International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Fatigue life variability due to variations in interference t of steel bushings

in 7075-T651 aluminum lugs
Michael A. Brown a,b, Jeffrey L. Evans a,
a
University of Alabama in Huntsville, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, United States
b
US Army, Aviation Engineering Directorate, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fatigue of metallic components is a concern in rotary wing aircraft. There exists a potential for loss of an
Received 22 February 2012 aircraft if a component fatigue life does not take into account all factors than can cause life variation.
Received in revised form 25 April 2012 Much literature was located dealing with the impact of large interference ts and cold working. Litera-
Accepted 2 May 2012
ture covering small changes was lacking. This study focused on small changes in interference such as
Available online 11 May 2012
those that could come from a tolerance on a drawing. Testing was completed on 7075-T651 Aluminum
alloy lugs with steel bushings of varying interference t. Testing three different levels of interference t
Keywords:
revealed three different SN curves even though the variation from t to t was small. Signicant
Aerospace
Aluminum alloy
improvements can be achieved in the SN curve simply by small changes in interference. From a safety
Fatigue strength point of view these changes should be looked at as potential reductions.
Life prediction 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
SN curves

1. Introduction be managed though crack growth analysis and mandatory periodic

Aluminum alloy lugs with steel bushings can be found in many
areas of rotary wing aircraft. These types of joints allow for parts to
be removed and installed easily, allow for movement during oper-
ation, and resist wear. These joints need to withstand a wide range
of vibratory loads which puts them at risk for fatigue failure. If the
joint is a single load path in a critical area, failure could lead to loss
of an aircraft. Interference t between the lug and bushing has his-
torically been used to improve fatigue lives. A substantial amount
of literature has been reviewed that focuses primarily on the im-
pact of large interference ts and cold working. The large interfer-
ence ts and cold working have been shown to improve fatigue life
greatly. The goal of this paper is to present data obtained from test-
ing that shows the impact to a component fatigue life caused by
small variations in interference t. Having test data for small vari-
ations of interference t will permit a better understanding of fati-
gue life scatter in full scale components manufactured with these
small variations.
Two approaches exist for dening fatigue life: (1) safe-life and
(2) damage tolerance [1,2]. In the safe-life approach the component
is removed prior to initiation of a crack. Removal is generally at a
time well before fatigue failure would occur due to the use of very
conservative safety factors. In the damage tolerance approach it is
assumed that a crack already exists in the component and it will
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 256 824 2257; fax: +1 256 824 7205.
E-mail address: jeff.evans@uah.edu (J.L. Evans).
inspections. Because testing here will develop SN (stress life)
curves, the results/discussion will apply to the safe-life approach.
Two ways that a component fatigue life can be improved are
through the use of cold working and interference t. Cold working
generates signicant residual compressive stresses. Caution is
needed to avoid the short transverse grain of the material or sheets
that are too thin to avoid fracture and warping [3]. In contrast to
cold working, controlled interference t results in tensile residual
stresses. The contact pressure and residual tensile stress have been
shown to increase fatigue life up to a point; however, excessive
interference which causes localized yielding can reduce the
enhancement [3]. It is suggested in [3] that due to the limitations
of theory, theory should not replace testing when utilizing fatigue
enhancers, There are limits towards the application of fatigue
quality enhancements and test validation is required to ensure
proper application of fatigue quality enhancers in aircraft design.
Many theories are presented as to why fatigue life can be im-
proved with interference t [310]. The primary reasons for life
improvement are: (1) residual hoop stresses introduced into the
inner diameter of the hole by the interference t, (2) increased con-
tact forces between internal and external part, and (3) better trans-
fer of load.
The rst reason that interference ts improve fatigue lives is
that they introduce residual stresses on the inner diameter of the
hole. Tensile hoop stresses result from lower levels of interference
whereas compressive hoop stresses result from higher levels
of interference (cold working the bushing into the lug). When

0142-1123/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.05.001
178 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187
interference t results in a tensile hoop stress, the magnitude of
the local alternating stress decreases while the magnitude of the
local mean stress increases in the region of the interference t.
The primary cause of fatigue crack initiation is the alternating
stress; however, eventually the mean stress increase can become
high enough to offset the benet of the reduced alternating stress
[4]. When the interference t results in a residual compressive
hoop stress, the local mean and local alternating stress in the re-
gion of the interference t are both decreased. If the critical area
of the part is in the region of the interference t, these changes re-
sult in improved fatigue life.
The second reason that increased interference ts improve fati-
gue lives is that they result in higher contact forces between the
surfaces. When a part such as a lug with a bushing is loaded, local
deections can cause a loss of contact between regions of the lug
and bushing. This movement makes parts such as these susceptible
to fretting. By increasing the contact forces between the lug and
bushing, relative movement is reduced. In the case of aluminum
parts, the oxide powders generated by fretting are harder than
the parent aluminum. These oxide powders and rubbing action
create stress risers that get worse over time [4]. Fretting has more
of a strength reduction in the higher cycle region of the SN curve
because more time is spent in the crack initiation phase. Strength
reductions of 1076% due to fretting are reported in [11] which
agrees well with the 67% reduction reported in [12] and the
1769% reduction reported in [5]. In contrast, a life reduction of
7585% due to fretting is reported in [6].
The third reason that increased interference ts improve fatigue
lives is that they result in lower stress concentrations (Kt) on the
component inner diameter. As opposed to the load having to go
around the bushing, more load gets transferred through the bush-
ing. This improved load transfer yields a lower Kt. The elastic anal-
ysis in [7] shows that the friction between the sheet and bolt has
an effect to reduce the stress concentration of the hole. The analy-
sis shows that both an open hole in the center of the sheet and a
frictionless bolt in the center of the sheet yield a stress concentra-
tion of 3. In the no-slip case, friction allows load to transfer from
the sheet to the bolt and this results in lower stress concentrations
from externally applied loads (Kt of 1.752.0 depending on modu-
lus of bolt). These two cases, frictionless and no-slip, are expected
to bracket the real loading because the author feels that in real life
some slip will be present between the bolt and sheet. Based on this,
the exact reduction in Kt is not known but it is expected some
reduction will occur.
Testing in [8] which compared press-t (0.2% interference) to
cold working (0.6% interference) showed a 1.56 load factor differ-
ence at the high load region of the curve and a 2.41 load factor dif-
ference in the low load region for 7075-T651 aluminum lugs. As a
follow on, [9] performed similar tests on steel and titanium lugs
but the benets were not as great as the benets to aluminum as
in [8]. The test in [8] will be used as the basis for the testing here,
except this testing will range from about 0.027% to 0.25% interfer-
ence. Testing in [4] and [10] also showed improvements; however,
very limited data is available in [4] and in [10] there was no change
until a very large interference (0.27%) was achieved. The lack of
change for small interferences in [10] may be due to the bushings
being press-t vs. shrink-t; however, from the data presented this
cannot be determined.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Test specimen manufacture
Test coupons as shown in Fig. 1 were manufactured from one
sheet of Bare 7075-T651 Aluminum Plate, per specication AMS-
Fig. 1. Fatigue test specimen, drawing and nal assembly (dimensions in mm
unless noted).
QQ-A-250/12. Coupons were cut out of the sheet such that the ax-
ial load in the test would be in the sheet rolling direction. The outer
edges of the coupons were cut by a computer guided milling ma-
chine to give a smooth consistent surface to the nal dimensions.
On the lug side of the coupon, a hole was rst drilled out and then
nalized with a reamer. To be able to accurately control the levels
of interference t, the inner diameter of the lugs were measured to
0.00254 mm (0.0001 in.) using a bore gauge, in three directions,
following reaming.
To ease assembly, the length of the bushing was extended
(greater than lug thickness) and a chamfer added to the inner and
outside diameter as shown in Fig. 1. The outside diameters of the
bushings were based on the measurements taken from the 44 cou-
pons such that the desired diametrical interference t of 0.0051,
0.0279 and 0.0457 mm (0.0002, 0.0011 and 0.0018 in.) would be
achieved as close as possible. To simplify manufacturing, only three
different sized bushings were ordered, this resulted in small toler-
ance differences within the three levels of t. The bushings were
centerless ground out of 17-4PH, Condition 1025 Stainless Steel,
to match prior testing [8], to an outside diameter of 18.2702,
18.2931 and 18.3210 mm (0.7193, 0.7202 and 0.7213 in.). The nal
bushings all came in near the low end of the drawing tolerance.
Fig. 2 shows the nal actual interference obtained for each part
along with the desired interference from the drawing.
Prior to assembly, the top and the bottom surfaces of the lugs
were hand polished in a circumferential direction with 600 grit
sand paper in the lug region only. A nal cleaning with isopropyl
alcohol was performed and the parts were inspected visually with
no discernible defects. The shrink-t was performed by submerg-
ing the bushings in liquid nitrogen so that no external force was re-
quired to t the parts. Heat was not required on the lugs. Shrink-t
results in both higher contact pressures and interlocking of surface
asperities unlike press-t [13]. Shrink-t was chosen because it
performs better than press-t. Testing performed in [13] showed
that press-tting a harder material with a softer material resulted
in both changes to part dimensions and proles, shrink-tting re-
tained more of the original dimensions and proles.
Following assembly, all parts were measured for width at the
center of the lug and thickness at 0, 90, and 180 around the
lug. All measurements were within acceptable tolerance. A light
polish with 600 grit paper in the circumferential direction removed
any marks caused during the interference t and measurement
process. As a nal step, all parts were cleaned with isopropyl
alcohol and marked with a paint pen to record the orientation of
the lug in the bushing. The nal assembled part can be seen in
Fig. 1.
 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187 179

0.050 0.27% is plotted in Fig. 4. It can be seen that there is a clear difference
0.045 0.25% in cycles to failure for a given load at the different levels of inter-
Average Interference as Tested 0.23%
0.040 ference t. The largest difference occurs in the higher cycle (lower
Tight Fit Per Drawing 0.21%
load) region. The results from ForceMate testing [8] as interpreted
Interference (mm)

0.035 Mid Fit Per Drawing 0.19%

Interference (%)
0.030 Loose Fit Per Drawing 0.17% from charts, shows good correlation to the results of this study as
0.15% shown in Fig. 4. Because exact details are not known for the test/re-
0.025 0.13%
0.11%
sults represented by ForceMate, no specic direct comparisons
0.020
0.09% were done.
0.015
0.07%
0.010 0.05%
0.005 0.03%
3.2. SN curve t
0.01%
0.000 -0.01%
-0.005 -0.03% The Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardi-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
zation (MMPDS) handbook [15] is a publicly available material
Coupon # allowable source that is generally accepted by the Federal Aviation
Fig. 2. Interference t for each coupon. Administration (FAA) for compliance with Federal Aviation Regula-
tions (FARs). Material SN curves in MMPDS cover a range of differ-
2.2. Test detail ent load ratios. For a given material, a general curve shape equation
containing an equivalent stress formulation is provided. Different
Testing was conducted on a 100 kN (22 kip) MTS servo-hydrau- materials have different general curve shapes and different equiv-
lic test system using ASTM E466-07 [14] as a guide. Testing was alent stress formulations. To plot the family of curves for the given
performed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in ambient material, the equivalent stress formulation adjusts the general
laboratory conditions. The temperature and humidity were not curve shape to t the test data at the different load ratios. As part
measured, but it was a climate controlled laboratory and the test- of the testing completed for this project, various attempts were
ing was performed during about a 2 month period from September made to nd a general curve shape and an adjustment factor based
to November. Given those conditions and the short time span for on interference t that could be used to describe the failure points.
testing, it is not believed that variations in humidity or tempera- The various attempts all used the general forms of the curves found
ture inuenced the testing in any appreciable way. Hydraulic grips in [15] and least squares regression to determine the constants. Of
were used to secure the specimen on one end and a clevis was the various attempts to nd a general curve shape and an equiva-
manufactured to secure the lug on the other end. Fig. 3 shows lent stress formulation, the most successful is shown in Eqs. (1)
the test xture and setup. Loading was a 25 Hz sinusoidal wave, and (2) with the resulting curves plotted in Fig. 4. In Eqs. (1) and
with an R-ratio of 0.05. The externally applied loads that were used (2), (Nf) is cycles to failure, (req) is an equivalent stress in MPa
to control the MTS xture can be found in Table 1. Data checks and (rnet) is the net section stress in MPa based only on applied
were performed throughout testing to ensure that the loads de- external load divided by net area (no Kt). For the curve t purposes,
sired matched the actual loads. Failure was dened as complete A4 from Eq. (2) worked best as a constant. The values of A4 for each
separation of the lug. level of interference t are shown in Fig. 4.

3. Results LogNf 7:25  2:35  logreq 1

3.1. Raw test results req rnet =6:895  A4 2

Throughout the test, the maximum applied external load and Using a general curve shape that was adjusted based on the le-
cycles to failure for each test specimen were recorded. That data vel of interference resulted in a very good t to the test data except
in two places, both of which were in the low load region. First,
there was signicant scatter in the tight t specimens at the low
load level. There is one point that seems to be an outlier that failed
much sooner than the other two specimens. When reviewing the
fatigue initiation locations, this one outlier had a fatigue initiation
location that was very different from all other specimens, also an
outlier. While most fatigue cracks began near or below the hori-
zontal, this particular specimen failed well above the horizontal.
More discussion is provided in Section 3.3 regarding failure loca-
tion. Because the location of fatigue initiation was so much differ-
ent for this specimen and because of the scatter in cycles to failure,
it is suspected that some material defect may have been present.
However, the exact cause of this anomaly has not been fully inves-
tigated. Secondly, there is a discrepancy in the low load failures of
the loose t. Even with adjusting the planned test loads, a failure
near 1,000,000 cycles was not achieved with the loose level of t
as planned. Because the low load level for the mid and tight ts
failed at signicantly higher cycles, the least squares regression
did not put as much emphasis on optimizing the curve at the
low load of the loose t since the cycles were so much smaller.
The specimens were exhausted prior to locating the endurance
limit for the loose t. Caution is needed when using the results
Fig. 3. Test setup. of the SN curve t at the low load levels of the loose t because
180 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187

Table 1
MTS applied load levels.

Load level Max load (kN) R-ratio Min load (kN) Mean load (kN) Alternating load (kN) Frequency (Hz)
1 28.0 0.05 1.4 14.7 13.3 25
2 24.0 0.05 1.2 12.6 11.4 25
3 20.0 0.05 1.0 10.5 9.5 25
4 16.0 0.05 0.3 8.4 7.6 25
5 12.0 0.05 0.6 6.3 5.7 25
6 9.5 0.05 0.5 5.0 4.5 25

40 through each of the test points and calculating a mean and stan-
Tight Fit
Tight Fit (0.0457 mm), A4 = 14.35 dard deviation for each level of interference t. Fig. 6 shows the
35 Mid Fit
upper and lower bounds of the data for the loose t, the mid t,
Appliied Load ((kN)

Mid Fit (0.0279 mm), A4 = 9.49

Loose Fit
30 Loose Fit (0.0051 mm), A4 = 5.26 and the tight t. Based on statistical data, the coefcient of varia-
25
ForceMate Test Results (approx. 0.0381 mm) tion (COV) ranged from 5.5% to 8.5%. When considering variation
within the different levels of interference, this COV range is not
20 bad. For the loose t this means all data falls within a +13/15%
15 band, the mid t falls within a +11/10% band, and the tight t
Max A

Two falls within a +9/13% band from the mean.

10
Runouts To calculate a fatigue life for a given interference t, the mean
M

5 strength curve would be taken with a statistical reduction to ac-

0 count for the desired reliability. Using these reduced strength
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000 curves and the appropriate loading spectrum the designer can
Cycles to Failure (Nf) determine the life for each level of interference t and determine
how much scatter in life would be present based on the overall tol-
Fig. 4. Plotted test results with curve t.
erances allowed for the interference on the assembly drawing.

16 3.3. Post-test specimen review

14
Following the completion of the test, the failed specimens were
12 reviewed under a 3 lighted desktop magnifying glass. When more
detail was required a 10 handheld lens was used. The failed spec-
10
imens were primarily reviewed in three areas: contact surface be-
A4

8 tween the lug and bushing, the facture surfaces of the lugs, and the
6
4 no comparisons were made for parts at load level 6 since, of the
A4 = 223.61 * (interference) + 4.5883
2
R = 0.9984
0 bushings. This was determined by the presence of a blackish fret-
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030
Interference (mm)
Fig. 5. A4 coefcient vs. interference.
the projected endurance limit may be signicantly over predicted.
Additional testing in this high cycle region would be benecial and
would have been completed had more samples been available.
The next step was to nd a relationship which equates the con-
stant A4 to interference. Because the bushings came in on the low
end of the tolerance band, the actual interference was averaged for
each level of t for use in this step. A linear relationship was pres-
ent between the A4 term and the actual amount of interference as
shown in Fig. 5. This allows for an expression to be developed
which gives log (Nf) based on amount of interference (int) and
net section stress (rnet). In Eq. (3), interference (int) is expressed
as millimeters of diametrical interference while (rnet) is in MPa.
LogNf 7:25  2:35  logrnet =6:895  223:61  int
4:5883
Using the curve shapes that were found for each of the three
levels of interference t, statistical analysis was completed on
the actual data. This was performed by tting the curve shape
location of the fatigue initiation. No comparisons are made for
parts at load level 4 since only one level of t was available and
two levels of t available, the mid t were run outs.
There was evidence of movement between the lugs and the
0.040 0.050 ting residue on the aluminum and steel as well as by small circum-
ferential scratches in the aluminum. The FEM model predicted that
there would be separation between the lug and bushing so this is
not a surprise. For the most part the amount of fretting residue
present was a function of the number of cycles to failure. When
reviewing all the parts with a loose interference t, the higher load,
lower cycle parts had the least fretting. For the mid interference t,
the higher load, lower cycle parts also had the least fretting. For the
tight interference t all load levels had a similar amount of fretting
except for the lowest loaded specimen which actually had the least
despite being cycled many more times. When reviewing the parts
by load level, the tighter the t, the more fretting was present,
however, the exception to this rule was the low load level where
the tighter interference t had the least fretting. Fig. 7a shows
the fretting surfaces of three different specimens at load level 3.
Since each part within a level of interference t was similar, only
one of each is shown.
Comparisons were made of the fatigue regions for each speci-
men and as expected the higher load level test parts had the small-
est fatigue regions (sometimes hard to nd) while the lower load
level test parts had the largest fatigue regions. Depending on the
3
part, sometimes the fatigue region was focused in one area other
times there were multiple fatigue regions. All fatigue cracks initi-
ated on the inner diameter of the lug; however, sometimes they
were thumbnails starting on the corner and others were edge
 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187
Fig. 6. Statistical info for (a) loose t, (b) mid t, and (c) tight t.
cracks starting within the thickness. Some parts had fatigue initia-
tions on one side of the lug, only, while others had fatigue initia-
tions on both side of the lug. Samples of some of the fatigue test
specimens are shown in Fig. 7bd.
Components tested at load level 1, regardless of interference t,
all had similar small fatigue indications on the inner diameters. For
load level 2, both the loose and mid t had similar sized small fa-
tigue indications on the inner diameter; however, the tight t had
much larger indications that covered a majority of the fracture sur-
face on one side of the lug. At load level 3, the loose t once again
had the smallest indications while the mid and tight t both had
much larger fatigue surfaces that covered a large portion of one
side of the lug. At load level 5 all parts regardless of t had similar
large fatigue regions covering a majority of at least one side of the
lug. It is not known why, and outside the study here, but it appears
that at the load level 2 and load level 3 the amount of interference
t has some impact on the critical crack size. This assumption is
made based on how at these two load levels there was a change
in the similarities of the fatigue regions of the parts.
The nal review of the failed parts was a review to see if the
load level or interference t level had an impact on where the fa-
tigue initiation site was. This review required making some
assumptions and generalizations. If there were multiple small fati-
gue locations, the average angle (above or below horizontal) is re-
ported. For parts with small fatigue locations on one side of the lug
and signicantly larger fatigue regions on the other side of the lug,
the angle to the larger fatigue region is reported. With the excep-
tion of an outlier there appears to be a correlation to fatigue initi-
ation location and interference t; however, with this limited data
set an exact conclusion cannot be drawn. Fig. 8a, even with a large
amount of scatter for the tight t, shows that as the level of inter-
ference increases, the average angle to failure initiation location
decreases. Because there was a single outlier in Fig. 8a that repre-
sented a mean + 2.85 sigma sample, it was removed to obtain the
other plot in Fig. 8b. This point that was removed is the same point
discussed in Section 3.2 that failed at a much lower number of
cycles. With this outlier removed, the angle change with interfer-
ence t becomes more apparent. It was shown in [16] that as
181
interference t increased the failure location occurred at a greater
angle above the horizontal, opposite of what testing here showed.
There are two major differences between the test in [16] and here
that may be a cause; (1) the testing referenced used a much higher
level of interference t and (2) the testing referenced was for a cen-
tral hole specimen loaded in tension with no external load applied
to the bolt.
4. Discussion
Fatigue testing has shown that even small variations in interfer-
ence t can result in signicant changes to a components SN
curve. For a component operating in the high cycle region of the
curve, this can cause signicant life differences between two parts
even if they are made to the same drawing tolerances. If the parts
tested for use in fatigue analysis do not represent the range of tol-
erances possible, the life prediction will not cover all parts. These
elded parts can either have their fatigue lives over or under esti-
mated. Overestimation of lives will result in parts being scrapped
prematurely but at the same time underestimation could result
in eld failures.
To understand the amount of scatter present, fatigue strength
improvement and fatigue life improvement curves are presented
in Fig. 9. Fig. 9a presents the amount of additional external load
that a part can carry due to increased levels of interference t.
Fig. 9b shows the life improvement for a given external load. These
curves were generated from the SN curves presented in Fig. 4. In
Fig. 8a, the solid lines with points (>100,000 cycles) in the mid/
loose curve and tight/loose curve represent the point at which no
actual data exists for these ts. These projections should not be
used for design. At this point the improvement is strictly based
off of the projection from the SN curve shape. In Fig. 8b, the life
improvement is not shown for the highest cycle parts since it is sig-
nicantly larger and makes the rest of the curve not readable. As
was expected from the literature review and FEM analysis, as the
load got lower and the cycles to failure got longer, the improve-
ment factors got larger.
182 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187
Fig. 7. Failed test specimens; (a) typical fretting, load level 3, (b) loose t close-up of typical failure zones (white arrows), (c) mid t close-up of typical failure zones (white
arrows), (d) tight t close-up of typical failure zones (white arrows).
The strength and life improvements shown in Fig. 8 can be
attributed to various reasons as discussed in Section 1. The major
reason for the change in the fatigue life is that when a bushing
and a lug have an interference t, the residual stresses in the region
of contact change. The radial and hoop stresses in the region of the
contact surfaces are altered by changing the amount of interfer-
ence t.
As interference is increased, so is the radial contact stress. These
increased contact stresses have been shown to reduce the impact
of fretting on fatigue. Hand analysis performed early on in this
study have shown that the levels of interference as tested resulted
in a range of contact stresses from about 2.8 MPa (400 psi) for the
loose t up to about 50 MPa (7200 psi) for the tight t. The higher
contact stresses at the tight level of t will help to reduce the rel-
ative movement between the surfaces thus increasing fatigue life.
In addition to radial stresses, there is also a change in the hoop
stress. Different residual hoop stresses have been shown to change
the fatigue properties of a component. For the levels of interference
tested, as the interference increased so did the tensile hoop stress
on the inner diameter of the lug. Had higher levels of interference
been used, cold working could have occurred resulting in compres-
sive hoop stresses. Because the test components only had residual
tensile hoop stresses from the interference, the effect was to lower
the local alternating stresses. Lowering the local alternating stres-
ses in the fatigue critical region has the effect of increasing the fa-
tigue life. Calculations performed early on in this study showed
that the levels of interference as tested resulted in a range of about
4.8 MPa (700 psi) tensile hoop stress for the loose t up to about
83 MPa (12,000 psi) tensile hoop stress for the tight t. This signif-
icant change in residual stresses will result in signicant changes
in the local alternating loads. In addition to lowering the alternat-
ing stress, there will be an increase in the mean stress. While mean
loads are not the primary driver in fatigue, there will be some
reduction in the improvement had only alternating loads been con-
sidered. At low enough levels, the impact of mean stress is
minimal.
The increase in mean loads are accounted for by use of constant
life diagrams which were developed by early railroad and bridge
engineers to account for the dead and dynamic loading [17]. Many
references are available which discuss the various studies of mean
 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187
Fig. 8. Angle of fatigue initiation vs. level of interference with three sigma error bars; (a) all specimens, (b) potential outlier in tight t removed, (c) angle reference.
Fig. 9. (a) Load improvement factor vs. cycles to failure and (b) life improvement
factor vs. net section stress.
load effects [2,11,1720]. For this paper, modied Goodman and
Morrow methods are employed. An equivalent alternating stress
(rar) which has a basis of R = 1, can be calculated based on the ac-
tual alternating stress (ra) and the actual mean stress (rm). The
183
modied Goodman method, Eq. (4) is a straight line anchored at
the material ultimate strength (rult).
rar ra =1  rm =rult 4
The Morrow method, Eq. (5), is a straight line anchored at the
true fracture strength (rfB).
rar ra =1  rm =rfB 5
Comparisons were made in [18] of some of the different correc-
tion, with a conclusion being that modied Goodman correlation is
poor, to actual test data, usually being excessively conservative for
tensile mean loads. Morrow using the true fracture strength gave
considerably better results than modied Goodman while other
methods gave better results still. One of the limitations of the cur-
rent parameters is that most assume linear relationships as op-
posed to nonlinear [19]. An FEM model was utilized to help
explain the difference in stresses caused by the interference ts.
The FEM model allows for review of the residual stresses from
bushing interference and stresses under the fatigue load cycle.
Modeling was performed in Abaqus/CAE Version 6.9-1 so that
the contact surface and interference code documented in [21]
could be utilized. The model was limited to elastic material re-
sponse. It was noted that at the maximum load for load case 1
and load case 2, some localized yielding and plastic deformation
would occur. This will also have some impact on the results so fu-
ture analysis should include the plastic material response to better
show the stresses. Based on elastoplastic analysis performed in
[22] it is expected that in this test, the rst load cycle would cause
localized yielding but subsequent cycles will remain in the elastic
range. For this study showing the relative difference using elastic
material response is sufcient.
Using the contact surface and interference code, rst the lug was
modeled and then the bushing was interference t into the lug.
Following the step that imparted the interference between the
surfaces, the external load could be applied. Both the maximum
184 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187

and minimum external loads were applied to the model for each
load case. Fig. 10a and b is stress plots showing the residual loads
caused by bushing interference. In Fig. 10a, the y-axis stresses are
shown and in Fig. 10b the von Mises stresses are shown. The inter-
ference t in these plots is based off of the drawing tolerances so
there is a slight difference between these models and actual tested
parts. Fig. 10c shows the von Mises stresses caused by the maxi-
mum of load case 2 while Fig. 10d is the von Mises stresses from
the minimum of load case 2.
To show the differences, the stresses on the inner diameter of
the lug were plotted. The stresses used in this discussion are the
von Mises stresses. There are many different models that can be
used for multi-axial fatigue calculations but for this study von
Mises stresses were chosen to simplify the discussion. Future
analysis using multi-axial fatigue methods could further expand
on what is shown here. Fig. 11 clearly shows why one would ex-
pect interference t to increase part life. Only one load level is
shown because all load levels had similar results. While the maxi-
mum loads are similar, as is shown in Fig. 11a, there is a signicant
difference in the minimum loads, as is shown in Fig. 11b. The dif-
ference in the minimum load results in the loose t having a signif-
icantly higher alternating load, Fig. 11c, but the tighter t has a
higher mean load, Fig. 11d. Another phenomenon that is noticed
from the FEM results is that the location of the peak stress changes
from the maximum to the minimum external load. For comparison,
Fig. 11e and f presents mean load corrections based on the von
Mises alternating stresses. The loads were corrected back to an
R = 0.05 which is what the external applied loads were. As can be

Fig. 10. FEM plots; (a) y-axis stress due to interference t, (b) von Mises stress due to interference t, (c) von Mises stress from load case 2 maximum, (d) von Mises stress
from load case 2 minimum.
 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187
Fig. 11. von Mises Lug ID stresses, load case 2; (a) maximum load, (b) minimum load, (c) alternating load, (d) mean load, (e) Goodman corrected alternating load, (f) Morrow
corrected alternating load.
seen in Fig. 11c, the uncorrected alternating load has a larger
change between the levels of t whereas once the corrections are
done, Fig. 11e and f, the change is smaller. As expected, the Good-
man correction which has been shown to be over conservative has
the smallest difference as compared to the Morrow correction.
Using the results from the FEM analysis as well as hand calcu-
lations, several ways to adjust the SN curve shown in Fig. 4 were
attempted. The best ways to represent the curve are shown in
Fig. 12. Fig. 12a shows the test data plotted using the FEM calcu-
lated alternating stresses. Using this method, the points are shifted
such that they almost all fall on the same line. Because mean stres-
ses, while not major contributors, do have an impact on fatigue
strength, Figs. 12b and c are presented. Fig. 12b is a plot of Good-
man corrected alternating loads and Fig. 12c is a plot of Morrow
corrected alternating loads. Because Fig. 12b and c represents the
actual test specimens, if the fatigue failures were based strictly
on stress, all the points once they are corrected should fall on the
same line. In this case, the actual alternating von Mises stresses fall
almost on the same line while the corrected points differ more.
Using the previously mentioned theories that tighter ts reduce
fretting, this makes sense that once adjusted for mean loads, the
185
tighter ts have a higher number of cycles to failure than the loose
ts. One of the curve adjustments that showed promise was calcu-
lating an alternating load based on net section stresses as shown in
Eq. (6), where (rmaxnet) is the maximum net section stress based
strictly on maximum applied external load divided by net area,
(rminnet) is the minimum net section stress based strictly on mini-
mum applied external load divided by net area, and (rint) is the
hoop stress that the interference adds to the lug inner diameter.
rmaxnet  rminnet rint =2 6
In Fig. 12d it can be seen that all points are adjusted to a similar
curve. The only issue with this curve is that at the low load, the
runout at the mid t is plotted above the tight t.
Shown in Fig. 13 is an explanation of why there is a greater dif-
ference in life and stress at the lower load levels. Using the FEM
model, the stresses along the inner diameter of the lug were re-
corded at both the minimum and maximum load for each load le-
vel and each level of interference t. Using the minimum and
maximum load, calculations were performed to obtain an alternat-
ing load, Goodman corrected alternating load and Morrow cor-
rected alternating load. Fig. 13 clearly shows that the residual
186 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187

Fig. 12. Review SN curve data points; (a) alternating stress from FEM, (b) Goodman corrected alternating stress from FEM, (c) Morrow corrected alternating stress from FEM,
(d) corrected per Eq. (6).

 For a given stress, the life can vary by anywhere from 1.4 times
Uncorrected
to 147 times. Life changes are greater in the low load region of
80% Goodman Corrected
the SN curve and smaller in the high load region.
Morrow Corrected
Stresss, Looose vss. Tight Fitt

70%  Small changes in interference can greatly impact fatigue life.

g von

Changes such as these could have drastic impacts on full-scale

A nating

60% reliability (either addition or reduction depending on parts

tested vs. parts elded).
% Inccreasee of Altern

50%
 The process of shrink-tting a bushing vs. press-tting a bush-
40% ing alters the contact surfaces in different manners. Testing in
[10] which involved press-t bushings saw no change in fatigue
30%
life over a larger percentage of interference than was tested in
S

20% this study which used shrink-t. This was a surprise with the
Mises

large changes in fatigue lives found in this study. Follow on test-

M

10%
ing to determine if the lack of fatigue improvement in [10] is
0% related to the small geometry differences or the process of
1 2 3 4 5 6 installing the bushing would be of benet.
Load Level  Over the range of loads tested, it is possible to incorporate the
amount of interference into an equation that can dene the dif-
Fig. 13. Ratio of % alternating stress increase for loose vs. tight t.
ferent SN curves.
 The strength COV for the different levels of interference was
stress caused by interference has a greater inuence at load level 6 rather small and variation in load was minimal (i.e. about 10%).
than load level 1. This is because at the lower load level, the resid-  The greater difference at the low load level is due to the ratio of
ual stress is a larger percentage of the applied load whereas at the the residual stress to the applied external load.
higher load level, the residual stress is a smaller percentage.

Public release statement

5. Conclusion
For a given number of cycles to failure, the load capability can
vary from 11% to 63% depending on the change in interference
t. Fatigue strength changes less in the low cycle region of the
SN curve and more in the high cycle region. For the loose t, if ac-
tual test parts were to track the projections, the fatigue strength
could change as much as 140% in the low cycle region. Actual test
data can only positively conrm 63%.
This information product has been reviewed and approved for
public release. The views expressed herein are those of the author
and do not reect the ofcial policy or position of the Department
of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government. Refer-
ence herein to any specic commercial, private or public products,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recom-
mendation, or favoring by the United States Government.
 M.A. Brown, J.L. Evans / International Journal of Fatigue 44 (2012) 177187
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the US Army, Aviation Engi-
neering Directorate, for funding that was used to offset some of
the costs associated with specimen manufacture and testing. The
authors would also like to thank Royal Ritchey at the UAH Research
Machine Shop. In addition to manufacturing the lugs, performing
nal component assembly and manufacturing the test xture cle-
vis, Mr. Ritchey provided valuable input in the eld of machining
that was taken into consideration when deciding how to make
parts and which type of test to run.
References
[1] Vasudevan AK, Sadananda K, Glinka G. Critical parameters for fatigue damage.
Int J Fatigue 2001;23(Supplement 1):3953.
[2] Sadananda K, Sarkar S, Kujawski D, Vasudevan AK. A two-parameter analysis of
SN fatigue life using Dr and rmax. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:164859.
[3] Ofsthun M. When fatigue quality enhancers do not enhance fatigue quality. Int
J Fatigue 2003;25:12238.
[4] Buch A. Fatigue and fretting of pin-lug joints with and without interference t.
Wear 1977;43:916.
[5] Heywood RB. The strength of lugs in fatigue. Technical note no. structures 182,
London; 1956.
[6] Kiddle FE. Fatigue endurance, crack sensitivity and nucleation characteristics
of structural elements in four aluminiumcopper alloys. Aeronautical research
council current papers. London: H.M.S.O; 1974.
[7] Crews Jr JH. An elastic analysis of stresses in a uniaxially loaded sheet
containing an interference-t bolt. NASA technical note D-6955, Washington,
DC; 1972.
[8] J. Ransom, D.J. Reddy, T. Poast, E. Rejzek, Fatigue strength improvement of
helicopter lugs with the ForceMate process: analytical prediction versus test
187
results, American Helicopter Society 64th Annual Forum, Montreal, Canada,
2008.
[9] Wardlaw R, Shultz M, Reddy DJ. Fatigue strength improvement of helicopter
steel and titanium lugs with the ForceMate process: analytical prediction
versus test results. American helicopter society 67th annual forum, Virginia
beach, Virginia; 2011.
[10] Fisher WAP, Winkworth WJ. Improvements in the fatigue strength of joints by
the use of interference t. Aeronautical research council reports and
memoranda. London: H.M.S.O; 1955.
[11] Budynas RG, Nisbett JK, Shigley JE. Shigleys mechanical engineering design.
8th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
[12] Hattori T, Watanabe T. Fretting fatigue strength estimation considering the
fretting wear process. Tribol Int 2006;39:11005.
[13] Venkateswara Rao P, Ramamoorthy B, Radhakrishnan V. Role of interacting
surfaces in the performance enhancement of interference ts. Int J Mach Tools
Manuf 1995;35:137584.
[14] ASTM Standard E466. Standard practice for conducting force controlled
constant amplitude axial fatigue tests of metallic materials. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2007.
[15] MMPDS-04. Metallic materials properties development and standardization
(MMPDS). Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC; 2008.
[16] Lanciotti A, Polese C. The effect of interference-t fasteners on the fatigue life
of central hole specimens. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2005;28:58797.
[17] Sendeckyj GP. Constant life diagrams a historical review. Int J Fatigue
2001;23:34753.
[18] Dowling NE. Mean stress effects in stress-life and strain-life fatigue. SAE
technical paper 2004-01-2227; 2004.
[19] Kwoe S. An exponential stress function for predicting fatigue strength and life
due to mean stresses. Int J Fatigue 2001;23:82936.
[20] Kujawski D, Ellyin F. A unied approach to mean stress effect on fatigue
threshold conditions. Int J Fatigue 1995;17:1016.
[21] Abaqus 6.9 Documentation. Abaqus analysis users manual interactive edition;
2009.
[22] Crews Jr JH. An elastoplastic analysis of a uniaxially loaded sheet with an
interference-t bolt. NASA technical note D-7748, Washington, DC; 1974.