SAE Fatigue Design and Evaluation Committee Meeting
October 24, 2002
To: All SAE F.D.& E. members --From: John Hakala
The meeting was called to order at
John briefly went over some administrative items and
discussed the agenda for the day.
The first order of business the group wanted to discuss was
why the regular October SAE FD&E meeting was cancelled. Many in the group
were very upset that the meeting was cancelled. John stated that as of late
August, reservations at the hotel
A lack of resources does not mean a lack of interest.
Comments included: the structure of the FD&E meetings
has become more like a conference than a working group, wrong projects? Should
we restructure - eliminate divisions, and work together as one group (including
the surface enhancement group.)
The question was asked, what do people want from FD&E?
.... Long silence....Are you willing to work on FD&E projects one day a
month? We should have focused technical sessions on fatigue design methodology
with hands-on-projects.
Al Conle mentioned a material data base / files however,
there must be Company buy in (legal reasons). Gary Mauritzson recalled that SAE
FD&E managed a material properties database (J1099) 15 yrs. ago. Tom Oakwood
(AISI) discussed an ongoing AISI/industry project that is determining fatigue
properties for steel alloys. Companies pool funds for fatigue testing and have
exclusive rights to the data for two years. AISI is managing the project.
John Hakala stated that he would like to continue and even
expand the use of e-mail and the web for FD&E communications. He said it
worked well in communicating comments and opinions for this meeting.
Dan Lingenfelser and Mary Wickham (via conference call)
discussed the importance of continuing the FD&E short course. They also
suggested the virtual prototyping project should continue.
John Hakala presented a proposal from SAE for support of
FD&E which included minimum support for $100 /meeting and extended support
for $250 /meeting (see attached SAE proposal). The group did not show support
for the proposal. There was discussion on what support is needed for FD&E.
The major support was for publishing standards and papers. The rest of the
administration could be handled within the committee.
John Hakala mentioned a communication from Mike Mitichell
that suggested FD&E join ASTM E08. However, many comments were made from the
group that ASTM meets in high-cost (hotels) locations and how Company management
would view meetings in these locations as a "boondoggle". John also
mentioned the possibility of e-mail and web meetings.
Many in the group wanted to focus on projects so much of
the agenda was by-passed. Suggestions for projects included:
- welds - crackgrowth - castings - porosity, scatter in
data, aluminum engine materials - elevated temperatures, cast iron - FEA
confirmation - what is not being addressed elsewhere. - advanced design methods
- shorter test -- acceleration, less tests to prove analysis - lightweight
material substitution - fracture analysis
Mohammad El-Zein voiced interest in weld fatigue and
volunteered data for analysis and comparison purposes. Some of the group had
concerns about sharing test results due to proprietary issues. Mohammad
suggested sanitizing the data.
Ford suggested welded aluminum joints, rivets, weld-bonded
joints.
After extended discussions by several member of the group,
Gary Mauritzson presented a short list of projects: - shorter tests - analysis /
accelerated tests, plate w/ hole for verification - welds - crack growth /
verification - castings - fatigue properties, elevated temp., porosity - virtual
prototyping - shoot it, book it, conference - short course - high interest,
2-day, take it on the road
Peter Kurath read a letter from Darrall Socie discussing
his view of the FD&E committee (see attached letter). The ATV program
generated interest but not wide participation. There were no clear customers.
What is the next "ground breaking technology" in Fatigue that the
companies need, will fund, and we can work on?
The group went back to discussing a main project. The
majority of the group supported a joint/weld fatigue modeling project that
includes analytical / testing and verification. Hotspot strain analysis -
correlate measured strain in region. Mohammad has data on tubular samples he
could share. John and Peter suggested a call for papers on the state of
technology for weld analysis. It was suggested that the Edison Welding Institute
be contacted.
The next meeting will be held in
Two Fuchs awards will be presented at the April, 2003
meeting.
The agenda for the April 2003 meeting needs to be completed
by end of January, 2003.
Respectfully submitted, Russell Chernenkoff & John
Hakala
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Kurath [p-kurath(at)uiuc.edu] Sent:
X-Sender:
d-socie(at)staff.cso.uiuc.edu
Date:
From: Darrell Socie <d-socie(at)uiuc.edu Subject: SAE meeting Mime-Version: 1.0
Peter I am unable to addend the SAE meeting as planned.
Please express my regrets. Here are a few thoughts to share with the group.
There has been some discussion about past programs within the committee. I am
probably one of the few who has tested and analyzed keyhole specimens, notched
shafts and ATV frames. The motivation and circumstances surrounding these
programs were all very different. The keyhole program was a result of the
introduction of new technology, both strain-life and fracture mechanics, and the
introduction of the mini-computer in the laboratory. It was easy to get
participation because it was part of everyone's normal job. This was a time when
most companies had a mechanics group that was charged with implementing new
methods and then verifying that they worked. The test program was a way to share
the costs of doing all of the validation tests. It was an easy to find the
funding, both internal and external, for the work because people were already
committed to do it. The SAE FD&E was a focal point for fatigue in the ground
vehicle industry and people who wanted to learn the techniques and interact with
the "experts" came to the meetings. This resulted in many other
smaller projects because of the large number of participants. At the same time,
there was a substantial amount of funding available to the universities from the
federal government for basic research in fatigue. The notched shaft program took
a slightly different path. The committee was looking for something new to do.
Finite element methods were becoming well established and people wanted to know
what to do with the three dimensional stresses and strains. Both Drew Nelson of
Stanford and I were already doing research work in multiaxial fatigue funded by
various federal agencies. We convinced Dale Galliart , then committee chairman,
that this would be a good project for the group. Drew and Dale got an
university-industry NSF grant to work on this project. An NSF grant was
something new to Deere so everyone wanted to make sure it was a success. I got a
separate NSF grant to work on this project. We essentially had a customer for
the work so we had to do it. The later induction harden shaft work was
championed by Tom Cordes. This work was conducted at a time when multiaxial
fatigue was a "hot" topic both here and in
14 & 15 October "Simulation, Test & Measurement Conference 2002"
7 November Achievements in Noise and Vibration
21 November "Fatigue Failure Investigation & Computational Methods"
19 March " 20th Annual Instrumentation, Analysis & Testing Exhibition
7-9 April "Fatigue 2003 - Fatigue Durability Assessment of Materials, Components and Structures"
8 May "Rubber and Vibration Isolation"
Why are they successful while the SAE group struggles. In my view they have a better product that people want to buy. _______________________________
Darrell Socie tel: 217 333 7630
Peter Kurath University of Illinois at