55t press

[uninformed]

Hey all, just starting to peice together parts for my 55t H frame press.

I scored some 250 PFC from some structural steel fabricators I know, and the 75x75x4 SHS. The 50mm plate I had to buy. I ended up fronting in at a local engineering shop that had it lying in the yard and saved $100 from what I was quoted by a local steel supplier....Im picking up the 100x16 flat bar for the uprights on monday, then will prep them for the same guy that turned the 50mm flat so he can drill and ream them....

more to follow....

[uninformed]

250 PFC:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

50mm plate. 400x400 and I oxy'd a 90mm hole in it to prep for bore and thread.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Same plate after lathe work. I had the outer area turned down to 40mm thick to reduce some weight. I just supplied the engineering shop with the plate and some drawings.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

55t ram, 350mm stroke, single acting:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[uninformed]

so maybe one of the engineering types can tell me if 250 PFC will be strong enough for a basic 55t H frame press. It will be 2 peices top and 2 peices for the table. 100x16 flat for the verticals, 2 each side with 200mm speration. Im thinking a 32mm dia hole/pin for the table height adjustments. I can box in the 250 PFC if needed. Frame width will be approx 840 clear between the 100x16 flat bar verticals

[TimNZ]

Where did you get the cylinder from Uninformed?

Cheers,

Tim

P.S. Nice Oxy work there! (If I had tried that the plate would be in 2 uneven pieces, and there would be small fires everywhere).

[uninformed]

Hi Tim, I got it from Ebay USA, but had to have a guy over there buy and ship for me as the seller did not want to deal with outside USA. It is a SPX Power Team brand. When I first thought about a press I was using a mates. He has built all his own including the rams, pumps etc. I asked him for advice and he said that working on LR's he had maxed out his 30t a few times and had to use his 100t. So I looked for a 30t ram but could only find 20 and 50/55t ..... A good quality 50t H frame press wasnt cheap then either, but now you can get an ok Chinese type for about $1000. I have WAY more into mine than that. A $$$ leason, but atleast I get some experience making something. I really wanted to do the lathe work, but the only lathe I have access to that would swing the 50mm plate is 1000km away. :(

Edit: I forgot, I also bought the hand pump from the USA, also a SPX Power Team, but I got it from Ohio Power Tool. They were happy to ship to me. Pretty easy to deal with as well. I still get emails with there sales etc

[uninformed]

Thanks on the Oxy, I dont get to use it as much as I like to (use = practice and practice = betterer :D)

#15 tip
acetylene at 100
oxy at 350

I used a compass guide. Drilled a 4mm hole on the circumference of the hole and used that as the starting point to get the heat into the cut area. I didnt get it hot enough first time....almost but not right. 2nd go was much better. Then I just let the plate stand and air cool as I didnt want to risk distortion etc by cooling with water.

[roverrescue]

I guess if you have the 16mm flat thats the answer but surely by the time you gusset and ladder the two "legs" of 16 a couple of heavy section beams or columns would be less work???

Perhaps Im not understanding your geometry?

Eitherway - Its sure gonna be noice! I love the 50mm plate
What does that weigh!!! Hernia material right there I would guess!

Will the hydraulic head have some coarse adjustment at the press head (think large suare form thread with a crank handle) such that you can preload parts before firing up the 55t hydraulics??? Top end big presses I have seen have this setup which makes them much easier to use

S

[uninformed]

according to my maths, the 50mm plate now weighs 48.670kg....give or take. It felt about that when I lifted it off the tray of my truck.

regarding the uprights. Im basing my design on that of my mates, this also being a common commerical design. The reason for 2 seperate uprights each side, is to allow those odd long abjects that are bigger (wider) than the clear opening of the press. If they are smaller than the 200mm between the 2 100x16 uprights, then the object can be passed through them.

heavy section beams dont have the biggest top and bottom flanges. For example the 250PFC flanges are only 90mm wide and 15mm thick max, so would have to use atleast this size :eek:. Since you are basicly paying for weight with steel, its going to be cheaper to buy the flat bar anyway.

[uninformed]

I have not seen what you describe regarding the adjuster for preloading?? not quite sure what you mean. The ram is fired up by my right arm :D I also have an air/hydraulic pump that may work for small work. Its the same brand and has quick connect fittings the same as the 55t ram and the hand pump....Ill have to check the specs.

I am considereing making the ram and mount movable left - right. I just have to sort a suitable design.

[Roverlord off road spares]

250 PFC:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/49801d1344513116-55t-press-55t-press-009-rs.jpg

50mm plate. 400x400 and I oxy'd a 90mm hole in it to prep for bore and thread.
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/49800d1344513080-55t-press-55t-press-002-rs.jpg

Same plate after lathe work. I had the outer area turned down to 40mm thick to reduce some weight. I just supplied the engineering shop with the plate and some drawings.
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/49803d1344513184-55t-press-55t-press-016-rs.jpg

55t ram, 350mm stroke, single acting:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/49802d1344513153-55t-press-55t-press-015-rs.jpg
That's gunna be some coke can crusher when it's finished:)

[roverrescue]

On the big hydraulics I have seen

The two winning aspects are a hand winch driven cross beam (pins still lock it to the uprights) so to change the height of the deck with the winch rather than struggling with a long heavy deck

And the other is a little harder to explain:
The bit which moves and presses onto the part is the press head
So in your setup the end of the ram will be the press head

In this alternate setup attached to the end of the hydraulic ram is a 200mm length of very large Acme thread
Over this is essentially a sleeve (internally threaded for the Acme) which extends downwards
Sleeve has a hand wheel on it and the far end of the sleeve becomes the press head

So you grab your stuck ducks nuts chuck it on the deck
Winch the deck up towards the press head drop in the side pins
Then position the part and with a flick of the wrist rotate the sleeve down onto the part
this holds eveything in position by preloading the job
Then you stand well back with a coldy and start cranking or fire up the hydraulics and watch the nuts fly off!

Ill see if I can grab a few photos of what I talk of - Sheetetal joint in town has a monster press that I somewhat covet !

S

[uninformed]

yep I know what you mean now. Something to think about for sure. Some have a large wheel that you spin, kind like a submarine hatch door handle. Already onto the winch for the adjustable deck. What would have been better would be a double acting cylinder so I could attach the deck to it and raise with that ;)

Although I dont think it the better way, Im thinking Im going to need to bolt the head to the uprights and the uprights to the base. Otherwise it will be one heavy bugger to move if needed....

[uninformed]

well after doing a bit of searching, maybe bolting together is the better way.....

DAVE PROPST ARTICLES - H-Frame Hydraulic Press (http://www.davepropst.com/Article/Art6/Article6.htm)

well worth the read. Very VERY nice press. Id be happy to get Dave to work on a car simply going by the job he did on his press :eek:

Unfortunately I dont have the skills or machinary to achive the same press, but I hope some of the concepts should help me. It will be a matter of making it as accurate as I can...gulp!

[Homestar]

Wow, that thing is a work of art! There are some very good ideas that could be used - looking forward to how yours comes together.:)

[uninformed]

yeah tell me about it :D Dave's is awesome. So glad guys like him take the time to share their work and ideas. Mine wont hold a candle to his but if its 1/50th of the quality and doesnt fail ill be happy. Im only sorry I didnt find his before I started. I had it in mind just to do the standard, but then started to think " this thing is going to weight a freaking ton/ne, how the bloody hell will I assemble and move it............which lead me to think bolts, the search pictures on the web and then found Dave's....

My ram wont be height adjustable, and with over 13 inch of stroke it wont really need to be. I still want it to tram left and right. I really like the idea of less welding. Though I enjoy welding, I strugle with weld distortion and welding heavy section is always going to have the risk. I pro welder I am not.

I just have to figure how to get accurate with my layout....I dont have a mill with digital readout for indexing holes....just a tapemeasure, square, verneers and scribe....

[Judo]

Hi Tim, I got it from Ebay USA, but had to have a guy over there buy and ship for me as the seller did not want to deal with outside USA. It is a SPX Power Team brand. When I first thought about a press I was using a mates. He has built all his own including the rams, pumps etc. I asked him for advice and he said that working on LR's he had maxed out his 30t a few times and had to use his 100t. So I looked for a 30t ram but could only find 20 and 50/55t ..... A good quality 50t H frame press wasnt cheap then either, but now you can get an ok Chinese type for about $1000. I have WAY more into mine than that. A $$$ leason, but atleast I get some experience making something. I really wanted to do the lathe work, but the only lathe I have access to that would swing the 50mm plate is 1000km away. :(

Edit: I forgot, I also bought the hand pump from the USA, also a SPX Power Team, but I got it from Ohio Power Tool. They were happy to ship to me. Pretty easy to deal with as well. I still get emails with there sales etc

G'day mate. Started following your build here and can't wait to see the finished product! Since you started, I've also started toying with the idea of buying a press. Where did you see the cheaper Chinese types?

I can't see myself using it very often - just the occasional LR thing so thinking a cheap one might do the trick. Although still haven't decided if I need a 30 or 50....

[uninformed]

Well dont expect to much to happen to quick guys. I will be winging this one and having to solve problems as they come up....new ground for me.

Judo, check out the link below, just a few examples.

Hydraulic Press - Manual | machineryhouse.com.au (http://www.machineryhouse.com.au/Hydraulic-Press-Manual)

[uninformed]

can anyone tell me from a structural stand point, how much material should be left around the outside of a threaded hole. Is there a ratio based on dia or such? I pick up my 100x16 and 75x12 flat bar tomorrow. Dave used 3/8 in his 3/4 and Im thinking this to tight on 16mm, so may go down to a 5/16.

[wrinklearthur]

Your thread has come up at just the right time for me, I am currently collecting all the bits I need for constructing a 30 ton press and now I might even up my ideas to 50 ton !

Thanks anyway, I will be following this thread closely now and that article on Dave's press has me thinking also.

.

[uninformed]

I picked up some 100x16 - 4 @ 2000 and some 75x12 - 4 @ 2000 today. Still sorting a few ideas before I jump in to too much. Plus the fact that I quit my job today may slow things up.....:eek:

[Homestar]

Plus the fact that I quit my job today may slow things up.....:eek:

Oops... Was this planned, or a spur of the moment thing? All the best with looking for a new one that suits better.

[uninformed]

no, not planned at all. Had a disagreement with the supervisor (long time work partner) things were said...and I knew that it would be no good for me to say. So I just said no worries I will finish up. Packed my gear and left. This was the first time I have walked off a job in 20 years.

If anyone needs a liceneced carpenter in the SEQ area let me know. Fully kitted up and I do domestic, commercial and industrial. Small jobs are fine also

[roverrescue]

I got a house to build in Cooktown! ;)

Was gonna say though - the FMS you picked up - is it hot rolled with mill scale?
If so for such an awesome press I would be cleaing the scale off before proceeding with welding, drilling and tapping.

Makes a good procrastination job whilst you are scheming the design!

S

[uninformed]

I got a house to build in Cooktown! ;)

Was gonna say though - the FMS you picked up - is it hot rolled with mill scale?
If so for such an awesome press I would be cleaing the scale off before proceeding with welding, drilling and tapping.

Makes a good procrastination job whilst you are scheming the design!

S

Im guessing it is. It definitely has mill scale. I wasnt aware of the availablity of cold rolled. Im sure it is much more $$$$.

What would you recommed for cleaning up. I dont like the idea of a grinder with any disc as it ill always scollop. I do have a belt sander and orbital sanders.

[uninformed]

Have you got a builder? Are you going Block, steel or timber frame?

[Dougal]

Nice project Serg.
Can you throw together a sketch with some basic dimensions? Then anything you need checked is easy.

Including copying it.:D

[uninformed]

Nice project Serg.
Can you throw together a sketch with some basic dimensions? Then anything you need checked is easy.

Including copying it.:D

I can draw it on paper, A3 or A1 (i think) I have no idea with doing it on pc though.

[Dougal]

I can draw it on paper, A3 or A1 (i think) I have no idea with doing it on pc though.

A3 or A4 is good. Scan it in or just take a photo if you can get it to look right.

[roverrescue]

Way to go Dougal!
I happen to have a near full length of 100x16FMS and a 6m length of 200 x 16kg/m beam just asking to be used for a project.
My chinapress 30T is a hateful, sorry excuse for a piece of machinery.

Mill scale can be a bugger - some people reckon an acid etch helps but mechanical removal is really where its at. I generally use a flapper on the grinder but have heard that cup stones can be used to good effect with minimal scalloping. Maybe throw a heavy grit belt on the sander and give it a whirl?

House plans are at the rough stage - have some drawings low set ground floor (steel posts and bearers) two story stick built with timber floors and colourbond cladding/roofing. Have one of the local builders interested in the job but he is super busy and I get that "tradie" kinda feeling!

Steve

[Bush65]

can anyone tell me from a structural stand point, how much material should be left around the outside of a threaded hole. Is there a ratio based on dia or such? I pick up my 100x16 and 75x12 flat bar tomorrow. Dave used 3/8 in his 3/4 and Im thinking this to tight on 16mm, so may go down to a 5/16.
Try to make the distance from the centre of the hole to edge of material not less than 1.5 times the bolt diameter - there are some exceptions (eg. can be a little less for machined or rolled edges), but that keeps it simple and is the universal rule of thumb for structural steel.

[uninformed]

Try to make the distance from the centre of the hole to edge of material not less than 1.5 times the bolt diameter - there are some exceptions (eg. can be a little less for machined or rolled edges), but that keeps it simple and is the universal rule of thumb for structural steel.

Is this more for bolts in true shear? say like the bolts holding the head beams to the flat bar uprights? 32mm dia will work in the 100mm flat and be within your rule.

I was looking at the bolts in my driveflanges and thinking no way 1.5 rule. But they are creating a friction fitting so shouldnt see shear (in a perfect world) right?

where Im concerend about material left outside the bolt hole is bolting the 75x12 to the 100x16. The bolt passes through the 75 and will be going into the 16. These bolts are clamping and im not quite sure what forces they will see. The 75x12 is used to help stop the 100x16 buckling (my guess) below the table the uprights would be in compression and above it they would be in tenstion....when the press is in use??? In Dave's press he has used 3/8th bolts at 8 inch spacings passing through the 75 into his 19 (he has used 100x19, I had already ordered 100x16)

If I use the 1.5 rule in 16mm I can use a 5.333333333 mm bolt. I was thinking 5/16 but may have to go to 6mm. Any smaller and I was thinking it to small to be any good??

[Dougal]

As a bolt, the load is carried by the clamp which the bolt provides, the risk of the bolt tearing out or elongating the hole isn't there unless the bolt works loose. In which case the design has to be robust enough to survive until people notice it's loose. This is when the bolts see shear load.

Don't forget the aesthetics too. While a M6 bolt might work, they look a bit lost on a 55ton press. M12 is where they start to look purposeful, M16 is where they start to command respect.
I'd need a picture to understand exactly where you're talking about though.

[slug_burner]

I think he wants to know what value to give X in this diagram

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/08/712.jpg

[uninformed]

Thanks Slug, good simple pic and exactly what Im asking. Im sure John understood my question, and he gave a basic answer which I could actually understand. Now I have asked a bit more based on that, it is more complex but well within John (an others) knowledge base.

I can see that there may be some variables, but given the 16mm flat will determine a 8mm center line, both in itself and through the edge of the 75x12, the 1.5 rule may still be valid.

the next question will be since Im going to drill and tap the 16mm and some other areas, what determines thread type (coarse or fine) I personally like fine but nothing other than personal feel.

[uninformed]

As a bolt, the load is carried by the clamp which the bolt provides, the risk of the bolt tearing out or elongating the hole isn't there unless the bolt works loose. In which case the design has to be robust enough to survive until people notice it's loose. This is when the bolts see shear load.

Don't forget the aesthetics too. While a M6 bolt might work, they look a bit lost on a 55ton press. M12 is where they start to look purposeful, M16 is where they start to command respect.
I'd need a picture to understand exactly where you're talking about though.

ahhh the old loose bolts. These will be simple to keep check on. See Slugs pic for the particular situation im referring. If you havent clicked on the link to "Dave's Press" I suggest you do. It is well worth it! At this stage Im basing mine on alot of his. I will not have the head beams and table cantilever past one of the uprights. I will not have the ram adjustable height. I will have the ram tram left/right.

no way im putting a M12 into 16mm of material....:D

[Dougal]

Thanks for the pic Slug_burner. Makes it perfectly clear.

Serg, yes I think you're stuck on M6 or M8 there. More M6 bolts will give a better result than fewer M8's.
As you were.

[roverrescue]

dougal,
One could always mig glue an m16 nut over the m6 bolt head just to give it that ballsy look.
Use lo-hy 316 rods for a nice bronze sheen - for aesthetics of course :-)

S

[slug_burner]

used M6 X 0.75, fine thread, will be better than M6 X 1.0 coarse thread. Better mechanical advantage, smoother build up of the clamping force, more threads per length etc.

[Dougal]

dougal,
One could always mig glue an m16 nut over the m6 bolt head just to give it that ballsy look.
Use lo-hy 316 rods for a nice bronze sheen - for aesthetics of course :-)

S


An office I used to work in had M24 bolts threaded into 16mm plate in the beams above reception.
It looked wrong enough that about 1/3 of the people who noticed asked if it was real.
Apparently it was.

[uninformed]

here is a quick drawing to kick some sizes off. I havent drawn in the hole sizes, spacings etc as to leave that to discussion.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50079d1345369170-55t-press-55t-press-001-rs.jpg

[uninformed]

dougal,
One could always mig glue an m16 nut over the m6 bolt head just to give it that ballsy look.
Use lo-hy 316 rods for a nice bronze sheen - for aesthetics of course :-)

S
must be an old mig, my GMAW only takes wire, not rods....:p

[uninformed]

here is another drawing, end view, of the head. Missing the holes and also the top plate that will bridge over the top of each PFC....

Top and bottom flange of 250PFC are 16mm thick. Web is 8mm thick. At this stage the 2 - 250PFC beams will be bolted to the uprights, which will also bolt angle (say 100x100x12) to the inside of each web. Then a end plate of say 250 high x 340 Long x 12 thick will be bolted to each angle. This fixing the beams together

note I have added some 30x12 flat to the top outside edges of the ram mounting plate. Im thinking to bolt these to it with M10 socket caps. These 30x12 will act as lock in rails, with only a small gap between them and the beam. Doing this on the top also should help the beams stop deflecting when the press is in use...

open to any ideas on size of material, design and bolt sizes.


http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50123d1345459513-55t-press-55t-press-002-rs.jpg

[uninformed]

looking at some bolts today, I doubt I can get any more than 150mm centers on the bolts in the PFC's. When you take into account the head size, the flange thickness and the radius from flange to web....

[Bush65]

so maybe one of the engineering types can tell me if 250 PFC will be strong enough for a basic 55t H frame press. It will be 2 peices top and 2 peices for the table. 100x16 flat for the verticals, 2 each side with 200mm speration. Im thinking a 32mm dia hole/pin for the table height adjustments. I can box in the 250 PFC if needed. Frame width will be approx 840 clear between the 100x16 flat bar verticals
I don't have my steel structures code (AS4100), steel sections books, safe load tables, or steel design software with me, otherwise it would only take a few minutes to check properly. That also means I can't check in accordance with the code so I will do a rough back of an envelope check here to see if it is in the ball park.

With what you want to do I expect the shear capacity of the 250 PFC (parallel flange channels), not bending to be what determines the capacity of the press structure.

Now with beam sections used like like this, most of the vertical shear is carried by the web (most of the bending is carried by the flanges). So we can quickly check the shear stress using just the web area, Aweb = 250mm x 8mm = 2000mm^2 – note I haven't subtracted the area of holes in the web so we may have to address that later.

The vertical shear load on the 250 PFC is greatest when 55 Tonne is applied close to the supporting uprights, so assume 27.5 T on each PFC at the support.
Now 27.50 T results in a load of approx 275 kN (kilo Newton)
Use 1.5 live load factor (for simplicity I'm ignoring dead loads (weight of members, etc.) here)
Then factored live load is V = 1.5 x 275 kN = 413 kN approx
Then shear stress = 413 kN / 2000mm^2 = 207 MPa (unsatisfactory).

The shear capacity of 250 PFC is too low when the ram is used to press 55 T at one end. Restrict the use of 55 T to when the ram is close to the mid span. When the ram is near the supports about 30 T should be OK. Holes in the web will reduce the capacity unless you weld some compensation at least equal to the hole area onto the web.

Web stiffeners will be required at the support and load locations. These are required to prevent the web from buckling – usually for a 250 PFC they would be 75 x 10 (or 75 x 8) flat bar extending between the flanges with one edge welded to the web and the ends welded to the flanges.

PFC (and angle) sections are not symmetrical so their shear centre is offset, resulting in torsion when load is not applied through the shear centre. For a 250 PFC the shear centre is about 30 mm from the back of the web. For this reason you should arrange the pair of PFC's so their toes are pointed out, i.e. ] [ You will also have to restrain the PFC's to resist twisting – weld something between them, near the supports at each end, and if it can't extend for the 250 depth, then it should at least tie them together at the top and bottom.

For the 100 x 16 FB uprights: the cross sectional area is 1600 mm^2
For a load of 413 kN, the tensile stress is 413 kN / 1600 mm^2 = 258 MPa (unsatisfactory).

Like the 250 PFC's the capacity of these members is too low unless you restrict the use of 55 T to when the ram is close to the mid span. When the ram is near the supports about 30 T should be OK. Holes in the uprights will reduce the capacity unless you weld some compensation at least equal to the hole area.

For 32 mm diameter pins the cross sectional area is 804 mm^2, so you would need 3 pins each side (or use high tensile strength material) to match the shear capacity of the 250 PFC web.

[Bush65]

Is this more for bolts in true shear? say like the bolts holding the head beams to the flat bar uprights? 32mm dia will work in the 100mm flat and be within your rule.

I was looking at the bolts in my driveflanges and thinking no way 1.5 rule. But they are creating a friction fitting so shouldnt see shear (in a perfect world) right?

where Im concerend about material left outside the bolt hole is bolting the 75x12 to the 100x16. The bolt passes through the 75 and will be going into the 16. These bolts are clamping and im not quite sure what forces they will see. The 75x12 is used to help stop the 100x16 buckling (my guess) below the table the uprights would be in compression and above it they would be in tenstion....when the press is in use??? In Dave's press he has used 3/8th bolts at 8 inch spacings passing through the 75 into his 19 (he has used 100x19, I had already ordered 100x16)

If I use the 1.5 rule in 16mm I can use a 5.333333333 mm bolt. I was thinking 5/16 but may have to go to 6mm. Any smaller and I was thinking it to small to be any good??
The rule I gave before is the edge distance required by the Steel Structures Code, i.e. 1.5 x bolt diameter for flame cut or sheared edges or 1.25 x d for machined or rolled edges (for simplicity I have ignored the revision to AS4100 that changed the wording a little to increase it to account for clearance between bolt and hole). The code considers all types of failure of the joint.

The above was not specifically for distance from threaded holes per your original question, and I had little idea of what you had in mind.

I will have to digest more about what has been posted since to try and understand what you are wanting to do and form some idea of the loads, etc. For the moment my thinking is leaning toward recommending you need to change your design - unless the bolts don't carry much load, in which case the question is, why are they there?

It could be a few more days before I can reply.

[Dougal]

Hi John.

Isn't the 55ton load supported by four sections of 250PFC in shear?

[turkeybrain]

From what I understand of John's calculations, he is considering the load case where the ram is located hard against one side of the frame. In this case most of the load is placed on only 2 sections of the 250PFC and one upright. If the ram was located in the centre of the span, the load would be spread evenly across both uprights, and hence 4 sections of the 250PFC. Having it hard against one of the mounts is the most extreme load case which can/should occur, so that's what he's designing for.

I'm only a student engineer, we're learning some of this stuff at the moment, so that's about all I feel qualified to say. Also, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

-Martin

[Dougal]

From what I understand of John's calculations, he is considering the load case where the ram is located hard against one side of the frame. In this case most of the load is placed on only 2 sections of the 250PFC and one upright. If the ram was located in the centre of the span, the load would be spread evenly across both uprights, and hence 4 sections of the 250PFC. Having it hard against one of the mounts is the most extreme load case which can/should occur, so that's what he's designing for.

I'm only a student engineer, we're learning some of this stuff at the moment, so that's about all I feel qualified to say. Also, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

-Martin

Reading it for the third time, I think you're right. I hadn't considered that situation as all the presses I've used had the ram fixed dead-centre.

[isuzurover]

Nice work Serg! I have only just seen this thread.

Guess I shouldn't tell you what a chinese 50t press sold for at the glenfords sale over here...

I picked up a 12T for <$100 which should be enough for my needs...

[uninformed]

Thanks John
Thanks Dougal
Thanks John
Thanks Martin
Thanks John
Thanks Ben.....................did I say Thanks John ;)

Had a bit of a chat with John today (again cant thank you enough for your time. Do you drink wine?)

Martin is correct in that John was looking at worst case by having the ram center line, in line with the center of one end or pair of uprights. I wont be able to tram my ram right over to the center of upright unless I get new PFC's...Being that my ram mounting plate is 400mm long and that the upright is 100mm wide, this would put the ram center at 250mm from upright center. Beam span is 940mm. So if im on the right track that becomes:

(413kn x 250)/ 940 = 109.8404255, say 110kn. That would be 110kn for the uprights furthest away. So 413kn-110kn = 303kn

looking at the bolt requirements for the head beams to the uprights. Using the ajax fastener handbook. It shows that a M20 8.8 structural bolt is good for 129kn in single shear, if threads are EXCLUDED from shear plain. That is smooth shank. So 3 M20 should do the job at each point of fixing of each PFC to upright. There is also info in the same table for "plate tearout" and "bearing"

So bolts/bolting is not the problem. Where the problem lies, at this stage, is the cross sectional area of the web of PFC's as John stated. There are options here to correct this (adding material)

I was thinking of using something like 4140 for the table pins....hopefully I can get back to only 2 pins per side....

I was thinking of welding the web stiffeners in the ends and 100mm in from the ends. I would still prefer to bolt the 2 PFC head beams together via end plates rather than weld together (I could bolt through the PFC end stiffeners) I was also hoping that by locking the PFC's together with the ram mounting plate (top and bottom), that this would also avoid the need for more welding in the PFC's...(I think it may help with twist but probably wont help with web buckling???)

Now that the 100x16 wont see the full 55t (413kn) It should bring it back to 303kn/1600mm2 = 189.375mpa. Is this looking better? I guess I can make more boltable cross ties to help with buckling of the 100x16 flat bar (again not wanting to weld them togther.)

I can understand what you are saying about the M6 bolts not doing bugger all in shear for fixing the 75x12 perpandicular to the 100x16. If you can I would like you to expand on this so I can get a better understanding. As I see it by fixing the 2 flats together is making an angle which should be much more rigid than just the flat. But its all dependant on the strength of the joint.

Ben, yep i know what the real cheap bottle jack presses go for. And even the real looking chinese presses.....to late now. I have already learnt WAY more than buying one.

cheers
Serg

[slug_burner]

Now that the 100x16 wont see the full 55t (413kn) It should bring it back to 303kn/1600mm2 = 189.375mpa. Is this looking better? I guess I can make more boltable cross ties to help with buckling of the 100x16 flat bar (again not wanting to weld them togther.)

I can't see your 100 x 16 FB uprights buckling as they are in tension when your press actuator is expanding (pressing donw onto the table) Only time that buckling would be an issue would be if you placed the FB into compression.

The only thing the bolts holding the 75x12 FB to the 100x16 FB will be doing is preventing buckling of the 100x16 FB uprights (wobbling or going trapezoidal) under the weight of the table and head beams and hydraulic actuator.

Not my specialty so wait for one of the mechies to give their view before you act on the above.

[uninformed]

I can visualise the flat bar being in tention between the head beam and table when pressing. But I would have thought that with the downward pressure on the table that below table height the FB to be under compression?

Some Bolt info: John was saying that M20 is about the biggest you will commonly see in structural steel conections due to the fact that the guys installing it only have Podge and impact wrench to torque up. Going past M20 requires more torque and more equipment.

M6 fine and coarse. I tried 2 local fastener suppliers, both saying that in M6 there is only one pitch. That being M6 x 1.0 metric coarse. Not that M6 metric fine does not exist, but that you can only buy bolts in M6 x 1.0...very few applications for M6 fine. Seems that there is a bigger range in UNC/UNF stuff than metric....

[turkeybrain]

I was trying to explain why the load is only kept up the top in words, but I figured a diagram is easier. I hope this helps, if it doesn't make sense, I can probably explain it a bit easier...

Basically though, the force from the press stays in the top section of the frame, between the table and the head. The only forces which act below this point should be self weight. There are diagrams and equations attached if it helps to make more sense. You are correct that below the table will be in compression, but it's negligible, as far as I can tell.

Hopefully the attachment works too!

-Martin

[turkeybrain]

Whoops, I just realised I drew L1 and L2 backwards. Think of the arrows being pointed in the opposite directions, so there's tensile rather than compressive forces happening in the top section of the frame... The same logic still applies though.

-Martin

[slug_burner]

I can visualise the flat bar being in tention between the head beam and table when pressing. But I would have thought that with the downward pressure on the table that below table height the FB to be under compression?

Some Bolt info: John was saying that M20 is about the biggest you will commonly see in structural steel conections due to the fact that the guys installing it only have Podge and impact wrench to torque up. Going past M20 requires more torque and more equipment.

M6 fine and coarse. I tried 2 local fastener suppliers, both saying that in M6 there is only one pitch. That being M6 x 1.0 metric coarse. Not that M6 metric fine does not exist, but that you can only buy bolts in M6 x 1.0...very few applications for M6 fine. Seems that there is a bigger range in UNC/UNF stuff than metric....

Think of it this way, the weight of the press is pushing down on the floor, no matter how much pressure you put into the hydraulic actuator the press is not going to weigh any more. (ignoring the minor mass of additional fluid pumped into the actuator) Therefore there is no additional force transferred from below the table beam onto the uprights.

[Dougal]

It's just the opposite of trying to lift yourself by your shoe-laces. No matter how much you might strain your back, your weight on the ground doesn't change.

[uninformed]

ok, so there is an equalling out of the load on head beam and table? Weight thus far is approx:

Ram 30kg
ram plate 48kg
4 x 250PFC 148kg
4 x 100x16 Flat 104kg

so already at 330 kg. While holes will reduce some weight, there will be more added...

[Bigbjorn]

I can visualise the flat bar being in tention between the head beam and table when pressing. But I would have thought that with the downward pressure on the table that below table height the FB to be under compression?

Some Bolt info: John was saying that M20 is about the biggest you will commonly see in structural steel conections due to the fact that the guys installing it only have Podge and impact wrench to torque up. Going past M20 requires more torque and more equipment.

M6 fine and coarse. I tried 2 local fastener suppliers, both saying that in M6 there is only one pitch. That being M6 x 1.0 metric coarse. Not that M6 metric fine does not exist, but that you can only buy bolts in M6 x 1.0...very few applications for M6 fine. Seems that there is a bigger range in UNC/UNF stuff than metric....

Find a better bolt shop. Most suppliers only stock standard sizes. Just like taps and dies. They will tell you that such a size and pitch doesn't exist because it is not on the standard charts. I stock M6 x 0.75 and M6 x1.0. taps and dies. In some metric sizes there are as many as five pitches in use but the buggers don't stock the fasteners. Try some of the M7 & M9 commonly used in Japanese automotive applications. "Don't exist" you will be told. "No, then how come my Kawhonotasan is full of them." The unified national system is far better than metric in my opinion. Get some 3/4" or thicker Grade 5 or Grade 8 to replace that M20 construction rubbish.

[Dougal]

I see no advantage in going finer than the standard M6x1mm. Don't make it harder for yourself.

[Bigbjorn]

I just checked the catalogue from my principal USA tool supplier. These are HSS taps and dies, not fasteners. They list three pitches in 6.0, five in 20, four each in 22, 24, 25. In UN they list six pitches in 1/4", eleven in 3/4", ten in 7/8", fourteen in 1".

[uninformed]

Thanks Brian. There is no problem getting Taps and dies in ANY of the MANY sizes and thread types: BSW BSF BA UNC UNF MF MC etc. While I agree there are many sizes "available", yes they are on our vehicles, go try and buy them......now If I have to drive to every fastener shop on the Gold Coast, and still come up with nothing, that tells me they arent readily available. Sure you may be able to order them (min of 1 box) or source them online, but thats not the ideal way IMO.

I have only found out recently the the standard taps and dies I was buying off the shelf are tungstun carbide....I am now ordering Sutton HSS sets of taper, inter and blind in the sizes I will be using. I picked up some nice Starrett tap handles and pitch gauges from Amazon.

How is a construction bolt rubbish? They are 8.8 and Gal, have bigger head and nut area.... Sure I prefer fine threads, but only cause it makes me feel warm and fuzzy, not based on science.

[Bigbjorn]

Thanks Brian. There is no problem getting Taps and dies in ANY of the MANY sizes and thread types: BSW BSF BA UNC UNF MF MC etc..

Go to your local engineering supplier and ask for non standard taps and dies. They won't recognise them, or tell you they don't exist, and damn certain they will not have stock. Go and ask for British Standard Cycle thread or Admiralty Fine, or British Standard Conduit. you can guarantee there is no one on staff who was born when BSF & BSC were last in use.

You will pay much less if you buy them from me. Best prices in Australia. I specialise in rare, obsolete, hard to find, no longer available, and "don't exist" taps and dies. Ask me for a quote.

I also stock BSC (Cycle Thread) 26 tpi and 20 tpi series.

For BA taps, dies, and fasteners, call Bruce Gardner in Melbourne, B.S.F. Bolts, 0408 056 255. Bruce even has LH BA, and is a good source for BSW, BSF, BSC, uns, unef fasteners.

Don't be afraid of buying box lots of fasteners from o'seas via internet. It is odds on that a box will be cheaper than a small hardware store pack.

[slug_burner]

To attach your 75 x 12 FB to the 100 x 16 FB I would not die in a ditch over M6 x 0.75 or M6 x 1.0.

Going back to the forces on the upright, at the bolt holes/pins that will hold the table the tear out forces on the bottom side of the hole will be pushing downwards. That might be where you were going with the forces when the press was in use.

[uninformed]

Going back to the forces on the upright, at the bolt holes/pins that will hold the table the tear out forces on the bottom side of the hole will be pushing downwards. That might be where you were going with the forces when the press was in use.

I wish I could say yes, but I don't have that much of a grasp on this stuff. Just learning along the way.

[Bush65]

The steel structures code in use now (ASA4100) is based on Limit State design. The old code (before 1990) was based on Working Stress. The world started changing design of steel structures to Limit State in the late 80's because it was realised that working stress design produced some members that were too conservative (wasted $$$$).

Limit States involved much research to determine the limit of the various members/components and the codes are more complex. The most designed for limit states are Strength and Serviceability (e.g. excessive deflection).

For other uses apart from steel structures, (e.g. cranes until the crane code was revised to use AS4100, and machinery) a new working stress code was introduced (I can't remember the AS number). For this press, either code would be acceptable.

The load capacity of members is affected by their slenderness ratio (length / radius of gyration). For example (from memory) 100 x 100 x 6 EA (equal angle) has a greater tension load capacity than 75 x 75 x 10 EA even though the later has a larger cross sectional area, because the radii of gyration of the 100 x 100 x 6 EA are greater. I wouldn't be surprised if the Strength Limit State of 100 x 100 x 6 EA has a tension load capacity close to 100 x 16 FB (100 x 100 x 8 EA would be greater). See pic below for properties of 100 x 16 FB which shows rx is 4.62 mm. (edit) it should be no surprise that circular hollow sections have the greatest radius of gyration for their cross sectional area, which is why they perform best for compression and tensile members - although joints are difficult they are widely used in large structures such as sports stadiums (end edit).

Now ignoring bolt (or pin) holes, 303 kN / 1600 mm^2 = 190 MPa is OK (minimum yield stress is 300 MPa) for the ties providing the slenderness ratio is satisfactory – i.e. if the height of the part in tension is not too great. However we would also have to prevent bending at the attachment of the PFC's due to twisting (torsion) in the PFC (see my earlier post about this which seems to have been overlooked).

If the 75 x 10 FB was effectively attached to the 100 x 16 FB such as to reduce the slenderness ratio in the thin direction of the 100 x 16 FB it could increase the tension capacity. This could also be achieved by effective bolting (or welding) spacers between the pair of uprights at reasonable vertical spacings (reduce effective L to increase L/r ratio).

If the 75 x 10 FB was attached to the 100 x 16 FB to create an angle section it would reduce the increase the radii of gyration, increase resistance to bending, could provide torsional restraint to the ends of the PFC, add area to more than account for the loss due to holes.

IMHO small bolts are a waste of time and of little use for either of the above. Given Serg is going to use (and not scrap) these FB sections, then I would advise welding them together. The rule of thumb for size of fillet welds on each side of corner 'L' or Tee joints is 2/3 thickness of thinnest member i.e. 10 x 2 / 3 = 6.7 mm. Call that 6 mm, which is often used as the largest FW for a single run. My gut feel is that for this case 5 mm would be OK with staggered intermittent fillet welds, say weld 50 and miss 50 (or even 75), and easier for Serg than a continuous 6 mm FW.

For the table pins, look at the pic of table 31 below for a guide to pin size. The shear capacity (AS4100, strength limit state) of an M24, class 8.8 bolt with threads excluded from the shear plane is 186 kN (column 4). Now look across to the 2nd column from right and the bearing capacity of hole for a M24 bolt through the 8 mm thick web of the 250 PFC exceeds the bolt shear capacity. So for the 303 kN load, 2 pins, diameter 24 mm and shear strength equivalent to class 8.8 bolts (4140 or better) would be sufficient. Note 2 pins at each end of the table, not total.

[uninformed]

Again, thanks John,

as we said when we spoke, I have gone about this backwards....design first, materials list then build. What happend was I changed my design as I started to gather material as the obvious actually became obvious....bloody heavy!

I did not miss your point on the PFC's twisting. At this stage the PFC's at head will be bolted toe in with bolted endplates. This means that they are bolted to the Flat bar uprights and bolted to each other. I also was thinking/copying Daves idea of having the ram mounting plate "lock" in the top and bottom flanges of the PFC's

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50215d1345765584-55t-press-press2.jpg

The table PFC's will be bolted to flat bar via custom made pin bolts AND utlising crush tubes between PFC's. Table PFC's will be toe out.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50217d1345765622-55t-press-press11.jpg

I wont be duplicating his ram mount exactly, but using his concept of locking in PFC (if it is thought to be a good idea)

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50216d1345765608-55t-press-press6.jpg

Dont get me wrong, I can and do like to weld. I have a kemppi 250a GMAW. I have access to 3 phase WIA GMAW and a Structural Steel fab shop. But for my way of thinking at this stage, the less welding the better. Meaning less weld distortion to deal with and the press will break down into more individual parts for moving etc.

John, while welding the 2 flat bars together to form an angle, may be the logical and better way to do it, (after using angle bar instead) would even bolting them togther with M6 at 50mm centers achieve nothing? And in this situation, am I still guided by the egde distance rule? (ie am I stuck with M6 going into the 16 or could it be larger)

mounting to feet/ground (note the 100x10o shs is bolted to the concrete floor)

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50218d1345765635-55t-press-press12.jpg


cheers
Serg

[Bush65]

...
John, while welding the 2 flat bars together to form an angle, may be the logical and better way to do it, (after using angle bar instead) would even bolting them togther with M6 at 50mm centers achieve nothing? And in this situation, am I still guided by the egde distance rule? (ie am I stuck with M6 going into the 16 or could it be larger)

...
I can't deny they won't do anything, it will provide some stiffening in the weak direction, but will not transform 2 flats into an angle with anything like the properties achieved if welded.

IMHO you could get away with M8 screws in the edge of the 100 x 16 FB. Though still not what I would do - I have my thoughts on what is easier, quicker, stronger, etc.

[uninformed]

Im guessing you mean ditch the flat bar and use 100x100x10/12 angle? I am listening to what you have to say John and taking it on board. Unfortunately I have already spent $$$ on the Flat and doubt i would ever use it otherwise....

Im happy to make up more boltable cross ties. If this is a better way to use the 100x16 on its own.

I hope to hear your thoughts on the head beam set up and ram mounting. Again If I have to tie the PFCs is bolting an option?

I am away for 3 days so will ponder more.

[slug_burner]

Give the intermittent (stitch/skip weld) a try. It is a good way to limit distortion by reducing the heat build up. I'd say you would be doing well to distort 16mm FB. Set it up, tack weld it in a few places, then start extending your weld from the tacks. If you work from either end and one stitch on each side of the 75 x 12 FB you will not cause enough distortion to worry you.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

I suspect that you might make it easier if you bring the 75 x 12 FB in from the edge then you will not have to worry about having to prepare the outside corner for welding.

The thing will still be able to be disassembled, you will just have an angle or Tee like angle to transport instead of just FB. I think that the welding route will be quicker than drill and tap.

[roverrescue]

Serg
I have this suscpicion that once you build this baby AND then say have the need to move it
You will just come up with a way ofm oving it without dissasembly
It will be heavy BUT it wont be that heavy that you wont be able to tip it roll it pick it and heave it

Just turn that flat bar into a heavy angle!

Steve

[uninformed]

Give the intermittent (stitch/skip weld) a try. It is a good way to limit distortion by reducing the heat build up. I'd say you would be doing well to distort 16mm FB. Set it up, tack weld it in a few places, then start extending your weld from the tacks. If you work from either end and one stitch on each side of the 75 x 12 FB you will not cause enough distortion to worry you.

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/attachments/f30/17015d1257770888-stitch-welding-when-why-filletstitch.gif

I suspect that you might make it easier if you bring the 75 x 12 FB in from the edge then you will not have to worry about having to prepare the outside corner for welding.

The thing will still be able to be disassembled, you will just have an angle or Tee like angle to transport instead of just FB. I think that the welding route will be quicker than drill and tap.

If I weld it on both sides, either "angle" or "T", I will have to grind flat the side that the PFC's bolt to. This also means I cant really bring it in from one edge if I want good access to the pin bolts that will be in the center of the 100x16.

I am familiar with Stitch welding and backstepping....

[uninformed]

What are the thoughts on reducing/controlling the twisting of the HEAD PFC's with the ram mounts?

Im thinking of welding in web stiffeners (75x10 say) to the HEAD PFC's, each end, 100mm in from each end and at 1/3 and 2/3 spacing along its length. These being welded to top/bottom flanges and web. They will only be welded to the PFC they are in. The ends of the PFC will be tied (bolted) together with the end plates.

Im thinking of locating the PFC top and bottom flange with the ram mounting plate, by fastening flat bar to it (mounting plates) on the inside and outside of the flanges, giving say 0.5mm gap. If this is done top and bottom and both sides, along with the top and bottom plate being bolted together via long HT threaded rod, Im hoping this will also help with twisting and deflection, rather than having to again weld the 2 PFC's together.....

[uninformed]

When drilling and taping a hole in mild steel to accept a high tensile bolt, how much thread engagement is required? I'm guessing its a ratio based on dia.....

[rick130]

When drilling and taping a hole in mild steel to accept a high tensile bolt, how much thread engagement is required? I'm guessing its a ratio based on dia.....

1.5D is the accepted depth for most threads.

[Dougal]

1.5D is the accepted depth for most threads.

Up to 3x for really soft stuff. 1.5 is good for everything else. Go 2x if you're feeling nervous.

[rick130]

Up to 3x for really soft stuff. 1.5 is good for everything else. Go 2x if you're feeling nervous.

Yep, used to use 2.5D with Helicoils into aluminium.

[Dougal]

Helicoils are a god-send.

[uninformed]

picked up a bit more steel. Also quick rough set up of where im headed with the head beam and mounting to give a visual idea....

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50592d1346569929-55t-press-55t-press-002-rs.jpg

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/50593d1346569957-55t-press-55t-press-004-rs.jpg

The top plate is 300mm wide and 25mm thick. obviously it needs to be bored for the ram to pass through.

[turkeybrain]

Is that your final planned orientation of the PFCs? It was mentioned earlier that to help remove twisting, they should be facing the other way...


PFC (and angle) sections are not symmetrical so their shear centre is offset, resulting in torsion when load is not applied through the shear centre. For a 250 PFC the shear centre is about 30 mm from the back of the web. For this reason you should arrange the pair of PFC's so their toes are pointed out, i.e. ] [ You will also have to restrain the PFC's to resist twisting – weld something between them, near the supports at each end, and if it can't extend for the 250 depth, then it should at least tie them together at the top and bottom.

I'm hoping turning them round won't affect the design too much. I'm also not sure how important it is to put them round the other way... Again, I'm not a qualified engineer!

I'm looking forward to seeing the final product coming together. It's certainly an interesting and useful project.

-Martin

[uninformed]

Again, I had not ignored nore missed what John had said. But as Im not 100% on why and how the PFC's are twisting, I cant say whether or not the way Im headed will work or fail.

nothing is final until it is done :D.... but it is my planned way of doing it for the head beam only. Now what you see in the picture isnt complete. There would be some flat bar, say 75x10 bolted to the top and bottom plates, inbetween the PFC's. This, along with the 32x10 FB on the outsides, will "lock in" the top and bottom flange of the PFC's. There will also be 4 x M16 or so, threaded rod connecting the top plate with the bottom plate. When the ram is in the desiered position, they get tighten up/down hard. In the ends of the PFC, will be some 100x12 FB welded from top to bottom flange, hard up to the web, then bolted to these will be some 250x10 Flate plate that will connect the PFC's to each other. The PFCs, being inside the uprights and bolted through the web hard to uprights.....

clear as mud hey :eek:

[uninformed]

going back to where I was having trouble with the forces on table and the resulting force on the uprights, I read this yesterday:

"The forces of action and reaction between contacting bodies are equal in magnitude, opposite in direction, and collinear"

"The third law is basic to our understanding of force. It states that forces always occur in pairs or equals and opposite forces. Thus the downward force exerted on the desk by the pencil is accompanied by an upward force of equal magnitude exerted on the pencil by the desk."

So if im getting this right, The ram pushes down 55t on the table, but the table returns 55t into the ram. So as I said earlier the FB uprights are in tention between head and table when in use, but below that they are static under just the weight of press, work peice etc. NO ADDED force below the table from the ram

As you all pointed out :)

[Dougal]

You've got the internal forces sorted.

For the PFC's, you want them as close together as possible/practical to minimise bending on your mounting plate. By putting them toes-out you'll get the web of the PFC's (which carry the shear load) closer to the ram and further minimise bending of the mount.

[uninformed]

John had mentioned that he felt that the PFC's being so short wouldnt bend much, but want to shear. Im thinking that, and along with the bottom plate being 400x400x40, the top plate being 400x300x25 and bolting them together AND locking in the top and bottom flanges (im looking at only max 0.5mm gap between the flanges and mounted fb's) that A this will help resist twisting and B, be bloody hard to bend all that locked together :confused:

The table being of slightly different design will be toe out, but they will require more fabrication for where they mount to the FB uprights

[slug_burner]

Excuse my drawing of what I think this head beam arrangement is going to look like.

If we consider the thing in the center of both elevations to be the ram, the blue circles/rectangles to be bearings to allow the ram to be slid/rolled along the head beam, where the head beam is made up of the two PFC with toes in. Which tabs/blocks red or green will be most beneficial in assisting with the prevention of the PFC twisting?



https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/1302.jpg

[uninformed]

Thanks Slug, I really need a basic computer programme to allow me to draw that stuff.

There are a few corrections though:

The bearings will NOT be mounted to the top plate. There is another way to do it so, when the ram is in use, they do not touch, and the top and bottom plates are firmly tightend together so they are in contact with the PFCs, . This I believe will add to stopping diflection.

The red blocks of flat bar should be one peice left to right in your end elevation. This being more of a direct transfer from one PFC to the other. These FB will be either 75mm or 100mm in contact with the PFC flanges. There is also no room for them to run across the mounting plates as they are on the outside, given that there is only 160mm between PFCs and the ram is 127mm dia.

The green blocks should be, top and bottom, the same as you have drawn the bottom mounting plate in your end elevation, but running the full length, that is: 400mm for the bottom and 300mm for the top. The top plate over hangs the PFC the same as the bottom plate.

There is no mounting collar on the ram under the bottom plate, and the top and bottom flanges are not tapered :p

[Bush65]

I can't see practical benefits of what you are intending. I strongly suggest what Dougal suggested - toes out, with webs as close as practical to the ram. BTW where Dougal spoke of bending, I read that he was referring to the 40 (ex 50) plate. And yes the 100 x 16 FB should be attached to the web of the PFC.

I did say I think shear and not bending of the PFC's will be what determines their capacity. Remember when I stated that I said the toes should be out.

Open sections like PFC's perform badly when subjected to torsion. The pics below are screen grabs that show some section properties. Note the columns for Torsion Constant J. J for a 250 PFC (J = 238 x 10^3 mm^4) is between a 60.3 x 2.3 CHS (353 x 10^3 mm^4) and 48.3 x 2.9 CHS (214 x 10^3 mm^4). Also CHS doesn't warp when twisted so no Warping Constant Iw (RHS and SHS do warp). Open sections resist twisting moments (torsion) by edgewise bending of the flanges, the web contributes next to nothing - for your 250 PFC's the bottom flanges (90 x 15 mm) bend in the 90 mm direction toward the ram and the top flanges bend in the 90 mm direction away from the ram.

Open sections should be avoided where there is torsion. Box them or eliminate or reduce the torsion to a minimal value. Normally for a press, there is no requirement to be able to shift the ram to the side. This allows the pair of beams to be simply tied together and eliminate the twisting (the clockwise twisting moment in the RH (looking on end view) beam is apposed by the anti-clockwise moment in the LH beam).

Your going to a lot of trouble to achieve a not so effective method to tie them together, treating the symptom of twisting but ignoring/exagerating the cause.

Your proposal has other ramifications that I don't have time to go into now. I will scribble something later but won't have a chance to post until Thursday or Friday.

[uninformed]

I have seen may presses available to buy with rams that can travel left to right. This can be of benefit. Think not only of pressing a simple bearing off/on a shaft, but rather something larger, longer odd shaped. Which also brings us to toe in or out. If I go toe out, and fasten the web to the 100x16 FB, that means that I wll only have approx 185mm between uprights. If I do it the way I have suggested/copied it will give me 340mm between uprights. This can allow for jobs to fit between the uprights. Again this with less cross ties between uprights allows for those odd jobs. Normally you would just have the flat bar and cross ties welded. With cross ties at bottom, table and head there is much more clear area. This is why the 75x12 has been added perpendicular to the 100x16, to make its stiffer.

If the bottom flanges are bowing inwards and the top flanges outwards, wouldnt the flat bar fastend to the top and bottom plates help resist this? The 2 PFCs would be fighting each other??? I would have also thought that the friction from the top and bottom plates to the top and bottom flanges helped some as I cant see the top and bottom flange JUST bending in and out, wouldnt they be trying to move some what vertically as well, ie twist.??? If only trying the top and bottom flanges together as above may induce buckling of the web, then as you have already mentioned, web stiffeners can be welded in PFCs.

Lets also not forget that the ends of the PFC's are bolted to each other. But I guess that these arent helping where the twisting is going on, ie at the ram postion....This is why that if I can control the twisting where the ram is, no matter the position, it seems like not a bad Idea?

Regarding boxing in the PFCs. I have already been giving this some thought. And even though the calcs show the 8mm web to be ok. I figured more wouldnt hurt. I was thinking along the lines of getting some 250mm plate, 8 or 10mm thick, cutting and bending to suit. Bending it so, say, 120mm on the ends are hard against the web, then it bends at 45 degrees so it comes out to within 15mm of the edge of the flanges,bends back 45 degree and runs right along the length of PFC to the other end, where it bends back in to be hard against the web.

so plate would look a little like this in plan view (above) and be the same overall length as the PFCs: (ignore the @, I had to use them as spaces dont work...)

@@_________
__/@@@@@@ \__

[slug_burner]

Ok, flanges aren't tapered.:eek:

I thought that you were modelling your press on this one

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/1266.jpg

that is why I placed the bearings at the top.

I went back and had at look at your ram and there is no collar as I have drawn and I now understand why you are having to tie your top and bottom plates together. You are suggesting to clamp the top and bottom plates onto the PFC. This is not as simple to move the ram as that in the photo above. Still adjustable just takes a bit longer.

I am having trouble keeping up with the textual description. I thought that I would put up a straw-man for people to pick at.

From what John has said I think that the answer to my question is that you need the green blocks on the top and the red ones on the bottom of the PFCs. But as John says that would just be treating the symptoms. I think that I can say I have learned as to which way the PFC will want to twist when loaded, if I have interpreted the moments described correctly.

As far as drawing packages. Nothing flash just the Microsoft Paint software that comes with Windows and is in the Accessories folder access from the "Start Menu" and visible when you select "All programs". CAD would be great but I'd have to learn how to drive it as well as having to buy it.

[uninformed]

Ok, flanges aren't tapered.:eek:


Was a joke, nit picking insignifigent stuff, hence the poking tounge

I thought that you were modelling your press on this one......that is why I placed the bearings at the top.

I am, if you read Dave's artical AND look at his pictures, you will see that his bearings are not fixed to the top plate that also clamps to his PFCs. When he has his ram in postion, top and bottom plates are clamped. To move he simply loosens the 4 mounting rods, then winds the 2, 3 armed handles that lowers the bearings, when they touch the top of PFC the continueal winding will lift the top plate off and weight is bearing on the bearings. So now top and bottom are clear to tram ram left or right.......

I went back and had at look at your ram and there is no collar as I have drawn and I now understand why you are having to tie your top and bottom plates together. You are suggesting to clamp the top and bottom plates onto the PFC. This is not as simple to move the ram as that in the photo above. Still adjustable just takes a bit longer.

Again, see above......

I am having trouble keeping up with the textual description. I thought that I would put up a straw-man for people to pick at.

I do appreciate your time and help.

From what John has said I think that the answer to my question is that you need the green blocks on the top and the red ones on the bottom of the PFCs. But as John says that would just be treating the symptoms. I think that I can say I have learned as to which way the PFC will want to twist when loaded, if I have interpreted the moments described correctly.

How is treating the symptoms any different to welding ties form PFC to PFC??? In my mind Im still trying to deal with that particular problem.



TO ALL:


I am greatful for the help by all so far, But, If you can take the time to read Dave's artical, which I have posted links to and said more than once.......it will probably save some time and effort on all counts.

I have said my ram will not be height adjustable. I have also said my head and table will not cantilever at any end

I could just build a stock press with no ram travel and weld it all together......BUT again, if you have been following from the begining you will know my reasons for choosing to not go down that path.

Please dont think I am ignoring the information given, or that I think I know better...HELL NO!!

The compromisies are comming from budget, material already bought, usage of press and ability to assemble/disassemble/move the press.

Simply putting the PFCs toe out and on the outside of the uprights changes the whole concept of the press. That is to have a good usable distance between uprights for work objects to pass through

Welding ties between the PFC will not allow ram travel

Welding the 75x12 FB to the 100x16 FB at anything other than a flush angle is not possible due to the mounting of table and head beams....

cheers
Serg

[slug_burner]

Keep it up Serg.

I look forward to catching up on this thread. It is a good opportunity to have a chat and maybe learn something.

When interested and while people are happy to give of their time I am prepared to listen, chip in where I can and just have a casual conversation. While I don't want to waste your time, I am also unlikely to pick up on everything that is posted here or in linked articles. My reference to treating the symptoms was to my use of the blocks to stop what was described as an outcome, that of twisting.

When you have the materials and want to achieve a particular outcome, you have to treat the symptoms/mitigate to prevent the results of likely outcomes.

I don't see the point in building a Chinese shop press and welding it all up. You might as well go and buy one if that is all you want. That is probably all most need, but that is not the point.

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
Its loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness;

with apologies and thanks to John Keats

[uninformed]

no need to apologise JohnK ;)

so lets break it down for my pea brain and focus just on the toe in/toe out argument.

What is the difference if you have the 2 PFCs toe in or toe out? In my case with the 400mm ram mounting plate as the determining size, that would mean, toe in, the PFCs will bolt INSIDE the FB uprights and be 340mm apart, outside to outside. If I was to bolt them toe out, they would be on the OUTSIDE of the uprights and lets say, for this exercise 340mm apart (PFCs) outside to outside. Assume the ends are tied together, nothing else.

Toe in, webs are 332mm apart c - c
Toe out, webs are 168mm apart c - c

So do they behave differently?
is one way stronger than the other?
why?

[Dougal]

In a nutshell:

If you have narrow end posts and your PFC's running straight across the ram mount to the end posts, then the forces are all captured in a single line.

If you want to push the end posts apart, you aren't transferring load in a line any longer, you are transferring load from the centre of an X to the corners of the X where the posts are. This can require a very different design.
An alternative to the X design is to still run PFC's close to the ram and toes out, but have them meet another cross beam at each end (PFC should work there too) which takes the load out to the corner posts.

[uninformed]

In a nutshell:

If you have narrow end posts and your PFC's running straight across the ram mount to the end posts, then the forces are all captured in a single line.

Are you talking theoretical design of the PFC's touching back to back, because it would be impossible to do this unless the ram was mounted underneath the head beams, pushing up aginst the bottom of it....

If you want to push the end posts apart, you aren't transferring load in a line any longer, you are transferring load from the centre of an X to the corners of the X where the posts are.

Are we looking at this X in plan, end or side view (or all) ??


This can require a very different design.

???


An alternative to the X design is to still run PFC's close to the ram and toes out, but have them meet another cross beam at each end (PFC should work there too) which takes the load out to the corner posts.

I thought you were saying that the X is whats happening, not the design??? Remember I did say that the ends are tied together. This, say, by welding 100x12 FB into the ends of the PFC, from top to bottom flange, then using 250x12, across the 340mm plate to bolt these together (like Dave's)

With the example given in my post before yours, I have changed nothing except the direction of "toes". So PFC are still spaced the same distance apart, but it does change the distance between webs and the FB uprights

Is their any +'s with having more seperation of the PFCs? kinda like a beam with more vertical seperation, except now we have more horizontal seperation?




The message you have entered is too short. Please insert atleast three characters.........:angel:

[Bush65]

...

Your proposal has other ramifications that I don't have time to go into now. I will scribble something later but won't have a chance to post until Thursday or Friday.
There are certain rules of nature/physics that must be satisfied, and an important one here is that if the press is to remain static, i.e. fixed in space (no translation in any direction or rotation about any axis), while it is in operation, then every force and every moment must be in equilibrium. This can be simply stated, as Isaac Newton told us, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction”. Any force not in equilibrium will result in translation (Force = mass x acceleration) - moments result in rotation about some axis.

When the ram is used to press parts together, or apart, or deform a part into some other desired shape, the reaction from the work piece, against the ram is equal, but opposite to the force created by the ram. As we analyse the other load carrying members, these forces and reactions are distributed between them in the one and only way that satisfies the test for static equilibrium.

The threaded section of the ram body exerts an upward force on the threaded section of the 400 x 400 x 40 plate, which is in equilibrium with the downward reaction between the underside of the pair of 250 PFC's and the plate. Given the ram is centred between the pair of PFC's, then the plate will subject each PFC to halve of the ram force in the upward direction, but here is where it starts to become murky.

Where on the underside of the PFC is the upward force applied? We know the reactions to this force must be downward, as tension in the ties fabricated from 100 x 16 FB + 75 x 10 FB, but how/where is each reaction distributed between the flat bars?

Because PFC's are asymmetrical in one direction their shear centre is outside the section and forces offset from at the shear centre will cause twisting. Also if the force from the plate at the underside of the PFC is not in the same plane as the reactions from the ties this will also create a twisting moment in the PFC.

We might assume that the plate contacts the flange of the PFC over most if not all of the 90 mm width of the flange, but under load as the plate and flange deflect the contact pressure (load / area) will not be uniform. The plate deflects upward at the ram and downward at the PFC's (it is said to “hog”, which is the opposite of “sag”). If the PFC's have the toes in, i.e. [ ] this would cause pressure to increase toward the toes of the PFC and reduce toward the heel.

That is not the end of the story – assuming no flange stiffeners welded into the PFC in this area, the contact pressure will deflect the toe upward. The flange will bend at the point where the 8 mm thick web meets the 15 mm thick flange. Compared to the 40 mm thick plate the web is not very stiff when it comes to bending the flange like this. So the contact pressure will increase toward the heel and the position of the resultant force will most likely be close to inline with the inside surface of the web (how close is anyone’s guess – it could be modelled with non-linear FEA software at some $$$). If the PFC has flange stiffeners to reduce/prevent them bending, then the resultant would be close to the toe (undesirable). The PFC is still subjected to gross section twisting due to torsion and the offset of the shear centre, which will distribute pressure toward the heel. We would like the resultant to be close to the shear centre of the PFC and close to where the reaction occurs in the flat bar ties.

The other affect of having the toes in, is that it increases the bending moment in the 40 mm thick plate. Increased BM results in increased stress and deflection in the plate. Although I don't expect this to be critical, I just don't like doing that if it is not justified – there could have been material weight and $$ savings for example.

Now if the toes of the pair of PFC's were out, i.e. ] [ the reaction between the 40 mm plate and the flange of the 250 PFC will be located at the heel. The flange will not be bent, the vertical load will be distributed into the web where it is stiffest and best able to carry the load (the action, along with bending, that the section was designed for). In addition, this location is as close to the shear centre as we can hope to achieve simply and is going to be minimise the out of plane offset (twisting moment) to the 100 x 16 FB ties, assuming the FB is attached to the web of the PFC.

In either case the PFC's will need to be restrained to reduce the twisting, but it will be easier or more effective if the toes are out.

[Dougal]

Are you talking theoretical design of the PFC's touching back to back, because it would be impossible to do this unless the ram was mounted underneath the head beams, pushing up aginst the bottom of it....


Not touching, keep the ram between them, but have them orientated toes out.

The X is looking down from above.


I thought you were saying that the X is whats happening, not the design??? Remember I did say that the ends are tied together. This, say, by welding 100x12 FB into the ends of the PFC, from top to bottom flange, then using 250x12, across the 340mm plate to bolt these together (like Dave's)

With the example given in my post before yours, I have changed nothing except the direction of "toes". So PFC are still spaced the same distance apart, but it does change the distance between webs and the FB uprights

Is their any +'s with having more seperation of the PFCs? kinda like a beam with more vertical seperation, except now we have more horizontal seperation?

The X is showing where the force is acting and where the load needs transferred to. You can use an endless number of different shaped designs to transfer load from the centre to the points, but some are clearly better than others.

Having the PFC's closer together means less bending load in the mounting plate transferring load from the ram to the PFC's.

[Bush65]

I have seen may presses available to buy with rams that can travel left to right. This can be of benefit. Think not only of pressing a simple bearing off/on a shaft, but rather something larger, longer odd shaped. Which also brings us to toe in or out. If I go toe out, and fasten the web to the 100x16 FB, that means that I wll only have approx 185mm between uprights. If I do it the way I have suggested/copied it will give me 340mm between uprights. This can allow for jobs to fit between the uprights. Again this with less cross ties between uprights allows for those odd jobs. Normally you would just have the flat bar and cross ties welded. With cross ties at bottom, table and head there is much more clear area. This is why the 75x12 has been added perpendicular to the 100x16, to make its stiffer.

If the bottom flanges are bowing inwards and the top flanges outwards, wouldnt the flat bar fastend to the top and bottom plates help resist this? The 2 PFCs would be fighting each other??? I would have also thought that the friction from the top and bottom plates to the top and bottom flanges helped some as I cant see the top and bottom flange JUST bending in and out, wouldnt they be trying to move some what vertically as well, ie twist.??? If only trying the top and bottom flanges together as above may induce buckling of the web, then as you have already mentioned, web stiffeners can be welded in PFCs.

Lets also not forget that the ends of the PFC's are bolted to each other. But I guess that these arent helping where the twisting is going on, ie at the ram postion....This is why that if I can control the twisting where the ram is, no matter the position, it seems like not a bad Idea?

Regarding boxing in the PFCs. I have already been giving this some thought. And even though the calcs show the 8mm web to be ok. I figured more wouldnt hurt. I was thinking along the lines of getting some 250mm plate, 8 or 10mm thick, cutting and bending to suit. Bending it so, say, 120mm on the ends are hard against the web, then it bends at 45 degrees so it comes out to within 15mm of the edge of the flanges,bends back 45 degree and runs right along the length of PFC to the other end, where it bends back in to be hard against the web.

so plate would look a little like this in plan view (above) and be the same overall length as the PFCs: (ignore the @, I had to use them as spaces dont work...)

@@_________
__/@@@@@@ \__
I can see that there may be times where shifting the ram could be the only way to get a job under the ram.

I have great difficulty accepting that there would be no work around for something needing to be fed in through the side, unless the press is located in a position that confines access from front and back.

[uninformed]

John, I need to read and digest your info more. But I AM hearing you.

Dougal, with the PFCs at 340mm outside to outside, and a 127mm dia ram, I only have 16.5mm clearance between ram and each PFC.....regardless of toe in or out..... im just spinning them around.

Im getting that closer together is mostly the Web distance?

John, Even if I place PFCs toe out and on the OUTSIDE of FB uprights. How do I go about restraining the 2 PFCs togther with out welding them, so I can still travel the ram left to right.

One example I can think of regarding placing work peice through the uprights is pressing an axle housing. If it goes through the uprights, parrallel with the table, it is much easier to sort out support points. If it passes perpendicular to the table then now support points have to be sorted from the floor....

[slug_burner]

John, I need to read and digest your info more. But I AM hearing you.

Dougal, with the PFCs at 340mm outside to outside, and a 127mm dia ram, I only have 16.5mm clearance between ram and each PFC.....regardless of toe in or out..... im just spinning them around.

Im getting that closer together is mostly the Web distance?

John, Even if I place PFCs toe out and on the OUTSIDE of FB uprights. How do I go about restraining the 2 PFCs togther with out welding them, so I can still travel the ram left to right.

I thought that you could use the top and bottom plates with the appropriate placement of cleats, that was what I was trying to get across with the use of the red and green blocks. I don't know how much the PFCs will twist though. If the movement is not that much then you could not allow much of a gap to allow the plates to tram across the PFCs!

One example I can think of regarding placing work peice through the uprights is pressing an axle housing. If it goes through the uprights, parrallel with the table, it is much easier to sort out support points. If it passes perpendicular to the table then now support points have to be sorted from the floor....
....

[uninformed]

whoops :angel: sorry if there was any confusion:

Bush65 = John
Slug Burner = Johnk
Dougal = chooice brew :D

JohnK, what you drew with the red and green blocks, IS along the lines of what I was getting at....my previous post and photo showed this.

But, as John has said, its not just one thing, not just the top and bottom flanges moving laterally (end view). The bottom plate will not be pulling dead flat against the bottom flange, The PFC will not be "loaded" ideally for how it is designed. Basicly, keep the strength as close to possible to the "load/force"

Problem is, on advice from a mate that built his own presses (rams and all) he has 200mm between the uprights, and has said dont go less, even he gets caught out when having to pass things through them.


I would still like to know ideas for cross tying the PFCs so the Ram can travel left/right. I am open to the idea of boxing in the PFCs, If I understand correctly, this would change the shear center....and then the "reaction" of the modified PFCs

I could get a touch more between the uprights, mounting the PFC outboard, toe out, IF I was to fix the cleats to the ends of the top and bottom plates, not the faces. I didnt like this as the cleats bolts would be pulling on the threads, rather than in shear.

[Bush65]

...
Problem is, on advice from a mate that built his own presses (rams and all) he has 200mm between the uprights, and has said dont go less, even he gets caught out when having to pass things through them.

I would still like to know ideas for cross tying the PFCs so the Ram can travel left/right. ...
IMHO, the best solution for spacing the upright further out is what Dougal suggested. Perhaps you didn't understand how this would work - think of how bearer and joist floors are built i.e. joists carry floor load and their ends are supported by the bearers, which in turn are supported by piers/stumps.

In your press the pair of ("joists") PFC's can be toes out, with their webs as close to the ram as practical. Now fix the ends of these PFC's to short cross beams ("bearers") (PFC would be ok for these as Dougal said). Fix the uprights to the short cross beams at any suitable spacing.

Note the cross beams don't have to be below the pair of PFC's like bearers and joists, they can be at same level or even above. Just make sure that you have twisting restraint between the pair of PFC's.


... still run PFC's close to the ram and toes out, but have them meet another cross beam at each end (PFC should work there too) which takes the load out to the corner posts.

As for restraining the pair of PFC's at the position of the ram, then your proposed clamping should be OK, using friction, but it will work better with the toes out and the clamp bolts close to the webs.

[slug_burner]

Ok, I might once again have missed something but for the sake of conversation can we consider how much the plates that Serg is going to use are likely to deflect under load. I have an image here which once again might be wrong. If so Serg you might want to jump in. Given the ram does not have a collar then it must push up against the top plate, to transfer the load to the bottom plate bolts must be in use. The bottom plate is 40-50mm thick and the flange on the PFC is about 90mm. How much deflection can we expect on the bottom plate? (as per the drawing what do we expect the value of Y to be?).

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/1092.jpg

[uninformed]

thanks JohnK,

what I ment by "no mounting collar" was nothing extra under the 40/50mm bottom mounting plate.The bottom, outside dia of the ram is threaded for 50mm (5inch 12tpi) this threads directly into the bottom plate for the full 50mm. As the ram is approx 400mm long it will have to pass through the 25mm top plate (it will be board so it is only a touch bigger, say 1mm on dia, than the ram body.) The bottom and top plate will be bolted together as you have drawn, all be it on either side of the ram, as there is not enough room between ram and PFC.

[slug_burner]

ok so the red area is a thread, and the bolts are 90 degrees out, they should be rotated to be in line with the ram and the centre line shoul run parallel with the pfc

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/1072.jpg

[wrinklearthur]

ok so the red area is a thread, and the bolts are 90 degrees out, they should be rotated to be in line with the ram and the centre line shoul run parallel with the pfc

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/09/1072.jpg

If that red area is the thread, will there be enough threads in contact to ensure a trouble free working life?
.

[uninformed]

50mm of thread engagement on 5 inch dia, 12tpi. Ram is SPX Power Team, threaded collar is rated to FULL working rating of RAM. Many store bought rams, including good ones like SPX and ENERPAC have the ram mounted only via the threaded collar.

I am not concerned in this area.

[uninformed]

well having enough of folding peices of carboard for the moment, I decided to do some work on my press.

I started with the base/feet. SHS 100x100x9, end caps 100x25 flat bar, feet 50x10 flat bar, face mount 65x10.

I had to oxy all the flat bar and clean up. Vee ground and gapped the 25mm end caps with the SHS. 16mm holes slugged in the feet so a 14mm masonry drill bit will pass through.

GMAW Kemppi 250C, was in the spray transfer, approx 38v 13m/min for the end caps and 32v 10m/min for the 10mm plate.

Next is to Mill the feet flat, the ends square and parrallel and equal length. And Mill the face mount.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/51950d1349605124-55t-press-55t-press-015-rs.jpg

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/51951d1349605221-55t-press-55t-press-018-rs.jpg

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-tutorials/51952d1349605256-55t-press-55t-press-019-rs.jpg

[Judo]

I love the look of shiny bare metal! Always looks very hardy and genuine. :cool:

[uninformed]

That's just prep for welding. These will be milled, bead blasted and painted.....they will have started to rust by the time I get home today.

[uninformed]

still sorting, sourcing and skeming.....I picked up 4 peices of 250 PFC @ 344 mm long (as per Dougals idea) I have some 150x90x16 angle coming, short bits to go into the PFC's. I need to weld some small 50x50x10 feet onto the feet of the bases...less area to be affected by uneven floor...

I cut all the FB uprights to the same length...need to do some lay out etc. Im a bit PO at how average the edges are to the face with regards to square and flat. I would like to mill the edges true, but I doubt I will be able to. I even thought about a carbided cutter for a die grinder in my router using its fence...but I dont have a 1/4 collet.

[Lionelgee]

still sorting, sourcing and skeming.....I picked up 4 peices of 250 PFC @ 344 mm long (as per Dougals idea) I have some 150x90x16 angle coming, short bits to go into the PFC's. I need to weld some small 50x50x10 feet onto the feet of the bases...less area to be affected by uneven floor...

I cut all the FB uprights to the same length...need to do some lay out etc. Im a bit PO at how average the edges are to the face with regards to square and flat. I would like to mill the edges true, but I doubt I will be able to. I even thought about a carbided cutter for a die grinder in my router using its fence...but I dont have a 1/4 collet.

Hello Uninformed,

How is the 55 ton press build going? Was it finished or did it meet a hurdle or two?

If the project was a success can you post up some photographs of the type of work you do with it?


Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

well after doing a bit of searching, maybe bolting together is the better way.....

DAVE PROPST ARTICLES - H-Frame Hydraulic Press (http://www.davepropst.com/Article/Art6/Article6.htm)

well worth the read. Very VERY nice press. Id be happy to get Dave to work on a car simply going by the job he did on his press :eek:

Unfortunately I dont have the skills or machinary to achive the same press, but I hope some of the concepts should help me. It will be a matter of making it as accurate as I can...gulp!


Hello Uninformed and other readers,

The link to Dave Propst's articles no longer works.

Here is the new URL to get to it Accessed June 19th from DAVE PROPST ARTICLES - H-Frame Hydraulic Press (http://web.archive.org/web/20070824140215/http://www.davepropst.com/Article/Art6/Article6.htm)

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Lionelgee]

Hello Uniformed and other press followers,

I found a youtube video on a manufacturer who describes their presses as "more than 40 tons" I have no connection to the company or their products. It is a nice video to watch to see what a hydraulic press can do.

Accessed June 19th, 2016 from Prada Nargesa (http://www.nargesa.com/en)

According to their website "PRADA NARGESA S.L. is a family company founded in 1970, located near Barcelone, Spain with more than 40 years experience in the branch of manufacturing industrial machinery". Accessed June 19th, 2016 from http://www.nargesa.com/en/about-nargesa. They have some rather interesting stuff.

Enjoy :)

Kind Regards
Lionel