Fatigue Analysis Using ANSYS

D. Alfred Hancq, Ansys Inc.

Contents
1) Introduction
2) Overview of Capabilities
3) Typical Use Cases
4) Additional Fatigue Resources

1. Introduction
It is estimated that 50-90% of structural failure is due to fatigue, thus there is
a need for quality fatigue design tools. However, at this time a fatigue tool is
not available which provides both flexibility and usefulness comparable to
other types of analysis tools. This is why many designers and analysts use
"in-house" fatigue programs which cost much time and money to develop. It
is hoped that these designers and analysts, given a proper library of fatigue
tools could quickly and accurately conduct a fatigue analysis suited to their
needs.

The focus of fatigue in ANSYS is to provide useful information to the

design engineer when fatigue failure may be a concern. Fatigue results can
have a convergence attached. A stress-life approach has been adopted for
conducting a fatigue analysis. Several options such as accounting for mean
stress and loading conditions are available.

2. Capabilities
A fatigue analysis can be separated into 3 areas: materials, analysis, and
results evaluation. Each area will be discussed in more detail below:

2.1 Materials
A large part of a fatigue analysis is getting an accurate description of the
fatigue material properties. Since fatigue is so empirical, sample fatigue
curves are included only for structural steel and aluminum materials. These
properties are included as a guide only with intent for the user to provide
his/her own fatigue data for more accurate analysis. In the case of
assemblies with different materials, each part will use its own fatigue
material properties just as it uses its own static properties (like modulus of
elasticity).
2.1.1 Stress-life Data Options/Features
• Fatigue material data stored as tabular alternating stress vs. life points.
• The ability to define mean stress dependent or multiple r-ratio curves if
the data is available.
• Options to have log-log, semi-log, or linear interpolation.
• Ability to graphically view the fatigue material data
• The fatigue data is saved in XML format along with the other static
material data.
• Figure 1 is a screen shot showing a user editing fatigue data in ANSYS.

Figure 1: Editing SN curves in ANSYS

2.2 Analysis
Fatigue results can be added before or after a stress solution has been
performed. To create fatigue results, a fatigue tool must first be inserted into
the tree. This can be done through the solution toolbar or through context
menus. The details view of the fatigue tool is used to define the various
aspects of a fatigue analysis such as loading type, handling of mean stress
effects and more. As seen in Figure 2, a graphical representation of the
loading and mean stress effects is displayed when a fatigue tool is selected
by the user. This can be very useful to help a novice understand the fatigue
loading and possible effects of a mean stress.
 Figure 2: Fatigue tool information page in ANSYS

2.2.1 Loading
Fatigue, by definition, is caused by changing the load on a component over
time. Thus, unlike the static stress safety tools, which perform calculations
for a single stress, fatigue damage occurs when the stress at a point changes
over time. ANSYS can perform fatigue calculations for either constant
amplitude loading or proportional non-constant amplitude loading. A scale
factor can be applied to the base loading if desired. This option, located
under the “Loading” section in the details view, is useful to see the effects of
different finite element load magnitudes without having to re-run the stress
analysis.

• Constant amplitude, proportional loading: This is the classic, “back

of the envelope” calculation. Loading is of constant amplitude because
 only 1 set of finite element stress results along with a loading ratio is
required to calculate the alternating and mean stress. The loading ratio is
defined as the ratio of the second load to the first load (LR = L2/L1).
Loading is proportional since only 1 set of finite element stress results is
needed (principal stress axes do not change over time). No cumulative
damage calculations need to be done. Common types of constant
amplitude loading are fully reversed (apply a load then apply an equal
and opposite load; a load ratio of –1) and zero-based (apply a load then
remove it; a load ratio of 0). Fully reversed, zero-based, or a specified
loading ratio can be defined in the details view under the “Loading”
section.

• Non-constant amplitude, proportional loading: In this case, again

only 1 set of results are needed, however instead of using a single load
ratio to calculate the alternating and mean stress, the load ratio varies
over time. Think of this as coupling an FEM analysis with strain-gauge
results collected over a given time interval. Cumulative damage
calculations including cycle counting and damage summation need to be
done. A rainflow cycle counting method is used to identify stress
reversals and Miner’s rule is used to perform the damage summation.
The load scaling comes from an external data file provided by the user,
(such as the one in Figure 3) and is simply a list of scale factors.

Figure 3: Chart of loading history

Several sample load histories can be found in the “Load Histories”
directory under the “Engineering Data” folder. Setting the loading type
to “History Data” in the fatigue tool details view specifies non-constant
amplitude loading. Several analysis options are available for non-
constant amplitude loading. Since rainflow counting is used, using a
“quick counting” technique substantially reduces runtime and memory.
In quick counting, alternating and mean stresses are sorted into bins
before partial damage is calculated. Without quick counting, the data is
not sorted into bins until after
partial damages are found. The
accuracy of quick counting is
usually very good if a proper
number of bins is used when
counting. The default setting for
the number of bins can be set in
the Control Panel. Turning off
quick counting is not
recommended and in fact is not
a documented feature. To allow
quick counting to be turned off, set the variable “AllowQuickCounting”
to 1 in the Variable Manager. Another available option when conducting
a variable amplitude fatigue analysis is the ability to set the value used
for infinite life. In constant amplitude loading, if the alternating stress is
lower than the lowest alternating stress on the fatigue curve, ANSYS will
use the life at the last point. This provides for an added level of safety
because many materials do not exhibit an endurance limit. However, in
non-constant amplitude loading, cycles with very small alternating
stresses may be present and may incorrectly predict too much damage if
the number of the small stress cycles is high enough. To help control
this, the user can set the infinite life value that will be used if the
alternating stress is beyond the limit of the SN curve. Setting a higher
value will make small stress cycles less damaging if they occur many
times. The rainflow and damage matrix results can be helpful in
determining the effects of small stress cycles in your loading history.
The rainflow and damage matrices shown in Figure 4 illustrate the
possible effects of infinite life. Both damage matrices came from the
same loading (and thus same rainflow matrix), but the first damage
matrix was calculated with an infinite life if 1e6 cycles and the second
was calculated with an infinite life of 1e9 cycles.
 Rainflow matrix for a
given load history.

Damage matrix with an infinite

life of 1e6 cycles. Total damage
is calculated to be .19 .

Damage matrix with an

infinite life of 1e9 cycles.
Total damage is calculated
to be .12 (37% less damage)

Figure 4: Effect of infinite life on fatigue damage

2.2.2 Load Effects
Fatigue material tests are usually conducted in a uniaxial loading under a
fixed or zero mean stress state. It is cost-prohibitive to conduct experiments
that capture all mean stress, loading, and surface conditions. Thus, empirical
relations are available if the fatigue data is not.
• Mean Stress correction. If the loading is other than fully reversed, a
mean stress exists and should be accounted for. Methods for handling
mean stress effects can be found in the “Options” section.
If experimental data at
different mean stresses or r-
ratio’s exist, mean stress can
be accounted for directly
through interpolation between
material curves. If
experimental data is not
available, several empirical
options may be chosen
including Gerber, Goodman
and Soderberg theories which
use static material properties
(yield stress, tensile strength)
along with S-N data to account for any mean stress. In general, most
experimental data fall between the Goodman and Gerber theories with
the Soderberg theory usually being over conservative. The Goodman
theory can be a good choice for brittle materials with the Gerber theory
usually a good choice for ductile materials. As can be seen from the
screen shots in Figure 5, the Gerber theory treats negative and positive
mean stresses the same whereas Goodman and Soderberg do not apply
any correction for negative mean stresses. This is because although a
compressive mean stress can retard fatigue crack growth, ignoring a
negative mean is usually more conservative. The selected mean stress
theory is shown graphically in the display window as seen below. Note
that if an empirical mean stress theory is chosen and multiple SN curves
are defined, any mean stresses that may exist will be ignored when
querying the material data since an empirical theory was chosen. Thus if
you have multiple r-ratio SN curves and use the Goodman theory, the SN
curve at r=-1 will be used. In general it is not advisable to use an
empirical mean stress theory if multiple mean stress data exists.
 Figure 5: The chosen mean stress theory is illustrated in the graphics window

• Multiaxial Stress Correction. Experimental test data is uniaxial

whereas stresses are usually multiaxial. At some point stress must be
converted from a multiaxial stress state to a uniaxial one. Von-Mises,
Max shear, Maximum principal stress, or any of the component stresses
can be used as the uniaxial stress value. In addition, a “signed” Von-
Mises stress may be chosen where the Von-Mises stress takes the sign of
the largest absolute principal stress. This is useful to identify any
compressive mean stresses since several of the mean stress theories treat
 positive and negative mean stresses differently. Setting the “Stress
Component” is done in the Options section in the fatigue tool detail view.

2.2.3 Miscellaneous Analysis options

Fatigue material property tests are usually conducted under very specific and
controlled conditions (eg. axial loading, polished specimens, .5 inch gauge
diameter). If the service part conditions differ from as tested, modification
factors can be applied to try to account for the difference. The fatigue
alternating stress is usually divided by this modification factor and can be
found in design handbooks. (Dividing the alternating stress is equivalent to
multiplying the fatigue strength by Kf.) The fatigue strength reduction factor
is defined by setting “Fatigue Strength Factor (Kf)” in the details view for
the fatigue tool. Note that this factor is applied to the alternating stress only
and does not affect the mean stress.

2.3 Results Output

Several results for evaluating fatigue are available to the user. Some are
contour plots of a specific result over the model while others give
information about the most damaged point in the model(or the most
damaged point in the scope of the result). Outputs include fatigue life,
damage, factor of safety, stress biaxiality, fatigue sensitivity, rainflow
matrix, and damage matrix output. Each output will now be described in
detail.
• A contour plot of available life over the model. This result can be over
the whole model or scoped to a given part or surface. This result contour
plot shows the available life for the given fatigue analysis. If loading is of
constant amplitude, this represents the number of cycles until the part
will fail due to fatigue. If loading is non-constant, this represents the
number of loading blocks until failure. Thus if the given load history
represents one month of loading and the life was found to be 120, the
expected model life would be 120 months. In a constant amplitude
analysis, if the alternating stress is lower than the lowest alternating stress
defined in the S-N curve, the life at that point will be used. See section
2.2.1 for more information about the difference between constant and
non-constant amplitude loading.
• A contour plot of the fatigue damage at a given design life. Fatigue
damage is defined as the design life divided by the available life. This
result may be scoped. The default design life may be set through the
Control Panel.

• A contour plot of the factor of safety with respect to a fatigue failure at a

given design life. The maximum FS reported is 15. Like damage and
life, this result may be scoped. This calculation is iterative for non-
constant amplitude loading and may substantially increase solve time.
• A stress biaxiality contour plot over the model. As mentioned
previously, material properties are uniaxial but stress results are usually
multiaxial. This result gives the user some idea of the stress state over
the model and how to interpret the results. Biaxiality indication is
defined as the principal stress smaller in magnitude divided by the larger
principal stress with the principal stress nearest zero ignored. A
biaxiality of zero corresponds to uniaxial stress, a value of –1
corresponds to pure shear, and a value of 1 corresponds to a pure biaxial
state. From the sample biaxiality plot shown below, most of the model is
under a pure shear or uniaxial stress. This is expected since a simple
torque has been applied at the top of the model. When using the
biaxiality plot along with the safety factor plot above, it can be seen that
the most damaged point occurs at a point of nearly pure shear. Thus it
would be desirable to use S-N data collected through torsional loading if
available. Of course collecting experimental data under different loading
conditions is cost prohibitive and not often done.
• A fatigue sensitivity plot. This plot shows how the fatigue results change
as a function of the loading at the critical location on the model. This
result may be scoped to parts or surfaces. Sensitivity may be found for
life, damage, or factory of safety.
The user may set the number of fill
points as well as the load variation
limits. For example, the user may
wish to see the sensitivity of the
model’s life if the load was 50% of
the current load up to if the load
150% of the current load. (The x-
value of 1 on the graph corresponds
to the life at the current loading of
the model; The x-value at 1.5
corresponds to the critical fatigue
life if the finite element loads were 50% higher then they are currently,
etc…). Negative variations are allowed in order to see the effects of a
possible negative mean stress if the loading is not totally reversed.
Linear, Log-X, Log-Y, or Log-Log scaling can be chosen for chart
display. Default values for the sensitivity options may be set through the
Control Panel.
• A plot of the rainflow matrix for the critical location. This result is only
applicable for non-constant amplitude loading where rainflow counting is
needed. This result may be scoped. In this 3-D histogram, alternating
and mean stress is divided into bins and plotted. The Z-axis corresponds
to the number of counts for a given alternating and mean stress bin. This
result gives the user a measure of the composition of a loading history.
(Such as if most of the alternating stress cycles occur at a negative mean
stress.) From the rainflow matrix below, the user can see that most of the
alternating stresses have a positive mean stress and that bulk of the
smaller alternating stresses have a higher mean stress then the larger
alternating stresses.
• A plot of the damage matrix at the critical location on the model. This
result is only applicable for non-constant amplitude loading where
rainflow counting is needed. This result may be scoped. This result is
similar to the rainflow matrix except the %damage that each bin caused is
plotted as the Z-axis. As can be seen from the corresponding damage
matrix for the above rainflow matrix, in this particular case although
most of the counts occur at the lower stress amplitudes, most of the
damage occurs at the higher stress amplitudes.
3. Typical Use Cases

Scenario I, Connecting Rod under fully reversed loading: Here we have

a connecting rod in a compressor under fully reversed loading (load is
applied, removed, then applied in the opposite direction with a max loading
of 1000 pounds).
• Import geometry and apply boundary conditions. Apply loading
corresponding to the maximum developed load of 1000 pounds.

• Insert fatigue tool.

• Specify fully reversed
loading to create
alternating stress cycles.
• Specify that this is a
stress-life fatigue
analysis. No mean
stress theory needs to be
specified since no mean
stress will exist (fully
 reversed loading). Specify that Von-Mises stress will be used to
compare against fatigue material data.
• Specify a modification factor of .8 since material data represents a
polished specimen and the in-service component is cast.
• Perform stress and fatigue calculations (Solve command in context
menu).
• Plot factor of safety for a design life of 1,000,000 cycles.
• Find the sensitivity of available life with respect to loading. Specify a
minimum base load variation of 50% (an alternating stress of 500 lbs.)
and a maximum base load variation of 200% (an alternating stress of
2000 lbs.)

• Determine multiaxial stress state (uniaxial, shear, biaxial, or mixed) at

critical life location by inserting “biaxiality indicator” into fatigue
tool. The stress state near the critical location is not far from uniaxial
(.1~.2), which gives and added measure of confidence since the
material properties are uniaxial.
Scenario II, Connecting Rod under random loading: Here we have the
same connecting rod and boundary conditions but the loading is not of a
constant amplitude over time. Assume that we have strain gauge results that
were collected experimentally from the component and that we know that a
strain gauge reading of 200 corresponds to an applied load of 1,000 pounds.
• Conduct the static stress analysis as before using a load of 1,000
pounds.
• Insert fatigue tool.
• Specify fatigue loading as coming from a scale history and select
scale history file containing strain gauge results over time(ex. Common
Files\Ansys Inc\Engineering Data\Load Histories\SAEBracketHistory.dat).
Define the scale factor to be .005. (We must normalize the load
history so that the FEM load matches the scale factors in the load
history file).

 1 FEM load   1000lbs   1 FEM load 

  ×   =   = needed load scale factor
 1000lbs   200 strain gauge   200 strain gauge 

• Specify a bin size of 32 (Rainflow and damage matrices will be of

dimension 32x32).
• Specify Goodman theory to account for mean-stress effects. (The
chosen theory will be illustrated graphically in the graphics window.
Specify that a signed Von-Mises stress will be used to compare
against fatigue material data. (Use signed since Goodman theory
treats negative and positive mean stresses differently.)
• Perform fatigue calculations (Solve command in context menu).
• View rainflow and damage matrix.
• Plot life, damage, and factor of safety contours over the model at a
design life of 1000. (The fatigue damage and FS if this loading history
was experienced 1000 times). Thus if the loading history
corresponded to the loading experienced by the part over a month’s
time, the damage and FS will be at a design life of 1000 months. Note
that although a life of only 88 loading blocks is calculated, the needed
scale factor (since FS@1000=.61) is only .61 to reach a life of 1000
blocks.

• Plot factor of safety as a function of the base load (fatigue sensitivity

plot, a 2-D XY plot).
• Copy and paste to create another fatigue tool and specify that mean
stress effects will be ignored (SN-None theory) This will be done to
ascertain to what extent mean stress is affecting fatigue life.
• Perform fatigue calculations.
• View damage and factor of safety and compare results obtained when
using Goodman theory to get the extent of any possible mean stress
effect.
 • Change bin size to 50, rerun analysis, and compare fatigue results to
verify that the bin size of 32 was of adequate size to get desired
precision for alternating and mean stress bins.

4. Additional fatigue resources

• Hancq, D.A., Walters, A.J., Beuth, J.L., “Development of an Object-

Oriented Fatigue Tool”, Engineering with Computers, Vol 16, 2000,
pp. 131-144.
This paper gives details on both the underlying structure and
engineering aspects of the fatigue tool used by the DesignSpace
program.
• Bannantine, J., Comer, J., Handrock, J. “Fundamentals of Metal
Fatigue Analysis”, New Jersey, Prentice Hall (1990).
This is an excellent book that explains the fundamentals of fatigue to a
novice user. Many topics such as mean stress effects and rainflow
counting are topics in this book.
• Lampman, S.R. editor, “ASM Handbook: Volume 19, Fatigue and
Fracture”, ASM International (1996).
Good reference to have when conducting a fatigue analysis. Contains
papers on a wide variety of fatigue topics.
• U.S. Dept. of Defense, “MIL-HDBK-5H: “Metallic materials and
Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures”, (1998).
This publication distributed by the United States government gives
fatigue material properties of several common engineering alloys. It
is freely downloadable over the Internet from the NASA website.
<http://analyst.gsfc.nasa.gov/FEMCI/links.html>