AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Design of Transmission
Shafting

ANSI/ASME B106.1M -1985

(S E C O N D P R IN T IN G )

SPONSORED A N D PUBLISHED B Y

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

United Engineering Center 3 4 5 East 47th Street New York, N. Y. 1 0 0 1 7

 Second printing — March 1986.
Incorporates the following editorial changes.

Page Location Change

1 2 Definition of Su revised
7 Table 3 Note (2) and reference added
8 Fig. 4 Acknowledgment corrected
9 Fig. 6 (1) Caption revised
(2) General Note deleted
16-19 Table B1 Revised in its entirety
21 Table C1 Third column heading and first entry revised

Date of Issuance: August 30, 1985

This Standard will be revised when the Society approves the issuance of a new edition.
There will be no addenda or written interpretations of the requirements of this Standard
issued to this Edition.

Th is code or standard w as developed under procedures accredited as meeting the criteria for
Am erican National Standards. T h e Consensus Com m ittee that approved the code or standard was
balanced to assure that individuals from com petent and concerned interests have had an oppor­
tu nity to participate. T h e proposed code or standard w as made available for public review and
com m ent which provides an opportunity for additional public input from industry, academia, reg--
ulatory agencies, and the public-at-large.
A S M E does not " a p p ro v e ," " ra te ," or "e n d o rse " any item, construction, proprietary device, or
activity.
A S M E does not take any position w ith respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in
connection w ith any items mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone
utilizing a standard against liability for infringement of any applicable Letters Patent, nor assume
any such liability. Users of a code or standard are expressly advised that determination of the
validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their ow n
responsibility.
Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated w ith industry is not to
be interpreted as governm ent or industry endorsement of this code or standard.
A S M E accepts responsibility for only those interpretations issued in accordance w ith governing
A S M E procedures and policies w hich preclude the issuance of interpretations by individual vol­
unteers.

No part of this docum ent m ay be reproduced in any form ,

in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,
w ithout the prior w ritten permission of the publisher.

Copyright © 1986 by
T H E A M E R IC A N S O C IE T Y O F M E C H A N IC A L ENGINEERS
All Rights Reserved
Printed in U .S .A .
 FOREWORD

{This Foreword is not part of A N S I/A S M E B106.1M-1985.)

Since 1954, when the Code for Design of Transmission Shafting (ASA-B17C-1927) was with­
drawn, there has been a need for a design method which recognizes advances in shaft design
technology.
ASA-B17C provided a design method covering a wide range o f machine shafting applications.
It was based on the static yield strength of the shaft material under combined bending and tor­
sional shaft load, and made allowance for service conditions. It was found to be overly conser­
vative in some cases; in others, it was believed to be incomplete. It is now well accepted that
most shaft failures are caused by progressive crack propagation resulting from fluctuating load,
commonly called “ fatigue failure.” A shaft design method based on the fatigue strength of the
shaft is needed. The purpose of this Standard is to present such a method for the most common
shaft loading condition of combined re versed-bending and steady torsion.
American National Standards Committee B106 held its organizational meeting on May 23,
1968. On October 6, 1981, the Committee was reorganized as ASME Standards Committee
B106 on Design o f Transmission Shafting.
Suggestions for the improvement o f this Standard will be welcomed. They should be sent to
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering Center, 345 East 47th
Street, New York, New York 10017.
This Standard was approved by the American National Standards Institute on May 17,1985.

m
 ASME STANDARDS COMMITTEE B106
Design of Transmission Shafting

(The following is the roster of the Committee at the time of approval of this Standard.)

OFFICERS

V . R . Lalli, Chairman
S. H. Loewenthal, Vice Chairman
K. Wessely, Secretary

COMMITTEE PERSONNEL

A M E R IC A N G E A R M A N U F A C T U R E R S A S S O C IA T IO N
R. C . Brow n, American Gear Manufacturers Association, Arlington, Virginia

A M E R IC A N S O C IE T Y O F M E C H A N IC A L E N G IN E E R S , T H E
A . L . Hitchcox, Penton/IPC, Cleveland, Ohio

M E C H A N IC A L POW ER T R A N S M IS S IO N A S S O C IA T IO N
C . L . V room , Van Gorp Corp., Pella, Iowa

N A T I O N A L A E R O N A U T IC S A N D SP AC E A D M IN IS T R A T IO N
S. H . Loewenthal, N A S A Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
V . R . Lalli, N A S A Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

IN D IV ID U A L M EM B ER S
T . A . Hughes, Production Engineering Magazine, Cleveland, Ohio
D . H . Wright, R . J. Dick Inc., Muscatine, Iowa

V
 CONTENTS

F o re w o rd ..................................................................................................................................... iii
Standards Committee Roster ................................................................................................... v

1 S c o p e .................................................................. 1
2 Nomenclature...................................................................................................................... 1
3 Design F orm ulas................................................................................................................ 1
4 Fatigue Modifying Factors ............................................................................................... 2
5 Factor o f Safety (F S )......................................................................................................... 10
6 Other Considerations......................................................................................................... 10

Figures
1 Surface Finish Factor ka as a Function of a Surface Condition and
Tensile Strength (From Several Sources) ................................................................... 3
2 Size Factor ........................................................................................................................ 4
3 Recommended Size Effect Factors for Unnotched Steel Shafts
(From Several Sources)................................................................................................. 5
4 Notch Sensitivity q ........................................................................................................... 8
5 Round Shaft With Shoulder Fillet in B ending ...................... 8
6 Grooved Round Bar in B en d in g ....................................................................................... 9
7 Round Shaft in Bending With a Transverse Hole ........................................................... 9

Tables
1 Reliability F a c t o r .............................................................................................................. 6
2 Temperature Factor k¿ — Fatigue Properties as Related to Room
Temperature Properties [70°F (23°C )]..................................................................... 6
3 Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor k f —Typical Values for Keyways
in Solid Round Steel S h a fts......................................................................................... 7

Appendices
A Theoretical B ackground..................................................................................................... 11
B Materials and P ro p erties..................................................................................................... 15
C Sample P ro b le m ................................................................................................................. 21

Figures
A1 Combined Stress Fatigue Test Data for Reversed Bending in
Combination With Static T o rs io n ............................................................................... 12
A2 Combined Stress Fatigue Test Data for Reversed Bending in
Combination With Reversed Torsion.......................................................................... 12
A3 Comparison of Combined Stress and Separate Stress Design Methods ........................ 13
Cl Load Diagram....................................................................................................................... 23
C2 Sample P ro b le m .................................................................................................................. 23

vii
Tables jé¡\
B1 Representative Mechanical Properties o f Shafting S te e ls .............................................. 16 V
C l Strength Properties of UNS'G-10450 Cold-Drawn S t e e l .............................................. 21

References ................................................................................................................................... 25

i
viii
 ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

A N A M E R IC A N N A T IO N A L S T A N D A R D

DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING

1 SCOPE FS = factor o f safety

K = hollowness ratio (d¡/d)
This Standard takes into account many modern theo­
K f = fatigue strength reduction factor
ries and has been substantiated, in part, by laboratory
K t = theoretical stress concentration factor in bending
testing.
ka = surface finish factor
This Standard is not intended as a textbook. It is writ­
k b - size factor
ten for use by those skilled in the art o f shaft design and
k c = reliability factor
stress calculations. This Standard provides a common
kd = temperature factor
basis for discussion and understanding between persons
k e = duty cycle factor
involved in shaft design.
k f = fatigue stress concentration factor
A design procedure is presented for computing the
kg = miscellaneous effects factor
diameter o f either hollow or solid rotating steel shafts
M = reversed-bending moment, lb-in. (N • m)
under combined cyclic bending and steady torsional
N c = first lateral critical speed o f shaft system, rpm
loading for unlimited life. The method is based on an
q = fatigue notch sensitivity factor
elliptical variation of fatigue strength with increasing
S b = reversed-bending stress, psi (N/m2)
torque as exhibited by combined stress fatigue data.
= (32M /nd3)
The corrected reversed-bending fatigue limit of the
S f = corrected fatigue (endurance) limit o f shaft in
shaft to be designed is used in the recommended design
reversed bending, psi (N/m2)
formula. It is calculated from the fatigue limit of the ma­
S * = fatigue (endurance) limit o f polished, unnotched
terial from rotating beam specimen data, such as that
test specimen in reversed bending, psi (N/m2)
listed in Appendix B. Fatigue modifying factors are cited
Sfa = Allowable corrected fatigue (endurance) limit
to correct the polished, unnotched specimen data for a
o f shaft in reversed bending, psi (N/m2)
number of service factors. These service factors include
= (Sf l FS)
surface condition, size, reliability, temperature, duty
S*t = fatigue (endurance) limit o f polished, unnotched
cycle, fatigue stress, concentration, and miscellaneous
test specimen in reversed bending with steady
effects.
torque, psi (N/m2)
Although the present design procedure ensures that the
S s = static-torsional stress, psi (N/m2)
shaft is properly sized to provide adequate service life, it
= (16T/ird3)
is not the only shaft design consideration. A shaft must
Ssr = reversed-torsional stress, psi (N/m2)
also be stiff enough to limit deflections o f key power
Ssrf~ fatigue (endurance) limit o f polished, unnotched
transfer elements such as gears and pulleys, and also have
test specimens in reversed torsion, psi (N/m2 )
sufficient stiffness to minimize misalignment through
= torsional yield strength, psi (N/m2), (Ssy —
bearings and seals. Furthermore, the shaft must have suf­
S y /\/3 for most steels)
ficient radial and torsional stiffness or lack o f stiffness to
Ssya = allowable torsional yield strength, psi (N/m2)
avoid unwanted vibrations at the operating speed. These
= (Ssy / FS)
factors have not been included in this Standard,although
Su = ultimate tensile strength, psi (N/m2)
checking them is good design practice. Calculation pro­
Sy = tensile yield strength, psi (N/m2)
cedures for these factors may be found in most machine
T = mean static torque, lb-in. (N • m)
design textbooks. An example of how to calculate shaft
deflection and critical speed is given in Appendix C.

2 NOMENCLATURE 3 DESIGN FORMULAS

d = shaft diameter, in. (mm) The shaft diameter formulas appearing in this Section
dj = inside shaft diameter, in. (mm) were theoretically developed in combination with experi­

1
ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
mental data. The theoretical background of these deriva­
tions appears in Appendix A. The variables to be used in
these formulas are described in Sections 4 ,5 , and 6.
3.1 Solid Shafting
d = V / (32FS/7r) yJ(M/Sf )2 + * M T / S y ) 2
where the corrected shaft endurance limit is
S f = k ak b kc kd ke kf kg Sf
The k factors in the above formula are the fatigue modi­
fying factors discussed in Section 4.
S * is the uncorrected fatigue limit of the shaft mate­
rial obtained from rotating beam specimens. To obtain
S * , see Appendix B.
3.2 Hollow Shafting
d = (1 /^1 - K 4 ) V/(32FS/tt) V (M/Sf)7- + 3/4(T/Sy )2
where the shaft hollowness ratio is
K = dt/d
NOTE: The applicability o f Eq. (2) to the design o f thin-wall
shafts o f tubes (K > 0.9) has not yet been established.
4 FATIGUE MODIFYING FACTORS
In shaft design Eqs. (1) and (2), the fatigue limit of
the shaft S f differs from the fatigue limit o f the highly
polished, notch-free, rotating beam test specimen S * .
Before a shaft size can be determined, the uncorrected
fatigue limit o f the test specimen, commonly listed in
design tables, must be modified to account for differ­
ences between the shaft to be designed and the test speci­
men. These differences include surface finish, size, relia­
bility, temperature, stress concentration, and other mis­
cellaneous factors.
4.1 Surface Finish Factor ka
This factor accounts for the difference in surface con­
dition between the shaft to be designed and the highly
polished (mirror finish) test specimen. Experiments have
shown that surface condition can have a considerable
effect on fatigue strength, since fatigue cracks are gen­
DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING
erally initiated at the surface of the shaft, where the
stresses are highest [1 ]1.
Surface treatment affects fatigue strength in several
ways. Forging, surface rolling, and other work-hardening
processes tend to set up beneficial compressive residual
stress in the surface layer. However, the surface decar­
burization that often accompanies forging can cause a
(1 )
severe reduction in fatigue strength. Fatigue strength
also can be reduced by surface roughness, which intro­
duces surface irregularities that act as local stress raisers.
The surface finish factor k a shown in Fig. 1 [1] cor­
rects the fatigue limit o f the test specimen. It is based on
a compilation o f test data from several investigations for
a variety o f ferrous metals and alloys compiled in [1].
Based on [1 ] , the ground surface category includes
all types of surface finishing which does not affect the
fatigue limit by more than 10%. Polished, ground,
honed, lapped, or super-finished shafts are included in
this ground category as well as commercial shafts that
are turned, ground, and polished, or turned and polished.
The machined surface category includes shafts that are
either rough or finished machined, or unfinished cold-
drawn shafts with roughness ranging between 62 pin.
( 2) and 250 pin. (1.6 pm and 6.3 pm). The hot rolled cate­
gory covers surface conditions encountered on hot rolled
shafts which have slight irregularities; some include
oxide and scale defects with partial surface decarburiza­
tion [1], The as-forged category includes shafts with
large surface irregularities, included oxide, and scale de­
fects, with total surface decarburization. Figure 1 shows
the endurance characteristics of higher tensile strength
steels to be more adversely affected by poorer surface
conditions.
4.2 Size Factor
Experience and testing have shown that the fatigue
limit generally decreases as shaft size increases. It is be­
lieved that this size effect is related to the greater likeli­
hood o f encountering a potential fatigue-initiating defect
with a larger shaft. Larger shafts have a lower stress gradi­
ent than smaller shafts and thus have a greater volume of
material under higher stress. Another factor is that the
heat treatment of large parts may produce a metal- -
lurgical structure that is not as uniform nor having as
fine a grain structure as that obtained with smaller parts.
The results of reversed bending tests on unnotched,
polished steel specimens o f up to 2 in. (50 mm) in diam­
eter are shown in Fig. 2. These data have been compiled
lu m b e r s in brackets correspond to the referenced documents
in the References section following the Appendices.
2
 ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

1.0
Mirror polished
Surface Factor

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 .8 x 1 0 3

Ultimate Tensile Strength, Su , MPa

I___________I___________ I___________ l___________ I___________ I

60 100 140 180 200 260
Ultimate Tensile Strength, Su ksi

FIG. 1 SURFACE FINISH FACTOR ka AS A FUNCTION OF A SURFACE CONDITION AND

TENSILE STRENGTH (FROM SEVERAL SOURCES)
(Reproduced from Juvinall, R. C ., Engineering Consideration o f Stress, Strain and Strength, McGraw-
Hill Book Com pany, 1967, by permission)

3
ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

Specimen Diameter, in.

G EN ER A L N O TE:
Data for unnotched, polished steel specimens having S y = 50 ksi to 165 ksi were compiled from several sources in [2 ] .

FIG. 2 SIZE FACTOR

(Reproduced from Juvinall, R. C., Engineering Consideration o f Stress, Strain and Strength, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1967, by permission)

from many investigations [2]. Included in Fig. 2 is an
analytical expression based on the concept of Kuguel
[3]. Kuguel hypothesizes that a decrease in fatigue
strength can be mathematically related to an increase in
the volume o f material subjected to at least 95% of the
maximum stress.
The Kuguel2 expression can be written
(inch units) (millimeter units)
k b = (d /O .3 )'0-068 k b = ( d /7 .6 ) - 0 '068
Because the data fit reasonably well, the Kuguel expres­
sion is adopted here.
However, for shafts larger than 2 in. (50 mm) in diam­
eter, very few test data exist [10,11], There are insuffi­
cient data for establishing any definitive formula for these
larger shaft sizes. The few relevant tests conducted indi­
cate a considerable decrease in fatigue limit for shafts
having very large diameters [6]. A collection of recom­
mended size factors for larger shafts from several special­
ists [2, 6, 7, 9] is shown in Fig. 3. Also shown in Fig. 3
is an arbitrary composite expression,

(inch units) (millimeter units)

where
d = the diameter of the shaft, in. (mm)
Although there are several other sources for deter­
mining this size effect factor [3-9], there are only minor
differences between these other sources and the Kuguel
expression for shafts up to 2 in. (50 mm) in diameter.
2Excerpted from Kugel, R., “A Relation Between Theoretical
Stress Concentration Factor and Fatigue Notch Factor Deduced
From the Concept o f Highly Stressed Volume,” in Proceedings
o f ASTM , 1969, with permission, from ASTM. Copyright, ASTM,
19Í6 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
4
k b = d ~ 0A9 k b = 1. 85d~0A9
which is basically a compromise of these other suggested
approaches. Fatigue test data from [11] for 6 in. and
8.5 in (150 mm and 213 mm) diameter, plain carbon
(0.4% to 0.5%) steel specimens in rotating bending have
also been included for comparison. The range of fatigue
limit values found in these tests [11] are denoted by the
length of the arrows. In the absence of actual data for
the shaft to be designed, this composite expression will
provide an estimate of the size effect for shafts larger
 ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

0 50 WO 150 200 250

Shaft Diameter d, mm

FIG. 3 RECOMMENDED SIZE EFFECT FACTORS FOR UNNOTCHED STEEL SHAFTS

(FROM SEVERAL SOURCES)

than 2 in. (50 mm) and less than 10 in. (254 mm) in 4.4 Temperature Factor k d
diameter.
Extreme operating temperatures affect the fatigue
limit o f steels. However, between normal operating tem ­
4.3 Reliability Factor k c peratures ranging from about -70°F (-57°C) to 400°F
(204°C), the fatigue strength characteristics of most
Even under well-controlled test conditions, it is clear
steels are essentially unchanged. For this temperature
that the unavoidable variability in the preparation of
range, a temperature factor kd = 1 is recommended.
test specimens and in their metallurgical structures will
For applications outside this temperature range, the
cause variations or scatter in their measured endurance
fatigue properties at the appropriate temperature for the
strengths. Fatigue limit data published in standard design
shaft material in question should be ascertained from
references usually represent some mean value of endur­
actual test data, either published or user-generated, and
ance for the sample of test specimens. Most designs re­
compared with room temperature properties to determine
quire a much higher survival rate than 50%, that is, the
appropriate kd . Table 2, which lists variation in kd with
probability that at least half the population will not fail
temperature change for several steel compositions, based
in service. Consequently, the fatigue limit must be re­
on a number of investigations, should provide some
duced to increase reliability.
guidance.
A strength and a stress distribution can be associated
with each part. In the absence of test data, a good rule is
to assume a Gaussian failure distribution with a standard
4.5 Duty Cycle Factor ke
deviation of 8% of the mean fatigue Emit strength for
determining k c . These values are given in Table 1. Shafts are seldom exposed to constant amplitude load­
Values of k c for reliability levels 0.99 and above are ing in service. The designer must consider start-stop cy­
quite sensitive to the failure distribution assumed. In this cles, transient overloads, vibrational or shock loading,
range, kc values listed in Table 1 are not as accurate and and changes in the load spectrum o f the equipment driven
should be used only as a guide. by the shaft. An important question is: how much fatigue
5
ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING

TABLE 1 RELIABILITY FACTOR

Shaft Nominal Reliability *c

0.50 1.0
0.90 0.897
0.99 0.814
0.999 0.753

TABLE 2 TEMPERATURE FACTOR k d - FATIGUE PROPERTIES AS RELATED TO

ROOM TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES [70°F (23°C)]
Temperature, °F (°C)

U N S Num ber [Note (1)1 -2 0 0 -1 0 0 0 + 70 200 400 600 800 1000

and Condition (-1 2 9 ) (-7 3 ) (-1 8 ) (+23) (93) (204) (316) (427) (538) Ref.

G-10350 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.8 [12]
G-10600 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.2 [12]
G-43400 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.6 [12]
G-43400
(notched) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 [12]
0.17% carbon 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.6 [13]
G -43400 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 [13]
Carbon steel 1.3 1.0 [13]
Carbon steel
(notched) 1.1 1.0 [13]
Alloy steel
(notched) 1.1 1.0 [13]

N O TE:
(1) Th e Unified Numbering System (U N S ) was jointly developed by A S T M and S A E to provide for a consistent and uniform numbering
system for commercially available metals and alloys. The prefix letter designates the family of metals, such as G for steel. The first
four numbers are generally taken from the traditional A IS I-S A E number system. For example, G-10350 in the UNS is A IS I-S A E 1035
steel.

strength is left in the shaft material which has already
been exposed to cyclic stress for a given number of shaft
cycles?
Because fatigue damage is particularly sensitive to high
stress amplitudes, start-stop cycles, transient overloads,
and periods of high loads can have significant effect on
fatigue life. For example, according to [13], a 20% in­
crease in loading acting only 20% of the time can cause
a life reduction from 30% to 64% relative to a shaft with
only constant amplitude loading.
There is considerable experimental evidence [2,5,13]
that the sequence of loading (that is, high amplitude
loads following low ones or vice versa), can also have
significant effect on the fatigue process. A number of
experimental investigations [14] indicate that repeated
application of stresses below the fatigue limit (that is,
understressing), may actually improve the material’s
fatigue limit. Thus, for applications where the cyclic
stresses vary in magnitude, but do not exceed the fatigue
limit S* of the material, k e = 1 would produce a con­
servative design. However, subjecting shafts to stresses
6
greater than S * (that is, overstressing) for a significant
number of stress cycles, would adversely affect the ma­
terial’s endurance properties. For example, a 3% to 10%
reduction in the fatigue limit occurs when a reversed-
bending stress that is 10% greater than the original
fatigue limit is applied to the mild steel test specimens
for the first 20% of the cycles to failure [15]. When this
stress is increased to 130% of the normal fatigue limit,
a 7% to 20% reduction in the fatigue limit results.
At present there is no single comprehensive method
to determine factor k c for the effects described above.
However, a shaft design method appearing in [13, 16]
accounts for the effects of a variable amplitude load­
ing history using a Palmgren-Miner linear damage law
approach.
On occasion, shafts are designed for a limited service
life for purposes of economy. In a limited fatigue life
design, the number of cycles at stress amplitudes greater
than the fatigue limit that a material can withstand with­
out failing depends on the following:
(a) the magnitude of the alternating stresses;

DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING
TABLE 3 FATIGUE STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTOR k f - TYPICAL
VALUES FOR KEYWAYS IN SOLID ROUND STEEL SHAFTS1
(Reproduced from Juvinall, R.C., Engineering Consideration o f Stress, Strain and Strength,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967, by permission)
Steel
Annealed [Note (2 )] (less than 200 B H N )
Quenched and drawn (over 200 B H N )
N O TE:
(1) Nominal stresses should be based on the section modulus for the total shaft section.
(2) May also apply to hot rolled shafts.
(b) the slope o f the stress vs cycles-to-failure curve
for the material used;
(c) the stress history that preceded the current and
subsequent stress.
When the constant amplitude fatigue properties of a
member and the actual force-time history to which it
will be exposed are known, the current state of knowl­
edge enables predicting its fatigue life within about 0 3 3
to 3.0 times the experimentally determined fatigue life
[17]. In shaft design problems, it is usually possible to
obtain or determine reasonably accurate information on
the constant amplitude fatigue properties of the material
from which the shaft will be made. However, while shafts
normally are exposed to many millions (or even billions)
of stress cycles within their designed lifetimes, the actual
force-time histories to which they will be exposed are
rarely known very accurately. Therefore, this Standard
does not recommend attempting to design shafts for fi­
nite fatigue Ufe without obtaining prototype fatigue test
data under simulated operating conditions.
4.6 Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor kf
Experience has shown that a shaft fatigue failure al­
most always occurs at a notch, hole, keyway, shoulder,
or other discontinuity where the effective stresses have
been ampUfied. The effect of stress concentration on the
fatigue limit of the shaft is represented by the fatigue
stress concentration factor k f where
fatigue lim it o f the n otch ed specim en
kf =
fatigue lim it o f a specim en free o f notches
and where
K f - fatigue strength reduction factor
Experimental data indicate that low-strength steels are
significantly less sensitive to fatigue at notches than are
high-strength steels. The notch sensitivity q of materials
A NSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
Profiled Keyway Sled-Runner Keyway
Bending Stress Bending Stress
0.63 0.77
0.50 0.63
can be used to relate the fatigue strength reduction factor
K f to the theoretical (static) stress concentration factor
Kt as follows:
Kf = l + q ( K t - 1)
The appropriate theoretical stress concentration fac­
tor Kt to be used is the value for bending. This is because
the fatigue stress concentration factor k f is used to mod­
ify the specimen’s bending fatigue lim its* . Thus,com­
bining the above equations yields
k f ~ 1/Kf = 1/[1 + q(K t - 1)]
Recommended values for q and Kt are given in Figs. 4
through 7 and Table 3.
4.7 Miscellaneous Effects Factor k g
Since fatigue failures nearly always occur at ornear the
surface of the shaft where the stresses are the greatest,
surface condition strongly influences fatigue life. A num­
ber of factors affecting the fatigue limit have values
not readily found in design texts. Some of these factors
are:
(a) residual stresses (cold rolling, peening, welding,
etc.)
(b) heat treatment (case hardening, decarburization,
etc.)
(c) corrosion (stress corrosion cracking, fretting cor­
1 rosion, etc.)
(d ) plating or surface coating
(e) interference-fit (collars and splines)
( / ) vibration
(g) environment (thermal fatigue environment, elec­
trochemical fatigue environment, etc.)
(K) unusual loading (axial loading, cychc-torsional
and axial loads, thermal expansion loads, etc.)
7
ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING

J______ L
0 0.5 1.0 1-5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Notch Radius r, mm
NO TE:
0 ) For steels subjected to reversed bending or reversed axial loads. For larger radii use the values
of q corresponding to r - 0.16 in. {4 mm).

FIG. 4 NOTCH SENSITIVITY q

(Reproduced from Sines, G „ and Waisman, J. MetaI Fatigue, McGraw-Hill Book
Com pany, 1959, by permission)

G E N E R A L N O T E : Snom = M c/I where c = d !2 and 1 = ncft/64

FIG. 5 ROUND SHAFT WITH SHOULDER FILLET IN BENDING

(Reproduced from Peterson, R. E., Stress Concentration Factors, John Wiley & Sons,
Copyright © 1 9 7 4 , by permission)

8
 ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

0 0.5 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

r/d

FIG. 6 GROOVED ROUND BAR IN BENDING

(Reproduced from Peterson, R. E., Stress Concentration Factors, John Wiley & Sons,
Copyright © 1 9 7 4 , by permission)

M
( JM
D I2

d/D

FIG. 7 ROUND SHAFT IN BENDING WITH A TRANSVERSE HOLE

(Reproduced from Peterson, R. E., Stress Concentration Factors, John Wiley & Sons,
Copyright © 1 9 7 4 , by permission)

9
ANSI/ASME B106.1M-1985
AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD
Although only limited quantitative data have been
published for these factors [1 ,2 ,5 ,1 4 ,1 6 ,1 8 - 2 1 ] ,they
should, nonetheless, be considered and accounted for if
applicable. Some of these factors can have a considerable
effect on the shaft’s endurance characteristics. In the
absence of published data, it is advisable to conduct fa­
tigue tests that closely simulate the shaft condition and
its operating environment.
5 FACTOR OF SAFETY 1FS)
In any design computation there is always some un­
certainty as to how closely the analysis approximates the
actual application and its resulting accuracy. The design
procedures presented here assume that exact values will
be used for the fatigue limit of the shaft and its tensile
yield strength. However, in most cases nominal values
for these material properties are all the data that are avail­
able. These values may differ slightly from the true val­
ues for the batch of material on hand. Also, the rec­
ommended fatigue modifying factors used to correct
material fatigue properties may only approximate the
true factors for the given application. Furthermore, appli­
cation factors which would adversely affect shaft life
may be present, but are either not accounted for in this
Standard or are overlooked by the shaft designer. Un­
anticipated loads, uncertainty in the load spectrum, or
environmental factors can also shorten shaft life. In view
10
DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION SHAFTING
of these considerations, it is prudent to introduce some
measure of conservatism into the design process to com­
pensate for these uncertainties. Traditionally, this con­
servatism takes the form o f a factor of safety FS.
A factor of safety is an arbitrary value, generally estab­
lished by experience and, in some cases, as a matter of
opinion. In selecting a value for FS, the consequence o f
failure should be considered. If the consequence of failure
is high, an FS considerably greater than unity should be
used. If the consequence of failure is minimal, an FS
closer to unity may be used.
6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The fatigue life o f a shaft is not always the limiting
factor in its design. The effect o f the deflection of a shaft
on the performance of support bearings and seals, as well
as on such other key power transfer components as gears
and pulleys, must also be taken into account. Shafts can
be strong enough to meet fatigue life requirements, yet
not stiff enough to keep the natural frequency of the
shaft system above the operating speed range o f the ma­
chinery being designed. Careful attention to these fac­
tors is essential for achieving a rehable design. Although
design information for these other factors is beyond the
scope of this Standard, it may be found in most machine
design texts.
 APPENDIX A
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

(This Appendix is not part of A N S I/A S M E B106.1M-1985, and is included for information purposes only.)

A1 INTRODUCTION tigue life o f any particular specimen [22-25]. For a group

The judicious use o f power transmission shafting is im­
portant, not only from a machine reliability standpoint,
but also in light of cost and energy conservation. Al­
though the prime design consideration is whether the
shaft will provide adequate service life (that is, whether
it will resist failure), it is seldom the only design consid­
eration. The shaft must also be stiff enough between
supports to limit deflections of key power transfer ele­
ments and stiff enough to avoid vibrational excitation.
However, working knowledge in these other areas is
more complete in comparison to the limited knowledge
of fatigue behavior of materials in shafting applications.
Applying experimental fatigue data to shafting design
is certainly not a new approach. However, rarely does the
shaft designer have the appropriate fatigue data at hand
to match the application. Although running screening
tests on prototype parts is the most prudent approach,
few organizations can afford the cost and time o f long­
term endurance testing. Usually, the designer can consult
design references containing shafting design formulas that
give acceptable designs for most applications. However,
different formulas are sometimes inconsistent. There is
often confusion as to which fatigue factors to use and
what relative importance to place upon them.
A2 FATIGUE FAILURE
A ductile machine element subjected to repeated fluc­
tuating stresses above its endurance strength but below
its yield strength will eventually fail from fatigue. The
insidious nature o f fatigue is such that it occurs without
visual warning at operating stresses below plastic defor­
mation. Shafts sized to avoid fatigue will usually be
strong enough to avoid elastic failure, unless severe tran­
sient or shock overloads occur.
Failure from fatigue is statistical in nature, in that only
the likelihood of failure based on a large population of
specimens can be precisely predicted, rather than the fa­
of specimens or parts made to the same specification,the
key fatigue variables are the effective operating stress,
the number of stress cycles, and the volume of material
under stress. Since the effective stresses are usually highest
at points along the surface where discontinuities occur,
such as keyways, splines, and fillets, these points are
those from which fatigue cracks are most likely to ema­
nate. However, each volume o f material under stress
carries with it a finite probability of failure. The product
of these element probabilities (the “weakest link” crite­
rion) gives the likelihood of failure for the entire part o f
a given number of loading cycles. This is one of the under­
lying reasons why larger shafts generally have shorter fa­
tigue Uves than smaller shafts under identical stress levels.
At present, there is no unified statistical failure theory
to predict shafting fatigue. However, reasonably accurate
Ufe estimates can be derived from general design equa­
tions coupled with bench-type fatigue data and material
static properties. Bending fatigue test data are usuaUy
obtained from a flexure or rotating beam tester under
the conditions of reversed bending. The data generated
from these machines are commonly plotted in the form
of stress-life (S-N) diagrams. On these diagrams the bend­
ing stress at which the specimens did not fail after at
least 106 cycles for steel is commonly referred to as the
fatigue limit. Due to test data scatter, the fatigue limit
values determined from S-N diagrams usually represent
some mean value and must be statisticaUy corrected for
higher reliability levels, as will be discussed later. It is
customary to consider that design stresses less than the
fatigue limit wiU produce an “infinite” life design. This
can be misleading, since no part can have a 100% prob­
ability of surviving an infinite number of stress cycles.
A3 FATIGUE UNDER COMBINED STRESSES
For applications where a simple fluctuating stress of
the same kind is acting (for example, a steady bending'
stress superimposed on a reversed-bending stress), a modi-

11
 fled Goodman failure line connecting the fatigue strength Ni-Cr-M o Steel, A IS I 4340 (from Ref. [2 7 ])
with the static strength provides an acceptable design
O K t = 1.42 (Bending)
[25]. However, most power transmission shafting is sub­
jected to a combination of reversed-bending stress (a ro­ O K t = 2.84 (Bending)

tating shaft with constant moment loading) and steady, □ N i-Cr Steel (from Ref. [2 8 ])
or nearly steady, torsional stress. Although a large body ^ 3% Ni steel (from Ref. [2 8 ])
of test data has been generated for simple stress condi­
tions such as pure tensile, flexural, or torsional stress, lit­
tle information has been published for combined bending
and torsion stress conditions [26]. However, some cyclic-
bending and static-torsional fatigue test data were re­
ported by Kececioglu and Lalli [27], and Davies [28].
The endurance limit characteristics o f notched UNS G-
43400 steel specimens were determined for theoretical
bending stress concentration factors o f 1.42 and 2 3 4
[27],
Fatigue testing for 3% nickel and nickel-chromium
steel specimens was conducted under the same stress
combination in a modified Wohler machine [28]. The
results of both these experiments appear in Fig. A l,
where the reversed-bending fatigue limit S b is shown to
decrease with an increase in static shear stress Ss. Consid­
ering that either fatigue fracture or torsional yielding Static Torsional Stress ^
represents failure, the following elliptical relation rea­ Torsional Yield Strength $
soning fits the data [29].
FIG. A1 COMBINED STRESS FATIGUE TEST DATA
FOR REVERSED BENDING IN COMBINATION
(Sb/ S f ) 2 + (Ss/Ssyf = 1 (A-l) WITH STATIC TORSION [29]

O 0.1 % Carbon Steel

where □ 3.5% N i-C r Steel
S * = reversed-bending fatigue limit of the test speci­
men under bending only
Ssy = torsional yield strength
The failure relation of Eq. (A-l) is similar to that ob­
served by Gough and Pollard [30] for rotating beam
specimens loaded under reversed bending in phase with
reversed torsion as shown in Fig. A2. These data,together
with those shown in Fig. A l, are in reasonable agreement
with the distortion energy or von Mises-Hencky failure
criterion. This theory predicts static elastic failure when
the distortional energy under combined stresses equals
or exceeds that in simple tension or bending. There is a
great deal o f experimental evidence which indicates that
of all the failure theories, the distortion-energy theory
predicts most accurately the yielding o f ductile materials
under static loading. However, it is not clear why the dis­
tortion energy theory also seems to hold for some fatigue
failures as well. Fatigue Lim it in Pure Torsion Ssre
The distortion-energy elliptical failure relation is not
the only one to be proposed for combined cyclic-bending FIG. A2 COMBINED STRESS FATIGUE TEST DATA
and static-torsion loading. The tests performed by Ono FOR REVERSED BENDING IN COMBINATION
[31], and Lea and Bogden [32] suggest that the bending WITH REVERSED TORSION [30]

12
 Safe shaft design regions lowing equation can be written

íS ií Combined stress method [E q. (2 )]

(Sb/Sfa)2 + {Ss/Ssyaf = 1 (A-2)

where
Sfa = allowable shaft endurance limit = S f /FS
Ssya = allowable shaft torsional yield strength = Ssyl FS
Therefore,

(SbFS/Sf )2 +(SsFS/Ssy)2 = 1 (A-3) <,

\

For most steels, the torsional yield strength is related

to the tensile yield strength by

S sy ~ S y l V s

and the reversed-bending stress equals

Sb = 3 2 M / n d 3

and the steady-torsional stress can be found from \

Mean-Torsional Stress Ss
, ^ u
Ss = 1 6 T / n d 3 (A-6 )'

FIG. A3 COMPARISON OF COMBINED STRESS Substituting Eqs. (A-4), (A-5), and (A-6) into (A-3)
AND SEPARATE STRESS DESIGN METHODS gives

fatigue strength o f steel is unaffected by the presence of

a static-torsional stress, even above the torsional yield
strength. On the basis, in part, of this test information,
Wellauer [33] recommends that the allowable bending
fatigue strength and the allowable static-torsional stress
for gear drive shafts be calculated separately. A compari­
son between separate stress and combined stress shaft
methods is illustrated in Fig. A3. From a reliability stand­
point, the combined stress relation of Eq. (A-l) produces
a slightly more conservative design. However, the differ­
ences are not great. For most designs, the difference in
shaft diameters will be less than 15% when equal allow­
able stresses are used.

A4 DEVELOPMENT OF FORMULAS
The following shaft design formulas are applicable to
rotating solid shafts under the most common variety of
loading conditions, namely fully reversed bending in
combination with static torsion, less than torsional yield,
with negligible axial loading.
For design purposes, a factor of safety FS can be in­
corporated into the failure relation of Eq. (A-l). The fol-
A5 LIMITED LIFE AND VARIABLE AMPLITUDE
LOADING DESIGNS
Traditional shaft analysis generally considers that the
nominal loads acting on the shaft are essentially o f con­
stant amplitude and that the shaft life is to exceed 106
or 107 cycles. Sometimes shock or overload factors are

13
 applied. However, most shafts in service are generally
exposed to a spectrum of service loads. Occasionally,
shafts are designed for Uves that are less than 106 cycles
for purposes o f economy. Both of these requirements
complicate the method of analysis and increase the uncer­
tainty of the prediction. Under these conditions, proto­
type component fatigue testing under simulated loading
becomes even more important.
Short Life Design. Local yielding of notches, fillets,
and other points o f stress concentration are to be ex­
pected for shafts designed for short service Uves, less than
about 1000 cycles. Since fatigue cracks inevitably orig­
inate at these discontinuities, the plastic fatigue behavior
of the material dictates its service life. Most materials
have been observed to either cycUcaUy harden or soften,
depending upon their initial states, when subjected to
cycUc plastic strain. Therefore, the cyclic fatigue prop­
erties of the material, which can be significantly different
from its static or monotonic strength properties, need to
be considered in the analysis. For short, low cycle life
designs, the plastic notch strain analysis, discussed in
detail in [17, 34, 35] is considered to be the most accu­
rate design approach. This method, used widely in the
automotive industry, predicts the time at which crack
formation occurs based on an experimentaUy determined
relationship between local plastic and elastic strain and
the number o f reversals to failure.
Intermediate and Long Life Designs. For intermediate
and long Ufe designs both total strain-life and nominal
stress-Ufe (S-N curve) methods have been successfuUy
appUed, [16, 17, 35]. Although both methods provide
reasonable fatigue Ufe predictions, the nominal stress-
life method is more commonly applied for shaft design.
The reversed-bending fatigue limit S f of the shaft to
be designed is different from the endurance Unfit of ro ­
tating beam specimens S * normally Usted in design ta­
bles. A number o f factors which can affect the endurance
of the material in actual service have been identified.
Modifying factors should be appUed to the uncorrected
14
endurance limit of the test specimens to determine S f
[19]. These are:
S f = ka k b k c kd k e kf kg S f
Values for these modifying factors are discussed in
Section 4.
The key to accurate fatigue life prediction is obtaining
a good definition of stress-life, S-N, characteristics o f the
shaft material. Mean bending and/or torsional stress ef­
fects should be taken into account if present. Further­
more, a good definition o f the loading history is also
required. Even when these requirements are met, the ac­
curacy of the prediction is approximate with today’s state
o f knowledge. As an example, an extensive cumulative
fatigue damage test program was conducted by the SAE
to assess the vaUdity o f various fatigue Ufe prediction
methods [17]. Numerous simple geometry, notched steel
plate specimens were fatigue tested in uniaxial tension.
Tests were conducted under constant amplitude loading
and also under a variable ampUtude loading that closely
simulated the service loading history. The test specimens’
material fatigue properties and the actual force-time his­
tory were very weU defined. Under these weU-controUed
conditions, predicted mean life from the best available
method was within a factor of 3 (V3 to 3 times) o f the
true experimental value for about 80% of the test speci­
mens while some of the other methods were considerably
less accurate [17]. Under less ideal conditions, such as
when the loading history and material properties are not
as weU known or when a multiaxial stress state is im­
posed, a predictive accuracy within a factor o f 10 o f the
true fatigue Ufe would not be unacceptable with today’s
state o f knowledge.
In view of these considerations, variable ampUtude and
limited life designs have not been formally addressed in
this Standard. However, references [2 ,5 ,1 3 ,1 4 ,1 6 ,1 7 ,
34,35] can be consulted for further guidance.
 APPENDIX B
MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES

(This Appendix is not part of A N S I/A S M E B106.1M-1985, and is included for information purposes only.)

B1 INTRODUCTION Table B1 may provide some guidance. It contains repre­

To use the shaft design formulas in Section 3, it is nec­
essary to have accurate values for the reversed-bend-
ing fatigue limit S* and yield strength S y of the shaft
material.
If the reversed-bending fatigue limit S * can be ob­
tained by testing for a particular steel, that value should
be used. If laboratory values or published data are
not available, the approximation, S * = 0.5 (tabulated
ultimate tensile strength), should provide reasonable
accuracy.
For tensile strength over 200,000 psi (1380 MPa), use
S f = 100,000 psi (690 MPa)
The tensile and yield strength properties of the shaft
material may be obtained through testing or from the
steel supplier. If data are not available from these sources,
sentative data from several sources on mechanical prop­
erties o f steels in various conditions o f processing and
thermal treatment. The table values shown are not speci­
fications and, therefore, should not be interpreted as guar­
anteed, absolute, or implied values. They are intended
only as a guide to the selection of a material. Note that
the table is accompanied by descriptive information re­
garding the condition of the steel to which the data apply
[7, 36-39]. Many variables affect the properties of steel;
therefore, a given material should not be specified with­
out first establishing with the steel producer the certainty
of his furnishing the desired mechanical property require­
ments for the grade o f steel under consideration. When
minimum mechanical properties are required, they should
be specified when the steel is ordered. Ordering a specific
grade and/or thermal treatment does not guarantee spe­
cific mechanical properties.

15
 TABLE B1 REPRESENTATIVE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SHAFTING STEELS

Percent Elongation, Percent Reduction

Yield Strength, ksi Tensile Strength, ksi 2 in. of Area Hardness, BHN
U N S Num ber
[Note (1 )] SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE A N SI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI Diam .,
and Condition J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 in.

G - 10060
HR 24 43 30 55 86
CD 41 48 20 45 95

G -1 0 1 0 0
HR 26 47 28 50 95
CD 44 53 20 40 105

G -1 0 1 2 0
HR 26 .5 48 28 50 95
CD 45 54 19 40 105

G -1 0 1 5 0
HR 27 .5 4 5 .5 50 61 28 39 50 61 101 126
Norm. 47 6 1 .5 37 6 9 .6 121
Ann. 4 1 .3 56 37 6 9 .7 111
CD 47 74 56 18 40 111

G -1 0 1 8 0
HR 32 58 25 50 116
CD 54 64 15 40 126
CD 60 70 18 40 143 5/8-%
CD 55 65 16 40 131 % -1 %
CD 50 60 15 35 121 1 '/4 - 2
CD 45 55 15 35 111 2 -3
C D -H T -S R 45 65 20 45 131 5/8-%
C D -H T -S R 45 60 20 45 121 % -1 %
C D -H T -S R 45 55 16 40 111 1 V4-2
C D -H T -S R 40 50 15 40 101 2 -3

G -1 0 2 0 0
HR 30 48 55 65 25 36 50 59 111 143
Norm. 5 0 .3 64 35.8 6 7.9 131
Ann. 4 2 .8 57.3 36 .5 66 111
CD 51 61 15 40 121

See Acknow ledgm ents and Note at end of Table. (Table continues)
 TABLE B1 REPRESENTATIVE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SHAFTING STEELS (CONT'D)

Percent Elongation, Percent Reduction

Yield Strength, ksi Tensile Strength, ksi 2 in. of Area Hardness, BHN
U N S N um ber --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
[Note (1)3 SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE A N SI Diam .,
and Condition J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 in.

G -1 0 3 5 0
HR 3 9 .5 72 18 40 143
CD 67 80 12 35 163
CD 75 85 13 35 170 % -%
CD 70 80 12 35 163 % -i%
CD 65 75 12 35 149 1 ’/ 4 -2
CD 60 70 10 30 143 2 -3
C D -H L -S R 80 90 13 35 179 5/s-%
C D -H L -S R 75 85 12 35 170 % - 1 ’/4
C D -H L -S R 70 80 12 35 163 1% - 2

CM

CO
C D -H L -S R 65 75 10 30 149

1
C D -H T -S R 60 80 16 45 163 5/8-%
C D -H T -S R 60 75 16 45 149 % -i%
C D -H T -S R 60 70 15 40 143 1 Vi — 2
C D -H T -S R 55 65 12 35 131 2 -3

G -1 0 4 0 0
HR 42 60 76 90 18 25 40 50 149 201
Norm. 54 .3 85 .5 28 5 4.9 170
Ann. 51 .3 7 5 .3 30 .2 3 7 .2 149
CD 71 85 12 35 110
CD 80 90 12 35 179 5/8-%
CD 75 85 12 35 170 % - 1 'A
CD 70 80 10 30 163 1 1 4 -2
CD 65 75 10 30 149 2 -3
C D -L T -S R 85 95 12 35 187 5/8-%
C D -L T -S R 80 90 12 35 179 % -1 'A
C D -L T -S R 75 85 10 30 170 1 Vi —2
C D -L T -S R 70 80 10 30 163 2 -3
C D -H T -S R 65 85 15 45 170 5/8-%
C D -H T -S R 65 80 15 45 163 % - 1 ’/*
C D -H T -S R 60 75 15 40 149 1 7 4 -2
C D -H T -S R 55 70 12 35 143 2 -3
400° Q & T 86 113 19 48 262
600° Q & T 86 113 20 53 255
800° Q & T 80 110 21 54 241
1000° Q & T 71 104 26 57 212
1200° Q & T 63 92 29 65 192

See Acknow ledgm ents and Note at end of Table. (Table continues)
 TABLE B1 REPRESENTATIVE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SHAFTING STEELS (CONT'D)

Percent Elongation, Percent Reduction

Yield Strength, ksi Tensile Strength, ksi 2 in. of Area Hardness, BHN
U N S Num ber
[Note (1 )] SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI Diam .,
and Condition J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 in.

G - 10450
HR 45 82 16 40 163
CD 77 91 12 35 179
ACD 73 85 12 45 170
CD 85 95 12 35 187 5/b- %
CD 80 90 11 30 179 % -1 %
CD 75 85 10 30 170 1% -2
CD 70 80 10 30 163 2 -3
C D -L T -S R 90 100 12 35 197 V e -%
C D -L T -S R 85 95 11 30 187 % -1 '/4
C D -L T -S R 80 90 10 30 179 1% - 2
C D -L T -S R 75 85 10 25 170 2 -3
C D -H T -S R 70 90 15 45 179 5/ s -%
C D -H T -S R 70 85 15 45 170 % -1 1 /4
C D -H T -S R 65 80 15 40 163 r/ 4 - 2
C D -H T -S R 60 75 12 35 149 2 -3

G -10500
HR 4 9 .5 60 90 105.8 15 20 35 40 179 229
Norm. 62 108.5 20 3 9 .4 217
Ann. 53 9 2 .3 23.7 3 9 .9 187
CD 84 100 10 30 197
ACD 80 95 10 40 189

G -4 1 3 0 0
Norm. 6 3 .3 97 25.5 5 9.5 197
Ann. 52 .3 8 1 .3 28.2 5 5.6 156
400° Q&T 212 236 ... 10 41 467
600° Q&T 200 217 11 43 435
800° Q&T 173 186 13 49 380
1000° Q&T 132 150 17 57 315
1200° Q&T 102 118 22 64 245

See Acknow ledgm ents and Note at end of Table. (Table continues)
 TABLE B1 REPRESENTATiVE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SHAFTING STEELS (CONT'D)

Percent Elongation, Percent Reduction

Yield Strength, ksi Tensile Strength, ksi 2 in. of Area Hardness, BHN
U N S Num ber
[Note (1 )] SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI SAE ANSI Diam .,
and Condition J4 1 4 ASM T 8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 J4 1 4 ASM T8 -1 1 in.

G -4 1 4 0 0
Norm. 95 148 17.7 4 6 .8 302
Ann. 6 0 .5 95 25 .7 3 6 .9 197
400° Q&T 238 257 8 38 510
600° Q&T 208 225 9 93 445
800° Q&T 165 181 13 49 370
1000° Q&T 121 138 16 53 285
1200° Q&T 95 110 20 63 230

G -4 3 4 0 0
Norm. 125 180 12.2 3 6 .3 363
Ann. 6 8 .5 108 22 4 9 .9 217
400° Q&T 243 272 10 38 520
600° Q&T 230 250 10 40 486
800° Q&T 198 213 10 44 430
1000° Q&T 156 170 13 51 360
1200° Q&T 124 140 19 60 280

G -8 6 2 0 0
Norm. 51 .7 91 .7 26 .3 59.7 183
Ann. 55 77 .7 31 .3 62.1 149

A C K N O W LED G M EN TS :
(al Excerpted, w ith permission, from A S T M , C opyright, A S T M , 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
(b) From Metals Handbook, Vol. 1 , 8th ed., Am erican Society for Metals, 1961, with permission.
(c) Reprinted w ith permission © 19 7 7 , Society of Autom otive Engineers, Inc.

N O TE:
(1) U N S Number [see Note (1) in Table 2 for equivalent A IS I-S A E Number designation]
ACD annealed, cold-draw n
Ann. annealed
CD cold-drawn
C D -H T -S R cold-draw n, high temperature, stress-relieved
C D -L T -S R cold-draw n, low temperature, stress-relieved
HR hot-rolled
Norm. normalized
Q&T quenched and tempered
SAE Society of Autom otive Engineers, Specification J 4 1 4 [36]
ASM Am erican Society for Metals, Metal Progress Data Book [39]
ANSI Am erican National Standards Institute Specification A 4 0 0 [37]
 APPENDIX C
SAMPLE PROBLEM

(This Appendix is not part of A N S I/A S M E B106.1M -1985, and is included for information purposes only.)

Cl INTRODUCTION TABLE C1 STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF UNS

G-10450 COLD-DRAWN STEEL
A drive shaft for a chain conveyor having the physical
loading characteristics shown below is to be designed. An S A E J414 [36] A N S I T8-1 1 [39]
engineering class roller chain sprocket of 20 in. pitch di­
Tensile, psi 85,0001-91,000 75,000-100,0002
ameter, weighing 200 lb, will be straddle-mounted be­ Yield, psi 73,0001-77,000 6 0 ,0 0 0 - 90,0002
tween two bearings. A 16 in . diameter, 275 lb roller chain
sprocket will be mounted overhung. The drive shaft is N O TES:
to be made o f UNS G-10450. Operating temperatures (1) Annealed, cold-drawn
(2) Depending on size and processing.
are not expected to exceed 150°F (65.5°C), and the
operating environment will be noncorrosive. The shaft
is to be designed for “non-limited” life (greater than 108
cycles at a 90% survival rate). The shaft will carry a steady
driving torque of 138,880 lb-in. and will rotate at 36 rpm. or furnished by the steel supplier on the actual batch of
A sled-runner keyway will be used on the end of the shaft steel to be used.
and a profile keyway at the center o f the shaft between In the absence of actual test data, the tensile property
the bearings (see Fig. C l). data listed in Table B1 can be used as a guide. For UNS
G-10450 cold-drawn steel, the properties listed in
Table Cl can be used.
Unless more specific information is available, it is pru­
C2 SHAFT SIZE BASED ON FATIGUE STRENGTH
dent to be conservative and take the lowest strength val­
Pi = 13,889 lb force ues from Table C l. Therefore, let S u = 75,000 psi and
P2 = 17,362 lb force Sy = 60,000 psi for calculation purposes.
R i = 2,174 lb force Since no specific data are available for the material’s
R 2 = 29,077 lb force fatigue limit in reversed bending, let
Driving torque = 138,880 lb-in.
See bending moment diagram, Fig. C l . S f = 0.5Su = 0.5(75,000) = 37,500 psi
To use the formula

5) ka kfokc h¿[k e kfJcgSf

C4 SURFACE FINISH FACTOR

it is necessary to establish a value for each k factor.
From Fig. 1, the surface factor ka for a fine ground
surface at S u = 75,000 psi is 0.89. Use ka =0.89.
C3 STRENGTH PROPERTIES
Before a shaft size calculation can be performed, it is
necessary to determine the strength properties of the
C5 SIZE FACTOR
steel to be used. The shaft is to be fabricated from UNS
G-10450 cold-drawn steel. The most accurate strength Assume a final shaft diameter of about 5 in. From the
data will come from coupon tests performed by the user composite expression shown in Fig. 3 , k b = 0.73.

21
 C6 RELIABILITY FACTOR k f = 0.5 at keyway
kg = 1.0
A 90% reliability is required. From Table 1, reliability
Sf = 0.89 X 0.73 X 0.90 X 1.0 X 1.0
factor k c =0.90.
X 0.50 X 1.0 X 37,500
= 10,964 psi at the key way
S f= 0.89 X 0.73 X 0.90 X 1.0 X 1.0
C7 TEMPERATURE FACTOR
X 1.0 X 1.0 X 37,5000
The ambient temperature will be less than 400°F = 21,927 psi at the large bearing
(204°C). From para. 4.4, temperature factor kd = 1. At the keyway,M = 33,350 lb-in. and T = 138,900 lb-in.

3 32 X 2 / / 33,350\ 2 3 /138,900 V
C8 D U TY CYCLE FACTOR
n r\1 0 ,9 6 0 / 4 \ 60,000 /
The shaft will experience continuous service at the
given loads, so k e = 1.
w here
d = 4.20 in. at the keyway
C9 FATIGUE STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTOR Next, check shaft size at maximum bending moment
under middle bearing. At the bearing,M = 146,332 lb-in.
A sled-runner keyway will be used on the end of the and T= 138,880 lb-in.
shaft, and a profiled keyway at the center of the shaft
between bearings. The shaft at the sled-runner keyway
is not critical, since it is carrying a relatively small bend­ 3 _ 32 X 2 / / 1 4 6 ,4 0 0 y 3 / 1 3 8 ,9 0 0 Y
ing moment load. Two points along the shaft will be 7r V \ 2 1 ,9 0 0 / + 4 \ 6 0 ,0 0 0 /
checked, the first at the straddle-mounted sprocket key­
way and the second at the point of maximum bending
where
under the large bearing. From Table 3, the appropriate
d = 5.22 in. at the bearing
stress concentration factor to be used for a profiled key­
The shaft diameter at the bearing is larger than that at
way in a quenched and drawn shaft o f over 200 BHN in
the keyway and should be used. Nominal 57/i6 in. shaft­
hardness will be k f = 0.5
ing can be used.
It should be noted that the final shaft diameter is
close to the 5 in. size assumed for determining the size
C10 MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTS FACTOR
factor. Therefore, it is not necessary to refine the origi­
Because no unusual operating conditions exist, let nal estimate of size factor to repeat the calculation.
kg = l. If a factor of safety of 1.5 or 3 was used, then
FS = 1.5 and d = 4.74 in.
FS = 3.0 and d = 5.98 in.
C11 FACTOR OF SAFETY
The chain conveyor is required for all plant operations.
For this reason, the factor o f safety FS = 2 is used.
C13 BENDING DEFLECTION AND SLOPE
Determine deflections at the sprocket locations and
C12 SHAFT SIZE shaft slope through bearings for the shaft system shown
Using the shaft diameter formulas of 3.1 and the above in Fig. C l.
parameters results in: From shaft size calculations based on fatigue strength,
Sy = 60,000 psi d = 5 7/i6 in. (use 5.44 in.)
S f = 37,500 psi then the moment of inertia of the shaft is
k a = 0.89 / = 7rd4/64 = 42.9 in.4
k b = 0.73 and letting E = 29 X 106 psi.
kc = 0.90 For a shaft supported in two places, load at center,
kd = Í.0 with an overhung load as shown in Fig. C l.
k e = 1.0 Deflection APj under load Pj at central sprocket

22
location

APj = i 2/[48£7] • (3P2a - Pt L)

For sample problem from Fig. C2,

P j = 13,900
P2 = 17,400
L = 30.7 in.
a = 8.43 in.
Therefore,
FIG. C1 LOAD DIAGRAM
A Pi = (30.68)2/[48(29 X 106) (42.91)]
• 13(17362) (8.43)- (13889) (30.63)]
= 0.00020 in.

Deflection AP2 under load P2 o f sprocket

AP2 = a/[48EI] ■[3P iL 2 - 16P2a(a+ L)]

= 8.43/[48(29 X 106) (42.91)]
• [3(13889) (30.68)2
- 16(17362) (8.43) (8.43 + 30.68)]
= - 0.0074 in.

Slope dR i at bearing R ,

d P j = Z/[482¡7] -(8 P2a - 3P1L)

= 30.68/[48(29 X 106) (42.91)]
• [8(17362) (8.43)
- 3(13889) (30.68)]
= - 0.000055 in./in.

Slope OR2 at bearing R 2

6 R 2 =L/[48ET] ' {3PXL - \6P2a)

= 30.68/48(29 X 106) (42.91)
• [3(13889) (30.68)
- 16(17362) (8.43)]
= - 0.00055 in./in.

The deflections occurring at the sprocket and roller

chain sprocket locations are within acceptable commer­
cial limits for these large components. The shaft slopes
through the bearings are well within the 0.0035 in./in.
to 0.0047 in./in. allowable misalignment limits for deep-
groove ball bearings [40]. Thus, the shaft is adequately
sized from a deflection standpoint.

C14 TORSIONAL DEFLECTION

For those cases requiring proper phase angle deflec­
tions (gears, timing devices, etc.), check torsional deflec­
tion. For a solid circular shaft, the torsional deflection FIG.C2 SAMPLE PROBLEM
23
in degrees is given by This equation assumes that all the weights are con­
centrated at a point. Also, it does not take into account
a = 584TL/d4 G the weight of the shaft or the flexibility of the bearings
or supports. If the calculated or critical speed is near the
where running speed, or if an estimate of the second, or higher,
a = angular deflection of the shaft, deg. critical speed is needed, then a more extensive calculation
T = mean static torque, lb-in. is necessary. In some shaft systems, the flexibility of the
L = shaft length, in. bearings and support structure can cause an appreciable
d = shaft diameter, in. reduction in the critical speed. Machine design texts
G = torsional modulus of elasticity, psi should be consulted.
Torsional deflection can cause synchronization prob­ For the shaft system given in this Appendix, the static
lems between machine elements (gears, sprockets, etc.). deflection o f the gear can be found from the deflection
Machine design texts should be consulted to determine equations given previously.
whether shaft torsional deflections are within acceptable The static deflection for the center sprocket having
limits. a weight o f 200 lb is:

Xg = (30.68)2/[48(29 X 106) (42.91)]

C15 CRITICAL SPEEDS
• [3 (2 7 5 ) (8 .4 3 ) - 2 0 0 (3 0 .6 8 )]
Dynamic stability is an important consideration when = 0 .0 0 0 0 1 3 in.
designing rotating shafts. At certain speeds, called critical
speeds, the rotating shaft assembly will become unstable
T he static deflection for the 275 lb sprocket is
and large vibrations can occur. Speeds in the critical range
should be avoided, otherwise premature failure of com­
ponents can occur. = ( 8 .4 3 ) /[ 4 8 ( 2 9 X 1 0 6 ) (4 2 .9 1 )] • [3 ( 2 0 0 ) (3 0 .6 8 )2
An equation for approximately finding the fundamen­ - 1 6 (2 7 5 ) (8 .4 3 ) ( 8 . 4 3 + 3 0 .6 8 )]
tal, or first, critical speed due to Rayleigh’s Principle for = - 0 .0 0 0 1 3 in.
a shaft on two supports is
Thus, the first critical speed is
60 /g (W ] x t + w 2 x 2 + • • ')
^c 2 7TV (w j X x + w2 x \ + • • •)
60 j (386) [200(0,000013) + 275(0.00013)]
where ~ 27r V [200(0.000013)2 + 275(0.00013)2 ]
N c = the first critical speed, rpm
w t , w2 , • • ■= the weights of the rotating bodies = 16,980 rpm
x ¡ , x 2 >— = the respective static deflections or shift
in mass center of the bodies at rest Thus, the operating speed of 36 rpm is well below the
and the value for the gravitational constant is g = 386 first critical speed and no significant lateral vibrations
in./sec2 or 9.80 m/s2. should result.

24
 REFERENCES

(These References are not part of A N S i/A S M E B106.1M -1985, and are included for information purposes only.)

1. NOLL, G. C. and LIPSON, C., “Allowable Working Stresses,” Proc. Soc. Exp. Stress Analysis, Vol. Ill,
N o .2 ,1 9 4 6 ,p p .86-101.

2. JUVINALL, R. C., Engineering Considerations o f Stress, Strain and Strength, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1967.

3. KUGUEL, R., “A Relation Between Theoretical Stress Concentration Factor and Fatigue Notch Factor
Deduced From the Concept of Highly Stressed Volume,” Proceedings o f ASTM, Vol. 61, 1969, pp.
732-748.

4. MOORE, H. F., “A Study of Size Effect and Notch Sensitivity in Fatigue Tests on Steel,” Proceedings
o f ASTM , Vol. 45,1947, p. 507.

5. HEYWOOD, R. B., Designing Against Fatigue o f Metals, Reinholdt, New York, 1962.

6. ROARK, R. J ., Formulas fo r Stress and Strain, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965, p. 43.

7. SHIGLEY, J .,Mechanical Engineering Design, 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.

8. MISCHKE, C. R., “A Probabilistic Model o f Size Effect in the Fatigue Strength of Rounds in Bending
and Torsion,” ASME paper No.79-DE-16,1979.

9. BORCHARDT, H. A., “Shortcuts for Designing Shafts,” Machine Design, No. 45,1973, pp. 139-141.

10. DOLAN, T. S., LAZER, B. J., and HORGER, O. J., Fatigue, American Society for Metals, Cleveland,
1954,p p .77-118.

11. HORGER, O. J., and NEIFERT, H. R., “Fatigue Properties o f Large Specimens With Related Size and
Statistical Effects,” Symposium on Fatigue With Emphasis on Statistical Approach, Special Technical
Publication No. 137, ASTM, 1952.

12. ASM Committee on Fatigue of Steel, “ The Selection o f Steel for Fatigue Resistance,” Metals Hand­
book, Properties and Selection o f Metals, Vol. 1 ,8th Ed., T. LYMAN, ed., American Society for Metals,
1961,p.224.

13. LOEWENTHAL, S. H., “Factors That Affect the Fatigue Strength of Power Transmission Shafting and
Their Impact on Design,” ASME paper No. 84-DET-95.

14. FORREST,P.G .,F’flfigneo/MefflZs,Pergamon Press, London, 1962.

15. KOMMERS, J . B., “ Overstressing and Understressing in Fatigue,” Proceedings o f ASTM , Vol. 43,1943,
p. 749.
25
 16. LOEWENTHAL, S. H., Design o f Power Transmitting Shafts, NASA Reference Publication No. 1123,
1984.

17. Cumulative Fatigue Damage Division o f the SAE Fatigue Design and Evaluation Committee, Fatigue
Under Complex Loading: Analysis and Experiments, Vol. 6, R. M. WETZEL, ed., Society of Automo­
tive Engineers, 1977.

18. SINES, G., and WAISMAN, J. L., e d s Metal Fatigue, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.

19. GROVER, H. S., GORDON, S. A., and JACKSON, L. R., Fatigue o f Metals and Structure, Department
o f the Navy, Bureau of Naval Weapons, NAVWEPS 00-25-534,1960.

20. MARTIN, J., “Design for Fatigue,” Pts. 1-5, Machine Design, Vol. 29, 1957, pp. 88-133, 95-99,
154-157.

21. Engineering Science Data Unit, “Shafts With Interference-Fit Collars,” Part IV: Fatigue Strength of
Plain Shafts,Engineering Science Data, Item No. 68005,1968.

22. WEIBULL, W., “Statistical Design of Fatigue Experiments,” Journal o f Applied Mechanics, Vol. 19,
1952,p.109.

23. ASTM Publication No. 91, “Manual on Fatigue Testing,” American Society for Testing and Materials,
1949.

24. JOHNSON, L. C., “ The Statistical Treatment o f Fatigue Experiments,” GMR-202, General Motors
Corporation, 1956.

25. SODERBERG, C. R., “Factor o f Safety and Working Stress,” Transactions o f the ASME in Journal o f
Applied Mechanics, Vol. 52, Part 1, APM-52-2,1930, pp. 13-28.

26. FRITH, P. H., “Fatigue o f Wrought High-Tensile Alloy Steels,” International Conference on Fatigue,
Institute o f Mechanical Engineers, 1956.

27. KECECIOGLU, D. B., and LALLI, V. R., “Reliability Approach to Rotating Component Design,”
NASA TN D-7846,1975.

28. DAVIES, V. C., GOUGH, H. J., and POLLARD, H. V., “Discussion to ‘The Strength of Metals Under
Combined Alternating Stresses’,” Proceedings o f the Institute o f Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 131, No. 3,
1935,p p .3-103.

29. LOEWENTHAL, S. H., “Proposed Design Procedure for Transmission Shafting Under Fatigue Loading,
NASA TM-78927,1978.

30. GOUGH, H. J., and POLLARD, H. V., “ The Strength of Metals Under Combined Alternating Stresses,”
Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 131, No. 3,1935, pp. 3-103.

31. ONO, A., “Fatigue of Steel Under Combined Bending and Torsion,” Memoirs o f the College o f Engi­
neering, Kyushu Imperial University, Vol. 2,1929, pp. 117-142.

32. LEA, E. C., and BOGDEN, H. P., “ Combined Torsional and Repeated Bending Stresses,” Engineering,
Vol. 122,1926, pp. 242-245.

26
33. WELLAUER, E. J., “Design o f Shafting for Gear Drives,” American Gear Manufacturers Association,
Paper No. 264.01,1966.

34. GRAHAM, J. A., ed., Fatigue Design Handbook, SAE, 1968.

35. FUCHS, H. O., and STEPHENS, R. I., Metal Fatigue in Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1980.

36. SAE Information Report J414, “Estimated Mechanical Properties and Machinability of Hot Rolled and
Cold Drawn Steel Bars,” Society of Automotive Engineers, 1968.

37. LYMAN, T., ed., Metals Handbook, 8th Edition, American Society for Metals, 1961.

38. ANSI/ASTM 429-73, “ General Requirements for Steel Bar, Carbon and Alloy, Hot-Rolled and Cold
Finished, Specification for,” American National Standards Institute, 1973.

39. AISI Committee of Hot Rolled and Cold Finished Bar Products, Table 78-11, Metal Progress Data book,
American Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio, June 1974, p. 38.

40. BAMBERGER, E. N., et al., “Life Adjustment Factors for Ball and Roller Bearings: An Engineering
Design Guide,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, N.Y.,
10017,1971.

41. PETERSON, R. E., Stress Concentration Factors, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1974.

27