See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321742292

Investigation of the effect of the sling angle and size on the reliability of
lifting hooks

Article  in  SIMULATION: Transactions of The Society for Modeling and Simulation International · December 2017
DOI: 10.1177/0037549717744646

CITATIONS READS

4 6,826

1 author:

Yusuf Aytaç Onur

Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit Üniversitesi
16 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yusuf Aytaç Onur on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Simulation
Applications
Simulation: Transactions of the Society for
Modeling and Simulation International
2018, Vol. 94(10) 931–942
Investigation of the effect of the sling Ó The Author(s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/0037549717744646
angle and size on the reliability of journals.sagepub.com/home/sim

lifting hooks

x Onur
Yusuf Aytac

Abstract
The lifting hook is one of the vital components in material handling systems, since sudden accidents are unavoidable if
the working reliability of the hook is poor. In this study, computer-aided single hook modeling is done in accordance with
the DIN 15401 standard then extensive stress analyses at different sling sizes and angles and stress analyses when the
hook is rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length and rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length and height have been
conducted in order to reveal the effect of sling size and angle and different rigging manners on the safety factor of the
lifting hook by using finite element simulation. Loads carried by each sling member are calculated and presented. Curved
beam theory and simplified theory are employed to compare finite element simulation results. The critical sling angle at
which the safety factor reduces evidently has been determined by altering the sling size and angle. The critical sling angle
is found to be 51°, since reduction in the safety factor originates from a 51° sling angle.

Keywords
Lifting hook, sling angle effect, safety factor, stress analysis

1. Introduction 34CrNiMo6 or 30CrNiMo8. The DIN 15401 standard2

specifies the dimension and designation of single hooks.
Lifting hooks are used in material handling and rigging The cross-section depicted in Figure 1 shows GF type
systems together with wire ropes or chains. The hook type, single hooks, which are hammer forged (F) and ranged
rigging manner, rated load, and hook material are impor- between 10 and 250 in number with a threaded shank (G)
tant parameters to maintain safe working of the hook. Due and without a nose.
to this reason, hook stress analysis should be made regard- There has been great deal of interest to determine stress
ing the sling method and sling angle. The DIN 15400 stan- values occurred on the lifting hook when it is subjected to
dard1 specifies the mechanical properties of the lifting a solely axial load in the direction of the shank axis.
hook, hook material, and lifting capacity according to the Outstanding contributions on investigation of the reliabil-
hook number. The hook number is selected considering _
ity of the lifting hook in installations are as follows. Imrak
the drive group, strength class, and lifting capacity. Sling et al.3 investigated applications of curved beam theory and
leg loads are calculated considering load carried and sling the approximate method on the crane hook stress analysis.
angle. Lifting hooks have a shank section and a curved Krishnaveni et al.4 used three different cross-sections,
section to prevent dropping down of carried loads, as which are circular, trapezoidal, and T-shaped, to compare
depicted in Figure 1. It is manufactured by either drop static finite element analysis (FEA) results. Cürgül’s book5
forged (S) or hammer forged (F) manner. Minimum yield describes lifting hook simplified stress calculations and
strength related to strength class (M, P, S, T, V), hook sling load calculations. Uddanwadiker6 conducted FEA
material related to strength class, hook number and lifting
capacity related to strength class, drive group, and hook
number are described in DIN 15400.1 Strength classes M, Mechanical Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University, Turkey
P, and S denote fine grained carbon steels such as StE
Corresponding author:
285-StE 355- StE 420, strength class T denotes structural
x Onur, Mechanical Engineering, Bulent Ecevit
Assoc. Prof. Yusuf Aytac
low alloy steel such as 34CrMo4 or 34CrNiMo6, and University, Zonguldak, 67100, Turkey.
strength class V denotes super alloy steel such as Email: aytaconur@hotmail.com
932 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 94(10)

Figure 1. Typical single hook view.

Figure 2. Lifting hook where slings are connected at the same
angle (a ¼ b).
and photo-elasticity validation of the hook. Devaraj7
designed a crane hook with different materials and stress
analysis using an ANSYS workbench.
It is obvious that lifting hooks mostly run with slings 2. Investigated lifting hook
and are subjected to inclined sling loads related to posi-
tions of sling seating regions over the hook. Sling loads Lifting hook design is made in accordance with DIN
occur at contact regions between the hook inner surface 15401. It specifies the dimension and designation of single
and the suspended sling over the hook instead of solely the hooks. In this study, some assumptions about hook work-
axial load in the direction of the shank axis. Researchers ing conditions are done in order to select a lifting hook.
have intensively focused on determining the stress values Average working time a day is selected between 2 and 4
when the lifting hook is subjected to a solely axial load in hours, and the driving system is assumed to be operating
the direction of the shank axis. The author observed that with heavy loads. Herewith, the 3m drive group is
there is a gap in the literature to exhibit how stresses employed. Strength class S, which means that the hook
impose upon the lifting hook at different sling angles and steel material has to have a minimum 390 MPa upper
sizes and what is the safety factor of the lifting hook yield strength, is selected. The lifting capacity to be
related to sling type, size, and angle. Due to those reasons, desired from a single hook is 20 tonne. Consequently,
a GF type lifting hook with number 12 has been modeled, hook number 12 is employed as a hauling member regard-
which has 20 tonne capacity in SolidWorks at first adher- ing the above-defined working conditions. The technical
ing to DIN 15401. The stress analysis of lifting hook when drawing and dimensions of hook number 12 are shown in
it is subjected to solely an axial load in the direction of the Figure 3 and Table 1.
shank axis regarding sling size has been performed. Then, The investigated lifting hook is hammer forged with a
stress analyses at different sling angles (a) where sling legs threaded shank and without a nose (GF). As seen from
have equal leg length (L1 = L2) and height (H) (thereby the detail E, m is the knuckle thread length. It is the screwing
sling angle is the same (a = b)), as shown in Figure 2, have length between the nut and the threaded shank. The hook
been performed in order to reveal the effect of sling size thread is connected to the nut thread after the hook is
and angle on the stress and safety factor values of the lift- passed through a traverse. The thrust bearing is placed
ing hook by using ANSYS Workbench. The critical sling under the nut so that rotation of the hook is provided.
angle in which the safety factor reduces evidently has been Those members form the hook suspension block. The
determined altering the sling angle. Loads carried by each investigated hook can be used for power driven series pro-
sling member are calculated and presented. In addition, duced lifting appliances and cranes.2. DIN 15400 stipulates
stress analyses of a single hook when the hook is rigged by that the screw type shown in detail E shall be a knuckle
sling legs with unequal leg length and rigged by sling legs thread that is Rd 72 3 8, conforming to DIN 15403.8
with unequal leg length and height have been performed. Hook number 12 has been modeled by using
Curved beam theory and simplified theory are used to SolidWorks regarding the above-mentioned regulations
compare finite element simulation results. and the hook model is shown in Figure 4.
Onur 933

Figure 3. Technical drawing of hook number 12.

Table 1. Dimensions of type GF single hook.

Single hook no. Parameters (units in mm)

12 a1 a2 a3
125 100 143
b1 b2 d1
112 95 85
e1 e2 h1
292 316 140
h2 l1 r1
118 525 14
r2 r3 r4
22 70 185
r5 r6 r7
265 182 160
r9 d2 d3
280 72 Rd 72 × 8
d4 d5 l3
62 63.2 157 Figure 4. Hook number 12 model.
m n p
63 25 12
conducted. Hook number 12 is designed to lift 20 tonne,
r9 (detail E) r10 r11
4 20 3 and due to this reason fitting sizes are selected to endure
20 tonne. The fitting diameter, such as for the master link
and shackle to be used for lifting 20 tonne, begins from 36
mm when manufacturer catalogues are considered. The
3. Sling size and angle author inserted a touching surface between the hook and
The lifting hook is designed to lift loads by means of ropes fitting upon the hook model to apply a sling load on the
and chains. These hoisting members are connected to the hook, as shown in Figure 5(a). The diameter of the contact
hook by means of fittings such as a master link, shackle, region of the fitting is represented by D in Figures 5(a)
lifting beam, etc. The lifting hooks are to be in contact and (b). D sizes in Figure 5a and 5b are changed in order
with fittings instead of the main hoisting members so fit- to determine safety factor and stress values occurred on
ting sizes are taken into account as load carrying surfaces hook number 12 and sling angle (a) are changed in
of the hook as regards to defining the load acting on the Figure 5(b) in order to determine the safety factor and
surface of the hook when stress analysis of the hook is stress values that occurred on hook number 12. The safety
934 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 94(10)

Figure 5. Fitting contact regions on the hook. (Color online only.)

Figure 6. Different sling types investigated.

factor is known as the ratio of ultimate strength of material the effect of sling size and angle on the safety factor of the
used to the maximum stress induced upon the designed lifting hook by using ANSYS. The sling angles, a, are
machine element. Yield strength can be used as ultimate selected as 30°, 45°, and 60°
strength of the lifting hook, since the lifting hook material The critical sling angle at which safety factor of the
is structural steel and is categorized as ductile material. hook reduces evidently has been determined by altering
Von Mises stresses are considered as the maximum stress the sling angle where the sling size is held constant at 36
calculating safety factor. mm. Loads carried by each sling member are calculated
Stress analyses of hook number 12 when the hook is and presented. In addition, stress analysis of a single hook
subjected to axial load in the direction of the shank axis when the hook is rigged by sling legs with unequal leg
regarding the sling size as shown in Figure 5(a) have been length (L16¼ L2), as shown in Figure 6(a), and rigged by
performed. In this study, sling diameters D are selected as sling legs with unequal leg length (L16¼ L2) and height
36, 40, 45, 50, 70, 90, and 100 mm. (H16¼ H2), as shown in Figure 6(b), have been performed.
Stress analyses at different sling angles (a) where sling Dimensions and sling leg loads of the rigging system in
legs have equal leg length (L1 = L2) and height (H) Figure 6(a) are given in Table 2.
(thereby the sling angle is the same (a=b)), as shown in Dimensions and sling leg loads of the rigging system in
Figures 2 and 5(b) have been performed in order to reveal Figure 6(b) are given in Table 3.
Onur 935

Table 2. Dimensions and sling leg loads of the rigging system in Figure 6(a).

L1 (mm) L2 (mm) D1 (mm) D2 (mm) H (mm) a(°) b(°) Q1 (kg) Q2 (kg)

2138 2500 1100 1700 1833.03 30.9679 42.8436 14,163.1225 10,716.0587

Table 3. Dimensions and sling leg loads of the rigging system in Figure 6(b).

L1 (mm) L2 (mm) D1 (mm) D2 (mm) H1 (mm) H2 (mm) a(°) b(°) Q1 (kg) Q2 (kg)

2200 2750 1100 1700 1905 2162 30 38.1834 13,320 10,770

Table 4. Sling loads according to sling angles. Table 5. 34CrMo4 steel mechanical properties.

Sling angle Sling load (N) Density 7810 kg/m3

Young’s modulus 200,000 MPa
30° 113,279.45 Yield strength at tension and compression 550 MPa
45° 138,755.30 Poisson’s ratio 0.3
60° 196,200 Tensile ultimate strength 800 MPa

Sling leg loads Q1, Q2 and sling angles a, b are

Workbench interface calculated the weight of hook num-
obtained by force equilibrium equations and analytical
ber 12 as 51.903 kg.
geometry.
In order to determine the effect of sling angles and
sling size (diameters) on the safety factor and stress values
4. Finite element analysis of hook of hook number 12, extensive finite element analyses have
number 12 been performed. The safety factor and stress values on
hook number 12 related to sling diameter and sling angle
Extensive stress analyses at different sling sizes and angles are depicted in Table 6. The tetrahedron element type
have been performed in order to reveal the effect of sling where each node of this element has three translational
size and angle on the stress values and safety factor of the degrees of freedom in the nodal x, y, and z directions and
lifting hook by using finite element simulation. The hook 10 mm element size are selected in all finite element anal-
number 12 model designed in SolidWorks has been trans- yses in order to sweep away the effect of element type and
ferred to the ANSYS Workbench interface. Since the lift- size from the results.
ing hook thread, which is m in length as indicated in detail Maximum normal stresses occurred in the y-direction in
E of Figure 3, connects to the nut thread, displacements each analysis except for the circumstance where the sling
have been restricted in the x, y, and z directions and rota- angle is 60° at each sling diameter. Because of this, normal
tion has not been restricted on the thread surface contacting stress results in the y-direction (sy ) are listed in Table 6.
with the nut thread as the boundary condition. Loads on Results indicate that maximum normal stress occurred at
slings have been calculated according to the sling angle. zero degree sling angle when sy is considered since symax
The maximum allowable load (20 tonne) is applied to hook values reduce as sling angles increase where the sling dia-
contact region(s), which is shown in red in Figure 5. Loads meter is kept constant. Maximum normal stress symax and
on sling legs are calculated by the Q/2.cos(a) formula. maximum Von Mises stress svmax values occurred at point
Loads on sling legs when sling angles become 30°, 45° A and minimum normal stress symin values occurred at
and 60° have been calculated and are presented in Table 4. point B indicated in Figure 3, except for the circumstance
It is easy to see from Table 4 that the sling load where the sling angle is 60° at each sling diameter.
increases as the sling angle increases, although same rated As the sling diameter increases, the collision possibility
load is lifted. It causes safety factor reduction or working of two sling leg on the hook load bearing curved surface
load reduction at the sling members so the sling angle is increases. In the case of collision happening between two
selected to be as low as possible when the sling is consid- sling legs because of the touching the legs at higher sling
ered. Hook number 12 material is selected by adhering to diameters, NA is placed in Table 6. It is obvious from the
the DIN 15400 standard. 34CrMo4 steel, whose mechani- results in Table 6 that there is no significant effect of sling
cal properties are shown in Table 5, is selected. ANSYS diameter on the safety factor and stress values of the lifting
936 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 94(10)

Table 6. Safety factor and stresses on hook number 12 related to sling angles and sling diameters.

Sling diameter Sling angle σ ymax (MPa) σ ymin (MPa) σ vmax (Von Mises) (MPa) Safety factor σ zmax (MPa) σ z min (MPa)
(mm)

36 0° 181.48 − 61.80 178.74 3.07 - -

30° 181.2 − 61.33 177.76 3.09 - -
45° 179.35 − 61.879 176.62 3.11 - -
60° 176.51 − 69.36 256.27 2.14 265.06 − 96.861
40 0° 181.93 − 61.51 179.5 3.06 - -
30° 181 − 61.44 177.94 3.09 - -
45° 180.27 − 61.655 176.77 3.11 - -
60° 175.6 − 69.578 254.31 2.16 263.84 − 96.699
45 0° 180.55 − 61.263 178.75 3.07 - -
30° 180.71 − 61.514 177.71 3.09 - -
45° 179.27 − 61.899 176.26 3.12 - -
60° 176.66 − 69.257 255.35 2.15 263.6 − 96.484
50 0° 181.79 − 61.202 178.54 3.08 - -
30° 180.59 − 61.501 177.86 3.09 - -
45° 178.9 − 61.359 176.12 3.12 - -
60° 175.69 − 69.038 255.55 2.15 262.46 − 96.584
70 0° 179.24 − 60.851 178.31 3.08 - -
30° NA NA NA NA - -
45° 178 − 61.229 174.9 3.14 - -
60° 172.84 − 67.436 254.1 2.16 261.73 − 95.428
90 0° 180.17 − 60.848 177.76 3.09 - -
30° NA NA NA NA - -
45° NA NA NA NA - -
60° 177.47 − 65.446 251.32 2.18 259.42 − 93.712
100 0° 180.52 − 60.39 177.83 3.09 - -
30° NA NA NA NA - -
45° NA NA NA NA - -
60° 179.38 − 62.05 250.78 2.19 260.62 − 92.605
Average results 179.09 − 63.21 200.82 2.81 262.39 − 95.48

hook. The effect of sling diameter on the safety factor and location of maximum stress has changed from point A to
stress values of the lifting hook has not yet been investi- point C, indicated in Figure 3. Other results in Table 6
gated in earlier studies. have not been depicted to prevent too many figures.
The direction and location of maximum normal stress Results also indicate that while the safety factor of hook
changed and maximum Von Mises stress, svmax abruptly is above 3 at the sling angles of 0°, 30°, and 45°, a sudden
increased when the sling angle became 60°. It is an inter- reduction in the safety factor occurs, being nearly 2 for
esting finding that has not been previously discussed in the 60° sling angles. Therefore, the author also focused on
literature. Extensive stress analyses have been performed how the safety factor reduces between 50° and 60°. The
by using ANSYS, since the author focused on the question sling diameter is held at 36 mm. Changes in the safety fac-
of reason for the Von Mises stress increase and safety fac- tor related to sling angles between 0° and 60° are shown in
tor reduction. Finite element simulations indicate that the Figure 8.
maximum normal stress direction is no longer in the y- Results indicate that there is no significant change in
direction when sling angle becomes 60°. Maximum normal the safety factor at sling angles between 0° and 50°. The
stress has been found in the z-direction when the sling safety factor drops below 3, which is originated from a 51°
angle becomes 60°. Therefore, maximum and minimum sling angle. The safety factor starts to drop averagely by
normal stress values in the z-direction have been added into 3–4% at each 1° increment in sling angle until 60°. The
Table 6 for stress results obtained for the 60° sling angle. critical sling angle has been found as 51°, since the incli-
szmax and svmax values occurred at point C instead of point nation start point is there and outstanding reduction in the
A and minimum normal stress sz min values have occurred safety factor originates from the 51° sling angle. This is
at point D instead of point B, indicated in Figure 3. also a prominent conclusion in this study.
Figure 7 presents normal stress contours in the case of Stress analyses of the investigated hook when the hook
using 30° and 60° sling angles where the sling diameter is is rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length (L16¼ L2),
40 mm. It is readily seen from Figure 7 that maximum as shown in Figure 6(a), and rigged by sling legs with
stress has increased from 181 to 263.84 MPa and the unequal leg length (L16¼ L2) and height (H16¼ H2), as
Onur 937

Figure 7. Finite element simulation results for 40 mm sling diameter and sling angles for 30° and 60°.

shown in Figure 6(b), have been performed so as to exhibit

the effects of two different rigging systems on the stress
and safety factor values. Dimensions and sling leg loads of
the rigging systems in Figures 6(a) and (b) are shown in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Stress analysis results when
the hook is rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length, as
shown in Figure 6(a), are depicted in Table 7.
Results indicate that there is no significant effect of the
rigging manner depicted in Figure 6(a) on safety factor
reduction and stress value increases on the hook, since
stress analysis results coincide with the results presented in
Figure 8. Safety factor changes between 0° and 60°.
Table 6. This is also an important finding that has not pre-

Table 7. Stress analysis of hook number12 when the hook is rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length.

Sling diameter (mm) σ ymax (MPa) σ ymin (MPa) σ vmax (Von Mises) (MPa) Safety factor

36 181.17 − 61.263 177.78 3.0937

40 180.54 − 61.49 177.36 3.1011
45 180.99 − 61.474 177.53 3.098
50 180.12 − 61.062 177.29 3.1022
70 179.89 − 60.918 177.41 3.1001
90 NA NA NA NA
100 NA NA NA NA
938 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 94(10)

Table 8. Stress analysis of hook number12 when the hook is rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length and height.

Sling diameter (mm) σ ymax (MPa) σ ymin (MPa) σ vmax (Von Mises) (MPa) Safety factor

36 180.93 − 61.358 178.18 3.0868

40 180.56 − 61.347 177.30 3.1021
45 180.67 − 61.992 177.51 3.0984
50 180.15 − 61.456 177.40 3.1004
70 NA NA NA NA
90 NA NA NA NA
100 NA NA NA NA

viously been discussed. Stress analysis results of the inves-

tigated hook when it is rigged by sling legs with unequal
leg length and height, as shown in Figure 6(b), are depicted
in Table 8.
Results indicate that there is no significant effect of the
rigging manner depicted in Figure 6(b) on the safety factor
reduction and stress value increases on the hook, since
stress analysis results coincide with the results presented in
Table 6. This is also an important finding that has not pre-
viously been discussed. In the case of collision happened
at a sling because of the touching of two legs at higher
sling diameters, NA is placed Tables 7 and 8.

5. Theoretical calculations Figure 9. Bending moment occurring in section C-D.

5.1. Simplified theoretical method
Theoretical stress calculation methods on the lifting hook
term denotes bending stress occurring on the inner and
are frequently addressed by the simplified theoretical
outer specific points, which are A, C and B, D. It is noted
method and curved beam theory.
that the distance is taken as the length between the center
The simplified method neglects curved sections of the
of curvature and centroid of the cross-section area of sec-
lifting hook (section A-B or C-D in Figure 3). The simpli-
tion A-B in Figure 3 when the bending moment, Mb, cal-
fied method assumes that geometry is straight before the
bending moment is applied. The hook body is treated as a culation is done. As for the calculation of the bending
straight beam that is eccentrically loaded. It inherently moment occurring in section C-D in Figure 3, the sling
brings a deviation in results. The technical drawing of load is calculated by the Q/2.cos(a) formula and length, l,
hook number 12 is depicted in Figure 3. When the load is is taken as l = (a1 =2 + e3 ): sin (a), as indicated in
applied as shown in Figures 5(a) or (b), the stresses that Figure 9. Force F in Figure 9 is identical to Q in the for-
occurred on points A and C in Figure 3 are calculated by mula. e3 is the length between point C and the centroid of
Equation (1): the cross-section area of section C-D. The author drew
curved sections A-B and C-D in AutoCAD and used the
Q Mb Q Mb massprop command to compute proper section modulus
sA = + sC = + ð1Þ WA, WB, WC, and WD. Table 9 shows simplified theoretical
A WA A WC
method solutions.
Stresses that occurred on points B and D in Figure 3 are Simplified theoretical stress calculations at points C
calculated by Equation (2): and D have been conducted by using Equations (1) and (2)
when the sling angle becomes 60° where maximum and
Q Mb Q Mb
sB =  sD =  ð2Þ minimum normal stresses are located at those points. The
A WB A WD simplified theoretical method solutions indicate that there
where Q is the lifting load (N), A is the cross-sectional area is a large discrepancy between simplified theoretical
(mm2), Mb is the bending moment (Nmm), and WA and WB method solutions and finite element simulation results.
are section moduli (mm3). The discrepancy is based on the assumption that hook
The first term of Equations (1) and (2) denotes tensile curved sections are assumed as straight before the bending
stress occurring on the whole cross-section. The second moment is applied.
Onur 939

Table 9. Simplified theoretical method solutions.

Point A (mm2) Mb (Nmm) W (mm3) Stress (MPa)

A 11,384.6796 2465.107 304,810.33 σ A = 98.104

B 11,384.6796 2465.107 204,042.80 σ B = − 103.574
C 7977.8215 1923.107 142,500 σ C = 156.251
D 7977.8215 1923.107 112,300 σ D = − 149.882

Figure 10. Curved beam notation. Image taken with permission from Budynas R and Nisbett K, McGraw-Hill Education, copyright 2006.9

5.2. Curved beam theory A

rn = R dA
ð3Þ
The distribution of stress in a curved flexural member is r
determined by using the following assumptions: the cross-
section has an axis of symmetry in a plane along the Sections A-B and C-D of hook number 12 in Figure 3
length of the beam, plane cross-sections remain plane after are assumed as approximate trapezoidal cross-sections to
bending, and the modulus of elasticity is the same in ten- facilitate curved beam theory calculations. rn can be
sion as in compression. The neutral axis and the centroidal derived from Equation (3). rn is given by the Equation (4)
axis of a curved beam, unlike the axes of a straight beam, for the trapezoidal cross-section of a curved beam9:
are not coincident and also the stress does not vary linearly
from the neutral axis. The notation shown in Figure 10 is A
rn =   ð4Þ
defined as follows9: where r0 is the radius of the outer b0  bi + ½ðbi r0  b0 ri Þ=hln rr0i
fiber (mm), ri is the radius of the inner fiber (mm), h is the
depth of the section (mm) c0 is the distance from the neu- The stress distribution can be found by balancing the
tral axis to the outer fiber (mm), ci is the distance from the external applied moment against the internal resisting
neutral axis to the inner fiber (mm), rn is the radius of the moment. The result is found by Equation (5)9:
neutral axis (mm), rc is the radius of the centroidal axis
(mm), e is the distance from the centroidal axis to the neu- My
tral axis (mm), and M is bending moment (Nmm). s= ð5Þ
Aeðrn  yÞ
Figure 10 shows that the neutral and centroidal axes are
not coincident. It turns out that the location of the neutral where M is positive in the direction shown in Figure 10.
axis with respect to the center of curvature O is given by Equation (3) shows that the stress distribution is hyper-
the Equation (3): bolic. The critical stresses occur at the inner and outer
940 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 94(10)

Table 10. Curved beam theory solutions.

Point A (mm2) M (Nmm) ci (mm) c0 (mm) e (mm) ri (mm) r0 (mm) Stress (MPa)

A 11,437.1087 2492.107 50.16 - 14.3473 62.5 - σ A = 139.031

B 11,437.1087 2492.107 - 107.3 14.3473 - 219.96 σ B = − 56.925
C 7616.1239 1897.107 40.05 - 9.1097 62.5 - σ C = 197.515
D 7616.1239 1897.107 - 74.88 9.1097 - 177.43 σ D = − 93.082

surfaces where y = ci and y = 2c0, respectively, and are as beam theory in Equation (8). sD results are given in Table
Equation (6)9: 6 as szmin .

Mci Mco
si = so =  ð6Þ
Aeri Aero 6. Results and discussion
These equations are valid for pure bending. Axial ten- A GF type lifting hook with number 12 has been modeled
sile stresses are also added to calculate stresses occurred that has a 20 tonne capacity in SolidWorks, adhering to
on points A, B, C, and D on the hook in Figure 3 so the DIN15401. Stress analysis of the lifting hook when it is
stress formula for points A and C is given by Equation (7) subjected to solely axial load in the direction of the shank
and the stress formula for points B and D is given by axis regarding sling size has been performed. Stress analy-
Equation (8): ses at different sling angles (a) where sling legs have
equal leg length (L1 = L2) and height (H) (thereby the sling
Q Mci angle is the same (a = b)), as shown in Figure 2, have
sA = sC = + ð7Þ
A Aeri been performed in order to reveal the effect of sling size
and angle on the stress and safety factor values of the lift-
Q Mco
sB = sD =  ð8Þ ing hook by using ANSYS Workbench. The critical sling
A Aero angle at which the safety factor reduces evidently has been
In this case the bending moment is computed about the determined by altering the sling angle. Loads carried by
centroidal axis, not the neutral axis. Table 10 shows curved each sling member are calculated and presented. In addi-
beam theory solutions. tion, stress analyses of a single hook when the hook is
Curved beam theory stress calculations have been con- rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length and rigged by
ducted at points C and D when the sling angle becomes sling legs with unequal leg length and height have been
60° where maximum normal stresses are located at those performed. Curved beam theory and simplified theory are
points. Most papers deal with determining the normal used to compare finite element simulation results.
stresses on points A and B when load is applied in the It is obvious from the results in Table 6 that there is no
direction of the axis of the hook shank, as shown in Figure significant effect of sling diameter on the safety factor and
5(a). There is no significant contribution in the state of art stress values of the lifting hook.
literature for determining stresses on points C and D in The direction and location of maximum normal stress
Figure 3. In this study, maximum and minimum normal changed and maximum Von Mises stress svmax on the hook
stresses in the z-direction at points C-D have been deter- abruptly increased when the sling angle became 60°. This
mined theoretically and numerically. is an interesting finding that is not previously discussed in
Maximum and minimum stresses at points A and B are the literature. The maximum normal stress direction is no
located in the y-direction. sA in Table 10 is the theoretical longer the y-direction when the sling angle becomes 60°.
maximum normal stress result obtained by using the curved Maximum normal stress has been found in the z-direction
beam theory in Equation (7). sA results are given in Table when sling angle becomes 60°.
6 as symax . sB in Table 10 is the theoretical minimum nor- A sudden reduction in the safety factor occurs of nearly
mal stress result obtained by using the curved beam theory 2 for 60° sling angles. While the safety factor of the hook
in Equation (8). sB results are given in Table 6 as symin . is above 3 at the sling angles of 0°, 30°, and 45° the safety
Maximum and minimum stresses at points C and D are factor starts to drop by on average 3–4% at each 1° incre-
located in the z-direction. sC in Table 10 is the theoretical ment in the sling angle until 60°. The critical sling angle
maximum normal stress result obtained by using the has been found as 51° since the inclination start point is
curved beam theory in Equation (7). sC results are given there and the outstanding reduction in the safety factor ori-
in Table 6 as szmax .sD in Table 10 is the theoretical mini- ginates from the 51° sling angle. This is also a prominent
mum normal stress result obtained by using the curved conclusion in this study.
Onur 941

Table 11. Maximum and minimum normal stress values at points A, B, C, and D.

Point σ max (FEA) σ max σ max σ max DIN σ min (FEA) σ min σ min σ min
(Average) (Simplified (Curved 15400 (MPa) (Average) (Simplified (Curved beam DIN 15400
(MPa) method) beam (MPa) method) theory) (MPa)
(MPa) theory) (MPa) (MPa)
(MPa)

A 179.09 98.104 139.031 160 - - - -

B - - - - − 63.21 − 103.574 − 56.925 − 63
C 262.39 156.251 197.515 - - - - -
D - - - - − 95.48 − 149.882 − 93.082 -

FEA: finite element analysis.

Results indicate that there is no significant effect of the element simulation results in the case of smin at point B.
investigated rigging manner where sling legs have unequal Uddanwadiker6 found a 1.01% deviation between finite
leg length on safety factor reduction and the stress value element simulation and curved beam theory results at
increases on the hook since stress analysis results in Table point B. Uddanwadiker used a digital coordinate measur-
7 coincide with the results presented in Table 6. ing machine in order to draw the hook model. There is a
Results also indicate that there is no significant effect 32.84% deviation between finite element simulation
of the investigated rigging manner where sling legs have results in the case of smax at point C. There is a 2.57%
unequal leg length and height on safety factor reduction deviation between finite element simulation results in the
and stress value increases on the hook, since the stress case of smin at point D. When the DIN 15400 specifica-
analysis results in Table 8 coincide with the results pre- tion is considered, there is a 15.08% deviation between
sented in Table 6. These are also important findings that curved beam theory results in the case of smax at point A.
have not previously been discussed. There is a 10.67% deviation between curved beam theory
Stresses at points A and B, as shown in Figure 3, have results in the case of smin at point B. In addition, when the
also been presented in DIN 15400 as 160 and 263 MPa, DIN 15400 specifications are regarded, there is an 11.93%
respectively, in accordance with hook number (number12), deviation between finite element simulation results in the
drive group (3m), strength class (S), and hammer forged case of smax at point A. There is a 0.33% deviation
type. Maximum and minimum normal stress values at crit- between finite element simulation results in the case of
ical points A, B, C, and D are depicted in Table 11. smin at point B. Consequently, when the safety factor is
It can be concluded from Tables 9 and 10 that stress considered, finite element simulation results always give
results obtained by using curved beam theory are greater the lowest safety factor values among other theoretical
than those for simplified theory at the inner side of the results and DIN 15400 specifications. The finite element
hook and stress results obtained by using simplified theory method is a good way to assess the reliability of lifting
are greater than those of curved beam theory at the outer hooks, since material properties such as modulus of elasti-
side of the hook, which complies with results of Imrak _ city and Poisson’s ratio are considered in the analysis.
3
et al.’s study. Although DIN 15400 gives extremely satisfactory stress
There is not practical meaning in comparison of all prediction at point B, stress at point A predicted by DIN
gathered FEA results. Due to this reason, the author took 15400 should be revised to 179.09 MPa.
the average of stress results obtained by FEA results in
order to compare results. Simplified theoretical method
solutions indicate that there is large discrepancy when
7. Conclusions
finite element simulation results and DIN 15400 specifica- In this study, a computer-aided single hook with number
tions are considered. The simplified theoretical method 12 modeling is done in accordance with the DIN 15401
shall not be used calculate stress values that occurred on standard. Extensive stress analyses have been performed
hook number 12. This discrepancy is based on the assump- at different sling sizes and angles in order to reveal the
tion that hook curved sections are assumed as straight effects of sling size and angle on the safety factor and
before the bending moment is applied. As regards curved stress values of the lifting hook by using finite element
beam theory results, there is a 28.81% deviation between simulation. The critical sling angle at which the safety fac-
finite element simulation results in the case of smax at tor reduces evidently has been determined. Loads carried
point A. Uddanwadiker6 found a 10.12% deviation by each sling member are calculated and presented. In
between finite element simulation and curved beam theory addition, stress analyses of a single hook when the hook is
results at point A. There is 11% deviation between finite rigged by sling legs with unequal leg length and rigged by
 942 Simulation: Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International 94(10)

sling legs with unequal leg length and height have been increase multiplier to attain DIN 15400 specification and
performed. Curved beam theory, simplified theory and FEA results.
DIN 15400 specifications are used to compare finite ele-
ment simulation results. Funding
It is obvious from the results that there is no significant This research received no specific grant from any funding agency
effect of sling diameter on the safety factor and stress val- in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
ues of the lifting hook. It is an interesting finding that has
not previously been discussed in the literature that the
References
direction and location of maximum normal stress changed
and maximum Von Mises stress, svmax , abruptly increased 1. DIN 15400:1990. Lifting hooks. Materials, mechanical prop-
erties, lifting capacity and stresses.
when the sling angle became 60°.
2. DIN 15401:1982. Lifting hooks for lifting appliances, single
The safety factor starts to drop on average by 3–4% at
hooks, unmachined parts.
each 1° increment in the sling angle until 60°. The critical _
3. Imrak CE, GerdemeliI_ and Fetvaci C. Stress analysis of lifting
sling angle has been found to be 51°, since the inclination hooks as a curved beam. J Fac Eng Arch Gazi Univ 2005; 20:
start point is there and the outstanding reduction in the 217–223.
safety factor originates from the 51° sling angle. This is 4. Krishnaveni MNV, Reddy M and Rajaroy M. Static analysis
also a prominent conclusion in this study. There is no sig- of crane hook with t-section using ANSYS. Int J Eng Trends
nificant effect of the investigated rigging manner where Tech 2015; 25: 53–58.
sling legs have unequal leg length on safety factor reduc- _ Materials handling. Kocaeli: University of Kocaeli
5. Cürgül I.
tion and the stress value increases on the hook investi- Publications (in Turkish), 1995.
gated. There is no significant effect of the investigated 6. Uddanwadiker R. Stress analysis of crane hook and validation
by photo-elasticity. Engineering 2011; 3: 935–941.
rigging manner where sling legs have unequal leg length
7. Devaraj A. Design of a crane hook of different materials and
and height on safety factor reduction and stress increases stress analysis using ANSYS workbench. Int J Res App Sci
on the hook investigated. Eng Tech 2015; 3: 310–314.
Finite element simulation results always gave the low- 8. DIN 15403:1969. Lifting hooks for hoists, knuckle threads.
est safety factor values among other theoretical results and 9. Budynas R and Nisbett K. Shigley’s mechanical engineering
DIN 15400 specifications when the safety factor is consid- design. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Primis, 2006.
ered. The finite element method is a good way to assess
the reliability of lifting hooks, since material properties Author biography
such as modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio are also
considered in the analysis. Although DIN 15400 gives Yusuf Aytacx Onur is an Associate Professor at Bulent
extremely satisfactory stress prediction at point B, stress at Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey. He received the
point A predicted by DIN 15400 should be revised to BSc degree from the University of Kocaeli, MSc degree
179.09 MPa. The simplified theoretical method remains from Istanbul Technical University, and PhD from
insufficient to predict the safety factor of the investigated Istanbul Technical University in 2003, 2006, and 2010,
hook. Curved beam theory results can be used by a stress respectively. He has carried out research into material
handling and, in particular, elevator systems.

View publication stats