Issue 41

S. E. Ferreira et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 41 (2017) 129-138; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.41.18 136 Notice in Fig. 3 that the da/dN  K curve estimated by the SY-C&M model is essentially equal to the curve generated by the original C&P CDM model. Both estimates are quite reasonable for R  0.1 , albeit not as good for R  0.7 . The SYM curve (generated assuming   3 ) describes better the data points measured at R  0.7 . The SWT  N model estimates higher FCG rates than the C&M model for both R-ratios, as expected. The model proposed here (SY-C&M-modified, which does not need an assumed FCG rule) yielded the best estimates at R  0.1 and had a performance similar to the SYM at R  0.7 . The modified SY-CDMs had in particular a better performance at the higher  K ranges, where the original models systematically estimated FCG rates higher than the data. The original CDM [19] and SY-CDM models need a pre-chosen McEvily’-type da/dN  K curve, whose single adjustable parameter can however be calculated by  N procedures. Their good performance certainly is not a coincidence, since they use no adjustable data-fitting parameters and their predictions are entirely based on measured  N properties. In fact, when compared to SYM estimates based on  K eff concepts and on a FCG rule that has 4 adjustable data-fitting parameters, not to mention the constraint factor  that in practice is frequently used as a 5 th adjustable parameter, the CDM performance could be even qualified as quite impressive for a so simple model. The results for the 1020 steel are shown in Fig. 4. The original CDM based on a Creager and Paris shift of the HRR field reproduced well the data trend, but yielded slight non-conservative FCG estimates at R  0.1 . For R  0.7 it presented a still better performance. The original SYM had a similar performance at R  0.1 , but instead generated slight conservative predictions, which deviated from data at low  K values. For R  0.7 its predictions were not good. The modified SY- C&M generated quite reasonable predictions for R  0.7 , but for R  0.1 they were maybe too conservative. The other models yielded too conservative predictions for both R -ratios. Figure 4 : Strip-yield and critical damage models for the 1020 steel at R = 0.1 and 0.7 . Two facts resulting from this academic exercise must be emphasized. First, their FCG estimates were quite reasonable, an indication that their ideas about the mechanics of the FCG process probably are reasonable as well. This at least may be seen as an indication that the procedures used in these simple models are at least coherent, a reassuring evidence. However, the second fact is still more interesting, since it could not be anticipated. The study presented above show that