0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

A Closure Model to Crack Growth Under Large-Scale Yielding and Through Residual Stress Fields

[+] Author and Article Information
C. H. Wang, S. A. Barter, Q. Liu

Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, 506 Lorimer Street, Fishermans Bend VIC 3207, Australia

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 125(2), 183-190 (Apr 04, 2003) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1493804 History: Received July 11, 2001; Revised October 24, 2001; Online April 04, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Sharp,  P. K., Clayton,  J. Q., and Clark,  G., 1994, “The Fatigue Resistance of Peened 7050-T7451 Aluminum Alloy-Repair Re-Treatment of a Component Surface,” Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Technology, 17, pp. 243–252.
De los Rios, E. R., Trull, M., and Levers, A., 2000, “Extending the Fatigue Life of Aerospace Materials by Surface Engineering,” Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Fracture.
Zhuang,  W. Z., and Halford,  G. R., 2001, “Investigation of Residual Stress Relaxation Under Cyclic Load,” Int. J. Fatigue, 23, pp. 31–37.
Clark, G., and Clayton, J. Q., 1991, “Effectiveness of Peening Treatments in Improving Fatigue Resistance of 7050 Aluminum Alloy Under Constant Amplitude and Spectrum Loading,” Proc. Australian Surface Engineering Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
Molent, L., Ogden, R., and Pell, R., 2000 “F/A-18 FS488 Bulkhead Fatigue Coupon Test Program,” DSTO-TR-0914, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia.
Barter, S., and Price, J., 2000, “Effect of Surface Preparation Treatments on Fatigue Life of 7050-Aluminum Alloy,” Proceedings of Structural Integrity and Fracture 2000, Australian Fracture Group, Australia, pp 140–153.
Hu, W., Wang, C. H., and Barter, S., 1999, “Analysis of Cyclic Mean Stress Relaxation and Strain Ratchetting Behaviour of Aluminum 7050,” DSTO-RR-0153, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne, Australia.
Newman, J. C. Jr., 1992, “FASTRAN-II: a Fatigue Crack Growth Structural Analysis Program,” NASA Technical Memorandum 104159, Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Newman,  J. C., 1996, “Application of a Closure Model to Predict Crack Growth in Three Engine Disc Materials,” Int. J. Fract., 80, pp. 193–218.
Wang,  C. H., and Hutchinson,  J. W., 2000, “Interactions of Fatigue Cracks With Elastic Obstacles,” Int. J. Fract., 109, pp. 263–283.
Laird, C., 1967, “The Influence of Metallurgical Structure on the Mechanisms of Fatigue Crack Propagation,” Fatigue Crack Propagation, ASTM STP 415, American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 131–168.
Guo,  W., Wang,  C. H., and Rose,  L. R. F., 1999, “On the Influence of Cross Sectional Thickness on Fatigue Crack Growth,” Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Technology, 22, pp. 437–444.
Wang,  C. H., and Rose,  L. R. F., 1999, “Crack-Tip Plastic Blunting Under Gross-Section Yielding and Implications for Short Crack Growth,” Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 22, pp. 761–773.
Rose,  L. R. F., and Wang,  C. H., 2001, “Self-Similar Analysis of Plasticity-Induced Closure of Small Fatigue Cracks,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 49, pp. 401–429.
Fuhring,  H., and Seeger,  T., 1979, “Dugdale Crack Closure Analysis of Fatigue Cracks Under Constant Amplitude Loading,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 11, pp. 99–122.
Wang,  C. H., Rose,  L. R. F., and Newman,  J. C., 2002, “Fatigue Crack Closure Under Large-Scale Yielding Conditions,” Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, 25, pp. 127–140.
Newman,  J. C., 1998, “The Merging of Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics Concepts: a Historical Perspective,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 34, pp. 347–390.
Newman, J. C. Jr., 1992, “Fracture Mechanics Parameters for Small Fatigue Cracks, Small-crack Test Methods,” ASTM STP 1149, J. Larsen and J. E. Allison, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 9–33.
Tada, H, Paris, P. C., and Irwin, G. R., 2000, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Wang,  G. S., 1993, “The Plasticity Aspect of Fatigue Crack Growth,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 46, pp. 909–930.
Wang,  G. S., 1999, “A Strip Yield Analysis of Fatigue Crack Growth in the Residual Stress Field,” Int. J. Fract., 96, pp. 247–277.
Wang,  G. S., 1999, “Post Yield Fatigue Crack Growth Analyses,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 64, pp. 1–21.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fatigue results of specimens with three different surface treatments: mechanical polishing, chemical etching, and shot peening
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Fracture surfaces of (a) an unpeened specimen and (b) a shot-peened specimen
Grahic Jump Location
Fatigue crack growth curves of un-peened and shot peened specimens
Grahic Jump Location
Residual stress distribution near shot-peened surface (a) stress state and coordinate system, and (b) residual compressive stress due to glass beads shot peening
Grahic Jump Location
Relaxation of residual stress due to compressive underloads; (a) stress distributions near specimen surface, and (b) the maximum residual stress at specimen surface after relaxation
Grahic Jump Location
Variation of normalized crack-tip opening displacement for plane-strain crack and axisymmetric crack
Grahic Jump Location
Fatigue crack growth properties of 7050-T74511 aluminum alloy
Grahic Jump Location
Crack-tip parameters: (a) residual plastic stretch for a plane-strain crack; (b) cyclic crack-tip opening displacement; and (c) a semi-elliptical surface crack emanating from a void
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Influence of the initial flaw height on fatigue life, and (b) Comparison of predictions with experimental data of etched specimens (not shot-peened)
Grahic Jump Location
Crack growth curves at three stress levels (a) peak stress=420 MPa, (b) peak stress=360 MPa, and (c) peak stress=270 MPa
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Surface defect due to shot-peening and (b) a semi-elliptical surface crack showing upper bound and the lower bound
Grahic Jump Location
Geometry factors for a semi-circular crack embedded in a residual stress field
Grahic Jump Location
Comparisons of experimental data and predictions of crack length curves at two stress levels: (a) peak stress equals 420 MPa and (b) peak stress equals 360 MPa
Grahic Jump Location
Comparisons of fatigue endurance curves under spectrum loading for shot-peened specimens

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In