2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.01.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new multiaxial fatigue model for life prediction based on energy dissipation evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These strain paths (A, B, C, D, G, and H as listed in TABLE 2) have been used to validate the generality of critical plane model developed by Arora et al 23 FIGURE 6 shows the comparison between predicted and experimental fatigue lives. It is inferred that predicted and test fatigue lives for pure axial (path A), pure torsion (path B), in-phase axial-torsion (path C), and out-of-phase axial-torsion (path D, G, and H) cycling are comparable The validity of model developed by Arora P. et al has also been checked for another class of austenitic stainless-steel material Type 316L 31 and stabilized grade Type 347 29 . The strain paths considered in studies carried out by Feng et al 31 on SS 316L are pure axial (path A), pure torsion (path B), in-phase axial-torsion (path C), and 90 out-of-phase axial-torsion (path D) straincontrolled tests with sine waveforms.…”
Section: Austenitic Stainless Steelmentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These strain paths (A, B, C, D, G, and H as listed in TABLE 2) have been used to validate the generality of critical plane model developed by Arora et al 23 FIGURE 6 shows the comparison between predicted and experimental fatigue lives. It is inferred that predicted and test fatigue lives for pure axial (path A), pure torsion (path B), in-phase axial-torsion (path C), and out-of-phase axial-torsion (path D, G, and H) cycling are comparable The validity of model developed by Arora P. et al has also been checked for another class of austenitic stainless-steel material Type 316L 31 and stabilized grade Type 347 29 . The strain paths considered in studies carried out by Feng et al 31 on SS 316L are pure axial (path A), pure torsion (path B), in-phase axial-torsion (path C), and 90 out-of-phase axial-torsion (path D) straincontrolled tests with sine waveforms.…”
Section: Austenitic Stainless Steelmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Amongst ferrous alloys category, different material grades from plain carbon steel family (mild steel 24 , SA333 Gr. 6 23,25 16MnR 23,26 , E235 27 , and E355 27 ), low-alloy steel (1Cr-Mo-V 28 and S460N 23,29 ) and austenitic stainless steel (SS304 30 , SS316L 31 and SS 347 29 ) have been considered. In nonferrous alloy category, aluminium alloys (2024T3-Al 32 , PA38-T6-Al 27 , and 7075T651-Al 33 ), titanium (pure titanium 34 and TC4 alloy 35 ), cobalt base super-alloy (Haynes 188 36 ), and nickel alloy (Inconel-718 37 ) have been used for validation.…”
Section: Scope Of the Present Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their values can be estimated on the basis of experimental data, mainly for uniaxial loading. Fatigue criteria, in their original form, are usually used to assess the limit state called the fatigue limit [31][32][33][34]. Therefore, the material parameters are a function of the fatigue limits from uniaxial fatigue tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jiang et al developed an EVICD (event independent cumulative damage) fatigue prediction model that takes the plastic strain energy as the major contributor to the fatigue damage [8]. Feng et al established an energy dissipation-based multiaxial fatigue model that allows the fatigue life prediction for a given strain path, and then the proposed model was verified and applied to the AISI 316L stainless steel [9]. Fan et al proposed a generalized life prediction model on the basis of the hysteresis energy and law of energy conservation for the creep-fatigue interaction [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%