Screens made of stainless steel X5 Cr-Ni-Mo 18 10 (Material No. 1.4401), which were exposed to cooling water from the mouth of a river, became unserviceable after a few months because of the breaking out of parts of the bars. The multiple fracturing of the screen bars in the brackish water of the mouth of the river was attributed to stress corrosion and pitting. The steel used, which contained molybdenum, would have withstood the severe corrosive conditions in the heat-treated condition, i.e. quenched after high temperature anneal. However, the stresses caused by deformation and welding, as well as the intensification of corrosive conditions brought about by design, i.e. creation of corrosion currents in the poorly aerated gaps (Evans elements), made this impossible.

Fragments of screen bars which as structural elements of a condenser had come into contact with cooling water from the mouth of a river were received. The screen bars were made of stainless austenitic Cr-Ni-Mo steel X 5 Cr-Ni-Mo18 10 (Material No. 1.4401). The bars were fractured repeatedly. The ruptures did not occur exclusively or even preferentially at the loops, but just as frequently at locations between them. The mistake made in this case was annealing the steel at a temperature in the critical region. This was probably done to relieve stresses that originated during cold-forming and led to damage by stress corrosion. This would have been the correct method for a ferritic steel, but not austenitic steel, which requires the special heat treatment indicated. When an anneal in the critical region is unavoidable and the indicated additional treatment is impossible or difficult, a type of steel has to be chosen which is resistant to intergranular corrosion.

Tie bars of a dragline excavator each consisted of a rectangular section steel bar to which eye-pieces, to facilitate anchorage, were attached by butt-welds. Failure of one weld in each bar after seven years of service allowed the boom to fall and become extensively damaged. The appearance of the fracture faces of the two welds showed partial-penetration joints. Failure in each bar had taken place through the weld metal. The presence of built-in cracks introduced zones of stress concentration and the fluctuating loads to which the ties were subjected in service served to initiate fatigue cracks. While the partial-penetration type of weld may be tolerated in a component subjected to bending stresses it is undesirable in one that is required to withstand fluctuating tensile stresses.

Routine magnetic-particle inspection revealed crack indications in a number of shafts produced from hot-rolled 4130 steel bar. A pronounced indication of this size is cause for rejection if the defect is not eliminated during subsequent machining. A microstructural analysis of the shaft cross section revealed that the crack was approximately 0.5 mm (0.020 in.) deep and oriented in a radial direction. Furthermore, no stringer-type nonmetallic inclusions were observed in the vicinity of the flaw, which did not display the intergranular characteristics of a quench crack. The defect did, however, contain substantial amounts of oxide, which evidently resulted from the hot-working operation. This evidence supports the conclusion that the appearance of this discontinuity, with the long axis parallel to the working direction and radial orientation with regard to depth, strongly suggests a seam produced during rolling. Use of components with surface-defect indications as small as 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) can be risky in certain circumstances. Depending on the orientation of the flaw with respect to applied loads, the nature of the applied forces (for example, cyclic), and the operating environment, such a surface flaw can become the initiating site for a fatigue crack or a corrosion-related failure.

Grate bars in the traveling grate indurators in several taconite processing units suffered excessive corrosion following a conversion from acid to fluxed pellet production procedures. The campaign life of the HH grade cast stainless steel bars was reduced from more than 7 years to approximately 9 months. Several corroded grate bars were examined metallographically and by electron microscopy to determine the causes of the accelerated corrosion. Chemical and X-ray diffraction analyses were also conducted, along with simulation tests to assess the role of alkali chlorides in the corrosion process. The basic cause of degradation was found to be hot corrosion caused by the deposition of alkali sulfates and chlorides. However this degradation may have been aggravated by thermal cycling and abrasion. The source of the salt was impurities in the flux. Two potential solutions were proposed: modification of the processing parameters to reduce the salt deposition and / or change of bar materials to a more resistant alloy.

Two 25 x 40 mm (1 x 1.5 in.) AISI 4150 hot-rolled steel bars that cracked during heat treatment were examined to determine whether the heat treating procedure had contributed to the failure. Metallographic examination of a cross section taken through the fracture revealed an oxide coating on both sides of the fracture surface. The oxide was also found on the top and bottom sides of the sample. Sawcut sides of the bar did not exhibit the oxide layer The presence of the oxide in the fracture, combined with its absence on all exterior surfaces, indicated that the fracture occurred as a result of an oxide seam in the original material rather than from oxide from heat treating. Nondestructive testing prior to machining and heat treatment was recommended.

A ceiling in a concrete structure was hung on flat bars with a cross section of 30 x 80 mm. The bars were borne by a slit steel plate and supported by tabs that were welded onto the flat sides. One of the bars fractured during mounting when it was dropped from a height of about 1 m onto the opposite support. The fracture was a grainy forced rupture that propagated from one of the fillet welds. Investigation showed a steel was selected for this important construction that was prone to aging and that in fact had aged through cold deformation during straightening and then was welded yet. The bar could withstand mounting and subsequent static loading as long as it was treated with care, as could be expected from the good deformation characteristics of the static tensile test. The question is, however, whether occasional impacts or shocks can be assuredly avoided. This risk could have been eliminated if a killed steel of quality groups 2 or 3 according to DIN 17 100 had been used.