Fatigue Analysis Report_ Final

Fatigue Analysis Report 2011-1-0610-403-GRO1
RochesterInstitute of Technology 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................3
Hypothesis.........................................................................................................................................5
Introduction and Background.............................................................................................................5
Alternate Experiments .......................................................................................................................6
Results and Conclusion.......................................................................................................................7
Appendix A........................................................................................................................................8
Part Measurements& Initial Calculations..........................................................................................8
Appendix B........................................................................................................................................9
Initial S/N Diagram..........................................................................................................................9
CompletedPost Annealed S/N Diagram .........................................................................................11
Appendix C......................................................................................................................................13
Finite Element Analysis .................................................................................................................13
Appendix D......................................................................................................................................20
Fatigue Test..................................................................................................................................20
Pre-Annealed Fatigue Testing.....................................................................................................20
Post Annealed Fatigue Testing ...................................................................................................25
Appendix E ......................................................................................................................................28
Tensile Testing..............................................................................................................................28
Tensile Test of the pre-annealed Samples...................................................................................28
Tensile Test of the post-annealed Samples..................................................................................30
Appendix F.......................................................................................................................................32
Hardness......................................................................................................................................32
Pre Annealed Hardness Testing..................................................................................................32
Post Annealed Hardness Testing.................................................................................................34
Appendix G......................................................................................................................................36
Combustion-Infrared Absorption ...................................................................................................36
Appendix H......................................................................................................................................38
Spark Test....................................................................................................................................38

Appendix I.......................................................................................................................................40
Metallography..............................................................................................................................40
Pre-Annealed Metallography Test ..............................................................................................40
Post-Annealed Metallography Test.............................................................................................43
Appendix J.......................................................................................................................................45
Annealing.....................................................................................................................................45
Appendix K......................................................................................................................................46
Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................46
Appendix L.......................................................................................................................................47
Green Belt Tools...........................................................................................................................47
Project Charter..........................................................................................................................47
Gantt chart ...............................................................................................................................49
Stages of Team Development.....................................................................................................50
PDCA........................................................................................................................................51
Process Flow Chart....................................................................................................................52
High Level SIPOC.......................................................................................................................53
Box Plot Statistics on Testing......................................................................................................54
Two Sample T-Test:Non Annealed/Annealed..............................................................................56
ANOVA .....................................................................................................................................58
Cause and Effect Fatigue Diagram ..............................................................................................60
Cause and Effect Material Diagram.............................................................................................61
C & E Checklist..........................................................................................................................62
Appendix M.....................................................................................................................................63
Meeting Notes..............................................................................................................................63
References ...................................................................................................................................65

Executive Summary
To accurately understand the failure characteristics of materials, an investigation on 10
specimens of AISI 1018 Cold Rolled steel was undertaken. The test specimens were initially
fatigue tested under fully reversed load conditions in a cantilever beam model.
To begin to understand the failure characteristics the 10 specimens were stressed in a
fatigue tester. Rotating at an average of 3450 rpm and loaded at one end, similar to a
cantilever beam. Loads varied on a team to team basis, but were in the range of published
data of AISI 1018 CRS steel’s mean strength (Sm) and Endurance Limit (Se). The loads
ranged from 90N to 175N.
An S-N Diagram for the material was generated based on the correction factors estimated
from the published values. The completed “corrected” S-N diagram was our starting point.
The S-N diagram was referenced to determine load characteristics required for the fatigue
test. The 10 specimens were individually loaded into the fatigue tester. Once the machine
was fully operational the load was introduced to the free end by rotating the dial knob on
the machine. It took about 1000-2000 revolutions before the specimen reached the desired
load value for each test run. This variation, in what should have been a constant load was
negligible for the overall experiment.
The trend with the load and its expected number of cycles to failure showed a much higher
mean strength. This translated to a much higher Ultimate Tensile Strength being found
from the test values. The results showed a nearly 29% increase compared to the expected
value. The expected value was 65.3ksi and experimental value was calculated as 84.2ksi.
This created many doubts as to the authenticity of the material or the process of
fabrication. As a class, it was established that either the material was not actually 1018
CRS, or the fabrication process induced significant internal stresses by process of work
hardening the specimen.
To confirm our hypothesis of the material two groups of experiments and testing were
done. One test involved the authentication of the material, while the other involved the
possibility of internal stresses.
In an attempt to verify the quality of output of the fatigue tester, parts of the 10 initial
specimens were tensile tested. The Tensile tests results corresponded with the fatigue test
giving an average Sut of 100.4ksi. The different between the results of the fatigue test and
tensile test were relatively close but still substantially high compared to the critical to
quality value of 65.3ksi. The results between the fatigue and tensile test were neglected,
due to the bigger issue. These differences may have occurred due to specimen loading
conditions, system calibration errors or other random errors.

To further verify the results a Rockwell Hardness test was conducted on the specimens.
The hardness test results showed an average ultimate tensile strength of 98ksi.
After three multiple test results, all verifying an accurate read of 80+ Sut, a spark test was
performed to confirm the carbon content. A Combustion test performed by an outsourced
laboratory, IMR Test Labs, also confirmed the carbon content of 1 specimen as 0.19% of
weight. This test result indicted the specimens were in fact AISI 1018 Cold Rolled Steel.
At this point it was clear that the only variance that had not formally been taken into
account was manufacturing process. Work hardened materials deviate from most
published values, as was observed through test experiments. However, this claim needed
to be backed up. A metallurgical grain structure test would enable us to read the grain
structure of our specimens and compare it to published data from the American
Metallurgical Society. Studying the specimens under a high powered microscope, visually
the data corresponded with that of published images. However, photographs were not
conclusive enough, or a reliable source of data to draw any conclusion; There can be errors
such as human eye errors.
At this point it was verified that we know the samples were of AISI 1018 CRS. To bring the
Sut down closer to its published values within 3-4% range, a set of new 1018 CRS
specimens from which the same batch the original was received. These specimens were
put into a furnace to undergo full annealing. Upon the completion of the annealing process,
the five specimens were then re-tested for fatigue, tensile, hardness and metallurgy. The
results of the post annealed specimens were found to be close to published value of 65.3ksi
within 3-4%. Therefore, as hypothesized, the material of the specimens was in fact AISI
1018 Cold Rolled Steel which was induced with internal stresses.
To effectively complete this project, Six Sigma tools were utilized to better define, measure,
analyze, improve and control (DMAIC) the main objective and customer need which was to
determine the fatigue characteristics of given samples of AISI 1018 cold rolled steel. Tools
such as project plan using a Gantt chart, process flow chart, diagrams, brainstorming,
PDCA, ANOVA, SIPOC, two sample T-test, box plots, and cost analysis were incorporated
into the report to be better organized & utilize the DMAIC process.

Hypothesis
After conducting the fatigue analysis experiments, we encountered a problem. The actual
fatigue data was significantly higher than both the published and calculated corrected
data. We suspect that the cause of this material's increase in fatigue characteristics is a
result of strain hardening that occurred during the cold drawing manufacturing process of
these specimens. To verify our suspicions, we will conduct a series of tests to verify the
SUT of the specimens. This will ensure that there was no major error during the fatigue
testing of the material. Spark and metallurgy test will be done to verify that material is
actually 1018 CRS. At the completion of these tests, we should be able to conclude that the
material is still in fact 1018 CRS with an increase in SUT due to strain hardening during
manufacturing process of the specimens.
Introductionand Background
For the 2011 fall quarter Failure Mechanics class, a CTQ (Critical to Quality) was given to
determine the fatigue characteristics of AISI 1018 CRS within a 99% confidence level and
compare them to the published values. In the process of reaching this CTQ, Six Sigma tools
were utilized. With these found fatigue characteristics, analysis were to be done to show
the general applicable engineering design in terms of safety factors.
The failure of materials theoretically occurs at much lower stress levels than the published
values of the ultimate tensile strength (SUT). An important part of Failure Mechanics is to
understand the conditions of bodies that incur alternating stresses under cyclic loading.
With this understanding, predictions of failure can be achieved, and designs can be created
at variable FOS (Factors of Safety) for different applications.
Using a fatigue tester is a favorable way to test the fatigue characteristics of a material.
Usage of this machine requires knowledge of Failure Mechanics and strength of materials
in order to utilize the data from this machine. With this knowledge a controlled set of test
can be conducted and the data can be interrupted into a SUT. This is achieved with the
creation of a SN-Diagram (Stress vs. Number of cycles). To further constrain that the
material and verify the material properties, other test can be conducted. These test
include, hardness, metallurgy, spark, and tensile test. A collection of this data and
published data will provide controlled fatigue characteristics with verified material
properties.

Alternate Experiments
To qualify the legitimacy of the Fatigue test results, a tensile test and a Hardness test were
performed. The specimens used for both these experiments were parts of the broken
specimens from the fatigue tests. For all the following experiments parts of the same
specimens used for the fatigue test were used. This was to ensure no corruption of the
sample set. For the Tensile test the neck of the specimen was used.
Tensile test results, performed on 4 specimens were concurrent with those from the fatigue
test. The average ultimate tensile strength derived from the experiment was 100ksi. The
tensile test was however not enough evidence to dismiss either one of the hypothesis. A
hardness test was then performed on 4 samples of the fatigue test. The average HRB
number derived from the hardness test was 94.4 HRB. According to the Rockwell Hardness
Conversion charts this indicted an ultimate tensile strength of approximately 98ksi.
The results of the Tensile and Hardness test were concurrent with those of the Fatigue test.
Precise results did not however account for accuracy. The investigation then leaned
towards proving the authenticity of the specimens’ material. To conclude the specimen was
in fact AISI 1018 Cold Rolled Steel, a spark test, Combustion test, and Metallographic test
were performed.
The spark test was visually conclusive. The spark profiles matched those of low to medium
carbon steel alloys. This indicted the carbon content was between 0.15% and 0.20% of
weight of the material. This is characteristic of low carbon steels, under which 1018 CRS
falls.
The combustion test was more precise. It was outsourced to IMR Testing Labs due to the
lack of testing equipment here at RIT. IMR Testing Labs reported a carbon content of 0.19%
of weight. This matched the requirements of AISI 1018 Carbon Steel according to UNS-G-
10180 standards.
The Metallographic test helped observe the grain structure of the specimens. Polished and
acid etched image results determined that the grain structure was similar to published
images characteristic to low carbon steels.
After performing all these tests, it was conclusive that the specimens were in fact AISI 1018
CRS, but the anomaly of the results being higher than its published/expected Sut is due to
the presence of internal stresses. So to bring down the ultimate tensile strength value to a
more acceptable range, it was decided that a full annealing process will have to be done. A
batch of the same specimens were taken and thrown into the annealing oven to have them
fully annealed. Upon annealing of these specimens, the group received 5 specimens, and the
same fatigue, tensile, hardness and metallurgic tests were performed all over again to

compare the post annealed data to that of the pre annealed data. The results of these tests
were found to be closer to published values within 3-4 percent variance. The average
ultimate tensile strength indicated by the annealed specimens was 62.5ksi. A two sample T-
test was made to compare the pre annealed and post annealed data, as part of the Six Sigma
tools. This observation led to the conclusion that the material was accurately provided by
the supplier. It was 1018 Cold Rolled Steel and the failure characteristics are in accordance
to published data.
Six Sigma Tools incorporated in the fatigue analysis report:
 Project Charter
 Gantt Chart
 Stages of Team Development
 Plan Do Check Act
 Process Flow Chart
 High Level SIPOC
 Box Plot
 Two Sample T-test
 ANOVA
 Cause and Effect Diagrams
 C & E Checklist
 Cost Analysis
Results and Conclusion
After performing multiple tests on the given sample specimens it is likely that they are AISI
1018 CRS. To confirm the material a vast number of other aspects must be researched. The
manufacturing process would tell us a lot more about the components of the material.
All test performed qualify the presence of internal stresses in the material. There is
minimal evidence in this investigation that leads to conclusively verify that the material is
1018 CRS. Had specimens of 1015 CRS or 1020 CRS been tested, with a 4% variance in
results the collected data would conclude the same most probably. The material exhibits
characteristics of 1018 CRS but is not conclusive enough to accurately determine the
ingredients of the material. However, the objective of the investigation was accurately met.
Its failure conditions and behavior under these conditions were accurately charted. To
verify material components accurately, further investigation and experiments would be
necessary.

Appendix A
Part Measurements& Initial Calculations
1018 ColdRolledSteel SUT= 65,300psi
D= 0.500” d= 0.3125”
Length=4.125” r= 0.1563”
𝑟
𝑑
=
0.1563"
0.3125"
= .24
𝐷
𝑑
=
0.500
.3125
= 1.6*
KT= 1.51 (Reference Figure C-1,(Norton,Page 1000))
L=4.125-0.3125= 3.8125”= MomentArm
*Note:Basedon Figure C-1,there isa givencurve for 2.0 & 1.5 withvaluesforKT of 1.5 & 1.55
respectively.Therefore we made alinearinterpolationtoobtainthe value of 1.51 for KT.
AreaMoment of Inertia= 𝐼 =
𝜋𝑑4
64
=
𝜋(0.3125" )4
64
= 4.68 × 10−4
𝑖𝑛4
Avg. Surface CTemp CReliability CLoad Csize Csurface Corr. Factor
86.28μ” 1 0.702 1 0.778 0.975 0.5325
SUT’= Corr.Factor×SUT
𝜎 𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝑀𝐶
𝐼
→
𝐹 × 𝐿 × 𝑟
𝐼
=
𝐹 × 3.8125" × 0.1563
4.68 × 10−4
𝑖𝑛4
𝜎 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐹 × 1272.87
𝜎 𝑚𝑎𝑥
1272.87
= 𝐹(𝑙𝑏𝑠)
𝜎 𝑚𝑎𝑥
286.18
= 𝐹(𝑁)
Se’
= SUT × 0.5= 32,650 psi
Se=Se’
×CTemp×CReliability×CLoad×Csize×Csurface
Se= 32,650 psi × 0.5325
Se= 17.386 psi
Sm=SUT × 0.9= 58,770 psi

Appendix B
Initial S/N Diagram
S-N Diagram and Force Values for Fatigue Testing
Revs Published Corrected
0 65300 65300
1.0E+03 58770 58770
1.0E+06 32650 17386
1.0E+09 32650 17386
Projected numbers
Actual
Rev
Actual
MinutesSample
Stress
(psi) Revs
Force
(N) Minutes
1 50000 4320 175 1.22 78697 22.17
2 48000 6030 168 1.70 80624 22.71
3 46000 8420 161 2.37 85440 24.07
4 44929 10070 157 2.84 103119 29.05
5 42640 14760 149 4.16 114689 32.31
6 40065 22680 140 6.39 108647 30.60
7 38061 31690 133 8.93 297435 83.78
8 36344 42210 127 11.89 522331 147.14
9 34341 58960 120 16.61 354164 99.76
10 25756 87150 90 24.55 3853035 1085.36
y = -5991ln(x) +100150
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06
Corrected
Corrected
Log. (Corrected)

Completed Post Annealed S/N Diagram
Revs Published Corrected
0 65300 65300
1.0E+03 58770 58770
1.0E+06 32650 17386
1.0E+09 32650 17386
Post
Anneal
Revs
Projected numbers
Actual
Rev
Actual
MinutesSample
Stress
(psi) Revs
Force
(N) Minutes
1 50000 4320 175 1.22 78697 22.17 4063
2 48000 6030 168 1.70 80624 22.71
3 46000 8420 161 2.37 85440 24.07 6320
4 44929 10070 157 2.84 103119 29.05
5 42640 14760 149 4.16 114689 32.31 8019
6 40065 22680 140 6.39 108647 30.60
7 38061 31690 133 8.93 297435 83.78 18770
8 36344 42210 127 11.89 522331 147.14
9 34341 58960 120 16.61 354164 99.76 24980
10 25756 87150 90 24.55 3853035 1085.36
Pre-
Anneal
Post
Anneal
Tensile 100 ksi 62 ksi
Hardness 98 ksi 57.8 ksi

Appendix C
Finite Element Analysis
Executive Summary
Finite ElementAnalysisisapowerful tool that
can be usedtoanalyze complex stress
situationsonmultiple parts. Whenused
properlyitcan findsolutionstoproblemsthat
are toocomplex forclassical closed-form
methodsof stressdeflectionanalysis. If these
calculationsare done byhand,it is too easyto
misscertainstressconcentrationsthatthe
software isprogrammedtopickup on.The
FEA software expeditesandstandardizesthe
processso accurate calculationsare
consistentlycreated.
Model Information
Model name: Part1-1
Current Configuration: Default

Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Treated As Volumetric Properties
Document Path/Date
Modified
Chamfer1
Solid Body
Mass:0.0795517 kg
Volume:1.01082e-005 m^3
Density:7870 kg/m^3
Weight:0.779606 N
C:UsersArs1080AppD
ataLocalTempPart1-
1.SLDPRT
Nov 07 15:11:41 2011
Units
Unit system: SI (MKS)
Length/Displacement mm
Temperature Kelvin
Angular velocity Rad/sec
Pressure/Stress N/m^2
Material Properties
Model Reference Properties Components
Name: AISI 1018 Steel, Cold
Rolled
Model type: Linear Elastic Isotropic
Default failure
criterion:
Max von Mises Stress
Yield strength: 50763.2 psi
Tensile strength: 60915.8 psi
Elastic modulus: 2.97327e+007 psi
Poisson's ratio: 0.29
Mass density: 0.284322 lb/in^3
Shear modulus: 1.1603e+007 psi
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
6.5e-006 /Fahrenheit
SolidBody 1(Chamfer1)(Part1-
1)
Curve Data:N/A

Loads and Fixtures
Fixture name Fixture Image Fixture Details
Fixed-2
Entities: 1 face(s)
Type: Fixed Geometry
ResultantForces
Components X Y Z Resultant
Reaction force(N) -0.0023194 100.791 0.00255805 100.791
Reaction Moment(N-m) 0 0 0 0
Load name Load Image Load Details
Gravity-1
Reference: Top Plane
Values: 0 0 -9.81
Units: SI
Remote Load
(Direct
transfer)-1
Entities: 1 face(s)
Type: Load (Direct transfer)
Coordinate System: Global cartesian coordinates
Force Values: ---, -100, --- N
Moment Values: ---, ---, --- N-m
Reference coordinates: 5.5 0.15625 0 in
Components transferred: Force

Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MesherUsed: Standardmesh
Automatic Transition: Off
Include MeshAuto Loops: Off
Jacobian points 4 Points
ElementSize 0.0851578 in
Tolerance 0.00425789 in
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 11285
Total Elements 6862
MaximumAspect Ratio 7.5232
% of elementswithAspectRatio < 3 98.8
% of elementswithAspectRatio > 10 0
% of distortedelements(Jacobian) 0
Time to complete mesh(hh;mm;ss): 00:00:02
Computername: 719-70-1130-04

Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Selectionset Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant
Entire Model N -0.0023194 100.791 0.00255805 100.791
Reaction Moments
Selectionset Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant
Entire Model N-m 0 0 0 0
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Stress1 VON: von Mises Stress 7.66339e-007 ksi
Node: 841
29.774 ksi
Node: 331
Part1-1-Study 1-Stress-Stress1

Name Type Min Max
Displacement1 URES: Resultant Displacement 0 in
Node: 8
0.0309513 in
Node: 330
Name Type Min Max
Strain1 ESTRN: EquivalentStrain 1.06866e-010
Element: 4490
0.000690231
Element: 2346

Conclusion
In this specific FEA analysis, you can quickly determine where the part incurs the most
stress in the model. The distributed von MISES stress throughout the part range from
7.66339e-007 ksi to 29.774 ksi. These numbers are not as important as the proportion of
the stresses throughout the specimen. Error could have occurred in the calculation of the
stress due to user error. But the distribution of the stresses in the model still holds true.
The most important distribution of stress to concentrate on is the ones located at the fillet.
More specifically speaking, the greatest stress will be at the point of fixation, furthest from
the load. This is important to further investigate during the design of this part and during
the fatigue analysis of this cantilever beam.
You can also find from this FEA analysis is the areas in which the cantilever beam incurs
the greatest defection. The specimen is under a load and in reverse bending. Due to the
moment force, the point of fixation is undergoing the most stress. The point where the
most deflection occurs is at the load. A significant amount of deflection is shown in the
diagrams and illustrated with the colors and scale.

Appendix D
Fatigue Test
Pre-AnnealedFatigueTesting
Executive Summary
The goal of this experiment was to find the ultimate strength of 1018 CRS and compare it to
the published data. 10 specimens were given to us by our boss and each specimen will be
tested at various loads based on our initial calculations. All of the data collected from the
fatigue tests will be compiled together to create an S-N Diagram to find the ultimate
strength of the 1018 samples. The 10 specimens were tested at forces ranging from 90N to
175N. The fatigue tester operated at 3450 revolutions per minute. After gathering all of the
data and drawing a new logarithmic line, the ultimate strength was determine to be 84 ksi,
as can be seen in the S-N Diagram (Appendix B). The ultimate strength of the tested parts
was far higher than the published date for ultimate strength. Tensile and hardness tests
will be performed next to see if the machine is off or the parts are out of spec and to get
down to the reason why the measured data and published data are off by more than 3-4%.
Equipment Specifications
Fully reversed bending analysis was performed on a standard G.U.N.T Fatigue Testing
machine manufactured by G.U.N.T. Hamburg GmbH, Germany. The equipment
specifications are as follows:
Motor
 Speed: 3450 rpm
 Output: 0.37kW
Load
 0- 300 Newton’s
Load Cycle Counter
 Electronic
 8-digit digital display
 Can be switched to display
speed
The machine was ideal for performing a fully reversed bending test on a small scale. The
fully reversed condition is achieved as the specimen rotates with the top half of the profile

in tension while the bottom half in compression. Due to excessive, long term usage it was
suspected the motor output would differ from the manufacturing specifications. We took a
reading of the RPM and got results back showing that it wasn’t off by much. During
operational conditions there would be a substantial amount of load on the test specimen.
This load would generate higher friction that the motor would have to overcome. This
could potentially have lowered the speed at which the machine ran.
Goals and Objectives
Fatigue testing of all ten specimens and use the data to create a new logarithmic line to
calculate the measured ultimate strength of the 1018 CRS.
Procedure
As a starting point an estimated S-N Diagram was constructed. This helped chart the likely
pattern that a sample of AISI 1018 Cold Rolled Steel would impersonate. The estimate S-N
diagram was used as reference to determine the load conditions for the actual experiment.
Taking the number of cycles as the independent variable, loads ranging from 90-175N were
determined. The load range was then divided and each of the 10 specimens was assigned a
load value. Once loaded into the fatigue tester the specimens were tested and the number
of cycles to breakpoint was noted and plotted on the S-N Diagram.
Data& Graph
Projected numbers
Actual
Rev
Actual
MinutesSample Stress (psi) Revs Force (N) Minutes
1 50000 4320 175 1.22 78697 22.17
2 48000 6030 168 1.70 80624 22.71
3 46000 8420 161 2.37 85440 24.07
4 44929 10070 157 2.84 103119 29.05
5 42640 14760 149 4.16 114689 32.31
6 40065 22680 140 6.39 108647 30.60
7 38061 31690 133 8.93 297435 83.78
8 36344 42210 127 11.89 522331 147.14
9 34341 58960 120 16.61 354164 99.76
10 25756 87150 90 24.55 3853035 1085.36

Results Analysis:
During the experiment, there was a noticeable difference in revolutions required to cause
failure. This difference was further emphasized with a visual comparison between expected
data points and actual data point. Comparing the expected and actual results on the S-N
Diagram we see how the actual data resulted in a change in the expected Se, Sm and Sut. The
published value for the 1018 CRS is 65.3 ksi and the value projected by this data set is 84.2
ksi. This is about a 29% error between the two sets of data.
Error Evaluation
As mentioned previously, our specimens took longer to break than we had anticipated.
This inaccuracy of results may have been caused due to a number of factors such as system
errors, calibration offsets, human errors, loading condition faults, the wrong material being
provided by the supplier, etc. One thing though, the precision of the results following a
path similar to expected path, though offset, proves that random errors were negligible.
The further this test issue, and determine why our data was off by so much, we will be
performing additional tests, including hardness and tensile.

Fatigue (All Groups)
Group psi Ksi Revs Group psi Ksi Revs Group psi Ksi Revs
1,1
50120 50.1 92765
1,4
55000 55.0 36874
1,7
52750 52.8 49228
46700 46.7 74593 53000 53.0 41441 49000 49.0 53427
43700 43.7 171770 49000 49.0 110696 47100 47.1 70320
40870 40.9 135990 46000 46.0 80430 44500 44.5 86027
37600 37.6 314187 42000 42.0 24696 40750 40.8 122848
34100 34.1 1269818 41000 41.0 158725 38900 38.9 108295
54800 54.8 48330 38000 38.0 213696 36750 36.8 215479
39210 39.2 151716 34000 34.0 164803 33300 33.3 NB
50170 50.2 89575 29000 29.0 687565 30500 30.5 588000
54500 54.5 54326 27500 27.5 NB 27750 27.8 1300000
1,2
50653 177 6348 51000 51.0 75356
2,1
50000 50.0 78697
46933 164 72309 46000 46.0 116434 48000 48.0 80624
34341 120 68209 42000 42.0 83371 46000 46.0 85440
44071 154 81616
1,5
42776 42.8 127447 45000 45.0 103119
40351 141 129102 40616 40.6 85375 43000 43.0 114689
37489 131 299223 38457 38.5 128596 40000 40.0 108647
31479 110 419308 35608 35.6 326093 38000 38.0 297435
29190 102 625383 27415 27.4 1248645 36000 36.0 522331
34402 34.4 462652 34000 34.0 354164
29565 29.6 945661 26000 26.0 NB
1,3
56000 56.0 63,274 31871 31.9 136044
2,2
42000 42.0 69906
53000 53.0 31,317 31137 31.1 713505 46000 46.0 81565
50000 50.0 59,459 30262 30.3 811032 37000 37.0 242056
47000 47.0 29,603
1,6
60088 60.1 47196 39000 39.0 162536
44000 44.0 91,061 57835 57.8 56850 35000 35.0 313827
41000 41.0 182,538 54830 54.8 60469 41000 41.0 126482
38000 38.0 324,223 52577 52.6 175201 44000 44.0 84841
35000 35.0 401,379 50324 50.3 129368 31000 31.0 971272
32000 32.0 748,225 47319 47.3 145139 33000 33.0 669313
29000 29.0 2845198 45066 45.1 198444 34000 34 339841
42813 42.8 272859
39808 39.8 264111
37555 37.6 281022

Group Sut
1,1 86.6
1,2 67.0
1,3 79.2
1,4 82.4
1,5 66.4
1,6 164.4
1,7 85.3
2,1 84.2
2,2 73.9

Post AnnealedFatigueTesting
Executive Summary
The goal of this experiment was to find the ultimate strength of annealed samples of 1018
CRS and compare it to the published data. Five specimens were given to us and each
specimen is to be tested at various loads based on our initial calculations. All of the data
collected from the fatigue test will be compiled together to create an S-N Diagram to
calculate the ultimate strength of the 1018 samples. The five samples were tested at forces
ranging from 120N to 175N. The fatigue tester operated at approximately 3450 revolutions
per minute. After gathering all of the data and drawing a new logarithmic line, the ultimate
strength was determine to be 67.5 ksi as can be seen in the S-N Diagram (Appendix B). The
ultimate strength of the tested parts was 3.4% higher than the published date for ultimate
strength. Tensile and hardness tests will be performed to further verify this value.
Equipment Specifications
Fully reversed bending analysis was performed on a standard G.U.N.T Fatigue Testing
machine manufactured by G.U.N.T. Hamburg GmbH, Germany. The equipment
specifications are as follows:
Motor
 Speed: 3450 rpm
 Output: 0.37kW
Load
 0- 300 Newton’s
Load Cycle Counter
 Electronic
 8-digit digital display
 Can be switched to display
speed
The machine was ideal for performing a fully reversed bending test on a small scale. The
fully reversed condition is achieved as the specimen rotates with the top half of the profile
in tension while the bottom half in compression. Due to excessive, long term usage it was
suspected the motor output would differ from the manufacturing specifications. We took a
reading of the RPM and got results back suggesting that it was close to its specified speed.
During operational conditions there would be a substantial amount of load on the test

specimen. This load would generate higher friction that the motor would have to
overcome. This could have potentially reduced the speed of the machine under load.
Fatigue testing five annealed specimens and use the data to create a new logarithmic line to
calculate the measured ultimate strength of the annealed 1018 CRS, then compare it to
both the pre-annealed values as well as the published value.
Procedure
As a starting point an estimated S-N Diagram was constructed. This helped chart the likely
pattern that a sample of AISI 1018 Cold Rolled Steel would impersonate. The estimate S-N
diagram was used as reference to determine the load conditions for the actual experiment.
Taking the number of cycles as the independent variable, loads ranging from 120-175N
were determined. The load range was then divided and each of the five specimens was
assigned a load value. Once loaded into the fatigue tester the specimens were tested and
the number of cycles to breakpoint was noted and plotted on the S-N Diagram.
Data& Graph
Projected numbers
Actual
Rev
Actual
Minutes
Post
Anneal
RevSample
Stress
(psi) Revs
Force
(N) Minutes
1 50000 4320 175 1.22 78697 22.17 4063
2 48000 6030 168 1.70 80624 22.71
3 46000 8420 161 2.37 85440 24.07 6320
4 44929 10070 157 2.84 103119 29.05
5 42640 14760 149 4.16 114689 32.31 8019
6 40065 22680 140 6.39 108647 30.60
7 38061 31690 133 8.93 297435 83.78 18770
8 36344 42210 127 11.89 522331 147.14
9 34341 58960 120 16.61 354164 99.76 24980
10 25756 87150 90 24.55 3853035 1085.36

Results Analysis:
During the experiment, there was a difference in time required to failure point, although it
was far less than that of the nonannealed samples. Comparing the expected and actual
results on the expected S-N Diagram we see how the actual data resulted in a change in the
expected Se, Sm and Sut. The theoretical value for the 1018 CRS should be 65.3 ksi and our
value came out to be 67.5 ksi. This is about a 3.4% error between the two sets of data.
Error Evaluation
The inaccuracy of results may have been caused due to a number of factors such as system
errors, calibration offsets, human errors, loading condition faults, the wrong material being
provided by the supplier, etc. The precision of the results following a path similar to
expected path, though offset, proves that random errors were negligible. Overall, the
samples were within 4% of the published data, so further testing will help define the tested
ultimate tensile strength of the material.

Appendix E
Tensile Testing
TensileTestofthe pre-annealedSamples
Executive Summary
To confirm the ultimate tensile strength of the specimens and to compare them to and
validate the fatigue testing results, tensile testing was performed on four specimens. By
measuring the parts to find the area broken and using the MTS Universal Testing machine,
we were able to obtain the ultimate tensile strength for those specimens. An average
tensile strength of 100 ksi was recorded, with a standard deviation of 6.2 ksi. This average
was considerably higher than the ultimate strength projected by our fatigue results.
Equipment
Tensile Tester
Goals & Objectives
The goal of this experiment was to determine the ultimate tensile strength of four of the
specimens of 1018 cold rolled steel. This value could then be compared to the projected
ultimate strength from the fatigue values.
Procedure
Four samples (samples 1, 2, 3, and 4 as labeled from fatigue testing) were tested in the
Universal Testing Insight tensile testing machine. The machine was set up to hold the size
specimen we were using, then the piece was secured inside. The sample was first secured
in the upper vice and then slowly lowered into the lower vice, and secured there. A strain
gauge was attached to the specimen and the machine was started. Once prompted, the
strain gauge was removed and the test continued until fracture. The stress and strain
figured were recorded by the computer. The specimen was then removed than the process
was repeated.

Data
All Specimen Graph
Individual Specimen Graphs
Specimen # : 1 Specimen # : 2
Specimen # : 3 Specimen # : 4

Specimen Results
Specimen
#
Specimen
Comment
Diameter Peak Load Peak Stress Modulus
Break
Stress
Stress At
Offset
Yield
Strain At
Break %
Total
Energy
Absorbed
in lbf psi psi Psi psi ft*lbf/in^2
1 Part 1 0.311 8048 105947.5 3.38E+07 1.03E+05 9.68E+04 3.326 274
2 Part 2 0.311 7969 104909.3 3.23E+07 7.52E+04 9.77E+04 23.779 1743
3 Part 3 0.312 7284 95278.6 3.24E+07 6.56E+04 8.11E+04 21.07 1598
4 Part 4 0.313 7253 94258.3 3.18E+07 7.44E+04 8.03E+04 8.973 674
Mean 0.312 7639 100098.4 3.26E+07 7.96E+04 8.90E+04 14.287 1072
Std. Dev. 0.001 429 6183.1 8.77E+05 1.63E+04 9.58E+03 9.738 712
TensileTestofthe post-annealedSamples
Executive Summary
To confirm the ultimate tensile strength of the annealed specimens and to compare them to
and validate the pre and post- annealed fatigue testing results, tensile testing was
performed on five specimens. By measuring the parts to find the area broken and using the
MTS Universal Testing machine, we were able to obtain the ultimate tensile strength for
those specimens. An average ultimate tensile strength of 62.2 ksi was found through
testing, with a standard deviation of 0.356 ksi. This average was 4.7% lower than the
published value.
Equipment
Tensile Tester
Goals & Objectives
The goal of this experiment was to determine the ultimate tensile strength of five of the
annealed specimens of 1018 cold rolled steel. This value could then be compared to the
projected ultimate strength from the fatigue values, as well as our pre- annealing tensile
values to determine differences.

Procedure
Four samples (samples 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as labeled from fatigue testing) were tested in the
Universal Testing Insight tensile testing machine. The machine was set up to hold the size
specimen we were using, then the piece was secured inside. The sample was first secured
in the upper vice and then slowly lowered into the lower vice, and secured there. A strain
gauge was attached to the specimen and the machine was started. Once prompted, the
strain gauge was removed and the test continued until fracture. The stress and strain
figures were recorded by the computer. The specimen was then removed than the process
was repeated.
Specimen Results
Specimen
#
Specimen
Comment
Diameter Peak Load
Peak
Stress
Modulus
Break
Stress
Stress At
Offset
Yield
Strain At
Break
Total
Energy
Absorbed
in lbf Psi psi psi psi % ft*lbf/in^2
1 Part 1 0.31 4706 62347.3 3.32E+07 4.52E+04 3.95E+04 29.015 1912
2 Part 2 0.31 4669 61854.5 3.15E+07 4.48E+04 3.83E+04 31.107 2126
3 Part 3 0.313 4753 61770 3.24E+07 4.46E+04 3.82E+04 31.447 2170
4 Part 4 0.309 4687 62498.9 3.56E+07 4.50E+04 3.89E+04 32.957 2371
5 Part 5 0.309 4687 62506.8 3.08E+07 4.42E+04 3.98E+04 32.259 2290
Mean 0.31 4700 62195.5 3.27E+07 4.48E+04 3.89E+04 31.357 2174
Std. Dev. 0.002 32 356.8 1.84E+06 3.75E+02 7.08E+02 1.494 175

Appendix F
Hardness
Pre AnnealedHardnessTesting
Executive Summary
To confirm the ultimate tensile strength of the fatigue and tensile tests and to validate
theirs results hardness test on 4 specimens was performed. Rockwell B scale was used and
correction factors were used to find the hardness of each sample. After collecting all of the
data an average of 94.4 was found. By using a conversion graph, the ultimate tensile
strength was found to be 98 ksi. This test helped to confirm that the ultimate tensile
strength of the parts were higher than published data.
Equipment
 Wilson Instruments Rockwell Hardness
Tester Series 2000
Goals & Objectives
The goal of the experiment was to determine the hardness for the 4 specimens tested of the
1018 CRS. This number could then be converted to ultimate tensile strength to be
compared to the published data, as well as the results from the fatigue and tensile tests.

Procedure
4 samples were tested 4 times each on the Wilson Rockwell Hardness Tester. This was a
fairly simple test. The specimens were placed on the hardness testing machine. The
indenter used was a hardened steel ball. This indenter is used for aluminum, brass and soft
steels. The indenter’s comparative scale is the HRB. Once the samples were placed on the
testing platform a mechanical arm indented it. The indentation marks left were then
measured for area of indentation. The area was then cross referenced with Rockwell
Conversion Charts to determine the ultimate tensile strength.
Data
Hardness Pre-Annealed Results
Part 1 HRB Actual HRB Corrected
1 94 95.8
2 93.6 95.4
3 94.4 96.2
4 94.4 96.2
Part 2
1 96.4 98.4
2 96.6 98.3
3 96.2 97.9
4 96.5 98.2
Part 3
1 89.9 91.9
2 89.9 91.9
3 90 92
4 90.1 92.1
Part 4
1 89.4 91.4
2 90.4 92.4
3 89.1 91.1
4 89.4 91.4
Average= 94.41
BHN= 207.99
SUT= 98 ksi
The average of all the values provided a 94.4 HRB number. This is indicative of an ultimate
tensile strength of roughly 98 ksi.
Published data however provides an HRB number of 71 for 1018 Cold Drawn Steel. This is
a 25% deviation; 8% error range is allowed.

Error Analysis
Errors in the Hardness test may have occurred due to various reasons. The 4 times that
each specimen was tested, it was tested in 4 different locations. Even by testing each
sample 4 times, there can still be 4 spots chosen that do not reflect the overall mechanical
properties of the material. Also, there could have been faulty results if the steel was tested
too close to the edges of the sample.
Conclusion
Since the readings of the hardness test are concurrent with the results from the tensile test
and the fatigue test, the results are valid. The slight errors that may have occurred are thus,
negligible.
Post AnnealedHardnessTesting
Part 1 HRB Actual HRB Corrected Rockwell B Hardness
Numbers (HRB)
Equations to Convert Rockwell B
Hardness (HRB) into Brinell
Hardness (HB
1 60.9 57.3
2 63.1 59.6 from to
3 60.5 56.8 55 69 HB = 1.646 x HRB + 8.7
4 51.5 47.4 70 79 HB = 2.394 x HRB – 42.7
5 53.6 49.6 80 89 HB = 3.297 x HRB – 114
Part 2 90 100 HB = 5.582 x HRB – 319
1 50.3 46.1
2 62.1 58.5
3 62 58.4
4 56.8 52.9
5 62 58.4
Part 3
1 52.8 48.7
2 57 53.2
3 60.6 57
4 51.6 47.5
5 51.4 47.3
Part 4
1 32.1 27
2 45.7 41.3
3 60 56.3
4 61.9 58.3
5 57.3 53.5
Part 5
1 50 45.8
2 59.9 56.2
3 61.5 57.9
4 55.3 51.4
5 53.1 49.1
55.72 51.82
BHN= 637.5
Average= 506.63
SUT= 266 ksi

Results
After retrieving all the data from the past 4 tests on the pre annealed samples, we realized
that our ultimate tensile strength was higher than the published data for cold rolled 1018
steel. In trying to lower the tensile strength of the samples, we fully annealed 5 additional
samples and tested them. In order to ensure the most accurate results, we preformed four
different tests to prove our samples were in fact 1018 Cold Rolled Steel. The tests that we
preformed included a fatigue test, tensile test, metallurgy test and a Rockwell Hardness
test.
The annealing process heats the samples to slightly below the materials austenizing
temperature. Once it reaches this temperature, it begins to slow cool and over time lowers
the strength of the material by making it more ductile by allowing the grain structure to
return to its pre-drawn state. The results from the annealed hardness test are compared
directly with results of the pre annealed hardness test of the 10 previous samples. Through
the results we can see that the hardness average of the pre annealed samples are higher
than that of the annealed samples. What this means is that the annealing process has made
the surface of the new samples softer than the original pre annealed samples, ultimately
lowering the strength of the samples to meet the published ultimate tensile strength.

Appendix G
Combustion-Infrared Absorption
Executive Summary
The carbon content test or otherwise known as combustion test was outsourced to IMR
Testing Labs since the required equipment was unavailable to us through RIT. This test
was conducted to better verify the carbon content in the specimens and help verify the
Spark Test results.
IMR Testing Labs combustion tested 1 sample specimen that was received from a group in
Section 1 of Failure Mechanics class. Their report concluded that the specimen has 0.19%
of carbon by weight. The published characteristics of AISI 1018 Carbon steel require
between 0.15% and 0.20% of carbon by weight. They also concluded that the sample met
UNS-G-10180 standards for AISI 1018 Carbon Steel.
The report provided by IMR Test Labs is provided in the next page. This report has been
made available by the generosity of Thomas Mordovancey from Section 1.
Error Analysis
Accounting for possible errors in this test was no possible due to an inadequacy of
information pertaining to the testing method.
Conclusion
The combustion test is standard test performed by IMR Testing Labs often. In spite of a lack
of information about the testing method, it was concluded that the results were conclusive.

Appendix H
Spark Test
Executive Summary
The spark test is used to determine relative molecular content of materials. In this case, the
test was used to determine the relative carbon content of our steel specimens. The test
involved use of a grinder and a specimen of 1018 steel. Vision and picture comparison was
used to come to our conclusions. After observing the spark patterns and color, the
specimen appears to be a low or mild carbon steel.
Equipment
The equipment used was a grinding wheel.
Goals & Objectives
The objective of this test was to determine a relative (mild or low, medium, or high carbon)
carbon content of the specimen. The specification of the specimen could then be compared
to that to see if it fell within that category.
Procedure
After the grinding wheel had come to speed, the specimen was securely held and touched
to the wheel. The spark pattern was observed and photographs were taken to document
the patterns.
Conclusion
Due to the leafing observed in the spark patterns, as well as very little branching, it was
concluded that the samples had the spark characteristics of a mild carbon steel.
Data
There is no numeric data for this experiment, only photographs recording the spark
patterns and colors.

Above:(Fromtopto bottom) mildcarbonsteel,
mediumcarbonsteel,andhighcarbonsteel
spark characteristics.(Picturesfrom
www.capeforge.com)
Left:Two picturesof a spark testperformedona
sample of 1018 coldrolledsteel.

Appendix I
Metallography
Pre-AnnealedMetallographyTest
Executive Summary
At this point it is established that the specimen is definitely AISI CRS 1018, and the results
were not due to a faulty machine. The fatigue, tensile, and hardness test results all gave
tensile strengths that were far above the published data. We are now assuming that the
steel must have been malformed to produce different results and is suspected that some
cold-working has happened. A metallurgical test was performed to prove this hypothesis.
It was found that upon performing this test, the grains were elongated, as seen in the
images below. These elongated grains were due to some unknown cold-working, and
resulted in giving us inflated results for the tests performed thus far. It is now known that
we have to anneal the 1018 CRS specimens to match the published data. The annealing type
that was chosen is Full Annealing, because that should bring the results to that of the
published data within 3-4% as we expect, by getting the grains back to normal.
The purpose of this test is to verify the grain structure of a material. Depending on the
contents of a material the metallurgical test will help validate the previously done Spark
Test and Combustion test and our hypothesis.
Procedure
A sample from one of the specimens was cut and polished to a fine, 1 micron grit. Once
polished the sample was cleaned in alcohol. After the alcohol had dried off the polished
surface of the sample was treated with acid and then drowned in flowing water. This
helped dilute the acid and the sample was then safe to touch with human hands. The
sample was then observed under a high magnification microscope. The microscope helped
determine the grain structure clearly. The images taken by a camera capable of taking such
pictures was then compared to published data.

Data/Images Collected
PublishedImagefor1018CRS CollectedImagefor 1018CRS

CollectedImagesofGrain Structure under microscope
Error Analysis
The possibilities of errors in visually determining the accuracy of images is difficult. The
abilities of the camera used to take the photographs were mediocre. Under the microscope
however the grain structure was clearer.
Conclusion
Though it is hard to photographically verify the images, it was visually conclusive that the
specimen grain structure matched that of the published grain structure image close
enough, but full annealing will now be performed.

Post-AnnealedMetallographyTest
Executive Summary
With the specimens being fully annealed, a metallurgy test was performed once again to
examine their grain structures. We came to a decision that upon full annealing the 1018
CRS, the grain structure will become less elongated, thus giving it a lower Sut value, so that
it would match out CTQ which is 65.3 ksi. With the annealed specimen, a fatigue, tensile,
and hardness tests were performed all over again to compare the results of the pre
annealed to that of the post annealed data. Finally a metallurgy test was also redone to
compare grain structures, and we found that the grain structure was definitely less
elongated than the pre annealed images.
The objective of this experiment was to determine if performing the full annealing resulted
in the samples having a more "normal" grain structure. Non-elongated grain structure is
the reason why our fatigue, tensile and hardness Sut results are more close to the
published value.
Data/Images Collected
Axial grain structure under microscope

Lateral grain structure under microscope

Appendix J
Annealing
Annealing is a process by which a treated or worked metal can be brought back to its
original microstructure.
During rolling or cold drawing, the grain structure of steel is elongated, making the steel
stronger and harder. Annealing is processes which, by heating steel, its grain structure can
relax and return to its original form. This non-elongated structure is typically weaker and
softer than the elongated structure caused by cold rolling or cold drawing.
The annealing process for bringing steel back to its original structure and properties
involves heating and controlled cooling. In order to achieve the re-alignment of the grain
structure in a full anneal, steel must be brought to 1200-1300 degrees Fahrenheit. After a
short period of time, the steel must be cooled slowly to avoid a quenching effect, usually
taking approximately 15 hours.

Appendix K
Cost Analysis
Energy Cost
Machine/
Experiment
Run Time
(Hr.)
Power
Usage
(watts) Kwh
Cost
($0.15/Kwh)
Fatigue 25 1000 25 $3.75
Tensile 2 200 0.4 $0.06
Hardness 1 750 0.75 $0.11
Annealing 12 5000 60 $9.00
Grinder 0.5 500 0.25 $0.04
Computer 50 270 13.5 $2.03
Metallurgy 1 2000 2 $0.30
Total 91.5 9720 101.9 $15.29
Testing
Group
Technicians Hours Wage Labor/Cost
Group 1 Section
2 41.5 $16 $664
External Cost
IMR $60
Material $20
Printing $40
Engineering
Engineers Hours/Eng Wage/Eng. Labor/Cost
7 50 $26 $9,100
Total Cost
of Project
$9,914.00
Conclusion
This #’s were derived through estimation and online information. This is a small
representation of what this project would cost in industry.

Appendix L
Green Belt Tools
ProjectCharter
PROJECT NO.: 20111-0610403-GRO1
Start Date September 7, 2011 Completion Date November9,2011
Belt Name Duane Beck Champion WilliamLeonard
Element Description Team Charter
Objective
Statement
What is the objective
to be achieved?
To determine the fatigue characteristics of AISI 1018
cold rolled steel and compare them to the published
values by November 7, 2011.
Project
Scope
Which part of the
process will be
investigated? To determine the fatigue characteristics of AISI 1018
CRS.
Team
Members
Who is on the team,
internal and external
personnel? Internal: Rahat Kamal, David Schmidt, Andrew Smith,
Kyle Manchester, Elijah Romulus, O’Neil Campbell, and
Jeremy Ayala
External: Mike Caldwell and William Leonard
Project
Schedule
(Gantt Chart)
What is the projected
timeline for each
phase of the project? Please Refer to Gantt Chart

Project Summaryfor the Green Belt in MET
Stages /
Phases
Goals and Start Date Deliverable Outcomes Belt /Champion Approval
Signatures And End Date
Stage 1
Define Phase
Stage 1
Measure Phase
Stage 2
Analyze Phase
Stage 3
Improve Phase
Stage 3
Control Phase
Stage 3
Written Report
Stage 3
Oral Defense

Gantt chart

Forming1
• Team gets to know each other
Storming2
• Conflict Resolution begins
Norming3
• Team Starts to Form
Performing4
• Teams are effective
Adjourning5
• Team breaks off to complete tasks
StagesofTeam Development
Phase 1
 The team was created and initial kick-off meeting was held. Taking the task at hand
the group brainstormed ideas of how to split up the initial tasks. With the initial set
of Fatigue testing the team has been formed.
Phase 2
 The team became effective at completing the tasks at hand in a timely and orderly
manner
Phase 3
 The team broke into two smaller teams and was still able to perform and adjourn
effectively as one big initial group.

PDCA
Supply Chain Plan Do Check Act
Supplier
Receive CTQ
requirements
from Engineer
Manufacture
product to
Engineer’s
specifications
Implement a
random
sampling plan
and quality
assurance
program
Provide a
Certificate if
Analysis (C of A)
with each
shipment
Purchasing
Receive CTQ
requirements
from Engineer
Order 1018 CRS
to Engineer’s
specification
Establish
Supplier Audit
Procedures
Specify a
Certificate of
Analysis (C of A)
must accompany
each shipment
of 1018 CRS
Engineering
Design and
Develop 1018
Annealed
Product
Specification
Implement
internal
inspection on
incoming
shipments of
1018 CRS
Implement a
random
sampling plan.
Perform testing
and analysis on
samples of 1018
CRS
Verify against a
C of A that
comes with each
shipment.
Implement a
Corrective
action plan for
nonconformance
products.
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR NON CONFORMANCE OF 1018 ANNEALED PRODUCTS
If the samples that are tested do not conform to product specifications, engineering takes
the following actions:
1) Engineering completes a non-conformance report with data analysis results.
2) Engineering notifies purchasing with a non-conformance report with the data
analysis results.
3) Purchasing notifies the Supplier of non-conformance report and results
4) Supplier investigates the non-conformance
5) Supplier responds to purchasing with a specified period of time
6) Purchasing notifies engineering for Supplier’s actions
7) Engineering enters non-conformance, data analysis, supplier correspondence and
outcome in records control system.

Start
Haveyoubeen
trainedonFatigue
Tester?
Doyouhavepart
totest?
Yes
Isthelabavailable
touse?
Yes
Doesyourgroup
havethelabsigned
out?
Yes
Gettrainedbyalab
techinthelab.
No
SeeLabtechto
obtainsampleparts.
No
Findoutwhenthe
labisavailableby
lookingatthe
schedule.
No
SignouttheLab
onlinebyemailing
MikeCaldwell.
No
BeginFatigueTestYes
Unscrewthefour
boltsthatsecurethe
cageandcoversthe
testpart.
Removethecollet
fromtheFatigue
Machine.
Loosentheforce
knobtoremoveall
forcesothepartcan
beplacedinthe
FatigueMachine.
Placearoundhalf
inchendofthetest
specimen.
Feedthesmaller,
milledendofthe
specimenthatis
attachedtotheload
knob.
Placecolletinhalf
inchspecimenend
intofatigue
machine.
Threadthebolton
totheFatigue
Machinethatholds
thecolletinplace.
Tightenthebolt
withthe2provided
wrenches.
Placethecageback
overthetestpart.
Fingertightenall
fourboltsthat
securethecage.
Turnonfatigue
Machinebypressing
powerbutton.
Areboth
revolution
counterssetto
zero.
Doyouhaveaforce
selectedtosupplytothe
part?
Yes
Getanothertechto
assiststartingthe
machine.
Pressthestart
button.
Immediatelyafterthe
machineisstarted,rotate
theloadknobuntil
desiredforceisachieved
onforcegage.
Pressthereset
buttononeach
revolutioncounter.
No
ReferenceyourSN-
Diagramand
determineaforceto
testattoachieve
desiredpoint.
No
Oncedesiredforce
isreached,pressthe
resetbuttononthe
revolutioncounter.
Letthepartrunin
themachine.
DiditBreak?
Letthepartrununtil
itreaches1million
cycles.
No
Pressstopbuttonon
topofpanel.
Recordthe
revolutionsfrom
both“motorend”
revolutioncounter
andthe“partend”
revolutioncounter.
Yes
Loosenthefour
boltsonthesafety
cage.
Removethesafety
cage.
Loosenthebolton
thecolletwiththe
twowrenches.
Removespecimen
andcolletfrom
FatigueMachine.
Removethecollet
fromthetest
specimen.
Placethecolletand
thewrenchesonthe
workbench.
TurnofftheFatigue
Machinebypressing
thepowerbutton.
End
Yes
ProcessFlowChart
FatigueTestingProcedure

HighLevel SIPOC
ReceiveCTQfrom
Customer
Order12'rodsfrom
Manufacturer
Receive12'rodsfrom
Manufacturer
LoadRodsinmachines
forfabricationof
specimens
Inspectspecimens
afterfrabrication
HighLevelSIPOC
Loadspecimensinbin
forpickup
Pickup1018
Specimensfrom
Supplier
CompleteProject
Performothertestsas
neededforfurther
analysis
Providestatusreport
outs
Performtesting/
breakinganalysis
Receivelecturesand
trainingfortestingand
breaking
Research1018
PublishedData
ReceiveCustomer
CTQ’sCompleteFatigue
AnalysisReporton
1018Specimens
Receive
Customer
Approval
ThatCTQ
Hasbeen
Met

BoxPlotStatistics onTesting
Pre- Annealed Sut Post Annealed Sut
Published
Data hrb
Pre-
Anneal
Tensile
Pre-
Anneal
Tensile
(From
HRB)
Pre-
Anneal
Fatigue hrb
Post-
Anneal
Tensile
Post-
Anneal
Tensile
(From
HRB)
Post-
Anneal
Fatigue
63.5 95.8 105.9 99.5 66.4 60.9 62.3 63.2 67.5
91.1 94.3 94.6 67.0 32.1 61.8 33.3
91.4 96.3 94.9 73.9 45.7 61.9 47.4
91.4 104.9 94.9 79.2 50.0 62.5 51.9
91.9 95.4 82.4 50.3 62.5 52.2
91.9 95.4 84.2 51.4 53.4
92.0 95.5 85.3 51.5 53.5
92.1 95.6 86.6 51.6 53.6
92.4 95.9 164.4 52.8 54.8
95.4 99.0 53.1 55.1
96.2 99.9 53.6 55.6
96.2 99.9 55.3 57.4
97.9 101.6 56.8 59.0
98.2 101.9 57.0 59.2
98.3 102.0 57.3 59.5
98.4 102.2 59.9 62.2
60.0 62.3
60.5 62.8
60.6 62.9
61.5 63.8
61.9 64.3
62.0 64.4
62.0 64.4
62.1 64.5
63.1 65.5

Real: Published HRB Pre-A Ten Pre-A Hard Pre-A Fat HRB A Ten A Hard A Fatigue
Min 63.5 91.1 94.3 94.6 66.4 32.1 61.8 33.3 67.5
Q1 91.9 95.8 95.4 73.9 51.6 61.9 53.6 67.5
Med 93.9 100.6 97.5 82.4 57.0 62.3 59.2 67.5
Q3 96.6 105.2 100.3 85.3 60.9 62.5 63.2 67.5
Max 98.4 105.9 102.2 164.4 63.1 62.5 65.5 67.5
Mean 94.4 100.4 98.0 87.7 55.7 62.2 57.8
All unitsin KSI
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
Published Pre-A Ten Pre-A Hard Pre-A Fat A Ten A Hard A Fatigue
1018 CRS Comparative Box Plot

Two SampleT-Test:NonAnnealed/Annealed
With a 95% confidence our null hypothesis for the report was that if each team was
distributed the same 1018 Cold Rolled Steel, then all samples distributed should be within
the range of the published tensile strength. For most groups this null hypothesis was
accepted, but our results gave us a smaller variance from the published results. This
smaller variance resulted in a low two tail P value.
Sample # UTS (ksi) Group # Grp 1 S2 Published
1 62.3
Group 1
Sec 2
62.3 63.4
2 61.8 61.8 63.4
3 61.7 61.7 63.4
4 62.5 62.5 63.4
5 62.5 62.5 63.4
6 61.8
Group 6
Sec 1
7 62.9
8 62.6
9 61
10 61.1
Group 4
Sec 1
11 61.8
12 62.7
13 62.2
14 63.9
15 61
Group 3
Sec 1
16 63.1
17 59.5
18 60.9
19 62.5
Group 1
Sec 1
20 61.1
21 62.5
22 61.4
Avg= 61.945
S= 1.07095

Grp1 Sec2 Published
Mean 62.16 63.4
Variance 0.0148 0
Observations 5 5
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4
t stat -7.20735
P(T<=t)onetail 0.000982
t critical one tail 2.131847
P(T<=t)twotail 0.001965
t critical twotail 2.776445
Ho:u1=up
Ha:u1 does not equal
Since the p value is less than 0.05, then we reject the null hypothesis
There are some factors that we have to take into account to determine why our P value was
so much smaller than that of other groups. There is nothing that we found that directly
caused such a low P value, but there had to be some kind of discrepancy with the data
collected among the four tests.

ANOVA
An anova calculation is an analysis of variance between multiple groups of data to
determine the statistical significance between the means of these groups. The data below
was accumulated from 9 different groups preforming the same experiment with the same
set of 1018 cold rolled steel samples.
group1 s1 grp3 s1 grp 1 s2
grp6
s1
grp4 s1 grp2 s2 grp7 s1 grp2 s1 gr5 s1
93.7 93 105.9 100.5 92.1 95.6 94.7 92.9 94.2
91.5 94 104..9 92 94.3 94.2 96.1 93.4 92.9
93.2 93.3 95.3 94.9 96.2 93.8 95.2 93.4 96.1
93.6 104.4 94.3 96.7 94.5 95.7 94.8 93.9 95.6
93.6 95.1 100.1 96 95.3 95 92
102.6 95.5 106.4 95.7 96.1 102.2
91 92.9 95 92.8 96.4 93
94 101.1 97.8 94.4 96.5 93
90.6 93.6 94.7
103 94.8
Anova:SingleFactor
Summary
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Group 1 s1 10 946.8 94.68 19.79955556
Grp3 s1 8 769.246 96.156 18.14149764
Grp1 s2 5 500.5 100.1 28.34
Grp6 s1 8 779.332 97.417 19.27150229
Grp4 s1 4 377.0553 94.264 2.774714276
Grp2 s2 9 851.1 94.567 1.1225
Grp7 s1 10 954.3 95.43 0.564555556
Grp2 s1 8 753.87 94.234 10.74982679
Grp5 s1 4 378.8 94.7 2.08666667

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-Value F crit
Between Groups 173.766 8 21.721 1.883470962 0.08047624 2.1056
Within Groups 657.3409 57 11.532
Total 831.1069 65
Ho: u1=u3=u1=u6=u4=u2=u7
Ha: u1 does not=u3 does not =u1 does not= u6 does not=u4 does not=u2 does not=u7
If the p is < or =0.05, then reject the null hypothesis
If the p is > 0.05, then fail to reject the null hypothesis
After analyzing the data, we failed to reject the null hypothesis do to our calculated P value.
Our P value was 0.08 which is larger than 0.05 cut off point for 95% confidence.

CauseandEffect FatigueDiagram
Difference
Between
Published
And
Actual
People
Measurement
EquipmentMaterials
ProcessesEnvironment
1018Steel
Testing
Specifications
FatigueTesting
TrainingProcedures
Calibration
Trainer
Experience
Training
RoomConditions
Location
RoomSetup
ProjectPlan
TrainingProcedures
OperatingInstructions
TestResults
Typesof
Measurements
EquipmentCalibration

CauseandEffect Material Diagram
1018
Material
Fatigue
Characteristics
People
Measurement
EquipmentMaterials
ProcessesEnvironment
1018Steel
Specifications
TensileTesting
SparkTesting
Trainer
Quenching
IndustryStandards
Annealing
Process
IMRTesting
Metallography
Testing
HardnessTesting
Machining
Tempering
Normalizing

C & E Checklist

Appendix M
Meeting Notes
Meeting # 1
Date: 9-15-2011
Tasks
 Gathered test samples
 Scheduled training with TA
 Took measurements of samples
 Discussed Project Plan
Questions
 How does the fillet affect the size ratio and the moment arm?
o It makes it stronger because if it were a 90 degree cut the stress
concentration factor would be different.
Meeting # 2
Date: 9-19-11
*Full Attendance*
Task
 Worked on S-N Diagram to determine testing loads
 Project Plan
Meeting # 3
Date: 9-21-11
Meeting # 4
Date: 9-26-11
 Finished SN diagram with loads
Meeting # 5
Date: 10-03-11
 Set a break time with TA
 Began gathering data from other groups
 Analyzed the discrepancies encountered from the first three tested parts.
-The last three parts tested were over the calculated S-N curve which draws other
questions about the quality of the material given.

Meeting # 6
Date: 10-10-11
 Assigned members to selected groups
 Distributed different sections of the lab report to certain members of the team.
 Analyzed the results from the most recent breaks.
-The fourth part that was tested, had a 157 N load applied and ran for 103,119
cycles taking close to 30 minutes to break.
-The fifth part was loaded at 90 N for 3,853,055 cycles and did not fail.
-Since the part greatly exceeded the curve calculated in the S-N diagram, the piece
theoretically never would have failed
Meeting # 7
Date: 10-17-11
 Finished SN diagram with loads
 Finished Rockwell Hardness testing on four different specimens
 Finished Tensile Testing of four different specimens
-All values were what we expected and gave us a new specified tensile strength for
the specimens
Meeting # 8
Date: 10-24-11
 On schedule for the report write up
 Finished the metallurgy test on two different specimens
-One longitudinally and one transversely
 Got approval for the testing of annealed samples
Meeting #9
Date: 10-31-11
 Tested 5 annealed specimens over the weekend
-All 5 tested for fatigue & Tensile
-During the Tensile test the graph results were misplaced but the number values
were still recorded.
 Hardness Testing completed on annealed specimens

References
1) Norton, Robert L. Machine Design: an Integrated Approach. Boston: Prentice
Hall, 2011. Print.
2) Hibbeler, R. C. Statics and Mechanics of Materials. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2011.
Print.
3) Online Materials Information Resource - MatWeb.Web. 04 Nov. 2011.
http://www.matweb.com/.
4) Published images provided by http://www.metallographic.com/
5) ASTM Standard E930
6) "Appendix 1—Rockwell/Brinell Hardness Conversion." Technical
Data.Kennametal.Web. 8 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.kennametal.com/images/pdf/techRef/milling/rockwellBrinde
llHardnessConv.pdf>.
7) http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/corus/16plus/steelch2pg3.html
8) http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=annealing_and_stress_rel
ief
9) http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-hardness.htm
10)Failure Mechanics Section 1 (Group Data)

Fatigue Analysis Report_ Final

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Fatigue Analysis Report_ Final

Semelhante a Fatigue Analysis Report_ Final (20)

Fatigue Analysis Report_ Final