Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
SCIENCE

ELSEVIER

C(~DIRECT

ENGINEERING
FAILURE
ANALYSIS

Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305 312

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure of aircraft propeller assembly

Hong-Chul Lee a, Young-Ha Hwang a, Tae-Gu Kim b'*
~Engine Division, A TRI(Aero-Tech Research Institute), ROKAF, PO Box 304-160, Kumsa dong, Dong gu, Deagu 701-799, South Korea
bDeparmwnt of Safety Engineering, INJE University, Gimhae, Gyeongnam, 621-749, South Korea

Received 8 August 2003; accepted 12 August 2003

Abstract

This paper analyses the causes of the incident of a Cessna trainer whose propeller was separated due to the cracking
of the propeller blade hub during the take off roll. Beach marks and fatigue striations, typical of fatigue cracks, were
observed on the fracture surface and corrosive oxides were detected in the center of beach marks that are considered to
be the crack origin. The stress acting on the fracture surface under a corrosive environment forms corrosive oxides,
such as mud cracks. By analyzing the fractography and metallography of the failed parts, it is found that the propeller
blade hub nucleated stress corrosion cracking (SCC) as a result of residual stress and corrosive environment and the
SCC was the cause of the fatigue crack. Moreover, a fatigue crack reaches its critical length by repeated cyclic stress,
which occurs during the rotation of the propeller blade and then, the rest of the fracture occurred instantaneously.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stress corrosion cracking; Fatigue; Aircraft failures; Corrosion; Fatigue markings

1. Introduction

This study describes the analysis and investigation of the causes of an accident of a Cessna trainer whose
propeller separated during the take off roll. D u r i n g take off at full power, the trainer forcibly stopped
within 900 feet due to the separation o f the propeller assembly at 400 feet. The separated propeller was
severely deformed because o f the impact on the runway. The failed propeller hub and the engine crankshaft
to which the propeller assembly was connected were observed.
For the failure analysis o f the cracked parts, R O K A F first inspected chemical c o m p o n e n t s of the propeller blade hub materials and examined the mechanism o f the cracking by observing the fracture surface
with stereoscope and SEM. Also the direct cause o f the cracking was investigated by analyzing the microstructure and crack path in the fracture surface.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 82-55-320-3539; fax: + 82-55-325-2471.

E-mail address: tgkim@inje.ac.kr (T.-G. Kim).
1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2003.08.002

306

H.-C. Lee et al./ Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305~12

2. Propeller assembly
The Cessna trainer has a single engine and propeller attached at the front of the airframe. The
propeller assembly, consisting of two blades and a hub, was attached to the engine crankshaft. Also,
the blade pitch is regulated automatically by a counter weight balanced hydraulic power and spring
system applying force according to the engine power for a constant propeller rotation speed. As
shown in Fig. 1, the two blades broken away were severely deformed and impact damage in the
direction perpendicular to the blade span was observed in the curled blade tip. The fracture surface of
the failed crankshaft shows a slant fracture; a shear fracture surface forms at an angle of 45 , which
occurred by abnormal torsion force [1]. As shown in Fig. 2, by visual examination of the failed parts,
including the propeller hub, blade, and crankshaft, it was found that one blade separated as a result
of a blade hub crack, and then the crankshaft fractured catastrophically because of the abnormal
torsion force due to the imbalance of the propeller assembly.

Fig. 1. Failed propeller hub and blade.

Fig. 2. Visual examination; twisted blade (left), shear fractured crankshaft (right).

H.-C. Lee et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305-312

307

3. Cause of the accident

3.1. Material properties o f propeller blade hub

The result of the chemical components analysis (ICP, Table 1) and the hardness test (Table 2) shows that
the cracked propeller hub was a die forging aluminum alloy (A1 2014-T6). A1 2014-T6 is widely used in
structural materials for aircraft components owing to the high strength. Because it has poor resistance to
SCC, its fracture toughness against SCC is very low along the ST grain direction [2]. To make up for this,
an anodizing coating is applied to the surface of the propeller hub to prevent corrosion.
3.2. Fractographic analysis

After observing the crack surface with the naked eye and with a stereoscopic microscope, there were
beach marks broadly spread over the fracture surface. The crack nucleated in third thread area inside the
hub where the blade is installed and then the crack propagated outward as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The
center of the beach marks considered to be the origin appears dark, which indicates corrosion. All the
fracture surface beach marks show fine striations typical of a fatigue crack as shown in Fig. 5. The fatigue
crack propagated to a length of 85 mm. On the other hand, the fracture surface elsewhere (Fig. 6) shows
dimples from an overload rupture. Also the mud cracks observed in the initial crack area, as shown in
Fig. 7, are formed by the action of the tensile stress under the corrosive environment, which is generally
found in a stress corrosion crack and corrosion fatigue [3]. Results of surface component analysis by using
EDS showed S, CI, O, which are not contained in the original material (Fig. 8). Such components are often
seen in corrosion on components of aluminum alloy and are thought to provide the cause of a crack or to
accelerate the crack growth rate [4]. The inside of the propeller hub is filled with engine oil to operate the
blade pitch. Compressive residual stress exists in the area around the failed thread where the blade is
installed with a torque of 55-60 ft-lb as shown in Fig. 9. Moreover, whenever the propeller is rotated,
additional cyclic stress is imposed on the thread. So the surface of thread contact area in which the wear
occurred due to the residual stress combining with the cyclic stress was damaged and then the anodizing
coating layer was removed as shown in Fig. 10. After considering all the results from the fracture surface
analysis of the crack surface, the fatigue crack was nucleated in the third thread area inside the propeller
hub where the stress is concentrated by the propeller rotation and blade installation with the rest being
cracks that fractured instantaneously.

Table 1
Chemical analysis of failed propeller blade hub
Part

Failed cylinder

Composition (wt.%)

Designation

Si

Cu

Mn

Mg

Cr

Zn

Fe

A1

0.71

4.22

0.67

0.27

0.02

0.14

0.49

Remain

A1 2014

Table 2
Mechanical properties of failed blade hub
Material

Tensile strength

Yield strength

Elongation

Hardness (HB)

Remarks

A12014-T6

70 ksi

60 ksi

13%

140

Die forging

308

H.-C. Lee et al./ Engineering Failure Analysis' 11 (2004) 305-312

Fig. 3. Photograph showing the propeller hub which failed by fatigue.

Fig. 4. Visual examination of arrow A showing the fatigue crack which initiated in the 3rd thread area.

3.3. Metallographic analysis

For the examination of the direct cause of the fatigue crack, the initial crack site which is thought to be
the origin, was cut perpendicular and parallel to the fracture surface and abraded using a hard polishing
pad. As shown in Fig. 11, the crack path and the degree of damage to the .surface by corrosion was
examined by etching. The surface of the mud cracks has branching cracks along the crack growth. On the
other hand, there was no evidence of corrosion on the fatigue fracture surface. It is said that the surface of
the failed thread inside the hub was not immune to corrosion because the anodizing coating layer was
removed by contact wear.

H.-C. Lee et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305~12

309

Fig. 5. SEM micrographs: fatigue striations.

Fig. 6. SEM micrographs: dimpled ruptured surface.

4. Discussion

4.1, Cause of accident. corrosion

Fatigue striations, typical of a fatigue crack, were observed on the fracture surface. A corrosive oxide
such as mud cracks was detected in the initial stage of the cracking and is considered to be the cause of
cracking. The inside of the hub needs to be processed with an anodizing coating, but in this case, when the
wear occurred on the surface of the thread, corrosion was easy due to the removal of the coating layer.
High-strength aluminum alloy has good material properties but is susceptible to stress corrosion cracking
and corrosion fatigue because the corrosion resistance is poor. After the anodizing coating inside the hub
was removed by wear due to the thread contact, stress corrosion cracking occurred at the third thread
where the stress is concentrated from the propeller rotation and the blade installation. Then the fatigue
crack nucleated by the stress corrosion cracking propagated to 85 mm with the rest of the cracks being
fractured instantaneously.

3 lO

H.-C. Lee et aI./Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305-312

Fig. 7. SEM micrograph showing the mud cracks.

32oo1
21100

22~

:umo
1600

1400
1200

IOO0-

6O,0

$
200
0.2 4~.4 0.6 0.8

IL

.4 1.6-1:a
1.2 11o~

1~

2:22:42:6"2:8
EnerllU (keY)

Fig. 8. SEM micrograph showing the EDS spectrum in the crack origin which revealed the mud cracks as corrosion products.

4.2. Stress corrosion cracking

SCC is a cracking phenomenon that occurs in susceptible alloys and is caused by the joint action of a
surface tensile stress and the presence of a specific corrosive environment [5]. For SCC to occur on an
aircraft structure, three conditions must be met simultaneously. A specific crack-promoting environment
must be present, the metallurgy of the material must be susceptible to SCC, and the tensile stress must be
above some threshold value. A common method to control SCC in aircraft structural materials is to select

H.-C. Lee et al./' Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305 312

311

blade retention nut

Centrifugal force
55~.60 lb-ft + induced by blade rotation

Repulsive/~

US I
Propeller blade hub

/i

-~Fracture

Fig. 9. Schematic drawing describing the stress state between blade hub and nut.

Fig. 10. Micrograph showing the wear damage in the contact thread.

a material with greater SCC resistance to a particular environment. Often, as the strength of an alloy
increases, its susceptibility to SCC increases. Use of alloys with lower strength levels can thus be effective
means of reducing the likelihood of SCC if the design/application permits.
In this case, it was not easy to find the stress corrosion crack in the failed surface or fracture surface in
advance when the evidence of corrosion did not appear macroscopically. To overcome this problem, the
aircraft manufacturer recommends evaluating the thread by nondestructive mspection at periodic intervals.
However it is hard to detect the flaw in the thread.
Furthermore, to prevent possible stress corrosion cracking, selection of the material and its continued
maintenance and management are highly critical.

312

H.-C. Lee e t al./ Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004) 305 312

Fig. 11. Optical micrographs showing the propagation of corrosion from the surface to the inside of material; perpendicular to the
fracture surface (left), parallel to crack growth (right).

5. Conclusions
After performing the cause analysis and experimental study on the crack o f the propeller blade hub,
which led to the separation of the propeller assembly, conclusions can be summarized as follows:
(1) After the anodizing coating inside the hub was removed by wear from thread contact, stress corrosion cracking occurred in the third thread where the stress is concentrated by the propeller
rotation and by the blade installation.
(2) A fatigue crack nucleated by the stress corrosion cracking propagated to 85 m m by the centrifugal
force induced by the blade rotation.
(3) It is critical to understand the cause o f stress corrosion cracking, thus correct selection of the
material and its continued maintenance and m a n a g e m e n t is required.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

ASM metals handbook, vo1.11. ASM International; 1992. p. 20.

Lifka BW. Corrosion of aluminum and aluminum alloys, corrosion engineering handbook. Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1996 p. 122.
ASM metals handbook, vo1.12. ASM International; 1992. p. 361.
Jones RH. Stress-corrosion cracking of aluminum alloys, stress-corrosion cracking; materials performance and evaluation. ASM
International; 1999 p. 243.
[5] Davis JR. Corrosion; understanding the basics. ASM International; 2000 p. 164~173.