You are on page 1of 108

ME 4550 MECHANICAL

ENGINEERING DESIGN
WORKING STRESSES AND FAILURE
THEORIES

AGENT OF FAILURE

Mathematical prediction of failure - most frequently


undertaken task in mechanical design
A common misconception is that the failure of parts is only
due to fracture
There are number of modes of failure based on other failure
mechanisms
We should seek to identify failure-inducing agents and
modes of failure
With a knowledge of these; a definition can be obtained for
failure that is applicable to all possible modes of failure

AGENT OF FAILURE
See

Table on next slide

Cause Agent: Force, Temperature, Reactive


chemical environment, Reactive nuclear
environment, Reactive metallurgical
environment
Level of Application: Low, Medium, or High
Time of Application: Steady, Transient or
Cyclic

Example:

Force + High + Transient = Impact


Temperature + High + Steady = Creep
Force and temperature are cause agents
High is the level of application
Transient and steady are time of application

FAILURE INDUCING AGENT


Cause agent

Level of
application

Time of
application

Force

Low

Steady

Medium

Transient

High

Cyclic

Temperature
Reactive chemical
environment
Reactive nuclear
environment
Reactive
metallurgical
environment

MODES OF FAILURE
Types of Failure Modes: Elastic, Plastic,
Fracture, Material change
Duration of Failure: Sudden, Progressive
Location of Failure: Local, Surface and Volume

Failure-change in a machine part that makes it


unable to perform its intended function

STRESS STRAIN DIAGRAM

ELASTIC
REGION &
HOOKES
LAW
APPLIED

STREES STRAIN CURVE OF DUCTILE


MATERIAL
Beyond yielding, the load needs to
be increased for additional strain or
elongation. This is called strain
hardening and and it is associated
with an increased resistance to slip
deformation at the microscale (for
polycrystalline materials)

STRESS STRAIN DIAGRAM

DUCTILE MATERIAL BEFORE


AND AFTER FRACTURE
Ductile material will
fracture under:
FATIGUE
CREEP
IMPACT
WORK HARDENING
SEVERE QUENCHING

NECKING
occurs before
facture

STRESS STRAIN CURVE OF


BRITTLE MATERIAL

No NECKING
before facture
There is no necking in the fracture
of brittle material.

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF
ENGINEERING MATERIALS

TABLE 2-3 & 2-3A page 125.

FOR DUCTILE
MATERIALS:
The value of
yielding in shear =
0.5 0.6 of the
value of yielding
in tension

MECHANICAL FAILURE IN MATERIAL

YIELDING

Yield stress in tension = Yield stress in compression

FRACTURE Brittle Material


Ultimate strength in compression is higher than for
tension
Fracture occurs with no yielding

COMPRESSION TEST
Ductile Steel

Brittle Cast Iron

BENDING TEST
Ductile Steel

Brittle Cast Iron

TORSION TEST
Ductile Steel

Brittle Cast Iron

BRITTLE MATERIALS
Brittle materials do not yield, they fracture
Strength in compression >> strength in tension
Theory of failures used:

Maximum Normal Stress Theory (MNST)


Modified Mohr Theory

Material strength:

Sut = Ultimate (fracture) strength in tension


Suc = Ultimate (fracture) strength in compression
Strengths are always positive numbers
Principal stresses 1, 2 and 3 can be negative or
positive.

FAILURE THEORIES
When state of stress is uniaxial tension or
compression; limiting stress values from the
tension/compression tests (which are widely
published in material handbooks) can be used
But for complex state of stresses, predicting
failure is not straightforward
Several theories of failures have been put
forward to predict failure for complex engineering
stresses
Unfortunately, no single failure theory can
adequately predict failure in all combination of
engineering stresses

FAILURE THEORIES
Failure theories have been formulated in terms of
three principal normal stresses (S1,S2, S3) at a
point
For any given complex state of stress ,

we can always
find its equivalent principal normal stresses (S1,
S2, S3)
Thus the failure theories in terms of principal
normal stresses can predict the failure due to any
given state of stress

FAILURE THEORIES
STATIC

LOADING FAILURE

DUCTILE MATERIAL uses:


Max Normal Stress Theory
Max Shear Stress Theory
Max Strain Energy Theory
Max Distortion Energy Theory

BRITTLE MATERIAL uses:

Max Normal Stress Theory


Coulomb-Mohr Theory
Modified Mohr-Coulomb Theory

FATIGUE

LOADING FAILURE uses:

SODERBERG Equation
Modified GOODMAN Equation

STATIC DESIGN COORDINATE SYSTEM

To predict that a design is


safe under static conditions.
Horizontal axis is the
maximum principal stress
(1) and the vertical axis is
the minimum principal stress
(2).
For ductile materials, the
yield strength (Sy ) in
tension and in compression
are relatively equal in
magnitude.
For brittle materials the
ultimate compressive
strength (Suc ) is signicantly
greater in magnitude than
the ultimate tensile strength
(Sut ) .

STATIC DESIGN COORDINATE SYSTEM

The four quadrants of this coordinate


system, labeled I, II, III, and IV as
shown, represent the possible
combinations of the principal stresses
(1, 2) .
As it is usually assumed that the
maximum principal stress (1) is
always greater than or at least equal
to the minimum principal stress (2) ,

combinations in the second (II)


quadrant where (1) would be
negative and (2) would be
positive, are not possible.
Primarily, the most common combinations are in the rst (I) quadrant
where (1) and ( 2) are both positive and in the fourth (IV) quadrant
where ( 1) is positive and (2) is negative.
Combinations can occur in the third (III) quadrant where (1) is negative,
however (2) must be equally or more negative.

BRITTLE MATERIALS
THEORY OF FAILURE

MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS


THEORY (RANKINES THEORY)

Failure is predicted to
occur in the multi-axial
state of stress when the
maximum principal
normal stress becomes
equal to or exceeds the
maximum normal stress
at the time of failure in
a simple uni-axial stress
test using a specimen of
the same material.

SYP C
S
S1 YP T
N FS
N FS

THESE ARE
FOR DUCTILE
MATERIAL

SYP C
S
S 2 YP T
N FS
N FS
SYP C
S
S 3 YP T
N FS
N FS

For Brittle Material:


U C
N FS

U C
N FS

U C
N FS

S1
S2
S3

U T
N FS

U T
N FS

U T
N FS

MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS


THEORY (RANKINES THEORY)

THIS THEORY IS NOT SAFE FOR DUCTILE


MATERIAL

Cast iron -> Non-linear stress


strain relationship

MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS


THEORY (RANKINES THEORY)

THIS THEORY IS NOT SAFE FOR DUCTILE


MATERIAL

Any combination of the principal


stresses (1) and (2) that are
inside the square is a safe design
and any combination outside the
square is unsafe. Remember, the
strengths (Sut ) and (Suc ) are
positive values.
The mathematical expressions
representing a safe design
according to the maximum-normalstress theory are given,
1 < Sut or 2 > Suc

Cast iron -> Non-linear stress


strain relationship

The factor-of-safety (n) for this theory


is given,
1
Sut

2
1
1
or

N FS
Suc N FS

OULOMB-MOHR THEORY S
or
RITTLE MATERIAL

ut

2
Suc

2
Sut

1 specifies the line in IV quadr

1
Suc

1 specifies the line in II qu

Any combination of the principal


stresses (1) and (2) that
are inside this enclosed area is a
safe design and any combination
outside this area is UNSAFE.
The mathematical expressions
representing a safe design
according to the Coulomb-Mohr
theory are given,

The factor-of-safety (n) for this theory is given,


1
Sut

2
Suc

1
1
or 2 1
N FS
Sut Suc N FS

Intercept form equation of line:


x y
1
a b

MODIFIED MOHR-COULOMB
THEORY BRITTLE MATERIAL
The mathematical expressions
representing a safe design
according to the Modified MohrCoulomb theory are given,
1

Sut
1
Sut Suc

or

2
1 specifies the line in IV quadrant

Suc
connecting the points (0, Suc ) and (Sut , Sut )

Sut 1
1 specifies the line in II quadrant
1

Sut Suc Suc


connecting the points ( Suc , 0 ) and ( Sut , Sut )

The factor-of-safety (n) for this


theory is given,

Sut
1
Sut Suc

2
S
1

or 2 1 ut

Sut Suc
Suc N FS

1
1

Suc N FS

Sut
1

Sut Suc

2
1 specifies the line in IV quadrant

Suc
connecting the points (0, Suc ) and (Sut , Sut )

Sut
or
1

Sut Suc

1
Sut
or

2
Suc

2
Sut

1
1 specifies the line in II quadrant

Suc
connecting the points ( Suc , 0 ) and ( Sut , Sut )

1 specifies the line in IV quadrant

1
Suc

1 specifies the line in II quadrant

COMPARISON TO EXPERIMENTAL
DATA BRITTLE MATERIAL

Data shown are primarily in


the rst (I) and fourth (IV)
quadrants; none in the
second (II) and third (III)
quadrants.
This is not unexpected as
combinations in the second
(II) quadrant are impossible if
the principal stress (1) is
noted as the greater of the
two principal stresses.
Also, combinations in the
third (III) quadrant require
that the principal stress (2)
be at least equally or more
negative than the principal
stress (1) .

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BRITTLE


MATERIAL
First (I): (1 > 0 and 2 > 0)

Maximum-normal-stress theory is the


most accurate. Coulomb-Mohr theory
does not apply. Modied CoulombMohr theory does not apply.

Fourth (IV): (1 > 0 and 0 >2 > Sut )

Maximum-normal-stress theory is the


most accurate. Coulomb-Mohr theory
is okay, but conservative. Modied
Coulomb-Mohr theory does not apply.

Fourth (IV): (1 > 0 and


Sut >2 > Suc)

Modied Coulomb-Mohr theory is the


most accurate. Coulomb-Mohr theory
is okay, but conservative. Maximumnormal-stress theory does not apply.

DUCTILE MATERIALS
THEORY OF FAILURE

STATIC DESIGN COORDINATE SYSTEM

The four quadrants of this coordinate


system, labeled I, II, III, and IV as
shown, represent the possible
combinations of the principal stresses
(1, 2) .
As it is usually assumed that the
maximum principal stress (1) is
always greater than or at least equal
to the minimum principal stress (2) ,
combinations in the second (II)
quadrant where (1) would be
negative and (2) would be positive,
are not possible.

Primarily, the most common combinations are in the rst (I) quadrant
where (1) and ( 2) are both positive and in the fourth (IV) quadrant
where ( 1) is positive and (2) is negative.
Combinations can occur in the third (III) quadrant where (1) is negative,
however (2) must be equally or more negative.

MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS THEORY


Applied

to the design of ductile material


Conservative theory
Failure is predicted to occur in the multiaxial state of stress when the maximum
shearing stress magnitude becomes equal
to or exceeds the maximum shearing
stress magnitude at the time of failure in
a simple uni-axial stress test using a
specimen of the same material.

MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS


THEORY DUCTILE MATERIALS

The factor-of-safety for this theory is


given,
1
Sy

2
1
1
or

N FS
S y N FS

Any combination of the


principal stresses (1,
2) that falls inside this
square represents a safe
design, and any
combination that falls
outside the square is
unsafe.
The mathematical
expressions representing
a safe design according
to the maximum-normalstress theory are given
by,
1 < Sy or 2 > Sy

MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS THEORY


UNI-AXIAL TENSION TEST
x

P
and y 0; xy yx 0
A

At Yield Point:

x S yp

Max Shear Stress Theory


max
max

S yp
2 N fs

S yp
2

with Factor of Safety N fs

with Nfs = Factor of Safety

MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS


THEORY 3D MOHRS CIRCLE
TRIAXIAL
STATE OF
STRESS

S yp
S1 S2

2
2 N fs
S yp
S 2 S3

2
2 N fs
S yp
S1 S3

2
2 N fs

S yp
N fs
S yp
N fs
S yp
N fs

S1 S 2
S 2 S3
S1 S3

S yp
N fs
S yp
N fs
S yp
N fs

MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS


THEORY 2D MOHRS CIRCLE
BIAXIAL STATE
OF STRESS

S1 S2

S yp
N fs

MAXIMUM SHEAR STRESS THEORY


DUCTILE MATERIALS
The maximum-shearstress theory, given
mathematically,
1 2
2

Sy

1 2 S y

where the straight lines at


45, one in the fourth (IV)
quadrant and one only
allowed mathematically in
the second (II) quadrant,
represents this theory
graphically.
The factor-of-safety is given
by,
1 2
Sy

1
Nfs

MAXIMUM STRAIN ENERGY


THEORY BETRAMI THEORY
Failure is predicted to occur in the multiaxial
state of stress when the total strain energy per
unit volume becomes equal or exceeds the total
strain energy per unit volume at the time of
failure in a simple uniaxial stress test using
specimen of the same material
UTOTAL Uuniaxial tensile test at yield ---- Failed

STRAIN ENERGY UNIAXIAL STRESS TEST


Strain Energy:

Hookes Law:
U1 D

At yield point:
U1 D

2
1 S yp

2 E

1
U1 D x x
2

x
E

1 x2
2 E

x S yp

Total Strain Energy


per a unit volume at
failure

With a factor of safety Nfs


U1 D

2
1 S yp

2 E N fs

STRAIN ENERGY TRI STATE OF


STRESS
S3

S11
2

U 2 S 2 2
2

U 3 S3 3
2

U1

U 3-D

1
S11 S2 2 S3 3
2

STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP:
1
S1 S2 S3 & is Poisson's Ratio
E
1
2 S2 S1 S3
E
1
3 S3 S1 S2
E

S1

S2

Total strain energy per unit volume:


U TOTAL

1
S12 S2 2 S32 2 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3
2E

Failing will not occur if: UTOTAL UUNIAXIAL

MAXIMUM STRAIN ENERGY


THEORY
Failing will not occur if: UTOTAL UUNIAXIAL
2
1
1 S yp
2
2
2
S1 S 2 S3 2 S1S 2 S 2 S3 S1S3
2E
2E N fs

S12 S 2 2 S32 2 S1S 2 S 2 S3 S1S3

S yp 2
N fs

HYDROSTATIC LOADING
Materials that are hydrostatically loaded will
have the stresses uniform in all directions.
Very large amount of strain energy can be stored
in materials without failure if they are
hydrostatically loaded.
Many experiments have shown that materials
can be hydrostatically stressed to levels well
beyond their ultimate strengths in compression
without failure, as this just reduces the volume of
the specimen without changing its shape.
No distortion in the part there is no shear
stress. There is no distortion and no failure.
Thus, it appears that distortion is the cause in
tensile failure as well.

MAXIMUM DISTORTION ENERGY


THEORY OR VON MISES HENCKY
THEORY
TOTAL STRAIN
ENERGY OF
LOADED PART

DUE TO HYDROSTATIC
LOADING CHANGE IN
VOLUME

UT = UV + UD

DUE TO DISTORTION
CHANGE IN SHAPE

S3

S3 SV S3

SV

=
S2

S1

Normal Stresses

+
SV

SV

Hydrostatic Stresses
change in volume

S1 SV S1

S 2 SV S 2

Distortion Stresses
change in shape

HYDROSTATIC LOADING &


DISTORTION OF ENERGY
STRAIN ENERGY DUE TO HYDROSTATIC LOADING - UV:
1
S12 S22 S32 - 2 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3
2E
S S S3
Replace S1 , S2 , S3 with S1 S2 S3 Sv 1 2
3
1 - 2
S12 S22 S32 2 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3
UV
6E

UT

STRAIN ENERGY DUE TO DISTORTION - UD:

U D U T UV
1
S12 S22 S32 - 2 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3
2E
1 - 2
S12 S22 S32 2 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3

6E
1
S12 S22 S32 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3
UD
3E

DISTORTION OF ENERGY OF UNIAXIAL


TEST AT YIELD POINT
NORMAL STRESS:
P
S1 x
and S2 S3 0
A
At yield point the stress is Syp and if Nfs Safety Factor,

S1

S yp
N fs

UD

1
S12 S22 S32 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3
3E

P
UD for Uniaxial state of stress:
U D -UNIAXIAL

1 2
S1
3E

U D -UNIAXIAL

1 S yp

3E N fs

DISTORTION ENERGY THEORY OR


VON MISES HENCKY THEORY
Failure is predicted to occur in the multiaxial
state of stress when the distortion energy per
unit volume becomes equal or exceeds the
distortion energy per unit volume at the time of
failure in a simple uniaxial stress test using
specimen of the same material
UD-TOTAL UD-uniaxial tensile test at yield ---- Failed

MAXIMUM DISTORTION ENERGY THEORY


OR VON MISES HENCKY THEORY
FAILURE WILL NOT OCCUR IF UD-TOTAL UD-UNIAXIAL
UD

1
S12 S22 S32 S1 S2 S2 S3 S1S3
3E

U D -UNIAXIAL

1 S yp

3E N fs

1
1 S yp
S12 S22 S32 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3

3E
3E N fs
S
S12 S22 S32 S1S2 S2 S3 S1S3 yp
N
fs

Alternately,

S1 S2

Von Mises Stress:

S2 S3 S3 S1
2
2

S1 S2

or

S yp

N
fs

2
2
S yp
S2 S3 S3 S1

N
2
fs

S1 S2

VM

S2 S3 S3 S1
2
2

DISTORTION ENERGY THEORY


DUCTILE MATERIALS
For a safe design according
to the distortion-energy
theory,

12 22 1 2 S y2
The above expression in
represents the equation of
an ellipse inclined at 45
as shown in the Figure.
This ellipse passes
through the six corners of
the enclosed shape.
FACTOR OF SAFETY:

12 22 1 2
Sy

1
N fs

COMPARISON TO EXPERIMENTAL
DATA DUCTILE MATERIALS
Note that there is no
experimental data in the
second (II) and third (III)
quadrants. This is not
unexpected as combinations
in the second (II) quadrant are
impossible if the maximum
principal stress (1) is greater
than or at least equal to the
minimum principal stress (2) .
Also, combinations in the third
(III) quadrant require that the
principal stress (2) be at least
equally or more negative than
the principal stress (1) .

RECOMMENDATION FOR DUCTILE


MATERIALS
First (I): Distortion-energy
theory is the most
accurate. Maximumnormal-stress theory
is okay, but conservative.
Maximum-shear-stress
theory does not apply.
Fourth (IV): Distortionenergy theory is the most
accurate. Maximumshear-stress theory is
okay, but conservative.
Maximum-normal-stress
theory does not apply.

STRESS CONCENTRATION
Stress concentration is caused by the sudden
changes in geometry.
Sudden change in geometry:

Hole
Shoulder fillet
Groove
Notch
TWO STRESS
CONCENTRATION
FACTORS

K or Kt STRESS
CONCENTRATION
FACTOR for STATIC
LOADING

Kf STRESS
CONCENTRATION
FACTOR for CYCLIC
LOADING

STRESS CONCENTRATION

The theoretical stress concentration is defined by:

max max
Max Stress at the section of interest
Kt

o nom Nominal Stress at the section of interest

max
K ts
o

-> Stress-concentration factor in SHEAR

Stress-concentration factors are dependent on the geometry of the


machine element, not on the material used. However, some materials
are more sensitive to stress concentrations, or notches, so the stressconcentration factors will be modied according to their notch
sensitivity.

K OR KT GEOMETRIC STRESS
CONCENTRATION FACTOR
Stress distribution for semi-infinite plate with a hole. Plate in tension:

0 Nominal Stress with the hole


max 3 0

KT - PLATE WITH HOLE


Nominal tensile stress:

nom

P
P

A (W D)h

Max tensile stress in the vicinity of the hole:


max Kt nom
Kt is geometric stress concentration factor

PLATE WITH NOTCH UNDER


TENSION
d = D 2r
r is the radius of notch

Nominal tensile stress:


nom

P P

A dh

Max tensile stress in the vicinity of the hole:

max Kt nom
Kt is geometric stress concentration factor

LOADING WITHOUT AND WITH


STRESS CONCENTRATION

FILLETS ON SHAFTS

FORCE-FLOW ANALOGY
The force-flow analogy
for contoured parts

Analogy

The forces (stresses)


flow around the
contours is similar to
the flow of
incompressible fluid
inside a step duct.

DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO REDUCE


STRESS CONCENTRAIONS AT A SHARP
CORNER

STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTOR


FOR CYCLIC LOADING - KF

Materials are not homogenous or free from defects,


therefore it is necessary to define fatigue
concentration factor Kf:
Kf

Endurance limit of a specimen free of notches


Endurance limit of a notched specimen

In cyclic loading, the effect of the notch (hole, groove,


fillet, an abrupt change in cross section, or any
disruption to the smooth contours of a part) is
usually less predicted. The term notch sensitivity q
has been applied to this behavior.

NOTCH SENSITIVITY Q
Due

to existence of irregularities or
discontinuities (holes, grooves or notches)
in part, high stress will occur in the
immediate vicinity of the discontinuity.
Some materials are not fully sensitive to
the presence of notches, for these a
reduced value of Kt can be used.
max K f o
K f is fatigue stress-concentration factor

NOTCH SENSITIVITY q
Notch

sensitivity q may be defined as the


degree to which the theoretical effect of stress
concentration is actually reached.
q

K f 1

0 q 1

K 1
K f 1 q K 1

Eqns. (8) and (9), page 147

K f is fatigue stress concentration factor


K or K t is geometric stress concentration factor

Use of q = 1 ---- The design will be on


safe side.

qshear

K fs 1
Ks 1

STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTOR FOR


CYCLIC LOADING KF AND NOTCH
SENSITIVITY Q
Kf

is a stress-concentration factor reduced


from Kt because of lessened sensitivity to
notches.
K f 1 q K t 1
If q 0

Kf 1

If q 1

K f Kt

If a value of the notch


sensitivity is not known, use
a value of 1 to be safe.

The material has NO


sensitivity to notches.
Cast Iron is insensitive to
notches Kf 1

The material has FULL


sensitivity to notches

INDEX OF SENSITIVITY OR NOTCH


SENSITIVITY q
Materials have different sensitivity to stress concentrations, which
is referred to as the notch sensitivity of material.

q for cast irons is


varying from 0 to
about 0.2 (very low)

NOTCH SENSITIVITY FOR STEEL & AL


REVERSED BENDING OR REVERSED AXIAL
LOADS

NOTCH SENSITIVITY FOR MATERIAL


IN REVERSED TORSION

STATIC VS FATIGUE FAILURES


STATIC FAILURE:
They usually developed a very large deflection,
because the stress has exceeded the yield
strength.
Thus static failures give visible warning in
advance
The part is replaced before fracture occurs
FATIGUE FAILURE:

Fatigue failure give NO warning!


It is sudden and total, and hence dangerous!

FATIGUE FAILURE THEORIES


Many machine parts are subjected to a loading cycles in which the
stress is not steady but continuously varying. Failures in machine
parts are generally caused by such repeated loadings and at stress
that are considerably below the yield point. This is called fatigue
failure and it resembles the failure of brittle material.

CYCLIC LOADING OF FLAT SPRING

FATIGUE-FAILURE MODELS

FATIGUE REGIMES

Based on the number of stress or strain cycles the


part is expected to undergo in its lifetime, we can
classify two regimes:
LCF LOW CYCLE FATIGUE
HCF HIGH CYCLE FATIGUE

STRESS-LIFE APPROACH
The oldest and easiest of the three models to use.
Most often used for High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF) where
part is expected to undergo more than about 103
cycles of stress.
Work best when the load amplitudes are predictable
and consistent over the life of the part.
It is a stress-based model, which determines a fatigue
strength and/or an endurance limit for material so
that the cyclic stresses can be kept below that level
and failure avoided for the required number of cycles

STRESS-LIFE APPROACH
Part is designed based on the materials fatigue
strength or endurance limit and factor of safety.
Assume that stresses and strains everywhere remain
in elastic zone.
No local yielding occurs to initiate a crack.
Least accurate in defining stress/strain states in the
part, especially for LCF finite-life where N is less
than 103 cycles and stress is high enough to cause a
local yielding.
For certain materials, stress-life approach allow the
design of parts for infinite life under cyclic loading.

STRAIN-LIFE APPROACH
Strain-based

model gives a reasonably


accurate picture of crack initiation
stage.
Good for designing part under fatigue
loading and high temperature combined
creep effects can be included.
Most often used for LCF finite-life
problems where the cyclic stresses are
high enough to cause local yielding.
Most complicated of three models to use
and requires a computer solution

LEFM APPROACH
Best model for the crack propagation stage due
to fracture mechanics theory.
Apply to LCF finite-life problem where the cyclic
stresses are known to be high enough to cause
the formation of cracks.
Most useful in predicting the remaining life of
cracked parts in service.
Most often used in conjunction with
nondestructive testing (NDT) in a periodic
service-inspection program, especially in the
aircraft/aerospace industry.
More accurate results when a detectable and
measurable crack already exists.

MACHINE-DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
STRESS-LIFE

(S-N) approach:

Suitable for large class of rotating machinery


because the required lives are usually in the
HCF range:
Automobile-engine crankshaft the crankshaft and
most other rotating and oscillating components in the
engine will see about 2.5E8 cycles in 100,000 miles
Automated production machinery in industry such as
filling soft-drink cans etc.

MACHINE-DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS

STRAIN-LIFE (-N) approach:

Suitable for transportation (service) machinery


because the required lives are usually in the LCF
range:

Airframe of an airplane, the hull of a ship, the chassis of a


land vehicle.
For aircraft/ship -> time-load history can be quite
variable due to storms, gusts/waves, hard
landings/dockings etc.
For land vehicle also time-load history is variable due
to overloads, potholes etc.
The chance of higher-than-design loads causing local
yielding is always present and consequently crack growth
exists.

MACHINE-DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS

LEFM and STRAIN-LIFE (-N) approach:


The LEFM or strain-life models (or both) use
simulated and experimental load-time histories for
more accurately predict failure.
Example of the use of -N and LEFM models:

Design and analysis of gas turbine rotor blades subjected to


high stresses at high temperatures and go though LCF
thermal cycles at start up and shut down.

TYPICAL S-N (STRESS-LIFE)


DIAGRAM FOR STEEL
The most important thing to observe in an S-N diagram, if the
material being tested is ferrous like steel, is that the straight line at
the lower right of the diagram becomes horizontal somewhere
between (N = 106) cycles and (N = 107) cycles and stays horizontal

thereafter

Fatigue failures due to:


Bending most common
Torsion next
Axial loading rare.

Parts that are subject to variable


loading will lose strength with
time and may fail after a certain
number of cycles.
Endurance limit
stress
We assume that stresses below
endurance limit will NOT cause
failure regardless of the number of
repetitions.
Cyclic stress

FATIGUE FAILURE THEORIES


TWO FATIGUE FAILURE
THEORIES

SOLDERBERG
CRITERION

MODIFIED GOODMAN
CRITERION

The fatigue or endurance limit stress Se is defined as the


maximum value of the completely reversed bending
stress, which a plain specimen can sustain for 10 millions
or more load cycles without failure. It can be assumed that
it will last indefinitely.

ROTATING MACHINE LOADING


THREE ROTATING
MACHINE LOADINGS

FULLY REVERSED

REPEATED

FLUCTUATING

PARAMETERS FOR ROTATING


MACHINE LOADING
The stress range S or :

S max min
The alternating component Sr or a:
Sr a

max min
2

The mean component Savg or m:


Savg m

Stress Ratio:

max
min

max min
2

Amplitude Ratio:

a
m

SOLDERBERG EQUATION
Se
Se
N fs

K f Sr

Savg

S yp
N fs

S yp

Solderberg equation:
S S
S avg S r K f yp yp
Se N fs
where:
S S min
S avg max
2
S Smin
S r max
2
K f 1 q ( K t 1)

Eqn. (10), page 157

S-N DIAGRAM
LCF

HCF

UNCORRECTED ENDURANCE LIMIT


SE

CORRECTED ENDURANCE LIMIT - SE

ENDURANCE LIMIT
Unfortunately, for
nonferrous materials
like aluminum there
is no endurance limit,
meaning the test
specimen will
eventually fail at
some number of
cycles, usually near
(N = 108) cycles, no
matter how much the
stress level is
reduced. This is why
critical aluminum
parts, especially
those in aircraft
where the number of
reversed loadings
can become very
high in a short period
of time, must be
inspected regularly
and replaced prior to
reaching an unsafe
number of cycles.

Curve C is typical for most nonferrous materials (aluminum) which do


not exhibit an endurance limit. For such materials, the number of cycles
to failure should be reported for the given endurance strength.

MODIFIED GOODMAN EQUATION

TWO EQUATIONS OF MODIFIED


GOODMAN THEORY
First equation:
S S
S avg S r K f u u
Se N fs
where:
S S min
S avg max
2
S Smin
S r max
2
K f 1 q ( K t 1)

Replace Syp in Solderberg


equation with Su

Second equation:

S avg S r K f

S yp
N fs

Both equations must be satisfied, if one fails, we have unsafe conditions.


Eqns. (11a) and (11b), page 157

VARIOUS FAILURE LINES FOR


FLUCTUATING STRESSES

Gerber parabola is a good fit to experimental data, making it useful for the
analysis of failed part.

Modified Goodman line is a more conservative and commonly used failure


criterion when designing parts subjected to mean plus alternating stresses.
The Solderberg line is less often used, as it is overly conservative

LINEAR HYPOTHESE
Equation of straight line in
intercept form:
x y
1
a b

For Soderberg line:


Sm Sa

1
S yt Se

For Goodman line:

Sm Sa
Sm K f Sa
1
1 or

Sut Se
Sut
Se
N fs

For Gerber parabola:


2

Sm Sa
1
Sut Se

LINEAR HYPOTHESE
For Soderberg line:
S
S a Se 1 m
S
yt

For Goodman line:


S
S a Se 1 m
Sut
S
Sa e
Kf

For Gerber parabola:


S m2
S a Se 1 2
Sut

1
Sm

N
S
ut
fs

MODIFIED GOODMAN DIAGRAM

DESIGN FOR FINITE LIFE


An infinitely large
number of fully
reversed stress
(40,000 psi) may
take place before
the material
fracture.

This design is called for


finite life.
From N = 1000 cycles to N = 1,000,000 cycles DESIGN FOR FINITE
LIFE

DESIGN FOR FINITE LIFE

LOG
Scale

LOG
Scale

DESIGN FOR FINITE LIFE BASQUINS


EQUATION
The equation for a straight line on log-log (logarithmic) paper is,
Parabolic for m = positive
log y m log x log b
or hyperbolic (m =
or
negative) curves when
plotted in rectangular
y bx m
coordinate paper.

where, b y-intercept & m slope

DESIGN FOR FINITE LIFE


BASQUINS EQUATION
S-N curve for avg = 0

The curve plot


is transformed
into straightline in log-log
plot.

DESIGN FOR FINITE LIFE


BASQUINS EQUATION
Straight line in logarithmic
scale.
The stress value at 103 cycles
(starting cycle for HCF) is 0.9
ult = 0.9 x 90000 psi = 81,000
psi.

The equation for straight line:

r AN B y bx m --- Power Equations


log r log A B log N

DESIGN FOR FINITE LIFE BASQUINS


EQUATION
Eqns. (12) and (13), page 161
Alternating stress r:

r AN B
Number of cycles N:


N r
A

1
B

The coefficients for Basquins equation A & B:


B
A

log e log 0.9 u


3

106 B

Eqns. (14) and (15), page 162

MINERS EQUATION FOR CUMULATIVE


DAMAGE
If the machine part is to operate for a finite time
at stress levels exceeding the endurance limit,
then we must examine the cumulative damage.
Miners equation is used for machine part
subjected to various fully reversed stress level.
Failure occurs when:
ENDURANCE

LIMIT

n1 n2 n3

... 1
N1 N2 N3
Stress levels are
higher than
endurance limit

MINERS EQUATION FOR CUMULATIVE


DAMAGE

n1 n2 n3

... 1
N1 N2 N3

Failure occurs when:

Proportionate Damage D:
ni
Ni

Di

D1

D1 D2 D3

n
n1
n
; D2 2 ; D3 3 and so on.
N1
N2
N3

MINERs
EQUATION

n1 n2 n3

... 1
N1 N 2 N 3

Proportion of Total Life N:


N Actual life of the part
n1 1 N ; n2 2 N and so on.

From Miner's equation,

1 N
N1

1
N1

2 N
N2

2
N2

3
N3

3 N
N3

1
1
N

Note that 1 N 2 N 3 N

1 2 3

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION WITH RANDOMLY


VARYING, COMPLETELY REVERSED STRESSES
Stresses (including stress concentration factor Kf) at the critical notch of a part
fluctuated randomly as indicated in Figure below. The stresses could be
bending, torsional, or axial or even equivalent bending stresses resulting
from general biaxial loading. The plot shown represents what is believed to be
20 seconds of operation. The material is steel, and the appropriate S-N curve
is given in the Figure shown. This curve is corrected for load, gradient, and
surface. Estimate the fatigue life of the part.

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION WITH RANDOMLY


VARYING, COMPLETELY REVERSED STRESSES
Endurance limit = 60,000 psi.

There are 8 stress cycles above the


endurance limit of 60 Ksi:
Five at 80 Ksi n1 = 5 cycles
Two at 90 Ksi n2 = 2 cycles
One at 100 Ksi n3 = 1 cycle

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION WITH RANDOMLY


VARYING, COMPLETELY REVERSED STRESSES
There are 8 stress cycles above the
endurance limit of 60 Ksi:
Five at 80 Ksi n1 = 5 cycles
Two at 90 Ksi n2 = 2 cycles
One at 100 Ksi n3 = 1 cycle
ni is number of cycles at fully reversed
stress level Si

S-N curve shows:


Each 80-ksi cycle uses one part in 105 of the life N1 = 105 cycles,

Each 90-ksi cycle uses one part in 3.8x104 of the life N2 = 3.8 x 104 cycles,
Each 100-ksi cycle uses one part in 1.6x104 of the life N3 = 1.6 x 104 cycles.

Ni is number of cycles-to-failure at stress


level Si

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION WITH RANDOMLY


VARYING, COMPLETELY REVERSED STRESSES
There are 8 stress cycles above the
endurance limit of 60 Ksi:
Five at 80 Ksi n1 = 5 cycles
Two at 90 Ksi n2 = 2 cycles
One at 100 Ksi n3 = 1 cycle
S-N curve shows:
Each 80-ksi cycle uses one part in N1 = 105 of the life,
Each 90-ksi cycle uses one part in N2 = 3.8x104 of the life,
Each 100-ksi cycle uses one part in N3 = 1.6x104 of the life.
Miners rule:

n1 n2 n3

1
N1 N 2 N 3

Failure occurs

5
3
1

0.0001651
5
4
4
10 3.8 10 1.6 10

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION WITH RANDOMLY


VARYING, COMPLETELY REVERSED STRESSES
Miners rule:

n1 n2 n3

1
N1 N 2 N 3
5
3
1

0.0001651
5
4
4
10 3.8 10 1.6 10
For the fraction of life consumed to be unity, the 20-second test time must
be multiplied by
1

Fatigue Life
20 121,138.7038 seconds
0.0001651
121,138.7038
Fatigue Life
2018.9784 minutes
60

2018.9784
Fatigue Life
33.6496 hours
60