Chapter 6 Solutions

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.
com ©
Chapter 6 1  f Sut  1  0.77(1600) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.081838
3  Se  3  700 
1
6-1 Eq. (2-21): Sut  3.4 H B  3.4(300)  1020 MPa  
1/ b
 900  0.081838
Eq. (6-16): N   rev      46 400 cycles Ans.
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5Sut  0.5(1020)  510 MPa  a   2168.3 
Table 6-2: a  1.58, b  0.085 ______________________________________________________________________________
Eq. (6-19): ka  aSutb  1.58(1020) 0.085  0.877
Eq. (6-20): kb  1.24d 0.107  1.24(10) 0.107  0.969 6-5 Sut  230 kpsi, N  150 000 cycles
Eq. (6-18): Se  ka kb Se  (0.877)(0.969)(510)  433 MPa Ans. Fig. 6-18, point is off the graph, so estimate: f = 0.77
______________________________________________________________________________
Eq. (6-8): S ut > 200 kpsi, so Se  Se  100 kpsi
6-2 (a) Table A-20: S ut = 80 kpsi
0.77(230)  313.6 kpsi
2 2
Se  0.5(80)  40 kpsi ( f Sut )

Eq. (6-8): Ans. Eq. (6-14): a 
Se 100
(b) Table A-20: S ut = 90 kpsi
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(90)  45 kpsi Ans. 1  f Sut  1  0.77(230) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.08274
3  Se  3  100 
‫مهندسی مکانیک و ساخت و تولید مرجع تخصصی دروس و نرمافزارهای مهندسی‬
(c) Aluminum has no endurance limit. Ans.
(d) Eq. (6-8): S ut > 200 kpsi, Se  100 kpsi Ans. Eq. (6-13): S f  aN b  313.6(150 000)0.08274  117.0 kpsi Ans.
______________________________________________________________________________
:‫کانال ما در تلگرام‬ ______________________________________________________________________________
6-3 Sut  120 kpsi,  rev  70 kpsi
6-6 Sut  1100 MPa = 160 kpsi
Fig. 6-18: f  0.82
telegram.me/iranmanufacturing
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.79
Eq. (6-8): Se  Se  0.5(120)  60 kpsi
:‫صفحه ما در اینستاگرام‬ ( f Sut ) 2  0.82(120) 
2 Eq. (6-8): Se  Se  0.5(1100)  550 MPa
Eq. (6-14): a   161.4 kpsi
( f Sut ) 2  0.79(1100) 
2
Se 60
www.instagram.com/iranmanufacturing Eq. (6-14): a   1373 MPa
1  f Sut  1  0.82(120)  Se 550
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.0716
   f Sut 
:‫صفحه ما در فیسبوک‬  Se   0.79(1100) 
3 3 60 1 1
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.06622
1 3  Se  3  550 
 
1/ b
 70  0.0716
Eq. (6-16):N   rev      116 700 cycles Ans.
www.facebook.com/iranmanufacturing  a   161.4  Eq. (6-13): S f  aN b  1373(150 000)0.06622  624 MPa Ans.
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
:‫فروشگاه سایت‬ 6-4 Sut  1600 MPa,  rev  900 MPa
6-7 Sut  150 kpsi, S yt  135 kpsi, N  500 cycles
iranmanufacturing.sellfile.ir Fig. 6-18: S ut = 1600 MPa = 232 kpsi. Off the graph, so estimate f = 0.77.
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.798
Eq. (6-8): S ut > 1400 MPa, so S e = 700 MPa
( f Sut ) 2  0.77(1600) 
2
From Fig. 6-10, we note that below 103 cycles on the S-N diagram constitutes the low-
Eq. (6-14): a   2168.3 MPa
Se 700 cycle region, in which Eq. (6-17) is applicable.
Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 1/66 Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 2/66

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

log  0.798  /3
Eq. (6-17): S f  Sut N  log f  /3
 150  500   122 kpsi Ans. Check: 6-12 D = 1 in, d = 0.8 in, T = 1800 lbfin, f = 0.9, and from Table A-20 for AISI 1020 CD,
S ut = 68 kpsi, and S y = 57 kpsi.
 ( S f ) ax 103  162(10 )
3 0.0851
 90 kpsi
r 0.1 D 1
The testing should be done at a completely reversed stress of 122 kpsi, which is below (a) Fig. A-15-15:   0.125,   1.25, K ts  1.40
 ( S f ) ax 106  162(10 )
6 0.0851
 50 kpsi d 0.8 d 0.8
the yield strength, so it is possible. Ans.
______________________________________________________________________________
The end points agree. Get the notch sensitivity either from Fig. 6-21, or from the curve-fit Eqs. (6-34) and
6-8 The general equation for a line on a log S f - log N scale is S f = aNb, which is Eq. (6-13). ______________________________________________________________________________ (6-35b). We’ll use the equations.
By taking the log of both sides, we can get the equation of the line in slope-intercept
d = 1.5 in, S ut = 110 kpsi a  0.190  2.51103   68  1.35 105   68   2.67 108  683   0.07335
6-10 2
form.
log S f  b log N  log a Se  0.5(110)  55 kpsi 1 1
Eq. (6-8): qs    0.812
a 0.07335
Substitute the two known points to solve for unknowns a and b. Substituting point (1, Table 6-2: a = 2.70, b =  0.265 1 1
Eq. (6-19): k a  aSut b  2.70(110) 0.265  0.777 r 0.1
S ut ),
log Sut  b log(1)  log a Since the loading situation is not specified, we’ll assume rotating bending or torsion so Eq. (6-32): K fs = 1 + q s (K ts  1) = 1 + 0.812(1.40  1) = 1.32
Eq. (6-20) is applicable. This would be the worst case.
From which a  Sut . Substituting point (103 , f Sut ) and a  Sut For a purely reversing torque of T = 1800 lbfin,
kb  0.879d 0.107  0.879(1.5) 0.107  0.842 Tr K fs 16T 1.32(16)(1800)

log f Sut  b log103  log Sut  a  K fs    23 635 psi  23.6 kpsi
Eq. (6-18): Se  ka kb Se  0.777(0.842)(55)  36.0 kpsi Ans. J d3  (0.8)3
From which b  1/ 3 log f ______________________________________________________________________________
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(68)  34 kpsi
 S f  Sut N (log f )/3 1  N  103 6-11 For AISI 4340 as-forged steel,
______________________________________________________________________________ Eq. (6-19): k a = 2.70(68)0.265 = 0.883
Eq. (6-8): S e = 100 kpsi
6-9 Read from graph: 103 ,90  and (106 ,50). From S  aN b Table 6-2: a = 39.9, b =  0.995 Eq. (6-20): k b = 0.879(0.8)0.107 = 0.900
Eq. (6-19): k a = 39.9(260)0.995 = 0.158
log S1  log a  b log N1  0.75 
0.107 Eq. (6-26): k c = 0.59
Eq. (6-20): kb     0.907
log S2  log a  b log N 2  0.30  Eq. (6-18) (labeling for shear): S se = 0.883(0.900)(0.59)(34) = 15.9 kpsi
From which Each of the other modifying factors is unity.
S e = 0.158(0.907)(100) = 14.3 kpsi For purely reversing torsion, use Eq. (6-54) for the ultimate strength in shear.
log S1 log N 2  log S 2 log N1
log a 
log N 2 / N1 For AISI 1040: Eq. (6-54): S su = 0.67 S ut = 0.67(68) = 45.6 kpsi
log 90 log106  log 50 log103 Se  0.5(113)  56.5 kpsi
 Adjusting the fatigue strength equations for shear,
log106 /103 ka  39.9(113) 0.995  0.362
 f Ssu   0.9(45.6)  105.9 kpsi
2 2
 2.2095 kb  0.907 (same as 4340) Eq. (6-14): a

S se 15.9
a  10log a  102.2095  162.0 kpsi Each of the other modifying factors is unity 1  f S su  1  0.9(45.6) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.137 27
log 50 / 90 3  S se  3  15.9 
b  0.0851 Se  0.362(0.907)(56.5)  18.6 kpsi 1 1
3
   b  23.3  0.137 27
( S f ) ax  162 N 0.0851 103  N  106 in kpsi Ans. Not only is AISI 1040 steel a contender, it has a superior endurance strength.
Eq. (6-16): N  a  
 a   105.9 
  61.7 103 cycles   Ans.
______________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 3/66 Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 4/66 Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 5/66
403 10   1.5
 6
(b) For an operating temperature of 750 F, the temperature modification factor, Sf Fa 2.25 Fa
n  a  K f =  3Fa
from Table 6-4 is k d = 0.90. a 7200 / b3 A (3 / 8)(2.5  0.5)
S se = 0.883(0.900)(0.59)(0.9)(34) = 14.3 kpsi Since a finite life was not mentioned, we’ll assume infinite life is desired, so the
b = 0.0299 m Select b = 30 mm. completely reversed stress must stay below the endurance limit.
 f Ssu   0.9(45.6)
2 2
Since the size factor was guessed, go back and check it now.
a   117.8 kpsi Se 25.4
d e  0.808  hb   0.808b  0.808  30   24.24 mm nf 
 2
1/ 2
S se 14.3 Eq. (6-25):
 a 3Fa
0.107
1  f S su  1  0.9(45.6)   24.2  Fa  4.23 kips Ans.
b   log     log    0.152 62 Eq. (6-20): kb     0.88
3  S se  3  14.3   7.62  ______________________________________________________________________________
1 1 Our guess of 0.85 was slightly conservative, so we will accept the result of
   b  23.3  0.152 62
N  a  
 a   117.8 
  40.9 103 cycles Ans.   b = 30 mm. Ans.
6-15 Given: D  2 in, d  1.8 in, r  0.1 in, M max  25 000 lbf  in, M min  0.
From Table A-20, for AISI 1095 HR, S ut = 120 kpsi and S y = 66 kpsi.
______________________________________________________________________________
Checking yield, Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5Sut  0.5 120   60 kpsi
6-13 L  0.6 m, Fa  2 kN, n  1.5, N  104 cycles, Sut  770 MPa, S y  420 MPa (Table A-20)  max 
7200
0.0303
106   267 MPa Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(120) 0.265  0.76
First evaluate the fatigue strength.
Eq. (6-24): d e  0.370d  0.370(1.8)  0.666 in
S 420
Se  0.5(770)  385 MPa ny  y   1.57 Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e 0.107  0.879(0.666) 0.107  0.92
 max 267
ka  57.7(770) 0.718  0.488
______________________________________________________________________________ Eq. (6-26): kc  1
Since the size is not yet known, assume a Eq. (6-18): Se  ka kb kc Se  (0.76)(0.92)(1)(60)  42.0 kpsi
6-14 Given: w =2.5 in, t = 3/8 in, d = 0.5 in, n d = 2. From Table A-20, for AISI 1020 CD,
typical value of k b = 0.85 and check later.
S ut = 68 kpsi and S y = 57 kpsi.
All other modifiers are equal to one. Fig. A-15-14: D / d  2 / 1.8  1.11, r / d  0.1 / 1.8  0.056  Kt  2.1
Eq. (6-18): S e = 0.488(0.85)(385) = 160 MPa Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(68)  34 kpsi
Table 6-2: ka  2.70(68) 0.265  0.88 Get the notch sensitivity either from Fig. 6-20, or from the curve-fit Eqs. (6-34) and
In kpsi, S ut = 770/6.89 = 112 kpsi Eq. (6-21): k b = 1 (axial loading) (6-35a). We’ll use the equations.
Eq. (6-26): k c = 0.85
a  0.246  3.08 103  120   1.51105  120   2.67 108 1203   0.04770
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.83 2
 f Sut   0.83(770)  2553 MPa

2 2
Eq. (6-18): S e = 0.88(1)(0.85)(34) = 25.4 kpsi
Eq. (6-14): a 1 1
Se 160 Table A-15-1: d / w  0.5 / 2.5  0.2, K t  2.5 q   0.87
a 0.04770
1 1
1  f Sut  1  0.83(770)  Get the notch sensitivity either from Fig. 6-20, or from the curve-fit Eqs. (6-34) and 0.1
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.2005 r
3  Se  3  160  (6-35a). The relatively large radius is off the graph of Fig. 6-20, so we’ll assume the
curves continue according to the same trend and use the equations to estimate the notch K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.87(2.1  1)  1.96
Eq. (6-13): S f  aN b  2553(104 )0.2005  403 MPa Eq. (6-32):
sensitivity.
I  ( / 64)d 4  ( / 64)(1.8)4  0.5153 in 4
Now evaluate the stress. a  0.246  3.08 103   68   1.51105   68   2.67 108  683   0.09799
2
M max  (2000 N)(0.6 m)  1200 N  m Mc 25 000(1.8 / 2)

1 1  max    43 664 psi  43.7 kpsi
Mc M  b / 2  6M 6 1200  7200 q   0.836 I 0.5153
 a   max      3 Pa, with b in m. a 1  0.09799
I b(b3 ) /12 b3 b3 b 1  min  0
r 0.25
Compare strength to stress and solve for the necessary b. Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.836(2.5  1)  2.25

Eq. (6-36): m  K f
 max   min
 1.96 
 43.7  0   42.8 kpsi Eq. (6-8): S e'  0.5Sut  0.5(470)  235 MPa Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(85) 0.265  0.832
2 2 Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  4.51(470) 0.265  0.88 Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879d 0.107  0.879(1.625) 0.107  0.835
Eq. (6-24): kb  1.24d 0.107  1.24(35) 0.107  0.85 Eq. (6-26): kc  1
 max   min  43.7  0 
a  K f  1.96   42.8 kpsi Eq. (6-26): kc  1 Eq. (6-18): S e  k a kb kc S e'  (0.832)(0.835)(1)(42.5)  29.5 kpsi
2 2
Eq. (6-18): S e  k a kb kc S e'  (0.88)(0.85)(1)(235)  176 MPa
Se 29.5
nf    0.49 Ans.
1  a  m 42.8 42.8 Se 176 K f  rev 1.72  35.0 
Eq. (6-46):     nf    1.14 Infinite life is predicted. Ans.
nf Se Sut 42.0 120 K f  rev 1.55  99.8  Infinite life is not predicted. Use the S-N diagram to estimate the life.
______________________________________________________________________________ Fig. 6-18: f = 0.867
n f  0.73 Ans.
 f Sut   0.867(85)
2 2
6-17 From a free-body diagram analysis, the Eq. (6-14): a   184.1
A factor of safety less than unity indicates a finite life. bearing reaction forces are found to be R A = Se 29.5
2000 lbf and R B = 1500 lbf. The shear-force  f Sut 
1 1  0.867(85) 
Check for yielding. It is not necessary to include the stress concentration for static and bending-moment diagrams are shown. Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1325
yielding of a ductile material. The critical location will be at the shoulder 3  Se  3  29.5 
S 66 fillet between the 1-5/8 in and the 1-7/8 in
ny  y   1.51 Ans. 1 1
 max 43.7
diameters, where the bending moment is  K   b  (1.72)(35.0)  0.1325
large, the diameter is smaller, and the stress Eq. (6-16): N   f rev      4611 cycles
______________________________________________________________________________ concentration exists.  a   184.1 
N = 4600 cycles Ans.
6-16 From a free-body diagram analysis, the bearing reaction forces are found to be 2.1 kN at ______________________________________________________________________________
the left bearing and 3.9 kN at the right bearing. The critical location will be at the
shoulder fillet between the 35 mm and the 50 mm diameters, where the bending moment 6-18 From a free-body diagram analysis, the
is large, the diameter is smaller, and the stress concentration exists. The bending moment M = 16 000 – 500 (2.5) = 14 750 lbf · in bearing reaction forces are found to be R A =
at this point is M = 2.1(200) = 420 kN·mm. With a rotating shaft, the bending stress will 1600 lbf and R B = 2000 lbf. The shear-force
be completely reversed. With a rotating shaft, the bending stress will and bending-moment diagrams are shown.
be completely reversed. The critical location will be at the shoulder
Mc 420 (35 / 2)
 rev    0.09978 kN/mm 2  99.8 MPa Mc 14 750(1.625 / 2) fillet between the 1-5/8 in and the 1-7/8 in
I ( / 64)(35)4  rev    35.0 kpsi
I ( / 64)(1.625) 4 diameters, where the bending moment is
This stress is far below the yield strength of 390 MPa, so yielding is not predicted. Find large, the diameter is smaller, and the stress
This stress is far below the yield strength of 71 kpsi, so yielding is not predicted.
the stress concentration factor for the fatigue analysis. concentration exists.
Fig. A-15-9: r/d = 0.0625/1.625 = 0.04, D/d = 1.875/1.625 = 1.15, K t =1.95
Fig. A-15-9: r/d = 3/35 = 0.086, D/d = 50/35 = 1.43, K t =1.7 M = 12 800 + 400 (2.5) = 13 800 lbf · in
Get the notch sensitivity either from Fig. 6-20, or from the curve-fit Eqs. (6-34) and
(6-35a). We will use the equations. With a rotating shaft, the bending stress will
Get the notch sensitivity either from Fig. 6-20, or from the curve-fit Eqs. (6-34) and
a  0.246  3.08 103   85   1.51105   85  2.67 108   85  0.07690
2 3
be completely reversed.
(6-35a). We’ll use the equations, with S ut = 470 MPa = 68.2 kpsi and r = 3 mm = 0.118 Mc 13 800(1.625 / 2)
in. 1 1  rev    32.8 kpsi
q   0.76 . I 
( / 64)(1.625) 4
a  0.246  3.08 103   68.2   1.51105   68.2   2.67 108   68.2   0.09771 a 1  0.07690
2 3
1
r 0.0625
1 1 This stress is far below the yield strength of 71 kpsi, so yielding is not predicted.
q   0.78 Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.76(1.95  1)  1.72
a 1  0.09771
1
r 0.118 Fig. A-15-9: r/d = 0.0625/1.625 = 0.04, D/d = 1.875/1.625 = 1.15, K t =1.95
Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.78(1.7  1)  1.55 Eq. (6-8): S e'  0.5Sut  0.5(85)  42.5 kpsi
Get the notch sensitivity either from Fig. 6-20, or from the curve-fit Eqs. (6-34) and First, we’ll evaluate the stress. From a free-body diagram analysis, the reaction forces at Sf 41.9
nf    1.6
(6-35a). We will use the equations the bearings are R 1 = 2 kips and R 2 = 6 kips. The critical stress location is in the middle
of the span at the shoulder, where the bending moment is high, the shaft diameter is
K f  rev 1.55  203.7 / d 3 
a  0.246  3.08 10  85  1.5110  85  2.67 10  85
3 5 8 smaller, and a stress concentration factor exists. If the critical location is not obvious, d = 2.29 in
 0.07690
2 3
prepare a complete bending moment diagram and evaluate at any potentially critical
1 1 locations. Evaluating at the critical shoulder, Since the size factor and notch sensitivity were guessed, go back and check them now.
q   0.76
a 1  0.07690
1 M  2 kip 10 in   20 kip  in kb  0.91d 0.157  0.91 2.29 
0.157
r 0.0625 Eq. (6-20):  0.80
Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.76(1.95  1)  1.72 Mc M  d / 2  32 M 32  20  203.7
 rev      kpsi
I  d 4 / 64  d 3 d3 d3 Our guess of 0.85 was conservative. From Fig. 6-20 with r = d/10 = 0.229 in, we are off
the graph, but it appears our guess for q is low. Assuming the trend of the graph
Eq. (6-8): S  0.5Sut  0.5(85)  42.5 kpsi
'
e Now we’ll get the notch sensitivity and stress concentration factor. The notch sensitivity continues, we’ll choose q = 0.91 and iterate the problem with the new values of k b and q.
Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(85) 0.265  0.832 depends on the fillet radius, which depends on the unknown diameter. For now, we’ll Intermediate results are S e = 36.5 kpsi, S f = 39.6 kpsi, and K f = 1.59. This gives
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879d 0.107  0.879(1.625) 0.107  0.835 estimate a value for q = 0.85 from observation of Fig. 6-20, and check it later.
Sf 39.6
Eq. (6-26): kc  1 nf    1.6
Eq. (6-18): S e  k a kb kc S e'  (0.832)(0.835)(1)(42.5)  29.5 kpsi
Fig. A-15-9: D / d  1.4d / d  1.4, r / d  0.1d / d  0.1, Kt  1.65 K f  rev 1.59   203.7 / d 3 
d = 2.36 in Ans.
Se 29.5 Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.85(1.65  1)  1.55
nf    0.52 Ans.
K f  rev 1.72  32.8  A quick check of k b and q show that our estimates are still reasonable for this diameter.
Infinite life is not predicted. Use the S-N diagram to estimate the life. Now we will evaluate the fatigue strength. ______________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.867
Se'  0.5(120)  60 kpsi Se  40 kpsi, S y  60 kpsi, Sut  80 kpsi,  m  15 kpsi,  a  25 kpsi,  m   a  0
 f Sut    0.867(85)  184.1
2 2 6-20
Eq. (6-14): a ka  2.70(120)0.265  0.76 Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
Se 29.5
 a    a2  3a2 
1/2
  252  3  0  
1/2 2
 25.00 kpsi
1  f Sut  1  0.867(85)   
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1325
Since the diameter is not yet known, assume a typical value of k b = 0.85 and check later.
 29.5   m     3 
1/2
3  Se  3 All other modifiers are equal to one. 2 1/2
  02  3 15  
2
2
 25.98 kpsi
m m
 
    max 
1/ 2
  a   m   3  a   m  
1 1/ 2
S e = (0.76)(0.85)(60) = 38.8 kpsi  max  3 max
1 2 2
 K   b  (1.72)(32.8)  0.1325
2 2
N   f rev     7527 cycles  

Eq. (6-16): 
 a   184.1 
 
1/ 2
Determine the desired fatigue strength from the S-N diagram.   252  3 152   36.06 kpsi
______________________________________________________________________________ Fig. 6-18: f = 0.82 S 60
ny  y   1.66 Ans.
 f Sut    0.82(120)  249.6  max

2 2
36.06
6-19 Table A-20: Sut  120 kpsi, S y  66 kpsi Eq. (6-14): a
Se 38.8
N = (950 rev/min)(10 hr)(60 min/hr) = 570 000 cycles (a) Modified Goodman, Table 6-6
1  f Sut  1  0.82(120) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1347 1
One approach is to guess a diameter and solve the problem as an iterative analysis 3  Se  3  38.8  nf   1.05 Ans.
problem. Alternatively, we can estimate the few modifying parameters that are dependent (25.00 / 40)  (25.98 / 80)
0.1347
on the diameter and solve the stress equation for the diameter, then iterate to check the Eq. (6-13): S f  aN  249.6(570 000)
b
 41.9 kpsi
estimates. We’ll use the second approach since it should require only one iteration, since (b) Gerber, Table 6-7
the estimates on the modifying parameters should be pretty close.  2 
 2(25.98)(40)  
2
Compare strength to stress and solve for the necessary d. 1  80   25.00  
nf      1  1     1.31 Ans.
2  25.98   40    80(25.00)  
 

  
 a
(c) ASME-Elliptic, Table 6-8
   a   m   3  a   m  
2 1/ 2 Se 40
1/ 2
 max  3
2
1  nf    0.77
2 2
nf Ans.
max max
  Se  a 51.96
1 2 1/ 2
nf   1.32 Ans.  12  0   3 10  15    44.93 kpsi
2
(25.00 / 40)  (25.98 / 60) 2
2
  (c) ASME-Elliptic, Table 6-8
______________________________________________________________________________ S 60
ny  y   1.34 Ans.
 max
 44.93 nf 
1
 0.77 Ans.
6-21 Se  40 kpsi, S y  60 kpsi, Sut  80 kpsi,  m  20 kpsi,  a  10 kpsi,  m   a  0 (51.96 / 40) 2
Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses. (a) Modified Goodman, Table 6-6
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. Since ' m = 0,
 a    a2  3 a2   102  3  0  
1/ 2 2 1/2
 10.00 kpsi the stress state is completely reversed and the S-N diagram is applicable for ' a .
  1
nf   1.17 Ans. Fig. 6-18: f = 0.875
 m    m2  3 m2   02  3  20   (21.07 / 40)  (25.98 / 80)
1/2 2 1/2
 34.64 kpsi
  ( f Sut ) 2  0.875(80) 
2
Eq. (6-14): a   122.5

   
1/2
  a   m   3  a   m  
1/2
 max  3
2 2
2 2 (b) Gerber, Table 6-7 Se 40
max max
 
 2 
 f Sut   0.875(80) 
 2(25.98)(40)   1 1
2
1  80   21.07  
  b   log     log    0.08101
1/2
 102  3 202   36.06 kpsi nf       1  1      1.47 Ans. Eq. (6-15):
2  25.98   40    80(21.07)  
3  Se  3  40 
S 60   1
ny  y   1.66 Ans. (c) ASME-Elliptic, Table 6-8  
1/ b
 51.96  0.08101
 max
 36.06 Eq. (6-16):N   rev      39 600 cycles Ans.
 a   122.5 
1 ______________________________________________________________________________
(a) Modified Goodman, Table 6-6 nf   1.47 Ans.
1 (21.07 / 40) 2  (25.98 / 60) 2
nf   1.46 Ans. 6-24 S e  40 kpsi, S y  60 kpsi, Sut  80 kpsi,  a  15 kpsi,  m  15 kpsi,  m   a  0
(10.00 / 40)  (34.64 / 80) ______________________________________________________________________________
Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
(b) Gerber, Table 6-7
S e  40 kpsi, S y  60 kpsi, Sut  80 kpsi,  a  30 kpsi,  m   a   a  0
 a    a2  3a2 
1/2
 02  3 15  
6-23 1/2 2
 25.98 kpsi
 2  
 2(34.64)(40)  
2
1  80   10.00  
 m    m2  3 m2 
nf  Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
  1  1      1.74
1/ 2
 152  3  0  
1/2
   Ans. 2
2  34.64   40    15.00 kpsi
 
 80(10.00)  
 
1/2
 02  3  30  
1/2
 a  a2  3 a2
2
   51.96 kpsi
 
    max 
1/ 2
  a   m   3  a   m  
1/ 2
 max  3 max
2 2 2 2
 
      3   0 kpsi
1/2
2 2
(c) ASME-Elliptic, Table 6-8 m m m
2 1/2
 15   3 15    30.00 kpsi
2
      3   
2 1/ 2
  m   3  a   m    
1/ 2 2
2 2
1  
nf   1.59 Ans.
max max max a
S 60
(10.00 / 40) 2  (34.64 / 60) 2 1/ 2 ny  y   2.00 Ans.
 3  30    51.96 kpsi
2
______________________________________________________________________________    max
 30
S 60
6-22 S e  40 kpsi, S y  60 kpsi, Sut  80 kpsi,  a  10 kpsi,  m  15 kpsi,  a  12 kpsi,  m  0 ny  y   1.15 Ans. (a) Modified Goodman, Table 6-6
 max
 51.96
Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses. 1
nf   1.19 Ans.
 a    a2  3 a2 
1/ 2 (a) Modified Goodman, Table 6-6
 122  3 10   (25.98 / 40)  (15.00 / 80)
1/2 2
 21.07 kpsi
 
1
nf   0.77
 m    m2  3 m2 
2 1/ 2
  02  3 15  
1/2 Ans.
 25.98 kpsi (b) Gerber, Table 6-7
  (51.96 / 40)
 2 
 2(15.00)(40)  
2
1  80   25.98  
(b) Gerber criterion of Table 6-7 is only valid for m > 0; therefore use Eq. (6-47). nf       1  1      1.43 Ans.
2  15.00   40    80(25.98)  
 
(c) ASME-Elliptic, Table 6-8 ( f Sut )2  0.87(590) ASME-Elliptic criteria:
2
Eq. (6-14): a   1263

Se 208.6
1 1 1
nf   1.44 Ans. 1  f Sut  1  0.87(590)  nf  
(25.98 / 40) 2  (15.00 / 60) 2 Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1304 ( a / Se ) 2  ( m / S y ) 2 (92.63 / 208.6)2  (231.6 / 490)2
______________________________________________________________________________ 3  Se  3  208.6 
1 = 1.54 Ans.
 
1/ b
 324.2  0.1304
6-25 Given: Fmax  28 kN, Fmin  28 kN . From Table A-20, for AISI 1040 Eq. (6-16):N   rev      33 812 cycles The results are consistent with Fig. 6-27, where for a mean stress that is about half of the
 a   1263 
CD, Sut  590 MPa, S y  490 MPa, yield strength, the Modified Goodman line should predict failure significantly before the
N = 34 000 cycles Ans. other two.
Check for yielding
________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
F 28 000
 max  max   147.4 N/mm2  147.4 MPa
A 10(25  6) 6-26 Sut  590 MPa, S y  490 MPa, Fmax  28 kN, Fmin  12 kN 6-27 Sut  590 MPa, S y  490 MPa
Sy490 Check for yielding
ny  
 3.32 Ans. (a) Fmax  28 kN, Fmin  0 kN
 max 147.4 F 28 000
Determine the fatigue factor of safety based on infinite life  max  max   147.4 N/mm2  147.4 MPa
A 10(25  6) Check for yielding
S 490 Fmax 28 000
Eq. (6-8): S e'  0.5(590)  295 MPa ny  y   3.32 Ans.  max    147.4 N/mm2  147.4 MPa
0.265  max 147.4 A 10(25  6)
Eq. (6-19): k a  aS  4.51(590)
b
ut  0.832
Eq. (6-21): kb  1 (axial) Sy 490
Determine the fatigue factor of safety based on infinite life. ny    3.32 Ans.
Eq. (6-26): kc  0.85 From Prob. 6-25: S e  208.6 MPa, K f  2.2  max 147.4
Eq. (6-18): S e  k a kb kc S e'  (0.832)(1)(0.85)(295)  208.6 MPa F F 28 000  12 000  From Prob. 6-25: S e  208.6 MPa, K f  2.2
 a  K f max min  2.2  92.63 MPa
2A 2(10)(25  6) Fmax  Fmin 28 000  0
Fig. 6-20: q = 0.83 a  K f  2.2  162.1 MPa
Fig. A-15-1: d / w  0.24, K t  2.44 Fmax  Fmin  28 000  12 000  2A 2(10)(25  6)
m  K f  2.2    231.6 MPa
K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.83(2.44  1)  2.20 2A  2(10)(25  6)  F F  28 000  0 
 m  K f max min  2.2    162.1 MPa
Modified Goodman criteria: 2A  2(10)(25  6) 
Fmax  Fmin 28 000   28 000 
a  K f  2.2  324.2 MPa 1  a  m 92.63 231.6 1  a  m 162.1 162.1
2A 2(10)(25  6)        
n f Se Sut 208.6 590 nf Se Sut 208.6 590
Fmax  Fmin
m  K f 0
2A n f  1.20 Ans. n f  0.95 Ans.
1  a  m 324.2 0
    Gerber criteria: Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an
n f Se Sut 208.6 590 equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12).
2  2
n f  0.64 1S    2 S 
Ans. n f   ut  a  1  1   m e  
2   m  Se  a
 Sut  a  
162.1
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. Since m = 0,    rev    223.5 MPa
1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (162.1 / 590)
the stress state is completely reversed and the S-N diagram is applicable for a .
 2
 2(231.6)(208.6)  
2
1  590  92.63 
   1  1    Fig. 6-18: f = 0.87
S ut = 590/6.89 = 85.6 kpsi 2  231.6  208.6   590(92.63)  
  ( f Sut )2  0.87(590)
2
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.87 Eq. (6-14): a   1263

n f  1.49 Ans. Se 208.6

1  f Sut  1  0.87(590)  Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. For a negative 1  f Sut  1  0.775(200) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1304 mean stress, we shall assume the equivalent completely reversed stress is the same as the Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.228
3  Se  3  208.6  actual alternating stress. Get a and b from part (a).
3  Se  3  32.1 
1 1
 
1/ b 1
 223.5   
1/ b
   35.54  0.228
0.1304 1/ b
N   rev    586 000 cycles  231.6  0.1304
N   rev    637 000 cycles
Eq. (6-16):  Ans. Eq. (6-16):N   rev      446 000 cycles Ans. Eq. (6-16):  Ans.
 a   1263   a   1263   a   748.4 
______________________________________________________________________________
(b) Fmax  28 kN, Fmin  12 kN (b) Gerber criterion, Table 6-7
6-28 Eq. (2-21): S ut = 0.5(400) = 200 kpsi
The maximum load is the same as in part (a), so 2  2
1S    2 S 
 max  147.4 MPa n f   ut  a  1  1   m e  
S e'  0.5(200)  100 kpsi 2   m  Se   Sut  a  
Eq. (6-8):
n y  3.32 Ans. 0.718  
Eq. (6-19): ka  aS  14.4(200)
b
ut  0.321
 2 
 2(69.54)(32.1)  
2
Factor of safety based on infinite life: Eq. (6-25): de  0.37d  0.37(0.375)  0.1388 in 1  200  23.18 
   1  1   
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879d e 0.107  0.879(0.1388) 0.107  1.09 2  69.54  32.1   200(23.18)  
F F 28 000  12 000  
 a  K f max min  2.2  92.63 MPa  1.16 Infinite life is predicted Ans.
2A 2(10)(25  6) Since we have used the equivalent diameter method to get the size factor, and in doing so
______________________________________________________________________________
Fmax  Fmin  28 000  12 000  introduced greater uncertainties, we will choose not to use a size factor greater than one.
m  K f  2.2    231.6 MPa Let k b = 1.
2A  2(10)(25  6)  6-29 E  207.0 GPa
1  a  m 92.63 231.6 Se  (0.321)(1)(100)  32.1 kpsi 1
    Eq. (6-18): (a) I  (20)(43 )  106.7 mm 4
n f Se Sut 208.6 590 40  20 40  20 12
Fa   10 lb Fm   30 lb Fl 3 3EIy
n f  1.20 Ans. 2 2 y  F 3
32 M a 32(10)(12) 3EI l
a    23.18 kpsi 3(207)(109 )(106.7)(1012 )(2)(103 )
(c) Fmax  12 kN, Fmin  28 kN d3 (0.375)3 Fmin   48.3 N Ans.
1403 (109 )
32 M m 32(30)(12)
The compressive load is the largest, so check it for yielding. m    69.54 kpsi
d3  (0.375)3 3(207)(109 )(106.7)(10 12 )(6)(103 )
Fmax   144.9 N Ans.
F 28 000 1403 (10 9 )
 min  min   147.4 MPa
A 10(25  6) (a) Modified Goodman criterion
(b) Get the fatigue strength information.
1  a  m 23.18 69.54
S yc 490     Eq. (2-21): S ut = =3.4H B = 3.4(490) = 1666 MPa
ny    3.32 Ans. nf Se Sut 32.1 200 From problem statement: S y = 0.9S ut = 0.9(1666) = 1499 MPa
 min 147.4
n f  0.94 Ans. Eq. (6-8): Se  700 MPa
Factor of safety based on infinite life: Eq. (6-19): k a = 1.58(1666)-0.085 = 0.84
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an
Fmax  Fmin 12 000   28 000  equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12). Eq. (6-25): d e = 0.808[20(4)]1/2 = 7.23 mm
a  K f  2.2  231.6 MPa Eq. (6-20): k b = 1.24(7.23)-0.107 = 1.00
2A 2(10)(25  6)
a 23.18 Eq. (6-18): S e = 0.84(1)(700) = 588 MPa
Fmax  Fmin 12 000   28 000    rev    35.54 kpsi
m  K f  2.2  1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (69.54 / 200)
  92.63 MPa
2A  2(10)(25  6)  Fig. 6-18: f = 0.775 This is a relatively thick curved beam, so
use the method in Sect. 3-18 to find the
( f Sut ) 2  0.775(200) 
2
Se 208.6 Eq. (6-14): a   748.4 stresses. The maximum bending moment

For m < 0, nf    0.90 Ans. Se 32.1 will be to the centroid of the section as
a 231.6
shown.
Outer radius: Hole:
M = 142F N·mm, A = 4(20) = 80 mm2, h = 4 mm, r i = 4 mm, r o = r i + h = 8 mm, Since m > 0, we will use the Modified Goodman line. Fig. A-15-1: d / w1  0.4 / 3.5  0.11  K t  2.68
r c = r i + h/2 = 6 mm   103.6 207.2 Use Fig. 6-20 or Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a) for q. Estimate a little high since it is off the
1/ n f  a  m   graph. q = 0.85
h 4 Se Sut 588 1666
Table 3-4: rn    5.7708 mm n f  3.33
ln(ro / ri ) ln(8 / 4) K f  1  0.85(2.68  1)  2.43
e  rc  rn  6  5.7708  0.2292 mm Infinite life is predicted at both inner and outer radii. Ans.
Fmax 5
______________________________________________________________________________  max    3.226 kpsi
ci  rn  ri  5.7708  4  1.7708 mm h  w1  d  0.5(3.5  0.4)
co  ro  rn  8  5.7708  2.2292 mm 6-30 From Table A-20, for AISI 1018 CD, Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi Fmin 16
 min    10.32 kpsi
Get the stresses at the inner and outer surfaces from Eq. (3-65) with the axial stresses h  w1  d  0.5(3.5  0.4)
added. The signs have been set to account for tension and compression as appropriate. Eq. (6-8): Se'  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
k a  2.70(64) 0.265  0.897
 max   min 3.226  ( 10.32)
Eq. (6-19): a  K f  2.43  16.5 kpsi
2 2
i  
Mci F
 
(142 F )(1.7708) F
  3.441F MPa Eq. (6-20): kb  1 (axial)
Aeri A 80(0.2292)(4) 80 kc  0.85   max   min   3.226  (10.32) 
Eq. (6-26): m  K f    2.43    8.62 kpsi
Mco F (142 F )(2.2292) F  2   2 
o      2.145F MPa Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.897)(1)(0.85)(32)  24.4 kpsi
Aero A 80(0.2292)(8) 80
Sy 54
( i )min  3.441(144.9)  498.6 MPa Fillet: ny    5.23  does not yield
 min 10.32
( i )max  3.441(48.3)  166.2 MPa Fig. A-15-5: D / d  3.5 / 3  1.17, r / d  0.25 / 3  0.083, K t  1.85
( o )min  2.145(48.3)  103.6 MPa Use Fig. 6-20 or Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a) for q. Estimate a little high since it is off the Since the midrange stress is negative,
graph. q = 0.85
( o )max  2.145(144.9)  310.8 MPa Se 24.4
K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.85(1.85  1)  1.72 nf    1.48
166.2   498.6  a 16.5
( i ) a   166.2 MPa
2 F 5
 max  max   3.33 kpsi Thus the design is controlled by the threat of fatigue at the hole with a minimum factor of
166.2   498.6  w2 h 3.0(0.5) safety of n f  1.48. Ans.
( i ) m   332.4 MPa 16
2  min   10.67 kpsi ______________________________________________________________________________
310.8  103.6 3.0(0.5)
( o )a   103.6 MPa Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
2  max   min 3.33  ( 10.67) 6-31
a  K f  1.72  12.0 kpsi
310.8  103.6 2 2 Eq. (6-8): Se'  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
( o ) m   207.2 MPa
2     min   3.33  (10.67)  Eq. (6-19): k a  2.70(64) 0.265  0.897
 m  K f  max   1.72    6.31 kpsi
To check for yielding, we note that the largest stress is –498.6 MPa (compression) on the  2   2  Eq. (6-20): kb  1 (axial)
inner radius. This is considerably less than the estimated yield strength of 1499 MPa, so Eq. (6-26): kc  0.85
yielding is not predicted. Sy 54
ny    5.06  Does not yield. Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.897)(1)(0.85)(32)  24.4 kpsi
 min 10.67
Check for fatigue on both inner and outer radii since one has a compressive mean stress Fillet:
and the other has a tensile mean stress. Since the midrange stress is negative,
Fig. A-15-5: D / d  2.5 /1.5  1.67, r / d  0.25 /1.5  0.17, K t  2.1
Inner radius: Se 24.4 Use Fig. 6-20 or Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a) for q. Estimate a little high since it is off the
nf    2.03
S
Since m < 0, n f  e 
588
 3.54 a 12.0 graph. q = 0.85
 a 166.2
K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.85(2.1  1)  1.94

F 16 Thus the design is controlled by the threat of fatigue at the fillet with a minimum factor h 3 / 16
 max  max   21.3 kpsi of safety of n f  0.77 Ans.
rn    0.74608 in
w2 h 1.5(0.5) ro 0.84375
ln ln
4 ______________________________________________________________________________ ri 0.65625
 min   5.33 kpsi
1.5(0.5) e  rc  rn  0.75  0.74608  0.00392 in
6-32 Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
   min 21.3  ( 5.33)
ci  rn  ri  0.74608  0.65625  0.08983
 a  K f max  1.94  25.8 kpsi From Prob. 6-30, the fatigue factor of safety at the hole is n f = 1.48. To match this at the
2 2 fillet,  3  3 
  max   min   21.3  ( 5.33)  S S 24.4 A       0.035156 in 2
m  K f    1.94    15.5 kpsi nf  e  a  e   16.5 kpsi  16   16 
 2   2  a n f 1.48
Eq. (3-65), p. 119,
Sy 54 where S e is unchanged from Prob. 6-30. The only aspect of a that is affected by the
ny    2.54  Does not yield. fillet radius is the fatigue stress concentration factor. Obtaining a in terms of K f , T (0.08983)
 max 21.3 i 
Mci
  993.3T
 max   min Aeri (0.035156)(0.00392)(0.65625)
3.33  ( 10.67)
Using Modified Goodman criteria, a  K f  Kf  7.00 K f
1  a  m 25.8 15.5
2 2 where T is in lbf·in and  i is in psi.
   
nf Se Sut 24.4 64 Equating to the desired stress, and solving for K f , 1
 m  (993.3)T  496.7T
2
n f  0.77  a  7.00 K f  16.5  K f  2.36  a  496.7T
Hole: Eq. (6-8): Se'  0.5 110   55 kpsi
Fig. A-15-1: d / w1  0.4 / 2.5  0.16  K t  2.55 Assume since we are expecting to get a smaller fillet radius than the original, that q will
be back on the graph of Fig. 6-20, so we’ll estimate q = 0.8. Eq. (6-19): ka  2.70(110) 0.265  0.777
Use Fig. 6-20 or Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a) for q. Estimate a little high since it is off the
d e  0.808  3 /16  3 /16  
1/2
graph. q = 0.85 K f  1  0.80( K t  1)  2.36  K t  2.7 Eq. (6-25):  0.1515 in
kb  0.879  0.1515 
0.107
K f  1  0.85(2.55  1)  2.32 From Fig. A-15-5, with D / d = 3.5/3 = 1.17 and K t = 2.6, find r / d. Choosing r / d = Eq. (6-20):  1.08 (round to 1)
0.03, and with d = w 2 = 3.0, Eq. (6-19): Se  (0.777)(1)(55)  42.7 kpsi
Fmax 16
 max    15.2 kpsi
h  w1  d  0.5(2.5  0.4) r  0.03w2  0.03  3.0   0.09 in
For a compressive midrange component,  a  Se / n f . Thus,
Fmin 4 At this small radius, our estimate for q is too high. From Fig. 6-20, with r = 0.09, q
 min    3.81 kpsi should be about 0.75. Iterating, we get K t = 2.8. This is at a difficult range on Fig. A-15- 42.7
h  w1  d  0.5(2.5  0.4) 0.4967T 
5 to read the graph with any confidence, but we’ll estimate r / d = 0.02, giving r = 0.06 3
 max   min  15.2  (3.81) 
in. This is a very rough estimate, but it clearly demonstrates that the fillet radius can be T  28.7 lbf  in
a  K f  2.32    22.1 kpsi relatively sharp to match the fatigue factor of safety of the hole. Ans.
2  2  ______________________________________________________________________________ Outer fiber where rc  2.5 in
    min   15.2  (3.81) 
 m  K f  max   2.32    13.2 kpsi 6-33 S y  60 kpsi, Sut  110 kpsi ro  2.5 
3
 2.59375
 2   2  32
S 54
ny  y   3.55  Does not yield. Inner fiber where rc  3 / 4 in ri  2.5 
3
 2.40625
 max 15.2 32
3 3
ro    0.84375 3 / 16
Using Modified Goodman criteria
4 16(2) rn   2.49883
2.59375
3 3 ln
1  a  m 22.1 13.2 ri    0.65625 2.40625
    4 32 e  2.5  2.49883  0.00117 in
nf Se Sut 24.4 64
n f  0.90 co  2.59375  2.49883  0.09492 in
Table 3-4, p. 121,
Mco T (0.09492) S 60 Sy 300
o    889.7T psi (c) ny  y   2.39 Ans. ny    0.66 Ans.
Aero (0.035156)(0.00117)(2.59375)  max 0.9102(27.6)  a   m 136.6  321.1
1 ______________________________________________________________________________ Since the conservative yield check indicates yielding, we will check more carefully with
 m   a  (889.7T )  444.9T psi
2 6-35 K f ,bend  1.4, K f ,axial  1.1, K f ,tors  2.0, S y  300 MPa, Sut  400 MPa, S e  200 MPa with  max
 obtained directly from the maximum stresses, using the distortion energy
(a) Using Eq. (6-46), for modified Goodman, we have Bending:  m  0,  a  60 MPa failure theory, without stress concentrations. Note that this is exactly the method used for
a m 1 static failure in Ch. 5.
  Axial:  m  20 MPa,  a  0
Se Sut n
Torsion:  m  25 MPa,  a  25 MPa
 max
   max   3  max   150   3  90  9   227.8 MPa
2 2 2 2
0.4449T 0.4449T 1
  Eqs. (6-55) and (6-56):
42.7 110 3 Sy 300
ny    1.32 Ans.
 a  1.4(60)  0  3 2.0(25)  120.6 MPa  max

2 2
T  23.0 lbf  in Ans. 227.8
Since yielding is not predicted, and infinite life is not predicted, we would like to
 m  0  1.1(20)  3 2.0(25)  89.35 MPa
2 2
(b) Gerber, Eq. (6-47), at the outer fiber, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an equivalent completely reversed stress
(See Ex. 6-12).
2
n a  n m  Using Modified Goodman, Eq. (6-46),
  1  a 136.6
Se  Sut  1  a  m 120.6 89.35  rev    692.5 MPa
    1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (321.1/ 400)
3(0.4449T )  3(0.4449T ) 
2 nf Se Sut 200 400
  1
This stress is much higher than the ultimate strength, rendering it impractical for the S-N
42.7  110  n f  1.21 Ans. diagram. We must conclude that the stresses from the combination loading, when
increased by the stress concentration factors, produce such a high midrange stress that the
T  28.2 lbf  in Ans. equivalent completely reversed stress method is not practical to use. Without testing, we
Check for yielding, using the conservative  max
   a   m ,
(c) To guard against yield, use T of part (b) and the inner stress. are unable to predict a life.
Sy ______________________________________________________________________________
S 60 300
ny  y   2.14 Ans. ny    1.43 Ans.
 i 0.9933(28.2)  a   m 120.6  89.35 6-37 Table A-20: S ut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________ From Prob. 3-68, the critical stress element experiences  = 15.3 kpsi and  = 4.43 kpsi.
The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving
From Prob. 6-33, S e  42.7 kpsi, S y  60 kpsi, and Sut  110 kpsi 6-36 K f ,bend  1.4, K f ,tors  2.0, S y  300 MPa, Sut  400 MPa, Se  200 MPa
6-34 a = 15.3 kpsi, m = 0 kpsi, a = 0 kpsi, m = 4.43 kpsi. Obtain von Mises stresses for
Bending:  max  150 MPa,  min  40 MPa,  m  55 MPa,  a  95 MPa the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
(a) Assuming the beam is straight,
Torsion:  m  90 MPa,  a  9 MPa
Mc M  h / 2  6M  a    a2  3 a2 
1/2
 15.32  3  0  
1/2 2
6T Eqs. (6-55) and (6-56):  15.3 kpsi
 max      910.2T  
I bh3 /12 bh2 (3 /16)3
1.4(95)  3 2.0(9)  136.6 MPa  m    m2  3 m2 
1/2
  0 2  3  4.43 
1/2
 a 
2 2 2
 7.67 kpsi
 
0.4551T 0.4551T 1
   m  1.4(55)  3 2.0(90)  321.1 MPa     max 
1/2
 15.32  3  4.43 
2 2 1/ 2
Goodman:  max  3 max
2
2 2
 17.11 kpsi
42.7 110 3  
Using Modified Goodman,
T  22.5 lbf  in Ans. Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory.
1  a  m 136.6 321.1 S
ny  y 
54
 3.16
2    
3(0.4551T )  3(0.4551T ) 
 n f Se Sut 200 400  max
 17.11
(b) Gerber:  1
42.7  110  n f  0.67 Ans. Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.
T  27.6 lbf  in Ans.
   a   m ,
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5  64   32 kpsi

Eq. (6-19): ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90 6-39 Table A-20: S ut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi Sy 370
ny    4.57
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879(1.25) 0.107  0.86 From Prob. 3-70, the critical stress element experiences  = 21.5 kpsi and  = 5.09 kpsi.  max
 80.9
Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.86)(32)  24.8 kpsi The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving
a = 21.5 kpsi, m = 0 kpsi, a = 0 kpsi, m = 5.09 kpsi. Obtain von Mises stresses for Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.
the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
1  a  m 15.3 7.67 Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5  440   220 MPa
   
 a     3  2 1/ 2
  21.5  3  0  
1/2
nf Se Sut 24.8 64 2 2 2
 21.5 kpsi Eq. (6-19): ka  4.51(440) 0.265  0.90
a a
 
kb  1.24(20) 0.107  0.90
 m    m2  3 m2 
2 1/ 2 Eq. (6-20):
n f  1.36 Ans.   0 2  3  5.09  
1/2
 8.82 kpsi
  Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.90)(220)  178.2 MPa
______________________________________________________________________________
    max 
1/ 2
  21.52  3  5.09  
1/ 2
2
2 2
 23.24 kpsi
 
6-38 Table A-20: S ut  440 MPa, S y  370 MPa Using Modified Goodman,
From Prob. 3-69, the critical stress element experiences  = 263 MPa and  = 57.7 MPa. Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory. 1  a  m 72.9 35.2
The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving    
Sy 54 nf Se Sut 178.2 440
a = 263 MPa, m = 0, a = 0 MPa, m = 57.7 MPa. Obtain von Mises stresses for the ny    2.32
alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.  max
 23.24
n f  2.04 Ans.
______________________________________________________________________________
 a    a2  3 a2 
1/ 2
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.
  2632  3  0  
1/ 2 2
 263 MPa
  ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90
6-41 Table A-20: S ut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
 m    m2  3 m2 
1/ 2
 02  3  57.7   kb  0.879(1) 0.107  0.88
1/ 2 2
 99.9 MPa From Prob. 3-72, the critical stress element experiences  = 35.2 kpsi and  = 7.35 kpsi.
 
Se  0.90(0.88)(0.5)(64)  25.3 kpsi The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving
    max 
1/2
  2632  3  57.7  
1/ 2
2
2 2
 281 MPa a = 35.2 kpsi, m = 0 kpsi, a = 0 kpsi, m = 7.35 kpsi. Obtain von Mises stresses for
  Using Modified Goodman,
the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory. 1  a  m 21.5 8.82
   
nf Se Sut 25.3 64
 a    a2  3 a2 
1/ 2
 35.22  3  0  
1/2 2
Sy  35.2 kpsi
ny 
370

 1.32  
 max
 n f  1.01 Ans.
 m    m2  3 m2 
281 1/2
  02  3  7.35  
1/2 2
 12.7 kpsi
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit. ______________________________________________________________________________  
    max 
1/ 2
 35.22  3  7.35  
1/2
2
2 2
 37.4 kpsi
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5  440   220 MPa 6-40 Table A-20: S ut  440 MPa, S y  370 MPa  
Eq. (6-19): ka  4.51(440) 0.265  0.90 From Prob. 3-71, the critical stress element experiences  = 72.9 MPa and  = 20.3 MPa. Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory.
0.107 The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving
Eq. (6-20): kb  1.24(30)  0.86
a = 72.9 MPa, m = 0 MPa, a = 0 MPa, m = 20.3 MPa. Obtain von Mises stresses for Sy 54
Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.86)(220)  170 MPa the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses. ny    1.44
 max
 37.4
 a    a2  3 a2 
2 1/2
  72.92  3  0  
Using Modified Goodman, 1/2
 72.9 MPa
  Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.
1  a  m 263 99.9
     m    m2  3 m2 
1/2
  0 2  3  20.3 
1/2 2
 35.2 MPa
nf Se Sut 170 440   Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
n f  0.56    
1/2
Infinite life is not predicted. Ans.
  72.92  3  20.3  ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90
1/ 2
 max  3
2
2 2
 80.9 MPa Eq. (6-19):
______________________________________________________________________________
max max
 
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879(1.25) 0.107  0.86
Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory. Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.86)(32)  24.8 kpsi
Using Modified Goodman, 6-43 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
From Prob. 3-74, the critical stress element experiences completely reversed bending Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
1  a  m 35.2 12.7
     a    a2  3 a2 
1/2
  33.99   3  0  
1/2 2 2
stress due to the rotation, and steady torsional and axial stresses.  33.99 kpsi
nf Se Sut 24.8 64  
 a ,bend  9.495 kpsi,  m ,bend  0 kpsi  m    m2  3 m2 
1/ 2
  0.153  3  7.847  
1/2 2 2
n f  0.62 Infinite life is not predicted.  13.59 kpsi
Ans.  
 a ,axial  0 kpsi,  m,axial  0.362 kpsi
    max 
______________________________________________________________________________ 1/2
  33.99  0.153  3  7.847  
1/ 2
2 2
2 2
 36.75 kpsi
 a  0 kpsi,  m  11.07 kpsi  
6-42 Table A-20: S ut  440 MPa, S y  370 MPa
Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory.
From Prob. 3-73, the critical stress element experiences  = 333.9 MPa and  = 126.3 Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
MPa. The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, Sy 54
ny    1.47
giving a = 333.9 MPa, m = 0 MPa, a = 0 MPa, m = 126.3 MPa. Obtain von Mises  a    a2  3 a2 
1/ 2
  9.495   3  0  
1/2 2 2
 
 9.495 kpsi  max
 36.75
stresses for the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
 m     3  2 1/ 2
  0.362   3 11.07  
1/2 2
2 2
 19.18 kpsi Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.
m m
 
 a    a2  3 a2 
1/ 2
 333.9 2  3  0  
1/2 2
 333.9 MPa
 
    max 
1/ 2
  9.495  0.362   3 11.07  
1/ 2
2 2
2 2
 21.56 kpsi Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
 
 m    m2  3 m2 
1/ 2
  0 2  3 126.3  
1/ 2 2
 218.8 MPa ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90
  Eq. (6-19):
kb  0.879(0.88) 0.107  0.89
 
1/ 2
 333.9 2  3 126.3  Eq. (6-20):
1/ 2
 max
   max  3 max
2
2 2
 399.2 MPa S 54
  ny  y   2.50 Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.89)(32)  25.6 kpsi
 max
 21.56
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit. Using Modified Goodman,
Sy 370
ny    0.93 1  a  m 33.99 13.59
 max
 399.2 Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi    
nf Se Sut 25.6 64
The sample fails by yielding, infinite life is not predicted. Ans. Eq. (6-19): ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879(1.13)  0.87 0.107 n f  0.65 Infinite life is not predicted. Ans.
The fatigue analysis will be continued only to obtain the requested fatigue factor of ______________________________________________________________________________
safety, though the yielding failure will dictate the life. Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.87)(32)  25.1 kpsi
6-45 Table A-20: S ut  440 MPa, S y  370 MPa
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit. Using Modified Goodman,
From Prob. 3-77, the critical stress element experiences  = 68.6 MPa and  = 37.7 MPa.
1  a  m 9.495 19.18 The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(440)  220 MPa    
nf Se Sut 25.1 64 a = 68.6 MPa, m = 0 MPa, a = 0 MPa, m = 37.7 MPa. Obtain von Mises stresses for
Eq. (6-19): ka  4.51(440) 0.265  0.90 the alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses.
kb  1.24(50) 0.107  0.82 n f  1.47 Ans.
 a    a2  3 a2 
Eq. (6-20): 1/ 2
  68.6 2  3  0  
1/2 2
 68.6 MPa
Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.82)(220)  162.4 MPa ______________________________________________________________________________  
 m    m2  3 m2 
1/ 2
  0 2  3  37.7  
1/2 2
 65.3 MPa
Using Modified Goodman, 6-44 Table A-20: S ut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi  
    max  2 1/ 2
  68.6 2  3  37.7    94.7 MPa
1/ 2
1  a  m 333.9 218.8
From Prob. 3-76, the critical stress element experiences completely reversed bending  max 2
 3 max
2
 
    stress due to the rotation, and steady torsional and axial stresses.
nf Se Sut 162.4 440  a ,bend  33.99 kpsi,  m ,bend  0 kpsi Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory.
n f  0.39 Infinite life is not predicted. Ans.  a ,axial  0 kpsi,  m,axial  0.153 kpsi Sy 370
ny    3.91
______________________________________________________________________________  a  0 kpsi,  m  7.847 kpsi  max
 94.7

1  a  m 3.46 1.53
    Eq. (6-24): de  0.370d  0.370 1  0.370 in
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit. nf S e Sut 24.5 64 Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e 0.107  0.879(0.370) 0.107  0.98
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(440)  220 MPa n f  6.06 Ans. Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.90)(0.98)(32)  28.2 kpsi
Eq. (6-19): ka  4.51(440) 0.265  0.90 ______________________________________________________________________________ Using Modified Goodman,
Eq. (6-20): kb  1.24(30) 0.107  0.86 1  a  m 13.98 13.98
6-47 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi    
Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.86)(220)  170 MPa nf S e Sut 28.2 64
From Prob. 3-80, the critical stress element experiences  = 16.3 kpsi and  = 5.09 kpsi.
Using Modified Goodman, Since the load is applied and released repeatedly, this gives max = 16.3 kpsi, min = 0 n f  1.40 Ans.
kpsi,  max = 5.09 kpsi, min = 0 kpsi. Consequently,m = a = 8.15 kpsi, m = a = 2.55 ______________________________________________________________________________
1  a  m 68.6 65.3 kpsi.
   
nf Se Sut 170 440 6-48 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
For bending, from Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a),
From Prob. 3-81, the critical stress element experiences  = 16.4 kpsi and  = 4.46 kpsi.
n f  1.81 Ans.
Since the load is applied and released repeatedly, this gives max = 16.4 kpsi, min = 0
a  0.246  3.08 10 3
  64  1.5110   64 5
 2.67 10 8
  64   0.10373
2 3
______________________________________________________________________________ kpsi,  max = 4.46 kpsi, min = 0 kpsi. Consequently,m = a = 8.20 kpsi, m = a = 2.23
1 1 kpsi.
6-46 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi q   0.75
a 1  0.10373
From Prob. 3-79, the critical stress element experiences  = 3.46 kpsi and  = 0.882 kpsi. 1 For bending, from Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a),
r 0.1
The bending is completely reversed due to the rotation, and the torsion is steady, giving a  0.246  3.08 103   64   1.51105   64   2.67 108   64   0.10373
2 3
a = 3.46 kpsi, m = 0, a = 0 kpsi, m = 0.882 kpsi. Obtain von Mises stresses for the Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.75(1.5  1)  1.38
alternating, mid-range, and maximum stresses. 1 1
For torsion, from Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35b), q   0.75
a  0.190  2.5110   64  1.35 10   64   2.67 10   64
3 5 8 a 1  0.10373
 0.07800
2 3
1
 a    a2  3 a2 
1/2
 3.462  3  0   0.1
1/2 2
 3.46 kpsi r
  1 1
K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.75(1.5  1)  1.38
q   0.80 Eq. (6-32):
 m    m2  3 m2  a 1  0.07800
1/2
  02  3  0.882  
1/2 2
 1.53 kpsi 1
  r 0.1
For torsion, from Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35b),
    max 
1/ 2
 3.462  3  0.882   K fs  1  qs ( K ts  1)  1  0.80(2.1  1)  1.88
1/ 2
2
2 2
 3.78 kpsi Eq. (6-32):
  a  0.190  2.51103   64   1.35 105   64   2.67 108   64   0.07800
2 3
Check for yielding, using the distortion energy failure theory. Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and 1 1
q   0.80
(6-56). a 1  0.07800
Sy 54 1
ny    14.3 r 0.1
 max
 3.78

 a  1.38  8.15    3 1.88  2.55 
2

2 1/ 2
 13.98 kpsi Eq. (6-32): K fs  1  qs ( K ts  1)  1  0.80(2.1  1)  1.88
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.  m   a  13.98 kpsi

Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi Check for yielding, using the conservative  max
   a   m , (6-56).
Eq. (6-19): ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90

ny 
Sy

54
 1.93

 a  1.38  8.20    3 1.88  2.23
2

2 1/ 2
 13.45 kpsi
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879(1.375) 0.107  0.85  a   m 13.98  13.98  m   a  13.45 kpsi
Eq. (6-18): Se  0.90(0.85)(32)  24.5 kpsi Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.
   a  m ,
Using Modified Goodman, Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90
Sy 54 Eq. (6-32): K fs  1  qs ( K ts  1)  1  0.80(2.1  1)  1.88
ny    2.01 The size factor for a torsionally loaded rectangular cross section is not readily available.
 a   m 13.45  13.45
Following the procedure on p. 289, we need an equivalent diameter based on the 95
Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and
percent stress area. However, the stress situation in this case is nonlinear, as described on
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit. (6-56).
p. 102. Noting that the maximum stress occurs at the middle of the longest side, or with a
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi 
 a  1.38 10.15    3 1.88  2.55  
2

2 1/ 2
 16.28 kpsi radius from the center of the cross section equal to half of the shortest side, we will
simply choose an equivalent diameter equal to the length of the shortest side.
Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90  m   a  16.28 kpsi
Eq. (6-24): d e  0.370d  0.370(1)  0.370 in de  0.25 in
   a  m ,
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e 0.107  0.879(0.370) 0.107  0.98 Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879de 0.107  0.879(0.25)0.107  1.02
Sy 54
Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.90)(0.98)(32)  28.2 kpsi ny    1.66
 a   m 16.28  16.28 We will round down to k b = 1.
Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit. Eq. (6-26): kc  0.59
1  a  m 13.45 13.45 Eq. (6-18): S se  0.9(1)(0.59)(32)  17.0 kpsi
    Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
nf S e Sut 28.2 64
Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90 Since the stress is entirely shear, we choose to use a load factor k c = 0.59, and convert the
n f  1.46 Ans. Eq. (6-24): d e  0.370d  0.370(1)  0.370 in ultimate strength to a shear value rather than using the combination loading method of
______________________________________________________________________________ Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e 0.107  0.879(0.370) 0.107  0.98 Sec. 6-14. From Eq. (6-54), S su = 0.67S u = 0.67 (64) = 42.9 kpsi.
Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.90)(0.98)(32)  28.2 kpsi
6-49 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi Using Modified Goodman,
From Prob. 3-82, the critical stress element experiences repeatedly applied bending, Using Modified Goodman,
1 1
axial, and torsional stresses of x,bend = 20.2 kpsi, x,axial = 0.1 kpsi, and  = 5.09 kpsi.. nf    1.70 Ans.
Since the axial stress is practically negligible compared to the bending stress, we will 1  a  m 16.28 16.28 ( a / S se )  ( m / S su ) (7.15 /17.0)  (7.15 / 42.9)
simply combine the two and not treat the axial stress separately for stress concentration     ______________________________________________________________________________
nf S e Sut 28.2 64
factor and load factor. This gives max = 20.3 kpsi, min = 0 kpsi,  max = 5.09 kpsi, min =
0 kpsi. Consequently,m = a = 10.15 kpsi, m = a = 2.55 kpsi. n f  1.20 Ans. 6-51 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
____________________________________________________________________________ From Prob. 3-84, the critical stress element experiences  = 28.0 kpsi and  = 15.3 kpsi.
For bending, from Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a), Since the load is applied and released repeatedly, this gives max = 28.0 kpsi, min = 0
6-50 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi kpsi,  max = 15.3 kpsi, min = 0 kpsi. Consequently,m = a = 14.0 kpsi, m = a = 7.65
a  0.246  3.08 10 3
  64  1.5110   64
5
 2.67 10 8
  64   0.10373
2 3
From Prob. 3-83, the critical stress element on the neutral axis in the middle of the kpsi. From Table A-15-8 and A-15-9,
q
1

1
 0.75
longest side of the rectangular cross section experiences a repeatedly applied shear stress D / d  1.5 / 1  1.5, r / d  0.125 /1  0.125
a 1  0.10373 of  max = 14.3 kpsi,  min = 0 kpsi. Thus, m = a = 7.15 kpsi. Since the stress is entirely K t ,bend  1.60, K t ,tors  1.39
1 shear, it is convenient to check for yielding using the standard Maximum Shear Stress
r 0.1
theory.
Eq. (6-32): K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.75(1.5  1)  1.38 S / 2 54 / 2 Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35), or Figs. 6-20 and 6-21: q bend = 0.78, q tors = 0.82
ny  y   1.89 Eq. (6-32):
 max
K f ,bend  1  qbend  K t ,bend  1  1  0.78 1.60  1  1.47
14.3
For torsion, from Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35b),
a  0.190  2.51103   64   1.35 105   64   2.67 108   64   0.07800
2 3
Find the modifiers and endurance limit. K f ,tors  1  qtors  K t ,tors  1  1  0.82 1.39  1  1.32
1 1
q   0.80 Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and
a 0.07800
1 1 Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90 (6-56).
r 0.1


 a  1.47 14.0    3 1.32  7.65  
2

2 1/2
 27.0 kpsi
From Prob. 3-85, the critical stress element experiences x,bend = 46.1 kpsi, x,axial = 0.382
kpsi and  = 15.3 kpsi. The axial load is practically negligible, but we’ll include it to
Eq. (6-8):
Eq. (6-19):
Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi
k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.897
 m   a  27.0 kpsi demonstrate the process. Since the load is applied and released repeatedly, this gives
max,bend = 46.1 kpsi, min,bend = 0 kpsi, max,axial = 0.382 kpsi, min,axial = 0 kpsi, max = Eq. (6-24): de  0.370d  0.370 1  0.370 in
   a   m , 15.3 kpsi, min = 0 kpsi. Consequently,m,bend = a,bend = 23.05 kpsi, m,axial = a,axial = Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e 0.107  0.879(0.370) 0.107  0.978
Sy 54 0.191 kpsi, m = a = 7.65 kpsi. From Table A-15-7, A-15-8 and A-15-9, Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.897)(0.978)(0.5)(64)  28.1 kpsi
ny    1.00
 a   m 27.0  27.0 D / d  1.5 / 1  1.5, r / d  0.125 / 1  0.125
Since stress concentrations are included in this quick yield check, the low factor of safety K t ,bend  1.60, K t ,tors  1.39, K t ,axial  1.75
is acceptable. 1  a  m 38.45 38.40
   
Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35), or Figs. 6-20 and 6-21: q bend = q axial =0.78, q tors = 0.82 nf Se Sut 28.1 64
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(64)  32 kpsi Eq. (6-32):
n f  0.51 Ans.
K f ,bend  1  qbend  Kt ,bend  1  1  0.78 1.60  1  1.47
0.265
Eq. (6-19): k a  aS  2.70(64)
b
ut  0.897
de  0.370d  0.370 1  0.370 in
K f ,axial  1  qaxial  Kt ,axial  1  1  0.78 1.75  1  1.59
Eq. (6-24): Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an
0.107 0.107
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e  0.879(0.370)  0.978 equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12).
K f ,tors  1  qtors  Kt ,tors  1  1  0.82 1.39  1  1.32
Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.897)(0.978)(0.5)(64)  28.1 kpsi
 a 38.45
Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and  rev    96.1 kpsi
Using Modified Goodman, 1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (38.40 / 64)
(6-56).
1  a  m 27.0 27.0
1/2
   0.191  
2
    2
nf Se Sut 28.1 64  a   1.47  23.05  1.59    3 1.32  7.65     38.45 kpsi This stress is much higher than the ultimate strength, rendering it impractical for the S-N
diagram. We must conclude that the fluctuating stresses from the combination loading,
 
0.85 

when increased by the stress concentration factors, are so far from the Goodman line that
n f  0.72 Ans.

 m  1.47  23.05   1.59  0.191   3 1.32  7.65  
2

2 1/ 2
 38.40 kpsi the equivalent completely reversed stress method is not practical to use. Without testing,
we are unable to predict a life.
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an ______________________________________________________________________________
   a   m ,
equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12).
Sy 54 6-53 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi
ny    0.70
 a 27.0  a   m 38.45  38.40 From Prob. 3-86, the critical stress element experiences x,bend = 55.5 kpsi, x,axial = 0.382
 rev    46.7 kpsi
1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (27.0 / 64) kpsi and  = 15.3 kpsi. The axial load is practically negligible, but we’ll include it to
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.9 Since the conservative yield check indicates yielding, we will check more carefully with demonstrate the process. Since the load is applied and released repeatedly, this gives
with  max
 obtained directly from the maximum stresses, using the distortion energy max,bend = 55.5 kpsi, min,bend = 0 kpsi, max,axial = 0.382 kpsi, min,axial = 0 kpsi, max =
( f Sut ) 2  0.9(64)
2
Eq. (6-14): a   118.07 failure theory, without stress concentrations. Note that this is exactly the method used for 15.3 kpsi, min = 0 kpsi. Consequently,m,bend = a,bend = 27.75 kpsi, m,axial = a,axial =
Se 28.1
static failure in Ch. 5. 0.191 kpsi, m = a = 7.65 kpsi. From Table A-15-7, A-15-8 and A-15-9,
D / d  1.5 / 1  1.5, r / d  0.125 / 1  0.125
1  f Sut  1  0.9(64) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1039 K t ,bend  1.60, K t ,tors  1.39, K t ,axial  1.75
   max,axial   3  max    46.1  0.382   3 15.3  53.5 kpsi
2
 28.1   max
 
2 2 2
3  Se  3 max,bend
1
  Sy
1/ b
 46.7  0.1039 54 Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35), or Figs. 6-20 and 6-21: q bend = q axial =0.78, q tors = 0.82
N   rev     7534 cycles  7500 cycles ny    1.01 Ans.
Eq. (6-16):  Ans.
 max
 53.5 Eq. (6-32):
 a   118.07 
______________________________________________________________________________
This shows that yielding is imminent, and further analysis of fatigue life should not be K f ,axial  1  qaxial  Kt ,axial  1  1  0.78 1.75  1  1.59
6-52 Table A-20: Sut  64 kpsi, S y  54 kpsi interpreted as a guarantee of more than one cycle of life.
K f ,tors  1  qtors  Kt ,tors  1  1  0.82 1.39  1  1.32
Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35), or Figs. 6-20 and 6-21: q bend = 0.76, q tors = 0.81 6-55 From the solution to Prob. 6-18 we find the completely reversed stress at the critical
(6-56). Eq. (6-32): shoulder fillet to be rev = 32.8 kpsi, producing a = 32.8 kpsi and m = 0 kpsi. This
1/2
   problem adds a steady torque which creates torsional stresses of
 0.191 
2
2
 a   1.47  27.75   1.59    3 1.32  7.65     44.71 kpsi
K f ,tors  1  qtors  Kt ,tors  1  1  0.811.60  1  1.49 Tr 2200 1.625 / 2 
 
0.85 
 m    2611 psi  2.61 kpsi,  a  0 kpsi
 1.6254  / 32

 m  1.47  27.75   1.59  0.191   3 1.32  7.65  
2

2 1/ 2
 44.66 kpsi Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and
(6-56).
J
From Table A-15-8 and A-15-9, r/d = 0.0625/1.625 = 0.04, D/d = 1.875/1.625 = 1.15,
Since these stresses are relatively high compared to the yield strength, we will go ahead
  2 1/ 2
K t,bend =1.95, K t,tors =1.60
and check for yielding using the distortion energy failure theory.  a  1.72  35.0    3 1.49  0  
2
 60.2 kpsi
   max,axial   3  max    55.5  0.382   3 15.3  61.8 kpsi Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35), or Figs. 6-20 and 6-21: q bend = 0.76, q tors = 0.81
2
 max
 
2 2 2
   1.72  0    3 1.49  2.97   

max,bend
2 2 1/ 2 Eq. (6-32):
 7.66 kpsi
S K f ,bend  1  qbend  Kt ,bend  1  1  0.76 1.95  1  1.72
m
54
ny  y   0.87 Ans.
 max
 Check for yielding, using the conservative  max
   a   m ,
K f ,tors  1  qtors  Kt ,tors  1  1  0.811.60  1  1.49
61.8
Sy 71
ny    1.05
This shows that yielding is predicted. Further analysis of fatigue life is just to be able to  a   m 60.2  7.66 Obtain von Mises stresses for the alternating and mid-range stresses from Eqs. (6-55) and
report the fatigue factor of safety, though the life will be dictated by the static yielding
failure, i.e. N = 1/2 cycle. Ans. (6-56).
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5  64   32 kpsi

From the solution to Prob. 6-17, S e = 29.5 kpsi. Using Modified Goodman,
1  a  m 60.2 7.66

 a  1.72  32.8   3 1.49  0  
2

2 1/ 2
 56.4 kpsi
Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.897 nf

   
Se Sut 29.5 85 
 m  1.72  0    3 1.49  2.61 
2

2 1/ 2
 6.74 kpsi
Eq. (6-24): de  0.370d  0.370 1  0.370 in Check for yielding, using the conservative  max    a   m ,
n f  0.47 Ans.
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879 d e 0.107  0.879(0.370) 0.107  0.978 Sy 71
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an ny    1.12
Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.897)(0.978)(0.5)(64)  28.1 kpsi  a   m 56.4  6.74
equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12).
Using Modified Goodman,  a 60.2 From the solution to Prob. 6-18, S e = 29.5 kpsi. Using Modified Goodman,
 rev    66.2 kpsi
1  a  m 44.71 44.66 1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (7.66 / 85)
    1  a  m 56.4 6.74
nf Se Sut 28.1 64    
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.867 nf Se Sut 29.5 85
 f Sut    0.867(85)  184.1
2 2
n f  0.44 Ans. Eq. (6-14): a n f  0.50 Ans.
______________________________________________________________________________ Se 29.5
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an
6-54 From Table A-20, for AISI 1040 CD, S ut = 85 kpsi and S y = 71 kpsi. From the solution to 1  f Sut  1  0.867(85)  equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12).
Prob. 6-17 we find the completely reversed stress at the critical shoulder fillet to be rev = Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1325
3  Se  3  29.5 
35.0 kpsi, producing a = 35.0 kpsi and m = 0 kpsi. This problem adds a steady torque  a 56.4
which creates torsional stresses of  rev    61.3 kpsi
1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (6.74 / 85)
1
 
1/ b
 66.2  0.1325
Eq. (6-16): N   rev     2251 cycles
Tr 2500 1.625 / 2   a   184.1 
m    2967 psi  2.97 kpsi,  a  0 kpsi Fig. 6-18: f = 0.867
J  1.6254  / 32
______________________________________________________________________________
From Table A-15-8 and A-15-9, r/d = 0.0625/1.625 = 0.04, D/d = 1.875/1.625 = 1.15,
K t,bend =1.95, K t,tors =1.60

 f Sut   0.867(85) Since the stress is entirely shear, we will use a load factor k c = 0.59, and convert the  a  [(a / 0.85)2  3 a2 ]1/2  [(1.238P / 0.85) 2  3(1.385P) 2 ]1/2  2.81P
2 2
Eq. (6-14): a   184.1 ultimate strength to a shear value rather than using the combination loading method of
Se 29.5 Sec. 6-14. From Eq. (6-54), S su = 0.67S u = 0.67 (55) = 36.9 kpsi.  m  [ m 2  3 m2 ]1/2  [(1.238P) 2  3(1.385 P)2 ]1/2  2.70 P
1  f Sut  1  0.867(85) 
Eq. (6-15): b   log     log    0.1325
 29.5 
(a) Modified Goodman, Table 6-6 Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(145)  72.5 kpsi
3  Se  3
1 1 Eq. (6-19): ka  2.70(145)0.265  0.722
1 nf    1.99 Ans.
  ( a / S se )  ( m / S su ) (3.94 / 13.0)  (7.32 / 36.9)
1/ b
 61.3  0.1325 Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879(1.2) 0.107  0.862
Eq. (6-16): N   rev     4022 cycles
 a   184.1  Eq. (6-18): Se  (0.722)(0.862)(72.5)  45.12 kpsi
(b) Gerber, Table 6-7
N = 4000 cycles Ans. 1  a  m 2.81P 2.70 P 1
2  2 Modified Goodman:     
______________________________________________________________________________ 1S    2 S  n f Se Sut 45.12 145 3
n f   su  a  1  1   m se  
2   m  S se   Ssu a  
6-56 Sut  55 kpsi, S y  30 kpsi, K ts  1.6, L  2 ft, Fmin  150 lbf , Fmax  500 lbf   P  4.12 kips Ans.
 2
 2(7.32)(13.0)  
2
Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35b), or Fig. 6-21: q s = 0.80 1  36.9   3.94   Sy
120
     1  1    Yield (conservative): ny    5.29 Ans.
Eq. (6-32): K fs  1  qs  Kts  1  1  0.80 1.6  1  1.48 2  7.32   13.0    36.9(3.94)    a   m
(2.81)(4.12)  (2.70)(4.12)
 
n f  2.49 Ans. ______________________________________________________________________________
Tmax  500(2)  1000 lbf  in, Tmin  150(2)  300 lbf  in
______________________________________________________________________________ 6-58 From Prob. 6-57, K f  2.80, K f s  1.74, S e  45.12 kpsi
16 K fsTmax 16(1.48)(1000)
 max    11 251 psi  11.25 kpsi 6-57 Sut  145 kpsi, S y  120 kpsi 4 Pmax 4(18)
d3  (0.875)3  max   K f  2.80  44.56 kpsi
16 K fsTmin 16(1.48)(300) From Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a), or Fig. 6-20, with a notch radius of 0.1 in, q = 0.9. Thus, d2  (1.22 )
 min    3375 psi  3.38 kpsi 4 Pmin 4(4.5)
d3  (0.875)3 with K t = 3 from the problem statement,  min   K f  2.80  11.14 kpsi
 max   min 11.25  3.38
d 2
 (1.2) 2
m    7.32 kpsi K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.9(3  1)  2.80

 Dd   6  1.2 
2 2 4P 2.80(4)( P) Tmax  f Pmax    0.3(18)    9.72 kip  in
 max   min 11.25  3.38  max   K f   2.476 P  4   4 
a    3.94 kpsi d 2  (1.2) 2
 Dd   6  1.2 
2 2 1 Tmin  f Pmin    0.3(4.5)    2.43 kip  in
 m   a  (2.476 P)  1.238P  4   4 
Since the stress is entirely shear, it is convenient to check for yielding using the standard 2 16Tmax 16(9.72)
f PD  d  0.3P  6  1.2   max  K f s  1.74  49.85 kpsi
Maximum Shear Stress theory. Tmax    0.54 P d3 (1.2)3
S / 2 30 / 2 4 4 16Tmin
ny  y   1.33 16(2.43)
 max 11.25  min  K f s  1.74  12.46 kpsi
From Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35b), or Fig. 6-21, with a notch radius of 0.1 in, qs  0.92. Thus, d3  (1.2)3
with K ts = 1.8 from the problem statement, 44.56  (11.14)
Find the modifiers and endurance limit. a   16.71 kpsi
K fs  1  qs ( K ts  1)  1  0.92(1.8  1)  1.74 2
Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5(55)  27.5 kpsi
16 K fsT 44.56  (11.14)
Eq. (6-19): k a  14.4(55) 0.718  0.81  max  
16(1.74)(0.54 P)
 2.769 P m   27.85 kpsi
d3  (1.2)3 2
Eq. (6-24): d e  0.370(0.875)  0.324 in 49.85  12.46
 max 2.769 P a   18.70 kpsi
Eq. (6-20): kb  0.879(0.324)  0.990.107  a  m    1.385 P 2
2 2
kc  0.59 49.85  12.46
Eq. (6-26): Eqs. (6-55) and (6-56): m   31.16 kpsi
Eq. (6-18): S se  0.81(0.99)(0.59)(27.5)  13.0 kpsi 2
Eqs. (6-55) and (6-56): 0.9  470   0.8 140  
2 2
a   1022.5 MPa a   250.88 kpsi

 a  [( a / 0.85)2  3 a2 ]1/2  [(16.71/ 0.85) 2  3(18.70) 2 ]1/2  37.89 kpsi 175 50
1 0.9  470  1 0.8 140 
 m  [ m 2  3 m2 ]1/2  [(27.85) 2  3(31.16)2 ]1/ 2  60.73 kpsi b   log  0.127 767 b   log  0.116 749
3 175 3 50
1/0.127 767 1/ 0.116 749
1  a  m 37.89 60.73  223.8   95 
Modified Goodman:     N    145 920 cycles 1  95 kpsi, N1     4100 cycles
n f Se Sut 45.12 145  1022.5   250.88 
320   200  320   200   80 
1/ 0.116 749
n f = 0.79 Second loading:  m 2   60 MPa,   a 2   260 MPa  2  80 kpsi, N2     17 850 cycles
2 2  250.88 
Since infinite life is not predicted, estimate a life from the S-N diagram. First, find an 1/ 0.116 749
 65 
equivalent completely reversed stress (See Ex. 6-12). 260  3  65 kpsi, N3     105 700 cycles
 a  e 2   298.0 MPa  250.88 
1  60 / 470
 a 37.89
 rev    65.2 kpsi
1  ( m / Sut ) 1  (60.73 / 145) 1/0.127767 0.2 N 0.5 N
 
0.3N
 1  N  12 600 cycles Ans.
 298.0 
(a) Miner’s method: N2     15 520 cycles 4100 17 850 105 700
Fig. 6-18: f = 0.8  1022.5 
______________________________________________________________________________
n1 n2 80 000 n2
 f Sut  0.8(145)  1   1  n2  7000 cycles Ans.
2 2
6-61 Given: S ut = 530 MPa, S e = 210 MPa, and f = 0.9.
Eq. (6-14): a   298.2 N1 N 2 145 920 15 520 (a) Miner’s method
Se 45.12
 0.9  530  
2
1  f Sut 
b   log 
1  0.8(145)  (b) Manson’s method: The number of cycles remaining after the first loading a   1083.47 MPa
Eq. (6-15):    log    0.1367 210
3  Se  3  45.12 
N remaining =145 920  80 000 = 65 920 cycles 1 0.9  530 
1
b   log  0.118 766
3 210
 
1/ b
 65.2  0.1367 Two data points: 0.9(470) MPa, 103 cycles
Eq. (6-16): N   rev     67 607 cycles
 a   298.2  223.8 MPa, 65 920 cycles 1/ 0.118 766
 350 
a2 10  3 b2 1  350 MPa, N1     13 550 cycles
0.9  470   1083.47 
N = 67 600 cycles Ans. 
a2  65 920  2
b 1/ 0.118 766
______________________________________________________________________________ 223.8  260 
 2  260 MPa, N 2     165 600 cycles
1.8901   0.015170  2  
b
1083.47
6-59 For AISI 1020 CD, From Table A-20, S y = 390 MPa, S ut = 470 MPa. Given: S e = 175 1/ 0.118 766
log1.8901  225 
MPa.
b2   0.151 997  3  225 MPa, N 3     559 400 cycles
360  160 360  160  1083.47 
First Loading:  m 1   260 MPa,   a 1   100 MPa log 0.015170
n1 n2 n3
2 2
a2 
223.8
 1208.7 MPa   1
 65 920  N1 N 2 N 3
0.151 997
 a 1 100
Goodman:  a e1    223.8 MPa  Se  finite life 1/ 0.151 997
5000

50 000

n3
 184 100 cycles Ans.
1   m 1 / Sut 1  260 / 470  298.0 
n2    10 000 cycles 13 550 165 600 559 400
 Ans.
 1208.7 
______________________________________________________________________________ (b) Manson’s method:
The life remaining after the first series of cycling is N R1 = 13 550  5000 = 8550
6-60 Given: S e = 50 kpsi, S ut = 140 kpsi, f =0.8. Using Miner’s method, cycles. The two data points required to define S e,1 are [0.9(530), 103] and (350, 8550).

a2 10   0.86  85  
2
3 b2
0.9  530 
  1.3629   0.11696  2
b
a   116.00 kpsi 6-65 A Priori Decisions:
a2  8550  2
b
350 45
1 0.86  85  • Material and condition: 1020 CD, S ut = 68 LN(1, 0.28), and
b   log  0.070 235
log 1.362 9  3 45 S y = 57 LN(1, 0.058) kpsi
b2   0.144 280 • Reliability goal: R = 0.99 (z =  2.326, Table A-10)
log  0.116 96  1/ 0.070 235 • Function:
 54.09 
350 1  54.09 kpsi, N1     52 190 cycles Critical location—hole
a2   1292.3 MPa  116.00 
8550 
0.144 280
• Variabilities:
1/0.144 280
 260  (a) Miner’s method (see discussion on p. 325): The number of remaining cycles at 54.09 Cka  0.058
N2     67 090 cycles
 1292.3  kpsi is N remaining = 52 190  12 000 = 40 190 cycles. The new coefficients are b = b,
Ckc  0.125
N R 2  67 090  50 000  17 090 cycles and a =S f /Nb = 54.09/(40 190)  0.070 235 = 113.89 kpsi. The new endurance limit is
CSe  0.138
Se,1  aN eb  113.89 106 
 0.070 235
 43.2 kpsi  
1/2
a3 103 
b3 Ans. CSe  Cka2  Ckc2  CS2e  (0.0582  0.1252  0.1382 )1/2  0.195
0.9  530 
  1.834 6   0.058 514  2
b
260 a3 17 090  3

b CKf  0.10
(b) Manson’s method (see discussion on p. 326): The number of remaining cycles at
54.09 kpsi is N remaining = 52 190  12 000 = 40 190 cycles. At 103 cycles, CFa  0.20
log 1.834 6  260 S f = 0.86(85) = 73.1 kpsi. The new coefficients are C a  (0.102  0.202 )1/2  0.234
b3   0.213 785, a3   2088.7 MPa b = [log(73.1/54.09)]/log(103/40 190) =  0.081 540 and a = 1 / (N remaining ) b =
log  0.058 514  17 090 
0.213 785
CSe2  C2a 0.1952  0.2342
54.09/(40 190)  0.081 540 = 128.39 kpsi. The new endurance limit is Cn    0.297
1  C2a 1  0.2342
1/0.213 785
Se,1  aN eb  128.39 106 
 0.081 540
 225   41.6 kpsi
N3     33 610 cycles Ans. Ans.
 2088.7  ______________________________________________________________________________
Resulting in a design factor n f of,
______________________________________________________________________________
6-64 Given S ut =1030LN(1, 0.0508) MPa Eq. (6-59): n f  exp[(2.326) ln(1  0.297 2 )  ln 1  0.297 2 ]  2.05
6-62 Given: S e = 45 kpsi, S ut = 85 kpsi, f = 0.86, and a = 35 kpsi and m = 30 kpsi for 12 • Decision: Set n f = 2.05
(103) cycles. From Table 6-10: a = 1.58, b =  0.086, C = 0.120
a 35
Eq. (6-72) and Table 6-10): k a  1.58 1030  LN 1, 0.120   0.870LN 1, 0.120 
0.086
Gerber equivalent reversing stress:  rev    39.98 kpsi Now proceed deterministically using the mean values:
1   m / Sut  1   30 / 85 
2 2
k a  2.67  68 
0.265
(a) Miner’s method: rev < S e . According to the method, this means that the endurance From Prob. 6-1: k b = 0.97 Table 6-10:  0.873
limit has not been reduced and the new endurance limit is Se = 45 kpsi. Ans. Eq. (6-21): kb = 1
Eqs. (6-70) and (6-71): S e = [0.870LN(1, 0.120)] (0.97) [0.506(1030)LN(1,
(b) Manson’s method: Again, rev < S e . According to the method, this means that the 0.138)] Table 6-11: kc  1.23  68 
0.0778
 0.886
material has not been damaged and the endurance limit has not been reduced. Thus,
the new endurance limit is Se = 45 kpsi. Ans. S e  0.870 (0.97)(0.506)(1030) = 440 MPa
Eq. (6-70): Se  0.506  68   34.4 kpsi
______________________________________________________________________________
and, C Se  (0.122 + 0.1382)1/2 = 0.183
6-63 Given: S e = 45 kpsi, S ut = 85 kpsi, f = 0.86, and a = 35 kpsi and m = 30 kpsi for 12 Eq. (6-71): Se  0.873 1 0.886  34.4  26.6 kpsi
(103) cycles. S e =440LN(1, 0.183) MPa Ans.
a 35 From Prob. 6-14, K f = 2.26. Thus,
Goodman equivalent reversing stress:  rev    54.09 kpsi ______________________________________________________________________________
1   m / Sut  1   30 / 85 
Initial cycling
Fa Fa F S  1  C2  From Eq. (5-43), p. 250,
a  K f  Kf  Kf a  e ln  S 
A t  2.5  0.5  2t n f   1  CS2 
z  ln (156.2 / 62.1) (1  0.152 ) / (1  0.1952 ) 
2.05  2.26  3.8    3.75
ln 1  CS2 1  C2  
n f K f Fa
t    0.331 in z
2Se 2  26.6  ln[(1  0.1952 )(1  0.152 )]
Decision: Use t = 3
8
in Ans. ln  263.8 / 152 

1  0.152  / 1  0.152  
  2.61 From Table A-10, p f = 0.000 09
ln 1  0.152 1  0.152  
______________________________________________________________________________
R = 1  p f = 1  0.000 09 = 0.999 91 Ans.
6-66 Rotation is presumed. M and S ut are given as deterministic, but notice that  is not; From Table A-10, p f = 0.004 53. Thus, R = 1  0.004 53 = 0.995 Ans.
For a design with completely-reversed torsion of 160 N · m, the reliability is 0.999 91.
therefore, a reliability estimation can be made.
The improvement over bending comes from a smaller stress-concentration factor in
Note: The correlation method uses only the mean of S ut ; its variability is already
torsion. See the note at the end of the solution of Prob. 6-66 for the reason for the
From Eq. (6-70): S e = 0.506(780)LN(1, 0.138) = 394.7 LN(1, 0.138) included in the 0.138. When a deterministic load, in this case M, is used in a reliability
phraseology.
estimate, engineers state, “For a Design Load of M, the reliability is 0.995.” They are, in
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 6-13: k a = 4.45(780) 0.265LN(1, 0.058) = 0.762 LN(1, 0.058) fact, referring to a Deterministic Design Load.
Based on d = 32  6 = 26 mm, Eq. (6-20) gives ______________________________________________________________________________
6-68
 0.107 6-67 For completely reversed torsion, k a and k b of Prob. 6-66 apply, but k c must also be
 26 
kb     0.877 considered. Sut = 780/6.89 = 113 kpsi
 7.62 
Eq. 6-74: k c = 0.328(113)0.125LN(1, 0.125) = 0.592LN(1, 0.125)
Note 0.590 is close to 0.577.
Conservatism is not necessary
S e  k a kbk cSe
S e  0.762LN 1, 0.058   (0.877)(394.7)  LN(1, 0.138)
 0.762[LN(1, 0.058)](0.877)[0.592LN(1, 0.125)][394.7LN(1, 0.138)] Given: S ut = 58 kpsi.
Se  263.8 MPa
Se  0.762(0.877)(0.592)(394.7)  156.2 MPa
CSe  (0.058  0.138 )
2 2 1/2
 0.150 Eq. (6-70): S e = 0.506(76) LN(1, 0.138) = 38.5 LN(1, 0.138) kpsi
CSe  (0.0582  0.1252  0.1382 )1/2  0.195
S e  263.8LN(1, 0.150) MPa k a = 14.5(76) 0.719 LN(1, 0.11) = 0.644 LN(1, 0.11)
S e  156.2LN(1, 0.195) MPa Table 6-13:
Fig. A-15-14: D/d = 32/26 = 1.23, r/d = 3/26 = 0.115. Thus, K t  1.75, and Eq. (6-78) Eq. (6-24): d e = 0.370(1.5) = 0.555 in
Fig. A-15-15: D/d = 1.23, r/d = 0.115, then K ts  1.40. From Eq. (6-78) and
and Table 6-15 gives
Kt 1.75 Table 7-8 Eq. (6-20): k b = (0.555/0.3)0.107 = 0.936
Kf    1.64 K ts 1.40
2  K t  1 a 2 1.75  1 104 / 780 K fs    1.34 Eq. (6-70): S e = [0.644 LN(1, 0.11)](0.936)[38.5 LN(1, 0.138)]
1 1 2  K ts  1 a 2 1.40  1 104 / 780
1 1
Se  0.644  0.936  38.5  23.2 kpsi
Kt r 1.75 3
K ts r 1.40 3
From Table 6-15, C Kf = 0.15. Thus,
From Table 6-15, C Kf = 0.15. Thus,
C Se = (0.112 + 0.1382)1/2 = 0.176
K f = 1.64LN(1, 0.15)
K fs = 1.34LN(1, 0.15)
S e =23.2 LN(1, 0.176) kpsi
The bending stress is
The torsional stress is
32M  32(160)  Table A-16: d/D = 0, a/D = (3/16)/1.5 = 0.125, A = 0.80  K t = 2.20.
 Kf  1.64LN(1, 0.15)  3 16T  16 160  
d3   (0.026)    K fs  1.34LN(1, 0.15)  3
d3    0.026  
 152 106  LN(1, 0.15) Pa  152LN (1, 0.15) MPa From Eqs. (6-78) and (6-79) and Table 6-15
From Eq. (5-43), p. 250,  62.1106  LN(1, 0.15) Pa  62.1LN(1, 0.15) MPa

2.20LN(1, 0.10)
Kf   1.83LN(1, 0.10)
2  2.20  1 5 / 76 Table A-16: In Prob. 6-30, it was found that the hole was the significant location that controlled the
1  AD 4  (0.89)(1.54 ) analysis. Thus,
2.20 0.125 J net    0.4423 in 4 S
32 32 a  e
Table A-16: Ta D 2(1.5) n
a  K f  1.40[LN (1, 0.10)]  4.75LN (1, 0.10) kpsi
 AD3  (0.80)(1.53 ) 2  0.4423 S Fa S
s
Z net    0.265 in 3
2 J net a  e  K f  e
32 32 n h  w1  d  n
M  1.5  From Eq. (6-57):
 Kf  1.83LN(1, 0.10)   We need to determine S e
Z net  0.265  ln(7.89 / 4.75) (1  0.102 ) / (1  0.2162 )
z  2.08
 10.4LN (1, 0.10) kpsi ln[(1  0.102 )(1  0.2162 )]
ka  2.67 Sut-0.265  2.67(64) -0.265  0.887
  10.4 kpsi Table A-10, p f = 0.0188, R = 1  p f = 1  0.0188 = 0.981 Ans.
kb = 1
C  0.10 ______________________________________________________________________________
kc  1.23Sut 0.0778  1.23(64)  0.0778  0.890
ln (23.2 /10.4) (1  0.102 ) / (1  0.1762 )  kd  ke  1
Eq. (5-43), p. 250: z    3.94 6-70 This is a very important task for the student to attempt before starting Part 3. It illustrates
the drawback of the deterministic factor of safety method. It also identifies the a priori S e  0.887(1)(0.890)(1)(1)(0.506)(64)  25.6 kpsi
ln[(1  0.1762 )(1  0.102 )]
decisions and their consequences.
The range of force fluctuation in Prob. 6-30 is  16 to + 5 kip, or 21 kip. Let the
Table A-10: p f = 0.000 041 5  R = 1  p f = 1  0.000 041 5 = 0.999 96 Ans. From the solution to Prob. 6-30, the stress concentration factor at the hole is K t = 2.68.
repeatedly-applied F a be 10.5 kip. The stochastic properties of this heat of AISI 1018 CD
______________________________________________________________________________ From Eq. (6-78) and Table 6-15
are given in the problem statement.
S e = 23.2 LN(1, 0.138) kpsi 2.68

6-69 From Prob. 6-68: Function Consequences Kf   2.20
2  2.68  1 5 / 64
Axial F a = 10.5 kip 1
k a = 0.644LN(1, 0.11) Fatigue load C Fa = 0 2.68 0.2
C kc = 0.125 K f nFa 2.20(2.02)(10.5)
k b = 0.936 Overall reliability R ≥ 0.998; z =  3.09 h   0.588 Ans.
 w1  d  Se  3.5  0.4  (25.6)
with twin fillets C Kf = 0.11
Eq. (6-74): k c = 0.328(76)0.125LN(1, 0.125) = 0.564 LN(1, 0.125) ______________________________________________________________________________
R  0.998  0.999
Eq. (6-71): S e = [0.644LN(1, 0.11)](0.936)[ 0.564 LN(1, 0.125)][ 23.2 LN(1, 0.138)] Cold rolled or machined C ka = 0.058 6-71
surfaces Fa  1200 lbf
Se  0.644  0.936  0.564  23.2   7.89 kpsi
Ambient temperature C kd = 0
Use correlation method C  0.138 Sut  80 kpsi
C Se = (0.112 +0.1252 + 0.1383)1/2 = 0.216
Stress amplitude C Kf = 0.11
(a) Strength
Table A-16: d/D = 0, a/D = (3/16)/1.5 = 0.125, A = 0.89, K ts = 1.64 C  a = 0.11
From Eqs. (6-78) and(7-79), and Table 6-15 Significant strength S e CSe  (0.0582  0.1252  0.1382 )1/2  0.195 k a = 2.67(80) 0265LN(1, 0.058) = 0.836 LN(1, 0.058)
1.64LN (1, 0.10) Choose the mean design factor which will meet the reliability goal. From Eq. (6-88) kb = 1
Kfs   1.40LN (1, 0.10)
2 1.64  1 5 / 76
1
1.64 3 / 32 0.1952  0.112 k c = 1.23(80) 0.0778LN(1, 0.125) = 0.875 LN(1, 0.125)
Cn   0.223
1  0.112
n  exp  (3.09) ln(1  0.2232 )  ln 1  0.2232 
 
n  2.02
www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©
Se  0.506(80)LN(1, 0.138)  40.5LN(1, 0.138) kpsi
S e   0.836LN (1, 0.058)  (1)  0.875LN(1, 0.125)  40.5LN(1, 0.138) 
Se  0.836(1)(0.875)(40.5)  29.6 kpsi
CSe  (0.0582  0.1252  0.1382 )1/2  0.195
Stress: Fig. A-15-1; d/w = 0.75/1.5 = 0.5, K t = 2.18. From Eqs. (6-78), (6-79) and
Table 6-15
2.18LN(1, 0.10)
Kf   1.96LN(1, 0.10)
2  2.18  1 5 / 80
1
2.18 0.375
Fa
a  K f , C  0.10
(w  d )t
K f Fa 1.96(1.2)
a    12.54 kpsi
( w  d )t (1.5  0.75)(0.25)
S a  Se  29.6 kpsi
ln ( S a /  a ) 1  C2  1  CS2  
z  
ln 1  C2 1  CS2  
ln  29.6 /12.48  1  0.10  / 1  0.1952  

 2
    3.9
ln 1  0.102 1  0.1952  
From Table A-20, p f = 4.81(10 5)  R = 1  4.81(10 5) = 0.999 955 Ans.
(b) All computer programs will differ in detail.

______________________________________________________________________________
6-72 to 6-78 Computer programs are very useful for automating specific tasks in the design
process. All computer programs will differ in detail.
Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 66/66

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

Chapter 6 Solutions

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Chapter 6 Solutions

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.

Se  0.5(80)  40 kpsi ( f Sut )

Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 1/66 Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 2/66

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

kb  0.879d 0.107  0.879(1.5) 0.107  0.842 Tr K fs 16T 1.32(16)(1800)

 2.2095 kb  0.907 (same as 4340) Eq. (6-14): a

 f Sut   0.83(770)  2553 MPa

M max  (2000 N)(0.6 m)  1200 N  m Mc 25 000(1.8 / 2)

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

N   f rev     7527 cycles  

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

Eq. (6-14): a   122.5

Eq. (6-14): a   1263

Fig. 6-18: f = 0.87 Eq. (6-14): a   1263

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

Se 208.6 Eq. (6-14): a   748.4 stresses. The maximum bending moment

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

Obtain the modifying factors and endurance limit.  m   a  13.98 kpsi

Eq. (6-19): ka  2.70(64) 0.265  0.90

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

   1.72  0    3 1.49  2.97   

Eq. (6-8): Se  0.5  64   32 kpsi

Eq. (6-19): k a  aSutb  2.70(64) 0.265  0.897 nf

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

m    7.32 kpsi K f  1  q ( K t  1)  1  0.9(3  1)  2.80

a   1022.5 MPa a   250.88 kpsi

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

260 a3 17 090  3

www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com © www.iranmanufacturing.rozblog.com ©

S e = 23.2 LN(1, 0.138) kpsi 2.68

ln  29.6 /12.48  1  0.10  / 1  0.1952  

From Table A-20, p f = 4.81(10 5)  R = 1  4.81(10 5) = 0.999 955 Ans.

(b) All computer programs will differ in detail.

Chapter 6 - Rev. A, Page 66/66

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen