Evaluations of some Stochastic Fatigue Crack Growth Models through Experimental Verification

Abstract:

The study is focused on the comparisons among three stochastic fatigue crack growth models through evaluations of experimental data. The first model assumed that the coefficient and exponent parameters of Paris-Erdogan law are mutually dependent normal random variables. The second model assumed that the fatigue crack growth rate equals to the deterministic Paris-Erdogan law multiplied by a stationary log-normal random factor while the third model proposed by the author was assumed that the fatigue crack growth rate equals to a deterministic polynomial in terms of fatigue crack size multiplied by a stationary log-normal random factor. Compact-tension specimens cut from a 2024-T351 aluminum-alloy plate were used for fatigue crack growth experiments under constant loads performed on thirty specimens. The normal probability paper for the first model was investigated to show the validity of the normal random parameter, and the log-normal probability papers for the second and third models were also investigated to show the validity of log-normal assumption of the random factors. The investigations on the probability of crack exceedance and distribution of random time of the three models were also made, and the comparisons of the results for all models were made as well.

• Periodical: Materials Science Forum (Volume 928)
• Pages: 221-228
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.928.221
• Online since: August 2018
• Authors: C.C. Ni*
• Keywords: 2024-T351 Aluminum-Alloy, Paris-Erdogan Law, Stochastic Fatigue Crack Growth Model

References

[1] P.C. Paris, F. Erdogan, A Critical Analysis of Propagation Laws, Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of ASME, Vol. 85 (1963), pp.528-534.

DOI: 10.1115/1.3656902

[2] W. Elber, The Stress Ratio Effect on Fatigue Crack Closure, Damage Tolerance of Aircraft Structures, ASTM STP 486, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia (1971).

[3] J.N. Yang, S.D. Manning, and W.R. Garver, Durability Methods Development, Volume V-Durability Analysis Methodology Development, Technical Report AFFDL-TR-79-3118, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory (1979).

[4] C.C. Ni, Formulation of a Polynomial Stochastic Fatigue Crack Growth Model, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 909 (2014), pp.467-471.

DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.909.467

[5] A.B. Lidiard, Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics, in Fracture Mechanics-Current Status, Future Prospects, Pergamon Press (1979), p.149.

DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-08-024766-3.50010-0

[6] S.R. Varanasi, I.C. Whittaker, Structure Reliability Prediction Method Considering Crack Growth and Residual Strength, Fatigue Crack Growth under Spectrum Loads, ASTM STP 595 (1976), pp.292-305.

DOI: 10.1520/stp33380s

[7] H. Itagaki, M. Shinozuka, Application of the Monte Carlo Technique to Fatigue-Failure Analysis under Random Loading, Probabilistic Aspects of Fatigue, ASTM STP 511 (1972), pp.168-184.

DOI: 10.1520/stp35409s

[8] Y.K. Lin, J.N. Yang, On Statistical Moments of Fatigue Crack Propagation, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 18 (1983), pp.243-256.

DOI: 10.1016/0013-7944(83)90136-4

[9] W.F. Wu, C.C. Ni, A study of stochastic fatigue crack growth modeling through experimental data, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 18 (2003), pp.107-118.

DOI: 10.1016/s0266-8920(02)00053-x

[10] ASTM E647-91, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates, American Society for Testing and Materials, Vol.03.01 (1991), pp.679-706.