AM16 IMPROVEMENT IN THE DESIGN OF WINCHES

submitted by Lim Buan Teck, Danny

Department of Mechanical Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering National University of Singapore

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, determination of critical thickness of the drum is crucially important to balance manufacturing cost and safety of operation.

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 formulae were derived.

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 rope relaxation so as to achieve the objective in this thesis.

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, support and sharing of his knowledge Plimsoll Cooperation Pte Ltd, for the collaboration of the research and the visit and data provided. Mr Leow Beng Kwang, and fellow research students for their advice and support All the technicians in the Dynamics/Vibration Lab for their assistance.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF SYMBOLS Page i iii iv vi viii ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 OBJECTIVE BACKGROUND SCOPE

1 1 1 4 5 5 6 8 8 12 12 13 15 15

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE RESEARCH 2.1 2.2 DEFINATION OF A WINCH RESEARCH DONE

CHAPTER 3: MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION 3.1 3.2 DERIVATION OF FORMULAE DNV STANDARD 3.2.1 HOOP STRESS 3.2.2 3.3 MINIMUM REQUIRED THICKNESS

SAA STANDARD 3.3.1 MINIMUM REQUIRED THICKNESS

iv

3.3.2 HOOP STRESS 3.4 ANALYSIS OF DATA

16 17 18 18 19 19 21 21 23 24 28 30 32 34

CHAPTER 4: EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 EXPERIMENTAL SET UP MATERIAL STRAIN GAUGE STRAIN METER EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

CHAPTER 5 OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS 5.1 5.2 EXPERIMENT ONE EXPERIMENT TWO

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES 1. APPENDIX A 2. APPENDIX B 3. APPENDIX C

35 42 46

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 2 3 4a 4b A winch for marine application Trend on Steel Prices over the past 2 years A unprocessed drum Cylindrical shell Long thin cylindrical shell with closed ends under internal pressure. 4c Circumferential and longitudinal stresses in a thin cylinder with closed ends under internal pressure. 5 6a 6b Derivation of circumferential stress Schematic Diagram of loading on rope and cylinder Free body diagram of cylinder due to coiled wire rope under pulling force, S 6c 7 8 8a 9a 9b 10a 10b 10c Free body diagram of wire rope due to pulling force, S Schematic drawing of setup of prototype Schematic drawing of strain gauges positions A fixed strain gauge Strain indicator unit Switch and balance unit Position of strain gauges and loading condition Actual setup Actual coiling condition during experiment 10 18 20 20 21 21 24 24 24 9 10 10 8 Page 1 2 3 8 8

vi

11 12a 12b 13

Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 7kg Position of strain gauges and loading condition Actual setup Proposed setup for detail experiment data collection

25 28 28 32

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 Data for hoop stress and drum thickness from DNV Standard Data for hoop stress and drum thickness from SAA Standard Strain Readings for Experiment One Tabulated Result from Experiment One Strain Readings for Experiment Two Tabulated Results from Experiment Two Page 14 16 25 27 28 29

viii

List of Symbols
Symbol D.C. SAA DNV h,1 2 P r t Direct Current Standards Association of Australia Det Norske Veritas Circumferential (Hoop) stress Longitudinal stress Pressure Radius of Shell Thickness of shell Circumferential strain Youngs Modulus Poisson Ratio Longitudinal strain Pitch of rope coil Pulling force (Rope Tension) Rope layer factor (DNV) Thickness of drum (DNV) Empirical Thickness (SAA) Rope layer factor (SAA) Maximum rope load Permissible compressive/hoop stress Wire-rope core Page 5 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

1
E

2
p S C tav TDC KRL PRS FC WRC

ix

WSC N m mm PMMA SG

Wire-strand core Newton Meter Millimeter Polymethylmethacrylate Strain gauge

11 12 12 12 19 20

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.

Fig 1 A winch for marine application (source: [1])

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 Multi-National Companies (MNCs) have set up their manufacturing plants there. 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.

World Carbon Steel Product Prices

800

700

600

500 $US/tonne) Hot Rolled Coil Cold Rolled Coil Hot Rolled Plate

400

300

200

100

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 solution for companies to stay competitive. Material-efficient design is one of the solutions to cushion the increased price of steel. A material-efficient design has many benefits: 1. The cost of purchasing unprocessed steel material will be minimized. 2. The manufacturing methods can be simplified. 3. Transportation costs from steel supplier to manufacturing plant and finally to the consumer can be minimized.

D ec (0 Ja 2) n( 0 Fe 3) b( 03 M ar ) (0 Ap 3) r(0 M 3) ay (0 Ju 3) n( 03 Ju ) l (0 Au 3) g( 0 Se 3) p( 0 O 3) ct (0 N 3) ov (0 D 3) ec (0 Ja 3) n( 0 Fe 4) b( 0 M 4) ar (0 Ap 4) r(0 M 4) ay (0 Ju 4) n( 04 Ju ) l (0 Au 4) g( 0 Se 4) p( 0 O 4) ct (0 N 4) ov (0 4)
Date

Fig 2 Trend on Steel Prices over the past 2 years (source [2])

The aim of a material-efficient design is to eliminate excess material without compromising the safety and strength criteria. A good example of a material-efficient 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 to simplify the manufacturing process and to reduce the manufacturing cost.

Fig 3 A unprocessed drum

Reducing the materials needed for manufacturing the winch will in turn reduce the overall weight of the winch. The manufacturing plant requires unprocessed steel materials to be first shipped to Singapore. These unprocessed steels will be processed to 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.

Considering the benefits of a material-efficient design can provide to decrease production and transportation cost, and save steel consumption. It is of paramount importance to analysis the stress loading of a winch and improves the current design of an anchor handling and towing winch to be material-efficient.

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 calculations. Chapter 4 deals with the experimenting on a prototype modal, Chapter 5 deals with the observation of results and analysis, Chapter 6 deals with the conclusion and Chapter 7 deals with the recommendations.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE RESEARCH

2.1 DEFINITION OF A WINCH

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 winch is the mechanism used at a well-head for lifting water containers.

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.

Hydraulic and D.C. drive system are popular choice nevertheless because they can be speed and torque controlled over a wide range of conditions. 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 water-cooled if some dynamic action is required.

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.

2.2

RESEARCH DONE

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 one layer and hence the name of multi layered drum.

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 ein und mehrlagig bewickelter Seiltrommeln by Dilp.-Ing. Peter Dietz, published in the Journal of Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI-Verlag GmbH, Dusseldorf) Series 13, No12 July 1972, and Untersuchungen ber die Beanspruchung der Seiltrommeln von Kranen und Winden by Dr.-Ing. Helmut Ernst, published in Mitt.Forsch. Anst. GHHKonzern, September 1938. According to SAA Standard, it states the minimum 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 is no alternative to verify the reliability of the requirements. Nevertheless, the 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.

CHAPTER 3 MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

3.1 DERIVATION OF FORMULAE

Hoop stress or circumferential stress is produced when a cylindrical shell is under an external/internal pressure. Suppose a long circular shell is subjected to an internal 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.

Fig. 4b Long thin cylindrical shell with closed ends under internal pressure.

Fig. 4a Cylindrical shell

Fig 4c Circumferential and longitudinal stresses in a thin cylinder with closed ends under internal pressure. 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 1, acting circumferentially, and 2, acting longitudinally.

However, since the focus of the thesis is only on the hoop stress generated, therefore the derivation of 1 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 1; for equilibrium
P (2r 1) = 1 2(t 1)

Then

1 =

Pr t

(3.1)

This stress 1 is also known as the hoop (or circumferential) stress.

A t

P O

1 1 Fig 5 Derivation of circumferential stress

The circumferential and longitudinal stresses are accompanied by direct strains. If the material of the cylinder is elastic, the corresponding strains are given by

1 =
2 =

1 1 ( 1 2 ) = Pr 1 E Et 2
1 1 ( 2 1 ) = Pr 1 E Et 2

(3.2)

(3.3)

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 pulling tension. The relationship can be determined by examining Fig 6a. Cylinder Wire rope

S p

Fig 6a Schematic Diagram of loading on rope and cylinder

t O 1 1 Fig 6b Free body diagram of cylinder due to coiled wire rope under pulling force, S

P O S S Fig 6c Free body diagram of wire rope due to 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 the pulling forces S on rope; for equilibrium

1 (2t p ) = 2 S , where p is the pitch of rope coil

1 =

S pt

(3.4)

10

The conversion to create relationship between the rope tension and hoop stress is achieved but it is only applicable to loading of 1 layer of rope. It is of no economical 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:

h = C

S , S is rope tension, p is pitch of rope grooving, tav is thickness of pt drum and C is rope layer factor.

From the DNV Standard, the rope layer factor, C is given as C = 1 for 1 layer. = 1.75 for more than three layers.

The formulae and rope layer factor derived by the SAA Standard is given by
TDC = 1000 K RL PRS , KRL is the rope layer factor and rigidity constant of drum p Fc

shell, PRS is the maximum rope load (kN), p is the pitch of rope coils (mm) and FC is the permissible compressive/hoop stress (MPa).

11

From the SAA Standard, the rope layer factor, KRL is given as KRL = 1.0 for single layer = 1.3 for two layers of rope with wire-rope core(WRC) or wire-strand core (WSC) = 1.4 for two layers of rope with fibre core (FC) = 1.5 for three layers of rope with WRC or WSC = 1.6 for three layers of rope with FC = 1.6 for more than three layers of rope with WRC or WSC = 1.8 for more than three layers of rope with FC 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.

3.2

DNV STANDARD 3.2.1 HOOP STRESS

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 rope load capacity of the winch studied is 200Tonnes. Assumptions 1. The wire rope tension is 110% of the design rope load. 2. The pitch of the wire rope is 0.1m 3. The drum is calculated without stiffeners. 12

Ultimate Pulling Force, S = 1.1 x 200 x 103 x 9.81 = 2158.2kN Using the designed thickness of 70mm, hoop stress

h = C

S 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 = 539.6 N / mm 2 , for C = 1.75

Allowable hoop stress = 0.85 x 350 = 297.5N/mm2 Percentage difference = 308.3 297.5 100% = 3.63% , for C = 1. 297.5
539.6 297.5 100% = 81.4% , for C = 1.75. 297.5

Percentage difference =

3.2.2

MINIMUM REQUIRED THICKNESS

From the above section, the calculated hoop stress is more than the allowable hoop stress. Therefore, the designed thickness is insufficient to withstand the rope load. By rearranging the formula into

t av = C

S p h

(3.5)

the minimum required thickness can be calculated for different C, rope layer factors.

13

Using the allowable hoop stress to calculate the required thickness,

t av = C

S p h

(3.6)

2158.2 10 3 C = 0.1 297.5 10 6

= 0.0725m , for C=1 = 0.1270m , for C=1.75

Percentage difference =

72.5 70 100% = 3.57% , for C = 1. 70 127 70 100% = 81.4% , for C = 1.75 70 Original thickness (m) Percentage difference (%) 3.57% 81.4%

Percentage difference =

Hoop stress Allowable Percentage Thickness from difference hoop from designed stress allowable (%) thickness hoop stress (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (m) C=1 308.3 3.63% 0.0725 297.5 C = 1.75 539.6 81.4% 0.208 Table 1- Data for hoop stress and drum thickness from DNV Standard

0.07

14

3.3

SAA STANDARD 3.3.1 MINIMUM REQUIRED THICKNESS

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 rope load capacity of the winch studied is 200Tonnes. Assumptions 1. The wire rope tension is 110% of the design rope load. 2. The pitch of the wire rope is 0.1m 3. The drum is calculated without stiffeners.

Ultimate Pulling Force, S = 1.1 x 200 x 103 x 9.81 = 2158.2kN Allowable compressive/hoop stress = 0.85 x 350 = 210N/mm2

Using the allowable hoop stress, the minimum required thickness is

TDC = 1000 K RL PRS p Fc

1000 2158.2 K RL 100 210

= 102.8mm , KRL is 1

= 164.4mm , KRL is 1.6 = 185.0mm , KRL is 1.8

15

Percentage difference =

102.8 70 100% = 46.9% , for KRL = 1. 70 164.4 70 100% = 134.9% , for KRL = 1.6 70 185.0 70 100% = 164.3% , for KRL = 1.8 70

Percentage difference =

Percentage difference =

3.3.2 HOOP STRESS

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 rearranging the formula into
Fc = 1000 K RL PRS p TDC

(3.7)

the working hoop stress can be calculated for different KRL, rope layer factors.

Using the designed wall thickness to calculate the working hoop stress,
Fc = 1000 K RL PRS p TDC 1000 2158.2 K RL 100 70

= 308.3N/mm 2 , KRL is 1 = 493.3N/mm 2 , KRL is 1.6

= 555.0 N/mm 2 , KRL is 1.8

16

Percentage difference =

308.3 210 100% = 46.8% , for KRL = 1 210 493.3 210 100% = 134.9% , for KRL = 1.6 210 555.0 210 100% = 164.3% , for KRL = 1.8 210 Percentage difference (%) 46.9% 134.9% 164.3%

Percentage difference =

Percentage difference =

Hoop stress Allowable Percentage Thickness Original difference from hoop from thickness designed stress allowable (%) (m) thickness hoop stress (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (m) KRL = 1 308.3 46.8% 0.103 210 0.07 KRL = 1.6 493.3 134.9% 0.164 KRL = 1.8 555.0 164.3% 0.185 Table 2- Data for hoop stress and drum thickness from SAA Standard

3.4

ANALYSIS OF DATA

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 in the DNV Standard.

17

CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH

4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SET UP

In order to determine the rational behind the rope factors given by the Standards, a simplified prototype is designed to simulate in laboratory and examine the stresses generated. The objectives of the experiment are: a) To determine the effect of multi-layering. b) To determine the effect of different loading conditions 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 Hanger Support

Fig 7 Schematic drawing of setup 18

4.2

MATERIAL

The actual material used for the designed winch is a high strength steel that has a large Youngs modulus value. The large value in Youngs modulus is advantageous for industrial applications like high strength to resist deformation. However, in this experiment, we are interested on the relationship on the strain generated due to multi layering. Therefore, a material that is of lower Youngs Modulus has to be chosen to 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. Thus, lower stress is needed to generate a measurable strain. b) PMMA cylinder is ready make in the market and is easier to machine. c) The cost of material and fabrication is much lower compared to metal. The Youngs Modulus, E of the material provided by the manufacturer is given as 3.3GPa and Poisson Ratio, to be 0.4

4.3

STRAIN GAUGE

4 linear strain gauges designed for PMMA are selected and placed at 90 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:a) Marking of strain gauge position on inner surface of cylinder. b) Surface cleaning with low grade sand paper. c) Cleaning with acetone. d) Cleaning with water e) Position strain gauge on cylinder using cellulose tape. f) Applying small drop of cyanoacrylate adhesive at intermediate surface. g) Hold for one minute till cure. h) Apply connecting terminal to strain gauge. i) Solder gauge tails to terminal. j) Solder wire cables to terminal k) Check for continuity and resistance. 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.

SG 1 SG 2 SG 4 SG 3

SG: Strain Gauge

Fig 8a A fixed strain gauge

Fig 8 Schematic drawing of strain gauges positions 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 channels for connection to 10 sets of strain gauges. A balancing potential meter is 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 resistance into digital output for recording.

Fig 9a Strain indicator unit

4.5 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Fig 9b Switch and balance unit

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 different loading conditions.

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

cylinder is rotated to accumulate the number of coiled layer.

o For second experiment, the number of wire layering was determined

before the load weight is added. 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 results of experiments is done on Chapter 5.

22

CHAPTER 5 OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

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

Fig 10a Position of strain gauges and loading condition

Fig 10b Actual setup

Fig 10c Actual coiling condition during experiment

24

The data for the strain readings are tabulated in Table 3 and the graph is plotted as Fig 11. Weight = 7 kg Strain, 1 (x10-6) Layer SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 0 -236 -126 -53 1 -370 -244 -117 2 -488 -350 -173 3 -550 -425 -201 4 -580 -456 -219 Table 3 Strain Readings for Experiment One
Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading (Applied Load = 7Kg)
100

SG 4 -77 -165 -235 -297 -323

0 0 -100 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 3 5 44

-200

SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4

Strain

-300

-400

-500

-600

-700 Layer

Fig 11 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 7kg

From the graphs, the largest strain value was found to be from SG 1. The value of the strain readings increase inversely proportional to increasing number of rope layering 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 empirical stress as followed in the DNV Standard. From equation 3.1

1 =

Pr t

and equation 3.2

1 =

1 1 ( 1 2 ) = Pr 1 E Et 2

as discussed in Chapter 3, the relationship for the hoop stress and corresponding strain can be shown as

1 t 1 = 1 = 1 =
r Et

1 1 2

1 1 E 2 (5.1)

E 1 1 1 2

The empirical hoop stress from DNV is calculated by

h = C

S , C = 1 for 1 layer. pt = 1.75 for more than three layers

The ratio of experimental stress and empirical stress can be found as

=

h 1

(5.2)

26

The sample calculation and the complete data for all the result in experiment one can be found in Appendix A. Strain, 1(x10 ) Layer SG 1 Compressive
-6

Weight = 7 kg Experimental Stress, 1 (N/mm2) Empirical Stress From DNV, h (N/mm2) 3.434 3.434 3.434 6.009 Ratio 2.066 1.706 1.513 2.560

1 370 1.662 2 488 2.013 3 550 2.269 4 580 2.347 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 applied at a lower value and at each layer so avoid over designing.

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

Fig 12a Position of strain gauges and loading condition

Fig 12b Actual setup

The data for the strain reading of SG 1 is considered and are tabulated in Table 5. SG 1, 1 (x10-6) Weight Layer 7kg 6 5 1 -142 -137 -125 2 -154 -150 -145 3 -200 -177 -165 4 -230 -200 -192 Table 5 Strain Readings for Experiment Two

4 -115 -136 -150 -175

3 -102 -128 -142 -156

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 Layer Strain, 1 Experimental Stress, 1 (x10-6) (N/mm2) Compressive 1 142 0.586 2 154 0.635 3 200 0.825 4 230 0.949 Table 6 Tabulated Results from Experiment Two Empirical Stress From DNV, h (N/mm2) 3.434 3.434 3.434 6.009 Ratio 5.86 5.40 4.16 6.33

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 Standard. They are: 1) The rope factor derived by the Standard is too conservative and the method of application is too general. 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 different load loading conditions.

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 specific requirement to prevent over designing.

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 phenomenon is referred as rope relaxation under multi layering loading.

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 discussed in the Chapter 7 Recommendation.

31

CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Some recommendations that can improve the outcome are: 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 12 is provided for reference.

Pulley Load Coiling Drum Rope Uncoiling Drum

Fig 13 Proposed setup for detail experiment data collection 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 different materials. The feasibility of such implementation again depends on the funding and facilities. 4. Perform analysis on other components of winch to achieve optimum design to reduce 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 improved on design by determining the critical stress acting on component and resizing the required dimensions. Redesigning of components if possible is also an 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 be removed. Analysis on component done can be found in Appendix C.

33

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. http://www.plimsollcorp.com http://www.meps.co.uk/World%20Carbon%20Price.htm Case J., Chilver L. & Ross C.T.F. (1999) Strength of Materials and Structures London : Arnold 4. Collins J.A. (2003) Mechanical Design of Machine Elements New York : John Wiley 5. Orthwein W.C. (2004) Clutches and Brakes: Design and Selection New York : Marcel Dekker 6. Shigley J.E. & Mischke C.R. (2001) Mechanical Engineering Design Boston: McGraw Hill 7. Young W.C. & Budynas R.C. (2002) Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain New York : McGraw Hill 8. Standards Association of Australia: AS 1418-1977 : [parts 1, 3 and 7] North Sydney, N.S.W.

34

APPENDIX A
Data and Results from Experiment One

35

Weight = 7 kg Strain, 1 (x10-6) Layer SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 Initial Loading -236 -126 -53 1 -370 -244 -117 2 -488 -350 -173 3 -550 -425 -201 4 -580 -456 -219 Table 1 Strain Readings from Experiment One
Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading (Applied Load = 7Kg)
100

SG 4 -77 -165 -235 -297 -323

0 0 -100 1 2 1 1 3 2

4 3

-200

SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4

Strain

-300

-400

-500

-600

-700 Layer

Graph 1 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 7kg Strain, 1(x10 ) Layer SG 1 Compressive
-6

Weight = 7 kg Experimental Stress, 1 (N/mm2) Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 3.434 3.434 3.434 6.009 Ratio 2.25 1.71 1.51 2.51

1 370 1.662 2 488 2.013 3 550 2.269 4 580 2.347 Table 2 Tabulated Result for Load = 7kg

36

Sample Calculations
E 1 3.3 10 9 403 10 6 Experimental Stress at Layer 1, 1 = = = 1.662 N / mm 2 1 1 1 1 (0.4 ) 2 2

Experimental Stress at Layer 4, 1 =

E 1 3.3 10 9 569 10 6 = = 2.347 N / mm 2 1 1 1 1 (0.4 ) 2 2

Theoretical Stress from DNV, t = C

S pt 7 9.81 =C 45 = C 3.434 = 3.434 N / mm 2 , C = 1 = 6.009 N / mm 2 , C = 1.75

The ratio of experimental stress and empirical stress in layer 1

=

t 3.434 = = 2.25 1 1.662

The ratio of experimental stress and empirical stress in layer 4 =

t 6.009 = = 2.51 1 2.347

37

Weight = 6 kg Strain, 1 (x10-6) Layer SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 Initial Loading -205 -138 -40 1 -320 -211 -96 2 -440 -284 -136 3 -468 -327 -165 4 -493 -358 -177 Table 3 Strain Readings from Experiment
Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading (Applied Load = 6Kg)
100

SG 4 -85 -133 -197 -227 -247

0 0 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 3 5 4 4

-100

-200 Strain

SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4

-300

-400

-500

-600 Layer

Graph 2 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 6kg Strain, 1(x10 ) Layer SG 1 Compressive
-6

Weight = 6 kg Experimental Stress, 1 (N/mm2) Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 2.943 2.943 2.943 5.150 Ratio 2.23 1.62 1.52 2.53

1 320 1.469 2 440 1.815 3 468 1.931 4 493 2.034 Table 4 Tabulated Result for Load = 6kg

38

Weight = 5 kg Strain, 1 (x10-6) Layer SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 Initial Loading -150 -100 -32 1 -270 -200 -68 2 -320 -254 -101 3 -369 -300 -128 4 -381 -314 -145 Table 5 Strain Readings from Experiment
Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading (Applied Load = 5Kg)
50

SG 4 -50 -117 -156 -210 -231

0 0 -50 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 4 3 3 5 4 4

-100

-150 Strain

SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 4

-200

-250

-300

-350

-400

-450 Layer

Graph 3 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 5kg Strain, 1(x10-6) Layer SG 1 Compressive Weight = 5 kg Experimental Stress, 1 (N/mm2) Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 2.453 2.453 2.453 4.292 Ratio 2.20 1.86 1.61 2.73

1 270 1.114 2 320 1.320 3 369 1.522 4 381 1.572 Table 6 Tabulated Result for Load = 5kg

39

Weight = 4 kg Strain, 1 (x10-6) Layer SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 Initial Loading -124 -90 -26 1 -211 -140 -58 2 -290 -203 -82 3 -320 -238 -107 4 -341 -255 -117 Table 7 Strain Readings from Experiment
Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading (Applied Load = 4Kg)
50

SG 4 -49 -77 -115 -151 -163

0 0 -50 1 21 1 3 2 4 3 3 5 44

-100

SG 1
-150 Strain -200

SG 2 SG 3 SG 4

-250

-300

-350

-400 Layer

Graph 4 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 4kg Strain, 1(x10-6) Layer SG 1 Compressive Weight = 4 kg Experimental Stress, 1 (N/mm2) Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 1.962 1.962 1.962 3.434 Ratio 2.25 1.64 1.49 2.44

1 211 0.870 2 290 1.196 3 320 1.320 4 341 1.407 Table 8 Tabulated Result for Load = 4kg

40

Weight = 3 kg Strain, 1 (x10-6) Layer SG 1 SG 2 SG 3 Initial Loading -72 -61 -20 1 -155 -115 -52 2 -184 -151 -74 3 -215 -180 -91 4 -227 -196 -105 Table 9 Strain Readings from Experiment
Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading (Applied Load = 3Kg)
50

SG 4 -31 -71 -100 -128 -145

0 0 1 21 1 3 2 2 4 3 3

45 4

-50

SG 1
-100

SG 2 SG 3 SG 4

Strain

-150

-200

-250 Layer

Graph 5 Strain Reading vs Layer of Rope Loading For 3kg Strain, 1(x10-6) Layer SG 1 Compressive Weight = 3 kg Experimental Stress, 1 (N/mm2) Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 1.472 1.472 1.472 2.575 Ratio 2.30 1.94 1.66 2.75

1 155 0.639 2 184 0.759 3 215 0.887 4 227 0.936 Table 10 Tabulated Result for Load = 3kg

41

APPENDIX B
Data and Results from Experiment Two

42

SG 1, 1 (x10-6) Weight Layer 7kg 6 5 1 -142 -137 -125 2 -154 -150 -145 3 -200 -177 -165 4 -230 -200 -192 Table 1 Strain Readings from Experiment Weight = 7 kg Experiment Two Strain, 1 Experimental Stress, 1 (x10-6) (N/mm2) Compressive 1 142 0.586 2 154 0.635 3 200 0.825 4 230 0.949 Table 2 Tabulated Result for Load = 7kg Sample Calculations Layer

4 -115 -136 -150 -175

3 -102 -128 -142 -156

Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 3.434 3.434 3.434 6.009

Ratio 5.86 5.40 4.16 6.33

E 1 3.3 10 9 142 10 6 = 0.586 N / mm 2 Experimental Stress at Layer 1, 1 = = 1 1 1 (0.4) 1 2 2 Experimental Stress at Layer 4, 1 =

E 1 3.3 10 9 230 10 6 = = 0.949 N / mm 2 1 1 1 1 (0.4) 2 2

Theoretical Stress from DNV, t = C

S pt 7 9.81 =C 45 = 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

=

t 1 1.662 0.586 100 = 100 = 65% 1.662 t

The ratio of experimental stress and empirical stress in layer 1

=

t 3.434 = = 5.86 1 0.586

The ratio of experimental stress and empirical stress in layer 1

=

t 6.009 = = 6.33 1 0.949

Weight = 6 kg Experiment Two Layer Experimental Strain, 1 Stress, 1 (x10-6) (N/mm2) Compressive 1 137 0.565 2 150 0.619 3 177 0.730 4 200 0.825 Table 3 Tabulated Result for Load = 6kg Weight = 5kg Experiment Two Experimental Strain, 1 -6 Stress, 1 (x10 ) (N/mm2) Compressive 1 125 0.517 2 145 0.598 3 165 0.681 4 192 0.792 Table 4 Tabulated Result for Load = 5kg Layer Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 2.453 2.453 2.453 4.292 Ratio 4.76 4.10 3.60 5.42 Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 2.943 2.943 2.943 5.150 Ratio 5.21 4.76 4.03 6.24

44

Weight = 4kg Experiment Two Layer Experimental Strain, 1 Stress, 1 (x10-6) (N/mm2) Compressive 1 115 0.474 2 136 0.561 3 150 0.619 4 175 0.722 Table 5 Tabulated Result for Load = 4kg Weight = 3kg Experiment Two Layer Experimental Strain, 1 -6 Stress, 1 (x10 ) (N/mm2) Compressive 1 102 0.421 2 128 0.528 3 142 0.586 4 156 0.644 Table 6 Tabulated Result for Load = 3kg Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 1.472 1.472 1.472 2.575 Ratio 3.50 2.79 2.51 4.00 Empirical Stress From DNV, t (N/mm2) 1.962 1.962 1.962 3.434 Ratio 4.14 3.50 3.17 4.76

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

F2

R1 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 1. The highest torque will be from the wire rope. 2. The brake will counteract to the torque of the wire rope at 110% of the designed braking force. 3. The pulling force will be 120% of the designed braking force to ensure the material will not fail before the brake starts to slip. Calculations Designed Brake Force = 2943kN (300Tonne) Ultimate Brake Force, FB = 1.1 x 2943 = 3237.3kN Ultimate Pulling Force, FP = 1.2 x 2943 = 3531.6kN

47

Friction Coefficient, = 0.3 Wrap Angle, = 325 = 5.67rad Braking Torque, TB = 3237.3 x 0.5 = 1618.7kN From equations brake band. F1 = e F2 F1 = F2 e 0.35.67
TB = (F1 F2 )r 1618.7 = (F1 F2 )0.9 F1 = e and TB = (F1 F2 )r , we can calculate the resultant forces on the F2

(1)

(2)

Sub (1) in (2),

1618.7 = (F2 e 0.35.67 F2 )0.9 1618.7 = (0.9e 0.35.67 0.9)F2 1618.7 F2 = 0.9e 0.35.67 0.9 F2 = 401.5kN

(3)

Sub (3) in (1), F1 = 401.5e 0.35.67 F1 = 2200.0kN F1

F2 (i) (ii) (iii)

Ra Rb

Ra

Rb

Lower Drum

Rope Tension

F2X

48

Considering the horizontal force of F2,

cos 55 = F2 X F2 X F2 X F2 X F2 = F 2 cos 55 = 401.5 cos 55 = 230.3kN

F2X F2 55 F2Y

The vertical force component of F2 is

tan 55 = F2Y F2Y F2Y F2Y F 2X = F 2 X tan 55 = 230.3 tan 55 = 328.9kN

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

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.

Ra

= 0,

49

3531.6(0.508) + 230.3(2.443) = Rb (2.691) Rb = 875.8kN

= 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.

Ra

= 0,

3531.6(1.3455) + 230.3(2.443) = Rb (2.691) Rb = 1974.9kN Ra + Rb = 3531.6 + 230.3 Ra = 3761.9 1974.9 Ra = 1787.0kN

= 0,

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
F

Ra

= 0,

3531.6(2.183) + 230.3(2.443) = Rb (2.691) Rb = 3074.0kN Ra + Rb = 3531.6 + 230.3 Ra = 3761.3 3074.0 Ra = 687.9kN

= 0,

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
F

Ra

= 0,

(2200.0 328.9)(2.443) = Rb (2.691)

Rb = 1698.7kN Ra + Rb = 2200.0 328.9 Ra = 1871.1 1698.7 Ra = 172.4kN

= 0,

The resultant force and angle is calculated for each case Case (i) - The wire rope is acting on the leftmost end of the drum. Resultant force at Ra, RaR = RaX + RaY
2 2

RR RaR = 2886.12 + 172.4 2 RaR = 2891.2kN

RY

51

Angle of resultant force,

= tan 1

= 3.4
Resultant force at Rb,

172.4 2886.1

RbR = RbX + RbY

RbR = 875.8 2 + 1698.7 2 RbR = 1911.2kN Angle of resultant force, 1698.7 875.8 = 62.7

= tan 1

Case (ii) - The wire rope is acting on the center of the drum. Resultant force at Ra, RaR = RaX + RaY
2 2

RY

RaR = 1787.0 2 + 172.4 2 RaR = 1795.3kN Angle of resultant force, 172.4 1787.0

= tan 1

= 5.5
Resultant force at Rb,

RbR = RbX + RbY

RbR = 1974.9 2 + 1698.7 2 RbR = 2605.0kN Angle of resultant force, 1698.7 1974.9 = 40.7

= tan 1

52

Case (iii) - The wire rope is acting on the rightmost end of the drum. Resultant force at Ra, RaR = RaX + RaY
2 2

RR RaR = 687.9 2 + 172.4 2 RaR = 709.2kN

RY

RX

Angle of resultant force,

= tan 1
= 14.1
Resultant force at Rb,

172.4 687.9

RbR = RbX + RbY

RbR = 3074.0 2 + 1698.7 2 RbR = 3512.1kN Angle of resultant force, 1698.7 3074.0

= tan 1 = 28.9

Table 1 Calculated forces and resultant forces Horizontal Forces Vertical Forces Case Ra Rb Ra Rb (i) 2886.1 875.8 (ii) 1787.0 1974.9 172.4 1698.7 (iii) 687.9 3074.0

Ra 2891.2 1795.3 709.2

Resultant Forces Angle Rb 3.4 1911.2 5.5 2605.0 14.1 3512.1

Angle 62.7 40.7 28.9

From the data tabulated, the largest force acting on the bearing support will be at Rb in case 3.

53

Acting Moments

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Ra

Rb 230.3kN

3531.6kN

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 1. The highest torque will be from the wire rope. 2. The brake will counteract to the torque of the wire rope at 110% of the designed braking force. 3. The pulling force will be 120% of the designed braking force to ensure the material will not fail before the brake starts to slip. 4. The bearing supports are design to be free from moments. 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 Moment at (i), MH = 2886.1 x 0.508 = 1466.1kNm

Fs

(i) Ra 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. MH

(ii) MH Ra Moment at (ii), Fs 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 Moment at (iii),

Fs 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. Ra 2200.0kN 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)

Moment at (i),

Fs MV = 172.4 x 0.508

57

Ra

= 87.6kNm MV (ii)

Fs Moment at (ii), MV = 172.4 x 1.3455 = 232.0kNm MV Ra (iii)

Moment at (iii),

Fs MV = 172.4 x 2.183 = 376.3kNm

Ra MV

Moment at brake, MV = 172.4 x 2.443 = 421.2kNm

Fs

Case (i) - The wire rope is acting on the leftmost end of the drum. Resultant moment, M R = M H + M V
2 2

= 1466.12 + 87.6 2

58

= 1648.7 kNm Resultant moment at brake,

M R = M H + MV

= 217.12 + 421.12 = 473.8kNm

Case (ii) - The wire rope is acting on the center of the drum. Resultant moment, M R = M H + M V
2 2

= 2404.4 2 + 232.0 2 = 2415.6kNm

Resultant moment at brake, M R = M H + MV

2 2

= 489.7 2 + 421.12 = 645.9kNm

Case (iii) - The wire rope is acting on the rightmost end of the drum. Resultant moment, M R = M H + M V
2 2

= 1501.7 2 + 376.3 2 = 1548.1kNm

Resultant moment at brake, M R = M H + MV

2 2

= 762.3 2 + 421.12 = 870.9kNm

Table 2 - Calculated moments and resultant moments Horizontal moment MH Moment at Case brake 1466.1 217.1 2404.4 489.7 1501.7 762.3 Vertical moment MV Moment at Case brake 87.6 421.1 232.0 376.3 Resultant moment MR Moment at Case brake 1468.7 473.8 2415.6 645.9 1548.1 870.9

(i) (ii) (ii)

59

Analysis of components Stress on axle at support side

Bearing stress of axle at support,

bearing =
bearing
Shear stress of axle at support,

3633.9 10 3 260 103 = 131.1N / mm 2

bearing = bearing

3512.1 10 3 260 2 4 = 66.2 N / mm 2

Maximum shear stress for circular area, 4 bearing = 66.2 3 bearing = 88.3N / 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. Allowable bearing stress = 0.9 x 350 = 315N/mm2 Percentage difference = 176 315 100% = 44.1% 315

Allowable shear stress = 0.4 x 350 = 140N/mm2 Percentage difference = 110 140 100% = 21.4% 140 Table 3 Calculated bearing stress and shear of axle at support side Allowable Principle Percentage Principle Allowable bearing stress difference shear stress shear stress stress 178 315 -44.1% 112 140

Percentage difference -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

Allowable stress on welded joint = 93 N/mm2 Bending stress on weld,

=
=

Mr I 467.1 10 3 0.145

(0.29)4

64 = 195.1MN / m 2 = 195.1N / mm 2 Percentage difference = 195.1 93 100% = 109.8% 93 61

Shear stress on weld,

Mr I 467.1 10 3 0.145 = 0.707 h 0.145 2 = 263.2 MN / m 2 , h = 0.038 = 263.1N / mm 2

263.1 93 100% = 182.9% 93 Table 4 Bending and shear stresses on weld joint Principle Allowable Percentage Principle bending stress difference shear stress stress 195.1 93 109.8% 263.1 Percentage difference =

Allowable stress 93

Percentage difference 182.9%

Bearing and shear stress on axle

For the shear stress on axle, the analysis will be studied in two cases. One of it will be with moment present at outer flange and shear force equally distributed. Another will only have reaction forces with no moment. The two cases will be analyzed and discussed. 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

= 0,

FS = RbR 62

FS = 3512.1kN Bearing stress on axle, FS 2 = 0.038 0.29 1756.1 10 3 = 0.01102 = 159.4MN / m 2 = 159.4 N / mm 2
Shear stress on axle, FS 2 = 0.29 2 4 1756.1 10 3 = 0.0661 = 26.6MN / m 2 = 26.6 N / mm 2 Maximum shear stress for circular area, 4 = 26.6 3 = 35.5 N / mm 2 From the Mohr circle, the principle stress is 164N/mm2 and shear stress is 82N/mm2. Allowable bearing stress = 0.9 x 350 = 315N/mm2 Percentage difference = 164 315 100% = 47.9% 315

Allowable shear stress = 0.4 x 350 = 140N/mm2 Percentage difference = 82 140 100% = 41.4% 140

Table 5 Bearing and shear stresses on axle at flanges Allowable Percentage Principle Principle bearing difference shear stress stress stress 178 315 -47.9% 112

Allowable shear stress 140

Percentage difference -41.4%

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

F1

= 0,

F2 (0.257 ) = Rb (0.162) 3512.1(0.162) F2 = 0.257 = 2213.9kN F1 = F2 + Rb = 2213.9 + 3512.1 = 2213.9 + 3512.1 = 5726.0kN

= 0,

Bearing stress on axle at outer flange, F1 = 0.038 0.29 5726 10 3 = 0.01102 = 519.6 MN / m 2 = 519.6 N / mm 2 Bearing stress on axle at inner flange, F2 = 0.038 0.29 2213.9 10 3 = 0.01102 = 200.9MN / m 2 64

= 200.9 N / mm 2 Shear stress on axle on outer flange, F1 = 0.29 2 4 5726.0 10 3 = 0.0661 = 86.6MN / m 2 = 86.6 N / mm 2

Maximum shear stress for circular area, 4 = 86.6 3 = 115.5 N / mm 2 Shear stress on axle on inner flange, F2 = 0.29 2 4 2213.9 10 3 = 0.0661 = 33.5MN / m 2 = 33.5 N / mm 2
Maximum shear stress for circular area, 4 = 33.5 3 = 44.7 N / mm 2 From the Mohr circle, the principle stress at outer flange is 545N/mm2 and shear stress is 285N/mm2. Allowable bearing stress = 0.9 x 350 = 315N/mm2 Percentage difference = 545 315 100% = 73.0% 315

Allowable shear stress = 0.4 x 350 = 140N/mm2 Percentage difference = 285 140 100% = 103.6% 140

65

From the Mohr circle, the principle stress at inner flange is 210N/mm2 and shear stress is 100N/mm2. Allowable bearing stress = 0.9 x 350 = 315N/mm2 Percentage difference = 210 315 100% = 33.3% 315

Allowable shear stress = 0.4 x 350 = 140N/mm2 82 140 100% = 28.6% 140 Table 6 Bearing and shear stresses on axle at outer flange Allowable Principle Percentage Principle bearing stress difference shear stress stress 545 315 73.0% 285 Percentage difference = Table 7 Bearing and shear stresses on axle at inner flange Allowable Principle Percentage Principle bearing stress difference shear stress stress 210 315 -33.3% 82

Allowable shear stress 140

Percentage difference 103.6%

Allowable shear stress 140

Percentage difference -28.6%

66