Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274613109
CITATIONS
READS
18
192
4 authors, including:
Nikolaos D. Alexopoulos
University of the Aegean
59 PUBLICATIONS 562 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Nikolaos D. Alexopoulos on 11 May 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Department of Financial Engineering, University of the Aegean, 41 Kountouriotou str, 82100, Chios, Greece
Materials and Engineering Research Institute, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, S11WB Sheffield, UK
Abstract
Tensile and fatigue mechanical behaviour of wrought aluminum alloy 2198-T351 is examined and
compared against 2024-T3 that is currently used in aero structures. Experimental fatigue tests were
carried out under constant amplitude stress ratio R = 0.1 and respective stress - life (S-N) diagrams were
constructed for both alloys. Fatigue behaviour of both alloys is described with varying parameters being
the percentage of fatigue life as well as the effect of maximum applied stress as a function of ultimate
tensile strength. It was found that fatigue endurance limit of AA2024-T3 is approximately 40 % below its
yield stress, while only 9 % below for the AA2198-T351. The latter was found to be superior in the high
cycle fatigue and fatigue endurance limit regimes, especially when considering specific mechanical
properties. Absorbed energies per fatigue cycle as well as dynamic stiffness of the fatigue hysteresis loop
were calculated and plotted against the number of fatigue cycles and with varying maximum applied
stress; both parameters are continuously decreasing due to the combination of hardening effect and microcracking in AA2024-T3, while this was the case only for the high applied stresses regime in AA2198T351. Cyclic stress strain (CSS) curves were constructed and proved that work hardening exponent of
AA2198-T351 is substantially decreasing with increasing fatigue life.
1. Introduction
The aerospace industry is always demanding innovative, lighter aluminum alloys with improved
mechanical properties. Aluminum lithium (Al-Li) alloys offer great advantages for use in aerostructures
through density reduction, stiffness increase, increases in fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth
resistance as well as enhanced corrosion resistance. The addition of Li, results in the reduction of the
3. Experimental procedure
3
= n ,
(1)
where is the true stress, is the true strain, K is the strength coefficient and n is the work hardening
exponent (stage II linear regime). AA2024-T3 presented values n = 0.1064, while AA2198-T351
presented high hardening exponent values, taking as an average that n = 0.1486. As expected, with
increasing artificial aging treatment (T851), hardening exponent significantly decreases and took values
of approximate n = 0.0458. Hence, aging at T851 condition brings the alloy at very low hardening
exponent that is even lower than the reference 2024-T3 alloy.
+
= 1 or = cr 1 o ,
cr Rm
Rm
(2)
5. Analysis
5.1 Residual Stiffness
A fatigue hysteresis loop was formed during the loading and unloading branches per every fatigue cycle.
It is well-known that the formation of these hysteresis loops is a function among all of the material
(chemical composition and temper), of the applied stresses and of the materials fatigue life. For the
purpose of the present work, the moduli of elasticity of all specimens were calculated per every fatigue
unloading branch and for all stages of fatigue life till fracture. The unloading branch was simulated by a
linear curve equation, its slope giving the unloading stiffness, Figure 7. In the current work the modulus
of elasticity per different stages of fatigue life will be denoted as residual stiffness Eun. This term was
better selected since during the lifetime of fatigue test several irreversible phenomena like crack
nucleation and growth are taking place. Hence, since the term of modulus of elasticity is linked with the
crack-free and damage-free material, the term of stiffness is preferred since during the experiment of
fatigue, micro- and macroscopic kinds of damage had been developed in the specimens. Finally, the
branch of unloading was selected by the authors to calculate its stiffness since it contains no parasitic
effects that might take place during the loading branch, e.g. inertia of the loading frame, etc. The residual
7
ni
N
i =1
= D.
(3)
Figure 8(a) shows the calculated results of AA2024-T3 dynamic stiffness for the different percentages of
its fatigue life and for different applied maximum stresses. In the diagram, the different curves correspond
to different maximum applied fatigue stress, while marked is its respective percentage when divided to
ultimate tensile strength (normalized stress). Dynamic residual stiffness takes values ranging from 78 GPa
for the smallest applied stress of 220 MPa till approximately 50 GPa for the highest applied stress. For all
performed fatigue tests below yield stress (Rp = 391 MPa), dynamic stiffness takes values around the
respective quasi-static value. For the very first stages of fatigue life and up to approximate 15 % fatigue
time, it can be seen that the stiffness is increasing highly dependant on maximum stress. This
phenomenon can be noticed clearly for the high applied stresses, e.g. for max = 490 MPa and to a lesser
extend to others due to resolution. Of course, this is evidence of hardening effect that will be discussed in
the following. In addition, a minor reduction of the residual stiffness in the high percentages regime of
fatigue damage can be clearly observed at the experimental curves, e.g. for max = 280, 350, 440 and 480
MPa and despite the low resolution of the figure. Such a decrease in stiffness is definitely evidence of
crack propagation stage (stage III), as the nucleated fatigue crack propagates. More details will be given
in the very next paragraph.
Figure 8(b) shows the calculated AA2198-T351 results; the same trend also applies for this case.
Stiffness is increasing with decreasing maximum fatigue stress and the results differ when compared to
with AA2024 only to the smaller span (ranging from 82 GPa till 67 GPa). However, these results are in
accordance with the AA2198-T351 higher modulus of elasticity evaluated by the quasi-static flow curve.
In addition, the curves seem to present a smooth increase at the early stages of fatigue life that implies
hardening. A small decrease is noticed at the last stages of fatigue life that can be clearly seen at stresses
higher than yielding, e.g. at max = 275, 285 and 315 MPa. This was also noticed for the AA2024-T3 case
and it is evidence of the specimens transition from stage II to stage III, i.e. unstable crack propagation.
8
6. Fractography
Specific specimens that are marked in the S-N fatigue curve have been examined in a scanning electron
microscope of Sheffield Hallam University and the fractographic results will be presented beneath.
Fracture surface of three different specimens were examined that correspond to different fatigue regimes;
(a) specimen No 5 with max = 285 MPa and fatigue life ~ 1.5 x 105 cycles and (b) specimen No 4 with
max = 275 MPa and fatigue life ~ 2 x 105 cycles that both correspond to high cycle fatigue regime and
finally (c) specimen No 11 with max = 250 MPa and fatigue life ~ 8 x 105 cycles that corresponds in the
transition regime from HCF to fatigue endurance limit regime. The fatigue and fracture mechanisms for
these dissimilar specimens will be discussed.
Fractographic examination of the first specimen (sp.05) revealed edge crack initiation sites formed
leading to crack growth, Figure 14(a) and (b). The direction of the crack growth is also indicated on the
image. The surface looks flat and transgranular fractures appearing with multiple layers of macro
striations formed along the crack growth directions. Increasing levels of plasticity are causing the
fractures to initiate and grow at this point.
Figure 15(a), taking in the middle section of the fractured second specimen (sp.04), showed
different fracture characteristics, such as the formation of a shear lip. Shear lips imply that the fatigue
crack growth occurs in a mixed mode, I + II [34]. A simple mechanical explanation is that the process is
initiated by a situation of plane stress at the specimen surface, which leads to maximum shear stresses on
12
13
7. Conclusions
1. The fatigue endurance limit under constant amplitude loading and stress ratio R = 0.1 is almost 40
% below the AA2024 yield stress, while for 2198-T351 is only 8 % lower than the respective yield
stress.
2. Aluminum alloys 2024-T3 and 2198-T351 seems to exhibit fatigue endurance limit at the magnitude
of 240 5 MPa with constant amplitude fatigue loading. When taking into account density ,
AA2198 is superior to AA2024 in high cycle fatigue and fatigue endurance limit regimes.
3. It has been observed that hardening occurs in both alloys as the dynamic stiffness increases in the
first stages of fatigue life, highly depending upon applied maximum stress.
4. A decrease in dynamic stiffness over the fatigue life associated with the transition of fatigue stage II
to III was observed. The decrease point is dependant upon yield stress and fatigue maximum stress;
AA2198 showed a linear trend of these stages transition with applied fatigue stress. The improved
fatigue performance of AA2024 is evident at high stresses; stage III occurs at 60 % of fatigue life
time on the contrary to AA2198 that occurs at 20 %, when both stressed at 90 % of ultimate tensile
strength.
5. Hardening is noticed to both alloys by the decrease of the absorbed energy per hysteresis loop.
AA2198 proved to be very stable and reliable at the stress regime around yield stress where no
essential hardening was noticed and in conjunction to the results of the specific S-N curves proves
its superiority in the HCF and endurance limit regimes.
6. For the same normalized applied stresses, AA2198 was observed to absorb 2 to 3 times more energy
to fracture than 2024 thus proving damage tolerant capabilities.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Advanced Materials Laboratory of Hellenic Aerospace
Industry for providing the investigated materials and especially the Head of the Research & Development
Department Dr. Zaira Marioli-Riga, for fruitful discussions about the manuscript.
14
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
Lavernia EJ, Grant NJ, Aluminium-lithium alloys, J Mater Sci 1987; 22: 1521-9.
Rioja RJ, Liu J, Evolution of Al-Li Base Products for Aerospace and Space Applications, Metall Mater Trans A 2012;
43A: 3325-37.
Heinz A, Haszler A, Keidel C, Moldenhauer S, Benedictus R, Miller WS, Recent development in aluminium alloys
for aerospace applications, Mater Sci Eng A 2000; A280: 102-7.
Steuwer A, Dumont M, Altenkirch J, Birosca S, Deschamps A, Prangnell PB, Withers PJ, A combined approach to
microstructure mapping of an AlLi AA2199 friction stir weld, Acta Mater 2011; 59: 3002-11.
Li H, Tanga Y, Zenga Z, Zhenga Z, Zhenga F, Effect of ageing time on strength and microstructures of an Al-Cu-LiZn-Mg-Mn-Zr alloy, Mater Sci Eng A 2008; 498: 314-20.
Yoshimura R, Konno TJ, Abe E, Hiraga K, Transmission electron microscopy study of the evolution of precipitates in
aged Al-Li-Cu alloys: the and T1 phases, Acta Mater 2003; 51: 4251-66.
Cassada WA, Shiflet GJ, Starke EA Jr, The Effect of Plastic Deformation on AI2CuLi (T1) Precipitation, Met Mat
Trans A 1991; 22A: 299-306.
Kumar KS, Brown SA, Pickens JR, Microstructural evolution during aging of an Al-Cu-Li-Ag-Mg-Zr alloy, Acta
Mater 1996; 44: 1899-915.
Warner T, Recently-developed aluminium solutions for aerospace applications, Mater Sci Forum 2006; 519-21: 127178.
da Costa Teixeira J, Cram DG, Bourgeois L, Bastow TJ, Hill AJ, Hutchinson CR, On the strengthening response of
aluminum alloys containing shear-resistant plate-shaped precipitates, Acta Mater 2008; 56: 6109-22.
Decreus B, Deschamps A, De Geuser F, Donnadieu P, Sigli C, Weyland M, The influence of Cu/Li ratio on
precipitation in Al-Cu-Li-x alloys, Acta Mater 2013; 61: 2207-18.
Rao JC, Payton EJ, Somsen C, Neuking K, Eggeler G, Kostka A, Dos Santos JF, Where Does the Lithium Go? - A
Study of the Precipitates in the Stir Zone of a Friction Stir Weld in a Li-containing 2xxx Series Al Alloy, Adv Eng
Mat 2010; 12: 298-303.
Le Jolu T, Morgeneyer TF, Gourgues-Lorenzon AF, Effect of friction stir weld defects on fatigue lifetime of an AlCu-Li alloy (AA-2198) 18th European Conference on Fracture: Fracture of Materials and Structures from Micro to
Macro Scale, ECF 2010; Dresden; 30 August 2010 through 3 September 2010.
Cavaliere P, Cabibbo M, Panella F, Squillace A, 2198 Al-Li plates joined by Friction Stir Welding: Mechanical and
microstructural behavior, Mater Des 2009; 30: 3622-31.
Bitondo C, Prisco U, Squillace A, Giorleo G, Buonadonna P, Dionoro G, Campanile G, Friction stir welding of
AA2198-T3 butt joints for aeronautical applications, Int J Mater Form 2010; 3: 1079-82.
Astarita A, Squillace A, Scala A, Prisco A, On the Critical Technological Issues of Friction Stir Welding T-Joints of
Dissimilar Aluminum Alloys, J Mater Eng Perf 2012; 21: 1763-71.
Le Jolu T, Morgeneyer TF, Gourgues-Lorenzon AF, Effect of joint line remnant on fatigue lifetime of friction stir
welded Al-Cu-Li alloy, Sci Tech Weld Join 2010; 15: 694-8.
Chen J, Madi Y, Morgeneyer TF, Besson J, Plastic flow and ductile rupture of a 2198 Al-Cu-Li aluminum alloy,
Comp Mater Sci 2011; 50: 1365-71.
Steglich D, Wafai H, Besson J, Interaction between anisotropic plastic deformation and damage evolution in Al 2198
sheet metal, Eng Fract Mech 2010; 77: 3501-18.
Steglich D, Wafai H, Besson J, Anisotropic Deformation and Damage in Aluminium 2198 T8 Sheets International
Journal of Damage Mechanics 2010 19: 131-52.
Vogelesang LB, Vlot A, Development of fibre metal laminates for advanced aerospace structures, J Mater Proc Tech
2000; 103: 1-5.
Merati A, A study of nucleation and fatigue behavior of an aerospace aluminum alloy 2024-T3, Int J Fatigue 2005;
27: 33-44.
Jurcevic R, DuQuesnay DL, Topper TH, Pompetzki MA, Fatigue damage accumulation in 2024-T351 aluminium
subjected to periodic reversed overloads, Int J Fatigue 1990; 12: 259-66.
Khan S, Vyshnevskyy A, Mosler J, Low cycle lifetime assessment of Al2024 alloy, Int J Fatigue 2010; 32: 1270-7.
Kim SH, Kim KS, Kim SK, Yoon YO, Cho KS, Lee K, Microstructure and mechanical properties of Eco-2024-T3
aluminum alloy, Adv Mater Res 2013; 602-4: 623-6.
Ngiau C, Kujawski D, Sequence effects of small amplitude cycles on fatigue crack initiation and propagation in 2024T351 aluminum, Int J Fatigue 2001; 23: 807-15.
Rodopoulos CA, Choi JH, De los Rios ER, Yates JR, Stress ratio and the fatigue damage map - Part II: The 2024T351 aluminium alloy, Int J Fatigue 2004; 26: 747-52.
Ludian T, Wagner L, Effect of age-hardening conditions on high-cycle fatigue performance of mechanically surface
treated Al 2024, Mater Sci Eng A 2007; 468-70: 210-3.
15
Bray GH, Glazov M, Rioja RJ, Li D, Gangloff RP, Effect of artificial aging on the fatigue crack propagation
resistance of 2000 series aluminum alloys, Int J Fatigue 2001; 23: 265-76.
Warner JS, Gangloff RP, Alloy induced inhibition of fatigue crack growth in age-hardenable Al-Cu Alloys, Int J
Fatigue 2012; 42: 35-44.
N. Dowling. Mechanical Behavior of Materials. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 2nd edition, 1993.
Mitchell MR, Fundamentals of Modern Fatigue Analysis for Design, ASM Handbook, Volume 19: Fatigue and
Fracture, Ohaio, United States of America, 1996, p. 553-616.
Christ HJ, Cyclic Stress-Strain Response and Microstructure, ASM Handbook, Volume 19: Fatigue and Fracture,
Ohaio, United States of America, 1996, p. 171-234.
Zuidema J, Veer F, Van Kranenburg C, Shear lips on fatigue fracture surfaces of aluminum alloys, Fat Fract Eng Mat
Struct 2005; 28: 159-67.
Robson JD, Prangnell PB, Dispersoid precipitation and process modelling in zirconium containing commercial
aluminium alloys, Acta Mater 2001; 49: 599-61.
16
List of Tables
Table 1: Chemical composition of aluminum alloys 2024-T3 and 2198-T351.
2024-T3
2198-351
Si
Fe
Cu
Mn
Mg
Cr
Zn
Ti
Al
0.50
0.50
3.8-4.9
0.3-0.9
1.2-1.8
0.1
0.25
0.15
Rem.
Cu
Li
Zn
Mn
Mg
Zr
Si
Ag
Fe
Al
2.9-3.5
0.8-1.1
0.35
0.5
0.25-0.8
0.04-0.18
0.08
0.1-0.5
0.01
Rem.
Table 2: Evaluated tensile mechanical properties of 2024 and 2198 aluminum alloys and respective literature values.
Alloy
2024-3
Type / Source
Experiments: Average
Experiments: St. Deviation
2198-T351
Experiments: Average
Experiments: St. Deviation
Rp [MPa]
Rm [MPa]
Af [%]
70.291
391
500
18.88
86.28
2.932
21
20
2.35
6.80
75.461
265
384
14.90
52.77
0.30
1.07
1.767
2.16
1.41
2198-T3
275
370
15.00
2198-T3
315
375
15.00
2198-T351
13.00
2198-T851
Experiments: Average
11.55
56.49
0.37
1.88
14.00
Wtens [MJ/m3]
E [GPa]
2198-T851
2198-T8
2198-T851
72.803
324
442
432
484
1.826
-
2.25
*
1.87
+
490
530
73.000
469
510
14.00
76.700
436
490
13.70
yield strength for 0.2% plastic strain, uniform elongation, - non available
17
List of Figures
(b)
(c)
(a)
Figure 1: (a) Test configuration showing a mounted fatigue specimen with the attached dynamic extensometer on the
grips of the servo-hydraulic Instron 100 kN testing machine and typical geometrical dimensions of the machined
specimens of the present study: (b) tensile coupon configuration according to ASTM E8 and (c) fatigue test specimen
according to ASTM E466.
500
Aluminum alloy 2024-T3
t = 3.2 mm - 3 specimens
400
300
Aluminum alloy 2198-T851
t = 1.6 mm - 3 specimens
200
100
0
0
10
15
20
25
18
125
100
75
50
25
2024-T3, t = 3.2 mm
E = 70.291 GPa
Rp = 391 MPa
Rm = 500 MPa
Af = 18.88 %
modulus of elasticity E
yield stress Rp
tensile strength Rm
tensile ductility Af
0
2024-T3
2198-T351
2198-T851
550
Jurcevic et al. 2024-T351 L,
R = 0.1, t = 5.08 mm
Rodopoulos et al. 2024-T351 L,
R = 0.1, t = 5.50 mm
Ngiau and Kujawski 2024-T351 L,
R = 0.1, t = 12.70 mm
500
450
400
350
300
250
test stopped
Experimental data
Aluminum alloy 2024-T3,
L direction, t = 3.2 mm, R = 0.1
Curve fitting
200
0
100
1000
10000
100000 1000000
1E7
1E8
19
400
Experimental data 2198-351,
L direction, R = 0.1, t = 1.56 mm
Curve fitting
380
360
340
specimen No 4
max = 275 MPa
320
specimen No 5
max = 285 MPa
300
specimen No 11
max = 250 MPa
280
260
240
220
200
0
100
1000
test stopped
1E7
1E8
200
Experimental data 2024-3
Curve fitting 2024-3
Experimental data 2198-351
Curve fitting 2198-351
180
[(MPa*m )/kg]
Figure 5: Experimental fatigue S-N curve of the investigated aluminum alloy 2198-351.
160
HCF
LCF
140
Fatigue
endurance
limit
120
100
80
test stopped
0
100
1000
1E7
1E8
20
448
444
Y=A+B*X
Parameter
Value Error
A
-213,82677
38,868435
B
66,036643
9,987754
440
slope in GPa
436
432
Eunloading= dynamic
stiffness
428
424
W = integration of fatigue
hysterisis loop
0
0,0
3,87
3,88
3,89
3,90
3,91
21
80
75
44.9 %
51 %
70
65
61.2 %
71.4 %
89.8 %
60
55
50
57 %
0
0
98 %
99 %
Rm = 500 MPa, Rp = 391 MPa
xx.x % = percentage of Rm
100 %
20
40
60
80
100
(a)
82
80
78
76
75 %
72.3 %
77.6 %
80.3 %
82.9 %
74
72
70
65.7 %
68
66
0
20
94.7 %
40
60
80
100
f
(b)
Figure 8: Stiffness of the fatigue specimens during unloading as a function of applied maximum stress and percentage
of Miners fatigue damage of aluminum alloys (a) 2024-T3 and (b) 2198-T351.
22
100
80
60
40
2024-T3
2198-T351
20
2198-T351
yield stress
0
0
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Percentage of fatigue maximum applied stress
to ultimate tensile strength ( max / Rm ) [%]
100
Figure 9: Normalized applied maximum stress to ultimate tensile strength and percentage of fatigue life where the
initiation of decrease of stiffness occurs for the investigated alloys.
23
14
Alloy 2024-T3, L direction
t = 3.2 mm, R = 0.1
Rp = 391 MPa, Rm = 500 MPa
xx.x% percentage of Rm
12
10
max = 440 MPa
98 %
max = 350 MPa
89.8 %
71.4 %
61.2 %
57 %
50 %
44.9 %
0
1
10
100
1000
(a)
22
20
max = 340 MPa
18
16
14
94.7 %
12
89.4 %
10
8
80.2 %
75 %
4
max = 250 MPa
65.7 %
0
1
10
100
1000
(b)
Figure 10: Absorbed energy per fatigue cycle versus the number of fatigue cycles of aluminum alloy (a) 2024-T3 and (b)
2198-T351.
24
100
Aluminum alloy 2198-T351
experiments
curve fitting
tensile strain energy density
90
80
70
Aluminum alloy 2024-T3
experiments
curve fitting
tensile strain energy density
60
50
0
0
200
400
600
800
2000
550
500
450
Cyclic stress - strain (CSS) curves
10 % fatigue life
50 % fatigue life
80 % fatigue life
Cyclic (literature)
400
350
300
250
200
0
0
10
25
0,16
0,15
-5.41%
-6.78%
0,14
-7.54%
0,13
Alloy 2198-T351
exponential curve fit
Alloy 2024-T3
exponential curve fit
-xx.xx% decrease from intitial property
0,12
0,11
0,10
-16.38%
0,09
-17.67%
-13.51%
0,08
0
20
40
60
80
100
Transgranular fracture
Striations
(a)
(b)
Figure 14: Alloy 2198-T351: (a) SEM fractographs of specimen No 5 with max = 285 MPa and around Nf = 1.5 x 105
cycles with crack initiators and (b) transgrannular fracture and striations formed evidence of the accumulated damage.
26
Coalescence
microvoids
(a)
(b)
Figure 15: (a) Shear lip formed on the 2198-T351 specimen No 4 at max = 275 MPa / Nf ~ 2 x 105 cycles due to plastic
zone accumulation indicating possible local overloading, and (b) coalescence microvoids and evidence of ductility.
Crack originated
from edge surface
Transgranular Crack
Fracture zone
(a)
(b)
Figure 16: (a) SEM fractograph of 2198-T351 specimen No 11 at max = 250 MPa with surface cracks and smooth to
rough transition sites and (b) plastically deformed fracture surface with evidence of fatigue striations which is
attributed to higher fatigue life approximately Nf = 8 x 105.
27
View publication stats