is a relatively new field.

Only studied since 1800’s

• Fatigue is a failure on engineering materials characterized by

– relatively low levels compared to yielding
-high number of repetitions for a given load
– Other factors
,

• Fatigue failure occurs when a

for
high number of cycles.
2
Introduction to Fatigue in Metals

 Crack Initiation
 Fatigue always begins at a crack
 Crack may start at a microscopic
inclusion (<.010 in.)
 Crack may start at a "notch", or
other stress concentration
 Crack Propagation
 Sharp crack creates a stress
concentration
 Each tensile stress cycle causes
the crack to grow
(~10-8 to 10-4 in/cycle)
 Fracture
 Sudden, catastrophic failure with
no warning.

3
 Initiation or onset
microcracks

Development of
micro-cracks in macro-cracks

last and sudden

failure

5
6
7
Fatigue Failure
 Thus far we’ve studied STATIC FAILURE of machine elements.
 The second major class of component failure is due to DYNAMIC
LOADING
 Repeated stresses
 Alternating stresses
 Fluctuating stresses

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

material can sustain before failure assuming the load is applied
only once and held.
 Fatigue strength Resistance of a material to failure under cyclic
loading.
 A material can also FAIL by being loaded repeatedly to a stress
level that is LESS than (Su)
 Fatigue failure

8
 Methods

and the

and

, ;

9
• Three approaches used in design and analysis
of fatigue

or crack initiation method

or or

10
1. Stress-Life Method
 based on stress levels only
 It is the least accurate approach, especially for low-cycle
applications.
 Most traditional method:
 easiest to implement for a wide range of design
applications
 ample supporting data
 represents high-cycle applications adequately

11
2. Strain-Life Method
 Involves more detailed analysis of the plastic deformation at
localized regions where the stresses and strains are considered
for life estimates.
 Good for low-cycle fatigue applications.
 Some uncertainties exist in the results.

3. Fracture Mechanics Method

 Assumes a crack is already present and detected.
 Predicts crack growth with respect to stress intensity.
 Most practical when applied to large structures in conjunction
with computer codes and a periodic inspection program.
12
R. R. Moore rotating-beam fatigue testing machine

13
 There are essentially two types of fatigue:
1. High Cycle Fatigue (HCF) (Elastic Strain)
Semi-Log Scale
2. Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) (Plastic Strain)

The fatigue strength Sf

is the stress level that
a material can endure
for N cycles.

The stress level at

which that material
can withstand an
infinite number of Figure 6-10
cycles is called the
endurance limit.

Endurance Limit (Se):

Maximum stress that a
material will endure
without failure for an
infinite number of load
cycles. 14
 Note that non-
ferrous materials
often exhibit no
endurance limit.

 Eventually these
materials will fail due
to repeated loading.

 To come up with an
equivalent endurance
limit, designers
typically use the
value of the fatigue
strength Sf at 108
cycles

15
16
Note that non-ferrous materials often exhibit
no endurance limit.

17
18
 A quick method of estimating endurance limits is needed:
for preliminary and prototype design
for some failure analysis

Experimental results for

rotating-beam tests
simple tension tests
of specimens taken from
the same bar are shown in
Figure.

Figure Graph of endurance limits versus tensile strengths from actual test
results for a large number of wrought irons and steels. 19
 For steels, the relationship between the tensile strength and the
endurance limit is given by

0.5Sut Sut  1400 MPa

S e  
700 MPa Sut  1400 MPa
where
 S 'e : is the minimum tensile strength. The prime mark on S 'e in this
equation refers to the rotating-beam specimen itself.
 The unprimed symbol S e is for the endurance limit of any particular
machine element subjected to any kind of loading.

Conservative Lower Bound for Ferrous Materials

S e  0.3Sut
The endurance limit for various materials are given by 20
 Region of low cycle fatigue:
The fatigue strength S f is only slightly smaller than the tensile Sut
strength.

 Region of high Cycle Fatigue

The purpose of this section is to develop methods of approximation
of the in the high-cycle region, when information may
be as sparse as the results of a simple tension test. Experience has
shown are rectified by a logarithmic
transform to both stress and cycles-to-failure.

21
 , Sut  3.41H B MPa

Sut  1.58H B - 86 MPa

• For Steels, , HB  500,

true-stress value at failure,
 F  Sut  345 MPa

or  F   o where, m is exponent
m

22
In the region of high cycle fatigue, the equation relating the fatigue
strength S f to the number of cycles to failure N may be given by the
empirical curve fit equation: (only for reversing stress, m = 0)

where N is the number of cycles to failure and a and b are given by

where f is found from Figure 6-18. 23

 When Sut <490 MPa, then f = 0.9

Fatigue strength fraction (f) of Sut at 103 cycles

24
for Se =Se’ = 0.5 Sut at 106 cycles
If a is given, setting in Eq.
(6-13), The number of cycles-to-failure can be expressed as

Low-cycle fatigue is often defined (see Fig. 6-10) as failure that occurs in
a range of cycles.

S f  Sut N log f / 3 1  N  103

25
Figure 6-10

26
27
   F 
 log  
S e  1  f Sut 
b  when N e  106 or b   log  
log 2 N e  3  Se 

of Sut at 103 cycle (pivot

point)
f 
 F
Sut
2 10  3 b

a
 fSut  2

S e 28
 S f  aN b

1
  a b
N   S f   a  completely reversed stress
 a 

S f ( N )  Sut N log f  / 3

29
• Estimate the fatigue strength of
rotating beam specimen made of
AISI 1020 HR steel corresponding to
a life of 12.5 kilocycles of stress
reversal. Also estimate the life of the
specimen corresponding to a stress
amplitude of 252 MPa. The known
properties are Sut = 463 MPa,o=805
MPa, m = 0.22 and f = 0.90
30
  F   o  8050.90  786.6 MPa
 m 0.22

Se  0.5463  231.5 MPa

  F   786.6 
 log    log  
S 
 e   231.5   -0.08426 when
b N e  106
log 2 N e  
log 2 106 
 F
f 
Sut
2 10  3 b

786.6
463

2 10 3
 -0.08426
 0.8954

a
 fSut 
2

0.8954  463
2
 829 MPa
S e 231.5
31
 S f  aN b  82912500
0.08426
 374.6 MPa
1 1
a  b  252  0.08426
N       1372770 cylces
 a   829 
• How many cycles before failure at fatigue
strength at 500 MPa?
1 1
 Sf  b
 500  0.08426
N        ? ??? cylces
 a   829 

32
• The rotating-beam specimen used in the laboratory to
determine endurance limits is prepared very carefully
and tested under closely controlled conditions. It is
unrealistic to expect the endurance limit of a
mechanical or structural member to match the values
obtained in the laboratory. Some differences include
composition, basis of failure, variability
method, heat treatment, fretting
corrosion, surface condition, stress concentration
: corrosion, temperature, stress state,
relaxation times
size, shape, life, stress state, stress
concentration, speed, fretting, galling
33
Marin identified factors that quantified the effects of surface condition,
size, loading, temperature, and miscellaneous items.
is therefore written as:

Se : Endurance limit at the critical location of a machine part in geometry

and condition of use
S 'e : rotary-beam test specimen endurance limit

34
Endurance Limit using Marin’s factor

When , estimations
are made by applying Marin factors to the endurance limit. 35
where Sut is the minimum tensile strength and a and b are to be found
in Table 6-2.

Parameters for Marin

surface modification
factor, Eq. (6-19)

36
 
d / 7.62 0.107
 1.24 d 0.107
2.79  d  51 mm
kb  
0.157

1.51d 51  d  254 mm

• For , kb = 1
• What happened about the in
is cross
section is used?
Then employs an (de)
Effective dimension for round bar, d e  0.370d
For rectangular section of dimension h × b
de  0.808 h  b 37
Use de for round and rectangular cross-sections 38
 1 bending

kc  0.85 axial
0.59
 torsion

39
k d  0.9877  0.6507(10 3 )Tc  0.3414(10 5 )Tc2  0.5621(10 8 )Tc3  6.246(10 12 )Tc4
where, 37  Tc  540o C

If the rotating beam endurance limit is known at

room temperature then use
ST
kd 
S RT
and Table 6.4
Or use above equation

If the
then use
40
 41
Table 6-4:Effect of operating temperature on the tensile strength of steel.
 If Reliability is not mentioned
 Otherwise Use Table 6-5

42
 (e.g. rolling, drawing)

43
In Chapter 5, it was pointed out that: The existence of irregularities or
discontinuities, such as , or , in a part increases the
theoretical stresses significantly in the immediate vicinity of discontinuity.

44
In fatigue: Stress concentration should always be taken into account.

45
Some materials are not fully sensitive to notches and a reduced value
of Kt is used and the maximum stress is calculated as follows:

Kf is the fatigue stress concentration factor, for simple loading:

or

46
Notch sensitivity (q) index is defined by

0  q 1
To find q use Fig. 6-20 for steel and Al alloys , for reversed bending or
reversed axial load.
For reversed torsion use Fig. 6-21.
For cast iron use q  0.20 to be conservative.
For q  0 , then K f  1and the material has no sensitivity at notch at
all.
For q  1 , then K f  Kt and the material has full notch sensitivity.

47
Figure 6-20: Notch sensitivity curves.

48
 A solid round bar, 25 mm in diameter, has a
groove 2.5-mm deep with a 2.5-mm radius
machined into it. The bar is made of AISI 1018
CD steel and is subjected to a purely reversing
torque of 200 N·m. For the S-N curve of this
material, let f = 0.9.
• (a) Estimate the number of cycles to failure.
• (b) If the bar is also placed in an environment
with a temperature of 450◦C, estimate the
number of cycles to failure.

49
For an AISI 1018CD machined steel, the strength are
Sut  440 MPa; S y  370 MPa
440
Sut  3.41H B  H B   129
3.41
S su  0.67440  295 MPa

Find: Kfs
r 2.5 D 25
  0.125;   1.25; K ts  1.4 [From A13 - 15]
d 20 d 20

From Figure 6.21 : qs  0.94

K ts  1  qs K ts  1  1  0.94(1.4  1)  1.376

50
For Purely reversing Torque of 200 N.m
K ts 16T 1.376 16200 
 max    175.2 MPa   a
d 3
  0.023

Se  0.5Sut  0.5440  220 MPa

The Marine Factors are
For machined steel : From Table 6.2, a  4.51, b  - 0.265
k a  aSut   4.51440
 0.265
 0.899
b

 0.107  0.107
 d   20 
kb        0.902
 7.62   7.62 
For Torsional loading : kc  0.59
Endurance limit is not given : k d  1
Re liability Factor assume, ke  1
kf 1 51
The Marine Equation :
Se  k a kb kc k d ke k f Se
 Se  0.8990.9020.59111220  105.3 MPa

f  0.9

a
 fSsu 
2

0.9  295
2
 669.4
Se 105.3
1  fSsu  1  0.9  295 
b   log     log    0.13388
3  Se  3  105.3 
1 1
 
 a  b  175.2  b
 f   a  aN b  N       22300 Cycles
a  669.4 
52
(b) For an operating temperature of 450oC, the
temperature modification factor from Table 6.4 is
kd  0.843
Se  0.8990.9020.590.84311220  88.7 MPa

a
 fSsu 
2

0.9  295
2
 794.7
Se 88.7
1  fSsu  1  0.9  295 
b   log     log    0.15871
3  Se  3  88.7 
1 1
 
 a  b  175.2  0.15871
 f   a  aN  N   
b
   13700 Cycles
a  794.7  53
• A solid square rod is cantilevered at one end. The rod is
0.8 m long and supports a completely reversing
transverse load at the other end of ±1 kN. The material
is AISI 1045 hot-rolled steel. If the rod must support this
load for 104 cycles with a factor of safety of 1.5, what
dimension should the square cross section have?
Neglect any stress concentrations at the support end
and assume that f = 0.9.

54
For AISI 1045 HR steel, The strength are
Sut  570 MPa; S y  310 MPa
S e  0.5Sut  0.5570  285 MPa

f  0.9; n  1.5; N  104 Cycles

Find an initial guess based on Yielding

Mc M b / 2 6 M 61000  0.800
 a   max    3 
I  
3
b b / 12 b b3
For Yileding criteriaon ,
Sy 6800  310
 max   3
  b  28.5 mm
n b 1.5
55
 The Marine Factors are
For HR steel : From Table 6.2, a  57.7, b  - 0.718
k a  aSut   57.7440
 0.718
 0.606
b

For non - circular bar, d e  0.808b

 0.107  0.107
 d   0.808  28.5 
kb   e     0.888
 7.62   7.62 
For bending loading : kc  1
Endurance limit is not given : k d  1
Re liability Factor assume, ke  1
kf 1

The Marine Equation :

S e  k a kb kc k d ke k f S e
 S e  0.6060.8881111220  153.4 MPa 56
f  0.9

a
 fSst 
2

0.9  570
2
 1715.6
Se 153.4
1  fSst  1  0.9  570 
b   log     log    0.17476
3  Se  3  153.4 
S f  aN  1715.6 10
b
 
4  0.17476
 343.1 MPa

Sf Sf
6M 343.1
n a   3 
a n b 1.5
6800 343.1
 3
  b  0.0276 m  27.6 mm
b 1.5
57
 Now Check Marine Factors are
For non - circular bar, d e  0.808b
 0.107  0.107
 d   0.808  27.6 
kb   e     0.891
 7.62   7.62 
The Marine Equation :
S e  k a kb kc k d ke k f S e
 S e  0.6060.8911111220  153.9 MPa

a
 fSst 
2

0.9  570 
2
 1710
Se 153.9
1  fSst  1  0.9  570 

b   log  
   log    0.17429
3  Se  3  153.9 
S f  aN b  1710 10 4    0.17429
 343.4 MPa
58
 Sf Sf
6M 343.4
n a   3 
a n b 1.5
6800 343.4
 3
  b  0.0276 m  27.6 mm
b 1.5
Thus, Final dimension of the rod is 28 mm [From A - 15]

59
60
Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses

 Fluctuating stresses in machinery often take the form of

sinusoidal pattern because of the nature of the nature of some
rotating machinery.

 Other patterns some quite irregular do occur.

Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses

 In periodic patterns exhibiting a single maximum and single

minimum of force, the shape of the wave is not important.
 The peaks on both sides (maximum, minimum) are important.
 Fmax and Fmin in a cycle can be used to characterize the force
pattern.
 A steady component and an alternating component can be
constructed as follows:
 Stress Range

(R>0 )
 Mean (Midrange
Stress)

(R =0)
 Stress Amplitude
(Alternating Stress)

 Stress Ratio

 Stress Amplitude
(R =-1)
Any varying stress with a nonzero mean
is considered a fluctuating stress.
 Possible ways of quantifying the problem:

 Residual Stress Method

All stresses (both mean and alternating) are multiplied by the fatigue
stress concentration factor Kf , and correction is made for yielding and
resultant residual stresses if the calculated peak stress exceeds the
material yield strength.

 Nominal Mean Stress Method

In this method, stress concentration factor is applied only to alternating

stress.

Reduction in mean stress from not multiplying it by Kf , might be about

the same as the reduction in mean stress achieved with the residual
stress method by taking yielding and residual stress into account.
 Fatigue Failure Criteria for Fluctuating Stress

 After having defined the various components of stress associated with a

part subjected to fluctuating stresses, we want to vary both the midrange
stress and the stress amplitude or alternating component, to learn about
the FATIGUE RESISTANCE of parts when subjected to such situations.

 Many machine elements involve fluctuating stresses about a non-zero

mean.

 The influence of non-zero mean stress is estimated by using one of

several empirical relationships that determine failure at a given life when
both alternating and mean stresses are nonzero.
 Master Fatigue Diagram

Figure 6-26

Master fatigue
diagram for
AISI 4340 steel
with Sut = 158
Sy = 147 kpsi.

The stress
component at A
are

σmin = 20,
σ max = 120,
σ m = 70,
σ o = 50

all in kpsi
Fluctuating Stresses
Mean Stress Effect (R  -1)

2. Representing mean
stress effect using
modified
Goodman
Diagram

S is for strength

Failure data for Sm in tension and in compression

COMPRESSIVE mean stresses are BENEFICIAL (or have no effect) in
fatigue
TENSILE mean stresses are DETRIMENTAL for fatigue behavior
 In Fig. 6-27, the tensile side of Fig. 6-27 has been redrawn in terms of
strengths, instead of strength ratios, with the same modified Goodman
criterion together with four additional criteria of failure.
 Such diagrams are often constructed for analysis and design purposes; they
are easy to use and the results can be scaled off directly.

 The early viewpoint expressed on a diagram was that there existed a locus (sa,

sm) diagram was that there existed a locus which divided safe from unsafe
combinations of (sa, sm) .
 Ensuing proposals included:
1. The parabola of Gerber (1874),
2. The Goodman (1890) (straight) line,
3. The Soderberg (1930) (straight) line.
 As more data were generated it became clear that a fatigue criterion,
rather than being a “fence”, was more like a zone or band wherein the
probability of failure could be estimated. We include the failure criterion
of Goodman because
It is a straight line and the algebra is linear and easy.
It is easily graphed, every time for every problem.
It reveals subtleties of insight into fatigue problems.
Answers can be scaled from the diagrams as a check on the
algebra.
 Either the fatigue limit Se or the finite-life strength Sf is plotted on the

ordinate of Fig. 6-27.

 These values will have already been corrected using the Marin factors of
Eq.(6-18).
 Note that the yield strength is plotted on the ordinate too.
 This serves as a reminder that first-cycle yielding rather than fatigue might
be the criterion of failure.
 The midrange-stress axis of Fig. 6-27 has the yield strength Syt and the
tensile strength plotted along it.
 The criteria of failure are diagrammed in Fig.6-27:
1. The Soderberg,
2. The modified
3. Goodman
4. The Gerber
5. The ASME-elliptic
6. Yielding
 The diagram shows that only the Soderberg criterion guards against any yielding,
but is biased low.
 Considering the modified Goodman line as a criterion, point A represents a limiting
point with an alternating strength Sa and midrange strength Sm . The slope of the load
line shown is defined as .
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

1- Modified Goodman Theory (Germany, 1899)

Factor of Safety
For infinite life Failure Occurs When:

a m 1
Sa S m  
 1 Se Su n
Se Su n = OA/OB

Load Line slope

Sa
r
B

Sm
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

2- The Soderberg Theory (USA, 1933)

Factor of Safety
For infinite life Failure Occurs When:

Sa S m a m 1
 1  
Se S y n
Se S y
n = OC/OB
F
D E
For finite life fatigue B C
strength Sf = a
replaces Se
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

3- The Gerber Theory (Germany, 1874)

2
Failure Occurs When:
Sa  Sm  Factor of Safety
   1
Se  Su 

n = OF/OB

F Factor of Safety
D E 2
B n a  n m 
  1
C

Se  Su 
For finite life σa replaces Se
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)
2
 Sa   Sm 
2
4- The ASME Elliptic
     1
 Se   S y 
Failure Occurs When:

Factor of Safety
2 2
 n a   n m 
    1
 Se   Sy 

F
D E
B C
n = OE/OB
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

4- The ASME Elliptic

Failure Occurs When
2
 Sa   Sm 
2

     1
 Se   S y 

Factor of Safety
2
 n a   n m 
2

    1
F
D E 
B C  Se   S y 
n = OE/OB
For finite life sa replaces Se
 FAILURE CRITERIA

5- The Langer (1st Cycle) Yield Line

Sa Sm
Failure Occurs When
 1
S yt S yt

Factor of Safety

a m 1
 
S yt S yt n F
D E
B C
n = OD/OB
CH-07 LEC 26 Slide
84
 The stresses nσa and nσm can replace Sa and Sm, where n is the design
factor or factor of safety. Then, Eqs. (6-45) to (6-48) become:
We will emphasize the Gerber and ASME-elliptic for fatigue failure
criterion and the Langer for first-cycle yielding. However, conservative
designers often use the modified Goodman criterion. The design
equation for the Langer first -cycle-yielding is

The failure criteria are used in conjunction with a load line,

Principal intersections are tabulated in Tables 6-6 to 6-8. Formal
expressions for fatigue factor of safety are given in the lower panel of
Tables 6-6 to 6-8. The first row of each table corresponds to the fatigue
criterion, the second row is the static Langer criterion, and the third row
corresponds to the intersection of the static and fatigue criteria.
Fatigue
Criterion

Static
Langer
Criterion

Intersection of
the Static and
Fatigue Criteria

TABLE (7-9)

Amplitude and Steady

Coordinates of Strength and
Important Intersections in
First Quadrant for Modified
Goodman and Langer Failure
Criteria.
 Gerber

Langer

Intersection
of Gerber and
Langer
TABLE (7-10)

Amplitude and Steady

Coordinates of Strength
and Important Intersections
in First Quadrant for Gerber
and Langer Failure Criteria.
 ASME
Elliptic

Langer

Intersection of
ASME Elliptic
and Langer

TABLE (7-11)

Amplitude and Steady

Coordinates of Strength
and Important
Intersections in First
Quadrant for ASME
Elliptic and Langer Failure
Criteria.
 Special Cases of Fluctuating Stresses

• Case 1: m fixed

Sa
n
a

• Case 2: a fixed
Sm
n
m
• Case 3: a / m fixed

Sa Sm
n 
a m

• Case 4: both vary arbitrarily

1 a m
 
n Se Sut
 Fatigue Strength and Life
A- Completely Reversed Loading (R=-1) Ferrous Metals

  min 
Stress Ratio R   
  max 
( fSut ) 2
a
Strength Se
1  fSut 
b   log  
3  S e 
1
a  b
Fatigue life Nf  
 a 
 Fatigue Life with Mean Stress Effect

B- Fluctuating Loading (R  -1) Ferrous Metals

1
 S fr  b
Fatigue life Nf  
 a 
Sfr : Equivalent Completely Reversed Strength

a
S fr 
m
From Modified Goodman with Sfr =Se
1
Sut
 Fatigue Failure for Brittle Materials

The first quadrant fatigue failure criteria follows a curve upward

Smith-Dolan represented by

S a 1  Sm Sut

Se 1  Sm Sut
Or a design equation

n a 1  n m Sut

Se 1 n m Sut
 For a radial load line of slope r, we substitute Sa/r for Sm and
solve for Sa

r Sut  Se  4 r Sut Se 
Sa   1 1 
 r Sut  Se  
2
2 

 The fatigue diagram for a brittle material differs markedly
from that of a ductile material

 Yielding is not involved since the material may not have a

yield strength
 The compressive ultimate strength exceeds the
ultimate tensile strength severalfolds

 First-quadrant fatigue failure locus is concave-

upward (Smith-Dolan)

 Brittle materials are more sensitive to midrange

stress, being lowered

 Not enough work has been done on brittle fatigue

to discover insightful generalities
 The most likely domain of designer use is in the range from
Sut  Sm  Sut
 The locus in the first quadrant is Goodman, Smith-Dolan or
in between

 The portion of the second quadrant that is used is

represented by a straight line between points  Sut , Sut and 0,
Se
 Se 
Sa  Se   1 Sm Sut  Sm  0
 Sut 
 Torsional fatigue Strength Under
Fluctuating Stresses

 Torsional steady-stress component not more than the

torsional yield strength has no effect on the torsional
endurance limit.

 Torsional fatigue limit decreases monotonically with

torsional steady-stress

 Since the great majority of parts will have surfaces less than
perfect, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, are used

 In constructing the Goodman diagram Jorres uses

Ssu  0.67Sut
 Combining Loading Modes

Fatigue problems are classified under three categories:

i. Completely reversing simple loads
It is handled with the S-N diagram, relating the alternating stress to a life.
Only one type of loading is allowed here, and the midrange stress must be
zero.

i. Fluctuating simple loads

It uses a criterion to relate midrange and alternating stresses (modified
Goodman, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, or Soderberg). Again, only one type of
loading is allowed at a time.

i. Combinations of loading modes

It uses combined bending, torsion, and axial loadings.
 Combining Loading Modes

Completely reversed single stress

which is handled with the S-N diagram, relating the alternating stress to a life.
Only one type of loading is allowed here, and the midrange stress must be
zero.
Fluctuating loads
It uses a criterion to relate midrange and alternating stresses (modified
Goodman, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, or Soderberg). Again, only one type of
loading is allowed at a time.
Combination of different types of loading
such as combined bending, torsion, and axial.
 Combining Loading Modes
In Sec. 6-9, a load factor was used to obtain the endurance limit, and hence the
result is dependent on whether the loading is axial, bending, or torsion. But,
“how do we proceed when the loading is a mixture of, say, axial, bending, and
torsional loads?” This type of loading introduces a few complications in that
there may now exist combined normal and shear stresses, each with
alternating and midrange values, and several of the factors used in determining
the endurance limit depend on the type of loading. There may also be multiple
stress-concentration factors, one for each mode of loading. The problem of how
to deal with combined stresses was encountered when developing static failure
theories. The distortion energy failure theory proved to be a satisfactory method
of combining the
Combining Loading Modes

Multiple stresses on a stress element into a single equivalent von Mises stress.
The same approach will be used here.
1) The first step is to generate two stress elements, one for the alternating
stresses and one for the midrange stresses.
2) Apply the appropriate fatigue stress concentration factors to each of the
stresses; apply K 
f bending for the bending stresses, K fs   for the
 
torsion
torsional stresses, and K f axial
for the axial stresses.
3. Next, calculate an equivalent von Mises stress for each of these two stress
elements,
4. Finally, select a fatigue failure criterion (modified Goodman, Gerber, ASME-
elliptic, or Soderberg) to complete the fatigue analysis.
Combining Loading Modes
Combining Loading Modes
Combining Loading Modes
Case of Combined Axial, Bending and Torsion Loading
(kc? Kf?).

Assuming that all stress components are in time phase with each
other.

1. For the strength, use the fully corrected endurance limit for
bending, Se.
2. Apply the appropriate fatigue concentration factors to all stress
components.
3. Multiply any alternating axial stress components by 1/kc,ax
4. Find the principal stresses.
5. Find the von Miss alternating stress, ’a and mean stress ’m.
6. Use any of the theories above to compute the safety factor.
 Combining Loading Modes

’a and mean stress ’m are alternating and mean VM

stresses.

Both the steady and alternating components are

augmented by Kf and Kfs.

 If stress components are not in phase but have same

frequency, the maxima can be found using phase
angles and then summed.

 Otherwise assume that the stress components will

reach an in-phase condition so their magnitudes are
additive.
• The cold-drawn AISI 1018 steel bar shown in the figure
is subjected to an axial load fluctuating between 3.5
and 15 kN. Estimate the factors of safety ny and nf
using (a) a Gerber fatigue failure criterion as part of the
designer’s fatigue diagram, and (b) an ASME-elliptic
fatigue failure criterion as part of the designer’s fatigue
diagram.

107
For AISI 1045 HR steel, The strength are
Sut  440 MPa; S y  310 MPa
S e  0.5Sut  0.5440  220 MPa

Area, A  1025  6   190 mm 2

Fmax 15000
 max   6
 79 MPa
A 190 10
Sy 370
ny    4.68
 max 79
d 6
w  25 mm; d  6 mm;   0.24; K t  2.45 [From A13 - 1]
w 25
From Figure 6.20 : r  3 mm, q  0.78
Kt  1  q Kt  1  1  0.78(2.45  1)  2.13 108
The Marine Factors are
For machined steel : From Table 6.2, a  4.51, b  - 0.265
k a  aSut   4.51440
 0.265
 0.899
b

For axial loading, there is no size effect, kb  1

For axial loading : kc  0.85
Endurance limit is not given : k d  1
Re liability Factor assume, ke  1
kf 1

The Marine Equation :

S e  k a kb kc k d ke k f S e
 S e  0.8910.85111220  168 MPa
109
 Fmax  Fmin 15000  3500 Fm 
Fmax  Fmin 15000  3500
  9250 N
Fa    5750 N
2 2 2 2

K f Fa 2.13  5750 K f Fm 2.13  9250

a    64.5 MPa m    103.7 MPa
A 190 10 6 A 190 106
From Table 6.7, For Gerber Criterion, Factor of safety

  a    2 m S e  
2 2
1S 
n f   ut    1  1   
2 m   e 
S   ut a  
S 

1  440   64.5   2 103.7 168  

2 2

 nf       1  1    
2  103.7   168  
  440  64.5  
 n f  2.02
From Table 6.8, for ASME - elliptic criterion, Factor of safety
1 1
nf  2
 2 2
 2.10
a  m   64.5   103.7 
2

         110
   168   370 
 Se   S y 
• In the figure shown, shaft A, made ofAISI 1010 hot-rolled steel, is
welded to a fixed support and is subjected to loading by equal and
opposite forces F via shaft B. A theoretical stress concentration Kts
of 1.6 is induced by the 3-mm fillet. The length of shaft A from the
fixed support to the connection at shaft B is 1 m. The load F cycles
from 0.5 to 2 kN.
• (a) For shaft A, find the factor of safety for infinite life using the
modified Goodman fatigue failure criterion.
• (b) Repeat part (a) using the Gerber fatigue failure criterion.

111
 For AISI 1010 HR steel, The strength are
Sut  320 MPa; S y  180 MPa
S su  0.67 Sut  0.67320  214.4 MPa
S sy  0.5S y  0.5180  103.9 MPa
S e  0.5Sut  0.5320  160 MPa

From Figure 6.21 : H B  200, r  3 mm, qs  1

K ts  1  qs K ts  1  1  1(1.6  1)  1.6

Tmax  20000.05  100 N.m; Tmin  5000.05  25 N.m

K ts 16T 1.6 16 100
 max    101.9 MPa
d 3
 0.02 3

K ts 16T 1.6 16  25

 min    25.46 MPa
d 3
 0.023
112
  max   min
101.9  25.46
m    63.68 MPa
2 2
  101.9  25.46
 m  max min   38.22 MPa
2 2
The Marine Factors are
For HR steel : From Table 6.2, a  57.7, b  - 0.718
k a  aSut   57.7320
 0.718
 0.917
b

For non - rotating circular bar, d e  0.370d  0.370  20  7.4 mm

 0.107  0.107
 d   7.4 
kb   e     1.003
 7.62   7.62 
For Torsional loading : kc  0.59
Endurance limit is not given : k d  1
Re liability Factor assume, ke  1
kf 1 113
The Marine Equation :
S e  k a kb kc k d ke k f S e
 S e  0.9171.0030.59111160  86.8 MPa

From Table 6.6, For Modified Goodman Criterion, Factor of safety

1 1
nf    1.36
  a    m   38.22   63.68 
       
 S e   S su   86.8   214.4 
1  214.4 
2 
 38.22  
2
 2  63.68  86.8  
 nf       1  1   
2  63.68   86 .8    214 .4  38.22  
 n f  1.70
114
From Table 6.7, For Gerber Criterion, Factor of safety
2  2
1  S su    a   2 m S e  
n f       1  1   
2 m   S e    S su a  

1  214.4 
2 
 38.22  
2
 2  63.68  86.8  
 nf       1  1   
2  63.68   86.8    214.4  38.22  
 n f  1.70

115