The three major fatigue life methods used in design and analysis are the stress-life

method, the strain-life method, and the linear-elastic fracture mechanics method. These
methods attempt to predict the life in number of cycles to failure, N, for a specific level
of loading. Life of 1 ≤ N ≤ 103 cycles is generally classified as low-cycle fatigue,
whereas high-cycle fatigue is considered to be N > 103 cycles.

The stress-life method, based on stress levels only, is the least accurate approach,
especially for low-cycle applications.it is the most traditional method, since
it is the easiest to implement for a wide range of design applications, has ample supporting
data, and represents high-cycle applications adequately.

The strain-life method involves more detailed analysis of the plastic deformation at
localized regions where the stresses and strains are considered for life estimates. This
method is especially good for low-cycle fatigue applications. In applying this method,
several idealizations must be compounded, and so some uncertainties will exist in the
results. For this reason, it will be discussed only because of its value in adding to the
understanding of the nature of fatigue.
The fracture mechanics method assumes a crack is already present and detected. It
is then employed to predict crack growth with respect to stress intensity. It is most practical
when applied to large structures in conjunction with computer codes and a periodic
inspection program.
 The Stress-Life Method
To determine the strength of materials under the action of fatigue loads,
specimens are subjected to repeated or varying forces of specified
magnitudes while the cycles or stress reversals are counted to
destruction. The most widely used fatigue-testing device is the R. R.
Moore high-speed rotating-beam machine. This machine subjects the
specimen to pure bending (no transverse shear) by means of weights.

For the rotating-beam test, a constant bending load is applied, and the number
of revolutions (stress reversals) of the beam required for failure is recorded.
The first test is made at a stress that is somewhat under the ultimate strength
of the material. The second test is made at a stress that is less than that used
in the first. This process is continued, and the results are plotted as an S-N
diagram

In the case of ferrous metals and alloys, the graph becomes horizontal after the An S-N diagram plotted from
material has been stressed for a certain number of cycles. the results of completely
reversed axial fatigue tests.
In the case of the steels, a knee occurs in the graph, and beyond this knee Material: UNS G41300 steel,
failure will not occur, no matter how great the number of cycles. The strength normalized; Sut = 116 kpsi;
corresponding to the knee is called the endurance limit Se, or the fatigue limit. maximum Sut = 125 kpsi.
The graph of Fig. 6–10 never does become horizontal for nonferrous metals (Data from NACA Tech. Note
and alloys, and hence these materials do not have an endurance limit. 3866, December 1966.)
The S-N diagram is usually obtained by completely reversed stress cycles, in which the stress level alternates between
equal magnitudes of tension and compression. We note that a stress cycle (N = 1) constitutes a single application and
removal of a load and then another application and removal of the load in the opposite direction. Thus N = 1/2
means the load is applied once and then removed, which is the case with the simple tension test.

The body of knowledge available on fatigue failure from N= 1 to N=1000 cycles is generally classified as low-cycle
fatigue, as indicated in Fig. 6–10. High-cycle fatigue, then, is concerned with failure corresponding to stress cycles
greater than 103 cycles.

The boundary between finite-life region and an infinite-life region cannot be clearly defined except for a specific
material; but it lies somewhere between 106 and 107 cycles for steels
 The Strain-Life Method
A fatigue failure almost always begins at a local discontinuity such as a notch, crack, or other area of stress
concentration. When the stress at the discontinuity exceeds the elastic limit, plastic strain occurs. If a fatigue
fracture is to occur, there must exist cyclic plastic strains.

In 1910, Bairstow verified by experiment Bauschinger’s theory that the elastic limits of iron and steel can be changed, either
up or down, by the cyclic variations of stress. In general, the elastic limits of annealed steels are likely to increase when
subjected to cycles of stress reversals, while cold-drawn steels exhibit a decreasing elastic limit.

The maximum completely reversing cyclic stress that a material can withstand for
indefinite (or infinite) number of stress reversals is known as the fatigue strength or
endurance strength (Se) of the part material.

ultimate tensile strength (Su) rather than yield strength (Syp).

 The Strain-Life Method
 Fatigue ductility coefficient εF is the true strain
corresponding to fracture in one reversal
(point A in Fig. 6–12). The plastic-strain line
begins at this point in Fig. 6–13.
 Fatigue strength coefficient σF is the true stress
corresponding to fracture in one reversal (point
A in Fig. 6–12). Note in Fig. 6–13 that the
elastic-strain line begins at σF/E.
 Fatigue ductility exponent c is the slope of the
plastic-strain line in Fig. 6–13 and is the power
to which the life 2N must be raised to be
proportional to the true plastic strain A log-log plot showing how
amplitude. If the number of stress reversals is the fatigue life is related to
2N , then N is the number of cycles. the true-strain amplitude for
True stress–true strain hysteresis loops hot-rolled SAE 1020 steel.
 Fatigue strength exponent b is the slope of the showing the first five stress reversals of a (Reprinted with permission
elastic-strain line, and is the power to which cyclic-softening material. The graph is
the life 2N must be raised to be proportional to from SAE J1099_200208
slightly exaggerated forclarity. Note that the © 2002 SAE International.)
the true-stress amplitude. slope of the line AB is the modulus of
elasticity E. The stress range is σ, εp is the
plastic-strain range, and εe is the elastic strain
range. The total-strain range is
ε = εp + εe .
which is the Manson-Coffin relationship between fatigue
life and total strain.
 Design for fatigue stress

A generalized stress condition, can be defined as combine purely reversing stress

(Sr) superimposed on a steady stress (Savg). The following stress-time graph
shows this combined reversing and steady stress condition. If the stress is
varying between Smax & Smin, then the

SODERBERG’S LINE
(i) If a part only contains the steady part of the stress Savg, (that is Sr=0) then to
prevent failure: Savg < Syp/( K*Nfs) , where K= geometric stress concentration
factor, and Nfs= factor of safety. Usually parts subjected to fatigue loading are
made of ductile material, and for steady stress, we learned that the geometric
stress concentration factor can be neglected. Thus the limiting condition is:
Savg < Syp/Nfs
(ii) Similarly, when there is only reversing stress Sr present, then for safe design:
Sr < Se/(Nfs*Kf), where Kf= is the fatigue stress concentration factor.
Which means Sr can go up to Se/(Nfs*Kf), when Savg=0
If we plot steady stress (Savg) along x axis and the range stress (Sr) along y axis, then the two extreme stress conditions (i) & (ii)
described above, constitute two point on x and y axis. Soderberg Line is obtained by joining these two points. When in a
machine part, both types of stress are present simultaneously, if the stress combination (Savg & Sr) is contained in the blue area
defined by the Soderberg line, then the part should be safe. Any stress combination falling above the Soderberg’s line would be
unsafe.
Using intercept form of the equation of straight line, ie., x/a+y/b=1, the safe design area (blue area) can be defined by:
 GOODMAN’S LINE
Because of brittle nature of failure, Goodman proposed the
safe design stress for steady stress should be extended to
Su/Nfs instead of Syp/Nfs in Soderberg’s equation. This
resulted in the safe design space as shown and the resulted
in Goodman Design equation:

Goodman Equation can be obtained from Soderberg

equation by replacing Syp by Su.
However, in the safe area defined by Goodman line, when
the magnitude of steady stress Savg becomes more than
Syp/Nfs, the part may fail from yielding from plastic
deformation. The area is shown as unsafe region.
Life of component is more when cyclic loading nature is pure reversible. If magnitude of loading in both
directions is different, then means stress plays vital role in fatigue life estimation. Effect of mean stress is
proposed by different theories like Morrow rule, SWT relation, and Gerber-Goodman-Soderberg relations. By
this theory it is conclude that as increased mean stress reduced the life of component. This paper include above
mentioned theory along with numerical justification to theory.

When minimum and maximum load is same in magnitude but opposite in direction like tension and compression or
heating and cooling, then mean stress is zero. But when min and maxi load are not identical in magnitude then it
contain some amount of residual stress which is called as mean stress. Mean stress affect the fatigue life of
component. Generally positive or mean stress in tension has bad effect on component. Its life get reduced as mean
stress get increased. But if mean stress is in compression then it increases the life of component

During cyclic loading, localized plastic deformation may occur at the highest stress site. This plastic deformation
develops a crack. As the component experience an increasing number of loading cycles, the length of the crack
(damage) increases. After a certain number of cycles, the crack will cause the component to fail.
 MEAN STRESS EFFECT:-
Structural members subjected to in-service cyclic loads exhibit a fatigue behavior that generally depends on the mean stress values.
Mean stress is generally taken as average of minimum stress and maximum stress. Mean stress in cyclic loading plays important
role. For a given fatigue load range a tensile mean normal stress has a detrimental effect on fatigue strength, whereas, in general, a
compressive mean normal stress has a beneficial effect. The problem of the mean stress effect on fatigue life has been approached
practically by developing empirical relationships. For metals and alloys, various criteria have been proposed to deal with the mean
stress effect on fatigue life.

For stress based fatigue:-

For stress based fatigue algorithm i.e. for high cycle fatigue we have different approaches to take account effect of mean stress
like Gerber relationship, Goodman relationship, Soderberg relationship, etc. As described in Sec:-III.1, this relationship can be
generated by doing number of experiment. Graph is plotted as alternating stress Vs mean stress. If point lies inside the area of
lines then component is safe for that stress value. And if point is lies outside of line area then material fails.

For strain based fatigue:-

For strain based fatigue life calculation we have Basquin and Coffine-Manson relationship. But this relationship doesn’t take
account for mean stress. So for strain based fatigue algorithm or for low cycle fatigue we need different types of relationships
which can take account of the effect of mean stress during fatigue calculation like Morrow, SWT, Manson and Halford.
a) Morrow Relationship: -
Effect of mean stress is generally described by Morrow rule which states that mean stress mostly affect during early stage of
loading or for higher fatigue life. In such type of life, elastic strain amplitude dominates the total life. As shown in fig., morrow
explains that as number of cycles get increased mean stress come nearly to zero. So Morrow deduced mean stress from elastic
part of Basquin and coffin-mason equation.

The Morrow model predicts that the mean stress has a significant effect on longer lives, where the elastic strain amplitudes
dominate. The prediction trend of the Morrow mean stress correction model is consistent with observations that the mean stress
has greater impact at longer lives.
All relations give the result as if tensile mean stress is acting on component then component have less life than zero mean stress
condition.
Technical Report on Low Cycle Fatigue Properties Ferrous and Non-Ferrous of Materials

technical Report on Fatigue Properties, SAE J1099, 1975.