Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Material Characterisation Division, Materials and Metallurgy Group, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation,
Trivandrum 695 022, India
b
Materials and Mechanical Entity, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, Trivandrum 695 022, India
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 June 2009
Accepted 11 October 2009
Available online 31 October 2009
Keywords:
0.15C1.25Cr1Mo0.25V steel
Burst failure
a b s t r a c t
0.15C1.25Cr1Mo0.25V steel, a high strength low alloy (HSLA) steel, is being extensively
used in space programme. This alloy being a versatile material and its ease of fabrication
and welding made it the most suitable for the fabrication of 560 mm dia pressure vessel
for smaller rockets. During proof pressure test for 73 KSC, one of the pressure vessels burst
opened at 71 KSC. Metallurgical analysis of the failed motor case was carried out to understand the causes of its failure. Observations indicated that a deviation in normal heat treatment resulted in low strength of material, which caused yielding and premature rupture at
lower pressure than expected. This paper brings out the salient features of this analysis.
2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction
High strength low alloy (HSLA) steel with nominal composition of 0.15C1.25Cr1Mo0.25V is being used in space
programme extensively. This alloy is a versatile material and its ease of fabrication and welding made it the most suitable
for the fabrication of 560 mm dia motor case for smaller rockets. During proof pressure test designed to withstand 73 KSC,
one of the pressure vessels, fabricated using this material burst opened at 71 KSC. Metallurgical analysis of the failed component was carried out to understand the causes of its failure. This paper brings out the salient features of this analysis.
2. Material
The 0.56 m dia pressure vessels are fabricated using this HSLA steel sheets of dimension 2000 1000 2.60 mm,
procured in annealed condition. All the sheets were produced from four ingots of the same heat in different batches. These
sheets satised the chemistry of the material and met the specied properties in heat-treated condition. The specied chemistry and mechanical properties in hardened and tempered condition are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
The cold rolled and annealed sheets were converted into 0.56 m dia cylindrical segments by roll bending and joining the
edges by TIG welding. Four such segments were joined end to end to form a pressure vessel of 2.855 m length by circumferential TIG welding after hardening and tempering to the specied properties. Three rings were used, one at both ends
(dome side and nozzle side) and the remaining in the centre to provide necessary rigidity as per design requirement. The
sheets from two different lots of the same heat, say batches A and B were used for fabrication of pressure vessel. The sheet
used for the segment which failed belonged to batch A while the another segment of the same pressure vessel, made out of
sheet of batch B did not fail during the proof pressure test. The schematic of the motor case is shown in Fig. 1.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 471 2563628; fax: +91 471 2705048.
E-mail address: ak_jha@vssc.org (A.K. Jha).
1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.10.012
803
%C
%Cr
%Mo
%V
%Fe
wt.%
0.120.18
1.251.50
0.801.0
0.20.3
Rest
Table 2
Mechanical properties of material in hardened and tempered condition.
Mechanical properties
980
835
300
3. Observations
3.1. Visual observations at failure site
During Proof Pressure test, the motor case failed at 71 KSC as against the proof pressure of 73 KSC. Preliminary observation, made at the test site revealed that the material of one out of total four segments of the motor case, yielded near the long
seam weld (1530 mm away from the weld fusion line) and failed in overload mode (Fig. 2). The opening of the crack of
length 790 mm was the maximum (80 mm) at its centre. The propagation of the crack stopped almost 27 mm away from
the cirseam weld fusion line on either side as shown in Fig. 3. Four dents, two on either side of the crack opening and almost
equidistance (approx. 200 mm) from the fracture path (Fig. 4) were also noticed. These dents were due to inward ow of
material that resulted from outward bulge of material at fracture edge on yielding during proof pressure test.
The circumferences of the failed segment were measured at three locations, i.e. at the centre of fracture path and at both the
cirseam welds on either side of the crack opening. The circumference measured was 1900 mm at the centre of fracture while it
was 1765 mm at both the cirseam welds. The difference of 135 mm was a measure of bulging during yielding of material.
804
The thickness measurements were carried out at locations with an interval of approx. 10 mm all along the fracture edge.
Thickness was also measured at a distance of approximately 50 mm away from the fracture edge at certain other locations,
on either side of the fracture edge. A pictorial depiction of locations and measured thickness is given in Table 3. Thinning of
the material was observed all along the fracture edge from an original reported thickness of 2.52/2.60 mm. The measured
minimum thickness of the shell at the centre of the fracture edge was 2.00 mm. However, the thickness of the shell at about
50 mm away from the fracture edge was as low as 2.30 mm. This conrmed that material underwent yielding before nal
fracture, though, thinning to this extent was not expected for this material in hardened and tempered condition. Taking into
consideration this large reduction in thickness of the shell, hardness measurement was conducted on pieces sliced off from
the failed segment near to the fractured edge. The hardness values observed were in the range of 164171 BHN.
These values of hardness were lower than the expected minimum hardness of 300 BHN for this steel in hardened and
tempered condition. Hence a detailed investigation to the metallurgical nature of the material of the segments of the failed
motor case was found necessary.
805
2.31
2.31
2.47
2.48
2.42
2.41
2.35
2.30
2.34
2.32
2.39
2.38
2.38
2.36
2.36
2.32
Thickness, 50 mm away
from fracture edge
2.52
2.42
2.45
2.38
2.47
2.45
2.40
2.30
2.36
2.32
2.33
2.31
2.30
2.33
The chemical assay, mechanical properties and microstructural studies were carried out on these pieces. Apart from this,
different heat treatment cycles were carried out on the material from the failed segment to evaluate its response. Hardness
traverse on the cut piece consisting of sheets from batch A and that from batch B with cirseam weld in between was also
carried out and the values was reported in Table 4.
806
Table 4
Hardness values evaluated on both side of cirseam (CS) weld.
Specimen identication
Hardness (BHN)
161,163,164
162,165,166
303,304,305
Table 5
Chemical analysis result.
Spec
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
%C
%S
%Mn
%V
%Cr
%Mo
%Fe
0.120.18
0.11
0.17
0.15
0.015max
0.001
0.002
0.801.0
0.72
0.70
0.20.3
0.22
0.22
1.251.50
1.30
1.30
0.801.0
0.80
0.81
Bal
Bal
Bal
copy. Hence, carbon content was evaluated on chips drilled out from another specimen from the same location, after about
0.3 mm material was removed from its both surfaces. After removing materials from both the surfaces, Specimen 3 was
taken out and evaluated for carbon content. The carbon was found to be 0.15 wt.%, well within the specication (0.12
0.18%C).
807
(Fig. 8). The grains within de-carburised region were very ne compared to that away from the surface. This is attributed to
the working imparted during nal reduction of sheet making.
The above exercises showed that the fractured segment had deviation during its heat treatment, which resulted in low
strength nearly equal to that of annealed material. Low strength of the sheet caused premature overload failure during proof
pressure test.
808
Fig. 7. Schematic sketch of specimen from the cirseam weld region and hardness (VPN) values across its thickness.
Table 6
Microhardness values across the thickness.
Sheet of batch A (failed segment)
Sheet of B
265 (ID)
317
362
380
380
362
262
328 (OD)
Table 7
Mechanical properties.
Specimens taken from
UTS (MPa)
0.2%YS (MPa)
%E
Hardness BHN
Specication
Failed segment
980 min.
777
766
767
1128
1132
1124
835 min.
610
594
580
1002
993
994
9 min.
23.9
19.4
19.4
14.5
14.8
13.0
168,169,173
169,170,179
172,173,168
336,338,329
337,340,337
329,329,329
809
4. Discussion
The primary objective of a material failure analysis is to determine the root cause of the failure, which can be normally
assigned to various categories e.g. design, manufacturing, material or service environment.
In the present failure case study, the burst opening of the motor case was conned to a segment, while another three segments of the motor case were intact. The opening was maximum at the centre and narrowed down while traversing towards
both the ends. Presence of dents, two on either side of fracture edge and almost equidistant from the fracture edge were due
to inward ow of materials resulted from outward bulge of material at fracture edge on yielding during proof pressure test.
Thickness measurement indicated thinning from 2.52/2.60 mm to 2.00 mm at the middle of fracture edge, which was
much more than the expected thinning for hardened and tempered steel. The measured low hardness indicated that the
material was in annealed condition. Further, the de-carburised layer too had contributed to low hardness, which was conrmed by chemical analysis and microstructure. This lower value of hardness was within the specication (<197BHN) for
15CDV6 steel in annealed condition. Mechanical properties and microstructure of this segment further conrmed this.
The high hardness, as observed in sheet of another segment of the same motor case was result of proper hardening and tempering treatment.
The deviation in heat treatment was established by simulated heat treatment.
The calculation (Appendix A) shows that the material with deviation in heat treatment as inferred above and which had
yield strength of 580 MPa could yield at 71 KSC. The calculation also supports why Segments fabricated with sheets (batch
B) having YS more than 990 MPa and UTS more than 1120 MPa did not fail.
5. Conclusions
1. The segment fractured in pressure testing had deviation in heat treatment while the adjoining good segment was in the
specied hardened and tempered condition.
2. Deviation in heat treatment resulted in low strength of material, which yielded and ruptured at lower pressure than
expected.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Dr. K. Radakrishnanan, Director, VSSC for permission to publish this work.
Appendix A
Arriving conclusion becomes simpler as per following calculation:
The calculation shows that the material with deviation in heat treatment as inferred above and which had yield strength
of 580 MPa could yield at 71 KSC.
The evaluated YS of material from the failed segment ry = 580 MPa
The segment failed at 71 KSC, i.e. P = Pr = 71 KSC
Diameter of the segment = 560 mm = 56 cm
Thickness of the segment = 2.50 mm = 0.25 cm
rmax PD=2t 71 56=2 0:25 7952 KSC 79:52 Kgf=mm2 779 MPa
where rmax is the maximum stress experienced by material during pressure test at 71 KSC.
rmax = 779 MPa, which was more than the YS (580 MPa) and UTS (766 MPa) of the material and hence failure by rupture.
Segments fabricated with sheets (batch B) having YS more than 990 MPa and UTS more than 1120 MPa did not fail.