期刊文献+

两种常用疲劳寿命估算方法的可靠性对比 被引量:4

The reliability comparison of two usually used methods on estimating structure fatigue life
下载PDF
导出
摘要 评述了两种估算方法的估算步骤和特点,对两种方法在疲劳估算寿命的可靠性上做了一个简单的比较,对比结果表明:局部应力应变法比名义应力法有较高的精度和可靠度,通过实例验证了结论的正确性。 The estimation procedure and characteristic of these two methods have been evaluated, and we simply compared and analyzed the reliability of these two methods on estimating structure fatigue life. The conclusion showed that local strew-strain method is more accurate and reliable than nominal stress method and we used the example to prove the correctness of the conclusion.
作者 韩杨
出处 《山西建筑》 2008年第31期90-91,共2页 Shanxi Architecture
关键词 疲劳寿命估算方法 名义应力法 局部应力应变法 可靠性 estimating method on fatigue life, nominal stress method, local stress-strain method, reliability
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献14

  • 1郑立春,姚卫星.疲劳裂纹形成寿命预测方法综述[J].力学与实践,1996,18(4):9-14. 被引量:14
  • 2吴富民.结构疲劳强度[M].西安:西北工业大学出版社,1985.141-148.
  • 3Schutz W. The Prediction of Fatigue Life in the crack Initiation and Propagation Stages[J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 11 (2): 405~421.
  • 4Miner A M. Cumulative Damage in Fatigue[J]. J of Applied Mechanics, 1945, 12 (3): 159~164.
  • 5Manson S S, Halford G R. Reexamination of cumulative fatigue damage analysis [J]. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1986, 25(5): 539~571.
  • 6Barsom J M. Fatigue Crack Growth under Variable Amplitude Loading in Various Bridge Steels [M]. USA: ASTM STP 595, 1976. 217~235.
  • 7Tucker L, Russa S. The SAE Cumulative Fatigue Damage Test Program, in Fatigue under Complex Loading[M]. Warrendale, USA: SAE, 1977. 1~54.
  • 8Subramanyan S. A Cumulative Damage Rule Based on the Knee Point of the S-N Curve[J]. J of Engineering Materials Technology, 1976, 98: 316~321.
  • 9Rey W K. Cumulative Fatigue Damage at Elevated Temperature[M]. NACA TN4284, 1958.
  • 10赵少沛.抗疲劳设计[M].北京:机械工业出版社,1994.

共引文献52

同被引文献13

引证文献4

二级引证文献3

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部