Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fatigue-Crack: Effect ON IN Aluminum-Alloy OF Stress Ratio Growth 7075-T6 AND 2024-T3 Specimens
Fatigue-Crack: Effect ON IN Aluminum-Alloy OF Stress Ratio Growth 7075-T6 AND 2024-T3 Specimens
Fatigue-Crack: Effect ON IN Aluminum-Alloy OF Stress Ratio Growth 7075-T6 AND 2024-T3 Specimens
NASA
NASA TN D-5390
NOTE
o_
|
Z
I.,-,-
EFFECT
ON
IN
OF STRESS
RATIO
FATIGUE-CRACK
7075-T6
AND
2024-T3
ALUMINUM-ALLOY
by C. Michael
GROWTH
SPECIMENS
Hudson
Langley
Research Center
Langley
Station,
Hampton,
Va.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AUGUST 1969
,1
1.
Report
No.
2.
Government
Accession
No.
3.
Recipient's
S.
Report
Catalog
No.
NASA TN D-5390
4.
Title
and
Subtitle
Author(s)
6.
Performing
Organization
Code
8.
Performing
Organization
Report
C. Michael Hudson
9.
Performing
Date
August 1969
No.
L-6662
Organization
Name
and
10.
Address
Work
Unit
No.
126-14-15-01-23
111.
Contract
or Grant
No.
Agency
Name
and
Type
of
Report
and
Period
Covered
Technical Note
Address
15.
Supplementary
16.
Abstract
Sponsoring
Agency
Code
Notes
stress ratio, the fatigue-crack-growth rate was a single-valued function of the stress-intensity range for
both 7075-T6 and 2024-T3aluminum alloys. For R >- 0 the crack-growth rates varied systematically with R
for both materials; the higher stress ratios produced higher rates of fatigue-crack growth for a given stressintensity range.
Fatigue cracks in the 7075-T6 aluminum alloy grew at the same rates in all tests with R -< 0 when
the same maximum stress-intensity
num alloy grew faster in the tests with R = -1 than in the tests with R = 0 when the same maximum
stress-intensity factor was applied.
Empirical equations previously developedby various investigators were fitted to the experimental data.
In general, good correlation was obtained.
17.
Key
lB.
WordsSuggested by Author(s)
Distribution
Statement
Fatigue
Unclassified- Unlimited
Crack propagation
Stress ratio
19.
Security
Classif.
Unclassified
(of
this
report)
20,
Security
Classif.
Unclassified
(of
this
page)
21.
No.
of
Pages
29
_For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151
22.
EFFECT
OF STRESS
7075-T6
RATIO
AND 2024-T3
ON FATIGUE-CRACK
GROWTH
ALUMINUM-ALLOY
By C. Michael
Langley
IN
SPECIMENS
Hudson
Research
Center
SUMMARY
sheet
Axial-load
fatigue-crack-growth
specimens
made
at stress
-1.0
stress
effects
The
a given
of the
the
and
of the
the
of 7075-T6
(ratio
study
ratios
tests
of stress
experimental
positive
stress
crack-growth
ratios
produced
minimum
aluminum
stress
levels
were
ratio,
the
range
for both
rates
2024-T3
conducted
ranging
on fatigue-crack
results
stress-intensity
stress
ratio
were
alloy.
rates
were
made
stress)
from
5 to 50 ksi
by using
7075-T6
higher
tests
to the maximum
ranging
the stress-intensity
fatigue-crack-growth
systematically
These
(305-mm)
from
to
growth.
analyzed
varied
on 12-inch-wide
rate
and
was
2024-T3
with
growth
aluminum
grew
a single-valued
aluminum
for both
of fatigue-crack
method.
for
function
alloys.
materials;
For
For
R -> 0
the higher
a given
stress-intensity
range.
Fatigue
with
cracks
R -<-0
fatigue
when
cracks
in the
tests
vol.
entitled
fitted
with
2024-T3
data
except
stress-intensity
alloy
the
maximum
same
developed
1967),
by Erdogan
Forman's
data.
Erdogan's
at the higher
and
growth
faster
et al.
Paris'
rates
in the
the
tests
7075-T6
In contrast,
factor
and
good
R = -1
was
ASME,
Ser.
by Paris
Press,
fit to both
showed
in all tests
with
Univ.
an excellent
rates
applied.
(in Trans.
Syracuse
equations
for
was
produced
same
stress-intensity
Approach,"
equation
at the
factor
grew
by Forman
An Interdisciplinary
data.
alloy
aluminum
when
to the
maximum
2024-T3
R = 0
7075-T6
same
equations
"Fatigue
the
the
in the
Empirical
Eng.,
in the
the
correlation
than
applied.
D:
J. Basic
(in book
1964)
were
7075-T6
with
and
the test
alloy.
INTRODUCTION
Fatigue
components.
spent
shown
cracks
frequently
Consequently,
in the crack-propagation
to be dependent
upon
initia_te
a major
phase
the applied
early
portion
in the
life
of the useful
of fatigue.
of cyclically
life
Fatigue-crack
stress-intensity
range
loaded
of these
components
propagation
and
upon
structural
the
has
stress
is
been
ratio R (ratio of the minimum stress to the maximum stress). While much information has been obtainedfor various stress-intensity ranges, much less information is
available with regard to stress ratio. Accordingly, an investigation has been conducted
to determine the effects of a wide range of R values and stresses on fatigue-crack
growth in 7075-T6 and 2024-T3 aluminum-alloy sheet specimens. These materials were
selected becauseof their frequent use in aircraft construction.
The data were analyzedby using the stress-intensity method. Figge and Newman
(ref. 1) showedthat by this methodthe data from simple sheet specimens could be used
to predict fatigue-crack-growth behavior in simulated structural configurations. Empirical equationsdevelopedby Forman, Kearney, and Engle (ref. 2), by Erdogan (ref. 3), and
by Paris (ref. 4) were fitted to the data generatedin this investigation by using leastsquares techniques.
SYMBOLS
The units usedfor the physical quantities defined in this paper are given both in
U.S. Customary Units and in the International Systemof Units (SI) (ref. 5). The appendix
presents factors relating these two systems of units.
one-half of total length of a central symmetrical crack, inches (mm)
af
ai
C,C1,C2
constants
kc
critical
kmax
stress-intensity
in fatigue-crack-growth
stress-intensity
kmin
factor
factor
tangent-formula
stress-intensity
equations
width
factor
at failure,
corresponding
range
of stress-intensity
correction),
ksi-inl/2
corresponding
kmax-
m,n,p
exponents
kmin,
factor
ksi-inl/2
in fatigue-crack-growth
(MN/m3/2)
to maximum
cyclic
stress
(with
stress
(with
(MN/m3/2)
to mininmm
tangent-formulawidthcorrection),ksi-inl/2
Z_k
psi-inl/2
cyclic
(MN/m3/2)
(with
ta-_gent-formula
_MN/m3/2)
equations
ijr
width
correction),
number
of cycles
Pa
amplitude
Pf
load
on specimen
immediately
Pi
load
on specimen
at onset
Pm
mean
Pmax
maximum
load
Pmin
minimum
load
ratio
Sa
alternating
Sm
mean
Sma x
maximum
gross
stress,
Pmax/Wt,
Smin
minimum
gross
stress,
Pmin/wt,
specimen
thickness,
specimen
width,
length
O/
correction
of load
load
applied
applied
applied
Pm/wt,
ksi
inches
starter
growth,
kips
kips
kips
(newtons)
(newtons)
(newtons)
Pm - Pa,
ksi
fracture,
(newtons)
to maximum
kips
(newtons)
stress
(MN/m2)
(MN/m2)
inches
for finite
crack
kips
Pa/wt,
(newtons)
to rapid
in a cycle,
stress
stress,
of crack
of slow
in a cycle,
applied
kips
prior
in a cycle,
of minimum
stress,
in a cycle,
ksi
ksi
(MN/m2)
(MN/m2)
(mm)
(mm)
notch,
width
SPECIMENS,
inches
(mm)
of panel
TESTS,
AND PROCEDURES
Specimens
The
materials
aluminum-alloy
fatigue
were
properties
obtained
were
sheets
retained
of these
in this
taken
from
at Langley
materials
investigation
the special
are
by using
stocks
Research
discussed
standard
of 7075-T6
Center
for
and
fatigue
in reference
6.
American
Society
2024-T3
testing.
Tensile
for
The
properties
Testing
and
3
Materials (ASTM) tensile specimens andare listed in table I. Also listed in table I are
the tensile properties obtainedin 1949on the same stocks of material. The tensile
properties of the materials did not changesignificantly over the 19-year interval. The
specimen configuration used in the crack propagation andin ancillary residual-staticstrength tests is shownin figure 1. Sheetspecimens 12inches (305mm) wide, 35 inches
(889 mm) long, and with a nominal thickness of 0.090inch (2.28 ram) were tested. A
notch 0.10 inch (2.54mm) long by 0.01 inch (0.25 mm) wide was cut into the center of
each specimenby an electrical discharge process. Only very localized heating occurs
in making notchesin this manner. Thus virtually all of the material through which the
fatigue crack propagatesis unaltered by the cutting process. All specimenswere made
with the longitudinal axis of the specimensparallel to the rolling direction of the sheets.
A reference grid (ref. 7) was photographically printed on the surface of the specimens to mark intervals in the path of the crack. Metallographic examination andtensile
tests conductedon specimens bearing the grid indicated that the grid had no detrimental
effect on the material.
Testing Machines
Four axial-lo_id fatigue-testing machineswere employedin this investigation. The
capabilities of these machines are listed in the following table:
Maximum load
capability
lbf
kN
Machine type
cpm
Machine
description
Hz
Subresonant ........
Hydraulic .........
Hydraulic .........
20 000
100000
120000
89
445
534
1800
1200
30
30
Reference
20
Reference
Reference
10
Combination:
As subresonantunit .
As hydraulic unit ....
105000
132000
467
587
820
14
Reference
11
Loads
were
continuously
monitored
strain-gage
bridge
attached
to a dynamometer
mum
in loading
error
was
1 percent
Axial-load
ranging
aluminum
from
fatigue-crack-propagation
-1.0
alloy.
to 0.8 for
Generally,
_075-T6
tests
on these
0.7 to 1.0
machines
in series
by measuring
with
the
the
specimens.
output
The
load.
aluminum
conducted
were
alloy
conducted
and
from
at a number
at stress
-1.0
ratios
to 0.7 for
of maximum
2024-T3
stress
of a
maxi-
Procedure
tests
were
0.5
40 to 60
of the applied
Test
Operating frequency
levels Smax for a given stress ratio. The alternating and meanloads were kept constant throughout eachtest. Duplicate tests were conductedat each stress level.
Fatigue-crack growth was observed through 10-power microscopes while illuminating the specimenwith stroboscopic light. The number of cycles required to propagate
the crack to eachgrid line was recorded so that crack-propagation rates could be determined. Approximately two-thirds of the crack-propagation tests were conductedto failure. The remaining one-third were stoppedbefore failure, andthe cracked specimens
were used in residual-static-strength tests.
In all the tests (crack growth and residual static strength), the specimenswere
clampedbetweenlubricated guidesin order to prevent buckling and out-of-plane vibrations during testing. Light oil was used to lubricate the surfaces of the specimensand
the guides. Noneof this oil was observedto enter the crack during testing. Consequently, the oil was not expectedto affect the crack growth. A 0.125-inch (3.2-mm) slot
was cut across the width of one guide plate to allow visual observation of the crack.
Axial-load residual-static-strength tests were conductedat a load rate of
120000lbf/min (8.9 kN/s) on unfailed crack-propagation specimens. A 70-mm
sequencecamera operating at 20 frames per secondwas used to obtain slow-crackgrowth data. The cracked section of the specimen andthe image of a load-indicating
device were photographedon eachframe of film by using an optical prism. From this
film, the load at which the crack first started to grow statically and the load and crack
length immediately prior to final failure were determined.
METHODOF ANALYSIS
The fatigue-crack-growth datawere correlated by the stress-intensity method. It
was hypothesizedin reference 4 that the rate of fatigue-crack propagationwas a function
of the stress-intensity range; that is,
d_._.a
= f(_k)
dN
(1)
Ak = kma x - kmin
(2)
where
For
centrally
cracked
specimens
subjected
kmax
to a uniformly
= aSmax_Ja
distributed
axial
load,
(3)
and
kmin
The term
by
is a factor
O/
which
= (_Smin_-a
corrects
for
(4)
the finite
width
of the
specimen
and
is given
The
term
Sma x
gross
stress
were
plotted
is the maximum
in the
cycle.
as functions
gross
stress
In presenting
of
Ak
in the
the results,
(eq.
are
presented
crack
to grow
from
II.
This
table
a half-length
Fatigue-crack-propagation
growth
curves
defined
Typical
under
in table
two to four
loading
times
alloy
as in the
gives
presented
For
are
cycles
for
materials;
a given
Data
for
of
loading
cycle
equation
as the
of
for
was
for
of cycles
to the
specimens
required
specified
determined
for
the
half-lengths.
from
the
crack-
7075-T6
and
in figure
required
2.
to reach
2024-T3
For
specimens
these
a given
tested
identical
crack
conditions,
length
in the
alloy.
ratio,
of Stress
Ratio
data
as a function
rate
was
stress
ratios
from
of the
rates
produced
tests
function
varied
higher
the
with
R = 0
stress-intensity
a single-valued
Crack-growth
The
crack-growth
all negative
neglected
(2) became
data
da/dN
of
range
of
systematically
rates
Ak
with
of fatigue-crack
are
Ak.
for both
R
for
growth
Ak.
R =<0.-
Ak
ram)
graphically
for
shown
were
of rate
alloys.
the higher
value
function
stress
2024-T3
minimum
values
and 2024-T3
number
(2.54
fatigue-crack-growth
3 as plots
positive
and
The
inch
were
curves
7075-T6
R ->-0.-
in figure
a given
7075-T6
both
for
experimental
on 7075-T6
the average
of 0.10
Effect
Data
is the
II.
conditions
as many
tests
da/dN
fatigue-crack-growth
identical
2024-T3
rates
Smin
Growth
of the fatigue-crack-growth
in table
the
and
AND DISCUSSION
Fatigue-Crack
results
cycle
(2)).
RESULTS
The
(5)
R = 0
kmax.
(for
stress
rate
ratios
in calculating
These
which
data
hk
when
Ak
for
also
in the
(fig.
negative
equals
7075-T6
the
alloy
was
compressive
4).
That
R
kmax),
fell
portion
is, for
into
a single-valued
R < 0,
the same
indicating
of the
Ak
scatter
the compressive
in
band
portion of the loading cycle did not significantly affect fatigue-crack growth in 7075-T6
alloy.
The crack-growth rate in the 2024-T3 alloy was nominally a single-valued function of Ak for the negative stress ratios (e.g., see fig. 5). (Rates do appear to be
slightly higher in the low-frequency tests than in the high-frequency ones for this set of
data.) However, fatigue cracks in the 2024-T3 alloy grew faster in the tests with R = -1
than
in the tests
and
R = -1
intensity
crack
with
data.
range
and
closed
completely
under
compressive
the
at
would
and McEvily
pletely
when
tion at the
zero
tend
to close
rial
immediately
higher
load
tip.
the
Thus,
is reached
Thus,
(ref.
and,
equations.
equations
R < 0
data
were
tive
are
tests
for
for
R =<0
not used
compressive
(fig.
were
the
R=
tensile
cycle
stress-
accelerated
alloy
This
that
the equations
since
a crack
(ref.
there
Illg
com-
deforma-
R = -1
damage
could
and
would
to the
mate-
be manifest
as the
Equations
by Forman,
4) were
fitted
the appropriate
given
these
to apply
which
in the
only.
of plastic
with
fatigue
developed
band.
cycle
investigation.
In fitting
assumed
existed
do not close
because
damage
the constants
scatter
specalloy
no crack
loading
alloy
Fatigue-Crack-Growth
to determine
7075-T6
loading
R = 0
in the tests
additional
in this
Units.)
were
an
R = -1
2024-T3
do additional
same
for
with
equations
used
of the
in 2024-T3
loading
and
as though
portion
cracks
so, would
With
be noted
into the
factor
same
in the
to the material
tests
tip.
cracks
experiencing
observed
Customary
in fitting
both
was
is open
data
constants
in this
all
R = 0
data.
for
the
tests
these
these
data
from
since
alloy
all
with
of calculating
an indefinable
and
for
report
for 2024-T3
no method
for
to the test
equations,
to the
The
Kearney,
the
the
R = -1
the effec-
portion
of the
loading.
Forman's
data
fell
stress-intensity
intensity
(ref.
7075-T6
the
7075-T6
behaved
compressive
that
in doing
of Data
(It should
for U.S.
for
loading
for
that
material
compressive
rates
techniques
for
of the
proposed
it were
of the crack
2), by Erdogan
tests
findings
no damage
fatigue-crack-growth
Least-squares
three
the
in the
the
Correlation
Engle
the
observed
fatigue-crack-growth
Empirical
and that
as though
ahead
portion
They
do virtually
cracks
Ak=kma
R = -1
similar
R = -1.
12) further
crack
again,
in the
compression
load
propagate
(ref.
Here
12) reported
loading.
would
6).
alloy.
and
at zero
fig.
rates
the
(ref.
R = 0
R < 0
crack
higher
that
McEvily
tested
with
(see
in the 2024-T3
imens
tests
These
indicate
growth
Illg
R=
factor
7).
equation
at failure),
This
equation
(ref.
2), relating
produced
has
da/dN,
an excellent
the form
Ak,
R, and
fit to both
the
kc
(the
7075-T6
critical
and
the
stress2024-T3
da _
C(Ak)n
dN (1 - R)kc - Lik
(6)
Average
values
of
56 600 psi-in1/2
(table III).
The
lowing
kc
of 40 400 psi-inll
MN/m3/2)
2 (44.4
(62.2 MN/m3/2)
for the 2024-T3
constants
C and
n in equation
the
7075-T6
alloy
and
of
values:
Material
The
fig.
for
8).
equation
This
.....
2.13 10 -13
3.21
2024-T3
.....
3.22
3.38
has
by Erdogan
the
(ref.
C1,
the
data,
test
m, and
these
are
constants
10 -14
3) was
also
fitted
to the test
data
(see
form
d_._a=
m
dN
C lkmax
where
7075-T6
developed
equation
empirically
were
determined
determined
(8)
Akp
constants.
to have
In fitting
the following
equation
(8) to
values:
C1
1.00 10 "19
7075-T6
.....
Material
2024-T3
.....
The
curves
correlation
Paris
growth
computed
with
and
(ref.
the
the
by equation
test
data
4) proposed
stress-intensity
1.04 10 -19
(8) are
except
at the
the following
range
shown
in figure
higher
growth
relationship
(in the
notation
da = C2(Zik)4
1.15
8.
This
rates
between
of the
2.44
equation
for the
the rate
present
showed
7075-T6
good
alloy.
of fatigue-crack
paper):
(9)
In equation (9) C2 is a constant which is proposedto incorporate the effects of material, meanload, loading frequency, and environment. This equationalso showedgood
correlation with the test data except at the higher growth rates for the 7075-T6 alloy (see
fig. 9). Separatevalues of the coefficient C2 had to be computedfor eachvalue of R
since R is not a function in equation (9). These coefficients are listed in the following
table:
Material
C2
7075-T6 ......
5.52 10-21
6.44
1.00 10-20
1.80
3.95
6.84
.2
.33
.5
.7
.8
0
2024-T3 ......
2.14 10-21
5.40
.33
.5
q.75
.7
The
ture.
7075-T6
A reflex
approaching
primary
equation.
had
tests
in figures
curvature
is also
(1 - R)kc
excellent
The
data
for
the 2024-T3
been
conducted
(1 - R)kc).
well
being
equations
equation
as Forman's
intensity
Forman's
7075-T6
would
high
or reflex
equation;
(6).
data
This
obtained
probably
have
investigation
of curva-
it is induced
by
intrinsic
shape
by using
Forman's
had
stress-intensity
type
a reflex
ranges
of crack-growth
Ak
is the
curvature
(such
that
behavior
Z_k
at very
high
conducted.
and Paris'
these
alloy
A separate
an "S" shape
of equation
fit to the
at sufficiently
into
from
in the denominator
the
Erdogan's
Forman's
obtained
for
is currently
quently,
7 to 9 fell
reason
approached
rates
data
1.24 10 -20
equations
cannot
did (see
equation
do not provide
fit the
figs.
7075-T6
7 to 9) and
if there
were
for this
data
reflex
at the high
probably
additional
would
data
curvature.
growth
from
tests
Conse-
rates
as well
as
data
as
2024-T3
at high
stress-
ranges.
CONC LUSIONS
Axial-load
12 inches
2024-T3
stress
fatigue-crack-propagation
(305 mm)
aluminum
to the
wide
alloys.
maximum
and nominally
These
stress)
tests
ranging
tests
0.090
were
inch
conducted
(2.28
were
at stress
from
-1.0
mm)
ratios
to 0.8 and
on sheet
thick
R
made
(ratio
at maximum
specimens
of 7075-T6
of the
and
minimum
stresses
9
ranging
from
growth.
The
correlated
this
5 to 50 ksi
test
with
results
three
were
analyzed
empirical
to study
by using
relations.
The
the
the
effect
of
stress-intensity
following
fatigue-crack
on
method
conclusions
can
and were
be drawn
from
study:
1. For
intensity
a given
range
2. For
given
positive
for both
R ----0
materials.
The
the
the
in this
and
stress
rate
2024-T3
was
function
of stress-
alloys.
rates
ratios
a single-valued
varied
produced
systematically
higher
rates
with
of fatigue-crack
for
both
growth
for a
range.
cracks
same
ratio,
fatigue-crack-growth
stress-intensity
when
stress
7075-T6
higher
3. Fatigue
that
in 7075-T6
maximum
compressive
alloy
grew
stress-intensity
portion
of the
at the
factor
loading
was
cycle
same
rates
applied.
did not
in all
These
significantly
tests
with
R <=0
equal
rates
indicate
affect
crack
growth
R = -1
than
material.
4. The
fatigue
cracks
in the tests
with
R = 0
Apparently,
the
compression
in 2024-T3
when
the
alloy
same
portion
grew
faster
maximum
in the tests
stress-intensity
of the loading
cycle
with
factor
accelerated
was
crack
applied.
growth
in this
material.
5. For
to reach
identical
a given
Eng.,
(in book
entitled
were
fitted
conditions,
two to four
length
in 2024-T3
alloy
crack
6. Empirical
J. Basic
loading
equations
vol.
developed
"Fatigue
to the data.
and
the 2024-T3
data.
test
data
at the higher
Langley
except
Research
National
Erdogan's
equation
and
growth
Station,
and
Space
Hampton,
126-14-15-01-23.
10
by Erdogan
rates
produced
the
May
Syracuse
showed
7075-T6
Administration,
Va.,
(in Trans.
an excellent
equations
for
were
ASME,
Set.
29, 1969,
required
alloy.
Approach,"
Paris'
cycles
Center,
Aeronautics
Langley
et al.
An Interdisciplinary
Forman's
as many
as in 7075-T6
by Forman
1967),
times
and by Paris
Univ.
fit to both
good
alloy.
D:
correlation
Press,
the
1964)
7075-T6
with
the
APPENDIX
CONVERSIONOF U.S. CUSTOMARYUNITS TO SI UNITS
The International Systemof Units (SI) was adoptedby the Eleventh General Conference of Weights and Measures, Paris, October 1960,in Resolution No. 12 (ref. 5).
Conversion factors for the units usedherein are given in the following table:
To convert from
U.S. Customary Units
Multiply by -
lbf
in.
ksi
cpm
Prefixes
and
symbols
4.448222
newtons
2.54 10-2
meters
6.894757 x 106
newtons/meter2
1.67 x 10-2
hertz
to indicate
Multiple
10-9
To obtain SI units
multiples
Prefix
of units
are
(N)
(m)
(N/m2)
(Hz)
as follows:
Symbol
nano
10-3
milli
103
kilo
106
mega
109
giga
11
REFERENCES
1. Figge, I. E.; andNewman,J. C., Jr.: Fatigue Crack Propagation in Structures With
Simulated Rivet Forces. Spe.Tech. Publ. No. 415, Amer. Soc. Testing Mater.,
c.1967, pp. 71-94.
2. Forman, R. G.; Kearney, V. E.; andEngle, R. M.: Numerical Analysis of Crack
Propagation in Cyclic-Loaded Structures. Trans. ASME, Ser. D: J. Basic Eng.,
vol. 89, no. 3, Sept. 1967,pp. 459-464.
3. Erdogan,
4. Paris,
Fazil:
Paul
Crack
C.:
The
disciplinary
Univ.
Com.,
6. Grover,
Mar.
H. J.;
7. Hudson,
Aluminum
Alloys
8. Grover,
H. J.;
9. McEvily,
Two
10. Illg,
J.,
Walter:
7075-T6
the
Life
11. Hudson,
Jr.;
and Illg,
NACA
for Two
1959.
12
An Inter-
Weiss,
Tests
Rep.
eds.,
102,
U.S.
1958.
From
2 to 10,000
Cycles.
Hardrath,
Herbert
and
Loadings
on Fatigue
Specimens
Special
TN
3866,
1956.
Propagation
TN 2928.)
Propagation
With
of the
F. M. :
as Determined
NACA
Sheet
Investigation
Crack
Howell,
Alloy
Steel
NACA
F.:
and Stainless-
of Fatigue-Crack
and Unnotched
B.; and
(Supersedes
Rate
1951.
Titanium
Aluminum
1954.
The
Aluminum
Alloys
Arthur
Under
J.,
Jr.:
The
Completely
Rate
Effects
Patterns.
of Fatigue-Crack
Reversed
Loading.
in
of 2024-T3
Consideration
of
NASA
1963.
and McEvily,
and
1964.
75S-T
Walter:
of 24S-T3
TN 2324,
Charles
and
of Aircraft
Specimens
in Several
TN 4394,
on Notched
Sheet
TN D-2331,
1190,
Strengths
NACA
Landers,
Alloys
C. Michael;
Walter;
NACA
Alloys.
Variable-Amplitude
12. Illg,
Paul;
of 24S-T
Aluminum
Range
TN D-1803,
NASA
Properties
Fatigue
and
on Unnotched
Propagation
W. S.; Kuhn,
Laboratories.
Arthur
NBS Handbook
Fatigue
One Superalloy.
Hyler,
Aluminum
Fatigue
and Volker
Guide.
L.R.:
Tests
Fatigue-Crack
Fatigue
in Several
to Fatigue.
L. Reed,
Practice
Jackson,
Fatigue
Alloys
and
Axial-Load
Metric
S. M.; and
C. Michael:
Steel
1967.
pp. 107-132.
ASTM
Axial-Load
75S-T6
Norman
CR-901,
10, 1967.
Bishop,
Materials.
NASA
Approach
J. Burke,
1964,
Pract.:
Theories.
Mechanics
John
Press,
on Metric
Dep.
Fracture
Approach,
Syracuse
5. Comm.
Propagation
Propagation
NASA
TN D-52,
of
_'_
o_O ._
._
_._
:_
_'
_.1.7 _
O0
_1_
0
D_
_D
r_
1._
_'_
t._
0
L_-
13
Z
o
_o_oo
ooooo
oo
14
oo_oo
L_ooo
_o_oo
o_oooo
_o
_oo
oo
,.9,o
_ooooo
ooooo
oo
o
o.
o
o
Z
o
<
r_
Z
0
t_
v
0
p.l
ii
co
o
_g
o
11
ii
15
TABLE
HI.-
CRACK
AND
LOAD
MEASUREMENTS
AND VALUES
RESIDUAL-STATIC-STRENGTH
(a)
af
ai
in.
7075-T6
mm
FROM
alloy
pf
kc
mm
kips
kN
kips
kN
ksi-inl/2
MN/m3/2
1.72
1.59
1.53
1.94
1.02
.98
.91
1.01
1.05
43.69
40.39
38.86
49.28
25.91
24.89
23.11
25.65
26.67
1.85
1.80
1.79
2.36
1.16
1.19
.96
1.09
1.15
46.99
45.72
45.43
59.95
29.46
30.22
24.38
27.69
29.21
23.4
17.7
20.0
16.5
....
....
....
....
29.2
104
79
89
73
--------130
29.9
30.4
30.4
27.2
36.5
38.8
43.1
41.7
37.7
133
135
135
121
171
173
192
185
168
39.2
39.2
38.5
39.8
38.0
39.7
38.0
41.4
38.4
43.1
43.1
42.3
43.7
41.7
43.7
41.7
45.5
42.2
.78
1.31
1.90
.52
1.22
1.76
1.40
1.17
.54
19.81
33.27
48.26
13.21
30.99
44.70
35.56
29.71
13.72
.94
1.75
2.19
.73
1.53
2.10
1.73
1.43
.71
23.88
44.45
55.63
18.54
38.86
53.34
43.94
36.32
18.03
32.8
19.2
15.7
32.8
25.8
18.3
26.8
29.2
33.3
146
85
70
146
115
81
119
130
148
44.5
32.0
25.0
50.4
35.9
30.2
32.3
36.4
49.8
198
142
111
224
160
134
144
162
222
41.6
40.2
35.4
40.4
42.0
41.8
41.0
40.2
38.5
45.7
44.2
39.0
44.4
46.2
45.9
45.0
44.2
42.3
1.51
2.25
2.47
1.78
.70
.53
1.07
1.12
.55
38.35
57.15
62.74
45.21
17.78
13.46
27.18
28.44
13.97
1.65
2.73
2.81
2.13
.93
.78
1.20
1.37
.72
41.91
69.34
71.37
54.10
23.62
19.81
30.48
34.80
18.29
24.0
12.3
14.0
14.8
....
29.4
30.O
3O.O
....
107
54
62
66
--131
133
133
---
39.0
24.3
22.8
27.1
47.1
48.4
39.0
36.0
47.5
173
108
101
121
210
215
173
160
211
47.6
41.0
39.0
39.0
43.4
40.3
48.2
39.4
37.6
52.3
45.0
42.9
42.9
47.7
44.3
52.9
43.3
41.3
(b) 2024-T3
ai
af
ln.
mm
50.3
68.6
65.5
62.2
61.7
39.6
46.5
57.2
2.82
3.24
3.28
3.3O
3.06
2.42
2.72
2.88
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
71.6
82.3
83.3
83.8
77.7
61.5
69.1
73.2
56.6
39.9
45.7
38.6
51.3
40.1
65.0
38.6
38.1
3.24
2.32
2.58
2.38
2.48
2.28
3.22
2.32
2.38
I
I
]
]
]
I
I
I
I
82.3
58.9
65.5
60.5
63.O
57.9
81.8
58.9
60.5
mm
1.98
2.70
2.58
2.45
2.43
1.56
1.83
2.25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
]
2.23
1.57
1.80
1.52
2.02
1.58
2.56
1.52
1.50
1
]
1
1
I
i
I
t
1
not be
determined
from
alloy
(a)
film.
kc
Pf
Pi
In.
aCould
16
kc
TESTS
Pi
in.
OF
kips
kN
ksi-inl/2
32.0
26.8
28.2
29.5
30.0
36.8
34.7
31.7
142
119
125
131
133
164
154
141
55.9
52.8
55.8
56.9
55.8
58.0
59.0
56.3
61.4
58.0
61.3
62.5
61.3
63.7
64.8
61.9
29.8
36.8
34.2
37.5
34.4
39.7
27.7
38.0
37.0
133
164
152
167
153
177
123
169
165
58.7
54.8
55.5
58.7
54.9
57.5
54.1
57.8
59.0
64.5
60.2
61.0
64.5
60.3
63.2
59.5
63.5
64.8
MN/m3/2
6
(153)
-2 _,- 2H
Is1,: (511
/
it
I-i12 (38)
'9
2-I/4 (57)
_L__
_4
(32)
35
(889}
Stress
raiser
I'-
0.10 -_
._i_/(2.s_ /
._rv------ _
0.010
(0.25)
+
12
{305)
Figure
1.-
Specimen
configuration,
(All
dimensions
are given
first in inches
and parenthetically
in ram,)
1'/
_-E
-r
0
O
N
0
i
:E
Z
i
--
0,,I
o
r-o
8
g_
_0
ii
ii
E
No
m
E
E
%
r_
d,
"o
Z
0
eJ
Z
0
0
I"--
CO
r_
0
"x
"
O
z
E
E
No
q_
ed
c_
c_
c_
d
J_
0-"!-
18
Ak,
.0
I0
MN/m
I0
3/2
20
40
30
I
-I0
0-
jd z
0
-I0
oo
Rote,
I0
-3
nm/cy
--
Rote,
-I0
in./cycle
cle
0
O
I0
Sym bol
-I0
0.2
0.33
id5 -
0.5
0.7
0.8
-6
I0
, t
I0
15
20
L_k, ksi-in
25
I0
30
35
1/2
Variation
of fatigue-crack-growth
rate with
Ak for
R >_-0.
19
Ak,MN/m
I0
.z 0
3/2
3O
20
I0
4O
-I0
id s
O
O
4
I0
Rote,
nm/cycle
,d
in./cycle
165
R
Symbol
0.33
0
io-+
0.5
0.7
0
0
I0 0
I0
15
20
Ak,ksi-in
25
I/2
20
3O
35
A kj MN/m3/2
10-1
I0
20
3O
4O
6
-I0
0
0
o o
10-2
0
o
000
oo
5
0
-I0
10-3
Rate,
i n./cycle
-I0
Rate,
nm/cycle
10-4
I0
-5
10
2
I0
10-6
@
o
10
15
20
25
30
35
4.-
Variation
of fatigue-crack-growth
rate with
Ak
for
21
L_k,MN/m
3/2
!
40
3O
20
I0
-I0
i0
-3
II
4
I0
II
t I
Rate,
Ik
-4
nm/cycle
I0
Rote,
I0
la
Q
in./cycle
id 5
Loading
Symbol
frequency
30cpm
820
(0.5 Hz)
cpm(13.7
Hz)
2
-I0
15sI0
I (_7
5I
I0!
i
15
|
20
_k,ksi-in
Figure 5.-
22
Variation
of fatigue-crack-growth
rate with
6k
for
R = -1
25i
30I
35
i/2
in 2024-T3 alloy.
Llk, MN/m
I0
3/2
20
30
40
-I0
(3
t_
m
ld3
QD
Q
r_
0
4
I0
r_O
aa
jO "4
t3
Rate,
s_ g
n m/cycle
_ o%
a
,d
Rate,
in./cycle
R
io-5
OG_(
a_
Symbolo
-I
-IO
0
Oo
io-6
0
0
-I0
0
0
-7
I0
I0
15
Ak,
20
25
30
35
ksi-in
1/2
23
Ak
,MN/m
I0
iO-I'
3s2
20
Ak
30
4o o
0
R_<O
10 -2
,MN/m
_o
3/2
30
29
40
,o
zo
_o
40
lo
O'
o
/
R=0.33
AA
o00O
,o5
Role,
nm/cycie
i
iO -_
Role,
in./cycle
10 -4
3
I0
iO -5
,d
10 -6
iO -I
,o"
R=O.5
R=0.7
10 -2
R--O.B
io_
i0 -_
Role
nm/cyc
,o"
Rate,
in./cycle
10 .4
,o3
iO -5
,o'
'-'o
i
,o ,5 20
_s 3'o _:so-_--%
Ak,
ksi-in
_/2
Ak,ksi-in
(a)
Figure
24
l.-
Correlation
of experimental
fatigue-crack-growth
7075-T6
rates
w2
I
i
I
,o
is
20
J5 3'o _5
Ak,
ksi-in
V2
alloy.
at various
stress
ratios
with
Forman's
equation
(ref.
2).
Ak,M
IO
10-3
Ak,MN/m
N/rn 3/2
20
R=O
30
IO
400
3/z
20
R=0.33
,o'
Rate,
nm/cycle
Id"
'03
Rate,
in./cycle
,O_
Id _
IO
R = 0.7
R=O.5
,o_
Rate,
nm/cycle
Id"
Rate,
in./cycle
iO-5
io_
IO
I0
15
20
2'5
30
3'5
Ak,ksi-in
(b) 2024-T3alloy.
Figure 7.- Concluded.
25
,Ak ,MNlrn
I0
iO-I
3/2
20
Ak ,MN/m
400
30
I0
3/z
/k k, MN/m 3/2
20
3O
40
I0
20
4O
30
IO
o
R_O
IO-2
R=O2
o_
R=O.33
I0
Rote,
iO--_
nm/cycle
Rote,
in. / cycl_
I0
iO-_
Erdog
an's
equation
-_-
IO
IO-"
2
IO
IO
IO
IO-I1
R=0.7
i0"_ I
R=O.8
R = O. 5
5
IO
o
i0-_
Rate,
nm / cycle
Rote,
in/cycle
IO
10-4
io'
10-5
2
IO
/
Id60
I0
15
20
Ak,ksi-in
2'5
3;0
V2
3'5 0
IO
1_5-- 2_O
Ak,ksi-in
2'5
3_0
3'5
IO
I/2
15
20
A k,ksi-in
25
3'0
3'5
I/2
26
8.-
Correlation
of experimental
fatigue-crack-growth
rates at various
stress
ratios
with
Erdogan's
equation
(ref.
3).
I0
R=O
0
10"4
Rate,
in./cycle
iO-S
10-6
Erdogan's
equation_
R=0.5
Id 4
Ra re,
in./cycle
I0""
_k, ksi.inW2
2?
tO
Ak,MN/m
_/2
20
30
40
I0
Ak,MN/m 3/z
20
I0
400
30
3O
ooi
R_<O
oO_O
R=02
R=033
'05
AA
Role,
nm/cycle
A &
10-3
,o_
Rate
n/cyc e
paris'
equati_on
10-4
lO -_
,o_
,
10
[o'
lO-I I
R =0.8
R=07
R=05
,o_
I0"21
Rote,
nm/cycle
0
i0 -3
Rote,
in/cycle
10 -4
'
'03
I0 -_
iO -_
I0
15
20
Ak,ksi-in v2
_5 s'o s'so
I0
Jo l's _o _5
Ak ,ksi- inm/_
Ak,ksi-inv2
28
Correlation
of experimental
fatigue-crack-growth
rates at various
stress ratios
with
Paris'
equation (ret.
4).
I0
_2 q
Z_k,MN/m 3/2
20
400
30
Ak,MN/m 3/2
20
I0
30
I0
R=O
R =0.33
4
I0
Z_
Rate,
nm/cycle
I(/4
Rate,
ir_/cycle
I0
165
I0
10.6
I0
Id
i0-_
'05
R=0.7
4
I0
Rate,
nm/cycle
Id'
Rate,
in./cycle
I0
Ig 5
NASA-Langley,
1969
--
]7
L-6662
9:
Concluded.
29