Abstract
One of the most challenging task in field of multiaxial fatigue is fatigue lifetime estimation of components loaded with multiaxial non-proportional variable amplitude loading. While this task consists of multiple smaller problems, one of the most crucial ones is loading cycles identification (and extraction) for future use with multiaxial damage criterions. By now, several cycle counting methods have been proposed for multiaxial loading conditions. The most wildly accepted methods are Bannantine-Socie’s method and Wang-Brown’s method (which has been later modified by Meggiolaro and Castro). The aim of this paper is the comparison of newly developed method with Bannantine-Socie’s method and Wang-Brown’s method. The new cycle counting method is based on cycle identification in relative maximum shear stress histories (calculated from multiaxial loading histories). The extracted data than composes part of each loading channel of multiaxial loading histories corresponding to identified loading cycle. The comparison of chosen methods has been done by using data sets created by authors as well as using real measured data from real operation.
Highlights
While multiaxial fatigue lifetime estimation is by today still very actual topic in field of material fatigue research, few articles can be found dealing with problem of multiaxial cycle counting methods
By today multiple multiaxial cycle counting techniques have been proposed, but due to complexity of fatigue lifetime estimation under multiaxial variable nonproportional loading conditions, the majority of cycle counting method has very strict rules of usage and can be use universally [1,2]
The aim of this article is to compare these two methods with cycle counting procedure proposed by authors based on cycle identification in relative maximum shear stress histories
Summary
While multiaxial fatigue lifetime estimation is by today still very actual topic in field of material fatigue research, few articles can be found dealing with problem of multiaxial cycle counting methods. Correct cycle identification is key factor in successful process of fatigue lifetime estimation. By today multiple multiaxial cycle counting techniques have been proposed, but due to complexity of fatigue lifetime estimation under multiaxial variable nonproportional loading conditions, the majority of cycle counting method has very strict rules of usage and can be use universally (usually they are connected to specific multiaxial damage criterion) [1,2]. As far authors know only two widely accepted universal methods have been proposed by today. The aim of this article is to compare these two methods with cycle counting procedure proposed by authors based on cycle identification in relative maximum shear stress histories (calculated from multiaxial loading histories). For the purpose of this article three cycle counting methods will be discussed, two of them are well known and established methods, and one method is developed and prepared by authors
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
