Fracture and Failure Lab Title: Fracture in Metals

1) Identify the fracture mode for specimens A, B, C, D and E. Discus the reasons for your choices Sample A The facture mode for sample A was ductile. There are a number of inductions for this on both the optical images, and the FEGSEM images. On the optical image we can see that the specimen has failed in a cup and cone fracture. This is indicative of a relatively large amount of plastic deformation before failure. The low number of fragments at the failure is also indicative of ductile failure; in a brittle failure energy is absorbed with the creation of new surfaces, which results in a more fragmented surface than seen here. The surface also has a fluid like appearance with layers either side of the failure, which is a sign of ductile mode failure. On the FEGSEM image the surface can be seen to be dimpled. These dimples are formed by the plastic deformation during the fracturing process. Sample B The fracture mode for sample B was transgranular brittle failure. We can see that the failure mode is brittle from the optical image, as there is no evidence of large amounts of plastic deformation before failure; the optical image shows a very flat failure surface. However, the optical image alone does not give enough information to be able to identify whether this is a transgranular or intergranular brittle failure. It is only by examining the FEGSEM image that we can identify that the failure method is transgranular. The surface shows evidence of cleavage failure. The Flat features are the result of separation along crystallographic planes1. Sample C Sample C failed through fatigue fracture. Fatigue fractures occur when the sample is subjected to cyclical loads, below the samples ultimate tensile strength. These striations are most easily seen on the FEGSEM image. Each striation represents one stress cycle. Sample D Sample D underwent intergranular brittle failure. Similarly to sample B, the optical image shows that the failure mode was brittle, as there is no evidence of a substantial amount of plastic deformation before failure, which indicates that the failure was sudden and catastrophic.

V.J. Colangelo and F.A. Heiser, Analysis of Metallurgical Failure, 2 Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1989, p.91

nd

Examining the FEGSEM image, it is clear that the fracture has occurred at the grain boundaries as well as whole grains are visible. Therefore the crack did not occur within the grains, but at the grain boundaries. Sample E Sample E shows evidence of both ductile and brittle failure mechanisms. From the optical image, the surface appears to have suffered brittle fracture; the surface is very flat, which indicates a lack of plastic deformation before the sample failed. However, when looking the FEGSEM images, the results of both brittle and ductile fracture mechanisms can be seen. There are clear examples of grain boundaries and whole grains, which indicate intergranular brittle failure, but there are also examples of the dimpled surface and holes in the surface, which indicate the ductile failure mechanism.