4 Fatigue Influencing Factors

Fatigue and Fracture (Basic Course )
Factors Influencing Fatigue Mean Stress
Professor Stephen D. Downing

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved
Factors Influencing Fatigue

Mean Stress Variable Amplitude Stress Concentrations Surface Finish
1 of 110
Mean Stresses
Smax
stress mean stress stress range
Smin
Smean = Smax + Smin 2
R=
Smin Smax
2 of 110
General Observations
Tensile mean stresses reduce the fatigue life or decrease the allowable stress range Compressive mean stresses increase the fatigue life or increase the allowable stress range
3 of 110
Mechanism
Fatigue damage is a shear process Tensile mean stresses open microcracks and make sliding easier
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved
Smean 2
4 of 110
Goodman 1890
Mechanics Applied to Engineering John Goodman, 1890 .. whether the assumptions of the theory are justifiable or not . We adopt it simply because it is the easiest to use, and for all practical purposes, represents Whlers data.
Sultimate = Smin + 2 S
5 of 110
Goodman Diagram
Alternating stress
Se
105 cycles
107 cycles 0 R = -1 Su R=1
Mean stress
S S S 1 mean = 2 Sultimate 2 R = 1
Factors Influencing Fatigue 2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 6 of 110
Test Data ( 1941 )

1.2 1.0 Alternating Stress Fatigue Limit 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Mean Stress Ultimate Strength 0.8 0.9 1.0
J.O. Smith, The Effect of Range of Stress on the Fatigue Strength of Metals, Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 334, University of Illinois, 1941
Compression
beneficial
Se no influence detrimental -Su R = - 0 R = -1 Su R=1
8 of 110
Modified Goodman ( no yielding )
Sys Se
S + Smean < S ys 2
-Su -Sys R = -
0 R = -1
Sys
Su R=1
9 of 110
Mean Stress Influence on Life

1000 100 10 Relative Fatigue Life
1 0.1
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0 0.2 Mean Stress Ultimate Strength
0.4
0.6
10 of 110
Stress Concentrations
Plastic Zone
The elastic material surrounding the plastic zone around a stress concentration forces the material to deform in strain control
11 of 110
Mean Stresses at Notches

elastic plastic
Notch
Nominal Nominal Nominal Notch
Notch
Nominal mean stress is less than notch mean stress
Nominal mean stress is greater than notch mean stress
12 of 110
Morrow Mean Stress Correction

1 Strain Amplitude 0.1 0.01 0.001 10-4 10-5 100 101 102 103 104 105 Reversals, 2Nf 106 107
mean E
'f mean = (2Nf )b + 'f (2Nf )c 2 E

Smith Watson Topper
max
max
'f 2 = (2Nf )2b + 'f 'f (2Nf )b +c 2 E
14 of 110
Mean Stress Relaxation
Stadnick and Morrow, Techniques for Smooth Specimen Simulation of Fatigue Behavior of Notched Members ASTM STP 515, 1972, 229-252
Loading Histories
16 of 110
Test Results
17 of 110
Crack Growth Physics

Maximum load
Minimum load
Mean stresses in plastic zone are small
18 of 110
Mean Stress Effects
da C K m = dN ( 1 R )
0 < < 0.5
From: Dowling and Thangjitham, An Overview and Discussion of Basic Methodology for Fatigue, ASTM STP 1389,2000, 3-38
Compression
Crack open
Crack closed
20 of 110
Compressive Stresses
Crack opening level
Stress
Compressive stresses are not very damaging in crack growth
2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 21 of 110
Sources of Mean/Residual Stress

Loading History Fabrication Shot Peening Heat Treating
22 of 110
Loading History
Tension overloads produce favorable compressive residual stress Compressive overloads produce unfavorable tensile residual stress
23 of 110
Fabrication
24 of 110
Cold Expansion
1965 Basic Cx process conceptualized (Boeing)
The split sleeve is slipped onto the mandrel, which is attached to the hydraulic puller unit. The mandrel and sleeve are inserted into the hole with the nosecap held firmly against the workpiece. When the puller is activated, the mandrel is drawn through the sleeve radially expanding the hole.
Courtesy of Fatigue Technology Inc.
Theory of Cold Expansion

Fatigue Life Improvement

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

Shot Peening Results

Fatigue strength at 2x106 cycles, MPa 1500 Shot Peened Smooth & Notched 1000
SFL =
Su 2
500
Smooth Notched
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa

www.metalimprovement.com
29 of 110
Heat Treating
Residual Stress, MPa 1000 500 0 -500 -1000 -1500 0 5 10 Depth, mm 15
Axial Radial Circumferential
Brinell Hardness
600 400 200 0
5 10 Depth, mm
15
50 mm diameter induction hardened 1045 steel shaft
30 of 110
Things Worth Remembering

Local mean stress rather than the nominal mean stress governs the fatigue life Mean stress has the greatest effect on crack nucleation
31 of 110

32 of 110
Variable Amplitude Loading
How to you identify cycles ? How do you assess fatigue damage for a cycle ?
33 of 110
Rainflow Cycle Counting
What could be more basic than learning to count correctly?

Matsuishi and Endo (1968) Fatigue of Metals Subjected to Varying Stress Fatigue Lives Under Random Loading, Proceedings of the Kyushu District Meeting, JSME, 37-40
Rainflow
strain Counts 1/2 cycles
B C CB D E F G I, A AD
BC
DA
35 of 110
Rainflow and Hysteresis

B D F H E G I A C
36 of 110
Cumulative Damage
High - Low . . SL
nH Low - High . nL
nL
. nH
SH
37 of 110
Linear Damage
SH SL
Nf H Miners Rule: Damage =

Nf L n n n = H + L NF Nf H Nf L
38 of 110
Nonlinear Damage
1.0 Damage fraction 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
= 0.004
= 0.020
D = 0.7
D = 1.3
0 0.2 0.6 n Cycle ratio, Nf 0.4 0.8 1.0
D ~ 1
39 of 110
Periodic Overload Results

0.1
The fatigue limit is reduced by a factor of 3 when a few large cycles are applied
Strain Amplitude
0.01
10-3
10-4 10
100
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Fatigue Life
Bonnen and Topper, The Effects of Periodic Overloads on Biaxial Fatigue of Normalized SAE 1045 Steel ASTM STP 1387, 2000, 213-231
Fatigue Damage Calculations

Stress Amplitude, MPa 10000
S b = S'f (Nf ) 2
1 10
1000
100 100
101
102
103 104 Cycles
105
106
107
S Nf = ' 2S f
1 b
Damage S10
41 of 110
Crack Growth Data

10-6
Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle
10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12 3
Kc
da = C K m dN
10
100
KTH
K,MPa m
42 of 110
Crack Growth Data

100
Nf =
af
1m / 2
a
m 2
1m / 2 i
10
C Sm
( 1 m / 2)
1 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12
10-6
Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle
Damage S3
K,MPa m
Multiple Choice
Which cycles do the most fatigue damage ? (a) a few large cycles (b) a moderate number of intermediate cycles (c) a large number of small cycles
44 of 110
Fatigue Data
1000
n = 10
Amplitude 100
n=5
10
Damage Sn
n=3
1 100 101 102 103 104 Cycles 105 106 107
45 of 110
Loading History
Bracket.sif-Strain_b43 750 500 Strain Gage (ustrain) 250 0 -250 -500 -750 rf_000.sif-Strain_b43 0 50 100 150 Time (Secs) 750 Counts 200 250 300
0
Rang e (us train)
) strain an (u Me
-750
1500
750
46 of 110
Slope = 3
Damage
3.15 % damage 0
rang e (ustr a in)
-750
me a (ustr an in )
1500 750
47 of 110
Slope = 5
Damage
5.14 % damage 0
rang e (us train)
-750
ai (ustr n mea n)
1500 750
48 of 110
Slope = 10
Damage
20.78 % damage 0
range (ustra in )
-750
in) (ustra mean
1500 750
49 of 110
Mechanisms and Slopes

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

10-6
1 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12 Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle
K,MPa m 50 of 110
Equivalent Load
Equivalent constant amplitude loading
S =
n i =1
S
N
Typically n ranges from 4 to 6 for structures N cycles at an amplitude of S does as much damage as the entire loading history
SAE Keyhole Specimen

Bracket
Suspension
Transmission
52 of 110
SAE Keyhole Test Data

ManTen RQC 100
100
Bracket Transmission Suspension Constant Amplitude
Equivalent Load, kN
10
1 5
1 103 104 105 106 107 108
Total Fatigue Life, Cycles


Rainflow counting is employed to identify cycles The slope of the fatigue curve ( damage mechanism) has a large influence on how much damage is caused by smaller cycles
54 of 110

55 of 110
Stress Concentration Factor

local a = applied 1 + 2
Inglis Solution 1910
2a
Local stress Applied stress

K and K
KtS
Stress (MPa)
K = S K = e
Kte
Strain
Neubers Rule
KtS
Stress (MPa) Actual stress
Kt S Kt e =
Stress calculated with elastic assumptions
Kte
Strain
58 of 110
Neubers Rule for Fatigue

Stress and strain amplitudes
K t S K t e = 2 2 2 2
e S = 2 2E
Elastic nominal stress
Substitute and rearrange
S = Kt 2
E 2 2
The product of stress times strain controls fatigue life
59 of 110
A Dilemma
Stress analysis and stress concentration factors are independent of size and are related only to the ratio of the geometric dimensions to the loads Fatigue is a size dependent phenomenon How do you put the two together ?
60 of 110
Similitude
61 of 110
Fatigue of Notches
Nominal Stress, MPa
400
d d Kt = 3.1
300 200 100

Kt = 3.1 Kf = 2.2
104
105
106
107
108
Fatigue Life
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999
Notch Size
Kt
Kf
Kt Kf
Large Notch
Small Notch
63 of 110
Microstructure Size
Kt Kf
Kt
Kf
Low Strength
High Strength
64 of 110
Stress Gradient
Kt Kt Kf Kf
Low Kt
High Kt
65 of 110
Kt vs Kf
10
Effective stress concentration
8 6
Kf = Kt
Kf
4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10
Experiments
Kt
Calculated stress concentration
Petersons Equation
4 3
2070 MPa mm = 0.025 u
1.8
Kf
2 1 0 10-4
Kt 1 K f =1 + 1+
10-3
10-2
0.1 1
10
102
103
No effect when << Full effect when >>

Petersons Constant
0.7
0.3
, mm
0.1
0.03 500 1000 1500 2000
Ultimate Strength, MPa
68 of 110
Static Strength
hole
Kt = 2.5
slot
Kt = 5
diamond
Kt = 20
edge
Kt = 20
69 of 110
1018 Steel Test Data

100
80
load, kN
60
40
edge diamond slot hole
20
0 0 2 4 6 8 10
displacement, mm
Notched SN Curve
10000
Stress Amplitude, MPa
Smooth specimen data
1000
Notched specimen
Kf
100 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
Cycles
Stress concentrations are not very important at short lives

Fatigue of Notches
Nominal Stress, MPa
400
d d Kt = 3.1
300 200 100

Kt = 3.1 Kf = 2.2
104
105
106
107
108
Fatigue Life
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999
Crack Growth Data

10-6 Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12 1 KTH Kc
Nonpropagating cracks
2 K TH > 1.12 a
da = C K m dN
10
K,MPa m
100
73 of 110
Frost Data
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Rotating bending Notched bar Notched plate nucleation fracture
Snominal Sfatigue limit
1 Kt
Kt
nonpropagating cracks
Frost, A Relation Between the Critical Alternating Propagation Stress and Crack Length for Mild Steel Proceedings of the Institute for Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 173, No. 35, 1959, 811-836
Significance
For Kt > 4, the notch acts like a crack with a depth D
K th S fl = D
Kt does not play a role for sharp notches ! A stress concentration behaves like a crack once a stress concentration becomes large (Kt > 4)
75 of 110
Cracks at Notches
S KtS S
D+a
a << D
a >> D
76 of 110
Stress Intensity Factors

3.0
K = K t S a K = S ( D + a )
K 2.0 S D
1.0
0 0 0.1 0.2
a D
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
77 of 110
Cracks at Holes
1 20 1 22
Once a crack reaches 10% of the hole radius, it behaves as if the hole was part of the crack
78 of 110
Specimens with Similar Geometry

Kt = 10.7 25 Kt = 2.4 25
2.5
2.5
Ultimate Strength 780 MPa Yield Strength 660 MPa
79 of 110
Test Results
1000
Nominal Stress Amplitude
Strength Limited
Kt = 10.7 Kt = 2.4
Fatigue Strength Dominated Crack Growth Dominated 100
Threshold Stress Intensity Dominated 1 1 10 100 103 104 105 106 107
Total Fatigue Life, Cycles


Fatigue may be thought of as a failure of the average stress concept, consequently, fatigue usually begins at stress concentrators which are most frequently located on the surface The severity of a stress concentrator in fatigue is size dependent Small stress concentrators are more effective in high strength materials
81 of 110

82 of 110
Modern View of the Fatigue Limit

The fatigue limit is the stress where a crack may nucleate but will not grow through the first microstructural barrier such as the grain size, pearlite colony size, prior austenite grain size, eutectic cell size or precipitate spacing.
Slip Bands
Crack
83 of 110
Intrinsic Flaws
Little effect of surface pit because it is smaller than the grain size
Large effect of defect because it is larger than the grain size
84 of 110
Surface Finish Influence
Method Stress-Life Strain-Life Crack Growth
Physics Crack Nucleation Microcrack Growth Macrocrack Growth
Size 0.01 mm 0.1 - 1 mm > 1mm
Influence of Surface Finish Strong Moderate None
85 of 110
Sources of Surface Effects

Machining
Cutting Grinding
Corrosion
General Pitting
Processing
Cutting/Shearing Casting Forging Plating
Foreign Object Damage

Nicks Scratches
Machining
1
100 m
Cracks start in machining marks not in the direction of the maximum principal stress
Casting
100 m
Surface flaw in gray cast iron
88 of 110
Nodular Iron Surface
Flake graphite formed on the surface of a nodular iron casting
Starkey and Irving, A Comparison of the Fatigue Strength of Machined and As-cast Surfaces of SG Iron International Journal of Fatigue, July, 1982, 129-136
Test Data
10-1
Strain Amplitude
10-2 Machined Surface 10-3 Cast Surface
10-4 1 10 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
Fatigue Life, Reversals
90 of 110
Surface Reduction Factors

Polished 1.0 0.8
Surface Factor
Machined 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Hot Rolled
1.2 1.7 2.5 5.0
Forged
Fatigue Notch Factor
Ground
1.0
91 of 110
Noll and Lipson 1945

1000
Fatigue Limit, MPa
800 Ground 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Machined Hot Rolled Forged
92 of 110
Hiam and Pietrowski 1978

Driven for 1 or 2 years in Southern Ontario before making specimens to evaluate corrosion effects Strain controlled fatigue testing
Hiam and Pietrowski, The Influence of Forming and Corrosion on the Fatigue Behavior of Automotive Steels, SAE Paper 780040, 1978
93 of 110
Kf for pitting
Hot Rolled Surface 1.12 1.18 Corroded Surface 1.49 1.65 1.90
950X 0.06% C HSLA 0.18% C HSLA
Surface finish factor predicts Kf = 1.6 for a Hot Rolled Surface
from Hiam and Pietrowski

Pit Depth Effects on Life

106 950X Steel
Fatigue Life, Cycles
105
104 0
from Hiam and Pietrowski
0.1
0.2
0.3
Pit Depth, mm
Fatigue Notch Factor for Pits

1.5 1.4
1.3
Kf
1.2
1.1
1.0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Pit Depth, mm
Suspension
97 of 110
Spring Failures
98 of 110
Microscopic Examination
Corrosion Pits Corrosion Pits
99 of 110
Chrome Plating
500
Stress Amplitiude, MPa
400
Shot peened and chrome plated
300
Base steel
Chrome plated 200 104 105 106 107 108
Life, Cycles
Almen, Fatigue Loss and Gain by Electroplating , Product Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1951, 109-116
Hard Chrome Plating

coating
In addition to cracks, coatings frequently have high tensile residual stresses

Metals Handbook, Volume 9, Fractography and Atlas of Fractographs
Galvanized Steel
3 Crack Density mm-1 225 MPa
2 240 MPa 1 305 MPa 0 0.5 Life Fraction 1
Vogt, Boussac, Foct, Prediction of Fatigue Resistance of a Hot-dip Galvanized Steel Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2001,33-40
Fatigue Limit for Galvanized Steel

400 300
Fatigue Limit
Uncoated Fatigue Limit 200
SFL =
K TH t
100
10
100
1000
Coating Thickness, t m Coatings can be modeled with a crack equal to the coating thickness
Anodized Aluminum
Rateick et. al. Relationshipp of Microstructure to Fatigue Strength Loss in Anodized Aluminum-Copper Alloys Aeromet 2004, June 2004
Pitting at Cu Rich Constituent
105 of 110
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ftgwww/frontpage/fod2.html
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/~ftgwww/frontpage/fod2.html
Upper Control Arm
108 of 110
Serial Number
109 of 110

Fatigue crack nucleation is a surface phenomena and everything about the surface affects the fatigue life Most of the design rules are conservative having been developed for materials of the 1950s
110 of 110
Fatigue and Fracture ( Basic Course )

4 Fatigue Influencing Factors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Fatigue Influencing Factors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatigue and Fracture (Basic Course )

Factors Influencing Fatigue Mean Stress

Professor Stephen D. Downing

Factors Influencing Fatigue

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

107 cycles 0 R = -1 Su R=1

Test Data ( 1941 )

Se no influence detrimental -Su R = - 0 R = -1 Su R=1

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Modified Goodman ( no yielding )

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Mean Stress Influence on Life

0 0.2 Mean Stress Ultimate Strength

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Mean Stresses at Notches

Nominal Nominal Nominal Notch

Nominal mean stress is less than notch mean stress

Nominal mean stress is greater than notch mean stress

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Morrow Mean Stress Correction

'f mean = (2Nf )b + 'f (2Nf )c 2 E

Smith Watson Topper

'f 2 = (2Nf )2b + 'f 'f (2Nf )b +c 2 E

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Mean Stress Relaxation

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Crack Growth Physics

Mean stresses in plastic zone are small

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Mean Stress Effects

0 < < 0.5

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Crack opening level

Factors Influencing Fatigue

Sources of Mean/Residual Stress

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Factors Influencing Fatigue

2008 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

Theory of Cold Expansion

Courtesy of Fatigue Technology Inc.

Fatigue Life Improvement