loading page

Evaluation of SSY boundary using DIC results
  • +3
  • Antunes FV,
  • Jose Vasco-Olmo,
  • Francisco Diaz,
  • Diogo Neto,
  • Sérgio ERA,
  • James MN
Antunes FV
Universidade de Coimbra
Author Profile
Jose Vasco-Olmo
Universidad de Jaen
Author Profile
Francisco Diaz
Universidad de Jaen
Author Profile
Diogo Neto
Universidade de Coimbra
Author Profile
Sérgio ERA
Universidade de Coimbra
Author Profile
James MN
University of Plymouth
Author Profile

Abstract

In this work the boundaries of small-scale yielding (SSY) and large-scale yielding (LSY) have been experimentally evaluated from the analysis of crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) measured by Digital Image Correlation (DIC). The approach published in a previous numerical work [18] has been used to define the boundaries of SSY and LSY. According to this approach, CTOD must be resolved into its elastic and plastic components, analysing the ratio between the elastic CTOD range and the total CTOD range ( Δδe/ Δδt) to define the boundary where SSY conditions can be established. Three materials have been studied, commercially pure titanium and 2024-T3 and 7050-T6 aluminium alloys, tested at different stress ratio values (0.1 and 0.6 for titanium, and 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 for the aluminium alloys). SSY conditions are shown to dominate when Δδe/ Δδt≥79% and ≥78% for titanium and the two aluminium alloys, respectively. In addition, LSY can be established when Δδe/ Δδt≤66.3% and ≤67.2% for titanium and for 2024-T3 and 7050-T6 aluminum alloys, respectively. Transition or LSY conditions are more probable in fatigue tests conducted at low R-ratio than in tests at high R-ratio. In addition, crack lengths above 40% with respect to the width of the specimen promote transition or LSY conditions. The results obtained in this work can assist to a better understanding of the mechanisms driving fatigue crack growth.
01 Dec 2021Submitted to Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures
03 Dec 2021Submission Checks Completed
03 Dec 2021Assigned to Editor
05 Dec 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
02 Jan 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
14 Jan 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Major
27 Jan 20221st Revision Received
27 Jan 2022Submission Checks Completed
27 Jan 2022Assigned to Editor
27 Jan 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
29 Jan 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
01 Feb 2022Editorial Decision: Accept