Comparative analysis of EU EN standards for crane hooks
Comparative analysis of EU EN standards for crane hooks
(covering core standards such as EN 1677, EN 13889, EN 13001 , and comparing the differences between ISO and GB)
1. EU EN core standard system
| Standard No. | name | Scope of application |
|---|---|---|
| EN 1677-1 | Lifting hooks - Part 1: General requirements | General rules for materials, manufacture and testing |
| EN 1677-2 | Lifting hooks - Part 2: Forged hooks | Technical requirements for forging single hook/double hook |
| EN 13889 | Forged steel hooks - Verification test methods | Static load, dynamic load, and breaking test process |
| EN 13001-1 | General principles for crane design - Part 1: Structure | Load combinations and safety factor requirements |
2. Comparison of Key Technical Requirements
1. Materials and Manufacturing
| project | EN standard requirements | GB/T 10051 Comparison | ISO 8754 comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material Grade | 34CrMo4, 42CrMo4 (quenched and tempered) | DG20Mn (equivalent to American AISI 4130) | 34CrNiMo6 (higher strength) |
| Forging process | Closed die forging must be used | Free forging is allowed (UT testing is required) | And |
| Defects allowed | Surface defect depth ≤ 1% of section thickness | ≤2% of section thickness | ≤1.5% of section thickness |
2. Safety factor and load
| standard | Minimum breaking load/rated load | Dynamic load factor | Test Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN 1677-1 | ≥4 times (static load) | 1.25 times dynamic load | Gradually load until breaking |
| GB/T 10051 | ≥4 times (static load) | 1.1 times dynamic load | Direct loading to 4x SWL |
| ISO 8754 | ≥4.5 times (static load) | 1.3 times dynamic load | Same as EN, but strain data needs to be recorded |
3. Differences in test requirements
| Test Type | EN 13889 Requirements | GB/T 10051 Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Static load test | 2x SWL suspension for 10 minutes, no plastic deformation | 1.25 times SWL suspension for 10 minutes |
| Breaking test | Sampling test until fracture, actual breaking force ≥ 4 times SWL | Same as EN, but with lower sampling rate |
| Fatigue test | 2×10⁶ cycles (load spectrum according to EN 13001) | Not mandatory (recommended only) |
Summary of key differences
1. EU EN is more stringent
-
Material control : EN requires closed die forging, GB allows open die forging (additional testing required).
-
Dynamic load test : EN dynamic load factor 1.25 vs GB 1.1.
-
Fatigue requirements : EN specifies fatigue test cycles, but GB has no mandatory regulations.
2. China GB is more flexible
-
Defect tolerance : GB allows 2% defect depth (EN only 1%).
-
Test cost : GB static load test 1.25 times SWL vs EN 2 times SWL.
3. ISO standard compromise
-
Strength requirement : ISO breaking load ≥ 4.5 times (EN/GB is 4 times).
-
Data recording : ISO requires that strain data be recorded throughout the test.
IV. Suggestions for Enterprises to Response
-
Export to EU :
-
Select 34CrMo4 material + closed die forging process.
-
Completed 2 times SWL static load test + fatigue test according to EN 13889 .
-
-
Domestic use :
-
Priority is given to meeting GB/T 10051, but it is recommended to refer to EN fatigue requirements to improve reliability.
-
-
Authentication Integration :
-
Passed CE certification (EN standard) and China Special Equipment License (GB standard).
-
5. Future Trends
-
EN 13001-3-1:2023 : Added new requirements for digital twin model validation.
-
Green materials : The EU plans to include recycled steel in the revised version of EN 1677.
in conclusion
The EU EN standard is higher than GB in terms of material technology and test rigor , but GB is more suitable for low-cost manufacturing. Enterprises need to choose standards based on the target market. For the high-end market, it is recommended to fully comply with EN+ISO and pay attention to dynamic revisions.
Comparative analysis of EU EN standards for crane hooks
(covering core standards such as EN 1677, EN 13889, EN 13001 , and comparing the differences between ISO and GB)
1. EU EN core standard system
| Standard No. | name | Scope of application |
|---|---|---|
| EN 1677-1 | Lifting hooks - Part 1: General requirements | General rules for materials, manufacture and testing |
| EN 1677-2 | Lifting hooks - Part 2: Forged hooks | Technical requirements for forging single hook/double hook |
| EN 13889 | Forged steel hooks - Verification test methods | Static load, dynamic load, and breaking test process |
| EN 13001-1 | General principles for crane design - Part 1: Structure | Load combinations and safety factor requirements |
2. Comparison of Key Technical Requirements
1. Materials and Manufacturing
| project | EN standard requirements | GB/T 10051 Comparison | ISO 8754 comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material Grade | 34CrMo4, 42CrMo4 (quenched and tempered) | DG20Mn (equivalent to American AISI 4130) | 34CrNiMo6 (higher strength) |
| Forging process | Closed die forging must be used | Free forging is allowed (UT testing is required) | And |
| Defects allowed | Surface defect depth ≤ 1% of section thickness | ≤2% of section thickness | ≤1.5% of section thickness |
2. Safety factor and load
| standard | Minimum breaking load/rated load | Dynamic load factor | Test Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN 1677-1 | ≥4 times (static load) | 1.25 times dynamic load | Gradually load until breaking |
| GB/T 10051 | ≥4 times (static load) | 1.1 times dynamic load | Direct loading to 4x SWL |
| ISO 8754 | ≥4.5 times (static load) | 1.3 times dynamic load | Same as EN, but strain data needs to be recorded |
3. Differences in test requirements
| Test Type | EN 13889 Requirements | GB/T 10051 Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Static load test | 2x SWL suspension for 10 minutes, no plastic deformation | 1.25 times SWL suspension for 10 minutes |
| Breaking test | Sampling test until fracture, actual breaking force ≥ 4 times SWL | Same as EN, but with lower sampling rate |
| Fatigue test | 2×10⁶ cycles (load spectrum according to EN 13001) | Not mandatory (recommended only) |
Summary of key differences
1. EU EN is more stringent
-
Material control : EN requires closed die forging, GB allows open die forging (additional testing required).
-
Dynamic load test : EN dynamic load factor 1.25 vs GB 1.1.
-
Fatigue requirements : EN specifies fatigue test cycles, but GB has no mandatory regulations.
2. China GB is more flexible
-
Defect tolerance : GB allows 2% defect depth (EN only 1%).
-
Test cost : GB static load test 1.25 times SWL vs EN 2 times SWL.
3. ISO standard compromise
-
Strength requirement : ISO breaking load ≥ 4.5 times (EN/GB is 4 times).
-
Data recording : ISO requires that strain data be recorded throughout the test.
IV. Suggestions for Enterprises to Response
-
Export to EU :
-
Select 34CrMo4 material + closed die forging process.
-
Completed 2 times SWL static load test + fatigue test according to EN 13889 .
-
-
Domestic use :
-
Priority is given to meeting GB/T 10051, but it is recommended to refer to EN fatigue requirements to improve reliability.
-
-
Authentication Integration :
-
Passed CE certification (EN standard) and China Special Equipment License (GB standard).
-
5. Future Trends
-
EN 13001-3-1:2023 : Added new requirements for digital twin model validation.
-
Green materials : The EU plans to include recycled steel in the revised version of EN 1677.
in conclusion
The EU EN standard is higher than GB in terms of material technology and test rigor , but GB is more suitable for low-cost manufacturing. Enterprises need to choose standards based on the target market. For the high-end market, it is recommended to fully comply with EN+ISO and pay attention to dynamic revisions.
Comparative analysis of EU EN standards for crane hooks
(covering core standards such as EN 1677, EN 13889, EN 13001 , and comparing the differences between ISO and GB)
1. EU EN core standard system
| Standard No. | name | Scope of application |
|---|---|---|
| EN 1677-1 | Lifting hooks - Part 1: General requirements | General rules for materials, manufacture and testing |
| EN 1677-2 | Lifting hooks - Part 2: Forged hooks | Technical requirements for forging single hook/double hook |
| EN 13889 | Forged steel hooks - Verification test methods | Static load, dynamic load, and breaking test process |
| EN 13001-1 | General principles for crane design - Part 1: Structure | Load combinations and safety factor requirements |
2. Comparison of Key Technical Requirements
1. Materials and Manufacturing
| project | EN standard requirements | GB/T 10051 Comparison | ISO 8754 comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material Grade | 34CrMo4, 42CrMo4 (quenched and tempered) | DG20Mn (equivalent to American AISI 4130) | 34CrNiMo6 (higher strength) |
| Forging process | Closed die forging must be used | Free forging is allowed (UT testing is required) | And |
| Defects allowed | Surface defect depth ≤ 1% of section thickness | ≤2% of section thickness | ≤1.5% of section thickness |
2. Safety factor and load
| standard | Minimum breaking load/rated load | Dynamic load factor | Test Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN 1677-1 | ≥4 times (static load) | 1.25 times dynamic load | Gradually load until breaking |
| GB/T 10051 | ≥4 times (static load) | 1.1 times dynamic load | Direct loading to 4x SWL |
| ISO 8754 | ≥4.5 times (static load) | 1.3 times dynamic load | Same as EN, but strain data needs to be recorded |
3. Differences in test requirements
| Test Type | EN 13889 Requirements | GB/T 10051 Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Static load test | 2x SWL suspension for 10 minutes, no plastic deformation | 1.25 times SWL suspension for 10 minutes |
| Breaking test | Sampling test until fracture, actual breaking force ≥ 4 times SWL | Same as EN, but with lower sampling rate |
| Fatigue test | 2×10⁶ cycles (load spectrum according to EN 13001) | Not mandatory (recommended only) |
Summary of key differences
1. EU EN is more stringent
-
Material control : EN requires closed die forging, GB allows open die forging (additional testing required).
-
Dynamic load test : EN dynamic load factor 1.25 vs GB 1.1.
-
Fatigue requirements : EN specifies fatigue test cycles, but GB has no mandatory regulations.
2. China GB is more flexible
-
Defect tolerance : GB allows 2% defect depth (EN only 1%).
-
Test cost : GB static load test 1.25 times SWL vs EN 2 times SWL.
3. ISO standard compromise
-
Strength requirement : ISO breaking load ≥ 4.5 times (EN/GB is 4 times).
-
Data recording : ISO requires that strain data be recorded throughout the test.
IV. Suggestions for Enterprises to Response
-
Export to EU :
-
Select 34CrMo4 material + closed die forging process.
-
Completed 2 times SWL static load test + fatigue test according to EN 13889 .
-
-
Domestic use :
-
Priority is given to meeting GB/T 10051, but it is recommended to refer to EN fatigue requirements to improve reliability.
-
-
Authentication Integration :
-
Passed CE certification (EN standard) and China Special Equipment License (GB standard).
-
5. Future Trends
-
EN 13001-3-1:2023 : Added new requirements for digital twin model validation.
-
Green materials : The EU plans to include recycled steel in the revised version of EN 1677.
in conclusion
The EU EN standard is higher than GB in terms of material technology and test rigor , but GB is more suitable for low-cost manufacturing. Enterprises need to choose standards based on the target market. For the high-end market, it is recommended to fully comply with EN+ISO and pay attention to dynamic revisions.
Inquiry
Please leave us your requirements, we will contact you soon.