During an acceptance test of the Apollo spacecraft 101 service module prior to delivery, an SPS fuel pressure vessel (SN054) (titanium Ti-6Al-4V, approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) in diam and 3 m (10 ft) long) containing methanol developed cracks adjacent to the welds. The test was stopped. This acceptance test had been run 38 times on similar pressure vessels without problems. The methanol was a safe-fluid replacement for the storable hypergolic fuels (blend of 50% hydrazine and 50% unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine). Investigation (visual inspection and 65X images) showed similarities to stress-corrosion resulting from contamination during misprocessing of the vessels. However, another vessel underwent a more severe testing procedure and failed catastrophically. Further investigation supported the conclusion that the failure cause was SCC of titanium in methanol. Attack is promoted by crazing of the protective oxide film. It was learned that minor changes in the testing procedures could inhibit or accelerate the reaction. Recommendations included replacing the methanol with a suitable alternate fluid. Isopropyl alcohol was chosen after considerable testing. This incident further resulted in the imposition of a control specification (MF0004-018) for all fluids that contact titanium for existing and future space designs.

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.

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.

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.

An external tank pressure/vent valve regulates the external tank fuel feed system, which transfers fuel under pressure to the internal tanks of the aircraft. A dual-position valve was found to be sticking at the intermediate positions. Also, service air check valves located on the incoming lines contained poppets that were being stuck in a closed or partially closed position because of suspected corrosion product. Residue taken from the check valve poppet and from the dual-position valve was chemically analyzed. Chloride was present in both samples. It was suspected that moisture entering the service air lines left a chloride-containing compound upon evaporation within the air check valves and pressure/vent assembly. This compound subsequently reacted with the anodized, dichromate sealed check valve housing to lock the check valve poppets in a closed or partially closed position, decreasing the actual pressure being supplied to the pressure/vent valve. It was recommended that an inspection be conducted to ensure that the service air check valves are operating properly prior to removal and servicing of the pressure/vent valve assembly. It was also recommended that dry-film lubricant be checked to ensure that it meets specifications for the pressure/vent valve assembly.

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 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.

A front-wheel drive hatchback automobile was involved in a severe front end impact. Failure analysis of the automobile revealed only a single sound spot weld in each of two 66 cm (26 in.) sections of both upper and lower floor sill flanges. Consequently, upon impact, the floor pan separated from the rocker panel, buckled and rotated upward and forward. This introduced slack in the seat belts since their retractors, being anchored to the floor pan, also rotated forward. Although not contributory to the accident itself, the faulty welds were responsible in part for the severity of the injuries sustained by the driver. The faulty welds in the unit body were apparently a consequence of improper settings of parameters on a multihead electrical resistance spot welding machine. Lack of appreciation of the hazard associated with failure of this weldment may have contributed to the low frequency of their physical inspection during production. A similar case involving faulty welds in a fuel delivery truck is also discussed.

Metallographic studies found that steel used to fabricate the U.S.S. Arizona battleship during original construction, 1913-1915 and reconstruction, 1929-1931 were consistent with the best materials available during each time period. Due to the force of the forward magazine detonation, the best steel available today would not have had any impact on the outcome. Heavy banding in steels from both periods could adversely affect the corrosion resistance under anaerobic conditions that prevail during a corrosion cycle that has developed under hard biofouling layers for over 58 years. Banding would have no effect on corrosion rate under aerobic conditions that may occur in local areas on the hull. In the part of the ship from which samples for this report were obtained, high temperatures above 1340 deg F did not occur. Hull plate samples from the submerged wreckage are not yet available. These samples will be important to confirm findings to this time and determine the remaining thickness of the hull plate and, indirectly, the integrity of the fuel oil tanks.

A detailed fracture mechanics evaluation is the most accurate and reliable prediction of process equipment susceptibility to brittle fracture. This article provides an overview and discussion on brittle fracture. The discussion covers the reasons to evaluate brittle fracture, provides a brief summary of historical failures that were found to be a result of brittle fracture, and describes key components that drive susceptibility to a brittle fracture failure, namely stress, material toughness, and cracklike defect. It also presents industry codes and standards that assess susceptibility to brittle fracture. Additionally, a series of case study examples are presented that demonstrate assessment procedures used to mitigate the risk of brittle fracture in process equipment.

This article focuses on failure analyses of aircraft components from a metallurgical and materials engineering standpoint, which considers the interdependence of processing, structure, properties, and performance of materials. It discusses methodologies for conducting aircraft investigations and inspections and emphasizes cases where metallurgical or materials contributions were causal to an accident event. The article highlights how the failure of a component or system can affect the associated systems and the overall aircraft. The case studies in this article provide examples of aircraft component and system-level failures that resulted from various factors, including operational stresses, environmental effects, improper maintenance/inspection/repair, construction and installation issues, manufacturing issues, and inadequate design.

Life assessment of structural components is used to avoid catastrophic failures and to maintain safe and reliable functioning of equipment. The failure investigator's input is essential for the meaningful life assessment of structural components. This article provides an overview of the structural design process, the failure analysis process, the failure investigator's role, and how failure analysis of structural components integrates into the determination of remaining life, fitness-for-service, and other life assessment concerns. The topics discussed include industry perspectives on failure and life assessment of components, structural design philosophies, the role of the failure analyst in life assessment, and the role of nondestructive inspection. They also cover fatigue life assessment, elevated-temperature life assessment, fitness-for-service life assessment, brittle fracture assessments, corrosion assessments, and blast, fire, and heat damage assessments.

A sleeve-shaped fire shield that operates inside one of two burner trains in an oil and gas processing unit ruptured after 15 y of service. A detailed analysis was conducted to determine how and why the sleeve failed. The investigation included visual inspection, chemical and gas analysis, mechanical property testing, stereomicroscopy, and metallographic examination. The fire sleeves are fabricated from 3-mm thick plate made of Incoloy 800 rolled into 540-mm diam sections welded along the seam. Three such sections are joined together by circumferential welds to form a single 2.8 m sleeve. The findings from the investigation indicated that internal oxidation corrosion, driven by high temperatures, was the primary cause of failure. Prolonged exposure to temperatures up to 760 °C resulted in sensitization of the material, making it vulnerable to grain boundary attack. This led to significant deterioration of the grain boundaries, causing extensive grain loss (grain dropping) and the subsequent thinning of sleeve walls. Prior to failure, some portions of the sleeve were only 1.6 mm thick, nearly half their original thickness.

This article focuses on the mechanisms of microbially induced or influenced corrosion (MIC) of metallic materials as an introduction to the recognition, management, and prevention of microbiological corrosion failures in piping, tanks, heat exchangers, and cooling towers. It discusses the degradation of various protective systems, such as corrosion inhibitors and lubricants. The article describes the failure analysis of steel, iron, copper, aluminum, and their alloys. It also discusses the probes available to monitor conditions relevant to MIC in industrial systems and the sampling and analysis of conditions usually achieved by the installation of removable coupons in the target system. The article also explains the prevention and control strategies of MIC in industrial systems.

This article provides an overview of the structural design process and discusses the life-limiting factors, including material defects, fabrication practices, and stress. It details the role of a failure investigator in performing nondestructive inspection. The article provides information on fatigue life assessment, elevated-temperature life assessment, and fitness-for-service life assessment.

This article addresses the effects of damage to equipment and structures due to explosions (blast), fire, and heat as well as the methodologies that are used by investigating teams to assess the damage and remaining life of the equipment. It discusses the steps involved in preliminary data collection and preparation. Before discussing the identification, evaluation, and use of explosion damage indicators, the article describes some of the more common events that are considered in incident investigations. The range of scenarios that can occur during explosions and the characteristics of each are also covered. In addition, the article primarily discusses level 1 and level 2 of fire and heat damage assessment and provides information on level 3 assessment.

This article focuses on the mechanisms of microbiologically influenced corrosion as a basis for discussion on the diagnosis, management, and prevention of biological corrosion failures in piping, tanks, heat exchangers, and cooling towers. It begins with an overview of the scope of microbial activity and the corrosion process. Then, various mechanisms that influence corrosion in microorganisms are discussed. The focus is on the incremental activities needed to assess the role played by microorganisms, if any, in the overall scenario. The article presents a case study that illustrates opportunities to improve operating processes and procedures related to the management of system integrity. Industry experience with corrosion-resistant alloys of steel, copper, and aluminum is reviewed. The article ends with a discussion on monitoring and preventing microbiologically influenced corrosion failures.

Stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) is a form of corrosion and produces wastage in that the stress-corrosion cracks penetrate the cross-sectional thickness of a component over time and deteriorate its mechanical strength. Although there are factors common among the different forms of environmentally induced cracking, this article deals only with SCC of metallic components. It begins by presenting terminology and background of SCC. Then, the general characteristics of SCC and the development of conditions for SCC as well as the stages of SCC are covered. The article provides a brief overview of proposed SCC propagation mechanisms. It discusses the processes involved in diagnosing SCC and the prevention and mitigation of SCC. Several engineering alloys are discussed with respect to their susceptibility to SCC. This includes a description of some of the environmental and metallurgical conditions commonly associated with the development of SCC, although not all, and numerous case studies.