DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND PROCESS ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, UPM

SEM 1 2020/2021
EPF 4601 PLANTATION CROPS PROCESSING

MINI PROJECT B

TITLE: LINEAR STRESS ANALYSIS OF FRAME IN THE

NEW DESIGN CONCEPT OF MOTORIZED WHEELBARROW

LECTURER: ASSOC. PROF. DR ROSNAH BINTI SHAMSUDIN

NO NAME MATRIC NO.

1 NUR SHAHIRA BINTI MOHD SUKRI 191957

2 ADIBAH ZAHIAH BINTI AZHAR 192335

3 NOR FARHANIM BINTI ZAIDY 192599

4 ONG WAI SIONG 194198

 Acknowledgment

First and foremost, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to FELDA FGV and

UPM for the opportunity through this important collaboration. Throughout the working process

on this project, we can grow and develop as a process engineer and constantly polishing our skills

with the help of the industry and for that, we would like to especially thank Mr. Mohd Rosdi Ngah,

Mr. Hassan Basri Isa for tirelessly guiding and giving constructive advice despite the busy

schedule.

We would like to extend our gratitude to our lecturer, Prof Madya Dr. Rosnah Shamsudin

for the endless guidance and for encouraging us to work harder and push beyond our limit, and

especially for allowing this collaboration to happen. We would like to express our gratitude to Ts.

Dr. Mohd Salahuddin Mohd Basri for guiding us through the designing process in this project.

We are extremely grateful for the guidance, care, knowledge, and patience dedicated to

educating and preparing us for the future. Thank you and may Allah bless and reward everyone

abundantly.

2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................ 2

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................. 11

Results and Discussions ................................................................................................................ 17

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26

References ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Table of Figures
Figure 1: The venn diagram of sustainable development ............................................................... 9
Figure 2: Static stress analysis flow chart ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Powered wheelbarrow conceptual design ..................................................................... 12
Figure 4: The application of force on the frame area.................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Boundary condition ....................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: The force applied ........................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: Meshing of frame .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8 Von Mises stress chart .................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9 Resultant displacement chart .......................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Equivalent strain chart ................................................................................................. 19
Figure 11: The von Mises stress analysis on AISI 4130 steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads.
....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12: The resultant displacement analysis on AISI 4130 steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 13: The equivalent strain analysis on AISI 4130 steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads
....................................................................................................................................................... 20

3
Figure 14: The von Mises stress analysis on plain carbon steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads. ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 15: The resultant displacement analysis on plain carbon steel wheelbarrow frame with
300kg loads ................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 16: The equivalent strain analysis on plain carbon steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads. ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Table 1: Material properties .......................................................................................................... 13

Table 2: The von Mises Stress for different materials .................................................................. 17
Table 3: The resultant displacement for different materials ......................................................... 17
Table 4: The equivalent strain for different materials .................................................................. 18
Table 5: The estimated cost for motorized wheelbarrow based on the availability of battery and
battery charger in Overseas ........................................................................................................... 29
Table 6: The estimated cost for motorized wheelbarrow based on the availability of battery and
battery charger in Malaysia ........................................................................................................... 29

4
 Abstract

The frame is one of the essential parts in the wheelbarrow that provides a strong supporting
member that maintains the axle, body, and handles in the correct relative positions. The
conventional wheelbarrow used in the current industry practices often have an issues with its
durability and strength when handling heavyweight activities. One of the problems is because of
the improper material used in the manufacturing of wheelbarrow. This report aims to do modeling,
simulation, and performing the linear stress analysis of the frame in the wheelbarrow to determine
its withstand on certain loads acting on it. Bending, friction and wear may cause failure for the
frame. In this report, the bending stress (von Mises stress), the displacement, and strains on the
frame with different types of materials have been studied. Both AISI 4130 steel and plain carbon
steel frame have been analyzed with 300kg loads acting on them and both indicated the higher
yield strength than Von-Mises stress where the yield strength are 7.1×108 N/m2 and 2.206 ×108
N/mm2 respectively; and have been proved to be strong enough to withstand the heavy loads with
our designs. As a result, plain carbon steel material has been chosen as the frame materials for our
motorized wheelbarrow design as it is much more economical with 90.3% cheaper in price
compared to AISI 4130 steel besides being able to withstand the maximum forces applied.

5
 Introduction

Global palm oil production was more than tripled between 1995 and 2011, and growing
demand for oil has made substantial contributions to the economies of Malaysia and Indonesia,
which together account for an estimated 85% of the world's palm oil demand. Today, palm oil is
the most important of the 17 major oils and fats traded on the global market, contributing 28
percent to the world's oil and fat production in 2011 (Choo, 2011). The increased demand for palm
oil has caused economic concerns among farmers and developers. If the farmers still stick and use
the old methods of harvesting and processing, the increased demand cannot be fulfilled efficiently
due to low yield production. Pannel (1999) mentioned that the most major concerns in developing
countries are a) the production of an agricultural system that is more profitable than current
practice; (b)assessing whether the system is more profitable than current practice, and (c) the
solution to the issue of deep uncertainty about the technology. Since Malaysia is geographically
small, arable land for new oil palm plantations is scarce. Past increase in palm oil production in
Malaysia has been accomplished by extending to land formerly used to plant other crops such as
rubber, cocoa, and coconut or to degraded land or secondary forests. With the lack of suitable land
banks, the industry can no longer rely on acreage expansion to increase demand. The only way
forward is to significantly increase yields.

In palm oil plantation, harvesting process is a crucial activity as a good harvesting system
enables the maximum palm oil yield production. However, there are several limitations and
challenges of current harvesting practice that would affect the need to meet the growing global
demand. The main problem is the due landscape of palm oil estate is located in a hilly area. The
problems arise when the workers need to manually push the loaded wheelbarrow through the steep
hilly bushy undergrowth while consuming maximum energy to move it. The hilly area usually has
many slope, turn/corner, and up & down plantation patterns which the worker needs to manoeuvre
the loaded wheelbarrow carefully. The limited spaces at the hilly area also make the evacuation
process of FFBs harder as the available space is around 1.5 m.

The most important concern of the current tool is the material of the conventional
wheelbarrow is not sustainable enough to withstand the force acting on it. The expert reference
from Felda Global Ventures (FGV) Holdings Berhad has mentioned that the frame of the
wheelbarrow is one of the parts that is easily broken as it is unable to support the loads acting on
6
it. This might happen due to the unsuitable material used for the frame. As a result, the company
tends to replace and buy a new wheelbarrow which is a waste of money and causes losses in the
long term. Not only that, the materials used for current wheelbarrows are not durable because some
parts of the wheelbarrow will get rusted easily as it cannot withstand exposure to water and air.
All these problems will lead to frequent maintenance, which is very troublesome for the workers.
Therefore, in this report, we will focus more on problems involved by the frame’s material
sustainability and its endurance when transporting a heavy load of FFBs.

The objective of this project is to design the best motorized wheelbarrow which offers
safety and a strong chassis/frame in its structure. Therefore, by manipulating types of material of
the frame and comparing them, we will be able to analyze the stress and reaction of the different
frame’s material experienced by the system. Not only that, the aim of this study is also to locate
which area of the frame will get the highest stresses and strains when subjected to forces. Study
analysis can be done by understanding the concept of Von Mises stress, resultant displacement,
and equivalent strain. All these studies represent a value used to determine if a given material will
yield or fracture and are very helpful to determine the reliability of our structure as a proactive
approach to resolve the current problem that is by learning the strength and weakness of our design.

In today's industry practice, they still adhere to conventional wheelbarrow. The

conventional wheelbarrow consists of a small cart with a single wheel at the front, two supporting
legs, and two handles at the rear. However, the use of that type of wheelbarrow is not practical to
be used, especially when the oil demand has soared globally. The main problem in industry is its
durability and strength when performing frequent harvesting activities. If the frame is made from
improper material, the wheelbarrow cannot tolerate the load acting on it, and as a result, the
workers will place limited and fewer FFBs into the wheelbarrow’s bucket to avoid the risks of the
frame to be broken. Eventually, this will reduce productivity of the day and will have impact in
palm oil production. Not to forget, when all ripe FFBs cannot be harvested at their required time
due to the slow harvesting process, the remaining FFBs at the estate also would not be able to be
transferred to the palm oil mill factory for the next process. The late harvesting process will drop
the quality of the crude palm oil and extraction rates. In other words, the FFB oil palm should be
transported to the mill within 24 hours of harvesting. If the transportation of the FFB oil palm to
the mill has been delayed, the FFB oil palm will affect the quality of the FFB oil palm which will

7
cause infection (Zainon, 2017). The delay in transferring the harvested bunches, particularly the
overripe ones, causes these bunches to be infected with microorganisms, resulting in rotting fruits
(Abdul, 1989). The current wheelbarrow is also not sustainable and needs frequent maintenance
on its body because it tends to be broken easily, especially at the frame’s part. Thus, the workers
need to spend more money to buy a new wheelbarrow because there is no spare part available for
the replacement of the frame, which is a waste of money in the long run for the company.

The impact of professional engineering solution is more demand can be fulfilled for the
use of consumer retail food and snack manufacturers, personal care and cosmetics, biofuel and
energy, animal feed, pharmaceutical, and also industrial. In the short term, society requires
engineers to understand urban agriculture and engineering and to optimize outdoor farming
methods, such as precision farming systems. Engineers gave proper attention to the safety and cost
of their products, two aspects that impact all users of engineering products and therefore society
as a whole. More recently, engineers have also become more sensitive regarding the environmental
impact of their products. Moreover, by applying a suitable engineering solution, pollution can be
reduced by protecting the environment from the potentially harmful effects of human activity, and
protecting human populations from the effects of adverse environmental factors. These are likely
to see more areas needing management to avoid pollution or ecological damage; we will see new
potential contaminants as well as a need to change conditions in some areas to cope with
environmental issues. There will be an even greater need for environmental engineers to help in
dealing with the potential problems that this future will bring. The objective of sustainable
development is to meet today's needs without compromising tomorrow's needs. This means that
we cannot keep using current levels of resources, as this will not leave enough resources to coming
generations. It is at its core to find a balance between three dimensions: society, the environment,
and the economy. This is why a Venn diagram is often depicted in sustainable development -
demonstrating how closely interrelated they are. The way we produce and consume (economy)
affects both the way we live together (society) and our natural ecosystems (environment). The goal
is to achieve a balance/harmony between environmental sustainability, economic sustainability,
and socio-political sustainability. Stable interaction between human activities and the natural
world is the core of this type of development, which does not lessen the chances for future
generations to have at least as good a quality of life as our own. Besides, industrialization
stimulates economic growth, creates employment opportunities, and thereby lowers the poverty

8
rate. Innovation improves the manufacturing sector's technical capabilities and triggers the
production of new skills.

Figure 1: The venn diagram of sustainable development

The new invention of our new wheelbarrow where it comes with the motor would provide
many beneficial impacts towards our customers. Firstly, motorized wheelbarrows make easy work
of moving heavy payloads around the hilly estate. It is believed that installing a motor to the
wheelbarrow would be the best solution to reduce the major ergonomic issue experienced by
workers. It comes with throttles to help the workers by adjusting the speed to move along the
slopes between 12 to 15º maximum incline, giving better controls over the payload. Having a
motorized wheelbarrow will reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorder especially for middle-
aged workers because they no longer needed to put in high energy to move the loads across the
uneven ground. By having a motorized four-wheeled barrow in which all four tires are in contact
with the ground, this feature would eliminate the need to lift and push while providing great load
distribution to its wheels and secure balancing when going up the hilly areas and control the turn
at the corner. Moreover, our material for the frame is durable and strong enough to support well
the heavy loads in the bucket while also fitting the four wheels version of the wheelbarrow. The
steel frame on these wheelbarrows won't bend or dent, ensuring to have long-lasting and
sustainable use it. The product qualities that can be highlighted are unlike most fuel-powered
devices, the electric-powered motor produces no-smog & are quieter, avoid air and noise pollution.
The electric motor also can perform in longer run-time, which is around 8 hours, ideal for operating
hours of plantation workers (morning until evening) for collecting the FFBs. The wheelbarrow

9
braking system of the present invention helps a person control the speed of a wheelbarrow on a
slope where it provides a way to slow or stop the wheelbarrow. In this way, the worker may prevent
the wheelbarrow from picking up speed and escaping his grasp. The worker may stop the
wheelbarrow safely while on a hill simply by turning the brake control to its fullest extent. By
having improved the design of the wheelbarrow, productivity growth can be improved as it is
important because it relates to higher profits.

Our target customers for our product (4 wheels motorized wheelbarrow) are the hilly areas
of palm oil plantation workers, especially FGV Holdings Berhad and other small areas of oil palm
plantation workers. The wheelbarrows we designed are specifically for hilly areas that have
limitations of space for passing through to collect FFBs. Moreover, besides palm oil plantation,
we target to make it available for other estates plantation purposes such as cocoa, pineapple, and
rubber. The size of our market is focused on the domestic market where we supply the products
locally only. The estimated market price for our product is ranged between RM 2831 to RM 2873
for Lithium-Ion battery and battery charger of 80 V, and in range of RM 1650 to RM 1692 for
Lithium-Ion battery and battery charger of 48 V. (Refer to appendix for detailed cost estimation)

10
 Materials and Methods

Evaluation of static stress analysis is done on the frame of the wheelbarrow as it is the highest
stress applied area.

Figure 2: Static stress analysis flow chart

The methodology for this study is shown in Figure 2. A conceptual design of a four-wheeled
powered wheelbarrow is designed and modeled using Solidworks as shown in figure 3.

11
 Figure 3: Powered wheelbarrow conceptual design

In stress analysis, the first step was to determine which part of the wheelbarrow has the most
applied stress and the area selected is the wheelbarrow frame. The mass of the wheelbarrow frame
is 58.85 kg (576.732 N), with a volume of 0.0075 m3 and a density of 7845.74kg/m3. The purple
arrows indicate the application of force on the frame area. Stress analysis is carried out using
Linear Elastic Isotropic model and the maximum von Mises stress criterion is used as the default
failure criterion in this study.

12
 Figure 4: The application of force on the frame area
1. Material selection: The properties of the material are shown in the table below.

Table 1: Material properties

Properties Value Units

Type of material AISI 4340 steel Plain carbon steel -

Elastic Modulus 2.05×1011 2.1×1011 N/m2

Poisson’s ratio 0.32 0.28 -

Shear modulus 8.0×1010 7.9×1010 N/m2

Steel density 7850 7800 Kg/m3

Tensile strength 1.11×109 4.0×108 N/m2

Yield strength 7.1×108 2.21×108 N/m2

13
 2. Fixture/boundary condition:
The fixture is a property applied to restrain the specified edges, vertices, and faces from deforming
under loading. In this study, the fixture is set at the part where the tire is connected. The tire is
installed using a bearing block and connected to the frame. Thus, the contact set is defined with a
bearing block bonded to the frame. The fixture is set at the surface of the bearing block and the
edges of the holes. Then, the bearing block is set to be bounded to the frame surface.

Figure 5: Boundary condition

3. Force:
The areas in blue indicated the area in which the high stress will be imposed. It is where the
buckets, motor, and loads will be located. For this study, two loads will be evaluated; 200kg
(2000N) and 300 kg (3000N). The maximum load applied on a conventional wheelbarrow is
100kg. To produce a high-quality motorized wheelbarrow that matches its price, this study aims
for a strong feature that withstands higher maximum loads, thus maximum load of 200kg and
300kg are evaluated.

Entities: 6 face(s), 1 plane(s)

Reference: Top Plane

Values of Forces: 2,000 N and 3000 N

14
 Figure 6: The force applied
4. Meshing
The solid mesh is used with an element size of 14.8606 mm and a tolerance of 0.743028 mm to
achieve a high quality of meshing (fine).

Total Nodes 70961

Total Elements 37863

Maximum Aspect Ratio 13.325
% of elements with Aspect Ratio < 3 97.4
Percentage of elements with Aspect Ratio > 10 0.0502
Percentage of distorted elements 0
Time to complete mesh (hh;mm:ss) 00:00:18

To evaluate a good meshing, there are particular quantities about the aspect ratio:

a. Maximum Aspect Ratio

The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the shortest length of the element to the longest length of
the element. Ratio demonstrated the quality of the element which 1 is a perfectly shaped tetrahedral
element. A higher aspect ratio demonstrates a worse element shape. The lowest value of the aspect
ratio should be defined between 10 to 30. Thus, the aspect ratio of 13.325 is within a good
parameter. Meshing is an approximation of breaking down geometry into tiny pieces, hence an
imperfect element is reasonable.

15
 b. Percentage of elements with Aspect Ratio < 3

A good mesh should produce elements with a small aspect ratio or a value less than 3. The
percentage should be in the low 90s for complicated models and 99 for simpler models. This study
produced a meshing study of 97.4 which is well within a good meshing parameter.

• Percentage of elements with Aspect Ratio > 10

The percentage of elements with aspect ratio should be produced as low as possible and ideally 0.
This study produced an aspect ratio of 0.0502 which is well within a good meshing condition.

Figure 7: Meshing of frame

16
 Results and Discussions

Table 2: The von Mises Stress for different materials

Von Mises Stress

Materials Load
Min (N/mm2) Max (N/mm2)
200kg 0 1.271×107
AISI 4340 steel
300kg 0 1.907×107
200kg 0 1.286×107
Plain carbon steel
300kg 0 1.921×107

VON MISES STRESS CHART

MATERIALS (LOAD)

0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000

VON MISES STRESS N/MM2

Series2 Series4 Series3 Series1

Figure 8 Von Mises stress chart

Table 3: The resultant displacement for different materials

Resultant displacement
Materials Load
Min (mm) Max (mm)
200kg 0 2.834×10-1
AISI 4130 steel
300kg 0 4.251×10-1
200kg 0 2.768×10-1
Plain carbon steel
300kg 0 4.185×10-1

17
 R E S U LTA N T D I S P L A C E M E N T C H A RT

0.45
0.4 0.4251 0.4185
Resultant displacement (mm)

0.35
0.3
0.25 0.2834 0.2768
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Materials (load)

aisi 4340 (200kg) aisi 4340 (300kg) plain carbon steel (200kg) plain carbon steel (300kg)

Figure 9 Resultant displacement chart

Table 4: The equivalent strain for different materials

Equivalent strain
Materials Load
Min Max
200kg 0 3.592×10-5
AISI 4130 steel
300kg 0 5.388×10-5
200kg 0 3.404×10-5
Plain carbon steel
300kg 0 5.201×10-5

18
 EQUIVALENT STRAIN CHART

MATERIALS

0 0.00001 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005 0.00006

EQUIVALENT STRAIN
plain carbon (300kg) plain carbon (200kg) AISI 4340 (300kg) AISI 4340 (200kg)

Figure 10: Equivalent strain chart

The figures below showed the results of static stress analysis with a maximum weight of 300kg
using 2 different materials.

AISI 4340 steel

1. von Mises stress analysis on wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads.

19
Figure 11: The von Mises stress analysis on AISI 4130 steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads.

2. resultant displacement analysis on wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads

Figure 12: The resultant displacement analysis on AISI 4130 steel wheelbarrow frame with
300kg loads

3. equivalent strain analysis on wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads.

Figure 13: The equivalent strain analysis on AISI 4130 steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads

20
Plain carbon steel

1. von Mises stress analysis on wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads.

Figure 14: The von Mises stress analysis on plain carbon steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads.
2. resultant displacement analysis on wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads

Figure 15: The resultant displacement analysis on plain carbon steel wheelbarrow frame with
300kg loads

21
 3. equivalent strain analysis on wheelbarrow frame with 300kg loads.

Figure 16: The equivalent strain analysis on plain carbon steel wheelbarrow frame with 300kg
loads.

22
 Calculation

The maximum value of the first moment, Q, occurring at the centroid, is given by:
2 2
𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (𝑟𝑜3 − 𝑟𝑖 3 ) = (3𝑐𝑚3 − 1𝑐𝑚3 ) = 17.333 = 1.7333 × 10−5
3 3
The maximum shear stress is then calculated by:

𝑉 𝑄𝑚𝑎𝑥 4𝑉 𝑟𝑜2 + 𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑖 + 𝑟𝑖2 3000(1.7333 × 10−5 m3)

𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = ( )= = 2.069 × 106 𝑁/𝑚2
𝐼𝑐 𝑏 3𝐴 (𝑟𝑜2 + 𝑟𝑖2 6.2832 × 10 − 7 m4 (0.04𝑚)

Where V = shear force = 3000N, b = 2 (ro − ri) is the effective width of the cross section, Ic = π
(ro4 − ri4) / 4 is the centroidal moment of inertia, and A = π (ro2 − ri2) is the area of the cross
section.

Thus,
b = 2(3 – 1) = 4 cm=0.04m
Ic = π (ro4 − ri4) / 4 = Ic = π (34 − 14) / 4 = 62.832 cm4 = 6.2832×10-7 m4
A = π (32 − 12) = 25.132
𝑚𝑎𝑥. 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 < 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
⸫ Yield strength for both materials, 7.1×108 and 2.21×108 respectively. Maximum shear stress of
the condition applied is well below the minimum yield stress.

23
 Von Mises stress is a value used to determine whether a particular material will produce a
fracture. The theory states that a ductile material such as metal starts to yield at a location when
the von mises stress becomes equal to the stress limits. In most cases, yield strength is used as a
stress limit (Kurowski, 2012). The principle of Von Mises stress derives from the distortion of
energy failure theory. The distortion of distortion energy failure is a distinction between two types
of energies, 1) Distortion energy in the real case 2) Distortion energy at the time of failure in a
simple tension case. According to this theory, failure happens when the energy of distortion is
greater than the energy of distortion in a simple tension case at the time of failure in the actual
case. In Table 2, by comparing the material used (AISI 4130 steel & Plain carbon steel) for load
300 kg, the Von Mises Stress of plain carbon steel shows the maximum value of Von Mises Stress
which are 1.9217 N/mm2 compared to AISI 4130 steel which is 1.9077 N/mm2. The yield strength
for AISI 4130 steel and plain carbon steel is 7.1×108 N/m2 and 2.206 ×108 N/m2 respectively. It
can be said that material that is made up of AISI 4130 steel could offer stronger resistance towards
fracture because the material allows more stress applied under the same conditions. It means that
AISI 4130 can resist more stress before it begins to change shape because a metal that has high
yield strength can withstand high stress without permanent deformation. Note that maximum Von
Mises stress is located at the two-middle area of the U-shaped frame (indicated by the light blue
color in Von Mises Stress), and the value is 5.085×106 N/m2 (AISI 4130 steel) and 5.144×106 N/m2
(Plain carbon steel). The Von mises yield criterion states that if the Von mises stress of a material
under load is equal or greater than the yield limit of the same material under simple tension, then
the material will yield. The value of maximum Von mises stress of both materials is less than the
yield stress point value of both materials. Therefore, the design is considered safe and has a
minimum risk of getting deformed.

Displacement is a vector that represents a movement of a point in a body (due to applied

loads) concerning some reference system of axes. The maximum displacements of the frame
happened at the two-front area of the U-shaped frame for both materials which are 4.251×10-1 mm
for AISI 4130 steel and 4.185×10-1mm for plain carbon steel. Those regions experienced maximum
displacement because they needed to support the load at the center of the frame and the pressure
comes from attachment with bearing block for tires. Next, it can be said that plain carbon steel has
lower resultant displacement compared to AISI 4130 steel which means it will have a smaller value
in movement distance from the original position or point. However, the values of the maximum

24
displacement of both materials are quite low and are barely noticeable in their changes. Thus, the
material for both designs can be considered sustainable and safe.

A strain is simply a measure of how much an object is stretched or deformed. The strain
occurs when force is applied to an object. Strain deals mostly with the change in the length of the
object. Hooke’s Law states that the strain of the material is proportional to the applied stress within
the elastic limit of that material. The AISI 4130 steel has a higher maximum strain value which is
5.388×10-5 compared to plain carbon steel which is 5.201×10-5. The higher strain is more likely to
get deform proportionally to the force applied. The area of the maximum strain of the frame is
located at the two-front U-shaped region. The color of light blue indicates that the frame has started
to stretch and deform when a force is exerted on it. In that region, the object will bend and then
return to its original shape when the force is abated. Past that point, if more strain is added, the
object may permanently deform and eventually fracture. Thus, it can be said that plain carbon steel
provides a lesser potential of deformation and fracture when stress is applied.

After consideration, both of the materials offered almost the same properties of analysis
with plain carbon steel is slightly better compared to AISI 4130 steel. It is important to have a
design that its maximum bending stress does not exceed the maximum allowable yield strength,
minimum resultant displacement, and smaller strain value. On the other hand, the standard price
of the metal in the market for carbon steel is 0.68 US$/ kg (Source: MEPS Steel Prices & Indices)
while the price of AISI 4130 steel is 1.8 US$/ kg (Source: Ganpat Industrial Corporation).
Therefore, by comparing the prices for both materials, the decision to design the frame with plain
carbon steel would be much more economical because carbon steel offers a cheaper and better
price than AISI 4130 steel as well as providing much more strength and durability. Besides, carbon
steel is incredibly strong and resistant to shock. This makes it a common choice for buildings,
piping, and modern road supports. This type of steel is also not prone to rotting as many other
metals are (Feedsteel, 2014). Compared with other metals, carbon steel is more economical in that
it can be made very thin and lightweight for certain applications, and that makes it cost-effective.
Lastly, carbon steel is easy to recycle when compared to many other materials, making it
environmentally friendly.

25
 Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis of von Mises stress, resultant displacement, and equivalent
strain have proven AISI 4130 steel and plain carbon steel to be strong enough with the yield
strength for AISI 4130 steel and plain carbon steel is 7.1×108 N/m2 and 2.206 ×108 N/m2
respectively to withstand at least 300 kg loads. Von Mises Stress for plain carbon steel is higher
which is 1.9217 N/mm2 compared to AISI 4130 steel which is 1.9077 N/mm2. The maximum
amount of stress applied to the materials must be less than the materials yield stress for it to
undergo elastic (reversible) strain and prevent the permanent deformation of the material from
occurring. The amount of yield stress corresponds to the yield strength value of the material. In
this study, the significant difference between both materials is AISI 4130 carbon provides much
more yield strength than plain carbon steel.

However, extra yield strength is unnecessary as the frame can only carry 5-6 FFBs at a
time due to the limited bucket size thus it will not exceed the maximum weight as designed. Taking
economical context into account, the pricing of plain carbon steel is cheaper compared to AISI
4130 steel where it cost almost tripled lesser than AISI 4130 steel. Therefore, the wheelbarrow
design is using plain carbon steel material to produce an economical design that able to withstand
at least 300 kg of loads.

26
 References

1. Abdul, A. A., & Tan, Y. A. (1989). The effects of handling of OIL PALM FFB on the
formation of FFA and the subsequent quality of crude palm oil. In J. Sukaimi (Ed.)
Proceedings Palm oil Development Conference, pp. 482-485. Kuala Lumpur: PORIM
2. Choo, Y, M. (2012). Malaysia: economic transformation advances oil palm industry
3. Engineers Edge (n.d). Yield strength- Strength (mechanics) of materials Retrieved from
http://bit.ly/38mw9Ll
4. Feedsteel. (2014). The Carbon Steel Advantage, Federal Steel Supply LLC. Retrieved from
https://www.fedsteel.com/our-blog/carbon-steel-advantage/
5. Gigante, M. (2019). The Positive Impact of Environmental Engineering Retrieved from
https://bit.ly/3pcgG7E
6. Kadhim Zarzoor, Ahmed & Almuramady, Nabeel & Hussein, Eman. (2018). Stress
Analysis for Spur Gears Using Solid Works Simulation. International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology. 9. 927-936.
7. Kurowski, P, M. (2012). Failure Assessment. Retrieved from
https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/zeki.kiral/MEE5049_2014/Failure_Assesment.pdf
8. Mathew, S. (2012). What is Von mises stress? Retrieved from
https://learnengineering.org/what-is-von-mises-stress.html
9. MEPS Steel Prices & Indices. World Steel Price. Retrieved from
https://worldsteelprices.com/
10. Nawik, N & Deros, Baba & Ab Rahman, Mohd & Sukadarin, Ezrin & Norani, Nordin &
Md Tamrin, Shamsul & Abu Bakar, Shahriman & Norzan, M. (2015). Conceptual design
of semi-automatic wheelbarrow to overcome ergonomics problems among palm oil
plantation workers. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 100.
012045. 10.1088/1757-899X/100/1/012045.
11. overcome ergonomics problems among palm oil plantation workers. IOP Conf. Ser.:
Mater. Sci. Eng. 100 012045
12. Pannell, D.J. Social, and economic challenges in the development of complex farming
systems. Agroforestry Systems 45, 395–411 (1999).
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006282614791

27
 13. Rahul Thavai, Quazi Shahezad, Mirza Shahrukh, Mukri Arman, Khan Imran, “STATIC
Analysis Of Go-kart Chassis By Analytical And Solid Works Simulation”, IJMER, ISSN:
2249–6645 , Vol. 5 ,Issue 4, Apr. 2015.
14. Simscale. (2020). What is von Mises Stress. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/34vV8ea
15. Terms in Physics: Stress and Strain. Brilliant.org. Retrieved from
https://brilliant.org/wiki/terms-in-physics-stress-and-strain/
16. Zainon Binti Mat Sharif et al 2017 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 203 012027

References for cost estimation

1. Additional tyres https://bit.ly/3mBUsKy and https://bit.ly/2KmOEY8

2. Induction motor (415 V) https://bit.ly/3nDgygK
3. Standard wheelbarrow
4. Battery (80 V) https://low.es/2KI7qc6
5. Battery charger (80 V) https://amzn.to/3q4RYr3
6. Battery (48 V) https://bit.ly/3lhif1J
7. Battery charger (40 – 70 V) https://bit.ly/3fIk4Ds

28
 Appendix

The estimated cost is made by taking the current price of each component and based on the
availability of battery and battery charger in Malaysia and overseas.

Table 5: The estimated cost for motorized wheelbarrow based on the availability of battery and
battery charger in Overseas

No Component Cost
1 Wheelbarrow frame RM 60.00 – RM 101.00
2 2 back Wheelbarrow wheel pneumatic tyre (300kg RM 206.04
max load)
3 2 front wheelbarrow tyres (140kg max. load) RM 37.00
4 Motor (415 V) RM 805.00
5 Lithium Ion Battery Charger (80 V) RM 273.00
(more availability in Overseas market)
6 Lithium Ion Battery (80 V) RM 1450.54
Total RM 2831 – 2873

Table 6: The estimated cost for motorized wheelbarrow based on the availability of battery and
battery charger in Malaysia

No Component Cost
1 Normal wheelbarrow (2-tyres) RM 60.00 – RM 101.00
2 Additional tyres RM 37.00
3 2 back Wheelbarrow wheel pneumatic tyre (300kg RM 206.04
max load)
4 Motor (415 V) RM 805.00
5 Lithium Ion Battery Charger (40 - 70V) RM 62.00
(more availability in Malaysia market)
6 Lithium Ion Battery (48 V) RM 480
Total RM 1650 – RM 1692

29