My 3rd and hopefully last log splitter

[mikefromnh]

Just about the same.. Just to show you that you are not the only one going that route. Many many advantages using box over I beam.
Glad to see you used that type of cylinder over the tie rod end type.
Keep up the nice job can't wait to see it run..


View attachment 413252



View attachment 413253

Very impressive!

On my old northern tool and my friends Iron and Oak splitter the connection between the cylinder and the push plate broke. Repeatedly.

 

[franklin2]

It's a chicken and egg thing, and you can't have an I beam without a web connecting the top and bottom flanges. So I don't really see a distinction or any portion of the beam that is more important than the others. For traditional top-down loading, the top flange carries the max compression load, the bottom flange carries the max tension load, and the web carries the max shear load at its center. Without a web interconnecting the max compression and tension elements, you wouldn't have a beam. And if the web wasn't capable of handling the shear load directly associated with the top compression and lower tension, you wouldn't have a beam. So it's one of those things where all the pieces are important together. Separately, not so much.

The web has much less importance though. You can knock big holes in the web all the way down the length of the I beam, and it would still be as strong as if it didn't have any holes. There are limitations of course.

 

[s219]

The web has much less importance though. You can knock big holes in the web all the way down the length of the I beam, and it would still be as strong as if it didn't have any holes. There are limitations of course.

All the web has to do is provide the proper characteristics to connect the top flange's compression loads to the bottom flange's tension loads without busting apart. There are a lot of ways to do that, but I wouldn't say that makes it unimportant or less important. The flanges would be useless without a web, which makes it very important!

 

[muddstopper]

I dont know about which or what is the strenght portion of a Ibeam. I do know that a Ibeam will twist more than an H beam. I also know that if the flanges are thin, the pusher plate will bend the flanges. I also know that You can rip the end off an Ibeam just like ripping paper. Only my opinion, so take it for being just that. The Hbeam will have wider flanges than an Ibeam and the wider the flange, the less likely the beam to twist. My 6x6whbeam has a 1/2in flange and web. I plated the top flange with additional 1/2in plate. I added 3/4 flat plate to both side of the web. I can twist it and see it flex all the time. It always flexes back to straight when pressure is relieved. I use a 5in bore cylinder and a 6way adjustable wedge. My wedge is 24in tall at full extension. A tall wedge will cause the beam to twist more than a short wedge.

My current processor build will use a 8x8 hbeam. I plan on capping the top with another 1/2in plate for a total flange thickness of 1in. I also plan on boxing the sides just inside the edges of the flange, leaving a couple of inches of flange on each side of the box to allow the slide to have a flange to hold on to. I will be using twin 4.5in clinders to push a 20in tall pushplate. I am using what I have, but if i had the tube, i would most likely use a sq tube instead of the beefed up hbeam. I believe the sq tube to be stronger than either the hbeam or I beam of similar common sizes. again, just my opinion based on what I have seen work in the field. Ever see a hbeam or I beam used to make a boom of equipment, Manufacturers use box tubing for a reason and it aint because it cheaper.

 

[Stihl Man]

Not certain how anyone can make a statement that the web of an I or H beam supplies no strength.
I speak of log splitter application only..
Would have to have extremely thick top & bottom flanges to compensate for a thin web, 3" thick (might) be ok for a 4"or 5" in cylinder.
If that is the case and the web is there just to space top and bottom flanges apart take some 3/4"x6" rectangle bar for top and bottom flanges.
Connect top and bottom flanges with some 1/16" x 6" plastic sheet all the way down beam for web..
Let me know how that works.
Last I checked the world is still round.

Looks good Mike what you are doing is spot on.
And your thoughts on tube is spot on also!!!

 

[franklin2]

I am referring to a "classic" I beam that can be bought. The web is usually very close to the same thickness as the top and bottom flanges. If you want a "cool" hot rod look to your logsplitter, you can cut holes all the way down the length of the web and not affect it's strength. You all know what I am talking about and of course you have to be a little bit reasonable with the hole size and the spacing of the holes. You can't totally gut the web out all together.

Someone mentioned roof trusses earlier. Same theory, and they have lots of triangulated holes in the middle. I did a variation on that with my splitter since I didn't buy any metal, only used what I had laying around. If someone wanted to they could make a logsplitter beam out of two flat pieces of metal with triangulated bracing in the middle. No reason it would not work.

 

[muddstopper]

Franklin, your triangulated theory might work for a truss where the load is spread evenly over the lenght of the truss. And i am sure you could take two pieces of plate and use triangle bracing to make a beam and it hold up for certain loads. Wood splitter beams dont load evenly. The forces are moving between the push plate and the wedge and fully loaded at each end. Sure you could use a large piece of flat bar and weld a flange on it and split wood, but my question is why bother. It would take a awful big piece of flatbar and flange material to keep it from bending or twisting. More so than simply using box tubing or a real Hbeam which would probably cost and weigh less than your fabbed up triangulated beam. I am fairly certain if you triangulated beam was better or stronger than hbeam or sq tubing, equipment manufacturers wouldnt be using something other than tubing to build booms. Only thing I have ever seen that used triangle bracing are crane booms and towers, and those are either built as a box or triangle, not as a single beam. Bridges dont use triangle braced beams either, they use Ibeams, laid side by side and connected across the width to prevent twisting.

 

[triptester]

In the 1800s before welded fabrication of beams became common all steel structures were made of angle iron and flat stock riveted together to make beams and columns.

 

[franklin2]

I have seen some of the woodsplitters from tractor supply, and they were a fabricated beam stitch welded along the length. Not sure why they went that way, but it seems to work.

 

[muddstopper]

In the 1800s before welded fabrication of beams became common all steel structures were made of angle iron and flat stock riveted together to make beams and columns.

Yep, and as soon as the engineers figured out a better material, they stopped using the angle and plate rivet system. I am not saying you cant build a strong beam using such materials, I just dont think its the most efficient or best material choice for a splitter beam.