0

0 0

0

0

1

0

3

4

)

)

Trans l

x

Trans l

x

2

1

,

,0,0

l

y

1

,0

cos


sin

3

3

0

0

cos

sin

4

4

0

0

sin

3

cos

0

0

sin

3

4

cos

4

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

l

0


1

l

l

0

y 0



1

x

y 1

0

1



l

x

2

0

0

1

l

l

x

y

1

1

0

1

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

81

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

4

5

6

A

5

A

6

A

7

(

Rot z

(

Rot z

(

Rot z

,

,

,

5

6

7

)

)

)

Trans l

Trans l

Trans l

x

x

x

4

5

6

,0,0

,0,0

,0,0

cos

sin


cos

sin


cos

sin




5

5

sin

cos

5

5

0 0

0 0

6

6

sin

cos

6

6

0 0

0 0

7

7

0

0

sin

cos

7

7

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

l

x

4

0

0

1

l

x

5

0

0

1

l

x

6

0

0

1






(6)

(7)

(8)

Let point e be attached to link n and let the position of point e be (x en , y en, z en ) in the coordinate system O n (X n, Y n, Z n ). The motion of the point e is measured in the coordinate system O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ). The angle between the coordinate system O 0 (X 0 , Y 0 , Z 0 ) and O 1 (X 1 , Y 1 , Z 1 ) is represented by 1 . The angle between the coordinate system O 0 (X en , Yen , Z en ) and O 1 (X 1 , Y 1 , Z 1 ) is given by e1 .

e

e

1

1

n

i 2

n

i 4

i

i

n

n

3

4

(9)

(10)

In Fig 2, it needs four independent input motions to operate the bucket. This means the displacement x and angles (1 , 2 , 5 ) have to be provided by the propelling engine, rotational motor, lift cylinder and bucket cylinder, respectively. Equations 11-14 establish the forward kinematics of the point e (x e0 , y e0, z e0 ) in Cartesian coordinate O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ) for the point e position.

x

1

0

e

y

z

e

e

0

0

0

A

n

where

x

1

en

y

z

en

en

0

0

0

A

n

n

i 1

i

A A

n

0

1

1

A

4

A

n

1

1

A

4

0

A

1

A

i

n

i 1

i 5

A

i

 

(11)

 

n

3

 

(12)

n

4

(13)

 

n

5

(14)

82

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

Equation 15 establishes the forward kinematics of the point e (x e , y e, z e ) in Cartesian coordinate O (X , Y , Z) for the point e position.

x

 

1

 

e

e

y

z

e

A

0

x

 

0

e

y

e 0

z

e

0

1

(15)

4. Kinematics Simulation of the Wheel Loader

Fig. 3a shows a 3D virtual prototype of the wheel loader developed in the ADAMS environment with basic assumption, which is that all components are rigid with rotation and translation only at joints. Table 1 contains the main geometrical dimensions (Martin et al., 1982; Vinogradov, 2000) for creating the model. The 3-step procedures for building the wheel loader multi-body system are involved. The first step involves the creation of the 3D component models. The second step defines the boundaries of the components with joints as described in Fig. 2. The third step defines the appropriate algebraic variables, which represent the bucket movements based on the kinematics equations in Section 3.0.

Fig. 3a-d displays the wheel loader spatial position in four phases including the propelling loader, steering front end, lifting arm and rotating bucket, respectively. Using the ADAMS software, differential-algebraic equation systems are derived and integrated in time to simulate the model kinematics. The movements of the model depend on interactive elements like massless joints, which constrain the relative movements of the front rear vehicle bodies, lift arm, bellcrank, bucket link, and bucket. The loader dynamic behavior is recovered from the simulation.

Fig. 3d demonstrates the spatial trajectories with a typical loading operation comprised of loading material into the bucket through forward motion loader, swinging the front-end while raising the bucket further, and discharging the material by rotating bucket.

swinging the front-end while raising the bucket further, and discharging the material by rotating bucket. (a)

(a)

swinging the front-end while raising the bucket further, and discharging the material by rotating bucket. (a)

(b)

83

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88 (c) (d) Fig 3. Wheel loader

(c)

and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88 (c) (d) Fig 3. Wheel loader spatial

(d)

Fig 3. Wheel loader spatial position display in four phases: (a) propelling loader, (b) steering front end, (c) lifting arm, and (d) rotating bucket.

5. Kinematics Model Validation of the Wheel Loader

Validation of the kinematics wheel loader model is based on comparison between theoretical results and simulation data of bucket position-time history at the points b and d with reference

to the O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ) coordinate system during operation. The position equations of points b and

d are given below.

In order to control the articulated steering movement, the θ 1 motions are defined: rotational motion on the base coordinate system O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ); the front end angular motion between O 1 (X 1, Y 1, Z 1 ) and O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ) coordinate systems; and the steering angle given directly by the motor motion. The front end position and orientation are determined using the transformation

matrix 1 . In order to control the bucket movement, the orientations and positions of points b

and d in bucket tip are calculated. The D-H parameters for the links based on the chosen coordinates are shown in Table 1.

0 A

Table 1 Structural Kinematics Parameters (see Fig. 2)

 

Length (m)

   

Angle

 

l

y0

l

x1

l

y1

l

x2

l

x4

l

x5

l

x6

x

b3

y

b3

x

d7

y

d7

θ

1

θ

2 -θ 7

0.25

0.8

2.0

3.75

2.5

1.1

1.0

1.75

0.25

1.5

1.0

0-35

Var.

Let the position of point b be (x b3 , y b3, z b3 ) in the coordinate system O 3 (X 3, Y 3, Z 3 ). The motion of the point b is measured in the coordinate system O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ). The transformation matrix from

O 3 (X 3, Y 3, Z 3 ) to O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ) is expressed as equation 16.

0

A

3

0

A

1

1 A

2

2 A

3

cos

 

0

1

cos(

2

sin(

sin

2

3

1

cos(

2

)

3

)

3

)

cos

sin

1

sin(

2

3

cos(

2

1

sin(

0

2

3

)

3

)

)

sin

1

0

cos

0

1

cos

1

l

x

2

l

x 2

sin

sin

1

l

x

2

cos

2

2

l

y

1

cos

1

2

1

cos

l

y

l

x

1

0

sin

1

1

l

x



(16)

Equations 17-21 establish the forward kinematics of the point b (x b0 , y b0, z b0 ) in Cartesian coordinate O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ) for the bucket orientation and position.

b 1

2

3

(17)

84

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

x

0

y

z

b

b

0

0

1

b

0

A

3

x

1

b

3

y

z

b

3

b

3

x

b

0

y

b

0

z

b

0

x

b

3

x

b

3

x

b

coscos

1

b

sin

y

b

1

b

3

1

3

sincos

1

b

1

y

b

3

cossin

1

b

cos

l

b

1

x

2

sin

y

b

3

1

1

z

b

3

sin

1

cos

1

l

2

x

x

l

l l

2

y

1

z

b

3

y

0

sinsin

1

b

coscos

1

2

2

sincos

1

2

l

1

x

x

l

1

cos

1

sin

1

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

The bucket tip motion can be obtained by calculating the position of point d in the coordinate system O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ). The bucket tip with the attached O 7 (X 7, Y 7, Z 7 ) coordinate system performs 7 angular motion relative to the O 6 (X 6, Y 6, Z 6 ) coordinate system. The transformation matrix from O 7 (X 7, Y 7, Z 7 ) to O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ) is expressed as equation 22.

0 A

7

0 A

1

1

A

4

4

A

5

5

A

6

6

A

7

cos

 

1

sin

cos

d

1

d

sin

1

1

cos

0

d

1

cos

1

sin

d

sin

cos

1

d

sin

1

d

1

0

1

sin

0

1

cos

0

1

l

x

6

l

x

cos

6

sin

cos(

1

1

4

5

6

)

l

cos(

x

6

sin(

4

5

4

5

6

l

)

6

x

)

5

cos

1

cos(

4

)

5

)

l

l

x

5

l

x

5

sin(

4

sin

1

cos(

1

4

5

5

l

x

4

cos

1

x

)

4

sin

l

x

4

l

4

sin

1

cos

1

y

l

y

4

0

cos

4

l

x

1

l

x

(22)

1

cos

sin

1

1

Assuming the position d of the bucket tip is defined as (x d7 , y d7, z d7 ) in the O 7 (X 7, Y 7, Z 7 ) coordinate system, the motion of the bucket tip d is measured in the coordinate system O 0 (X 0, Y 0, Z 0 ). Equations 23-27 establish the forward kinematics of the point d (x d0 , y d0, z d0 ) in Cartesian coordinate at O 0 (X 0, Y 0 , Z 0 ) for the bucket tip orientation and position.

d 1

4

5

6

7



x

0

0

0

x


 

1


cos


x

y d

z d

1

d

d

7

y

z

d 7

d 7

0 A

7

x

cos

5 cos

 

1

 

d

1

 

d

0

d

7

l x

1

cos(

4

y

d

7

5

)

(25)

cos l

1

 

sin

x

4

cos

1

cos

d

1

z

d

7

4

sin l

x

1

cos

1

l

6

x

1

cos

1

cos(

4

5

6

)

yd0 xd7 sind1 yd7 cosd1 lx6 sin(4 5 6 ) lx5 sin(4 5) lx4 sin4 ly1 ly0

z

d

0



x

d

7

l

x

5

1

sin sin

1

cos( cos

d

 

4

1

 

y

5

d

)

sin l

7

x

4

1

sin

sin

1

d

1

cos

z

4

d

7

l cos

x

1

1

sin

1

l

x

6

sin

1

cos(

4

5

6

)

(23)

(24)

(26)

(27)

In this validation, error check analysis is performed based on inputting angles 1, …, 7 . The simulation error is defined as absolute value of |theoretical result simulated result|. The acceptance tolerance limit is chosen as 10 -2 considering that geometric model error while creating 3D virtual prototype.

85

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

Fig. 4 shows the angles, 1, …, 7 , with the time from 0 to 16 seconds (s) for the wheel loader motion. The rotational angle 1 keeps 0with time from 0 to 9.4s and decreases from 0 to -35with time from 9.4 to 13s then keep -35with time from 13 to 16s. The lift angle 2 increases from -32to 43during the first 9.4s then keep constant 43during the last 5.6s. The lift arm angle 2 increases from -32to 43during first 9.4s then keeps constant 43during last 5.6s. The rotation bucket angle 5 stays constant 83during time from 0 to 13s and increase from -83to - 65during time from 13 to 16s. The other angles 3, 4 , 6 , and 7 , are very smooth for each motion during the time of 16s.

140 120 100 ST1 ST2 80 ST3 60 ST4 ST5 40 ST6 20 ST7 0
140
120
100
ST1
ST2
80
ST3
60
ST4
ST5
40
ST6
20
ST7
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Angles (deg)

Time (s)

Fig 4. Variation of angles with time 16s

Fig. 5a-c indicates the theoretical results and simulation data of bucket positions b in axles X 0, Y 0, Z 0 through the time from 0 to 16s, respectively. To further verify the model, the Fig. 6a-c gives the theoretical and simulated results of bucket positions d in axles X 0, Y 0, Z 0 versus time from 0 to 16s, respectively. Comparing the theoretical result with simulated result in Figs. 5 and 6, the maximum simulation error is 910 -3 . The resulting error is acceptable, which is less than 10 -2 . The resulting positions of simulation satisfy the calculating positions. The max overall height of 6.94m simulated at point d in Fig. 6b matches the actual product value of 6.94m given in Reference 9.

6.5 (a) 6.0 5.5 b x0 - Simulation b x0 - Theory 5.0 4.5 4.0
6.5
(a)
6.0
5.5
b x0 - Simulation
b x0 - Theory
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bucket Tip Position b x0 (m)

Time (s)

(c) 3.0 2.5 2.0 b z0 - Simulation 1.5 b z0 - Theory 1.0 0.5
(c)
3.0
2.5
2.0
b
z0 - Simulation
1.5
b
z0 - Theory
1.0
0.5
0.0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bucket Tip Position b x0 (m)

Time (s)

Figs 5a-c Comparison of bucket tip position b with time in X 0, Y 0, Z 0 directions for theoretical and simulation results, respectively

(b) 7 6 5 4 b y0 - Simulation 3 b y0 - Theory 2
(b)
7
6
5
4
b
y0 - Simulation
3
b
y0 - Theory
2
1
0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bucket Tip Position b y0 (m)

Time (s)

86

Bucket Tip Position d x0 (m)

Bucket Tip Position d y0 (m)

Bucket Tip Position d z0

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

(a)

(c)

5.5 5.0 d x0 - Simulation 4.5 d x0 - Theory 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5
5.5
5.0
d x0 - Simulation
4.5
d x0 - Theory
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

Time (s)

2.5 2.0 1.5 d z0 - Simulation 1.0 d z0 - Theory 0.5 0.0 -2
2.5
2.0
1.5
d z0 - Simulation
1.0
d z0 - Theory
0.5
0.0
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

Time (s)

Figs 6a-c Comparison of bucket tip position d with time in X 0, Y 0, Z 0 directions for theoretical and simulation results, respectively.

(b)

7 6 5 d Y0 - Simulation d y0 - Theory 4 3 2 1
7
6
5
d Y0 - Simulation
d y0 - Theory
4
3
2
1
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18

Time (s)

6. Conclusions

A spatial kinematics model of the wheel loader is developed by treating the system as a robotic manipulator including the rear vehicle body, front end, lift arm, bellcrank, bucket link, and bucket components. The model is captured in a schematic diagram consisting of a seven-bar linkage with four DOFs using the symbolic notation of Denavit and Hartenberg. Homogeneous transformations are developed to represent the spatial configuration between adjacent links. The forward kinematics method is used to formulate the kinematics equations by attaching Cartesian coordinates to the schematic wheel loader diagram. Based on the kinematics model, a 3D virtual prototype of the wheel loader is built in ADAMS environment to simulate the 3D motions of the wheel loader with selected time steps. An example is given for validating the wheel loader kinematics model by the comparison between theoretical results and simulation data. The results show that the simulation results match theoretical results. The kinematics simulation presented in this paper forms the basis for complete spatial dynamics modeling of a wheel loader. Future research will develop dynamic model for determining the joint driving force, apply control system and simulate dynamic wheel loader performance.

References

Daneshmend, L., Hendricks, C., Wu, S., Scoble, M., 1993. Design of a mining shovel simulator. Proc. of International Congress on Innovative Mine Design for the 21st Century, A.A. Balkema, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 551-561. Erdman, A.G., Sandor, G.N., Kota, S., 2001. Mechanism design analysis and synthesis Volume I. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hemami, A., 1994. Modeling, analysis and preliminary studies for automatic scooping. Advanced Robotics 8(5), 511-529.

87

Ying Li and Wenyuan Liu / Journal of Modeling, Simulation, Identification, and Control (2013) Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 78-88

Ho, C.Y., Sriwattanathmma, J., 1989. Robot kinematics symbolic automation and numerical Synthesis. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey. Koivo, A.J., 1992. Kinematics of excavators (backhoes) for transferring surface material. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 7(1), 17-32.

Frimpong, S. and Li, Y., 2005. Virtual prototype simulation of Kinematics performance of the hydraulic shovel. International Journal of Surface Mining19 (4), 238-250. Takahashi, H., Morikawa, Y., Tateyama, K., Fukagawa, K., 2004. Study on the mechanism of over-head-type load-haul-dump with a vessel. Journal of Terramechanics 41, 175-185.

MSC Software Corp, 2005. MSC.ADAMS for virtual prototype model development and simulation. MSC Software Corporation, Santa Ana, CA. Martin, J.W., Martin, T.J., Bennett, T.P., Martin, K.M., 1982. Surface mining equipment-1st ed. Martin Consultants, Inc, Colorado. Vinogradov, O., 2000. Fundamentals of kinematics and dynamics of machines and mechanisms. CRC Press, New York.

PMCid:PMC111012

Wilson, C.E., Sadler, J.P., 1991. Kinematics and dynamics of machinery, 2nd Edition. Harper Collins College, New York.

88