Finite Element Anlysis of Hook

Bahir Dar University
Bahir Dar institute of Technology

Faculty of mechanical and industrial Engineering
Mechanical Design
Advanced Finite element analysis

Title: Structural and impact analysis of double crane hook using
Ansys and optimization
Case Study: Miller® crane hook manufacturing company
By: Habtamu Geremew

Id No.: BDU1200092
Submitted to: Hailu Shimels (PhD)

Submitted date: 15/05/2012
Structural and impact analysis of double crane hook using Ansys
Abstract
The main aim of the study was to apply finite element method on analysis of a crane hook using
Ansys software. A real certain case has been taken and analyzed as structural study using Ansys
18.1 workbench software package. In the analysis static and explicit solution will be seen. The
von mise stress and safety factor and fatigue life will be used for judgment. It is proved that as
element number increase a converged result will be obtained. And also, hexahedral and tetrahedral
element quadratic function mesh and appropriate way of selecting element type has been seen.
And thus, the standard manufactured double hook from Miller company will be analyzed and a
recommendation will be given based on a parametric optimization using Catia Modeling and apply
discretize analysis using Ansys workbench.
Bahir Dar institute of Technology i

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Types of Crane Hooks based on their shape .................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of problem ....................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Basic input data ................................................................................................................ 3
2. Objective of the study ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1. General Objective ............................................................................................................. 5
2.2. Specific Objective ............................................................................................................ 5
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5
4. Analysis of the study ............................................................................................................... 6
4.1. Analytical analysis over view .......................................................................................... 6
4.1.1. Literature review ....................................................................................................... 6
4.1.2. Bending Stress in the Curved Beams ........................................................................ 6
4.2. Fatigue Analysis of Crane Hooks using Finite Element Method ..................................... 9
4.3. Finite element analysis using Ansys workbench.............................................................. 9
4.3.1. Three phases of solving the problems ..................................................................... 10
5. Ansys work result and discussion ......................................................................................... 12
5.1. Linear, tetrahedral element types with fine and finer mesh ........................................... 12
5.2. Quadratic, course with tetrahedral and hexahedral dominant meshing ......................... 16
5.3. Impact/Explicit dynamic analysis during loading of the hook ....................................... 19
5.4. Is Design optimization is needed ................................................................................... 21
6. Conclusion and recommendation. ......................................................................................... 24
References ................................................................................................................................. 25
Bahir Dar institute of Technology ii

1. Introduction
Material-handling equipment is equipment that relate to the movement, storage, control and
protection of materials, goods and products throughout the process of manufacturing, distribution,
consumption and disposal. Cranes are classified as weight handling equipment which are primarily
designed to perform weight lifting and, with the proper attachment, excavating operations under
varied conditions. Cranes have many configurations to accomplish various construction and
industrial operations and are typically identified by their carrier and type of boom.
Crane hook is a curved bar and is used for lifting loads in cranes. Crane hook is the component
which is generally used to elevate the heavy load and transfer it from one place to another in
industries, factories and constructional sites. It is one of the main and important
components of crane basically a hoisting fixture designed to engage a ring or link of a lifting
chain or the pin of a shackle or cable socket and must follow the health and safety guidelines.
Crane hooks are classified depending on their manufacturing materials as well as the intended
usage and, (amongst other factors) according to this, some aspects are more important than
others. Different types of crane hooks can be classified according to their shapes, method of
manufacture, mode of operation or other unique characteristics. They are made in a variety of
styles to meet specific needs and they are rated for loads of specific type and size.
1.1. Types of Crane Hooks based on their shape
There are two types of crane hook depending on their shape which are single crane hook and
double crane hook. As the name suggests, the main difference between these two options is the
number of hooks included, and there are different sub-types possible such as the C-hooks [3].
Single Crane Hooks are the right choice if the machinery deals with loads of up to 75 tons;
this lifting hook is very simple and easy to use.
Double (Ramshorn) Crane Hook is similar in conception, but their design provides superior
bearing which is suitable for heavier loads of over 75 tons. A Ramshorn hook is a shank hook 4
with two throat openings, sometimes called sister hooks or twin hooks. Commonly they are
used in applications with shipyard cranes and container cranes.
1
Figure 1. Single crane hook [1].

There are two types of Ramshorn hooks: The Ramshorn Form A hook, which has a solid lower
hook design and the Ramshorn Form B hook which have hole at the lower hook design. The
hole of hook is used to attach rigging.
Figure 2. double crane hook [2]
1.2. Statement of problem
A crane is subjected to continuous loading and unloading condition. These will cause fatigue
failure of the crane hook and lead to serious accidents. Due to continuous loading cycle the life
(the ability to resist the applied load) of crane hook will reduce. Therefore, in finite element
analysis besides static it should include fatigue analysis of crane hook. Not only these at the loading
there is impact load. Most engineer leave this case; thus, explicit analysis is necessary. Basically,
the aim is to interact with the subject matter of the course but let’s consider DIN Germen standard
Bahir Dar institute of Technology 2
of hook and then see the cases in the subject matter. If there is a failure or problem a
recommendation and an optimized design should be given. Basically, a package software like
Ansys and modeling softwires will be necessary.
1.3. Basic input data
DIN is the German Institute for Standardization (Deutsches Institut für Normung) has historically
developed the detailed and exacting standards used in German engineering and is the body that
represents Germany in international standards organizations. Hooks are identified by hook number
and material. Each hook number maintains identical dimensions across a number of raw materials
and has varying load capacity depending on the material used. Hooks are forged and heat treated
for optimal strength and toughness properties [7].
The hooks are available in three increasingly stronger ferrous materials [7]:
DIN class P, fine-grained carbon steel. St-E355/St-E420, similar to ASTMA573 Gr. 65
DIN class T, alloy steel 34CrMo4-34CrNiMo6, similar to SAE 4135/4340
DIN class V, super alloy steel, 34CrNiMo6-30CrNiMo8, similar to SAE 4340/4337
Table 1. Mechanical properties of SAE 4135 and ASTMA573
Material Yield strength Tensile Fatigue Elongation Young’s

[MPa] strength [MPa] strength [MPa] [%] modules [GPa]
SAE 4135 [6] 350-550 650-880 275 8-25 200
ASTMA573 Class 1 345 485-620 8-22 200
Class 2 415 550-690 20-22 200
Class 3 380 550-690 20-22 200
In the following selection tables, three working load limits are indicated for each hook number
depending on the material selected. Hook forgings have a design safety factor of 5. Safety latches
are included [7]. Thus, from the above table, take first material in average property and use on the
analysis.

Thus, we have, yielding strength of 450MPa, ultimate strength of 765MPa, fatigue strength
275MPa and young’s modules of 200GPa. And also, from the next table we have a load of 20
tons metric (1.962e+005 N weight). For this load the hook should move in a hoisting speed of 10
foot per minute (5.08mm/sec) which will use for the explicit analysis.
Figure 3. Standard Miller® Forged Hooks-Duplex hooks DIN 15403 [7].

2. Objective of the study
2.1. General Objective
The general objective of this study is to apply finite element method on analysis of a crane hook
using Ansys software.
2.2. Specific Objective
The specific objective of this study is to:
✓ To study a certain case and analysis the structure using Ansys.

✓ To compare results in perspective of meshing elements.
✓ Give a certain optimization to the standard if necessary.
3. Methodology
Take a certain case study which

much to our main objective
Collect data and study some valuable Conclusion and

backgrounds about crane hook analytical analysis recommendation
3D solid modeling using

Catia V5
Solid modelling/importing
Defining material
Ansys 8.1 analysis Mesh generation
Solution
Result and discussion Comparing Optimization

to objective If needed
Figure 4. Methodology of the study

4. Analysis of the study
4.1. Analytical analysis over view
4.1.1. Literature review
Compare the trapezoidal cross section hook with other regular cross sections which are circular,
triangular and rectangular cross sections depending on stress trapezoidal is best [3]. Some studies
are available about weight reduction of hook by changing the material type and cross sections; but
in their work when the weight is reducing the stress is increase with comparing to standard hook.
By taking this gap, here the weight and maximum stress modified crane hook are reduced parallelly
with comparing the standard crane hook.
There are five fatigue strength factors to reduce the strength or life of the steel material. The
temperature factor, CT, accounts for the fact that the strength of a material decreases with
increased temperature. The reliability factor, CR, acknowledges that a more reliable (above
50%) estimate of endurance limit requires using a lower value of endurance limit.
Surface factor CS, is the effect of surface finish. For this study the factor for forged hook is 1 and
equivalent stress in Soderbergh theorem will be analyzed. This means there are no effect of surface
scratches and geometric irregularity at the stress concentration.
4.1.2. Bending Stress in the Curved Beams
In case of curved beams, the neutral axis of the cross-section is shifted towards the centre of
curvature of the beam causing a non-linear (hyperbolic) distribution of stress, as shown in the
figure below. It may be noted that the neutral axis lies between the centroidal axis and the centre
of curvature and always occurs within the curved beams. Thus, application of curved beam
principle is used in crane hooks design, chain links and frames of punches, presses, planers etc [5].
Consider a curved beam subjected to a bending moment M, as shown in figure below. In finding
the bending stress in curved beams, the same assumptions are used as for straight beams. The
general expression for the bending stress (σb) in a curved beam at any fibre at a distance y from
the neutral axis, is given by:

Figure 5. Bending Stress on curved beams [5].

Where; M = Bending moment acting at the given section about the centroidal axis,
A = Area of cross-section,
e = Distance from the centroidal axis to the neutral axis = R – Rn,
R = Radius of curvature of the centroidal axis,
Rn= Radius of curvature of the neutral axis, and
y = Distance from the neutral axis to the fibre under consideration
Figure 6. Dimension of the hook.

As you can see from the cross-section drawing, it is difficult to analyze the stress using manual.
Two major constraints make difficult to do.

➢ The first, the hook isn’t single hook which does not satisfy the boundary conditions based
on the derived formula.
➢ The second is irregularity of the cross-section, which makes difficult in finding the cross-
sectional area and the radial parameters.
Whatever it is it is necessary to estimate to the better way. The shape has approximated a
trapezoidal shape and the radial parameters are calculated as follow based on R.S. Kurmi and J.K.
Gupta, Text book of machine design. From the above we have, h=75 mm, bo=30 mm and
bi=60mm.
30 + 60
𝑥75
𝑅𝑛 = 2 = 62.21𝑚𝑚
60 × 110.5 − 30 × 35.5 110.5
( ) ln ( ) − (60 − 30)
75 35.5
75(60 + 2(30))
𝑅 = 35.5 + = 68.83𝑚𝑚
3(30 + 60)
The area can be finds using trapezoidal area finding method. But it is better to use a more accurate
method, numerical method. Dividing the area in a square of 10 mm length yield a total of 34 full
areas which gives area of 3.4e-3m2.
𝑀 = 1.982𝑥105 𝑁𝑥35.5𝑚𝑚 = 7.03𝐾𝑁𝑚
𝑦 = 𝑅𝑛 − 𝑅𝑖 = 62.21𝑚𝑚 − 35.5𝑚𝑚 = 26.75𝑚𝑚
𝑒 = 𝑅 − 𝑅𝑛 = 68.83 𝑚𝑚 − 62.21 𝑚𝑚 = 6.62𝑚𝑚
7036 26.71 1
𝜎𝑏 = ( ) = 𝟏𝟐𝟏𝑴𝑷𝒂 ( 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑠)
2(3.4 × 10−3 × 6.62𝑥10−3 ) 62.21 − 26.71 2
Thus, the analytical estimation of the stress is 121 MPa. And the Ansys result should not be that
much var from this.
4.2. Fatigue Analysis of Crane Hooks using Finite Element Method
Fatigue is the weakening of a material caused by repeatedly applied loads. It is the localized
structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to cyclic loading. Fatigue occurs when
a material is subjected to repeat loading and unloading. Eventually a crack will reach a critical
size, the crack will propagate suddenly, and the structure will fracture.
In a general sense, Fatigue Analysis has two main methods which are Strain Life and Stress Life.
There are available within the ANSYS Fatigue Module. Fatigue analysis can be classified in to
high cycle fatigue (HCF) which is greater than 105 cycles and low cycle fatigue (LCF) which means
less than this. For this study used stress life. Stress life of the hook which means the total life of
the hook. Total life hook is the summation of crack initiation and crack life of the hook.
The hook is experienced the number of cycle greater than 105cycles which means it is HCF and it
is inclusive of infinite life. The analysis type is stress life because for this study is interested to
estimate total life (crack initiation and crack life). The fatigue strength factor and scale factor are
equal to one which means there is no surface imperfection and cracks on this model (surface of
geometry). The mean stress theory is chosen Soderbergh theory and the stress component is
equivalent von-mises stress.
4.3. Finite element analysis using Ansys workbench
In general, design optimization determines values for design variables such that an objective
function is optimized while performance and other constraints are satisfied. Thus, to do so a
package software which allows such work should be used. Specially for complex geometries finite
element analysis is needed rather than analytical.
Design optimization model is a subjective process that requires engineering judgment and
technical skills. Thus, there are a variety of relevant optimization models from which to choose
[4]. So before going to this an excellent application, we need to know the major concepts on finite
element analysis on the software package. Specifically, we should aware of the effect of elemental
type, number of elements, governing equation of analysis for the best converged result.

The stress analysis is studied using ANSYS workbench 18.1. The pre-known design should be
studied and judgement should be given. Solid object is modelled in Catia V5 software. After
modelling .igs file which is saved is imported in ANSYS workbench and by applying load and
proper boundary constraints its analysis is obtained. The results of stress obtained in ANSYS are
compared with some cases, based on the result further interpretation will be undertaken.
4.3.1. Three phases of solving the problems
In general, a finite element solution may be broken into the following three stages. This is a general
guideline that can be used for setting up any finite element analysis.
1. Preprocessing: defining the problem; the major steps in preprocessing are given below:
➢ Define geometry: hook model will be done on Catia.

➢ Define the engineering material. Assignment (material) is SAE 4135.
➢ Mesh the required volume based on element type and number on Ansys 18.1 workbench.
This may include the refinement of curved surfaces of the curved part of the hook.
➢ Define the physical (boundary) constraints. i.e. the fixed end.
➢ Define the loadings. Numerically we will apply 20 ton of mass. Also, on the explicit
analysis we will use velocity as initial condition.
2. Solution: During the solution phase, finite element software assembles the governing algebraic
equations in matrix form and computes the unknown values of the primary field variable(s).
3. Post processing: further processing and viewing of the results; in this may wish to see:
➢ Stress contour diagrams (von mises stress deformation and factor of safety etc.).
➢ Fatigue analysis result.
➢ Plot deformed structural shape.
➢ Animate dynamic model behavior.
Now let’s see the conditions for each process in different iteration way. Since the element exposed
to a lifting load static analysis will be applied. Not only this, impact also have a crucial case at the
loading time. The following figure show what will be done in the following sections.

Figure 7. Ansys 18.1 workbench modeling for different preprocessing paraments.
Figure 8. 3D model of the double hook using Catia V5.
In the Ansys analysis the whole assembly will not analyze. Except the hook the other will eliminate
since these are extra burdens without any positive advantage to this work.

5. Ansys work result and discussion
5.1. Linear, tetrahedral element types with fine and finer mesh
The following diagram shows the phase parameters. In the following cases we only change the
preprocessing cases.
Table 2. Preprocessing conditions and results for the first comparison solution
Fine Finer elemental type

Assignment (material) SAE 4135 SAE 4135
Tensile Yield Strength MPa 450 450
Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa 765 765
Mass 15.49 kg 15.49 kg
Element Control Program Controlled (tetrahedral) P.c (tetrahedral)
Element Order Linear Linear
Relevance Center Fine (default size 7.8 mm) Fine (size 5 mm)
Refinement (on curved surfaces) 2 2
Nodes 31275 75524
Elements 143722 387341

Z-Component load -1.962e+005 N (ramped) -1.962e+005 N (ramped)

Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress 114.04 MPa 116.89 MPa
Total Deformation in magnitude 0.1881 mm 0.19218 mm
Stress Tool > Safety Factor 3.9461(minimum) 3.8497
Fatigue Tool based on Theory Safety Factor 1.2688 1.2378

Soderberg Life 1.e+006 1.e+006
Figure 9. Mesh and von mise stress result of linear tetrahedral fine meshing

Figure 10. Total deformation and safety factor (stress tool) result for linear tetrahedral fine mesh
Figure 11. Input condition to fatigue analysis

Figure 12. Fatigue Safety factor result of linear tetrahedral fine meshing.
Figure 13. Mesh and von mises stress result of linear tetrahedral finer meshing
From the result as the mesh number increase the value of the result increase. This indicates the
higher value tends to approach the exact value. Thus, based on this iterative analysis it is possible
to say that as the element size decrease from 7.8 to 5 each result increase. If we consider the von
mise stress, the variation is 2.4%. This mean that if we decrease the element size the result will
converge to a certain point. Basically, we have used a small elemental type, and thus we already

gate pleasant result. The same is true to deformation. Remember that the safety factor of the
standard is 5. From the analysis, stress tool we had 3.94, which shows the miller company have a
good position of standardization. But the fatigue analysis, point the design should include the case
of variable load. The other thing that should consider researchers is the analysis way of the fatigue
load. Most paper are designed based on the Goodman which is function in the ultimate strength of
a material. Thus, especially for ductile material Soderbergh is appropriate. It should be noted that
the design is safe.
But still we have a constrained, it is possible to increase the result. The way is to add convergence
solution. Von mises stress is converged to 120 MPa. Basically, a better result may be obtained.
Since the initial meshed use our finer case we only use one iteration with initial result was 114
MPa. Here only some parameters are changed. The Max Refinement depth is 2, which was 1 in
the previous and the allowable convergence change is 10% (20% by default). It is possible to
decrease to a small change but machine constraint blocks this operation (in this analysis for 5%
convergence, we need 8 Gb RAM). Thus, we will use 120 MPa as a result with a last change of
5.1321 %.
Table 3. Convergence result
Equivalent Stress (MPa) Change (%) Nodes Elements
1 114.04 31275 143722
2 120.04 5.1321 61340 309196
5.2. Quadratic, course with tetrahedral and hexahedral dominant meshing
Table 4. Preprocessing conditions and results for the second comparison
Tetrahedral elemental type Hexahedral elemental type

Assignment SAE 4135 SAE 4135
Tensile Yield Strength MPa 450 450
Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa 765 765
Mass 15.4 kg 15.49 kg
Element Control Program Controlled (tetrahedral) P.c (Hexahedral)
Element Order Quadratic Quadratic
Relevance Center Course (default size 26.8 mm max) Course (size 26.8 mm max)

Minimum elemental size 2.0493e-002 mm 2.0493e-002 mm

Refinement (on curved surfaces) 2 2
Nodes 9088 7509
Elements 4998 12267
Z-Component load -1.962e+005 N (ramped) -1.962e+005 N (ramped)
Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress 105.73 MPa 106.03 MPa
Total Deformation in magnitude 0.19205 mm 0.20205mm
Stress Tool > Safety Factor 4.2562 (minimum) 4.2439
Fatigue Tool based on Theory Safety Factor 1.3685 1.3645
Soderberg Life 1.e+006 1.e+006
Figure 14. Mesh and von mises stress result of quadratic tetrahedral course meshing

Figure 15. Safety factor for stress tool and fatigue from quadratic tetrahedral course meshing
Figure 16. Mesh and von mises stress result of quadratic hexahedral course meshing

From the result hexahedral element type gives better output for the same size of element. But is is
not just easy to judge one of it is better in finite element analysis. In theory sometimes tetrahedral
mesh is better and sometimes hexahedral mesh elements are approximate the material in better
way. Tetrahedral elements can fit better complex geometry. However, when you integrate the
shape functions with points of Gauss it is less accurate than hexahedral elements. In addition, one
of the factors that determines the quality of the result/mesh is the distortion of your elements. From
the figure the hexahedral shape get distortion on the curved parts. But the maximum stress
formation portion have almost flat surface which gives better result. To sum up, if your geometry
is simple, the best option is to mesh it with hexahedral elements. If it is not possible (curved
geometries, acute angles or similar) then go with tetrahedral but controlling the distortion of the
elements. Therefore, element type should be selected based on the geometry to meshed.
5.3. Impact/Explicit dynamic analysis during loading of the hook
The ANSYS explicit dynamics suite enables you to capture the physics of short-duration events
for products that undergo highly nonlinear, transient dynamic forces. In practical world during
loading of hooks impact may happen. If there is a variation of the state in motion of the hook,
explicit dynamic analysis is necessary.
As we say in the previous section, for the load the hook should move in a hoisting speed of 10 foot
per minute (5.08mm/sec) which is an input parameter for the explicit analysis. Thus, based on this
velocity (impact cause) a crack may form: but for comparison we only consider the static
conditions, in which stress is changed. The writer supports on using this analysis.

Table 5. Result of explicit analysis
Assignment SAE 4135

Element Control Program Controlled (tetrahedral)
Element Order Linear
Relevance Center Course (default size 26.8 mm max)
Refinement (on curved surfaces) 2
Nodes 3912
Elements 18503
Z Component 5.08 mm/s
Analysis Type Explicit Dynamics
Solver Target AUTODYN
Analysis sitting: End Time 2.e-004 s
Z-Component load -1.962e+005 N (step applied)
Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress 147.43 MPa (maximum in the cycle)
Directional deformation (y-axis) 0.15314 mm
Total deformation 0.34144 mm
Stress Tool > Safety Factor 3.0524 (minimum)
Figure 17. The Von mise Result and the variation of stress in the loading cycle.

Figure 18. Safety factor variation in explicit analysis
From the table and figures it is straight forward that the analysis has a variation from static analysis.
There is a change on stress and factor of safety. When we considered the stress (147.43 MPa) with
converged stress (120MPa), there will be a deviation of 22% and the safety factor have a change
by 28 percent. Think how much this value is crucial in the perspective of mechanical design. Even
though, most scholar doesn’t consider dynamic cases, this company product is safe for application.
There for when we design materials which exposed to motion or impact, design should include
impact loading, based on the nature of the load.
5.4. Is Design optimization is needed
We have taken over the major objective of our tasks, but as an engineering a recommendation or
optimization ideas should be forwarded. On the structure analysis we have seen the strength is not
uniform. As can as possible it is necessary to make a uniform strength to minimize the material
cost in manufacturing.
For this study optimize the weight and making uniform strength is necessary. And the results of
modified hook are compared with the standard hook results based on different criteria’s which are
maximum stress, maximum deformation, weight and fatigue life of the hooks. Basically,

optimization means changing size of a system or changing the inappropriate material for greater
strength, uniformity and size optimization. On Ansys workbench it is possible in two forms, by
using parametric optimization and topographical optimization. Both optimization techniques are
found on the recent Ansys platform (17.1 and later). But if the modeling is undertaken from in
other cad packages, optimization by the Ansys is not possible easily. Thus, a systematic way of
parametric optimization will be undertaken using other software. Dimension will be changed based
on an iterative way on Catia for size/mass optimization. The following results are obtained.
Figure 19. Catia modelling of optimized shape and cross-sectional change
Table 6. Ansys data result of optimized shape
Assignment SAE 4135

Element Control Program Controlled (tetrahedral)
Element Order Quadratic
Relevance Center Fine (default size 26.8 mm max)
Minimum size of element edge length 6.0626e-003 mm
Nodes 47219
Elements 27205
Mass 13.84 kg
Z-Component load -1.962e+005 N
Equivalent (von-Mises) Stress 121.84 MPa
Total deformation 0.18871 mm

Table 20. Optimized hook result
Well we are in the way of the end a parametric optimization has been undertaken. Basically, two
things are undertaken on geometry modification on the Catia part work. The first thing is that the
cross-section changed a little to the I section form with the base length is shortened. And the
portion of the outside surface of minimum stress of the flange is removed in some direction. The
computation thus done as the above with the same working condition. But what does it show? It
goes to the analytical result. But let’s we compare to the converged equivalent stress (120.04 MPa)
and the analytical result (121 𝑀𝑃𝑎). Numerically the deviation from 121.84 MPa for the
converged and analytical is almost 1.4% and 0.7% respectively. It is possible it is good parametric
change. The aim is to reduce mass. Mass is reduced from 15.49 kg to 13.84 kg. It is possible to
reduce by 1.65kg which is a high achievement. It is obvious the result is not fine which has a
convergence, but compare to mass optimization, it is tolerative.

6. Conclusion and recommendation.
The main aim of the study was to apply finite element method on analysis of a crane hook using
Ansys software. A certain case has been taken and analyzed as structural study using Ansys.
Through the work it is proved that as meshing element number increase the result approaches to
the exact value. And also, hexahedral and tetrahedral element quadratic function mesh and
appropriate way of selecting element type has been seen. It is possible to conclude as; as element
number increase a convergence result is obtained and in finite element analysis as can as possible,
we should use appropriate number of elements. In selecting element type, the shape should much
with the parental object with a minimum distortion of side of element. Static structural, fatigue and
explicit dynamic solution had been calculated and thus, we have fulfilled our objective.
Not only we apply finite element analysis of an existing Miller’s hook for the study but also aa
parametric optimization was done. Since there was a positive result, we recommended that the
company should see the design. Finally, we want to say that researchers should include new
concepts. They should see what is the real thing. Just they should include impact loading condition
during there design.

References
[1]. https://www.google.com/ Search image_of_crane_hook 2:40 pm, January 10, 2020

[2]. https://www.cmworks.com/Rigging/ShankHooks 7:40 pm, January 10, 2020
[3]. Shumuye Tigabey, Optimization and Fatigue Analysis of Crane Hook Using
Finite Element Method; Addis Ababa Institute of Technology; June 2018
[4]. Robert C. Juvinall, Kurt M. Marshek, “Static Body Stresses,” in Fundamentals of
Machine Component Design, 5th ed., linda Ratta, Ed. U.S.A.: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.,2012, pp. 138-141.
[5]. R.S. Kurmi and J.K. Gupta, Text book of machine design; 14th edition, Eurasia publisher, New
Delhi, 2005.
[6]. http://www.steelgr.com/steel-grades/stainless-steel/sae-4135.html/ 9:40 pm, January 17,
2020
[7]. http://www.millerproducts.net/ 11:50 am, January 22, 2020.
[8]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51479910_Comparison_of_hexahedral_and_
tetrahedral_elements_in_finite_element_analysis 9:30 am, January 23, 2020.

Finite Element Anlysis of Hook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Anlysis of Hook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bahir Dar University

Bahir Dar institute of Technology

Advanced Finite element analysis

By: Habtamu Geremew

Submitted to: Hailu Shimels (PhD)

Bahir Dar institute of Technology i

Bahir Dar institute of Technology ii

1.1. Types of Crane Hooks based on their shape

Figure 1. Single crane hook [1].

Figure 2. double crane hook [2]

1.2. Statement of problem

1.3. Basic input data

Table 1. Mechanical properties of SAE 4135 and ASTMA573

Material Yield strength Tensile Fatigue Elongation Young’s

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 3

Figure 3. Standard Miller® Forged Hooks-Duplex hooks DIN 15403 [7].

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 4

2. Objective of the study

2.1. General Objective

2.2. Specific Objective

The specific objective of this study is to:

✓ To study a certain case and analysis the structure using Ansys.

Take a certain case study which

Collect data and study some valuable Conclusion and

3D solid modeling using

Result and discussion Comparing Optimization

Figure 4. Methodology of the study

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 5

4. Analysis of the study

4.1. Analytical analysis over view

4.1.1. Literature review

4.1.2. Bending Stress in the Curved Beams

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 6

Figure 5. Bending Stress on curved beams [5].

Figure 6. Dimension of the hook.

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 7

𝑀 = 1.982𝑥105 𝑁𝑥35.5𝑚𝑚 = 7.03𝐾𝑁𝑚

𝑦 = 𝑅𝑛 − 𝑅𝑖 = 62.21𝑚𝑚 − 35.5𝑚𝑚 = 26.75𝑚𝑚

𝑒 = 𝑅 − 𝑅𝑛 = 68.83 𝑚𝑚 − 62.21 𝑚𝑚 = 6.62𝑚𝑚

4.2. Fatigue Analysis of Crane Hooks using Finite Element Method

4.3. Finite element analysis using Ansys workbench

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 9

4.3.1. Three phases of solving the problems

➢ Define geometry: hook model will be done on Catia.

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 10

Figure 7. Ansys 18.1 workbench modeling for different preprocessing paraments.

Figure 8. 3D model of the double hook using Catia V5.

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 11

5. Ansys work result and discussion

Fine Finer elemental type

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 12

Z-Component load -1.962e+005 N (ramped) -1.962e+005 N (ramped)

Fatigue Tool based on Theory Safety Factor 1.2688 1.2378

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 13

Figure 11. Input condition to fatigue analysis

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 14

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 15

5.2. Quadratic, course with tetrahedral and hexahedral dominant meshing

Table 4. Preprocessing conditions and results for the second comparison

Tetrahedral elemental type Hexahedral elemental type

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 16

Minimum elemental size 2.0493e-002 mm 2.0493e-002 mm

Bahir Dar institute of Technology 17