Safety and Health at Work Vol. 12 Issue 4 2021
The Author Response: A Case Study on Engineering Failure Analysis of Link Chain (Letters to the Editor)
Dublin Core
Title
Safety and Health at Work Vol. 12 Issue 4 2021
The Author Response: A Case Study on Engineering Failure Analysis of Link Chain (Letters to the Editor)
The Author Response: A Case Study on Engineering Failure Analysis of Link Chain (Letters to the Editor)
Subject
Engineering Failure Analysis of Link Chain
Description
The authors thank Dr Yu for his interest in our findings on engi-
neering failure analysis of link chains [1] and his valuable criticism
of our findings [2]. We respond to his comments as follows, focus-
sing on the content of the question (Figs. 1 and 2).
1. Response revised on FEA category in this paper: This article is
written for supplementation of stress analysis parts (relatively idealised and straightforward structure, simplifying the loads and material property assumptions, etc.) for crane chain in the existing paper [1]. In material properties, an elastic material model for stress analysis, which was conducted in an existing paper, was used to re-evaluate plastic collapse due to the Working Load Limit (WLL) in each installation condition. The analysis results show that high stress (total stress) at the junction of the barrel and that of curva-
ture of the crane chain are similar in the area where the crane chain was broken. Compared with the correct installation conditions, when high stress is applied, the incorrect installation condition evinced a breakage. For determining the membrane and bending stress components, the total stress distribution was obtained from elastic stress analysis, and linearised on stress component integrated along the cross-section of Stress Classification Lines (SCLs) through the crane chain’s wall thickness. It is shown that the results of this analysis support the results of the fractographic anal-
ysis presented in the original paper.
2. Additional explanation of the fractographic analysis: Accord-
ing to your comments on the paper, you claim that “the crack
likely initiated around the chain inner surface, where the
presence of high tensile stress under tension load or small
stresses under bending load while a ‘crushed damage’ area
was found there.” However, the crushed damage observed in the chain’s inner surface cannot be formed by uniaxial tension load because the inner surface of the chain at this position was not contacted with other chains on the condition that the crane chain was installed correctly, as shown in Fig. 7 [1] A in the paper. Accordingly, we concluded that the crushed damage was possibly formed by an improperly installed crane chain inducing abnormal interlocking of the chains (Fig. 3).
neering failure analysis of link chains [1] and his valuable criticism
of our findings [2]. We respond to his comments as follows, focus-
sing on the content of the question (Figs. 1 and 2).
1. Response revised on FEA category in this paper: This article is
written for supplementation of stress analysis parts (relatively idealised and straightforward structure, simplifying the loads and material property assumptions, etc.) for crane chain in the existing paper [1]. In material properties, an elastic material model for stress analysis, which was conducted in an existing paper, was used to re-evaluate plastic collapse due to the Working Load Limit (WLL) in each installation condition. The analysis results show that high stress (total stress) at the junction of the barrel and that of curva-
ture of the crane chain are similar in the area where the crane chain was broken. Compared with the correct installation conditions, when high stress is applied, the incorrect installation condition evinced a breakage. For determining the membrane and bending stress components, the total stress distribution was obtained from elastic stress analysis, and linearised on stress component integrated along the cross-section of Stress Classification Lines (SCLs) through the crane chain’s wall thickness. It is shown that the results of this analysis support the results of the fractographic anal-
ysis presented in the original paper.
2. Additional explanation of the fractographic analysis: Accord-
ing to your comments on the paper, you claim that “the crack
likely initiated around the chain inner surface, where the
presence of high tensile stress under tension load or small
stresses under bending load while a ‘crushed damage’ area
was found there.” However, the crushed damage observed in the chain’s inner surface cannot be formed by uniaxial tension load because the inner surface of the chain at this position was not contacted with other chains on the condition that the crane chain was installed correctly, as shown in Fig. 7 [1] A in the paper. Accordingly, we concluded that the crushed damage was possibly formed by an improperly installed crane chain inducing abnormal interlocking of the chains (Fig. 3).
Creator
Kim Tae-Gu, Lee Seong-Beom, Lee Hong-Chul
Publisher
Elsevier Korea LLC
Date
December 2021
Contributor
Sri Wahyuni
Format
PDF
Language
English
Type
Text
Coverage
Safety and Health at Work Vol. 12 Issue 4 2021
Files
Citation
Kim Tae-Gu, Lee Seong-Beom, Lee Hong-Chul, “Safety and Health at Work Vol. 12 Issue 4 2021
The Author Response: A Case Study on Engineering Failure Analysis of Link Chain (Letters to the Editor),” Repository Horizon University Indonesia, accessed December 22, 2024, https://repository.horizon.ac.id/items/show/2232.
The Author Response: A Case Study on Engineering Failure Analysis of Link Chain (Letters to the Editor),” Repository Horizon University Indonesia, accessed December 22, 2024, https://repository.horizon.ac.id/items/show/2232.