Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
Filter
- Title
- Authors
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keywords
- DOI
- ISBN
- EISBN
- Issue
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Volume
- References
NARROW
Format
Topics
Book Series
Date
Availability
1-3 of 3
Front end loaders
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Series: ASM Failure Analysis Case Histories
Publisher: ASM International
Published: 01 June 2019
DOI: 10.31399/asm.fach.conag.c0045987
EISBN: 978-1-62708-221-1
Abstract
A support arm on a front-end loader failed in a brittle manner while lifting a load. The arm had a cross section of 50 x 200 mm (2 x 8 in.). Material used for the arm was hot-rolled ASTM A572, grade 42 (type 1), steel, which exhibited poor impact properties in the as-rolled condition and had a ductile-to-brittle transition temperature exceeding 93 deg C (200 deg F). This transition temperature was much too high for the application. It was recommended that a modified ASTM A572, grade 42 (0.15% C max), type 1 or 2, steel be used (type 1, which contains niobium, may be needed to meet strength requirements). The steel should be specified to be killed, fine-grained, and normalized, with Charpy V-notch impact-energy values of 20 J (15 ft·lbf) at -46 deg C (-50 deg F) in the longitudinal direction and 20 J (15 ft·lbf) at -29 deg C (-20 deg F) in the transverse direction.
Series: ASM Failure Analysis Case Histories
Publisher: ASM International
Published: 01 June 2019
DOI: 10.31399/asm.fach.conag.c9001501
EISBN: 978-1-62708-221-1
Abstract
A spiral bevel gear and pinion set that showed "excessive wear on the pinion teeth" was submitted for analysis. This gear set was the primary drive unit for the differential and axle shafts of an exceptionally-large front-end loader in the experimental stages of development. There was no evidence of tooth bending fatigue on either part. Several cracks were associated with the spalling surfaces on the concave sides of the 4820H NiMo alloy steel pinion teeth. The gear teeth showed no indication of fatigue. The primary mode of failure was rolling contact fatigue of the concave (drive) active tooth profile. The spalled area was a consequence of this action. The pitting low on the profile appeared to have originated after the shift of the pinion tooth away from the gear center. The shift of the pinion was most often due to a bearing displacement or malfunction. The cause of this failure was continuous high overload that may also have contributed to the bearing displacement.
Series: ASM Failure Analysis Case Histories
Publisher: ASM International
Published: 01 June 2019
DOI: 10.31399/asm.fach.conag.c9001497
EISBN: 978-1-62708-221-1
Abstract
A spiral bevel gear set in the differential housing of a large front-end loader moving coal in a storage area failed in service. The machine had operated approximately 1500 h. Although the failure involved only the pinion teeth, magnetic particle inspection was performed on each part. The 4817 NiMo alloy steel pinion showed no indication of additional cracking, nor did the 4820 NiMo alloy steel gear. The mode of failure was tooth bending fatigue with the origin at the designed position: root radius at midsection of tooth. The load was well centered, and progression occurred for a long period of time. The cause of failure was a suddenly applied peak overload, which initiated a crack at the root radius. Progression continued by relatively low overstress from the crack, which was now a stress-concentration point. This was a classic tooth bending fatigue failure.