0
Materials and Fabrication

Critical Assessment of a Local Strain-Based Fatigue Crack Growth Model Using Experimental Data Available for the P355NL1 Steel

[+] Author and Article Information
Abílio M. P. De Jesus

e-mail: ajesus@utad.pt

José A. F. O. Correia

e-mail: jcorreia@utad.pt
Engineering Department
School of Sciences and Technology
University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro
Quinta de Prados
5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal;
UCVE/LAETA, IDMEC – Pólo FEUP
4200-465 Porto, Portugal

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNALOF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 10, 2011; final manuscript received April 11, 2012; published online December 5, 2012. Assoc. Editor: Osamu Watanabe.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(1), 011404 (Dec 05, 2012) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-11-1165; doi: 10.1115/1.4006905 History: Received August 10, 2011; Revised April 11, 2012

Fatigue crack growth models based on elastic–plastic stress–strain histories at the crack tip region and strain-life damage models have been proposed in the literature. The UniGrow model fits this particular class of fatigue crack propagation models. The residual stresses developed at the crack tip play a central role in these models, since they are used to assess the actual crack driving force, taking into account mean stress and loading sequence effects. The performance of the UniGrow model is assessed based on available experimental constant amplitude crack propagation data, derived for the P355NL1 steel. Key issues in fatigue crack growth prediction using the UniGrow model are discussed; in particular, the assessment of the elementary material block size, the elastoplastic analysis used to estimate the residual stress distribution ahead of the crack tip and the adopted strain-life damage relation. The use of finite element analysis to estimate the residual stress field, in lieu of a simplified analysis based on the analytical multi-axial Neuber's approach, and the use of the Morrow's strain-life equation, resulted in fatigue crack propagation rates consistent with the experimental results available for P355NL1 steel, for several stress R-ratios. The use of the Smith–Watson–Topper (SWT) (=σmax.Δɛ/2) damage parameter, which has often been proposed in the literature, over predicts the stress R-ratio effects.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
© 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Crack configuration according the UniGrow model: (a) crack and the discrete elementary material blocks; (b) crack shape at the tensile maximum and compressive minimum loads [11]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Strain-life fatigue data of the P355NL1 steel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fatigue crack propagation data of P355NL1 steel for distinct stress ratios: experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Fatigue crack propagation data of P355NL1 steel for distinct stress ratios: regression of the experimental results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Finite element mesh of the CT specimen using six-noded quadratic triangular plane stress elements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cyclic curve of the material: Ramberg–Osgood representation versus finite element response based on a multilinear kinematic hardening representation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Elastic stress distribution ahead the crack tip and along the crack plane line (y = 0): comparison of analytical and numerical results (F = 1614.2 N)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Plastic stress distribution ahead the crack tip in the crack plane line (y = 0): comparison of analytical and numerical results (F = 1614.2 N).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Residual stress distribution ahead the crack tip in the crack plane line (y = 0): comparison of analytical and numerical results

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Residual stress intensity factor as a function of the applied stress intensity factor range

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Crack propagation prediction based on UniGrow model: use of SWT damage parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Crack propagation prediction based on UniGrow model: use of Morrow's equation

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In