Thermo-mechanical fatigue behavior of a single crystal nickel-based superalloy

Highlights: → The thermo-mechanical fatigue life of OP TMF is shorter than that of IP TMF. This is mainly attributed to the maximum tensile stress level at the minimum temperature. → Under out-of-phase condition, damage is controlled by oxidation. While under in-phase condition, damage is controlled by creep. → In terms of the fracture surface and microstructural evolution under different conditions, deformation and damage mechanisms are explained based on the relative contribution of oxidation, creep and fatigue. - Abstract: Thermo-mechanical fatigue (TMF) behavior in a <0 0 1> oriented nickel-based single crystal superalloy was investigated under different cycles of strain and temperature. Fracture surface and microstructural evolution were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) respectively. It was found that the fatigue lives under in-phase (IP) TMF were longer than those of out-of-phase (OP) TMF, and the maximum tensile stress level was concluded to be the lifetime-limiting factor. Compared to isothermal low-cycle fatigue (LCF) lives obtained under the maximum temperature 900 deg. C, thermo-mechanical fatigue lifetime was much shorter. This result indicates that varying temperature superimposed mechanical strain greatly reduces the fatigue lifetime of superalloys. Based on observation of fracture surface and microstructure evolution, it was concluded that creep is the dominant damage mechanism under IP-TMF condition and oxidation causes shorter lifetime for OP-TMF tests. The similarities and differences in the changes of γ' morphology during in-phase (IP) and out-of-phase (OP) TMF tests were also discussed.