1. The fatigue crack development rate in steels II, III in off-center tension of compact samples is practically the same. In the 213–673°K temperature range the fatigue crack development rate in off-center tension of samples of steel III (f=15 Hz) is higher than in cantilever bending of samples of steel II (f=25 Hz). Obviously, the reasion causing the decrease in the fatigue crack development rate in steel II in comparison with steel III is the difference in the loading methods — plane bending and off-center tension. 2. An increase in the test temperature from 293 to 673°K has an insignificant influence on the fatigue crack development resistance of steels I and III, but increases by 1.5–2 times the crack development rate in steel II in the medium-amplitude portion of kinetic fatigue failure curve. 3. At low temperatures recurrence of loading significantly reduces the fracture toughness characteristics K1fc and Kkfc of steels I, II, and III in comparison with the fracture toughness in static loading. For example, for steel II in the 183–213°K temperature range, KIc/K1fc=1.6–1.8. For steel I at room temperature, the value of K1fc agrees with the critical stress intensity factor Kc measured based on the maximum force Pmax. 4. At 213°K steel III has a higher brittle fracture resitance in static loading than steels I, II. From an analysis of literature data and also of microstructural investigations made in this work, it follows that the obvious reason for the reduction in KIc is the presence in steels I, II of larger nonmetallic inclusions than in steel III. 5. At room temperature steels I, II, and III have practically the same fatigue crack development resistance (in the whole range of its rate) and satisfy the ASME cyclic crack resistance requirements for shell materials.
Read full abstract