Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

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

An analysis of the causes of a BWE counterweight boom support fracture

Eugeniusz Rusiński, Jerzy Czmochowski *, Artur Iluk, Marcin Kowalczyk
Wrocław University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Machine Design and Operation, Lukasiewicza 7/9, 50-371 Wrocław, Poland

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

Article history: A bucket wheel excavator (BWE) collapsed in a brown coal mine. As a result of a tie rod
Received 13 May 2009 fracture the counterweight boom, the discharge boom and several other components of
Accepted 3 June 2009 the other assemblies underwent plastic deformation. This paper presents the results of
Available online 9 June 2009
computer simulations of the collapse. A finite element method analysis of the counter-
weight boom tie rod showed stress concentrations exceeding the allowable level. Also
Keywords: material tests of the fracture surface were carried out to identify the causes of the collapse.
Accident investigation
Macroscopic and microscopic images of areas within the fracture were obtained. Measure-
Bucket wheel excavator
Failure analysis
ments of hardness and microhardness in the vicinity of the weld were performed. The FEM
Finite element analysis analyses and material tests showed that the causes of the collapse were design and weld-
ing faults.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

At the beginning of 2008 a bucket wheel excavator KWK-1400 collapsed in the Turów Brown Coal Mine in Bogatynia
(Poland). While the excavator was digging overburden and the bucket wheel boom was in its low position the left tie rod
in the counterweight boom support broke (Fig. 1). BWE breakdowns are due to structural, manufacturing or operating faults
[1,3] and result in very high material losses. Therefore all kinds of measures aimed at early hazard detection or prevention
are taken. Various protective systems are employed to prevent overloads. Excavators are subject to changing loads generated
by digging and output conveying [4,17]. The changing loads adversely affect the load-carrying structure causing its degra-
dation, i.e. the appearance of cracks at stress concentration sites [2,12,14] in welded joint areas [5]. Sometimes the machines
operate in the range of resonant vibration, which accelerates their degradation. The vibration has an adverse effect on the
human organism, decreasing work comfort and safety [6,13]. Since the machines in brown coal mines often remain in service
for over 30 years, their loads, stresses and vibrations are periodically measured [4,7]. Modern numerical methods [8,10] and
computer simulations allow one to more accurately locate hazard (stress concentration) sites or identify the conditions con-
ducive to resonant vibration generation [4,9,18]. Strength tests and analyses carried out on such machines indicate the
places where the designer or the production engineer did not adhere to the art of making welded steel constructions
[5,16]. On the basis of the obtained data structural changes minimizing the adverse effects on the machine load-carrying
structure can be proposed [15]. In the present case, a numerical model of the whole BWE was built for the simulation of
the collapse and detailed models of the counterweight boom support were created for the analysis of the state of effort. Also
the material in the fracture area was subjected to material tests to look for the causes of the fracture [11].

2. Simulation of collapse

In order to run a simulation of the collapse a special model was created in ABAQUS/Explicite. The software enables ad-
vanced dynamic analyses which take into account plastic deformations and contacts. Because of the high complexity the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 713204284; fax: +48 713285985.

E-mail address: jerzy.czmochowski@pwr.wroc.pl (J. Czmochowski).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.06.001
180 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

Fig. 1. Bucket wheel excavator KWK-1400: (a) before collapse and (b) after collapse.

excavator’s load-carrying structure the calculation model was built using beam elements (Fig. 2) [4,8,10]. The state of stress
and strain in the course of the collapse was determined through computer simulations. Information about the plastic defor-
mations of the assemblies which seemingly are undamaged is particularly vital. This applies to the bucket wheel boom, the
mast, the pulley mast, the body platform and the undercarriage.
The simulation showed that some beams in the bucket wheel boom might have undergone permanent deformation
(Fig. 3). One should expect plastic deformation also in the part of the mast structure, on which the counterweight rested.

Fig. 2. BWE model for collapse simulation.

 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191 181

Fig. 3. State of stress in BWE load-carrying structure after collapse.

3. Calculation of state of effort in tie rod fracture area

One of the aims of FEM computations was to identify the spatial stress field generated by the excavator operational loads
and to determine its effect on the life of the tie rods. Most of the structural members were modelled using beam elements.
One of the two tie rods of pulley mast was modelled using shell elements (Figs. 4 and 5). As compared with beam models,
shell models yield more precise results since they take into account the ways in which the structural members are joined
together and their influence on the stress field (e.g. in the vicinity of welded joints). Although beam models do not take into
account the stiffness of structural joints, the obtained results are closer to the results of analytical calculations than the ones
yielded by shell models.
The effort was calculated for the loads specified in DIN 22261. Static and changing loads, defined respectively as H1a and
H1b in the standard, were analyzed. The source of changing loads are dynamic interactions, body forces produced by oper-
ating motions, tilts, output loads, digging forces, etc. [4]. The tie rod has a box structure with additional lower bracing whose
function is to counteract any transverse vibrations of the tie rod. The drawback of this design is that the neutral axis is shifted
towards the bracing, which results in the eccentric action of tensile forces whereby the tie rod bents upwards in the vertical
plane (Fig. 6).
The results of the strength calculations confirmed that stress concentrations occur in the fracture location for H1a (Fig. 7)
and the standard allowable stress (based on the welded joint notch class, the level of mean stress and the stress change
range) for changing loads H1b is exceeded. The mean stress at the stress concentration site was rm = 302 MPa for stress

Fig. 4. Discrete model of counterweight boom support.

182 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

Fig. 5. Discrete model in vicinity of fractured joint.

Fig. 6. Mean Von Mises stress contour lines in pulley mast of counterweight boom in case H1b.

Fig. 7. State of stress in tie rod in vicinity of fracture.

 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191 183

change amplitude ra = 31 MPa. The allowable stress for this case is rdop = 315 MPa, i.e. it is exceeded in cycles of changes
from rmin to rmax since rmax = rm + ra = 333 MPa.
Additional calculations, consisting in the simulation of a fracture extending over 50% of the tie rod cross section, were
carried out. The results are shown in Fig. 8. It was found that at this degree of cross section weakening the tie rod would
immediately fail. Such a failure (Figs. 9 and 10) led to the collapse of the BWE (Fig. 11).

Fig. 8. Stress contour lines on model with crack for load H1a.

Fig. 9. View from mast of damaged tie rod cross section.

Fig. 10. View from counterweight eye of broken tie rod.

184 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

Fig. 11. (a) General view of BWE collapse and destroyed counterweight. (b) General view of BWE collapse and destroyed counterweight.

In the light of the calculation results the most probable cause of the damage to the tie rod was the exceedance of the
allowable stress in the vicinity of the weld joining the bottom flange of the lower brace with the tie rod wall. The stress con-
centration was due to design factors: local bending of the tie wall in the vicinity of the weld caused by the action of the brace
flange, the diaphragm and the wall curving near the weld (Fig. 12) and to the introduction of a notch by the weld (the former
depends on the weld class). One should note that values obtained analytically (e.g. using an analytical tie rod model in the
form of a truss) would not take into account the stress field revealed by the FEM calculations. When the machine was being
designed (the early 1980s) there was no possibility of verifying the suitability of the joint (responsible for the failure of the
tie rod) through computations.

4. Material tests

Fragments were taken from the fracture area for macroscopic and microscopic examinations (Fig. 13, [11]). Numbers 1, 2,
3 and 4 mark the ties selected for the examinations. The brace shown in the photograph on the right was welded to tie 2 in
the place indicated by the arrow.

Fig. 12. Location of fracture in counterweight boom support tie rod.

 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191 185

Fig. 13. Tie rod specimens supplied for examinations: (a) specimen taken from pin-end of tie rod, (b) specimen taken from tie-with-bracing-end of tie rod.

Fig. 14. View of fracture in tie rod. Letters A and B indicate places selected for further macroscopic and microscopic examinations.
186 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

4.1. Macroscopic examinations

The macroscopic examinations of the external surfaces were photographically documented using a Nicon Coolpix 990
camera. The macroscopic images show fatigue lines and material delaminations in the immediate fracture zone. The fatigue
zone extended over the whole cross section of tie 1 and 2. The immediate fracture zone occurred in ties 3 and 4. The fatigue
lines propagating in the fatigue zone of tie 1 and 2 indicated that the focus of the fracture was located in the vicinity of the
welded joint between ties 1 and 2 – site A in Fig. 14. A magnified image of site A is shown in Fig. 15a. The arrows point to the
probable focus of the fatigue crack from which the fracture propagated. This was the place of direct interaction between the
fillet weld joining ties 1 and 2 and the welds joining tie 2 with the brace. A magnified fragment of the fracture at site B, with
marked fatigue zone and immediate fracture zone and visible material delaminations in the immediate fracture zone, is
shown in Fig. 15b. The morphology of the fracture fatigue zone at site A in tie 1 observed under a scanning microscope is
shown in Fig. 16a. The morphology of the immediate fracture zone at site B in tie 3, with visible plastic deformations and
material delaminations, is shown in Fig. 16b.

4.2. Microscopic examinations

The microscopic examinations were carried out using an optical microscope NEOPHOT 32 and a Visitron Systems digital
camera. The microstructure was examined in detail in the area of the joint between ties 1 and 2 in the places shown in
Fig. 17. The material of tie 1 showed a ferritic–pearlitic structure (Fig. 18a), but in the cross section the microstructure
was highly heterogeneous (Fig. 18b and c).
A pearlitic–ferritic structure with Widmannstätten structure features (Fig. 19), i.e. brittle areas which had initiated the
fatigue crack, was found in the vicinity of the welds. The segregations could have been the result of welding errors, e.g.
too rapid cooling.

Fig. 15. Magnified fragment of fracture at site A and B.

 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191 187

Fig. 16. Surface morphology of: (a) fatigue fracture at site A in tie 1 and (b) ductile fracture at site B in immediate fracture zone in tie 3. SEM images.

Fig. 17. Microstructure of welded joint with marked places examined in detail. Mi1Fe etched, optical microscopy.

4.3. Measurements of microhardness

The microscopic examinations were performed in cross section A–A (marked in Fig. 15a) running near the fatigue fracture
focus. The plane of the microsection was perpendicular to the surface of the fracture and to the weld joining tie 2 with the
brace while the microsection ran longitudinally to the weld between tie 1 and 2. In the microsection area there were the
influences of the welds between: ties 1 and 2 and between tie 2 and the brace or the interactions between the heat-affected
zones (HAZ). The crack in tie 2 probably extended into the HAZ of the weld between tie 2 and the brace.
188 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

Fig. 18. Microstructure of tie 1 in place 1 shown in Fig. 17. Mi1Fe etched, optical microscopy: (a) ferritic–pearlitic structure with visible banding, (b) and (c)
microsection made perpendicularly to cross section shown in Fig. 17, longitudinally and transversely to axis of tie rod and tie. Ferritic–pearlitic structure
with visible heterogeneity.

The microscopic examinations revealed a very narrow area which might indicate the presence of a HAZ belonging to the
end (or beginning) of the weld between the tie and the brace.
The HAZ partially extended onto the weld area between ties 1 and 2. The area is indicated by an arrow in Fig. 20. A pearl-
itic–ferritic structure showing Widmannstätten structure features was found in the area, which proves that the latter had
undergone fusion or overheating. Darker etching ‘‘islands” were observed in this area, which might indicate the presence
of martensite or bainite. Vickers microhardness measurements under 50 G were carried out to identify the martensitic areas.
Fig. 21 shows a magnified image of the microstructure in the place indicated by the arrow in Fig. 20.
The measurements showed that the allowable hardness of 350 HV was reached and even exceeded in many places. Even
though the investigated area was small and the measurements were performed under a small load, hardness above 350 HV
proves that the material had locally undergone hardening in the HAZ. The results of the microhardness measurements are
shown in Table 1.

4.4. Chemical composition analysis

A gravimetric analysis of the chemical composition was carried out. After the paint coats and corrosion products had been
removed, chips for the analysis were taken from the cross section of tie 1, 2 and 3. The analysis showed that as regards chem-
ical composition the analyzed steels correspond to low-alloy constructional steels of grades: S355JO, S355J2G3, S355J2G4,
S355K2G3, S355K2G4 (in accordance with PN-EN 10025:2002). The grade of the steel agreed with that specified in the tie
rod working documentation.

4.5. Tests of mechanical properties

Strength tests were carried out on round specimens and flat specimens in accordance with PN-EN 10002-1. The speci-
mens (three from each tie) were taken longitudinally to the axes of the ties and the tie rod.
 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191 189

Fig. 19. Weld microstructure, Mi1Fe etched, optical microscopy: (a) in place 3 in Fig. 17 and (b) in place 2, (c) in place 4.

Fig. 20. Microstructure of area in cross section A–A (Fig. 15a). Arrow indicates area of probable HAZ of weld between tie 2 and brace. Mi1Fe etched, optical
microscopy.

The tests showed that as regards its strength properties the material of ties 1 and 3 meets the PN-EN 10025:2002 require-
ments for steel S355J2G3. The material of tie 2 does not meet the standard requirements as regards its yield point – steel with
a yield point (Re = 322 MPa) lower than required for steel S355J2G3 (Re = 355 MPa) was used. As a result, the cross section was
by about 10% weaker as regards temporary strength and the allowable fatigue analysis stress amplitudes were lower.

5. Conclusions

A fatigue fracture of the tie rod near the end eye connection with the counterweight (Fig. 10) was the direct cause of the
collapse of the BWE. The character of the tie rod fracture points to longitudinal (tensile) loads, but also to cyclic bending
190 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191

Fig. 21. Microstructure of area in cross section A–A (Fig. 15a). Pearlitic–ferritic structure showing Widmannstätten structure features and local martensite
or bainite islands. Mi1Fe etched, optical microscopy.

Table 1
Microhardness in area shown in Figs. 20 and 21.

Impression no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Hardness HV0.05 311 349 317 342 379 412 412 387

(Fig. 15). The fracture was caused by an additional pulsating bending moment (Fig. 6) acting in the place where the angle
brace joined the tie rod (Fig. 7). Also the FEM strength analysis of this joint in the tie rod showed that stress concentrations
(exceeding the lower yield point) occurred at the fracture site (Fig. 7). The loads were slight since the tie rod fractured only
after 28 years of service. The indirect cause was a structural fault in the tie rod’s joint, compounded by the improper welding
of the plates. The designer who designed the bracing along the whole length of the tie rod in order to reduce and prevent the
free vibration (whipping) of the tie rod did not foresee that this could lead to a disaster.
The methodology used to investigate the causes of a serious failure of a bucket wheel excavator was described. Modern
computer methods (FEM) and detailed load-bearing structure models were employed. Static and fatigue strength calcula-
tions showed that the analyzed cross section does not meet the requirements set in the current standards.
The material tests showed technological faults in the making of the welded joints and the poor properties of the steel.
They also revealed a pearlitic–ferritic structure with Widmannstätten structure features and local martensite or bainite seg-
regations, i.e. brittle areas, from which the fatigue failure originated. The martensite and bainite segregated in the weld re-
gion are the consequence of welding errors, e.g. too rapid cooling.
It was found that steel with a lower yield point, i.e. Re = 322 MPa, than the one required of steel S355J2G3, i.e. Re = 355 -
MPa, had been used for the bottom flange. As a result, the flange cross section was by about 10% weaker as regards temporary
strength and the allowable fatigue analysis stress amplitudes were lower.
The collapse of the KWK-1400 bucket wheel excavator in the Turów mine (Poland) and a similar collapse of the SchRs
1760/5  32 excavator in the Kolubra mine (Serbia) [3] lead to the conclusion that the mines in which excavators are cur-
rently employed must introduce a system of monitoring machines of this class in order to prevent their breakdowns (col-
lapses) which result in multimillion losses. In the case of the main surface mining machines, i.e. excavators and dumping
conveyors which have been in service for a long time (dating back to the 1960s, 70s and 90s when there was no possibility
of doing detailed FEM strength computations [8–10]), their most stressed joints should be checked discretely or
continuously.
Also other surface mining machines (with a similar counterweight boom structure) are being subjected to strength anal-
yses with regard to the current standard requirements, using state-of-the-art computer simulations.

References

[1] Babiarz S, Dudek D. Failure and disaster chronicle of the machine in Polish surface mining. Wrocław: Wrocław University of Technology Publishing
House; 2007 [in Polish].
[2] Bobyr M, Yakhno B, Rusiński E, Harnatkiewicz P. Damage in the complex low-cycle fatigue. Arch Civil Mech Eng 2008;VIII(3):21–31.
[3] Bosnjak S, Zrnić N, Simonović A, Momcilović D. Failure analysis of the end eye connection of the bucket wheel excavator portal tie-rod support. Eng Fail
Anal 2009;16:740–50.
[4] Czmochowski J. Identification of modal models of the machines working in the mining of the lignite coal. Wrocław University of Technology Publishing
House; 2008 [in Polish].
[5] Jankowiak R, Rusiński E. Stahlkonstruktionen von polnischen Umschlag- und Fördergeraten. Stahlbau 2003;72, Heft 8.
 E. Rusiński et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 17 (2010) 179–191 191

[6] Karliński J, Rusiński E, Smolnicki T. Protective structures for construction and mining machines operators. Automat Constr 2008;17:232–44.
[7] Kowalczyk M. Method of diagnosing machines in progressing failure states. PhD dissertation, Institute of Machines Design and Operation, Wrocław
University of Technology, PRE 11/2005, Wrocław; 2005 [in Polish].
[8] Rusiński E. Finite element method. System COSMOS/M. Warsaw: WKŁ; 1994 [in Polish].
[9] Rusiński E., Czmochowski J. Die Modalanalyse des Oberbaus eines Baggers vom Typ SchRs-800, Surface Mining, Braunkohle other Miner, vol. 53(3);
2001.
[10] Rusiński E, Czmochowski J, Smolnicki T. Advanced finite element method for load-carrying structures of machines. Wroclaw: Wrocław University
Publishing House; 2000 [in Polish].
[11] Rusiński E, Dudziński W, et al. Numerical and material analyses of the load-carrying structure of the KWK 1400 excavator from the counterweight
boom failure point of view. Series SPR report no. 28/2008. Institute of Machines Design and Operation, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław;
2008 [in Polish].
[12] Rusiński E, Harnatkiewicz P, Bobyr M, Yakhno B. Caterpillar drive shaft damage causes analysis. Arch Civil Mech Eng 2008;VIII(3):117–29.
[13] Rusiński E, Lewandowski T, Słomski W. Baggerschaufelrad-Aspekte zur Optimieirung des Schwingungs-Isolierungssystems für die neue Generation
von Fuhrerstanden. Konstruktion 7/8 2004.
[14] Rusiński E, Moczko P, Czmochowski J. Numerical and experimental analysis of mines loader boom crack. Automat Constr 2008;17:271–7.
[15] Rusiński E, Smolnicki T, Moczko P. Modification of SchRs 4600  30 excavator body’s slewing bearing and its supporting structure. World Min
2005;57(3s):2–8.
[16] Rusiński E. Design principles for supporting structures of self-propelled vehicles. Wrocław: Wrocław University of Technology Publishing House; 2002
[in Polish].
[17] Rusiński E, Czmochowski J. Die Modalanalyse des Oberbaus eines Baggers vom Typ SchRs-800. Surf Min Braunkohle 2001;53(3s):319–24.
[18] Smolnicki T, Karliński J, Derlukiewicz D. Identification of internal stresses in bolts in flange joints. In: 24th Danubia-Adria symposium on developments
in experimental mechanics, Sibiu, Romania, September 19–22; 2007. p. 61–2.