Advertisement

Evaluation of Early Fatigue Signatures in Lightweight Aluminum Alloy 7075

  • T. C. HenryEmail author
  • D. P. Cole
  • C. M. Kube
  • S. J. Fudger
  • R. A. Haynes
  • J-E. Mogonye
  • V. Weiss
Research paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

The current work investigates early material changes that manifest in aluminum alloy 7075 subjected to fatigue loading. Tension-tension specimens linearly tapered in width were exposed to cyclic loading with compliance and eddy current measurements made in-situ, while nano-indentation, surface potential, x-ray diffraction, and ultrasonic response were made ex-situ. Early stage damage progression was evaluated at various size scales and used to estimate a remaining life in real time. Baseline, in-situ, and post failure measurements were compared and analyzed as a function of fatigue cycles. Eddy current and compliance measurements showed a strong correlation between signal strength and fatigue life with eddy current providing a more precise signal per specimen. Microscale electrical measurements showed a link between surface potential and regions of the specimen that experienced higher tensile stress. Results are discussed with an emphasis on multiscale damage detection and identification due to fatigue cycling, while highlighting the most promising techniques for improving structural durability and real-time state monitoring.

Keywords

Fatigue Eddy current Ultrasound Nano-indentation Non-destructive testing Damage precursors 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mr. Scott Grendahl for help with specimen preparation as well as Mr. David Gray with experimental set-up and data collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Si XS, Wang W, Hu CH, Zhou DH (2011) Remaining useful life estimation – a review on the statistical data driven approaches. Eur J Oper Res 213(1):1–14MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bae SJ, Way K, Kvam PH (2007) Degradation models and implied lifetime distributions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92(5):601–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sikorska JZ, Hodkiewicz M, Ma L (2011) Prognostic modelling options for remaining useful life estimation by industry. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(5):1803–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yao XH, Luan CC, Zhang DM, Lan LJ, Fu JZ (2017) Evaluation of carbon Fiber-embedded 3D printed structures for strengthening and structural-health monitoring. Mater Des 114:424–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherafat MH, Guitel R, Quaegebeur N, Hubert P, Lessard L, Masson P (2016) Structural health monitoring of a composite skin-stringer assembly using within-the-bond strategy of guided wave propagation. Mater Des 90:787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Henry TC, Bakis CE, Miller SW, Smith EC (2015) Multi-objective optimal Design of Composite Rotorcraft Driveshaft Including Strain Rate and Temperature Effects. Compos Struct 128:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diamanti K, Soutis C (2010) Structural health monitoring techniques for aircraft composite structures. Prog Aerosp Sci 46(8):342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ihn JB, Chang FK (2004) Detection and monitoring of hidden fatigue growth using a built-in piezoelectric sensor/actuator network: part I. diagnostics. Smart Mater Struct 13:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rakow A, Chang FK (2011) A structural health monitoring fastener for tracking fatigue crack growth in bolted metallic joints. Struct Health Monit 11(3):253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neerukatti RK, Liu KC, Kovvali N, Chattopadhyay A (2014) Fatigue life prediction using hybrid prognosis for structural health monitoring. J Aerospace Inform Syst 11(4):211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang J, Johnston J, Chattopadhyay A (2014) Physics-based multiscale damage criterion for fatigue crack prediction in aluminum alloy. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 37(2):119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zakaria KA, Abdullah S, Ghazali MJ (2013) Comparative study of fatigue life behavior of Al 6061 and Al 7075 alloys under Spectrum loading. Mater Des 49:48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mhaede M (2012) Influence of surface treatments on surface layer properties, fatigue, and corrosion fatigue performance of Al 7075 T73. Mater Des 41:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wisner B, Kontsos A (2018) In-situ monitoring of particle fracture in aluminum alloys. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 41(3):581–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cole DP, Habtour EM, Sano T, Fudger SJ, Grendahl SM, Dasgupta A (2017) Local mechanical behavior of steel exposed to nonlinear harmonic oscillation. Exp Mech 57(7):1027–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cole DP, Henry TC, Gardea F, Haynes RA (2017) Interphase mechanical behavior of carbon Fiber reinforced polymer exposed to cyclic loading. Compos Sci Technol 151:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zu ZH, Li X (2005) Influence of Equi-biaxial residual stress on unloading behavior of Nanoindentation. Acta Mater 53:1913–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee YH, Kwon D (2003) Measurement of residual-stress effect by Nanoindentation on elastically strain (100). W. Scripta Mater 49:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ornek C, Engelberg DL (2016) An experimental investigation into strain and stress partitioning of duplex stainless steel using digital image correlation, X-ray diffraction and scanning kelvin probe force microscopy. Journal of Strain Analysis 51(3):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaller RF, Scully JR (2016) Spatial determination of diffusible hydrogen concentrations proximate to pits in a Fe-Cr-Ni-Mo steel using the scanning kelvin probe. Electrochem Commun 63:5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li W, Wang Y, Li DY (2004) Response of the Electron work function to deformation and yielding behavior and yielding behavior of copper under different stress states. Phys Status Solidi 201(9):2005–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steuwer A, Daniels JE (2011) In-situ stress and strain measurements around cracks using synchrotron X-ray diffraction. J Strain Anal Eng Des 46(7):593–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    An K, Skorpenske HD, Stoica AD, Ma D, Wang XL, Cakmak E (2011) First in situ lattice strains measurements under load at VULCAN. Metall Mater Trans A 42(1):95–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    An K (2012) VDRIVE – data reduction and interactive visualization software for event mode neutron diffraction, ORNL report, ORNL-TM-2012-621, Oak Ridge National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Furnish TA, Bufford DC, Ren F, Mehta A, Hattar K, Boyce BL (2018) Evidence that abnormal grain growth precedes fatigue crack initiation in Nanocrystalline Ni-Fe. Scr Mater 143:15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sangid MD (2013) The physics of fatigue crack initiation. Int J Fatigue 57:58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shih CC, Ho NJ, Huang HL (2010) The effects of grain boundary on dislocation development for cyclically deformed IF steel. Mater Sci Eng A 527:7247–7251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Basinksi ZS, Basinski SJ (1992) Fundamental aspects of low-amplitude cyclic deformation in face-centered cubic crystals. Prog Mater Sci 36:89–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Habtour E, Cole DP, Stanton SC, Sridharan R, Dasgupta A (2016) Damage precursor detection for structures subjected to Rotational Base vibration. Intl J Nonlinear Mech 82:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Habtour E, Sridharan R, Dasgupta A, Robeson M, Vantadori S (2018) Phase influence of combined rotational and transverse vibrations on the structural response. Mech Syst Signal Process 100:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Habtour EM, Cole DP, Kube CM, Henry TC, Haynes RA, Gardea F, Sano T, Tinga T (2019) Structural state awareness through integration of global dynamic and local material behavior. J Intell Mater Syst Struct 30:1355–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X19828489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haynes RA, Habtour E, Henry TC, Cole DP, Weiss V, Kontsos A, and Wisner B (2019) Damage precursor Indicator for aluminum 7075-T6 based on nonlinear dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics 1: 303–313Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lemistre M, Balageas D (2001) Structural health monitoring system based on diffracted lamb wave analysis by multiresolution processing. Smart Mater Struct 10(3):504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Giugiutiu V, Zagrai A, Bao JJ (2002) Piezoelectric wafer embedded active sensors for aging aircraft structural health monitoring. Struct Health Monit 1(1):41–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baby S, Kowmudi BN, Omprakash CM, Satyanarayana DVV, Balasubramanaim K, Kumar V (2008) Creep damage assessment in titanium alloy using a nonlinear ultrasound technique. Scripta Mater 59:818–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kube C, Turner J (2015) Acoustic non-linearity parameters for transversely isotropic polycrystalline materials. J Acous Soc Am 137:3272–3280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lissenden CJ, Liu Y, Rose JL (2015) Use of non-linear ultrasonic guided waves for early damage detection. Insight Non-Destruct Test Condition Monit 57(4):206–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wisner B, Cabal M, Vanniamparambil PA, Hochhalter J, Leser WP, Kontsos A (2015) In-situ microscopic investigation to validate acoustic emission monitoring. Exp Mech 55(9):1705–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vanniamparambil PA, Guclu U, Kontsos A (2015) Identification of crack initiation in aluminum alloys using acoustic emission. Exp Mech 55(5):837–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Philippidis TP, Vassilopoulos AP (2000) Fatigue design allowable for GRP laminates based on stiffness degradation measurements. Compos Sci Technol 60:2819–2828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ziemian CW, Ziemian RD, Haile KV (2016) Characterization of stiffness degradation caused by fatigue damage of additive manufactured parts. Mater Des 109:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shi SB, Gu LX, Liang J, Fang BD, Gong CL, Dai CX (2016) A Mesomechanical model for predicting the degradation in stiffness of FRP composites subjected to combined thermal and mechanical loading. Mater Des 89:1079–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Henry TC, Riddick JC, Mills BT, Habtour EM (2017) Composite driveshaft prototype design and survivability testing. J Compos Mater 51(16):2377–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ghanei S, Kashefi M, Mazinani M (2013) Eddy current nondestructive evaluation of dual phase steel. Mater Des 50:491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cherry MR, Sathish S, Mooers RD, Pilchak AL, Grandhi R (2017) Modeling of the change of impedance of an Eddy current probe due to small changes in host conductivity. IEEE Trans Magn 53(5):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garcia-Martin J, Gomez-Gil J, Vazquez-Sanchez E (2011) Non-destructive techniques based on Eddy current testing. Sensors 11(3):2525–2565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goldfine N, Zilberstein V, Washabaugh A, Schlicker D, Shay I, Grundy D (2003) Eddy current sensor networks for aircraft fatigue monitoring. Mater Eval 61(7):852–859Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen G, Zhang W, Zhang Z, Jin X, Pang W (2018) A new rosette-like Eddy current Array sensor with high sensitivity for fatigue defect around bolt hole in SHM. NDT E Int 94:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jiao S, Cheng L, Li X, Li P, Ding H (2016) Monitoring fatigue cracks of a metal structure using an Eddy current sensor. J Wireless Commun Netw 188:1–14Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vashisth A, Bakis CE, Ruggeri CR, Henry TC, Roberts GD (2018) Ballistic impact response of carbon/epoxy tubes with variable Nanosilica content. J Compos Mater 52(12):1589–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chhith S, De Waele W, De Baets P (2018) Rapid determination of fretting fatigue limit by infrared thermography. Exp Mech 58(2):259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hayabusa K, Inaba K, Ikeda H, Kishimoto K (2017) Estimation of fatigue limits from temperature data measured by IR thermography. Exp Mech 57(2):185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vieira RB, Gonzales GLG, Freire JLF (2018) Thermography applied to the study of fatigue crack propagation in polycarbonate. Exp Mech 58(2):269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Henry TC, Mills BT (2019) Optimized Design for Projectile Impact Survivability of a carbon Fiber composite drive shaft. Compos Struct 207:438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Henry TC, Bakis CE, Riddick JC, Smith EC (2014) Full-field strain analysis of compressively loaded flat composite laminates with undulated fibers. In Proceedings of the American Society for Composites – 29th technical conference; 16th US-Japan conference on composite materials, DEStech PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Henry TC, Haynes RA, Cole DP, Haile MA, Coatney MD, Weiss V (2017) Tapered test specimen for rapid damage precursor identification, ASME 2017 Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems, SMASIS2017–3780, V002T05A001Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cole DP, Henry TC, An K, Chen Y, Haynes RA (2018) Damage precursor assessment in aerospace structural materials. Proceedings of the ASME conference on smart materials, adaptive structures and intelligent systems, September 10–12 2018, San Antonio TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ghoshal G, Turner JA, Weaver R (2007) Wigner distribution of a transducer beam pattern within a multiple scattering formalism for heterogeneous solids. J Acoust Soc Am 122(4):2009–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wydra A, Chertov AM, Maev RG, Kube CM, Du H, Turner JA (2015) Grain size measurement of copper welding caps via ultrasonic attenuation and scattering experiments. Res NDE 26(4):225–246Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Song Y, Kube CM, Li X, Turner JA (2017) Statistics on the scattering of ultrasound from microstructure. Ultrasonics 80:58–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wang RJ (2014) Changes of work function in different deformation stage for 2205 duplex stainless steel by SKPFM. Procedia Mater Sci 3:1736–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Oliver WC, Pharr GM (1992) An improved technique for determining hardness and elastic Modulus using load and displacement sensing indentation experiments. J Mater Res 7(6):1564–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Li W, Wang Y, Li DY (2004) Response of the Electron work function to deformation and yielding behavior of copper under different stress states. Phys Status Solidi 201(9):2005–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hoelzl J, Schulte FK (1979) Work function of metals. Solid state physics. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aberdeen Proving GroundU.S. Army Research LaboratoryAberdeenUSA
  2. 2.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations