Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

School of Engineering

COURSEWORK SUBMISSION SHEET


Coursework should be stapled at the top left-hand corner. Please do not use any form of plastic or cardboard binder.
All sections except the LATE DATE section must be completed and the declaration signed, for the submission to be accepted. All coursework should be submitted to the coursework boxes on Level 2 of the Clarke Building. Any request for a coursework extension must be submitted on the appropriate form (please refer to http://www.rgu.ac.uk/academicaffairs/assessment/page.cfm?pge=36332 ), prior to the due date.

Due Date 12 April 2010 5:00 pm MATRIC No. SURNAME 0708056 Taurgalinov Renat

Date Submitted 12/04/2010

For official use only LATE DATE

FIRST NAME(S) COURSE & STAGE

Eg MSc Information Systems

BEng Mechanical and Offshore Engineering Stage 3 EN3501 Engineering Analysis 1 Fatigue Coursework Dr Jenny McConnachie

MODULE NUMBER & TITLE ASSIGNMENT TITLE LECTURER ISSUING COURSEWORK

I confirm: (a) That the work undertaken for this assignment is entirely my own and that I have not made use of any unauthorised assistance. (b) That the sources of all reference material have been properly acknowledged.
[NB: For information on Academic Misconduct, refer to http://www.rgu.ac.uk/academicaffairs/assessment/page.cfm?pge=7088]

Signed

..................................... Date .............12/04/2010......................

Markers Comments Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Marker

Dr Jenny McConnachie

Grade

The Robert Gordon University Faculty of Design & Technology School of Engineering

Typical Fatigue Failure of a Crank [1]

Fatigue Coursework

Student Name: Renat Taurgalinov Student Matriculation Number: 0708056 Module Name: Engineering Analysis 1 Module Code: EN3501 Module Lecturer: Dr. Jenny McConnachie Due Date: 12th April 2010

Aberdeen, 2010

Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................3 Brief Introduction................................................................................................4 Question 1 S-N Plots.........................................................................................5 Question 2 Pressure Vessel.................................................................................7 Question 3 Fatigue..........................................................................................13 Conclusion........................................................................................................16 References........................................................................................................17 Bibliography......................................................................................................17 Appendices (Coursework Sheets) .........................................................................17

Brief Introduction
This coursework is dedicated to the problems of Fatigue Phenomenon in metal components and aims to develop an understanding of its main concepts. It also involves some basic principles of the theory relating to Pressure Vessels. The Report consists of three main parts. The first part is based on the data produced from a rotating bending fatigue test and aims to analyse a typical S-N behaviour of steel (see Coursework Sheet in Appendices). The second part involves calculations and discussion related to stresses and fatigue in the given cylindrical pressure vessel. Finally, the third part discusses two specific factors affecting the fatigue life of a metal component, namely residual stresses and surface treatment.

Question 1 S-N Plots


In this section, the data from Table 1 (see Appendices section) will be used to plot the S-N curve and analyse it further. a) Firstly, the S-N plot was made using values of stress amplitude (Sf) versus number of cycles to failure (N) from Table 1. This is illustrated in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Original S-N Plot Note that dashed lines represent ultimate tensile strength (Sut) of 650 MPa, yield Here the endurance limit was taken as the final value of stress amplitude at 1x10 9 The graph represents the high-cycle fatigue range only (above 103 cycles) in Note that the S-N curve lies well below the ultimate tensile strength of material. As expected for typical behaviour of steel, the curve gradient decreases

stress (Sy) of 510 MPa and endurance limit (Se) of 140MPa as signified in the graph. cycles (140 MPa). which the stress-life method is more adequate.

gradually, passes through the knee and becomes horizontal towards the end. Assumingly, it has a horizontal asymptote, which is the line that curve approaches but never actually reaches. In this case it is the value of stress slightly below the value of the endurance limit (140 MPa). 5

Note that the logarithmic scale is been used for X-axis for better visualisation. Also note the typical large amount of scatter in the data points on the graph. This

indicates the fact that fatigue phenomenon is not 100% predictable. b) Next, because the test was conducted in the rotating bending mode, the initial curve was modified to suit the analysis of components subjected to torsion. For this purpose the load factor (kc) of 0.59 was used [2] and all initial values of fatigue strength were multiplied by this factor. The resulting graph if represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Modified S-N Plot

It can be noticed, that the curve is now squashed down and the endurance limit Here the assumption is been made that all the rest modifying factors remain

reduced from 140 to 82.6 MPa (Se-line on the graph). unaffected including surface condition (ka), size (kb), temperature (kd), reliability (ke), and other miscellaneous effects (kf). So, it can be concluded, that in bending, the component can withstand infinite number of cycles with applied stress below 140 MPa, whereas if subjected to torsion, the component can withstand infinite number of cycles only if the applied load is below 82.6 MPa.

Question 2 Pressure Vessel


This section of the Report will demonstrate some calculations related to stresses and fatigue in the given cylindrical pressure vessel alongside with appropriate comments. Given: Thin-walled cylindrical pressure vessel of inner diameter 175 mm made of steel tested in Question 1 [3]. a) Firstly, the minimum wall thickness of the pressure vessel was calculated, provided it is subjected to internal pressure of 20 bars (2x106 Pa) using safety factor of 2.5 on yield. From the theory of thin-walled pressure vessels [4], it is known that:
h = pd 2t L = pd 4t

r = 0

max =

1 ( h r ) = pd , 2 4t

where h is the hoop (circumferential) stress, L is the longitudinal (axial) stress, r is the radial stress, max is the shear stress, p internal pressure, d inner diameter and t wall thickness. From there it is obvious that hoop stress is the greatest one and therefore is critical. It will be used in the further calculation as maximum allowable stress which in this case is equal to yield stress (510 MPa) divided by safety factor of 2.5 ( h = 204 MPa). So, the minimum allowable wall thickness can be found as:
t= pd 2 * 106 * 0.175 = = 8.5784* 10 4 m = 0.85784 mm. 2 h 2 * 204 * 106

This wall thickness is 204 times smaller than the diameter of the cylinder. As However, this simple calculation does not account for such parameters as stress

expected for thin-walled pressure vessels, the ration is above 10. concentrations due to presence of openings, fittings, and supports; corrosion, impacts and temperature changes [4]. So in reality the thickness would have to be much greater to withstand 20 bars of pressure in this particular pressure vessel.

b) Next, for the new scenario when internal pressure cycles between 5 and 20 bar, the mean stress and stress amplitude were determined as follows below. It is already known from the above calculations that the stress at 20 bar (S max) is To find minimum stress (Smin) the stress at 5 bar (5x105 Pa) was calculated:

204 MPa (assuming the minimal theoretical thickness of 0.8578 mm).

Sm in = h@ 5bar

pd 5 * 105 * 0.175 = = = 51 * 106 Pa = 51 MPa. 3 2t 2 * 0.85 78* 10

Now, the mean stress (Sm) and stress amplitude (Sa) were found using the

following formulae from the theory [2]:

Sm = Sa =

Sm ax + Sm in 204 + 51 = = 127.5 MPa. 2 2 Sm ax Sm in 204 51 = = 76.5 MPa. 2 2

Figure 3 below illustrates the found magnitudes of cyclic stresses. Here Sr is twice

the value of Sa.

Sa = 76.5 MPa

Sr = 153 MPa

Smx = 204 MPa a

Sm = 127.5 MPa

Sm = 51 MPa in

Figure 3. Cyclic Stresses [2] Note that these calculations are based on the wall thickness of 0.8578 mm

(calculated in part a). However, this is not a commercially available wall-thickness of a typical pressure vessel, so the results might be slightly unrealistic. The closest realistic wall-thickness would be 1mm. And calculations would alter accordingly producing smaller values of stress.

c) Next, factor of safety (FS) was determined for the state of cyclic stress in the part b of this question using different relationships, namely modified Goodman, Gerber, Soderberg and ASME-elliptic. The modified Goodman relationship states [2]:

S a Sm + = 1, S e Sut
or including factor of safety:

FS * S a FS * Sm + = 1. Se Sut

This equation can be rearranged for the safety factor as:

FS =

1 S a Sm S + S ut e

1 76.5 127.5 = 1.34665 + 650 140

The Gerber relationship states [2]:

S a Sm = 1, + S e Sut FS * S a FS * Sm = 1. + or including factor of safety: S Se ut


This equation can be solved as a quadratic equation with respect to FS:
2

Sm Sa 2 S * FS + S * FS 1 = 0 e ut S S 76.5 127.5 D = a 4 * m * ( 1) = + 4* = 0.45249 S S 140 650 e ut


2 2 2 2

FS =

Sa + D Se
2

S 2* m S ut

76.5 + 0.45249 140 2 = 1.64055 127.5 2* 650

The Soderberg relationship states [2]:

S a Sm + = 1, Se Sy
or including factor of safety:

FS * S a FS * Sm + = 1. Se Sy

This equation can be rearranged for the safety factor as: 9

FS =

1 S a Sm + S e Sy

1 76.5 127.5 = 1.25561 + 510 140

The ASME-elliptic relationship states [2]:


S Sa + m = 1, S S e y
2 2

FS * Sm FS * S a = 1. + or including factor of safety: S S e y

This equation can be rearranged for the safety factor as:

FS =

1 S 2 S a + m S S e y
2

1
2 76.5 127.5 = 1.66416 + 140 510 2

Here the endurance limit was assumed to be the stress amplitude at 1x10 9 cycles The average safety factor can be then calculated as:

(140 MPa) as suggested in the Coursework Sheet (see Appendices).

FSav =

FS1 + FS2 + FS3 + FS4 1.34665+ 1.64055+ 1.25561+ 1.66416 = = 1.47674 4 4

The found values of safety factor are all above 1, so the considered state of cyclic It can be seen from the results, that the safety factor depends on the method

stress is safe according to all 4 relationships. This will be also shown in the part d. used because each method uses different deterministic approach. However, the fatigue phenomenon is not deterministic, and so these values have to be treated as approximate indicators. This will also be explained further in the part d. d) Finally, the results were illustrated on the Sa-Sm plot (Figure 4). Figure 4 represents the lines/curves corresponding to each of the four methods

used in the previous part. The point on the graph indicates the state of cyclic stress under consideration (Sm = 127.5 and Sa = 76.5 MPa). It can be observed that the point lies in the safe region of the graph as stated above.

10

Figure 4. Sa-Sm Plot

Figure 5. Modified Sa-Sm Plot 11

It can be seen from Figure 4, that the distance between the point and each

individual line/curve is different signifying the difference in safety factors for different methods. For instance the Soderberg relationship is the most cautious one, so the safety factor is the lowest and distance between the line and the point is minimal. In contrast, the Gerber parabola and ASME-elliptic curves both show that the state of cyclic stress under consideration has a high safety factor and they lie quite far away from the point on the graph. The safeness of the state of cyclic stress can also be shown using the relationships themselves: Modified Goodman:

S a Sm 76.5 127.5 + = + = 0.743< 1, so it is safe S e Sut 140 650


Gerber:

S a Sm 76.5 127.5 + S = 140 + 650 = 0.585 < 1, so it is safe Se ut


Soderberg:

S a Sm 76.5 127.5 + = + = 0.796 < 1, so it is safe Se Sy 140 510


ASME-elliptic:
2 2 Sm Sa = 76.5 + 127.5 = 0.361 < 1, so it is safe + S S 140 510 e y 2 2

Figure 5 shows the lines/curves representing the loci of the states of cyclic stress

if the calculated safety factors remain unchanged. Note that the lines/curves go neither beyond endurance limit, nor beyond yield stress. This indicates the fact that if the safety factors are fixed and the mean stress and the stress amplitude are altered, the stress will never exceed the critical limits such as endurance limit, yield and ultimate tensile strength. Also note that all the lines/curves on the both graphs were plotted using appropriate transpositions of the four abovementioned relationships using MS Excel for higher precision.

12

Question 3 Fatigue
In this section, the effects of residual stresses and various surface treatment techniques on the fatigue life of a metal component will be discussed and the ways of accounting for them will be explained. Residual Stresses Residual stresses are those that exist in a component free from externally applied forces. [5] They are caused by non-uniform deformations within the material structure remaining from previous operations which can be of thermal, mechanical or chemical nature. Residual stresses can be either beneficial or detrimental to the fatigue performance of a component. Since fatigue failures usually start at a surface location under a tensile stress, any treatment that leaves the surface under compression would be beneficial by reducing an applied tension. [6] On the other hand, tensile stress at the surface of a component combines with an applied tension hence reducing the fatigue resistance and acting detrimentally. Moreover, compressive and tensile residual stresses within the material are always in total equilibrium so care must be taken when altering those deliberately. There are numerous manufacturing methods of forming residual stresses which can be beneficial, detrimental or have negligible effect on fatigue resistance of a component. Shot-peening and surface cold-rolling are the two most common mechanical methods for introducing surface compressive residual stresses. [7] These methods are able of increasing the endurance limit by a factor of 2. The list of thermal methods acting beneficially includes carburizing, induction hardening, and nitriding. Hard plating such as chromium or nickel plating introduces surface tensile residual stresses and hence is detrimental to fatigue resistance. Soft plating such as cadmium and zinc plating produces small residual stresses and hence has only a small influence on fatigue resistance. [7] The exception is galvanizing which is detrimental. Nevertheless, these methods can be beneficial in a corrosive environment. Machining is another method inducing tensile residual stresses hence acting detrimentally. Residual stresses are more important in case of long and intermediate cycle fatigue than in lowcycle one, especially for high-strength metals. The reason for this behaviour is that with low-cycle fatigue and/or lower strength metals, relaxation of residual stresses is more likely to occur due to localized cumulative plasticity from cyclic loading, in which the sum of applied stresses and residual stresses exceeds the yield strength. [7] Thermal stress relief is another method of relaxation of residual stresses. 13

There are several ways to measure experimentally the magnitude and distribution of residual stresses. The most common of them are X-ray diffraction, hole-drilling and sectioning. Despite the importance of residual stresses and the availability of methods to measure them, routine measurement of residual stresses is still the exception rather than the rule. Most users of residual stresses rely on careful control of processes such as carburizing, shot-peening, and coining. [7] Residual stresses are analogous to mean stresses and therefore can be incorporated into S-N,

N, and

da / dN K fatigue life methodologies. [7] In case of

the first two models, the applied and residual stresses can be added algebraically. Another approach is to incorporate the effect of residual stresses on endurance limit of a component, into the miscellaneous effects factor (kf) from the formula [2]:
S e = k ak bk ck dk ek f S e '

where ka is the surface condition modification factor, kb is the size modification factor, kc is the load modification factor, kd is the temperature modification factor, ke is the reliability factor, kf is the miscellaneous effects factor, Se test specimen endurance limit, and Se endurance limit for the component under consideration. Surface Treatments Surface treatments is a broad subject which includes methods of mechanical and/or chemical surface finishing, heat treatment, surface hardening, metal plating, anodising, etc. Most of them are enhancing the fatigue resistance of components by influencing the residual stresses in them or eliminating stress-concentrating marks left after machining and grinding. Some of these methods were already discussed in the previous section. The most common beneficial surface treatment methods include: skin rolling, mechanical polishing, shot peening, flame hardening, case carburising and nitriding. Thus shot peening and skin rolling eliminate the stress-concentrating marks left by grinding whilst introducing a favourable residual stress system together with strain hardening. [8] In contrast, some of the plating techniques are either detrimental or have small effect of fatigue life of components, although protecting them against corrosion and abrasion. Because surface treatment methods combine various techniques of surface finishing, coating, hardening, etc., they affect the fatigue performance of components from various perspectives. This is why their effects can be incorporated into both surface condition modification factor (ka) and/or miscellaneous effects factor (kf) from

14

the abovementioned formula. For example, surface condition modification factor depends on the type of surface finish and can be calculated using the formula [2]:

k a = aSb ut
where Sut is the ultimate tensile strength of the material, a and b are constants dependant on the type of finish.

15

Conclusion
In conclusion, all three questions were completed successfully and according to the instructions (see Coursework Sheet in Appendices). The theoretical principles behind them were researched and understood. All calculations and graphs were produced using MS Excel to achieve high level of accuracy. The first two parts were accompanied with relevant comments and discussions. For the part three, a comprehensive research has been conducted relating to various factors affecting the fatigue life of a metal component and ways of accounting for them. However, only two of them were considered in this Report, namely residual stresses and surface treatments. In addition, a further and deeper research in this area is suggested. For instance, the fatigue behaviour of components with non-uniform stress distribution in presence of notches, joints and/or welding could be aimed for. Word-Count: 2400

16

References
1) Lienhard J. H. When Metals Grow Tired. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; University of Houston. Picture. [cited 2010 Mar 27]. Available from: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2260.htm. 2) McConnachie J. Fatigue Handout. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; RGU Campus Moodle. Engineering Analysis 1 Module. [cited 2010 Mar 28]. Available from: http://campusmoodle.rgu.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=49163. 3) McConnachie J. Fatigue Coursework. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; RGU Campus Moodle. Engineering Analysis 1 Module. [cited 2010 Mar 28]. Available from: http://campusmoodle.rgu.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=49163. 4) McConnachie J. Pressure Vessels Handout. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; RGU Campus Moodle. Engineering Analysis 1 Module. [cited 2010 Mar 28]. Available from: http://campusmoodle.rgu.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=49163. 5) Barsom J. M., Rolfe S. T. Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of Fracture Mechanics. 3rd ed. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999, pp. 238-240. 6) Osgood C. C. Fatigue Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1970, p. 482. 7) Fatemi A., Fuchs H. O., Stephens R. I., Stephens R. R. Metal Fatigue in Engineering. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2001, pp. 261, 264-265. 8) Byrne J., Duggan T. V. Fatigue as a Design Criterion. London: MacMillan Press Ltd.; 1977, pp. 79-80.

Bibliography
Barsom J. M., Rolfe S. T. Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of Fracture Mechanics. 3rd ed. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999. Byrne J., Duggan T. V. Fatigue as a Design Criterion. London: MacMillan Press Ltd.; 1977. Fatemi A., Fuchs H. O., Stephens R. I., Stephens R. R. Metal Fatigue in Engineering. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2001. Lienhard J. H. When Metals Grow Tired. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; University of Houston. Picture. [cited 2010 Mar 27]. Available from: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2260.htm. Osgood C. C. Fatigue Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1970. McConnachie J. Fatigue Coursework. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; RGU Campus Moodle. Engineering Analysis 1 Module. [cited 2010 Mar 28]. Available from: http://campusmoodle.rgu.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=49163. McConnachie J. Fatigue Handout. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; RGU Campus Moodle. Engineering Analysis 1 Module. [cited 2010 Mar 28]. Available from: http://campusmoodle.rgu.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=49163. McConnachie J. Pressure Vessels Handout. [homepage on the Internet]. 2010; RGU Campus Moodle. Engineering Analysis 1 Module. [cited 2010 Mar 28]. Available from: http://campusmoodle.rgu.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=49163. 17

Appendices (Coursework Sheets [3])

18

19

The Robert Gordon University Faculty of Design and Technology School of Engineering MEng/BEng(Hons) Mechanical Engineering MEng/BEng(Hons) Mechanical and Offshore Engineering MEng/BEng(Hons) Mechanical and Energy Engineering MEng/BEng(Hons) Mechanical and Electrical Engineering

EN3501 Engineering Analysis 1 Statics Coursework


Part 1 S-N Plots The data from a rotating bending fatigue test conducted on a steel is given in Table 1. (a) Using the data given make an S-N plot for the steel clearly showing all the data points and the S-N curve on the plot and comment on its shape. (b) Using the relevant load factor, kc, modify the S-N curve so that is suitable for analysing components subjected to torsion. [15%] Part 2 Pressure Vessel A thin-walled cylindrical pressure vessel of inner diameter 175 mm is to be constructed from the steel tested in Part 1. (a) Calculate the minimum wall thickness if the pressure vessel is subjected to a static internal pressure of 20 bar and a factor of safety of 2.5 on yield is required. Comment on your answer. (b) If the internal pressure now cycles between 5 bar and 20 bar determine the mean stress and stress amplitude. (c) Determine the factor of safety for the state of cyclic stress in (b) using the modified Goodman, Gerber, Soderberg and ASME-elliptic relationships. The endurance limit can be taken as the stress amplitude 9 at 1 x 10 cycles. Comment on your answers. (d) Illustrate your answers to (c) using an Sa-Sm plot.

[50%]

Part 3 Fatigue Discuss how the factors allocated to you in Table 2 (on Moodle) would affect the fatigue life of a component made from a metal alloy and how they are typically taken into account when performing stress-based fatigue calculations? Information should be more than the brief notes handed out in class and full references of sources of information should be given using either the Harvard or Vancouver method. Attendance at the Information Sourcing and Referencing laboratory should be made according to the schedule on Moodle. [35%]

Table 1 Rotating Bending Fatigue Test Results


stress amplitude (MPa) 310 310 310 280 280 280 250 250 250 250 230 230 230 230 220 220 220 220 210 210 210 210 200 200 200 200 200 number of cycles to failure 1.90 2.00 2.30 2.30 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.50 5.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 8.50 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.50 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.25 2.50 3.00 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10
5

stress amplitude (MPa) 190 190 190 190 180 180 180 180 180 170 170 170 170 170 160 160 160 160 160 150 150 150 150 140 140 140 140

number of cycles to failure 2.70 3.00 3.50 5.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 5.50 6.50 8.00 1.00 1.10 1.30 3.00 1.20 1.35 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 5.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 7.00 8.00 1.00 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 9 10
6

yield stress, SY ultimate tensile strength, Sut

510 MPa 650 MPa

Notes

For Parts 1 and 2 give explanations of all equations and procedures used. If sources of information other than class notes are used, please give full references. The coursework must be submitted to the JISC plagiarism detection website and the originality report included with your submission. See instructions on Moodle under Topic 8 Coursework (Jenny McConnachie) for this module for instructions on how to do this.