Environmental-Assisted Fatigue Crack Propagation in 3003-0 Aluminum

  • R. Roberts
  • K. Wnek
  • J. C. Tafuri
Part of the Advances in Cryogenic Engineering book series (ACRE, volume 24)


Brazed aluminum heat exchangers have found wide applications in the production of cryogens. Their use has ranged from very benign service (i.e., inert environment and static pressure) to applications where moist air and its components are encountered over a range of temperatures, +24°C (+75°F) to −101°C (−150°F), along with cyclic pressures. The general performance of the brazed aluminum heat exchangers under these varying conditions has been good. Failures can usually be attributed to fatigue, corrosion, erosion, or static over-pressurization, with fatigue and corrosion the most troublesome, according to service data [1]. At present, there are no data available on the effect of environment, temperature, frequency, or other conditions on the fatigue life of the 3003-0 aluminum alloy, which is the primary component of brazed aluminum heat exchangers. The purpose of this study was to provide an initial investigation of the effects of test temperature, frequency, and environment on the fatigue crack growth rate in 3003-0 aluminum, so that more intelligent design and applications of 3003-0 aluminum in brazed aluminum heat exchangers will be possible. Initiation phenomena were ignored.


Stress Intensity Factor Crack Growth Rate Fatigue Crack Propagation Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Stress Intensity Factor Range 
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.



crack length


crack growth distance per cycle of load




stress intensity range




number of cycles


ratio of minimum stress in a cycle to the maximum

Greek symbols


maximum stress


minimum stress


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. C. Tafuri, private communication.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. C. Paris and F. Erdogan, Trans. ASME, J. Basic Eng. 85:528 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. P. Wei, Eng. Fract. Mech. 1:633 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. J. Bradshaw and C. Wheeler, Int. J. Fract. Mech. 5:255 (1969).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. W. Trebules, Jr., R. Roberts, and R. W. Hertzberg, in Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536 (1973), p. 115.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “Standard Method of Test for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials,” E399-72, 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1973).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Roberts and F. Erdogan, Trans. Asme, J. Basic Eng. 89: 885 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. J. Kibler and R. Roberts, Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Industry 92B:727 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. A. Kelsey, G. E. Nordmark, and J. W. Clark, in Fatigue and Fracture Toughness—Cryogenic Behavior, ASTM STP 556 (1974), p. 159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Roberts
    • 1
  • K. Wnek
    • 1
  • J. C. Tafuri
    • 2
  1. 1.Lehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA
  2. 2.Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.AllentownUSA

Personalised recommendations