Search Results for UNS S13800

The failures of two aircraft components, one from a landing gear and the other from an ejector rack mechanism, were investigated. Both were made from PH 13-8 Mo (UNS S13800) precipitation-hardening stainless steel which had been heat treated to the H1000 and H950 tempers respectively and then chromium plated. The parts were characterized metallographically and mechanically and were found to be compliant. Detailed fractographic examination revealed that the first stage of both failures was similar: subsurface initiation of numerous cracks with a wide range of orientations and cleavage like features. The cracking was followed by fatigue in one case and catastrophic failure in the other. Hydrogen embrittlement was identified as the most likely mechanism of failure.

During a routine inspection on an aircraft assembly line, an airframe attachment bolt was found to be broken. The bolt was one of 12 that attach the lower outboard longeron to the wing carry-through structure. Failure occurred on the right-hand forward bolt in this longeron splice attachment. The bolt was fabricated from PH13-8Mo stainless steel heat treated to have an ultimate tensile strength of 1517 to 1655 MPa (220 to 240 ksi). A water-soluble coolant was used in drilling the bolt hole where this fastener was inserted. Investigation (visual inspection, 265 SEM images, hardness testing, auger emission spectroscopy and secondary imaging spectroscopy, tensile testing, and chemical analysis) supported the conclusion that failure of the attachment bolt was caused by stress corrosion. The source of the corrosive media was the water-soluble coolant used in boring the bolt holes. Recommendations included inspecting for corrosion all the bolts that were installed using the water-soluble coolant at the spliced joint areas, rinsing all machined bolt holes with a noncorrosive agent, and installing new PH13-8Mo stainless steel bolts with a polysulfide wet sealant.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the root cause of the differences noted in the fatigue test data of main rotor spindle assembly retaining rods fabricated from three different vendors, as part of a Second Source evaluation process. ARL performed dimensional verification, accessed overall workmanship, and measured the respective surface roughness of the rods in an effort to identify any discrepancies. Next, mechanical testing was performed, followed by optical and electron microscopy, and chemical analysis. Finally, ARL performed laboratory heat treatments at the required aging temperature and follow-up mechanical testing.