Feasibility Study of Replacing an

Industrial Hydraulic Lift System with

an Electro-Mechanical Lift System
Critical Design Review
Thursday, 21 September 2000
Professors:
Dr. Ram & Dr. Buckner
Students:
Jeremy Bridges & David Herring
Overview
Problem Statement
Potential Candidate Designs
Selecting Candidate Designs
Finalizing Design Solution
Proposed Design Implementation
Conclusion
Questions & Comments
Problem Statement
Hydraulic lift systems occasionally leak fluid. This raises
environmental issues. A high number of NACCOs
customers are concerned with this issue and have
expressed a willingness to pay a little more for an electro-
mechanical lift system. NACCO now would like to research
the feasibility of replacing this hydraulic lift system with an
electro-mechanical lift system in the most cost effective way
so the customer can justify the increased cost.
Potential Design Solutions
1. Ball Screw Jac
2. Machine Screw Jac
3. Electric Cylinder Linear Actuator
4. Cam/Cylinder Lift
5. Rack and Pinion
6. Cable/Chain Lift
7. Scissor Truss (Car Jack)
Ball Screw Jac
1. Accurate lifting with little drift
2. Smooth performance
3. Little horsepower required from motor (1/3 Torque needed
compared to Machine Screw Jac)
4. Compact system
5. Can operate at high speeds
6. Capable of lifting more than 2 tons that lift desires
7. Horizontal input with vertical output
8. Duty cycle can be extended longer than Machine Screw Jac
9. Corrosion resistant
10. Long predictable life
11. A motor needs to be added
12. Reasonable cost
13. Reasonable size that can work within space constraints
Machine Screw Jac
1. Accurate lifting with little drift
2. Smooth operation
3. Compact system
4. Self-locking during manual operation with no vibration when using
20:1 or higher gear ratio.
5. Will not back-drive during mechanical failure with 20:1 or higher ratio.
6. Corrosion resistant
7. Preferred for static vibration
8. Slower travel speed compared to hydraulic, ball screw, or electric
cylinder actuator
9. A motor needs to be added
10. Reasonable cost
11. Reasonable size that can work within space constraints
Electric Cylinder Linear Actuator
1. Extremely accurate
2. High cost
3. Smooth operation
4. Limit switches included
5. Requires input voltage rather than a shaft or other mechanical input
6. Integrated motor
7. Includes ball screw with long life
8. Recommended as ideal solution to hydraulic (per Nook Linear Motion
Design Guide, pg. ajec-6)
9. Perfect size that can work within space constraints

Cam/Cylinder Lift
1. Smooth operation
2. Will back-drive without brake during mechanical failure
3. Medium cost
4. Relatively equal travel time compared to hydraulic system
5. Size that may cause problems within space constraints
Rack and Pinion

1. Best during manual operation
2. Mechanical brake preventing back-drive on pinion
3. Low cost
4. Fast travel cycle time
5. Reasonable size that can work within space constraints
Cable/Chain Lift
1. Requires new lift point for lift truck forks
2. High torque
3. Cable wrapping is potential problem
4. If cable or chain break there is a sudden and quick back-drive
5. Medium cost
6. Slower travel time compared to the hydraulic system
7. Reasonable size that can work within space constraints
Scissor Truss (Car Jack)
1. Will not back-drive
2. Can be operated manually
3. Needs large amount of space for mounting
4. Low cost
5. Slower travel time compared to the hydraulic system
6. Size not ideal to work within space constraints

Criteria for Decision Matrix
Cost (5%): evaluated on single mechanism basis for
general price ranges
Safety (40%): evaluated on back driving risk
during a mechanical failure
Performance (20%) : educated comparison against
current hydraulic system
Reliability (35%): evaluated with expected life and
risk for a mechanical failure
Candidate Design Selection
Scale: 1 = poor
5 = neutral
10 = best
Average Cost Safety Performance Reliability Rank
Weight 0.05 0.4 0.2 0.35 1
Ball Screw Jac 6 7 9 9 7.65
Machine Screw Jac 6 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.975
Rack & Pinion 7.5 3.5 7.5 4 3.875
Cam/Cylinder Lift 7.5 3 6.5 3.5 3.4
Chain/Cable Lift 9 3 7 4 3.65
Electric Cylinder Linear Actuator 1.5 7 9.5 9.5 7.6
Scissor Truss (Car Jack) 9 8 5.5 6.5 7.525
Candidate Design
1. Ball Screw Jac

2. Machine Screw Jac

3. Electric Cylinder Linear Actuator
Selecting Final Design
Size (45%) : evaluate component size and spacing
requirements

Ultimate Cost (30%) : overall cost including additional
hardware

Ease of Assembly (5%) : implementation of design

Performance (10%) : travel speed and load handling

Safety (10%) : ability to back-drive
Final Design Decision Matrix
Ultimate
Cost
Overall
Size
Performance Safety
Ease of
Assembly
Rank
Weight 0.3 0.45 0.1 0.1 0.05 1
Ball Screw Jac 6.75 3 4 7 6 4.2375
Machine Screw Jac 7 7 4 7.5 7 7
Electric Cylinder
Linear Actuator
1 7 9 4 7 6.7
Hydraulic Cylinder 10 10 9 9 9 9.65
Scale: 1 = poor
5 = neutral
10 = best
Ball Screw Jac
Clevis (2)
Drive shaft
Aluminum
Housing
Ball Screw Jac - Space Issue
Fork support unit
Ball Screw Jac
Interference w/
Drive Unit
Machine Screw Jac
Aluminum
Housing
Drive Shaft
Clevis (2)
Machine Screw Jac
Lower Mounting Option 1
Upper Linkage
Fork Unit Support
Machine Screw Jac
Lower Mounting Bracket
(Option 1)
Bracket
welded to
existing
chassis
Option 1:
Stress Analysis must be conducted to select appropriate
geometry and ensure structural rigidity

Material must be cut away from interior flanges of fork unit
support

Weld strength must be determined
Machine Screw Jac
Lower Mounting (Option 2)
Upper Lift Linkage
Fork Unit Support
Machine Screw Jac
Lower Mounting Bracket
(Option 2)
Welded to
Chassis
Option 2:
Stress Analysis must be conducted in order to determine
correct thickness and geometry of bracket

No material will need to be cut away from fork unit support

Strength will be main concern and testing must be
conducted

Possible Interference with drive unit at maximum turn radius
Upper Mounting Bracket
Option 1
Will require additional hole drilled in
fork unit support and filling of
existing hole

May allow additional undesired
degrees of freedom
Upper Mounting Bracket
Option 2
Additional hole will be drilled
and existing hole will be used
(No filling will be needed)

More rigid support than Option 1
Machine Screw Jac Assembly
Upper linkage
Fork Unit
Support
Machine Screw Jac
Upper
Mounting
Bracket
Lower
Mounting
Bracket
Motor Information
Brake Motor
3-Phase, AC Induction
1.5-2 HP depending on desired speed
230/460 VAC Input Voltage
NEMA 56-C Motor Size
Recommended by Nook Industries (~$1000)
Would require DC-AC Inverter (~$500)
Brush DC Motor
1.5-2 HP depending on desired speed
24 VDC Input Voltage
Needs to be researched further

Note: More Motor Information will be provided later
Cost of Final Design (Prototype)
Machine Screw Jac: $500
AC or DC Motor: $600-$1200 (depending on HP requirements)
Limit Switches: $100-$200
Fabrication: $200 (if needed)
DC-AC Inverter: $200-$300 (if needed)
Misc. Hardware: $50
---------------
Estimated Total Cost: $1250-$2450 (depending on configuration)
Conclusion
We recommend the Machine Screw Jac as the
electromechanical solution

Option 1 - Lower Mounting Bracket

Option 2 - Upper Mounting Bracket

We desire feedback from NACCO on the
configuration we have selected before we
proceed with prototyping
Questions or Comments???
Web Site:
http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/mae586/buckner/index.html