2.2.4.

Endurance Limit Modifying

Factors
The rotating-beam specimen used in the laboratory to determine endurance limits is
prepared very carefully and tested under closely controlled conditions. It is unrealistic to
expect the endurance limit of a mechanical or structural member to match the values
obtained in the laboratory. Some differences include

Material: composition, basis of failure, variability

Manufacturing: method, heat treatment, fretting corrosion, surface condition, stress
concentration

Environment: corrosion, temperature, stress state, relaxation times

Design: size, shape, life, stress state, stress concentration, speed, fretting, galling
 Marin’s Equation

Marin identified factors that quantified the effects of

surface condition

size

loading

temperature

miscellaneous items

Marin’s Equations is therefore written as:

(2.2.6)
 Marin’s Equation

(2.2.6)

Se : Endurance limit at the critical location of a machine part in geometry

and condition of use
S 'e : rotary-beam test specimen endurance limit
 (2.2.7)

where S ut is the minimum tensile strength and a and b are to be found in the Table .
Notice that a and b are different from those given by Eqs. Of fatigue strength.

Table
Parameters for Marin
surface modification
Factor
The size factor k b for bending and torsion may be given by:

(2.2.8)

For axial loading there is no size effect, so

(2.2.9)
 Non--Rotating Parts
Non

If a round bar in bending is not rotating or when a non-

circular cross-section is used what is kb ?

Assume that fatigue damage occurs in material that is
stressed above 95% of its maximum stress.

Equate the portion of a non-round part stressed ≥ σ max
with the similarly stressed area of a rotating beam
specimen and obtain the effective diameter de where.

(2.2.10)
as the effective size of a round corresponding to a non-rotating solid
or hollow round. Table provides areas of common structural shapes
undergoing non-rotating bending.
 Table
Areas of common non-rotating structural shapes

Use de Eq. (2.2.10) for round and Eq. for rectangular

cross-sections
General form of load factor

(2.2.11)

α
β kc
kpsi MPa Average
Bending 1 1 0 1

Axial 1.23 1.43 -0.078 0.85

Torsion 0.32 0.258 0.125 0.59

8

Values given in Textbook

 kd = 0.975 + 0.432 (10−3 ) TF − 0.115 (10−5 ) TF2 (2.2.12)
−8 3 −12 4
+ 0.104 (10 F
)T − 0.595 (10 F
)T
where 70 ≤ TF ≤ 1000o F
 (2.2.13)

Table
Effect of operating
temperature on the
tensile strength of
steel.
 Table Reliability factor Ka

If Reliability is not mentioned
corresponding to 8% standard deviation

Otherwise Use Table of the endurance limit.

Residual stresses

Directional characteristics
 (e.g. rolling, drawing)

Corrosion

Plating

Metal spraying

Frequency of cycling

Fretting corrosion
 Stress Concentration Factor and Notch Sensitivity

From stress concentration, it was pointed out that: The existence of

irregularities or discontinuities, such as holes, grooves or notches, in a part
increases the theoretical stresses significantly in the immediate vicinity of
discontinuity.

(2.2.14)
Stress Concentration Factor and Notch Sensitivity
 Stress Concentration Factor and Notch Sensitivity

In fatigue: Stress
concentration should
always be taken into
account.
 Stress Concentration Factor and Notch Sensitivity

Some materials are not fully sensitive to notches and a reduced value
of Kt is used and the maximum stress is calculated as follows:

(2.2.15)

Kf is the fatigue stress concentration factor, for simple loading:

or
Notch sensitivity q index is defined by

(2.2.16)

q for steel and Al alloys are given in Fig. for reversed bending or
reversed axial load for reversed torsion from the Fig.

For cast iron use q = 0.20 to be conservative.

Figure
and
Figure
Notch
sensitivity
curves.
SOLUTION
SOLUTION

7-6 7-6

7-8
 7-18
7-4 gives

7-20 7-25

7-7

7-17

7-13
7-11

7-12
Figure

SOLUTION
7-18 7-4

7-19

7-34
7-35
 7-15
7-18 7-13

7-14

7-15
 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses

Fluctuating stresses in machinery often take the form of sinusoidal

pattern because of the nature of the nature of some rotating machinery.

Other patterns some quite irregular do occur.

 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses

In periodic patterns exhibiting a single maximum and single minimum of

force, the shape of the wave is not important.

The peaks on both sides (maximum, minimum) are important.

Fmax and Fmin in a cycle can be used to characterize the force pattern.

A steady component and an alternating component can be constructed
as follows:

Stress Range

Mean (Midrange
Stress) (R>0 )

Stress Amplitude (R =0)

(Alternating Stress)

Stress Ratio

Stress Amplitude

(R =-1)
2.2.18

2.2.19
Any varying stress with a nonzero mean is
considered a fluctuating stress.

The steady, or static, stress is not the same
as the midrange stress.

The steady stress may have any value

between σmin and σmin .

The steady stress exists because of a fixed

load or preload applied to a part.

The steady load is independent of the

varying portion of the load.

A helical compression spring is always loaded into a space shorter than
the free length of the spring.

The stress created by this initial compression is called the steady, or

static, component of the stress.

Symbols σa and σm as the stress components at the location of scrutiny.

In the absence of a notch, σa and σm are equal to the nominal stresses

σao and σmo induced by loads Fa and Fm , respectively.

With a notch they are σa = Kf σao and σm = Kf σmo , respectively.


When the steady stress component is high enough to induce localized
notch yielding, the designer has problem.

The first-cycle local yielding produces plastic strain and strain-

strengthening.

This is occurring at the location where fatigue crack nucleation and

growth are most likely.
 Possible ways of quantifying the problem:

Residual Stress Method

All stresses (both mean and alternating) are multiplied by the fatigue stress
concentration factor Kf , and correction is made for yielding and resultant
residual stresses if the calculated peak stress exceeds the material yield
strength.

Nominal Mean Stress Method

In this method, stress concentration factor is applied only to alternating stress.

Reduction in mean stress from not multiplying it by Kf , might be about the same
as the reduction in mean stress achieved with the residual stress method by
taking yielding and residual stress into account.
 Fatigue Failure Criteria for Fluctuating Stress

After having defined the various components of stress associated with a part
subjected to fluctuating stresses, we want to vary both the midrange stress and
the stress amplitude or alternating component, to learn about the FATIGUE
RESISTANCE of parts when subjected to such situations.

Many machine elements involve fluctuating stresses about a non-zero mean.

The influence of non-zero mean stress is estimated by using one of several

empirical relationships that determine failure at a given life when both
alternating and mean stresses are nonzero.
 Modified Goodman
Diagram

It has midrange stress plotted along the

abscissa and all other components of stress
plotted on the ordinate, with tension in the
positive direction.

The endurance limit, fatigue strength, or

finite-life strength whichever applies, is
plotted on the ordinate above and below
the origin.

The midrange line is a 45o line from the

origin to the tensile strength of the part.

Figure
Modified Goodman diagram showing all the strengths and
the limiting values of all the stress components for a
particular midrange stress
 Plot of Fatigue Failures for Midrange Stresses in both
Tensile and Compressive Regions.
Figure
Plot of fatigue failures
for midrange stresses
in both tensile and
compressive regions.
Normalizing the data
by using the ratio of
steady strength
components to tensile
strength Sm/Sut, steady
strength component to
compressive strength
Sm/Suc, and strength
amplitude component
to endurance limit
Sa/S’e enables a plot of
experimental results
for a variety of steels.
 Master Fatigue Diagram.

Figure

Master fatigue
diagram for AISI
4340 steel with
Sut = 158
Sy = 147 kpsi.

The stress
component at A
are

σmin = 20,
σ max = 120,
σ m = 70,
σ o = 50

all in kpsi
 Fluctuating Stresses
Mean Stress Effect (R ≠ -1)

2. Representing mean
stress effect using
modified Goodman
Diagram

S is for strength

Failure data for Sm in tension and in compression

COMPRESSIVE mean stresses are BENEFICIAL (or have no effect) in fatigue

TENSILE mean stresses are DETRIMENTAL for fatigue behavior

As more data were generated it became clear that a
fatigue criterion, rather than being a “fence”, was
more like a zone or band wherein the probability of
failure could be estimated. We include the failure
criterion of Goodman because
It is a straight line and the algebra is linear and
easy.
It is easily graphed, every time for every problem.
It reveals subtleties of insight into fatigue
problems.
Answers can be scaled from the diagrams as a
check on the algebra.

Either the fatigue limit Se or the finite-life strength Sf is
plotted on the ordinate

These values will have already been corrected using the
Marin factors .

Note that the yield strength is plotted on the ordinate
too.

This serves as a reminder that first-cycle yielding rather
than fatigue might be the criterion of failure.

The midrange-stress axis of Fig. has the yield strength Syt
and the tensile strength plotted along it.

The criteria of failure are diagrammed
1. The Soderberg,
2. The modified
3. Goodman
4. The Gerber
5. The ASME-elliptic
6. 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 .
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

1- Modified Goodman Theory (Germany, 1899)

Factor of Safety
For infinite life Failure Occurs When:

σa σm 1
Sa Sm + =
+ =1 Se Su n
Se Su n = OA/OB

Load Line slope

Sa B

r=
Sm
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

2- The Soderberg Theory (USA, 1933)

Factor of Safety
For infinite life Failure Occurs When:

σa σm 1
Sa Sm + =
+ =1 Se Sy n
Se S y
n = OC/OB

F
D E
B
C
For finite life fatigue strength Sf = σa

replaces Se
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

3- The Gerber Theory (Germany, 1874)

Failure Occurs When: 2 Factor of Safety
Sa  Sm 
+  =1
Se  Su 

n = OF/OB

F Factor of Safety
D E 2
B
C nσ a  nσ m 
+  =1
Se  Su 
For finite life σa replaces Se
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)
2 2
4- The ASME Elliptic  Sa   Sm 
Failure Occurs When:   +   = 1
 Se   S y 
Factor of Safety

2 2
 nσ a   nσ m 
  +  =1
 Se   Sy 

F
D E
B
C
n = OE/OB
 FAILURE CRITERIA (mean stress)

4- The ASME Elliptic

Failure Occurs When

2 2
 Sa   Sm 
  +   = 1
 Se   S y 

Factor of Safety

2 2
F  nσ a   nσ m 
D E   +   =1
B
C  Se   S y 
n = OE/OB

For finite life sa replaces Se

 FAILURE CRITERIA

5- The Langer (1st Cycle) Yield Line

Failure Occurs When Sa Sm

+ =1
S yt S yt

Factor of Safety

σa σm 1
+ =
S yt S yt n F
D E
B
C
n = OD/OB
Criteria Equations

(2.2.19a)

(2.2.20)

(2.2.21)

(2.2.22)

(2.2.23)

The stresses nσa and nσm can replace Sa and Sm, where n is the design
factor or factor of safety. Then, Eqs. (7-43) to (7-46) become:

(2.2.24)

(2.2.25)

(2.2.26)

(2.2.27)
We will emphasize 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 design equation
for the Langer first -cycle-yielding is

(2 *)

The failure criteria are used in conjunction with a load line,

Principal intersections are tabulated in Tables. Formal expressions for
fatigue factor of safety are given in the lower panel of Tables. 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:

1. One method is to assume that fatigue occurs first and use Eqs. 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 Langer
Static yield equation.

2. 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.
Fatigue
Criterion

Static
Langer
Criterion

Intersection of the Static

and Fatigue Criteria

TABLE

Amplitude and Steady

Coordinates of Strength and
Important Intersections in First
Quadrant for Modified Goodman
and Langer Failure Criteria.
 Gerber

Langer

Intersection of Gerber
and Langer

TABLE

Amplitude and Steady

Coordinates of Strength and
Important Intersections in
First Quadrant for Gerber and
Langer Failure Criteria.
 ASME Elliptic

Langer

Intersection of ASME
Elliptic and Langer

TABLE

Amplitude and Steady

Coordinates of Strength and
Important Intersections in
First Quadrant for ASME
Elliptic and Langer Failure
Criteria.
 Special Cases of Fluctuating Stresses

•Case 1: σm fixed

Sa
n=
σa

•Case 2: σa fixed
Sm
n=
σm
•Case 3: σa / σm fixed

Sa Sm
n= =
σa σm

•Case 4: both vary arbitrarily

1 σa σm
= +
n S e S ut
 EXAMPLE

Solution

(7-18) (7-4), p. 329

EXAMPLE
(7-25), p. 331

(7-8), (7-17), p. 325, p. 328

7-10)
(7-*)

(7-28)

(7-10)
Figure

Principal points A,
B, C, and Don the
designer’s
diagram drawn for
Gerber, Langer
and load line.
(7-28) 7-10
 7-11

7-29
Figure

Principal points A,
B, C, and Don the
designer’s
diagram drawn for
ASME Elliptic,
Langer and load
lines.
7-11
 Example

Solution

(7-13) (7-14) 326

 (7-15)

(7-49) p.349

(7-15)
(7-50)

F
D E
B
C
 Fatigue Failure for Brittle Materials

The first quadrant fatigue failure criteria follows a curve upward Smith-
Dolan represented by

(2.2.28)
S a 1 − Sm Sut
=
Se 1 + Sm Sut
Or a design equation

nσ a 1 − nσ m S ut (2.2.29)
=
Se 1 + nσ m S ut

For a radial load line of slope r, we substitute Sa/r for Sm and solve
for Sa

(2.2.30)
r Sut + Se  4 r Sut Se 
Sa =  −1 + 1 + 2

2 
 ( r S ut + S e) 

The fatigue diagram for a brittle material differs markedly from
that of a ductile material

Yielding is not involved since the material may not have a yield
strength

The compressive ultimate strength exceeds the ultimate
tensile strength several folds

First-quadrant fatigue failure locus is concave-upward

(Smith-Dolan)

Brittle materials are more sensitive to midrange stress,

being lowered

Not enough work has been done on brittle fatigue to

discover insightful generalities

The most likely domain of designer use is in the range from
− S ut ≤ S m ≤ S ut

The locus in the first quadrant is Goodman, Smith-Dolan or in
between

The portion of the second quadrant that is used is represented by a

straight line between points , and 0, − S ut S ut
Se
 Se 
Sa = Se +  − 1  S m (2.2.31)
− Sut ≤ Sm ≤ 0
 Sut 
 Torsional fatigue Strength Under Fluctuating
Stresses

Torsional steady-stress component not more than the torsional

yield strength has no effect on the torsional endurance limit.

Torsional fatigue limit decreases monotonically with torsional

steady-stress

Since the great majority of parts will have surfaces less than
perfect, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, are used

In constructing the Goodman diagram Jorres uses

S su = 0.67 S ut (2.2.32)
 Combining Loading Modes

Fatigue problems are classified under three categories:

i. Completely reversing simple loads
It is handled with the S-N diagram, relating the alternating stress to a life.
Only one type of loading is allowed here, and the midrange stress must be
zero.
i. Fluctuating simple loads
It uses a criterion to relate midrange and alternating stresses (modified
Goodman, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, or Soderberg). Again, only one type of
loading is allowed at a time.
i. Combinations of loading modes
It uses combined bending, torsion, and axial loadings.
 Combining Loading Modes
Completely reversed single stress
which is handled with the S-N diagram, relating the
alternating stress to a life. Only one type of loading is
allowed here, and the midrange stress must be zero.
Fluctuating loads
It uses a criterion to relate midrange and alternating stresses
(modified Goodman, Gerber, ASME-elliptic, or Soderberg).
Again, only one type of loading is allowed at a time.
Combination of different types of loading
such as combined bending, torsion, and axial.
 Combining Loading Modes

a load factor was used to obtain the endurance limit, and hence the result is
dependent on whether the loading is axial, bending, or torsion. But, “how do we
proceed when the loading is a mixture of, say, axial, bending, and torsional
loads?” This type of loading introduces a few complications in that there may
now exist combined normal and shear stresses, each with alternating and
midrange values, and several of the factors used in determining the endurance
limit depend on the type of loading. There may also be multiple stress-
concentration factors, one for each mode of loading. The problem of how to deal
with combined stresses was encountered when developing static failure
theories. The distortion energy failure theory proved to be a satisfactory method
of combining the
 Combining Loading Modes
multiple stresses on a stress element into a single equivalent von Mises
stress. The same approach will be used here.
1) The first step is to generate two stress elements, one for the
alternating stresses and one for the midrange stresses.
2) Apply the appropriate fatigue stress concentration factors to each of
the stresses; apply ( K f )for the bending stresses,
bending
(K )
fs torsion for
the torsional stresses, and f
(K ) for the axial stresses.
axial

3. Next, calculate an equivalent von Mises stress for each of these two
stress elements,
4. Finally, select a fatigue failure criterion (modified Goodman, Gerber,
ASME-elliptic, or Soderberg) to complete the fatigue analysis.
Combining Loading Modes

2.2.32

2.2.33
Combining Loading Modes

2.2.32 2.2.33
 Combining Loading Modes
Case of Combined Axial, Bending and Torsion Loading
(kc? Kf?).

Assuming that all stress components are in time phase with each
other.

1. For the strength, use the fully corrected endurance limit for
bending, Se.
2. Apply the appropriate fatigue concentration factors to all stress
components.
3. Multiply any alternating axial stress components by 1/kc,ax
4. Find the principal stresses.
5. Find the von Miss alternating stress, σ’a and mean stress σ’m.
6. Use any of the theories above to compute the safety factor.
 Combining Loading Modes

σ’a and mean stress σ’m are alternating and mean VM stresses.

Both the steady and alternating components are augmented by Kf and Kfs.

If stress components are not in phase but have same frequency, the
maxima can be found using phase angles and then summed.

Otherwise assume that the stress components will reach an in-phase

condition so their magnitudes are additive.
 Example

Solution
t = 4 mm

σ = M/Znet