Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structural
Available
Available Integrity
online
online atProcedia
at 00 (2016) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia
StructuralStructural
IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia100 (2016)
(2016) 000–000
173–180
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

XV Portuguese Conference on Fracture, PCF 2016, 10-12 February 2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
XV Portuguese Conference on Fracture, PCF 2016, 10-12 February 2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
Failure analysis of the rod of a hydraulic cylinder
Failure analysis of the rod of a hydraulic cylinder
XV Portuguese Conference ona Fracture, PCF
a 2016, 10-12
a,b February 2016, Paço
a,b de Arcos, Portugal
S.M.O. Tavaresa, N. Viriatoa, M. Vaza,b, P.M.S.T. de Castroa,b*
S.M.O. Tavares , N. Viriato , M. Vaz , P.M.S.T. de Castro *
Thermo-mechanical
a
a b
Institute of Science and Innovation
Faculdade
modeling
in Mechanical
de Engenharia
ofEngineering,
and Industrial
da Universidade do Porto,
aRuahigh pressure
Rua Dr.Frias,
Dr. Roberto Roberto
turbine
Frias 400,
4200-465 4200-465
Porto,
blade of an
Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias 400, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
PortugalPorto, Portugal
b
airplane gas turbine engine
Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

a b c
Abstract P. Brandão , V. Infante , A.M. Deus *
Abstract
a
This paper Department
presents of theMechanical Engineering,
failure analysis of theInstituto
rod ofSuperior Técnico, Universidade
an oleo-hydraulic cylinder of de aLisboa,
machineAv. Rovisco Pais,testing
for fatigue 1, 1049-001largeLisboa,
diameter
Thisbpaper
heavy duty presents
cables for themarine
failureapplications.
analysis of the rod of an
A distinct feature Portugal
oleo-hydraulic
of cylinder
this machine is of
its asize:
machine for fatigue
the 3990 mm long testing
rod has largeandiameter
outside
IDMEC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais,
heavy
diameter dutyof cables
340 mm.for The
marine rod applications.
is manufactured A distinct feature
machining of this
a solid machine
cylinder of is its size:
42CrMo4 the 3990
steel, along mm long
most its1, length,
of rod 1049-001
has an intoLisboa,
outside
an
Portugal
diameter
hollow
c of 340
cylindrical mm.
rod The
with rod
insideis manufactured
diameter 165 machining
mm. Typical a solid
maximum cylinder
loadsof 42CrMo4
applied are steel,
of the along
order most
of
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, 10000of its
kN. length,
In oneinto
of an
the
hollow cylindrical
extremities rod with
where load inside the
is applied, diameter
rod is 165
solidmm.(notTypical
hollow),maximum loads applied
and the complete
Portugal are occurred
fracture of the order of 10000
in the transitionkN.ofInthe onesolid
of the
to
extremities whereduring
the hollow parts, load isa applied, the rodunder
test performed is solid (not hollow),
maximum and
load of the kN
8200 complete
under fracture occurred
R (load ratio) in the transition
of approximately 0. of the solid to
the hollow
The fractureparts, during
is flat and aperpendicular
test performed to under
the rod maximum
axis, ie toload
theofload
8200direction, R (load ratio)
kN underrevealing of approximately
a smooth 0.
surface appearance. Fracture
The fracture
surface is flatincreases
roughness
Abstract and perpendicular
from the inner to thetorod outerieradius.
theaxis, to the Close
load direction, revealing
to the outer a smooth of
radius evidence surface appearance.
ring-like beach marks Fracture
was
surface
found. Theroughness
fractureincreases
was due to from the inner
fatigue to the
cracking outer at
initiated radius. Close
the fillet to the
radius of outer radius evidence
the transition of ring-like
solid/hollow rod, andbeach marks until
propagated was
found.
complete,
DuringThesudden
fracture
their was duemodern
fracture.
operation, to fatigueaircraft
cracking initiated
engine at the filletare
components radius of the transition
subjected solid/hollow
to increasingly rod, and
demanding propagated
operating until
conditions,
complete,
The paper sudden
especially discussesfracture.
the high this case inturbine
pressure the light of (i)
(HPT) a conventional
blades. Soderberg
Such conditions cause approach,
these partsandto(ii) a DINdifferent
undergo 743 analysis.
types Lessons learned
of time-dependent
The
in thepaper
case,discusses
degradation, one ofthis
particularly ascase
which isincreep.
concerns the alight of (i) ausing
comparison
A model conventional
of the finite Soderberg
thetypical Soderberg
element approach,
approach
method (FEM) andwas(ii) developed,
the a DIN
DIN 743743 analysis.
procedure,
in order toare Lessons
able learned
bepresented.
to predict
in the
the case,
creepparticularly
behaviour asofconcerns
HPT blades. a comparison
Flight dataof the typical(FDR)
records Soderberg for approach
a specificand the DIN
aircraft, 743 procedure,
provided are presented.
by a commercial aviation
© 2016
company,The Authors.
were Published
used to obtain bythermal
Elsevierand B.V.mechanical data for three different flight cycles. In order to create the 3D model
© 2016, PROSTR (Procedia Structural Integrity) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2016
Peer-reviewTheforunder
Authors. Published
responsibility by aElsevier B.V. scrap
needed
Peer-review underthe FEM
responsibility of theofScientific
analysis, the
HPTScientific
blade
Committee Committee of PCF 2016.
was2016.
of PCF scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
Peer-review
obtained. under
The dataresponsibility
that was gatheredof the Scientific
was fed into Committee
the FEMofmodel
PCF 2016.and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
rectangular
Keywords: block
Fracture; shape,case
fatigue; in order
study; toDINbetter
743; establish
shaft design;theSoderberg
model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
approach;
overall expected
Keywords: behaviour
Fracture; fatigue; case in terms
study; DINof743;
displacement
shaft design;was observed,
Soderberg in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
approach;
model can be useful in the goal of predicting turbine blade life, given a set of FDR data.
1. Introduction
1. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Introduction
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
The piston rod of a hydraulic cylinder of a testing machine, used for fatigue and tensile testing of cables, suffered
The piston
sudden rodrupture
complete of a hydraulic
while thecylinder
machine of was
a testing machine,
performing used for
a fatigue fatigue
test. andcylinder
The rod tensile testing of cables,
was machined suffered
internally,
Keywords: High Pressure Turbine Blade; Creep; Finite Element Method; 3D Model; Simulation.
sudden complete rupture while the machine was performing a fatigue test. The rod cylinder was machined internally,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 225081716; fax: +351 225081445.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Tel.: +351 225081716; fax: +351 225081445.
ptcastro@fe.up.pt
E-mail address: ptcastro@fe.up.pt
2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review underThe
2452-3216 © 2016 responsibility of theby
Authors. Published Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review underauthor.
* Corresponding responsibility
Tel.: +351of218419991.
the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
E-mail address: amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
2452-3216 © 2016, PROSTR (Procedia Structural Integrity) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Peer review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
10.1016/j.prostr.2016.02.024
174 S.M.O. Tavares et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180
2 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

producing a hollow cylinder along most of its length. A distinct feature of this machine is its size: the 3990 mm long
rod has an outside diameter of 340 mm. The rod is manufactured machining a solid cylinder of 42CrMo4 steel, along
most of its length, into an hollow cylindrical rod with inside diameter 165 mm. Typical maximum loads applied are
of the order of 10000 kN. In one of the extremities where load is applied, the rod is solid (not hollow), and the
complete fracture occurred in the transition of the solid to the hollow parts, during a test performed under maximum
load of 8200 kN under R (load ratio ) of approximately 0.The fracture occurred in the shoulder fillet in the end of the
hollow part of the rod. Figure 1 shows the fracture surface. The fracture surface reveals different mechanisms of
cracking. The dominant type of fracture surface is of smooth appearance, resulting from fatigue, constituting a ring
around the machined internal hollow region of the rod. Concentric lines, beach marks or striations typical of fatigue
fractures, are identified in the periphery of this smooth ring surface, Figure 2, which also displays the final fracture
region; a detail of a plane stress fracture (inverted cone) appearance at the shaft surface is evident. The surface
quality resulting from the machining operation can be considered rough, with deep grooves, as can be seen in Figure
3.
Rod material testing consisted of tensile, hardness and Charpy testing, and microstructure and metallographic
characterization. The failure analysis carried out involved the finite element modelling of the component, since it
was realized that the shoulder fillet radius, in the transition from hollow to full cylinder, could be the origin of the
inadequate fatigue strength of the rod.

Figure 1 – Fracture surface. Figure 2 – Detail of the outer part of the Figure 3 – Fatigue surface, and appearance of
fracture surface, showing the dominant fatigue the machined interior surface of the rod. (the
region (smooth surface). photograph shows some oil still present in the
rod when the photo was taken).

2. Finite element analysis of the stress concentration factor in the rod

In order to determine the stress concentration factor of the shoulder fillet of a rod, a finite element model was
built using ABAQUS software. The radii at the shoulder fillet considered for this study were: 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm
and 15 mm. Axisymmetric elements were employed, with quadratic formulation and reduced integration (ABAQUS
element reference: CAX8R). As an example, the geometry and the boundary conditions applied for the model with a
radius of 3 mm are presented in Figure 4. Several mesh element sizes were evaluated in order to determine the
effective stress concentration factor. For the finest mesh, the results of yy stress are presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7.
The element face size for this case is visible in Figure 7, corresponding to a face width of 0.05 mm.
The evolution of the concentration factor for the different radii is presented in Figure 8. The minimum element
face size for an accurate stress concentration factor determination depends on the radius considered. However, after
this study, it is concluded that using quadratic elements, the element face width should be 10 times less than the
radius.
Considering the different models built, a calibration of the stress concentration factor was obtained, Figure 9. As
expected, this factor increases when the radius decreases; the increase is particularly important for low values of
radius, compromising the integrity of the rod piston. The maximum in-plane stress is also obtained from the finite
element models; for the case of a radius of 1 mm, its direction is shown in Figure 10. Looking to the direction of
maximum stress, the ledge on the fracture surface is in accordance with this direction.
 S.M.O. Tavares et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180 175
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 3

Figure 4 - ABAQUS Figure 5 - Contour map Figure 6 - Contour map of von Mises Figure 7 - Contour map of stresses in yy
FE model with a of stresses in yy direction stresses, detailed view direction, detailed view with elements
radius of 3 mm, with and point of maximum representation.
boundary conditions. stress

Figure 8 - Element face size vs. stress concentration Figure 9 - Stress concentration factor calibration for the shoulder fillet
factor for different radii. of the rod, considering different radii.

Figure 10 - Direction of the maximum in plane stresses. Figure 11 – Schematic representation of a cut of the rod by a plane
containing the axis.

As represented schematically in Figure 11, the fractured surface reveals an approximately circular ridge, where
the fatigue surface begins, followed by a transition towards a planar flat surface.
The stress analysis performed is fully consistent with the crack morphology. The crack starts in the shoulder
fillet in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the maximum principal stress; after the crack initiation, creating the
176 S.M.O. Tavares et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180
4 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

ridge observed, the crack path should tend to a plane perpendicular to the cylinder axis, and this is fully consistent
with the observed crack surface, Figure 1.

3. Analysis based on the Soderberg fatigue criterion

The approach follows typical machine design textbook presentation, eg Childs (2004). Tensile testing gave steel
rupture and yield stresses of 830 MPa and 621 MPa respectively. The shoulder fillet radius in the fractured rod is
approximately 1mm. Theoretical stress concentration factor Kt obtained in ABAQUS for 1mm radius is Kt=6.6.
Hardness is 251 HBW. Notch sensitivity index q, a function of (i) the steel and its hardness, and (ii) of Kt, is
estimated in this case as q=0.5. Practical stress concentration factor (also called ‘fatigue stress concentration factor’)
is therefore:
K f 1  q  Kt  1  3.8 (1)
Surface quality effect is a function of the rupture strength of the material, and of the manufacturing process, in
this case machining; it is estimated as C=0.7. Size effect typically associated to stress gradients resulting from
bending (or torsion), was not considered; however, a reduction of yield and rupture stresses due to the large diameter
is foreseen in steel suppliers data. Fatigue limit under R=-1 is assumed to be half of the rupture strength. However
that relationship holds for normal stress resulting from bending moment. If, as in the present case, normal stress
results from axial loading, the fatigue strength value should be corrected by the multiplying factor 0.8. The approach
based on the Soderberg diagram, not taking into account the necessary safety factor, ie assuming N=1,
K fa 
 m  1 (2)
f0
c
 yield
R 0  min  max   a  m

   
3.8  max   max 
 2   2     3.8 1  2
1  max    1   max  111.3MPa (3)
415  0.7  0.8 621 2  232.4 621   3.8 1 
  
 232.4 621 
implying a maximum load of 913 ton. This is a result of considering axial effort only, and not considering the
necessary safety factor (ie, in the above calculation safety factor is N=1). Axial loading only is considered, since
eventual bending effects were considered small. A study of the crack surface reveals that the fatigue crack is not
precisely axisymmetric, suggesting that some bending load was present during the crack propagation. Details of this
analysis are given in Figures 12 to 14. In particular, the analysis performed on Figure 12 revealed that the hollow
cylinder is not precisely concentric. SOLIDWORKS software was used for the estimation of the areas corresponding
to fatigue and to final rupture, Figures 13 and 14 respectively.
As simplifying assumptions, no reference was made to eventual bending effects, or to eventual oil pressure
effects, both of which could further decrease the load capacity of the rod. For this type of calculation a safety factor
N greater than 2 is advisable.
Using N=2 this study indicates that the failed rod could be submitted to cyclic loading with R=0 and maximum
load of the order of 450 ton, far below the levels of loading that according to the owner of the machine were applied.
Given the strong evidence that the cause of the failure is the inadequate design of the shoulder fillet radius, the more
detailed DIN 743 was not necessary to reach conclusions. However DIN 743 was used for an analysis of a new rod,
with a larger fillet radius 15mm, as presented later.
 S.M.O. Tavares et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180 177
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 5

Figure 12 – Estimate of the areas of Figure 13 – Fatigue crack area. Figure 14 – Final rupture area.
fatigue fracture (smooth appearance surface)
and final rupture (surface with a coarser
appearance).

4. New rod: simplified analyses using Smith diagram and Soderberg criterion

Theoretical stress concentration factor obtained in ABAQUS, is now Kt=2.7. Hardness is 251 HBW. Notch
sensitivity index q, a function of (i) the steel and its hardness, and (ii) of Kt, is estimated in this case as q=0.8 .
Practical stress concentration factor is now:
K f 1  q  Kt  1 2.36 (4)
Surface effect is estimated as C=0.7. Size effect typically associated to stress gradients resulting from bending (or
torsion), is not considered. Fatigue strength under axial loading and R=0, assuming that the load varies cyclically
between a value close to zero and the maximum value, was obtained from available Smith diagram for this steel and
for this type of loading (axial loading), Wittel et al. (2013). For the present loading assumption,  max 685MPa .
No correction factor for ‘type of load’ was considered, since the mentioned reference gives data specifically for the
relevant loading (axial loading). Not taking into account the necessary safety factor, as a first approximation the
calculation was carried out as follows:
F  max  C   3602  1652   max  C
 
 F  F  16336552N  1667 ton (5)
  3602  1652  Kf 4 K f
4
This is a result of considering axial effort only, and not considering the necessary safety factor (ie, in the above
calculation safety factor is 1). The simplifying assumptions mentioned above were again applied.
An alternative approach, strictly based on the Soderberg diagram, would be as follows, again not taking into
account the necessary safety factor, ie assuming :

   
2.36  max   max 
 2  2    2.36 1  2
1  max   1   max  170.0MPa (6)
415  0.7  0.8 621 2  232.4 621   2.36 1 
  
 232.4 621 
implying a maximum load of 1367 ton.
This second calculation confirms the order of magnitude of the first approach: 1367 ton, to be compared with
1667 ton. Again, the necessary safety factor was not taken into account, ie N=1 was assumed so far, and simplifying
assumptions involved are: (i) pressure effects, which may reduce the value of F indicated were not considered, and
(ii) pure axial loading is considered.
178 S.M.O. Tavares et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180
6 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

5. Approach following DIN 743

The standard DIN 743 (2000) was briefly reviewed in a presentation to the Materiais 2015 conference, Tavares
and de Castro (2015). Due to its specificity, the notation of the standard is used here. The fatigue safety factor can be
determined as:
1 2
      ta  
2 2

S  zda  ba     (7)

 zdADK  bADK    tADK  
where  zda ,  ba and  ta are the stress amplitudes due to tension/compression, bending and torsion, respectively,
and  zdADK ,  bADK and  tADK are the permissible stress amplitudes taking into account the material fatigue strength
for tension/compression, bending and torsion, respectively. Since in this problem only tensile stress is considered,
the safety factor is determined as S   zdADK  zda . Considering only the tensile stress on the rod piston, given by:

  zd F   re 2  ri2  (8)

where re and ri are the external and internal rod piston radii, respectively. The amplitude and the mean values of this
tensile stress is given in this case by:


zda 
zdm F 2  re 2  ri2  (9)
Combined mean stress,  mv is given by:

 zdm   bm 
2
 mv
  3  tm2 (10)
In the present study,  mv   zdm and it is constant (case 1 of DIN 743), then the permissible stress amplitude
 zdADK is given by:
 zdADK   zdWK  zd K   mv (11)
where  zdWK is the tension/compression fatigue strength for this piston configuration, given by:

 zdW  d B   K1  d eff 
 zdWK  (12)
K
where  zdW  d B  is the fatigue strength obtained from laboratory specimens. The factor  zd K is given by:

 zdWK
 zd K  (13)
2  K1  d eff    b  d b    zdWK
The effective diameter ( d eff ) according to FKM (2012), is:

deff  2  t  360  165  195 mm (14)

The technology size factor K1(deff), for a steel in annealed condition and for 32 mm<deff<300 mm is given by:

d   195 
K1 1  0.26  log  eff  
1  0.26  log  0.718 (15)
2 d
 B  2 16 
The yield strength, according to measurements is  S  d B   621 MPa . Considering the deff of this rod piston, the
yield strength will be:

 S  d  K1  d eff    S  d B  0.718  621 445.7 MPa (16)

The stress concentration factor for the critical point, obtained by finite element analysis previously presented is
  2.7 . The notch sensitivity factor is obtained from DIN 743-2 using the stress gradient and the yield strength of
 S.M.O. Tavares et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180 179
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000 7

the material. For the stress gradient, considering as a reference the shaft detail presented in Figure 15, can be
estimated for tensile stress, as:
2.3 1   
G'  0.17 (17)
r
where ϕ is:
1
  0.088 (18)
4 t r  2

Figure 15 - Reference geometry to estimate the stress gradient (G’), FKM (2012).

then a notch sensitivity factor of n=1.05 is assumed. Therefore, the notch effect coefficient is:
 2.7
   2.57 (19)
n 1.05
The geometric size factor K2(d) for this case is 1, since that it is only considered tensile stress. The surface
roughness factor, K F , is given by:

   d   
K F  1  0.22  log  Rz    log  B   1 (20)

  20  
where Rz is the surface roughness in μm and  B  d  is the yield strength of the material and considering the
effective diameter. For the present case, the surface roughness factor is:

  445.7  
K F 1  0.22  log  32    log    1 0.884 (21)
  20  
The factor of surface hardening ( KV ) is considered 1, since no information about surface hardening is available.
Therefore, the total tensile fatigue factor is:

  1  1  2.57 1  1
K    1      1 
 2.7 (22)
 K 2  d  K F

 KV  1 0.885  1
Since fatigue properties for the steel 42CrNiMo4 in the condition used in the rod piston are not available,
according to DIN 743-3 the fatigue strength,  zdW is approximately 0.4 of the tensile strength (  B ), which for this
steel is about 830 MPa. Therefore, the fatigue strength is assumed to be  zdW  332 MPa . Therefore, the
compression/tensile fatigue strength for the present case is:

 zdW  d B   K1  d eff  332  0.718

 zdWK
   88.2 MPa (23)
K 2.7
and the factor  zd K is:

 zdWK 88.2
 zd K   0.08 (24)
2  K1  d eff    B  d b    zdWK 2  0.718  830  88.2
then the permissible stress amplitude,  zdADK , is:
180
8 S.M.O.
Author Tavares
name et al. /Integrity
/ Structural ProcediaProcedia
Structural
00Integrity 1 (2016) 173–180
(2016) 000–000

F
 zdADK   zdWK  zd K   mv  88.2  0.08  (25)
2  re 2  ri2 
and the safety factor is, for this case:
F
88.2  0.08 
 zdADK 2  re 2  ri 2 
 S  (26)
 zda F
2  re 2  ri 2 
Considering the minimum safety factor of 1.2 according to DIN 743 the maximum load for this rod is 11.82 MN,
corresponding to about 1205 ton (or 1446 ton =12051.2 ton, if the safety factor was 1).

6. Concluding remarks

Soderberg criterion for shaft design is a straightforward approach found in several textbooks and manuals. DIN
743 is a less widespread approach, but it is more comprehensive, considering additional effects that may be
neglected by Soderberg based approaches. The application of both approaches for the verification of this rod design
showed small differences. Considering, just for the sake of comparison, a safety factor of 1 for both approaches, a
difference of approximately 5% (1367 ton vs. 1446 ton) was found. However, for the use of the Soderberg criterion
a safety factor bigger than 1.2 is recommended, whereas DIN 743 allows the use of 1.2.
This report shows that the rupture of the rod of the hydraulic cylinder of a testing machine for large size cables
was a fatigue failure resulting from the excessive stress concentration factor of the shoulder fillet in a detail of the
rod.
Revised design improvements might possibly be obtained:
• using a steel with higher strength, such as 30CrNiMo8;
• considerably reducing the level of stress concentration (ie, augmenting the shoulder fillet radius);
• improve the surface finishing, for instance, by grinding;
• applying fatigue strength improvement techniques (shot peening, …);
• using a larger cross section - enlarging the external diameter, reducing the internal diameter, or doing both
things at the same time.

Acknowledgements

The permission of Lankhorst Euronet to publish this paper is acknowledged. Dr. S.M.O. Tavares acknowledges
Ciência 2007 program of FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, (POPH – QREN-Tipologia 4.2 –
Promotion of scientific employment funded by the ESF – European Social Fund).

References

Childs, P., 2004. Mechanical design, 2nd ed., Elsevier.

DIN 743, 2000. Tragfähigkeitsberechnung von Wellen und Achsen (Calculation of load capacity of shafts and axles), in 4 parts.
FKM, 2012. Guideline: Analytical strength assessment of components: made of steel, cast iron and aluminum materials in mechanical
engineering’, VDMA, 6th rev. ed..
Tavares, S.M.O., de Castro, P.M.S.T., 2015. A Comparison of Methodologies for Fatigue Analysis of Shafts: DIN 743 vs. Approaches Based on
Soderberg Criterion’, Materiais 2015 - VII International Materials Symposium / XVII Conference of Sociedade Portuguesa dos Materiais,
Porto, 21-23 June 2015.
Wittel, H., Muhs, D., Jannasch, D., Voßiek, J., 2013. Roloff/Matek Maschinenelemente, 21st edition, Springer, (in particular: Table TB 1-1
Stahlauswahl für den allgemeinen Maschinenbau, p.3; Table TB 3-1 Fortsetzung b) Dauerfestigkeitsschaubilder der Vergütungsstähle nach
DIN EN 10083, p.46).