Failure Analysis

A failure analysis is necessary whenever an incident occurs whose origin is not evident and whose recurrence carries technical, economic or reputational risks. The most common scenarios are: fractures or cracks in components in service, recurring defects on the production line with no identified cause, market claims with diffuse liability, loss of functional or aesthetic properties in finished products, and situations where it is necessary to establish responsibilities with a supplier or customer.

Relying solely on visual inspection or the production team’s opinion without experimental backing frequently leads to applying corrective measures on symptoms rather than causes. At Infinitia we handle both standalone projects and studies integrated into broader industrial technical consulting processes, ensuring that decisions are made based on objective evidence before the problem impacts production or the end customer.

The most useful elements are: the affected parts or components (both the defective ones and conforming samples for comparison), available technical documentation (drawings, specifications, material datasheets or supplier certificates), information about the manufacturing process and actual conditions of use, and a description of when and how the failure manifests: whether it is isolated or recurring, at what stage of the life cycle it appears, and whether there have been recent changes in material, process or supplier.

It is not necessary to have everything from the outset. At Infinitia we start with the information available and define together what additional evidence is needed to move forward. What does make a significant difference is having comparative samples: a failed component alongside another from the same batch that is working correctly allows comparative failure characterisation techniques to be applied from the very first moment, which considerably accelerates the diagnosis. The more context you can provide, the faster and more accurate the analysis will be. Tell us about your case and we will tell you exactly what we need.

Failing to correctly diagnose the origin of a failure means accepting a technical and economic risk that tends to grow over time: the incident recurs, corrective measures don’t work, and costs associated with scrap, rework, warranties or production stoppages accumulate.

Without experimental analysis, conclusions rest on assumptions that don’t always reflect the real cause. A frequent mistake, well documented in industrial practice, is misidentifying the source of failure — attributing it to the material when it actually lies in the design or the process — which leads to changing suppliers without solving anything. The cost of an early analysis is always lower than managing its consequences at an advanced stage.

The selection depends on four variables: type of material and suspected failure mechanism, whether or not the sample needs to be preserved, the level of detail required, and whether the analysis is standalone or comparative. There is no single protocol valid for all cases.

As a general guide:

SEM microscopy + EDX: morphological analysis of fracture surfaces, identification of damage mechanisms (fatigue, embrittlement, corrosion) and localised elemental microanalysis. Essential for identifying fatigue fractures with characteristic marks such as striations or beach marks.

OES / XRF spectrometry: verification of the material’s chemical composition to detect deviations from specification.

Standardised mechanical testing (tensile, hardness, impact): validation of properties against requirements and detection of embrittlement or loss of strength.

Corrosion testing (salt spray, immersion, electrochemical): evaluation of corrosion resistance when the damage mechanism involves environmental attack.

At Infinitia we combine several techniques and design custom protocols when standard methods are not sufficient for the specific problem.

A basic diagnosis identifies the visible damage mechanism (fracture, corrosion, wear…) and formulates a hypothesis about its origin. It is useful when the question is exploratory: “what type of failure is this?”

A complete analysis goes much further: it studies all possible failure modes and types in materials — fatigue, creep, corrosion, embrittlement, wear — conducts an experimental comparison between conforming and defective samples, reproduces the failure under laboratory conditions to validate hypotheses, and defines specific corrective and preventive actions. This integral approach makes it possible to understand not only what failed, but why it happened and how to prevent it from recurring, generating knowledge applicable to future designs or production runs.

Relying on a specialised external laboratory makes sense in four specific situations: when the failure is recurring and internal measures have not managed to eliminate it, when the root cause requires characterisation techniques not available on site, when the problem involves liability towards a supplier or customer and a neutrally backed report is needed, and when operational pressure does not allow the internal team to dedicate the analysis time the case requires.

The internal team knows the process better than anyone, but operates with the same tools, the same starting hypotheses and the same pressure that generated the failure. An external team brings technical distance, advanced equipment and a forensic perspective free from prior bias, applying the same rigour to common pathologies in industrial materials as to the investigation of failures in critical infrastructure. In practice, combining both delivers the best results: the internal team provides context and the external laboratory provides evidence. At Infinitia we regularly work in this collaborative model. If you have an open unresolved case, tell us about it and we will assess together what an external analysis could contribute.

Yes, comparative analysis between samples is one of the most effective tools in industrial failure investigation. It allows real differences in composition, microstructure, mechanical properties or surface finish to be identified between apparently equivalent parts, with a direct impact on their behaviour in service.

This approach is common in the qualification of alternative suppliers, analysis of batch deviations and detection of undeclared material substitutions. At Infinitia we have a specific comparative failure characterisation service, which we also apply in industrial benchmarking projects when the client needs to understand why their own or a competitor’s component behaves differently from what was expected.

Because specifications define conformity conditions at the time of manufacture or receipt, not the actual behaviour of the component throughout its entire service life. A material can meet all regulatory requirements and still fail if service conditions generate damage mechanisms that the specification does not contemplate.

A particularly frequent case is fatigue: a component may pass all incoming inspection checks and fracture in service due to cyclic loads that generate progressively growing cracks, especially when stress concentrators not anticipated in the design are present. Understanding how a fatigue fracture originates and propagates is key to correctly interpreting these failures and distinguishing them from point overload fractures or other mechanisms.

Recurring failures after a correction are the clearest sign that the root cause has not been correctly identified. It is common for measures to be applied to observable symptoms without having experimentally validated that the variable was actually the determining one.

This pattern is particularly frequent in industrial maintenance environments, where operational pressure leads to resolving the breakdown quickly without investigating the systematic origin. A structured industrial maintenance failure study makes it possible to differentiate between a one-off failure and a recurring deviation with its root cause in the material, the process or the design — which can only be eliminated by acting on its real origin.

Failure analysis makes it possible to act on the real cause before the problem escalates, eliminating the additional cost of partial or incorrect solutions. Detecting and correcting the origin of a failure during production is always more economical than managing it once it has reached the customer.

Furthermore, the knowledge generated has cumulative value: it allows specifications to be improved, material selection to be optimised and process controls to be strengthened. In many cases, failure analysis opens the door to product improvement projects where the initial problem becomes an opportunity for redesign with a validated technical basis. See more cases in completed projects.

The cost depends on three factors: the complexity of the case and number of variables to investigate, the analytical techniques required, and the scope of the study (initial diagnosis, complete root cause analysis or expert report with legal validity).

A straightforward exploratory diagnosis on a part with an evident fracture is not the same as a multi-material study with reproduction of service conditions. At Infinitia we always size the analysis to the real technical objective: we prioritise the most representative techniques, avoiding unnecessary tests and optimising the cost-to-value ratio. If you would like an estimate tailored to your case, contact us and we will send you a technical and economic proposal.

Timescales vary depending on the complexity of the case, but as a general reference, a complete failure analysis including experimental characterisation, hypothesis validation and definition of corrective actions typically takes between 1 and 4 weeks.

For urgent cases with a direct impact on the production line or active claims, we offer an urgent quotation service that allows results to be delivered within 24 to 72 hours. You can indicate your level of urgency directly in the contact form and we will prepare a proposal tailored to your timeline.