Earley 1

Austin Earley
Mrs. Zimmerman
AP Literature
November 10, 2016
Material (Metal) Fatigue
A metal subjected to a repetitive stress will fail at a stress much lower than that required
to cause fracture on a single application of load. Failures occurring under conditions of dynamic
loading are called fatigue failures, since it is generally observed that these failures occur only
after a considerable period of service (Kane). Fatigue occurs when a material is subject to
alternating or cyclic stresses, over a long period of time. Fatigue accounts for at least 90 percent
of all service failures due to mechanical causes (Baran). Failure of materials under the
application of cyclic stress or strain is not only a subject of technical interest but one of industrial
importance as well. It is important that manufacturers understand fatigue in order to design
products to withhold failure.
Fatigue failure is a result of a cyclic stress on a material. Stresses can be applied in three
ways, torsionally, axially, and by bending (Baran). Torsion occurs when an object, such as a
bar with a cylindrical or square cross section, is twisted. The twisting force acting on the
object is known as torque, and the resulting stress is known as torsional stress. If the object
undergoes deformation as a result and is in the direction of the application of the force, the
result is known as strain. Twisting a simple piece of blackboard chalk between ones fingers
until it snaps is an example of a torsional force in action (Kane). Axial stress is when the
material is subject to tension or compression along its axis. It is a stress that tends to change
the length of a body. Compressive stress is axial stress that tends to cause a body to become

Earley 2

shorter along the direction of applied force. Tensile stress is axial stress that tends to cause a
body to become longer along the direction of applied force (Baran). In stress caused by
bending, the inside of the bend will be in compression and the outside of the bend will be in
tension. The maximum compressive stress is found at the uppermost edge of the beam while
the maximum tensile stress is located at the lower edge of the beam (Kaechele). Fatigue failure
is a result of each of these three types of stresses repeatedly over a given length of time.
There are three different types of fatigue loading. One type is zero-to-max-to zero,
where a part which is carrying no load is then subjected to a load, and later, the load is
removed, so the part goes back to the no-load condition (Kane). An example of this type of
loading is a chain used to haul logs behind a tractor. Another type of fatigue loading is a
varying load superimposed on a constant load. The suspension wires in a railroad bridge are an
example of this type. The wires have a constant static tensile load from the weight of the
bridge, and an additional tensile load when a train is on the bridge (Baran). The worst case of
fatigue loading is the case known as fully-reversing load. One cycle of this type of fatigue
loading occurs when a tensile stress of some value is applied to an unloaded part and then
released, then a compressive stress of the same value is applied and released. A rotating shaft
with a bending load applied to it is a good example of fully reversing load. In order to
visualize the fully-reversing nature of the load, picture the shaft in a fixed position but
subjected to an applied bending load. The outermost fibers on the shaft surface on the convex
side will be loaded in tension, and the fibers on the opposite side will be loaded in
compression. Now, rotate the shaft 180 in its bearings, with the loads remaining the same.
The shaft stress level is the same, but now the fibers which were loaded in compression before
it was rotated are now loaded in tension, and vice-versa (Kane). To illustrate how damaging

Earley 3

fully-reversing load is, take a paper clip, bend it out straight, then pick a spot in the middle,
and bend the clip 90 back and forth at that spot. Since the metal is being deformed, it is, by
definition, exceeding its yield stress. When the metal is bent it in one direction, a high tensile
stress is being applied to the fibers on one side of the bend, and a high compressive stress on
the fibers on the opposite side. When it is bent the other way, the stresses reverse (fully
reversing fatigue). It will break in about 25 cycles (Kaechele). Each type of fatigue loading
occurs in a unique way, some more common than others. Fatigue failure results from all forms
of fatigue loading and the stresses that each type consist of.
The fatigue behavior of a specific material, heat-treated to a specific strength level, is
determined by a series of laboratory tests on a large number of apparently identical samples of
that specific material. A single test consists of applying a known, constant bending stress to a
round sample of the material, and rotating the sample around the bending stress axis until it
fails. As the sample rotates, the stress applied to any fiber on the outside surface of the sample
varies from maximum-tensile to zero to maximum-compressive and back. The test mechanism
counts the number of rotations (cycles) until the specimen fails. A large number of tests is run
at each stress level of interest, and the results are statistically analyzed to determine the
expected number of cycles to failure at that stress level (Kane). The cyclic stress level of the
first set of tests is some large percentage of the Ultimate Tensile Stress (UTS), which produces
failure in a relatively small number of cycles. Subsequent tests are run at lower cyclic stress
values until a level is found at which the samples will survive 10 million cycles without
failure. The cyclic stress level that the material can sustain for 10 million cycles is called the
Endurance Limit (Baran). In general, steel alloys which are subjected to a cyclic stress level
below the Endurance Limit (properly adjusted for the specifics of the application) will not fail

Earley 4

in fatigue. That property is commonly known as "infinite life". Most steel alloys exhibit the
infinite life property, but it is interesting to note that most aluminum alloys as well as steels
which have been case-hardened by carburizing, do not exhibit an infinite-life cyclic stress
level (Endurance Limit). It is important to remember that the Endurance Limit of a material is
not an absolute nor fully repeatable number. In fact, several apparently identical samples, cut
from adjacent sections in one bar of steel, will produce different Endurance Limit values (as
well as different Ultimate Tensile Stress and Yield Stress) when tested. Each of those three
properties (Ultimate Tensile Stress, Yield Stress, and Endurance Limit) is determined
statistically, calculated from the (varying) results of a large number of apparently identical
tests done on a population of apparently identical samples (Kane). Not only is the Endurance
Limit of a material not a set number, it also differs in the real world from the laboratory.
Unfortunate experience has taught engineers that the value of the Endurance Limit
found in laboratory tests of polished, optimized samples does not really apply to real-world
components. Since the Endurance Limit values are statistical in nature, and determined on
optimized, laboratory samples, good design practice requires the determination of what the
actual Endurance Limit will be for each specific application, known as the ApplicationSpecific Endurance Limit (Baran). In order to design for satisfactory fatigue life (prior to
testing actual components), good practice requires that the "laboratory" Endurance Limit value
be reduced by several adjustment factors. These reductions are necessary to account for the
differences between the application and the testing environments, and the known statistical
variations of the material. This procedure is to insure that both the known and the
unpredictable factors in the application (including surface condition, actual load, actual
temperature, tolerances, impurities, alloy variations, heat-treatment variations, stress

Earley 5

concentrations, etc.) will not reduce the life of a part below the required value. An accepted
contemporary practice to estimate the maximum fatigue loading which a specific design can
survive is the Marin method, in which the laboratory test-determined Endurance Limit of the
particular material (tested on optimized samples) is adjusted to estimate the maximum cyclic
stress a particular part can survive the Application-Specific Endurance Limit. This adjustment
of the Endurance Limit is the result of six fractional factors. Each of these six factors are
calculated from known data which describe the influence of a specific condition on fatigue
life. Those factors are: Surface Condition (ka): such as: polished, ground, machined, as-forged,
corroded, etc. Surface is perhaps the most important influence on fatigue life; Size (kb): This
factor accounts for changes which occur when the actual size of the part or the cross-section
differs from that of the test specimens; Load (kc): This factor accounts for differences in
loading (bending, axial, torsional) between the actual part and the test specimens; Temperature
(kd): This factor accounts for reductions in fatigue life which occur when the operating
temperature of the part differs from room temperature (the testing temperature); Reliability
(ke): This factor accounts for the scatter of test data; Miscellaneous (kf): This factor accounts
for reductions from all other effects, including residual stresses, corrosion, plating, metal
spraying, fretting, and others. These six fractional factors are applied to the laboratory value of
the material endurance limit to determine the allowable cyclic stress for an actual part: RealWorld Allowable Cyclic Stress = ka * kb * kc * kd * ke * kf * Endurance Limit (Kane). The
Application-Specific Endurance Limit of materials presents an issue for the design of metallic
products.
One aspect of fatigue that is still obscure is the understanding and meaning of
damage. During much of the fatigue life of a test specimen, damage consists of change in

Earley 6

the material as a consequence of cyclic deformation, but there is no simple way to define this
damage, or to measure it. When load cycles of different magnitude are being encountered in
service, the question of how much damage is caused by each cycle and how to add the damage
from one cycle to the damage caused by the others becomes very important. This is one of the
main problems facing the designer responsible for antifatigue design (Kaechele). The three
main problem areas in fatigue-preventive design are predicting service stresses, evaluating
fatigue behavior and cumulative damage, and accounting for scatter in both areas. Fatigue is a
very strongly stress-dependent phenomenon. Many factors are important in fatigue, but the
primary physical mechanism, without which there is no fatigue, is plastic deformation. Plastic
deformation is produced by stress, making it imperative that the designer know as accurately
as possible the nature of the stress variations that will occur during service, in example, the
number and magnitude of stress cycles. In many cases this data can be obtained by a
straightforward process. Similar structures may be in service under conditions similar to those
expected for the new structure; then stress records can usually be obtained with reasonable
effort. The more interesting and difficult problems are those involving novel designs and new
and unpredictable usage. One of the most important conclusions from studies of structuralfatigue problems in the Air Force concerns service stress experience when there is this element
of noveltywhen the nature of cyclic loads is too different to permit certainty in experience
from the past and when the variety and nature of the usage that may be demanded are
uncertain. In these situations, it is imperative that responsible design procedure must include
measurement of stress variations experienced in service. The most important reason, of course,
is to check the assumption about stress variation that were made at the design stage, and to
either certify the design or make modifications if necessary. Ignoring whatever might be said

Earley 7

about hindsight and foresight, the fact remains that in almost all cases where dangerous fatigue
failures have occurred, these failures could have been prevented had this action been taken
(Baran). There are two other reasons why this action is important. First, when prediction is so
difficult, techniques of prediction are a major study area in themselves. It is important to
evaluate and refine these techniques for the more difficult problems that are certain to arise in
the future, and records of actual service-stress experience are an absolute necessity for this
purpose. The second reason is that the amount of scatter in number and magnitude of load or
stress cycles among a number of items in service can be very uncertain and very important.
Records of service stress are needed before investigation of this important factor can begin
(Kaechele).
The designer attempts to assure fatigue-free performance by his selection of materials
and configurations. He must know how materials behave under fluctuating stresses in order to
prescribe the proper amount and configuration of material. The relationship between the
magnitude of stress cycles and the number of them that produce fatigue failure, shows the
basic material behavior of interest (Kane). In the simple case of anitfatigue design for
constant-amplitude cyclic loads, appropriate curves for the material and for the stressconcentration factor or type of joint or discontinuity involved are all that is needed. The
designer can establish quite simply the proper design configuration once the magnitude and
number of load cycles have been specified as design requirements. There are many additional
items that might be called minor details except that neglecting them can result in premature
and unexpected fatigue failure. Examples are residual stresses or surface defects produced by
manufacturing processes, an unexpected corrosive atmosphere, higher humidity than expected,
etc. Problems are greatly multiplied by complicated, variable, fluctuating load patterns, such

Earley 8

as are experienced by an airplane wing in its lifetime. The complexity of the load variations,
the uncertainty in predicting what an aircraft will experience, and the variability in the
experience of various aircraft make it impossible in any practical sense to generate test data
upon which to base a design. In this situation, the problem of cumulative damage becomes
important. Since we cant define, let alone measure, damage in the early stages of fatigue,
there is just no physically sound way to sum up the incremental damage caused by the various
stress cycles in a complex pattern of stress variation (Kaechele).
A large amount of scatter is often observed in the life of fatigue-test specimens that
seem to be identical. There may also be much scatter in the stress variations experienced
among a group of manufactured items. Scatter in life is always emphasized when fatigue is
discussed because life is the only quantity that can be measured in test. The designer should
not be directly concerned with scatter in life; life should be a prescribed design requirement.
The designers proper concern is the scatter in stress level among test specimens that have the
same life (Kaechele).
The thread that runs through all the preceding discussions is the importance of viewing
structural fatigue from the design viewpoint. The best solution to fatigue problems is
prevention, and this can be done effectively only during the design stage. Difficulty in
antifatigue design can arise from inadequate design data in three major areas, the service-load
experience, the fatigue behavior of the material of construction in the design configuration,
and finally the scatter and probability considerations needed for both the load experience and
fatigue behavior. By investigating the effect of uncertain data on design configurations, the
significant data can be identified and efficient ways to obtain the needed data can be
determined (Kane). Emphasis on post-design data in the form of stress records is a special

Earley 9

responsibility for the designer of structures that represent advances into unknown usage and
loading environments. A useful weapon against fatigue is the presence of fatigue
consciousness in designers. This is an awareness of the possibility of fatigue failures and
more important, of the many small details of design, manufacturing, use, and environment that
can have such a great effect on fatigue behavior (Kaechele). An experienced designer,
knowledgeable in these areas, is the one most successful in antifatigue design.

Earley 10

Works Cited
Baran, G. "Fatigue of Restorative Materials." Fatigue of Restorative Materials. Sage Journals,
aaaaa19 Oct. 2001. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.

Kaechele, Lloyd. "Designing To Prevent Fatigue Failures." Designing To Prevent Fatigue

aaaaaFailures(1965): n. pag. Print.

Kane, Jack; EPI. "Metal Fatigue." Metal Fatigue and The Factors Which Influence Fatigue,
aaaaaby EPI Inc. EPI Inc., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2016.