Advertisement

A Physically Based Cumulative Damage Formalism

  • Richard M. Christensen

Abstract

A general cumulative damage methodology is derived from the basic relation specifying crack growth rate (increment) as a power law function of the stress intensity factor. The crack is allowed to grow up to the point at which it becomes unstable, thereby determining the lifetime of the material under the prescribed stress program. The formalism applies for the case of creep to failure under variable stress history as well as for cyclic fatigue to failure under variable stress amplitude history. The formulation is calibrated by the creep rupture lifetimes at constant stress or the fatigue cycle lifetimes at constant stress amplitude. No empirical (non-physical) parameters are involved in the basic formulation;everything is specified in terms of experimentally determined quantities. Several examples are given showing the inadequacy of Linear Cumulative Damage while the present nonlinear damage accumulation method overcomes these deficiencies. The present method is extended to admit probabilistic conditions.

Keywords

Stress Intensity Factor Crack Growth Rate Crack Size Stress History Cumulative Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Paris PC (1960) The growth of cracks due to variations in loads. Ph.D. thesis, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suresh S (1998) Fatigue of materials, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kanninen MF, Poplar CH (1985) Advanced fracture mechanics, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wheeler OE (1972) Spectrum loading and crack growth. J Basic Eng 94:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Willenborg J, Engle RM, Wood H (1971) A crack growth retardation model using an effective stress intensity concept. In:Technical Report TFR 71–701. North American RockwellGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elber W (1970) Fatigue crack closure under cyclic tension. Eng Fract Mech 2:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chudnovsky A, Shulkin Y (1996) A model for lifetime and toughness of engineering thermoplastics. In:Jordan et al. (eds.), Inelasticity and damage in solids subject to microstructural Change, Univ. NewfoundlandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reifsnider KL, Case SC (2002) Damage tolerance and durability in material systems, Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palmgren A (1924) Die Lebensdauer von Kugellagren. Zeitscrift des vereins deutscher ingenieure 68:339–164Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miner MA (1945) Cumulative damage in fatigue. J Appl Mech 12:159–164Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stigh U (2006) Continuum damage mechanics and the life-fraction rule. J Appl Mech 73:702–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kachanov EL (1958) On the time to failure under creep conditions. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSR, Otd Tekhn. Naukn. Nauk 8:26–31Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christensen RM, Miyano Y (2006) Stress intensity controlled kinetic crack growth and stress history dependent life prediction with statistical variability. Int J Fract 137:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christensen RM, Miyano (2007) Y Deterministic and probabilistic lifetimes from kinetic crack growth-generalized forms. Int J Fract 143:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christensen RM (2008) A physically based cumulative damage formalism. Int J Fatig 30:595–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations