J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
(2018) 18:1631–1634
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-018-0561-y
TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED
Failure Analysis of Tractor Wheel Axle
Muhammad Rizwan Shad . Faiz ul Hasan
Submitted: 18 March 2018 / in revised form: 26 October 2018 / Published online: 9 November 2018
Ó ASM International 2018
Abstract A number of wheel axles of MF-240 Tractors,
which had broken after unusually short times in the field
(* 2–4 months), were examined to determine the cause of
their failure. The fracture surface showed typical fatigue
fracture that had initiated from a circular crack (about 2–
3 mm deep) in the induction-hardened layer at the ‘neck’
region of the axle. A scrutiny of the production data
showed that the failed axles were all from those which
were induction-hardened during the winter months. A
further probe revealed that sometimes the induction-hard-
ened axles were left overnight without tempering. It
appeared highly likely that quenching stresses in the
induction-hardened layer of those components which were
left un-tempered during cold winter nights were responsi-
ble for the ‘delayed cracking.’ In an attempt to verify this
hypothesis, a simulated test was conducted which con-
firmed that delayed cracking could occur if induction-
hardened axles were kept un-tempered overnight at low
ambient temperatures. Another interesting and rare feature
of the present fracture was that the fatigued area was
‘curved,’ i.e., the fatigue crack, as it progressed, had
gradually acquired an orientation that was normal to the
maximum operative tensile stress.
Keywords Induction hardening
Quenching stresses

Delayed cracking
Dye penetrant inspection

Intergranular cracking
M. R. Shad (&)
F. ul Hasan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Central
Punjab, Johar Town, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
e-mail: dr.rizwan@ucp.edu.pk
Introduction/Background
Wheel axle (also called ‘Stub Axle’), as shown in Fig. 1,
supports and drives the rear wheels of the tractor. In
Massey Ferguson (Pakistan) tractors, this component is
made from 080-A47 steel by forging, and that prior to
machining, the forgings are normalized to a Brinell hard-
ness of 217 (max) and a grain size equivalent to ASTM size
6–8.
After machining, the axles are induction-hardened to
achieve a case profile in compliance with the drawing
shown in Fig. 1. The induction hardening treatment is
carried out on a 200 kw/10 kHz machine using a pro-
grammed power and dwell control to achieve the desired
case profile.
The present failure incidences pertain to a production lot
of about 4000 axles manufactured during November 2016–
January 2017. As many as 49 axles broke during service in
almost identical pattern and, as per the warranty policy of
the company, were replaced along with the cost of conse-
quential damage.
The broken components were returned to the tractor
manufacturing facility at Lahore (Pakistan) for a detailed
investigation of the failure. The broken components were
examined visually as well as metallographically, while at
least three broken axles were sectioned longitudinally for
examining the profile of induction-hardened case.
Examination of Fracture Surface
As stated above, the fracture pattern of almost all the
broken axles was identical and is shown in Fig. 2.
123
1632 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2018) 18:1631–1634

A close-up view of the fracture surface shown in Fig. 3 feature which is typical of quench cracking [1]. The
shows that three regions on the fractured surface were ‘curved’ path of the fatigue crack may also be noted.
distinctly identifiable: Microstructure shown in Fig. 5, which was taken from a
location indicated by arrowhead, shows that the crack was
1. Initial crack, which (as discussed later) was essentially
normal to the surface and was intergranular, i.e., features
within the induction-hardened case.
which are consistent with quenching cracks [1, 2].
2. Progressive fatigued region, showing typical ‘beach
The large proportion of fatigued area on the fracture
marks.’
surface, in relation to the area of ‘final rupture’ (Figs. 2 and
3. Final rupture which appears to be essentially shear.
3), indicates that the nominal stress on the axle during
service can be regarded as ‘low’ [3]. However, the most
The depth of the ‘origin’ of the crack in almost all the
interesting feature of the present fracture was that the
broken axles was observed to be about 3–4 mm. Some of
fatigued portion of the fractured surface was ‘curved,’ i.e.,
the broken axles were longitudinally sectioned and macro-
etched to examine the profile of induction-hardened case.
Figure 4 shows the profile of hardened case, which was
found to be in compliance with the specification as shown
in Fig. 1.
Figure 4 also shows that the original crack had formed
in the ‘neck’ region of the axle and that the depth of the
initial crack (which is clearly visible in Fig. 3) was
essentially the same as the depth of the induction-hardened
case. It was also noticeable that this initial crack was
normal to the surface at the location where it was formed, a

Fig. 3 (a, b) Close-up views of corresponding fracture surfaces on a

Fig. 1 Heat treatment drawing of drive axle, showing the profile of broken axle, showing three distinctly identifiable regions: (I) initial
induction-hardened case quenching crack, (II) fatigued region, and (III) final rupture

Fig. 2 Typical fracture pattern

of drive axles

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2018) 18:1631–1634 1633

the fatigue crack had gradually changed its orientation as it
progressed (a rare phenomenon). Clearly, the initial quench
crack although had provided an origin to the fracture, its
orientation was not subjected to the maximum tensile
stress. Hence, the crack, as it progressed, gradually
acquired an orientation where the plane of the crack was
normal to the operative tensile stress [1, 3].
The final rupture (indicated by (III) in Fig. 3) on the
basis of its orientation in most of the broken axles has been
regarded as shear. The proportion of this area when con-
sidered in relation to the total fractured surface again

Fig. 4 Macro-etched section of drive axle that had failed during Fig. 6 Photograph of a sample that was inspected by dye penetrant
service, showing the typical location in the induction-hardened case, testing, showing the crack (indicated by arrowhead) in the neck region
indicated by arrowheads, where the crack had initiated of axle’s flange

Fig. 5 (a) A part of quenching

crack (indicated by arrowhead)
from where sample was taken
for metallographic examination,
(b) low-magnification
micrograph illustrating that the
quench crack was normal to the
surface where it formed, and (c)
micrograph showing the
intergranular nature of crack

123
1634
indicates a low nominal stress on the axles during service
[3].
The overall analysis clearly suggests that the formation
of quench cracks during induction hardening was the root
cause of the failure of drive axles which were otherwise
subjected to fairly low nominal stress during service. The
attention thus had to be focused on why the quench
cracking during induction hardening had occurred in some
of axles which were induction-hardened during the winter
period of November to January/February. Upon detailed
questioning to the staff responsible for the heat treatment of
axles, it was discovered that sometimes the induction-
hardened axles had to be left overnight without tempering.
Since delayed cracking in quenched components is quite a
common occurrence [4, 5], it appeared that the cracked
axles belonged to such production lots which were some-
how left un-tempered during cold winter nights.
Simulated Verification
In order to verify that prolonged delay in tempering was a
probable cause of cracking in induction-hardened compo-
nents, it was decided to conduct an experimental
simulation. A set of 10 axles were induction-hardened as
per regular practice and then kept in a refrigerator at 4–
5 °C for 12 h. These axles were then examined visually
with a magnifier as well as inspected by dye penetrant
method [6, 7] for crack detection.
It was observed that 3 out of 10 axles had developed
cracks at the neck regions, a feature similar to what was
observed in axles which had failed in the field. Figure 6
shows the cracks in the neck region as revealed by dye
penetrant test. This experiment provided a clear support to
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2018) 18:1631–1634
the view that delayed tempering in winter months was
responsible for the formation of cracks in the induction-
hardened axles.
Conclusions
The failure of drive axles is essentially caused by excessive
delay in tempering the components after their hardening by
induction. It is unsafe to leave the induction-hardened axles
without tempering, especially during cold weather condi-
tions of November–February. It is extremely important that
the induction-hardened components are tempered as soon
as possible after the induction hardening step. A delay in
the tempering can often cause cracks to develop in the
region where quenching stresses of sufficient magnitude
could accumulate.
References
1. Metals Handbook, Vol 10: Failure Analysis and Prevention, 8th
edn. (American Society for Metals, 1975, pp. 74, 113)
2. V.I. Sarrak, G.A. Filippov, Delayed fracture of quenched steel, in
Problems of Metal Science and Physics of Metals, Metallurgiya,
(Moscow, 1973), p. 134 (in Russian)
3. Metals Handbook, Vol 11: Failure Analysis and Prevention, 9th
edn. (American Society of Metals, 1989), p. 2307
4. R. Kern, Distortion and cracking, III: How to control cracking.
Heat Treat. (in English) 27(4), 38–42 (1985)
5. Quench Cracks- 3 Ways to Recognize. https://pmpaspeakingof
precision.com/tag/quench-crack,2013. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
6. Metals Handbook, Vol 17: Non Destructive Evaluation and
Quality Control, 9th edn. (American Society of Metals, 1989),
pp. 137–145
7. Dye Penetrant Inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye_
penetrant_inspection,2017. Accessed 15 Mar 2018