scholarly journals Discussion: “Fretting-Fatigue Damage-Factor Determination” (Collins, J. A., 1965, ASME J. Eng. Ind., 87, pp. 298–302)

1965 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-302
Author(s):  
T. G. Foster
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Damage ◽  
Fretting Fatigue ◽  
Damage Factor

Fretting-Fatigue Damage-Factor Determination

1965 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 298-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Collins
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Damage ◽  
Normal Force ◽  
Experimental Tests ◽  
Fretting Fatigue ◽  
Damage Factor ◽  
Sliding Motion ◽  
Static Tensile ◽  
Tentative Explanation ◽  
Solid Bodies ◽  
Static Tensile Stress

Small-amplitude cyclic sliding motion at the interface between two solid bodies pressed together by a normal force initiates microcracks which propagate and cause premature fatigue failure. This action is defined to be fretting-fatigue. A quantitative evaluation of fretting-fatigue damage would be of great value to the mechanical engineering designer. It is proposed that a fretting-fatigue damage-factor could be developed to provide a quantitative index to fretting-fatigue damage. The damage-factor proposed is a function of eight basic fretting-fatigue parameters. Experimental tests were conducted to establish quantitative values for the fretting-fatigue damage-factor for a few specific sets of fretting-fatigue conditions. An unexpected trend in the value of the fretting-fatigue damage-factor was observed for the case of static stress in the specimen during fretting. With a static tensile stress in the specimen during fretting, the fretting-fatigue damage, as measured by reduction in fatigue limit, was very slight, while with a static compressive stress in the specimen during fretting, the fretting-fatigue damage was very great. A tentative explanation is presented.

Characteristics of the fretting fatigue damage threshold

Wear ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 159 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saeed Adibnazari ◽  
David W. Hoeppner
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Damage ◽  
Damage Threshold ◽  
Fretting Fatigue

Effect of contact pressure on torsional fretting fatigue damage of 316L austenitic stainless steel

Wear ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 376-377 ◽  
pp. 680-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z.B. Xu ◽  
J.F. Peng ◽  
J.H. Liu ◽  
Z.B. Cai ◽  
M.H. Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Contact Pressure ◽  
Fatigue Damage ◽  
Fretting Fatigue ◽  
316L Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Torsional Fretting

Method B Fatigue Screening in ASME BPV Code, Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Kirkpatrick ◽  
Christopher R. Johnson ◽  
J. Adin Mann
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Damage ◽  
Pressure Vessel ◽  
Fatigue Analysis ◽  
Damage Factor ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Mechanical Loads ◽  
Penalty Factor ◽  
Section Viii ◽  
Cyclic Service ◽  
Division 2

Abstract ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 Method B fatigue screening is intended to be a quick and simple method that is sufficiently conservative to screen components in cyclic service thus not requiring detailed fatigue analysis. The method assesses pressure, thermal, and mechanical loads separately. The basis for each portion of the method is discussed along with an alternative bases for the assessments. Each assessment is reformulated as a fatigue damage factor and all variables are provided so that the intent of each equation is clearly identifiable. A penalty factor will be included in each equation rather than assuming one penalty for all designs, the reformulation creates penalty for non-fatigue resistant designs and reduces the penalty for fatigue resistant designs. Examples are given showing the potentially non-conservative results if a summed damage is not used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document