International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

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

FKM-guideline “Analytical strength Assessment” – Background and

current developments
Roland Rennert a, *, Michael Vormwald b, Alfons Esderts c
a
IMA Materialforschung und Anwendungstechnik GmbH, Dresden, Germany
b
Materials Mechanics Group, Technical University Darmstadt, Germany
c
Institute for Plant Engineering and Fatigue Analysis, Clausthal University of Technology, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The FKM-Guideline “Analytical Strength Assessment” contains an algorithm for both static and the fatigue
FKM-Guideline strength assessment of components made of steel, cast iron, and aluminium alloys. Designed to be advantageous
Analytical strength assessment for industrial applications, this guideline expresses the design stress using a straightforward linear-elastic ma­
Static strength
terial behaviour.
Fatigue strength
Starting with the material strength properties specified in technical standards, the relevant component
properties for both static and fatigue strengths can be determined by considering all influencing factors. The
safety level required for assessment can be adjusted using experience-based safety factors. The outcomes of the
analytical strength assessment provide a measure of the degree of utilisation.
While the FKM-Guideline has been successfully applied since 1994, continuous further development is
necessary to ensure it remains at the forefront of industry standards. Key development areas include the
improvement of the critical strain curve, introduction of a coordinate-invariant fatigue strength assessment
procedure, conducting investigations on the accuracy of the calculation according to the FKM-Guideline as a
precondition for the development of a probabilistic safety concept, and extension of the FKM-Guideline to
additional material groups such as high-strength steel.

assessment includes the determination of the fatigue limit, fatigue

strength for finite life, or variable-amplitude fatigue strength, contin­
1. Introduction
gent on the service stress conditions. It is valid for steel, cast iron, and
aluminium materials at normal or elevated component temperatures
For engineers engaged in design and calculations within the realm of
and is applicable to components produced with or without machining or
mechanical engineering and related industrial fields, the FKM-Guideline
welding. Design stresses can be expressed as nominal stresses or local
for analytical strength assessment has been accessible since 1994. The
stresses. These can be determined using the theory of linear elasticity,
most recent, 7th edition of the guideline [1] was published in 2020. This
derived from analytical solutions, obtained via finite element analyses,
comprehensive guideline was developed by the expert group “Strength
or acquired through measurements.
of Components” within the Research Committee Mechanical Engineer­
A uniformly structured calculation procedure was applied in all
ing (German: Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau, FKM). Building
cases. Most of the calculation procedures are predetermined. The user is
upon prior standards and ongoing research efforts, this guideline has
required to provide only clearly defined input values such as design
been elaborated and further developed to align with the current state of
stress values, material designation, temperature, component properties,
knowledge and practices.
and safety requirements.
The FKM-Guideline “Analytical Strength Assessment” is applicable to
The guideline is a calculation algorithm consisting of instructions,
mechanical engineering and related fields. This allows for the analytical
equations, and tables. Most of the figures included have only explana­
strength assessment of rod-shaped (with nominal stresses) and free-
tory functions. Textual declarations are provided where appropriate to
shaped (with local elastic stresses) components, considering all rele­
ensure reliable application. The proposed calculation procedure is
vant influences. The guideline encompasses the assessment of both static
complemented by examples for better comprehensibility.
strength and fatigue strength. In the case of fatigue strength, the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Rennert).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2024.108165
Received 23 November 2023; Received in revised form 12 January 2024; Accepted 15 January 2024
Available online 24 January 2024
0142-1123/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

NOMENCLATURE Kp plastic notch factor

Kt stress concentration factor
aBK cyclic degree of utilisation KR surface roughness factor
aSK static degree of utilisation KV surface treatment factor
fFAT FAT-conversion factor KWK design factor
ft thickness factor for welds Mσ mean stress sensitivity
fW,σ fatigue strength factor Rm tensile strength
fW,σ fatigue strength factor Rp yield stress
fσ,C compression strength factor NKoll required number of load cycles
fτ, fW,τ shear strength factors k, kII slopes of S-N-curve
h degree of multiaxiality ND, ND,II transition points of S-N-curve
jD safety factor against fatigue failure Dm effective damage sum
jges total safety factor Dm,min lower limit of effective damage sum
jG casting factor αW weld factor
jm safety factor against tensile strength ε0 lower limit of critical strain
jp safety factor against yield stress εcrit critical strain
ni applied cycles in spectrum stage i ρWEZ softening factor for welds
npl section factor σeq equivalent stress amplitude
q ductility factor σa,1 maximal stress amplitude
A elongation at rupture σa,i stress amplitude in spectrum stage i
Aele, Acon distance between S-N curve and fatigue life curve in cycle σextr extremal static design stress
direction σGH von-Mises hypothesis equivalent stress
KAK mean stress factor σm,i mean stress in spectrum stage i
KBK variable amplitude factor σNH normal stress hypothesis eq. stress
Kd technological size factor σW,zd axial material fatigue strength
KE residual stress factor for welds σWK component fatigue strength
Kf fatigue notch factor σextr extremal static design stress

The seven editions of the FKM-Guideline have received a significant assessment according to the FKM-Guideline is based on similar sources,
amount of interest. The native language of the FKM-Guideline is for example, [11,12], IIW-Recommendations [13], Eurocode 3 [14] for
German. Since the 5th edition of 2003, all editions of the FKM-Guideline steel structures, and Eurocode 9 [15] for Aluminium structures.
have been available in English. Even though the FKM-Guideline is The analytical strength assessment according to the FKM-Guideline
mostly used in German-speaking countries such as Austria, Switzerland, can be expressed either as nominal stresses or local elastic stresses.
and Germany, it is also widely applied in a large number of European The application of nominal stresses is restricted to components with a
and worldwide countries. defined cross-section (for the definition of the nominal stress) and
A special characteristic of the FKM-Guideline is its wide range of ductile material (for possible neglect of local notch effects in the static
applications without a limited focus on a special field of industry. The strength assessment). Local elastic stresses can be assessed for generally
main fields of industrial application of the FKM-Guideline are general shaped components as well as ductile and brittle materials.
machines (including motors, drivetrains, pumps, turbines, and ventila­ The analytical strength assessment was divided into static and fa­
tors), rail vehicles, automobiles, building machines, timber harvesting tigue strength assessments. Both are performed by calculating the de­
machines, mining machines, wind turbines, fun parks, rope cars, and gree of utilisation, which is defined as the applied design stress divided
textile machines. Rare but useful applications have been carried out in by the allowable stress. The allowable stress was the component strength
medicine, dairy farming, tobacco, and brewery industries. Furthermore, divided by the total safety factor. The effects of high overloads in fatigue
the FKM-Guideline algorithm is implemented in several engineering loading are covered by a restriction of the maximal amplitude, which is
software packages and used as a state-of-the-art reference for research. defined similarly in the IIW-Recommendations [13] and Eurocode 3
Beside this FKM-Guideline „Analytical strength assessment, there [14] and was also confirmed for application with local stresses [16].
exist furthermore the FKM-Guideline “Fracture mechanical strength An overview of the entire calculation algorithm of the FKM-
assessment” [2] especially for the evaluation of components with crack- Guideline is provided for the non-welded components in Fig. 1 and for
like defects, the FKM-Guideline “Nonlinear” [3] for the analytical the welded components in Fig. 2.
strength assessment under explicit consideration of nonlinear material Both algorithms are widely the same. The main differences are the.
deformation behaviour and the FKM-Guideline “Analytical strength
assessment of Springs and spring elements” [4]. For simplification of • The connection between the static and material fatigue strength
reading, the short description “FKM-Guideline” means generally the applies only to non-welded components and not to welded
FKM-Guideline “Analytical strength assessment” [1]. components.
• The additional consideration of the static strength in the heat-
2. General calculation algorithm of the FKM-Guideline affected zone and weld applies only to welded components.
• The different design influence parameters, mean stress sensitivity,
The calculation algorithm of the FKM-Guideline was elaborated for and S-N curve parameters must be considered separately for the non-
non-welded components made of steel and iron casting [5,6,7,8,9]. welded and welded components.
Subsequently, it was extended to aluminium alloys [10]. A current
research project attempts to create the necessary basics for the future The calculation parameters for the assessment algorithm based on
extension of copper alloys. the FKM-Guideline are given for the following material groups:
The consideration of welded components in the analytical strength

2
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Fig. 1. Structure of analytical strength assessment for non-welded components according to the FKM-Guideline.

Fig. 2. Structure of analytical strength assessment for welded components according to the FKM-Guideline.

• Non-alloyed structural steel and fine grain structural steel • Malleable cast iron (GJM)
• Heat treatable steel • Cast iron with lamellar graphite (GJL)
• Case hardening steel • Wrought aluminium alloys (AW) and cast aluminium alloys (AC)
• Nitriding steel
• Stainless steel The explanations in the following sections are restricted to normal
• Steel for larger forgings stress. The shear stresses were treated similarly [1].
• Cast steel, heat treatable cast steel (GS)
• Cast iron with nodular graphite (GJS) and ausferritic spheroidal
graphite cast iron (ADI)

3
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

3. Static strength assessment

3.1. Treatment of the design stress

A static strength assessment must be performed against the extremal

design stress. The definition of this design stress depends on the engi­
neering project and is outside the scope of the FKM-Guideline. In some
cases, static design load cases are provided in industrial standards, for
example, in [17] and [18] for rail vehicles. In any case, the FKM-
Guideline requires design stresses from “safe load assumptions”.
Basing on the stress state in the assessment point, an equivalent
extreme stress σV has to be calculated according to the mixed hypothesis
σ V = q⋅σ NH + (1 − q)⋅σ GH (1)

with the equivalent stresses according to the normal stress hypothesis

Fig. 3. Critical strain depending on degree of multiaxiality.
σ NH and to the von-Mises hypothesis σ GH , weighted by the ductility
factor
√̅̅̅ strain curve can be applied in the case of explicit consideration of
3 − 1/fτ nonlinear material behaviour in the analytical strength assessment, for
q = √̅̅̅ (2)
3− 1 example, according to [3].
The local critical strain was converted to a linear elastic notch stress
The shear strength factor fτ can be obtained by testing. In the FKM- using Neuber’s rule [23]:
Guideline it is given depending on the material group with fτ = 0.577
for ductile material, fτ = 1 for brittle material and 0.577 < fτ < 1 for σ el,crit ⋅εel,crit = σ crit ⋅εcrit (6)
semi-ductile material.
using the elastic-ideal plastic material law with Hooke’s law for the
critical elastic stress and strain:
3.2. Component static strength σ el,crit = E⋅εel,crit (7)

Calculation of the static component strength began with the and the elastic–plastic critical values σcrit = Rp and εcrit according to
normative values of the ultimate tensile strength Rm , yield stress Rp , and Equation (5). The insertion in Equation (6) leads to the first “local” term
elongation at rupture A. The normative values must be adjusted from the in Equation (3)
normative material strength values of a small specimen to the material
strength values for the size of the component by multiplying with the σ 2el,crit /E = Rp ⋅εcrit (8)
technological size factor, Kd . If necessary, the effects of elevated tem­
peratures and material anisotropy can also be considered in the static respectively, see also Fig. 4, to
strength values. √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
For welded components, also the strength ratio between the base σ el,crit /Rp = E⋅εcrit /Rp (9)
material and the heat-affected zone needs to be considered by use of the
softening factor ρWEZ , and furthermore the strength ratio between the The global critical static load for the component is defined as the yield
heat-affected zone and the weld material by use of the weld factor αW . stress of the material Rp multiplied by the hardening factor fR and the
In the case of stress gradients, the applied design stress may exceed plastic notch factor Kp .
the yield stress without the danger of static failure. This reserve can be The hardening factor partially considers the hardening behaviour of
used to calculate the section factor: the material by calculating the mean values of the yield stress and ul­
(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) timate tensile strength [21,22] (see Fig. 5). Related to the yield stress, it
npl = MIN E⋅εcrit /Rp ; fR ⋅Kp (3) follows that
( )/
fR = 1 + Rm /Rp 2 (10)
with the Young’s modulus E, the critical strain εcrit , the hardening factor
fR and the plastic notch factor Kp . The critical strain is mainly related to The plastic notch factor is defined as
the elongation at rupture A, which is obtained from material standards
or standardised tensile tests [19]. It depends also on the stress state,
expressed as the degree of multiaxiality h, in the case of a plane stress
state with the principal stresses σ1 and σ2 via:
σ1 + σ2
h= √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (4)
3⋅ σ21 − σ1 ⋅σ2 + σ22

The approach for calculating the critical strain in the FKM-Guideline

refers to Gurson’s theory [20], which leads to most of the material
groups considered in the equation:
⎧
⎪
⎨ A for h ≤ 1/3
εcrit = (
A − ε0
)3⋅h (5)
⎪
⎩ A + 0.3⋅ for h > 1/3
0.3

with the material-group dependent lower value of critical strain ε0 as

defined in [21,22]. See also Fig. 3. Improved definitions for the critical Fig. 4. Calculation of critical elastic stress via Neuber’s rule.

4
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

and analogously for the plastic notch factor for global torsion
St
Kp,t = (17)
Wt

with the radial static moment St and the torsion resistance Wt . The
plastic notch factors for certain basic geometries are listed in Table 1.
In the evaluation of elastic notch stresses, the local stress concen­
tration can be defined by the stress concentration factor Kt , see e.g.
[24,25], which can be calculated separately for bending Kt,b and torsion
Kt,t . Then, the total plastic notch factor is

Kp = Kp,b ⋅Kt,b respectively Kp = Kp,t ⋅Kt,t (18)

For complex geometries in which no analytical solution for Kp is avail­

able, the plastic notch factor can be calculated numerically using
Equation (11).
The section factor, according to Equation (3) is applied to the yield
Fig. 5. Hardening factor, describing the mean value between tensile strength stress and yields the static strength of the component:
and yield stress. σ SK = npl ⋅Rp (19)

plastic limit load

Kp = (11)
elastic limit load 3.3. Safety factors

This indicates the possibility of a stress rearrangement in the compo­ The safety required for the analytical strength assessment shall be
nent. In the case of nominal stresses, this possibility for stress rear­ ensured by applying experience-based safety factors. The value of the
rangements is only applicable for bending or torsional loads, which applied safety factor depends on the expected damage consequences
cause a global stress gradient over the loaded cross-section, as shown in with the classification into “low,” “medium,” and “high”.
Fig. 6. In the static strength assessment, these safety factors are related to
The FKM-Guideline also requires the application of the elastic–ideal the yield stress by jp and the ultimate tensile strength by jm , as shown in
plastic material law for the calculation of the plastic notch factor. The Fig. 7.
critical stress for the elastic limit load and for the plastic limit load is the The decision on whether the allowable stress is limited by the yield
yield stress Rp . The elastic limit load under a bending stress is generally stress or tensile strength is implemented in the FKM-Guideline by the
Mel = Rp ⋅Wb (12) minimal condition
{ }
σ allowable = MIN Rp /jp ; Rm /jm (20)
with bending resistance Wb , using the second moment of inertia
∫ Because of the relation of the static component strength σ SK to the yield
1
Wb = ⋅ y2 dA (13)
ymax
A Table 1
Plastic notch factors for global bending and global torsion.
The plastic limit load is in general
Geometry Static moment Bending resistance Plastic notch factor
Mpl = Rp ⋅Sx (14) Sx Wb Kp,b

rectangle b⋅h2 b⋅h2 1.5

with the absolute static moment Sx , using the first moment of inertia width b, height 4 6
∫ h
circle 4⋅r3 π⋅r3 16
Sx = 2⋅ ydA (15) radius r 3⋅π
≈ 1.7
3 4
A/2 triangle 8⋅b⋅h2 b⋅h2 2.37
width b, height 81 24
Equations (11)–(15) yield the following general equations for the plastic h
Geometry Static moment Torsion resistance Plastic notch factor
notch factor for global bending:
St Wt Kp,t
Sx circle 2⋅π⋅r3 π⋅r3 4
≈ 1.33
Kp,b = (16) radius r 3 2 3
Wb

Fig. 6. Bending stress, left at elastic limit load Mel, right at plastic limit load Mpl.

5
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Fig. 7. Safety factors related to yield stress jp and to tensile strength jm , left side. allowable stress limited by yield stress, right side. allowable stress limited by
ultimate tensile strength.

stress, it follows the equation for the total safety factor in the static
strength assessment
{ }
jges = MAX jp ; jm ⋅Rp /Rm ⋅jG + Δj (21)

with the casting factor jG for consideration of the higher strength scat­
tering of casted components and the additional term Δj for covering
residual stress effects in non-ductile castings.

3.4. Static utilisation

Finally, the static strength assessment is carried out by calculation of

the static utilisation
σV Fig. 8. Haigh diagram for normal stresses.
aSK = ⋅j (22)
σSK ges

with the applied stress σV according to Equation (1), the static compo­ 1
I : KAK = ,
nent strength σSK according to Equation (19) and the total safety factor 1 − Mσ
jges according to Equation (21). The static strength assessment is suc­ II : KAK =
1
,
cessful, if the calculated utilisation is lower than or equal to one: 1 + Mσ ⋅σ m /σa
(24)
aSK ≤ 1. 3 + Mσ
III : KAK = ,
(1 + Mσ )⋅(3 + Mσ ⋅σ m /σa )
4. Fatigue strength assessment 3 + Mσ
IV : KAK =
3⋅(1 + Mσ )2
4.1. Treatment of the design stress
The mean stress sensitivity Mσ for non-welded components is
As in the static strength assessment, the FKM-Guideline requires calculated depending on the ultimate tensile strength Rm with material-
design stresses from “safe load assumptions”. A fatigue strength assess­ group dependent regression parameters according to Hück et. al. [29]
ment must be performed against the amplitude spectrum of the design and Sonsino [30], cited in [28] (see Fig. 9).
stress history. This definition differs from the IIW-Recommendations For welded components, the mean stress sensitivity depends on the
[13] and Eurocodes [14,15], which deal with stress ranges instead of assumed residual stress state. Then the mean stress sensitivity varies
stress amplitudes. Both kinds of stress description are equipollent. from Mσ = 0 for high residual stresses to Mσ = 0.3 for low residual
In general, design stress exists as a stress-time history. For the fatigue stresses. These definitions are consistent with those in [13,14,15].
strength assessment, this time history has to be processed by rain-flow Using the Equations (24) for calculation of the mean stress factor, the
{ }
counting [26,27] to get the resulting rain-flow matrix with the num­ mean stress related stress amplitudes in the rain-flow matrix σa,j ; σ m,k
ber of stress cycles nj,k related to classes of stress amplitudes σ a,j and to can be converted to damage equivalent stress amplitudes for completely
classes of mean stresses σm,k . reversed stress via
The mean stress correction was performed using the mean stress ( )
σ aW,j,k = σ a,j /KAK with KAK = f σm,k /σ a,j (25)
factor KAK , which can be calculated for each element of the rain-flow
matrix. The mean stress factor was calculated based on the Haigh dia­
After sorting the amplitudes σ a,W,j,k in decreasing order of amplitude
gram defined by Haibach [28], as shown in Fig. 8.
values and – facultatively – assignment of these amplitudes to the
The constant amplitude fatigue limit σ AK depends on the component { }
original amplitude classes, the pure stress amplitude spectrum σ a,i ; ni
fatigue strength for completely reversed stress σWK (at stress ratio R =
− 1), the mean stress sensitivity Mσ , and the applied stress ratio is available for the cumulative damage calculation.
The cumulative damage calculation in the FKM-Guideline follows
σm − σa the linear damage accumulation approach according to the Palm­
R= (23)
σm + σa gren–Miner rule [31,32]:
∑ ∑ ni
The value of the constant amplitude fatigue limit σAK is described in the D= Di = (26)
FKM-Guideline via the mean stress factor KAK , which is defined in the i i
Ni
sections (see Fig. 8):

6
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Fig. 9. Mean stress sensitivity depending on tensile strength and material group, acc. to [28].

where the accumulated damage D is the sum of the partial damages Di at of the S-N curve ND .
all stages of the stress spectrum. These partial damages are defined as While the critical damage for fatigue failure is defined to the Dm = 1
the ratio of the applied cycles ni to the related cycle number of the S-N in the original Palmgren–Miner rule, this value needs to be corrected to
curve Ni , in the finite life range, as follows: an ‘effective damage sum’ Dm ≤ 1 [8,33]. An approximate relation be­
tween the effective damage sum Dm and the distance between S-N curve
( )k
σ eq and fatigue life curve A was defined in [34], as shown in Fig. 11, via
Ni = ND ⋅ (27)
σa,i { [ ]}
2
Dm = MIN 1; MAX √ ̅̅̅ ; D (28)
The failure of the component occurs when the accumulated damage 4 m,min
A
D reaches a critical value Dm , as shown below.
To overcome the lack of accuracy of the original formulation of the with Dm,min = 0.3 for non-welded components and Dm,min = 0.5 for
Palmgren–Miner rule, the FKM-Guideline contains two significant welded components.
improvements:

• The consideration of stress amplitudes below the mathematical

endurance limit is realised by the application of improved formula­
tions via ‘Miner elementary’ or ‘Miner consistent’, see Fig. 10.
• An unbiased lifetime estimation is obtained by applying an ‘effective
damage sum’ Dm .

The original formulation of the Palmgren–Miner rule describes the

accumulation of damage at all stages of the stress amplitude spectrum in
cycle direction. In contrast, the cumulative damage calculation in the
FKM-Guideline must be carried out in the direction of stress amplitudes.
Therefore, the cycle number calculated according to the Palmgren–­
Miner rule is set per the definition of the required number of load cycles
NKoll . The result of this calculation was the necessary level of the S-N
curve to survive the required amplitude spectrum. Because the shape of
the S-N curve is defined in the FKM-Guideline (see below), one value is
sufficient to describe the required level of the S-N curve. This value is the
equivalent stress amplitude σeq , which is defined at the first knee-point Fig. 11. Applicable effective damage sum, acc. to [35].

Fig. 10. Damage accumulation acc. to ‘Miner elementary’ (left) and ‘Miner consistent’ (right), both depicted for S-N curve ‘Type I’, see nomenclature for symbol
description.

7
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

provided conversion factors between static and fatigue strengths for

different material groups [29]. In the FKM-Guideline, the approximately
linear relation between tensile strength Rm and material fatigue strength
σ W,zd for the smooth, unnotched specimen under completely reversed
axial tension–compression load is expressed via the material-group
dependent fatigue strength factor fW,σ using the following equation:

σ W,zd = fW,σ ⋅Rm (31)

The calculated material fatigue strength σ W,zd is depicted for several

material groups in Fig. 13.
Relevant influences of the component properties on the fatigue
strength of non-welded components
σ WK = σW,zd /KWK (32)

are considered in the design factor

[ ( )]
1 1
KWK = Kf + − 1 ⋅ for nominal stresses and (33)
Fig. 12. Parameters of S-N curve ‘Type I’ and ‘Type II’, see Table 2 and required KR KV ⋅KS ⋅KNL,E
fatigue strength expressed as equivalent amplitude σ eq . [ ( )]
KWK = n1σ ⋅ 1 +K1f ⋅ K1R − 1 ⋅KV ⋅KS1⋅KNL,E for local elastic stresses.
Under consideration of the effective damage sum, the equivalent The geometrical surface influences were considered using the fatigue
stress amplitude can be calculated directly in accordance with the more notch factor Kf and surface roughness factor KR . Both factors are addi­
conservative approach ‘Miner elementary’ via tively connected. This means that in the case of a sharp notch, the notch
[ ]1/k dominates the fatigue strength, and the surface roughness has only a
σ eq = σ a,1 ⋅
Nkoll
(29) minor influence. In the case of an unnotched part, the surface roughness
Dm ⋅ND ⋅Aele significantly influences the fatigue strength.
The influence of the geometrical notch on the fatigue strength was
∑ ni ( σ a,i )k
1
= ⋅ (30) considered using the fatigue notch factor [41]. Its general definition is as
Aele iN
koll σa,1 follows:
σW,zd
The more accurate approach ‘Miner consistent’ [36] requires an itera­ Kf = (34)
tive solution using the variable amplitude factor KBK , see [1]. σW,notched specimen
Damage calculation, according to the Palmgren–Miner rule, requires
If possible, the support effect in the notch can be calculated using the Kt-
the shape parameter of the S-N curve. The FKM-Guideline deals with
Kf ratio:
generalised S-N curves. These parameters are listed in Table 2. For non-
welded components made of steel (except austenitic steel and ADI) and Kt
nσ = (35)
cast iron as well as for welded components in general applies S-N curve Kf
‘Type I’. For non-welded components made of aluminium, for austenitic
steel and ADI applies S-N curve ‘Type II’, see Fig. 12. The traditional approach of Siebel and Stieler [42] refers to the influence
If the equivalent amplitude σeq is applied for ND cycles, it has the of a related stress gradient on the Kt-Kf ratio. The stress gradient is
same damage content as the application of the required stress spectrum inversely proportional to the notch radius. Furthermore, the influence of
until NKoll cycles [37,38]. Hence, the equivalent amplitude can be used the tensile strength on the value of the Kt-Kf ratio was considered by
as a scalar value to express the applied design stress in an analytical material-group-dependent calculation parameters, which were defined
fatigue strength assessment. This can be directly compared to the in the first edition of the FKM-Guideline [9], as shown in Fig. 14.
component fatigue strength of ND cycles. The more modern material-mechanical approach separates the sup­
port effect in the notch into three contributions:

4.2. Component fatigue strength nσ = nst ⋅nvm ⋅nbm (36)

4.2.1. Non-welded components The statistical Kt-Kf ratio nst is explained by the weakest-link model,
For non-welded components, a basic relation between static strength which assumes that the probability of critical defects increases with the
parameters and the material fatigue strength for a smooth specimen was size of the highly stressed area or the volume of the component
observed a long time ago [39,40]. Systematic investigations have [43,44,45]. The deformation-mechanical Kt-Kf ratio nvm introduces a
stress correction based on the macrosupport effect according to Neuber’s
notch stress theory [23]. The fracture-mechanical Kt-Kf ratio nbm con­
Table 2
Parameters of generalized S-N curves for normal stresses. nects the stress-based fatigue strength assessment for very sharp notches
using linear-elastic fracture mechanics [46].
Component ND ND,II k kII
Another modern approach for the description of the fatigue strength
Steel and cast-iron material (S-N curve type I) except austenitic steel, ADI in notched components is the “critical distance approach”, e.g.
non-welded, also cold rolled or shot peened 106 5
– –
[47,48,49]. Benchmarks showed that Kt-Kf ratios calculated according to
non-welded and surface hardened 106 – 15 –
welded, plate thickness ≥ 7 mm 5⋅10 6
– 3 –
the FKM-Guideline and calculated according to the critical distance
welded, plate thickness < 7 mm 5⋅10 6
– 5 – approach deliver similar results [50].
Aluminium material, austenitic steel, ADI In some cases, for example, shaft-hub joints, it is not possible to
(non-welded S-N curve type II, welded type I) calculate the Kt-Kf ratio. Subsequently, experimental fatigue notch fac­
non-welded 106 108 5 15
tors, for example [51], can be used for fatigue strength assessment based
welded, plate thickness ≥ 7 mm 5⋅106 – 3 –
welded, plate thickness < 7 mm 5⋅106 – 5 – on nominal stresses.

8
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Fig. 13. Material fatigue strength depending on tensile strength, calculated via eq. (31).

strength when mechanical and chemical thermal surface treatment

methods are applied. The FKM-Guideline provides guide values for
several methods and allows for higher surface treatment factors if
confirmed by testing.
These coating layers could be used to protect against corrosion. In
addition, the transition layer between the coating and metallic base
material decreases the fatigue strength of the component. The coating
factor KS accounts for this strength reduction, depending on the thick­
ness of the coating layer. The coating factor is applicable for steel and
cast-iron materials with coatings after galvanisation, hot galvanisation,
or zinc flake coating, as well as for aluminium materials with coatings
after anodic oxidation.
Grey cast materials have a nonlinear material behaviour in general.
In particular, it exhibited different stiffness values (Young’s moduli)
under tension and compression. In the case of a global bending load on
the component, correction of the linear elastic bending stress should be
performed using the grey cast factor KNL,E .

4.2.2. Welded components

The design stress for welded joints can be expressed as nominal,
structural, and notch stresses, see Fig. 16. Notch stresses can be
formulated as maximal or effective notch stresses, as shown in Fig. 17.
The component fatigue strength of welded components is calculated
via
σ WK = FAT⋅fFAT ⋅ft ⋅KE ⋅nst ⋅KV (37)

The reference value of the component fatigue strength of the welded

detail is denoted as FAT. The FAT must fit the expression of the design
stress according to Fig. 16 and Fig. 17: In the FKM-Guideline, the
Fig. 14. Kt-Kf ratio acc. to Siebel & Stieler for steel and cast iron in formulation
FAT-values for nominal stresses are based on reports [11,12] by Köttgen,
of the FKM-Guideline.
Olivier, Seeger, and are widely consistent with IIW-Recommendations
[13] and Eurocodes [14,15]. The FAT-values for structural (hotspot)
The influence of the surface roughness on the fatigue strength was
stresses were obtained from the IIW-Recommendations [13]. The
considered in the surface roughness factor, KR . The fatigue strength
FAT-values for the maximal notch stresses were also based on in­
decreases for rougher surfaces, which is expressed as the average surface
vestigations by Köttgen, Olivier, and Seeger [11,12], as well as by Radaj,
roughness Rz . Additionally, higher tensile strengths increased the notch
Sonsino, Fricke et. al. [52,53,54]. The FAT-values for the effective
sensitivity with respect to the surface roughness. The surface roughness
stresses were obtained from Baumgartner et al. [55].
factor according to FKM-Guideline is shown in Fig. 15.
Coming from the industrial field of steel building, the reference value
If applicable, further factors influencing the component strength
of the component fatigue strength FAT is defined as stress range Δσ = 2⋅
must be considered.
σ a at NC = 2⋅106 cycles. The component fatigue strength σWK in the
The surface treatment factor KV enables the consideration of bonus
FKM-Guideline is defined as stress amplitude at the first knee point of

9
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Fig. 15. Surface roughness factor KR for steel (left) and wrought aluminium (right).

Fig. 16. Nominal stress σnom , structural (hot-spot) stress σ HS , notch stress σK on a butt weld with plate thickness t and axial misalignment expressed as eccentricity e.

Fig. 18. Conversion factor f FAT .

Fig. 17. Maximal notch stresses σ K,max and effective notch stresses σ K,eff with
reference radius rref and depth yeff beneath the notch surface for taking the 25mm and exponent n with values between 0.1 and 0.3, depending on
effective notch stress. the stress concentration in the weld notch. Unlike the IIW-
Recommendations, the thickness factor in the FKM-Guideline can also
the S-N curve NC . Using the slope of the S-N curve k, the conversion be used as a strength bonus factor for plate thicknesses lower than t =
factor from FAT to σWK is, see also Fig. 18, 25mm, as shown in Fig. 19.
Welded joints generally contain residual stresses due to the welding
fFAT = 0.5⋅(NC /ND )k (38)
process. Raw rules for estimating the level of residual stress in welded
joints were elaborated by Kassner [57]. This classification depends on
Pedersen investigated the effect of plate thickness on the fatigue of
the plate thickness and complexity of the welds. Welds on thicker plates
welded joints [56]. The FKM-Guideline uses the thickness factor in the
require more energy, which leads to a higher residual stress. Welds with
formulation of IIW-Recommendations:
complex geometries require longer manufacturing times, which lead to
( )n
ft = tref /t (39) higher residual stresses.
The FAT-values were defined for the worst case of high residual
with the plate thickness t, reference value of the plate thickness tref = stress. If mean or low residual stresses can be assumed, a strength bonus

10
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

aBK,V = q⋅aNH + (1 − q)⋅aGH (43)

with the combined utilisation according to the normal stress hypothesis

σ NH (for plane stress state)
{ [ ]}
1 ⃒⃒ ⃒ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2
aNH = MAX aBK,σx + aBK,σy ⃒ + aBK,σx − aBK,σy + 4⋅aBK,τxy
2
(44)

and the combined utilisation according to the von-Mises hypothesis σ GH

(for plane stress state)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[ ]
Fig. 19. Thickness factor f t depending on plate thickness t and exponent n. aGH = a2BK,σx − aBK,σx ⋅aBK,σy + a2BK,σy + a2BK,τxy (45)

weighted by the ductility factor

can be used via the residual stress factors KE = 1.3 respectively KE = √̅̅̅
1.6. 3 − 1/fW,τ
q = √̅̅̅ (46)
Only validated for the assessment with notch stresses [58] can the 3− 1
statistical Kt-Kf ratio be applied to welded steel joints via
( )1/kst The fatigue shear strength factor fW,τ is given in the FKM-Guideline
nst = l ref,st /l σ,st (40) depending on the material group with fW,τ = 0.577 for ductile mate­
rial, fW,τ = 1 for brittle material and 0.577 < fW,τ < 1 for semi-ductile
with the reference length for the statistical Kt-Kf ratio l ref,st = 100mm, material.
the highly stressed length in the investigated weld l σ,st and the Weibull In the case of uniaxial stress, only a single utilisation is decisive. In
exponent kst = 10. the case of multiaxial proportional stresses, only the combined uti­
The fatigue strength of weld toes can be improved by applying lisation is decisive. In the case of multiaxial non-proportional stresses,
methods for post weld treatment. The related surface treatment factors the maximum of all single and combined utilisations is decisive.
KV were obtained from [59] and [60]. The fatigue strength assessment is successful, if the calculated uti­
lisation is lower than or equal to one: aBK ≤ 1.

4.3. Safety factors

5. Current developments for further improvement of the FKM-
Guideline
As in the static strength assessment, the required safety for the
analytical fatigue strength assessment shall be ensured by applying
The FKM-Guideline is open to the consideration of new technical
experience-based safety factors. The value of the applied safety factor
developments. Some examples follow.
depends on the expected damage consequences with the classification
Critical strain in the static strength assessment
into “low”, “medium” and “high”. Additionally, the safety factors for
In addition to the FKM-Guideline “Analytical Strength Assessment”
fatigue strength assessment depend on whether early damage detection
[1], which relies on linear elastic stresses analysis, there also exists the
by inspection is possible. Clear definitions of the required inspection
FKM-Guideline “Analytical Strength Assessment under explicit Consid­
effort are not provided because necessary and acceptable inspection
eration of nonlinear Deformation Material Behaviour” [3]. This guide­
efforts differ in several industrial fields.
line contains an improved description of the critical strain in static
The material safety factor jD = 1.2⋯1.5 includes the adjustment for
strength assessment, similar to that shown in Fig. 3. In particular, for
the damage consequence level and inspections as well as a margin to
cast components, the calculation of the plasticisation reserve according
cover the uncertainties of the calculation algorithm of the FKM-
to the FKM-Guideline [1] is very conservative and has the potential for
Guideline. For casted components, the casting factor jG = 1.25⋯1.4
further improvement.
needs to be applied in the same way as in the static strength assessment.
Multiaxial stress states in the fatigue strength assessment.
For the non-cast components, the casting factor was formally set as jG =
The treatment of multiaxial stress states in fatigue strength assess­
1.0.
ments remains a topic of research [48,61]. The present FKM research
The total safety factor for the fatigue strength assessment is
project [62] indicates an improved calculation method for processing
jges = jD ⋅jG (41) multiaxial stress time histories, which has the potential to significantly
improve the existing FKM-Guideline. This approach was based on the
critical plane approach proposed by Gaier [63]. The sufficient accuracy
4.4. Cyclic utilisation of this favoured algorithm for the FKM-Guideline was proven in [64].
Fig. 20
The fatigue strength was assessed by calculating the cyclic utilisation Additional material groups.
of each stress component: The fatigue strength factor is valid only in the range of material
σ eq strengths, as given in the material tables in the FKM-Guideline. For
aBK,σ = ⋅jges (42) higher strengths, the applicability must be verified. Recent research
σWK
projects [65,66] focused on analytical strength assessment of high-
with the applied equivalent stress amplitude σeq according to Equation strength steels. Steel types with tensile strengths of 1600 MPa and
(29) or according to method ‘Miner consistent’ [1], the fatigue compo­ 2400 MPa were investigated. Consequently, the parameters for the
nent strength σ WK according to Equation (32) or (37) and the total safety strain-based fatigue strength assessment were determined. The inclusion
factor jges according to Equation (41). of the results of this project in the FKM-Guideline with its stress-based
In the case of multiaxial stresses, the combined degree of utilisation assessment algorithm will be proven.
needs to be calculated. For this, a mixed hypothesis was used, similar to
the static strength assessment:

11
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

Fig. 20. Multiaxial fatigue strength assessment according to the FKM-Guideline, left side. flowchart of current algorithm, right side. flowchart of new algorithm
according to [62].

6. Conclusion References

The FKM-Guideline [1] enables the analytical strength assessment of [1] Rennert, R.; Kullig, E.; Esderts, A.; Vormwald, M.; Luke, M.: FKM-Guideline
“Analytical Strength Assessment”. 7th edition. VDMA-Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 2020.
a wide range of materials such as steel, cast iron, and aluminium alloys. [2] Berger, C.; Blauel, J. G.; Hodulak, L.; Pyttel, B.; Varfolomeev, I.: FKM-Guideline
The assessment procedure was divided into static and fatigue strength “Fracture mechanical Strength Assessment” (in German). 4th edition. VDMA-
assessments. Advantageous for industrial applications, the design stress Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 2018.
[3] Fiedler, M., Wächter, M., Varfolomeev, I., Vormwald, M., Esderts, A: FKM-
is expressed by a simple linear-elastic material behaviour. Guideline “Analytical Strength Assessment under explicit consideration of
Starting with the material strength properties that are available in nonlinear material behaviour” (in German). 1st edition. VDMA-Verlag, Frankfurt/
technical standards, the relevant component properties for the static and M., 2019.
[4] Kletzin, U.; Reich, R.; Oechsner, M.; Spies, A.: FKM-Guideline “Analytical Strength
fatigue strengths can be considered as influencing factors. The safety Assessment for Springs and Spring Elements”. 1st edition. VDMA-Verlag,
level required for assessment can be adjusted using experience-based Frankfurt/M., 2020.
safety factors. [5] TGL 19 340 Endurance strength of machine components” (in German), GDR-
Standard, 1983.
Potentials for further development of the FKM-Guideline can be ex­
[6] TGL 19 341 Strength assessment for cast iron components” (in German), GDR-
pected in Standard, 1983.
[7] TGL 19 333 Fatigue strength of axles and shafts for finite life” (in German), GDR-
• the harmonisation of the critical strain curve for cast materials with Standard, 1979.
[8] TGL 19 350 Fatigue strength of machine components under variable amplitude (in
FKM-Guideline “Nonlinear” [3], German), GDR-Standard, 1986.
• the introduction of a coordinate-invariant fatigue strength assess­ [9] Hänel, B.; Haibach, E.; Seeger, T.; Wirthgen, G.; Zenner, H.: Analytical Strength
ment procedure according to the results of the research project “FKM Assessment for machine components (in German). FKM-Issue No. 183. Part 1: Final
report. Part 2: Guideline. VDMA-Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 1994.
Multiaxial” [62], [10] Hänel, B.; Wirthgen, G.; Zenner, H.; Seeger, T.; Haibach, E.: Analytical Strength
• investigations on the accuracy of the calculation according to the Assessment for Components of Aluminium Material (in German). FKM-Issue No.
FKM-Guideline [64] as a pre-condition for the development of a 241. VDMA-Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 1994.
[11] Seeger, T.; Olivier, R.; Köttgen, B.: Welded joints, part I (in German). FKM-Issue
probabilistic safety concept for the FKM-Guideline and No. 143. VDMA-Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 1988.
• the extension of the FKM-Guideline to additional material groups, [12] Seeger, T.; Olivier, R.; Köttgen, B.: Welded joints, part II (in German). FKM-Issue
such as high-strength steel [65]. No. 180. VDMA-Verlag, Frankfurt/M., 1991.
[13] Hobbacher, A.: IIW- Recommendations for fatigue design of welded joints and
components. Springer International Publishing; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/
The continuous advancement of the FKM-Guideline is imperative to 978-3-319-23757-2.
ensure that it remains at the forefront of engineering practices, effec­ [14] DIN EN 1993-1-9 Design of steel structures - Part 1-9: Fatigue. Beuth Verlag Berlin,
2010.
tively guarding against failures.
[15] DIN EN 1999-1-1 Design of aluminium structures - Part 1-1: General structural
rules. Beuth Verlag Berlin, 2014.
CRediT authorship contribution statement [16] Hemmesi K, Ellmer F, Farajian M, Varfolomeev I, Luke M. On the evaluation of
overload effects on the fatigue strength of metallic materials. Procedia Struct
Integrity 2022;38:401–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2022.03.041.
Roland Rennert: Writing – original draft. Michael Vormwald: . [17] DIN EN 12663-1 Railway applications – Structural requirements of railway vehicle
Alfons Esderts: Writing – original draft. bodies – Part 1: Locomotives and passenger rolling stock. Beuth Verlag Berlin,
2015.
[18] DIN EN 13749 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Method of specifying
Declaration of competing interest the structural requirements of bogie frames. Beuth Verlag Berlin, 2021.
[19] DIN EN ISO 6892-1 Metallic materials – Tensile testing – Part 1: Method of test at
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial room temperature. Beuth Verlag Berlin, 2021.
[20] Gurson AL. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucleation and growth:
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Part 1 – yield criteria and flow rules for porous ductile media. Journal Eng Mat
the work reported in this paper. Techn 1977;99:2–15.
[21] Hänel B, Leis P, Hanel W, Seeger T. Static strength assessment (in German). FKM
research report 284. VDMA Verlag Frankfurt/Main 2004.
Data availability [22] Hanel W, Vormwald M, Esderts A, Gumbsch P. Improved calculation concept for
FKM-Guideline (in German). FKM research report 306. VDMA Verlag Frankfurt/
The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has Main 2010.
[23] Neuber H. Theory of notch stresses. Berlin: Springer; 1958.
been used.
[24] Peterson RE. Stress concentration design factors. 5th edition. New York, London,
Sydney: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 1966.

12
R. Rennert et al. International Journal of Fatigue 182 (2024) 108165

[25] Mayr CM, Rother K. Improved stress concentration factors for circular shafts for [48] Susmel L, Taylor D. A novel formulation of the theory of critical distances to
uniaxial and combined loading. Mater Test 2019;61:193–203. https://doi.org/ estimate lifetime of notched components in the medium-cycle fatigue regime.
10.3139/120.111305. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2007;30:567–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
[26] Matsuishi, M.; Endo, T.: Fatigue of metals subjected to varying stress – fatigue lives 2695.2007.01122.x.
under random loading (in Japanese). The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, [49] Susmel L. Notches, nominal stresses, fatigue strength reduction factors and
March 1968, pp. 37-40. constant/variable amplitude multiaxial fatigue loading. Int J Fatigue 2022;162:
[27] ASTM E1049-85 Standard practices for cycle counting in fatigue analysis. 106941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.106941.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1520/ [50] Papuga J, Karkulín A, Hanžl O, Lutovinov M. Comparison of several methods for
E1049-85R17. the notch effect quantification on specimens from 2124–T851 aluminium alloy.
[28] Haibach E. Fatigue strength – methods and data for evaluation of components (in Procedia Struct Integrity 2019;19:405–14.
German). 3rd edition. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2006. [51] DIN 743 Carrying capacity calculation of axles and shafts. Beuth Verlag Berlin,
[29] Hück M, Thrainer L, Schütz W. Calculation of Wöhler curves for components made 2012.
of steel, steel cast and grey cast – synthetic Wöhler curves (in German). Report ABF [52] Radaj D, Sonsino CM. Fatigue assessment of welded joints by local approaches.
11. Stahleisen-Verlag Düsseldorf 1981. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd; 1998.
[30] Sonsino CM, Grubisic V. Requirements for operational fatigue strength of high- [53] Fricke, W.: Guideline for the Fatigue Assessment by Notch Stress Analysis for
quality cast components. Mater Sci Eng Technol 1996;27:373–90. Welded Structures. International Institute of Welding, doc. XIII-2240r2-08/XV-
[31] Palmgren A. Fatigue life of ball bearings (in German). VDI-Zeitschrift 1924;68: 1289r2-08, 2008.
339–41. [54] Sonsino, C. M.; Bruder, T.; Baumgartner, J.: S-N lines for welded thin joints –
[32] Miner MA. Cumulative damage in fatigue. J Appl Mech 1945;12:159–64. https:// suggested slopes and FAT values for applying the notch stress concept with various
doi.org/10.1115/1.4009458. reference radii. International Institute of Welding, doc. IIW 2078-09, Welding in
[33] Kotte K-L, Eulitz K-G. Data collection fatigue strength – Reliability of lifetime the World 54 (2010) R375-R392.
estimations (in German). Mater Sci Eng Technol 2003;34:836–42. [55] Baumgartner, J.; Schmidt, H.; Ince, E.; Melz, T.; Dilger, K.: Fatigue assessment of
[34] Ellmer F, Hinkelmann K, Eulitz K-G, Esderts A. Database and evaluation system for welded joints using stress averaging and critical distance approaches. Welding in
fatigue strength (in German). FKM research report 313. VDMA Verlag Frankfurt/ the World, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 59 (2015) 731–742, https://doi.org/
Main 2011. 10.1007/s40194-015-0248-x.
[35] Wächter M, Müller C, Esderts A. Applied strength assessment according to FKM- [56] Pedersen MM. Thickness Effect in Fatigue of Welded Butt Joints – A review of
Guideline (in German). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2017. https://doi.org/ experimental works. Int J Steel Struct 2019;19:1930–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/
10.1007/978-3-658-17459-0. s13296-019-00254-y.
[36] Gnilke W. Possibilities and limitations in lifetime calculation of machine [57] Krebs, J.; Kaßner, M.: Influence of welding residual stresses on fatigue design of
components (in German). Maschinenbautechnik 1981;30:355–7. welded joints and components. International Institute of Welding, doc. XIII-2126-
[37] Hänel B. Fatigue strength under variable amplitude loading and equivalent 06/XV-1220–06, Welding in the World 51 (2007) 54-68.
amplitude (in German). Mater Sci Eng Technol 2003;34:833–5. [58] Deinböck A, Hesse A, Wächter M, Hensel J, Esderts A, Dilger K. Increased accuracy
[38] Rennert, R.; Wünsche, A.: Equivalent amplitude and suitable omission limits for of calculated fatigue resistance of welds through consideration of the statistical size
variable amplitude testing. Proceedings of DVM / ASTM Second International effect within the notch stress concept. Welding in the World 2020;64:1725–36.
Conference on Material and Component Performance under Variable Amplitude https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-00950-y.
Loading, S. 833-840, Darmstadt, 2009. [59] Haagensen PJ, Maddox SJ. IIW-Recommendations on post weld fatigue life
[39] Siebel E. Handbook of materials testing. Part Two – Testing of metallic materials improvement of steel and aluminium structures. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing
(in German). 2nd edition. Göttingen, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag Berlin; 1955. Ltd; 2013.
[40] Boyer HE. Atlas of Fatigue Curves. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International; 1986. [60] Marquis, G.; Barsoum, Z.: IIW-Recommendations for the HFMI Treatment for
[41] Ciavarella M, Meneghetti G. On fatigue limit in the presence of notches: classical Improving the Fatigue Strength of Welded Joints. ISBN 978-981-10-2504-4,
vs. recent unified formulations. Int J Fatigue 2004;26:289–98. https://doi.org/ Springer, 2016.
10.1016/S0142-1123(03)00106-3. [61] Papuga J. A survey on evaluating the fatigue limit under multiaxial loading. Int J
[42] Siebel E, Stieler M. Uneven stress distribution during fatigue loading (in German). Fatigue 2011;33:153–65.
VDI-Zeitschrift 1955;97:121–6. [62] Wuthenow R, Fällgren C, Wächter M, Esderts A, Vormwald M. FKM Multiaxial (in
[43] Liu J, Zenner H. Calculation of endurance limit under consideration of the stress- German). FKM research project 618. VDMA Verlag Frankfurt/Main 2023.
mechanical and statistical Kt-Kf-ratio (in German). Mater Sci Eng Technol 1991;22: [63] Gaier, C.; Dannbauer, H.: An efficient critical plane method for ductile, semi-
187–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/mawe.19910220602. ductile and brittle materials. Proceedings of the 9th International Fatigue Congress,
[44] Hertel O, Vormwald M. Statistical and geometrical size effects in notched members Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2006.
based on weakest-link and short-crack modelling. Eng Fract Mech 2012;95:72–83. [64] Kraft J, Linn A, Wächter M, Esderts A, Vormwald M. Accuracy analyses of fatigue
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.10.017. life predictions for multiaxially non-proportionally stressed notched components -
[45] Leitner M, Vormwald M, Remes H. Statistical size effect on multiaxial fatigue a database evaluation. Int J Fatigue 2022;163:107088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
strength of notched steel components. Int J Fatigue 2017;104:322–33. https://doi. ijfatigue.2022.107088.
org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.08.002. [65] Yadegari P, Beier T, Vormwald M, Kleemann A. Estimation of the fatigue strength
[46] Niessner M, Seeger T, Hohe J, et al. Strength calculation of sharp notched of ultra-high strength steels. Procedia Struct Integrity 2022;37:500–7. https://doi.
components (in German). Mater Sci Eng Technol 2003;34:797–811. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.prostr.2022.01.115.
org/10.1002/mawe.200300671. [66] Yadegari P, Fällgren C, Beier H, Vormwald M, Kleemann A. Extension of methods
[47] Taylor D. Geometrical effects in fatigue: a unifying theoretical model. Int J Fatigue for estimating the fatigue strength of components made of ultra-high strength
1999;21:413–20. steels. Int J f Fatig Part A 2023;167:107325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2022.107325.

13