## 4 Results  
Seven different roller geometries have been tested under fatigue; i.e., PSV2 133 315, PSV2, PSV2 133 600, PSV2 159 380, PSV2 159 600, PSV4 159 530, PSV5 133 315, PSV5 159 530. The test system mimicking the in-service conditions of the rollers was developed by the authors. An external counter-roll presses the tested roller, which rotates with a constant speed, with a constant pressure, applying the load. Further details about the test system can be found in Ref. [38]. The fatigue results for each geometry are reported in Tables 2-  
The fatigue data reported in Tables 2-9 have been analyzed in terms of the SED range by means of FE analyses (details on FE models can be found in Ref. [38]). The results have been compared with the scatter band presented in Ref. [21]. It is worth mentioning that the just mentioned scatter band has been obtained by mostly considering welded joints that fail at the weld toes (Figure 6). It can be seen that the scatter band previously obtained allows reliable predictions of fatigue strength of different roller geometries that fail at the weld root. Therefore, the aforementioned scatter band has revealed to be a reliable tool for the assessment of the fatigue failure of the welded joints regardless of the location of the failure. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & **Load [Kg]** & **RPM** & **Cycles** & **SED [M]/mm\({}^{3}\)]** \\ \hline PSV4 159 530 & 1 * & 1262 & 541 & 363,234 & 0.278 \\  & 2 * & 1251 & 541 & 370,432 & 0.274 \\  & 3 * & 994 & 541 & 677,279 & 0.173 \\  & 4 * & 992 & 541 & 747,548 & 0.172 \\  & 5 * & 991 & 541 & 598,390 & 0.172 \\  & 6 * & 990 & 541 & 619,344 & 0.171 \\  & 7 & 768 & 545 & 6,140,003 & 0.103 \\  & 8 & 715 & 545 & 3,352,651 & 0.089 \\  & 9 * & 708 & 545 & 2,749,333 & 0.088 \\  & 10 & 681 & 545 & 15,139,928 & 0.081 \\  & 11 & 621 & 545 & 5,433,742 & 0.067 \\  & 12 & 585 & 545 & 10,065,572 & 0.060 \\  & 13 & 536 & 545 & 10,791,789 & 0.050 \\  & 14 & & & & \\  & * & 523 & 545 & 9,962,179 & 0.048 \\  & 15 & 480 & 545 & 10,690,499 & 0.040 \\  & 16 & 456 & 545 & 11,909,310 & 0.036 \\  & 17 & 428 & 545 & 11,221,894 & 0.032 \\  & 18 & 401 & 545 & 15,489,417 & 0.028 \\  & 19 & 388 & 545 & 11,608,328 & 0.026 \\  & 20 & 340 & 545 & 10,967,692 & 0.020 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data characterized by * were already presented in Ref. [38].  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Fatigue data for the roller PSV4 159 530. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & **Load [Kg]** & **RPM** & **Cycles** & **SED [M]/mm\({}^{3}\)]** \\ \hline PSV2 159 600 & 1 & 561 & 534 & 2,119,258 & 0.101 \\  & 2 & 527 & 534 & 3,983,769 & 0.089 \\  & 3 & 502 & 534 & 2,452,618 & 0.081 \\  & 4 & 471 & 534 & 2,809,780 & 0.071 \\  & 5 & 424 & 534 & 10,434,390 & 0.058 \\  & 6 & 402 & 534 & 10,224,224 & 0.052 \\  & 7 & 373 & 534 & 11,459,075 & 0.045 \\  & 8 & 351 & 534 & 14,488,277 & 0.039 \\  & 9 & 324 & 534 & 10,663,603 & 0.034 \\  & 10 & 302 & 544 & 12,563,405 & 0.029 \\  & 11 & 283 & 544 & 10,665,627 & 0.026 \\  & 12 & 254 & 544 & 10,159,436 & 0.021 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Fatigue data for the roller PSV2 159 600. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & **Load [Kg]** & **RPM** & **Cycles** & **SED [MJ/mm\({}^{3}\)]** \\ \hline PSV5 133 315 & 1 & 1251 & 643 & 306,221 & 0.230 \\  & 2 & 1245 & 643 & 605,933 & 0.228 \\  & 3 & 1200 & 643 & 1,399,867 & 0.212 \\  & 4 & 815 & 638 & 910,164 & 0.098 \\  & 5 & 807 & 638 & 231,3360 & 0.096 \\  & 6 & 795 & 638 & 2,089,012 & 0.093 \\  & 7 & 776 & 638 & 4,078,198 & 0.089 \\  & 8 & 752 & 638 & 10,913,677 & 0.083 \\  & 9 & 713 & 638 & 5,059,160 & 0.075 \\  & 10 & 695 & 638 & 12,802,353 & 0.071 \\  & 11 & 678 & 638 & 3,863,892 & 0.068 \\  & 12 & 657 & 643 & 14,832,967 & 0.064 \\  & 13 & 593 & 641 & 4,625,783 & 0.052 \\  & 14 & 556 & 641 & 12,891,317 & 0.045 \\  & 15 & 508 & 641 & 11,974,027 & 0.038 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Fatigue data for the roller PSV5 133 315.