2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.06.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A fatigue model for sensitive materials to non-proportional loadings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The SWT model as ECP model has shown excellent life predictions for uniaxial fatigue and tensiondominated multiaxial fatigue but not for shear-dominated multiaxial fatigue (Roostaei and Jahed, 2017;Wu et al, 2014). Note that the SWT model provides overpredicted lives than experimental lives for multiaxial fatigue (Albinmousa and Jahed, 2014;Babaei et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2014). The research of previous section on the interaction between normal and shear behavior can explain the weakness of SWT model for multiaxial fatigue and the designed tests SS6 and SS7 can explain it well from the point of view of strain energy as shown in Figure 7.…”
Section: Generalized Ecp Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SWT model as ECP model has shown excellent life predictions for uniaxial fatigue and tensiondominated multiaxial fatigue but not for shear-dominated multiaxial fatigue (Roostaei and Jahed, 2017;Wu et al, 2014). Note that the SWT model provides overpredicted lives than experimental lives for multiaxial fatigue (Albinmousa and Jahed, 2014;Babaei et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2014;Wu et al, 2014). The research of previous section on the interaction between normal and shear behavior can explain the weakness of SWT model for multiaxial fatigue and the designed tests SS6 and SS7 can explain it well from the point of view of strain energy as shown in Figure 7.…”
Section: Generalized Ecp Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SWT model as the critical plane model is also considered as an energy-based approach and its parameter can be understood as normal energy which has shown a satisfactory life prediction for uniaxial fatigue but not for multiaxial fatigue [ 20 ]. It was found that SWT damage parameters are smaller than the calculated parameter as shown in Figure 2 , and tends to overestimate fatigue life of GH4169 under multiaxial loadings [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]; more details on experimental results and data can be found in Section 4 . The reason is that it doesn’t consider the effect of shear behavior.…”
Section: Proposed Energy-critical Plane Damage Parameter For Multimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Smith, Watson and Topper [ 18 ] pointed out that fatigue failure is predominantly caused by crack growth on planes of maximum principle strain or stress. It was acknowledged that the SWT model is suitable to predict life for materials failure under the tensile cracking mode and has relatively poor life-prediction accuracy for pure torsion and multiaxial fatigue loadings [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. The SWT parameter was modified by Jiang and Sehitoglu [ 24 ] to consider the general crack cracking mode and has a reasonable prediction for different crack behaviors with appropriate values of material constant [ 25 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Socie further improved SWT parameter to evaluate the multiaxial fatigue behavior of materials dominated by tensile‐type failure. Unfortunately, SWT parameter has been proved to be ineffective for many materials, particularly for some materials dominated by shear crack nucleation and growth. This may be attributed to its incapability to consider the fatigue damage caused by shear components.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%