Two tubular AISI 1025 steel posts (improved design) in a carrier vehicle failed by cracking at the radius of the flange after five weeks of service. The posts were two of four that supported the chassis of the vehicle high above the wheels. The original design involved a flat flange of low-carbon low-alloy steel that was welded to an AISI 1025 steel tube, and the improved design included placing the welded joint of the flange farther away from the flange fillet. Investigation (visual inspection and chemical analysis) supported the conclusion that the failures in the flanges of improved design were attributed to fatigue cracks initiating at the aluminum oxide inclusions in the flange fillet. Recommendations included retaining the improved design of the flange with the weld approximately 50 mm (2 in.) from the fillet, but changing the metal to a forging of AISI 4140 steel, oil quenched and tempered to a hardness of 241 to 285 HRB. Preheating to 370 deg C (700 deg F) before and during welding with AISI 4130 steel wire was specified. It was also recommended that the weld be subjected to magnetic-particle inspection and then stress relieved at 595 deg C (1100 deg F), followed by final machining.

A truck-mounted hydraulic crane had a horizontal thrust bearing with one race attached to the truck and the other to the rotating crane. The outside race of the bearing was driven by a pinion gear, and it is through this mechanism that the crane body rotated about a vertical axis. The manufacturer welded the inner race to the carrier in a single pass. After several years of service, the attachment weld between the bearing inner race and the turntable failed in the area adjacent to the heat-affected zone. The fracture zone where there was the greatest tension was heavily oxidized. In the zone where the bearing was in compression, there was a clean surface indicating recent fracture. Finally, there were areas where the weld did not meet AWS specifications for convexity or concavity. These areas were weak enough to allow fatigue cracks to initiate. Recommendations to prevent reoccurrence of the failure include the use of bolts in lieu of welding, a welding schedule that reduces the propensity of lamellar tearing, and the use of an alloy that precludes lamellar tearing. However, if abuse of the crane was the primary cause of failure, none of these recommendations would have prevented deterioration of the machine to an extent that would have rendered the failure improbable.

Rollover accidents in light trucks and cars involving an axle failure frequently raise the question of whether the axle broke causing the rollover or did the axle break as a result of the rollover. Axles in these vehicles are induction hardened medium carbon steel. Bearings ride directly on the axles. This article provides a fractography/fracture mechanic approach to making the determination of when the axle failed. Full scale tests on axle assemblies and suspensions provided data for fracture toughness in the induction hardened outer case on the axle. These tests also demonstrated that roller bearing indentions on the axle journal, cross pin indentation on the end of the axle, and axle bending can be accounted for by spring energy release following axle failure. Pre-existing cracks in the induction hardened axle are small and are often difficult to see without a microscope. The pre-existing crack morphology was intergranular fracture in the axles studied. An estimate of the force required to cause the axle fracture can be made using the measured crack size, fracture toughness determined from these tests, and linear elastic fracture mechanics. The axle can be reliably said to have failed prior to rollover if the estimated force for failure is equal to or less than forces imposed on the axle during events leading to the rollover.

Failure analysis of a mobile harbor crane wheel hub that included SEM and EDS analyses demonstrated that the mechanism of failure was fatigue. The wheel hub was a ductile cast iron component that had been subjected to cyclic loading during a ten-year service period. The fracture surface of the fatigue failure also contained corrosion deposit, suggesting that cracking occurred over a period of time sufficient to allow corrosion of the cracked surfaces. Replacement and alignment of the failed wheel hub was recommended along with inspection of the nonfailed wheel hubs that remained on the crane.

This article briefly reviews the general causes of weldment failures, which may arise from rejection after inspection or failure to pass mechanical testing as well as loss of function in service. It focuses on the general discontinuities observed in welds, and shows how some imperfections may be tolerable and how the other may be root-cause defects in service failures. The article explains the effects of joint design on weldment integrity. It outlines the origins of failure associated with the inherent discontinuity of welds and the imperfections that might be introduced from arc welding processes. The article also describes failure origins in other welding processes, such as electroslag welds, electrogas welds, flash welds, upset butt welds, flash welds, electron and laser beam weld, and high-frequency induction welds.

This article describes some of the welding discontinuities and flaws characterized by nondestructive examinations. It focuses on nondestructive inspection methods used in the welding industry. The sources of weld discontinuities and defects as they relate to service failures or rejection in new construction inspection are also discussed. The article discusses the types of base metal cracks and metallurgical weld cracking. The article discusses the processes involved in the analysis of in-service weld failures. It briefly reviews the general types of process-related discontinuities of arc welds. Mechanical and environmental failure origins related to other types of welding processes are also described. The article explains the cause and effects of process-related discontinuities including weld porosity, inclusions, incomplete fusion, and incomplete penetration. Different fitness-for-service assessment methodologies for calculating allowable or critical flaw sizes are also discussed.

The information provided in this article is intended for those individuals who want to determine why a casting component failed to perform its intended purpose. It is also intended to provide insights for potential casting applications so that the likelihood of failure to perform the intended function is decreased. The article addresses factors that may cause failures in castings for each metal type, starting with gray iron and progressing to ductile iron, steel, aluminum, and copper-base alloys. It describes the general root causes of failure attributed to the casting material, production method, and/or design. The article also addresses conditions related to the casting process but not specific to any metal group, including misruns, pour shorts, broken cores, and foundry expertise. The discussion in each casting metal group includes factors concerning defects that can occur specific to the metal group and progress from melting to solidification, casting processing, and finally how the removal of the mold material can affect performance.

This article focuses on the general root causes of failure attributed to the casting process, casting material, and design with examples. The casting processes discussed include gravity die casting, pressure die casting, semisolid casting, squeeze casting, and centrifugal casting. Cast iron, gray cast iron, malleable irons, ductile iron, low-alloy steel castings, austenitic steels, corrosion-resistant castings, and cast aluminum alloys are the materials discussed. The article describes the general types of discontinuities or imperfections for traditional casting with sand molds. It presents the international classification of common casting defects in a tabular form.