Fatigue Damage Assessment Leveraging Nondestructive Evaluation Data
- 186 Downloads
Fatigue in materials depends on several microstructural parameters. The length and time scales involved in such processes have been investigated by characterization methods that target microstructural effects or that rely on specimen-level observations. Combinations of in situ and ex situ techniques are also used to correlate microstructural changes to bulk properties. We present herein an effort to directly link local changes with specimen-level fatigue damage assessment. To achieve this goal, grain-scale observations in an aluminum alloy are linked with deformation measurements made by digital image correlation and with acoustic emission monitoring obtained from inside the scanning electron microscope. Damage assessment is attempted using a data-processing framework that involves noise removal, data reduction, and classification. The results demonstrate that nondestructive evaluation combined with small-scale testing can provide a means for fatigue damage assessment applicable to a broad range of materials and testing conditions.
A. Kontsos would like to acknowledge financial support received by the Office of Naval Research Under Award #N00014-14-1-0571.
- 12.R. Carmi, P.A. Vanniamparambil, J. Cuadra, K. Hazeli, S. Rajaram, U. Guclu, A. Bussiba, I. Bartoli, and A. Kontsos, Advances in Acoustic Emission Technology, ed. G. Shen, Z. Wu, and J. Zhang (New York: Springer, 2015), pp. 605–622.Google Scholar
- 15.F. Khan, I. Bartoli, S. Rajaram, P. Vanniamparambil, A. Kontsos, M. Bolhassani, and A. Hamid, SPIE 9063, 90630B (2014).Google Scholar
- 16.P.A. Vanniamparambil, J. Cuadra, U. Guclu, I. Bartoli, and A. Kontsos, SPIE 9064, 906411 (2014).Google Scholar
- 26.G. Bian, Y. Chen, J. Hu, and M. Yang, in The Proceedings of 2011 9th International Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety, ed. G. Shen, Z. Wu, and J. Zhang (New Jersey: IEEE, 2011), pp. 416–419.Google Scholar
- 30.V. Patel and R. Mehta, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving (SocProS 2011) (New York, NY: Springer, 2011), pp. 691–700.Google Scholar
- 34.P.A. Vanniamparambil, I. Bartoli, K. Hazeli, J. Cuadra, E. Schwartz, R. Saralaya, and A. Kontsos, in Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering (2012), p. 83482J .Google Scholar
- 37.B. Wisner and A. Kontsos, in Fracture, Fatigue, Failure and Damage Evolution, Vol. 1, ed. 37. A.T. Zehnder, J. Carroll, K. Hazeli, R.B. Berke, G. Pataky, M. Cavalli, A.M. Beese, and S. Xia (New York: Springer, 2017), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
- 38.L. Al Shalabi and Z. Shaaban, in International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems (Wroclaw, Poland: DepCos-RELCOMEX’06, 2006), pp. 207–214.Google Scholar
- 39.S. Azrour, S. Piérard, P. Geurts, and M. Van Droogenbroeck, in European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning (Bruges, Belgium: ESANN, 2014), pp. 649–654.Google Scholar
- 41.C. Boutsidis, M.W. Mahoney, and P. Drineas, in Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Las Vegas, Nevada: SIGKDD, 2008), pp. 61–69Google Scholar
- 43.C. Aggarwal, Data Mining (New York, NY: Springer, 2015), pp. 237–263.Google Scholar