4.6 Article

Correlating Scatter in Fatigue Life with Fracture Mechanisms in Forged Ti-6242Si Alloy

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11661-017-4437-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Air Force Office of Scientific Research under the Multi-scale Structural Mechanics and Prognosis Portfolio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unlike the quasi-static mechanical properties, such as strength and ductility, fatigue life can vary significantly (by an order of magnitude or more) for nominally identical material and test conditions in many materials, including Ti-alloys. This makes life prediction and management more challenging for components that are subjected to cyclic loading in service. The differences in fracture mechanisms can cause the scatter in fatigue life. In this study, the fatigue fracture mechanisms were investigated in a forged near-alpha titanium alloy, Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo-0.1Si, which had been tested under a condition that resulted in life variations by more than an order of magnitude. The crack-initiation and small crack growth processes, including their contributions to fatigue life variability, were elucidated via quantitative characterization of fatigue fracture surfaces. Combining the results from quantitative tilt fractography and electron backscatter diffraction, crystallography of crack-initiating and neighboring facets on the fracture surface was determined. Cracks initiated on the surface for both the shortest and the longest life specimens. The facet plane in the crack-initiating grain was aligned with the basal plane of a primary alpha grain for both the specimens. The facet planes in grains neighboring the crack-initiating grain were also closely aligned with the basal plane for the shortest life specimen, whereas the facet planes in the neighboring grains were significantly misoriented from the basal plane for the longest life specimen. The difference in the extent of cracking along the basal plane can explain the difference in fatigue life of specimens at the opposite ends of scatter band.

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