Issue 17

B. Atzori et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 17 (2011) 15-22; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.17.02 20 Fig. 7 shows the fatigue data analysed according to Eq. (5), with the 10-90% scatter band, the reference Q value evaluated at 10 millions of cycles, the value of exponent k , the scatter index T Q (T Q =Q  ,10% /  Q  ,90% ) and the scatter index T N,Q (T N,Q = T Q k ). The experimental data can be synthesised in a unique scatter band characterised by a constant slope k from 10 4 to 10 7 cycles. It is interesting to note that the scatter index T N,Q results by far lower than T N,   shown in Fig. 4. Figure 7 : Fatigue data synthesised in terms of specific energy loss Q for the AISI 304 L stainless steel. T WO LOAD LEVEL FATIGUE TESTS ith the aim to evaluate the sensitivity of the Q parameter to prior fatigue damage, some specimens were fatigued in variable amplitude, two different load level tests: the first level was chosen higher (  a =230 MPa) than the material fatigue limit (  A,  =217 MPa) and it was applied for a significant fraction of fatigue life (ranging from 80 to 86%) as evaluated according to the Q-N curve, previously obtained by means of constant amplitude fatigue tests (see Fig. 7). The second load level (  a =190 MPa) was lower than the fatigue limit. It should be noted that the two-load level fatigue tests presented in this paper are different from those presented in [4], where both levels were higher than the constant amplitude fatigue limit. The Q values, evaluated during the second step of the fatigue test, have been compared with those measured during some tests carried out under constant amplitude fatigue at the same load level on undamaged specimens. Figure 8 : Results of two load level fatigue tests in terms of stress. Scatter band is that reported in Fig. 4. Figure 9 : Results of two load level fatigue tests in terms of Q. The scatter band is that reported in Fig. 7. The results of the two load level fatigue tests are shown in Fig. 8 in terms of stress amplitude. It can be noted that only two of four specimens failed during the second level fatigue test. The same results were re-analysed on the basis of the energy parameter Q and plotted in Fig. 9: in the case of specimens that failed, the Q values measured during the second 10 100 1000 10000 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 Q [kJ/(m 3 cycle)] N. cycles R=-1 k=2.25 Q A,50% =87 kJ/(m 3 cycle) T Q =1.92 T N,Q =4.34 10% 90% 50% broken run-out broken stair case procedure 300 200 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 N. cycles  a [MPa] 10% 90% 140 Open symbols: first block of cycles Filled symbols: second block of cycles First load level:  a =230 MPa Second load level:  a =190 MPa specimen 1 specimen 2 specimen 3 specimen 4 10 100 1000 10000 specimen 1 specimen 2 specimen 3 specimen 4 N. cycles Q value measured at constant amplitude stress  a = 190 MPa on undamaged specimens Open symbols: first block of cycles Filled symbols: second block of cycles First load level:  a =230 MPa Second load level:  a =190 MPa Q [kJ/(m 3 cycle) 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 W