FCS 1 POST WORK

Written communication
The journal is full of grammatical errors in the language which makes it difficult
to understand the information which the authors wanted to convey. The words of
authors contradict their own previous statements at some places. The SEM
images are not labelled. The crack formation is said to be started at the
temperature of grains interlocking in the introduction. An approximated value of
the temperature would help analysing the simulations there. The EDS analysis
image is shown but the EDS defect which is the presence of oxides should have
been labelled in the image.
Validation of the model
The confirmation of hot tearing effect by the simulations is mentioned while the
casting simulations do not provide any information about the location where hot
tearing is prevalent. The microscopy analysis talks about the SEM images of hot
tearing failure zone with dendritic morphology. The images are ambiguous and
not labelled which makes it difficult to locate the cracks and failure between the
dendrites. The hot spot is said to be located on the stem change direction and
the porosity prediction at this location in the simulations is mentioned as the
cause for its failure whereas the femoral component shown in figure 2 states
porosity at the head, not at the failure zone.
Justification of the modelling parameters
The images from ProCAST simulations do not provide much information. The
modelling parameters are not stated which include time, the most important
one. There is no justification for the mentioned parameters such as temperature
and heat transfer conditions. The insulation of the upper part of the mould is
suggested by figures 4 (e) and 4 (f) for directional solidification of the casting for
homogeneity. There is no scale in these figures obtained from the simulations.
Also, the recommendations could include more information such as numerical
values about the process conditions. The simulation is validated for the section
where no defects were seen. It should have been done for the worst case
scenarios so as to prevent the failure.

FCS 10 PRE WORK

1. The non-uniform hardening layer is mentioned to be one of the causes of
failure. There is no information about the effect of the hardening layer if it
is desirable or not. The undulation in hardness profile curve is not
explained. The desirable hardness is not mentioned anywhere.
2. The numbers 0.5 and 2.5 for the severity of inclusions do not have units. It
is not clear if it is a comparison or a percentage. A value of maximum
allowable inclusions to prevent failure could be mentioned. The
microstructures are not labelled.

3. There is no support statement for it being a failure due to improper heat

treatment. The hardness and brittle failure is discussed for site A but there
is no discussion about the cause and effect of ductile failure at the middle.
No suggestions to prevent failure are mentioned.
FCS 10 POST WORK
A little description and analysis of the fracture surface
The case of the shaft failed in a brittle manner while the core failure was ductile.
If this was the situation, the authors should have provided some description
about the site of crack initiation and source of the failure. There is no analysis of
results from fractography. Furthermore, they did not mention if there were any
surface defects in the material. It can be seen from figure 1(b) that there are
some surface marks along the direction of shear failure. There is no information if
these are threads or machining marks. If they are machining marks, they might
have caused the fatigue failure. The microstructural analysis considers MnS
inclusions might be the reason for failure whereas figure 3(b) clearly shows that
MnS particles are along the longitudinal direction and cracks are perpendicular to
them which inhibits crack propagation. So, MnS is not the reason of failure.
No mechanical analysis of failure
The shaft diameter is 7 cm. There is no detail if it is the standard component or
one of its type. It is mentioned that failure occurred after 296 hours of service
which is too early for a standard component. A thorough mechanical analysis
should have been done as the authors have stated about a sudden jerk which
might have caused overloading. Some calculations would be helpful to obtain
maximum allowable torque on the shaft hence providing the design
specifications. There is no explanation about the undulation in the hardness
profile curve. The hardness values at the site of failure could have been used to
calculate maximum load. The crack propagation is perpendicular to the applied
stress for brittle failure while it is 45 o for ductile failure. They should have
justified if it is the reason for failure as figure 1(a) shows failure to be at 45 o to
the applied stress.
No suggestions provided
The conclusion was limited to the brittle failure mode of the case. The article
itself lacks so much information which if incorporated could help in better
analysis of failure and further suggestions. The authors should have provided
some preventive measures to avoid the failure. Mechanical analysis could
describe the relation between the design specifications and service conditions.
Material can be changed from 42CrMo4 grade to heat-treated, tempered and
induction hardened Chromoly alloy which is used by Alloy USA for rear axle
shafts. It is mentioned that the case is martensitic and is very hard leading to
brittle failure due to improper heat treatment. Using appropriate heat treatment
would ensure safety, increasing the cost at the same time. So, if it is not a
standard component, change of design might help.

PRE WORK CASE STUDY 7

1. The measurements from visual and stereography examination could be
explained more to present their significance. Figure 5 from fractography
should have been labelled as it is difficult to visualise the generation of
crack at keyway as stated by the author.
2. It is recommended to use Magnesium and Calcium additions for better
shape control during casting of steel. An estimate of allowable or minimum
additions would add to credibility of the statement.
3. It is mentioned that yield strength and hardness decrease to the half of
their initial values which further leads to decrease in the fatigue life of the
component. Some calculation to show the value of yield strength and an
estimation of fatigue life would be better.
PRE WORK CS 8
1. The dimensions and configurations of the pressure vessel are well-defined
but there is no information if they are according to design specifications or
not. Thinning of sections A and B is mentioned but reason for that is not
clear.
2. The testing is done by ultrasonic method which is insufficient for
identification of linear defects parallel to sound beam. It is tough to
inspect rough surface (welds) from this NDE technique. There is no
mathematical analysis of the failure and no suggestions for elimination
have been provided.
3. The SEM images are not well explained. General observations of
microstructure have been made but there is not enough analysis of how it
led to failure. Again, the mechanical properties of the failed specimens are
calculated but their significance is not explained. Very poor discussion and
ambiguous conclusion.