An elasto-plastic damage accumulation model for fatigue life predication of ductile metals at the yield stress
Source abstract
Abstract
From the analysis of massive fatigue test data, we find a mismatch between the fatigue life predictions done by stress-life method (SN) and those by strain-life method (εN) around the yield stress of ductile metals. Since the SN and εN methods are widely used in engineering applications, this work aims to explain such mismatch and thereby to address the fatigue life prediction at material’s yield stress, at which the material’s elastic damage and plastic damage are comparable. Based on a normalized damage concept, we propose an elasto-plastic damage accumulation model, a data-driven approach, to evaluate the fatigue damage at the yield stress. By differentiating the damage caused by the elastic from the plastic, the damage of each loading cycle is formulated as a function of both stress and strain amplitudes to accurately capture the material’s response state. With introducing the strain-energy-density based weighting factor, the proposed model can accord well with the classical methods from low-cycle fatigue to high-cycle fatigue. When it comes to the yield stress, the fatigue life estimated by the proposed model compares favorably with the fatigue test data. Therefore, beyond clarifying the mismatch between the classical approaches, the proposed model is expected to improve the accuracy in fatigue damage evaluation of ductile metals at the yield stress.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Metal Forming Simulation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Aerospace Engineering, Tsinghua University, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Funding
Shanghai Electric Power Equipment Co., Ltd
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/105678951774153110.1177/1056789517741531 ↗
2. Basquin O (1910) The Exponential Law of Endurance Tests, proc. West Conshohocken: ASTM, p.625.
3. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.00610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.006 ↗
4. 10.1115/1.365870110.1115/1.3658701 ↗
5. 10.1007/BF0001266710.1007/BF00012667 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10599410.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105994 ↗
7. 10.1007/s00773020001210.1007/s007730200012 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.10432810.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.104328 ↗
9. 10.1016/S0142-1123(01)00027-510.1016/S0142-1123(01)00027-5 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0142-1123(97)00081-910.1016/S0142-1123(97)00081-9 ↗
11. 10.1111/ffe.1320410.1111/ffe.13204 ↗
12. Hirschberg M and Manson S (1964) Fatigue behavior in strain cycling in the low- and intermediate-cycle range, Paper in Fatigue An Interdisciplinary Approach, Proceedings of the Tenth Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference: Syracuse University Press; 1964. pp. 133–178.
13. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.507.23110.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.507.231 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.07.03910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.07.039 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.05.00310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.05.003 ↗
16. 10.1016/S0142-1123(02)00169-X10.1016/S0142-1123(02)00169-X ↗
17. 10.1016/j.msea.2008.07.03510.1016/j.msea.2008.07.035 ↗
18. 10.1111/j.1460-2695.2011.01669.x10.1111/j.1460-2695.2011.01669.x ↗
19. 10.1111/ffe.1323810.1111/ffe.13238 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.11.03510.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.11.035 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.02510.1016/j.rser.2015.09.025 ↗
22. 10.1111/ffe.1328110.1111/ffe.13281 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.12.00810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.12.008 ↗
24. 10.1007/BF0232105610.1007/BF02321056 ↗
25. 10.1007/BF0005351910.1007/BF00053519 ↗
26. Marco S · Transactions of the ASME · 1954 · 76 · 627
27. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.03.00210.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.03.002 ↗
28. 10.1115/1.400945810.1115/1.4009458 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.01510.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.015 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10591210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105912 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2009.09.01410.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2009.09.014 ↗
32. 10.1016/0142-1123(93)90071-W10.1016/0142-1123(93)90071-W ↗
33. 10.1007/s11340-010-9365-z10.1007/s11340-010-9365-z ↗
34. 10.1115/1.365690010.1115/1.3656900 ↗
35. 10.1126/science.118238310.1126/science.1182383 ↗
36. Schijve J · 2001
37. 10.1115/1.294315210.1115/1.2943152 ↗
38. 10.1115/GT2012-6821810.1115/GT2012-68218 ↗
39. 10.1115/1.404340510.1115/1.4043405 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.04.00610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.04.006 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.04.00610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.04.006 ↗
42. 10.1177/105678952094500210.1177/1056789520945002 ↗
43. 10.1177/105678952090620910.1177/1056789520906209 ↗
44. 10.1046/j.8756-758x.2002.00488.x10.1046/j.8756-758x.2002.00488.x ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.02.02710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.02.027 ↗
46. 10.1177/105678951987200010.1177/1056789519872000 ↗
47. 10.1177/105678951560823210.1177/1056789515608232 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.msea.2020.14036610.1016/j.msea.2020.140366 ↗
49. 10.1177/105678951986774710.1177/1056789519867747 ↗
50. 10.1111/ffe.1293710.1111/ffe.12937 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.04.02110.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.04.021 ↗
52. 10.1177/105678951665192010.1177/1056789516651920 ↗