Bad Welds?

[GeoHorn]

Welding ships in World War 2 :

 

[jimh406]

Welding ships in World War 2 :

What is the relevance to the thread?

 

[hagrid]

What is the relevance to the thread?

What I'm getting from it is that OP should send their FEL to the nearest shipyard and have it launched into the ocean, bad welds and all.

 

[chim]

What is the relevance to the thread?

Comment#26 perhaps?

 

[jimh406]

Comment#26 perhaps?

Of course, WWII wasn't a period of DEI. It was the opposite. Many jobs were done by the only people available.

 

[Scm]

I fully agree with comment 91, bad design.
But, then again, I am no engineer.
So, was the person that designed it an engineer? or.....

 

[GeoHorn]

Of course, WWII wasn't a period of DEI. It was the opposite. Many jobs were done by the only people available.

Good Thing they were available (and willing)..huh…?
Now that That’s-Over…. let’s reward ‘em and git ‘em otta sight..heh?)

 

[Scm]

Sounds li

Good Thing they were available (and willing)..huh…?
Now that That’s-Over…. let’s reward ‘em and git ‘em otta sight..heh?)

sounds like how we deal with the chinese today. They make our products AND lend us the money to buy them and no one cares about how the "labor" is treated.

 

[jimh406]

git ‘em otta sight..heh?)

From what I read, that's what happened in some shipyards as sad as that was.

 

[McMXi]

I fully agree with comment 91, bad design.
But, then again, I am no engineer.
So, was the person that designed it an engineer? or.....

So two people who aren't engineers think it's a bad design. I'm not going to provide my resume but I don't think it's a bad design, just poor execution i.e. due to poor welds. You could try to make the argument that a good design would be immune to poor execution but we live in the real world.

Notice as the capacity of loaders increase, there's an increase in complexity. I have an LA1065 loader on the MX and an LA1154 loader on the M6060. Both loaders have the cross tube piercing the loader arms. Obviously this results in twice the weld length to resist torsion of the tube compared to the non-pierced arrangement on your loader.

Now look at the loader on the L47TLB that my friend bought yesterday. It's rated at 1,300kg so more than the MX and M, and notice how the cross tube pierces the loader arms, but also there's a cap that plugs the end of the tube. This systems offers close to three times the weld length for torsion, but also reduces the chance of the tube collapsing (buckling) under load.

The Japanese put a lot of thought into their products and the loaders are no exception. You can bet that the loaders on all models are designed by engineers, and that software tools such as ANSYS (finite element analysis) are used along with extensive empirical testing.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

As in all of life, loader frames are a compromise.
They only make them strong enough for the 'spec', using minimal materials and least amount of labour.
This satisfies everyone from the 'head office' to the 'assembly line'.

 

[jimh406]

I don't think it's a bad design, just poor execution i.e. due to poor welds. You could try to make the argument that a good design would be immune to poor execution but we live in the real world.

Part of a good design should include the ability to execute it correctly and include quality control. Sure, the person who spec'd the loader frame might have done their job.

 

[Scm]

notice how the cross tube pierces the loader arms

This is the poor design I agree with for my loader. But, wouldn't another fix be by transferring that twisting motion to the arms instead of the tube with a second cylinder? This make sense to me the non engineer.

This satisfies everyone from the 'head office' to the 'assembly line'.

specifically the CFO

 

[hagrid]

So two people who aren't engineers think it's a bad design. I'm not going to provide my resume but I don't think it's a bad design, just poor execution i.e. due to poor welds. You could try to make the argument that a good design would be immune to poor execution but we live in the real world.

Notice as the capacity of loaders increase, there's an increase in complexity. I have an LA1065 loader on the MX and an LA1154 loader on the M6060. Both loaders have the cross tube piercing the loader arms. Obviously this results in twice the weld length to resist torsion of the tube compared to the non-pierced arrangement on your loader.

Now look at the loader on the L47TLB that my friend bought yesterday. It's rated at 1,300kg so more than the MX and M, and notice how the cross tube pierces the loader arms, but also there's a cap that plugs the end of the tube. This systems offers close to three times the weld length for torsion, but also reduces the chance of the tube collapsing (buckling) under load.

The Japanese put a lot of thought into their products and the loaders are no exception. You can bet that the loaders on all models are designed by engineers, and that software tools such as ANSYS (finite element analysis) are used along with extensive empirical testing.

View attachment 170995

Undercut:

 

[hagrid]

.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

This is the poor design I agree with for my loader. But, wouldn't another fix be by transferring that twisting motion to the arms instead of the tube with a second cylinder? This make sense to me the non engineer.


specifically the CFO

another compromise... go the 'traditional' build and you need a 2nd cylinder, 2 more hoses, 2 tees, 2 more cylinder mounting brackets or 'weldments', 2 more pins, zerks, plus a LOT of extra time on the assembly line, and of course rewriting proceedures on how to make it , increase in inventory, more stock room costs(in /out), etc. Oh yeah, it gets to be 'fun' when an 'ECO' ( Engineering Change Order ) gets issued !

 

[GeoHorn]

Undercut:

View attachment 170997

Thicker paint application would have hidden that nicely.

 

[Chanceywd]

another compromise... go the 'traditional' build and you need a 2nd cylinder, 2 more hoses, 2 tees, 2 more cylinder mounting brackets or 'weldments', 2 more pins, zerks, plus a LOT of extra time on the assembly line, and of course rewriting proceedures on how to make it , increase in inventory, more stock room costs(in /out), etc. Oh yeah, it gets to be 'fun' when an 'ECO' ( Engineering Change Order ) gets issued !

That all adds weight which takes away it's capacity.
I'm still under the opinion that light gauge fish plate under both ends contributes to flexing and breaking at the weld on the upper side of the tube.
A gusset or 2 there could have eliminated the potential for some of the flex.

Bill

 

[hagrid]

I want dolphin plate.

 

[Hugo Habicht]

As in all of life, loader frames are a compromise.
They only make them strong enough for the 'spec', using minimal materials and least amount of labour.
This satisfies everyone from the 'head office' to the 'assembly line'.

And satisfies the engineers.

First of all any engineering calculations will have a safety factor accommodating for flaws in materials and workmanship.

And secondly over engineering adds only cost for the customer with no added benefits. The opposite is actually the case, in case of the loader it would lead to less lifting capability and higher operating cost, fuel consumption, tyre wear etc. etc..

And no, a design is never a compromise, the design is done to fulfill the specification requirements. Not more. Not less either. A loader specified for 400kg will lift 400kg as often as you want over the life time of the tractor.

And of course, even with all that, applying Mr. Carl Friedrich Gauß normal distribution curve you will always get the odd loader to fail. This is not a question of poor engineering or design but a question of how a company applies quality figures. You can design for 1 failure per 1000 loaders or for 1 failure per 1000000 loaders.