Appendix B

FAILURE ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT

The objective of this assignment is to introduce you to the procedures generally followed when
conducting a failure analysis. Each student will have the opportunity to present a 6 minute
failure analysis report to the class during the practical sessions on a case study of their choice.
The following section will give an outline of how to lead a failure investigating and introduce
you to some case studies.

It is up to you to find a case study and put together the relevant information in a systematic
report covering the topics listed below as is applicable to your case study. There is a significant
amount of examples to choose from, be creative when looking for a topic. In other words: you
are not expected to conduct your own failure analysis, but rather to find examples of such
disasters in history and get behind the metallurgical aspect of the “what went wrong?”

Bear in mind that the weight of this assignment (including the report and presentation) is 10%
of your participation mark for the semester and that entrance to the exam will be denied if you
fail to complete any part of it.

Reports are to be submitted electronically via Edulink and will be scanned for plagiarism.

B.1. Introduction
Failure analysis and prevention are important functions to all of the engineering disciplines.
The materials engineer often plays a lead role in the analysis of failures, whether a component
or product fails in service or if failure occurs in manufacturing or during production processing.
In any case, one must determine the cause of failure to prevent future occurrence, and/or to
improve the performance of the device, component or structure.

To increase the odds of completing a conclusive failure analysis while at the same time saving
time and money, investigations should be carried out using a systemic approach similar to that
outlined in Figure 1 to determine what went wrong.

Figure 1. Chart outlining the major steps that are usually taken when conducting a failure analysis

B.2. Procedure
The failure analysis sequence generally follows an order of increasing "destructiveness" of the
test and/or sample removal. In conducting a failure analysis it is therefore crucial to collect as
1
 Appendix B
much information at each stage before continuing to the next. Significant deviation from this
recommended hierarchy may prevent critical evaluation because of damage caused by
previous tests.

B.2.1. Background information

The first step in conducting any failure analysis is to gain a good understanding of the
conditions under which the part was operating. The investigator must ask questions from those
who work with, as well as those who maintain the equipment and visit the site whenever
possible. Contacting the manufacturer may also be necessary.

 Part information: Detailed information about a failed component often facilitates

selection of analytical methods and can provide insight into some of the factors that
may have contributed to the failure. Certain test methods may be suggested by
knowledge of the component manufacturing history, and this could lead to a quicker
solution. This information should include as a minimum: specifications, manufacturing
information, part number and serial number, and drawings with a bill of materials.

 Service history: The history of a failed part is also of great importance to the analyst.
All information concerning the actual record of a part can serve to illuminate the causes
of a failure. Even "typical" service, which may be ostensibly identical to similar units in
similar conditions, may initiate failure due to apparently innocuous or mundane
differences that may not initially seem worthy of mention.

 Investigation planning and sample selection: The planning portion of an

investigation is crucial to determining the proximate cause of failure. Proper planning
can ensure that an investigation is efficient and cost effective. Particularly in the case
of a high visibility failure or if an assembly line shutdown is imminent, careful planning
is necessary to hasten problem resolution. Haphazard or unsystematic investigations
are unprofessional and wasteful of time, effort, and manpower.

Unfortunately, in many instances the investigator will receive a failed part with little information
about its history and operating conditions. In such cases the physical evidence will have to be
more heavily relied upon.

B.2.2. Visual examination & cataloguing

The second step is to conduct a visual examination, cataloguing and recording the physical
evidence at the same time. This serves the functions of:

 Familiarising the investigators with the evidence.

 Creating a permanent record that can be referred to in light of new information.

Samples should be examined, photographed and sketched taking particular care to identify
and record any area of particular importance, such as fracture surfaces and surface defects.
Visual examination can be aided by the use of a stereomicroscope with lights that can be easily
directed. Shadows can give depth to a surface making it easier to analysis and photograph.

Pieces should always be examined and recorded before any surface cleaning is undertaken.
In some cases substances such as dirt, paint and Oil on the surface can themselves be
important clues, indicating such things as how old the fracture surface is and in what kind of
environment the piece was operating. A good general rule is to be conservative when
destroying evidence of any kind.

2
 Appendix B
The visual examination is a good time for the investigator to examine the fracture surfaces in
detail and try to identify the mode of fracture (brittle, ductile, fatigue, etc.), points of initiation,
and direction of propagation. Each mode of fracture has distinct characteristics that can be
easily seen with the naked eye or the use of a stereomicroscope; however, sometimes a
scanning electron microscope (SEM) will have to be used.

B.2.3. Outline plan of action

The third step is to decide on a course of action. Based on the visual examinations and the
background information the investigator must outline a plan of action, which is the series of
steps that will be needed to successfully complete the case. There are several resources that
an investigator can draw on to determine the cause of failure, which can be classified into one
of the following categories:

 Macroscopic examination

 Non-destructive testing (NDT)

 Chemical analysis

 Metallographic examination

 Mechanical Testing

Many of these categories will require steps that use the same equipment and therefore much
time can be saved with a little forethought. The macroscopic examination is best performed
when cataloguing the samples; however the investigator will often want to return to examine
the part in more detail once other evidence is gathered. Use of a scanning electron microscope
(SEM) is often useful at this stage because of its large range of magnifications and its large
depth of field.

Since undamaged fracture surfaces are not always available, it is often a good idea to open
other cracks that may be present in the piece. This often reveals good quality fracture surfaces
similar to those that caused failure.

B.2.4. Non-destructive tests (NDT)

Non-destructive tests (NDT) are a good way to examine parts without causing permanent
damage. Often, results obtained from examining failed parts in the lab using NDT's can be
used to examine parts in the field and remove them from service before failure occurs. There
are several NDT's that are available to the investigator and it would be a good idea to read up
on each ones abilities.

3
 Appendix B

NDT Method Capabilities

Measures differences in radiation absorption.

Radiography
Inclusions, Porosity, Cracks

Uses high frequency sonar to find surface and

subsurface defects.
Ultrasonic
Inclusions, porosity, thickness of material, position of
defects.

Uses a die to penetrate open defects.

Dye Penetrate
Surface cracks and porosity

Uses a magnetic field and iron powder to locate surface

Magnetic Particle and near surface defects.
Surface cracks and defects

Based on magnetic induction.

Eddy Current Measures conductivity, magnetic permeability, physical
dimensions, cracks, porosity, and inclusions.

Table 1. Commonly used non-destructive tests and there capabilities in detecting defects.

B.2.5. Chemical analysis

Chemical analysis is done on the bulk of the material to confirm the material composition.
Depending on the investigation, chemical analysis should also be done on any overlay
materials or surface residues. There arc several techniques that can be used to check
composition, and the choice of which to use often depends on accessibility and sample type.
In many cases, the SEM can be a powerful tool for fast identification of surface materials. Care
should be taken not to contaminate samples taken for chemical analysis by surface residue or
cutting instruments.

B.2.6. Metallographic examination

Metallographic examination involves the sectioning of samples to examine the microstructure.

The sections that are selected for examination are dependent on the type of piece and the
mode of fracture. Sections from the sample should be taken in different planes so that any
differences in the microstructure can be seen. Sometimes it is useful to take a cross section
through the fracture surface so that the microstructure below the fracture and the surface
profile can be examined. A section running parallel to the fracture surface is also often taken
for examination. Samples should be mounted, ground, and polished using metallographic
techniques. They should be examined before etching for porosity, inclusions, and other
defects. Microstructures should be identified and their properties researched. There are
several referenced that the investigator can refer to for identification of uncertain structures.

B.2.7. Mechanical testing

Mechanical testing is done to verify that the mechanical properties of the material conform to
the standards. There are many types of mechanical testing that can be performed and their
procedures can be found in the ASTM mechanical testing standards. The most common
method used is hardness testing because of its relative simplicity, low cost, and the fact that
4
 Appendix B
for many materials tables exist to relate hardness with yield strength. Macro hardness is usually
sufficient to determine material properties; however microhardness measurements are helpful
in determining property variations within the material. Use the microhardness measurement to
compare the surface hardness to that of the body or to verify the microstructure. Other
mechanical testing such as tensile tests and impact tests can be used, however their use is
usually limited by insufficient material and high costs.

We will be looking at some of these methods in the MTK3A laboratory sessions. Familiarise
yourself with the theory on hardness tests, as well as impact testing.

B.2.8. Conclusion & recommendations

Once all the data is gathered, the investigator must come to a conclusion based on the
evidence present. This requires that the investigator draw heavily on background experience
and research performed. This step can be difficult because when conducting the investigation
clues will lead the investigator down paths that seem to be the cause but which are merely
consequences.

The final and most difficult step in any investigation is coming up with recommendations. Some
cases will be simple, however many cases are not obvious even though the cause and theory
are known. Recommendations are not to be taken lightly. Serious failures can occur if
recommendations are in error. The system may have to be redesigned or a new material put
in place. Sometimes all you will be able to recommend is that inspections be carried out more
often.

B.3. Final remarks

Experience has shown that in spite of intelligent material selection and design, failures still
occur. Being knowledgeable on failure analysis will extend the life of your design and prevent
catastrophic failure. An example of a case study follows in the next section.

B.4. FAA Schedule

The FAA Schedule will be made available via ULink according to the timetable below:
WK1 WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5 WK6 WK7 WK8 WK9 WK10 WK11 WK12 WK13 WK14 WK15 WK15
11-Feb 18-Feb 25-Feb 03-Mar 10-Mar 17-Mar 24-Mar 07-Apr 14-Apr 21-Apr 28-Apr 05-May 19-May 19-May
Group 1
1-A MS&D MS&D MS&D FAA FAA JOM CHARP FAA MS&D EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
Mid-Semester break

MS&D Assignment &

1-B MS&D MS&D MS&D FAA FAA JOM CHARP FAA MS&D EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
Semester test 1

Semester test 2

Group 2
Presentation

2-A MS&D MS&D MS&D FAA FAA CHARP JOM FAA MS&D EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
Sick test

2-B MS&D MS&D MS&D FAA FAA CHARP JOM FAA MS&D EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
Group 3
3-A MS&D MS&D MS&D JOM CHARP FAA FAA MS&D FAA EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
3-B MS&D MS&D MS&D JOM CHARP FAA FAA MS&D FAA EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
Group 4
4-A MS&D MS&D MS&D CHARP JOM FAA FAA MS&D FAA EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC
4-B MS&D MS&D MS&D CHARP JOM FAA FAA MS&D FAA EXTRA FAA EXTRA PRAC

5
 Appendix B

CASE STUDY: CRANE BOLT FAILURE

This case study is an actual report submitted in response to industrial failure. The
purpose of this report is to demonstrate by example. It is written at a basic level and
further reading is recommended to better understand the failure mechanism.

Introduction
One of two bolts supporting a load of 16 200 lbs failed while in service causing eight
hours of downtime on an essential machine to production. The bolts were in operation
on a crane used to transfer anodes into the machine. Figure 1.1 shows a drawing of
the set-up and the location of fraction above the nut. The crane cycled 600 time a day
7 days a week.

The broken bolt (Figure 1.2) and a new unused bolt, recommended by the supplier for
the application, were supplied to conduct the investigation. The original designers of
the crane specified a bolt that conforms to SAE standards grade 5. The supplier of the
new bolt confirmed that it was made to conform with ASTM standard A 193 grade B7.

Figure 1.1. Drawing of the bolt Figure 1.2. Photograph of Figure 1.3. Photograph of
and crane set-up. broken bolt fracture surface.

Results:
Observations

Examination of the fracture surface revealed characteristics such as a beachmarks

associated with fatigue (Figure 1.3). The zone of final fracture was located between
two areas of fatigue propagation suggesting the presence of bending forces. The
surface area of final fracture was approximately 12% of the total fracture surface
6
 Appendix B

suggesting that the bolt was not overloaded. Cracks where also found between threads
near the fracture surface indicating that the bolt was highly susceptible to fatigue
initiation.

Results from chemical analyses (Table 1.1) show that the original broken bolt had a
carbon content slightly below those required by the SAE standards for a grade 5 bolt.
This lower carbon content would have acted to decrease the material properties. The
chemical composition of the new sample bolt conformed to the ASTM standard A193/A
grade B7 that requires an AISI-SAE 4140 composition.

Table 1.1--Chemical analysis results on both bolts.

Original ASTM
broken bolt SAE Standard New Sample Standard B7
Element (%) Grade 5 (%) Bolt (%) AISI 4140 (%)

Carbon 0.20 0.28-0.55 0.42 0.37-0.49

Manganese 0.65 -- 0.85 0.65-1.10

Silicon 0.22 -- 0.22 0.15-0.35

Phosphor 0.013 0.048 max. 0.015 0.035

Sulphur 0.011 0.058 max. 0.030 0.040

Chrome 0.08 -- 0.79 0.75-1.20

Nickel 0.06 -- 0.07 --

Molybdenum 0.01 -- 0.15 0.15-0.25

Microscopic examination of the bolts where done using longitudinal and latitudinal
mounts for each. The sections taken from the fractured bolt were taken close to the
fracture surface. Examination before etching of the two bolts showed no cracking or
unusually large inclusions. The original broken bolt did show some flaking at the base
of the threads (Figure 1.4) but this is expected for a bolt that has been in service.
Etching the sections revealed a microstructure of coarse pearlite in a matrix of ferrite
(Figure 1.5). The SAE grade 5 standard requires that the bolt be quenched and
tempered to conform and therefore should have a tempered martensite structure.
Martensite has higher material properties such as yield strength and hardness, which
increases its resistance to fatigue initiation. The ferrite matrix of the original bolt has
low yield strength, which in turn reduces its resistance to fatigue initiation. The new
bolt was found to be quenched and tempered as required by the ASTM standard
(Figure 1.6). However rolling seems where found at the tips of the treads (Figure 1.7).
This is not a serious defect because of the defects location in a low stress area
however, if the bolt was placed in a corrosive atmosphere these seams would corrode
and then act as fatigue initiation sites.

7
 Appendix B

Figure 1.4. Micrograph Figure 1.5. Micrograph Figure 1.6. Micrograph Figure 1.7. Micrograph
of flaking found at the of fractured bolt. Ferrite of new bolt. Tempered of the new bolt thread
base of a thread in the matrix with pearlite. 2% martensite. 2% nital showing a rolling seam.
fractured bolt. 2% nital nital 200X 500X 2% nital 200X
100X

Tensile tests were done on the bolts to test their material properties in comparison with
the standards. The results (Table 1.2) show that the yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength of the original bolt are only two thirds that required by the standards. This
conforms to the microstructural observations. The properties of the new bolt conformed
to the standard even though they were slightly elevated.

Table 1.2--Results and standard requirements of tensile tests.

Standard Standard
Grade Grade
Original Broken Bolt New Sample Bolt 5 SAE By AISI

Sample # 1 2 1 2

Ultimate 69.5 69.5 148 146 100 125

Tensile
Strength
(KSI)

Yield 42.7 44.4 134 133 80 105

Strength
(KSI)

Elongation 26 24 20 20 16 min. 16 min.

(%)

Surface 67 67 59 59 50 min. 50 min.

Reduction
(%)

8
 Appendix B

Conclusions and Recommendations

Examination revealed that the bolt failed as a result of high cycle low load
fatigue. Chemical analysis and tensile tests confirmed that the bolt did not
meet the SAE grade 5 standards required by the original design of the crane.
The major cause for this lack of conformity is because the bolt was not
quenched and tempered. Since the resistance of steel to fatigue initiation in
proportional to its yield strength, the low properties of the steel in this case left
it open to fatigue initiation.

Examination of the new bolt revealed that it conformed with the ASTM
standards A 193 for a grade B7 bolt, as the supplier specified. However,
rolling seams were found in the thread tips. Due to the relatively low loads this
area is subjected to this is not a major problem but if the bolt is subjected to a
corrosive environments these seams could grow and become fatigue initiation
sites.

The SAE grade 5 bolt specified by the original designers should continue to
be used in future and the upgrade to the ASTM B7 is unnecessary

*For more case studies:

http://www.tms.org/Students/Winners/Davidson/Davidson.html

9
 Appendix B

Failure Analysis Report

Assessment Form

Student: Student Number:

Title:

TurnItIn Score:

Introduction Scientific and logical approach to introduce

the failure. It creates an expectation, 15
motivation for study clearly set out.

Background
information Information presented in a logical and
15
structured manner

Results Information presented in a logical and

structured manner, including appropriate:
 Visual examination & cataloguing
20
 Non-destructive tests (NDT)
 Chemical analysis
 Metallographic examination
 Mechanical testing
Conclusion and
recommendations Appropriate conclusions drawn from results
15
and logical arguments presented.

Documentation Spelling, punctuation and grammar

Academic register, vocabulary and sentence
25
construction
Cohesion and overall structure of the report
References References cited in text
Reference style
List of references 10
Figures and tables integrated into the report
Descriptive captions

Total 100

10
 Appendix B
Failure Analysis Presentation Assessment Form

Criteria Exemplary Basic Sub-standard

Presentation [17 – 25] [10 - 16.5] [0 – 9.5]
Clarity/audibility: * Speaks in a clear voice and shows a flair for *Speech clear most of the time *Speaker difficult to hear. Speaks too fast or too
communicating with the audience *Keeps audience engaged most of the time slow
*Keeps audience engaged *Does not keep audience engaged

Body Language: *Makes eye contact with audience *Some eye contact with audience *No eye contact with audience
*Holds attention of audience *Is able to hold attention of audience most of the *Fails to hold attention of audience
time

Organisation: *Well organized with beginning, middle & end *Some organization *Not well organized
*Ideas flow smoothly & logically *At times ideas do not flow smoothly & logically *No sequence of information
*Delivers ideas in clear and concise manner *Many of the ideas presented are clear & concise *Is not clear & concise
*Appropriate reliance on notes *Tends to rely on notes at times. *Complete reliance on notes.

Register/ *Uses appropriate academic register *Uses appropriate academic register most of the *Uses mostly inappropriate register/colloquialisms
Tone/Language *Uses appropriate tone time/some slips * Speech littered with fillers
*Uses wide, appropriate vocabulary and *Tone mostly appropriate/some slips * Inappropriate tone
sophisticated language structure *Language mainly correct/some slips in vocabulary * Mainly basic vocabulary; serious language errors
affecting understanding

Visuals/multimedia Aids/supports the presentation Appropriate Distracts from the presentation

Content [11 - 15] [5 – 10.5] [0 – 4.5]
Evidence/support/ *Content relevant, well researched *Some content not relevant, some evidence of *Content irrelevant, no evidence of research
Understanding *Provides support for main ideas research *No support for main ideas
*Understands the topic and is confident *Some support for main ideas *Lacks understanding of the topic
*Conclusions and recommendations made are *Some understanding of the topic *Conclusions and recommendations not presented
relevant and correct *Conclusions and recommendations made *Listeners are unlikely to learn anything or may be
*Listeners are likely to gain new insights about the *Listeners may learn some isolated facts, but they misled
topic are unlikely to gain new insights into the topic
Time [7 – 10] [4 – 6.5] [0 – 3.5]
Within 15 seconds of allowable time Uses most of the time/runs a little over Too short or too long
Asked to conclude

11