Assignment: 1

Introduction to Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics

A01_1. Explain in short the history of fatigue life estimation approach with historical
background. Please write the answer in your own words.

Fatigue carries literal meaning as “tired”. Fatigue failure in metals resemble to the literal concept
as it is the failure invited by application of repeated stress over period of time to the material.
Fatigue failure is the most common mode of failure and has been in focus of engineers and
scientists since early 19th century.

With the rise of industrial era and automation in different sectors, investigation of fatigue failure
got prime importance. The 1842s Versailles railway accident can be seen as turnover point in
history of fatigue life estimation approach. One of the most prominent and early research of August
Wholer in 1850s presented the first ever laboratory experiment of the axle used in above mentioned
railway accident. The experiment was based on repeated application of stress lower than the yield
stress of the material of axle and concluded that under repeated loading, materials can fail below
the yield point. He also developed first S-N curve for estimating life of material under continuous
loading. This is the first approach of fatigue life estimation known as Nominal Stress approach.
He is also called father of systematic fatigue testing for his significant contribution in field of
fatigue behavior of material study.

The second approach is local strain life approach. This approach was first brought into
consideration by Coffin and Manson in around 1960s. They presented independently the concept
of plastic strain accountable for cyclic deformation. Also, the relationship between number of
cycles to rapture and plastic strain were established which is still being used in Low Cycle Fatigue
analysis.

During 1920s, Griffith and Irwin were the earliest to suggest dependency of material strength on
microscopic flaws and surface cracks. However, prior to 1960s, fracture mechanics was not
considered much is designs. Establishment of Fracture Mechanics can be traced back to some
disasters during World War II, observed in ships and aircrafts resulted due to fracture. During then,
𝑑𝑎
an approach incorporating Irwin’s crack stress analysis method to fatigue crack growth model (𝑑𝑁

– ΔK) was developed by P. C. Paris which is in use till date and is commonly called Paris law.

The fourth approach for fatigue life estimation combines both second and third approach i.e. with
consideration of crack formation or nucleation phenomenon and fatigue crack growth.

A01_2. Explain fatigue life design approach. Explain how these approaches have evolved in
the history. Give one real example of damage tolerance approach. Please write the answer in
your own words.

In mechanical system, fatigue failure is the most common mode of failure. Thus while designing
any mechanical system, fatigue failure should be given significant attention. There are four
different fatigue life design approaches whose preference mostly depends on functionality of the
component or system being designed.

i) Infinite- life design approach

In this design method, the local stress or strain on design component is kept below fatigue limit
threshold. This concept is the earliest approach to fatigue life design. The basis of this approach,
endurance limit, was first introduced in 1870s by August Wohler. But recent research from Bathias
C. suggests that there is no any endurance limit for metallic structures and any small cyclic stress
are capable of bringing failure to the system in long term. However, about more than a million
cycle is considered as almost infinite lifetime. This approach is still applicable for design of
mechanical component that are subjected to as many load cycles as million in their lifetime, such
as valves and springs of automobile. But this approach is uneconomic and impractical for most
other cases subjected to average number of load cycles.

ii) Safe- life design

Unlike previous, this approach is to plan a finite life for a component after which it gets replaced
by a new one or system remains obsolete. During mid-1800s, cyclic loading on mechanical
structures peaked with the advent of steam engine and impractical design for infinite life gave rise
to this approach. The critical system whose failure may severely affect life and property are usually
designed using this approach. The automotive industry commonly uses this approach to predict a
finite life for their machine component by using S-N curve, such that they won’t fail earlier than a
predicted finite life. Another example is, A Boeing 747 can endure about 35,000 pressurization
cycles and roughly 135,000 to 165,000 flight hours before metal fatigue sets in and the plane retires
after that.

iii) Fail-safe design

A minor error during the prediction of life of a component can lead to severe hazard to life, property
and environment. Fail-safe design approach is the approach to ensure minimal impact of failure of
a component on overall system or its surrounding component to prevent such hazards. It was
introduced by aerospace engineers for fail safe design of aircrafts. Failure of any small component
with relatively less life span should not damage overall aircraft. Such components should be
provided with a backup system and should be repairable or replaceable. Also, multiple load paths,
crack stoppers, load transfers between members and routine inspection should be ensured to
achieve fail safe design. For example, engines are fail-safe in multiengine planes. Another example
of such approach can be found on design of elevator. An elevator has brakes that are held off brake
pads by the tension of the elevator cable. If the cable breaks, tension is lost and the brakes latch on
the rails in the shaft, so that the elevator cabin does not fall.

iv) Damage tolerant design

This approach is an extension to the fail-safe approach. Damage tolerant design are capable of
sustaining defects safely during operation until repaired. Such design pre-assume the existence of
cracks or microscopic flaws and predict whether these cracks or flaws are capable of growing
enough to cause major damage. This approach came into practice after 1970’s with advancement
of fracture mechanics and an unfortunate fatigue failure in aircraft history involving de Havilland
Comet catastrophe. It requires frequent non- destructive inspection of components to detect cracks
and flaws. Many factors such as environmental factors, loading history, statistical factors and so
on have to be considered for this approach. This approach is also suitable for components already
designed using safe life approach.

One example of such design approach in real life can be found on USAF aircraft design. USAF
damage tolerance design guidelines are specified in Joint Service Specification Guide JSSG-2006
[1998]. The guidelines specify that damage is assumed to exist in each element of new structure
in a critical orientation with respect to stress field and in a region of highest stress. The structure
must successfully sustain the growth of the initial assumed damage for a specified period of
service, and must maintain a minimum level of residual static strength both during and at the end
of this period.

A01_3. Explain in general terms the major structural design criteria that has been widely
implacable in design scenarios. Use simple equations where possible. Please write the answer
in your own words.

The major structural design criteria specified by various guidelines around the world can be
generally listed out in three broad category.

i) Safety

Safety is the foremost concern in structural design. Numerous guidelines have signified this
criteria for design of structural components. There are different modes of loading in structural
components.

 Static loading:
In static loading, safety criteria mainly concerns with plastic deformation of
materials and their prevention. In tension-compression analysis of static structure,
compressive yield criteria can be considered a design criteria. Ultimate stress
should be satisfied with sufficient factor of safety for design. Equation below gives
factor of safety.
𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙
𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 =
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠
In combined mode of loading in static structures, Von misses stress failure criterion
can be considered as criteria for safety. Von misses stress failure criterion gives the
point of onset of yield in ductile material in combined loading state. Factor of safety
for both shear stress and normal stress is to be met for safety. In plain stress
condition, following equation gives factor of safety for normal and shear stresses
respectively.
 𝑆𝑦 𝑆𝑦𝑥
𝑛𝜎 = , 𝑛𝜏 =
𝜎 𝜏
Where, Sy = normal design stress
𝜎 = Normal yield stress
𝜏 = Shear yield stress
Syx = Shear design stress
 Dynamic or repetitive loading
In many mechanical component, this mode of loading is present. In mechanical
structural component, static yield consideration cannot be used as yield due to
fatigue is more likely to occur before static yield. Hence, fatigue safety criteria is
taken as criteria for ultimate safety. Nominal stress approach and local strain
approach are not less appropriate over fatigue crack growth approach for prediction
of failure in structural component resulted due to fatigue. The Paris law is most
applicable in this condition.
𝑑𝑎(𝑡)
= 𝐶(∆𝐾)𝑚
𝑑𝑁
Where 𝑑𝑎(𝑡) is the crack length at given time t, N is the number of cycles, ΔK is
the stress intensity factor range, and C and m are material parameters. The stress
intensity factor range is given by
∆𝐾 = ∆𝜎𝑌(𝑎)√𝜋𝑎
Where Δ𝜎 is the stress range and 𝑌(𝑎) is the geometry function.
The rate of crack growth determines the design life and safety criteria stipulates the
calculated life to be greater than desired life.
Other kinds of fatigue failure such as fatigue creep, corrosion fatigue, fretting fatigue
should also avoided through regular inspection and account of environmental condition
as well as loading history into design.

ii) Economy

The next criteria of structural design is economy. Bulky structure, use of alternative material with
higher strength, and designs with enough redundancy can be preferable from safety point of view but
can be very costly and inefficient from design point of view. Therefore, an efficient design is a balance
between both factors. Selection of suitable design approach according to purpose of design can be
effective in balancing these two factors. Many design criteria guidelines used worldwide for various
structural design specify this factor as a design criteria. An example of such criteria implemented can
be seen on designs of Airbus and Boeing. The next airliner generation cannot cost more than the
previous one did.

iii) Functionality of the component

This is obvious criteria for any kind of design. Strength and Economy are not justifiable without
qualifying for the function that the component is intended to fulfil. Criterion specifying functionality
of components are also implemented in different structural design scenario worldwide. Keeping
functionality into the center of focus, designs should be optimal from strength and economic point of
view.