Manuscript Details

Manuscript number EFA_2019_676

Title Stress intensity factors for elliptical surface cracks in tensile stepped shaft

Article type Research Paper

Abstract
This work evaluates and analyses the mode I stress intensity factor (SIF) of semi-elliptical surface cracks in tensile
stepped shaft using the dual boundary element package of BEASY. Large specimen scope of 400 geometry cases is
covered. A notch shape factor fs for stepped shaft is defined by adopting the crack mid-point or the deepest point SIF
of the smooth shaft as the common denominator; results show this choice of factorization essentially annuls the
complexity of the variation of SIF in the smooth shaft as crack varies sans the geometrical irregularities of stepped
shaft, and thus allowing effective and insightful study on the notch effects of the stepped geometry. Guided by poring
the big data of 400 cases, it is concluded that a crack classification of deep, shallow, wide, and narrow is instrumental
to narrate fs as notch varies and as crack varies. As notch varies, the effect of fillet radius is secondary unless it is
relatively sharp. Deep cracks shows less sensitivity to notch effects, with deep and wide crack approaching notch
invariant first as depth increases. Shallow and narrow crack displays pronounced notch effect at the crack surface
point. As crack varies, the effect on fs at the surface point is more pronounced than at the deepest point, while the fs at
the deepest point is predominantly affected by crack depth with the exception of very wide crack. The extensive results
of the notch shape factor fs enables the estimation of stepped shaft SIF from solely obtaining the smooth shaft SIF of
the corresponding crack geometry, rendering it useful for failure analysis and the study of crack in general.

Keywords stress intensity factor; semi-elliptical surface crack; tensile stepped shaft; notch
shape factor

Corresponding Author Haw Ling Liew

Order of Authors Sharon Teh, Haw Ling Liew, Judha Purbolaksono, Devi Chandra, Dhamodaran
Kumar, Andri Andriyana

Submission Files Included in this PDF

File Name [File Type]
Submission-Cover-Teh-EFA.pdf [Cover Letter]

Sharon EFA Highlights.pdf [Highlights]

2019MANU Stepped Shaft Final R3b.pdf [Manuscript File]

Conflict of Interest Teh-EFA.pdf [Conflict of Interest]

To view all the submission files, including those not included in the PDF, click on the manuscript title on your EVISE
Homepage, then click 'Download zip file'.
Dear Professor,

Greetings!

I am enclosing the manuscript “Stress intensity factors for elliptical surface cracks
in tensile stepped shaft” for consideration of publication in Engineering Failure
Analysis.

This work is original, and this manuscript is not under consideration for
publication elsewhere.

On the behalf of all authors, I declare that we have no financial and personal
interest on this paper that could potentially cause conflict of interests.

I look forward for a favorable outcome. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Haw-Ling Liew
Stress intensity factors for elliptical surface cracks in tensile stepped shaft

S. Teh, HL Liew, et al.

Highlights (3-5 points, max 85 characters each)

 Graphical display of tensile stepped shaft SIF of 120 cases for semi-elliptical cracks.

 Effective representation of SIF of stepped shafts by way of a notch shape factor fs.

 The fs tends to more or less notch invariant at a smaller depth for deep and wide

crack.

 The fs is very pronounced for the surface point of shallow and narrow cracks.

 The effect of diameter ratio on fs is predominant over the fillet radius except for sharp

notches.

 The effect of crack geometry on fs at the surface point is more pronounced.

Stress intensity factors for elliptical surface cracks in tensile stepped shaft

S. Teha,f, H.L. Liewa,1, J. Purbolaksonob, D. Chandrac, D. Kumard, A. Andriyanae

a
Centre of Advanced Manufacturing and Materials Processing, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia

b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology

Brunei, Bandar Seri Begawan BE-1410, Brunei

c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Andalas,

Padang, Indonesia.
d
LaFarge Malaysia Berhad, Rawang 48000, Malaysia
e
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala

Lumpur 50603, Malaysia

f
Max Engineering Consultant, Puchong 47100, Malaysia

Abstract

This work evaluates and analyses the mode I stress intensity factor (SIF) of semi-elliptical

surface cracks in tensile stepped shaft using the dual boundary element package of BEASY.

Large specimen scope of 400 geometry cases is covered. A notch shape factor f s for

stepped shaft is defined by adopting the crack mid-point or the deepest point SIF of the

smooth shaft as the common denominator; results show this choice of factorization

essentially annuls the complexity of the variation of SIF in the smooth shaft as crack varies

sans the geometrical irregularities of stepped shaft, and thus allowing effective and insightful

study on the notch effects of the stepped geometry. Guided by poring the big data of 400

cases, it is concluded that a crack classification of deep, shallow, wide, and narrow is

instrumental to narrate f s as notch varies and as crack varies. As notch varies, the effect of

fillet radius is secondary unless it is relatively sharp. Deep cracks shows less sensitivity to

notch effects, with deep and wide crack approaching notch invariant first as depth increases.

1
Corresponding author: H.L. Liew; E-mail: hlliew@um.edu.my, tel.: +603-79676840

1
Shallow and narrow crack displays pronounced notch effect at the crack surface point. As

crack varies, the effect on f s at the surface point is more pronounced than at the deepest

point, while the f s at the deepest point is predominantly affected by crack depth with the

exception of very wide crack. The extensive results of the notch shape factor f s enables the

estimation of stepped shaft SIF from solely obtaining the smooth shaft SIF of the

corresponding crack geometry, rendering it useful for failure analysis and the study of crack

in general.

Keywords: stress intensity factor, semi-elliptical surface crack, tensile stepped shaft, notch

shape factor

1. Introduction

The usage of stepped shafts as machine components in engineering applications is wide

and inevitable. The stepped geometries of these parts are mostly manufactured through

machining to attain the necessary dimensional precision. Machining flaws and fatigue

surface flaws or microcracks in such components frequently get induced at the location with

the highest stress concentration, namely the tapering circumferential area of the shoulder of

the stepped shaft. Left unchecked, these flaws become surface cracks and propagate

towards the core of the shaft and ultimately cause abrupt fracture that may incur serious

machine damage and other significant tangible costs. Manufacturers at large, as part of Best

Practices and Total Quality efforts, inspect and check components for defects such as

surface cracks and other defects before they are released for use. During service life,

scheduled inspections are also carried out to ensure the components’ safety fitness for

continued use. In these processes, accurate knowledge of stress intensity factors (SIFs)

requisite for crack growth using the damage tolerance approach would lead to an enhanced

understanding of the surface fatigue crack behavior, and is instrumental to ultimately make

crucial informed decision of the worthiness of the component.

2
Generally, fatigue failures in power shafts have origin on surface cracks that grow with

nearly semi-elliptical shape under cyclic bending, mode I, combined with steady torsion [1].

Large number of power plant systems run with a general steady torsion combined with cyclic

bending stress either due to the self-weight bending during the rotation or possible

misalignment between journal bearings [2]. In the case of power shafts such as those used

in electric power plants, propeller shafts of screw ships, or any other rotary load-transmission

devices, the lifetime spent between crack initiation and final fracture is of capital importance

to improve the inspection intervals and maintenance procedures [1] . In the recent years, in

documented fatigue failures of the roller support shaft for the rotary kiln used in the

manufacturing of cement clinker in Malaysia, nearly semi-elliptical beach marks were

observed in the fracture surface of the roller shaft support. The support shaft has multiple

zoned stepped geometry; one such is to facilitate the fitting of the roller using shrinkage. One

of the major failure locations reported is the stress concentrated curvature zone of the

stepped geometry, where surface cracks were observed to initiate [3].

As society at large, strive to transit from fossil fuel dependence towards renewable energy,

turbine use will increase in future. There have been reported cases of engineering failure

analysis on turbines from hydropower plants which fracture failure occurred during its service

life at the critical cross-sectional area where there was a shaft tapering or geometry

irregularity [4,5]. It is also reported that information about cracks and failures of rotor shafts

is generally kept confidential by the plant management and by the machine manufacturer;

therefore very few cases have been reported and analyzed in literature, especially in recent

years [5,6].

The presence of geometrical irregularities in a shaft or round bar presents additional

formidable complexity and challenges to the analytical treatment of the problem fracture

mechanics, or more specifically the problem of linear elastic fracture mechanics in relation to

the determination of the SIFs due to flaws. Nearly all such analysis in the literature has been

experimental or numerical. In general, common geometrical irregularities are notches of

various kinds, e.g. circumferential notch of various types; and stepped geometry that

3
corresponds to a raised portion of the shaft with fillet to avoid abrupt corner. Stepped

geometry is reckoned as the standard technique in shrinkage fittings on shaft, common

applications include flywheel and the roller support shaft for rotary kiln and other devices. By

and large, the complexity attributed to such irregularity can be sized up by considering the

corresponding stress gradient. Consider normal loading, common circumferential notches

has two-fold symmetry of the stress field about the axial axis and the transverse plane; and

stress field for stepped geometry is asymmetrical about the transverse plane. In the

presence of a surface crack in the transverse plane, the symmetry about the axial axis is

lost; but common notches maintain one fold symmetry, and stepped geometry has

completely asymmetrical stress field.

Literature on stepped shaft SIFs is extremely limited, and to the best of the authors’

knowledge, there are only two published articles – Hojfeldt and Ostervig [7] of pure bending,

and Thompson and Sheppard [8] of normal and torsional loading. Simulation and

experimental studies of SIFs and fatigue growth were performed by employing one stepped

geometry of similar size. On the other hand, SIFs of surface cracks in common notches and

threaded bars has received much more research attention. Carpinteri, et al. [9] computed

SIFs on a circular-arc circumferential notch in a round bar in both tension and bending for

specimens of various stress concentration factors. Guo et al. [10] investigated SIFs of

surface cracks in round bars with various types of notches. Lefort [11] presented semi-

empirical SIF results for circumferential crack emanating from a notch. Toribio et al. [12]

studied circumferential notch of different severity for solid and hollow round bars. The

evolution of the crack shape for circularly notched round bar was studied by Lin and Smith

[13,14]; however, SIF data wasn’t presented. Notches in the form of threaded bars were

studied by Nord and Chung [15], Toribio et al. [16,17], and James and Mills [18].

Of relevance and great interest is the research of surface crack SIFs in smooth bar, as the

stepped bar semi-elliptical crack SIFs in this work would be represented in the form that

modulo the corresponding smooth counterpart. Large amount of work are available in the

literature, we cite some of these work on normal mode SIF [9,18-34]. Among these, Daoud

4
et al. [21], Athanassiadis et al. [23], Wilhem et al. [24], Lorentzen et al. [26], Salah and

Lovegrove [22], Shin and Cai [33] contain experimental results. Most of the references in

[9,18-34] either tabulated or presented a fitted polynomial to depict the behavior of SIF as

crack depth varies for the point of maximum crack depth; and some with additional results

for the point of intersection of the crack with the free surface. Notably, Athanassiadis et al.

[23] includes crack front SIFs of a large set of crack geometry calculated using

experimentally obtained crack opening displacements.

The aim of this present work is to numerically investigate and analyze the mode I SIF for

semi-elliptical surface cracks in stepped shafts. A large scope of stepped geometry is

considered. All simulation are performed using the dual boundary element method (DBEM)

of the fracture mechanics package of BEASY [35]; its validity has been variously confirmed

for problems described in [36-40]. The utilization of DBEM enables a large number of cases

to be simulated in a relatively short time with comparable accuracy to FEM, enabling the

collection of big data and qualitative establishment of trends and effects of different

geometrical shaft parameters on the SIF.

2. Simulation

2.1 Simulation Software and Its Basis of SIF Evaluation

Stress intensity factors (SIFs) are the asymptotical value of the local stress field as the

material point 𝐱′ approaches the crack front. Adopting the coordinate system in Fig. 1, the

SIFs can be expressed as follows:

𝐾1 = lim𝐱′→𝐱 �2𝜋‖𝐱 − 𝐱′‖ 𝜎𝜉𝜉 ,

𝐾2 = lim𝐱′→𝐱 �2𝜋‖𝐱 − 𝐱′‖ 𝜎𝜁𝜉 ,

𝐾3 = lim𝐱′→𝐱 �2𝜋‖𝐱 − 𝐱′‖ 𝜎𝜁𝜂 .

These SIFs are evaluated in BEASY by way of the J-integral concept of Rice [41] and

Cherepanov [42] which gives, for crack opening in the 𝑥𝑖 direction, a path-independent

5
energy integral of the form 𝐽 = ∫Γ �𝑊𝑛𝑖 − 𝑡𝑘 𝑢𝑘,𝑖 �dΓ over a surface Γ with outward normal n.

This concept was developed for linear elastic materials, and it was further extended to HRR

solutions [43] for materials with constitutive relationship in the form of Ramberg-Osgood.

Following the presentation in Cruse [44], and Mi and Aliabadi [45], and by using Green’s

functions 𝑈𝑖𝑗 for displacement and 𝑇𝑖𝑗 for traction, the strain energy density 𝑊(Γ) and the

work-conjugate of traction t and displacement u in J-integral are calculated using the dual

boundary integral equations as follows:

𝑢𝑖 (𝐱 ′ ) + 𝛼𝑖𝑗 (𝐱 ′ )𝑢𝑗 (𝐱 ′ ) + ∫Γ 𝑇𝑖𝑗 (𝐱 ′ , 𝐱)𝑢𝑗 (𝐱)dΓ(𝐱) = ∫Γ 𝑈𝑖𝑗 (𝐱 ′ , 𝐱) 𝑡𝑗 (𝐱)dΓ(𝐱), (1)

1 ′)
𝑡 (𝐱 + 𝑛𝑖 (𝐱 ′ ) ∫Γ 𝑇𝑖𝑗,𝑘 (𝐱 ′ , 𝐱)𝑢𝑘 (𝐱)dΓ(𝐱) = 𝑛𝑖 (𝐱 ′ ) ∫Γ 𝑈𝑖𝑗,𝑘 (𝐱 ′ , 𝐱)𝑡𝑘 (𝐱)dΓ(𝐱). (2)
2 𝑗

Leading to Eqn (1-2) is the Somigliana’s identity expressed as an integral equation involving

𝑇𝑖𝑗 and several other terms as its kernel. 𝑇𝑖𝑗 ’s singularity of 𝛰 �1�‖𝐱 � as 𝐱 → 𝐱′
− 𝐱 ′ ‖2

warrants regularization and treatment in the sense of Cauchy; and 𝛼𝑖𝑗 (𝐱 ′ ) is a term that

emanates from this process. Mi and Aliabadi [45] claimed to have presented an effective

numerical implementation of the dual boundary integrals of Eqn (1-2), and this technology is

the basis of the dual boundary element fracture mechanics package of BEASY.

Fig. 1. Crack front coordinate system

2.2 Simulation Procedure

As the fracture mechanics package of BEASY is relatively less used for research, we would

firstly validate the software by way of comparison with the published results of Newman and

6
Raju [28]. For this purpose, smooth cylinder specimens of 10 mm diameter, subjected to

uniform tensile stress of 100 MPa (below yield stress for steel) with semi-elliptical surface

crack of various crack depth ratio (a/d) and various crack aspect (a/c) were simulated on

BEASY. In order to investigate the influence of shaft geometry and semi-elliptical crack ratio

on the SIFs of surface crack on the crack front, twenty sets of stepped shaft geometric

parameters were modeled as listed in Table 1. Four different larger diameter, D over smaller

diameter, d ratio (D/d), were selected based on their practicality in shaft design and are

aligned to commonly found design chart values for stress concentration factor guides [46].

The value of d is kept constant at 10 mm for all specimens. For every D/d variation, five

different shoulder fillet radius, r ranging from r/d of 0.05 to 0.25 were explored as shown in

Table 1, generating a total of twenty different geometry specimen cases. The surface crack

applied on each shaft geometry comprised of twenty crack variations through selecting four

different crack depths with a/d varying from 0.025 to 0.1 and five aspect ratio or crack width

of a/c; the aspect ratio selected was guided by Corn [47]. Thus, when the 20 crack variations

were applied on the 20 specimen geometries, a total of 400 cases were generated for this

study. Details of the crack variations are shown in Table 2.

The model consists of a one zoned stepped shaft, with all surfaces defined to be outward

normal direction. The material has a modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio

of 0.3. Two-dimensional quadratic elements were used to discretize all surfaces. The free

end of the smaller diameter (d) cylinder of the stepped shaft is applied with a nominal

tension stress of 100 MPa. The total length (L) of every specimen is 100 mm, giving a L/d

ratio equal to 10.

A “thumbnail” semi-elliptical crack was introduced on the root of the fillet radius as illustrated

in Fig. 2. This is justified as it is the location with the highest stress concentration as

concluded by Timoshenko [48], and this is further confirmed from our simulation of the stress

distribution for a flawless stepped shafts in tension. We acknowledge the more recent work

of Tipton [49] reveals that the maximum stress exact location is on the curvature zone,

7
slightly away from the root; the marginal differences are insignificant for the purpose of this

study.

Geometry of
Location of thumbnail thumbnail crack
surface crack 2c a

Clamped
Axial normal loading

High stress concentration

(at shoulder fillet)

z
x
Fig. 2. Geometry and boundary conditions of the meshed model with a thumbnail/semi-
elliptical crack on the cross-section with the maximum stress concentration

Table 1

Geometrical variations of stepped shaft.

Geometrical ratio Specimen dimension (mm) Specimen Fillet subtended
D/d r/d d D r Angle (degree)
1.1 0.05 10 11 0.5 Case 1 90
1.1 0.10 10 11 1.0 Case 2 < 90
1.1 0.15 10 11 1.5 Case 3 < 90
1.1 0.20 10 11 2.0 Case 4 < 90
1.1 0.25 10 11 2.5 Case 5 < 90
1.2 0.05 10 12 0.5 Case 6 90
1.2 0.10 10 12 1.0 Case 7 90
1.2 0.15 10 12 1.5 Case 8 < 90
1.2 0.20 10 12 2.0 Case 9 < 90
1.2 0.25 10 12 2.5 Case 10 < 90
1.5 0.05 10 15 0.5 Case 11 90
1.5 0.10 10 15 1.0 Case 12 90
1.5 0.15 10 15 1.5 Case 13 90
1.5 0.20 10 15 2.0 Case 14 90
1.5 0.25 10 15 2.5 Case 15 90
2.0 0.05 10 20 0.5 Case 16 90
2.0 0.10 10 20 1.0 Case 17 90
2.0 0.15 10 20 1.5 Case 18 90
2.0 0.20 10 20 2.0 Case 19 90
2.0 0.25 10 20 2.5 Case 20 90

8
Table 2

Semi-elliptical crack ratio variation on specimens

Geometrical Ratio values (case variations)
ratio
a/d 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 -
a/c 0.33 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

To provide an indication of the accuracy of this simulation, a histogram based on absolute

count of all the simulation cases is plotted on the ordinate against the ratio of average

distance between nodes on crack front over the total crack front length (Fig. 3). All cases

have the ratio of less than 4%, translating to at least 25 discretization nodes or more for all

crack fronts considered. At the point where the crack edge intersects the free surface, i.e.

the CPE, BEASY’s provides for a built-in algorithm for automated (without allowing user’s

control) mesh refinement to address this requirement.

Count

160 151

140

120

100
80
80
56
60 51 49
40 33

20

0
1.0-1.5% 1.5-2.0% 2.0-2.5% 2.5-3.0% 3.0-3.5% 3.5-4.0%

Nodal distance / Arc length, %

Fig. 3. Number of simulation cases versus ratio of average nodal distance over crack front
length. All cases are less than 4%

9
3. Numerical results and discussion

The value of normalized SIF, K is plotted on the ordinate against the crack front expressed in

the form of ratio of parametric angle (0 to 180 degrees). The parametric angle of the semi-

elliptical crack front, φ is defined as shown in Fig. 4, and a and c are respectively the

principal axes of the ellipse, giving the crack geometrical aspect ratio of a/c. We define the

two important points along the crack front, Point A represents the deepest point of the ellipse

(DPE) or the midpoint of the semi elliptical crack front and Point B represents either of the 2

endpoints which the crack intersects the free surface or also known as the corner point of

the ellipse (CPE).

3.1 Smooth cylinder results and BEASY validation using NR’s results

The simulated SIF value, KBeasy is converted to the normalized SIF, K and is defined as

follows:

𝐾𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑦
𝐾 =
𝜎√𝜋𝑎

Finite element simulation results of surface cracks on tensile rod by Newman and Raju (NR)

[28] is used for validation of the lesser used fracture mechanics package of BEASY. In NR’s

work, the crack front profile is non-elliptical and is attained through conformal transformation

of a semi elliptical crack front in a rectangular bar. The crack ratio used is a/(s/2) (see Fig. 4)

where s/2 is one half arc crack length. Reported results were limited to a handful of profiles

only.

10
(A)

(B)

(DPE)

(CPE)

Fig. 4. Definition of pertinent parameters in surface crack of rod

To obtain a proper comparison, we converted our crack ratio parameter a/c to the

corresponding ratio of crack depth over crack arc width, 2a/s (as illustrated earlier under Fig.

4). The comparison of the specimen with crack depth ratio a/d equal to 0.2 for three most

closely matched crack ratio cases is presented in Fig. 5 and shows close agreement and

similar plot trends between the two independent simulation works. Fig. 6 shows the

comparative crack front profiles of the cases compared for a better appreciation of the small

crack geometrical differences of the closest matched cases compared. We focus on the

maximum SIF values of the three sets of comparative cases, Point A (DPE) for the low crack

ratio case and Point B (CPE) for high crack ratio cases. For high crack ratio with significant

maximum SIF at Point B where crack ratio is 0.99 and 1.0 for BEASY and NR results

respectively, the SIF value is close at 0.843 and 0.803 respectively (Table 3). For BEASY

and NR crack ratio of 0.76 and 0.8 respectively, the maximum SIF value at Point B is very

close at 0.863 and 0.846 respectively. For low crack ratio of 0.57 and 0.6 for BEASY and NR

11
respectively, the maximum SIF is at Point A, with values of 0.998 and 1.031. The marginal

differences can be attributed to the different way the crack front shape is derived between

the BEASY and NR’s simulation (Fig. 6). We remark that the NR SIF data was manually

extracted.

Newman and Raju [28] reported that when 2a/s was 0.6, the maximum normalized SIF was

at maximum depth point and when crack ratio, 2a/s was 0.8, the SIF curves for all a/d

explored trended towards uniformity along the crack front. The simulation results herein

reflect a close agreement to this observation, whereby for 2a/s of 0.57 of the smooth shaft,

the SIF curve has a centre peak value, for 2a/s equal to 0.76, the SIF was uniform along the

crack front and for a/c equal to 0.99, the SIF curve shape has inverted to minimum value at

the centre of crack front, denoting that the curve shape had transited gradually with the

increase of the a/c crack aspect ratio.

1.1 A

B
0.9
Noramlized K

0.8

0.7

0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
2 φ/π

BEASY 2a/s=0.57 BEASY 2a/s=0.76 BEASY 2a/s=0.99

Newman-Raju 2a/s=0.6 Newman-Raju 2a/s=0.8 Newman-Raju 2a/s=1.0

Fig. 5. Comparison of mode I SIFs for semi-elliptical crack on round bar by BEASY and NR’s
FEM simulation [28] for crack depth ratio (a/d) equal to 0.2.

12
 0.57
0.6
0.8 0.76
1.0 0.99 _____ BEASY
- - - Newman-Raju

Fig. 6. Comparison of crack front geometry of BEASY and NR’s FEM simulation [28] of
crack depth ratio equal to 0.2.

Table 3
Comparison of maximum and minimum mode I SIFs on round bar by BEASY and NR’s FEM
simulation [28] for crack depth ratio (a/d) equal to 0.2.

Comparative BEASY 0.57 BEASY 0.76 BEASY 0.99

Newman-Raju Newman-Raju Newman-Raju
Crack ratio (2a/s) 0.6 0.8 1.0
% diff. of crack ratio -5.0% -5.0% 1.0%
compared (BEASY to
Newman-Raju)
Point A B A B A B
BEASY SIF 0.998 0.882 0.854 0.863 0.728 0.843
Newman-Raju SIF 1.031 0.884 0.797 0.846 0.661 0.803
% difference SIF -3.25% -0.22% 6.61% 1.96% 9.12% 4.75%

13
3.2 Stepped shaft results and its effects on SIF

For this section, the simulated SIF value, KBeasy is converted to the normalized SIF, K as

follows:

𝐾𝐵𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑦
𝐾 =
𝜎�𝑑/2

The results for stepped shafts will be presented as a plot of normalized SIF against the

normalized coordinate along the crack front length (ratio of crack front length of SIF point

over the total crack length), hence the two points at free surface (referred to in the earlier

sections as Point B) are 0 and 1 respectively on the abscissa in this representation and Point

A remains 0.5 as it is in the middle of the crack and half crack length from either free surface

point. This presentation of results would facilitate easy comparison of SIF values at Point B

and also to identify the trends of gradual transition on SIF curves from minimum SIF to

maximum SIF at Point B due to the changes of shaft geometry. The crack aspect ratio and

crack depth curves of this study are close in range with other authors, e.g. Carpinteri et

al.[9].

For ease of discussion hereon, the term “notch” shall refer to any geometry discontinuity or

loss of geometrical smoothness caused by either a change in geometry of shaft diameter

which as a parameter is expressed as the shaft diameter ratio D/d and/or the fillet radius

applied at the shaft tapering, which is represented as a parameter of fillet radius ratio r/d. It is

acknowledged that the higher the shaft diameter ratio and the lower the fillet radius ratio, the

higher is the geometry irregularity and thus will be collectively termed as the ‘shaft notch

effect factors’ from hereon within this paper.

SIF value range for the stepped shafts is generally slightly higher than for the smooth

cylinder. Comparing for all stepped shaft geometry for the three cases of a/c crack ratio of

less or equal to unity (a/c < 1), shaft with the most gradual geometry change or least

irregularity (Case: D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25) displayed normalized SIF value curves closest in

shape and magnitude range to that of the smooth shaft for the corresponding a/c crack ratio

studied. On the other extreme end, the shaft with the sharpest geometry irregularity (Case:

14
D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05) showed the largest SIF curve shape and magnitude trend deviation

from the smooth shaft values (Fig. 7-Fig. 9).

For stepped shafts applied with surface crack ratio a/c of 0.33, for smaller D/d shaft diameter

ratio of 1.1 and 1.2, the SIF curves follow the shape of the smooth cylinder, with maximum

normalized SIF value at the maximum crack point depth, where parametric angle, φ is equal

to 90 degree. The increase of D/d and the decrease of fillet radius ratio r/d are two

parameters that independently influence the SIF curves to trend towards more uniform

values along the crack front. The effect of SIF uniformity along crack front is more

pronounced as the crack size ratio a/d increases. In addition to that, the SIF values will also

see an increase in average magnitude for the smaller a/d ratio cases but less substantial SIF

uniformity effect (Fig. 7).

15
 Normalized SIF vs Normalized Crack
Length
for a/c =0.33
Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 7. Typical results of normalized K I vs normalized crack front length (a/c = 0.33)

16
For stepped shaft with surface crack aspect ratio a/c equal to 0.5, again the shaft notch

effect parameters (D/d increase, r/d decrease) influence the SIF curves in a similar trend as

shown in Fig. 8. For smooth shaft, large crack size ratio a/d equal to 0.1, the gradient of SIF

curve for surface crack ratio a/c equal to 0.5 is gentler than for a/c equal to 0.33. Hence, the

notch effect parameters influence the SIF curves to transcend quicker into uniformity and

subsequently invert the SIF curve shape into marginal maximum SIF values at free edges (φ

equal to 0 and 180 degrees) as the shaft geometry irregularity gets more intense. This is

especially apparent for large crack size ratio of a/d equal to 0.1. Generally, for all geometry

of stepped shaft in this work, for a/c equal to 0.5, all the SIF curves can be considered

relatively uniform with the range of each SIF curve limited to within 0.22 between the

maximum and minimum SIF value of a crack front. Comparing the most gentle notched shaft

of D/d equal to 1.1, with r/d of 0.25, to the most sharply notched shaft of D/d equal to 2.0,

with r/d equal to 0.05, for the case of small crack depth ratio of a/d equal to 0.025, the SIF

range for the former shaft geometry specimen is 0.42 to 0.52 and for the latter sharp

geometry specimen, the SIF values are uniform at around 0.69.

17
 Normalized SIF vs Normalized Crack
Length
for a/c =0.50
Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 8. Typical results of normalized K I vs normalized crack front length (a/c = 0.5)

18
Fig. 9 shows the shaft notch effect parameters (D/d increase, r/d decrease) also exert the

same influence on the SIF curves for stepped shaft with surface crack aspect ratio a/c equal

to 1.0. For this smooth shaft case of a/c equal to unity, the SIF curves for all crack depth

ratio a/d display a minimum SIF value at centre of crack front, with 2 maximum SIF values at

the free edges of the crack front. Hence, in the same trend, the notch effect parameters

influence the SIF curve to amplify the maximum SIF values at free edges (φ equal to 0 and

180 degrees) as the shaft geometry irregularity gets more intense. Again, this is most

apparent for large crack size ratio of a/d equal to 0.1. Hence, for a/c of 1.0, the increase of

maximum SIF at the two free edges of crack and the increase of average SIF magnitude

increases with the crack depth ratio a/d when influenced more heavily by the two shaft notch

effect parameters. The same influence of shaft notch effect parameters on SIF curves are

seen for all stepped shaft geometries for crack aspect ratio a/c exceeding unity (a/c = 1.5

and 2.0) as shown in Fig. 10-Fig. 11 respectively.

19
 Normalized SIF vs Normalized Crack
Length for a/c =1.0

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 9. Typical results of normalized K I vs normalized crack front length (a/c = 1.0)

20
 Normalized SIF vs Normalized Crack
Length for a/c =1.5

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 10. Typical results of normalized K I vs normalized crack front length (a/c = 1.5)

21
 Normalized SIF vs Normalized Crack
Length for a/c =2.0

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 11. Typical results of normalized K I vs normalized crack front length (a/c = 2.0)

In summary, the shaft notch effect parameters of D/d increase and r/d decrease, will drive

any given crack size or geometry (any a/d or a/c) to have SIF crack front values behavior

closer to that of a relatively sharper crack (crack with higher a/c ratio) and also have a higher

average SIF magnitude along the whole crack front.

22
3.3 Notch Shape Factor (f s ) for Stepped Shaft

Based on the SIF results above, for any given crack geometry case (fixed a/c and a/d), the

SIF for the deepest point of crack (DPE or Point A) of the smooth specimen K A Smooth is used

to factorize the stepped shaft SIF, yielding a ratio of

𝐾
𝑓𝑠 = Smooth (3)
𝐾𝐴

We designate this f s as the notch shape factor for the reason to be explicated later. The

value of the common denominator of K A Smooth in Eqn (3) is listed in Table 4. The resulting SIF

plots for each stepped shaft geometry case would then be a representation of solely the

notch effects on the crack front SIF curve shape, independent of the changes in the

magnitude of K A Smooth that is caused by the variation of crack in smooth shaft sans the

geometrical irregularities of the stepped shaft; this allows for proper and effective analysis to

gain insights of the notch effects. Furthermore, the use of this common denominator

enhances the usefulness of this study as the plots can be used to estimate the SIF value of

any stepped shaft geometry (within the notch geometry range of this study) by just obtaining

the sole value of the crack front mid-point SIF of the smooth specimen for a wide range of

crack geometry of a/c between 0.33 to 2.0 and a/d between 0.025 to 0.1.

The graphical display of the effects of the stepped shaft on the notch shape factor f s are

presented in Fig. 12-Fig. 16 for crack ratio a/c of 0.33, 0.50, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively for

all crack depth ratio a/d studied. As shown in these plots, for all a/c ratio of the smooth

specimen, the value of f s is unity (1.0) at Point A (φ/π = 0.5).

It is observed that for all smooth shafts (i.e D/d = 1), all notch shape factor f s are but one

except for low a/c where some small divergence is seen at the small neighbourhood of the

CPE (Point B) region, suggesting appropriate and effective factorization choice that removes

nearly all crack geometry effects on the smooth shaft. As such, the designation of “notch”

shape factor is arguably elucidating.

The notch effects are greatest in the smallest crack size, a/d equal to 0.025 as seen from the

greatest deviation of the f s curve from the smooth shaft, for any given shaft geometry.

23
Consistent with the influence of notch factors on SIF reported earlier above, the f s curve also

deviates away from that of the smooth specimen with the increase of notch factors (D/d

increase and r/d decrease) of the shaft for all crack geometry studied. We will move beyond

the rudimentary exposition by considering the sensitivity of f s with respect to notch variation

and crack geometry variation in Sec 3.4 and Sec 3.5 respectively.

Table 4
Smooth specimen K A Smooth values used to obtain the notch shape factor. The nominal stress

is 100 MPa and the diameter is 10 mm.

K A Smooth (K at φ=π/2)
a/d a/c
MPa√mm
0.025 0.330 86.7758
0.050 0.330 121.7487
0.075 0.330 149.5671
0.100 0.330 171.5176
0.025 0.500 78.4399
0.050 0.500 111.4396
0.075 0.500 137.8716
0.100 0.500 158.8101
0.025 1.000 58.7855
0.050 1.000 83.5311
0.075 1.000 102.9630
0.100 1.000 119.9358
0.025 1.500 46.1643
0.050 1.500 65.5154
0.075 1.500 80.9943
0.100 1.500 94.4650
0.025 2.000 38.4916
0.050 2.000 54.5922
0.075 2.000 66.9218
0.100 2.000 77.6838

24
 Crack ratio, a/c =0.33

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 12. Typical results of f s vs normalized parametric angle φ/π (crack ratio, a/c = 0.33)

25
 Crack ratio, a/c =0.50

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 13. Typical results of f s vs normalized parametric angle φ/π (crack ratio, a/c = 0.5)

26
 Crack ratio, a/c =1.0

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 14. Typical results of f s vs normalized parametric angle φ/π (crack ratio, a/c = 1.0)

27
 Crack ratio, a/c =1.5

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig.15. Typical results of f s vs normalized parametric angle φ/π (crack ratio, a/c = 1.5)

28
 Crack ratio, a/c =2.0

Legend

Smooth Cylinder, D/d=1.0

D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.25

D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.05 D/d = 2.0, r/d = 0.25

Fig. 16. Typical results of f s vs normalized parametric angle φ/π (crack ratio, a/c = 2.0)

29
3.4 Crack front Shape Factor (f s ) Behavior with Respect to Notch Variation

From the typical plots for shape factor (f s ) in Fig. 12-Fig. 16, we can now summarize the key

observations of crack front f s behaviour with respect to notch variation (discussed in this

section), and crack geometry variation (in the next section). From the viewpoint of

mathematical interpretation, the notch and geometrical variation is respectively

𝛿𝑓𝑠 ⁄𝛿(𝐷⁄𝑑 , 𝑟⁄𝑑 ) and 𝛿𝑓𝑠 ⁄𝛿(𝑎⁄𝑑 , 𝑎⁄𝑐 ) where 𝛿 is the variation notation.

For ease of discussion hereon, the Most Severely Notched (MN) shaft specimen (D/d = 2.0,

r/d = 0.05) and Least Notched (LN) shaft specimen (D/d = 1.1, r/d = 0.25), will be denoted by

MN and LN respectively.

We also introduce the expression f s,P Q where subscript P represents either Point A or Point

B (P = A or B) and superscript Q represents the stepped shaft geometry (Q = MN or LN). For

example, f s,A MN represents the shape factor for Point A of the most severely notched stepped

shaft specimen.

After careful study of results by way of multiple raster displays of all 400 f s plots and the plot

of f s values at DPE against f s values at CPE (f s,A ,vs f s,B ) shown in Fig. 17 which includes all

120 cases displayed graphically in Sec 3.3, we conclude that the behaviour requires a

description using four distinctive groups of crack. Fig. 18 gives an overview of the shape

dependence of f s on notch parameters. In this figure, the vertical axis represents the two

variations of a/d namely shallow (a/d < 0.05) and deep (a/d > 0.05). On the other axis, the

variation of a/c is divided into wide (a/c < 1.0) and narrow (a/c > 1.0). Hence, the four crack

groups are shallow-wide, shallow-narrow, deep-wide and deep-narrow.

To study the sensitivity of crack front SIF with respect to the notch factors, we correlate the

f s results of the four distinct groups of cracks (from Fig. 18) with the shaft notch effects(D/d,

r/d) by way of plotting the f s values against D/d for the various r/d shown in Fig. 19-Fig. 20.

In these plots, the corresponding f s value of the smooth round bar is indicated by a

horizontal dotted line, for an overview comparison of the deviation of f s of the notched

specimens (stepped shaft) compared to the smooth as a quantitative measure of notch

sensitivity.

30
Thus, the primary findings and their associated supporting evidence from Fig. 18 -Fig. 20

are:

i) Deep crack (high a/d) shows less sensitivity to notch effects (both D/d and r/d)

than shallow crack (low a/d). Hence, the shallower a crack, the higher the

increase in overall magnitude of crack front f s .

a. This is deduced from comparing the deep crack plots to the shallow crack

plots in Fig. 19-Fig. 20. Table 5 summarizes pertinent f s values of these plots

through comparing the f s values of smooth bar against a moderately stepped

shaft (D/d = 1.5, r/d = 0.15), to provide quantitative comparison of the f s

behavior. For deep crack, f s at Point A (DPE) remains close to 1.0, which is

the value of f s of the smooth round bar. For shallow crack, f s at DPE shows

comparatively a little more increase from the f s of the smooth bar, indicating

higher notch sensitivity. When we refer to Table 5, the effect is even more

significant for f s at Point B (CPE), where for deep crack the range in increase

is between 0.20 to 0.52 (ratio of 1.29 to 1.33), while for shallow crack the

range in increase is between 0.38 to 1.02 (ratio of 1.57 to 1.65).

b. This is also supported by to Fig. 18(a) and (c), where for shallow crack, the

value of f s is observed to increase sizeably, while for deep crack shown in Fig.

18(b) and (d), the value of f s increase is minimal.

ii) For deep and wide crack, f s appears to be nearly notch invariant at a depth of

0.1, as seen from the more or less uniform distribution over the D/d and r/d

domain (Fig. 19-Fig. 20). For other crack groups, the crack depth influenced by f s

is larger; and in accordance with the observations of other notch effects in James

and Mills [18], Lefort [11], and Nord and Chung [15], we intuitively expect that as

crack depth extends, f s becomes nearly notch invariant for all cracks.

31
iii) For shallow and narrow cracks, the notch effects are very pronounced. Large

change of f s at CPE is observed. The fillet radius effect is seen to be most

significant for the crack group as seen in Fig. 20.

iv) D/d effect is relatively more pronounced than r/d as far as notch sensitivity is

concerned with the exception of the smallest fillet radius of 0.05.

a. From Fig. 19-Fig. 20, it is observed that r/d effect is very pronounced only for

CPE for shallow and narrow crack.

v) The shallow and wide cracks display similar small spread of f s at both DPE and

CPE.

vi) Irrespective of crack group, f s at Point B (CPE) is more notch sensitive compared

to f s at Point A (DPE).

a. This is supported by the evidence of shape change for all four groups of crack

in Fig. 18, indicating that when notch severity increase, the f s at CPE

increases at a higher rate than the f s at DPE

b. Also, refering to Fig. 19-Fig. 20, when f s at DPE and f s at CPE are compared

for any given crack, f s at CPE is relatively higher to the value of f s of the

smooth round bar and than that of the f s at DPE to the value of f s of the

smooth bar .

vii) Fig. 17 provides for, at a quick glance, the distinct spread and behavior of f s at

DPE and CPE for the four distinct crack groups.

viii) Table 7 provides for a comparison on the quantitative spread of f s and measures

of the shape change due the MN and LN shaft for a typical crack of all crack

groups. The shape change is described in the sense of the difference and ratio of

values at the DPE and CPE. The ratio of f s MN / f s LN gives the spread of f s as notch

varies within the range studied.

32
In addition to the primary findings, supplementary findings are as follows:

i) For narrow (a/c > 1.0) and deep (a/d > 1.0) cracks, the increase in notch severity

results in large increase in Point B resulting in steep curves where f s,A MN will dip

below the magnitude of f s,A LN (see Fig. 18(d) and Fig. 21). Hence, for this specific

crack domain, that f s,A MN and f s,A LN will represent the minimum and maximum f s

respectively.

ii) For very wide crack (a/c equal to 0.33), the f s MN value is distinctly higher than the

f s LN value for all crack size (a/d) and shaft notch domain. Hence, it can be

concluded that for very wide crack (a/c < 0.33), the maximum f s value is at Point

A for entire crack and notch domain.

iii) For a/c between 0.5 to 1.0, throughout crack size (a/d) domain, there is a gradual

shape change from f s maximum value being at DPE (f s,A is maximum) for the

smooth and LN shaft specimen to conversely, f s maximum value being at CPE

(f s,B is maximum) for the MN shaft specimen. This is evidenced from Fig. 18(a)

and (b) that for a/c = 0.5, f s,A is maximum for the LN shaft specimen whilst f s,B is

maximum for the MN shaft specimen.

iv) Fig. 18(a) and (b) are referred. The concavity of the crack front curve shape for

crack aspect ratio of a/c = 0.5 is seen to be changing as notch severity varies.

Table 6 is an auxiliary addendum to track this change for all crack size (a/d)

studied, by indicating the point where maximum value of f s occurs.

v) Using a moderately notched shaft shaft of D/d = 1.5 and r/d = 0.15, and for a

typical crack geometry for each group, Table 5 provides for the magnification

factor of f s and its crack front shape in the sense of the absolute difference at the

DPE and CPE. This would supplement the qualitative description in the main

findings.

33
Fig. 17. f s at DPE vs CPE for all crack groups

34
 SHALLOW (a/d <1.0) DEEP (a/d >1.0)
Low Crack ratio, a/c <1.0
WIDE
High Crack ratio, a/c >1.0
NARROW

Fig. 18. Graphical summary of shaft notch severity effect on shape of plot curves (MN
denotes most severely notched shaft specimen, LN denotes least notched shaft specimen)

35
Fig. 19. f s vs D/d for deep (high a/d) crack

36
Fig. 20. f s vs D/d for shallow (low a/d) crack

37
Table 5
Comparison of f s for moderately notched shaft (D/d=1.5, r/d=0.15) and smooth bar
Point A (DPE) Point B (CPE)
Crack group Shaft Smooth Diff. Ratio Shaft Smooth Diff. Ratio
(i) (ii) (i)-(ii) (i)/(ii) (iii) (iv) (iii)-(iv) (iii)/(iv)
Deep & Narrow
(a/d=0.1,a/c=2.0) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.13 1.61 0.52 1.33
Deep & Wide
(a/d=0.1,a/c=0.33) 1.03 1.00 0.03 1.03 0.91 0.71 0.20 1.29
Shallow & Narrow
(a/d=0.025,a/c=2.0) 1.42 1.00 0.42 1.42 2.59 1.57 1.02 1.65
Shallow & Wide
(a/d=0.025,a/c=0.33) 1.39 1.00 0.39 1.39 1.04 0.66 0.38 1.57

Table 6
Summary of f s curve shape for a/c = 0.50 as notch varies, as addendum to Fig. 18
r/d
D/d a/d
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
0.025 A A A A A
0.05 B A A A A
1.1
0.075 B A A A A
0.1 B A A A A
0.025 A A A A A
0.05 B A A A A
1.2
0.075 B A A A A
0.1 B A A A A
0.025 B A A A A
0.05 B B A A A
1.5
0.075 B B B A A
0.1 B B B B A
0.025 B A A A A
0.05 B B A A A
2.0
0.075 B B B A A
0.1 B B B B A
A denotes maximum f s at Point A (DPE)
B denotes maximum f s at Point B (CPE)

38
Table 7
Comparison of f s values for most notched (MN) & least notched (LN) shaft specimen

Crack group Shallow-wide Deep-wide Shallow-narrow Deep-narrow

Crack geometry a/d=0.025, a/d=0.075, a/d=0.025, a/d=0.075,

a/c=0.33 a/c=0.33 a/c=2.0 a/c=2.0
DPE, fs,A 1.53 1.13 1.58 1.04
MN CPE, fs,B 1.36 1.10 3.45 2.50
Shape
0.89 0.97 2.18 2.40
(fs,B/ fs,A)
fs,A 1.18 1.03 1.16 1.03
LN fs,B 0.85 0.84 2.04 1.91
Shape
0.72 0.82 1.76 1.85
(fs,B/ fs,A)
Ratio DPE 1.30 1.10 1.36 1.01
(f s / f s LN)
MN
CPE 1.60 1.31 1.69 1.31
Difference DPE 0.35 0.10 0.42 0.01
(f s MN - f s LN) CPE 0.51 0.26 1.41 0.59

3.5 Crack front Shape Factor (f s ) Behavior with Respect to Crack Geometry Variation

Next, we also study the f s behavior with respect to crack geometry (a/c and a/d). Thus, Fig.

21-Fig. 22 show the f s spread with relation to crack geometry for Point A (DPE) and Point B

(CPE) respectively of the MN and LN shaft specimen.

From Fig. 21-Fig. 22, the findings here are:

i) The change in the f s at CPE is more pronounced than at DPE when we change

the crack geometry.

a. f s at CPE (f s,B ) is more sensitive and increases at a larger rate than f s at DPE

(denoted by the larger f s,B spread shown in Fig. 22 than the more uniform f s,A

spread shown in Fig. 21).

b. Table 7 also shows that the f s at CPE is more sensitive than DPE as

evidenced by the higher range of (f s MN / f s LN) ratio values of between 1.31 to

1.69 for CPE and comparatively lower range of 1.01 to 1.36 for DPE.

39
 ii) The f s at DPE (f s,A ) is predominantly affected by a/d (refer Fig. 21(a)), but is more

or less uniform with respect to a/c, with the exception of very wide crack, a/c

equal to 0.33 (refer Fig. 21(b)).

iii) The f s at CPE (f s,B ), is more pronouncedly affected by the change in a/c than by

a/d (refer Fig. 22).

iv) From Fig. 22, the slope of f s MN plots are steeper than the slope of the f s LN plots for

all crack geometry, especially with respect to change of a/d.

In summary, the plots established in Fig. 18-Fig. 22 represent SIF spread corresponding to

stepped shaft geometry variation for the large range of crack geometry of this work.

Qualitative description of the SIF behaviour has been narrated in details with interspersed

quantification, providing an in-depth understanding with regards to the SIF sensitivity as

notch varies and as crack varies. Within the domain and common shaft geometry

configurations of the range of D/d = 1.1-2.0 and r/d = 0.05-0.25 that is drawn from Petersen’s

Handbook [46], we can conclude that this work is useful to provide a reasonable estimate

and an appreciation of the behavior of mode I SIF at DPE and CPE for any surface crack

geometry solely through obtaining the SIF mode I value of DPE for the smooth specimen; as

the notch shape factor f s is the same as the SIF modulo the SIF at the DPE for the

corresponding smooth shaft. The literature resources of [9, 18-34] provides for the SIF of

smooth shafts. The aforementioned estimate SIF spread is accomplished through referring

to Fig. 18-Fig. 22, to obtain the estimate f s spread for the given crack and stepped shaft

sample within this domain. Hence, the findings of this work may potentially be used to

provide further insight to failure analyses and the study of crack in general.

40
fs

(a) Point A f s vs a/d (b) Point A f s vs a/c

Fig. 21. Point A (DPE) f s for most notched (MN) & least notched (LN) shaft specimen vs
crack geometry

41
 fs

(a) Point B f s vs a/d (b) Point B f s vs a/c

Fig. 22. Point B (CPE) f s for most notched (MN) & least notched (LN) shaft specimen vs
crack geometry

3.6 Comparison with Thompson and Sheppard [8] and Hojfeldt and Ostervig [7]

As mentioned in the Introduction, Thompson and Sheppard [8] and Hojfeldt and Ostervig [7]

are the only rare find on SIF of stepped shafts in the literature. Both presented simulated and

experimental results; with Thompson and Sheppard [8] on axial and torsional loading, and

Hojfeldt and Ostervig [7] on pure bending. In Thompson and Sheppard [8], an initial semi-

circular surface of approximately 0.03 in depth was introduced on a stepped of D/d = 1.396

and r/d = 0.20, and subsequent fatigue growth was studied; however, the simulation of

growth presents partly circular cracks that deviates from experimentally observed shapes of

the beach marks. Results of simulation was provided up to the depth of 0.6, and graphical

comparsion of crack shapes were illustrated for several selected depths. In Hojfeldt and

Ostervig [7], a slightly oblique semi-elliptical surface crack of depth a/d = 0.068 and width

about a/c = 0.5 was introduced on a stepped shaft of D/d = 1.35 and r/d = 0.176, and

bending moment was cyclically applied to study crack growth; simulation presents results up

to the depth of 0.6, and the crack shape was observed to grow wider in both experiment and

42
simulation. In addition, both of these papers presented a polynomial fitted SIF that can be

used to reasonably extrapolate to slightly lower crack depth. In Fig 23, we put together our

results of SIF at DPE (Point A) and that of Thompson and Sheppard [8] for axial loading, and

that of Hojfeldt and Ostervig for flexural loading [7]. Given the slight differences in the notch

geometry, results are observed to be well in agreement. We remark here that for the

particular stepped shaft shown, the SIF of notched blends into that for smooth at a non-

dimensional depth of about 0.1.

Fig. 23. Comparison of SIF at Point A with Thompson and Sheppard [8] and Hojfeldt and

Ostervig [7].

43
4. Conclusions

The stress intensity factor for semi-elliptical surface crack on stepped shaft of various

geometry were evaluated and analysed using the dual boundary element package of

BEASY. There is good agreement with published results of Newman and Raju [28] on similar

smooth specimen and crack domain, validates BEASY’s DBEM package used. This study

also attained enhanced understanding on the sensitivity of the SIF as notch varies and as

crack varies via the use of an effective notch shape factor of f s . The findings of this work

may be summarized as follows:

• Extensive graphical display of tensile stepped shaft SIF of 120 cases.

• Effective representation of SIF of stepped shafts by way of a notch shape factor f s

that adopts the DPE value of smooth shaft as the common denominator.

• Deep crack shows less sensitivity to notch effects than shallow crack.

• The f s tends to be nearly notch invariant at the smallest depth for deep and wide

crack.

• With the exception of relatively sharp fillet radius, the effect of diameter ratio on f s is

predominant.

• The notch effect is very pronounced for CPE of shallow and narrow cracks, showing

large change of f s at CPE. Notch effect caused by fillet radius change is also very

pronounced for this particular crack group at CPE.

• For shallow and wide crack, f s at CPE and DPE display similar spread as notch

varies.

• The effect of crack geometry on f s at CPE is more pronounced than at DPE for a

given notch.

• For a given notch, the f s at DPE is predominantly affected by crack depth, but almost

insensitive to crack width, with the exception of very wide crack.

• The f s at CPE is more pronouncedly affected by the crack width than the depth for a

given notch.

44
Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the partial support from UM-BKP Grant

(UM.TNC2/IPPP/PPGP/638/BK007-2015).

References

[1] da Fonte M, Reis L, de Freitas M. The effect of steady torsion on fatigue crack growth

under rotating bending loading on aluminium alloy 7075-T6. Fracture and Structural

Integrity 2014;0(30):360-368. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.30.43

[2] Fonte M, de Freitas M. Marine main engine crankshaft failure analysis: a case study,

Eng Fail Anal 2009;16:1940–7.

[3] Kumar D, Kiln support roller shaft crack propagation rate estimation, MS Thesis,

Universiti Malaya Kuala Lumpur 2014.

[4] Urquizaa G, Garcíaa JC, Gonzáleza JG, Castroa L, Rodrígueza JA, Basurto-Pensadoa

MA, Mendozab OF. Failure analysis of a hydraulic Kaplan turbine shaft. Eng Fail Anal

2014;41:108-17.

[5] Momcilovic´ Dejan, Odanovic´ Zoran, Mitrovic´ Radivoje, Atanasovska Ivana, Vuherer

Tomazˇ. Failure analysis of hydraulic turbine shaft. Eng Fail Anal 2012;20:54–66.

[6] Bachschmid N, Pennacchi P, Tanzi E. Cracked rotors – a survey on static and dynamic

behavior including modelling and diagnosis. Heidelberg-Berlin: Springer; 2010.

[7] Hojfeldt E, Ostervig CB. Fatigue crack propagation in shafts with shoulder fillets. Eng

Fract Mech 1986;25:421–67.

[8] Thompson KD, Sheppard SD. Stress intensity factors in shafts subjected to torsion and

axial loading. Eng Fract Mech 1992;42:1019-34.

[9] Carpinteri A, Brighenti R, Vantadori S. Surface cracks in notched round bars under

cyclic tension and bending. Int J Fatigue 2006;28(3):251-60.

[10] Guo W, Shen H, Li H. Stress intensity factors for elliptical surface cracks in round bars

with different stress concentration coefficient. Int J Fatigue 2003;25:733-41.

45
[11] Lefort P. Stress intensity factors for a circumferential crack emanating from a notch in a

round tensile bar. Eng Fract Mech 1978;10:897–904.

[12] Toribio J, Matos JC, Gonzalez B. Notch effect on the stress intensity factor in tension-

loaded circumferentially cracked bars. Eng Fract Mech 2018;202:436–44.

[13] Lin XB, Smith RA. Fatigue growth simulation for cracks in notched and unnotched round

bars. Int J Mech Sci 1998;40:405-19.

[14] Lin XB, Smith RA. Shape evolution of surface cracks in fatigued round bars with a

semicircular circuremferential notch. Int J Fatigue 1999;21:965-73.

[15] Nord KJ, Chung TJ. Fracture and surface flaws in smooth and threaded round bars. Int

J Fract 1986;30:47-55.

[16] Toribio J, Sanchez-galvez V, Astiz MA, Campos JM. Stress intensity factor solutions for

a cracked bolt under tension, bending and residual stress loading. Eng Fract Mech

1991;39:359-71.

[17] Toribio J. Stress intensity factor solutions for a cracked bolt loaded by a nut. Int J Fract

1992;53:367-85.

[18] James LA, Mills WJ. Review and synthesis of stress intensity factor solutions applicable

to cracks in bolts. Eng Fract Mech 1988;30:641–54.

[19] Lin XB, Smith RA. Shape growth simulation of surface cracks in tension fatigued round

bars. Int J Fatigue 1997;19:461-9.

[20] Couroneau N, Royer J. Simplified model for the fatigue growth analysis of surface

cracks in round bars under mode I. Int J Fatigue 1998;20:711-8.

[21] Daoud OEK, Cartwright DJ, Carney M. Strain-energy release rate for a single-edge-

cracked circular bar in tension. J Strain Anal Eng Des 1978;13(2):83–9.

[22] Salah el din AS, Lovegrove JM. Stress intensity factors for fatigue cracking of round

bars. Int J Fatigue 1981;3(3):117–23.

[23] Athanassiadis A, Boissenot JM, Brevet P, Francois D, Raharinaivo A. Linear elastic

fracture mechanics computations of cracked cylindrical tensioned bodies. Int J Fract

1981;17(6):553–66.

46
[24] Wilhem D, Fitzgerald J, Carter J, Dittmer D. An empirical approach to determining K for

surface cracks. Adv Fract Res (Fracture 81) 1981;1:11–21.

[25] Nisitani H, and Chen DH. Stress intensity factor for a semi-elliptic surface crack in a

shaft under tension. Trans Jpn Sot Mech Engrs 1984;50(453):1077-82.

[26] Lorentzen T, Kjaer NE, Henriksen TK. The application of fracture mechanics to surface

cracks in shafts. Eng Fract Mech 1986;23:1005-14.

[27] Forman RG, Shivakumar V. Growth behavior of surface cracks and fatigue crack

propagation behavior in hollow cylinders. Fract Mech ASTM Spec Tech Publ

1986;905:59-74.

[28] Raju IS, Newman JC. Stress-intensity factors for circumferential surface cracks in pipes

and rods under tension and bending loads.ASTM STP 1986;905:789-805.

[29] Astiz MA. An incompatible singular elastic element for two- and three-dimensional crack

problems. Int J Fracture 1986;31:105–24.

[30] Carpinteri A. Elliptical-arc surface cracks in round bars. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct

1992;15(11):1141–53.

[31] Levan A, Royer J. Part-circular surface cracks in round bars under tension, bending and

twisting. Int J Fract 1993;61:71–99.

[32] Carpinteri A. Shape change of surface cracks in round bars under cyclic axial loading.

Int J Fatigue 1993;15(1):21–6.

[33] Shin CS, Cai CQ. Experimental and finite element analyses on stress intensity factors of

elliptical surface crack in a circular shaft under tension and bending. Int J Fract

2004;129:239–64.

[34] Toribio J, Álvarez N, Gonzalez B, Matos JC. A critical review of stress intensity factor

solutions for surface cracks in round bars subjected to tension loading. Eng Fail Anal

2009;16:794–809.

[35] BEASY Release 10.0r14, BEASY Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton SO40 7AA,

United Kingdom, 2013.

47
[36] Chandra D, Purbolaksono J, Nukman Y, Liew HL, Ramesh S, Hamdi M. Fatigue crack

growth of a corner crack in a square prismatic bar under combined cyclic torsion-tension

loading. Int J Fatigue 2014;64:67–73.

[37] Chandra D, Purbolaksono J, Nukman Y, Liew HL, Ramesh S, Hassan MA. Fatigue

growth of a surface crack in a V-shaped notched round bar under cyclic tension. J.

Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2014;15:873–82.

[38] Chandra D, Putra IS, Ariffin AK, Nukman Y, Mardi NA, Purbolaksono J. Fatigue growth

analysis of a surface crack in a solid cylinder under combined cyclic axial-torsion loading.

Exp. Tech. 2016; 40(5):1397-407.

[39] Joseph RP, Purbolaksono J, Liew HL, Ramesh S, Hamdi M. Stress intensity factors of a

corner crack emanating from a pinhole of a solid cylinder. Eng Fract Mech 2014;128:1–

7.

[40] Zhou D., Liew HL, Purbolaksono J., Andriyana A, Chong WT. Stress intensity factors for

embedded cracks within torsionally loaded square prismatic bars. Adv Mech Eng 2019;

11(4):1-11.

[41] Rice JR. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain

concentration by notches and cracks. J Appl Mech 1968; 35(2):379-86.

[42] Cherepanov GP. Crack propagation in continuous media. J Appl Math Mech 1967;

31(3):503-512.

[43] Hutchinson JW. Singular behavior at the end of a tensile crack in a hardening material,

J Mech Phys Solids 1968;16(1):13–31.

[44] Cruse TA. Boundary-integral equation formulation and solution. Bound Elem Anal Comp

Fract Mech. Mechanics: Computational Mechanics. Vol 1. Dordrecht: Springer; 1998.

[45] Mi Y, Aliabadi MH. Dual boundary element method for three-dimensional fracture

mechanics analysis. Eng Anal Bound Elem 1992;10(2):161-71.

[46] Pilkey WD, Pilkey DF. Peterson's stress concentration factors. 3e, Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons; 2008.

48
[47] Corn DL. A study of cracking techniques for obtaining partial thickness cracks of pre-

selected depths and shapes. Eng Fract Mech 1971;3:45-52.

[48] Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of elasticity. 3e, McGraw-Hill;1970.

[49] Tipton SM, Sorem JR, Rolovic RD. Updated stress concentration factors for filleted

shafts in bending and tension. J. Mech Des 1996;118:321-7.

49
Dear Professor,

On the behalf of all authors, I declare that we have no financial and personal
interest on the manuscript

“Stress intensity factors for elliptical surface cracks in tensile stepped shaft”

that could potentially cause conflict of interests.

Sincerely,
Haw-Ling Liew