Failure Analysis & Prevention
Fundamental Sources of Failure: Deficient Design
DHEERENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI
MECHANICAL & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1
Fundamental sources of failure
• To have systematic understanding on various factors that can
lead to failure of mechanical components :
– Improper design
– Improper selection of materials
– Defects and discontinuities in metal itself
– Improper processing of materials
– Poor service conditions
– Poor assembling
– Poor maintenance
Deficient design
• The deficiency in design of a component can be in
various forms
– presence of stress raisers owing to sharp change in
cross section, various and geometrical features
– changing the design without proper consideration of
its influence on stress distribution especially under
high stress areas of the component,
– duplicating a successful design for more severe
loading conditions,
Deficient design
– design is developed without full knowledge
of stress conditions owing to complexity of
the geometry and
– inability to use proper criteria for designing
the engineering components.
Stress raisers
• Basic stress analysis calculations assume that
the components are smooth, have a uniform
section and no irregularities.
• In practice, virtually all engineering components
have at least minimal changes in section and/or
shape.
• Shoulders on shafts, oil holes, key ways and
screw threads all can change the stress
distribution, so that the basic stress analysis
equations no longer apply.
• Such discontinuities cause a local increase of
stress, referred to as stress concentration
5
Stress concentration factor
• Stress concentration factor (Kt), is a
dimensionless factor
• Kt is used to quantify how concentrated the
stress is in a material & defined as the ratio of
the highest stress in the element to the
reference stress.
• Reference stress is the total stress within an
element under the same loading conditions
without the stress concentrators.
• Meanings, material is free from holes, cuts,
shoulders or narrow passes under given load
condition.
6
Stress Concentration (SC)
Crack perpendicular to applied stress:
maximum stress near crack tip
1/ 2
a
m 2 0
t
0 = applied stress; a = half-length of crack;
t = radius of curvature of crack tip.
1/ 2
m a
Stress concentration factor Kt
0
2
t
7
Size effect
8
Factors affecting SC
• Function of the geometry or shape of
the part, but not its size / material
• Type of loading (axial, bending or
torsional)
• Geometry of stress raiser (fillet
radius, notch, hole)
• Typically assumes a linear elastic,
homogeneous, isotropic material
9
Reducing SC
• Providing a fillet radius so that the cross-section
may change gradually Using an elliptical fillet
• Using a number of small notches rather than a
long one, if a notch is unavoidable
• Using narrow notches rather than wide notches, if
a projection is unavoidable
• Using stress-relieving grooves
10
FA for failures due to SC
• Needs information on design aspect
• Understand design criteria
• Size and shape of geometrical feature at the location of
failure if any
• Type of loading
• Mechanical (hardness, toughness, ductility)
• Metallurgical properties (high aspect ration feature e.g.
needles, lamellas )
• Stress analysis
11
Change in design: Case study of changing the design
without proper consideration
• Fatigue fracture of hardened 4340 steel spindle of
a vehicle
• Spindle drawing had weight reducing hole but
without depth
• Lead to drilling of hole to a greater depth caused
fracture after 1400 miles
• Materials: Annealed/normalized AISI 4340 forging
and tempered to final hardness RC 34 to 40 and
then finished machined in critical areas and shot
peed before assembly.
Deficient design: change
Macro-examination:
fracture extended radially
from the bottom of drilled
weight reducing hole to
periphery of spindle. No
service damage or
materials defect that could
be related to failure (A)
• Appearance of fracture surface is typical fatigue fracture, with cyclic one way
bending , low to moderate overload, high stress concentration
• Location and orientation clamshell marks suggest fracture origin at periphery
of weight reducing hole (arrow)
• Entire bottom surface of hole shows deep scored drilling tool marks
Design change case study
• Conformance to specification:
– chemical analysis confirmed AISI 4340.
– NDT did not revealed any internal dis-continuity
– Hardness was in range of 38-40 RC
– Microstructure: Normal tempered martensite as expected without any
decarburization, inclusion and other abnormalities
• Conclusion:
– Fracture by fatigue due to presence of circumferential notch at highly stressed
area.
– Notch presence was estimated to equivalent to 40% reduction in strength of
spindle.
– Variation in depth occurred due to missing hole depth info in drawing.
• Corrective action: Hole depth to keep it about 25 mm away from high stress area where
change in cross section was taking place.
Upgrading of a part: Premature failure of AISI 1010
steel valve spring retainer of an engine during trial
• Retainer cap failed during 8 cylinder automobile
qualification run
• Cap broke off before trial run of 200 hrs at 4100 to
4600 rpm after 26 millions of cycles
• Test simulates continuous running of engine for 200
hr at 140 miles/h
• Manufacturing: made form 16 mm cold drawn 1010
steel in annealed condition
– Forging and then trimming
– Case hardening: carbo-nitriding for 30 min at
843 oC and oil quenching
– Tempering at 260 oC
– Case depth 0.025 to 0.25 mm, HRB 86 min.
•
Deficient design: upgrading
• Macroscopy: flange broke off from the cap
periphery
• Smooth area on fracture surface in
characteristics fatigue fracture with brightness
(at arrow)
• Fracture initiated at outside region of the cap
along the sharp fillet
• Irregular, rugged areas correspond to final
fracture
• No sign of plastic deformation or shear lips
• Metallography:.
Conformance
• Conformance to specification:
– chemical analysis confirmed AISI 1010 (0.11 C, 0.48 Mn).
– Microscopy: case depth 0.2 mm
– Hardness was in range of 84 HRB slightly below than specified 86 units
– Microstructure: Normal F & P structure as expected without any inclusion and
other abnormalities
• Conclusion:
– Fracture initiated and propagated by fatigue mechanical before final brittle
fracture due to sharp fillet between pilot and flange
– No significant material and manufacturing problems were found
• Corrective action: Design of cap fillet radius increased from 0.5 to 1.25 mm for
better stress distribution. Increased fillet radius eased manufacturing also.
Deficient design
• The deficiency in design of a component can be in
various forms
– presence of stress raisers owing to sharp change in
cross section,
– changing the design without proper consideration of
its influence on stress distribution especially under
high stress areas of the component,
– duplicating a successful design for more severe
loading conditions,
Deficient design
– design is developed without full knowledge
of stress conditions owing to complexity of
the geometry and
– inability to use proper criteria for designing
the engineering components.
Difficulty in assessment of stress conditions
Incorrect estimation Excavators, mining
of service equipment,
loads/conditions automobiles
Failure due to
design using
improper stresses
Inability to calculate Complexity of
stresses accurately geometry and size
due to complexity
4
Improper selection of material
• Selection of a material for design (in light of operating
conditions) should be based on expected failure mechanisms
such as
– ductile fracture
– brittle fracture
– creep
– fatigue
– corrosion
– wear etc.
Improper selection of material
• If failure of a component is expected to occur by excessive
plastic deformation at room temperature and high
temperature conditions then yield strength and creep
respectively become important criterion for design.
• Similarly, if failure of a component is expected to occur by
fracture under overloads, fluctuating loads and impact loads
then ultimate strength, endurance strength and impact
strength respectively should be considered.
Few Selected Criterion
Failure mechanism Design criteria
Ductile fracture Yield strength (tension, compression etc.)
Brittle fracture Fracture toughness (K1c), notch toughness, ductility, DBTT
Fatigue Endurance limit / fatigue strength with stress raiser,
hardness
Thermal fatigue Ductility, peak plastic strain (under operating conditions)
Creep Creep rate at given temperature
Plastic deform. Yield strength
SCC K1SCC, corrosion resistance to sp. environment
Improper selection of material
• Deficient material selection can occur due to
– Over-reliance on tensile data for selection
of material and
– inability to select of metal in light of the
expected failure mechanism to develop
criteria for the design purpose.
Improper material selection
Failure of carbon steel of spray ring
Failed pre-maturely within 4-5 months as compared other
doing well for last 4 years.
Failure judged from drop in curing temperature (177-182 oC) being
done through hot water sprays at 193 oC
Carbon steel spray ring failure
• Examination: pits with irregular
shaped opening of spray nozzle
without corrosion
• Chemical analysis: 0.11 C lower as
compared to satisfactory
performing ring 0.2C while same
other residual elements
• Metallography: satisfactory ring:
fine pearlite ferrite with stringer of
pearlite and hardness HRB 55
while failed one had coarse ferrite
and pearlite with hardness of HRB
40
Carbon steel spray ring failure
• Conclusions:
– Failure of desired curing temperature was due to enlargement of
opening of spray ring which in turn increased agitation, reduced
velocity that led to lower heat transfer
– Erosion caused pitting due to cavitation
– Low carbon, low hardness and coarse grain size reduced erosion
resitance
• Corrective action
– Replace the steel with proper composition with sub-critical annealing
so that final grain size not more than ASTM 7 and min. HRB 55.
– Thereafter, no further failure of spray rings was observed.
