Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorR.J. Buccien_US
dc.contributor.authorG. Nordmark
dc.contributor.authorE.A. Starke, Jr.
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-03T20:18:09Z
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-10T13:31:58Z
dc.date.available2013-12-03T20:18:09Z
dc.date.available2015-09-10T13:31:58Z
dc.date.issued2013-12-03
dc.identifier.citationMechanisms, Fatigue and Fracture, Vol 19,ASM Handbook,: ASM International, 1996, p 771-812en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11115/169
dc.description.abstractThough virtually all design and standard specifications require the definition of tensile properties for a material, these data are only partly indicative of mechanical resistance to failure in service. Except for those situations where gross yielding or highly ductile fracture represents limiting failure conditions, tensile strength and yield strength are usually insufficient requirements for design of fracture-resistant structures. Strength by itself may not be sufficient if toughness, resistance to corrosion, stress corrosion, or fatigue are reduced too much in achieving high strength. The achievement of durable, long-lived structural components from high-strength materials requires consideration of severe stress raisers for which possible failure mechanisms are likely to be fatigue, brittle fracture, or fracture from some combination of cyclic and static loading in corrosive environments. 16 instances of 6061, mostly in tables throughout.en_US
dc.titleSelecting Aluminum Alloys to Resist Failure by Fracture Mechanismsen_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record