Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 419–426 | Cite as

Fatigue Crack Growth in a Solid Circular Shaft Under Fully Reversed Rotating Bending

  • A. R. Torabi
  • M. Heidary Khavas
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


The axle of a load train failed after 5.37 × 106 cycles from its service. Macro-fractography showed clearly the fatigue fracture. The stress distribution in the shaft revealed that the maximum alternating stress was considerably less than the material modified fatigue limit obtained at 107 cycles from the S–N diagram. Micro-fractography reported from the metallurgical laboratory proved the existence of a surface flaw. Ultimately, fatigue crack growth simulation was performed based on the simple Paris–Erdogan model for estimating the fatigue life of the defective axle. The results showed that the actual life of the axle could be satisfactorily predicted by means of the Paris–Erdogan model.


Fatigue crack growth Railway axle Finite element method Flaw Rotating bending 



Three dimensional


Finite element


Mode I stress intensity factor


Mode II stress intensity factor


Mode III stress intensity factor


Plane-strain fracture toughness


Material endurance limit


Ultimate tensile strength


Stress intensity factor


Fatigue crack propagation threshold



The authors gratefully thank Dr. Sadat-Hosseini (the managing director of the IRRC) for supporting and paying his kind attention to this research. Also, Mr. Eng. Saharkhiz (the director of IRRC) is thanked for his cooperation in gathering the failure evidences and related data. The first author wishes to thank Ms. Eng. Elnaz Ghorbani for her typesetting and final check of the manuscript text. This study was done under the research contract,# 23 S/8798.


  1. 1.
    Bayraktar, M., Tahrali, N., Guclu, R.: Reliability and fatigue life evaluation of railway axles. J. Mech. Sci. Tech. 24, 671–679 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alihosseini, H., Dehghani, K.: Modeling and failure analysis of a broken railway axle: Effects of surface defects and inclusions. J. Fail. Anal. Preven. 10, 233–239 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Makino, T., Kato, T., Hirakawa, K.: Review of the fatigue damage tolerance of high-speed railway axles in Japan. Eng. Fract. Mech. 78, 810–825 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beretta, S., Ghidini, A., Lombardo, F.: Fracture mechanics and scale effects in the fatigue of railway axles. Eng. Fract. Mech. 72, 195–208 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beretta, S., Carboni, M., Lo Conte, A., Regazzi, D., Trasatti, S., Rizzi, M.: Crack growth studies in railway axles under corrosion fatigue: Full-scale experiments and model validation. Proc. Eng. 10, 3650–3655 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luke, M., Varfolomeev, I., Lutkepohl, K., Esderts, A.: Fatigue crack growth in railway axles: assessment concept and validation tests. Eng. Fract. Mech. 78, 714–730 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Linhart, V., Cerny, I.: An effect of strength of railway axle steels on fatigue resistance under press fit. Eng. Fract. Mech. 78, 731–741 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beretta, S., Carboni, M.: Variable amplitude fatigue crack growth in a mild steel for railway axles: experiments and predictive models. Eng. Fract. Mech. 78, 848–862 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Madia, M., Beretta, S., Zerbst, U.: An investigation on the influence of rotary bending and press fitting on stress intensity factors and fatigue crack growth in railway axles. Eng. Fract. Mech. 75, 1906–1920 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zerbst, U., Schodel, M., Beier, H.Th.: Parameters affecting the damage tolerance behavior of railway axles. Eng. Fract. Mech. 78, 793–809 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Luke, M., Varfolomeev, I., Lutkepohl, K., Esderts, A.: Fracture mechanics assessment of railway axles: experimental characterization and computation. Eng. Fail. Anal. 17, 617–623 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zerbst, U., Madler, K., Hintze, H.: Fracture mechanics in railway applications—an overview. Eng. Fract. Mech. 72, 163–194 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paris, P.C., Erdogan, F.: A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J. Basic Eng. 85, 528–535 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., Budynas, R.G.: Mechanical Engineering Design, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nasr, A., Nadot, Y., Bouraoui, Ch., Fathallah, R., Jouiad, M.: Fatigue initiation in C35 steel: influence of loading and defect. Int. J. Fatigue 32, 780–787 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aghazadeh, J., Talebi, Sh.: Identification of the cause(s) of defect formation in railway axles during manufacturing process. In: 3rd Annual Congress, Iranian Society of Metallurgical Engineers, Isfahan University of Technology, 1999Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Railway Standards: UIC 811-1, Standard for quality control in production of road axle, 1983Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Technical data for Iran railway materials. Iran Railway Research Center, Tehran, 2000Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    El Haddad, M.H., Topper, T.H., Smith, K.N.: Prediction of non-propagating cracks. Eng. Fract. Mech. 11, 573–584 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson, T.L.: Fracture mechanics: fundamentals and applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM Standards: ASTM E647-95, Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates, 1995Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fracture Research Laboratory, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Faculty of New Science and TechnologiesUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Fatigue and Fracture Research Laboratory, School of Mechanical EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations