714 FATIGUE TESTING

Statistical evaluation of fatigue

tests using maximum likelihood
Klaus Störzel and Jörg Baumgartner, The statistical evaluation of fatigue tests can be carried out using the
Darmstadt, Germany maximum likelihood method. With this method, the influence of run-
outs on the S-N curve can be statistically considered. Typically, a bilinear
S-N curve (Wöhler curve) in double-logarithmic representation is used.
Article Information The logarithmic normal distribution is the basis for describing the scatter,
Correspondence Address which is assumed here to be independent of the number of cycles. For
Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Störzel parameter determination via the maximum likelihood method, reliability
Fraunhofer-Institut für Betriebsfestigkeit und
Systemzuverlässigkeit LBF
is examined and compared with the evaluation methods proposed in
Bartningstraße 47 DIN 50100. While a defined test procedure is required for the application
64289 Darmstadt of DIN 50100, any test data can be evaluated according to the maximum
E-mail: klaus.stoerzel@lbf.fraunhofer.de
likelihood method. In comparison with the methods proposed in DIN 50100,
Keywords
Fatigue strength, statistical evaluation, S-N curve, it could be shown through some examples that the maximum likelihood
maximum likelihood method, DIN 50100 method yields very reliable results for all S-N curve parameters.

Load-controlled fatigue tests are usually
performed to identify the fatigue behavior
of specimens and components. Typically,
test objects are cyclically loaded with a
constant load amplitude at a constant fre-
quency up to a defined failure criterion, for
example, up to the first technical crack or
rupture. Specimens that reach a previously
defined limit number of cycles NG without
failure are referred to as runouts. From the
results of several tests at different load am-
plitude magnitudes, the parameters of an
S-N curve (Wöhler curve) can be derived.
The S-N curve is the basis for the fatigue
life estimation of cyclically loaded compo-
nents, so that a mathematical formulation
is necessary. In the literature, various de-
scriptions for S-N curves can be found.
Some of these are straight lines in double-
logarithmic grid [1], curves with asymp-
totic transition into the long life fatigue re-
gime (N > Nk) [2] or S-shaped curves [3]. In
Castillo et al. [4], various models for S-N
curves are discussed.
The results of fatigue tests show a scat-
ter. This is caused by scattering in the ma-
terial, the specimen geometry as well as in
the execution of the test due to slightly
varying clamping or loading conditions.
Various distribution laws are used in the
literature to describe the scatter [5]:
• normal distribution
• logarithmic normal distribution
• linear exponential distribution
• Weibull distribution (two/three-parametric)
• sin-distribution (arcsin√ •P-transformation)
• logit distribution.
Other methods are proposed for the experi-
mental procedure and the evaluation of fa-
tigue test results to determine the long-life
fatigue regime [6]:
• Probit method [7]
• delimitation method [8]
• staircase method (SCM) of Dixon and Mood
[9], as well as the modifications and exten-
sions described in [10-14].
In order to apply one of these evaluation
methods, tests should be carried out in the
specified manner.
In the high cycle fatigue regime, the test
procedure is typically differentiated be-
tween the load level (LLM) and the pearl
string method (PSM). While in the load
level method several fatigue tests are car-
ried out at a few selected load levels, in the
pearl string method, usually only one test
is carried out at a relatively large number
of different load levels.
In practical application, it is common
praxis [15-17] to present the fatigue strength
results of a test series with constant ampli-
tudes in the high cycle fatigue regime as a
straight line in a double-logarithmic repre-
sentation with a slope of k and to use the
logarithmic normal distribution to describe
the scatter. Since the S-N curve after the
knee point generally has no horizontal
course [18], the course in the long life fa-
tigue regime can also be represented as a
straight line in a double-logarithmic repre-
sentation with finite slope k* (see Figure 1).
Even though this representation leads to a
sharp kink in the S-N curve at the knee point
that can be doubted from a physical point of
view, this description is commonly used due
to its easy application and the typically good
representation of actual fatigue data.
The S-N curve equation thus consists of
two parts. The description in the high cycle
fatigue regime, i. e., for cycles below the
knee point Nk up to the low cycle fatigue
regime (up to approx. N = 104), is given by
Equations (1a) resp. (1b)
−k
⎛ S ⎞
N = Nk × ⎜ a ⎟ (1a)
⎜⎝ S ⎟⎠
a,k
1/k
⎛N ⎞
Sa = Sa,k × ⎜ k ⎟ (1b)
⎝ N⎠
and the description in the long life fatigue
regime, i. e., for numbers of cycles above the
knee point Nk, using Equation (2a) resp. (2b)

Materials Testing     63 (2021) 8

 FATIGUE TESTING 715

Figure 2: Probability of occurrence of test results

Figure 1: Parameters of a „bilinear“ S-N curve

⎛ S ⎞
−k* Statistical evaluation of vanced IABG method” [20, 21] which is an
N = Nk × ⎜ a ⎟ (2a) fatigue strength tests improvement of the “Hück staircase
⎜⎝ S ⎟⎠ method” [11]. This results in the endurable
a,k
1/k* Evaluation according to DIN  50100. stress amplitude at the given limit number
⎛N ⎞
Sa = Sa,k × ⎜ k ⎟ (2b) DIN 50100 distinguishes between the areas of cycles Sa,NG for the probability of survival
⎝ N⎠ of the high cycle fatigue regime and the long Ps = 50 % and the standard deviation of the
life fatigue regime, both in the test proce- logarithmic stress amplitudes sS,NG.
The parameters of the “bilinear” S-N curve dure and in the evaluation. In the high cycle The endurable load amplitude Sa,NG, de-
are therefore: fatigue regime, a straight line in the double termined by the staircase method, is used
• k: the slope k before the knee point logarithmic grid represents the S-N curve. to calculate the number of cycles at the
• Sa,k: the load or stress amplitude at the The tests are carried out using the pearl knee point Nk of the 50 % S-N curve from
knee point string or load level method (on two levels) the S-N curve in the high cycle fatigue re-
• Nk: the number of cycles at the knee point until the failure criterion is reached. gime according to Equation (5)
• k*: the slope after the knee point If the tests were carried out using the k
⎛ S ⎞
• sS: the scatter, described by the standard pearl string method (or on more than two Nk = NB × ⎜ B ⎟ (5)
deviation in the S-direction of the loga- ⎜⎝ S ⎟
load levels), the S-N curve in the high cycle a,NG ⎠
rithmic load or stress amplitude fatigue regime for the probability of sur-
For the logarithmic magnitude of the stress vival, Ps = 50 % would be determined by lin- with the reference point (SB, NB) in the high
amplitude or the number of cycles of a S-N ear regression of the logarithmic numbers of cycle fatigue regime.
curve, the value 1/T, defined as the ratio of the cycles and load or stress amplitudes Sa. The In a corresponding manner, the numbers
respective magnitude at a probability of sur- linear regression is performed by minimiz- of cycles at the knee points of the S-N
vival Ps = 10 % to that at a probability of sur- ing the distances in the direction of cycles curves for other probabilities of survival Ps
vival Ps = 90 %, is frequently used in practical (dependent magnitude). The parameters of are derived.
application as a scattering measure. If the re- this line are slope k and reference point SB, DIN 50100 distinguishes between two
sults are logarithmically normally distributed, NB. In order to calculate the (logarithmic) S-N curve types:
1/T can be derived from the standard devia- standard deviation sN, the test points are Type I: Horizontal course in the long-life
tion according to Equations (3a) or (3b). shifted parallel to the S-N curve in the high fatigue regime and
cycle fatigue regime to a predefined loading Type II: Further decrease of the S-N curve in
1 Sa,Ps =10% 2.564×sS
level. Through this procedure, the test scat- the long life fatigue regime with a
= = 10 (3a)
TS Sa,P =90% ter (standard deviation) is defined as being slope k* = 45 (for steel materials).
s
identical for all load levels. Evaluation using the maximum likelihood
1 NPs =10% 2.564×sN
If tests in the high cycle fatigue regime method. Spindel and Haibach [22] intro-
= = 10 (3b)
TN NP =90% are only available at two levels (load level duced the concept of maximum likelihood
s
method), the logarithmic mean value and estimation for the analysis of fatigue data
The scatter in direction of load and number of the standard deviation of the logarithms of as a means of handling runout data from
cycles are related by the slope of the S-N curve the number of cycles are calculated for each S-N tests. Using the maximum likelihood
1/k load level. The S-N curve in the high cycle method, an S-N curve is determined by op-
1 ⎛ 1⎞ fatigue regime for the probability of survival timization such that the test points i (Sa,i; Ni)
=⎜ ⎟ (4)
TS ⎜⎝ TN ⎟⎠ Ps = 50 % with parameters k, SB and NB re- have the highest probability P of occur-
sults as a connecting line of the mean values rence, as shown in Equation (6).
Both in DIN 50100 [5] (DIN) and for the for both load levels. Using this evaluation,
Ptot,max = Max ⎛∏ i=1 Pi ⎞ (6)
n
later described evaluation based on the the scatter is described as a (logarithmic)
⎝ ⎠
maximum likelihood method (ML), a “bilin- linear dependence on the load level.
ear” S-N curve representation with loga- For the long life fatigue regime, with Pi = Pi,fail or Pi = Pi,runout, see Figure 2.
rithmic normal distribution is used to de- DIN 50100 prescribes the test procedure On the basis of Nelson’s work, [23, 24],
scribe the scatter [19]. and test evaluation according to the “ad- Pascual and Meeker [25] developed a like-

63 (2021) 8     Materials Testing

716 FATIGUE TESTING
lihood-based analysis method, the random
fatigue limit (RFL) model. This model ac-
counts for an increase in fatigue life scatter
as the stress level is decreased and a curva-
ture of the S-N curve associated with the
fatigue limit.
As outlined by Pollak [26], a maximum
likelihood based method for the evaluation
of fatigue data as a bilinear S-N curve with
constant scattering over a number of cycles
is described. Therefore, log-Weibull distri-
bution is used whereby the distances be-
tween the test points and the S-N curve in
the S-direction are evaluated. A horizontal
course of the S-N curve is assumed in the
long life fatigue regime.
In the following, the maximum likeli-
hood method is described with which the
parameters (slopes k and k*, knee point
Sa,k, Nk and scatter sS) of the “bilinear” S-N
curve described in chapter “Introduction”
can be reliably derived from data of S-N
tests. Since for S-N curves the load ampli-
tude is typically the independent value and
the number of cycles N is the dependent
value, here the distances between the test
points and the S-N curve in the N-direction
are evaluated.
In the maximum likelihood algorithm
described, logarithmic normal distribution
is used to describe the scatter of the S-N
curves, and it is assumed that the scatter is
independent of the number of cycles, i. e.,
the width of the scatter band is the same
for all number of cycles along the entire
S-N curve.
Furthermore, the algorithm described is
based on the assumption that the lines of
the same probability of survival from the
high cycle and long life fatigue regime
meet at the knee point Nk at a constant
number of cycle (see Figure 1). For n test
results, the probabilities of occurrence for
⎛ ⎛ log(S ) − log(S (N ))2 ⎞
sup1 = Σ n1 ln(Pi,fail ) = Σ n1 ⎜ −0.5 × ⎜
⎜ ⎜⎝
⎝ ⎠
Equation 9
⎛ (log(Sa,i ) − log(Sa (Ni )))2
sup1 = Σ n1 ln(Pi,fail ) = Σ n1 ⎜ −0.5 ×
⎜⎝
⎛ (log(Sa,i ) − log(Sa (Ni )))2
sup2 = Σ n2 ln(Pi,fail ) = Σ n2 ⎜ −0.5 ×
⎜⎝
⎛ 1
supB = Σ nB ln(Pi,runout ) = Σ nB ln ⎜
⎝ 2× π
failure of a specimen and for a runout are
shown in Figure 2.
With a constant standard deviation sS
over the entire range of numbers of cycles,
as assumed here, the scatter bands are di-
rectly related in stress direction and in the
direction of fatigue life via the slope of the
S-N curve (Equation (4)). In the following,
the maximum likelihood method is formu-
lated, evaluating the scatter in stress direc-
tion. This is useful in order to evaluate test
points in the HCF and LLF differently via
the respective slopes, assuming a kink in
the survival probability lines with Ps ≠ 50 %
at the knee point.
The scatter of the logarithmic quantity in
the S direction sS (only in relation to the
current sample) is calculated according to
Equation (7)
Σ n (log(Sa,i ) − log(Sa (Ni )))2
s2S =
n log(Sa(Ni))) and to keep sS as a measure
where Sa(Ni) is calculated for test points
with N < Nk via the S-N curve in the high
cycle fatigue regime with slope k, Equation
(1b), and for tests with N ≥ Nk via the S-N
curve in the high cycle fatigue regime with
slope k*, Equation (2b).
The total probability Ptot for the occur-
rence of n test results is the product of the
individual probabilities of occurrence Pi
distinguishing between failure, Pfailure eval-
uated from the probability density, and
runouts, Prunout corresponds to the probabil-
ity of survival, see Equation (6). However,
the function to be optimized is not directly
the total probability but its natural loga-
rithm, which is called support (sup) [22].
The individual support functions supi are
therefore to be added. The functional to be
maximized, which is called the support
function (Equation (8))
⎞ • The nB test results in the specimens, in
a,i a i
⎟ − ln(sS ) − 0.5 × ln(2π) + ln(dSa )⎟
2
sS ⎟⎠ ⎟
⎞
− ln(k × s S
)⎟ Equation 9a
s2S ⎟⎠
⎞ sS
− ln(k*× s S
)⎟ Equation 9b
s2S ⎟⎠
∞ ⎞
∫ti exp(−0.5 × t )dt⎟⎠
2
Equation 9c
Max(sup1 + sup2 + supB) (8)
is thus composed, as follows, for a bilinear
S-N curve with consideration of the runouts:
• The n1 test results in the specimens
where failure at Ni < Nk occurred. For
these points, the distances to the S-N
curve in the high cycle fatigue regime
are evaluated with slope k according to
Equation (9).
see Equation 9 (9)
The last two summands are constants
and can therefore be ignored in the
search for the maximum. As explained
above, an evaluation of the distances be-
tween the test points and the S-N curve in
the N-direction is meaningful. So, to look
at the N-distances (log(Ni) – log(N(Sa,i)))
(7) instead of the S-distances (log(Sa,i) –
for the scatter in S-direction, both the
distance (log(Sa,i) – log(Sa(Ni))) and the
standard deviation sS must be multiplied
by slope k (or k*). The support is thus
given by Equation (9a).
see Equation 9a (9a)
1/k
⎛N ⎞
with Sa (Ni ) = Sa,k × ⎜ k ⎟
⎝ Ni ⎠
• The n2 test results in the specimens
where failure at Ni ≥ Nk occurred. For
these points, the distances to the long
life fatigue line of the S-N curve are eval-
uated with slope k* according to Equa-
tion (9b).
see Equation 9b (9b)
1/k*
⎛N ⎞
with Sa (Ni ) = Sa,k × ⎜ k ⎟
⎝ Ni ⎠
which no failure has occurred up to the
limit number of cycles performed. These
runouts are evaluated according to Equa-
tion (9c).
see Equation 9c (9c)
log(Sa,i − log(Sa (Ni ))
with t i = and
⎛N ⎞
1/k
Sa (Ni ) = Sa,k × ⎜ k ⎟ for Ni < Nk
⎝ Ni ⎠
1/k*
⎛N ⎞
Sa (Ni ) = Sa,k × ⎜ k ⎟ for Ni ≥ Nk
⎝ Ni ⎠
Materials Testing     63 (2021) 8

The parameters to be optimized are k, k*,
Sa,k, Nk and sS. However, individual param-
eters can also be specified as known. The
parameters Nk and k* are often specified as
constants, since in the majority of cases too
few test results are available in the long life
fatigue regime to determine them mean-
ingfully.
The maximum likelihood formulation
shown corresponds to a linear regression
with a minimization of the distances in the
direction of the number of cycles accord-
ing, (Equation (10) ), for the case that only
data in the high cycle fatigue regime (no
runouts) are available (n2 = nB = 0).
Min ⎡ Σ n1(log(Ni ) − log(N(Sa,i )))2 ⎤ (10)
⎣ ⎦
For numerical reasons, the number of cycles
at the knee point Nk cannot be continuously
optimized since there is a discontinuity at
each test point (a test point is either in the
high cycle fatigue regime with slope k, or in
the long life fatigue regime with slope k*).
Therefore, an optimization of the remaining
parameters is performed for different speci-
fied numbers of cycles  Nk (e. g. 5  ≤  log(Nk) ≤ 7,
increment Δ = 0.1). The number of cycles at
the knee point Nk, at which the largest value
Pearl string method (PSM)
in high cycle regime
Slope k Nk Sa,k
Ps = 50 % 6.66 1 798 877 271.6
Ps = 10 % 6.66 1 671 185 253.5
Ps = 90 % 6.66 1 935 982 291.0
Scatter
Sa = 330 (* 1/TN = 2.90
Sa = 470 (* 1/TN = 2.90
N= 107 (* 1/TS = 1.15
Typ I: k* = ∞, Typ II: k* = 45
(*: from corrected standard deviation, scorr = s × (n – 1.74)/(n - 2) for PSM, scorr = s × (n – 0.74)/(n - 1)
for LLM, due to the use of small random samples n
Table 1: Parameters of the S-N curves in DIN 50100
63 (2021) 8     Materials Testing
Figure 3: S-N curve from
a “virtual” test series
for the support function is calculated, is as-
sumed to be the most probable knee point
Nk,opt for the test points.
Reliability studies
The reliability of the maximum likelihood
method described above (in the following
calculations all S-N curve parameters, k,
k*, Sa,k, Nk and sS (1/Ts), are always opti-
mized) is subsequently evaluated using “test
results” simulated using the Monte-Carlo-
method. Monte-Carlo-methods are generally
numerical methods that use random num-
bers to simulate different processes.
In the investigations carried out here,
“virtual” results of fatigue tests are gener-
ated on the computer with the aid of
(pseudo) random numbers (Monte-Carlo-
method). To this purpose, the statistical pa-
rameters of the S-N curve of the population
are given and random samples are taken by
means of (pseudo-) random numbers.
For the numerical investigations, calcu-
lation tools were created by the program-
ming language Python. Python uses the
Mersenne Twister [27] as a random gener-
ator. It produces 53-bit precision floats and
has a period of 219937-1.
Load level method (LLM)
in high cycle regime
Slope k Nk Sa,k
6.51 1 730 650 271.6
5.86 1 314 650 253.5
7.17 2 080 937 291.0
1/TN = 3.01
1/TN = 1.89
1/TS = 1.15
FATIGUE TESTING 717
Figure 4: Assessment of reliability by means of
„Boxplots“
A “virtual” test point of the sample is
generated as follows:
• selecting the stress/load level of the test
point
• (pseudo-) random number RND draw be-
tween 0 < RND < 1 – this is interpreted
as probability of survival Ps
• from the given S-N curve of the popula-
tion (for the “drawn” probability of sur-
vival) the number of cycles for failure of
this test point resulting. If this number
of cycles is greater than a defined limit
number of cycles NG, this test point is
marked as a runout.
Figure 3 shows an example of a “virtual”
test series generated by Monte-Carlo-simu-
lation, with the S-N curve derived accord-
ing to the maximum likelihood method.
For the reliability investigations, identical
to the investigations in [28], 10 000 “vir-
tual” test series are generated and evalu-
ated. The scatter results from these 10 000
“virtual” test series are displayed as “box
plots” for each parameter, Figure 4:
• rectangle between the 25 % and 75 %
quantiles of all determined values with a
vertical line at the median.
• a bar between the 1 % and 99 % quantiles
of all determined values.
In a first step, the maximum likelihood
method described above is applied to the
examples described in [5]. The S-N curve
parameters of the examples in [5] are
shown in Table 1 (in the high cycle fatigue
regime pearl string method in comparison
to the load level method, in the long life fa-
tigue regime staircase tests).
The fatigue strength tests in the high cy-
cle fatigue regime, evaluated via the maxi-
mum likelihood method, result in the same
parameters as in the linear regression rec-
ommended according to [5]. The reason for
this is that, as described above, the maxi-
mum likelihood method can be traced back
to a linear regression with a minimization
of the x-distances in the event that only
718 FATIGUE TESTING
Table 2: S-N curve parameters High cycle fatigue regime
for the examples in Pearl string method
DIN 50100 evaluated via the
maximum likelihood method Load level method
data in the high cycle fatigue regime are
present (no runouts). However, depending
on the method used, a constant scatter
band over the number of cycles is also deter-
mined for the experiments using the load
level method. This is 1/TN = 2.41 and corre-
sponds approximately to the mean value of
the scatters determined according to [5] at
the two levels 1/TN,mean = (1/TN,Sa = 330 + 1/
TN,Sa = 470)/2 = (3.01 + 1.89)/2 = 2.45.
If the results in the high cycle fatigue re-
gime are evaluated together with those of
the staircase tests, using the maximum
likelihood method, the S-N curve parame-
ters shown in Table 2 result.
Figure 5 shows the S-N curve diagrams
according to [5] for type I in comparison
with those of the maximum likelihood
evaluation. For the example data sets, the
evaluations according to DIN 50100 and
by means of maximum likelihood result in
varied values for the slope in the high cy-
cle fatigue regime, the knee point and the
scatter. The S-N curve for the probability
of survival Ps = 90 % is slightly more con-
servative for the maximum likelihood
evaluation in the total range of cycles than
for the evaluation according to DIN 50100
for type I.
In a second step, the two evaluation
methods, according to DIN 50100 [5] and
using the maximum likelihood method, are
evaluated with regard to their reliability
and compared with each other.
For this purpose, 10 000 “test series”
from the given population
• amplitude at the knee point: Sa,k = 250
Figure 5: Comparison of variously evaluated fatigue test results
k Nk Sa,k k* 1/TS
6.3 1.26E+06 279.0 81.0 1.23
6.2 1.26E+06 278.2 84.6 1.22
• number of cycles at knee point:
Nk = 1 × 106
• slope in high cycle fatigue regime: k = 5
• slope in long life fatigue regime: k* = 103
• scatter (constant over N, log-normal
distribution): 1/TS = 1.3
according to the recommendations in [5]
separately for the high cycle fatigue
regime (pearl string or load level method)
• lowest level: Hu = 300
• highest level: Ho = 540
• number of levels between Hu and Ho
at logarithmically equidistant intervals:
nH = 12 for pearl string method
nH = 2 for load level method
• number of specimens: n = 12
• limit of number of cycles: NG = 5 × 106
and the long life fatigue regime
(staircase method)
• load level of the 1. test: H1 = 241
• number of specimens: n = 20
• distance of the logarithmically equidis-
tant levels: dlog = Hi /Hi+1 = 1.1
• limit of number of cycles: NG = 5 × 106
are drawn by means of Monte-Carlo-simula-
tion. In these first verification examples, a
total of 32 specimens are used for the fa-
tigue tests. Each test series “drawn” is eval-
uated according to both the “DIN method”
and the maximum likelihood method. The
results are shown in Figure 6.
It can be seen that for the examples ex-
amined, the maximum likelihood method is
more reliable for all S-N curve parameters
than the evaluation according to DIN 50100,
as shown in Figure 6. At this point it should
be noted that, in contrast to the maximum
Materials Testing     63 (2021) 8
Quantile
k Median 99 % 75 % 25 % 1 %
ML 4.97 5.76 5.19 4.75 4.23
DIN 5.01 6.22 5.35 4.67 3.84
Table 3: Quantiles of the slope k of fatigue tests
using the load level method
likelihood method described here, the
method according to DIN 50100 can in
principle take into account different scatter
in the high cycle and long life fatigue re-
gime. If the load level method is used, a vari-
able scatter band in the high cycle fatigue
regime can also be evaluated (In Figure 6 the
linear averaged values of the scatters in HCF
and LLF are shown). It is noticeable that
slope k* of the population with the maxi-
mum likelihood method is estimated only
very poorly. In order to reliably identify this
very flat slope k* = 1000, it is necessary to
choose very close load levels in the area
around the knee point and a very high limit
number of cycles NG (unrealistic for experi-
mental investigations), see Figure 6, filled
boxes “20 specimen (LLM-7,targ)”.
Using the example of tests carried out
according to the load level method, when
evaluating via the maximum likelihood
method, in 50 % of the cases (within the
25 %-75 % quantile box) slope k is esti-
mated with an uncertainty of approx. ±5 %
(4.75 < k < 5.19) to the actual slope of the
given population (here k = 5). In 2 % of the
cases, the estimated slope k can deviate by
more than ±15 % from the actual slope of
the population. If the experimental data are
evaluated using the “DIN method”, a devia-
tion of ±7 % is to be expected in 50 % of the
cases and a deviation of more than ±25 %
from the actual slope of the population in
2 % of the cases. Table 3 shows in detail the
quantiles for slope k in the load level
method (slope of the population k = 5).
In particular, the number of cycles at the
knee point Nk is exactly met with the maxi-
mum likelihood evaluation in 50 % of the
cases, whereas relatively large uncertainties
are to be expected from the evaluation accord-
ing to DIN 50100. The maximum likelihood
method also shows no significant influence of
the test procedure (pearl string or load level
method) in contrast to the “DIN method”.
In practice, fatigue tests of 32 specimens
in total are often not feasible, due to cost and
time constraints. By comparison, the relia-
bility is therefore investigated by using only
20 specimens per test series, whereby no
staircase method is used in the long life fa-
tigue regime. The tests are distributed
 FATIGUE TESTING 719

the evaluation methods proposed in

DIN 50100.
While a defined test procedure is re-
quired for the application of DIN 50100, in
principle, any test data can be evaluated
via the maximum likelihood method. With
some examples, in which the results were
compared to those of DIN 50100, it could
be shown that the maximum likelihood
method provides very reliable results for
all S-N curve parameters. In addition, no
significant influence of the test procedure
(pearl string or load level method in the
HCF) on the reliability can be detected.
Even in test series with a small number of
samples, as are often available in practice
for cost and time reasons, reliable S-N
curve parameters can still be estimated via
the maximum likelihood method.

Acknowledgement

Parts of the results presented here were de-

veloped in the IGF project (No. 18198 N)
“Component design taking into account
stress with variable amplitudes and very
high number of load cycles (VHCF-VA II)”.
The authors thank the German Federal
Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
(BMWi) and the German Federation of In-
dustrial Research Associations (AiF) for
the financial support.

References

 1 O. H. Basquin: The exponential law of endur-

Figure 6: Reliability of the evaluation of fatigue test results – comparison of DIN 50100 and maximum
likelihood
evenly over 10 load levels at logarithmically
equidistant intervals (LLM-10,equi).
• lowest load level: Hu = 220
• highest load level: Ho = 540
• number of levels between Hu and Ho
at logarithmically equidistant intervals:
nH = 10
• number of specimens: n = 20
• limit of number of cycles: NG = 5 × 106
As a further experimental variant, reliabil-
ity is investigated if the 20 specimens are
not distributed logarithmically equidis-
tantly over 10 levels but are specifically
targeted at certain favorable levels, in this
case, 7 levels (LLM-7,targ):
• 4 specimens each on levels H1 = 540,
H2 = 300, H3 = 280,
• 2 specimens each on levels H4 = 265,
H5 = 250, H6 = 235, H7 = 220
However, such a test execution is only pos-
sible if knowledge of the approximate posi-
tion of the S-N curve is known in advance.
 
The results of the reliability tests for only
20 specimens are also shown in Figure 6.  
It turns out that when evaluating test se-
ries with only 20 specimens using the
maximum likelihood method, with the ex-  
ception of the stress amplitude at the knee
point, even more reliable results can be
expected for the S-N curve parameters than  
with the evaluation (and execution) accord-
ing to DIN 50100 for test series with
32 specimens. If the tests are targeted at
certain favorable levels, their reliability
can be further improved.
Conclusions  
The statistical evaluation of fatigue tests
using the maximum likelihood method and
the determination of a confidence interval
 
of the derived S-N curve were presented.
The reliability of the parameters deter-
mined was investigated and compared with
ance tests, Proc. ASTM 10 (1910), pp. 625-630
2 C. E. Stromeyer: The Determination of fatigue
limits under alternating stress conditions,
Proceedings of the Royal Society A 90 (1914),
pp. 411-425
DOI:10.1098/rspa.1914.0066
3 A. Palmgren: Die Lebensdauer von Kugellagern
(The fatigue life of bearings), Z. VDI (1924),
No. 68, pp. 339-341
4 E. Castillo, A. Fernandez-Canteli, A. S. Hadi:
On fitting a fatigue model to data, International
Journal of Fatigue 21 (1999), No. 1, pp. 97-106
DOI:10.1016/S0142-1123(98)00048-6
5 DIN 50100: Schwingfestigkeitsversuch –
Durchführung und Auswertung von zyklischen
Versuchen mit konstanter Lastamplitude für
metallische Werkstoffproben und Bauteile
(Load Controlled Fatigue Testing – Execution
and Evaluation of Cyclic Tests at Constant
Load Amplitudes on Metallic Specimens and
Components), Beuth, Berlin, Germany (2016)
6 H. Mauch, H. Zenner: Lebensdauerstatistik –
Leitfaden zur Statistik in der Betriebsfestigkeit
(Engl.: Fatigue life – Guideline for Statistics in
Fatigue Strength), FVA-Forschungsvorhaben
304, Heft 591 (1999)
7 D. J. Finney: Probit Analysis: A statistical
Treatment of Sigmoid Response Curve,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
(1947)

63 (2021) 8     Materials Testing

720 FATIGUE TESTING
 8 W. W. Maenning: Das Abgrenzungsverfahren,
eine kostensparende Methode zur Ermittlung
von Schwingfestigkeitskennwerten (The
delimitation method, a cost-saving method for
the determination of fatigue strength parame-
ters), Materials Testing 19 (1977), No. 8,
pp. 280-289
DOI:10.3139/120.110390
 9 D. J. Dixon, A. M. Mood: A method of obtaining
and analyzing sensitivity data, Journal of the
American Statistical Association 43 (1948),
No. 241, pp. 108-126
DOI:10.1080/01621459.1948.10483254
10 E. Deubelbeiss: Dauerfestigkeitsversuche mit
einem modifizierten Treppenstufenverfahren
(Fatigue tests with a modified staircase
method), Materials Testing 16 (1974), No. 8,
pp. 240-244
11 M. Hück: Ein verbessertes Verfahren für die
Auswertung von Treppenstufenversuchen
(An improved method for the evaluation of
staircase tests), Materialwissenschaft und
Werkstofftechnik 14 (1983), No. 12, pp. 406-417
DOI:10.1002/mawe.19830141207
12 K. Brownlee, J. Hodges, M. Rosenblatt: The up-
and-down method with small samples, Journal
of the American Statistical Association 48
(1953), pp. 262-277
13 T. Svensson, B. Wadman, J. de Maré, S. Lorén:
Statistical models of the fatigue limit, Swedish
National Testing and Research Institute:
Online Project Paper, 2000
14 R. Little: Estimating the median fatigue limit
for very small up-and-down quantal response
tests and for S-N data with runouts, In: Heller
RA, editor. Probabilistic aspects of fatigue.
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing
and Materials, 1972
15 R. Rennert, E. Kullig, M. Vormwald, A. Esderts,
D. Siegele: FKM Guideline – Analytical
Strength Assessment of Components,
Frankfurt a. M., Germany 2013
16 A. F. Hobbacher: Recommendations for Fatigue
Design of Welded Joints and Components, IIW,
Springer, Heidelberg, Germany (2016)
17 DIN EN 1993-1-9: Design of Steel Structures –
Part 1 – 9: General Rules and Rules for Build-
ings, Beuth, Berlin, Germany (2010)
18 C. M. Sonsino: Course of SN-curves especially
in the high-cycle fatigue regime with regard to
component design and safety, International
Journal of Fatigue 29 (2007), No. 12,
pp. 2246-2258
DOI:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.11.015
19 C. Müller, M. Wächter, R. Masendorf, A. Esderts:
Distribution functions for the linear region of
the S-N curve, Materials Testing 59 (2017),
No. 7-8, pp. 625-629
DOI:/10.3139/120.111053
20 C. Müller: Zur statistischen Auswertung
experimenteller Wöhlerlinien (Engl.: On the
statistical evaluation of experimental S-N
curves), PhD-Thesis, TU Clausthal, Clausthal-
Zellerfeld, Germany (2015)
21 C. Müller, M. Wächter, R. Masendorf,
A. Esderts: Accuracy of fatigue limits estimated
by the staircase method using different
evaluation techniques, International Journal of
Fatigue 100 (2017), No. 1, pp. 296-307
DOI:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.03.030
22 E. Spindel, E. Haibach: The Method of Maxi-
mum Likelihood Applied to the Statistical
Analysis of Fatigue Data Including Run-Outs,
International Journal of Fatigue 1 (1979),
No. 2, pp. 81-88
DOI:10.1016/0142-1123(79)90012-4
23 W. Nelson: Applied Life Data Analysis, John
Wiley, New York, USA (1982)
24 W. Nelson: Fitting of fatigue curves with
nonconstant standard deviation to data with
runouts, Journal of Testing and Evaluation 12
(1984), No. 1, pp. 69-77
DOI:10.1520/JTE10700J
25 F. Pascual, W. Meeker: Analysis of fatigue data
with runouts based on a model with noncostant
standard deviation and fatigue limit parameter,
Journal of Testing and Evaluation 25 (1997),
No. 3, pp. 292-301
DOI:10.1520/JTE11341J
26 R. Pollak: Analysis of Methods for Determining
High Cycle Fatigue Strength of a Material with
Investigation of Ti-6Al-4 V Gigacycle Fatigue
Behavior, PhD Thesis, Air Force Institute of
Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio, USA (2005)
27 M. Matsumoto, T. Nishimura: Mersenne
Twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed
uniform pseudorandom number generator,
ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer
Simulation 8 (1998), No. 1, pp. 3-30
DOI:10.1145/272991.272995
28 A. Martin, K. Hinkelmann, A. Esderts: Zur
Auswertung von Schwingfestigkeitsversuchen
im Zeitfestigkeitsbereich (For the evaluation
of fatigue tests in high cycle fatigue regime),
Materials Testing 53 (2011), No. 9, pp. 502-512
DOI:10.3139/120.110255
Nomenclature
Δ increment
1/T scatter of a S-N curve
cdf cumulative density function
DIN DIN  50100
H load level for fatigue tests
H1 load level of the first staircase test
HCF high cycle fatigue regime (N<Nk)
Ho highest load level for fatigue tests
Hu lowest load level for fatigue tests
k slope of the S-N curve in the high cycle
fatigue regime (N<Nk)
k* slope of the S-N curve in the long life
fatigue regime (N³Nk)
LLF long life fatigue regime (N³Nk)
LLM load level method
ML maximum likelihood
N number of cycles
n number of test results
n1 number of test results where failure at
Ni < Nk occurred
n2 number of test results where failure at
Ni ≥ Nk occurred
nB number of test results were no failure
has occurred (runouts)
NG limit number of cycles (end of test)
nH number of levels for fatigue tests
Materials Testing     63 (2021) 8
Nk knee point, i. e. transition point between
high cycle and long life fatigue regime
pdf probability density function
P probability of occurrence
Ps probability of survival
PSM pearl string method
RND random number
S load or stress
s standard deviation
SCM staircase method
sS standard deviation of the logarithmic
load in the S-direction
sN standard deviation of the logarithmic
load in the N-direction
sup support function
t integration variable of the distribution
function of the normal distribution
Subscripts
a amplitude
B reference point
corr corrected
i individual test result, counting parameter
k knee point
max maximum
N number of cycles
NG at the position of the limit number of
cycles NG
opt optimum
runout test result as a runout
S load or stress
s survival
tot total
Bibliography
DOI 10.1515/mt-2020-0116
Materials Testing
63 (2021) 8, pages 714-720
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH,
Berlin/Boston, Germany
ISSN 0025-5300, e-ISSN 2195-8572
The authors of this contribution:
Dipl.-Ing. Klaus Störzel, born in 1959, studied
General Mechanical Engineering at the Technical
University of Darmstadt, graduating as Dipl.-Ing.
in 1986. Since 1987 he has been a Research
Associate at the Fraunhofer Institute for Structural
Durability and System Reliability LBF in Darmstadt.
He currently works in the Materials and Components
department in the area of numerical methods and
component design.
Dr.-Ing. Jörg Baumgartner, born in 1978,
studied General Mechanical Engineering at the
Technical University of Darmstadt, graduating as
Dipl.-Ing. in 2005. Following his studies, he started
at Technical University of Darmstadt as Research
Associate and later joined the Fraunhofer Institute
for Structural Durability and System Reliability
LBF. He finished his PhD-thesis in 2013 on the
influence of the residual stress of welded joints
on fatigue life. Currently, he heads the group “
numerical methods and component design” at
Fraunhofer LBF and the Working Group 3 “Stress
Analysis” at the International Institute of Welding.