ICM PO 2022-071 Insert Broken

28APR23: CAA cast anodes (Inv 57776, ICM PO 2022-071). One of the anodes snapped on the flat bar just as the team were lowering it over the edge of the berth. Craigs main concern is the quality of the remainder of the anodes installed and they are now require a re-dive of the site to check all the anodes. See

Email from LS to Craig Hutchinson 02MAY23:
Please call me on my mobile 0458 626 002 once you have read my email below.

We have undertaken extensive further investigations am today (Labour Day public holiday yesterday).

I am extremely confident that we have identified the exact cause for the insert failure.

Process of manufacturing the 40x8mm msfb inserts for CAA Drg CD3365 R2

1. Due to the insert having slots (1600/1700mm ctrs) that are very close to the vertical leg of the insert (1600mm ctrs), the slots are punched prior to the 90 degree bends occurring.
2. On inserts of this nature, the pre-bend cut material length (straight length) is usually determined by CAD drawing measurements.
3. Bend parameter datums are determined with consideration to material performance during the bend process.
4. Due to Points 1-3 above, we fabricate a “Sample” insert to ensure that our calculated prebend length and bend parameter datums are correct before we move to full production phase of insert fabrication full order quantity.
5. Sometimes the bend parameters can be slightly out on the initial “Sample” insert and that is what has happened on this insert. Our employee has re-straightened the “Sample” insert as the bend parameter datums were incorrect and then adjusted the bend parameter datums and re-bent the “Sample” insert to achieve the required dimensional tolerances.

Test Bend Piece – 02/05/2023

To support the above, this morning we bent an offcut piece of 40x8mm msfb to 90 degrees by exactly the same process as the inserts were fabricated for your PO 2022-071. We then bent if back to straight. This resulted in a tear/fracture of the mild steel along what was the corner/crease of the 90 degree bend. This is seen in attached photos 4734, 4735 & 4736. The tear/fracture depth is very visible in photo 4736.
We then clamped the test bend piece into a vice where the fracture was just above the vice jaws and worked the non-clamped section of the test piece back and forth 7-8 times (approx. deflection 15-20 degrees) until the material failed. Visual examination of the cross section (Photos 4737, 4738 & 4740) at failure point exhibits very similar grain deformation pattern and concave fracture pattern as per photos 2 that was embedded into your email dated 28th April. Refer photo snips at bottom of this email.

Conclusion & Options.

Craig, I am extremely confident that we have identified the cause of failure. Against the attached photos, above information and the input from our 15 year employee who undertakes of steel fabrication, I strongly believe that this failure is restricted to 1 anode insert which was the “Sample” insert and included into the manufacturing insert set of 19pcs to complete your PO 2022-071.

I acknowledge that I had to work the fractured material back and forth 7-8 times to effect a complete fracture separation of the test piece, but it is very possible that during that manufacturing process, in particular the extraction of the anode from the mould soon after solidification of the anode casting, the anode is extracted from the mould be means of chain slings attached to overhead crane. Given that the insert material would have been significantly compromised as per test piece photos, it is my best assumption that the insert would have been bent significantly (much greater than 15-20 degrees of test piece) during the extraction process from the mould. Once cold the insert would have been bent back to required position resulting in further material fracturing at what was ultimately the failure point.

The only other testing that we could have undertaken would be NATA testing for conformance to AS3679.1 as previously offered in my email dated 28th April 2023. Again, I am happy to manage this process and foot the bill if that would provide substantiation to your client.

If you are in agreement/acceptance of the above and don’t believe that NATA testing is necessary then I propose that the existing broken section be butt welded together and reinforced by mild steel flat section (40x6/8mm msfb) either side of the fracture line. The other option is for CAA to fabricate a new “Z” bracket that would have the same slot size/ctrs and standoff height datum. The bottom leg of the “Z” would then be overlapped and welded onto the existing anode insert that is protruding from the anode. This could be express posted to you so time consideration would be 3-5 days from green light to your receiving the “Z” bracket.

CAA would of course issue a credit adjustment against CAA Invoice 57776 for costs incurred.

Internal QA Actions

We have had considerable internal discussions am today and we will implement changes to the insert fabrication procedure (staff awareness and re-training) and some structural/tooling changes to the hydraulic bending press that is used to fabricate heavy section anode inserts. All of this will be documented in a Corrective Action Report (CAR) and lodged in our ISO CAR Register. The CAR will be closed out by implementing the proposed procedure and equipment changes to ensure that this does not occur again.

21SEP23: LS followed up with Craig a couple of times. He made payment and never mentioned it again. BL followed up to see how it was resolved. Awaiting reply.

28AUG24: ICM never got back to us about this issue and we have recieved numerous orders from them since this incident, so we will close it.

Verification –
Reported by –BL
Closed by –BL
Date closed –August 28, 2024