4.7 Article

A numerical study of plasticity induced crack closure under plane strain conditions

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FATIGUE
卷 71, 期 -, 页码 75-86

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.03.016

关键词

Plasticity induced crack closure; Plane strain; Crack propagation; Number of load cycles; Strain ratcheting

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for the Science and Technology (FCT)
  2. COMPETE program from FEDER (European Regional Development Fund) [PTDC/EME-PME/114892/2009, PEst-C/EME/UI0285/2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The level of plasticity induced crack closure (PICC) is greatly affected by stress state. Under plane strain conditions, however, the level and even the existence of PICC still are controversial. The objective here is to study the influence of the main numerical parameters on plane strain PICC, namely the total crack propagation, the number of load cycles between crack increments, the finite element mesh and the parameter used to quantify PICC. The PICC predictions were included in a parallel numerical study of crack propagation, in order to quantify the impact of plane strain values on fatigue life. The results indicate that literature may be overestimating plane strain PICC due to incorrect numerical parameters. The number of load cycles usually considered is unrealistically small, and its increase was found to vanish crack closure, particularly for kinematic hardening. This effect was linked to the ratcheting effect observed at the crack tip. The total crack increment, Delta a, must be large enough to obtain stabilized PICC values, but this may imply a huge numerical effort particularly for 3D models. The size of crack tip plastic zone may be overestimated in literature, which means that the meshes used may be too large. Additionally, the crack propagation study showed that the plane strain PICC has usually a dominant effect on fatigue life, and plane stress PICC is only relevant for relatively thin geometries. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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