The prediction of crack growth rates from total endurances in high strain fatigue—thirty years on

McClintock 1 , 2 was one of the first to model continuous‐cycling fatigue crack growth by assuming a succession of miniature low‐cycle‐fatigue (LCF) specimens at the crack tip. Elements ahead of the crack amass damage until the arrival of the tip itself. Such models had been summarized by Majumdar and Morrow, 3 but the author was unaware of these papers at the time. The ideas were pursued further by Chakrabortty 4 whose paper, again unknown to the author, was published in the same issue (1979, Vol. 2) of FEMS. In the original paper 5 crack propagation is represented by successive regeneration at the crack tip, the process becoming progressively easier as the crack grows owing to an increase in strain concentration. These ‘initiation’ cycles were related to the ‘Coffin’ expression for crack initiation, thereby introducing two empirical constants k and α. The paper is of the class ‘ρ/N’ where ρ is the assumed size of a crack‐tip process zone and N is the cycles required to traverse that zone. Expressions had been previously derived linking LCF with linear‐elastic fracture‐mechanics (LEFM) crack growth, using the parameter ΔJ. 6 (It was later shown that this was identical to using an equivalent stress intensity parameter. 7 ) It has been shown that the approach does not apply for crack depths < 180 μm. 6 At elevated temperature the ΔJ approach was successful for describing crack growth in the range 0.2–1.2 mm for the cobalt‐based alloy MAR‐M509 at 600 °C. 8 Other studies have in fact shown 9 that crack growth rates are approximately constant below a depth of 200 μm. Even to this day short crack growth relations in LCF and their practical use are not as familiar as those in LEFM. It may justifiably be argued that for every paper published on LCF short crack growth, several hundred have appeared dealing with LEFM crack growth in terms of the ‘Paris’ law. One of the original referees' comments was that the paper 5 should have been presented in terms of LEFM. The author nevertheless defended his approach because for small cracks it was thought useful to retain the crack depth explicitly. It will be shown that LCF crack growth data have a definite part to play in the assessment of components and structures.