Corrosion, fatigue, fracture, hydrogen, and welding failures all leave a physical record in the metal itself. We read it — independently, and to a standard that holds up in court.
Start a conversation with our AI Research Concierge, already scoped to materials & metallurgical. Select a specialization to prompt it, or describe your situation directly.
Metals fail by a limited number of well-understood mechanisms, and each one leaves a signature that survives the event: striations on a fatigue fracture, branching cracks from stress-corrosion, a pit with an acidified interior, a hydrogen-embrittled bolt that sheared with almost no plastic deformation. The physics is not in dispute — what is in dispute is which mechanism actually operated on this part, under these loads, in this environment, and whether the material, the design, or the process is responsible. This department covers the failure modes where metallurgy decides the outcome, from a corroding buried pipeline to a cracked weld to a fastener that let go without warning.
Each specialization area covers a distinct failure mechanism with its own physics, examination protocol, and governing standards. Start with the one that matches your incident.
Pitting, crevice, galvanic, and microbiologically influenced corrosion — pipeline, tank, and vessel failures.
investigateCyclic-loading failures — beach marks, stress concentrations, and the crack that grew silently before it broke.
investigateDuctile and brittle fracture mechanics — fractography, toughness, and the origin of a one-time overload break.
investigateDelayed, brittle fracture of high-strength steel from processing or in-service hydrogen — fasteners, plated parts, and sour service.
investigateBranching cracks from tensile stress plus a specific environment — chloride, caustic, ammonia, and sulfide SCC.
investigateFabrication defects and in-service cracking at welded joints — lack of fusion, hydrogen cracking, and lamellar tearing.
investigateMaterials investigations move from the macro scale to the microstructure, preserving fracture and corrosion evidence at every step so nothing is lost before it can be examined.
Technical briefings and case analyses on corrosion, fracture, and welding failures — written by the people who investigate them.
Hardness is converted to strength and offered as proof a part was out of spec. The conversion standards and the published regressions both say the number will not carry that.
readGeneral corrosion is an allowance and inspection question. Pitting and crevice attack perforate a wall the average calls healthy — and the two are measured, rated and reported by different rules.
readSCC shows as branched cracking with almost no section loss, and each environment leaves its own signature. A chloride level that looks harmless in the bulk can concentrate to an aggressive one at the surface.
readMost of a fatigue life is spent starting the crack, not growing it. That makes the initiation site — a machining mark, an inclusion, a pit, a fretting scar — the part of the fracture that holds the answer.
readFracture mechanics ties flaw size, material toughness and applied stress together. Fixing two of them settles the third, which is how a defective part is separated from an overloaded one.
readBeach marks record interruptions in service; striations record individual cycles. Both are evidence of a crack's history, and both are routinely overread. What a fatigue fracture surface can and cannot date.
readEach mechanism — fatigue, corrosion, hydrogen embrittlement, stress-corrosion cracking, overload — leaves a distinct signature on the fracture surface and in the microstructure. We start with low-magnification fractography to orient the failure, then move to SEM and metallography to confirm or rule out specific mechanisms. The conclusion is drawn from what the metal shows, not from the sequence of events as reported.
Usually, yes. Material and process defects tend to be intrinsic — an inclusion, an out-of-spec composition, an improper heat treatment — and are found by comparing the failed part against its own certification and against unused stock. Design and operating issues show up as stress, environment, or loading conditions inconsistent with the part rating. Separating the two is largely what determines liability.
The failed component itself, wherever possible, plus an exemplar or unused unit for comparison, and any material certifications, drawings, or maintenance records available. For corrosion and cracking investigations, samples of the environment — water, soil, process fluid, deposits — are often just as important as the metal.
It depends on the mechanism and industry. ASTM standards govern most material testing (E8 tensile, E23 Charpy impact, E399 fracture toughness, E1820 J-integral, the G-series corrosion tests). NACE/AMPP standards (MR0175/ISO 15156, SP0169) govern corrosion and cracking in oil-and-gas and cathodic-protection service. AWS D1.1 and ASME Section IX govern welding. ASME B31 and Section VIII govern pressure-equipment fitness-for-service.
Describe the incident. We will scope it and connect you with the right expert — usually within one business day.