Lab 4: Hardness and Fatigue

Lab Section (e.g. A, B, C, etc…)

Term: (e.g. Spring 2015)
Your Name: (e.g. John Smith, Jane Smith)

1 ABSTRACT (5 PT.)
The objective of this experiment is to determine the likely cause of failure of a hypothetical bridge
gusset plate given hardness and fatigue data for similar materials. This was accomplished by first
conducting a Brinell hardness test and secondly, conducting a rotating beam fatigue tests on the gusset
plates. From the second test a S-N diagram was plotted from the data set. The plot was done on a
logarithmic scale to emphasize on the curve bent. From the plot, findings and conclusions were made.

The findings were, the I-35 gusset plate was made of ASTM A514 steel rather than ASTM A36 steel.
Based on the findings, the author concluded that failure was due to fatigue. The stress on the bridge was
above the endurance limit of the plates and at 6.35*106 cycles, the bridge failed. If the material used
was ASTM A36 steel, the bridge would have an infinite service life.

2 RESULTS (55 PT.)

HARDNESS

Hardness values for gusset plates U1 through U14 are presented in Figure 1.

Brinell hardness number for 14 critical gusset plates

400000

350000

300000

250000
HB

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10 U11 U12 U13 U14

1000Lbf 3000Lbf 6500Lbf

Figure 1. Hardness values for 14 critical gusset plates.

FATIGUE

Estimating the number of vehicles that have driven over the I-35 bridge during the 40-year life time:

In 1967, 1800 vehicles used the bridge in a day. In that year then

Nv = 1800 ∗ 365 = 657000vehicles

Yearly increase is approximately in the ratio 𝑅 = 1.05

Using a geometric propagation, we can find the number of vehicles travelling through the same bridge
40 years later. The total sum of vehicles in 40 years is:

1 − 𝑟𝑛
𝑁𝑉 = 𝑎 ( )
1−𝑟

1 − 1.0540
𝑁𝑉 = 657000 ( ) = 7.9365 ∗ 107 𝑣𝑒ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
1 − 1.05

The number of cycles is 𝑁 = 7.9365 ∗ 107 ∗ 0.08 = 6.349 ∗ 106 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

the surface condition modification factor, ka, for ASTM A36 STEEL is
𝑏
𝑘𝑎 = 𝑎𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 14.4 ∗ 58−0.718 = 0.7802
𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 58𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑘𝑏 = 1
𝑘𝑐 = 0.85, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑘𝑑 = 1
𝑘𝑒 = 0.868 𝑓𝑜𝑟 95% 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙.
𝑘𝑓 = 0.85

𝑆𝑒 = 𝑘𝑎 ∗ 𝑘𝑏 ∗ 𝑘𝑐 ∗ 𝑘𝑑 ∗ 𝑘𝑒 ∗ 𝑘𝑓 ∗ 𝑆𝑒′

𝑆𝑒′ = 0.5 ∗ 𝑆𝑒 = 0.5 ∗ 58 = 29𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑆𝑒 = 0.7802 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.85 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.868 ∗ 0.85 ∗ 29 = 14.189𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑓𝑆𝑢𝑡 2 0.9 ∗ 58 2
𝑎=( ) =( ) = 192.039
𝑆𝑒 14.189
1 𝑓𝑆𝑢𝑡
𝑏 = − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
3 𝑆𝑒
1 0.9 ∗ 58
𝑏 = − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) = −0.18857
3 14.189

𝑆𝑓 = 𝑎𝑁 𝑏 = 192.039 ∗ 6349236−0.18857 = 10.012𝑘𝑠𝑖(failure strength)

the surface condition modification factor, ka, for ASTM A514 STEEL is
𝑏
𝑘𝑎 = 𝑎𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 14.4 ∗ 110−0.718 = 0.4928

𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 100𝑘𝑠𝑖
𝑘𝑏 = 1
𝑘𝑐 = 0.85, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑘𝑑 = 1
𝑘𝑒 = 0.868 𝑓𝑜𝑟 95% 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙.
𝑘𝑓 = 0.85

𝑆𝑒 = 𝑘𝑎 ∗ 𝑘𝑏 ∗ 𝑘𝑐 ∗ 𝑘𝑑 ∗ 𝑘𝑒 ∗ 𝑘𝑓 ∗ 𝑆𝑒′

𝑆𝑒′ = 0.5 ∗ 𝑆𝑒 = 0.5 ∗ 110 = 55𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑆𝑒 = 0.4928 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.85 ∗ 1 ∗ 0.868 ∗ 0.85 ∗ 55 = 17𝑘𝑠𝑖

𝑓𝑆𝑢𝑡 2 0.83 ∗ 110 2

𝑎=( ) =( ) = 490.335
𝑆𝑒 17
1 𝑓𝑆𝑢𝑡
𝑏 = − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( )
3 𝑆𝑒
1 0.83 ∗ 110
𝑏 = − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) = −0.24334
3 17

𝑆𝑓 = 𝑎𝑁 𝑏 = 490.335 ∗ 6349236−0.24334 = 10.8422𝑘𝑠𝑖(𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ)

Modification factors used to estimate fatigue strength are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Modification Factors

Value
Factor
A36 A514
Ka = 0.7802 0.4928
Kb = 1 1
Kc = 0.85 0.85
Kd = 1 1
Ke = 0.868 0.868
Kf = 0.85 0.85

Figure 2 presents a summary of the fatigue data. The data shown is 1/4-inch diameter rotating beam
specimens and have been modified according to the characteristics of the critical I-35 gusset plate.
 120000 S-N DIAGRAM FOR ASTM A36 AND A514 STEEL

ASTM A36
100000
ASTM A514
80000
Stress Range,(psi)

I35-Gusset plate

60000 Log. (ASTM A36)

Log. (ASTM A514)

40000

20000
10012
0
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000
No. of cycles

Figure 2. Comparison between modified bending beam fatigue tests and critical I-35 gusset plate at time of failure.

S-N DIAGRAM FOR ASTM A36 AND A514 STEEL

120000
ASTM A36

ASTM A514
100000 Log. (ASTM A36)

LOWER BOUND(ASTM A36)

80000 Log. (ASTM A514)

Stress Range,(psi)

LOWER BOUND(ASTM A514)

60000

40000
y = 137075x-0.104

20000 y = 839976x-0.27

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 1000000
No. of cycles

Figure 3 lower bound for the A36 and A514 data in the form SR = a·N^b
3 LAB QUESTIONS (30 PT.)
1. Is there a definitive relationship between hardness, fatigue life, and yield strength? Explain.

The three qualities are not related in any way, all are independent properties of a material. Hence
different tests have to be carried out to obtain them. Brinell hardness test is used to find the
hardness values, rotational beam fatigue test is used to find fatigue life and a tensile test is required
to find the yield strength. The three properties describe three different conditions of the material.

2. Can a hardness number be used to determine a material’s yield strength? Explain?

Yes. Brinell hardness number and yield strength have a roughly linear relationship for different
materials. For instance, in steels, the relationship between the minimum ultimate strength and
Brinell hardness is 𝑆𝑢𝑡 = 0.5𝐻𝐵 (𝑘𝑝𝑠𝑖)

3. When comparing experimental fatigue values to those expected for actual structural members, why
must so many modification factors be used? What are the limitations of this approach? How could
you avoid these assumptions?

The experiment data and values are based on controlled conditions that are very different from those
of the actual part/assembly. To account for the difference in loading and physical conditions of the
experiment and actual part, modification factors are used. The modification factors account for
surface conditions, loading, size, temperature, reliability and stress concentrations conditions. The
modifications factors account for different conditions (material, manufacturing, environment and
design) and must all be considered.

The limitation of his approach is that, it is just an estimation and does not accurately give the true
values of the endurance limit. Also, its only applicable for completely reversed loading. To avoid
these assumptions, endurance test of a part should be conducted.

4. How do the hardness values compare with those for ASTM A36 steel? A metallurgical examination
of gusset U9 indicates it may be made of ASTM A514 (quenched and tempered) steel. Do your
findings support or contradict?

From the analysis and graphs, the value of stress on the gusset U9 plate falls close and above the
ASTM A514 stress curve. This can be interpreted that only ASTM A514 could have failed since the
stress value is below the endurance limit of ASTM A36. If the plate was made of ASTM A36 steel no
failure could occur. Hence, my findings support the metallurgical examination that the plate is made
of ASTM A514 steel.

5. Is it possible to design a mechanical or structural component for an “infinite fatigue life”? Is it

possible to design a component that can outlast the service life of the structure? Explain.

Yes. AS long as the loadings don’t exceed, the endurance limit of the material, then failure due to
fatigue will not occur. For instance, in the case of steel, the S-N graph has a knee, where beyond the
 knee no matter how many cycles the part experiences, failure will not occur. The knee point strength
value corresponds to the fatigue limit or endurance limit.

6. In your “expert” opinion, what was the cause of failure of the I-35 Bridge? Be SPECIFIC!

The bridge failure was as a result of fatigue. The material of the plates is not the specified ASTM A36
steel but is ASTM A514 steel which has a lower endurance limit. The stress experienced on the ASTM
A514 steel was way above the required value for the material and as a result the bridge had a finite
life. Therefore, when the service cycles of the bridge where met, the bridge collapsed.

4 CONCLUSIONS (10 PT.)

The original objective of this experiment was to determine the likely cause of failure of a hypothetical
bridge gusset plate given hardness and fatigue data for similar materials. Based on the above results, the
author determined that the collapse of the bridge is due to a fatigue failure. The material used is A514
steel with a finite life for stress levels above its endurance limit. When the cycles to failure of the bridge
became complete, the bridge collapsed. Also, there is no defined relationship between yield strength,
hardness and endurance limit. In addition, modification factors have to be used to find the actual
endurance limit of a part from experimental data.

5 WORK CITED
1. Higgins, R. A. (2010). Materials for engineers and technicians. Routledge.
2. Shigley, J. E. (2011). Shigley's mechanical engineering design. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.