You are on page 1of 10

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

A new criterion for drillpipe multiaxial fatigue damage

Gholamreza Rashed Assistant Professor, Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology, Khalil Shahbazi Assistant Professor, Faculty of Petroleum Engineering, Petroleum University of Technology,

Abstract : A fatigue damage model is developed. The effects of stress state and mean stress are considered in the new model. The model does not require a cycle counting method. The model is evaluated by using the multiaxial fatigue data. The results indicate that the model can satisfactorily correlate the experimental results for a wide range of materials and loading conditions. Moreover, the developed criterion can be used to predict the drillpipe life. Key words: Damage, low cycle fatigue, high cycle fatigue, drillpipe. Introduction : In the past, a majority of fatigue research has been conducted under uniaxial loading conditions partly due to the difficulties in obtaining experimental multiaxial fatigue data [1]. Nevertheless, the problem of combined cyclic loading observed in practice as compared to simple uniaxial loading seems to have received some consideration as early as 1886. Lanza [2] discussed the test results for combined proportional bending and torsion and pointed out the need for further work. The first study mainly from the designers viewpoint of fatigue limit under combined proportional bending and torsion was made by Gough et al. [3]. Early investigators [3, 4] made extensive studies on fatigue limits under combined proportional bending and torsion. In the past 20 years, multiaxial fatigue damage theories and experimental technology have been developed very quickly. Researches on multiaxial fatigue life have been conducted by a number of investigators [5-11]. Several multiaxial fatigue models were proposed. Generally, multiaxial fatigue failure theories can be classified into three categories: the equivalent stress/strain approaches, the critical plane approaches and energy based approaches. The equivalent stress/strain approaches predict no path dependence of fatigue life. This has been experimentally proven to be incorrect [12]. For this reason, the equivalent stress/ strain approach will not be discussed in this paper. Fatigue damage evaluation of components is an important design consideration. Accurate fatigue life predictions are imperative to ensure safety and component reliability. The critical locations in a component are often subjected to multiaxial stress and strain states. The three principal stresses may be nonproportional or whose directions may change during a loading cycle. Fatigue under these conditions is important both from the viewpoint of the original design and the need to evaluate or assess the fatigue life of a component once in service.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

The main objective of this research is to develop and implement a method for estimating the fatigue damage of a material subjected to complex loading history. Specifically, the aim is to develop a loading history dependent fatigue damage accumulation model which can bypass the complicated cycle counting and can be applied to all kinds of loading history, proportional and nonproportional multiaxial constant loading, step loading, variable amplitude loading, ratcheting loading, and general random loading. The developed criterion can be used to predict the drillpipe life. A new multiaxial fatigue damage model The development of a new fatigue damage model is intended to overcome the inherent shortcomings of the existing multiaxial fatigue criteria. It combines the critical plane approach with the energy concept. The stress state and mean stress effects are considered in the model. The fatigue damage model takes the following mathematical form,

dD = 2 k1 (TFS 1) 1 + f



dWt = dW p + dWe


In Eq. (1), the symbol D represents fatigue damage, the prefix d denotes infinitesimal increment, the symbol k1 is a material constant, TFS is a triaxiality factor for stress state [13],

is the normal stress on a material plane,

is the

fracture strength of a material, and triaxiality factor is

Wt is total plastic strain energy per cycle. The TFS = ( 1 + 2 + 3 )a S eq introduced as

where 1 , 2 and 3 are principal stresses, the subscript a refers to amplitude of stress, and

S eq is the equivalent deviatoric stress amplitude defined as


S eq = 3S ij
defined as:

8 (i = x, y , z and j = x, y , z ) . The deviatoric stresses, S ij

S ij = ij h ij where h = ( x + y + z ) 3 is hydrostatic stress. For S eq reduces to Von Mises stress eq

fully-reversed in-phase multiaxial stress state and

TFS reduces to the triaxiality factor of Davis and Connelly [14]. The constant

k1 may be determined from two sets of test data with different stress states, for
instance, axial and torsional data or axial and equibiaxial data. The critical plane is defined as the material plane where the fatigue damage accumulation first reaches a critical value.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

In Eq. (2),

W p denotes the amount of plastic distortion strain energy (or plastic

W p is defined as:
p ij d eij where ij and ij are stress and strain tensors cycle

work) dissipated irrecoverably during a cycle.

W p =

eh = ( x + y + z ) 3 . The superscript p refers to plastic component of the W p are given in [13].

p S d e or ij ij cycle the deviatoric





eij = ij eh ij


strain. Details concerning the computation of

We denotes the amount of elastic distortion strain energy (or elastic work) recoverable during a cycle. We is defined as:
We =




' ij


' e ij

' ij


+ ' e ij

' S ij = 2

' eij 2

S ij = 2
' ' e

eij 2

where the notation

' ' e

gives S ij deij


' e

for S ij deij 0 and zero for S ij deij < 0 .

' ' denote the deviatoric stresses and elastic deviatoric strain calculated S ij and eij

from the stress tensor

ij ij , m

modified by the mean stresses

ij ,m

where the

subscript m indicates mean component of the stress. The fatigue model implies that the total strain energy, Wt on a material plane is the major cause of fatigue damage. The first term on the right side of Eq. (1) is used to consider the stress state effects. The second term on the right hand side of the Eq. (1) is designed to account for the mean stress effect. Such a consideration of the mean stress effect is consistent with the experimental observation that the normal stress on the critical plane is responsible for the mean stress effect. For proportional fully reversed constant amplitude loading, the stress surface size is stabilized after a number of loading cycles, and the mean stress effect is zero [13]. As a result, the second term on the right side of Eq. (1) can be removed. The model can be re-written in the following form: D = D N f (3) where and

D = 2 k1 (TFS 1) W


W = Wed + W pd =


' ' S ij deij +


S ij deijp


In these three equations, D represents the fatigue damage over a loading cycle, N f is the cycles to failure, Wt is the total strain energy on the critical plane

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

over a loading cycle or fatigue parameter, and D is a constant representing the critical damage accumulation when a material fails. The constant D can be determined directly from fully reversed uniaxial or torsion fatigue test results. To make damage assessments for a particular plane, the stress and strain need to be expressed in the local coordinate system of the plane. The global coordinate system XYZ is fixed to the body. The local coordinate system xyz is fixed to the plane of the crack. The two rotations are defined the plane. A rotation about y is , and is a rotation about

z . When = = 0 , the plane is coincident with the surface plane and xyz is aligned to the global coordinates XYZ .

A general

R rotation leads to the following transformation matrix

sin cos cos sin sin sin 0 cos

cos cos = R R = sin sin cos

R applies the rotation about z first, then y . The stress and strain can be written for any material plane, represented by the xyz coordinate system, using the
coordinate rotations:
= R R

cos 2 cos 2 = cos cos 2 sin cos cos sin

cos cos 2 sin cos 2 sin 2 cos sin sin

cos cos sin cos sin sin 2 sin



= R R T =
2 2 2 2 sin + cos cos sin 1 (1 + )cos2 sin 2 2 (1 + )cos cos sin

)) (

1 (1 + )cos2 sin 2 2

cos2 + sin 2 cos2 sin 2 (1 + )cos sin sin


(1 + )cos cos sin (1 + )cos sin sin cos2 + sin 2


Where and


the local stress and strain. Note that R

is the transpose of

R .
It should be noted that the first term in the right side of Eq. (1) does not depend on the orientation of a material plane. For fully reversed loading, the mean stress effect vanishes. Therefore, for fully reversed tension compression and torsion, the critical planes are determined by dWt . We use Eq. (1) to calculate the fatigue damage

D on all planes.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

D = Max dD ( )

of t ,

( 90

< < 90o .




D = D N f


x = xm + xa sin( ) xy = m + sin ( t )


sinusoidal the

y = ym + ya sin( t )
S eq
1 2

stress be


such to

as and be


2 S eq = xa xa ya cos + ya + 3 2

where it can be seen that

S eq is a

function of stress amplitudes and the phase difference between the normal stresses only, and the phase difference between the normal stresses and shear stress is not involved. From the relations
e e (1 + ) in the elastic range, the elastic S ij = 2Geij = Eeij

distortion strain energy

2 2 2 2 2 2 Wed = (1 + ) S xx + S yy + S zz + 2S xy + 2S yz + 2S zx 4E

Wed can be expressed in terms of the deviatoric stresses:

(9) under the general form of out-of-phase sinusoidal stresses becomes:

2 2 2 Wed = 2(1 + ) xa xa ya cos + ya 3 + xya E


(10) where it can be noted that the mean stress components do not appear in the above parameter

Wed . The Wed is the same as the Von Mises criterion for in phase

loading. Verification of the fatigue damage model : The experimental results are used to verify the fatigue model (Eq. (1)). The fatigue data of 304 stainless steel, 1070 steel and EN15R steel reported by other investigators [7, 9, 10, and 15] are used to evaluate the new multiaxial fatigue damage model. The constants in their references are used in the model, for example, f = 1114 MPa and E = 205 MPa for EN15R steel materials. Multiaxial fatigue data are used to verify the model. The process of estimation of accomplished by means of a MATLAB Code. TFS gives a unique number for each cyclic stress state, for example, zero for pure torsion, +1 for uniaxial tension-compression, +2 for inphase, in plane equibiaxial stress state and a constant unique value for each nonproportional cyclic loading, since 1 + 2 + 3 a and S eq in TFS are defined uniquely as a number under

those loadings. The value of k1 was determined ranging between 0 and 1.45, for example, k1 was 0.3 for 1045 steel and 1.0 for SS304 steel. Therefore, it appears that the degree of the effect of stress state on fatigue depends upon test material, loading condition, definition of failure adopted for fatigue tests, and other factors.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

The results of fatigue life correlation and prediction for 304 stainless steel are shown in Fig. (1). The Fig. 1 includes the fatigue damage parameter, versus cycles to failure D N f plot, and the observed life vs. predicted life N O N P plot. The middle line on N O N P plot denoted as 1:1 line presenting good agreement between the measured and predicted values. The other two lines, called factor-oftwo boundaries, correspond to values away from the1:1 line by a factor of two. No matter whether we are situated in the low cycle fatigue region or the high cycle fatigue region, the model accurately correlate multiaxial fatigue experimental data of material. Most of the multiaxial fatigue data points are situated in the factor-of-two lines. From the analysis result of 304 stainless steel, it is evident that the fatigue damage model can correlate the fatigue experiments of proportional and nonproportional constant amplitude loading satisfactorily. To verify the new model for multi-step loading cases, the two-step uniaxial loading test results of 304 stainless steel are employed. All these tests are designed as two step high-low tests. The new model was verified by integrating cycle by cycle, and prove the fatigue damage accumulation is loading cycle dependent. The results of fatigue damage calculation are shown in Fig. (2). The fatigue damages of specimens are close to 1. The model works for the two-step loading histories. The results also imply that if the whole loading history is considered, the fatigue life prediction will be more accurate. For a safe and reliable design and analysis, the fatigue damage model should have the capability to predict the fatigue damage under complex loading history. To verify the model for variable amplitude multiaxial loading, fatigue test data of EN15R steel are used. The fatigue loading history is processed step by step. The entire loading history is integrated. Figure (3) presents the result for ENl5R steel. The Fig. 3 includes N O N P plot. It shows that the model predicts the fatigue life reasonably well. Ratchetting deformation is a material behavior under stress-controlled cyclic loading. When the load amplitude is constant, the mean strain of the hysteresis loops changes. Correlating the ratchetting loading test data is a challenge to a model. However Fig. (4) shows the predictions of the fatigue damage for ratchetting loading test for 1070 steel. All the data points are close to 1. It indicates that for ratchetting loading the fatigue damage calculated by our model is accurate. Therefore the new model can be applied to a wide range of materials and loading paths. The standard deviation of the predicted fatigue lives for all the materials is about 0.48. One great advantage of the model over the existing models is that a cycle counting method is not needed. Conclusions : The new multiaxial fatigue damage model was proposed to predict fatigue life for a wide range of materials and loading histories. The equivalent deviatoric stress amplitude, S eq and TFS have been used in taking into account the effects of stress states. Cycle counting is not needed for the new model. The new model could theoretically explain the experimentally observed behavior. The computational time of the new model was much shorter than other critical plane approaches.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

References [1] J.A. Bannantine, D.F. Socie, in: ESIS 10, K. Kussmaul, D. McDiarmid, D. Socie (Eds.), Fatigue under Biaxial and Multiaxial Loading, Mech Eng pub, London, 1991, pp. 35-51. [2] G. Lanza, Transactions of the ASME. 8 (1886) 130. [3] H.J. Gough, H.Y. Pollard, Proceedings of the IME. 131 (1935) 3. [4] J.J. Guest, Proceedings of IAE. 35 (1940) 33 and 146. [5] D. Socie, in: ASTM STP 1191, D.L. McDowell, R. Ellis (Eds.), Advances in Multiaxial Fatigue, 1993, pp. 7-36. [6] A. Fatemi, D.F. Socie, Fatig. and Fract. Eng. Mat. and Struc. 11 (1988) 149. [7] C.H. Wang, M.W. Brown, ASTM J. Eng. Mat. and Tech. 118 (1996) 371. [8] G. Glinka, G. Wang, A. Plumtree, Fatig. and Fract. of Eng. Mat. and Struc. 18 (1995) 755. [9] Y. Jiang, P. Kurath, ASME J. Eng. Mat. and Tech. 119 (1997) 161. [10] Y. Jiang, H. Sehitoglu, ASME J. Applied Mechanics. 63 (1996) 720. [11] F. Ellyin, ASME J. Eng. Mat. and Tech. 107 (1983) 1l9. [12] E.H. Jordon, M.W. Brown, K.J. Miller, in: ASTM STP 853, K.J. Miller, M.W. Brown (Eds.), Multiaxial Fatigue, 1985, pp. 569-585. [13] J. Park, D. Nelson, Int. J. Fatig. 22 (2000) 23. [14] E.A. Davis, F.M. Connelly, J. App. Mech., Transactions of ASME series E. 26 (1959) 25. [15] T. Itoh, M. Sakane, M. Ohnami, D.F. Socie, ASME J. Eng. Mat. and Tech. 117 (1995) 285.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

. N f versus cycles to failure, D (a) The fatigue damage parameter,


vs. predicted life

N O (b) The observed life

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Figure (1): Comparison of experimental data and predicted fatigue lives for 304 stainless steel using the model.


Figure (2): (a) The fatigue damage parameter vs. cycles to failure, (b) The total fatigue damage obtained by using the model for 304 stainless steel under step loading condition.

1st National Iranian Drilling Industry Congress.

Figure (3): The observed life vs. predicted life obtained by using the model for EN15R steel under variable amplitude loading.

Figure (4): The total fatigue damage obtained by using the model for 1070 steel under multi-step ratchetting loading condition.