OK Beamer

ENES 220 Crane Design Project

December 11, 2020
Maren Berman - Section 0601
Brach Jaworski - Section 0601
Azariah Knox - Section 0601
Joseph Monaghan - Section 0601
Ben Schrecongost - Section 0601
Lindsay Yee - Section 0101
 Table of Contents
Student Responsibilities Table…………………………………………..2
Executive Summary……………………………………………………..3
Introduction……………………………………………………………...4
Material Properties………………………………………………………5
Technical Engineering Drawings……………………………………...5-7
Component Dimensions…………………………………………………7
Calculations
-Maximum Bending Stress……………………………………...7-8
-Maximum Shear Stress……………………………………………
-Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams………………...8-10
-Sag Distance/Beam Deflection………………………………….11
-Maximum Slope………………………………………………...12
-Cable Diameter/Pulley Design.....................................................13
-Maximum Torsional Shear Stress/Safety Factor………………..13
-Motor Power/Speed Rating……………………………………..13
Conclusion/Recommendations…………………………………......14-15
Appendix………………………………………………………………16

1
 Student Responsibilities
Joseph Ben Maren Brach Azariah Lindsay
Monaghan Schrecongost Berman Jaworski Knox Yee

Group Name
X
Executive
Summary
X X X
Introduction
X X
Material
Properties
X X
Technical
Engineering
X X
Drawings

Component
Dimensions
X X
Final Weight
X X X
Maximum
Bending Stress
X X
Sag
Distance/Bea
X X X
m Deflection

Maximum
Slope
X X
Shear and
Moment
X X X
diagrams

2
 Cable
Diameter
X X X X
Max Torsional
Shear Stress/
X X X
Safety Factor

Motor
Power/Speed
X X
Rating

Conclusion
X
Appendix
X
Executive Summary

The materials we used to construct our

beam were 1020-HR Steel and 6061-T6

Aluminum. We used the steel for the

construction of our I beams, while we used

the aluminum for the drum of our pulley

system. The final overall weight of our

system is 44233 lb. Our structure of I

beams is simply supported. The sag distance at the midspan with no live load is -0.4718 inches.

The maximum vertical deflection including the live load and trolley system is -2.5608 inches.

−5
The maximum slope of our structure under maximum live load at the midspan is − 8. 045×10 𝑟𝑎𝑑

or -0.0046 degrees. The maximum bending stress in our structure is 17.79 ksi, and its corresponding

safety factor is 2.36. The maximum transverse shear stress in our structure is 2.454 ksi, and its

corresponding safety factor is 17.11. The diameter of the cable in our pulley system to lift the 100 kip load

is 0.5642 inches. The pulley ratio on the hoist is 2 to reduce the amount of force put on the motor to lift

the load. The diameter of the drum is 11.284 inches. The maximum torsional shear stress in the drum is

3
10.103, and its corresponding safety factor is 2 to optimize the weight of our structure This makes the

safety factor for torsional shear stress in the drum 2, allowing us to increase the value of the drum’s inside

diameter, which will decrease the weight of the structure. We did not have to use bolts for our design. All

of these calculations follow the specifications given in the project description.

Introduction
This project required us to design a crane made of one or more identical I-beams. This

crane must be a length of 80 feet, and raise 100 kip load a height of 30 ft in less than five

minutes. Along with the aforementioned specifications, the project guidelines had us design a

lifting system consisting of a drum, cables, and a motor. We began this project with the intention

of sticking to a simply supported (pin and roller) beam despite the mechanical trade offs. Simply

supported beams are often easier to calculate and design so we knew we wanted to do this as

opposed to a cantilever beam which can be stronger but more difficult to calculate. We also knew

we wanted to use the I-beams in Appendix C. After calculating the Z value, we knew one I-beam

was not going to be enough to effectively support the specified max load. We then had to figure

out which I-beam to use and how to arrange multiple I-beams for the crane. We were not sure if

it would be better to stack them on top of each other or side by side. To find the best I-beam for

our design, we wanted to test all the beams based on their calculated safety factors and material.

From the project guidelines, we knew that a safety factor below 2 was unsafe, and safety factors

above 4 were not optimized. We then made a spreadsheet that tested all of the I-beams in

Appendix C using one, two, three or four I-beams together (knowing we could not use more than

4 I-beams) and how it would affect the maximum moment, bending stress, safety factor, and

4
weight. It was through these calculations that we were able to discover the best design would be

to have two I-beams together to optimize safety factor while using the least amount of materials.

The I-beam we chose to use is the W36x230 beam, which has a safety factor of around 2 and

keeps the overall weight down. We then chose to arrange two I-beams together side by side using

1020-HR steel.

Material Properties
2 W36x230 1020-HR Steel beams side-by-side

Alloy 1020-HR steel 6061-T6 Aluminum

     
Modulus of Elasticity (E) 30,000 ksi 10,400 ksi
Yield Strength (Sy) 42 ksi 35 ksi
Ultimate Tensile Strength (Su) 66 ksi 38 ksi
3
Weight Density (γ) 0.284 lb/in 0.098 lb/in3

Technical Engineering Drawings

** All dimensions are in inches**

Single W36x230 beam

5
2 W36x230 Beams Together

6
Component Dimensions

7
I Beam Dimensions (1020-HR Steel)
We used a Google Sheets File to calculate the maximum moment and bending stress, as well as
safety factor and weight.
Flange Width = 16.470 inches
Flange Thickness = 1.260 inches
Web Thickness = 0.760 inches
Depth = 35.90 inches
Pulley Dimensions (6061-T6 Aluminum Drum)
Outer Drum Diameter = 11.284 in
Inner Drum Diameter = 10.280 in
Cable Length = 720 in
Cable Diameter = 0.5642 in

8
 Calculations
Maximum Bending Stress/Shear Stress and Safety Factors
Maximum Moment=(Length*(2*(Force/Number of Beams)+(1.2*Density*Area*Length)))/8
(( 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
) )
𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 2* # 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚𝑠 +(1.2*𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦*𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎*𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)
8

Maximum Moment=(960 in*(2*(102 kip/2)+(1.2*0.284 lb/in3*67.6 in2*960

in)))/8=14893986.82 lb*in
Maximum Bending Stress=M/Z=14893986.82 lb*in/837in3=17794.48 psi=17.79 ksi
Bending Stress Safety Factor=42 ksi/17.79 ksi=2.36
Q=(12.6844 in2*8.345 in) +(20.7522 in2*17.32 in)=465.28 in3
b=0.76 in
Maximum Transverse Shear Stress=VQ/Ib=((60135 lb)*(465.28 in3))/((15000 in4)*(0.76
in))=2454 psi

𝑉=𝐹 +
2
ρ𝐴𝐿 −3𝐹
= 51 𝑘𝑖𝑝 +
(0.284 )(67.6 𝑖𝑛 )(80 𝑓𝑡) −3(51 𝑘𝑖𝑝)
𝑙𝑏
𝑖𝑛
3
2 2

= 60135. 545 𝑝𝑠𝑖

2𝐿 2(80 𝑓𝑡)

Safety Factor=42000 psi/2454 psi=17.11

Shear Force and Bending Moment Diagrams

When load is centered at 40 feet:

9
Max shear force: ±34715.232

10
When load is at end:

2
𝐿 ρ𝐴𝐿 ρ𝐴𝐿
∑ 𝑀𝐴 = 𝐿𝑅𝐵 − ρ𝐴𝐿∙ 2
= 0, 𝐿𝑅𝐵 = 2
, 𝑅𝐵 = 2

ρ𝐴𝐿
∑ 𝐹𝑦 =− 𝐹 − ρ𝐴𝐿 + 𝑅𝐴 + 𝑅𝐵 = 0, 𝑅𝐴 =− 𝑅𝐵 + 𝐹 + ρ𝐴𝐿 =− 2
+ 𝐹 + ρ𝐴𝐿,
ρ𝐴𝐿
𝑅𝐴 = 𝐹 + 2

ρ𝐴𝐿 ρ𝐴𝐿
@ 0 ft: 𝑉 = 𝑅𝐴 − 𝐹 = 𝐹 + 2
− 𝐹= 2
=9215.232 lb

@ 40 ft (L/2): 𝑉 = 𝑅𝐴 − 𝐹 − ρ𝐴 ( )= 𝐹 +
𝐿
2
ρ𝐴𝐿
2
− 𝐹 − ρ𝐴 ( ) =0 lb
𝐿
2

ρ𝐴𝐿 ρ𝐴𝐿
@ 80 ft (L): 𝑉 = 𝑅𝐴 − 𝐹 − ρ𝐴𝐿 = 𝐹 + 2
− 𝐹 − ρ𝐴𝐿 =− 2
=-9215.232 lb

And then at 80 feet you can add back in the reaction force to come to a shear of 0 kip

11
12
check if you need to use 1.2pA as the weight or just pA
Sag Distance/Beam Deflection

𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
−5𝑞𝐿
4
=
(
−5 0.284
𝑙𝑏
3
𝑖𝑛
·67.6 𝑖𝑛 )(80 𝑓𝑡·
2 12 𝑖𝑛 4
1 𝑓𝑡 )
=− 0. 4718 𝑖𝑛
384𝐸𝐼 3 4
(
384 30000×10 𝑝𝑠𝑖 15000 𝑖𝑛 )( )

12 𝑖𝑛 3
−𝐹𝐿
3
(
− 1×10 𝑙𝑏 80 𝑓𝑡∙
3
)( 1 𝑓𝑡)
𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 48𝐸𝐼
= 3 4 =− 0. 04096 𝑖𝑛
(
48 30000×10 𝑝𝑠𝑖 15000 𝑖𝑛 )( )

12 𝑖𝑛 3
−𝐹𝐿
3
(
− 50×10 𝑙𝑏 80 𝑓𝑡∙
3
)( 1 𝑓𝑡 )
𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 48𝐸𝐼
= 3 4 =− 2. 048 𝑖𝑛
(
48 30000×10 𝑝𝑠𝑖 15000 𝑖𝑛 )( )

Sag w/o any load: -0.4718 inches

Maximum deflection: -2.5608 inches

13
Maximum Slope

Knowns –
4 𝑙𝑏 2
𝐸 = 30000 𝑘𝑠𝑖, 𝐼 = 15000 𝑖𝑛 , ρ = 0. 284 3 , 𝐴 = 67. 6 𝑖𝑛 , 𝐿 = 80 𝑓𝑡 = 960 𝑖𝑛
𝑖𝑛

EIy’’ & Integration –

'' 2
𝐸𝐼𝑦 = 𝑅𝑥 − 51〈𝑥 − 40〉 − ρ𝐴𝑥 + 𝑅〈𝑥 − 80〉
' 𝑅 2 51 2 ρ𝐴 3 𝑅 2
𝐸𝐼𝑦 = 2
𝑥 − 2
〈𝑥 − 40〉 − 3
𝑥 + 2
〈𝑥 − 80〉 + 𝐶1

𝑅 3 51 3 ρ𝐴 4 𝑅 3
𝐸𝐼𝑦 = 6
𝑥 − 6
〈𝑥 − 40〉 − 12
𝑥 + 6
〈𝑥 − 80〉 + 𝐶1𝑥 + 𝐶2

Boundary Conditions –
𝑥 = 0, 𝑦 = 0:
𝑅 3 51 3 ρ𝐴 4 𝑅 3
𝐸𝐼𝑦 𝑥 = 0 | = 0 = 6
(0) − 6
〈0 − 40〉 − 12
(0) + 6
〈0 − 80〉 + 𝐶1(0) + 𝐶2

3
𝐶2 = 0 𝑙𝑏∙𝑖𝑛

𝑥 = 80, 𝑦 = 0:
𝑅 3 51 3 ρ𝐴 4 𝑅 3
𝐸𝐼𝑦 𝑥 = 80 | = 0 = 6
(80) − 6
〈80 − 40〉 − 12
(80) + 6
〈80 − 80〉 + 𝐶1(80) + 0

2
𝐶1 =− 36203649. 07 𝑙𝑏∙𝑖𝑛

Slope –
𝐶1 −36203649.07 𝑙𝑏∙𝑖𝑛
2
−5 360°
𝑦' 𝑥 = 0 | = = =− 8. 045×10 𝑟𝑎𝑑∙ =− 0. 0046°
𝐸𝐼
( 30000×10
3 𝑙𝑏
𝑖𝑛
2 )(15000 𝑖𝑛 ) 4 2π 𝑟𝑎𝑑

14
Cable Diameter/Pulley System Design
Mechanical Advantage = (output force)/(input force)=(100 kip)/(50 kip)=2

Stress = Force/Area

Area = Cable Tension/Working Strength=(50 kip)/(200 ksi)=0.25 in2

Cable Diameter = [(4/π)*(Area)]^(1/2)= [(4/π)*(0.25)]^(1/2)=0.5642 in

Maximum Torsional Shear Stress/Safety Factor

Drum Diameter = Cable Diameter*20 = (0.5642 in) x 20=11.284 in

Torque = (Cable Tension)*(Drum Diameter)/2=(50 kip)*(11.284 in)/2=282.09 x

103 in*lb

Cable Length = 30ft*(12in/ft)*Mechanical Advantage=720 in

Safety Factor = 2 (to optimize weight)

τmax=(Sy)Al/√3*SF=(35 ksi)/2*√3=10.103 ksi

Motor Power/Speed Rating

Speed Rating=(Cable Length)/(5*π*(Drum Diameter))=720in/(5*π*11.284in)=4.062 RPM

4.062 rev/min*(π/30)=.4254 rad/sec

Motor Power=Torque*Speed=(282.09x103 in*lb)*(.4254 rad/sec)=120x103 in*lb/sec

Horse Power = (Motor Power)/6600 = 18.18 HP

τmax=16*(Torque)*(Drum Diameter)/π*[(Drum Diameter)^4-(Inner Diameter)^4)]

Inner Diameter={(Drum Diameter)^4-[16*(Torque)*(Drum Diameter)/(π*τmax)]}^(¼)

Inner Diameter=10.994 in

15
 Conclusion & Recommendations for Design Improvement

The design and optimization of this crane system was an adventure, to say the least. Having spent

days choosing the dimensions and orientation alone, and of course countless hours scrutinizing

calculations, graphs, and analyses, this final project was an eighty foot, forty-four thousand two

hundred twenty-three pound labor of love. Although we are proud and content with our deliverables,

there is certainly room for improvement.

After our group was formed and we decided to finally crack open the Pandora’s Box that was the

“ENES 220 Semester Project Fall 2020 - Remote Option”, we spent a few days meeting purely to dissect

Appendix C and select the I Beam configuration that suited us best. Improvement opportunities run

rampant here... We went in circles, visited every office hour we could, and eventually gathered a measly

understanding of what hunk of steel (or aluminum) would best carry us through the remainder of the

journey. To avoid this daunting phase of gathering information, we could have started looking at the

project requirements and Appendix C earlier in the semester. This would have made the transition to the

calculation stage significantly smoother, and provided a confidence and morale that can only be obtained

by such preparedness.

As we chugged along through calculations, “turning cranks” and “committing math” like it was

our job, we found that dividing necessary calculations between group members was less effective than

meeting up and all tackling the same section at once. Errors were more easily caught when a few people

focused on one item and worked the whole way through it together, rather than scattering to check another

member’s arithmetic that was done days ago. If we ever encounter a situation like this again, we will be

sure to stick to that tried and true method, rather than look for a fast fix by having each member handle a

calculation themselves.

Now, if we were to improve our procedure to its absolute highest potential, we would recruit the

power of computer science. As we pondered, weak and weary, the hundreds of potential combinations of

dimensions, materials, layouts, and variables, it came to our attention that we were using the power of

16
man to do the work of a machine. The ultimate improvement to our procedure would be writing code that

incorporated every equation we used throughout all of our calculations and then cycled through every

single potential combination of selectable variables at the speed of light. This, if executed properly, would

provide the safety factors and strength to weight ratios for every possible setup, and ultimately yield us

the perfect overhead travelling crane. Ours, however, is perfect to us, so maybe we give this a shot next

time…

Room for improvement can be found in everything, especially a cumulative, several week long

group project at Zoom University. That being said, it is with the utmost pride that we present to you our

crane project: a depiction of a semester of engineering mechanics studies and a lifetime of problem

solving. As the culmination of all we have learned thus far, this project was invaluable; an awesome

representation of real skills we can apply to real life and hopefully prolific careers.

17
Appendix

18