Search Results for Gun drilling

Several crankshaft failures occurred in equipment that was being used in logging operations in subzero temperatures. Failure usually initiated at a cracked pin oil hole, and the failure origin was approximately 7.6 mm (0.3 in.) from the shaft surface. The holes were produced by gun drilling, giving rise to surface defects. The fracture surface was characteristic of fatigue in that it was flat, relatively shiny, and exhibited beach marks. The crack surface was at a 45 deg angle to the axis of the shaft, indicating dominant tensile stresses. The material was the French designation AFNOR 38CD4 (similar to AISI type 4140H) and was in the quenched-and-tempered condition, with a yield strength of about 760 MPa (110 ksi). It was treated to have compressive surface stresses, and the prior-austenite grain size was ASTM 8. Analysis (visual inspection, stress analyses, and macrographs) supported the conclusion that failure was caused by fatigue stress caused by surface defects in the oil holes. Recommendation includes drilling the oil holes by a technique that essentially eliminates surface defects.

This article discusses the three legal theories on which a products liability lawsuit is based and the issues of hazard, risk, and danger in the context of liability. It describes manufacturing and design defects of various products. The article explains a design that is analyzed from the human factors viewpoint and details the preventive measures of the defects, with examples. It presents four paramount questions relating to the probability of injury which are asked even when one executes all possible preventive measures carefully and thoroughly.

This article considers two mechanisms of cavitation failure: those for ductile materials and those for brittle materials. It examines the different stages of cavitation erosion. The article explains various cavitation failures including cavitation in bearings, centrifugal pumps, and gearboxes. It provides information on the cavitation resistance of materials and other prevention parameters. The article describes two American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for the evaluation of erosion and cavitation, namely, ASTM Standard G 32 and ASTM Standard G 73. It concludes with a discussion on correlations between laboratory results and service.

Distortion failure occurs when a structure or component is deformed so that it can no longer support the load it was intended to carry. Every structure has a load limit beyond which it is considered unsafe or unreliable. Estimation of load limits is an important aspect of design and is commonly computed by classical design or limit analysis. This article discusses the common aspects of failure by distortion with suitable examples. Analysis of a distortion failure often must be thorough and rigorous to determine the root cause of failure and to specify proper corrective action. The article summarizes the general process of distortion failure analysis. It also discusses three types of distortion failures that provide useful insights into the problems of analyzing unusual mechanisms of distortion. These include elastic distortion, ratcheting, and inelastic cyclic buckling.

Distortion often is observed in the analysis of other types of failures, and consideration of the distortion can be an important part of the analysis. This article first considers that true distortion occurs when it was unexpected and in which the distortion is associated with a functional failure. Then, a more general consideration of distortion in failure analysis is introduced. Several common aspects of failure by distortion are discussed and suitable examples of distortion failures are presented for illustration. The article provides information on methods to compute load limits, errors in the specification of the material, and faulty process and their corrective measures to meet specifications. It discusses the general process of material failure analysis and special types of distortion and deformation failure.

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.

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 visual or macroscopic examination of damaged materials and interpretation of damage and fracture features. Analytical tools available for evaluations of corrosion and wear damage features include energy dispersive spectroscopy, electron probe microanalysis, Auger electron spectroscopy, secondary ion mass spectroscopy, and X-ray powder diffraction. The article discusses the analysis and interpretation of base material composition and microstructures. Preparation and examination of metallographic specimens in failure analysis are also discussed. The article concludes with a review of the evaluation of polymers and ceramic materials in failure analysis.

Examination of a damaged component involves a chain of activities that, first and foremost, requires good observation and documentation. Following receipt and documentation, the features of damage can be recorded and their cause(s) investigated, as this article briefly describes, for typical types of damage experienced for metallic components. This article discusses the processes involved in visual or macroscopic examination of damaged material; the interpretation of fracture features, corrosion, and wear damage features; and the analysis of base material composition. It covers the processes involved in the selection of metallurgical samples, the preparation and examination of metallographic specimens in failure analysis, and the analysis and interpretation of microstructures. Examination and evaluation of polymers and ceramic materials in failure analysis are also briefly discussed.