J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

(2015) 15:521533
DOI 10.1007/s11668-015-9969-9

TECHNICAL ARTICLEPEER-REVIEWED

Failure Analysis and Simulation Evaluation of an Al 6061 Alloy

Wheel Hub
Weiwei Song . Jody L. Woods . Randall T. Davis . Jessica K. Offutt .
Evan P. Bellis . Evan S. Handler . Charles K. Sullivan . Tonya W. Stone

Submitted: 23 February 2015 / in revised form: 28 April 2015 / Published online: 30 June 2015
ASM International 2015

Abstract This paper details the failure analysis of a

wheel hub from a student designed Formula SAE race car
that fractured at the roots of the rim finger attachment
region. The wheel hub was identified to be manufactured
from a rolled Al 6061 alloy. The experimental characterization included fracture surface analysis and microstructural analysis using scanning electron microscopy, as well
as compressive stressstrain testing and micro-hardness
testing to determine its mechanical properties. Analysis of
the fractured surfaces of the hub revealed beach marks and
striations, suggesting a fatigue failure. A kinematic model
was developed to determine wheel hub loadings as defined
by the car driving history. Detailed loads calculated from
a kinematic equilibrium model and material properties
obtained from the experiment results were used in a finite
element model to simulate the stress distribution and fatigue
life of the wheel hub. The wheel simulation results were
consistent with the failure mode determined from the
fractography study.
Keywords Aluminum  Fatigue failure 
Characterization  MgSi precipitates  Failure analysis 
Energy dispersive spectroscopy  Striations

W. Song  C. K. Sullivan  T. W. Stone

Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State
University, 200 Research Boulevard, Starkville, MS 39759, USA
W. Song  J. L. Woods  R. T. Davis  J. K. Offutt 
E. P. Bellis  E. S. Handler  C. K. Sullivan  T. W. Stone (&)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mississippi State
University, Box 9552, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
e-mail: stone@me.msstate.edu

Introduction
In automotive industries, wheels are one of the most critical components and play a vital role in human safety [1].
Within the wheel component, the wheel hub is essential for
attaching the wheels to vehicles. In past decades, wheel
manufacturers have applied new materials and manufacturing technologies in order to improve the entire wheels
esthetic appearance and design flexibility [13]. Aluminum
alloys are widely used in automobile industries due to their
excellent properties, such as lightweight, good forgeability,
high wear resistance, and high mechanical strength [4]. As
a result, greater than 50% of the new vehicles in North
America are assembled with aluminum alloy wheels and
hubs [5].
The stress distribution in a wheel hub is complex, and it
depends on the wheels operating mode, assembly prestresses, and in-service stresses [1, 3]. The pre-stress is
caused by the manufacturing process, such as pre-pressure
applied to the hub. In-service stresses are the result of
vertical static loads due to the weight of the vehicle and its
passengers. Also dynamic loads caused by driving across
road surface irregularities and lateral forces generated from
the wheel rotation process during driving significantly
affect the service life of the wheel hub. In addition wheels
are also subjected to longitudinal forces during braking and
acceleration processes [1]. When wheels roll on the roadway, the wheel hub is the main component that transfers
forces from the motor to the wheel. Therefore, ensuring the
reliability and safety of wheel hubs is very important.
This case study explores the failure of a front right side
wheel hub on a student designed Formula SAE race car
during a normal left hand turn driving test after only
approximately 100 miles of operation, shown in Fig. 1a.
Upon examination of the failed hub, it was noted that the

123

522

four rim mounting fingers that connected to the stubs had

fractured from the main hub part, but the spindle remained
intact. Three of the rim mounting fingers were fractured at
the root (denoted as 2, 3, and 4 in the Fig. 1b), and one was
broken at the bolt hole (denoted as 1 in Fig. 1b). A wheel
hub failure investigation was conducted through careful
consideration of the fractured surfaces, the vehicles
in-service history, the wheel hub design, and the actual
loading circumstances surrounding the wheel hub.

Methods
Material Characterization
The chemical composition of the wheel hub material was
identified by a stationary spectrometer (MAXx LMM04,
SPECTRO Analytical Instruments). Three readings were
taken from different locations on the hub and averaged for
the material characterization. Following the spectrometer
reading, a 1 cm 9 1 cm square specimen was cut from the
rim mounting finger region and cold mounted in an epoxy
resin. Surfaces of the metallographic samples were ground
on progressively finer emery paper ranging from 1200 grit
to 4000 grit and polished by 3, 1, and 0.05 lm diamond
suspension solutions until smooth. The fully polished
specimen was studied under scanning electro-microscope
(FEG-SEM, Zeiss SUPRA40), in order to observe the
microstructural features of the wheel hub material. The
images were analyzed by ImageAnalyzer (v.2.1-2) developed at Mississippi State University to quantify particle
size and nearest neighbor distance in the material. In
addition, the chemical composition of the intermetallic
particles was determined by energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDX).

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

Mechanical Behavior
Two compression tests were performed using an Instron
5882 machine equipped with a 50-KN load cell to obtain a
stressstrain curve of the wheel hub material. The compression testing specimens had a thickness of 2.7 mm, a
width of 4.7 mm, and a length of 6.23 mm. The tests were
conducted based on ASTM standard E9-09 at an initial
strain rate of 0.001/s at room temperature with a relative
humidity of 45% [6]. Vickers hardness measurements were
conducted using a LECO LM300AT micro-indentation
hardness testing system with a load cell of 500 N to obtain
the ultimate tensile strength of the hub material. The
hardness test specimen had thickness, width, and length
dimensions of 8, 4, and 10 mm, respectively. Four hardness
measurements were obtained on both the top and the cross
section of the sample surface.
Fractography
Fracture surfaces of the mounting fingers were removed
from the wheel hub, mounted, and AuPt sputter-coated for
15 s. The fracture surfaces were examined under a field
emission gun scanning electron microscope (FEG-SEM) to
determine the crack initiation region and failure mode that
led to the pre-mature fracture of the mounting fingers form
the hub.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
A kinematic model was developed to determine wheel hub
loadings when subjected to the driving conditions as
defined by the usage history. Using loads calculated from
the kinematic model, FEA was performed with ANSYS
V14.5 software to determine the stress distribution on the

Fig. 1 (a) Low-magnification image of the broken wheel hub and (b) top view of the hub showing fractured rim mounting fingers. Fingers 2, 3,
and 4 fractured at the root region, and Finger 1 fractured through the bolt hole

123

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

523

Table 1 Chemical composition of the wheel hub material in comparison to Al 6061 (wt.%)
Element

Mg

Si

Fe

Cu

Zn

Ti

Mn

Cr

Al

Hub

0.95

0.77

0.332

0.281

0.19

0.033

0.091

0.09

Balance

AI6061 [7]

0.81.2

0.40.8

\0.7

0.150.4

\0.25

\0.15

\0.15

0.040.35

Balance

wheel hub. The results from the stress analysis were used in
a fatigue study to determine the fatigue life of the wheel
hub for comparison with the actual fractured hub.

Mechanical Behavior of Materials [9] and calculated to

be 456 MPa.
Fractography

Results and Discussion

Material Characterization
The chemical composition of the material from the spectrometer analysis is provided in Table 1. In comparison
with published aluminum alloy data, its elemental composition matches a 6000 series aluminum alloy and is most
likely a 6061 aluminum alloy [7]. SEM images of a polished sample taken at 9150, 91000, 92600, and 96720
magnification are shown in Fig. 2ad, respectively.
Figure 2a, b depicts many large constituent particles
(shown in white) within the aluminum matrix (shown in
gray) formed during age hardening and are aligned in the
same direction. Thus, it can be deduced that the hubs were
manufactured from a rolled Al 6061 alloy. Figure 2c shows
clustering of the precipitates and voids on the surface
caused by debonding of the particles from the aluminum
matrix during the polishing process. Figure 2d provides an
enlarged view of a cluster of particles ranging from 3 to
10 lm in size, with a few fine particles below 1 lm, and an
average particle size is 7.8 lm. The average nearest
neighbor distance between particles was 8.1 lm. Based on
EDX analysis shown in Fig. 2e, the second-phase particles
consist primarily of Mg and Si intermetallics.
Mechanical Behavior
The compressive stressstrain response of the wheel hub
material from two compression tests is presented in Fig. 3.
The yield strength was determined to be 398 MPa from the
0.2% offset method, and the modulus of elasticity was
derived to be 78.6 GPa. The mechanical testing results for
this material are comparable to that of rolled, tempered Al
6061 [8].
Vickers hardness measurements were conducted on both
top and cross-sectional surfaces, as shown in Table 2. The
average hardness values for the top surface and the crosssectional surface are 115 HV and 119 HV, respectively.
The average ultimate tensile strength is estimated from
interpolation of data in Table 2 from Dowlings

From initial examination of the entire hub fracture surface

of the mounting finger at no magnification, distinct crack
nucleation sites, along with beach marks and ratchet marks
indicating crack progression, along with a final overload
fracture region are evident, as shown in Fig. 4. The beach
marks are crescent-shaped macroscopic marks of crack
progression from fatigue failure and radiate out from the
crack nucleation site. Therefore, the broken wheel hub was
a result of fatigue failure, and the crack initiation was
located at the bottom edge of the mounting finger. As one
can see, once the crack initiated, it propagated along the
maximum shear stress planes, which were 45 degrees
relative to the subjected loads, as shown in region I. As the
driving force of the crack increased, the crack path changed
to being perpendicular to the applied loads in region II, and
finally moved into the overload region III.
Images of the fracture surface of hub finger 4 were also
taken by SEM at 12X, 30X, 1500X, and 1800X magnification, as shown in Fig. 5ad, respectively. Figure 5a
reveals the crack initiation site, indicating that a crack
formed at the inner surface of the mounting finger surface.
Figure 5b provides enlarged views of the crack nucleation
region, and, as seen in Fig. 5c, mesoscale crack propagation steps were observed on the fracture surface. At 1800X
magnification as shown in Fig. 5d, striations were evident
near the nucleation site and were caused by the successive
blunting and re-sharpening of the crack tip [10]. A few
voids were also observed near the nucleation site as a result
of debonding of precipitate particles from the matrix.
Boundary Conditions for FEA
A kinematic model was developed to assess loads on
the wheel hub during the driving conditions defined by the
Formula SAE car usage history. It was assumed that the
car was driven straight at a constant velocity of 35 mph
during 50% of its driving time, in a hard left turn during
25% of the time, and in a hard right turn during 25% of the
time before the right front hub failed. A hard turn was
defined as the car moving at a constant velocity of 35 mph,
and its turn radius is just to the point of skidding on all 4

123

524

wheels. The free-body diagram of the car and its pertinent

dimensions from a top view, a side view, and a front view
are shown in Fig. 6. The turn center of rotation is indicated
along with the turning radius and the turning angle of each

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

front tire. The distance between the front two wheels is

1.22 m, the distance between the front and rear axle is
1.5 m, and the tire diameter is 0.5 m. The mass of the car,
Mc, is approximately 180 kg, which includes the driver,

Fig. 2 SEM micrographs of the Al 6061 alloy from the wheel hub specimen showing (a) many second-phase precipitates with cluster
directionality, shown as white and light gray particles, in the aluminum matrix (solid dark gray region). (b) Magnification at 91000 in the
precipitate region reveals clustering of particles oriented along rolling direction of the Al 6061. (c) At 92600 magnification, the presence of
voids (small black areas) is evident due to debonding of particles from the aluminum matrix during the polishing process. (d) At 91800, large
precipitates ranging from 3 to 10 lm in size, with a few fine particles below 1 lm, and an average particle size is 7.79 lm is evident, (e) EDX
spectrum of precipitates (red box in (d)) indicating mainly Mg and Si intermetallics (Color figure online)

123

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

525


Dxf
Rc  Dy


Dxf
;
hfr arctan
Rc Dy

and its gravity center is assumed to be in the middle of the

car. The reaction forces analyzed were as follows: Ffl ; Ffr
are the front left and right tire transverse forces, Frl ; Frr
are the rear left and right transverse forces, Prl ; Prr are
the rear left and right tire forwarding driving forces,
Wfl ; Wfr ; Wrl ; Wfr are the support weight on each tire, and Fc
is the central pedal force. It was known that the front right
wheel hub was broken during a left hard turn driving
condition.
From the mass of the car, its total weight was calculated
to be 1.764 kN. When the car was in the hard turn conditions, it experienced the central pedal force, Fc , which can
be calculated from the turn radius, Rc = 29 m, and the
velocity of the car, Vc = 35 mph. The turning radius was
calculated by considering the front tire transverse forces to
be approximately equal to the static coefficient of friction
times the supported weight at these locations. A static
frictional coefficient of 0.95 and a dynamic frictional coefficient of 0.475 were assumed for the tires in the sticking
condition, which is the typical value for the performance
tires [11]. The resulting central pedal force was determined
to be 1.534 kN, from the following equation:
Fc

Mc  Vc2
:
Rc

hfl arctan

Eq 2
Eq 3

where Dxf is the distance from the gravity center to front

axle, and Dy is the lateral distance from the gravity center
to side wheels. The front left and right tire turning angles
were calculated to be 1.54 and 1.48, respectively.
In order to determine the unknown loads on the wheels
in the hard left and hard right turn conditions, a quasi-static
equilibrium condition of the car was assumed. It was assumed that the car was a rigid body with its front wheels
turned to one side and rolling through a turn at a constant
velocity of 35 mph, with the turn radius of the center of
gravity at a minimum value that still allows at least two
tires to remain in a condition of static frictional contact.
Using the kinematic model, the reaction forces for all
wheels were determined for the left hard turn condition,
which was the driving condition of the car during the hub
failure, as shown in Table 3. (See Appendix section for
the mathematical model.) During the left hard turn condition, the right front and rear wheels supported the largest

Eq 1

The front left and right wheels turning angles, as shown in

Fig. 6, was obtained from the following relations:

Fig. 4 Overview of the typical fracture surface of the Al 6061 wheel

hub. Regions I, II, and III are small crack propagation, long crack
propagation region, and overload region, respectively. Beach marks
and ratchet marks were seen on the fractured surfaces

Fig. 3 Compressive stressstrain response of the Al 6061 hub

specimens tested with strain rate of 0.001/s at room temperature

Table 2 Vickers hardness measurements for the top and cross-sectional surfaces of the hub
Measurements
Location

Test 1, HV

Test 2, HV

Test 3, HV

Test 4, HV

Average, HV

Upper surface

118

121

109

113

115

Cross-sectional surface

123

120

119

113

119

123

526

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

Fig. 5 SEM micrographs of the fractured Al 6061 hub finger surfaces. The scale bar magnitudes from the lower magnification image to higher
magnification image are 1 mm, 200, 10, 10 lm. (a) Fatigue crack initiated from the inner surface of the mounting finger, crack propagation
direction was shown by the arrow; (b) the magnified view of the crack initiation site; (c) the mesoscale crack propagation step was shown on the
fracture surface; (d) coarse striations and debonding voids were observed at the crack initiation region

load (*730 N), and the front right tire had the largest
transverse force of 696.2 N.
Finite Element Analysis
With the wheel loading conditions defined for the front
right tire, a three-dimensional finite element model of the
wheel assembly was developed using the ANSYS V14.5
finite element software suite to assess wheel hub stress
history based on the usage history. A solid model of the
wheel hub and spindle was available and was used for the
finite element model. A dummy tire, 0.495 m in diameter,
was added to the solid model along with a hub nut, rim
attachment nuts, and bolts in order to provide the proper
load transfer path. The full solid model assembly of these

123

components is shown in Fig. 7. Note in Fig. 7 that the

dummy tire has flats on its outer perimeter, these are areas
needed for load application to simulate rolling, and there is
a flat every 45 degrees along the circumference. The finite
element mesh is shown in Fig. 8, which includes a view of
the assembly as well as three views of the wheel hub. The
finite element model primarily consisted of tetrahedral and
hexahedral solid elements with mid-sized nodes. There
were 576,741 nodes, 360,053 solid elements, and 20,903
specialized elements for contact and bolt preload simulation in the model. In addition, contact between the wheel
hub and the dummy tire, hub and rim mounting nuts and
bolts, and between the hub, spindle, and hub nut was
modeled with a frictional contact algorithm using a coefficient of friction of 0.3 which is appropriate for metal to

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

527

Fig. 6 Free-body diagram of the car in the left hard turn condition, and the failed wheel hub was the one in the red box (Color figure online)

Table 3 The calculated reaction force values for all tires in the left hard turn condition
Reaction forces
Front left tire transverse force

Fn = 75.2 N

Rear right tire forwarding driving force

Prl = 12.9 N

Front right tire transverse force

Ffr = 696.2 N

Front left tire supported weight

Wfl = 157.9 N

Rear left tire transverse force

Frl = 74.3 N

Front right tire supported weight

Wfr = 731.7 N

Rear right tire transverse force

Frr = 689.0 N

Rear left tire supported weight

Wrl = 156.1 N

Rear left tire forwarding driving force

Prl = 6.7 N

Rear right tire supported weight

Wrr = 733.5 N

metal contact [12]. An elastic modulus of 78.6 GPa from

compressive stress strain results was used, which may be
12% higher than the tensile modulus [13]. The material
was modeled as linear-elastic, because even in the worst
loading conditions, the yield strength was not exceeded in
any area of interest.

The finite element model was constrained by applying

an all degree of freedom fixed boundary condition to the
face of the spindle as shown in Fig. 9 and a radial constraint boundary condition to the bearing surface of the
spindle. Rotation was simulated by applying loads to a flat
surface on the dummy tire, resulting in eight load cases to

123

528

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

Fig. 7 Wheel assembly solid model, detailing location of the tire/rim, the hub, the hub attachment nut, the spindle, and the rim attachment bolt
and nut

Fig. 8 ANSYS finite element

meshed model of the tire and
hub assembly and various
orientations of the hub

Fig. 9 Finite element model was constrained by an all degree of

freedom fixed boundary condition to the surface of the spindle and a
radial constraint boundary condition to the bearing surface of the
spindle

simulate one revolution. Forward driving, left hard turn,

and right hard turn conditions were considered for the front
right tire, leading to 24 loading cases in total. In all three

123

loading conditions, the rim attachment fingers are put in a

state of cyclic bending as the tire rotates.
The detail loads applied to the finite element model for
each condition is shown in Table 4. The left hard turn
loading condition, as expected due to its higher loads,
resulted in the highest cyclic stresses and also corresponds
to the actual driving condition during the wheel hub failure.
Figure 10 shows von Mises stress distribution along wheel
hub with exaggerated deformation of the wheel hub in its
initial position during the hard left turn loading condition.
The peak stress reached 62 MPa at the inner root of the rim
mounting fingers, and a small region near the bolt hole also
subjected to stress over 30 MPa. Figures 11 and 12 are
each a series of von Mises stress contour plots of the outer
surface and inner surface, respectively, of the right front
wheel hub as the tire was rotated. Areas of red indicate
stress values greater than 30 MPa, whereas blue regions
indicate a stress-free condition. The highest stressed areas

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

529

Table 4 Finite element model load cases of the front right wheel during various angles of tire rotation in the forward driving condition, the left
hard turn condition, and the right hard turn condition
Driving straight condition, N
Tire rotation

Load case

X load

Y load

Z load

Hard left turn loading condition, N

Load case

X load

Y load

Z load

Hard right turn loading condition, N

Load case

X load

Y load

Z load
0

444.8

696.2

731.7

17

334.5

157.9

45

314.5

314.5

10

696.2

517.3

517.3

18

334.5

111.7

111.7

90

444.8

11

696.2

731.7

19

334.5

157.9

135
180

4
5

0
0

314.5
444.8

314.5
0

12
13

696.2
696.2

517.3
731.7

517.3
0

20
21

334.5
334.5

111.7
35.1

111.7
0

225

314.5

314.5

14

696.2

517.3

517.3

22

334.5

111.7

111.7

270

444.8

15

696.2

731.7

23

334.5

157.9

315

314.5

314.5

16

696.2

517.3

517.3

24

334.5

111.7

111.7

Fig. 10 The von Mises stress analysis of the wheel hub in the left hard left condition at wheel rotation angle 0. The maximum stress values
(62 MPa) were located at the inner root of the rim mounting fingers, as well as near the bolt hole regions (30 MPa)

Fig. 11 The stress distribution on the outer surface of the front right wheel hub at different wheel rotation angles during the hard left turn
condition. The red region indicates the stress magnitude greater than 30 MPa

123

530

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

Fig. 12 The stress distribution on the inner surface of the front right wheel hub at different wheel rotation angles during the hard left turn
condition. The red region indicates stress magnitudes greater than 27.6 MPa

Table 5 Fatigue strength reduction factors

Reduction factors

Values

Load factor

kload = 1.0

Size factor

A95 = 0.05q

(0.4 in)  (1.5 in)
A95
1
deqv in
0:626
 0:0766

ksize = 0.869  (deqv)0.197 = 0.909

Surface finish factor

Sut = 66.2
a = 2.7
b = 0.265
ksurf = a  Sbut = 0.889

Temperature factor

ktemp = 1

Reliability factor

kreliab = 0.659

Fatigue strength reduction

factor

kload  ksize  ksurf 

ktemp  kreliab = 0.5327

Fig. 13 Comparison between stress history loading conditions and

fatigue parameters during one full tire rotation of the front right wheel

are at the root of the rim attachment fingers, with additional

high-stress areas located on the inner surface of the wheel
hub during all rotation angles. The variable loading during
tire rotation produced a fatigue loading condition on the
wheel hub. The areas of maximum stress resulting from the
FEA simulation correlated well with the actual fracture
locations on the wheel hub. As shown from FEA, the
current wheel hub design produced large stress concentration at the roots of the rim finger attachment regions
which contributed to the failure.
Fatigue Life Analysis
The expected fatigue life of the front right wheel hub was
estimated based on the analytical results that account for its
full loading history. In all load cases of the FEA, the
highest stress was at the root inner surface of the rim

123

mounting attachment fingers and was used to assess fatigue

life. The maximum von Mises stress values at the root
inner surface during a complete tire rotation cycle for the
three loading conditions are shown in Fig. 13. This plot
provides the wheel hub stress history for one loading cycle
of each of the loading conditions for the purposes of the
fatigue life analysis.
The ANSYS 14.5 finite element analysis software suite
includes a fatigue analysis module which was used in this
failure analysis to perform fatigue calculations. The
ANSYS fatigue module calculations rely on the ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III [14] and
Section VIII, Division 2 [15] for guidelines on range
counting, simplified elasticplastic adaptations, and Miners rule cumulative fatigue summation. As defined in the
usage history, it is assumed that the car was driven straight
50% of the time, and in each of the hard turn conditions 25% of the time. The rainflow counting method was

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

531

Fig. 14 Best-fit S/N curves for

un-notched 6000 Series
Aluminum Alloys, various
wrought products, longitudinal
direction

used to account for this non-proportional loading history. A

single block of loading was defined as two tire rotations in
the straight driving condition and one rotation each of the
hard left and hard right turn loading conditions. A single
block of loading then corresponds to 4 tire rotations and
with a 0.495-m-diameter tire this is 6.22 m of car forward
motion. One cycle of loading for purposes of life prediction
was defined as 258.6 blocks of loading which is equivalent
to one mile of car forward motion. In this manner, the
ANSYS fatigue module provided life prediction in terms of
miles driven.
The wheel hub materials fatigue properties used in the
fatigue calculations are presented in Fig. 14 which is a plot
of best-fit stress-life, or fatigue strength, curves under
proportional loading at different stress ratios for un-notched specimens of various wrought 6000 series Aluminum
alloys [16].
The fatigue life calculations used the stress-life
approach with mean stress effects accounted for by the
Gerber mean stress theory [17]. Rainflow counting was
used to account for the non-proportional loading history,
with history data taken from the stress analysis of the
different loading conditions and each loading cycle defined
in terms of miles driven as previously described. The
signed Von Mises stress was used to for evaluation of
fatigue life in order to account for the three-dimensional
state of stress in the wheel hub and uniaxial stress associated with the fatigue strength data. The fatigue strength
data were adjusted by the appropriate fatigue strength reduction factors as shown in Table 5 [12]. This results in a
reduction in fatigue strength by 53% as compared to

Fig. 15 ANSYS fatigue module contour plot of fatigue damage with

predicted fatigue life of 1328 miles for the current hub design

laboratory samples. The fatigue life calculations were

performed, and the predicted life for the wheel hub given
all the conditions and parameters previously described was
1328 miles, as shown in Fig. 15. The fatigue damage is in
root of the rim attachment finger on its inside surface, and
is consistent with the failure being investigated.
This predicted life of around 1000 miles is higher than
the actual 100 miles the vehicle was driven prior to hub
failure. Several assumptions went into the analyses that
resulted in this prediction, and it is sensitive to the variables that went into its calculation. The two most sensitive
parameters are the percentage of time spent in the hard left

123

532

turn driving condition during the loading history, and the

fatigue strength reduction factors used. If the load history
had more left turn in it, the predicted life would be shorter.
Also, the result is very sensitive to the fatigue strength
reduction factors chosen. An analysis was run with an
overall fatigue strength reduction factor of 40% instead of
the 53% chosen for the failure analysis, and it resulted in a
predicted fatigue life of 79 miles. Also fatigue and fatigue
strength inherently have a relatively large amount of statistical scatter associated with them for various reasons
[17]. Additionally, the intermetallic Mg2Si particles were
easily debonded from the aluminum matrix, which could
reduce the crack incubation life and fatigue resistance
strength, accelerating the fatigue failure process. The
results of both the stress analysis and the fatigue life analysis are consistent with the failure being investigated and
give insight into the cause and mode of failure for the
wheel hub.

Conclusion
The failure of a wheel hub from a student designed Formula SAE race car that prematurely fractured at the roots
of the rim finger attachment region was studied using
experimental characterization, as well as FEA and fatigue
life analysis. From spectroscopy, the wheel hub material
was identified to be an Al 6061 alloy. EDX and SEM
analysis revealed second-phase Mg2Si particles averaging
7.8 lm in size within the aluminum matrix. Fractography
analysis revealed beach marks and striations on the fracture
surfaces of the hub fingers. Considering the relatively small
magnitudes of forces involved and the results from the
experimental analysis, failure of the wheel hub was due to
fatigue. A quasi-static kinematic model was developed to
access forces on the wheel hub during the driving conditions defined by the usage history. FEA simulation results
confirmed that the hub would fail at the roots of rim
attachment fingers and fatigue life analysis predicted a
service life of approximately 1000 miles significantly less
than the 100 miles the car was driven prior to hub failure.
The cyclical loading in the hard left turn loading condition
and the wheel hub design allowing large stress concentrations at the roots of the rim fingers were contributing
factors in the failure of the front right wheel hub of the car.
Acknowledgments The authors thank the Center for Advanced
Vehicular Systems at Mississippi State University for usage of the
equipment for the materials characterization and mechanical experiments. In addition, we would like to thank Dr. Andrew Oppedal
and Ms. Melissa Mott for their guidance.

123

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

Appendix
The mathematical description of the quasi-static equilibrium state was developed by summing and setting equal to
zero the forces in each global coordinate direction, and the
moments about each global and local coordinate axis. From
summation of forces in the global x, y, z coordinate
direction separately, obtained Eqs 46.
X
Fx 0 Prl Prr  ls  Wfl  sinhfl  Ffr  sinhfr
X
X

Eq 4
Fy 0 ls  Wfl  coshfl Ffr  coshfr

Eq 5

ls  Wrl Frr  Fc
Fz 0 Wfl Wfr Wrl Wrr  Mc  g:

Eq 6

Summing the moments along global x, y, z coordinate axis

resulted in the following Eqs 79.
X
Mx 0 ls  Wfl  coshfl  h
Eq 7

Ffr  coshfr  h Wfl  Dy

ls  Wfr  h Frr  h  Wfr  Dy  Wrr  Dy
X
My 0 Wfl  Dxf Wfr  Dxf

Eq 8

Prl  h  ls  Wfl  sinhfl  h

 Ffr  sinhfr  h  Wrl  Dxr  Wrr  Dxr
X
Mz 0 ls  Wfl  coshfl  Dxf
Ffr  coshfr  Dxf ls  Wfl  sinhfl  Dy
Prr  Dy  Ffr  sinhfr  Dy  ls  Wrl  Dxr

Eq 9

 Frr  Dxr  Prl  Dy

Summing the moments about the local X0 , X00 , Y0 coordinate
axis obtained Eqs 1012.
X
Mx0 0 Wc  Dy Fc  h  Wfl  2  Dy  Wrr  2  Dy
X

Eq 10
Mx00 0 Wfl  2  Dy Wrl  2  Dy Fc  h  Wc  Dy

Eq 11
My0 0 Wc  Dxf  Wrl  Dxf Dxr

 Wrr  Dxf Dxr ;

Eq 12

where ls is the dynamic frictional coefficient, and h is the

distance between the gravity center and the ground. These
reaction forces corresponding to the hard turn conditions
can be calculated from the above equations, and the
unknown forces for hard left turn were solved and are
shown in Table 3.

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2015) 15:521533

In the straight driving condition, since the gravity center is

centrally located with respect to the wheels and there is no
acceleration, it was assumed that the weight was evenly distributed to each wheel and no side loads imposed on the wheels.

533

8.

9.

References
1. U. Kocabicak, M. Firat, Numerical analysis of wheel cornering
fatigue tests. Eng. Fail. Anal. 8(4), 339354 (2001)
2. B. Zhang, D.M. Maijer, S.L. Cockcroft, Development of a 3-D
thermal model of the low-pressure die-cast (LPDC) process of
A356 aluminum alloy wheels. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 464(12), 295
305 (2007)
3. C.-L. Chang, S.-H. Yang, Simulation of wheel impact test using
finite element method. Eng. Fail. Anal. 16(5), 17111719 (2009)
4. Forging Equipment, Materials and Practices, Air Force Materials
Laboratory, Metals and Ceramics Information Center, Ohio,
1973, p. 13. 1973
5. F. Chiesa, Influence of some processes and metallurgical factors
on production of cast Al wheels. AFS Trans. 103, 547556 (1995)
6. ASTM Standard E9-09, 2009, Standard Test Methods of
Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at Room Temperature, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009,
doi:10.1520/E0009-09, 2009
7. P. Nageswara Rao, R. Jayaganthan, Effects of warm rolling and
ageing after cryogenic rolling on mechanical properties and

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

microstructure of Al 6061 alloy. Mater. Design 39, 226233

(2012)
U. Kang, H. Lee, W. Nam, The achievement of high strength in
an Al 6061 alloy by the application of cryogenic and warm
rolling. J. Mater. Sci. 47(22), 78837887 (2012)
N.E. Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering
Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue (Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1993)
G. Totten, Fatigue crack propagation. Adv. Mater. Process
166(5), 3941 (2008)
E.R. Jones, R.L. Childers, Contemporary College Physics
(McGraw-Hill Science Engineering, Ohio, 2000)
R.L. Norton, Machine Design, an Integrated Approach (PrenticeHall, New Jersey, 1995)
Aluminum Standards and Data 2000 and/or International Alloy
Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought
Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys (Revised 2001)
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2013, Section III, Rules
for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2013
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2009b, Section VII,
Division II, Alternative Rules, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, 2009
Federal Aviation Administration, M.M.P.D.a.S.M., DOT/FAA/
AR-MMPDS-01, Office of Aviation Research, Washington, D.C.,
2003
R.I. Stephens et al., Metal Fatigue in Engineering (Wiley, New
York, 2001)

123