Fig. 3 SEM fractographs (a,b) showing chloride particles on a tube fracture face. More

Fig. 3 Typical SEM fractographs of the two fracture surface topographies observed on failed cylinders. (3a) Intergranular failure. (3b) Dimpled fracture. More

Fig. 3 SEM fractographs of the T-hook. (a) Dimpled morphology is evident. 25×. (b) Central portion of fracture showing shrinkage and porosity. 110× More

Fig. 3 SEM fractographs of the T-hook. (a) Dimpled morphology is evident. 25×. (b) Central portion of fracture showing shrinkage and porosity. 110× More

Fig. 6 SEM fractographs of roll sample HSM #9 showing (a) brittle features and small ductile zone as well as decohesion near graphite nodule and (b) essentially brittle area exhibiting intergranular cracking and cleavage steps; magnification 1000× More

Fig. 4 Fractographs showing intergranular and transgranular mode of fracture after carefully opening the cracked surface (magnification 15×) More

Fig. 5 Fractographs of cracked region showing cracks in the HAZ ( a , b ) on transverse face and ( c , d ) on the surface of the sheet (magnification 50×) More

Fig. 2 SEM fractographs of steel fracture surface showing brittle, intercrystalline fracture with clear grain facets resembling “rock candy” appearance More

Fig. 12 SEM fractographs showing ( a ) brittle fracture with cleavage facets in sample #1(Heel); ×1000, ( b ) mixed fracture with quasi-cleavage structure in sample #2 (Edge); ×1000 More

Fig. 7 Optical fractographs of impact specimens extracted from failed base plate showing ductile dimple fracture: ( a ) magnification: 25× and ( b ) magnification: ×35 More

Fig. 8 SEM fractographs showing ( a ) primarily ductile transgranular fracture, ( b ) primarily transgranular fracture with some intergranularly fractured facets, ( c ) sensitized structure fractured in a ductile manner with dimples, and ( d ) stepwise crack advancement and transgranular More

Fig. 6 SEM fractographs of the fracture surface of the 40 mm LCTR round wire. ( a ) Overall view, 20×. ( b ) Enlarged view of fatigue zone, 100×. ( c ) Fatigue striations and evidence of ductility in fatigue zone, 500×. ( d ) Fatigue striations and shear lips in the intermediate zone, 100 More

Fig. 7 SEM fractographs of the fracture surface of 40 mm LCTR shaped wire sample. ( a ) Overall view, 18×. ( b ) Enlarged view of the fatigue zone, 100×. ( c ) Striations, voids, and quasi-cleavage facets in the same area, 1500×. ( d ) Final fracture zone depicting mostly ductile features More

Fig. 8 SEM fractographs of the fracture surface of 53 mm LCTR round wire samples. ( a ) Overall view, 18×. ( b ) Enlarged view of the rubbed zone, 50×. ( c ) Fatigue striations in the same zone, 3000×. ( d ) and ( e ) Final fracture zone full of voids and intergranular crack at 200× and 2000 More

Fig. 9 SEM fractographs of the fracture surface of the failed 53 mm LCTR shaped wire sample. ( a ) Overall view, 19×. ( b ) Fatigue striations in smooth zone, 1000×. ( c ) Microcrack and striations visible in the waist portion, 200×. ( d ) Voids and intergranular cracks in the rough region More

Fig. 9 Fractographs from the rubbed zone of the fracture surface More

Fig. 26 The two matching SEM fractographs of the same field in the two conjugate fracture surfaces and the two vertical serial sections through the same location above and beneath the fracture surface. The combination of the fractographs and serial sections clearly reveal the fracture segment More

Fig. 2 Light microscope fractographs taken with (a) bright-field and (b) dark-field illumination compared to (c) a SEM secondary-electron image fractograph of the same area. Sample is an Fe-Al-Cr alloy. More

Fig. 4 SEM fractographs of flake 1, showing grain-boundary morphology. Higher-magnification view in (b) shows terraces, or ledges. More

Fig. 3 SEM fractographs of the fracture origins in Fig. 2 . 310×. (a) The fracture origin labeled A. (b) The fracture origin labeled C More