Another Firewood Processor

[Wild Bill the 2nd]

Today we set up a dial indicator to get a baseline on splitter beam deflection. We put a log sideways in front of the wedge and ran the splitter up to 2000 PSI (19 tons). We saw the beam drop about .150" under the cylinder mount. It seemed like we had a lot more than that the first night we ran it. However we were running it at night and visibility was leaving a bit to be desired.

Next we boxed in the beam running 3/8" plate down each side placing it 3/4" in from the outside of the beam so that our pusher can still run freely.

Tomorrow we will check to see if we've reduced the deflection.

 

[muddstopper]

ITS ALIVE!!!!

Got the last of the lines installed tonight and fired it up. Had two leaks that were easy to fix. The oil filter and a fitting that wasn't tightened. Not bad at all.

We got the bar oil pump primed late so we did not put the chain on. Motor at least spins though. Looks like we will may take the needle valve and the check valve out of the line for the bar oil. Seems to have a nearly perfect flow without them in the loop.

Our biggest issue is that the I-beam bends way too much! With the splitter valve relief set at 2000 psi we saw both ends of the beam flex and we saw the beam twist near the rear mount. Not good at less than 20 tons, really it was pretty scary! We are going to box the beam in on both sides. Probably with 3/8" so that it looks like this

____
| | |
| | |
| | |


Next biggest issues are slightly embarrassing, but hey, I'm a beginner at this hydraulics stuff.
-First, My initial plan was to run some additional hydraulics off of the power beyond from the log splitter valve. I ended routing those items to a different pump but still ended up purchasing the calve with power beyond. So is there any way to convert this so the power beyond flow goes out the out port or do I need to plumb the power beyond to the return manifold? Could I just tee into the current line running from the out port or will I have an issue backfeeding something?
-Second, Looking into power beyond. I have 2 valve bodies each with 3 directional valves. I just plumbed the out from the first into the second. Am I OK doing this if I only ever want to use one function at a time or do I put too much pressure on the output of the first valve somehow? I could convert the first valve in the series to power beyond. We'd just need to cut and re-weld the mounting plate since the location would change.
-Last hydraulic issue, I see that my log clamp pressure bleeds down. Is it a lock valve that I would want to prevent this?

22HP engine seems to be bogging down easily under what I would consider to be light pressures. 1500 PSI on the 6.5 GPM Pump. Tomorrow we will try to see how it works when running the saw with the 17.4 GPM pump. That will be the acid test...

I am interested in how your hbeam plating works out. I am building a processor and have planned a similar design for boxing my hbeam. I am using a 8x hbeam and twin 4.5in bore cyl so I know the stress on the hbeam are going to be pretty great.

 

[Wild Bill the 2nd]

We tested it out today and I don't know what to think. Along with boxing in the beam we added a support directly under the cylinder attachment point. In doing this we can not measure the reduction in deflection. In the video below you can see that we've now changed from the beam bowing down at the end under the cylinder support to a beam that bows up.

Note: the box runs the full length of the beam. We had to use 2 pieces per side and we overlapped them by 6". The 8x20 piece you see marked is the outer piece.

Thoughts? Is this acceptable?

We located the cylinder 8-1/2" above the beam so that it would be in the center of an average 16" log. I'm wondering if this was too high and that is the root of our problems.

We could try to move the cylinder down. This is not a popular idea since we have no idea how we would ever drill a 1-1/4" hole through that 1" plate while it is mounted in the machine. Or we could reinforce it some more. I am thinking of getting a 30"long piece of heavy C channel and setting it upside down on the top of the beam. Cut a slot for the cylinder support and weld it all around. Either that or getting some more 1" stock cut and weld a web on the front of the support that tries to spread the force down the beam.

As an aside, What do you thing Google is trying to say to me giving me a URL like that for this video?

 

[farm boy00]

We tested it out today and I don't know what to think. Along with boxing in the beam we added a support directly under the cylinder attachment point. In doing this we can not measure the reduction in deflection. In the video below you can see that we've now changed from the beam bowing down at the end under the cylinder support to a beam that bows up.

Note: the box runs the full length of the beam. We had to use 2 pieces per side and we overlapped them by 6". The 8x20 piece you see marked is the outer piece.

Video Link: https://youtu.be/dumBAzkes8o

Thoughts? Is this acceptable?

We located the cylinder 8-1/2" above the beam so that it would be in the center of an average 16" log. I'm wondering if this was too high and that is the root of our problems.

We could try to move the cylinder down. This is not a popular idea since we have no idea how we would ever drill a 1-1/4" hole through that 1" plate while it is mounted in the machine. Or we could reinforce it some more. I am thinking of getting a 30"long piece of heavy C channel and setting it upside down on the top of the beam. Cut a slot for the cylinder support and weld it all around. Either that or getting some more 1" stock cut and weld a web on the front of the support that tries to spread the force down the beam.

As an aside, What do you thing Google is trying to say to me giving me a URL like that for this video?

Way to high. I personally think it should be as low as possible

 

[Jim Timber]

Can you add a gusset from below the ram attachment to above the seam between your reinforcement plates? Looks like nothing travels there?

The other option would be adding another rib in line with the web of the beam but below the lower flange. Maybe some channel to box it below?

 

[SpringHollow]

As an aside, What do you thing Google is trying to say to me giving me a URL like that for this video?

That link name is hilarious!!! I am impressed that you noticed.

I am not able to look at how it looks. Is there a way to use a mag drill to drill the hole? Perhaps by even clamping a piece of beam in an appropriate location. If a mag drill solves your problem, I have one if you need to borrow it.

Ken

 

[Wild Bill the 2nd]

I am not able to look at how it looks. Is there a way to use a mag drill to drill the hole? Perhaps by even clamping a piece of beam in an appropriate location. If a mag drill solves your problem, I have one if you need to borrow it.

Mag Drill was the only thing I was thinking could work. Could work if we used a hole saw...
I know we have one at work but I don't know if it is that robust or up to that kind of task. I will keep that offer in mind Ken. Thanks!

 

[CDN Farm Boy]

I'm guessing the height of the ram from the beam is a major contributor to the problem. Looks to me that it's the length of the lever of the mounts that is the problem, which shows up as beam deflection.

I could be way off here but throwing the thought out for you anyway: due to the short length of the cyl mount (as measured parallel with the beam) compared to the cyl offset which you say is about 8.5", the forces from the cyl are acting at a 45 deg angle (or so) to the beam. If the beam and mount were extended further behind the cyl, would that allow the force angle to be more acute than 45 deg and reduce the deflection? Or would the weak spot still be at the leading edge of the cyl mount and nothing be gained?

I don't quite follow your description about the C channel but if you are looking to add more beef to the beam, nothing beats depth when it comes to strength. Is it possible to stack another H beam under the existing one?

 

[SpringHollow]

For bending, stacking another I-beam like mentioned above would certainly help. For twisting, some gussets perpendicular to the web would help.

Ken

 

[mx842]

It's hard to really see in the video.....for me anyway, but to me that really doesn't look that awful bad. You are going to get some deflection no matter what you do to it. Where the problem comes in is when it deflects and don't move back into it's normal shape. How much more you could throw at it before it gets to that point is the question. You could be almost to that point now or it may be that you could throw another ten/twenty tons on it before it reaches the point. Another thing to remember is that the large majority of wood is going to split well before you get to the point of what you are placing on the sideways chucked piece of wood you are testing it with now.

As others have noted you are rather high with your rod attachment on the pusher and also the height of your wedge is going to add to the problem also. Your cylinder should be as low to the beam as at all possible and remember the pusher block nor the splitter wedge needs to be the same height as the wood you are splitting. Tall wedges like your are better suited for a box type cutter where you will get some added support from several different points rather than just at the bottom attachment point. Just my 2 cents worth of thought thrown in.....nothing written in stone.