4.7 Article

The influence of various types of small defects on the fatigue limit of precipitation-hardened 17-4PH stainless steel

Journal

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED FRACTURE MECHANICS
Volume 87, Issue -, Pages 35-49

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2016.10.003

Keywords

17-4PH stainless steel; Fatigue limit; Small defects; Corrosion pits; root area parameter model

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fatigue tests were performed on 17-4PH stainless steel specimens containing small artificial defects, with root area ranging from 30 to 900 mu m at stress ratios, R, of -1, 0.05 and 0.4. An investigation was thus conducted to examine the influence of various types of small artificial defects on fatigue strength, including circumferential notches, corrosion pits, drilled holes and pre-cracked holes. The fatigue limit was determined by the threshold condition for the propagation of a crack emanating from the defects. The threshold stress intensity factor range, Delta K-th, exhibited a defect size dependency for root area <= 80 mu m, and it became a constant value for root area > 80 mu m independent of R. Based on the root area parameter model and a material constant of Delta K-th for long cracks, the fatigue limit could be predicted as a function of R, with the exception of drilled holes with relatively large diameters of 100 and 300 mu m, for which the fatigue limit was determined by the critical condition for crack initiation. When artificial defects were absent or non-detrimental, intrinsic defects, such as non-metallic inclusions, were found to control the fatigue strength and, in addition, were responsible for the scatter in the fatigue limit. The proposed method enables the quantitative evaluation of the lower bound of the scatter as a function of the number of test specimens, or the overall control volume of fatigue-loaded components. (C) 2016 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