J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
(2008) 8:564–571
DOI 10.1007/s11668-008-9183-0
TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED
Failure Analysis of Stacker-cum-Reclaimer in Ore Handling Plant
S. Ghosal Æ D. Misra Æ T. K. Saha Æ D. Chakravorty Æ
B. Chaudhuri
Submitted: 12 May 2008 / Accepted: 18 September 2008 / Published online: 15 November 2008

ASM International 2008
Abstract A catastrophic failure of a Stacker-cum-
Reclaimer led to loss of several days of service in one ore
handling plant in India. The failure was severe enough to
initiate an investigation into the possible causes of failure
and estimation of the residual life for other units of
Stacker-cum-Reclaimer of the same design and age,
working in the plant. The failure analysis included a visual
inspection of the failed structure, metallographic studies,
static stress and stability analysis under normal operating
conditions, stress analysis for a possible impact load on the
structure, experimental stress analysis, and fatigue life
cycle analysis. The results obtained indicate that the failure
could be caused by an impact load arising out of some
operational conditions resulting from the conditions of the
rail track on which the machine travels. The material
properties, the physical conditions of the material, and a
fatigue analysis indicate that the existing system can work
for several more decades, provided some checkpoints are
planned and instituted to monitor the health of the structure
at regular intervals.
S. Ghosal (&)
D. Misra
T. K. Saha
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jadavpur University,
Kolkata 700032, India
e-mail: sujit.ghosal@gmail.com
D. Chakravorty
Department of Civil Engineering, Jadavpur University,
Kolkata 700032, India
B. Chaudhuri
Department of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering,
Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
123
Keywords Stacker-cum-Reclaimer
Root cause
failure analysis
Fatigue
Impact loading
Introduction
The present study pertains to the failure analysis of a
Stacker-cum-Reclaimer (Fig. 1) and assessment of the
residual life of the other working units of the same design
at an ore handling plant in India. It has been reported that
one unit failed while in operation, causing the entire
counterweight structure to fall. The material collapsed near
the junction of the pylon and the counterweight structure.
A few other similar units are still in operation. Hence, a
thorough study has been carried out to ascertain the pos-
sible causes of failure and to estimate the residual life of
other similar structures that are still in operation. This
paper presents the root cause failure analysis.
The Stacker-cum-Reclaimer in the plant conveys coal/
iron ore from the box tippler house where railway wagons
unload the materials from mines and stacks them on either
side of the rail track. The same system also reclaims
material from the stacking using rotary buckets and con-
veyors (Fig. 1) and transports material by conveyor belt to
the ships for loading and eventual dispatch. The boom that
is used for stacking as well as reclaiming can be moved in a
horizontal plane (slewing) over a total angle of 210. As
per the design, the worst operating conditions for the sys-
tem are when the boom is operating in a direction
transverse to the rail longitudinal direction. The accident
also took place when the system was reclaiming material
with its boom operating in the transverse direction.
Figure 2 shows the condition of the system after the acci-
dent, and Fig. 3 gives a closer view of the portion of the
structure that collapsed.
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571 565

Root Cause Failure Analysis

Strategies for Analyses

The possible reasons for failure are considered to be one or

combination of the following:
• Reduction in the thickness at the failed portion
• Deterioration of mechanical properties of the materials
of construction
• Exceeding the life cycle time with respect to fatigue
loading
• Any abnormal loading conditions that occurred during
operation
Fig. 1 Stacker-cum-Reclaimer for handling of iron ore
For the purpose of accomplishing the job, the following
procedural steps were conducted.
1. Visual inspection of the site, the failed structure, and
the units in operation
2. Metallographic analyses of samples from the failed
structure and determination of mechanical properties
of the material
3. Analytical study for the stability and stresses on the
structure under conditions of normal loading
4. Impact load analysis of the structure
5. Experimental stress analysis on the structure under
actual loading conditions
6. Fatigue analysis

Observations upon Visual Inspection Fig. 2 View of the failed Stacker-cum-Reclaimer highlighting the
derailment

A preliminary study was made by inspecting the site to

assess the nature of failure and the types of loading during
normal operating conditions. This was followed by study of
the engineering and operation of the system. The opera-
tional manual for the system, relevant drawings, and design
data were studied for subsequent analyses, while vital
inputs were obtained through interactions with various
technical personnel of the plant.
It was observed that the failed structure had been
derailed and was displaced in a transverse direction by
about a meter (Fig. 2). It was evident that the loading/
unloading boom was almost at its extreme slewing position
(transverse to the rail) when the structure failed. Such a
condition of operation seems to be critical from a stability
viewpoint.
The locations of the material failures were found to be
near the junction of the pylon and the counterweight boom Fig. 3 Failed portion of the pylon structure
(Fig. 3). It was further observed visually that the type of
failure was ductile. the structure were affected by corrosion to some extent.
The site is close to the seashore (about 25 km away); Most of the corrosion appeared to be in the form of pitting
upon visual inspection, it was apparent that a few areas in and was limited to the surfaces.

123
566
Metallographic Analyses of a Sample of the Failed
Structure
A portion of the bulged failed plates (including the weld
bead) of the hoist was cut and taken to laboratory for
metallurgical investigation. The surface of the sample
shows the presence of uniform light brown scale. A crack
was observed in the base metal along the parting line of
weld and base metal. The following tests were carried out
on samples removed from the plate:
• Ultrasonic
• Dye penetration
• Ultrasonic thickness measurements
• Hardness
• Tensile
• Chemical analysis
• Metallography
Observations were as follows.
Ultrasonic tests to detect internal flaws on the base plate
were made using a microprocessor-based search unit with
10 mm diameter, 4 MHz, dual probe. The sensitivity level
was set on 1.5 mm, and no significant indication of a dis-
continuity was observed on the base plate.
Dye penetration tests were carried out on the surfaces of
the sample to detect the presence of surface discontinuities
on the sample. A magnaflux red dye penetrant was used, and
the penetrant remover and developer were compatible with
the red dye. Other than the crack that had been visually
observed by the side of the weld line, no significant indi-
cation of discontinuities was observed on the entire surface.
Ultrasonic thickness gauging was carried out on dif-
ferent locations of the base plate to measure the remaining
thickness of the base plate at different locations. The
ultrasonic thickness tester used to measure the thickness
had an accuracy level of ±0.1 mm. The maximum thick-
ness observed was 12.6 mm, and the minimum in the
bulging portion of the plate was 12.3 mm.
Fig. 4 Microstructure of the sample taken from failed portion
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571
Hardness test was carried out on the base plate using a
Brinell hardness tester applying 3000 kg load with 10 mm
diameter steel ball indenter. Five spots were prepared for
testing, and all the results come within HB 190–200. No
significant difference in hardness values was observed near
the weld; however, the size of the Brinell indentation could
mark a low hardness in the heat-affected zone.
A tensile test sample was prepared from the base plate
portion and tested in a universal testing machine. The
results were:
• Yield stress: 320 MPa
• Ultimate tensile stress: 653 MPa
• Elongation: 34.3%
Chemical analysis. Drilled borings were taken from the
base plates tested for chemical composition by wet analy-
sis. The results of this analysis are given in Table 1.
Metallography. A sample was cut from the failed por-
tion of the structure. The cross section of the sample was
polished and etched using a 1% nital solution. The etched
surface was observed under an optical microscope. The
microstructure of the base plate showed a predominantly
ferrite matrix with some pearlite (Fig. 4a and b). No sig-
nificant variation in microstructure from surface to core has
been observed. The weld zone showed more pearlite than
the base metal. The structure of the weld zone was not
homogeneous (Fig. 4c). However, no significant indica-
tions of corrosion or intergranular attack were observed.
The grains of the microstructure were oriented as expected
for rolled plate.
Table 1 Chemical composition of the base plate near the zone
of failure
Composition, wt.%
C Mn Si S P
0.19 0.84 0.31 0.043 0.039
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571 567

Analysis. The chemistry and physical properties of the

base plate conform to those of a standard structural steel. B C
No significant effects of any thermal excursion or of cor-
rosion were observed. Bulging of the plate is assumed to 45°

have occurred as an effect of overloading. No significant 61.2°

metallurgical discontinuities were observed and the weld

Box tower
appeared normal.

13.5m

13m
6.16
+1= 4.08t
2
Structural Analysis of Box Tower (Pylon)

6m
of Stacker–cum-Reclaimer for Stress and Stability 57.6° 13.5m
A O
For the purpose of analysis, various data were taken from
the operation manual, drawings of the structure, and rele- Boom of hoisting triangle
vant standards. Mechanical properties necessary for the
analysis were taken from test results obtained from a por- Fig. 5 Frame structure of the hoisting mechanism for analysis
tion of the plate.
Based on the values of maximum bulk density of iron
ores during handling, the rated stacking capacity, belt
45.4°
speed, and the length of the conveyor on the boom, the
maximum load on the conveyer belt will correspond to a 6t = F4 15t
stacking time equal to the time a belt section takes to travel
26.6°
the boom length, which works out to be 9.33 s. The max-
18°
imum stacking capacity is 800 m3/h and the rate of loading C
on the belt is 600 kg/s; hence, the maximum static load on
the conveyer belt becomes 5600 kg. 10% more is taken to
account for self-weight of the system, and the maximum
load on the conveyor boom becomes 6160 kg. 15m
The weight of bucket wheel is 675 kg, and the total Z
weight of the bucket wheel assemblage is approximately D
1000 kg, including self-weight and load of materials in the
active buckets. The authors refer to Fig. 5 and 6 and carry
X
out stress analysis for the structure. Applying the appro- 6m
priate criterion, the authors determine that the maximum
stress, as developed at the root, D, is 27.38 MPa.
For yield stress of 320 MPa, the permissible stress in
O
compression is 185 MPa [1]. So, the factor of safety with
respect to the permissible compressive stress under normal Fig. 6 Forces on the structure
conditions becomes 6.76.
The counterweight boom (CD) section is a hollow box The axial load acting on the counterweight boom (cal-
with 1800 9 1800 mm2 outer dimension and of thickness culated as 11,000 kg) is much less than this, and hence the
12.5 mm having radius of gyration (k) of 729.78 mm [2]. boom is safe from buckling failure.
So, the slenderness ratio = leq/k = 2 9 6000/729.78 =
16.44, assuming fixed-free end conditions of vertical pylon. Stress Analysis of the Structure under Conditions
Critical slenderness ratio is computed as 111.07, and hence the of Impact Loading
structure is considered to be a short column. Critical load is
calculated using Johnson’s formula [3] for short column, as: Calculation of Bending Stress
" #

r l 2 Referring to Fig. 6 for the analysis, the bending stress at D
yield eq
Pcr ¼ ryield A I  ðEq 1Þ was determined as follows. The authors took a free fall of
4pE k
the structure from the rail to the ground, height of the rail
or, above the ground being 0.3 m. They considered the
counterweight mass and the tension of the wire at C to be
Pcr ¼ 38; 480 kg acting at a point at the end of the counterweight boom.

123
568 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571

Axial Stress due to Impact

Developed direct stress = rd = 1.23 MPa (obtained from

l static analysis as above):
 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2heq
E, I raxial impact ¼ rd 1 þ 1 þ ðEq 5Þ
dd
m
u rd L
dd ¼ ¼ 0:037 mm
E
heq ¼ Vx2 =ð2 gÞ ¼ 60:1 mm

y Therefore,
 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2heq
Fig. 7 Definition sketch for impact analysis raxial impact ¼ rd 1 þ 1 þ ¼ 71:347 MPa
dd
Resultant normal stress due to impact = rimpact =
The differential equation for the deflection of a beam under rbjimpact ? raxial_impact = 763.327 MPa. Developed shear
an impact load [4] is given by: stress = f = 2.07 MPa carried only by webs (same as in
y þ ky ¼ 0
m€ ðEq 2Þ the static analysis).
The above set of direct and shear stresses can give rise
Figure 7 shows the corresponding geometric model and
to the worst principal stress caused by impact loading,
the relevant parameters. The general solution of this
which is given by:
becomes: rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
h
. iffi 
y ¼ a cos xn t þ b sin xn t ðEq 3Þ rprincipal ¼ f2 þ r2impact 4 þ rimpact 2 ðEq 6Þ
where the symbols have their usual meaning.
With proper initial conditions, the maximum deflection rprincipal = 763.328 MPa, which is greater than the ulti-
at C due to impact loading is found from Eq 2 as: mate tensile strength of the material (653 MPa). Therefore
 3 0:5 if, under some circumstances, the structure is subjected to a
mL force acting transverse to the rail longitudinal direction,
dmax ¼ Vz ðEq 4Þ
3EI there is a chance that the wheels come off the rails. When
this happens the drop gives rise to an impact load, and the
where m is the equivalent mass corresponding to the force
stress generated thereby will be very high and is sufficient
acting at C perpendicular to CD, and Vz is the component
to cause a possible failure of the pylon structure.
of velocity in z-direction, as shown in Fig. 5, when the
wheels strike ground. Experimental Stress Analysis
 
m ¼ ð15; 000 cos 26:6  6000 cos 45:4 Þ kg ¼ 9200 kg
Online strain measurements are carried out at some selec-
Now, CD = L = 6 m, E = 200 9 109 Pa. I (moment of
ted locations near the junctions of the counterweight
area of the box structure of the counterweight pylon) =
structure and the pylon. The surfaces are properly cleaned
4.76 9 10-2 m4. h (height of rail above ground) = 0.3 m.
and ground, and a pair of strain gauges are properly glued
P = net force at C acting perpendicular to AC = 9200 kg.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi to the plate structure at each location to obtain strain in two
Velocity of fall = V = 2gh = 2.426 m/s. So, Vz =
mutually perpendicular directions. Half-bridge, tempera-
2.169 m/s and Vx = 1.086 m/s. Therefore, the maximum
ture-compensating-type strain gauges are used for the
deflection (at C) due to impact loading, dmax 18.09 mm.
purpose [5]. Measurements are carried out continuously for
Now, the deflection at C due to static loading is given by,
all possible conditions of stacking and reclaiming, slewing
L3 (horizontal rotational traversing), and luffing (traversing in
dstatic ¼ P ¼ 0:683 mm
3EI vertical plane), and the strains at various locations have
Bending stress ¼ rb ¼ 26:11 MPa been monitored with help of a multichannel recorder.
Figure 8(a) shows the physical form and the bridge circuit
ðobtained from static analysis)
used for the purpose, while Fig. 8(b) shows strain gauges
dmax being laid onto the pylon structure. Two gauges are laid
Bending stress due to impact ¼ rbjimpact ¼ rb
dstatic side by side, but only one is fastened to the strained sur-
¼ 691:98 MPa face, the other is used for temperature compensation.

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571
Conductive strip
Direction of
strain
Mica Connection
Calibrated Active strain gauge
adjustment
Supply voltage
AC or DC
To null indicator
Passive
strain gauge
Fig. 8 (a) Bridge circuit for strain gauge. (b) View of strain gauges
fitted on pylon structure
The strain data have been subsequently processed with
appropriate gauge factor (fractional change of resistance
divided by the change in strain) to arrive at the stresses
induced at the relevant locations. These stress values cor-
respond to the amplitude of fluctuating stress as a result of
loading the conveyor boom over the steady component of
stress caused by static loading due to the self-weight and
moments of all members. The maximum of the stress
values as calculated from the strain data is 9 MPa.
Fatigue Analysis
Fatigue analysis for the structure has been carried out to
investigate any possibility of fatigue failure of the struc-
ture. The data required for this have been obtained from the
following sources:
• Tests carried out on the failed structure
• Experimental stress analysis through strain-gauge mea-
surements conducted on Stacker-cum-Reclaimer while
in operation
• Results of theoretical analyses of the structure
569
Direction of
strain
Fig. 9 Definition diagram for cyclic load with nonzero mean stress
The type of loading on the structure is one of cyclic, but
nonreversing type (Fig. 9). We now proceed to determine
the safe working stress for a given period of loading under
the cyclic condition. For the purpose of analysis, opera-
tional frequency of 24 cycles a day has been considered.
Taking a life span of 50 years, the total number of cycles
becomes 438,000. This becomes a long cycle design for the
structure.
The following data from test results carried out on the
samples from the failed structure are considered for the
analysis:
Ultimate tensile strength ðSut Þ ¼ 653 MPa
Yield pointðryield Þ ¼ 320 MPa
From S–N curve for completely reversed axial stress
under specified test conditions [6], the fatigue limits are
given by:
Sf j103 cycles ¼ 0:86Sut
Se j  106 cycles ¼ 0:506Sut
We consider a loading frequency of 360 cycles per day
and a working life of 25 years, giving N = 3,285,000
cycles, which is more than 106, and hence one takes the
limiting value of endurance limit from S–N diagram as,
S0f ¼ Se j  106 cycles = 330.418 MPa for completely reversed
cyclic stress under ideal test conditions.
We modify this value by incorporating various factors
as:
S0e ¼ Ka Kb Kc Kd S0f ðEq 7Þ
where S0e is the effective endurance limit and Ka, Kb, Kc,
and Kd are surface finish factor, size factor, reliability
factor, and modifying factor, respectively.
A surface finish factor, Ka of 0.55 for a hot-rolled sur-
face with ultimate strength of 653 MPa may be taken with
some degree of reliability [6]. A size factor, Kb = 0.558, a
reliability factor of Kc = 0.753 (based on a reliability of
99.9%), the modifying factor, Kd = (to take care of effect
of stress concentration) = 0.465 (considering the diameter
of the bolt is equal to half the pitch on the bolted joint at the
pylon-counterweight boom junction).
123
570 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571

Therefore, Table 2 Computed safety factors

S0e ¼ Ka Kb Kc Kd S0f ¼ 35:51 MPa Criteria Factor of safety

Minimum stress; rmin ¼ 27:38 MPa Goodman line 4.52

ðfrom theoretical analysis) Gerber line 5.44
Soderberg 3.63
Maximum stress; rmax ¼ 38 MPa Langer 8.000
ðfrom theoretical analysis)

For the purpose of fatigue analysis, rmin = 30 MPa and

rmax = 42 MPa. Therefore, reduction of stress, rr = Table 3 Recommended safety factors [7]
12 MPa (from theoretical analysis). From strain gauge Conditions of the system under load Factor of safety
measurements, reduction of stress, rr = 9 MPa. For the
Reliable materials, under well known loading 1.25–1.50
purpose of fatigue analysis, we take the larger value as
Well-known materials under reasonably 1.50–2.00
rr = 12 MPa. Therefore, the amplitude of stress, ra = constant environmental conditions,
(rmax - rmin)/2 = 6 MPa. easy to compute stresses
From the type of loading, maximum stress is equal to Average materials, ordinary environments, 2.00–2.50
steady stress, that is: loads, and stresses can be determined
rmean ¼ ðrmax þ rmin Þ=2 ¼ 36 MPa Less tried materials, brittle materials, average 2.50–3.00
conditions of load and stresses
With these data, we can proceed to construct Goodman Untried materials, average conditions 3.00–4.00
diagram (Fig. 10) to obtain the endurance limit for a of loads or stresses
fluctuating load without complete reversal of stress Known materials, not average conditions 3.00–4.00
of loads or stresses
(nonzero mean stress). However, in the present
Impact forces 3.00–6.00
calculation, algebraic forms, suitable for machine
computation, for solving the diagram have been used.
Fatigue factor of safety are calculated according to Gerber that Goodman line criteria (usually recommended) has a
line, yield line (Langer line), Goodman line, and Soderberg safety factor equal to 4.52. So, under the circumstances, it is
line criteria. Table 2 compares the calculated values of felt that the Stacker-cum-Reclaimer has been working with
factor of safety based on different criteria, as mentioned. adequate factor of safety with theoretically infinite life.
Table 3 furnishes data on recommended factor of safety
under various conditions [7]. We consider situations of
‘‘known materials with not average conditions of loads or Observations and Remarks
stresses’’ as there could be corrosion-induced stress caused
by the harsh atmospheric conditions prevailing at the plant From the foregoing static analysis, it is observed that the
site and suggest a safety factor range of 3–4. It is observed stress induced in the critical pylon area, as shown in Fig. 1
and 2, is only 27.38 MPa, with a factor of safety of 6.76
syt with respect to the allowable compressive stress.
Metallographic analyses suggest that the material
Yield line properties correspond to those of structural quality steel.
The welded portion also does not show any significant
deterioration in material property. The nature of the failure
Alternating stress σa

se does not indicate a fatigue failure (absence of typical beach

Gerber line
marks). There has been no significant decrease in thickness
of the structure as measured in the sample taken from the
Goodman line failed portion. There is also no sign of corrosion crevice.
sG
From the fatigue analysis, it may be said that the sys-
A
Soderberg line
tems have an infinite cycle life, with the cycle of loading
per day as considered for the analysis. So, the failure
appears to not be caused by fatigue failure, which is also
0 corroborated from metallographic analyses.
0 sm syt sut
Mean stress σm It is noted from the working manual of the system that it
is subjected to the most severe operating condition, from a
Fig. 10 Goodman diagram for cyclic loading stability viewpoint, when the loading boom works

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2008) 8:564–571
transverse to the rail axial direction, which has also been
the actual condition of operation when the structure failed.
A visual inspection of the site revealed that the entire
structure came off the rails as a result of a possible huge
force in the direction transverse to the rails caused by the
particular condition of operation. This force might have
derailed the structure, possibly giving rise to a huge
bending moment on the pylon caused by impact force of
the counterweight. As a matter of fact, the impact force
analysis shows that, under such circumstances, the struc-
ture would fail near the pylon-counterweight boom
junction (root of the cantilever). Therefore, one may con-
clude that operational conditions caused the structure to
come off the rails, and that the free fall caused the accident.
Conclusions
The catastrophic failure of a Stacker-cum-Reclaimer was
the result of operational conditions that caused the machine
to derail, and the impact load from the derailment caused
the structure to collapse near the junction of the pylon and
the counterweight structure. Analysis of the material
571
properties and normal service stresses showed that normal
operating conditions would not cause overload or fatigue
failures, and that this failure was caused by the derailment,
not vice versa. This analysis, therefore, showed that the
other units of the same design should be safe to operate.
Additionally, the result suggests that the rails should be
evaluated to determine the cause of the derailment failure.
References
1. Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel, IS 800, Bureau
of Indian Standards, Table 5.1, Clause 5.1.1, 39 (1984)
2. Code of Practice for General Construction in Steel, IS 800, Bureau
of Indian Standards, Table 5.2, Clause 5.2.2, 41 (1984)
3. Web site: http://www.engineersedge.com/column_buckling/column_
ideal.htm
4. Web site: http:/www.tech.plymouth.ac.uk
5. Holman, J.P.: Force, Torque and Strain Measurements, Chap. 10.
In: Experimental Methods for Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York
(2001)
6. Shigley, J., Mischke, C.: Failure Analysis from Variable Loading,
Chap. 7. In: Mechanical Engineering Design, Tata McGraw-Hill,
New Delhi, India (2001)
7. Web site: www.ame.arizona.edu/courses/324b/l21.pdf
123