ME 452 - Machine Design II

Name of Student:_____________________________

Spring Semester 2013

Name of Instructor:___________________________

Homework No. 5 (30 points). Due at the beginning of lecture on Friday, February 15th.
Solve the following problems from Chapters 6 and 7, Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design,
Ninth Edition, R.G. Budynas and J.K. Nisbett.

1. Problem 6-20, page 350.

2. Problem 7-1, page 400.
3. Problem 7-3, page 401. For part (a), assume that the fatigue stress concentration factors for the
static analysis are chosen to avoid localized yielding (worst case scenario), that is, K fm = K f and
Kf

Sm

= Kf

For part (b), the fatigue factor analysis, use the distortion energy-ASME elliptic

failure criteria to calculate the fatigue factor of safety.

Solution to Homework Set 5.

1. Problem 6-20. 10 Points. Since this is a combined loading problem then the von Mises mean stress,
the von Mises alternating stress, and the von Mises maximum stress must be evaluated.
(iu) The factor of safety guarding against static failure (that is, yielding) can be written from Eq. (7-16),
see page 370, as
S
Ny = y
(1)

max
The yield strength of the steel bar is specified as

S y = 60 kpsi

(2)

The von Mises maximum stress can be written as

2
2
= ( max
max
+ 3 max
)

1/2

1/2

= ( a + m ) 2 + 3( a + m ) 2

(3)

The mean and alternating components of the normal stress, respectively, are

m = 0

a = 25 kpsi

and

(4a)

The mean and alternating components of the shear stress, respectively, are

m = 15 kpsi

a = 0

and

(4b)

Substituting Eqs. (4) into Eq. (3), the von Mises maximum stress is
1/2

max = 252 + 3 152

= 36.06 kpsi

(5)

Substituting Eqs. (2) and (5) into Eq. (1), the factor of safety guarding against yielding is
Ny =

60
= 1.66
36.06

(6)

Therefore, yielding is not predicted to have occurred in the steel bar.

Check: A more conservative approach, see the notes on pages 318, 370 and 372, is to use Eq. (6-49),
page 306, which indicates that the factor of safety guarding against yielding can be written as
Ny =

Sy

m +a

(7)

The von Mises mean stress can be written as

m = ( m2 + 3 m2 )

1/2

(8a)

The von Mises alternating stress can be written as

a = ( a2 + 3 a2 )

1/2

(8b)

Substituting Eqs. (4) into Eqs. (8), the von Mises mean stress and the von Mises alternating stress,
respectively, are
1/2

= 25.98 kpsi

(9a)

1/2

= 25.00 kpsi

(9b)

m = 02 + 3 152
and

a = 252 + 3 02

Note from Eqs. (3) and (8) that, in general, the sum of the von Mises mean stress and the von Mises
alternating stress is not equal to the von Mises maximum stress, that is

m + a max

(10a)

According to the notes on pages 318, 370, and 372, the sum of the von Mises mean stress and the von
Mises alternating stress is always greater than (in special cases may be equal to) the von Mises
maximum stress, that is

m + a max
(10b)
Equations (5) and (9) are in agreement with this statement, namely

25.98 kpsi + 25.00 kpsi > 36.06 kpsi

(10c)

Substituting Eqs. (2) and (9) into Eq. (7), the factor of safety guarding against yielding is

Ny =

60
= 1.18
25.98 + 25.00

(11)

The answer for the factor of safety guarding against yielding obtained from Eq. (11) is, as expected from
the condition given by Eq. (10b), less than the answer obtained from Eq. (6). In other words, Eq. (7) is a
more conservative approach to the factor of safety guarding against yielding than Eq. (1).
(ii) The factor of safety guarding against fatigue will be obtained from the distortion energy-modified
Goodman failure criteria, the distortion energy-Gerber failure criteria, and the distortion energy-ASMEElliptic failure criterion.
(a) Using the distortion energy-modified Goodman failure criterion, see Eq. (6-46), page 306, or Table
6-6, page 307, also see Example 6-14, pages 318-321, the factor of safety guarding against fatigue
failure can be written as

1
(12)
= m + a
Nf
Sut
Se
The corrected endurance limit and ultimate tensile strength of the steel bar are specified, respectively, as
Se = 40 kpsi

and

Sut = 80 kpsi

(13)

Substituting Eqs. (9) and (13) into Eq. (12), the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure can be
written as
1
25.98 25.00
(14a)
=
+
Nf
80
40

Therefore, the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure can be written as
Nf =

1
.
(25.98 / 80) + (25.00 / 40)

(14b)

Therefore, the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure is

N f = 1.05

(14c)

Therefore, fatigue failure is not predicted to have occurred in the steel bar.
(b) Using the distortion energy-Gerber failure criteria, see Table 6-7, page 307, the factor of safety
guarding against fatigue failure can be written as
2
2

2 m Se
1 Sut a
Nf =

1 + 1 +

2 m Se
Sut a

(15a)

Substituting Eqs. (9) and (13) into Eq. (15a), the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure can be
written as
2
2
1 80 25.00
2 25.98 40

(15b)
Nf =

1+ 1+

2 25.98 40
80 25.00

Therefore, the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure is

N f = 1.31

(15c)

Therefore, fatigue failure is not predicted to have occurred in the steel bar.
(c) Using the distortion energy-ASME elliptic failure criteria, see Table 6-8, page 308, the factor of
safety guarding against fatigue failure can be written as
Nf =

1
( a / Se ) + ( m / S y ) 2
2

(16a)

Substituting Eqs. (2), (9), and (13) into Eq. (16a), the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure is

Nf =

1
(25.00 / 40) + (25.98 / 60) 2
2

(16b)

Therefore, the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure is

N f = 1.32

(16c)

Therefore, fatigue failure is not predicted to have occurred in the steel bar.
Note that the answers for the factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure from the distortion
energy-Gerber failure criteria and the distortion energy-ASME elliptic failure criteria are in good
agreement, see Eqs. (15c) and (16c). Also note that the answer obtained from the distortion energy-

modified Goodman failure criteria, see Eq. (14c), is more conservative but less accurate than both the
distortion energy-Gerber failure criteria and the distortion energy-ASME elliptic failure criteria.
2. Problem 7-1. 10 Points.
(a) The diameter of the shaft can be written from the DE-Gerber failure criteria, see Eq. (7-10), page
369, as
1/3

2 1/2

8
N
A

f
1 + 1 + 2 B Se
d =

Se A Sut

(1)

The coefficients in this equation, see Eq. (7-10), page 369, are
A = 4 ( K f M a ) + 3 ( K fsTa )
2

(2a)

and
B = 4 ( K f M m ) + 3 ( K fsTm )
2

(2b)

The mean and alternating components of the bending moment are specified, respectively, as
M m = 55 N.m

M a = 70 N.m

and

(3a)

The mean and alternating components of the torque are specified, respectively, as
Tm = 35 N.m

Ta = 45 N.m

and

(3b)

The fatigue stress concentration factors are specified as

K f = 2.2

K fs = 1.8

and

(4)

Substituting Eqs. (3) and (4) into Eqs. (2), the coefficients are
A = 4 ( 2.2 70 ) + 3 (1.8 45 ) = 338.4 N.m
2

(5a)

and
B = 4 ( 2.2 55 ) + 3 (1.8 35 ) = 265.5 N.m
2

(5b)

The corrected endurance limit and ultimate tensile strength of the steel bar are specified, respectively, as
Se = 210 MPa

and

Sut = 700 MPa

(6)

Substituting the fatigue factor of safety N f = 2 and Eqs. (5a), (5b), and (6) into Eq. (1), the diameter of
the shaft can be written as

8 2 338.4
d =
6
210 10

1/3

1/2

6 2

2
265.5
210
10

1 + 1 +

6
338.4 700 10

(7a)

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 25.85 103 m

d = 25.85 mm

or

(7b)

b) The diameter of the shaft can be written from the DE-ASME elliptic failure criteria, see Eq. (7-12),
page 369, as

16 N f
d =

1/3

A B
+
Se S y
2

(8)

The yield strength of the steel bar is specified as

S y = 560 MPa

(9)

Substituting the fatigue factor of safety N f = 2 and Eqs. (5), (6), and (9) into Eq. (8), the diameter of
the shaft can be written as
1/3

2
2
16 2
338.4 265.5
+
d =

210 106 560 106

(10a)

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 25.77 103 m

d = 25.77 mm

or

(10b)

(c) The diameter of the shaft can be written from the DE-Soderberg failure criteria, see Eq. (7-14), page
369, as
16 N f
d =

1/3

A B
+

Se S y

(11)

Substituting the fatigue factor of safety N f = 2 and Eqs. (5), (6), and (9) into Eq. (11), the diameter of
the shaft can be written as
16 2
338.4
265.5
+
d =
6
210 10 560 106

1/3

(12a)

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 27.70 103 m

d = 27.70 mm

or

(12b)

(d) The diameter of the shaft can be written from the DE-modified Goodman failure criteria, see Eq. (78), page 368, as
16 N f
d =

1/3

A B
+

Se Sut

(13)

Substituting Eqs. (5), (6), and (9) into Eq. (13), the diameter of the shaft can be written as
16 2
338.4
265.5
+
d =
6
210 10 700 106

1/3

(14a)

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 27.27 103 m

d = 27.27 mm

or

(14b)

Summary and comparison of the answers for the diameter of the shaft from the four criteria of failure:
Criterion
DEGerber
DEElliptic
DESoderberg
DEGoodman

ComparedtoDEGerber

0.31%Lower Lessconservative
7.2%Higher
Moreconservative
5.5%Higher
Moreconservative

d(mm)
25.85
25.77
27.70
27.27

3. Problem 7-3. 10 Points. The transmitted torque can be written as

TA = (d / 2) F cos 20

(1)

Then rearranging this equation, the force from the drive gear can be written as

F = 2 TA / (d cos 20 )

(2a)

Substituting the given data into Eq. (2a), the force from the drive gear is

F = 2 340 / (0.150 cos 20 ) = 4824 N

(2b)

The maximum bending moment on the solid steel shaft will be at point C, that is

M C = 0.100 4824 = 482.4 Nm

(3)

Since the shaft is rotating then the bending moment is completely reversed. Therefore, the mean and
alternating components of the bending moment, respectively, are

Mm = 0

M a = 482.4 Nm

and

(4a)

The torque is steady, therefore, the mean and alternating components of the torque, respectively, are

Tm = 340 Nm

and

Ta = 0

(4b)

For the sharp fillet radii at the shoulders, see Table 7-1, page 373, the first iteration estimates for the
theoretical stress concentration factors are taken as

Kt = 2.7

Kts = 2.2

and

The geometric ratio for the sharp fillet radii at the shoulders from Table 7-1, page 373, is

(5)

r
= 0.02
d

(6a)

For the iteration procedure we can begin with different assumptions. Here we begin by assuming that the
diameter d is the diameter of the gear, that is, d = 150 mm. Therefore, the radius of the sharp fillet is

r = 0.02 x d = 0.02 x 150 = 3 mm

(6b)

The notch sensitivity for reversed bending can be obtained from either Fig. 6-20, see page 295, or
from the curve-fit, see Eqs. (6-34) and (6-35a), page 296. Using the equations, the notch sensitivity for
bending can be written from Eq. (6-34), page 296, as
q=

a
1+
r

(7a)

From Eq. (6-35a), see page 296, the Neuber constant for bending can be written as
a = 0.246 (3.08 103 ) Sut + (1.51105 ) Sut 2 (2.67 108 ) Sut 3 in

(8)

where the ultimate tensile strength Sut is in kpsi. The ultimate tensile strength of the shaft is specified as
Sut = 560 MPa = 80.678 kpsi

(9)

Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (8), the Neuber constant for bending can be written as
a = 0.246 (3.08 103 )80.678 + (1.51 105 )80.6782 (2.67 108 )80.6783 in

(10a)

Therefore, the Neuber constant for bending is

a = 0.0818 in = 0.412 mm

(10b)

Substituting Eqs. (6b) and (10b) into Eq. (7a), the notch sensitivity for bending is
q=

1
= 0.80
0.412
1+
3

(11)

The notch sensitivity for torsion can be written from Fig. 6-21, see page 296, or from Eq. (6-34), see
page 296, as
1
(12)
qs =
a
1+
r
The Neuber constant for torsion can be written from Eq. (6-35b), see page 296, as
a = 0.190 (2.51 103 ) Sut + (1.35 105 ) Sut 2 (2.67 108 ) Sut 3

(13)

Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (13), the Neuber constant for torsion can be written as
a = 0.190 (2.51 103 )80.678 + (1.35 105 )80.6782 (2.67 108 )80.6783 in

(14a)

Therefore, the Neuber constant for torsion is

a = 0.0613 in = 0.308 mm

(14b)

Substituting Eqs. (6b) and (14b) into Eq. (12), the notch sensitivity for shear stress is
qs =

1
= 0.85
0.308
1+
3

(15)

These estimates for the notch sensitivities, see Eqs. (11) and (15), can be checked once a specific fillet
radius is determined.
The fatigue stress concentration factor for normal stress can be written from Eq. (6-32), see page 295, as

K f = 1 + q( K t 1)

(16a)

Substituting Eqs. (5) and (11) into Eq. (16a), the fatigue stress concentration factor for normal stress is
K f = 1 + 0.80(2.7 1) = 2.4

(16b)

The fatigue stress concentration factor for shear stress from Eq. (6-32), see page 295, is

K fs = 1 + qs ( K ts 1)

(17a)

Substituting Eqs. (5) and (15) into Eq. (17a), the fatigue stress concentration factor for shear stress is
K fs = 1 + 0.85(2.2 1) = 2.0

(17b)

The factor of safety guarding against yielding can be written from Eq. (7-16), see page 370 (or from
Chapters 5 and 6 using the distortion energy theory) as

Ny =

Sy

(18)

max

The fatigue stress concentration factors for the static analysis are chosen to avoid localized yielding (that is,
the worst case scenario), that is

K fm = K f

and

Kf

Sm

= Kf

(19)

Therefore, the von Mises maximum stress can be written from Eq. (7-15), see page 370, as
1/2

max

2
32 K f ( M a + M m ) 2
16 K fs (Ta + Tm )
=
+ 3

d3
d3

(20)

Recall from Eqs. (4), that the mean component of the bending moment and the alternating component of the
torque are both zero, that is, M m = 0 and Ta = 0. Substituting these values into Eq. (20), the von Mises
maximum stress can be written as
1/2

max

2
32 K f M a 2
16 K fsTm
=
+ 3

3
3
d

(21)

Substituting Eq. (21) into Eq. (18), the factor of safety guarding against yielding can be written as

Ny =

Sy d 3
16

4( K f M a ) 2 + 3( K fsTm ) 2

1/2

(22a)

Then rearranging Eq. (22a), the diameter of the shaft can be written as
1/3

1/2
16 N y
4( K f M a ) 2 + 3( K fsTm ) 2
d =

S y

(22b)

The factor of safety guarding against yielding is specified as

N y = 2.5

(23a)

and the yield strength of the steel bar is specified as

S y = 60 kpsi

(23b)

Substituting Eqs. (4), (16b), (17b), and (23) into Eq. (22b), the diameter of the shaft can be written as
1/ 2
16 2.5
4(2.4 482.4) 2 + 3(2.0 340) 2
d =
6
420 10

1/3

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

(24a)

d = 0.043 m = 43 mm

(24b)

(b) To determine the diameter of the shaft for fatigue failure. The distortion energy-ASME elliptic failure
criteria will be used here (as stated on the handout).
The diameter of the shaft can be written from the DE-ASME Elliptic criteria, see Eq. (7-12) page 369, as
1/3

1/2
16 N K M
K fsTa 2
K f Mm 2
K fsTm 2

f
f
a 2
d =
) + 3(
) + 4(
) + 3(
)
4(
Se
Se
Sy
Sy

(25)

Recall from Eqs. (4), that the mean component of the bending moment and the alternating component of the
torque are both zero, that is, M m = 0 and Ta = 0. Substituting these values into Eq. (25), the diameter of
the shaft can be written as

10

1/3

1/2
16 N K M
K fsTm 2

f
f
a 2
d =
) + 3(
)
4(
Se
Sy

(26)

The factor of safety guarding against fatigue failure is specified as

N f = 2.5

(27)

The corrected endurance strength of the steel shaft can be written from Eq. (6-18), see page 287, as
S e = k a kb S e

(28)

The uncorrected endurance strength of the steel shaft from Eq. (6-8), see page 282, is
Se = 0.5 Sut

(29a)

Substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (29a), the uncorrected endurance strength of the steel shaft is
Se = 0.5 560 = 280 MPa

(29b)

The Marine factors. The surface modification factor can be written from Eq. (6-19), see page 287, as
k a = a Sutb

(30)

The coefficient and the exponent for machined finish from Table 6-2, see page 288, respectively, are
a = 4.51 MPa

and

b = 0.265

(31a)

Substituting Eqs. (9) and (31a) into Eq. (30), the surface modification factor is
ka = 4.51 560 0.265 = 0.84

(31b)

For the first iteration assume that the size factor, see Eq. (6-20), page 288, is

kb = 0.85

(32)

This value for the size factor can be checked later once a diameter is known. Substituting Eqs. (29b), (31b),
and (32) into Eq. (28), the corrected endurance strength of the steel shaft is

Se = 0.84 0.85 280 = 199.92 MPa

(33)

Substituting Eqs. (27), (31b), (27), and (33) into Eq. (26), the diameter of the shaft can be written as
1/3

2 1/2
16 2.5 2.4 482.4 2

2 340
+ 3
d =
4

6
6
420 10
199.92 10

(34a)

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 0.05334 m = 53.34 mm
11

(34b)

Note that this diameter is greater than the diameter for the static case, see Eq. (24b).
The second iteration. The theoretical stress concentration factors are taken to be the same as in the first
iteration, see Eq. (5), that is

Kt = 2.7

Kts = 2.2

and

(35)

Now using the diameter of the shaft from the first iteration, that is Eq. (34b), the estimates for the size
factor kb and the notch sensitivity q can be refined. From Eq. (6-20), see page 288, the size factor is
kb = 1.51 d 0.157 = 1.51 53.40.157 = 0.81

(36)

Assuming a sharp fillet radius, see Table 7-1, page 373, the radius of the fillet is

r = 0.02 d = 0.02(53.34) = 1.07 mm

(37)

Substituting Eqs. (27b), (28c), (29), and (33) into Eq. (11a), or using Fig. (6-20), see page 295, the notch
sensitivity is
1
q=
= 0.72
(38)
0.412
1+
1.07
Substituting Eqs. (27b), (28c), (29), and (33) into Eq. (11a), or using Fig. (6-21), see page 296, the notch
sensitivity for shear is
1
qs =
= 0.77
(39)
0.308
1+
1.07
Now continue the second iterate with these new estimates.
Substituting Eq. (34b) and (35) into (16a), the fatigue stress concentration factor for normal stress is

K f = 1 + 0.72(2.7 1) = 2.2

(40a)

Substituting Eq. (34b) and (35) into (16b), the fatigue stress concentration factor for shear stress is

K fs = 1 + 0.77(2.2 1) = 1.9

(40b)

Substituting Eq. (34b) and (35) into (16b), the endurance strength is

Se = 0.84(0.81)(280) = 190.51 MPa

(41)

Substituting Eqs. (27b), (28c), (29), and (33) into Eq. (27), the diameter of the shaft can be written as
1/3

2 1/2
16 2.5 2.2 482.4 2

1.9 340
d =
+ 3
4

6
6
190.51
10
420
10

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 0.05264 m = 52.64 mm

12

(42a)

(42b)

Note that the answer for the diameter of the shaft given by the second iteration, see Eq. (42b), is slightly less
than the answer given by the first iteration, see Eq. (34b).
The third iteration. Using this diameter, the estimates for the size factor kb and the notch sensitivity q can
be refined. From Eq. (6-20), see page 288, the size factor is

kb = 1.51 d 0.157 = 1.51 52.640.157 = 0.81

(43)

Assuming a sharp fillet radius, see Table 7-1, page 373, the radius of the fillet, substituting Eq. (41b) in Eq.
(5b), is

r = 0.02d = 0.02(52.64) = 1.05 mm

(44)

Substituting Eqs. (13c), (28c), (43), and (33) into Eq. (11a), or using Fig. (6-20), see page 295, the notch
sensitivity for normal stress due to bending is
q=

1
= 0.71
0.412
1+
1.05

(45a)

Substituting Eqs. (27b), (28c), (29), and (33) into Eq. (11), or using Fig. (6-21), see page 296, the notch
sensitivity for shear is
1
qs =
= 0.77
(45b)
0.308
1+
1.05
Substituting Eqs. (45a) and (5a) into Eq. (15a), the fatigue stress concentration factor is

K f = 1 + 0.71(2.7 1) = 2.2

(46)

Substituting Eqs. (45b) and (5a) into Eq. (15c), the fatigue stress concentration factor is, the fatigue stress
concentration factor in shear is
(47)
K fs = 1 + 0.77(2.2 1) = 1.9

Substituting Eqs. (29b), (30c), and (42) into Eq. (28), the new corrected endurance strength of the steel
shaft is
Se = 0.84(0.81)(280) = 190.51 MPa
(48)
Substituting Eqs. (4a), (4b), (38), (39), (27), (22b), and (48) into Eq. (26), the diameter of the shaft can be
written as
1/3

2
2 1/2

16 2.5 2.2 482.4

1.9 340
+ 3
d =
4

6
6
420 10
190.5110

Therefore, the diameter of the shaft is

d = 0.05264 m = 52.64 mm

13

(49a)

(49b)

Note that the answer for the diameter of the shaft given by the third iteration, see Eq. (49b), is the same as
the answer given by the second iteration, see Eq. (42b). Therefore, a fourth iteration is not required since it
will not change the answer for the diameter of the shaft.

14