PVP2010-25227_ Final Submission
2010 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference
INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECT OF THREAD ROOT CONDITION ON THE HIGH
CYCLE FATIGUE PERFORMANCE OF A METRIC THREADED FASTENER
Brian S. Munn and Keyu Li
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan 48309 USA
ABSTRACT
This paper presents an experimental investigation into
the effect of thread root condition on the high cycle fatigue
behavior of a tightened M12 metric fastener under a fully
reversed, cyclic load. Two conditions were mechanically
created at the fastener thread root. The first had an elastic
condition with no localized plastic straining, and the second had
localized plastic straining at the thread root. The elastic or
plastic condition at the thread root was created by tightening the
metric fastener into a fabricated steel joint at several different
input or tightening torque levels prior to the application of a
fully, reversed cyclic load.
The fully reversed cyclic load was applied and a
staircase methodology used in accordance to International
Standard (ISO) 3800:1993(E). Fatigue results were also
evaluated in conformance with (ISO) 3800:1993(E) to
determine fatigue strengths at five million cycles. All fatigue
tests were run at a rate of 50 Hz under a simple, sinusoidal wave
form until either failure (rupture) or five-million cycles was
attained and the test suspended.
The fatigue strength values were then plotted on a
graph of applied stress amplitude versus nominal mean stress
level commonly referred to as a Modified Goodman diagram
for bolted joints. The plotted fatigue strength data was not
linear but displayed a knee or a bend. This knee or bend
represents a transition point in the fatigue behavior of the
threaded fastener. To describe the fatigue behavior, a bi-linear
model has been applied. This bi-linear model is based on the
local condition at the thread root. The knee represents a
transition in condition from elastic to plastic behavior at the
thread root. The result of this study shows that fastener fatigue
behavior was influenced by the condition at the thread root.
Keywords: Threaded fasteners, root radius condition, mean
stress, stress amplitude, cyclic load, staircase methodology,
July 18-22, 2010, Bellevue, Washington, USA
PVP2010-25227
fatigue strength, Modified Goodman diagram, and bi-linear
model.
INTRODUCTION
Threaded fasteners provide a non-destructive and
efficient means to assemble and disassemble mechanical and
structural components. This efficient means to assemble and
disassemble non-destructively has resulted in fasteners
becoming one of the most common mechanical joining
techniques used in engineered products today. Unfortunately
mechanical joints, held together by threaded fasteners, are
susceptible to fatigue failure under an applied service load.
In general, the fatigue performance of a preloaded
threaded fastener depends upon several different parameters
such as its geometric characteristics, material properties,
preload (tightening tension) level, and in-service loading [1].
The most common design tool used for predicting threaded
fastener fatigue behavior is commonly referred to as a Modified
Goodman diagram [2]. The Modified Goodman or constant
life diagrams are graphical representations of the safe regime,
under constant amplitude loading for a specified life. These
diagrams can be drawn in a variety of ways, but the most
commonly accept format is a plot of applied alternating stress,
A versus the nominal mean stress, m. The infinite life or
Goodman line is what separates the safe regime from the unsafe
and is described by the following equation [3]:
σm
σ A = σ R=−1 1 − (1)
σ UTS
where A is the applied alternating stress, m is the nominal
mean stress, R=-1 is the fatigue or endurance limit under a fully
reversed cyclic load and UTS is the ultimate tensile strength of
the threaded fastener. This equation is linear or a straight line
when plotted as applied alternating stress versus nominal mean
1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
stress, and has been a simple yet effective design tool for many
years.
However, fasteners have threads which are built-in
defects and points of stress concentration. To account for the
stress build-up at the thread root location a fatigue notch factor,
kf was introduced into Equation (1) [4];
σ R = −1 kfσm
σA = 1− (2)
kf σ UTS
By taking the values described in Equation (1) and dividing
both, R=-1 and, UTS by kf provides a constant-life (fatigue)
prediction for the behavior of threaded fasteners with a stress
concentration at the thread roots.
The fatigue notch factor is based upon not only the test
conditions (geometry and loading), but the material itself. As
a result, the fatigue notch factor is considered to be an
experimental or empirical parameter. Juvinall [5] has sited
approximate fatigue notch factor values for both Unified and
ISO threads of commercial quality. For medium to high
strength fasteners with rolled threads kf is equal to 3.0, and is
the value used in this investigation.
When predicting fatigue behavior of a threaded
fastener, the fatigue notch factor is assumed to remain constant
under any combination of applied stress amplitude and mean
stress level as described in equation (2). In other words, the
initial change in condition from elastic to plastic straining at the
thread root has no immediate impact or influence on fatigue
performance of a threaded fastener.
There have been a few prior studies into the effect that
initial plastic straining at a notch root has upon subsequent
fatigue behavior. However, none of these studies were
performed on a component such as a threaded fastener.
Instead most fatigue tests were performed on single-notched
specimens or plates with a hole drilled in the center.
Stowell [6] developed an expression for the plastic
stress concentration factor at the edge of a central-circular hole
in a plate under tensile loading:
Es
k p = 1 + (kt − 1) (3)
E∞
where kp is the plastic stress concentration factor, defined like
the stress concentration factor kt but takes into account the
reduced stress at the notch-tip due to plastic straining, Es is the
secant modulus at the notch-tip, and E is the secant modulus
far removed from the notch tip usually Young’s modulus.
Hardrath and Ohman [7] did further experimental
investigations into different notch geometries in thick plates.
Their experimental data confirmed the findings of Stowell that
plastic straining at the notch-tip reduced localized stresses
under a tensile load.
Gunn [8] was the first to use a plastic stress
concentration factor in the construction of constant-life
diagrams to predict fatigue behavior. Elastic behavior was
described by Equation (2), while the plastic stress concentration
factor was employed after plastic straining was predicted to
have occurred at the notch-tip. Gunn noted that fatigue
predictions were conservative but were an improvement over
predictions employing the stress concentration factor.
Nassar and Munn [9] performed a high cycle fatigue
(HFC) study on a metric threaded fastener that had both
conforming (normal size) and non-conforming (undersized)
thread root radii. The study showed that the undersized thread
root had lower fatigue strength at five million cycles when
compared to that of the normal sized thread root. This
experimental data supports the findings of Stowell, Hardrath
and Ohman. Also noted was that all fatigue failures occurred
in the first engaged thread with the nut and that the failure mode
was via a crack initiation and subsequent crack growth
mechanism.
The emphasis in this study was to investigate the effect
of thread root condition on the fatigue performance of a M12
metric threaded fastener. In particular, the change in condition
from elastic to plastic straining at the thread root on subsequent
fatigue behavior was investigated. To accomplish this, a
similar methodology to that of Gunn was used to determine
fatigue strengths ( AN) at the endurance limit of five million
cycles. Five separate fastener tension (nominal mean stress)
levels were achieved through tightening at five different input
torque levels. Each group of preloaded fasteners was then
tested under varying stress amplitude, A, an equal amount
above and below the mean stress level. All tests were run until
either the fastener had failed due to fatigue (rupture) or five
million cycles had been attained. The fatigue strengths were
then plotted on an applied alternating stress versus nominal
mean stress diagram commonly referred to as a Modified
Goodman diagram. A bi-linear model was then applied to
describe the observed fatigue behavior of the metric (M12)
threaded fastener.
TEST SPECIMENS
The test fasteners were M12 x 1.5, Class 9.8 with
standard hex heads. The class or strength designation of 9.8 is
equivalent to a minimum yield strength, YS of 720 MPa and a
minimum ultimate tensile strength, UTS of 900 MPA. The
fasteners also had external threads rolled to a standard 6G
tolerance that were heat treated after rolling. The nut had
internal threads at the same strength classification level, rolled
to the standard 6G tolerance and also heat treated after rolling.
2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
TEST PARAMETERS
In this investigation, there are two separate sets of test
parameters required to create a constant life diagram for the
fastener of interest. The first set defines the test parameters
required to obtain values for the fatigue strength, AN plotted
along the y-axis of a constant life or Modified Goodman
diagram. The second set of test parameters were obtained by
estimating a nominal mean stress from the initial fastener
tension, Fi obtained by tightening the fastener into a steel joint.
The estimated nominal mean stress, m falls along the x-axis of
a constant life diagram.
Fatigue Test Parameters
The basic parameters for fatigue testing are listed in
Table 1. A simple sinusoidal wave pattern, at a frequency of
50 Hz, was used for all cyclic fatigue testing. The sinusoidal
wave pattern is the most common pattern employed when a
constant amplitude test is required. The applied stress
amplitude, A is the amplitude of alternating stress which was
varied between, max and min, and the calculated nominal mean
stress, m of the threaded fastener as shown in Figure 1. The
nominal mean stress is calculated from the force, Fi divided by
the fastener cross sectional area, at equal to 84.3 mm for a M12
threaded fastener. This condition created the desired stress
ratio of R=-1 which defines a fully reversible cyclic load.
The objective of this testing was to obtain different
fatigue strengths, AN at a given number of cycles to plot on a
Modified Goodman diagram. In accordance with ISO
3800:1993(E) the given number of cycles, NG used to determine
fastener fatigue strength was specified at five million. As a
result each fatigue test was run until either the fastener failed
due to rupture or the test was suspended after five million
cycles was achieved.
Calculating the Tightening Torque
For non-critical load applications, a simple torque
chart can be used to tighten a fastener into a joint. However,
in load-critical or sensitive applications the proper approach is
to calculate the tightening torque. The following equation is
the most common and practical means to calculate a tightening
torque for a threaded fastener [10]:
T = KDF (4)
where T is the tightening torque (input torque), K is a
dimensionless factor (nut), D is the nominal fastener diameter
and F is the fastener tension (force). However, this method of
torque control for tightening a threaded fastener is known to be
sensitive to frictional variations. In a non-controlled
environment this method can produce an error on the order of +
30-50% [11]. To minimize the potential for error, steps were
put into place to condition the surface of both the fastener and
nut to minimize surface inconsistencies.
The results of this study produced the following numerical
equation relating tightening torque, T to fastener tension
(force), F.
y = 573.5x (5a)
F = 573.5T (5b)
where y represents the bolt tension, F (N), x represents the
tightening torque, T (N-m) and the numerical factor (1/m) being
equal to 573.5 as shown in equation (4).
Once the relationship between the tightening torque
and fastener tension was established a tightening strategy was
then developed to produce calculated mean stress, m values
that ensured both elastic and plastic conditions at the thread
root would be achieved. The tightening strategy that would be
employed to tighten the threaded fasteners into the steel joint is
summarized in Table 2.
Tightening into the steel joint was performed with an
electronic torque wrench. This torque wrench had a torque
control function that provided real-time values for the input
torque in N-m. This allowed for a relatively reliable method
for fastener tightening into the steel joint.
TEST APPARATUS AND SETUP
Fatigue testing was performed in a standard 810 MTS
Fatigue Testing Machine. The bolted joint assembly
constructed for fatigue testing is shown in Figure 3.
In accordance with ISO 3800:1993 (E) any test joint
configuration must be of a type that allows full transfer of test
load from test machine into the fastener being tested. To
accomplish this requirement, a multi-piece joint configuration
was constructed as shown in Figure 3. The joint configuration
was then secured into the test machine with standard serrated
wedge fixtures. These wedge fixtures gripped both the
fastener head and nut which allowed for full transfer of test load
into the fastener as shown in Figure 4.
The entire fatigue test set-up is shown in Figure 5. A
software program MPT (MultiPurpose Testware) was used to
generate all test parameters and execute fatigue testing.
TEST PROCEDURE AND OBSERVATIONS
Prior to any fatigue testing a standard tensile test was
performed to ascertain the actual mechanical properties of the
as-received fasteners. In particular, did the as-received
fasteners meet the minimum yield strength, YS and ultimate
tensile strength, uts requirements for strength class 9.8 metric
fasteners. Figure 6 is the actual (nominal) tensile test results
for three (3) as-received fasteners pulled until failure. From
the three (3) stress-strain curves shown in Figure 6, the yield
3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
and ultimate tensile strengths of the as-received fasteners can be
determined. Also note the consistency between the shapes of
all three stress-strain curves. This provides some confidence
that all the as-received fasteners will have similar mechanical
properties and provide reliable test results.
From the nominal stress-strain curves shown in Figure
6, the fastener yield strength (0.2% offset) and ultimate tensile
strength were determined and an average of the (3) tests
calculated. The results of these calculations are compared to
the minimum requirements as shown in Table 3. As can be
seen in Table 3, the actual yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength are both well above the minimum requirements.
To achieve the desired initial fastener tension level a
fastener was first tightened into the steel joint at an input torque
value listed in Table 2. The joint assembly was then secured
in the MTS test machine shown in Figure 5. Once the
specimen was secured, the fatigue test parameters were entered
into the Test Works software program and then the fatigue test
was initiated.
A staircase or up-and-down method in accordance with
ISO 3800:1993 (E) was used to determine fatigue strengths at
each of the input torque values listed in Table 2. In the first
test in each series initial stress amplitude was estimated. If
failure occurred, then an incremental decrease in the stress
amplitude was applied to the next tightened fastener assembly
until there was no failure. After a non-failure, the stress
amplitude was incrementally increased until another failure
occurred. In this method each fatigue test was dependent upon
the previous test result. If the first test assembly in a series
survived to five million cycles, then the procedure described
above was reversed. Since the objective was to determine
fatigue strength, AN only a small number of test specimens,
from a minimum of three to a maximum of eight were required
to complete the analysis for each series listed in Table 2.
A visual examination of all ruptured fasteners revealed
the same failure location. All ruptured fasteners failed in the
first engaged thread with the nut as shown in Figure 7. There
were no other failure locations in this investigation. As a
result of observing only one failure location, an investigation
into the mode of failure was conducted. The failure analysis
included the use of both a digital microscope and a Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM).
Failure Analysis
The failure analysis was carried out on the fracture
surfaces of the ruptured fasteners. All thirteen fasteners
showed the same surface characteristics upon examination.
The images shown in this section are typical of what was
present on all fracture surfaces examined.
The first step in the analysis was to study the macro
characteristics on the fracture surface. Figure 8, shows a
close-up photograph of a typical macro fracture surface.
There is evidence of some surface cracks at the thread root and
also the presence of a shear lip opposite the surface cracks as
identified in Figure 8.
Figure 9 is a higher magnification photograph of the
same fracture surface showing the surface cracks in the thread
root. There were also two distinct zones on the fracture
surface. The fatigue zone had a relatively flat and smooth
surface at low magnification, while the crack propagation zone
had a rougher texture to its surface.
To study the fracture surface in further detail, a micro-
analysis was then performed with a SEM to examine more
closely the zones on the fracture surface. As can be seen more
clearly in Figure 10, there are distinct regions of varying surface
characteristics. Again the fatigue zone appears very flat while
the crack propagation zone has a much rougher surface profile.
At the thread root itself, numerous cracks are visible as
shown in Figure 11. This condition indicates crack initiation
occurred at the surface of the first engaged thread root. To
further support this conclusion, no sub-surface cracks were
observed in any of the specimens examined.
At extreme magnification the micro characteristics in
the fatigue zone can be seen in detail as shown in Figure 12.
The fatigue zone was characterized by a “ratcheting effect” and
also intermittent striations (beach marks) on the ratcheted
surface as shown in Figure 12.
The crack propagation or failure zone was
characterized by a combination of features as shown in Figure
13. The surface had both brittle and ductile characteristics
with ratcheting still prevalent and some evidence of micro-voids
or dimpling as identified in Figure 13.
The fracture surface characteristics observed are
consistent with a ductile fatigue mode of failure by crack
initiation and propagation. A ductile mode of fatigue failure is
characterized by evidence of crack initiation on the edge of a
fracture surface. The fatigue zone is where the cracks
covalence and grow relatively slowly. This zone is
characterized by a flat somewhat brittle appearance
(ratcheting/striations). The crack propagation zone is where
the crack begins to grow rapidly until the remaining cross-
sectional area can no longer support the applied load and
rupture occurs. This zone has a combination of features such
as micro-voids (dimpling) and ratcheting followed by a shear
lip that represents final rupture. This ductile fatigue mode of
failure occurred in all ruptured fasteners in this investigation.
4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fatigue Data
The staircase method is one of the simplest and most
practical methods to determine fatigue strength from applied
stress amplitude. In this investigation, a total of twenty-eight
fatigue tests were conducted to predict five separate fatigue
strengths, one each for the five different calculated mean stress
levels. Out of the twenty-eight (28) specimens tested; thirteen
(13) failed by ruptures in the first engaged thread with the nut
and fifteen (15) survived to five million cycles. The staircase
fatigue data is summarized in Table 4. Table 4 provides a
break down of failures to survivals, applied stress amplitude
and cycles per test.
Developmental S-N Curve
The first series of tests were performed on fasteners
hand tightened into the steel joint. This condition represented
the fastener as a stand alone component since there was minimal
contribution from the joint as a load carrying member. Testing
at a minimal mean stress level allowed for the development of a
simple S-N curve for the fastener of interest. An S-N curve is
a plot of the stress amplitude versus the number of cycles, N to
failure or test suspension.
The guidelines for generating statistical S-N curves are
documented by Wirshing [12], Shen [13] and ASTM [14]. For
a statistical analysis, more than one specimen at each stress
amplitude level should be tested. In other words, replicate
data should be generated. However, dependent upon the
intended purpose of the S-N curve the recommended number of
test specimens can vary. Lee (et. al.) [15] lists the
recommended sample size for different types of S-N curves as
follows;
• 6-12 test specimens for a preliminary, research and
development test
• 12-24 test specimens for a design allowable and
reliability test.
As can be seen in Table 3, the number of test
specimens was equal to six (6) the minimum required for a
research or developmental S-N curve. As a result, a
developmental S-N curve was generated from the staircase
fatigue data collected for series one as shown in Figure 14.
From the developmental S-N curve, at an applied
stress amplitude of 154 MPa the required five million cycles
was obtained. As a result, the fatigue strength at five million
cycles was estimated at 154 MPa for a fastener with minimal
mean stress.
The next step was to determine fatigue strengths for
the four (4) other tightening torque levels listed in Table 3.
The fatigue strength, as defined by ISO 3800:1993(E), is the
highest applied stress amplitude, A that survives to the defined
cycle count of five million cycles. The last column in Table 5
lists the estimated fatigue strengths for all five input torque
(nominal mean stress) levels. It should be noted that the
fatigue strength values listed in Table 5, other than the value
listed for series 1, are for the bolted joint as a system. In other
words the total system force must be separated into a fastener
force, Fb and a joint force, Fc respectively. This issue will be
addressed in the next section of this paper.
Fastener Strength Data Analysis by Finite Element Analysis
In a bolted joint assembly, the applied separating force,
Fe or applied stress amplitude, A is shared between the fastener
and joint. As a result, fatigue strengths listed in Table 5 must
be separated into two separate force components. In order to
separate these two forces a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was
performed on the tested fastener assembly.
When a fastener is tightened into a joint the separating
force applied will be shared between the fastener and joint
respectively. The magnitude of applied load or force each
member carries is based upon its individual stiffness. For the
fastener, this relationship can be represented by the following
equation [16];
kb
Fb = Fi ± Fe (6)
kb + kc
where Fb is the overall tension of the fastener, Fi is the initial
fastener tension due to tightening, kb is the stiffness of the
fastener, kc is the stiffness of the joint and Fe is the separating
force applied by the test machine. The known variables are
the initial fastener tension and separating force. However, the
stiffness of the fastener and joint are as yet unknown.
In order to calculate Fb, the stiffness of the fastener and
joint must first be determined. The stiffness of each member
could have been determined experimentally with a series of
tension/compression tests. Unfortunately, the experimental
set-up to run a compression test would have been complicated
due to the multiple pieces that were a part of the overall joint
configuration (see Figure 3).
With a workstation and a commercial code (Abacus)
readily available, a simple FEA was performed to determine the
member stiffness. A model of the fastener assembly was
created using the Abacus finite element software. This model
incorporated all components present in the actual test assembly
with specific dimensions and material characteristics from each
component. Before any simulations started, a standard linear
element mesh (static mesh) was placed over the model as shown
in Figure 15. Once the mesh was in place, simple boundary
conditions were applied to the model to fix its position so that
movement only occurred in one direction which was along the
5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
fastener axis. All applied loads were uniform and on center.
Multiple simulations were then executed using different
combinations of initial fastener tension and external load levels.
The fastener tension equation (6) has a simple line
form of;
y = mx + b (7)
where y is equivalent to the overall tension in the fastener (Fb),
m is equivalent to the separating force applied by the test
machine (Fe), b is equivalent to the initial bolt tension (Fi) and x
kb
is equivalent to the stiffness ratio of kb + kc . As a result, a
simple plot of Fb versus Fe will yield a straight line with a slope
kb
equal to the stiffness term b + kc .
k that are readily available.
The results of the FEA study are summarized by a plot
of the initial fastener tension versus the separating force as
shown in Figure 16. As can be seen in Figure 18, there is a
linear relationship between the initial fastener tension and
separating force in the range of tension and separating loads
applied. The straight line shown has a slope equal to the ratio
kb
of kb + kc and has a value equal to 0.4539.
With the stiffness ratio determined, the actual tension
or stress in the fastener after the separating force had been
applied can now be determined using equation (6). Table 6
lists the fatigue strengths of the fastener itself at each of the five
initial fastener tension or calculated mean stress levels.
Modified Goodman Analysis
From the perspective of alternating or cyclic stresses,
fatigue damage of a threaded fastener correlates strongly with
the applied stress amplitude, Sa ( a) or applied stress range S
( ) and also the nominal mean stress, Sm ( m). Threaded
fasteners have inherently high nominal mean stresses due to the
initial tightening tension. In high cycle fatigue, normal mean
stresses such as stress amplitude and mean stress have a
significant effect on the fatigue behavior of threaded fasteners.
Normal mean stresses are responsible for the opening and
closing of microcracks. Opening of microcracks through
tensile normal mean stresses are detrimental to fatigue life.
While, closing of microcracks through compressive tensile
forces are beneficial to fatigue life.
The failure mode for the fastener of interest was
through the formation and growth of microcracks as detailed in
the observation section of this paper. Normal stresses play a
significant role in the formation and subsequent growth of
microcracks. A mean stress is a normal stress created through
fastener stretching during the tightening process. As a result,
the initial fastener tension or mean stress should have a
significant effect on subsequent fatigue behavior.
The effect of nominal mean stress on fastener fatigue
behavior is typically described by a Modified Goodman
diagram. As discussed previously, constant life fatigue data or
fatigue strengths are plotted on a graph of alternating stress
versus nominal mean stress. In order to analyze the estimated
fatigue strengths determined from the staircase fatigue data, a
Modified Goodman diagram had to be constructed for the
threaded fastener of interest.
To construct a Modified Goodman diagram the
material parameters in the Goodman equation (2) must first be
determined. Standard design practice is to use minimum
material properties since these are usually the only properties
In this analysis, the actual
mechanical properties of the test fasteners are know (see Table
3) and used. The only parameter still not known is σ R = −1 and,
as a result, must be estimated.
Present engineering practice, for predicting fatigue
behavior of steel components when actual test data is not
available, is based upon a wealth of empirical data that has
accumulated over the years. From this empirical data, a
relationship has been established to predict the fatigue strength
or endurance limit of steel components [17];
Sn = Sn' CLCGCS (8a)
S n = 0.5(1027)(1.0)(0.9)(1.0) (8b)
S n = 513 MPa (8c)
where Sn is the fatigue strength or endurance limit under a
'
completely reversible load, Sn = 0.5 uts, CL is the load fatigue
factor, CG is the gradient fatigue factor and CS is the surface
fatigue factor. In the case of a threaded fastener, all fatigue
factors are typically set at 1.0 with the exception of CG which
has been set at 0.9 for this analysis. With all equation (8)
parameters established, the nominal fatigue strength of the
threaded fastener has been calculated at a value of 513 MPA as
shown in equations (8b, 8c).
Using equation (2), an applied alternating stress versus
nominal mean stress diagram (Modified Goodman) can be
created for the M12 threaded fastener taking into account the
local stress at the thread root. The Goodman line shown in
Figure 17 has also been adjusted by kf. The fastener fatigue
strengths listed in Table 6 can now be plotted on the Modified
Goodman diagram as shown in Figure 17.
6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 As can be seen in Figure 17 the Goodman line and
fatigue strength values show good agreement at mean stress
values up to about 200 MPa. From this point on, the fatigue
strength values tend to level off as the Goodman line continues
to decrease towards a stress amplitude equal to zero at about
340 MPa. Under a constant cyclic load, any change in fatigue
behavior must have been driven by a physical change in the
bolted joint assembly. In this investigation, physical change is
the result of plastic or permanent deformation in the bolted joint
assembly. Since there was no external evidence of
deformation in the joint, the deformation must have taken place
in the threaded fastener. In particular, the first engaged thread
with the nut where all the fatigue failures were observed to have
taken place.
The apparent knee or bend in the fatigue strength data
represents a change in the fatigue behavior of the bolted joint
assembly. As a result, fatigue behavior no longer follows a
Goodman fatigue life line, but displays behavior that appears to
be dependent upon a local change in condition at the thread root
itself. This change in condition and its influence on the
overall fatigue behavior of the bolted joint assembly will be
discussed in detail in the next section.
Bilinear Fatigue Life Analysis
Localized plasticity at the thread root in the Modified
Goodman approach to predicting fatigue behavior is not
distinguished from bulk yielding of the fastener. As a result,
yielding does not have an impact until the nominal mean stress
reaches the minimum yield point of the threaded fastener. At
that point a graphical adjustment is made to the Goodman line
to take into account both localized and bulk yielding of the
fastener.
It is generally accepted that mean stresses below the
material yield stress will lead to plastic straining at a notch tip.
It is also well known that moderate to high stress ratios will lead
to the onset of localized plastic straining at a notch tip;
σ algebraic approach using the same equations that defined the
R = min (9)
σ max
where R is the stress ratio, min is the minimum stress and max
is the maximum stress. Threads in a fastener are stress
concentrations. As such, the behavior of a thread root will be
very similar to that for simple notched specimens. However,
in this investigation the R value was kept at the minimum value
of -1, which defines a fully reversible cyclic loading condition.
By setting this condition the R value is eliminated as a variable
in this investigation.
Before further analysis can be performed, a few simple
assumptions are needed. The first assumption is that yielding
at the root radius is based upon the actual yield strength of the
fastener under an axial or biaxial loading condition. In other
words, yielding at the root radius will occur at a stress level
equal to the fastener yield strength. The Goodman equation
(2) can be used to predict a limited or elastic range of fastener
fatigue behavior (low mean stress levels). Predictions using
the modified Goodman equation are expected to be
conservative for fasteners made from ductile metals where
plastic straining occurs at high stress ratios. The last
assumption is that the Goodman equation (2) is valid as long as
the strains at the thread root remain elastic. Once the strains
become plastic, a modification to the Goodman equation or line
is warranted.
The knee or bend displayed in the fatigue strength data
plotted in Figure 17, represents the transition from elastic to
plastic straining at the fastener thread root. This change in
condition at the thread root from elastic to plastic can be
quantified both algebraically and graphically. The graphical
method involves defining the maximum thread root stress prior
to the onset of localized straining. The maximum stress a
thread root can withstand before straining can be represented by
the equation;
σ YS
σ max root = (10)
kf
σ max root
where is the maximum stress at the thread root.
With the value of maximum stress quantified a yield
line for the thread root can now be defined on the constant life
diagram. This can be accomplished by plotting the maximum
stress value on both the x and y ordinate and connecting the
points with a straight line as shown in Figure 18. The point of
intersection between the Goodman line and thread root yield
line defines the knee or bend in the fatigue life curve on the
constant life diagram as shown in Figure 18.
The transition point can also be defined through an
linear or elastic line segment. For a notched or threaded
component, the maximum thread root stress at the yield point as
shown in equation (10) can be written in terms of the mean
stress and stress amplitude as follows;
σ YS
= σm +σ A (11)
kf
The point at which onset of plastic straining occurs at
the thread root can be defined by substituting equation (11) into
equation (2) to obtain the following equation;
7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 Sn σ YS − k f σ A
σA = 1− (12)
T kf σ UTS
With the transition point,
σ AT and elastic line segment
defined, the next step was to determine the characteristics or
shape of the plastic line segment. This line segment extends
σ
from the transition point, AT to the actual yield strength of
the fastener which is equal to 920 MPa.
For threaded fasteners, the majority of fatigue failures
occur in the first engaged thread with the nut. In this study, all
fatigue failures occurred in the first engaged thread with the nut.
There is no access to the first engaged thread to physically
measure actual stresses or strains in real time. As a result,
there is no practical way to measure any local stresses or strains
that develop due to a loading cycle. However, there is
graphical evidence that a physical change in the bolted joint
assembly occurred, and that this change was significant enough
to effect subsequent fatigue behavior.
In this study the emphasis was on high cycle fatigue
performance (Nf > 106). Threaded fasteners made from steel
also have a moderate to high stress or fatigue concentration
factor, and work harden significantly after the onset of plastic
straining. All the above factors combined make it unlikely that
cyclic plasticity (i.e. plastic straining during each cycle) had
occurred during the fatigue testing in this investigation. If this
assumption is correct, then the only plastic straining would have
occurred during the first loading cycle. After the first cycle,
the hardening at the thread root would be completed and all
subsequent cycles would have been essentially elastic. This
condition is schematically represented in Figures 19a-c.
A threaded fastener, when subjected to tensile stresses,
will eventually undergo plastic straining at the thread root as
shown in Figure 19a. The stress at the thread root is
represented by point A on the stress-strain curve in Figure 19b,
when the nominal stress is increased from zero (point O) to
point P. The plastic straining is confined to a small localized
area when compared to the size of the still elastic fastener.
Upon releasing the load, the resultant net change in stress will
be from point A to point B at the thread root. However, the
overall stress in the still elastic fastener would only move from
point P back to point O. On subsequent cycling, the bulk of
the fastener would oscillate between points O and P.
The thread root would also have a linear response but
would oscillate between points B and A. Due to the material
work hardening in the first cycle, the thread root is being
stressed purely elastically in all subsequent cycling. In other
words, the stress amplitude will have the same value as it would
have had if the thread root had been purely elastic from the
beginning.
However, what does change locally is the maximum
stress felt by the thread root. This maximum stress is limited
by yielding and, as a result, will be lower than the stress derived
from strictly elastic considerations. The actual value of the
local maximum stress, represented by point A in Figure 19b,
will depend on the work hardening characteristics or shape of
the stress strain curve. Since the amplitude remains
unchanged, the local stress range will also remain unchanged
because of the following relationship between stress amplitude
and stress range;
∆σ
σa = = σ max − σ min (13a)
2
2σ a = ∆σ = σ max − σ min (13b)
If the stress amplitude and stress range remain the
same, then a change in the maximum stress will result in a
change to the mean stress due to the following relationship;
σ max − σ min
σm = (14)
2
As can be seen in equation (13), a smaller value of the local
maximum stress will decrease the mean stress at the thread root.
The diminution of the local maximum stress, while maintaining
the full local range of stress, will result in a net reduction in the
local mean stress below a value;
kf x nominal mean stress.
With this relief of local mean stress at the thread root, the range
a threaded fastener can withstand at a given mean stress will be
greater than that predicted when local yielding is not taken into
account.
It is now assumed that the applied stress range or
applied stress amplitude remains constant after the first load
cycle. As a result, the plastic line segment can be represented
by a straight line on the alternating stress versus strain diagram
as shown in Figure 20. This is a valid assumption in this
region until the nominal yield stress of the material is
approached. The region past the yield point can be dismissed
since such high stresses are outside any normal scope of
practical design practice for any notched or threaded
components.
The magnitude of the work hardening effect will be
related to the material’s work hardening characteristics. Work
hardening or strain hardening is the strengthening of a material
through plastic deformation. Plastic deformation on a nano-
8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
scopic scale effectively increases the material's dislocation
density. As the material becomes increasingly saturated with
new dislocations, more dislocations are prevented from
nucleating. In other words, a resistance to dislocation-
formation develops. This resistance to dislocation-formation
manifests itself into a resistance to plastic deformation
effectively strengthening the material.
Irreversible deformation is usually carried out on a
microscopic scale by defects called dislocations, which are
created by fluctuations in local stress fields within the material
culminating in a lattice rearrangement as the dislocations
propagate through the lattice. The dislocations accumulate,
interact with one another, and serve as pinning points or
obstacles that significantly impede their motion. This leads to
an increase in the yield strength of the material in the area of
plastic straining.
A material's work hardenability is described on a
stress-strain curve in the region between the yield point and
ultimate tensile strength as shown in Figure 6. As can be seen
in Figure 6, this region on the stress-strain curve is positive but
non-linear in shape. The shape of this segment can be best
described by the power law and is typically represented by the
following equation;
n
=K (15)
where represents the applied stress on the material, is the
strain and K is the strength coefficient and n is the strain or
work hardening exponent. The value of the strain hardening
exponent must be between 0 and 1. A value of 0 is a perfectly
plastic material, while a value of 1 represents a perfectly elastic
material. Most metals have an n value between 0.10 and 0.50,
with steel being in a smaller range between 0.10-0.48.
Unfortunately, there is no direct correlation that can be
made between the stain hardening exponent and the alternating
stress versus mean stress diagram. It has been assumed that
the static stress-strain curve adequately describes the behavior
of the material under a cyclic or dynamic loading condition.
However, a positive work hardening exponent provides further
evidence to support a change in condition (plastic straining) at
the thread root. That plastic straining only occurs in the first
cycle after the actual yield point has been attained at the thread
root. A constant stress amplitude or stress range is maintained
once local plastic straining has occurred.
As can be seen in Figure 20, the bi-linear fatigue life
curve shows a distinct knee or bend that represents the
transition from elastic to localized plastic straining at the thread
root. In this investigation, the first engaged thread with the nut
is the initiation site for the plastic straining. The change in
condition at the first engaged thread root effectively reduces
any effect the mean stress had on the overall fatigue behavior of
the threaded fastener. Diminishing the mean stress effect
resulted in a change in the fatigue behavior of the threaded
fastener which is represented by the straight (plastic) line
segment shown in Figure 20. The work or strain hardening
characteristics of the material are very important in stabilizing
the materials response to the applied load after the onset of
localized plastic straining.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the elastic or plastic condition at the
thread root did influence the threaded fastener fatigue behavior
under a constant amplitude cyclic load. A bi-linear fatigue life
model fits well with the plotted fatigue strengths on a constant
life or Modified Goodman diagram. This is due to taking into
consideration the following effects;
a) Identification of a knee in the fatigue life curve
due to a change in condition at the thread root.
b) The diminishing effect of mean stress after the
onset of local plasticity at the thread root.
c) Taking into account the work or strain hardening
characteristics of the material after the onset of
local plasticity at the thread root.
In the development of the bi-linear fatigue life curve, it
has been assumed that the static stress-strain curve can be used
to describe the material behavior under a dynamic loading (i.e.
cyclic loading) condition. There is strong evidence provided
to support this assumption. It is also evident that this theory
gives credence to fatigue performance being dependent upon
the ratio between the material yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength. This ratio describes the magnitude of the difference
between the yield and tensile strength which can be used as an
indicator for good fatigue properties. The larger the difference
between the yield and ultimate strength (i.e. large ratio) the
easier it is for that material to redistribute stresses at the base of
a notch or thread root. The ability to work or strain harden
more efficiently could result in better fatigue performance than
a less efficient strain hardening material (i.e. small ratio) under
a given mean stress.
REFERENCES
[1] Bickford, J. H., and Nassar, S. A., 1998, “Handbook of
Bolts and Bolted Joints”, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 699-
707.
[2] Juvinall, R. C., and Marshek, K. M., 2000, “Fundamentals
of Machine and Component Design”, third edition, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
9 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
[3] Sendeckyj, G. P., “Constant life diagrams – a historical [16] Abelkis P., Potter J., “Service Fatigue Loads Monitoring,
perspective”, International Journal of Fatigue, 23 (2001), pp Simulation, and Analysis”, ASTME, Digital Library, STP671-
347-353. EB, 1979.

[4] Dowling, N. E., 1999, “Mechanical behavior of materials”, [17] Bickford, J. H., and Nassar, S. A., 1998, “Handbook of
2nd Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Bolts and Bolted Joints”, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 563.

[5] Juvinall, R. C., and Marshek, K. M., 2000, “Fundamentals [18] Juvinall, R. C., 1967, “Engineering Considerations of
of Machine and Component Design”, third edition, John Wiley Stress, Strain and Strength”, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
& Sons, New York, pp 426. York.

[6] Stowell, E. Z., “Stress and strain concentration at a circular

hole in an infinite plate”, NACA report 2073, 1950.
Table 1: Fatigue test parameters
[7] Hardrath, H.F., and Ohman, L., “A study of elastic and
plastic stress concentration factors due to notches and fillets in
flat plates”, NACA report 1117, 1951. Amplitude Varied (staircase)

[8] Gunn, K., “Effect of yielding on the fatigue properties of Signal Sinusoidal
test pieces containing stress concentrations”, Aeronaut Quart, 6
(1955), pp 277–294. Frequency 50 Hz

[9] Munn, B. S., Nassar, S. A., and Yang, X., “Effect of non- Stress Ratio R=-1
conforming thread root radius on the fatigue performance of
preloaded threaded fasteners”, Proceedings of PVP, ASME
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, July 27-31, 2008,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.

[10] Bickford, J. H., 1997, “An Introduction to the Design and max
Behavior of Bolted Joints”, 3rd Edition., Marcel Dekker, New
York.
A
Fi
[11] Hsu, K. H., and Gakkai, N. K., “Advances in bolted joint σm = σ A =
at
technology”, ASME, 158 (1989).
A
[12] Wirshing, P. H., “Statistical summaries of fatigue data for
design purposes”, NASA Contract Report 3697, N83-29731, min
1983.

[13] Shen, C. L., Wirshing, P. H., and Cashman, G. T., “Design

curve to characterize fatigue strength”, Journal of Engineering
Materials and Technology, Vol. 118, 1996, pp 535-541.
t
[14] American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM),
Standard practice for statistical analysis of linear or linearized Figure 1: Applied sinusoidal wave pattern
stress-life (S-N) and strain-life (e-N) fatigue data, ASTM
Standard, E739-91, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998, pp 631-
637.

[15] Lee, Y-L, Pan, J., Hathaway, R., and Barkey, M., 2005,
“Fatigue Testing and Analysis”, 1st Edition, Elsevier, Oxford,
pp 152-170.

10 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 Figure 2: RS testing machine

Figure 4: Fatigue test configuration

Table 2: Tightening strategy input torque and mean stress

Calculated
Nominal
Tightening Nominal
Series Mean Stress
(Input) Torque Fastener
No. m = F/at
(N-m) Tension
(MPa)
(N)
1 Minimal Minimal Minimal
2 30 ± 2.5 17,200 195
3 70 ± 2.5 37,300 425
4 95 ± 5 54,800 620
5 130 ± 5 75,000 850

Figure 5: Fatigue test set-up

Figure 3: Test joint assembly

11 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 Shear
Lip

Surface
Cracks

Figure 8: Photograph of typical fracture surface

Figure 6: Stress-strain curves for (3) threaded fasteners

Crack
Table 3: Mechanical properties for a Class 9.8 Fastener Propagation
Zone
Minimum
Actual
Description Requirement
(MPa)
(MPa)
Fatigue
Yield Strength 720 920
Zone
Ultimate Tensile
900 1027 Surface
Strength
Crack
Region

Figure 9: Digital photograph of a typical fracture surface

Figure 7: Failure location for all ruptured fasteners

12 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 Fatigue
Zone

Crack
Propagation
Zone

Figure 10: SEM image of typical fracture surface Figure 12: SEM image detailing micro characteristics in
fatigue zone

Micro-voids
Ratcheting

Figure 11: SEM image of surface cracks

Figure 13: SEM image of a typical crack propagation zone

13 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 Table 4: Staircase fatigue data Table 5: Fatigue strengths for bolted joint system estimated
from staircase data
Input Torque Amplitude Actual Fracture No Fracture
Series (N-m) FA (N) A (MPa) Cycle Count Suspended
F A /a t = 84.3 mm Tightening Calculated Mean System
12,982 154 5x10
6
Series (Input) Fastener Stress = Fatigue
19,473 231 135,681
15,596 185 235,142 No. Torque (N- Tension F/at Strength
1 Minimal 14,162 168 1,521,620
m) (N) (MPa) (MPa)
13,572 161 2,448,435
13,572 161 1,561,500 1 Minimal Minimal Minimal 154
6
12,982 154 5x10
2 30 ± 2.5 17,200 195 161
3 70 ± 2.5 37,300 425 168
12,982 154 5x106
2 30 ± 2.5 14,162 168 452,269 4 95 ± 5 54,800 620 174
6
13,572 161 5x10 5 130 ± 5 75,000 850 174
13,572 6
161 5x10
3 70 ± 2.5 14,162 168 5x106
15,596 185 889,170

13,572 6
161 5x10
14,162 6
168 5x10
15,596 185 5x106
17,282 205 585,000
4 95 ± 5 6
14,162 168 5x10
14,837 6
176 5x10
15,596 185 870,846
14,162 6
168 5x10

11,182 6
133 5x10
17,282 205 1,982,122
15,596 185 1,177,648
5 130 ± 5 14,162 168 5x10
6

15,596 185 1,220,506

14,837 176
15,596 1,133,971 6
185 5x10

250 Figure 15: Finite Element Analysis (FEA) model

S te s s A m p l i t u d e , ( N / m m 2 )

Failure
225
Survival @ 5x106

200 20000
O v e r a ll F a s te n e r T e n s io n , F i (N )

175 16000

150 12000
y = 0.4539x + 10000
8000
125
1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
4000
Number of Stress Cycles, (N)
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
Figure 14: Developmental S-N curve
Separating Force, Fe (N)

Figure 16: FEA result to determine stiffness ratio

14 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 Table 6: Fastener Fatigue Strength
A A
Fastener s YS
Tightening
Series System Fatigue Fatigue P
(Input) Torque
No. Strength (MPa) Strength
(N-m)
(MPa) Local
1 Minimal 154 154 Plasticity @ O O
Thread Root
2 30 ± 2.5 161 73
70 ± 2.5 168 76 B
3
4 95 ± 5 174 80

5 130 ± 5 174 80
(a) Local Plasticity (b) First Half Cycle (c) Second Half Cycle

Figure 19: Schematic depicting the cyclic stress-strain

180 response due to plastic straining
160

140
Goodman Line (adjusted for kf )
Alternating Stress (MPa)

120
300
100

80 250
Alternating Stress (MPa)

60
200
40
A
20 150

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 100
Mean Stress (MPa)

50 B C

Figure 17: Fatigue strengths plotted on a Modified 0

Goodman Diagram 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Mean Stress (MPa)

300 Figure 20: Bi-linear fatigue life line

250
Alternating Stress (MPa)

200

150

100

50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Mean Stress (MPa)

Figure 18: Defining the transition from elastic to plastic

straining at the thread root

15 Copyright © 2010 by ASME