Part VIII - Communications - On the Fatigue-Limit Behavior of Iron and Mild Steel

A number of papers have appeared in the past several years concerning the nature of the fatigue limit. The hypotheses presented in those papers fall into three groups. Some authors attribute the fatigue limit to the distribution of interstitials prior to testing (static group). Others consider the fatigue limit to be due to dislocation-interstitial reactions during testing (dynamic group). Still other propose that the fatigue limit results from a characteristic peculiar to the iron (bee) lattice (inherent group). This communication is an attempt to digest the salient features of each of the hypotheses, discuss them, and present some constructive criticism. It is shown that each of the extant ideas has some merit, and that each of the mechanisms thus far proposed is necessary, but individually insufficient, to provide the desired level of understanding of the fatigue-limit behavior of metals. Static Group. The data of Oates and wilson1 on finegrained (=0.022 mm diam) low-carbon steel indicate that the fatigue limit exists in the absence of sufficient plastic deformation for any dynamic strain-aging mechanism to be operative. Specimens tested just below the fatigue limit showed yield-point behavior typical for unstrained material when removed from the fatigue machine and tested in tension. These results led them to the conclusion that initial dislocation locking controls the fatigue limit in this material, which has a yield stress higher than the fatigue-limit stress. Prestraining this material just prior to fatigue testing would be expected to lower the fatigue-limit stress; this they observed experimentally. Yoshikawa and sugeno2 are of the opinion that the sharp fatigue limit in fine-grained iron is caused by