4.6 Article

In-depth analysis of the fatigue mechanism induced by inclusions for high-strength bearing steels

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12613-020-2223-9

关键词

inclusion; high-strength bearing steel; fatigue; numerical study; stress distribution

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [FRF-TP-20-026A1]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2020M680348]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Advanced Metallurgy Foundation of China [41620001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the stress distribution and fatigue behavior influenced by voids adjacent to inclusions, showing that the effects of inclusions on fatigue life reduce significantly when mechanical properties are similar. Additionally, it was found that the position of voids near inclusions plays a critical role in determining their impact on fatigue behavior.
A numerical study of stress distribution and fatigue behavior in terms of the effect of voids adjacent to inclusions was conducted with finite element modeling simulations under different assumptions. Fatigue mechanisms were also analyzed accordingly. The results showed that the effects of inclusions on fatigue life will distinctly decrease if the mechanical properties are close to those of the steel matrix. For the inclusions, which are tightly bonded with the steel matrix, when the Young's modulus is larger than that of the steel matrix, the stress will concentrate inside the inclusion; otherwise, the stress will concentrate in the steel matrix. If voids exist on the interface between inclusions and the steel matrix, their effects on the fatigue process differ with their positions relative to the inclusions. The void on one side of an inclusion perpendicular to the fatigue loading direction will aggravate the effect of inclusions on fatigue behavior and lead to a sharp stress concentration. The void on the top of inclusion along the fatigue loading direction will accelerate the debonding between the inclusion and steel matrix.

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