F2004/51

Mean Stress Effects in Stress-Life and Strain-Life Fatigue

Norman E. Dowling
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA
Copyright 2004 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT Various approaches to estimating mean stress effects on stress-life and strain-life behavior are compared with test data for engineering metals. The modified Goodman equation with the ultimate tensile strength is found to be highly inaccurate, and the similar expression of Morrow using the true fracture strength is a considerable improvement. However, the Morrow expression employing the fatigue strength coefficient f may be grossly non-conservative for metals other than steels. The Smith, Watson, and Topper (SWT) method is a reasonable choice that avoids the above difficulties. Another option is the Walker approach, with an adjustable exponent that may be fitted to test data, allowing superior accuracy. Handling mean stress effects for strainlife curves is also discussed, including the issue of mathematical consistency with mean stress equations expressed in terms of stress. A new and mathematically consistent method for incorporating the Walker approach into strainlife curves is developed. With = 0.5, this result gives a new strain-based interpretation of the SWT method. INTRODUCTION Mean stress effects have long been studied, as in the early work of Gerber [1] and Goodman [2, 3], and one might think that all has been said on the subject that needs to be said. Nevertheless, several methods of questionable accuracy are currently in wide use. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the most widely used methods and to compare their success in correlating fatigue data for engineering metals. The methods considered are those of Goodman, Morrow, Smith-Watson-Topper, and Walker. There are more than one version of some of these, and they may be used differently in the context of stress-life versus strain-life curves. Fatigue data will be analyzed for several steels and nonferrous metals as listed in Table 1, where references to the sources of fatigue data are given. Table 1 also lists tensile

properties from the same sources, specifically, 0.2% offset yield strength o , ultimate tensile strength u , true stress at fracture, ~ , and ductility, either percent reduction in
fB

area, or percent elongation, whichever is given. As indicated by the subscript B, the ~f B values are corrected for hoop stress due to necking according to Bridgman [16]. As noted, some values of ~f B were unavailable and had to be estimated from those for similar material by assuming proportionality with the ultimate strength. TABLE 1 - Metals Studied, Sources of Fatigue Data, and Tensile Properties UltiRed Fracture Yield mate Area Material ~ fB (Elong) o u [Data Source] MPa SAE 1015 Steel - [4] SAE 1045 Steel1 - [5] AISI 4340 Steel2 - [6] 2014-T6 Al - [7] 2024-T3 Al - [8, 9] 2024-T4 Al - [10, 11] 7075-T6 Al - [7] Ti-6Al-4V3 - [12, 13]
1 2

MPa 415 2248 1172 494 497 476 567 978

MPa 726 2717 1634 580

4 4

% 68 40.5 56 (13.6) (20.3) 35 (16.5) (20)

228 1841 1103 438 359 303 489 930

610

631 7304 13624

Notes: Hardness 595 HB. Fatigue specimens at longer lives plastically strained prior to testing. 3Solution treated and vacuum annealed. 4Values estimated from similar material in [14] or [15] by ratioing ultimate strengths.

With the aid of Fig. 1, let us be sure that the nomenclature used herein is clear. The mean stress m is the average level of a constant amplitude cyclic loading, and the stress amplitude a is the variation about this mean. The amplitude is also half of the overall stress range . The maximum and minimum values reached are, respectively, max = m + a and min = m a . The ratio

R = min / max is also used to characterize the mean stress situation. Further, note that
= =
max min

of the data flattens at short lives and the fit to Eq. 3 is not very good. Table 2 gives values of f and b for the metals (1) (2) to be studied here, where these values are from fitting the zero mean stress portion of the data. At very short lives, stress-life data tend to approach the true fracture strength from a tension test, ~f B . If the fit to

2
max

Manipulating Eq. 1 into the product of max and an algebraic expression, and invoking the definition of R, gives two additional useful relationships, Eq. 2.
m a max

a, Stress Amplitude, MPa

0 t

Figure 1 Definitions for cyclic stressing

In the treatment that follows, we will first briefly discuss stress-life curves. Following this, we will present various methods for estimating mean stress effects, and then we will look at the ability of these methods to correlate stresslife data for various mean stresses. Next, we will consider strain-life equations that include mean stress. Finally, concluding remarks are given that are intended to interpret and summarize the earlier portions of the paper.
STRESS-LIFE CURVES

However, where the data flatten at short lives, f may considerably exceed ~ , as for 2024-T4 aluminum in Fig.
fB

2. Depending on how the data are fit and the range of data available, the difference may be quite large. As an extreme example, consider the values in Tables 1 and 2 for 7075-T6 aluminum, where we have ~f B = 730 MPa. A stress-life fit over a wide range of lives for data on similar material gives f = 1466 MPa. And a fit to the intermediate-to-long life data to be analyzed gives f = 4402 MPa. Note that the values differ by a factor of three, and the larger one is six times larger than ~ .
fB

Stress-life curves are assumed to follow a power relationship.

ar

two f

= f (2N f )b

(3)

where Nf is cycles to failure, and the stress variable is ar , as the fitting constants f and b are determined from tests under zero mean stress, also called completely reversed tests. The degree to which actual data closely fit Eq. 3 varies. For example, in Fig. 2, data for SAE 1045 steel fit the expected straight line on this log-log plot fairly well. But this is not the case for 2024-T4 aluminum, where the trend

Comparing the ~f B values in Table 1 with the corresponding f values in Table 2, the latter are typically higher than the former by a factor of three or four for the nonferrous metals. This contrasts with the situation for the three steels, where the values are similar.

For the special case of stress amplitude a where the mean stress is zero, m = 0, the notation ar is employed for the amplitude. Such a situation of zero mean stress is also called completely reversed cycling, and corresponds to R = 1.

(1 R ),

max

2
max

(1 + R )

min

(a, b) (a, b)

Eq. 3 is quite good, then f , which is noted to be the intercept at one-half cycle, is approximately equal to the true fracture strength, f ~f B . This is often the case for steels, as for SAE 1045 steel in Fig. 2.
10000

SAE 1045 Steel, 595 HB

a CCCCC min

1000

2024-T4 Al, Prestrained 100 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 Nf, Cycles 1.E+05 1.E+07

Figure 2 Two stress-life curves with intercepts at cycle True fracture compared to true facture strengths. strength, ~f B and Intercept, f .

AMPLITUDE-MEAN EQUATIONS

1.4 1.2 1.0 a/ar 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -400 u 0 400 800 m, MPa AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa

Consider a set of fatigue data with cycles to failure at various stress amplitudes and mean stresses. The number of cycles to failure Nf for each test can be used with Eq. 3 to calculate a value of completely reversed stress ar that is expected to cause the same life as the actual combination of amplitude and mean, a and m . One can then normalize the amplitudes to ar , plotting the ratio a / ar ,versus the mean stress. For two of the data sets of current interest, such normalized amplitude-mean plots are given as Figs. 3 and 4.
TABLE 2 - Stress-Life Fitting Constants1, 2 Fit All Data to Fit m = 0 Walker Data Material b bw 'f 'fw

~ f B
1200

'f 1600 2000

Figure 3 Normalized stress amplitude-mean plot for AISI 4340 steel.

1.2 1.0 0.8 a / ar 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -200 u 0 200 400
~ fB

SAE 1015 SAE 1045 AISI 4340 2014-T6 2024-T3 2024-T43, 4 7075-T6
5 6

801

-0.113

799 -0.114 0.713 (Not Done) 1963 -0.108 0.650 949 -0.108 0.480 1772 -0.163 0.460 2452 -0.195 0.505 (Not Done) (Not Done) (Not Done)

3050 -0.098 1758 -0.098 1120 -0.122 1602 -0.154 1294 -0.142 1466 -0.143 4402 -0.262 2749 -0.144

2024-T3 Al

'f 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

600

7075-T6

m, MPa

Ti-6Al-4V

Notes: 1Stress intercepts in MPa units. 2Data for Nf > 106 cycles not included in fit if far from the log-log linear trend; runouts not considered. 3Zero mean is overall fit for the same data from [17]. 4 Walker fit from Nf > 103 data. 5Overall fit for similar material from [18]. 6Fit to data from [7].

Figure 4 Normalized stress amplitude-mean plot for 2024-T3 aluminum.

ar =

Note that the trend of such data is expected to pass through a / ar = 1.0 at m = 0. A linear relationship is often assumed to occur, with the intercept along the a / ar = 0 axis expected to be the static strength of the material.
GOODMAN AND MORROW EQUATIONS - If the static strength is taken as the ultimate tensile strength, the straight line corresponds to

a m 1 u

(5)

If a given combination of stress amplitude and mean are substituted, the calculated value of ar can be thought of as an equivalent completely reversed stress amplitude that is expected to cause the same life as the a , m combination. One can then estimate the life by entering Eq. 3. Since the fitting constants f and b are obtained by testing at zero mean stress, it is not necessary to have data at non-zero mean stress to make a life estimate. But the life estimate does depend on the accuracy of Eq. 5. In Figs. 3 and 4, note that the data tend to lie above the Eq. 5 line for tensile mean stress, causing conservative life estimates. Morrow [19] suggested modifying the Goodman relationship by employing the true fracture strength as the intercept.

a m + =1 ar u

(4)

This is the modified Goodman relationship as formulated by J. O. Smith [3]. It is useful to solve for ar .

ar

m fB

where form (b) arises from estimating ~f B as being equal to

f . In Figs. 3 and 4, Eq. 6(a) fits the data quite well. Equation 6(b) seems to work equally well for the AISI 4340 steel of Fig. 3, as the approximation f ~f B works quite well. But for 2024-T3 aluminum in Fig. 4, Eq. 6(b) completely misses most of the data due to f being far larger than ~ . This of course arises from a stress-life curve that
fB

ar

ar = max a ar = max ar = a 1 R 2

ar

(a) (b) (c) (7)

2 1 R

1.6 1.4 1.2 a / ar 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 Data SWT Walker 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 = 0.650 AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa

where forms (b) and (c) are equivalent to (a) and are obtained from (a) by making substitutions from Eq. 2(a). Another proposal is that of Walker [20], which may be written

ar = 1 a max

(a)

ar = max

1 R 2

(b) (c)

(8)

0.2

2 ar = a 1 R

where equivalent forms (b) and (c) are obtained from (a) by making substitutions from Eq. 2(a). The quantity is a fitting constant that may be considered to be a materials property. Obviously, all of the above forms of the Walker equation reduce to the corresponding SWT forms for the special case = 0.5. Neither the SWT nor the Walker equations give a single trend on a plot of the type of Figs. 3 and 4, forming instead a family of curves. However, both do form a single curve if the mean stress axis is also normalized by ar . This is il-

0.0 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4

Figure 5 SWT and Walker amplitude-mean curves for AISI 4340 steel.

Nf =

m / ar

1 R max 2

1/b

1 A

= AN b = max f

SMITH-WATSON-TOPPER (SWT) AND WALKER EQUATIONS - Numerous additional relationships have been proposed, including the widely used one of Smith, Watson, and Topper [4].

Combine this with the Walker form of Eq. 8(b) and then solve for Nf .

1 R 2

does not fit Eq. 3 very well in the manner of the similar aluminum alloy in Fig. 2.

ar

(a,b)
m

(6)

lustrated in Figs. 5 and 6 for the same sets of data. In Fig. 5, the SWT equation ( = 0.50) deviates from the data for AISI 4340 steel somewhat, but Walker with = 0.65 fits it quite well. For 2024-T3 aluminum in Fig. 6, the curves for SWT and Walker with = 0.46 are close together, the difference being less than the considerable scatter in the data. The Walker equation has the obvious advantage of having an adjustable parameter to aid in fitting data. But this is of no benefit unless the value is known from mean stress data for at least similar material. WALKER EQUATION FITTING - To fit a set of amplitude-mean-life data to the Walker equation, first write Eq. 3 in the following convenient form:
= AN b , f where A = f 2b (9)

(10)

= 0.500

1.6

2.0

2.4

1.4 1.2 1.0 a / ar 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.4 2024-T3 Al = 0.500 = 0.460 Data SWT Walker

analysis. From Table 2 and other similar fitting for engineering metals, values of seem to generally be around 0.50 or above, with steels typically having higher values than nonferrous metals. Note that lower values of correspond to greater sensitivity to mean stress, there being no effect for = 1, in which case ar = a
CORRELATION OF STRESS-LIFE DATA

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2 m / ar

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

Figure 6 SWT and Walker amplitude-mean curves for 2024-T3 aluminum.

For a set of amplitude-mean-life data, it is useful to calculate equivalent completely reversed stress amplitudes for each test and plot these versus life. This is shown in Fig. 7(a-e) for AISI 4340 steel and in Fig. 8(a-e) for 2024-T3 aluminum. For each material, the ar values plotted are from Eqs. 5, 6(a), 6(b), 7, or 8, respectively, for the (a) to (e) parts of each of Figs. 7 and 8. In these plots, the line fitted to Eq. 3 for the m = 0 data is shown, except for the Walker correlations, where the line corresponds to fw and b w used with Eq. 3, as fitted to the entire set of data with as listed in Table 2.

Next, take the logarithm to the base 10 of both sides.

1 1 R log log N f = log max + 2 b b

1 log A b (11)

Based on Eq. 11, we can now do a multiple linear regression with independent variables x1 and x2 and dependent variable y.
y = m1 x1 + m 2 x 2 + d

where

y = log N f , x1 = log max , x2 = log

1 m1 = , m2 = , b b

1 d = log A b

Once the fitting constants m1, m2, and d are known, the desired values are easily determined.
b= 1 , m1
db

= bm 2 = = 10
d / m1

(14) f = A 2b

ar , MPa

A = 10

Table 2 gives the resulting three values, fw , b w , and , for five of the data sets, where subscripts w, for Walker, are added to avoid confusion with values fitted to only zero mean stress data. It is significant that all of the stress-life data at all mean stresses are now involved in the fit. Treating the data as a single, larger set enhances the possibility of statistical

(12)

The correlation is favorable to the extent that the data points fall very near the line. Points to the right of the line correspond to lives longer than expected for the particular ar equation, that is, conservative "predictions". Conversely, points to the left of the line indicate lives shorter than expected, or nonconservative "predictions". Similar plots were prepared for all of the metals listed in Table 2, except that Walker correlations were not done for all of them, as noted. The trends observed were similar to those seen for AISI 4340 steel and 2024-T3 aluminum in Figs. 7 and 8. In particular, the Goodman relationship, Eq. 5, gives poor results, usually being excessively conservative for tensile mean stresses, but nonconservative for the limited data available at compressive mean stresses. An exception is SAE 1045 steel, where the results are quite good, as might be expected form u being only 17% below ~f B .
1000

1 R 2

(13)

m2 m1

Mean Stress, MPa 621 414 207 -207 0 0 Fit

Goodman AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa

100 1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04 Nf , Cycles

1.E+05

1.E+06

Figure 7(a) Goodman life correlation for AISI 4340 steel.

1000

1000

ar , MPa

Mean Stress, MPa

ar, MPa

621 414 207 -207 0 0 Fit

Mean Stress, MPa 621 414 207 -207 0 Fit 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 Nf, Cycles

Morrow, Fracture AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa

Walker AISI 4340 Steel u= 1172 MPa

100 1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04 Nf , Cycles

1.E+05

1.E+06

100 1.0E+02

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

Figure 7(b) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for AISI 4340 steel

1000

Figure 7(e) Walker life correlation for AISI 4340 steel with = 0.650.
1000 Goodman 2024-T3 Al

Mean Stress, MPa ar , MPa 621 414 207 -207 0 0 Fit

ar, MPa

Morrow, Intercept AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa

100 1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04 Nf , Cycles

1.E+05

1.E+06

100 1.E+02

0.6 0.4 0.02 -0.3 -0.6 R-ratio -1 -1 Fit 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07

Nf, Cycles

steel.
1000

ar , MPa

621 414 207 -207 0 0 Fit 1.E+03

ar , MPa

Mean Stress, MPa

100 1.E+02

Figure 7(d) SWT life correlation for AISI 4340 steel.

Figure 7(c) - Morrow

f life correlation for AISI 4340

Figure 8(a) Goodman life correlation for 2024-T3 aluminum.

1000

Morrow, Fracture 2024-T3 Al

SWT AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa

100 1.E+02

0.6 0.4 0.02 -0.3 -0.6 R-ratio -1 -1 Fit

1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07

1.E+04 Nf , Cycles

1.E+05

1.E+06

Nf , Cycles

Figure 8(b) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for 2024-T3 aluminum.

1000
R-ratio

ar, MPa

ar, MPa

0.6 0.4 0.02 -0.3 -0.6 -1 -1 Fit

1000 R-ratio 0.6 0.4 0.02 -0.3 -0.6 -1 Fit

Morrow, Intercept 2024-T3 Al 100 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07

Walker 2024-T3 Al 100 1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

1.0E+06

1.0E+07

Nf, Cycles

Nf, Cycles

Figure 8(c) Morrow f life correlation for 2024-T3 alu-

minum.
1000

Figure 8(e) Walker life correlation for 2024-T3 aluminum with = 0.460.

ar , MPa

SWT 2024-T3 Al 100 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07

Nf , Cycles

Figure 8(d) SWT life correlation for 2024-T3 aluminum.

ar , MPa

The Morrow expression of Eq. 6(a) with the true fracture strength ~f B gives considerably better results than Goodman in all cases, except for SAE 1045 steel, where the results are similar. For the three steels, the Morrow form of Eq. 6(b) with the intercept constant f gives essentially the same result as Eq. 6(a), as expected due to ~ and
fB f

having similar values. However, Eq. 6(b) gives very poor and nonconservative values for the nonferrous metals due to the high values of f . The SWT relationship of Eq. 7 gives good results in all cases. For steels, it is not quite as good as Morrow with ~f B or f , and it tends to be nonconservative for compressive mean stresses. But SWT is consistently better than Morrow with ~f B for the nonferrous metals. The correlations for Morrow with ~ and SWT, Eqs. 6(a) and 7, are given in
fB

ar , MPa

Figs. 9(a,b) through 13(a,b) for SAE 1015 steel, SAE 1045 steel, 2014-T6 aluminum, 7075-T6 aluminum, and titanium 6Al-4V, respectively.

R-ratio

0.6 0.4 0.02 -0.3 -0.6 -1 -1 Fit

1000 Morrow, Fracture SAE 1015 Steel Mean Stress, MPa

0 34.5 69 103 -34.5 -69 0 Fit

100 1.E+04

1.E+05 Nf , Cycles

1.E+06

Figure 9(a) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for SAE 1015 steel.

1000 SWT SAE 1015 Steel Mean Stress, MPa 0 34.5 69 103 -34.5 -69 0 Fit

100 1.E+04

1.E+05 Nf , Cycles

1.E+06

Figure 9(b) - SWT life correlation for SAE 1015 steel.

The Walker expression of Eq. 8 always gives an excellent correlation, as might be expected from its ability to adjust the value of . Correlations have already been presented in Fig. 7(e) for AISI 4340 steel and Fig. 8(e) for 2024-T3 aluminum. In addition, Fig. 14 gives the plot for SAE 1015 steel, and Fig. 15 for 2014-T6 aluminum.

10,000

Morrow, Fracture SAE 1045 Steel 595 HB ar , MPa

1,000

0 and -138 to +138 690 -345 Mean Stress, MPa 0 Fit

100 1.E+00

Real data obey the above mathematical forms only imperfectly. To aid with accurately fitting each curve under these circumstances, it is recommended that the above two equations be fitted separately to stress-strain-life test data, with theoretical relationships among the six fitting constants not being invoked. See Landgraf [21] for discussion of Eqs. 15 and 16, and see Dowling [22, 23] for descriptions and discussion of the overall strain-based approach for making life estimates for notched components.
1000 Approx. R 0.45 0.05 -0.37 -1.0 -1.0 Fit

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

Figure 10(a) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for SAE 1045 steel.

10,000 SWT SAE 1045 Steel 595 HB ar , MPa

ar, MPa

Nf , Cycles

Morrow, Fracture 2014-T6 Al 100 1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05 Nf, Cycles

1.E+06

1.E+07

1,000 0 and -138 to +138 690 -345 Mean Stress, MPa 0 Fit 100 1.E+00

Figure 11(a) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for 2014-T6 aluminum.

1000

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03 Nf , Cycles

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

STRAIN-LIFE EQUATIONS WITH MEAN STRESS

Mean stress adjustments are needed in making strainbased fatigue life estimates. The materials properties needed to apply a strain-based approach are obtained from tests under completely reversed controlled strain, so that mean stresses in the tests are at or near zero. Such test results provide a cyclic stress-strain curve and a strain-life curve, which are usually represented by

ar, MPa

Figure 10(b) SWT life correlation for SAE 1045 steel.

Approx. R 0.45 0.05 -0.37 -1.0 -1.0 Fit

SWT 2014-T6 Al 100 1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05 Nf, Cycles

1.E+06

1.E+07

Figure 11(b) SWT life correlation for 2014-T6 aluminum.

1000

a a a = + E H ar = f E

1/ n

(15) (16)
ar, MPa

Morrow, Fracture 7075-T6 Al

(2 N f ) b + f (2 N f ) c

100

Approx. R 0.45 0.05 -0.37 -1.0 -1.0 Fit

The quantity E is the elastic modulus. Both of these equations represent summation of elastic strain (/E) and plastic strain terms. Equation 15 gives the cyclic stress-strain curve, in which H' and n' are fitting constants. For the strain-life curve of Eq. 16, the quantities f and b are the same as in Eq. 3, and 'f and c are additional fitting constants for the plastic strain term.

10 1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

Nf, Cycles

Figure 12(a) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for 7075-T6 aluminum.

1000 SWT 7075-T6 Al

1000

ar, MPa

ar, MPa

100

Approx. R 0.45 0.05 -0.37 -1.0 -1.0 Fit

Approx. R -1.0 0 to -0.78 0.1 to 0.2 0.5 -1.0 Fit 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05

SWT Ti-6Al-4V

10 1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05 1.E+06 Nf, Cycles

1.E+07

1.E+08

100 1.E+02

1.E+06

1.E+07

Nf, Cycles

Figure 12(b) SWT life correlation for 7075-T6 aluminum.

Figure 13(b) SWT life correlation for titanium 6A1-4V.

STRAIN-LIFE EQUATIONS FOR NONZERO MEAN STRESS - Since Eq. 16 gives only the life for zero mean stress, it needs to be generalized to include mean stress effects. One equation that is often used for this purpose is an extension of the Morrow equation used with f , Eq. 6(b).
m a = 1 ( 2 N f ) b + f ( 2 N f ) c f E

MATHEMATICALLY CONSISTENT FORMS - We can extend the ar equations such that the strain-life curve is generalized in a mathematically consistent manner. Consider the general case of an amplitude-mean equation expressed in terms of stress. ar = f (a , m )
(19)

(17)

Another is an extension of the SWT relationship, obtained by replacing a in Eq. 7(a) with a . Combining this with Eq. 16 gives the following relationship for determining life.
= ( f )2

Simple substitutions based on the definitions of the various stress variables of Fig. 1, such as Eq. 2, allow this relationship to be expressed in terms of max and R, or in terms of a and R, so that Eq. 19 can be any of Eqs. 5 to 8.
1000 Walker SAE 1015 Steel Mean Stress, MPa 0 34.5 69 103 -34.5 -69 Fit

max

Although Eqs. 17 and 18 may give reasonable life estimates, neither is mathematically consistent with their parent ar equations expressed in terms of stress. Also, in view of the discussion above, the quantity m / f in Eq. 17 should be replaced by / ~ for nonferrous metals, so that it is more
m fB

ar, MPa 100 1.0E+04

similar to Eq. 6(a).

1000

ar, MPa

100 1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Nf, Cycles

Figure 13(a) - Morrow ~f B life correlation for titanium

6Al-4V.

Then solve for stress amplitude a and manipulate the stress quantities on the right side of the equation to be

ar

Morrow, Fracture Ti-6Al-4V

= f(

m) =

Approx. R -1.0 0 to -0.78 0.1 to 0.2 0.5 -1.0 Fit

(2 N f )2b +

f f (2 N f )b

+ c

(18)

1.0E+05 Nf, Cycles

1.0E+06

Figure 14 Walker life correlation for SAE 1015 steel with = 0.713.

We can now manipulate Eq. 3 to obtain a relationship between stress amplitude and life, with the mean stress effect included on the Nf side of the equation. To proceed, first combine Eqs. 3 and 19 to obtain f( ,
m)

= f (2 N f )b

(20)

1000 Approx. R 0.45 0.05 -0.37 -1 Fit

ar, MPa

* N mf

=Nf

Walker 2014-T6 Al 100 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 Nf, Cycles 1.0E+06 1.0E+07

Note that subscripts mf are added to N* to specify the Morrow equation based on the true fracture strength.
0.100 AISI 4340 Steel u = 1172 MPa Mean Stress, MPa 621 414 207 -207 0 Fit

Figure 15 Walker life correlation for 2014-T6 aluminum with = 0.480.

1/ b b a

a, Strain Amplitude

0.010

An explicit expression for N* is thus

N* = N f

a f ( a , m )

a, Strain Amplitude

Hence, one can determine the life N* that is expected for a given stress amplitude a under zero mean stress, and then estimate the life Nf , as affected by a nonzero mean stress, by solving Eq. 22 for Nf .
Nf = N*

a f ( a , m )

The effect on life must be the same regardless of whether one employs a stress-life or a strain-life curve. This permits Eq. 16 to be generalized to

a =

f E

(2 N *)b + f (2 N *)c

* N mi = N f 1

The added subscripts now indicate Morrow and intercept. Note that Eqs. 24 and 26 combined are not the same as Eq. 17, as the latter has no mean stress adjustment for the second term.

where N* is the life calculated from the strain amplitude a as if the mean stress were zero, and then Nf as affected by the nonzero mean stress is obtained from Eq. 23. Also, on a strain-life plot, data plotted as a versus the equivalent life N* are expected all fall together along the curve for zero mean stress, Eq. 16. This is demonstrated in Figs. 16 and 17 for AISI 4340 steel and 2024-T4 aluminum, respectively, where the f ( a , m ) is in this case based on the Walker expression, Eq. 8.

f(

m)

1/ b

1/ b

= f 2 N f

= f (2 N *)b

(21)

= 0.650 0.001 1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

N*w , Walker Equivalent Cycles

Figure 16 Strain amplitude versus Walker equivalent life

(22)

N* for AISI 4340 steel with = 0.650. w

0.100 = 0.505 Mean Stress, MPa 0 72 140 to 230 290 -70 to -135 Fit

0.010

(23)

2024-T4 Al Prestrained 0.001 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 N*w, Walker Equivalent Cycles

Figure 17 Strain amplitude versus Walker equivalent life

(24)

N* for 2024-T4 aluminum with = 0.505. w

Where f ~f B might be a good approximation, as for steels, Eq. 6(b) applies, and Eq. 22 yields
m f
1/ b

m 1 ~ f B

within brackets with Nf , allowing us to define an equivalent life N*.

PARTICULAR CASES - Now let us consider particular cases of ar = f ( a , m ) . For the Morrow form of Eq. 6(a), substitution into Eq. 22 gives
1/ b

(25)

1.E+06

1.E+07

1.E+08

(26)

For the Walker relationship, the form of Eq. 8(c) and Eq. 22 give
* Nw = N f

TABLE 3 - Additional Constants for Strain-Life Curve

Material AISI 4340 Steel3 2024-T4 Al4
* Fit N w vs. P

Cyclic - Curve1, 2

1 R 2

(1 ) / b

'fw

cw

(27)

H'

n'

where subscript w of course specifies Walker. Letting = 0.5 gives us the special case of this for the SWT equation.

* N swt = N f

It is useful to write as a single equation the form provided by Eqs. 24 and 27 for the Walker relationship.
2N f

(29)

Similarly, Eqs. 24 and 28 give the corresponding form for the SWT equation.
2N f

* 2N w

CORRELATION OF STRAIN-LIFE DATA

As already noted, strain-life correlations based on the Walker mean stress equation are given in Figs. 16 and 17 for AISI 4340 steel and 2024-T4 aluminum, respectively. In each case, the data points are seen to agree closely with the strain-life curve for zero mean stress, Eq. 24, indicating success for Eq. 27. Note that the strain values plotted are simply strain amplitudes, a . Correlation of the data for various mean stresses is achieved by plotting on the horizontal axis Walker equivalent from Eq. 27, in which b w and from Table 2 are employed.
The curves shown in Figs. 16 and 17 correspond to the usual form of strain-life equation for zero mean stress, Eq. 24, but new values of the fitting constants are employed. This is done to take advantage of the ability of the Walker equation to include all of the data at all mean stresses in the fit, as previously described. The constants used with Eq. 24 are the Walker stress-life fitted values, fw and b w from Table 2, along with fw and c w as listed in Table 3. Fitting of fw and c w to the test data needs to be described.
* lives N w

Taking logarithms of both sides of this equation gives

* log (2 N w ) =

1 1 log P log fw cw cw

A linear regression can now proceed using

y = mx + d
where
* y = log (2 N w ) ,

m=

1 , cw

Once the fitting constants m and d have been determined, the desired values are easily obtained.
cw = 1 , m fw = 10 dcw = 10 d / m (36)

Note that the latter is not the same as Eq. 18, but instead represents a different generalization of the strain-life equation that is consistent with SWT expressed in terms of stress, Eq. 7.

+ f 2 N f

1 R 2

1/(2b) b

1 R 2

1/(2b ) c

(30)

where the values of the plastic strain term are denoted P as a convenience. Now do a least squares fit using these P and
* * N w values by first solving for 2 N w .

P = fw

1 / cw

d =

1 log fw cw

* P = fw (2 N w )cw =

x = log P (35)

+ f 2 N f

1 R 2

(1 ) / b b

0.624 -0.620 0.632 -0.858

207,000 1655 0.131 73,100 738 0.080

1 R 2

1/( 2b)

Notes: 1Units are MPa for E and H'. 2Values from [6] for AISI 4340 and [17] for 2024-T4. 3Fit to P > 1.5 104 and Nw < 5 105. 4Fit to P > 1.5 104 and Nw < 104.

(28)

1 R 2

(1 ) / b c

First, employ the cyclic stress-strain curve, Eq. 15, to estimate strain amplitudes a from stress amplitudes a for any tests in the data set where strain was not measured. (This is often the case for tests run in stress control at relatively long lives.) Next, using b w and , calculate values
* of N w from Eq. 27 for each data point. Then use a and * N w to calculate values of the second (plastic strain) term of Eq. 24 by subtracting the first (elastic strain) term from a .

fw

* (2 N w )bw

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

In performing these fits, it was found that the data exhibited extreme scatter at low P values corresponding to
* long equivalent lives N w . Accordingly, each fit was restricted to the region of well behaved data by a dual criterion, specifically, a lower limit on P and an upper limit on * N w , both of which had to be satisfied for a data point to be used. See the notes to Table 3 for the actual values chosen for these limits.

DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

We have compared various stress amplitude-mean equations as to their ability to correlate fatigue data. It is clear that the Goodman equation employing the ultimate tensile strength u is inaccurate. The Morrow equation using the true fracture strength ~ works well, but has the disadvanfB

Additional study may allow generic values of to be developed for various classes of alloy, so that any disadvantage of the Walker equation is removed. For example, based on the limited study done so far, 0.50 may be a good choice for aluminum alloys. (Note that if = 0.50 exactly, this method is equivalent to SWT.) For steels, a higher ge0.65. neric value appears to be appropriate, perhaps Also, higher strength steels are generally more sensitive to mean stress that lower strength ones, so that it may be possible to develop a correlation between and say ultimate tensile strength. Stress amplitude-mean equations may be incorporated into strain-life equations in a mathematically consistent manner. (Some strain-life or related equations in common use are not mathematically consistent with their parent stress-based equations.) The procedure for doing so for any stress amplitude-mean relation is given, as well as the particulars for those studied. This logic leads to Eq. 30, which is a new strain-life extension of the SWT mean stress equation. Similarly extending the Walker mean stress relation gives an entirely new version of the strain-life equation, Eq, 29. This strain-life equation includes SWT as the special case for = 0.50. It should be further evaluated and compared to experimental data. Data fits for a steel and for an aluminum alloy give excellent results.
CONCLUSIONS

tage that values of ~f B are not always available. An empirical study to develop estimates of this quantity from other tensile properties would enhance its usefulness. If the Morrow equation is instead employed with the intercept constant f , the results are still quite good for steels. However, this is not the case for aluminum alloys or for the one titanium alloy studied, where Morrow with f is seen to be highly inaccurate and nonconservative. This difficulty is associated with stress-life behavior that does not fit a power law very well, in particular, with stress-life curves that tend to flatten at short lives. As a result, f values may be quite large, far exceeding ~ , and causing
fB

the highly inaccurate behavior. Hence, Morrow with f should not be used for aluminum alloys or for other metals where such stress-life behavior occurs. The Smith, Watson, and Topper (SWT) equation gave good results for all cases studied. If it is desired to choose one simple stress amplitude-mean equation for all metals, SWT would be the preferred choice. Another option would be to use SWT except where Morrow with f is known to give good results, as for steels. The Walker equation has the advantage of enhanced ability to fit data by its use of the adjustable parameter , which may be considered to be an additional materials property. However, there is the accompanying disadvantage in that values are not generally known unless fatigue data at various mean stresses are available for a given material. Where is known, the Walker equation appears to be quite accurate and is the best mean stress equation of those studied.

The following conclusions are drawn from the discussion above: 1) The Goodman mean stress equation employing the ultimate tensile strength u is inaccurate, being excessively conservative for tensile mean stresses. 2) The Morrow mean stress equation using the true frac ture strength ~f B works well for various metals, but has the disadvantage that values of ~ are not always
fB

available. 3) The Morrow mean stress equation with f works well for steels. But it is highly inaccurate and nonconservative for materials with log-log stress-life behavior that flattens at short lives. Thus, it should not be used for aluminum alloys. 4) The Smith, Watson, and Topper (SWT) mean stress equation is a good choice for general use. It is quite accurate for aluminum alloys, and for steels it is acceptable, although not quite as good as Morrow with f .

5) The Walker mean stress equation with adjustable constant gives superior results where is known or can be estimated. 6) Any future work on mean stress equations should concentrate on the Walker relationship, such as identifying generic values of for various classes of metal, or developing correlations for estimating from tensile properties. 7) The incorporation of the Walker equation into the strain-life curve, Eq. 29, is a promising approach that should be further evaluated and employed.
REFERENCES

Steel," NACA TN 2324, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, March 1951. [9] Illg, W., "Fatigue Tests on Notched and Unnotched Sheet Specimens of 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloys and of SAE 4130 Steel with Special Consideration of the Life Range from 2 to 10,000 Cycles," NACA TN 3866, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Dec. 1956. Topper, T. H., and B. I. Sandor, Effects of Mean Stress and Prestrain on Fatigue Damage Summation, Effects of Environment and Complex Load History on Fatigue Life, ASTM STP 462, Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1970, pp. 93-104. Endo, T., and J. Morrow, Cyclic Stress-Strain and Fatigue Behavior of Representative Aircraft Metals, Journal of Materials, ASTM, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1969, pp. 159-175. Gallagher, J. P., et al., Improved High Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Life Predictions, AFRL-ML-WP-TR-20014159, Air Force Research Laboratory, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, OH, Jan. 2001. Knipling, K., High-Cycle Fatigue/Low-Cycle Fatigue Interactions in Ti-6Al-4V, MS Thesis, Materials Science and Engineering Department, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, Jan. 2003. Conle, F. A., R. W. Landgraf and F. D. Richards, Materials Data Book: Monotonic and Cyclic Properties of Engineering Materials, Ford Motor Co., Scientific Research Staff, Dearborn, MI, 1984. SAE, Technical Report on Low Cycle Fatigue Properties of Wrought Materials, SAE J1099, Information Report, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1989. See also L. E. Tucker, R. W. Landgraf and W. R. Brose, Proposed Technical Report on Fatigue Properties for the SAE Handbook, SAE Paper No. 740279, Automotive Engineering Congress Detroit, MI, 1974. Bridgman, P. W. The Stress Distribution at the Neck of a Tension Specimen, Trans. of ASM International, Vol. 32, 1944, pp. 553-574. Dowling, N. E., and A. K. Khosrovaneh, Simplified Analysis of Helicopter Fatigue Loading Spectra, J. M. Potter and R. T. Watanabe, eds., Development of Fatigue Loading Spectra, ASTM STP 1006, Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1989, pp. 150-171.

[10]

[1]

Mann, J. Y., The Historical Development of Research on the Fatigue of Materials and Structures, The Journal of the Australian Institute of Metals, Nov. 1958, pp. 222-241. Goodman, J., Mechanics Applied to Engineering, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1919, pp. 631636. Smith, J. O., The Effect of Range of Stress on the Fatigue Strength of Metals, Bulletin No. 334, University of Illinois, Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, IL, Feb. 1942. See also Bulletin No. 316, Sept. 1939. Smith, K. N., P. Watson, and T. H. Topper, "A StressStrain Function for the Fatigue of Metals," Journal of Materials, ASTM, Vol. 5, No. 4, Dec. 1970, pp. 767778. Landgraf, R. W., Effect of Mean Stress on the Fatigue Behavior of a Hard Steel, Report No. 662, Dept. of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Jan. 1966. Dowling, N. E., Fatigue Life and Inelastic Strain Response under Complex Histories for an Alloy Steel, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, ASTM, Vol. 1, No. 4, July 1973, pp. 271-287. Lazan, B. J., and A. A. Blatherwick, "Fatigue Properties of Aluminum Alloys at Various Direct Stress Ratios: Part 1, Rolled Alloys," WADC TR 52-307, Part 1, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, Dec. 1952. Grover, H. J., S. M. Bishop, and L. R. Jackson, "Fatigue Strengths of Aircraft Materials: Axial-Load Fatigue Tests on Unnotched Sheet Specimens of 24S-T3 and 75S-T6 Aluminum Alloys and of SAE 4130

[11]

[2]

[12]

[3]

[13]

[4]

[14]

[5]

[15]

[6]

[7]

[16]

[17]

[8]

[18]

Dowling, N. E., Mechanical Behavior of Materials: Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture, and Fatigue, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999, p. 655. [22] Morrow, J., Fatigue Properties of Metals, Section 3.2 of Fatigue Design Handbook, Pub. No. AE-4, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1968. Section 3.2 is a summary of a paper presented at a meeting of Division 4 of the SAE Iron and Steel Technical Committee, Nov. 4, 1964. [23] Walker, K., "The Effect of Stress Ratio During Crack Propagation and Fatigue for 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 Aluminum," Effects of Environment and Complex Load History on Fatigue Life, ASTM STP 462, Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1970, pp. 1-14. Landgraf, R. W., The Resistance of Metals to Cyclic Deformation, Achievement of High Fatigue Resis-

tance in Metals and Alloys, ASTM STP 467, Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 1970, pp. 3-36.

[19]

Dowling, N. E., and S. Thangjitham, "An Overview and Discussion of Basic Methodology for Fatigue," Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 31st Volume, ASTM STP 1389, G. R. Halford and J. P. Gallagher, eds., Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, pp. 3-36. Dowling, N. E., "Local Strain Approach to Fatigue," Chapter 4.03, Volume 4, Cyclic Loading and Fatigue, R. O. Ritchie and Y. Murakami, volume editors; part of the 10-volume set, Comprehensive Structural Integrity, B. Karihaloo, R. O. Ritchie, and I. Milne, overall editors, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, England, 2003

[20]

[21]