J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
(2013) 13:502–509
DOI 10.1007/s11668-013-9705-2
TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED
Failure Analysis of Cap Screws in a Diesel Engine Front Gear
Train
E. W. Jones • R. S. Florea • D. K. Francis
Submitted: 8 January 2013 / in revised form: 1 April 2013 / Published online: 26 June 2013
Ó ASM International 2013
Abstract Two failures of the front gear train cap screws
of a diesel engine in a marine vessel are investigated.
Fractured cap screws were present in both failures. The cap
screws’ strength was compared to standards. The thread
engagement was also analyzed. In one failure, the cap
screws used did not comply with the standard properties
and in the other failure, improper thread engagement
resulted in fast fracture after few load cycles.
Keywords Critical components  Failure analysis 
Fasteners  Fracture  Mounting bolt  Hardness
Introduction
This paper covers observations of failures of the front gear
train on the front of a diesel engine. This type of failure had
previously occurred in this particular engine, which was used
for marine vessels [1, 2]. These failures included the fracture
of the bolts in the joint between the front gear cover and the
stub shaft for the 66 tooth idler gear. Cap screw and bolt
fractures are not uncommon to diesel engine failures [3–6] as
well as other power transmission elements [7] and vehicular
E. W. Jones (&)  D. K. Francis
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mississippi State
University, PO Box ME, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
e-mail: jones@me.msstate.edu
R. S. Florea
Mechanical Engineering Department, David Crawford School of
Engineering, Norwich University, 158 Harmon Drive,
Northfield, VT 05663, USA
D. K. Francis
Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems, Mississippi State
University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
123
assemblies [8]. Failures occurred on the right side of the
engine as viewed by an observer standing behind the engine.
This gear drives the hydraulic pump and governor. Two
failures will be analyzed, however, the first failure will be
discussed briefly as only the housing and one cap screw are
available. The second will be discussed in more depth.
The first failure occurred after 11,000 h of operation of
the marine vessel. The original complaint was about an oil
leak at the guard. However, the oil pressure was still good,
which indicates that the gears were still in mesh to drive
the pump before shutting down. Imperial units are used in
this analysis where 1 in. = 100 = 25.5 mm.
Observation of Failures
Failure #1:
The stub shaft is attached rigidly to the cast front housing by
two 3/800 9 1 1/400 long cap screws and two 1/200 cap screws
(on 3.500 bolt circle diameter) plus a hollow dowel pin on the
back end. The front end is supported in a bore in the front gear
housing. Disassembly revealed the following: The four cap
screws holding this stub shaft to the cast front housing had
failed, but the stub shaft was still ‘‘in position, but free to
rotate’’ (The inner end of the stub shaft is supported by a
small diameter, cylindrical protrusion while the outer end is
supported by the bore in the housing.). One of the 3/800 cap
screws was missing and the other 3/800 cap screw had backed
out of the stub shaft. The two 1/200 cap screws were both
broken. The 3/800 cap screw, which had backed out of the stub
shaft, had one 0.09600 thick washer and one 0.04800 thick
washer with integral O-ring as required by the specifications.
This cap screw had the company logo and 6 slash marks
stamped on the cap screw head, which indicates that it is a
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509
Grade 8 cap screw. The first failure had white paint on the
front housing and the broken ends of the cap screws were
removed easily from the threaded hole.
The first failure occurred on the front housing shown in
Fig. 1 for viewing from in front of the engine with all
components removed. The largest bore shown is for the
crankshaft and the smallest is for the stub shaft mount. The
view of the mounting pad for this stub shaft is shown in a
close up view in Fig. 2. Figure 2 shows broken corners
around both of the 3/800 diameter holes, which are on the
side most removed from the crankshaft. Also, broken
corners are shown around the edge of the stub shaft cen-
tering hole due to misalignment after the four cap screws
broke in sequence causing a non-uniform clamping of gear
train components. The broken 3/800 cap screw removed
from this first failure is shown in Fig. 3.
Failure #2:
After the first failure, the engine was rebuilt with a new
front gear cover, a new idler gear, a new stub shaft, and a
new thrust washer on the right side of the engine, as
Fig. 1 Overall view of front of front gear housing from first failure
Fig. 2 Detailed views of stub
shaft mounting surface from
front of front gear housing of
first failure
503
referenced from behind the engine. The specified 3/800
diameter 9 4 1/400 long Grade 8 cap screws were not
available, so 3/800 diameter 9 4 1/200 long Grade 8 cap
screws were used in the repair. An extra 0.09600 thick
washer was installed on each 3/800 cap screw in order to
compensate somewhat for the extra 1/400 length of the
longer cap screw in addition to the two washers in the
specification. After 8 days of operation, the newly repaired
front gear drive failed. There were no signs of fatigue
loading as in [9]. The failure was similar to the original
failure as the four cap screws attaching the stub shaft to the
front gear housing had broken on the engine’s right side as
for the first failure. In the first failure, the cap screws used
did not comply with the standard properties. In the second
failure, insufficient thread engagement led in fast fracture
after few loading cycles.
The oil pressure alarm did go off, which occurs when
pressure drops below 40 psi. The automatic engine shut-
down feature, which shuts down the engine when oil
pressure drops below 30 psi, was not on this installation.
The new housing is shown in Fig. 4, as viewed by an
observer in front of the engine with stub shafts, brass thrust
washers (which fit between the rotating Idler Gear and
the stationary housing mounting surface) and idler gears.
Figure 5 shows the mounting surface and holes used to
attach the stub shaft to the front gear housing. Figure 5
shows: the broken edge around the upper 3/800 hole; the end
of the cap screw broken off in the upper hole (the hole in the
broken cap screw end was drilled in an attempt to remove it
with an ‘‘easy out’’ but this failed); the broken edge around
the center hole; and the galled area at the perimeter outside
of the three large holes. The surface of the brass thrust
washer adjacent to the front housing mounting surface is
shown in Fig. 5. The area around the upper hole for the 3/800
cap screw shows indentations due to broken particles of the
casting hammering against the bronze.
The heads of the four broken cap screws shown in Fig. 6
indicate that all are Grade 8 [10], but the two 3/800 cap screws
123
504
Fig. 3 View of one broken 3/800 cap screw removed from first failure
Fig. 4 View from front of front gear housing including stub shafts,
idler gears, and thrust washers
do not have the company logo embossment. Figure 7 shows
the 3/800 cap screws from the second failure. The ends of the
two 3/800 cap screws, shown in Fig. 7a, which were broken
off inside the tapped holes, have a nut welded on each piece
in order to retract it from the hole. The use of an ‘‘easy out’’
did not allow application of adequate torque to remove these
broken ends. The bottom thread on each broken end was
deformed per Fig. 7b, which indicated that it had been forced
into the imperfect threads at the bottom of the tapped hole in
the housing. The tapped holes in the bottom of the housing
are ‘‘blind holes’’.
The fractured surfaces of the four failed cap screws are
shown in Fig. 8. Figure 9 shows the galled surface of one
3/800 cap screw fracture. The other is bright and appears to
have failed due to a single overload, after the cross-section
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509
Fig. 5 (a) View from front of mounting surface for stub shaft on
back surface of front gear housing. (b) View of bronze thrust washer
surface, which is in contact with housing wall
Fig. 6 Grade 8 cap screw heads in position on stub shaft after second
failure
of the bolt was reduced just before final fracture. The two
plain washers and one washer with an O-ring are shown in
Fig. 9. The two 1/200 failed cap screws are shown.
The end of the stub shaft in contact with the bronze
thrust washer at the front gear housing mounting surface is
shown in Fig. 10.
The cantilevered end of the stub shaft which the cap
screw heads bear against is shown in Fig. 11. The bronze
thrust washer in Fig. 11 shows a deep groove due to con-
tact with the shoulder of the misaligned idler gear.
The contact between the idler shaft and the front gear
housing is shown in Fig. 12, which shows galling on the
side of the stub shaft.
Figure 13 shows galling on the inside surface of the bore
for the stub shaft in the front gear housing on one side, but
a groove on the opposite side of this bore for the stub shaft.
The gears meshing at this position are shown in Figs. 14
and 15. The idler gear is shown in Fig. 14 and has damage
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509 505

Fig. 7 (a) Broken 3/800 cap

screws removed from second
failure. A nut has been welded
to the broken end of the cap
screws to remove it from the
front housing. (b) View of the
broken cap screw ends with nuts
welded to the fracture surface.
(c) Schematic of nut welded to
broken end of bolt to facilitate
extraction from hole

Fig. 8 Fractured surfaces of four cap screws from second failure

Fig. 10 The stub shaft mounting surface at the ‘‘fixed’’ end. The
bronze thrust washer lies against this surface. The upper hole for the
3/800 cap screw has indentations around the corner, which appear to be
due to particles of broken housing being compressed in this loose
joint

the mating gear riding on the top land instead on in the

Fig. 9 (a) View of the fractured and galled surface of one 3/800 cap
screw. (b) View of the failed 1/200 cap screws with their broken ends
to the top land of the tooth due to the teeth riding on the top
surface of the gear it drives
Figure 15 shows the gear driven by the idler gear and it
has heavy wear on the top surface of the tooth lands due to
mesh. The flanks of the idler gear and the gear driven by
the idler gear show no abnormal wear and show good
surface texture. The gear on the crankshaft, which drives
the idler gear, shows a linear depression near the bottom of
the dedendum due to sharp edge of the deformed land of
the idler gear digging into the flank. Otherwise, the surface
of the crankshaft gear teeth is good. However, this linear
depression may initiate failure of the teeth.
This inspection of the gears and gear train was per-
formed (per customer request and good engineering
practice), based upon the ‘‘Operation & Maintenance
Manual’’. This inspection is required after a major overhaul

123
506 J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509

Fig. 11 (a) Stub shaft forward

end which contacts heads of cap
screws. Some burnishing of the
surface is shown around the
upper hole for the 3/800 cap
screw. (b) The lower hole shows
the typical marks of the rubber
O-ring being pressed firmly
against the surface. The bronze
thrust washer has a groove
gouged by the misaligned idler
gear when shaft support
loosened

Fig. 14 Idler gear with wear on top land of teeth

or a significant failure. As described above the inspection

was done for the following conditions: worn gear teeth,
Fig. 12 Stub shaft for idler gear showing galling on the outer unusual fit or excessive wear.
diameter where the shaft rubs on the housing bore after it loosened

Results and Failure Analysis

Hardness Measurements

Fig. 13 (a) Bore for idler shaft in front gear housing. Galling appears
on the bore at the side most remote from the crankshaft. (b) The side
of the bore adjacent to the crankshaft has a groove worn in the side of
the bore due to misalignment of the stub shaft
The 3/800 hex head cap screws were checked for hardness
by measuring the hardness of the side of the flat on the
head. From the first failure, the 3/800 9 4.2500 long cap
screw had an average 29.0 Rockwell C hardness. From the
second failure, the 3/800 9 4.5000 long cap screw had an
average 35.5 Rockwell C hardness. Table 1 list the SAE
Standard for Grade 8 Bolts. The relationship between the
hardness and ultimate tensile strength, per ASTM A370, is
shown in Fig. 16 [11]. These general relationships were
used because the point of measurement was on the flat part
of the bolt head which was not subjected to fatigue loading,
which is less than yield strength. This area was not sub-
jected to plasticity. The strength of the bolt is directly
related to the hardness based upon the above standard.

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509 507

Fig. 15 (a) Gear driven by idler

gear showing wear on top lands
of teeth. This gear drives the
pump and the governor. (b) The
gear on the crankshaft which
drives the idler is also shown.
The grooves near the bottom of
the dedendum of the crankshaft
gear are cut by the protruding
surfaces of the worn top lands of
the idler gear or by involute
interference when center
distance was distorted by failure
of the stub shaft bolted joint

Table 1 SAE Standard for Grade 8 Bolts [12] Table 2 Measurements used to determine thread engagement for first
Ultimate tensile strength 150,000 psi failure case
Yield strength 130,000 psi Identifier Value Description
Maximum surface hardness 58.6 Rockwell 30N scale (which
corresponds to 39.1 Rockwell C) Lstd 4.250 Length of standard 4 1/400 cap screw of
3/800 diameter
Core hardness C33–C39
Ledg1 0.688 Maximum length of engaged thread when
cap screw is bottomed out for front
housing of first failure (maximum
length of threads in housing)
Lss 3.230 Length of hole through stub shaft for cap
screw
Lwash1 0.098 Thickness of thick washer
Lwash2 0.048 Thickness of metal for thin washer with
O-ring
Lwash3 0.275 Thickness of bronze thrust washer

SAE Specification and the measured surface hardness for

this cap screw matches the specified surface hardness
value. The hardness measurements were made with the
Rockwell A.

Thread Engagement Measurements

There is a question about the cap screw being tight due to

Fig. 16 General relationship between ultimate tensile strength and
Rockwell hardness, C scale
The value of the hardness for 3/800 9 4.5000 long cap
screws from the second failure is in accordance with SAE
Standard [12]. An extensive study was performed by
Marcelo et al. [13] on the hardness of high strength steel
bolts and by Schneider et al. [14] on modeling fatigue of
threaded connections. Note that the specifications for sur-
face hardness match the upper limit of core hardness in the
bottoming out on the imperfect threads at the bottom of the
tapped, blind hole. This potential exists because of the use
of the 1/400 extra length cap screw and adding only one
0.09800 thick washer to account for the extra length. The
3/800 9 4.2500 long cap screw was screwed into the front
housing without the stub shaft by a 40 lb ft torque. The
length protruding from the face of the housing to the bot-
tom of the cap screw head was measured to be 3.56300 in
the housing for the first failure. The measurement used in
determining thread engagement is listed in Table 2.

123
508
Table 3 Measurements used to determine thread engagement for
second failure case
Identifier Value Description
Lstd 4.250 Length of standard 4 1/400 cap screw of 3/800
diameter
Ledg2 0.720 Length of thread for engagement in blind hole
for the case of the second failure. This defines
the length for thread engagement to prevent
bottoming of cap screw.
Lnstd 4.500 Length of nonstandard 3/800 9 4.500 long cap
screw as used for case of second failure
Lss 3.230 Length of hole through stub shaft for cap screw
Lwash1 0.098 Thickness of thick washer (2 used)
Lwash2 0.048 Thickness of metal for thin washer with O-ring
Lwash3 0.275 Thickness of bronze thrust washer
The length of thread available for engagement in the
tapped hole, Lth1, for this cap screw was then determined
by subtracting the washers and stub shaft length from the
cap screw length which was found to be
Lth1 ¼ Lstd  ðLss þ Lwash1 þ Lwash2 þ Lwash3 Þ ¼ 0:599 in
ðEq 1Þ
Because the length of thread available for engagement is
less than the depth of threads in the hole (Lth1 \Legd1 ), the
cap screw will not bottom out in the blind hole. Instead,
there is 0.089 in of extra available thread due to the
difference between Legd1 and Lth1 .
The second failure used 3/800 9 4 1/200 long cap screws
to attach the stub shaft to the front housing. The distance
from bottom of head of a standard 3/800 9 4 1/400 long cap
screw installed, under torque, in the front housing of the
second failure to the face of the housing was 3.53000 .
Table 3 provides the rest of the measurements in the sec-
ond failure.
The length of tapped threads in the blind hole in the
housing that is available for engagement is determined by
subtracting the length of the stub shaft and the washers
from the length of the nonstandard cap screw, which was
used for the case of the second failure.
Lth2 ¼ Lnstd  ðLss þ 2Lwash1 þ Lwash2 þ Lwash3 Þ ¼ 0:751 in
ðEq 2Þ
The length of threads for engagement when the threads
bottom out is less than the required length of engagement
for the 4.5000 long cap screw. The excess length is
Excess Length ¼ Legd2  Lth2 ¼ 0:031 in ðEq 3Þ
The above measurements and calculations indicate that
the length of the 3/800 9 4.500 long cap screw used for the
case of the second failure bottomed out in the tapped, blind
hole because the length of cap screw exceeds the depth of
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509
engageable threads by 0.03100 . This value is based on
measured engagement lengths for a cap screw, which had
been tightened in the housing by using an end wrench. This
‘‘bottoming out’’ is substantiated by the difficulty in
removing the broken ends of the cap screws from the
failed housing and by the deformed thread at the tip of the
broken cap screw end (the tolerance on the actual cap
screw length may reduce this interference, but the actual
length prior to failure is not known).
The above calculations were based upon the assump-
tions that the holes were drilled and tapped to the same
depth using a ‘‘bottoming’’ tap. A nut has been welded to
the broken end of the cap screws for extraction from the
front housing.
If a cap screw bottoms out prior to applying the full
clamping load to the stack of parts (stub shaft, washers, and
thrust washer) within its grip, only a few threads at the
bottom of the cap screw will be loaded. Also, if bottoming
out occurs, the rest of the cap screw will not be stretched
like a spring. Stretching allows the cap screw to clamp the
parts in position by friction at the joints so the parts will not
slip. If the cap screw is not stretched, the friction torque
under the surface of the cap screw head, which accounts for
50% of the applied torque, will not be developed to prevent
the cap screw from loosening.
Conclusions
1. The 3/800 9 4 1/400 long cap screw removed from the
first failure had the company logo stamp and was
marked for Grade 8. This broken cap screw was mea-
sured for hardness on the head and found to be only 29
Rockwell C, which is below specification. Perhaps this
points to a reason for the first failure: reduced strength
gave lower life.
2. The only deviation from the standard practice for the
second failure appears to be the use of 3/800 9 4 1/200
long cap screws to attach the stub shaft to the front gear
housing. One extra plain washer of 0.09800 thickness
was added to each 3/800 9 4 1/200 long cap screw to take
up some of the extra length.
3. The 3/800 9 4 1/200 long cap screws appear to have
bottomed out on the imperfect threads in the blind hole of
the front housing, when the recommended torque of
40 ft lb was applied. This is supported by: (1) the
estimates of bolt length plus measurement of length of
thread engagement under torque in these holes; (2) the
torque required to remove the broken ends of these two
3/800 cap screws; (3) the deformed tip of the bottom thread.
4. The 3/800 9 4 1/200 long bolts were marked as Grade 8
and hardness measurements on the head verified that
they are Grade 8 hardness.
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2013) 13:502–509
5. The tooth surface appears in good condition on the
flanks of the gears after the second failure. There was
no indication of any tooth breakage to point to some
irregular overload. The top lands of the idler gear and
the gear it drives were damaged due to the teeth coming
out of mesh. The top land of the idler gear had produced
a ridge near the root of the crankshaft gear tooth either
due to involute interference or the rough protrusions on
the damaged top land of the idler gear.
6. The short duration of engine service with the replacement
cap screws, which lasted only 8 days, corresponded with
the texture of the failed cap screws, revealing low cycle
fatigue.
References
1. Staff, A.I.: Fastener thread form designed to withstand diesel
stresses, Automotive Industries (2005)
2. Habib, K., Husain, A.: Failure analysis of a broken diesel engine.
Int. J. Fatigue 16(5), 357–359 (1994)
3. Yu, Z., Xu, X.: Failure analysis of diesel engine cylinder head
bolts. Eng. Fail. Anal. 13(5), 826–834 (2006)
4. Ferreira, J.L.A., de Oliveira, A.B.S., Souza, A., Carloni, V.,
Leite, D.: Structural integrity analysis of the main bearing cap
509
screws of the turbo-diesel engine crank shaft. Eng. Fail. Anal.
12(2), 273–286 (2005)
5. Xiaolei, X., Zhiwei, Y., Xuan, L., Yanli, C.: Failure analysis of a
diesel engine gear-train used in a truck. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 10(3),
218–222 (2010)
6. Krishna, B., Verma, A., Welch, J.: Failure analysis of cylinder
clamping rods in diesel engines. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 1, 51–55 (2001)
7. Pantazopoulos, G., Vazdirvanidis, A.: Fatigue fracture of cast
steel plate connected in a power transmission joint assembly.
J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 12, 237–241 (2012)
8. Krishnaraj, N., Srinivasan, P., Muthupandi, V.: Investigation of a
mounting bolt failure in an automobile air brake assembly. J. Fail.
Anal. Prev. 3, 69–72 (2003)
9. Rauch, L., Madej, L., Weglarczyk, S., Pietrzyk, M., Kuziak, R.:
System for design of the manufacturing process of connecting
parts for automotive industry. Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 8, 157–165
(2008)
10. Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R.: Mechanical Engineering Design,
6th edn, pp. 467–469. McGraw-Hill, New York (2001)
11. ASTM A370: Standard Test Method and Definitions for
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM International,
January 1 (2009)
12. SAE Handbook: Materials, Fuels, Emissions, and Noise,
1. Society of Automotive Engineers (1997)
13. Marcelo, A., Uehara, A., Utiyama, R., Ferreira, I.: Fatigue prop-
erties of high strength bolts. Proc. Eng. 10, 1297–1302 (2011)
14. Schneider, R., Wuttke, U., Berger, C.: Fatigue analysis of
threaded connections using the local strain approach. Proc. Eng.
2(1), 2357–2366 (2010)
123