Thermomechanical Fatigue: Testing Methods and Application

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
César Augusto De Jesus Falcão ◽  
Waldek Wladimir Bose Filho ◽  
Dirceu Spinelli
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Eljufout ◽  
Toutanji ◽  
Al-Qaralleh

Several standard fatigue testing methods are used to determine the fatigue stress-life prediction model (S-N curve) and the endurance limit of Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams, including the application of constant cyclic tension-tension loads at different stress or strain ranges. The standard fatigue testing methods are time-consuming and expensive to perform, as a large number of specimens is needed to obtain valid results. The purpose of this paper is to examine a fatigue stress-life predication model of RC beams that are developed with an accelerated fatigue approach. This approach is based on the hypothesis of linear accumulative damage of the Palmgren–Miner rule, whereby the applied cyclic load range is linearly increased with respect to the number of cycles until the specimen fails. A three-dimensional RC beam was modeled and validated using ANSYS software. Numerical simulations were performed for the RC beam under linearly increased cyclic loading with different initial loading conditions. A fatigue stress-life model was developed that was based on the analyzed data of three specimens. The accelerated fatigue approach has a higher rate of damage accumulations than the standard testing approach. All of the analyzed specimens failed due to an unstable cracking of concrete. The developed fatigue stress-life model fits the upper 95% prediction band of RC beams that were tested under constant amplitude cyclic loading.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiangtao Song ◽  
Paul N. Crepeau ◽  
Randy J. Gu ◽  
Zissimos P. Mourelatos

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Rudolph J. Scavuzzo

The basic objective of this investigation is to determine the effect of loading on the stress intensification factors of Markl’s fatigue evaluation method for metal piping. Markl’s method is based on the fatigue testing of 4 in. schedule 40 carbon steel cantilever piping. Subsequent testing using a four-point loading showed that the S-N data were different from that predicted by the procedure and equation developed by Markl. Markl’s method is based on determining the elastic-plastic forces in a piping system by multiplying the elastic system stiffness by the actual deflection. In this manner a fictitious force is calculated to determine piping stresses assuming the elastic beam bending equation, Mc/I, applies even in partially plastic pipes. Previous analytical work on this topic by Rodabaugh and Scavuzzo (“Fatigue of Butt Welded Pipe and the Effect of Testing Methods–Report 2: Effect of Testing Methods on Stress Intensification Factors,” Welding Research Bulletin 433, July 1998) showed that these measured differences should occur between cantilever and four-point tests using Markl’s method. The basic assumption in this analytical comparison is that strain-cycle correlations lead to the correct prediction of fatigue life. Using the measured alternating strain, both types of test geometries lead to the same prediction of fatigue life using these strain-cycle correlations. In this study, the same analytical assumptions used by Rodabaugh and Scavuzzo (above) are applied to a pipe where the load is varied from a four-point loading through its extremes. Loads were varied from a cantilever to an end moment by changing the dimensions of four-point loading. Also, the shape of a bilinear stress-strain curve was varied from a perfectly plastic material to various degrees of work hardening by increasing the tangent modulus in the plastic regime. The results of the study indicate that Markl’s method is conservative by predicting too short a fatigue life for four-point loading for a given stress. As indicated by this study, the differences can be very large in the low-cycle regime for a perfectly plastic material and for a four-point loading approaching an end moment. Thus, piping could be over designed with unnecessary conservatism using the current ASME Code method based on stress intensification factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document