Design For Fatigue

i
iTextBook Transdisciplinary Learning Modules
c 2014 by theATLAS Publishing

Copyright
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the
prior permission of TheATLAS Publishing.
c 2014 TheATLAS
ISSN: 1933-5423,
Published in the United States of America
www.theatlas.org
c 2014 TheATLAS
ISSN: 1933-5423,
Table of Contents
7 Design for Fatigue
7.1 Failure Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.1 Fatigue Mechanism of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.2 Fatigue Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Low Cycle and High Cycle fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 Low Cycle Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 High Cycle Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Fatigue Strength Correction Factors . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.1 Surface Finish Correction Factor . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.2 Size Correction Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.3 Temperature Correction Factor . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.4 Reliability Correction Factor . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3.5 Fatigue Stress Concentration Correction Factor . .
7.3.6 Miscellaneous Correction Factor . . . . . . . . . .
7.4 Fluctuating Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4.1 Fatigue Analysis for Fluctuating Normal Stress . .
7.4.2 Fatigue analysis for Combined Fluctuating Stresses
7.5 Miners Rule Cumulative Fatigue Damage . . . . . . . .
7.5.1 Offshore Pipeline Fatigue Application . . . . . . .
7.6 Fracture Mechanics Based Fatigue Analysis . . . . . . . .
7.6.1 Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Fatigue Resistance
ii
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
1
4
5
6
6
10
11
11
13
13
13
15
20
20
26
30
32
40
42
MODULE
Design for Fatigue

his chapter will focus on design requirements related to fatigue which is an
important mode of failure in machine components. Failure analysis of mechanical components, basic concepts of cyclic loading, fatigue resistance of materials, endurance limit, parameters affecting the endurance limit and design
analysis to prevent fatigue failure will be discussed. Fracture mechanics based
fatigue analysis will also be discussed.
7.1
Failure Mechanisms
Failure analysis requires comprehensive knowledge and experiences of various

failure modes that exist for any given system. Although, in general, two or more
modes contribute to a mechanical component failure, there are many mechanical failure mechanisms exists. They are; buckling, over load, large deflection,
fracture, creep, impact, thermal shock, wear, corrosion, erosion, stress corrosion cracking, and various types of fatigue. Each mechanical failure mechanisms
generate a different type of fracture surface, and other kind of signatures near
the fracture surface. In general, failure mechanisms can be considered in two
categories physical degradation and technical faults.
Physical degradation Physical degradation of components is due to operational conditions combined with component features such as design, materials
and manufacturing.
Technical faults Other failure mechanisms can be developed from technical
faults such as unacceptable increase in temperature of an engine, very low oil
pressure in journal bearings, etc. Both types of failure mechanisms are affected
by several factors that must be known to foresee the existence and severity of
the mechanism.
7.1.1
Figure 7.1:
Bracing failed due to
fatigue is on display
in the Norwegian
Petroleum Museum.1
Fatigue Mechanism of Failure
Majority of the mechanical failures occur from fatigue and examples are almost
everywhere whether it is a minor maintenance failure such as shaft bearings or
a disaster of countrywide significance such as Alexander L. Kielland, Norwegian
semi-submersible drilling rig that capsized while working in the Ekofisk oil field in
March 1980 killing 123 people. The capsize was the worst disaster in Norwegian
waters since World War II. The investigative report settled that the rig collapsed
due to a fatigue crack in one of its six bracings (bracing D-6), which connected
the collapsed D-leg to the rest of the rig (see Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2).1
1 The Alexander L. Kielland accident, Report of a Norwegian public commission appointed
by royal decree of March 28, 1980, presented to the Ministry of Justice and Police March, 1981
ISBN fig7-B0000ED27N.
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.2: Alexander L. Kielland, Norwegian semi-submersible drilling rig.
Failure was traced to a small 6 mm fillet weld which joined a non-loadbearing flange plate to this D-6 bracing. The weak profile of the fillet weld
causing reduction in fatigue strength and cyclical stresses due to the sea waves
contributed the most in the rigs collapse.
A technical understanding of fatigue mechanisms (damage) and the development of constitutive equations for damage occurrence leading to a crack initiation
and propagation is an important and fundamental problem for engineers. Fatigue crack is a progressive fracture mechanism due to cyclic loading and occurs
in two stages (1) fatigue crack initiation and (2) fatigue crack propagation. Fatigue crack will initiate at a point of discontinuity in the mechanical components,
such as a change in geometry, a keyway, a hole, inspection or stamp marks, internal defects, and manufacturing imperfections. Once a fatigue crack initiates,
it will propagate into the material with each stress cycle and continues as long
as the material is subjected to cyclic stress. Depending on the magnitude and
frequency of stress cycles, the crack may grow over a time and eventually, the
crack advances to a point where the remaining undamaged cross section of the
material cant support any more stress cycles and catastrophic failure occurs.
As an example, shaft manufactured from 300M, ultra-high strength, alloy
steel fractured due to fatigue progression from an intergranular stress crack, initiated due to dot peen marking of the shaft as shown in Figure 7.3(a). The dot
peened engraving created a high stress concentration in the hard surface of the
shaft. The fracture crosses the 0 in the date stamp on the part shown in the
figure. Two events of fatigue progression (zone-1 and zone-2) were observed covering approximately 33% of the fracture surface, prior to final torsional overload
failure of the component. First two zones of events are due to the progressive
development of the crack, while the final torsional overload is due to the catastrophic failure. Intergranular cracking at the initiation site indicates a brittle
surface condition and may be an indicator of excessive residual stress in the
surface of the shaft.2
Thermo Mechanical Fatigue (TMF)
2 Metallurgical Technologies, Inc., Metallurgical Laboratory - Failure Analysis and Metallurgical Engineering Services, Mooresville, NC.
Module 7. Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.3: (a) Wiew of the fractured input shaft. (b) Wiew of the fracture surface. (Courtecy of Metallurgical Technologies, Inc., Metallurgical Laboratory).
Thermo mechanical fatigue (TMF) occurs when cyclic mechanical loading superimposes with cyclic thermal loading as shown in Figure 4. Since this type
of loading can be more damaging, that needs to be considered when designing
components and equipment operating under high temperatures such as turbine
rotors subjected to the combined influences of cyclic damage arising from strain
transients created during the start-up and shut-down and creep damage resulting
from cyclical thermal loading during the operation. Properties of materials play
an important role in the thermal mechanical fatigue damage formed in the material. TMF loading is often described to be in-phase (IP) or out-of-phase (OP)
as shown in Figure 7.4. In IP cyclic loading, the maximum temperature and
stress appear at the same time. In OP cyclic loading, the material suffers from
compression at high temperature and tension at lower temperatures. Thermal
mechanical fatigue incorporates damage accumulation due to failure mechanisms
of fatigue, environment (oxidation), and creep as explained thereafter.3
Figure 7.4: (a) TMF in-phase cyclic loading. (b) TMF out-of-phase cyclic
loading.
Fatigue mechanism Fatigue damage in the thermal mechanical fatigue

is in the form of nucleation and growth of microcracks.
Oxidation mechanism Oxidation is a natural process, which takes place
all the time in nature. Oxidation damage can occur in the form of an oxide
intrusion. During the out-of-phase loading, an oxide layer will be developed
on the surface when the material is hot and in compression. When the
3 Darrell Socie and Benjamin Socie. Thermomechanical Fatigue Made Easy. http://www
.cdm.unicas.it/files/Download/TMF Made Easy.pdf, accessed: March 10, 2013.
Design for Fatigue

temperature turns out to be lower, the oxide layer becomes brittle. Due
to the cyclic loading the oxide layer cracks and new clean metal surface
appear. This clean metal will rapidly oxidize and the process repeats itself.
Eventually, this will initiate a crack which can then grow due to the cyclic
loading. Although Oxide cracks can be also developed during in-phase
loading, out of phase (OP) thermo-mechanical loading is dominated by
the effects of oxidation and fatigue. Microcrack initiation depends on the
cyclic strain range; stress does not play a role in the development of oxide
induced microcracks.3
Figure 7.5:
Creep rupture.4
Creep mechanism Creep is the permanent plastic deformation at elevated temperatures and stresses (much less than the high-temperature
yield stress) and one of the most serious damage mechanisms in high temperature environment. Creep deformation occurs by grain-boundary sliding. That is, adjacent grains or crystals move as a unit relative to each
other and may end in a fructure called stress rupture or creep rupture (see
Figure 7.5).4 In-phase thermo mechanical loading is dominated by creep.
Surface Fatigue
Anywhere rolling contact occurs in mechanical parts there is a potential for
surface failure. This will include rolling-element bearings, gears, cams, and
rollers. There are several kinds of surface failures.
indentation Even though, nonrotating ball bearings can have surface
failure when they are under heavy loading, especially if vibration is also
exist. This type of situation will create surface damage, called indentation.
Pitting Pitting is a surface fatigue phenomenon arising in concentrated
rolling and sliding contacts; particles fall out of the surface, leaving surfaces
pockmarked with scattered holes as shown in Figure 7.6.5 Micro-pitting
and surface fatigue can be reduced by using the right lubricant. Speed and
operating temperature main factors effecting on pitting.
Figure 7.6:
Pitting and dent on the
rolling element surface.5
Wear Wear can be described as progressive surface damage caused

by the removal or displacement of material through shearing and tearing.
Commonly used wear categories are: (a) Adhesive wearhas been usually
known by the terms galling, or seizing. Galling is a form of wear caused by
adhesion between sliding surfaces. (b) Abrasive wear occurs when foreign particles such as sand or grit come between sliding surfaces. Although
wear cant be avoided completely, both types of wear can be reduced or
prevented by using right lubrication. Resistance to wear is usually improved by hardness. A smooth surface and various surface treatments are
also used to protect against wear.
7.1.2
Fatigue Interpretation
When a mechanical part fails, a surface is created by that fracturing process.

Visual examination can give hints of the fracture mechanism (process). If the
evidences are not conceivable, visual examination of the macroscopic fracture
4 Creep Degradation Replica Examinations, Kinectrics. http://www.kinectrics.com/Solutions/Pages/Creep-Degradation-Replica-Examinations.aspx, accessed: March 8, 2013.
5 NSK, Motion & Control. http://www.nskamericas.com/cps/rde/xchg/na en/hs.xsl/
index.html, accessed: March 12, 2013.
features can give a strong indication of the fracturing process. This is the science
of fractography. Since fracture surfaces may have exposed to various environments, generally contain surface debris, corrosion, or oxidation products, they
must be removed before the analysis.6
Figure 7.7:
Fructure surface.
Failure specialists usually inspect the fracture path to decide on the origin
of the crack (see Figure 7.7) as well as other important issues involved with the
failure. With the help of fractographic features, the specialists can also identify
the nature of the loading and decide how the failure occurred. As shown in
Figure 7.7, in general, fatigue failures start on the outside of a shaft where the
stress concentration is exist. in other words, fracture progression comes from
the edge. The instantaneous zone (IZ) carries the load in the instant before the
part breaks. Beach mark indicates the position of the crack tip.7
Figure 7.8: Comparison between a lightly and a heavily loaded shaft (reproduced from reference [8]).
Figure 7.8 shows a comparison between a lightly and a heavily loaded shaft
for both plain bending and rotational bending. By examining the size of the IZ,
one can tell the magnitude of the load on the part for each type of the loadings.
It is evident from Figure 7.8(b) that the rotational bending load causes the
crack to grow in a non-uniform manner. In general, when the divider of the
instantaneous zone does not point to the origin of the crack, it shows there was
a rotational bending involved in the failure cause.8
7.2
Low Cycle and High Cycle fatigue
Structures are often found to have failed under the action of cyclic loading even
the applied stresses are below the yield strength of the materials. This way of
6 Fracture Surface Analysis. http://www.metallurgist.com/html/Definitions/Fracture
SurfaceAnalysis.htm, accessed: March 12, 2013.
7 Fracture Surface Analysis. http://www.asminternational.org/static/Static%20Files/IP
/Magazine/AMP/V165/I12/amp16512p021.pdf?authtoken=312dc07d8ee28c300b0e8863b90
e42cfaed4d8e8, accessed: March 12, 2013.
8 Neville Sachs, Root Cause Failure Analysis - Understanding Mechanical Failures.
http://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/rcfa.shtml, accessed: march 14, 2013.
Design for Fatigue

failure is known as fatigue. A good illustration of fatigue failure is breaking a
thin wire with your hands after bending it back and forth quite a few times
in the same location. The majority of machine component failures are caused
by fatigue. Therefore, engineering requirements during the design phase for
avoiding fatigue failure must be considered.
The S-N curve method of fatigue life calculation is stress based, and is only
fully applicable to cyclic stresses in the elastic range. However, some structural
components in some situations can serve under cyclic stresses that exceed the
yield stress of the material. High cycle and low cycles fatigue often deal with as
separate regime. In the low cycle regime fatigue life models are generally developed for 103 cycles and below. Low-cycle fatigue can be an crucial consideration
in the design of products. It is important for situations in which mechanical
components go through either mechanically or thermally induced cyclic plastic
strains that cause failure within reasonably few cycles. Knowledge gained from
low-cycle fatigue testing can be an important information in the establishment
of design criteria to protect against mechanical component failure by fatigue.
7.2.1
Low Cycle Fatigue
Low cycle fatigue region associated with high loads and short service life. Considerable plastic strain occurs during each cycle. In general, this model is considered for 103 cycles and below. Manson proposed a simplified formula known
as the mothod of universal slopes9
t = e + p = 3.5
Sut 0.12
0.6
N
+ 0.6
f N
E
(7.1)
Where, t is the total strain range which has two components (elastic strain
range, e and plastic strain range, p ), f is the true strain corresponding to
fracture in one reversal (fatigue ductility coefficient), E is Youngs modulus, and
N is the number of strain cycles to failure.
All the constants in Eq.7.1 for predicting the low-cycle fatigue resistance of
a variety of steels can be obtained from a monotonic test and an incremental
step test. Using Eq. 7.1, fatigue life, N can be calculated if the total strain
amplitude, t is known. However, calculation of the total strain would be
troublesome when the discontinuities exist.
7.2.2
High Cycle Fatigue
In high-cycle fatigue situations, fatigue strength of machine components is analyzed by S-N diagram, obtained in constant amplitude fatigue test by using RR
Moore rotating beam fatigue test machine shown in Figure 7.9. Fatigue testing
machines apply repeated cyclic loads to test specimens.
As shown in Figure 7.10(b), the rotating beam testing machine applies cyclic
load through the use of dead weights as the specimen rotates. Standard test
specimens shown in Figure 7.10(a) are tested at different loads to obtain data
points for plotting an S-N curve. In general, the fatigue strength of materials
is documented by the S-N curve obtained from constant stress amplitude, a
imposed by a pure bending stress test. Typical S-N curve for a steel material
constructed using experimental data is shown in Figure 7.11. As seen from the
figure, experiment is repeated at each stress level to verify the results are consistent and not just an accident. In this figure, Sf0 and Se0 are called uncorrected
fracture strength and endurance strength of a material, respectively.
9 Manson, S. S., 1965. Fatigue: A Complex Subject Some Simple Approximations. Experimental mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 7, P.193.
Figure 7.9: RR Moore rotating beam fatigue test machine.
Figure 7.10: Cyclic loading.
As the specimen is under cyclic stresses, load acting on the specimen induces
fluctuating bending stress. Load on the specimen will be reduced gradually to
collect the failure data at each stress level until the failure will not occurs. At
this point, corresponding bending stress amplitude induces will be the endurance
strength of the materials. Endurance strength obtained in laboratory by the use
of RR Moore machine will be unrealistic for practical engineering use since the
specimen used for testing is highly polished and homogeneous with no surface
defect. Therefore, endurance strength is not material property such as yield
strength and ultimate strength. It depends on other parameters which should
be incorporated to obtain realistic endurance strength. These parameters are
represented as fatigue strength correction factors with value less than unity.
These correction factors will be discussed in section 7.3.
The endurance limit, Se0 shown in Figure 7.11 is a safe range of fluctuating
stress value, and below this value it is assumed that failure will not occur. The
endurance limit implies that structural members stressed under this limit will
have infinite life; N = 106 cycles. As shown in Figure 7.11, steel and titanium
alloys (ferrous alloys such as low strength carbon and alloy steel; some stainless
steels, irons, and titanium alloys; and also some polymers) have endurance limit,
the stress amplitude below which there appears to be no number of cycles that
will cause failure. On the other hand, structural metals such as aluminum,
copper, magnesium and, nickel do not show endurance limit and will eventually
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.11: Typical S-N curve.
fail even from small stress amplitudes .

Fracture strength, Sf0 and endurance strength, Se0 are known if the S-N curve
of the material is known. If the S-N curve of the material is not available,
then simple equations approximately represents the S-N curve can be used to
calculated the fatigue life.
Now consider simplified S-N curve for a given material such as shown in
Figure 7.12. Approximated equation of an S-N curve shown in Figure 7.12 can
be written as
Figure 7.12:
Simplified S-N curve.
S 0 = aN b
(7.2)
In Eq.7.2, b is the slope of the S-N curve. To determine the slope, b take log of
both sides of Eq. 7.2
log S 0 = log a + b log N
(7.3)
Coordinates of point A and C in Figure 7.12 must satisfy Eq.7.3. Using point
A, we have
log Sf0 = log a + b log Nf
(7.4)
Similarly, using coordinates of point C, yields

log Se0 = log a + b log Ne
(7.5)
From Eqs.7.4 and 7.5, we obtain

b=
log(Sf0 /Se0 )
log(Nf /Ne )
(7.6)
To determine constant a, substitute Eq.7.6 into Eq.7.5

log Se0 = log a +
log(Sf0 /Se0 )
(log Ne )
log(Nf /Ne )
Substituting Nf = 103 and Ne = 106 into Eq.7.7, gives
(7.7)
Table 7.1: Values for S-N curve end coordinates.

Endurance limit in shear, SS0 e
Material
Sut 200 kpsi
Sut 1380 MPa
Sut 200 kpsi
Sut 1380 MPa
Cupper alloys
Nickel alloys
Aluminum alloys
Magnesium alloys
Titanium
Sf0
0.9Sut
Nf
103
Se0
0.5Sut
Ne
106
Maximum shear
0.5Se0
Von-Mises
0.577Se0
0.9Sut
103
106
0.5Se0
0.577Se0
0.9Sut
0.9Sut
0.9Sut
0.9Sut
0.9Sut
103
103
103
103
103
100 kpsi
700 MPa
(0.25 0.5)Sut
(0.35 0.5)Sut
0.35Sut
0.35Sut
(0.45 0.65)Sut
106
106
106
106
106
0.5Se0
0.5Se0
0.5Se0
0.5Se0
0.5Se0
0.577Se0
0.577Se0
0.577Se0
0.577Se0
0.577Se0
a=
(Sf0 )2
Se0
(7.8)
Similarly, for various values of Nf and Ne constant a in Eq.7.2 can be found as
a
a
a
(Sf0 )2
Se0
Sf0
= Se0 ( 0 )7/4
Se
Sf0
= Se0 ( 0 )8/5
Se
=
for
Nf = 103
and Ne = 106
(7.9)
for
Nf = 103
and Ne = 107
(7.10)
for
Nf = 103
and Ne = 108
(7.11)
Equation to calculate fatigue life, N for a given stress level, S can be derived
from Eq.7.2
S0
N = Nf ( 0 )1/b
(7.12)
Sf
S-N curve for a specific material can be constructed by using the parameters
given in Table 7.1.
EXAMPLE 7.1
The cantilever beam shown in Figure 7.13 has an ultimate strength of 600
MPa.
(a) Estimate the endurance limit, Se0 of the beam material for an infinite
life.
(b) Estimate the fructure strength, Sf0 of the beam material at 103 cycles.
(c) Determine the fatigue strength, S 0 corresponding to a life of 80 103
cycles.
Figure 7.13:
Cantilever beam.
SOLUTION
(a) From Table 7.1,
Se0 = 0.5Sut = 0.5 600 = 300 MPa
10
Design for Fatigue

(b) From Table 7.1,
Sf0 = 0.9Sut = 0.9 600 = 540 MPa
(c) From Eq. 7.1,
S 0 = aN b
where
a = Se0 (
Sf0 7/4
)
Se0
From Table 7.1, Nf = 103 and Ne = 106 . Substituting these values into the
above equation, yields
a=
and
b=
5402
= 972 MPa
300
log(Sf0 /Se0 )
log(540/300)
=
= 0.085
log(Nf /Ne )
log(103 /106 )
Then, the fatigue strength, S 0 corresponding to a life of 80 103 is

S 0 = (972)(80 103 )0.085 = 372 MPa
7.3
Fatigue Strength Correction Factors
Actual value of endurance strength, Se , is less than the ideal uncorrected endurance strength, Se0 obtained from RR Moore rotating beam fatigue test. Since
the specimen used in the laboratory to determine the fatigue strength is different
in size, surface finish, and operating conditions, the endurance limit obtained
from fatigue test should be modified.
Effect of surface finish, size, reliability and the stress concentration should
be considered to obtain the actual value of endurance strength, Se . Using appropriate modifying factors, the corrected endurance strength is defined by
Se = Se0 (ka , ks , kt , kr , kf , km )
Where
Se
corrected endurance strength
Se0
endurance strength of the laboratory test
ka
surface finish correction factor
ks
size correction factor
kt
temparature correction factor
kr
reliability correction factor
kf
fatigue stress consentration factor
km
miscellaneous correction factor
(7.13)
11
Figure 7.14: Surface finish correction factor (reproduced from Fundamentals

of Machine Component Design, by Robert C. Juvinall and Kurt M. Marshek,
John Willey & Sons, Inc. New York, 2000).
7.3.1
Surface Finish Correction Factor
Fatigue strength is sensitive to surface irregularities. To eliminate the effect of

surface irregularities, the surface of the specimen is highly polished. Undoubtedly, most machine components do not have such a highly-quality surface finish.
When the ultimate strength in tension for steel is known, the surface correction
factor can be obtained from Figure 7.14.
7.3.2
Size Correction Factor
As shown in Figure 7.10(a), the diameter of standard test specimen used to

obtain the fatigue strength was 0.3 in (7.62 mm). When the machine component
is larger than the standard specimen dimension, it will demonstrate less strength.
Therefore, it should be adjusted to reflect the reduction in strength. Shigley
12
Design for Fatigue

and Mischke10 proposed the following equation for rotating round cylindrical
machine components when they are under bending and torsion.
ks
ks
d 0.1133
)
0.3
d 0.1133
(
)
7.62
(
for 0.11 in d 2 in
for 2.79 mm d 51 mm
(7.14)
For larger size machine components, size correction factor, ks , varies from
0.60 to 0.75 for bending and torsion. Since there is no size effect for axial loading,
ks = 1 is assumed. The effect of size is mainly important for the rotating shafts
experiencing bending. When machine components do not rotate or do not have
a round cross section, the equivalent diameter, deq , is used in Eq.7.14. This
is obtained by equating 95% of the stress area of the rotating round shaft to
the same stress area of the component under consideration. The equivalent
diameter, deq , for a non-rotating round section under bending is given by2
deq = 0.37d
(7.15)
The equivalent diameter, deq , for a rectangular section under bending with width
(w) and thickness (t) is given by
d2eq = 0.65wt
(7.16)
EXAMPLE 7.2
A 2 inch steel shaft supported by rolling bearings and subjected a cyclic
loading. The shaft has ultimate strength of 100 kpsi with machined finished.
Estimate the surface factor and the size factor when:
(a) shaft is rotating, and
(b) shaft is not rotating
SOLUTION
(a) From Figure 7.14 for Sut =100 kpsi, surface factor, ka is 0.77. Size factor, ks
for rotating shaft is
ks
ks
d 0.113
)
0.3
2 0.113
(
)
= 0.807
0.3
(
(b) We have the same surface correction factor when the shaft is nonrotating.
Size factor for nonrotating shaft is
ks
deq
ks
deq 0.113
)
0.3
0.37d = 0.37(2) = 0.74 in, then

0.74 0.113
(
)
= 0.903
0.3
10 Shigley, J. E. and Mitchell, L. D., 1983. Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill,

New York.
13

Table 7.2: Reliability
correction factors.
Reliability,
50
90
95
99
999
9999
99999
7.3.3
kr
1
0.897
0.868
0.814
0.753
0.702
0.659
Temperature Correction Factor
The endurance limit, Se0 , is typically determined from the standard rotating
beam test machine at room temperature. Since higher temperature will cause
a reduction in strength, Eq.7.17 for temperature correction can be used for
reasonably high temperatures2 .
For T 450 C(840 F )
For T 450 C T 550 C
For T 840 F T 1020 F
kt = 1
kt = 1 0.0058(T 450)
kt = 1 0.0032(T 840)
(7.17)
Temperature correction factor becames an important issue for steam turbine

rotors operating at temperatures up to 565 C.
7.3.4
Reliability Correction Factor
The S-N curve values are average values based on a number of tests resulting
in loads at failure stress, and the endurance strength values are average values
indicating a 50% survival rate. To calculate the endurance strength with a
higher survival rate than 50%, the endurance strength values must be reduced.
On the base of 8% standard deviation for both the stress and endurance strength,
reliability correction factors, kr shown in Table 7.2 are used.
7.3.5
Figure 7.15:
Stress concentration.
Fatigue Stress Concentration Correction Factor
Usually, stress analysis calculations assume that the machine components have
uniform sections without any irregularities or discontinuities. however, many
machine components have discontinuities such as holes, grooves, fillets, shoulders, keyways, screws, threads, and notches that will affect the stress distributions in the neighborhood of these irregularities and will cause local stress to
increase. As shown in Figure 7.15, this stress raise is called stress concentration
and stress distributions become uniform away from the hole.
A dimensionless factor, known as stress concentration factor K, is used to
quantify how locally concentrated the stress is. The theoretical stress concentration factor Kt used for normal stress and Kts used for shear stress are defined
by
Kt =
max
o
(7.18)
Kts =
max
o
(7.19)
14
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.16: Notch sensitivity factors for steel and aluminum(reproduced from
Fundamentals of Machine Component Design, by Robert C. Juvinall and Kurt
M. Marshek, John Willey & Sons, Inc. New York, 2000).
where o and o are the nominal normal applied stress and nominal applied
shear stress, respectively. The value of stress concentration factor is a function
of the geometry, the type of discontinuity, and the type of loading applied on
the machine components. Stress concentration factors for different geometries
and loading types are shown in Figures D-1 through D-5 in Appendix D.
Once the theoretical stress concentration factor is known, the fatigue stress
concentration correction factor, kf can be calculated by
1
Kf =
(7.20)
kf r
Where the fatigue strength reduction factor, kf r , is given by
kf r = 1 + q(Kt 1)
(7.21)
Where q is the notch sensitivity factor given by Figure 7.16 for steel and aluminum.
EXAMPLE 7.3
A machined rotating groved shaft shown in Figure 7.17 is made of steel with
an ultimate strength of Sut =800 MPa. Assume that the shaft diameter,
D=40 mm and the radius of the groove root, r=3 mm. Determine the
fatigue stress concentration correction factor when:
Figure 7.17:
Rotating shaft.
(a) the shaft is subjected to pure bending stress, and

(b) the shaft is subjected to pure torsional stress.
15
SOLUTION
From Figure 7.17 we have D = 40 mm, d =40-2(3)=34 mm, and r=3 mm.
(a) From Figure D-3a (in Appendix D), geometric stress concentration factor, Kt
for bending (for the values D/d=40/34 = 1.18 and r/d = 3/34 = 0.09), is 1.81.
From Figure 7.16, for r=3 mm and Sut =600 MPa (87 Kpsi), notch sensitivity,
q is 0.83, then the fatigue reduction factor, kf r is
kf r
1 + q(Kt 1) = 1 + 0.83(1.81 1) 1.67
Using fatigue reduction factor, fatigue stress concentration factor is
kf
1
1
=
0.6
kf r
1.67
(b) From Figure D-3b (in Appendix D), geometric stress concentration factor,
Kt for torsion (for the values D/d=40/34 = 1.18 and r/d = 3/34 = 0.09), is 1.41.
From Figure 7.16, for r=3 mm and Sut =600 MPa (87 Kpsi), notch sensitivity,
q is 0.85, then the fatigue stress concentration correction factor, kf is
kf r
1 + q(Kt 1)
1 + 0.85(1.41 1) 1.35
Using fatigue reduction factor, fatigue stress concentration factor is
kf
=
=
1
kf r
1
0.74
1.35
Above calculations revels that notch sensitivity, q doesnt change much for either case. However, fatigue stress concentration correction factor, kf changes
relatively more.
7.3.6
Miscellaneous Correction Factor
The miscellaneous correction factor km is used for different factors that are not
easily quantifiable. These factors may include the effect of impact, corrosion,
environment, and metal spraying, among others. Hence, the endurance limit, Se0
determined in the laboratory must be modified by km .
EXAMPLE 7.4
In Example 7.3 if the expected reliability is 95% and the applied load is pure
bending, determine the endurance strength, Se . Assume that the machine
operating temperature is 30 C, shaft diameter, D is 46 mm, and fillet, r is
2mm.
SOLUTION
From Figure 7.14, surface correction factor, ka is found to be 0.74. From Eq.7.14,
the size factor is,
16
Design for Fatigue
ks = (
d 0.1133
46 0.1133
)
=(
)
= 0.815
7.62
7.62
From Eq.7.17, temperature correction factor, kt is 1.0. From Table 7.2, reliability
factor for 95% is 0.868. From Figure D-3a (see Appendix D), stress concentration
factor, Kt for the below values is found to be 2.3.
D
d
r
d
=
=
Kt = 2.3
z }| {
46
= 1.12
42
2
= 0.048
42
Using values of Sut =800 MPa (116 ksi) and r=2 mm, notch sensetivity, q is 0.82
(see Figure 7.16). Fatigue reduction factor, kf r is,
kf r = 1 + q(Kt 1) = 1 + 0.82(2.3 1) = 2.066
and the fatigue stress concentration correction factor, kf is
Kf =
1
1
=
= 0.48
kf r
2.066
Since no other factors are mentioned, km =1 From Eq.7.13

Se = Se0 (ka , ks , kt , kr , kf , km ) =
(0.5 800)(0.74 0.815 1.0 0.868 0.48 1.0) = 100.5 MP a
To consider the effect of the stress concentration, either reduce the endurance
limit by introducing kf or increase the applied stress amplitude by introducing
kf r . This will be discussed when safety factors is calculated for fatigue life in
the next sections.
EXAMPLE 7.5
Rotating shaft in bending shown in Figure 7.18 is loaded by the stationary
force, F and supported by ball bearings at A and D. The shaft is machined,
has ultimate strength of 1800 MPa, and yield strength of 1200 MPa. If the
applied force is high enough to create a shaft bending, estimete the fatigue
life of the shaft for the desired reliability of 99%. All the fillets are 4 mm.
SOLUTION
P Investigate the critical section which will fail first. Summation of the forces,
Fy = 0, in the vertical direction gives
R1 + R2 = 8 kN
P
Summation of the bending moments,
M = 0 at point A is (consider counterclockwise is positive), yields
X
M = 8 300 + R2 520 = 0
From force and moment equations, reaction forces, R1 =3.4 kN and R2 = 4.6 kN
can be found. To investigate the critical section which will fail first, calculate
17
Figure 7.18: Rotating shaft under bending.

the bending stresses at points B, C, and D by using the moment diagram given
in Figure 7.18.
MB
(3.4)(200 103 ) = 0.68 kN
MC
(3.4)(300 103 ) = 1.020 kN
MD
(4.6)(120 103 ) = 0.552 kN
Since point B and D has the same fillet radius, section at point B is more critical
than the section at point D. Now, compare the stresses at points B and C sections
to find out the most critical point on the shaft.
MB
I/c
MC
C =
I/c
B =
=
=
32MB
32 0.68 103
=
= 108.3 MPa
d3
(0.04)3
32MC
32 1.020 103
=
= 93.6 MPa
d3
(0.04)3
Since the bending stress at the section B is larger than the bending stress at
section C, B has the critical section. To have a conservative result, we introduce stress concentration factor, Kt at the critical point B. From Figure D1b (in Appendix D), geometric stress concentration factor, Kt (for the values
D/d=48/40 = 1.2 and r/d = 4/40 = 0.1), is 1.3. Then the stress at point B will
be B =108.31.3=140.8 MPa.
Now, stress, B = 140.8 MPa should be compared with the endurance strength
for the life determination. Endurance strength, Se0 is estimated as
Se0 = 0.5Sut = 0.35 1800 = 630 MPa
and
Se = Se0 ka ks kt kr kf km
From Figure 7.14, for Sut =1800 MPa and for machined surface finish, we have
ka =0.51. Size factor, ks is
ks = (
40 0.1133
d 0.1133
)
=(
)
= 0.83
7.62
7.62
18
Design for Fatigue

Fatigue stress consentration factor, kf is
kf =
1
1
=
kf r
1 + q(Kt 1)
From Figure 7.16, for r=4 mm and Sut =1800 MPa (261 Ksi), notch sensitivity,
q is 0.95. Correction factor for reliability of 99% is kr =0.814 (see Table 7.2).
Then,
kf =
1
1
=
= 0.775
kf r
1 + 0.95(1.3 1)
Since other factors were not mentioned, kt = km =0. Therefore, fatigue endurance strength is
Se = 630 0.51 0.83 0.775 0.814 = 168.2 MPa
Stress at critical sectiont B, B =140.8 MPa is less than the fatigue strength,
Se = 168.2 MPa and less than the yield strength, Sy . This means that life is
infinite and no yielding will occur. Note that, although we have considerably
high value of safety factor aginst yielding (n= 1200/140.8 =8.5), safety factor
for infinite fatigure life is very low (n=168.2/140.8=1.2).
EXAMPLE 7.6
Overhung centrifugal compressor shown in Figure 7.19(a) is used in sulfuric
acid plants. Size a shaft to support maximum cyclic load shown in Figure
7.19(b). The shaft material is UNS steel with machined finished. Desired
reliability is 95% and no less than 3 mm fillet is allowable. Assume that
torsional stress is negligible. Shaft material properties are: Sy =400 MPa
and Sut =600 MPa.
SOLUTION
Initially, we size the shaft diameter on the base of static loading and then
perform the dynamic analysis to ensure that the size of the shaft is safe for the
fatigue loading. Assuming that the safety factor, n is equal to 2, permissible
stress, p is given by
Sy
n
400
= 200 MPa
2
Assume that the cyclic load, F =1,200 N is static and constant in direction, then
the bending stress is
Figure 7.19:
Overhung centrifugal
compressor.
M
32(F L)
=
I/c
d3
32(1200 350)
d3
Bending stress, b should be less than or equal to the permissible stress, p
19
b
32(1200 350)
d3
200
Solving above equation for d, yields

r
32(1200 350)
200
d 27.77 mm
3
d =
To be on the safe side, assume that the shaft diameter is 30 mm and the fillet
is 3 mm. Corrected endurance limit, Se is
Se
Se0 (ka ks kr kf )
where Se0 =0.5Sut =0.5 600 = 300 MPa. From Figure 7.14, surface correction
factor, ka =0.78. Size factor, ks for rotating shaft is

ks
d
0.76
0.1133

=
30
0.76
0.1133
= 0.66
Fatigue stress concentration factor, kf is
kf
1
1
=
kf r
1 + q(Kt 1)
From Figure D-1b (in Appendix D), geometric stress concentration factor, Kt
(for the values D/d=36/30 = 1.2 and r/d = 3/30 = 0.1), is 1.64. From Figure
7.16, for r=3 mm and Sut =600 MPa (87.1 Ksi), notch sensitivity, q is 0.83.
Correction factor for reliability of 95% is 0.868 (see Table 7.2). Then,
kf
1
= 0.65
1 + 0.83(1.64 1)
and
Se
300(0.78 0.66 0.868 0.65) = 87 MPa
Considering stress concentration factor, bending stress, b due to the applied

load, F is
32(F L)
Kt
d3
32(1200 350)
1.64 = 260 MPa
303
Since b > Se , shaft will have finite life. For safe and infinite life, shaft
diameter should be increased. Iteration results for different shaft diameters are
shown in Table 7.3. As seen from Table 7.3, shaft diameter, D=56 mm gives
good safety factor.
20
Design for Fatigue
Table 7.3: Values for various material toughness, KIC .7

iteration #
#1
#2
#3
#4
d (mm)
30
40
50
56
ka
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
ks
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.61
kr
0.814
0.814
0.814
0.814
kf
0.65
0.64
0.60
0.59
Se (MPa)
87
76.8
70.9
68.6
b (MPa)
260
113.7
61.6
24.4
ns
0.33
0.68
1.15
2.8
Figure 7.20: (a) Fully-reversed cyclic load, (b) Repeated cyclic load, (c) Fluctuating cyclic load.
7.4
Fluctuating Stresses
Thus far, fatigue analysis is explained based on a fully-reversed load as shown

in Figure 7.20 (a). In some cases, stress applied on structural members fluctuates without passing through zero. For example, two unique cases are shown in
Figure 7.20 (b, c). In this case (where the applied force does not cause complete
reversal), the combination of stress amplitude and mean stress must be considered in the fatigue analysis. Hence, the effect of the mean stress is included in
the fatigue life calculation.
Three approaches will be discussed to determine the safety factor and the
equivalent bending stress, which takes into account the combination of stress
amplitude, a and mean stress, m .
7.4.1
Fatigue Analysis for Fluctuating Normal Stress
Ductile Materials
Fluctuating normal stress combined with the steady state mean stress, m is
shown in Figure 7.21. Soderberg diagram shown in Figure 7.22, is used for
fatigue analysis of ductile materials. Any design on the line of the soderberg
diagram will be safe, with a safety factor of n=1. As seen from Figure 7.22, only
alternating stress component, a is affected by the fatigue strength reduction
factor, kf r , not the steady stress component, m . From similar trangles, OCD
and GED shown in Figure 7.22, we have the following relationship:
21
Figure 7.21: Fluctuating Normal Stress for ductile materials.
Figure 7.22: Soderberg diagram used for ductile material fatigue analysis.
CO
OD
EG
GD
(7.22)
where
Se
n
Sy
OD =
n
EG = kf r a
Sy
GD =
m
n
CO
(7.23)
Substituting Eq.7.23 into Eq.7.22 gives the safety factor for Soderberg criterion
in fluctuating normal stress:
nductile =
Sy
m + (Sy /Se )kf r a
(7.24)
If the loading is only fully reversed cyclic (m =0), the safety factor for ductile
material reduces to
nductile =
Se
kf r a
Eq. 7.25 can be used to define the safety factor in shear as
(7.25)
22
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.23: Fluctuating normal stress for brittle materials.
nbrittle =
Sse
kf rs a
(7.26)
where Sse is the endurance limit in shear, a is the shear stress amplitude, and
kf rs is the fatigue strength reduction factor in shear.
In Eq.7.24, when Kf r = 1, we obtain the Soderberg equation:
m
1
a
+
=
Se
Sy
nductile
(7.27)
If we assume that the design is on the Soderberg design line, further simplification can be made to determine the equivalent bending stress amplitude,
eq , which takes into account the combination of stress amplitude, a , and mean
stress, m .
eq = a (
Sy
)
Sy m
(7.28)
Note that in Eq. 7.27, Se is replaced by eq . The increasing effect of the

mean stress due to tension on a is evident from Eq.7.28. By experiments, it
has been shown that compressive stress has no effect on stress amplitude, a . In
other words, if the mean stress is due to the compressive stress, Eq.7.28 should
not be used. It should be used in fatigue life calculation, providing that the
mean stress, m , is due to tensile loading.
Brittle Materials
Fluctuating normal stress combined with the steady state mean stress, m for
the brittle material is shown in Figure 7.23. The modified Goodman diagram
shown in Figure 7.24 is used for the fatigue analysis of brittle materials. Note
that, since the material is brittle, Sy is replaced by Sut . In the case of brittle
materials, the stress concentration factor, Kt , increases the likelihood of failure.
Therefore, the stress concentration factor will be used for both stress amplitude,
a , and mean stress, m . From similar trangles, OCD and GED shown in Figure
7.24, we have the relationship of
CO
OD
EG
GD
(7.29)
where
Se
n
Sut
OD =
n
EG = Kt a
Sut
GD =
Kt m
n
CO
(7.30)
23
Figure 7.24: Modified Goodman diagram used for brittle material fatigue
analysis.
Substituting Eq.7.30 into Eq.7.29 gives the safety factor for Goodman criterion
in fluctuating normal stress:
nbrittle =
Sut
Kt [m + (Sut /Se )e ]
(7.31)
If the loading is only fully-reversed cyclic, in other words, if the steady stress
component, m , in Eq.7.31 is equal to zero, then the safety factor in fluctuating
normal stress reduces to
nbrittle =
Se
Kt a
(7.32)
Eq.7.32 can be used to define the safety factor in shear as

nbrittle =
Sse
Kts a
(7.33)
where a is the shear stress amplitude and Kts is the stress concentration factor
in shear. In Eq.7.31, when Kt = 1, we obtain the modified Goodman equation:
a
m
1
+
=
Se
Sut
nbrittle
(7.34)
As in the case of ductile material, equation for Goodman design line can also
found by assuming safety factor is equal to 1.
eq = a (
Sut
)
Sut m
(7.35)
Eq.7.35 can only be used when the mean stress, m is due to tensile loading.
If min and max are known, a , m and r (stress range) can be determined
by
24
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.25: Limit stress diagrams.
max min
2
max + min
2
2a
(7.36)
Gerber Criterion
Three design lines which take into account the effect of the tensile normal mean
stress in fatigue analysis are shown in Figure 7.25. Gerber diagram was the first
limit stress diagram proposed by Gerber in 1874 on the base of ultimate strength.
The use of Gerber failure rule in fatigue analysis is not common because of its
non-linear nature. As shown in Figure 7.25, Gerber design line is parabolic
whereas the other two design lines are linear.
In 1899, Goodman proposed a theoretical design line based on the ultimate
strength representing the available data to consider the effect of the tensile normal mean stress in fatigue analysis. Because of its simplicity, the modified
Goodman criterion is much more popular. As seen from Figure 7.25, Goodman
design lines is more conservative than the Gerber line. The Soderberg design line
is based on the yield strength and very conservative. Gerber parabolic relation
is given by
na
nm 2
+(
) =1
Se
Sut
(7.37)
When n=1 in Eq.7.37, we obtain equivalent bending stress for Gerber equation
eq =
a
m 2
1 ( Sut
)
(7.38)
25
EXAMPLE 7.7
A round rotating shaft in bending shown in Figure 7.26 is subjected to
a fluctuating load shown in Figure 7.27. The shaft material is steel fine
grounded and has the elongation more than 5%. If the shaft material has
ultimate strength of 600 MPa and yield strength of 400 MPa, what is the
safety factor against fatigue failure for the desired reliability of 99%.
Figure 7.27:
Fructure surface.
Figure 7.26: Rotating shaft under fluctuating load.
SOLUTION
Estimated fatugue strength is
Se0 = 0.5Sut = 0.5 600 = 300 MPa
From Figure 7.14, surface correction factor, ka =0.9. Size correction factor, ks is
ks = (
d 0.1133
48 0.1133
)
=(
)
= 0.81
7.62
7.62
Reliability correction factor, kr = 0.814 (see Table 7.2 for 99% reliability). Assuming other correction factors has no effect, corrected endurance strength is
Se = Se0 (ka ks kr ) = 300(0.9 0.81 0.814) = 178 MPa
Note that, fatigue stress concentration factor, kf is not included in estimating
endurance limit, Se . Instead, fatigue reduction factor, kf r will be considered in
safety factor calculation. Safety factor for ductile material is
nductile =
Sy
m + (Sy /Se )kf r a
From Figure D-3a (in Appendix D), geometric stress concentration factor, Kt
7.16, for r=6 mm and Sut =600 MPa (87.1 Ksi), notch sensitivity, q is 0.84.
Then, fatigue reduction factor, kf r is
kf r = 1 + q(Kt 1) = 1 + 0.84(1.4 1) = 1.34
Stress amplitude, a and mean stress, m are calculated by
100 (20)
max min
=
= 60 MPa
2
2
max + min
100 + (20)
=
= 40 MPa
2
2
26
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.28: Fluctuating combined stresses for ductile materials.
Then the safety factor is
nductile =
7.4.2
Sy
400
=
= 1.8
m + (Sy /Se )kf r a
40 + (400/178) 1.34 60
Fatigue analysis for Combined Fluctuating Stresses
Combined fluctuating normal and shear stresses may occur in shafts, crankshafts,
aircraft wings and in many other mechanical rotating components due to axial,
bending, and torsional forces acting together. Maximum stresses on the components will occur when the fluctuating normal and shear stresses are in phase.
This phenomenon should be considered in the design analysis so that there will
be a phase difference between two force components.
Combined Stresses Based on Maximum Shear Stress and Maximum Distortion Energy Theories for Ductile Materials
As shown in Figure 7.2811 , normal stress has two components. Steady state
normal stress, m and fluctuating stress component, kf r a . Shear stress also
has two components. Steady state shear stress, m and the fluctuating shear
component of kf rs a . Applied forces are shown in Figure 7.29 on element A
for a thickness of t. Let,
Figure 7.29:
Resulting forces
on an element A.
m + kf rs a
m + kf rs a
m + kf r a
(7.39)
In Eq.7.39, for the wost case, shear and normal forces are taken to be in phase.
A summation of forces in the tangential direction for a unit thicness yields
d + x dy cos y dy sin + x dx cos = 0
(7.40)
dy
dy
dx
cos y
sin + x
cos = 0
d
d
d
(7.41)
or
+ x
Replacing dy/d = sin and dx/d = cos and substituting Eq.7.39 into Eq.7.41,
gives
11 Adapted
from Arthur H. Burr, 1981. Mechanical Analysis and Design.Elsevier, New York.
27
= (m + kf r a ) sin cos (m + kf rs a ) sin2

+(m + kf rs a ) cos2
(7.42)
By using following trogonometric relationships, Eq.7.42 can be rearranges as
sin cos =
sin 2
cos 2 + 1
1 cos 2
; cos2 =
; sin2 =
2
2
2
kf r a
m
=(
sin 2 + m cos 2) + (
sin 2 + kf rs a cos 2)
2
{z
} | 2
{z
}
|
(7.43)
As can be seen from Eq. 7.43, shear stress, has two components steady state
component, m
and alternating component, a . Figure 7.30 shows Soderberg
design line for the maximum shear stress creterion. From similar triangles BDC
and AOC (see Figure 7.30), we have
Figure 7.30:
Sodeberd design line for
shear stresses based on
maximum shear stress
theory.
DC
OC
BD
OA
(7.44)
where
DC = (Sy /2)/n m
; OC = (Sy /2)/n; BD = a ; OA = (Se /2)/n
Substituting above values in Eq.7.44, yields
a
(Sy /2)/n m
=
(Sy /2)/n
(Se /2)/n
(7.45)
= m + a
n
Sy /2 Se /2
(7.46)
or
Substituting m
and a from Eq.7.43 into Eq.7.46, gives
m
1
kf r a
m
kf rs a
=(
+
) sin 2 + 2(
+
) cos 2
n
Sy
Se
Sy
Se
|
{z
} |
{z
}
A
(7.47)
Then, Eq. 7.47 becomes

1
= A sin 2 + 2B cos 2
n
(7.48)
Differentiation of Eq.7.48 and equating to zero will provide the minimum value
of the safety factor n.
Figure 7.31:
Triangle for trigonometric
relationship.
d 1
( ) = 2A cos 2 4B sin 2 = 0
d n
Eq.7.49 yields the following trogonometric relationships (see Figure 7.31)
(7.49)
28
Design for Fatigue
tan 2 =
A
2B
A
; cos 2 =
; sin 2 =
2
2
2
2B
A + 4B
A + 4B 2
(7.50)
Substituting Eq.7.50 into Eq.7.48 and rearranging the terms gives the minimum
safety factor, n on the base of maximum shear stress criterion.
n= q
(m +
Sy
Sy
2
Se kf r a )
+ 4(m +
(7.51)
Sy
2
Se kf rs a )
Simply by changing the coefficient of the shear stress term from 4 to 3 in Eq.
7.51 we obtain the equation for maximum distortion energy theory for the ductile
materials.
n= q
(m +
Sy
Sy
2
Se kf r a )
+ 3(m +
(7.52)
Sy
2
Se kf rs a )
Combined Stresses Based on Maximum Shear Stress and Maximum

Distortion Energy Theories for Brittle Materials
Similar equation can be obtained for brittle materials by using the stress components of Kt (m + a ) and Kt (m + a ). For maximum shear theory safety
factor, n is
n=
Sut
q
Sut
1
1
Kt2 (m +
2 Kt (m + Se a ) + 2
(7.53)
Sut
2
Se a )
2 ( +
+ 4Kts
m
Sut
2
Se a )
Changing the coefficient of the shear stress term from 4 to 3 in Eq. 7.53 we obtain
the equation for maximum distortion energy theory for the brittle materials
n=
Sy ut
q
Sut
1
1
2 ( +
Kt2 (m + SSut
a )2 + 3Kts
m
2 Kt (m + Se a ) + 2
e
(7.54)
Sut
2
Se a )
29
EXAMPLE 7.8
Figure 7.32 shows that torque transmission couplings for transmitting rotary power from a motor to a rotating machine. Since shaft is installed in
misaligned bearing, as the shaft rotates the shaft outer fibers go through a
tension-compression cycles (see Figure 7.33). Also, shaft misalignment (angular, parallel, or combination of two) through coupling creates an initial
system preload and consequently creating mean stress, as shown in Figure
7.33. Moreover, assume that shaft misalignment provides steady torsional
stress of m =1.5 Mpa from the driving shaft to driven shaft. Consider the
time dependent torque is negligible.
Figure 7.32:
Rotor system.
The shaft material is machined, has the ultimate strength of 1000 MPa, and
yield strength of 600 MPa with more than 5% elongation. Determine the
safety factor of the shaft for a 99% of reliability.
SOLUTION
Estimated fatigue strength is
Se0 = 0.5Sut = 0.5 1000 = 500 MPa
Figure 7.33:
Fluctuating load.
From Figure 7.14, surface correction factor, ka =0.71. Size correction factor, ks
is
ks = (
d 0.1133
40 0.1133
)
=(
)
= 0.83
7.62
7.62
Reliability correction factor, kr = 0.814 (see Table 7.2 for 99% reliability). Assuming other correction factors has no effect, corrected endurance strength is
Se = Se0 (ka ks kr ) = 500(0.71 0.83 0.814) = 240 MPa
Safety factor for ductile material is
n= q
Sy
(m +
Sy
2
S e kf r a )
+ 3(m +
Sy
2
Se kf rs a )
fatigue reduction factor, kf r is

kf r = 1 + q(Kt 1)
From Figure D-3a (in Appendix D), geometric stress concentration factor, Kt
7.16, for r=3 mm and Sut =1000 MPa (145 Ksi), notch sensitivity, q is 0.90.
Then, fatigue reduction factor, kf r is
kf r = 1 + 0.9(1.7 1) = 1.63
Since time dependent torque is negligible, safety equation becomes
n= q
(m +
Sy
Sy
2
Se kf r a )
+ 3(m )2
30
Design for Fatigue

In the above equation, m and a are
max min
80 (40)
=
= 60 MPa
2
2
max + min
80 + (40)
=
= 20 MPa
2
2
Substituting all the calculated and known parameters into the safety equation,
gives
n= q
7.5
600
= 2.27
2
2
[20 + ( 600
240 )(1.63)(60)] + 3(1.5)
Miners Rule Cumulative Fatigue Damage
Miners rule first proposed by Palmgren in 1924 and was further developed by
Miner in 1945. It the simplest and most widely used cumulative damage models
for fatigue life estimation under variable amplitude loading. Miners rule states
that if there are k different stress level of amplitudes, a , then the damage
fraction, D, is:
k
X
ni
N
fi
i=1
(7.55)
n2
nk
n1
+
+ ... +
Nf 1
Nf 2
Nf k
(7.56)
D=
or
D=
Where n is the number of cycles at stress amplitude, a , and Nf is the total

failure cycle corresponding to that stress amplitude a . Damage fraction, D
is experimentally found to be between 0.7 and 2.2. For design purposes, in
general,we assume that when the damage fraction, D reaches 1, failure occurs.
Miners rule (linear damage rule) is used in estimating the cumulative damage
of machine components at stress levels exceeding the endurance limit. According
to Miners rule, if a machine component is subjected to a constant amplitude
cyclic load and fails after Nf cycles, each cycle expended 1/Nf fraction of the
components total life. This can be thought of as determining what proportion
of total life is spent by stress reversal at each magnitude then developing a linear
combination of their damages. For example, if a machine component is subjected
to n1 reversed stress cycle at a stress level of 1 , n2 reversed stress cycle at a
stress level of 2 , and so on what is the damage done on the machine component.
EXAMPLE 7.9
Assume that the cantilever beam shown in Figure 7.34 has the material
properties of: Sut =80 kpsi and Sy =60 kpsi. Suppose the loads P1 and P2
(see Figure 7.34) on the beam produce fluctuating stress of 1 for a total
of n1 =5,000 cycles and 2 for a total of n2 =60,000 cycles. Determine the
damage and the remaining life of the beam.
SOLUTION
Bending stress due to bending moment, M = P L is
31
Figure 7.34: Cantilever beam under cyclic load.
M
I/c
where
I
D3
(4)3
=
=
= 6.28 in3
c
32
32
Maximum and minimum stresses due to P1 are
1max =
9 40
= 57.33 kpsi
6.28
1min =
2 40
= 12.74 kpsi
6.28
Then, the stress amplitude, a and the mean stress, m are
1a
1max 1min
57.33 (12.74)
=
= 35.035 kpsi
2
2
1m
1max + 1min
57.33 + (12.74)
=
= 22.295 kpsi
2
2
To calculate the equivalent stress, 1eq , we choose Soderberg-line relationships

(ductile material) as
1eq = 1a
Sy
60
= 35.035[
] = 55.75 kpsi
(Sy 1m )
(60 22.295)
Equivalent stress, 1eq = 55.75 kpsi includes the effect of the mean stress, 1m
for the damage calculation. Using similar calculations, following results are
obtained for the flactuating load, P2 :
2max =
4 40
= 25.48 kpsi
6.28
2min =
1 40
= 6.37 kpsi
6.28
and
2a
2m
Equivalent stress is
2max 2min
25.48 (6.37)
=
= 15.925 kpsi
2
2
2max + 2min
25.48 + (6.37)
=
= 9.555 kpsi
2
2
32
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.35: Aproximated S-N cureve.
2eq

Sy
60
= 2a
= 15.925
= 18.94 kpsi
(Sy 2m )
(60 9.555)
To estimate the total life corresponding to the stress levels, we develop SN

curve for the beam material using Table 7.2. Simply having straight line through
the points A(Nf =103 , 0.9 Sut ) and B(Ne =106 , 0.5 Sut ) plot an approximated
S N curve as shown in Figure 7.35.
From Figure 7.35, the total life, N1 corresponding to the stress level of 1eq =55.75
kpsi is 34,000 cycles. Similarly, the total life for the stress level, 2eq =18.94 kpsi
is infinity. Substituting into the damage equation, D we have

60, 000
n1
n2
5, 000
+
D=
+
)100 = D = (
100 = 14.7%
N1
N2
34, 000
Remaining life, RL is
RL = 100 D = 100 14.7 = 85.3%
7.5.1
Offshore Pipeline Fatigue Application
As shown in Figure 7.36, riser is a long tensioned cylindrical hollow steel tube
that connects an offshore floating production structure or a drilling vessel to a
sub-sea system for drilling or production purposes. Riser is considered to be the
most critical component in an offshore pipeline development taking into account
the dynamic wave and current loads and hostile service conditions it has to
withstand. Riser ball joints are used in the upper and lower portion of the riser
to provide flexibility. When riser used in water depths greater than about 20
meters, it has to be tensioned to maintain stability. Riser not only protects the
drill pipe from wave and current forces but also provide a path for the return
of the drilling fluid back to the drilling vessel. It is evident that the drill pipe
undergoes a relatively sharp bend due to the deflection of the ball joints caused
by wave and current loads on the riser string. The bend at the ball joints can
cause fluctuating stresses and consequently results in fatigue damage to the drill
pipe that is inside the riser. In general, to be safe, in drilling from drilling vessels,
an allowable ball joint angle should not be more than approximately 5 degrees.
33
Figure 7.36: Marine riser system.
EXAMPLE 7.10 12
Develop a mathematical modelling to drive the bending moment equation
when a riser is bend and tensioned by a tensile force through riser tensioner
shown in Figure 7.36.
SOLUTION
An element of the deformed drill pipe experiences a bending moment and shear
forces while passing through the riser ball joint. To drive the bending moment
and shear force equations, consider the free-body diagram shown in Figure 7.37.
In this figure, is the ball joint angle which creates the bending moment in drill
pipe. For equilibrium of the element shown in Figure 7.37, summation of the
forces in the y direction should be equal to zero
X
Fy = 0
Q + (Q + dQ) = 0 dQ = 0 Q = constant
(7.57)
(7.58)
Note that, in above equation, since y component of the tension, T is small it

is ignored. For equilibrium of the element, summation of the moments about
point A should be equal to zero
Figure 7.37:
Free-body diagram
of a drill pipe.
MA = 0
(CCW +)
(7.59)
12 Adapted from A. Ertas et al., The Effect of Tool Joint Stiffness on Drill Pipe Fatigue in
Riser Ball Joints, Transactions, ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 111, no. 4,
pp. 369374, 1989.
34
Design for Fatigue
M + dM M + Qdx T dy = 0
(7.60)
dM
dy
T
= Q
dx
dx
(7.61)
Divide Eq.7.60 by dx
Taking the derivative of Eq.7.61 with respect to x yields (Note that from Eq.
the shear force Q is constant)
d2 M
d2 y
T
=0
dx2
dx2
(7.62)
Remembering bending moment equation
M = EI
d2 y
dx2
(7.63)
Substituting Eq.7.63 into Eq.7.62, yields
EI
d4 y
d2 y
T 2 =0
4
dx
dx
(7.64)
or
y 0000
T 00
y =0
EI
(7.65)
Consider tension, T , and EI are constant and let
k2 =
T
EI
(7.66)
Then Eq.7.65 becomes

y 0000 k 2 y 00 = 0
(7.67)
y = C1 + C2 x + C3 cosh(kx) + C4 sinh(kx)
(7.68)
The solution of Eq.7.67 is
By the help of Figure 7.37, boundary conditions can be written as

d2 y
M
(a) x=0, y=0, y 0 =0, dx
2 = EI
2
d y
dy
0
(b) x , M 0, dx
2 =0, y = dx
Applying boundary conditions for x=0, y=0, Eq.7.68 yields
C1 + C3 = 0 C3 = C1
Substituting Eq.7.69 into Eq.7.68 gives
(7.69)
35
y = C1 + C2 x + C1 cosh(kx) + C4 sinh(kx)
(7.70)
Derivative of Eq.7.70 with respect to x gives the slope, y 0
y0 =
dy
= C1 k sinh(kx) + C2 + C4 k cosh(kx)
dx
(7.71)
Applying boundary conditions of x=0, y 0 =0, yields
C2 + C4 k = 0 C4 =
C2
k
(7.72)
Substituting Eq.7.72 into Eq.7.70, gives
y = C1 [1 cosh(kx)] +
C2
[kx sinh(kx)]
k
(7.73)
The second derivative of Eq.7.71 with respect to x gives
y 00 =
d2 y
= k [C1 k cosh(kx) C2 sinh(kx)]
dx2
(7.74)
Considering the moment equation
M = EI
d2 y
dx2
and applying boundary conditions when x , M 0,

k [C1 k cosh(kx) C2 sinh(kx)] = 0
(7.75)
d2 y
dx2 =0,
yields
(7.76)
In Eq.7.76, since k cannot be zero, terms in the bracket should be equal to

zero
[C1 k cosh(kx) C2 sinh(kx)] = 0
(7.77)
C1 k = C2 tanh(kx)
(7.78)
or
As seen from Figure 7.38, tanh(kx) is a function when x approaches to infinity

y = tanh(kx) 1
Then, from Eq.7.78, we have
Figure 7.38:
The tanh(kx)
function.
C1 =
Substituting Eq.7.79 into Eq.7.73
C2
k
(7.79)
36
Design for Fatigue
y=
C2
C2
[1 cosh(kx)] +
[kx sinh(kx)]
k
k
(7.80)
Taking derivative of Eq.7.80

y0 =
dy
= C2 {[sinh(kx) cosh(kx)] + 1}
dx
(7.81)

1
dy
+
1
= C2
dx
1/ekx
(7.82)
or
y0 =
Applying boundary condition of y 0 = 0 when x , we obtain
= C2
(7.83)
Substituting Eq.7.83 into Eq.7.80 gives the deflection equation
y = {[1 cosh(kx)] [kx sinh(kx)]}

k
(7.84)
Derivative of Eq.7.84 gives the slope equation

y0 =
dy
= C2 {[sinh(kx) + (1 cosh(kx))]}
dx
(7.85)
Taking the derivative of Eq.7.85

y 00 =
d2 y
= k{[cosh(kx)] [sinh(kx)]}
dx2
(7.86)
And substituting Eq.7.86 into moment equation of
M = EI
d2 y
dx2
(7.87)
yields the bending momemnt equation
M (x) =
T
{[cosh(kx)] [sinh(kx)]}
k
(7.88)
Where is the riser upper ball joint angle and

r
k=
T
EI
(7.89)
37
Figure 7.39: S-N curve for grade E drill pipe.
EXAMPLE 7.11 13
By using S-N curve approach (see Figure 7.39), find the cumulative fatigue
damage inflicted on the drill pipe during one pass through riser ball joint.
One pass is defined as vertical movement of the drill pipe through 144 inches
while being rotated. Assume that the drill pipe is subjected to a constant
axial tension load of 100,000 lbf to prevent failure by buckling and has the
material with elongation less than 5%.
SOLUTION
During the drilling operation, the drill pipe is subjected to alternate bending
stresses (compression and tension) due to rotation. This bending stress is maximum at the ball joint and falloffs exponentially with distance from the ball
joint, both below and above. As a result, when the drill pipe makes one pass
through, the upper ball joint, as each joint of the drill pipe passes through the
ball joint, experiences cumulative fatigue damage from stress cycles of widely
varying amplitudes.
Calculation of Constants Used in Computation
Given Design Data
Modulus of elasticity of drill-pipe material, E
Yields strength of drill-pipe material, ys
Penetration speed of drill pipe, V
Outside diameter of drill pipe, Do
Inside diameter of drill pipe, Di
Rotational speed of drill pipe, n
Tension load, T
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
30 106 psi
90 kpsi
120 in./h
5.00 in.
4.276 in.
100 rpm
100 kips
The moment of inertia of drill pipe is

I=
(Do4 Di4 )
(54 4.2764 )
=
= 14.27in.4
64
64
13 Adapted from A. Ertas et al., The Effect of Tool Joint Stiffness on Drill Pipe Fatigue in
Riser Ball Joints, Transactions, ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 111, no. 4,
pp. 369374, 1989.
38
Design for Fatigue

The value of constant k for T = 100,000 lb and E = 30 106 psi, is
s
r
T
100,000
k=
=
= 0.01528 in.1
EI
(30 106 )(14.27)
The cross-sectional area of the drill pipe is
(52 4.2762 )
(Do2 Di2 )
=
= 5.275 in.2
4
4
A=
The mean stress m , due to tension load of 100 kips, is

m =
T
100
=
= 18.96 kpsi
A
5.275
Since drill pipe material is brittle (material elongation less than 5%), we use
modified Goodman equation

Sut
eq = a
Sut m
{z
}
|
Fcr
The correction factor Fcr , which takes into account the mean stress, is
Fcr =
Sut
100
= 1.234
=
Sut m
100 18.96
The following steps are performed to determine the cumulative fatigue damage inflicted on the drill pipe during one pass through the upper ball joint:
Step 1 Divide a joint of the drill pipe into a number of finite elements.
As shown in Figure 7.40, smaller elements are taken close to the higher stress
region. As we will learn later, the fatigue damage calculation will show that the
bending moment beyond a distance of 72 in. of the ball joint has no significant
contribution to the life of a drill pipe.
Step 2 Calculate the bending moment using Eq.7.88. For = 1 (0.01744
rad) the bending moment M at x = 0 is
Figure 7.40:
Schematic of a
drill pipe in a
ball joint.
M (x = 0)
M (x = 0)

= (100,000) 1
180
sinh(0.01528)(0)]

1
0.01528

[cosh(0.01528)(0)
114.20 kips in.
Similarly, the calculated bending moment at x = 6 in. is M (x = 6) = 104.22

kips-in. The average bending moment at the first element, Mave (El.1), can now
be calculated as
Mave (EL.1) =
114.20 + 104.22
= 109.21 kips in.
2
Step 3 Determine the average alternating (reversed) bending stress av (x),

from the following relation
av (EL.1) =
Mave (EL.1) Do
109.21 5
=
= 19.13 kpsi
2I
2 14.27
Step 4 Determine the equivalent stress, eq , by the use of the equation representing the modified Goodman line to account for the mean stress due to nominal
tension.
39
Table 7.4: Fatigue damage calculation.

EL.
No.
1
x
(in.)
x =0
x =6
M (x)
(kips-in.)
114.20
104.22
Mave
(kips-in.)
109.22
av
(kpsi)
19.13
eq
(kpsi)
23.61
n
(cycle)
300
N
(cycle)
5 105
(n/N) 100
%
0.06
x=6
x =18
104.22
86.76
95.49
16.73
20.64
600
inf.
0.0
x =18
x =36
86.76
65.90
76.33
13.37
16.50
900
inf.
0.0
x =36
x =72
65.90
38.00
51.95
9.10
11.23
1800
inf.
0.0
eq (El.1) = Fcr av (EL.1) = 1.234 19.13 = 23.61 kpsi

This is done because a tensile load superimposed on a drill pipe experiencing
alternating bending stress reduces its endurance limit. Hence, the fatigue effect
of bending becomes more severe because of this tensile load.
Step 5 Evaluate the number of stress reversals n1 for the first element from
the following relations.
n1 =
rpm 60 L1
100 60 (6 in. 0 in.)
=
= 300 cycles
V
120
Step 6 Find the number of cycles N1 for failure at the stress level of 23.61
kpsi for the first element from the SN curve shown in Figure 7.39. Note that, if
the stress level is higher than 53 kpsi (see S-N curve given in Figure 7.39), total
life, N , should be assumed to be 104 cycles.
N1 = 500, 000 cycles
Step 7 Apply Miners rule to evaluate the cumulative fatigue damage for the
first element.
n1
300
100 =
100 = 0.06%
N1
500, 000
This procedure is repeated for the remaining elements, and the results are
summarized in Table7.4. Note that Figure 7.39 shows that the life is infinite at
stresses below 20 kpsi. Therefore, stresses below 20 kpsi, the damage is assumed
to be zero. The total damage to the drill pipe during its passage through the
location beginning 72 in. above and ending 72 in. below (one pass) the upper
joint can be calculated as follows:

n2
n3
n4
n1
+
+
+
100
2
N1
N2
N3
N4
2 (0.06 + 0 + 0 + 0) = 0.12%

Total damage =
=
40
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.41: T2 oil tanker catastrophic failure.1
7.6
Fracture Mechanics Based Fatigue Analysis
Fracture mechanics is an alternative approach for fatigue assessment and has

evolved over the last several decades. Estimation of fatigue lives on mechanical
components is an essential part of engineering design. Fracture mechanics approach can be divided into linear fracture mechanics (LEFM) and elasto-plastic
fracture mechanics (EPFM). LEFM gives good results for brittle elastic materials such as high-strength steel, glass, ice, concrete, etc. When the applied load
is low enough, LEFM stays to provide good results for ductile materials such as
low carbon steel, stainless steel, and some aluminium alloys.
Fracture failure can also be classified on the base of the ability of a material
to experience plastic deformation as:
(a) Ductile fracture associated with significant plastic deformation.
(a) Brittle fracture associated with little or no plastic deformation and
sudden catastrophic failure.
Brittle fracture, due to the loss of plasticity, was first studied as early as the
1950s. With the development of welding and its application to the construction
of large-scale structures, a certain number of catastrophic failures have occurred.
As shown in Figure 7.41, the T2 oil tankers splitted in two in cold weather built
in large quantities in the United States during World War II. Investigations
showed that the tendency of the tankers to split in two was due to poor welding
techniques. But later, it was concluded that the steel used in the war time
construction had too high a sulfur content that turned the steel brittle at lower
temperatures14 . Again, during the World War II, United States started to build
all-welded cargo vessels (Liberty Ships). 2708 Liberty Ships were constructed
from 1939 to 1945. 1031 accidents due to brittle fracture were reported by April
1946. More than 200 Liberty Ships were sink or damaged beyond repair. The
investigation showed that the failures were caused by development of brittle
crack because of the poor fracture toughness of welded joints. These accidents
showed importance of fracture toughness which started the birth of the fracture
mechanics. Another example is the bridge failure in Rudesdorf and Hasselt in
1938. As shown in Figure 7.42, on a cold morning in March 1938, the Hasselt
Road Bridge in Belgium suddenly and unexpectedly collapsed and fell into the
14 http://www.scoopweb.com/T2-Tanker,
accessed; April 2, 2013.
41
Figure 7.42: Collapse of Hasselt Bridge.2

Albert Canal, less than two years after its completion. Investigation showed
that the collapse of the bridge was started by the fracture of the lower chord,
starting with a crack initiating from a transverse butt welding15 .
Under certain conditions a ductile metal may behave as if it were brittle and
a brittle metal may behave in a ductile manner. Ductile materials frequently
undergo brittle fracture however, brittle materials rarely crack in a ductile mode.
There are a number of affecting factors that makes steel behave in brittle rather
than a ductile manner losing its capacity of plastic strains. The factors that
may cause these different behaviors include: temperature, loading rate, plate
thickness, steel quality, and corrosive environment.2
Temperature Temperature has a significant affect on the ductility of metarials. Low temperature decreases ductility, while high temperature increases it.
Low temperature is the most apparent reason for the bridges in Belgium that
failed in the late 1930s. when the temperature is normal and the loading rate
is relatively low steel is capable of elongating approximately 20% (ductile behavior). However, when steel is subjected to impact loading, at the presence
of notches, and at cold temperatures, it can fracture in a brittle manner (i.e.
without elongating).
Loading rate When the loading rate increases slowly, there is enough time
for microscopic movements in the material to occur and the material deforms
plastically before failure occur. Since there is not enough time for microscopic
movements to take place, rapid load of rate change often causes a ductile material
to behave in a brittle manner. Both the yield strength and the tensile strength
increases with an increase in loading rate and the result will be reduced ability
to elongate plastically.
Severe temperature change could also have the same negative effect on the
capacity to respond in a ductile manner, like increased loading rate has. When
a sharp notch exists a fast temperature drop may initiate cleavage fracture.
Investigations showed that it was the case in the Rdersdorf Bridge. Just
before the brittle fracture of its bridge beams the temperature fell from 0 to
12 C within a very short period of time. As the material is fast contracting
there is not only a decrease in the capacity to respond in a ductile manner, but
also a high possibility that rapid high tensile stresses can be produced because
of an uneven temperature change.2
Plate thickness The thicker the plate is the higher the possibility of a brittle
behavior of a steel material. Conversely, thin plates are more likely to fail in a
ductile manner. Thin parts will usually have a shear lip or fracture at an angle
this is characteristic of a ductile fracture. The shear lip becomes smaller as
thickness increases and the fracture becomes more brittle.
Material quality The tensile strength increases with the increase of carbon
content in steel. However, material ductility reduces. The content of sulphur
15 Hasselt Bridge. http://ebooks.narotama.ac.id/files/Understanding%20Bridge%20
Collapses/Chapter%205%20%20%20Hasselt%20Bridge.pdf, accessed: April 3, 2013.
42
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.43: Aloha Airlines Flight 243 extensive damage after an explosive
decompression in flight.3
and phosphorus are also factors affecting ductility negatively. Materials with
high carbon content may not be suitable for welding.
Corrosive environment High stresses combined with a corrosive environment
can cause critical components to crack and fail, sometimes with little warning.
Aloha Airlines Flight 243 While flying from Hilo to Honolulu suffered extensive
damage after an explosive decompression in flight (see Figure 7.43), but was able
to land safely at Kahului Airport. One flight attendant was blown out of the
airplane and another 65 passengers and crew were injured. This was a significant event in the history of aviation, with far-reaching effects on aviation safety
policies and procedures. Investigation showed that the accident was caused by
metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion. The plane was 19 years old and
operated in a coastal environment, with exposure to salt and humidity.16
To reduce the risk of catastrophic failure by fracture mentioned in this section, designers and analysts should become familiar with fracture control requirements. Fracture criticality of structural parts and components must be
documented and required analyses, inspections and other fracture control activities need to be implemented and monitored to ensure that the remaining life of
the components would not create failure risk.
7.6.1
Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Fatigue Resistance
Fracture mechanics approach assumes:

(a) there are preexisting flaws or cracks in a structural component, and
(b) fatigue life of the component is determined by the rate of growth of these
cracks under cyclic loading.
Three possible material separation modes for crack extension under external
load are shown in Figure 7.44. In most of the engineering problems, mode II
in-plane shear and mode III out-of-plane shear have limited application. Hence,
only mode I, tensile opening mode, will be discussed in the following section.
Stress State in a Crack (Mode I)
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) can be used to provide preliminary
design guidelines. As shown in Figure7.45, a plate is subjected to a tensile
stress, y at infinity with a crack length of 2a . An element dxdy of the plate
16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha
Airlines Flight 243,
accessed: April 3, 2013.
43
Figure 7.44: Fracture modes.
Figure 7.45: Crack in an infinite plate subjected to a tensile stress.
at a distance r from the crack tip and at an angle with respect to the crack
plane will have the following stress field17 :
xy
3
I cos (1 sin sin )
2
2
2
2r
K
3
I cos (1 + sin sin )
2
2
2
2r
KI
(sin cos cos )

2
2
2
2r
(7.90)
(7.91)
(7.92)
For plane stress, z =0. For plain strain, z = (x + y ), xy = yz = 0. The

magnitude of the stress intensity factor, KI depends on load (in this case, mode
I: tensile load), structural geometry, size, and the location of the crack. The
expression for KI is given by
17 G. R. Irwin, Analysis of Stresses and Strains Near the End of a Crack Traversing a Plate,
Transactions, ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 24, 1957.
44
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.46: Crack types: (a) Central through thickness crack, (b) single-edge
through thickness crack, (c) double-edge through thickness crack, (d) three point
bend specimen.
KI = a
(7.93)
Using correction factor f (a/W ), Eq. 7.93 can be modified to determine

the stress intensity factor of the crack type commonly seen crack configurations
under an applied stress as shown in Figure 7.46.
KI = af (a/W )
(7.94)
Functions, f (a/W ) to correct the stress intensity factor for different crack configurations are given below 18 .
(a) Central through thickness crack (accuracy better than 0.5% for (a/W)
0.5):
f (a/W )

a
a 2
a 3
1 + 0.128
0.288
+ 1.525
W
W
W
(7.95)
(b) Single-edge through thickness crack (accuracy is 0.5% for (a/W) 0.6):

a
a 2
a 3
a 4
f (a/W ) = 1.122 0.231
+ 10.550
21.710
+ 30.382
W
W
W
W
(7.96)
18 H. Tada, P.C. Paris, and G. R. Irwin, 2000. The stress analysis of cracks handbook. The
Material Information Society.
45
Table 7.5: Values for various material toughness, KIC .19
Material type Material

KIC (MPa m)
Aluminum alloy (7075)
24
Steel alloy (4340)
50
Metal
Titanium alloy
44 - 66
Aluminum
14 - 28
Aluminium oxide
3-5
Ceramic
Silicon carbide
3-5
Soda-lime glass
0.7 - 0.8
Concrete
0.2 - 1.4
Polymer
Polymethyl methacrylate
0.7 - 1.6
Polystyrene
0.7 - 1.1
Mullite-fibre composite
1.8 - 3.3
Composite
Silica aerogels
0.0008 - 0.0048
(c) Double-edge through thickness crack (accuracy better than 0.5% for (a/W)
> 0.4):

a 3
a
a 2
+ 1.930
f (a/W ) = 1.12 + 0.203
1.197
(7.97)
W
W
W
(d) Single-edge through thickness crack in pure bending (accuracy is 0.2% for
(a/W) 0.6):

a
a 2
a 3
a 4
f (a/W ) = 1.122 1.40
+ 7.33
13.08
+ 14.0
W
W
W
W
(7.98)
(e) Three point bend specimen (accuracy is 0.5% for any (a/W):
=
6M
b2
where M =
PS
4
(7.99)
For S/b=4
1
1.99 a/W (1 a/W )[2.15 3.93a/W + 2.7(a/W 2 ]
f (a/W ) =
(7.100)
(1 + 2a/W )(1 a/W )3/2

When the normal stress, , is equal to Sy , the material becomes unstable
and plastic deformation occurs. Note that a similar analogy can be used for
material failure such that when the stress-intensity factorKI reaches the critical
stress-intensity factor (also known fracture toughness), KIC , significant crack
propagation occurs. When the materials thickness is greater than some critical value, repeatable fracture toughness, KIC can only be obtained under the
condition of plane strain rather than plane stress conditions. Thus, the designer
must keep the value lower than KIC value in the same way that the normal
stresss, , due to the applied force must be lower than the yield strength, Sy , for
a safe design. Once the value of KIC for a material of a particular thickness is
known, the designer can determine the crack size that can be allowed in structural members for a given stress level. Values for various material toughness is
given in Table7.519 .
19 http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094 NoteBook/97ClassProj/exper/gordon/www
/fractough.html, accessed: April 10, 2013.
46
Design for Fatigue

Toughness is a measure of how much energy a material can absorb before
rupturing. On the other hand, hardness is a measure of how much energy it
takes to deform a material. If the required energy is little to deform a material
it is called soft material such as rubber. If the material takes a lot of energy to
deform, it is called hard materials such as steel.
High toughness is especially important for machine components which may
experience impact or for components where a fracture would be catastrophic
such as pressure vessels and aircraft. Toughness changes with temperature; some
materials change from being tough to brittle as temperature decreases such as
steel or rubber. As we have discussed earlier, a known example of this problem
in steels was the ships which broke in two in cold seas during the second World
War.
EXAMPLE 7.12
Assume that a=6 mm through thickness crack is subjected to a tensile stress
as shown in Figure
7.47. The steel plate has a critical stress intensity factor,
KIC = 25 MPa m. Determine the maximum tensile stress for failure if:
(a) the through thickness crack is at the center of the steel plate with
finite width (W=80 mm) and length (h=100 mm), and
(b) the through thickness crack is in a long and wide steel plate.
SOLUTION
(a) Since the crack is at the center of a plate with finite width and length,
functions, f (a/W ) to correct the stress intensity factor is
f (a/W )
=
=
=

a 2
a 3
a
0.288
+ 1.525
1 + 0.128
W
W
W
"

2
3 #
6
6
6
1 + 0.128
0.288
+ 1.525
80
80
80
1.009
Eq.7.94 can be modified to calculate the maximum tensile stress for failure as
Figure 7.47:
Through-thickness crack
in a plate.
max
KIC
af (a/W )
25 103
= 180.5 MPa
6 1.009
=
=
(b) Since the steel plate is is long and wide, we assume that a through-thickness
crack is at the center of the plate. Then, the infinite plate formula as in Eq.7.93
will be modified to calculate the maximum tensile stress for failure.
max
=
=
K
IC
a
25 103
= 182.13 MPa
6
47

Elliptical Crack in an Infinite Plate
Figure 7.48:
Elliptical crack in an
infinite solid.
The problem of an imbedded elliptical or semielliptical crack in an infinite solid

has attracted much attention in engineering application. In pressurized components and vessels such as pressure vessels and pipelines, a crack easily develops
from small defects and material imperfections.
The commonly used approximation for the stressintensity factor at any
point along the perimeters of internal elliptical or circular cracks within an infinite solid, loaded by a uniform uniaxial tension (see Figure 7.48) is defined
by20
a
a2
KI =
(sin2 + 2 cos2 )1/4
(7.101)
c
where is the elliptical integral and is defined as
Z
/2
q
( 1 k 2 sin2 )d
(7.102)
where
a
k 2 = 1 ( )2
c
The elliptic integral, has the following series expansions
=

1 c2 a2
3 c2 a2 2
1
...
2
2
4
c
64
c2
(7.103)
(7.104)
Eq.7.104 can be approximated by neglecting higher order terms as

3 a 2
+
(7.105)
8
8 c
Eq.7.101 can be modified by including the back crack free-correction factor
1.1 and the effective crack length, a , which takes into account the plastic zone
at the crack tip to determine the stress intensity factor for the semielliptical
surface crack shown in Figure 7.49.
=
Figure 7.49:
Elliptical surface
crack.
KI = 1.1

a2
a (sin2 + 2 cos2 )1/4
(7.106)
KI2
4 2Sy2
(7.107)
where
a = a +
Including the effect of the crack shape around the crack front, Eq.7.106 can
be further modified for the maximum value of the stress intensity factor at the
minor axis ( = /2 ) as follows:
r
a
KI = 1.1
(7.108)
Q
Where Q is the crack-shape parameter given as
Q = 2 0.212
2
Sy
(7.109)
Finally, a magnification factor for deep cracks, such as those shown in Figure
7.50, can be used to find the maximum stress intensity factor for a semielliptical
surface flow as
20 G. R. Irwin, The Crack Extension Force for a Part Through Crack in a Plate, Transactions, ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 651654, 1962.
48
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.50: Magnification factor, Mk. (Adapted from S. T. Rolfe and J. M.

Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures; Application of Fracture
Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.)
r
KI = 1.1Mk
a
Q
(7.110)
As shown in Figure 7.50, we assume that Mk values vary linearly as a/t

varies from 0.5 to 1.0. On the other hand, Mk values assumed to be unity for
a/t values less than 0.521 .
EXAMPLE 7.13
Hydrogen is a renewable energy source alternative to petroleum-based fuels.
Because of the low energy density, hydrogen is compressed to a pressure of
20 MPa in a pressure vessel. Dimensions of the pressure vessel is is shown in
Figure 7.51. Assume that the hoop stress created by the internal pressure is
acting perpendicular to the semielliptical surface crack depth a (see Figure
7.52). Initial flow depth ai = 2 mm and an a/2c=0.25 ratio remains constant.
If the yield strength of the materail is 1000 MPa, calculate the stress intensity
factor corresponding to the hoop stress created by the internal pressure.
SOLUTION
From the thin-walled pressure vessel theory, stress created by the hoop stress
perpendicular to the semielliptical crack depth is
Figure 7.51:
Hoop stress created
by internal pressure.
hoop
=
=
pD
2t
20 0.3
= 500 MPa
2 6 103
From Eq.7.109, stress intensity factor, KI for a semielliptical surface crack is

r
KI = 1.1Mk
a
Q
21 S. T. Rolfe and J. M. Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures; Application of

Fracture Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
49

Shape factor, Q is
2 0.212
Q =
2
Sy
where
=
=
3 a 2
+
8
8 c
2
3
+
0.5 = 1.276
8
8
and the shape factoir is

Q =
(1.276)2 0.212
500 2
= 1.575
1000
From Figure 7.50, since a/t is less than 0.5, Mk is equal to 1. Then the stress
intensity factor is
r
KI = 1.1 1 500
2 103
= 34.73 MPa
1.575
Critical Crack Length

For catastrophic failure, the initial crack depth, a must reach the critical depth,
acr . This critical crack depth can be determined from Eq.7.109 by considering
the critical stress intensity factor, KIC and the maximum applied stress, max
as

acr =
KIC
1.1Mk max
2
(7.111)
Leak before Break
Figure 7.52: Leak-before-break criteria.

Leak-before-break (LBB) is a term first proposed by Irwin et al.22 This
concept is used widely to estimate the material fracture toughness, KIC required
for a surface flow to grow through the thickness, t, thus allowing the pressurized
components and vessels to fail from leakage prior to a fracture occurring in
service. As indicated in Figure 7.53, the first mode of failure (leakage) assumes
that a flaw twice the wall thickness in length should be stable at a stress equal to
22 G.
R. Irwin, Materials for Missiles and Spacecraft, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
50
Design for Fatigue

the design stress.23 That is, the critical crack size at the nominal design stress
level of a material should be greater than the wall thickness.
EXAMPLE 7.14
In Example 13, if the critical stress intensity factor of the pressure vessel
material is 45 MPa, will the pressure vessel leak?
SOLUTION
From Eq.7.110 critical crack size, acr is

acr
=
=
KIC
1.1Mk max
2

2
45
1.575
= 3.356 103 m
1.1 1 500
Since the thickness t=6 mm is larger than the critical crack length, acr =3.356
mm, pressure vessel will not leak.
Figure 7.53: Fatigue crack propagation stages.
Fatigue Crack Propagation

Mainly, fatigue crack propagation can be divided into three stages as shown in
Figure ??: stage I (crack formation), stage II (crack propagation) and stage
III (unstable crack growth and fracture). Stage II represents the fatiguecrack
propagation behavior, which permits the use of the powerlaw relationship to
calculate fatigue life. By using the powerlaw relationship, the fatiguecrack
growth rate da/dN of a material in terms of the range of applied stressintensity
factor K can be written as
da
= A(KI )m
dN
(7.112)
where
a =
crack depth
number of cycles
KI
stressintensity factor occurring at the crack tip
A and m are the constants for a particular material, environment, and loading
condition.
23 Rolfe, S. T. and Barsom, J. M., 1977. Fracture and fatigue control in structures: application of fracture mechanics. Prentice-Hall, Engle wood Cliffs, NJ.
51

Procedure to Analyze Crack Growth
1. Assume an initial flaw size ai .
2. Calculate the critical crack size acr , that would cause catastrophic failure.
3. Assume an increment of crack growth a.
4. Determine KI , using the proper equation for KI , with and aav ,
where
aav = ai +
a
2
(7.113)
5. Determine the number of cycles at a given stress level by using Eq. 7.111.
Direct integration should continue until a reaches acr . If acr is larger than
the thickness of the material, integration should stop when a is equal to
the material thickness.
EXAMPLE 7.1524
Using the theory of fracture mechanics, find the cumulative fatigue damage
inflicted on the drill pipe of Example 7-11 during one pass through the riser
upper ball joint.
Given Design Data

Modulus of elasticity of drill-pipe material, E
Critical stressintensity factor, KIC
Yields strength of drill-pipe material, ys
Crack growth (remains constant), ac
Penetration speed of drill pipe, V
Outside diameter of drill pipe, Do
Inside diameter of drill pipe, Di
Initial crack size, ai
Rotational speed of drill pipe, n
Tension load, T
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
30 106 psi
56 kpsi in.
90 kpsi
0.5
120 in./h
5.00 in.
4.276 in.
0.0312 in.
100 rpm
100 kips
24 A. Ertas, M. Ghulam, and O. Cuvalci, A Comparison of Fracture Mechanics and S-N

Curve Approaches in Designing Drill Pipe, ASME Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, Vol. 114, pp. 205-211, 1992.
52
Design for Fatigue
Figure 7.54: Semielliptical surface crack in drill pipe.
Figure 7.55: Stress-time history of a dril pipe.
SOLUTION
The drill pipe is assumed to have a semielliptical (part-through) surface crack,
as shown in Figure 7.54. This type of crack is typical of the starting-crack
shape customarily found. As shown, the drill pipe is assumed to be cut along a
longitudinal plane and opened into a plate. On the basis of quality inspection,
the estimated initial flaw size ai present in the drill pipe is assumed to
be 0.0312
in. The critical stressintensity factor KIC is assumed to be 56 kpsi in.
The sinusoidal fluctuating stress-time history for a drill pipe is shown in
Figure 7.56. From this figure, the stress range of the drill pipe is observed to be
r = = max min
where
max = m + ave
= r = 2ave
53

Table 7.6: Fatigue Damage Calculations
EL
No.
EL 1
EL 2
EL 3
EL 4
av
(kpsi)
19.13
16.73
13.37
9.10
(kpsi)
38.26
33.46
26.74
18.2
max
(kpsi)
38.09
35.69
32.33
28.06
n
(cycles)
300
600
900
1800
N
(cycles)
400,281
611,994
1.24 106
4.18 106
n/N
%
0.075
0.098
0
0
Table7.6 is obtained by using m = 18.96 kpsi and the values of av from Table
7.6 (see Example 7.10). The following steps are performed to determine the
cumulative fatigue damage.
Step 1 Divide a joint of the drill pipe into a number of finite elements as
shown in Figure 7.40.
Step 2 Calculate the average stress amplitude av for each of these finite
elements (see Example 7.11).
Step 3 Calculate the critical flaw size acr that would cause failure by brittle
fracture for the first element as follows:
As discussed previously, for catastrophic failure, the initial crack depth ai
must reach the critical crack depth calculated using
2

Q
KIC
acr =
1.1Mk max
where max = 38.09 kpsi, for element 1. Using Eq. 7.104,

=
3 a2
3
+
=
+ (0.5)2 = 1.276
2
8
8c
8
8
For simplicity, Mk is assumed to be a unity, and

s

2
p
max
2
Q = 0.212
Sy
then
2
Q = (1.276) 0.212
38.09
90
2
= 1.59
Hence,

acr =
56
1.1 38.09
2
1.59
= 0.905 in.
Since the critical crack size is larger than the wall thickness, the drill pipe will
fail by leaking and not by catastrophic propagation to failure.
Step 4 Assume an increment of crack growth a and determine the number
of failure cycles for the crack to grow by this increment at the given stress level
for each finite element by using Eq. 7.111 with A = 0.614 1010 and m = 3.16
(specific to drill pipe material grade E).
da
3.16
= 0.614 1010 (KI )
dN
54
Design for Fatigue

where KI can be obtained from Eq. 7.109 as
r
KI = 1.1
aav
Q
Note that in above equation, Mk is assumed 1. To determine the incremental

crack growth, Eq. 7.111 can be modified to
3.16
r
aav
a
= 0.506 109
N
Q
where N is the number of cycles required to propagate the incremental crack
growth a, and
a
2
Hence, the number of cycles N , required to propagate the crack from initial
depth ai to depth ai + a, can be written as
aav = ai +
N =
1.976 109 a
q
3.16
ai +0.5a
Q
Incremental crack growth length should be assumed reasanably small to obtain

accurate result. Assume a = 0.01 in.; the first iteration gives
N =
1.976 109 (0.01)

q
3.16 77, 600 cycles
38.26 0.0312+0.50.01
1.59
For the second iteration, initial crack size will be ai = 0.0312 + 0.01 = 0.0412
in. Hence, the number of cycles for the next a = 0.01 increment is
N =
1.976 109 (0.01)

q
3.16 52, 800 cycles
38.26 0.0412+0.50.01
1.59
Since the critical crack size was found to be larger than the wall thickness of the
drill pipe, iteration for incremental crack growth should stop when it reaches a
final crack size af , which is equal to the wall thickness of 0.362 in.
X
N (EL.1) =
N = 77, 600 + 52, 800 + = 400, 281 cycles
The damage for the first element is
300
n1
=
100 = 0.075%
N1
400, 281
The same procedure is repeated for the remaining elements, and the summary
of the results is given in Table ??. Note that, since the stress is changing, Q and
acr should be recalculated for each element.
The total damage to the drill pipe during one pass through the upper joint
is

Total damage
=
=

n1
n2
n3
n4
+
+
+
100
N1
N2
N3
N4
2 (0.075 + 0.098 + 0 + 0) = 0.346%
2
The results of Examples 7.10 and 7.14 show that the fracture mechanics approach
provides conservative results in determining the fatigue damage of drill pipe at
low-tension load such as T =100 kips and small riser angles such as =1 degree.
55

Superposition of Stress-Intensity Factors
Machine components contain cracks may be subjected to more than one type of
loading. The principle of superposition can be applied for stress-intensity factors
for different types of loading of the same mode type. In other words, the stressintensity factors for different modes of crack growth con not be algebraically
added. Also, in summation process (superposition) the stress-intensity factors
must be associated with the same structural geometry, including crack geometry.
For example, stress-intensity factors associated with an edge crack problems
cannot be added to that of a semi elliptical crack problems.
EXAMPLE 7.16
Determine the stress-insensity factor of a plate subjected to a combined
tension and bending loadings shown in Figure 7.57.
SOLUTION
(a) Stress-intensity factor for tension load is
Figure 7.56:
Plate with through
thickness crack.
KIT = T af (a/W )
From Eq. 7.96, correction factor for a single edge through thickness crack is

f (a/W )
[1.122 0.231

+
30.382
4.8
40
4.8
40

+ 10.550
4.8
40
2

21.710
4.8
40
3
4
] = 1.215
Then the stress-intensity factor for tension load is
KIT = 1.215 T a
where
P
P
=
A
BW
T =
(b) Stress-intensity factor for bending is
KIM = M af (a/W )
From Eq.7.98, correction factor for a single edge through thickness crack for
pure bending is

f (a/W )
[1.122 1.40

14.0
4.8
40
4.8
40

+ 7.33
4
] = 1.04
Then the stress-intensity factor for bending is
4.8
40
2

13.08
4.8
40
3
56
Design for Fatigue
KIM = 1.04 M a
where
M =
M
6M
=
I/c
B W2
The algebraic addition of the two above stress-intensity factors will give the
stress-intensity factor for combine loadings, KIC
KIC = K T + K M = 1.215 T a + 1.04 M a

or
KIC

P
6M
K T + K M = 1.215
a + 1.04
a
BW
B W2

a
6.24
1.215P +
=
BW
W
EXAMPLE 7.1725
Figure 7.58:
Blade configuration.
Rotating machine components, such as turbine blades, compressor disks,

spacers and cooling fan blades are exposed to cyclic stresses during engine
start-up, normal operation and shut-down. Combined stresses acting in
the cross-section of the turbine blade are a tensile stress component due to
centrifugal forces and a bending stress component introduced by the action
of the air flow pressure. Although combined loading are steady during the
normal opertion, fan blades are subjected to cyclic stresses during engine
start-up and shut-down (see Figure 7.57).
A blade of a rotating axial flow fan shown in Figure 7.57 has N =2400
0.00072 m2 cross sectional area, and M =0.498
rpm ratational speed, A=
kg mass. The distance from the center of rotation, r is 0.55 m (see Figure
7.58). The properties of the blade (Aluminum alloy) are: Sy =380 MPa,
Sut =510 MPa, KIC =32 MPa. Assume that the amplitude of the bending
stress component, aM is 6 MPa.
Using scaling factor A = 9.5 1013 and m = 4.9 for the expression of
the crack growth rate, investigate whether the design is adequate for 20,000
cycles. Assume blade width, W is 0.08 m, thickness, B=0.009 m, and the
initial single-edge through thickness crack length, a is 0.001 m. Use only
one iteration for fatigue life calculation
SOLUTION
From Eq.7.112, fatigue life is
a
A(KI )m
(a)
25 adapted from: M. Sameezadeh and H. Farhangi, 2012. Fracture Analysis of Generator

Fan Blades, Applied Fracture Mechanics, Intech. http://www.intechopen.com/books
/applied-fracture-mechanics/fracture-analysis-of-generator-fan-blades, accessed:
May 12,
2013.
57
Figure 7.57: Fan blade.

From Example 7-16, combine stress-intensity factor for tensile and bending loads
is given by
KIC = K T + K M = 1.215 T a + 1.04 M a
(b)
KIC = 1.215 T aav + 1.04 M aav
(c)
= 2a = range
(d)
Then
where
Tensile stress amplitude, aT due to centrifigal force can be calculated by

aT =
0.498 0.55 (2 2400/60)2

M r(2N )2
=
= 24 106 Pa
0.00072
A
Assuming that the maximum stress is, max = aT + aM = 24 + 6 = 30 MPa,

from Eq.7.94 we have the critical crack length, acr as
acr =

2

2
1
KIC
1
32
=
= 0.28 m
max f (a/W )
30 1.13
Note that, in the above calculation for f (a/W ), (1.215 + 1.04)/2 = 1.13 is used.
Since acr is larger than the blade thickness, iteration will stop at the thickness
value of the fan blade (W=0.08 m). Average crack length, acr in Eq. (c) is
aav = ai +
a
2
For one iteration, a = W ai =0.08 -0.001 = 0.079 m. Then,
58
Design for Fatigue
aav = 0.001 +
0.079
= 0.0405 m
2
From Eq. (c), the combined stress-intensity factor becomes
KIC = 1.215(2 24) 0.0405 + 1.04(2 6) 0.0405 = 25.25 MPa

Using Eq. (a), we have the fatigue life expectation for the fan blade
0.079
= 11, 190 cycles
9.5 1013 (25.25)4 .9
Design is not adequate for 5,000 cycles.

Design For Fatigue - Module 7

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Design For Fatigue - Module 7

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

i

iTextBook Transdisciplinary Learning Modules

c 2014 by theATLAS Publishing

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. stored in a

Failure analysis requires comprehensive knowledge and experiences of various

Fatigue Mechanism of Failure

Design for Fatigue

Figure 7.2: Alexander L. Kielland, Norwegian semi-submersible drilling rig.

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

Fatigue mechanism Fatigue damage in the thermal mechanical fatigue

Design for Fatigue

Wear Wear can be described as progressive surface damage caused

When a mechanical part fails, a surface is created by that fracturing process.

index.html, accessed: March 12, 2013.

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

Low Cycle and High Cycle fatigue

Design for Fatigue

Low Cycle Fatigue

High Cycle Fatigue

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

Figure 7.9: RR Moore rotating beam fatigue test machine.

Figure 7.10: Cyclic loading.

Design for Fatigue

Figure 7.11: Typical S-N curve.

fail even from small stress amplitudes .

Similarly, using coordinates of point C, yields

From Eqs.7.4 and 7.5, we obtain

To determine constant a, substitute Eq.7.6 into Eq.7.5

Substituting Nf = 103 and Ne = 106 into Eq.7.7, gives

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

Table 7.1: Values for S-N curve end coordinates.

Similarly, for various values of Nf and Ne constant a in Eq.7.2 can be found as

Design for Fatigue

Then, the fatigue strength, S 0 corresponding to a life of 80 103 is

Fatigue Strength Correction Factors

corrected endurance strength

endurance strength of the laboratory test

surface finish correction factor

size correction factor

temparature correction factor

reliability correction factor

fatigue stress consentration factor

miscellaneous correction factor

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

Figure 7.14: Surface finish correction factor (reproduced from Fundamentals

Surface Finish Correction Factor

Fatigue strength is sensitive to surface irregularities. To eliminate the effect of

Size Correction Factor

As shown in Figure 7.10(a), the diameter of standard test specimen used to

Design for Fatigue

0.37d = 0.37(2) = 0.74 in, then

10 Shigley, J. E. and Mitchell, L. D., 1983. Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill,

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

Temperature Correction Factor

For T 840 F T 1020 F

Temperature correction factor becames an important issue for steam turbine

Reliability Correction Factor

Fatigue Stress Concentration Correction Factor

Design for Fatigue

(a) the shaft is subjected to pure bending stress, and

Module 7. Design for Fatigue

1 + q(Kt 1) = 1 + 0.83(1.81 1) 1.67