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.

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.

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.

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.

This article provides an overview of fractography and explains how it is used in failure analysis. It reviews the basic types of fracture processes, namely, ductile, brittle, fatigue, and creep, principally in terms of fracture appearances, such as microstructure. The article also describes the general features of fatigue fractures in terms of crack initiation and fatigue crack propagation.

Engineering component and structure failures manifest through many mechanisms but are most often associated with fracture in one or more forms. This article introduces the subject of fractography and aspects of how it is used in failure analysis. The basic types of fracture processes (ductile, brittle, fatigue, and creep) are described briefly, principally in terms of fracture appearances. A description of the surface, structure, and behavior of each fracture process is also included. The article provides a framework from which a prospective analyst can begin to study the fracture of a component of interest in a failure investigation. Details on the mechanisms of deformation, brittle transgranular fracture, intergranular fracture, fatigue fracture, and environmentally affected fracture are also provided.