Needs Pictures: 0
Results 16 to 30 of 33
Thread: Beam deflection
-
22nd Nov 2017, 07:47 AM #16Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- emerald
- Posts
- 161
Thanks sossity, I do use Solidworks also, but have never tried those functions.
-
22nd Nov 2017, 12:38 PM #17Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- melbourne
- Posts
- 341
It's a great utility, dead simple to use. once you run the calc you can then change FOS and judge how much thicker you need the beam, or just rerun with thicker anyway and try it. To apply a force to a small area I just extrude 0.1mm in the area I want to constrain the force or restraint, otherwise it will apply the force over the whole face. I think you'd need to be very interested to work out how to use the full blown analysis tool though because you'd need to know a lot about mechanical engineering.
I have to look it up each time but I think lifting gear usually has a FOS of 8 and anything structural is 4? I noticed that beam fails all over at FOS 4.
I built this contraption so nowhere was less than FOS8 using that wizard. It doesn't sound a lot, 1000kg (I think the mill might actually be 1500kg which is the figure i used), but when its swinging there, its scary. I was very glad I put the extra time and steel into it. It would be scary as anything if it was bending and creaking, but when it is rock solid, gives you confidence. You need to check what its sitting on as well of course.
-
22nd Nov 2017, 02:44 PM #18
for me it's more like 40 years ago, but the acceptable deflection is something like (span length)/300, which in your case is just over 3 mm.
5 mm deflection is probably OK if it's a once off carry and the beam will be junked afterward. If it's for a permanent installation then I'm less sanguine about 5 mm of sag.regards from Canmore
ian
-
22nd Nov 2017, 06:56 PM #19Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- emerald
- Posts
- 161
Yes I'll certainly have a play around with that sossity.
That project looks like something I'd do!! Tell us what you did when you lowered it onto the hoist frame. Ie. what did you use to get it off the frame?
I know what you mean about scary. I lifted an old cast iron 2 foot thicknesser off the back of a ute with a cheap Chinese engine crane that I borrowed from my brother in law. It actually bent the main lifting beam, so I ended up rebuilding it with deeper section rhs. Then it lifted it no problems. Scary non the less.
Eric
-
22nd Nov 2017, 07:03 PM #20Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- emerald
- Posts
- 161
Now you mention that Ian, I do remember the rule of thumb 300. It is a once off operation and it will end up less span anyway. The rafter spacing centres are a metre and they are 100mm wide and then I'm screwing the mounts for the rhs to the sides. These are 20mm wide and I'm also building a girder trolley for the rhs. So the actual span will be more like 850mm. I'm also having the rhs mounted at 45 degrees.
Eric
-
22nd Nov 2017, 07:23 PM #21Pink 10EE owner
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- near Rockhampton
- Posts
- 6,218
-
23rd Nov 2017, 07:54 AM #22Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- melbourne
- Posts
- 341
I used the best tool to get the mill positioned, - Machtool I think Phil must be one of the most experienced at handling huge machines so this was nothing for him. He used skates and 10mm round bar as rollers to get off the frame.
There will be a lot of wise people shaking their heads at us for taking risks with so much potential energy. I think they are all too tired of going over it again and again so no-one has said anything. My take on it is that we are all entitled to risk our own lives based on our own assessment, thats basic Darwins theory. We are doing everyone a favour by removing defective genes from the pool. Personally, I think we have an obligation to massively over engineer something that could hurt others, now or in the future. As long as we are sure there's no possibility that kids could end up playing near something we've created, or someone with no way of knowing he was in any risk even, could end up getting hurt when it fails, then I think its up to us to to decide risk. If someone else could get hurt though, then I'd say you need to be sure its safe by way over strengthening it or just don't do it.
Because I was putting Phil at risk I really went to town on the strength of that beam. I made it in three parts that bolt together with every joint in compression. That horizontal beam is literally as heavy as I can lift, and I don't mean a safe lift of 20kgs. Phil checked it all over to make sure he was happy and all joints were well braced. Even at that, he lifted it 1" off his trailer and left it 20 or 30 mins before going near it.
As an aside, Phil rebuilt the spindle on that mill for me. I can get an unbelievable surface finish, like its polished. I know he fights with 'experts' all over the world on how to set up bearings, but its hard to argue with the results.
-
23rd Nov 2017, 05:49 PM #23regards from Canmore
ian
-
23rd Nov 2017, 06:36 PM #24Most Valued Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Melbourne
- Posts
- 4,779
If I was lifting a machine and Phil looked at it and told me he was happy with it then I think that would be good enough for me too!
SimonGirl, I don't wanna know about your mild-mannered alter ego or anything like that." I mean, you tell me you're, uh, super-mega-ultra-lightning babe? That's all right with me. I'm good. I'm good.
-
23rd Nov 2017, 06:39 PM #25Most Valued Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- melbourne australia
- Posts
- 3,228
I reckon Ian is right. This worked example indicates the beam will be square root of 2 (1.414 times) stronger if mounted with the sides running vertically than it would if mounted at 45 degrees. I don't know if the beam in the example is hollow or solid, but I reckon the result would be worse for hollow than solid, since there's nothing to tie the diagonally opposing sides together in a hollow beam.
Tread carefully.Chris
-
23rd Nov 2017, 07:04 PM #26
-
23rd Nov 2017, 07:16 PM #27Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- emerald
- Posts
- 161
-
23rd Nov 2017, 08:43 PM #28Diamond Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Laidley, SE Qld
- Posts
- 1,039
The scale is totally different, but this perpendicular load vs diagonal load discussion is reminiscent of the design flaw discovered in the Citigroup skyscraper in Manhattan after it was completed and occupied.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center
-
24th Nov 2017, 10:06 AM #29Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Location
- emerald
- Posts
- 161
Well guys, hard to measure accurately, but it does seem a little less deflection. Not much in it though.
Might be a good exercise for Solidworks.
I'm feeling pretty safe.
Eric
-
24th Nov 2017, 10:35 AM #30Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- melbourne
- Posts
- 341
I'm not sure you should be feeling safe tbh.
From here https://www.creativemechanisms.com/b...ing-the-basics
"A FoS of 1 means that a structure or component will fail exactly when it reaches the design load, and cannot support any additional load. Structures or components with FoS < 1 are not viable; basically, 1 is the minimum"
Laying the rhs flat and the areas around the load on the beam had FOS < 1 in SW. i redid it at 45 degrees and it deflects 5.5mm, at 0.5mm less but there's defintely a lot of the beam with FOS less than one. i'd say that meant you were at risk of the beam crumpling at any moment?
ScreenShot189.jpgScreenShot188.jpgScreenShot187.jpg
Similar Threads
-
Square Hollow Section Strength/Deflection charts in Metric?
By joez in forum METALWORK GENERALReplies: 10Last Post: 17th Aug 2017, 07:33 AM -
Making a Steel Beam Flat
By grunto in forum METALWORK GENERALReplies: 15Last Post: 26th Jun 2017, 09:31 PM -
Steel grate rhs deflection
By oohsam in forum METALWORK GENERALReplies: 17Last Post: 17th Jun 2016, 10:19 AM -
Building a Aluminium I Beam Trailer
By gazza2009au in forum TRAILERS & OTHER FABRICATED STUFFReplies: 58Last Post: 30th Mar 2015, 11:45 PM -
Cornish beam engine
By neksmerj in forum METALWORK GENERALReplies: 5Last Post: 22nd Aug 2013, 01:05 PM