Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Study on fatigue growth of multi-surface flaws in shaft under

rotary bending by S-FEM
Kazuhiro Suga a,⇑, Masanori Kikuchi b, Yoshitaka Wada c, Hiroshi Kawai a
a
Tokyo University of Science, Suwa, 5000-1 Toyohira, Chino, Nagano, Japan
b
Tokyo University of Science, 2641 Yamazaki, Noda, Chiba, Japan
c
Kindai University, 3-4-1 Kowakae, Higashiosaka City, Osaka, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to achieve reliable fatigue crack growth simulations of shafts under cyclic rotary
Received 11 September 2016 bending by means of the finite element method, the Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs) along
Received in revised form 28 October 2016 a flaw front have to be evaluated for an arbitrary rotational position. However, the evalu-
Accepted 4 November 2016
ation of such SIFs takes much a great computation effort due to geometry modeling neces-
Available online 9 November 2016
sary to simulate the flaw propagation. In the present study, a fully automated finite
element simulation for fatigue growth of flaw, by combining S-FEM, automatic mesh gen-
Keywords:
eration technique, and an effective evaluation method of the SIFs, is developed to analyze
Fatigue crack growth
Multi-surface flaw
multi-surface flaw under rotary bending. Fatigue growth simulations of coplanar and non-
Rotary bending coplanar parallel surface flaws in shafts under rotary bending are carried out to compare
Stress intensity factor the crack growth behaviors between coplanar and non-coplanar surface flaws.
S-FEM Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Shaft is widely used in machines as a power transmission and it is usually subjected to cyclic rotary bending. Fatigue
growth of flaws might occur in shafts such as axle shafts in motor vehicles [1], shaft of hammer mills [2], railway axles
[3] and so forth. Therefore, fatigue growth of a surface flaw in a shaft under cyclic rotary bending has to be examined in order
to evaluate the structural soundness of the shaft. In practical situation, multi-surface flaws exist in a shaft, and such flaws
propagate interacting with each other. The interaction affects the fatigue crack growth behavior. Some studies have been
carried out to evaluate the interaction effect on fatigue crack growth behavior under cyclic loading (e.g. Refs. [4–8]), and
on the stress intensity factor distribution along the crack front [9].
In order to achieve reliable fatigue crack growth simulations of shafts under cyclic rotary bending by means of the finite
element method, the Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs) along a flaw front have to be evaluated for an arbitrary rotational posi-
tion. Carpinteri et al. have proposed an efficient method to evaluate the SIF distribution along the front of a SINGLE surface-
flaw in a round shaft under cyclic rotary bending [10–13]. Carpinteri’s method calculates the SIFs along the crack front for an
arbitrary rotation angle through a linear combination of the SIFs for two particular rotation angles, (0° and 90°). However, the
evaluation of such SIFs takes much a great computational effort due to the repeated geometry modeling necessary to sim-
ulate the flaw propagation. Kikuchi et al. have developed a fully automated fatigue crack growth simulation method to over-
come the cost to re-model the mesh geometry as the crack propagate by means of a combination of S-FEM [14] and

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ksuga@rs.tus.ac.jp, m@ksuga.jp (K. Suga), kik@rs.noda.tus.ac.jp (M. Kikuchi), wada@mech.kindai.ac.jp (Y. Wada), kawai@rs.tus.ac.jp
(H. Kawai).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.11.001
0013-7944/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
208 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214

Nomenclature

u rotation angle
h=h0 normalized position of flaw front
K max;h the maximum value of the stress intensity factor at h
a the initial phase for front position
u0 ; u rotation angles defined as is shown in Fig. 4
K I ; K II ; K III the SIF components of Mode I, Mode II and Mode III
C; n the constants of the Paris’ law
x; y; z the tree-dimensional Cartesian coordinates system
K eq the equivalent stress intensity factor

automatic mesh generation technique, and they have simulated several fatigue flaw propagation problems successfully (e.g.
Refs. [15–18]).
In the present study, a fully automated finite element simulation for fatigue growth of flaw, by combining S-FEM, auto-
matic mesh generation technique, and an effective evaluation method of the SIFs, is developed to analyze multi-surface flaw
under rotary bending. The Carpinteri’s method for a single-surface flaw is extended to multi-surface flaw. Fatigue growth
simulations of coplanar and non-coplanar parallel surface flaws under rotary bending are carried out in order to compare
the behaviors of the two different types of surface flaws.

2. Evaluation of stress intensity factor

This section presents the methods to evaluate of the SIFs and to simulate the fatigue growth of multi-surface flaws under
rotary bending using S-FEM [14]. Carpinteri et al. [10–13] have proposed an efficient method to calculate the SIFs along the
front of a single flaw in a shaft. Such a method based on the superposition principle allows to evaluate the SIF values for any
rotation angle, u. We extend the above concept in order to evaluate the SIFs for two surface flaws under mixed-mode loading
condition.

2.1. A single flaw

The SIF distribution along the front of a single flaw in a shaft is evaluated in order to express such a distribution with a
function. The evaluation was conducted by S-FEM, and the local and global meshes are shown in Fig. 1. Rotation angle, u, and
normalized position of the flaw front, h=h0 , are defined in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3 shows the SIF distributions obtained from S-FEM. Note that the SIFs change periodically. Moreover, by observing
Fig. 3, we can assume that the SIF distribution could be expressed by Eq. (1), where K max;h is the maximum value of the
SIF and a is the initial phase for each front position.
K u;h ¼ K max;h cosðu þ aÞ ð1Þ
The stress intensity factors K u;h for u ¼ 0 and u ¼ 90 are given by Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively:
 

K 0 ;h ¼ K max;h cosð0 þ aÞ ¼ K max;h cos a

and
cos a ¼ K 0 ;h =K max;h ð2Þ

K 90 ;h ¼ K max;h cosð90 þ aÞ ¼ K max;h sin a

and
sin a ¼ K 90 ;h =K max;h ð3Þ

Fig. 1. FE model for evaluation of SIF distribution along the front of a single flaw in a shaft: (a) local mesh and (b) superposition of global and local mesh.
 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214 209

Fig. 2. (a) Rotation angle and (b) normalized position along the flaw front.

Fig. 3. SIF distributions for several rotation angles and positions along the flaw front.

By manipulating Eq. (1) and substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) into the transformed Eq. (1), we obtain Eq. (4):

K u;h ¼ K max;h cosðu þ aÞ

K u;h ¼ K max;h ðcos u cos a þ sin u sin aÞ

K u;h ¼ K 0 ;h cos u þ K 90 ;h sin u ð4Þ

Therefore, the K u;h at the flaw front position, h, for a given value of the rotation angle, u, can be evaluated through Eq. (4)
where only two SIF values, K 0 ;h and K 90 ;h , have to be known.

2.2. Two coplanar flaws

In order to consider two coplanar flaws, we assume that the SIF can be evaluated through Eq. (5) being such an expression
a simple extension of Eq. (4), where the rotation angles, u0 and u , are defined as is shown in Fig. 4:

K u ;h ¼ K u0 ;h cos u þ K u0 þ90 ;h sin u ð5Þ

In order to validate Eq. (5), the SIFs obtained through S-FEM with Eq. (5) are compared with the SIFs determined without
using Eq. (5). The problem setup is shown in Fig. 5. Fig. 6 shows the comparison between Mode I SIF components, K I , at
h=h0 ¼ 1. Both results with and without Eq. (5) are in a very good agreement.

Fig. 4. Rotation angles for two flaws: (a) u ¼ u0 , (b) u ¼ u0 þ 90 and (c) u ¼ u0 þ u .
210 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214

Fig. 5. (a) Problem setup and (b) dimension of the two flaw in mm.

Fig. 6. Comparison of SIFs obtained through s-FEM analysis and by Eq. (5): (a) crack 1 and (b) crack 2.

2.3. Prallel multi-flaw

The SIF components of Mode II, K II , and Mode III, K III , should be evaluated exactly in order to treat parallel flaws. We
assume that the components are given by the following Eqs. (6) and (7):

K IIu;h ¼ K II0 ;h cos u þ K II90 ;h sin u ð6Þ

K IIIu;h ¼ K III0 ;h cos u þ K III90 ;h sin u ð7Þ

In order to prove the above assumption, comparisons of K II and K III obtained through S-FEM with using and without using
Eqs. (6) and (7) have been carried out for the parallel flaw configuration shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 shows such comparison for
h=h0 ¼ 1. All results are in very good agreement.

3. Fatigue crack growth simulation

3.1. Procedure

Fig. 9 summarizes the procedure proposed by the authors to simulate fatigue growth of multi-flaws. The first step is the
geometry modeling. The flaw shape is defined by a local mesh, whereas the shaft shape is defined by a global mesh in the S-
FEM. Two different global meshes are prepared, with two rotation angles differing by 90°.

Fig. 7. (a) Problem setup and (b) dimension of the parallel two flaws in mm.
 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214 211

Fig. 8. Comparison of K II and K III obtained through S-FEM and by (a) Eq. (6) and (b) Eq. (7).

The second step is the SIF evaluation, K u0 ;h and K u0 þ90;h are evaluated using VCCM [19] together with S-FEM. Then, we can
obtain the SIFs for any arbitrary angles from K u0 ;h and K u0 þ90;h .
The third step is fatigue flaw growth. Increment and angle of the flaw are determined by applying the Paris’ law [20] and
the Richard’s Criterion [21] respectively. Then, the new shape of the flaw is determined. Flaw growth simulation is carried
out by repeating the above processes. The simulation can be automatically performed by employing automatic mesh gen-
eration technique in the local mesh.
Material is assumed to be aluminum alloy A7075-T3, with Young’s modulus equal to 70.6 GPa, Poisson ratio equal to 0.3,
and the constants in the Paris’ law are C ¼ 2:0  1011 , n ¼ 3:4, respectively [8].

3.2. Coplanar flaws

The fatigue growth simulation of two coplanar surface flaws has been carried out. The geometry and dimensions of the
numerical model are summarized in Fig. 10.
The two surface flaws propagate close to each other. Fig. 11(a) shows the crack propagation and (b) shows transition of
the equivalent stress intensity factor [21], K eq , during the propagation, where the equivalent stress intensity factor is defined
by Eq. (8).
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
KI 1
K eq ¼ þ K 2I þ 4ð1:155K II Þ2 þ 4K 2III ð8Þ
2 2

Fig. 9. Flowchart of the Fatigue crack growth simulation procedure.

212 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214

Fig. 10. Geometry and dimensions of the numerical model of two coplanar flaws in mm.

Fig. 11. Fatigue growths of two coplanar flaws before coalescence: (a) flaw shapes and (b) SIF evolution.

Fig. 12. Coalescence of two flaws: (a) estimated shapes; (b) shapes of the coalesced flaw.

The SIFs at the near side increase drastically when the flaw fronts approach each other as is shown in Fig. 11(b).
In the case flaw fronts overlap, fatigue crack growth simulation cannot be carried out due to the overlapping of numerical
singular points. In order to overcome this drawback, the shape of the coalesced flaws is determined on the basis of the
amount of flaw propagation at the last simulation step before overlapping. Fig. 12(a) shows the estimated crack shape for
the next propagation step, and Fig. (b) shows the shape of the coalesced flaw.
The propagation of the coalesced flaw is shown in Fig. 13(a), and the transition of the equivalent stress intensity factors is
plotted in Fig. 13(b). The shape of the coalesce flaw becomes rapidly flat during propagation because the SIFs are large along
the shape front just after the coalesce. The SIF distribution also becomes flat as the flaw progresses.
 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214 213

Fig. 13. Fatigue growth of two coplanar flaws after coalescence: (a) Shape in cross-section; (b) Mode I SIFs.

Fig. 14. Geometry and dimensions of the numerical model of fatigue growth of two parallel flaws in mm.

Fig. 15. Flaw propagation of non-coplanar parallel flaws: (a) on cross-section; (b) on surface.

3.3. Non-coplanar parallel flaws

Now a fatigue growth problem of two non-coplanar parallel flaws has been simulated. The distance between the two
flaws along the z-axis is 5 mm, as is shown in Fig. 14. Other conditions are the same as those of the coplanar problem.
Figs. 15 and 16 show the results of the crack propagation simulation. The arrows show the crack propagation directions. As
growing the flaws, they are approaching to each other on the surface, as is shown in Fig. 15(a), and the equivalent SIFs are
decreasing at the near fronts, as is shown in Fig. 16. The transition of the flaw shapes in a cross-sectional view is shown in
Fig. 15(b). The above result shows that the developed simulation technique can catch the interaction effect of the flaws,
214 K. Suga et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 174 (2017) 207–214

Fig. 16. Evolution of equivalent stress intensity factor, K eq .

and such a propagation behavior has been experimentally observed in problems where non-coplanar flaws propagate in a
shaft [8].

4. Conclusions

This study proposes a finite element simulation method for fatigue growth of multi-surface flaws based on S-FEM. An
effective method for the evaluation of the SIFs for multi-surface flaws under rotary bending is discussed. The validity of such
a method is investigated by comparing the SIFs obtained with and without the above method. Fatigue growth simulations of
coplanar and non-coplanar surface flaws under rotary bending are carried out in order to examine their growth behaviors.
Interaction effect of two flaws is analyzed through the proposed method.

References

[1] Wilson Peter B. Motor vehicle component failures in road accidents. J Forensic Sci Soc 1969;9(1–2):3–12.
[2] Richard HA, Sander M, Schramm B, Kullmer G, Wirxel M. Fatigue crack growth in real structures. Int J Fatigue 2013;50:83–8.
[3] Madia M, Beretta S, Zerbst U. An investigation on the influence of rotary bending and press fitting on stress intensity factors and fatigue crack growth in
railway axles. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:1906–20.
[4] Soboyejo WO, Kishimoto K, Smith RA, Knott JF. A study of the interaction and coalescence of two coplanar fatigue cracks in bending. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct 1989;12(3):167–74.
[5] Lin XB, Smith RA. Fatigue growth analysis of interacting and coalescing surface defects. Int J Fract 1997;85(3):283–99.
[6] Kamaya Masayuki. Growth evaluation of multiple interacting surface cracks. Part I: Experiments and simulation of coalesced crack. Eng Fract Mech
2008;75(6):1336–49.
[7] Maitireyimu Maigefeireti, Kikuchi Masanori, Kitano Hiroko. Study on stress intensity factors of fatigue crack in round bar under rotary bending. In:
2011 ASME pressure vessels and piping division conference 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. PVP2011-57144.
[8] Maitireyimu Maigefeireti, Kikuchi Masanori, Geni Mamtimin. Numerical study of the interaction behavior of two non-coplanar cracks in round bars
under cyclic bending. J Solid Mech Mater Eng 2011;5(2):75–89.
[9] Carpinteri Andrea, Brighenti Roberto, Vantadori Sabrina. A numerical analysis on the interaction of twin coplanar flaws. Eng Fract Mech 2004;71(4–
6):485–99.
[10] Carpinteri Andrea, Brighenti Roberto, Spagnoli Andrea. Surface flaws in cylindrical shafts under rotary bending. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
1998;21:1027–35.
[11] Carpinteri Andrea, Brighenti Roberto, Spagnoli Andrea. Fatigue growth simulation of part-through flaws in thick-walled pipes under rotary bending.
Int J Fatigue 2000;22(1):1–9.
[12] Carpinteri Andrea, Vantadori Sabrina. Sickle-shaped surface crack in a notched round bar under cyclic tension and bending. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater
Struct 2009;32(3):223–32.
[13] Carpinteri Andrea, Ronchei Camilla, Vantadori Sabrina. Analysis of cracked and notched round bars under rotary bending. Mater Perform Charact
2015;4(2):131–42.
[14] Fish J, Markolefas S, Guttal R, Nayak P. On adaptive multilevel superposition of finite element meshes. Appl Numer Math 1999;14:601–20.
[15] Kikuchi Masanori, Wada Yoshitaka, Takahashi Masafumi, Li Yu Long. Fatigue crack growth simulation using S-version FEM. Adv Mater Res 2008;33–
37:133–8.
[16] Kikuchi Masanori, Wada Yoshitaka, Shimizu Yuto, Li Yulong. Crack growth analysis in a weld-heat-affected zone using S-version FEM. Int J Press
Vessels Pip 2012;90–91:2–8.
[17] Kikuchi Masanori, Wada Yoshitaka, Shintaku Yuichi, Suga Kazuhiro, Li Yu Long. Fatigue crack growth simulation in heterogeneous material using S-
version FEM. Int J Fatigue 2014;58:47–55.
[18] Shintaku Yuichi, Iwamatsu Fuminori, Suga Kazuhiro, Wada Yoshitaka, Kikuchi Masanori. Simulation of stress corrosion cracking in in-core monitor
housing of nuclear power plant. J Pressure Vessel Technol 2015;137(4):041401.
[19] Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF. A finite element calculation of stress intensity factors by a modified crack closure integral. Eng Fract Mech 1977;9:931–8.
[20] Paris P, Erdogan F. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J Basic Eng 1963;85(4):528–34.
[21] Richard HA, Fulland M, Sander M. Theoretical crack path prediction. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2005;28:3–12.