Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4 Fatigue Influencing Factors
4 Fatigue Influencing Factors
4 Fatigue Influencing Factors
1 of 110
Mean Stresses
Smax
stress mean stress stress range
Smin
Smean = Smax + Smin 2
R=
Smin Smax
2 of 110
General Observations
Tensile mean stresses reduce the fatigue life or decrease the allowable stress range Compressive mean stresses increase the fatigue life or increase the allowable stress range
3 of 110
Mechanism
Fatigue damage is a shear process Tensile mean stresses open microcracks and make sliding easier
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved
Smean 2
4 of 110
Goodman 1890
Mechanics Applied to Engineering John Goodman, 1890 .. whether the assumptions of the theory are justifiable or not . We adopt it simply because it is the easiest to use, and for all practical purposes, represents Whlers data.
Sultimate = Smin + 2 S
5 of 110
Goodman Diagram
Alternating stress
Se
105 cycles
Mean stress
S S S 1 mean = 2 Sultimate 2 R = 1
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 6 of 110
J.O. Smith, The Effect of Range of Stress on the Fatigue Strength of Metals, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 334, University of Illinois, 1941
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 7 of 110
Compression
beneficial
8 of 110
Sys Se
S + Smean < S ys 2
-Su -Sys R = -
0 R = -1
Sys
Su R=1
9 of 110
1 0.1
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.4
0.6
10 of 110
Stress Concentrations
Plastic Zone
The elastic material surrounding the plastic zone around a stress concentration forces the material to deform in strain control
11 of 110
Notch
Notch
12 of 110
mean E
max
max
14 of 110
Stadnick and Morrow, Techniques for Smooth Specimen Simulation of Fatigue Behavior of Notched Members ASTM STP 515, 1972, 229-252
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 15 of 110
Loading Histories
16 of 110
Test Results
17 of 110
Minimum load
18 of 110
da C K m = dN ( 1 R )
From: Dowling and Thangjitham, An Overview and Discussion of Basic Methodology for Fatigue, ASTM STP 1389,2000, 3-38
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 19 of 110
Compression
Crack open
Crack closed
20 of 110
Compressive Stresses
Stress
Compressive stresses are not very damaging in crack growth
2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 21 of 110
22 of 110
Loading History
Tension overloads produce favorable compressive residual stress Compressive overloads produce unfavorable tensile residual stress
23 of 110
Fabrication
24 of 110
Cold Expansion
1965 Basic Cx process conceptualized (Boeing)
The split sleeve is slipped onto the mandrel, which is attached to the hydraulic puller unit. The mandrel and sleeve are inserted into the hole with the nosecap held firmly against the workpiece. When the puller is activated, the mandrel is drawn through the sleeve radially expanding the hole.
Courtesy of Fatigue Technology Inc.
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 25 of 110
Nominal Stress
200
Cold Expanded
100
103
104
105
106
107
108
Fatigue Life
Courtesy of Fatigue Technology Inc.
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 27 of 110
Shot Peening
200 Residual Stress (MPa) 0 -200 -400 -600 0 0.2 0.4 Depth (mm) 0.6 0.8
SFL =
Su 2
500
Smooth Notched
29 of 110
Heat Treating
Residual Stress, MPa 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 0 5 10 Depth, mm 15
Axial Radial Circumferential
Brinell Hardness
5 10 Depth, mm
15
30 of 110
31 of 110
32 of 110
How to you identify cycles ? How do you assess fatigue damage for a cycle ?
33 of 110
Rainflow
strain Counts 1/2 cycles
B C CB D E F G I, A AD
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved
BC
DA
35 of 110
36 of 110
Cumulative Damage
High - Low . . SL
nH Low - High . nL
Factors Influencing Fatigue
nL
. nH
SH
37 of 110
Linear Damage
SH SL
Nf L n n n = H + L NF Nf H Nf L
38 of 110
Nonlinear Damage
1.0 Damage fraction 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
= 0.004
= 0.020
D = 0.7
D = 1.3
0 0.2 0.6 n Cycle ratio, Nf 0.4 0.8 1.0
D ~ 1
39 of 110
The fatigue limit is reduced by a factor of 3 when a few large cycles are applied
Strain Amplitude
0.01
10-3
10-4 10
100
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Fatigue Life
Bonnen and Topper, The Effects of Periodic Overloads on Biaxial Fatigue of Normalized SAE 1045 Steel ASTM STP 1387, 2000, 213-231
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 40 of 110
S b = S'f (Nf ) 2
1 10
1000
100 100
101
102
105
106
107
S Nf = ' 2S f
1 b
Damage S10
41 of 110
Kc
da = C K m dN
10
100
KTH
Factors Influencing Fatigue
K,MPa m
42 of 110
Nf =
af
1m / 2
a
m 2
1m / 2 i
10
C Sm
( 1 m / 2)
1 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12
10-6
Damage S3
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 43 of 110
K,MPa m
Multiple Choice
Which cycles do the most fatigue damage ? (a) a few large cycles (b) a moderate number of intermediate cycles (c) a large number of small cycles
44 of 110
Fatigue Data
1000
n = 10
Amplitude 100
n=5
10
Damage Sn
n=3
45 of 110
Loading History
Bracket.sif-Strain_b43 750 500 Strain Gage (ustrain) 250 0 -250 -500 -750 rf_000.sif-Strain_b43 0 50 100 150 Time (Secs) 750 Counts 200 250 300
0
Rang e (us train)
) strain an (u Me
-750
1500
750
46 of 110
Slope = 3
Damage
3.15 % damage 0
rang e (ustr a in)
-750
me a (ustr an in )
1500 750
47 of 110
Slope = 5
Damage
5.14 % damage 0
rang e (us train)
-750
ai (ustr n mea n)
1500 750
48 of 110
Slope = 10
Damage
20.78 % damage 0
range (ustra in )
-750
in) (ustra mean
1500 750
49 of 110
Crack Nucleation
1 10
100
Equivalent Load, kN
Structures
103
100 100
101
102
10
105
106
107
Crack Growth
100
103
108
1 3
10
1 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12 Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle
K,MPa m 50 of 110
Equivalent Load
Equivalent constant amplitude loading
S =
n i =1
S
N
Typically n ranges from 4 to 6 for structures N cycles at an amplitude of S does as much damage as the entire loading history
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 51 of 110
Suspension
Transmission
52 of 110
100
Equivalent Load, kN
10
1 5
54 of 110
55 of 110
2a
K and K
KtS
Stress (MPa)
K = S K = e
Kte
Strain
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 57 of 110
Neubers Rule
KtS
Stress (MPa) Actual stress
Kt S Kt e =
Stress calculated with elastic assumptions
Kte
Strain
58 of 110
K t S K t e = 2 2 2 2
e S = 2 2E
S = Kt 2
E 2 2
59 of 110
A Dilemma
Stress analysis and stress concentration factors are independent of size and are related only to the ratio of the geometric dimensions to the loads Fatigue is a size dependent phenomenon How do you put the two together ?
60 of 110
Similitude
61 of 110
Fatigue of Notches
Nominal Stress, MPa
400
d d Kt = 3.1
104
105
106
107
108
Fatigue Life
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 62 of 110
Notch Size
Kt
Kf
Kt Kf
Large Notch
Small Notch
63 of 110
Microstructure Size
Kt Kf
Kt
Kf
Low Strength
High Strength
64 of 110
Stress Gradient
Kt Kt Kf Kf
Low Kt
High Kt
65 of 110
Kt vs Kf
10
8 6
Kf = Kt
Kf
4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10
Experiments
Kt
Calculated stress concentration
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 66 of 110
Petersons Equation
4 3
1.8
Kf
2 1 0 10-4
Kt 1 K f =1 + 1+
10-3
10-2
0.1 1
10
102
103
Petersons Constant
0.7
0.3
, mm
0.1
68 of 110
Static Strength
hole
Kt = 2.5
Factors Influencing Fatigue
slot
Kt = 5
diamond
Kt = 20
edge
Kt = 20
69 of 110
80
load, kN
60
40
20
0 0 2 4 6 8 10
displacement, mm
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 70 of 110
Notched SN Curve
10000
1000
Notched specimen
Kf
100 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
Cycles
Fatigue of Notches
Nominal Stress, MPa
400
d d Kt = 3.1
104
105
106
107
108
Fatigue Life
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 72 of 110
Nonpropagating cracks
2 K TH > 1.12 a
da = C K m dN
10
K,MPa m
100
73 of 110
Frost Data
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Rotating bending Notched bar Notched plate nucleation fracture
1 Kt
Kt
nonpropagating cracks
Frost, A Relation Between the Critical Alternating Propagation Stress and Crack Length for Mild Steel Proceedings of the Institute for Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 173, No. 35, 1959, 811-836
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 74 of 110
Significance
For Kt > 4, the notch acts like a crack with a depth D
K th S fl = D
Kt does not play a role for sharp notches ! A stress concentration behaves like a crack once a stress concentration becomes large (Kt > 4)
75 of 110
Cracks at Notches
S KtS S
D+a
a << D
a >> D
76 of 110
K = K t S a K = S ( D + a )
K 2.0 S D
1.0
0 0 0.1 0.2
a D
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
77 of 110
Cracks at Holes
1 20 1 22
Once a crack reaches 10% of the hole radius, it behaves as if the hole was part of the crack
78 of 110
2.5
2.5
79 of 110
Test Results
1000
Strength Limited
Kt = 10.7 Kt = 2.4
Threshold Stress Intensity Dominated 1 1 10 100 103 104 105 106 107
81 of 110
82 of 110
Slip Bands
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved
Crack
83 of 110
Intrinsic Flaws
Little effect of surface pit because it is smaller than the grain size
84 of 110
85 of 110
Corrosion
General Pitting
Processing
Cutting/Shearing Casting Forging Plating
Machining
1
100 m
Cracks start in machining marks not in the direction of the maximum principal stress
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 87 of 110
Casting
100 m
88 of 110
Starkey and Irving, A Comparison of the Fatigue Strength of Machined and As-cast Surfaces of SG Iron International Journal of Fatigue, July, 1982, 129-136
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 89 of 110
Test Data
10-1
Strain Amplitude
90 of 110
Surface Factor
Machined 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Hot Rolled
Forged
Ground
1.0
91 of 110
800 Ground 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Machined Hot Rolled Forged
92 of 110
Hiam and Pietrowski, The Influence of Forming and Corrosion on the Fatigue Behavior of Automotive Steels, SAE Paper 780040, 1978
93 of 110
Kf for pitting
Hot Rolled Surface 1.12 1.18 Corroded Surface 1.49 1.65 1.90
105
104 0
from Hiam and Pietrowski
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 95 of 110
0.1
0.2
0.3
Pit Depth, mm
1.3
Kf
1.2
1.1
Pit Depth, mm
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 96 of 110
Suspension
97 of 110
Spring Failures
98 of 110
Microscopic Examination
99 of 110
Chrome Plating
500
400
300
Base steel
Life, Cycles
Almen, Fatigue Loss and Gain by Electroplating , Product Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1951, 109-116
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 100 of 110
Galvanized Steel
3 Crack Density mm-1 225 MPa
Vogt, Boussac, Foct, Prediction of Fatigue Resistance of a Hot-dip Galvanized Steel Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2001,33-40
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 102 of 110
Fatigue Limit
SFL =
K TH t
100
10
100
1000
Coating Thickness, t m Coatings can be modeled with a crack equal to the coating thickness
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 103 of 110
Anodized Aluminum
Rateick et. al. Relationshipp of Microstructure to Fatigue Strength Loss in Anodized Aluminum-Copper Alloys Aeromet 2004, June 2004
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 104 of 110
105 of 110
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ftgwww/frontpage/fod2.html
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 106 of 110
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ftgwww/frontpage/fod2.html
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 107 of 110
108 of 110
Serial Number
109 of 110
110 of 110