Advertisement

Shape Casting pp 115-123 | Cite as

On Estimating Largest Defects in Castings

  • Murat TiryakioğluEmail author
  • Irisi Nini
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

The procedure developed by Beretta and Murakami has two issues that were not addressed previously: (i) the selection of the Weibull plotting position formula for linear regression fits to estimate Gumbel distribution parameters and (ii) the untested hypothesis that the estimates for the upper Gumbel percentiles are distributed normally. Monte Carlo simulations were run to determine the plotting position formula that provided the least bias and the distribution of Gumbel percentiles. It was found that among the nine formulas used in this study, the one developed by Hazen had the least bias, whereas the one by Weibull had the highest bias. Moreover, 0.999 percentiles of the Gumbel distribution were found to follow the three-parameter lognormal distribution. Empirical relationships between the estimated parameters of the three-parameter lognormal distribution and sample size are provided in the paper.

Keywords

Gumbel Beretta–Murakami method Fatigue of cast metals Three-parameter lognormal 

References

  1. 1.
    Dieter GE (1976) Mechanical metallurgy, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reed-Hill RE (1964) Physical metallurgy principles. Van Nostrand, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murakami Y (2002) Metal fatigue: effects of small defects and nonmetallic inclusions. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang QG, Crepeau PN, Davidson CJ, Griffiths JR (2006) Metal Mater Trans B 37:887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiryakioğlu M (2009) Mater Sci Eng A 520:114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tiryakioğlu M (2009) Metal Mater Trans A 40:1623–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang B, Chen W, Poirier DR (2000) Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 23:417–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murakami Y, Endo M (1994) Int J Fatigue 16:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murakami Y, Beretta S (1999) Extremes 2:123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobayashi M, Matsui T (1996) Trans JSME Ser A 62 341–346Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beretta S, Murakami Y (1998) Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 21:1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gumbel EJ (1957) Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weibull W (1939) A statistical theory of the strength of materials. Generalstabens litografiska anstalts förlagGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cunnane C (1978) J Hydrol 37:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tiryakioğlu M, Hudak D (2007) J Mater Sci 42:10173–10179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tiryakioğlu M (2006) J Mater Sci 41:5011–5013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tiryakioğlu M, Hudak D (2008) J Mater Sci 43:1914–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hazen A (1914) Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 77:1539–1669Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De M (2000) Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 14:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson TW, Darling DA (1954) J Am Stat Assoc 49:765–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of EngineeringUniversity of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations