On the distinction between plasticity-and roughness-induced fatigue crack closure

32Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A series of experiments has been carried out to determine why some alloys display plasticityinduced fatigue crack closure (PIFCC), whereas other alloys display roughness-induced crack closure (RIFCC). Two alloys were studied, the aluminum alloy 6061-T6 (PIFCC) and a steel of comparable yield strength, S25C (RIFCC). The experiments included the determination of the crack-opening levels as a function of DK, da/dN as a function of DKeff-DKeffth, removal of the specimen surface layers, removal of the crack wake, the determination of crack front shapes, crack surface roughness profiles, and the degree of lateral contraction in the plastic zone at a crack tip. Based on crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) considerations, it is concluded that PIFCC is favored in alloys of low modulus and relatively low yield strength. In addition, a low strain-hardening rate such as for the 6061 alloy will favor PIFCC. Steels with a higher modulus and a higher strain-hardening rate than 6061 will, in general, exhibit RIFCC, even at comparable yield strength levels. In ferritic steels, the fracture surface roughness and consequently the crack-opening level will increase as the coarseness of the microstructure increases. © The Mineral, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2012.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ishihara, S., Sugai, Y., & McEvily, A. J. (2012). On the distinction between plasticity-and roughness-induced fatigue crack closure. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A: Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science, 43(9), 3086–3096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-012-1121-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free