The article by Tae-Gu Kim et al. conducted elastic FE modeling, which was inappropriate for fracture of elastic-plastic chain material (11.3% of elongation). FE analysis results and the findings in the fractographic analysis did not tally but contradicted each other. The article identified “incorrect installation”/ bending forces as the root cause while FE results of the chain under bending forces showed very low stresses at fracture locations but the highest stress in the middle of shank of the chain. The article's “step-like topographies indicating the fracture due to bending moment rather than uniaxial tension” lacked scientific support. The load value carried by each chain section under bending/incorrect installation was only half of that under tension, thus the article using same load value in FE simulation comparison for bending and tension was incorrect. The real cause of the chain fracture was likely improper checking the lifted load or/and using the wrong chain with much lower safety working load.

Tae-Gu Kim 等人的文章。进行弹性有限元建模，不适用于弹塑性链材料的断裂（伸长率为11.3%）。有限元分析结果和断口分析的结果不相符，而是相互矛盾。该文章将“不正确的安装”/弯曲力确定为根本原因，而在弯曲力下链条的 FE 结果显示断裂位置处的应力非常低，但链条的柄部中部的应力最高。这篇文章的“阶梯状地形表明由于弯矩而不是单轴张力引起的断裂”缺乏科学支持。每个链节在弯曲/不正确安装下所承受的载荷值只有在张力下的一半，因此，在有限元模拟比较弯曲和拉伸中使用相同载荷值的文章是不正确的。链条断裂的真正原因可能是检查提升的负载不当或/和使用了安全工作负载低得多的错误链条。