Chap 8 Fatiguepart 1

Fatigue
• Progressive fracture that begins at small

microscopic cracks
• Beach mark- smooth velvety texture- the
fatigue zone
• Final rough fracture
Fundamentals of Machine Component Design, 4/E by Robert C. Juvinall and Kurt M. Marshek
Copyright © 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 8.1 (p. 291)
Fatigue failure originating in
the fillet of an aircraft crank-
shaft [SAE 4340 steel 320-
Bhn].
Fatigue
• Results from repeated plastic deformation
• Failures occur after 1,000 or more cycles
• Failures can occur at stress levels far below static yield
criteria (i.e. Sy)
• Avoid highly localized plastic yielding if loads are cyclic
• Strain strengthening possible if local yielding is small
enough; local yielding then ceases
– Loss of ductility if local yielding is not sufficiently minute
• Initial fatigue crack produces increase in local stress
concentration.
– Decrease in cross sectional area for carrying load as crack
propagates
Figure 8.2 (p. 292)
Enlarged view of a notched region.
Fatigue Life Models
• Based on empirical data
• 4 pt bending specimen results in pure
bending
• Add rotation of specimen to fully reverse
and cycle stresses
• R.R. Moore Rotating Beam Fatigue Test
– i.e. σ(t) = σmax sin(ωt)
Figure 8.3 (p. 293)
R.R. Moore rotating-beam fatigue-testing machine.
Figure 8.4a (p. 294)
Three S-N plots of representative fatigue data for 120 Bhn steel. (Continued on
next two slides.)
Figure 8.4b (cont.)
For a given life, small scatter
in fatigue strength
For a given fatigue strength,

large scatter in life
Figure 8.4c (cont.)

Figure 8.5 (p. 295)
Generalized S-N curve for wrought steel with superimposed data points.
Figure 8.6 (p. 295)
Endurance limit versus hardness for four alloy steels.
[From M.F. Garwood et al., Interpretation of Tests and Correlation with Service. American Society of
Metals, 1951. p. 13.] Fundamentals of Machine Component Design, 4/E by Robert C. Juvinall and Kurt M. Marshek
Figure 8.7 (p. 296)
Representation of maximum bending stress at low fatigue life (1000 cycles).
(Note: Calculated maximum stress is used in S-N plots.)
No knee in diagram!
No infinite life!
Figure 8.8 (p. 296)

S-N bands for representative aluminum alloys, excluding wrought alloys with
Su < 38 ksi.
Figure 8.9 (p. 297) 400,000 miles before cylinder fires this
many times
Fatigue strength at 5 x 108 cycles, common wrought-aluminum alloys..
Rotating Bending Verses Reversed Bending
θ = ωt
F(t) = Fmax sin(ωt)
If Fmax = W, which test would result in failure first?
Fatigue strength in reversed bending slightly greater than in rotating bending

Rotating Bending Verses Reversed Axial
Loading
θ = ωt
F(t) = Fmax sin(ωt)
If Fmax and W are such that σmax is same, which test would result
in failure first?
Fatigue strength in reversed axial loading 10 percent or more lower than in
Reversed bending
Reduce Sn′ by gradient factor CG = 0.9 for pure axial

loading of precisionFundamentals
parts, 0.7of – 0.9 for axial loading of
Machine Component Design, 4/E by Robert C. Juvinall and Kurt M. Marshek
nonprecision parts Copyright © 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Reversed Torsional Loading
Endurance limit in reversed torsion is about 58 percent of endurance limit in

reversed bending
103 cycle strength 0.9 appropriate ultimate strength i.e. ultimate shear strength
Sus = 0.8 Su for steel

Sus = 0.7 Su for other ductile materials
Figure 8.12 (p. 300)
A σ1–σ2 plot for completely
reversed loading, ductile
materials.
[Data from Walter Sawert, Germany,
1943, for annealed mild steel; and
H.J. Gough, "Engineering Steels
under Combined Cyclic and Static
Stresses." J. Appl. Mech., 72: 113–
125 (March 1950).]-
Figure 8.11 (p. 299)
Generalized S-N curves for polished 0.3=in. diameter steel specimens (based
on calculated elastic stresses ignoring possible yielding).
Figure 8.13 (p. 301)
Reduction in endurance limit owing to surface finish–steel parts.
Parts that are greater than 0.4” diameter and are subjected to reversed bending
or torsion should carry a gradient factor of CG = 0.9, the same as parts subjected
to axial loading
Figure 8.14 (p. 302)

Stress gradients versus diameter for bending and torsion.
Summary
S n = S n′CLCG CS CT CR
Reliability
factor
Load factor Temperature

Gradient factor
factor Surface
finish factor
Table 8.1a (p.
303)
Generalized Fatigue
Strength Factors for
Ductile Materials
(S-N curves).
(Continued on next
slide.)
Table 8.1b (cont.)
Figure 8.15 (p. 305)
Fluctuating stress notation illustrated with two examples.
Yield free zone
Figure 8.16 (p. 305)

Constant-life fatigue diagram – ductile materials.
Figure 8.17 (p. 306)
Fatigue-strength diagram for alloy steel, Su = 125 to 180 ksi, axial loading.
Average of test data for polished specimens of AISI 4340 steel (also applicable
to other alloy steels, such as AISI 2330, 4130, 8630). (Courtesy Grumman
Aerospace Corporation.)
Figure 8.18 (p. 306)
Fatigue strength diagram for 2024-T3, 2024-T4, and 2014-T6 aluminum alloys
axial loading. Average of test data for polished specimens (unclad) from rolled
and drawn sheet and bar. Static properties for 2024: Su = 72 ksi, Sy = 52 ksi; for
2014, Su = 72 ksi. Sy = 63 ksi. (Courtesy Grumman Aerospace Corporation.)
Figure 8.19 (p. 307)
Fatigue stress diagram for 7075-T6 aluminum alloy, axial loading. Average of
test data for polished specimens (unclad) from rolled and drawn sheet and bar.
Static properties: Su = 82 ksi, Sy = 75 ksi. (Courtesy Grummon Aerospace
Corporation.)
Figure 8.20 (p. 307)
Various fluctuating uniaxial stresses, all of which correspond to equal fatigue life.
Figure 8.21 (p. 308)
Axial loading of precision steel part.
Figure 8.22 (p. 310)
Sample Problem 8.1 – estimate S-N and σm and σa curves for steel, Su = 150
ksi, axial loading, commercially polished surfaces.

Chap 8 Fatiguepart 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap 8 Fatiguepart 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatigue

• Progressive fracture that begins at small

For a given fatigue strength,

Figure 8.4c (cont.)

Figure 8.8 (p. 296)

F(t) = Fmax sin(ωt)

If Fmax = W, which test would result in failure first?

Fatigue strength in reversed bending slightly greater than in rotating bending

F(t) = Fmax sin(ωt)

Reduce Sn′ by gradient factor CG = 0.9 for pure axial

Endurance limit in reversed torsion is about 58 percent of endurance limit in

Sus = 0.8 Su for steel

Figure 8.14 (p. 302)

Load factor Temperature

Figure 8.16 (p. 305)

You might also like