Appendix B

FAILURE ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT

The purpose of this assignment is to introduce you to the procedures generally followed
when conducting a failure analysis. Each student will have the opportunity to present a 6
minute failure analysis report to the class during the practical sessions on a case study of
their choice. The following section will give an outline of how to lead a failure investigating
and introduce you to some case studies.
Learning Outcomes:
Engineering problem solving
Demonstrate competence to identify, assess, formulate and solve convergent and divergent
engineering problems creatively and innovatively.
Application of fundamental and specialist knowledge
Demonstrate competence to apply knowledge of mathematics, basic science and
engineering sciences from first principles to solve engineering problems
Engineering methods, skills, tools and information technology
Demonstrate competence to use appropriate engineering methods, skills and tools, including
those based on information technology
Professional and general communication
Demonstrate competence to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, with
engineering audiences and the community at large.
It is up to you to find a case study and put together the relevant information in a systematic
report covering the topics listed below as is applicable to your case study. There is a
significant amount of examples to choose from, be creative when looking for a topic. In other
words: you are not expected to conduct your own failure analysis, but rather to find examples
of such disasters in history and get behind the metallurgical aspect of the what went
wrong? and present it in a report and as a short PowerPoint presentation.
Bear in mind that the weight of this assignment (including the report and presentation) is 10%
of your participation mark for the semester and that entrance to the exam will be denied if
you fail to complete any part of it.
Reports are to be submitted electronically via Edulink and will be scanned for plagiarism.

B.1. Introduction
Failure analysis and prevention are important functions to all of the engineering disciplines.
The materials engineer often plays a lead role in the analysis of failures, whether a
component or product fails in service or if failure occurs in manufacturing or during
production processing. In any case, one must determine the cause of failure to prevent future
occurrence, and/or to improve the performance of the device, component or structure.

Appendix B
To increase the odds of completing a conclusive failure analysis while at the same time
saving time and money, investigations should be carried out using a systemic approach
similar to that outlined in Figure 1 to determine what went wrong.

Figure 1. Chart outlining the major steps that are usually taken when conducting a failure analysis

B.2. Procedure
The failure analysis sequence generally follows an order of increasing "destructiveness" of
the test and/or sample removal. In conducting a failure analysis it is therefore crucial to
collect as much information at each stage before continuing to the next. Significant deviation
from this recommended hierarchy may prevent critical evaluation because of damage caused
by previous tests.

B.2.1. Background information

The first step in conducting any failure analysis is to gain a good understanding of the
conditions under which the part was operating. The investigator must ask questions from
those who work with, as well as those who maintain the equipment and visit the site
whenever possible. Contacting the manufacturer may also be necessary.

Part information: Detailed information about a failed component often facilitates

selection of analytical methods and can provide insight into some of the factors that
may have contributed to the failure. Certain test methods may be suggested by
knowledge of the component manufacturing history, and this could lead to a quicker
solution. This information should include as a minimum: specifications, manufacturing
information, part number and serial number, and drawings with a bill of materials.

Service history: The history of a failed part is also of great importance to the analyst.
All information concerning the actual record of a part can serve to illuminate the
causes of a failure. Even "typical" service, which may be ostensibly identical to similar
units in similar conditions, may initiate failure due to apparently innocuous or
mundane differences that may not initially seem worthy of mention.

Investigation planning and sample selection: The planning portion of an

investigation is crucial to determining the proximate cause of failure. Proper planning
can ensure that an investigation is efficient and cost effective. Particularly in the case
of a high visibility failure or if an assembly line shutdown is imminent, careful planning
is necessary to hasten problem resolution. Haphazard or unsystematic investigations
are unprofessional and wasteful of time, effort, and manpower.
2

Appendix B
Unfortunately, in many instances the investigator will receive a failed part with little
information about its history and operating conditions. In such cases the physical evidence
will have to be more heavily relied upon.

B.2.2. Visual examination & cataloguing

The second step is to conduct a visual examination, cataloguing and recording the physical
evidence at the same time. This serves the functions of:

Familiarising the investigators with the evidence.

Creating a permanent record that can be referred to in light of new information.

Samples should be examined, photographed and sketched taking particular care to identify
and record any area of particular importance, such as fracture surfaces and surface defects.
Visual examination can be aided by the use of a stereomicroscope with lights that can be
easily directed. Shadows can give depth to a surface making it easier to analysis and
photograph.
Pieces should always be examined and recorded before any surface cleaning is undertaken.
In some cases substances such as dirt, paint and Oil on the surface can themselves be
important clues, indicating such things as how old the fracture surface is and in what kind of
environment the piece was operating. A good general rule is to be conservative when
destroying evidence of any kind.
The visual examination is a good time for the investigator to examine the fracture surfaces in
detail and try to identify the mode of fracture (brittle, ductile, fatigue, etc.), points of initiation,
and direction of propagation. Each mode of fracture has distinct characteristics that can be
easily seen with the naked eye or the use of a stereomicroscope; however, sometimes a
scanning electron microscope (SEM) will have to be used.

B.2.3. Outline plan of action

The third step is to decide on a course of action. Based on the visual examinations and the
background information the investigator must outline a plan of action, which is the series of
steps that will be needed to successfully complete the case. There are several resources that
an investigator can draw on to determine the cause of failure, which can be classified into
one of the following categories:

Macroscopic examination

Non-destructive testing (NDT)

Chemical analysis

Metallographic examination

Mechanical Testing

Many of these categories will require steps that use the same equipment and therefore much
time can be saved with a little forethought. The macroscopic examination is best performed
when cataloguing the samples; however the investigator will often want to return to examine
the part in more detail once other evidence is gathered. Use of a scanning electron
3

Appendix B
microscope (SEM) is often useful at this stage because of its large range of magnifications
and its large depth of field.
Since undamaged fracture surfaces are not always available, it is often a good idea to open
other cracks that may be present in the piece. This often reveals good quality fracture
surfaces similar to those that caused failure.

B.2.4. Non-destructive tests (NDT)

Non-destructive tests (NDT) are a good way to examine parts without causing permanent
damage. Often, results obtained from examining failed parts in the lab using NDT's can be
used to examine parts in the field and remove them from service before failure occurs. There
are several NDT's that are available to the investigator and it would be a good idea to read
up on each ones abilities.

NDT Method
Radiography

Ultrasonic

Dye Penetrate

Magnetic Particle

Capabilities
Measures differences in radiation absorption.
Inclusions, Porosity, Cracks
Uses high frequency sonar to find surface and
subsurface defects.
Inclusions, porosity, thickness of material, position of
defects.
Uses a die to penetrate open defects.
Surface cracks and porosity
Uses a magnetic field and iron powder to locate
surface and near surface defects.
Surface cracks and defects
Based on magnetic induction.

Eddy Current

Table 1.

Measures
conductivity,
magnetic
permeability,
physical dimensions, cracks, porosity, and inclusions.

Commonly used non-destructive tests and there capabilities in detecting defects.

NDT is part of MTK3A practical and you will have some exposure to a few of these
techniques. Familiarise yourself with the theory behind these techniques.

B.2.5. Chemical analysis

Chemical analysis is done on the bulk of the material to confirm the material composition.
Depending on the investigation, chemical analysis should also be done on any overlay
materials or surface residues. There arc several techniques that can be used to check
composition, and the choice of which to use often depends on accessibility and sample type.
In many cases, the SEM can be a powerful tool for fast identification of surface materials.
Care should be taken not to contaminate samples taken for chemical analysis by surface
residue or cutting instruments.
4

Appendix B

B.2.6. Metallographic examination

Metallographic examination involves the sectioning of samples to examine the
microstructure. The sections that are selected for examination are dependent on the type of
piece and the mode of fracture. Sections from the sample should be taken in different planes
so that any differences in the microstructure can be seen. Sometimes it is useful to take a
cross section through the fracture surface so that the microstructure below the fracture and
the surface profile can be examined. A section running parallel to the fracture surface is also
often taken for examination. Samples should be mounted, ground, and polished using
metallographic techniques. They should be examined before etching for porosity, inclusions,
and other defects. Microstructures should be identified and their properties researched.
There are several referenced that the investigator can refer to for identification of uncertain
structures.

B.2.7. Mechanical testing

Mechanical testing is done to verify that the mechanical properties of the material conform to
the standards. There are many types of mechanical testing that can be performed and their
procedures can be found in the ASTM mechanical testing standards. The most common
method used is hardness testing because of its relative simplicity, low cost, and the fact that
for many materials tables exist to relate hardness with yield strength. Macro hardness is
usually sufficient to determine material properties; however microhardness measurements
are helpful in determining property variations within the material. Use the microhardness
measurement to compare the surface hardness to that of the body or to verify the
microstructure. Other mechanical testing such as tensile tests and impact tests can be used,
however their use is usually limited by insufficient material and high costs.
We will be looking at some of these methods in the MTK3A laboratory sessions. Familiarise
yourself with the theory on hardness tests, as well as impact testing.

B.2.8. Conclusion & recommendations

Once all the data is gathered, the investigator must come to a conclusion based on the
evidence present. This requires that the investigator draw heavily on background experience
and research performed. This step can be difficult because when conducting the
investigation clues will lead the investigator down paths that seem to be the cause but which
are merely consequences.
The final and most difficult step in any investigation is coming up with recommendations.
Some cases will be simple, however many cases are not obvious even though the cause and
theory are known. Recommendations are not to be taken lightly. Serious failures can occur if
recommendations are in error. The system may have to be redesigned or a new material put
in place. Sometimes all you will be able to recommend is that inspections be carried out
more often.

B.3. Final remarks

Experience has shown that in spite of intelligent material selection and design, failures still
occur. Being knowledgeable on failure analysis will extend the life of your design and prevent
catastrophic failure. An example of a case study follows in the next section.

Appendix B

B.4. FAA Schedule

The FAA Schedule will be made available via Edulink.

Appendix B

CASE STUDY: CRANE BOLT FAILURE

This case study is an actual report submitted in response to industrial failure. The
purpose of this report is to demonstrate by example. It is written at a basic level and
further reading is recommended to better understand the failure mechanism.

Introduction
One of two bolts supporting a load of 16 200 lbs failed while in service causing eight
hours of downtime on an essential machine to production. The bolts were in
operation on a crane used to transfer anodes into the machine. Figure 1.1 shows a
drawing of the set-up and the location of fraction above the nut. The crane cycled
600 time a day 7 days a week.
The broken bolt (Figure 1.2) and a new unused bolt, recommended by the supplier
for the application, were supplied to conduct the investigation. The original designers
of the crane specified a bolt that conforms to SAE standards grade 5. The supplier of
the new bolt confirmed that it was made to conform with ASTM standard A 193 grade
B7.

Figure 1.1. Drawing of the bolt Figure 1.2. Photograph of Figure 1.3. Photograph
and crane set-up.
broken bolt
fracture surface.

of

Appendix B

Results:
Observations
Examination of the fracture surface revealed characteristics such as a beachmarks
associated with fatigue (Figure 1.3). The zone of final fracture was located between
two areas of fatigue propagation suggesting the presence of bending forces. The
surface area of final fracture was approximately 12% of the total fracture surface
suggesting that the bolt was not overloaded. Cracks where also found between
threads near the fracture surface indicating that the bolt was highly susceptible to
fatigue initiation.
Results from chemical analyses (Table 1.1) show that the original broken bolt had a
carbon content slightly below those required by the SAE standards for a grade 5 bolt.
This lower carbon content would have acted to decrease the material properties. The
chemical composition of the new sample bolt conformed to the ASTM standard
A193/A grade B7 that requires an AISI-SAE 4140 composition.

Table 1.1--Chemical analysis results on both bolts.

Original
broken bolt
(%)

SAE Standard
Grade 5 (%)

New Sample
Bolt (%)

ASTM
Standard B7
AISI 4140 (%)

Carbon

0.20

0.28-0.55

0.42

0.37-0.49

Manganese

0.65

--

0.85

0.65-1.10

Silicon

0.22

--

0.22

0.15-0.35

Phosphor

0.013

0.048 max.

0.015

0.035

Sulphur

0.011

0.058 max.

0.030

0.040

Chrome

0.08

--

0.79

0.75-1.20

Nickel

0.06

--

0.07

--

Molybdenum

0.01

--

0.15

0.15-0.25

Element

Microscopic examination of the bolts where done using longitudinal and latitudinal
mounts for each. The sections taken from the fractured bolt were taken close to the
fracture surface. Examination before etching of the two bolts showed no cracking or
unusually large inclusions. The original broken bolt did show some flaking at the base
of the threads (Figure 1.4) but this is expected for a bolt that has been in service.
Etching the sections revealed a microstructure of coarse pearlite in a matrix of ferrite
(Figure 1.5). The SAE grade 5 standard requires that the bolt be quenched and
tempered to conform and therefore should have a tempered martensite structure.
8

Appendix B
Martensite has higher material properties such as yield strength and hardness, which
increases its resistance to fatigue initiation. The ferrite matrix of the original bolt has
low yield strength, which in turn reduces its resistance to fatigue initiation. The new
bolt was found to be quenched and tempered as required by the ASTM standard
(Figure 1.6). However rolling seems where found at the tips of the treads (Figure
1.7). This is not a serious defect because of the defects location in a low stress area
however, if the bolt was placed in a corrosive atmosphere these seams would
corrode and then act as fatigue initiation sites.

Figure 1.4. Micrograph

of flaking found at the
base of a thread in the
fractured bolt. 2% nital
100X

Figure 1.5. Micrograph

of fractured bolt. Ferrite
matrix with pearlite. 2%
nital 200X

Figure 1.6. Micrograph

of new bolt. Tempered
martensite. 2% nital
500X

Figure 1.7. Micrograph

of the new bolt thread
showing a rolling seam.
2% nital 200X

Tensile tests were done on the bolts to test their material properties in comparison
with the standards. The results (Table 1.2) show that the yield strength and ultimate
tensile strength of the original bolt are only two thirds that required by the standards.
This conforms to the microstructural observations. The properties of the new bolt
conformed to the standard even though they were slightly elevated.

Table 1.2--Results and standard requirements of tensile tests.

Original Broken Bolt New Sample Bolt

Standard
Grade
5 SAE

Standard
Grade
By AISI

Sample #

Ultimate
Tensile
Strength
(KSI)

69.5

69.5

148

146

100

125

Yield
Strength

42.7

44.4

134

133

80

105

Appendix B
(KSI)
Elongation
(%)

26

24

20

20

16 min.

16 min.

Surface
Reduction
(%)

67

67

59

59

50 min.

50 min.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Examination revealed that the bolt failed as a result of high cycle low load
fatigue. Chemical analysis and tensile tests confirmed that the bolt did not
meet the SAE grade 5 standards required by the original design of the crane.
The major cause for this lack of conformity is because the bolt was not
quenched and tempered. Since the resistance of steel to fatigue initiation in
proportional to its yield strength, the low properties of the steel in this case left
it open to fatigue initiation.
Examination of the new bolt revealed that it conformed with the ASTM
standards A 193 for a grade B7 bolt, as the supplier specified. However,
rolling seams were found in the thread tips. Due to the relatively low loads this
area is subjected to this is not a major problem but if the bolt is subjected to a
corrosive environments these seams could grow and become fatigue initiation
sites.
The SAE grade 5 bolt specified by the original designers should continue to
be used in future and the upgrade to the ASTM B7 is unnecessary
*For more case studies:
http://www.tms.org/Students/Winners/Davidson/Davidson.html

10

Appendix B

Failure Analysis Report

Assessment Form
Student:

Student Number:

Title:
Edulink:
Introduction

Background
information
Results

Scientific and logical approach to introduce

the failure. It creates an expectation,
motivation for study clearly set out.

15

Information presented in a logical and

structured manner

15

Information presented in a logical and

structured manner, including appropriate
information regarding:

Conclusion and
recommendations
Documentation

Visual examination & cataloguing

Non-destructive tests (NDT)
Chemical analysis
Metallographic examination
Mechanical testing

20

Appropriate conclusions drawn from results

and logical arguments presented.

15

Spelling, punctuation and grammar

Academic register, vocabulary and sentence
construction

25

Cohesion and overall structure of the report

References

Appropriate references cited in text

Reference style
List of references

10

Figures and tables integrated into the report

Descriptive captions
Total

11

100

Appendix B

Failure Analysis Presentation Assessment Form

Criteria

Exemplary

Basic

Sub-standard

Presentation
Clarity/audibility:

[17 25]
* Speaks in a clear voice and shows a flair for
communicating with the audience
*Keeps audience engaged

[10 - 16.5]
*Speech clear most of the time
*Keeps audience engaged most of the time

[0 9.5]
*Speaker difficult to hear. Speaks too fast or too
slow
*Does not keep audience engaged

Body Language:

*Makes eye contact with audience

*Holds attention of audience

*Some eye contact with audience

*Is able to hold attention of audience most of the
time

*No eye contact with audience

*Fails to hold attention of audience

Organisation:

*Well organized with beginning, middle & end

*Ideas flow smoothly & logically
*Delivers ideas in clear and concise manner
*Appropriate reliance on notes

*Some organization
*At times ideas do not flow smoothly & logically
*Many of the ideas presented are clear & concise
*Tends to rely on notes at times.

*Not well organized

*No sequence of information
*Is not clear & concise
*Complete reliance on notes.

Register/
Tone/Language

*Uses appropriate academic register

*Uses appropriate tone
*Uses wide, appropriate vocabulary and
sophisticated language structure

*Uses appropriate academic register most of the

time/some slips
*Tone mostly appropriate/some slips
*Language mainly correct/some slips in vocabulary

*Uses mostly inappropriate register/colloquialisms

* Speech littered with fillers
* Inappropriate tone
* Mainly basic vocabulary; serious language errors
affecting understanding

Visuals/multimedia
Content
Evidence/support/
Understanding

Aids/supports the presentation

[11 - 15]
*Content relevant, well researched
*Provides support for main ideas
*Understands the topic and is confident
*Conclusions and recommendations made are
relevant and correct
*Listeners are likely to gain new insights about the
topic
[7 10]
Within 15 seconds of allowable time

Appropriate
[5 10.5]
*Some content not relevant, some evidence of
research
*Some support for main ideas
*Some understanding of the topic
*Conclusions and recommendations made
*Listeners may learn some isolated facts, but they
are unlikely to gain new insights into the topic
[4 6.5]
Uses most of the time/runs a little over

Distracts from the presentation

[0 4.5]
*Content irrelevant, no evidence of research
*No support for main ideas
*Lacks understanding of the topic
*Conclusions and recommendations not presented
*Listeners are unlikely to learn anything or may be
misled

Time

12

[0 3.5]
Too short or too long
Asked to conclude