0% found this document useful (0 votes)
84 views15 pages

Materials 13 00173 PDF

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 15

materials

Article
The Influence of the Strain and Stress Gradient in
Determining Strain Fatigue Characteristics for
Oscillatory Bending
Andrzej Kurek * , Justyna Koziarska and Tadeusz Łagoda
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Opole University of Technology, 45-271 Opole, Poland;
justyna.koziarska@wp.pl (J.K.); t.lagoda@po.edu.pl (T.L.)
* Correspondence: a.kurek@po.edu.pl

Received: 7 December 2019; Accepted: 26 December 2019; Published: 1 January 2020 

Abstract: In this study, we created a new model to determine strain fatigue characteristics obtained
from a bending test. The developed model consists of comparing the stress and strain gradient
surface ratio for bending and tensile elements. For model verification, seven different materials
were examined based on fatigue tests we conducted, or data available in the literature: 30CrNiMo8,
10HNAP, SM45C, 16Mo3 steel, MO58 brass, and 2017A-T4 and 6082-T6 aluminum alloys. As a result,
we confirmed that the proposed method can be used to determine strain fatigue characteristics that
agree with the values determined on the basis of a tensile compression test.

Keywords: fatigue characteristics; bending; tension–compression; stress gradient; strain gradient

1. Introduction
Almost every type of industry has been considered in research on the analysis and, ultimately, the
prevention of risk, especially in terms of occupational safety. As such, estimating the fatigue limit is one
of the most important aspects of strength analysis of structural components. To examine the fatigue
limit of various materials, tests must be performed under tension–compression or oscillatory bending,
and the test results for the specimens of the occurrence of stresses and strains must be subsequently
analyzed. However, the origin of these stresses is not usually considered, although the terms normal
or shear stress appears in the analysis of fatigue life. The amplitude of the normal stress σa can be
derived, for example, from tension–compression, oscillatory bending with restraint, three-point and
four-point bending, or rotary bending.
It is important to note that in the case of bending, we always have a linear distribution of the
strain gradient, which in the case of elasticity corresponds to the same stress distribution. The situation
changes dramatically in the event of plastic deformations. Here, even if the sheet is rolled, the stress
distribution is not linear due to various elastic and plastic deformations in the cross-section [1].
Therefore, the problem is much more complicated for bent elements. Plastic deformations appear on
the surface, which disappear as they approach the bending plane. The greater these deformations, the
more the stress distribution has a gradient that is more and more perpendicular to the surface. In the
extreme case of a plastic joint, this distribution approaches the rectangular one in the tension and
compression parts, respectively. In addition, in the case of the mesoscopic scale, the plastic deformation
gradient significantly affects the corresponding stress gradient [2].
Few studies have paid attention to differences in fatigue resulting from the load [3–12]. A different
fatigue life may correspond, as a result, to the same strain or stress curve. Dorr T. et al. [12] proved
that changing the bending plane during tests by π/2 changes the fatigue life as well. None of the
cited works have thoroughly analyzed this phenomenon. Although there are theories that consider

Materials 2020, 13, 173; doi:10.3390/ma13010173 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials


Materials 2020, 13, 173 2 of 15

stress and strain gradients in material fatigue in general, for example, of Gil-Sevillano et al. [13], there
are none that use it to better predict fatigue life according to the oscillatory bending tests. Therefore,
determining the characteristics using tests at different loads for the same materials is required.
The effect of the stress gradient, and thus the strain gradient, is rarely directly included in fatigue
life estimation models. The gradient method is one of the methods of forecasting fatigue limit discussed
in the literature [14], where, when using a gradient method, the stress is modified with a relative or
absolute stress gradient.
Few attempts have been made to discuss or use the gradient in the literature. In one of the latest
publications [15], a strain gradient was used to predict the influence of the microstructure on the
initiation of failure, in addition to initial works considering the stress gradient [16–18]. The reported
results can be used to calculate stress for failures with sharp notches and to assess the fatigue limit of
notched components. These works showed that fatigue is significantly influenced by both the load
method and geometry, e.g., the notch, where these relationships can be described based on the stress
gradient using a dimensionless coefficient, given by:

1 ∂σ y
x= (1)
σmax ∂x

where x is the distance from the bending plane, σmax is the maximum stress. The gradient changes
with the change in the specimen size. This model was used in previous studies [19].
In this study, seven different materials were used based on selected fatigue tests available in the
literature, along with tests conducted by us: 10HNAP, 30CrNiMo8, SM45C, 16Mo3 steel, MO58 brass,
and 2017A-T4 and 6082-T6 aluminum alloys.
Fatigue life determined from fatigue tensile–compressing tests indicates lower or comparable
values for fatigue life obtained under oscillatory bending [20]. Therefore, let us assume the theory
that when using the tensile–compressing model for calculations of fatigue life for oscillatory bending,
correct and safe results can be expected [21–23].
The results obtained under oscillatory bending conditions represented by the determined secant
modulus based on the ratio of the stress gradient and the strain gradient at the critical location, i.e.,
on the surface, are significantly similar to the results obtained during tension–compression.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Stress and Strain Gradient


Basquin [24] proposed a fatigue graph depicting the dependence ofthenumber of cycles to failure
from the stress amplitude in a double logarithmic system log(σa ) − log N f and a formula expression
for tension–compression in exponential notation can be represented as [6]:
 b
σa = σ f 2N f (2)

or in the form of:


log N f = A + m log σa , (3)

where Nf is the fatigue life in cycles, σa is the stress amplitude for tension–compression or bending,
and a and m are constants in the regression model.
The basic fatigue characteristic for tension–compression is the Manson–Coffin–Basquin modulus
(MCB) [24,25]:
σ0 f  b  c
εa,t = εa,e + εa,p = 2N f + ε0 f 2N f (4)
E
where εa,t is the amplitude of the total strain expressed by the sum of the amplitudes of the elastic εa,e
and plastic εa,p strain; 2Nf is the number of loading reversals (semi-cycles); E is Young’s modulus; σ’f
Materials 2020, 13, 173 3 of 15

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14


and c are the coefficient and exponent
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of the fatigue limit, respectively; and ε’f and c are the coefficient
3 of 14
and exponent of the plastic fatigue strain.
For tension–compression, the uniaxial distribution of strains and stresses is as presented in
For
For
Figure tension–compression, the
1. tension–compression, the uniaxial
uniaxial distribution
distribution of
of strains
strains and
and stresses
stresses isis as
as presented
presented in
in
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 1. The distribution of (a) 𝜀 strains and (b) σ stresses under tension–compression.
Figure
Figure1.1.The
Thedistribution (a)𝜀ε strains and (b) σ stresses under tension–compression.
distributionofof(a)
In the case of an elastic body model for bending, the distribution of strains and corresponding
In the
In
stresses the case
arecase of an
of
linear, anpresented
as elastic body
elastic body model for
model
in Figure for bending,
2. bending, the
the distribution
distribution of
of strains
strains and
and corresponding
corresponding
stresses are
stresses are linear,
linear, as presented in Figure 2.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.2.The
Thedistribution
distributionof (a) 𝜀ε strains and (b) σ stresses under bending.
of(a) bending.
Figure 2. The distribution of (a) 𝜀 strains and (b) σ stresses under bending.
In the literature, no simple model exists for determining
In determining strains
strains and
and stresses
stresses according
according to the
model
model In ofthethe
of literature,
the no simple
elastoplastic
elastoplastic bodyfor
body model exists for
forspecimens
specimens determining
without
without notches
notches strains
when
when and stresses
bending.
bending. according
For For small
small to the
strains,
strains, the
model of
distribution the
the distribution elastoplastic
of normal
of normal body
strains
strains for specimens
in the
in the without
cross-section
cross-section forfor notches when
bendingwas
bending bending.
waslinear
linear[21], For
[21],and small
andwe strains,
weassumed
assumed thatthe
that
distribution of normal
this is aa geometric
geometric strainsthat
condition
condition in the
that must
must cross-section
be met
be firstfor
met first bending
to obtain
to obtain was linear
fatigue
fatigue values[21],
values under
underand we assumed
bending
bending that
conditions
conditions
this is aelastoplastic
in the geometric condition
model. that must be met first to obtain fatigue values under bending conditions
in the elastoplastic model. X
εa (x) = εa max 𝑋 (5)
𝜀 (𝑥) = 𝜀 R
𝑋 (5)
𝜀 (𝑥) and 𝑅
= 𝜀 R is the maximum height. (5)
where x is the distance from the bending plane, 𝑅
where x is the distance from the bending plane, and R is the maximum height.
The second condition to be met is a physical condition, i.e., a bending moment that must be
where x is the distance fromtothe bebending
met is aplane, and condition,
R is the maximum height.moment that must be
balanced second
The condition
by the normal stresses: physical i.e., a bending
The second condition
balanced by the normal stresses: to be met is a physical
Z condition, i.e., a bending moment that must be
balanced by the normal stresses: Mb = σ(x, y)xdS (6)
S
𝑀 = 𝜎 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑥𝑑𝑆 (6)
The Ramberg–Osgood equation combines 𝑀 = the 𝜎 (𝑥, 𝑦)𝑥𝑑𝑆
stress amplitude with the strain amplitude and (6)is
described as [26]:
The Ramberg–Osgood equation combines the stress amplitude   10 with the strain amplitude and is
The Ramberg–Osgood
described as [26]: equation combines the stress σa amplitude
σa n with the strain amplitude and is
εa,t = εa,e + εa,p = + 0 (7)
described as [26]: E K
𝜎 𝜎 ′ (7)
𝜀 , = 𝜀 , +𝜀 , =𝜎 + 𝜎 ′
𝜀 , = 𝜀 , + 𝜀 , = 𝐸 + 𝐾′ (7)
𝐸 𝐾′
where 𝜀 is the stress amplitude, K’ is the coefficient of cyclic strength, and n’ is the exponent of
where 𝜀 is the stress amplitude, K’ is the coefficient of cyclic strength, and n’ is the exponent of
cyclic strengthening.
cyclic strengthening.
Materials 2020, 13, 173 4 of 15

Materials ε is12,
where 2019,
a thex FOR PEER
stress REVIEW
amplitude, 4 of 14
K’ is the coefficient of cyclic strength, and n’ is the exponent of
cyclic strengthening.
In total, the system of equations consisting of conditions in Equations (5)–(7) must be met; on
In total, the system of equations consisting of conditions in Equations (5)–(7) must be met; on
this basis, the elastoplastic strains and appropriate stresses can be determined. The distribution of
this basis, the elastoplastic strains and appropriate stresses can be determined. The distribution of
strains and stresses was shaped as presented in Figure 3. The linear strain gradient corresponded to
strains and stresses was shaped as presented in Figure 3. The linear strain gradient corresponded to a
a non-linear stress gradient.
non-linear stress gradient.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure3.3.The
Thedistribution (a)𝜀εstrains
distributionofof(a) strainsand (b)σσ elastoplastic
and(b) elastoplastic stresses
stresses under
under bending.
bending.

Usingthe
Using thestrain
strainderivative afterxxfrom
derivativeafter fromEquation
Equation(6),
(6),we
we obtained
obtained aa derivative
derivative for
for strains:
strains:
𝑑𝜀
dε = 𝜀εamax
= 𝑅 (8)(8)
𝑑𝑥
dx R
In the elastic range, the stress derivative after x for bending has the form:
In the elastic range, the stress derivative after x for bending has the form:
𝑑𝜎 𝜎
dσ = σ𝑅
𝑑𝑥 amax
(9)
= (9)
dx R
By using the assumptions in Equations (7) and (8), we obtained the ratio of stress and strain
derivatives:
By using the assumptions in Equations (7) and (8), we obtained the ratio of stress and strain
derivatives: 𝑑𝜎 𝜎
σa max
  
𝑑𝑥

dx 𝑅R 𝜎σ
𝑑𝜀  == 𝜀 = amax =
 = =𝐸
E (10)
(10)
dε εa max 𝜀εamax
𝑑𝑥dx 𝑅R
whichin
which ineffect,
effect, corresponds
corresponds toto Young’s
Young’s modulus
modulus of
of elasticity.
elasticity.
According to Equations (3) and (4), for a model
According to Equations (3) and (4), for a model of ofthe
theelastoplastic
elastoplasticbody:
body:
! / ′0
𝜀(𝑥) = 𝜀 x𝑥 = 𝜎σa(𝑥)
(x) + 𝜎σa(𝑥)
(x) 1/n (11)
ε(x) = εamax 𝑅 = 𝐸 + 𝐾′0 (11)
R E K
Counting the derivative on both sides after x from Equation (10), we obtained:
Counting the derivative on both sides after x from Equation (10), we obtained:
𝜀 1 𝑑𝜎 (𝑥) 1 / ′ 1 𝑑𝜎 (𝑥)
= +  1/n0  𝜎  (𝑥) / ′ 0 (12)
εamax
𝑅 𝐸1 dσ
𝑑𝑥 𝐾′1 𝑛′1 𝑑(𝑥)
!
a (x) 1/n −1 dσ a (x)
= + 0 σa (x) (12)
R E dx K n0 d(x)
and after transformation, we obtained:
and after transformation, we
𝜀 obtained:
1 1 / 1 𝑑𝜎 (𝑥)
= "+ 𝜎 (𝑥) / ⋅# (13)
𝑅 𝐸 𝐾′
 1/n 𝑛′
0 𝑑(𝑥)
εamax 1 1 1 dσa (x)
 
1/n0 −1
= + 0 0
σa ( x ) · (13)
In other words, R E K n d(x)
𝜀
In other words, 𝑑𝜎(𝑥) ε𝑅
dσ(x) =
𝑑(𝑥) /
amax
(14)
= 1 + 1 1/n0R1 𝜎(𝑥) / (14)
d(x) 𝐸1 + 𝐾′10 0
𝑛′10 σ(x)1/n −1
E K n
Assuming that the secant modulus at a given point includes plastic strains, it is defined as:
Materials 2020, 13, 173 5 of 15

Assuming that the secant modulus at a given point includes plastic strains, it is defined as:


dx
Ep = d
(15)
dx

by introducing Equations (8) and (14) into (15), we obtained:

1
Ep =  10 (16)
 1
−1
n0 σ ( x )
1 1 n 1 n0
E + K0

Eventually, by dividing the sides of Equations (10) and (16), we obtained:


 1/n0
E 1 1 0
= 1+E 0 0
σa (x)1/n −1 (17)
Ep K n

where K’ is the coefficient of cyclic strength and n’ is the exponent of cyclic strengthening.
We proposed the following relationship between the amplitude for oscillatory bending according
to the elastoplastic model and the amplitude including the gradient:
a
E

σa,grad = σa,e−p (18)
EP

where E is Young’s modulus, a is the exponent of fatigue stress, and σa,e−p is the stress amplitude for
bending according to the full elastic model.
In the proposed model, we assume that a in Equation (18) is:

n0
a= (19)
5
Eventually, by substituting Equation (17) into Equation (18), we obtained:

   n10  5n1 0
1 1 1 −1 
σa,grad = σa,e−p 1 + E 0 σa (x) n 
 0
(20)

K n0

We obtained the maximum stress on the surface; in other words, for x = R, σa (x) = σa,e−p or:

   n10  5n1 0
1 1 1 −1 
σa,grad = σa,e−p 1 + E 0 σa,e−p n0 

(21)

K n0

Calculating the maximum stress provided the basis for calculating the strain gradient:

σ  σ  n10
a,grad a,grad
εa,grad = + (22)
E K0

Eventually, after introducing Equation (21) into Equation (22), we obtained:

 " 1#   " # 10  n10


  10 0   10
 1 −1 5n   1 −1 5n 
 σ
n0 σ
  σ
n0 σa,e−p
1 n 1 1 n 1
 a,e−p 1 + E K0 a,e−p n
0
  a,e−p 1 + E K0 n0 

εa,grad
  
=   +  (23)

E K0
  
 
   
   
Materials 2020, 13, 173 6 of 15

2.2. Experimental Tests


The analysis was conducted on 7 materials from different material groups. A part of the
research data was obtained from the available literature, and some data were obtained from our
own research. The analyzed and tested materials were 10HNAP, based on our research under
tension–compression [27] and under bending [28]; 16Mo3, based on data from the literature for
tension–compression [29] and on the basis of our own tests for bending [30]; 30CrNiMo3, based on
data from the literature for bending [30] and tension–compression [31]; MO58, on the basis of our own
tests for bending [32] and for tension–compression [33]; SM45, based on data from the literature for
bending [34] and for tension–compression [29]; 2017A-T4, based on our own tests under bending [35]
and tension–compression [36]; and 6082-T6, also on the basis of our own tests under bending [37] and
tension–compression [38]. Table 1 presents the chemical composition of tested materials, and Table 2
presents the mechanical properties of these materials.

Table 1. Chemical composition of the tested materials (%).

Chemical Composition
Material
C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Mo Cu Fe Mg Zn Zr + Ti Pb Sn Al
The
10HNAP 0.115 0.41 0.71 0.082 0.028 0.81 1.90 0.30 - - - - - - -
rest
The
30CrNiMo8 0.3 0.27 0.49 0.019 0.009 3.89 1.90 0.30 - - - - - - -
rest
The
SM45C 0.45 0.35 0.64 0.011 0.012 - - - - - - - - - -
rest
The
16Mo3 0.19 0.28 0.69 0.019 0.024 - - 0.33 - - - - - - -
rest
Max Max The Max Max
MO58 - - - - - - - 56–60 - - 1–3.5
0.2 0.5 rest 0.5 1
The
2017(A) - 0.2–0.8 0.4–1.0 - - <0.10 - - 3.5–4.5 <0.7 0.4–1.0 <0.25 <0.25 - -
rest
The
6082 - 0.7–1.3 0.4–1.0 - - <0.25 - - <0.1 <0.5 0.6–1.2 <0.2 <0.1 - -
rest

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the tested and analyzed materials, such as offset yield point (Rp0.2 ),
ultimate tensile strength (Rm ), relative elongation (A5), and Poisson’s ratio (ν).

Material Rp0.2 (MPa) Rm (MPa) A5 (%) ν


10HNAP 464 566 32 0.29
30CrNiMo8 795 1014 6.3 0.29
SM45C 430 680 15 0.29
16Mo3 335 481 24 0.30
MO58 399 484 - 0.32
2017-T6 395 545 21 0.32
6082-T4 365 385 27.2 0.32

Tensile–compression tests were performed under standard conditions on solid round specimens.
In fatigue tests, diabolo-type cylindrical specimens with no geometric notch were used, as presented in
Figure 4. The tests under cyclic bending conditions at the controlled moment (Figure 5a) were conducted
for 10HNAP steel, Mo58 brass, and 2017(A)-T4 and 6082-T6 aluminum alloys. However, cyclic bending
tests with controlled strains (Figure 5b) were conducted for 16Mo3 steel and 6082-T6 aluminum.
specimens. In fatigue tests, diabolo-type cylindrical specimens with no geometric notch were used,
as presented in Figure 4. The tests under cyclic bending conditions at the controlled moment (Figure
5a) were conducted for 10HNAP steel, Mo58 brass, and 2017(A)-T4 and 6082-T6 aluminum alloys.
However, cyclic bending tests with controlled strains (Figure 5b) were conducted for 16Mo3 steel and
Materials
6082-T6 2020, 13, 173
aluminum. 7 of 15

Figure
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER 4. The specimen’s geometry for fatigue testing, in mm.
REVIEW 7 of 14
Figure 4. The specimen’s geometry for fatigue testing, in mm.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Research
Research stands for fatigue tests with (a) controlled moment and (b) controlled strain.

2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
For
For oscillatory
oscillatory bending,
bending, in in the first stage,
the first stage, the
the stress
stress amplitudes
amplitudes from from the elastic body
the elastic body model
model were
were
converted into the elastoplastic body model according to the description and Equations
converted into the elastoplastic body model according to the description and Equations (5)–(7). Then, (5)–(7). Then,
the
the calculated
calculatedstress
stressamplitudes
amplitudes were converted
were into into
converted the model proposed
the model in this paper,
proposed in thiswhich
paper,included
which
the stress gradient, according to Equation
included the stress gradient, according to Equation (21) σ , which was the basis for calculating
(21) σa,grad, which was the basis for calculating
a,grad the strain
the
gradient using Equation
strain gradient (23). (23).
using Equation
We
We interpreted
interpreted thethe results
results by
by analyzing
analyzing the
the fatigue
fatigue life life scatter,
scatter, which
which was
was used
used with
with the
the help
help of
of
the logarithm [39]:
the logarithm [39]:
εa
!
E = f log 𝜀 (24)
𝐸 = 𝑓 logεcal (24)
𝜀
where εcal , with the use of the MCB in Equation (4).
where 𝜀 , with the use of the MCB in Equation (4).
The literature [25] suggested determining MSE as:
The literature [25] suggested determining MSE as:
s
2 ε𝜀a
ΣΣlog
𝑙𝑜𝑔 εcal
E𝐸RMS = 𝜀 (25)
(25)
=
𝑛n
Eventually,
Eventually, to
to determine
determine the
the mean
mean scatter,
scatter,we
weused:
used:

T𝑇RMS =
= 10
10ERMS (26)
(26)
In the available literature, the subject of scattering has been discussed [14]. We used scattering
as oneInof
thethe
available
methods literature, the subject
for comparing of scattering
models assessinghas beenlife.
fatigue discussed [14]. We used scattering as
one of the methods for comparing models assessing fatigue life.
The scattering was counted in the first stage for tension–compression, then for bending, as
describedscattering
The wasamplitude
by the strain counted according
in the first
to stage for tension–compression,
the elastoplastic model 𝜀 a,e-p, and then for including
then by bending,
as described by the strain amplitude according to the elastoplastic model ε , and then
strain gradients 𝜀 a,grad in relation to the base characteristic determined for tension–compression.
a,e-p by including
strainFigures
gradients εa,grad
6–13 in relation
depict to thestrain
the nominal base characteristic
amplitudes, determined
amplitudes for tension–compression.
determined according to the
elastoplastic body model, and, according to the proposed model, the strain gradient against the
amplitudes obtained for tension–compression. The inclusion of the elastoplastic model resulted in
the reduction of curves, illustrating the results obtained from tests under cyclic bending conditions
and the approximation to the curves obtained from tensile–compression testing. On the other hand,
considering the gradient effect for most of the analyzed materials led to cyclic bending and to
For 16Mo3
obtained under steel (Figure 9), the strain
tension–compression, andamplitude
were almost was parallel.
located below the amplitude
For MO58 of the10),
brass (Figure results
the
obtained
amplitudeunder tension–compression,
according to the new modeland waswere
also almost
below that parallel.
of theFor MO58
results brass (Figure
obtained 10), the
under bending
amplitude
according to according to the new
the elastoplastic model
model. was also
However, below
when that of the
analyzing MO58 results obtained
(Figure 10) asunder
well asbending
2017A-
according
T4 aluminum to the elastoplastic
alloy (Figure 11), model. However,
comparing when analyzing
the amplitudes MO58
obtained (Figure
under 10)bending
cyclic as well as 2017A-
according
T4 aluminum
to all the models alloy
with (Figure 11), comparing theamplitude
the tensile–compression amplitudes wasobtained
difficult,under
as thecyclic bending
results were inaccording
different
Materials 2020, 13, 173 8 of 15
to all the
cycle models
ranges. Thewith the for
results tensile–compression
2017-T4 aluminum amplitude was difficult,
alloy overlapped each as the results
other, both forwere
thosein different
obtained
cycle
underranges.
bending Theaccording
results forto2017-T4 aluminumand
the elastoplastic alloy overlapped
nominal model, each
as other,
well asboth for those
according toobtained
the new
under
model bending
proposed
Figures 6–13according
indepict
Equation to the
the (21) elastoplastic
presented
nominal 𝜀 nominal
and
strainasamplitudes, . model, as well
amplitudes as according
determined to thetonew
according the
model For proposed
elastoplastic body
6082-T6 in Equation
model,
aluminum (21)according
and,
alloy,presented
we analyzed 𝜀 the
as the
to .
proposed
strain model, the
performed forstrain gradient
the results against
obtained the
under
amplitudes
bending at aobtained
For 6082-T6 controlled for tension–compression.
aluminum alloy,
strain (Figure 12) and The
we analyzed a inclusion
atthe ofmoment
the elastoplastic
strain performed
controlled for model
the results
(Figure 13). resulted
Inobtained
both in the
under
cases, the
reduction
bending atofacurves,
strain amplitude controlledillustrating
that the
the results
strain (Figure
included new12) obtained
and at was
solution from testsboth
a controlled
below underthecyclic
moment bending
(Figure
results 13).conditions
obtainedIn under and the
both cases,
bending
approximation
strain
and underamplitude to the
thatcurves obtained
included
tension–compression. from
the new tensile–compression
solution was below both testing. On theobtained
the results other hand, considering
under bending
the
andgradient effect for most of the analyzed materials led to cyclic bending and to tension–compression.
under tension–compression.
10HNAP

10HNAP Bending (elasto-plastic)


aep
Bending MCB
Bending (elasto-plastic)
10-2
aep Tension-compression
atc
Bending MCB
Tension-compression MCB
10-2 atc
Tension-compression
Bending
agrad
Tension-compression MCB
Bending
agrad
Bending
Bending
a
mm/mm
mm/mm
a

10-3
104 105 106 107 108
10-3 Nf cycle
104 105 106
107 108
Nf cycle
Figure 6. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 10HNAP steel.
Figure6.6. Dependency
Figure Dependency chart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain amplitudeε𝜀a == ff(𝑁
strainamplitude (N f)) for
for 10HNAP
10HNAP steel.
steel.

30CrNiMo8

30CrNiMo8 Bending
aep
Bending MCB
Bending
aep Tension-compression
atc
Bending MCB
Tension-compression MCB
Tension-compression
10-2 atc
agrad
Bending
Tension-compression MCB
Bending
10-2 agrad
Bending
Bending
aamm/mm
mm/mm

10-3
102 103 104 105 106 107
10-3 N f cycle
102 10 3
10 4
10 5
10 6
107
N f cycle
Figure7.7.Dependency
Figure Dependencychart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain amplitudeσσaa == f(N
strainamplitude f(Nff)) for
for 30CrNiMo8
30CrNiMo8 steel.
steel.
Figure 7. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude σa = f(Nf) for 30CrNiMo8 steel.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Materials 2020, 13, 173 9 of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
10-3 SM45 9 of 14
5
10-3 SM45 Bending (elasto-plastic)
4.5
5 aep

SM45 Bending
4.554 10-3 aep
Bending (elasto-plastic)
Tension-compression
atc
Bending
4
4.5 Tension-compression
Bending (elasto-plastic)
3.5 aep Tension-compression
atc Bending
agradBending
Tension-compression
3.54 Tension-compression
Bending
3 atc
agrad
Bending
Tension-compression
3.5 Bending
3 Bending
agrad
2.5
Bending
3
2.5

2.52
2

2
1.5

1.5

1.5

1
104 105 106
1 Nf cycle
104 105
106
1 Nf cycle
104 5
10 106
Figure 8. Dependency chart for the strain
Nf cycleamplitude εa = f(Nf) for SM45 steel.

Figure 8. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude εa = f(Nf) for SM45 steel.
Figure8.8.Dependency
Figure Dependencychart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain amplitudeεεaa== f(N
strainamplitude f(Nff)) for
for SM45
SM45 steel.
steel.
16Mo3
16Mo3 Tension-compression
atc
16Mo3 Tension-compresion
Tension-compression
atc
aep
Bending (elasto-plastic)
10-2 Tension-compresion
Tension-compression
atc Bending(elasto-plastic)
Bending (elasto-plastic)
aep
10-2 agrad
Bending
Tension-compresion
Bending (elasto-plastic)
aep
Bending
Bending (elasto-plastic)
10-2 agrad
Bending
Bending (elasto-plastic)
Bending
Bending
mm/mm

agrad
Bending
mm/mm
mm/mm
a aa

10-3
102 103 104 105 106
10-3
102 10 3 N 10cycle
4
10 5
106
f
10-3
102 10 3 N cycle
104 10 5
106
f

amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 16Mo3 steel.


N cycle
Figure 9. Dependency chart for the strain
Figure 9. Dependency chart for the strainf amplitude εa = f (N f ) for 16Mo3 steel.
Figure 9. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 16Mo3 steel.
Figure 9. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 16Mo3 steel.
MO58
MO58 Bending
agrad
MO58 aep
Bending
Bending
agrad
10-2 Tension-compression
Bending
aep
agrad
Bending
Tension-compression
atc
10-2 Tension-compression
Bending
Bending (elasto-plastic)
aep
aep Tension-compression
atc
10-2 Tension-compression
Bending(elasto-plastic)
Bending
aep
atc
Tension-compression
Bending
Bending (elasto-plastic)
aep
mm/mm

Bending
mm/mm
a
mm/mm
a a

10-3
102 103 104 105 106 107
10-3
N f cycle
102 103 104 105 106 107
10-3 N f cycle
102 103 104 105 106 107
Figure 10.Dependency
Figure10. Dependencychart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain
strain amplitudeεa𝜀==f f(𝑁
amplitude
N f cycle (N f ) for MO58 steel.
Figure 10. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for MO58 steel.
Figure 10. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for MO58 steel.
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14
Materials 2020,
Materials 2019, 13,
12, 173
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 14
of 15
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

mm/mm
mm/mm
mm/mm
a a a

Figure 11. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 2017A-T4 aluminum alloy.
Figure 11. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 2017A-T4 aluminum alloy.
Figure 11.Dependency
Figure11. Dependencychart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain amplitudeεa𝜀==f f(𝑁
strainamplitude (N f )) for
for 2017A-T4
2017A-T4 aluminum
aluminum alloy.
alloy.
mm/mm
a a
mm/mm
mm/mm
a

Figure 12. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 6082-T4 steel.
Figure12.
Figure 12.Dependency
Dependencychart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain amplitudeεa𝜀 == ff(𝑁
strainamplitude (N f )) for
for 6082-T4
6082-T4 steel.
steel.
Figure 12. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 6082-T4 steel.

Figure 13.Dependency
Figure13. Dependencychart
chartfor
forthe
thestrain amplitudeεa𝜀 ==ff(𝑁
strainamplitude (N f )) for
for 6082-T4
6082-T4 steel.
steel.
Figure 13. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 6082-T4 steel.
Figure 13. Dependency chart for the strain amplitude 𝜀 = f(𝑁 ) for 6082-T4 steel.
Materials 2020, 13, 173 11 of 15

For 10HNAP steel (Figure 6), the strain amplitude gradient for the results for bending was
below the amplitude for the results obtained under bending according to the elastoplastic model.
The amplitude of the strain almost coincided with that under tension–compression.
The tests and calculations for 30CrNiMo8 (Figure 7) and SM45C steel (Figure 8) were similar.
For 16Mo3 steel (Figure 9), the strain amplitude was located below the amplitude of the results
obtained under tension–compression, and were almost parallel. For MO58 brass (Figure 10), the
amplitude according to the new model was also below that of the results obtained under bending
according to the elastoplastic model. However, when analyzing MO58 (Figure 10) as well as 2017A-T4
aluminum alloy (Figure 11), comparing the amplitudes obtained under cyclic bending according to all
the models with the tensile–compression amplitude was difficult, as the results were in different cycle
ranges. The results for 2017-T4 aluminum alloy overlapped each other, both for those obtained under
bending according to the elastoplastic and nominal model, as well as according to the new model
proposed in Equation (21) presented as εagrad .
For 6082-T6 aluminum alloy, we analyzed the strain performed for the results obtained under
bending at a controlled strain (Figure 12) and at a controlled moment (Figure 13). In both cases, the
strain amplitude that included the new solution was below both the results obtained under bending
and under tension–compression.

3. Discussion
When comparing different models, in order to select the one closest to reality, the fatigue life
scatter was analyzed for each of the examined materials. The results are presented in Tables 3–9. The
scatter for 10HNAP steel was the largest for the results obtained under bending. By comparing bending
according to the elastoplastic model (e-p) and by including the strain gradient (grad), we found that
the smallest scatter, and the closest to the tension–compression, were the results produced by the
model that included the gradients. When analyzing subsequent materials, we found that this was the
same situation for all steel and brass. Thus, for all analyzed steel and brass, satisfactory results were
obtained according to the proposed model. For aluminum alloys, no improvement in the scattering
was achieved, but the obtained results were acceptable. Scattering for 6082-T4 aluminum alloy also
remained in the trend as 2017A-T6 aluminum, but the difference was even smaller, especially between
bending under controlled strain and bending with the gradient.

Table 3. The cyclic properties of 10HNAP steel.

10HNAP
Material Constant

Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin Manson–Coffin–Basquin (MCB)


TRMS
(GPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending - - 35.96 11.39 - - - - -
Bending (e–p) - - 46.64 16.24 675 0.239 −0.052 −0.340 1.616
205
Tension–compression 853 0.156 29.07 9.57 685 0.245 −0.063 −0.399 1.114
Bending (grad) 58.51 21.41 501 0.0349 −0.039 −2569 1.152

Table 4. Cyclic properties of 30CrNiMo3 steel.

30CrNiMo8
Material Constant
Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin MCB
TRMS
(GPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending - - 25.57 7.35 - - - -
Bending (e–p) - - 52.07 17.30 911 0.602 −0.045 −0.548 1.229
206
Tension–compression 972 0.085 49.79 16.64 851 0.471 −0.043 −0.597 1.123
Bending (grad) - - 84.25 29.38 693 0.041 −0.027 −0.384 1.159
Materials 2020, 13, 173 12 of 15

Table 5. Cyclic properties of SM45C.

SM45C
Material Constant
Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin MCB
TRMS
(GPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending - - 31.13 10.29 - - - -
Bending (e–p) - - 37.78 13.38 671 0.035 −0.071 −0.298 1.246
201.5
Tension–compression 1414 0.231 23.69 7.76 1140 0.406 −0.122 −0.53 1.067
Bending (grad) 44.02 16.18 527 0.009 −0.058 −0.224 1.168

Table 6. Cyclic properties of 16Mo3 steel.

16Mo3
Material Constant
Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin MCB
TRMS
(GPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending - - 21.07 6.80 - - - -
Bending (e–p) - - 24.91 8.40 980 0.769 −0.116 −0.580 1.250
210
Tension–compression 1038 0.133 27.94 9.67 780 0.233 −0.096 −0.473 1.106
Bending (grad) 26.47 9.05 884 0.071 −0.107 −0.635 1.244

Table 7. Cyclic properties of MO58 steel.

MO58
Material Constant
Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin MCB
TRMS
(GPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending - - 19.98 5.86 - - - -
Bending (e–p) - - 25.06 8.04 1175 4.71 −0.110 −0.717 1.169
96.9
Tension–compression 723.3 0.121 50.92 18.59 549 0.11 −0.049 −0.434 1.091
Bending (grad) - - 25.76 8.3380 936 0.01 −0.095 −0.265 1.155

Table 8. Cyclic properties of 2017A-T4 aluminum alloy.

2017A-T4
Material Constant
Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin MCB
TRMS
(GPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending at the
- - 25.59 8.65 738 1 −0.095 0 1.498
controlled moment
72
Tension–compression 617 0.066 35.55 12.54 553 0.193 −0.044 −0.678 1.158
Bending (grad) - - 25.59 8.65 738 1 −0.095 0 1.498
Materials 2020, 13, 173 13 of 15

Table 9. Cyclic properties of 6082-T6 aluminum alloy.

6082-T6
Material Constant
Testing Conditions E Ramberg–Osgood Basquin MCB
TRMS
(MPa) K’ (MPa) n’ A m σ’f (MPa) ε’f b c
Bending at the controlled
- - 23.7053 7.9930 905 0.0530 −0.116 −0.610 1.179
moment
Bending at the controlled
76.998 - - - - 687 0.0419 −0.096 −0.516 1.183
moment (grad)
Bending at the controlled
- - 25.1731 8.6950 768 0.2836 −0.105 0.649 1.150
strain
Bending at the controlled
- - 26.47 9.28 696 0.0835 −0.098 −0.548 1.153
strain (grad)
Tension–compression 616 0.099 37.5945 13.7902 533 0.185 −0.065 −0.634 1.050

4. Conclusions
This paper proposes a model that enables the conversion of strain fatigue characteristics obtained
on the basis of a cyclic bending test into equivalents, which coincides with the characteristics obtained
in the tensile–compression test. The proposed model is based on the ratio of the stress and strain
gradient at a critical location, i.e., on the surface.
From the analyzed materials, we found that the strain amplitudes obtained on the basis of the
oscillatory bending test with restraint for a given fatigue life were greater than or equal to those
obtained in the tensile–compression test.
For the analyzed materials, we concluded that the strain amplitudes obtained on the basis of
the proposed model during the oscillatory bending test with restraint for a given fatigue life were
comparable to those obtained from the tensile–compression test, with the exception of 16Mo3 steel.
From the use of scattering, we found that the most reliable calculation results for the oscillatory
bending were obtained when including the secant modulus considering plasticity, i.e., the ratio of the
stress gradient and the strain gradient.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, A.K. and J.K.; methodology, A.K. and T.Ł.; supervision,
T.Ł.; Writing—review and editing, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was conducted under the grant of the National Science Centre (Poland) no. 2015/19/B/ST8/01115
and also this research was funded by the project financially co-supported by the Minister of Science and Higher
Education in the range of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, Project
No. 017/RID/2018/19, amount of funding 12.000.000 PLN.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Engler, O.; Tomé, C.N.; Huh, M.Y. A study of through-thickness texture gradients in rolled sheets. Metall.
Mater. Trans. A 2000, 31, 2299–2315. [CrossRef]
2. Aldazabal, J.; Sevillano, J.G. Hall-Petch behaviour induced by plastic strain gradients. Mater. Sci. Eng. A
2004, 365, 186–190. [CrossRef]
3. Kurek, A.; Koziarska, J.; Kluger, K.; Łagoda, T. Fatigue life of 2017-T4 aluminium alloy under different types
of stress. J. Mach. Constr. Maint. 2017, 4, 52–61.
4. Troshchenko, V. High-cycle fatigue and inelasticity of metals. In ICBMFF4. Multiaxial Fatigue Design. ESIS 21;
Mechanical Engineering Publications: London, UK, 1996; pp. 335–358.
5. Manson, S.S.; Muralidharan, U. Fatigue life prediction in bending from axial fatigue information. Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 1987, 9, 357–372. [CrossRef]
6. Hassan, T.; Liu, Z. On the difference of fatigue strengths from rotating bending, four-point bending, and
cantilever bending tests. Int. J. Press. Pip. 2001, 78, 19–30. [CrossRef]
Materials 2020, 13, 173 14 of 15

7. Megahed, M.M. Prediction of bending fatigue behaviour by the reference stress approach. Fatigue Fract. Eng.
Mater. Struct. 1990, 13, 361–374. [CrossRef]
8. Manson, S.S. Fatigue: A complex subject—some simple approximations. Exp. Mech. 1965, 5, 193–226.
[CrossRef]
9. Krzyżak, D.; Kurek, M.; Łagoda, T.; Sówka, D. Influence of changes of the bending plane position on the
fatigue life. Mater. Werkst. 2014, 45, 1018–1029. [CrossRef]
10. Ivanov, Y.F.; Alsaraeva, K.V.; Gromov, V.E.; Popova, N.A.; Konovalov, S.V. Fatigue life of silumin treated with
a high-intensity pulsed electron beam. J. Surf. Investig. 2015, 9, 1056–1059. [CrossRef]
11. Ivanov, Y.F.; Koval, N.N.; Gorbunov, S.V.; Vorobyov, S.V.; Konovalov, S.V.; Gromov, V.E. Multicyclic fatigue
of stainless steel treated by a high-intensity electron beam: Surface layer structure. Russ. Phys. J. 2011, 54,
575–583. [CrossRef]
12. Dorr, T.; Wagner, L. Influence of stress gradient on fatigue behavior of shot pending timetal 1100. In The
Sixth International Conference on Shot Peening; Jack, C., Ed.; ICSP6: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 223–232.
13. Gil Sevillano, J.; de las Cuevas, F. A comparison of the internal stresses in a transformation-induced
plasticity-assisted steel and a twinning-induced plasticity steel. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2019, 35, 409–419.
[CrossRef]
14. Norberg, S.; Olsson, M. The effect of loaded volume and stress gradient on the fatigue limit. Int. J. Fatigue
2007, 29, 2259–2272. [CrossRef]
15. Ashton, P.J.; Harte, A.M.; Leen, S.B. A strain gradient, crystal plasticity model for microstruktore-sensitive
fretting crack initiation in ferritic-pearlitic steel for flexible marine risers. Int. J. Fatigue 2018, 111, 81–92.
[CrossRef]
16. Kadi, N.; Pluvinage, G. Effective stress range in fatigue initiation emanating from notch, Fatigue ’99. Beijing
Inst. Aeronaut. Mater. 1999, 2, 1175–1179.
17. Adib, R.; Schmitt, C.; Pluvinage, G. Application of volumetric method to the assessment of damage inducted
by action of foreign object on gas pipes. Strength Mater. 2006, 38, 409–416. [CrossRef]
18. Filippini, M. Stress gradient calculations at notches. Int. J. Fatigue 2000, 22, 397–409. [CrossRef]
19. Milosevic, I.; Gerhard, W.; Grun, F.; Kober, M. Influence of size effect and stress gradient on the high-cycle
fatigue strength of a 1.4542 steel. Procedia Eng. 2016, 160, 61–68. [CrossRef]
20. Kurek, A.; Koziarska, J.; Łagoda, T. Wytrzymałość zm˛eczeniowa materiałów konstrukcyjnych na zginanie
wahadłowe i rozciaganie-ściskanie.
˛ In Proceedings of the 9-th International Symposium Mechanics of
Materials and Structures, Augustów, Poland, 2–6 June 2017.
21. Kurek, A.; Koziarska, J.; Kurek, M.; Kulesa, A.; Łagoda, T. Porównanie charakterystyk wytrzymałości
zm˛eczeniowej wybranych stali dla rozciagania-ściskania
˛ i zginania wahadłowego. Transp. Przemysłowy I
Masz. Rob. 2017, 3, 54–61.
22. Niesłony, A.; Kurek, A. Influence of the selected fatigue characteristics of the material on calculated fatigue life
under variable amplitude loading. In Applied Mechanics and Materials; Trans Tech Publications: Stafa-Zurich,
Switzerland, 2012; Volume 104, pp. 197–205.
23. Niesłony, A.; Kurek, A.; El Dsoki, C.; Kaufmann, H. A study of compatibility between two classical fatigue
curve models based on some selected structural materials. Int. J. Fatigue 2012, 39, 88–94. [CrossRef]
24. Basquin, O.H. The exponential law of endurance tests. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Proc. 1910, 10, 625–630.
25. Coffin, L.F. A study of the effect of cyclic thermal stresses on a ductile metal. Trans. ASME 1954, 76, 931–950.
26. Ramberg, W.; Osgood, W.R. Description of Stress-Strain Curves by Three Parameters; University of Washington
Libraries: Washington, WA, USA, 1943.
27. Lachowicz, C.; Łagoda, T.; Macha, E.; Dragon, A.; Petit, J. Selections of algorithms for fatigue life calculation
of elements made of 10HNAP steel under uniaxial random loadings. Studia Geotech. Mech. 1996, 18, 19–43.
28. Łagoda, T.; Macha, E. Energy approach to fatigue under combined cyclic bending with torsion of smooth
and notched specimens. Mater. Sci. 1998, 34, 630–639. [CrossRef]
29. Boller, C.; Seeger, T. Materials Data for Cyclic Loading. In Parts AE; Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1987; pp. 205–225.
30. Kulesa, A.; Kurek, A.; Łagoda, T.; Achtelik, H.; Kluger, K. Low cycle fatigue of steel in strain controlled cyclic
bending. Acta Mech. Autom. 2016, 10, 62–65.
31. Sanetra, C. Untersuchungen zum Festigkeitsverhalten bei mehrachsiger Randombeans–pruchung unter
Biegung und Torsion. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Clausthal, Clausthal, Germany, 1991.
Materials 2020, 13, 173 15 of 15

32. Kohut, M.; Łagoda, T. Badania zm˛eczeniowe mosiadzu ˛ MO58 w warunkach proporcjonalnego cyklicznego
zginania ze skr˛ecaniem. In Proceedings of the III Sympozjum Mechaniki Zniszczenia Materiałów i Konstrukcji,
Augustów, Poland, 1–4 June 2005; pp. 159–162.
33. Kohut, M.; Słowik, J. Badania zm˛eczeniowe mosiadzu ˛ Mo58 (B124, C38000 wg ASTM) przy kontrolowanym
odkształceniu w jednoosiowym cyklicznym stanie obcia˛żenia. Zeszyty Naukowe. Mechanika/Politechnika
Opolska 2005, 85, 31–38.
34. Lee, S.B. A criterion for fully reversed out of phase torsion and bending. In Multiaxial Fatigue; Miller, K.J.,
Brown, M.W., Eds.; ASTM International: Washington, DC, USA, 1985; pp. 553–568.
35. Kardas, D.; Kluger, K.; Łagoda, T.; Ogonowski, P. Fatigue life under proportional constant amplitude bending
with torsion in energy approach basic on aluminium alloy. Mater. Sci. 2017, 44, 541–549. [CrossRef]
36. B˛edkowski, W.; Łagoda, T.; Słowik, J. Strain controlled tests for determining the change of the material
fatigue parameters. Mater. Sci. 2007, 43, 492–498. [CrossRef]
37. Niesłony, A.; Łagoda, T.; Walat, K.; Kurek, M. Multiaxial fatigue behaviour of AA6068 and AA2017A
aluminium alloys under in-phase bending with torsion loading condition. Mater. Werkst. 2014, 45, 947–952.
[CrossRef]
38. Mroziński, St. Wyznaczanie własności niskocyklowych stopu aluminium PA4 w temperaturze otoczenia.
Raport z badań. Ph.D. Thesis, UTP w Bydgoszczy, Bydgoszcz, Poland, 2012. (in Polish).
39. Walat, K.; Łagoda, T. Trwałość zm˛eczeniowa elementów maszyn w płaszczyźnie krytycznej wyznaczonej
przez ekstremum kowariancji napr˛eżeń. In Studia i monografie. Z.294 Politechnika Opolska; Ofic. Wydaw. PO:
Opole, Poland, 2011; pp. 91–105.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy