Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis of a crankshaft made from ductile cast iron

Osman Asi *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Usak Engineering Faculty, Afyon Kocatepe University, 64300 Usak, Turkey

Received 3 November 2005; accepted 3 November 2005

Available online 7 February 2006

Abstract

This paper describes the failure analysis of a diesel engine crankshaft used in a truck, which is made from ductile cast
iron. The crankshaft was found to break into two pieces at the crankpin portion before completion of warranty period.
The crankshaft was induction hardened. An evaluation of the failed crankshaft was undertaken to assess its integrity that
included a visual examination, photo documentation, chemical analysis, micro-hardness measurement, tensile testing, and
metallographic examination. The failure zones were examined with the help of a scanning electron microscope equipped
with EDX facility. Results indicate that fatigue is the dominant mechanism of failure of the crankshaft. It was observed
that the fatigue cracks initiated from the fillet region of the crankpin-web. The absence of the hardened case in the fillet
region and the presence of free graphite and nonspheroidal graphite in the microstructure of the crankshaft made fatigue
strength decrease to lead to fatigue initiation and propagation in the weaker region and premature fracture.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Crankshaft; Fatigue; Ductile cast iron; Failure analysis

1. Introduction

Ductile cast iron is a cast iron with spheroidal graphite. Other terms for ductile cast iron are nodular, spher-
ulitic, and spheroidal cast iron. Because of high strength, high toughness, good machinability, and low cost,
ductile cast irons are used widely in the critical automotive parts as crankshafts, front wheel spindle supports,
truck axles, etc. [1]. The mechanical properties of ductile cast irons are directly related to their matrix micro-
structure. As-cast matrix microstructure of ductile cast irons may be entirely ferritic, entirely pearlitic, or a
combination of ferrite and pearlite, with spheroidal graphite distributed in the matrix. These microstructural
features are affected by the solidification–cooling rate associated with the section size of the castings as well as
that of the alloying elements. Bainite and martensite are not found in as-cast structures because they are
formed by heat treatment. The matrix structure can be altered in subsequent heat treatment processing. How-
ever, the amount and form of the graphite in ductile cast iron are determined during solidification and cannot
be altered by subsequent heat treatment. All of the mechanical properties of this class of materials are a result
of the graphite being substantially or wholly in the spheroidal nodular shape [1].
*
Tel.: +90 276 2634195; fax: +90 276 2634196.
E-mail address: osmanasi@aku.edu.tr.

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2005.11.005
 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267 1261

Fig. 1. (a) General view of the failed crankshaft and (b) close-up view of fracture location.

The fatigue performance of cast irons, in general, is influenced by graphite morphology, matrix microstruc-
ture and tensile strength, specimen size, surface condition, surface degradation such as corrosion, and the type of
loading stress (e.g., axial, bending, reversed bending, torsion). The free graphite in cast iron acts as an inherent
notch that increases stress concentrations for fatigue crack initiation. Therefore, the fatigue performance of cast
irons is influenced greatly by the quantity, size, and shape of the graphite phase as well as its interaction with the
matrix [2]. Thermal–mechanical surface hardening processes are commonly used to improve the wear and fati-
gue resistance of ductile iron castings. Surface hardening is most successful when the matrix is fully pearlitic.
In operation, crankshafts are generally subjected to torsional stress and bending stress due to self-weight or
weights of components or possible misalignment between journal bearings. Thus, these rotating components
are susceptible to fatigue by the nature of their operation and the fatigue failures are generally of the torsional
and rotating-bending type. Fatigue failures start at the most vulnerable point in a dynamically stressed area
particularly where there is a stress raiser. The stress raiser may be mechanical or metallurgical in nature, or
sometimes a combination of the two. Mechanical stress raisers are non-uniformities in the shape of the crank-
shafts such as step changes in diameter, sharp corners and surface discontinuities like notches and machining
marks etc. Metallurgical stress raisers may be quench cracks, corrosion pits, gross metallic inclusions, brittle
second-phase particles, etc. [3]. Also, the microstructure of the crankshaft material plays a vital role not only
in the initiation of fatigue failures but also during the progressive growth of the fatigue crack to cause failure
of the component.
In the present study, a failed crankshaft used in a truck with a 6 cylinder 115 HP diesel engine has been
examined for the cause of failure. The premature breakage of a diesel engine crankshaft was reported from
an automotive repair shop. The general appearance and close-up view of the fracture location of the failed
crankshaft are shown in Fig. 1. Failure of the crankshaft occurred after about 400 h in service, resulting in
catastrophic failure of the engine. Chief technician of the automotive repair shop reported that crankshafts
were often failed with similar damage before completion of warranty period.

2. Experimental procedure

The failed crankshaft was inspected visually and macroscopically; care was taken to avoid damage of frac-
tured surfaces. The failed crankshaft was subjected to photo documentation, chemical analysis, optical micros-
copy and micro-hardness measurement both at the failure zone and away from the failure zone. The fractured
surfaces were ultrasonically cleaned and examined with the help of a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
equipped with EDX facility. Conventional tensile tests carried out on specimens machined from the failed
crankshaft.
1262 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267

3. Results and discussion

The crankshaft was found to break into two pieces at the crankpin portion, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Visual
examination showed that fracture had initiated from the fillet region, and progressed almost over the entire
cross section of the crankpin. This fracture location is to be expected because the highest stress concentration
and high residual stress would be anticipated to occur in this region [3].
Typical macro-fracture appearance of the failed crankshaft is shown in Fig. 2. The fracture surface of the
failed crankshaft exhibits a distinct crack initiation region (see mark A), progressive flat fatigue fracture region
(FF), and the final fracture region produced by overload (OL), as shown in Fig. 2. The fracture surface fea-
tures were characteristic of rotating bending fatigue under conditions of a low nominal stress with a mild stress
concentration. Crack initiation region from the crankpin-web fillet region could be observed clearly with
naked eye. Magnified view of the crack initiation region marked by A in Fig. 2 is shown in Fig. 3. It can
be seen that there are ratchet marks on the fracture surface. The presence of ratchet marks indicates multiple
origins and relatively high total stresses. Ratchet marks can result from either high stress on the part or from
high stress concentrations. The combination of many ratchet marks and a small overload zone indicates that
the load was light, but there were high stress concentrations [2]. The surface area of final fracture was approx-
imately 20% of the total fracture surface. This indicates that fatigue is of high cycle-low stress type under low
nominal stress. The surface of the fracture was closely examined, and indications of the fatigue beach marks
were found, which is normal for fatigue failure of ductile cast irons [2–4].

Fig. 2. Photograph showing fracture surface of the failed crankshaft. Fracture surface showing crack initiation regions (A), fatigue failure
region (FF), and final overload fracture region (OL).

Fig. 3. Magnified view of the crack inition region marked by A in Fig. 2. Note the presence of ratchet marks indicates multiple origins and
relatively high total stresses.
 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267 1263

The fracture plane of the failed crankshaft, in generally, is flat in the crack initiation and propagation
region. But, in the final fracture region, the fracture plane has about 45° inclination with respect to the shaft
axis, as shown in Fig. 2. The overall fracture surface has rough and silver-grey appearance. Presence of non-
spheroidal graphite affects the fatigue fracture of ductile cast irons by producing a rough fracture surface with
continuous change in crack path direction [2,4].
Some circumferential cracks were observed at the crankpin-web fillet region of the crankshaft with a mag-
nifying glass, as shown in Fig. 4. These cracks were not through the thickness. Obvious worn morphology on
the surface of the crankpin-web fillet region was not observed. Similar small circumferential cracks were also
observed at the journal-web fillet regions. The remaining surface of crankpin and main journals on crankshaft
did not contain cracks or evidence of abnormal abrasive wear. The fillet radius of the crankpin-web is 5 mm,
which is normal level. No corrosion media were found on fracture surfaces.
Spectrum analysis, tensile test, hardness test, and metallographic examination results identified the material
of the failed crankshaft as EN-GJS-700-2 ductile cast iron (according to the European Standard, EN 1563).
The chemical composition of the failed crankshaft was determined using a spectrometer test machine and
the results are given in Table 1. The table also includes the ranges for the composition of ductile cast irons as
specified in the standard. It can be seen from Table 1 that the composition of the failed crankshaft materials
contains higher C and Ni content and lower Mn content than that of standard level.
Carbon contents greater than specified amount begin to decrease fatigue strength and impact strength
before the effect is noticed on tensile strength. Also, size and the number of graphite nodules formed during
solidification are influenced by the amount of carbon. High carbon content increases the amount of graphite
or Fe3C. Nickel is frequently used to increase strength by promoting the formation of fine pearlite and to
increase hardenability, especially for surface-hardening applications. The manganese content varies as a func-
tion of the desired matrix. Typically, it can be as low as 0.1% for ferritic irons and as high as 1.2% for pearlitic
irons, because manganese is a strong pearlite promoter. The effect of sulphur must be balanced by the effect of
manganese. Without manganese in the iron, undesired iron sulphide (FeS) will form at grain boundaries. If the
sulphur content is balanced by manganese, manganese sulphide (MnS) will form, which is harmless because it
is distributed within the grains [1].

Fig. 4. Higher magnification photograph showing a crack on the crankpin-web fillet region.

Table 1
Chemical composition of the failed crankshaft and EN-GJS-700-2 ductile cast iron
Element (%) Failed crankshaft EN-GJS-700-2 ductile cast iron
C 4.140 3.2–4.10
Si 2.030 1.8–2.80
Mn 0.029 0.10–1.00
Mg 0.034 0.03–0.05
Ni 0.725 0.05–0.20
Cu 1.071 0.80–1.20
S 0.006 0.040 (max.)
P 0.019 0.035 (max.)
Fe Balance
1264 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267

Tensile test was carried out using round specimens of 5 mm gauge diameter and 25 mm gauge length fab-
ricated from the centre of the crankpin portion of the failed crankshaft along the axial (longitudinal) direction.
The tensile properties were evaluated by breaking the specimen in tension. The tensile properties are shown in
Table 2. The table also includes the tensile properties as specified in the standard. As can be seen from Table 2,
the tensile properties are within the expected range.
Micro-hardness distributions from surface to the interior were measured using a Vickers hardness tester
with 500 gr. load on a polished and unetched surface of the two samples prepared from the fillet region of
the failed crankpin-web and the crankpin, and the results are given in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the fillet region
is no hardened, but the depth of the hardened case in the crankpin region is about 2.3 mm, which is within the
range of the technical demand. Also, the micro-hardness values measured at the surface and core of the crank-
pin were 675 HV and 310 HV, respectively.
A metallographic analysis was carried out on the three samples in order to compare the microstructures of
the fillet region of the crankpin-web, case and core region of crankpin. Samples was metallographically pre-
pared and observed in an optical microscope in both unetched and etched with 2% nital condition. In the unet-
ched condition, free graphite, nonspheroidal graphite, and spheroidal graphite were observed in the
microstructure, as shown in Fig. 6. Optical microscopy views of the case areas of the fillet region and the case
areas of the crankpin are shown in Fig. 7. While the microstructure observed at case of the crankpin consisted
of a tempered martensitic matrix with graphite nodules, the microstructure observed at case of the fillet region
consisted of a ferritic–pearlitic matrix with graphite nodules. Core microstructure consisted of a ferritic–pearl-
itic matrix with graphite nodules. Core microstructure was similar to that of fillet region. Spectrum analysis,
micro-hardness measurements, and metallographic analysis revealed that crankpin portion of the failed crank-
shaft had induction hardened and tempered surface. However, it appears that case areas of the fillet region
were not completely austenitized during the induction hardening process.
The fractured surfaces were examined with the help of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) in order to
characterize the fracture micromechanism(s). On the fracture surface multiple crack initiation sites were pres-
ent. The origin of the cracks was at the surface close to fillet regions. Magnified view of a crack origin is shown
in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the crack initiation occurred at the periphery of graphite close to the fillet surface.
It is well known that the free graphite and nonspheroidal graphite in ductile cast iron acts as an inherent notch
that increases stress concentrations for fatigue crack initiation. Striations can be observed clearly at the crack

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the failed crankshaft and EN-GJS-700-2 ductile cast iron
Material 0.2% proof strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa) Elongation (%) Hardness (HB)
Failed crankshaft 450 765 3 295
EN-GJS-700-2 ductile cast iron >420 >700 >2 225–350

800
Hardness, HV1

600

400

200 crankpin
fillet region
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Distance from surface, mm

Fig. 5. Microhardness profiles of the fillet region and crankpin.

 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267 1265

Fig. 6. Micrograph showing a typical microstructure of the failed crankshaft in the unetched condition (200x).

Fig. 7. Micrographs showing microstructure of the failed crankshaft in the etched condition (200x). (a) The case of the crankpin and (b)
the case of crankpin-web fillet region.

initiation zone, which is a typical feature of fatigue failure [2,3]. The fillet region of the crankshaft has a bear-
ing on the cause of failure. This is because there is both a low yield strength and high stress concentration at
this location.
1266 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267

Fig. 8. SEM micrograph showing characteristic at crack origin zone close to the fillet surface.

Fig. 9 shows the progressive flat fatigue fracture region. These fatigue appearances are characteristic of duc-
tile cast iron under combined bending and torsional stress. Fatigue striations could be seen in the crack prop-
agation zone with secondary cracks and nodule cavity elongation. Mixture of striations and fractured pearlite
lamellae on fracture surfaces are a typical feature of fatigue failure of the ferritic–pearlitic ductile cast irons
[4,5].
Fig. 10 shows typical fracture features of the final overload fracture region marked by OL (Fig. 2). It can be
seen that the fracture is composed totally of brittle cleavage facets, reflective of the low toughness of the mate-
rial [2].
Semiquantitative chemical analysis was carried out by EDX attached to SEM on the fracture surface to
qualitatively determine the failed crankshaft chemistry and to verify the presence of any other associated com-
ponents. The EDX examination of damaged regions did not reveal any detrimental elements.
From the above observations, it is clear that fatigue cracks initiated in the fillet region of the crankshaft. In
general, crankshafts fracture in the fillet region [6,7]. This is because the maximum induced stress is at the fillet
region. Also, the graphite nodules near the fillet surface acted as stress raisers, when the crankshaft is under
bending and torsion stress in service. It is well known that if there are free graphite and nonspheroidal graphite
in the microstructure, not only can this lead to a high stress concentration, but can also cause fatigue crack
initiation during a short service time. When the local stress exceeds the material yield strength, it is possible
to form a fatigue crack. Since the resistance of material to fatigue initiation in proportional to its yield
strength, the low properties of the ductile cast iron in this case left it open to fatigue initiation.

Fig. 9. SEM micrograph showing crack propagation region.

 O. Asi / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1260–1267 1267

Fig. 10. SEM micrograph showing the final overload fracture region.

The present study clearly indicated that the fillet regions were not hardened successfully during induction
hardening process. Lower hardness values and formation of the ferritic–pearlitic matrix with graphite nodules
in the fillet region close to the crack initiation regions supported this hypothesis. Surface rolling process can be
applied to crankshaft fillets in order to prevent fatigue initiation in the fillet region. Since fatigue fracture ini-
tiated near the fillets is one of the primary failure mechanisms of automotive crankshafts, fillet rolling pro-
cesses have been commonly used to improve the fatigue lives of crankshafts for many years. This process
hardens and introduces compressive residual stresses to the surface of the material through the application
of controlled strains, thus provoking a reduction of resulting tensile stress at its surface under cyclic loading.

4. Conclusion

This study was conducted on a failed crankshaft used in a truck. Spectrum analysis, tensile test, hardness
test, and metallographic examination revealed that the failed crankshaft material was EN-GJS-700-2 ductile
cast iron as induction hardened and tempered condition. The composition and microstructure of the base
metal were not found to be satisfactory and within the specification. Fractographic features indicated that
the crankshaft fractured in rotating bending fatigue. It was observed that the fatigue cracks initiated from
the fillet region of the crankpin-web. Fatigue cracks originated periphery of graphite nodules near the fillet
surface under cyclic loading conditions. The absence of the hardened case in the fillet region and the presence
of free graphite and nonspheroidal graphite in the microstructure of the crankshaft made fatigue strength
decrease to lead to fatigue initiation and propagation in the weaker region. For this reason, the crankshaft
failed in a shorter time than the normal usage life.

References

[1] Jeckins LR, Forrest RD. Ductile iron. In: Properties and selection: irons, steels, and high-performance alloys. ASM Handbook, vol. 1.
Metals Park (OH): ASM International; 1990. p. 33–55.
[2] Lampman S. Fatigue and fracture properties of cast irons. In: Fatigue and fracture. ASM Handbook, vol. 19. Metals Park (OH): ASM
International; 1996. p. 665–79.
[3] Wulpi DJ. Failures of shafts. In: Failure analysis and prevention. ASM Handbook, vol. 11. Metals Park (OH): ASM International;
1986. p. 459–82.
[4] ASM Handbook. Fractography, vol. 12. Metals Park (OH): ASM International; 1987. p. 227–37.
[5] Bulloch JH. Fractographic analysis of fatigue cracking in spheroidal graphite cast irons. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 1992;17:19–45.
[6] Pandey RK. Failure of diesel-engine crankshafts. Eng Fail Anal 2003;10:165–75.
[7] Yu Z, Xu X. Failure analysis of a diesel engine crankshaft. Eng Fail Anal 2005;10:16–7.