Fatigue strength prediction of carburized 12Cr steel alloy: Effects of evaluation of maximum crack sizes and residual stress distribution
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Axial loading fatigue tests of carburized 12Cr steel alloy in long‐life regime were performed under stress ratios of −1 and 0. Fatigue fracture can be divided into surface failure, interior failure without fine granular area (FGA), and interior failure with FGA. By considering the effects of the tensile limit, the evaluation of maximum crack sizes (inclusion sizes and FGA sizes), and residual stress distribution, the fatigue strength prediction model of carburized 12Cr steel alloy for inclusion‐FGA‐fisheye induced failure in low stress level region can be established. By comparing the predicted results evaluated by generalized extreme values (GEV) with generalized Pareto (GP), the GP distribution is more suitable to predict the fatigue limit of the carburized 12Cr steel alloy. Furthermore, by using the relationship between inclusion sizes and FGA sizes, the fatigue limit prediction model for the design of components can be established, and the result is extremely accurate for the carburized 12Cr steel alloy.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · High Temperature Alloys and Creep · Material Properties and Failure Mechanisms
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical Engineering Inner Mongolia University of Technology Hohhot 010051 China
Ordos Special Equipment Inspection and Testing Institution Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau Ordos 017000 China
Funding
Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/ffe.1273510.1111/ffe.12735 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.msea.2019.02.01010.1016/j.msea.2019.02.010 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.04.02510.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.04.025 ↗
4. 10.1111/ffe.1277910.1111/ffe.12779 ↗
5. 10.1111/ffe.1264910.1111/ffe.12649 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.02.02310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.02.023 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.11.01710.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.11.017 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.11.00410.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.11.004 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.04.01810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.04.018 ↗
10. 10.3390/ma812545910.3390/ma8125459 ↗
11. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00459.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00459.x ↗
12. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2002.00576.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.2002.00576.x ↗
13. 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.03.22810.1016/j.proeng.2010.03.228 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.11.02910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.11.029 ↗
15. 10.1111/ffe.1279710.1111/ffe.12797 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.07.04910.1016/j.scriptamat.2012.07.049 ↗
17. 10.3390/met610024610.3390/met6100246 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.05.00910.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.05.009 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.08.00110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.08.001 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.12.00110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.12.001 ↗
21. 10.1016/0142-1123(94)90001-910.1016/0142-1123(94)90001-9 ↗
22. 10.1016/S0079-6425(02)00014-210.1016/S0079-6425(02)00014-2 ↗
23. 10.1179/02670830010150692010.1179/026708300101506920 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.msea.2004.11.01510.1016/j.msea.2004.11.015 ↗
25. 10.2307/298630110.2307/2986301 ↗
26. Models for exceedances over high thresholds10.1111/j.2517-6161.1990.tb01796.x ↗
27. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.1999.t01-1-00185.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.1999.t01-1-00185.x ↗
28. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.09.00110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.09.001 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.02.00610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.02.006 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.04.01710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.04.017 ↗
31. 10.1016/S0921-5093(03)00136-910.1016/S0921-5093(03)00136-9 ↗
32. 10.1111/j.1460-2695.2011.01658.x10.1111/j.1460-2695.2011.01658.x ↗
33. 10.1299/jmmp.3.42510.1299/jmmp.3.425 ↗
34. 10.3390/met812100610.3390/met8121006 ↗