Proceedings of the 2009 ASME Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference (MSEC)

ASME Advances in Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Manufacturing Processes

October 4-7, 2009, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

Paper number: MSEC2009-84064

DEVELOPING A DURABILITY BY DESIGN PROCESS

John Draper
Safe Technology Limited
Sheffield, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
Modern fatigue analysis is providing analytical solutions to
problems that could previously be addressed only by methods
that were highly empirical and often inaccurate.
We can now focus on five crucial steps to successful fatigue
analysis. Working from elastic finite element models, the five
steps are: 1) the calculation of elastic-plastic stresses and strains
for complex loading and biaxial stress states; 2) modification of
the endurance limit to allow for the interaction between small
and larger cycles; 3) the calculation of the life to crack
initiation; 4) critical plane searching to determine the
orientation of a potential crack; 5) and an assessment of whether
the crack will propagate to failure.
The paper describes these steps and the underlying theories, and
gives industrial examples of their application to real
components.
NOMENCLATURE
max maximum shear strain range
N range of normal strain on the plane of maximum shear
strain
'
fatigue strength coefficient
f
'
f fatigue ductility coefficient
b fatigue strength exponent
c fatigue ductility exponent
Nf number of cycles to crack initiation
E elastic modulus
L critical distance
K th threshold stress intensity factor
0 constant amplitude endurance limit stress range
INTRODUCTION
Cracks may not start at the locations of maximum stress.
Stress contour plots from finite element models are often used
to highlight the points of interest in fatigue. The high stress
locations may be extracted for fatigue analysis, or used for
strain gauge locations. However, experience in both testing and
analysis has shown that for complex loading conditions cracks
may not initiate at points of high stress indicated by finite
element analysis. An example is shown in Figure 1. On this
automotive drive-line component the computer-based fatigue
analysis from the finite element model suggested a crack site
different from the location of the maximum principal stresses.
This was confirmed by testing. This study and others have
shown that there may be little correlation between finite element
stress contour plots and the locations of crack initiation sites
(See for example [1],[2]
This has significant implications. Firstly, it suggests that a
fatigue analysis of the entire finite element model, or a
substantial part of it, may be required to identify the crack
initiation sites. Secondly, it suggests that a design code that
simply limits the maximum allowable stress may in practice be
limiting the stresses in regions where cracks would not occur,
and may be allowing higher than acceptable stresses in the
actual crack initiation sites. The third implication is that we
need a method of analyzing complete finite element models in
order to identify crack initiation sites and calculate fatigue lives
quickly and reliably.
The essential features of such a method are outlined in this
paper.
PLASTICITY MODELLING
It has been known for over 100 years that inelasticity is required
to initiate fatigue cracks. In a summary of metal fatigue
knowledge in 1927 [3], it was stated explicitly that crack
initiation lives are related to the amount of plasticity in notches.
In [4], the area of interest in fatigue is stated to be that portion
of the stress-strain diagram between the beginning of the tiniest

1 Copyright 2009 by ASME

permanent deformation and the yield strength. These are clear
statements that even if stresses are smaller than the conventional
yield stress the material may not be elastic. The conventional
yield stress is often taken as the 0.2% proof stress. Most fatigue
stresses are smaller than this, but cracks can still initiate because
of small amounts of plasticity. [5], [6] and [7] describe early
studies of elastic-plastic stress - strain response in steels.
FATIGUE DAMAGE METHOD
The early work on plasticity in fatigue led to a proposal for the
analysis of fatigue crack initiation under biaxial stresses. The
von Mises stress can be used to estimate the onset of inelastic
behaviour for biaxial stresses. The von Mises stress is an
average of the shear stresses at a point. Shear stresses therefore
determine the onset on inelasticity, and if inelastic stresses are
necessary to initiate fatigue cracks, then shear stress may be the
parameter that determines crack initiation. Early studies on
biaxial fatigue were based on shear stresses. [3] from 1927
explicitly states that principal stresses cannot be used for biaxial
fatigue analysis of most metals.
Findley in 1959 [8] made a significant breakthrough by
suggesting that whilst cyclic shear stress cycles may be a
contributor to crack initiation, a normal stress acting
perpendicular to the shear plane would act as a modifier.
Findley therefore proposed that shear and normal stresses
should be combined to produce a biaxial fatigue parameter.
Many researchers have worked on this concept. As an example,
Brown and Miller [9] proposed a strain-based parameter in
1972,
max f modification for variable amplitude fatigue life calculations.
+ S . N = C1 (2 N f ) b + C2 f (2 N f ) c (1)
2 E
where S , C1 and C2 are material properties.
Kandil, Brown and Miller [10] produced a variant of the
Brown-Miller equation that can be used with conventional
uniaxial materials databases.
max N f
+ = 1.65 (2 N f ) b + 1.75 f (2 N f ) c (2)
2 2 E in magnitude during the loading history. They may also change
FATIGUE DAMAGE ACCUMULATION
Miners Rule is often used to calculate fatigue lives for complex
loading sequences. Miners rule proposes that the fatigue
1 Under the action of shear strains cracks will initiate at either 45o
damage from a single fatigue cycle is , and that the damage
Nf
from all cycles in a stress or strain history can be summed as
1
. The fatigue life is the number of repeats of a
Nf
1
stress/strain history that is required to give =1. Miners
Nf
Rule has a bad reputation, with reports of fatigue failures
1
occurring at < 0.1. It is difficult to isolate errors in
Nf
Miners Rule from errors in fatigue methodology. However, one
significant source of error in the application of Miners Rule can
be identified.
Moore in 1927 [3] stated that for a mixture of larger and smaller
cycles the stress amplitude at the endurance limit is much lower
than the endurance limit obtained from constant amplitude
testing. This was demonstrated by Conle [11]. S-N curves and
strain-life curves obtained from constant amplitude tests can
give very optimistic fatigue life predictions when applied to
variable amplitude loading. Kerr [14] showed by testing that,
for a truck steering arm, some 90% of the total fatigue damage
was caused by cycles smaller than the constant amplitude
endurance limit. An explanation for the change to the endurance
limit stress amplitude has been given by Topper et. al. (see for
example [12], [13]). Modifying the endurance limit to allow for
the interaction between large and smaller cycles can
dramatically improve the accuracy of fatigue life calculations
using Miners Rule. Essentially the Miners Rule error is not
an error in Miners Rule, but in the assumption that the constant
amplitude S-N curve (or strain-life curve) can be used without
CRITICAL PLANE SEARCHING
A practical fatigue life calculation consists of an analysis based
on shear and normal strains, such as the Kandil-Brown-Miller
algorithm [10] equation (2), combined with a modification to
the strain-life curve to allow for the interaction between the
larger and smaller cycles (see ablove), with Miners Rule to sum
the fatigue damage.
There is one addition to consider. Principal strains will fluctuate
their orientation, and if this occurs there is no obvious direction
for crack initiation. A widely-adopted solution to this problem is
to use a technique of critical plane searching, whereby fatigue
lives are calculated on a number of planes, and the plane with
the shortest calculated life is taken to define both the life and
the direction of crack initiation.
or 90o to the surface. Each of these basic planes is rotated
through 180o (Figure 2) with fatigue lives being calculated at
intervals of (say) 10o.
2 Copyright 2009 by ASME
We can now see why there may be little correlation between
FEA stress plots and actual crack initiation sites fatigue cracks
initiate in response to shear strains and at angles to the surface
of the component and at angles to the principal planes.
Shear-based fatigue criteria, of which the Kandil-Brown-Miller
method is an example, are not used for brittle metals, for
example cast irons. Crack initiation in brittle metals occurs on a
plane perpendicular to the surface under the action of stresses
and strains normal to this plane.
CYCLIC PLASTICITY
An important aspect of modern fatigue analysis is the ability to
model cyclic plasticity when working from elastic FEA stresses.
One of the most powerful features of local strain analysis is the
ability to separate nominal and local stress-strain behaviour.
Figure 3 shows a test specimen loaded in constant amplitude 4-
point bending. The nominal stresses and strains in the top of the
specimen will cycle between zero and compression. If the loads
are sufficiently large, yielding will occur in a small volume of
material at the notch. When the load returns to zero, the local
strain at the notch will return to a value close to zero. This is
because the bulk of the elastic material near the notch will pull
the material in the notch to a strain close to zero strain.
The local stress-strain response is shown in Figure 3. The first
strain application, from O to A, produces compressive yielding.
When the load is removed, (point B), the local strain returns to
zero, or something very close to zero, leaving a residual tensile
stress at load point B. All the subsequent cycles B-C-D etc. will
produce tensile stresses at the notch each time the load is
removed, and fatigue crack initiation is therefore possible.
This example shows that although the nominal stress history is
purely compression, the local stress in the notch cycles between
compression and tension. This can cause fatigue crack initiation
in the notch.
CRITICAL DISTANCE METHODS WILL THE CRACK
GROW?
With reliable methods for calculating lives to crack initiation,
we can then address the question of whether the crack will
propagate. This is determined by the stress gradient in the
material, and the materials response to short cracks. Its
importance is that if a crack will initiate but not propagate, we
may choose to increase the allowable fatigue stresses until we
reach the point where the crack will just not propagate. Higher
allowable stresses will in turn produce savings in material costs
and may also result in weight saving.
The effects of stress gradient have been addressed in the past by
using empirical methods (see for example [15],[16]. Empirical
methods may require additional test data, for example axial and
bending fatigue tests. The results of these empirical methods
have often been unreliable.
Over the past 15 years or so, the critical distance methods have
been developed as an analytical solution to the effects of stress
gradient on subsequent crack propagation [17]. Referring to
Figure 4, the surface stresses determine the life to crack
initiation. The stress some distance below the surface
determines if the crack will propagate. This distance is a
material property. Critical distances have been measured for
many materials (see for example [18]), and range in value from
less than 0.1mm for a high strength steel to more than 4mm for
a grey iron.
In the absence of measured data, the critical distance can be
estimated from equation (3), from [17]
2
1 K th
L=
O
(3)
Critical distance methods can give estimated endurance limit
stress amplitudes to the same level of accuracy as this parameter
can be measured. They really replace the notch sensitivity
measurements that have been attempted in the past.
The critical distance methods have an interesting implication for
practical fatigue design. It is the stress some distance below the
surface that determines if the crack will propagate failure,
therefore component redesign to increase fatigue life should not
just reduce the stresses on the surface of a component but
should also focus on reducing the stress a critical distance
below the surface. Also, if compressive residual stresses are
produced, by shot peening or cold rolling for example, these
stresses should be produced to at least the critical distance into
the depth of the material.
The critical distance method presented above applies to
estimates of the endurance limit for notched components. The
method is being extended to apply to finite life calculations, in
which case the critical distance L reduces as the calculated lives
reduce. A relationship
L( N f ) = AN Bf (4)
where A and B are material properties, has been shown to give
acceptable results for two steels and an aluminum alloy, for lives
4
greater than 10 cycles under constant amplitude loading [17].
The method has also been demonstrated for combined axial and
torsion stresses, again for constant amplitude loading [17].
ESSENTIAL STEPS IN FATIGUE LIFE CALCULATION
The essential steps in modern fatigue analysis have been
described. They are
- From an elastic FEA model, use the surface stresses
and a cyclic plasticity model to calculate elastic-plastic
stresses and strains.
- Calculate the time history of shear and normal stresses.
- Modify the materials endurance limit to allow for the
interaction of the larger and smaller cycles.
- Use a fatigue damage algorithm such as the Kandil-
Brown-Miller algorithm to calculate the damage for
each individual cycle
3 Copyright 2009 by ASME
 - Use critical plane searching to identify the direction of
crack initiation.
- If necessary, and if initial cracking can be accepted,
use the critical distance method with stress gradient
information from the FEA model to calculate if the
crack will propagate. This may allow higher working
stresses.
CASE STUDIES
The results of three case studies are now described. In each case
the analysis process followed the steps described in the
preceding section, working from an elastic finite element
analysis. The results are included to show that modern fatigue
analysis methods can now provide results of acceptable
accuracy to quite different engineering problems. Detailed
descriptions of the analysis process can be found in the
references.
Case study No. 1. Bearing-grade steel fatigue.
The FEA model for this case study is shown in Figure 6. The
material was a high-strength bearing-grade steel, tensile strength
greater than 2000 MPa, hardness HRC 58-65. The analysis used
the Brown-Miller shear and normal strain algorithm. Strain-life
materials data for SAE52100 in fe-safe database was used, with
some modification per INA USA 52100 test data. Surface finish
was measured in m rms, and a surface finish correction was
applied using data from [19]. Figure 6 shows the test results as a
Weibull diagram, with a 50% probability life of 110000 cycles.
The fe-safe prediction of mean life, 92000 cycles, is also shown
in Figure 6. A second set of test data at a higher applied load
gave a mean test life of 55000 cycles, and a fe-safe prediction of
58000 cycles. This case study is reported in detail in [20].
Case Study No. 2. Diesel engine aluminum alloy
cylinder head.
The diesel engine cylinder head is shown in Figure 7. An elastic
finite element analysis was used to model the thermal stress
cycles. The study compared the traditional method of fatigue
analysis, characterized by using an S-N curve with Goodman
mean stress correction; and the strain-life approach using a
plasticity correction to calculate elastic-plastic stress-strains
from the elastic FEA solution. The strain-life analysis correctly
identified the crack initiation location. The traditional approach
failed to identify the correct crack initiation location but
indentified several false ones. This case study is reported in
detail in [20].
Case Study No. 3. A comparison of strain-based
fatigue and a standard design code.
This study [21] compared the results from a strain-life fatigue
analysis with the results from an analysis using the ASME
Section VIII Div 2 boiler and pressure vessel code [22].
The ASME Section VIII Div 2 boiler and pressure vessel
code is widely used. It is based on 2-dimensional analysis, and
its application requires that stresses be separated into a number
of components or classes (primary, secondary, local, thermal,
membrane and bending). The stresses are resolved on to stress
classification lines or cut lines. These processes require some
judgment by the user.
Strain-life fatigue, using the techniques described earlier in
this paper, requires much less judgment on the part of the user.
The study compared the results from ASME Section VIII
Div 2 with those from a fe-safe strain-life fatigue analysis of an
elastic finite element model.
The test specimen is shown in Figure 8, which also shows
the variable used to define the fatigue loading. Fatigue cracking
occurred from a small circular hole. The fatigue life predictions
from ASME Section VIII Div 2 and from strain-life fatigue
using fe-safe were very similar. However, the application of the
strain-life fatigue analysis required almost no user decisions.
This is one indication that strain-life approaches can be used as
a finite element post-processor for applications that presently
use the methods defined in ASME Section VIII Div 2.
SUMMARY
Rapid and reliable methods of fatigue assessment are
required to identify crack initiation locations and calculate
fatigue lives. Fatigue analysis of finite element models is
required because fatigue cracks my not start from high stress
regions as indicated by FEA results.
The essential techniques required for modern fatigue
analysis of finite element models have been described. Case
study examples show that these methods can give reliable
fatigue life predictions with relatively little user intervention.
REFERENCES
1. Joshi R. Mean Stress effects on Component life. fe-safe
User Conference, Toledo Ohio, 2005.
2. Otto M. Predicting Fatigue Life for a Supercharger
Torsional Isolator Spring. fe-safe User Conference, Troy
Michigan, 2008.
3. Moore H.F, and Kommers, J.B. The fatigue of metals.
Published by McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc. New York.
1927.
4. Prevention of the failure of metals under repeated stress.
A handbook prepared for the Bureau of Aeronautics, Navy
Department, by the staff of the Battelle Memorial Institute.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1941
5. Muir, J. Recovery of iron from overstrain. Phil. Trans.
Royal Soc., vol.193A, p.1, 1900.
4 Copyright 2009 by ASME
 6. Smith J.H, and Wedgwood G.A. Stress-strain loops for
steel in the cyclic state. Jour. Brit. Iron Steel Inst., Pt. I, p.365,
1915.
7. Jenkin C.F. A mechanical model illustrating the
behaviour of metals under static and alternating loads.
Engineering (London), Pt II, page 603, 1922.
8. Findley W.N. A Theory for the Effect of Mean Stress on
Fatigue of Metals Under Combined Torsion and Axial Load or
Bending. Journal of Engineering for Industry, 81, 301-6 (1959).
9. Brown M.W., Miller K.J. A Theory Of Fatigue Under
Multiaxial Strain Conditions. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 187,
pp745-755 (1973).
10. Kandil F.A., Brown M.W., and Miller K.J. Biaxial Low
Cycle Fatigue Fracture Of 316 Stainless Steel At Elevated
Temperatures. Book 280, The Metals Society, London, 1982.
11. Conle A. and Topper T.H. Overstrain Effects During
Variable Amplitude Service History Testing. International
Journal of Fatigue, Vol 2, No.3, pp130-136, 1980.
12. DuQuesnay D.L, Pompetzki M.A, Topper T.H.
Fatigue Life Prediction for Variable Amplitude Strain Histories.
SAE Paper 930400, Society of Automotive Engineers
13. Topper T.H. and DuQuesnay D.L. Effects of Overloads
in Service Load Histories on Crack Closure and Fatigue
Damage. SAE Paper 2001-01-4079 Society of Automotive
Engineers.
14. Kerr, W. Private communication, 1991.
15. Heywood R B. Designing Against the Fatigue of
Metals. Reinhold Publishing Corp, New York, 1962. (pages 81-
97)
16. FKM-Guideline. Analytical Strength Assessment of
Components in Mechanical Engineering, 5th Edition 2003.
Published by VDMA Verlag.
17. Taylor D. The Theory of Critical Distances, A New
Perspective in Fracture Mechanics. Published by Elsevier,
2007.
18. Susmel L. Multiaxial notch fatigue from nominal to
local stress/strain quantities. Published by Woodhead Publishing
Limited and CRC Press LLC. 2009
19. UNI 7670. Meccanismi per apparecchi di sollevamento
UNI Ente Nazionale Italiano Di Unificazione, 20133 Milano,
via Battistotti Sassi, 11b, Italy.
20. fe-safe Users Meeting, Toledo, 2007. Available from
Safe Technology Limited.
21. fe-safe Users Meeting, Troy Michigan, 2007. Available
from Safe Technology Limited.
22. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section 8
Pressure vessels. ASME 2007.

5 Copyright 2009 by ASME

 Max principal stress

Shortest life

Fatigue life contours Stress contours

Figure 1. Comparison of fatigue life contours (left) and stress contours (right)

Figure 2. Critical plane searching for shear-based crack initiation. (Surface of element shown grey).

Figure 3. Effect of local notch inelasticity.

The local stress-strain response to applied constant amplitude loading.

6 Copyright 2009 by ASME


This stress determines whether a crack will initiate

This stress determines

if the crack will propagate to failure
o

rc Distance, r

Figure 4. Critical distance method. rc = L

2

Figure 5. FEA model of bearing assembly.

Case Study number 1 bearing grade steel fatigue

7 Copyright 2009 by ASME

 TM
fe-safe result

Figure 6. Weibull plot of test results and calculated fatigue life.

Case Study number 1 bearing grade steel fatigue

Actual crack site

S-N +Haigh Multiaxial strain-based

fatigue analysis

Figure 7. Fatigue life contours from a traditional fatigue analysis,

Case Study No 2. Diesel engine cast iron cylinder head.

8 Copyright 2009 by ASME

 600 300

Temperature

Pressure*10 (psi)
500 250
Bulk Water Temperature (F)

400 200

Pressure

Test Section Flow Rate (gpm)

300 150

200 100

Flow Rate

100 50

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (seconds)

Figure 8. Test specimen and fatigue loading for Case Study No. 3

9 Copyright 2009 by ASME

10 Copyright 2009 by ASME