Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 521–533 | Cite as

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
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed
  • 416 Downloads

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 stress–strain 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 Mg–Si precipitates Failure analysis Energy dispersive spectroscopy Striations 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    U. Kocabicak, M. Firat, Numerical analysis of wheel cornering fatigue tests. Eng. Fail. Anal. 8(4), 339–354 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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(1–2), 295–305 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.-L. Chang, S.-H. Yang, Simulation of wheel impact test using finite element method. Eng. Fail. Anal. 16(5), 1711–1719 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forging Equipment, Materials and Practices, Air Force Materials Laboratory, Metals and Ceramics Information Center, Ohio, 1973, p. 13. 1973Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Chiesa, Influence of some processes and metallurgical factors on production of cast Al wheels. AFS Trans. 103, 547–556 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    P. Nageswara Rao, R. Jayaganthan, Effects of warm rolling and ageing after cryogenic rolling on mechanical properties and microstructure of Al 6061 alloy. Mater. Design 39, 226–233 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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), 7883–7887 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N.E. Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Totten, Fatigue crack propagation. Adv. Mater. Process 166(5), 39–41 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.R. Jones, R.L. Childers, Contemporary College Physics (McGraw-Hill Science Engineering, Ohio, 2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.L. Norton, Machine Design, an Integrated Approach (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aluminum Standards and Data 2000 and/or International Alloy Designations and Chemical Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys (Revised 2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 2013, Section III, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components”, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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, 2009Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Federal Aviation Administration, M.M.P.D.a.S.M., DOT/FAA/AR-MMPDS-01, Office of Aviation Research, Washington, D.C., 2003Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R.I. Stephens et al., Metal Fatigue in Engineering (Wiley, New York, 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weiwei Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jody L. Woods
    • 2
  • Randall T. Davis
    • 2
  • Jessica K. Offutt
    • 2
  • Evan P. Bellis
    • 2
  • Evan S. Handler
    • 2
  • Charles K. Sullivan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tonya W. Stone
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Advanced Vehicular SystemsMississippi State UniversityStarkvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations