Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Analysis of the drive shaft fracture of the bucket wheel excavator

Mile Savković a,⇑, Milomir Gašić a, Dragan Petrović a, Nebojša Zdravković a, Radmila Pljakić b
a
University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kraljevo, Dositejeva 19, 36000 Kraljevo, Serbia
b
Laboratory for Testing of Materials High School, Trstenik, Radoja Krstića 19, 37240 Trstenik, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drive in most bucket wheel excavators (BWEs) is accomplished through its electric motor,
Received 7 June 2011 cardan shaft and planetary gearbox. In the BWE SchRs630/6x25, the planetary gearbox is
Received in revised form 24 October 2011 cantilevered at the end of the hollow shaft which transmits the torque through the
Accepted 7 November 2011
sprocket to the caterpillar track chain. In this BWE, the drive shaft fracture occurs at the
Available online 13 November 2011
point of support on the penetration side.
Experimental testing of the chemical composition and mechanical properties of the
Keywords:
material of the shaft and metallographic inspections of the fracture surface by means of
Bucket wheel excavator
Drive shaft
electronic and light microscopes carried out in the first part of the paper have shown that
Failure analysis there are no significant inhomogeneities and errors in the material of the shaft and that
Experimental testing they do not cause damage. Further, the analysis of results referring to the mechanical prop-
erties and chemical composition of the repaired shaft at the point of welding, and partic-
ularly in the transition zone, shows that they considerably deviate from those prescribed
for the material used. Significant inhomogeneity of the material, occurrence of cracks as
well as the difference in the microstructure appear in this zone, which is the cause of shaft
damage.
The second part of the paper presents the FEM analysis of effects of the cantilever type of
support of the planetary gearbox and stress concentration at the point of support due to
inadequate finishing, which caused the occurrence of an initial crack. The user unsuccess-
fully tried to eliminate this weakness by repair welding of the shaft.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The BWE SchRs630/6x25 (Fig. 1) is placed in the open pit mine in ‘‘Kolubara’’ – Serbia and it is used for excavating and
depositing of layers of slag and coal. Its motion is realized through three pairs of caterpillar tracks, each having its own drive.
The BWE SchRs630/6x25 is driven by means of the 45 kW electromotor, the cardan shaft and the 55 kW planetary gearbox
(Fig. 2). For the mentioned BWE, the largest diameter of the shaft is 250 mm at the point of supports, i.e. 570 mm at the point
of connection with the planetary gearbox. The length of the shaft is 1290 mm, the mass is 525 kg and the frequency of rota-
tion 1.878 min1. The planetary gearbox of the mass ffi3100 kg has a cantilever type of connection, through a clutch, with the
shaft (Fig. 3).
Bucket wheel excavators mainly perform heavy duty operations and their loads are dynamic and stochastic, which is the
frequent cause of their failures that can have catastrophic consequences [1–3]. Even when they are not disastrous [4–9], they
certainly lead to huge financial losses [10]. This is also the case with the bucket wheel excavator SchRs630/6x25 and its drive.
During a regular overhaul, after the BWE had been exploited for more than 6 years, damages of the outer surface of the
shaft at the point of support A were noticed (Fig. 4A and B). These damages refer to the appearance of a crack in the outer

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +381 36 383392; fax: +381 36 383380.

E-mail address: savkovic.m@mfkv.kg.ac.rs (M. Savković).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.11.004
106 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

Fig. 1. BWE SchRs630/6x25 with the position of its drive.

Fig. 2. Drive elements of the BWE SchRs630/6x25.

Fig. 3. Drive shaft of the BWE SchRs630/6x25 with the planetary transmission.

surface of the shaft at the point of rounding (Fig. 4, detail A) along the entire circumference of the shaft. The depth of the
crack is variable along the circumference of the shaft and it ranges from 2 mm to 8 mm. In this zone, besides the crack,
no other damage was noticed (worn surface, craters, etc.), and the surface is smooth, so that the damage was noticed only
after degreasing and cleaning of the surface. There is no reduction of the diameter at the point of appearance of the crack,
either. This damage periodically occured in the other five shafts in further exploitation. In some cases, the problem has been
successfully solved by replacing the damaged shaft with a new one. However, in most cases, for the purpose of reducing costs
and time for procurement and replacement of the shaft, the user has tried to solve the problem on their own. The repair
 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117 107

Fig. 4. Initial damage of the drive shaft of the BWE SchRs630/6x25: (A) the point of damage and (B) the position of the point of damage within the bucket
wheel drive.

Fig. 5. Drive shaft fracture of the BWE SchRs630/6x25.

procedure was performed using the technology of repair welding at the point of damage, without any previous detailed anal-
ysis of its causes. The life of the repaired shaft was considerably shorter, most frequently about a year, after which it broke
(Fig. 5), which caused the failure of the BWE.
Drive shafts of excavators are made by forging but their finishing and assembly are carried out within the company of the
user. In some cases, measurement and inspection after damage have shown that the radii at the intersection at the point of
fracture do not correspond to the prescribed ones but they were smaller (instead of r5, the radius was r2), which additionaly
influenced the occurrence of stress concentration at the point of fracture [11,12].
108 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

Fig. 6. Surface of the drive shaft fracture of the BWE SRs 1700.32/5.0 + VR92 with the points of taking samples for testing.

Table 1
The results of examination of the chemical composition of the samples taken at the point of fracture.

Elements (%) C Si S P Mn Cr Mo Ni
Prescribed values 34CrNiMo6V [13] From 0.30 Max Max Max 0.50 1.30 0.15 1.30
To 0.38 0.40 0.035 0.035 0.80 1.70 0.30 1.70
Values obtained by testing 0.31 0.15 0.024 0.017 0.64 1.55 0.19 1.50

Table 2
Vickers hardness of samples.

Measured hardness Points of taking samples

HV
S1 S2 S3
Weld Transition Base material – below transition Base material – without Base material – without
material zone zone weld weld
Sample 1 320–325 545–550 280–285 286–290 300–305
Sample 2 268–270 535–545 290–300 290–300 300–303
Sample 3 265–275 517–542 285–295 295–305 300–305
Sample 4 268–272 535–540 285–287 280–285 280–290

2. Investigation into the cause of the drive shaft fracture

Investigations into the cause of the drive shaft damage of the BWE SchRs630/6x25 was carried out in two stages:

 experimental analysis and,

 analysis of its stress state.

2.1. Experimental procedure

An experimental procedure was carried out in the first stage and testing of the mechanical properties and chemical com-
position of the material [2,4], visual and metallographic inspections of the shaft fracture surface.
According to the data of the manufacturer (MAN Takraf), the drive shaft of the BWE is made of steel 34CrNiMo6V [13].
The samples for the analysis of its chemical composition and preparation of test pieces for examination of the mechanical
properties of the shaft were taken at the points presented in Fig. 6. The quantitative microchemical analysis of samples of
the fracture surface in the broken shaft was carried out by the Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive X-ray
Spectrometry, SEM/EDS (Micro-Analysis) with the magnification 5 to 200.000, JSM 58000 JEOL, and SEM device (joel
jsm 6460lv) and the results of examination of the chemical composition of the samples taken at the point of fracture are
presented in Table 1. The obtained results of the chemical composition are within the limits prescribed by the standard [13].
The hardness of the base material of the shaft, at the point where there is no influence of welding, is corresponding for the
mentioned type of steel, i.e. 280–305 HV1 (Table 2). Also, the hardness measured at the point of fracture, where there is no
influence of welding in the longitudinal and lateral directions, shows that there is no significant scattering and that it is
 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117 109

Fig. 7. The number and location of hardness measurements-sample number 4.

Table 3
The results of examination of the mechanical properties of the drive shaft.

Shaft material 34CrNiMo6V [13] Rp0,2 (N/mm2) Rm (N/mm2) A5 (%) K (J)

Prescribed values From Min 800 Min Min
To 600 950 13 45
Values obtained by calculation using hardness for the base material [15,16] 695–765 940–1030 – –
Values obtained by examination of the base material [14] 745 985 15.5 48
Values obtained by calculation using hardness for the weld material [14] 680–835 850–1045 – –
Values obtained by calculation using hardness for the material in the transition zone [14] 1440 1792–1826 – –

Fig. 8. Point of the drive shaft fracture initiation: (A) the point of taking sample number 4, Fig. 6 and (B) the point of taking sample number 2, Fig. 6.

uniform for all samples. The number of locations of measurements per sample is 28, and their arrangement, for sample 1, is
presented in Fig. 7. This number of locations of measurements is the same for all samples, and their arrangement is approx-
imately the same to the arrangement presented in Fig. 7. The repair welding of the shaft caused the change of structure at the
point of welding as well as in the heat-affected zone fluence. The increase in hardness is within the range 265–325 HV1 at
the point of weld, i.e. 517–550 HV1 in the transition zone (Table 2).
At the same time, the mechanical properties change so that at the point of weld there is a considerable increase in the
tensile strength Rm. Since the weld zone, the same as the transition zone, is ring-shaped, at the outer diameter £
250 mm, thickness 8–15 mm, it was not possible to make a sample for tensile testing. The values of tensile strength in
the critical section in the weld zone and the transition zone were obtained from the comparative tables for hardness and
tensile strength [14], and they are presented in Table 3 using the data from Table 2.
The results of examination of the mechanical properties of the drive shaft are presented in Table 3.

2.2. Visual and metallographic examination

For the purpose of obtaining as realistic a picture of the drive shaft fracture surface of the BWE SchRs630/6x25 as possible,
besides visual inspection, microscopy was done. Metallographic examination was made using the optical microscope Axio-
vert25, ZEISS. Fractographic examinations were made using SEM JoeL jsm-5800 and SEM jeol jsm 6460lv.
110 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

Fig. 9. Structure of the base material of the drive shaft.

The point of the drive shaft fracture initiation in the BWE is in the transition zone between the weld and the base mate-
rial, as shown in Fig. 8. Figs. 10A and 11A show microcracks filled with the weld material, which can cause the occurrence of
fatigue failure. Cleavage of the material appears along the grain borders (Figs. 10A and 11A) so that it can be concluded that
intergranular fracture occurred. These statements were confirmed by a series of tests of microchemical analysis (the mea-
surement points are presented in Fig. 11B, and the results are presented in Table 3), which shows different percentage of
alloying elements in the weld, transition zone and base material.
The structure of the base material of the drive shaft, where there is no influence of welding, is homogeneous and fine acci-
cular and it corresponds to the structure for the mentioned material and the corresponding heat treatment (Fig. 9) [17,18]. In
the transition zone there is considerable inhomogeneity in the structure as well as penetration of the additional material
(weld) into the structure of the base material (Fig. 10A). At some points (sample 4) there is distinct inhomogeneity of the
weld material and the transition zone between the weld and the base material with the presence of cracks, non-metallic
inclusions and porosity (Fig. 10B). In certain zones there is a noticeable occurrence of difference in the microstructure at
the intersection as the consequence of uneven heating and inappropriate selection of welding parameters (Fig. 10C).
In the transition zone, at the point of fracture, there is a characteristic occurrence of coarse grained structure on the base
material of the shaft as well as distinct surface defects recorded by means of the electronic microscope (Fig. 10) [19,20]. Such
a state of the surface indicates the defects which are the consequence of an inadequately performed welding procedure.
It is also important to carry out a chemical analysis of the composition of the drive shaft material at the point of fracture.
On the basis of the obtained microanalysis it can be concluded that the material structure is considerably changed at the
point of welding and it does not correspond to the structure prescribed for this type of steel. The increase in the percentage
of chromium is particularly noticeable at the point of weld, in the transition zone and even in the base material close to the
weld (Table 4).

2.3. Discussion on the results of the examination

The results of examination of the samples taken at the point of drive shaft fracture have shown that the chemical com-
position and mechanical properties correspond to the the quality of steel 34CrNiMo6V [13]. The external appearance of the
fracture surface (Fig. 5) indicates the fracture was due to material fatigue in which characteristic signs of cracking can be
seen [19–21]. The fatigue fracture initiation, which ocurred in the transition zone between the weld and the base material,
is also clearly seen (Fig. 7). By examining the microstrength in the longitudinal section on the sample surface, it was estab-
lished that there was no decarburazation [22].
The performed experimental procedure of testing the chemical composition and mechanical properties of the material, as
well as the visual and metallographic testing of the shaft fracture surface, show that the fracture did not occur due to an error
in the material. The shaft fracture is the consequence of the manner of repair welding in which the difference in the micro-
structure at the intersection of the joint as well as the innhomogeneity of the weld material expressed through the content of
cracks occurred.

2.4. Calculation of the stress state

The BWE drive shaft load depends on the manner of its operation. This motion can be rectilinear (forward–backward) or
turning to one side while moving forward or backward. While turning, the operation of one drive of the caterpillar track pair
is blocked, while the other drive is maximally loaded. An unfavorable circumstance in operation can be motion along
 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117 111

Fig. 10. Structure of the material in the transition zone of the longitudinal section: (A) weld penetration into the main structure of the material (B)
innhomogeneous structure with cracks (C) occurrence of difference in the microstructure.

inclined terrain or coming out of a pit. Recordings of loads from the torque for certain modes of operation are presented in
Fig. 12. The overload coefficient during turning to one side in relation to rectilinear motion reaches the value 2.1.
The analysis of the stress state of the drive shaft of the BWE was carried out by applying the finite element method (FEM)
[1,4–7]. According to the project documentation, the shaft support was realized through plain bearings A and B, while at the
point C there is transmission of the torque to the caterpillar tracks of the undercarriage (Figs. 4 and 13). At the point of sup-
port C, the torque is transmitted from the shaft through the sprocket to the caterpillar track chain. The contact between the
sprocket and the shaft is accomplished with a press fit. At points A and B, there is a contact between the drive shaft and the
carrying structure of the BWE through the plain bearings transmitting radial and axial forces. The support types, A, B and C,
are presented in Fig. 13.
A 3D model of the drive shaft was built by assembling all structural parts (Fig. 14). The model represents a continuum
discretized by 10-node tetrahedral elements [1,4], for the purpose of creating an FEM model (92,817 nodes and 56,624
elements).
112 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

Table 4
Microchemical analysis of the material at the point of fracture.

Percentage of chromium (Cr) and nickel (Ni) Points of taking samples

in the zone of fracture
S1 S2 S3
Weld Transition Base material – Base material – Base material – without weld
material zone below transition without weld
zone
Cr Ni Cr Ni Cr Ni Cr Ni Cr
Sample 1 22.77 8.10 6.17 2.36 1.72 1.74 1.57 1.51 1.56
Sample 2 23.92 8.79 9.00 4.26 1.73 1.54 1.58 1.50 1.55
Sample 3 25.67 9.12 15.34 5.79 1.75 1.53 1.53 1.49 1.54
Sample 4 27.29 9.61 3.57 1.91 1.96 1.83 1.57 1.53 1.55

Fig. 11. Appearance of the structure at the point of fracture: (A) the point of taking sample number 4, Fig. 6 and (B) the point of taking sample number 3,
Fig. 6.

In compliance with the norms defined in [23], the analysis of the drive shaft of the BWE was carried out for two load
cases:

 the BWE moves forward, the drives of both pairs of caterpillar tracks are involved, shaft loads due to the torque and the
corresponding vertical forces on the arm L = 600 mm from the center of mass of the gearbox: T1z,max = 282 kNm and
H1max = 31.2 kN – load case I,
 the BWE turns right backward, the drive of one pair of caterpillar track is excluded – the other drive is maximally loaded,
the shaft load: T2z,max = 592 kNm and H2max = 65.5 kN – load case II.
 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117 113

Fig. 12. Drive shaft load from the torque: (A) forward motion, (B) backward motion (C) turning left forward (D) turning right backward.

Fig. 13. Model of the drive shaft with the zones of support (A and B) and load transmission (C).

The uniaxial stress field, according to the Huber–Hencky–von Mises hypothesis [1,4,8,9], for case I of the load, is pre-
sented in Fig. 15 while Fig. 16 presents the maximum values of uniaxial stresses obtained for case II.

2.4.1. Fatigue analysis

The characteristic values of the working stress obtained by the finite element method are presented in Table 5.
Fatigue analysis at the point of fracture can be carried out by using the Goodman endurance diagram. The minimum rec-
ommended value of the amplitude stress is ra = 380 MPa [24], whereas the minimum value of tensile strength is [25]:
114 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

Fig. 14. Finite element mesh of the 3D model of the drive shaft of the BWE SchRs630/6x25.

Fig. 15. Distribution of the uniaxial stress of the shaft for load case I.

Fig. 16. Distribution of the uniaxial stress of the shaft for load case II.
 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117 115

Table 5
Values of stresses at the corresponding points established by the finite element method.

Measuring point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ri,max (MPa) 680.1 366.6 412.8 255.9 237.2 224.7 3.9
ri,min (MPa) 585.3 327.4 370.5 233.5 217.7 207 3.5
rmean (MPa) 490.4 288.2 328.2 211.1 198.2 189.3 3.1
ra (MPa) 94.9 39.2 42.3 22.4 19.5 17.7 0.4

Fig. 17. Main and modified Goodman diagrams.

Fig. 18. Fatigue safety factor with the application of the FEM method.

rm = 1100 MPa. These values are presented by points A and B (Fig. 17) and they define the fatigue boundary line. However,
for real exploitation conditions, this line must be corrected. In compliance with the recommendations [26–29], the corrected
minimum value of the amplitude stress (ra,m = 210 MPa) was defined, whereas the minimum value of tensile strength was
established experimentally (Table 3) and it is rm,m = 940 MPa. These values are denoted with points C and D (Fig. 17) and
they define the modified boundary of the Goodman diagram.
The charateristic points for testing the shaft for fatigue are denoted with numbers from 1 to 7 in Fig. 16. All values of the
corresponding component stresses (presented in Table 5) were obtained by the finite element method and they are below
the line A–B, which represents the fatigue boundary. However, as the line C–D was chosen to be the relevant line of fatigue,
the values of the corresponding component stresses at the point of fracture (item 1) are above this line, which leads to the
conclusion that fatigue safety is not provided.
The same results were also reached by fatigue analysis with the application of the finite element method. The value of
fatigue safety factor is lower than 1 at the point of radius ending (Fig. 18), which corresponds to the analysis of the Goodman
diagram.
116 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117

2.5. Discussion about the results of the FEM analysis

On the basis of the FEM results, it can be concluded that:

 The stress state for case II is less favorable than I and it covers the situations when the BWE turns while moving backward
or forward and it frequently appears in operation.
 The level of the stress state in the zone of fracture of the drive shaft for loads II is very high; the levels of uniaxial stresses,
at the point of support ‘‘A’’ are 2.1 times higher than the stresses for load case I;
 The safety factor of the drive shaft in the characteristic section for load case I is: S ¼ req;max;I ¼ 745 ¼ 2:3, for case II
ry
324
¼ 745 1:1
ry
S ¼ req;max;II 680
¼
 The fatigue analysis showed that the stress value at point 1 exceeded the fatigue boundary line and that fatigue failure
safety was not provided.

3. Conclusion

On the basis of the presented research results, the following conclusions can be made:

 the fracture of the drive shaft of the BWE occurred due to material fatigue. The obtained stress value at the critical point
exceeds the fatigue boundary line.
 The drive shaft of the BWE is made of steel 34CrNiMo6V [13] and its chemical composition and mechanical properties are
within the prescribed limits.
 The metallographic examination of the fracture surface show that the fracture did not occur due to any errors in the base
material.
 The mechanical properties of the repaired shaft at the point of welded joint, and particularly in the transition zone, con-
siderably deviated from the ones prescribed for the material used. Significant inhomogeneity in the structure was noticed
in the transition zone as well as penetration of the additional material (weld) into the structure of the base material. The
inhomogeneity of the weld material which contained cracks, was also noticed, whereas in certain zones there was a dif-
ference in the microstructure which was the consequence of inadequately selected welding parameters.

In order to avoid the occurrence of drive shaft fractures of the BWE, it is necessary to entrust finishing and, if necessary,
repair welding with the companies specialized for this type of job, so that they could be carried out entirely in a prescribed
and correct manner thus preventing shaft damages.

Acknowledgment

A part of this work is a contribution to the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia funded Project
TR35038.

References

[1] Bošnjak S, Zrnić N, Simonović A, Momčilović D. Failure analysis of the end eye connection of the bucket wheel excavator portal tie-rod support. Eng Fail
Anal 2009;16:740–50.
[2] Rusinski E, Czmochowski J, Iluk A, Kowalczyk M. An analysis of the causes of a BWE counterweight boom support fracture. Eng Fail Anal
2010;17:179–91.
[3] Araujo LS, de Almeida LH, Batista EM. Analysis of a bucket wheel stacker reclaimer structural failure. In: Proceedings of the conference ‘‘materials
science & technology 2009’’. Charles R. Morin Memorial symposium on failure analysis and prevention. Pittsburgh: Proceedings on CD; 2009. <http://
www.matscitech.org>.
[4] Savković M, Gašić M, Arsić M, Petrović R. Analysis of the axle fracture of the bucket wheel excavator. Eng Fail Anal 2011;18:433–41.
[5] Arsić M, Bošnjak S, Zrnić N, Sedmak A, Gnjatović N. Bucket wheel failure caused by residual stresses in welded joints. Eng Fail Anal 2011;18:700–12.
[6] Rusinski E, Harnatkiewicz P, Kowalczyk M, Moczko P. Examination of the causes of a bucket wheel fracture in a bucket wheel excavator. Eng Fail Anal
2010;17:1300–12.
[7] Bošnjak S, Petković Z, Zrnić N, Simić G, Simonović A. Cracks, repair and reconstruction of bucket wheel excavator slewing platform. Eng Fail Anal
2009;16:1631–42.
[8] Rusinski E, Czmochowski J, Moczko P. Half-shaft undercarriage systems-designing and operating problems. J Achievements Mater Manuf Eng
2009;33(1):62–9.
[9] Rusinski E, Harnatkiewicz P, Bobyr B, Yakhno B. Caterpillar drive shaft damage causes analysis. Arch Civil Mech Eng 2008;VIII(3):117–29.
[10] de Castro PMST, Fernandes AA. Methodologies for failure analysis: a critical survey. Mater Des 2005;25:117–23.
[11] Taylor D, Kelly A, Toso M, Susmel L. The variable-radius notch: two new methods for reducing stress concentration. Eng Fail Anal 2011;18:1009–17.
[12] Babakr A, Bradley R, Al-Ahmari A. Failure analysis of mill shaft roll. J Fail Anal Prevent 2009;9:107–13.
[13] DIN 17201/E DIN EN 10083,1-3:2006-10. Vergütungsstähle – Teil 3: Technische Lieferbedingüngen für legierte stähle; Deutsche norm; 2007.
[14] DIN 50150. Umwetungsschieber für Vickershärte, Brnellhärte, Rockwellhärte, Zugfestigkeit; 2000.
[15] EN 10002-1. Metallic materials – tensile testing – Part 1: method of test (at ambient temperature). EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZACION;
1990.
[16] EN 10045 – 1. Mechanical testing of metals – Charpy impact test – Part 1: test method. European Committee for Standardization; 1990.
[17] Metallography and Microstructures. ASM handbook, vol. 9. ASM International; 2004.
[18] Šuman H. Metallography. Belgrade: The Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy; 1989 [in Serbian].
[19] Failure analysis and prevention. ASM handbook, vol. 11. Metalspark Ohio: ASM International; 2002.
 M. Savković et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 20 (2012) 105–117 117

[20] Brooks RC. Metallurgical failure analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1993.
[21] Rusinski E, Czmochowski J, Moczko P. Failure reasons investigations of dumping conveyor breakdown. J Achievements Mater Manuf Eng
2007;23(1):75–8.
[22] astm E384. Knoop and Vickers microindentation of materials examination of microhardness; 2010.
[23] Design fundamentals of large-scale equipment in open pit mine (Berechnungsgrundlagen für Großgeräte in Tagebauen). Düsseldorf: Der Minister für
Wirtschaft und Verkehr des Landes Nordhein-Wesstfalen; 1960.
[24] Costa JD, Ferreira JM, Ramalho AL. Fatigue and fretting fatigue of ion-nitrided 34CrNiMo6 steel. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2001;35:69–79.
[25] Technical Data Supplement. Timken HS220-27 Alloy steel, The Timken Company; 2009.
[26] Smith JO. The effect of range of stress on the fatigue strength of metals. Univ Ill Eng Exp Sta Bull 1942:334.
[27] Shigley JE, Mitchell LD. Mechanical engineering design. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1983. p. 293.
[28] Jubvinall RC. Engineering considerations of stress, strain and strength. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967. p. 233–4.
[29] Lee DW, Cho SS, Joo WS. Safety evaluation of table liner for vertical roller mill by modified fatigue limit. Eng Fail Anal 2008;15:989–99.