Lecture Slides

Chapter 6

Fatigue Failure Resulting

from Variable Loading
The McGraw-Hill Companies © 2012
 Introduction to Fatigue in Metals
 Loading produces stresses that are variable, repeated, alternating,
or fluctuating
 Maximum stresses well below yield strength
 Failure occurs after many stress cycles
 Failure is by sudden ultimate fracture
 No visible warning in advance of failure
 Progressive failure ( damage accumulation …. history!)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stages of Fatigue Failure
 Stage I – Initiation of micro-
crack due to cyclic plastic
deformation
 Stage II – Progresses to
macro-crack that repeatedly
opens and closes, creating
bands called beach marks
 Stage III – Crack has
propagated far enough that
remaining material is
insufficient to carry the load,
and fails by simple ultimate
failure

Fig. 6–1
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Schematics of Fatigue Fracture Surfaces

Fig. 6–2
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Schematics of Fatigue Fracture Surfaces

Fig. 6–2
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Schematics of Fatigue Fracture Surfaces

Fig. 6–2

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Fracture Examples

 AISI 4320 drive

shaft
 B– crack initiation at
stress concentration
in keyway
 C– Final brittle
failure

Fig. 6–3
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Fatigue Fracture Examples

 Fatigue failure
initiating at
mismatched grease
holes
 Sharp corners (at
arrows) provided
stress concentrations

Fig. 6–4
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Fatigue Fracture Examples

 Fatigue failure of
forged connecting rod
 Crack initiated at flash
line of the forging at the
left edge of picture
 Beach marks show
crack propagation
halfway around the hole
before ultimate fracture
Fig. 6–5

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Fracture Examples

 Fatigue failure of a
200-mm diameter
piston rod of an alloy
steel steam hammer
 Loaded axially
 Crack initiated at a
forging flake internal to
the part
 Internal crack grew
outward symmetrically

Fig. 6–6

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Fracture Examples
 Double-flange trailer wheel
 Cracks initiated at stamp marks

Fig. 6–7 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Fracture Examples
 Aluminum allow landing-gear torque-arm assembly redesign to
eliminate fatigue fracture at lubrication hole

Fig. 6–8 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue-Life Methods
 Three major fatigue life models
 Methods predict life in number of cycles to failure, N, for a
specific level of loading
 Stress-life method

◦ Least accurate, particularly for low cycle applications

◦ Most traditional, easiest to implement
 Strain-life method

◦ Detailed analysis of plastic deformation at localized regions

◦ Several idealizations are compounded, leading to
uncertainties in results
 Linear-elastic fracture mechanics method

◦ Assumes crack exists

◦ Predicts crack growth with respect to stress intensity
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Stress-Life Method
 Test specimens are subjected to repeated stress while counting cycles to
failure
 Most common test machine is R. R. Moore high-speed rotating-beam
machine
 Subjects specimen to pure bending with no transverse shear
 As specimen rotates, stress fluctuates between equal magnitudes of
tension and compression, known as completely reversed stress cycling
 Specimen is carefully machined and polished

Fig. 6–9

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Stress-Life Method

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Stress-Life Method

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 S-N Diagram
 Number of cycles to failure at varying stress levels is plotted on log-log
scale
 For steels, a knee occurs near 10 6 cycles
 Strength corresponding to the knee is called endurance limit Se

Fig. 6–10
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 S-N Diagram for Steel
 Stress levels below Se predict infinite life
 Between 103 and 106 cycles, finite life is predicted
 Below 103 cycles is known as low cycle, and is often considered
quasi-static. Yielding usually occurs before fatigue in this zone.

Fig. 6–10
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 S-N Diagram for Nonferrous Metals
 Nonferrous metals often do not have an endurance limit.
 Fatigue strength Sf is reported at a specific number of cycles
 Figure 6–11 shows typical S-N diagram for aluminums

Fig. 6–11 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Cyclic Stress Strain Properties of Steels

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 The Endurance Limit
 The endurance limit for steels has been experimentally found to be
related to the ultimate strength

Fig. 6–17
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 The Endurance Limit
 Simplifiedestimate of endurance limit for steels for the rotating-
beam specimen, S'e

Fig. 6–17
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Fatigue Strength
 For design, an approximation of the idealized S-N diagram is
desirable.
 To estimate the fatigue strength at 103 cycles, start with Eq. (6-2)

 Define the specimen fatigue strength at a specific number of

cycles as

 Combine with Eq. (6–2),

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Strength

 At 103 cycles,
 f is the fraction of Sut represented by ( S f ) 3
10
 Solving for f,

 The SAE approximation for steels with HB ≤ 500 may be used.

 To find b, substitute the endurance strength and corresponding

cycles into Eq. (6–9) and solve for b

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Strength

 Eqs.(6–11) and (6–12) can be substituted into Eqs. (6–9) and

(6–10) to obtain expressions for S'f and f

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Strength Fraction f

 PlotEq. (6–10) for the fatigue strength fraction f of Sut at 103

cycles
 Use f from plot for S'f = f Sut at 103 cycles on S-N diagram

 Assumes Se = S'e= 0.5Sut at 106 cycles

Fig. 6–18

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Equations for S-N Diagram

 Write equation for S-N line

from 103 to 106 cycles
 Two known points
 At N =103 cycles,
Sf = f Sut
 At N =106 cycles,
Sf = Se Fig. 6–10

 Equations for line:

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Equations for S-N Diagram

 Ifa completely reversed stress srev is given, setting Sf = srev in

Eq. (6–13) and solving for N gives,

 Note that the typical S-N diagram is only applicable for

completely reversed stresses
 For other stress situations, a completely reversed stress with the
same life expectancy must be used on the S-N diagram

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Low-cycle Fatigue
 Low-cycle fatigue is defined for fatigue failures in the range
1 ≤ N ≤ 103
 On the idealized S-N diagram on a log-log scale, failure is predicted
by a straight line between two points (103, f Sut) and (1, Sut)

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-2

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-2

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Endurance Limit Modifying Factors
 Endurance limit S'e is for carefully prepared and tested specimen
 If warranted, Se is obtained from testing of actual parts
 When testing of actual parts is not practical, a set of Marin
factors are used to adjust the endurance limit

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Surface Factor ka
 Stresses tend to be high at the surface
 Surface finish has an impact on initiation of cracks at localized
stress concentrations
 Surface factor is a function of ultimate strength. Higher strengths
are more sensitive to rough surfaces.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-4

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Value of Ka for different surface conditions vs Sut
1.0000

0.9000

0.8000

0.7000

0.6000
ground
0.5000 machined
Ka

Hot Rolled
0.4000 Forged

0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
40 50 60 70 80 90 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Sut

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Size Factor kb
 Larger parts have greater surface area at high stress levels
 Likelihood of crack initiation is higher
 Size factor is obtained from experimental data with wide scatter
 For bending and torsion loads, the trend of the size factor data is
given by

 Applies only for round, rotating diameter

 For uniform axial/shear load, there is no size effect, so kb = 1

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Size Factor kb
 For parts that are not round and rotating, an equivalent round
rotating diameter is obtained.
 Equate the volume of material stressed at and above 95% of the
maximum stress to the same volume in the rotating-beam
specimen.
 Lengths cancel, so equate the areas.
 For a rotating round section, the 95% stress area is the area of a
ring,

 Equate 95% stress area for other conditions to Eq. (6–22) and
solve for d as the equivalent round rotating diameter

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Size Factor kb
 For non-rotating round,

 Equating to Eq. (6-22) and solving for equivalent diameter,

 Similarly,for rectangular section h x b, A95s = 0.05 hb. Equating

to Eq. (6–22),

 Other common cross sections are given in Table 6–3

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Size Factor kb
Table 6–3

A95s for common

non-rotating
structural shapes

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-4

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Loading Factor kc
 Accounts for changes in endurance limit for different types of
fatigue loading.
 Only to be used for single load types. Use Combination Loading
method (Sec. 6–14) when more than one load type is present.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Temperature Factor kd

 Endurance limit appears to maintain same relation to ultimate

strength for elevated temperatures as at room temperature
 This relation is summarized in Table 6–4

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Temperature Factor kd

 Ifultimate strength is known for operating temperature, then just

use that strength. Let kd = 1 and proceed as usual.
 Ifultimate strength is known only at room temperature, then use
Table 6–4 to estimate ultimate strength at operating temperature.
With that strength, let kd = 1 and proceed as usual.
 Alternatively,
use ultimate strength at room temperature and
apply temperature factor from Table 6–4 to the endurance limit.

 A fourth-orderpolynomial curve fit of the underlying data of

Table 6–4 can be used in place of the table, if desired.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-5

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-5

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Reliability Factor ke

 From Fig. 6–17, S'e = 0.5 Sut is typical of the data and represents
50% reliability.
 Reliability factor adjusts to other reliabilities.
 Only adjusts Fig. 6–17 assumption. Does not imply overall
reliability.

Fig. 6–17

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Reliability Factor ke

 Simply obtain ke for desired reliability from Table 6–5.

Table 6–5

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Miscellaneous-Effects Factor kf

 Reminder to consider other possible factors.

◦ Residual stresses
◦ Directional characteristics from cold working
◦ Case hardening
◦ Corrosion
◦ Surface conditioning, e.g. electrolytic plating and metal
spraying
◦ Cyclic Frequency
◦ Frettage Corrosion
 Limited data is available.
 May require research or testing.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Stress Concentration and Notch Sensitivity
 Fordynamic loading, stress concentration effects must be applied.
 Obtain Kt as usual (e.g. Appendix A–15)

 For fatigue, some materials are not fully sensitive to Kt so a

reduced value can be used.
 Define Kf as the fatigue stress-concentration factor.
 Define q as notch sensitivity, ranging from 0 (not sensitive) to 1
(fully sensitive).

 For q = 0, Kf = 1
 For q = 1, Kf = Kt

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Notch Sensitivity
 Obtainq for bending or axial loading from Fig. 6–20.
 Then get Kf from Eq. (6–32): Kf = 1 + q( Kt – 1)

Fig. 6–20

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Notch Sensitivity

 Obtain qs for torsional loading from Fig. 6–21.

 Then get Kfs from Eq. (6–32): Kfs = 1 + qs( Kts – 1)
 Note that Fig. 6–21 is updated in 9th edition.

Fig. 6–21 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Notch Sensitivity
 Alternatively, can use curve fit equations for Figs. 6–20 and 6–21 to get
notch sensitivity, or go directly to Kf .

Bending or axial:

Torsion:

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Notch Sensitivity for Cast Irons
 Cast irons are already full of discontinuities, which are included
in the strengths.
 Additional notches do not add much additional harm.
 Recommended to use q = 0.2 for cast irons.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-6

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Application of Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor

 Use Kf as a multiplier to increase the nominal stress.

 Some designers (and previous editions of textbook) sometimes
applied 1/ Kf as a Marin factor to reduce Se .
 For infinite life, either method is equivalent, since

nf 
Se

1/ K f  Se
K f 

 Forfinite life, increasing stress is more conservative.

Decreasing Se applies more to high cycle than low cycle.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-7

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-8

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-8

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-8

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Example 6-9

Fig. 6–22

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Example 6-9

Fig. 6–22

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-9

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-9

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-9

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses
 The S-N diagram is applicable for completely reversed stresses
 Other fluctuating stresses exist
 Sinusoidal loading patterns are common, but not necessary

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Fluctuating Stresses

General
Fluctuating

Repeated

Completely
Reversed

Fig. 6–23 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses
 Fluctuating stresses can often
be characterized simply by
the minimum and maximum
stresses, smin and smax
 Define sm as midrange steady
component of stress
(sometimes called mean
stress) and sa as amplitude of
alternating component of
stress

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses
 Other useful definitions
include stress ratio

and amplitude ratio

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Application of Kf for Fluctuating Stresses

 For fluctuating loads at points with stress concentration, the best

approach is to design to avoid all localized plastic strain.
 In this case, Kf should be applied to both alternating and
midrange stress components.
 When localized plastic strain does occur, some methods (e.g.
nominal mean stress method and residual stress method)
recommend only applying Kf to the alternating stress.
 The Dowling method recommends applying Kf to the alternating
stress and Kfm to the mid-range stress, where Kfm is

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Failure for Fluctuating Stresses

 Vary the sm and sa to learn about the fatigue resistance under

fluctuating loading
 Three common methods of plotting results follow.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Plot of Alternating vs Midrange Stress
 Experimental data on normalized plot of sa vs sm
 Demonstrates little effect of negative midrange stress

Fig. 6–25 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Modified Goodman Diagram
 Midrange stress is plotted on
abscissa
 All other components of
stress are plotted on the
ordinate

Fig. 6–24
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Master Fatigue Diagram
 Displays four stress components as well as two stress ratios

Fig. 6–26
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Plot of Alternating vs Midrange Stress
 Probably most common and simple to use is the plot of sa vs sm
 Has gradually usurped the name of Goodman or Modified
Goodman diagram
 Modified Goodman line from Se to Sut is one simple representation
of the limiting boundary for infinite life

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Commonly Used Failure Criteria
 Five commonly used failure criteria are shown
 Gerber passes through the data
 ASME-elliptic passes through data and incorporates rough
yielding check

Fig. 6–27

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Commonly Used Failure Criteria
 Modified Goodman is linear, so simple to use for design. It is
more conservative than Gerber.
 Soderberg provides a very conservative single check of both
fatigue and yielding.

Fig. 6–27

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Commonly Used Failure Criteria
 Langer line represents standard yield check.
 It is equivalent to comparing maximum stress to yield strength.

Fig. 6–27

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Equations for Commonly Used Failure Criteria
 Intersecting a constant slope load line with each failure criteria
produces design equations
 n is the design factor or factor of safety for infinite fatigue life

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Summarizing Tables for Failure Criteria
 Tables 6–6 to 6–8 summarize the pertinent equations for
Modified Goodman, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, and Langer failure
criteria
 The first row gives fatigue criterion
 The second row gives yield criterion
 The third row gives the intersection of static and fatigue criteria
 The fourth row gives the equation for fatigue factor of safety
 The first column gives the intersecting equations
 The second column gives the coordinates of the intersection

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Summarizing Table for Modified Goodman

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Summarizing Table for Gerber

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Summarizing Table for ASME-Elliptic

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

89
Example 6-10

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-10

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-10

Fig. 6–28

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-10

Fig. 6–28
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-10

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-10

Fig. 6–29 Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-10

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-11

Fig. 6–30a
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-11

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-11

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-11

Fig. 6–30b
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-11

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-12

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-12

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-12

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-12

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Criteria for Brittle Materials
 For many brittle materials, the first quadrant fatigue failure
criteria follows a concave upward Smith-Dolan locus,

 Or as a design equation,

 For a radial load line of slope r, the intersection point is

 In the second quadrant,

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Fatigue Criteria for Brittle Materials
 Table A–24 gives properties of gray cast iron, including
endurance limit
 The endurance limit already includes ka and kb

 The average kc for axial and torsional is 0.9

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Example 6-13

Fig. 6–31a
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-13

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-13

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-13

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-13

Fig. 6–31b
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Torsional Fatigue Strength
 Testing has found that the steady-stress component has no effect
on the endurance limit for torsional loading if the material is
ductile, polished, notch-free, and cylindrical.
 However, for less than perfect surfaces, the modified Goodman
line is more reasonable.
 For pure torsion cases, use kc = 0.59 to convert normal endurance
strength to shear endurance strength.
 For shear ultimate strength, recommended to use

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Combinations of Loading Modes
 When more than one type of loading (bending, axial, torsion)
exists, use the Distortion Energy theory to combine them.
 Obtain von Mises stresses for both midrange and alternating
components.
 Apply appropriate Kf to each type of stress.

 For load factor, use kc = 1. The torsional load factor (kc = 0.59) is
inherently included in the von Mises equations.
 If needed, axial load factor can be divided into the axial stress.

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Static Check for Combination Loading
 Distortion Energy theory still applies for check of static yielding
 Obtain von Mises stress for maximum stresses (sum of midrange
and alternating)
 Stress concentration factors are not necessary to check for
yielding at first cycle
1/2
 max   a   m   3  a   m  
 2 2

 
Sy
ny 
 max


simple check is to obtain conservative estimate of s'max

 Alternate
by summing s'a and s'm
 max
   a   m
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-14

Fig. 6–32
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-14

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Varying Fluctuating Stresses
 Loading patterns may be
complex
 Simplifications may be
necessary
 Small fluctuations may be
negligible compared to large
cycles

Fig. 6–33
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Cumulative Fatigue Damage

 A common situation is to load at s1 for n1 cycles, then at s2 for n2

cycles, etc.
 The cycles at each stress level contributes to the fatigue damage
 Accumulation of damage is represented by the Palmgren-Miner
cycle-ratio summation rule, also known as Miner’s rule

where ni is the number of cycles at stress level si and Ni is the

number of cycles to failure at stress level si
c is experimentally found to be in the range 0.7 < c < 2.2, with an
average value near unity
 Defining D as the accumulated damage,

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Example 6-15

Fig. 6–33
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
Example 6-15

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-15

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-15

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

Example 6-15

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Illustration of Miner’s Rule
 Figure 6–34 illustrates effect of Miner’s rule on endurance limit
and fatigue failure line.
 Note that the damaged material line is predicted to be parallel to
original material line.

Fig. 6–34
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design
 Weaknesses of Miner’s Rule
 Miner’s rule fails to agree with experimental results in two ways
◦ It predicts the static strength Sut is damaged.
◦ It does not account for the order in which the stresses are
applied

Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design

 Manson’s Method
 Manson’s method overcomes deficiencies of Miner’s rule.
 It assumes all fatigue lines on the S-N diagram converge to a
common point at 0.9Sut at 103 cycles.
 Itrequires each line to be constructed in the same historical order
in which the stresses occur.

Fig. 6–35
Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design