MECH 401

Mechanical Design
Applications
Dr. M. O’Malley
Spring 2007 – Master Notes
Dr. D. M. McStravick
Rice University
 Reading
 Chapter 6
 Homework
 HW 4 available, due 2-9-07
 Test
 Fundaments Test 2/22/07

Nature of fatigue failure

 Starts with a crack

 Usually at a stress concentration
 Crack propagates until the material fractures
suddenly
 Fatigue failure is typically sudden and
complete, and doesn’t give warning

More Fatigue Failure Examples
(ASM)
 Fatigue Failure Examples

 Miscellaneous Fatigue Failures

 [Text fig 6-3 to 6-8]
 Jacob Neu chair failure
 See types of fatigue failures: figure 6-2
Fatigue Failure
Jim Neu Fatigue Failure
Various Fatigue Failure Modes: Fig. 6-2
Fatigue

 Thus far we’ve studied static failure of machine elements

 The second major class of component failure is due to dynamic
loading
 Repeated stresses

 Alternating stresses

 Fluctuating stresses

 The ultimate strength of a material (Su) is the maximum stress a

material can sustain before failure assuming the load is applied
only once and held
 A material can also fail by being loaded repeatedly to a stress
level that is LESS than Su
 Fatigue failure
Approach to fatigue failure in analysis
and design
 Fatigue-life methods (6-3 to 6-6)
 Stress-life method (rest of chapter 6)
Fatigue analysis
 Always good engineering practice to conduct a testing program
on the materials to be employed in design and manufacture
 Is actually a requirement in guarding against possibility of fatigue
failure
 Because of this necessity, it would really be unnecessary for us
to proceed in study of fatigue failure except for one important
reason:
 The desire to know why fatigue failures occur so that the most

effective method or methods can be used to improve fatigue

strength
 Stress-life method
 Not accurate for low-cycle

 Most traditional

 We will come back to this method later

Fatigue-life methods
 Three major methods
 Stress-life
 Strain-life
 Linear-elastic fracture
mechanics
 Each predict life in number of
cycles to failure, N, for a
specified level of loading
 Low-cycle fatigue
 1N103 cycles
 High-cycle fatigue
 N>103 cycles
The 3 major methods
 Stress-life
 Based on stress levels only
 Not used for low-cycle fatigue
 Most traditional
 Easiest to implement
 Ample supporting data
 Represents high-cycle applications adequately
 Strain-life
 More detailed analysis of plastic deformation at localized regions
 Good for low-cycle fatigue applications
 Some uncertainties exist in the results
 Linear-elastic fracture mechanics
 Assumes crack is already present and detected
 Predicts crack growth with respect to stress intensity
 Practical when applied to large structures in conjunction with computer
codes and periodic inspection
Strain-life method

 Fatigue failure almost always begins at local

discontinuity
 Notch, crack or other SC
 When stress at discontinuity > elastic limit, plastic
strain occurs
 Fatigue fracture occurs for cyclic plastic strains
 Can find fatigue life given strain and other
cyclic characteristics
 Often the designer does not have these a priori
Linear-elastic fracture mechanics method

 Stage 1 – crystal slip through several contiguous

grains
 Stage 2 – crack extension
 Stage 3 – fracture
 Method involves
 Determining stress intensity as function of crack length
 From here, determine life
 In reality, computer programs are used to calculate
fatigue crack growth and therefore onset of failure
Fatigue analysis
 2 primary classifications of
fatigue
 Alternating – no DC component

 Fluctuating – non-zero DC
component
Stress Life Approach

 Fatigue strength and endurance limit

 Estimating FS and EL
 Modifying factors
Analysis of alternating stresses
 As the number of cycles
increases, the fatigue strength
Sf (the point of failure due to
fatigue loading) decreases
 For steel and titanium, this
fatigue strength is never less
than the endurance limit, Se
 Our design criteria is:
S f (N )

 a
 As the number of cycles
approaches infinity (N  ∞),
Sf(N) = Se (for iron or Steel)
Experimental Determination of S-N
Curve
Method of calculating fatigue
strength
 Seems like we should be able to use graphs
like this to calculate our fatigue strength if
we know the material and the number of
cycles
 We could use our factor of safety equation
as our design equation

 But there are a couple of problems with this

approach
 S-N information is difficult to obtain and thus is
much more scarce than  information
 S-N diagram is created for a lab specimen
Smooth
S f (N )


Circular



Ideal conditions
 a


 Therefore, we need analytical methods for

estimating Sf(N) and Se
Terminology and notation
 Infinite life versus finite life
 Infinite life
 Implies N ∞
 Use endurance limit (Se) of material
 Lowest value for strength S f (N )

 Finite life  a
 Implies we know a value of N (number of cycles)
 Use fatigue strength (Sf) of the material (higher than Se)
 Prime (‘) versus no prime
 Variables with a ‘ (Se’)
 Implies that the value of that strength (endurance limit) applies to a LAB SPECIMEN in
controlled conditions
 Variables without a ‘ (Se, Sf)
 Implies that the value of that strength applies to an actual case
 First we find the prime value for our situation (S e’)
 Then we will modify this value to account for differences between a lab specimen and
our actual situation
 This will give us Se (depending on whether we are considering infinite life or finite life)
 Note that our design equation uses S f, so we won’t be able to account for safety factors
until we have calculated Se’ and Se
S-N Plot with Endurance Limit
Estimating Se’ – Steel and Iron
 For steels and irons, we can estimate the endurance
limit (Se’) based on the ultimate strength of the
material (Sut)

 Steel
 Se’ = 0.5 Sut for Sut < 212 ksi (1460 MPa)
= 107 ksi (740 MPa) for all other values of Sut
 Iron
 Se’ = 0.4 Sut for Sut < 60 ksi (400 MPa)
= 24 ksi (160 MPa) for all other values of Sut
Estimating Se’ – Aluminum and Copper
Alloys
 For aluminum and copper alloys, there is no endurance limit
 Eventually, these materials will fail due to repeated loading
 To come up with an “equivalent” endurance limit, designers
typically use the value of the fatigue strength (S f’) at 108 cycles

 Aluminum alloys
 S ’ (S at 10 cycles)
8 = 0.4 Sut for Sut < 48 ksi (330 MPa)
e f

= 19 ksi (130 MPa) for all other values of Sut

 Copper alloys
 S ’ (S at 10 cycles)
8 = 0.4 Sut for Sut < 40 ksi (280 MPa)
e f

= 14 ksi (100 MPa) for all other values of Sut

Constructing an estimated S-N diagram

 Note that Se’ is going to be our

material strength due to “infinite”
loading

 We can estimate an S-N diagram

and see the difference in fatigue
strength after repeated loading

 For steel and iron, note that the

fatigue strength (Sf) is never less
than the endurance limit (Se’)

 For aluminum and copper, note

that the fatigue strength (Sf)
eventually goes to zero (failure!),
but we will use the value of Sf at
108 cycles as our endurance limit
(Se’) for these materials
Estimating the value of Sf
 When we are studying a case of
fatigue with a known number of cycles
(N), we need to calculate the fatigue
strength (Sf)
 We have two S-N diagrams
 One for steel and iron
 One for aluminum and copper
 We will use these diagrams to come
up with equations for calculating Sf for
a known number of cycles
 Note: Book indicates that 0.9 is not
actually a constant, and uses the
variable f to donate this multiplier.
We will in general use 0.9 [so f=0.9]
Estimating Sf (N)
 For steel and iron S f  N   aN b For 103 < N < 106
 For f=0.9 1  0.9 Sut 
b   log 
3  S e 
log a   log 0.9 Sut   3b
 For aluminum and copper
S f  N   aN b For N < 108

1  0.9 Sut  Where Se’ is the value of

b log 
5.7  S e  Sf at N = 108

log a   log 0.9 Sut   3b

Correction factors
 Now we have Se’ (infinite life)
 We need to account for differences between the lab specimen and a real
specimen (material, manufacturing, environment, design)
 We use correction factors
 Strength reduction factors
 Marin modification factors
 These will account for differences between an ideal lab specimen and real life
 Se = ka kb kc kd ke kf Se’
 ka – surface factor
 kb – size factor
 kc – load factor
 kd – temperature factor
 ke – reliability factor
 Kf – miscellaneous-effects factor
 Modification factors have been found empirically and are described in section 6-9 of
Shigley-Mischke-Budynas (see examples)
 If calculating fatigue strength for finite life, (Sf), use equations on previous slide
Endurance limit modifying factors
 Surface (ka)
 Accounts for different surface finishes
 Ground, machined, cold-drawn, hot-rolled, as-forged
 Size (kb)
 Different factors depending on loading
 Bending and torsion (see pg. 280)
 Axial (kb = 1)
 Loading (kc)
 Endurance limits differ with Sut based on fatigue loading (bending, axial, torsion)
 Temperature (kd)
 Accounts for effects of operating temperature
 Reliability (ke)
 Accounts for scatter of data from actual test results
 We will probably not address ke
 Miscellaneous-effects (kf)
 Accounts for reduction in endurance limit due to all other effects
 Reminder that these must be accounted for
 Residual stresses
 Corrosion
 etc
Now what?
 Now that we know the strength of our part under
non-laboratory conditions…
 … how do we use it?
 Choose a failure criterion
 Predict failure
 Part will fail if:
 ’ > Sf(N)
 Factor of safety:
  = Sf(N) / ’
 Life of part 1
  b
N  
a
 b = - 1/3 log (0.9 Sut / Se) log(a) = log (0.9 Sut) - 3b
Stress concentrations and fatigue failure

 Unlike with static loading, both ductile and

brittle materials are significantly affected by
stress concentrations for repeated loading
cases
 We use stress concentration factors to modify
the nominal stress
 SC factor is different for ductile and brittle
materials
SC factor – fatigue
  = kfnom+ = kfo

  = kfsnom = kfso

 kf is a reduced value of kT and o is the nominal

stress.
 kf called fatigue stress concentration factor
 Why reduced? Some materials are not fully sensitive
to the presence of notches (SC’s) therefore,
depending on the material, we reduce the effect of
the SC
Fatigue SC factor
 kf = [1 + q(kt – 1)]
 kfs = [1 + qshear(kts – 1)]
 kt or kts and nominal stresses
 Pages 1006-1014
 q and qshear
 Notch sensitivity factor
 Find using figures 6-20 and 6-21 in book (SMB) for steels and
aluminums
 Use q = 0.20 for cast iron
 Brittle materials have low sensitivity to notches
 As kf approaches kt, q increasing (sensitivity to notches, SC’s)
 If kf ~ 1, insensitive (q = 0)
 Property of the material
Example
 AISI 1020 as-rolled steel
 Machined finish
 Find alternating Fmax for:
  = 1.8
 Infinite life

 Design Equation:
  = Se / ’
 Se because infinite life
Example, cont.
  = Se / ’
 What do we need?
 Se
 ’
 Considerations?
 Infinite life, steel
 Modification factors
 Stress concentration (hole)
 Find ’nom (without SC)
P P F
 
 nom    2083F
A  b  d  h  60  1210
 Example, cont.
 Now add SC factor:

  1  q kt  1  nom
   k f  nom 

 From Fig. 7-20,

 r = 6 mm
 Sut = 448 MPa = 65.0 ksi
 q ~ 0.8
Example, cont.
 From Fig. A-15-1,
 Unloaded hole
 d/b = 12/60 = 0.2
 kt ~ 2.5
 q = 0.8
 kt = 2.5
 ’nom = 2083 F
   1  q kt  1  nom

   1  0.8 2.5  1  2083 F 
   4583 F 
Example, cont.

 Now, estimate Se
 Steel:
 Se’ = 0.5 Sut for Sut < 1400 MPa (eqn. 6-8)
740 MPa for Sut > 1400 MPa
AISI 1020 As-rolled
 Sut = 448 MPa
 Se’ = 0.5(448) = 227 MPa [Eqn. 6-8]
Correction factors
 Now we have Se’ (infinite life)
 We need to account for differences between the lab specimen and a
real specimen (material, manufacturing, environment, design)
 We use correction factors
 Strength reduction factors
 Marin modification factors
 These will account for differences between an ideal lab specimen and
real life
 Se = ka kb kc kd ke kf Se’
 ka – surface factor
 kb – size factor
 kc – load factor
 kd – temperature factor
 ke – reliability factor
 Kf – miscellaneous-effects factor
 Modification factors have been found empirically and are described in
section 6-9 of Shigley-Budynas (see examples)
Example, cont.

 Modification factors
 Surface: ka = aSutb (Eq. 6-19)
 a and b from Table 6-2
 Surface was Machined

 ka = (4.45)(448)-0.265 = 0.88
Example, cont.

 Size: kb
 Axial loading
 kb = 1 (Eq. 6-21)
 Load: kc
 Axial loading
 kc = 0.85 (Eq. 6-26)
Example, cont.

 Temperature:
 kd = 1 (no info given)
 Reliability:
 ke = 1 (no info given)
 Miscellaneous:
 kf = 1

 Endurance limit:
 Se = kakbkckdkekfSe’ = (0.88)(0.85)(227) = 177 MPa

 Design Equation: S e 177 MPa

   1.8
  4583 F 
177 x106
F  21.4 kN
45831.8
Fluctuating Fatigue Failures

2 primary classifications of fatigue

Alternating – no DC component

Fluctuating – non-zero DC
component
 Alternating vs. fluctuating
Alternating Fluctuating

P
m 
A
Mr
a 
I
Alternating Stresses

 a characterizes alternating stress

Fluctuating stresses
 Mean Stress
 max   min
m 
2
 Stress amplitude
 max   min
a 
2
 Together, m and a
characterize fluctuating
stress
Alternating vs. Fluctuating
Modified Goodman Diagram

Modified Goodman Diagram

For a given midrange stress
Fluctuating Fatigue in Compression and
Tension
Failure criterion for fluctuating
loading
 Soderberg
 Modified Goodman
 Gerber
 ASME-elliptic
 Yielding

 Points above the line: failure

 Book uses Goodman primarily
 Straight line, therefore easy algebra

 Easily graphed, every time, for every problem

 Reveals subtleties of insight into fatigue problems

 Answers can be scaled from the diagrams as a check on the

algebra
Fluctuating stresses, cont.
 As with alternating stresses, fluctuating stresses have been
investigated in an empirical manner
 For m < 0 (compressive mean stress)
 a > Sf Failure
 Same as with alternating stresses
 Or,

  max   m |  |  a  S yc (or Suc ) Static Failure

 For m > 0 (tensile mean stress)

 Modified Goodman criteria
 a m 1
 
S f Sut 
 <1 Failure
Fluctuating stresses, cont.
Note: m + a = max
 Relationship is easily
m + a > Syt (static failure by yielding)
seen by plotting:

Goodman Line
Safe design region a m
(for arbitrary fluctuations
 1
S f Sut
in m and a )

a m 1
 
S f Sut 
(safe stress line)

Important point: Part can fail because of fluctuations in either a, m, or both.
Design for prescribed variations in a and m to get a more exact solution.
Special cases of fluctuating stresses

 Case 1: m fixed

Sa

a

 Case 2: a fixed
Sm

m
Special cases of fluctuating stresses

 Case 3: a / m fixed

Sa Sm
 
a m

 Case 4: both vary arbitrarily

1 a m
 
 S f Sut
Example
 Given:
 Sut = 1400 MPa
 Syt = 950 MPa
 Heat-treated (as-forged)
 Fmean = 9.36 kN
 Fmax = 10.67 kN
 d/w = 0.133; d/h = 0.55
 Find:
  for infinite life, assuming
Fmean is constant
Example, cont.
My
 
 Find m and a 1
I
1 1
I  bh 3   w  d  h 3   75  10183  3.16x10 8 m 4
12 12 12
h
y max   0.009 m
2

M mean   m    Fm L   9.36x10 3  0.3  702 Nm

 F  L  1 1
 2  2  4 4

M max   max    Fmax L  10.67x10 3  0.3  800 Nm

 F  L  1 1
 2  2  4 4
M y
 m  mean max  200 MPa
I
M y
 max  max max  228 MPa
I
 a   max   m  28 MPa
Stress Concentration Factor
Example, cont.
 Since this is uniaxial
loading,
 m = 200 MPa
nominal
 a = 28 MPa
 We need to take care of
the SC factors
 Su = 1400Mpa
k f  1  q kt  1
kt ~ 2.2 (Figure A15-2)
 q ~ 0.95 (Figure 6-20)  a   a  k f  anom   2.14  28  60 MPa
 kf = 2.14  m   m  k f  mnom   2.14  200   428 MPa
Example, cont.
 Find strength
 Eqn. 6-8: S’e = .5 Sut
Se ~ 700 MPa since Sut  1400 MPa

 Modification factors
Surface : Size : Load :
b
ka  aSut Equation (6 - 20) : Bending
a  271 2.8  d eq  51 mm k c  1 (Eq. 6 - 26)
b  0.995 1
d eq  0.808 hb  2
ka  0.201  0.107
k b  1.24d eq
k b  0.86 Se   0.201 0.86 700  121 MPa
Example, cont.
 Design criteria
 Goodman line:
a m
  1/ n
S e S ut

 For arbitrary variation in a 

121  m 1
121 1400
a and m,   1
a
 m

121 1400 
1 60 428
 
 121 1400 1400
  1.25
Example, cont.
 However, we know that
Fmean = constant from
problem statement
 m = constant
Sa  m
 1
Se Sut
Sa 428
 1
121 1400
Sa  84 MPa
S 84
 a   1 .4 Less conservative!
 a 60
Example, cont.
 However, we used
 Fa = constant
 a = constant

 a Sm
 1
S e S ut
60 S
 m 1
121 1400
S m  706 MPa
S 706
 m   1.65 Even Less conservative!
 m 428
Combined loading and fatigue
 Size factor depends on loading
 SC factors also depend on loading
 Could be very complicated calculation to keep track of each load
case
 Assuming all stress components are completely reversing and are
always in time phase with each other,
1. For the strength, use the fully corrected endurance limit for
bending, Se
2. Apply the appropriate fatigue SC factors to the torsional stress,
the bending stress, and the axial stress components
3. Multiply any alternating axial stress components by the factor
1/kc,ax
4. Enter the resultant stresses into a Mohr’s circle analysis to find
the principal stresses
5. Using the results of step 4, find the von Mises alternating stress
a’
6. Compare a’ with Sa to find the factor of safety

Additional details are in Section 6-14

Spares