A comparative study between a small time scale model and the two driving force model for fatigue analysis

Abstract A comparative study is performed to demonstrate the difference and similarity between the two driving force approach and a small time scale model under both constant and variable amplitude loading. The small time scale model is different from most existing fatigue analysis methodologies and is based on the instantaneous crack growth kinetics within one cycle. The two driving force approach is cycle-based and uses two driving force parameters to describe crack growth rate per cycle under constant amplitude loadings. A simple modified two driving force approach is proposed based on the concept of forward and reverse plastic zone interaction and is used to calculate the fatigue crack growth under general variable amplitude loadings. Extensive experimental data for various metallic materials are used to validate the two driving force model and the small time scale model.

[1]  M. Skorupa,et al.  Load interaction effects during fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude loading—a literature review. Part II: qualitative interpretation , 1999 .

[2]  Zizi Lu,et al.  Small time scale fatigue crack growth analysis , 2010 .

[3]  Daniel Kujawski,et al.  A new (ΔK+Kmax)0.5 driving force parameter for crack growth in aluminum alloys , 2001 .

[4]  Royce Forman,et al.  Fatigue Crack Growth Database for Damage Tolerance Analysis , 2005 .

[5]  T. Siegmund,et al.  A study on crack propagation in heterogeneous elastic-plastic solids , 2013 .

[6]  K. Sadananda,et al.  Application of unified fatigue damage approach to compression–tension region , 1999 .

[7]  Daniel Kujawski,et al.  Analysis of crack propagation using ΔK and Kmax , 2005 .

[8]  T. R. Porter,et al.  Method of analysis and prediction for variable amplitude fatigue crack growth , 1972 .

[9]  R. C. McClung,et al.  CRACK CLOSURE AND PLASTIC ZONE SIZES IN FATIGUE , 1991 .

[10]  Wanlin Guo,et al.  Effects of strain hardening and stress state on fatigue crack closure , 1999 .

[11]  G. Glinka,et al.  A two parameter driving force for fatigue crack growth analysis , 2005 .

[12]  G. Maymon,et al.  A ‘unified’ and a (ΔK+·Kmax)1/2 crack growth models for aluminum 2024-T351 , 2005 .

[13]  S. Dinda,et al.  Correlation and prediction of fatigue crack growth for different R-ratios using Kmax and ΔK+ parameters , 2004 .

[14]  Daniel Kujawski,et al.  A fatigue crack driving force parameter with load ratio effects , 2001 .

[15]  K. Sadananda,et al.  Multiple mechanisms controlling fatigue crack growth , 2003 .

[16]  Uwe Zerbst,et al.  A review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion , 2003 .

[17]  Steve Lambert,et al.  A study of the stress ratio effects on fatigue crack growth using the unified two-parameter fatigue crack growth driving force , 2007 .

[18]  K. S. Ravichandran,et al.  Effect of mean stress (stress ratio) and aging on fatigue-crack growth in a metastable beta titanium alloy, Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al , 2000 .

[19]  G. Glinka,et al.  Elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth analysis under variable amplitude loading spectra , 2009 .