This article focuses primarily on what an analyst should know about applying X-ray diffraction (XRD) residual stress measurement techniques to failure analysis. Discussions are extended to the description of ways in which XRD can be applied to the characterization of residual stresses in a component or assembly. The article describes the steps required to calibrate instrumentation and to validate stress measurement results. It presents a practical approach to sample selection and specimen preparation, measurement location selection, and measurement depth selection, as well as an outline on measurement validation. The article also provides information on stress-corrosion cracking and corrosion fatigue. The importance of residual stress in fatigue is described with examples. The article explains the effects of heat treatment and manufacturing processes on residual stress. It concludes with a section on the XRD stress measurements in multiphase materials and composites and in locations of stress concentration.

An ASTM A 504 carbon steel railway car wheel that was used on a train in a metropolitan railway system failed during service, causing derailment. The wheel was completely fractured from rim to hub. Macrofractography of the fracture surface showed road grime, indicating that the crack had existed for a considerable time prior to derailment and initiated in the flange. Failure propagated from the flange across the rim and down the plate to the bore of the hub. Two zones that exhibited definite signs of heating were observed. The fracture initiation site was typical of fatigue fracture. No defects were found that could have contributed to failure. The wheel conformed to the chemical, microstructural, and hardness requirements for class A wheels. Failure was attributed to repeated severe heating and cooling of the rim and flange due to brake locking or misapplication of the hand brake. It was recommended that the brake system on the car be examined and replaced if necessary.

X-ray diffraction (XRD) residual-stress analysis is an essential tool for failure analysis. This article focuses primarily on what the analyst should know about applying XRD residual-stress measurement techniques to failure analysis. Discussions are extended to the description of ways in which XRD can be applied to the characterization of residual stresses in a component or assembly and to the subsequent evaluation of corrective actions that alter the residual-stress state of a component for the purposes of preventing, minimizing, or eradicating the contribution of residual stress to premature failures. The article presents a practical approach to sample selection and specimen preparation, measurement location selection, and measurement depth selection; measurement validation is outlined as well. A number of case studies and examples are cited. The article also briefly summarizes the theory of XRD analysis and describes advances in equipment capability.

During construction of a revolving sky-tower observatory, a 2.4 m (8 ft) diam cylindrical column developed serious circumferential cracks overnight at the 14 m (46 ft) level where two 12 m (40 ft) sections were joined by a girth weld. The temperatures ranged from 12 deg C (53 deg F) to 7 deg C (45 deg F) that night. The column was shop fabricated in 12 m (40 ft) long sections of 19 mm (3/4 in.) thick steel plate of ASTM A36 steel. Crack initiation was caused by high residual stress during girth welding, and the presence of notches formed by the termination of the incomplete welds. Continuation of the cracks was attributed to the brittle condition of the steel when cooled by the night air. A steel with a much lower ductile-to-brittle transition temperature is essential for this type of structure. Other necessary steps include better control of the girth-welding, choice of a more favorable electrode to avoid porosity, careful termination of all welds to avoid formation of notches, and completion of all welds before other sections of the column are erected.

To samples of helical compression springs were returned to the manufacturer after failing in service well short of the component design life. Spring design specifications required conformance to SAE J157, “Oil Tempered Chromium Silicon Alloy Steel Wire and Springs.” Each spring was installed in a separate heavy truck engine in an application in which spring failure can cause total engine destruction. The springs were composed of chromium-silicon steel, with a hardness ranging from 50 to 54 HRC. Chemical composition and hardness were substantially within specification. Failure initiated from the spring inside coil surface. Examination of the fracture surface using scanning electron microscopy showed no evidence of fatigue. Final fracture occurred in torsion. X-ray diffraction analysis revealed high inner-diameter residual stresses, indicating inadequate stress relief from spring winding. It was concluded that failure initiation was caused by residual stress-driven stress-corrosion cracking, and it was recommended that the vendor provide more effective stress relief.

A 150 mm (6 in.) schedule 80S type 304 stainless steel pipe (11 mm, or 0.432 in., wall thickness), which had served as an equalizer line in the primary loop of a pressurized-water reactor, was found to contain several circumferential cracks 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in.) long. Two of these cracks, which had penetrated the pipe wall, were responsible for leaks detected in a hydrostatic test performed during a general inspection after seven years of service. Investigation (visual inspection, visual and ultrasonic weld examination, water analysis, and chemical analysis) supported the conclusion that the failure was caused by SCC due to stress, sensitization, and environment. Recommendations included replacing all pipe sections and installing them using low-heat-input, multiple-pass welding procedures.