4.0 Article

Critical Plane Orientation Influence on Multiaxial High-Cycle Fatigue Assessment

Journal

PHYSICAL MESOMECHANICS
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 348-354

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1134/S1029959915040074

Keywords

constant amplitude loading; critical plane orientation; fatigue lifetime estimation; modified Carpinteri-Spagnoli criterion; multiaxial high-cycle fatigue

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry for University and Technological and Scientific Research (MIUR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present paper, the multiaxial fatigue lifetime of structural components failing in the high-cycle fatigue regime is evaluated by employing the modified Carpinteri-Spagnoli (C-S) multiaxial fatigue criterion based on the critical plane approach. In the above criterion, the critical plane position is linked to averaged principal stress directions through an off-angle 8. Then, the fatigue damage parameter used is determined by a nonlinear combination of an equivalent normal stress amplitude and the shear stress amplitude acting on the critical plane. In the present paper, some modifications of the original expression for the off-angle 8 are implemented in the modified Carpinteri-Spagnoli criterion. In particular, modified expressions recently proposed by Lagoda et al. are in accordance with the assumption originally developed by Carpinteri and co-workers, that is, the off-angle is a function of the ratio between the fatigue limit under fully reversed shear stress and that under fully reversed normal stress. Such expressions can be employed for metals ranging from mild to very hard fatigue behaviour. Some experimental data available in the literature are compared with the theoretical estimations and, only for materials with hard and very hard fatigue behaviour, the modified 8 relationships are shown to yield fatigue lifetime results slightly better than those determined through the original 8 expression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available