Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:08:21.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Crack growth behavior in an aluminum alloy under very low stress amplitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2017

Tobias Stein
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, University of Kassel, Kassel D-34125, Germany
Marcel Wicke
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, University of Kassel, Kassel D-34125, Germany
Angelika Brueckner-Foit*
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, University of Kassel, Kassel D-34125, Germany
Tina Kirsten
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden D-01069, Germany
Martina Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden D-01069, Germany
Fatih Buelbuel
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, University of Siegen, Siegen D-57068, Germany
Hans-Juergen Christ
Affiliation:
Institute for Materials Engineering, University of Siegen, Siegen D-57068, Germany
*
a) Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: a.brueckner-foit@uni-kassel.de

Abstract

The near-threshold behavior of long cracks is studied in this paper using precracked flat dogbone specimens of a commercial aluminum alloy in peak-aged and overaged conditions. After introducing the initial crack in compression precracking, the crack was propagated approximately with the constant range of the stress intensity factor at values just above or below the corresponding threshold values. It was found that there were two major mechanisms which kept the crack from continuous extension. First, the crack front was pinned by primary precipitates. This effect was rather pronounced and lead to significant kinking in the crack front and ductile ridges on the fracture surface. The second mechanism was shear-controlled crack extension of very long cracks with plastic zones ahead of the crack tip, very similar to stage-I small cracks. Interaction with primary precipitates deflected the shear-controlled cracks but did not change the crack extension mode.

Figure 0

FIG. 1. (a) EN-AW 6082 SEM micrograph of the grain structure taken in RD (b) Specimen geometry and (c) The part-through notch located at the specimen radius.

Figure 1

FIG. 2. da/dN versus Kmax-curve with threshold Kmax,th determination.

Figure 2

FIG. 3. Crack propagation rates of material 6Pa in rd- and td-orientation.

Figure 3

FIG. 4. SEM micrographs showing the crack paths at 1.8 MPa√m: (a) 6PA-rd, (b) 6PA-td, (c) 6OA-rd.

Figure 4

FIG. 5. SEM micrographs showing the fracture surfaces at 2.4 MPa√m: (a) 6PA-rd, (b) 6PA-td, and (c) 6OA-rd.

Figure 5

FIG. 6. Close up of the fracture surface of specimen 6PA-td tested at 2.4 MPa√m showing lines of ductile fracture.

Figure 6

FIG. 7. CT scan and micrographs illustrating the position of the crack front according to the primary precipitates.

Figure 7

FIG. 8. Crack tip field of specimen (a) 6PA-rd tested at 1.8 MPa√m and (b) 6PA-td tested at 0.7 MPa√m.