Machine components are subject to a wide range of damage and failure processes, and their correct identification is essential for reliable operation, effective maintenance, and accurate diagnosis. However, a persistent gap exists between morphology-based classification systems, used in international standards, and the mechanism-based interpretations developed in tribology and mechanics. This review analyzes the evolution and current practice of damage classification for machine components, with emphasis on rolling bearings as a representative case. The study is based on a structured analysis of international standards (e.g., ISO 15243), complemented by tribological literature and manufacturers’ documentation. The review focuses on how several damage modes such as spalling, pitting, and fretting are defined, interpreted, and applied in practice. The results highlight systematic ambiguities arising from the separation between visual descriptors and underlying failure mechanisms, particularly in the case of fatigue-related surface damage. Through selected case studies, the review demonstrates how reliance on morphology alone may obscure causal interpretation and lead to inconsistent diagnosis. The study further discusses emerging trends, including digital damage atlases and artificial-intelligence-based diagnostic tools, emphasizing how inconsistencies in standardized terminology may affect their reliability. It is concluded that morphology-based standards should be regarded as complementary diagnostic tools rather than substitutes for mechanical analysis. A closer alignment between standardized terminology and mechanistic understanding is necessary to improve failure diagnosis, support engineering education, and enhance the reliability of machine components.
Popa et al. (Fri,) studied this question.