
Research Article


Multiaxial Fatigue Behavior of Cylinder Head for a Free Piston Linear Engine 

M.M. Rahman,
A.K. Ariffin,
M.R.M. Rejab,
K. Kadirgama
and
M.M. Noor



ABSTRACT

This study was presented the assessment of multiaxial fatigue criteria of cylinder head for a free piston linear engine using finite element analysis techniques. The structural solid modeling of cylinder head was developed utilizing the computeraided design software. The finite element modeling and analysis were performed utilizing the finite element analysis codes. The biaxiality analysis was performed to assess the multiaxial fatigue. The material parameter and HoffmannSeeger methods were considered to modify the uniaxial material properties. Prediction of fatigue life, effect of the stress combination for the proportional loading condition was investigated in this study. It can be seen that the biaxiality correction method gives conservative predicted life as compared to the uniaxial loading. The materials parameter correction method gives most conservative prediction with SWT criteria. It is also observed that more conservative prediction to use Signed Tresca parameter and Signed von Mises stress gives the result that lie between the absolute maximum principal and signed Tresca results. This approach shows to be quite suitable for integration with a commercial finite element code to provide for an integrated design environment for fatigue life evaluation under general multiaxial loading conditions.







INTRODUCTION
Fatigue failure of automotive components under multiaxial loading conditions
is a common, since most engineering components are subjected to multiaxial cyclic
stresses in service and the origins of multiaxiality are generally due to the
external loading, geometry or residual stresses (Carpinteri
et al., 2008; Li et al., 2009). Multiaxial
fatigue estimation is a very complex task. In comparison to simple load states,
which are more or less satisfactorily solved by widely used uniaxial methods,
there is an increased number of degrees of freedom due to the enhances complexity
of the interactions (Papuga and Ruzicka, 2008). Many
automotive industrial components such as wheels, suspension arms, butt welds,
connecting rods, steel wires, train suspension springs contain defects of different
sizes and geometries (Karolczuk et al., 2008).
Some of these components are classified as safety components and thus they have
to be subjected to particular attention during fatigue design in order to guarantee
an appropriate inservice durability with lightweight design. Hence, the problem
of highcycle fatigue life estimation of components containing defects is of
great importance from a social, scientific and industrial point of view. The
fatigue process of mechanical components under service loading is variable amplitude
in nature. Life prediction and durability assessment is still a challenging
problem extensive process made in the past decades. Many critical mechanical
components experience the multiaxial cyclic loadings during their service life.
Different from the uniaxial fatigue problem, the multiaxial fatigue problem
is more involves due to the complex stress states, loading histories and different
orientations of the fatigue crack in the components. In recent decades, numerous
attempts to develop multiaxial fatigue damage criteria and fatigue damage modeling
have been reported. Several reviews and comparison of existing multiaxial fatigue
models can be found elsewhere (Bernasconi et al.,
2006; Chamat et al., 2007; Liu
and Mahadeven, 2007; Ninic and Stark, 2007). Understanding
of multiaxial fatigue problem is essential for the reliability assessment under
realistic service conditions and is valuable for the design and maintenance
against fatigue failure. Although, there are many proposed models for multiaxial
fatigue damage modeling and most of them are limited to specific materials and
loading conditions. Some of them cannot predict the initial crack orientation,
which is another distinct characteristic of multiaxial fatigue damage compared
with the uniaxial fatigue problem. To the author’s knowledge, there is
no existing multiaxial fatigue damage model is universally accepted. As it is
wellknown, actual time varying loadings on mechanical components are often
experiences the multiaxial fatigue, however, it is usual to rely on uniaxial
fatigue test parameters for life predictions of such structures, due to the
complexity and expense involved in multiaxial fatigue experimental tests. Several
criteria proposed during the last decades to predict whether the fatigue failure
under multiaxial loading may occur or not (Garud, 1981;
You and Lee, 1996; Papadopoulos
et al., 1997; Carpinteri and Spagnoli, 2001;
Wang and Yao, 2004). Criteria based on the critical
plane approach for multiaxial fatigue evaluation have been gaining popularity
(Leese and Socie, 1989; You and Lee,
1996). According to the critical plane approach, fatigue evaluation is performed
on one plane across a critical location in the component. This plane is called
the critical plane, which is usually different for different fatigue models.
Jiang (2000) proposed a damage parameter based on linear
combination of shear stress amplitude and maximum normal stress acting on the
critical plane.
The research on multiaxial fatigue can be divided into three main approaches.
For stressbased approach including the maximum principal stress, Tresca (maximum
shear stress) or vonMises are used to compose the multiaxial fatigue parameter.
This approach is often used to predict high cycle fatigue. Some approaches (McDiarmid,
1991) are based on shear and normal stresses associated with the critical
plane. Only the shear and normal stresses in this plane are considered in formulation
of the fatigue damage parameter. This idea is supported by various experimental
observations of physical mechanism of the fatigue damage process (Fatemi
and Socie, 1988; Brown and Miller, 2007). However,
many experiments and observations showed that the fatigue cracks usually initiate
in the plane of maximum shear strain amplitude which should be the plane of
maximum damage. Therefore, some theoretical approaches suggested that the parameter
governing fatigue life are related to the maximum shear stress and stress normal
to the plane of maximum shear strain. For the strainbased approach, the octahedral
strain has been used to formulate the classical fatigue failure criteria. Recently,
this approach is often considered the shear strain and normal strain in the
critical plane to be the governing multiaxial fatigue parameter (Fatemi
and Socie, 1988). For the energybased approach, the strainenergy density
per cycle has been used to form the fatigue parameter which is related to the
fatigue life. In automotive industries, cylinder heads are one of the most critical
components and function is of vital importance in human safety. The cylinder
head manufacturers have been taking increasing attention to lightweight designs
by new materials and manufacturing technologies in contradiction to durability
concerns due to the complex loading conditions on head (Socie
and Marquis, 2000; Rahman et al., 2007a).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the multiaxial fatigue behavior
on cylinder head of the free piston engine based on strainlife model under
proportional loading using the finite element analysis technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted at high computing laboratory, Automotive Excellence
Centre, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Kuantan.
The duration of the project is September 2008 to August 2009. There are number
of safetycritical components of the free piston engine. The cylinder head is
one of the most important and safetycritical component in the free piston engine
(Rahman et al., 2006; Rahman
et al., 2007b). A cylinder head of the free piston engine is considered
as an example parts in this study. There are several contact areas including
the cylinder block, gasket and hole for bolt. Therefore, constraints are employed
for the following purposes: (1) to specify the prescribed enforce displacements,
(2) to simulate the continuous behavior of displacement in the interface area,
(3) to enforce rest condition in the specified directions at grid points of
reaction (Leese and Socie, 1989). Threedimensional model
of cylinder head was developed utilizing the CATIA® software. A 10 nodes
tetrahedral element (TET10) was used for solid mesh. Sensitivity analysis was
performed to obtain the optimum element size. These analyses were performed
iteratively at different element global edge lengths until the solution obtained
appropriate accuracy. Convergence of the stresses was observed as mesh size
was successively refined. The element size of 1.25 mm was finally considered.
A total of 289142 elements and 454335 nodes were generated with 1.25 mm element
length. A pressure of 7.0 MPa was applied on the surface of cylinder head chamber
generating a compressive load. A pressure of 0.3 MPa was applied on bolthole
surface generating a preload. This preload is obtained according to the RB and
W recommendations (Shigley et al., 2004). In addition,
0.3 MPa pressure was applied on the gasket surface.

Fig. 1: 
Threedimensional finite element model, loading and constraints 
MultiPoint Constraints (MPCs) were applied on the bolthole surface for all
six degree of freedom. Multipoints (Rahman et al.,
2007b) were used to connected parts through the interface nodes. These MPCs
were acting as an artificial bolt and nut that connect each parts of the structure.
Each MPC’s was connected using a Rigid Body Element (RBE) that indicates
the independent and dependent nodes (Schaeffer, 2001).
The configuration of the engine is constrained by bolting between cylinder head
and cylinder block. In the condition with no loading configuration, the RBE
elements with sixdegrees of freedom were assigned to the bolts and hole on
cylinder head. The independent node was created on the cylinder block hole.
Due to the complexity of the geometry and loading on the cylinder head, a threedimensional
finite element model, loading and constraints is shown in Fig.
1. The applied loading state on the internal bore of cylinder was assumed
that due to a fluctuating piston of a variable amplitude loading. This loading
state of course give rise to cyclic fluctuating stresses in the global circumferential
(tangential), radial and longitudinal direction of the cylinder cross section.
However, it is assumed that the thickness in the radial direction is thin relative
to the tangential and longitudinal directions such that an approximate biaxial
stress and strain state is experienced in the cylinder head. The aluminum alloys
are considered as a material of the cylinder head.
Several types of variable amplitude loading history including the tensile,
compressive and bracket mean were selected for Finite Element (FE) based fatigue
analysis.


Fig. 2: 
(ac) Variable amplitude loadtime histories 
It is important to emphasize that these loading sequences are not
intended to represent standard loading spectra in the same way that Carlos or
Falstaf (MSC, 2005) was performed. However, they have been done containing many features, which are typical of
automotive industries applications and therefore, are useful in the evaluation
of the life estimation methods. The detailed information about these histories
is given in the literature (Tucker and Bussa, 1975;
Rahman et al., 2007b). The variable amplitude
loadtime histories are shown in Fig. 2ac.
The terms of SAETRN, SAESUS and SAEBRKT represent the loadtime history for
the transmission, suspension and bracket, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The linear static analysis was performed using MSC.NASTRAN® software to determine the stress and strain results from the finite element model. Figure 3 shows the maximum principal stresses of cylinder head with cast aluminum A356T6 for SAETRN loading. From the acquired results, the maximum principal stresses of 642 MPa occurring at node 132171 were obtained. The results of the maximum principal stresses and strains are used for the subsequent fatigue life analysis and comparisons. The boltholes areas were found to experience the highest stresses.
The fatigue life of cylinder head is predicted using the CoffinManson method with SAETRN variable amplitude loading conditions. The result of fatigue life of the cylinder head for the cast aluminum is shown in Fig. 4. The file prediction is corresponding to 99.8% reliability. The fatigue life is expressed in terms of seconds for variable amplitude SAETRN loading histories. The fatigue equivalent unit is 3000 cpm (cycle per min) of the time history. From the results, it is observed that the predicted fatigue life of the cylinder head at most critical location (node 132171) is 10^{5.41} sec. It is also seen that the bolthole edge is the most critical positions for the cylinder head.
The multiaxiality analysis gives a better understanding of the stress state
in the model and that stress state varies with time (MSC,
2005; Bannantine et al., 1990; Lee
et al., 2005). It uses the surface resolved stresses and to define
as the state of stress on the surface of the model should be plane stress. It
is then used two inplane principal stresses to determine the biaxiality ratio
(a_{e} = σ_{2}/σ_{1}, where σ_{1}
is the absolute maximum inplane principal stress and σ_{2 }is
the other inplane principal). A biaxiality analysis is to determine the standard
deviation of the biaxiality ratio. Biaxiality ratio mean parameter is the average
biaxiality ratio for every time steps in the combined loading history. The mean
biaxiality ratio contours is presented in Fig. 5. It can be
seen that the maximum mean biaxiality ratio value is 0.919, which is close to
+1 value at critical location (node 132171). It is implied that the cylinder
head experiences considerable equibiaxial. This parameter varies between minus
one for pure shear and plus one for fully biaxial. Based on the above mentioned
reason the multiaxial fatigue solution should be considered.
The biaxial parameters are calculated to loading multiaxiality present in the
component due to determine the validity of the fatigue analysis. Figure
6ae show the time variation of different multiaxiality
parameters such as maximum principal stress, minimum principal stress, absolute
maximum principal stress, signed von Mises stress, signed maximum shear stress
for critical location (Node 132171).

Fig. 3: 
Maximum principal stresses contour 

Fig. 4: 
Predicted fatigue life contours plotted 
Biaxiality ratio defined as the ratio of the minimum and maximum principal
stresses at a location on the surface of a component. Figure 7
shows the cross plot of the biaxiality ratio versus maximum absolute principal
stress at the critical location (Node 132171). It can be seen that the biaxiality
ratio straight lineup vertically at a particular ratio (0.5329) and nonzero.
It is also implied that the cylinder head experiences considerable equibiaxial.
Figure 8 shows the cross plot of the angle versus maximum
absolute principal stress at critical location (Node 132171).

Fig. 5: 
Mean biaxiality ratio contours 


Fig. 6: 
Time variation of all the multiaxial assessment parameters:
(a) maximum principal stress, (b) minimum principal stress, (c) absolute
maximum principal stress, (d) signed von Mises and (e) signed maximum shear
stress 
Again note that
tend the angle straight lineup vertically at a particular angle of 53.67. It is implied that the mobility is minimal and uniaxial conditions exist. The
gate value (0 MPa) is properly check for mobility, which excludes small stress/strain
cycles that may mislead in the interpretation of the angle spread.

Fig. 7: 
Cross plot of the biaxiality ratio against the maximum absolute
principal stress 

Fig. 8: 
Cross plot of the angle against the maximum absolute principal
stress 

Fig. 9: 
Distribution of the angle versus the number of times encountered
throughout the time series 
Figure 9 shows the stress tensor mobility, which illustrates
the number of times each angle appeared during the loading sequence. A spike
indicates the predominate angle (53.67). Gate (0 MPa) in stress units is stress
level below, which biaxiality is ignored regardless of what the principal angles
are done.
Table 1 are listed the predicted fatigue life in seconds
using different biaxiality correction method in conjunction with the crack initiation
approach for A356T6 material. In Table 1, it is observed
that the biaxiality correction method give the conservative results than with
no correction.
Table 1: 
Predicted fatigue life for different loading conditions and
biaxiality correction method 

CM: CoffinManson method; MO: Morrow’s method 
Table 2: 
Effect of stress combination with different biaxiality correction
method for A356T6 material and SAETRN loading 

Table 3: 
Averaged percentage errors between the two methods predicted
results 

Table 4: 
Predicted fatigue life for various materials for SAETRN loading,
singed Tresca and SWT parameter criteria using biaxiality material parameter
correction 

It is shown that the materials parameter gives the most conservative prediction
with SWT criteria for all loading conditions. It is implied that the HoffmannSeeger
method in conjunction with maximum absolute principal stress is method of choice
when the mean biaxiality ratio tends to be zero. Otherwise, the material parameter
modification method is suitable for conservative prediction of fatigue life,
which is shown in Table 1.
Effect of stress combination with different biaxiality correction method for A356T6 material and SAETRN loading are presented in Table 2. It is observed from Table 2 for a_{e}≤1, Signed Tresca parameter is predicted the better and more conservative results than others. The Signed von Mises stress gives results lies between the absolute maximum principal and signed Tresca. Proportional loading means that no longer have a uniaxial stress state but the relative magnitude of σ_{2} to σ_{1} is not changing with time, i.e., remain proportional to each other. This loading can be fully handled with the techniques of classical durability assessment using the biaxiality correction using a Singed Tresca Shear stress parameter as opposed to using maximum absolute principal stress. Averaged percentage errors between the two methods predicted results are given in Table 3. Table 4 is listed the predicted fatigue life for various aluminum alloys for SAETRN loading, singed Tresca and SWT parameter criteria using biaxiality material parameter correction. Table 4 is shown that AA7175T73 alloy is the most superior material having with longest life among various aluminum alloys, while AA6951T6 found the weakest material.
DISCUSSION
Due to the relatively complex geometry of the cylinder head and loading conditions, the FE method is used in the calculation of the local loads. Moreover, the transient effects during startup are ignored and internal cylinder pressure acting on the cylinder head is modeled as a distributed loads, with a constant pressure of value 7 MPa, acting statically. Therefore, the total stress at any point of the cylinder head is assumed to be the sum of the stress due to the bolt pretension, the stress due to cylinder pressure. The linear elastic FE analyses are employed to calculate the scaling constants of pseudo stress tensor history at each material point on the cylinder head. The pseudo stressnotch strain curve employed for the stressstrain analysis of complete cylinder head is calculated for each material point, equivalent in this content to a node in the FE mesh of the head based on the Neuber’s rule as a uniaxial approximation formula. In fatigue life predictions, the strain life curve determined from the straincontrolled fatigue tests of uniaxial smooth specimen described using CoffinManson strainlife equation is employed. The computational fatigue analysis of cylinder head biaxial cornering fatigue tests are conducted in two steps. First, a global analysis is performed in that all material points on the surface of cylinder head are analyzed for a single test cycle. The fatigue damage distribution on the surface of the cylinder head is predicted and the fatigue cycles at a material point, equivalently the FE node in this content, is determined estimated by using multiaxial damage parameters. Next, the most critical point candidate for test failure location is analyzed and the characteristics of both stressstrain history and variation of fatigue damage per cycles are evaluated. In the global approach, the stressstrain history of all head surface nodes is analyzed for a single cycle following a preloading step including the bolt pretension and cylinder pressure. Next, assuming a cyclically stable behavior, the fatigue damage is calculated. The uniaxial cyclic stressstrain curve is frequently used in fatigue analysis of stress concentrations, under unidirectional loading. However, the stress states at critical locations in many components subject to fatigue loadings are not uniaxial. For instance, even in a simple notched cylindrical bar in tension, the constraint on transverse strain often causes considerable notch root multiaxiality. In general then, the use of the Neuber method in conjunction with the uniaxial cyclic stressstrain curve is likely to generate values of stress and strain that are misleading and when used as inputs to a fatigue analysis, potentially dangerous. Clearly, some means of taking into account the multiaxiality of stress and strains in necessary.
The following discussion addresses the description of material stressstrain
responses in what will loosely be described as proportional loading. The proportional
loading means that the principal stresses remain in a constant ratio and the
principal stress axes remain fixed in orientation. The multiaxial loadings are
very often due to constraints the stressstrain state can be described more
accurately. The principal strains are in a constant ratio. For the purpose of
this discussion, this condition is closer to the majority of nonuniaxial loadings
that occur in practice, the method describes model deformation under constant
strain ratio rather than constant stress ratio. The context of this discussion
is to calculate elasticplastic stresses and strains on the basis of linear
elastic FE results, using methods based on rule by Neuber
(1961). Two methods are based on the extension of the von Mises yield criterion
to predict postyield stressstrain behavior. The HoffmannSeeger method can
reasonably be applied when the selected Strain Combination is Absolute Maximum
Principal or Signed Tresca. Application when using the signed von Mises is identical
to the normal Neuber method. The method assumes that the Neuber method can be
applied using equivalent stresses and strains based on the von Mises values.
The first step then is to take whatever parameter has been cycle counted and
converted to equivalent strain. In order to deal with a random variable amplitude
loading it is necessary to use a signed form of the von Mises strain.
As it is known, using local strain approach to predict fatigue life, one of
the crucial steps is to determine the notchtip stress and strain responses
in elasticplastic bodies subjected to cyclic loads. Although, accurate determinations
of the notchtip stress and strain response using existing techniques such as
experimental measurements and numerical simulations are not intractable, they
are often too expensive and timeconsuming especially when components are subjected
to long arbitrary multiaxial cyclic loading histories in service. For this reason,
simplified analytical methods that approximate the actual elasticplastic notchtip
material behavior are frequently preferred in practical engineering applications.
So far, a number of approximate methods (Neuber, 1961;
Glinka, 1985; Gu and Lee, 1997)
have been proposed for determining the elasticplastic notchtip stress and
strain. Among these, the rule originally proposed by Neuber
(1961).
The biaxiality correction method was used to correct the treatment of material properties in the application of Neuber method in order to take into account the biaxiality of the loading. Uniaxial material properties can be modified by using either material parameter or HoffmannSeeger methods. The material parameter method basically makes a new set of parameters for each state of stress. It assumes the ratio of the principal strains remains fixed and that the von Mises stress and strain yield criteria obey the cyclic stress strain curve postyield. It is only use with a maximum strain based combination such as maximum absolute principal. The HoffmannSeeger method formulates Neuber correction in equivalent stressstrain space. It predicts all the principal stresses and strains and can, therefore, be used in conjunction with any equivalent stress or strain combination parameter. The current fatigue model is based on critical planebased model. Most of the earlier models based on the critical plane approach assume that the critical plane only depends on the stress state. This indicates that such models account the fatigue damage accumulation in the same way for different materials under the same stress state. Their applicability generally depends on the material’s properties. In the current model, the critical plane does not only depend on the stress state but also on the material properties. There are some other advantages of the current model. The fatigue fracture plane is determined and directly related to the critical plane. The calculation is relatively simple. In the fatigue life prediction model, no special requirements are needed for the SN curve function. The mean stress effect is included in the current model through a general mean stress effect correction factor.
In the present study, discussions about Hoffmann and Seeger based on Neuber’s
rule and Material Parameter Modification (MPM) method are mainly focused on
their physical meaning based on cyclic plastic deformation. Both HoffmannSeeger
and the MPM methods express the strain energy density, it is of a practical
significance to discuss the two approximate relations from the viewpoint of
energy. The above discussion concerning HoffmannSeeger method has been proven
by the available experimental and numerical investigations regarding two approximate
relations for a variety of notch geometries, materials and loading configurations
(Newport and Glinka, 1990). This suggests that there
may exist some inherent shortcomings of the above approximate relations in estimating
the notchtip stresses and strains in the case of elasticplastic deformation.
Therefore, in order to obtain more precise estimations of the notchtip stress
and strain responses of components subjected to multiaxial cyclic loading histories,
MPM approach that can reveal the actual energy dissipation behavior of the notchtip
material element during cyclic plastic deformation. Kim
et al. (2004) also supported these trends of the results. As mentioned
by Kim et al. (2004), there is more scatter in
life data than usually observed in the laboratory for ductile metals. This is
believed to be an inherent characteristic of materials whose life is controlled
by defects (Hanlon et al., 1997; Nadot
et al., 1999).
As it is seen in Table 1 and 2, the two
approximate methods, i.e., HoffmannSeeger method and MPM, predict the general
trends in the elasticplastic notchtip strain responses. Material Parameter
Modification (MPM) method tends to underestimate the fatigue life, while HoffmannSeeger
method apparently overestimates the actual notchtip strain histories for the
all loading conditions. The averaged percentage errors between the two methods
predicted results, as listed in Table 3. It is shown that
there are no systematic errors in the model, for various material properties
and loading conditions. It can be inferred from the present study that in comparison
with Hoffmann and Seeger based on Neuber’s rule, MPM method obtains better
estimations of the notchtip strains in spite of its underestimations of the
measured data, which well accords with the available evaluations regarding the
two approximate relations (Newport and Glinka, 1990).
Since the form of the unified expression is no more complicated than that of
Neuber’s rule and the MPM method can be easily applied to the engineering
approximate estimations of the elasticplastic notchtip stress and strain responses
in components subjected to long arbitrary multiaxial cyclic loading histories.
The proposed model is also capable of handling nonproportional mixedmode loading.
However, further experimental work is required to validate the proposed methodology.
It should be pointed out that, as discussed in the literature (Jiang
and Xu, 2001) regarding the applicability of Hoffmann and Seeger based on
Neuber’s rule and the MPM method in analyses of the elasticplastic notch
strain and stress. The materials parameters are computed using the cyclic stressstrain
curve of the material and are mainly influenced by the cyclic deformation characteristics.
Jiang and Xu (2001) proposed a general method in the computation of material
parameters in the ArmstrongFrederich type of back stress evaluation and this
approach is employed in this study. Bannantine and Socie (1992)
suggest using two different models for different failure modes and choosing
the better prediction as the final result. Similar methodologies are used by
other researchers (Chen et al., 1999; Liu
and Wang, 2001). Park and Nelson (2000) reviewed
the twomodel methodology suggested by Socie and Marquis (2007)
and stated that the failure modes depend on the materials. It appears that the
failure mode depends not only on the material properties but also on the stress
state (Lee et al., 2003).
CONCLUSION
The multiaxial fatigue problem is much more complex compared to commonly study uniaxial fatigue. The proposed fatigue life prediction methodology was based on the local strainlife approach and used available models for multiaxial cyclic plasticity, notch analysis, multiaxial damage estimation. A cyclic plasticity model using nonlinear kinematic hardening rule is integrated with an approximation method for notch stressstrain analysis. It was demonstrated that for the biaxial loading states were considered. Pseudo stress coefficient histories are calculated utilizing linear static finite element analysis. The proposed fatigue life prediction methodology was based on local strainlife approach. Fatigue life and crack initiation locations of an aluminum alloy cylinder head in biaxial analysis are presented for various loading conditions and aluminum alloys. It is concluded from the results that Signed Tresca, SWT criteria and SAETRN loading conditions give conservative predicted fatigue life with materials parameter biaxiality correction method. Conventional multiaxial fatigue damage criteria (like von Mises) based on equivalent stress has made nonconservative life under proportional multiaxial loading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) for provided the laboratory facilities and financial support under project No. RDU070346.

REFERENCES 
1: Bannantine, J., J. Comer and J. Handrock, 1990. Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis. 1st Edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, ISBN10: 013340191X Direct Link 
2: Bannantine, J.A. and D.F. Socie, 1992. A Multiaxial Fatigue Life Estimation Technique. In: Advances in Fatigue Life Predictive Techniques, Mitchell, M.R. and R.W. Landgraf (Eds.). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp: 249275
3: Bernasconi, A., M. Filippini, S. Foletti and D. Vaudo, 2006. Multiaixal fatigue of railway wheel steel under nonproportional loading. Int. J. Fatigue, 28: 663672. CrossRef 
4: Brown, M.W. and K.J. Miller, 2007. High temperature low cycle biaxial fatigue of two steels. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 1: 217229. CrossRef 
5: Carpinteri, A. and A. Spagnoli, 2001. Multiaxial high cycle fatigue criterion for hard metals. Int. J. Fatigue, 23: 135145. CrossRef 
6: Carpinteri, A., A. Spagnoli, S. Vantadori and D. Viappiani, 2008. A multiaxial criterion for notch high cycle fatigue using a criticalpoint method. Eng. Fract. Mech., 75: 18641874. CrossRef 
7: Chen, X., S. Xu and D. Huang, 1999. A critical planestrain energy density criterion for multiaxial lowcycle fatigue life under nonproportional loading. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 22: 679686.
8: Chamat, A., M. Abbadi, J. Gilgert, F. Cocheteux and Z. Azari, 2007. A new nonlocal criterion in high cycle multiaxial fatigue for nonproportional loadings. Int. J. Fatigue, 29: 14651474. CrossRef 
9: Fatemi, A. and D.F. Socie, 1988. A critical plane approach to multiaxial fatigue damage including out of phase loading. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 11: 149165.
10: Garud, Y.S., 1981. Multiaxial fatigue: A survey of the state of the art. J. Test Evol. ASTM., 9: 165178.
11: Glinka, G., 1985. Calculation of inelastic notchtip strain–stress histories under cyclic loading. Eng. Fract. Mech., 22: 839854.
12: Gu, R.J. and Y.L. Lee, 1997. A new method for estimating nonproportional notchroot stresses and strains. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. Trans. ASME., 119: 240245.
13: Hanlon, D.N., W.M. Rainforth and C.M. Sellars, 1997. The effect of processing route, composition and hardness on the wear resistance of chromium bearing steels in a rolling–sliding configuration. Wear, 203: 220229.
14: Jiang, Y., 2000. A fatigue criterion for general multiaxial loading. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 23: 1932. CrossRef 
15: Jiang, Y. and B. Xu, 2001. Deformation analysis of notched components and assessment of approximate method. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 24: 729740. CrossRef 
16: Karolczuk, A., Y. Nadot and A. Dragon, 2008. Nonlocal stress gradient approach for multiaxial fatigue of defective material. Comput. Mater. Sci., 44: 464475. CrossRef 
17: Kim, K.S., K.M. Nam, G.J. Kwak and S.M. Hwang, 2004. A fatigue life model for 5% chrome work roll steel under multiaxial loading. Int. J. Fatigue, 26: 683689. CrossRef 
18: Lee, Y.L., J. Pan, R.B. Hathaway and M.E. Barkey, 2005. Fatigue Testing and Analysis: Theory and Practice. 1st Edn., Butterworth Heinrahmanemann, New York, ISBN: 9780750677196 Direct Link 
19: Lee, B.L., K.S. Kim and K.M. Nam, 2003. Fatigue analysis under variable amplitude loading using an energy parameter. Int. J. Fatigue, 25: 621631. CrossRef 
20: Leese, G.E. and D. Socie, 1989. Multiaxial Fatigue: Analysis and Experiments. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA
21: Li, B., L. Reis and M. de Freitas, 2009. Comparative study of multiaxial damage models for ductile structural steels and brittle materials. Int. J. Fatigue CrossRef 
22: Liu, K.C. and J.A. Wang, 2001. An energy method for predicting fatigue life, crack orientation and crack growth under multiaxial loading conditions. Int. J. Fatigue, 23: S129S134. CrossRef 
23: Liu, Y. and S. Mahadevan, 2007. A unified multiaxial fatigue damage model for isotropic and anisotropic materials. Int. J. Fatigue, 29: 347359. CrossRef 
24: McDiarmid, D.L., 1991. A general criterion for high cycle multiaxial fatigue failure. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 14: 429453.
25: MSC. Fatigure, 2005. User manual. MSC. Software Corporation, Los Angles. http://mscsoftware.com/.
26: Nadot, Y., J. Mendez, N. Ranganathan and S. Beranger, 1999. Fatigue life assessment of nodular cast iron containing casting defects. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 22: 289300. CrossRef 
27: Neuber, H., 1961. Theory of stress concentration for shear strained prismatic bodies with arbitrary nonlinear stressstrain law. ASME. J. Applied Mech., 26: 544550.
28: Newport, A. and G. Glinka, 1990. Effect of notchstrain calculation method on fatiguecrackinitiation predictions. Exp. Mech., 30: 208216.
29: Ninic, D. and H.L. Stark, 2007. A multiaxial fatigue damage function. Int. J. Fatigue, 29: 533548. CrossRef 
30: Papuga, J. and M. Ruzicka, 2008. Two new multiaxial criteria for high cycle fatigue computation. Int. J. Fatigue, 30: 5866. CrossRef 
31: Papadopoulos, I.V., P. Avoli, C. Gorla, M. Filippini and A. Bernasconi, 1997. A comparative study of multiaxial high cycle fatigue criteria for metals. Int. J. Fatigue, 19: 219235. CrossRef 
32: Park, J. and D. Nelson, 2000. Evaluation of an energybased approach and a critical plane approach for predicting constant amplitude multiaxial fatigue life. Int. J. Fatigue, 22: 2339. CrossRef 
33: Rahman, M.M., A.K. Ariffin, N. Jamaludin and C.H.C. Haron, 2006. Influence of surface treatments on fatigue life of a free piston linear generator engine component using random loading. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A, 7: 18191830. CrossRef 
34: Rahman, M.M., A.K. Ariffin, S. Abdullah and N. Jamaludin, 2007. Finite element based durability assessment of a free piston linear engine component. Struct. Durability Health Monit., 3: 114. CrossRef 
35: Rahman, M.M., A.K. Ariffin, S. Abdullah and R.A. Bakar, 2007. Effect of nitriding treatment on fatigue life for free piston linear engine component using frequency response method: A finite element approach. Struct. Durability Health Monit., 3: 197210. Direct Link 
36: Schaeffer, H.G., 2001. MSC. NASTRAN Primer for Linear Analysis. MSC. Software Corporation, USA
37: Shigley, J.E., C.R. Mischke and R.G. Budynas, 2004. Mechanical Engineering Design. 7th Edn., McGraw Hill, New York, ISBN 9780072520361 Direct Link 
38: Socie, D. and G. Marquis, 2000. Multiaxial fatigue. 1st Edn., Society of Automotive Engineers, Washington DC., pp: 244
39: Tucker, L. and S. Bussa, 1975. The SAE cumulative fatigue damage test program. Soc. Automotive Eng., 6: 153.
40: Wang, Y.Y. and W.X. Yao, 2004. Evaluation and comparison of several multiaxial fatigue criteria. Int. J. Fatigue, 26: 1725. CrossRef 
41: You, B.R. and S.B. Lee, 1996. A critical review on multiaxial fatigue assessments of metals. Int. J. Fatigue, 18: 235244.



