lifting analysis

I noticed that you haven't gotten any responses to this post. If you still have a question,
you may want to consider posting some additional detail, perhaps some drawings,
sketches, etc. It sounds like you are describing a relatively specific application, so this
additional material may help to generate some responses from others who are not as
conversant with your application and terminology.

Cheers,

Chris

You have over complicated the problem. Take the lifting structure and put four pin
supports at the pick points, at the bottom end of the sling, then apply a vertical load at the
hook. This will simulate the system adequately though it will not take into acount any
movement which I suggest you treat as factors to increase the load.

From you picture it is apparent that you have four pock points on your structure. My
methed would allow you to also elliminate one support so that you can see the effect on
the balance of your lifting structure if one point lets go. Again it will not give you the
movement but it will tell you what the forces will be in the members.

Though it is nice to put the member properties in the model they are not relevent in this
case as all you are interested in are the forces and not the stresses. From the forces you
can select the proper chains or slings for the job. Hence you can use any section
properties for the elements, in this case I suggest using a round section though you could
use any.

Hi ,

I have some queries on this

1. Shall i use any value for the spring? or only 0.05 kips/in (as mentioned by Nihesh)

2. is that the spring value is based on what load i apply on the system?

regards
Murali

Hello,

Make sure that your cog of lifting and framing is on same vertical plane. this is becouse
your lifting fromthe lower elevation, due to any jerks or any lateral load may create high
moment at the bast or may your structure get foul with sling which is not recommended.

answer to your question

-make all the slings tension only members.

-define two spring supports at the down of structure diagonally.

-keep main lifting hook support as a pinned support.

thanks

pawan

hi all, thanks for advice... i have already try your way muh...

it is possible result, also for the reaction...

do you have any idea about lifting point at the beam? so, the structure need spreader to
lift.

i mean is about the cord connected structure and the spreader , because it is intersect the
member of the structure. it is ok?
Dear Nihesh,

What will happen if consider the cords as tension only members and use release but FY
supports with KFY of 0.5.

Make sure you have one support in each of the translational direction

For me I am using small spring constant at the Y direction and release all other degree of
fredoom at the lifting points. Considering tension only member for cords. This will hold
the structure stable and provide reasonable results. If someone have other view then I will
be happy to know more.

hi all,...

i am new in staad and also new in lifting analysis...

could somebody give me advise in this :

1. in lifting point, should i add support joint ?

2. for sling property, what property should i use so i can get sling force?

thanks

regard

raka

Lifting analysis and rotation

There is no bearing, there are two plates (padeyes) on the gangway 219 dia member,
there is another plate (padeye) at the platform. The gangway is joined such that the two
plates are on either side of the platform plate. There is a a simple pin (or a
bolt) connecting these plates.

The winch operating speed is not an issue since it is a mechanical winch - manually
operated - which requires an effort of 8 lbs per 1000 lbs of lift.

They have tried to lift the gangway at an angle perpendicularto the gangway itself, they
are able to lift it easily with a force of the order of 20kN. The current sling is a 62-deg to
horizontal. Wonder if this 30-deg difference causes such a huge difference in forces.

Thanks

Subra

I couldn't tell much about the pin and bearing detail based on the initial drawings you
posted, except to see that the hole was slightly oversized for the pin.
I also don't have a real good sense for how much rotational resistance could possibly be
generated based on different pin/bearing configurations, but I suppose you could make
some estimates and try to incorporate the effects by assigning a rotational spring constant
to the supports that represent the pin/bearings.

But you are correct that the non-linear analysis suggestion was not for the purpose of
trying to account for the friction at the bearings. I was suggesting the non-linear analysis
to see if it would help you to learn more about how the cable sag and loss of stiffness
might affect the required cable pull force.

The more I think about the scenario, the more I think that it might be mostly due to the
inertial forces of trying to accelerate the gangway to the open position. Is there a way to
control the startup speed of the winch so that it starts EXTREMELY slowly? That would
minimize the acceleration, and therefore minimize the inertial effects to the point where it
would be nearly the same as the static equilibrium case.

Chris

Thanks Chris

I also guessed that horizontal component of tension is preventing the gangway from
rotation. The winch is a Mechanical Winch of 10,000lbs SWL, i.e. 45kN. I will try non-
linear cable type analysis.

But I doubt whether it will account for the friction at the bearing ends.

THanks

Subra

Subra,

I studied the model a little bit, and I agree that 32 kN looks like the magnitude that
STAAD predicts (based on ideal geometry) to equilibrate the Selfweight and applied
Dead Load only.
Assuming that the load cells were properly calibrated and all that good stuff, my guess
would be that the difference might be due to sag in the cable and friction at the bearings.

The sagged profile of the cable means that the geometry is not exactly as it has been
idealized in the model, and if the sag is significant enough, it actually changes the line of
action of the force to be more nearly parallel to the long axis of the bridge, which means
more tension is required in order to rotate the bridge about its bearings.

Along the same lines, I wonder if the component of cable tension that acts along the long
axis of the bridge is increasing the friction of the bridge at its pins/bearings, adding to the
required force to lift it.

The other thing that comes to mind is inertial effects. It may only take about 32 kN to
keep the bridge in stable equilibrium, but F=Ma says that it takes an additional amount of
force to move or accelerate the bridge.

Finally, depending on where the load cell was placed, it may have been on the motor side
of the pulley, and it may have been capturing the effects of some losses due to that as
well.

You might consider trying a Non-Linear cable type analysis to see if you can incorporate
the sag effects in the cables. Note that they can be defined by using the Define button in
the Properties dialog, instead of using pipe sections.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Chris

Hello

I have analysed a Gangway Structure fixed to a platform, using STAAD. The Gangway is
connected to structure at one end using a pin which allows for rotation and is being lifted
with a winch and wire rope at the far end.

The gangway sketch and the corresponding model simulation is attached. After
installation the site personnel are experiencing high force in the winch and hence unable
to fold the gang way. The same gangway was lifted vertically and there was not problem
in folding....the effort used was to the tune of 20kN. the reaction received in the rope in
current position is 32kN only.
The force being experienced at the rope, as measured from load cells, is more than 45 kN.

One possible reason is structure is not behaving as modeled / envisaged.

Can any one help ?

STAAD Model and Sketch are attached.

Thanks in advance

Subra