Conducting a materials failure analysis requires a carefully planned series of steps intended to
arrive at the cause of the problem. Consistent with the current trend towards better accountability
and responsibility, failure analysis purpose has been extended in deciding which party may be
liable for losses, be they loss of production, property damage, injury, or fatality [1]. Hence it
increases the importance of proper implementation of characterization tools in failure analysis to
rightly identify the failure mode.
Present work discusses a few case studies to shed light upon the importance of the metallurgical
characterization tools and techniques in identification of correct failure mode. Some typical case
studies where metallography plays a very important role have been discussed, such as improper
welding joints which led to premature failure, sensitization and stress corrosion cracking in S.S.,
improper heat treatment and forging indicated the microstructures which led to the premature
failure. These cases are examples of only a few laboratory based investigations which justify that
without metallography it is not possible to diagnose the causes of premature failures.
Generally, examination of failed components commence with the low-power stereomicroscope
whereas hand-held magnifying lenses are still in wide use by experts to study fractures mostly
limited now for field purpose [2]. Metallographic examination typically is performed after nondestructive
and macroscopic examination procedures while using the light optical microscopy
which helps to assess the failure mode with respect to material defects, shortcomings in
processing, metallurgical changes etc. Since light optical microscopy has limited value for direct
observation of fracture surfaces (more limited for metals than non-metals), with still more factual
information can be gathered by scanning electron microscopy at higher magnification.