Next Article in Journal
The Al Effects of Co-Free and V-Containing High-Entropy Alloys
Next Article in Special Issue
Role of Microstructure Heterogeneity on Fatigue Crack Propagation of Low-Alloyed PM Steels in the As-Sintered Condition
Previous Article in Journal
Vibration-Assisted Sputter Coating of Cenospheres: A New Approach for Realizing Cu-Based Metal Matrix Syntactic Foams
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Pre-Fatigue on the Monotonic Deformation Behavior of a Coplanar Double-Slip-Oriented Cu Single Crystal
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Stress-Strain Parameters from Monotonic Properties of Steels

Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, Vukovarska 58, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metals 2017, 7(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/met7010017
Submission received: 11 November 2016 / Revised: 28 December 2016 / Accepted: 30 December 2016 / Published: 7 January 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fatigue Damage)

Abstract

:
Most existing methods for estimation of cyclic yield stress and cyclic Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain parameters of steels from their monotonic properties were developed on relatively modest number of material datasets and without considerations of the particularities of different steel subgroups formed according to their chemical composition (unalloyed, low-alloy, and high-alloy steels) or delivery, i.e., testing condition. Furthermore, some methods were evaluated using the same datasets that were used for their development. In this paper, a comprehensive statistical analysis and evaluation of existing estimation methods were performed using an independent set of experimental material data compriseding 116 steels. Results of performed statistical analyses reveal that statistically significant differences exist among unalloyed, low-alloy, and high-alloy steels regarding their cyclic yield stress and cyclic Ramberg-Osgood stress-strain parameters. Therefore, estimation methods were evaluated separately for mentioned steel subgroups in order to more precisely determine their applicability for the estimation of cyclic behavior of steels belonging to individual subgroups. Evaluations revealed that considering all steels as a single group results in averaging and that subgroups should be treated independently. Based on results of performed statistical analysis, guidelines are provided for identification and selection of suitable methods to be applied for the estimation of cyclic stress-strain parameters of steels.

1. Introduction

Development of computer technology and CAE software solutions have enabled performing complex simulations of material and product behavior under cyclic loading and fatigue life determination already during early stages of product development process. In recent years, rapid increases in computing power and availability of distributed and cloud-based resources have been seen. Within short time frame, complex simulations can be run for multiple materials. An example of these are strain-based, i.e., local strain-life fatigue, analyses which have been widely adopted in automotive, aeronautic, and power industry for fatigue life predictions of highly-loaded steel and aluminium components [1,2]. In order to perform these analyses, both cyclic stress-strain and strain-life fatigue curves and parameters that define them must be known. Well-accepted and widely used representation of stress-strain response of the majority of metallic materials is the cyclic Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) equation [3,4]:
Δ ε 2 = Δ ε e 2 + Δ ε p 2 = Δ σ 2 E + ( Δ σ 2 K ) 1 n
For determination of lifetime in both low-cycle and high-cycle regime, Coffin-Manson-Basquin (C-M-B) [4,5] approach is applied:
Δ ε 2 = Δ ε e 2 + Δ ε p 2 = σ f E ( 2 N f ) b + ε f ( 2 N f ) c
In Equations (1) and (2) Δ ε , Δ ε e and Δ ε p are true total, elastic and plastic strain ranges, respectively, Δσ is true stress range, E is Young’s modulus, K′ is cyclic strength coefficient, and n′ is cyclic strain hardening exponent. Furthermore, σf′, εf′, b and c are fatigue strength and ductility parameters obtained from fully reversed tension-compression fatigue tests.
Cyclic R-O and C-M-B parameters obtained through material testing are most accurate, but are very often unavailable due to long time and high costs associated with experimental characterization. Existing test results which are available in literature and materials databases often do not sufficiently correspond to the actual material under consideration. Hence, it has become common practice to estimate cyclic R-O and C-M-B parameters of the material from its monotonic properties early during product development. For estimation of C-M-B fatigue parameters from monotonic properties of materials, many methods have been developed [5,6,7,8] and evaluated in literature [9]. To the contrary, for estimation of cyclic R-O parameters of materials, only a limited number of methods are proposed [10,11,12,13]. For estimations of cyclic yield stress Re′ and R-O parameters (K′ and n′) various monotonic properties and their combinations are used, with ultimate strength Rm and yield stress Re being the most common since they are readily available. Detailed overview of monotonic properties used for estimation of cyclic parameters of metallic materials and systematic study of their relevance for estimation purposes is provided in [14].
No independent and systematic evaluations of these methods can be found in the literature, the only ones available being those performed in respective papers where methods were proposed.
The main aim of this paper is to provide detailed analysis and evaluation of existing methods for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ and cyclic stress-strain parameters K′ and n′ from monotonic properties. For this purpose, a large and independent set of material data was collected from relevant sources. Since previous investigations [15,16,17] confirmed that dividing steels into different subgroups might improve estimation accuracy, this will also be taken into consideration. One-way Analysis of Variance (one-way ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey’s test will be performed in order to check whether individual steel groups are statistically different regarding their cyclic parameters Re′, K′ and n′. If such differences are confirmed to exist, in addition to evaluation of existing methods for all steels together, partial evaluations for each steel subgroup will be performed as well.

2. Overview of Existing Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Stress-Strain Parameters

2.1. Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Yield Stress Re

Li et al. [11] originally proposed estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ of steels from ultimate strength Rm and reduction of area at fracture RA. Equation (3) was developed using monotonic and cyclic properties of 27, mostly unalloyed and low-alloy steels:
R e = ( 1 + R A ) R m ( 0.002 ln ( 1 R A ) ) 0.16
Evaluation of proposed expression is performed on the same data used for developing the method, and is reported that estimated values of Re′ deviate at most 14% from their experimental counterparts.
Lopez and Fatemi [12] developed a number of relationships between Brinell hardness (HB or monotonic properties and cyclic yield stress Re′ of steels. These were developed and validated on a relatively large number of steels consisting mostly of unalloyed and low-alloy steels, covering a wide variation of chemical composition and mechanical properties, with ultimate stress Rm ranging from 279 to 2450 MPa and hardness from 80 to 595 HB. Materials were divided according to ultimate strength to yield stress ratio Rm/Re, since it was shown that such division improves the accuracy of cyclic parameters estimation. Ratio Rm/Re was originally proposed by Smith et al. [18] to be used for prediction of cyclic behavior (hardening, softening, stable behavior) of materials. Correspondingly, authors proposed a number of separate expressions for estimation of Re′ depending on value of Rm/Re of which the most successful ones are:
R e = 0.75 R e + 82   for   R m / R e > 1.2
R e = 3.0 × 10 4 R e 2 0.15 R e + 526   for   R m / R e 1.2
Additionally, single expression for all steels, regardless of the value of Rm/Re is also proposed:
R e = 8.0 × 10 5 R m 2 + 0.54 R m .
Values of coefficient of determination R2 for expressions (4a), (4b) and (5) were 0.88, 0.99, and 0.94 respectively. Evaluation was performed on a single dataset comprising data used for developing expressions and additional data (all together 121 materials, mostly unalloyed and low-alloy steels). It was established that 84% of estimated values of Re′ from yield stress Re (Equations (4a) and (4b)) deviate up to ±20% from experimental values while 79% of values of Re′ estimated from ultimate strength Rm (Equation (5)) deviated up to ±20% from experimental values.
Motivated by findings from [12] that Equation (3) always underestimates cyclic yield stress Re′ when experimental value of Re′ exceeds 900 MPa, Li et al. [13] recently modified Equation (3) to:
R e = 0.089 ( 1 + R A ) 1.35 R m 1.35 × ( 0.002 ln ( 1 R A ) ) 0.216 + 120
resulting in rather high coefficient of determination R2 = 0.961. Analysis was performed on the majority of data used in [12]. For evaluation, data used for developing Equation (6) was complemented with additional data. Results showed that most values of Re′ estimated from Equation (6) deviate up to 20% from their experiment-based counterparts. It must be noted that [11] and [13] suggest that values of true fracture strength σf can be calculated using the expression:
σ f = R m ( 1 + R A )
which is recognizable as first part of Equations (3) and (6). However, a well-known approximation of the relationship between ultimate strength Rm and true fracture stress σf, recommended by Manson [5,9] is:
σ f = R m ( 1 + ε f )
Therefore, caution is advised when applying expressions (3) and (6) for estimation of not only cyclic yield stress Re′, but also cyclic parameters K′ and n′ that will be discussed later in Section 2.2.

2.2. Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Parameters K′and n′

Zhang et al. [10] proposed several equations for estimation of K′ and n′ based on 22 steels, aluminium (Al), and titanium (Ti) alloys. For this purpose, materials were divided by value of so-called new fracture ductility parameter α:
α f = R A × ε f = R A ln ( 1 R A )
proposed in [19]. Expressions were proposed for estimation of K′ and n′, Equation (10) through Equation (11c), when strength coefficient K and strain hardening exponent n are available:
K = 57 K 0.545 1220
n = 1.06 n ( 1 + β | 1 R m R p 0.2 | )   for   α < 5 %   or   10 % α < 20 %
n = 1.06 n ( 1 + β | 1 σ f R m | )   for   5 % < α < 10 %
n = R p 0.2 σ f R m n   for   α > 20 %
and Equation (12a) through Equation (13c) when K and n are not available:
K = 57 ( σ f ε f log ( R m 2 σ f 3 R p 0.2 5 ) 3 log ( 500 ε f ) ) 0.545 1220   for   α   < 5 %   or   10 % α < 20 %
K = 57 ( σ f R p 0.2 R m ε f log ( σ f 2 R p 0.2 R m ) 2 log ( 500 ε f ) ) 0.545 1220   for   5 % < α < 10 %   or   α > 20 %
n = 1.06 ( 1 + β | 1 R m R p 0.2 | ) log ( R m 2 σ f 3 R p 0.2 5 ) 3 log ( 500 ε f )   for   α   < 5 %   or   10 % α < 20 %
n = 1.06 ( 1 + β | 1 σ f R m | ) log ( σ f 2 R p 0.2 R m ) 2 log ( 500 ε f )   for   5 % < α < 10 %
n = R p 0.2 σ f R m log ( σ f 2 R p 0.2 R m ) 2 log ( 500 ε f )   for   α > 20 %
For both methods, parameter β = 1 for σf/Rp0.2 < 1.6 and β = −1 for σf/Rp0.2 > 1.6. As most successful expressions authors proposed estimation of K′ based on strength coefficient K (Equation (10)) and estimation of n′ based on ultimate strength Rm, yield stress Re, true fracture stress σf and strain hardening exponent n (Equation (13a) through Equation (13c), depending on value of α). For steels, values of K′ and n′ estimated in such a way deviated up to 27% and 34%, respectively, from their experiment-based counterparts. Data tables with percentage deviation for aluminium and titanium alloys suggest even larger deviations of estimates of n′ (up to 65%). They also suggested that, for stress amplitudes Δσ/2 calculated from estimated values of K′ and n′, besides percentage deviation of particular parameter, sign of deviation is also significant. If sign of deviations of K′ and n′ is the same, calculated and experimental cyclic stress-strain curves are in good agreement.
In [12], besides expressions for estimation of Re′, Lopez and Fatemi developed several relationships between Brinell hardness HB or monotonic properties and cyclic parameters K′ and n′ of steels. Steels are divided into two subgroups according to the value of the Rm/Re ratio (as was the case for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′) and different expressions are proposed accordingly. Equations (14a) and (14b) are denoted as most successful:
K = 1.16 R m + 593   for   R m / R e > 1.2
K = 3.0 10 4 R m 2 + 0.23 R m + 619   for   R m / R e 1.2
n = 0.37 log ( 0.75 R e + 82 1.16 R m + 593 )   for   R m / R e > 1.2
n = 0.37 log ( 3.0 × 10 4 R e 2 0.15 R e + 526 3.0 × 10 4 R m 2 + 0.23 R m + 619 )   for   R m / R e 1.2
Authors provided coefficients of determination R2 only for expressions (14a) and (14b). It is worth noting that R2 of expressions proposed for estimation of K′ for steels with Rm/Re > 1.2 is 0.75 which is significantly lower than 0.90 obtained for steels with Rm/Re ≤ 1.2. About 73% values of K′ estimated using Equations (14a) and (14b) deviate less than ±20% from their experimental values. As for n′, percentage of values estimated from Equations (15a) and (15b) that deviate less than ±20% from their experiment-based counterparts is around 60%.
Lopez and Fatemi [12] proposed additional expression for estimation of n′ valid for all steels:
n = 0.33 ( R e / R m ) + 0.40
for which R2 obtained was 0.79. Percentage of values of n′ estimated from Equation (16) that deviated up to ±20% from experimental values was 68%.
Both methods proposed in [12] for estimation of n′ provide reasonably good results, so in further evaluations in this paper, both methods will be taken into account: first using Equation (14a) through Equation (15b), and second using Equations (14a), (14b) and (16).
Li et al. [13] proposed expressions for estimation of cyclic parameters K′ and n′:
K = 500 n R e
n = log ( K ) log ( R e ) log 500
where Re′ is estimated using Equation (6). However, Equations (17) and (18) can be used only when either K′ or n′ are available, so in the same paper an alternative method for estimation of these parameters was proposed. Cyclic strength coefficient K′ should be estimated using Equations (19a), (19b) or (19c) first, then cyclic strain hardening n′ exponent is calculated from estimated values of K′.
K = 2.16 10 4 ( R m ) 2.1 + 738   for   R m / R e 1.2
K = 3.63 10 4 ( R m ) 2 + 0.68 R m + 570   for   1.2 < R m / R e < 1.4
K = 1.21 R m + 555   for   R m / R e 1.4
Equation (19a) through Equation (19c), when used in combination with Equation (18), yielded reasonable results with most of estimated values of K′ deviating up to ±20% from experimental values. Obtained coefficients of determination R2 for Equation (19a) through Equation (19c) decrease with higher values of Rm/Re, which is in accordance with findings from [12]. R2 obtained for steels with Rm/Re ≤ 1.2 is 0.921, while for steels with 1.2 < Rm/Re < 1.4 and Rm/Re ≥ 1.4 coefficients of determination are R2 = 0.813 and R2 = 0.712, respectively. Again, caution is advised when using Equation (18) due to the suggested way of estimating Re′ that was already discussed at the end of Section 2.1.

2.3. Conclusions

A review of methods for estimation cyclic parameters shows that sets of material data on which most of them were developed and evaluated differ significantly regarding their size and material groups included. In this sense, they can still be considered adequate with the exception of expressions for estimation of K′ and n′ proposed in [10] which were developed using a quite small and heterogeneous set of material data (22 datasets for steels, aluminium and titanium alloys) and expression for estimation of Re′ proposed in [10] which was developed using only 27 steel datasets.
In an attempt to further improve estimation accuracy, most methods address steels separately from other kinds of metallic materials [11,12,13] and all methods divide materials into separate subgroups using different criteria [10,12,13]. For this purpose, Zhang et al. [10] used new fracture ductility parameter α that was originally developed to predict materials’ cyclic behavior [10,19]. Lopez and Fatemi [12] and Li et al. [13] divided steels into two, i.e., three subgroups according to the ratio of ultimate strength to yield stress Rm/Re.
Lack of general consensus regarding the treatment of individual material subgroups as well as different methodologies for evaluation of estimation methods implemented in their respective papers makes comparison of their performance quite difficult. In order to determine which estimation method is most suitable for estimation of cyclic parameters of steels, systematic and consistent evaluation of presented methods will be performed on an independent set of material data.
Different delivery, i.e., testing conditions of material, can be obtained for example through different processing method or heat treatment and this can strongly impact both monotonic and cyclic/fatigue material properties and behavior [5,20]. This is an important aspect which none of the discussed methods takes into account directly. One of the possible reasons is a multitude of conditions of steel materials which were used for development of these methods, particularly in [12,13]. For certain materials, such information, even if available, was of a rather general nature (for example heat treated, modified, etc.).
In practice, steels are commonly divided according to the content of alloying elements into unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels. Already Baümel and Seeger [6] considered unalloyed and low-alloy steels separately from other metallic materials when they developed Uniform Material Law for estimation of C-M-B parameters. Hatscher et al. [8] also mentioned the prospect of such division for estimation of fatigue C-M-B parameters. Results of detailed analysis performed on a large number of material data done by Basan et al. [15] showed that there is statistically significant difference among individual C-M-B fatigue parameters as well as strain-life behavior (Δε–2Nf relationships) of unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels. Also, preliminary investigations on cyclic parameters in [16,17] showed that dividing steels by alloying content could result in more accurate estimations of cyclic parameters and hence, more accurate estimations of cyclic stress-strain curves of materials.
For that reason, statistical analysis of steel subgroups (unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels) will be performed in order to determine if their cyclic parameters differ significantly. If confirmed, individual steel subgroups will be taken into account during evaluation and comparison of estimation methods.

3. Methods and Data

3.1. Methods for Statistical Analysis

To test whether statistically significant differences exist among experimental data for cyclic yield stress Re′ and cyclic stress-strain parameters K′ and n′ of unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels, one-way Analysis of Variance (one-way ANOVA) is performed. One-way ANOVA is a technique that provides a statistical test of whether or not means of several (typically three or more) groups are all equal. If results obtained by one-way ANOVA show that statistically significant difference exists between cyclic parameters of analyzed groups, post hoc analysis by Tukey’s multiple comparison method will be performed in order to determine pairwise differences between groups. Significance level α for one-way ANOVA is set to 0.05, while overall significance (family error rate) in Tukey’s multiple comparison test is set to 0.05 to counter type I error for a series of comparisons. Procedure for both one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test are given in [21]. Statistical analyses were performed in statistical package MINITAB [22].
To evaluate predictive accuracy of estimation methods and to facilitate their comparison, deviations of estimated values from their experimentally obtained counterparts were used as relevant indicators. Deviations up to ±10, ±20 and ±30% were used as in [12,13] to facilitate comparison with results reported there. Instead of directly comparing estimated Ramberg-Osgood parameters K′ and n′ to their experiment-based counterparts as in [12,13], much more useful information regarding the predictive accuracy of these methods can be obtained by comparing values of stress amplitudes Δσ/2, i.e., points on cyclic stress-strain curves as in [10,16,17]. Therefore, values of stress amplitudes Δσ/2 were calculated using experimental values of K′ and n′ and their estimations for series of total strain amplitudes ∆ε/2: 0.1, 0.2, 1 and 2%.

3.2. Data to Be Analyzed

Experimental data for three representative groups of steels: unalloyed (UA), low-alloy (LA) and high-alloy (HA) steels from [6] and [23] were obtained through the MATDAT Materials Properties Database [24]. Only results of strain-controlled, fully reversed (R = −1) axial cyclic tests performed in the air at room temperature were considered. Furthermore, only data for materials tested at more than four different strain amplitudes and at range of total strain amplitudes larger than 0.4% were used in the analysis.
Only datasets that contained all experimental values of monotonic properties needed for estimation of cyclic parameters by each method were used. An exception was made with the high-alloy steel group. Since most datasets did not contain values of true fracture stress σf which is necessary for calculation of parameters by Zhang et al. method [10], values were calculated by their relationship between ultimate strength Rm and true fracture strain εf, according to Equation (8). Also, if a dataset contained only reduction of area at fracture RA, true fracture strain εf was calculated by the relationship between these two properties:
ε f = ln ( 1 R A )
In total, 34 unalloyed steels, 47 low-alloy steels and 35 high-alloy steel datasets were available for analysis. Wide variety of conditions resulting from different processing and heat treatment were present in materials used for statistical analysis and evaluation of existing methods. This is consistent with datasets used for development of methods in their respective papers.
Detailed material data are given in Appendix A in Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3. Data used for statistical analysis in [14] were complemented with values of true fracture strain εf. Additionally, data for high-alloy steels were complemented with values of true fracture stress σf, strength coefficient K and strain hardening exponent n since those are required so that evaluations of particular existing methods could be performed.

4. Analysis and Results

4.1. Results of One-Way ANOVA and Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test

Performing one-way ANOVA for three cyclic parameters (Re′, K′ and n′) of unalloyed, low- and high-alloy steel subgroups showed that statistically significant differences exist between steel subgroups regarding cyclic yield stress Re′ (F(2, 113) = 32.25; p < 0.05), cyclic strength coefficient K′ (F(2, 113) = 22.61; p < 0.05), and cyclic strain hardening exponent n′ (F(2, 113) = 72.00; p < 0.05).
Since steel subgroups were confirmed to be significantly different regarding their cyclic parameters Re′, K′ and n′, post hoc Tukey’s test was performed to determine which subgroups are mutually different. Results showed that unalloyed and low-alloy steels as well as low-alloy and high-alloy steels differ significantly regarding the cyclic yield stress Re′. No such difference was determined between unalloyed and high-alloy steels. Statistically significant difference was also found for cyclic strength coefficient K′ of unalloyed and high-alloy steels, as well as low-alloy and high-alloy steels, while no such difference was found between unalloyed and low-alloy steels. Cyclic strain hardening exponent n′ differs between pairs of all three groups.

4.2. Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Yield Stress Re′ and Ramberg-Osgood Parameters K′ and n′ of Steels

Since unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels subgroups were proved to be significantly different, steel subgroups will be considered separately for evaluation of estimation methods. Evaluation will also be made for all steels as a single group to check for differences between results of analyses performed on individual subgroups and to enable comparison and determination of potential discrepancies with results reported in original papers.
Methods for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ and R-O parameters K′ and n′ of steels whose predictive accuracy will be evaluated are listed in Table 1. For every material, expressions for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ and R-O parameters K′ and n′ will be used according to ranges defining the applicability of the models regarding criteria for grouping of materials in original papers (new fracture ductility coefficient α, ultimate strength to yield stress ratio Rm/Re).

4.2.1. Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Yield Stress Re

Percentages of values of Re′ estimated according to selected methods (Table 1) that deviate up to 10%, 20% and up to 30% from experiment-based values were calculated and are given in diagrams on Figure 1.
Reasonable results are obtained for All steels group with about 70%–80% of data deviating up to 20% from their experimental counterparts for each method.
For unalloyed steels, for each method about 80%–90% of estimates of cyclic yield stress Re′ deviate up to 20%, while all estimates fall within ±30% deviation from corresponding experimental values. Highest percentage of data that deviate only up to 10% is obtained by Lopez and Fatemi 2 (about 70%).
For low-alloy steels, results obtained using any of the three selected methods were even more accurate than for unalloyed steels. Best results for estimation of Re′ of low-alloy steels are obtained using Lopez and Fatemi 1 method, for which all estimates deviate 20% or less from their experiment-based counterparts.
As for high-alloy steels, no method proved to be sufficiently accurate. Lopez and Fatemi 1 provides reasonable results with about 70% of estimated data deviating up to 20%, although 20% of data deviate more than 30% from experimental values. Estimations made by other two methods result with less than 50% of estimates deviating below 30% from experimental values (below 40% by Li et al.).

4.2.2. Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Ramberg-Osgood Parameters K′ and n′ of Steels

As was explained in Section 3.1, accuracy of estimates of Ramberg-Osgood parameters K′ and n′ will be determined by evaluating values of stress amplitudes Δσ/2 calculated using estimated K′ and n′ opposed to those obtained using experimental values of those parameters.
Percentages of estimated values of Δσ/2 as calculated by selected methods (Table 1) that deviate up to 10%, 20% and up to 30% from experiment-based values are given in Figure 2.
Results obtained using Lopez and Fatemi 1 and Li et al. method for estimation of K′ and n′ both provide very good results for estimation of stress amplitudes Δσ/2 of unalloyed steels, with over 90% of data deviating 20% or less from experimental values. For both methods, all estimates of Δσ/2 for unalloyed steels fall within ±30% deviation from experimental values, with Li et al. method providing as much as 75% of data within ±10% deviation.
The same methods yield even better results for low-alloy steels, with more than 80% of data deviating up to 10% from experiment-based counterparts. Although somewhat less accurate than previous two, Lopez and Fatemi 2 method also provides very good results for estimation of Δσ/2 of low-alloy steels.
Both methods by Zhang et al. gave significantly inferior results for both unalloyed and low-alloy steel subgroups. For unalloyed steels, by either method, only about 50% of data deviate 20% or less from experimental values, while about one-third of data deviate more than 30% from corresponding experimental values. Results are somewhat better for low-alloy steels, with a higher percentage of data deviating 20% or less from experimental values (about 65%). Still, only 75% of estimates obtained using both methods by Zhang et al. deviate less than 30% from experimental values.
As for high-alloy steels, no method provided estimates on the level of accuracy observed for unalloyed and low-alloy steels. Results obtained using either method by Lopez and Fatemi are the most acceptable, with around 75% of values estimated using Lopez and Fatemi 1 deviating less than 20%. Estimations by Li et al. resulted in more than 35% of data deviating more than 30% from experimental values, while the most inaccurate results were obtained by either of Zhang et al. methods. More than half of the estimates obtained by these methods deviate at least 30% from corresponding experimental values.
Overall evaluation for all steels provided averaged results as was the case for estimates of Re′. Lopez and Fatemi 1 method is the most accurate while both Zhang et al. methods are least successful, as was the case for individual steel subgroups.

5. Discussion

Estimation methods investigated in this paper were developed on datasets comprising all steels [11,12,13], and even some other groups of metallic materials (steels, aluminium and titanium alloys) [10]. However, in order to improve accuracy of estimations, most methods propose some criterion for grouping of materials. In [12,13] authors divided steels by rather easily available Rm/Re ratio. In [10], grouping criteria used was the new fracture ductility parameter α, which is cumbersome to use since true fracture stress εf or reduction of area RA needed for its calculation are often unavailable.
Much more usable, and often encountered in practice, is division of steels by their alloying content into unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels. It was shown in [6,8,15,16,17] that dividing steels in this manner contributes to improvement of estimations of steel behavior from monotonic properties of steels. Results of analysis performed in Section 4.1 confirmed that statistically significant differences exist between cyclic yield stress Re′ and cyclic parameters K′ and n′ of mentioned group of steels. According to these findings, authors propose evaluation of existing methods for estimation of Re′, K′ and n′ to be performed for each group individually, in addition to all steels together.
For estimation of Re′, K′ and n′ of both unalloyed and low-alloy steels, methods by Lopez and Fatemi [12], and by Li et al. [13] provide very good results. However, estimations for high-alloy steels are notably worse, especially those obtained using the Li et al. method which is not surprising since both methods are developed on the same set of data, consisting mostly of unalloyed and low-alloy steels.
Values of K′ and n′ estimated with two methods developed by Zhang et al. [10], are generally unsatisfactory and provide poor results for all steel subgroups, especially high-alloy steels. This can be attributed to the fact that methods were developed on a modest number (22) of heterogeneous data (steels, aluminium and titanium alloys). Another drawback of methods proposed by Zhang et al. are intricate expressions requiring monotonic properties which are often unavailable, especially during the early stages of product development.
Evaluations of existing methods in original references are performed for all materials together. Also, in some cases, evaluation of existing methods is performed on the same sets of data that were used for development of the method—a practice which can be considered less than objective.
Results of evaluations strongly depend on structure and amount of data available. Proposed consideration of individual subgroups provides valuable additional information. Figure 3 shows that, although methods by Lopez and Fatemi and Li et al. are suitable for all steels, individual results for unalloyed and low-alloy steels are even better.
As mentioned earlier, this was expected since the similar set of data, consisting of mostly unalloyed and low-alloy steels, was used in both papers. If only results for all steels group were observed, information about lower accuracy for high-alloy steels would go unnoticed, particularly for the method by Li et al. This example shows how evaluations of estimation methods performed for all steels together could be misinterpreted due to averaging.
Table 2 provides recommended methods for estimation of cyclic parameters of each group of steels, noting that great care is advised when estimating cyclic parameters of high-alloy steels. Ordinal number preceding the method indicates suggested selection priority. In cases where multiple methods are given without order simpler methods requiring a smaller number of monotonic properties (such as methods by Lopez and Fatemi) might be preferred.

6. Conclusions

Available methods for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ and cyclic stress-strain parameters K′ and n′ of steels and their applicability to individual steel subgroups and to steels as a general group were studied. A large, independent set of steel data was collected in order to perform the study as it was shown that number and type of materials used for development of estimation methods have significant influence on their performance and evaluation results.
Statistically significant differences were determined to exist among unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels regarding their cyclic stress-strain behavior and parameters. Such division of steels based on their content of alloying elements is also commonly encountered in practice, so it was used for performed evaluation of studied estimation methods.
Comparison of values of stress amplitudes Δσ/2 calculated using experimental and estimated cyclic parameters (K′ and n′) is proposed as a more suitable criterion for evaluation instead of direct comparison of corresponding individual cyclic parameters Re′, K′ and n′.
Having all steels in a single group for evaluation purposes causes significant averaging of the results so unalloyed, low-alloy and high-alloy steels were treated separately. Considerable differences were determined in accuracy and applicability of different methods for different steel subgroups.
For estimations of Re′ of unalloyed and low-alloy steels methods proposed by Li et al. and Lopez and Fatemi were found to provide very good results, while for high-alloy steels, only the method dividing steels by Re/Rm ratio proposed by Lopez and Fatemi provides reasonably accurate estimates. The method for estimations of K′ and n′ of unalloyed steels proposed by Li et al. gives the best estimates followed closely by the Lopez and Fatemi method which considers the Re/Rm ratio. For low-alloy steels, both methods by Lopez and Fatemi and the method by Li et al. provide excellent results. Of all methods, only the method proposed by Lopez and Fatemi considering the Re/Rm ratio can be considered for use with the high-alloy steels group.
Estimation accuracy of all studied methods for Re′, K′ and n′ was notably lower for high-alloy steels in comparison to other two subgroups, which can be attributed to the fact that high-alloy steels were found to be underrepresented in material datasets used for development of estimation methods.

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported in part by the University of Rijeka (projects number 13.09.1.2.09 and 13.09.2.2.18) and Croatian Science Foundation (scientific project number IP-2014-09-4982).

Author Contributions

R.B. and T.M. conceived and formulated the research; R.B., T.M. and M.F. acquired and systematized the material data, T.M. systematized and reviewed the estimation methods; T.M. designed and performed statistical analysis; T.M. and R.B., with the support of M.F., evaluated and interpreted estimation results; T.M., with the support of R.B. and M.F., prepared the manuscript. All co-authors contributed to the manuscript proof and submission.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Detailed material data used for analysis in this paper are given in Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3.
Table A1. Monotonic and cyclic properties for unalloyed steels [6,23,24].
Table A1. Monotonic and cyclic properties for unalloyed steels [6,23,24].
Material DesignationMonotonic PropertiesCyclic Parameters
DIN or SAE/otherE (MPa)Re or Rp0.2 (MPa)Rm (MPa)Rm/Re (-)RA (%)K (MPa)n (-)σf (MPa)εf (-)Re′ (MPa)K′ (MPa)n′ (-)
1038 (SAE)207,0003476101.75855.55110.0719560.59033212070.208
Armco (other)210,0002073591.734646750.2856531.0302808580.18
C 20190,0002244141.848703300.0619531.19023910500.238
C 10217,5104355661.301686590.07312051.13046313810.176
Ck 15196,7932633921.490557110.2247460.8062498240.193
Ck 15204,5003204341.35667.53940.067848.71.1262698130.178
Ck 15202,000431.3615.21.426545980.0451011.70.77649212960.156
Ck 15203,0006608281.2552.68630.042850.50.02668711650.085
Ck 25210,0003465071.465639260.26410270.99428013450.252
Ck 25210,0003074641.511659240.2769821.05027811110.223
Ck 25210,0003665271.4406010330.2649970.91630312170.224
Ck 35210,0004146171.4905812160.25811500.86832813550.229
Ck 35210,0003945931.5056211680.25711690.96833314600.238
Ck 35210,0003965651.4276311340.26411340.99431615340.254
Ck 35210,0005877801.3296713560.18615141.10946311060.14
Ck 35210,0004806561.3677411960.20714681.34739310330.156
Ck 35210,0005967331.2307111700.15215411.23844710270.134
Ck 35210,0005427301.3476813110.214731.13943010870.149
Ck 35210,0005136691.3047011210.1814171.20438710810.165
Ck 45206,0005407901.463607300.04714000.9164819800.115
Ck 45210,5005317901.4886012190.015112710.77746210780.133
Ck 45199,7006229151.4715916060.1817840.90059124070.226
Ck 45199,7006229151.4715916060.1817840.90053817620.191
Ck 45201,5003806841.80036.87350.0929870.46033614140.231
Ck 45205,00076010181.339011410.05910180.00072220750.17
Ck 45199,0004667371.5825414690.24812960.77736814860.225
Ck 45207,0004626721.4556112880.23512980.94235413910.22
Ck 45208,0005887301.2417011540.14815401.20442011940.168
Ck 45207,0005517741.4056812970.16615591.13946412350.158
Ck 45206,0007288441.1596412080.10815821.02251612170.138
Ck 45210,0006527871.2076812000.12915681.13947212850.161
Ck 45204,0007028631.2296612680.11816511.07952612430.138
St 37210,0002954351.475648290.2758351.0202739880.207
St 52-3210,0004005971.4936310610.22510830.98038912280.185
Note: Shaded values are calculated by Equation (20).
Table A2. Monotonic and cyclic properties for low-alloy steels [6,23,24].
Table A2. Monotonic and cyclic properties for low-alloy steels [6,23,24].
Material DesignationMonotonic PropertiesCyclic Parameters
DINE (MPa)Re or Rp0.2 (MPa)Rm (MPa)Rm/Re (-)RA (%)K (MPa)n (-)σf (MPa)εf (-)Re′ (MPa)K′ (MPa)n′ (-)
100 Cr 6207,000192720161.0461222810.03122300.120134133280.146
11 NiMnCrMo 55210,0007458521.1445712770.12413270.83466311450.088
14 Mn 5206,0005806971.202688580.06712221.15053714360.158
16 NiCrMo 3 2209,0008919391.054639630.01114910.99461710800.09
17 MnCrMo 33214,0008339291.1155812850.09914460.86766312520.102
20 Mn 3206,0009109601.0554311900.0610900.56167513130.107
22 MnCrNi 3198,000120015101.2584224470.11420340.549104621490.112
22 MnCrNi 3195,000120015861.322325860.11516690.026119327590.135
23 Mn 4207,000100810911.0826111850.02616160.95065616160.145
23 NiCr 4208,5317258081.114667620.00712151.08054112210.131
25 Mn 3200,0003515401.538679920.23611731.10032212190.214
25 Mn 5207,00090410081.1154911380.03312840.68060819000.183
28 MnCu 6204,0003305801.758649380.199501.03034711510.193
30 CrMo 2221,0007808981.1516711170.06316921.12057913660.138
30 CrMo 2200,250136014291.0515516610.03320850.79081417580.124
30 CrMoNiV 5 11212,0006057731.278627170.02713320.9684978940.094
30 CrNiMo 8206,0007009101.3006611280.07911680.7085739720.085
30 CrNiMo 8206,0007009101.3006611280.07911680.7085229950.095
30 MnCr 5206,0008209501.1596412500.09714451.06857616180.166
34 CrMo 4193,000101710881.0706513440.05619031.05069213100.103
34 CrMo 4188,0008479391.1096912150.07417951.17162410080.077
34 CrMo 4190,0008939781.0956713380.08917871.1096509870.067
34 CrMo 4197,00098010781.1006113820.0718180.94271113730.106
34 CrMo 4194,0007808811.1297112990.11617401.23855611980.124
4 NiCrMn 4206,0004546231.372767530.08112291.45050511110.127
40 CrMo 4208,7808409401.1196413000.09414401.03558313070.13
40 NiCrMo 6201,000108411461.0575915490.08318570.89075815500.115
40 NiCrMo 6190,00091010151.1156213720.08918080.97066013920.12
40 NiCrMo 6202,00095310291.0806214480.117240.97065916280.145
40 NiCrMo 6193,00099810671.0696214740.09217610.97071612920.095
40 NiCrMo 6205,0008108841.0916713780.14216801.11058613030.129
40 NiCrMo 7193,500137414711.0713817960.0419200.48090518900.118
40 NiCrMo 7193,5006358291.3064311750.09812010.57047413320.167
41 MnCr 3 4207,2808009301.1636213500.11213900.96055113400.143
42 Cr 4195,00090310061.1146212930.06817160.96867911530.085
42 Cr 4194,0008139211.1336512490.08616741.05061311470.101
42 Cr 4194,0008459521.1276212880.08616890.96861912070.107
42 Cr 4192,0008339431.1326512890.0916901.05062111920.105
42 Cr 4193,0007178401.1726912400.11816171.17154311610.122
42 CrMo 4211,40099811111.1136014690.06915250.49671613670.104
49 MnVS 3210,2005668401.4841914280.19411520.38052013960.159
50 CrMo 4205,00097010861.12048.611320.02616090.66570015680.13
50 CrMo 4205,0009479831.03814.610420.0189260.15777417540.132
8 Mn 6198,0008629651.1195712270.05415790.85058012560.125
8 Mn 6198,0008218691.0585310850.04614340.75067412580.101
80 Mn 4187,5005029311.8551611000.12710600.17445918590.225
WStE 460210,0005606671.1916110960.15311710.93251411940.128
Table A3. Monotonic and cyclic properties for high-alloy steels [6,23,24].
Table A3. Monotonic and cyclic properties for high-alloy steels [6,23,24].
Material DesignationMonotonic PropertiesCyclic Parameters
DINE (MPa)Re or Rp0.2 (MPa)Rm (MPa)Rm/Re (-)RA (%])K (MPa)n (-)σf (MPa)εf (-)Re′ (MPa)K′ (MPa)n′ (-)
X 10 CrNi 18 8204,0002456352.5927914160.36219081.56330723970.331
X 10 CrNiNb 18 9210,0002376152.59572 13981.27327119670.319
X 10 CrNiNb 18 9210,0002376152.59572 13981.27327616670.289
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0002116773.20967 14281.10945583840.469
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0001826683.67068 14291.13941461790.435
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0002116773.20969 14701.17149636470.321
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0001775162.91574 12111.34722022640.375
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0001775162.91574 12111.34725015350.292
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0002145292.47274 12421.34722820860.357
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0002145292.47274 12421.34725116820.306
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0001775353.02377 13211.47022030800.424
X 10 CrNiTi 18 9210,0001775353.02377 13211.47024120970.348
X 15 Cr 13210,0005987361.23170 16221.20447510560.128
X 15 Cr 13210,0005987361.23170 16221.2044979870.11
X 15 CrNiSi 25 20210,0002716302.32569 13681.17128923020.334
X 15 CrNiSi 25 20210,0002716302.32569 13681.17128422420.332
X 2 CrNi 18 9192,0002806012.146464550.0979710.61620728070.419
X 20 CrMo 12 1210,00079510131.27447 16560.63571613250.099
X 20 CrMo 12 1210,00079510131.27447 16560.63573013010.093
X 25 CrNiMn 25 20193,3402206422.918637540.22813601.01042122670.271
X 3 CrNi 19 9172,6257469531.2776911140.06320371.16088223130.155
X 3 CrNi 19 9186,4352557462.925745480.13619201.37067846340.309
X 5 CrNi 18 9210,0002076112.95275 14581.38619733310.455
X 5 CrNi 18 9210,0002076112.95283 16941.77220330010.434
X 5 CrNiMo 18 10210,0002305872.55278 14761.51425616440.299
X 5 CrNiMo 18 10210,0002315872.54178 14761.51424727550.388
X 5 CrNiMo 18 10210,0002576062.35879 18301.56131320000.298
X 5 CrNiMo 18 10210,0002286652.91781 17691.66125920810.336
X 5 CrNiMo 18 10210,0002286652.91781 17691.66125926740.376
X 5 NiCrTi 26 15210,00077711581.49052 20080.73471316170.132
X 5 NiCrTi 26 15210,00077711581.49052 20080.73471115430.125
X 6 CrNi 19 11183,0003256502.0008012100.19314001.61026716280.291
X 8 CrNiTi 18 10204,0002225692.563763490.06213811.42738352340.421
X2 CrNiMo 18 10210,0003737001.87775 16701.38629512320.23
X5 CrNi 18 9198,0002426662.752824840.11324071.71527528720.378
Note: Shaded values are calculated by Equations (8) and (20).

References

  1. Williams, C.R.; Lee, Y.-L.; Rilly, J.T. A practical method for statistical analysis of strain-life fatigue data. Int. J. Fatigue 2003, 25, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Blackmore, P.A. A critical review of Baumel-Seeger method for estimating strain-life fatigue properties of metallic materials. Eng. Integr. 2009, 27, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ramberg, W.; Osgood, W.R. Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters; Technical Note No. 902; National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA): Washington, DC, USA, 1943.
  4. Manson, S.S.; Halford, G.R. Fatigue and Durability of Structural Materials, 1st ed.; ASM International: Materials Park, OH, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Manson, S.S. Fatigue: A complex subject—Some simple approximations. Exp. Mech. SESA 1965, 5, 193–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bäumel, A., Jr.; Seeger, T. Materials Data for Cyclic Loading—Supplement 1, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  7. Roessle, M.L.; Fatemi, A. Strain-controlled fatigue properties of steels and some simple approximations. Int. J. Fatigue 2000, 22, 495–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hatscher, A.; Seeger, T.; Zenner, H. Abschätzung von zyklischen Werkstoffkennwerten—Erweiterung und Vergleich bisheriger Ansätze. Materialprufung 2007, 49, 2–14. [Google Scholar]
  9. Park, J.H.; Song, J.H. Detailed evaluation of methods for estimation of fatigue properties. Int. J. Fatigue 1995, 17, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Z.; Qiao, Y.; Sun, Q.; Li, C.; Li, J. Theoretical estimation to the cyclic strength coefficient and the cyclic strain-hardening exponent for metallic materials: Preliminary study. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2009, 18, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, J.; Sun, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Li, C.; Qiao, Y. Theoretical estimation to the cyclic yield strength and fatigue limit for alloy steels. Mech. Res. Commun. 2009, 36, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lopez, Z.; Fatemi, A. A method of predicting cyclic stress-strain curve from tensile properties for steels. Mater. Sci. Eng. A Struct. 2012, 556, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, J.; Zhang, Z.; Li, C. An improved method for estimation of Ramberg-Osgood curves of steels from monotonic tensile properties. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2016, 39, 412–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marohnić, T.; Basan, R. Study of Monotonic Properties’ Relevance for Estimation of Cyclic Yield Stress and Ramberg–Osgood Parameters of Steels. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2016, 25, 4812–4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Basan, R.; Franulović, M.; Prebil, I.; Črnjarić-Žic, N. Analysis of strain-life fatigue parameters and behavior of different groups of metallic materials. Int. J. Fatigue 2011, 33, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Basan, R.; Marohnić, T.; Prebil, I.; Franulović, M. Preliminary investigation of the existence of correlation between cyclic Ramberg-Osgood parameters and monotonic properties of low-alloy steels. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Mechanical Technologies and Structural Materials MTSM 2013, Split, Croatia, 26–27 September 2013; Živković, D., Ed.; Croatian society for mechanical technologies: Split, Croatia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  17. Marohnić, T.; Basan, R.; Franulović, M. Evaluation of the Possibility of Estimating Cyclic Stress-strain Parameters and Curves from Monotonic Properties of Steels. Procedia Eng. 2015, 101, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Smith, R.W.; Hirschberg, M.H.; Manson, S.S. Fatigue Behavior of Materials under Strain Cycling in Low and Intermediate Life Range; Technical Note D-1574; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): Washington, DC, USA, 1963.
  19. Zhang, Z.; Wu, W.; Chen, D.; Sun, Q.; Zhao, W. New Formula Relating the Yield Stress-Strain with the Strength Coefficient and the Strain-Hardening Exponent. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2004, 13, 509–512. [Google Scholar]
  20. Landgraf, R.W.; Morrow, J.; Endo, T. Determination of cyclic stress-strain curve. J. Mater. 1969, 4, 176–188. [Google Scholar]
  21. Devore, J. Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences; Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  22. Minitab 17 Statistical Software, Product version 17.3.1; Computer Software; Minitab, Inc.: State College, PA, USA, 2010.
  23. Boller, C.; Seeger, T. Materials Data for Cyclic Loading, Part A–D, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  24. Basan, R. MATDAT Materials Properties Database, Version 1.1. 2011. Available online: http://www.matdat.com/ (accessed on 15 January 2016).
Figure 1. Percentage of Re′ values estimated by selected methods that deviate up to 10%, 20% and 30% from experiment-based values.
Figure 1. Percentage of Re′ values estimated by selected methods that deviate up to 10%, 20% and 30% from experiment-based values.
Metals 07 00017 g001
Figure 2. Percentage of Δσ/2 values estimated by selected methods that deviate up to 10%, 20% and 30% from experiment-based values.
Figure 2. Percentage of Δσ/2 values estimated by selected methods that deviate up to 10%, 20% and 30% from experiment-based values.
Metals 07 00017 g002
Figure 3. Percentage of estimates of Δσ/2 deviating up to 30% from experimental values.
Figure 3. Percentage of estimates of Δσ/2 deviating up to 30% from experimental values.
Metals 07 00017 g003
Table 1. Methods for estimation of Re′ and K′ and n′ which will be evaluated.
Table 1. Methods for estimation of Re′ and K′ and n′ which will be evaluated.
Evaluated ValueMethodEstimated ParametersOriginally Proposed forEquation Number
ReLopez and Fatemi 1 [12]Resteels divided by Rm/Re(4a,b)
Lopez and Fatemi 2 [12]Reall steels(5)
Li et al. [13]Reall steels(6)
Δσ/2Zhang et al. 1 [10] (K and n available)Ksteels, Al and Ti alloys(10)
nsteels, Al and Ti alloys divided by α(11a,b,c)
Zhang et al. 2 [10] (K and n not available)Ksteels, Al and Ti alloys divided by α(12a,b)
nsteels, Al and Ti alloys divided by α(13a,b,c)
Lopez and Fatemi 1 [12]Ksteels divided by Rm/Re(14a,b)
nsteels divided by Rm/Re(15a,b)
Lopez and Fatemi 2 [12]Ksteels divided by Rm/Re(14a,b)
nall steels(16)
Li et al. [13]Ksteels divided by Rm/Re(19a,b,c)
nsteels divided by Rm/Re(18)
Table 2. Recommended methods for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ and cyclic parameters K′ and n′ of steels.
Table 2. Recommended methods for estimation of cyclic yield stress Re′ and cyclic parameters K′ and n′ of steels.
Steel SubgroupEstimation of ReEstimation of Δσ/2 (K′, n′)
Unalloyed steelsLi et al.1. Li et al.
Lopez and Fatemi 22. Lopez and Fatemi 1
Low-alloy steels1. Lopez and Fatemi 1Lopez and Fatemi 1
2. Li et al.Lopez and Fatemi 2
3. Lopez and Fatemi 2Li et al.
High-alloy steelsLopez and Fatemi 1Lopez and Fatemi 1

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marohnić, T.; Basan, R.; Franulović, M. Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Stress-Strain Parameters from Monotonic Properties of Steels. Metals 2017, 7, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/met7010017

AMA Style

Marohnić T, Basan R, Franulović M. Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Stress-Strain Parameters from Monotonic Properties of Steels. Metals. 2017; 7(1):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/met7010017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marohnić, Tea, Robert Basan, and Marina Franulović. 2017. "Evaluation of Methods for Estimation of Cyclic Stress-Strain Parameters from Monotonic Properties of Steels" Metals 7, no. 1: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/met7010017

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop