Analysis of Failed Wheel

Date:
Client:
Subject: Analysis of a Failed Wheel
Reference: MAI Report No. XXX-X-XXX
MAI ▪ 1515 Paramount Drive ▪ Suite 1 ▪ Waukesha, WI 53186

Phone: 262-798-8098 ▪ 800-798-4966 ▪ FAX: 262-798-8099 ▪. e-mail: info@metassoc.com
www.metassoc.com
Metallurgical Associates, Inc. March 22, 2024
Report No. XXX-X-XXX Page 2 of 29
Introduction
A failed industrial machine wheel section was submitted for evaluation of the hardening
pattern, mechanical properties, chemical composition, and to characterize the cracks in
the roller path. The wheel is specified to be produced from Grade 10B60 medium
carbon boron treated steel. The wheel is further specified to be induction hardened to a
surface hardness of 57 to 62 Rockwell C and hardened to 45 Rockwell C to a minimum
depth of 0.130”. It was reported that this wheel may have been subjected to elevated
temperatures due to sliding friction during service. No additional information was
provided regarding the production, testing or service history of this wheel.
Visual Examination and Macroetch Evaluation

The roller path of the submitted wheel exhibits colorations that may be consistent with
heat tint as shown in Figure 1. The heat tint colorations are present only on the roller
path indicating that any heating was isolated to the roller path. Reddish brown
colorations consistent with rust are also present on the wheel. A significant number of
longitudinal cracks are present on the roller path as shown in Figures 2 to 4. The
largest cracks extend approximately 0.28” from the roller path into the wheel. Some
secondary cracks are present adjacent to the roller path cracks. A radial section was
removed from the wheel and the radial surfaces were ground. One of these surfaces
was then macroetched to evaluate the hardening pattern. The hardening pattern
extends completely across the tread surface, along the flange radius and the vertical
surface of the flange which indicates that it is induction hardened as shown in Figure 5.
The hardening pattern does not extend across the entire flange indicating it was not
through hardened. The visually etched case extends to a maximum depth of 0.44”. The
“top” of the wheel, in relation to the orientation during quenching, was not indicated on
the wheel as received.
Chemical Analysis
The chemical composition of the submitted wheel is in conformance with the specified
Grade 10B60 medium carbon steel as included in SAE J403, “Chemical Compositions
of SAE Carbon Steels” as shown in Table 1. The material is deoxidized with silicon and
contains an intentional vanadium addition, which acts as a grain refiner, indicating it was
produced to a fine grained melting practice. This typically results in optimum
mechanical properties after heat treatment. The material also contains an intentional
titanium addition, which is commonly added to boron treated steels to prevent reaction
of the boron with nitrogen in the steel, which would decrease its effectiveness as a
hardenability agent. No abnormalities are present in the chemical composition of the
material which could have contributed to the failure of this wheel.
Hardness Evaluation
Rockwell hardness was performed on the macroetched surface at a depth of

approximately 1/16" from the tread and flange surfaces. The hardnesses along the
tread surface range from 48 to 57 Rockwell C as shown in Table 2. The inner surface
of the flange exhibits hardnesses of 56 Rockwell C at mid-height and below 20 Rockwell
C at the inside flange corner. The mid-point of the flange and mid height on the outside
surface of the flange exhibit hardnesses of 20 Rockwell C. The surface of the flange at
the corner and at the tread diameter exhibit hardnesses that are below 20 Rockwell C.
These results indicate that the entire tread surface, flange radius, and half of the inside
surface of the flange are hardened. The hardness of the case is below the specified
minimum at all tested locations except for at 1” left of the center line. The lower than
specified case hardness of this wheel is consistent with the reported exposure to
elevated temperatures during service. The lower than specified hardness of the case
will decrease the wear resistance during service. As further discussed in the scanning
electron microscopy and metallography sections of this report the lower than specified
case hardness is likely due to elevated heating during service. The elevated
temperature is likely due to sliding movement on the tread due to improper rotation of
this wheel against the mating rail. This movement generated elevated temperatures in
the tread and resulted in a softer than specified case. The softer case increased the
likelihood of spalling damage and is the primary contributing factor to the failure.
Microhardness Evaluation
Longitudinal metallographic sections were prepared from the tread surface at the center
and at 0.75” to the left and right of the tread surface centerline. Knoop microhardness
traverses were made from the tread surface in these metallographic sections as
summarized in Table 3, with the complete traverses shown in Table 4. The near
surface hardnesses to the left and right are similar, however, the near surface hardness
at the center is significantly lower. The maximum hardnesses at all three locations are
similar. This indicates that the wheel was initially properly hardened and was subjected
to elevated temperatures during service. The effective case depth to a hardness of 45
Rockwell C is 0.255” at 0.75” to the left of the centerline 0.250” at the centerline, and
0.325” at 0.75” to the right of the centerline. The effective case depths to 45 Rockwell C
at 0.75” to the left and right of the center line exceed the specified minimum of 0.135”.
The near surface hardness at the center line is below the specified minimum value of 45
Rockwell C for effective case depth, however, all subsequent measurements up to
0.250” exceed the specified minimum. Therefore, the center line also exceeds the
specified minimum for effective case depth.
Scanning Electron Microscopy

A typical crack in the roller path was opened and was examined using a scanning
electron microscope (SEM) after cleaning in an Alconox ® detergent solution to remove
any adhered contaminants as shown in Figure 6. The locations selected for additional
examination are identified in yellow.
The majority of the fine fracture features at the location identified as Area 1 have been
destroyed by mechanical damage to the surface as shown in Figures 7 to 9. Some
secondary cracks are present at this location which is consistent with subsurface
initiated pitting contact fatigue (spalling). The mechanical damage at this location also
indicates that the crack initiated in this area and the repeated loading and unloading of
the wheel caused the mating halves of the crack to come into contact, which destroyed
the fine fracture features.
The location identified as Area 2 exhibits a significant number of subsurface secondary

cracks as shown in Figures 10 to 12. The opened crack surface at this location is
obscured by a heavy oxide layer, however, angular features consistent with
intergranular rupture are present.
The location identified as Area 3 exhibits a rough granular morphology that is consistent
with intergranular rupture as shown in Figures 13 to 15. Intergranular rupture is typical
of a single cycle overload through a hardened case.
The location identified as Area 4 exhibits flat angular features and microvoid
coalescence that is consistent with a ductile and brittle mixed mode single cycle
overload as shown in Figures 16 to 18. Ductile overload is not typical in hardened
material and the presence of these features may indicate that the crack propagated at
an elevated temperature.
The location identified as Area 5 exhibits flat angular features that are consistent with a
single cycle brittle overload as shown in Figures 19 and 20.
These results indicate that the crack initiated in the topmost portion of the hardened
case and propagated into the wheel. The presence of ductile features at the center of
the opened crack may indicate that the crack propagated through this location at
elevated temperatures. As further discussed in the metallography section of this report
some microstructural differences are present near the tread surface of the wheel.
These differences are likely due to exposure to elevated temperatures during service,
which may have caused a softening of the case allowing the cracks to form and
propagate through the wheel.
Metallography
Metallographic sections were prepared through the mating halves of the opened crack
examined by scanning electron microscopy and through an unopened. The
metallographic section prepared though the intact crack is shown in Figure 21. The left
center of Figure 21 is shown at higher magnification in Figure 22. The significant
number of subsurface secondary cracks at this location is further indicative of spalling.
The wheel at this location exhibits a microstructure of fine grained martensite that is
consistent with an induction hardened case as shown in Figure 23. The upper section
of the crack exhibits a similar microstructure of fine grained martensite as shown in
Figure 24. The lower section of the crack exhibits a microstructure of fine grained
martensite and mixed transformation products. This indicates that the crack terminated
at this microstructural variation.
The opened crack at the surface of the wheel exhibits rough granular fracture features
that are consistent with intergranular rupture as shown in Figure 25. The case adjacent
to the surface exhibits a microstructure of fine grained martensite and mixed
transformation products as shown in Figure 26. The bottom area of the image,
however, exhibits a microstructure of only fine grained martensite. This indicates that
the case near the surface may have been exposed to temperatures above the
tempering temperature. This is consistent with the lower near surface hardness of the
case. The center of the opened crack exhibits a smooth flat fracture features that are
consistent with a single cycle ductile overload with minimal deformation as shown in
Figure 27. This location exhibits a microstructure of fine grained martensite that is
consistent with an induction hardened case as shown in Figure 28. This indicates that
the wheel was likely initially properly hardened. The lower portion of the opened crack
exhibits angular fracture features that are consistent with a single cycle brittle overload
as shown in Figure 29. A significant amount of subsurface secondary cracks are
present at this location which is further indicative of spalling. The wheel at this location
exhibits a microstructure of equiaxed grains of ferrite and pearlite that is consistent with
a hot forged medium carbon steel as shown in Figure 30.
These results indicate that some microstructural changes are present near the tread
surface of the submitted wheel. This microstructural change is likely due to exposure to
elevated temperatures during service which resulted in additional tempering of the near
surface material. This is consistent with the variations in the near surface hardness and
the lower than specified case hardness.
Summary and Conclusions

The results of this investigation indicate that this wheel was produced from the specified
Grade 10B60 medium carbon boron treated steel. The material is deoxidized with
silicon and contains an intentional vanadium addition, which acts as a grain refiner,
indicating it was produced to a fine grained melting practice. This typically results in
optimum mechanical properties after heat treatment. The material contains an
intentional titanium addition, which is commonly added to boron treated steels to
prevent reaction of the boron with nitrogen in the steel, which would decrease its
effectiveness as a hardenability agent. No abnormalities are present in the chemical
composition of the wheel which could have contributed to this failure.
The case hardness at all locations except for 1” to the left of the centerline is below the
specified minimum. The effective case depths at 0.75” to the left and right and at the
center of the tread exceed the specified minimum. However, the near surface
hardnesses are significantly lower than the maximum case hardnesses. The atypical
hardening pattern is indicative of localized heating at the surface of the tread which
caused additional tempering of the case resulting in the lower than specified near
surface hardness. The relatively higher near surface hardness adjacent to the flange
indicates that the flange acted as a heat sink which resulted in less reduction in the near
surface hardness.
SEM analysis of the opened crack revealed that areas of the crack adjacent to the
surface and near the core exhibited features that are consistent with a typical single
cycle overload. A large area of the crack at the center, however, exhibits features
consistent with a single cycle ductile overload, which is atypical of a fracture in this
material. This indicates that the crack propagated through the case at an elevated
temperature, which is consistent with the results of the hardness evaluation. A
significant microstructural change is present adjacent to the surface of the tread. The
near surface exhibits a microstructure of martensite and mixed transformation products,
while the center of the case exhibits a microstructure of only martensite. The location of
the spalling on the tread surface initiated at this location.
The lower than specified case hardness, the presence of heat tint on the roller path
surface and microstructural variations present in the case indicate that this wheel was
subjected to localized surface heating during service. This heating in service is
consistent with the application of sliding movement to the tread due to improper rotation
of this wheel against the mating rail. This sliding wear and the resulting surface heating
reduced hardness and microstructural variations in the hardened case. The reduction
of hardness in the case increased the likelihood of spalling damage and is the primary
contributing factor to the failure.
It is recommended that the service history of this wheel be reviewed to identify any
possible sources of the sliding movement that resulted in the elevated tread surface
temperatures and the subsequent spalling and cracking.
We will retain the remnants from this investigation for a minimum of 30 days from the
date of this report, after which they may be discarded. If you have any questions,
require any additional analysis of these samples, or would like to arrange for an
alternative disposition of the samples, please call.
This report relates only to the item(s) tested. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of Metallurgical
Associates, Inc.
Table 1
Chemical Analysis
Weight Percent of Element

Element Wheel SAE 10B60
Carbon 0.62 0.55 – 0.65
Manganese 0.81 0.60 – 0.90
Sulfur 0.019 0.050 max
Phosphorus 0.010 0.040 max
Silicon 0.27 N.S.
Chromium 0.16 N.S.
Nickel 0.16 N.S.
Molybdenum 0.03 N.S.
Copper 0.16 N.S.
Aluminum <0.01 N.S.
Vanadium 0.031 N.S.
Niobium <0.01 N.S.
Titanium 0.024 N.S. (1)
Boron 0.0026 0.005 min
N.S.: Not specified

(1): Although not specified, this element is normally added to boron treated steels.
Table 2
Hardness Evaluation
Location (1) Hardness, Rockwell C (2)

Outside Flange Face at Tread Diameter 19
Mid-Height Outside of Flange 21
Outside Flange Corner 19
Mid-Width of Flange 20
Inside Flange Corner 18
Mid-Height Inside of Flange 56
Flange Radius with Tread 53
Tread Surface – 1" to Left of Center 57
Tread Surface – 1/2" to Left of Center 52
Tread Surface – At Center 48
Tread Surface – 1/2" to Right of Center 50
Tread Surface – 1" to Right of Center 54
(1): Left and right as shown in Figure 1.

(2): Single reading at each location, approximately 1/16" from surface.
Table 3
Summary of Microhardness Traverses from the Tread Surface
Location Relative to Tread Center Line

as Oriented in Figure 1
0.75” to the 0.75” to the
Left of At Center Right of
Property Center Line Line Center Line
Near-Surface Hardness,
51 44 50
Rockwell C (1)
Maximum Case Hardness,
56 55 55
Rockwell C
Depth to 45 Rockwell C,
0.255 0.250 (2) 0.325
inch
(1): Measured at a depth of 0.005" from surface.

(2): The near surface hardness is below the specified 45 Rockwell C, however, all
remaining measurements up to 0.250” exceed 45 Rockwell C.
Table 4A
Microhardness Traverse 0.75” to the Left of the Center Line one the Tread Surface
(500 g Load)
Approximate
Depth, Equivalent
inch Filar Knoop Rockwell C
0.005 117.7 566 51.4
0.010 115.2 581 52.2
0.015 119.8 559 51.0
0.020 117.4 589 52.7
0.025 119.1 591 52.8
0.050 115.2 612 54.0
0.075 118.8 629 54.9
0.100 119.1 632 55.1
0.125 113.5 643 55.6
0.150 120.5 635 55.2
0.175 121.6 615 54.1
0.200 117.7 574 51.8
0.225 119.8 576 52.0
0.250 124.8 536 49.6
0.275 124.1 404 40.2
0.300 121.0 365 36.5
0.325 121.0 260 21.8
0.350 127.0 220 13.4
0.375 134.9 230 15.7
0.400 152.2 250 19.9
0.425 165.4 256 21.1
0.450 169.7 284 26.0
0.475 170.1 232 16.1
0.500 167.7 230 15.7
Table 4B
Microhardness Traverse at the Center Line of the Tread Surface
(500 g Load)
Approximate
Depth, Equivalent
0.005 115.2 452 44.0
0.010 115.2 466 45.0
0.015 116.4 473 45.5
0.020 122.7 459 44.5
0.025 118.1 486 46.4
0.050 116.0 521 48.7
0.075 116.4 589 52.7
0.100 118.6 621 54.5
0.125 114.1 584 52.4
0.150 125.1 576 52.0
0.175 125.3 584 52.4
0.200 108.3 584 52.4
0.225 110.2 521 48.7
0.250 117.4 459 44.5
0.275 112.8 427 42.1
0.300 132.2 362 36.2
0.325 128.9 327 32.1
0.350 131.6 313 30.3
0.375 134.6 264 22.5
0.400 151.7 268 23.3
0.425 150.8 245 18.9
0.450 159.7 223 14.1
0.475 170.4 247 19.3
0.500 167.7 257 21.2
Table 4C
Microhardness Traverse 0.75” to the Right of the Center Line on the Tread
Surface
(500 g Load)
Approximate
Depth, Equivalent
0.005 116.6 536 49.6
0.010 117.4 561 51.1
0.015 118.6 564 51.3
0.020 118.3 552 50.6
0.025 118.6 591 52.8
0.050 116.4 554 50.7
0.075 116.2 602 53.4
0.100 122.7 615 54.1
0.125 120.5 629 54.9
0.150 119.1 612 54.0
0.175 117.9 621 54.5
0.200 121.5 623 54.6
0.225 121.0 607 53.7
0.250 126.7 584 52.4
0.275 127.6 540 49.8
0.300 119.1 512 48.1
0.325 132.1 468 45.2
0.350 136.5 406 40.4
0.375 148.7 383 38.3
0.400 128.2 350 34.9
0.425 158.3 355 35.4
0.450 160.3 341 33.8
0.475 166.4 286 26.3
0.500 178.2 250 19.9
Table 4D
Plot of Microhardness Traverses performed from Tread Surface
Fig. 1- The section of the failed wheel is shown as received. The roller path of the
wheel exhibits colorations that are consistent with heat tinting of the material.
Reddish brown colorations consistent with rust are also present on the roller
path. A significant number of cracks are present on the roller path (red arrows).
(0.5X).
Fig. 2- The right center of Figure 1 is shown at higher magnification. The cracks extend
from the edge of the roller path surface to the flange radius. (1.1X).
Fig. 3- The wheel section shown in Figure 1 is shown after a 90º vertical rotation.
(0.5X).
Fig. 4- The upper right of Figure 3 is shown at higher magnification. The largest crack
extends approximately 0.28” from the tread surface. A secondary crack (red
arrow) is also present adjacent to the largest crack. (1.2X).
Fig. 5- The macroetched radial section exhibits a uniform hardening pattern along the
tread surface. The outer surface of the flanges do not exhibit any evidence of a
hardened case indicating the flanges were not completely through hardened.
The hardened case extends to a maximum depth of 0.44”. 10% Nital. (0.5X).
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
Area 4
Area 5
Fig. 6- The crack documented in Figure 2 is shown after opening to document the prior
crack features. The locations identified for additional documentation are
identified in yellow. (2X).
Fig. 7- The location identified as Area 1 in Figure 6 is shown at higher magnification.

(100X).
Fig. 8- The center of Figure 7 is shown at higher magnification. Mechanical damage

has destroyed the fine fracture features at this location. (100X).
Fig. 9- The center of Figure 8 is shown at higher magnification which reveals some
subsurface secondary cracks (red arrows) consistent with spalling. (2000X).
Fig. 10- The location identified as Area 2 is shown at higher magnification, which reveals
angular surface features that are consistent with intergranular rupture. (100X).
Fig. 11- The center of Figure 10 is shown at higher magnification which reveals
significant subsurface cracks that are consistent with spalling. (500X).
Fig. 12- The center of Figure 11 is shown at higher magnification which reveals a heavy
oxide layer that has obscured the fine fracture features. (2000X).
(100X).
Fig. 14- The center of Figure 13 is shown at higher magnification. (500X).
Fig. 15- The center of Figure 14 is shown at higher magnification which reveals a rough
granular appearance that is consistent with intergranular rupture. (2000X).
(100X).
Fig. 17- The center of Figure 16 is shown at higher magnification which reveals a rough
surface morphology. (500X).
Fig. 18- The center of Figure 17 is shown at higher magnification which reveals flat
angular features (red arrow) and microvoid coalescence (blue arrow) that are
consistent with a single cycle mixed mode overload. (2000X).
(2000X).
Fig. 20- The center of Figure 19 is shown at higher magnification which reveals flat
angular features that are consistent with a single cycle brittle overload.
Fig. 21 The metallographic section prepared through the intact crack in the roller path is
shown. (2.2X).
Fig. 22- The left center of Figure 21 is shown at higher magnification which reveals
significant subsurface cracks that are consistent with spalling. Unetched.
(100X).
Fig. 23- The location in Figure 22 is shown after etching to reveal the microstructure.
This location exhibits a microstructure of fine grained martensite that is typical
of an induction hardened case. 2% Nital. (100X).
Fig. 24- The lower center of Figure 21 is shown after etching to reveal the
microstructure. The microstructure closer to the surface (top of image) consists
of fine grained martensite. The microstructure away from the surface, bottom of
the image consists of fine grained martensite and mixed transformation
products. 2% Nital. (50X).
Fig. 25- The metallographic prepared through the opened crack is shown. The tread
surface is to the top of the image. The opened crack surface at this location
exhibits rough surface features that are consistent with intergranular rupture
Unetched. (100X).
Fig. 26- The area in Figure 25 is shown after etching to reveal the microstructure. The
wheel near the tread surface (above the red line) exhibits a microstructure of
fine grained martensite and mixed transformation products. The
microstructure further into the wheel exhibits a microstructure of only
martensite. 2% Nital. (100X).
Fig. 27- The area at the center of the opened crack is shown. The opened crack surface
at this location exhibits smooth surface features that are consistent with a single
cycle ductile overload with minimal deformation. Unetched. (100X).
microstructure at this location consists of fine grained martensite. 2% Nital.
(100X).
Fig. 29- The area at the bottom of the opened crack is shown. The opened crack surface
at this location exhibits rough angular features that are consistent with a single
cycle brittle overload. Unetched. (100X).
microstructure at this location consists of pearlite (brown and tan) and ferrite
white, which is consistent with a hot forged carbon steel. 2% Nital. (100X).

Analysis of Failed Wheel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Analysis of Failed Wheel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Failed Wheel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date:

Subject: Analysis of a Failed Wheel

Reference: MAI Report No. XXX-X-XXX

MAI ▪ 1515 Paramount Drive ▪ Suite 1 ▪ Waukesha, WI 53186

Visual Examination and Macroetch Evaluation

Rockwell hardness was performed on the macroetched surface at a depth of

Scanning Electron Microscopy

The location identified as Area 2 exhibits a significant number of subsurface secondary

Summary and Conclusions

Weight Percent of Element

N.S.: Not specified

Location (1) Hardness, Rockwell C (2)

(1): Left and right as shown in Figure 1.

Location Relative to Tread Center Line

(1): Measured at a depth of 0.005" from surface.

Fig. 7- The location identified as Area 1 in Figure 6 is shown at higher magnification.

Fig. 8- The center of Figure 7 is shown at higher magnification. Mechanical damage

Fig. 14- The center of Figure 13 is shown at higher magnification. (500X).

You might also like