International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

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

Verification of Class B S-N curve for fatigue design of steel forgings

Yan-Hui Zhang a,, Stephen J. Maddox a, Siakzar Manteghi b
a
b

Integrity Management Group, TWI Limited, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge CB21 6AL, UK
UEC Mechanical & Materials Engineering Team, BP Exploration Operating Company Limited, Chertsey Road, Sunbury TW16 7LN, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 7 March 2016
Received in revised form 15 July 2016
Accepted 18 July 2016
Available online 19 July 2016
Keywords:
Forging steel
BS 7608
Fatigue design
Class B S-N curve
Stress ratio

a b s t r a c t
Currently the fatigue design procedure for forged steel connectors in steel catenary risers (SCRs) is based
on the BS 7608 Class B S-N curve. However, there is very little direct support for this. Therefore, a fatigue
testing programme, including strip specimens and small-scale cylindrical machined specimens extracted
from actual forged J-lay connectors, was carried out to establish a suitable fatigue design procedure. The
effects of stress ratio and surface roughness on fatigue strength were investigated. On the basis of these
test results, together with available published data obtained from specimens that failed in plain steel, the
Class B S-N curve was verified. The method was particularly conservative for low stress ratios in the highcycle regime and a procedure based on the use of the Goodman diagram was devised for correcting the
Class B curve for mean stress. Surface roughness in the range investigated, between 3.2 and 8.1 lm in Ra,
had little effect on the fatigue performance of the forged steel.
2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Steel catenary risers (SCRs), made up of lengths of pipe girthwelded together with forged steel connectors introduced periodically to facilitate J-lay installation, provide a potential solution
for deepwater oil and gas production. However, they are subject
to severe fatigue loading. Some current projects involving the
design of deepwater SCR systems have drawn attention to doubts
surrounding the fatigue design procedure for plain steel components, such as forged steel mechanical connectors or J-lay collars.
Although in general it is expected that the girth welds will govern
allowable design stresses in the riser, the possibility that geometric
stress concentrations in the forgings could result in lower fatigue
lives cannot be discounted.
The fatigue design of forgings is commonly based on the BS
7608 Class B S-N curve [1]. However, there is very little direct evidence, including from tests on actual forged components, to support this approach. In contrast, there is a substantial database
obtained from structural components such as pressure vessels
and pipes [24], which suggests that the Class B S-N curve may
be too high, especially in the long-life regime that is of primary relevance to SCRs. As indicated in Fig. 1, the lower Class C may be
more suitable. An important feature that may invalidate this
database is the surface finish of the components concerned, which
varied from as-received plate to machined pressure vessels. The
relatively smooth surface finish adopted for forged pipeline
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Yanhui.zhang@twi.co.uk (Y.-H. Zhang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.07.015
0142-1123/ 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

components may result in considerably better fatigue performance

than the structural components featured in the database. However,
this needs to be confirmed.
On the other hand, the fatigue performance of forged pipeline
components may be better than Class B. Apart from the anticipated
benefit of a good surface finish it should be borne in mind that
Class B was derived on the basis of fatigue test results obtained
from welded specimens [5]. These were continuous longitudinal
butt welds, which are the highest fatigue strength weld details,
and fatigue cracking generally initiated on the surface from weld
ripples. Thus, their surface finish is not at all comparable with that
for machined components. In addition, the welded specimens used
to generate the Class B data will certainly have contained very high
tensile residual stresses. These have the effect of producing very
high effective mean stresses regardless of the applied mean stress,
resulting in fatigue performance that reflects the most severe
applied tensile mean stress conditions. Such conditions would be
too severe for many practical applications of plain steel components, making the Class B curve too conservative. Having said this,
parts of a riser system operate under relatively high static stresses
which result in high stress ratios (R = minimum/maximum applied
stress), up to 0.8, when the fatigue loading is superimposed. Thus,
high mean stress conditions are also relevant in this context. In
general, it will be evident that fatigue design guidance is required
for the full range of applied mean stresses.
In view of the situation described above, a testing programme
was carried out to produce a relevant fatigue database and to
establish a suitable fatigue design procedure for plain steel components, focusing particularly on large forged steel pipe connectors.

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

247

Fig. 1. Fatigue test results obtained from pressure vessels, pipes, forging and plate that all failed in the plain steel remote from any welds [24].

2. Approach
Two types of tests were carried out to evaluate the fatigue
design of steel forgings. Both were based on fatigue endurance data
obtained experimentally from the steel used for the mechanical
connector. The first type of tests was performed on strip specimens
extracted from actual forged J-lay connectors. These specimens
retained the geometric details and the surface finish of the connector. Consequently, it was hoped that they would exhibit very similar fatigue performance to the full-scale connector and hence
provide relevant fatigue data directly. This approach is similar to
that widely used to evaluate girth welds. The influence on fatigue
strength of surface finish and applied mean stress were investigated with these specimens.
The second type of tests was that commonly used in the fatigue
design of machined components, using fatigue endurance data
obtained from small-scale smooth specimens of the material. Fatigue curves based on such data are used in conjunction with an
appropriate stress concentration factor (SCF) or fatigue strength
reduction factor, for the geometry of the actual component, to calculate its fatigue life. To investigate this approach, fatigue tests
were performed on small cylindrical specimens without stress concentration features. However, rather than using polished specimens, the specimens were prepared to the same surface finish as
the mechanical connector after machining. This avoided the need
to apply any correction factors other than the geometric SCF associated with the mechanical connector. Both low-cycle fatigue (LCF)
tests under strain control and high-cycle fatigue (HCF) tests under
load control were carried out to generate the relevant endurance
database.
In addition, the published data obtained from specimens that
failed in plain steel were also analysed to evaluate the fatigue
design of steel forgings.
3. Experiments
3.1. Materials
Test specimens were taken from two forged steel pipe connectors with J-lay collars, Fig. 2. The outside diameter (OD) and the
wall thickness (WT) of the pipe away from the collar were
610.0 mm and 26.7 mm, respectively. The stress at the cross

section with this smallest WT was defined as the nominal stress.

This WT increased to
32.5 mm approximately 58 mm from the
collar. The OD and the length of the collar were 809.5 mm and
153.7 mm, respectively, giving a collar height of
94 mm above
the adjacent pipe surface. The connectors were made of A707 steel
with specified minimum yield (SMYS) and tensile (SMTS) strengths
of 448 MPa and 552 MPa respectively.

3.2. Strip specimens

3.2.1. Specimen design and stress analysis
With the aim of designing strip test specimens that retained the
features that were expected to influence fatigue strength, notably
geometric details and surface finish, finite element (FE) modelling
of the stress distribution was implemented using ABAQUS FE analysis software. Eight-noded brick elements with reduced integration were used (ABAQUS element code C3D8R). The mesh was
refined around the anticipated stress concentration regions, the
thickness and width transitions on the outer surface. The model
was elastic with a Youngs Modulus of 207,000 MPa and a Poissons
ratio of 0.3.
It was anticipated that waisted strip specimens with the collar
in the middle, along the lines of that shown in Fig. 3, would be suitable. A preliminary analysis of a full-scale model of a connector in
tension indicated that the region with the highest SCF, defined as
the local stress divided by the nominal stress, was the wall thickness transition radius, not the collar corner radius. The same was
found by FEA of a strip specimen under axial loading, although
the SCFs were lower in the strip than in the full-scale model
(1.28 compared with 1.77). In this case, the model assumed that
the clamps that gripped the specimen in the testing machine were
stiff and, therefore, that it was fixed in all directions at the clamping surfaces. Appropriate boundary conditions were applied to
simulate the half width symmetry. The strip specimen model
was then modified to explore the effect of removing part of the collar, anticipating that this would reduce the difficulty and cost of
producing specimens from the connector. This showed that there
was no change in the SCF at the thickness transition radius, which
was still the region of highest SCF, when the collar height was
reduced to around 50 mm. However, in contrast to the behaviour
of the full-scale connector, the large difference in stiffness between
the outside and inside surfaces due to the presence of the collar,

248

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Connector H

Connector L

Fig. 2. Forged steel connectors from which test specimens were extracted (courtesy of BP).

Fig. 3. Design of strip specimens. Specimens L-03 and L-04 were prepared with the collar partly removed to give a thickness of 49.2 mm. The remaining strip specimens were
prepared with the whole collar removed, to give a thickness at the collar of 32.5 mm.

produced a high secondary bending stress component that produced a tensile stress on the inside surface. The importance of this
became apparent when fatigue tests were performed on trial strip
specimens with
50 mm high collars, one of which failed near the
grips from the inside surface. Since, in reality, actual connectors are
more likely to fail from the stress concentrating features on the
outer surface, this design was considered to be unsuitable.
Further FE modelling indicated that complete removal of the
collar, leaving that region flush with the neighbouring outside surface, reduced the bending stress induced by the thickness change
considerably, without significantly changing the SCFs on the outside surface. This can be seen in Fig. 4, which compares the FEA
stress contours for the partial (Fig. 4(a)) and complete (Fig. 4(b))

removal of the collar. Complete removal of the collar has slightly

reduced the SCF at the thickness transition radius, from 1.47 to
1.30, but this still remains as the region of maximum SCF. Therefore, this specimen design, which is shown in Fig. 3, was the one
finally adopted. It possessed the particular features of retention
of the original surface finish and geometry, and hence SCFs at the
critical locations, and reduction of the secondary bending stress.
3.2.2. Surface finish
Two types of surface finish were adopted for the strip specimens. One represented the surface condition after the machining
of a connector, corresponding to a surface roughness of 3.2 lm in
Ra, and this was applied to the specimens from Connector L. The

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

249

Fig. 4. FE prediction of the axial stress (same as the maximum principal stress) distribution for the two designs of the strip specimen: (a) 49.2 mm thick at the collar (the
collar being partly removed); (b) 32.5 mm thick at the collar (the collar being completely removed).

250

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

other represented the surface condition prior to coating, 8.1 lm in

Ra, and this was applied to the specimens from Connector H. However, the edges of all the strip specimens were carefully ground
longitudinally to prevent premature failure from the edge.
3.2.3. Strain gauging
Most specimens were instrumented with strain gauges in the
regions of the expected failure location, as indicated in Fig. 3. The
resulting maximum SCFs, usually at the thickness transition, are
recorded in Table 1. In general, they were comparable with those
estimated by FEA.
3.2.4. Fatigue testing
The specimens were tested under constant amplitude tensile
axial loading in a 1000 kN servo-hydraulic fatigue testing machine
at a frequency of 25 Hz in laboratory air at ambient temperature.
Two pairs of packers were used in gripping the ends of each specimen with wedge jaws. Two stress ratios (R = rmin/rmax) were used,
0.1 and 0.4, and stress ranges were selected to cover the endurance
range 1052  106 cycles.

3.3.2. Low-cycle fatigue (LCF) tests under strain control

The local strain fatigue analysis method requires the cyclic
properties of the material. These were produced from LCF tests
performed under strain control in a 100 kN servo-hydraulic universal testing machine, the strain being controlled using an extensometer. The tests were conducted in air at 22 C, at a strain
ratio (minimum strain/maximum strain) of R = 1 and a strain rate
of 60.0%/min. A total of ten tests were performed in accordance
with BS 7270 [6]. The fatigue endurance was defined as 10% drop
of the maximum stress in a stabilised cyclic loop.
3.3.3. High-cycle fatigue tests under load control
The aim of the high-cycle fatigue (HCF) tests was to investigate
the extent to which such relatively simple tests could be relied
upon to establish the fatigue strength of a large forging. Furthermore, the results can supplement the LCF data at long endurance
where elastic strain is predominant. A total of ten tests were conducted in line with the guidance [7]. The specimens were tested in
an Amsler Vibrophore fatigue test machine at a stress ratio R = 0.1
and a frequency of
130 Hz. Since the upper yield strength of the
material was about 536 MPa, the maximum stress was kept below
this value in order to avoid plastic collapse of the test specimen.

3.3. Small cylindrical specimen

4. Fatigue test results
3.3.1. Specimen design
Standard uniform-gauge test section cylindrical specimens
were used for both low- and high-cycle tests. In the former the
gauge diameter d was 6 mm and the gauge length l was 14 mm.
In the latter, both d and l were greater (d = 8 mm and
l = 25.4 mm) to facilitate fatigue testing using an Amsler Vibrophore fatigue test machine. The specimens for both test types were
machined to give a surface finish corresponding to 3.2 lm in Ra in
the longitudinal direction.

4.1. Strip specimens

4.1.1. Fatigue tests
The test results obtained from the strip specimens are summarised in Table 1. The table also provides information about failure location, the maximum SCF obtained from the strain gauge
measurements in the specimen gauge section (or from FEA if not
instrumented) and the corresponding local stress range, nomi-

Table 1
Summary of fatigue test results from the strip specimen.
Specimen
no.

Endurance,
Nf

Nominal
stress range
(MPa)

SCFb

Local stress
range (MPa)

Stress
ratio R

Failure location

Included in
regression
analysis

L-03a
L-04a
L-05
L-09
L-10
L-11
L-14
L-15
L-16
L-17
H-01
H-02
H-03
H-04
H-05
H-06
H-07
L-06
L-07
L-08
L-12
L-13
L-18
H-08
H-09
H-10
H-11

3.08E+05
3.15E+05
3.15E+05
3.18E+05
6.27E+06
1.29E+05
1.34E+05
1.30E+06
2.50E+05
8.62E+04
1.02E+05
1.86E+05
1.61E+05
1.94E+06
5.35E+06
6.65E+04
2.83E+06
1.51E+06
2.18E+06
3.02E+06
2.92E+06
3.41E+05
3.99E+05
2.12E+05
4.66E+05
2.55E+06
4.07E+05

387
350
400
427
325
450
450
400
427
470
427
400
450
375
350
470
387
267
247
280
300
320
320
320
300
280
290

1.37
1.37
1.24
1.30
1.20
1.26
1.23
1.29
1.26
1.19
1.25
1.29
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.38
1.30
1.26
1.24
1.23
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30

530
480
496
555
390
567
554
516
538
559
534
516
585
488
455
611
503
368
321
353
372
394
416
416
390
364
377

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

On outside surface, within the specimen gauge section

On outside surface, out of the specimen gauge section
From an inclusion, within the gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
Run out
From an inclusion near outside surface, within the gauge section
On the outside surface, within the gauge section
From an inclusion near the inside surface, within gauge section
From an inclusion near outside surface, within gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
From an inclusion, within specimen gauge section
Run out
On outside surface, within the gauge section
From an inclusion near outside surface, within gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
From an inclusion near inside surface, within gauge section
At the clamping area
On outside surface, within gauge section
On outside surface, within gauge section
Multiple cracking on outside surface, within gauge section
Multiple cracking on outside surface, within gauge section
On outside surface, within the gauge section
Run out
On outside surface, within the gauge section

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

a
The specimen design for all specimens is shown in Fig. 3. The thickness at the central part was 49.2 mm for specimens L-03 and L-04, but 32.5 mm for the remaining
specimens.
b
For specimens instrumented with strain gauges, the SCF was the value determined from strain gauges. For specimens without strain gauges, a SCF value 1.30, determined
from FEA, was used (shown in bold).

251

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

nal  SCF. It should be noted that, although majority of these SCFs

corresponded to the failure sites, they represented the maximum
values in the specimens when failures occurred at locations out
of the gauge section (for example, on the inside surface, or the gripping area). Fatigue failures occurred predominantly on the outside
surface in the specimen gauge section, ie, the area with the smallest WT and specimen width on each side of the removed collar.
The fatigue lives of all strip specimens, including those that
either ran-out or failed outside the gauge section, are plotted in
Fig. 5 in terms of local stress range. Referring to Fig. 5, it will be evident that, for each R value, there was no noticeable difference in
fatigue performance between the two connectors, indicating that
the difference in their surface finish, 3.2 compared with 8.1 lm,
was not significant. The BS 7608 Class B mean and design curves
[1] are also included in Fig. 5 for comparison. It can be seen that
all the results exceeded the Class B mean curve, especially in the
long life regime (>106 cycles). Fatigue strength is often expressed
as an S-N curve with the following form:

Dr m  N A

Table 2
Results of regression analysis for fitting S-N curve to strip specimen data.
Stress ratio
R = 0.1
R = 0.4

Connector
L+H
L+H

Sample size
14
8

Amean
42

2.67  10
1.31  1029

Exponent m

SD

13.54
9.02

0.349
0.295

where A and m are constants characterising the S-N curve. Curves of

this form were fitted to the valid test results for each R value in
Table 1 by regression analysis. On the basis that surface finish differences had no significant effect on fatigue performance, the
results from the two connectors were combined for this analysis.
The resulting values of the parameters A, m and standard deviation
(SD) of log(N) determined for each R value are given in Table 2 and
the best-fit curves are shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the fatigue
endurance at R = 0.4 was consistently lower than that for R = 0.1,
notably in the long life regime. Qualification of a specific design
S-N curve on the basis of a limited number of test results can be justified with 95% confidence if the mean curve fitted to the test results
exceeds the following target curve [8]:

Fig. 6. Typical fracture surface, showing crack initiation on the outside surface of a
strip specimen, (specimen L-12).

was the number of valid test results for R = 0.4; it was 14 for
R = 0.1), the target curve to support Class B is also included in
Fig. 5. Since all the test results, including those from specimens that
either ran-out or failed outside the specimen gauge section,
exceeded this target curve, it can be concluded that the data meet
Class B at the selected confidence level. With increasing sample
size, the target curve will merge with the Class B mean curve.

where AM and SD are the constant and standard deviation of log(N)

associated with the mean curve for the design curve to be qualified,
and, in this context, n is the number of test results. The SD was
0.182 and the value of 1.645 is obtained from standard normal
probability tables at a confidence of 95%. By taking the same slope
as the Class B design curve and assuming a sample size of eight (this

4.1.2. Failure locations and investigation

Fatigue cracking in most specimens initiated at the thickness
transition location on the outside of the original connector surface
where the highest SCF was predicted by FEA. Fig. 6 shows an example. A striking feature of the forging material was that fatigue
cracking sometimes initiated from a subsurface defect as shown

logAtarget logAM

1:645SD
p
n

Fig. 5. Comparison of the test results (all data in Table 1 were included) of the strip specimens with the Class B mean and design curves. The Class B target curve for an
assumed sample size of eight is also included for comparison. The data with an arrow indicates run-out.

252

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

in the example in Fig. 7 (marked with number 1). The defect was
identified to be an aluminium oxide inclusion using energy dispersive spectrum (EDS) analysis.
Fig. 8 compares the endurances of those specimens failing from
a subsurface inclusion with those of the specimens failing from the
specimen surface. As will be seen, there is no significant difference
between them in the case of the data obtained at R = 0.1. For the
tests conducted at R = 0.4, only one specimen failed from an inclusion and its endurance appeared to be on the lower bound of the
data for that stress ratio.

where the cyclic hysteresis loops were considered to be stabilised.

The results from the ten specimens tested under strain control are
summarised in Table 3. Fig. 9 shows an example of the tensile
stress-strain curve and the hysteresis loop in the first cycle. The
LCF data are also plotted in Fig. 10 in terms of strain amplitude
against number of reversals to failure, 2Nf.
Based on the LCF test results, and by using Neubers rule [9] to
relate the local stress/strain ranges with the remote stress/strain
ranges, the cyclic properties of the material were determined
[10] and are given in Table 4.

4.2. Small cylindrical specimens

4.2.2. Load controlled tests

The results obtained from the small cylindrical specimens
tested under load control are summarised in Table 5. Only three
of the ten specimens tested failed in the gauge section, with the
remainder either failing from the thread in the specimen gripping

4.2.1. Strain controlled tests

For each specimen tested, the elastic and plastic strain amplitudes in the cyclic loop were determined at half of its endurance,

Outside surface

Fig. 7. An example of fatigue failure from an inclusion (specimen H-04). In this example, the inclusion was about 0.8 mm long, 0.2 mm high and 2.3 mm from the outside
surface.

Fig. 8. Comparison of the fatigue performance of the specimens failing from an inclusion with that of the specimens failing from specimen surfaces.

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

area (treated as run-outs) or remaining unbroken. Fig. 11 compares

these test results with those obtained from the strip specimens at
the same stress ratio (R = 0.1), together with the Class B mean S-N
curve. As can be seen, all the results are above the Class B mean
curve. Allowing for scatter in the larger number of strip specimen
results, the two specimen types have given very similar fatigue
performance.

Table 3
LCF test results from the small cylindrical specimens tested under strain control.
Specimen
no.

Strain
amplitude

Fatigue tests under strain

4560
5.00E03
4561
2.50E03
4562
1.00E02
4563
2.00E03
4564
3.50E03
4565
5.00E03
4566
3.50E03
4567
7.50E03
4568
7.50E03
4569
2.50E03

Youngs
modulus
(MPa)
control
203,200
206,600
203,400
206,100
205,100
207,700
205,800
202,600
208,400
205,700

Endurance,
Nf, cycles

2395
32,163
309
288,463
4841
1954
6655
572
401
25,111

Elastic
strain
amplitude
0.0024
0.0002
0.0070
0.0001
0.0010
0.0024
0.0010
0.0046
0.0048
0.0003

Plastic
strain
amplitude
0.0026
0.0023
0.0030
0.0020
0.0025
0.0026
0.0026
0.0030
0.0028
0.0023

253

5. Analyses of the fatigue test results

5.1. Strip specimens
The fatigue test results obtained from the strip specimens were
assessed as the basis for the fatigue design of full-scale forged components, with particular reference to SCRs. In this context, it is
often necessary to consider higher tensile mean stress conditions
than those investigated here. To illustrate a possible approach to
fatigue design under higher stress ratios, the present results from
strip specimens were analysed using the well-known Goodman
correction. Goodman proposed the following equation to relate
fatigue endurance limits at different mean stresses:


DrR DrR1 1 

rm
rUTS


3

where rUTS is the tensile strength of the material, DrR=1 is the fatigue limit at R = 1 and DrR is the fatigue limit to be estimated for
constant amplitude cyclic loading with a mean stress of rm.
The strip specimens were only tested at R = 0.1 and R = 0.4, not
at R = 1. Therefore, the above Goodman expression was modified
to calculate the fatigue limit at a higher mean stress, rm,R, using as
reference the experimental data obtained at R = 0.1, as follows:

Fig. 9. An example, showing the tensile stress-strain curve and the first cyclic hysteresis loop (specimen 4560).

Fig. 10. LCF test results for small cylindrical specimens tested under strain control.

254

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Table 4
Cyclic properties of forged steel determined from the LCF tests.
Youngs modulus
(MPa)
Static

Cyclic

203,000

195,000

0.073

Failure location

S-01
S-02
S-03
S-04
S-05

400
420
450
450
475

1.40E+06
3.21E+06
1.23E+06
2.00E+07
6.10E+05

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

S-06
S-07

465
475

1.04E+07
3.49E+05

0.1
0.1

S-08
S-09
S-10

465
470
475

5.92E+06
5.73E+06
4.10E+05

0.1
0.1
0.1

From threaded end

From threaded end
From threaded end
Run out
Specimen gauge
section
From threaded end
Specimen gauge
section
From threaded end
From threaded end
Specimen gauge
section



rm;R
1  rUTS


r
1  m;R0:1
rUTS

1R
, the above equation is equivalent to:
1R

  
1R
1 2rUTS  1R
X

where

X

DrR0:1
r

1  m;R0:1
rUTS

0.709

761

R
ratio

DrR 

0.688

536

Endurance, Nf,
cycles

rm D2rR

0.063

Fatigue strength
coefficient

Stress range
(MPa)

Since

876

Cyclic strain
hardening exponent
n0

Specimen
no.

DrR0:1

ef0

Fatigue ductility
exponent
c

Cyclic strength
coefficient
K0

Table 5
HCF test results from the small cylindrical specimens tested under load control.

DrR

Fatigue ductility
coefficient

rf0

Fatigue strength
exponent
b

Average yield
strength,
(MPa)

It should be pointed out that the derivation of the above equation relies on the assumption that the fatigue data obtained at
R = 0.1 are consistent with the Goodman equation.
To verify the Goodman equation, the fatigue limit for R = 0.4
was calculated using Eq. (5), together with the mean fatigue limit
obtained at R = 0.1, and compared with the experimental value.
The present fatigue tests were not designed specifically to
determine fatigue limits. However, these can be estimated on the
basis of extrapolation of the S-N curves fitted to the results. It is
generally found that the fatigue limit for a smooth specimen corresponds to the applied stress range at an endurance of between
2  106 and 107 cycles on the S-N curve fitted to the results
obtained from failed specimens, depending on the type of specimen. Comparison of the mean curves and the experimental data
in Fig. 5 suggests that 107 cycles would be a reasonable choice
for the present specimens. On this basis, the estimated fatigue limits obtained from the fitted mean S-N curves are 413 MPa for
R = 0.1 and 283 MPa for R = 0.4. Recalling that the specified minimum rUTS of the present forgings was 552 MPa, and noting that
a stress range of 413 MPa at R = 0.1 corresponds to rm,R=0.1 =
252 MPa, from Eq. (6) X = 761 MPa. Thus, from Eq. (5):

761


292 MPa
DrR0:4
761
1 1104
 10:4
10:4
It is considered that this agrees sufficiently well with the experimental value of 283 MPa to validate the Goodman correction.
On this basis, the estimated fatigue limit for R = 0.8 is 106 MPa,
a considerable reduction. Indeed, it may be noted that this value is

lower than the mean Class B fatigue limit and approaches the
design value of 100 MPa. In view of this there is a clear need for
fatigue design data that are related to the applied mean stress or
stress ratio. This contrasts with the current approach using Class
B in conjunction with the applied stress range regardless of mean
stress, on the basis that the design curve already includes the most
harmful influence of mean stress.
The analysis so far has produced estimates of the effect of
applied stress ratio on the constant amplitude fatigue limit. In
practice, corresponding S-N curves are required. There does not
seem to be an accepted relationship, comparable with the Goodman equation, between fatigue strength and stress ratio that could
be used to estimate such curves. However, what is clear is that S-N
curves obtained at different stress ratios converge in the low-cycle
regime. Logically they should approach some critical stress value,
such as yield or rUTS. However, in practice it is not so simple and
S-N curves in the low endurance regime are not easily correlated,
due to such factors as stress redistribution at stress concentrations,
material changes at high stress and even deviation from a linear
S-N curve. Therefore, in the present exercise it was decided to
locate the convergence point on the Class B S-N curve. Taking the
experimental data shown in Fig. 5 as a guide, convergence at
N = 2  104 cycles seems reasonable. This is illustrated in Fig. 12,
which compares the experimental data and calculated S-N curves
based on the fatigue limits deduced using the Goodman equation
and convergence at N = 2  104 cycles on the Class B mean S-N
curve.
It will be noted from Fig. 12 that the Class B curve coincides
with the calculated curve for R = 0.76. This seems entirely reasonable since, as noted earlier, the Class B curve was derived from fatigue test data obtained from welded specimens containing very
high tensile residual stresses. These would have had the effect of
producing a very high effective stress ratio for any applied cyclic
stress. Of course, the Class B database specimens did not have
the good surface finish achieved in the present steel forgings. However, it is not inconceivable that surface finish has less effect on
fatigue performance under high stress ratios.
Thus, it is suggested that the approach used to calculate the S-N
curves in Fig. 12 is a suitable basis for the fatigue design of steel
components. In particular, the current Class B design curve would
be retained as the appropriate one for high applied tensile mean
stresses or stress ratios, specifically for R P 0.76. Then, S-N curves
for lower R values would be calculated as follows:
(a) Taking the Class B design curve as reference and assuming
that it applies for R = 0.76, the design fatigue limit,
DrR=0.76, is 100 MPa, at which rm,R=0.76 = 367 MPa. Thus,
from Eq. (6), X 100=1  367=rUTS . Using as an example
the present forgings, for which the specified minimum rUTS
is 552 MPa, X = 298 MPa.
(b) Eq. (5) is then used in conjunction with this X value to calculate the design fatigue limits for other R values. Following
the example of the present forgings,

Dr R 

298
298
 
 
298
 1R
1 1104
1 0:27 1R
1R
1R

Then, for example, DrR=0.1 = 224 MPa and DrR=0.4 = 183 MPa.

255

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Fig. 11. Comparison of the fatigue endurances for the strip and small cylindrical specimens tested under load control, all at R = 0.1 (local stress for the strip specimens and
nominal stress for the small cylindrical specimens).

Stress range, MPa

1000

500
R=0.1
R=0.4

Strip specimens
R = 0.1
R = 0.4

300

200

Unbroken
Predicted using Goodman equation
and assuming intersection of S-N curves
4
with Class B curve at N=2x10 cycles

R=0.76
Class B mean

100
10

10

10

10

2x10

Endurance, cycles
Fig. 12. Comparison of the fatigue performance at R = 0.4 between the experimental data and the prediction based on the experimental data at R = 0.1 and the Goodmans
equation.

(c) The S-N curve for the required R value is constructed on the
basis that it joins the co-ordinates, on a log-log diagram, DrR
at 107 cycles and 474 MPa at 2  104 cycles, where it meets
the Class B design curve. Expressing the equation of the
required S-N curve as Eq. (1), the constants m and A can be
obtained from:

!


log107  log2x104
2:70

m
log DrR  log 474
log DrR  2:6758
7

The local strain approach relates deformation occurring in the

immediate vicinity of a stress concentration to the remote stresses
and strains using the constitutive response determined from fatigue tests on simple laboratory specimens. Thus, by combining both
the Basquin and Coffin-Manson [11,12] equations, the fatigue life
of a notch is related to the total strain range. Fatigue life prediction
using the local strain approach was composed of the following
steps:
 Determination of cyclic stress-strain curve

and

A 20; 000  474

5.2. Life predictions based on the local strain approach

Following the above example, DrR=0.1 = 224 MPa, in which case

m = 8.30 and A = 3.23  1026. Fig. 13 illustrates possible design
curves for various R values, including R = 0.1 and 0.4, in comparison
with the present experimental data. It can be seen that each set of
data lies well above the corresponding design curve.

A stabilised cyclic stress-strain curve of a material can be

described by the following equation:

 1=n0

r
r
e ee ep 0
E

where

256

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Stress range, MPa

1000

500

Strip specimens
R = 0.1
R = 0.4

300

200

R=0.1
R=0.4

Unbroken
Predicted using Goodman equation
and assuming intersection of S-N curves
4
with Class B curve at N=2x10 cycles

R=0.6

Class B design

100
10

10

10

R 0.76

10

2x10

Endurance, cycles
Fig. 13. Examples of design curves for plain steel operating at different stress ratios based on proposed method of deriving design S-N curves from the Class B curve and the
Goodman mean stress correction.

ee is elastic strain amplitude

ep is plastic strain amplitude

DrDe

n is cyclic strain hardening exponent

K0 is cyclic strength coefficient

Basquins equation correlates fatigue endurance with elastic

strain range. It is expressed as:

r0f 

2N f b

11

b is fatigue strength exponent

e0f is fatigue ductility coefficient
c is fatigue ductility exponent
By plotting the elastic and plastic strain ranges against number
of reversals, the above four material parameters were determined
and are shown in Table 4.
 Determination of local strain at a notch
The local strain approach relates deformation occurring in the
immediate vicinity of a stress concentration to the remote stresses
and strains using the constitutive response. Neubers rule [9]
relates the local stress/strain ranges with the remote stress/strain
ranges by:

K t DS2
E

Kt  1
1 aqn

12

where Kt is SCF and DS is nominal stress range. Eq. (12) was modified by Topper et al. [13] as:

14

where q is the radius at a notch, an is a material parameter and is

related to the tensile strength, rUTS, of the material. Peterson proposed [15]:

an 2:5  102

where
Dee and Dep are respectively elastic and plastic and strain
range;
2Nf is number of reversals to failure (1 cycle = 2 reversals);
r0f is fatigue strength coefficient

DrDe

Kf 1

10

The Coffin-Manson equation correlates fatigue endurance with

plastic strain range. It is expressed as:

Dep
e0f 2Nf c
2

13

where Kf is fatigue notch factor. Peterson [14] proposed the following equation for estimating Kf of a material:

 Determine the relevant parameters in the Basquin and CoffinManson equations

Dee

K f DS2
E


1:8
2068

rUTS

unit; mm

15

 Life prediction
The strain amplitude v number of reversals to failure curve predicted using the parameters in Table 4 is compared with the LCF
test results in Fig. 10. The prediction agrees well with the experimental data, verifying the correctness of these parameters.
Morrow [16] modified the above Coffin-Manson equation,
which refers to R = 1, to take account of mean stress:

Det

r0f  rm 
E

2Nf b e0f 2Nf c

16

The resulting endurance curve predicted using this equation for

R = 0.1 is shown in comparison with the experimental data in
Fig. 14. As these specimens were loaded in the elastic regime, the
stress ranges were converted to strain ranges using Hookes law.
Good agreement was again found between the experimental data
and the prediction for R = 0.1.
The cyclic material properties were then used to calculate the
fatigue performance of the strip specimens. Each local stress range
from the strip specimen was converted to strain range using Neubers rule. The predicted curve is shown in comparison with the
experimental data in Fig. 15. It will be seen that it is in reasonable
agreement with the mean curve fitted to the data for R = 0.1, but
not for R = 0.4. Judged by eye, the predicted line might be
accepted as a reasonable fit to the test results but the slope of that
line was found to be outside the range of possible values based on
the confidence limits on the estimated slope of the mean curve fitted to those results by regression analysis. In other words, there is
a very low probability that an S-N curve fitted to the experimental

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

257

Fig. 14. Comparison of the predicted S-N curves with the experimental data of the small cylindrical specimens at R = 1 and R = 0.1.

Fig. 15. Comparison of the predicted mean S-N curves, based on the LCF properties of the material, with the experimental data of the strip specimens at R = 0.1 and R = 0.4
(local stress for the strip specimens and nominal stress for the small cylindrical specimens).

data has such a shallow slope as the predicted line. It would seem
that a mean stress correction is required that changes the slope of
the predicted line as well as its position.
6. Comparison with data from Norsk Hydro TLP forgings
Fatigue testing of several high-strength quenched and tempered (QT) steels for tension leg platform (TLP) application was
performed by Veritec on behalf of Norsk Hydro [17]. The testing
programme was to establish the S-N design curve for these steels
and to investigate the effects of steel tensile strength and surface
roughness on fatigue performance. Since both the strengths and
surface finish of these QT steels were similar to that of the steel
forgings investigated in this paper, and the tests were conducted
at several different stress ratios, an opportunity was taken to
examine the S-N curves proposed using these test data. It is noted
that the DNVGL-RP-C203 HS (high strength) S-N curve is based on
these fatigue test data.
The programme involved forgings from three manufacturers
and various specimen types (plates with and without a notch,

cylindrical), surface finish conditions and loading conditions, as

summarised in Table 6. For each set of fatigue testing, fatigue tests
were conducted at three different stress levels. Most tests involved
cycling down from a fixed high tensile stress (500 MPa), so that R
increased with decrease in applied stress range.
The Veritec fatigue data are compared with those from the strip
specimens in Fig. 16. It should be borne in mind that, as noted
above, results from the Veritec data that were produced with constant maximum stresses resulted in stress ratios that varied from
around R = 0.1 at higher stress ranges and R = 0.4 at low. However,
the present tests on the strip specimens were performed at two
constant stress ratios. It can be seen from Fig. 16 that all the endurance data obtained in the Veritec testing programme exceeded the
Class B design curve, especially in the long life regime.
Noting that the Veritec database includes many results obtained
from un-notched specimens with a similar surface finish to the
present specimens and tested at the two stress ratios used in
the present investigation, R = 0.1 and 0.4, the value of combining
the data was explored. Of particular interest was any indication
that the data used to develop the proposed design approach in

258

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Table 6
Summary of some details of the Veritec testing programme relevant to the present project [17].
Activity

Manufacturer

Yield/tensile strengths (MPa)

SCF

Surface roughness, Ra (lm)

Number of specimens tested

Maximum cyclic stress applied (MPa)

1
2
4
5
10

Bjrneborg
Bjrneborg
JSW steel
Ternil
Bjrneborg

515/627
515/627
563/616
Varied, 500609/641720
515/627

1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0

3.2
3.2
3.2
0.160.24
0.160.24

80
20
20
20
10

500
Varied, 500650
500
Varied
500

Fig. 16. Comparison of the present fatigue test data and published data for QT steel forgings [17]. The nominal stress was used for specimens with SCF = 1.0 while the local
stress was used for specimens with SCF > 1.0.

Section 5.1 may be invalid. At the same time, it was an opportunity

to check the proposed design S-N curves for these two stress ratios.
The relevant results for the two stress ratios are shown in Fig. 17,
together with the Class B design curve and the proposed curve for
the appropriate stress ratio. In the case of the larger number of
results obtained at R = 0.1, Fig. 17(a), combining the present strip
and high-cycle fatigue data with those from the Terni and JSW
specimens results in a mean S-N curve very similar to that fitted
to the strip specimen data alone. Thus, these extra data support
the basic S-N curve used in the derivation of the design approach.
However, adding the Bjrneborg results leads to very poor correlation between the data and an estimated mean S-N curve that is
clearly far too steep. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the disproportionate influence of the large number of results obtained at a
single stress level. Combining the available data obtained at
R = 0.4, Fig. 17(b), had a similar effect, for the same reason. Thus,
the extra data are generally in agreement with the present results,
but considering them in the derivation of the proposed design
approach in Section 5.1 would have been difficult and would not
have justified any significant changes to the final proposed design
approach. Furthermore, all the extra data lie above the proposed
design curves.
7. Discussion
Designers of mechanical connectors use or reference the Class B
design curve as the lower bound for their analyses. As noted earlier, in contrast to the design curves that relate to welded joints,
this design curve was not based on fatigue data obtained from representative specimens. Data from the plain steel specimens had
been considered in the original evaluation of fatigue test results
[18], but the resulting potential design curve was considered to
be too high in comparison with data obtained from structural

components. Instead, it was decided to base the design S-N curve

for plain unwelded steel on fatigue data obtained from the highest
fatigue strength weld detail, that is the longitudinal butt weld.
Comparison with the present experimental data, as well as those
from other sources, did not support the general application of Class
B for fatigue design of machined components such as the present
forged steel connectors. It is too conservative in the long life
regime if the applied stress ratio is low.
Based on the analyses of the experimental data from the strip
specimens, an alternative design approach has been developed
for smooth components like the forgings tested. This takes Class
B as the basic design curve for high stress ratios, R P 0.76, but
introduces higher curves for lower R values, derived on the basis
of the increase in fatigue limit with reduction in R according to
the Goodman correction. Compared to the experimental data from
Veritec, the recommended design approach is conservative and
appears appropriate. However, this approach was developed on
the basis of rather few test results. Clearly, further experimental
support is required, including from fatigue tests on suitable
small- and full-scale specimens with a wider range of surface finishes and applied stress ratios than those investigated here, to confirm it.
When Goodmans expression was used to account for the effect
of mean stress, the specified minimum rUTS (552 MPa) of the forgings was used since the actual rUTS of the material was not available. However, the low cycle fatigue tests suggested that it was
greater than 573 MPa. It should also be noted that the tensile
strength of the Bjrnborg specimens [17] was 627 MPa. By assuming rUTS = 600 MPa, the fatigue limit at R = 0.4 was estimated to be
299 MPa, slightly greater than 292 MPa estimated based on the
specified minimum rUTS of 552 MPa. The following can be seen
from this analysis: (1) the effect of tensile strength on the
estimated S-N curve is small; (2) use of the estimated S-N curve

259

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Fig. 17. Comparison of the present results, published QT forging data [17], the proposed design curves and the Class B design curve: (a) R = 0.1; (b) R = 0.4. The nominal stress
was used for specimens with SCF = 1.0 while the local stress was used for specimens with SCF > 1.0.

is conservative when used for steels with rUTS greater than

552 MPa. Furthermore, it should be noted that design for static failure is commonly based on a stress between ry and rUTS of material.
If design is based on yield strength, then the rUTS in Eq. (3) should
be replaced by the materials ry, ie the Soderbergs equation should
be used.
The local strain approach proved to be effective for predicting
the fatigue strengths at R = 0.1 for both the small cylindrical specimens under load control and the strip specimens. However, the
method was un-conservative when applied to the strip specimens
tested at R = 0.4 for endurances beyond 106 cycles. Furthermore,
the slopes of the predicted curves were all similar for different
stress ratios, which was contrary to the experimental observation
that they became steeper as the mean stress increases. This inadequacy of Morrows expression suggests that its application should
be limited to the calculation of fatigue strengths for modest mean
stress levels, or to the short life regime (less than 106 cycles) for the
material. This is consistent with the observation made elsewhere
that the local strain approach is not necessarily applicable to long
life situations where surface finish and other processing variables
are known to have a large effect [19].
Only three of the HCF tests of the small cylindrical specimens
produced failure in the gauge section, too few to derive an S-N
curve. However, in spite of this rather limited number of results,

it seems reasonable to conclude that the fatigue performance of

these specimens was not significantly different from that of the
strip specimens tested at the same stress ratio, Fig. 11. This is
not altogether surprising given that they had similar surface finish
and neither type of specimen contained a notch.
It has been generally recognised that, all other factors being
equal, the fatigue performance of a component, from the point of
view of failure from the surface, depends on its surface finish,
the finer the surface finish the better the fatigue performance.
Clearly, it would be useful to quantify this effect as well as that
of applied stress ratio in the proposed new design approach. A possible method would be to adopt the surface finish correction procedure included in the European pressure vessel design rules, EN
13445 [20]. This takes the form of a fatigue strength reduction factor, fs, that is applied to the design S-N curve and is given by:

f s F 0:1lnN0:465
s

17

where

F s 1  0:056lnRz

0:64

lnry 0:289lnRz

0:53

18

and Rz is the average of ten largest peak-to-valley heights (in lm)

within the region assessed. To check the validity of the correction
procedure, it can be applied to the present strip specimens. For

260

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

Fig. 18. Predicted relative fatigue strength reduction factor for the specimens with rougher surface finish (from Connector H) based on the guidance in BS EN 13445.

these, the values of Rz were
13 lm for the strip specimens from
Connector L and
46 lm for those from Connector H. By assuming
that the roughness-induced life reduction factor for the specimens
from Connector L was unity, the relative life reduction factor for
the specimens from the Connector H was calculated and the result
is plotted in Fig. 18. In the short life regime (100 cycles), roughness
variation has no effect on endurance. The fatigue strengths of the
specimens with rougher surface finish were predicted to decrease
with increasing endurance, resulting in a fatigue strength reduction
factor of about 0.9 at a fatigue endurance of 107 cycles. This indicates that, according to EN 13445, the surface finish effect on fatigue performance in this investigation is not expected to be
significant, as indeed was the case. A wider variation in fatigue performance would be expected for a larger range of surface roughness.
This is illustrated in Fig. 18, which includes the correction recommended for as-rolled or extruded steel, the roughest surface
referred to in EN 13445. Clearly, this surface finish correction could
be used in conjunction with the proposed new design approach,
taking a surface with around 10 lm in Ra as the reference value.
It seems reasonable to assume that many of the structural components that provided the database in Fig. 1 had surfaces that were
comparable with as-rolled or extruded steel. As seen in Fig. 18, the
maximum fatigue strength reduction factor is now around 0.8. The
basis of the correction in EN 13445 is not known. It may not be
suitable for the range of surface finishes considered here, or there
may be other features, such as distinct surface imperfections, in the
lower fatigue strength structural components that over-ride any
significance of the surface finish. This is an issue that requires
further study.
Finally, it should be emphasised that all the fatigue data and
design recommendations presented here refer to constant amplitude loading. In practice, components and structures experience
variable amplitude loading. The most widely used design approach
in such circumstances is to use Miners rule in conjunction with the
constant amplitude S-N curve extrapolated beyond the fatigue limit
at a shallower slope, usually m + 2. This modification of the S-N
curve is introduced to allow for the fact that stresses below the fatigue limit become damaging once a fatigue crack has initiated and
started to propagate. The approach was developed on the basis of
the fatigue behaviour of welded joints, where the majority of the
life consists of crack propagation. The situation is different in the
case of fatigue in plain, unwelded, materials in that crack initiation

can occupy the majority of the fatigue life, depending on the severity of the stress concentration feature at which the crack initiates. In
such cases, the potential damage from stresses below the fatigue
limit will be less than in welded joints, making the design approach
too conservative. However, in the absence of variable amplitude
fatigue test results for plain steel components to confirm this, it is
recommended that the approach is retained.

8. Conclusions
This study addressed the problem of designing large steel components with respect to potential fatigue failure in the steel. Particular attention was focused on forged steel connectors of the kind
used in steel catenary risers and the validity of the Class B S-N
curve for their design. On the basis of the results of fatigue tests
performed on strip and small-scale cylindrical machined specimens extracted from two actual forged steel J-lay connectors,
together with available published data obtained from specimens
or structural components that failed in plain steel, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
 The fatigue performance of all specimens tested exceeded the
Class B design curve, which was particularly conservative for
low stress ratios in the high-cycle regime.
 The fatigue strength of the forged steels considered decreased
significantly with increases in applied tensile mean stress or
stress ratio.
 The range of surface roughness investigated, 3.28.1 lm in Ra,
did not have a significant effect on fatigue performance. This
was consistent with the correction factor for surface finish in
the European pressure vessel standard, EN 13445.
 The local strain approach provided a reasonable estimate of the
fatigue performance of the strip specimens at R = 0.1. However,
the method was not suitable for higher R values.
 Based on the strip specimen data and the Goodman mean stress
correction, an alternative fatigue design approach that included
the effect of applied stress ratio was developed. This accepted
the current Class B curve but only for R P 0.76, and then provided higher curves for lower R values. This design approach
could be used in conjunction with the surface finish correction
term from EN 13445.

Y.-H. Zhang et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 92 (2016) 246261

 The present test results were reasonably consistent with available published fatigue data for forged steel specimens with similar surface finish. Better performance was obtained for a finer
surface finish, especially in the long life regime. However, the
published data were consistent with the proposed new design
approach.

Acknowledgement
Sponsorship of this study by BP, UK, is acknowledged.
References
[1] BS 7608. Code of practice for fatigue design and assessment of steel
structures. London: BSI; 2014.
[2] Maddox SJ, Razmjoo GR. Fatigue performance of large welded steel tubes. In:
Proc. 17th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic
engineering (OMAE). New York: ASME; 1998.
[3] Maddox SJ. Assembly of available fatigue data relevant to pressure equipment
design. In: Taylor N, editor. Pressure components fatigue design in the
framework of Directive 97/23/EC on pressure equipment. European
Commission. NL-1755 ZG Petten. The Netherlands; 2001.
[4] Buitrago J, Weir MS, Kan WC. Fatigue design and performance verification of
deepwater risers. In: Proc. 22nd International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE). New York: ASME; 2003.

261

[5] Gurney TR. Revised proposals relating to fatigue design stresses. Welding
Institute Report No. 3381/3/74, May 1974.
[6] BS 7270. Method for constant amplitude strain controlled fatigue
testing. London (UK): British Standard Institution; 1990.
[7] ASTM E466-96. Standard practice for conducting force controlled constant
amplitude axial fatigue tests of metallic materials. ASTM; 1996.
[8] Schneider CRA, Maddox SJ. Statistical analysis of fatigue data. TWI Best Practice
Guide 13604.01/02/1157.02; February 2004.
[9] Neuber RE. J Appl Mech 1961;8:54450.
[10] Bannantine JA, Comer JJ, Handrock JL. Fundamentals of metal fatigue
analysis. USA: Prentice-Hall; 1990.
[11] Coffin LF. A study of the effects of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal.
Trans Am Soc Mech Eng 1954;76:93150.
[12] Manson SS. Behaviour of materials under conditions of thermal stress,
National Advisory Commission on Aeronautics: Report 170. Cleveland: Lewis
Flight Propulsion Laboratory; 1953.
[13] Topper TH, Wetzel RM, Morrow J. J Mater 1969;4:200.
[14] Peterson RE. Stress concentration factors. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1974.
[15] Peterson RE. Analytical approach to stress concentration effect in fatigue of
aircraft structures. In: WADS Symposium. Wright Air Development Center;
1959.
[16] Morrow J. SAE fatigue design handbook. In: Graham F, editor; 1968. p. 2130.
[17] Karlsen A, et al. Additional material testing Snorre tether elements. Veritec
report No. 90-3199; 8 June 1990.
[18] Gurney TR, Maddox SJ. A re-analysis of fatigue data for welded joints in steel.
Weld Res Int 1973;3(4):154.
[19] SAE. Fatigue Design Handbook. 3rd ed. Warrendale, USA: Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc.; 1997. AE-22.
[20] BS EN 13445. European standard for unfired pressure vessels. London: BSI;
2009.