Session T4B

ADVANCED LEARNING MADE AS EASY AS ABC: AN EXAMPLE

USING DESIGN FOR FATIGUE OF MACHINE ELEMENTS
SUBJECTED TO SIMPLE AND COMBINED LOADS
Carla Egelhoff1 and Edwin Odom2
Abstract Failure of systems and components resulting
from fatigue is one of the most challenging and costly
designs accomplished by today's industrial companies.
However, one of the more difficult concepts to teach in
machine component design courses is fatigue analysis of
"real world" components. These components come with
multiple cyclic loads, each with different stress
concentrations, which result in mean and alternating stress
states. The student then must select a failure criterion to
obtain an equivalent stress that can be used in one of several
different fatigue failure theories to predict either a safety
factor or an estimated life. Without a heuristic to guide the
student, these types of analyses are very difficult. We have
developed a heuristic which consists of a combination of a
concept map and flow charts that give a student not only
process but also directions for improvement of the analysis.
The heuristic is a visual image that is simple and can be
readily reproduced in a basic sketch. The visual quality
(simple and striking) of these concept maps/flow charts
produces ready access to the understanding which students
ultimately develop. Several examples of the heuristic we
have developed will be presented along with applications to
demonstrate their use.
Index Terms cyclic loading, fatigue analysis, multiple
loading, combined loading.

INTRODUCTION
A survey of the organization of machine component design
texts [1-3] in use today shows a uniformity of approach. In
the first five chapters of these books typically recurrent
topics such as design, stress, strain, deformation, material
properties are covered. Next comes a chapter on failure
theories for static cases and then a chapter on general fatigue
failure. The remainder of the texts then cover specific
machine component applications, e.g., bolts, welds, springs,
gears, shafts, bearings. All these topics have a fatigue
dependent design element. However, to the students it can
appear the topics are disjointed and it can be difficult as an
instructor to provide a common theme through the course.
This hinders the students' ability in problem solving. It
should be noted that often the material is not difficult but
knowing where one is in the problem solving process can be
confusing. To alleviate these difficulties, a heuristic which

can be applied to simple as well as very complex loading

states and to various components was developed.
And the heuristic is as simple as ABC, as shown in
Figure 1. ABC is the order of the general problem solution.
The solution steps are depicted visually around the ABC
starting at bottom right on the page and proceeding to the
top, and finally to the left. This visual relationship is
repeated throughout our teaching and learning on the topic
of fatigue analysis.

A
FIGURE 1.

THREE TOPIC CIRCLES SHOW THE SOLUTION PATH.

The importance of having only three circles may not be

obvious, but it is chosen judiciously. Humans have a
cognitive limitation and can consistently only manipulate
about three or four equations with about eight variables.
This limitation is directly linked to the capacity of the
human's working memory. The maximum number of
unrelated items that can be held in working memory is 72
"chunks" of information [Miller]. However, the memory can
be augmented by incorporating patterns and
organization between the material and visualization
[Higbee]. Expert learners use such strategies consciously
and subconciously [Higbee]. The conscious ability to use
these strategies takes time and experience. We have found,
however, that we can help students get started on these
strategeis and then let them proceed in a more individual
way.
The approach we present in this paper grew out our
unsuccessful attempts of trying to use Concept Maps
[Buzan] in our respective Machine Design courses. Typical
"rules" for Concept Maps include the folowing:

Carla Egelhoff, United States Coast Guard Academy, Mechanical Engineering Section, 27 Mohegan Avenue, New London, CT 06320
cegelhoff@exmail.uscga.edu
2
Edwin Odom, University of Idaho, Mechanical Engineering Department, Room 324 Engineering and Physics Building, Moscow, ID 83844-0902,
eodom@uidaho.edu

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV
31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T4B-7

Session T4B

THE BIG PICTURE AND SINGLE LOADING MODE

Each person invents his/her own personal map

Always use a central image
Use images throughout
Use three or more colours per central image
Use dimension in images
Use synaesthesia (the blending of the physical senses)
Use variations of size of printing, line and image
We discovered through six years of teaching Machine
Design that students' individual concepts maps (rule 1)
varied so much that we, as instructors, could not effectively
provide guidance on improvement on every single map.
Next we observed that students could not universally create
an effective central image (rule 2). After a breach of rules 1
and 2, the rest of the rules for concept maps do not matter.
We suggest in this paper that instructors can provide the
framework of a universal concept map for fatigue analysis
which can be augmented by the students for their use and
expanded upon by instructors for more complicated cases.
The heuristic is a framework starting with ABC.

Single Loading
Mode

The ABC stands for Stress Analysis, Materials Analysis and

Fatigue Analysis respectively as shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Materials
Analysis

Fatigue
Analysis

Stress
(Mechanics of Materials)
Analysis

FIGURE 2.
THREE BASIC TOPICS: STRESS, MATERIAL AND FATIGUE ANALYSIS

S e = ka kb kc kd ke S e

Se'

or

measure, tables or Eq 7-4

SUT

Fatigue Stress
Concentration Factor Kf

measure, tables or Eq 5-20

alt
mean

alt

a m
1
+
=
S e SUT n

-3
1

mean
10
6
10

Nf

max min
2
Eq
7- = max + min
30
m
,7
2

a =

SUT

3
1

b
N = a
a

a=

Eq 5-26

Se

K f = 1 + q(K t 1)

Stress
Concentration
Kt
max
min

(0.9 SUT )2

T ables A-15, A-16

Kt =

Se

1 0.9 S UT
b = log
3 Se

max
nominal

Stress Analysis

FIGURE 3.
SINGLE LOADING MODE: STRESS ANALYSIS, MATERIAL ANALYSIS, AND FATIGUE ANALYSIS

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV
31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T4B-8

Session T4B
As is shown in Figures 2, 3, 6, and 7, the fatigue analysis is
performed by addressing three topics, i.e., stress analysis,
material analysis and then finally the fatigue analysis. These
three topics apply for all three cases shown in Figures 3, 6,
and 7. Additionally, these same three topics must be
addressed for specialized components such as bolts, springs,
and shafts. The central image (concept map rules) is the
Step C the fatigue analysis and the unique 3-D graph. Once
students become familiar with the simplest case shown in
Figure 3, more complex structures, and loading cases can be
added. An explanation of each of the topics follows below.
(Nomenclature follows Shigley & Mischke, Fifth Edition,
reference 7.)

curve is effectively rotated around to an orthogonal position

on the left side. Note we also simplify the failure theory
curve to include only the Goodman line in this example, but
we have found that using this representation technique,
students are readily able to add the other failure theory
curves. Since we began showing students this fatigue
analysis graphic and technique, we have discovered one
newer text that also combines these two curves [Norton, p
411] by showing a 3-D surface contour map with multiple
constant-life projections. We still favor our simpler version
because it can be easily sketched by students from their
memory, whereas a surface contour cannot.

A. Stress Analysis

Alternating Stress

The stress state that can be encountered during the fatigue

analysis can range from a single stress component to a
multiple component stress state caused by single or multiple
cyclic loads. These stresses may be calculated using a
mechanics of materials approach (this is assumed in Figures
3, 6, and 7) or a numerical technique such as FEA (finite
element analysis). Additionally, for the mechanics of
materials approach, each stress component can have a
different stress concentration associated with it. Whatever
the stress state, it must be reduced to an effective stress state
for use in the fatigue analysis.

Syt

Yield line
Se

Gerber line

Goodman line

B. Materials Analysis

C. Fatigue Analysis
After the analysis to find the effective stresses and material
analysis has been completed, the fatigue analysis can be
done. An important point is the way we show the fatigue
analysis picture as a 3-D graph in Figures 3, 6, and 7 which
combines failure theory and S-N curves. In most texts, these
two curves are presented individually as in Figures 4-5. We
have found that students seldom make the connection
between these two concepts independently but when guided
to the relationship between the two concepts they remember
details more easily. In this graphic, the vertical axes are
combined and the fatigue limit (Se) is matched, then the S-N

Solderberg line

Mean Stress

Syt

Sut

FIGURE 4.
FATIGUE FAILURE THEORY CURVES

Sut

Fatigue Strength

The problem with material properties such as the yield,

ultimate or endurance strengths given in handbooks, is that
the handbook values are for a material in shape and finish
that is not representative of the way the materials will be
used as a machine component. The practical world is filled
with components that do not have machined or polished
surfaces, have many different shapes as well as different
loading configurations. The material analysis is performed
to modify the handbook values that were determined in the
experimentalist's lab to the environment the component
material will be used. Sometimes these modifiers are called
"fudge" factors. This term suggests that there is not a
scientific reason behind them. The truth is that there is
science behind them but it would be impossible to perform
all the tests necessary to exactly specify these modifiers.

Se

Number of stress Cycles, N

FIGURE 5.
TYPICAL S-N CURVE FOR FERROUS MATERIALS

In one lecture, we convey the essence of these concepts.

Students are well prepared to tackle any problem relating
fatigue analysis to a single loading mode. It is a relatively

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV
31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T4B-9

Session T4B

Single Loading Mode

(Multiple Loads for
Number of Cycles)

S e = k a kb kc k d ke Se

Apply Kf

SUT

n2 , a2, m2

n3 , a3, m3

alt

Se

Different Loads,
Number of Cycles

n1 , a1, m1

ni, ai, mi

mean

N2
N1
6
10

SUT

N3

Single Loading Mode

Stress Analysis

b
N = a
a
n
Ni = 1
i

FIGURE 6.
MULTIPLE SINGLE LOADS FOR FATIGUE ANALYSIS

simple step to then consider the single loading mode (axial

or bending or torsion) compounded by variations in the load
magnitude. This is accomplished using Miner's rule, a
simple equation. Our diagram for that case is provided
below in Figure 6. And that is where some texts stop
[Juvinall, Hamrock]. Since combined loading is the most
common real loading situation, we consider it important.

DESIGN FOR COMBINED LOADING IN FATIGUE

Popular Machine Design texts approach this topic in two
ways. For example, Shigley gives a written list of steps [p
306]:
1. For the strength, use the fully corrected endurance
limit for bending, Se.
2. Apply the appropriate fatigue stress-concentration
factors to the alternating components of the
torsional stress, the bending stress, and the axial
stress components.
3. Multiply any alternating axial stress components by
the factor 1/kc, ax=1/0.923=1.083.

4.

Enter the resultant stresses into a Mohr's circle

analysis and find the principal stresses.
5. Using the results of step 4, find the von Mises
alternating stress 'a.
6. Compare 'a with Se to find the factor of safety.
This list assumes completely reversed stress
components. Buried in the text a couple of paragraphs later,
is the instruction concerning what to do if non-zero mean
stresses are also present.
Another method of handling different loading is listing
of "cases" with different combinations of types of material
and manner of loading. Mott [p160-167] presents nine cases
with eleven sub-cases, neatly listed in the following way:
Case Name/Description
Equation(s)
Case Name/Description
Equation(s)
Case Name/Description
Equation(s)
We suggest that our heuristic is more useful and the
picture we use is shown below in Figure 7. The ABC format

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV
31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T4B-10

Session T4B

Combined Loading

a'
m'

a1 , a2

a2

a',m'

alt
10

Nf

m1

a1

life
pre
dic
tio
n
safety factor

10 3

m2
alternating stress

SUT

Se

mean stress

m1 , m2

von
Mises
Stress

Kta, a , m

mean

N = a
a

SUT
a =

1
b

a=

max min
2

max
min

(0.9 SUT )2
Se

1 0.9 S UT
b = log
3
Se

Ktb, a , m

max
min

bending

axial

m =

Kto , a, m

max + min
2
max
min

torsion

Combined Loading Modes

FIGURE 7.
COMBINED LOADING MODES FOR FATIGUE ANALYSIS

is now familiar and "friendly" to students. The picture

reminds them that A and B are simply using what they
learned in previous courses (Mechanics of Materials and
Material Science). How to compute values and how to use
computed results is apparent. In addition, students have no
trouble "seeing" where they are as the solution progresses.
They also have no trouble thinking what to do next or
knowing when they are finished.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM SOLUTION

GIVEN: A long cold-drawn 1-in. wide 3/8 in. thick AISI
1018 steel bar that has a width centered 1/4 in.
diameter hole through its thicknss is subjected to a
tension load fluctuating between 800 and 3000 lb.
FIND: Estimate the safety factor guarding against failure
be fatigue action

SOLUTON:
Since this is a single loading mode (purely axial), we use
Figure 3.
Stress Analysis, A:

3000 + 800
= 1900lb
2
3000 800
= 1100lb
Fa =
2
Fm =

Fa
1100
= 2.13
= 8.34ksi
3
A
1 1
4
8
Fm
1900
=
= 2.13
= 6.76ksi
3
A
1 1
4
8

a = Kf

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV
31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T4B-11

Session T4B
Material Analysis, B:

Se = k a k b k c k d k d k e Se'
Se' = 0.504Sut
Sut = 64 ksi
k a = 0.897

k c = 0.923
kb = kd = ke = 1

CONCLUSIONS

Se = 26.3 ksi

Fatigue Analysis, C:
1 a m
=
+
n Se Sut

whether all the students can solve challenging problems.

Our experience indicates that using this heuristic allows very
challenging problems to be solved and that every student can
solve these problems.

1 8.34 6.76
=
+
n 26.3 64

n = 2.39

In this example, the safety factor is greater than unity so

no further calculations are needed (note the black dot
indicated by the arrow in Figure 3 above).
However, in the case where the load fluctuated from
zero to 3000 lbs, the calculations would reveal a safety
factor of only 0.79 (black dot with no arrow in Figure 3)
which indicates safety is not expected for a million cycle
lifetime. For this scenario, the number of cycles to failure
would be calculated as indicated in Figure 3 (calculate a, b
then N).
If the part were loaded 0-3000 lbs, then some other load
magnitudes applied of the same pure axial tension type,
Figure 6 (multiple single loads) would show the calculation
procedure.
Moreover, if the axial loading were further complicated
by simultaneous loads in bending and/or torsion, then Figure
8 (combined loading modes) shows the procedure to
determine alternating and mean components of stress, then
principal stresses, followed by vonMises stresses with which
to enter the fatigue 3-D graph to predict safety factor or
number of cycles to failure.

EFFICACY
Determining the efficacy of a heuristic is difficult because of
the number of variables that are present. These not only
include student variability but also instructor experience in a
topic. The best measure we have which is admittedly
annecdotal is the types of problems we can assign our
students with an appropriate expectation that the students
can be successful. Additionally, a measure of efficacy is

Design for fatigue is complex, difficult and usually requires

testing. However, there is still a need for first order
analytical calculations that can be completed at the
undergraduate level. Using this approach of visually
representing the design/solution process, we have found that
students grasp the concepts and can accomplish the
calculations with relative ease. We have witnessed with
pleasure the level of problem difficulty students now tackle
without complaint.
Students respond favorably to these visual tools. We
encourage students to personalize the basic visual and make
it more useful/meaningful for him/her. We have found this
to be an effective way for us to share with students the
understanding we have acquired after many years.

REFERENCES
[1]

Shigley, J. E. and Mischke C.R., Mechanical Engineering Design,

Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc. New York New York, 1989.

[2]

Juvinall, R. C., and Marshek K.M., Fundamentals of Machine

Component Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York,
2000.

[3]

Hamrock B. J., Jacobsen B., and Schmid S. R., Fundamentals of

Machine Elements, McGraw Hill, New York, New York, 1999.

[4]

Miller, George A., "Reprint of The Magical Number Seven, Plus or

Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing
Information," Psychological Review, Vol. 101, No. 2 (April 1994), pp.
343-351.

[5]

Higbee, K. L., Your Memory, Second Edition, Prentice Hall Press,

New York, New York, 1988.

[6]

Buzan, Tony, The Mind Map Book How to Use Radiant Thinking to
Maximise Your Brain's Untapped Potential, Published by Penguin
Group/Dutton, 1993.

[7]

Mott, Robert L., Machine Elements in Mechanical Design, Third

Edition, Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1992.

[8]

Norton, Robert L., Machine Design: An Integrated Approach, Prentice

Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1996.

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE

October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV
31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T4B-12