FatigueFactors PDF

Fatigue and Fracture
Factors Influencing Fatigue

Mean Stress
Professor Darrell F. Socie

Mechanical Science and Engineering
University of Illinois
© 2004-2013 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

 Mean Stress
 Variable Amplitude
 Stress Concentrations
 Surface Finish
Factors Influencing Fatigue © 2004-2013 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 1 of 110
Mean Stresses
Smax
stress
mean stress
Smin
stress range
Smax + Smin
Smean =
2
Smin
R=
Smax
General Observations
 Tensile mean stresses reduce the fatigue life

or decrease the allowable stress range
 Compressive mean stresses increase the
fatigue life or increase the allowable stress
range
Mechanism
∆S
Smean
Fatigue damage is a shear process
2
Tensile mean stresses open

microcracks and make sliding easier
Goodman 1890
Mechanics Applied to Engineering

John Goodman, 1890
“.. whether the assumptions of the

theory are justifiable or not …. We
adopt it simply because it is the
easiest to use, and for all practical
purposes, represents Wöhlers data.
Sultimate = Smin + 2 ∆S
Goodman Diagram
Alternating stress
105 cycles
Se
107 cycles
0 Su
R = -1 Mean stress R=1
∆S  ∆S   Smean 
=  
 1− 
2  2 R = −1 Sultimate 
Test Data ( 1941 )
1.2
1.0
Alternating Stress
0.8
Fatigue Limit
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Mean Stress
Ultimate Strength
J.O. Smith, The Effect of Range of Stress on the Fatigue Strength of Metals,
Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 334, University of Illinois, 1941
Compression
beneficial
Se
no influence
detrimental
-Su 0 Su
R = -∞ R = -1 R=1
Modified Goodman ( no yielding )
Sys
∆S
+ Smean < S ys
Se 2
-Su -Sys 0 Sys Su

R = -∞ R = -1 R=1
Mean Stress Influence on Life
1000
Relative Fatigue Life

100
10
0.1
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Mean Stress
Ultimate Strength
Stress Concentrations
∆ε The elastic material surrounding

the plastic zone around a stress
concentration forces the material
Plastic to deform in strain control
Zone
∆ε
Mean Stresses at Notches
elastic plastic
σ σ σ
Nominal
Notch Notch
Nominal Nominal Notch
ε ε ε
Nominal mean stress is less Nominal mean stress is greater

than notch mean stress than notch mean stress
Morrow Mean Stress Correction
1
0.1
Strain Amplitude
0.01
0.001
σmean
10-4 E
10-5
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Reversals, 2Nf
∆ε σ'f − σmean
= (2Nf )b + ε 'f (2Nf )c
2 E
Smith Watson Topper
σ
∆ε σ'f 2
σmax σmax = (2Nf )2b + σ'f ε 'f (2Nf )b+c
2 E
∆ε
Mean Stress Relaxation
Stadnick and Morrow, “Techniques for Smooth Specimen Simulation of Fatigue Behavior of Notched Members”
ASTM STP 515, 1972, 229-252
Loading Histories
Test Results
Crack Growth Physics
Maximum load σ
Minimum load σ
ε
Mean stresses in plastic

zone are small
Mean Stress Effects
da C ∆K m
=
dN ( 1− R )γ
0 < γ < 0.5
From: Dowling and Thangjitham, An Overview and Discussion of Basic Methodology for Fatigue,
ASTM STP 1389,2000, 3-38
Compression
Crack open
Crack closed
Compressive Stresses
Crack opening level

Stress
Compressive stresses are not very damaging in crack growth

Sources of Mean/Residual Stress
 Loading History
 Fabrication
 Shot Peening
 Heat Treating
Loading History
σ
Tension overloads produce favorable

compressive residual stress
ε
σ
Compressive overloads produce
unfavorable tensile residual stress
ε
Fabrication
Cold Expansion
1965 Basic Cx process conceptualized (Boeing)
The split sleeve is
slipped onto the
mandrel, which is
attached to the
hydraulic puller unit.
The mandrel and sleeve are

inserted into the hole with the
nosecap held firmly against the
workpiece.
When the puller is activated,
the mandrel is drawn
through the sleeve radially
expanding the hole.
Courtesy of Fatigue Technology Inc.
Theory of Cold Expansion

Fatigue Life Improvement
300
Nominal Stress
200 Cold Expanded
100
0
103 104 105 106 107 108
Fatigue Life
Shot Peening
Residual Stress (MPa) 200
-200
-400
-600
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Depth (mm)
Residual stress in a shot peened leaf spring

Shot Peening Results
Fatigue strength at 2x106 cycles, MPa
1500
Shot Peened Su
Smooth & Notched SFL =
2
1000
Smooth
500
Notched
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa
www.metalimprovement.com
Heat Treating
1000
Residual Stress, MPa

600
Brinell Hardness
500 Radial
400 0 Circumferential
-500
200 Axial
-1000
0 -1500
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Depth, mm Depth, mm
50 mm diameter induction hardened 1045 steel shaft
Things Worth Remembering
 Local mean stress rather than the nominal

mean stress governs the fatigue life
 Mean stress has the greatest effect on crack
nucleation
 Mean Stress
 Surface Finish
Variable Amplitude Loading
How to you identify cycles ?
How do you assess fatigue damage for a cycle ?
Rainflow Cycle Counting
What could be more basic than

learning to count correctly?
Matsuishi and Endo (1968) Fatigue of Metals Subjected to Varying Stress – Fatigue Lives Under
Random Loading, Proceedings of the Kyushu District Meeting, JSME, 37-40
Rainflow
strain
A
Counts 1/2 cycles
B
C
CB
D BC
E
F
G
H
I, A
AD DA
Rainflow and Hysteresis
A
B
C
D E
F G
H
I
Cumulative Damage
High - Low
…. …. ∆SL
nH nL
Low - High
…. …. ∆SH
nL nH
Linear Damage
∆SH
∆SL
Nf H Nf L
Miner’s Rule:
n n n
Damage = ∑ = H + L
NF Nf H Nf L
Nonlinear Damage
1.0
0.8 ΣD = 0.7
Damage fraction
∆ε = 0.020
0.6
0.4
ΣD = 1.3
0.2 ∆ε = 0.004
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Cycle ratio,
n ΣD ~ 1
Nf
Periodic Overload Results
0.1
The fatigue limit is reduced by a factor of 3
when a few large cycles are applied
Strain Amplitude
0.01
….
10-3 ….
10-4
10 100 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Fatigue Life
Bonnen and Topper, “The Effects of Periodic Overloads on Biaxial Fatigue of Normalized SAE 1045 Steel”
ASTM STP 1387, 2000, 213-231
Fatigue Damage Calculations
10000
∆S
Stress Amplitude, MPa = S'f (Nf )
b
2
1000 1
10
100
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Cycles
1
 ∆S  b
Nf =  ' 
 2 Sf 
Damage ∝ ∆S10
Crack Growth Data
10-6
Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle 10-7

Kc
10-8 3
10-9
1
10-10
da
= C ∆K m
10-11 dN
10-12
1 10 100
∆KTH ∆K,MPa m
Crack Growth Data
100
∆K,MPa m
10
1−m / 2 1−m / 2
af −a
Nf = m
i
C ∆Sm π 2
( 1− m / 2)
1
10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12
Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle
Damage ∝ ∆S3
Multiple Choice
Which cycles do the most fatigue damage ?
(a) a few large cycles
(b) a moderate number of intermediate cycles
(c) a large number of small cycles
Fatigue Data
1000
n = 10
n=5
Amplitude
100
Damage ∝ ∆Sn n=3

10
1
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Cycles
Loading History
Bracket.sif-Strain_b43
750
500
Strain Gage (ustrain)
250
-250
-500
-750 rf_000.sif-Strain_b43
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (Secs)
750
Counts
0
-750
1500 750
Slope = 3
Damage
3.15
% damage
0 -750
1500 750
Slope = 5
Damage
5.14
% damage
0 -750
1500 750
Slope = 10
Damage
20.78
% damage
0 -750
1500 750
Mechanisms and Slopes
104
Crack Nucleation
Stress Amplitude, MPa

100 Structures 103 1
10
Equivalent Load, kN
100
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Cycles
10
1
5 Crack Growth 100
∆K,MPa m
1
103 104 105 106 107 108 10
1
Total Fatigue Life, Cycles
3
A combination of nucleation and growth 1

10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12
Equivalent Load
Equivalent constant amplitude loading
∑ ∆S
n
i
n i =1
∆S =
N
Typically n ranges from 4 to 6 for structures
N cycles at an amplitude of ∆ S does as much

damage as the entire loading history
SAE Keyhole Specimen
Bracket
Suspension
Transmission
SAE Keyhole Test Data
ManTen RQC 100
Bracket
100
Transmission
Suspension
Equivalent Load, kN
Constant Amplitude
10
1
5
1
103 104 105 106 107 108
 Rainflow counting is employed to identify

cycles
 The slope of the fatigue curve ( damage
mechanism) has a large influence on how
much damage is caused by smaller cycles
 Mean Stress
 Surface Finish
Stress Concentration Factor
 a 
σlocal = σapplied 1 + 2 

 ρ 
Inglis Solution 1910
2a
ρ
Local stress
Applied stress
Kσ and Kε
KtS σ
Kσ =
S
σ ε
Stress (MPa)
Kε =
ε e
Kte
Strain
Neuber’s Rule
KtS
Actual stress
σ
Stress (MPa)
ε Kt S Kt e = σε
Stress calculated with

elastic assumptions
Kte
Strain
Neuber’s Rule for Fatigue
Stress and strain amplitudes
K t ∆S K t ∆e ∆σ ∆ε
=
2 2 2 2
Elastic nominal stress
∆e ∆S
=
2 2E
Substitute and rearrange
∆S ∆σ ∆ε
Kt = E
2 2 2
The product of stress times strain controls fatigue life
A Dilemma
Stress analysis and stress concentration factors are

independent of size and are related only to the ratio
of the geometric dimensions to the loads
Fatigue is a size dependent phenomenon
How do you put the two together ?
Similitude
Fatigue of Notches
400
Nominal Stress, MPa
400
d d
300 d d 300
Kt = 3.1
Kt = 3.1
Kf = 2.2
200
Kt = 3.1
200 Kf = 2.2
100
Kt = 3.1
104 5 106 107 108

100 10
Fatigue Life
104 105 106 107 108

Fatigue Life
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999

Notch Size
Kt Kt
Kf
Kf
Large Notch Small Notch
Microstructure Size
Kt Kt
Kf
Kf
Low Strength High Strength
Stress Gradient
Kt
Kt Kf
Kf
Low Kt High Kt
Kt vs Kf
Effective stress concentration 10
Kf = Kt
8
6
Kf
4 Experiments
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Kt
Calculated stress concentration
Peterson’s Equation
1.8
 2070 MPa 
α = 0.025   mm
4
 σu 
3 Kt −1
K f =1 +
α
Kf 2 1+
ρ
1
0
10-4 10-3 10-2 0.1 α 1 10 102 103
ρ
No effect when ρ << α
Full effect when ρ >> α
Peterson’s Constant
0.7
0.3
α, mm
0.1
0.03
500 1000 1500 2000
Ultimate Strength, MPa
Static Strength
hole slot diamond edge

Kt = 2.5 Kt = 5 Kt = 20 Kt = 20
1018 Steel Test Data
100
80
load, kN
edge
60
diamond
slot
40 hole
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
displacement, mm
Notched SN Curve
10000
Stress Amplitude, MPa
Smooth specimen data
1000
Kf
Notched specimen
100
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Cycles
Stress concentrations are not very important at short lives
Fatigue of Notches
400
Nominal Stress, MPa
400
d d
300 d d 300
Kt = 3.1
Kt = 3.1
Kf = 2.2
200
Kt = 3.1
200 Kf = 2.2
100
Kt = 3.1
104 5 106 107 108

100 10
Fatigue Life
104 105 106 107 108

Fatigue Life
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999

Crack Growth Data
10-6
10-7
Kc
Nonpropagating cracks
10-8
da
= C ∆K m
2
10-9 ∆K TH > ∆σ 1.12 πa
dN π
10-10
10-11
10-12
1 10 100
∆KTH ∆K,MPa m
Frost Data
1.0 nucleation fracture
Rotating bending
0.8 Notched bar
Notched plate
Sfatigue limit
0.6
Snominal
0.4
0.2 1 nonpropagating cracks

Kt
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Kt
Frost, “A Relation Between the Critical Alternating Propagation Stress and Crack Length for Mild Steel”
Proceedings of the Institute for Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 173, No. 35, 1959, 811-836
Significance
For Kt > 4, the notch acts like a crack with a depth D
∆K th
S fl =
πD
Kt does not play a role for sharp notches !
A stress concentration behaves like a crack

once a stress concentration becomes large (Kt > 4)
Cracks at Notches
S KtS S
a a D+a
a << D a >> D
Stress Intensity Factors
3.0
K = K t S πa
K 2.0
K = S π( D + a )
S D
1.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a
D
Cracks at Holes
1 20 1 22
Once a crack reaches 10% of the hole radius,

it behaves as if the hole was part of the crack
Specimens with Similar Geometry
Kt = 10.7 Kt = 2.4
25 25
2.5 2.5
Ultimate Strength 780 MPa

Yield Strength 660 MPa
Test Results
1000 Kt = 10.7
Strength Limited Kt = 2.4
Nominal Stress Amplitude
Fatigue Strength Dominated

Crack Growth Dominated
100
Threshold Stress Intensity Dominated
1
1 10 100 103 104 105 106 107
 Fatigue may be thought of as a failure of the
average stress concept, consequently,
fatigue usually begins at stress concentrators
which are most frequently located on the
surface
 The severity of a stress concentrator in
fatigue is size dependent
 Small stress concentrators are more
effective in high strength materials
 Mean Stress
 Surface Finish
Modern View of the Fatigue Limit
The fatigue limit is the stress where a crack may
nucleate but will not grow through the first
microstructural barrier such as the grain size,
pearlite colony size, prior austenite grain size,
eutectic cell size or precipitate spacing.
Slip Bands Crack
Intrinsic Flaws
Little effect of surface pit because Large effect of defect because

it is smaller than the grain size it is larger than the grain size
Surface Finish Influence
Influence of
Method Physics Size Surface Finish
Stress-Life Crack Nucleation 0.01 mm Strong
Strain-Life Microcrack Growth 0.1 - 1 mm Moderate
Crack Growth Macrocrack Growth > 1mm None
Sources of Surface Effects
 Machining
 Cutting
 Grinding
 Corrosion
 General
 Pitting
 Processing
 Cutting/Shearing
 Casting
 Forging
 Plating
 Foreign Object Damage
 Nicks
 Scratches
Machining
σ1
100 µm
Cracks start in machining marks not in the direction of the

maximum principal stress
Casting
100 µm
Surface flaw in gray cast iron
Nodular Iron Surface
Flake graphite formed on the surface of a nodular iron casting
Starkey and Irving, “A Comparison of the Fatigue Strength of Machined and As-cast Surfaces of SG Iron”
International Journal of Fatigue, July, 1982, 129-136
Test Data
Strain Amplitude 10-1
10-2
Machined Surface
10-3
Cast Surface
10-4
1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Fatigue Life, Reversals
Surface Reduction Factors
Polished
1.0 1.0
Ground
Fatigue Notch Factor

0.8 1.2
Machined
Surface Factor
0.6 1.7
Hot Rolled
0.4 2.5
0.2 5.0
Forged
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Noll and Lipson 1945
1000
Fatigue Limit, MPa
800
Ground
600
400 Machined
200 Hot Rolled

Forged
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Hiam and Pietrowski 1978
Driven for 1 or 2 years

in Southern Ontario
before making specimens
to evaluate corrosion effects
Strain controlled fatigue testing
Hiam and Pietrowski, “The Influence of Forming and Corrosion on the Fatigue
Behavior of Automotive Steels”, SAE Paper 780040, 1978
Kf for pitting
Hot Rolled Corroded

Surface Surface
950X 1.12 1.49
0.06% C HSLA 1.18 1.65
0.18% C HSLA 1.90
Surface finish factor predicts Kf = 1.6 for a Hot Rolled Surface
from Hiam and Pietrowski

Pit Depth Effects on Life
106
950X Steel
Fatigue Life, Cycles
105
104
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Pit Depth, mm
from Hiam and Pietrowski
Fatigue Notch Factor for Pits
1.5
1.4
1.3
Kf
1.2
1.1
1.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Pit Depth, mm
Suspension
Spring Failures
Microscopic Examination
Corrosion Pits
Corrosion Pits
Chrome Plating
500
Stress Amplitiude, MPa
Shot peened and

400 chrome plated
300 Base steel
Chrome plated
200
104 105 106 107 108
Life, Cycles
Almen, “Fatigue Loss and Gain by Electroplating” , Product Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1951, 109-116
Hard Chrome Plating
coating
In addition to cracks, coatings frequently have high tensile residual stresses

Metals Handbook, Volume 9, Fractography and Atlas of Fractographs
Galvanized Steel
3
225 MPa
Crack Density mm-1

2
240 MPa
1
305 MPa
0 0.5 1
Life Fraction
Vogt, Boussac, Foct, “Prediction of Fatigue Resistance of a Hot-dip Galvanized Steel”

Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2001,33-40
Fatigue Limit for Galvanized Steel
400
300
Uncoated Fatigue Limit
Fatigue Limit
200
∆K TH
SFL =
πt
100
10 100 1000
Coating Thickness, t µm
Coatings can be modeled with a crack equal to the coating thickness
Anodized Aluminum
Rateick et. al. “Relationshipp of Microstructure to Fatigue Strength Loss in Anodized Aluminum-Copper Alloys”
Aeromet 2004, June 2004
Pitting at Cu Rich Constituent
Foreign Object Damage
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ftgwww/frontpage/fod2.html
Foreign Object Damage
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ftgwww/frontpage/fod2.html
Upper Control Arm
Serial Number
 Fatigue crack nucleation is a surface phenomena

and everything about the surface affects the fatigue
life
 Most of the design rules are conservative having
been developed for materials of the 1950’s
Fatigue and Fracture

FatigueFactors PDF

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

FatigueFactors PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Fatigue and Fracture

Factors Influencing Fatigue

Professor Darrell F. Socie

© 2004-2013 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

 Tensile mean stresses reduce the fatigue life

Tensile mean stresses open

Mechanics Applied to Engineering

“.. whether the assumptions of the

-Su -Sys 0 Sys Su

Relative Fatigue Life

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

∆ε The elastic material surrounding

Nominal mean stress is less Nominal mean stress is greater

Mean stresses in plastic

0 < γ < 0.5

Crack opening level

Compressive stresses are not very damaging in crack growth

Tension overloads produce favorable

The mandrel and sleeve are

Courtesy of Fatigue Technology Inc.

200 Cold Expanded

Residual Stress (MPa) 200

Residual stress in a shot peened leaf spring

Residual Stress, MPa

50 mm diameter induction hardened 1045 steel shaft

 Local mean stress rather than the nominal

How to you identify cycles ?

How do you assess fatigue damage for a cycle ?

What could be more basic than

Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle 10-7

Which cycles do the most fatigue damage ?

(a) a few large cycles

(b) a moderate number of intermediate cycles

(c) a large number of small cycles

Damage ∝ ∆Sn n=3

Stress Amplitude, MPa

A combination of nucleation and growth 1

Equivalent constant amplitude loading

Typically n ranges from 4 to 6 for structures

N cycles at an amplitude of ∆ S does as much

 Rainflow counting is employed to identify

Stress calculated with

The product of stress times strain controls fatigue life

Stress analysis and stress concentration factors are

Fatigue is a size dependent phenomenon

How do you put the two together ?

104 5 106 107 108

104 105 106 107 108

From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999

Large Notch Small Notch

Low Strength High Strength

Ultimate Strength, MPa

hole slot diamond edge

Smooth specimen data

104 5 106 107 108

104 105 106 107 108

From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999

0.2 1 nonpropagating cracks

Kt does not play a role for sharp notches !

A stress concentration behaves like a crack

Once a crack reaches 10% of the hole radius,

Ultimate Strength 780 MPa

Fatigue Strength Dominated