ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003
Proceedings of OMAE 2003
nd
22 International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
SENSITIVITY OF FATIGUE ASSESSMENT TO THE USE OF
DIFFERENT REFERENCE S-N CURVES
Xiaozhi Wang
American Bureau of Shipping
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060, USA
cwang@eagle.org
ABSTRACT
The S-N curve based fatigue assessment approach is
the most widely used one in both ship and offshore
industry, in contrast with a fracture mechanics approach.
The S-N approach, implemented by either simplified or
spectral method, has to apply S-N curves to calculate
fatigue strength. The S-N curve, which represents the
number of cycles (N) of a constant amplitude stress range
(S) that will cause a fatigue failure, is normally developed
based on experimental data. Which S-N curve should be
applied to a particular detail depends very much on the
geometry of the detail, welding information as well as
loading condition.
There are various S-N curves published by different
institutions, e.g., S-N curves published by UK HSE, IIW,
AWS etc. The newly developed ABS “Guidance on
Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures”, [1], proposes
the ABS S-N curves, in which two categories of joints,
tubular and non-tubular, are included, and both size and
environment effects are taken into account. However, the
application in Gulf of Mexico is also influenced by API
recommendations. In API RP 2A, AWS S-N curves are
referred, which in US practice is accepted for fixed
(buoyant and non-buoyant) platform deck structures.
The objective of this paper is to address the
difference between different S-N curves and to present the
detailed results of fatigue assessment by using different S-
N curves for non-tubular joints. Conclusions made based
on the study provide more background on the S-N curve
application in fatigue assessment.
Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves
June 8-13, 2003, Cancun, Mexico
OMAE 2003-37238
Zhan Cheng
American Bureau of Shipping
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060, USA
zcheng@eagle.org
INTRODUCTION
The S-N curve method is the most widely used
procedure to establish the fatigue strength (life) of
structural details in both offshore and ship engineering
practices. The application of the S-N curve method is
governed by a variety of engineering standards that
typically share some features. These common features
include:
• The format and implicit confidence bounds of the
‘design S-N curves’ (which are established from
experimental data from specimens that are
considered representative of the structural detail
being assessed);
• The categorization of generic structural details into
particular S-N curve ‘classifications’ (which are
based on the geometry and loading of the detail;
and also occasionally-
• specifics of the welding procedure, or
• the extensiveness of the non-destructive
examination (NDE) to be provided during
structural fabrication,
• or both);
• Adjustments to the design S-N curves to account
for other considerations such as structural
element thickness and the relative corrosiveness
of the environment that the detail will
experience.
While sharing these general features, the specifics of
each of these features in the various reference standards
can be quite different. This can result in disparities of
fatigue life predictions.
141
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

Internationally, relevant sources of specifications
governing the application of the S-N curve approach to
offshore structures are the U.K. Welding Institute (TWI)
and the International Institute of Welding (IIW). The
former are well known to the offshore industry as they
were published in various editions by the U.K. regulatory
bodies, the Department of Energy (DEn) and the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE). In the USA and in other
countries where the prevalent offshore structural
engineering standards have relied on the API’s
recommended practice-RP 2A, the API and by reference,
the American Welding Society (AWS) S-N curves are
used to establish fatigue strength.
ABS has studied the various S-N curves in use for
offshore structures and has developed its “Guidance on
the Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures”, [1]. The
Guidance provides proposals that reflect the features of
the international standards. This has resulted in the
development of new sets of S-N curves that are referred
to in the Guidance as the ABS S-N curves. But, the
Guidance also recognizes the application of API and
AWS S-N curves for major areas of fixed (buoyant and
non-buoyant) platform structures that are sited on the
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
Offshore Structures [1] employs a combination of DEn
(1990) curves [2] and HSE (1995) curves [3]. The basic
S-N curves in-air are the same as defined by DEn (1990)
and adjustments for structures under corrosive
environments such as cathodic protection and free
corrosion in seawater are the same as defined by [3]. The
bases for this choice are: 1) the history of successful
practice, 2) worldwide acceptance, and 3) conservative
performance in the high cycle range.
In general, ABS in-air S-N curves, for both tubular
and non-tubular joints, can be represented by a two-
segment S-N curve (Figure 1). When the number of
cycles, N, is less than NQ,, which is taken as 10-7 here,
the relationship between N and stress range (S) is:
N = A⋅S–m (1)
where A and m are the fatigue strength coefficient
and exponent respectively, as determined from fatigue
tests.
When N is greater than NQ cycles,
N = C⋅S–r (2)
where C and r are strength parameters determined
from fatigue tests.

This paper compares the ABS and AWS S-N curves
for non-tubular joints in offshore structures and presents
the results of fatigue assessments that have been
performed using these data. This exercise will illustrate
the background and application of these standards, and it
will also demonstrate the sensitivity of the fatigue life
predictions to the reference standards employed.
The parameters defining S-N curves are listed in
Table 1, in which the first eight curves are for non-
tubular joints of various classifications and the last one
for tubular joints.
Figure 1: Two-segment S-N curve

NS m = A
NOMENCLATURE

N number of cycles to failure in S-N curve

Log(S)

representation 1
m
NS r = C

NQ Number of cycles when S-N curve has SQ

slope change 1
S stress range r

A,m fatigue strength coefficient and exponent

NQ
determined from fatigue tests Log (N)

C,r fatigue strength parameter determined from

fatigue tests Curve A m C r
t plate thickness of the member under assessment Class
tB basic (reference) thickness B 1.01×1015 4.0 1.02×1019 6.0
SB stress range at basic (reference) thickness C 4.23×10 13
3.5 2.59×1017 5.5
k thickness exponent factor D 1.52×10 12
3.0 4.33×10 15
5.0
E 1.04×1012 3.0 2.30×1015 5.0
ABS S-N CURVES FOR NON-TUBULAR JOINTS F 6.30×10 11
3.0 9.97×10 14
5.0
IN OFFSHORE STRUCTURES F2 4.30×1011 3.0 5.28×1014 5.0
11 14
G 2.50×10 3.0 2.14×10 5.0
In order to establish S-N curves for offshore
structures, ABS has performed a comprehensive review of W 1.60×1011 3.0 1.02×1014 5.0
12 15
fatigue test results and fatigue strength models for welded T 1.46×10 3.0 4.05×10 5.0
joints. The ABS Guidance on the Fatigue Assessment of Table 1 Parameters for ABS in-air S-N curves

142 Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

When a joint is exposed to seawater, the above S-N
curves should be modified to reflect the impairing effects
of the corrosive environment on the fatigue strength of
the joints. For non-tubular joints in seawater with
cathodic protection or no protection, penalties are applied
to the in-air S-N curves to reflect the reduced fatigue
strength.
SIZE EFFECTS OF NON-TUBULAR JOINTS
When thickness correction is taken into account, the
S-N curve shown by Equation (1) can be expressed as
⎡ S ⎤
Log10 (N ) = Log10 ( A) − mLog10 ⎢ k⎥
(3)
⎢⎣ (t B / t ) ⎥⎦
where N is the number of cycles to failure, S is stress
range, and
Log 10 ( A) = Log10 ( A1 ) − 2σ Log10 ( N )
In which Log10(A1) is the mean value obtained by the
least squares regression analysis and σLog10(N) is the
standard deviation of Log10(N). The design curve is
defined as two standard deviations of Log10(N) below the
mean S-N curve, which corresponds to a 2.5% probability
of failure.
from 56 MPa to 341 MPa and only 4 specimens have a
fatigue life exceeding 107 cycles.
The parameters of F-curves used in the two codes are
shown in Table 3. The basic F-curves in [2] and [3] are
identical but with different thickness correction formulae.
Codes N<107 N>107
Log10(A) m Log10(A) m
DEn (1990) 11.801 3 15.001 5
& HSE (1995)
Table 3 Parameters of F-curves (in air)
The design F-curves with thickness correction are
plotted against the test data, with one thickness in each
figure (for illustration, only three figures, as shown in
Figures 2 – 5, with thickness of 25 mm, 50 mm and 75
mm, are presented in this paper). F-curve of 16 mm
thickness (i.e. without thickness correction) in HSE
(4) (1995) [3] is also plotted in the figures where it is
appropriate for reference. These series of figures
demonstrate the general detrimental effect of increasing
plate thickness. These figures also illustrate large safety
margins between the test data and design curves, with
HSE (1995) curve at the most.
1000

ABS [1]

Thickness correction to the stress range is also HSE [3]

Test Data
included in Equation (3), where t is plate thickness of the
Stress Range (MPa)

HSE [3]-16mm
member under assessment, tB is the basic thickness (i.e.
the minimum thickness to which the thickness correction
100

should be applied) and k is the thickness exponent. In

Table 2, tB and k used in the two fatigue codes, i.e. DEn
(1990) [2] and HSE (1995) [3], are shown.
10

One of the objectives of this study is to compare the

1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+

N
above mentioned two thickness correction formulas with
Figure 2: F-curves with thickness correction and
the test data that were used in reviewing thickness effect
test data (plate thickness 25 mm).
by [3].

Parameters DEn (1990) HSE (1995) 1000

ABS [1]
k 0.25 0.30 HSE [3]

Test Data [4]

tB 22 mm 16 mm
Stress Range (MPa)

HSE [3] 16mm

Table 2 Parameters of plate thickness correction for 100

non-tubular joints

An analysis is undertaken on data from tests on as-

welded T-butt and cruciform joints that belong to the F- 10
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+
curve joint classification, as presented in the HSE (1992) N

background document [4]. The specimens vary in Figure 3: F-curves with thickness correction
thickness from 16 mm to 200 mm. There are a total of and test data (plate thickness 50 mm)
146 specimens, of which 125 specimens have equal main
plate and attachment thicknesses. The stress ranges vary

Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves 143
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

In reviewing the background document [4] that

1000 supports HSE Fatigue Guidance [3], it is found that with
the thickness correction of [3], all test data locate above P
ABS [1]

HSE [3]

Test Data curve (i.e. D-curve in ABS [1] and DEn [2]), while the
Stress Range (MPa)

HSE [3] 16mm

test specimens are as-welded T-butt and cruciform joints
100 which belong to the F-curve joint classification. This gap
indicates that thickness correction formula in [3] is very
conservative. Therefore, in recognition of possible
excessive conservatism for particular joints, a clause is
10
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+0
included in [3] so that alternative corrections may be
N used if they are supported by results from experiments or
Figure 4: F-curves with thickness correction and from fracture mechanics analyses. Based on Figure 5, it is
test data (plate thickness 75 mm) found that the use of the F curve for this detail with
reference thickness 16mm is conservative. It is therefore
The following formula can be employed to correct proposed by ABS [1] that the reference thickness of 22
the stress range data measured at various plate mm is applied, together with the exponent of k (= 0.25).
thicknesses to the one at the basic thickness:
FATIGUE ASSESSMENT - ABS S-N CURVES VS.
S B = S /(t B / t ) k (5) AWS S-N CURVES

This formula is identical to that in Equation (3). The For non-tubular connections, API RP 2A [5] cites the
parameters used in the corrections are listed in Table 2. ANSI/AWS D1.1-92 [6] S-N curves. The S-N curves in
the latest AWS (2002) [7] document are essentially the
For a different viewpoint, the correction of Equation
(5) is applied to the data and then compared to the basic same as those in [6]. The AWS and ABS in-air curves are
curves (without the thickness correction). compared in this section, as shown in Figure 6. However,
the comparison is not exact. Observations that contrast
In this analysis, only data for specimens with equal the two are:
main plate and attachment thicknesses were included. • Although both codes have eight classes or
The data with fatigue life longer than 107 cycles were categories of plate joint types, there are
also excluded due to the small number of data which is differences in the definition of the detail
not enough to regress the curve segment for N > 107. category.
With the corrected data, quasi-design S-N curves can be • ABS specifies a thickness correction and there is
produced. These curves are constructed by taking the no thickness correction in the AWS
least square line and shifting it two standard deviations requirements.
(on a log basis) to the left. The quasi-design S-N curves • Overall there is no direct correspondence of
and the basic F-Curves, without thickness corrections, are categories. Therefore, Figure 6 does not portray
plotted in Figure 5 for comparison. Figure 5 shows that a one to one match between S-N curves defined
there are relatively high safety margins between the in ABS [1] and AWS [7].
regressed S-N curves and design curves, with the HSE
(1995) curve [3] having the largest margin. The fatigue life for a variety of details calculated by
the simplified method, is presented next. The basic
1000
assumptions employed in the so called simplified fatigue
ABS [1] F-Curve without Thickness Correction
analysis procedure are: a) a linear cumulative damage
HSE [3] F-Curve without Thickness Correction

Regressed S-N Curve with HSE Thickness

model, (i.e., Palmgren-Miner’s Rule) is used in
Correction
Regressed S-N Curve with ABS Thickness connection with the S-N curve, b) long-term stress ranges
Stress Range (MPa)

Correction
on a detail can be characterized by a Weibull probability
100 distribution parameter, h.

10
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+0

Figure 5: Regressed S-N curves and design F-curves

144 Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

1000 1000
B (ABS [1])
C (ABS) C (ABS [1])
D (ABS)
E (ABS)
F (ABS)
Fatigue Life (year)
F2 ABS)
100

Stress Range (MPa)

Stress Range (MPa)

G (ABS)
W (ABS) h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
100
ABS C 20 16
AWS B 32 32
A (AWS [7])
B (AWS) 10
B' (AWS)
C (AWS) h=1.0
_____________________ B (AWS [7])
D (AWS)
t =22mm t=30mm
E (AWS)
ABS C 20 16
E' (AWS)
AWS B 35 35
1
F (AWS)
10 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+0
N
N

Figure 6: S-N curves for non-tubular joints in air Figure 7: Continuous welds essentially parallel to the
direction of stress-butt or fillet welds with no start/stop
Figures 7 – 16 present comparisons for 10 selected
structural details. There details are respectively:
continuous welds essentially parallel to the direction of
stress-butt or fillet welds with no start/stop; continuous
welds essentially parallel to the direction of stress-full 1000

penetration butt welds; continuous welds essentially B (ABS [1])

parallel to the direction of stress-butt or fillet welds with

Fatigue Life (year)
start/stop; as welded transverse butt welds in plates – full 100
Stress Range (MPa)

penetration; transverse butt welds in plates – full h=0.75

_____________________

penetration with backing strip (tack welds) outside ABS B

t=22mm t=30mm
20 16
groove); transverse butt welds in plates – full penetration AWS B 18 18
10
with backing strip (tack welds) inside groove); transverse h=1.0 B (AWS [7])
full penetration butt welds in plates (perpendicular to the _____________________
t=22mm t=30mm
direction of stress); welded attachments on the surface or ABS B 20 16
AWS B 18 18
edge of a stressed member – bevel butt or fillet welded 1
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09

(attachment length > 150 mm); welded attachments on N

the surface or edge of a stressed member – bevel butt or Figure 8: Continuous welds essentially parallel to the
fillet welded (attachment length < 150 mm); loading direction of stress-full penetration butt welds
carrying transverse fillet and T butt welds (toe cracking).

In this comparison study, two Weibull shape

parameters, 0.75 and 1.0, and two plate thicknesses, 22
mm and 30 mm, are considered. For example, in Figure 1000

7, the structural detail is classified as C curve according D (ABS [1])

to ABS [1] and B curve according to AWS [7]. Figure 7 E (AWS [7])

also shows these two curves. For the case of Weibull Fatigue Life (year)
parameter being 0.75, assume that the fatigue stress
100
Stress Range (MPa)

h=0.75
range at this detail with a plate thickness of 22 mm ___________________
t =22mm t=30mm
produces a fatigue life of 20 years based on the C curve ABS D 20 16
AWS E 5 5
from ABS [1], the estimated fatigue life is 32 years when 10

h=1.0
using B curve from AWS [7]. If, however, the plate _____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
thickness increases to 30 mm, by assuming the same ABS D 20 16
AWS E 6 6
fatigue stress range at this detail, the predicted fatigue 1

life will be 16 and 32 years according to ABS [1] and 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06

N
1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+

AWS [7], respectively. The thickness correction

Figure 9: Continuous welds essentially parallel to the
introduced in ABS [1] reduces the fatigue life for thicker
direction of stress-butt or fillet welds with start/stop
plate. But in AWS [7], as mentioned above, the thickness
effect is ignored. It should be noted that all of these
comparisons do not include additional factor of safety.

Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves 145
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

1000 1000
C (ABS [1]) D (AWS [7], 50mm < R < 150mm)

E (AWS [7], R < 50mm)

F2 (ABS [1], R > 1.25t)

Fatigue Life Fatigue Life (year)
100 100
Stress Range (MPa)

Stress Range (MPa)

h=0.75 h=0.75
_____________________ _____________________
t =22mm t=30mm t =22mm t=30mm
ABS C 20 16 ABS F2 20 16
AWS C 10 10 AWS D 44 44
AWS E 19 19
10 10
h=1.0
h=1.0 _____________________
_____________________ t =22mm t=30mm
t =22mm t=30mm ABS F2 20 16
ABS C 20 16 AWS D 49 49
C (AWS [7]) Ground smooth
AWS C 11 11 AWS E 20 20
1 1
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09

N N

Figure 10: As welded transverse butt welds Figure 13: Transverse full penetration butt welds
in plates – full penetration in plates (perpendicular to the direction of stress)

1000 1000
E (AWS [7]) F2 (ABS [1], Attachment length > 150mm, d > 10mm))

G (ABS [1])
E (AWS [7])
Fatigue Life (year) 100 Fatigue Life (year)
Stress Range (MPa)

100
Stress Range (MPa)

h=0.75 h=0.75
_____________________ _____________________
t =22mm t=30mm t =22mm t=30mm
ABS G 20 16 ABS F2 20 16
10 AWS E 33 33 10 AWS E 19 19

h=1.0 h=1.0
_____________________ _____________________
t =22mm t=30mm t =22mm t=30mm
ABS G 20 16 ABS F2 20 16
AWS E 35 35 AWS E 20 20
1 1
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+0

N N

Figure 11: Transverse butt welds in plates – Figure 14: Welded attachments on the surface
full penetration with backing strip (tack welds) or edge of a stressed member – bevel butt or
outside groove) fillet welded (attachment length > 150 mm)

1000 1000

D (AWS [7])

F (ABS [1], Attachment length < 150mm, d > 10mm))

F (ABS [1])
Fatigue Life (year)
Fatigue Life (year)
100
Stress Range (MPa)

100
Stress Range (MPa)

h=0.75
h=0.75 _____________________
_____________________ t =22mm t=30mm
t =22mm t=30mm ABS F 20 16
ABS F 20 16 AWS C 65 65
AWS D 30 30
10 10
h=1.0
h=1.0 _____________________ C (AWS [7])
_____________________ t =22mm t=30mm
t =22mm t=30mm ABS F 20 16
ABS F 20 16
AWS C 78 78
AWS D 34 34
1
1
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09

N N

Figure 12: Transverse butt welds in plates – full Figure 15: Welded attachments on the surface or
penetration with backing strip (tack welds) inside groove) edge of a stressed member – bevel butt or
fillet welded (attachment length < 150 mm)

146 Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

When the cognizant governmental authority

1000
F (ABS [1], full penetration)

mandates the use of such standards, these will be

F2 (ABS [1], patial penetration/fillet)
Fatigue Life (year) considered for use in ABS’s classification of structures.
100
However, the designer is naturally cautioned that use
Stress Range (MPa)

h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm must be made of the entire fatigue assessment procedure
ABS F2
DEn F
20
29
16
23 including: how the stress range producing loads are to be
10
AWS C
h=1.0
96 96
obtained, requirement for increased inspection & NDT
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm during fabrication, added factors of safety, etc. It is
ABS F2
DEn F
20
29
16
23 C (AWS [7]) inappropriate to unjustifiably mix elements of different
1
AWS C 114

1.00E+04
114

1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+

fatigue assessment procedures.
N

Figure 16: Loading carrying transverse fillet ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

and T butt welds (toe cracking)
Authors would like to acknowledge the valuable
comments from John F. Conlon, ABS Consultant,
By reviewing Figures 7 – 16, it is difficult to Professor Paul H. Wirsching, University of Arizona, and
conclude which set of S-N curves is more conservative. Dr. Richard Yee from Nuclear Safety Solutions Ltd.
Actually, the relative conservatism of the two sets of
curves varies with detail class or category. For some
detail classes, e.g. for full penetration butt welds of REFERENCES
continuous welds essentially parallel to the direction of
stress, the predicted fatigue lives are very close to each 1. American Bureau of Shipping (to be published),
other. But for some other detail classes, e.g. loading Guidance on the Fatigue Assessment of Offshore
carrying transverse fillet and T butt welds, the fatigue Structures.
lives predicted with the AWS curves can reach more than 2. United Kingdom Department of Energy (1990),
seven times those based on ABS curve, when the input Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design and
stress range is the same corresponding to 20-year fatigue Construction, Fourth Edition, HMSO
life by ABS curve. 3. Health & Safety Executive (1995), Offshore
Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and
Certification, Third Amendment to Fourth Edition,
CONCLUSIONS London
4. Health & Safety Executive (1992), Fatigue
This paper illustrates some of the differences in Background Guidance Document, Report OTH 92
fatigue assessment results which can occur when using S- 390, London
N curves recommended by different sources. The recent 5. The American Petroleum Institute (2001), API
ABS S-N curves were produced based on reanalysis of Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (latest edition)
data used to establish the curves issued in the UK. An 6. American Welding Society (1992), Structural
adjustment to the UK S-N data related to thickness has Welding Code – Steel, American Welding Society
been modified in the ABS proposal, and this has been specification ANSI/AWS D1.1
mentioned in this paper. 7. American Welding Society (2002), Structural
Welding Code–Steel, American Welding Society
The UK based curves are wildly employed and may specification ANSI/AWS D1.1M, 18th Edition.
eventually be the basis of the future ISO criteria
applicable to fixed offshore structures. On the other hand,
the use of API (and AWS) fatigue criteria is expected for
offshore hydrocarbon production structure sited in the US
continental shelf.

Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves 147
 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2003

148 Sensitivity of Fatigue Assessment to the Use of Different Reference S-N Curves