Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available
Available online
online at at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
StructuralStructural
IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia500
(2017) 904–911
(2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity, ICSI 2017, 4-7 September 2017, Funchal,
Madeira, Portugal

Energy description
XV Portuguese Conferenceof
onfatigue crack
Fracture, PCF growth
2016, process
10-12 February - theoretical
2016, Paço de Arcos, and
Portugal
experimental approach
Thermo-mechanical modeling of a high pressure turbine blade of an
airplane
G. Lesiuka*, M.Szatab, D. Rozumek c
, Z.gas turbine
Marciniak c
engine
, J.A.F.O. Correiad, A.M.P. De Jesusd
aFaculty
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Mechanics, Materials Science and Engineering, Wrocław University of Science and
a b c
P. Brandão , V. Infante , A.M. Deus *
Technology, Smoluchowskiego 25, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
bFaculty of Technology and Natural Sciences, Wrocław University of Science and Technology,
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto
27 Wybrzeże Superior Técnico,
Wyspiańskiego Universidade
st., 50-370 Wrocław,dePoland
Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugalof Technology, Mikolajczyka 5, 45-271 Opole, Poland
cDepartment of Mechanics and Machine Design, Opole University
b
IDMEC, Department
d of Mechanical
INEGI/Faculty Engineering,University
of Engineering, Instituto Superior
of Porto,Técnico, Universidade
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias,de4200-465
Lisboa, Av. Rovisco
Porto, Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugal
Portugal
c
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugal

Abstract
Abstract
The aim of the paper is the presentation of the energy methods in description of the fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) process in
structural
During steel
theircomponents. In the literature
operation, modern aircraft and engineering
engine componentspractice,
are the K – approach
subjected is preferred
to increasingly in construction
demanding of the
operating FCGR
conditions,
diagrams. One of the main disadvantages of force approach, is a mean stress effect, reflected in a well-known
especially the high pressure turbine (HPT) blades. Such conditions cause these parts to undergo different types of time-dependentstress R-ratio effect
ondegradation,
FCGR. The one second disadvantage
of which is creep.seems
A modelto be inconsistency
using in closure
the finite element estimation
method (FEM)withwas developed,
K and description
in order only
to beinable
thetolinear-
predict
elastic range.behaviour
the creep In this paper, two energy
of HPT blades.approaches
Flight data arerecords
presented – Hfor
(FDR) andaJ. The kinetic
specific equations
aircraft, providedbased
by on
a energy parameters,
commercial aviation
describe
company,synonymously
were used to theobtain
kinetics of fatigue
thermal crack growth
and mechanical under
data for uniaxial fatigueflight
three different loading. It has
cycles. In been
orderdemonstrated,
to create the 3D thatmodel
the
needed
energy for the FEM
description analysis,
– based a HPT strain
on dissipated blade energy
scrap was scanned,
density – H and its chemical
is independent composition
from R-ratio. Alland material and
theoretical properties
numericalwere
obtained. The
calculations baseddata
on that
J, was gathered
H strain energywasdensity
fed into the FEMwere
parameters model and different
compared simulations were
with experimental run,
results first with
obtained for adifferent
simplified
type3D
of rectangular
alloys. block shape, in order to better establish the model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
© overall
2017 The expected
Authors.behaviour
Publishedin by
terms of displacement
Elsevier B.V. was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
© 2017
model The
canAuthors. Published
be useful in the by Elsevier
goal B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility ofofthe
predicting
Scientificturbine blade life,
Committee given
of ICSI a set of FDR data.
2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of ICSI 2017
© 2016 fatigue
Keywords: The Authors. Published
crack growth; strainby Elsevier
energy B.V.
density parameter; cyclic J-integral;
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.

Keywords: High Pressure Turbine Blade; Creep; Finite Element Method; 3D Model; Simulation.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 713203919; fax: +48 713211235.

E-mail address: Grzegorz.Lesiuk@pwr.edu.pl

2452-3216 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review underauthor.
* Corresponding responsibility
Tel.: +351of218419991.
the Scientific Committee of ICSI 2017.
E-mail address: amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
2452-3216  2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of ICSI 2017
10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.128
 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911 905
2 Lesiuk et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

During the fatigue process, the area of a special interest is the stage of stable crack propagation from the initial
length aini (i.e. from the moment of detection with the help of suitable defectoscopy methods) up to a critical length
acr where the crack propagates with a velocity close to a sound propagation velocity in a given material. The kinetics
of fatigue crack growth is most often characterized by the semi-empirical laws in general form

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= 𝑓𝑓(𝑌𝑌, 𝜎𝜎, 𝑎𝑎, 𝑅𝑅, 𝜇𝜇, 𝑥𝑥, … ) , (1)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

where:
Y – geometric constraints,  – stress state, a – crack length, R – stress ratio,  – microstructural parameters,
 – environment factors.
From the engineering point of view, the problem is dealing with the determination of the period of a pre-critical
crack propagation. A lifetime for the cyclic loaded component can be written in the generalized form
𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = ∫𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (2)
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑓𝑓(𝑌𝑌,𝜎𝜎,𝑎𝑎,𝑅𝑅,𝜇𝜇,𝑥𝑥,… )

The solutions simplicity of the (2) depends strongly from the mathematical representation of the function (1). In
several physically determined theoretical models the solutions of (2) can be problematic. As an example we can take
the exact solution of the fatigue crack growth based on energy considerations Szata (2002):
 1 1 1 S 
2  2
N g  16.051 1 2plf  zw S* S0 2  1  ln * (1  R)  4 , (3)
 2 S0 
 
where:
 – dimensionless constant, plf – cyclic yield strength, zw – external stress range, S* - critical crack (defect) area,
S0 – initial crack (defect) area, R – stress ratio.
Of course, we can propose some simplification based on equivalent surface methods (ESM) presented by Szata
(2002), Szata and Lesiuk (2009) or using equivalent flaw approach Correira (2016). However, in engineering practice
for proper model formulation and parameters estimation, the kinetic fatigue fracture diagrams (KFFD) are constructed.
The main way (a classic one) of describing the fatigue fracture kinetics is the force approach proposed by Paris (1963),
based on experimental data has the exponential form in relation to stress range  and K, as it has been well known
as a Paris’ law (1963):

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= 𝐶𝐶(∆𝐾𝐾)𝑚𝑚 , (4)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

where: C and m are experimentally determined factors, K represents the range of stress intensity factor. However,
the number of factors (like R-ratio) strongly influenced the FCGR description. This is schematically shown in Fig. 1.
In this case we can use Paris’ law with proper adjustment of C - constants for each R or use another formulas involved
R-ratio effect, like Paris-Forman equation presented by Forman et al. (1967)

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝐶𝐶(∆𝐾𝐾)𝑚𝑚
= (1−𝑅𝑅)𝐾𝐾 (5)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑐𝑐 −∆𝐾𝐾

or Walker (1970) equation:

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ∆𝐾𝐾 𝑚𝑚
= 𝐶𝐶 [(1−𝑅𝑅)𝛾𝛾] . (6)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

In (5) Kc represents critical value of stress intensity factor (under plane strain conditions - KIC), C, m, are
experimentally determined constants. In literature exists hundreds of FCGR formulas, in many papers Rozumek
906 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911
Lesiuk et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

(2014), Szata (2002) the review of each approach is performed. In the study performed by Ostash et al. (2007) the
usefulness of the several models is discussed on the background of the kinetic fatigue fracture diagrams building basis.

Fig.1. Potential influence of R-ratio on the kinetics of fatigue crack growth, crack length history, lifetime of structural components, Szata and
Lesiuk (2009)

According to this review, we can underline the three main ways of the KFFD constructions based on: force factors
( - stress based, K-based), deformation criterions ( - strain based or CTOD, CTOA - based) or energy approach.
The force criterion is strongly dependent from the linear elastic fracture mechanics – therefore K is not always
appropriate quantity when process of fatigue crack growth leads to the reduction of the non-cracked ligament of
structural components. In this case we can observe the plasticization of the material large under limited loading. In
this case, the application of the parameter K or its range ΔK for the description of the results is meaningless because
the limitations of linear-elastic fracture mechanics are exceeded (Rozumek 2014).
On the other hand, the deformation criteria are widely used in order to overcome the troubles of the FCGR
description in case when the plastic zone before a crack tip is of the same order as a body dimension. As an example
of the strain, deformation approach formula is the model proposed by Manson (1966):
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑛𝑛
= 𝐵𝐵(∆𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 √𝑎𝑎) (7)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

where: B and n are experimentally determined constants, pl represents plastic strain range, a means the crack length.
In the authors’ opinion the most physical approach is energy approach mainly based on fracture mechanics parameter
– cyclic J or its range J or another strain energy density parameter based on the energy irrevocably dissipated during
the fracture process. Some fatigue fracture models are rewritten from Paris (1963) formula, one of example is model
proposed by Dowling and Begley (1976):
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= 𝐴𝐴(∆𝐽𝐽)𝑚𝑚 . (8)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

2. Energy description of fatigue crack growth process

2.1. Strain energy density H model formulation

The process of fatigue crack growth is associated with the formation of new crack faces. For this purpose the
accumulation process of energy is activated. Therefore, the dissipation of damage energy should be associated with
the fatigue crack-growth rate. In several concepts based on model proposed by Noroozi et al. (2005, 2007) to model
 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911 907
4 Lesiuk et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

fatigue crack propagation proposed by Correia et al. (2013), based on the local strain approach to fatigue, aiming the
determination of the fatigue crack propagation life for a structural detail. This model is well known in literature as a
UniGrow model. It based on the following assumptions (according to Noroozi et al., 2007):
 The material is composed of simple particles of a finite dimension  that represents the elementary
material block size, below which material cannot be regarded as a continuum (see Fig. 2),
 The fatigue crack tip is supposed to be equivalent to a notch with radius 
 The fatigue crack growth process is considered as representing successive crack increments (after Nf
cycles) due to crack re-initiations over the distance .

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Crack configuration according to the UniGrow model: (a) crack and discrete elementary material blocks; (b) crack shape at the tensile
maximum and compressive minimum loads (Noroozi et al. 2005, 2007).

According to above - the fatigue crack growth rate can be determined as

𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜌𝜌
= ∗. (9)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓

From the energy point of view, this assumption is well described by the critical surface energy parameter . The
energy description incorporated to the Noroozi concept is clearly to understand when the damage energy  necessary
for elementary act of fatigue crack growth on the material block * can be divided into two components (in case of
fatigue loading)
Γ = 𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐 + 𝑊𝑊𝑠𝑠 , (10)
where the Wc represents a part of energy stored in cyclic loading (corresponds to the cyclic load alternations) and Ws
is a static component of the energy corresponded with the maximal value of loading. In this case, the crack will grow
if the critical value of energy is reached
Γ𝑐𝑐 = Γ . (11)
From the energy point of view, the proper kinetic fatigue fracture energy model introduction must always satisfy
the first principle of thermodynamics
𝐴𝐴 + 𝑄𝑄 = 𝑊𝑊 + 𝑇𝑇 + Γ, (12)
where:
A – the work of external stresses,
Q – the heat input to the body during the loading,
W – a deformation energy after N cycles of loading,
T – a kinetic energy of the body,
 – a damage energy during the change of a crack surface after one “quantum” – elementary “bricks” in Norozii
discrete model.
After differentiating (12) over the number of cycles, assuming that a slow growth of a crack length does not go
together with heat processes, and neglecting the small changes of a kinetic energy (for low frequencies of a cyclic
loading) we obtain generalized formula of fatigue crack growth
𝐴𝐴 𝑊𝑊 
= + . (13)
𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁
908 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911
Lesiuk et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

Based on the (13), the possibility of construction the energy fatigue crack growth rate model depends on the
theoretical crack model, plastic zone model etc. So, there is no one, but hundreds possibilities modelling of fatigue
crack growth in term of the energy approach. In present paper, the detailed determination of the last form of the kinetic
equation, will be not presented here. Details of the existing models are available in works of Szata (2002), Szata and
Lesiuk (2009) based on phenomenological approach as well as based on Dimensional Analysis Approach (Szata 2002,
Lesiuk 2017). According to Szata (2002) and using Dudgale model, the new kinetic energy formula is presented (Szata
2002, Szata and Lesiuk 2009)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
= 𝐷𝐷(∆𝐻𝐻)𝑘𝑘 . (14)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

In (14), D and m are Paris’ law-like constants, but the H represents a new “crack driving force” called as an energy
parameter:
Wc
H  (15)
 K2 

B 1 2 Im ax 
 K fc 

where:
Wc – energy per thickness dissipated in each cycle of loading,
KImax – maximal value of stress intensity factor,
Kfc – critical value of cyclic stress intensity factor,
B – thickness of component (specimen).
Of course, the energy concept can involve more than one energy parameter - Wc or its part. This problem was
considered by the Ostash (2007) in conjunction with the different regions of FCGR diagram. The authors’ suggested
to use different part of energy for different crack growth rates – see Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagrams of the dependences of crack-tip opening displacement on the process of loading and unloading of the specimen for
low (left), medium (middle), and high (right) growth rates of the fatigue macrocrack, Ostash (2007)

2.2. Cyclic J-integral description of FCGR

The J parameter range for mode I is calculated by using the following relationship (Rozumek, 2009, Rozumek,
Macha, 2009)
  
J I  1   2 K I2 / E  Y12 a  p / n ,  (16)

where the first term of (16) concerns the linear-elastic range, and the other term refers to the elasto-plastic range, a –
crack length, E – Young’s modulus,  - Poisson’s ratio,  - ranges of stresses under bending in the near crack tip
(notch), p – range of plastic strain under bending in the near crack tip (notch).
The stress intensity factors ranges Kl for mode I is calculated from (Rozumek, Marciniak, 2011)
K I  Y1 n  a  a0  , (17)
 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911 909
6 Lesiuk et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

where Y1 is correction coefficients, n is the nominal stress range, a0 is notch length.

3. Experimental results

In presented approach, the authors focused only on the Paris regime. Therefore the dissipated energy in hysteresis
loop area is considered as a main crack driving force. The determination of the energy dissipated in the unit volume
of material is faced with many difficulties, particularly in the case of a high cycle fatigue. The hysteresis loop area is
then very small and the algorithms should be of a great accuracy. This work has been realized with the help of a
software package using the programming language Hewlett – Packard Agilent HP VEE version 5.0. The numerical
algorithm is described in papers of Szata (2002) and developed by Lesiuk et al. (2017). For presentation the efficiency
of the proposed model, the 41Cr4 steel (0.38%C, 0.69%Mn, 0.28%Si, 0.98%Cr, 0.029%P, 0.008%S) and 42CrMo4
(0.39%C, 0.64%Mn, 0.26%Si, 0.18%Mo, 0.92%Cr, 0.027%P, 0.004%S) steel have been tested. The 355J2W
(<0.13%C, <0.4%Si, 0.2%-0.6%Mn, 0.4%Cr-0.8%Cr, <0.035%P, <0.03%S) steel has been also tested for J energy
representation of KFFD. The 42CrMo4 steel was in normalized state and 41Cr4 steel was heat treated (Q+T700°C).
The chosen (for comparison) materials have similar static properties and the similarity of FCGR is also expected. In
the Table 1 contains some monotonic quasi-static tension properties of the tested steel. For experiments the CT
specimens were performed in accordance with the ASTM E647. During tests following signals were registered: force,
displacements, crack opening displacement (COD). Amid applying of monotonically arising loading, the crack length
size was determined by compliance procedures.

Table 1. Monotonic quasi-static tension properties of the materials.

Materials y (MPa) u (MPa) E (GPa) A5(%) HRC
42CrMo4 690 981 212 12 28
41Cr4 660 970 210 11 25
S355J2W 418 566 215 31 30

The function of plane stress elastic compliance for CT specimens is described by formula (ASTM E647)
𝑎𝑎
= 𝐶𝐶0 + 𝐶𝐶1 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥 + 𝐶𝐶2 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥2 + 𝐶𝐶3 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥3 + 𝐶𝐶4 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥4 + 𝐶𝐶5 𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥5 , (18)
𝑊𝑊

where: 𝑎𝑎 − crack length; 𝑊𝑊 − specimen width (for tested CT specimen it is 50 mm). Coefficients C0, C1, C2, C3, C4,
C5 are fully described by ASTM E647 depending on measurement localization of COD. The ux quantity is defined
as:
1
𝑢𝑢𝑥𝑥 =
(19)
√𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 + 1
𝐹𝐹
where: 𝐵𝐵 − specimen thickness [mm]; 𝐸𝐸 − elastic modulus [MPa]; 𝑣𝑣 − COD [mm]; 𝐹𝐹 − force [N]; 𝑣𝑣⁄𝐹𝐹 −
displacement versus force curve slope measured during the test [mm/N]. The CT specimens (initial a/W=0.5,
thickness t=10mm for 42CrMo4 steel and 18 mm for 41Cr4 steel) were cut from steel plate in rolling directions. The
thru-straight notch was prepared using electro-discharging machine (EDM). Before the main investigation the fatigue
pre-crack was made preserving all condition of loading described in ASTM E647. In case of constant amplitude test,
the stress ratio R=0.1 and R=0.5 was by sinusoidal loading with frequency f=12.5 Hz (Fmax=4.5 kN for thickness
t=10mm) and (Fmax=10kN for thickness t=18mm). The crack length size was monitored using elastic compliance (18)
variations. Periodically, the crack length was controlled and adjusted using digitalized stereoscopic microscope with
digital camera coupled with the tensile machine MTS 810 (Fig. 4a). During the experiments the dissipated energy was
calculated in-situ in HPVEE environment. The computer screen during tests is shown in Fig. 4b. Apart of this, the
LQSM (linear quadratic spline method) was used for calculation of the crack closure level for specimen (R=0.1,
42CrMo4 steel). The details of this method and algorithm is described in the authors’ paper Lesiuk et al. (2017).
The specimens subjected to bending had an external unilateral sharp notch 5 mm in depth, with the rounding
radius ρ = 0.5 mm. The specimen dimensions were: length L=120 mm, width W=20 mm and thickness t=4 mm. The
tests were performed on the fatigue test stand MZGS-100 with the loading frequency 29 Hz (Rozumek, Macha, 2009).
 Lesiuk et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7
910 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911

(a) (b)

Fig.4. Experimental set up: a) testing machine with specimen in grips, b) instrumented HP VEE environment for H collection during FCGR
experiments

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Kinetic fatigue fracture diagrams for 42CrMo4 steel and 41Cr4 steel (R=0.1, R=0.5) based on K applied and Keff

(a) (b)

Fig. 6. Kinetic fatigue fracture diagram for 41Cr4 steel based on H parameter (a) and S355J2W steel based on J parameter (b)

As it was expected, the kinetics of fatigue crack growth (despite different microstructure) for 41Cr4 and 42CrMo4
steel for similar static properties is achieved. The differences in kinetics of fatigue crack growth for R=0.1 and R=0.5
 G. Lesiuk et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 904–911 911
8 Lesiuk et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

are observed with the increasing (Fig. 5a) tendency in low K values (<20MPa m1/2) for both materials. In case of the
incorporation of the crack closure phenomenon (Fig. 5b), the distances between closure affected (R=0.1) and closure
reduced (R=0.5) effect is decreased. But for three different R-ratios (0.1, 0.5, 0.75) the differences are vanishing in
case of the da/dN diagram constructed with the H basis (Fig. 6a). Fig.6b also shows the da/dN diagram constructed
with the J basis cyclic bending and two different R-ratios (0, 0.5).

4. Conclusions

1. The applied empirical formulas including H and J parameters range are good to description of fatigue crack
growth rate in the tested materials.
2. It has been shown that the applied H and J parameters as compared with the parameter K for different stress
ratios R more precise describe crack growth rate, since they take more tested materials data (information) into
account.

References

ASTM E647-15a - Standard test methods for fatigue crack growth rate, ASTM.
Correia J.A.F.O., Abílio M.P. De Jesus, Alfonso Fernández-Canteli, Local unified probabilistic model for fatigue crack initiation and propagation:
Application to a notched geometry, Engineering Structures, Volume 52, 2013, Pages 394-407, ISSN 0141-0296,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.009.
Correia J.A.F.O., S. Blasón, A.M.P. De Jesus, A.F. Canteli, P.M.G.P. Moreira, Paulo J. Tavares, Fatigue life prediction based on an equivalent
initial flaw size approach and a new normalized fatigue crack growth model, Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 69, November 2016, Pages
15-28, ISSN 1350-6307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.04.003.
Dowling N.E., Begley J. A., 1976. Fatigue crack growth during gross plasticity and the J -integral,” in: ASTM STP 590, 82–103.
Forman R.G., V. E. Kearney, Engle R. M., 1967. Nunierical analysis of crack propagation in cyclic loaded structures. J. Basic Eng., Trans. ASME
89, 459-463.
Lesiuk G., Szata M., José A.F.O. Correia, A.M.P. De Jesus, Filippo Berto, Kinetics of fatigue crack growth and crack closure effect in long term
operating steel manufactured at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Available online 26 April 2017, ISSN
0013-7944, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.04.044.
Manson S.S., 1966. Interfaces between fatigue, creep, and fracture. Int. J. Fract. Mech. 2, 327–363.
Noroozi A.H, Glinka G, Lambert S. 2005. A two parameter driving force for fatigue crack growth analysis. Int J Fatigue 27, 1277–96.
Noroozi AH, Glinka G, Lambert S., 2007. A study of the stress ratio effects on fatigue crack growth using the unified two-parameter fatigue crack
growth driving force. Int J Fatigue 29, 1616–33.
Ostash O.P., V. V. Panasyuk, I. M. Andreiko, R. V. Chepil’, V. V. Kulyk, and V. V. Vira, 2007. Methods for the construction of the diagrams of
fatigue crack-growth rate of materials, Materials Science 43(4).
Paris P. C., Erdogan F., 1960. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J. of Basic Eng., Trans. ASME 85, 528-534.
Rozumek D., 2009. Influence of the slot inclination angle in FeP04 steel on fatigue crack growth under tension. Materials & Design 30(6), 1859-
1865.
Rozumek D., Macha E., 2009. J-integral in the description of fatigue crack growth rate induced by different ratios of torsion to bending loading in
AlCu4Mg1. Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik 40(10), 743-749.
Rozumek D., Marciniak Z., 2011. Fatigue crack growth in AlCu4Mg1 under nonproportional bending with torsion loading. Materials Science 46,
(5), 685-694.
Rozumek, D., 2014. Survey of Formulas Used to Describe the Fatigue Crack Growth Rate. Materials Science 49(6), 723-733.
Szata M., 2002. Modeling of fatigue crack growth using energy method (in Polish), Publishing House of Wroclaw University of Technology,
Poland, Wroclaw.
Szata M., Lesiuk G., 2009. Lifetime evaluation of element with fatigue crack using equivalent surface method / M. Szata, G. Lesiuk. W: Mehanika
rujnuvannâ materialiv i micnist' konstrukcij / pid red. V. V. Panasûka. L'viv : Fiziko-mehanicnij Institut im. G. V. Karpenka NAN Ukraïny, s.
341-346.
Szata M., Lesiuk G., algorithms for the estimation of fatigue crack growth using energy method, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering,
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 119-134, ISSN 1644-9665, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60045-4.
Walker K., 1970. The effect of stress ratio during crack propagation and fatigue for 2024-T3 and 7075-TO Aluminum. ASTM STP 462, 1-14.