Phase Instability during Fatigue of Stainless Steel

This work is a comparative study of the fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) of two austenitic stainless steels, AISI 301 and AISI 302. The objective was to determine how differences in the austenitic stabilities of the two steels would effect their respective FCGR's. Tests were run in argon, hydro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Altstetter, Carl J, Khan, Zafar, Schuster, Gary
Format: Report
Language:English
Subjects:
AUSTENITE
CRACK PROPAGATION
ELECTRON DIFFRACTION
FATIGUE(MECHANICS)
MARTENSITE
Mechanics
METALLOGRAPHY
Metallurgy and Metallography
PERMEABILITY(MAGNETIC)
RESIDUAL STRESS
STABILITY
STAINLESS STEEL
STEEL
STEEL AISI 301
STEEL AISI 302
STRAIN GAGES
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This work is a comparative study of the fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) of two austenitic stainless steels, AISI 301 and AISI 302. The objective was to determine how differences in the austenitic stabilities of the two steels would effect their respective FCGR's. Tests were run in argon, hydrogen, and a smaller number in air. In addition to determining the FCGR's, a number of other quantities were also measured using various techniques. The plastic zone size of some specimens was determined by using a microhardness tester and electron channeling data. The residual stress around the crack tip was measured using strain gages. The volume fraction of martensite was determined by measuring the magnetic permeability and by using quantitative metallography. The phase present along the path of the fatigue crack was determined by using glancing incidence electron diffraction. Results from the work show that the relatively unstable AISI 301 stainless steel has a FCGR approximately 50% lower than AISI 302 stainless steel when tested in argon or air at a low mean stress, less than 66 MPa. At higher mean stresses the FCGR's are equal. The plastic zone sizes of AISI 301 specimens are generally smaller than for AISI 302. The cause for the lower FCGR observed in the AISI 301 seems to be the residual compressive stresses that develop around the crack tip as a result of the martensite formation. Testing in hydrogen caused the FCGR of both steels to greatly increase with the AISI 301 being affected to a much larger extent.