Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20 ć 40 ć 60 ć
3.8 11.28 19.47
10.86 14.84
11.07 14.87
11.14 15.59
11.19 16.43
11.25 17.93
Figure 2. Corrosion damage ratio˄a˅10ˁ˗˄b˅20ˁ
TABLE I. CORROSION DAMAGE RATIO OF VARIED CORROSION TIME Figure 3. Cumulative distribution rule of corrosion damage ratio at three
(TEST TEMPERATURE WAS 40 ć) different temperatures (20 days exposure)
14.03 15.59 19.78 Figure 4. Cumulative distribution rule of corrosion damage ratio at three
different corrosion exposures (test temperature was 40 ć)
14.27 16.43 20.24
213
The cumulative distribution function of Logistic was larger than 17.10729%, this curve was flatter with the
distribution is shown in Eq. (2). The parameter values of increase of corrosion damage ratio.
Logistic distribution are listed in table 3 and 4.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
§ xP ·
exp ¨
V ¸¹
The Logistic distribution was acceptable for the data sets
F ( x) © of the surface corrosion damage ratio. Using the probability
§ xP · model of corrosion damage evolution, we can forecast
1 exp ¨ ¸ corrosion damage in varied service environments. When we
© V ¹ (2) derived the “timing” data sets of corrosion damage, the
fatigue lives of corroded structure can be forecasted and all
TABLE III. VALUES OF LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION (20 DAYS EXPOSURE) these work can assist in expediting solution for aging aircraft
20 ć 40 ć 60 ć
structure life prediction and extension.
P 8.44608 13.77768 22.61614
V 1.45019 1.11824 2.07339 REFERENCES
[1] Y. L. Chen. “The effect of corrosion to the residual strength of the
From the example of specimen of 20days and 60 °C , it served aircraft structure”, Northwest Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
2004.
can be seen in Table 3 that the probability density was [2] O. M. Alyousif. “Corrosion and corrosion fatigue of aluminum
maximum when the corrosion damage ratio was 22.61614%, alloys”, Lehigh University, USA, April 2002.
and in Fig.4, the curve corresponding 60 °C on this point [3] G. S. Chen, and C. M. Liao, “Pitting Corrosion and Fatigue Crack
was sharpest. Before this point, the curve corresponding Nucleation”, Effects of the Environment on the Initiation of Crack
Growth, ASTM STP 1298, American Society for Testing and
60 °C was sharper with the increase of corrosion damage Materials, 1997.
ratio, and after this point, this curve was flatter with the [4] C. L. Brooks, K. Honeycutt and D.S. Prost. “Case studies for
increase of corrosion damage ratio. corrosion/fatigue life assessments”, 4th Joint NASA/FAA/DoD
Conference on Aging Aircraft, St. Louis, Missouri, May 2000.
TABLE IV. VALUES OF LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION (TEST TEMPERATURE [5] T. B. Mills, K. Honeycutt. “Managing damage in the wing: modeling
WAS 40 ć) the interaction of exfoliation with static and fatigue loads”, Third
Joint NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging Aircraft, Albuquerque,
10 days 20 days 30 days
New Mexico, 1999.
P 11.33394 13.77768 17.10729 [6] J. J. Medved, M. Breton, P. E. Irving. “Corrosion pit size distribution
V 1.59014 1.11824 1.22962 and fatigue lives-a study of the EIFS technique for fatigue design in
the presence of corrosion”, International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 26,
2004, pp.70-82.
From the example of specimen of 40 °C and 31days, it [7] “Standard test method for exfoliation corrosion susceptibility in
can be seen in Table 4 that the probability density was 2×××and 7×××series aluminum alloys (EXCO test)”, ASTM G34-1,
maximum when the corrosion damage ratio was 17.10729%, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2002.
[8] Y. H. Zhang, G. Z. Lv, Y L Chen. “Predicting fatigue life from pre-
and in Fig.4, the curve corresponding 60 °C on this point corroded LY12CZ aluminium test”, Acta Aeronutica et Astronatica
was sharpest. When the corrosion damage ratio was smaller Sinica, vol. 27, 2005, pp.780-783.
than 11.33394%, the curve was sharper with the increase of [9] J.K. Paik, J. M. Lee, M. J. Ko. “Ultimate shear strength of plate
corrosion damage ratio, and when the corrosion damage ratio elements with pit corrosion wastage”, Journal Thin-Walled Structure,
vol. 42, 2004, pp.1167-1178.
214