Attaching wedge to beam: Best method??

[LD1]

Looking for the best method/style of connection for attaching the wedge to the beam on my upcoming splitter project.

Not looking for type of rod, style of welding, or any of that. Just the type of connection at the joint. Please see attached crappy paint drawing. Black is the 6x6 I-beam and the red is the splitter wedge. The Wedge is going to be 1" thick by 6" wide steel by whatever height I need depending on style.

Top is just sitting on top of beam
Middle is on back of beam
Bottom is notched with a little weld on both.



So what is the best/strongest method of attaching? or does it likely not matter with a small 4"/~18 ton cylinder??

 

[Shield Arc]

I would go with the 3rd / bottom drawing. Or cut a hole in the top flange of the beam, cut out the web. Insert the wedge in the hole. This way you get a lot of weld volume. You can leave 1 or 2-inch of beam behind the wedge also.

I did this for the pad eyes on my bridge crane.

 

[LD1]

I actually like that idea. But man that is a whole of torching vs none...

 

[Shield Arc]

My brother-n-law and I built a log splitter for him a couple years ago. You could go with this design.

 

[LD1]

I dont want a horizontal/vertical. Already have one.

I want a strictly horizontal with the wedge on the beam and a small table off the end to catch the pieces that need split again, and allow the already split pieces to fall off the end.

With the wedge on the cylinder, once the piece is split to size, it needs handled again to chuck it away from the splitter. That is the step I am trying to eliminate. Similar to the super splits wedge design and table, but fast hydraulics. (22gpm pump and 4" cylinder).

I also am not a fan of capturing the pushplate or wedge around the beam like that. I like speeco/huskee's "log cradle" design. As that is what our other splitter is. Seems simpler and easier to fab and works just as well. So that is the route I am going with that.

So basically if you look at a huskee/speeco design for horizontal only, that will be similar to my build.

 

[Shield Arc]

I think any design you posted above will work for this situation. More weld volume is always nice.
Pad eye design for heavy lifting you'll just about always see the inserted style.
Hard to see in this picture, but all the pad eyes are inserted from flange to flange, and we were only picking 300-tons at a time.

 

[mrmikey]

Go with the bottom design.
Although mine is a moving wedge http://tinyurl.com/q9esre6 it'd be the same principal as my cylinder mount only in your case it'd be the wedge. Not that your weld is bad but you're not totally dependant on the weld to the flange, some of the stress is on the web also. ...Mike

 

[doxford jim]

The last sketch would be what I would go with. You are getting twice the holding from the welding making it a much stronger component.

 

[grsthegreat]

i see what your trying to do, and my buddy has a similar unit. but he still has to handle the wood as he has to turn them and do a 2nd split or the pieces are too large. Also, when he completes the cycle, a lot of the time the pieces arnt completely separated but are hung up with shreads of wood connecting the 2 pieces.

hope your work better. of the 3 pics, i thing the 3rd would be the strongest.....more welding paths. but thats just an opinion

 

[7879fordman]

Yap the 3rd of the three is it .

Sent from my iPhone 5 using TractorByNet