Aby SAAJEDI-DNV ABD OFFICE March 2009

UNDERSTANDING BASICS OF FATIGUE

Summary

This module calculates the fatigue life of a part under variable amplitude loading
using constant amplitude fatigue life data.

The fatigue life of the structure can be represented by the following equation:

where:

- Total fatigue cycles to failure.

- Number of cycles to initiate a crack.
- Number of cycles to propagate a crack to
failure.

This module deals with fatigue damage during the crack initiation phase. Damage
during the initiation phase can be related to dislocations, slip bands, micro-cracks,
etc. Since these phenomena can only be measured in a highly controlled laboratory
environment, most damage summation approaches for the initiation phase are
empirical in nature. These methods relate damage to the expended life for a small
laboratory specimen. For this purpose, life is defined as the separation of a specimen,
which is equivalent to the formation of a small crack in a large component or
structure.

Background Information:

The service loading time history of an actual engineering part can be quite complex,
as shown in Figure 1. Several methods have been developed to deal with variable
amplitude loading using baseline data generated from constant amplitude tests. These
damage summation methods can be used in conjunction with either the Stress-Life or
Strain-Life methods of constant amplitude fatigue analysis to calculate the fatigue life
of a component subject to variable amplitude loading.

Page-1
55886994.doc

Figure 1: Variable amplitude time history

There are a number of methods such as rain flow cycle counting for extracting
constant amplitude cycles from a non-uniform time history. These algorithms
decompose an irregular sequence of peaks and valleys into an equivalent set of
loading blocks, as shown in Figure 2. These constant amplitude blocks are used by the
damage summation techniques described below.

Figure 2: Stress spectrum

2/30
55886994.doc

Linear Damage Rule (Miner's Rule)

The Linear Damage Rule was first proposed by Palmgren in 1924 and was further
developed by Miner in 1945. Today the method is commonly known as Miner's
Rule.

The Linear Damage Rule is based on the concept of fatigue damage. A damage
fraction, D, is defined as the fraction of life used up by an event or a series of events.
Failure is predicted to occur when:

where:

- Index of each set of applied load cycles at constant stress level Si

- Damage fraction accumulated during the load cycles of interval i at constant
stress level Si
- Damage criterion (a constant).

The Linear Damage Rule states that the damage fraction at a given constant stress
level Si is equal to the number of applied cycles n at stress level Si divided by the
fatigue life N at stress level Si. That is,

where:

- Damage fraction accumulated during the load cycles of interval i at constant

stress level Si
- Number of applied load cycles at constant stress level Si
- Fatigue life at constant stress level Si, obtained from the S-N curve.

For Miner's Rule, the damage criterion X is assumed to be equal to 1.0, and failure is
predicted to occur when:

Considerable test data has been generated in an attempt to verify Miner's Rule. Most
test cases use a two step load history. This involves testing at an initial stress level S 1

3/30
55886994.doc

for a certain number of cycles, then the stress level is changed to a second level S 2
until failure occurs. If S1 > S2, it is called a high-low test, and if S1 < S2, a low-high
test. The results of Miner's original tests showed that the damage criterion X
corresponding to failure ranged from 0.61 to 1.45. Other researchers have shown
variations as large as 0.18 to 23.0, with most results tending to fall between 0.5 and
2.0. In most cases, the average value is close to Miner's proposed value of 1.0.

One problem with two-level step tests is that they do not accurately represent many
service load histories. Most load histories do not follow any step arrangement and
instead are made up of a random distribution of loads of various magnitudes.
However, tests using random histories with several stress levels show good
correlation with Miner's rule. Even so, for conservative estimates of the life of a
structure an X value of less than 1.0 is usually used.

The Linear Damage Rule has two main shortcomings when it comes to describing
observed material behaviour:

• Load sequence effects are ignored. The theory predicts that the damage caused
by a stress cycle is independent of where it occurs in the load history. An
example of this discrepancy was discussed earlier regarding high-low and low-
high tests.
• The rate of damage accumulation is independent of the stress level. This trend
does not correspond to observed behaviour. At high strain amplitudes cracks
will initiate in a few cycles, whereas at low strain amplitudes almost all the life
is spent initiating a crack (i.e., very little propagation fatigue).

Despite these limitations, the Linear Damage Rule is still widely used. This is due
both to its simplicity and the fact that more sophisticated methods do not always result
in better predictions.

Miner's rule in brief

In 1945, M. A. Miner popularised a rule that had first been proposed by A. Palmgren
in 1924. The rule, variously called Miner's rule or the Palmgren-Miner linear damage
hypothesis, states that where there are k different stress magnitudes in a spectrum, Si
(1 ≤ i ≤ k), each contributing ni(Si) cycles, then if Ni(Si) is the number of cycles to
failure of a constant stress reversal Si, failure occurs when:

C is experimentally found to be between 0.7 and 2.2. Usually for design purposes, C
is assumed to be 1.

This can be thought of as assessing what proportion of life is consumed by stress

reversal at each magnitude then forming a linear combination of their aggregate.

Though Miner's rule is a useful approximation in many circumstances, it has two

major limitations:

4/30
55886994.doc

1. It fails to recognise the probabilistic nature of fatigue and there is no simple

way to relate life predicted by the rule with the characteristics of a probability
distribution.
2. There is sometimes an effect in the order in which the reversals occur. In some
circumstances, cycles of low stress followed by high stress cause more
damage than would be predicted by the rule. It does not consider the effect of
overload or high stress which may result in a compressive residual stress. High
stress followed by low stress may have less damage due to the presence of
compressive residual stress.

Nonlinear Damage Rule - Marco and Starkey Method

Many nonlinear damage theories have been proposed which attempt to overcome the
shortcomings of Miner's Rule. The following is a general description of a nonlinear
damage approach which was proposed by Richard and Newmark and was developed
further by Marco and Starkey.

The theory uses a nonlinear damage exponent P to augment Miner's Rule. The
damage fraction is thus given by:

The value of P is considered to be greater than 0.0 and less than or equal to 1.0, with
the value increasing with stress level. Note that with P = 1.0, this method is equivalent
to Miner's Rule.

The nonlinear method described has good correlation to observed material behaviour
and can be used to sum damage in high temperature applications where there is
interaction between creep and fatigue. However, like all nonlinear theories, it requires
a material constant that requires a considerable amount of testing to determine and
may not be available for a given material or application.

5/30
55886994.doc

STRESS LIFE

Summary

This module calculates the fatigue life of a part under constant amplitude oscillatory
loading assuming the stress range controls fatigue life.

The Stress-Life method (also referred to as the S-N method) was the first approach
used in an attempt to understand and quantify metal fatigue. The Stress-Life approach
is generally categorized as a high-cycle fatigue methodology, and is still widely used
in design applications where the applied stress is primarily within the elastic range of
the material and the resulting fatigue lives (cycles to failure) are long.

The Stress-Life method does not work well in low-cycle applications, where the
applied strains have a significant plastic component due to high load levels. For these
applications, a Strain-Life Fatigue Analysis is more appropriate.

Roughly speaking, low-cycle fatigue applications are those with less than 10,000
loading cycles during the component life. High-cycle fatigue is associated with
component lives greater than 100,000 cycles. The transition life between low- and
high-cycle fatigue depends on the material being considered, and is usually between
10,000 and 100,000 cycles. In general, the Stress-Life approach should not be used to
estimate fatigue lives below 10,000 cycles.

Background Information

Stress-Life Diagram (S-N Diagram)

The basis of the Stress-Life method is the Wohler S-N diagram, shown schematically
for two materials in Figure 1. The S-N diagram plots nominal stress amplitude S
versus cycles to failure N. There are numerous testing procedures to generate the
required data for a proper S-N diagram. S-N test data are usually displayed on a log-
log plot, with the actual S-N line representing the mean of the data from several tests.

6/30
55886994.doc

Figure 1: Typical S-N Curves

Endurance Limit

Certain materials have a fatigue limit or endurance limit which represents a stress
level below which the material does not fail and can be cycled infinitely. If the
applied stress level is below the endurance limit of the material, the structure is said to
have an infinite life. This is characteristic of steel and titanium in benign
environmental conditions. A typical S-N curve corresponding to this type of material
is shown Curve A in Figure 1.

Many non-ferrous metals and alloys, such as aluminium, magnesium, and copper
alloys, do not exhibit well-defined endurance limits. These materials instead display a
continuously decreasing S-N response, similar to Curve B in Figure 1. In such cases
a fatigue strength Sf for a given number of cycles must be specified. An effective
endurance limit for these materials is sometimes defined as the stress that causes
failure at 1x108 or 5x108 loading cycles.

The concept of an endurance limit is used in infinite-life or safe stress designs. It is

due to interstitial elements (such as carbon or nitrogen in iron) that pin dislocations,
thus preventing the slip mechanism that leads to the formation of micro-cracks. Care
must be taken when using an endurance limit in design applications because it can
disappear due to:

• Periodic overloads (unpin dislocations)

• Corrosive environments (due to fatigue corrosion interaction)
• High temperatures (mobilize dislocations)

The endurance limit is not a true property of a material, since other significant
influences such as surface finish cannot be entirely eliminated. However, a test values

7/30
55886994.doc

(Se') obtained from polished specimens provide a baseline to which other factors can
be applied. Influences that can affect the endurance limit include:

• Surface Finish
• Temperature
• Stress Concentration
• Notch Sensitivity
• Size
• Environment
• Reliability

Such influences are represented by reduction factors, k, which is used to establish a

working endurance strength Se for the material:

Power Relationship

When plotted on a log-log scale, an S-N curve can be approximated by a straight line
as shown in Figure 3. A power law equation can then be used to define the S-N
relationship:

where b is the slope of the line, sometimes referred to as the Basquin slope, which is
given by:

Given the Basquin slope and any coordinate pair (N, S) on the S-N curve, the power
law equation calculates the cycles to failure for a known stress amplitude.

8/30
55886994.doc

Figure 3: Idealized S-N Curve

The power relationship is only valid for fatigue lives that are on the design line. For
ferrous metals this range is from 1x103 to 1x106 cycles. For non-ferrous metals, this
range is from 1x103 to 5x108 cycles. Note the empirical relationships and equations
described above are only estimates. Depending on the level of certainty required in
the fatigue analysis, actual test data may be necessary.

Fatigue Ratio (Relating Fatigue to Tensile Properties)

Through many years of experience, empirical relations between fatigue and tensile
properties have been developed. Although these relationships are very general, they
remain useful for engineers in assessing preliminary fatigue performance.

The ratio of the endurance limit Se to the ultimate strength Su of a material is called the
fatigue ratio. It has values that range from 0.25 to 0.60, depending on the material.

For steel, the endurance strength can be approximated by:

and:

9/30
55886994.doc

In addition to this relationship, for wrought steels the stress level corresponding to
1000 cycles, S1000, can be approximated by:

Utilizing these approximations, a generalized S-N curve for wrought steels can be
created by connecting the S1000 point with the endurance limit, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Generalized S-N Curve for Wrought Steels

Mean Stress Effects

Most basic S-N fatigue data collected in the laboratory is generated using a fully-
reversed stress cycle. However, actual loading applications usually involve a mean
stress on which the oscillatory stress is superimposed, as shown in Figure 5. The
following definitions are used to define a stress cycle with both alternating and mean
stress.

The stress range is the algebraic difference between the maximum and minimum
stress in a cycle:

The stress amplitude is one-half the stress range:

The mean stress is the algebraic mean of the maximum and minimum stress in the
cycle:

10/30
55886994.doc

Two ratios that are often defined for the representation of mean stress are the stress
ratio R and the amplitude ratio A:

For fully-reversed loading conditions, R is equal to -1. For static loading, R is equal
to 1. For a case where the mean stress is tensile and equal to the stress amplitude, R is
equal to 0. A stress cycle of R = 0.1 is often used in aircraft component testing, and
corresponds to a tension-tension cycle in which the minimum stress is equal to 0.1
times the maximum stress.

Figure 5: Typical Cyclic Loading Parameters

The results of a fatigue test using a nonzero mean stress are often presented in a
Haigh diagram, shown in Figure 6. A Haigh diagram plots the mean stress, usually
tensile, along the x-axis and the oscillatory stress amplitude along the y-axis. Lines of
constant life are drawn through the data points. The infinite life region is the region
under the curve and the finite life region is the region above the curve. For finite life
calculations the endurance limit in any of the models can be replaced with a fully
reversed (R = -1) alternating stress level corresponding to the finite life value.

11/30
55886994.doc

Figure 6: Example of a Haigh Diagram

A very substantial amount of testing is required to generate a Haigh diagram, and it is

usually impractical to develop curves for all combinations of mean and alternating
stresses. Several empirical relationships that relate alternating stress to mean stress
have been developed to address this difficulty. These methods define various curves
to connect the endurance limit on the alternating stress axis to either the yield
strength, Sy, ultimate strength Su, or true fracture stress Sf on the mean stress axis.

The following relations are available in the Stress-Life module:

Goodman (England, 1899):

Gerber (Germany, 1874):

Soderberg (USA, 1930):

Morrow (USA, 1960s):

12/30
55886994.doc

A graphical comparison of these equations is shown in Figure 7. The two most

widely accepted methods are those of Goodman and Gerber. Experience has shown
that test data tends to fall between the Goodman and Gerber curves. Goodman is
often used due to mathematical simplicity and slightly conservative values. Other
observations related to the mean stress equations include:

• All methods should only be used for tensile mean stress values.
• For cases where the mean stress is small relative to the alternating stress (R <<
1), there is little difference in the methods.
• The Soderberg method is very conservative. It is used in applications where
neither fatigue failure nor yielding should occur.
• For hard steels (brittle), where the ultimate strength approaches the true
fracture stress, the Morrow and Goodman curves are essentially equivalent.
For ductile steels (Sf > Su), the Morrow model predicts less sensitivity to mean
stress.
• As the R approaches 1, the models show large differences. There is a lack of
experimental data available for this condition, and the yield criterion may set
design limits.

Figure 7: Comparison of Mean Stress Equations

Notches
Thus far, the discussion of Stress-Life fatigue analysis assumed a smooth, unnotched
specimen. However, in practice most fatigue failures occur at notches or stress
concentrations.

13/30
55886994.doc

Almost all machine components and structural members contain some form of
geometrical or micro-structural discontinuities. These discontinuities, or stress
concentration factors, often result in maximum local stresses Smax that are many times
greater than the nominal stress S of the member. In ideally elastic members, the ratio
of these stresses is designated the theoretical stress concentration factor KT:

The theoretical stress concentration factor is solely dependent on the geometry and the
mode of loading (axial, in-plane bending, etc.)

In the Stress-Life approach, the effect of notches is accounted for by the fatigue notch
factor Kf (also known as the fatigue stress concentration factor). The fatigue notch
factor relates the unnotched fatigue strength (the endurance limit for ferrous metals)
of a member to its notched fatigue strength:

In almost all cases, the fatigue notch factor is less than the stress concentration factor,
and is less than 1. That is:

The stress concentration factor KT can be related to the fatigue notch factor Kf.

Unlike the stress concentration factor KT, the fatigue notch factor Kf is dependent on
the type of material and notch size. To account for these additional effects, a notch
sensitivity factor q was developed:

The values of q range from 0 (no notch effect, Kf = 1) to 1 (full theoretical effect, Kf =
KT).

A number of researchers have proposed analytical relationships for the determination

of q, based on correlation to experimental data. The most common relationships are
those proposed by Peterson and Neuber. Both the Peterson and Neuber relations are
empirical curve fits to data. When used for analysis there is little difference to the
approaches. Both methods show that q is related to material, notch geometry, and
notch size. Thus, two notches can have the same KT value, but different Kf values
because of the different q values. Both approaches also appear to support a limiting
value for Kf. The limiting value is dependent on material, but is generally between 5
and 6.

14/30
55886994.doc

The Peterson Equation for notch factor sensitivity is:

where r is the notch root radius and a is a material constant. The constant a depends
on the material strength and ductility and is obtained experimentally from long life
fatigue tests on both notched and unnotched specimens. Sharp notches in hard metals
tend to be notch sensitive. For ferrous-based wrought metals, the constant a is given
by:

The Neuber Equation for notch factor sensitivity is:

where r is the notch root radius and ρ is a material constant that is related to the grain
size of the material.

The notch factor Kf is usually used to correct the fatigue strength for the notched
member.

Although Kf can be used to correct the entire S-N curve, results tend to be
conservative. Note that this module will calculate Kf, but will not incorporate it into
any solutions. The user must divide the unnotched fatigue strength (and S1000 if
desired) by the calculated Kf value to account for the effect of notches.

15/30
55886994.doc

Stress Life Technical Background

The stress life method is the classical method for fatigue analysis of metals and has its
origins in the work of Wöhler in 1850. Stresses in the structure or component are
compared to the fatigue limit of the material. The basis of the method is the materials
S-N curve which is obtained by testing small laboratory specimens until failure.

Material Properties

Historically, these tests have been conducted in rotating bending. Today, it is often
common to find test data for axial loading as well.

The fatigue limit, SFL, is the stress below which failures do not occur in the laboratory.
Wöhler called this a safe stress level for design. Today we know that failures will
occur below the safe stress level but it will take a very large number of cycles, longer
than the 106 or 107 cycles used in normal fatigue testing. The finite life portion of the
curve is fit to a power function relating the stress amplitude, S /2, and fatigue life in
cycles, Nf. Be careful, some people use reversals, 2Nf, instead of cycles for plotting
fatigue data. There are 2 reversals in one cycle. The intercept at 1 cycle, Sf’, and
slope, b, are taken as material constants.

Many times the fatigue behaviour of a material is unknown and must be estimated
from the tensile properties. There is a strong correlation between fatigue strength and
tensile strength.
(From Forrest, Fatigue of Metals, Pergamon Press, London, 1962)

16/30
55886994.doc

The fatigue limit is approximated as one half of the tensile strength.

SFL = 0.5 Su

Many metal alloys are heat treatable and the hardness rather than the tensile strength
are known. Another well known approximation, with just as much scatter as shown
above, is that the tensile strength is approximately one half of the Brinell hardness,
BHN. Combining these two approximations provides an estimate of the fatigue
strength from the hardness.

SFL = 0.25( BHN )

It has been observed that the fatigue strength at 1000 cycles is approximately 0.9 S u.
This gives two points on the SN curve, both in terms of hardness that can be used to
estimate the entire SN curve.

Four material parameters are used to describe the materials stress life curve, S f', b, SFL
and NFL , only three of which are independent. Leaving any one of the parameters

17/30
55886994.doc

blank will result in the fourth one being directly computed. If all four are entered, S FL
will be ignored.

Modifying Factors

Materials, as they are tested, are always in a different condition (surface finish,
residual stress, etc.) from the materials as they are actually used. An important part of
the analysis is to “correct” the basic materials data to obtain an estimate of the fatigue
limit of the material in the component or structure of interest. Fatigue cracks usually
nucleate on the surface so that the condition of the surface plays a major role in the
fatigue resistance of a component. Test specimens are polished to eliminate the effects
of surface finish. The degree of surface damage depends not only on the processing
but also on the strength of the material. Higher strength materials are more susceptible
to surface damage. To account for this in the analysis the material fatigue limit is
reduced by a surface finish factor, KSF.

The original data for constructing this curve is shown below. The factors tend to
provide conservative estimates for fatigue lives.
(From Noll and Lipson, “Allowable Working Stresses”, Society for Experimental
Stress Analysis, Vol. III, no. 2, 1949)

18/30
55886994.doc

These data are fit to a simple power function to obtain an estimate of the surface
factor for any hardness steel.

α β
Ground 1.58 -0.085
Machined 4.51 -0.265
Hot Rolled 57.7 -0.718
Forged 272 -0.995

Fatigue limits have historically been determined from small specimens, 6 mm in

diameter, tested in rotating bending. High strength materials tested in tension tend to
have lower fatigue limits. An empirical load factor, kL, is introduced for other types of
loading.

kL
Tension, Su ≤ 1500 MPa 0.92
Tension, Su > 1500 MPa 1.0
Bending 1.0
Torsion 0.58

Experiments show that smaller components tend to have higher fatigue limits than
larger ones. This is accommodated in the analysis by introducing a size factor, ksize.
Some people call this a gradient factor. One of the most widely used corrections is
based on the diameter of a bar.

19/30
55886994.doc

One of the problems associated with this simple approximation is what to do when the
section is not round. This problem is overcome by defining an effective diameter. The
volume of material subjected to 95% of the maximum stress in any shaped cross
section is equated to a round bar of the same highly stressed volume. When these
volumes are equated, the length cancelled and the ratio becomes one of the relative
areas. If we define the cross sectional area of a non-circular section subjected to 95%
of the maximum stress as A0.95, then the effective diameter is given by

Once these correction factors are determined, the fatigue limit of the machine
component in the condition that it is being used in can be evaluated from the standard
test specimen.

SFL (component) = SFL (material) · kSF · kL · ksize

These generalized empirical factors have the greatest confidence when applied to steel
because they were all derived from on extensive database on steel accumulated from
over 100 years of testing. The figures above have shown considerable scatter in the
test data so that the factors must be regarded as approximate and are no substitute for
actual test data for a critical application. That said, they do provide a good first
approximation when no test data is available.

Stress Concentrations

Stress concentrations are one of the most important factors affecting the fatigue life of
any component or structure. These stress concentrations may be intentional in the
design or unintentional such as deep machining marks or other processing related
flaws. It seems reasonable to directly compare the maximum stress at a stress
concentration to the estimated fatigue limit for that component.

20/30
55886994.doc

(From MacGregor and Grossman, “Effects of Cyclic Loading on Mechanical

Behaviour of 24S-T4 and 75S-T6 Aluminium Alloys and SAE 4130 Steel”, NACA
TN 2812, 1952)

Test data for an unnotched bar, such as the one above pictured in blue, are plotted as
blue circles. This geometry has a stress concentration factor, Kt, equal to 1. The red
dashed line represents estimated data for a geometry that has a stress concentration
factor of 3.1, such as the notched bar pictured in red. The presence of the notch
reduces the allowable nominal stress amplitude at any fatigue life by a factor equal to
Kt. Notice that all of the actual test data, red triangles, lie above this estimate. This is
because the effective stress concentration in fatigue is less than that predicted by the
stress concentration factor, Kt. This effective stress concentration factor is called the
fatigue notch factor, Kf. The variation between Kf and Kt is dependant on the size of
the notch and strength of the material. A material that is very sensitive to notches will
have Kf equal to Kt. If the material is very insensitive to notches, K f will be close to 1.
A notch sensitivity factor, q, is introduced to quantify this sensitivity.

(From Peterson “Notch Sensitivity”, Metal Fatigue, Sines and Waisman, McGraw
Hill, 1959)
Smaller radii are less effective in fatigue than larger ones. Fatigue notch factors can be
computed from Kt and q.

Kf = 1 + ( Kt – 1 )q

Peterson fit the available test data for steel and aluminium to obtain an expression for
Kf in terms of ultimate strength, Su, and notch radius,  in mm.

for steel

for aluminium

21/30
55886994.doc

Plastic deformation reduces the effect of a stress concentration at shorter lives. The
fatigue notch factor becomes smaller as the lives become shorter. In ductile materials,
stress concentrations play only a small role in determining the overall strength of the
structure. One unfortunate consequence of this is that static strength testing often
provides little information about the likely fatigue performance of a component. An
estimate of the notched component SN curve may be obtained dividing the materials
fatigue strength, including any modify factors, at 106 cycles by Kf and drawing a line
to the unnotched fatigue strength at 1 cycle.

This has the effect of changing the slope of the material’s SN curve and leaving the
intercept unchanged. If we include the modifying factors this new slope, bnotch, can be
computed as

and the new notched SN curve will be given by

Mean Stresses

Tensile mean stresses are known to reduce the fatigue strength of a component.
Compressive mean stresses increase the performance and are frequently used to
increase the fatigue strength of a manufactured part. The most common method for
accounting for mean stresses is the Goodman Diagram. It was first proposed in 1890.
Goodman writes ".. whether the assumptions of the theory are justifiable or not ….
We adopt it simply because it is the easiest to use, and for all practical purposes,
represents Wöhlers data." The fatigue limit for zero mean stress is plotted on one axis
and the ultimate strength on the other.

22/30
55886994.doc

The diagram can be described by

Stress concentration effects can be directly included in the Goodman diagram.

For finite lives, an equivalent completely reversed stress, Seq, is computed and
compared with the component SN curve.

Here Kf is used to modify the mean stress but not the stress amplitude because stress
concentration effects are already included in the component SN curve.

Direct use of these equations poses problems for situations involving high mean
stresses or in situations that result in short fatigue lives. This problem is caused by the
calculated elastic stress being higher than the actual stress and in some cases even
higher than the ultimate strength. A preloaded bolt is a good example. A common way
to overcome this problem is to apply the stress concentration factor only to the
alternating stress and not to the mean stress. This has the potential to lead to non-
conservative estimates at long lives with moderate mean stresses. Plastic deformation
limits the stress around a stress concentration to some value between the yield and
ultimate strength of the material. A more reasonable method is to apply the stress
concentration factor to both mean and alternating stresses and then made a correction
to the maximum stress Kf ( Sa + Sm ) when it exceeds the material’s yield strength. The
maximum stress should be limited to about 80% of the ultimate strength.

23/30
55886994.doc

www.fatiguecalculator.com

Definitions - Strain Life Analysis

Nominal Stress
The nominal stress is the stress away from any local stress concentrations.

Glossary
Nominal Strain Close
The nominal strain is the strain away from any local stress concentrations.

Glossary
Stress Range, ΔS Close
The stress range, ΔS, is the peak to peak stress.

Glossary
Mean Stress, Sm Close
The mean stress, Sm, is the average value of the stresses.

Glossary

24/30
55886994.doc

Alternating Stress, Sa Close

The alternating stress, Sa, is the amount the stress deviates from the mean. It is
sometimes called the stress amplitude.

Glossary
Stress Amplitude, Sa Close
The stress amplitude, Sa, is the amount the stress deviates from the mean. It is
sometimes called the alternating stress.

Glossary
Strain Amplitude Close
The strain amplitude is one half the strain range.

Glossary
Strain Range, ∆ ε Close
The strain range, ∆ ε , is the maximum strain minus the minimum strain in a cycle.

Glossary
Neuber's Rule Close
Neuber’s rule is used to convert an elastically computed stress or stain into the real
stress or strain when plastic deformation occurs. For example, we may compute a stress
with elastic assumptions at a notch to be KtS and this stress exceeds the strength of the
material. The real stress will be somewhere on the materials stress-strain curve at some
point σ .

25/30
55886994.doc

Neuber’s rule states, with some mathematical proof, that the product of the elastic
solution is equal to the product of the real elastic plastic solution. Mathematically this
is expressed as
KtS·Kte=σ ·ε

Glossary
Strain Life Curve Close
The strain life curve is determined by testing materials in strain control. The strain
range is controlled and the corresponding stress range and fatigue life are determined.
It is convenient to consider the elastic and plastic strain amplitudes separately when
curve fitting the test data. Two data points are plotted for each test, one for the elastic
strain amplitude vs life and another one for the plastic strain amplitude vs life.

Test data is then fit to a simple power function to obtain the material constants; fatigue
ductility coefficient, ε ’f , fatigue ductility exponent, c , fatigue strength coefficient,
σ ’f , and fatigue strength exponent, b ,

26/30
55886994.doc

The total strain is then obtained by adding the elastic and plastic portions of the strain.

Glossary
Cyclic Stress-Strain Curve Close
The materials deformation during a fatigue test is measured in the form of a hysteresis
loop. After some initial transient behavior the material stabilizes and the same
hysteresis loop is obtained for every loading cycle. Each strain range tested will have a
corresponding stress range that is measured. The cyclic stress strain curve is a plot of
all of this data.

The curve describes the behavior of the material after it has been plastically deformed.
This behavior is usually different than the initial behavior that is measured in a
traditional tensile test. A simple power function is fit to this curve to obtain three
material properties; cyclic strength coefficient, K’ , cyclic strain hardening exponent, n’
, and elastic modulus, E.

Glossary

27/30
55886994.doc

Hysteresis Loop Close

The stress-strain response of a material that is cyclically loaded is in the form of a

hysteresis loop.

The hysteresis loop is often characterized by its stress range, ∆ σ , and strain range,
∆ ε . The strain range is often broken up into the elastic part and the plastic part.

Glossary
Stress Concentration Factor, Kt Close
Stress concentrations arise from any abrupt change in the geometry of a part under
load. As a result, the stress distribution is not uniform throughout the cross-section.

For example, is often necessary to drill a hole in a plate. When a load, P, is applied, the
presence of the hole disturbs the uniform nominal stress in the plate.

The profile of the stress in the cross-section through the center of the hole has the form
shown in bottom of the figure. Notice that the maximum stress, σ max, is 3σ and occurs
at the edge of the hole. The factor of 3 is known as the stress concentration factor, Kt. It
can be seen from the figure that any stress values larger than σ are localized in a

28/30
55886994.doc

region with a diameter approximately equal to D.

Glossary
Fatigue Notch Factor, Kf Close
Experiments have shown that the effect of small notches is less than that estimated
from the traditional stress concentration factor, Kt. The fatigue notch factor, Kf, can be
thought of as the effective stress concentration in fatigue. It depends on the size of the
stress concentration and the material. Small stress concentrations are more effective in
high strength materials. This effect is dealt with using a notch sensitivity factor, q.

Kf = 1 + (Kt - 1)q

The notch sensitivity factor q is an empirically determined constant that depends on the
notch radius and material strength.

Glossary
Ultimate Strength, Su Close
The ultimate strength, Su, is also called the tensile strength. It is the maximum stress
reached in an engineering stress strain diagram.

Glossary of Definitions

29/30
55886994.doc

A Alternating Stress Sa

C Cyclic Stress-Strain Curve

E Endurance Limit SFL

Fatigue Limit SFL

F Fatigue Notch Factor Kf
Fatigue Strength

G Goodman Diagram

H Hysteresis Loop

L Loading Factor kL

M Mean Stress Sm

Neuber's Rule
N Nominal Strain
Nominal Stress

Safety Factor
Size Factor ksize
Strain Life Curve
Strain Range ∆ε
S Stress Amplitude Sa
Stress Concentration Factor Kf
Stress Life Curve
Stress Range ΔS
Surface Finish Factor KSF

U Ultimate Strength Su

30/30