Anda di halaman 1dari 107

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 1

FE-Fatigue theory – Table of contents

 
  • 1. Introduction to fatigue analysis from finite element models

 

3

  • 2. Overview of new features in FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

........................................

6

  • 2.1 Auto elimination by Group

 

6

  • 2.2 Virtual strain gauges

......................................................................................................

6

  • 2.3 Seam weld analysis

........................................................................................................

6

  • 2.4 High temperature fatigue analysis

................................................................................

6

  • 2.5 Vibration fatigue analysis

..............................................................................................

6

  • 3. Fatigue Theory

............................................................................................

7

  • 3.1. The S-N (High Cycle Fatigue) Approach

 

7

  • 3.2. The Local Strain theory of fatigue

8

  • 3.3. Multiaxial strain-life

 

9

3.3.1

Introduction

............................................................................................................

9

  • 3.3.2. Co-ordinate System Rotation

...............................................................................

9

  • 3.3.3. Assessing Multiaxiality

.......................................................................................

10

  • 3.3.4. Critical Plane Analysis

........................................................................................

11

  • 3.3.5. The Hoffmann-Seeger Method ...........................................................................

12

  • 3.3.6. The Klann-Tipton-Cordes Method

.....................................................................

13

  • 3.3.7 Non-proportional multi-axial methods

 

15

  • 3.3.8 Multiaxial notch correction procedure

...............................................................

16

  • 3.3.9 Cyclic Plasticity Modelling

..................................................................................

17

  • 3.3.10 Multiaxial Rainflow Counting ............................................................................

20

  • 3.3.11 Fatigue Damage Calculation

 

21

  • 3.3.12 Critical Plane Methods

.......................................................................................

22

Types of Cracks

  • 3.3.13 .................................................................................................

23

  • 3.3.14 Critical Plane Rainflow Counting

......................................................................

24

References

  • 3.3.15 ..........................................................................................................

25

  • 3.4. Safety factor

.................................................................................................................

26

  • 3.4.1 Life based factor of safety

...................................................................................

26

  • 3.4.2 Stress based factor of safety ..............................................................................

26

  • 3.4.3. Multiaxial safety factor

 

26

  • 3.5. Multiaxial Safety Factor ..............................................................................................

27

  • 3.5.1. The Definition of High-Cycle Multiaxial Fatigue

...............................................

27

  • 3.5.2. High-Cycle Multiaxial Fatigue Theories

27

  • 3.5.3. McDiarmid Criterion

............................................................................................

28

  • 3.5.4. Dang Van Criterion

..............................................................................................

30

  • 3.6. Theoretical background to Spot Weld analysis

.......................................................

34

  • 3.6.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................

34

  • 3.6.2. The fatigue analysis of spot welds - general description

 

35

  • 3.6.3. Structural stress calculation

..............................................................................

35

  • 3.6.4. Material properties

..............................................................................................

38

  • 3.6.5. Damage Calculation

............................................................................................

40

  • 3.6.6. A note on the subject of modelling spotwelds

.................................................

41

  • 3.6.7. References

...........................................................................................................

42

 

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 
 

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 2

 

3.7

FE-based fatigue analysis of welded structures

.......................................................

44

 

3.7.1

Introduction ..........................................................................................................

44

3.7.2

Background ..........................................................................................................

44

3.7.3

BS7608 and other simple S-N methods

.............................................................

46

3.7.4

The “Volvo” approach for thin-sheet structures

...............................................

53

3.7.5

References

............................................................................................................

62

3.8

Multiple mean stress curve analysis

..........................................................................

63

3.8.1

Interpolating life from a set of multiple mean stress life curves

63

3.9

Vibration fatigue ...........................................................................................................

66

 

3.9.1

Introduction ..........................................................................................................

66

3.9.2

Review of S-N analysis in the time domain

.......................................................

67

3.9.3

Simple fatigue analysis using time history recreation

 

69

3.9.4

Fast fatigue analysis methods in the frequency domain

71

3.9.5

Comparison between fatigue analysis techniques

...........................................

76

 

3.9.6

FE based vibration analysis in the frequency domain

 

77

3.9.7

Conclusions

..........................................................................................................

82

 

3.9.8

References

............................................................................................................

82

4.

Time Histories

...........................................................................................

83

4.1

Why time histories are required

..................................................................................

83

 

4.2

Constant amplitude versus variable amplitude

.........................................................

83

4.3

Obtaining and creating variable amplitude time histories

 

85

4.4

Multiple load cases

86

4.5

Using nSoft time history processing to increase calculation speed

86

4.6

Transient or time-step analysis

 

89

5.

Materials Data

90

5.1

Materials database

90

5.2

S-N data .........................................................................................................................

90

 

5.3

E-N data

.........................................................................................................................

91

5.4

Multiaxial data

...............................................................................................................

91

5.5

Auto-generated data

92

5.6.

Surface finish correction ............................................................................................

94

 

5.7.

Fatigue strength reduction factor

..............................................................................

95

6.

Principles of Linear Superposition

.........................................................

96

7.

Calculation of fatigue life from rainflow matrices

 

98

7.1.

Strain-life Fatigue Analysis from a Rainflow Matrix

.................................................

98

 

7.2.

Stress-life Fatigue Analysis from a Rainflow Matrix

..............................................

104

8.

Auto elimination

.....................................................................................

105

9.

Virtual strain gauges

..............................................................................

107

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 3

1. Introduction to fatigue analysis from finite element models

FE-Fatigue performs fatigue analysis from FE results. CAE environments include, for example, HyperMesh, which interfaces to FE-Fatigue by exporting stress/strain information in nCode's FES file format. This is comparable to exporting data for other solvers, such as NASTRAN.

FE-Fatigue provides stress-life and strain-life analysis, the theoretical basis of which is described in this document.

FE-Fatigue is part of the nSoft suite of products and a basic nSoft-E license provides the functionality for data display and manipulation. FATIMAS products are not essential to use FE- Fatigue however they provide additional useful functionality. Time histories of stress/strain (DAC files) can be exported from FE-Fatigue for use in FATIMAS modules.

An FE-Fatigue installation comprises:

fatfe (FE-Fatigue solver) fatres (FE-Fatigue results listing and sorting) mdm (Materials Database) fatduty (Duty Cycle Analyser) pvxmul (Multiple Channel Peak Valley Slicing) remdac, dacrem (RPC translators) sdrc2fes (.UNV to .FES conversion) fe2fes (Generic FE results to .FES conversion) Additional files include utilities and example files.

• On-line documentation is also available electronically in Adobe Acrobat PDF format along with a printed user guide of worked examples. The documentation includes documents which detail the internal structure of FES and DAC files.

The following pages show the process of analysing FE data with FE-Fatigue – the important files are as follows:

Partial FES file

– created by the translator

Full FES file

– file required by nCode analysis package

Results file

– file in a format suitable for direct import into the appropriate pre and post processor.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 4 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5
Theory Page 4
1st Page
Back
Main Menu

Figure 1

FE Fatigue’s basic system diagram

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 5

Where the pre-and post-processor does not support the FES file, the following system diagram applies:

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 5 Where the pre-and post-processor does

Figure 2

System diagram with translation (if a translator is required it must be run first to create the partial FES file).

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 6

2. Overview of new features in FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

  • 2.1 Auto elimination by Group

The auto elimination feature of FATFE has been enhanced to allow the user to retain the top n percent of results for each material group present in the model.

See Auto elimination for more details.

  • 2.2 Virtual strain gauges This feature allows the user to place a virtual strain gauge on the part being analysed. Element or node strains that are calculated in the FE solver are exported such that the strain output will emulate a strain gauge rosette at the same location on the actual part. This provides an improved facility for measurement to CAE correlation and calibration to occur and improves the confidence of FE models by a more direct comparison of strain results. See Virtual strain gauges for more information.

  • 2.3 Seam weld analysis

Release 5 supports seam weld analysis from finite element stresses. See Seam weld analysis for more information.

  • 2.4 High temperature fatigue analysis

Release 5 of FE-Fatigue supports the fatigue analysis of components at constant high temperature.

  • 2.5 Vibration fatigue analysis Fatigue calculations may be done based on the results of a random vibration FE analysis, which is in the form of Power Spectral Density (PSD) stress output. See Vibration fatigue analysis for more details.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 7

3. Fatigue Theory 3.1. The S-N (High Cycle Fatigue) Approach

It has been recognised since 1830 that a metal subjected to a repetitive or fluctuating load will fail at a stress level lower than that required to cause fracture on a single application of the load. The nominal stress method was the first approach developed to try to understand this failure process and is still widely used in applications where the applied stress is nominally within the elastic range of the material and the number of cycles to failure is large. From this point of view, the nominal stress approach, is best suited to that area of the fatigue process known as high cycle fatigue. The nominal stress method does not work well in the low cycle region where the applied strains have a significant plastic component. In this region a strain based methodology must be used.

For more information, see the nCode book of Fatigue Theory.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 8

3.2. The Local Strain theory of fatigue

The nominal stress approach has been used extensively in the study of premature failures of components subjected to fluctuating loads. Traditionally, the magnitude of the observed cyclic stresses were observed to be less than the tensile elastic limit and the lives long, i.e. greater than

about 10 5 cycles. This pattern of behaviour has classically been referred to as high-cycle fatigue. As duty cycles have became more severe and components more complicated, another pattern of fatigue behaviour has emerged. In this regime, the cyclic loads are relatively large and have significant amounts of plastic deformation associated with them together with relatively short lives. This type of behaviour has been commonly referred to as low-cycle fatigue or more recently strain-controlled fatigue. The transition from low-cycle to high-cycle fatigue behaviour generally occurs in the range 10 4 to 10 5 cycles. The analytical procedure evolved to deal with strain-controlled fatigue is called the strain-life, local stress-strain or critical location approach. For more information, see the nCode book of Fatigue Theory.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 9

3.3. Multiaxial strain-life

3.3.1 Introduction

The essential elements of any FE-based fatigue analysis are:

• Identification of the loading environment • Establishment of the relationship between applied loads and local stresses and/or strains The relationship between local stresses/strains and fatigue damage

For multiaxial analysis, these three elements can be analysed at various levels of detail, and with the increasing detail comes a cost of analysis time and interpretation of results. At any node or element in an FE-Fatigue analysis, the local stress state can be assessed to determine the level of multiaxiality. If we assume that fatigue damage initiates at the surface of a structure then any direct or shear stresses normal to the surface are zero, and there are only two principal stresses which may be non-zero.

Hence there are three basic cases:

Case 1

Uniaxial stress state – there is one principal stress which is significantly larger than the second for the whole of the load history and whose angle does not change.

Case 2

Proportional biaxial stress state – the ratio of the two principal stresses is non- zero, but remains constant for the duration of loading. The angle remains constant also.

Case 3

Non-proportional stress state. Either the biaxiality ratio or the angle of the maximum principal changes significantly through the time history.

For case 1, no special algorithm corrections need to be applied to convert elastic stresses and strains to elastic-plastic. The Neuber correction, or similar methods, alone are sufficient.

For case 2, procedures should be used to take into account the fact that the loading is non- uniaxial. Two such procedures are due to Hoffmann and Seeger [25] and Klann-Tipton-Cordes [26]. These are described briefly in the following pages. They apply only to the local strain approach.

For case 3, a full multiaxial notch correction procedure should be used. In the current release of FE-Fatigue there is no multiaxial notch correction procedure available. Results from highly multiaxial elements with high levels of strain should be treated with caution.

Damage models have been developed which can account for non-proportional and multiaxial loading conditions. Examples are Fatemi-Socie, Bannantine and Wang-Brown. These are implemented in FE-Fatigue. A simple critical plane approach is also included which can take into account the mobility of the stress tensor – this is described on page 11. In conjunction with regular uniaxial stress-strain predictions and damage models it can provide a life estimate in non-uniaxial cases and can be applied in both strain-life and stress-life damage models.

3.3.2. Co-ordinate System Rotation

In order to do any multiaxial assessment or analysis, FE-Fatigue requires stress or strain data in the plane of the surface. In particular, it requires that the X-Y axis pair defines the plane tangential to the surface, with the Z axis normal to that plane. This can be done by the software creating the partial FES file, in which case a header flag will be set to indicate that only 2D stresses are present. However, most translators do not support this feature and therefore most data files will

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 10

contain stresses oriented in a co-ordinate system not compatible with the above requirement.

Since the FES file does not contain co-ordinate system information, a method is applied which can derive co-ordinate transformation information from the stress data itself. This method relies upon the integrity of the data and will not work if any of the assumptions are violated.

In order to derive a transformation matrix, it is assumed that the two largest principal stress tensors lie in the plane of the surface and that the third principal is normal to the surface and has a value of zero, or near zero. There are cases where this is not true, for example where an external or internal pressure is applied or where the coarseness of the FE model leads to inaccuracies in the extrapolation of results from element centroid or Gauss point location to surface nodes.

If we have a surface stress tensor of 6 components in a co-ordinate system X-Y-Z, we need to define a system X’-Y’-Z’ where X’-Y’ defines the plane tangential to the surface and Z’ is normal to the surface. To obtain principal stress values and directions, we can calculate the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the following matrix:

S = [ S xx

S xy

S xz

S yx

S yy

S yz

S zx

S zy

S zz ]

where the cross-terms are identical ( e.g. S yx = S xy ). The eigenvalues give the principal stresses and the eigenvectors the corresponding direction cosines. The eigenvectors can be stored in a 3x3 matrix T, which is the transformation matrix from the original co-ordinate system X-Y-Z to the co-ordinate system defined by the principals. If we re-order the columns of T to make the first column correspond to the absolute maximum principal, the second column the second principal and the third the principal closest to zero, then we have a transformation matrix which will transform any stress tensor to a co-ordinate system X’-Y’-Z’ in which X’ is aligned with the maximum principal stress. To transform a tensor in X-Y-Z to X’-Y’-Z’, calculate

S’ = TST T

where T T is the transpose of T. If the third principal is not zero, then the results of the transformation may not lie in the surface tangential plane and the software will issue a warning.

3.3.3. Assessing Multiaxiality

FE-Fatigue provides tools to assess whether uniaxial techniques are valid at any part of the model, especially where stress levels are high. The biaxiality ratio, defined as the ratio of the smaller absolute in-plane principal to the larger, can be calculated and plotted, either as a mean and spread over the whole model or on a detailed, element by element basis.

The biaxiality ratio lies between –1 and +1, where zero indicates a uniaxial condition. The angle calculated by FE-Fatigue describes the angle of the absolute maximum principal stress vector with the X-axis of the planar co-ordinate system. In practice this value is in itself of little practical use, but the spread of the angle for all significant stress tensors shows the mobility of the principal vector. Because the value of the biaxiality ratio and the angle can change for each point in a time history, global measures of mean biaxiality ratio, standard deviation of biaxiality ratio, dominant angle and angle spread are calculated for the entire model and can be contour plotted. To remove the effect of low stress values, points whose maximum principal stress is less than a specified gate are excluded from the calculations.

The Node/Element option on the Utilities menu in FE-Fatigue can be used to look at the state of stress at any particular node or element in detail. This allows plots of the time histories of stress, strain, biaxiality ratio and angle as well as cross-plots of biaxiality ratio and angle vs. absolute

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 11

principal stress. The dominant value and the degree of scatter in the plot clearly show whether the data is uniaxial, proportional or non-proportional.

This information can be used to determine the best choice of analysis route for a particular component.

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 11 principal stress. The dominant value

3.3.4. Critical Plane Analysis

When the stress tensor is mobile it becomes necessary to use a critical plane approach, i.e. one which references specific planes rather than using combined stress or strain parameters such as Von Mises or maximum principal strain. The critical plane should not be confused with the crack plane. Cracks typically start in shear mode and after a transition period grow in opening mode. The period we call crack initiation life may include growth in a number of planes. The local strain approach does not model cracks explicitly but attempts to predict initiation life on the basis of bulk stress and strain parameters. The critical plane is simply the plane on which the stress and strain parameters are calculated. The method used to rotate the co-ordinate system of the stresses and strains by means of a tensor rotation such that the x-y plane of the new co-ordinate system lies in the critical plane.

For planes with an angle of intersection at 90 degrees, the equations for the strain and stress

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 12

normal to the plane and at a rotated angle φ (phi) is as follows:

ε n

=

ε

x

2

cos

φ

+

ε y

sin

  • 2 cos φ sin φ

φ

+

γ xy

σ n

=

σ

x

cos

2

φ

+

σ y

sin

  • 2 2 τ

φ

+

xy

cos φ sin φ

FE-Fatigue calculates the damage using the strain (E-N calculations) or stress (S-N calculations) at 18 angles from 0 to 170 degrees inclusive. The largest damage is then used as the result. Only the rainflow matrix for the worst case angle can be extracted, but time histories for all angles can be exported for preview, or additional calculation in FATIMAS.

3.3.5. The Hoffmann-Seeger Method

This method applies when loading is proportional. If the loading is non-proportional then most of the assumptions implicit in the method are violated; hardening is in reality kinematic and not isotropic, and the principal axes not only rotate, but the principal stress and strain axes are no longer necessarily aligned with each other. Hoffmann-Seeger is used in conjunction with Neuber to correct the elastic stresses and strains to elastic-plastic. If loading is biaxial, Neuber alone is insufficient as the cyclic stress-strain curve is from uniaxial data. Hoffmann and Seeger suggest a method for extending use of the Neuber correction to multiaxial loading, subject to the following assumptions:

The principal stress and strain axes are fixed in orientation The ratio of the in-plane principal strains is constant

The uniaxial stress-strain curve can be extended for use with suitable equivalent stress and strain parameters such as the Von Mises parameters.

Hencky’s flow rules and Masing material memory behaviour are also assumed.

First the elastic values of the signed Von Mises stress and strain (from the FE analysis) are computed:

σ eq

=

σ

e 1

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and

σ

2

σ

e 2

+

σ e 2

  • 2 and

  • ----------- σ

σ e 1

e 1

e 1

ε eq

=

σ

eq

--------

E

together with the strain biaxiality ratio e2/e1, which is assumed to be constant and equal to the elastic value. Then the Neuber correction is made, by solving the equations:

ε q

=

σ

q

  • ------ +

E

1

---

σ

q

------

K

n

And

σ q ε q

=

σ

eq

ε

eq

=

σ

eq

2

----------

E

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and

nCode

n n
n n
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and

1st Page

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and

Back

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 12 normal to the plane and

Main Menu

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 13

Then the principal strains and stresses can be calculated as follows:

 

ν'

=

1

1

---

2

ν

e

σ q

---------

E ε q

---

 

2

 

1

ν' a

 

ε 1

=

ε

q

---------------------------- 2 1 – a + a
----------------------------
2
1
– a
+
a
 

1 + a

----------------

1

v

a

ε 3

=

-

ε 1

v

 

1

 

σ 1

=

σ q

------------------------------ 2 1 – + a e a e
------------------------------
2
1
+
a e
a e
 

ε

2

----- + ν'

 

σ

ε

a

=

2

------

1

= -------------------

 

σ 1

 

1

+

ν' ε 2

-----

ε 1

3.3.6. The Klann-Tipton-Cordes Method

Whilst the Hoffmann-Seeger method adjusts the stresses and strains cycle by cycle, the method proposed by Klann, Tipton and Cordes makes a one-time modification of the cyclic stress strain curve according to the biaxiality ratio and then performs a normal Neuber calculation using the modified parameters.

This method is also known as the parameter modification method. Essentially, the equation:

ε q

=

σ

q

------

E

+

σ

q
q

------

K'

1

----

n'

is used to calculate a series of corresponding values of σ q and ε q . For each pair of values, ν’ is calculated from:

and a from:

ν'

=

1

---

2

  • 1 ν

  • 2

---

e

σ q

---------

E ε q

a

ε

2

----- + ν'

ε 1

= -------------------

1

+

ν' ε 2

-----

ε 1

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and

nCode

n n
n n
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and

1st Page

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and

Back

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 13 Then the principal strains and

Main Menu

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

Theory Page 14

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e

1st Page

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e

Back

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 14 1st Page Back Main Menu where: 2 e – e

Main Menu

where:

ε 2

a e

ν e

  • ----- = -------------------

ε 1

1 –

a e ν e

Pairs of values of ε 1 and σ 1 are then computed as follows:

1 – ν' a

= ------------------------------ ε 1 ε q 2 1 – + a e a e 1 =
=
------------------------------
ε 1
ε q
2
1
+
a e
a e
1
=
------------------------------
σ 1
σ q
2
1
+
a e
a e

These pairs of values represent a cyclic stress strain curve for a particular biaxiality ratio a e . A

new set of Ramberg Osgood parameters K

and n

is obtained by fitting the equation:

ε 1

=

σ

1

------

E''

+

σ 1

------

K''

1

-----

n''

to the calculated points. E” is calculated explicitly from:

E''

E

= -----------------

1

ν

e

a

The modified parameters are used to carry out the Neuber correction in the normal way.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 15

3.3.7 Non-proportional multi-axial methods

Uniaxial methods for life prediction using the local strain approach have been in use for some time, hav- ing their roots in the work of Basquin [8] Manson [9] and Coffin [10,11], incorporating rainflow cycle counting and material memory [12] and Miners rule [13]. Such methods are available in FATIMAS [14] and FE-Fatigue. Within the well known limitations of these methods they work quite well for a variety of components where the local loading in the critical area is uniaxial or near-uniaxial. This class of com- ponents includes many that are subject to complex multiaxial loading environments [5,6]. However, there are many other components where a combination of loads and geometric effects generates local loadings which are proportional or non-proportional multiaxial.

The life prediction process from measured strains, or from elastic strain inputs, can be divided into two steps. The first step is to determine the relationship between the strains and all the stress and strain components required for the damage calculation, through application of a cyclic plasticity model. For elastic inputs this also involves a notch correction procedure. The second step is to carry out cycle and damage accumulation. FATIMAS [14] addresses problems where the strains can be measured with a rosette, i.e. biaxial loading on a free surface. FE-Fatigue uses the same model to calculate lives from elastic-plastic FE strain tensors resolved to the surface of the model. It uses a notch correction procedure when the strains or stresses are linear elastic.

For these problems the process can be summarised by the flow chart in:

3 strain histories from an elastic-plastic FE run in the plane of the surface OR

cyclic

plasticity

modelling

LIFE

3 strain histories from an elastic-plastic FE run in the plane of the surface OR cyclic

Figure 3 Outline of strain-based life prediction process.

The essential calculations made by the software are as follows:

  • 1. It takes three components of strain ε x , ε y and ε xy , either directly from FE or via linear superposition.

  • 2. It feeds these 3 strain channels into the Mròz-Garud cyclic plasticity model, the outputs of which are the remaining non-zero strain component ε z and the in-plane stresses σ x , σ y and σ xy . The model includes a notch correction procedure when strains are elastic.

  • 3. It processes the resulting 7 components of stress and strain either by the conventional critical plane methods, or by multiaxial rainflow counting and then accumulating damage using the

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 16

Wang-Brown methods.

These calculations are described in more detail in the following sections.

3.3.8 Multiaxial notch correction procedure

Transient elastic-plastic FE analyses can be prohibitively expensive for realistic FE models and input loading histories. Multiaxial notch correction procedure, which utilizes results from simple static linear-elastic FE analyses and the stress-superposition principle, is necessary. Inputs to the procedure are “pseudo” stresses (from the linear-elastic computations), from which the elastic- plastic strains and related stresses are estimated using a Neuber-type analysis, i.e. the overall strain energy density equivalence between linear-elastic and elastic plastic stress-strain states, figure 4. The cyclic plasticity model, necessary for the notch correction procedure, is the Mroz- Garud model. The procedure is confined to the free surface conditions, i.e. plane stress assumption are utilized, figure 5.

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 16 Wang-Brown methods. These calculations are

Figure 4 Overall strain energy density equivalence.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 17 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5
Theory Page 17
1st Page
Back
Main Menu

Figure 5 Coordinate system definition.

A powerful feature of the implemented notch correction procedure is that a set of additional conditions, necessary for the complete formulation of a multiaxial stress state problem, is based on ratios of strain energy density increments contributed by each pair of corresponding stress and strain increments (“proportional work path”), Equation 1. This assumption allows for significantly reduced dependency of the results on geometry and constraint conditions at the notch tip. Other often used conditions, like ratios of principal strain or stress increments, can make the results strongly dependent on the notch constraint conditions, and the user is forced to make arbitrary choice between them. Uncontrolled ratcheting, sometimes observed with the Mroz-Garud cyclic plasticity model, is dramatically reduced or disappears altogether with the implemented multiaxial notch correction routine, since the solution process is essentially “energy bound”.

e e e e a a a a S ∆ e + e ∆ S =
e
e
e
e
a
a
a
a
S
e
+
e
S
=
S
e
+
e
S
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
e
e
e
e
a
a
a
a
S
e
+
e
S
=
S
e
+
e
S
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
e
e
e
e
a
a
a
a
S
e
+
e
S
=
S
e
+
e
S
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33

(1)

The predictions of elastic-plastic strains and related stresses from linear-elastic inputs compare very favorably with transient elastic-plastic FEA results for a wide range of loads, from proportional to significantly non-proportional.

3.3.9 Cyclic Plasticity Modelling

The stresses and strains required by the damage models can be calculated if the relation between

the equivalent plastic strain increment De eq and the equivalent stress increment

σ eq

is known

during the application of a given load increment. However, it is known that the current relation depends on the previous load path and therefore the plasticity model must deal with loading path dependent material constitutive behaviour.

Several models are available in the literature [1,2,16,17] of which the model proposed by Mròz [1] and recently modified by Garud [2] are the most popular. Mròz [1] has proposed that the uniaxial stress-strain material curve be represented by a set of plasticity surfaces in three dimensional stress space. In the case of a two dimensional stress state, the plasticity surfaces reduce to ellipses on the plane of principal stresses described by:

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 Theory Page 18 1st Page Back Main Menu 2 2 = σ –
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5
Theory Page 18
1st Page
Back
Main Menu
2
2
=
σ
σ
σ
+
(1)
σ eq
1
1
2
σ 2
and illustrated in figure 4.
σ 2
σ
f
2
3
1
f
2
f
0
1
ε
σ 1

Figure 6 Linearisation of the material σ-e curve and corresponding plasticity surfaces.

The load path dependent memory effects are modelled by prescribing a translation rule for the ellipses moving with respect to each other over distances given by the stress increments. It is also assumed that the ellipses move inside each other and they do not intersect. If the ellipses come in contact with one another they move together as a rigid body.

The translation rule proposed by Garud [2] avoids the intersection of the ellipses that could occur in some cases in the original Mròz [1] model. The Garud translation rule is illustrated in and can be described by a model consisting, for simplicity, of only two plastic surfaces (ellipses).

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 19

σ 2 4 B 1 5 O 1 B 2 dσ f’ 1 O 1 σ
σ 2
4 B 1
5 O 1
B 2
f’ 1
O 1
σ 1
f 2
f 1
3
2
1

Figure 7 Geometrical interpretation of the Mròz-Garud incremental plasticity model.

In order to predict material response due to the stress increment ds, the following steps are made:

  • 1. Extend the stress increment dσ to intersect the first external non-active plastic surface f 2 at

point B 2

  • 2. Connect point B 2 and the centre of the intersected plastic surface f 2

  • 3. Find point B 1 on the active plastic surface f 1 by drawing a line parallel to the line O 2 B 2 through

the centre O 1 of the surface f 1

  • 4. Connect the conjugate points B 1 and B 2 by the line B 1 B 2

  • 5. Translate the ellipse f 1 in the direction of B 1 B 2 from point O 1 until the end of the vector d σ lands

on the moving ellipse f 1

The translation rule assures that the two ellipses are tangential with the common point B 1 B 2 without intersecting each other. Two or more tangential ellipses translate as a rigid body and the largest moving ellipse (figure 7) indicates the proper constitutive relation (linear segment) to be used for a given stress increment. The principal of the method is described here for two surfaces. The FATIMAS module MLF and FE-Fatigue use 40, with the corresponding linear sequences being fitted to the Ramberg-Osgood equation to give a more or less smooth curve. More details of

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 20

this method can be found in reference 3.

3.3.10 Multiaxial Rainflow Counting

Wang and Brown [18] proposed a multiaxial cycle counting method on the basis of strain hardening behaviour under non-proportional variable amplitude loading. Relative stresses and strains were introduced so that a pair of turning points define the start and end points of a reversal, where the equivalent relative strain rises monotonically to a peak value. Since plastic deformation generates the driving force for small fatigue cracks, hysteresis hardening provides a physical parameter for cycle counting, analogous to rainflow counting in the uniaxial case.

Each reversal commences with elastic unloading, which is followed by reloading and plastic strain hardening up to the next turning point. The most significant turning point occurs at the highest value of equivalent strain. This is illustrated at time 0 in figure 8, which shows a repeating block of a combined tension/torsion non-proportional load history. The equivalent strain is defined as the von Mises strain.

1 -1 0 -0.5 0.5 STRAIN (%) 0 20 40 60 80
1
-1
0
-0.5
0.5
STRAIN (%)
0 20
40
60
80
 

epsilon

 

gamma

 

equivalent

TIME (secs)

Figure 8 A variable amplitude non-proportional strain history, showing applied tensile (epsilon) and tor- sional (gamma) strains with the absolute equivalent strain.

The cycle counting method is illustrated by the following example. Starting from the most significant turning point, a graph is drawn for the loading block of relative equivalent strain, where relative strain

*

ε

ij

=

ε

ij

A

ε

ij

represents the change of strain since time A;

figure 9 shows the relative equivalent strain, with

respect to times 0, 10 and 20 seconds. Using the relative strain, a reversal can be defined starting from 0, up to the maximum value 10 seconds. To obtain the second reversal the relative strain is

re-plotted starting from the next turning point where unloading commences (at 10 seconds), and the portions of the strain hardening curve for the reversal are selected by a traditional rainflow procedure [3]. The region of unloading and reloading within that reversal is counted in the next step.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 21

1 -1 -0.5 -1.5 0 0.5 1.5 STRAIN (%) 0 20 40 60 80
1
-1
-0.5
-1.5
0
0.5
1.5
STRAIN (%)
0 20
40
60
80
 

epsilon

 
 

gamma

relative - 0

 
 

relative - 10

 

relative - 20

TIME (secs)

Figure 9 The variable amplitude history, showing relative equivalent strains plotted with respect to times 0, 10 and 20 seconds respectively.

Using the next turning point, relative strain is re-plotted with respect to 20 seconds for the subsequent continuous fragment of strain history, yielding the third reversal in figure 9. This procedure is repeated for each turning point in chronological order, until every fragment of strain history has been counted. The recursive nature of this process makes this module significantly slower than other analysis modules such as CLF and uniaxial methods in FE-Fatigue.

3.3.11 Fatigue Damage Calculation

The counting method described above is independent of fatigue damage parameters, being based on hysteresis deformation behaviour. Being unrelated to material properties, it can be inte- grated with any multiaxial fatigue damage model. If the counted reversals are non-proportional, a fatigue damage parameter that accounts for non-proportional straining effects is required. The path-independent damage parameter proposed by Wang and Brown [19] has been shown to pro- vide good correlation for several materials under proportional and non-proportional loading,

ˆ

γ max

+

S

δε n

ε -----------------------------------------

1

+

v

+

S

(

1

v

)

=

σ

2 σ n,mean

------------------------------ f (

E

2

N f )

b

(

+ ε

f

2

N f ) c

(2)

where γ max is the maximum shear strain amplitude on a critical plane (proportional or non- proportional), δε n is the normal strain excursion between the two turning points of the maximum

shear strain (that is the range of normal strain experienced on the maximum shear plane over the interval from start to end of the reversal), and σ n,mean is the mean stress normal to the maximum

shear plane. This can be omitted if no mean stress correlation is required. If mean stress is included, this is equivalent to the morrow method. The term S is a material constant determined from a multiaxial test (typically between 1 and 2 for Case A and around 0 for Case B) and v‘ is the effective Poisson’s ratio. The right hand side of the equation is the same as the uniaxial strain life equation, with a Morrow mean stress correction [20]. Mean stress is measured as the average of the maximum and minimum stress values over the reversal. The total damage induced by a loading history is calculated using Miner’s rule [13].

The plot in figure 10 is a plot of predicted life against experimental life for a variety of proportional and non-proportional tests on laboratory specimens, from Reference [4].

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 22

1000 100 10,000 non proportional (block) proportional ideal factor 2 Predicted lifetime 10,000 1,000 100
1000
100
10,000
non proportional
(block)
proportional
ideal
factor 2
Predicted lifetime
10,000
1,000
100

measured lifetime (blocks)

Figure 10 Comparison of experimental and predicted results for the Wang-Brown method.

3.3.12 Critical Plane Methods

The other multiaxial damage parameters considered are the more conventional critical plane parameters. In these methods, stresses and strains are resolved onto a particular plane, inclined at an angle θ = 90 degrees (Case A) and/or θ = 45 degrees (Case B) to the free surface. Cycle counting (uniaxial) and damage parameter calculation is carried out on the critical plane and the damage accumulated. The orientation φ of the projection of the normal to the damage plane is increased by 10 degree increments from 0 to 170 degrees. The plane with the largest accumulated damage is said to be the critical plane. The models are:

  • 1. Normal strain (θ = 90 degrees only):

∆ε n

---------

2

=

σ′ f

------ (

E

2

)

N f

b

+ ε′ f 2

(

) c

N f

(3)

is the strain amplitude normal to the critical plane. Otherwise this is the usual Coffin-Manson-

Basquin equation, where

∆ε n

---------

  • 2 .

  • 2. Shear strain:

∆γ

------

2

=

)σ′ f

(

1

+

V e

--------------------------- (

E

2

)

N f

b

+ (

1

+

V p

)ε′ f 2

(

) c

N f

(4)

  • 3. Smith-Watson-Topper/Bannantine (θ = 90 degrees only) [21]:

∆ε n

---------

2

σ n, max

=

2

σ′ f

-------- (

E

2

)

N f

2 b

+

σ′ f

⋅ ε′ f 2 N f

(

) b + c

(5)

where σ n , max is the maximum normal strain on the critical plane which occurs during each rainflow cycle. Otherwise this is the Smith-Topper-Watson method [22].

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 23

4. Fatemi-Socie [23]:

∆γ

------

2

1

+

n σ n, max

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 23 4. Fatemi-Socie [23]: ∆γ ------

-----------------

σ y

=

)σ′ f

(

1

+

V e

--------------------------- (

E

2

)

N f

b

+

)σ′ f

n

(

1

+

V e

------------------------------ (

2 E σ y

2

)

N f

2 b

n

(

1

+

v p

)ε′ f σ′ f

++ ------------------------------------ ( 2 N f

(

+

V p

)

N f

2

σ y

1

)ε′ f (

2

c

) b + c

(6)

3.3.13 Types of Cracks

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 23 4. Fatemi-Socie [23]: ∆γ ------

Figure 11 Types of Cracks

In multiaxial fatigue conditions cracks can grow in different directions into the surface, depending on the biaxiality ratio, as shown in Figure 9. For negative biaxiality ratios, e.g. torsion loading when a = -1, cracks tend to grow at 90 degrees into the surface and tend to be shallow and long. These are named type A cracks. For positive biaxiality ratios, e.g. biaxial tension when a > 0, cracks tend to grow at 45 degrees into the surface and tend to be deep and short. These are named type B cracks. In uniaxial loading conditions, when a = 0, cracks can grow either way, i.e. they can be both type A and B.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 24

3.3.14 Critical Plane Rainflow Counting

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 24 3.3.14 Critical Plane Rainflow Counting

Figure 12 Uniaxial Rainflow Counting

The method of identifying cycles in variable amplitude multiaxial fatigue conditions is crucial for obtaining correct life predictions. Recommended procedure for critical plane methods is to rain- flow count the primary damage parameter, e.g. shear strain parallel to the crack plane, and "track" the secondary damage parameter, e.g. component of stress perpendicular to the crack plane. Common rainflow counting algorithms are not able to do this correctly. For example, common rain- flow counters would identify cycle E-F in the above diagram with associated maximum stress at point F. In multiaxial fatigue conditions, however, the maximum stress during the cycle would not necessarily occur at point F, but anywhere from E to E'. Thus, while identifying strain cycle E-F, the stress has to be "tracked" between points E-F-E' in order to properly determine its maximum value. A related issue is worth noting: while peak-valley editing (extracting peaks and valleys from a time history) is perfectly valid in uniaxial case, it should not be performed in multiaxial cases, because important information about stress magnitudes can be lost.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 25

3.3.15 References

(1) MRÒZ Z., (1967), On the Description of Anisotropic Work Hardening, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 15, pp. 163-175

(2) GARUD Y. S., (1981), A New Approach to the Evaluation of Fatigue under Multiaxial Loading, Journal of Engi- neering Materials and Technology, vol. 103, pp. 118-125 (3) WANG C. H. and BROWN M. W., (1996), Life Prediction Techniques for Variable Amplitude Multiaxial Fatigue - Part 1: Theories, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, vol. 118, pp. 367-370 (4) WANG C. H. and BROWN M. W., (1996), Life Prediction Techniques for Variable Amplitude Multiaxial Fatigue - Part 2: Comparison with Experimental Results, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, vol. 118, pp.

371-374

(5) HEYES P. J., MILSTED M. G. and DAKIN J., (1996), Multiaxial Fatigue Assessment of Automotive Chassis Components on the basis of Finite-Element Models, Multiaxial Fatigue and Design, ESIS 21 (Edited by A. Pineau, G. Cailletaud and T. C. Lindley) MEP London, pp. 461-475 (6) HEYES P., DAKIN J. and ST.JOHN C., (1995), The Assessment and Use of Linear Static FE Stress Analyses for Durability Calculations, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Vehicle Structural Mechanics and CAE, pp. 189-199 (7) HEYES P. and FERMÉR M., (1996), A Program for the Fatigue Analysis of Automotive Spot-Welds Based on Finite Element Calculations, Proceedings of the Symposium on International Automotive Technology, SAE Technical Paper 962507 (8) BASQUIN O. H., (1910), The Exponential Law of Endurance Tests, Proceedings of the American Society for Test- ing Materials, vol. 10, pp. 625-630 (9) MANSON S. S., (1953), Behaviour of Materials under Conditions of Thermal Stress, Heat Transfer Symposium, University of Michigan Engineering Research Institute, pp. 9-75 (10) COFFIN L. F., (1954), The Problem of Thermal Stress Fatigue in Austenitic Steels at Elevated Temperatures, ASTM STP No. 165, p.31 (11) COFFIN L. F., (1954), A Study of the Effects of Cyclic Thermal Stresses on a Ductile Metal, Trans. American Society for Testing and Materials, vol. 76, pp. 931-950 (12) MATSUISHI M. and ENDO T., (1968), Fatigue of Metals Subjected to Varying Stress, Presented to Kyushu Dis- trict Meeting, JSME. (13) MINER M. A., (1945), Cumulative Damage in Fatigue, Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 12, pp. A159-A164 (14) nCode International Ltd., (1997), nSoft-E FATIMAS software manual (15) GLINKA G. and BUCZYNSKI A., (1997), Elastic-Plastic Stress-Strain Analysis of Notches under Non-Propor- tional Cyclic Loading Paths, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Biaxial/Multiaxial Fatigue and Fracture, Krakow, Poland (16) CHU C. C., (1989), A Three-Dimensional Model of Anisotropic Hardening in Metals and its Application to the Analysis of Sheet Metal Formability, Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 197-212 (17) ARMSTRONG P. J. and FREDERIC C. O., (1966), A Mathematical Representation of the Multiaxial Bausch- inger Effect, CEGB Report RD/B/M731, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories (18) WANG C. H. and BROWN M. W., (1993), Inelastic Deformation and Fatigue under Complex Loading, Proceed- ings of the 12th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, vol. L, pp. 159-170 (19) WANG C. H. and BROWN M. W., (1993), A Path-Independent Parameter for Fatigue under Proportional and Non-Proportional Loading, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, vol. 16, pp. 1285-1298 (20) BROWN M. W., SUKER D. K. and WANG C. H., (1996), An Analysis of Mean Stress in Multiaxial Random Fatigue, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, vol. 19, no. 2/3, pp. 323-333 (21) BANNANTINE J. A., (1989), A Variable Amplitude Multiaxial Fatigue Life Prediction Method, Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (22) SMITH K. N., WATSON P. and TOPPER T. H., (1970), A Stress-Strain function for the Fatigue of Metals, Jour- nal of Materials, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 767-778 (23) FATEMI A. and SOCIE D. F., (1988), A Critical Plane Approach to Multiaxial Fatigue Damage Including Out-of- Phase Loading, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, vol. 11, no. 3, pp.149-165 (24) DREßLER K., KÖTTGEN V. B. and KÖTZLE H., (1995), Tools for Fatigue Evaluation of Non-Proportional Loading, Proceedings of Fatigue Design 1995 (Edited by Gary Marquis and Jussi Solin), vol. 1, pp. 261-277 (25) HOFFMANN, M. and SEEGER, T. “Estimating multiaxial elastic-plastic notch stresses and strains in combined loading.” Biaxial and Multiaxial Fatigue, EGF3 (Edited by M.W.Brown and K.J.Miller), 1989, Mechanical Engi- neering Publications, London, pp 3-24. (26) KLANN, D.A., TIPTON, S.M., CORDES, T.S., (1993) “Notch stress and strain estimation considering multi- axial constraint.” SAE technical Paper 930401

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 26

3.4. Safety factor

Safety factor calculations are designed to provide a single scalar quantity which is used to determine a level of confidence that a component will achieve a given life. The life is often an endurance limit, but may also be a finite life, or a level of stress above the endurance limit which can be tolerated by the structure.

In FE-Fatigue, there are three ways in which a safety factor can be calculated, life based, stress based and multiaxial.

3.4.1 Life based factor of safety

In this method, applicable for strain-life and stress-life, a target life is specified. The program then performs iterative calculations, adjusting the linear scaling factor on stress until the life is within a tolerance factor of the specified life. User preferences determine the maximum factor to be attempted and the tolerance for ending the iteration process.

3.4.2 Stress based factor of safety

The stress-based safety factor method calculates a safety factor relative to a reference stress which will typically be the fatigue limit of the material, taking into account the mean stress. It considers only the largest stress cycle developed during the loading history. The definition of safety factor using the Goodman correction is illustrated below.

A’ A Reference Stress σ a Safety factor using Goodman Alternating Stress σ m UTS
A’
A
Reference Stress
σ a
Safety factor using Goodman
Alternating Stress
σ m
UTS

Mean stress

Only the largest stress cycle is considered, with amplitude σ a and mean σ m . The safety factor calculated in FE-Fatigue is defined as A/σ a . Factors < 1 are considered safe and >1 unsafe. An alternative definition is A'/σ a which will give more pessimistic predictions in the "safe" regime. FE- Fatigue does not use this method. The reasoning behind this is that the mean stress and alternating stress often have different origins. The method used gives a safety factor on alternating stress for a given mean stress.

3.4.3. Multiaxial safety factor

FE-Fatigue includes options to apply the Dang Van and McDiarmid methods to create a multiaxial safety factor plot. These methods are discussed separately.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 27

3.5. Multiaxial Safety Factor

  • 3.5.1. The Definition of High-Cycle Multiaxial Fatigue Multiaxial fatigue is a term referring to the fatigue of components under complex stress states. High-cycle multiaxial fatigue deals with components that experience large number of cycles and are therefore designed for infinite life. Such components include crank-shafts, propeller shafts, and rear axles. In these components, it is not necessary to quantify the amount of fatigue dam- age, but just to consider if any fatigue damage will occur during the load history.

For high-cycle multiaxial fatigue, actual quantities of fatigue damage are not considered. Instead, the loading history is examined to determine only if damage occurs at any moment. If damage does occur, then the component does not have infinite life. The high-cycle criteria considered can also be used to calculate a safety factor of a component if infinite life is determined.

In cases of high-cycle multiaxial fatigue, the complex stress states in the loading history are important to consider in order to accurately predict fatigue life. A simple uniaxial fatigue method is not sufficient and can produce non-conservative results.

  • 3.5.2. High-Cycle Multiaxial Fatigue Theories

Several methods have been developed to calculate a fatigue limit in the high-cycle fatigue (HCF) regime with significant multiaxial loadings. Diboine (3) classifies these methods according to the basis of calculation:

Empirical

Von Mises

Tresca

• Microstructural

The empirically-based fatigue criteria require testing of a specific material in a loading configuration similar to that of interest in order to produce a numerical fit to the data and make further predictions. This defeats the purpose of using fatigue predictions, and therefore this type of method will not be considered further.

Von Mises-based criteria were prevalent early in the studies of high-cycle fatigue, the Sines and Crossland criteria being quite well-known. However, Von Mises is a deformation criterion, which does not consider the plane of maximum shear stress range. Fatigue cracks have been observed to initiate and grow initially along these planes of maximum shear stress.

The above observations lead to the more intuitive Tresca-based high-cycle fatigue criteria. Findley reported early (1959) on Tresca-based predictions, but McDiarmid’s Tresca-Based criterion introduced in 1987 appears to be widely accepted and well-known.

Microstructural approaches to high-cycle fatigue have also become more common in recent years. These approaches consider the stabilised, microscopic stresses in calculations of fatigue damage. Dang Van first introduced this type of approach in 1973, but his modified approach proposed in 1987 is easier to use and provides better correlation.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 28

3.5.3. McDiarmid Criterion

Description

The McDiarmid method is a critical plane based fatigue limit criterion which is applicable to cases where crack initiation is at free surfaces. The critical plane is defined as the plane of maximum shear stress range. The fatigue criterion is based on two loading parameters, the shear stress amplitude (half of the maximum range) on the critical plane and the maximum normal stress (for the entire loading history) on the plane of maximum shear stress range. The McDiarmid method considers Case A and Case B cracking separately in calculating the fatigue damage. Case A cracking when cracks initiate by shear along the surface, e.g. when there is a torsional loading. Case B cracking occurs when the maximum shear plane is inclined at 45 degrees to the free sur- face with shear cracks being driven into the surface.

The fatigue limit according to McDiarmid can be expressed in the following form:

τ a / t A,B + σ n, max / 2σ T = 1

where:

(1)

τ a = shear stress amplitude t A,B = reversed shear fatigue strengths (amplitude) for Case A and B crack growth

σ n, max = maximum normal stress for the entire loading history on the plane of maximum shear stress amplitude

σ

T

= tensile strength

If the value on the left hand side of this equation exceeds 1, damage is predicted to occur. This fatigue limit can be displayed graphically in a plot of

τ a / t A,B vs. σ n, max / 2σ T

(see below).

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 28 3.5.3. McDiarmid Criterion Description The

Figure 13

Any loading that goes above the line is considered to cause damage and the fatigue life will not be infinite. As with many calculation methods, one problem is to obtain suitable materials properties. In this case we require the fully reversed shear fatigue strength for Case A and Case B cracking. According to the McDiarmid theory, the Case A value should simply be the shear fatigue stress amplitude at the fatigue limit for a pure torsion case. The case B value would require the fatigue limit to be determined under conditions that would generate Case B cracking.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 29

In the absence of this information, the values of t A,B may be estimated from the uniaxial fatigue limit σ L as follows. In the case of uniaxial loading, Case A or B cracking may occur, so we can re- write the McDiarmid criterion at the fatigue limit under uniaxial loading conditions as:

(0.5*σ L )/(t A,B ) + (0.5*σ L )/(2*σ T ) = 1

So the necessary case A and B fatigue limits are given by:

t A,B = σ L / (2 - (σ L /2*σ T ))

In practice, both the case A and case B planes are searched to find the plane with the maximum value of shear stress amplitude. Case A planes intersect the surface at 90 degrees and case B at 45 degrees. The software requires that the stresses are resolved to the plane of the surface such that the X-Y plane is the plane of the surface. Rather than searching infinite planes, the orientation of the case A and B planes with respect to the X axis is varied in 10 degree increments. The stresses at these angles (angle indicated as φ) are calculated as follows:

Case A Cracking (θ =90 degrees):

σ n = σ x cos 2 φ + σ y sin 2 φ + 2τ xy cosφsinφ

σ xz = 2σ x sinφcosφ + 2σ y sinφcosφ + τ xy (-sin 2 φ + cos 2 φ)

Case B Cracking (θ = 45 Degrees):

σ n = 0.5σ x cos 2 φ + 0.5σ y sin 2 φ + τ xy cosφsinφ

τ yz = -σ x cos 2 φ - σ y sin 2 φ - τ xy cos φsinφ

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Because the fatigue limit criterion is expressed as

τ a / t A,B + σ n, max / 2σ T = 1

a safety factor can be defined as:

Safety factor = 1 / ((τ a / t A,B )+ (σ n, max / 2σ T ))

(6)

(7)

which is reported in the results file for contour plotting.

The maximum shear range for each plane is calculated by the difference of the maximum and minimum values of shear stress for the loading history. The McDiarmid criterion calculations are then performed for the planes of maximum shear stress range.

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 30

3.5.4. Dang Van Criterion

Description

The Dang Van Criterion is a multiaxial fatigue limit criterion which can be classified as a ‘microstructural’ method because it is based on the concepts of stress and crack initiation at a microscopic level.

Essentially, the Dang Van method assumes that around the fatigue limit, cyclic plasticity will occur on a microscopic scale due to the inhomogeneity of the material on the scale of individual grains. This very localised cyclic plasticity will lead to relaxation of mean stresses on the microscopic scale, or another way of putting this is the development of microscopic residual stresses. Once this stabilised state (elastic shakedown) has occurred, the Dang Van criterion (1,2) states that crack initiation will occur whenever a function f of the microscopic stress, is greater than or equal to zero at any time in a stabilised cycle.

f{σ(P,t)} 0 for PV(M)

where:

(8)

M = a point of interest/stress concentration on a component (notch, fillet)

V(M)= an elementary representative volume around M

P= a point in V(M) where a grain(s) is critically oriented

σ(P,t)= a microscopic stress tensor at location P at time t

Dang Van proposes that f is a function of the microscopic shear stress (which can cause plasticity) and the hydrostatic tension (which can open microscopic cracks, whatever their orientation). The function is a simple linear one:

 

f(σ) = τ + a*ph – b

and

f(σ) = τ + a*ph + b

(9)

where:

τ

= microscopic shear stress at a given time

 

ph

= microscopic hydrostatic tension at a given time

b

= shear stress amplitude at the fatigue limit in pure torsion

a

= hydrostatic stress sensitivity

 

nCode

n n
n n
 
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu
nCode n n 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

             

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu
FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu

1st Page

Back

Main Menu

 

Theory Page 31

This function establishes the Dang Van Endurance Domain shown below:

FE-Fatigue Rel. 5 1st Page Back Main Menu Theory Page 31 This function establishes the Dang

Figure 14

A loading path Γ is illustrated in Figure 14 and damage is predicted to occur only if the loading path crosses the lines delimiting the endurance domain. Note that if the microscopic shear stress is replaced by the microscopic Tresca or maximum shear stress, only the upper part of the diagram need be considered, and the part of the loading path below the abscissa is reflected upwards ( Γ’ ).

Considering again equation (9), b is taken to be the shear stress amplitude at the fatigue limit under conditions of pure torsion, and the parameter a is known as the hydrostatic stress sensitivity. To determine the hydrostatic stress sensitivity factor, the fatigue limit must be known under at least two loading conditions. For instance, if the fatigue limit is known under fully reversed torsion, b, and bending, f, a can be estimated from

a = 3(b- f/2)/f

(10)

If the fatigue limit is known under only one condition, some assumptions could be made. For instance if you only had the bending fatigue limit f, you could assume that the Von Mises stress was a reasonable criterion to apply which gives b=0.5774f and a=0.23.

All this is relatively simple. The complexity of the Dang Van method lies in the calculation of the microscopic shear stress.

The macroscopic stress E ij can be divided into a hydrostatic part, ph and the deviatoric part, S ij

S