|
Return to
Failure Analysis Case Histories
|
Mechanical Fatigue of a Stainless Steel Shaft
|
|
ENVIRONMENT:
|
Grinder |
|
EQUIPMENT:
|
Type 316 Stainless Steel |
|
MATERIAL: |
Two weeks |
|
FAILURE MODE:
|
Mechanical Fatigue |
|
|
Summary
|
|
A failed shaft from a grinder was submitted for a
failure analysis. Examination of the fracture surface revealed characteristics
consistent with mechanical fatigue failure. These characteristics were typical
fatigue marks associated with a uniformly loaded shaft with moderate to severe
stress concentration subjected to rotating-bending fatigue. The failure occurred
at a sharp change in shaft diameter. No indication of chemical interaction was
present.
|
|
|
|
Background |
|
The submitted shaft sections had been in service for
approximately 2 weeks prior to sudden failure. The previous shaft for this
grinder had seen between 1½ and 2 years of service before failing in a similar
manner. Material of construction was reported to be Type 316 stainless steel.
|
|
|
|
Description of Material |
|
The pieces received contained the matching faces of the
sheared shaft. Section1 was approximately 7” long. The shaft was
approximately 4 1/8” in diameter at one end that was saw cut. The opposite end
contained the fracture that occurred at a diameter transition from 2 3/8” to 2
7/8”. A deformed aluminum ring was on the shaft near the fracture surface.
Section 2 was approximately 10” long with a noticeable
bend on the end (»10°) where the
fracture occurred.
|
|
|
Findings
|
|
Approximately 75% of the
fracture surface appeared relatively smooth and associated with striations of a
propagating ductile fatigue crack. The remaining 25% of the surface had a rough
texture associated with the final brittle fracture of the shaft. Noticeable
deformation of the shaft was present in the area of final failure.
|
|
On the fracture surface,
several crack initiation sites were present, with one main crack that led to
failure, Figure 2. Beachmarks were present on the main crack typical of a
propagating fatigue crack. This was most likely caused by mechanical damage of
the fracture surface that occurred due to the opening and closing of the
fracture prior to final failure. The cracks initiated at a diameter transition
next to a support bearing. The area of final failure is approximately at a 15°
offset from the beach marks associated with the main crack.
|
| |
|
|
|
The inner ring of the bearing
and associated spacers and lock-nut were removed from the shaft. Along the outer
edges of where the inner bearing ring was in contact with the shaft mechanical
damage typical of fretting was observed, Figure 3. Mechanical deformation was
also observed in the shear grove between the threaded portion of the shaft and
the bearing land.
|
|
The shaft was found to be within the specification of Type
316 stainless steel. The hardness of the shaft was
determined using a Rockwell Harness Tester. The hardness was measured to be in
the range of 78 to 81 Hardness Rockwell B (HRB).
|
| |
Discussion
|
|
The observed fracture surfaces
have characteristics consistent with mechanical fatigue failure. These
characteristics are striations and beachmarks associated with a uniformly loaded
shaft with moderate to severe stress concentration subjected to rotating-bending
fatigue. The fretting observed is typical of damage caused due to flexing of the
shaft.
|
|
Fatigue failures require that
there be a stress concentrator and a cyclic stress applied. In this failure, the
stress concentration was provided by the abrupt change in shaft diameter. A cyclic bending stress could have been applied due to improperly
tightened belts, overloading of the grinder causing vibration, or due to an
imbalance or misalignment of the shaft.
|