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

ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia500
(2017) 832–839
(2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

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

Analytical
XV models on
Portuguese Conference ofFracture,
the S-N curve
PCF based
2016, 10-12 on the
February hardness
2016, of the
Paço de Arcos, Portugal
material
Thermo-mechanical modeling of a high pressure turbine blade of an
airplane
Przemyslaw gasa,*,turbine
Strzelecki engine a
Tomasz Tomaszewski
a
Institute
Institute of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology, 85-789 Bydgoszcz, Poland, PL
a b c
P. Brandão , V. Infante , A.M. Deus *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Abstract Portugal
b
IDMEC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugal
To ccalculate
CeFEMA, fatigue life of
Department inMechanical
high-cycleEngineering,
region, the Instituto
S-N characteristics for the
Superior Técnico, material or
Universidade construction
de Lisboa, element
Av. Rovisco Pais,(depending
1, 1049-001on the
Lisboa,
calculation model employed) must be obtained. Due to this, analytical
Portugalmodels are used for estimating the S-N fatigue curve. Since
these methods bear significant error, hybrid models based on experimental data from hardness measurements were developed. Such
evaluation is easy to perform, quick, and, most importantly, is a non-destructive examination. The paper presents two models for
Abstracthigh-cycle fatigue characteristics, one of which is an own model. Both of these approaches are based on hardness
evaluating
measurement, and employ the relationship between hardness and tensile strength & fatigue limit. The described models were
Duringontheir
verified operation,data
experimental modern aircraft
for several engine components
construction are were
materials. Tests subjected to increasingly
performed on smooth demanding
samples, andoperating conditions,
- for two materials
especially the high pressure turbine (HPT) blades. Such conditions cause these parts to undergo different types
- on notched samples. Moreover, literature data were also used for expanding the verification performed. The characteristics of time-dependent
degradation,
obtained onethat
indicate of which is creep.ofAfatigue
the estimation model life
using
forthe finite element
construction steelmethod
may be(FEM)
deemed was
as developed,
satisfactory.inFor
order
thetoaluminum
be able toalloys
predict
the creep behaviour of HPT blades. Flight data records (FDR)
and stainless steel, on the other hand, the estimation error is significant. for a specific aircraft, provided by a commercial aviation
company, were used to obtain thermal and mechanical data for three different flight cycles. In order to create the 3D model
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
needed
© 2017 Thefor the FEM
Authors. analysis,
Published a HPT
by Elsevier B.V.blade scrap was scanned, and its chemical composition and material properties were
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of ICSI 2017.
obtained.under
Peer-review The data that wasofgathered
responsibility was Committee
the Scientific fed into theof FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
ICSI 2017
rectangular block shape, in order to better establish the model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
Keywords: fatigue design;
overall expected S-N curve;
behaviour high-cycle
in terms fatigue; accelerated
of displacement methods in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
was observed,
model can be useful in the goal of predicting turbine blade life, given a set of FDR data.

1.©Introduction
2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
Fatigue life must be verified at all times when designing elements of machines subjected to loads variable in time.
ToKeywords:
make suchHighcalculations possible,
Pressure Turbine the S-N
Blade; Creep; characteristics
Finite Element Method;for
3Dthe material
Model; or construction element (depending on the
Simulation.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-52-340-82-79; fax: +48-52-340-82-79.
E-mail address: p.strzelecki@utp.edu.pl

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

Peer-review underauthor.
* Corresponding responsibility
Tel.: +351of the Scientific Committee of ICSI 2017.
218419991.
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.2017.07.065
 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 832–839 833
2 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

calculation model employed) must be obtained. Such data are not available at the design and construction stage, when
the designed element is merely a concept. For this purpose, analytical models are used for estimating the S-N fatigue
characteristics. These models are based on strength, which is most often derived from standards or manufacturer
specifications. This value may deviate from actual properties of the material. In order to illustrate the possible
dispersions of strength values, Fig. 1. presents a histogram of yield strength for S355 steel, which was manufactured
in the Czech Republic, according to Melcher et al. (2004). As per PN-EN 10025-2 (2007) standard, the yield strength
value for this steel should be 355 MPa at minimum. From the normal distribution, estimated based on experimental
data for 1089 specimens, we may calculate that this value will be smaller for over 6% products. Due to the above, it
seems justified to use strength values obtained through experimental means. For that purpose we may use the
measurement of material hardness, and, with the use of the formulas presented below, convert it to tensile strength (Su)
according to Roessle and Fatemi (2000):

Su = 0.0012·HB2+3.3·HB, (1)

or according Bandara et al. (2015):

Su =3.4·HB, (2)

and yield strength (Sy) according Busby et al. (2005), Khodabakhshi et al. (2015), Sanders et al. (1997) and Zhang et
al. (2011):

Sy = 3·HB. (3)

Nomenclature

A constant from Basquin equation

B or Nup number of cycles to failure at the first knee point
b inverse slope of the S-N curve equal 1/m
HB Brinell hardness
HRB Rockwell hardness in B scale
HRC Rockwell hardness in C scale
HV Vikers hardness
Kt stress concentrator factor
m slope of the S-N curve
m’ slope of the S-N curve in the GCF region
N number of cycles
NGCF number of cycles to failure in the GCF region
Nk number of cycles to failure at the second knee point
NSy number of cycles to failure at stress amplitude equal 0.9 Sy
Sa stress amplitude
Se fatigue strength for Nk cycles (fatigue limit)
Sen fatigue strength for Nk cycles for notched elements
SGCF fatigue strength at GCF region
Su ultimate tensile strength
Sy yield strength
X log(Sa)
Y log(N)
͞ mean value
̂ estimated value
834 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 832–839
Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Fig. 1 Histogram of yield strength for S355 steel.

2. Models for estimated S-N curve basing on material hardness

For determining S-N curve several method can be used, like presented in paper Strzelecki and Tomaszewski (2016),
Pascual and Meeker (1999) & Castillo et al. (2007). In this study, simples experimental methodology as per ISO-
12107 (2003) standard was used for determining the referential S-N characteristics, which will be referred to as model
I in the further part of this article. The description of the N number of cycles versus Sa stress amplitude relationship is
determined using the Basquine Weibull (1961) formula:

log(N )  A  m log(S a ) . (4)

The statistical elaboration of the results for this approach is as follows ISO-12107 (2003):

 X
i 1
i 
 X  Yi  Y 
mˆ  k
, (5)
 X 
2
i X
i 1

Aˆ  Y  mˆ X . (6)

Hardness measurement is a non-destructive measurement, and one that is quick to perform. Due to this, numerous
publications were made on the subject of the dependency of hardness on yield strength or tensile strength. Empirical
relationships describing these functional dependencies may be found, among others, in the following papers: Busby
et al. (2005); Khodabakhshi et al. (2015); Roessle and Fatemi (2000); Sanders et al. (1997); Zhang et al. (2011) and
were presented in the form of formulas (1), (2) i (3). It must be stressed that hardness is used in Brinall scale, which
may be converted from another scale using standards, such as ASTM E-140-02 (2002); PN-H 04357 (1993). When
analyzing literature it may be noted that these dependencies feature large correlation with experimental data. The
coefficient of determination for these relations is at least 0.9. Due to this fact it is assumed that these interrelations are
sufficiently accurate.
One of the models presenting the relationship between hardness and fatigue life is the Strzelecki model described
in Strzelecki (2014). The main idea behind this model is relating the m slope to the tensile strength value and yield
 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 832–839 835
4 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

strength value, as well as the fatigue limit and the limit number of cycles. The relationships used in this method are as
follows:

 10 6 
log 
 N Sy 
m   , (7)
 0. 9  S y 
log 
 Se 
 

10
 Sy 
N Sy  400   , (8)
 Su 
 

A  m log(S e )  log(N 0 ) . (9)

The formula (8) was determined based on 52 fatigue characteristics. The value of the N0 inflexion point in this
method is assumed as 106 cycles. The determination of this relationship was described in the paper Strzelecki (2014).
For the structural elements, the slope is determined based on the following formula from Strzelecki (2014):

 10 6 
log 3 
 10 
mk   , (10)
 S3 
log 
S 
 en 

1
S m N m
S3   e 3 0  . (11)
 10 
 

Formula (1) and (3) are to be applied to determine tensile strength and yield strength, accordingly. The Sen value
(fatigue strength at for Nk cycles for notched elements) is to be divided by (Kt) stress concentrator factor for the case
when Kt·Se<1.1Sy. Otherwise, FITNET procedure, described by Kocak et al. (2006) is to be followed. The functions
employed in this method are based on the material hardness value. This approach will be hereinafter referred to as
model II. Schematic representation of this model is presented in Fig. 2 a). The scope of applicability of this approach
is from ~103 to ~109 cycles for steel materials and aluminium casts.
Another analysed approach is the Bandar and others model, which was accurately presented in the papers Bandara
et al. (2016), (2015). The main purpose of this model is to describe, through a single equation, a low, high and giga-
cycle range, i.e. from 1 to 109 cycles, depending on the material hardness. It was assumed that the slope in the high-
cycle range is 5 (1/0.2), which is a deterministic approach, owing to the fact of significant dispersion of this value
Strzelecki et al. (2015) is to be followed. The base number of cycles is differentiated depending on hardness. The
relationships used in this method are as follows:

 S  Se   0.2 
S a    GCF N  B  0.2   S e N GCF  S GCF , (12)
 N 0.2  N  0.2   N  0.2  N  0.2 
 GCF k   GCF k 
836 Przemyslaw Strzelecki
Przemyslaw et al. /etStructural
Strzelecki Integrity
al. / Procedia Procedia
Structural 00 (2017)
Integrity 000–000
5 (2017) 832–839 5

a) Su b) Su
Stress amplitude ,Sa (log)

Stress amplitude ,Sa (log)

1 b
m 1

Se Se
1 SGCF
m'

Nup Nk 1 B Nk NGCF
Number of cycles, N (log) Number of cycles, N (log)

Fig. 2 Illustration of the S-N curve for S-N a) model II, b) model III

1
 3.4 HB  c   0.2
B    , (13)
 a 

 S  Se 
a    GCF , (14)
 N 0.2  N  0.2 
 GCF k 

 S N 0.2  S 0.2 
GCF N k
c   e GCF , (15)
  0.2
N GCF  N k 0.2 
 

 0.233HB 120 HB1 / 3 1.7 HB 

 
 0.0105HB 120 HB1 / 3 
Nk  10  , (16)

SGCF  0.138  HB 1 / 3  HB  120 , (17)

This approach will be hereinafter referred to as model III. For structural elements, this method proposes that the
stress amplitude is multiplied by Kt stress concentrator factor. Schematic representation of this model is presented in
Fig. 2 b). The authors of the model assumed applicability of this model to steel materials.
Both these methods require the same input values, i.e. material hardness.

3. Verification of presented models

Structural steels and an aluminium alloy were used to perform verifications of the described models. The
mechanical properties of these materials are presented in Table 1. The material hardness was measured using Rockwell
method, where scale C or B was applied, depending on the material hardness. Then, the obtained results were
converted to Brinell scale values as per PN-H 04357 (1993). The mechanical properties of materials, derived from
literature, are presented in Table 2, where the authors of these tests conducted the measurement using the Brinell or
Vikers method. For the latter measurement method, the obtained results were converted to Brinell scale values as per
PN-H 04357 (1993).
 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 832–839 837
6 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Table 1. Properties of tested materials.

Material C45+C 42CrMo4 S355J2+C 1.4301 S235JR AW-6063 T6
Su [MPa] 826 1172 806 623 409 200
Sy [MPa] 647 1095 678 269 240 167
HRC 21.1 32.7 24.7
HRB 78 63 39
HB (calculated from HRC or HRB acc. PN-H 04357 (1993)) 232 308 251 147 106 79

Table 2. Properties of materials from literature.

Material 1045 from Aviles et al. (2013) SUS630 from Mohd et al. (2015) 2024 T351 from Mayer et al. (2013)
Su [MPa] 870 1073 473
Sy [MPa] 726 1056 364
HV 390 141
HB (przeliczone z HV wg [11]) 278 370 120

Examples of the characteristics obtained with the use of the verified models were summarized in Fig. 3. A S-N
diagram estimated from the experimental data (full line) was applied for reference, according to the methodology as
per ISO-12107 (2003) (model I). The quantities that were obtained by the individual models are presented in Table 3,
Table 4 and Table 5.
When analysing Table 3, Table 4 & Table 5 it can be noticed that the values of m slope estimated from the
experiment are much larger than the value assumed in method III, except for the notched samples case. In method II
it may be stated that the variability range of this quantity equalled from 9.1 to 15.3. This fact caused the differences
between the experimental value and the value calculated according to method II to be smaller than in case of method
III. The case was reverse only for material SUS630. The m slope value was comparable only for the notched samples.
For evaluating Nk number of cycles, the values obtained by method III are smaller than the experiment result. In
method II, adopting the fixed value of 10 6 turned out to be approximate to the experimental value.

a) S235JR
b) S355J2+C
600
350

Failure Failure
Run out Run out
550
300

Model I Model I
Model II Model II
Model III Model III
500
250
Stress amplitude [MPa]

Stress amplitude [MPa]

450
200

400
350
150

300

1e+04 5e+04 2e+05 5e+05 2e+06 5e+06 1e+04 5e+04 2e+05 5e+05 2e+06 5e+06

Number of cycles N Number of cycles N

Fig. 3 Fatigue data with S-N curves for different models a) S235JR, b) S355J2+C

Table 3. Values estimated for tested materials.

838 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 832–839
Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

Material C45+C 42CrMo4 S355J2+C 1.4301

Model I II III I II III I II III I II III
m 7.8 9.5 5 7.6 9.1 5 9.5 9.4 5 24.6 8.6 5
A 25.7 30 - 26.2 30.2 - 30.3 30.1 - 63.4 25.5 -
N0 1.7∙106 106 6.7∙104 - 106 8.7∙104 8.4∙105 106 6.7∙ - 106 2∙105
104
Se [MPa] 310 332 394 - 440 523 359 359 427 - 189 250
m' - - - - - - - - - - 16.1 -
Su from HB - 830 789 - 1130 1047 - 904 853 - 511 500
Sy from HB - 696 - - 924 - - 753 - - 441 -

Table 4. Values estimated for tested materials.

Material S235JR AW-6063 T6 C45+C Kt=1.99 42CrMo4 Kt=1.99
Model I II III I II III I II III I II III
m 8.2 10.1 5 7.1 9.6 5 4.2 4.9 5 6.1 4.8 5
A 23.9 28.7 - 19.9 24.2 - 15.1 27.2 - 20.3 17.2 -
N0 - 10 6
6∙10 5
- 10 6
3.1∙10 8
- 10 6
6.7∙10 4
- 10 6
8.7·104
Se [MPa] - 172 204 - 79 100 - 167 198 - 221 263
m' - - - - 24 - - - - - - -
Su from HB - 413 408 - 198 200 - 830 789 - 1130 1047
Sy from HB - 360 - - 176 - - 696 - - 924 -

Table 5. Values estimated for material from literature.

Material 1045 from Aviles et al. (2013) SUS630 from Mohd et al. 2024 T351 from Mayer et al.
(2015) (2013)
Model I II III I II III I II III
m 8.1 9.3 5 8.8 15.3 5 9.2 9.6 5
A 26.5 30.2 - 30.8 49.5 - 27.2 27.2 -
N0 1.1∙106 106 7.1∙104 1.1∙106 106 1.4∙105 9.5∙107 106 6∙105
Se [MPa] 352 393 468 651 693 629 120 165 204
m' - - - - - - 25.3 18.2 -
Su from HB - 998 935 - 1385 1258 - 413 408
Sy from HB - 825 - - 1110 - - 360 -

4. Summary and conclusions

From the analysis presented it may be deduced that it is possible to exactly evaluate fatigue strength using model
II. The use of model III should be deemed as not recommended. The reason for this fact may be assuming fixed value
of m slope in model III. The assumed value 5 is significantly lower than the experimental values; only for the notched
elements was this value close to the experimental value. Moreover, in model III, the dependency determining the base
number of cycles Nk estimated this value to be much below the experimental value. With model II, estimating life for
three materials (1.4301, AW-6063 T6, 2024T351) was unsatisfactory.
Estimating the tensile strength and yield strength from the hardness measurement may be deemed as satisfactory -
except for the materials for which the Sy to Su relationship assumes extreme values. These materials may be deemed
as plastic (for low Sy/Su values), or brittle (for high Sy/Su values), which suggests that the relationships (1), (2) and (3)
are good approximations for elastic-plastic materials. The above observation may be found in the PN-H 04357 (1993),
 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 832–839 839
8 Przemyslaw Strzelecki et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

standard, which includes a table containing a relationship between tensile strength and hardness for different ranges
of Sy/Su ratios.

References

ASTM E-140-02, (2002). Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell
Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, and Scleroscope Hardness.
Aviles, R., Albizuri, J., Rodriguez, A., Lopez De Lacalle, L.N., (2013). Influence of low-plasticity ball burnishing on the high-cycle fatigue
strength of medium carbon AISI 1045 steel. International Journal of Fatigue 55, 230–244. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2013.06.024
Bandara, C.S., Siriwardane, S.C., Dissanayake, U.I., Dissanayake, R., (2016). Full range S-N curves for fatigue life evaluation of steels using
hardness measurements. International Journal of Fatigue 82, 325–331. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.03.021
Bandara, C.S., Siriwardane, S.C., Dissanayake, U.I., Dissanayake, R., (2015). Developing a full range S-N curve and estimating cumulative
fatigue damage of steel elements. Computational Materials Science 96, 96–101. doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2014.09.009
Busby, J.T., Hash, M.C., Was, G.S., (2005). The relationship between hardness and yield stress in irradiated austenitic and ferritic steels. Journal
of Nuclear Materials 336, 267–278. doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.09.024
Castillo, E., Fernández-Canteli, a., Hadi, a. S., López-Aenlle, M., (2007). A fatigue model with local sensitivity analysis. Fatigue and Fracture of
Engineering Materials and Structures 30, 149–168. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2695.2006.01099.x
ISO-12107, (2003). Metallic materials - fatigue testing - statistical planning and analysis of data. Geneva.
Khodabakhshi, F., Haghshenas, M., Eskandari, H., Koohbor, B., (2015). Hardness-strength relationships in fine and ultra-fine grained metals
processed through constrained groove pressing. Materials Science and Engineering A 636, 331–339. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2015.03.122
Kocak, M., Webster, S., Janosch, J., J., Ainsworth, R., A., Koers, R., (2006). FITNET Fitness-for-Service PROCEDURE – FINAL DRAFT
MK7.
Mayer, H., Schuller, R., Fitzka, M., (2013). Fatigue of 2024-T351 aluminium alloy at different load ratios up to 10 10 cycles. International
Journal of Fatigue 57, 113–119. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.07.013
Melcher, J., Kala, Z., Holický, M., Fajkus, M., Rozlívka, L., (2004). Design characteristics of structural steels based on statistical analysis of
metallurgical products. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 60, 795–808. doi:10.1016/S0143-974X(03)00144-5
Mohd, S., Bhuiyan, M.S., Nie, D., Otsuka, Y., Mutoh, Y., (2015). Fatigue strength scatter characteristics of JIS SUS630 stainless steel with
duplex S-N curve. International Journal of Fatigue 82, 371–378. doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.08.006
Pascual, F.G., Meeker, W.Q., (1999). Estimating Fatigue Curves with the Random Fatigue-Limit Model. Technometrics 41, 277–290.
doi:10.2307/1271342
PN-EN 10025-2, (2007). Wyroby walcowane na gorąco ze stali konstrukcyjnych -- Część 2: Warunki techniczne dostawy stali konstrukcyjnych
niestopowych.
PN-H 04357, (1993). Stal i staliwo -- Tablice porównawcze twardości określonej sposobem Rockwella, Vickersa, Brinella, Shore’a i
wytrzymałości na rozciąganie.
Roessle, M.L., Fatemi, a., (2000). Strain-controlled fatigue properties of steels and some simple approximations. International Journal of Fatigue
22, 495–511. doi:10.1016/S0142-1123(00)00026-8
Sanders, P.G., Youngdahl, C.J., Weertman, J.R., (1997). The strength of nanocrystalline metals with and without flaws. Materials Science and
Engineering: A 234–236, 77–82. doi:10.1016/S0921-5093(97)00185-8
Strzelecki, P., (2014). Analytical method for determining fatigue properties of materials and construction elements in high cycle life (in Polish).
Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Przyrodniczy w Bydgoszczy, Bydgoszcz.
Strzelecki, P., Sempruch, J., Nowicki, K., (2015). Comparing guidelines concerning construction of the S-N curve within limited fatigue life
range. Polish Maritime Research 22, 67–74.
Strzelecki, P., Tomaszewski, T., (2016). Application of Weibull distribution to describe S-N curve with using small number specimens, in: AIP
Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing, p. 20007. doi:10.1063/1.4965939
Weibull, W., (1961). Fatigue Testing and analysis of results. Pergamon Press LTD., Oxford.
Zhang, P., Li, S.X., Zhang, Z.F., (2011). General relationship between strength and hardness. Materials Science and Engineering A 529, 62–73.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2011.08.061