Issue 42

P. J. Huffman et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 42 (2017) 74-84; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.42.09

1.0E‐2

Peter Huffman for R=0.5 MB_03: Experimental Data MB_05: Experimental Data

1.0E‐3

1.0E‐4

1.0E‐5

da/dN (mm/cycle)

R=0.5

1.0E‐6

200

1600

1000

500

 K (N.mm ‐3/2 )

b)

1.0E‐2

Huffman model for R=0.75 MB_06: Experimental Data

1.0E‐3

1.0E‐4

1.0E‐5

da/dN (mm/cycle)

R=0.75

1.0E‐6

1000

200

500

1600

 K (N.mm ‐3/2 )

c)

1.0E‐2

MB‐02: Experimental Data ‐ R=0.0 MB‐04: Experimental Data ‐ R=0.0 MB‐03: Experimental Data ‐ R=0.5 MB‐05: Experimental Data ‐ R=0.5 MB‐06: Experimental Data ‐ R=0.75

1.0E‐3

Huffman model: R=0.0 Huffman model: R=0.5 Huffman model: R=0.75

1.0E‐4

1.0E‐5

da/dN (mm/cycle)

R=0 + R=0.5 + R=0.75

1.0E‐6

200

1600

500

1000

 K (N.mm ‐3/2 )

d) Figure 6. Fatigue crack growth rate of P355NL1 steel obtained using the Huffman model, as per reference [1]: a) R=0; b) R=0.5; c) R=0.75; d) R=0 + R=0.5 + R=0.75.

82