Inference from the analysis: 02.09.

2020

Observation:

Page 6

1.Chemincal analysis is missing .

Page 7

2.0 Specified hardness 42-43 is wrong information. 45-46 is not high in failed sample. Mo re over 2 Rc
is the Repeatability issue also.

As per std the hardness requirement 40 Rc minimum. More over in stailess if the hardness is high after
ageing, then it is good only.

Page 9 and 10

3.0 EDX analysis indicates there is good amount of oxides and Iron and indicates the corrosion nature.

Page 11:

In the regular area where there is no crack indicates the material chemistry and no corrosion.

4.0 Page 13 – 16

Nonmetallic inclusion level is within the acceptable limit. And found in order.

Page no 17

5.0 The propagation of crack pattern indicates, that the crack is not due to thermal in nature. Ie no
crack due to quenching . Heat treatment is ok.

Page 18

6.0 Microstructure photograph indicates that the structure is tempered martensite. NO metallurgical
abnormality . Heat treatment is homogeneous.

Page 19 and 20

7.0 The fractrography analysis under SEM indicates the crack is initiated from inner diameter . The inner
diameter is very rough and may have burrs and unclear. Ie Electro polishing is not effective.
Page 21 and page 22

8.0 indicates that EDX chemistry composition reveals the presence of high corrosion with oxides and
Iron.

Discussion:

 Material composition checking is incomplete.

 The hardness , heat treatment are free from metallurgical abnormality
 Based on the SEM , Micro, EDX analysis , it has been concluded that the defect and the crack is
corrosion in nature.
 The crack also initiated from the inner diameter.

Potential Root causes:

 The component has been Electolytically polished with the electrolyte of sulphuric acid and
Hydroflouric acid.
 As per the standard, it is required to carry out the post cleaning after polishing to ensure that
the inner portion are free from acid stains and acid solution . If not removed , this will act as a
source of corrosion.