Probability and scatter in cumulative fatigue damage.
ResearchPublished 1963
ResearchPublished 1963
A study of the problems in aircraft design caused by scatter in fatigue life. A simple example comparing design for static loads with design for static loads with lesign for cyclic loads is given to provide a measure of the magnitude of the effect of fatigue scatter. Another example illustrates that different distributions may greatly affect estimates of failure probability and life, but that design effects may be far less pronounced, possibly even insignificant. Confidence levels are discussed in order to help clarify those concepts especially relevant to fatigue work; it is shown that the use of confidence levels can benefit by application of acceptance-inspection-plan techniques. Also discussed is the currently favored use of prescribed, constant scatter factors, an approach not well founded on present concepts of cumulative damage. The Memorandum presents a straightforward approach to probability and scatter in spectrum loading consistent with cumlative-damage theories, using constant-amplitude data and incorporating the suggested determination of confidence levels.
This publication is part of the RAND research memorandum series. The research memorandum series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1973, included working papers meant to report current results of RAND research to appropriate audiences.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.