2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.106093
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of data sets usable for validating multiaxial fatigue strength criteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
31
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
0
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fatigue experiments tend to result in some scatter. Secondly, though the scope of analyses performed to build up the FatLim set was tremendous and many potential items were filtered out [32], it still relies on second-hand data. Some specific details that would cause some given data items to be rejected can stay hidden.…”
Section: Methods Of Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Fatigue experiments tend to result in some scatter. Secondly, though the scope of analyses performed to build up the FatLim set was tremendous and many potential items were filtered out [32], it still relies on second-hand data. Some specific details that would cause some given data items to be rejected can stay hidden.…”
Section: Methods Of Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The full FatLim benchmark is currently composed of 284 items. This is a much smaller number than the FatLim referred to in [26], because many stringent criteria were applied to assess the validity of the data accepted in it [32]. The load cases collected can be categorized according to their various aspects into the groups shown in Table 1.…”
Section: Used Benchmark Data Setsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Due to the intrinsic nature of such multiaxial tests, these cases thus cover only axial‐torsion load combination. The application of any pressurizing to induce also second normal stress is invariably accompanied by mean stresses, 28 so such load combination could not be addressed. The outcome of all these analyses can be summarized: MOI responds to the phase shift effect too strongly. For critical plane criteria, MCEM seems to slightly improve the prediction quality in contrast to MCCM. Crossland and Liu and Zenner criteria become phase shift insensitive if MCEM is applied. Integral criteria seem to lose some of their quality, if switched from the application from MCCM to MCEM. The Crossland method clearly benefits from switch to MCEM. Although the validation was selected with great care, the differences between MCEM and MCCM are relatively small, and they could be affected by a too limited data set scope.…”
Section: Concurring Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A simple Matlab script using the mathematical relations mentioned in Section 1 was used for that purpose. It can also be seen that the test group was divided into 4 stress levels with 5 tests performed at each level, which is according to Papuga [17] the minimal amount of points for a good statistical description of the fatigue curve. For a better overview of the obtained results, Tab.…”
Section: Fatigue Testmentioning
confidence: 99%