Multiaxial Fatigue UGM May 2012 Heyes Compatibility Mode
Multiaxial Fatigue UGM May 2012 Heyes Compatibility Mode
Multiaxial Fatigue UGM May 2012 Heyes Compatibility Mode
Multiaxial Fatigue
What is it?
Why does it matter?
What can we do about it?
Dr Peter Heyes
HBM UK Ltd
1 May 2012
2
Quantifying multiaxiality uniaxial loading
Thin sheet loaded uniformly along
the edge
Largest principal stress is aligned
with direction of applied load P
Principal stress (biaxiality) ratio
This is a PROPORTIONAL loading
2
0
1
2
= =
a
P
3
Quantifying multiaxiality biaxial loading
Inflated balloon (assume
approximately spherical)
Membrane stress equal in all
directions
Principal stress (biaxiality) ratio
This is PROPORTIONAL too!
2
1
1
2
= =
a
4
Quantifying multiaxiality pure torsion/shear
Wrap sheet around to create cylinder
Apply torque T
Torsion creates pure shear stress state
Principal stresses inclined at 45 degrees to axis
Principal stress (biaxiality) ratio
T
1
1
2
= =
a
PROPORTIONAL again
5
Classic torsion fatigue failure
6
Quantifying multiaxiality combined torsion and tension
Principal stress directions vary (+/- 45 degrees)
Biaxiality ratio is not constant
Loading is NON-PROPORTIONAL
1
T
P
P(t)
T(t)
0 1 a
7
Quantifying multiaxiality - definitions
Orientation AND biaxiality ratio constant => PROPORTIONAL LOADING
Special cases of PROPORTIONAL loading
4Uniaxial (a = 0)
4Pure shear (a = -1)
4Equibiaxial (a = 1)
Orientation AND/OR biaxiality ratio vary => NON-PROPORTIONAL LOADING
Component surface
z
y
x
2
Free surface stresses only
Stress state is 2-D or plane
stress
Orientation
p
of
1
Biaxiality ratio a
2 1
1
2
= a
8
Multiaxial loads do not always cause multiaxial loading!
Cylinder with hole
Subjected to out-of-phase loads
Critical location at the edge of the stress
concentration has UNIAXIAL loading
Geometry often gives rise to proportional or
even uniaxial stresses even under complex
loading
1
P
P(t)
T(t)
T
9
Multiaxial Assessment in DesignLife standard method
Stress tensor history may be thought of as a
cloud of data points in a 3-D plot
Proportional loading points fall on a straight line
through the origin
Orientation of cloud gives mean biaxiality ratio
and principal stress directions
Aspect ratio (from principal moments of inertia)
and offset give measure of non-proportionality
equibiaxial
pure shear
uniaxial
10
Visualisation of multiaxiality using virtual gauge and rosette glyphs
Why does it matter? Effect on fatigue damage
a 0
AbsMaxP ok
a 0
Signed
Tresca ok
Proportional loadings - biaxiality ratio influences type of fatigue damage
and choice of damage parameter
Non-proportional need method to capture varying stress orientation!
12
Non-proportional: Wang-Brown cycle counting and damage parameter
( )
( ) ( )
c
f f
b
f
mean n f
n
N N
E S
S
2 2
. 2
1 1
.
,
max
+
+
=
Case A (a 0)
Case B (a 0)
A
ij ij ij
=
*
C
D
Equivalent Strain
Time
E
F
Reversals determined
from relative
equivalent strain
13
Why does it matter? Plasticity (uniaxial and proportional)
Only turning points of pseudo-strain (or stress) required
Hysteresis loops estimated using Neuber rule (or Seeger-Heuler)
Proportional loading considered by using Hoffmann-Seeger rule to
convert to von Mises before the notch correction and back afterwards.
Why does it matter? Plasticity (non-proportional)
Yield point replaced by yield
surface (von Mises)
Need a multiaxial plasticity model
with kinematic hardening rule
4Mroz-Garud
4Chaboche
4Jiang-Sehitoglu
Response is path dependent
incremental notch and plasticity
rules required!
15
Notch model validation data from Barkey et al 1994
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Axial
strain (%)
Shear
strain (%)
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear
strain (%)
Axial
strain (%)
Experiment
Neuber
Glinka
Notched round shaft
1070 steel
Axial and torsion
loading
Out-of-phase,
rectangular loading
path
2 load levels
16
What can we do about it?
Use sensible defaults in standard EN engine (AMP stress, Standard
assessment, Hoffmann-Seeger, Morrow)
For cases where some locations are multiaxial, consider using auto
multiaxial option in standard EN engine
For non-proportional cases, consider using multiaxial EN engine
(uses Jiang-Sehitoglu plasticity model, multiaxial notch correction,
Wang-Brown cycle count and damage model)
Pre-configured multiaxial glyph provided
Set Beta-feature preference to enable
HCF try Dang Van
17
NonProportionalityFactor
0 PROP
< 0.1
0.1 PROP
< 0.25
0.25
PROP
Mean
Biaxiality
Ratio
-1 a < 0.6 Critical Plane
Hoffmann-Seeger
No MSC
Wang-
Brown with
mean
Jiang-
Sehitoglu/
Neuber
-0.6 a <
0.25
Abs Max
Principal,
Hoffmann-
Seeger,
Morrow
Critical
Plane
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
0.25 a <
0.6
Signed
Tresca
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
TBCPS
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
0.6 a 1 TBCPS
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
TBCPS
Hoffmann-
Seeger
Morrow
Automated smart multiaxial calculation using standard glyph
Similar to current auto
multiaxial mode in EN
engine, but
completely user
configurable
Full multiaxial solution
applied to most non-
proportional
nodes/elements
Sophisticated, but easy
to use!
18
Validation case: SAE shaft with in-phase and out-of-phase loads