Research Papers

Fatigue Behavior and Damage Assessment of Stainless Steel/Aluminum Composites

[+] Author and Article Information
Volkan Eskizeybek1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Selçuk University, 42075 Kampus/Konya, Turkeyveskizeybek@selcuk.edu.tr

Ahmet Avci, Ahmet Akdemir, Ömer Sinan Şahin

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Selçuk University, 42075 Kampus/Konya, Turkey


Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 133(2), 021016 (Mar 21, 2011) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003490 History: Received September 05, 2010; Revised January 20, 2011; Published March 21, 2011; Online March 21, 2011

Fatigue crack growth and related damage mechanisms were investigated experimentally in a stainless steel/aluminum laminated composite with middle through thickness crack, and two different fracture mechanics approaches applied to the composite to reveal their differences under fatigue loading. The laminated composite material, which has a unidirectional continuous AISI 304 stainless steel as fibers and Al 1060 as matrix, was produced by using diffusion bonding. Fatigue tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM E 647. The relationships between fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN), stress intensity factor (ΔK), and strain energy release rate (ΔG) were determined; and damage behavior was discussed. Both linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and compliance method were used, and the results were compared with each other. It is found that as the crack propagates, the LEFM overestimates the ΔG values. Interlaminar and fiber/matrix interface damage were evaluated by fractographic examination.

Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Preparation of composite sandwich

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The variation of crack growth with number of cycles

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Fatigue crack growth rate as a function of ΔKI obtained by LEFM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

SEM image of matrix around fiber. Debonded region, microvoid, and coalescence effect are seen clearly.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Crack path: (a) machine notch zone, (b) precrack zone, and (c) fatigue crack propagation zone

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Fatigue crack growth rate against ΔG obtained by compliance method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Compliance as a function of crack growth

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

The successive load—COD curve of composite material

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Fatigue crack growth rate as a function of ΔG obtained by LEFM




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