A multiaxial fatigue damage function

Gear Root Bending Strength: A New Multiaxial Approach to Translate the Results of Single Tooth Bending Fatigue Tests to Meshing Gears

“…From a general perspective, predicting the fatigue life of structural components under multiaxial loads is one of the most challenging tasks in the engineering field. Different scholars proposed numerous fatigue criteria with the aim of considering the influence of multiaxial conditions, e.g., [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72]. Among the others, the most advanced models are based on the critical plane approach, i.e., the fatigue failure is assumed to take place on a specific plane on which both normal and shear components contribute to the fatigue failure.…”

“…Among the others, the most advanced models are based on the critical plane approach, i.e., the fatigue failure is assumed to take place on a specific plane on which both normal and shear components contribute to the fatigue failure. However, only a subset of methods is capable of considering nonproportional loadings [56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]67,68,[70][71][72] while others were just limited to cases where the loading is proportional. In addition, only few papers can be found in the literature investigating the phenomenon of tooth root bending through multiaxial fatigue criteria.…”

Validation data set for testing the criteria for multiaxial fatigue strength estimation

“…Many researchers used the test set defined by Papadopoulos et al, which contained 43 data items on 4 different steels. This means that cast irons or aluminium alloys were evaluated only rarely . One of the founders of broader validation was McDiarmid, who preceded Papadopoulos et al McDiarmid introduced a permanent danger for any further validation practice—he referred to a paper by Nishihara and Kawamoto and the 4 materials tested by them (mild and hard steels, one duralumin, and one cast iron).…”

“…One of the founders of broader validation was McDiarmid, who preceded Papadopoulos et al McDiarmid introduced a permanent danger for any further validation practice—he referred to a paper by Nishihara and Kawamoto and the 4 materials tested by them (mild and hard steels, one duralumin, and one cast iron). While Papadopoulos et al later evaluated this data set and decided to use only the data items related to hard steel, other researchers were less cautious in the sheer hope that the broader volume of information in the validation set would result in a better evaluation of the prediction capability of the tested criteria.…”

The prediction of multiaxial fatigue probabilistic stress–life curve by using fuzzy theory

“…However, these two criteria cannot predict the orientation of the crack initiation, and the predicted life under nonproportional loading is commonly nonconservative (Wang & Yao, 2004). Second, some other researchers support the view that the orientation of the crack initiation always initiates on a particular plane, which is called the critical plane method (Findley, 1959;Matake, 1977;McDiarmid, 1987;Liu & Mahadevan, 2005Ninic & Stark, 2007;Carpinteri et al, 2009). For instance, Findley (1959) proposed that the crack parameters governing fatigue life were the amplitude of the shear stress and the maximum normal stress on the critical plane, which was called the maximum damage plane, whereas Matake (1977) used the same crack parameters and regarded the maximum shear stress amplitude plane as the critical plane.…”