4.7 Article

Fatigue modeling for a thermoplastic polymer under mean strain and variable amplitude loadings

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FATIGUE
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 429-443

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.03.047

Keywords

Polymer; Mean strain; Block loading; Energy model; Cumulative damage

Funding

  1. Engineer Research & Development Center [W912HZ-15-2-0004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The applicability of several fatigue damage models for polyether ether ketone (PEEK) under mean strain and variable amplitude multi-block loadings is evaluated. The models utilized in this study are assessed against experimental data for PEEK under various cyclic loading conditions, including (1) constant amplitude loading with non-zero mean strains, (2) two-block loading with zero and non-zero mean strains, and (3) three- and four-block loading with zero mean strain. Several fatigue models, including a strain-based, a strain-stress-based, and an energy-based, are employed to correct for the effect of mean strain and stress on fatigue behavior of PEEK. Among these models, the energy-based approach, which considers the deformation response of the material throughout its entire life, better correlates the PEEK experimental data in the presence of mean strain. For specimens under block loading, three different damage accumulation models are employed to evaluate their applicability for PEEK. These include the Linear Damage Rule, as well as the non-linear Damage Curve Approach and Hashin-Rotem model. Additionally, a Direct Cumulative Damage (DCD) approach using an energy-based parameter is also employed to account for the load history and sequence effect on PEEK fatigue behavior. The DCD method is found to provide acceptable fatigue life predictions for PEEK under multi-block loading with various strain ratios and frequencies. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available