Multiaxial Kitagawa analysis of A356-T6
Source abstract
Abstract
Experimental Kitagawa analysis has been performed on A356-T6 containing natural and artificial defects. Results are obtained with a load ratio of R = -1 for three different loadings: tension, torsion and combined tension-torsion. The critical defect size determined is 400 \pm 100 \mum in A356-T6 under multiaxial loading. Below this value, the microstructure governs the endurance limit mainly through Secondary Dendrite Arm Spacing (SDAS). Four theoretical approaches are used to simulate the endurance limit characterized by a Kitagawa relationship are compared: Murakami relationships [Y Murakami, Metal Fatigue: Effects of Small Defects and Nonmetallic Inclusions, Elsevier, 2002.], defect-crack equivalency via Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM), the Critical Distance Method (CDM) proposed by Susmel and Taylor [L. Susmel, D. Taylor. Eng. Fract. Mech. 75 (2008) 15.] and the gradient approach proposed by Nadot [Y. Nadot, T. ~Billaudeau. Eng. Fract. Mech. 73 (2006) 1.]. It is shown that the CDM and gradient methods are accurate; however fatigue data for three loading conditions is necessary to allow accurate identification of an endurance limit.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
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.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. Buffière · Mater Sci Eng A · 2001 · 316 · 110.1016/S0921-5093(01)01225-4 ↗
2. Ludwig · Acta Mater · 2003 · 51 · 310.1016/S1359-6454(02)00320-8 ↗
3. Fan · Eng Fract Mech · 2003 · 70 · 1010.1016/S0013-7944(02)00097-8 ↗
4. Gall · Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct · 2000 · 23 · 210.1046/j.1460-2695.2000.00239.x ↗
5. Brochu · Int J Fatigue · 2010 · 32 · 810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.01.001 ↗
6. Chan · Mater Sci Eng A · 2003 · 341 · 110.1016/S0921-5093(02)00196-X ↗
7. Zhu · Metall Mater Trans A · 2007 · 38 · 510.1007/s11661-006-9070-9 ↗
8. Gao · Acta Mater · 2004 · 52 · 19
9. McDowell · Eng Fract Mech · 2003 · 70 · 110.1016/S0013-7944(02)00021-8 ↗
10. De-Feng · Int J Fatigue · 2008 · 30 · 10
11. Susmel · Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct · 2004 · 27 · 510.1111/j.1460-2695.2004.00759.x ↗
12. Murakami · 2002
13. Atzori · Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct · 2005 · 28 · 110.1111/j.1460-2695.2004.00831.x ↗
14. Taylor · Int J Fatigue · 1999 · 21 · 5
15. Lazzarin · Int J Fatigue · 1997 · 19 · 8
16. Atzori · Int J Fract · 2000 · 107 · L3
17. Susmel · Eng Fract Mech · 2008 · 75 · 15
18. Papadopoulos · Eng Fract Mech · 1996 · 55 · 410.1016/S0013-7944(96)00047-1 ↗
19. Nadot · Eng Fract Mech · 2006 · 73 · 110.1016/j.engfracmech.2005.06.005 ↗
20. Gadouini · Int J Fatigue · 2008 · 30 · 910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.11.010 ↗
21. Maxwell DC, Nicholas T. A rapid method for generation of a Haigh diagram for high cycle fatigue. In: Panontin TL, Sheppard SD, editors. Fatigue and fracture mechanics, ASTM STP 1321, vol. 29. West Conshohocken (PA): American Society for Testing and Materials; 1999. p. 626–41.10.1520/STP14974S ↗
22. Billaudeau · Int J Fatigue · 2004 · 26 · 810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2004.01.005 ↗
23. Vu · Int J Fatigue · 2010 · 32 · 710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.11.006 ↗
24. Eshelby · Proc Roy Soc Lond A · 1957 · 421
25. Mura · 1987
26. Couper · Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct · 1990 · 13 · 3
27. Atzori · Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct · 2004 · 28 · 1
28. Dabayeh · Int J Fatigue · 1996 · 18 · 210.1016/0142-1123(95)00073-9 ↗
29. Kumar · Acta Mater · 2010 · 58 · 6