Adem Candaş, Serpil Kurt, İsmail Gerdemeli and Eren Kayaoğlu

Key Engineering Materials Online: 2013-09-18
ISSN: 1662-9795, Vol. 572, pp 173-176

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.572.173
© 2014 Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
An Experimental Stress Analysis of a Jib Crane
Adem Candaş1,a, Serpil Kurt1,b, İsmail Gerdemeli1,c and Eren Kayaoğlu1,d

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
a
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Keywords: Stress analysis of jib cranes, strain gage technique, crane standards, finite element
method analysis.
Abstract. Jib cranes are a kind of material handling machines using in the industry such as factories,
shipyards, construction areas, and storages. Standards and regulations about them are published by
API (American Petroleum Institute), FEM (The Federation Europeen de la Manutention) et al. In this
study a jib crane designed by an engineering work group, were examined in terms of static structural
test analysis before put it into use according to the API Spec 2. Firstly, critical areas, which have the
highest stress values, were determined by finite element method in a commercial analysis program.
The next step is the application of strain gages on the structure and initial reference test values are
obtained just before the assembling. Two tests were done after the jib crane was assembled under
circumstances with no load and test load. Finally, strain and stress values were calculated and the
resulting stress obtained from tests and finite element method analysis results were compared with
each other.
Introduction
In this paper a jib crane designed and manufactured by a company in Turkey was examined in
terms of standard static load tests. API Spec. 2 was used in the experimental studies. General
knowledge is explained briefly in Spec 2. but it refers to SAE J987 [1] (Society of Automotive
Engineers) for detailed instructions and definitions. The determination of the design parameters is the
first step of the design process of the jib crane. Secondly, designers and engineers create detailed 3D
models as seen in Fig. 1. At this stage, using a 3D Computer Aided Design program (in this study
AutoCAD) takes a lot of advantages.
Fig. 1. 3D CAD models and critical areas.

After identifying critical points of the structure by using finite element analysis, tests were done
and results were obtained. In SAE J987, three test conditions are defined. Firstly, Initial Reference
Test Condition is defined as zero stress condition before assembly. Second is Dead Load Stress
Condition means that no-load effect on the crane besides of self-weight. The last one is Working Load
Stress Condition, the completely assembled crane structure supported the specified rated load.
All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of Trans
Tech Publications, www.scientific.net. (#112145486, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey-10/01/19,08:32:07)
174 Advanced Design and Manufacture V
Finite Element Analysis

3D model of the crane was transferred to Ansys for stress analysing. Accustomed classic
calculations and conventional methods still are in use in the industry. However, confidence on
computer based analysis will develop by comparing these two methods by the time [2]. It can be said
that computer analysis will be used in place of experimental studies in the future but, nowadays,
current standards still require real observing results at the working conditions [3]. Computer based
technologies can be evaluated in terms of its reliability with this comparison studies [4].
3D model of the jib crane analysed in Ansys. It has 16000 kg. load hoisting capability with 32 m.
boom radius; 12000 kg. load with 37 m. radius normally. Hypermesh was used to get convenient
meshes. 951 beam meshes and 775 nodes were obtained at boom as shown in Fig. 2a. Afterwards,
material properties of St 52 steel were set up in the program. According to the SAE J987 the nominal
load were multiplied by 1.33 during analysis. 21280 kg. test load was effected to the crane (Fig2b).
Boundary conditions were applied on joint point. In this analysis boom only can rotate about pedestal
structure. One area on boom and leg, and two on pedestal back and front structures were identified as
critical as shown in Fig. 1.
21280 kg
Boundary
conditions
Figure 2. a)Mesh detail of the Boom b) Applying Test Forces.

Static Structural Tests
After the computer analysis and manufacturing of the parts, the application of strain gages were
applied on the structures (Fig. 3) before assembly to obtain the strain values at areas which had
detected as high stresses point. Then strain/stress relationship was used to compute the stresses.
Figure 3. Pedestal at Initial Reference Test Condition [5].

The first reference measurement was done on the part of the boom when it was lying on the ground
and supported from many points to eliminate the stresses caused by self-weight.
In the study, C2A-06-062LW-350 strain gage which has 2.125 ± %0.5 gage factor at 240C and
produced by Vishay Micro-Measurement was used. As seen in Fig. 3, Prosig P8048 is the data
collector device. It also includes analogue to digital converter to transform the signals from strain
gages [6].
Key Engineering Materials Vol. 572 175
Results and Discussion

Three types of static test load tests were done according to SAE J987 and API Spec 2. These were
initial reference test, dead load test and, working load tests. The strain gages stuck on the legs were
damaged due to environmental effects.
Table 1a shows stresses under crane dead load. It is the comparison of FEM and strain gage test
results on each critical area. When the crane dead load and test load (21280 kg) affected to the
structure, stresses increased normally. Table 1b is the comparison of FEM and test results on each
critical area.
Table 1. a) Crane dead load b) Crane dead load and test load
The positive stress (tensile stress) values on Pedestal_back and Boom can be seen. On the contrary
Pedestal_front area has the negative values (compressive stress). The difference between FEM
analysis and test results may be caused by some environmental effects such as signal cable length,
wind speed, temperature etc. At the same time, computer based analysis still requires to simplify the
complex crane structure. The differences between two analysis has a consistency, on the other hand,
on Pedestal_back 36.60 MPa, on Pedestal_back 33.33 MPa stress differences are shown while 22.35
MPa difference is calculated on Boom because of the initial reference tests. During the test pedestal
structure had some extra stresses. In preassembly step it was supported from edges and this situation
caused compression and tension on the body.
The differences on Table 1b caused by same reasons as indicated in previous table. Compressive
stress on Pedestal_front and tensile stress on Pedestal_back and boom are seen like the previous test.
In this situation, differences between 13-34 MPa also are related to ‘test load’ used in the experiments
and FEM analysis.
Table 2 shows stresses on areas, which the crane subjected to just test load (21280 kg).
Table 2. a) Test load condition b) Safety factor (n)

176 Advanced Design and Manufacture V
In this table, the differences between FEM analysis and test results at Table 1a and 1b are
decreased dramatically and the stresses are closer than before. Because the reference measurement are
eliminated. Finally, 5.93, 11.63, and 7.37 MPa differences are obtained. According to the SAE J987,
the maximum stresses must be compared with the yield point of the material (St 52). Safety factor (n),
which is the ratio of the yield point of the material to maximum stresses on structure, must be
minimum 1.30. In conclusion “n” values are between 2.22 and 3.25 the crane is in the limits of SAE.
It shows that the crane is considerably reliably. Higher safety factors also means for special requested
designs entails extra efforts and materials.
Conclusion
Comparing finite element analysis and strain gage technique results shows that the structural
reliability of a jib crane can be evaluated by finite element method. On the other hand the data
collecting can be applied carefully because of the reference values measured in the assembly area and
the platform can be different from each other.
References
[1] SAE J987. (2003). Lattice Boom Cranes – Method of Test, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Washington, DC, USA
[2] Candas, A. (2013). Experimental stress analysis of a jib (master thesis), ITU Graduate School of
Science Engineering and Technology, Istanbul, Turkey.
[3] Computer Aided Valve Design of Shock Absorbers Used in Vehicles (I. Gerdemeli, A. E. Cotur,
E. Kayaoglu, and A. Candas), 4th International Conference on Advanced Design, and
Manufacturing, Kunming, China, (ADM 2011)
[4] Kayaoglu, E. (2009). Investigation on the behaviour of uniformly distributed load carrying
rectangular plates within crane structures (master thesis), ITU Graduate School of Science
Engineering and Technology, Istanbul, Turkey.
[5] Kayaoğlu, E. (2012). Personal photo archive.
[6] P8048 User Manual (2007). Prosig P800 series manual, D1151/6, Prosig Limited, Hants, England.

Adem Candaş, Serpil Kurt, İsmail Gerdemeli and Eren Kayaoğlu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adem Candaş, Serpil Kurt, İsmail Gerdemeli and Eren Kayaoğlu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adem Candaş, Serpil Kurt, İsmail Gerdemeli and Eren Kayaoğlu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Engineering Materials Online: 2013-09-18

ISSN: 1662-9795, Vol. 572, pp 173-176

An Experimental Stress Analysis of a Jib Crane

Adem Candaş1,a, Serpil Kurt1,b, İsmail Gerdemeli1,c and Eren Kayaoğlu1,d

Fig. 1. 3D CAD models and critical areas.

Finite Element Analysis

Figure 2. a)Mesh detail of the Boom b) Applying Test Forces.

Figure 3. Pedestal at Initial Reference Test Condition [5].

Results and Discussion

Table 2. a) Test load condition b) Safety factor (n)

You might also like