Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Difference between High- and Low-Stress Fatigue

Abstract

RECENT papers by Porter and Levy1 and Benham and Ford2 have suggested that the conventional S/N curve is composed of two separate curves, a discontinuity occurring at some particular stress-level. The former authors concluded from a large number of rotating bending tests on copper that the discontinuity occurred at about ± 21,500 lb./sq. in.; for lower stresses fatigue cracks originating in slip bands; for higher stresses cracks developing from L-shaped nuclei. Kemsley3 also found that with copper specimens tested at ± 15,000 lb./sq. in. (giving fracture after long endurances) cracks formed in slip bands and were transcrystalline, while at ± 25,000 lb./sq. in. (giving fracture with low endurances) slip bands were virtually absent from the specimen and cracks appeared to be inter crystalline. Benham and Ford2, who tested mild steel in direct stress, found for large stress amplitudes that the specimen gauge-length extended permanently each cycle and a ‘necked-out’ fracture resulted. They termed this phenomenon ‘cyclic creep’ and such failures occurred while the stresses corresponded to the upper portion of the composite S/N diagram. For stresses in the lower portion of the S/N diagram typical fatigue fractures occurred and they suggested that, if the fatigue mechanism could be suppressed as the cyclic stress decreased, the upper curve might flatten out to a ‘cyclic creep limit’.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Porter, J., and Levy, L. C., J. Inst. Metals, 89, 86 (1960).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Benham, P. P., and Ford, H., J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 3, 119 (1961).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kemsley, D. S., J. Inst. Metals, 85, 417 (1957).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Coffin, L. F., Internal Stresses and Fatigue of Metals, 353 (Elsevier, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hempel, M., Int. Conf. Fatigue, Inst. Mech. Eng., 543 (1956).

  6. Wadsworth, N. J., Phil. Mag., 6, 397 (1961).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wood, W. A., Phil. Mag., 3, 692 (1958).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. May, A. N., Nature, 185, 303 (1960).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Holden, J., Phil. Mag., 6, 547 (1961).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Forsyth, P. J. E., Int. Conf. Fatigue, Inst. Mech. Eng., 535 (1956).

  11. Jacquet, P. A., Int. Conf. Fatigue, Inst. Mech. Eng., 506 (1956).

  12. Frost, N. E., J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 9, 143 (1961).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

FROST, N. Difference between High- and Low-Stress Fatigue. Nature 192, 446–447 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1038/192446b0

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/192446b0

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing