Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2005 Fatemi Plasied Khosrovaneh Tanner IJFVol 27 P1040
2005 Fatemi Plasied Khosrovaneh Tanner IJFVol 27 P1040
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue
Department of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA
b
General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48090, USA
Received 13 May 2004; received in revised form 23 January 2005; accepted 12 March 2005
Available online 23 May 2005
Abstract
Bi-linear loglog model is applied to stress amplitude versus fatigue life data of 14 aluminum alloys. It is shown that the bi-linear SN
model provides a much better representation of the data than the commonly used linear model for Al alloys. The effects of bi-linear model on
stressstrain, stress-life, and strain-life curves are discussed. Life predictions of aluminum alloys based on linear and bi-linear models are
also compared and discussed. Estimations of the bi-linear fit constants from the linear fit constants are then presented.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fatigue of aluminum alloys; Fitting of Al alloys fatigue data; Fatigue properties of Al alloys; Life prediction of Al alloys
1. Introduction
The strain-based approach to fatigue is widely used for
different materials at present. Strain-life fatigue curves,
which are also often called low-cycle fatigue curves, are
plotted on loglog scales and total strain amplitude is
resolved into elastic and plastic strain components based on
data from the steady-state hysteresis loops [1]. Basquin [2]
observed that for steel and copper materials the stress-life
data could be linearized on loglog scale. The line can be
represented by
Ds
Z sa Z sf0 2Nf b
2
(1)
(2)
0142-1123/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2005.03.003
(3)
1041
Nomenclature
b
b 1, b 2
aluminum alloys is then discussed, and estimations of bilinear fit constants from linear fit constants are presented.
Table 1 shows the summary of monotonic tensile and straincontrolled fatigue properties of the 14 aluminum alloys used
in this study. Data for the first six alloys were obtained as a
part of this study, whereas data for other alloys were taken
from [10].
Monotonic tension and constant amplitude fully reversed
fatigue tests for the alloys tested in this study were performed
using test methods specified by ASTM Standards E8 and
E606, respectively [11]. Flat plate specimens with square
cross section and uniform gage section length, as shown in
Fig. 1 were used. The relatively short gage section length was
chosen to prevent buckling during compression in fatigue
tests. A closed-loop servo-hydraulic 50 kN axial load frame
in conjunction with a digital servo-controller and hydraulicwedge grips was used to conduct the tests. Significant effort
was put forth to align the load train and minimize bending.
Total strain was controlled using an extensometer with a gage
length of 6 mm and rated as class B1, according to ASTM
classification. In order to protect the specimen surface from
Table 1
Summary of monotonic tensile and strain-controlled fatigue properties of aluminum alloys
Alloy
Process description
E (GPa)
Sy (MPa)
Su (MPa)
Sy0 (MPa)
sf0 (MPa)
3f0
Sfa (MPa)
6063
A356-T6
6260
6063
5754-NG
6082
AlMg4.5Mn
5456-H311
7475-T761
7075-T6
7075-T651
7075-T7351
2014-T6
2024-T3
Extruded profile
Casting
Extruded profile
Extruded tube
Sheet
Extruded bar
Sheet
Bar
Sheet
Sheet
Sheet
Sheet
Bar
Sheet
73.4
78.1
70.5
71.9
65.7
64.0
71.5
69.1
70.0
72.2
70.0
71.0
69.1
70.3
239
232
220
161
107
290
298
235
414
512
382
463
345
263
303
239
192
253
363
400
475
572
462
511
490
254
291
225
161
239
289
318
377
468
394
539
388
449
429
556
666
469
295
455
611
654
702
983
776
1231
989
776
835
0.74
0.09
27.2
0.91
9.19
1.08
0.45
0.20
4.25
2.57
0.26
6.81
0.27
0.17
K0.107
K0.117
K0.090
K0.069
K0.074
K0.099
K0.089
K0.102
K0.107
K0.095
K0.122
K0.140
K0.091
K0.096
K0.830
K0.610
K1.213
K0.706
K1.001
K0.857
K0.755
K0.655
K1.066
K0.987
K0.806
K1.198
K0.742
K0.644
60.1
59.3
73.0
70.9
97.6
79.0
103.4
85.7
107.0
108.1
98.2
53.9
117.5
114.9
1042
a (log scale)
Linear
'12
Bi-linear
'f
'f1
s/2
b1
b
b2
II
2 Ns
2 Nf (log scale)
(4)
Ds
0
Z sf2
2Nf b2
2
(5)
1043
Fig. 3. True stress amplitude versus reversals to failure for typical aluminum alloys considered. (a) A356-T6; (b) 5754-NG; (c) 7075-T6 and (d) 2014-T6.
0
sf1
2Nf b1 C 3f0 2Nf c
E
(6)
3a Z
0
sf2
2Nf b2 C 3f0 2Nf c
E
(7)
Table 2
Summary of bi-linear loglog stress-life fatigue properties as defined in Fig. 2
Alloy
0
(MPa)
sf1
0
sf2
(MPa)
b1
b2
2Ns
Dss/2 (MPa)
b2/b
0
=sf0
sf1
0
sf2
=sf0
6063
A356-T6
6260
6063
5754-NG
6082
AlMg4.5Mn
5456-H311
7475-T761
7075-T6
7075-T651
7075-T7351
2014-T6
2024-T3
478
390
357
247
339
419
526
559
839
556
706
921
661
651
603
1114
654
388
1273
679
719
1233
2329
985
1276
1003
1860
983
K0.088
K0.046
K0.059
K0.050
K0.041
K0.049
K0.060
K0.056
K0.084
K0.048
K0.042
K0.128
K0.059
K0.057
K0.113
K0.156
K0.115
K0.089
K0.163
K0.107
K0.096
K0.149
K0.184
K0.113
K0.125
K0.143
K0.163
K0.112
8118
12997
50238
101682
50157
3862
5741
5179
25868
5806
1210
312
21345
1823
217
253
189
140
218
280
314
345
359
369
524
442
366
424
1.05
1.34
1.28
1.29
2.20
1.09
1.08
1.47
1.72
1.19
1.03
1.01
1.79
1.17
0.86
0.59
0.76
0.84
0.75
0.69
0.80
0.80
0.85
0.72
0.57
0.93
0.85
0.78
1.08
1.67
1.40
1.32
2.80
1.11
1.10
1.76
2.37
1.27
1.04
1.01
2.40
1.18
1044
1.E+08
1.E+07
6063
A356-T6
6260
6063
5754-NG
6082
ALMg4.5Mn
5456-H311
7475-T761
7075-T6
7075-T651
7075-T7351
2014-T6
2024-T3
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+02
1.E+03
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+08
600
sa sa 1=n 0
C
E
K0
(9)
s/2, MPa
400
200
s / 2= 0.92 S'y
sf0
3f0 b=c
(10)
b
c
(11)
K0 Z
R2 = 0.8816
0
0
200
400
600
S'y , MPa
Fig. 5. Correlation of separation life fatigue strength Dss/2 with cyclic yield
strength Sy0 .
n0 Z
Linear model
Bi-linear model
0.10%
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
5754-NG Aluminum
(a) 1.00%
1E+7
Linear model
Bi-linear model
0.10%
1E+2
1E+3
7075-T6 Aluminum
Linear model
Bi-linear model
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
1E+6
1.00%
(d)
1.00%
0.10%
1E+2
1E+4
1045
1E+7
2014-T6 Aluminum
Linear model
Bi-linear model
0.10%
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
Fig. 6. True strain amplitude versus reversals to failure for typical aluminum alloys considered. (a) A356-T6; (b) 5754-NG; (c) 7075-T6 and (d) 2014-T6.
n0 Z
0
sf1
0
3f b1 =c
b1
c
(12)
(13)
1046
(b) 1000
(a) 1000
100
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
Linear
Region I
Region II
Fatigue Data
Linear
Region I
Region II
Fatigue Data
100
1E+2
1E+7
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
(d) 1000
Linear
Linear
Region I
Region I
Region II
Region II
Fatigue Data
100
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
Fatigue Data
1E+7
100
1E+2
1E+3
1E+4
1E+5
1E+6
1E+7
Fig. 7. SWT parameter versus reversals to failure for typical aluminum alloys considered. (a) A356-T6; (b) 5754-NG; (c) 7075-T6 and (d) 2014-T6.
Table 3
Comparisons of K 0 and n 0 from direct least square fit and from compatibility equations based on linear and bi-linear fits
Alloy
6063
A356-T6
6260
6063
5754-NG
6082
AlMg4.5Mn
5456-H311
7475-T761
7075-T6
7075-T651
7075-T7351
2014-T6
2024-T3
n0
K 0 (MPa)
n 0 Zb/c
n 0 Zb1/c
0
K 0 Zsf1
=3f0 b1 =c
(MPa)
0.067
0.063
0.047
0.068
0.032
0.051
0.125
0.084
0.059
0.045
0.074
0.094
0.072
0.109
384
430
301
245
294
397
693
636
675
521
852
695
704
843
0.129
0.191
0.074
0.097
0.074
0.115
0.118
0.155
0.100
0.096
0.151
0.117
0.123
0.149
578
1046
367
298
386
605
719
901
850
709
1506
790
912
1082
0.106
0.075
0.048
0.070
0.041
0.057
0.079
0.086
0.078
0.048
0.052
0.107
0.080
0.088
494
465
304
249
310
417
561
641
749
532
756
750
734
759
1400
1400
(b) 1600
(a) 1600
1200
1000
800
600
400
1047
1200
1000
200
800
600
400
200
0
0
Fig. 8. K from least square fit versus K from compatibility equation based on (a) linear method (b) bi-linear method.
3a sa Z
(b)
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
Kt Sa 2
E
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19
0.01
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19
(14)
(a)
Fig. 9. n 0 from least square fit versus n 0 from compatibility equation based on (a) linear method; (b) bi-linear method.
1048
(b)
(a) 400
300
250
200
150
100
Data
Based on K' and n' from eq. (8)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (10) and (11)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (12) and (13)
50
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
350
300
250
200
150
100
0
0.0%
1.2%
450
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
Data
Based on K' and n' from eq. (8)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (10) and (11)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (12) and (13)
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
(d) 500
(c) 500
50
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
100
Data
Based on K' and n' from eq. (8)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (10) and (11)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (12) and (13)
50
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Data
Based on K' and n' from eq (8)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (10) and (11)
Based on K' and n' from eqs. (12) and (13)
50
0
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
Fig. 10. True stress amplitude versus true strain amplitude for typical aluminum alloys considered. (a) A356-T6; (b) 5754-NG; (c) 7075-T6 and (d) 2014-T6.
(15)
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+09
1.E+08
6063
A356-T6
6260
6063
5754-NG
6082
ALMg4.5Mn
5456-H311
7475-T761
7075-T6
7075-T651
7075-T7351
2014-T6
2024-T3
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
6063
A356-T6
6260
6063
5754-NG
6082
ALMg4.5Mn
5456-H311
7475-T761
7075-T6
7075-T651
7075-T7351
2014-T6
2024-T3
1.E+04
Data with in
Life factor scatter bands
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+02
1.E+03
1049
1.E+04
80%
90%
94%
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
1.E+08
5. Conclusions
Based on the experimental data presented and the
analysis performed for 14 Al alloys considered, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The bi-linear loglog stress amplitude-life (SN) model
provides a better representation of fatigue behavior for
aluminum alloys, as compared with the commonly used
linear loglog model. The differences between the SN
1050
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
References
[1] Stephens RI, Fatemi A, Stephens RR, Fuchs HO. Metal fatigue in
engineering. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000.
[2] Basquin OH. The exponential law of endurance tests. Am Soc Testing
Mater Proc 1910;10:62530.
[3] Endo T, Morrow J. Cyclic stressstrain and fatigue behavior of
representative aircraft metals. J Mater 1969;4(1):15975.
[4] Sanders Jr TH, Mauney DA, Staley JT. In: Jaffee RI, Wilcox BA,
editors. Strain control fatigue as a tool to interpret fatigue initiation of
aluminum alloys. Fundamental aspects of structural alloy design. NY,
USA: Plenum Publishing; 1977.
[5] Wong WA. Monotonic and cyclic fatigue properties of automotive
aluminum alloys. SAE technical paper no. 840120 1984.
[6] Stephens RI, Koh SK. In: Stephens RI, editor. Bi-linear loglog elastic
strain-life model for A356-T6 cast aluminum alloy round-robin low
cycle fatigue data. Fatigue and fracture toughness of A356-T6 cast
aluminum alloy. SAE SP-760 1998.
[7] Wigant CC, Stephens RI. Low cycle fatigue of A356-T6 cast
aluminum alloy. SAE technical paper no. 870096 1987.
[8] Stephens RI, Berns HD, Chernenkoff RA, Indig RL, Koh SK,
Lingenfelser DJ, et al. In: Stephens RI, editor. Low cycle fatigue of
A356-T6 cast aluminum alloya round-robin test program. Fatigue
and fracture toughness of A356T6 cast aluminum alloy. SAE SP760 1988.
[9] Wong WA, Bucci RJ, Stentz RH, Conway JB. Tensile and straincontrolled fatigue data for certain aluminum alloys for application in
the transportation industry. SAE technical paper no. 870094 1987.
[10] Boller CHR, Seeger T. Materials data for cyclic loading-part D:
aluminum and titanium alloys. Material science monographs. New
York: Elsevier; 1987.
[11] Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Metals test methods and analytical
procedures. vol. 03.01. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM; 2003.
[12] Roessle ML, Fatemi A, Khosrovaneh AK. Variation in cyclic
deformation and strain-controlled fatigue properties using different
curve fitting and measurement techniques. SAE technical paper no.
1999-01-0364 1999.