PSI - Issue 71

Ninad Vasant Pawar et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 71 (2025) 134–141

136

Fig. 1 Fractured cone, broken pieces of cone flange and pinion gear on which the cone was mounted with schematic layout.

Fig. 2 Microstructure of groove surface(a) and core area(b).

3.3. Visual and stereoscopic analysis of fractured parts The entire fractured surface of the failed cone was analyzed and the images taken from 4 directions are shown in fig. 3(a) to (d). The representative stereoscopic magnified images are shown in Fig. 4. Progression or beach marks were observed starting from the groove and propagating towards the cone in a large face direction. A fast fracture zone is observed on the large face side of the cone with evident ridges in the propagation direction. The progression marks showed approximate symmetry around the axis of the cone and were present on the entire circumference of the cone fractured zone. At some locations, the beach mark showed arches indicating variation in propagation pace of fracture. The centers of these arches were marked as these indicate the initiation zone of fracture (González-Velázquez, 2018). Later, these zones were analyzed under SEM. Consequential damage was observed at multiple locations of the fractured zone. The change in fracture appearance changed away from the groove area to the overload zone. Ridge marks appeared and appearance became comparatively just before starting of overload fracture zone, indicating possibility of intergranular fracture. This phenomenon is further analyzed in detail in SEM analysis. The fracture surface was observed starting from the groove area, which is shown in Fig. 4. The groove is manufactured with machining with the help of a customized tool. The machining marks were observed in Fig. 4. The fracture became more unstable and rapid as it moved from the groove towards the large face side of the cone, evident from surface analysis.