En`ineerin` Failure Analysis\ Vol[ 4\ No[ 1\ pp[ 010Ð017\ 0887

\ Pergamon
Þ 0887 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0249Ð5296:87 ,08[99 ¦ 9[99

PII] S0249Ð5296"87#99998Ð9

FAILURE ANALYSIS OF CARRIER CHAIN PINS

G[ A[ SLABBERT\ J[ J[ McEWAN and R[ PATON

Physical Metallurgy Division\ Mintek\ Private Bag X2904\ Randburg 1083\ Republic of South Africa

"Received 2 February 0887#

Abstract*A sugar plant is designed to operate with the minimum disruption during the sugar cane harvesting
season\ and equipment must be maintained in a high standard of repair[ When failure of equipment does take
place\ it is important to identify the cause to minimize the likelihood of any future problems[ This paper details
the analysis of a failure of conveyor chain pins that had operated for only six weeks[ The pins had been heat
treated so that they had become susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement\ and had cracked[ The source of
hydrogen was attributed to corrosion of other steel components in the system[ In order to minimize the
likelihood of future failures\ it was recommended that the source of the corroded components be identi_ed[ In
addition\ it was recommended that the authors should liaise with the plant personnel in order to recommend
a suitable heat treatment schedule for future pins[ Þ 0887 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[

Keywords] Sugar plant\ hydrogen embrittlement\ stress corrosion cracking\ corrosion[

0[ INTRODUCTION

A sugar mill operates continuously during the sugar cane cropping season which\ in South Africa\
runs for more than six months[ It is important that the plant down!time is maintained at an absolute
minimum during this period[ Unforeseen failure of critical components does occur\ however\ and
repair and maintenance is done rapidly in order to get the plant back into full production[ In many
instances\ it is imperative that the cause of failure be ascertained to avoid future problems and
minimize costly breakdowns[ This paper details the failure of carrier chain pins from a conveyor
used to transport moist sugar cane pulp[

0[0[ Back`round
The sugar mill was commissioned in 0883 and the original chain conveyor operated for three
years before it had to be replaced due to excessive wear[ The new carrier chain had only been
operating for about six weeks when the chain pins started failing[
Sugar cane pulp is conveyed at a temperature of about 79>C[ This temperature is maintained by
means of steam\ which has a temperature of approximately 89>C[ The material speci_cation for the
chain was either AISI 320 or BS 869 grade 320S18 "{En 46|# stainless steel[ The hardness was
speci_ed as HRC 32 to 34 "Rockwell {C|# although the material speci_cation did not give any details
on the heat treatment required to obtain this range[ AISI 320 and BS 869 grade 320S18 are related
speci_cations\ but there are di}erences\ as shown in Tables 0 and 1[

1[ INVESTIGATION
1[0[ Visual examination
Twelve pins were examined\ three of which had fractured[ All the pins examined had been in
operation in the conveyor for about six weeks[ The three failed pins had fractured at an angle of
approximately 34> "Fig[ 0#[ Although pin C failed close to the bottom of the pin\ plant personnel
reported that the majority of fractures were in the middle portion of the pin[

 Author to whom correspondence should be addressed[

010
011 G[ A[ SLABBERT et al[
Table 0[ Speci_cations for AISI 320 and {En 46| stainless steel\ and the chemical analysis of the chain pins

)C )Cr )Ni )Mn )Si )S )P

Speci_cation for AISI 320 9[1 max 04Ð06 0[14Ð1[4 0 max 0 max 9[92 max 9[93 max
Speci_cation for {En 46| 9[01Ð9[1 04Ð07 1[9Ð2[9 0 max 0 max 9[92 max 9[93 max
Pin A "fractured# 9[05 04[1 1[43 9[31 9[25 9[910 9[908
Pin B "fractured# 9[04 04[1 1[43 9[31 9[26 9[908 9[907
Pin C "fractured# 9[05 06[1 1[77 9[41 9[43 9[919 9[911
Pin N0 "not fractured# 9[04 04[1 1[44 9[31 9[26 9[991 9[908

Table 1[ Vickers hardness measurements "HV29#

Pin Average Standard deviation Rockwell {C| equivalent

A "fractured# 369 3[0 35

B "fractured# 365 7[9 36
C "fractured# 353 0[4 35
N0 "not fractured# 356 5[4 35

Fig[ 0[ Three fractured pins showing the position and angle of the fractures[

The major portion of the outside surface of the pins was covered in a dark brown corrosion
product\ except at the position of wear[ This product was also present on all three fracture surfaces[
X!ray di}raction analysis of a sample of this brown product con_rmed that it was a corrosion
product that consisted mainly of iron oxide "Fe1O2#[ No chromium was present in this corrosion
product\ indicating that it originated from a source other than the stainless steel pins[ This was
con_rmed by examining the pins after cleaning them in an ASTM!recommended cleaning solution[

1[1[ Chemical analysis

Four pins were analyzed[ They all complied with the chemical composition for {En 46|\ as shown
in Table 0[ Except for the fractured pin\ C\ all the pins had the same chemical composition[ Pin C
had a slightly higher nickel and silicon content\ and\ as a result\ contained some ferrite in the
 Failure analysis of carrier chain pins 012

Fig[ 1[ Fractured pin C[ Note the intergranular nature of the fracture surface on the bottom left\ and the crack
running parallel to the main fracture[ The ferrite stringers can also be seen[

Fig[ 2[ A high magni_cation of the structure shown in Fig[ 1\ showing the tempered martensite and ferrite
stringers of pin C[

microstructure "Figs 1 and 2#[ Pin C also had higher levels of chromium and manganese[ This is
considered bene_cial to the alloy since it leads to grain re_nement\ which increases toughness\
strength\ and resistance to quench cracking ð0Ł[

1[2[ Metallo`raphic analysis

The metallurgical structure of all the samples\ except for pin C\ was tempered martensite and pin
C contained ferrite stringers in a tempered martensite matrix\ as shown in Figs 1 and 2[ Since all
the pins failed in a similar manner\ the presence of ferrite stringers in pin C did not in~uence its
failure[
All of the fractures\ of which the example in Fig[ 3 is typical\ are intergranular[ They exhibit
features\ including yawning grain boundaries\ micropores and no grain boundary corrosion\ which
indicate that they were caused by hydrogen embrittlement "HE# "Fig[ 4# ð1Ł[ A small section of a
fracture surface can be seen at the bottom of both Figs 1 and 3[ In Fig[ 1\ the intergranular nature
of the fracture\ as well as the crack running parallel to the main fracture surface\ con_rms that the
ferrite stringers did not contribute to the propagation of the crack\ and thus the failure of the pins[
The surface on the right!hand side of the pin in Fig[ 3 shows the original machining marks on
the outside of the pin[ This con_rms that little corrosion had taken place on the pin[
013 G[ A[ SLABBERT et al[

Fig[ 3[ The tempered martensite matrix as found in all the pins\ except pin C\ whose structure is shown in Figs
1 and 2[ Note the intergranular nature of the fracture surface on the bottom as well as the machining marks
on the right[

Fig[ 4[ An SEM picture of the fracture surface of a pin showing the intergranular nature of the fracture[
Micropores\ yawning grains\ and the absence of grain boundary corrosion\ characteristic features of HE\ are
shown[

1[3[ Mechanical properties

The Vickers hardness of the pins ranged between 353 and 365 Vickers\ as shown in Table 1[ These
results are equivalent to HRC 35Ð36[ The British standard speci_cation speci_es a hardness for En
46 of HRC 13Ð22[ No speci_ed hardness is available for AISI 320\ although values of up to HRC
36 are reported in the literature ð2Ł[
The eight remaining pins were used to measure the mechanical properties of the steel[ The ultimate
tensile strength "UTS# varied between 0328 and 0468 MPa\ as Table 2 shows[ These values correlate
well with the hardness values obtained[ The 9[1) yield strength of the material varied between 0051
and 0071 MPa[ It is generally considered that high strength steels with a yield strength above 699
MPa are susceptible to HE[ The pins thus fall well within the susceptibility range[ The British
standard speci_cation speci_es a UTS of 749Ð0999 MPa and a 9[1) yield strength of 524 MPa for
 Failure analysis of carrier chain pins 014
Table 2[ Mechanical properties of the pins

9[1) yield Ultimate tensile Impact energy at

strength strength Elongation room temperature
Pin "MPa# "MPa# ")# "J#

N1 0071 0328 12[1 *

N2 0071 0347 10[5 *
N3 0051 0468 13[7 *
N4 * * * 11
N5 * * * 46
N6 * * * 12
N7 * * * 13
N8 * * * 34

Average 0064 0381 12[1 23

Standard deviation 00[4 65 0[5 05
{En 46|0 524 749Ð0999 * *
AISI 3201 * 0109Ð0404 * *
AISI 3202 0929 0269 05 *
AISI 3203 0979 0259 12 *
0
British standard speci_cation BS 869 "849Ð0919>C\ oil quenched and tempered at 449Ð549>C#[
1
879Ð0954>C\ oil quenched and tempered at 129Ð269>C ð2Ł[
2
Quenched and tempered at 159>C "Alloy Digest#[
3
Quenched and tempered at 316>C "Alloy Digest#[

En 46[ UTS values up to 0404 MPa have been reported for AISI 320[ The percentage elongation
varied between 11 and 14)\ which complies well with that required for AISI 320[
The Charpy impact strengths are acceptable for this material\ although the scatter is fairly high
but not atypical[ Figure 5 shows the Charpy impact toughness for a stainless steel complying with
the speci_cation for both En 46 and AISI 320\ as a function of tempering temperature at various

Fig[ 5[ Charpy impact toughness of either AISI 320 or En 46 as a function of tempering temperature\
austenitized at various temperatures and oil quenched[
015 G[ A[ SLABBERT et al[

austenitizing temperatures ð3Ł[ The steel is susceptible to temper embrittlement at temperatures near
449>C[

2[ DISCUSSION

The pins failed due to hydrogen embrittlement "HE#[ They had been heat treated into the
susceptible range for HE[ HE is a mechanical:environmental failure process that results from the
absorption of hydrogen into the metal\ usually in combination with stress "residual or applied# ð4Ł[
HE is one of four types of environmental cracking ð5Ł and is mainly a problem in high strength
steels[ The susceptibility of a material increases with ]
"i# The strength "e[g[ hardness#[
"ii# Increasing amounts of cold work[
"iii# Increasing residual and applied stress[
An example to illustrate the e}ect of tempering on the yield strength and cracking resistance of a
martensitic stainless steel in a marine atmosphere is presented in Fig[ 6 ð6Ł[ Accordingly\ it has
become accepted practice to de_ne resistance to cracking due to HE in terms of yield strength\
hardness\ or heat treatment conditions[
HE is cracking that is induced when atomic hydrogen is supplied to the steel[ The hydrogen can
be supplied by many sources[ One common source of hydrogen is as a by!product of a corrosion
reaction[
It is believed that there is not only one mechanism that causes cracking\ and the mechanism
di}ers from material to material and it can even di}er for the same material in di}erent environments[
There are three theories that explain the mechanism of HE ð2Ł ]

Fig[ 6[ E}ect of tempering temperature on the cracking resistance and yield strength of martensitic stainless
steel in a marine atmosphere[
 Failure analysis of carrier chain pins 016

Fig[ 7[ Schematic view of destinations for hydrogen in a metal microstructure\ discussed in the text ] "a# solid
solution ^ "b# solute hydrogen pair ^ "c# dislocation atmosphere ^ "d# grain boundary accumulation ^ "e# particle
matrix interface accumulation ^ "f # void containing recombined H1[

"i# Reduction in bonding energy between atoms[

"ii# Reduction in surface energy required for cracking[
"iii# Increase in pressure as atomic hydrogen forms molecular hydrogen[
Only atomic hydrogen can enter and di}use through metal since hydrogen molecules are too
large to do this[ However\ molecular hydrogen can form within structural defects such as voids\
microcracks\ etc[\ where it can remain[ The behaviour of hydrogen within a steel is a function of its
solubility and di}usivity[ The e}ect that hydrogen has on a steel is controlled by ]
"i# The form of the hydrogen in the steel "molecular or atomic#[
"ii# The position of hydrogen accumulation "solid solution\ solute hydrogen pair\ dislocations\
grain boundaries\ particle matrix interface\ or void#\ as shown in Fig[ 7 ð7Ł[
"iii# The strength and stress state of the steel[ Annealed steel will tend to blister ^ hardened\ cold!
rolled or highly stressed steel will tend to be embrittled and crack[
Molecular hydrogen in voids and defects does not cause embrittlement[ Atomic hydrogen does
not a}ect the elastic properties of a steel\ only the plastic properties are impaired[ The greatest a}ect
on the plastic properties is found at temperatures between −19>C and 39>C\ particularly at slow
strain rates[ As little as 1Ð1[4 ppm atomic hydrogen can lower the mechanical properties of a steel
while 4Ð5 ppm atomic hydrogen can be detrimental ð8Ł[
The source of hydrogen in this instance has been a corrosion reaction that has taken place on
some other steel component in the system[ The pins had been heat treated into a susceptible region
and even most conditions would provide su.cient hydrogen to cause HE[
In order to prevent HE in the future\ it is thus important to identify the source of hydrogen[
The hardened alloy used in these pins is less corrosion resistant than an alloy in a softer condition
"HRC 24 for example# would be[ The important point\ however\ is that the previous chain lasted
for three years without cracking and the environment in that case was the same as that during the
failure[ Therefore\ the stainless steel used in the previous chain pins was not susceptible to HE[
Before recommendations for a suitable heat treatment and associated hardness can be made\ more
details of the stresses involved during operation need to be furnished[ In this way the optimum life
of the conveyor chain pins can be obtained[

3[ CONCLUSIONS

The conveyor chain pins failed due to hydrogen embrittlement[ The hydrogen came from the
corrosion of steel components in the system and not the actual pins themselves[ The actual corroded
017 G[ A[ SLABBERT et al[

component"s# have not been identi_ed\ but should be found so as to minimize the likelihood of any
future fractures[
The pins had been heat treated to give a hardness in the range HRC 35Ð36[ Although this was
only slightly higher than the hardness speci_ed\ it brought the steel to within the HE susceptibility
range[
Hydrogen embrittlement can be avoided by ]
"i# Removing the source of hydrogen[
"ii# Reducing the strength of the steel[
"iii# Using a steel that is more resistant to HE[
Before any recommendations can be made for a suitable hardness\ and thus heat treatment
schedule for future pins\ more details of the operating stresses are required[

Acknowled`ement*This paper is published by permission of Mintek[

REFERENCES

0[ Kemp\ M[ S[ and van Bennekom\ A[\ Stainless Steel\ 0884\ 05[

1[ Engel\ L[ and Klingele\ H[\ An Atlas at Metal Dama`e[ Wolfe Publication Ltd\ London\ 0870[
2[ ASM Handbook\ 3\ ASM International\ 0880[
3[ Ning\ L[\ Zhonggang\ D[ and Mengen\ H[\ Materials Science and Technolo`y\ 0880\ 6\ 0947[
4[ Metals Handbook\ Vol[ 09\ 7th edn[ ASM International\ Ohio\ 0864[
5[ McIntyre\ D[ R[\ in Process Industries Corrosion\ ed[ B[ J[ Muniz\ W[ I[ Pollock[ NACE\ Houston\ 0875[
6[ Sedriks\ A[ J[\ Corrosion of Stainless Steels[ Wiley!Interscience\ New York\ 0868[
7[ Thompson\ A[ W[ and Bernstein\ I[ M[\ in Advances in Corrosion Science and Technolo`y\ Vol[ 6\ ed[ M[ G[ Fontana and
R[ W[ Staehle[ Plenum Press\ New York\ 0879[
8[ Warren\ D[\ in Process Industries Corrosion\ ed[ B[ J[ Muniz\ W[ I[ Pollock[ NACE\ Houston\ 0875[