Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Based on the critical plane approach, the Sun-Shang-Bao (SSB) model is analyzed and verified. It is
Received 26 March 2014 discovered that SSB model cannot take the non-proportional cyclic hardening into account and gives
Received in revised form 14 June 2014 non-conservative fatigue life predictions under the non-proportional loading. To solve this problem, a
Accepted 17 June 2014
stress-correlated factor is introduced to describe the degree of the non-proportional cyclic hardening
Available online 26 June 2014
as well as the effect of the non-zero mean stress. The accuracy of the proposed method is systematically
checked against the experimental data found in literature for 16 different materials under constant
Keywords:
amplitude multiaxial loading paths.
Multiaxial fatigue
Critical plane
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Life prediction
Non-proportional cyclic hardening
Effective Poisson’s ratio
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.06.009
0142-1123/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23 11
Nomenclature
Amax circle area with radius of maximum shear strain dur- k empirical constant contained in FS model
ing one cycle K0 cyclic strength coefficient
Aa,max swept area of ca–a polar coordinate space of each L non-proportional hardening coefficient
cycle n0 cyclic strain hardening exponent
ac orientation angle of the maximum shear strain range meff effective Poisson’s ratio
plane me elastic Poisson’s ratio
b fatigue strength exponent u phase shift
c fatigue ductility exponent k strain ratio, Dcapp/Deapp
E modulus of elasticity U factor of non-proportionality
Deapp applied axial strain range Dreq von-Mises equivalent stress range
em mean axial strain rnpro
eq;a non-proportional equivalent stress amplitude
en normal strain excursion rpro proportional equivalent stress amplitude
eq;a
Deeq von-Mises equivalent strain range rn,m normal mean stress
D en normal strain range rn,max maximum normal stress
e0f fatigue ductility coefficient
epro in-phase normal strain amplitude rpro
n;a in-phase normal stress amplitude
n;a
Decr equivalent strain range
r0f fatigue strength coefficient
eq
Dcapp applied shear strain range ry yield strength
cm mean shear strain n, g phase angle
Dcmax maximum shear strain range Dc, De, rn shear strain range, normal strain range and normal
stress on the maximum damage plane, respectively
H hardening factor
fatigue lives of metallic materials under various non-proportional or life as the multiaxial cyclic stresses. However, the equivalent
loading paths. The cyclic energy, for a given component knowing stress criteria are usually limited to high cycle fatigue (HCF) regime
material, geometry and cyclic loading, was calculated by perform- where stresses can be easily estimated by the elastic stress–strain
ing elastic–plastic analysis using cyclic behavior of material [20– relations. The advantage of these models lies in their relative sim-
21]. Shahrooi et al. [22] verified the Jahed’s model for a series of plicity of implementation. It is necessary to point out here that the
non-proportional loading conditions on 1%Cr–Mo–V steel based critical plane-based maximum shear stress and/or maximum nor-
on the nonlinear kinematic hardening model of Chaboche [23] mal stress criteria should not be classified as the equivalent stress
and the multi-surface model of Garud [6]. It is found that a weight- criterion, which can be used as the critical plane parameters. The
ing factor on shear plastic work should be introduced. So, a factor energy-based models, in general, utilize the scalar parameter as a
of 0.5 was used by Shahrooi et al. [22] to reduce the life scatter measure of fatigue damage. The plastic strain energy parameters
band. In fact, from the point of microscopic view the additional have been preferred because of their inherent capability to reflect
cyclic hardening can be attributed to different dislocation struc- the stress–strain path dependence of the fatigue process. A short-
tures between in-phase loading and out-of-phase loading. Doong coming of the energy-based models is in their inability to portray
et al. [24] found that in planar slip materials, single slip occurs the physics of the damage process. Experimental evidence has
under proportional loading, while multi-slip occurs under non- shown that cracks nucleate and grow along shear planes or other
proportional loading. As a result, ladder and planar structures are crystallographic orientations in many polycrystalline metals [14].
found for proportional cycling, while structures such as cell and However, a scalar parameter cannot distinguish among planes on
labyrinths structures are observed for non-proportional cycling which cracks may form. Critical plane approaches are based on
[24]. Different materials show different amounts of non- the physical observations that cracks initiate and grow on specific
proportional cyclic hardening [24]. Materials such as the 300 series planes and that the crack growth is assisted by the stress and/or
stainless steels show a large amount of non-proportional cyclic strain normal to those planes [14,30–35]. According to this
hardening, whereas aluminum alloys usually do not exhibit any approach, the fatigue evaluation is performed on one plane across
additional cyclic hardening. The different additional hardening a critical location in the component. This plane is called the critical
behaviors in different materials may also be related to the different plane, which is usually different for different fatigue models. In
dislocation structures, which are the results of different slip using these parameters, damage is calculated in terms of cyclic
characters in different materials [5,24]. Therefore, fatigue life pre- stresses or strains on each plane within the material to identify
diction should be connected with both loading history and the plane containing the greatest amount of damage or alterna-
material. tively on planes experiencing the maximum level of a predeter-
A significant amount of researches have been devoted over the mined damage parameter, such as cyclic shear strain. In recent
past few decades to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms years, criteria based on the critical plane approach for multiaxial
by which fatigue damage accumulates under multiaxial loading fatigue evaluation are becoming more popular because they gener-
and to develop damage parameters to model the observed behav- ally give more accurate predictions of the fatigue damage, espe-
ior [25–31]. The majority of these models can be broadly classified cially under non-proportional loading [26].
into equivalent stress-based models, energy-based models, and In the present study, the shortcoming of the Sun–Shang–Bao
critical plane approaches [32]. The early development of the equiv- (SSB) model is firstly analyzed, and then a modified multiaxial fati-
alent-stress models are usually based on extensions of static yield gue life prediction model for some metallic materials is proposed
theories to fatigue under combined stresses. Constant amplitude by taking into account the degree of the non-proportional cyclic
multiaxial stresses are transformed into equivalent uniaxial stress hardening as well as the effect of the non-zero mean stress. In
amplitude by the von-Mises or Tresca yield criteria. This equivalent order to verify the fatigue life prediction capability of the SSB
quantity of stress is assumed to produce the same fatigue damage and the modified model, a comparison using the test results of
12 J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23
16 metallic materials (i.e. 1050N steel, 1050QT steel, 1050IH steel, (a) 1
1045HR steel, 16MnR steel, S45C steel, 45 steel, 6061-T6 alumi- Maximum shear strain on the critical plane
0.75 Normal strain on the critical plane
num alloy, Inconel 718, S460N steel, AISI 304 stainless steel,
A533B steel, 1Cr–18Ni–9Ti stainless steel, Pure Titanium, BT9 tita-
0.5
nium alloy, and AL6XN stainless steel) is carried out. The results
show that the predicted lives by SSB model are satisfactory under 0.25
Strain (%)
proportional loading, while it gives non-conservative fatigue life
predictions under non-proportional loading. In contrast to the 0
SSB model, fatigue life predictions obtained by the modified model
-0.25
are in good agreement with the considered test results under both
proportional and non-proportional loadings. -0.5
-0.75
2. Proposal of fatigue life prediction model and analysis
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10
Kanazawa et al. [8] and Ohkawa et al. [36] reported that, during
ωt (rad)
in-phase fatigue loading, crack initiation and early propagation
occur on a maximum shear plane, and the crack growth plane 1
becomes normal to the maximum principal stress or strain. Under (b) Maximum shear strain on the critical plane
out-of-phase loading, there are two sets of maximum shear planes, 0.75 Normal strain on the critical plane
one is submitted to a larger normal stress/strain than the other
(the same result can also be obtained from Fig. A4) [8,36]. As a con- 0.5
sequence, the cracking may occur on one set of maximum shear
0.25
Strain (%)
planes, on which the normal stress/strain is maximum. It has been
widely accepted that fatigue crack initiation involves localized 0
plastic deformation in persistent slip bands even in the HCF region
[14]. Meanwhile, it has been experimentally observed that the -0.25
directions of these persistent slip bands are very closely aligned
-0.5
with that of maximum shear strain direction [8,37] and fatigue
cracks have always been found to initiate on the maximum shear -0.75
strain plane under different loading conditions. Therefore, for shear
mode materials, it is reasonable to choose the maximum shear -1
0 2 4 6 8 10
strain range plane having the larger normal strain as the critical
plane. ωt (rad)
Using 1045HR steel as an example, Fig. 1a–c illustrate the vary-
ing relationships of cmax and en with respect to xt under in-phase (c) 1
Maximum shear strain on the critical plane
and out-of-phase loadings. It can be seen that the phase angle dif- Normal strain on the critical plane
0.75
ference between the normal strain, en, and the maximum shear
strain, cmax, equals to zero (Fig. 1a) under in-phase loading, while 0.5
during out-of-phase loading this phase angle difference is non-zero
(Fig. 1b and c). Fig. 2a–c shows that the maximum shear strain 0.25
Strain (%)
during one cycle are analyzed for a special case (the most severe
non-proportional loading condition): sinusoidal wave form, 90° one plane (a = 0°) corresponding to the greatest normal strain
out-of-phase loading with k = 1 + meff, and their maximum values amplitude. For this special case, Verreman and Guo [38] reported
in each direction are plotted in r–a polar coordinate in Fig. 4. Here, that the cracks are scattered in a large range of orientations since
meff is the effective Poisson’s ratio, a is the angle inclination to the all planes have the same shear strain amplitude. However, a higher
specimen axis, en,a and ca are normal strain amplitude and shear peak is found at 0°, where the normal strain amplitude is maxi-
strain amplitude on the a-plane, respectively. From this figure, it mum. Therefore, for shear mode materials, it is reasonable to use
can be seen that the maximum shear strain range is identical on the maximum shear strain, the normal strain and stress acting on
all planes of the specimens. Fig. 5 shows how the maximum shear the Dcmax plane as the fatigue damage parameters.
strain amplitude and normal strain amplitude vary on different In Ref. [39], Sun et al. combined the maximum shear strain
planes for this special loading case. It can be seen that there is only range, Dcmax, with the normal strain excursion, en , between
J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23 13
(a) 0.7
1
ϕ = 0°
0.75 0.6 ϕ = 30°
ϕ = 45°
Maximum shear strain (%)
0.5
0.5 ϕ = 60°
0.25 ϕ = 90°
Δ εn/Δ γ max
0.4
0
0.3
-0.25
-0.5 0.2
ϕ = 0°
-0.75 ϕ = 45° 0.1
ϕ = 90°
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
ωt (rad)
Strain ratio, λ
(b) 0.5 Fig. 3. Relation between the ratio Den/Dcmax and the strain ratio, k.
0.25
Normal strain (%)
-0.25
ϕ = 0°
ϕ = 45°
ϕ = 90°
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
ωt (rad) Fig. 4. Normal and shear strain states in 90° out-of-phase loading with k = 1 + meff.
500
0.3
400
300
0.2
200
100 0.1
0 Critical Plane
0 2 4 6 8 10
0
ωt (rad) -90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Fig. 2. Variation of damage parameters on the critical plane with Deeq = 0.8%, k = 2:
Angle, α
(a) cmax; (b) en; and (c) rn,max.
Fig. 5. Variations of strain amplitude in 90° out-of-phase loading with k = 1 + meff.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0.5 Decr
eq Deapp ð3 v eff Þ ð1 þ v eff Þ rn;max ð1 v eff Þ2
¼ þ pro ð7Þ
Δε = 0.52% 2 2 4 rn;a 4
normal strain excursion (%)
0.4 Besides, for uniaxial loading without mean stress, the maxi-
λ=2 3 mum normal stress, rn,max, reduces to the in-phase normal stress
amplitude, rpro
n;a . Then Eq. (7) can be rewritten as
0.3 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Decr
eq Deapp ð3 v eff Þ ð1 þ v eff Þ ð1 v eff Þ2 Deapp
¼ þ ¼ ð8Þ
λ= 3 2 2 4 4 2
0.2
Combining Eq. (8) with the Manson-Coffin equation, the multi-
λ= 3 2 axial fatigue damage model may be given by
0.1 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
λ =3 3 2 Decr
eq 3 v eff Dcmax 2 rn;max Den 2
¼ þ pro
2 4ð1 þ v eff Þ 2 rn;a 2
0 r0f
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
¼ ð2Nf Þb þ e0f ð2Nf Þc ð9Þ
phase shift (deg) E
where r0f and b are the fatigue strength coefficient and fatigue
Fig. 6. Relation between the phase shift and the normal strain excursion en . strength exponent, respectively. e0f and c are the fatigue ductility
en on phase shift u for axial-torsion loading with constant equiva- coefficient and fatigue ductility exponent, respectively. The four
lent strain. It is seen that en varies little increasing, first, and then uniaxial fatigue constants (i.e. r0f , e0f , b and c) can be determined
decreasing slightly with increasing phase shift between axial p and by the uniaxial fatigue tests. In the absence of the uniaxial fatigue
ffiffiffi tests, r0f , e0f , b, c can be theoretically estimated by the formulas as
torsional loading. Furthermore, under high strain ratios (k > 3),
en is almost unchanging for any given value of phase shift, u, while
follows
en is changes For steel [43]
pffiffiffilittle with increasing phase shift, u, under low strain
ratios (k > 3). Hence, the normal strain excursion en is not suit- r0f ¼ 4:25HB þ 225 ð10Þ
able as a damage parameter to account for non-proportional cyclic
hardening. It is widely accepted that the maximum normal stress b ¼ 0:09 ð11Þ
can reflect the phenomenon of non-proportional cyclic hardening
[1,14,31,34,40–42]. Therefore, the maximum normal stress is
0:32HB2 487HB þ 191000
introduced to take the non-proportional cyclic hardening into e0f ¼ ð12Þ
E
account in the SSB model, and the following damage parameter
is proposed c ¼ 0:56 ð13Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
Decr
eq 3 v eff Dcmax 2 rn;max Den 2 For aluminum alloy [44]
¼ þ pro ð3Þ
2 4ð1 þ v eff Þ 2 rn;a 2 0
r ¼ 3:66HB þ 370:8 ð14Þ
f
where the maximum shear strain range plane with the larger nor-
1
mal strain is taken as the critical plane. rn,max is the maximum nor- b¼ log½ð3:66HB þ 370:8Þ=ð1:632HB þ 7:047Þ ð15Þ
mal stress and rpro 6
n;a is the in-phase normal stress amplitude at the
same strain amplitude level from a plot of normal stress amplitude
e0f ¼ 0:281 ð16Þ
versus normal strain amplitude. Since in-phase multiaxial fatigue
behavior is usually similar to uniaxial fatigue behavior, the in-phase
c ¼ 0:664 ð17Þ
normal stress amplitude response, rpro n;a , can be related to the in-
phase normal strain amplitude, epro n;a , by the following Ramberg– For titanium alloy [45]
Osgood form equation
r0f ¼ rb þ 355 ð18Þ
pro pro n0
1
r n;a r n;a
epro
n;a ¼ þ 0 ð4Þ 1 rb þ 355
E K b¼ log ð19Þ
6 0:446rb
0 0
where K is the cyclic strength coefficient, n is the cyclic strain hard-
ening exponent, E is the modulus of elasticity. epro n;a can be deter- e0f ¼ ef ð20Þ
mined by Eq. (A15) under axial–torsional loading. For bending-
torsion loading, one of the plasticity models such as the Garud c ¼ 0:664 ð21Þ
model [6] should be applied to obtain the in-phase normal stress
amplitude, rpro
n;a .
Under uniaxial loading (k = 0), it can be derived from Eqs. (A17) 3. Validation of fatigue life prediction model
and (A18) that
Sixteen sets of experimental fatigue life data are selected from
Den 1 meff the technical literature [14,42,46–57] for comparison with the
¼ Deapp ð5Þ
2 4 modified SSB model in this section. All the experiments are con-
ducted on smooth specimens at room temperature under strain
Dcmax 1 þ meff
¼ Deapp ð6Þ controlled mode. The monotonic and fatigue properties of these
2 2 investigated materials are summarized in Table 1. It is noted that
Substituting Eqs. (5) and (6) into Eq. (3), then the following the purpose of these comparisons is to validate the model’s gener-
equation is obtained ality to different materials and conditions. The collected data cover
J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23 15
Table 1
Summery of the investigated materials and their monotonic and fatigue properties.
0.4 0.5
A B
0.2 0.25
0 0
-0.2 -0.25
-0.4 -0.5
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5
0.44 0.6
C D
0.22 0.3
0 0
-0.22 -0.3
-0.44 -0.6
-0.44 -0.22 0 0.22 0.44 -0.6 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6
Table 2
Comparison between the incremental plasticity model with Garud’s hardening rule
and the test results of stress for thin tubular specimen.
Paths Deapp (%) Dcapp (%) Dr0x ðMPaÞ jdDr0x j (%) Ds0xy ðMPaÞ jdDs0xy j (%)
Drx ðMPaÞ Dsxy ðMPaÞ
Fig. 7. The accuracy of proposed model in assessing the fatigue lives of the
considered materials [14,42,46–57]: (a) uniaxial and proportional loading; (b) non-
proportional loading; and (c) with non-zero mean stress.
As mentioned previously, Fatemi–Socie [14] proposed to utilize Fig. 9. Proportional and non-proportional loading histories [12].
the maximum normal stress, rn,max, to account for the effects of between the experimental data under fully reversed tension–
additional cyclic hardening instead of the normal strain term in compression and those under cyclic torsion if k sets as a constant
Brown-Miller [33,61] parameter. The Fatemi–Socie parameter
[62]. Subsequently, life predictions using FS model will be scattered
(FS) can be expressed as [14] since predictions are sensitive to the value of k [42]. In Ref. [42], a
simplified expression for k was obtained using the von-Mises
Dcmax rn;max
1þk ¼ constant ð23Þ criterion, G = E/2(1 + me), and me = 0.3, i.e.
2 ry
where ry is the yield strength, and k is a constant found by fitting 0:31ry
k¼ ð24Þ
the uniaxial data against the pure torsion data. In more details, r0f ð2Nf Þb
the constant k is determined iteratively until the FS–Nf curves under
fully reversed tension–compression and cyclic torsion are con- From Eq. (24), Shamsaei et al. [42] obtained that k increases as
verged to a single curve [62]. However, for some materials such fatigue life increases, especially in the long-life regime and for
as extruded AZ61A magnesium alloy, divergence can be found higher-hardness materials. This is may be one of the reasons why
J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23 17
550
Path III Under multiaxial fatigue loading, mean stress has a substantial
Path IV effect on fatigue life. Mean stress effects are included in fatigue
500 damage parameters in different ways [1]. One approach, applied
earlier by Fatemi and Socie [14], incorporates mean stress using
450
(a) 8
λ= 0
400 7 λ = 1.0
λ = 2.0
6
λ = 3.0
350
5
σn,m/σn,apro
300
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
Hardening factor, H 3
Fig. 10. Relation between the maximum normal stress, rn,max, and the hardening
2
factor, H.
1
the FS model gives non-conservative life predictions (see Ref. [42])
0
in the long-life regime even by up to a factor of 10. Additionally, if
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
test data are not available, Shamsaei et al. [42] suggested that one
may consider k = 1 when using the axial form of the FS equation. R=εx,min/εx,max=γ xy,min/γ xy,max
In Ref. [33], Brown and Miller argue that the normal strain influ-
ences fatigue ductility which in turn is related to the fatigue (b) 9
strength and then conclude that the normal strain across the max- λ = 1.0
8
imum shear strain plane assists in crack propagation. That is to say, λ = 2.0
the normal strain term is still an important damage parameter in 7 λ = 3.0
multiaxial fatigue life prediction. In the FS model, only two damage
parameters (i.e. rn,max, and Dcmax) may be insufficient for certain 6
σn,m/σn,apro
mal stress and strain terms are considered to describe the fatigue
damage. Hence, the proposed model may be more suitable to pre- 4
dict the fatigue lives of metallic materials.
The failure mode of all the materials considered in the present 3
study is listed in Table 1. It can be seen from this table, all the con-
sidered materials are failed with shear failure mode except AISI 2
304 stainless steel, S460N steel and 16MnR steel. AISI 304 stainless
1
steel and S460N steel display tensile failure mode, while 16MnR
steel displays mixed crack behavior. Based on the failure mode of
0
the considered materials, it can be obtained that the proposed -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
model is intended for cracks in shear failure mode materials.
R=εx,min/εx,max=γ xy,min/γ xy,max
Besides, Sonsino [66] pointed out that, for low-ductility materials,
damage is activated by normal stresses or strains and, for Fig. 11. Sensitivity of rn;m =rpro
n;a to mean strain: (a) u = 0°; (b) u = 45°; and (c)
ductile materials, damage is activated by shear stresses or strains. u = 90°.
18 J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23
Fig. 12. Some specific load paths designed to challenge FS model [69].
0.45 7
(a) 10
Δ εeq /2= 0.85%, λ = 1.732 Uniaxial
6 Proportional
10
Effectvie Poisson’s Ratio
5
10
4
0.43 10
3
10
0.42
2
10
1
0.41 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Phase Shift (deg) Experimental life (cycles)
Fig. 13. Correlation between the ratio effective Poisson’s ratio, meff, and phase 7
shift, u. (b) 10
the maximum normal stress to modify the damage parameter. 6
Similar to the Fatemi–Socie damage parameter, the proposed mul- 10
tiaxial fatigue damage parameter can easily account for mean
Predicted life (cycles)
5
stress effects through the normal stress term. This is justified on 10
the basis that only the mean tensile stresses normal to the crack
will contribute to damage and the mean stresses parallel to the 4
10
crack will have minimal influence on the fatigue crack growth rate
or closure [14,67]. Thus, in the presence of mean stresses, the nor-
3
mal stress term contained in Eq. (3) will be composed of the alter- 10
nating normal stress and the mean or static normal stress. So Eq. Non-proportional
(3) can be rewritten as 2
10 Non-zero mean stress
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
De cr
eq 3 v eff Dcmax 2 rn;a þ rn;m Den 2 3 scatter band
¼ þ ð25Þ 1
2 4ð1 þ v eff Þ 2 rpro
n;a 2 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
where rn,m is the normal mean stress on the critical plane. Experimental life (cycles)
In order to take into account the contribution of the mean stress
and strain to the overall fatigue damage, it is initially useful to Fig. 14. Fatigue life predictions of studied materials by SSB model: (a) uniaxial and
proportional loading; and (b) non-proportional loading and non-zero mean stress.
rewrite rn;max =rpro
n;a as
J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23 19
2 1
3
The SSB model can give satisfactory fatigue life predictions ex c
2 xy
0
under uniaxial and proportional loadings, while it is incapable 61 7
eij ¼ 4 2 cxy meff ex 0 5 ðA1Þ
of accounting for the presence of the non-zero mean stress as
0 0 meff ex
well as the non-proportional cyclic hardening. The predicted
lives by the SSB model are non-conservative under non-propor- If the applied axial and shear strains of the thin-walled tubular
tional loading. Experimental validations using 16 different specimen are given with the sine wave, i.e.
materials show that the proposed model is reliable for assessing
the fatigue life of materials under both proportional and non-
Deapp
ex ¼ sin xt þ em ðA2Þ
proportional loading. 2
Dcapp
cxy ¼ sinðxt uÞ þ cm ðA3Þ
2
Acknowledgement
where u is the phase angle between the axial strain and shear
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of strain. Deapp and Dcapp are the applied axial and shear strain ranges,
Innovation Funds of Air Force University of Engineering respectively. em and cm are the mean axial and shear strains, respec-
(Dx2010403). tively. meff represents the effective Poisson’s ratio, which can be
determined by [71]
Appendix A. Strain varying behavior under axial–torsional ð0:5 me ÞDreq
loading meff ¼ 0:5 ðA4Þ
EDeeq
If the X-axis is conveniently chosen to be parallel to the loading where me is the elastic Poisson’s ratio. E is the elastic modulus. Dreq
and the Z-axis coincides with the outside normal of the surface, the and Deeq are the von-Mises equivalent stress and strain ranges,
strain tensor for thin-walled tubular specimen under strain-con- respectively. Fig. A1 shows the step-by-step procedure required to
trolled loading can be given by calculate the effective Poisson’s ratio. In this figure, K0 and n0 are
Fig. A1. Procedure for determining the effective Poisson’s ratio meff.
J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23 21
the cyclic strength coefficient and the cyclic strain hardening expo- 1
nent, respectively. L is the non-proportional hardening coefficient, Δεapp = 1.2%, λ = 0.5, ϕ = 90°
which is defined as the ratio of the equivalent stress under 90°
out-of-phases loading to the equivalent stress under in-phase load-
ing [40–41]. This coefficient may be defined at any strain level as 0.5
γα
L¼
rOP
1 ðA5Þ ε n ,α
rIP 0
where rOP is the 90° out-of-phase equivalent stress and rIP is the in- ξ+η
phase equivalent stress at the same strain level. The non-propor-
tionality factor, U, is determined by the following formulation [72] -0.5
A
U¼2 a 1 ðA6Þ
Amax
where Amax is the area of the circle with radius equal to the maxi- -1
0 90 180 270 360
mum shear strain during one cycle. Aa is the swept area of ca –a
polar coordinate (shadow area in Fig. A2) space. ωt (deg)
The normal and shear strains on the plane which make an angle
Fig. A3. Schematic showing of the phase angle n + g.
a with the thin-walled tubular specimen axis are expressed as
1 meff 1 þ meff 1
en;a ¼ ex þ ex cos 2a þ cxy sin 2a ðA7Þ
2 2 2 k cos 2a sin u
tan g ¼ ðA12Þ
k cos 2a cos u ð1 þ meff Þ sin 2a
ca ¼ ð1 þ meff Þex sin 2a þ cxy cos 2a ðA8Þ
1
Den ¼ Deapp
2
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
2ð1 þ meff Þ cos2 ac 2meff þ k sin 2ac cos u þ ½k sin 2ac sin u
ðA18Þ
Fig. A2. Illustration of Aa in ca–a polar coordinate space.
22 J. Li et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 68 (2014) 10–23
1.5 [24] Doong SH, Socie DF, Robertson IM. Dislocation substructure and non-
proportional hardening. ASEM J Eng Mater Technol 1990;112:456–64.
[25] Garud YS. Multiaxial fatigue: a survey of the state of the art. J Test Eval
1981;9:165–78.
1.2 [26] You BR, Lee SB. A critical review on multiaxial fatigue assessments of metals.
Int J Fatigue 1996;18:235–44.
Strain Amplitude (%)
[57] Kalnaus S, Jiang YY. Fatigue of AL6XN stainless steel. ASME J Eng Mater [65] Li J, Zhang ZP, Sun Q, Li CW. Multiaxial fatigue life prediction for various
Technol 2008;130:031013. metallic materials based on the critical plane approach. Int J Fatigue
[58] Park J. Life prediction for mechanical components experiencing multiaxial 2011;33:90–101.
fatigue, including effects of stress concentrations. Ph.D, Dissertation, Stanford [66] Sonsino CM. Influence of material’s ductility and local deformation mode on
University; 1998. multiaxial fatigue response. Int J Fatigue 2011;33:930–47.
[59] Garud YS. Multiaxial fatigue of metals. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University; [67] Socie DF, Shield TW. Mean stress effects in biaxial fatigue of Inconel 718. ASME
1981. J Eng Mater Technol 1984;106:227–32.
[60] Garud YS. Prediction of stress-strain response under general multiaxial [68] Susmel L. Multiaxial fatigue limits and material sensitivity to non-zero mean
loading. In: Rohde RW, Swearengen JC, editors. Mechanical testing for stresses normal to the critical planes. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
deformation model development, ASTM STP 765, American Society for 2008;31:295–309.
Testing and Materials; 1982. p. 223–38. [69] Shamsaei N. Multiaxial fatigue and deformation including non-proportional
[61] Kandil FA, Brown MW, Miller KJ. Biaxial low cycle fatigue fracture of 316 hardening and variable amplitude loading effects. Ph.D. Dissertation, The
stainless steel at elevated temperatures, vol. 280. London: The Metal Society; University of Toledo; 2010.
1982. p. 203–10. [70] Doong SH, Socie DF. Deformation mechanisms of metals under complex non-
[62] Yu Q, Zhang JX, Jiang YY, Li QZ. Multiaxial fatigue of extruded AZ61A proportional cyclic loading. In: Proceeding, third international conference on
magnesium alloy. Int J Fatigue 2011;33:437–47. biaxial/multiaxial fatigue, April 3–6, Stuggart, FRG; 1989.
[63] Noban M, Jahed H, Ibrahim E, Ince A. Load path sensitivity and fatigue life [71] Wang CH, Brown MW. Life prediction techniques for variable amplitude
estimation of 30CrNiMo8HH. Int J Fatigue 2012;37:123–33. multiaxial fatigue – part 1: theories. ASME J Eng Mater Technol
[64] Li BC, Jiang C, Han X, Li Y. A new path-dependent multiaxial fatigue model 1996;118:367–70.
for metals under different paths. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2014;37: [72] Chen X, Gao Q, Sun XF. Low cycle fatigue under non-proportional loading.
206–18. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1996;19(7):839–54.