Search Results for UNS A97079

A crack was found in an aircraft main wing spar flange fabricated from 7079-T6 aluminum alloy during a routine nondestructive x-ray inspection after the craft had logged 300 h. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed an intergranular fracture pattern indicative of stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) and fatigue striations near the crack origin. Visual examination of the crack edge revealed that the installation of the fasteners produced a fit up stress. Further inspection of the opened fracture showed that the crack had been present for some time because a heavy buildup of corrosion products was seen on the fractured surface. Metallographic examination of the flange in the area of fracture initiation showed the presence of end grain exposure, which would promote SCC. Electron optical examination of the fracture clearly showed the flange was cracking by a mixed mode of stress corrosion and fatigue. The cracking was accelerated because of an inadvertent fit up stress during installation. The age of the crack could not be established. However, a reevaluation of prior x-ray inspections in this area would result in some close estimate of the age of the crack. End grain exposure further promoted SCC.

After completing a fatigue test of an aluminum alloy component machined from a 7079-T6 forging, technicians noted a 5 in. crack which ran longitudinally above and through the flange. When the fracture face was examined by light microscopy, observers could not ascertain the exact mode of fracture. Electron fractography revealed that five different modes of crack growth were operative as the part failed. Region 1 was a shallow zone (about 0.002 in. at its deepest) of dimpled structure typical of an overload failure. Region 2 was a zone that grew by a stress corrosion mechanism. Through a fatigue mechanism was operative in Region 3, it was not the cause of the large crack. Region 4, which covered 50% of the fracture area, developed mainly by stress corrosion. This zone gradually changed into the combination of intergranular and transgranular overload in Region 5, which covered approximately the remaining 50% of the fracture. Apparently, after stress corrosion moved halfway through, the part failed by overload. This failure analysis proved that a crack, originally thought to be a fatigue failure, was actually a stress corrosion crack.

Despite extensive aircraft landing gear design analyses and tests performed by designers and manufacturers, and the large number of trouble-free landings, aircraft users have experienced problems with and failures of landing gear components. Different data banks and over 200 failure analysis reports were surveyed to provide an overview of structural landing gear component failures as experienced by the Canadian Forces over the last 20 years on more than 20 aircraft types, and to assess trends in failure mechanisms and causes. Case histories were selected to illustrate typical problems, troublesome failure mechanisms, the role of high strength aluminum alloys and steels, and situations where fracture mechanics analyses provided insight into the failures. The two main failure mechanisms were: fatigue occurring mainly in steel components, and corrosion related problems with aluminum alloys. Very few overload failures were noted. A number of causes were identified: design deficiencies and manufacturing defects leading mainly to fatigue failures, and poor materials selection and improper maintenance as the principal causes of corrosion-related failures. The survey showed that a proper understanding of the failure mechanisms and causes, by thorough failure analysis, provides valuable feedback information to designers, operators and maintenance personnel for appropriate corrective actions to be taken.