Metallurgical Investigation Conducted for Baydar and Associates (B&A) of

Galvanized Import Flemish Eye Sleeves

December 29, 2011

Completed by: George Jarjoura, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Momotaj Aghdasi, P.Eng.

Faculty of Engineering Dalhousie University

P.O. Box 1000 Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2X4

 1  

Introduction Baydar & Associates Inc. (B&A), a company based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has been in

the rigging industry since 1999. Despite an impeccable safety record, the company has been

having problems with some Flemish eye sleeves that cracked (failed) during swaging in the past.

Previously, Dalhousie University had done a comparative product analysis between black (non-

galvanized) B&A domestic Flemish eye sleeves and the black Crosby Flemish eye sleeves.

Recently, Dr. George Jarjoura of the Materials Engineering Program at Dalhousie University has

been approached to examine a new set of galvanized Import sleeve samples to ensure quality of

the batch and to see how they compare with the B&A domestic sleeves and the Crosby sleeves.

One set of galvanized Import Flemish eye sleeve samples were provided by Baydar &

Associates Inc. as materials for examination. Three un-swaged galvanized Import samples (sleeve

sizes 1ʺ″, 5/8ʺ″and 1/2ʺ″) and one swaged galvanized Import sample (sleeve size 5/8ʺ″) were

provided for analysis.

Comparative Product Analysis The galvanized Import samples were tested to see how they compared to B&A Domestic

sleeves and Crosby sleeves. Unfortunately there were not any previous data available for

galvanized Crosby and galvanized B&A Domestic sleeves. Previous data for black Crosby and

black B&A Domestic sleeves was used for the comparison. The following comparative analysis

was based on three areas of criteria:

1. Alloy Composition

2. Microstructure

3. Material Hardness

Alloy Composition

A chemical analysis was conducted on the three galvanized Import samples, the swaged

galvanized Import sample and the swaged black Crosby sample and the results were compared to

standard composition of Steel 1010 as defined by ASI-SAE, black B&A Domestic sleeves and

black Crosby sleeves. The results are presented below in Table 1. Data used in Table 1 for un-

swaged black Crosby and un-swaged black B&A Domestic sleeves were taken from previous

reports[1],[2]. Due to equipment issues at the laboratory, the amount of carbon in one of the

galvanized Import samples was unable to be determined. The compositional results in Table 1 has

 2  

shown that both the B&A Domestic and the Crosby samples fall within standard specifications

for 1010 Steel, however all of the galvanized Import samples do not.

 Table 1: Comparative analysis of alloy composition

Element wt% Fe C P S Cu Mn Al Cr Si ASI-ASE Steel

1010 Balance 0.08-

0.13 0.040 0.050 0.20 0.30-

0.60 0.1

Max Black Crosby Balance 0.128 0.002 0.022 0.027 0.414 0.045 0.028 0.066 Black B&A Domestic

Balance 0.094 0.007 0.007 0.045 0.383 0.038 0.044 0.099

Galvanized Import 1 (Size 1")

Balance 0.019 0.025 0.019 0.028 0.203 0.053 0.035 0.012

Galvanized Import 2

(Size 5/8")

Balance N/A 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.086 0.028 0.015 0.009

Galvanized Import 3

(Size 1/2")

Balance 0.026 0.028 0.014 0.016 0.083 0.026 0.026 0.013

Swaged Black Crosby

(Size 5/8")

Balance 0.098

0.013 0.001 0.042 0.363 0.041 0.092 0.115

Swaged Galvanized

Import (Size 5/8")

Balance 0.040 0.011 0.010 0.031 0.105 0.038 0.015 0.044

The galvanized Import sleeves were then compared with several other low-carbon

steels[3] and the results are presented in Table 2. The compositional results in Table 2 have shown

that the galvanized Import samples fall close to within standard specification for 1005 steel rather

than 1010 steel. Although the amount of carbon is undetermined in one of the un-swaged

galvanized Import sleeve (size 5/8"), based on the weight percent (wt%) of some other elements

present in that sample, it has similar composition as the other two un-swaged galvanized Import

samples and the swaged galvanized Import sample.    

 3  

Table 2: Comparative analysis of alloy composition between galvanized Import samples and few low-carbon steels.

Element wt% C Mn P S ASI-ASE Steel 1005 0.06 max 0.35 max 0.040 0.050 ASI-ASE Steel 1006 0.08 max 0.25-0.40 0.040 0.050 ASI-ASE Steel 1008 0.10 max 0.30-0.50 0.040 0.050 Galvanized Import 1

(Size 1") 0.019 0.203 0.025 0.019

Galvanized Import 2 (Size 5/8")

N/A 0.086 0.013 0.014

Galvanized Import 3 (Size 1/2")

0.026 0.083 0.028 0.014

Swaged Galvanized Import

(Size 5/8")

0.040 0.105 0.011 0.010

Microstructure

The three galvanized Import samples, the swaged black Crosby sample and the swaged

galvanized Import sample were cross sectioned, ground, polished and etched using Nital acid

solution. The microstructures of these samples were viewed under an optical microscope at

different magnifications. The micrographs in Figure 1 compared the microstructures of an un-

swaged galvanized Import sample with a swaged galvanized Import sample and a swaged black

Crosby sample. The micrographs showing the microstructure of the other two un-swaged

galvanized Import samples are presented in Appendix A. The micrographs in Figure 1 and

Appendix A have shown all three galvanized Import samples have a spheroidite structure as well

as uniform and equiaxed grains, which allows for a high degree of deformability and swaging.

Both swaged samples do show smaller and elongated uniform grains, which is a result of cold

working operation as expected. The difference in grain structure for the swaged black Crosby

sample and swaged galvanized Import sample would suggest that the heat treatments between the

galvanized Import and Crosby are somewhat different and indicate presence of different amount

of alloying elements as seen in Table 1. Also, the micrographs in Figure 1(e) and Figure 1(f)

indicated the swaged black Crosby sample reacted differently to the etchant in comparison to the

galvanized Import samples.

 4  

 

(a) Un-swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 5/8") Image#1

(b) Un-swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 5/8") Image#2

(c) Swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 5/8")

Image#1 (d) Swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 5/8")

Image#2

(e) Swaged Black Crosby Sample (Size 5/8")

Image#1 (f) Swaged Black Crosby Sample (Size 5/8")

Image#2 Figure 1: Micrographs at different magnifications showing microstructures of an un-swaged galvanized

Import sleeve sample, a swaged galvanized Import sleeve sample and a swaged black Crosby sleeve sample.

 5  

Material Hardness

Several hardness measurements were taken from each of the sectioned samples. The

average hardness values calculated for the three un-swaged galvanized Import samples, the

swaged galvanized Import sample and the swaged black Crosby sample are shown in Table 3 and

compared to standard annealed 1010 Steel, un-swaged black Crosby sample, un-swaged black

B&A Domestic and swaged black B&A Domestic samples. Data used in Table 3 for un-swaged

Crosby, un-swaged B&A Domestic and swaged B&A Domestic samples were taken from

previous reports[1],[2].

Table 3: Comparative Hardness testing measurements

Sample Hardness (HRB)

Galvanized Import Sleeve 1 (Size 1") 37.0 Galvanized Import Sleeve 2 (Size 5/8") 38.4 Galvanized Import Sleeve 3 (Size 1/2") 37.3

Black Crosby Sleeve 44.1 Black B&A Domestic Sleeve 50.8-51.6

ASI-ASE Steel 1010, Spheroidized 40-55 Swaged Black B&A Domestic Sample 83.8

Swaged Black Crosby Sample (Sleeve Size 5/8”) 79.6 Swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Sleeve Size 5/8”) 78.4  

From the results of the hardness measurements in Table 3, it is clear that both black B&A

Domestic and black Crosby samples fall well within the limits for the spheroidized AISI 1010

steel. However, the overall average hardness of all three un-swaged galvanized Import samples

were lower and is outside the limits of the spheroidized 1010 steel. As per Table 3, the increased

hardness values of all three swaged samples were a result of work hardening of the samples

during the swaging process. The average hardness value of the swaged galvanized Import sample

was very close to the average hardness of the swaged black Crosby sample.  

 6  

Conclusion  

From the results and information gathered it appears that the galvanized Import sleeves

are not made from the same steel type as the Crosby and B&A Domestic Sleeves. However, all

the galvanized Import sleeve samples contained a host alloying elements of some amount, which

improve their resistance to atmospheric corrosion and further enhance their machinability,

forgeability and swageability.

The microstructures of the galvanized Import sleeve samples showed a spheroidite

structure as well as uniform and equiaxed grains, which allows for a high degree of deformability

and swaging.

The lower hardness values of the galvanized Import samples would indicate that the

galvanized Import sleeves are more ductile than both the Crosby and the B&A Domestic sleeves.

The difference in hardness between the swaged galvanized Import sample and both swaged black

B&A Domestic and swaged black Crosby samples was small in comparison to the difference

prior to the swaging process.

The swaged galvanized Import sample did not show any cracks on the surface or the

interface between the wire bundle and the swaged sleeve under visual inspection following the

swaging operation. Under the optical microscope, there were not any visible cracks between the

grain boundaries.

The galvanized Import sample sleeves exhibited a combination of good ductility, low

hardness and a uniform grain size structure. There were not any cracks on the swaged samples

from visual inspection and optical microscopy. Also, the swaging process did not affect the zinc

coating on the galvanized sample; the zinc coating stayed intact during the swaging operation.

References [1] Trefry, W. Failure Analysis Conducted For Baydar & Associates (B&A) of Flemish Eye

Sleeve. June 28, 2011.

[2] Trefry, W. Comparative Analysis, Baydar & Associates (B&A) and Crosby, Flemish Eye

Sleeves. June 28, 2011.

[3] ASTM A29/A29M-05: Standard Specification for Steel Bars, Carbon and Alloy, Hot-

wrought, General Requirements for.

 7  

APPENDIX  A  Microstructures  of  Galvanized  Import  Sleeves  

     

 (a) Un-swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 1")

Image#1

 

 (b) Un-swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 1")

Image#2 Figure A1: Micrographs at different magnifications showing microstructures of galvanized Import sleeve

sample size 1".  

   

(a) Un-swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size

1/2") Image#1

   

(b) Un-swaged Galvanized Import Sample (Size 1/2") Image#2

Figure A2: Micrographs at different magnifications showing microstructures of galvanized Import sleeve sample size 1/2".