Microsoft Word - numero_39_art_16 da rifare M. Muñiz Calvente et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.39.16 160 A probabilistic approach for multiaxial fatigue criteria M. Muñiz Calvente, S. Blasón, A. Fernández Canteli Department of Construction and Manufacturing Engineering, Univ. of Oviedo, 33203 Gijón, Spain munizcmiguel@uniovi.es, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1769-2309 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8071-9223 A. de Jesús, J. Correia Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, FEUP, University of Porto, Portugal http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1059-715X http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4148-9426 ABSTRACT. Models proposed to study the multiaxial fatigue damage phenomenon generally lack probabilistic interpretation due to their deterministic form. This implies failure compulsory happening at the plane exhibiting the maximum damage value, whereas the remaining planes are disregarded. Nevertheless, the random orientation of the predominant defect evidences the possibility of failure being initiated as a function of the predominant defect presence without requiring, necessarily, maximum values of the damage parameter, which emphasizes the need of introducing probabilistic concepts into the failure prediction analysis. In this paper, a probabilistic model is presented that enables the failure probability to be found for any selected plane orientation by considering the damage gradient as a parameter for both proportional and non-proportional loading. The applicability of the model is elucidated by means of an example. Assuming the cdf for the local failure of the material to be known, the probability of failure is calculated for a cross shaped specimen in which shift between the principal stresses xx and yy ranges from 0º to 180º. KEYWORDS. Fatigue Weibull Model; Multiaxial Fatigue; Generalized Local Model. Citation: Muñiz Calvente, M., Blasón, S., de Jesús, A., Correia, J., Fernández Canteli, A., A probabilistic approach for multiaxial fatigue criteria, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165. Received: 11.06.2016 Accepted: 10.10.2016 Published: 01.01.2017 Copyright: © 2017 This is an open access article under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. INTRODUCTION sually, models proposed to study the multiaxial fatigue damage phenomenon are applied in their deterministic form. This implies failure always happening compulsory at the plane exhibiting the maximum damage, whereas the remaining planes are disregarded. Nevertheless, the random orientation of the predominant defect evidences U http://www.gruppofrattura.it/pdf/rivista/numero39/audio/16.mp3 M. Muñiz Calvente et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.39.16 161 the possibility of failure being initiated as a function of the predominant defect presence without requiring maximum values of the damage parameter, which emphasizes the need of introducing probabilistic concepts in the failure prediction analysis. The generalization of the probabilistic fatigue model of Castillo-Canteli [1] proposed by Muniz-Calvente et al. [2] allows the primary Weibull cdf of failure to be derived for any failure parameter, regardless of its distribution. In this way, any multiaxial damage value can be related to a number of cycles for a certain probability of failure. Once this relation is established, the probability of failure for any of the orientation planes can be calculated as a function of the local multiaxial damage value and, by extension, the global probability of failure for the component can be determined from the survival probabilities for all the planes assuming the weakest link principle. From a purely deterministic viewpoint, two specimens exhibiting the same maximum damage value would yield the same lifetime, what contradicts the inherent scatter of the experimental data, which must be necessarily taken into account. Moreover, a deterministic approach is insensitive to the variation of the damage parameter in planes adjacent to the critical one thus ignoring the angular interval at which failure is likely to happen. On the contrary, the probabilistic model proposed in this paper enables the failure probability to be found for any plane orientation, distinct from the one related to the maximum damage, by considering the local damage value in each plane. The main objective of this study is to determine the probability of failure resulting for each plane orientation by considering a suitable damage parameter as the generalized parameter (GP) causing failure. In order to take into account the variation of the GP for the different planes, the extension of the GLM to fatigue problems [2] is considered. The GLM stablishes that the probability of failure for a plane exhibiting a certain value of the generalized parameter (GP) can be obtained by using the primary failure cumulative distribution function (PFCDF):                      CNBGP P )log()log( exp1 (1) where N is the number of cycles and  ,  ,  , B , C are, respectively, the Weibull parameters estimated from the iterative process shown in Fig.1a and explained in the following section. The applicability of the model is elucidated by means of an example. Assuming the cdf for the local failure of the material to be known, the probability of failure is calculated for a cross shaped specimen in which shift between the principal stresses xx and yy ranges from 0º to 180º. PROBABILISTIC MULTIAXIAL FATIGUE MODEL ig. 1a illustrates the iterative process applied for deriving the PFCDF that relates damage parameter exhibit at each plane studied to a certain probability of failure. In the following, each step is explained in detail: Step 1: Performing an experimental program: To perform an experimental program using different biaxial loading ranges and to obtain the fatigue life for each experiment Step 2: Calculation of multiaxial fatigue parameter: The different biaxial loading ranges selected in the previous step are using to obtain the values of GP for each plane of the specimen. Some examples of the results of this step are found in Fig. 3. Step 3: Equivalent angle interval for each experiment: The equivalent angle interval, ieqA , , is defined as the angle interval that subject to the maximum GP value occurring at test failure would have the same probability of failure than the real distribution of the GP at failure. It is given by:              CNBGP SPA ref refiieq )log()log( )1log( int,, (2) where iPint, is the global probability of failure [3]: F M. Muñiz Calvente et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.39.16 162                       nj jij ref j ni Sfaili CNBGP A A PP ij ...1...1 ,int, )log()log( exp1)1(1    (3) where jA is the angle interval assigned to each value of ijGP , which is the damage value for the plane j of the specimen i. To start the iteration process, an initial estimation of ieqA , , close to 40º, must be assumed because it depends on the values of B, C and the three Weibull parameters, which are still unknown. Figure 1: a) Iterative process applied to fit the PFCDF; b) Material plane selected for the projection of the normal and shear stresses [10]; c) Difference between MCC and MCE multiaxial fatigue criteria [10]. Step 4: Estimation of B and C: The estimation of B and C must be obtained by minimizing the least square equation proposed in [1] with respect to B, C and 1 , 2 , … t for different sizes: 2 1 log log          i i i i CGP BNQ  (4) where  is the median value for each of the different equivalent angle intervals obtained in the previous step, n is the sample size and iGP and iN are the maximum value of the critical parameter and the number of cycles to failure of the i-th specimen, respectively. Step 5: Estimation of Weibull parameters: The probability of failure for each of the specimens is obtained using a plotting point position rule [4]: 4.0 3.0    N i P (5) a) b) c) M. Muñiz Calvente et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.39.16 163 Finally, the results are obtained by fitting Eq.(1) to a straight line using a probabilistic paper or a Matlab subroutine [5]. Step 6: Convergence of the model: When the variation of the sum of all the parameters becomes less than a certain threshold,  , the fitting process is considered to be fulfilled.    111 iiiiii (6) Otherwise, the iterative process continues returning to step 3. EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION any multiaxial fatigue limits criteria, such as Sines [6] or Crossland [7] criteria, are based on the calculation of a equivalence shear stress amplitude, aJ2 , which becomes quite complex to be obtained for general multiaxial loading [8]. Some examples of models to handle the multiaxial fatigue damage phenomenon are the Maximum Circumscribe Circle (MCC) and the Maximum Circumscribe Ellipse (MCE) models, which propose the calculation of the equivalent shear stress amplitude as proposed by Papadopoulos [9] and Freitas et al. [10]. Both multiaxial fatigue criteria are based on the calculation of the curve described by the shear stress in the critical plane during a cycle. With the aim of calculating the path described by the shear stress, it is necessary to define a material plane (See Fig. 1b), Δ, passing through the selected point and assuming a biaxial loading state, i.e.:                       000 0)sin(0 00)sin( 000 00 00 , , yyayy axx yy xx wt wt      In order to evaluate the stress vector T acting on the plane Δ passing through the point considered, a local coordinate system is defined by three unit vectors:      0)cos()sin( )sin()sin()cos()cos()cos( )cos()sin()sin()cos()sin(       l r n where n is the vector perpendicular to the plane and r and l are vectors in the plane, which define an orthogonal basis with the previous one.  and  are the angles between these vectors and the xyz axes. Thus, the stress vector T acting on the plane can be obtained by the Cauchy's theorem:  0)sin()sin()cos()sin(·  yyxxnT  Then, the stress vector could be decomposed in two stresses: a normal stress, nn , that changes in magnitude but not in direction during a cycle of loading; and a shear stress,  , that changes in magnitude and direction along each loading cycle, and can be decomposed in two directions rr and ll :      yyxxll yyxxrr yyxxnn Tl Tr Tn       )sin()cos()sin('· )(sin)(cos)sin()cos('· )(sin)(cos)(sin'· 22 222 M M. Muñiz Calvente et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.39.16 164 The variation of the shear stress, , during a cycle defines a closed curve ,  , that is different for each plane passing through the selected point. As a consequence the equivalent shear stress amplitude aJ2 , which is a function of the MCC or MCE that could envelop  (See Fig. 1c), is a function of  and  . In other words, ),(2 aJ . Figure 2: Distribution of ),(2 aJ calculated by the MCC and MCE criteria for 1,,  ayyaxx  and  60300yy ; MCM and MCE criteria differ in that the first one is based on the calculation of the minimum radius ( aR ) of the circumference circumscribing the shear stress path, aa RJ 2 ; whilst the second one is based on the combination of the two radios ( aR - bR ) of the minimum ellipse that circumscribes the shear stress path baa RRJ 2 . Fig. 1c shows the difference between the two multiaxial fatigue criteria. Fig. 2 displays some examples of the aJ2 distribution over all planes (all combinations of  and  ), for different angular offsets  60300yy , assuming unit values of axx, and ayy, . As can be seen, there is a difference that depends on the angular offset applied ( yy ). Imagine that an experimental program proves that the minimum value of aJ2 producing failure at a certain number of cycles N happens to be 0.7 (see Fig. 2), that is, any plane subject to a 7.02 aJ could fail. This methodology allows us to evaluate the local probability of failure for any plane subjected to a value of aJ2 during N cycles by applying Eq.1. After that, it is possible to obtain the global probability of failure as the combination of the local probabilities using Eq.3, which allows the risk of failure over all planes to be taken into account. M. Muñiz Calvente et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 39 (2017) 160-165; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.39.16 165 CONCLUSIONS he main conclusions of this work are the following: - Failure for a certain multiaxial fatigue loading must not happen, necessarily, at the plane subject to the maximum value of the multiaxial fatigue criteria (MCE or MCC in this case), but it may occur at other planes subjected to lower values of the critical parameter due to its interaction with the existence of local defects. - The probabilistic model proposed in this paper enables the failure probability for any plane orientation to be found. - The applicability of this methodology is not limited to the use of these two criteria (MCE or MCC), but the iterative process can be extended to any other failure criterion regardless of the complexity of its calculation. - In this work, an analytical solution for the local calculation of the critical parameter is assumed, but as in the GLM, this is not mandatory, so that the calculation of the critical parameter distribution in other complex cases can be found using the finite element method. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS he authors gratefully acknowledge the Severo Ochoa Pre-doctoral Grants Program of the Regional Government of Asturias (Spain) and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) under project BIA2010-19920 for funding support. REFERENCES [1] Castillo, E., Fernández-Canteli, A., A unified statistical methodology for modeling fatigue damage, Springer, (2009). [2] Muniz-Calvente, M., de Jesus, A.M.P., Correia, J.A.F.O., Fernández-Canteli, A., A generalized probabilistic approach for fatigue crack initiation taking into account scale effects and non-uniform damage fields, Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, (Submitted). [3] Muñiz-Calvente, M., Ramos, A., Shlyannikov, V., Lamela, M.J., Fernández-Canteli, A., Hazard maps and global probability as a way to transfer standard fracture results to reliable design of real components, Engineering Failure Analysis, 69 (2016) 135-146. [4] Bernard, A., Bos-Levenbach, E. C., The Plotting of Observations on Probability-paper. Stichting Mathematisch Centrum. Statistische Afdeling, (1955). [5] Fitting a Univariate Distribution Using Cumulative Probabilities - MATLAB & Simulink Example - MathWorks. [6] Sines, G., Behaviour of metals under complex static and alternating stresses, In: Metal Fatigue, G. Sines and J. L. Waisman, eds., McGraw-Hill, New York, (1959) 145–169. [7] Crossland, B., Effect of large hydrostatic pressures on the torsional fatigue strength of an alloy steel, In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Fatigue of Metals, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, (1956) 138–149. [8] Papadopoulos, I. V., A review of multiaxial fatigue limit criteria, Advanced Course on High-Cycle Metal Fatigue, (1997). [9] Papadopoulos, I. V., Davoli, P., Gorla, C., Filippin, M., Bernasconi, A., A comparative study of multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criteria for metals, International Journal of Fatigue, 19(3) (1997) 219–235. [10] Li, B., Santos, J. L. T., de Freitas, M., A Unified Numerical Approach for Multiaxial Fatigue Limit Evaluation. Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 28 (1) (2000). T T << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice