Resistance spot welds joining aluminum alloy 2024-T8511 stiffeners to the aluminum alloy 6061-T62 skin of an aircraft drop tank failed during slosh and vibration testing. Visual examination of the fracture surfaces showed that the failure was by tensile or bending overload. Measurements of the fractured spot welds established that all welds were below specification size. Review of the assembly procedures revealed that there had been poor fit-up between the stiffeners and the tank skin, which resulted in weak, undersize weld nuggets. The spot welds failed because of undersize nuggets that were the result of shunting caused by poor fit-up. The forming procedures were revised to achieve a precise fit between the stiffener and the tank wall. Also, an increase in welding current was suggested.

Handles welded to the top cover plate of a chemical-plant downcomer broke at the welds when the handles were used to lift the cover. The handles were fabricated of low-carbon steel rod; the cover was of type 502 stainless steel plate. The attachment welds were made with type 347 stainless steel filler metal to form a fillet between the handle and the cover. The structure was found to contain a zone of brittle martensite in the portion of the weld adjacent to the low-carbon steel handle; fracture had occurred in this zone. The brittle martensite layer in the weld was the result of using too large a welding rod and too much heat input, melting of the low-carbon steel handle, which diluted the austenitic stainless steel filler metal and formed martensitic steel in the weld zone. Because it was impractical to preheat and postheat the type 502 stainless steel cover plate, the low-carbon steel handle was welded to low-carbon steel plate, using low-carbon steel electrodes. This plate was then welded to the type 502 stainless steel plate with type 310 stainless steel electrodes. This design produced a large weld section over which the load was distributed.

The welds joining the liner and shell of a fluid catalytic cracking unit failed. The shell was made of ASTM A515 carbon steel welded with E7018 filler metal. The liner was made of type 405 stainless steel and was plug welded to the shell using ER309 and ER310 stainless steel filler metal. Fine cracks starting inside the weld zone and spreading outward through the weld and toward the surface were observed during examination. Decarburization and graphitization of the carbon steel at the interface was noted. The high carbon level was found to allow martensite to form eventually. The structure was found to be austenitic in the area where the grain-boundary precipitates appeared heaviest. The composition of the precipitates was analyzed using an electron microprobe to reveal presence of sulfur. Microstructural changes in the weld alloy at the interface were interpreted to be caused by dilution of the alloy and the presence of sulfur caused hot shortness. The necessary internal stress to produce extensive cracking was produced by the differential thermal expansion of the carbon and stainless steels. Periodic careful gouging of the affected areas followed by repair welding was recommended.

A weld that attached the head to the shell of a preheater containing steam at 1.4 MPa (200 psi) and was used in the manufacture of paper cracked in service. The original joint contained a 6.4 by 50 mm backing ring that had been tack welded to the inside surface of the shell in a position to project beyond the fully beveled top edge of the shell. The projecting edge of the ring fitted against a deep undercut on the inner corner of the rim of the head. The internal 90-deg angle in this undercut was sharp, with almost no fillet. A bevel from the lower edge of the undercut to the outside of the head completed the groove for the circumferential attachment weld. Investigation (visual inspection and actual size views etched in hot 50% hydrochloric acid) supported the conclusion that cracking occurred in the HAZ in the head of the original design, originating in the sharp corner of the undercut, which was an inherent stress raiser. Recommendations included revised joint design to ensure full root penetration.

The case and stiffener of an inner-combustion-chamber case assembly failed by completely fracturing circumferentially around the edge of a groove arc weld joining the case and stiffener to the flange. The assembly consisted of a cylindrical stiffener inserted into a cylindrical case that were both welded to a flange. The case, stiffener, flange, and weld deposit were all of nickel-base alloy 718. It was observed that a manual arc weld repair had been made along almost the entire circumference of the original weld. Investigation (visual inspection, 0.5x macrographs, and 10x etched with 2% chromic acid plus HCl views) supported the conclusions that failure was by fatigue from multiple origins caused by welding defects. Ultimate failure was by tensile overload of the sections partly separated by the fatigue cracks. Recommendations included correct fit-up of the case, stiffener, and flange and more skillful welding techniques to avoid undercutting and unfused interfaces.

Postflight inspection of a gas-turbine aircraft engine that had experienced compressor stall revealed that the engine air-intake bullet assembly had dislodged and was seated against the engine-inlet guide vanes at the 3 o'clock position. The bullet assembly consisted of an outer aerodynamic shell and an inner stiffener shell, both of 1.3 mm (0.050 in.) thick aluminum alloy 6061-T6, and four attachment clips of 1 mm (0.040 in.) thick alclad aluminum alloy 2024-T42. Each clip was joined to the outer shell by 12 spot welds and was also joined to the stiffener. Analysis (visual inspection, dye-penetrant inspection, and 10x/150x micrographs of sections etched with Keller's reagent) supports the conclusion that the outer shell of the bullet assembly separated from the stiffener because the four attachment clips fractured through the shell-to-clip spot welds. Fracture occurred by fatigue that initiated at the notch created by the intersection of the faying surfaces of the clip and shell with the spot weld nuggets. The 6061 aluminum alloy shell and stiffener were in the annealed (O) temper rather than T6, as specified. Recommendations included heat treating the shell and stiffener to the T6 temper after forming.

The T-section cross member of the lifting sling failed in service while lifting a 966 kg (2130 lb) load. The L-section sling body and the cross member were made of aluminum alloy 5083 or 5086 and were joined by welding using aluminum alloy 4043 filler metal. The fracture was found by visual examination to have occurred at the weld joining the sling body and the cross member. Inadequate joint penetration and porosity was revealed by macrographic examination of the weld. Lower silicon content and a higher magnesium and manganese content than the normal for alloy 4043 filler metal were found during chemical analysis. It was revealed by examination of the ends of the failed cross member that a rotational force that had been applied on the cross member caused it to fracture near the sling body. It was concluded that brittle fracture at the weld was caused by overloading which was attributed to the misalignment of the sling during loading. Aluminum alloy 5183 or 5356 filler metal was recommended to be used to avoid brittle welds.

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.