Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis

(Investigating the failure of bevel gears in an aircraft engine)

1) Introduction:
In this era of burgeoning industries, the demand for new equipment with precise, long-lasting
components has surged. Consequently, industries have adopted innovative methods, such as
computing new parameters like tensile strength, torsion, maximum shear stress, and fatigue,
to assess the durability of their manufactured pieces. Mechanical engineering has identified
specific instances for measuring these parameters and conducting analyses to identify
potential weaknesses in each component. This process enables the establishment of usage
limits for customers, illustrating the expected lifespan through tools like GOOD-MAN tables
or similar charts.

Utilizing software like ANSYS, SIMCENTER, NX, and conducting new experimental tests
on actual components, mechanical engineering can gather data and make comparisons to
predict the behavior of each piece under varying loads and environmental conditions. This
research on fatigue aims to determine the operational lifespan of a component or the number
of cycles it can complete under different stress conditions.

This article delves into Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis, focusing particularly on
bevel gears in aircraft engines. Failures in any part of an aircraft's structure or engine can lead
to accidents resulting in human casualties, with engine power transmission component
failures being a primary cause of reported incidents [1–6]. Gears play an essential role in
efficiently transmitting power within mechanical systems, spanning from everyday
automobiles to large-scale cruise ships and aircraft. Manufacturers produce a variety of gear
designs tailored to specific functions, system requirements, and operational conditions,
including spur gears, hypoid gears, spiral, and straight bevel gears [3]. Common causes of
gear failures include design flaws, manufacturing defects, maintenance issues, inspection
oversights, and the inevitable stresses leading to surface fatigue, wear, and lubricant
degradation. This study examines the causes of bevel gear failures within aircraft engine
transmission systems, aiming to mitigate such risks in future instances.

2) History of bevel gears in aircraft:

The history of aircraft bevel gears dates back to the early days of aviation when the need for
efficient power transmission in aircraft engines emerged. Bevel gears, with their ability to
transfer power at angles, became an integral part of aircraft propulsion systems. They were
initially crafted from durable materials like steel and evolved alongside advancements in
engineering and manufacturing techniques.
Over time, engineers refined the design and manufacturing processes of bevel gears to
enhance their durability, precision, and efficiency. These gears underwent significant
improvements in materials, such as the utilization of advanced alloys and heat treatments, to
withstand the demanding conditions within aircraft engines.

The evolution of aircraft bevel gears parallels the growth of aviation technology, playing a
crucial role in enabling the reliable and efficient operation of aircraft engines. Today, bevel
gears continue to be essential components in aircraft propulsion systems, contributing to the
safety and performance of modern aviation.

Fig. 1. Schematic of engine gear assembly detail.

SAMPLE INFORMATION

Type of Failure : fatigue failure in bevel gears in aircraft engine

Gear type : bevel gears

OBSERVATIONS
 It was observed that the drive gear teeth were severely damaged and 9 teeth were
lost.
 The remaining 11 teeth were badly deformed with cracked winged edges at the
tips.
 The surface was contaminated with debris and lubricating oil.
  The cracks and pitting on the deformed tooth surface were caused by cold
working of the case under higher load.
 The drive gear teeth (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) are severely worn and severely deformed up
to the pitch surface.
 As shown in Figure 4, the hardened case was cut during the sliding of the
meshing gears.
 The attachment of the drive gear is completely lost due to the reaction of the face
surface with the drive gear.
 Due to the sliding motion of the drive gear, deformation occurred on the upper
surface of the teeth.
 The upper surface of the teeth of the driven gear is also severely worn.
 They were deformed in the direction opposite to the direction of rotation, but no
fracture of the teeth was observed.
 The extent of the fracture damage was higher in the Drive gear than in the
Driven gear, where the teeth were worn and deformed due to the higher stresses
applied from the power generation unit at the rear.
 When the teeth were broken, the power transmission efficiency of the drive gear
was reduced, which facilitated the loosening of the meshing gears.
 It was observed that the gears of the drive gear were severely worn rather than
completely lost.

CONCLUSION
1. The microstructural details revealed transformation of retained austenite into un-tempered
martensite under higher
internal shear stress.

2. The existence of internal stresses was validated by the DEA in the case.

3. Subsurface cracks developed within the altered orientation of laths in the tempered
martensite by these stresses.

4. The variation in loading during rolling/sliding concentrated higher shear stress at the crack
front and non-uniform fatigue
striations were produced in the crack propagation region followed by overloading.

5. The mode of failure was contact fatigue due to microstructural variations in the gear
material.

6. The continuous rolling action of gears resulted in tooth bending which produced crack at
the fillet root and followed the
path towards zero stress point.
7. The wide variation in hardness at the case and core resulted in the complete detachment of
case after sever deformation of
core.

8. The excessive wear and removal of hardened case at driven gear teeth occurred by
simultaneous rolling and sliding action
of meshing teeth of drive in the presence of debris and lost metal particles.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed to prevent fatigue failure in the
future:
Material Quality Assurance: Implement stringent quality control measures to ensure that materials
used meet specified standards and are suitable for intended applications. Regular audits of suppliers
and materials should be conducted.
Operational Guidelines: Develop and enforce clear operational guidelines outlining load limits, usage
instructions, and safety protocols. Regular training sessions for operators should be conducted to
ensure compliance.
Enhanced Maintenance Protocols: Establish a robust maintenance schedule encompassing regular
inspections, stress testing, and proactive identification of warning signs. Any identified issues should
be addressed promptly to prevent potential failure.
Documentation and Reporting: Create a comprehensive reporting system to document any observed
anomalies, failures, or potential risks. This documentation will aid in identifying trends and taking
proactive measures.
Continuous Improvement Culture: Foster a culture of continuous improvement by encouraging
feedback from operators, maintenance personnel, and other relevant stakeholders. This will enable the
implementation of innovative solutions to prevent fatigue failure.
Post-Failure Analysis: Conduct a detailed analysis following any failure incidents to understand root
causes comprehensively. This analysis will aid in refining existing preventive measures and
implementing additional safeguards.
1. The proper surface hardening and post heat treatment cycles will eliminate the chances for the
formation of un-tempered
martensite from retained austenite and micro-cracks due to build up of higher internal stresses.

2. There would be smooth transition in the hardness from core to case at the interface.

3. The testing of lubricating oil should be frequent for contaminations which may develop local
boundary lubrication
conditions.

FAILURE ASSESSMENT
FAILURE MORPHOLOGY
Conclusion:
In summary, the investigation uncovered critical insights into the microstructural changes
within the gear material, notably the transformation of retained austenite into un-tempered
martensite due to heightened internal shear stress. Validation of these internal stresses through
DEA further corroborated the identification of subsurface cracks, which developed within the
altered orientation of laths in the tempered martensite. Moreover, the analysis revealed that
variations in loading during rolling and sliding actions led to the concentration of higher shear
stress at the crack front. This phenomenon resulted in the formation of non-uniform fatigue
striations in the crack propagation region, followed by instances of overloading. The primary
mode of failure, identified as contact fatigue, was attributed to the microstructural variations
present in the gear material, emphasizing the importance of material consistency and quality
in preventing such issues.

Furthermore, the continuous rolling action of the gears caused tooth bending, initiating cracks
at the fillet root and subsequently following a path toward points of minimal stress. This
mechanical behavior highlights the significance of stress distribution within the gear
components and its role in initiating failure mechanisms. The investigation also found a
considerable disparity in hardness between the gear case and core, leading to the complete
detachment of the case after severe deformation of the core. Additionally, the simultaneous
rolling and sliding action of meshing teeth, combined with the presence of debris and lost
metal particles, resulted in excessive wear and the removal of the hardened case at the driven
gear teeth. These observations underscore the importance of material homogeneity and the
mitigation of debris in prolonging gear lifespan and preventing failure in aerospace
applications. In essence, this comprehensive analysis not only delineates the intricate
mechanisms underlying gear failure but also highlights crucial factors such as material
quality, stress distribution, and operational conditions that significantly influence gear
reliability and longevity in critical aerospace systems.

References:
1] Findlay SJ, Harrison ND. Why aircraft fail? Materials Today 2002;5(November (11)):18–
25.
[2] Bhaumik SK, Sujata M, Suresh Kumar M, Venkataswamy MA, Parameswara MA. Failure
of an intermediate gearbox of a helicopter. Engineering Failure
Analysis 2007;14:85–100.
[3] Ramachandran V, Raghuram AC, Krishnan RV, Bhaumik SK. Failure analysis of
engineering structures: methodologies and case histories. In: Materials
park. Ohio: ASM International; 2005.
[4] Fernandes PJL. Tooth bending fatigue failures in gears. Engineering Failure Analysis
1996;3:219.
[5] Asi O. Fatigue failure of helical gear in a gearbox. Engineering Failure Analysis 2005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2005.07.020.
[6] Myounggu P. Failure analysis of an accessory bevel gear installed on a J69 turbojet
engine. Engineering Failure Analysis 2003;10:371–82.
[7] Scott Hyde R. Contact fatigue of hardened steels ASM handbook, vol. 19. Ohio: Metal
Park; 2003. p. 1749.
Agro us