Fatigue Failure Resulting from Variable Loading

© McGraw Hill 1
 Introduction to Fatigue in Metals 1

Prior to the nineteenth century, engineering design was based primarily

on static loading.
Speeds were relatively slow, loads were light, and factors of safety were
large.
With the development of engines capable of higher speeds, and materials
capable of higher loads, parts began to be subject to significantly higher
cycles at high stress.
Though these stresses were well below the yield strength, an increase in
sudden ultimate fractures occurred.
The most distinguishing feature of the failures was a large number of
cycles.
This led to the notion that the part had simply become “tired” from
repeated cycling, hence the origin of the term fatigue failure.

© McGraw Hill 2
 Chapter Overview

Crack Nucleation and Propagation (Section 6–3).

Fatigue-Life Methods (Section 6–4).
The Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics Method (Section 6–5).
The Strain-Life Method (Section 6–6).
The Stress-Life Method in Detail (Section 6–7 through 6–17).
• Completely Reversed Loading (Sections 6–7 through 6–10).
• Fluctuating Loading (Section 6–11 through 6–15).
• Combinations of Loading Modes (Section 6–16).
• Cumulative Fatigue Damage (Section 6–17).
Surface Fatigue (Section 6–18).
Road Maps and Important Design Equations for the Stress-Life Method
(Section 6–19).
© McGraw Hill 3
 Crack Nucleation and Propagation

Fatigue failure is due to crack nucleation and propagation.

A fatigue crack will initiate at a location that experiences repeated
applications of locally high stress (and thus high strain).
The locally high stress is often at a discontinuity.
• Geometric changes, for example, keyways, holes.
• Manufacturing imperfections, for example, stamp marks,
scratches.
• Composition of the material, for example, from rolling, forging,
casting, heat treatment, inclusions, voids.

© McGraw Hill 4
 Stages of Fatigue Failure

Stage I – Initiation of micro-

crack due to cyclic plastic
deformation.
Stage II – Progresses to
macro-crack that repeatedly
opens and closes, creating
bands called beach marks.
Stage III – Crack has
propagated far enough that
remaining material is
insufficient to carry the load,
and fails by simple ultimate
failure.
Fig. 6–1
© McGraw Hill From ASM Handbook, Vol. 12: Fractography, 2nd printing, 1992, ASM International, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002, fig. 50, p. 120. Reprinted by permission of ASM International®, www.asminternational.org. 5
 Schematics of Fatigue Fracture Surfaces

Fig. 6–2

Access the text alternative for slide images.

© McGraw Hill From ASM Metals Handbook, Vol. 11: Failure Analysis and Prevention, 1986, ASM International, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002, fig. 18, p. 111. Reprinted by permission of ASM International®, www.asminternational.org. 6
 Fatigue Fracture Examples 1

AISI 4320 drive shaft.

B– crack initiation at
stress concentration in
keyway.
C– Final brittle failure.

Fig. 6–3
© McGraw Hill (From ASM Handbook, Vol. 12: Fractography, 2nd printing, 1992, ASM International, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002, fig. 51, p. 120. Reprinted by permission of ASM International®, www.asminternational.org. 7
 Fatigue Fracture Examples 2

Fatigue failure
initiating at
mismatched grease
holes.
Sharp corners (at
arrows) provided
stress concentrations.

Fig. 6–4
© McGraw Hill From ASM Handbook, Vol. 12: Fractography, 2nd printing, 1992, ASM International, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002, fig. 520, p. 331. Reprinted by permission of ASM International®, www.asminternational.org. 8
 Fatigue Fracture Examples 3

Fatigue failure of
forged connecting rod.
Crack initiated at flash
line of the forging at
the left edge of picture.
Beach marks show
crack propagation
halfway around the
hole before ultimate
fracture.

Fig. 6–5

© McGraw Hill From ASM Handbook, Vol. 12: Fractography, 2nd printing, 1992, ASM International, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002, fig. 523, p. 332. Reprinted by permission of ASM International®, www.asminternational.org. 9
 Fatigue Fracture Examples 4

Fatigue failure of a
200-mm diameter
piston rod of an alloy
steel steam hammer.
Loaded axially.
Crack initiated at a
forging flake internal to
the part.
Internal crack grew
outward symmetrically.

Fig. 6–6
© McGraw Hill From ASM Handbook, Vol. 12: Fractography, 2nd printing, 1992, ASM International, Materials Park, OH 44073-0002, fig. 570, p. 342. Reprinted by permission of ASM International®, www.asminternational.org. 10
 Fatigue-Life Methods

Fatigue-Life Methods predict life in number of cycles to failure, N, for a specific

level of loading.
There are three major fatigue life methods in use.
Strain-life method.
• Focuses on crack nucleation (Stage I).
• Detailed analysis of plastic deformation at localized regions.
Linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) method.
• Focuses on crack propagation (Stage II).
• Predicts crack growth with respect to stress intensity.
Stress-life method.
• Estimates life to fracture, ignoring details of crack nucleation and propagation.
• Based on comparison to experimental test specimens.

© McGraw Hill 11
 Fatigue Design Criteria

Four design philosophies have evolved to provide strategies for safe designs.
• Infinite-life design.
• Design for infinite life by keeping the stresses below the level for crack initiation.
• Safe-life design.
• Design for a finite life, for applications subject to a limited number of cycles.
• Due to the large scatter in actual fatigue lives under similar conditions, large safety
factors are used.
• Fail-safe design.
• Incorporates an overall design such that if one part fails, the system does not fail.
• Uses load paths, crack stoppers, and scheduled inspections.
• For applications with high consequences for failure, but need low factors of safety,
such as aircraft industry.
• Damage-tolerant design.
• Assumes existence of a crack, and uses LEFM to predict the growth, in order to
dictate inspection and replacement schedule.
• Best for materials that exhibit slow crack growth and high fracture toughness.

© McGraw Hill 14
 Stress-Life Method

The Stress-Life Method relies on studies of test specimens

subjected to controlled cycling between two stress levels, while
counting cycles to ultimate fracture.
Known as constant amplitude loading.
Reasonable model for many real situations, such as rotating
equipment.
Provides a controlled environment to study the nature of fatigue.

© McGraw Hill 15
 Constant Amplitude Stress Terminology 1

σmin = minimum stress.

σmax = maximum stress.
σm = mean stress, or midrange stress.
σa = alternating stress, or stress amplitude.
σr = stress range.

 max −  min Fig. 6–17a

a = (6 - 8)
2

 max +  min
m = (6 - 9)
2

© McGraw Hill 16
 Constant Amplitude Stress Terminology 2

Mean stress can be positive or negative.

Alternating stress is always a positive magnitude of fluctuation
around the mean stress.

Fig. 6–17a

© McGraw Hill 17
 Constant Amplitude Stress Terminology 3

Special Case: Repeated Stress.

Stress cycles from zero to a maximum.

Fig. 6–17b

© McGraw Hill 18
 Constant Amplitude Stress Terminology 4

Special Case: Completely Reversed Stress.

Stress cycles with equal magnitudes of tension and compression
around a mean stress of zero.
An r subscript (for reversed) may be added to the alternating
component when it is desired to clarify that it is completely
reversed, that is σar.

Fig. 6–17c

© McGraw Hill 19
 Completely Reversed Stress Testing

Most stress-life fatigue testing is done with completely reversed stresses.

Then the modifying effect of nonzero mean stress is considered separately.
A common test machine is R. R. Moore high-speed rotating-beam machine.
Subjects specimen to pure bending with no transverse shear.
Each rotation subjects a stress element on the surface to a completely reversed
bending stress cycle.
Specimen is carefully machined and polished.

Fig. 6–18

© McGraw Hill 20
 IIT KANPUR-NPTEL: Fatigue Testing

© McGraw Hill 21
 Fatigue Testing: RR Moore rotating beam fatigue testing machine

Source: Goggle images

© McGraw Hill 22
 The S-N Diagram

Number of cycles to failure at varying stress levels is plotted on log-log scale.

Known as Wöhler curve, or stress-life diagram, or S-N diagram.

Fig. 6–19

© McGraw Hill 23
 Low-Cycle Fatigue

Fatigue failure with less than 1000 cycles is known as low-cycle fatigue, and is often
considered quasi-static.
Yielding usually occurs before fatigue in this zone, minimizing the need for fatigue analysis.
Low-cycle fatigue often includes plastic strain, and is better modeled with strain-life
method.

Fig. 6–19
© McGraw Hill 24
 The Endurance Limit

Ferrous metals usually exhibit a bend, or “knee”, in the S-N diagram where it flattens.
The fatigue strength corresponding to the knee is called the endurance limit Se.
Stress levels below Se predict infinite life.
This is an important phenomenon for designers to use.

Fig. 6–19

© McGraw Hill 25
 S-N Diagram for Nonferrous Metals

Nonferrous metals and plastics often do not have an endurance limit.

Fatigue strength Sf is reported at a specific number of cycles.
Figure 6–20 shows typical S-N diagram for aluminums.

Fig. 6–20

© McGraw Hill 26
 The Idealized S-N Diagram for Steels 1

For steels, an idealized S-N diagram can be represented by three lines, representing the
median of the failure data.

Fig. 6–21

© McGraw Hill 27
 The Idealized S-N Diagram for Steels 2

Particular attention is given to the line between 103 and 106 cycles, where finite life is
predicted.
Two points are needed: f Sut at 103 cycles, and Se at 106 cycles

Fig. 6–21

© McGraw Hill 28
 Estimating the Endurance Limit 1

The endurance limit for steels has been experimentally found to have a reasonably strong
correlation to the ultimate strength

Fig. 6–22

© McGraw Hill Collated from data compiled by H. J. Grover, S. A. Gordon, and L. R. Jackson in Fatigue of Metals and Structures, Bureau of Naval Weapons Document NAVWEPS 00-25-534, 1960; and from Fatigue Design Handbook, SAE, 1968, p. 42.) 29
 Estimating the Endurance Limit 2

Simplified estimate of endurance limit for steels for the rotating-beam specimen, S'e
 0.5Sut Sut  200 kpsi (1400 MPa )

Se =  100 kpsi Sut  200 kpsi (6 - 10)
700 MPa Sut  1400 MPa


Fig. 6–22

© McGraw Hill Collated from data compiled by H. J. Grover, S. A. Gordon, and L. R. Jackson in Fatigue of Metals and Structures, Bureau of Naval Weapons Document NAVWEPS 00-25-534, 1960; and from Fatigue Design Handbook, SAE, 1968, p. 42.) 30
 Estimating the Fatigue Strength at 103 Cycles

The point f Sut at 103 cycles is

needed.
f is experimentally determined,
or often simply estimated to be
between about 0.8 and 0.9.
For steels, the elastic strain line
in the strain-life approach
indicates f should be related to
Sut as shown in the plot, and
expressed by the curve-fit
equations.

Fig. 6–23
( )S
f = 1.06 − 2.8 10 −3
ut + 6.9 10( −6
)S 2
ut 70  Sut  200 kpsi
(6 - 11)
f = 1.06 − 4.1(10 ) S
−4
ut (
+ 1.5 10 −7
)S 2
ut 500  Sut  1400 MPa

© McGraw Hill 31
 Equations for High-Cycle S-N Line 1

Write equation for S-N

line from 103 to 106 cycles
Two known points
At N =103 cycles,
Sf = f Sut
At N =106 cycles,
Sf = Se
Sf is the fatigue strength
correlating to a life N

Fig. 6–21

© McGraw Hill 32
 Equations for High-Cycle S-N Line 2

General form of the linear relationship on the log-log scale can be represented by
a power function known as the Basquin equation
S f = aN b (6 - 12)
a and b are the ordinate intercept and the slope of the line in log-log coordinates.

Fig. 6–21

© McGraw Hill 33
 Equations for High-Cycle S-N Line 3

To obtain a and b, substitute into Eq. (6–12) the two known points.
S f = aN b (6 - 12)

a=
( f Sut ) 2

(6 - 13)
Se
1  f Sut 
b = − log  (6 - 14)
3  Se 
These equations can be used to estimate a fatigue strength Sf
correlating to a life N when 103 < N < 106

© McGraw Hill 34
 Equations for High-Cycle S-N Line 4

If a completely reversed stress σar is given, setting Sf = σar in

Eq. (6–12) and solving for N gives,

S f = aN b (6 - 12)

 
1b

N =  ar  (6 - 15)
 a 

We replace Sf with σar to be very clear that the alternating stress for
the S-N diagram must be completely reversed.
For other stress situations, a completely reversed stress with the
same life expectancy must be used on the S-N diagram.
The effect of mean stress is covered in Section 6-11.

© McGraw Hill 35
 Basquin’s Equation

Basquin’s equation is commonly encountered in research literature

as an alternate version of Eq. (6–12).
It is usually expressed in terms of load reversals (two reversals per
cycle).
 ar = f ( 2 N )
b
(6 - 16)
b is the fatigue strength exponent, and is the slope of the line.
σ'f is the fatigue strength coefficient.
These parameters are empirically determined material properties.
This equation is equivalent to the strain-based version of Eq. (6–5)
used in the strain-life method.
This equation is more accurate, but requires the material parameters
to be obtained.
© McGraw Hill 36
 Example 6–2 (1)

Given a 1050 HR steel, estimate

(a) the rotating-beam endurance limit at 106 cycles.
(b) the endurance strength of a polished rotating-beam specimen corresponding to 104 cycles to failure.
(c) the expected life of a polished rotating-beam specimen under a completely reversed stress of 379
MPa.
Solution
(a) From Table A–20, Sut = 620 MPa. From Equation (6–10),
Answer Se = 0.5 ( 620 ) = 310 MPa
(b) From Figure 6–23, or Equation (6–11), for Sut = 620 MPa, f ≈ 0.86. From Equation (6–13),

0.86 ( 620 ) 
2

a= = 917.10 MPa
310
From Equation (6–14),
1  0.86 ( 620 ) 
b = − log   = −0.0785
3  310 
Thus, Equation (6–12) is
S f = 917.1N −0.0785

© McGraw Hill 37
 Example 6–2 (2)

For 104 cycles to failure, Sf = 917.1(104)−0.0785 = 445.02 MPa

(c) From Equation (6–15), with σar = 379 MPa,
1/ −0.0785
 379 
Answer N =  = 77 325 = 7.7 (104 ) cycles
 917.1 
Keep in mind that these are only estimates, thus the rounding of the
results to fewer significant figures.

© McGraw Hill 38
 Endurance Limit Modifying Factors

Endurance limit S'e is for carefully prepared and tested specimen.

If warranted, Se is obtained from testing of actual parts.
When testing of actual parts is not practical, a set of Marin factors are used to
adjust the endurance limit.
Se = ka kb kc kd ke Se (6 - 17)

where ka = surface factor.

kb = size factor.
kc = load factor.
kd = temperature factor.
ke = reliability factor.
S′e = rotary-beam test specimen endurance limit.
Se = endurance limit at the critical location of a machine part in the
geometry and condition of use.
© McGraw Hill 39
 Surface Factor ka 1

Stresses tend to be high at the surface.

Surface finish has an impact on initiation of cracks at localized
stress concentrations, due to plastic strain at the roots of surface
imperfections.
From a practical perspective, surface roughness is difficult to
separate from other stress raisers present due to such things
metallurgical treatment, cold working, residual stresses from
manufacturing operations.

© McGraw Hill 40
 Surface Factor ka 2

Lipson and Noll collected

data from many studies,
organizing them into
several common
commercial surface
finishes.
Clearly, surface effect is
significant.
Higher strengths are more
sensitive to rough
surfaces.

Fig. 6–24
© McGraw Hill Generated from data from C. J. Noll and C. Lipson, “Allowable Working Stresses,” Society for Experimental Stress Analysis, vol. 3, no. 2, 1946, p. 29. 41
 Surface Factor ka 3

Polished category.
• Matches the test specimen, so by definition has a value of unity.
Ground category.
• Includes ground, honed, and lapped finishes.
• Test data is scattered and limited for higher strengths.
Machined or cold-drawn category.
• Includes rough and finish machining operations.
• Includes unmachined cold-drawn surfaces.
• Test data is limited above 160 kpsi, and is extrapolated.

© McGraw Hill 42
 Surface Factor ka 4

Hot-rolled category.
• Represents surfaces typical of hot-rolled manufacturing processes.
• The data includes metallurgical and processing conditions, such as scale
defects, oxide, and partial surface decarburization.
• Not strictly a surface finish factor.
As-forged category.
• Heavily influenced by metallurgical conditions.
• Includes effects of significant decarburization.
• McKelvey and others note that forging processes are significantly improved
since the Lipson and Noll data from the 1940s. They recommend using hot-
rolled curve even for the as-forged condition.

© McGraw Hill 43
 Surface Factor ka 5

The Lipson and Noll curves are only intended to capture the broad
tendencies.
The data came from many studies under a variety of conditions.
In general, the curves are thought to represent the lower bounds of
the spread of the data, and are therefore likely to be conservative
compared to testing of a specific part.

© McGraw Hill 44
 Surface Factor ka 6

For convenience, the curves are fitted with a power curve equation.
ka = aS but (6 - 18)

Factor a Factor a
Surface Finish Sut , kpsi Sut , MPa Exponent b
Ground 1.21 1.38 −0.067
Machined or cold-drawn 2.00 3.04 −0.217
Hot-rolled 11.0 38.6 −0.650
As-forged 12.7 54.9 −0.758

Table 6–2

© McGraw Hill 45
 Example 6–3

A steel has a minimum ultimate strength of 520 MPa and a

machined surface. Estimate ka.
Solution
From Table 6–2, a = 3.04 and b = −0.217. Then, from Equation
(6–18)

ka = 3.04 ( 520)
−0.217
Answer = 0.78

© McGraw Hill 46
 Size Factor kb 1

The endurance limit of specimens loaded in bending and torsion has been
observed to decrease slightly as the size increases.
Larger parts have greater surface area at high stress levels, thus a higher
probability of a crack initiating.
Size factor is obtained from experimental data with wide scatter.
For bending and torsion or round rotating bars, the trend of the size factor data is
given by
( d 0.3) −0.107 = 0.879d −0.107 0.3  d  2 in
 −0.157
0.91d 2  d  10 in
kb =  (6 - 19)
( ) = 1.24d −0.107
−0.107
d 7.62 7.62  d  51 mm
1.51d −0.157 51  d  254 mm

For d less than 0.3 inches (7.62 mm), kb = 1 is recommended.
For axial load, there is no size effect, so kb = 1.
© McGraw Hill 47
 Size Factor kb 2

For parts that are not round and rotating, an equivalent round rotating
diameter is obtained.
Equate the volume of material stressed at and above 95% of the
maximum stress to the same volume in the rotating-beam specimen.
Lengths cancel, so equate the areas.
For a rotating round section, the 95% stress area is the area of a ring,

A0.95 = d 2 − ( 0.95d )  = 0.0766d 2
2
(6 - 21)
4 

Equate 95% stress area for other conditions to Eq. (6–21) and solve for d
as the equivalent round rotating diameter

© McGraw Hill 48
 Size Factor kb 3

For non-rotating round,

A0.95 = 0.01046d 2 (6 - 22)

Equating to Eq. (6–21) and solving for equivalent diameter,

d e = 0.370d (6 - 23)

Similarly, for rectangular section h x b, A95 = 0.05 hb. Equating to

Eq. (6–21),
d e = 0.808 ( hb)
12
(6 - 24)

Other common cross sections are given in Table 6–3.

© McGraw Hill 49
 Size Factor kb 4

Table 6–3

A0.95σ for common

non-rotating
structural shapes

© McGraw Hill 50
 Example 6–4

A steel shaft loaded in bending is 32 mm in diameter, abutting a filleted shoulder 38 mm

in diameter. Estimate the Marin size factor kb if the shaft is used in
(a) A rotating mode.
(b) A nonrotating mode.

Solution
(a) From Equation (6–19)
−0.107 −0.107
 d   32 
Answer kb =  = = 0.86
 7.62   7.62 
(b) From Table 6–3,
d e = 0.37 d = 0.37 ( 32) = 11.84 mm
From Equation (6–19),
−0.107
 11.84 
kb =  = 0.95
 7.62 
Answer

© McGraw Hill 51
 Loading Factor kc

Estimates for endurance limit are typically obtained from testing

with completely reversed loading.
Fatigue tests indicate axial and torsional loading results in different
relationship of endurance limit and ultimate strength.
The loading factor accounts for changes in endurance limit for
different types of fatigue loading.
Only to be used for single load types. Use Combination Loading
method (Sec. 6–16) when more than one load type is present.

1 bending

kc = 0.85 axial (6 - 25)
0.59 torsion


© McGraw Hill 52
 Temperature Factor kd 1

Fatigue life predictions can be complicated at temperatures

significantly below or above room temperature, due to complex
interactions between a variety of other time-dependent and
material-dependent processes.
See the discussion on pages 314-316, 11th edition for details.

© McGraw Hill 53
 Temperature Factor kd 2

For steels operating in steady

temperatures in the range 20°C
(70°F) to 380°C (720°F), the
primary fatigue life effect is
probably just the temperature effect
on the ultimate strength.
This relation is depicted graphically
in Fig. (2–17).
The ultimate strength relation can
be obtained from curve-fit
polynomials.

( ) ( )
ST S RT = 0.98 + 3.5 10−4 TF − 6.3 10−7 TF2 Fig. 2–17
(6 - 26)
ST S RT = 0.99 + 5.9 (10 ) T
−4
C − 2.1(10 ) T
−6
C
2

© McGraw Hill 54
 Temperature Factor kd 3

If ultimate strength is known for operating temperature, then just

use that strength. Let kd = 1 and proceed as usual.
If ultimate strength is known only at room temperature, then use
Eq. 6–26 to estimate ultimate strength at operating temperature.
With that strength, let kd = 1 and proceed as usual.
Alternatively, use ultimate strength at room temperature and apply
temperature factor Eq. (6–27) to the endurance limit.

kd = ST S RT ( 6 - 27)

© McGraw Hill 55
 Example 6–5
A 1035 steel has a tensile strength of 551.58 MPa and is to be used for a part that operates
in a steady temperature of 398.89°C. Estimate the endurance limit at the operating
temperature if
(a) only the tensile strength at room temperature is known.
(b) the room-temperature endurance limit for the material is found by test to be (S′e)21° =
268.89 MPa.
Solution
(a) Estimate the tensile strength at the operating temperature from Equation (6–26),
( ST S RT )750° = 0.99 + 5.9 (10−4 ) ( 398.89 ) − 2.1(10−6 ) ( 398.89 ) = 0.89
2

Thus, ( Sut )750° = ( ST S RT )398.89° ( Sut )21° = 0.89 ( 551.58 ) = 491.57 MPa
From Equation (6–10),
Answer ( Se )398.89° = 0.5 ( Sut )398.89° = 0.5 ( 491.57 ) = 245.78 MPa
and use kd = 1 since this is already adjusted for the operating temperature.
(b) Since the endurance limit is known at room temperature, apply the temperature factor
to adjust it to the operating temperature. From Equation (6–27),
kd = ( ST S RT )398.89° = 0.89
Answer ( Se )398.89° = kd ( Se )21° = 0.89 ( 268.89 ) = 239.64 MPa
© McGraw Hill 56
 Reliability Factor ke 1

From Fig. 6–22, S'e = 0.5 Sut is typical of the data and represents 50% reliability.
Reliability factor adjusts to other reliabilities.
Only adjusts Fig. 6–22 assumption. Does not imply overall reliability.

Fig. 6–22

© McGraw Hill 57
 Reliability Factor ke 2

Data analysis indicates standard deviations of endurance strengths of less than 8

percent.
Thus the reliability factor to account for this can be written as
ke = 1 − 0.08 za (6 - 28)
The transformation variate is defined by Eq. (1–5) and values are available from
Table A–10, with a few values given in Table 6–4.
Or, simply obtain ke for desired reliability from Table 6–4.
Reliability, % Transformation Variate za Reliability Factor ke
50 0 1.000
90 1.288 0.897
95 1.645 0.868
99 2.326 0.814
99.9 3.091 0.753
99.99 3.719 0.702

Table 6–4
© McGraw Hill 58
 Miscellaneous Effects

Reminder to consider other possible factors.

• Residual stresses
• Directional characteristics from cold working
• Case hardening
• Corrosion
• Surface conditioning, for example, electrolytic plating and metal
spraying
• Cyclic Frequency
• Frettage Corrosion
Limited data is available.
May require research or testing.
More discussion on pages 317-319, 11th edition

© McGraw Hill 59
 Example 6–6 (1)

A 1080 hot-rolled steel bar has been machined to a diameter of 25.4 mm. It is to be placed
in reversed axial loading for 70 000 cycles to failure in an operating environment of
343.33°C. Using ASTM minimum properties, and a reliability for the endurance limit
estimate of 99 percent, estimate the endurance limit and fatigue strength at 70 000 cycles.
Solution
From Table A–20, Sut = 772.21 MPa at 21.11°C. Since the rotating-beam specimen
endurance limit is not known at room temperature, we determine the ultimate strength at
the elevated temperature first, using Equation (6–26),
( ST S RT )343.33° = 0.99 + 5.9 (10−4 ) ( 343.33) − 2.1(10−6 ) ( 343.33) = 0.9450
2

The ultimate strength at 343.33°C is

then ( Sut )343.33° = ( ST S RT )343.33° ( Sut )21° = 0.945 ( 772.21) = 729.75 MPa
The rotating-beam specimen endurance limit at 343.33°C is then estimated from Equation
(6–10) as
Se = 0.5 ( 729.75 ) = 364.88 MPa

Next, we determine the Marin factors. For the machined surface, Equation (6–18) with
Table 6–2 gives
ka = aS but = 3.04 ( 729.75 )
−0.217
= 0.73

© McGraw Hill 60
 Example 6–6 (2)

For axial loading, from Equation (6–20), the size factor kb = 1, and from Equation (6–25) the loading
factor is kc = 0.85. The temperature factor kd = 1, since we accounted for the temperature in modifying
the ultimate strength and consequently the endurance limit. For 99 percent reliability, from Table 6–4,
ke = 0.814. The endurance limit for the part is estimated by Equation (6–17) as

Answer Se = ka kb kc kd ke Se
= 0.73 (1)( 0.85 )(1)( 0.814 ) 364.88 = 183.55 MPa
For the fatigue strength at 70 000 cycles we need to construct the S-N equation. From Equation (6–11),
or we could use Figure 6–23,
f = 1.06 − 4.1(10−4 ) ( 772.21) + 1.5 (10 −7 ) ( 772.21) = 0.84
2

0.84 ( 729.75 ) 
From Equation (6–13),
( f Sut )
2 2

a= = = 2050.51 MPa
Se 183.55
and Equation (6–14)
1  fS  1  0.84 ( 729.75 ) 
b = − log  ut  = − log   = −0.1741
3  Se  3  183.55 
Finally, for the fatigue strength at 70 000 cycles, Equation (6–12) gives

S f = a N b = 2050.51( 70 000 )
−0.1741
Answer = 292.08 MPa

© McGraw Hill 61
 Fatigue Stress-Concentration Factor 1

The stress-concentration factor Kt represents the local increase in

stress near a discontinuity, for static loading conditions.
For dynamic loading, it turns out that the fatigue strength of a
notched specimen does not experience the full amount of Kt.
• For discussion of potential explanations, see the last paragraph
on p. 320, 11th edition.
Consequently, for fatigue purposes, a fatigue stress-concentration
factor Kf is defined.

Fatigue strength of notch-free specimen

Kf = (6 - 29)
Fatigue strength of notched specimen

© McGraw Hill 62
 Fatigue Stress-Concentration Factor 2

Kf is a reduced version of Kt, taking into account the sensitivity of

the actual part to the stress concentrating effects in a fatigue
situation.
Kf is used in place of Kt to increase the nominal stress.

 max = K f  0 or  max = K fs 0 (6 - 30)

© McGraw Hill 63
 Notch Sensitivity 1

To quantify the sensitivity of materials to notches, a notch

sensitivity q is defined.
K f −1 K f s −1
q= or qs = (6 - 31)
Kt − 1 K ts − 1
q is between zero and unity.
When the notch sensitivity is zero, Kf = 1, and the material has no
sensitivity to notches.
When the notch sensitivity is one, the Kf = Kt, and the material is
fully sensitive to notches.
Solve Eq. (6–31) for Kf.
K f = 1 + q ( K t − 1) or K fs = 1 + qs ( K ts − 1) (6 - 32)

© McGraw Hill 64
 Notch Sensitivity 2

Notch sensitivities for specific materials are obtained experimentally.

For steels and aluminum, obtain q for bending or axial loading from Fig. 6–26.
Then get Kf from Eq. (6–32): Kf = 1 + q( Kt – 1)

Fig. 6–26

© McGraw Hill Source: Sines, George and Waisman, J. L. (eds.), Metal Fatigue, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969. 65
 Notch Sensitivity 3

Obtain qs for torsional loading from Fig. 6–27.

Then get Kfs from Eq. (6–32): Kfs = 1 + qs( Kts – 1)

Fig. 6–27

© McGraw Hill 66
 Notch Sensitivity 4

Alternatively, can use curve fit equations for Figs. 6–26 and 6–27
to get notch sensitivity, or go directly to Kf .
1
q= (6 - 33)
a
1+
r
Kt − 1
K f = 1+ (6 - 34)
1+ a r
r is the notch radius
a is a material characteristic length, roughly several times the
microstructure grain size, and can be thought of as near the size of
the material’s natural internal imperfections.
It is often shown in the form of the Neuber constant a
© McGraw Hill 67
 Notch Sensitivity 5

For steels, the Neuber constant can be obtained from curve-fit

equations.

Bending or axial:
( ) ( ) (
a = 0.246 − 3.08 10−3 Sut + 1.51 10−5 Sut2 − 2.67 10 −8 Sut3 50  Sut  250 kpsi )
(6 - 35)
(
a = 1.24 − 2.25 10 −3
)S ut (
+ 1.60 10 −6
)S 2
ut (
− 4.11 10 −10
)S 3
ut
340  Sut  1700 MPa

Torsion:
( ) ( ) ( )
a = 0.190 − 2.51 10−3 Sut + 1.35 10−5 Sut2 − 2.67 10 −8 Sut3 50  Sut  220 kpsi
(6 - 36)
a = 0.958 − 1.83(10 ) S −3
ut + 1.43 (10 ) S
−6 2
ut − 4.11(10 ) S−10 3
ut
340  Sut  1500 MPa

© McGraw Hill 68
 Notch Sensitivity for Cast Irons

Cast irons are already full of discontinuities, which are included in

the strengths.
Additional notches do not add much additional harm.
Recommended to use q = 0.2 for cast irons.

© McGraw Hill 69
 Example 6–7

A steel shaft in bending has an ultimate strength of 690 MPa and a shoulder with a fillet
radius of 3 mm connecting a 32-mm diameter with a 38-mm diameter. Estimate Kf using:
(a) Figure 6–26.
(b) Equations (6–34) and (6–35).
Solution
From Figure A–15–9, using D ∕d = 38 ∕ 32 = 1.1875, r ∕ d = 3 ∕ 32 = 0.093 75, we read the
graph to find Kt = 1.65.
(a) From Figure 6–26, for Sut = 690 MPa and r = 3 mm, q = 0.84. Thus, from Equation
(6–32)
Answer K f = 1 + q ( K t − 1) = 1 + 0.84 (1.65 − 1) = 1.55
(b) From Equation (6–35) with Sut = 690 MPa, a = 0.314 mm. Substituting this into
Equation (6–34) with r = 3 mm gives
Kt − 1 1.65 − 1
K f = 1+ = 1+ = 1.55
Answer 1+ a r 1+
0.314
3
© McGraw Hill 70
 Example 6–8 (1)

Figure 6–28a shows a rotating shaft simply supported in ball bearings at A and D and
loaded by a nonrotating force F of 6.8 kN. The shaft is machined from AISI 1050 cold-
drawn steel. Estimate the life of the part.
Solution
From Figure 6–28b we learn that failure will probably occur at B rather than at C or at the
point of maximum moment. Point B has a smaller cross section, a higher bending
moment, and a higher stress-concentration factor than C, and the location of maximum
moment has a larger size and no stress-concentration factor.

Fig. 6–28
(a) Shaft drawing showing all
dimensions in millimeters; all
fillets 3-mm radius.
(b) Bending-moment diagram.

© McGraw Hill 71
© McGraw Hill 72
 Example 6–8 (2)

We shall solve the problem by first estimating the strength at point B and
comparing this strength with the stress at the same point.
From Table A–20 we find Sut = 690 MPa and Sy = 580 MPa. The endurance
limit S′e is estimated as
Se = 0.5 ( 690) = 345 MPa

From Equation (6–18) and Table 6–2,

ka = 3.04 ( 690)
−0.217
= 0.74

From Equation (6–19),

kb = ( 32 7.62)
−0.107
= 0.86

Since kc = kd = ke = 1,
Se = 0.74 ( 0.86) 345 = 220 MPa

© McGraw Hill 73
 Example 6–8 (3)

To find the geometric stress-concentration factor Kt we enter Figure A–15–9 with D ∕d =

38 ∕ 32 = 1.1875 and r ∕d = 3 ∕ 32 = 0.093 75 and read Kt = 1.65. From Equation (6–35a)
with Sut = 690 MPa, a = 0.314 mm. Substituting this into Equation (6–34) gives
Kt − 1 1.65 − 1
K f = 1+ = 1+ = 1.55
1+ a r 1 + 0.314 3
The next step is to estimate the bending stress at point B. The bending moment is
225 F 225 ( 6.8)
M B = R1 x = 250 = 250 = 695.5 N  m
550 550
Just to the left of B the section modulus is I/c =πd3/32 = π323/32 = 3.217 (103) mm3. The
reversing bending stress is, assuming infinite life,

 ar = K f
MB
I c
1.55 =
695.5
3.217
( )
(10) −6 = 335.1 106 Pa = 335.1 MPa

This stress is greater than Se and less than Sy. This means we have both finite life and no
yielding on the first cycle.

© McGraw Hill 74
 Example 6–8 (4)

For finite life, we will need to use Equation (6–15). The ultimate strength, Sut
= 690 MPa. From Figure 6–23, f = 0.85. From Equation (6–13)

( f Sut ) 0.85 ( 690) 

2 2

a= = = 1564 MPa
Se 220

and from Equation (6–14)

1  f Sut  1  0.85 ( 690) 
b = − log   = − log   = −0.1419
3  Se  3  220 
From Equation (6–15),

−1/0.1419
  ar 
1/ b
 335.1
Answer N =
 a 
=
 1564 
( )
= 52 103 cycles

© McGraw Hill 75
 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses 1

The S-N diagram is applicable for completely reversed stresses.

Other fluctuating stresses exist.
Sinusoidal loading patterns are common, but not necessary.

Fig. 6–29

© McGraw Hill 76
 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses 2

Fluctuating stresses can often

be characterized simply by the
minimum and maximum
stresses, σmin and σmax.
Define σm as mean steady
component of stress (sometimes
called midrange stress) and σa
as amplitude of alternating
component of stress.
 max −  min
a = (6 - 8)
2
 max −  min
m = (6 - 9)
2

© McGraw Hill 77
 Characterizing Fluctuating Stresses 3

The stress ratio is defined as

 min
R= (6 - 37)
 max
It has values between –1 and +1, and is commonly used to
represent with a single value the nature of the stress pattern.
R = –1 is completely reversed
R = 1 is steady

© McGraw Hill 78
 Application of Kf for Fluctuating Stresses

For fluctuating loads at points with stress concentration, the best

approach when using the stress-life approach is to design to avoid
all localized plastic strain.
In this case, Kf should be applied to both alternating and midrange
stress components.

 a = K f  a0 (6 - 38)
 m = K f  m0 (6 - 39)

© McGraw Hill 79
 Characteristic Family of S-N curves

It is possible to generate S-N diagrams with increasing levels of mean

stress.

Fig. 6–30

© McGraw Hill 80
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 1

Historically, there have been many ways of plotting the data for
general fluctuating stress.
Includes Goodman diagram, modified Goodman diagram, master
fatigue diagram, and Haigh diagram.
Probably most common and simple to use is the plot of σa versus σm
which we shall call the fluctuating-stress diagram.

© McGraw Hill 81
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 2

From the family of S-N curves in Fig. 6–30, take sets of points correlating to the
same value of life.
With these points, plot constant-life curves on a fluctuating stress diagram
(Fig. 6–31).

Fig. 6–31
Fig. 6–30
© McGraw Hill 82
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 3

Now, from Fig. 6–31, focus in on the data points correlating to 106 cycles.
This is shown in Fig. 6–32 with many more data points to indicate the scatter of
data.

Fig. 6–31 Fig. 6–32

© McGraw Hill 83
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 4

With steels, with an idealized assumption that the endurance limit corresponds to a life of
106 cycles, these data points represent the boundary between finite life and infinite life.
The modified-Goodman line, or simply Goodman line, between Se and Sut represents a
conservative boundary for infinite life.
The equation for the Goodman line is
a m
+ =1 (6 - 40)
Se Sut

Fig. 6–32
© McGraw Hill 84
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 5

Assuming the stress at point A

would increase along the load line
from the origin (for example, the
ratio of σa /σm remains constant), a
factor of safety with respect to
infinite life can be defined.
nf = strength/stress = OB/OA
Or, applying a design factor to the
stresses, and solving for the
factor,
Fig. 6–32
(n  ) + (n  ) = 1
f a f m
(a )
Se Sut
−1
  
nf =  a + m  m  0 (6 - 41)
 Se Sut 
© McGraw Hill 85
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 6

Experimental data on normalized plot of σa versus σm.

Demonstrates little detrimental effect of negative mean stress.
Fatigue factor of safety for negative mean stress, based on horizontal line is.
S
nf = e m  0 (6 - 42)
a

Fig. 6–33

© McGraw Hill Data source: Thomas J. Dolan, “Stress Range,” Section 6.2 in O. J. Horger (ed.), ASME Handbook—Metals Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953. 86
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 7

To consider first-cycle yielding on the fluctuating-stress diagram,

Sy Sy
ny = = (6 - 43)
 max  a +  m
The absolute value allows the equation to be used for both positive
and negative mean stress.
It is helpful to plot the yield condition on the fluctuating stress-
diagram to compare to the fatigue criterion.
Setting ny = 1, results in a linear equation representing two lines,
known as Langer lines.
a + m = Sy

© McGraw Hill 87
 Fluctuating-Stress Diagram 8

Plotting the two fatigue lines and two yield lines defines a design space
with zones for infinite life, finite life, and first-cycle yielding.

Fig. 6–34
© McGraw Hill 88
 Example 6–9 (1)

A steel bar undergoes cyclic loading such that at the critical notch location the nominal stress
cycles between σmax = 275.79 MPa and σmin = 137.89 MPa, and a fatigue stress-concentration
factor is applicable with Kf = 1.2. For the material, Sut = 689.47 MPa, Sy = 586.05 MPa, and a
fully corrected endurance limit of Se = 275.79 MPa i. Estimate
(a) the fatigue factor of safety based on achieving infinite life according to the Goodman line.
(b) the yielding factor of safety.
Solution
(a) From Equations (6–8) and (6–9),
275.79 − 137.89 275.79 + 137.89
 a0 = = 68.95 MPa  m 0 = = 206.84 MPa
2 2
Applying Equations (6–38) and (6–39),
 a = K f  a 0 = 1.2 ( 68.95 ) = 82.74 MPa
 m = K f  m 0 = 1.2 ( 206.84 ) = 248.21 MPa
For a positive mean stress, apply Equation (6–41),
−1 −1
Answer     82.74 248.21 
nf =  a + m  =  +  = 1.52
Infinite life is predicted.  Se Sut   275.79 689.47 

© McGraw Hill 89
 Example 6–9 (2)

(b) To avoid even localized yielding at the notch, keep Kf applied to the stresses for the yield
check. Using Equation (6–43),
Sy 586.05
Answer ny = = = 1.8
 a +  m 82.74 + 248.21
No yielding is predicted at the notch at the first stress cycle. Of course, realize that with
continued cycling, at the grain level the cyclic stress will eventually lead to very localized
plastic strain (see Section 6–3). If there were truly no plastic strain, there would be no fatigue.

Fig. 6–35

© McGraw Hill 90
 Example 6–10 (1)
Repeat Example 6–9, except for a nominal stress that cycles between σmax = 413.68 MPa and σmin = −137.89 MPa.

Solution
(a) Equations (6–8), (6–9):

413.68 − −137.89 413.68 + −137.89

𝜎𝑎0 = = 275.79 MPa 𝜎𝑚0 = = 137.89 MPa
2 2
Equations (6–38), (6–39):

 a = K f  a 0 = 1.2 ( 275.79 ) = 330.95 MPa  m = K f  m 0 = 1.2 (137.98 ) = 165.47 MPa

Answer Equation (6–41):
−1 −1
    330.95 165.47 
nf =  a + m  =  +  = 0.69
 e
S S ut   275.79 689.47 

Infinite life is not predicted. In Example 6–15 this problem will be revisited to estimate the predicted
finite life.

© McGraw Hill 91
 Example 6–10 (2)

(b) Equation (6–43): n = Sy 330.95

= = 1.2
y
 a +  m 330.95 + 165.47
No yielding is predicted at the notch at the first stress cycle. The stress point,
fatigue line intercept, and yield line intercept are plotted as A′, B′, and C′,
respectively, on the fluctuating-stress diagram of Figure 6–35.

Fig. 6–35

© McGraw Hill 92
 Example 6–11 (1)
Repeat Example 6–9, except for a nominal stress that cycles between σmax = −137.89 MPa and σmin =
−275.79 MPa

Solution (a) Equations (6–8), (6–9):

−137.89 − ( −275.79 ) −137.89 + ( −275.79 )
 a0 = = 68.95 MPa  m0 = = −206.84 MPa
2 2
Equations (6–38), (6–39):
 a = k f  a 0 = 1.2 ( 68.95 ) = 82.74 MPa  m = k f  m 0 = 1.2 ( −206.84 ) = −248.21 MPa
For a negative mean stress, apply Equation (6–42),
Se 275.79
Answer nf = = = 3.3
a 82.74
Infinite life is predicted, but with a factor of safety more than double the similar problem in Example
6–9, with the only difference being the negative mean stress.

Fig. 6–35
© McGraw Hill 93
 Example 6–11 (2)

(b) Equation (6–43): Sy 586.05

ny = = = 1.8
a + m 82.74 + −248.21
This is the same as in Example 6–9, though it is with regard to compressive
yielding in this case. The stress point, fatigue line intercept, and yield line
intercept are plotted as A″, B″, and C″, respectively, on the fluctuating-stress
diagram of Figure 6–35. Note that the load lines for fatigue and yielding are
different this time.

Fig. 6–35

© McGraw Hill 94
 Fatigue Failure Criteria 1

Several fatigue failure criteria that are well known, each providing
options for various purposes.

Fig. 6–36
Access the text alternative for slide images.

© McGraw Hill 95
 Fatigue Failure Criteria 2

Goodman.
• Simple, linear.
• To the conservative side
of the data, so good for
design purposes, but not
typical of the data.
• Only for positive mean
stress.
Fig. 6–36
a m
Failure criterion: + =1 (6 - 40)
Se Sut
−1
  
Design equation: nf =  a + m  m  0 (6 - 41)
 Se Sut 
© McGraw Hill 96
 Fatigue Failure Criteria 5

Gerber.
• Parabolic.
• Historically known to provide
typical curve through the data,
though other curves actually
fit better.
• Tends to be non-conservative
near the ordinate axis.
• Only for positive mean stress.
Fig. 6–36
2
a  
Failure criterion: +  m  =1 (6 - 47)
Se  Sut 
2   2 m Se  
2
1  Sut    a   
Design equation: n f =     −1 + 1 +   m  0 (6 - 48)
2   m   Se    Sut a  
 
© McGraw Hill 97
 Fatigue Failure Criteria 6

Soderberg.
• Replaces Sut in Goodman
with Sy.
• Simple, ultra
conservative.
• Provides a simple check
for fatigue and yielding
with a single criterion.
Fig. 6–36
a m
Failure criterion: + =1 (6 - 49)
Se Sy
−1
 a m 
Design equation: n =  +  m  0 (6 - 50)
 e Sy 
S

© McGraw Hill 98
 Application to a Pure Shear Case

If the fluctuating stresses are entirely shear stresses, the fluctuating-stress

diagram can be adapted with the following adjustments:
• Replace normal stress σm and σa with shear stresses τm and τa.
• Apply the load factor kc = 0.59 to the endurance limit.
• Replace Sy with Ssy = 0.577 Sy, based on the relationship predicted by
the distortion energy theory.
• Replace Sut with Ssu.
For most materials, Ssu ranges from 65 to 80 percent of ultimate strength.
Lacking specific information, use the conservative estimate

S su = 0.67 Sut , (6 - 58)

Alternatively, pure shear cases can also use the methods of Section 6–16.

© McGraw Hill 99
 Example 6–12 (1)

For the part shown in Figure 6–37, the 76 mm diameter end is firmly clamped. A force F
is repeatedly applied to deflect the tip until it touches the rigid stop, then released. The
part is machined from AISI 4130 quenched and tempered to a hardness of approximately
250 HB. Use Table A–23 for material properties. Estimate the fatigue factor of safety
based on achieving infinite life, using each of the following criteria.
(a) Goodman (b) Gerber

Fig. 6–37

© McGraw Hill 100

 Example 6–12 (2)
The critical stress location is readily identified as at the fillet radius, on the bottom, where it
experiences repeated bending stress in tension. We shall first find the fully modified endurance limit,
then the stresses. From Table A–23, the closest material option has Sut = 895 MPa.
Machined ka = a ( Sut ) = 3.04 ( 985 )
−0.217
= 0.70
b
Equation (6–18):
Equation (6–23): Nonrotating round d e = 0.37 d = 0.37 ( 25.4 ) = 9.398
kb = 1.240d −0.107 = 1.240 ( 9.398 )
−0.107
Equation (6–19): = 0.98
Equations (6–10) and (6–17): Se = ( 0.70 )( 0.98 )( 0.5 )( 895 ) = 304 MPa
I =  d 4 64 =  ( 25.4 ) 64 = 20431.71 mm 4
4

3 EI 3 ( 220 ) (106 ) ( 20431.71)

Table A–9–1: Fmax = ymax 3 = 3.175 = 637.97 N
l 1000  406.4 3

Fmin = 0
637.99(406.4)(25.4 / 2)
 max = My I = = 161132.81 MPa
(20431.71)(1000)
 +  min
 m 0 = max
Equations (6–8), (6–9): = 161132.81 2 = 80566.41 MPa =  a 0
2
Figure A–15–9: r ∕ d = 0.1, D ∕ d = 3 ∕ 1 = 3, Kt = 1.8
Figure 6–26 or Equation (6–34): q = 0.9
Equation (6–32): K f = 1 + q ( K t − 1) = 1 + 0.9 (1.8 − 1) = 1.7
 m =  a = K f  0 = 1.7 ( 80566.41) = 138.7 MPa
Equations (6–38), (6–39):
© McGraw Hill 101
 Example 6–12 (3)

(a) Goodman
−1 −1
a m   138.6 138.6 
Answer Equation (6–41): n f =  +  =  +  = 1.63
 e
S S ut   303.7 895 

(b) Gerber
2  2
Equation (6–48): 1 S     2 S 
n f =  ut   a   −1 + 1 +  m e  
2   m   Se    Sut a  
Answer  
2   2(138.6)(303.7)  
2
1  895   138.6  
=     −1 + 1 +   = 1.98
2  138.6   303.7    895(138.6)  


© McGraw Hill 102

 Combinations of Loading Modes 1

When more than one type of loading (bending, axial, torsion)

exists, use the Distortion Energy theory to combine them.
Obtain von Mises stresses for both mean and alternating
components.
Apply appropriate Kf to each type of stress.
For load factor, use kc = 1. The torsional load factor (kc = 0.59) is
inherently included in the von Mises equations.
If needed, axial load factor can be divided into the axial stress.

© McGraw Hill 103

 Combinations of Loading Modes 2

For case of a shaft with bending stresses, torsional shear stresses,

and axial stress, the von Mises stress is of the form
( )
12
  =  x2 + 3 xy2

The von Mises stresses for alternating and mean stress elements are
12
  
( ) + ( K f ) ( a 0 ) axial  ( )
2
a =   K f ( ) ( )
2
 + 3  K fs  (6 - 66)
 bending a 0 bending axial   torsion a 0 torsion 

12
 
( ) ( m 0 ) bending + ( K f )axial ( m 0 )axial  ( )
2
 m =   K f (  m 0 ) torsion  
2
+ 3  K fs (6 - 67)
 bending  torsion  

© McGraw Hill 104

 Example 6–17 (1)

A shaft is made of 42- × 4- mm AISI 1018 cold-drawn steel tubing and has a 6-mm-diameter hole
drilled transversely through it. Estimate the factor of safety guarding against fatigue and static
failures using the Goodman and Langer failure criteria for the following loading conditions:
(a) The shaft is rotating and is subjected to a completely reversed torque of 120 N · m in phase with
a completely reversed bending moment of 150 N · m.
(b) The shaft is nonrotating and is subjected to a pulsating torque fluctuating from 20 to 160 N · m
and a steady bending moment of 150 N · m.
Solution
Here we follow the procedure of estimating the strengths and then the stresses, followed by relating
the two.
From Table A–20 we find the minimum strengths to be Sut = 440 MPa and Sy = 370 MPa. The
endurance limit of the rotating-beam specimen is 0.5(440) = 220 MPa. The surface factor, obtained
from Equation (6–18) and Table 6–2, is
ka = 3.04 S −ut0.217 = 3.04 ( 440)
−0.217
= 0.81
From Equation (6–19) the size factor is −0.107 −0.107
 d   42 
kb =  = = 0.83
 7.62   7.62 
The remaining Marin factors are all unity, so the modified endurance strength Se is
Se = 0.81( 0.83) 220 = 148 MPa

© McGraw Hill 105

 Example 6–17 (2)

(a) Theoretical stress-concentration factors are found from Table A–16. Using a ∕D = 6∕42 = 0.143
and d ∕D = 34∕42 = 0.810, and using linear interpolation, we obtain A = 0.798 and Kt = 2.37 for
bending; and A = 0.89 and Kts = 1.75 for torsion. Thus, for bending,

A  ( 0.798) 
Z net =
32 D
( )
D4 − d 4 =
32 ( 42) ( 42) − ( 34)  = 3.31(103 )
4 4

mm3

and for torsion

A  ( 0.89) 
J net =
32
(D 4
)
− d4 =
32 ( 42) − ( 34)  = 155 (103 )
4 4

mm 4

Next, using Figures 6–26 and 6–27, with a notch radius of 3 mm we find the notch sensitivities to be
0.78 for bending and 0.81 for torsion. The two corresponding fatigue stress concentration factors are
obtained from Equation (6–32) as
K f = 1 + q ( K t − 1) = 1 + 0.78 ( 2.37 − 1) = 2.07
K fs = 1 + 0.81(1.75 − 1) = 1.61
The alternating bending stress is now found to be

 xa = K f
M
= 2.07
150
( )
= 93.8 106 Pa = 93.8 MPa
Z net 3.31 10 (
−6
)
© McGraw Hill 106
 Example 6–17 (3)

and the alternating torsional stress is

( )
120 ( 42) 10−3
 xya = K fs
TD
= 1.61 ( )
= 26.2 106 Pa = 26.2 MPa
2 J net ( )
2 (155) 10 −9

The mean von Mises component σ′m is zero. The alternating component σ′a is given by

( ) ( )
12 12
a =  + 3 2
xa
2
xya = 93.82 + 3 26.22  = 104 MPa

For this completely reversed loading, the fatigue factor of safety nf is

Se 148
Answer n = = = 1.42
f
a 104
The first-cycle yield factor of safety is

Sy 370
Answer ny = = = 3.56
a 104

There is no localized yielding; the threat is from fatigue.

© McGraw Hill 107

 Example 6–17 (4)

(b) This part asks us to find the factors of safety when the alternating component is due to pulsating
torsion, and a steady component is due to both torsion and bending. We have Ta = (160 − 20) ∕ 2 =
70 N · m and Tm = (160 + 20) ∕ 2 = 90 N · m. The corresponding amplitude and steady-stress
components are 70 ( 42) (10−3 )
= 15.3 (106 ) Pa = 15.3 MPa
Ta D
 xya = K fs = 1.61
2 J net ( )
2 (155) 10−9

90 ( 42) (10 ) −3

= 19.7 (10 ) Pa = 19.7 MPa

T D
 xym = K fs m
= 1.61 6

2J net 2 (155) (10 ) −9

The steady bending stress component σxm is

 xm = K f
Mm
= 2.07
150
( )
= 93.8 106 Pa = 93.8 MPa
Z net (
3.31 10 −6
)
The von Mises components σ′a and σ′m, from Equations (6–66) and (6–67), are

a = 3(15.3) 
12
= 26.5 MPa
2

m = 93.82 + 3(19.7) 

12
= 99.8 MPa
2

From Equation (6–41),

−1 −1
    26.5 99.8 
nf =  a + m  = + = 2.46
Answer
 Se Sut   148 440 

© McGraw Hill 108

 Example 6–17 (5)

The first-cycle yield factor of safety ny is

Sy 370
Answer ny = = = 2.93
a + m 26.5 + 99.8
There is no notch yielding.

© McGraw Hill 109