journal article·2013-08Open access

A damage-based cohesive zone model of intergranular crack growth in a nickel-based superalloy

Yaofeng Sun, Kimberly Maciejewski, Hamouda Ghonem

Abstract

A cohesive zone model is utilized to simulate grain boundary interface decohesion under load reversals with hold time being imposed at the maximum load level. This study considers the role of creep–fatigue and environment, which have been introduced as scalar damage parameters. These parameters are coupled with the traction–displacement laws governing the grain boundary cohesion and surrounding time-dependent deformation field. The accumulation of reversible fatigue damage is described using a damage rate law as a function of the elastic potential energy of the interface while creep damage is introduced using a modified Kachanov–Rabotnov type law. The role of environment is modeled by considering the grain boundary dynamic embrittlement occurring as a consequence of oxygen diffusion and accumulation in the grain boundary fracture path. The separation of damage laws into creep, fatigue, and environment, allows the examination of the influence of the different mechanisms on the intergranular crack growth rate. Theoretical aspects of the model are discussed and finite element simulations of intergranular crack growth are performed on a nickel-based superalloy, IN100, at 700℃ to illustrate the main features of the model and its comparison with the experimental data.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · High Temperature Alloys and Creep · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Mechanics of Materials Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical, Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Rhode Island, USA

References (35)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/nme.9310.1002/nme.93 ↗
2. 10.1023/A:100769311611610.1023/A:1007693116116 ↗
3. 10.1016/0921-5093(92)90358-810.1016/0921-5093(92)90358-8 ↗
4. 10.1016/0956-7151(94)00387-W10.1016/0956-7151(94)00387-W ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.11.00210.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.11.002 ↗
6. 10.1177/002199830303450510.1177/0021998303034505 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0022-5096(98)00085-410.1016/S0022-5096(98)00085-4 ↗
8. 10.1016/0749-6419(89)90015-610.1016/0749-6419(89)90015-6 ↗
9. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00415.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00415.x ↗
10. Chaboche JL · Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 1983 · 105 · 123
11. 10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00149-X10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00149-X ↗
12. 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.14411110.1103/PhysRevB.77.144111 ↗
13. Dahal J · International Journal of Fatigue · 2012
14. 10.1016/0921-5093(92)90107-C10.1016/0921-5093(92)90107-C ↗
15. 10.1111/j.1460-2695.1993.tb00767.x10.1111/j.1460-2695.1993.tb00767.x ↗
16. 10.1111/j.1460-2695.1993.tb00103.x10.1111/j.1460-2695.1993.tb00103.x ↗
17. 10.1023/A:101869610135210.1023/A:1018696101352 ↗
18. Kirchhoff S · 2008
19. 10.1016/j.msea.2004.05.05310.1016/j.msea.2004.05.053 ↗
20. Lemaitre J · 2005
21. 10.7449/2012/Superalloys_2012_421_43010.7449/2012/Superalloys_2012_421_430 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.msea.2011.11.05310.1016/j.msea.2011.11.053 ↗
23. 10.1177/10567895920010020210.1177/105678959200100202 ↗
24. 10.1016/0022-5096(90)90001-K10.1016/0022-5096(90)90001-K ↗
25. 10.1023/A:101083952292610.1023/A:1010839522926 ↗
26. Nouailhas D · 1987 · 717
27. 10.1016/0749-6419(89)90011-910.1016/0749-6419(89)90011-9 ↗
28. 10.1177/105678950910364310.1177/1056789509103643 ↗
29. 10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00005-210.1016/S1359-6454(01)00005-2 ↗
30. 10.1016/S0013-7944(02)00034-610.1016/S0013-7944(02)00034-6 ↗
31. 10.1016/S0020-7683(96)00062-510.1016/S0020-7683(96)00062-5 ↗
32. 10.1016/S0142-1123(01)00049-410.1016/S0142-1123(01)00049-4 ↗
33. Tvergaard V (2005) Numerical modelling in nonlinear fracture mechanics, ESIS Newsletter, pp. 41–41.
34. 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00498-210.1016/S0921-5093(03)00498-2 ↗
35. Zaki AS · 2000