A hoist lift hose on a loader failed catastrophically. The hoses were a 100R13 type (as classified in AS3791-1991) with 50.8 mm nominal internal diameter. They consisted of six alternating spirals of heavy wire around a synthetic rubber inner tube with a synthetic rubber outer sheath. Failure of the lift hose was approximately 50 to 100 mm away from the "upper" end of the hose, with the straight coupling that attaches to the hydraulic system. The return hose was in much better condition, with no apparent deformation and only small areas of mechanical damage to the outer sheath. There were two modes of failure of the wire: tensile and corrosion related. The predominant corrosion mechanism appeared to be crevice corrosion related, with the corrosion being driven by the retention of water by the cover material around the wire strands. In this case study (and in most wire-reinforced hydraulic hoses), the wire reinforcing strands were a medium-carbon steel in the cold drawn condition. Radiographic nondestructive testing (NDT) was recommended to determine when a hydraulic hose should be replaced.

The boom lift equalizer hose on an excavator failed and the resultant release of high-pressure hydraulic fluid damaged the operator cabin. The hose was a heavy duty, high-impulse, multiple-spiral wire-reinforced, rubber covered hydraulic hose equivalent to 100R13 specifications as set in AS3791-1991. It had a maximum operating pressure of 34.5 MPa (5000 psi). The failure occurred adjacent to one of the couplings, although some of the wire strands had not broken. The two outer layers of reinforcement wire on the failed end had experienced extensive corrosion, corroding away completely in most areas. This corrosion was fairly uniform around the circumference of the hose. The loss of two spirals/layers of wire reinforcement effectively reduced the pressure carrying capacity of the hose to below that of the maximum operational pressure experienced. Either the hose (or assembly) was already corroded prior to being fitted, or, the hose experienced aggressive conditions causing rapid corrosion of the exposed wire strands.

A fireball engulfed half of a drill rig while in the process of drilling a shot hole. Subsequent investigation revealed the cause of the fire was the failure of the oil return hose to the separator/receiver in the air compressor. The failed hose was a 50.8 mm 100R1 type hose, as specified in AS 3791-1991 Hydraulic Hoses. This type of hose consisted of an inner tube of oil-resistant synthetic rubber, a single medium-carbon steel wire braid reinforcement, and an oil-and-weather resistant synthetic rubber cover. The wire braiding was found to be severely corroded in the area of the failure zone. The physical cause of the hose failure was by severe localized corrosion of the layer of reinforcing braid wire at the transition between the coupling and the hose at the end of the ferrule. This caused a reduction of the wire cross-sectional area to the extent that the wires broke. Once the majority of the braid wires were broken there was not enough intrinsic strength in the rubber inner hose to resist the normal operating pressures.

A welded elbow assembly (AISI type 321 stainless steel, with components joined with ER347 stainless steel filler metal by gas tungsten arc welding) was part of a hydraulic-pump pressure line for a jet aircraft. The other end of the tube was attached to a flexible metal hose, which provided no support and offered no resistance to vibration. The line was leaking hydraulic fluid at the nut end of the elbow. Investigation supported the conclusion that failure was by fatigue cracking initiated from a notch at the root of the weld and was propagated by cyclic loading of the tubing as the result of vibration and inadequate support of the hose assembly. Recommendations included changing the joint design from a cylindrical lap joint to a square-groove butt joint. Also, an additional support was recommended for the hose assembly to minimize vibration at the elbow.

This article examines the concept of fractography as applied to elastomeric rubbery materials. It considers four general categories of physical root failure causes: design defects, material defects, manufacturing defects, and service life anomalies. Examples of real-world failures of rubber articles, with numerous accompanying figures, are representative of the four root failure categories.

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.

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.