The types of metal components used in lifting equipment include gears, shafts, drums and sheaves, brakes, brake wheels, couplings, bearings, wheels, electrical switchgear, chains, wire rope, and hooks. This article primarily deals with many of these metal components of lifting equipment in three categories: cranes and bridges, attachments used for direct lifting, and built-in members of lifting equipment. It first reviews the mechanisms, origins, and investigation of failures. Then the article describes the materials used for lifting equipment, followed by a section explaining the failure analysis of wire ropes and the failure of wire ropes due to corrosion, a common cause of wire-rope failure. Further, it reviews the characteristics of shock loading, abrasive wear, and stress-corrosion cracking of a wire rope. Then, the article provides information on the failure analysis of chains, hooks, shafts, and cranes and related members.

The crane hook (rated for 13000 kg) failed in the threaded shank while lifting a load of 9072 kg. The metal in the hook was revealed by chemical analysis to be killed 1020 steel. It was disclosed by visual examination that the fracture had at the last thread on the shank and rough machining and chatter marks were evident on the threads. Beach marks that emanated from the thread-root locations on opposite sides of the fracture surface identified these locations to be the origins of the fracture. A medium-coarse slightly acicular structure was revealed by metallographic examination which indicated that the material was in the as-forged condition (which meant lower fatigue strength). The fracture was concluded to have occurred due to stress concentration in the root of the last thread. Normalizing of the crane hook after forging was suggested as a corrective measure. A stress-relief groove with a diam slightly smaller than the root diam was placed at the end of the thread and a large-radius fillet was machined at the change in diameter of the shank.

A 10,890-kg coil hook torch cut from 1040 steel plate failed while lifting a load of 13,600 kg after eight years of service. The normal ironing (wear) marks were exhibited by the inner surface of the hook. It was revealed by visual examination that cracking had originated at the inside radius of the hook. Beach marks (typical of fatigue fracture) were found extending over approximately 20% of the fracture surface. Numerous cracks were revealed by macroscopic examination of the torch-cut surfaces. It was revealed by macrograph of an etched specimen that the cracks had initiated in a hardened martensitic zone at the torch-cut surface and had extended up to the coarse pearlite structure beneath the martensitic zone. The fatigue fracture was concluded to have initiated in the brittle martensitic surface while failure was contributed by the 25% overload. As a corrective measure, the coil hooks were flame cut from ASTM A242 fine-grain steel plate, ground to remove the material damaged by flame cutting and stress relieved at 620 deg C.

During the lifting of a piece of machinery by means of an overhead travelling crane the hook fractured suddenly. The load was attached to the hook by means of fiber rope slings and rupture occurred in a plane which appeared to coincide with the sling loop nearest to the back of the hook. The rated capacity of the crane was 15 tons. At the time of the mishap it was being used to lift one end of a hydraulic cylinder with a total weight of about 27 tons. Fracture was of the cleavage type throughout. There was no evidence of any prior deformation of the material in the vicinity, nor was there any indication of a pre-existing crack or major discontinuity at the point of origin. A sulfur print suggested the hook had been forged from a billet cogged down from an ingot of semi-killed steel. Failure of this hook was attributed to strain-age embrittlement of the material at the surface of the intrados.

A hook on a two-leg chain (each 13 mm diam, included angle 60 deg) failed at the junction of the eye and shank while lifting a 4990 kg load. The diam of the hook at this junction was approximately 22 mm. Light intergranular oxidation at the surface on the side of the hook where cracking started was revealed by visual examination of the fracture region. Almost 50% of the fracture surface was found to contain beach marks (indicative of fatigue failure) while the remainder contained cleavage facets. A medium-coarse acicular as-forged structure was revealed by metallographic examination and the metal was showed by chemical analysis to be semikilled 1015 steel. The fatigue fracture was concluded to have initiated in the intergranular oxidation region and the failure of the hook was contributed by the poor fatigue and impact properties of the forged structure. As a corrective measure, the chain-sling hook was replaced with one made of normalized, fully killed, finegrain 1020 steel.

A ductile iron T-hook hook was reported to have fractured in service. It was further reported that the hook had been subjected to a load that did not exceed 5900 kg (13,000 lb) at the time of fracture. No information was provided regarding the type of metal used to manufacture the hook. A failure analysis was requested to determine the cause of fracture. Two hooks were submitted for examination. Analysis (visual inspection, 2.7x light fractography, chemical analysis, 110x SEM fractography, 27x/110x/215x nital-etched micrographs) supported the conclusions that this component fractured in service as a consequence of ductile tensile overload. Evidence indicates that the fractured region was subjected to a load exceeding the capacity of the material. Because the information available from the service application indicated that the component had not been subjected to a stress that exceeded 5900 kg (13,000 lb), the observations made in this investigation suggested that either the load was underestimated or that the indicated load was applied at a more rapid rate (perhaps with a jerk), which would tend to increase the effective force of the load.

A hook, which was marked for a safe working load of 2 tons, failed while lifting a load of approximately 35 cwts. Fracture took place at the junction of the shank with the hook portion, at which no fillet radius existed. Except for an annular region round the periphery, which was of a smooth texture, the fracture was brightly crystalline indicative of a brittle failure. Microscopic examination showed the material was a low-carbon steel in the normalized condition; no abnormal features were observed. The basic cause of failure was the presence of a fatigue crack at the change of section where the shank joined the hook portion. To minimize the possibility of fatigue cracking, it was recommended that a generous radius be provided at the change of section.

A mild steel hook that was part of the auxiliary hoist of an electric overhead crane used in a foundry was of the shank type and the rated safe working load was 15 tons. Failure took place in a wholly brittle manner, and occurred transversely through the back of the hook. From the direction in which the fracture developed, as indicated by the radial lines on its surface, it was evident that a preexisting defect served to initiate the brittle fracture. Material adjacent to the fracture was decarburized and contained numerous globules of oxide and slag. It was evident, therefore that a fissure was formed during the manufacture of the hook and had not developed in service. The failure was associated with a surface defect, and it was recommended that the other similar hooks at the establishment be crack detected and any similar discontinuities eliminated.

A crane hook of 200T rated capacity failed suddenly at an indicated load of 143T, while the crane was undergoing a load test. Fracture took place through the intrados of the hook at the region of maximum stress. The jib and other portions suffered subsequent damage following the sudden release of the load. Fracture was wholly of the brittle cleavage type except for a small crescent shaped lip at the top right-hand side. In this zone, fracture occurred at an angle of 45 deg to the general plane of fracture, indicative of failure in shear. Failure of the hook had taken place where a deposit of weld metal had been made, probably to eliminate a surface defect but apparently, without complete removal of the defect down to sound metal prior to welding. On many occasions it is preferable to blend out surface defects by local dressing. The effect of the resulting loss of strength is insignificant compared with the increased chance of failure associated with a weld repair.

A crane hook was stamped S.W.L. 3 tons and, while its main dimensions were in approximate accordance with those specified in B.S. 482 for a hook of this capacity, its shape in some respects was not exactly in conformity with that recommended. At the time of fracture, the load being lifted was slightly under 10 cwts. Fracture occurred away from the normal wearing surface where the hook makes contact with the lifting slings. There was no evidence that fracture was preceded by any appreciable deformation locally or in the region of the failure. A sulphur print, taken on a cross section of the hook adjacent to the plane of fracture, showed the hook was made from a killed steel free from major segregation. Microscopic examination showed the material to be a mild steel in the normalized condition, the carbon content being of the order of 0.25%. Bend tests showed the material at the intrados of the hook would deform in a ductile manner both under slow and impact-loading conditions if in the form of an unnotched test piece, but if notched, it failed in a brittle manner under impact, though not under slow loading.

The surface of a hook did not possess the smooth and shiny zinc bloom surface normally observed on hot galvanized steel parts but was matte and rough. Large cracks were observed in the zinc layer. The hook was made of silicon-killed alloy steel 41Cr4. A silicon content of 0.27% was established analytically. Silicon accelerates the reaction between iron and zinc, which should have been taken into account in the present case by reducing the dip time or a small addition of aluminum (0.1 to 0.2%) to the galvanizing bath to retard the extremely rapid growth of the zinc layer and the strong alloy formation. Even in the case of steel parts with lower silicon contents the reaction between iron and zinc can continue until the pure zinc layer has been consumed entirely if the work piece is not cooled sufficiently after withdrawal.