Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/242085621
CITATIONS READS
122 4,968
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sabah M. Beden on 03 January 2015.
S. M. Beden
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
E-mail: sabah@vlsi.eng.ukm.my
Tel: +603-8921-6136; Fax: +603-8921-6040
S. Abdullah
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
A. K. Ariffin
Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Abstract
1. Introduction
The fatigue crack growth prediction models are fracture mechanics based models that have been
developed to support the damage tolerance concepts in metallic structures. During the last decades,
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 365
numerous papers have been published on fatigue life and fatigue crack growth prediction under
constant and variable amplitude loading. After a through review of the literature, this paper attempts to
provide an overview of prediction models for crack growth as a scientific and engineering knowledge
about fatigue of material and structures, which includes fatigue life prediction models. The prediction
models are categorized according to the type of loading and the concept of each model is described.
The evaluation of the models as presented in this paper is based on the research and experimental data
published by many authors.
In the 1950s, many investigators mentioned how early in the fatigue life they could observe
microcracks. Since then it was clear that the fatigue life under cyclic loading consisted of two phases,
the crack initiation life followed by a crack growth period until failure. This can be represented in a
block diagram, see Figure 1.
Kt K Kic Kc
Stress Concentration Factor Stress Intensity Fracture
Factor Toughness
The crack initiation period may cover a large percentage of the fatigue life under high-cycle
fatigue, i.e. under stress amplitudes just above the fatigue limit. But for larger stress amplitudes the
crack growth period can be a substantial portion of the fatigue life. A special problem involved is how
to define the transition from the initiation period to the crack growth period. It was in the early 1960s
that the stress intensity factor was introduced for the correlation between the crack growth rate, da/dN,
and the stress intensity factor range, Δ K. The first paper was published by Paris, Gomez and Anderson
(1961), and it turned out to be a milestone publication. In this paper, they adopted the K-value from the
analysis of the stress field around the tip of a crack as proposed by Irwin (1957). Another milestone of
the application of fracture mechanics, the well-known general equation in polar coordinates for the
stress distribution around the crack tip is:
K
σ ij = f (θ ij ) (1)
2π r
with K as the stress intensity factor and the polar coordinates r and θ. Equation (1) is an asymptotic
solution which is valid for small values of r only, i.e. r a with ‘a’ as the crack length. The stress
intensity factor is given by:
K = βS πa (2)
with β as the geometry factor. The results of the crack growth tests of Paris et al. (1961) were
expressed in terms of da/dN as a function of Δ K on a double log scale, which shows a linear relation
between log(da/dN) and log( Δ K). Many more crack growth tests carried out later indicated the same
trend which led to the well-known Paris equation:
da
= C (ΔK )
m
(3)
dN
366 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
with C and m as experimentally obtained constants. The equation is a formal description of results of a
fatigue crack growth experiment. At the same time, it must be recognized that fatigue crack growth is
subjected to physical laws. In general terms, something is driving the crack extension mechanism,
which is called the crack driving force. This force is associated with the Δ K -value. The stress intensity
factor is related to the strain energy release rate, i.e. the strain energy in the material, which is available
for producing crack extension. The relation to be found in text books is:
dU K 2
= (4)
da E *
with E* = E (Young’s modulus) for plane stress, and E* = E/(1-ν) for plane strain (ν = Poisson’s
ratio). The strain energy looks like a characteristic variable for energy balances.
The common approach for fatigue crack growth analysis is to describe the data by a differential
equation, which is referred to as a fatigue crack growth law or model. By integrating the equation one
can obtain the crack length versus number of cycles (a-N curve) and predict the number of cycles
required for the crack to grow from an initial to final size. The differential equation used to describe the
data is often of the form
da
= f (ΔK , R ) (5)
dN
The right hand side of Equation (5) describes the fatigue rate data relationship, usually with
empirical curve fitting parameters. The main disadvantage is that the fatigue crack growth model
parameters have no physical significance, but are representative of the curve fitting technique used to
describe the da/dN versus Δ K curve. As a result, ". . . there are probably as many equations as there are
researchers in the field" (Broek. 1985). Thus if the fatigue crack growth model 'fits' the data properly, it
may be used in conducting a fatigue crack growth analysis. However, ". . . no equation can fit al1 data,
so that religious adherence to one equation is not advisable" (Broek, 1985). Al1 the models are valid in
that they describe a particular set of fatigue crack growth data and can be used to predict crack growth
rates in situations similar to those used to collect the data. "It is sometimes possible to fit the same set
of data to apparently contradictory laws but, owing to the inherent scatter in fatigue crack growth data,
it is not possible to decide which law is the most correct" (Frost et al. 1971). It is practically impossible
to discuss every available model because of the large number, which exist in literature. Therefore, the
remainder of this section will discuss the models, which are promising and/or commonly used.
Initiation life
Propagation life
Total life
A typical S-N curve for some materials appears to become flat for large number of cycles
representing a distinct stress level below which fatigue failure will not occur. This limit is called the
fatigue limit or the endurance limit.
A given S-N curve is valid for the specific conditions under which it was tested. One may
extrapolate the results from an S-N curve to include the influence of other factors provided that
sufficient knowledge of how they affect the S-N curve is known. These factors include member
geometry, chemical environment, cyclic frequency, temperature, residual stress and mean stress.
or
mW
da ⎡ ΔK ⎤
= CW ⎢ 1−γ W ⎥
(9)
dN ⎣ (1 − R ) ⎦
For R = 0, Equation (9) is formulated to form
da
= CW (ΔK ) W
m
(10)
dN
which is equivalent to the Paris law with Cp = Cw and mp = mw .
The significance of this equation is that a log-log plot of da/dN versus Δ K should result in a
single straight line regardless of the stress ratio for which the data was obtained. The ability to account
for this results in the introduction of a third curve fitting parameter γω. γω is determined by trial and
error and its value is the one that best consolidates the data along a single straight line on the log-log
plot of da/dN versus ΔK . It is possible that no value of γω can be found, and in this situation the
Walker equation cannot be used. If the value of γω , is qua1 to one. ΔK equals Δ K which indicates that
the stress ratio has no effect on the data.
370 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
In summary, the Walker law is a modification of the Paris law that accounts for the stress ratio
effect at the expense of introducing a third curve fitting parameter.
= (14)
dN (1 − R )K C − ΔK
Another version of the Forman equation is
da C MOD (ΔK ) MOD (ΔK − ΔK th )
m 0.5
= (15)
dN (1 − R )K C − ΔK
Both Equations (14) and (15) produce a sigmoid shaped curve (see Figure 3) where the curve
steepens at both low and high growth rates. For this case, an asymptote not only occurs as Kmax
approaches Kc, but it also occurs when Δ K approaches Δ Kth. One disadvantage of using these equations
is that the value of Δ Kth is sensitive to R and a specific value of this parameter in the equation is
generally needed for any given R value (Dowling, 1993). Also, the correct value of Kc for the given
thickness should be used.
This expression is only useful for the lower portion of the fatigue rate curve. For inert
atmospheres, A is a parameter thought to be related to the rate of strain hardening which expressed as A
= 2σy /E, so that
da
=
dN πE
8
(2
ΔK 2 − ΔK th2) (18)
When there is the case in the aggressive environments, the value of A increases together with
the rate of crack growth. Equation (18) provides a basic idea for growth rates below 1 x 10-6 m/cycle
under
R = 0 conditions.
To include the stress ratio effect and region III of the fatigue rate curve, the following
modification to Equation (18) is then suggested
da 4A ⎛ ΔK ⎞
=
dN πσ γ E
( ΔK 2 − ΔK th2 ) ⎜1 + ⎟ (19)
⎝ K C − K MAX ⎠
where
(
1.2 ΔK thO)
ΔK th =
⎛ (1 + R ) ⎞
1 + 0.2⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ (1 − R ) ⎠
and Δ Ktho is the Δ K value for R = 0.
This equation is based on a simple physical model rather than a purely empirical fit. The
expression distinguishes between the two components of the crack advance; the ductile striation
component and the static mode component. It is noted that the number of adjustable parameters goes to
zero (for tests in non-aggressive environments) for Δ K values large with respect to Kth .
It is interesting to note that a similarity between the above equation and McEvily's equation
(non-aggressive environment) exists in the ( Δ K/E)2 term. Also, it has been pointed out by Rice (1988)
that any continuum mechanics theory of crack growth will result in a ( Δ K/E )2 dependence unless a
characteristic dimension is introduced.
Figure 4: Assumption of the amount of increment fatigue crack propagation (Zheng, 1983)
Zheng (1983) improved the La1 and Weiss model by modifying the static fracture portion and
obtained material constants that are defined by the tensile properties of the metal. Briefly, Zheng found
that upon loading the crack opens elastically and the crack tip becomes blunt, which occurs at a stress
intensity threshold denoted as Kth . To derive his model, Zheng used the fracture parameter Δ Keff = Kmax
– Kth , instead of the normal convention that Δ K = Kmax – Kmin , since no crack growth occurs below
Kth. Using this new parameter and the assumption made by La1 and Weiss, the Zheng model is derived
as follows: (22)
= x f = x(σ = σ ff )
da
(22)
dN
Now from LEFM, the stress in the direction of the applied load along the crack (x-axis) is
expressed as
Kl
σ yy = (23)
2πx
and at the location xf in Figure 4,
K l2
xf = (24)
2πσ 2 ff
Combining both Equations (22) and (24) and using the new fracture parameter of Δ Keff, the
new expression can be derived, i.e.
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 373
da 1 1
= K rff2 = (K max − K th )2 (25)
dN 2πσ ff
2
2πσ ff
2
The theoretical strength of metallic materials, σff, is equal to Eσ f ε f where σf = σu(1+ RA)
ε
and f = - ln(1-RA) are the materials fracture strength and fracture ductility respectively, σu is the
materials ultimate stress and RA is the specimens reduction in area at fracture in the tension test.
Therefore
da 1
= (K max − K th )2 (26)
dN 2πEσ f ε f
When R = 0, Δ K = Kmax, and Δ Kth, = Kth , which gives
da
= B(ΔK − ΔK th )
2
(27)
dN
1
where B = , and it is determined from the metallic tensile properties . For situations where
2π E σ f ε f
R = 0, it has been determined that Equation (27) may be used if Δ Kth is defined as
ΔK th = ΔK tho (1 − R)γ (28)
where Δ Ktho is the crack propagation threshold value for stress ratio equal to zero and γ is a constant
between zero and one. Zheng determined that Equation (28) is valid when da/dN ≤ 10-3 mm/cycle
which corresponds to regions I and II (for the materials that was tested by him). The experimental and
predicted results for various metals can be found in Table 2 in Zheng (1983). It appears to be an
attractive model because of its capability to predict fatigue crack growth in regions I and II and the
parameters are easily obtained and appear to have some physical significance.
Based on the research to obtain the mathematical Equation (29), Wang et al model (1994)
concluded that the crack growth rate is not simply a function of Δ K, but it is a function of an average
local yielding strength, fracture toughness and amplitude of the applied effective stress intensity factor
in regions II and III. The mode1 was verified using the test results published in ASTM STP 789 by
Miller and Gallagher (1981). The test data and the proposed formula were then found to be in
reasonably good agreement.
1 A1 ⎡ 1 ⎤
3 = + A ⎢ − C '
⎥
da / dN ( ΔK ) β1 ⎢⎣ ( ΔK )
β2
2
⎥⎦
da 2
4 = C ( K max ) m ⎡⎣ ( K max + K e )(1 − Reff ) + *K ⎤⎦
dN
⎛ da ⎞
5 log10 ⎜ ⎟ = P1 exp ( P2 x ) + P3 exp ( P4 x ) + P5
⎝ dN ⎠
6
da
dN
{
=10 C1 sinh ⎡⎣C2 ( log ΔK + C3 ) ⎤⎦ + C4 }
7 7
da
dN
{
=10 C1 sinh ⎡⎣C2 ( log ΔK + C3 ) ⎤⎦ + C4 }
1/ k
da ⎡ ⎛ ΔK ⎞ ⎤
8 = e + ( v − e ) ⎢ − ln ⎜1 − ⎟⎥
dN ⎣⎢ ⎝ K b ⎠ ⎦⎥
These models range in complexity and number of parameters to be determined. They also
provide information of :
(1) measures of accuracy of the fatigue crack growth rate fit,
(2) methods used to establish the descriptions coefficients (or constants) and
(3) methods of integrating da/dN = f( Δ K,R).
Therefore only a brief description of each model will be presented in this section. Model 1 is a
modified Paris power-law equation where
ΔK eff − ΔK 0
ΔK = 2
(31)
⎛ K max ⎞
1 − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ KC ⎠
and Keff = (1 – Pop)/PmaxKmax . The ratio Pop /Pmax is calculated from a crack closure model under plane
strain conditions and the coefficients C1 ,C2 ,Kc and Δ Ko are derived from least squares procedures.
Model 2 is a five parameter model where the constants Δ K1 and Δ Kc define the asymptotes at
low and high Δ K respectively. P1 shifts the crack growth rate curve up or down and P2 and P3 influence
curvature.
In Model 3 the parameters β1 , and β 2 represent the steps of the data in Region I and II
respectively. C' is calculated from the exponent β 2 by the relationship
1
C' = (32)
K C (1 − R ) 2
η
The coefficients A1 and A2 are determined by multiple linear regression analysis. Model 4 is
another modified Paris equation, which accounts for environmental effects on the crack growth rate.
The values of C and m are defined by the modulus of elasticity (units of pounds per square inch) by
C =E2(10 -23 )
and
376 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
⎡10 73 ⎤
m = 1.442 ln ⎢ ⎥ (33)
⎣ E ⎦
Ke is the environmental parameter and is defined by
⎡ (K − K eo ) ⎤
K e = K econst ⎢ max ⎥ (34)
⎣⎢ (K plot − K eo ) ⎦⎥
and Ke = 0 when Kmax < Kmin. The point at which Ke becomes constant is represented by Kplot . The
effective stress ratio is given by
K + ΔK 0
Reff = min (35)
K max
where Δ Ko is the threshold value. The term*K fits the upper end of the growth rate data and is given
by the relationship
* K = ae β ( K min ) (36)
where α and β are fitting constants.
Model 5 is a five parameter model and the coefficients P1 through P5 are determined by the
least squares method and x is the base ten logarithm of the stress intensity factor range Δ K. Model 6
and 7 are the same and were used by two separate participants. It is a hyperbolic sine equation and the
parameters C1 through C4 are determined by least squares fitting techniques. Model 8 is a four
parameter model where Kb is the normalizing parameter for Δ K, k is the shape parameter, e is the
threshold parameter and ν is the characteristic value of the shape parameter.
Based on the above results, it can be concluded that most fatigue crack growth rate models will
accurately predict fatigue crack growth rates under constant amplitude loading.
Accordingly, in the criterion of Equation (39), we can fix Δ a to recover, in the limit case of
a → 0, Wőhler’s prediction, we write here as:
C
N CW = (40)
Δσ k
Hence,
Δa : N Cp * (a → 0) = N CW (41)
Thus, Equations (38) or (39), with the position of Equation (41), can be considered a
generalized Paris’ law. Note that such a law is of very simple application, and would allow one to
study not only the final condition but also the evolution of the fatigue crack growth N p * (a (N )) , where
a ≤ a (N ) ≤ aC .
Figure 5: Decreases in the rate of crack growth due to the overload followed by the CAL
378 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
Figure 6: Transient effects on crack growth produced by (a) CAL; (b) single overload; (c) tensile-compression
overload sequence; and (d) single
The physical interpretation is that a tensile overload introduces a larger compressive residual
stress field in the vicinity of the crack tip compared to before the overload. This retards the crack
growth by helping to keep the crack tip closed during the subsequent relatively smaller loads. This
continues until the crack has grown through the overload residual stress field and the original stress
field is restored. The amount of retardation is described by the overload ratio (OLR) which is equal to
the magnitude of the overload stress to the 'normal' peak stress value. The higher the overload ratio the
greater the retardation and for overload ratios greater then two or three, crack arrest may occur.
When a compressive underload is interspersed in variable amplitude loading, the crack growth
rate following the underload will be greater than that of the constant amplitude load. The crack growth
acceleration is short lived and the 'normal' constant amplitude growth rate is restored quickly as
illustrated by curve 'd' in Figure 6.
Figure 7: Crack growth behavior for (a) Tension overload (b) Compression-tension overload (c) Tension-
compression overload and (d) Compression underload (Fuchs, 1980)
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 379
y = shaping factor
ap-a =distance from crack tip elastic-plastic interface.
These terms are illustrated in Figure 8.
The solid line represents the yield zone due to the current applied load and the doted line is the
extent of yielding due to some prior overload. When the crack has propagated through the overload
zone, the current yield zone is equal to the greatest elastic-plastic interface and Δ a = 1. This
corresponds to no retardation and thus the fatigue crack growth rate reduces to that of constant
amplitude loading, daldN = f( Δ K,R). The plastic zone size is calculated by using an appropriate
equation. Wheeler (1971) suggests using the relationship for a plane strain condition.
2
1 ⎛ Kl ⎞
Ry = ⎜ ⎟ (43)
π 4 2 ⎜⎝ σ y ⎟⎠
The shaping exponent y is determined by empirically fitting the variable amplitude loading test
data. It is generally depends upon the material and the nature of the load spectrum that is being
considered. Therefore, once a value of y has been obtained it should only be used to predict fatigue life
for components of similar material and load spectrum type. If a different load spectrum type is to be
applied y must be re-calibrated otherwise serious errors will result.
The Wheeler model has had success in modelling crack growth retardation due to single and
periodic overloads in an otherwise constant amplitude spectrum. This model cannot deal with the
effects of underload, however, and more difficulties arise when both overloads and underloads are
involved. When underload occurs during an otherwise constant amplitude loading, the crack growth
following the underload is greater than that occurring during the constant amplitude load. The period of
crack growth acceleration is short, and the ‘normal’, constant amplitude growth rate is restored
quickly. If an underload immediately follows an overload, the degree of retardation due to overloading
is reduced but not eliminated. An underload applied prior to an overload, on the other hand, has little
effect on the degree of crack retardation (Taheri et al 2003).The facts described above suggest a
modelled Wheeler expression that takes into account these points. The relevant variables and zones are
sketched in Figure 9.
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 381
Figure 9: Sketch showing the variables and zones associated with the modified Wheeler model.
Z OL = ⎢ ⎥ (45)
βπ ⎢⎣ σ y ⎥⎦
Once the current yield zone has extended through the overload zone (da = ZOL) the value for Kr
is set equal to zero. The effective stress intensity factor is used and defined as Δ Keff =K max eff - Kmin eff
where Kmax eff = Kmax - Kr and Kmin eff = Kmin - Kr . If one desires to use a fatigue crack growth law which
is a function of both Δ K and R, one must use an effective overload ratio defined by
K min eff
Reff = (46)
K max eff
Therefore the Forman equation (11) in conjunction with the Willemborg model will become
( ΔK eff ) '
m
da
=CF (47)
dN (1 − Reff ) K C − ΔK eff
6.3. Elber Mode1
Based on the experimental observations, Elber (1970; 1971) suggested that a fatigue crack can close at
a remotely applied tensile stress due to a zone of compressive residual stresses left in the crack tip
wake. Elber introduced the crack closure concept to analyze crack propagation under variable
382 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
amplitude loading. It is based on the observation that the faces of fatigue cracks close before al1 the
tensile load is removed. Previously, it was assumed that cracks is closed under compressive loads and
open under tensile load. The crack closure under tensile load is due to residual deformation in the wake
of the crack. Elber observed that for a stress-displacement curve which has been shown in Figure 10.
1. Slope AB is linear and equal to that of the uncracked body
2. Slope CD is linear and equal to that of the cracked body
3. Nonlinear line BC is the transition from fully open and fully closed crack
Figure 10: Crack closure results for fatigue crack propagation (Elber, 1971)
A concept to be discussed here is the occurrence of crack closure, and more specifically
plasticity induced crack closure. In the late sixties Elber (1968 ; 1971) observed that the tip of a
growing fatigue crack in an Al-alloy sheet specimen (2024-T3) could be closed at a positive stress
(tensile stress). Crack opening turned out to be a non-linear function of the applied stress. During
loading from σ = 0 to σ = σ op the crack opening displacement (COD) is a non-linear function of the
applied stress. For σ > σ op the behaviour is linear with a slope corresponding to the specimen
compliance with a fully opened crack. The same non-linear response was observed during unloading.
During the non-linear behaviour the crack is partly or fully closed due to plastic deformation
left in the wake of the growing crack. Elber argued that a load cycle is only effective in driving the
growth of a fatigue crack if the crack tip is fully open. He defined the effective Δσ and ΔK as:
Δσ eff = σ max − σ op and ΔK eff = βΔσ eff π a (48)
( β is the geometry factor). He then assumed that the crack growth rate is a function of Δ Keff
only. He also introduced an effective stress intensity ratio which was mathematically defined as
ΔK eff K max − K op
U= = (49)
ΔK K max − K min
Using the above expressions, any existing fatigue crack growth relationship could be utilized by
simply replacing Δ K by U Δ K . Elber then, proposed a modified Paris equation, i.e.
da
= C p ΔK effp = C ρ (UΔK ) p
m m
(50)
dN
The difficulty is in determining the appropriate Kop ,value required to obtain U. Elber
determined the following relationship
U = 0 .5 + 0 .4 R − 0 .1 ≤ R ≤ 0 .7 (51)
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 383
which is based on tests for aluminum 2024-T3. Other relationships for various materials have been
obtained and reported in the literatures.
This relation is an empirical result. Moreover, Elber proposed that the relation should be
independent of the crack length. The Elber approach was carried on in later investigations, partly
because it was attractive to present crack growth data of a material for various R-values by just one
single curve according to Equation (50). It turned out that the relation in Equation (51) could be
significantly different for other materials, which is not surprising because the cyclic plastic behaviour
depends on the type of material.
The significance of this model is that crack closure appears to be a significant factor in causing
load interactions. In the crack closure mode1 ". . . crack growth retardation following an overload is
not visualized as a consequence of residual compressive stresses ahead of the crack tip, but rather as
the result of a wake of residual local deformation left behind the crack tip as it propagates" (Collins,
1993). Some limitations of the model is that the relationships for U and Kop , must be determined for
the specific material, loading type and region on the fatigue rate curve. Further, the definition of the
closure load is somewhat arbitrary and is the subject of on going research. FinaIly, the complex way in
which σ op (Kop) must be determined for each load cycle and the step by step counting method of
generating the crack growth curve requires a large computer program and long running times (Chell,
1979). In the 1980s, the crack closure concept was much welcomed by investigators on crack growth
models for fatigue under VA loading (Schijive, 1996).
Kujawski (2001) suggested the parameter ( Δ K+)1-αKαmax can be used as a mechanical driving
force to correlate the effects of load ratio on fatigue crack growth without consideration of crack
closure, where Δ K+ is the positive part of the applied stress intensity range.
where
(KOL) max = maximum SIF due to overload
an = current crack length
aOL = overload crack length
γ POL = plastic zone created by overload
384 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
This method is effective in computing the crack growth in the retardation zone. The value of φ
is computed for overload ratios ≥ 2.0. This model does not consider the interaction effects due to
underloads.
∑ ΔK 1
2
ΔK rms = r =1
(55)
n
The Δ Krms parameter represents the r.m.s. of the individual load cycles in a spectrum. This
method is extremely simple because it only requires the curve fitting parameters AB and mB to be
determined (similar to the Paris coefficients) along with the value for Δ Krms which is determined from
the variable amplitude load spectra. The load interactions are not included but are assumed to occur
often, and thus this method determines the average fatigue crack growth rate. In other words, an
equivalent constant amplitude load is determined from the variable amplitude spectra. Therefore the
most accurate predictions can be made for a large number of random cycles closely spaced together.
ΣΔK 2
The quantity of is the square of Δ Krms . Thus, Equation (57) becomes
ΔN
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 385
⎛ da ⎞ A
⎜
⎝ dN
⎟ =
⎠avg σ E
(
ΔK rms
2
− ΔK th2 ) (58)
y
The above equation is similar in nature to the Barsom model and includes the threshold value.
where α denotes 'proportional to'. This expression represents a likelihood model for fatigue life. An
unconditional or predictive distribution is determined as follows
∞
p (l ) = ∫ p (IlΔσ rms )π (Δσ rms )dσ rms (64)
0
The integral represents the probable fatigue life of the component and this method is good for
narrow banded random processes.
earliest of these are based on calculations of the yield zone size ahead of the crack tip and are still
widely used. The Willenborg model (1971) and the Wheeler model (1972) are two notable examples
published in the early 1970s. They are now considered to be rather primitive.
Another category models based on the crack closure approach, which considers plastic
deformation and crack face interaction in the wake of the crack, was subsequently proposed by Elber
(1972), have been used to model crack growth rates under variable amplitude loads (Newman, 1984;
Ray and patanker, 2001; Voorwald, 1991). More recent proposals include combinations of the Wheeler
model with the Newman crack closure model (Huang et al., 2005(a)) and model based on the strain
energy density factor (Huang et al., 2005(b)).
However, due to the number and complexity of the mechanisms involved in this problem, no
universal model exists yet. A number of load interaction models have been developed to correlate
fatigue crack growth rates and predict crack growth under variable amplitude loading over the past
three decades. These models have been used to predict crack propagation under different load spectra
and generally agree well with corresponding test results.
The various approaches of fatigue crack propagation laws, which used to predict the crack
growth of component subjected to VAL will be discussed in the next section.
fatigue crack growth rate, and if the influence of the load interactions is small, provides good results.
Since the loading is random in nature, it is reasonable that the load interactions will offset one another.
For non-random loading sequences where relatively few high load cycles cause long delays in
fatigue crack growth, this approach will probably not be applicable. The maximum and the minimum
root mean square stress levels were calculated by using the relationship
0.5
⎡1 N
⎤
∑ (σ )
2
σ max rms =⎢ max ⎥ (66)
⎣N r =1 ⎦
and
0.5
⎡1 N 2⎤
σ min rms = ⎢ ∑ (σ min ) ⎥ (67)
⎣ N r =1 ⎦
where σ max and σ min are the maximum and the minimum stresses of the random load spectrum and N
is the total number of σ max or σ min values. Now the root mean square stress ratio is calculated by
σ min rms
Rrms = (68)
σ max rms
The root mean square maximum and minimum stress intensity factors are calculated from
Equation (66) and (67) respectively in conjunction with the correction factor for a center cracked
specimen. This gives
⎛πa ⎞
K max rms = σ max rms π a sec ⎜ ⎟ (69)
⎝W ⎠
and
⎛πa ⎞
K min rms = σ min rms π a sec ⎜ ⎟ (70)
⎝W ⎠
Where a is the crack length and W is the specimen width. Therefore the root mean square stress
intensity range is
ΔK rms = K max rms − K min rms
(71)
Hudson used the above root mean square parameters in conjunction with the Forman equation
to predict fatigue crack growth rates, i.e.
da CΔK rms
m
= (72)
dN (1 − Rrms )K C − ΔK rms
where KC is the elastic fracture toughness. The above equation was numerically integrated from the
initial flaw size to the critical flaw size.
Newman used a crack closure approach for predicting the fatigue crack growth life. The method
is based on a concept like the Dugdale model, but was modified to leave plastically deformed material
in the wake of the advancing crack tip. The crack opening stress ( σ op ), as a function of crack length
and load history was calculated from the analytical model. Then, the effective stress intensity factor
range, as proposed by Elber, was calculated. Details of the model are provided by Newman (1981).
The fatigue crack growth law was given by the relationship
C2
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
da ⎢ ΔK eff ⎥
= C1 ⎢ 2⎥
(73)
dN
⎢1 − ⎛ K max ⎞ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ C 3 ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
Where ΔK eff = (σ max − σ op )Y π a . The parameters C to C were determined from the constant
1 3
da CΔK n
= (75)
( )
dN 1 − R eff m K C − ΔK
where m = 1 at R > 0 and m = 2 at R < 0.
When the full stress intensity range ( Δ K) is used; the stress range includes the compressive
portions. Reff accounts for the three load interaction effects by adjusting its value during each cycle.
Therefore, the procedure used to determine the proper value of Reff to account for retardation
acceleration and underload effects. The parameters C and n are determined from the supplied constant
amplitude load data. If the value of Δ K is less than Δ Kth , then Equation (75) is not applicable and no
crack growth results can be observed. The threshold for each cycle is mathematically defined as the
following equation:
( )
ΔK th* = 1 − R eff ΔK th (76)
where Δ Kth is obtained for R = 0. The effective stress ratio is defined by the specific relationship as
K min − K R eff
K min
R =
eff
= eff (77)
K max − K R K max
where KR is the residual stress intensity and it can be positive or negative depending whether there is
retardation or acceleration, respectively. The maximum allowable stress ratio that can be used in this
analysis is defined as
⎡ 0.2Z OL ⎤
Rmax = ⎢ ⎥ + 0.6 (78)
⎣ t ⎦
where ZOL is the plastic zone diameter for the applied Kmax .
ΔK th = (1 − R )ΔK th 0 (82)
This procedure is similar to that of the Walker (Equation 7) and neglects load interaction
effects.
The second model (Chang et al., 1981(b)) also utilizes Walker's crack growth rate equation;
however, the Willenborg model accounts for the load interaction effects. This load interaction model is
the same as the one used by Rudd and Engle and was discussed in detail (Chang et al., 1981(b)). The
ratios of the predicted life to the test life (Npredict, Ntest) were calculated. Ratios smaller than 1.0 are
considered being conservative predictions and ratios greater than 1.0 are unconservative. The average
prediction ratio and the standard deviation for each model are presented.
In a following generation of crack growth prediction models, crack closure was still considered
to be the leading mechanism to arrive at effective stress range. However, σ op was no longer obtained
from an empirical function. Fatigue crack growth rate equation expressed in terms of the SIF range Δ K
depend on the R-ratio. Many methods therefore incorporate the effect of the R-ratio, such as crack
closure models based on the effective SIF range (Elber, 1972; Newman, 1984; Ray(II), 2001) two
parameter driving force models (Sadananda and Vasadevam, 1999; Kujawski, 2001; Noroozi, 2005),
and others. Few of them, however, make clear statements regarding the material constants chosen in
calculating crack growth lives under variable amplitude loading. An equivalent SIF range model,
which condenses the data describing crack growth under different R-ratios into a single curve scaled to
R = 0, has already been proposed by the present authors in a previous work (Huang and Moan, 2007)
The Dugdale strip yield model (1960), Newman (1981) and Murakami (1992) were adopted to
calculate the plastic deformation in the crack tip zone and the plastic deformation left in the wake of
the crack. Algorithms were developed (Dill and Saff, 1976; Wang et al., 1991) to calculate the plastic
deformations and to determine the crack opening displacements from which the crack opening stress
level is obtained. The models are rather complex, due to the non-linear material behaviour, reversed
plasticity under compressive stress, and the iterative character of the calculations. Although these strip
yield models are more realistic, the problem of the plane stress to plane strain transition is still present.
Moreover, it remains difficult to cover some aspects such as the 3D character of crack closure.
From a mechanistic point of view, the initiation period and the crack growth period require
different prediction models. This problem is complicated in view of defining the moment of the
transition from the initiation period to the crack growth period. Actually, it must be admitted that a
rigorously and physically satisfactory solution of this problem is not available.
The method of predicting life under VA loading becomes very complex and complicated if one
aims for an accurate assessment. Introduction of features related with the VA loading in the models
such as like interaction (retardation and acceleration), plastic zone formation and crack closure make
the prediction very accurate, but on the expense of complexicity and complicated algorithms. In
addition, the magnitude of these effects depends on the loading variables, specimen geometry, material
properties, microstructure and environments.
In this paper several crack growth prediction models and concepts have been discussed and
evaluated. Investigation shows that the predictions are strongly influenced by the parameters
(empirical, material, assumed, etc.) which have to be fitted to experimental data. It is clear from the
prediction model analyses that curve fitting used to be an imported procedure to correlate the
predictions with the experimental data. Sometimes accuracy is mentioned as Npred/Nexp=1 with out
taking into account the shape of the curve. As a result, a lot of precious work done on analytical
modelling and mathematical estimation of crack growth under VA loading is physically doubtful,
because they lack validated and generalized formulations and concepts.
As it has been shown so far, fatigue crack growth analysis for a variable amplitude load
spectrum is more difficult than that of constant amplitude loading. The details of available fatigue
crack growth models under VAL have been presented highlighting the merits and limitations of the
each model. It is observed from the literature that most of the models require one or more calibration
parameters or constants to conduct crack growth analysis. There is considerable scope to improve upon
the present models and development of better and simpler, which can account for underloads and
combination of overloadsunderloads in simplified manner.
The selection of the appropriate model is usually based on the analyst’s experience and
persona1 preference and aaccurate predictions thus remain problematic, the more so for part through
cracks.
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 393
References
[1] Adetifa, O. A., C. V. B. Gowda and T. H. Topper, 1976. A Model for Fatigue Crack Growth
Delay under Two-level Block Loads. ASTM STP 595, pp 142-156.
[2] Ahn, Suneung and Max B. Mendel, 1995. “A Fatigue Life Mode1 For Crack Propagation
Under Variable-Amplitude Load”, Mechanics Research Communications, 22(1), PP. 95-101.
[3] ASTM E647-00, 2000. Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, USA.
[4] Barsom, J. M., 1976. “Fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude loading in various bridge
steels”. In Fatigue Crack Growth under Spectrum Loads. ASTM STP 595. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp.217-235.
[5] Barsom, J. M. and Stanley T. Rolfe, 1987. Fracture and Fatirnie Control in Structures:
Applications of Fracture Mechanics, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
[6] Broek, David, 1985. “A Similitude Criterion for Fatigue Crack Growth Modeling”. ASTM STP
868, pp. 347-360.
[7] Broek, David, 1991. “The Practical Use of Fracture Mechanics”, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands.
[8] Chang, J.B., 1981 (a). “Round-Robin Crack Growth Predictions on Center-Cracked Tension
Specimens under Random Spectrum Loading”, Methods and Models for Predicting Fatigue
Crack Growth under Random Loading, ASTM STP 748, J. B. Chang and C.M. Hudson., Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.3-40.
[9] Chang, J.B., M. Szamossi and LW. Liu, 1981(b). “Random Spectrum Fatigue Crack Life
Predictions With or Without Considering Load Interactions”, Methods and Models for
predicting Fatigue Crack Growth under Random Loading. ASTM STP 748, J. B. Chang and C.
M. Hudson, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 115-132.
[10] Chell, G. G., 1979. Developments in Fracture Mechanics - I, Applied Science Publishers Ltd.,
London.
[11] Collins, Jack A, 1993. “Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design”: Analysis Prediction,
Prevention, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
[12] Collipriest, J. E. Jr., 1972. “An Experimentalist's View of the Surface Flaw Problem. Physical
Problems and Computational Solutions”, J. L. Swedlow, Ed., American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York pp. 43-62.
[13] David S. and Dawicke, 1997. “Overload and Underload Effects on the Fatigue Crack Growth
Behaviour of the 2024-T3 Aluminum Alloys”. NASA Contractors Report, 201668.
[14] Dill. H. D. and C. R. Saff, 1976. “Spectrum crack growth prediction methods based on crack
surface displacement and contact analyses”. In Fatigue Crack Growth under Spectrum Loads,
ASTM STP 595. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. PA.. pp.306-319.
[15] Dill, H. D., C. R. Saff and J. M. Potter, 1980. “Effect of Fighter Attack Spectrum on Crack
Growth”, ASTM STP 714. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
pp.205-217.
[16] Dowling, Norman E., 1993. “Mechanical Behavior of Materials”: Engineering Methods for
Deformation Fracture and Fatigue, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
[17] Dowling, N. E. and J. A. Begley, 1976. “Fatigue crack growth during gross plasticity and the J-
integral. Mechanics of Crack Growth”, ASTM STP 590, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 82-105.
[18] Dugdale D. S., 1960. “Yielding of steel sheets containing slits”. Journal of Mechanics and
Physics Solids, 8, PP.100–104.
[19] Elber, W., 1968. “Fatigue crack propagation”. PhD Thesis, University New South
Wales,Australia.
[20] Elber, W., 1970. “Fatigue crack closure under cyclic tension”. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 2, PP. 37-45.
394 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
[21] Elber, W., 1971. “The significant of fatigue crack closure” . In: Damage tolerance in aircraft
structures, ASTM STP 486. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.
230-242.
[22] Elber W., 1972. “The significance of fatigue crack closure in fatigue”. ASTM STP 486 pp.
230–242.
[23] Forman, R. G., 1972. “Study of fatigue crack initiation from flaws using fracture mechanics
theory”. Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 4(2), PP. 333–345.
[24] Frost, N.E., L. P. Pook and K. Denton, 1971. “A Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Fatigue Crack
Growth Data for Various Materials”. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 3(2), PP. 109-126.
[25] Fuchs, H. 0. and R. Stephens, 1980. Metal Fatigue in Engineering, John Wiley & Sons. New
York.
[26] Fuhring, H. and T. Seeger, 1979. “Dugdale crack closure analysis of fatigue cracks under
constant amplitude loading”. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 11, PP. 99-l 22.
[27] Gallagher, J. P. and T. F. Hughes, 1974. “Influence of the Yield Strength on Overload Fatigue
Crack Growth Behavior of 4340 Steel”. AFFDL-TR-74-27, Air Force Flight Dynamics
Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
[28] Hartman, A. and J. Schijve, 1970. “The Effects of Environment and Load Frequency on the
Crack Propagation law for Macro Fatigue Crack Growth in Aluminum Alloys”. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 1(4), PP. 615-631.
[29] http://www.swri.edu/4org/d18/mateng/NASGRO/default.html
[30] Huang, XP. and T. Moan, 2007. “Improved modeling of the effect of R-ratio on crack growth
rate”. International Journal of Fatigue, 29, PP. 591–602.
[31] Huang XP., T. Moan and C. Weicheng, 2008. “An engineering model of fatigue crack growth
under variable amplitude loading”. International Journal of Fatigue, 30, PP. 2-10.
[32] Huang XP., JB. Zhang, WC. Cui and JX. Leng, 2005 (b). “Fatigue crack growth with overload
under spectrum loading”. Theoretical Applied Fracture Mechanics, 44, PP.105–115.
[33] Huang XP, WC. Cui, and JX. Leng. 2005 (a). “A model of fatigue crack growth under various
load spectra”. In: Proc of Sih GC, 7th International conference of MESO, August 1–4,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 303–308.
[34] Hudson, C. M., 1981. “A Root-Mean-Square Approach for Predicting Fatigue Crack Growth
under Random Loading, Methods and Models for Predicting Fatigue Crack Growth under
Random Loading”, ASTM STP 748. J. B. Chang and C .M. Hudson, Eds., American Society
for Testing and Materials, pp. 41-52.
[35] ]Ibrahim, M. F. E. and K. J. Miller, 1980. “Determination of fatigue crack initiation life”.
Fatigue of Engineering Materials and Structures, 2, PP. 351-360.
[36] Imhof, E.J. and J.M. Barsom, 1973. “Fatigue and Fatigue Growth of 4340 Steel at Various
Yield Strengths”. Progress in Flow Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 536.
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.182-205.
[37] rwin GR., 1957. “Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate”.
Trans ASME Journal Applied Mechanics, 24, PP. 361-364.
[38] James, MN. and AE. Paterson, 1997. “Fatigue performance of 6261-T6 aluminum alloy –
constant and variable amplitude loading of parent plate and welded specimens”. International
Journal of Fatigue, 19, PP. S109–S118.
[39] Johnson, W. S., 1981. “Multi-Parameter Yield Zone Model for Predicting Spectrum Crack
Growth. Methods and Models for Predicting Fatigue Crack Growth under Random loading”,
ASTM STP 748, J. B. Chang and C.M. Hudson, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 85-102.
[40] Koning, D. A. U., 1981. “A simple crack closure model for prediction of fatigue crack growth
rates under variable amplitude loading”. In Fracture Mechanics: Thirteenth Conference, ASTM
STP 743. American Society for Testing and Material. Philadelphia, PA. pp. 63-85.
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 395
[41] Kujawski, D., 2001. “A fatigue crack driving force parameter with load ratio effects”.
International Journal of Fatigue, 23, PP. S239–S246.
[42] La1, D. N. and V. Weiss, 1978. “A Notch Analysis of Fracture Approach to Fatigue Crack
Propagation”, Metallurgical Transactions, 9A, PP. 413-425.
[43] Lang, M. and G. Marci, 1999. “The Influence of Single and Multiple Overloads on Fatigue
Crack Propagation”. Fatigue Fracture Engineering Materials and Structures, 22, PP. 257-271.
[44] Lang, M. and X. Huang, 1998. “The Influence of Compressive Loads on Fatigue Crack
Propagation in Metals”. Fatigue Fracture Engineering Materials and Structures, 21, PP. 65-83.
[45] McEvily, A. J., 1974. “Phenomenological and Microstructural Aspects of Fatigue”. Presented
at the Third International Conference on the Strength of Metals and Alloys, Cambridge,
England; published by The Institute and The Iron and Steel Institutes, Publication, W36, PP.
204-213.
[46] Miller, M. S. and J. P. Gallagher, 1981. “An Analysis of Several Fatigue Crack Growth Rate
(FCGR) Descriptions”. Fatigue Crack Growth Measurement and Data Anabsis, ASTM STP
738. S. J. Hudak, Jr. and R. J. Bucci, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.
205-251.
[47] Miller, K.J. and K. P. Zachariah, 1977. “Cumulative damage laws for fatigue initiation and
stage I propagation”. Journal of Strain Analysis, 12, PP. 262-270.
[48] Miller, K. J. and M. F. E. Ibrahim,1981. “Damage accumulation during initiation and short
crack growth regimes”. Fatigue of Engineering Materials and structures, 4, PP. 263-277.
[49] Murakami Y., 1992. “The rainflow method in fatigue”. The Tatsuo Endo memorial volume.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
[50] Newman, Jr., 1981. “A crack closure model for predicting fatigue crack growth under aircraft
spectrum loading”. In Methods and Models for predicting Fatigue Crack Growth under
Random Loading. ASTM STP 748 American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA. pp.53-84.
[51] Newman, Jr. 1982. “Prediction of fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude and spectrum
loading using a crack closure model”. In Design of Fatigue and Fracture Resistant Structures.
ASTM STP 761. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp, PP. 255-
277.
[52] Newman Jr., 1984. “A crack opening stress equation for fatigue crack growth”. International
Journal of Fracture, 24, PP. R131–135.
[53] Newman Jr., 1997. “Crack growth under variable amplitude and spectrum loading”. TMS
Symposium Proceedings to Honor P. Paris.
[54] Noroozi, AH, G. Glinka and S. Lambert, 2005. “A two parameter driving force for fatigue
crack growth analysis”. International Journal of Fatigue, 27, PP. 1277–1296.
[55] Ohta A., N. Suzuki and Y. Maeda, 1997. “Unique fatigue threshold and growth properties of
welded joints in a tensile residual stress field”. International Journal of Fatigue, 19, PP. S303–
S310.
[56] Paris, PC., 1960. “The growth of cracks due to variations in loads”. PhD. Dissertation, Lehigh
University. Bethlehem. PA.
[57] Paris, PC., and F. Erdogan, 1963. “A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”. Journal of
Basic Engineering; Transaction, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Series D, 85, PP.
528-534.
[58] Paris PC., H. Tada and JK. Donald, 1999. “Service load fatigue damage – a historical
perspective”. International Journal of Fatigue. 21, PP. S35–S46.
[59] Paris, PC., MP. Gomez and WE. Anderson, 1961. “A rational analytical theory of fatigue”. The
Trend of Engineering, 13, PP. 9-14.
[60] Ramos, M. S., M. V. Pereira, F. A. Darwish, S. H. Motta and M. A. Carneiro, 2003. “Effect of
Single and Multiple Overloading on the Residual Fatigue Life of a Structural Steel”. Fatigue
Fracture Engineering Materials and Structures, 26, PP. 115-121.
396 S. M. Beden, S. Abdullah and A. K. Ariffin
[61] Ray A. and P. Patanker. 2001. “Fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude loading: Part I –
Model formulation in state space setting”. Applied Mathematics Model, 25, PP. 979–94.
[62] Ray, A. and R. Patanker, 2001. “Fatigue crack growth under variable-amplitude loading: Part
II-Code development and model validation”. Applied Mathematics Model, 25, PP. 995–1013.
[63] Rice, Richard C., 1988. Fatigue Design Handbook, Second Edition, Society of Automotive
Engineers, PA.
[64] Ritchie, R. O. and S. Suresh, 1983. “The fracture mechanics similitude concept: questions
concerning its application to the behavior of short fatigue cracks”. Materials Science and
Engineering. 57(2), PP. L27-L30.
[65] Ritchie, R. 0., S. Suresh and C. M. Moses, 1980. “Near threshold fatigue crack growth in 2 I/4
Cr-I Mo pressure vessel steel in air and hydrogen”. ASME Journal of Engineering Materials
and Technology. 102, PP. 293-299.
[66] Ritchie. R. 0. and S. Suresh, 1982. “A geometrical model for fatigue crack closure induced by
fracture surface morphology”. Metallurgical Transaction, 13A, PP. 1627-1631.
[67] Rudd, J. L. and R. M. Engle, 1981. “Crack Growth Behavior of Center-Cracked Panels under
Random Spectrum Loading. Methods and Models for Predicting Fatigue Crack Growth under
Random Loading”, AS TM STP 748. J. B. Chang and C. M. Hudson, Eds., American Society
for Testing and Materials, pp. 103-114.
[68] Sadananda, K. and AK. Vasudevan, 1999. “Analysis of overload effects and related
phenomena”. International Journal of Fatigue, 21, PP. S233–S246.
[69] Savaidis, A., G. Savaidis and Ch. Zhang, 2002. “Elastic-Plastic FE analysis of a notched
cylinder under multiaxial nonproportional fatigue loading with variable amplitude”, Computers
and Structures, 80, PP. 1907-1918.
[70] Schijve, J., 1996. “Fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude loading. In: Fatigue and
Fracture”, ASM handbook, Vol. 19. ASM International, pp. 110-133.
[71] Skorupa, M., 1998. “Load Interaction Effects during Fatigue Crack Growth under Variable
Amplitude Loading”, a Literature Review. Part I .Empirical Trends. Fatigue Fracture
Engineering Materials and Structures, 21. 987-1006.
[72] Skorupa, M., 1999. “Load Interaction Effects during Fatigue Crack Growth under Variable
Amplitude Loading, a Literature Review. Part II”: Qualitative Interpretation. Fatigue Fracture
Engineering Materials and Structures, 22, PP. 905-926.
[73] Stephens, R. I. Chen and B. W. Hom, 1976. “Fatigue Crack Growth with Negative Stress Ratio
Following Single Overloads, 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloys”. ASTM STP 595, pp.
27-40.
[74] Suresh. S. and R. O. Ritchie, 1984. “Near-threshold fatigue crack propagation: In Fatigue Crack
Growth Threshold Concepts”. The Metallurgical Society of the American Institute of Mining.
Mineral and Petroleum Engineers, pp. 227-261.
[75] Taheri, F., D. Trask and N. Pegg, 2003. “Experimental and analytical investigation of fatigue
characteristics of 350WT steel under constant and variable amplitude loading”. Material
Structure, 16, PP. 69-91.
[76] Tomkins, B., 1968. “Fatigue crack propagation—an analysis. Philosophy management, 18, PP.
1041–66.
[77] Varma, D., 1990. Fatigue Crack Growth. New Age International (P) Ltd.
[78] Voorwald, HJC, and MAS. Torres, 1991. “Modeling of fatigue crack growth following
overloads”. International Journal of Fatigue, 13(5), PP. 423–427.
[79] Walker, EK., 1970. “The effect of stress ratio during crack propagation and fatigue for 2024-T3
and 7076-T6 aluminum. In: Effect of environment and complex load history on fatigue life”,
ASTM STP 462. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.1–14.
[80] Wang, GS. and AF. Blom, 1991. “A strip model for fatigue crack growth predictions under
general load conditions”. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 40, PP. 507–533.
Review of Fatigue Crack Propagation Models for Metallic Components 397
[81] Wang, Wei and Cheng Thomas, 1994. “Fatigue Crack Growth Rate of Metal by Plastic Energy
Damage Accumulation Theory”. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 120(4), PP. 776-795.
[82] Willenborg, J., RM. Engle and HA. Wood, 1971. “A crack growth retardation model using an
effective stress concept”. Air Force Flight Dynamic Laboratory, Dayton, Report AFFDL-TR71-
1.
[83] Wheeler, O. E., 1970. “Spectrum Loading and Crack Growth”. ASMR 72 MetX also G.D.
Report FZM 5602.
[84] Wheeler, O. E., 1972. “Spectrum Loading and Crack Growth”. Journal of Basic Engineering,
March, 94, PP. 181-186.
[85] Zaiken, E. and R. O. Ritchie, 1985. “On the Role of Compression Overloads in Influencing
Crack Closure and the Threshold Condition for Fatigue Crack Growth in 710 Aluminum
Alloy”. Fatigue Fracture Engineering Materials and Structures, 22, PP. 35-48.
[86] Zheng, Xiulin and A. Manfred, 1983. “Fatigue Crack Propagation in Steels”. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, 18(3), PP. 965-973.