Previous in Forum: Methanol Purging   Next in Forum: Light Oil Contamination of Water Column
Close
Close
Close
56 comments
Rate Comments: Nested
Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6

Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 5:58 AM

Hello,

I'm currently in Afghanistan and have an issue with collapsing jack stands on two occasions; luckily no one has been injured. However I want to come up with a solution to this issue before someone does get injured.

A 10 ton jack stand was place under the right rear axle of a 27 ton vehicle to hold the Right/Rear (R/R) side of the vehicle approximately 18 inches off the ground. This is done to replace parts on R/R hub. The 10 ton jack stand collapsed. The remaining tires remained on the ground (supporting the vehicle) while the R/R of the vehicle was lifted. Of course this placed a (Approx.) 15-20 degree angle at the lifting point. Q. What formula or calculation would I used to determine what size stands should we be utilizing for this application?

Thank you

Register to Reply
Pathfinder Tags: Jack stand failure
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive votes to make them "good answers".

"Almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, vote them!
4
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harlow England
Posts: 16512
Good Answers: 670
#1

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 6:07 AM

Q. What formula or calculation would I used to determine what size stands should we be utilizing for this application?
Being a a simple Cat I'd suggest a 27 ton vehicle needs a 27 ton stand, maybe over doing it, but it shouldn't collapse.
Personally I wouldn't trust a 'formula' as they are no good for supporting vehicles.
Del

__________________
health warning: These posts may contain traces of nut.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
#2

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 6:30 AM

"Del the cat" Yes I agree 27 ton jack stands would definitely hold a 27 ton vehicle. However, that's not the answer that I'm looking for. Mainly due to the fact the 27 ton (30 ton) jack stands would be too heavy for single individual to maneuver. In this case, human factors would come into play, as the individual would not utilize the 30 ton stands and revert back to the 10 ton stands due to them being significantly lighter in weight.

Again thanks, but I am looking for an engineering answer. These guys have enough to worry about rather than jack stands collapsing.

Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - Technical Services Manager Canada - Member - Army brat Popular Science - Cosmology - What is Time and what is Energy? Technical Fields - Architecture - Draftsperson Hobbies - RC Aircraft - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Clive, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5916
Good Answers: 204
#31
In reply to #2

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 10:17 AM

then you might use 3 x 10 ton stands.

the formula is 10 + 10 + 10 = 30

30 > 27, therefore adequate.

Del made me do it

Register to Reply
5
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia.
Posts: 1642
Good Answers: 81
#3

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 6:36 AM

The minimum rating to lift the rear of the truck would be 27/2= 13.5 tons, but as your thinking is that leaving the rear left (R/L) wheel on the ground will reduce the loading on the jack is false, as the rear right (R/R) wheel is raised, the load on the R/L is slowly transfer to R/R until eventually it over loads the jack, the load the R/R exceeds 10 tons, as it moves towards 13.5 tons. This ignores the distribution of weight, which would include the calculation of moments. but as a rule of thumb the rear could be taken as approximately half the trucks weight.

Regards JD.

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 5)
Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
#5
In reply to #3

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 7:30 AM

JD, my thoughts exactly. I agree it would be > half the rear vehicle weight. The absence of positive vertical lift and even weight distribution actually would increase the weight to a single point due to the negative angle.

Thanks Again

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Safety - ESD - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 50.390866N, 8.884827E
Posts: 17996
Good Answers: 200
#50
In reply to #3

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

05/01/2011 2:29 PM

A great and correct answer, the first one to correctly explain why the jacks are collapsing!!!

To the OP.

In reality, depending upon the way the truck is loaded, there could be anything up to around 18 tons on that one jack.

Furthermore, why are they being jacked up 18 inches? just enough to get the wheel off the ground is enough and before working on the wheel, a chock that can withstand at least 20 tons needs to be inserted in case the jack collapses.

I always use the spare wheel when working on a car, buying a new spare wheel would be cheaper than a new arm or leg.......Remember, something expensive will "cost you an arm or a leg!!"

__________________
"What others say about you reveals more about them, than it does you." Anon.
Register to Reply
3
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21017
Good Answers: 795
#4

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 6:55 AM

1. Did the jack stand actually bend or suffer damage; or did it simply tip over?

2. Load distribution among the wheels varies: a reasonable jack requirement is 0.65 x GVW (gross vehicle weight).

3. 27 x 0.65 = 17.55 tons. How about a 20-ton jack stand? Stronger than 10, lighter than 30.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
#6
In reply to #4

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 8:01 AM

Tornado, it collapsed...bent in half. I'll post a pick soon. Thanks for the info.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7025
Good Answers: 207
#27
In reply to #6

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 7:06 AM

Could you use two 10 tons?

Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 42
Good Answers: 2
#36
In reply to #6

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 12:16 PM

I would still like to see a pic of the bent jack...

Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21017
Good Answers: 795
#7

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 8:13 AM

Maybe you can double up with two 10-ton jack stands, making sure to advance them equally.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Optical Engineering - Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 5363
Good Answers: 647
#8
In reply to #7

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 8:39 AM

Yeah, that's what I'd suggest also; use two jackstands. And thoroughly brace the opposite side of the vehicle to make sure it can't roll or shift (forward or backward) when you apply torque to the hub you're working on.

__________________
Whiskey, women -- and astrophysics. Because sometimes a problem can't be solved with just whiskey and women.
Register to Reply
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 150
#47
In reply to #7

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/28/2011 12:40 PM

Nope, two jack stands won't work because the axle will be at an angle and only one jack stand will contact it until it begins to buckle at which point the second jack stand will take the full load plus whatever momentum it may have acquired when the first jack buckled.it will buckle even faster than the first one did as a result. bottom line they won't share loads equally so this is not a workable solution.

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#9

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 8:45 AM

What are you doing with the jack that you used to raise the vehicle?

Can you leave the vehicle up on the jack and place the jack stand along side it as a backup?

The weight, combined with the angle is too much. You may want to raise the entire rear of the truck and put both left and right side on jack stands. This will have the weight pushing straight down, rather than on an angle. Whichever side you are working on, also place the jack itself with slight pressure against the axle to double the support on that side.

I don't know what the formula is, but if you have a stick and try to break it by placing the end on the ground and pushing straight down, it's almost impossible. Take the same stick, put an angle on it and apply fairly slight pressure to the center and it will snap in two.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St Louis MO USA
Posts: 224
Good Answers: 7
#10
In reply to #9

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 9:05 AM

GA Kramarat .... hope your weather calms down a bit, for you and for the sailors on the cape.

__________________
klearzen
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#12
In reply to #10

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 9:25 AM

Thanks klearzen. The weather has calmed down. The entire tornado event, in my area, was here and gone within an hour or less. It missed my house by about three miles.

The loss of life here in NC is tragic............mostly because it easily could have been avoided. We knew this system was coming for at least a couple of days, with tornado warnings about six hours in advance, and people still stayed in mobile homes.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#11
In reply to #9

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 9:14 AM

Also, I'm assuming you have limited resources.

The trick here is to keep that rear axle straight and parallel to the ground while raised.

You can take advantage of the geography of the land under the vehicle to achieve this, by either parking the truck with the left rear tire on a small hill or digging a shallow depression and parking the truck with the right rear tire in the depression, leaving enough room to get the jack under the axle, so that it will be parallel when raised. This will allow you to get by with one jack stand.

This should work. That said, I would never recommend working on a raised vehicle and depending one just one jack stand for support............you need a backup. This can be as simple as sand bags piled up along the length of the axle on the side you are working on. The extra time it takes beats the hell out of having the guy working on it get crushed.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1294
Good Answers: 35
#14
In reply to #9

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 10:35 AM

Re: Can you leave the vehicle up on the jack and place the jack stand along side it as a backup?

Hmm, I would never use a jack for a support, backup and especially not primary, especially if the jack is hydraulic. (I think this would even be an OSHA violation in the US.)

Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#15
In reply to #14

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 11:00 AM

Hmm, I have a professional heavy duty floor jack. These are used regularly alone. I assume that it is not an OSHA violation since this practice is routine at garages and tire places here in the US in full view........I've never heard of anyone getting written up for it.

If the OP is attempting to use a cheap jack to raise a 27 ton vehicle, that is not rated to do the job, he is looking for trouble from the start.

My jack is fully capable of both raising.......and holding my truck off the ground. I use a jack stand against the axle as a back up, just in case a hydraulic seal decides to bust loose on the jack.

Go outside and take a look at the jack that was supplied with your vehicle that supposedly is designed to hold it up by itself, while you change a tire on the side of the road and tell me some more about OSHA rules.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1294
Good Answers: 35
#18
In reply to #15

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 1:15 PM

deleted--basically duplicate of next comment (not sure how I accomplished that--must have fat fingered something)

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1294
Good Answers: 35
#19
In reply to #15

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 1:16 PM

Re: Hmm, I have a professional heavy duty floor jack. These are used regularly alone. I assume that it is not an OSHA violation since this practice is routine at garages and tire places here in the US in full view........I've never heard of anyone getting written up for it.

Yes, you're right, I've never heard of anyone getting written up for it. We would never have tried anything like that around the coal mines I worked in. Maybe the difference is whether anybody actually puts any part of their body at risk under the item being held by the jack.

(OT, but BTW, I know that those--hmm what do you call them--floor lifts that raise an entire vehicle have mechanical locking devices to be put in place after a vehicle is raised so the vehicle is not solely supported by the hydraulic system.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#20
In reply to #19

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 1:31 PM

See post #17. Duh.................we could all be helping out the enemy. US personnel don't come to CR4 to figure out how to jack up a truck. That question should have been the first one asked.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
#22
In reply to #20

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 1:41 AM

Kramarat, How many insurgents "you" think own or possess 27 ton vehicles? Don't have time for this. Thanks again JD and Tornado. Signing off and GOD Bless.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
3
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#29
In reply to #22

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 8:20 AM

Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Considering the fact that we're at war in Afghanistan and you have your hands on a 27 ton truck, without the proper equipment/knowledge to work on it, it seemed like a pertinent question.

Good luck.

I also think it's prudent for all of us to keep this in the back of our minds. I think I can can speak for most of us, when I say, the last thing any of us would want to do is to inadvertently help someone out that seeks to do harm to the US, any of our allies, or innocent civilians.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
2
Anonymous Poster #1
#33
In reply to #15

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 1:01 AM

Bad advice.

The OSHA rule:

  • 1926.305(d)(1)(i)
  • After the load has been raised, it shall be cribbed, blocked, or otherwise secured at once.

OSHA rules have nothing at all to do with consumer goods, such as the jack that came with your car. Floor jack manufacturers always recommend that the vehicle is supported on stands.

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#34
In reply to #33

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 6:58 AM

My jack is fully capable of both raising.......and holding my truck off the ground. I use a jack stand against the axle as a back up, just in case a hydraulic seal decides to bust loose on the jack.

My post from #15. I use a jack to raise the vehicle, followed by a jack stand under the axle.........using them both in conjunction. Looks a lot like the OSHA rule.

Maybe you just didn't read the entire post. Thanks for reiterating my advice.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1630
Good Answers: 20
#35
In reply to #34

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 8:48 AM

Is this a good "back up"?????

I don't think that you would catch me lying under that!!!!

__________________
TO BE. or NOT TO BE. That is the question!! The Bard
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#37
In reply to #35

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 5:50 PM

Yes.........it looks like he has a piece of scrap carpet on the ground to prevent his back from getting scratched up. That's exactly what I would do.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London England.
Posts: 583
Good Answers: 10
#40
In reply to #35

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/26/2011 2:55 AM

"PERFICK"

__________________
When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my dad,not shouting and screaming like his passengers.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1630
Good Answers: 20
#41
In reply to #40

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/26/2011 4:54 AM

Aha! "The Darling Buds of May," I like it!!!

__________________
TO BE. or NOT TO BE. That is the question!! The Bard
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Safety - ESD - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 50.390866N, 8.884827E
Posts: 17996
Good Answers: 200
#51
In reply to #41

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

05/01/2011 2:38 PM

Who doesn't like C.Z.J.???

__________________
"What others say about you reveals more about them, than it does you." Anon.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 1630
Good Answers: 20
#53
In reply to #51

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

05/02/2011 8:32 AM

You ain't wrong their chief!!

I didn't know, until recently, that this series actually started her career in acting.

__________________
TO BE. or NOT TO BE. That is the question!! The Bard
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Petroleum Engineering - New Member Hobbies - Target Shooting - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spring, Texas
Posts: 3403
Good Answers: 150
#48
In reply to #15

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/28/2011 12:45 PM

Kramarat, the difference is that in those instances (tire places) nobody gets under the vehicle so a collapse is unlikely to kill anyone. If anyone were to get UNDER the vehicle however a jack stand that can take the entire full load (with a decent margin of safety) would be mandatory. Take it from someone who has had a vehicle fall on them when a jack collapsed.(I was in the process of removing the jack stands when the jack collapsed... )

__________________
Who is John Galt?
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#49
In reply to #48

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/28/2011 1:10 PM

I understand. I took offense to the fact that nuckfut is suggesting that the OP is a member of the US military.......................the most highly trained and effective military on the planet. I seriously doubt it.

Having served in the US military, I can assure you, the right person/people would have been assigned to the task in the first place, the truck would be fixed and underway, (whether the job had to be improvised or not), and this thread never would have existed......................members of the US military don't go to online forums for answers...........at least not answers that pertain to the job they've been trained to do.

And your right, my early advice was coming from experience with much smaller/lighter vehicles. It was too late to delete my posts, hence my suggestion to the OP to stop trying and find help on site before he got someone hurt or killed........which I still believe is good advice.

Here is my PM to another member from days ago.

Hey Randy,

I screwed up by posting anything.

I have a personal rule, (which I broke), to not give advice to people, (even if I know the answer), that could get them killed if not done properly. It doesn't matter who this guy is, he's had two close calls with a very heavy truck and he has no business attempting this operation without someone trained to work on these things right there with him.

Jacking the truck up and experimenting with various ideas that came from here is a really bad idea. He is obviously unfamiliar with this type of work. I regret getting involved in the thread.

The last post I made on that thread, (which is now OT), will be my last. I screwed up


__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Safety - ESD - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 50.390866N, 8.884827E
Posts: 17996
Good Answers: 200
#52
In reply to #49

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

05/01/2011 2:40 PM

GA

Its a good policy, one we should really follow more often......I am all for safety.

At least I have wound you back to your (probably) own Off Topic score of 5.....

__________________
"What others say about you reveals more about them, than it does you." Anon.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#54
In reply to #52

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

05/02/2011 8:40 AM

Thanks Andy. This whole thread, at least my contributions and the rebuttals to them, spun out of control............oh well...................it happens.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Safety - ESD - New Member Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 50.390866N, 8.884827E
Posts: 17996
Good Answers: 200
#55
In reply to #54

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

05/03/2011 3:26 PM

Stay cool......you said the right things, some people simply do not computer "SAFETY", which is why so many accidents happen.

There is at least a good place for the unfortunates, the Darwin awards pages....

__________________
"What others say about you reveals more about them, than it does you." Anon.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 160
Good Answers: 2
#28
In reply to #9

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 8:16 AM

Good answer. I usually raise both sides on stands rather than one, though if I do use one side I always make sure the stand is secure and that there are two of them rather than one. I place one more forward and the other toward the rear of the vehicle. Another thing is that I always put something under the axle or nearby just in case the stands fail and I am under. Even putting the wheel under just as a back up and I leave the jack in place as well, In this way you have three points of contact with the vehicle and a buffer in case. Perhaps a bit overkill but whey your life is involved, nothing is too much.

__________________
Shawn P. Galloway
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1688
Good Answers: 145
#13

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 10:09 AM

Rail road tie or other large timber.

I'm an engineer. I use a 12" x 14" x 30" chunk of solid wood under the axle when I lift something. I first raise with a jack and then lower on the wood. I'm pretty sure it the timber's welds won't fail and the bars won't bend when I am under it.

Sorry, I just take my safety too seriously to trust a jack stand made from welded bars of metal.

__________________
Few things limit our potential as much as knowing answers and setting aside questions.
Register to Reply
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Resting under the Major Oak
Posts: 4347
Good Answers: 181
#16

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 12:11 PM

Your comment a 30T stand would be of no use, cuts no ice with me. If needs be put a gas axe through the 10T stands. Refusal to use safety is an offence under HSE laws.

__________________
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#17

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 1:12 PM

By the way.........Are you on our side?

If not, gather up some friends, prop the truck up on an inflatable ball and crawl under it.

If you are, then please accept my sincerest thanks for what you're doing over there. There are millions of us that think about you every day.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1688
Good Answers: 145
#21
In reply to #17

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/23/2011 8:04 PM

I bumped the "off topic" up from 5 to 4. Thanking our people over there is never off topic no matter what the context of the initial posting was.

Bruce

__________________
Few things limit our potential as much as knowing answers and setting aside questions.
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 3)
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Atchison Village
Posts: 383
Good Answers: 39
#23

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 1:46 AM

I suspect the jackstand collapsed because the load on it was transmitted to only one of its legs, due to this "angle" you're talking about. That said, your attitude stinketh. To excuse poor jacking technique on the basis that the jackstands are too heavy to manipulate is an unfortunately common, and criminal, act. After fifty years of watching people make heavy equipment mistakes, I can only ask: "What were the exact circumstances of the failure?" Were the front wheels solidly blocked, with wedges, or just rocks. (If the truck was free to roll on the front wheels, it could unequally load the jackstand legs.)

__________________
Align culture with nature...
Register to Reply
Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
#24
In reply to #23

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 2:10 AM

Ormondotvos,"attitude checked, thank you sir". Surface: Concrete, Flat and level. All tires blocked/chalked. There was no rolling of vehicle nor shift left to right. Jack stand bent in half. The overpressure was to the left side of the jack stand due to negative left angle. Yes I agree the poor technique was the root cause of the failure. However I must rule out malfunction of equipment (jack stands). This is the reason I ask the question. You have 50 years experience so I know you understand how hard it is to change human work ethics especially in a location or atmosphere where enforcement of safety laws are not predominate nor a priority.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: May 2010
Location: in optimism
Posts: 4050
Good Answers: 130
#39
In reply to #24

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 9:50 PM

10 or 20 tons is not much to hold up. Given a 10 ton stand would have a 2 to 3 factor of safety as a matter of course, 'vertical load wise', around a square inch of steel would appear to be adequate.

Where the complications enter, is lateral forces - by slope, or applied by people working on the vehicle.

E.g. a burly lad on a 6 foot bar, cracking wheel nuts, exerts a quite a lot of 'destabilizing force' - well enough to distort chocked tyres.

So if the stand is 'rigid' and fixed vertical (by flat base on flat on concrete) - if there is a 'hinge point' in the 'ridgid' riser, such loads will find it.

There are common 'trucking practices' to reduce these forces, such as wooden blocks and hard rubber mats, but as you say it's not a normal situation.

You wrote they "bent in half", which leads me to think what you may have here is 'naive' design regarding these lateral forces and the work environment.

It could also be substandard manufacture, 'grand fathered' specs, the usual 'oversights'.

However; I'd first suspect it's 'naive design', but without a picture of a good one and a failed one, it's just guessing.

__________________
There is no sin except stupidity. (Oscar Wilde, Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900))
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London England.
Posts: 583
Good Answers: 10
#25

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 4:02 AM

The formulae is simple, ALLWAYS keep the vehicle level,ie if you're jacking the rear put stands under both sides, an axle stands strength is straight down through the centre line not sideways. As for which stands to use, the strongest ones you have.

__________________
When I die I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my dad,not shouting and screaming like his passengers.
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia.
Posts: 1642
Good Answers: 81
#26

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 4:49 AM

As an after thought as to a safe way to lift the truck with only 10 ton jacks, and I must stress this would have to be proven as follows. (PS I notice this has been touched on above).

The transfer of load from left to right (left still supported), is due to the twist in the trucks frame, when the frames flexibility reaches maximum it starts to transfer load to the jack. So if you only have 10 ton jacks, then it may be possible to lift the rear right in steps, first the left putting support blocks under your lift, then moving to the right side and do the same, the procedure to be done, each side, before the trucks frame starts to transfer load.

NOTE care should be taken when reversing this procedure.

Regards JD

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: N38º3', W085º3'
Posts: 326
Good Answers: 19
#30

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 8:33 AM

I have noticed this angle change in the jack body as well on much smaller vehicles. I correct this by starting out with an angle in the opposite direction.

Not sure if this meets correct safety standards, but it works with the equipment I have available.

Oh yeah, I all ways put something (like the tire and rim I just took off) between the axle and the ground hoping it will take the weight long enough for me to get out if something fails.I do not trust the seals in my jacks that much.

good luck and thanks.

__________________
There's a theory stating if anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for & why it is here, it will instantly disappear & be replaced by something even more bizarre & inexplicable. There's another theory stating this has already happened.D Adams
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#32

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/24/2011 11:54 AM

I'm currently in Afghanistan and have an issue with collapsing jack stands on two occasions; luckily no one has been injured.

I've been giving this thread some more consideration.

Don't take this personally, but my best advice is not to take any of the advice from these posts.

You've got a really heavy truck there and you're online trying to figure out how to jack it up.

My advice is to ignore these posts, go to your superiors, and admit that you're in over your head, before you do manage to get someone injured or killed.

I know a guy that's actively fighting in Afghanistan and a couple of others that work for civilian contractors. They either know how to work on the equipment they're dealing with or have access to the people that do.

You're not the guy for this project.............and there's no shame in that, there's plenty I don't know.

There's far too much risk in this endeavor for someone without intimate knowledge of the tools and techniques to be used, to even attempt it.

I don't doubt that you have the expertise to carry out the repairs once the truck is off the ground. Getting it there requires someone with knowledge specifically in heavy equipment work. Hopefully there's someone there that can lend a hand.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Associate

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 51
Good Answers: 8
#44
In reply to #32

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/27/2011 10:42 PM

you obviously have never served and you are too smart to know what it's like to have to improvise. You do not go to your superiors with a skirt on and recite the OSHA rule book in warfare. The guy asked for some simple advise that my help on the fly in an area where you do not want to sit around wondering why it collapsed and what the OSHA rules are you just need to get the thing fixed quick and get the F@ck outta there. You have ten post that ramble on but are of no use...1 good score for an apology. We use to call people like you bullet catchers. Thank god we have people like the OP in the theatre trying to do what Marines do best...Improvise to get the job done. Don't worry... you just sit in your nice warm cozy house and he'll figure it out by himself…while he's getting shot at. Dell, Chris and Tornado gave short direct suggestions…you should try that. Try to be more compassionate toward our brothers! If you don't have a good answer sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 468
#46
In reply to #44

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/28/2011 6:04 AM

I have served f*ckhead. You must know the OP personally. This post makes all of mine look brilliant.

What the the hell do think? That the OP is standing on the side of the road somewhere posting this with his blackberry while bullets are zipping over his head?

People that don't know what they're doing get killed improvising all the time.

I also know people serving over there. Trust me, it's not like marching on German cities in WWII..................you've been watching too many war movies pal.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 10)
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: pittsburgh
Posts: 180
#38

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/25/2011 8:45 PM

a " x5 " safety factor should be used when it pertains to personal injury. if you're breaking 10 ton stands, use 50 ton stands

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: pittsburgh
Posts: 180
#56
In reply to #38

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

07/10/2011 6:15 PM

if the weight 50 ton jacks difficult to move, then i'ld suggest attaching heavey duty spring loaded casters wheels to the legs that would allow you to easily move the jack stands an enable the legs to settle to the floor as weight is applied

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 146
Good Answers: 1
#42

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/27/2011 1:53 AM

Just a couple quick questions.

Does the truck in question actually weigh 27 tonnes or is it rated to carry 27 tones?

Are you working on it fully loaded?

__________________
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. -- Morris Kline
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 146
Good Answers: 1
#43

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/27/2011 1:58 AM

Most trucks I've seen have the rear axle significantly closer to the center of mass than the front wheels so they would carry much more than half the weight.

__________________
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. -- Morris Kline
Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 51
Good Answers: 8
#45

Re: Gravity + Weight + Angle= Failure?

04/27/2011 11:49 PM
Norco Jack Stand with a pin style design and 10-ton capacity (each) features a lift height from 18-1/2" to 30". This unit, made in the USA, is designed to support vehicles in fleet garages, agricultural, and construction maintenance shops where a pin-type height-adjustment

I don't know what kind of stand you are using but once you get to the height you need you can measure the distance under the main support bar...from the bottom of it to the ground and find a machine repair shop at one of the bases that has bar stock or square stock and cut four pieces to fit under the post directly and scrap the locking pin. This will give you more support vertically directly to the pavement or concrete like a solid bar…should work better than the tripod legs will and the legs will still hold it steady for side by side movement.

If you have the jack stands with the flat bottom plate and the support post you can get 1/4 steel tubing with an I.D that fits around the diameter of the main support post ...split it down the middle and get someone to weld a flange on each side of your split tubes drill 3 holes and tap for wing nuts. Attach them around the center post. This will make a sleeve that you can put on quick in between the bottom plate and under the neck of the top resting point and make your 10 ton jack stand into a 15 ton jack stand if not better. Try to get a predetermined height that you know you can work with that touches both the bottom plate and under the neck of top resting point. The wing nuts will hold it in place. This is just an idea that might help you with limited resources you have. Test it first… we had to make some crazy stuff ourselves but you do what you have to...to get the job done. You just need some added reinforcement. Hope this gives you some ideas you can work with. God bless you brother.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Register to Reply 56 comments

Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive votes to make them "good answers".

"Almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, vote them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

34point5 (1); Andy Germany (4); Anonymous Poster (1); Bazzer Englander (2); BruceFlorida (2); chrisg288 (1); CNCNuckingfuts (2); Fierce Tiger (1); FlaSilverBack (5); Fredski (1); Geode Hunter (1); GordieGii (2); jdretired (2); jlstitt (2); klearzen (1); kramarat (13); MOBI (3); ormondotvos (1); rhkramer (3); Rorschach (2); TonyS (1); toolman911965 (1); Tornado (2); Usbport (1); user-deleted-1105 (1)

Previous in Forum: Methanol Purging   Next in Forum: Light Oil Contamination of Water Column

Advertisement