Abstract
This case study involves two continuously cast steel crankshaft failures. Three parties performed their own failure analyses: (1) the engine manufacturer responsible for component design, specification, and application; (2) the steel supplier and forging supplier responsible for making the steel, forging the shape, and preliminary heat treatment; and (3) a supplier that provided induction hardening, finish machining, and inspection. An independent fourth party engineering firm was subsequently involved, but because each party had their own agenda, there was no agreement on the metallurgical failure cause and therefore no continued analysis to pin-down and eliminate the root cause. A classic case showing how we may be doomed to repeat our failures because sound engineering was not allowed to proceed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
V.J. Colangelo and F.A. Heiser:Analysis of Metallurgical Failures, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1974.
Metals Handbook, Vol. 11,Failure Analysis and Prevention, 9th ed, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is based on “Failure Analysis In Heat Treating; Who’s To Blame?,” a paper presented by David A. Moore at the 9th International Induction Heating Seminar, held in Clearwater Beach, Fla. 10–12 May 2000, and sponsored by Inductoheat Inc., Madison Heights, Mich.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moore, D.A., Packer, K.F., Jones, A.J. et al. Crankshaft failure and why it may happen again. Practical Failure Analysis 1, 63–72 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02715199
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02715199