Question about steel strength??

[jodebg]

Would it be possible to insert a smaller (tight fitting) tube or channel into the 1.5 x 3 tube for maybe the first third of the length?

 

[LD1]

Would it be possible to insert a smaller (tight fitting) tube or channel into the 1.5 x 3 tube for maybe the first third of the length?

Sure. But sounds like too much work to me. And not as much benefit for the weight. The closer you get to the neutral axis (center), the less effect it has.

that is why solid steel is ALOT heavier, for not much stronger than the same dimension of a hollow section member

 

[jodebg]

LD1-I have no prior experience with metal fab or design so I could use your advise.
I posted a drawing of my proposed design yesterday. My tractor is a 30hp with 1650 lb
3ph lift capacity.

I need to lighten my total weight, but keep it strong.

-Can I use 2x2" tubing for the frame. The orig. plans called for 2.5x2.5 tubing and that
was load tested to over 200lbs which I cannot get to.

-What is the best fork material to use?
Looks as if the 3x1.5 is out.
2x2 is what is used in the plans.
Any advantage to using the 2x4's?
Again, I will be adding weight using the 2x4 forks.
But more importantly, will I have anything to gain due to the limited lift capacity?

-Any suggestions on how I can best design to bottom frame/receiver area. Needs
to be strong, but not trying to add any unnecessary weight.

-

Sure. But sounds like too much work to me. And not as much benefit for the weight. The closer you get to the neutral axis (center), the less effect it has.

that is why solid steel is ALOT heavier, for not much stronger than the same dimension of a hollow section member

 

[LD1]

So were the original plans calling for 2.5x2.5 for the forks? or 2x2?

2 main benefits to 2x4 other than strength

1. less likely to bend side by side. like if you are backing under a log or something and arent perfectly square. less likely to fold it sideways

2. Wider. Depending on what you are moving, can make for a more stable load.

The 2x2x1/4 tube is 5.41# per ft. So if each fork is 36" you have 32# of fork
The 2x4x1/4 tube is 8.81# per ft. So the total fork weight is 53#.

So the whole thing will only be 20# heavier.

I like to overbuild things. I want to be sure it isnt gonna fail. What happens in 10 years if you get a bigger tractor? What happens if a buddy with a larger tractor wants to borrow them?

 

[jodebg]

Plans called for 2x2 for the forks.
Never thought of 2.5x2.5 for the forks??

Do you think using 2x2 for the frame (in place of 2.5x2.5 in the plans)
woul be a strength issue?

Any suggestions on the lower frame/receiver design and materials in my drawing?

 

[LD1]

2.5x2.5 is certainly stronger for the frame. but 2x2 would probably work also. I think the welds are gonna be more critical than the steel

 

[jodebg]

Where can I reference the weight of these different materials?

 

[LD1]

Where can I reference the weight of these different materials?

I just do a little googling. usually will find a suppliers website that lists charts.

I like this website Structural Steel Tube, square and rectangular tube, tubing, steel pipe, I-beams, angle channel, wide flange beams

You can click about middle of the page above the charts to list rectangle tube

 

[jodebg]

Thanks. Best place to buy the steel-locally, or an online seller?

 

[Sodo]

If you welded receivers near the outside ends, would you be able to use this with a set of removeable forks?

Not really,,,,,

1) the pic is with the 3-pt at lowest, which is 11 inches above ground. Each tine would need a 10" dogleg to set at ground level.
2) the 2x2x1/8" sq tube would not be strong enough to resist the torsion from a fork tine at the outside ends.