Chapter 2

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Instructor: Robel Metiku
Design for Different Types of Loading
After completing this chapter, you will be able to:

1. Identify various kinds of loading commonly encountered by machine parts,
including static, repeated and reversed, fluctuating, shock or impact, and
random,
2. Define the term stress ratio and compute its value for the various kinds of
loading.
3. Define the concept of fatigue.
4. Define the material property of endurance strength and determine estimates of its
magnitude for different materials.
5. Recognize the factors that affect the magnitude of endurance strength.
6. Define the maximum normal stress theory of failure and the modified Mohr
method for design with brittle materials.
7. Define the maximum shear stress theory of failure.
8. Define the distortion energy theory, also called the von Mises theory or the
Mises- Hencky theory.
9. Describe the Goodman method and apply it to the design of parts subjected to
fluctuating stresses.
2.1. Introduction
It is the designer's responsibility to ensure that a machine part is safe for operation
under reasonably foreseeable conditions. This requires that a stress analysis be
performed in which the predicted stress levels in the part are compared with the design
stress, or that level of stress permitted under the operating conditions.
The stress analysis can be performed either analytically or experimentally, depending
on the degree of complexity of the part, the knowledge about the loading conditions,
and the material properties. The designer must be able to verify that the stress to which
a part is subjected is safe.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 1
The manner of computing the design stress depends on:

1. The manner of loading and
2. The type of material.
Loading types include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Static Loading
Repeated and reversed Loading
Fluctuating Loading
Shock or impact Loading
Random Loading
Material types are many and varied. Among the metallic materials, the chief
classification is between ductile and brittle materials. Other considerations include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The manner of forming the material (casting, forging, rolling, machining, so on),
The type of heat treatment,
The surface finish,
The physical size,
The environment in which it is to operate, and
The geometry of the part.
Different factors must be considered for plastics, composites, ceramics, wood, etc.
This chapter outlines methods of analyzing load-carrying machine parts to ensure that
they are safe. Several different cases are described in which knowledge of the
combinations of material types and loading patterns leads to the determination of the
appropriate method of analysis.
2.2
Types of loads
The primary factors to consider when specifying the type of loading to which a machine
part is subjected are the manner of variation of the load and the resulting variation of
stress with time. Stress variations are characterized by four key values:
1.
Maximum stress,
2. Minimum stress,
max
min
3. Mean (average) stress,

4. Alternating stress,
m
(Stress amplitude)
The maximum and minimum stresses are usually computed from known information by
stress analysis or finite-element methods, or they are measured using experimental
stress analysis techniques. Then the mean and alternating stresses are:
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 2

m
( max + min )
=
2
( max min )
2
The behavior of a material under varying stresses is dependent on the manner of the
variation. One method used to characterize the variation is called stress ratio. Two types
of stress ratios are commonly used, defined as
Stress Ratio R
Minimum stress
Maximum stress
A mplitude Ratio A
min
= max
alternating stress
mean stress
a
= m
Static Stress
When a part is subjected to a load that is applied slowly, without shock, and is held at a
constant value, the resulting stress in the part is called static stress. An example is the
load on a structure due to the dead weight of the building materials. The figure below
shows a diagram of stress versus time for static loading. Because max= min, the stress
ratio for static stress is R= 1.0.
Static loading can also be assumed when a load is applied and is removed slowly and
then reapplied, if the number of load applications is small (a few thousand cycles).
Fig.2.1 Static Stress

MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 3
Repeated and Reversed Stress

A stress reversal occurs when a given element of a load-carrying member is subjected
to a certain level of tensile stress followed by the same level of compressive stress. If
this stress cycle is repeated many thousands of times, the stress is called repeated and
reversed. Figure 2.2 shows the diagram of stress versus time for repeated and reversed
stress. Because max = min the stress ratio R= - 1.0, and the mean stress is zero.
Fig.2.2 Repeated reversed stress

An important example in machine design is a rotating circular shaft loaded in bending
such as that shown in Figure 2.3. In the position shown, an element on the bottom of
the shaft experiences tensile stress while an element on the top of the shaft sees a
compressive stress of equal magnitude. As the shaft is rotated 180 0 from the given
position, these two elements experience a complete reversal of stress. Now if the shaft
continues to rotate, all parts of the shaft that are in bending see repeated, reversed
stress. This is a description of the classical loading case of reversed bending.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 4
Fig.2.3 R.R. Moore fatigue test device

This type of loading is often called fatigue loading, and a machine of the type shown in
Figure 2-3 is called a standard R. R. Moore fatigue test device. Such machines are
used to test materials for their ability to resist repeated loads. The material property
called endurance strength is measured in this manner. More is said later in this chapter
about endurance strength. Actually, reversed bending is only a special case of fatigue
loading, since any stress that varies with time can lead to fatigue failure of a part.
Fluctuating Stress
When a load-carrying member is subjected to an alternating stress with a nonzero
mean, the loading produces fluctuating stress. Figure 2-4 shows four diagrams of stress
versus time for this type of stress. Differences among the four diagrams occur in
whether the various stress levels are positive (tensile) or negative (compressive). Any
varying stress with a nonzero mean is considered a fluctuating stress. Figure 2-4 also
shows the possible ranges of values for the stress ratio R for the given loading patterns.
A special, frequently encountered case of fluctuating stress is repeated,one-direction
stress, in which the load is applied and removed many times. As shown in Figure 2-5,
the stress varies from zero to a maximum with each cycle.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 5
Fig. 2.4 Fluctuating stresses
Fig.2.5 Repeated, one directional stress, special case of fluctuating stress
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 6
Shock or Impact Loading

Loads applied suddenly and rapidly cause shock or impact. Examples include a
hammer blow, a weight falling onto a structure, and the action inside a rock crusher. The
design of machine members to withstand shock or impact involves an analysis of their
energy-absorption capability.
Random Loading
When varying loads are applied that are not regular in their amplitude, the loading is
called random. Statistical analysis is used to characterize random loading for purposes
of design and analysis.
2.3 Endurance strength
The endurance strength of a material is its ability to withstand fatigue loads. In general,
it is the stress level that a material can survive for a given number of cycles of loading. If
the number of cycles is infinite, the stress level is called the endurance limit.
Endurance or fatigue limit can be defined as the magnitude of stress amplitude value
at/below which no fatigue failure will occur, no matter how large the number of stress
reversals are, in other words leading to an infinite life to the component or part being
stressed. For most ferrous materials Endurance limit (Se) is set as the cyclic stress level
that the material can sustain for 10 million cycles.
In general, steel alloys which are subjected to a cyclic stress level below the EL
(properly adjusted for the specifics of the application) will not fail 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 casehardened by carburizing, do not exhibit an infinite-life cyclic stress level
(Endurance Limit).
For such materials, which do not have an endurance limit, to use in design applications
it is customary to define a fatigue or endurance strength (SN) as the value of the stress
amplitude at a specified life (in terms of stress reversals) usually 5X10 6 or 107 cycles.
The specification of fatigue strength without specifying the corresponding life is
meaningless. The specification of a fatigue limit always implies infinite life.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 7
Endurance strengths are usually charted on a graph like that shown in Figure 5-6, called
an S-N diagram. Curves A. B, and D are representative of a material that does exhibit
an endurance limit, such as plain carbon steel. Curve C is typical of most nonferrous
metals, such as aluminum, which do not exhibit an endurance limit. For such materials,
the number of cycles to failure should be reported for the given endurance strength.
Fig.2.6 Representative Endurance strengths

Data for the endurance strength of the specific material for a part should be used
whenever it is available, either from test results or from reliable published data.
However, such data are not always readily available. Therefore, the following
approximations for the basic endurance strength for wrought steel:
Endurance strength = 0.50(ultimate tensile strength) = 0.50(S u)
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 8
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 realworld components.
Because the EL values are statistical in nature, and determined on optimized, laboratory
samples, good design practice requires that one tries to determine what the actual EL
will be for each specific application. This is a time consuming process and at preliminary
design levels may not be feasible or desirable. As more and more knowledge is gained
on the fatigue aspects, this is now overcome by applying a number of correction or
modification factors as discussed in the next topic.
Our real concern is how to design a component so that failure by fatigue could be
precluded. We have noted earlier that
Materials response to fatigue loading is characterized by its S-N behavior
obtained through a standard test
The most important factors that affect the fatigue performance (strength) are also
noted in the previous lecture
Standard test conditions do not account for all these factors.
Components in real use will be subjected to different or varied conditions.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 9
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:
(a) The differences between the application and the testing environments, and
(b) 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 concentrations, etc.) will
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
EL of the particular material (tested on optimized samples) is adjusted to estimate the
maximum cyclic stress a particular part can survive.
This adjustment of the EL is the result of six fractional factors. Each of these six factors
is calculated from known data which describe the influence of a specific condition on
fatigue life.
1. Surface Condition (k ): such as: polished, ground, machined, as-forged,
a
corroded, etc. Surface is perhaps the most important influence on fatigue life;
2. Size (k ): This factor accounts for changes which occur when the actual size of
b
the part or the cross-section differs from that of the test specimens;
3. Load (K ): This factor accounts for differences in loading (bending, axial, torsion)
c
between the actual part and the test specimens;
4. Temperature (k ): This factor accounts for reductions in fatigue life which occur
d
when the operating temperature of the part differs from room temperature (the
testing temperature);
5. Reliability (k ): This factor accounts for the scatter of test data. For example, an
e
8% standard deviation in the test data requires a k e value of 0.868 for 95%
reliability, 0.81 for 99% reliability, and 0.753 for 99.9% reliability.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 10
6. Miscellaneous (K ): This factor accounts for reductions from all other effects,
f
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:
Real-World Allowable Cyclic Stress =
k a k b K c k d k e k f EL
Thus designers are now able to tackle this situation by applying as many modification
factors as possible so that most important deviations of the real design condition from
the standard test conditions are accounted for. So the next part of the discussion will
deal with the endurance strength modification factors.
Endurance Strength Modification Factors

The most important deviations that occur in design situation compared to standard test
conditions are
1. Size variations
2. Surface finish differences
3. Load variations
4. Temperature differences
5. Other miscellaneous-effects
To account for these conditions a variety of modifying factors, each of which is intended
to account for a single effect, is applied to the endurance limit value of test specimen
obtained under laboratory conditions. Consequently we may write
S e=S 'e k a k b k c k d k e
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 11
Se = endurance limit of mechanical element (to be designed)
Se
test specimen,
k a = surface factor
kb
= size factor
'
kc
= endurance limit of
= load factor
kd
k e = miscellaneous-effects factor.
temperature factor
Modification Factors
Surface Factor
ka
The surface of the rotating-beam specimen is highly polished, with final polishing in the
axial direction to smooth out any circumferential scratches. For other conditions the
modification factor depends upon the quality of the finish and upon the tensile strength.
Sufficient data is available in the literature relating the basic strength of the material and
its surface finish or surface condition to the modification factor which is nothing but the
percentage of standard endurance that could be realized under this condition. Typical
charts are given below. A more practical approach can be to use an empirical relation of
the type k a=aS b ut is available in literature to account for the various surface
condition values of constant a and b are shown in the table below.
Parameters for Marin Surface modification factor
Size Factor K
The size factor accounts for the variations in the size of the component when compared
to the test specimen. The size factor has been evaluated using sets of data points, from
available literature. The larger the size higher the probability of internal defects, hence
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 12
lower the fatigue strength. An empirical relation for the case of bending and torsion can
be expressed as given below.
For large sizes, kb further reduces to 0.60 and lower Note that for axial loading there is
no size effect, therefore use kb = +1.0 in this case
Load Factor Axial Loading (Kc)

Though there is no apparent size effect for specimens tested in axial or pushpull
fatigue, there is definite difference between the axial fatigue limit and that in reserved
bending. A very extensive collection of data has been made by R. W. Landgraf (Ford
motor company), on axial fatigue. These results were analyzed, resulting in the
modification values for axial loading as shown in the table.
Average Marin loading factor for axial loading
Load Factor Torsional Loading

A collection of 52 data points comparing the Torsional endurance limit with the bending
endurance limit yielded a load factor for torsion of 0.565.
Using a different set of data points, Mischke obtained the result k
these are very close to the value of 0.577 shown in the table.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 13
= 0.585. Both of
Note that this value happens to be the relation between torsional and tensile yield
strengths according to the distortion energy theory.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 14
Average Marin loading factor or torsinal loading
Hence for the three basic types of loading normally encountered in most practical
applications, namely axial, bending and torsional stressing, the effect could be
accounted by the load factor as shown in the table.
Temperature factor (Kd)

The limited amount of data available show that the endurance limit for steels increases
slightly as the temperature rises and then begins to fall off in the 400 to 700 F range,
not unlike the behavior of the tensile strength shown figure 2.7.
Fig.2.7
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 15
For this reason it is probably true that the endurance limit is related to tensile strength at
elevated temperatures in the same manner as at room temperature. It seems quite
logical, therefore, to employ the same relations to predict endurance limit at elevated
temperatures as are used at room temperature, at least, this practice will provide a
useful standard against which the performance of various materials can be compared.
Two types of problems arise when temperature is a consideration. If the rotating- beam
endurance limit is known at room temperature, then use
The effect of operating temperature on the tensile strength of steel
Miscellaneous Effects Factor
Ke
Similarly the other factors take into account the deviations of actual condition of use
from the standard testing. Though the factor k e is intended to account for the reduction
in endurance limit due to all other effects, it is really intended as a reminder that these
must be accounted for, because actual conditions of use vary from standard test
condition; values of ke are not always available.
2.5 Prediction of Failure
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 16
Designers should understand the various ways that load-carrying components can fail in
order to complete a design that ensures that failure does not occur. Several different
methods of predicting failure are available, and it is the designer's responsibility to
select the one most appropriate to the conditions of the project. In this section we
describe the methods that have found a high level of use in the field and discuss the
situations in which each is applicable. The factors involved are the nature of the load
(static, repeated and reversed, or fluctuating), the type of material involved (ductile or
brittle), and the amount of design effort and analysis that can be justified by the nature
of the component or product being designed.
The design analysis methods described in the following section define the relationship
between the applied stresses on a component and the strength of the material from
which it is to be made that is most relevant to the conditions of service. The strength
basis for design can be yield strength, ultimate strength, endurance strength, or some
combination of these. The goal of the design process is to achieve a suitable design
factor, N. that ensures that the component is safe. That is, the strength of the material
must be greater than the applied stresses.
The following types of failure prediction are described in this section
Failure Prediction Method
Uses
1. Maximum normal stress
uniaxial static stress on brittle materials
2. Modified Mohr
Biaxial static stress on brittle materials
3. Yield strength
uniaxial static stress on ductile materials
4. Maximum shear stress
biaxial static stress on ductile materials [Moderately

conservative]
5. Distortion energy
Biaxial or triaxial stress on ductile materials [Good

predictor]
6. Goodman
Fluctuating stress on ductile materials [Slightly

conservative]
7. Gerber
Fluctuating
stress
predictor]
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 17
on
ductile
materials
[Good

8. Soderbergs

fluctuating stress on ductile materials [Moderately
Conservative]
Maximum Normal Stress Method (Uniaxial Static Stress on Brittle Materials)

The maximum normal stress theory states that a material will fracture when the
maximum normal stress (either tension or compression) exceeds the ultimate
strength of the material as obtained from a standard tensile or compressive test.
Its use is limited, namely for brittle materials under pure uniaxial static tension or
compression. When applying this theory, any stress concentration factor at the
region of interest should be applied to the computed stress because brittle
materials do not yield and therefore cannot redistribute the increased stress.
The following equations apply the maximum normal stress theory to design
For tensile stress
K t < d=
Sut
N
For compressive stress
K t < d=
Suc
N
Note that many brittle materials such as gray cast iron have a significantly higher
compressive strength than tensile strength.
Yield Strength Method (Uniaxial Static Normal Stresses on Ductile Materials)
This is a simple application of the principle of yielding in which a component is
carrying a direct tensile or compressive load in the manner similar to the
conditions of the .standard tensile or compressive test for the material. Failure is
predicted when the actual applied stress exceeds the yield strength. Stress
concentrations can normally be neglected for static stresses on ductile materials
because the higher stresses near the stress concentrations are highly localized.
When the local stress on a small part of the component reaches the yield
strength of the material, it does in fact yield. In the process, the stress is
redistributed to other areas and the component is still safe.
The following equations apply the yield strength principle to design
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 18
For tensile stress
< d=
S yt
N
< d=
S yc
N
For most wrought ductile metals,
S yt =S yc
Maximum Shear Stress Method (Biaxial Static Stress on Ductile Materials)

The maximum shear stress method of failure prediction states that a ductile
material begins to yield when the maximum shear stress in a load-carrying
component exceeds that in a tensile-test specimen when yielding begins. A
Mohr's circle analysis for the uniaxial tension test shows that the maximum shear
stress is one-half of the applied tensile stress. At yield, then, S sy = Sy/2. We use
this approach in to estimate Ssy. Then, for design, use
max = d=
S sy 0.5 S y
=
N
N
The maximum shear stress method of failure prediction has been shown by
experimentation to be somewhat conservative for ductile materials subjected to a
combination of normal and shear stresses. It is relatively easy to use and is often
chosen by designers. For more precise analysis, the distortion energy method is
preferred
Distortion Energy Method (Static Biaxial or Triaxial Stress on Ductile Materials)
The distortion energy method has been shown to be the best predictor of failure
for ductile materials under static loads or completely reversed normal, shear, or
combined stresses. It requires the definition of the new term, Von Mises stress,
indicated by the symbol, , that can be calculated for biaxial stresses, given the
maximum and minimum principal stresses, 1 and 2, from
' = 21+ 22 1 2
Failure is predicted when > Sy. The biaxial stress approach requires that the
applied stress in the third orthogonal direction, typically Z, is zero.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 19
Credit is given to R. Von Mises for the development of the above equation in
1913. Because of additional contributions by H. Hencky in 1925, the method is
sometimes called the Von Mises Hencky Method. Be aware that the results
from many finite element analysis software packages include the Von Mises
stress. Another term used is the octahedral shear stress.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 20
It is helpful to visualize the distortion energy failure prediction method by plotting

a failure line on a graph with 1 on the horizontal axis and 2 on the vertical axis
as shown in Figure below.
The failure line is an ellipse centered at the origin and passing through the yield
strength on each axis, in both the tensile and compressive regions. It is
necessary that the material has equal values for yield strength in tension and
compression for direct use of this method.
The numerical scales on the graph are normalized to the yield strength so the
ellipse passes through
Sy
=1
1
on the 1 axis and similarly on the other axes.
Combinations of principal stresses that lie within the distortion energy ellipse are
predicted to be safe, while those outside would predict failure.
For design, the design factor, N can be applied to the yield strength. Then use
' < d=
Sy
N
For comparison, the failure prediction lines for the maximum shear stress method
are shown also in Figure 2.8. With data showing that the distortion energy
method is the best predictor, it can be seen that the maximum shear stress
method is generally conservative and that it coincides with the distortion energy
ellipse at six points. In other regions, it is as much as 16% low. Note the 45
diagonal line through the second and fourth quadrants, called the shear
diagonal. It is the locus of points where 1 = 2 and its intersection with the failure
ellipse is at the point (-0.577, 0.577) in the second quadrant. This predicts failure
when the shear stress is 0.577S y. The maximum shear stress method predicts
failure at 0.50Sy, thus quantifying the conservatism of the maximum shear stress
method.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 21
Fig.2.8. distortion energy method compared with maximum shear stress and maximum
principle stress methods.
Also shown in the figure 2.8 are the failure prediction lines for the maximum
principal stress method. It is coincident with the maximum shear stress lines in
the first and third quadrants for which the two principal stresses have the same
sign, either tensile (+) or compressive (-). Therefore, it, too, is conservative in
these regions. But note that it is dangerously non conservative in the second and
fourth quadrants.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 22
Alternate Form for the Von Mises Stress

The above equation requires that the two principal stresses be determined from
Mohr's circle or from a finite element analysis. Often you will first determine the
stresses in some convenient orthogonal directions, x and y, namely x, y, and xy
. The von Mises stress can then be calculated directly from
' = 2x + 2y x y +3 2xy
For uniaxial stress with shear, y= 0, the above equation reduces to

' = 2x +3 2xy
Triaxial Distortion Energy Method

A more general expression of the Von Mises (distortion energy) stress is required
when principal stresses occur in all three directions, 1, 2, and 3. We normally
order these stresses such that 1 > 2 > 3. Then
2
2
2
2
' = [ ( 2 1 ) + ( 3 1 ) + ( 3 2 ) ]
2
Goodman Method (Fatigue Under Fluctuating Stress on Ductile Materials)

The term fluctuating stress refers to the condition in which a load-carrying
component is subjected to a nonzero mean stress with an alternating stress
superimposed on the mean stress (see figure 2.9). The Goodman method of
failure prediction, sketched in Figure 2.9, has been shown to provide a good
correlation with experimental data, falling just slightly below the scatter of data
points.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 23
Fig.2.9. Modified Goodman diagram for fatigue of ductile materials

The Goodman diagram plots the mean stresses on the horizontal axis and the
alternating stresses on the vertical axis. Look first at the right part of the diagram
representing fluctuating stresses with a tensile (+) mean stress. A straight line is
drawn from the estimated actual endurance strength of the material,S n, on the
vertical axis to the ultimate tensile strength, S ut, on the horizontal axis. Combinations
of mean stress, m, and alternating stress, a , above the line predict failure, while
those below the line predict no failure from fatigue. The equation for the Goodman
line is:
a m
+ =1
S 'n Su
Design Equation
We can modify the above equation of the ultimate and endurance strength values,
as shown in Figure 2.10, to depict a "safe stress" line. Furthermore, any stress
concentration factor in the region of interest should be applied to the alternating
component but not to the mean stress component, because experimental evidence
shows that the presence of a stress concentration does not affect the contribution of
the mean stress of fatigue failure. Making these adjustments to the equation for the
Goodman line gives
K t a m 1
+ =
'
Su N
Sn
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 24
This is the design equation we will use for fluctuating stress.
2.10. Modified Goodman diagram showing safe stress line
Gerber Method (Fluctuating Stress on Ductile Materials)

Those interested in a more precise predictor of fatigue failure propose the Gerber
method, shown in Figure below. The Goodman line is shown for comparison. The
end points of each are the same, but the Gerber line is parabolic and follows
generally among the experimentally determined failure points, whereas the
Goodman line lies below them. This means that some failure points will lie below
the Gerber line, an undesirable result. For this reason, we will use the Goodman
line for problem solutions.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 25
2.11. Comparison of Gerber, Goodman, and Soderberg methods for fluctuating

stresses on ductile materials
The equation of Gerber line is,
2
a m
+
=1
S 'n S u
[ ]
Soderberg Method (Fluctuating Stress on Ductile Materials)

Another approach that has found significant use is called the Soderberg method.
Figure 2-11 shows the Soderberg failure line in comparison with the Goodman
and Gerber lines. The equation of the Soderberg line is:
K t a m
+ =1
'
Sy
Sn
Drawn between the endurance strength and the yield strength, the Soderberg
line is the most conservative of the three. One advantage of the Soderberg line is
that it protects directly against early cycle yielding, whereas the Goodman and
Gerber methods require the secondary consideration of the yield line as
discussed previously. However, the degree of conservatism is considered too
great for competitive efficient design.
In summary, problem solving in this course will use the Goodman method for
fluctuating stresses on ductile materials. It is only slightly conservative and its
failure prediction line lies completely below the array of experimental failure data
points.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 26
2.6. Design Analysis Methods

For ductile materials under four different types of loading, both the maximum shear
stress and distortion energy methods are included. The maximum shear stress method
is the simpler to use but somewhat conservative. The distortion energy method is the
most accurate predictor of failure, but it requires the additional step of computing the
Von Mises stress. Both methods will be illustrated in the example problems in this
course; the distortion energy method is recommended.
Fig.2.12. Logic diagram for visualizing methods of design analysis

The following symbols are used in the various cases.
Su or Sut = ultimate tensile strength
Suc = ultimate compressive strength
Sy = yield strength or yield point
Ssy= yield strength in shear
Sn= endurance strength of material under actual conditions
Ssn = endurance strength in shear under actual conditions
= nominal applied stress, without Kt
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 27
Case A: Brittle Materials under Static Loads

When the actual applied stress, , is simple tension or compression in only one
direction, use the maximum normal stress theory of failure. Because brittle materials do
not yield, you should always apply stress concentration factors when computing the
applied stress.
Case A1: Uniaxial Tensile Stress
K t < d=
Sut
N
Case A2: Uniaxial Compressive Stress

K t < d=
Suc
N
Case A3: Biaxial Stress. Use Mohr's circle to determine the principal stresses, 1, and
2. If both principal stresses are of the same sign, either tensile or compressive, use
Case A1 or A2. If they are of different signs, use the modified Mohr method. Any stress
concentration factors should be applied to the computed nominal stresses.
Case B: Brittle Materials under Fatigue Loads
No specific recommendation will be given for brittle materials under fatigue loads
because it is usually not desirable to use a brittle material in such cases. When it is
necessary to do so, testing should be done to ensure safety under actual conditions.
Case C: Ductile Materials under Static Loads
Three failure methods are listed. The yield strength method is only for uniaxial normal
stresses. For shear or biaxial loads, the maximum shear stress method is simpler but
somewhat conservative. The distortion energy method is the best failure predictor.
Case C1: Yield Strength Method for Uniaxial Static Normal Stresses
For tensile stress
< d=
S yt
N
< d=
S yc
N
Case C2: Maximum Shear Stress Method: for shear stresses and combined stresses.
Determine the maximum shear stress from Mohr's circle. Then the design equation is.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 28
max < d =
S sy 0.5 S y
=
N
N
Case C3: Distortion Energy Method: Used for shear stresses and combined stresses.
Determine the maximum shear stress from Mohr's circle. Then compute the Von Mises
stress from
' = 21+ 22 1 2
For design use
' < d=
Sy
N
Stress concentrations are not needed for static loading if local yielding can be tolerated.
Case D: Reversed, Repeated Normal Stress
Figure 2.2 shows the general form of reversed, repeated normal stress. Note that the
mean stress, m, is zero and that the alternating stress, a, is equal to the maximum
stress. max. This case follows directly from the definition of the estimated actual
endurance strength because the rotating beam testing method is used to acquire the
strength data. Also, it is a special case of fluctuating stress, covered by the equation in
the preceding section. With a zero mean stress, the design equation becomes
'
S
K t max < d = n
N
Case E: Reversed, Repeated Shear Stress
Again the maximum shear stress theory or the distortion energy theory can be used.
First compute the maximum repeated shear stress,
max
. Including any stress
concentration factor. The discussion for Case D applies for shear stress as well.
Case E1: Maximum Shear Stress Theory
S 'sn =0.5 S'n
(Estimate endurance strength in shear)
K t max < d =
S sn 0.5 S n
=
N
N
'
'
Case E2: Distortion Energy Theory

MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 29

'
'
S sn=0.577 S n
K t max < d =
(Estimate for endurance strength in shear)
S 'sn 0.577 S'n

=
N
N
Case F: Reversed Combined Stress

Use Mohr's circle to find the maximum shear stress and the two principal stresses by
using the maximum values of the applied stresses
Case F1: Maximum Shear Stress Theory
Use the equation in E1
Case F2: Distortion Energy Theory
Use the equation in E2
Case G: Fluctuating Normal Stresses: The Goodman Method
Use the Goodman method that was described above and illustrated in Figure 2.10. A
satisfactory design results if the combination of the mean stress and the alternating
stress produces a point in the safe zone shown in Figure 2.10. Then you can use the
equation to evaluate the design factor for fluctuating loads:
K t a m 1
+ =
Su N
S 'n
Case H: Fluctuating Shear Stresses
The preceding development of the Goodman method can also be done for fluctuating
shear stresses instead of normal stresses. The design factor equation would then be
K t a
S
'
n
m 1
=
S su N
In the absence of shear strength data, use the estimates Ssn'= 0.577 sn', and su = 0.75su
Case I: Fluctuating Combined Stresses
The approach presented here is similar to the Goodman method described previously,
but the effect of the combined stresses is first determined by using Mohr's circle.
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 30
Case I1: For the maximum shear stress theory, draw two Mohr's circles, one for the
mean stresses and one for the alternating stresses. From the first circle, determine
maximum mean shear stress,
maximum alternating shear stress,
MfM ATTC, MTD
( m )max .
From the second circle, determine the
( a )max .
Page 31
Then use these values in the design equation

K t ( a ) max ( m )max 1
+
=
S su
N
S 'yn
In the absence of shear strength data, use the estimates, ssn = 0.577 sn and
ssu
= 0.75Su.
Case I2: For the distortion energy theory, draw two Mohr's circles, one for the mean
stresses and one for the alternating stresses. From these circles, determine the
maximum and minimum principal stresses. Then compute the Von Mises stresses for
both the mean and the alternating components from
'm = 21 m + 22 m 1 m 2 m
'a = 21 a + 22 a 1 a 2 a
The Goodman equation then becomes

k t 'a 'm 1
+ =
S'n S u N
MfM ATTC, MTD
Page 32

Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Design for Different Types of Loading

After completing this chapter, you will be able to:

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

The manner of computing the design stress depends on:

3. Mean (average) stress,

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Fig.2.1 Static Stress

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Repeated and Reversed Stress

Fig.2.2 Repeated reversed stress

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Fig.2.3 R.R. Moore fatigue test device

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Fig. 2.4 Fluctuating stresses

Fig.2.5 Repeated, one directional stress, special case of fluctuating stress

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Shock or Impact Loading

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Fig.2.6 Representative Endurance strengths

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Endurance Strength Modification Factors

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Se = endurance limit of mechanical element (to be designed)

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Load Factor Axial Loading (Kc)

Average Marin loading factor for axial loading

Load Factor Torsional Loading

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2

Instructor: Robel Metiku

Average Marin loading factor or torsinal loading

Temperature factor (Kd)

MfM ATTC, MTD

Machine Elements I: Chapter 2