Page 143 - Biaxial Multiaxial Fatigue and Fracture
P. 143

128                    R.P KAUFMAN AND TH. TOPPER














                                  Fig. 3.  Biaxial fatigue system [28].


           Specimen Design
           Two different specimen designs were used in this study.  Specimen design (A) shown in Fig. 4
           was developed by Elkholy [29]. During this study, specimens with a 0.45 mm wall thickness and
            a  14 mm  gauge length were  used  for the 456 BHN material.  Stresses  up  to -800 MPa were
            applied  without  buckling.  To achieve  stresses larger  than -800  MPa,  a  wall  thickness  thinner
           than 0.45 mm was required, since the specimen design (A) failed in buckling at this stress level.
           Consequently,  a  new  specimen  design  was  developed  to  achieve  higher  stresses  without
           buckling.








                                                                     R=25
                                                                    2 mm gauge
                                                                    length

                                  A                       B
                                  Fig. 4.  Specimen designs A and B.


             In  the  present  test  program,  the  stresses in  the  critical  gauge  length  were  restricted  to the
           linear elastic region of metal behavior.  Consequently, a linear elastic finite element program, I-
           DEAS by SDRC (version 7m), was used to determine the stresses and strains in the 2 mm gauge
           length of specimen B.  The finite element model was used to determine the relationship between
           the imposed end loads, the applied pressures, the stresses and the strains in the  gauge length.
           These results were verified  experimentally with internal  and external 2 mm, 0"-45"-90"  rosette
           strain gauges.  A  maximum difference of  4% was found between  the experimentally obtained
           strains and the FEM  analysis.  These differences can be primarily  attributed to neglecting the
           variations  in  wall  thickness  in  the  gauge length  of  the  specimens.  Following  machining,  the
           thickness of the wall of the tubular specimens varied by as much as 0.03 mm.
   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148