PSI - Issue 68

Robert Basan et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 68 (2025) 782–787 R. Basan et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2025) 000–000

785

4

5. Results Fatigue lives data on aluminum alloys determined using Uniform Material Law (1) are shown in Fig. 1 in separate diagrams for low-cycle (LCF) and high-cycle (HCF) fatigue lives of low strength (LS) and high strength (HS) materials. Differences in partial estimates are clearly visible. Also, the amount of scatter in fatigue lives of low strength and high strength aluminum alloys differs notably both in low-cycle and in high-cycle fatigue region justifying considering them separately.

Fig. 1. Experimental vs. estimated numbers of load reversals, log(2 N f ) of aluminum alloys determined with the Uniform Material Law for low strength (LS) and high strength (HS) materials in low-cycle (LCF) and high-cycle fatigue (HCF) lives ranges.

All calculated values of evaluation criteria ( E f (3), ( E a ) Dset , ( E a ) total , Ē ) are provided in Table 1 for aluminum alloys and in Table 2 for titanium alloys. A higher value of individual criterion, implies better estimation with value of 1 for “ideal” estimation. Even though Modified Park-Song’s method and FKM Method were originally developed for wrought aluminum alloys only, in some cases in practice they may erroneously be used for titanium alloys so they were included in the current analysis for this materials group nevertheless. Values of evaluation criteria calculated for these two methods are written in italic in Table 2.