International

Journalof
Fatigue
ELSEVIER International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criterion for hard metals

Andrea Carpinteri *, Andrea Spagnoli
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pamza, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43100 Parma, Italy

Received 9 February 2000; received in revised form 21 July 2000; accepted 28 July 2000

Abstract

Some multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criteria based on the so-called critical plane approach are reviewed. According to such an
approach, the critical plane where the fatigue life assessment should be performed can be determined by maximising the amplitudes
and/or values of some stress components. In the present paper, the critical plane orientation is correlated with the averaged principal
stress directions deduced through the weight function method, and a new fatigue failure criterion is proposed. The results derived
by applying the present criterion and the other critical plane criteria analysed are compared with experimental data related to
different brittle (hard) metals under in-phase or out-of-phase sinusoidal biaxial normal and shear stress states. 0 2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criteria; Non-proportional loading; Critical plane approach; Fatigue fracture plane; Weight function method

1. Introduction fore, averaged principal stress directions should be con-

As is well-known, actual time-varying loadings on
metallic structures are often multiaxial, but it is usual to
rely on uniaxial fatigue test parameters for life predic-
tions of such structures, due to the complexity and
expense involved in multiaxial fatigue experimental
tests. Several criteria proposed during the last decades
to predict whether fatigue failure under multiaxial load-
ing may occur or not, are generally aimed at reducing a
given multiaxial stress state to an equivalent uniaxial
stress condition (reviews [ 1,2]).
Some of these criteria are based on the so-called criti-
cal plane approach, according to which the fatigue fail-
ure assessment is performed in a plane where the ampli-
tude or the value of some stress components or a
combination of them attains its maximum [3-71. Alter-
natively, the position of the critical plane may be corre-
lated with that of the principal stress axes, since it has
long been recognised that changing of the principal
stress directions influences fatigue phenomena [S]. On
the other hand, the principal stress directions under
fatigue loading are generally time-varying and, there-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0521-905923; fax: +39-0521.
905924.
E-mail address: andrea.carpinteri@unipr.it (A. Carpinteri).
sidered by deducing them, for example, through appro-
priate weight functions [9-l 11.
In the following, some critical plane criteria for multi-
axial high-cycle fatigue are briefly reviewed. Then a new
criterion which correlates the critical plane orientation
with the weighted mean principal stress directions is pro-
posed. Accordingly, the fatigue failure assessment is per-
formed by considering a nonlinear combination of the
maximum normal stress and the shear stress amplitude
acting on the critical plane. Finally, the present criterion
together with the other critical plane criteria herein ana-
lysed are applied to some experimental tests on brittle
(hard) metals under in-phase or out-of-phase sinusoidal
biaxial normal and shear stress states. For these
materials, the ratio between the endurance limit under
fully reversed torsion and that under fully reversed bend-
ing is into the range 1/.\/31r&r,,51, while the
inequality z&&l/$ holds for ductile (mild) metals.
2. Out-of-phase sinusoidal biaxial stress state
The plane stress condition of biaxial normal and shear
stresses at the generic point P of a cylindrical body (Fig.
1(a)) subjected to synchronous out-of-phase sinusoidal
loading can be expressed as follows:
o,=o,(t)=o,,,sin(wt-~)+~~,~ crYY=ol(t)

0142-l 123/01/$ - see front matter 0 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: SO142-1123(00)00075-X
136 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/lntemationl Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145

Nomenclature
C safety factor, with 0~51
C shear stress vector acting on the plane A (Fig. l(b))
I error index
Zj,mj,nj,~=u,v,w direction cosines of the coordinate system Puvw
l,,m,,n,, n=l,2,3 principal stress direction cosines
m?- l/m coefficient depending on the slope m of the S-N curve for fully reversed bending (R=- 1)
N normal stress vector acting on the plane A
Puvw coordinate system connected with the plane A
PXYZ fixed frame
P123
Ll..n coordinate system of the principal stress axes
P123 coordinate system of the weighted mean principal stress axes
R loading ratio
SW stress vector acting on the plane A
t time
W summation of the weights W(t,), from tl to tN
W(t,) weight function at time instant tk
phase angle between the longitudinal normal stress CT,and the tangential normal stress CT,
phase angle between the longitudinal normal stress CT,and the shear stress z
E angle between the weighted mean direction 1^of the maximum principal stress and the normal w, to
the critical plane
17Cal calculated angle between the normal to the theoretical fracture plane and the longitudinal axis, Y,, of
the specimen (Y, is parallel to Y)
17exP experimental angle between the normal vector to the fracture plane and the longitudinal axis, Y,, of
the specimen (Y1 is parallel to Y)
Oaf normal stress fatigue limit for fully reversed bending (R=- 1)
CT equivalent stress amplitude
CJ~ n=1,2,3 principal stresses, with CT~%J~~G~
0” ultimate tensile strength
o,(t)=q(t) tangential (hoop/circumferential) normal stress
oyy(t)=ol(t) longitudinal (axial) normal stress
qJt)=r(t) shear stress
zaf shear stress fatigue limit for fully reversed torsion (R=- 1)
zaJdoolf fatigue limit ratio
(P76 angles defining Puvw with respect to PXYZ
Q,t,w principal Euler angles
9,&@ weighted mean principal Euler angles
w pulsation

Subscripts

a amplitude (of a given stress component)

C critical plane
m mean value (of a given stress component)

a round bar under axial or bending loading together with

=cr~in(ot) +o,,, cr,=r(t)=r,sin(Wt-_P)+r,
where the subscripts t, I, a and m stand for tangential
(circumferential), longitudinal, amplitude and mean
value, respectively, while the other components of the
stress tensor are equal to zero. Many structural compo-
nents in service and specimens for laboratory tests are
subjected to this type of stress condition: for example,
(1) torsion presents a (crVVr0,) stress state (Fig. l(a)),
whereas-the two components (r~=, o,,J could describe
the stress field of a thin-walled pipe under axial or bend-
ing loading together with internal pressure.
Consider an elementary material plane A, passing
through point P, and two orthogonal unit vectors, u and
v, on this plane (Fig. l(b)). Let us assume the direction
 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/lntemationl Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145 137

Fig. 1. (a) PXYZ coordinate system; (b) Puvw coordinate system, with the w-axis normal to the material plane A.

of the vector u as the intersection between A and the The mean value N, and the amplitude N, of N(t) can
plane defined by the normal vector w and the Z-axis; be determined by substituting the stress components (Eq.
the vector v is normal to u so that Puvw forms a right- (1)) into Fq. (3):
hand orthogonal coordinate system (hence, v belongs to
N,=sin26[o,,,cos2~+cr~,msin2~+r,sin 2tp] (4)
the X-Y plane). The direction cosines of the normal
direction w can be computed, with respect to the PXYZ N, = +*+b*
frame, as a function of two angles, 9 and 6, in a spheri-
cal coordinate system (O”~(p<360”; O”16~180”): with
Z,=sinb coscp, m,=sin19 sincp, n,=cosb. Furthermore, the
direction cosines of the U- and v-axis are equal to a = sin26[o,,0cosa cos*tp+ o,,,sin*rp+ z,cosp sin 2@ (5)
l,=cos29 coscp, m,=cosz9 sincp, n,=-situ9 and l,=-sincp, b= -sin26[o,,asina cos%p+z,sin /3 sin 291
m,=costp, n,=O, respectively.
The stress vector S, acting at point P of the plane A
(Fig. l(b)) can be computed if the stress tensor CJ is Let us recall that the maximum value N,, of the normal
known: stress N(t) is equal to the sum of its mean value and
amplitude, i.e. N,,,,,=N,+N,.
Then the normal stress vector N is obtained from
Eq. (3):

II
NX
N=(w-S,)w-[N]= NY (6)
NZ

1 1
sinb(o~cos~zsinrp)
= sin29(o~sintp+zcostp)

1
0 sin3.t9cos~cr~cos2~c7~sin2V)+Zsin 2fp)
sin3r3sincp(o~cos2~0~sin2~r sin 2~p)
and the scalar value N(t) of the normal stress is given by
sin229cos29(cr~cos2fp+o,sinztp+rsin 247)
N(t)=w~S,~N(t)=ZwSw,+m,S,,,y+n,Sw,z (3)
=sin*i?[o~cos*~+o,sin*~+r sin 291 and, by recalling Eqs. (2) and (6), the shear stress vector
138 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/lntemational Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145

C lying on the plane A is computed through the follow- described by the tip of the shear stress vector C on the
ing expression: plane A during a loading cycle (Fig. 2). This ellipse is
centred at point (C,,,; C,,,), and its semi-axes can be
computed as follows:
C4 (12)
C=S,-N-[Cl=

sind[coscp(o~cos26+(o,-crJsin59 sin*q)
+r sinq( l-2 sin229cos2rp)] The mean value C,,, of the shear stress C is obtained
from the following expression:
= sin6[sin(p(ofios26+(0~ro,)sin26Cos2fp) (7)
+z coscp(l-2 sin229sin’@] cm=
Jck?I+c,m (13)
- sin26 cos8(o~cos2~o,sin2~r sin 29) whereas the amplitude of C coincides with the major
semi-axis C, of the above ellipse.

The direction of the shear stress vector C is generally

time-varying and, therefore, the definition of the ampli-
tude and mean value of this vector is a complex problem.
Papadopoulos [ 121 has recently proposed to examine the
components of C along the U- and v-axis, respectively:
C,=uC=S,=l,C,+m,C_,+n,C,
C,=v42~C,=l,C,+m,C,+n,C,
By recalling Eqs. (1) and (7), such expressions become:
C,=fsin(ot)+g cos(ot)+C,,,
C,=p sin(ot)+q cos(wt)+C,,,
where the mean values, C,,, and C,,, of the components
of C along the U- and v-axis are given by
3. A brief review of some multiaxial fatigue criteria
based on the critical plane approach
According to the critical plane approach, the fatigue
behaviour under multiaxial loading is analysed in two
steps. Firstly, the critical plane is theoretically determ-
ined by maximising the amplitudes and/or values of
(8)
some stress components. Secondly, the fatigue failure
assessment is carried out by employing some stresses
acting on the critical plane deduced in the first step.
Now some multiaxial high-cycle critical plane criteria
applicable to the case of the cyclic biaxial normal and
(9) shear stress state described in the previous section are
reviewed.
3.1. The Findley criterion

CU,m=$in21Y[0r,Mcos2fp+0L,,sin2q+r,,sin2@ Findley [3] proposed to determine the critical plane

by maximising a linear combination of C, (shear stress

C,,, = sin8 $0, - o&sin 2cp+z,cos 2q , (10)

[ I
whereas the functions f, g, p and q are expressed by
1
f=-sin2b[o,,Ucosa cos2~+o,,~sin2~+r,cosp sin 2@
2

g= +in2z?[a,,+ina cos2~+z,sin~ sin 2q]

Cb
p=sin 6 $DI,,- o,,,cosa)sin 2~+r,cos
[
p cos2cp
1
1 (11)
P C u,m U
-+t,,sina. sin 2cp+r,sinP cos 2q J

Fig. 2. Elliptic path s described by the tip of the shear stress vector
C on the material plane A, during a cycle of synchronous out-of-phase
Eq. (9) is the parametric equation of the ellipse s sinusoidal biaxial normal and shear stress loading.
 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/lnternational Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145 139

amplitude) and IV,, (maximum value of the normal the surface. The fatigue failure assessment is
stress). The orientation of this plane is described by the expressed by:
spherical coordinates (cp,, Zs,) of its unit normal vector
w,:

where the subscript c stands for “critical plane”.
Fatigue failure occurs if the following expression is
not fulfilled:
C,((p,,29,)+kN,,,(~~,,,6,)~f
(14)
where o, is the ultimate tensile strength of the material;
the shear stress fatigue limit, z*,~, is equal to r, or r,,
depending on which case the critical plane corresponds
to. For combined bending and torsion, case A crack
develops and, therefore, rA,B=rA=zan and the normal w,
(15) to the critical plane belongs to the X-Y plane (tic=900).

where the material parameters k and f are given by:

4. A new multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criterion

(16) 4.1. Weighted mean principal stress directions

A theoretical procedure which is deemed to account

for the changes of the principal stress axes under fatigue
loading has recently been developed in order to deter-
mine the averaged principal stress directions through the
3.2. The Matake criterion weight function method [9, lo]. The main aspects of such
a procedure are outlined below.
According to the Matake criterion [5], the critical At a given time instant, the principal stresses, o,, with
plane is the plane on which the amplitude of the shear n=1,2,3, are the eigenvalues of the stress tensor at that
stress attains its maximum, that is: time instant, whereas the eigenvectors represent the nine
principal direction cosines Z,, m,, n,. Let us assume that
(q=,fl,): max I C,(WVl (17) ~~?cr$cr~, that is to say, the directions of maximum
(WV
and minimum principal stresses are called l-axis and 3-
axis, respectively.
The fatigue failure assessment presents the same form
The orthogonal coordinate system P123 with origin
as that proposed by Findley: at point P and axes coincident with the principal stress
C,(%fl,) +Y KI,,(%~,)~~ (18) directions (Fig. 3) can also be defined through the “prin-
cipal Euler angles”, 9,&w (O”%j~360”; O”1~~180”;
where p and il are material parameters, obtained by 0”<~<360”). Such Euler angles can be obtained from
applying Eq. (18) to two limit cases: fully reversed tor-
sion (C,(cp,,b,)=r,r and N,,((p,,ti,)=O), and fully
reversed bending (C,((p,,fl,)=G2 and
N,,,((p,,6,)=0J2), respectively. This yields:
,U= (2Z,&r~,) - 1; a = Taf (19)

3.3. The McDiarmid criterion

According to the McDiarmid criterion [7], the critical

plane where to carry out the failure assessment is
determined as follows:

(20)

The concept of case A and case B cracks, first intro-

duced by Brown and Miller [4], is exploited. Case A
cracks propagate along the surface of a structural Fig. 3. Principal stress directions 1,2,3 described through the Euler
component, while case B cracks propagate inwards from angles4, 8, V.
140 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/lnternational
the above principal direction cosines, and their ranges at
the end of a two-stage procedure proposed in Ref. [9]
are reduced as follows: 0”%$,8~90” and -9O”~y/190”,
in order to average correctly the results determined for
different time instants. Note that, according to the
notation adopted in Ref. [ 1 l] to describe the principal
stress axes, the maximum principal stress direction 1 is
defined by the two reduced angles $J and 8 (Fig. 3).
Now examine the stress tensor consisting of the nor-
mal stresses ~~(t),o~(t) and the shear stress z(t) given in
Eq. (1). Since every stress component is time-varying,
we can compute the reduced principal Euler angles
$(t)@(t) and flu<t)atAeach time instant t. Then the mean
directions 1,2 and 3 of the principal stress axes are
determined by averaging the instantaneous values of the
reduced principal Euler angles through appropriate
weight functions, W(t,) [9-l 11:
*=$
‘N
II
w(tJW(tJ w=g ‘I
W(t,)
where W represents the summation of the weights W(t,),
with tk from t, to tN The effect of the maximum principal
stress o,(tJ on the mean position (4,8, I$) of the princi-
pal stress axes can be accounted for by adopting the fol-
lowing weight function:
if o,(tJ<co,,
W(t!J= CT,(&) mu O<cll
if o,(t,)rco,,
CJaf
iii
which only includes into the averaging procedure those
positions of the principal axes for which the maximum
principal stress CT~is greater than or equal to the product
of the safety factor c, with O<cs 1, and the normal stress
fatigue limit, craf, deduced from the S-N curve for fully
reversed bending. The weight of such positions, which
is defined in Eq. (23), exponentially depends on the coef-
ficient rn,-i where m is the negative slope of the S-
N curve considered.
4.2. Fatigue fracture plane evaluation
Several authors have proposed methods to predict the
orientation of the plane where a fatigue crack may
appear. According to McDiarmid [6], the fracture plane
under out-of-phase sinusoidal bending and torsion
coincides with the plane on which the maximum princi-
Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145
pal stress achieves its greatest value with respect to time.
Socie [13] proposed to correlate the fatigue fracture
plane to either a Stage II crack growth (Mode I crack
growth mode) or a shear mode crack growth mechanism.
Macha [14] presented three methods to determine the
position of the fracture plane under a random triaxial
stress state.
The correlation between the experimental fatigue frac-
ture plane and the averaged principal stress directions
has been analysed for hard metals under out-of-phase
sinusoidal bending and torsion [ 111 and random pro-
portional bending and torsion [ 151. On the basis of the
test data examined, the normal to the fracture plane
seems to agree with the weighted mean direction i of
the maximum principal stress by employing the weight
function shown in Eq. (23), as is discussed in the follow-
ing.
4.3. A critical plane criterion for hard metals
Now the correlation between the weighted mean
(22)
direction 1 of the maximum principal stress and the nor-
mal w, to the critical plane on which the fatigue failure
assessment should be performed is examined. The fol-
lowing formula is proposed:
az45; l-z,, 2 (24)
[ i Oaf)I
where 6 is the angle, expressed in degrees, between i
and w,. According to Eq. (24), this angle is equal to 0”
for r,flcr,~l (extremely hard metals), whereas it is equal
to 45” for r,f/cr~,~l& (value at the border between hard
and mild metals). As a consequence of the above
(23) assumption on 6 and the conclusion drawn at the end of
the previous section, the critical plane is close to the
fatigue fracture plane for very brittle materials, while the
two planes form an angle equal to about 45” for
materials with the endurance limit ratio, z,flo,,, tending
to the brittle-ductile threshold value.
The fatigue failure assessment is proposed to be car-
ried out through a quadratic combination of the
maximum normal stress (N,,,=N,+N,) and the shear
stress amplitude (C,), acting on the critical plane:
(25)
This inequality takes into account some established
experimental findings. Firstly, as was observed by
Gough et al. [16], the mean shear stress C,,, does not
affect the fatigue life of the test specimens. Secondly, a
tensile mean normal stress N,,, strongly reduces the
fatigue resistance of metals, while a compressive N, has
a remarkably beneficial effect. Note that Eq. (25) has not
to be employed for a compressive mean normal stress
 A. Catpinteri, A. Spagnoli/International
such that N,,,<-N, since the criterion would predict a
detrimental effect on the fatigue strength; on the other
hand, such a case of N,,, is not very frequent in multiaxial
fatigue of actual structures. Finally, according to the
experimental results by Froustey and Lasserre [ 17,181
and the theoretical work by Papadopoulos [ 191, the
phase difference p between bending and torsion seems
to not influence the fatigue endurance of hard metals;
therefore this parameter is not included into Eq. (25).
The fatigue criterion proposed in Eq. (25) can be writ-
ten in a different way:
in order to transform an actual multiaxial stress state into
an equivalent uniaxial stress condition. In other words,
an equivalent stress amplitude c&~,given by
has to be compared with the fatigue limit 0,. Note that,
for a metal with the endurance limit ratio equal to the
brittle-ductile threshold value, Eq. (26) becomes:
: N2,,,+3c10,
which is formally similar to the von Mises criterion for
ductile materials under static loading.
In the following, the criterion expressed by Eq. (25),
or Eq. (26), is shown to produce satisfactory predictions
since both it seems to be conservative and the error made
is always very low.
5. Applications and discussion
In the present section, the above fatigue criteria are
applied to some experimental results related to synchron-
ous in-phase or out-of-phase sinusoidal loading for round
bars under bending and torsion [20]. Nishihara and
Kawamoto employed specimens of three different
materials: Swedish hard steel with 0.51% C content,
mild steel with 0.15% C content and grey cast iron with
3.87% C content. Some mechanical characteristics of
such metals are reported in Table 1. Note that, on the
basis of the values of the ratio z,&r, the second material
Table 1
Material properties of the test specimens employed by Nisbihara
Material oar (MPa) % (MPa)
Hard steel 313.9 196.2
Mild steel 235.4 137.3
Cast iron 96.1 91.2
Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145 141
analysed is close to the the brittle-ductile threshold,
while the third one is very brittle.
The phase angle p (Eq. (1)) is equal to 0” (in-phase)
or 30”,60”,90” (out-of-phase), the mean stresses are
equal to zero; different values of the amplitude ratio
(z$G~,,) have been examined (Tables 24). It needs to
be underlined that all these loading cases correspond to
the fatigue limit state, that represents the multiaxial
stress field above which fracture occurs, and below
which fracture does not occur, analogously to the fatigue
limit stress for a uniaxial loading.
First of all, the experimental fatigue fracture plane
orientation is compared with the theoretical predictions
of the criterion outlined in the previous section. The
experimental fatigue fracture plane is described by the
angle Q._, between the normal to the cracked plane and
the longitudinal axis (Y,-axis in Fig. l(a), with Y, paral-
lel to Y) of the specimen, while the theoretical angle,
17Cal?_between the Y,-axis and the weighted mean direc-
(27) tion 1 of the maximum principal stress, is calculated by
assuming that the coefficient c into Eq. (23) is equal to
0.5. The results of such a comparison are shown in
Tables 24. The evaluation of the fracture plane orien-
tation according to McDiarmid [6] is also reported,
where ?I_, is the angle between the Y,-axis and the nor-
(28) mal to the plane on which the maximum principal stress
achieves its greatest value with respect to time. The pre-
dictions through the criterion of the present authors are
satisfactory for the different types of loading conditions
and materials examined, especially in the case of low
values of the phase angle p.
Now the critical plane criteria previously described
are applied to the above-mentioned experimental tests
[20]. The criterion proposed in Eq. (25) suggests that,
by plotting the shear stress amplitude C, against the
maximum normal stress N,,,,, acting on the critical plane,
fatigue failure occurs for the points with coordinates
(N,,,,,,C,) which lie out of the ellipse with semi-axes
equal to o,, and zar. For the three different materials ana-
lysed, Figs. 4-6 show the correlation between this theor-
etical ellipse (continuous line) and the test results related
to the failure limit state: a good agreement exists since
most of the experimental points fall very close to such
an ellipse, between two dashed curves representing an
error of flO% (determined as discussed below). Further-
more, nearly all the predictions are conservative because
the test points lie out of the safety domain.
and Kawamoto [20]
0. (MPa)
0.63 704.1 8.7
0.58 518.8 18.2
0.95 230.0 19.4
142 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145

Table 2
Experimental and theoretical fatigue fracture plane orientation, q, and error index, I, for Swedish hard steel specimens [20]”

Test ~I., Fracture plane Error index, I (%)

No. (MPa)
Exp. Present McDiarmid Present Findley Matake McDiarmid
Qxp (“) &I (“) 17C.I(“)

1 327.7 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 2 4 4 -5

2 308.0 63.9 0.2 0 12 12 11 1 5 4 -4
3 255.1 127.5 0.5 0 22 23 23 3 8 8 1
4 141.9 171.3 1.2 0 34 34 34 -1 3 2 0
5 0.0 201.1 M 0 45 45 45 2 2 2 2
6 255.1 127.5 0.5 30 16 22 22 3 7 5 -1
7 142.0 171.2 1.2 30 32 34 34 -2 3 1 -1
8 255.1 127.5 0.5 60 8 16 17 -2 3 4 -7
9 147.2 177.6 1.2 60 22 35 35 2 7 -1 2
10 308.0 63.9 0.2 90 0 0 0 -2 0 0 -10
11 264.9 132.4 0.5 90 0 12 0 0 -1 * -19
12 152.5 184.2 1.2 90 28 38 39 5 10 -6 5

a o,,, z,, p and q,._,: Nishihara and Kawamoto data reported in Ref. [14]. * The critical plane is undetermined.

Table 3
Experimental and theoretical fatigue fracture plane orientation, q, and error index, I, for mild steel specimens [20]”

Test of., rJo*., P Fracture plane Error index, I (%)

No. (MPa) &Pa) (“)
Exp. Present McDiarmid Present Findley Matake McDiarmid
rlenp (“) 71,,1 (“) 11C.1(“)

1 245.3 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 1

2 235.6 48.9 0.2 0 12 12 11 7 7 6 4
3 187.3 93.6 0.5 0 22 23 23 5 8 8 5
4 101.3 122.3 1.2 0 30 34 34 -1 2 2 1
5 0.0 142.3 m 0 45 45 45 4 4 4 4
6 194.2 97.1 0.5 60 12 18 17 3 4 _ -3 1
7 108.9 131.5 1.2 60 8 35 35 5 9 2 1
8 235.6 48.9 0.2 90 0 0 0 2 1 1 -2
9 208.1 104.1 0.5 90 8 8 0 4 0 * -4
10 112.6 136.0 1.2 90 39 39 39 9 11 - .l -1

aOf.“, z,, p and ?&,: Nishihara and Kawamoto data reported in Ref. [14]. * The critical plane is undetermined

Table 4
Experimental and theoretical fatigue fracture plane orientation, 17, and error index, Z, for grey cast iron specimens [20]”

Test 01.0 r&J,.0 P Fracture plane Error index, I (%)

No. (MW &Pa) (“)
Exp. Present McDiarmid Present Findley Matake McDiarmid
17.XlI(“) 8lA (“) 17C.I(“)

93.2 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 -4 -3 -3 -39

95.2 19.7 0.2 0 12 12 11 3 3 1 -33
83.4 41.6 0.5 0 25 23 23 4 6 6 -26
56.3 68.0 1.2 0 34 34 34 5 8 5 -13
0.0 94.2 00 0 49 45 45 -2 3 3 3
104.2 21.6 0.2 90 0 0 0 10 13 13 -31
97.1 48.6 0.5 90 0 8 0 14 19 * -26
71.3 86.1 1.2 90 37 39 39 11 17 -6 -6

a o,,, z,, P and L: Nishihara and Kawamoto data reported in Ref. [14]. * The critical plane is undetermined.
 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/htemational Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145 143

350
2, /a,,, = 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 m
100
p=o" A DV40
;;; 300 -
30" 0a
% 80
250 -
G 60" on

E
60
z -----_
i
150 -
% 40
a
a 100 -
a

? \ 20
c43 50 - \
\
\
I
I I I I I I I I
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 20 40 80 80 100

MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS, N,,, (MPa) MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS, N,,, (MPa)
Fig. 4. Shear stress amplitude vs maximum normal stress acting on Fig. 6. Shear stress amplitude vs maximum normal stress acting on
the critical plane: theoretical predictions and experimental results for the critical plane: theoretical predictions and experimental results for
Swedish hard steel specimens 1201. for grey cast iron specimens [20].

evaluated through an error index, I (%), defined in order

2, lq, = 0.0 0.2 0.5 1.2 00
250 - to measure the relative difference between the two sides
;;; p= 0” A DVQO of each inequality:
E I=(left-hand side) - (right-hand side)lOO
-, 200 - 60” 00
(29)
U (right-hand side)
90” +xX
E
150 -------___ For example, the error index for the criterion herein pro-
z
i posed (Eqs. (26) and (27)) is given by:
k
a
a
a
100 -
I=
-loo
af
(30)

g 50-
cll The last four columns of Tables 2-4 show the values of
the error index for the criteria previously analysed. Note
that a positive value of I represents a conservative pre-
0
diction. It can be observed that in general the error is
0 50 100 150 200 250
very low and independent of p.
MAXIMUM NORMAL STRESS, N,,, (MPa) The overall comparison between experimental results
and theoretical predictions is illustrated in Fig. 7, in
Fig. 5. Shear stress amplitude vs maximum normal stress acting on
which the relative frequency of the error index for the
the critical plane: theoretical predictions and experimental results for
mild steel specimens [20].
above criteria is reported. Such a relative frequency rep-
resents, for each interval of 5% range, the number of
experimental tests whose error index falls in the interval
If the left- and right-hand sides of the inequality considered, normalised with respect to the total number
expressing a given critical plane criterion are equal to of tests. In general, a good correlation between experi-
each other for a certain test, the prediction exactly agrees mental and theoretical results is observed for the criteria
with the result of such a test; as a matter of fact, all the being considered, as is demonstrated by the higher
experimental cases considered correspond to the fatigue values of the relative frequency for the intervals around
limit state, as mentioned before. Therefore the quality of 0%. Moreover, note that the error index related to the
the predictions deduced by the criteria examined can be present criterion falls in a range (from -5% to 15%)
144 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145

(4 UN
0.6 0.6
I_
, Conservative

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Error Index, I(%) Error Index, I(%)

(4 (4

Conservative 1 Conservative

0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Error Index, I(%) Error Index, I (%)

Fig. 7. Relative frequency of the error index, I, for the experimental tests [20] according to: (a) present criterion (F.q. (30)); (b) Findley [3]; (c)
Matake [5]; (d) McDiarmid [7].

smaller than those of the other criteria, and the majority
of values is concentrated on the positive side
(conservative predictions).
6. Conclusions
Some high-cycle fatigue criteria based on the so-
called critical plane approach for multiaxial nonpro-
portional loading have been outlined. Then a theoretical
procedure has been developed to determine the averaged
principal stress axes by employing the weight function
method. The weighted mean direction of the maximum
principal stress can be used to predict the orientation of
the fatigue fracture plane, and to deduce the critical
plane where to perform the fatigue failure assessment.
Finally a criterion based on the maximum normal stress
and the shear stress amplitude acting on the critical plane
has been proposed to carry out such an assessment.
The criteria examined are applied to some experi-
mental tests on brittle (hard) metals under in-phase or
out-of-phase sinusoidal biaxial normal and shear stress
states. The normal to the experimental fracture plane
agrees with the weighted mean direction of the
maximum principal stress, particularly in the case of low
values of the phase angle between the applied loads. Fur-
thermore, the present authors’ criterion of fatigue failure
assessment produces predictions which are generally
 A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli/lnternational
conservative and agree with the experimental results
quite well.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the research sup-
port for this work provided by the Italian Ministry for
University and Technological and Scientific Research
(MURST) and the Italian National Research Council
(CNR).
References
[l] Garud YS. Multiaxial fatigue: a survey of the state of the art. .I
Test Eval 1981;9:165-78.
[2] You B-R, Lee S-B. A critical review on multiaxial fatigue assess-
ments of metals. Int J Fatigue 1996;18:2354.
[3] Findley WN. A theory for the effect of mean stress on fatigue
of metals under combined torsion and axial load or bending. J
Engng Industry, Tram ASME 1959;81:301&6.
[4] Brown MW, Miller KJ. A theory for fatigue failure under multi-
axial stress-strain condition. Proc Inst Mech Engrs
1973;187:745-55.
[5] Matake T. An explanation on fatigue limit under combined stress.
Bull JSME 1977;20:257-63.
[6] McDiarmid DL. Fatigue under out-of-phase bending and torsion.
Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1987;9:457-75.
[7] McDiarmid DL. A general criterion for high cycle multiaxial
fatigue failure. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1991;14:429-
53.
[8] Ohnami M, Sakane M, Hamada N. Effect of changing principal
stress axes on low-cycle fatigue life in various strain wave shapes
at elevated temperature. Multiaxial Fatigue ASTM STP
1985;853:622-34.
[9] Carpinteri A, Macha E, Brighenti R, Spagnoli A. Expected princi-
Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 135-145 145
pal stress directions for multiaxial random loading - Part I:
Theoretical aspects of the weight function method. Int J Fatigue
1999;21:83-8.
[lOI Carpinteri A, Brighenti R, Macha E, Spagnoli A. Expected princi-
pal stress directions for multiaxial random loading - Part II:
Numerical simulation and experimental assessment through the
weight function method. Int J Fatigue 1999;21:89-96.
[ill Carpinteri A, Brighenti R, Spagnoli A. A fracture plane approach
in multiaxial high-cycle fatigue of metals. Fatigue Fract Engng
Mater Struct 2000,23:355&l.
WI Papadopoulos IV. Critical plane approaches in high-cycle fatigue:
on the definition of the amplitude and mean value of the shear
stress acting on the critical plane. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater
Struct 1998;21:269-85.
v31 Socie D. Multiaxial fatigue assessment. In: Rie KT, editor. Low-
cycle fatigue and elasto-plastic behaviour of materials. UK:
Elsevier Applied Science, 1987:465-72.
u41 Macha E. Simulation investigations of the position of fatigue
fracture plane in materials with biaxial loads. Mat.-wiss.u.Werk-
stofftech. 1989;20:132-136 and 153-163.
[I51 Carpinteri A, Macha E, Brighenti R, Spagnoli A. Critical fracture
plane under multiaxial random loading by means of Euler angles
averaging. In: Macha E, Bedkowski W, Lagoda T, editors. Multi-
axial fatigue and fracture. ESIS publication 25. UK: Elsevier
Science Ltd, 1999:166-78.
1161 Gough HJ, Pollard HV, Clenshaw WJ. Some experiments on the
resistance of metals to fatigue under combined stresses. Aero-
nautical Research Council Reports, R and M 2522, London:
HMSO, 1951.
[I71 Froustey C, Lasserre S. Multiaxial fatigue endurance of
30NCD16 steel. Int J Fatigue 1989;11:169-75.
[I81 Lasserre S, Froustey C. Multiaxial fatigue of steel - Testing out
of phase and in blocks - Validity and applicability of some cri-
teria. Int J Fatigue 1992;14:113-20.
[I91 Papadopoulos IV. A new criterion of fatigue strength for out-of-
phase bending and torsion of hard metals. Int J Fatigue
1994;16:377-84.
[201 Nishihara T, Kawamoto M. The strength of metals under com-
bined alternating bending and torsion with phase difference. Mem
College Engng, Kyoto Imperial Uni 1945; 11:85-l 12.