1

Multiaxial Fatigue
What is it?
Why does it matter?
What can we do about it?
Dr Peter Heyes
HBM UK Ltd
1 May 2012
2
Quantifying multiaxiality – uniaxial loading
• Thin sheet loaded uniformly along
the edge
• Largest principal stress is aligned
with direction of applied load P
• Principal stress (biaxiality) ratio
• This is a PROPORTIONAL loading
σ
1
σ
2
0
1
2
= =
σ
σ
a
P
3
Quantifying multiaxiality – biaxial loading
• Inflated balloon (assume
approximately spherical)
• Membrane stress equal in all
directions
• Principal stress (biaxiality) ratio
• This is PROPORTIONAL too!
σ
1
σ
2
1
1
2
= =
σ
σ
a
4
Quantifying multiaxiality – pure torsion/shear
• Wrap sheet around to create cylinder
• Apply torque T
• Torsion creates pure shear stress state
• Principal stresses inclined at 45 degrees to axis
• Principal stress (biaxiality) ratio
σ
1
σ
2
τ
T
1
1
2
− = =
σ
σ
a
… PROPORTIONAL again…
5
Classic torsion fatigue failure…
6
Quantifying multiaxiality – combined torsion and tension
• Principal stress directions vary (+/- 45 degrees)
• Biaxiality ratio is not constant
• Loading is NON-PROPORTIONAL
σ
1
T
P
P(t)
T(t)
0 1 ≤ ≤ − a
7
Quantifying multiaxiality - definitions…
• Orientation AND biaxiality ratio constant => PROPORTIONAL LOADING
• Special cases of PROPORTIONAL loading
4Uniaxial (a = 0)
4Pure shear (a = -1)
4Equibiaxial (a = 1)
• Orientation AND/OR biaxiality ratio vary => NON-PROPORTIONAL LOADING
Component surface
z
y
x
σ
1
φ
p
σ
2
Free surface stresses only
Stress state is 2-D or “plane
stress”
Orientation φ
p
of σ
1
Biaxiality ratio a
2 1
1
2
σ σ
σ
σ
≥ = a
8
Multiaxial loads do not always cause multiaxial loading!
• Cylinder with hole
• Subjected to out-of-phase loads
• Critical location at the edge of the stress
concentration has UNIAXIAL loading
• Geometry often gives rise to proportional or
even uniaxial stresses even under complex
loading
σ
1
P
P(t)
T(t)
T
9
Multiaxial Assessment in DesignLife – “standard” method
• Stress tensor history may be thought of as a
cloud of data points in a 3-D plot
• Proportional loading – points fall on a straight line
through the origin
• Orientation of cloud gives mean biaxiality ratio
and principal stress directions
• Aspect ratio (from principal moments of inertia)
and offset give measure of non-proportionality
equibiaxial
pure shear
uniaxial
10
Visualisation of multiaxiality using virtual gauge and rosette glyphs
Why does it matter? Effect on fatigue damage
a ≤ 0
AbsMaxP ok
a ≥ 0
Signed
Tresca ok
• Proportional loadings - biaxiality ratio influences type of fatigue damage
and choice of damage parameter
• Non-proportional – need method to capture varying stress orientation!
12
Non-proportional: Wang-Brown cycle counting and damage parameter
( )
( ) ( )
c
f f
b
f
mean n f
n
N N
E S
S
2 2
. 2
1 1
.
ˆ
,
max
ε
σ σ
ν ν
δε γ
ε

+


=

− +

+
+
=
Case A (a ≤ 0)
Case B (a ≥ 0)
A
ij ij ij
ε ε ε − =
*
C
D
Equivalent Strain
Time
E
F
Reversals determined
from relative
equivalent strain
13
Why does it matter? Plasticity (uniaxial and proportional)
• Only turning points of pseudo-strain (or stress) required
• Hysteresis loops estimated using Neuber rule (or Seeger-Heuler)
• Proportional loading considered by using Hoffmann-Seeger rule to
convert to von Mises before the notch correction and back afterwards.
Why does it matter? Plasticity (non-proportional)
• Yield point replaced by yield
surface (von Mises)
• Need a multiaxial plasticity model
with kinematic hardening rule
4Mroz-Garud
4Chaboche
4Jiang-Sehitoglu
• Response is path dependent –
incremental notch and plasticity
rules required!
15
Notch model validation – data from Barkey et al 1994
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Axial
strain (%)
Shear
strain (%)
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear
strain (%)
Axial
strain (%)
Experiment
Neuber
Glinka
• Notched round shaft
• 1070 steel
• Axial and torsion
loading
• Out-of-phase,
“rectangular” loading
path
• 2 load levels
16
What can we do about it?
• Use sensible defaults in standard EN engine (AMP stress, Standard
assessment, Hoffmann-Seeger, Morrow)
• For cases where some locations are multiaxial, consider using “auto”
multiaxial option in standard EN engine
• For non-proportional cases, consider using multiaxial EN engine
(uses Jiang-Sehitoglu plasticity model, multiaxial notch correction,
Wang-Brown cycle count and damage model)
• Pre-configured multiaxial glyph provided
• Set Beta-feature preference to enable
• HCF – try Dang Van
17
NonProportionalityFactor
0 ≤ PROP
< 0.1
0.1 ≤ PROP
< 0.25
0.25 ≤
PROP
Mean
Biaxiality
Ratio
-1 ≤ a < 0.6 Critical Plane
Hoffmann-Seeger
No MSC
Wang-
Brown with
mean
Jiang-
Sehitoglu/
Neuber
-0.6 ≤ a <
0.25
Abs Max
Principal,
Hoffmann-
Seeger,
Morrow
Critical
Plane
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
0.25 ≤ a <
0.6
Signed
Tresca
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
TBCPS
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
0.6 ≤ a ≤ 1 TBCPS
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
TBCPS
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
Automated smart multiaxial calculation using standard glyph
• Similar to current “auto”
multiaxial mode in EN
engine, but …
• …completely user
configurable
• Full multiaxial solution
applied to most non-
proportional
nodes/elements
• Sophisticated, but easy
to use!
18
Validation case: SAE shaft with in-phase and out-of-phase loads