2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.06.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fatigue life prediction of corrosion-damaged high-strength steel using an equivalent stress riser (ESR) model. Part II: Model development and results

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As explained in , the topography of the corroded surface can play a significant role in both crack initiation and growth (pictures of the corroded surface are presented in Figs and ). Thus, after testing, the corrosion products were removed using a steel brush and the surface profile was measured.…”
Section: Testing and Analysis Of Corroded Bridge Steelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As explained in , the topography of the corroded surface can play a significant role in both crack initiation and growth (pictures of the corroded surface are presented in Figs and ). Thus, after testing, the corrosion products were removed using a steel brush and the surface profile was measured.…”
Section: Testing and Analysis Of Corroded Bridge Steelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, in this study, attention is focused on the use of fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth approaches to compute the growth of cracks from natural corrosion in bridge steel. In this context, it should be noted that it is now well known that the effect of corrosion on structural integrity is exacerbated by the topography of the surface corrosion, which results in localised stress concentrators that in turn accelerate both the initiation and growth of cracks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The pit geometry and dimensions are a function of the potential due to electrochemical activity in the pit [111,112]. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms behind the evolution of the pit size and shape are key determinant factors to correctly characterize the pit topology and the severity of the stress and strain fields around the pit and of utmost importance in characterizing the eventual transition to a crack [113][114][115][116]. The ability of the next generation of corrosion fatigue damage tolerance procedures to incorporate these aspects of the physics of the pitting process will allow more accurate designs and assessments of structural components.…”
Section: Corrosion-fatigue Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3,15,26,27 Two engineering considerations motivate the investigation of the factors that govern the crack formation Nomenclature: CL1, Corrosion level 1 (severe corrosion); CL2, Corrosion level 2 (moderate corrosion); UNS S17400, 17-4 martensitic steel process from a broadly corroded surface. 15 Various modelling approaches have been proposed to quantitatively calculate the crack formation life [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] ; however, these methods typically only consider an isolated corrosion damage location. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Generally, these approaches use the pit size as an initial flaw size in LEFM calculations of the initial crack tip driving force and assume that the crack progresses as a periphery crack about the initial flaw size.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, by definition, LEFM estimates of fatigue life only consider the crack propagation stage; however, for relatively low loading levels and smooth pit morphologies, it has been observed that the crack initiation life can be significant. 15 Various modelling approaches have been proposed to quantitatively calculate the crack formation life [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] ; however, these methods typically only consider an isolated corrosion damage location. A critical knowledge gap is to understand how the crack formation process is dependent on the characteristics of the global pit damage distribution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%