MTIS Failure Investigator · metallic failure diagnosis
Active knowledge pack seed_pack_core_metals v0.2.0 has status ai_generated_draft — outputs are unverified drafts and require expert review before reliance.
Step 8 · Diagnose

Adaptive diagnosis

The engine scores the candidate failure modes from your evidence and asks the single question that best separates the ones still in contention — repeating until one mode reaches high confidence or the candidates are exhausted. Every step is driven by the knowledge pack: deterministic and explainable.

Confidence — evidence support for this mode. This is the strength of the entered evidence in support of this failure mode. It is NOT a probability, a statistical likelihood, or a finding of fact.
High strong support Moderate partial; key confirmation missing Low weak / little support · 0 adaptive answer(s) recorded

✓ Diagnosis converged

Thermal-mechanical fatigue has reached high confidence.

View latest run #1 Go to report →

Shortlisted failure modes · from the material-filtered cards · adaptive workspace

The Failure-Mode Cards whose indicators your evidence matches — these are what the questions above are discriminating between. The full scored landscape (all families) is below.

Thermal-mechanical fatigue leading

Fatigue cracking caused by cyclic thermal strain, often with constraint and mechanical loading.

80.0/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Network or surface cracks (critical)
  • crack orientation related to thermal stress
  • service temperature cycles

Evidence missing

  • oxide-filled cracks (Corrosion products / deposits)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
  • Macro / visual examination
  • Operating-condition review
  • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.8 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Fretting fatigue cracking

Fatigue cracking promoted by small-amplitude oscillatory contact slip at a stressed interface.

80.0/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Dark fretting debris (critical)
  • contact scar
  • crack at contact edge

Evidence missing

  • multiple shallow origins (Macro / visual examination)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
  • Macro / visual examination
  • Loading / stress review
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.8 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Bending fatigue

Fatigue driven by cyclic bending stress, often with tensile surface origin.

75.0/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Semi-elliptical surface origin (critical)
  • crack front marks

Evidence missing

  • final overload opposite origin (Macro / visual examination)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
  • Macro / visual examination
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.75 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Ammonia SCC

SCC associated with ammonia/ammoniacal environments in susceptible copper alloys and some steels.

75.0/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Intergranular/transgranular cracking (critical)
  • blue/green corrosion products possible

Evidence missing

  • residual stress source (Service environment)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
  • SEM fractography
  • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Environment chemistry review
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.75 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Polythionic acid SCC

SCC of sensitised stainless steels exposed to polythionic acid conditions, often during shutdown.

75.0/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Intergranular cracking in sensitised HAZ/base metal (critical)
  • refinery shutdown history

Evidence missing

  • sulphide/acid conditions (Corrosion products / deposits)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
  • SEM fractography
  • Macro / visual examination
  • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.75 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Scuffing / scoring

Severe sliding damage from lubricant film breakdown and local welding/tearing.

75.0/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Longitudinal score marks (critical)
  • smeared/overheated surfaces

Evidence missing

  • rapid damage onset (Macro / visual examination)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
  • Macro / visual examination
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.75 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Galling

Severe adhesive wear with macroscopic surface damage and material transfer, often leading to seizure.

73.3/100
High

Supporting evidence present

  • Severe torn surfaces (critical)
  • seizure marks
  • high friction history

Evidence missing

  • transfer lumps (Macro / visual examination)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
  • Macro / visual examination
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.7333 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

VHCF

Fatigue failure at very high cycle counts, often from internal defects/inclusions in high-strength alloys.

66.7/100
Moderate

Supporting evidence present

  • Internal fish-eye origin (critical)
  • little surface initiation

Evidence missing

  • fine granular area (Macro / visual examination)

Suggested test to raise certainty

  • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
  • SEM fractography
  • Macro / visual examination
Explain this score (raw S / K / C / M / B)

S=0.6667 · K=1.0 · C=0.0 · M=0.0 · B=1.0

S supporting match · K critical coverage · C contradiction penalty · M missing critical · B evidence-base size. Score = 100·S·(0.5+0.5K)·(1−0.7C)·(1−0.4M)·(0.6+0.4B).

Full failure-mode landscape

All 106 catalogued failure modes are in consideration. Set the material of the failed component (Material step) to rule out modes that cannot occur for it. 84 show supporting evidence so far. Every mode is a Failure-Mode Card scored by the confidence model; the 8 calibrated cards are expert-tuned, the rest are AI-drafted and pending expert review.
Mechanical deformation / distortion 8 in play
  • Ratcheting draft 44.4 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Incremental dimensional growth (critical)
    • local thinning

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
  • Plastic collapse draft 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Gross deformation before rupture (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
  • Necking draft 29.2 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • cup-and-cone fracture association
    • dimples if fractured

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Thermal bowing draft 17.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • distortion without cracking
    • thermal gradients in service history

    Evidence missing

    • Repeatable bowing with temperature (Operating conditions)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Operating-condition data review
    • Operating-condition review
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Quench/heat-treatment distortion draft 16.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • out-of-tolerance dimension
    • hardness/microstructure gradients

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Metallography
  • Elastic buckling draft 5.4 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • often little fracture at initiation

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Manufacturing record review
  • General yielding draft 4.6 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • no progressive beach marks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Brinelling draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review
    • Macro / visual examination
Fracture / rupture 7 in play
  • Torsional shear fracture draft 53.3 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Spiral fracture (critical)
    • dimpled shear features

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Intergranular brittle fracture draft mix 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Faceted grain-boundary surface (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • SEM fractography
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Metallography
  • Dynamic overload fracture draft 20.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Deformation pattern aligned with impact (critical)
    • sudden overload features

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Ductile overload fracture calibrated 17.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Dimpled (microvoid coalescence) fracture surface under SEM; cup-and-cone profile (critical)
    • Documented single overload, impact or pressure surge event

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • visual/macro
    • SEM fractography
  • Pressure burst draft 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • wall thinning if corrosion-assisted

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
  • Cleavage fracture calibrated 9.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Chevron (herringbone) marks pointing back to origin
    • Impact or high strain-rate loading

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Operating-condition data review
    • Charpy impact
    • SEM fractography
  • Stable ductile tearing draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
Fatigue and cyclic cracking 14 in play
  • Fretting fatigue cracking draft mix 80.0 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Dark fretting debris (critical)
    • contact scar
    • crack at contact edge

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
  • Thermal-mechanical fatigue draft mix 80.0 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Network or surface cracks (critical)
    • crack orientation related to thermal stress
    • service temperature cycles

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Operating-condition review
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Bending fatigue draft 75.0 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Semi-elliptical surface origin (critical)
    • crack front marks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
  • VHCF draft 66.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Internal fish-eye origin (critical)
    • little surface initiation

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Low-cycle fatigue draft 65.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Multiple crack origins (critical)
    • plastic strain marks
    • transgranular cracking
    • rapid crack growth after cyclic plasticity

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
  • Weld-toe fatigue draft mix 45.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Crack at weld toe/root (critical)
    • beach marks

    Evidence missing

    • Crack at weld toe/root (Welding records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Welding record review
    • SEM fractography
  • Torsional fatigue draft 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Helical or 45-degree crack path (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Resonance-induced fatigue draft 29.2 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • fatigue beach marks
    • service vibration history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Loading / stress review
    • SEM fractography
  • High-cycle fatigue calibrated 27.8 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Beach marks (crack arrest lines) on fracture surface (critical)
    • Cyclic/vibratory/rotating service loading (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography
    • macro examination of origin
    • stress analysis
  • Corrosion-fatigue cracking draft mix 21.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Fatigue features with corrosion products (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Axial fatigue draft 16.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • beach marks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review
    • SEM fractography
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Subsurface rolling-contact fatigue draft 16.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Subsurface origin (critical)
    • inclusion-associated crack

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Surface-initiated rolling-contact fatigue draft mix 13.3 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • surface cracks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Rolling-contact fatigue draft 6.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • subsurface or surface-initiated crack networks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
Creep / time-dependent high-temperature damage 7 in play
  • Creep crack initiation/growth draft 66.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Intergranular cracking (critical)
    • time-dependent crack extension

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • SEM fractography
    • Metallography
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Primary creep / secondary creep deformation draft 16.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • creep strain record

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Metallography
  • Stress rupture draft 11.1 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • intergranular cracking

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Metallography
    • SEM fractography
  • Creep-fatigue interaction draft mix 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • cavities plus fatigue features

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Service-history record review
    • SEM fractography
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Relaxation failure draft 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • little visible cracking

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Creep-assisted instability draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Metallography
  • Type IV creep cracking draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Welding record review
    • SEM fractography
Aqueous / electrochemical corrosion 12 in play
  • Pitting corrosion calibrated 34.4 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • General wall thinning or measurable metal loss (critical)
    • Pitting or crevice attack on surfaces (critical)

    Evidence missing

    • Corrosive service environment (chlorides, acids, moisture, seawater) (Service environment)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Coating / protection system review
    • corrosion product analysis
    • dimensional/thickness survey
  • Uniform corrosion draft 23.3 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • corrosion products
    • predictable corrosion allowance consumption

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Crevice corrosion draft 16.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • sharp boundary between exposed

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Bimetallic corrosion draft mix 12.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • location tied to couple

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Under-deposit corrosion draft mix 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • chemistry gradient evidence

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Chemical composition analysis
  • Atmospheric rusting/corrosion draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Coating system review
  • Buried or immersion corrosion draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • CUI draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
  • DC stray-current corrosion draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Dealloying draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Chemical composition analysis
  • IGC draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallography
    • SEM fractography
  • MIC draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
Environmentally assisted cracking and hydrogen damage 12 in play
  • Ammonia SCC draft mix 75.0 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Intergranular/transgranular cracking (critical)
    • blue/green corrosion products possible

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • SEM fractography
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Environment chemistry review
  • Polythionic acid SCC draft mix 75.0 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Intergranular cracking in sensitised HAZ/base metal (critical)
    • refinery shutdown history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • SEM fractography
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • LME draft mix 66.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Intergranular or brittle crack path (critical)
    • rapid cracking during contact

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
  • High-temperature hydrogen attack draft mix 53.3 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Decarburised zones (critical)
    • intergranular cracking/blisters

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallography
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Chloride SCC draft mix 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Branched transgranular cracks in austenitic stainless steels (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallography
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Stress-oriented HIC draft mix 29.2 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • crack orientation stress-related
    • sour-service history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
    • Environment chemistry review
  • Sulfide stress cracking draft mix 15.2 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • high hardness/strength
    • often little corrosion loss

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Hardness survey
    • Environment chemistry review
  • Hydrogen-assisted cracking calibrated mix 14.3 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Hydrogen source: plating, pickling, cathodic protection, H2S/sour service (critical)

    Evidence missing

    • Hydrogen source: plating, pickling, cathodic protection, H2S/sour service (Service environment)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • Material specification & certification review
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Service-history record review
    • fractography (intergranular)
  • SCC calibrated mix 9.8 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Branched cracking in metallographic section (critical)

    Evidence missing

    • Susceptible alloy–environment combination present (Service environment)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • metallography (branching)
    • SEM
  • Caustic SCC draft mix 8.1 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • boiler/alkali service history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • SEM fractography
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Service-history review
  • Hydrogen blistering draft mix 6.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • hydrogen/sour/corrosion history

    Evidence missing

    • Raised blisters (Coating / protection records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Coating / protection system review
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Coating system review
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Environment chemistry review
  • Hydrogen-induced cracking draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Coating / protection system review
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Coating system review
Tribology / wear / erosion 12 in play
  • Scuffing / scoring draft 75.0 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Longitudinal score marks (critical)
    • smeared/overheated surfaces

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Galling draft 73.3 High

    Supporting evidence present

    • Severe torn surfaces (critical)
    • seizure marks
    • high friction history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Adhesive wear calibrated 65.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Surface material loss, scoring, grooves, galling or polishing at contact surfaces (critical)
    • Wear debris in lubricant or assembly
    • Lubrication deficiency (starvation, degradation, wrong lubricant, dry running)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • surface examination
    • dimensional survey
    • lubricant/debris analysis
  • Fretting wear draft mix 60.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Dark oxide debris (critical)
    • polished/rough contact scar

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Loading / stress review
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Droplet impingement erosion draft 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Impact pits (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Tribocorrosion draft mix 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Wear scar with corrosion products (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Slurry erosion draft mix 30.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Thinning/grooving at flow changes (critical)
    • particle impact features
    • corrosion products if synergistic

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Loading / stress review
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Two-body abrasive wear draft 23.3 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • cutting/ploughing marks
    • wear debris

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Cavitation erosion draft 12.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • little corrosion product initially

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Solid-particle erosion draft 8.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • impact craters/cutting lips
    • thinning at elbows/nozzles

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Loading / stress review
  • Electrical pitting/fluting draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Three-body abrasive wear draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
High-temperature corrosion / hot gas attack 8 in play
  • Nitridation / chlorination draft 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Nitride/halide products (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
  • Type II hot corrosion draft mix 41.7 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Pitting-like hot corrosion (critical)

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Metal dusting corrosion draft 12.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • carburised zones

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
  • High-temperature sulfidation draft 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • sulphur-rich corrosion products

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
  • Carburisation attack draft 7.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • increased hardness
    • dimensional/microstructural changes

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallography
    • Hardness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Breakaway oxidation draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • High-temperature oxidation draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
  • Type I hot corrosion draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
Metallurgical degradation / embrittlement 8 in play
  • Alpha-prime embrittlement draft 48.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Hardness/toughness change (critical)
    • brittle fracture
    • thermal exposure record

    Evidence missing

    • Hardness/toughness change (Hardness)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Hardness survey across the section
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Hardness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Operating-condition review
  • Strain-age embrittlement draft 29.2 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • brittle fracture tendency
    • strain-age thermal history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Operating-condition review
  • Temper embrittlement draft 20.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Intergranular brittle fracture (critical)
    • service heat-treatment history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Operating-condition data review
    • SEM fractography
    • Operating-condition review
    • Service-history review
  • Chromium carbide sensitisation draft mix 16.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • intergranular corrosion/SCC

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Welding record review
    • Metallography
    • SEM fractography
  • Sigma phase formation draft 16.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Brittle fracture (critical)
    • hardness changes

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Metallography
    • Hardness survey
  • Graphitisation of carbon steel draft 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • service temperature history

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Metallography
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Carbide spheroidisation draft 8.7 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • reduced hardness/strength
    • creep deformation association

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Metallography
    • Hardness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Irradiation embrittlement / swelling draft 2.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • service dose record

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Hardness survey across the section
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Hardness survey
    • Metallography
Manufacturing / fabrication defect states 12 in play
  • Hot tearing draft 30.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Interdendritic crack surfaces (critical)
    • oxidised crack surfaces
    • location at constrained sections

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination
  • Quench cracking draft 22.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Cracks at sharp corners/section changes (critical)
    • high hardness
    • no service crack-growth marks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Hardness survey
    • Service-history review
  • Grinding burn draft 19.4 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • hardness gradient
    • surface cracks

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Hardness survey across the section
    • Loading / stress review or analysis
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Hardness survey
  • Solidification cracking draft 18.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • Centreline/interdendritic weld crack (critical)
    • oxidised/segregated surfaces
    • no service striations

    Evidence missing

    • Centreline/interdendritic weld crack (Welding records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Welding record review
    • Macro / visual examination
    • SEM fractography
  • Seam / lamination draft 17.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • orientation parallel to rolling direction
    • inclusion-lined surfaces

    Evidence missing

    • Planar internal indication (Non-destructive testing)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Non-destructive testing (UT / RT / MPI / PT)
    • Non-destructive testing
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Incomplete penetration draft 7.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • fatigue/fracture origin at root

    Evidence missing

    • Root planar indication (Non-destructive testing)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Non-destructive testing (UT / RT / MPI / PT)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Non-destructive testing
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Loading / stress review
  • Lap / fold draft 3.8 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • fatigue crack from lap

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • Non-destructive testing (UT / RT / MPI / PT)
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Non-destructive testing
    • Loading / stress review
  • Hydrogen-assisted cold cracking draft mix 2.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • high hardness

    Evidence missing

    • HAZ or weld toe/root cracks (Welding records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Welding record review
    • Service-history record review
    • Service-environment chemistry review or sampling
    • Hardness survey
    • Service-history review
  • Gas porosity calibrated 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Chemical composition analysis (OES / spectrometry)
    • Hardness survey across the section
    • fractography at origin
    • chemistry vs spec
  • Lack of fusion draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    • Planar weld indication (Non-destructive testing)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Non-destructive testing (UT / RT / MPI / PT)
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Welding record review
    • Non-destructive testing
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Lamellar tearing draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    • Step-like cracks parallel to rolling plane near welds (Welding records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Welding record review
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Dimensional / wall-thickness survey
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Dimensional / thickness survey
  • Shrinkage porosity draft 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Metallographic sectioning and microscopy
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Non-destructive testing (UT / RT / MPI / PT)
    • Metallography
    • Macro / visual examination
Surface / coating / interface failure 6 in play
  • Plating-induced hydrogen embrittlement draft mix 60.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Delayed brittle fracture after plating (critical)
    • intergranular/quasi-cleavage features
    • high hardness
    • plating history

    Evidence missing

    • Delayed brittle fracture after plating (Coating / protection records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Coating / protection system review
    • Coating system review
    • SEM fractography
    • Hardness survey
  • Coating cracking draft mix 45.0 Moderate

    Supporting evidence present

    • Crack network in coating (critical)
    • substrate corrosion at cracks

    Evidence missing

    • Crack network in coating (Coating / protection records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Coating / protection system review
    • Operating-condition data review
    • Coating system review
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Operating-condition review
  • Coating delamination draft mix 20.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • interfacial fracture
    • corrosion products under coating
    • poor surface profile/contamination

    Evidence missing

    • Lifted coating (Coating / protection records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Coating / protection system review
    • Coating system review
    • Macro / visual examination
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
  • Scale/coating spallation draft mix 12.5 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • exposed substrate hot corrosion/oxidation

    Evidence missing

    No critical gaps.

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • SEM fractography of the fracture surface
    • Corrosion-product / deposit analysis (EDS / XRD)
    • SEM fractography
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Coating blistering draft mix 10.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    • fluid/corrosion products beneath

    Evidence missing

    • Dome-shaped blisters (Coating / protection records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Coating / protection system review
    • Macro / visual examination of the fracture and component
    • Coating system review
    • Corrosion-product analysis (EDS/XRD)
    • Macro / visual examination
  • Filiform corrosion draft mix 0.0 Low

    Supporting evidence present

    None yet.

    Evidence missing

    • Filament/thread-like tracks under coating starting at defect or cut edge (Coating / protection records)

    Suggested test to raise certainty

    • Coating / protection system review
    • Coating system review

Landscape: 106 Failure-Mode Cards from MTIS-MET-TAX v0.1 (11 families), scored by the confidence model. The 8 calibrated cards are expert-tuned; the rest are AI-drafted and weight-calibrated pending expert review. Material applicability is a draft inference pending the owner's material-classification card.