Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:32:53.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fatigue Crack Growth on Heterogeneous Stress Fields: Best Analytical Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2014

Antonio Martin-Meizoso
Affiliation:
CEIT and Tecnun (University of Navarra), Manuel Lardizábal, 15, 20018 San Sebastián, Spain.
Jose M. Martinez-Esnaola
Affiliation:
CEIT and Tecnun (University of Navarra), Manuel Lardizábal, 15, 20018 San Sebastián, Spain.
Asier Bergara
Affiliation:
CEIT and Tecnun (University of Navarra), Manuel Lardizábal, 15, 20018 San Sebastián, Spain.
Shaun Falconer
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Department of Mechanical Engineering, James Watt (South) Building, Glasgow, G12 GQQ, United Kingdom.
Get access

Abstract

A way of estimating Stress Intensity Factors is proposed by extending available solutions (solid and crack configurations) to stress fields not considered in available formulations. The accuracy of the proposed estimation is considered with respect to fatigue life assessment and crack shape tracing. It is aimed as very fast initial estimation, in comparison with the use of Finite Elements, in those cases were a high stress gradient is observed: stress concentrations (holes, notches, grooves) or due to surface residual stresses produced by machining techniques or induced –on purpose- to improve fatigue life (for example, by shot-peening), where no SIF solutions are available.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Murakami, Y., Stress Intensity Factors Handbook, ed. Murakami, Y. (Pergamon Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Sih, G.C., Handbook of Stress Intensity Factors (Institute of Fracture and Solid Mechanics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1973).Google Scholar
Rooke, D.P. and Cartwright, D.J., Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors (Her Majesty Stationary Office, 1976).Google Scholar
Standards, British, Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures, BS 7910:2005. BSI 2007.Google Scholar
Broek, D., Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984).Google Scholar
Paris, P.C. and Sih, G.C., “Stress Analysis of Cracks,” Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP-381 (American Society for Testing and Materials, 1965) pp. 3081.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, , “Fracture Mechanics of Aircraft Structures”, Three Dimensional Crack Problems, ed. Liebowitz, , AGARD-AG-176.Google Scholar
Kassir, M.K. and Sih, G.C., Three Dimensional Crack Problems (Noordhoff Int. Publ., 1975).Google Scholar
Cherepanov, G.P., Mechanics of Brittle Fracture (McGraw-Hill Int. Book Comp., 1979).Google Scholar
Smith, R.A., Fracture Mechanics (Pergamon Press, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, R.C. and Kobayashi, A.S., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 3, 7196 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F.W. and Sorensen, D.R., Journal of Applied Mechanics, 41, 502506 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vijayakumar, K. and Atluri, S.N., Journal of Applied Mechanics, 48, 8896 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oore, M. and Burns, D.J., Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 102, 202211 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J.C. and Raju, I.S., “Stress-intensity factor equations for cracks in three-dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and bending loads,” Computational Methods in the Mechanics of Fracture, ed. Atluri, S.N. (Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1986) pp. 311334.Google Scholar
Martín-Meizoso, A., Martínez-Esnaola, J.M., Anales de Mecánica de la Fractura 30, 229234 (2013).Google Scholar