International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

On the use of the Prismatic Hull method in a critical plane-based

multiaxial fatigue criterion
Andrea Carpinteri, Camilla Ronchei, Andrea Spagnoli, Sabrina Vantadori ⇑
Dept. of Civil-Environmental Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43124 Parma, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present paper, the modified Carpinteri–Spagnoli (C–S) criterion is combined with the Prismatic
Received 4 March 2014 Hull (PH) method proposed by Mamiya, Araújo et al. [15] to evaluate an equivalent shear stress ampli-
Received in revised form 2 May 2014 tude for multiaxial fatigue loading. More precisely, the PH method, originally formulated for synchronous
Accepted 15 May 2014
loading and successively extended to asynchronous loading, is here adopted to compute the shear stress
Available online 23 May 2014
amplitude acting on the critical plane, used in the modified C–S criterion. By comparing some experimen-
tal data available in the literature with the theoretical estimations, the multiaxial fatigue strength eval-
Keywords:
uations derived through the modified C–S criterion are shown to be improved if the shear stress
Critical plane approach
Multiaxial high-cycle fatigue
amplitude is determined by applying the PH method instead of the Minimum Circumscribed Circle
Shear stress amplitude (MCC) method, especially for particular shear stress paths as is here discussed.
Stress-base criterion Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction macroscopic one. More precisely, at the mesoscopic level, the

Many metallic structural components, such as crankshafts,
axles, steel rails, wheels and fan discs in jet engines, are subjected
to multiaxial high-cycle fatigue during their service life [1].
Therefore, the fatigue strength of the aforementioned structural
components is complex to be evaluated through theoretical
models, because it depends on many factors related to stress paths,
material properties and possible stress concentrations [2–4].
Several criteria are available in the literature to assess the above
structural components under multiaxial stresses, but a unique
method generally recognized as completely reliable does not exist.
An interesting review of the most relevant criteria is reported in
Ref. [5], where they are classified into three categories, that is:
stress-, strain-, and energy-based criteria.
Within the framework of a total life approach, under high-cycle
fatigue (i.e. in presence of more than about 105 loading cycles, for
metallic materials) and constant-amplitude cyclic loading, most of
criteria are stress-based and aim at reducing a given multiaxial
stress state to an equivalent uniaxial stress to be compared with
a single parameter experimentally determined through the
uniaxial S–N curve [5]. Several fatigue experimental tests have
shown that the polycrystalline metallic materials are characterised
by plastic deformations that occur in heterogeneous manner only
at the mesoscopic scale, while no plasticity is detected at the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sabrina.vantadori@unipr.it (S. Vantadori).
fatigue limit of such materials is identified by (elastic) shakedown
condition, while the plastic shakedown develops in the finite
lifetime domain.
According to the critical review reported in Ref. [6], the above
stress theories can be classified into four viewpoints: empirical
formulas, application of stress invariants, integral approach, and
critical plane approach. As far as the fatigue criteria related to
the use of stress invariants are concerned, most of them are based
on the combined effects of normal stress and maximum shear
stress. The significant difference among them depends on the def-
inition of the maximum shear stress [7–16]. Regarding the fatigue
criteria based on the critical plane approach, whose use has
increased during recent years, it is important to highlight that they
are able not only to reduce a given multiaxial stress state to an
equivalent uniaxial one, but also to describe the plane of the early
crack nucleation [17–23].
The modified Carpinteri–Spagnoli (C–S) criterion [24–26]
belongs to the last category mentioned above. It is a simplified
version of the original C–S criterion [27], as the computation of
the critical plane orientation in the modified criterion is easier than
that proposed in the original version. This simplified criterion takes
into account a fatigue damage parameter given by a nonlinear
(quadratic) combination of the equivalent normal stress ampli-
tude, Na,eq [24–26], and the amplitude, Ca, of the shear stress vector
acting on the critical plane. More precisely, Na,eq takes into account
the linear relationship (proposed by Goodman) between the
normal stress amplitude and the normal stress mean value.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.05.007
0142-1123/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
160 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167
Nomenclature
ai(H) i-th half-side of prismatic hull
bi i-th component of an orthonormal basis of R5
Bi i-th components of an orthonormal basis of dev3
C shear stress vector acting on the critical plane
Ca shear stress amplitude
fy material yield stress
I error index
N normal stress vector perpendicular to the critical plane
Na,eq equivalent normal stress amplitude
PXYZ fixed frame
P123 principal stress axes frame
P1^2
^3^ weighted mean principal stress frame
Sw stress vector at material point P, acting on the critical
plane
t time
T observation time interval
w unit vector normal to the critical plane
x deviatoric stress vector at material point P in R5
X deviatoric stress tensor at material point P in dev3
a phase angle between longitudinal (axial) normal stress
rx and tangential (hoop/circumferential) normal stress
ry
b phase angle between longitudinal (axial) normal stress
rx and shear stress sxy
c angle between the specimen’s longitudinal axis X and
the normal w to the critical plane (Fig. 2)
d angle between the averaged direction 1 ^ of r1,max and the
normal w to the critical plane (Fig. 2)
Different methods are available in the literature to define Ca
[13–16,28–34]: the so-called Longest Chord method [29], the
Longest Projection method [30], the Minimum Circumscribed
Ellipsoid method [31,32], the Minimum Circumscribed Circle
method [33,34] and the Prismatic Hull (PH) method [13–16].
The modified C–S criterion employs Ca computed by means of
the Minimum Circumscribed Circle (MCC) method [33,34]. Accord-
ingly, Ca is the radius of the minimum circle bounding the closed
P
path described by the shear stress vector C on the critical plane
during the observation time interval T. Although the MCC method
is able to uniquely define Ca, the following remarks have to be
made:
(i) Such a method is not able to distinguish between propor-
tional and non-proportional loading, while experimental
evidences highlight that, for a given value of the radius of
the Minimum Circumscribed Circle, non-proportional load-
ing may produce a greater damage than proportional one;
(ii) The MCC method requires time-consuming algorithms in
order to compute the centre and the radius of the circle
P The two main steps of the modified C–S criterion [24–26] are:
bounding .
The problem of the high computational time is relevant when,
for instance, asynchronous sinusoidal loadings are examined,
although different strategies exist in order to optimise the proce-
dure used to determine the Minimum Circumscribed Circle [34],
and an analytical procedure can be applied in the case of synchro-
nous loadings [33].
To improve the capabilities of the modified C–S criterion and
make it a useful tool in fatigue design, the Prismatic Hull (PH)
method proposed by Mamiya, Araujo et al. [13–16] to evaluate
an equivalent shear stress amplitude, called seq, for multiaxial fati-
H four-dimensional quantity used to identify the ortho-
normal basis of R5
j material parameter
q material parameter
kxy ratio between the signal pulsations xxy/xx
ky ratio between the signal pulsations xy/xx
r stress tensor at material point P
raf,1 fully reversed normal stress fatigue limit
rp, max maximum value of the hydrostatic stress
rn, n = 1, 2, 3 principal stresses, with r1 P r2 P r3
ru material ultimate tensile stress
rx(t) longitudinal (axial) normal stress
ry(t) tangential (hoop/circumferential) normal stress
sxy(t) shear stress
saf,1 fully reversed shear stress fatigue limit
seq equivalent shear stress amplitude
/, h,w principal Euler angles
^ ^h; w
/; ^ weighted principal Euler angles
xx pulsation of the sinusoidal longitudinal normal stress rx
xy pulsation of the sinusoidal tangential normal stress ry
xxy pulsation of the sinusoidal shear stress sxy
Subscripts
a amplitude
m mean value
max maximum value
gue criteria is herein employed. More precisely, the PH method,
originally formulated for synchronous loading [13,14] and succes-
sively extended to asynchronous loading [15,16], is now adopted
to compute the shear stress amplitude, Ca, used in the modified
C–S criterion. Note that, when the path of the shear stress is plane,
the method is also named Maximum Rectangular Hull (MRH)
method [16,35], since the prismatic hull circumscribing the shear
stress path degenerates in a rectangular hull. The PH method and
the MRH method are able to distinguish between proportional
and non-proportional loading, and no complex computation algo-
rithms are needed.
Some experimental tests available in the literature [36–43],
related to in- and out-of-phase synchronous and asynchronous
loading, are hereafter analysed in order to evaluate the fatigue
strength estimation capabilities of the PH method implemented
in the modified C–S criterion.
2. Main steps of the modified C–S criterion
(1) Determination of the critical plane orientation, which is
linked to the averaged principal stress directions;
(2) Evaluation of suitable stress components, related to the ver-
ification plane (critical plane), to be used in the fatigue
strength assessment.
2.1. Averaged principal stress axes and orientation of the critical plane
The orientation of the critical plane is assumed to be linked to
the directions of the principal stress axes. Such directions are
 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167
Fig. 1. Cylindrical specimen: XYZ coordinate system with its origin in P. The
instantaneous principal stress directions 1, 2 and 3 are defined through the
principal Euler angles /, h, w.
generally time-varying under fatigue loading and, therefore, aver-
aged principal stress directions are taken into account by deducing
them through appropriate weight functions, as is described in the
following.
The origin of the fixed XYZ coordinate system is at a generic
point P of the structural component being examined (Fig. 1). At a
given time instant t, the location of the principal stress directions
1, 2 and 3 (being r1 P r2 P r3 ) can be defined through the princi-
pal Euler angles /, h, w.
Mean principal stress directions are determined by averaging
the instantaneous values of the principal Euler angles through a
suitable weight function so that the averaged principal stress axes
^ 2;
1; ^ 3
^ coincide with the instantaneous ones at the time instant
when r1 achieves its maximum value during the observation time
interval T [24–26]. Such an assumption makes the implementation
of the criterion rather simple.
The normal unit vector w of the critical plane is defined through
^ direction, in the averaged principal plane 1^3
^ Now the main steps of the PH method and its implementation
a rotation d of the 1
^ ^
(from 1 to 3Þ. The off angle d is expressed as follows [24–27]:
"   #
3p saf ;1 2
d¼ 1
8 raf ;1
where raf,1 and saf,1 are the fatigue limit for fully reversed normal
stress and for fully reversed shear stress, respectively.
2.2. Fatigue strength assessment
At each time instant t, the stress vector Sw related to the critical
plane orientation may be decomposed in two components (Fig. 2),
that is, the normal stress component N (perpendicular to the crit-
ical plane) and the shear stress component C (lying on the critical
plane). During the observation time interval T, the direction of the
normal stress vector N(t) is fixed with respect to time, while the
P we have:
shear stress vector C(t) describes a closed path on the critical
plane (as long as Sw is periodic).
Fig. 2. Cylindrical specimen: components of the stress vector Sw acting on the
critical plane.
161
According to the modified C–S criterion [24–26], the multiaxial
fatigue limit condition is expressed in the following form:
 2  2
Na;eq Ca
þ ¼1 ð2Þ
raf ;1 saf ;1
where Na,eq is the equivalent normal stress amplitude, and Ca is the
amplitude of the shear stress vector. The amplitude Na,eq can be
computed through the following relationship:
 
Nm
Na;eq ¼ Na þ raf ;1 ð3Þ
ru
where Na and Nm are the normal stress amplitude and mean value,
respectively, and ru is the material ultimate tensile strength.
When ru is not available, the yield stress fy might be used instead
of the ultimate tensile strength, especially in the case of mild
metals.
Since the N direction is fixed with respect to time, the mean
value Nm and the amplitude Na of its modulus can readily be com-
puted. On the other hand, the definition of the amplitude Ca of the
C vector modulus is not unique, and different methods are avail-
able in the literature [13–16,28–34]. In particular, the Prismatic
Hull (PH) method [13–16] allows us to compute the amplitude Ca
with a simple algorithm.
In Refs. [24–27], the Minimum Circumscribed Circle (MCC)
method [33,34] is implemented in the modified C–S criterion to
compute Ca. In the present paper, Ca is computed by employing
the Prismatic Hull (PH) method [13–16].
3. The Prismatic Hull (PH) method
in the modified C–S criterion are discussed.
3.1. Main steps of the PH method
ð1Þ
The PH method [13–16] has been proposed to evaluate an
equivalent shear stress amplitude, called seq, used in the following
multiaxial fatigue criterion based on the stress invariants:
seq þ jrp;max 6 q ð4Þ
where rp,max is the maximum value of the hydrostatic stress during
the observation time interval T, and j and q are material parame-
ters. Let us consider a given material point P and its deviatoric stress
tensor, X, defined in a space from R3 to R3 , and such a space is
called dev3 in the following [13–15]. In dev3, the stress path of X
is described by the set of the deviatoric stress states, X(t), so that,
by considering an orthonormal basis Bi (with i = 1, . . . , 5) of dev3,
X
5
XðtÞ ¼ xi ðtÞBi ð5Þ
i¼1
Fig. 3. Rectangular hull identified by orientation H: the half lengths, Cu,a(H) and
P
Cv,a(H), of the rectangle enclosing the shear stress path on the critical plane are
shown.
162 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167

Table 1
Loading conditions of the experimental tests being examined.

Material No Path type a (°) b (°) kxy ; ky (–) rx,a (MPa) rx,m (MPa) ry,a (MPa) ry,m (MPa) sxy,a (MPa) sxy,m (MPa) c (°)
Hard steel [36] 1 (a.1) 0 0 1 131.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.1 0.0 75
2 0 0 1 245.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.7 0.0 64
3 0 0 1 299.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.8 0.0 53
Mild steel [36] 4 (a.1) 0 0 1 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.9 0.0 78
5 0 0 1 180.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.2 0.0 67
6 0 0 1 213.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.8 0.0 56
Cast iron [36] 7 (a.1) 0 0 1 56.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.0 0.0 40
8 0 0 1 83.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.6 0.0 29
9 0 0 1 95.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 18
30NCD16 [37] 10 (a.1) 0 0 1 485.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 280.0 0.0 66
St35 [38] 11 (a.2) 0 0 1 160.0 176.0 160.0 176.0 0.0 0.0 61
42CrMo4V [38] 12 (a.2) 0 0 1 402.0 442.0 201.0 221.0 0.0 0.0 39
Hard steel [36] 13 (b.1) 0 30 1 140.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 169.9 0.0 75
14 0 30 1 249.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.9 0.0 63
15 0 60 1 145.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 176.3 0.0 77
16 0 60 1 252.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.2 0.0 59
17 0 90 1 150.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 181.7 0.0 80
18 0 90 1 258.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 129.0 0.0 41
19 0 90 1 304.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.9 0.0 41
Mild steel [36] 20 (b.1) 0 60 1 103.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 125.4 0.0 80
21 0 60 1 191.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.7 0.0 62
22 0 90 1 108.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 131.8 0.0 84
23 0 90 1 201.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.6 0.0 45
24 0 90 1 230.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 45
Cast iron [36] 25 (b.1) 0 60 1 67.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.6 0.0 42
26 0 60 1 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 0.0 25
27 0 90 1 73.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 0.0 46
28 0 90 1 101.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 7
St35 [38] 29 (b.1) 90 0 1 140.0 154.0 140.0 154.0 0.0 0.0 46
30 180 0 1 120.0 132.0 120.0 132.0 0.0 0.0 46
42CrMo4V [38] 31 (b.1) 90 0 1 402.0 442.0 201.0 221.0 0.0 0.0 39
30NCD16 [37] 32 (b.1) 0 0 1 211.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 365.0 0.0 69
33 0 0 1 480.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 277.0 0.0 59
34 0 0 1 590.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 148.0 0.0 51
35 0 45 1 480.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 277.0 0.0 57
36 0 45 1 565.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 141.0 0.0 48
37 0 60 1 470.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 270.0 0.0 54
38 0 90 1 473.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 273.0 0.0 41
39 0 90 1 480.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 277.0 0.0 41
40 0 90 1 540.0 300.0 0.0 0.0 135.0 0.0 41
25CrMo4 [39] 41 (b.2) 0 60 1 155.0 340.0 0.0 170.0 155.0 0.0 44
42 0 60 1 220.0 340.0 0.0 170.0 110.0 0.0 42
43 0 90 1 159.0 340.0 0.0 170.0 159.0 0.0 41
44 0 90 1 233.0 340.0 0.0 170.0 117.0 0.0 41
25CrMo4 [40] 45 (b.2) 0 90 1 208.0 255.0 156.0 210.0 104.0 0.0 39
46 60 90 1 225.0 255.0 169.0 210.0 113.0 0.0 37
47 90 45 1 222.0 255.0 167.0 210.0 111.0 0.0 42
48 90 90 1 205.0 255.0 154.0 210.0 103.0 0.0 37
49 90 135 1 215.0 255.0 161.0 210.0 108.0 0.0 40
50 180 90 1 224.0 255.0 168.0 210.0 112.0 0.0 37
34Cr4 [41] 51 (c) 0 0 2 200.0 244.0 200.0 244.0 0.0 0.0 44
25CrMo4 [42] 52 (c) 0 0 1/4 210.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.0 0.0 48
53 0 90 2 220.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 60
54 0 0 2 242.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 121.0 0.0 58
55 0 0 8 196.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.0 0.0 60
En24T [43] 56 (c) 180 0 3 260.0 0.0 260.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55
St35 [38] 57 (c) 0 0 2 130.0 143.0 130.0 143.0 0.0 0.0 90
58 90 0 2 140.0 154.0 140.0 154.0 0.0 0.0 46

Hence, the stress path of X can also be described, in a more simply that corresponds, if referred to an orthonormal basis bi (with
way, by employing the set of the deviatoric stress components: i = 1, . . . , 5) of R5 , to a hyper-curve.
By considering, for example, the following orthonormal basis of
xðtÞ  fx1 ðtÞ; x2 ðtÞ; x3 ðtÞ; x4 ðtÞ; x5 ðtÞgT ð6Þ dev3 [13–15]:
 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167 163

0 pffiffiffi 1 0 1
2= 6 0 0 0 0 0 Note that the above hulls might have a dimension smaller than
B pffiffiffi C B pffiffiffi C
B1 ¼ B 0 1= 6 0 C B ¼ B 0 1= 2 0 C five, depending on the stress state. For example, when the stress
@ A 2 @ A
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi state is characterised only by the stress components rx, ry or rx, sxy,
0 0 1= 6 0 0 1= 2
the hulls degenerate into rectangles [16,35], while the hulls degen-
0 pffiffiffi 1 0 pffiffiffi 1
0 1= 2 0 0 0 1= 2 erate into parallelepipeds when the stress components different
B pffiffiffi C B C from zero are rx, ry, sxy.
B3 ¼ B
@ 1= 2 0 0C A B4 ¼ B
@ 0 0 0 C A ð7Þ
pffiffiffi For the particular case of synchronous cyclic loading, it has been
0 0 0 1= 2 0 0 demonstrated [13,14] that seq in Eq. (10) is a constant with respect
0 1
0 0 0 to H. Therefore, any orthonormal basis of R5 leads to the same
B pffiffiffi C value of seq.
B5 ¼ B
@0 0 1= 2 C A
pffiffiffi
0 1= 2 0
3.2. Application of the PH method to the critical plane shear stress
the deviatoric stress components, xi(t), in R5 are expressed as
vector
follows:
rffiffiffi
3 1   Now the PH method is adopted to compute the amplitude of the
x1 ðtÞ ¼ X x ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffi 2rx ðtÞ  ry ðtÞ  rz ðtÞ shear stress vector C, by applying Eq. (10) not to the components of
2 6
the five-dimensional vector x, but to the components of the two-
1 1  
x2 ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ½X y ðtÞ  X z ðtÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ry ðtÞ  rz ðtÞ dimensional vector C, with the path of the shear stress C belonging
2 2 to the critical plane. In such a case, the enclosing prismatic hull
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
x3 ðtÞ ¼ 2X xy ðtÞ ¼ 2sxy ðtÞ degenerates into a rectangle, and the four-dimensional quantity
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi H degenerates in the scalar quantity H.
x4 ðtÞ ¼ 2X xz ðtÞ ¼ 2sxz ðtÞ
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi Let us take into account a unit vector u coincident with the
x5 ðtÞ ¼ 2X yz ðtÞ ¼ 2syz ðtÞ ð8Þ intersection between the critical plane and the plane defined by
the normal unit vector w and the Z-axis, and a unit vector v normal
where Xx, Xy, Xz, Xxy, Xyz, Xxz are the components of the deviatoric to u so that uvw represents a right-hand orthogonal system
stress tensor, X, and rx, ry, rz, sxy, syz, sxz are the components of (Fig. 2). The vector C is decomposed in two components along
the stress tensor, r. Note that, at each time instant t, the Euclidean the directions of u and v, respectively (Fig. 3).
norm of the tensor X is equal to that of the vector x [15]. Consider: (i) the rectangular hulls which both enclose the path
The PH method evaluates the equivalent shear stress amplitude, of the vector C and are tangent to such a path, and (ii) the R2 basis
seq, by taking into account all the prismatic hulls (function of the defined by the unit vectors u and v, which are identified by an ori-
considered orthonormal basis) which both enclose the path of the entation angle H with respect to an arbitrary time-independent
vector x and are tangent to such a path. For a given hull, the half val- direction (see the horizontal dashed line in Fig. 3). Then, the rect-
ues of its sides, ai (with i = 1, . . . , 5), can be determined as follows: angular hull half-sides can be computed according to Eq. (11):
 
1  
ai ¼ max xi ðtÞ  min xi ðtÞ ð9Þ 1
2 06t<T 06t<T C u;a ðHÞ ¼ max C u ðt; HÞ  min C u ðt; HÞ ð12aÞ
2 06t<T 06t<T
5
All the orthonormal bases of R are examined, in order to determine
the specific prismatic hull, enclosing and tangent to the path of x,  
1
which maximises the following relationship: C v ;a ðHÞ ¼ max C v ðt; HÞ  min C v ðt; HÞ ð12bÞ
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 06t<T 06t<T
X5
seq ¼ max i¼1 i
½a ðHÞ2 ð10Þ Finally, according to Eq. (10), the amplitude Ca of the shear
H
stress vector is given by:
where H is a four-dimensional quantity used to identify the ortho- qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
normal basis bi and:
C a ¼ max ½C u;a ðHÞ2 þ ½C m;a ðHÞ2 ð13Þ
  06H<p=2
1
ai ðHÞ ¼ max xi ðt; HÞ  min xi ðt; HÞ ð11Þ
2 06t<T 06t<T
where all R2 bases are taken into account by varying 0 6 H < p=2.

Table 2
Static, fatigue properties and extreme values of the error index, DI, obtained by applying both the MCC and the PH method to calculate Ca for each examined material. The DI
values obtained by applying the Crossland [44], Papadopoulos et al. [45] and Gonçalves et al. [14] criteria are also reported.

Authors Ref. Material ru/fy raf,1 saf,1 saf ;1 DI (MCC) DI (PH) DI DI DI (Gonçalves
raf ;1
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%) (Crossland) (Papadopoulos) et al.) (%)
(%) (%)
Nishihara and [36] Hard steel 681 313.9 196.2 0.63 10/1 10/1 18/2 3/7 3/4
Kawamoto Mild steel 374 235.4 137.3 0.58 5/1 5/1 15/1 4/13 4/12
Cast iron 181 96.1 91.2 0.95 3/14 3/14 3/27 3/37 3/15
Froustey and [37] 30NCD16 1880 660.0 410.0 0.62 18/3 18/3 27/4 8/4 4/8
Lasserre
Bhongbhibhat [38] St35 340 230.0 130.0 0.57 36/15 36/15 35/10 35/10 34/11
42CrMo4V 1003 485.00 315.0 0.65 1 1 7/2 7/8 1/14
Zenner et al. [39] 25CrMo4 780 361.0 228.0 0.63 27/19 20/11 23/13 9/4 4/0
Troost et al. [40] 25CrMo4 660 340.0 228.0 0.67 24/9 16/1 19/8 0/21 4/24
Heidenreich et al. [41] 34Cr4 550 343.0 204.0 0.59 27 27 9 2 10
Kaniut [42] 25CrMo4 – 340.0 228.0 0.67 46/23 46/23 27/21 14/0 26/13
McDiarmid [43] En24T – 405.0 270.0 0.67 28 15 13 18 4
164 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167

1.0 rx ¼ rx;a sinðxx tÞ þ rx;m ð14aÞ

St35 - Bhongbhibhat (1986)

COMPONENT, C v [MPa]
Specimens No. 11,29
0.6 ry ¼ ry;a sinðxy t  aÞ þ ry;m ð14bÞ
SHEAR STRESS

0.2 29 sxy ¼ sxy;a sinðxxy t  bÞ þ sxy;m ð14cÞ

11
0.0
where rx is the longitudinal (axial) normal stress, ry is the tangen-
-0.2
tial (hoop/circumferential) normal stress, and sxy is the shear stress.
By varying the mean value, the pulsations and the phases of the
-0.6
above signals, the shear stress vector C describes closed paths of
(a) different shapes on the critical plane and, according to the above
-1.0 definition of the critical plane, three cases can occur:
0 50 100 150 200
200 P
25CrMo4 - Zenner et al. (1985) (a) The shear stress path is represented by a line segment;
P
COMPONENT, Cv [MPa]

Specimens No.41 - 44 (b) The shear stress path is represented by an ellipse;

P
(c) The shear stress path is represented by a closed curve
SHEAR STRESS

100 44
with a generic shape.
43
0 In case (a), we can have the following sub-cases:
42

-100 41 (a.1) For synchronous proportional loading (in-phase input sig-

nals with zero mean values), the line segment passes
(b) through the origin of the Puvw frame;
-200 (a.2) For synchronous affine loading (in-phase input signals with
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
non-zero mean values), the line segment does not pass
300 through the origin of the Puvw frame.
En24T - McDiarmid (1985)
COMPONENT, C v [MPa]

Specimen No.56
200
In case (b), produced by synchronous non-proportional loading
SHEAR STRESS

56
100 (out-of-phase signals), we can have the following sub-cases:

0 (b.1) One semi-axis is much greater than the other one;

(b.2) The two semi-axes have the same order of magnitude.
-100

Finally, case (c) is produced by asynchronous loading.

-200
(c)
-300 4. Comparison with experimental data
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
SHEAR STRESS
Now some experimental data available in the literature, related
COMPONENT, Cu [MPa]
to smooth cylindrical metallic specimens (round bars and thin-
Fig. 4. Shear stress paths for the experimental tests in Refs. [38,39,43]: (a) walled tubes) subjected to synchronous and asynchronous, sinu-
specimens No. 11 and 29; (b) No. 41–44; and (c) No. 56. soidal, in- and out-of-phase loading, are examined. The multiaxial
stress states corresponding to fatigue limit conditions are reported
in Table 1 (where kxy ¼ xxy =xx or ky ¼ xy =xx ). For each experi-
3.3. Some types of shear stress paths on the critical plane mental test, the critical plane orientation, i.e. the angle c (Fig. 2)
formed by the normal unit vector w with respect to the specimen’s
The plane stress condition of biaxial normal and shear stresses longitudinal axis X, is also reported.
at the generic point P of a cylindrical body (Fig. 1) subjected to an A total number of 58 specimens are analysed. The static and
asynchronous out-of-phase sinusoidal loading can be expressed as fatigue properties of the materials being examined are shown in
follows: Table 2. More precisely, in order to evaluate the capabilities of
SHEAR STRESS AMPLITUDE,

500
MCC method
PH method
400
Path type:
C a [MPa]

300 (a1) (a2) ( b 1) (b2) (c )

200

100

0
17

19
2021
22
23
24
2526
27
28

32

34
3536
38

42

44
4546
48

52
53
54
5556
57
58
1

9
1011
13
14
1516
18

29
3031
33

37

39
4041
43

47

49

51
2

12
5

50

SPECIMEN No.

Fig. 5. The MCC method [33,34] and the PH method [13–16]: Ca values, by highlighting (for each specimen) the stress path type of the corresponding shear stress vector C.
 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167 165

0.5  specimens No. 11 and 12 [38], characterised by shear stress

MCC method P
(a) paths represented by line segments of type (a.2);
RELATIVE FREQUENCY  specimens No. 13–28 [36], No. 29–31 [38], and No. 32–40 [37],
0.4 P
characterised by shear stress path represented by ellipses of
type (b.1);
0.3  specimens No. 41–44 [39] and No. 45–50 [40], characterised by
P
shear stress paths represented by ellipses of type (b.2);
 specimens No. 51 [41], No. 52–55 [42], No. 56 [43] and No. 57
0.2 P
and 58 [38], characterised by shear stress paths represented
by generic closed curves of type (c).
0.1
Some of the stress paths being analysed are shown in Fig. 4, by
0 plotting the components Cu and Cv of the shear vector C, evaluated
with respect to the two orthogonal unit vectors, u and v, on the
0.5
critical plane.
(b) PH method
In Fig. 5, the values of the amplitude Ca are plotted for each of
RELATIVE FREQUENCY

0.4 the 58 specimens examined. Such values are determined by apply-

ing either the MCC method [33,34] or the PH method [13–16] to
the modified C–S criterion. Note that the PH method introduces a
0.3
quite significant increase (up to 30%) in the value of the amplitude
Ca with respect to the value obtained from the MCC method, espe-
0.2 cially for those tests with the following load features: the sides of
the rectangle bounding the shear stress path, according to Eq. (13),
are of the same order of magnitude (see No. 41–50, and No. 56).
0.1
Such an increase makes the results less non-conservative, as can
be remarked by examining the error index I values plotted in Fig. 6,
0 where I (positive values of I correspond to conservative estima-
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
tions) is computed as follows:
ERROR INDEX, I [%] rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r 2
Fig. 6. Error index for the specimens No. 41–50, and No. 56 according to the N2a;eq þ C 2a  s af ;1  raf ;1
af ;1
modified C–S criterion, by applying: (a) the MCC method [33,34] and (b) the PH I¼ 100% ð15Þ
method [13–16]. raf ;1
More precisely, Fig. 6 shows the relative frequency of the error
index according to the modified C–S criterion by applying both
the PH method implementation in the modified C–S criterion, the the MCC method and the PH method for specimens No. 41–50,
aforementioned experimental tests are sorted in Table 1 on the and No. 56.
basis of the shear stress path types listed in the previous Section, Further, the minimum and the maximum values (extreme val-
that is: ues) of the error index I for each examined material are reported
in Table 2.
 specimens No. 1–9 [36], and No. 10 [37], characterised by shear The values of the error index, made by implementing both the
P
stress paths represented by line segments of type (a.1); MCC method and the PH method in the modified C–S criterion,

40
MCC method (a)
ERROR INDEX, I [%]

PH method I>0
20
CONSERVATIVE
0

-20
Proportional loadings
-40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SPECIMEN No.

50
MCC method (b)
ERROR INDEX, I [%]

30 PH method I>0
CONSERVATIVE
10

-10

-30
Non-proportional loadings
-50
32
33

36

38

41

44

46
47

49

51
52

54

57
11
12

14

16
17

19

22

27
28
29

31

34

37

39

42
43

48

53

56

58
13

18

21

23
24

26

35
30
25

40

45

50

55
15

20

SPECIMEN No.

Fig. 7. Error index values calculated by applying both the MCC method and the PH method to calculate Ca: (a) proportional loading; (b) non-proportional loading.
166 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167

are plotted in Fig. 7(a) and (b) for proportional and non-propor-
tional loading, respectively. Positive values of the error index indi-
cate conservative results.
The averaged absolute value of the error index related to the
MCC method implementation is equal to about 3% for proportional
loading and to 15% for non-proportional one. By implementing
the PH method, the averaged absolute value of the error index is
equal to about 3% for proportional loading and to 13% for non-
proportional one.
From such a comparison made by taking into account all the
data examined, the PH method and the MRC method have the
same accuracy for both proportional and non-proportional loading,
0.5
τaf,-1 / σaf,-1 ≤ 0.6
0.4
RELATIVE FREQUENCY
but the PH method is computationally more efficient than the MRC
one.
Note that this result (same accuracy) is due to the fact that we
have considered the averaged absolute value of the error index
computed taking into account all the tests. As a matter of fact, as
highlighted in Fig. 5, the PH method increases the value of Ca only
for the tests characterised by shear stress paths not too flatten, that
is, when the corresponding sides of the bounding rectangle, chosen
according to Eq. (13), are of the same order of magnitude. If only
the tests that have such a loading feature were considered (No.
41–50 and No. 56), the averaged absolute value of I would be equal
to 21% by implementing the MCC method, and equal to 13% by
implementing the PH method, that is, the multiaxial fatigue
strength evaluations derived through the modified C–S criterion
are improved if the shear stress amplitude is determined by apply-
(a) ing the PH method instead of the MCC method.
The relative frequency of the error index by applying the PH
method is plotted in Fig. 8, where the experimental data are col-

lected on the basis of the ratio between fully reversed shear stress
fatigue limit, saf,1, and the fully reversed normal stress fatigue
0.3 limit, raf,1. The following remarks can be made:

 For mild metals (saf,1/raf,1 < 0.6, see Fig. 8(a)), the absolute
0.2 error index value falls in the range of ±10% for 57% of the exam-
ined experimental tests;
 For hard metals (0.6 < saf,1/raf,1 < 0.9, see Fig. 8(b)), the corre-
0.1 sponding absolute error index value falls in the range of ±10%
for 59% of the examined experimental tests;
 For extremely hard metals (saf ;1 =raf ;1 P 0:9, see Fig. 8(c)), I
0.0
falls in the range of ±10% for 86% of the examined experimental
0.5 tests.
0.6 ≤ τaf,-1 / σaf,-1 ≤ 0.9 (b)
Finally, in order to compare the obtained evaluations with those
0.4
RELATIVE FREQUENCY

determined through other multiaxial criteria available in the liter-

ature, the Crossland [44], Papadopoulos et al. [45] and Gonçalves
et al. [14] criteria are applied to each experimental test in Table 1,
0.3
and the results are reported in Table 2.

0.2 5. Conclusions

In the present paper, the shear stress amplitude Ca acting on the

0.1 critical plane is computed by implementing both the MCC method
and the PH method in the modified C–S criterion. For the experi-
mental data here examined, the use of Ca implemented through
0.0 the PH method provides quite satisfactory multiaxial fatigue
0.5 strength estimations for experimental tests characterised by shear
τaf,-1 / σaf,-1 ≥ 0.9 (c) stress paths not too flatten. For example, the relative decrease of
the absolute error value by applying the PH method is equal to
0.4 88% for specimen No. 47.
RELATIVE FREQUENCY

Acknowledgements
0.3

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the

Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR)
0.2
under the project PRIN 2009 No. 2009Z55NWC_003.

0.1 References

[1] Carpinteri A. Handbook of fatigue crack propagation in metallic

structures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publisher B.V.; 1994.
0.0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 [2] Berto F, Lazzarin P, Kotousov A, Pook LP. Induced out-of-plane mode at the tip
of blunt lateral notches and holes under in-plane shear loading. Fatigue Fract
ERROR INDEX, I [%] Eng Mater Struct 2012;35:538–55.
[3] Pook LP. A 50-year retrospective review of three-dimensional effects at cracks
Fig. 8. Error index according to the modified C–S criterion by applying the PH and sharp notches. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2013;36:699–723.
method [13–16] and collecting the experimental data on the basis of saf,1/raf,1 [4] Berto F, Lazzarin P, Marangon C. Fatigue strength of notched specimens made
ratio: (a) saf,1/raf,1 6 0.6; (b) 0.6 < saf,1/raf,1 < 0.9; and (c) saf,1/raf,1 P 0.9. of 40CrMoV13.9 under multiaxial loading. Mater Des 2014;54:57–66.
 A. Carpinteri et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 159–167
[5] Wang Y-Y, Yao W-X. Evaluation and comparison of several multiaxial fatigue
criteria. Int J Fatigue 2004;26:17–25.
[6] You B-R, Lee S-B. A critical review on multiaxial fatigue assessments of metals.
Int J Fatigue 1996;18:235–44.
[7] Crossland B., Effect of large hydrostatic pressures on the torsional fatigue
strength of an alloy steel. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
fatigue of metals. ImechE London (UK); 1956. p. 138–49.
[8] Sines G, Ohgi G. Fatigue criteria under combined stresses or strains. J Eng
Mater Technol 1981;103:82–90.
[9] Hashin Z. Fatigue failure criteria for combined cyclic stress. Int J Fract
1981;17:101–9.
[10] Dietmann H, Bhongbhibhat T, Schmid A. Multiaxial fatigue behaviour of steels
under in-phase and out-of-phase loading, including different wave forms and
frequencies. In: Kussmaul K, McDiarmid DL, Socie D, editors. Fatigue under
biaxial and multiaxial loadings, ESIS 10. London (UK): Mechanical Eng
Publications; 1991. p. 449–64.
[11] Ballard P, Dang Van K, Deperrois A, Papadopoulos YV. High cycle fatigue and a
finite element analysis. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1995;18:397–411.
[12] Li B, Santos JLT, Freitas M. A unified numerical approach for multiaxial fatigue
limit evaluation. Mech Struct Mach 2000;28:85–103.
[13] Mamiya EN, Araújo JA. Fatigue limit under multiaxial loadings: on the
definition of the equivalent shear stress. Mech Res Commun 2002;29:141–51.
[14] Gonçalves CA, Araújo JA, Mamiya EN. Multiaxial fatigue: a simple stress based
criterion for hard metals. Int J Fatigue 2005;27:177–87.
[15] Mamiya EN, Araújo JA, Castro FC. Prismatic hull: a new measure of shear stress
amplitude in multiaxial high cycle fatigue. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:1144–53.
[16] Araújo JA, Dantas AP, Castro FC, Mamiya EN, Ferreira JLA. On the
characterization of the critical plane with a simple and fast alternative
measure of the shear stress amplitude in multiaxial fatigue. Int J Fatigue
2011;33:1092–100.
[17] Findley WN. A theory for the effect of mean stress on fatigue of metals under
combined torsion and axial load or bending. J Eng Ind Trans ASME
1959;81:301–6.
[18] Dang Van K. Sur la résistance a la fatigue des métaux. These de Doctorat es
Sciences. Sci Techniq l’Armement 1973;47:647–722.
[19] Matake T. An explanation on fatigue limit under combined stress. Bull JSME
1977;20:257–63.
[20] McDiarmid DL. A general criterion for high cycle multiaxial fatigue failure.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1991;14:429–53.
[21] Robert J-L. Contribution à l’étude de la fatigue multiaxiale sous sollicitations
périodiques ou aléatoires. Thèse Laboratoire de Mécanique des solides (INSA)
de Lyon; 1992.
[22] McDiarmid DL. A shear stress based critical-plane in the case of components
weakened by quite blunt criterion of multiaxial fatigue failure for design and
life prediction. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1994;17:1475–84.
[23] Susmel L, Lazzarin P. A bi-parametric Wöhler curve for high cycle multiaxial
fatigue assessment. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2002;25:63–78.
[24] Carpinteri A, Spagnoli A, Vantadori S. Multiaxial fatigue life estimation in
welded joints using the critical plane approach. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:188–96.
[25] Carpinteri A, Spagnoli A, Vantadori S. Multiaxial fatigue assessment using a
simplified critical plane-based criterion. Int J Fatigue 2011;33:969–76.
167
[26] Carpinteri A, Spagnoli A, Vantadori S, Bagni C. Structural integrity assessment
of metallic components under multiaxial fatigue: the C–S criterion and its
evolution. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2013;36:870–83.
[27] Carpinteri A, Spagnoli A. Multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criterion for hard
metals. Int J Fatigue 2001;23:135–45.
[28] Susmel L. Multiaxial notch fatigue. Cambridge (UK): Woodhead Publishing
Limited; 2009.
[29] Lemaitre J, Chaboche JL. Mechanics of solid materials. Cambridge
(UK): Cambridge University Press; 1990.
[30] Grubisic V, Simbürger A. Fatigue under combined out of phase multiaxial
stresses. In: Proceedings of international conference on fatigue testing and
design. London (UK): Society of Environmental Engineers; 1976. p. 27.1–8.
[31] Zouain N, Mamiya EN, Comes F. Using enclosing ellipsoids in multiaxial fatigue
strength criteria. Eur J Mech – A/Solids 2006;25:51–71.
[32] Li B, Reis L, de Freitas M. Comparative study of multiaxial fatigue damage models
for ductile structural steel and brittle materials. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:1895–906.
[33] Papadopoulos IV. Critical plane approaches in high-cycle fatigue: on the
definition of the amplitude and mean value of the shear stress acting on the
critical plane. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1998;21:269–85.
[34] Bernasconi A. Efficient algorithms for calculation of shear stress amplitude and
amplitude of the second invariant of the shear deviator in fatigue criteria
applications. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:649–57.
[35] Araujo JA, Carpinteri A, Ronchei C, Spagnoli A, Vantadori S. An alternative
definition of the shear stress amplitude based on the Maximum Rectangular
Hull method and application to the C–S (Carpinteri–Spagnoli) criterion.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2014;37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12180.
[36] Nishihara T., Kawamoto M., The strength of metals under combined
alternating bending and torsion with face difference. Kyoto Imperial
University, Memoirs of the College of Engineering, vol. 11; 1945. p. 85–112.
[37] Froustey C, Lasserre S. Multiaxial fatigue endurance of 30NCD16 steel. Int J
Fatigue 1989;11:169–75.
[38] Bhongbhibhat T. Festigkeitsverhalten von Stählen unter mehrachsiger
phasenverschobener Schwingbeanspruchung mit unterschiedlichen
Schwingungsformen und Frequenzen. Diss Uni Stuttgart 1986.
[39] Zenner H, Heidenreich R, Richter I. Dauerschwingfestigkeit bei nich
synchroner mehrachsiger Beanspruchung. Z Werkstofftech 1985;16:101–12.
[40] Troost A, Akin O, Klubberg F. Dauerfestigkeitsverhalten metallischer
Werkstoffe bei zweiachsiger Beanspruchung durch drei phasenverschobene
schwingende Lastspannungen. Konstruktion 1987;39:479–88.
[41] Heidenreich R, Zenner H, Richter I. Dauerschwingfestigkeit bei mehrachsiger
Beanspruchung. Forschungshefte FKM, Heft 105; 1983.
[42] Kaniut C. Zur Betriebsfestigkeit metallischer Werkstoffe bei mehrachsiger
Beanspruchung. Dizertation RWTH, Aachen, Germany; 1983.
[43] McDiarmid DL. Fatigue under out-of-phase biaxial stresses of different
frequencies. In: Miller KJ, Brown MW, editors. Multiaxial fatigue. ASTM STP
853; 1985. p. 606–21.
[44] Crossland B. Effect of large hydrostatic pressures on the torsional fatigue
strength of an alloy steel. Proc Int Conf Fatigue Met 1956:138–49.
[45] Papadopoulos IV, Davoli P, Gorla C, Filippini M, Bernasconi A. A comparative
study of multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criteria for metals. Int J Fatigue
1997;19:219–35.