Issue 72

A. Zanichelli et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 72 (2025) 225-235; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.72.16

10 7

(a)

(b)

N f,cal [cycles] 10 5 10 6

2x

2x

CONSERVATIVE

CONSERVATIVE

10 7

7

(c)

(d)

10 6

6

N f,cal [cycles]

2x

2x

CONSERVATIVE

CONSERVATIVE

10 5

5

10 5

10 5

10 6

10 7

10 6

10 7

N f,exp [cycles]

N f,exp [cycles]

Figure 1: Comparison between analytical, N f,cal , and experimental, N f,exp , fatigue lives for specimen group: (a) No. 1, (b) No. 2, (c) No. 3, and (d) No. 4.

 [°]

Group No.

Test No.

( H at contact edge) 

 H at max Ruiz parameter 

1

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9

11

17 16 15 14 14 17 16 15 14 14 14 15 14 14 15

9 8 7 7

2

11 10

9 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6

T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

3

4

15 Table 3: Crack nucleation orientation,  , computed through the present methodology for each test considered, when the hot-spot, H , is assumed either at the contact edge or where the maximum value of the Ruiz parameter is attained.

230