Engineering Materials Design

Lecture . 2

Failure Prevention

By
Dr. Mohammed Ramidh
 1. Failures Resulting from Static Loading
A static load is a stationary force or couple applied to a member. To be
stationary, the force or couple must be unchanging in magnitude, point or points
of application, and direction. A static load can produce axial tension or
compression, a shear load, a bending load, a torsional load, or any combination of
these. To be considered static, the load cannot change in any manner.
In this chapter we consider the relations between strength and static
loading in order to make the decisions concerning material and its treatment,
fabrication, and geometry for satisfying the requirements of functionality, safety,
reliability, competitiveness, usability, manufacturability, and marketability. How
far we go down this list is related to the scope of the examples.

separated into two or more pieces; has become permanently distorted, thus
ruining its geometry; has had its reliability downgraded; or has had its function
compromised, whatever the reason.

Stress Concentration
Stress concentration is a highly localized effect. In some instances it may be
due to a surface scratch. If the material is ductile and the load static, the design
load may cause yielding in the critical location in the notch. This yielding can
involve strain strengthening of the material and an increase in yield strength at
the small critical notch location. Since the loads are static and the material is
ductile, that part can carry the loads satisfactorily with no general yielding. In
these cases the designer sets the geometric (theoretical) stress concentration
factor Kt to unity.
When using this rule for ductile materials with static loads, be careful to
assure yourself that the material is not susceptible to brittle fracture in the
environment of use.

stress concentration factor Kt or Kts.

An exception to this rule is a brittle material that inherently contains
microdiscontinuity stress concentration, worse than the macrodiscontinuity that
the designer has in mind. Sand molding introduces sand particles, air, and water
vapor bubbles. The grain
 structure of cast iron contains graphite flakes (with little strength), which are
literally cracks introduced during the solidification process. When a tensile test
on a cast iron is performed, the strength reported in the literature includes this
stress concentration. In such cases Kt or Kts need not be applied.

1-1. Failure Theories

Unfortunately, there is no universal theory of failure for the general case of

material properties and stress state. Instead, over the years several hypotheses
have been
accepted, we will theories as most designers do.
Structural metal behavior is typically classified as being ductile or brittle,
although under special situations, a material normally considered ductile can fail
in a brittle manner. Ductile materials are normally classified such that 0 05
and have an identifiable yield strength that is often the same in compression as in
tension Brittle materials, 0 05, do not exhibit an
identifiable yield strength, and are typically classified by ultimate tensile and
compressive strengths, and respectively (where is given as a
positive quantity). The generally accepted theories are:
Ductile materials (yield criteria)
Maximum shear stress (MSS),
Distortion energy (DE),
Ductile Coulomb-Mohr (DCM),
Brittle materials (fracture criteria)
Maximum normal stress (MNS),
Brittle Coulomb-Mohr (BCM),
Modified Mohr (MM),

Ductile materials (yield criteria)

1-2. Maximum-Shear-Stress Theory for Ductile Materials

The maximum-shear-stress theory predicts that yielding begins

whenever the maximum shear stress in any element equals or
exceeds the maximum shear stress in a tensiontest specimen of the
same material when that specimen begins to yield.
the maximum-shear-stress theory predicts yielding when

(2-1)
Where is the yielding stress, and n is the factor of safety.
Note that this implies that the yield strength in shear is given by

-2)
The MSS theory is also referred to as the Tresca or Guest theory.

1-3 Distortion-Energy Theory for Ductile Materials

The distortion-energy theory predicts that yielding occurs when the

distortion strain energy per unit volume reaches or exceeds the
distortion strain energy per unit volume for yield in simple tension
or compression of the same material.

The distortion-energy theory is also called:

The von Mises or von Mises Hencky theory
The shear-energy theory
The octahedral-shear-stress theory

The distortion-energy theory predicts yielding when

(2-3)

Where is usually called the von Mises stress, named after Dr. R.
von Mises, who contributed to the theory. where the von Mises
stress is

-4)

the shear yield strength predicted by the distortion-energy theory is

-5)
EXAMPLE 3 1:

A hot-rolled steel has a yield strength of Syt Syc 100 kpsi and a true
strain at fracture of f 0 55. Estimate the factor of safety for the
following principal stress states:

(a) 70, 70, 0 kpsi.

(b) 30, 70, 0 kpsi.
(c) 0, 70, 30 kpsi.
(d) 0, 30, 70 kpsi.
(e) 30, 30, 30 kpsi.

Solution :

Since f 0 05 and Syc and Syt are equal, the material is ductile
and the distortion energy (DE) theory applies. The maximum-shear-
stress (MSS) theory will also be applied and compared to the DE
results. Note that cases a to d are plane stress states.

(a) The ordered principal stresses are 1 70 2 70 3 0

kpsi.

DE : From Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4).

= 70 kpsi

=
MSS : From Eq. (2-1) with a factor of safety,

=
(b) The ordered principal stresses are 1 70 2 30 3 0
kpsi.

DE: From Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4).

= 60.8 kpsi

MSS: From Eq. (2-1)

(c) The ordered principal stresses are 1 70 2 0 3 30 kpsi.

DE : From Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4).

= 88.9 kpsi

=
MSS: From Eq. (2-1),

(d) The ordered principal stresses are 1 0 2 30 3 70 kpsi.

DE: From Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4).

 = 60.8 kpsi

MSS: From Eq. (2-1),

=

(e) The ordered principal stresses are 1 30 2 30 3 30 kpsi

DE: From Eqs. (2-3) and (2-4).

=0

MSS: From Eq. (2-1),

A tabular summary of the factors of safety is included for comparisons.

1 4 Coulomb-Mohr Theory for Ductile Materials

A variation of Coulomb-Mohr theory or the

internal-friction theory,
Not all materials have compressive strengths equal to their corresponding
tensile values. For example, the yield strength of magnesium alloys in
compression may be as little as 50 percent of their yield strength in
tension. The ultimate strength of gray cast irons in compression varies
from 3 to 4 times greater than the ultimate tensile strength. So, in this
section, we are primarily interested in those theories that can be used to
predict failure for materials whose strengths in tension and compression
are not equal.
This is can be expressed as a design equation with a factor of safety ,n ,
can be written as.

-6 )

Where either yield strength or ultimate strength can be used.

The torsional yield strength occurs when Then

-7)

EXAMPLE 4 1

A 25-mm-diameter shaft is statically torqued to 230 N m. It is

made of cast 195-T6 aluminum, with a yield strength in tension of
160 MPa and a yield strength in compression of 170 MPa. It is
machined to final diameter. Estimate the factor of safety of the shaft.

Solution The maximum shear stress is given by

The two nonzero principal stresses are 75 and 75 MPa, making the
ordered principal stresses 1 75, 2 0, and 3 75 MPa.
From Eq. (2 6), for yield,

EXAMPLE 4 2

This example illustrates the use of a failure theory to determine the

strength of a mechanical element or component. The example may
also clear up any confusion existing between the phrases strength of
a machine part, strength of a material, and strength of a part at a
point.
A certain force F applied at D near the end of the 15-in lever shown
in Fig.(1-1) , which is quite similar to a socket wrench, results in
certain stresses in the cantilevered bar OABC. This bar (OABC) is of
AISI 1035 steel, forged and heat-treated so that it has a minimum
(ASTM) yield strength of 81 kpsi. We presume that this component
would be of no value after yielding. Thus the force F required to
initiate yielding can be regarded as the strength of the component
part. Find this force.
Figure 1 1

Solution We will assume that lever DC is strong enough and hence not a
part of the problem. A 1035 steel, heat-treated, will have a reduction in
area of 50 percent or more and hence is a ductile material at normal
temperatures. This also means that stress concentration at shoulder A need
not be considered. A stress element at A on the top surface will be
subjected to a tensile bending stress and a torsional stress. This point, on
the 1-in-diameter section, is the weakest section, and governs the strength
of the assembly. The two stresses are

the distortion-energy theory, we find, from lower Eq. or Eq. (2-4)

Eq. (2-3) , then

the MSS theory, Eq.

or from lower Eq.

 Brittle materials (fracture criteria)

1 5 Maximum-Normal-Stress Theory for Brittle Materials

The maximum-normal-stress (MNS) theory states that failure occurs
whenever one of the three principal stresses equals or exceeds the
strength. Again we arrange the principal stresses for a general stress
state in the ordered form 1 2 3. This theory then predicts
that failure occurs whenever
-8)

where Sut and Suc are the ultimate tensile and compressive strengths,
respectively, given as positive quantities.

For

For

1 6 Modifications of the Mohr Theory for Brittle Materials

We will discuss two modifications of the Mohr theory for brittle materials:
the Brittle-Coulomb-Mohr (BCM) theory and the modified Mohr (MM)
theory. The equations provided for the theories will be restricted to plane
stress and be of the design type incorporating the factor of safety.

Brittle-Coulomb-Mohr (BCM)
For 2-9a
For 2-9b

For 2-9c
Modified Mohr (MM)

or

For 2-10c

EXAMPLE 4 3
Consider the wrench in Ex. 4 2, Fig. 1 1, as made of cast iron,
machined to dimension. The force F required to fracture this part
can be regarded as the strength of the component part. If the material
is ASTM grade 30 cast iron, find the force F with
(a) Coulomb-Mohr failure model.
(b) Modified Mohr failure model.

Solution
We assume that the lever DC is strong enough, and not part of the
problem. Since grade 30 cast iron is a brittle material and cast iron, the
stress-concentration factors Kt and Kts are set to unity. The stress element
at A on the top surface will be subjected to a tensile bending stress and a
torsional stress. This location, on the 1-indiameter section fillet, is the
weakest location, and it governs the strength of the assembly. The normal
stress x and the shear stress at A are given by
 From Eq. (6) the nonzero principal stresses and are

=
(a) For BCM, Eq. (2 9b) applies with n 1 for failure.

(b) For MM, the slope of the load line is

Eq. (2 10a) applies.

1 7 Selection of Failure Criteria

For ductile behavior the preferred criterion is the distortion-energy
theory, although some designers also apply the maximum-shear-
stress theory because of its simplicity and conservative nature. In the
rare case when Syt Syc , the ductile Coulomb-Mohr method is
employed.
For brittle behavior, the original Mohr hypothesis, constructed with
tensile, compression, and torsion tests, with a curved failure locus is
the best hypothesis we have. However, the difficulty of applying it
without a computer leads engineers to choose modifications, namely,
Coulomb Mohr, or modified Mohr. A lower Figure provides a
summary flowchart for the selection of an effective procedure for
analyzing or predicting failures from static loading for brittle or
ductile behavior.
 A ductile hot-rolled steel bar has a minimum yield strength in
tension and compression of 50 kpsi. Using the distortion-energy and
maximum-shear-stress theories determine the factors of safety for
the following plane stress states:
(a) x 12 kpsi, y 6 kpsi
(b) x 12 kpsi, x y 8 kpsi
(c) x 6 kpsi, y 10 kpsi, x y 5 kpsi
(d) x 12 kpsi, y 4 kpsi, x y 1 kpsi
2. An ASTM cast iron has minimum ultimate strengths of 30 kpsi in
tension and 100 kpsi in compression. Find the factors of safety using
the MNS, BCM, and MM theories for each of the following stress
states.
(a) x 20 kpsi, y 6 kpsi
(b) x 12 kpsi, x y 8 kpsi
(c) x 6 kpsi, y 10 kpsi, x y 5 kpsi
(d) x 12 kpsi, x y 8 kpsi

Repeat question, 1 for:

(a) 1 12 kpsi, 3 12 kpsi
(b) 1 12 kpsi, 3 6 kpsi
(c) 1 12 kpsi, 3 12 kpsi
(d) 1 6 kpsi, 3 12 kpsi

Repeat question, 1 for a bar of AISI 1020 cold-drawn steel and:

(a) x 180 MPa, y 100 MPa
(b) x 180 MPa, x y 100 MPa
(c) x 160 MPa, x y 100 MPa
(d) x y 150 MPa

Among the decisions a designer must make is selection of the

failure criteria that is applicable to the material and its static loading.
A 1020 hot-rolled steel has the following properties: Sy 42 kpsi
Sut 66.2 kpsi, and true strain at fracture f 0 90. estimate the
factor of safety
(a) x 9 kpsi, y 5 kpsi.
(b) x 12 kpsi, x y 3 kpsi ccw
(c) x 4 kpsi, y 9 kpsi, x y 5 kpsi cw.
(d) x 11 kpsi, y 4 kpsi, x y 1 kpsi cw.
 This problem illustrates that the factor of safety for a machine
element depends on the particular point selected for analysis. Here
you are to compute factors of safety, based upon the distortion-
energy theory, for stress elements at A and B of the member shown
in the figure. This bar is made of AISI 1006 cold-drawn steel and is
loaded by the forces F 0.55 kN, P 8.0 kN, and T 30 N m.

The figure shows a crank loaded by a force F 190 lbf which causes
twisting and bending of the -in-diameter shaft fixed to a support at the
origin of the reference system. In actuality, the support may be an inertia
which we wish to rotate, but for the purposes of a strength analysis we
can consider this to be a statics problem. The material of the shaft AB is
hot-rolled AISI 1018 steel (Table A 20). Using the maximum-shear-stress
theory, find the factor of safety based on the stress at point A.
 A light pressure vessel is made of 2024-T3 aluminum alloy
tubing with suitable end closures. This cylinder has a 3 -in OD, a
0.065-in wall thickness, and 0 334. The purchase order
specifies a minimum yield strength of 46 kpsi. What is the factor of
safety if the pressure-release valve is set at 500 psi?

Fatigue Failure Resulting from Variable Loading

In this section we shall examine how parts fail under variable loading
and how to proportion them to successfully resist such conditions.

2 1 Introduction to Fatigue
In most testing of those properties of materials that relate to the stress-strain
diagram, the load is applied gradually, to give sufficient time for the strain to
fully develop. Furthermore, the specimen is tested to destruction, and so the
stresses are applied only once. Testing of this kind is applicable, to what are
known as static conditions; such conditions closely approximate the actual
conditions to which many structural and machine members are subjected.
The condition frequently arises, however, in which the stresses vary with
time or they fluctuate between different levels. For example, a particular
fiber on the surface of a rotating shaft subjected to the action of bending
loads undergoes both tension and compression for each revolution of the
shaft. If the shaft is part of an electric motor rotating at 1725 rev/min, the
fiber is stressed in tension and compression 1725 times eachminute. If, in
addition, the shaft is also axially loaded (as it would be, for example, by a
helical or worm gear), an axial component of stress is superposed upon the
bending component. In this case, some stress is always present in any one
fiber, but now the level of stress is fluctuating. These and other kinds of
 loading occurring in machine members produce stresses that are called
variable, repeated, alternating, or fluctuating stresses.
Often, machine members are found to have failed under the action of
repeated or fluctuating stresses; yet the most careful analysis reveals that the
actual maximum stresses were well below the ultimate strength of the
material, and quite frequently even below the yield strength. The most
distinguishing characteristic of these failures is that the stresses have been
repeated a very large number of times. Hence the failure is called a fatigue
failure.
When machine parts fail statically, they usually develop a very large
deflection, because the stress has exceeded the yield strength, and the part is
replaced before fracture actually occurs. Thus many static failures give visible
warning in advance. But a fatigue failure gives no warning! It is sudden and
total, and hence dangerous. It is relatively simple to design against a static
failure, because our knowledge is comprehensive. Fatigue is amuchmore
complicated phenomenon, only partially understood, and the engineer seeking
competence must acquire as much knowledge of the subject as possible.
Fatigue failure is due to crack formation and propagation. A fatigue crack
will typically initiate at a discontinuity in the material where the cyclic stress
is a maximum. Discontinuities can arise because of:
Design of rapid changes in cross section, keyways, holes, etc. where
stress concentrations occur.
Elements that roll and/or slide against each other (bearings, gears, cams,
etc.) under high contact pressure, developing concentrated subsurface
contact stresses that can cause surface pitting or spalling after many cycles
of the load.
Carelessness in locations of stamp marks, tool marks, scratches, and
burrs; poor joint design; improper assembly; and other fabrication faults.
Composition of the material itself as processed by rolling, forging,
casting, extrusion, drawing, heat treatment, etc. Microscopic and
submicroscopic surface and subsurface discontinuities arise, such as
inclusions of foreign material, alloy segregation, voids, hard precipitated
particles, and crystal discontinuities.
Various conditions that can accelerate crack initiation include residual tensile
stresses, elevated temperatures, temperature cycling, a corrosive environment,
and high-frequency cycling.
Approach to Fatigue Failure in Analysis and Design
As noted in the previous section, there are a great many factors to be
considered, even for very simple load cases. The methods of fatigue failure
analysis represent a combination of engineering and science. Often science
fails to provide the complete answers that are needed. But the airplane must
still be made to fly safely. And the automobile must be manufactured with a
reliability that will ensure a long and troublefree life and at the same time
produce profits for the stockholders of the industry. Thus, while science has
not yet completely explained the complete mechanism of fatigue, the engineer
must still design things that will not fail. In a sense this is a classic example of
the true meaning of engineering as contrasted with science. Engineers use
science to solve their problems if the science is available. But available or not,
the problem must be solved, and whatever form the solution takes under these
conditions is called engineering.

Fatigue-Life Methods
The three major fatigue life methods used in design and analysis are the
stress-life method, the strain-life method, and the linear-elastic fracture
mechanics method.

The Stress-Life Method

To determine the strength of materials under the action of fatigue loads,
specimens are subjected to repeated or varying forces of specified magnitudes
while the cycles or stress reversals are counted to destruction.
To establish the fatigue strength of a material, quite a number of tests are
necessary because of the statistical nature of fatigue. the results are plotted as
an S-N diagram (Fig. 2 1).
 Figure 2 1
An S-N diagram plotted from the results of completely reversed axial
fatigue tests. Material: UNS G41300 steel, normalized;Sut 116 kpsi;
The ordinate of the S-N diagram is called the fatigue strength Sf ; a statement
of this strength value must always be accompanied by a statement of the
number of cycles N to which it corresponds.
In the case of the steels, a knee occurs in the graph, and beyond this knee
failure will not occur, no matter how great the number of cycles. The strength
corresponding to the knee is called the endurance limit Se, or the fatigue limit.
The graph of Fig. 2 1 never does become horizontal for nonferrous metals
and alloys, and hence these materials do not have an endurance limit.
The body of knowledge available on fatigue failure from N 1 to N 1000
cycles is generally classified as low-cycle fatigue, as indicated in Fig. 2 1.
High-cycle fatigue, then, is concerned with failure corresponding to stress
cycles greater than cycles.
We also distinguish a finite-life region and an infinite-life region in Fig. 2 1.
The boundary between these regions cannot be clearly defined except for a
specific material; but it lies somewhere between and cycles for
steels, as shown in Fig. 2 1.
 2 3 The Endurance Limit
The determination of endurance limits by fatigue testing is now routine,
though a lengthy procedure. Generally, stress testing is preferred to strain
testing for endurance limits.
There are great quantities of data in the literature on the results of rotating-
beam tests and simple tension tests of specimens taken from the same bar or
ingot. the endurance limit ranges from about 40 to 60 percent of the tensile
strength for steels up to about 210 kpsi (1450 MPa). For steels, the endurance
limit may be estimate as

where Sut is the minimum tensile strength. The prime mark on in this
equation refers to the rotating-beam specimen When designs include detailed
heat-treating specifications to obtain specific microstructures, it is possible to
use an estimate of the endurance limit based on test data for the particular
microstructure; such estimates are much more reliable and indeed should be
used.

2 4 Endurance Limit Modifying Factors

Joseph Marin, identified factors that quantified the effects of surface condition,
size, loading, temperature, and miscellaneous items. A Marin equation is
therefore written as
-2)
where ka surface condition modification factor
kb size modification factor
kc load modification factor
kd temperature modification factor
ke reliability factor
kf miscellaneous-effects modification factor
rotary-beam test specimen endurance limit
 endurance limit at the critical location of a machine
part in the geometry and condition of use

When endurance tests of parts are not available, estimations are made by
applying Marin factors to the endurance limit.

Surface Factor ka:

The surface of a rotating-beam specimen is highly polished, The surface
modification factor depends on the quality of the finish of the actual part
surface and on the tensile strength of the part material. The data can be
represented by
-3)
where Sut is the minimum tensile strength and a and b are to be found in
Table2 1.

EXAMPLE 2 1: A steel has a minimum ultimate strength of 520 MPa and a

machine surface Estimate ka.

Solution From Table 2 1, a 4.51 and b 0.265. Then, from Eq. (2 3)

ka 4 51 0 860

Again, it is important to note that this is an approximation as the data is

typically quite scattered. Furthermore, this is not a correction to take lightly.
For example, if in the previous example the steel was forged, the correction
factor would be 0.540, a significant reduction of strength.
 Size Factor kb:
The size factor has been evaluated using 133 sets of data points. The
results for bending and torsion may be expressed as

-4)

the effective size of a round corresponding to a nonrotating solid or hollow

round. de 0 370d (2-5)

A rectangular section of dimensions h b, Using the same approach as before,

de 0 808 (2-6)

For axial loading there is no size effect, so

kb 1

EXAMPLE 2 2
A steel shaft loaded in bending is 32 mm in diameter, abutting a filleted
shoulder 38 mm in diameter. The shaft material has a mean ultimate tensile
strength of 690 MPa. Estimate theMarin size factor kb if the shaft is used in
(a) A rotating mode.
(b) A nonrotating mode.

Solution: (a) From Eq. (2 4)

b) From Table 2 5,

From Eq. (2 4),

 Loading Factor kc:
When fatigue tests are carried out with rotating bending, axial (push-
pull), and torsional loading, the endurance limits differ with Sut. The
average values of the load factor as

-8)

Temperature Factor kd:

When operating temperatures are below room temperature, brittle fracture is
a strong possibility and should be investigated first. When the operating
temperatures are higher than room temperature, yielding should be
investigated first because the yield strength drops off so rapidly with
temperature; see Fig. 2 2. Any stress will induce creep in a material
operating at high temperatures; so this factor must be considered too.
Finally, it may be true that there is no fatigue limit for materials operating
at high temperatures. Because of the reduced fatigue resistance, the failure
process is, to some extent, dependent on time.

Figure 2 2
A plot of the results of 145 tests of 21 carbon and alloy steels
showing the effect of operating temperature on the yield
strength Sy and the ultimate strength Sut . The ordinate is the
ratio of the strength at the operating temperature to the
strength at room temperature
Table 2 2 has been obtained from Fig. 2 2 by using only the tensile-strength
data. Note that the table represents 145 tests of 21 different carbon and alloy
steels. A fourthorder polynomial curve fit to the data underlying Fig. 2 2
gives

Table 2 2
Effect of Operating Temperature on the Tensile Strength of
Steel.* (ST tensile strength at operating temperature;
SRT tensile strength at room temperature;

Two types of problems arise when temperature is a consideration. If the

rotating beam endurance limit is known at room temperature, then use
 from Table 2 2 or Eq. (2 9) and proceed as usual. If the rotating-beam
endurance limit is not given, then compute it using Eq. (2 1) and the
temperature-corrected tensile strength obtained by using the factor from
Table 2 2. Then use kd 1.

EXAMPLE 2 3:
A 1035 steel has a tensile strength of 70 kpsi and is to be used for a part
that sees 450°F in service. Estimate the Marin temperature modification
factor and Se 450 if
(a) The room-temperature endurance limit by test is( 70 39 0 kpsi.
(b) Only the tensile strength at room temperature is known.

Solution (a) First, from Eq. (2 9),

(b) Interpolating from Table 2 2 gives

Thus, the tensile strength at 450°F is estimated as

From Eq. (2 1) then,

Part a gives the better estimate due to actual testing of the particular material.
 Reliability Factor ke
The reliability modification factor can be determined from Table 2 3 as
Table 2 3
Reliability Factors ke Corresponding to 8 Percent Standard
Deviation of the Endurance Limit

Miscellaneous-Effects Factor kf
Though the factor kf is intended to account for the reduction in endurance
limit due to all other effects, it is really intended as a reminder that these
must be accounted for, because actual values of kf are not always available.
Residual stresses may either improve the endurance limit or affect it
adversely. Generally, if the residual stress in the surface of the part is
compression, the endurance limit is improved. Fatigue failures appear to be
tensile failures, or at least to be caused by tensile stress, and so anything that
reduces tensile stress will also reduce the possibility of a fatigue failure.
Operations such as shot peening, hammering, and cold rolling build
compressive stresses into the surface of the part and improve the endurance
limit significantly. Of course, the material must not be worked to exhaustion.
The endurance limits of parts that are made from rolled or drawn sheets or
bars, as well as parts that are forged, may be affected by the so-called
directional characteristics of the operation. Rolled or drawn parts, for
example, have an endurance limit in the transverse direction that may be 10
to 20 percent less than the endurance limit in the longitudinal direction.
 drill rod was heat-treated and ground. The measured hardness was
found to be 490 Brinell. Estimate the endurance strength if the rod is used in
rotating bending.

2. Estimate for the following materials:

(a) AISI 1020 CD steel.
(b) AISI 1080 HR steel.
(c) 2024 T3 aluminum.
(d) AISI 4340 steel heat-treated to a tensile strength of 250 kpsi.

Estimate the fatigue strength of a rotating-beam specimen made of

AISI 1020 hot-rolled steel corresponding to a life of 12.5 kilocycles of
stress reversal. Also, estimate the life of the specimen corresponding to a
stress amplitude of 36 kpsi. The known properties are Sut 66 2 kpsi, 0

115 kpsi, m 0 22, and f 0 90.

Estimate the endurance strength of a 32-mm-diameter rod of AISI 1035

steel having a machined finish and heat-treated to a tensile strength of 710
MPa.

Bearing reactions R1 and R2 are exerted on the shaft shown in the figure,
which rotates at 1150 rev/min and supports a 10-kip bending force. Use a 1095
HR steel. Specify a diameter d using a design factor of nd 1 6 for a life of 3
min. The surfaces are machined.
2 5 Stress Concentration and Notch Sensitivity
It turns out that some materials are not fully sensitive to the presence of
notches and hence, for these, a reduced value of Kt can be used. For
these materials, the maximum stress is, in fact,
(2 11)

where Kf is a reduced value of Kt and is the nominal stress. The factor

Kf is commonly called a fatigue stress-concentration factor, and hence
the subscript f. So it is convenient to think of Kf as a stress-concentration
factor reduced from Kt because of lessened sensitivity to notches. The
resulting factor is defined by the equation

Notch sensitivity q is defined by the equation

where q is usually between zero and unity. Equation (2 12) shows that if
q 0 then Kf 1 and the material has no sensitivity to notches at all. On the
other hand, if q 1 then Kf Kt , and the material has full notch sensitivity.
In analysis or design work, find Kt first, from the geometry of the part. Then
specify the material, find q, and solve for Kf from the equation

For steels and 2024 aluminum alloys, use Fig. 2 3 to find q for bending
and axial loading. For shear loading, use Fig. 2 4.

The notch sensitivity of the cast irons is very low, varying from 0 to about
0.20, depending upon the tensile strength. To be on the conservative side, it is
recommended that the value q 0 20 be used for all grades of cast iron.
 Figure 2 3
Notch-sensitivity charts for steels and UNS A92024-T wrought
aluminum alloys subjected to reversed bending or reversed axial
loads. For larger notch radii, use the values of q corresponding
to the r 0.16-in (4-mm)

Figure 2 4
Notch-sensitivity curves for materials in reversed torsion.
For larger notch radii, use the values of q shear
corresponding to r 0.16 in (4 mm).
 EXAMPLE 2 4:
A steel shaft in bending has an ultimate strength of 690 MPa and a shoulder
with a fillet radius of 3 mm connecting a 32-mm diameter with a 38-mm
diameter. Estimate Kf
Solution:
From table.A-15 Fig. A 15 9, using D d 38 32 1 1875, r d 3 32
0 093 75, we read the graph to find Kt 1 65.
From table.A-23, for Sut 690 MPa 100 kpsi, and r 3 mm, and from
Fig. (2 3), obtain q 0 84. Thus, from Eq. (2 13)
Answer Kf 1 q Kt 1 1 0 84 1 65 1 1 55

EXAMPLE 2 5:
A 1015 hot-rolled steel bar has been machined to a diameter of 1 in. It is to be
placed in reversed axial loading for 70 000 cycles to failure in an operating
environment of 550°F. Using ASTM minimum properties, and a reliability of
99 percent, estimate the endurance limit.

Solution: From Table A 20, Sut 50 kpsi at 70°F. Since the rotating-
beam specimen endurance limit is not known at room temperature, we
determine the ultimate strength at the elevated temperature first, using
Table 2 2. From Table 2 2,

The ultimate strength at 550°F is then

The rotating-beam specimen endurance limit at 550°F is then estimated

from Eq. (2 1) as

Next, we determine the Marin factors. For the machined surface,

Eq. (2 3) with Table 2 1 gives
For axial loading, from Eq. (2 7), the size factor kb 1, and from Eq. (2 8)
the loading factor is kc 0.85. The temperature factor kd 1, since we
accounted for the temperature in modifying the ultimate strength and
consequently the endurance limit. For 99 percent reliability, from Table 2
3, ke 0.814. Finally, since no other conditions were given, the
miscellaneous factor is kf 1. The endurance limit for the part is estimated
by Eq. (2-2) as
EXAMPLE 2 6:
Figure(a) shows a rotating shaft simply supported in ball bearings at A and D
and loaded by a non-rotating force F of 6.8 kN. Using ASTM
strengths, estimate

Solution From Fig. (b) we learn that failure will probably occur at B rather than
at C or at the point of maximum moment. Point B has a smaller cross section, a
higher bending moment, and a higher stress-concentration factor than C, and the
location of maximum moment has a larger size and no stress-concentration
factor.

(a) Shaft drawing showing all dimensions in millimeters; all fillets

3-mm radius. The shaft rotates and the load is stationary; material is
machined from AISI 1050 cold-drawn steel. (b) Bending moment diagram.

From Table A 20 we find Sut 690 MPa and Sy 580 MPa. The endurance
limit
Se is estimated as Se 0 5 690 345 MPa
From Eq. (2 3) and Table 2 1,

From Eq. (2 4),

Since kc kd ke kf 1,

From Fig. (2 3), obtain q 0 84

Kf 1 q Kt 1 1 0 84 1 65 1 1 55

The next step is to estimate the bending stress at point B. The bending moment
Is

The reversing bending stress is

Figure A 15 9
Round shaft with shoulder fillet in bending. 0 Mc I, where
c d 2 and I 64.
2 6 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses
Fluctuating stresses in machinery often take the form of a sinusoidal pattern
because of the nature of some rotating machinery. the shape of the wave is not
important, but the peaks on both the high side (maximum) and the low side
(minimum) are important. Thus Fmax and Fmin in a cycle of force can be used to
characterize the force pattern.
then a steady component and an alternating component can be constructed
as follows:

where Fm is the midrange steady component of force, and Fa is the amplitude

of the alternating component of force.

Figure 2 5
The following relations are evident from Fig. 2 5:

The components of stress, some of which are shown in Fig. 6 23d, are

In addition to Eq. (6 36), the stress ratio

and the amplitude ratio

are also defined and used in connection with fluctuating stresses.

. Equations (2 14) utilize symbols and as the stress components at

the location under scrutiny. This means, in the absence of a notch, and
are equal to the nominal stresses and induced by loads Fa
and Fm, respectively; in the presence of a notch they are Kf and
Kf , respectively, as long as the material remains without plastic strain.
In other words, the fatigue stress concentration factor Kf is applied to both
components.
 2 7 Fatigue Failure Criteria for Fluctuating Stress
Five criteria of failure are diagrammed in Fig. 2 6: the Soderberg, the modified
Goodman, the Gerber, the ASME-elliptic, and yielding. The diagram shows
that only the Soderberg criterion guards against any yielding, but is biased low.
Considering the modified Goodman line as a criterion, point A represents a
limiting point with an alternating strength Sa and midrange strength Sm. The
slope of the load line shown is defined as r Sa Sm.

Figure 2 6

The criterion equation for the Soderberg line is

Similarly, we find the modified Goodman relation to be

 The Gerber failure criterion is written as

and the ASME-elliptic is written as

The Langer yield

The stresses and can replace Sa and Sm, where n is the design
factor or factor of safety. Then, Eq. (2 17), the Soderberg line, becomes

Soderberg

mod-Goodman

Gerber

ASME-elliptic

Langer static yield

the Gerber and ASME-elliptic for fatigue failure criterion and the Langer for
first-cycle yielding. However, conservative designers often use the modified
Goodman criterion,
The failure criteria are used in conjunction with a load line, r Sa Sm
. Principal intersections are tabulated in Tables 2 4 to 2 6. Formal
expressions for fatigue factor of safety are given in the lower panel of Tables
2 4 to 2 6.
The first row of each table corresponds to the fatigue criterion, the second row
is the static Langer criterion, and the third row corresponds to the intersection
of the static and fatigue criteria. The first column gives the intersecting
equations and the second column the intersection coordinates.
There are two ways to proceed with a typical analysis. One method is to
assume that fatigue occurs first and use one of Eqs. (2 22) to (2 25) to
determine n or size, depending on the task. Most often fatigue is the governing
failure mode. Then follow with a static check. If static failure governs then the
analysis is repeated using Eq. (2 26).
Alternatively, one could use the tables. Determine the load line and
establish which criterion the load line intersects first and use the corresponding
equations in the tables. Some examples will help solidify the ideas just
discussed.
Table 2 4
Amplitude and Steady Coordinates of Strength and Important
Intersections in First Quadrant for Modified Goodman and Langer Failure Criteria
 Table 2 5
Amplitude and Steady Coordinates of Strength and Important
Intersections in First Quadrant for Gerber and Langer Failure
Criteria
 Table 2 6
Amplitude and Steady Coordinates of Strength and Important
Intersections in First Quadrant for ASME -Elliptic and Langer
Failure Criteria
EXAMPLE 2 7:

Solution We begin with some preliminaries. From Table A 20, Sut

100 kpsi and Sy 84 kpsi. Note that Fa Fm 8 kip. The Marin factors
are, deterministically,
ka 2 70 0 797: Eq. (2 3), Table 2 1,
kb 1 axial loading,
kc 0 85: Eq. (2 8),
kd ke kf 1
Se 0 797 1 0 850 1 1 1 0 5 100 33 9 kpsi: Eqs. (2 1), (2 2),
The nominal axial stress components and are

Applying Kf to both components and constitutes a prescription

of no notch yielding
Kf 1 85 4 53 8 38 kpsi
(a) Let us calculate the factors of safety first. From the bottom panel from
Table 2 5 the factor of safety for fatigue is

From Eq. (2 25) the factor of safety guarding against first-cycle yield is
 Thus, we see that fatigue will occur first and the factor of safety is 3.68.
This can be seen in Fig. 2 7 where the load line intersects the Gerber fatigue
curve first at point B. If the plots are created to true scale it would be seen
that nf OB OA.
From the first panel of Table 2 5, r 1,

Figure 2 7
Principal points A, B, C, and D
drawn for Gerber, Langer, and load line.
 We could have detected that fatigue failure would occur first without
drawing Fig.2 7 by calculating . From the third row third column
panel of Table 2 5, the intersection point between fatigue and first-cycle
yield is

The critical slope is thus

which is less than the actual load line of r 1. This indicates that fatigue
occurs before first-cycle-yield.

(b) Repeating the same procedure for the ASME-elliptic line, for fatigue

Again, this is less than ny 5 01 and fatigue is predicted to occur first.

From the first row second column panel of Table 2 6, with r 1, we
obtain the coordinates Sa and Sm of point B in Fig. 2 8 as

To verify the fatigue factor of safety, nf Sa 31 4 8 38 3 75.

 Figure 2 8
Principal points A, B, C, and D
drawn for ASME-elliptic, Langer, and load lines.

As before, let us calculate . From the third row second column panel
of Table 2 6,

which again is less than r 1, verifying that fatigue occurs first with
nf 3 75.
 For many brittle materials, the first quadrant fatigue failure criteria
follows a concave upward Smith-Dolan locus represented by

(2-27)

or as a design equation,

-28)

For a radial load line of slope r, we substitute Sa r for Sm in Eq. (2 27)

and solve for Sa , obtaining

-29)

The most likely domain of designer use is in the range from Sut
Sut . The locus in the first quadrant is Goodman, Smith-Dolan, or
something in between. The portion of the second quadrant that is used is
represented by a straight line between the points Sut , Sut and 0, Se,
which has the equation

-30)
EXAMPLE2 8
A grade 30 gray cast iron is subjected to a load F applied to a 1 by -in
cross-section link with a -in-diameter hole drilled in the center as
depicted in Fig. 2 9a. The surfaces are machined. In the neighborhood of
the hole, what is the factor of safety guarding against failure under the
following conditions:
(a) The load F 1000 lbf tensile, steady.
(b) The load is 1000 lbf repeatedly applied.
(c) The load fluctuates between 1000 lbf and 300 lbf without column
action. Use the Smith-Dolan fatigue locus.

Figure 2 9
The grade 30 cast-iron part in axial fatigue with (a) its geometry
displayed and (b for the
circumstances of Ex. 2 8.
 0 25 1 0 25, and Kt 2 45. The notch sensitivity for cast iron is
0.20 (it is recommended that the value q 0 20 be used for all grades of
cast iron.). so
From Eq. (2 29),

From Eq. (2 30),

2 8 Torsional Fatigue Strength under Fluctuating Stresses

2 9 Combinations of Loading Modes

It may be helpful to think of fatigue problems as being in three categories:

Completely reversing simple loads
Fluctuating simple loads
Combinations of loading modes
The third category, which we will develop in this section, involves cases where
there are combinations of different types of loading, such as combined
bending, torsion, and axial.
Considering that the bending, torsional, and axial stresses have alternating and
midrange components, apply ( for the bending stresses,
( for the torsional stresses, and ( for the axial stresses.
the von Mises stresses for the two stress elements can be written as

EXAMPLE 2 9:
A rotating shaft is made of 42- 4-mm AISI 1018 cold-drawn steel tubing
and has a 6-mm-diameter hole drilled transversely through it. Estimate the
factor of safety guarding against fatigue and static failures using the Gerber and
Langer failure criteria for the following loading conditions:
 (a) The shaft is subjected to a completely reversed torque of 120 N m in
phase with a completely reversed bending moment of 150 N.m.
(b) The shaft is subjected to a pulsating torque fluctuating from 20 to 160
N m and a steady bending moment of 150 N m.

Solution : Here we follow the procedure of estimating the strengths and

then the stresses, followed by relating the two.
From Table A 20 we find the minimum strengths to be Sut 440 MPa and Sy
370 MPa. The endurance limit of the rotating-beam specimen is
0.5(440) 220 MPa. The surface factor, obtained from Eq. (2 3) and Table 2
1, is

From Eq. (2 4) the size factor is

The remaining Marin factors are all unity, so the modified endurance strength
Se is

(a) Theoretical stress-concentration factors are found from Table A 16.

Using a D 6 42 0 143 and d D 34 42 0 810, and using
linear interpolation, we obtain A 0 798 and Kt 2 366 for bending;
and A 0 89 and Kts 1 75 for torsion. Thus, for bending,

and for torsion

Next, using Figs. 2 3 and 2 4,with a notch radius of 3 mm we find the notch
sensitivities to be 0.78 for bending and 0.96 for torsion. The two corresponding
fatigue stress-concentration factors are obtained from Eq. (2 13) as
 The alternating bending stress is now found to be

and the alternating torsional stress is

The midrange von Mises component is zero. The alternating component

is given by

Since Se Sa , the fatigue factor of safety nf is

The first-cycle yield factor of safety is

There is no localized yielding; the threat is from fatigue. See Fig. 2 10.

Figure 2 10
Ex. 2 9.
(b) This part asks us to find the factors of safety when the alternating component is due
(b) This part asks us to find the factors of safety when the alternating
component is due to pulsating torsion, and a steady component is due to both
torsion and bending. We have
Ta 160 20 2 70 N m and Tm (160 20) 2 90 N m
Corresponding amplitude and steady-stress components are

The steady bending stress component xm is

The von Mises components and are

From Table 2 5, the fatigue factor of safety is

From the same table, with r 28 2 100 6 0 280, the strengths can be
shown to be Sa 85 5 MPa and Sm 305 MPa. See the plot in Fig. 2 10.
The first-cycle yield factor of safety ny is

There is no notch yielding. The likelihood of failure may first come from first-
cycle yielding at the notch. See the plot in Fig. 2 9.
 A bar of steel has the minimum properties Se 276 MPa, Sy 413 MPa,
and Sut 551 MPa. The bar is subjected to a steady torsional stress of 103
MPa and an alternating bending stress of 172 MPa. Find the factor of safety
guarding against a static failure, and either the factor of safety guarding
against a fatigue failure or the expected life of the part. For the fatigue
analysis use:
(a) Modified Goodman criterion.
(b) Gerber criterion.
(c) ASME-elliptic criterion.

The cold-drawn AISI 1018 steel bar shown in the figure is subjected to an
axial load fluctuating between 800 and 3000 lbf. Estimate the factors of safety
ny and nf using (a) a Gerber fatigue
fatigue diagram, and (b) an ASME-elliptic fatigue failure criterion as part of

The figure shows the free-body diagram of a connecting-link portion having

stress concentration at three sections. The dimensions are r 0 25 in, d
0 75 in, h 0 50 in, 1 3 75 in, and 2 2 5 in. The forces F fluctuate
between a tension of 4 kip and a compression of 16 kip. Neglect column action
and find the least factor of safety if the material is cold-drawn AISI 1018
steel.
 In the figure shown, shaft A, made of AISI 1010 hot-rolled steel, is welded
to a fixed support and is subjected to loading by equal and opposite forces F
via shaft B.A theoretical stress concentration of 1.6 is induced by the 3-mm
fillet. The length of shaft A from the fixed support to the connection at shaft B
is 1 m. The load F cycles from 0.5 to 2 kN.
(a) For shaft A, find the factor of safety for infinite life using the modified
Goodman fatigue failure criterion.
(b) Repeat part (a) using the Gerber fatigue failure criterion.