J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-020-00839-4
CASE HISTORY—PEER-REVIEWED
Finite Element Analysis of a Mechanical Fuse Failure
A. R. Pimenta . S. S. M. Tavares . M. G. Diniz .
R. A. A. Roco M. J. Oliveira . J. A. G. Galiza . A. V. Gomes .
.
D. S. R. Ferreira . R. P. Freitas
Submitted: 8 November 2019 / in revised form: 15 January 2020
Ó ASM International 2020
Abstract Industrial equipment is usually high in cost.
Design engineering needs to specify fuses that have the
role of protecting the main parts of the equipment. The aim
of this work is to identify the reason that led to a high
number of fractures in mechanical fuses of a rolling mill
and suggest improvements to fix the problem. Two com-
ponents were analyzed: one that failed and one that was
used inside the equipment but did not fail. According to
their datasheet, the components are made of quenched and
tempered type 4140 (UNS G41400) steel. Chemical anal-
ysis of the fuse was performed using x-ray fluorescence.
Microstructural and fractographic aspects were investi-
gated by optical and scanning electron microscopy. The
existence of surface cracks is investigated by liquid pene-
trant test. Tensile analyses in the component are made
using analytical and numerical methods. Numeric analyses
are performed by the finite element method. The chemical
analysis is in agreement with that expected for type 4140.
The fractographic analysis shows intergranular brittle
A. R. Pimenta (&)  R. A. A. Roco  M. J. Oliveira 
D. S. R. Ferreira  R. P. Freitas
LISComp, Instituto Federal de Educação Ciência e Tecnologia
do Rio de Janeiro, Rua Sebastião Lacerda, s/n°, Paracambi CEP
26.600-00, Brazil
e-mail: rochapimenta@gmail.com
S. S. M. Tavares
Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade Federal
Fluminense, Niterói, Brazil
M. G. Diniz
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Mecânica,
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
M. J. Oliveira  J. A. G. Galiza  A. V. Gomes
Seção de Engenharia de Materiais, Instituto Militar de
Engenharia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
fracture. No surface cracks are found by the liquid pene-
trant, and no evidence of fatigue mechanism fracture is
found the fractographic analysis. All results indicate that
the component fractured due to the action of overload. By
comparing the numerical and analytical methods, it is
possible to identify that the stress concentration in the fuse
analyzed results has a value of 9.44% lower when the
analytical method is used. It is possible to conclude that the
analytical method causes an error in the design, which was
not covered by the safety factor because mechanical fuses
did not use a safety factor in their projects. Increasing the
radius of stress concentration can compensate the error,
without requiring dimensional changes in the component.
A new component is manufactured according to this con-
cept, which is in operation without any issues.
Keywords Finite element analysis  Fractography 
Design  Stress concentrations
Introduction
The analysis of failures aims to avoid similar failures in the
future, thereby preventing accidents and reducing losses
due to sudden production stops. There are several reasons
for a component to fail, such as inadequate material
specification, design mistakes, overload and problems in
procedures of heat treatments or manufacture, such as
preexisting cracks [1].
Equipment used in the siderurgical industry usually has
a high cost. Therefore, design engineering must establish
fuses that have the role of protecting the main parts of the
equipment. One type of fuse generally used in mechanical
equipment is the mechanical fuse, which is a physical
123
 J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

component dimensioned to break when the equipment

undergoes an overload. In normal operation, this compo-
nent must have fatigue and mechanical resistance to
transmit energy without becoming broken. In the case of
overload, the component breaks instantly, thereby pro-
tecting the other components [2].
Similar to the Charpy test, a stress concentration is made
in mechanical fuses, which have the role of directing the
fracture. However, it is very difficult to design such a
geometry. Some articles have studied the design of stress
concentration [3–5], while others have investigated the
influence of stress concentration on fractures. Companies
generally use analytical methods for tensile analyses, due
to the high cost of numerical software. Tensile analyses of
stress concentration by analytical methods use a stress
concentration factor (Kt in Eqs 1–3) to correct the nominal Fig. 1 Components received for analysis. (a)—failed component
stress value (rnom in Eqs 1 and 2) and obtain the maximum (1—broken component; 2—mounting bracket). (b)—component in
use inside the equipment that did not fail (3—stress concentration)
stress value (rmax in Eq 1). The stress concentration factor
is a function of the notch radius component geometry and
loading [2, 3]. For the geometry analyzed in this work, the
stress concentration factor is given by Eq 3 [2].
rmax ¼ Kt  rnom ðEq 1Þ
rnom ¼ F=S ðEq 2Þ
Kt ¼ A  ðr=dÞb ðEq 3Þ
where rmax is the maximum stress (MPa), rnom is the
nominal applied stress (MPa), Kt is the stress concentration
factor (dimensionless), A is the tabulated value in the lit-
erature, r is the radius of stress concentration, d is the
smaller diameter, b is the tabulated value in the literature, F
is the applied force, and S is the resistant area. Fig. 2 Technical drawing of component
Despite the high cost of software, tensile analyses using
numerical methods are highly efficient and have been used 4140 (UNS G41400) steel. Chemical analysis of the fuse
to solve several problems in research [6–8]. Taylan and was performed using x-ray fluorescence to check that the
Aydin [9] highlight the advantages of finite element anal- material conforms to its specification. With the aim of
yses over traditional methods, especially the software confirming the heat treatments, the microstructure of the
ANSYS, which has experienced widespread use in recent material was observed by optical microscopy (OM) and
years and is a package program that facilitates the finite scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The OM images
element substructure in tensile analyses. were taken on a Zeiss M2m microscope, and the SEM
The aim of this work was to identify the reason that led images were taken on a Hitachi TM3000 microscope. For
to a high number of fractures in mechanical fuses of a OM and SEM observations, the samples were polished
rolling mill and to suggest improvements to fix the prob- with diamond paste and etched with Nital 2%. Quenched
lem. This study reports the results of investigation of and tempered heat treatments increase the hardness
mechanical fuse failure, as shown in Fig. 1. [10, 11]. To verify this, Rockwell C hardness measure-
ments were performed according to ISO 6508 [12] in five
aleatory regions.
Materials and Methods Surface cracks can be a problem for components sub-
mitted to fatigue [13]. The existence of surface cracks was
Two components were analyzed: one that failed (Fig. 1a) investigated by liquid penetrant testing in this work. The
and one that was used inside the equipment but did not fail purpose of fractography is to analyze the fracture features
(Fig. 1b). According to the datasheet of the equipment, the and to attempt to relate the topography of the fracture
component should be made of quenched and tempered type surface to the causes and mechanisms of fracture [14]. The

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

fractographic aspects in this work were analyzed using
SEM in secondary electron mode.
To verify if the component was manufactured with the
design dimensions, the dimensions of the fuse were mea-
sured with a profile projector. Figure 2 shows the technical
drawing of the fuse, highlighting the stress concentration
made with 60° and a 1 mm radius (Fig. 1b—arrow 3).
Tensile analyses in the component were made using
analytical and numerical methods. Numerical analyses
were performed using the finite element method with
ANSYS R19.1 software. The analytical analyses were
performed according to Eqs 1–3. For both studies, a trac-
tion force of 80 kN was considered. The authors stipulated
this value due to the datasheet of the equipment not having
this information. However, considering that the results
were discussed on a percentage basis, this fact does not
alter the discussions presented.

Table 1 Chemical composition expected for type 4140 (UNS Results and Discussion
G41400) and results obtained from x-ray fluorescence (wt.%)
Element Standard for type 4140 x-ray fluorescence results Component Analysis

C 0.38–0.43 0.395 The standard chemical composition expected for type 4140
Mn 0.75–1.00 0.85 steel [15] and the results obtained from x-ray fluorescence
P 0.035 max. 0.015 analysis are shown in Table 1. The chemical analysis is in
S 0.040 max. 0.040 agreement with that expected for AISI 4140. It is worth
Si 0.15–0.35 0.25 noting that the sulfur content is in the limit of the specifi-
Cr 0.80–1.10 0.99 cation, and this element favors the brittle fracture of low-
Mo 0.15–0.25 0.17 alloy steels. The hardness test result was 51 ± 0.35 HRC,
Fe Balance Balance in agreement with that expected for type 4140 steel quen-
ched and tempered at temperatures around 300 °C [10, 11].

Fig. 3 Microstructure observed

by OM (a) and SEM (b)

Fig. 4 Images of surface

fracture from SEM, 1000 9 (a)
and 2000 9 (b)

123
 J Fail. Anal. and Preven.

Fig. 5 Images of finite element

analyses. The fuse (a), and the
detail of stress concentration (b)

Table 2 Values of tensile analyses with analytical method

Variable Value Reference

rmax 977.65 MPa Calculated by Eq 1

Kt 2.4566 Calculated by Eq 3
rnom 200.96 MPa Calculated by Eq 2
A 0.99383 Tabulated in Norton [2]
r 1.5 mm Technical drawing
d 16 mm Technical drawing
b  0.38231 Tabulated in Norton [2]
F 80 kN Stipulated by authors
S 200.96 mm2 Area calculated using ‘‘d’’
Fig. 6 Maximum stress according to mesh

Accordingly, the optical (Fig. 3a) and scanning electron Table 3 Comparative analyses in component with and without stress
concentration
(Fig. 3b) micrographs show a microstructure of martensite
slightly decomposed by tempering [10, 11, 16, 17]. This Analytical method Numerical method Error
Component (MPa) (MPa) (%)
material is also susceptible to temper embrittlement in
230–350 °C range. The material was intentionally tem- With stress 1080 978 9.44
pered in this range because some degree of brittleness is concentration
necessary to this application (mechanical fuse). Therefore, Without stress 397 398 0.25
it can be concluded that the quenching and tempering heat concentration
treatments were carried out according to the datasheet of

123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
the equipment. On the basis of the chemical analysis,
hardness test and optical and scanning electron micro-
graphs, it was possible to conclude that the material used
was as specified.
All regions analyzed show brittleness intergranular
fracture [1] (Fig. 4), as expected, once mechanical fuses
usually break with low energy to preserve the equipment
[2]. This mechanism of fracture is in agreement with that
expected for the steel susceptible to temper embrittlement
with 51 HRC [11]. No surface cracks were found by the
liquid penetrant, and no evidence of fatigue mechanism
fracture was found in the fractography analysis. All results
indicate that the component has fractured due to the action
of overload.
Finite Element Analyses
All the analyses and tests performed indicate that the
component fractured due to the action of load higher than
the one for which the component was dimensioned. Con-
sidering that the geometry of the component has a stress
concentration with a difficult geometry to be correctly
dimensioned by analytical methods, a comparative study
between the numerical and analytical methods was
conducted.
Figure 5 shows the numerical analysis results obtained
using the finite element method in the ANSYS software. A
serious problem in finite element is related to the points of
singularity, which are points where the stress increase with
the decrease in the mesh, and the analysis results in an
error. Figure 6 shows the convergence of the value of the
maximum stress according to how the mesh is refined
(values of mesh size range from 10 to 0.06 mm), and
proves that there are no points of singularity in this anal-
ysis. The application of the 80 kN traction force generated
a maximum stress of * 1080 MPa.
However, with the tensile analyses carried out by the
traditional analytical method, according to Eqs 1–3 [2], the
result was a maximum stress of 978 MPa, which is an error
of 9.44% in relation to the numerical tensile analyses. The
value used in Eqs 1–3, as well as the results of equations, is
given in Table 2.
When analytical and numerical methods are compared
in the tensile analyses of a component without stress con-
centration, there is practically zero error. For the purpose of
comparison, tensile analyses were conducted on a cylinder
with a 16 mm diameter, subjected to a force of 80 kN.
Table 3 compares the analytical and numerical method
errors, in the component with and without stress
concentration.
In the design of conventional mechanical components, a
9.44% error is easily overcome by applying a safety factor,
which generally varies between 15 and 500% [18]. The
safety factor is an increase index applied to the result of the
design and aims to protect the project against inaccuracies
in the values of material properties and/or loading [18].
However, the component analyzed in this work is a
mechanical fuse and is designed to break if the equipment
reaches a critical situation. Therefore, in this specific case,
no safety factor is applied, since the project aimed pre-
cisely at the failure of the component if the stress is
reached.
Conclusions
The mechanical fuse failed in the stress concentration. All
results indicated that the material used was as specified.
The fractography shows brittleness intergranular fracture,
typical of the martensite phase. The component fractured
due to the action of overload.
It is possible to conclude that the analytical method
causes an error in the design, which was not covered by the
safety factor because mechanical fuses did not use safety
factor in their projects. Increasing the radius of stress
concentration can compensate the error, without requiring
other dimensional changes in the component. A new
component has been manufactured according to this con-
cept, which is in operation without problem. The use of
finite element programs using numerical methods is
important in stress concentration design.
Acknowledgments This study is supported by Federal Institute of
Education, Science and Technology of Rio de Janeiro (PIBICT/
PROCIENCIA 2019-2020), Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de
Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janiero—FAPERJ (E-26/
290.066/2018).
References
1. ASM, ASM Handbook, Fractography, vol. 12 (ASM Interna-
tional, Cleveland, 1987)
2. R.L. Norton, Projeto de máquinas (Bookman Editora, Porto
Alegre, 2013)
3. D. Taylor, A. Kelly, M. Toso, L. Susmel, The variable-radius
notch: two new methods for reducing stress concentration. Eng.
Fail. Anal. 18, 1009–1017 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2010.12.012
4. A. Murdani, C. Makabe, A. Saimoto, Y. Irei, Stress concentration
at stop-drilled holes and additional holes. Eng. Fail. Anal. 15(7),
810–819 (2008)
5. A.J. Pachoud, P.A. Manso, A.J. Schleiss, New parametric equa-
tions to estimate notch stress concentration factors at butt welded
joints modeling the weld profile with splines. Eng. Fail. Anal. 72,
11–24 (2017)
6. Y. Sun, J. Zhai, Q. Zhang, X. Qin, Research of large scale
mechanical structure crack growth method based on finite ele-
ment parametric submodel. Eng. Fail. Anal. 102, 226–236 (2019)
123

7. G. Zheng, J. Sun, T. Zhang, Q. Fan, Y. Diao, H. Zhou, Eulerian
finite element model for stability analysis of circular tunnels in
undrained clay. Eng. Fail. Anal. 91, 216–224 (2018)
8. X. Chang, Y. Peng, Z. Zhu, X. Gong, Breaking failure analysis
and finite element simulation of wear-out winding hoist wire
rope. Eng. Fail. Anal. 95, 1–17 (2019)
9. D. Taylan, T. Aydin, Analysis of dynamic behavior of Darideresi-
II Dam by ANSYS. Nat. Hazard. 90(3), 1223–1235 (2018)
10. M. Pilar, V. González, A.G. Meije, M.G. Martı́nez, Determina-
tion of the fracture cause in an aircraft motor cylinder. Eng. Fail.
Anal. 82, 816–822 (2017)
11. A.H. Meysami, R. Ghasemzadeh, S.H. Seyedein, M.R. Abouta-
lebi, An investigation on the microstructure and mechanical
properties of direct-quenched and tempered AISI 4140 steel.
Mater. Des. 31(3), 1570–1575 (2010)
12. ISO 6508-1, Metallic materials—Rockwell hardness test—Part 1:
test method (2016)
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven.
13. ASM, ASM Handbook, Fatigue and Fracture, vol. 19 (ASM
International, Cleveland, 1996)
14. J.L. McCall, Fracture Analysis by Scanning Electron Microscopy
(Metals and Ceramics Information Center, Gaithersburg, 1972)
15. ASM, ASM Handbook, Heat Treating of Irons and Steels, vol. 4D
(ASM International, Cleveland, 2014)
16. S.S.M. Tavares, J.M. Pardal, J.A. De Souza, O.C. Pereira, T.S.
Luz, Failure of alloy steel socket-head cap screws used in off-
shore oil production. Eng. Fail. Anal. 70, 16–21 (2016)
17. C. Sasikumar, S. Srikanth, Analysis of premature failure of a tie
bar in an injection molding machine. Eng. Fail. Anal. 13(8),
1246–1259 (2006)
18. J.A. Collins, Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design: Anal-
ysis, Prediction, Prevention (Wiley, Hoboken, 1993)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.