CHAPTER TWO

Literature review

Automated storage and retrieval systems have been widely used in distribution and production
Environments since their introduction in the 1950s. An automated storage and retrieval system
(AS/RS) usually consists of racks served by cranes running through aisles between the racks. An
AS/RS is capable of handling pallets without the interference of an operator, thus the system
Is fully automated. Both in production and distribution environments AS/RSs are used for
Putting products (e.g., raw materials or (semi-) finished products) in storage and for retrieving
Those products from storage to fulfill an order. Between 1994 and 2004, there has been a
significant increase in the number of AS/RSs used in distribution environments in the United States
(Automated Storage Retrieval Systems Production Section of the Material Handling Industry of
America, 2005).

In this chapter, we focus on reviewing the existing literature of AS/RS problems from different
perspectives. First, we review the physical design problems discussed in the literature, as one
of the main focuses of our study is to determine the appropriate design for the system. Second,
we concentrate on the various travel time models that exist in the literature from different
points of view such as command cycles, operating characteristic, and different I/O locations.
Finally, we review the storage assignment policy problems of AS/RS.
 Existing Physical Layout Design in an AS/RS

According to Roodbergen & Vis (2009) system configuration decisions of the AS/RS involve
determining the number of cranes, number of aisle, size of the racks, and so on. However, only
few papers consider AS/RS design in combination with other material handling systems.
According to Roodbergen & Vis (2009) and Vasili et al. (2012), there are two general methods for
AS/RS design problems: (a) analytical methods; and (b) simulation.

(a) Analytical Methods

▪ Among the several papers that consider designing and optimization of warehouse and
material handling systems problem, Zollinger (1975) is an early study that consider AS/RS
design based on cost analysis model. In 1999, Zollinger presented conceptual ideas, useful
information, operational conditions, application considerations and appropriate
methodology for the analysis when comparing automated retrieval systems with other
storage and retrieval methods. The purpose is to provide information that serves to improve
the industry’s knowledge of storage systems and to bring about an increase in the number
of properly applied automated storage/ retrieval systems that utilize in-aisle S/R machines.

▪ Bozer and White (1990) introduce the first analytical stochastic analysis for a mini-load
AS/RS that is modeled as a two-server closed queuing network. Bozer & White (1996)
have extended Bozer & White (1990) to determine the near-optimal pickers’ number and
improve the pickers’ utilization by considering the sequencing of container retrievals
sequence for each order.

▪ Lee (1997) categorizes the techniques of evaluating the performance of AS/RSs into static,
computer simulation and stochastic analysis. He presents a stochastic analysis of unit-load
AS/RS for the first time using a continuous time Markov chain. His model is capable of
 using different formulas for SC and DC of various system configurations such as the case
when the I/O point is located other than on the lower left corner of the rack.
▪ Bozer and Cho (2005) extend Lee (1997) by developing analytical closed-form stochastic
models to determine if the system meets a desired throughput, as well as identifying the
expected S/R machine utilization. Their model can also apply to alternative I/O point
locations or storage methods.

▪ Inman (2003) studies the usage of AS/RSs in the automotive industry. The function of the
AS/RS is to restore the sequence in which jobs are handled at the various processes in the
facility. A model is proposed to determine the capacity of the AS/RS based on the number
of jobs that need to be rescheduled. As a result, the design of the AS/RS is completely
subordinate to the assembling processes in the facility.

▪ Hwang et al. (2002) consider the combination of mini-load AS/RS with Automated Guide
Vehicle (AGV) to design the assembly line workstation. They propose nonlinear model as
well as heuristics to identify the optimal number of AGVs and optimal mini-load AS/RS
design.

▪ Ashayeri et al. presented an exact geometry-based analytical model which can be used to
compute the expected cycle time for a storage/retrieval (S/R) machine, executing single-
commands, dual-commands, or both, in a rack structure which has been laid out in pre-
specified storage zones for classes of goods. Park and Park et al. studied performances of
different AS/RS with class based storage policy. De Koster et al., and Yugang and de
Koster studied the design of optimal rack of 3D compact storage under different storage
policies.

▪ Chang and Egbelu presented formulations for prepositioning of S/R machines to minimize
the maximum system response time, and minimize the expected system response time for
multi-aisle AS/RS. Sari et al. developed closed-form travel-time expressions for flow-rack
AS/RSs based on a continuous approach. Potrc et al. presented heuristics travel-time
models for AS/RS with equal-sized cells in height and randomized storage under single
 and multi-shuttle system. Hu et al. presented split-platform AS/RS (SP-AS/RS) to handle
extra heavy loads such as sea container cargo and a reliable continuous travel-time model
for this system was presented under stay dwell point policy. Vasili et al. developed two
reliable travel-time models for the SP-AS/RS under return to middle and return to start,
dwell point policies.

(b) Simulation and data mining methods

There exist several simulation and data mining techniques in the literature such as Principal
component analysis (PCA) (Wu et al., 2014; Yun et al., 2014), discrete-event simulation, agent-
based simulation (Beheshti & Sukthankar, 2012, 2013, 2014; Beheshti et al., 2015; Beheshti &
Mozayani, 2014), Monte Carlo simulation (Hadian et al., 2012, 2013), and simulation
optimization.

Rosenblatt & Roll (1984) propose a simulation-optimization procedure to find the optimal
solution for a particular warehouse design problem that consider there different cost functions
(including initial investment cost, shortage cost, and storage cost). Randhawa et al. (1991)
analyze the impact of number of the I/O points on mean and maximum waiting time by applying
the simulation study. The simulation model investigates the layouts with different number of I/O
points per aisle as well as the relationship between the source of storage and retrieval operations.
They consider three performance measure (System throughput, mean, and maximum waiting
time) as well as three different unit-load AS/RS performing under DC cycles. The results show
that introducing two independent I/O points per aisle where the input pallet loads are stored
based on Closest Open Location (COL) policy, and output pallet retrieval based on a Nearest
Neighbor (NN) policy.

Rosenblatt et al. (1993) consider simulation and optimization model simultaneously to determine
the design parameters for the system. They capture the dynamic behavior of the system as well
as optimize the total cost of the system at the same time. In their model, they assume that number
of the crane can be less than the number of the aisles.
Randhawa & Shroff (1995) extende the work of Randhawa et al. (1991). They perform a comprehensive
study that evaluate the performance of six different layouts with single I/O point (but the location varies)
performing under three different scheduling policies. Their simulation model considers three different
performance measures including system throughput, waiting times, and rejects due of I/O queues. The
results show that locating the I/O point at the middle of the rack can obtain higher throughput.

Van Den Berg and Gademann presented a simulation study of an automated storage/retrieval
system and examined a wide variety of control policies. For the class-based storage policy, they
applied an algorithm which enables evaluation of the trade-off between storage space
requirements and travel times.

Existing AS/RS Travel time models

Development of expected travel-time (i.e. average travel-time) models for S/R machine is
another research area. Based on a continuous rack approximation approach, Bozer and White
present expressions for expected cycle’s times of an AS/RS performing single and dual
command cycles. Hwang and Lee present travel-time models, which include constant
acceleration and deceleration rates with a maximum velocity restriction. Chang et al. propose
travel-time models that consider various travel speeds with known acceleration and deceleration
rates. Dallari et al. investigated the performance evaluation of a man-on-board AS/RS under
different storage policies. The S/R machine travel time is derived for each storage policy as a
function of the shape of the storage area, the number of picking points and the sequencing
algorithm used.

Travel time interpretation

As the throughput capacity is the inverse of the average travel time, estimating the average travel
time is one of the fundamental steps in AS/RS design. AS/RS systems are often throughput
constrained and one way to improve the system throughput is to reduce the travel time. Also,
because the total cost of the system is highly dependent to the number of the aisles; it is critical
to know the throughput of each aisle to determine the number of the aisles (Sarker & Babu,
1995)

In most AS/RS, as the crane has independent and simultaneous movements in horizontal and
vertical directions, the maximum of the horizontal and vertical travel time (Chebyshev distant
metric) is used to calculate the actual travel time. Horizontal and vertical travel speeds are up to
600 and 150 feet per minute, respectively (Tompkins et al., 2010).
Hausman et al. (1976) were some of the first to present travel time models for a single-shuttle
unit-load AS/RS. These authors have proposed estimates for single command scheduling in
square-in-time continuous racks. Random, full turnover, two- and three-class-based storage
assignment policies were considered and extended those results by also considering interleaving
times resulting from a first-come-first-served (FCFS) dual command scheduling policy.

Eynan and Rosenblatt (1994) since then continue the research of Hausman et al. (1976), by
studying different control policies, configurations of AS/RS and operational characteristics.
Instead of an FCFS-policy a nearest-neighbor (NN) policy can be used to schedule requests.
Recursive procedures and closed-form expressions by Kouvelis and Papanicolaou (1995) have
been proposed for n-class-based storage and full turnover storage.

Travel time models from the prospective of crane command cycles

An AS/RS crane can have single or multi shuttle. A single shuttle AS/RS can perform single SC
or DC cycles. In a SC, either one storage operation or retrieval operation can be performed in
each cycle. However, in DC cycles, both storage and retrieval operation can be performed in
each cycle. A multi-shuttle AS/RS consists of more than one shuttle, where each shuttle can
handle one storage and retrieval of the items in each cycle (Sarker & Babu, 1995; Meller &
Mungwattana, 1997; Potrč et al., 2004).

Hausman et al. (1976) perform one of the first studies of the travel time model for SC cycle.
Graves et al. (1977), Bozer & White (1984) and Pan& Wang (1996) consider both SC and DC
cycle with some other system configurations. Bozer & White (1984) have presented several
Closed - form expressions for different I/O point configurations by considering normalized
rectangular rack with length of 1.0 and height of shape factor in terms of time.

Sarker et al. (1991) analyze the double-shuttle AS/RS by considering FC cycle under NN
scheduling rule. They show that performing double shuttle system under NN scheduling rule
would outperform the throughput performance of single shuttle systems.
Foley & Frazelle (1991) consider end-of-the-aisle mini-load AS/RS with DC cycle. They assume
the rack is square-in-time and uniformly distributed, and the pick times are distributed
deterministically or exponentially. They derive the closed-form expression for maximum
throughput of system.

Travel time models from the prospective of crane operating characteristic

Most of studies have ignored the acceleration and deceleration of the crane, and assumed a
constant speed for the crane. Guenov and Raeside (1989) realize by their study that an optimum
Chebyshev travel tour may be up to 3% higher than the optimal travel times when model
considers the acceleration/deceleration of the crane. Hwang & Lee (1990) derive the continuous
travel time model by considering both maximum velocity and the time required to reach the peak
velocity. They consider SC and DC cycle under randomized storage policy.
Chang et al. (1995) extend the work of Bozer & White (1984) by considering the speed
specifications that exist in real-world problems. Chang & Wen (1997) extend Chang et al., 1995)
to find out the impact of rack configurations on the crane speed profile. Wen et al. (2001) is
another extension of Chang et al. (1995) which consider different travel speeds, where the
acceleration and deceleration rates are known. They concluded that their exponential travel time
model has satisfactory performance.

Travel time models from the prospective of alternative I/O point(s) position
Bozer and White (1984) develop and analyze the expected travel time of five alternative I/O
point configurations. They assume that the I/O point can be located at:
a) the lower-left corner of the aisle;
b) the opposite ends of the aisle;
c) the same end of the aisle, but at different elevations;
 d) the same elevation, but at a midpoint in the aisle; and
e) the end of the aisle, but elevated. All five configurations consider only one input and
one output point. The MIAPP (multiple in the aisle point position)-AS/RS has multiple
in-the-aisle points that are not necessarily located at the corner of the rack; therefore,
their models are not applicable.
Randhawa & Shroff (1995) extende the work of Randhawa et al. (1991). They perform a
comprehensive study that evaluate the performance of six different layouts with single I/O point
(but the location varies) performing under three different scheduling policies. Their simulation
model considers three different performance measures including system throughput, waiting
times, and rejects of I/O queues. The results show that locating the I/O point at the middle of the
rack can obtain higher throughput.

Ashayeri et al. (2002) develop geometrical algorithm to derive the travel time and throughput of
AS/RS under zone-based storage assignment. They consider one, double (located at two opposite
side of floor level), and multiple I/O points.

Vasili et al. (2008) develop a novel configuration in split-platform AS/RS (SP-AS/RS) where the
I/O point is located at the middle of the rack. They consider a continuous approximation of the
rack to model the expected travel time, reduce the mean handling travel time in the system, and
validate their model through Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that their proposed
configuration, for some particular ranges of shape factor, improve the expected travel time
comparing to Chen et al. (2003) and Hu et al. (2005).

Existing AS/RS Storage Assignment Models

A storage assignment policy determines the assignment of items to storage locations. The
primary goal of a storage policy is to minimize the average travel time subject to satisfying
various system constraints (Goetschalckx and Ratliff, 1990). The three most often used storage
policies in the literature are randomized storage, dedicated storage, and class-based storage (see
e.g., Hausman et al. (1976); Graves et al. (1977); Schwarz et al. (1978); Goetschalckx and
Ratliff (1990); Kouvelis and Papanicolaou (1995); Van den Berg (1999); Roodbergen and Vis
(2009)). Hausman et al. (1976) find that a significant reduction in travel time can be achieved
using class-based turnover assignment policies rather than randomized storage policies. Both
Rosenblatt and Eynan (1989) and Eynan and Rosenblatt (1994) consider the optimal boundaries
for n-class storage racks. They conclude that a storage rack with a limited number of classes (less
than 10) can improve the travel time compared to a full-turnover policy. Guenov and Raeside
(1992) compare three different zone shapes under DC scheduling. They conclude that
performance of the proposed shapes depends on the location of the I/O point. Goetschalckx and
Ratliff (1990) consider dedicated storage policies and shared storage policies. They develop a
duration-of-stay (DOS) shared policy for unit-load system with balanced input and output.
Kulturel et al. (1999) compare two shared storage assignment policies with respect to their
average travel time by using computer simulation.

Several methods exist for assigning products to storage locations in the racks. Five often used
storage assignment policies for AS/RSs are described here in more detail These rules are:
▪ dedicated storage assignment
▪ random storage assignment
▪ closest open location storage assignment
▪ full-turnover-based storage assignment
▪ class-based storage assignment
For the dedicated storage method each product type is assigned to a fixed location.
Replenishments of that product always occur at this same location. The main disadvantage of
dedicated storage are its high space requirements and consequent low space utilisation. This is
due to the fact that locations are reserved even for products that are out of stock. Furthermore,
for each product type sufficient space must be reserved to accommodate the maximum inventory
level that may occur. Most advantages of dedicated storage, such as locating heavy products at
the bottom or matching the layout of stores, are related to non-automated order-picking areas and
are not as interesting for AS/RSs. For random storage all empty locations have an equal
probability of having an incoming load assigned to it. If the closest open location storage is
applied, the first empty location that is encountered will be used to store the products. This
typically leads to an AS/RS where racks are full around the I/O-points and gradually more empty
towards the back (if there is excess capacity).
The full-turnover storage policy determines storage locations for loads based on their demand
frequency. Frequently requested products get the easiest accessible locations, usually near the
I/O-points. Slow-moving products are located farther away from the I/O-point. An important
assumption for this rule is that the turnover frequencies need to be known beforehand. Heskett
(1963, 1964) presents the cube-per-order index (COI) rule, which is a form of full-turnover
storage. The COI of a load is defined as the ratio of the load’s required storage space to the
number of request for this product per period. The COI rule assigns loads with the lowest COI to
the locations closest to the I/O-point. Malmborg and Bhaskaran (1990) give a proof of optimality
for this rule while taking into account the non-uniqueness of the COI layout if dual command
scheduling is used. Malmborg and Krishnakumar (1989) show that the COI-rule is optimal for
person-aboard AS/RSs with respect to order-picking costs if there are fixed inventory levels and
a fixed balanced assignment of order pickers to items. However, according to Lee (1992) the
COI-rule cannot be applied for person-on-board systems due to the fact that an order usually
consists of more than two independent items at different locations.

Summary of Literature Review

In both manufacturing and distribution environments, automated storage and retrieval systems
are used to store products and to retrieve products from storage in response to production orders
or customers’ orders. In designing an automated storage and retrieval systems, various physical
design problems and control problems need to be solved. Little attention has been paid so far to
the relationship between automated storage and retrieval systems and other material handling
systems in production or distribution facilities. Especially in situations where the automated
storage and retrieval systems is just one of many systems, total warehouse performance cannot
be assessed by simply adding up performances of all individual systems. An integrated approach
would be desirable and we should develop approaches which simultaneously optimize the design
of an automated storage and retrieval systems and another material handling system.
 CHAPTER TWO

Design analysis

INTRODUCTION

The proposed physical structure of the ASRS consists of a single rack serviced by a crane with
independent controlled by horizontal, vertical and shuttle movement including external speed
control system using I/O modules. The communication networks proposed for the ASRS is using
serial communication between the control system, I/O modules and the desktop pc this pc operates
under windows 10 with LabVIEW installed in it, sitting between the Microsoft database, where
the database for storing the RFID tag serial number with their name of the component’s
specifications.

This chapter will outline the steps performed in specifying the above hardware and software for
the ASRS application and describes the part design with some selection of materials. Then it goes
onto describe the control, communication and interfacing of ASRS that research title was focused
on.

ASRS MECHANICAL DESIGN

Load size determination

Load size determination is the most important element in the design of an AS/RS and is based on
work flow information. Work flow is determined by variety and volume of part types and the type
of production system. Thus, the production system of electronic components production
companies is the most sophisticated and difficult to store and retrieve the produced fished products.
The width, length and height of rack structure of the AS/RS aisle are related to the unit load
dimensions. The dimensions of the unit load with proper clearances provide the individual storage
space dimensions and account for the size of supporting beams in the rack structure. Storing unique
items of unusual and complex shape are excluded from the AS/RS design. Weight of the unit load
is also considered in the structural design
The design specification of the module(compartment) which used for storing packed product i.e.
the electronic component and the mass of unit load is as below

Unit load mass = 5Kg

Dimension of the module is

Height(h) = 50cm

Width(b) = 40cm

Length(l) =40cm

Estimating storage space number

Let l, b and h be the length, width and height of the unit load. The length (L), width (W) and height
(H) of the rack structure of the AS/RS aisle are related to the unit load dimensions and number of
compartments as follows

L=ny (l + x)

W= u (b + y)

H = nz (h + z)

Where ny = number of load compartments along the length which is equal to 45

nz= number of load compartments along the height which is equal to 9
x, y, and z are allowances designed into each storage compartment to provide clearance
for the unit load which is equal to 4 cm; u is storage depth in number of units loads equal to .91
so, the length and the height of the compartment

L=ny (l + x)

L=45 (.4 + .04)

L=20m
Similarly, height and width

H = nz (h + z)

H = 9(.5 + .04)

H = 4.85m

H = 5m

Width,

W= u (b + y)

W= .91 (40 + 44)

W= 40cm

The total storage capacity of one storage aisle is expressed as follows

Capacity of aisle = ny* nz

Capacity of aisle= 45*9

Capacity of aisle=405

Determination of Single command Cycle Time and system throughput of AS/RS

In single operation It performs either storage or a retrieval operation. There are certain steps that are
followed in storage or retrieval cycle to determine the cycle time. In case of storage cycle, machine picks
up a load, travels to the storage location, deposits the load, and returns empty to the P/D station. Similarly,
in a retrieval cycle, the S/R machine begins at the P/D station and travels empty to the retrieval location.
Thereafter, it picks up the load, travels to the P/D station, and deposits the load.

Cycle time is determined in case of dual-command cycle when it starts its operation with the S/R machine
at the P/D station. The machine picks up the load and travel to the storage location to put down the load.
Thereafter, the machine travels to the retrieval location to recover the load. Finally, it travels back to the
P/D station to deposit the load. that means it does not return empty to the p/d station. This operation is out
of this research scope.

Bozer and White (1984) derived an expression for cycle time based on following assumptions:

• Patterned storage of loads in the AS/RS

• Horizontal and vertical velocities of the S/R machines are constant
• Rack openings are of single-size
• P/D station is located at the base and at the end of the aisle

Time required travelling full horizontal length and vertical height of an aisle is given by

𝐿 𝐻
𝑇ℎ = v , 𝑇 𝑣 = v
ℎ 𝑣

where Vh and Vv are the average horizontal and vertical speeds of S/R machines

𝑣ℎ =5m/s

And 𝑣𝑣 = .25m/s so,

20𝑚
𝑇ℎ = 5𝑚/𝑠, 𝑇ℎ =4sec and the vertical travel time

𝐻 5
𝑇 𝑣 = v , 𝑇 𝑣 =.25𝑚/𝑠, 𝑇 𝑣 =20sec
𝑣

For single-command cycle, cycle time is given as

𝑀2
𝑇𝑠𝑐 =T( + 1) + 2𝑇𝑝𝑑
3

where Tsc = single-command cycle time,

T = max (Th, Tv),
M = min (Th / T, Tv/T),
Tpd = time to perform either a pick up or deposit,
Th = time taken to traverse full horizontal aisle distance, and
Tv= time taken to traverse full vertical aisle distance
So now find the value of T,M, 𝑇𝑝𝑑

T = max (Th, Tv),

T = max (4sec, 20sec),

T =20sec

M = min (Th / T, Tv/T),

4𝑠𝑒𝑐 20𝑠𝑒𝑐
M=min( , )
5𝑠𝑒𝑐 5𝑠𝑒𝑐

M=min(.8, 4)

M=.8 and finally 𝑇𝑝𝑑 =4sec

So, for single cycle, cycle time is equal to

𝑀2
𝑇𝑠𝑐 =T ( + 1) + 2𝑇𝑝𝑑
3

.82
𝑇𝑠𝑐 =20 ( 3 + 1) + 2*4sec

𝑇𝑠𝑐 =32.26sec

system throughput

That means it takes 32.26 sec to accomplish a single operation or one single command. Therefore
to find the operation per hour we can calculate using

1opration=32.26sec

? operations =3600sec (seconds in one hour)

3600
Operation in 1hour =32.26,
 =111.57

= 112 operations per hour which is also called system throughput.

Design of chain derive and sprocket

These chains are used for hoisting purposes and operate at a maximum velocity of 0.25 m / s. the suitable form of
chain from available type of hoist purpose chain is Chain with oval links. The links of this type of chain are of oval
shape, as shown in Fig. below

The joint of each link is welded. The sprockets which are used for this type of chain have receptacles
to receive the links. Such type of chain is operate only at low speeds.

The chains are mostly used to transmit motion and power from one shaft to another, when the center distance between
their shafts is short such as in bicycles, motor cycles, agricultural machinery, conveyors, rolling mills, road rollers etc.
The chains may also be used for long center distance of up to 10 meters. The chains are used for velocities up to 25 m
/ s and for power up to 110 kW. In some cases, higher power transmission is also possible.

1) determine the velocity ratio of the drive

𝑛1
𝑉𝑅 = ,
𝑛2

which is the rpm of the driving sprocket and driven sprocket which are the same in size and speed

𝑛1
𝑉𝑅 = , 𝑉𝑅 =1
𝑛2

For roller type of chain number of teeth for the sprocket with 𝑉𝑅 =1 from the table below is

Type of chain Number of teeth at 𝑉𝑅

1 2 3 4 5 6
Roller 31 27 25 23 21 17

Silent 40 35 31 27 23 19

So the number of teeth for 𝑉𝑅 =1 is 𝑇1 =31 to find 𝑇2

𝑛2 𝑇
=𝑇1 , 𝑇2=1*𝑇1 , 𝑇2=31
𝑛1 2
We know that design power is equal to rated power times service factors (𝑘𝑠 )

The service factor (𝑘𝑠 ) is the product of various factors (𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑘3 )

Load factor 𝑘1 for a variable load with heavy shock = 1.5

Lubrication factor 𝑘2 for drop Lubrication =1

Rating factor 𝑘3 for 16 hours per day =1.25

Therefore, the service factor 𝑘𝑠 = 𝑘1 *𝑘2 ∗ 𝑘3

𝑘𝑠 = 1.5*1*1.25

𝑘𝑠 = 1.875

Design power = 15*1.875

=28.125kw

From the table below given below we can find the specification

Speed of sprocket Power in KW

06B 08B 10B 12B 16B
100 0.25 .64 1.18 02.01 4.83

200 0.47 1.18 2.19 3.75 8.94

300 0.61 1.70 3.15 5.43 13.06

500 1.09 2.72 5.01 8.53 20.57

700 1.48 3.66 6.71 11.63 27.73

1000 2.03 5.09 8.97 15.65 34.89

1400 2.73 6.81 11.67 18.15 38.47

1800 3.44 8.10 13.03 19.85 –

 2000 3.80 8.67 13.49 20.57 –

From the above Table , we find that corresponding to a pinion speed of 1000 r.p.m the power transmitted for chain
No. 12B is 15.65 kW per strand. Therefore, a chain No. 12B with two strands can be used to transmit the required
power. From Table below, we find that

ISO Chain Pitch (p) mm Roller Width Transverse Breaking load (KN) minimum
number diameter between Pitch (p1)
(d1) mm inner mm
maximum plate(b1)
simplex duplex triplex
mm
maximum
05B 8.00 5.00 3.00 5.64 4.4 7.8 11.1
06B 9.525 6.35 5.72 10.24 8.9 16.9 24.9
10B 15.875 10.16 9.65 16.59 22.2 44.5 66.7 66.7
12B 19.05 12.07 11.68 19.46 28.9 57.8 86.7
16B 25.4 15.88 17.02 31.88 42.3 84.5 126.8
20B 31.75 19.05 19.56 36.45 64.5 129 193.5

From the above table the ISO number of the chain is 12B

So, pitch =19.05mm

Roller diameter (d1) mm =12.07mm
Breaking load (KN) minimum =28.9KW
We know the pitch circle diameter of the sprocket is
180
𝑑1 =p*cosec ( 𝑇 )
1

180
𝑑1 =19.05*cosec ( 31 )

𝑑1 = 188mm
𝑑1 = 0.188m
The diameter of driving and the driven sprocket are equal
𝑑1 = 𝑑2 = 188mm
𝑑1 = 𝑑2 = 0.188m
Pitch line velocity
𝜋dn
𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 60 m/s
𝜋∗.188∗1000
𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 = m/s
60
 𝑣𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 9.84m/s

Load on the chain

Rated power = material load +w*pitch line velocity

Rated power = 15kg*9.81kg/se*.25 + w*9.84

15kw =.03678kw + w*9.84

14.96
W= 9.84 =1.520KN

W (load on the chain) = 1520N

𝑊𝑏 28.89
Factor of safety = = =19.26
𝑤 15

This value is more than expected value which is 11.

The minimum center distance between the driving should more than 30 times pitch

=246*19.05

= 4,686.3

In order to accommodate initial sag in the chain the value of center distance is reduced by 2 to 5

X = 4,686.3-2

X = 4,684.3
 Analytical analysis jib crane
➢ Jib crane specification
✓ Load carrying capacity(Q)=15kg
✓ Span length(L)=5m
✓ Distance between race way(S)=2.5m
✓ Translation speed of crane(Vtrans)=1m/s
✓ Acceleration time time trolley (taccel) =5sec

• Rectangular section beam, 140*80, carrying load - 15Kg

Table: design details of rectangular section beam size 148*80

Sectional area S=16.55 * 10-4 m2

Sectional modulus Wx = 61.37 * 10-6 m3
Wy = 45.10 * 10-6 m3

Load of trolley (K) =10Kg/m

Load of lift (l) =5kg/m

➢ Use the above given necessary to calculate the own weight, the service load, the horizontal
load due to the own weight as the result of the crane translation.
1. Self weight (Qg)
Self weight (Qg) = weight of load trolley (p) ×distance between race way(S)
Qg = 10Kg/m×9.81m/ s^2 8× 2.5m
Qg = 245.25N /m
2. Service load(P)
Service load (P) = load of trolley (K)×gravity + load of lift (l)
P = 10Kg/m×9.81m/s^2 + 5Kg/m×9.81m/s^2
P = 147.15N/m
3. Horizontal load due to weight in the translation of crane (Qh)
Qh = acceleration per gravity(a/g)×load of lift(l)×gravity(g)
Qh = a/g×l
Qh = Vtrans/taccel/g×lg/g

Qh = Vtrans/ taccel ×l
Qh = 1/5×5
Qh = 1N/m
➢ Flexure moment and the stress created by the load in the most section are: Mmax1, Mmax2
and Mmax3.
1. Mmax1 = QgL^2/2
Mmax1 = 245.25×5^2/2
Mmax1 = 3065.625Nm
2. Mmax2 = P×L
Mmax2 = 147.15×5
Mmax2 = 735.75Nm
3. Mmax3 = Qh×L^2/2
Mmax3 = 1×5^2/2
Mmax3 = 12.5Nm

➢ As the loads 1 and 2 are vertical and the load 3 are horizontal different section modulus (W)
are used. stress created by the flexure moment are:
 • Stress one(σ1) = Mmax1/Wx
= 3065.625/ 61.37 * 10-6 m^3
= 49.95MPa
• Stress one(σ2) = Mmax2/Wx
= 735.75Nm / 61.37 * 10-6 m^3
= 49.95MPa
= 11.98Mpa
• Stress one(σ3) = Mmax3/Wy
= 12.5Nm / 4.10*10-6 m^3
= 0.27Mpa
Stress on the most critical section is (σ)
σ = σ1+ σ2+ σ3
σ = 49.95+11.98+0.27
σ = 62.2Mpa