Page 208 - Failure Analysis Case Studies II
P. 208

Failure Analysis Case Studies II
                  D.R.H. Jones (Editor)
                  0 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.  All rights reserved                        193






                         LOW-CYCLE  FATIGUE OF TITANIUM  6A1-4V  SURGICAL
                                                    TOOLS

                           H. VELASQUEZ, M. SMITH, J. FOYOS, F. FISHER and 0. S. ES-SAID*

                        Department of Mechanical Engineering. Loyola Marymount I Jniveraity. 7900 Loyola Blvd. Los Angeles.
                                                 CA 90045-8145, U.S.A.
                                                      and

                                                    G. SINES
                        Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
                                                 CA 90095-1595, U.S.A.
                                               (Receit,ed 3 September  1997)

                       Abstract-A  handle holder is used in heart valve replacement  surgery to insert a mechanical flow valve into
                       the patient’s  heart. In order to position the valve corrcctly, a 0.1” diameter titanium 6AI4V handle holder
                       shaft is bent until the proper angle is found. This bending of the tool makes it vulnerable to low-cycle fatigue
                       failure. Low cycle fatigue testing of titanium 6AMV specimens shows that surfacecracks appear approximately
                       20 cycles before failure occurs. It is recommended that  the tool be carefully  inspected  before each  use and
                       replaced when surface cracks appear. The data showed that the life of the tool may be increased by 30% if it
                       is bent in the same direction during its cntirc USC.  6 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
                       Keywords: Fatigue data, handtool failures, safe life.


                                               1.  INTRODUCTION
                  During heart valve replacement surgery the patient receives a major incision that runs across the
                  chest. All access to the patient’s heart is through this opening in the chest. Selection of the optimal
                  replacement valve size follows. Once the valve has been selected it is placed in the patient’s heart.
                  A handle holder (Fig.  1)  is used  by  the surgeon to place the valve during the surgical procedure.
                  The handle holder is a screwdriver-like tool made of titanium 6AI-4V equipped with a plastic tip
                  used  to hold the prosthetic valve. The valve, held at the tool’s tip during positioning, is released
                  upon  placement in  the  heart.  To position  the  valve, it  must  be  inserted  through  the  incision,
                  maneuvered through the chest wall and finally put into place. The surgeon bends the thin shaft of
                  the handle holder until the proper angle is found to insert the valve. The reusable handle holder is
                  often bent several times during each surgical procedure and thus becomes vulnerable to low cycle
                  fatigue [l]. It  is  therefore essential that  the  surgeon knows when to replace the tool  to avoid a
                  fatigue failure during surgery.
                    The objective of this study is to determine the fatigue life of the shaft. After conducting tests on
                  titanium 6A1-4V sample rods, use-limit recommendations were made.


                                          2.  INVESTIGATION  METHOD

                    To determine whether a testing device to automate the cyclic loading would  be  required or if
                  manual testing was possible, the number of cycles (N) required for low-cycle fatigue failure of the
                  shaft was approximated by using the Coffin-Manson  law [2] :


                    *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
                  Reprinted from Engineering Failure Analysis 5 (l), 7-1 1 (1998)
   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213