Stress Analysis and Material Selection for Fork arm of

Forklift Truck
(A Semester Project Report)

Finite Element Methods

Submitted To:
Dr. Asif Israr
Institute of Space Technology

Submitted By:
Mateen Ullah Meo
Reg No:
170511002 (MDA-06)

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad.

June 27, 2019

Abstract
Fork arm is used in lifter truck to lift and transport heavy loads from one place to another. It is
also used to lift vehicles such as motorbikes and cars. It works through a scissor jack mechanism.
It consists, most commonly, of two arms attached to the carrying plate of the fork lift truck.

Few studies revealed that number of failures have occurred in fork arms of forklift trucks by
sudden overloading. This happen due to stress concentration at a specific point thus making it a
crack initiation point because of the certain geometric constraints, manufacturing defects and
selection of poor material. For example, a specified fork arm is supposed to hold weight of 1500
kg but test undertaken has revealed that it fails to work after lifting that amount of work and may
physically break or deform. It has also been observed that in most of cases the mode of failure of
fork arm is bending.

In this study, it is analyzed how the bending stiffness (mostly called as ‘flexural stiffness’) can be
improved thus protecting the fork arm against bending. It is also been worked out why we
deliberately want the failure to occur in fork arm earlier than the actual ‘yield point’ of the fork
arm material hence having a ‘fail safe design’.

2
Table of Contents
1.1 Fork Arm........................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.2.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................. 8
1.3.1 Basic System of a Forklift ......................................................................................................... 8
1.3.2 Basic Types of Forklift ............................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Cross Sectional Properties .................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Thick Section ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Thin Section ................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Calculation of Force and Moment Reactions ........................................................................................ 11
2.3.1 Shear Force Diagram (V-X) and Bending Moment Diagram (M-X)............................................. 13
2.4 Stress Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 Thick Section ................................................................................................................................. 14
2.4.1.1 Normal Stress (Bending Stress) .............................................................................................. 14
2.4.1.2 Shear Stress ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.4.2 Thin Section ................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4.2.1 Normal Stress (Bending Stress) .............................................................................................. 16
2.4.2.2 Shear Stress ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.4.3 Lock Pin ......................................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.3.1 Average Shear Stress .............................................................................................................. 17
2.4.3.2 Bearing Stress in the Bar ......................................................................................................... 17
2.5 Principal Stresses .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.5.1 Thick Section ................................................................................................................................. 17
2.5.2 Thick Section ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.5.3 Lock Pin ......................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Model .................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Boundary Condition and Meshing ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3 FEA Results .......................................................................................................................................... 22
3.3.1 Solid Section with Sharp Edges ..................................................................................................... 22
3.3.2 Solid Section with Smooth Round Edges ...................................................................................... 22
3.3.3 Comparison with Lock Pin Stresses............................................................................................... 23

3
 3.3.4 Comparison between Analytical and FEA Results ........................................................................ 23
3.4 Convergence ......................................................................................................................................... 24
4.1 Failure Theories .................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Thick Section ................................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.1.1 Mohr’s Circle .......................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.1.2 Failure Theories ...................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.1.3 Normal and Shear Stress Distribution ..................................................................................... 27
4.1.2 Thin Section ................................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2.1 Mohr’s Circle .......................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2.2 Failure Theories ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2.3 Normal and Shear Stress Distribution (Along the thickness of beam) ................................... 29
4.1.3 Lock Pin ......................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3.1 Mohr’s Circle .......................................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3.2 Failure Theories ...................................................................................................................... 30
5.1 Strength to weight ratio ......................................................................................................................... 31
5.2 Machinability ........................................................................................................................................ 31
5.2.1 Hardness......................................................................................................................................... 32
5.2.2 Yield strength ................................................................................................................................. 32
5.2.3 Tensile strength .............................................................................................................................. 32
5.3 Factor of safety ..................................................................................................................................... 32
5.4 Comparison ........................................................................................................................................... 33
5.5 Proposed Improvements........................................................................................................................ 33
5.5.1 Bending Stiffness ........................................................................................................................... 33
5.5.1.1 Improved Results .................................................................................................................... 33
5.5.1.2 FEA Results ........................................................................................................................... 34
5.5.1.3 Deflection Comparison ........................................................................................................... 34
5.5.1.4 Results Comparison ................................................................................................................ 35
5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 35
5.7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 35
5.7.1 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 35
5.7.2 Dynamic Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 35

4
List of figures
Figure 1.1: Forklift Truck ............................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2.1: Fork Arm .................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.2: Fork arm Cross-Sectional Properties (Thick Section) .............................................................. 11
Figure 2.3: Fork arm Cross-Sectional Properties (Thin Section) ................................................................ 11
Figure 2.4: Shear Force and Bending Moment diagram ............................................................................. 13
Table 2.1: Stresses in Fork arm................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.1: 3-D Creo Model of Fork arm.................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.2: 3-D Meshed Model of Fork arm after Mesh Refinement and application Boundary Conditions
............................................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 3.3: Stress Analysis of fork arm inset showing stress concentration at sharp edges (a) Solid cross-
section throughout (b) Thick and thin cross section case ................................................................... 22
Figure 3.4: Finite element analysis (a) Von-Mises stress (b) Maximum shear stress (c) Maximum principal
stress (d) Maximum deflection ........................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.5: Finite element stress analysis inset showing the very high stresses at lock-pin area due to stress
concentration ....................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3.1: Comparison of Von-Mises stress, Maximum principal stress and Maximum shear stress values
between Analytical and FEA results ................................................................................................... 23
Table 3.2: Convergence data for stresses, strains and deflections as a function of element size in ANSYS
18.2...................................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.6: Convergence plots .................................................................................................................... 24
Table 4.1: Strength data for different materials .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 4.1: Mohr's circle plot showing the maximum principal stresses, maximum shear stress and principal
plane orientations ................................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 4.2: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Normal stress theory and Max. Distortion energy
theory .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.3: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Shear stress theory ........................................ 27
Figure 4.4: Normal and Shear stress distribution along the thickness of showing the Neutral plane ......... 27
Figure 4.5: Mohr's circle plot showing the maximum principal stresses, maximum shear stress and principal
plane orientations ................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 4.6: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Normal stress theory and Max. Shear stress
theory .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 4.7: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Distortion energy theory ............................... 29
Figure 4.8: Normal and Shear stress distribution along the thickness of showing the Neutral plane ......... 29
Figure 4.9: Mohr's circle plot showing the maximum principal stresses, maximum shear stress and principal
plane orientations ................................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4.10: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Distortion energy theory, Max. Shear stress
theory and Max. Normal stress theory ................................................................................................ 30
Table 5.1: Material properties ..................................................................................................................... 31
Table 5.2: Material comparison for appropriate selection .......................................................................... 33
Figure 5.1: 3-D Creo model showing drilled holes for material removal and added wooden strip at the
bottom (Suggested improvements) .................................................................................................... 33

5
Figure 5.2: FEA stress analysis of improved design (a) Von-Mises stress (b) Maximum principal stress (c)
Maximum shear stress (d) Maximum deflection ................................................................................ 34
Figure 5.3: Maximum deflection comparison between the two designs (a) Original Design with no support
underneath (b) Improved design with drilled holes and underneath wooden support ........................ 34
Table 5.3: Results comparison of obtained stress values between the two designs .................................... 35

6
List of Nomenclature
1. W1 - Weight on the beam (N)
2. RA - Reaction force (N)
3. MA - Reaction Moment at the support (N-m)
4. Mmax - Maximum moment (N-m)
5. Vmax - Maximum shear force (N)
6. W - Applied weight (kg)
7. I – Moment of inertia (m4)
8. - Compressive stress(N/mm2)
9. - Average Shear Stress (N/mm2)
10. 𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑚 -Compressive normal stress (N/mm2)
11. 𝜎𝑡𝑒𝑛 -Tensile normal stress (N/mm2)
12. 𝑄 - Moment of area under consideration (m3)
13. 𝜎𝑝1 - Maximum Principal stress (N/mm2)
14. 𝜎𝑝2- Minimum Principal stress (N/mm2)
15. max - Maximum Shear Stress (N/mm2)
16. A - Area of the cross-section (mm2)
17. 𝑆𝑦 -Ultimate yield strength (N/mm2)

7
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Fork Arm
Fork arm is used in lifter truck to lift and transport heavy loads from one place to another. It is
also used to lift vehicles such as motorbikes and cars. It works through a scissor jack mechanism.
It consists of, most commonly, of two arms attached to the carrying plate of the fork lift truck.

1.2 Problem Statement

Few studies revealed that number of failures have occurred in fork arms of forklift trucks by
sudden overloading. This happen due to stress concentration at a specific point thus making it a
crack initiation point because of the certain geometric constraints, manufacturing defects and
selection of poor material. For example, a specified fork arm is supposed to hold weight of 2000
kg but test undertaken has revealed that it fails to work after lifting that amount of work and may
physically break or deform.

1.2.1 Objectives
 To design a fork arm which is safe and reliable to lift the load.
 To perform stress analysis and compare the analytical results with software.
 To select the material that can sustain high yield strength and less deformation without
any failure.

1.3 Literature Review

A forklift truck is a powered industrial truck used to lift and transport materials. The earliest forklift
truck was invented between 1914 and 1915 and put on the market since 1930s. After that, the
increasing need of transporting military material during the World War II spurred the development
of the Forklifts. Following the war, more efficient methods for storing products in warehouses
were being implemented. Warehouses needed more maneuverable forklift trucks that could reach
greater heights. More new forklift models were made that filled this need. Since then, forklift
trucks have become indispensable equipment in manufacturing and warehousing operations. In
2011, the size of the forklift manufacturing industry was nearly $27 billion.

1.3.1 Basic System of a Forklift

Usually a fully functional forklift would consist of the following major systems: the power system,
driving system, loading system (including hydraulic transmission, lifting system, etc.). Our design
here is more concerned with the loading system. Since we are not going to focus on the power,
driving and control system, we will give a basic introduction in the following two sections (the
power system will be included in the driving system).

8
1.3.2 Basic Types of Forklift
Forklifts come in a variety of sizes, configurations and weight-lifting capacities. There are a few
different classes of forklifts that can be distinguished by two major features: their power sources
and their configurations.

 Class 1: In terms of power sources, there are electric-powered forklifts and gas-powered
ones.
 Class 2: In terms of configuration, there are counterbalance forklifts (four-wheel and three
wheel), reach truck, order picker, multidirectional forklifts, side-loaders and some other
types designed for specific needs.

Figure 1.1: Forklift Truck

9
Chapter 2: Mathematical Modelling
2.1 Assumptions
 Arms of the lifter can be assumed as a cantilever beam.
 Width of the beam is 150mm, so narrow beam assumption is valid.
 Transverse loading means there is only plane stress.
 There are two arms of the lifting fork, so total weight of the car will be shared between
them, half load on each arm. We will analyze one beam.
 There is a thin portion at the end of each arm to facilitate lifting. We have approximated
the gradual decrease in thickness as a thin portion of constant thickness
(thickness=thickness of the edge).
 The body of the car will be in contact with the arms at two points. So two point load can
be assumed to be acting at those locations.
 Maximum width of a car is taken to be 1.6m.
 Clearance from the left side is 100mm, so that the car does not get damaged or scratched
by being directly in contact with the arms.

2.2 Cross Sectional Properties

Figure 2.1: Fork Arm

10
2.2.1 Thick Section

Figure 2.2: Fork arm Cross-Sectional Properties (Thick Section)

2.2.2 Thin Section

Figure 2.3: Fork arm Cross-Sectional Properties (Thin Section)

2.3 Calculation of Force and Moment Reactions

Total weight of the car = 14700 N
14700 N
Total weight of one beam = = 7350 N
2

Weight on one beam is further divided into two weights (forces) W1 and W2.

7350 N
𝑊1 = 𝑊2 = = 3675
2
Summing all forces about y-axis: ΣFy = 0

11
 RA = W1 + W2 = 0

RA = 7350 N

Summing moments about point A: ΣMA = 0

MA - (0.1) (3675) – (1.7) (3675) = 0

MA = 6615 N-m

12
2.3.1 Shear Force Diagram (V-X) and Bending Moment Diagram (M-X)

Figure 2.4: Shear Force and Bending Moment diagram

13
2.4 Stress Analysis
For the analysis of the fork, it is divided into two parts:

 Thicker part
 Thinner part (the part of fork with varying thickness is assumed to be of constant thickness
of the edge)

2.4.1 Thick Section

The moment of inertia is given by:

b=150mm & h=30mm

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12
𝑰 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝟕𝟓 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟕 𝒎𝟒

Mmax = 6982.50 N-m Vmax = 7350 N

2.4.1.1 Normal Stress (Bending Stress)

Normal stress due to bending is given by:

𝑀𝑦
𝜎=−
𝐼
Where:

M = Bending Moment I = Moment of Inertia y = Location of point

 For maximum stress, we use “c”

c = ± 15 mm (top and bottom)

The maximum compressive normal stress due to bending, at the top of thick part, is given by:

𝑀𝑐 6982.50 × 1.5 × 10−2

𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑚 = − =−
𝐼 3.375 × 10−7
𝝈𝒄𝒐𝒎 = −𝟐𝟗𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

14
The maximum tensile normal stress due to bending, at the top of thick part, is given by:

𝑀𝑐 6982.50 × 1.5 × 10−2

𝜎𝑡𝑒𝑛 = =−
𝐼 3.375 × 10−7
𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒏 = 𝟐𝟗𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

 At center the normal bending stress is zero because c = 0.

2.4.1.2 Shear Stress

𝑉𝑄
Ƭ=
𝐼𝑡

Where:

V = Shear Force, Q = Moment of area under consideration, t = thickness, I = Moment of Inertia

Maximum shear stress will act at center of the beam. At edges, shear stress will be zero.

FOR CENTRE:

𝑸 = 𝑨𝒚 = 1.68 × 10−5 𝑚3

t = 150 mm

5714.32 × 1.68 × 10−5

Ƭ=
(15 × 10−2 )(3.375 × 10−7 )

Ƭ = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

2.4.2 Thin Section

At 15mm from the left

b=150mm & h=20mm

𝑏ℎ3
𝐼=
12

𝑰 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟏𝟖𝟕 × 𝟏𝟎−𝟖 𝒎𝟒

15
 Mmax = 735 N-m Vmax = 3675 N

2.4.2.1 Normal Stress (Bending Stress)

 For maximum stress, we use “c”
c = ± 15 mm (top and bottom)

The maximum compressive normal stress due to bending, at the top of thick part, is given by:

𝑀𝑐 735 × 1.5 × 10−2

𝜎𝑐𝑜𝑚 = − =−
𝐼 3.375 × 10−7
𝝈𝒄𝒐𝒎 = −𝟏𝟑𝟏 𝑴𝑷𝒂

The maximum tensile normal stress due to bending, at the top of thick part, is given by:

𝑀𝑐 735 × 1.5 × 10−2

𝜎𝑡𝑒𝑛 = =−
𝐼 3.375 × 10−7
𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒏 = 𝟏𝟑𝟏 𝑴𝑷𝒂

 At center the normal bending stress is zero because c = 0.

2.4.2.2 Shear Stress

𝑉𝑄
Ƭ=
𝐼𝑡

Where:

V = Shear Force, Q = Moment of area under consideration, t = thickness, I = Moment of Inertia

Maximum shear stress will act at center of the beam. At edges, shear stress will be zero.

FOR CENTRE:

𝑸 = 𝑨𝒚 = 4.21 × 10−6 𝑚3

t = 150 mm

3675 × 1.68 × 10−5

Ƭ=
(15 × 10−2 )(3.375 × 10−7 )

Ƭ = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 𝑴𝑷𝒂

2.4.3 Lock Pin

Applied load = 7350 N Allowable stress = 370 Mpa Factor of Safety = 3

16
 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝐹. 𝑂. 𝑆 =
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠

370 × 106
3=
7350
𝜋 × 𝑟2
𝒓 = 𝟏𝟕. 𝟒𝟐 𝒎𝒎

2.4.3.1 Average Shear Stress

4𝐹
𝜏=
2𝜋𝑑 2

𝝉 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟒𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂

2.4.3.2 Bearing Stress in the Bar

𝐹
𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝜎𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 =
𝑡. 𝑑

𝝈𝑩𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟏𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂

2.5 Principal Stresses

2.5.1 Thick Section
𝝈𝒙 = −𝟐𝟗𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝝈𝒛 = 𝝈𝒚 = 𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝑻𝒙𝒚 = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

The equation for principal stress is given by:

𝝈𝒑𝟏 = 𝟐𝟗𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂 & 𝝈𝒑𝟐 = −𝟎. 𝟎𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Taking plane stress assumption:

|𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 |
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2
𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟏𝟒𝟕 𝑴𝑷𝒂

17
The angle “Ɵ” for principle stresses can be calculated by following equation:

⊝𝒑 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟕𝟓°

The angle at which maximum shear stress occurs is at 45° of angle for principle stress.

⊝𝒔 =⊝𝒑 ± 𝟒𝟓°

Opposite signs of 𝝈𝒑𝟏 and𝝈𝒑𝟐 indicate that the absolute maximum shear stress will be the same
as the maximum shear stress in xy-plane.

𝑻𝒂𝒃𝒔,𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟏𝟏𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

2.5.2 Thick Section

𝝈𝒙 = 𝟏𝟑𝟏 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝝈𝒛 = 𝝈𝒚 = 𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝑻𝒙𝒚 = 𝟐. 𝟒𝟑 𝑴𝑷𝒂

The equation for principal stress is given by:

𝝈𝒑𝟏 = 𝟏𝟑𝟏 𝑴𝑷𝒂 & 𝝈𝒑𝟐 = −𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟒𝟓𝟕 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Taking plane stress assumption:

|𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 |
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2
𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟔𝟓. 𝟒 𝑴𝑷𝒂

The angle “Ɵ” for principle stresses can be calculated by following equation:

18
 ⊝𝒑 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟔𝟐°

The angle at which maximum shear stress occurs is at 45° of angle for principle stress.

⊝𝒔 =⊝𝒑 ± 𝟒𝟓°

Opposite signs of 𝝈𝒑𝟏 and𝝈𝒑𝟐 indicate that the absolute maximum shear stress will be the same
as the maximum shear stress in xy-plane.

2.5.3 Lock Pin

𝝈𝒙 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟏𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝝈𝒛 = 𝝈𝒚 = 𝟎 𝑴𝑷𝒂

𝑻𝒙𝒚 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟒𝟐 𝑴𝑷𝒂

The equation for principal stress is given by:

𝝈𝒑𝟏 = 𝟏𝟔. 𝟖𝟖𝟗 𝑴𝑷𝒂 & 𝝈𝒑𝟐 = −𝟏𝟒. 𝟎𝟕𝟕 𝑴𝑷𝒂

Taking plane stress assumption:

|𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 |
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
2
𝑻𝒎𝒂𝒙 = 𝟏𝟓. 𝟒𝟖𝟑 𝑴𝑷𝒂

The angle “Ɵ” for principle stresses can be calculated by following equation:

⊝𝒑 = 𝟒𝟐. 𝟑𝟗𝟓°

The angle at which maximum shear stress occurs is at 45° of angle for principle stress.

19
 ⊝𝒔 =⊝𝒑 ± 𝟒𝟓°

Opposite signs of 𝝈𝒑𝟏 and𝝈𝒑𝟐 indicate that the absolute maximum shear stress will be the same
as the maximum shear stress in xy-plane.

Element 𝝈𝒙 𝝈𝒚 𝝉𝒙𝒚 𝝈𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝝈𝒎𝒊𝒏 𝝉𝒎𝒂𝒙

Thick Section 294 0 2.44 294 -0.0202 147
Thin Section 131 0 2.43 131 -0.00457 65.4
Lock Pin 2.812 0 15.42 16.889 -14.077 15.483
Table 2.1: Stresses in Fork arm

20
Chapter 3: Finite Element Analysis
3.1 Model

Figure 3.1: 3-D Creo Model of Fork arm

3.2 Boundary Conditions and Meshing Details

Figure 3.2: 3-D Meshed Model of Fork arm after Mesh Refinement and application Boundary Conditions

21
3.3 FEA Results
3.3.1 Solid Section with Sharp Edges

Figure 3.3: Stress Analysis of fork arm inset showing stress concentration at sharp edges (a) Solid cross-
section throughout (b) Thick and thin cross section case

3.3.2 Solid Section with Smooth Round Edges

Figure 3.4: Finite element analysis (a) Von-Mises stress (b) Maximum shear stress (c) Maximum
principal stress (d) Maximum deflection

22
3.3.3 Comparison with Lock Pin Stresses

Figure 3.5: Finite element stress analysis inset showing the very high stresses at lock-pin area
due to stress concentration

3.3.4 Comparison between Analytical and FEA Results

Von Mises Stress (MPa) Max Shear Stress (MPa) Max Principal Stress (MPa)

Analytical FEA Analytical FEA Analytical FEA

347.89
294 262.89 147 147.35 294

%age Change = 10.58 % %age Change = 0.23 % %age Change = 15.49 %

Table 3.1: Comparison of Von-Mises stress, Maximum principal stress and Maximum shear stress
values between Analytical and FEA results

 As it is indicated from the results that the percentage change in stress values of analytical and
FEA results ranges from 0-16%. As certain assumptions have been made to simplify analytical
calculation as mentioned earlier have resulted in slight variation in the results. Furthermore,
stress concentration factors at critical geometric locations (sharp edges) have not been
considered in analytical calculation which resulted in less value of maximum principal stress.

23
3.4 Convergence
Element size Von Mises Max Stress Max Shear Strain Deflection
(m) stress (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (m/m) (m)
0.1 275.1 311.72 139.12 0.0013762 0.150022
0.09 272.49 313.77 139.53 0.0013632 0.15004
0.08 268.06 316.28 142.3 0.0013409 0.15055
0.07 265.98 284.7 142.81 0.0013299 0.15009
0.06 269.49 284.23 143.5 0.001347 0.15001
0.05 275.27 282.44 139.57 0.0013779 0.14992
0.04 268.6 299.9 143.02 0.001345 0.15036
0.03 262.23 293.83 145.21 0.0013112 0.1502
0.02 257.22 309.11 143.72 0.0012865 0.15045
0.01 262.1 330.88 147.7 0.001314 0.15049
0.009 261.73 344.87 146.39 0.0013087 0.15049
0.008 262.89 347.89 147.35 0.0013145 0.1505
Table 3.2: Convergence data for stresses, strains and deflections as a function of
element size in ANSYS 18.2

Figure 3.6: Convergence plots

24
Chapter 4: Failure Analysis
4.1 Failure Theories
Comparison of induced stresses with materials yield strength using failure theories. This
comparison will be done for following of three types of material.

Sr.no Ultimate Yield Strength (MPa)

ASTM A36 Mild steel 250
A 1045 Grade steel 310
GS-52.3 Cast steel 360
Table 4.1: Strength data for different materials

Three most commonly used failure theories are used to check either failure or deformation will
occur or not

1) Maximum Distortion Energy Theory(Von Mises criterion)

2) Maximum Shear Stress Theory(Tresca criterion)
3) Maximum Normal Stress Theory

This analysis has been done for maximum values of principal stresses obtained at certain angle.

25
4.1.1 Thick Section
4.1.1.1 Mohr’s Circle

Figure 4.1: Mohr's circle plot showing the maximum principal stresses, maximum shear stress
and principal plane orientations

4.1.1.2 Failure Theories

Figure 4.2: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Normal stress theory and
Max. Distortion energy theory

26
 Figure 4.3: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Shear stress theory

4.1.1.3 Normal and Shear Stress Distribution

Figure 4.4: Normal and Shear stress distribution along the thickness of showing the Neutral plane

27
4.1.2 Thin Section
4.1.2.1 Mohr’s Circle

Figure 4.5: Mohr's circle plot showing the maximum principal stresses, maximum shear stress
and principal plane orientations

4.1.2.2 Failure Theories

Figure 4.6: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Normal stress theory and
Max. Shear stress theory

28
 Figure 4.7: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Distortion energy theory

4.1.2.3 Normal and Shear Stress Distribution (Along the thickness of beam)

Figure 4.8: Normal and Shear stress distribution along the thickness of showing the Neutral plane

29
4.1.3 Lock Pin
4.1.3.1 Mohr’s Circle

Figure 4.9: Mohr's circle plot showing the maximum principal stresses,
maximum shear stress and principal plane orientations

4.1.3.2 Failure Theories

Figure 4.10: Failure analysis of fork arm according to Max. Distortion energy theory,
Max. Shear stress theory and Max. Normal stress theory

30
Chapter 5: Material Selection
As we know all the three material are under save region and there are no chances to occur failure.
It should be some other parameters or factors that would help for selection of right material out of
these. The objective is low cost and high quality production

1) Strength to weight ratio

2) Machinability
3) Factor of safety
4) Cost

Materials AISI 1018 Stainless Steel

Mild Steel Duplex
Density kg/m3 7870 7805
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 205 200
Shear Modulus (GPa) 80 80
Ultimate yield Strength (MPa) 370 448
Ultimate Tensile Strength (MPa) 440 620
Table 5.1: Material properties

5.1 Strength to weight ratio

AISI 1018 Mild Steel

𝑆𝑦 370
( )=( ) = 0.04701𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑚3 /𝑘𝑔
𝜌 7870

Stainless Steel Duplex

𝑆𝑦 448
( )=( ) = 0.05739𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝑚3 /𝑘𝑔
𝜌 7805

Strength to weight ratio should be maximized .Stainless Steel Duplex high ratio as compared with
AISI 1018 Grade Steel. But they both have satisfactory strength to weight ratio. Therefore,
according to strength to weight ratio both of them can be considered.

5.2 Machinability
The physical properties and condition of the material have a direct influence on the
machinability of a work material.

The main factors that’s determine the ease of machinability of the work material are as follows:

31
 5.2.1 Hardness
The tendency for a material to resist deformation is known as hardness. Increases in yield
strength results increase in hardness indicate the difficulty of machining.

5.2.2 Yield strength

Material having high yield strength effect the machining process as large forces is required
to produce deformation.

5.2.3 Tensile strength

High tensile strength reduces the chances of failure under applied forces during machining.

 Yield strength and tensile strength should be moderate means their values are not
as high as it resist machining operation.

5.3 Factor of safety

For given design if we have assumed the factor of safety as 1.5.

Using this value maximum working stresses can be determined .The value of maximum
applied shear stress that has been calculated analytically is 147 MPa. Working stress for given
materials should be equal to or greater than this value.

If failure would occur in members of jack then it should be ductile failure, in that case

Factor of safety =Ultimate yield strength /Working stress

AISI 1018 Mild Steel

Working stress =Ultimate yield strength / Factor of safety

370
𝜎𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 = = 247 𝑀𝑃𝑎
1.5
Stainless Steel Duplex

448
𝜎𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 = = 299 𝑀𝑃𝑎
1.5
Working stress for both materials is much greater than maximum applied shear stress.

32
5.4 Comparison
Material AISI 1018 Mild Steel Stainless Steel Duplex
Strength to weight 0.0470 0.05739
ratio (MPa)
Machinability Excellent Excellent
Working Stress 247 299
Table 5.2: Material comparison for appropriate selection

5.5 Proposed Improvements

5.5.1 Bending Stiffness
If the thickness of forks can be increased, it can resist more bending moment. But if we increase
thickness, our cost will go up as well. A hollow section can be designed which can bear the same
amount of stresses as the original beam but in this case less material will be used. So, if we can
reach a compromise between material usage and stress bearing ability, then it will be a better
option.

Therefore, to achieve this compromise between material and stress bearing ability we can add wooden strips
above and below the metal fork. By doing so expensive materials (steel) usage is reduced and bending
stiffness can be increased significantly as indicated by the equation below:

𝐸. 𝑏. ℎ3
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 𝐸𝐼 =
12
Where h is thickness of the fork arm which is being increased by adding wooden strips.

5.5.1.1 Improved Results

Figure 5.1: 3-D Creo model showing drilled holes for material
removal and added wooden strip at the bottom
(Suggested improvements)

33
5.5.1.2 FEA Results

Figure 5.2: FEA stress analysis of improved design (a) Von-Mises stress (b) Maximum principal stress
(c) Maximum shear stress (d) Maximum deflection

5.5.1.3 Deflection Comparison

Figure 5.3: Maximum deflection comparison between the two designs (a) Original Design with no support
underneath (b) Improved design with drilled holes and underneath wooden support

34
5.5.1.4 Results Comparison
Von Mises Stress Max Shear Stress Max Principal Stress
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Without Without With Without With
With Support
Support Support Support Support Support
262.89 124.2 147.35 65.41 347.89 163.39

%age Reduction in stresses = 52.75 % 55.609 % 53.034 %

Table 5.3: Results comparison of obtained stress values between the two designs

 Hence it is clearly indicated from the results comparison that addition of a wooden
strip below the actual fork arm will greatly affect the bending stiffness and hence
stresses will be reduced significantly (approximately 50%)

5.6 Conclusion
Hence both the materials are within safe stress limits as it is clearly evident in our calculations.
But based on the parameters defined above mild steel is selected as an appropriate material which
completely satisfy the required demands of being lightweight, inexpensive and having a good
strength to weight ratio. But our analysis is valid for both the materials.

In addition to the stresses on fork, the cost and weather conditions are also important. Considering
the conditions in which the fork lifter will be used, Stainless steel is more preferable because it is
corrosion resistant. Therefore, the use of any of the above materials very much depends on the
environment and loading conditions in the structural members is being used.

5.7 Recommendations
5.7.1 Impact Analysis
One of the critical factor is that beam structures are very weak against impact loading. Therefore,
and impact analysis must be performed while designing the beam and it should be protected against
small impact loads without significantly increasing the cost and materials usage (which can
increase weight of the object).

5.7.2 Dynamic Analysis

Secondly, we must analyze the behavior of fork arm material during the course of operation i.e.
while the lift truck is moving carrying the object (Dynamic analysis). This can include the cases
of random loading and small impact loads scenarios.

35
References
[1]. Hibbeler, R. and Yap, K. (n.d.). Mechanics of materials.

[2]. Mdsolids.com. (2019). MDSolids: Educational Software for Mechanics of Materials.

[online] Available at: https://www.mdsolids.com/ [Accessed 21 Apr. 2019].

[3]. Schneider, G. (2019). Cutting Tool Applications, Chapter 3: Machinability of Metals.

[online] American Machinist. Available at: http://www.americanmachinist.com/cutting-

[4]. Tools/chapter-3-machinability-metals [Accessed 5 Jun. 2019].

[5]. Shames, I. (1966). Engineering mechanics. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

[6]. Web.mst.edu. (2019). MecMovies - Mechanics of Materials. [online] Available at:

https://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/ [Accessed 17 Apr. 2019].

[7]. Zeng, H., Li, T., Gao, Q. and Liu, S. (2009). The CAE Analysis of Fork Truck Frame
System Based on ADAMS and ANSYS. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 16-19,
pp.1149-1153.

36