|
The reported event could be confirmed: the returned plate shows a fracture.The plate was returned in order to determine the root cause of the failure.The sample was examined regarding its dimensions, chemical composition (edx analysis), and by light and scanning electron microscopy.The dimensions are in accordance with the specification.The chemical composition conforms to the specification titanium grade 2.The macroscopic appearance points to exceeding the material strength.That is confirmed by the deterioration of the anodization layer, the changes of the surface¿s structure, and the secondary cracks in the area of the breakage.The fracture surface was partially leveled due to friction with the counterpart.The non-destroyed fracture surface (rest) shows the appearance of a forced rupture.The fractographic investigation with sem shows a structure of a ductile forced rupture with secondary cracks.The investigation shows that the plate broke in low cycle fatigue mode by exceeding the material strength after a few cycles under partially very high forces.No lot number was provided, thus a review of the specific manufacturing batch records and related quality documents (manufacturing documents, inspection plan, inspection drawing, and release report) cannot be performed.Therefore, it is also not possible to determine the quantity released for distribution within the affected lot.The findings of a ductile forced rupture determined during the investigation with sem are further supported by the event description.It was stated that the plate was bent multiple times, which favors a breakage due to a reduction of the material strength.Based on the investigation and the corresponding statistical evaluation there is no indication for an incorrectly working product or any systematic design, material, or manufacturing related issue.Therefore, no further corrective and/or preventive actions are deemed necessary at this time.The complaint is added to the complaint trend.
|