During a routine inspection, cracks were discovered in several aluminum alloy (similar to either 2014 or 2017) coupling nuts on the fuel lines of a missile. The fuel lines had been exposed to a marine atmosphere for six months while the missile stood on an outdoor test stand near the seacoast. A complete check was then made, both visually and with the aid of a low-power magnifying glass, of all coupling nuts of this type on the missile. Investigation (visual inspection, spectrographic and chemical analysis, and metallographic examination) supported the conclusion that the cracking of the aluminum alloy coupling nuts was caused by stress corrosion. Contributing factors included use of a material that is susceptible to this type of failure, sustained tensile stressing in the presence of a marine (chloride-bearing) atmosphere, and an elongated grain structure transverse to the direction of stress. The elongated grain structure transverse to the direction of stress was a consequence of following the generally used procedure of machining this type of nut from bar stock. Recommendations included changing the materials specification for new coupling nuts for this application to permit use of only aluminum alloys 6061-T6 and T651 and 2024-T6, T62, and T851.

Forged aluminum alloy 2014-T6 hinge brackets in naval aircraft rudder and aileron linkages were found cracked in service. The cracks were in the hinge lugs, adjacent to a bushing made of cadmium-plated 4130 steel. Investigation (visual inspection and 250X micrographs) supported the conclusion that the failure of the hinge brackets occurred by SCC. The corrosion was caused by exposure to a marine environment in the absence of paint in stressed areas due to chipping. The stress resulted from the interference fit of the bushing in the lug hole. Recommendations included inspecting all hinge brackets in service for cracks and for proper maintenance of paint. Also suggested was replacing the aluminum alloy 2015-T6 with alloy 7075-T6, and surface treatment for the 7075-T6 brackets was recommended using sulfuric acid anodizing and dichromate sealing. Finally, it was also recommended that the interference fit of the bushing in the lug hole be discontinued.

On 16 July 1999, a Boeing 737-800 on final approach for landing sustained a major lightning strike. Damage to the fuselage structure primarily was in the form of melting or partial melting of widely-separated rivets and adjacent Alclad 2024-T3 fuselage skin. The damage was confined to a 0.25-in. (6.4-mm) radii around the affected rivets. The repair process involved removal of the locally-affected material and addition of a skin doubler to restore the aircraft structure to the originally designed condition. Damage features are described briefly.

During a routine shear-pin check, the end lug on the barrel of the forward canopy actuator on a naval aircraft was found to have fractured. The lug was forged from aluminum alloy 2014-T6. Investigation (visual inspection, 2x views, and 140X micrographs etched with Keller's reagent) supported the conclusion that the cause of failure was SCC resulting from exposure to a marine environment. The fracture occurred in normal operation at a point where damage from pitting and intergranular corrosion acted as a stress raiser, not because of overload. The pitting and intergranular attack on the lug were evidence that the surface protection of the part had been inadequate as manufactured or had been damaged in service and not properly repaired in routine maintenance. Recommendations included anodizing the lug and barrel in sulfuric acid and giving them a dichromate sealing treatment, followed by application of a coat of paint primer. During routine maintenance checks, a careful examination was suggested to look for damage to the protective coating, and any necessary repairs should be made by cleaning, priming, and painting. Severely corroded parts should be removed from service.

Postflight inspection of a gas-turbine aircraft engine that had experienced compressor stall revealed that the engine air-intake bullet assembly had dislodged and was seated against the engine-inlet guide vanes at the 3 o'clock position. The bullet assembly consisted of an outer aerodynamic shell and an inner stiffener shell, both of 1.3 mm (0.050 in.) thick aluminum alloy 6061-T6, and four attachment clips of 1 mm (0.040 in.) thick alclad aluminum alloy 2024-T42. Each clip was joined to the outer shell by 12 spot welds and was also joined to the stiffener. Analysis (visual inspection, dye-penetrant inspection, and 10x/150x micrographs of sections etched with Keller's reagent) supports the conclusion that the outer shell of the bullet assembly separated from the stiffener because the four attachment clips fractured through the shell-to-clip spot welds. Fracture occurred by fatigue that initiated at the notch created by the intersection of the faying surfaces of the clip and shell with the spot weld nuggets. The 6061 aluminum alloy shell and stiffener were in the annealed (O) temper rather than T6, as specified. Recommendations included heat treating the shell and stiffener to the T6 temper after forming.

A series of resistance spot welds joining Z-shape and C-shape members of an aircraft drop-tank structure failed during ejection testing. The members were fabricated of alclad aluminum alloy 2024-T62. The back surface of the C-shape members showed severe electrode-indentation marks off to one side of the spot weld, suggesting improper electrode contact. Visual examination of the weld fractures showed that the weld nuggets varied considerably in size, some being very small and three exhibiting an HAZ but no weld. Of 28 welds, only nine had acceptable nugget diameters and fusion-zone widths. The weld deficiencies were traced to problems in forming and fit-up of the C-shape members and to difficulties in alignment and positioning of the weld tooling. The failure of the resistance spot welds was attributed to poor weld quality caused by unfavorable fit-up and lack of proper weld-tool positioning. The problem could be solved by better forming procedures to provide an accurate fit-up that would not interfere with electrode alignment.

Resistance spot welds joining aluminum alloy 2024-T8511 stiffeners to the aluminum alloy 6061-T62 skin of an aircraft drop tank failed during slosh and vibration testing. Visual examination of the fracture surfaces showed that the failure was by tensile or bending overload. Measurements of the fractured spot welds established that all welds were below specification size. Review of the assembly procedures revealed that there had been poor fit-up between the stiffeners and the tank skin, which resulted in weak, undersize weld nuggets. The spot welds failed because of undersize nuggets that were the result of shunting caused by poor fit-up. The forming procedures were revised to achieve a precise fit between the stiffener and the tank wall. Also, an increase in welding current was suggested.

A forged aluminum alloy 2014-T6 catapult-hook attachment fitting (anodized by the chromic acid process to protect it from corrosion) from a naval aircraft broke in service. Spectrographic analysis, visual examination, microscopic examination, and tensile analysis showed minute cracks on the inside surface of a bearing hole, and small areas of pitting corrosion were visible on the exterior surface of the fitting. The analysis also revealed a small number of rosettes, suggestive of eutectic melting, in an otherwise normal structure. These examinations and analyses support the conclusion that the presence of chromic acid stain on the fracture surface proved that the forging had cracked before anodizing. This suggest that the crack initiated during straightening, either after machining or after heat treatment. The structure and composition of the alloy appear to have been acceptable. Ductility was acceptable so rosettes found in the microstructure are believed to have been nondamaging. Had they contributed to the failure, the ductility would have been very low. The recommendations included inspection for cracks and revising the manufacturing process to include a fluorescent liquid-penetrant inspection before anodizing, because chromic acid destroys the penetrant. This inspection would reduce the possibility of cracked parts being used in service.

A commercial aircraft wheel half, machined from an aluminum alloy 2014 forging that had been heat treated to the T6 temper, was removed from service because a crack was discovered in the area of the grease-dam radius during a routine inspection. Neither the total number of landings nor the roll mileage was reported, but about 300 days had elapsed between the date of manufacture and the date the wheel was removed from service. The analysis (visual inspection, macrographs, micrographs, electron microprobe) supported the conclusions that the wheel half failed by fatigue. The fatigue crack originated at a material imperfection and progressed in more than one plane because changes in the direction of wheel rotation altered the direction of the applied stresses. Recommendations included rewriting the inspection specifications to require sound forgings.

Pitostatic system connectors were being found cracked on several aircraft. Two of the cracked connectors made of 2024-T351 aluminum alloy were submitted for failure analysis. The connectors had cut pipelike threads that were sealed with Teflon-type tape when installed. Longitudinal cracks were located near the opening of the female ends of each connector. A cross section showed intergranular cracking with multiple branching in one connector. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed intergranular cracking and separation of elongated grains. A cross section of connector threads showed an incomplete thread form resulting from improper tapping. It was concluded that the pitostatic system connectors failed by SCC. The stress was caused by forcing the improperly threaded female nut over its fully threaded male counterpart to effect a seal. The one connector tested for chemical composition was not made of 2024 aluminum alloy as reported but of 2017 aluminum. It was recommended that the pitostatic system connector manufacturing process be revised to produce full-depth threads rather than pseudo pipe threads. Wall thickness should be increased to increase the hoop stress bearing area if pipe threads were to be used. A determination of proper torque values for tightening the connectors was suggested also.

A longeron assembly constructed of Alclad 2024, some parts being in the T3 condition, others in the T42 condition, failed at a rivet hole. Plastic deformation at the crack site was found, but no plastic deformation was found in similar failed components. It was concluded that the numerous hairline cracks in the Alclad layer adjacent to the main fracture were fatigue cracks. In another case, bonded samples of 2024-T3 sheet were fatigue tested at various stress levels. Failures could be separated into three groups: those that failed in the adhesive bond, those that failed in the base material, and those that exhibited a dual failure. The last category failed in the adhesive bond and also showed a type of pitting on one face of the base material. In a third case, a 2024-T4 extrusion section was found to exhibit blistering after chemical milling. The presence of interconnecting microcracks between adjacent discontinuities supported a hydrogen blistering diagnosis.

Two outboard main-wheel halves (aluminum alloy 2014-T6 forged) from a commercial aircraft were removed from service because of failure. One wheel half was in service for 54 days and had made 130 landings (about 1046 roll km, or 650 roll mi) when crack indications were discovered during eddy-current testing. The flange on the second wheel half failed after only 31 landings, when about 46 cm (18 in.) of the flange broke off as the aircraft was taxiing. Stains on the fracture surfaces were used to determine when cracking was initiated. The analysis (visual inspection, liquid penetrant inspection, and micrographs with deep etching in aqueous 20% sodium hydroxide) supported the conclusion that failure on both wheel halves was by fatigue caused by a forging defect resulting from abnormal transverse grain flow. The crack in the first wheel half occurred during service, and the surfaces became oxidized. Because the fracture surface of the second wheel half had chromic acid stains, it was obvious that the forging defect was open to the surface during anodizing. No recommendations were made except to notify the manufacturer.

The flange on an outboard main-wheel half (aluminum alloy 2014-T6 forging) on a commercial aircraft fractured during takeoff. The failure was discovered later during a routine enroute check. The flange section that broke away was recovered at the airfield from which the plane took off and was thus available for examination. Failure occurred after 37 landings (about 298 roll km, or 185 roll miles). Examination of the fracture surfaces revealed that a forging defect was present in the wall of the wheel half. The anodized coating showed distinct twin-parallel and end-grain patterns between which the fracture occurred. The periphery of the defect was the site of several small fatigue cracks that eventually progressed through the remaining wall. Rapid fatigue then progressed circumferentially. Metallographic examination using Keller's reagent showed that the microstructure was normal for aluminum alloy 2014-T6 and the hardness surpassed the minimum hardness required for aluminum alloy 2014-T6. An abrupt change in the direction of grain flow across the fracture plane indicated that the wall had buckled during forging. This evidence supported the conclusion that the wheel half failed in the flange by fatigue as the result of a rather large subsurface forging defect. No recommendations were made.

After a quick-release fitting of an ejection seat broke, an investigation was performed to determine the manner and cause of crack propagation. Most fractography-based investigations aim to characterize only qualitative characteristics, such as the fracture orientation and origin position, topology, and details of interactions with microstructural features. The aim of this investigation was to use quantitative fractography as a tool to extract information, including striation spacing and size of the stretched zone, in order to make a direct correlation with fracture mechanic concepts. As the crack propagated, striations were created on the fracture surface as a result of service-induced load changes. The size of the striations were measured to estimate crack propagation rate. Remaining lifetime estimates were also made. The dimensions of plastically stretched zones found at the tips of the cracks were evaluated using electron micrograph stereo image pairs to characterize local fracture toughness. To complete the failure analysis, nondestructive evaluation, metallographic examination, and chemical investigations were carried out. No secondary cracks could be found. Most of the broken parts showed that the microstructure, the hardness, and the chemical composition of the Al-alloy were within the specification, but some of the cracked parts were manufactured using a different material than that specified.

Four nose wheels fabricated from 2014-T6 aluminum alloy and cold worked at the flange were examined. Visual examination showed that the failure started in the tube well area on the wheel with serial number 31. The failure initiated in the flange fillet on wheels with serial numbers 67, 217, and 250. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examination of the fractures showed that failure initiated by SCC or a corrosion pit on all failures examined. The failures then progressed by fatigue. Dye penetrant testing revealed no additional flaws on the wheels that had failed in the flange area. There was, however, one flaw area in the flange of the wheel that failed in the tube well. This flaw resembled a corrosion pit. It was concluded that failure of nose wheels 67, 217, and 250 was caused by cracking due to SCC or pitting. The failures progressed by fatigue. Because failure occurred in the same general area on all three wheels, these locations are suspect as being underdesigned. It was recommended that the nose wheel be redesigned and additional service data be accumulated to understand the contributing factors that resulted in wheel failure.

A 2000-T6 aluminum alloy bracket failed in a coastal environment because corrosive chlorides got between the bracket and attachment bolt. The material used for the part was susceptible to stress corrosion under the service conditions. Cracking may have been aggravated by galvanic action between aluminum alloy bracket and steel bolt. To preclude or minimize recurrences, fittings in service should be inspected periodically by dye penetrant for signs of cracking on the end face and within the fitting hole and protected with a suitable coating to exclude damaging chlorides. Also, a 2000-T6 aluminum alloy swivel fitting experienced intergranular corrosion fracture as the result of stress-accelerated corrosion. Corrosion began because of a loose fit between the aluminum swivel fitting and steel tube assembly, which caused fretting. Inadequate maintenance and/or abnormal service operation may have loosened the fitting.

Despite extensive aircraft landing gear design analyses and tests performed by designers and manufacturers, and the large number of trouble-free landings, aircraft users have experienced problems with and failures of landing gear components. Different data banks and over 200 failure analysis reports were surveyed to provide an overview of structural landing gear component failures as experienced by the Canadian Forces over the last 20 years on more than 20 aircraft types, and to assess trends in failure mechanisms and causes. Case histories were selected to illustrate typical problems, troublesome failure mechanisms, the role of high strength aluminum alloys and steels, and situations where fracture mechanics analyses provided insight into the failures. The two main failure mechanisms were: fatigue occurring mainly in steel components, and corrosion related problems with aluminum alloys. Very few overload failures were noted. A number of causes were identified: design deficiencies and manufacturing defects leading mainly to fatigue failures, and poor materials selection and improper maintenance as the principal causes of corrosion-related failures. The survey showed that a proper understanding of the failure mechanisms and causes, by thorough failure analysis, provides valuable feedback information to designers, operators and maintenance personnel for appropriate corrective actions to be taken.

Proper stress analysis during component design is imperative for accurate life and performance prediction. The total stress on a part is comprised of the applied design stress and any residual stress that may exist due to forming or machining operations. Stress-corrosion cracking may be defined as the spontaneous failure of a metal resulting from the combined effects of a corrosive environment and the effective component of tensile stress acting on the structure. However, because of the orientation dependence in aluminum, it is the residual stress occurring in the most susceptible direction that must be considered of primary importance in material selection for design configuration. A Navy UH-1N helicopter main rotor blade grip manufactured from a 2014-T6 aluminum alloy forging failed because of a design flaw that left a high residual tensile stress along the short transverse plane; this in turn provided the necessary condition for stress corrosion to initiate. A complete failure investigation to ascertain the exact cause of the failure was conducted utilizing stereomicroscopic examination, scanning electron microscopy, metallographic inspection and interpretation, energy-dispersive chemical analysis, physical and mechanical evaluation. Stereomicroscopic examination of the opened crack fracture surface revealed one large fan-shaped region that had propagated radially through the thickness of the material from two distinct origin areas on the internal diam of the grip. Higher magnification inspection near the origin area revealed a flat, wood-like appearance. Scanning electron microscopy divulged the presence of substantial mud cracking and intergranular separation on the fracture surface. Metallographic examination revealed intergranular cracking and substantial leaf separation along the elongated grains parallel to the fracture surface. Chemical composition and hardness requirements were found to be as specified. The blade grip failed due to a stress corrosion crack which initiated on the inner diam and propagated in the short transverse direction through the thickness of the component. The high residual tensile stress in the part resulting from the forging and exposed after machining of the inner diam, combined with the presence of moisture, provided the necessary conditions to facilitate crack initiation and propagation.

This report covers case histories of failures in fixed-wing light airplane and helicopter components. In a 2025-T6 or 2219 aluminum alloy propeller blade that failed near the tip, cracks started on the leading edge at surface damage in the critical area-the zone between 4 and 10 in. from the tip of the blade. Incorrect dressing and inadequate pre-flight inspection were the two main causes. Two other types of propeller blade fatigue failures resulted mainly from propeller straightening operations, usually performed after previous blade bending damage. To eliminate blade tip failures, all surface-damaged material should be removed and polished smooth before further flight. The blade should be correctly dressed. Also, the tachometer should be calibrated to ensure the engine/propeller combination is not operated in the critical speed range at normal cruising speeds.

An air bottle, machined from a solid block of aluminum alloy 2219-T852, displayed liquid-penetrant crack indications after assembly welding. The air bottle was machined to rough shape, a 3.8 mm (0.15 in.) wall thickness cylindrical cup with a 19 mm (3/4 in.) wall thickness integral boss on one side. After annealing, hot spinning, annealing a second time, and tack welding a port fitting, the assembly was torch preheated to 120 to 150 deg C (250 to 300 deg F). The port fitting was then welded in place. Final full heat treatment to the T62 temper was followed by machining, testing, and inspection. The crack indications were found only on one side of the boss and on the lower portion of the hot-spun dome region. The metallographic specimens revealed triangular voids and severe intergranular cracks. The cracks displayed the glossy surfaces typical of melted and resolidified material. The localized cracks in the air bottle were from grain-boundary eutectic melting caused by local torch overheating used in preparation for assembly welding of a port fitting. A change in design was scheduled to semiautomatic welding without the use of preheating for the joining of the port fitting for the dome opening.