| Abstract: | To accurately perform the fatigue assessment of engineering components subjected to in‐service multiaxial fatigue loading, the adopted design criterion must properly be calibrated, the used information usually being the fatigue strength under both pure uniaxial and pure torsional fatigue loading. Because of the complex fatigue response of metallic materials to multiaxial loading paths, the only reliable way to generate the necessary pieces of calibration information is by running appropriate experiments. Unfortunately, because of a lack of both time and resources, very often, structural engineers are requested to perform the multiaxial fatigue assessment by guessing the necessary fatigue properties. In this complex scenario, initially, the available empirical rules suitable for estimating fatigue strength under both pure axial and pure torsional fatigue loading are reviewed in detail. Subsequently, several experimental results taken from the literature and generated by testing metallic materials under a variety of proportional and non‐proportional multiaxial loading paths are used to investigate the way such empirical rules affect the accuracy in estimating fatigue strength, the damage extent being evaluated according to the modified Wöhler curve method. Such a systematic validation exercise allowed us to prove that under proportional loading (with both zero and non‐zero mean stresses), an adequate margin of safety can be reached even when the necessary calibration information is directly estimated from the material ultimate tensile strength. On the contrary, in the presence of non‐proportional loading, the use of the empirical rules reviewed in the present paper can result, under particular circumstances, in a non‐conservative fatigue design. |
