Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 1 1 484 2754 PDF
10 1 1 484 2754 PDF
submitted by
Lim Buan Teck, Danny
Department of
Mechanical Engineering
Session 2004/2005
SUMMARY
This is a collaborative project with the Plimsoll Cooperation Pte Ltd. In this project, the
objective of this project is to analysis and improves the current design of an anchor
handling and towing winch. A winch is made up of many components: drum, shaft, brake
assembly, hydraulic system and etc but the main focus of study is on the drum. The drum
of the winch is like a thin wall shell structure with rope wound on it in layers. As the
layers of rope wounding increases, the hoop stress generated in the shell increases and it
is important to study the relationship between multi layering and stress generated. The
cost of manufacturing a drum rises very sharply with the increasing thickness. Therefore,
Two Standards, Standards Association of Australia and Det Norske Veritas Standard,
have been developed for winch and crane designing criteria. The Standards provide the
requirement for determining the critical thickness and was followed in reference to
calculate the thickness under specified loadings. The results from the calculation require
a larger thickness of drum than those currently being designed. Furthermore, the result
from each Standard deviates by a large amount. There seems to be a discrepancy in the
requirement given by the Standard. No analysis was provided on how the empirical
i
Two experiments have been conducted on the prototype to simulate the actual loading on
the drum under loading. The aim of the first experiment is to verify the validity of the
requirement and the experimented results show that it was too conservative and the
application is too generalized. The aim of the second experiment is to observe the hoop
stress behavior in relation to loading condition. The first experiment is done by loading
the prototype in the beginning and wounding to lift the load is carried out. The loading of
the second experiment is done after a specific wounding is pre-set and the hoop stress
generated was found to be lower than the first experiment and requirement.
The results from the experiment prove that the requirement given in the Standards was
too conservative and the generated hoop stress depends largely on the loading conditions.
A reason for such phenomenon is called the rope relaxation. As the wounding continue to
load on another layer of rope on the wounded layer of rope, the inner wounded rope will
experience lesser pulling force from the load. The inner layer of rope acts to be part of or
additional thickness to the cylinder, and therefore, the hoop stress generated is much
lower. Further improvements can be made to refine the results and to study the effect of
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation of the assistance given by:
• The supervisor of this research, A/P Chew Chye Heng, for his kind guidance,
• Plimsoll Cooperation Pte Ltd, for the collaboration of the research and the visit
• Mr Leow Beng Kwang, and fellow research students for their advice and support
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC Page
SUMMARY i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF SYMBOLS ix
1.1 OBJECTIVE 1
1.2 BACKGROUND 1
1.3 SCOPE 4
iv
3.3.2 HOOP STRESS 16
4.2 MATERIAL 19
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 30
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 32
REFERENCES 34
APPENDICES
1. APPENDIX A 35
2. APPENDIX B 42
3. APPENDIX C 46
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3 A unprocessed drum 3
4a Cylindrical shell 8
internal pressure.
vi
11 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 7kg 25
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Data for hoop stress and drum thickness from DNV Standard 14
2 Data for hoop stress and drum thickness from SAA Standard 16
viii
List of Symbols
Symbol Page
σ2 Longitudinal stress 8
P Pressure 8
r Radius of Shell 8
t Thickness of shell 8
ε1 Circumferential strain 9
E Young’s Modulus 9
ν Poisson Ratio 9
ε2 Longitudinal strain 9
ix
WSC Wire-strand core 11
N Newton 12
m Meter 12
mm Millimeter 12
PMMA Polymethylmethacrylate 19
SG Strain gauge 20
x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to analyze and improve the current design of an anchor
handling and towing winch. Improvements of the design of winch shown in Fig. 1
include redesigning the winch to cut down on the materials use for production.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The price of steel material has increased by about 80% over the last 2 years resulting
from supply shortage around the world. China has been consuming greatly on steel
material to build up its infrastructure and rapidly expanding its economy as many foreign
According to MEPS statistic of world steel price, the price for a ton of cold rolled coil
steel in Dec 2002 has soared from USD$400 to Nov 2004 USD$735 in only 2 years time
as shown in Fig. 2.
1
World Carbon Steel Product Prices
800
700
600
500
$US/tonne)
300
200
100
0
Se 3)
O 3)
Se 4)
O 4)
Fe 3)
Ju )
Fe 4)
Ju )
Ja 2)
Ja 3)
Ju 3)
Ju 4)
ar )
Ap 3)
M 3)
M 4)
Ap 4)
M 4)
Au 3)
Au 4)
N 3)
N 4)
D 3)
4)
03
04
03
(0
(0
0
0
0
(0
l (0
(0
l (0
(0
r(0
0
(0
r(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
n(
n(
g(
p(
n(
n(
g(
p(
b(
b(
ec
ec
ay
ay
ar
ct
ov
ct
ov
M
D
Date
Fig 2 Trend on Steel Prices over the past 2 years (source [2])
Due to economic downturn around the world, instead of passing the increase in steel
price to the consumers, stiff competition is forcing steel users to absorb the higher costs.
This in turn has caused companies manufacturing steel products to cut cost in all its
expenses in order to remain profitable; but cutting cost is definitely not the long term
solutions to cushion the increased price of steel. A material-efficient design has many
benefits:
3. Transportation costs from steel supplier to manufacturing plant and finally to the
2
The aim of a material-efficient design is to eliminate excess material without
design from nature would be the eggshell, the thickness of the egg may be thin but it can
support a compressive stress loading of 7 MPa between its two ends. Thus by applying a
material-efficient design, eliminating the excess materials from the design would ensure
lower steel consumption and thus minimization of total purchasing cost of unprocessed
steel material.
The main component of the winch under loading is the drum. The production of the drum
is to bent and coil a flat steel plate under immense pressure. When the flat steel is rolled
into a round barrel as the two ends meets, the joint is welded and the drum is produced
after several finishing processes. The pressure required to coil the steel plate depends on
the thickness of the plate, the thicker the plate, the higher the pressure required to coil.
Thus the cost of manufacture a winch rises very sharply with the thickness of the drum
shell. A material-efficient design will provide a minimum required thickness of the drum
3
Reducing the materials needed for manufacturing the winch will in turn reduce the
overall weight of the winch. The manufacturing plant requires unprocessed steel
build the winch and thus sold by shipping it to consumers in any part of the world. The
transportation of the materials to the winch can be costly and transportation cost of
logistic company depends on the weight of the cargo. A reduction in material used will
lead to a significant reduction in overall weight, the transportation costs of steel supplier
to the manufacturing plant and to the consumer can also be minimized significantly.
analysis the stress loading of a winch and improves the current design of an anchor
1.3 SCOPE
This is a collaborative project with the Plimsoll Cooperation Pte Ltd. The main focus area
of study is to analysis the stress loading on drum and the effects of multi layer rope
coiling on drum.
The main sections of the reports are as follows: Chapter 2 deals with literature review
done, Chapter 3 deals with detail explanations of formulae derived and results of the
deals with the observation of results and analysis, Chapter 6 deals with the conclusion
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE RESEARCH
Winches are lifting, hauling or holding devices in which a tensioned rope is wound round
a rotating drum. They are extensively used for transporting people or goods, and they can
be found especially in mines and in marine applications. Winches are the fundamental
elements, for example, in crane and mooring systems, for activating cable cars, lifts and
as a matter of fact, whenever a dynamic pull is required from a flexible rope. Throughout
history winches have been used and probably the earliest illustration of a directly coupled
Fundamentally the term “winch” describes the whole machine which consists of a drum
or pulley carrying rope and driven by some form of power unit. The choice of drum/rope
configuration, drive transmission and power unit depends upon the designed application.
There is also a brake system to lock the drum from rotating for holding load and safety
reasons. The drum can be manually driven or by electric, hydraulic or steam power
depending on the application, and the driving device is coupled to the drum directly or
indirectly according to the availability of torque and the torque requirements. An indirect
coupling would be to use a clutch or gear and the intermediate of both components. Most
systems are gear coupled when the power source is not capable of producing adequate
torque, but when it can be used, the direct coupling system is mechanically better. It
eliminates gearing, reduces the number of bearings and simplifies the overall design.
5
Hydraulic and D.C. drive system are popular choice nevertheless because they can be
Most winch carry braking system, either dynamic or static. In D.C. electric and
hydraulically powered machines, regenerative braking can be use to control the system
dynamically. However, there is fitted usually a static holding brake which may or may
not be capable of arresting the system from speed. This is generally of a simple
mechanical type, caliper or band, acting on a brake rim on the drum itself and can be
The main parts of the winding drum are the barrel and flanges. In the past drums were
designed mainly to withstand the loads they were subjected to. But nowadays, with
increasingly high loads and commercial competition safety becomes not the only
criterion. Proper analysis and careful manufacturing become vital. Economy, size, weight
and strength are all factors which must be weighted carefully against safety.
The overall dimension of the drum is normally governed by the rope diameter and length:
these in turn, depend on the load and shaft depth. It follows that for a very deep mine if
multi layering was not to be used, a long drum of large diameter would be needed in
order to accommodate all the rope. This is not possible for both economical reasons and
the availability of space. In these cases the rope is wound on a smaller drum in more than
6
There have been research done on stress analysis on multi layering on winch drum, but
many of them are not published. The only published works that could be found are the
Standards Association of Australia (SAA) on Crane Code and the Det Norske Veritas
(DNV). The SAA Standard is derived from the papers ‘Ein Verfahren zur Berechunung
the Journal of Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI-Verlag GmbH, Dusseldorf) Series 13,
No12 July 1972, and ‘Untersuchungen űber die Beanspruchung der Seiltrommeln von
Kranen und Winden’ by Dr.-Ing. Helmut Ernst, published in Mitt.Forsch. Anst. GHH-
requirement on thickness of the drum based on the layers of wire coiled from the papers
done. And according to the DNV Standard, it has a different requirement based on
industrial practice. Both of the requirements do not provide the background and data on
the research done and the papers derived are written in German language and thus, there
calculations are done on of both the Standards and can be found in the next chapter. The
detailed formulae derivation, calculated requirement and the analysis will be shown and
discussed in Chapter 3.
7
CHAPTER 3
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
pressure p, which may be due to enclosed gas or fluid within it. The internal pressure
acting on the circumferential surface along the cylinder gives rise to the hoop stress in its
wall. If the ends of the cylinder are closed, the pressure acting on the ends is transmitted
to the walls of the walls of the cylinder, thus producing a longitudinal stress in the walls.
Suppose r is the mean radius of the cylinder, and that its thickness t is small, compared
with r. consider a unit length of the cylinder remote from the closed ends, as in Fig 4a;
Suppose the unit length is cut with a diametric plane, as in Fig 4b, the tensile stresses
acting on the cut sections are σ1, acting circumferentially, and σ2, acting longitudinally.
8
However, since the focus of the thesis is only on the hoop stress generated, therefore the
derivation of σ1 will only be studied. There is an internal pressure P on the inside of the
half shell. Consider equilibrium of the half-shell in a plane perpendicular to the axis of
the cylinder, as in Fig 4c; the total force due to the internal pressure P in the direction OA
is
P × (2r × 1)
with a unit length of the cylinder. This force is opposed by the stresses σ1; for equilibrium
P × (2r × 1) = σ 1 × 2(t × 1)
Then
Pr
σ1 = (3.1)
t
A t
r
P
O
σ1 σ1
Fig 5 Derivation of circumferential stress
The circumferential and longitudinal stresses are accompanied by direct strains. If the
ε1 =
1
(σ 1 − νσ 2 ) = Pr ⎛⎜1 − 1 ν ⎞⎟ (3.2)
E Et ⎝ 2 ⎠
ε2 =
1
(σ 2 − νσ 1 ) = Pr ⎛⎜1 − 1 ν ⎞⎟ (3.3)
E Et ⎝ 2 ⎠
9
The equation for hoop stress as shown in equation is only applicable to only a constant
pressure acting on the surface. In the case of a wire rope coiling around the drum, the
pressure applied is cause by the tension pulling force in the wire rope. Therefore, for
direct calculation of hoop stress, the term pressure should be converted into the rope
Cylinder
Wire rope
S σ1 σ1 S
Fig 6a Schematic Diagram of
loading on rope and cylinder p
P A A
t
P
O O
σ1 σ1 S S
Fig 6b Free body diagram of Fig 6c Free body diagram of
cylinder due to coiled wire rope wire rope due to pulling force, S
under pulling force, S
When the wire coil onto the cylinder is tensioned by a pulling force, a hoop stress is
generated onto the cylinder. By separating the two components into two free body
diagrams, Fig 6b showing the hoop stress in the cylinder and Fig 6c showing the pulling
force acting on the rope, the hoop stress acting on cylinder can be seen to be opposed by
S
σ1 = (3.4)
p×t
10
The conversion to create relationship between the rope tension and hoop stress is
sense to build a long drum of large diameter to hold 1 layer of rope; Multi-layering of
rope will help to reduce the length and diameter of drum but the stresses involved will be
more complex. Researches have been done to determine the effect of multi-layering and
two Standards have been followed in this thesis. The first Standard to be studied is the
DNV, and the formulae and rope layer factor derived is:
S
σh = C× , S is rope tension, p is pitch of rope grooving, tav is thickness of
p×t
C = 1 for 1 layer.
The formulae and rope layer factor derived by the SAA Standard is given by
1000 K RL PRS
TDC = , KRL is the rope layer factor and rigidity constant of drum
p × Fc
11
From the SAA Standard, the rope layer factor, KRL is given as
core (WSC)
= 1.6 for more than three layers of rope with WRC or WSC
With these formulas provided by the two Standards, the working hoop stress can be
calculated and the minimum thickness required can be determined by applying the rope
load.
According to DNV Standard, the hoop stress must not exceed 85% of the yield stress of
the material. Therefore, the thickness of the drum must be sufficient thick to ensure that
the drum will not buckle under the wire rope tension. The wire rope tension to be
calculated is taken to be 110% of the design rope load for safety reason. The maximum
Assumptions
12
Ultimate Pulling Force, S = 1.1 x 200 x 103 x 9.81 = 2158.2kN
S
σh = C
p × t av
2158.2 × 10 3
= C
0.1 × 0.07
= 308.3MN / m 2
= 308.3N / mm 2 , for C = 1
= 539.6 MN / m 2
308.3 − 297.5
Percentage difference = × 100% = 3.63% , for C = 1.
297.5
539.6 − 297.5
Percentage difference = × 100% = 81.4% , for C = 1.75.
297.5
From the above section, the calculated hoop stress is more than the allowable hoop stress.
S
t av = C (3.5)
p ×σ h
the minimum required thickness can be calculated for different C, rope layer factors.
13
Using the allowable hoop stress to calculate the required thickness,
S
t av = C (3.6)
p ×σ h
2158.2 × 10 3
= C
0.1 × 297.5 × 10 6
72.5 − 70
Percentage difference = × 100% = 3.57% , for C = 1.
70
127 − 70
Percentage difference = × 100% = 81.4% , for C = 1.75
70
14
3.3 SAA STANDARD
According to SAA Standard, the hoop stress must not exceed 60% of the yield stress of
the material. Therefore, the thickness of the drum must be sufficient thick to ensure that
the drum will not buckle under the wire rope tension. The wire rope tension to be
calculated is taken to be 110% of the design rope load for safety reason. The maximum
Assumptions
1000 K RL PRS
TDC =
p × Fc
1000 × 2158.2 × K RL
=
100 × 210
= 102.8mm , KRL is 1
15
102.8 − 70
Percentage difference = × 100% = 46.9% , for KRL = 1.
70
164.4 − 70
Percentage difference = × 100% = 134.9% , for KRL = 1.6
70
185.0 − 70
Percentage difference = × 100% = 164.3% , for KRL = 1.8
70
From the above section, the calculated minimum thickness is more than the designed
thickness. Therefore, the designed thickness is insufficient to withstand the rope load. By
1000 K RL PRS
Fc = (3.7)
p × TDC
the working hoop stress can be calculated for different KRL, rope layer factors.
Using the designed wall thickness to calculate the working hoop stress,
1000 K RL PRS
Fc =
p × TDC
1000 × 2158.2 × K RL
=
100 × 70
= 308.3N/mm 2 , KRL is 1
16
308.3 − 210
Percentage difference = × 100% = 46.8% , for KRL = 1
210
493.3 − 210
Percentage difference = × 100% = 134.9% , for KRL = 1.6
210
555.0 − 210
Percentage difference = × 100% = 164.3% , for KRL = 1.8
210
From the two tables tabulated the results shows that the designed thickness is insufficient
to withstand the working hoop stress generated by the allowable rope load. However, the
drum had never failed in the past 10 years of operations. The assumption would be that,
the empirical calculation made was too conservative or the drum has not been loaded to
its maximum capacity. In addition, although the formula in the two Standards is similar,
the results calculated are different from each other. The SAA Standard is found to be
more conservative than the DNV Standard by comparing the percentage difference in
wall thickness and the generated hoop stress. Furthermore, the derivation for the given
rope factors is not given in both the Standard and the rope factors maybe given to be
larger than required. Therefore, the next chapter will deal with setting up with a prototype
modal to conduct experiment to determine the rational behind the given rope factor given
17
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
In order to determine the rational behind the rope factors given by the Standards, a
Wire rope was securely attached onto the cylinder on one end and hook with a hanger on
the other end. Variable loads can be applied to the hanger to examine the effect of multi
layering by rotating the cylinder to pull the load vertically up and the accumulated wire
rope is coiled one layer on top of the other. Strain gauges are placed at specific locations
on the inner surface of the cylinder and readings are read with a static strain measuring
indicator. Figure 7 shows the principle and setup of the load system done schematically.
Hollow cylinder
Wire rope
Load
Support Support
Hanger
18
4.2 MATERIAL
The actual material used for the designed winch is a high strength steel that has a large
Young’s modulus value. The large value in Young’s modulus is advantageous for
experiment, we are interested on the relationship on the strain generated due to multi
build the prototype. There are two types of material manufactured for hollow cylinder
that are readily available in the market: Metal and Plastic. Comparison on the advantages
and disadvantages are done on both the material and Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)
plastic material was selected to build the prototype based on the factors stated below:
a) PMMA material has lower Young modulus as compared to the original material.
4 linear strain gauges designed for PMMA are selected and placed at 90º apart at mid
span of the cylinder supported at both ends. The objective of placing the strain gauges is
to determine the critical strain among the four positions and the effect of the multi layer
on each position. The strain gauges are fixed in the inner layer of the cylinder in order to
take the direct strain value under wire rope loading shown in Fig 8.
19
All the strain gauges were carefully fixed. The procedure followed was:-
The strain gauges were made by Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co. Ltd and wired in a three
cable configuration for connection to the strain measuring indicator. The specifications of
the stain gauge are resistance 120 ohms, 5mm long and stated accuracy on gauge factor
±0.3 ohms. All gauges were used from the same batch having a gauge factor of 2.11.
L
½L
SG 1
SG 2
SG 4
20
4.4 STRAIN METER
VISHAY Measurement Group static strain indicator unit and switch and balance unit was
used to measure and record the strain generated. The switch and balance unit has ten
connected to each channel for zeroing the measuring value before taking measurement.
The switch and balance unit has three pre-set configurations of bridge circuits internally:
Quarter Bridge, Half Bridge and Full Bridge. Quarter bridge configuration is selected for
measuring due to space constraint and physical conditions of measurement does not vary
a lot. The switch and balance is connected to the strain indicator to convert the change in
There are two set of experiment data to be collected. The first experiment is to determine
the strain generated from accumulating rope layering from a static load applied at the
start of the experiment. The second experiment is to determine the strain generated from
a pre-set number of rope layering before a load is applied. The aim of doing the two
experiments is to determine if there is any difference in the stress generated from two
21
Both the experiment follows the same procedures
• Connect the strain gauges to the strain meter using, the quarter bridge
configuration.
• Zero the gauge reading on the strain meter before conducting the experiment
• Load the cylinder with weight accordingly and at each layering, record the strain
readings.
o For first experiment, the weight is added at the beginning with and the
• Unload the weight and repeat the experiment procedures with incrementing
weights.
The recorded results are tabulated and attached as Appendix A and B. The analysis on
22
CHAPTER 5
This chapter deals with the observation and analysis of the data collected from the
experiments describe in Chapter 4. There are two sets of data collected based on the two
experiments and the detail results for each experiment can be found in Appendix section:
Appendix for experiment one and Appendix for experiment two. The focus of this
chapter is done on the most “representative” strain readings recorded for each experiment
and observation is done on the graph plotted for the “representative” readings. The
remaining graphs plotted for each loading in the first experiment can be found in
Appendix A.
23
5.1 EXPERIMENT ONE
According to the results found in Appendix A, the data collected for the strain readings
from an applied load of 7kg is followed. The labeling of the strain gauges is shown in Fig
10a, the actual setup is shown in Fig 10b and the actual coiling is shown is Fig 10c.
Rotation
SG 1
SG 2
SG 4
SG 3
Rope
Load
24
The data for the strain readings are tabulated in Table 3 and the graph is plotted as Fig 11.
Weight = 7 kg
Strain, ε1 (x10-6)
Layer
SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4
0 -236 -126 -53 -77
1 -370 -244 -117 -165
2 -488 -350 -173 -235
3 -550 -425 -201 -297
4 -580 -456 -219 -323
Table 3 – Strain Readings for Experiment One
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
1
1 22 33 44
-100
-200
SG 1
SG 2
Strain
-300 SG 3
SG 4
-400
-500
-600
-700
Layer
From the graphs, the largest strain value was found to be from SG 1. The value of the
which agree the Standards studied. However, the strain values of each strain gauge were
found to differ from each other. This shows that the derivation of formulae used by the
25
Standards assuming that the stress is uniformly distributed on the loaded circumferential
area is inaccurate. Further analysis is done to compare the experimental stress and the
Pr
σ1 =
t
ε1 =
1
(σ 1 − νσ 2 ) = Pr ⎛⎜1 − 1 ν ⎞⎟
E Et ⎝ 2 ⎠
as discussed in Chapter 3, the relationship for the hoop stress and corresponding strain
can be shown as
σ1 × t
×r
r ⎛ 1 ⎞
ε1 = ⎜1 − ν ⎟
Et ⎝ 2 ⎠
σ1 ⎛ 1 ⎞
ε1 = ⎜1 − ν ⎟
E⎝ 2 ⎠
E × ε1
σ1 = (5.1)
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 − ν ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
S
σh = C× , C = 1 for 1 layer.
p×t
σh
= (5.2)
σ1
26
The sample calculation and the complete data for all the result in experiment one can be
found in Appendix A.
Weight = 7 kg
-6
Strain, ε1(x10 ) Empirical
Experimental
Stress From
Layer SG 1 Stress, σ1 Ratio
DNV, σh
Compressive (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 370 1.662 3.434 2.066
2 488 2.013 3.434 1.706
3 550 2.269 3.434 1.513
4 580 2.347 6.009 2.560
Table 4 – Tabulated Result from Experiment One
Table 4 shows the hoop stress generated in experiment and the empirical hoop stress from
DNV Standard generated by multi layering and there is a large discrepancy between
them. The experimental value differs by about 2 times in the first layer loading and
decreases until a rope factor of 1.75 is multiple to the stress calculated for 3 or more
layers in the Standard. From the result, the rope factor can be considered to be too
conservative and the method of applying it is too general as the strain values at 4
locations are different. The empirical formulae is derived based on a uniform pressure
acting on circumferential area which is not directly relevant. The rope factor can be
27
5.2 EXPERIMENT TWO
According to the results found in Appendix B, the different layering is set before a load is
applied and then the data collected for the strain readings. The labeling of the strain
gauges is shown in Fig 12a and the actual setup is shown in Fig 12b.
Rotation
SG 1
SG 2
SG 4
SG 3
Rope
Load
The data for the strain reading of SG 1 is considered and are tabulated in Table 5.
SG 1, ε1 (x10-6)
Weight
Layer
7kg 6 5 4 3
1 -142 -137 -125 -115 -102
2 -154 -150 -145 -136 -128
3 -200 -177 -165 -150 -142
4 -230 -200 -192 -175 -156
Table 5 – Strain Readings for Experiment Two
28
The strain for the applied load of 7kg is focus for observation and analysis as it is the best
“representative” strain readings. The detailed data record and calculations for all the
loadings can be found in Appendix B. The data for the strain reading for weight load of
7kg is tabulated and compared with the value collected in previous sections in Table 6.
Weight = 7 kg
Experiment Two
Empirical Stress From
Layer Strain, ε1 Experimental DNV, σh Ratio
(x10-6) Stress, σ1 (N/mm2)
Compressive (N/mm2)
1 142 0.586 3.434 5.86
2 154 0.635 3.434 5.40
3 200 0.825 3.434 4.16
4 230 0.949 6.009 6.33
Table 6 – Tabulated Results from Experiment Two
Table 6 shows the hoop stress generated in experiment two and compared with the
empirical hoop stress from DNV Standard generated by multi layering and there is a large
discrepancy between the comparisons. The experiment two values differ by more than 5.5
times in the first layer loading and decreases to around 4 times before a rope factor of
1.75 is multiple to the stress calculated for 3 or more layers in the Standard. From the
result, the rope factor can be considered to be too conservative and the method of
applying it is too general. In addition, the hoop stress generated also depend on the
conditions the load is applied. For example if the load is applied with the cylinder coiled
with pre-existing rope layering, the generated hoop stress is 5 times smaller than the
empirical hoop stress. A reason for such phenomenon would be the relaxation effect of
the inner rope. The rope tension from load is transmitted to the outer layers of the coiling
and not affecting the inner layer and therefore the inner layers of rope act to increase the
thickness of drum.
29
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
From the observation and analysis done in Chapter 5, there are two inferences that can be
deduced from the experiments conducted and the empirical calculation followed in
1) The rope factor derived by the Standard is too conservative and the method of
2) The hoop stress generated in the cylinder depends on the condition of the loading.
The thickness derived from the Standard in Chapter three is too thick to manufacture and
the cost of manufacturing will be too uneconomical to build. Beside that the calculated
thickness, two Standards have been followed and there seems to have a discrepancy in
the minimum thickness required and factors for rope layering. Therefore, an experiment
of two forms is conducted to verify the rational behind the rope factor given and effect of
In the first experiment, the experimental hoop stresses were found to be lower than
empirical values provided by the DNV Standard. The formulae is derived from a general
formulae of calculating hoop stress generated by a constant pressure acting on all the
surface of the cylinder. However, the hoop stress generated by the rope in our experiment
is over a concentrated area under the rope. Therefore, the large difference in values show
that the formulae derived is too generalized. The rope factor given for more than 3 rope
layering is also too conservative and the application of it is too standardized. The rope
30
factor given is too large by comparing and it should be given according to each layer for
In the second experiment, the experimental hoop stress is found to be lower as compared
to the values in the first experiment and the empirical values from calculation. A reason
for such observation would be that the inner layer of rope is not affected by the pulling
force as compared to the outer layer of rope due to the loading condition. The rope is
coiled before the load is added and therefore, the pulling force is distributed and
concentrated on the outer layer. The inner layer of rope acts to be part or additional
thickness to the cylinder, and therefore, the hoop stress generated is much lower. This
From the two experiments, although the objective of the thesis is not completely
achieved, however the results and analysis have provided some groundwork for future
analysis. While the results have provided evidence for further development to be
research, improvement can be made to refine the findings. Further accumulation of rope
layering can be done to find the critical layering where the hoop stress becomes constant
with increasing layering. Heavier load can be experimented to observe the effect of hoop
stress due to multi layering and also rope relaxation at loads equivalent to its yield
strength. An additional experiment can be carried out to find out the effect of hoop stress
of a fully wounded drum in length and layering. Details of the experiment will be
31
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Increase loading and number of layering so as to attain a more conclusive results. The
trends derived from the 5 loadings and 4 layering in the two experiments may not be
large enough to establish accurate conclusion. However, the height of supports has to
be increased as the length of rope will be much longer than experimented. Better
facilities and automating the experiment have to be found and done to perform the
experiment.
2. Perform experiment with rope wounding the whole length of cylinder before building
on next layering of rope. The real case scenario of rope wounding on the winch is
done on the length of winch and the experiments done is only done on accumulating
layering on a single coil. The hoop stress generated maybe different due to effect of
rope relaxation on the pervious wounded ropes and when a subsequence wounding of
next layer of rope is wound as discussed. A simplified diagram of setup shown in Fig
Pulley
Load
Coiling
Drum Rope
Uncoiling
Drum
32
3. Performing the experiment with similar or equivalent material to build the prototype.
The results perform in this thesis is based on a PMMA material built for prototype
setup. Although the fabrication and cost of PMMA is advantageous to test in lab
condition, but the loading conditions and parameters are different. The hardness value
and strength is different even thought the theory behind the experiment is similar for
excess material and weight. Although the drum undergoes the direct stress created by
the wire rope, other components such as the shaft, the hull and the flange can be
alternative to improve the design of the winch. Example would be to remove the shaft
hidden in the winch by simply welding the two protruding shaft onto the flanges. The
redesign effort is to avert the shaft from undergoing torsion and excess material can
33
REFERENCES
1. http://www.plimsollcorp.com
2. http://www.meps.co.uk/World%20Carbon%20Price.htm
3. Case J., Chilver L. & Ross C.T.F. (1999) Strength of Materials and Structures
London : Arnold
7. Young W.C. & Budynas R.C. (2002) Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain
34
APPENDIX A
Data and Results from Experiment One
35
Weight = 7 kg
Strain, ε1 (x10-6)
Layer
SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4
Initial Loading -236 -126 -53 -77
1 -370 -244 -117 -165
2 -488 -350 -173 -235
3 -550 -425 -201 -297
4 -580 -456 -219 -323
Table 1 – Strain Readings from Experiment One
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
11 2 3 4
2 3 4
-100
-200 SG 1
SG 2
Strain
-300
SG 3
SG 4
-400
-500
-600
-700
Layer
Weight = 7 kg
-6
Strain, ε1(x10 ) Empirical
Experimental
Stress From
Layer SG 1 Stress, σ1 Ratio
DNV, σt
Compressive (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 370 1.662 3.434 2.25
2 488 2.013 3.434 1.71
3 550 2.269 3.434 1.51
4 580 2.347 6.009 2.51
Table 2 – Tabulated Result for Load = 7kg
36
Sample Calculations
E × ε1 3.3 × 10 9 × 403 × 10 −6
Experimental Stress at Layer 1, σ 1 = = = 1.662 N / mm 2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 − ν ⎟ ⎜1 − (0.4 )⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
E × ε1 3.3 × 10 9 × 569 × 10 −6
Experimental Stress at Layer 4, σ 1 = = = 2.347 N / mm 2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 − ν ⎟ ⎜1 − (0.4 )⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
S
Theoretical Stress from DNV, σ t = C ×
p×t
7 × 9.81
=C×
4×5
= C × 3.434
= 3.434 N / mm 2 , C = 1
= 6.009 N / mm 2 , C = 1.75
σ t 3.434
= = = 2.25
σ 1 1.662
σ t 6.009
= = = 2.51
σ 1 2.347
37
Weight = 6 kg
Strain, ε1 (x10-6)
Layer
SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4
Initial Loading -205 -138 -40 -85
1 -320 -211 -96 -133
2 -440 -284 -136 -197
3 -468 -327 -165 -227
4 -493 -358 -177 -247
Table 3 – Strain Readings from Experiment
100
0
0 1 11
2 232 343 445
-100
-200
SG 1
SG 2
Strain
-300 SG 3
SG 4
-400
-500
-600
Layer
Weight = 6 kg
-6
Strain, ε1(x10 ) Empirical
Experimental
Stress From
Layer SG 1 Stress, σ1 Ratio
DNV, σt
Compressive (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 320 1.469 2.943 2.23
2 440 1.815 2.943 1.62
3 468 1.931 2.943 1.52
4 493 2.034 5.150 2.53
Table 4 – Tabulated Result for Load = 6kg
38
Weight = 5 kg
Strain, ε1 (x10-6)
Layer
SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4
Initial Loading -150 -100 -32 -50
1 -270 -200 -68 -117
2 -320 -254 -101 -156
3 -369 -300 -128 -210
4 -381 -314 -145 -231
Table 5 – Strain Readings from Experiment
50
0
0 1 21
1 22
3 4
33 445
-50
-100
-150 SG 1
SG 2
Strain
-200
SG 3
-250
SG 4
-300
-350
-400
-450
Layer
Weight = 5 kg
Strain, ε1(x10-6) Empirical
Experimental
Stress From
Layer SG 1 Stress, σ1 Ratio
DNV, σt
Compressive (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 270 1.114 2.453 2.20
2 320 1.320 2.453 1.86
3 369 1.522 2.453 1.61
4 381 1.572 4.292 2.73
Table 6 – Tabulated Result for Load = 5kg
39
Weight = 4 kg
Strain, ε1 (x10-6)
Layer
SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4
Initial Loading -124 -90 -26 -49
1 -211 -140 -58 -77
2 -290 -203 -82 -115
3 -320 -238 -107 -151
4 -341 -255 -117 -163
Table 7 – Strain Readings from Experiment
50
0
0 1 121 23 343 445
-50
-100
SG 1
-150
SG 2
Strain
-200 SG 3
SG 4
-250
-300
-350
-400
Layer
Weight = 4 kg
Strain, ε1(x10-6) Empirical
Experimental
Stress From
Layer SG 1 Stress, σ1 Ratio
DNV, σt
Compressive (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 211 0.870 1.962 2.25
2 290 1.196 1.962 1.64
3 320 1.320 1.962 1.49
4 341 1.407 3.434 2.44
Table 8 – Tabulated Result for Load = 4kg
40
Weight = 3 kg
Strain, ε1 (x10-6)
Layer
SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4
Initial Loading -72 -61 -20 -31
1 -155 -115 -52 -71
2 -184 -151 -74 -100
3 -215 -180 -91 -128
4 -227 -196 -105 -145
Table 9 – Strain Readings from Experiment
50
0
0 1 121 232 343 445
-50
SG 1
SG 2
Strain
-100
SG 3
SG 4
-150
-200
-250
Layer
Weight = 3 kg
Strain, ε1(x10-6) Empirical
Experimental
Stress From
Layer SG 1 Stress, σ1 Ratio
DNV, σt
Compressive (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 155 0.639 1.472 2.30
2 184 0.759 1.472 1.94
3 215 0.887 1.472 1.66
4 227 0.936 2.575 2.75
Table 10 – Tabulated Result for Load = 3kg
41
APPENDIX B
Data and Results from Experiment Two
42
SG 1, ε1 (x10-6)
Weight
Layer
7kg 6 5 4 3
1 -142 -137 -125 -115 -102
2 -154 -150 -145 -136 -128
3 -200 -177 -165 -150 -142
4 -230 -200 -192 -175 -156
Table 1 – Strain Readings from Experiment
Weight = 7 kg
Experiment Two
Empirical Stress From
Layer Strain, ε1 Experimental DNV, σt Ratio
(x10-6) Stress, σ1 (N/mm2)
Compressive (N/mm2)
1 142 0.586 3.434 5.86
2 154 0.635 3.434 5.40
3 200 0.825 3.434 4.16
4 230 0.949 6.009 6.33
Table 2 – Tabulated Result for Load = 7kg
Sample Calculations
E × ε1 3.3 × 10 9 × 142 × 10 −6
Experimental Stress at Layer 1, σ 1 = = = 0.586 N / mm 2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 − ν ⎟ ⎜1 − (0.4)⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
E × ε1 3.3 × 10 9 × 230 × 10 −6
Experimental Stress at Layer 4, σ 1 = = = 0.949 N / mm 2
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜1 − ν ⎟ ⎜1 − (0.4)⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
S
Theoretical Stress from DNV, σ t = C ×
p×t
7 × 9.81
=C×
4×5
= C × 3.434
= 3.434 N / mm 2 , C = 1
= 6.009 N / mm 2 , C = 1.75
43
Percentage difference in two experimental stresses
σ t − σ1 1.662 − 0.586
= × 100 = × 100 = 65%
σt 1.662
σ t 3.434
= = = 5.86
σ 1 0.586
σ t 6.009
= = = 6.33
σ 1 0.949
Weight = 6 kg
Experiment Two
Empirical Stress
Layer Strain, ε1 Experimental From DNV, σt Ratio
(x10-6) Stress, σ1 (N/mm2)
Compressive (N/mm2)
1 137 0.565 2.943 5.21
2 150 0.619 2.943 4.76
3 177 0.730 2.943 4.03
4 200 0.825 5.150 6.24
Table 3 – Tabulated Result for Load = 6kg
Weight = 5kg
Experiment Two
Empirical Stress
Layer Strain, ε1 Experimental From DNV, σt Ratio
-6
(x10 ) Stress, σ1 (N/mm2)
Compressive (N/mm2)
1 125 0.517 2.453 4.76
2 145 0.598 2.453 4.10
3 165 0.681 2.453 3.60
4 192 0.792 4.292 5.42
Table 4 – Tabulated Result for Load = 5kg
44
Weight = 4kg
Experiment Two
Empirical Stress
Layer Strain, ε1 Experimental From DNV, σt Ratio
(x10-6) Stress, σ1 (N/mm2)
Compressive (N/mm2)
1 115 0.474 1.962 4.14
2 136 0.561 1.962 3.50
3 150 0.619 1.962 3.17
4 175 0.722 3.434 4.76
Table 5 – Tabulated Result for Load = 4kg
Weight = 3kg
Experiment Two
Empirical Stress
Layer Strain, ε1 Experimental From DNV, σt Ratio
-6
(x10 ) Stress, σ1 (N/mm2)
Compressive (N/mm2)
1 102 0.421 1.472 3.50
2 128 0.528 1.472 2.79
3 142 0.586 1.472 2.51
4 156 0.644 2.575 4.00
Table 6 – Tabulated Result for Load = 3kg
45
APPENDIX C
Analysis of Winch Components
46
The aim of the calculations is to determine whether the new axle welded to the drum will
be able to withstand the pulling and braking forces. First the magnitude and position of
all the forces are determine and analyzed in different situation. The axle will be
thoroughly examined at the support side, weld side, etc. The drum will be examined
again with the new design to check whether the original sizing is safe under all operating
conditions. In the calculation, the axle and the drum is considered as a rigid body as they
are welded together.
Acting Forces
F1
F2
Rope Tension R1
R2
R1
F2
R2
Upper Drum
F1
Lower Drum
From the diagrams above, the axle of the lower drum will be undergoing more stress then
the upper drum. Therefore, the lower drum is examined to calculate the required diameter
of axle.
Assumptions
Calculations
47
Friction Coefficient, μ = 0.3
Wrap Angle, α = 325˚ = 5.67rad
F1
From equations = e μα and TB = (F1 − F2 )r , we can calculate the resultant forces on the
F2
brake band.
F1
= e μα
F2
⇒ F1 = F2 e 0.3×5.67 (1)
TB = (F1 − F2 )r
⇒ 1618.7 = (F1 − F2 )0.9 (2)
Ra
F2
(i) (ii) (iii) Rb
Ra Rb
Lower Drum
48
Considering the horizontal force of F2, F2X
F2 X F2Y
cos 55° = F2
F2
F2 X = F 2 cos 55° 55°
F2 X = 401.5 × cos 55°
F2 X = 230.3kN
Ra Rb
3531.6kN
230.3kN
The horizontal force component is calculated before the vertical force component. The
resultant force will then be calculated with the data found.
Case (i) - The wire rope is acting on the leftmost end of the drum.
Assumption
1. The drum is slipping due to a pulling force greater than braking torque.
2. Only one layer of wire rope around the drum is considered.
3. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
∑M Ra = 0,
49
3531.6(0.508) + 230.3(2.443) = Rb (2.691)
Rb = 875.8kN
∑F Y = 0,
Ra + Rb = 3531.6 + 230.3
Ra = 3761.9 − 875.8
Ra = 2886.1kN
Case (ii) - The wire rope is acting on the center of the drum.
Assumption
1. The drum is slipping due to a pulling force greater than braking torque.
2. Only one layer of wire rope around the drum is considered.
3. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
∑M Ra = 0,
3531.6(1.3455) + 230.3(2.443) = Rb (2.691)
Rb = 1974.9kN
∑F Y = 0,
Ra + Rb = 3531.6 + 230.3
Ra = 3761.9 − 1974.9
Ra = 1787.0kN
Case (iii) - The wire rope is acting on the rightmost end of the drum.
Assumption
1. The drum is slipping due to a pulling force greater than braking torque.
2. Only one layer of wire rope around the drum is considered.
3. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
∑M Ra = 0,
3531.6(2.183) + 230.3(2.443) = Rb (2.691)
Rb = 3074.0kN
∑F Y = 0,
Ra + Rb = 3531.6 + 230.3
Ra = 3761.3 − 3074.0
Ra = 687.9kN
50
The vertical force component calculated.
2200.0kN
Ra Rb
F2Y
Assumption
1. The vertical force component of F2 and F1 are in the same plane.
2. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
∑M Ra = 0,
(2200.0 − 328.9)(2.443) = Rb (2.691)
Rb = 1698.7kN
∑F Y = 0,
Ra + Rb = 2200.0 − 328.9
Ra = 1871.1 − 1698.7
Ra = 172.4kN
Case (i) - The wire rope is acting on the leftmost end of the drum.
51
Angle of resultant force,
172.4
β = tan −1
2886.1
β = 3.4°
Case (ii) - The wire rope is acting on the center of the drum.
52
Case (iii) - The wire rope is acting on the rightmost end of the drum.
From the data tabulated, the largest force acting on the bearing support will be at Rb in
case 3.
53
Acting Moments
Ra Rb
3531.6kN 230.3kN
Using the forces from the above calculations, the moments on the drum and axle can be
calculated to analysis whether the original is sufficiently large for all operating
conditions. Similar to the above calculations, the winch will be calculated to the largest
force applied. The lower drum is undergoing higher stress and therefore, will be
considered with three position of wire rope tension calculated to find the highest acting
moment.
Assumptions
The horizontal moment component is calculated before the vertical force component. The
resultant moment will then be calculated with the data found. The horizontal forces are
resolved and will be directly taken from table for use.
Calculations
Case (i) - The wire rope is acting on the leftmost end of the drum.
Assumption
1. The drum is slipping due to a pulling force greater than braking torque.
2. Only one layer of wire rope around the drum is considered.
3. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
54
MH
(i)
Ra Fs
Moment at (i),
MH = 2886.1 x 0.508
= 1466.1kNm
(i)
Ra MH
Moment at brake,
MH = 2886.1 x 2.443 - 3531.6 x 1.935
= 217.1kNm
Case (ii) - The wire rope is acting on the center of the drum.
Assumption
4. The drum is slipping due to a pulling force greater than braking torque.
5. Only one layer of wire rope around the drum is considered.
6. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
(ii)
MH
Ra
Fs
Moment at (ii),
MH = 1787.0 x 1.3455
55
= 2404.4kNm
(ii)
MH
Ra
Moment at brake,
MH = 1787.0 x 2.443 - 3531.6 x 1.0975
= 489.7kNm
Case (iii) - The wire rope is acting on the rightmost end of the drum.
Assumption
7. The drum is slipping due to a pulling force greater than braking torque.
8. Only one layer of wire rope around the drum is considered.
9. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
MH
(iii)
Ra Fs
Moment at (iii),
MH = 687.9 x 2.183
= 1501.7kNm
56
(iii)
MH
Ra
Moment at brake,
MH = 687.9 x 2.443 - 3531.6 x 0.26
= 762.3kNm
The vertical moment component calculated at case (i), (ii) and (iii) and at brake.
2200.0kN
Ra Rb
F2Y
Assumption
3. The vertical force component of F2 and F1 are in the same plane.
4. The axle is welded to the flange of the drum and free to rotate. Therefore, there is
no moment at the bearing support sides.
Ra MV
(i)
Fs
Moment at (i),
MV = 172.4 x 0.508
57
= 87.6kNm
MV
Ra
(ii)
Fs
Moment at (ii),
MV = 172.4 x 1.3455
= 232.0kNm
MV
Ra
(iii)
Fs
Moment at (iii),
MV = 172.4 x 2.183
= 376.3kNm
Ra
MV
Fs
Moment at brake,
MV = 172.4 x 2.443
= 421.2kNm
Case (i) - The wire rope is acting on the leftmost end of the drum.
2 2
Resultant moment, M R = M H + M V
= 1466.12 + 87.6 2
58
= 1648.7 kNm
Resultant moment at brake,
2 2
M R = M H + MV
= 217.12 + 421.12
= 473.8kNm
Case (ii) - The wire rope is acting on the center of the drum.
2 2
Resultant moment, M R = M H + M V
= 2404.4 2 + 232.0 2
= 2415.6kNm
Case (iii) - The wire rope is acting on the rightmost end of the drum.
2 2
Resultant moment, M R = M H + M V
= 1501.7 2 + 376.3 2
= 1548.1kNm
59
Analysis of components
Stress on axle at support side
Bearing stress of axle at support,
3633.9 × 10 3
σ bearing =
260 × 103
σ bearing = 131.1N / mm 2
Using the bearing stress and shear stress, the principle stress and shear can be determined
by Mohr circle.
From the Mohr circle, the principle stress is 176N/mm2 and shear stress is 110N/mm2.
176 − 315
Percentage difference = × 100% = −44.1%
315
110 − 140
Percentage difference = × 100% = −21.4%
140
Table 3 – Calculated bearing stress and shear of axle at support side
Allowable
Principle Percentage Principle Allowable Percentage
bearing
stress difference shear stress shear stress difference
stress
178 315 -44.1% 112 140 -21.4%
From the comparison, the diameter of the axle at the bearing support can be reduced.
60
Weld joint at axle and flange
From the drawing, the reaction force will be equally distributed by the two flange on the
axle and while the bending stress will act on the weld on the outer flange.
Stress on weld
Assumption
1. The reaction force will act between the two flange and spread evenly them.
2. The bending stress will be acting on the outer flange weld.
RbR
MR
∑ M = 0,
M R = RbR (0.133)
= 3512.1 × 0.133
= 467.1kNm
195.1 − 93
Percentage difference = × 100% = 109.8%
93
61
Shear stress on weld,
Mr
τ=
I
467.1 × 10 3 × 0.145
=
0.707 × h × π × 0.145 2
= 263.2 MN / m 2 , h = 0.038
= 263.1N / mm 2
263.1 − 93
Percentage difference = × 100% = 182.9%
93
Table 4 – Bending and shear stresses on weld joint
Principle
Allowable Percentage Principle Allowable Percentage
bending
stress difference shear stress stress difference
stress
195.1 93 109.8% 263.1 93 182.9%
Case 1 - Moment present at outer flange and shear force equally distributed
Assumption
1. The reaction force will act between the two flange and spread evenly them.
2. The bending stress will be acting on the outer flange weld.
RbR
MR
FS
∑F Y = 0,
FS = RbR
62
FS = 3512.1kN
Bearing stress on axle,
FS
σ= 2
0.038 × 0.29
1756.1 × 10 3
=
0.01102
= 159.4MN / m 2
= 159.4 N / mm 2
From the Mohr circle, the principle stress is 164N/mm2 and shear stress is 82N/mm2.
164 − 315
Percentage difference = × 100% = −47.9%
315
82 − 140
Percentage difference = × 100% = −41.4%
140
63
Case 2 – Reaction forces only
Assumption
1. The reaction force will act accordingly at the two different flanges.
2. No bending stress will be acting on the outer flange weld.
F2
Rb
F1
∑M F1 = 0,
F2 (0.257 ) = Rb (0.162)
3512.1(0.162)
F2 =
0.257
= 2213.9kN
∑F Y = 0,
F1 = F2 + Rb
= 2213.9 + 3512.1
= 2213.9 + 3512.1
= 5726.0kN
64
= 200.9 N / mm 2
Shear stress on axle on outer flange,
F1
τ=
π × 0.29 2
4
5726.0 × 10 3
=
0.0661
= 86.6MN / m 2
= 86.6 N / mm 2
From the Mohr circle, the principle stress at outer flange is 545N/mm2 and shear stress is
285N/mm2.
545 − 315
Percentage difference = × 100% = 73.0%
315
285 − 140
Percentage difference = × 100% = 103.6%
140
65
From the Mohr circle, the principle stress at inner flange is 210N/mm2 and shear stress is
100N/mm2.
210 − 315
Percentage difference = × 100% = −33.3%
315
82 − 140
Percentage difference = × 100% = −28.6%
140
Table 6 – Bearing and shear stresses on axle at outer flange
Allowable
Principle Percentage Principle Allowable Percentage
bearing
stress difference shear stress shear stress difference
stress
545 315 73.0% 285 140 103.6%
66