Mock Trial: Failure Analysis
During my Design Failure Investigation course, I surveyed mechanisms by which devices fail, including overload, fatigue, corrosion, and wear. Through fractography and other qualitative evidence, I can interpret failure modes and specify design and manufacturing changes. At the end of the course, I worked in a group to analyze and defend an imaginary company's failed parts based on actual parts and/or case histories.
Throughout the quarter, I worked on various assignments that tasked me to examine defective parts and determine their failure. I am knowledgeable in using the appropriate microscope to analyze the surface and possible fractures or failures. Additionally, I can suggest possible causes to why failure occurred and preventative measures.
Assignment 1: Fractography
Assignment 2: Analysis of Fracture Under Static Loads
Assignment 3: Indications of Fatigue Failure & Analysis of Environmentally Induced Failures
Assignment 4: Determining the Cause of High Temperature Failures & Analyzing Surface Damage & Investigating Failure Due to Processing Procedures
For the mock trial, I used what I've learned throughout the quarter in a simulated legal setting. This different setting required me to not just recognize how a part has failed but needed qualitative reasoning as to why the evidence matters towards defending my company. Below is an outline of how I directed my group to defend our imaginary company: Marathon Manufacturing.
Mock Trial #3 Contention: Defending Marathon Manufacturing
The entire class had a total of 3 mock trials surrounding the same case. Because my group was scheduled last to present, I suggested to our group to take notes on each trial and see where we can improve. I went back to the zoom recordings and ran through the provided evidence trying to gather as much information. This was beneficial for articulating a counterargument against the other companies.
Below is the statement my team and I have made towards our company's involvement and responsibility. For the presentation, I provided the slides with the evidence to point out the concern from either company. This was followed by my groupmate talking about the conducted evidence from the lab. Both of us were able to address all areas of concern and even more importantly in layman terms. This became very important since the witnesses to our trial were not engineers and based their final verdict on what each company presented.
Presentation against Drummin Aerospace who was responsible for creating the entire aircraft and hire the pilot who is now deceased.
Presentation against Anticlimax Molybdenum who was responsible for receiving and processing the raw material to make the seal ring.
