Consulting Service
Materials Failure Analysis
A failed component is a message from the material. I read it — fracture surface, microstructure, loading history — and where the case demands it, build the simulation that proves the mechanism. For plant engineers, insurers, and legal teams.
Who this is for
The plant engineer with a fractured shaft and a production line down, who needs the cause established before the replacement fails the same way. The insurance or legal team that needs an independent expert opinion which will survive cross-examination. The design team whose component keeps failing in the field despite passing every qualification test.
A failure is a message from the material. The job is reading it correctly — because the wrong root cause means the fix does not work and the failure returns.
What an investigation covers
Why me
My research career is built on how metals deform and fail: thermo-mechanical fatigue and crack propagation in ABAQUS, damage evolution in multi-phase steels with crystal plasticity, and in-situ testing where we watched damage initiate at particle interfaces in real time. That combination matters for failure work — I can read the fracture surface and build the model that proves the mechanism, which is the difference between a plausible explanation and a defensible one.
As a process engineer at TSMC, I needed a very specific understanding of how microstructural mechanisms connect to real-world material behavior. Dr. Qayyum bridged that gap between academic rigor and engineering practice in a way I hadn’t found anywhere else. — Shao-Shen Tseng, Design Engineer, TSMC, Taiwan
How it works
- 15-minute call. You describe the failure, what evidence exists, and what the answer is for — production, insurance, litigation. I tell you what level of investigation the case actually needs.
- Scoped investigation. Document review (1–2 weeks), physical-evidence investigation (typically 4–8 weeks), or litigation support on the proceedings' timeline — agreed in writing.
- Defensible deliverable. A written opinion with the evidence chain intact: observations, mechanism, root cause, and the redesign consequence — structured to survive technical challenge.
Common questions
Can you work from photos and reports, or do you need the part?
A document-based review is the cheapest first step and often narrows the cause substantially. Conclusions that must survive challenge usually need the physical evidence — fractography, sections, hardness maps. The first call establishes which your case needs.
Do you handle legal and insurance work?
Yes — written expert opinions and testimony. The analysis is the same; the reporting is structured for a non-technical audience and for cross-examination, with the evidence chain explicit.
What materials are in scope?
Metallic components — steels (incl. AHSS and TRIP grades), aluminum alloys, and metal matrix composites are the core. Fracture, fatigue, and wear failures across forming, structural, and rotating applications.
What if the failure cause turns out to be trivial?
Then you find out quickly and cheaply — a document review that concludes "assembly error, not material" in week one is a good outcome, and I will not inflate it into a longer engagement.
Do you do the laboratory work yourself?
Characterisation runs through partner laboratories or your own facilities; I specify the examinations, interpret the results, and own the analysis. Where you have in-house SEM/EBSD capability, I work with your team's output directly.
Start With 15 Minutes
Book a call and describe the failure. I will tell you what level of investigation the case needs — and if the answer is already visible in what you have, I will tell you that too.
Book a 15-Minute Call Send a MessageRelated: Crystal plasticity simulation consulting · What forming simulation gets right — and where it breaks