Field and Numerical Testing of the BWE SchRs4600.50 Dynamic Behavior

  • Damian Pietrusiak
  • Przemysław Moczko
  • Jerzy Czmochowski
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Surface mining machines are the largest mechanical engineering structures. Bucket wheel excavators operating in lignite mines are continually exposed to dynamic loads. Moreover, nearly all structures are over 10 years old. The methods used in design and construction did not cover the dynamic behavior of machines, which resulted in problems in their operation and decreased durability. The tendency to optimize and increase the operational time of machines is currently also visible in the field of surface mining. As a result the machines which have been operating for many years are subject to investigation. The SchRs (Schaufelradbagger auf Raupenschwenkbar) 4600.50 excavator, which is over 120 m long, 64 m high and weighs approximately 5,000 tons (excluding the dumping bridge), was investigated with regard to vibrations. Operational modal analysis was performed with 15 measurement points in different directions. This approach allowed to determine the variability of the dynamic characteristics of the machine in terms of operational conditions. Simultaneously a numerical model was prepared. Eventually, it was possible to compare and correlate both the numerical and experimental models and to establish the differences based on the operational load acting on the structure.


Bucket wheel excavator Numerical simulations Experimental techniques Modal analysis 



Research co-financed by the European Union within the European Social Fund.


  1. 1.
    Bosnjak S, Zrnic N (2012) Dynamics, failures, redesigning and environmentally friendly technologies in surface mining systems. Arch Civil Mech Eng 12(3):348–359Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosnjak S, Zrnic N, Oguamanam D (2006) On the dynamic modeling of bucket wheel excavators. FME Trans 34(4):221–226Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosnjak S, Zrnic N, Petkovic Z (2008) Bucket wheel excavators and trenchers – computer added calculation of loads caused by resistance to excavation. In: Kuzmanovic S (ed) Machine design. University of Novi Sad, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gottvald J (2010) The calculation and measurement of the natural frequencies of the bucket wheel excavator SchRs 1320/4x30. Transport 25(3):269–277Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gottvald J (2011) Measuring and comparison of natural frequencies of bucket wheel excavators SchRs 1320 and K 2000. In: GEMESED’11 Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS international conference on Energy and development – environment – biomedicine, Corfu Island, pp 335–340Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heylen W, Lammens S, Sas P (2007) Modal analysis theory and testing. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maia N, Silva J, He J, Lieven N, Lin R, Skingle G, To W-M, Urgueira A (1997) Theoretical and experimental modal analysis. Research Studies Press, TauntonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pietrusiak D, Czmochowski J, Kowalczyk M, Łgwa Ł (2010) Określenie właściwości dynamicznych koparki KWK 1500 metoda̧ eksploatacyjnej analizy modalnej. Górnictwo Odkrywkowe 4:45–50Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rusinski E, Dragan S, Moczko P, Pietrusiak D (2012) Implementation of experimental method of determining modal characteristics of surface mining machinery in the modernization of the excavating unit. Arch Civil Mech Eng 12(4):471–476Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rusiński E, Czmochowski J, Pietrusiak D (2012) Problems of steel construction modal models identification. Eksploatacja i niezadowność – Maintenance and reliability 14(1):54–61Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Damian Pietrusiak
    • 1
  • Przemysław Moczko
    • 1
  • Jerzy Czmochowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Machine Design and OperationWroclaw University of TechnologyWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations