loaded structures. It takes into consideration the uncoupling of stress and damage evaluation and has the option of importing non-linear or linear stress results from finite element
analysis (FEA). The multiaxiality is considered with the signed von Mises method. In
the developed Damage Calculation Program (DCP) local temperature-stress-strain behaviour is modelled with an operator of the Prandtl type and damage is estimated by use
of the strain-life approach and Skeltons energy criterion. Material data were obtained
from standard isothermal strain-controlled low cycle fatigue (LCF) tests, with linear parameter interpolation or piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation being used to estimate
values at unmeasured temperature points. The model is shown with examples of constant
temperature loading and random force-temperature history. Additional research was done
regarding the temperature dependency of the K p used in the Neuber approximate formula for stress-strain estimation from linear FEA results. The proposed model enables
computationally fast thermo-mechanical fatigue (TMF) damage estimations for random
load and temperature histories.
Keywords damage accumulation; elastoplasticity; finite element analysis; thermomechanical fatigue.
N O M E N C L A T U R E Amin = minimal cross-section
e = nominal strain
g = cyclic stress-strain curve
i = data point
j = spring-slider segment index
k = temperature index
K = cyclic hardening coefficient
K p = limit load ratio
L = load
LP = full plastification force
LF = initial plastification force
808
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
809
INTRODUCTION
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
810
U. R O S A et al.
Uncoupled analyses
In TMF evaluations, the thermal and mechanical loadings
acting on the specified structure must be considered. In
order to obtain the temperature fields that are later applied together with the mechanical loads in the structural
analyses, an assumption must be made regarding the uncoupling of the thermal and structural analyses. Transient
thermal analyses are performed in order to obtain the desired temperature fields for all load cases. The computed
temperature fields are then applied in combination with
the mechanical loading in the stressstrain finite element
analysis (FEA) analyses.
The second uncoupling regards the separation of the
stressstrain response from the damage calculation. The
stressstrain response together with the temperature fields
are exported for the final damage evaluation into the developed Damage Calculation Program (DCP).
This non-unified approach has been widely and successfully used in TMF evaluations with the Skelton energy
criterion in the automotive industry.2325
Evaluation procedure
The proposed evaluation process is explained in detail below and includes the following important steps:
1 Calculation of the temperature fields for the load history
with transient thermal FEA.
2 Calculation of the stressstrain response for the turning
points in the given load history with FEA. The analysis
can be either linear or nonlinear.
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
811
nr
j (Ti )j (ti )
(2)
j =0
3 From the FEA the stress and temperature histories for all
nodes are exported to the specifically developed DCP.
4 If the stresses have been computed with the linear FEA
the DCP estimates the elastoplastic stresses in the turning
points with the Neuber approximate formula.
5 In the DCP a stressstrain modelling of complete hysteresis loops is performed using the stress-controlled springslider model.18
6 After the stressstrain modelling the rainflow cycle counting is performed, by utilizing the cycle closure method
used in Ref. [18] and the calculation of the equivalent cycle temperature.17,26
7 Damage estimation using the Smith-Watson-Topper parameter14 and the estimation of the dissipated energy is
performed.
(1)
+
= g(, T) =
E(T)
K (T)
are not necessary but are commonly used in fatigue analyses. T, E(T), K (T) and n (T) are temperature, the Young
modulus, the cyclic-hardening coefficient and the cyclichardening exponent, respectively. There is no limitation
however against using any other stressstrain relation that
exhibits elastoplastic behaviour with nonlinear kinematic
hardening.
(3)
1
(j+1 (Tk ) 2j (Tk ) + j1 (Tk ))
r
(4)
are gained from the available isothermal cyclically stable cyclic stressstrain curves, where 1 (Tk ) = 0 (Tk ) = 0.
Fictive yield stresses r j are usually dispersed equidistantly with constant fictive yield stress class width r
between the zero stress and the maximal expected stress
(Fig. 2).
To speed up the computation, input histories of (t), T(t),
material parameters and the Prandtl densities are tabulated by setting the stress increment to r and choosing
a temperature increment of T. The tabulated material
parameters and the Prandtl densities are calculated only
once and stored before the , modelling process beginning at Eq. 2.
Stressstrain modelling
From the FEA results the signed von Mises stress12,13,30 is
calculated using Eq. 5 and exported to the DCP where the
stressstrain modelling with the stress-controlled model
is performed. The symbol SGN in Eq. 5 equals the sign
of the principal stress with the largest magnitude.
1
SVM (t) = SGN (x y )2 + (x z )2
2
2
2
2 1/2
+ (y z )2 + 6 xy
+ xz
+ yz
.
(5)
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
U. R O S A et al.
812
E(T)
2
e
S /E(T)
(6)
LP
,
LF
(7)
(8)
LP (T)
.
LF (T)
(9)
This has been calculated for the maximal surface temperature for the constant temperature field cases shown in
the Examples chapter.
The value K p = 1 has been used for the evaluation of
the nonlinear analyses results and K p = 30, K p = 1 and
the calculated K p (T) for the evaluation of linear analyses
results.
At the moment, the proposed temperature dependency
of K p (T) can be applied with constant temperatures only.
Damage estimation
An appropriate damage estimation method provides the
key to an efficient life-prediction. In the proposed method,
the focus is on employing computationally fast and widely
accepted approaches. This is the reason why the wellknown Smith-Watson-Topper damage parameter1,11,14,32
has been applied as the first damage estimation method.
It includes the influence of the stress and strain amplitude
and the mean stress on the damage and is in accordance
with physical tests in a variety of cases.11,12 Since the temperature during an individual cycle can vary, the equivalent
cycle temperature17,26 T e , as first proposed by Taira,26 and
the cycle closure method, as described by Nagode and others 17,18 , have been used. The cycle closure problem can
be observed in non-isothermal cases as can be seen for two
simulated conditions in Fig. 3 with temperature increase
and temperature decrease during one cycle.
That is why a cycle closure method was introduced by
Nagode and others.18 Given that it is time consuming
to estimate the true cycle closure point, a simple and
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
813
part operates for the majority of its lifetime, and that the
cumulated dissipated energy at stabilization can be considered as a material constant used as a crack initiation
criterion.6,2325
In accordance with this, it has been considered that the
load history is applied in the stabilized state and the dissipated energy has been used for the identification of the
most critical area in the evaluated structure. At the moment in the DCP, the simplified equation16
Wp p
(13)
EXAMPLES DEFINITIONS
(11)
(12)
The aim of the following section is to show that the abovedescribed procedure can be successfully used in TMF
analyses of complex 3D structures. To enable DCP validation, linear and nonlinear FEA with the renowned ANSYS software have been performed and compared to the
results gained by DCP. The stressstrain fields obtained
from the nonlinear FEA have been used as reference to
evaluate the agreement between the material model implemented in the DCP and the material model used in
ANSYS.
In order to facilitate the reduction of computational
times, great care has been put in to the linear FEA in
combination with the Neuber approximate formula. The
influence of K p upon stressstrain trajectory, damage and
dissipated energy has also been studied.
Specimen and material
Figure 4 shows the modified 5 mm thick ASTM International34 specimen with an additional hole of diameter
3 mm; boundary conditions and applied loads are also
shown. The specimen was shortened for the FEA evaluation in the fixation-gripping area to reduce the size of
the model.
The specimen is a commonly used flat specimen for standard LCF tests and is also suitable for tests at elevated
temperatures. A hole was introduced in the centre of the
sample in order to explore the stresses and strains around
such a weak point in the structure. With such a specimen, a
uniaxial test can be used to simulate complex stressstrain
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
814
U. R O S A et al.
Loading
In fatigue evaluations with linear FEA and multiple load
channels, the load superposition is used.11,12 For each applied load direction, a unity load Lk is applied separately on
the structure and the tensor for the load influence factor
ck is calculated. This is later used for the stress calculation
concerning a specific time and location11,12
(t) =
n
ck Lk (t).
(15)
k=1
(16)
(17)
(18)
E(T) (MPa)
K (T) (MPa)
n (T) ()
f (T) (MPa)
f (T) ()
b(T) ()
c(T) ()
23
300
400
500
600
210 000
204 100
187 800
184 800
162 000
842
691
681
497
327
0.118
0.102
0.102
0.077
0.057
736
675
638
473
316
0.266
0.782
0.424
0.320
0.576
0.065
0.064
0.066
0.051
0.038
0.0527
0.6280
0.6170
0.6010
0.6810
405
366
362
308
230
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
(19)
From Eq. 19 it follows that, in general, load superposition cannot be used in thermo-mechanical situations due
to the simultaneous interaction of mechanical and thermal loads. However, load superposition can be used only
with the linear FEA if there are no initial stresses, and if
mechanical and thermal strain change from one time step
to another for the same factor. It is also not possible to
superimpose stresses and strains obtained from separate
force applications with stresses and strains obtained from
separate thermal loads. This is due to different elasticity
matrices, which in the first case is not temperature influenced D = f (T), but is indeed temperature influenced in
the second case D = f (T). The superposition is therefore only possible for linearly computed pure mechanical
stresses and strains that are not influenced with temperature changes.
The later explanation leads to the conclusion that FEA
analyses have to be carried out for each change in temperature and force throughout the load history.
In the paper, two types of validation tests are shown.
At first, this is done with constant temperature fields for
one cycle at the following maximal surface temperatures
on the heated region 20, 300, 400, 500 and 600 C (see
Fig. 4). In these cases, analyses have been performed for
815
one reversed cycle with R = 1, firstly with force amplitude L1 = 12 kN and secondly with force amplitude
L2 = 25 kN. For all temperatures at the lowest force L1 , the
. Yieldgross stresses never exceed cyclic yield stress Rp,0.2
ing is present only in the net section with stress peaks near
the hole. The second load L2 leads to larger yield zones. It
should be emphasized that the heating process produces
different temperature distributions in the cross-sections
causing regions with higher temperature to yield first.
Secondly, the random force and temperature history
(Fig. 6) has been applied with linear force and temperature changes between turning points. This is a synthetic
load history with a combination of highlow heating rates
and hold times. Time dependent phenomena like heating
rates and strain rates do not influence elastoplastic material models at all. The temperature history is related to the
highest surface temperature on the specimen. The exact
applied force-temperature combination has high heating
rates and its exact path is rarely found in any industrial
application, but is employed due to its complexity and
ability to demonstrate the broad applicability of the proposed model. The turning points define the number of
structural analyses required, which amounts to a total of
22 analyses for the 30 s history. The analysed force and
temperature loading combinations are shown with circle
points in Fig. 6.
R E S U LT S
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
816
U. R O S A et al.
FEA for different K p -s. Due to different interactions between mechanical and thermal strains, the location of the
most damaged node can move if the temperature field
changes even if the mechanical force remains unchanged.
For validation purposes, two nodes were selected (see
Fig. 7). The most damaged node in the linear analysis at
20 C (node number 2288) and the node with the average
damage value in the highly damaged area (node number
7266). Node 2288 was also used for stressstrain trajectory
validation for the most complex random loading. More
detailed analyses were made at 20 C in order to eliminate
errors caused by interpolation of temperature-dependant
material parameters.
A complete set of damage and dissipated energy values for L1 = 12 kN and random loading are given in
Appendix A. The values for the second load level L2 =
25 kN and constant temperatures are tabulated in
Appendix B.
Stressstrain trajectories
Stressstrain trajectories were obtained directly from the
exported signed von Mises stresses and the signed total
mechanical von Mises strains as provided by the nonlinear solutions in the ANSYS software. Stressstrain paths
obtained by DCP from nonlinear FEA stress results, as
well as those from linear FEA stresses for two distinct
K p -s, are also presented. In the figures below, the following notation is used
1 Stresses and strains that were gained from nonlinear FEA.
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
817
Linear FEA
By comparing stressstrain trajectories first computed
with the linear FEA and then transformed with the
Neuber approximate formula, the influence of K p upon
nonlinear material behaviour can be studied. For L1
(Fig. 8), where negligible yielding has occurred, K p = 30
and K p (T) gained from Eq. 9 result in nearly the same
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
818
U. R O S A et al.
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
819
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
820
U. R O S A et al.
The current paper is an extension of three previous papers by Nagode and others1719 and deals with the stresscontrolled strain-life approach for the damage and dissipated energy estimation of arbitrary thermo-mechanically
loaded 3D structures. It is a non-unified approach incorporating the uncoupling of transient thermal calculations,
stressstrain calculations and damage or dissipated energy
estimations. The method uses material data obtained from
standard strain-controlled LCF tests carried out at distinct but constant temperatures. The multiaxiality is considered with the signed von Mises equivalent stress that is
exported to the DCP, allowing computationally fast material behaviour modelling and damage or dissipated energy
estimation. The main focus has been put on the application of the proposed method in combination with stresses
computed using linear FEA. To improve the agreement
between the nonlinear FEA and those from linear FEA
in combination with the Neuber approximate formula,
a temperature dependant K p (T) has been introduced. It
has been established that K p has significant impact upon
the estimated damage and the dissipated energy especially
at larger yielding. This may lead to non-conservative estimates for high K p . However, if K p approaches unity,
conservative estimates can be expected. Linear FEA in
combination with DCP is appropriate if yielding is not
pronounced. This will be further investigated on the cold
part of the exhaust system. Linear FEA and DCP can only
be used if K p is properly selected.
REFERENCES
1 Chen, X., Xu, S. and Huang, D. (1999) A critical plane-strain
energy density criterion for multiaxial low-cycle fatigue under
non-proportional loading. Fatigue Fract. Engng Mater. Struct.
22, 679686.
2 Li, B., Reis, L. and de Freitas, M. (2006) Simulation of cyclic
stress/strain evolutions for multiaxial fatigue life prediction. Int.
J. Fatigue 28, 451458.
3 You, B. R. and Lee, S. B. (1996) A critical review on multiaxial
fatigue assessments of metals. Int. J. Fatigue 18, 235244.
4 Papadopoulos, I. V., Davoli, P., Gorla, C., Filippini, M. and
Bernasconi, A. (1997) A comparative study of multiaxial
high-cycle fatigue for metals. Int. J. Fatigue 19, 219235.
5 Macha, E. and Sonsino, C. M. (1999) Energy criteria of
multiaxial fatigue failure. Fatigue Fract. Engng Mater. Struct. 22,
10531070.
6 Skelton, R. P. (1991) Energy criterion for high temperature low
cycle fatigue failure. Mater. Sci. Tech. 7, 42739.
7 Wohler,
A. (1870) Uber
die Festigkeits-Versuche mit Eisen und
Stahl. Zeitschrift fur
Bauwesen XX, 73106.
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
28
29
30
31
32
821
A P P E N D I X A : R E S U LT S F O R L 1 A N D R A N D O M L O A D I N G
Random loading
FEA
K p ()
DN2288 ()
Dmax ()
Linear
30
9.75105
2.17
9.75105
2.17
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
2.16
1
30
8.79103
1.04104
2.68105
9.66105
3.16101
2.25
0.99
2.51
8.79103
1.04104
2.68105
1.07104
3.16101
2.25
0.99
2.60
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
1.97
1
30
1.51102
1.05104
3.17105
1.31104
8.48101
2.74
1.19
2.66
1.99102
1.22104
4.29105
1.31104
8.98101
2.86
1.41
2.66
Linear
Linear
nonlinear
Linear
1
1.95
1
30
2.51102
1.40104
3.84105
2.47104
1.17102
2.94
1.19
2.70
2.74102
1.40104
4.86105
2.47104
1.17102
2.94
1.44
2.91
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
2.06
1
30
4.09102
2.49104
1.07104
5.05104
1.10102
2.86
1.59
3.42
6.79102
2.70104
1.07104
5.05104
1.44102
3.12
1.59
3.42
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
1
30
1
30
1
1
1.52
5.05104
8.53105
9.33104
2.14
1.07103
8.88102
3.42
1.11
1.40101
1.81104
1.61101
1.52
5.05104
4.26104
4.78103
12
1.07103
8.88102
3.42
2.65
5.33101
7.30105
1.64101
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822
822
U. R O S A et al.
A P P E N D I X B : R E S U LT S F O R L2
FEA
K p ()
DN2288 ()
Dmax ()
Linear
30
3.29103
1.77101
3.29103
1.77101
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
2.16
1
30
1
9.15102
3.16102
3.32103
3.49104
1.26102
6.74101
1.77101
2.66
9.15102
3.16102
3.32103
3.49104
1.26102
6.74101
1.77101
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
1.97
1
30
1
2.75101
3.07102
2.58103
3.55104
2.42102
1.13102
1.93101
3.12
2.75101
4.14102
2.74103
3.55104
2.42102
1.36102
1.93101
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
1.95
1
30
1
6.54101
5.62102
5.09103
3.38105
9.61102
1.57102
1.97101
1.06
6.54101
7.27102
5.40103
3.38105
9.61102
2.06102
1.99101
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
Linear
1
2.06
1
30
1
5.58101
1.25101
8.97103
3.04105
5.43102
1.71102
2.16101
2.53
8.41101
1.25101
9.73103
7.55105
6.11102
1.71102
2.16101
Linear
Linear
Nonlinear
1
30
1
1
8.97103
3.64101
8.43106
2.16101
2.45102
5.11
9.73103
4.84101
1.96108
2.16101
2.57102
c 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation
c 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 30, 808822