1

2
3
Before we begin to look at simulating fatigue we must first understand the mechanism of fatigue to be
able to recognise the strategies employed to model it.
The definition of fatigue as currently stated by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is:
“The process of progressive localized permanent structural change occurring in a material subjected to
conditions that produce fluctuating stresses and strains at some point or points and that may culminate
in cracks or complete fracture after a sufficient number of fluctuations”.
I have highlighted a number of words that sum up the process of fatigue very well in this statement.
Progressive implies that the process of fatigue occurs over a period of time. Even though the ultimate
failure seems sudden, the mechanism leading up to the final failure may have been developing for a long
time.
Localised tells the engineer that the failure occurs in local areas of a design and this may be due to
material imperfections, geometry changes, and loading gradients that result in high stresses and strains
in these locations.
Of course the word permanent tells us that once a material is damaged due to fatigue it is an irreversible
situation and can only get worse.
Fluctuating differentiates fatigue from most other failure modes in that the stresses and strains are
varying in a cyclic fashion rather than being applied once and maintained.
I have highlighted the word ‘cracks’ since this needs some care taken when considering how we define
failure because the process of fatigue includes the initial generation of cracks, which then develop to the
point where the remaining material is unable to withstand the loading conditions placed on the
component.
At this point fracture occurs and the component becomes two separate parts.

4
5
So taking the constant amplitude loading first, we can begin by defining various
stresses.

Here we see a constant amplitude cyclic stress. From this we can define the mean
stress, the min and max stresses, which in turn define the stress range.

And finally we define the alternating stress, which is half of the stress range.

Of particular interest in simulating fatigue are the mean stresses and the alternating
stresses, which from this simple diagram are also defined mathematically as:

Sm = (Smax + Smin) / 2

Sa = (Smax - Smin) / 2

6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Let’s finish with a final review of some helpful tips:

• Try to obtain accurate service load histories for your

design.

• Remember the importance of notches in design and try to

provide for smooth stress gradients by designing
streamlined features.

• Recognise that many factors can improve the resistance

to corrosion fatigue, such as shot-peening, coating,
cladding, painting, and chemical inhibitors.

• Don’t ignore data scatter in fatigue testing and load

data as it can result in significant variation in
predicted fatigue life.

16
17
18
19
20
Our first example is this pressure vessel made of a T6 aluminium alloy.

We will apply an internal pressure of 1000 psi and cycle this so that it is applied and
then removed totally. This defines a loading ratio of zero or a zero based loading
condition.

We want to use the fatigue simulation to understand if the pressure vessel will fail
before 1 million applications of this pressure.

21
We won’t show the details of the linear static study since this is assumed knowledge.
However here are the components to the model and the result looks something like
this.

One important thing to note is that the static study demonstrates that the components
experience stresses below the yield of the material. This is then working in the high-
cycle fatigue domain and so a fatigue study is suitable.

22
However we will go through the fatigue study steps for stage 2 in more detail.

Firstly we create a new fatigue study. As you can see we can choose to define a constant
amplitude event (which we choose here) or a variable amplitude event.

The Study Manager tree is created for a fatigue event showing very few details. However if we
right click on the loading folder we need to Add an Event.

This opens this window asking for a couple of extra details.

At the top we must define how many cycles we want to test for. In our case it is a million.

We then have to define how the alternating stresses we are using are applied in terms of the
loading or stress ratio. Again, in our case as the pressure load is applied and then removed we
must use a zero based loading ratio.

Finally we use this drop down menu to reference the linear static study from stage 1 from
where the alternating stresses are taken.

OK’ing these entries creates a new folder in the Study Manager for the parts. It is here that we
need to define the S-N data for our chosen materials.

Editing the materials takes us to the material database where we have a new tab to include S-N
data. Let’s look at this in more detail.

23
Firstly you can see the area where we enter the S-N curve at the bottom. As you can see there
may be a number of points created from test data and at the top we define how we interpolate
between these data points.

There are three options to choose here; log-log, log-linear, and linear-linear.

This example shows two points of stress vs life plotted on each type of scale. If you want to
read off a stress somewhere in between you can see how the result differs based on the scale
chosen.

For the log-log graph a stress of 45,000 psi equates to 10^4.653 , which results in a life of
10^3.944, which is 8790 cycles.

For the log-linear graph a stress of 45,000 psi results in a life of 10^4 or 10,000 cycles.

And finally the linear-linear graph results in a life of 50,500 cycles.

So you can see that the interpolation does produce different results, so which one should you
choose?

Well you should use the log-log method when you have few datapoints that are widely
scattered on both axes. You would use the semi-log method with a relatively small stress range
compared to variation in the number of cycles. And finally, the linear-linear curve is used for
large datasets unless one of the other two methods provides a better fit.

Since we only have 7 datapoints we will use the log-log interpolation method.

24
Now what you see here is a single S-N data curve being entered. As you can see this
assumes a stress ratio and hence mean stress based on the way the stress was applied
in the physical test from which the data was obtained. In this case the -1 shows that the
test was a fully reversed loading case, which differs from our zero based load in the
simulation.

However in any given complex part the different areas of the component will
experience different peak stresses and hence different mean stresses.

It is therefore possible to enter a number of curves, up to 10, to represent different

mean stresses if you have the test data. In such a case the software interpolates
between the curves based on the required mean stress.

25
There are many cases where people don’t have the S-N data to perform such a study.

In this case you have to assume an S-N curve and there are a couple of ways you can do
this.

The first is to take an existing S-N curve from the SolidWorks database, be it an
austenitic or carbon steel and modify it based on the ratio of the new material’s
Young’s Modulus compared to the known Steel’s modulus.

This method automatically creates the curve for you.

26
The second method is to create your own curve and there are many references to support the
following assumptions based on the ultimate strength of the material.

Firstly a typical S-N curve on a log-log graph looks something like this tri-linear profile.

We generally accept that the boundary between low-cycle fatigue and high-cycle fatigue is
around 10^3 or 10^4 cycles and typically 1,000 cycles is chosen.

There are also many references that give this point occurring at a fatigue strength limit
equivalent to 90% of the ultimate strength.

At the other end of the curve we have the endurance limit. This is a stress value that is low
enough that below this the material never fails due to fatigue, at least in a practical sense. In
fact this is only a phenomenon seen in steels and again evidence suggests that it is seen in the
following range. Typically we can set Se to half of the ultimate strength.

And finally this endurance or fatigue limit is given at the infinite life point, which is given around
10^6 or 10^7 cycles. For steels this is usually accepted as 10^6 cycles and for aluminium it is
often taken as 10^7 cycles.

Beyond this point the graph is horizontal showing that the material will last indefinitely below
this stress level.

27
Now we have set up the basics, let’s run the model and look at the first set of results.

For such a setup the program automatically produces two results, a damage plot and a
life plot.

Now the damage plot tells us for each point in the model what percentage damaged
the material is given the 1 million loading cycles we have asked for. In this example we
are seeing highest percentage damage around the bolt hole of about 32.5 %.

The second plot, the life plot, displays this information in a kind of inverse way. If 1
million cycles gives us 32.5% damage, how many cycles would be required to get to
100% damage?

Simply divide 1 million by 32.5% and multiply by 100% to get the value of just over 3
million cycles. Of course this is the minimum no of cycles that would cause fatigue
failure around the bolt hole and so this is shown as a blue minimum by default in the
legend. The majority red colour you see is in fact the overwhelming areas which are not
seeing anywhere near as high alternating stresses and hence damage. These are
therefore showing much longer lives before failure.

So for this simple study we might conclude that under this single cyclic load our vessel
will not fail, however we should consider the fact that a safety factor of 3 is not much
and we should consider the possible errors in our material data before moving forward.

28
We will continue from here by taking a simple step that will open up more options to
us; the case where we have more than one load applied to the model.

Let us take the same pressure vessel but this time we will add a thermal load too. We
will consider the case when we apply an internal heat flux to the inside of the vessel
and a convection current to the outside to remove the heat to an ambient temperature
of 20°C.

29
Stage 1 is again performing the static studies upon which the alternating stresses are
based.

So we have our linear static stress exactly as last time.

In addition we also perform a purely thermal study with the heat flux and convection
conditions required.

Finally we use this thermal study to take these temperatures and perform a thermal
static stress study.

Now we have our static and thermal stress studies we can go on to see how we
combine these in fatigue.

30
Stage 2 is exactly the same as before except that we define a second event to go with
the first.

So now we have two events defined, one for the static pressure and one for the
thermal stress.

Before we solve however there is one more consideration to take. How do we consider
the interaction between these two loadings?

31
Let’s take an example of two events where the first event has 80,000 cycles, zero based
with a max stress of 500 MPa.

We have also added a second event over 230,000 cycles with a min stress of -300 MPa.

Now it is clear to see that when Event 1 is followed by Event 2 there is a large change in
the stress range. It goes from +500 MPa to -300 MPa, a range of 800 MPa (or
alternating stress of 400 MPa) with a mean stress of 100 MPa.

Now if these two events are occurring during the lifetime of our product, the best we
can hope for is that Event 1 occurs by itself for 80,000 cycles, stops, and then Event 2
begins. Because in this situation we only have this sudden increase in alternating stress
to 400 MPa once.

The worst case is if the two Events are occurring together, in other words for every
cycle of Event 1, it is followed by a cycle of Event 2. In such a case we get 80,000 cycles
with an alternating stress of 400 MPa, instead of the values given in our original event
definitions.

32
So to account for this it is possible to go into the Study Properties and set the
interaction to either No Interaction or Random Interaction.

No interaction would calculate for 80,000 cycles of 250 MPa alternating stress followed
by 230,000 cycles of 150 MPa alternating stress.

The Random Interaction option would apply 80,000 cycles of 400 MPa alternating
stress followed by 150,000 remaining cycles of 150 MPa alternating stress.

The random interaction case is considered the worst case or most conservative and is
recommended in many situations such as by the ASME Pressure Vessel and Boiler
codes.

33
So the damage plot with this second event has increased the amount of damage from
32.5% up to almost 38%. Not a huge change but there none-the-less.

Before we move on, we should consider one or two additional options that are
available in the Study Properties.

34
Firstly, most real-world applications include multi-axial stress states, not just a simple
uniaxial setup.

We are familiar with using an equivalent or von mises stress in linear statics to consider
the multiaxial nature of common loadcases and in fatigue it is no different.

In our example of the pressure vessel we were plotting von mises stress in the static
pressure test and referring to this in our fatigue setup.

In fact there are three common stresses used to produce an equivalent uniaxial
alternating stress in fatigue from a multiaxial situation.

The von mises stress criterion shows good correlation to multiaxial fatigue of ductile
materials and so is regularly used.

The maximum principal stress criterion is usually better for multiaxial fatigue of brittle
materials.

The Stress Intensity or max shear stress can also be used for ductile materials and is
more conservative than the von mises stress criterion.

35
Next we have to consider the accuracy of our material data compared to our loading type in
fatigue.

For example, most physical tests producing S-N data are fully reversed, where the load is
applied, taken off, and reapplied in the opposite direction.

However in our pressure vessel we want to model the case where the loading ratio is zero
based, i.e. we apply a pressure and then remove it.

If these two loading methods were the same we could simply let the software read the lifetime
off the S-N curve provided as this curve would be a suitable representation of the material
under this type of loading.

However in our case we need to apply what we call the mean stress correction to account for
the variation that the different loading types cause on the mean stress.

Again, the Goodman correction is recommended for brittle materials, the Gerber method
shows good correlation to test for ductile materials and the Soderberg correction is
conservative for results in tension.

For our aluminium alloy we needed to apply the Gerber correction.

36
As an example of this we can rerun the same model with no mean stress correction and
you can see the maximum damage is reported as only 20%, compared to the previous
38%.

So you can see that many of these settings are important to consider when setting up a
fatigue study.

37
OK, so far we have been looking at the effects of a constant amplitude loading on our
model. There are many cases where this type of loading is indeed representative of the
real world.

However there are also many examples of loads that are random, and we class these as
variable amplitude loadings.

As you can see here the amplitude of each peak is different in magnitude and there is
no pattern to the loading either.

38
To study this, let’s look at another example of a vehicle suspension system.

The parts are made of Alloy Steel and we are interested in knowing the durability of the
design under some road load data that has been collected.

Let’s look at it in more detail.

39
We can clearly see that this load is random and impossible to predict deterministically.

You can see from the Y-axis that the graph has been normalised to 1. We will again
reference a static study in this process and so the maximum value of 1 here
corresponds to the peak stresses seen in the static study.

Now, typically all material data for fatigue is based on constant amplitude loading tests
and so for consistency and accuracy we need to try to convert this type of loading to
the constant amplitude data we have.

You can imagine that every time we go from a peak to a trough we are adding some
incremental damage to the material. Our job is to work out how to interpret this
damage for a given load such as this. In fact what we do is to convert this variable
amplitude loading back into a series of constant amplitude load cases. For example,
you can see that many of these cycles have peaks of similar size and so will induce a
similar amount of damage to our system.

We need to count up these similar damaging cycles using a technique called cycle
counting. There are a number of cycle counting methods available but we use the
Rainflow cycle counting method, which is the most commonly used.

40
Let’s look at how this works.

Take this subset of data as an example. Firstly we turn the plot on its side starting with
the highest peak.

41
We assume we are watching water drain down these slopes as if they were running off the roofs of a
pagoda.

Starting at the largest peak, A, the water runs down to B at the next reversal. The rule states that since
the next peak, at C is smaller than A where we started, we don’t come back down here, instead we
ignore this and drop down to B’ and on down to D. Once again the next peaks at E and G are smaller than
where we started at A and so the water drops to the end of its history, past H. This constitutes half a
cycle from A to D.

We now start again at the next reversal, which is the valley at B. We travel down to C. Since the next
valley, at D is larger than the one we started at, we finish at C forming one half of a cycle, B to C.

The next reversal is the peak at point C. Starting here we go down and join the previous rainflow and so
must stop at B’. This forms the return of B to C and so completes one cycle.

We then start again from the next valley at D and go down to E. Since the following valleys at F and H are
smaller than the starting one at D, we drop off the edge and go down to the line ending at I. This whole
cycle has the range equal to D to I or D to A.

We continue this process for all the reversals...

You should notice that using this process each part of the loading history is only counted once and the
loading half cycles occur in pairs of equal magnitude resulting in full cycles.

42
It is now a simple step to take each cycle and determine its range and mean, placing us
back in the well known arena of constant amplitude event fatigue.

43
Now back to our problem, the setup is very similar to what we have seen previously,
except for the loading definition.

Stage 1 is again our linear static study.

In this the loadings applied to the hub are equal to the maximum magnitudes found
from our test data. Remember that the test data has been normalised.

The suspension arms and shock absorber are connected with hinge joints.

And there are a number of pin connectors between the other parts of the model.

This results in a stress distribution, which we will reference again in our variable
amplitude fatigue study.

44
Stage 2 of the process is to create a new fatigue study, but this time it will be a variable
amplitude study.

Again we first create an event, but this time the options are a little different. We are asked to
define the loading curve, with the Get Curve button.

This allows us to define the curve via a series of points in tabular format. The Y column is
always the loading amplitude that we use to scale the stresses in the static study. But the X
column can be defined in 3 ways.

If you choose Amplitude only then the X column is simply an index to identify the Y column
data.

If you choose Sampling Rate & Amplitude then the X column should be the intervals at which
the data was recorded.

Finally if you choose Time & Amplitude the X column is explicit time.

Back in the event definition we reference our static study from stage 1 and define the number
of repeats of this test data. In other words here we are looking at the damage caused by our
model experiencing this loading only once, and as such we may like to scale this up to a more
reasonable value for the life of the vehicle.

Finally again we are then permitted to apply the S-N curve data to our materials.

45
Now before we go on to solve the problem, there is again a couple of options we need
to discuss in the Study Properties relating to variable amplitude events.

You can see that the choice of stress component is again available, as is the mean stress
correction that we have already discussed.

But at the top of the window is a couple of new options. The first is the number of bins
for rainflow counting.

46
The algorithm divides the stress amplitude on the Y axis up into a number of equally
spaced bins within which the number of alternating and mean stresses will be counted.

Clearly if we have more bins then the results will be more refined and accurate.
However as is often the case this results in more calculations and longer runtimes.

47
Finally, there is often noise in a loading history of this sort that we can assume has little
or no impact on the results.

For example any stress peaks lower than the endurance limit can be filtered out since
they do not contribute to the damage.

We do this using the Filter load cycles below option, where we can ignore any cycles
with a range below 1% of the maximum range.

48
The final bit of theory we need to discuss is the fatigue strength reduction factor, Kf.

49
Again we must recognise that we are using empirical data from a controlled test
environment to define how our material will behave, yet in reality the material in
question may be far from this condition.

Many studies have been carried out to understand how we must modify our results
based on the real working environment of our design. The Fatigue Strength Reduction
Factor is a way of handling this modification.

It consists of a number of scaling factors that correspond to known factors that affect
fatigue.

Take the simple example of air quality. This graph shows how the S-N curve varies for a
material tested first in air as a baseline. Repeating this in a vacuum shows a clear
benefit over the baseline test, especially at longer life. Presoaking the material in a
corrosive fluid before testing has a significant effect on reducing the life, and
simultaneously testing within a corrosive environment has a huge detrimental impact,
again especially at longer life.

But the corrosive environment is not the only factor we can consider.

50
The Fatigue Strength Reduction Factor is defined by the combination of these factors.
Kc is the corrosion factor, as we have discussed.
Km considers the loading mode. Most test specimens are loaded under bending and so this factor
corrects for loading that might be axial, torsion, or shear.
Kfreq considers the fact that the S-N behaviour may be altered by the frequency of loading due to
internal hysteresis damping, which can cause heating of the material. However it is typically neglected
below about 200 Hz but effects have been seen in the kHz range.
K1 is the size factor. Again it is recognised that larger parts have lower fatigue limits and so this factor
helps to scale the stress for a component that is recognisably different in size to the test specimen.
As already explained, temperature has a significant impact on fatigue. At higher temperatures for
example, metals are more ductile and less likely to form cracks and are therefore less susceptible to
fatigue.
Kr is the reliability factor. It is found that there is a statistical variation in S-N data as well as loading data
for all cases and so it is valid to set a reliability factor to account for these variations.
Notches in a material are also significant since any discontinuity causes stress concentrations and hence
is more likely to initiate cracks. Again many test specimens tend to be smooth billets of material and so it
is vital to modify the result if your design contains notches.
And finally fretting. This is the surface wear of two contacting surfaces rubbing over each other and is
often combined with a consideration of chemical corrosion products.
As you might expect it is quite difficult to say what these factors should be exactly. Individually they are
designed to be between 0 and 1, such that the overall reduction factor is also less than 1. It is possible to
find certain standard values for some of these although as with the S-N data the only way to be sure is to
carry out physical tests to support your decision. Failing that you should simply leave the unknown factor
as 1.

51
So in our example here we are assuming the fatigue strength reduction factor is 0.5, a
combination of all those previous reduction factors.

The alternating stress is then divided by this value, thereby increasing the magnitude.

This therefore implies a reduced life, which is the required effect of the reduction
factor.

52
Plotting the damage for this example shows the maximum percentage to be 0.028% at
the cap of the shock absorber plunger.

Whilst this does not seem very much we must remember that this is the damage
induced by 1 iteration of the loading cycle, whereas in reality this might only be for the
equivalent of say one journey. If we know the recorded test data is 1,000 th the
estimated lifetime load, then we must multiply this by 1000, and so on.

53
Alternatively we can also plot the life of the components, which if you remember is the
inverse of the damage plot. This is showing us that the minimum value of 3,500 cycles
is what would be required before fatigue failure occurs.

54
Another way of looking at the data is with a Rainflow Matrix chart.

This plots the alternating stress against mean stress on the X and Y axes, and the Z axis
shows the number of counts for a given mean and alternating stress.

This gives you the composition of the loading history.

So for our example, we can clearly see that the largest damage is caused not by the
highest mean stress cycles, but rather by the intermediate mean stress cycles.

You can also see that most of the alternating stress cycles occur for a positive mean
stress.

55