Fig. 1. SEM micrograph of the GH4169 superalloy showing the equiaxed grain structure.

Fig. 2. (a) EBSD orientation map of GH4169 superalloy, (b) pole figures of the EBSD map showing a typical texture-free microstructure.

Fig. 3. RVE type microstructure established representative of the observed microstructure of GH4169 superalloy.

Fig. 4. Comparison of CPFEM simulated macroscopic stress?strain curve with that obtained by uniaxial tensile testing.

Fig. 5. Model predicted plastic slip of GH4169 superalloy during the monotonic uniaxial tensile loading to enginering strains of (a) 3.5%, (b) 7% and (c) 13%.

Fig. 6. CPFEM model predicted cyclic stress?strain responses of the 2nd fatigue cycle that are compared with the LCF experimntal data obtained at a range of total strain amplitudes.

Fig. 7. Comparison of hysterisis loops between model predictions and experimental data for different fatigue loading cycles: (a) 1 st cycle, Δεt = 2.4%, (b) 3rd cycle, Δεt = 2.4%, (c) 10th cycle, Δεt = 2.4%, (d) 1 st cycle, Δεt = 1.6%, (e) 3rd cycle, Δεt = 1.6%, (f) 10th cycle, Δεt = 1.6%.

Fig. 8. Model predicted fatigue damage at the maximum tensile strain of 1.0% at the end of 10th fatigue cycle for the specimen tested with a total strain amplitude of 2.0%: (a) accumulated plastic slip, (b) accumulated energy dissipation. Note: Point A in each figure indicates the area ued for calulating critical fatigue damage indacator parameters.

Fig. 9. Optical micrograph of a LCF fatigue tested specimen with a total strain amplitude of 2.0%. Note: The microstructure examination was made on a specimen that had been extracted from the location near to the fatigue fracture surface.

Fig. 10. Nearly linear increase of (a) accumulated plastic slip, (b) accumulated energy dissipation.

Fig. 11. Life prediction with different FIPs: accumulated plastic slip and energy dissipation.

Fig. 12. Model predicted distrbution of the maximum principal stresses and strains at a LCF fatigue loaded specimen: (a) and (b) σ11 and ε11 at the loaded state to the maximum strain of 1.0%, (c) and (d) σ11 and ε11 at the unloaded state after the specimen was loaded to the maximum strain of 1.0%.

Fig. 13. A comparison of model predictions and experimental tensile and LCF fatigue stress-strain curves for different sets of grain orientations: (a) tensile loading, (b) LCF fatigue loading with the total strain amplitude of 2.0%.

Fig. 14. Stress distribution with different sets of orientations at maximum strain load condition of strain amplitude 2.0%: (a) case 1, (b) case 2, (c) case 3.