Report Number: 2016-1115

SR Number: SR-31559
Materials Engineering Lab Report Requestor: Jeff Faylor
Dana Incorporated Date Submitted: 11/21/2016
3939 Technology Drive Date Completed: 12/16/2016
Maumee, Ohio 43537 Report Author: Marshall Sayre

Part Name: Driveshaft Assembly, Adaptation

Part Number - Revision: 5024066 B
Model/Series: 1350
Material: Driveshaft Assembly: 5024066
Tube Shaft: 5010541
Tubing: 5010613
Vendor: Welding: Cardanes (Quetero, Mexico)
Customer: FCA
VIN / Mileage / Warranty Number: 3C7WRNCL2GG328080 / 2070 Miles / 16-1168

Copies: Bob Hursh, Dana Combs, Joe Guzikowski, Jeff Faylor

Background: A rear driveshaft failed on a Dodge DP 2016 Ram 5500 4x4 after 2070 miles. The vehicle was
assembled on 4/25/2016 and the warranty repair was done on 10/04/2016. Conduct material
verification and weld and failure analysis on the returned driveshaft.

Conclusion: The tubing chemistry, all microhardness measurements, and weld interface geometry at sections
identified as 3 and 4 met the specified requirements.

The fracture originated at the weld bond interface within a region that shows a lack of fusion from
welding (Figure 13).

EDS analysis confirmed elevated oxygen levels at the weld bond interface. This further supports the
weld in the region shown in Figure 13 was never completely fused resulting in oxidation occurring
before the final fracture.

Markings
See Figure 5

Visual Inspection
The driveshaft was received in two parts, as shown in Figure 1. The fracture occurred in the region of the magnetarc weld
on the driveshaft (opposite of the coupling shaft) on the shaft side joining the tube to the male splined tube shaft. The tube
shaft side of the fracture was not supplied by the customer for analysis and is assumed lost from when failure occurred.
The fracture surface that was received is shown below as received in Figures 6-8. The female splined slip yoke was
attached to the coupling shaft. The boot is torn around where the boot clamp would have been on the tube shaft and the
female splines are damaged.

The shape of the slip yoke is no longer concentric, as indicated in Figures 11 and 12. All other splines show visible
damage all around the slip yoke.

The driveshaft fractured circumferentially through the tube, tube shaft, and magnetarc weld interface. Approximately 40%
of the fracture surface occurs at the weld interface, shown in Figure 6. Figure 13 shows the main fracture at the weld
interface surface. A white substance is present on this surface. Approximately 40% of the fracture occurred within the tube
shaft HAZ, leaving the parent material still bonded to the tube adjacent to the weld. This region is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 14 shows the fracture surface in the tube shaft HAZ. Part of the fracture occurred due to shear force, which is
indicated in the photos. The remaining 20% of the fracture extends into the tube parent material. This region is indicated
in Figure 6, and the shape is shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Page 1 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Three of the four magnetarc welds appear to be intact and have a typical visual quality appearance. Areas around the
fracture show evidence of impacts which are likely the result of the shaft continuing to rotate unconstrained after fracture
occurred. The flashing that is present appears to be worn all around.

Section (mm) Specification per

Description
3 4 ES00010253
Thickness, End Fitting (Tf) 2.93 2.83 -
Thickness, Weld Interface (Ti) 4.09 4.24 -
% Weld Fusion (Ti/Tf) 140% 150% 100% Minimum
Interface Angle 7.9 5.8 10 Maximum

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

The failed weld was examined in the SEM for evidence of fusion in the weld. The fracture surface at the weld bond line
(shown in Figure 13) shows no fracture features and no evidence of secondary damage (Figure 25). This indicates that
there was a lack of fusion at this location. The fracture within the tube shaft HAZ (Figure 14) does have ductile dimple
fracture characteristics on its surface (Figure 26).

Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (EDS)

EDS is an analytical chemistry technique used in conjunction with the SEM for analysis of small areas. EDS analysis
provides excellent qualitative results. The quantitative results however are based on correction factors and routines that
assume the sample to be flat, polished and infinitely thick relative to the electron beam. This is decidedly not the case
when analyzing surface layer as in this case. Therefore, the quantitative data is presented only for comparison with the
other samples (or areas of the same sample) that were analyzed in an identical manner to show the relative differences
between them. Spectrum 4 was recorded on the fracture surface along the weld bond line (Figures 13, 24 and 26).
Spectrum 6 was recorded on the fracture surface within the tube shaft (Figures 14 and 25).

Fracture at weld bond

line oxygen presence

Fracture at tube shaft

oxygen presence

Page 2 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Microhardness (ASTM E384-16)

Vickers hardness readings were performed using a 500gf load. The maximum allowable hardness is specified in
ES00010253 as 760 HV maximum.

Distance Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4

(mm) (HV) (HV) (HV) (HV)
-2.29 187 219 186 205
-2.03 189 217 180 200
-1.78 185 203 183 194
-1.52 191 202 186 191
-1.27 199 189 196 192
-1.02 212 192 209 194
-0.76 222 197 214 201
-0.51 232 208 242 216
-0.25 240 221 467 225
-0.20 244 234 456 223
-0.15 285 232 567 258
-0.10 324 243 513 299
-0.05 - - 533 404
0.00 - - 492 550
0.05 - - 467 567
0.10 - - 517 481
0.15 - - 492 448
0.20 - - 367 484
0.25 - - 365 373
0.51 - - 375 332
0.76 - - 401 337
1.02 - - 292 315
1.27 - - 296 302
1.52 - - 276 284
1.78 - - 266 275
2.03 - - 273 258
2.29 - - 266 232

Tubing Tube
Shaft

Page 3 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Microstructure
The weld cross sections 3 and 4 show complete fusion across the entire weld interface. The tubing upset at these
locations appears even and extends to the outer edges of the weld. The tubing upset at locations 1 and 2 appears to be
less compared to locations 3 and 4. Oxides were observed at the weld interface at locations 1 and 2 (Figure 19).

Chemistry (ASTM E415-14)

Residual
Element C22 Steel per
Tubing Elements per
(%) ES-00010679
646J
Carbon 0.22 0.20-0.26 -
Manganese 0.71 0.60-0.80 -
Phosphorous 0.02 0.02 Max -
Sulfur 0.00 0.01 Max -
Silicon 0.08 0.25 Max -
Nickel 0.03 - 0.20 Max
Chromium 0.05 - 0.20 Max
Molybdenum 0.01 - 0.06 Max
Copper 0.02 - 0.30 Max
Aluminum 0.04 0.02 Min -
Tin 0.00 - 0.02 Max
Vanadium 0.002 - -
Niobium 0.001 - -
Zirconium 0.001 - -
Boron 0.0001 - 0.0005 Max
Titanium 0.00 - 0.01 Max
Lead 0.00 - 0.01 Max
Calcium 0.0007 - -
Nitrogen 0.003 - -
Arsenic 0.002 - -
Zinc 0.002 - -
Antimony 0.000 - -

Calculated Specification per

Tube C.E. ES-00010679
0.35 0.55 Max

C.E. = %C + %Mn/6 + %Cr/5 + %Mo/5 + %Ni/15 + %Cu/15

Page 4 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Figure 1: Fractured driveshaft assembly as received

Figure 2: Driveshaft as received

Figure 3: Mid balance weight location on driveshaft Figure 4: Rear balance weight location on driveshaft

Fracture
in Tubing

Fracture at
Faying Surface

Fracture in
Tube Shaft

Figure 5: Label in center of driveshaft Figure 6: Fracture in driveshaft around magnetic arc weld
joining the driveshaft tube to tube shaft

Page 5 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Figure 7: Fracture in driveshaft Figure 8: Fracture in driveshaft

Figure 9: Slip yoke attached to coupling shaft with torn Figure 10: Slip yoke and torn boot
boot

Figure 11: Deformed female splines in tube yoke Figure 12: Deformed slip yoke

Page 6 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Section 1

Section 2

Figure 13: Fracture region at faying surface, 3.5x

Section 4

Shear Fracture Section 3

Figure 14: Fracture region in tube shaft HAZ, 3.5x

Page 7 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Tube Tube

Figure 15: Section 1, 25x, 2% Nital etch Figure 16: Section 2, 25x, 2% Nital etch

Tube Tube

Tube
Shaft

Bond
Line Bond
Line

Figure 17: Section 1 bond line, 100x, 2% Nital etch Figure 18: Section 2 bond line, 100x, 2% Nital etch

Page 8 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Oxidation

Figure 19: Section 2 oxidation at bond line indicated,

500x, 2% Nital etch

Tube Tube Tube Tube

Shaft Shaft

Figure 20: Section 3, 25x, 2% Nital etch Figure 21: Section 4, 25x, 2% Nital etch

Page 9 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Tube Tube Tube Tube

Shaft Shaft

Figure 22: Section 3 bond line, 100x, 2% Nital etch Figure 23: Section 4 bond line, 100x, 2% Nital etch

Examples of Oxidation

Figure 24: Weld bond line fracture surface showing no Figure 25: Weld bond line fracture surface showing no
evidence of fracture or secondary damage, original evidence of fracture or secondary damage, examples of
magnification 500x oxidation shown, original magnification 1000x

Page 10 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.
 Lab Report
2016-1115

Figure 26: Tube shaft fracture surface showing ductile

dimple failure mode, original magnification 500x

Page 11 of 11

This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the consent of the Materials Engineering Department.
Magnifications listed with photos are original magnification.