Issue 35

S. Blasón et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 35 (2016) 187-195; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.35.22 191 in which  K th represents the threshold stress intensity factor range and  K up , is the upper bound of the stress intensity factor range, not necessarily identifiable with the failure stress intensity factor  K f , see Fig. 5. This proposal offers the advantage that the sigmoidal shape of the crack growth rate curve da/dN-  K may be identified, analytically over its full existence range, as a cumulative distribution function, since  K + is a function growing up monotonically in the interval [0,1] (see Fig. 5) taking so advantage of the statistical experience gained about this family of curves. The fact that the threshold stress intensity factor  K th is estimated as one of the model parameter ensures higher reliability in the curve estimation and makes easier a further variability analysis, still pending. A possible option consists in assuming an extreme distribution either for maxima or for minima, taking into account the characteristics of the phenomenon. In this case, a Gumbel distribution for minima [9] was searched so that a reliable fitting of the normalized crack growth rate curve is achieved from the experimental results. An important question lies in the interpretation of the fatigue life resulting from the integration of the crack growth rate curve that corresponds rather to the propagation life than to the total fatigue life. The identification of the crack growth rate curve as a cumulative distribution function in which ΔK + is identified as the normalizing variable defined in the interval [0,1] leads to the consideration of log (da/dN) as being the random variable. Accordingly, the following equation must be used to fit the experimental results: * * * * * * * * log log log log 1 exp log log th up th da dN K K da F exp K K dN                                                    (2) The proposed model provides an analytical expression to the normalized crack growth rate curve by fitting the experimental results referred to crack size vs. number of cycles using a minimum square error method, see [7]. Fitting of the curve succeeds by minimizing the function Q (α, γ, ΔK th *, ΔK up *):   2 * * * * * * 1 log log log log log  1 exp n i ith up th i da dN Q K K K K exp                                                                             (3) with respect to those parameters, where α and γ are the location and the scale Gumbel parameters, and ΔK th *, ΔK up * the normalized values of ΔK th , ΔK up , respectively. The formulation of a transcendent theorem proves that assuming certain premises concerning the function representing the geometric crack factor Y(a), a reference crack growth curve a-N may be obtained using a unique integration allowing any other a-N curve, corresponding to a given pair of values for the initial crack size ao and the remote stress range applied Δσ, to be derived. Once the parameters are found from the experimental results obtained, the curves defining the normalized crack growth, a*(N*) can be determined by solving the differential Eq. (4) that provides a particular solution for a given initial crack size a 0 * and a particular stress range, Δσ*.   * * * 1 * * * log  log log log th up th da N u K exp F dN K K                        (4) where u=Δσ*Z(a*(N*)). The Z function represents a transformation of the function defining the geometric crack factor being given by:         * * * * * * Z a Y a N п a N  (5)