5 Fatigue in Mechanical Components - F10 PDF

Fatigue and Fracture
( Basic Course )
Fatigue of Mechanical Components

Fatigue of Bolts
Professor Stephen D. Downing

Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering
© 2010 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

 Fatigue of Bolts
 Fretting Fatigue
 Welded Joints
 Case Study
Fatigue of Mechanical Components © 2011 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved 1 of 113
Fatigue Strength of Bolts
Su = 785 MPa
3.6
Fatigue Design Review Task 5 – Assembly of Available Fatigue Data Relevant to Pressure Equipment Design
TWI Report No: 123337/2/01, European Commission
Kf for Bolts
SAE Metric Rolled Cut Head

Grade Grade Threads Threads Fillet
0 -2 3.6 – 5. 8 2.2 2.8 2.1
4 -8 6.6 – 10. 9 3.0 3.8 2.3
High strength bolts fail by crack growth.
Not much benefit, in fatigue, of very high strength bolts.
Cut and Rolled Threads
Fatigue Design Review Task 5 – Assembly of Available Fatigue Data Relevant to Pressure Equipment Design
TWI Report No: 123337/2/01, European Commission
Bolted Joint Loading
Force
P
P
P
P
Tensile Loading Shear Loading
Tensile Loading
kb
kj
Bolt Preload Force
T = K Fi d
T Bolt torque
K Torque factor depending on bolt friction

Typically in the range of 0.1 – 0.3
Fi Preload force
D Bolt diameter
Variability in Bolt Force
99.9 %
Force
99 % 200 Data Points
Median 130
Cumulative Probability
COV 0.14
90 %
50 %
100 1000
Bolt Force, kN
10 %
1%
0.1 %
Preload force in bolts tightened to 350 Nm

Bolted Joint Analysis
bolt joint
Fb
δb extension δj contraction
Bolted Joint Analysis (continued)
preload force
Fi
Fb
kb kj
δb δj
Bolted Joint Analysis (continued)
P
Pb
Fb
Pj P
e e
P
kb
Pb = P
kb + k j
Fatigue Considerations
Stress Amplitude, MPa
10000
1000
b ~ -0.1
100
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Cycles
1
Nf ∝ 10
∆S
Bolt Stiffness
Pb Pb
Fb
Pj P P
Pj
e e
Stiffer bolts carry more of the external force
Joint Seperation
Fb
Fb = P
kb kj
Bolt Stiffness
springs in series
1 1 1
= +
d L1 k b k1 k 2
1 L1 L
= + 2
At L2 kb A1E A t E
Joint Stiffness
L
π 8 d2 E
kj =
L
3d
Joint Stiffness
kb
Pb = Fi + P
kb + k j
Define joint factor, C
Pb = Fi + C P
kb
C=
kb + k j
kb should be small and and kj large
πd2E
L 1
C= = = 0.11
πd E π8d E
2 2
9
+
L L
Aluminum and Steel Joints
Steel Bolt , Steel Flange Steel Bolt , Aluminum Flange
π 8d2 E steel π 8d2 Ealu min um

kf = kf =
L L
C = 0.11 C = 0.25
Fatigue Design
Traditional Method
Alternating stress
Se
Sa
0 Fi / At Su
Mean stress
Su − Fi / A t C ∆P
Sa = =
1 + 2K f 2 At
Shear Loading of Bolted Joints
P
P
Fi µFi Fi µFi
P
P
Tensile Loading Shear Loading
Mechanics of Shear Loading
Shear Failures of Bolts
Shear Fatigue Testing
Self Loosening of a Bolt
Self Loosening Mechanism (Sakai)
−∆N Normal force decreased
−∆µN
+∆N
F
+∆µN
Normal force increased

Net torque produced
Sakai, Investigations of Bolt Loosening Mechanisms, JSME 21 (159) 1978
Loosening Fatigue limit
Retightening of a Bolt
Summary
 Bolts have poor fatigue strength

 Bolt preload must be maintained
 Welded Joints
 Case Study
Fretting
shaft
Relative motion
between bearing
and shaft
www.eren.doe.gov/wind/feature.html
Interface Stresses
Stresses in the bar

P σ
τ
x
F F
Stresses in the flange
Clamping Force
Localized Sliding
Fretting Mechanism
www.nrim.go.jp:8080/public/english/act/1992/1718.html
Fretting Mechanism
High shear Cold welding Fretting fatigue

stresses at produces crack formed
local contacts wear particles
Fretting Cracks
100 µm
From Waterhouse, Fretting Corrosion, 1972 From ASM Fatigue and Fracture Handbook, 1996
Fatigue Behavior
Hoeppner and Gates, “Fretting Fatigue Considerations in Engineering Design”, Wear, Vol. 70, 1981, 155-164
Fretting Fatigue Limits
From Schijve Fatigue of Structures and Materials, Kluer, 2001

Variables Affecting Fretting
 Clamping pressure
 Cyclic stress level
 Sliding displacement
 Coefficient of friction
 Materials strength
 Surface roughness
 Environment
Fretting Testing
Clamping Pressure
Sliding Displacement
Funk, “Test Methods to Investigate the Influences of Fretting Corrosion on the Endurance” Materialprüfung, 1969, 221-227
Modeling
Contact pressure, po
Cyclic stress, σa
Friction stress, µpo
Modeling (continued)
 −  
S

σ ffl = σ fl − µpo  1 − e  K  
 
σffl fretting fatigue limit

σfl material fatigue limit
µ coefficient of friction
S sliding displacement, in mm
K material constant ~ 10-3 mm
Nishioka and Hirakawa, “Fundamental Investigations in Fretting Fatigue, Part 5 The Effect of Slip Amplitude”
Bull. JSME, 1969, 692-697
Friction Coefficient
Wharton, “The Effect of Different Contact Materials on the Fretting Fatigue Strength of an Aluminum Alloy”,
Wear, Vol. 26, 1973, 253-260
Fasteners
θ
p
σh q
σo
Farris et. Al. “Analysis of Widespread Fatigue Damage in Structural Joints, SAMPE Symposium, 1996, 65-79
Prevention
 Reduce surface shear stress

 Reduce normal force
 Reduce coefficient of friction
 Eliminate stress concentration
 Stepped shafts with large radii
 Compressive residual stress
 Shot peening
 Separation of surfaces
 Compliant coatings
Eliminate Contact
Kt = 3.5
Slotted hole
From Schijve Fatigue of Structures and Materials, Kluer, 2001
Eliminate Stress Concentration
Attachments
Fretting at the bolt hole even

when the bracket is unloaded
Summary
 Fretting is caused by sliding surfaces

 Fretting is a long life fatigue problem
 Welded Joints
 Case Study
Types of Welds
 Structural welds
 Spot welds
 Special Processes
 Laser
 Electron Beam
Weld Classifications
D E
F2 G
BS 7608 - Steel
400
B
300 C
D
200
E
100
F
F2
G W
0
105 106 107 108
Fatigue Life, Cycles
Crack Growth Data
σyield
252
Ferritic-Pearlitic Steel:
10-6
( )
273
392 da 3 .0
415
= 6.9 × 10 −12 ∆K MPa m
Crack Growth Rate, m/cycle
dN
Martensitic Steel:
10-7 da
dN
= 1.4 × 10 −10 ∆K MPa m ( ) 2.25
Austenitic Stainless Steel:
10-8
da
dN
= 5.6 × 10 −12 ∆K MPa m ( ) 3.25
5 10 100
∆K, MPa√m
Barsom, “Fatigue Crack Propagation in Steels of Various Yield Strengths”

Journal of Engineering for Industry, Trans. ASME, Series B, Vol. 93, No. 4, 1971, 1190-1196
BS 7608 - Aluminum
125
100
B
75 C
50
D
25 E
F
0
105 106 107 108
Sharp, “Behavior and Design of Aluminum Structures”,McGraw-Hill, 1992
Crack Growth Data
10-2
Crack Growth Rate m/cycle
Steel welds are 3 times

10-4 6061-T6 m/cycle stronger than aluminum
10-6 3
3X
10-8 1
A533B m/cycle
10-10
10-12
1 10 100
Cyclic Stress Intensity, MPa√m
Residual Stress from Welding
X X
tension
Y Y
compression
X X
tension
Y Y
compression
Weld Distortion
Weld Toe Residual Stress
σ
∆ε ∆ε
Yield
stress
Maximum stress at the weld toe

is nearly the same for any cycle
Mean Stress Effects
 As welded structures usually have the

maximum possible mean stress
 Stress relief, peening, etc. will have a
substantial effect on the fatigue life
Butt and Fillet Weld Test Data
1000
The good welds
Stress Range, MPa
100
99% survival with 95% confidence

10
Failures Run outs
103 104 105 106 107

Weld Terminations
1000 The bad welds
Stress Range, MPa
100
10
99% survival with 95% confidence

Failures Run outs
103 104 105 106 107

Sources of Inherent Scatter
 Weld quality
 Mean, fabrication and residual stresses
 Stress concentrations (geometry)
 Weldment size
 Material properties
Opportunities for Improvement !
The Good and Bad
Good weld design
Bad weld design
Typical Butt Weld
Weld Toe
Macroscopic LOF
3 mm
Weld Flaws
Even good welds contain initial crack like flaws

0.1 to 1 mm long. Reducing the size or eliminating
these flaws will substantially improve fatigue lives.
Nominal Stress ?
Stress Distributions in Weldments
t1
σpeak
E
r D
σhs
Θ σ
n
M A
t B
C
P
F
C
Various stress distributions in a T-butt weldment with transverse fillet welds;
• Normal stress distribution in the weld throat plane (A),
• Through the thickness normal stress distribution in the weld toe plane (B),
• Through the thickness normal stress distribution away from the weld (C),
• Normal stress distribution along the surface of the plate (D),
• Normal stress distribution along the surface of the weld (E),
• Linearized normal stress distribution in the weld toe plane (F).
Finite Element Models
Fine 3-D FE
mesh
Experimental Shell
elements
Coarse 3-D FE
mesh
Stress magnitudes and distributions obtained from various FE

models
Peak and Hot Spot Stress
σpeak
σhs
σn
Physical Meaning of Hot Spot Stress
V
σn σn
P
t
P Mc
σn = +
A I
V
σn σpeak σn
P
t
Hot Spot SN Curves
Weld Improvement
 Reduce weld toe stresses
 Stress relieve
 Improve local geometry
Macroscopic Shape
4
θ
θ = 60º r
3
θ = 45º
Kt
θ = 30º
2
θ = 15º
1
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
r/t
Kfmax
5 θ
t
4 r
K t or K f t β ~ 0.3 axial
K t = 1+ β β ~ 0.2 bending
3 r
2 Kt −1
Kf = 1 +
α
1+
ρ
ρ=α
Weld toe radius
K f max = 1 + 0.15 β Su t MPa m
Spot Weld Fatigue Data
105
Maximum Load, N
104 Tensile Shear
103 1
4
102 Coach-peel
10 2
10 103 104 105 106 107 108
Fatigue Data Bank for Spot Welds, University of Illinois
Spot Weld Modeling
Spotweld “Nugget” Beam Element
Beams are used as " force transducers " to obtain forces and moments
transmitted through the spot welds
Forces and moments are used to calculate " structural stresses "
Structural Stress Calculations
Structural stresses are calculated from the
forces and moments on each beam element :
My
My
My Fy
Fy
Fy
Fz
Fx
Fz
Fx Mx
Fz
Fx
Mx Sheet 1
Mx
Nugget
Sheet 2
Structural Stresses
Stresses in sheet :
∆S(θ) = − σ(Fx ) cos θ − σ(Fy ) sin θ + σ(Fx ) + σ(Mx ) sin θ + σ(My ) cos θ
Fx
σ(Fx ) =
πdt
Fz F M
Fy
σ(Fy ) = y y
πdt
1.744 Fz Fx
σ(Fz ) = 0.6 t
t2 t
M
1.872 Mx
σ(Mx ) = 0.6 t x
d t2 d
1.872 MY
σ(MY ) = 0.6 t
d t2
Structural Stress Correlation
104
Structural Stress, MPa
103
102
101
102 103 104 105 106 107
Fatigue Life
Things Worth Remembering
 Local weld toe stresses, geometry and flaws

control the life of weldments
 Welded Joints
 Case Study (Merrimac Ferry)
Collaborators
Continuous Remote Monitoring
of The Merrimac Free Ferry
David W. Prine
Infrastructure Technology Institute
Northwestern University
Darrell Socie
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Merrimac Wisconsin
Merrimac Ferries
1847 1963
http://www.shopstop.net/ferry/default.htm
Merrimac Free Ferry
Merrimac Ferry
Merrimac Free Ferry
Merrimac Ferry Colsac II
State Highway 113 over the Wisconsin River at

Merrimac
Began operation in 1963
33’ wide by 80’ long
Cable driven (two cables)
Basic Design
Supported by two 10’ by 80’ barges
Welded Box Beam
Cracks Found in Hull
Many cracks found in the ends where the

ramps are attached
Cracks also found in the center of the hull that could
lead to catastrophic failure, is the ferry safe?
Heavy Loads?
Remote Monitoring System
Merrimac WI
Evanston IL
Installing Strain Gages
Typical Gage Installation
Strain Gage Locations
2 1
Data Gathering
Ferry load tested with 34,000 # county truck
Time history data for both load test and live traffic
for 16 hours to check out system
Rainflow counting and burst history recorded for ~4

months until winter closing in December 1998.
Strain for Single Load Test
Gage Maximum Minimum Range

1_1 131 26 105
1_2 70 1 69
2_1 123 -158 281
2_2 44 -79 123
2_3 184 -922 1106
3_1 140 -562 702
3_2 123 -61 184
Barge End
875
Strain Gage (ustrain)
-875
541.028 Time (Secs) 1100.712
Note: strain offset indicating plastic deformation
Strain Readings
Gage Static 10-8-98 11-6-98
1_1 105 466 427
1_2 69 350
2_1 281 311 291
2_2 123 252
2_3 1106 1089
3_1 702 602 544
3_2 184 213
Live Traffic Tests:

30,772 cars
35 busses
291 trucks
BS 7608 - Steel
1000
F2
500
F
F2
G
W
0
105 106 107 108
Fatigue Analysis for Ends
No fatigue analysis needed if there is plastic

deformation in this welded structure.
WIDoT has lowered posted limit to exclude

all but passenger cars and pickup trucks.
Crack Growth Calculations
da
= C ∆K m
dN
m
da   a 
= C  ∆σ πa f   
dN  W 
N af
da
∫ dN = ∫   a 
m
C  ∆σ πa f   
0 ai
  W 
Major Variables
 Initial and final crack size

 Material properties
 Stress intensity factor
 Loading history
Crack Growth Data
Ferritic-Pearlitic Steel:
da
dN
= 6.9 × 10 −12 ∆K MPa m ( ) 3 .0
Martensitic Steel:
da
dN
= 1.4 × 10 −10 ∆K MPa m ( ) 2.25
Austenitic Stainless Steel:

da
dN
= 5.6 × 10 −12 ∆K MPa m ( ) 3.25
From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999

Edge Cracked Plate in Tension
 a πa 3 
0.752 + 2.02 + 0.37(1− sin ) 
a 2b πa  b 2b 
F  = tan 
b πa 2b  πa 
 cos
 2b 
Loading History for 1 Month
120
100
Number of Cycles
80
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Strain Range, µε
Results for Center Cracks
12
10
Crack Length
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Years of Service
Results
Data shows overloads are driving end cracks.

Data shows center cracks are not being driven
by traffic loading.
Where do the strains come from to drive the
center cracks?
Frozen Tundra of the Wisconsin River
Thermal Loading
Variable Temperature Air
Constant Temperature Water
Thermal Expansion/Contraction on Deck
Winter Tests in Ice
400
200
Strain, µε
-200
-400
-600
15
Air Temperature ºC
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
22 days
Colsac III
Construction May 16, 2003
http://fun.co.columbia.wi.us/fun/colsac/construction.asp
2 weeks later
The Associated Press - June 7, 2003
MADISON — The new Merrimac Ferry, which has

been closed for repairs, will not operate for the
foreseeable future due to a breakdown in repair
negotiations with the contractor.
The new $2.2 million ferry, known as the ColSac III,

broke down May 23 about a week after opening
to the public.
New and Improved
Portage Daily Register February 1,2004
The new Merrimac Ferry has spent more time being

down for repairs than the 40 year old vessel it replaced
did in its last three years.
Since its launch on May 16, The Colsac III has broken
down 69 times and spent 48 days out of service.
The old ferry was down 48 times since 2000 but never
out of service for a full day.
More …
The last breakdown came December 2, when valves

that control the braking system locked, stranding the
boat and vehicles in the middle of the river.
John Vesperman chief operations engineer, “We had to

pull it ashore with a huge tow truck after we were able
to free the stuck valves”
Strength, Fatigue and Fracture

5 Fatigue in Mechanical Components - F10 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

5 Fatigue in Mechanical Components - F10 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fatigue and Fracture

Fatigue of Mechanical Components

Professor Stephen D. Downing

© 2010 Darrell Socie, All Rights Reserved

SAE Metric Rolled Cut Head

High strength bolts fail by crack growth.

Not much benefit, in fatigue, of very high strength bolts.

K Torque factor depending on bolt friction

Preload force in bolts tightened to 350 Nm

Stiffer bolts carry more of the external force

π 8d2 E steel π 8d2 Ealu min um

Normal force increased

 Bolts have poor fatigue strength

Stresses in the bar

Stresses in the flange

High shear Cold welding Fretting fatigue

From Schijve Fatigue of Structures and Materials, Kluer, 2001

Friction stress, µpo

σffl fretting fatigue limit

 Reduce surface shear stress

Fretting at the bolt hole even

 Fretting is caused by sliding surfaces

Austenitic Stainless Steel:

Barsom, “Fatigue Crack Propagation in Steels of Various Yield Strengths”

Steel welds are 3 times

Maximum stress at the weld toe

 As welded structures usually have the

99% survival with 95% confidence

Failures Run outs

103 104 105 106 107

99% survival with 95% confidence

103 104 105 106 107

Opportunities for Improvement !

Bad weld design

Even good welds contain initial crack like flaws

Stress magnitudes and distributions obtained from various FE

104 Tensile Shear

Fatigue Data Bank for Spot Welds, University of Illinois

Spotweld “Nugget” Beam Element

 Local weld toe stresses, geometry and flaws

State Highway 113 over the Wisconsin River at

Supported by two 10’ by 80’ barges

Many cracks found in the ends where the

Ferry load tested with 34,000 # county truck

Rainflow counting and burst history recorded for ~4

Gage Maximum Minimum Range

Strain Gage (ustrain)

Note: strain offset indicating plastic deformation

Live Traffic Tests:

No fatigue analysis needed if there is plastic

WIDoT has lowered posted limit to exclude

 Initial and final crack size

Austenitic Stainless Steel:

From Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 1999

Data shows overloads are driving end cracks.

Constant Temperature Water

Thermal Expansion/Contraction on Deck

Construction May 16, 2003

The Associated Press - June 7, 2003

MADISON — The new Merrimac Ferry, which has

The new $2.2 million ferry, known as the ColSac III,

Portage Daily Register February 1,2004

The new Merrimac Ferry has spent more time being