Crack Paths 2009

E L CH D Gkt=3 0 % IF(TiNb)UCkt=3 0 %

12350505050

(M P a )

b)

IF(TiNb) G Akt=3 0 % (TiNb)HDkGt=3 0 %

pitl u d e

S t r e s s A m

104

105

106

107

Fatigue Life (Nf)

Figure 3. b) S-N data given as stress amplitude for kt = 3.

The data in Figure 3a indicate that for kt = 1, 10%pre-strain leads to improved

fatigue performance in both the E L C and the IF (TiNb) G A alloy reflecting the

improved tensile properties arising from the strain hardening. In stress amplitude terms,

the IF (TiNbP) H D Galloy performs best and the IF (TiNb) G A alloy the worst. Data

for the IF (TiNbPB) alloy lies between these two limits. The alloys appear to maintain

their relative ranking at all lives. Figure 3b indicates that the high cycle fatigue

performance (>2x106 cycles) of specimens with kt = 3 is very similar, but that their low

cycle fatigue performance is different. The E L Calloy performs best followed by the IF

(TiNb) G A alloy. The interpretation of this is that high cycle fatigue life reflects

resistance to crack initiation which is similar in these alloys and therefore probably

governed by cyclic plasticity at the notch root, while short life behaviour reflects crack

growth resistance and hence the yield strength (ease of plastic deformation) as the grain

size is fairly constant across these alloys.

Fatigue performance is characterised in terms of the ratio of stress amplitude over

yield strength in Figure 4. At lives > 2x106 cycles and kt = 1 (Figure 4a) the endurance

limits for all alloys except the IF (TiNbP) G A data fall into a fairly narrow band

between (0.9-1.0)σy. The IF (TiNbP) G A alloy has an endurance limit value of around

1.07. At shorter lives (<105 cycles) there is little difference between the IF (TiNbPB)

GA, IF (TiNbP) G Aand IF (TiNbP) H D Ggrades, while the E L CH D Gand IF (TiNb)

G A grades start to perform substantially better. The IF (TiNb) G Agrade appears to

performs best at around 2x104 cycles.

35