https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19670013957 2019-02-27T02:57:28+00:00Z

.
I

N A S A TECHNICAL N O T E N A S A TN D-3883

(ACCESSIONv
NUMBER) (THRU)
E
_t (PAGES)

L
(NASA CR O R TMX OR AD NUMBER)

A N EMPIRICAL EQUATION
RELATING FATIGUE LIMIT
A N D MEAN STRESS

by 1. E, Figge
Langley Research Center
Langley Station, Hampton, V k

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. c. APRIL 1967

 NASA T N D-3883

AN EMPIRICAL EQUATION RELATING

FATIGUE LIMIT AND MEAN STRESS

By I. E. Figge

Langley R e s e a r c h C e n t e r
Langley Station, Hampton, Va.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

For s a l e by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
-
Springfield, Virginia 22151 CFSTI price $3.00
 AN EMPIRICAL EQUATION RELATING
FATIGUE LIMIT AND MEAN STRESS

By I. E. Figge
Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

An empirical relation has been developed to predict the fatigue limit of axially
loaded unnotched specimens as a function of mean stress. Both the ultimate tensile
strength and the fatigue limit at z e r o mean stress a r e required in the basic equation. An
ancillary equation was deve!opx! tn represent the fatigue limit at z e r o mean s t r e s s as a
function of the ultimate tensile strength. Comparisons demonstrating the improveiiierit
of the proposed relations over the Gerber and Goodman relations a r e presented f o r five
major material classes: b a r e aluminum, clad aluminum, low alloy steels, stainless
steels and superalloys, and titanium alloys.
The proposed method predicted that it was possible to obtain a fatigue limit equal
to the ultimate strength of the material. Various materials tested at approximately the
stress levels predicted by the method had not failed after 2.5 X lo6 o r more cycles.

INTRODUCTION

Over the y e a r s numerous fatigue tests have been conducted to study the effects of
mean stress on the fatigue limit. Nevertheless, designers often find that data at a spe-
cific value of mean stress are not available and must be obtained either by conducting
additional fatigue tests o r by extrapolating from data at some other value of mean stress.
The latter method is obviously more practical; however, it does require a knowledge of
the fatigue behavior as a function of mean stress.
Various equations have been proposed to represent the fatigue limit as a function
of mean stress; of these the Gerber parabola and the Goodman straight-line relationships
are probably the most widely used. (See appendix A and refs. 1 to 3.) However, for
some m a t e r i a l s the Gerber equation produces a substantially better fit to the data than
the Goodman equation, whereas f o r other materials the converse is true. In some
instances, both equations produce essentially the s a m e agreement to the data. A problem
arises i n that no way is available f o r predetermining the appropriate equation to u s e for
a specific material. Also, neither equation fits the data well at high values of mean stress
and the predictions obtained by using the Gerber equation a r e not applicable for
compressive mean s t r e s s e s . The fatigue limit obtained with the Gerber or Goodman
relationships approaches the ultimate tensile strength (along a parabola or straight line,
respectively) as the mean stress approaches the ultimate strength. However, as will be
shown, the experimental fatigue limit approaches the ultimate strength at values of mean
s t r e s s substantially below the ultimate strength.
In an attempt to overcome these difficulties an empirical equation was developed
relating the fatigue limit to the mean stress. This equation is applicable to axially loaded
unnotched specimens (sheet and bar) over the entire range of mean stress (compressive
ultimate to tensile ultimate) for a wide variety of materials. Application of the equation
requires knowledge of the ultimate strength of the material and of the fatigue limit at
z e r o mean stress. Both the Gerber and Goodman relations require the s a m e informa-
tion. An ancillary equation was developed to predict the fatigue limit at z e r o mean stress
as a function of the ultimate strength. Sets of constants required in this equation have
been obtained for each of five major material classes: b a r e aluminum, clad aluminum,
low alloy steels, stainless steels and superalloys, and titanium alloys.
Comparisons a r e presented which demonstrate the improvement of the proposed
relation over the Gerber and the Goodman relations to fit sets of data obtained from the
literature f o r a wide variety of materials.

SYMBOLS

The units used for the physical quantities defined in this paper are given both in
U.S. Customary Units and in the International System of Units, SI (ref. 4). Appendix B
presents factors relating these two systems of units.

A to F constants used in equations

Sa alternating stress, kips p e r inch' (meganewtons p e r meter')

sf experimental fatigue limit1 f o r a given mean stress other than z e r o (maximum

stress (algebraic) within cycle), kips p e r inch' (meganewtons p e r meter')

Sm mean s t r e s s , kips p e r inch2 (meganewtons p e r meter')

lFor the purpose of this paper, the fatigue limit is defined as the s t r e s s below
which failure will not occur in lo6 cycles.

2
. experimental fatigue limit at zero mean s t r e s s (maximum s t r e s s (algebraic)
SO
within cycle), kips per inch2 (meganewtons per m e t e r g

SP predicted fatigue limit for a given mean s t r e s s (maximum stress (algebraic)

within cycle), kips p e r inch2 (meganewtons per meter2)

OU ultimate tensile strength, kips per inch2 (meganewtons per metera)

BACKGROUND

A s noted i n the introduction, the Gerber equation is useful f o r predicting the fatigue
limit of some materials whereas the Goodman equation is useful for others. Also, these
equations do not adequztidy dsfine the fzQp:e limit ever the entire range of mean stress,
particularly i n the range where the mean stress approaches the ultimate strength.
Examples f o r various materials are presented in figure 1. The same s e t s of data are
presented i n each of two plots: in the left-hand plots the Gerber and Goodman predic-
tions are presented and in the right-hand plots the predictions obtained using the pro-
posed equations a r e presented. The latter curves are discussed in the section "Agree-
ment Between Experimental and Predicted Fatigue Limits."
In figures l(a) and l(b) both the Gerber and the Goodman equations produce essen-
tially the s a m e agreement. In figure l(d) the Gerber equation produces a substantially
better fit to the data than the Goodman equation, whereas in figures l(c) and l(e) the
Goodman equation produces the better fit. The weakness of the Gerber equation to predict
the results of .tests conducted at negative mean s t r e s s e s is shown i n figure l(e).
In figures l(c), l(d), and l(e) the trend of the data is to approach the 450 straight
line (representing sf = uu) at values of mean s t r e s s substantially below the ultimate;
this is particularly evident i n figure l(d). Special tests were conducted at combinations
of Sm and S a such that sf =: uu. The results of these tests are discussed i n the sec-
tion "Special Tests."
Based on the foregoing observations, it was apparent that an equation applicable to
a wide variety of materials over the entire range of mean s t r e s s would be useful.

3
 Gerber and Goodman equations Proposed relations

1.0
(a) 7075-T6 (bare1 aluminum
CI - 82.5 ksi( 570 MN/m2)

Gerber ,ea
Eq. (21
Goodman ea

1.0 (b) 2024-T3 (bare) aluminum

a - 73.0 ksi(504 MN/m2)

'apu

.-.
( c ) 2024-T3 (clad) aluminum
- 69.4 ksi (479 MN/m2)

0
Id) SAE 4130 steel
-
uu 117 ksi(806MN/m2)
0 Only one fatigue test conducted;
specimen did not fail at level
indicated.
'.

-1.0 0 1.0 -1.0 0 1.0

Figure 1.- Fatigue limit predictions obtained by using Gerber, Goodman, and proposed relations.

RELATIONBETWEEN sf AND Sm

In order to facilitate the development of an empirical equation, the data w e r e

replotted as the log of sf against Sm. Two examples are presented i n figure 2. Data
of the form shown can be represented by an equation of the form:

Sp = Ae BSm -c
By assuming various values of C, sets of the constants A and B i n equation (1) w e r e
evaluated by using least-squares techniques. A reasonable fit was obtained f o r each s e t
of data when
4
.
Azo, 0 2024-T3 (clad) aluminum

---
B 0.693
ou = 69.4 ksi (478 M N m2)

=U
El SAE 4130 steel
c ou - so ou = 117 ksi (807 M N m2)

Substituting these values into equation (1)

produced the following expression: 0

0
400

A s mentioned previously, the

fatigue limit approaches the ultimate
strength at values of mean stress sub-
Sf I

stantially below the ultimate strength. ksi

Substituting a value of the fatigue limit

equal t o uu in equation (2) and solving 100
for Sm r e s u l t s in the following equation:

For values of ,S greater than those calculated by using equation (3), the cal-
culated values of Sp from equation (2) are greater than ou. However, since there
is no evidence t o indicate that such fatigue limits are actually obtainable, it is recom-
mended that calculated values of $ greater than uu be set equal to ou.

RELATIONBETWEEN So AND ou

In o r d e r to avoid the need for an experimental value of SO in equation (2), an

equation was developed to correlate So with ow Plotting the log of Ou - So
against ou for each material c l a s s (aluminum, steel, titanium, etc.) resulted in
continuous curves that could be represented by an equation of the same general form
as equation (1). In this case,

So = ou - De q J E +F (4)

Substitution of equation (4) into equation (2) results in the following general equation for
the fatigue limit at any mean s t r e s s
0.69 3Sm/ou
Sp = oue - De dE
+F

5
 .
By assuming various values of F, s e t s of the constants D and E i n equa-
tion (5) were evaluated for each material c l a s s by means of least-squares techniques.
The Gaussian closeness of fit criterion

1 (Observed value - Calculated value) 2

= Minimum
(Number of data points - Number of constants)

was used to determine the best combinations of D, E, and F.

The constants which produced the best agreement for each material c l a s s a r e pre-
sented in the following table:

D E F I
Material c l a s s
ksi MN/m2 ksi
Bare aluminum 223.0 1539 229.5
Clad aluminum 45.8 3 16 31.1
Low alloy steel 322.5 2225 329.5 2274
Stainless steel and superalloys 180.4 1245 169.9 1172
Titanium 241.7 1668 235.2 1623

AGREEMENT BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND

PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS

All fatigue data have inherent scatter. Factors such as test technique, material
variations, specimen preparation, cyclic speed, testing machine, temperature, humidity,
and possibly other conditions can all have a significant influence on the test results. In
general, the fatigue limits obtained under nominally identical test conditions fall within
a *5 ksi (35 MN/m2) scatter band. The proposed methods were developed by correlating
the observed trends of the available data. Thus, the accuracy of the method is, at best,
only equal to the scatter in the test data. Therefore, predictions within * 5 ksi of the
experimental fatigue limits were considered satisfactory. Values of the fatigue limits
used in this report were obtained from the literature (refs. 5 to 24). Only S-N curves
(stress against cycles curves) with a sufficient number of points to define the fatigue
limit adequately were used. Each S-N curve was faired i n o r d e r to obtain a reasonably
consistent fit. All values of the fatigue limits quoted in this paper w e r e estimated at the
maximum number of cycles at which the tests w e r e conducted which w a s lo6, or more,
cycles.

6
1 To evaluate properly the usefulness of the Gerber, Goodman, or proposed equa-
tions requires that data which cover the range of mean s t r e s s from compressive ulti-
mate to tensile ultimate be available for a wide variety of materials. However, this
condition rarely, if ever, is satisfied. Thus a proper evaluation of the superiority of one
equation over the other is impossible with the existing data. However, there a r e limited
data available covering a reasonable range of mean s t r e s s which give some evidence of
the superiority of the proposed equations. These data are presented in figure 1; the pre-
dictions obtained using either equation (2) or equation (5) a r e presented in the right-hand
plots. For all five materials the f i t using either equation (2) or equation (5) was quite
good over the range of mean s t r e s s , whereas the Gerber or Goodman predictions (left-
hand plots) only f i t the data for some materials and not others.
Considerably more data were available which w e r e obtained from tests conducted
at only one o r several values of mean s t r e s s . These data are compared with the pre-
dicted fatigue limits obtained by using the Gerber, Goodman, and proposed methods for
the following three cases:
Case 1: The value of So was adjusted for the Gerber equation, Goodman equa-
tion, or equation (2) to obtain the best possible fit for each set of data (a set consisted of
two o r more values of the fatigue limit obtained from tests in which the only parameter
varied w a s the mean s t r e s s ) .
Case 2: The experimental value of So was used in the Gerber equation, Goodman
equation, o r equation (2) t o calculate the fatigue limits for each set of data in which So
was available or could be reasonably extrapolated from existing data. For comparison
equation (5) w a s also used to obtain predictions for the same data.
Case 3: The constants D, E, and F (table on page 6) were used in equation (5)
t o calculate the fatigue limits f o r all the available data in each material class.
The predicted fatigue limits obtained for each case along with the experimental data
are presented in tables I and 11. For convenience, the experimental fatigue limits and the
calculated fatigue limits obtained by using equation (5) are presented in figure 3 f o r each
material class. The solid line i n the figure represents perfect agreement, and the dashed
lines represent the i5-ksi (35 MN/m2) scatter band previously discussed. The z e r o
mean stress data are shown as square symbols. In general, the agreement using equa-
tion (5) was within the *5-ksi scatter band.
Comparisons between the various equations of the predicted and experimental
fatigue limits from tables I and I1 can become quite tedious. Thus in an attempt to sum-
m a r i z e the results of tables I and 11, the average of the differences between the predicted
and experimental fatigue limits f o r each material class in c a s e s 1 to 3 a r e presented in

7
sP

Stainless steels

ksi

d io0 6k1 &lldoo l;o0 l&OMN/m2

Sf
Figure 3.- Experimental fatigue limits and predicted fatigue limits using equation (5) for five major material classes.
1

the following table. For convenience the lowest values have been underlined in c a s e s 1
and 2 for each material class. Direct comparisons of the results in t h i s table indicate
the average agreement but not necessarily the most appropriate equation.

B a r e aluminum Clad aluminum Low alloy steel and steel

superalloys
Stainless Tjtanium
Equation used A, 4 A, 4
ksi (MN/m2) ksi (MN/m2) ksi (MN/m2) ksi 4
(MN/m2) ksi (MN/m2)
(4 (4 (4 (4 (4

Equation (2) 1.7 (11.7) 0.6 (4.1) 2.4 (16.6) 3.0 (20.7) 4.7 (32.4)
Gerber equation 2.4 (16.6) 0.8 (5.5) 3.5 (24.2) 4.5 (31.1) 5.7 (39.3)
Goodman equation 2.4 (16.6) 1.8 (12.4) 6.1 (42.1) 6.6 (45.5) 2.3 (15.9)
Number of points 64 25 31 7 25
-~

Equation (2) 3.0 (20.7) 1.3 (9.0) 4.3 (29.7) 4.8 (33.1) 6.8 (46.9)
I
Gerber equation 3.9 (26.9) 3.4 (23.5) 5.7 (39.3) 7.8 (53.8) 11.1 (76.6)
Goodman equation 2.7 (18.6) 2.9 (20.0) 9.2 (63.5) 6.5 (44.9) 3.1 (21.4)
Equation (5)b 2.9 (20.0) 0.6 (4.1) 3.6 (24.8) 2.9 (20.0) 7.4 (51.1)
Number of points 35 7 20 5 13
Case 3: Master constants D, E, and F used in equation (5); all available data
Equation (5) 2.6 (17.9) 1.0 (6.9) 5.1 (35.2) 3.9 (26.9) 6.2 (42.8)
Number of points 83 41 34 21 44

A
' = Zlsf - Y
No. pts.
h a s t e r constants D, E, and F used i n equation (5).

Considering the results in this table, figure 1 and tables I and 11, there does appear
to be a reasonable indication that the proposed methods (eq. (2) or (5)), in general, pro-
duced a better f i t t o the data than either the Gerber or Goodman equation for all the mate-
rial c l a s s e s with the exception of the titanium alloys. For t h i s class, the Goodman equa-
tion produced the best fit. L e s s reliance probably should be put on the results for t h i s
material class since the scatter in the experimental fatigue data was often g r e a t e r than
for the other materials.
It is important to note the limited amount of data available f o r some material
classes at z e r o mean stress (for example, see tables I(b) and II(b)) and thus the limited
number of predictions obtainable with the u s e of equation (2) o r the Gerber or Goodman

9
equations (see last three columns of tables I@) and II(b)). Thus, equation (5) which
,
requires knowledge of only % has the decided advantage of being capable of predicting
the fatigue limit at any mean s t r e s s with reasonable accuracy without requiring that
fatigue tests be conducted.
It is possible in all three equations (Gerber, Goodman, and eq. (2)) t o compute a
value of the fatigue limit at any mean s t r e s s if at least one fatigue limit is available.
However, in the Gerber and Goodman relations, any inherent e r r o r s in the fatigue limit
at a given mean s t r e s s result in proportionately larger e r r o r s when used to compute
fatigue limits at lower values of mean s t r e s s ; conversely, proportionately smaller e r r o r s
are obtained when used to compute values at higher mean s t r e s s e s .
Thus, i n order not to introduce additional e r r o r s in the predictions obtained by
using the Gerber or Goodman equation requires that a value of the fatigue limit be avail-
able at the lowest value of mean s t r e s s of the range of mean stresses in which predictions
a r e to be made. However, such data a r e often not available. Equation (2) offers the
feature of being capable of making predictions over the entire range of mean s t r e s s with-
out introducing additional e r r o r s regardless of the mean s t r e s s at which the data are
available.

SPECIAL TESTS

Several fatigue t e s t s were conducted at room temperature on unnotched sheet

specimens (see ref, 16 for specimen configuration) of various materials to determine
whether fatigue t e s t s could be conducted at the combinations of mean and alternating
stress predicted by equation (3) such that the maximum stress approximately equaled
the nominal ultimate strength of the material. The tests were conducted in a closed-
loop hydraulic testing machine which maintained the minimum and maximum load
constant throughout the test (including first load cycle).
The results of these t e s t s along with the predictions obtained by using the Gerber,
Goodman, and proposed (eq. (2)) relations are presented in sketch 1; the data are also
presented in table 111.
The values predicted by equation (2) are in excellent agreement with the data; the
values predicted by the Gerber and Goodman relations are in poor agreement. These
results, although limited, indicate that it is possible to obtain a fatigue limit approxi-
mately equal to the ultimate strength of the material (as predicted by eq. (3)) and further
substantiate the fact that the fatigue limit approaches the ultimate strength at values of
mean s t r e s s l e s s than the ultimate strength.

10
t

2024-T81 (clad) aluminum 2618 (clad) aluminum AM 350 (CRT) stainless steel
uu = 64.6 ksi (446 MN/m*) uu = 59.0 ksi (407 MN/m2) uu = 223.0 ksi (1549 MN/m2)
1.0

0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.o

Sketch 1

Run-outs occurring at a maximum stress equal to the nominal ultimate strength can
probably be explained by the fact that the values of O-U were obtained from t e s t s con-
ducted at low strain rates, whereas the fatigue tests were at comparatively high rates.
Ultimate strength tests conducted at the strain rates equal to the rates achieved in fatigue
tests probably would have resulted in ultimate strengths higher than those quoted. Thus,
in reality the maximum cyclic s t r e s s e s were probably below the comparable ultimate
strength of the material.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

An empirical method has been developed to represent the fatigue limit of axially
loaded specimens as a function of mean s t r e s s . Predictions made by using this method
indicate that reasonably good agreement with test data can be obtained over the entire
range of mean stresses f o r a variety of materials and specimen configurations. In
general, the method produces better agreement than the Gerber o r Goodman relations.
The proposed method predicted that it was possible to obtain a fatigue limit equal to
the ultimate strength of the material. Specimens of various materials tested at approxi-
mately the stress levels predicted by the method had not failed after 2.5 X lo6 or more
cycles.

Langley Research Center,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Langley Station, Hampton, Va., November 18, 1966,
126-14-03-08-23.

11
 b

,
APPENDIX A

GERBER AND GOODMAN EQUATIONS

The Gerber equation (refs. 1 and 2) is

A graphic representation of this equation is shown in sketch 2:

Sa
\
Gerber
(Parabola)

'(JU 0 +(JU

s,
Sketch 2
The Goodman equation (refs. 1 and 3) i s :

A graphic representation of this equation is shown in sketch 3:

0
s,
Sketch 3

12
 APPENDIX B

CONVERSION OF U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS TO SI UNITS

The International System of Units (SI) w a s adopted by the Eleventh General

Conference of Weights and Measures, Paris, October 1960, in Resolution No. 1 2 (ref. 4).
Conversion factors for the units used herein a r e given in the following table:

To convert from Multiply by -

U.S. customary units To obtain SI units

in. 2.54 X meter (m)

ksi 6.8947 57 meganewton/meter2 (MN/m2)

Prefixes and symbois to indicate muitipies of units are as hiiows:

Multiple Prefix Symbol

mega

13
 REFERENCES

1. Heywood, R. B.: Designing Against Fatigue of Metals. Reinhold Pub. Corp., 1962,
p. 354.
2. Gerber, W.: Bestimmung d e r zulossigen Spannungen i n Eisen Constructionen.
Z. Bay. Arch. Ing. Ver., vol. 6, 1874, p. 101.

3. Goodman, John: Mechanics Applied to Engineering. Longmans, Green & Co.

(London), 1899.
4. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units - Physical Constants and Conver-
sion Factors. NASA SP-7012, 1964.
5. Grover, H. J.; Bishop, S. M.; and Jackson, L. R.: Fatigue Strengths of Aircraft
Materials. Axial-Load Fatigue Tests on Unnotched Sheet Specimens of 24S-T3
and 75S-T6 Aluminum Alloys and of SAE 4130 Steel. NACA TN 2324, 1951.
6. Anon.: Aircraft Fatigue Handbook. Volume III - Material. Aircraft Ind. ASSOC.,
Jan. 1957.
7. Brueggeman, W. C.; Mayer, M., Jr.; and Smith, W. H.: Axial Fatigue T e s t s at Zero
Mean Stress of 24s-T Aluminum-Alloy Sheet With and Without a Circular Hole.
NACA TN 9 55, 1944.
8. Schwartzberg, F. R.; Kiefer, T. F.; and Keys, R. D.: Determination of Low-
Temperature Fatigue Properties of Structural Metal Alloys. Martin-CR-64-74
(Contract NAS8-2631), Martin Co., Oct. 1964.
9. Hardrath, Herbert F.; Landers, Charles B.; and Utley, Elmer C., Jr.: Axial-Load
Fatigue T e s t s on Notched and Unnotched Sheet Specimens of 61S-T6 Aluminum
Alloy, Annealed 347 Stainless Steel, and Heat-Treated 403 Stainless Steel. NACA
TN 3017, 1953.
10. Lazan, B. J.; and Blatherwick, A. A.: Fatigue P r o p e r t i e s of Aluminum Alloys at
Various Direct-Stress Ratios. Part I1 - Extruded Alloys. WADC Tech.
Rept. 52-307, Pt. 11, U.S. A i r Force, Dec. 1952.
11. Smith, Frank C.; Brueggeman, William C.; and Harwell, Richard H.: Comparison Of
Fatigue Strengths of B a r e and Alclad 24S-T3 Aluminum- Alloy Sheet Specimens
Tested at 12 and 1000 Cycles Per Minute. NACA TN 2231, 1950.
12. Swanson, S. R.: Systematic Axial Load Fatigue T e s t s Using Unnotched Aluminum
Alloy 2024-T4 Extruded Bar Specimens. Tech. Note No. 35, AFOSR 344, Inst.
Aerophys., Univ. of Toronto, May 1960.

14
13. Childs, J. K.; and Lemcoe, M. M.: Fatigue Investigation on High Strength Steel.
WADC Tech. Rept. 56-205, ASTIA Doc. No. AD 110474, U.S. Air Force, July, 1957.
14. Oberg, Ture T.; and Ward, Edward J.: Fatigue of Alloy Steels at High-Stress Levels.
WADC Tech. Rept. 53-256, U.S. Air Force, Oct. 1953.
15. Leybold, Herbert A.: Axial-Load Fatigue Tests on 17-7 PH Stainless Steel Under
Constant-Amplitude Loading. NASA TN D-439, 1960.
16. Illg, Walter; and Castle, Claude B.: Axial-Load Fatigue Properties of P H 15-7 Mo
Stainless Steel in Condition TH 1050 at Ambient Temperature and 500° F. NASA
TN D-2358, 1964.
17. Vitovec, F. H.; and Lazan, B. J.: Fatigue, Creep, and Rupture Properties of Heat
Resistant Materials. WADC Tech. Rept. 56-181, ASTIA Doc. No. 97240, U.S. Air
Force, Aug. 1956.
18. Campbell, J. E.; Barone, F. J.; and Moon, D. P.: The Mechanical Properties of the
18 Per Cent Nickel Maraging Steels. DMIC Rept. 198 (Contract
No. A F 33(615)-1121), Battelle Mem. Inst., Feb. 24, 1964.
19. Healy, M. S.; Marschall, C. W.; Holden, F. C.; and Hyler, W. S.: The Fatigue
Behavior of Materials f o r the Supersonic Transport. NASA CR-215, 1965.
20. Anon.: Fatigue Properties of High Strength Titanium and Stainless Steel Sheet
Alloys. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am., Jan. 1960.
21. Wood, R. A.; and Ogden, H. R.: The All-Beta Titanium Alloy (Ti-13V-llCr-3Al).
DMIC Rept. 110 (ASTIA AD 214002), Battelle Mem. Inst., Apr. 17, 1959.
22. White, D. L.; and Watson, H. T.: Determination of Design Data f o r Heat Treated
Titanium Alloy Sheet. Volume 2b: Test Techniques and Results f o r Creep and
Fatigue. ASD-TDR-62-335, Vol. 2b, U S . A i r Force, May 1962.
23. Anon.: Fatigue Characteristics of the Ti- 5Al-2.5Sn and Ti-6A1-4V Titanium Sheet
Alloys. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am.
24. Anon.: Fatigue Properties of Ti-6A1-6V-2Sn Plate. Titanium Metals Corp. Of Am.

15
 TABLE I.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS
D.S.Customary u n i t 4
(a) Bare aluminum
- -

Specimen
- Calculated fatigue limit, SP, ksi
Case 2
“e 3 Case 1
Material dimensions
md,type,
in.
Sm,
ksi 21 - -
Best fit; adjusting
~
So Using experimental So Lef e renc e
Es. (5) ierber bodman
Iq. (2 5q. (2)
(a) - - __ eq.
__ eq .
2014-T6 0.40 diam. B 61.: 75 77.4 81.2 72.1 70.2

I
(Formerly 14s-Tf

1
2014-T6 1.10 X 0.375 E
22.8
0
0
42
31
15
38.3
20.8
20.2
42.2
24.7
____
47.6
27.0
----
51.1
39.8
----
2014-T6 0.40 diam. B 36.5 50 50.6 52.5 54.7 47.8

I
2080-T6
1
1.09 X 0.375 I
8.5
0
0
27
24
18
26.6
20.4
21.1
28.6
22.4
----
29.6
21.4
____
28.4
22.5
----
2024-T3 0.09 x 1.0 s 48.8 61 63.4 63.9 59.6 57.9
(Formerly 24S-T3
42.8 57 56.9 57.9 55.6 54.1
33.6 48 47.8 48.3 49.1 48.4
28.1 45 42.7 43.3 44.8 44.9
17.3 34 33.4 34.0 35.8 38.2
10.5 30 28.0 28.6 29.7 33.9
5.0 25 23.9 24.5 24.5 30.5
2024-T3 0.032 0.5 S 0 22 20.3 - _ _ _ ---- ----
(Formerly 24S-T3
2024-T3 0.032 0.5 S 0 21 20.2 ---- -___ ----
2024-T3 0.032 X 0.5 S 0 21 20.3 --_- _ _ _ _ ---_
2024-T3 0.032 X 0.5 S 0 20 20.2 - _ _ _ ---- --__
2024-T3 0.032 X 0.5 S 0 20 20.2 - _ _ _ ---- ____
2024-T3 0.040 x 1.0 S 42.7 57 56.9 58.9 56.6 55.1
38.5 55 52.6 54.6 53.7 52.5
30.6 49 45.0 47.1 47.9 47.8
19.4 38 35.2 37.2 38.9 41.0
t 6.5 26 25.1 27.1 27.3 32.2
2024-T3 0.064 X 0.5 S 0 20 20.2 ____ ---- ____
2024-T3 0.090 x 1.0 s 15.0 30 31.5 30.1 31.7 30.0
1 t 0 19 20.3 18.9 17.4 19.0
2024-T4 1.295 diam. B 38.4 -1 -2.7 0.2 -22.8 4.3

I 15.6
-7.1
0
13
17
23
8.8
14.0
18.7
11.7
16.8
21.6
10.0
20.0
27.6
17.0
21.8
25.7
15.6 33 30.6 33.4 41.2 34.4
38.4 52 52.4 55.3 54 .O 47.2
2024-T4 1.16 diam. B 41.2 55 55.2 58.7 58.1 56.3
2024-T4 ).16 diam. B 23.0 46 38.8 42.3 43.4 44.2
2024-T4 ).16 diam. B 37.5 50 51.6 51.4 51.0 49.6
1 1 17.5 35 33.9 33.6 34.2 35.6
2024-T4 8.20 diam. B 13.5 27 30.2 ---_ ____ ----
2024-T4 .20 diam. B 13.5 27 30.1 26.3 28.6 26.7

1 1 5.0
0
-.
20
17
-
23.7
20.1
--
19.8
16.3 ~~
20.6
15.7
20.1
16.3
aB meansbar; S means sheet.
bCalculated Sp above 0 ~ Sp
; = uu used,
CEstin~atedSo = 22 ksi.

16
b

TABLE I.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued

@.s. Customary Unit3 .

r
(a) Bare aluminum - Concluded
- -
Calculated fatime limit. Sn. ksi
- I
I-'

Specimen :ase 3 Case 1 Case 2

Material dimensions sm, !f,. - ~~

eference
and, type, ksi :s1 Best fit; adjusting So Using experimental So
in. Iq. (5) -
;erber ocdman
(a) - - - -eq. eq.
2024-T4 -5.5 11 16.4 12.6 13.5 11.4 12.9
(Formerly 24S-T4)
15.2 75 80.6 81.2 85.3 76.6 71.7
11.2 10 37.4 37.9 42.1 45.6 41.0
0 16 21.3 21.9 26.0 26.0 26.0
2024-T4 16.0 32 33.1 ---- ____ ____ ---_
2219-T87 0 10 19.7 __-- ____ -_-- ----
2219-T6 0 18 18.8 ---- -_-- __-_ ----
5456-H343 0 15 18.5 __-- ---- ____ --__
6061-T6 12.5 15 26.4 _--- ____ ---- ____ _-__
(Formerly 61S-T6)
7039-T6 0 18 19.4 ---- ---- ____ ---- ----
7075-T6 0 13 20.8 __-- ---- -_-- _-__ ----
7075-T6 55.2 59 69.8 72.6 67.9 65.3 72.2 68.4 63.1
(Formerly 75S-T6)
16.5 52 60.5 63.3 62.2 59.8 63.4 63.1 57.1
36.4 52 50.6 53.4 54.9 53.4 54 .O 55.8 49.8
31.2 50 45.9 48.7 50.9 50.2 48.5 51.8 46.1
18.9 37 35.3 38.1 40.7 42.4 38.4 41.7 37.4
7.0 35 26.1 28.9 29.8 34.9 29.1 30.9 29.1
0 24 21.1 23.9 23 .O 30.5 24 .O 24.0 24.0
7075-T6 69.5 80 84.3 84.9 80.1 77.4 88.3 81.3 76.3
(Formerly 75S-T6)
21.0 40 37.4 37.9 42.5 43.9 40.4 44.8 40.5
0 25 21.7 22.2 22.6 29.4 25.0 25.0 25.0
7075-T6 0 18 21.2 ---- ---- ____ ----
7075-T6 0 18 21.1 _--- ____ ----
7075-T6 21.0 42 37.4 39.7 39.9 41.0
I 41.2 55 55.0 57.3 57.4 55.7
7075-T6 40.5 54 54.5 55.2 55.0 53.5
I 18.5 37 35.2 35.8 36.2 37.7
7075-T6 14.5 29 31.7 28.4 30.8 28.9
7075-T6 5.2 21 24.7 21.4 22.0 21.6
I -6.5 13 16.6 13.3 10.2 12.4
33 33.8 36.7 33.9
+
7075-T6

7075-T6
16.5
6.1
19.5
27
39
33.4
26.0
36.0
26.4
37.8
27.6
39.7
26.6
37.8
1 0 22 21.3 23.2 21.3 23.6
7075-T6 0 22 21.2 21.6 21.0 21.6
1 -8.C 16 15.8 16.2 12.8
----
15.7
-_-_
7075-T6 0 19 21.0
7075-T6 19.7 27 35.9 29.1 31.2 29.7
1o.z 20 28.8 22.0 22.6 22.0
6. I 19 25.4 18.6 18.2 18.2
- 0 ia -
- 21.1 -14.3 12.2 13.1

aB m e a n s b a r ; S meanssheet.

17
 TABLE I.- EXPERIMENTAL A m PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
F.S.Customary unit4
(b) Clad aluminum
__ -
Calculated fatigue limit, So, k s i
-
Specimen 3ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
dimensions
Material and type,
in.
Sm:
ksi Zi Eq. (5)
Best fit; adjusting SO Using experimental So eference

Soodman
(a) -
eq.
2024-T3 67.4 0 13 13.6 ---_
(Formerly 24S-T3)
2024-T3 66.2 42.4 53 50.4 50.9
I 1
20.6 33 29.3 37.0
2024-T3 62.1 14.4 24 23.2 ---_
2024-T3 66.1 13.2 22 23.2 ----
2024-T3 66.3 12.6 2 1 22.7 --__
2024-T3 62.8 13.8 23 22.9 ----
2024-T3 67.4 32.0 40 39.9 39.3

i
2024 - T3
I
23.1 33
15.0 24
69.4 53.4 6 1
31.7
24.9
62.9
32.3
25.9
57.2
I
34.4 43 42.5 42.7
24 .I33 33.5 35.3
16.2 26 26.3 28.8
13.2 24 23.9 26.5
10.7 21 21.9 24.6
v 4.2 1: 17.1 19.6
69.0 34.4 43 42.5 41.9

1
26.2 35
16.9 27
66.4 25.5 34
34.8
26.7
33.7
35.5
28.1
33.5
1
15.6 25 25.2 25.6
66.7 17.5 28 26.8 ----
66.2 15.6 25 25.1 ____
64.2 13.8 23 23.2 ____
61.5 13.2 22 22.1 --__
68.8 15.6 25 25.7 ---_
73.2 16.9 27 27.5 _-__
69.3 13.3 22 23.9 --__
69.7 16.2 26 26.4 ____
81.2 42.4 53 51.4 51.5

I
36.0 48 45.2 46.6
26.6 38 36.7 39.4
19.4 31 30.6 33.8
77.8 0 16 15.6 ____
76.0 30.0 40 39.2 38.6
I
15.6 25 26.9 26.9
75.5 13.3 21 25.0 ----
80.2 37.6 47 46.7 46.0
I
23.1 33 33.6 34.3
79.0 16.9 27 28.3 ----
-

aB m e a n s b a r ; S means sheet.
bEstimated So = 15 ksi.

18
 TABLE I.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
F.S.Customary units]
(c) Low alloy steel
-- -
Calculated fatigue limit, S,, ksi
-
ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
jm, -
Material UU?
ksi ksi
sf?
cs1 Best fit; adjusting So Using experimental So ?ferenc e
9. (5) krber kerber oodman
zq. (2) cq. (2)
-- - - eq. eq. eq.
123.1 L4.0 88 89.2 93.3 9 5.0 86.0 100.0 100.6 85.6 14
+ 0
117.0 77.0
65
110
54.6
117.0
54.7
116.7
55.4
104.7
69.2
98.2
65.0
116.4
65.0
103.9
65.0
93.3
I
5
i2.8 84 86.4 82.9 85.2 82.2 81.2 84.1 73.0
24.8 71 71.2 67.7 71.5 73.7 67.0 70.9 62.7
12.0 60 61.2 57.7 60.4 67.7 56.6 59.5 55.2

I 5.4 54
0 48
56.4
52.6
52.9
49.1
54.2
48.9
64.6
62.1
51.8
48.0
53.3
48.0
51.0
48.0
.)
6

1
117.0 30.0 76 75.4 74.4 75.8 71.2 70.1 73.7 64.8

t t I 20.0 68
10.0 60

19o.c 0
0 47
70
67.3
59.8
52.6
73.4
66.3
58.7
51.6
73.9
67.6
58.6
49 .O
71.5
65.9
60.6
55.4
91.5
61.9
54.3
47.0
70.0
65.6
56.6
47 .O
70.0
59.0
52.8
47 .O
70.0 13

I 50.0 122
30.0 150
260.0 0 92
119.8
147.2
86.7
120.4
147.7
90.1
124.3
14 5.4
83.8
122.6
138.2
98.2
116.7
144.5
92.0
123.0
144.6
92.0
107.6
127.1
92.0
1
13

I 30.0 137
90.0 157
300.C 0 87
131.8
157.2
91.2
135.2
160.6
89.4
139.4
163.8
81.0
135.5
154.2
93.6
137.2
162.7
87.0
147.4
171.0
87 .O
130.8
149.8
87.0
I
13

1 60.0 134
90.0 161
158.: 57.5 115
135.8
160.5
110.5
134.0
158.7
115.2
137.7
163.7
116.9
134.9
155.5
108.6
132.0
157.2
115.5
143.5
169.2
118.4
129.6
150.9
102.3
1
14
4 0 70 65.2 69.8 68.4 80.1 70.0 70.0 70.0
97.5
I
195.c 48.C 96 110.8 99.1 103.4 96.9 102.5 110.0 6
I 0
220s 76.4 139
66 74.5
139.8
62.9
----- -----
59.0
-----
64.8 66.0
-----
66.0 66.0
-----
c
6
220.t 75.c 150 138.7 ----- _---- ----- ----- ----- 6
1 226.1 75.c 150 139.6 ----- _---- ----- ----- ----- ----- 6
208.( 52.( 106 116.8 107.7 112.2 105.2 108.5 117.8 104.5 14
c 0 70 77.4 68.3 64.2 71.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 c
146.1 5 3 s 107
I 0 67
103.5
61.8
107.8
66.2
109.3
64.8
101.4
75.8
108.5
67.0
111.3
67.0
95.8
67.0 +
14

Y c
107S 47.:

-
4 _.
0
-
95
53
-
87.8
49.3
93.3
54.7
92.0
55.4
86.0
69.2
91.9
53.0
90.4
53.0
77.2
53.0 +
14

aB means bar; S means sheet.

bCalculated Sp above uu; Sp = au used.

19
 TABLE I.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
[U.S. C u s t o m a r y U n i t 4

(d) S t a i n l e s s s t e e l s and s u p e r a l l o y s

Calculated fatigue l i m i t , $, k s i
Specimen Case 3 Case 1 Case 2
dimensions OU? Sm: sf? eference
Material ksi ksi B e s t f i t ; adjusting So Jsing experimental So
and, type, ksi
in.
Eq. (5) ierber
cq. (2'
(a) eq .
321 s t a i n l e s s 0.090 X 0.20 I 86.1 0 3 1 32.0 8
347 s t a i n l e s s 0.064 X 1.0 S 90.0 27.5 55 54.9 9
AM 355 SCT 0.036 S 211.0 86.C 138 143.0 20
AM 350 CRT 0.050 X 1.0 S 233.0 0 75 78.7 19

403 s t a i n l e s s
P H 15-7
I I
0.050 X 1.0 S 195.0
0.025 X 0.75 t 201.0
20.c 90 93.0
40.C 107 108.1
1OO.C 165 159.4
50.C 100 108.2
0 79 71.8
1
9
16

P H 17-7
I 1
0.037 X 0.92 f 205.1
33.f 100 96.4
67.C 123 124.0
0 74 72.8
J
15
Stellite 31 0.25 d i a m . B 123.0 0 42 47.1 17
S-816 0.25 diam. B 147.0 0 55 55.8 17
6.3% Mo-Waspall 0.25 diam. B i56.a 0 59 58.8 17
Inconel X-550 0.25 diam. B 173.5 0 52
64.3 17
16-25-6 Timken 0.25 diam. B 120.0 0 52 45.5 17
Hy-Tuf 0.313 d i a m . E 220.0 82.: 150 141.4 6
18% N i - M a r a g e 0.75 d i a m . B 269.a 67.: 135 135.0 18
18% Ni-Marage 0.75 diam. B 293.a 69.t 138 137.8 18
403 s t a i n l e s s 0.25 diam. B 141.0 0 6 1 53.7 17

aB means bar; S m e a n s sheet.

20
 TABLE I.- MPEFUMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Concluded
F.s.Customary unit3
(e) Titanium
~
- -
Calculated fatigue limit, SD, ksi
- -~
Specimen :ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
Material
dimensions 'm jf?.
-
and, type, LS1 is1 Best f i t ; adjusting So Using experimental So eference
in.
Is. (5)
(a) - -
Pure ).060 X 1.50 S 110.o l5.1 51 54.8 6
Pure ).060 X 1.50 S 133.0 38.: 57 63.5 6
Pure S 120.0 11.( 62 62.1 6
15A 1.040 X 0.50 S 95.8 12.C 70 65.2 6
7 5A 1.040 X 0.50 S 99.8 14.4 74 68.5 6
Pure 0.050 X 0.5 S 98.4 37.( 45 52.6 6
Pure 0.050 X 0.5 S 102.5 16.( 60 61.6 6
E-110 M 0.045 X 0.5 S 141.2 54.( 90 87.2 6
8120 VCA 0.040 X 0.5 S 136.3 28.( 55 64.0 21
2.5A1-16V 0.020 x 1.0 s 170.0 0 47 51.0 22

1
2.5Al-16V 0.063
I
X 1.0 S
1
161.0
35.(
39.:
0
70
90
50
77.1
106.5
49.1
1
22

1 1 1
12.!
77.(
85
LOO
81.4
112.3 1
+
1.5Al-16V

9Al-2.5Sn
0.125 X

1
0.10 x 0.20
1.0 S

s
168.0
1
115.6
0
37 .t
35.:
45
114
70
50.6
123.9
64.6
22
1
8
LA1-3MO- IV 0.065 S 196.0 B2.( 132 121.6 20
LA1-3MO-IV 0.065 S 194.0 77.( 123 116.8 20
s
+
1Al- 3Mo- 1V 0.020 x 1.0 161.0 0 70 50.4 22

1 1 17.! 95 86.7 4
s 115.0
+
LA1-3MO-lV 0.063 x 1.0 10.1 80 82.0 22
c 1 77.1 100 114.4 4
LA1-3MO- 1V

jA1-4V
c
0.125 x 1.0 S
c
0.063 x 1.0 s
+
173.C

166.C
0
40.1
0
50
80
50
51.6
81.6
50.2
22
4
22

jAl-4V
1 I
0.125 x 1.0 s
I
166.C
40.1
84
0
.'
80
110
50
80.3
120.6
50.2
1
22

jA1-4V
L I
0.045 X 0.5 S
I
165.5
41.1
84 .I
63.'
82
110
102
81.1
120.6
100.7
1
23

1
jA1-4V-2Sn
c
).375 diam. B 151.1
c 49.
49.
95
90
88.6
85.3
1
24
jA1-4V-2Sn 1.375 diam. B 176.1 57. 105 97.1 24
jA1-4V-2Sn 1.375 dim. B 163.t 55. 100 92.6 24
jA1-4V 0.036 S 165.( 78. 125 113.9 20
3Al-48 0.036 S 166.( 76. 122 112.1 20
jA1-4V D.10 x 0.20 S 165.: 3 5. 70 76.4 8
3A1- 1Mo-lV 13.050 x 1.0 s 152.( 0 60 47.0 19

1
L3V- 11Cr-3P
I
0.10 x 0.20 s
I
199.!
--
25.
60.
39.
-
75
9c
79
__
65.4
94.8
85.9
1 8

aB meansbar; S means sheet.

21
 TABLE 11.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS
@I UNtiJ

(a) Bare aluminum

-
Calculated fatigue lim Sp, MN/m2
Specimen :ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
Sf9 __
and type, bN/m2 Best fit; adjusting So [sing experimental SO
__
Tq. (5) erber bcdman erber 'adman
:q. (2) eq . eq.
- __ - eq. eq.
__
2014-T6 1.02 diam. E! 424 518 534 560 497 484 508 471
(Formerly 14S-T6)

1
2014-T6
12014-T6
I
0.25 X 0.95 E
11.02 diam. E
157
0
0
252
290
2 14
104
34 5
264
144
139
349
29 1
170
---
362
328
186
----
377
353
275
___
330
354
214
3 10
214
_ _ - - _---
377 336

I 1
2020-T6
I I
0.23 X 0.95 E
59
0
0
186
166
124
184
141
146
197
155
--_
204
148
196
155
___
223
166
____
204
166
_---
2024-T3 0.23 x 2.54 I 337 421 437 44 1 411 400 420 387

295 393 393 400 384 373 395 3 58

232 331 330 333 339 334 352 3 14
194 311 29 5 299 309 3 10 324 288
119 23 5 230 235 247 264 262 23 5
72 207 193 197 205 234 221 203
35 173 165 169 169 2 10 b186 b173 +
0 152 140 ___ ____ ___ ____ ____
(Formerly 24S-T3)
2024- T3 0.08 X 1.27 E 0 145 139 ___ ____ --- --_-
2024-T3 0.08 x 1.27 I 0 14 5 140 ___ ____ ___ ____
2024-T3 0.08 X 1.27 E 0 138 139 --- ____ ___ ____
2024-T3 0.08 x 1.27 E 0 138 139 ___ ____ ___ -___
2024-T3 0.10 x 2.54 I 295 393 393 406 39 1 380 ____
266 380 363 377 371 362
211 338 311 325 331 330
134 262 24 3 2 57 268 283
45 179 173 187 188 222
0 138 139 ___ ____ ___ __--
104 207 217 208 2 19 207 229
0 131 140 130 120 131 131
-265 -7 - 19 1 -157 30 - 174
- 108 90 61 81 69 117 40
-49 117 97 116 138 150 108
0 159 129 149 190 177 159
108 228 211 230 284 237 255
265 3 59 36 2 382 373 326 3 54
2024-T4 284 380 38 1 405 401 388 ___-
2024-T4 159 3 17 268 292 299 305
2024-T4 2 59 34 5 3 56 355 3 52 342
1
2024-T4
121
93
242
186
234
208
232
___
236
----
24 6
___ __--
2024-T4 93 186 208 181 197 184 206
35 138 164 137 142 139 151
0 117 139 112 108 112 117
~ - - ___ __
aB means bar; S means sheet.
bEstiniated So = 152 MN/m2.
 TABLE II.- MPEFUMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
@I Unit4

(a) Bare aluminum - Concluded

-
- Calculated fatigue lim sp, MN/m2 1
Specimen ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
Material
dimensions Sm, sf, ?ference
and type, [N/m2 N/m; Best fit; adjusting So lsing experimental So
cm
9. (5) erber oodman mdman
(4 - eq.
- eq. eq.
2024-T4 -38 76 113 87 70 83
(Formerly 24S-T4
4 50 518 556 560 520 502
146 276 258 262 296 303
0 179 147 151 159 208
2024-T4 110 221 228 __- --- ---
2219-T87 0 138 136 ___ -__ ---
2219-16 0 124 130 __- --- ---
54 56- H343 0 104 128 --- _-_ ---
606 1- T6 86 173 182 ___ --- ---
(Formerly 61S-T6
7039-T6 0 124 134 --- ___ _--
7075-T6 0 90 144 __- --- ___
7075-T6 381 476 482 501 469 451
(Formerly 75S-T6
32 1 428 417 437 429 413
251 3 59 349 368 379 368
215 34 5 317 336 351 346
130 255 244 263 281 293
48 242 180 199 206 24 1
0 166 146 165 159 210
7075-T6 480 552 582 586 553 534
(Formerly 75s-TZ 145 276 258 262 293 303
1 0 173 150 153
---
156
___
203
---
7075-T6 0 124 146
7075-T6 0 124 146 __- --- -_-
7075-T6 145 290 258 274 27 5 283
1 284 380 380 395
381
396
380
384
369
7075-T6 279 373 376
1 128 255 243 247 250 260
7075-T6 100 200 219 196 213 199
7075-T6 36 145 170 148 152 149
1 -4 5 90 115 92 70 86

+
7075-T6 114 228 230 233 2 53 234
46 186 179 182 190 184

+
7075-T6 135 269 248 26 1 274 261
0 152 147 160 147 163
7075-T6 0 152 146 149 145 149
1 -55 110 109
145
112
---
88
---
108
---
7075-T6 0 131
7075-T6 136 186 248 201 215 205
73 138 199 152 156 152
42 131 175 128 126 126
a 124
__
146 99
- 84 90

% m e a n s b a r ; S means sheet.

23
 ,
TABLE 11.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
[SI Unit4

. . Clad aluminum
(b)
-
Calculated fatigue limit, SD,MN/m2
Specimen !ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
dimensions Sf?
Material and type, IN/m2 Jsing experimental SO !f erence
Best fit; adjusting So
cm
cq. (5:
a. (2) erber
eq.
I __ __
2024-T3 0.81 X 1.27 S 0 90 94 ___ --- 11
(Formerly 24S-T3)
2024- T 3 293 366 348 369 3 53 6

1 142 228 202 224 236 1

2024-T3 99 166 160 --- --- 6
2024-T3 91 152 160 _-_ --- 6
2024 - T3 87 145 157 ___ --- 6
2024-T3 95 159 158 ___ --- 6
2024 - T 3 221 276 27 5 277 276 6

1
2024-T3
159
104
368
228
166
421
219
172
434
220
173
431
222
171
400
1
6
237 297 29 3 290 296
170 228 23 1 228 239
112 179 181 179 186
91 166 165 161 166
74 145 151 148 150
v t 29 117 118 115 106 1
237 297 293

la
2024-T3 293 295

I
1024-T3
181
117
176
24 2
186
23 5
24 0
184
233
242
187
233
24 5
186
235
6

1 108 173 174 175 173 1

2024-T3 121 193 185 --- --- 6
2024-T3 108 173 173 --- ___ 6
2024-T3 95 159 160 --- ___ 6
2024-T3 91 152 152 ___ --_ 6
2024-T3 108 173 177 -__ --_ 6
2024-T3 117 186 190 ___ -__ 6
2024-T3 92 152 165 --- --- 6
2024- T2 112 179 182 ___ --- 6

1
7075-T6 293 366 355 365 360

I
7075-T6
7075-T6
248
184
134
0
331
262
2 14
110
276
312
253
211
108
322
264
221
-_-
323
266
221
---
269
6

6
207 270 266
1 108 173 186 182 179 1
7075-T6 92 145 173 ___ --- 6
7075-T6
1
7178-T6
2 59
159
117
324
228
186
322
232
195
321
231
---
320
23 1
---
r" 6
-
B
' means bar; S means sheet.
bEstirnated So = 103 MN/m2.

24
 TABLE 11.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
EI Unit4
(c) Low alloy steel
Calculated fatigue limit, So, MN/m2
ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
Sm, st, eference
VIN/m2 5N/m2 Best fit; adjusting So Using experimental SO
Q. (5) k r b e r ioodman cq. (2: krber Ioodman
@. (2) eq. eq . eq. eq.
- - - -
304 607 615 644 6 56 593 690 694 59 1 14
0 449 377 377 382 477 449 449 449 4
53 1 7 59 b807 805 722 678 803 717 644 5
29 5
171
580
490
596
491
572
467
588
493
567
508
560
482
580
489
504
433 I
t
83
37
0
4 14
373
331
422
389
363
398
365
339
4 17
374
337
467
446
428
39 1
3 57
331
411
368
331
381
3 52
331
1
6
207
138
69
0
0
4 14
621
524
469
4 14
324
483
842
1035
520
464
413
363
506
a27
1016
513
4 57
40 5
3 56
510
83 1
1019
523
466
404
338
493
8 58
1003
49 1
455
418
382
63 1
846
954
4 84
427
375
324
483
805
997
509
4 53
391
324
483
849
998
447
407
364
324
483
742
877
I1
13

0 635 598 622 578 678 635 635 635 13

4 14
62 1
0
94 5
1083
600
909
1085
629
933
1108
617
962
1130
559
935
1064
646
947
1123
600
1017
1180
600
903
1034
600
I
13
4 14
621
397
925
1111
794
937
1107
762
925
1095
79 5
9 50
1130
807
931
1073
749
911
1085
797
990
1167
817
894
1041
706
I
14
0 483 4 50 482 472 553 483 483 483 I
331 662 765 684 7 13 669 707 7 59 673 6
0 455 514 434 407 447 455 455 455 1
527 0 59 965 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6
518 1035 9 57 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---_ 6
1 518 1035 963 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6
3 59 731 806 743 774 726 749 813 721 14
0 483 534 471
744
443
755
490 4 83
749
483
768
483
66 1
1
14
366 738 7 14 700
0 462 426 457 447 523 462 462 462 1
328 6 56 606 644 635 593 634 624 533 14
v t 0 366 340 377 382 477 366 366 366 1
a B means bar; S means sheet.
bCalculated Sp above uu; Sp = uu used.

25
 TABLE 11.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Continued
PI unit4

(d) Stainless s t e e l s and superalloys

Calculated fatigue limit, Sp, MN/m2
-
Specimen :ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
Material
dimensions Ou, Sm, % ef e rencc
and type, MN/m dN/m IN/m2 B e s t fit; adjusting So rsing experimental So
cm
rs. (5) oodmar
eq .
__ ~ ~

321 stainless 0.23 X 0.51 S 594 0 2 14 221 8

347 stainless 0.16 X 2.54 S 621 190 380 379 9
AM 355 SCT 0.09 S 1456 593 9 52 987 20
AM 350 CRT 0.13 X 2.54 S 1608 0 518 543 19

1 1 /I 1
138 621 64 2
276 738 74 6
690 1139 1100
403 stainless 0.13 X 2.54 S 1346 34 5 690 74 7 9
P H 15-7 0.06 X 1.91 S 1387 0 54 5 49 5 16

PH 17-7
I 0.09 X
I2.34
I 1
SI 1415
231
462
0
690
849
511
66 5
856
502
1
15
Stellite 31 0.64 diam. BI 849 0 290 325 17
S-816 0.64 diam. B( 1014 0 380 385 17
6.3% Mo-Waspallo 0.64 diam. BI 1076 0 407 406 17
Inconel X-550 0.64 diam. B/ 1197 0 3 59 444 17
16-25-6 Timken 0.64 diam. Bl 828 0 3 59 314 17
HY-TUF 0.80 diam. BI 1518 569 1035 976 6
18%Ni-Marage 1.91 &am. BI 1856 466 932 932 18
18%Ni-Marage 1.91 diam. BI 2022 476 9 52 951 18
403 stainless 0.64 diam. BI 973 0 421 37 1 17

26
c

,
TABLE 11.- EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED FATIGUE LIMITS - Concluded
p1 unit4

(e) Titanium
Calculated fatigue limit, S,, MN/m2
Specimen !ase 3 Case 1 Case 2
Material dimensions OU, sf, !eference
and type, IIN/m2 dN/d Best fit; adjusting So Using experimental So
cm
(4 - -
1.15 X 3.81 S 7 59 176 352 378 6
1.15 X 3.81 S 918 197 393 438 6
S 828 2 14 428 428 6
1.10 x 1.27 S 66 1 290 483 4 50 6
1.10 x 1.27 S 689 306 511 473 6
Pure 1.13 x 1.27 S 679 186 311 363 6
Pure 1.13 X 1.27 S 707 248 4 14 425 6
c- ?I",! !.I1 Y 1.27 s 9 74 373 621 602 6
B120 VCA 1.10 X 1.27 S 940 193 380 442 21
2.5A1- 16V 1.05 x 2.54 S 1173 0 324 3 52 22

I 'I
2.5A1-16V 1.16 X
1
1
2.54 S
1
1111

I
242
478

293
531
0
483
621
34 5
587
690
532
735
339
562
77 5
1
22

1
2.5A1- 16V

5A1-2.5Sn
+ 1.32 x 2.54 S
I
3.25 X 0.51 S
1159
I
798
606
244
0 311
787
483
349
855
446
22
c8
4A1-3M0-1V 0.17 s 1352 566 911 839 20
4A1-3M0-1V 0.17 s 1339 53 1 849 806 20
4A1-3Mo-lV 5.05 X 2.54 S 1152 0 483 348 22

l 11
4A1-3M0- 1V 3.16 X
42.54 S
I
1
1208
I
328
276
531
656
552
690
598
566
789
1
22
1
s
4A1-3M0- 1V

6A1-4V
1
3.32 x 2.54

D.16 X
1
2.54 S
+
1194

1145
328
0

0
345
552
345
356
563
346
22
1
22

16A1-4!
I
D.32 x 2.54 s
1
1145
328
584
0
552
7 59
34 5
554
832
346
1
22

6A1-4V 0.11 X
1 1.27 S
1
1145
283
584
440
566
7 59
704
560
832
695
1
23
1 I 4 344 6 56 611 1
6A1-4V-2Sn 0.95 diam. B 1043 342 621 589 24
6A1-4V-2Sn 0.95 diam. B 1215 398 725 670 24
6A1-4V-2Sn 0.95 diam. B 1130 380 690 639 24
6A1-4V 0.09 s 1139 538 863 786 20
6A1-4V 0.09 s 1145 524 842 773 20
6A1-4V 0.25 X 0.51 E 1141 244 483 527 8
8A1- 1Mo- 1V 0.13 x 2.54 E 1049 0 4 14 324 19

I ' I I 1
173 518 451
4 14 621 6 54
13V- 11CR-3A 0.25 X 0.51 I 1377 275 54 5 593 8
- -- __

aB m e a n s b a r ; S means sheet.

27
 TABLE 111.- RESULTS OF SPECIAL FATIGUE TESTS

Predicted by eq. (3) Experimental I "

UU,
Material ;si (MN/m2) Sa,
rsi (MN/m2

!024-T81
(Clad)
64.6 (446) 55 (380) 9.6 (66)
___
55 (380) 1
I
(55) 1
I
4 058 170
run-out 1 13 (90)
estimated
2 505 000
50 (345) (55) run-out 12 (83)
59.0 (407) 50 (345) 9.0 (62) estimated
169 ooo
45 (311) l3
failed
4 001 000

iM 350 CR' 223.0 (1549) 169 (1168) 54.0 (373)

175 (1208) 1 47 (324) 1
I
312 000
failed 1
1
70 (483)
estimated

28 NASA-Langley, 1967 -32 L-5169

 “The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be
.
conducted so as t o contribute . . to the expansion of human knowl-
edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and .pace. The Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination
of information concerning its activities and the results thereof .”
-NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered

important, complete, and a lasting contribution to existing knowleclge.
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless of
importance as a contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distribu-
tion because of preliminary data, security classification, or other reasons.
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and technical information generated
under a NASA contract or grant and considered an important contribution to
existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information published in a foreign
language considered to merit NASA distribution in English.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information derived from or of value to NASA
activities. Publications include conference proceedings, monographs, data
compilations, handbooks, sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PUBLICATIONS: Information on tech-
nology used by NASA that may be of particular interest in commercial and ofher
non-aerospace applications. Publications include Tech Briefs, Technology
Utilization Reports and Notes, and Technology Surveys.

h a i l s on the availability of these publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION DIVISION

NAT1 0 NA L A E R 0NA U T I CS A ND SPACE A D MI NI ST R AT ION
Washington, D.C PO546