Int. J. mech. Sol. P e r g a m o n Press. 1970. Vol. 12, pp. 597-613.

P r i n t e d in Great B r i t a i n

B I A X I A L FATIGUE TESTS WITH ZERO MEAN STRESSES

USING T U B U L A R SPECIMENS

FIND ROTVEL
Department of Applied Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen,
Denmark

(Received 31 October 1969)

Summary--Multiaxial fatigue stressing with zero mean stresses gives a materials funda-
mental fatigue strength. To obtain such stress states with both positive and negative
ratios between the principal stress amplitudes the present work used large, thin-walled
specimens made of low-carbon steel (C = 0.35 per cent).
The fatigue loadings consisted of a pulsating oil pressure inside the specimens, a
constant oil pressure outside the specimens, a pulsating axial force and a constant axial
force, the direction of which was opposite to the pulsating force.
The tests divide into six loading series with different ratios between axial stress
amplitude and circumferential stress amplitude: oo, 0, 0.76, 1.24, -0"80, - 1 . 3 2 .
Statistical analysis of test results showed agreement with two criteria proposed by
Stanfield and Crossland respectively.
The criterion due to Crossland agreed also with some biaxial tests with superimposed
mean stresses.

NOTATION
di inside diameter of specimen
F ratio between principal stress amplitudes
h wall thickness of specimen
K1, K2 weighted error square stuns
P axial force
P~ pressure inside the specimen
r corrections to measured quantities
8(X) standard deviation of x
a constant
p Poisson's ratio
(y bending stress
Oelm stresses computed by elementary formulas
at reference stress
OF uni-axial alternating fatigue strength
Om()I~ bending stress amplitude in tubular specimens
0"n~ T~ stresses on a plane with normal n
Ooct, ~'oct octahedral stresses
O r , Os, 0"~ radial, axial and circumferential stress amplitudes in t u b u l a r specimens
Or,n, osm, otto mean stresses
¢71, 0"2~ principal stress amplitudes
T torsion stress
~'F fatigue strength when a, -- - a 2 and a3 = 0

INTRODUCTION
THE PURPOSE o f t h e p r e s e n t t e s t s w a s t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t c r i t e r i o n b e s t d e s c r i b e s
t h e f a t i g u e s t r e n g t h o f a p l a i n c a r b o n steel i n a b i a x i a l , h o m o g e n e o u s stress
s t a t e w i t h zero m e a n stresses.
597
598 FIND ROTVEL

The stress distribution in all non-loaded surfaces is plane or biaxial. As

most fatigue cracks originate in the surface this stress distribution has great
importance for practical application. Furthermore, knowledge of the valid
fatigue criterion is necessary when trying to link up models of the fatigue
process in single crystals with the gross behaviour of polycrystals. 1
Earlier investigators in this field often used combined torsion and plane
bending 2-6 to obtain plane stress states, because this kind of loading is easily
applied and a fairly high testing frequency can be used. It is therefore possible
to test many specimens at each stress level making the results obtained more
reliable.
However, combined torsion and bending exhibit certain drawbacks when
trying to establish a general criterion:
(1) Only stress combinations in the second and fourth quadrants of the
principal stress co-ordinate system (Fig. 1) are possible.

I quadrant

IL O" I

FIG. 1. Principal stress amplitude co-ordinate system. I f the 2 direction

is equal to the axial direction in the specimen, combined bending and
torsion will only make possible stress states in the hatched area.

(2) Size effects will influence the results because of different volumes of
highly loaded material in plane bending and in torsion3
(3) Material anisotropy is difficult to correct because the principal stress
directions in the material vary with the ratio of bending stress to torsional
stress.
Other workers s-l° used thin-walled tubular specimens loaded by internal oil
pressure and a pulsating axial force. This kind of loading has certain advantages
compared to combined bending and torsion:
(1) Stress states in all four quadrants in the principal stress co-ordinate
system are possible.
(2) Correction for material anisotropy is possible because the principal
stress directions are fixed directions in the material.
(3) The stress gradients will generally be small.
Both principal stresses pulsate in this kind of loading, i.e. the stresses vary
from approximately zero to their maximum values. The largest stress in the
stress cycle will then be larger than the yield stress for most materials, causing
 Biaxial fatigue tests with zero mean stresses using tubular specimens 599
large plastic d e f o r m a t i o n s d u r i n g t h e fatigue loading. 9 T h e plastic d e f o r m a t i o n
will a l t e r t h e stresses if t h e loads are m a i n t a i n e d a n d p e r h a p s lead to directional
changes in fatigue properties.
W h e n the r a t i o b e t w e e n the principal stresses v a r y , the allowable stress
a m p l i t u d e s v a r y too. B u t , for p u l s a t i n g stresses, this m e a n s t h a t t h e m e a n
stresses also v a r y , so t h e m e a s u r e d change in fatigue s t r e n g t h is the effect of a
change in b o t h stress ratio a n d in m e a n stress.
To establish a general basic criterion it therefore seems necessary to use
stress c o m b i n a t i o n s w i t h zero m e a n stresses, covering all four q u a d r a n t s .
To the a u t h o r ' s k n o w l e d g e such t e s t s h a v e till n o w o n l y been p e r f o r m e d b y
S a w e r t } 1 who used differently s h a p e d specimens, each s h a p e giving a fixed
r a t i o b e t w e e n t h e principal stresses. T h e influence of different stress g r a d i e n t s
in t h e different specimens was corrected b y dividing t h e m e a s u r e d fatigue
s t r e n g t h s w i t h either t h e bending fatigue s t r e n g t h or t h e p u s h - p u l l fatigue
s t r e n g t h , d e p e n d i n g on t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e stress gradient. W i t h this
correction the t e s t results were in r e a s o n a b l y good a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e
y o n M i s e s - H e n c k y criterion, especially for principal stresses of opposite sign.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l a n i s o t r o p y was n o t d e t e r m i n e d ,
p r e v e n t i n g reliable conclusions to be d r a w n f r o m these tests.

FATIGUE CRITERIA
Earlier work has led to a mm~ber of possible fatigue criteria for multiaxial stress states,
nine of which were compared with the present test results. The comparison was here
treated as an unbiased problem of curve fitting.
The criteria divide logically into two groups, those containing one, and those containing
two material constants.
The hydraulic pressures around the specimen made the stress state triaxial, although
the radial stresses were small, so the criteria are shown below in their triaxial form. To
simplify the expression of some of the criteria the stress amplitudes were ordered
I o, I > l 0`, I > l a8 I,
al was taken positive and a, and as were then positive or negative depending on their
phase relationship to al.
As material constants 0`~ (uni-axial fatigue strength) and ~F (fatigue strength for a
stress state where al = -a~) were chosen.
The criteria considered were:
P r i n c i p a l stress criterion
0`, = a~. (1)
P r i n c i p a l strain criterion
a, -v(0`, + 0`8) = aF. (2)
S h e a r stress criterion
max (0`,-- (72, Er1 - - 0"3) ~-- 0`F" (3)
Total strain energy criterion
~/[0`~ + 0`~ + 0`~- 2v(~, 0`, + 0`, 0`8 + ~8 ~,)] = ~F. (4)

S h e a r strain energy or octahedral shear stress criterion (also called von Mises-Hencky
criterion)
,/[o~. + ,~' + 0`,' - (,~, 0`, + 0`, 0`8 + 0`8 0`~)] = 0`~. (5)
600 FIND ROTVEL

All these criteria c o n t a i n only one m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t aF. T h e y are all t r e a t e d in s t a n d a r d

t e x t b o o k s 1. and will therefore n o t be discussed further here.

Stanfield's criterion
Stanfield la assumed t h a t fatigue cracks will s t a r t if on a n y plane in the m a t e r i a l with
normal n
~. + k a . >~f,
f a n d k being m a t e r i a l constants. I t can be shown t h a t this criterion w h e n using principal
stresses is expressed b y
m a x [(2 - - aF/TF)G1, G 1 -- (GF/T F -- 1)a,, ax - (aF/TF -- 1)aa] = aF. (6)
F o r a plane stress state in the f o u r t h q u a d r a n t e q u a t i o n (6) is e q u i v a l e n t to t h e ellipse arc
('r/TF)2-~- (0"/0"$,)3 (0"F/TF-- 1) + (0"/0"F) (2-- 0"F/~'F) = 1 (7)
proposed b y Gough et al. ~ for c o m b i n e d bending and torsion. This can be seen by
s u b s t i t u t i n g the bending and torsional stresses in e q u a t i o n (6). Cox as showed t h a t
e q u a t i o n (7) also would a p p l y if t h e s t a r t of t h e crack was d e t e r m i n e d b y the largest
tensile stress a r o u n d small holes in the material. Stanfield's criterion is identical w i t h the
principal stress criterion if
0"FI-rI~ = 1
and it is identical w i t h the shear stress criterion if
0"Fl'r~ = 2.

T h e ellipse quadrant
Gough and P o l l a r d a proposed this criterion for c o m b i n e d bending and torsion
(O/O"F)* + (T/%v)* = 1, (8)
which, w h e n s u b s t i t u t i n g the principal stresses, gives
4{0"~+ 0"~- [(0"F/~F)* -- 2] 0"t 0"2} = aF- (9)
A l t h o u g h t h e ellipse q u a d r a n t originally only was i n t e n d e d for c o m b i n e d bending and
torsion, e q u a t i o n (9) is defined for all stress combinations. D e p e n d i n g on the m a g n i t u d e
of the ratio 0"F/v,~ e q u a t i o n (9) is identical w i t h either e q u a t i o n (3), (4) or (5). F u r t h e r m o r e ,
e q u a t i o n (9) is identical w i t h the isotropie form of the general ellipse used b y K r e b s 16
for an anisotropie m a t e r i a l
%][(0-X/0"1F)*-~- (0"210"*F)2--~(0"110"1F) (0"210"*F)] = 1.
The ellipse q u a d r a n t is e x t e n d e d to a triaxial stress state analogous w i t h t h e shear strain
energy criterion t h u s o b t a i n i n g
,/{0"~ + 0"~ + 0"~ - [(0"~,/~F)* - 2] (0"~ 0"3 + 0"3 ~ + 0"~ 0"0} = 0"~'. 00)

F i n d l e y ' s criterion
I n an a t t e m p t to combine e q u a t i o n s (7) and (8) F i n d l e y 4 proposed t h e following
criterion
(0"/0"~).~/,,_ ( ~ / ~ ) * = 1.
S u b s t i t u t i n g the principal stresses,
[(0"t + 0"*)IaF] "Wn" -- 0"t 0",/r~ = 1.
This criterion is n o t usable for stress combinations in t h e first q u a d r a n t because the
curves diverge and it c a n n o t therefore be used as a general criterion.

Octahedral stress criterion

Crossland 14 showed in some tests, where large h y d r o s t a t i c pressures were superimposed
on the d y n a m i c stresses, t h a t w h e n p l o t t i n g t h e test points in a co-ordinate system, using
 Biaxial fatigue tests w i t h zero m e a n stresses using t u b u l a r specimens 601

t h e octahedral shear stress calculated f r o m t h e stress a m p l i t u d e s

Coot = 4(2) 4[a,~ + - | + a l - (a, a2 + a, a~ + aa a~)]/3
as o r d i n a t e and t h e largest v o l u m e t r i c tensile stress (octahedral n o r m a l stress) in t h e
stress cycle calculated f r o m b o t h static a n d d y n a m i c stresses
aoct = (al + al + a~)max/3
as abscissa, a straight line resulted. The formula of this straight line can be shown to be
4 [ ~ + ~[ + ~I - (~, a~ + ~ ~, + a , ~ ) ] = 4 ( 3 ) ~ - {[4(3) ~,/~±~] - 1} (al + ~ + ~ ) ~ , ~ . (1 l)
I f aF equals 4(3) ~ t h e n e q u a t i o n (11) is identical w i t h e q u a t i o n (5). The octahedral stress
criterion is t h e only one of t h e h e r e - m e n t i o n e d criteria which estimates t h e influence of
m e a n stresses.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST

To a v o i d some of t h e difficulties e n c o u n t e r e d b y earlier investigators t h e following
t e s t procedure was used.
Thin-walled t u b u l a r specimens were loaded w i t h a pulsating axial force and a c o n s t a n t
axial force the direction of which was opposite to the pulsating force, a p u l s a t i n g oil
pressure inside a n d a c o n s t a n t oil pressure outside.
B y using t h e s a m e s p e c i m e n shape for all stress combinations, no size effects could
arise, a n d b y using thin-walled t u b u l a r specimens the stress gradients b e c a m e v e r y small
a n d the loaded v o l u m e was nearly h o m o g e n e o u s l y loaded. W i t h t h e described loading t h e
principal stress directions were fixed directions in the p a r e n t material, simplifying a n
e v e n t u a l correction for m a t e r i a l anisotropy.
The m a t e r i a l was a low-carbon steel, whose chemical composition and statical strengths
can be seen in Table 1. The steel was delivered as hot-rolled tubes w i t h an inner d i a m e t e r
of 90 m m a n d a n o u t e r d i a m e t e r of 160 ram. I t was tested in the as-received condition.
The statical strengths were m e a s u r e d on small specimens w i t h 5 m m diameter.

TABLE 1. MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Chemical composition : C _~ 0.35

(%) Si __ 0.20
Mn _~ 0"45
Pmax = 0.040
Smax = 0.040
U l t i m a t e tensile s t r e n g t h a . = 57 k p / m m ~
Elastic limit aoa = 26 k p / m m 2 (the stress at which the plastic d e f o r m a t i o n
is o.1%)
E l o n g a t i o n (%) ~5 = 23 (measuring length equals 5 diameters)
Sectional r e d u c t i o n (%) ~b = 43
Modulus of elasticity E = 2.14 × l0 t kp/mm~, s(E)/E = 0.7%
Poisson's ratio v = 0.292 s(v)/~ = 0.7%
Brinell hardness Hs = 180+ 7 (measured w i t h 1.25 m m ball and a force
P = 15.625 kp a f t e r fatigue loading)

Fig. 2 shows t h e fatigue specimen. A f t e r rough a n d fine turning, t h e specimens were

h o n e d inside a n d superfinished outside. The resulting m a x i m u m roughness depths were
less t h a n 10 -a m m . A c c o r d i n g to earlier investigations17 this small roughness d e p t h
implied t h a t the direction of t h e surface scratches had no influence on t h e fatigue s t r e n g t h
in different directions in t h e material. A n y differences m e a s u r e d m u s t therefore be caused
b y m a t e r i a l anisotropy.
The wall thickness v a r i e d less t h a n _+ 0.015 m m on t h e cylindrical test section.
To a v o i d a n y d a m a g i n g effects f r o m t h e off 1~, 18 the surfaces were coated w i t h a t h i n
layer of plastics after t h o r o u g h cleaning w i t h triehloroethylene. The layer was shown to
be c o m p l e t e l y impervious to t h e oil.
602 FIND ROTVEL
The test set-up made use of the pump and constant-pressure valve in an M.A.N. static
hydraulic testing machine and of an Amsler low-frequency hydraulic pulsator consisting
of two 50-ton dynamic hydraulic jacks, a piston pulsator with continuously variable
stroke, a pendulum manometer with constant-pressure valve and a large hydraulic
accumulator. Fig. 3 shows the complete set-up excluding the M.A.N. machine.

2-2 I10 dia

MFG 148

FIG. 2. Specimen used in the biaxial fatigue tests. All dimensions in mm.

The m a x i m u m available oil pressures were 240 l~p/cm~ in the M.A.N. machine and
188 kp/cm 2 in the low-frequency pulsator, the last pressure giving the m a x i m u m dynamic
load of the hydraulic jacks. The loading speed was kept constant at 500 cycles/rain.
Fig. 4 shows the loading device. At one end the specimen [4]* was screwed into the
outer tube [1]. To avoid any rattle in this thread, the counter n u t [5] was screwed hard
against the specimen while the specimen was loaded statically with the highest tension
force in the loading cycle. Parts [1] and [2] connected this end of the specimen rigidly to
the loading frame [3].
The two hydraulic jacks loaded the other end of the specimen with two oppositely
directed forces. The hydraulic jack to the left in Fig. 3 was applied directly on the specimen
giving compressive stresses in the specimen. The force from the hydraulic jack to the
right in Fig. 3 was transmitted through the rod [6] to the inner thread of the specimen
and gave tensional axial stresses.
The forces of inertia were very small compared to the loading forces, making the force
on the test section always equal to the difference between the forces from the hydraulic
jacks.
The constant outside oil pressure generated both compressive circumferential stresses
and, because of the hour-glass shape of the specimen, tensional axial stresses. The static
axial stress was compensated b y adjusting the mean value of the axial force from the
hydraulic jacks. On the other hand, the internal oil pressure gave only circumferential

* Numbers in square brackets refer to Figs. 4 and 5.

FIG. 3. Test set-up with the exception of t,he M.A.N. static testing
machine. In front: The loading frame wit,h two hydraulic jacks. At
right: The pulsator with a pressure convert,er at t,he top. Behind the
loading frame from left to right,: The pendulum manometer, the large
hydraulic accumulat,or (only the top of the accumulator is visible) and
the operation desk.

f. p. 602
PIG. 8. Cross crack obtained in loading series 5 with a snpcrimposccl
axial mean stress. The crack \vas made visible with white ink.
 Biaxial fatigue tests with zero mean stresses using tubular specimens 603

stresses (except for the small stresses caused by bending moments in the shell, which will
be returned to later) because the specimen shape inside was simply cylindrical with open
ends.

FIo. 4. Loading device, which was mounted between the mid-beams

in the loading frame. Numbers refer to the text.

/15

2O

14\

ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

FIG. 5. Hydraulic diagram showing the pressure oil connexions.

Fig. 5 shows a schematic hydraulic diagram for the pressure oil connexions. The low-
frequency pulsator [8] consisted of a piston pulsator [9] with a continuously variable stroke
and a m i n i m u m pressure pump [10] with a constant-pressure valve. Amplitude and
m i n i m u m pressure could be varied independently.
604 FIND ROTVEL

The piston pulsator [9] generated both the pulsating pressure in one hydraulic jack [7]
directly and, through the pressure converter [12], the pulsating oil pressure inside the
specimen. The upper part of the piston and the matching part of the cylinder in the
pressure converter were exchangeable making possible different conversion factors and
thereby different ratios of principal stresses. These tests employed area ratios of 1.33 and
2.25. The pressure converter can be seen on the top of the pulsator in Fig. 3.
Any leakage of oil was automatically compensated for by injection of new oil through
the appropriate valves, thus maintaining the minimum pressure in the pressure cycle at
the same level.
The pendulum manometer [14] and the M.A.N. machine [17] delivered constant oil
pressures to the hydraulic jack [13] and to the volume outside the specimen respectively.
The hydraulic accumulators [16, 19] minimized fluctuations in these pressures.
Hydraulic connexions as shown in Fig. 5 generated principal stresses in phase in the
specimen, i.e. the principal stresses (as = axial stress and as -- circumferential stress) as a
function of time t could be expressed as

as = A sin (k.t), (12)

at = B s i n (k.t), (13)

both constants A and B being positive and assuming the mean stresses to be zero.
By interchanging all hydraulic connexions to the hydraulic jacks, the principal stresses
in the specimen became 180 ° out of phase, i.e. in equations (12) and (13) A and B now had
different sign.
During the fatigue tests the manometers in the operation desk [22] measured the
m a x i m u m and m i n i m u m values of the pulsating pressures obtained by valves [20, 21].
Valve [21] measured either the pressure outside the specimen or the pressure in the
constant-load hydraulic jack depending on the position of the three-way cock [23].
The oil pressures were fairly constant during the tests. Yet, in the first couple of hours
frequent adjustments were necessary especially in loading series 2, where the specimens
were loaded solely by circumferential stresses. After some time the variations in the
amplitudes were below _+ 1 per cent. Measurements with strain gauges also showed no
high-frequency fluctuations.
When a specimen was mounted in the loading device pockets of air were trapped when
filling with oil. To obtain full loading amplitude from the first cycle this air was carefully
let out before the testing started.
The fatigue loading stopped automatically when the crack reached a certain size. I n
those loading series (series 2-6) where the specimen was surrounded by oil, the machinery
stopped when the crack went through the wall making hydraulic contact between the
outside and inside. The pressure outside then began to pulsate whereupon a contact in
one manometer stopped the machinery. The mean crack length was then about 20 ram. In
loading series 1 the loading consisted only of axial forces. I n this series a vibration
contact mounted on the loading frame stopped the fatigue loading when the shakings of the
frame reached a certain amplitude. The mean crack length was then about 100 ram. Other
things being equal, the lifetime at a given stress level would therefore tend to be somewhat
larger in loading series 1. However, these experiments were concerned about the fatigue
limits, making different lifetimes at higher stress levels unimportant.

DETERMINATION OF STRESS STATE

The stress state was not homogeneous as was intended, firstly because the wall thickness
was not very thin compared to the radius giving rise to shell moments and secondly
because eccentricity of the axial forces caused bending moments on the cross-section of the
specimen.
The shell moments and accompanying stresses were calculated theoretically using a
computer. Fig. 6 depicts the results of the computations for both a pure axial loading and
a pure pressure loading inside. The stresses shown are the ratios between the actual stresses
and the elementary stresses applied, where the elementary stresses were computed from
 B i a x i a l f a t i g u e t e s t s w i t h zero m e a n stresses u s i n g t u b u l a r s p e c i m e n s 605

the formulas
P
as,elm = ~ , (14)

at'elm --
pid~
2h "
(15)

H e r e P is t h e a x i a l force, A is t h e cross-sectional area, p~ is t h e p r e s s u r e inside, d i is t h e

i n n e r d i a m e t e r a n d h is t h e wall t h i c k n e s s .
F r o m Fig. 6 it a p p e a r s t h a t b o t h k i n d s of l o a d i n g s e x h i b i t e d a s m a l l stress c o n c e n t r a t i o n
effect a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c y l i n d r i c a l a n d n o n - c y l i n d r i c a l p a r t of t h e s p e c i m e n .

Series I Series 2

,.o:[ O"s~elrn ~ I O"t~ elm = t

b,. 0,02

b2 0 ~ .~

0 . 0 2 ~ "6 ._ 1.02
i-¢ h-
o i

f
¢t I
20 I0 0 20 I0 0
mm mm
FIG. 6. Stress d i s t r i b u t i o n in t h e t e s t section o f t h e s p e c i m e n d u e t o
shell m o m e n t s , t h e e l e m e n t a r y stresses (14) a n d (15) b e i n g e q u a l t o u n i t y .
T h e s u b s c r i p t s t o t h e stresses d e n o t e : s = a x i a l direction, t = circum-
f e r e n t i a l direction, o = stress o n o u t s i d e surface, i = stress o n inside
surface.

E a c h load c o m b i n a t i o n g a v e different d i s t r i b u t i o n s of a~ a n d at. U s i n g t h e s e stress

d i s t r i b u t i o n s , a reference stress a I was c a l c u l a t e d in e a c h p o i n t o n t h e inside a n d o u t s i d e
surfaces b y t h e o c t a h e d r a l s h e a r stress ( v o n Mises) c r i t e r i o n [ e q u a t i o n (5)]. T h e i n t e r n a l
p u l s a t i n g oil p r e s s u r e n e c e s s i t a t e d use of t h e c r i t e r i o n in its t r i a x i a l f o r m w h e n c o m p u t i n g
a t o n t h e inside surface. T h e h i g h e s t l o a d e d p o i n t of t h e s p e c i m e n was a s s u m e d to b e
w h e r e a 1 was m a x i m u m , a n d t h e stresses in t h i s p o i n t were used w h e n c o m p a r i n g t e s t
r e s u l t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t f a t i g u e criteria.
T h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t s f r o m t h e a x i a l forces were d e t e r m i n e d b y s t r a i n - g a u g e m e a s u r e -
m e n t s . Six s t r a i n gauges, c e m e n t e d o n t h e m i d d l e of t h e c y l i n d r i c a l t e s t s e c t i o n in t h r e e
g r o u p s a t 120 ° i n t e r v a l s , m e a s u r e d t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l a n d t h e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l s t r a i n s . F r o m
t h e m e a s u r e d s t r a i n s t h e stresses were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g H o o k e ' s law. T h e differences
b e t w e e n t h e a x i a l stresses d e t e r m i n e d t h e p l a n e of b e n d i n g a n d t h e b e n d i n g m o m e n t .
4O
606 FIND ROTVEL

Lining up t h e hydraulic jacks was tried so t h a t the bending m o m e n t was zero, b u t

u n f o r t u n a t e l y this lining up p r o v e d n o t to be reproductive. D e m o u n t i n g and t h e n
r e m o u n t i n g the specimen resulted in fresh bending m o m e n t s .
I t was therefore decided not to line up the hydraulic jacks for each new specimen b u t
instead to utilize the result o b t a i n e d from the strain-gauge m e a s u r e m e n t s t h a t , i n d e p e n d e n t
of the position of the hydraulic jacks, the bending stress amom was always less t h a n
1.1 k p / m m 2. I n all testing series w i t h pulsating axial forces on the specimen a bending
stress of 1.1 k p / m m ~ was added to the pulsating axial stress. The l i m i t a t i o n of t h e bending
stress in the specimen was caused b y the o u t e r t u b e [1] which, being m u c h m o r e rigid t h a n
t h e specimen, only allowed a small transverse d e f o r m a t i o n of the specimen. On the
o t h e r hand, v e r y little eccentricity of the loading was enough to give the m a x i m u m value,
m a k i n g the a s s u m p t i o n of m a x i m u m bending stress in each test plausible.
Measurements with strain gauges also d e t e r m i n e d correction factors to the m a n o m e t e r
readings and the ratios F between the principal stresses at the highest loaded point in the
biaxial loading series.
I n actual fatigue loading one principal stress a m p l i t u d e was c o m p u t e d from m a n o m e t e r
readings, and the other principal stress a m p l i t u d e was t h e r e a f t e r c o m p u t e d using F .
The s t a n d a r d deviations of the stress amplitudes due to variations in the loadings
applied during the fatigue test and due to u n c e r t a i n t y in strain-gauge m e a s u r e m e n t s
varied between ].3 and 2.3 per cent in the different loading series.

FATIGUE TESTS
The tests divide into six loading series w i t h different combinations of a l t e r n a t i n g
biaxial principal stresses. Fig. 7 and Table 2 show the results obtained. I n Fig. 7 points
m a r k e d w i t h an arrow indicate t h a t t h e loading stopped w i t h o u t failure of the specimen,
either because of m a c h i n e failure or because the n u m b e r of cycles b e c a m e p r o h i b i t i v e l y
high (over 2.5 × 10" cycles). Points m a r k e d w i t h an R represent retests of specimens n o t

i o Sere OOX ::I Series Z

oR
o-s ~ - 0 - 0 3 X o"t

b" oR 9

2o I I I i I I I P I
10 5 2 5 10 s 2 5 10 5 2 5 106 2

Series 4 o-s ~ 0-75 X o~

IoR Series 3 ~ ~ 0.8 X o'= |
251- _..___~._.~____._¢__
t
b-25
- -
b"

20 I I I i I 2o/ I I I I
I0 s 2 5 I0 a '2 5 IO 5 2 5 106 2

,5t
Series5 o-s~ - 0 . 8 Xo"t t {
Series 6 ~¢-1-2 ~t
15 -10.5 : - ~ . ~
b" °'=r" 8 " 5 ~

12 I I I I I ~0 I ] T t I
z 5 ~o= 2 5 IO s 2 5 I0 e 2 5

N N
FzG. 7. a - N curves obtained for various stress combinations. The
stresses used as ordinates are those c o m p u t e d from m a n o m e t e r readings.
All stresses are in k p / m m 2.
 ~t2

~t b

CD

L~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I
I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1

II
II I If 4
608 FIND ROTVEL

b r e a k i n g w i t h t h e i r first fatigue loading. The h e a v y lines in Fig. 7 are m e d i a n s d r a w n in

s u c h a w a y t h a t t h e n u m b e r o f t e s t p o i n t s o v e r a n d u n d e r t h e line are equal. T h e d o t t e d
lines are parallel to t h e m e d i a n s a n d d r a w n t h r o u g h t h a t t e s t p o i n t o n t h e safe side,
w h o s e vertical d i s t a n c e to t h e m e d i a n is largest.
T h e stress value on t h e d o t t e d line a t N = 2.5 x l 0 ~ cycles was used as a m e a s u r e o f t h e
fatigue limit. T a b l e 3 lists t h e fatigue limits.

TABLE 3. FATIGUE LIMITS FOR ZERO MEAN STRESSES

Series

1 2 3 4 5 6

Measured from a s = 22.0 a t = 21.6 a s = 22.1 a t = 22.4 at= 15.8 a t - - 12.0

a - N curves
(Fig. 7)
Computed from a t = O.1 as = - 0 ' 6 a ~ = 17.4 a s = 16.9 a~ = - 1 2 . 3 a~ = - 1 5 - 6
strain-gauge
measurements
All stresses are in k p / m m 2.
I n series 6 at was c o m p u t e d b y i n t e r p o l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o a - N curves.

The r e a s o n for using this a t first sight r a t h e r a w k w a r d p r o c e d u r e was t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o

t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t h e o r y d u e t o Weibull, 7 t h e fatigue s t r e n g t h for low p r o b a b i l i t y of failure
s h o u l d be a b e t t e r m e a s u r e of a m a t e r i a l ' s s t r e n g t h b e c a u s e fatigue s t r e n g t h s c o r r e s p o n d i n g
to h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t i e s are d e p e n d e n t on v o l u m e .
I n loading series 5 a n d 6 p o s i t i v e axial m e a n stresses were b y a m i s t a k e s u p e r i m p o s e d
on t h e stress a m p l i t u d e s , giving t h e lower curves in Fig. 7. Some f u r t h e r t e s t s in series 5
w i t h m e a n stresses equal to zero a n d in series 6 w i t h n e g a t i v e axial m e a n stresses g a v e t h e
u p p e r curves. The n e g a t i v e m e a n stresses in series 6 were c h o s e n so as to m a k e possible a
m o r e a c c u r a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e influence o f t h e m e a n stresses. I n series 6 t h e fatigue
limit c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o zero m e a n stress was calculated b y linear i n t e r p o l a t i o n .

CRACK DIRECTIONS
i n loading series 1, 2, 4 a n d 6 t h e s p e c i m e n s cracked p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e largest
principal stress a m p l i t u d e , b u t loading series 3 a n d 5 s h o w e d d e v i a t i o n s f r o m t h i s rule.
I n loading series 3 crack d i r e c t i o n s v a r i e d w i t h no p r e f e r r e d o r i e n t a t i o n , a n d in loading
series 5 t h r e e out of four s p e c i m e n s b r o k e n in t e s t s w i t h p o s i t i v e axial m e a n stresses s h o w e d
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c cross-cracks (Fig. 8), t h e a r m s o f t h e cross b e i n g parallel w i t h t h e p r i n c i p a l
stress directions. S p e c i m e n s in series 5 t e s t e d w i t h zero m e a n stresses all c r a c k e d parallel
w i t h t h e axis, i.e. p e r p e n d i c u l a r to t h e largest stress a m p l i t u d e .

EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS

Fig. 9 compares the test results with all the criteria containing one material constant.
The criteria are shown dimensionless being divided by aF. The directions l and 2 in Fig. 9
are the circumferential and the axial directions in the specimen respectively. The test
points are the fatigue limits divided by the limit stress obtained in loading series I:
aF -- 22.0 kp/mm 2. At each test point a range indicates the 95 per cent limits (two times
the root-mean-square deviation at each side of the points due to the uncertainty in the
stresses applied, uncertainty in correction factors and in stress ratios, variations in load
d u r i n g t e s t , etc.).
Fig. 9 reveals t h a t n o n e o f t h e criteria: p r i n c i p a l stress, p r i n c i p a l s t r a i n , s h e a r stress
a n d s h e a r s t r a i n e n e r g y agree w i t h t h e t e s t s in b o t h t h e first a n d t h e f o u r t h q u a d r a n t . B y
t h e t o t a l s t r a i n e n e r g y criterion t h e r e was a possibility t h a t , b y choosing a larger v a l u e of
 B i a x i a l f a t i g u e t e s t s w i t h zero m e a n stresses u s i n g t u b u l a r s p e c i m e n s 609

aF t h e c r i t e r i o n w o u l d fall w i t h i n t h e range. T h i s was t e s t e d b y c a l c u l a t i o n s d e s c r i b e d

below.
Fig. 10 d e p i c t s t h e c r i t e r i a c o n t a i n i n g t w o m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t s for a b i a x i a l stress s t a t e .
T h e s h a p e of t h e s e c r i t e r i a d e p e n d s o n t h e r a t i o aHvF, b u t t h i s r a t i o was different for t h e
different criteria. I t was t h e r e f o r e n o t possible t o p l o t t h e s e c r i t e r i a on t h e s a m e d i m e n s i o n -
less figure. F i n d l e y ' s c r i t e r i o n was n o t d e p i c t e d b e c a u s e of its d i v e r g e n c e in t h e first
q u a d r a n t , b u t it was v e r y n e a r to t h e o t h e r c r i t e r i a in t h e f o u r t h q u a d r a n t .

/
\

b 0

--I O ~
I I

FIG. 9. C r i t e r i a c o n t a i n i n g one m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t : - - , shear strain

energy criterion; , total strain energy criterion;
p r i n c i p a l s t r a i n c r i t e r i o n ; ....... p r i n c i p a l stress c r i t e r i o n ;
s h e a r stress criterion.

T h e o p t i m u m v a l u e s of a~ a n d vF for e a c h of t h e c r i t e r i a (4), (6), (10) a n d (I1) were

c a l c u l a t e d in s u c h a way, m i n i m i z i n g t h e w e i g h t e d e r r o r s q u a r e s u m o v e r t h e six t e s t
points,
[r(Fi)l ~
K1 = * •

H e r e , as a r e t h e stresses d e t e r m i n e d f r o m m a n o m e t e r r e a d i n g s , F i are t h e r a t i o s b e t w e e n
t h e p r i n c i p a l stresses, r(ai) a n d r(Fi) are t h e n e c e s s a r y c o r r e c t i o n s t o as a n d F i to m o v e t h e
t e s t p o i n t s t o t h e c r i t e r i o n line, a n d s(a~) a n d s(F~) a r e t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s . I n t h e s e
c o m p u t a t i o n s t h e t r i a x i a l f o r m s of t h e c r i t e r i a were u s e d in t h o s e l o a d i n g series w h e r e t h e
h i g h e s t l o a d e d p o i n t w a s f o u n d t o b e o n t h e inside surface. T a b l e 4 lists t h e r e s u l t i n g
f a t i g u e s t r e n g t h s a n d v a l u e s of K 1.
I n Fig. 10 b o t h S t a n f i e l d ' s c r i t e r i o n a n d t h e o e t a h e d r a l s t r e s s c r i t e r i o n fall w i t h i n t h e
u n c e r t a i n t y r a n g e s a r o u n d e a c h t e s t p o i n t , while t h e ellipse q u a d r a n t fall o u t s i d e m o s t o f
t h e r a n g e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e l a s t m e n t i o n e d c a n n o t b e u s e d as a g e n e r a l f a t i g u e criterion.
610 FIND ROTVEL

TABLE 4. CALCULATED VALUES OF (~F, TF AND K1

Ellipse Octahedral
Total strain Stanfield's quadrant stress c r i t e r i o n
energy criterion criterion (Gough) (Crossland)

aF 22"66 22'26 22"68 22"05

7F -- 14"53 13'76 14'17
K1 38'9 6'50 19'8 5"30
n 9 6 8 8

All stresses are in k p / m m 2.

20

I
I
I0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
% 0 I l 12
1 I0 2 0 io
o-, /~

--I0

--20

FIG. 10. C r i t e r i a c o n t a i n i n g t w o m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t s : , octahedral

stress c r i t e r i o n (Crossland); , Stanfield's criterion; ,
ellipse q u a d r a n t (Gough). Stresses are in k p / m m =.

A m o r e o b j e c t i v e e s t i m a t e of t h e fitness of t h e v a r i o u s c r i t e r i a c a n b e o b t a i n e d m a k i n g
certain assumptions. :
(1) I s o t r o p i c m a t e r i a l or a t l e a s t t h a t t h e influence of t h e a n i s o t r o p y is m u c h s m a l l e r
t h a n t h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e stresses applied.
(2) T h e u n c e r t a i n t y i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l i m i t stresses in t h e l o a d i n g series is m u c h
s m a l l e r t h a n t h e u n c e r t a i n t y in t h e stresses applied.
T h e l o a d i n g lines in t h e different l o a d i n g series a r e a c c i d e n t a l l y a t s y m m e t r i c a l
p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e 45 ° lines in Figs. 9 a n d 10, so o n e w o u l d e x p e c t n e a r l y t h e
s a m e f a t i g u e s t r e n g t h for a n y t w o series s i t u a t e d s y m m e t r i c a l l y a r o u n d t h e 45 ° lines if t h e
a s s u m p t i o n s are correct. A n d t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n is i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e t e s t results. T h e
differences c a n b e e x p l a i n e d s i m p l y b y t h e s c a t t e r i n g i n t h e stresses applied.
W h e n f u r t h e r t h e t h i r d a s s u m p t i o n is m a d e , t h a t t h e r o o t - m e a n - s q u a r e d e v i a t i o n s
i n t h e m s e l v e s a r e w i t h o u t s c a t t e r t h e n K 1 is a s q u a r e s u m of n o r m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d (0, 1)
 Biaxial fatigue tests w i t h zero m e a n stresses using t u b u l a r specimens 611

stochastical variables, i.e. K1 is x~-distributed. The n u m b e r of degrees of freedom is

n -~ n l - - n 2 ~

where n 1 is t h e n u m b e r of a d d e n d a in K 1 and n 2 is the n u m b e r of m a t e r i a l constants

d e t e r m i n e d from the tests. The v a l u e of K~ can therefore be used to test the a g r e e m e n t
b e t w e e n test points and criteria. I f t h e value of K 1 is greater t h a n t h e 1 per cent v a l u e
of the x2-distribution the d e p a r t u r e is considered significant.
The third a s s u m p t i o n m a d e was justified b y c o m p u t i n g the root-mean-square deviations
to m a k e t h e m o v e r e s t i m a t e s t h e r e b y m a k i n g K1 an u n d e r e s t i m a t e causing the conclusions
d r a w n to be on the safe side.
Significant departures are found for the total strain energy criterion and the ellipse
q u a d r a n t , while b o t h Stanfield's criterion and the octahedral stress criterion can be possible
general criteria. I t is n o t possible to decide from these tests which of these criteria would
be m o r e suitable as a general criterion.

DISCUSSION
The results o b t a i n e d in this investigation are not coincident w i t h the results obtained
by Sawert, whose w o r k until now has been t h e only investigation in all stress q u a d r a n t s
w i t h zero m e a n stresses. The differences are t h o u g h t to be due to size-effects, anisotropy
a n d effects from different stress gradients i n e v i t a b l y arising w h e n using differently
shaped specimens.
O t h e r investigations w i t h zero m e a n stresses h a v e only been applied in t h e fourth
q u a d r a n t using c o m b i n e d bending and torsion. As a rule the results for plain carbon steels
h a v e been in f a v o u r of the ellipse q u a d r a n t (8). 19 The discrepancy m a y be explained
b y a n i s o t r o p y of t h e bar m a t e r i a l used or b y the different v o l u m e of highly stressed m a t e r i a l
in plane b e n d i n g a n d torsion.
Earlier tests w i t h pulsating stresses show varied results. Morikawa and Le Van
Griffis ~ investigated stress states in the first q u a d r a n t a n d found best a g r e e m e n t with the
principal stress criterion (1), which is identical w i t h Stanfield's criterion (6) in the first
q u a d r a n t . Ro§ l° found t h e same result in the first q u a d r a n t b u t no simple criteria could fit
his results in t h e f o u r t h q u a d r a n t . Majors et al. 8 found best general a g r e e m e n t w i t h the
octahedral shear stress criterion (5). Blass and F i n d l e y ~° c o n d u c t e d tests on thick-walled
t u b u l a r specimens w h e r e b y t h e stress s t a t e b e c a m e p u l s a t i n g triaxial. W h e n keeping the
circumferential stress at and t h e radial stress ar c o n s t a n t and v a r y i n g the axial stress
b e t w e e n the limits g i v e n b y at and at, t h e y found t h a t t h e fatigue s t r e n g t h was i n d e p e n d e n t
of the axial stress. This result is in accordance w i t h t h e following criteria : principal stress,
shear stress and Stanfield's criterion for this particular stress combination.
The results f r o m tests using p u l s a t i n g stresses seem to be in f a v o u r of Stanfield's
criterion, b u t this is n o t a sound conclusion because the fitness of the octahedral stress
criterion was n o t investigated in a n y of the m e n t i o n e d references.

T e s t s w i t h s u p e r i m p o s e d m e a n stresses
The tests in loading series 5 and 6 w i t h m e a n stresses not equal to zero g a v e a measure
of the ability of the octahedral stress criterion to e s t i m a t e the influence of m e a n stresses.
Using t h e values of F found from strain-gauge m e a s u r e m e n t s and the values of a~.
a n d TF found w h e n m i n i m i z i n g K 1 (Table 4) t h e values of at corresponding to the different
axial m e a n stresses were c o m p u t e d from e q u a t i o n (11). The differences At,compb e t w e e n
t h e c o m p u t e d values of a, were c o m p a r e d w i t h the differences A~,mea~between the m e a s u r e d
values of at d e t e r m i n e d f r o m Fig. 7. Making t h e same assumptions as a b o v e t h e weighted
error square s u m
6
Ks = Z [ ( 5 . m ~ - 5~,~mp)/s(5~,m~)] ~

was x~-distributed w i t h n --- 2 degrees of freedom. The c o m p u t a t i o n s resulted in a value

K~ -- 2.6.
 612 FIND ROTVEL

This value is not significant so the oetahedral stress criterion was not in disagreement
with the tests.
Yet, it cannot be concluded from these few tests that the octahedral stress criterion is
well suited to explain the influence of mean stresses, and in fact some phenomena make the
conclusion questionable.
The large mean stresses caused large plastic strains, e.g. in series 5 with as,n = 13 kp/mm ~
the axial plastic strain after the fatigue loading was approximately 5 per cent whereby the
outer diameter changed from 115 to 113 mm. The wall t~ickness did not alter measurably.
As the oil pressures were maintained constant during the fatigue loading the circumferential
stresses fell about 2 per cent during the test, i.e. the measured differences in at were in
reality higher than assumed in the computation of K~. A disagreement between criterion
and test results could therefore not be precluded.
I f a material exists for which
~/(3) ~F :> aF, (16)
the octahedral stress criterion predicts that mean stresses in tension will increase the
allowable stress amplitudes and this result would certainly be surprising. I t has not been
possible to examine this prediction in the literature because of the limited number of tests
where the material anisotropy was controlled. On the other hand it cannot be excluded
that no materials exists for which equation (16) is fulfilled, making this objection needless.

CONCLUSION
F a t i g u e tests have been carried out to d e t e r m i n e the best suited fatigue
c r i t e r i o n for b i a x i a l stress s t a t e s w i t h zero m e a n stresses for a l o w - c a r b o n steel.
T h e r e s u l t s were i n good a g r e e m e n t w i t h b o t h t h e o c t a h e d r a l stress c r i t e r i o n
p r o p o s e d b y C r o s s l a n d 1~ a n d a c r i t e r i o n p r o p o s e d b y S t a n f i e l d , la b u t i t was n o t
possible t o d e c i d e f r o m t h e a v a i l a b l e t e s t s w h i c h o f t h e s e c r i t e r i a were m o r e
suitable.
F u r t h e r t e s t s are t h e r e f o r e i n p r e p a r a t i o n i n w h i c h stress s t a t e s will be
t e s t e d w h e r e t h e difference a t m a x i m u m b e t w e e n t h e s e c r i t e r i a is g r e a t e s t .
T h e o c t a h e d r a l stress c r i t e r i o n w a s m o r e o v e r w i t h i n t h e t e s t a c c u r a c y i n
a g r e e m e n t w i t h a few t e s t s c a r r i e d o u t w i t h s u p e r i m p o s e d m e a n stresses.
The two criteria m e n t i o n e d both contain two material constants. Criteria
c o n t a i n i n g o n l y o n e m a t e r i a l c o n s t a n t were n o t i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t e s t d a t a ,
b u t t h e b e s t fit w a s o b t a i n e d u s i n g t h e t o t a l s t r a i n e n e r g y c r i t e r i o n .

Acknowledgements--The present work has been carried out as part of a lic. techn, study
at the Department of Applied Mechanics, the Technical University of Denmark. The
author is indebted to the leader of the department, Professor F. Niordson for support
during the work, and to the Danish Technical-Scientific F u n d for financial support.

REFERENCES
1. T. YOKOBORI and T. YOSHIMURA, Rep. of the Res. Inst. for Strength and Fracture of
Materials, Sendal, Japan 2, 45 (1966).
2. H. J. GOUGH, H. V. POLLARD and W. J. CLENSHAW, Ministry of Supply, Aeronaut.
Res. Counc., Rep. & Mere., No. 2522 (1951).
3. H. J. GOUGHand H. V. POLLARD, Proc. Instn mech. Engrs 131, 3 (1935).
4. W. N. FINDLEY, Trans. A m . Soc. mech. Engrs 79, 1337 (1957).
5. P. H. FroTH, J. Iron Steel Inst. 159, 385 (1948).
6. W. N. FINDLEY, J. J. COLEMANand B. C. HANLEY, International Conference on Fatigue
of Metals, London, p. 150 (1956).
7. W. WEXB~rLL, Kungl. Tekn. H~gskolans Handl. No. 27 (1949).
8. H. MAJORS, B. D. MILLS and C. W. MCGREGOR,J. appl. Mech. 16, 269 (1949).
 Biaxial fatigue tests with zero mean stresses using tubular specimens 613
9. G. K. MORI•AWA and LE VAN GRIFFIn, Weld. J. Res. Suppl. 24, 167s (1945).
10. M. Rofi, Schweizer Arehiv. 16, 193 (1950).
11. W. SAWERT, Z. Vcr. deut. Ing. 87, 609 (1943).
12. S. TIMOSHENKO,Strength of Materials, Part II. Van Nostrand, New York (1956).
13. G. STANFIELO, Proe. Instn mech. Engrs 131, 93 (1935).
14. B. CROSSLAND, International Conference on Fatigue of Metals, London, p. 138 (1956).
15. H. L. Cox, Ministry of Supply, Aeronaut. Res. Counc., Rep. & Mem. No. 2704 (1953).
16. J. KREBS, Schweisstechnik 16, 434 (1966).
17. E. SIEBEL and M. GAIER, Z. Ver. deut. Ing. 98, 1715 (1956).
18. J. S. C. PARRY, International Conference on Fatigue of Metals, London, p. 132 (1956).
19. H. J. GOUGH, Engineer, Lond. 188, 497, 510, 540, 570 (1949).
20. J. J. BLAss and W. N. FINDLE¥, Mater. Res. Stand. 7, 254 (1967).