Failure analysis of a pole gin

  • C. Kendall Clarke
Peer Reviewed Articles
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Lugs on a cast aluminum/fiberglass pole gin failed while raising an electrical transformer on a power pole. This same system had just lowered a heavier transformer. The pole gin consisted of a cast aluminum base that was strapped to a utility pole by a nylon belt-and-ratchet mechanism. A fiberglass pole was mounted in the base, and a pulley was attached to the other end through another aluminum casting. Rigging for the lift was complex and required a physical simulation to estimate actual lug hole loads and to determine that overall loading was within the manufacturer’s published limits. Possible abuse by hammer blows was evaluated by dynamic testing to measure force attenuation in the system. Results ruled out abuse as a factor. Literature revealed that the heat treatable Precedent 71A, or A771-T7 alloy, used for the base casting was very susceptible to stress-corrosion cracking (SCC). Evidence was observed for features indicative of creep-rupture damage on the fracture surface. Evaluation of all of the evidence led to the conclusion that time-dependent crack growth, most likely by both SCC and creep-rupture, plus the effect of bolt hole loading on crack growth could best explain the failure of the gin under a less severe condition than had just occurred earlier in the day.

Keywords

aluminum casting dynamic mechanical analysis failure analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.G. Kaufman: Introduction to Aluminum Alloys and Tempers, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 2000, p. 51.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.E. Hatch, ed.: Aluminum Properties and Physical Metallurgy, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1984, p. 345.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Standards for Aluminum Sand and Permanent Mold Castings, The Aluminum Association, 2000, AA-CS-M3-2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.G. Atkins and D.K. Felbeck: “Applying Mutual Indentation Hardness Phenomena to Service Failure,” Met. Eng. Q., May 1974, pp. 364–70.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Encyclopedia of Wood, Sterling Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1989, p. 7–2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Blake: Chapter 29 in Practical Stress Analysis in Engineering Design, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.H. Jones, ed.: “Stress-Corrosion Cracking of Aluminum Alloys,” Stress-Corrosion Cracking, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1992, pp. 233–50.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.O. Speidel: “Stress Corrosion Cracking of Aluminum Alloys,” Metall. Trans. A, April 1975, 6, pp. 631–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.S. Thompson: “Metallurgical Factors Affecting High Strength Aluminum Alloys Production,” Metall. Trans. A, April 1975, 6, pp. 671–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.T. Hahn and A.R. Rosenfield: “Metallurgical Factors Affecting Fracture Toughness of Aluminum Alloys,” Metall. Trans. A, April 1975, 6, pp. 653–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Fine: “Precipitation Hardening of Aluminum Alloys,” Metall. Trans. A, April 1975, 6, pp. 625–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J.M. Barson and S.T. Rolfe: Chapter 2 in Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Tada, P.C. Paris, G.R. Irwin: The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, 3rd ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, 2000, p. 66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Kendall Clarke
    • 1
  1. 1.Metallurgical Consulting, Inc.Mobile

Personalised recommendations