A failure analysis investigation was conducted on a fractured aluminum tailwheel fork which failed moments after the landing of a privately owned, 1955 twin-engine airplane. Nondestructive evaluation via dye-penetrant inspection revealed no discernible surface cracks. The chemical composition of the sand-cast component was identified via optical emission spectroscopy and is comparable to an aluminum sand-cast alloy, AA 712.0. Metallographic evaluation via optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy revealed a high degree of porosity in the microstructure as well as the presence of deleterious intermetallic compounds within interdendritic regions. Macrohardness testing produced hardness values which are noticeably higher than standard hardness values for 712.0. The primary fracture surfaces indicate evidence of mixed-mode fracture, via intergranular cracking, cleaved intermetallic particles, and dimpled cellular regions in the matrix. The secondary fracture surface demonstrates similar features of intergranular fracture.

A routine examination on a seat ejection system found that the catapult attachment swivel fabricated from 7075-T651 aluminum alloy plate contained cracks on opposite sides of the part. This swivel, or bath tub, does not experience extreme loads prior to activation of the catapult system. Some loads could be absorbed however, when the aircraft is subjected to G loads. Visual examination of the part revealed that cracks through the wall thickness initiated on the inner walls of the fixture. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron optical examination revealed that the cracking pattern initiated and progressed by an intergranular failure mechanism. It was concluded that failure of the catapult attachment swivel fixture occurred by SCC. It was recommended that the 7075 aluminum ejection seat fixture be supplied in the T-73 temper to minimize susceptibility to SCC.

New aircraft wing panels extruded from 7075-T6 aluminum exhibited an unusual pattern of circular black interrupted lines, which could not be removed by scouring or light sanding. The panels, subsequent to profiling and machining, were required to be penetrated inspected, shot peened, H2SO4 anodized, and coated with MIL-C-27725 integral fuel tank coating on the rib side. Scanning electron microscopy and microprobe analysis (both conventional energy-dispersive and Auger analyzers) showed that the anodic coating was applied over an improperly cleaned and contaminated surface. The expanding corrosion product had cracked and, in some places, had flaked away the anodized coating. The corrodent had penetrated the base aluminum in the form of subsurface intergranular attack to a depth of 0.035 mm (0.0014 in.). It was recommended that a vapor degreaser be used during cleaning prior to anodizing. A hot inhibited alkaline cleaner was also recommended during cleaning prior to anodizing. The panels should be dichromate sealed after anodizing. The use of deionized water was also recommended during the dichromate sealing operation. In addition, the use of an epoxy primer prior to shipment of the panels was endorsed. Most importantly, surveillance of the anodizing process itself was emphasized.

Two cracks were discovered in a deck plate of an aircraft during overhaul and repair after 659 h of service. The cracks were on opposite sides of the deck plate in the flange joggles. The plate had been formed from 7178-T6 aluminum alloy sheet. Analysis (visual inspection, 0.2x/2x/2.3x electron microscope fractographs, hardness testing, and electrical conductivity testing) supported the conclusions that the failure was caused by fatigue cracks originating on the inside curved surface of the flanges. The cracks had initiated in surface defects caused by either corrosion pitting or forming notches, acting in combination with lateral forces evidenced by the moderate distortion of the fastener holes. Recommendations included eliminating the surface defects by revised cleaning and/or forming procedures. Revised design and installation should also alleviate the lateral forces.

Countersunk riveted joints in aluminum sheet are widely employed in the aircraft industry. The preparation of the sheet for the riveting process consists either of countersinking where the sheet is sufficiently thick or of dimpling. Metallographic assessment of dimple defects is described in specimens made of clad aluminum sheet of alloy type AlZnMgCu1.5. Addressed are a dimple with partially missing stamped surface (bell-mouth), a cylindrical prominence because the dimpling force was too great and the stamping cylinder force too low, and a dimple with flashes at the top surfaces of the sheet as a result of play between the stamping cylinder and the anvil head (ringed dimple). Frequently, overlapping of several defects occurs, especially with steel or titanium sheet, with the result that it is difficult to identify the defects.

Aluminum 7075 aircraft wing tanks failed in the 1950s. Investigation (visual inspection, biological analysis, and chemical analysis) supported the conclusion that MIC was the cause of the failures. Water condensed into the fuel tanks during flight led to microbial growth on the jet fuel. Pitting attack occurred under microbial deposits on the metal surface in the water phase or at the water-fuel interface. Previously, exposure of aluminum 7075 to cultures of various isolates showed that 27 bacterial isolates and 3 fungi could seriously corrode the aluminum alloy over several weeks. No recommendations were made.

A crack was found in an aircraft main wing spar flange fabricated from 7079-T6 aluminum alloy during a routine nondestructive x-ray inspection after the craft had logged 300 h. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed an intergranular fracture pattern indicative of stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) and fatigue striations near the crack origin. Visual examination of the crack edge revealed that the installation of the fasteners produced a fit up stress. Further inspection of the opened fracture showed that the crack had been present for some time because a heavy buildup of corrosion products was seen on the fractured surface. Metallographic examination of the flange in the area of fracture initiation showed the presence of end grain exposure, which would promote SCC. Electron optical examination of the fracture clearly showed the flange was cracking by a mixed mode of stress corrosion and fatigue. The cracking was accelerated because of an inadvertent fit up stress during installation. The age of the crack could not be established. However, a reevaluation of prior x-ray inspections in this area would result in some close estimate of the age of the crack. End grain exposure further promoted SCC.

The torque-arm assembly (aluminum alloy 7075-T73) for an aircraft nose landing gear failed after 22,779 simulated flights. The part, made from an aluminum alloy 7075-T73 forging, had an expected life of 100,000 simulated flights. Initial study of the fracture surfaces indicated that the primary fracture initiated from multiple origins on both sides of a lubrication hole that extended from the outer surface to the bore of a lug in two cadmium-plated flanged bushings made of copper alloy C63000 (aluminum bronze) that were press-fitted into each bored hole in the lug. Sectioning and 2x metallographic analysis showed small fatigue-type cracks in the hole adjacent to the origin of primary fracture. Hardness and electrical conductivity were typical for aluminum alloy 7075. This evidence supported the conclusion that the arm failed in fatigue cracking that initiated on each side of the lubrication hole since no material defects were found at the failure origin. Recommendations included redesign of the lubrication hole, shot peeing of the faces of the lug for added resistance to fatigue failure, and changing of the forging material to aluminum alloy 7175-T736 for its higher mechanical properties.

This paper summarizes the results of a failure analysis investigation of a fractured main support bridge made of 7075 aluminum alloy from an army helicopter. The part, manufactured by “Contractor IT,” failed component fatigue testing while those of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) passed. Metallurgical data collected during this investigation indicated that the difference in fatigue life between the components fabricated by IT and by OEM may be attributable to a difference in dimensions at the web where fatigue crack initiation occurred. The webs of the two OEM parts examined had cross-sectional thicknesses significantly larger than the web cross-sectional thicknesses of the IT components. Recommendations included changing the web reference dimension of 0.38 in. to include a tolerance range based upon a fracture mechanics model. Also, the shot peening process should be controlled especially at the critical areas of the web, to assure complete coverage and proper compressive residual stresses.

Examination of a 7075-T6 aluminum alloy pylon strut revealed cracks in two locations on the ears of the strut. Because the part was still intact, the cracks had to be forced open so that the fractures could be examined. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of the opened cracks showed that the crack surfaces were covered with a mud crack pattern suggestive of stress-corrosion cracking (SCC). The T6 temper is susceptible to SCC. It was concluded that cracking of the strut could have been aggravated by the hard landing experienced by the aircraft. The strut, however, contained stress-corrosion cracks which were present before the landing. It was recommended that an inspection for SCC be made of all pylon struts with a similar service life.

The floors (fabricated from aluminum alloy 7178-T6 sheet, with portions of the sheet chemically milled to reduce thickness) of the fuel tanks in two aircraft failed almost identically after 1076 and 1323 h of service, respectively. Failure in both tanks occurred in the rear chemically milled section of the floor. An alkaline etch-type cleaner was used on the panels before chemical milling and before painting. Various tests and measurements indicated that the aluminum alloy used for the fuel-tank floors conformed to the specifications for 7178-T6. Low power magnification, fractographs taken with a scanning electron, and optical microscopic examination of the milled sections revealed extensive pitting on both sides of the floors. Evidence found supports the conclusions that the floors failed by fatigue cracking that initiated near the center of the fuel-tank floor and ultimately propagated as rapid ductile-overload fractures. The fatigue cracks originated in pits on the fuel-cell side of the tank floors. The pits were attributed to attack caused by the alkaline-etch cleaning process. Recommendations included monitoring of the alkaline-etch cleaning to avoid the formation of pits and careful inspection following alkaline-etch cleaning, to be scheduled before release of the floor panels for painting.

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.

Electroless nickel plating separation from copper alloy CDA175 retaining clips used on printed circuit boards was caused by a copper oxide layer that reduced adhesion of the nickel plating on the clips. Stresses that developed during module insertion caused flaking to occur at the oxidized copper surface. Electroless nickel plating separation from OFHC copper leads was caused by improper handling rather than a plating anomaly per se. Tin plating separation from copper underplating on a hybrid package lid occurred because of a four-week delay between the copper plating and tin plating steps. It was recommended that tin plating should follow the copper underplating within 24 h and a cleaning step of bright dipping after copper plating be performed.

A forging of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy, which formed a support for the cylinder of a cargo door, cracked at an attachment hole. Fluorescent penetrant inspection showed the crack ran above and below the hole out onto the machined flat surface of the flange. A 6500x electron fractograph proved the crack to be a forging defect called a cold shut. Because defects of this type are usually detected when the raw forging is inspected, this occurrence was considered to be an isolated instance.

The lower receiver of the M16 rifle is an anodized forging of aluminum alloy 7075-T6. Degradation of the receivers was observed after three years of service in a hot, humid atmosphere. The affected areas were those in frequent contact with the user's hands. There was no question that the material failed as a result of exfoliation corrosion, so an investigation was undertaken, centered around the study of thermal treatments that would increase the exfoliation resistance and still develop the required 448 MPa (65 ksi) yield strength. The results of the study concluded that rolled bar stock should be preferred to extruded bar stock. Differences in grain structure of the forgings, as induced by differences in thermal-mechanical history of the forged material, can have a significant effect on susceptibility to exfoliation corrosion. Regarding thermal treatment, the results show conclusively that large changes in strength and exfoliation characteristics of 7075 forgings can be induced by changes in temperature or time of thermal treatment. With regard to the effect of quenching rate on exfoliation characteristics, a cold-water quench below 25 deg C (75 deg F) would appear to be far superior to an elevated-temperature quench to minimize exfoliation for 7075 forgings in the T6 temper.

After completing a fatigue test of an aluminum alloy component machined from a 7079-T6 forging, technicians noted a 5 in. crack which ran longitudinally above and through the flange. When the fracture face was examined by light microscopy, observers could not ascertain the exact mode of fracture. Electron fractography revealed that five different modes of crack growth were operative as the part failed. Region 1 was a shallow zone (about 0.002 in. at its deepest) of dimpled structure typical of an overload failure. Region 2 was a zone that grew by a stress corrosion mechanism. Through a fatigue mechanism was operative in Region 3, it was not the cause of the large crack. Region 4, which covered 50% of the fracture area, developed mainly by stress corrosion. This zone gradually changed into the combination of intergranular and transgranular overload in Region 5, which covered approximately the remaining 50% of the fracture. Apparently, after stress corrosion moved halfway through, the part failed by overload. This failure analysis proved that a crack, originally thought to be a fatigue failure, was actually a stress corrosion crack.

A crack was detected in one arm of the right-hand horizontal brace of the nose landing gear shock strut from a large military aircraft. The shock strut was manufactured from a 7049 aluminum alloy forging in the shape of a delta. A laboratory investigation was conducted to determine the cause of failure. It was concluded that the arm failed because of the presence of an initial defect that led to the initiation of fatigue cracking. The fatigue cracking grew in service until the part failed by overload. The initial defect was probably caused during manufacture. Fleet-wide inspection of the struts was recommended.