4.6 Article

Prediction of combined cycle fatigue life of TC11 alloy based on modified nonlinear cumulative damage model

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF AERONAUTICS
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 73-84

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2020.10.021

关键词

Combined cycle; Damage accumulation; High-cycle fatigue; Low-cycle fatigue; Prediction method

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51301090]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study conducted fatigue tests on TC11 titanium alloy and found that the CCF life varies with the high-low cycle stress frequency ratio m. The linear cumulative damage model has higher accuracy when m <= 500, while the nonlinear model has higher accuracy when m >= 500.
The nonlinear cumulative damage model is modified to have high prediction accuracy when the high-low cycle stress frequency ratio m is large (m >= 500). The low cycle fatigue (LCF) tests, high cycle fatigue (HCF) tests and combined high and low cycle fatigue (CCF) tests of TC11 titanium alloy were carried out, and the influencing factors of CCF life were analysed. The CCF life declines with the decrease of the ratio of high-low cycle stress frequency m. Both linear and nonlinear cumulative damage models are used to predict the CCF life. The CCF life prediction error of the linear cumulative damage model is great and the predictions tend to be overestimated, which is dangerous for engineering application. The accuracy is relatively high when the high-low cycle stress frequency ratio m <= 500. The accuracy of nonlinear cumulative damage model is higher than that of linear model when the high-low cycle stress frequency ratio m >= 500. Based on the relationship between high cycle average stress sigma(major) and material yield limit sigma(p,0.2), a correction term is added to the nonlinear cumulative damage model and verified, which made the modified model more accurate when m >= 500. (C) 2021 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据