0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

An Energy-Based Uniaxial Fatigue Life Prediction Method for Commonly Used Gas Turbine Engine Materials

[+] Author and Article Information
Onome E. Scott-Emuakpor

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 206 West, 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210

Herman Shen1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 206 West, 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210shen.1@osu.edu

Tommy George

 Air Force Research Laboratory, Propulsion Directorate, 1950 Fifth Street, Bldg. 18, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433

Charles Cross

 Air Force Research Laboratory, Propulsion Directorate, 1950 Fifth Street, Bldg. 18, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433shen.1@osu.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 130(6), 062504 (Aug 28, 2008) (15 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2943152 History: Received January 05, 2008; Revised February 19, 2008; Published August 28, 2008

A new energy-based life prediction framework for calculation of axial and bending fatigue results at various stress ratios has been developed. The purpose of the life prediction framework is to assess the behavior of materials used in gas turbine engines, such as Titanium 6Al-4V (Ti 6Al-4V) and Aluminum 6061-T6 (Al 6061-T6). The work conducted to develop this energy-based framework consists of the following entities: (1) a new life prediction criterion for axial and bending fatigue at various stress ratios for Al 6061-T6, (2) the use of the previously developed improved uniaxial energy-based method to acquire fatigue life prior to endurance limit region (Scott-Emuakpor, 2007, “Development of an Improved High Cycle Fatigue Criterion  ,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 129, pp. 162–169), (3) and the incorporation of a probabilistic energy-based fatigue life calculation scheme to the general uniaxial life criterion (the first entity of the framework), which is capable of constructing prediction intervals based on a specified percent confidence level. The precision of this work was verified by comparison between theoretical approximations and experimental results from recently acquired Al 606-T6 and Ti 6Al-4V data. The comparison shows very good agreement, thus validating the capability of the framework to produce accurate uniaxial fatigue life predictions for commonly used gas turbine engine materials.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Dimensions (cm) of the ASTM fatigue dog-bone specimen (14)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

TEFF laboratory's 22,000lb uniaxial MTS system corporation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

MTS clamping and measurement devices (1)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Bending fatigue specimen (1)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Vibration-based fatigue experiment setup (1)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Fully reversed tension/compression fatigue life comparison for Al 6061-T6 (1)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Fully reversed tension/compression cyclic strain energy comparison for Al 6061-T6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Stress distribution as a result of the respective uniaxial loading application (17)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

S-N fully reversed tension/compression and bending fatigue life comparison (Al 6061-T6)(17)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Simulated monotonic stress-strain curve

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Hysteresis loop for one cycle with mean stress effect (Al 6061-T6)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Simulated hysteresis loop comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Simulated hysteresis loop with mean stress effect (non shaded area)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Tension/compression fatigue life comparison with mean stress effect of 70MPa (Al 6061-T6)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Tension/compression fatigue life comparison with mean stress effect of 138MPa (Al 6061-T6)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Bending fatigue data at various R values for Al 6061-T6 (7-8)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Bending fatigue comparison at various R values for Al 6061-T6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Fully reversed tension/compression fatigue life results for Ti 6Al-4V

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Monotonic results for Ti 6Al-4V

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Fully reversed tension/compression and bending fatigue life results for Ti 6Al-4V

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Tension/compression fatigue comparison prior to the endurance limit for Ti 6Al-4V

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Semilog plot of C versus alternating σ for Ti 6Al 4V

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Plot of σc versus alternating stress σ for Ti 6Al 4V

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Standardized residual versus fitted values of σ-σc analysis (Ti 6Al-4V)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Fully reversed tension/compression fatigue life comparison at 95% confidence (Ti 6Al-4V)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Fully reversed tension/compression fatigue life comparison at 99% confidence (Ti 6Al-4V)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

Fully reversed bending fatigue life comparison at 95% confidence (Ti 6Al-4V)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 28

Fully reversed bending fatigue life comparison at 99% confidence (Ti 6Al-4V)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In