ISSN 10526188, Journal of Machinery Manufacture and Reliability, 2013, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 364–373.

© Allerton Press, Inc., 2013.

Original Russian Text © N.A. Makhutov, 2013, published in Problemy Mashinostroeniya i Nadezhnosti Mashin, 2013, No. 5, pp. 25–36.

RELIABILITY, STRENGTH, AND WEAR RESISTANCE

OF MACHINES AND STRUCTURES

A Criterion Base for Assessment of Strength,

Lifetime, Reliability, Survivability, and Security
of Machines and Man–Machine Systems
N. A. Makhutov
Institute of Science of Machines (IMASh), Russian Academy of Sciences,
Malyi Kharitonyevskii per. 4, Moscow, 101990 Russia
Received June 17, 2013

Abstract—Stages and phases in the development of methods, criteria, and systems for the assessment
of strength, lifetime, survivability, safety, risks, and security of machinery are described against the
background of the history of the Institute of Science of Machines, Russian Academy of Sciences, its
problems and its computational and experimental resources. A system of defining expressions for a dif
ferential and generalized assessment of required margins is reported and a cumulative curve is con
structed that correlates external impacts and stressandstrain and limiting states according to dam
age, failures, breakdowns, emergencies, and catastrophes.
DOI: 10.3103/S1052618813050075

When the Institute of Science of Machines (IMASh), Department of Industrial Sciences of the USSR
Academy of Sciences, was established in 1938, basic and applied studies of dynamics and strength of
machines were included in the scope of its main scientific investigations.
The criterion base for the analysis of dynamics and strength in the prewar years (1938–1941) was the
o
comparison of operational nominal stresses σ n that occur in the machines’ loadbearing members with
o
the allowable ones [σ]. The operational nominal stresses σ n were confined to the region of nominal elastic
deformations and the values of these stresses were defined by formulas for the strength of materials, struc
tural mechanics, and the theory of elasticity. At that time, the strength conditions under static stress were
written in the form:

⎧ o M M ⎫
o o o
= ⎨ P, f , t , Q
o
σn  ⎬ ≤ [ σ ], (1)
⎩ F Wy Wp F ⎭

o o
where P o, M f , M t , and Qo are the loads that occur during operation, viz., the axial forces P o, the
o o
moments of flexion M f , the torques M t and the shear forces Qo; F, Wy , and Wp are the characteristics of
the cross sections of the loadbearing members at critical points, viz., the crosssectional area F, the sec
tion modulus Wy, and the polar section modulus Wp.
In the case of a dynamic loading, the dynamic load factor Kd (Kd ≥ 1) that depends on the time τ or the
rate of loading dσ/dτ is introduced in expression (1):
o o
σ nd = K d σ n . (2)

The factor Kd also depends on the rigidity C of the loaded member that is defined by the ratio of the
acting load to the occurring nominal deformation such as elongation, deflection, angle of torsion, and
angle of shear. For expression (1)

⎧ J y E J p G GF ⎫
C = ⎨ FE
, 
, ,  ⎬, (3)
⎩ l l l l ⎭

364
 A CRITERION BASE FOR ASSESSMENT 365

where E is the Young’s modulus of elasticity, G is the shear modulus, Jy is the centroidal moment of inertia,
Jp is the polar moment of inertia, and l is the length of the loaded member.
According to the formulas of the strength of materials and the theory of elasticity, the following rela
tion:
E
G =  , (4)
2(1 + μ)
where μ is Poisson’s ratio (for elastic deformations, μ = 0.25–0.3), exists between the quantities E and G.
When designing machines according to strength condition (1), no plastic, irreversible, deformations
that are defined by the material’s yield strength σys or by the failure that is defined by the ultimate or break
ing strength σu were allowed. Considering these requirements, the minimal allowable stress with intro
duced margins (n ≥ 1):
⎧σ σ ⎫
[ σ ] = min ⎨ ys, u ⎬, (5)
⎩ n ys n u ⎭

where nys and nu are margins of the yield strength σys and the ultimate strength σu.
In 1938–1941, the magnitudes of the margins n were accepted in the ranges (1.5 ≤ nys ≤ 2.5 and
2 ≤ nu ≤ 3.5).
In order to implement expressions (1)–(5) in the calculations, predominantly tensile/compression and
torsion tests of standard specimens were carried out that yielded criteria for experimental characteristics
σys, σu, E, G, and μ.
In the period of intensive industrialization of the country, when automobile and metallurgical indus
tries, power engineering and industrial engineering were developed, the first fundamental investigations of
statics, kinetics, and dynamics of machines and structures on the basis of (1)–(5) as well as mechanical
tests of structural steel grades were carried out under the guidance of Academicians Ye.A. Chudakov and
I.I. Artobolevskii and Professor N.I. Prigorovskii [1–3].
As early as in those years, however, it became clear that the margins nys and nu in expressions (1) and
(5) do not reflect to the full extent the diversity of operational loading conditions such as temperatures,
working media, cyclicality, inhomogeneous properties of the materials, the presence of weld joints, heat
treatment, etc. At the suggestion of the corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences
I.A. Oding [4], the differentiated coefficients of safety n as products of individual coefficients that cor
rected for the effects of each of the listed factors began to be introduced into calculations of strength
according to (1)–(5). By the early 1950s, the number of these coefficients had increased from 2 according
to (2) to 10–11.
In the prewar years and especially during the war, along with the static and dynamic strength according
to (2) and (5), cyclic strength and endurance became especially topical. This was related to a considerable
degree to aviation, submachine weapons, and transportation. With the number of the serviceloading
cycles No to 106, the highcycle fatigue of the loadbearing members resulted in their failure when the
static margins nys and nu in (5) were met. In this range of the cycle number No, the amplitudes of the failure
o
stresses σ a appeared to be by 2–2.5 times less than the ultimate strength σu. Under the guidance of S.V.
Serensen, an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in this country, including the IMASh, sys
tematic studies of cyclic strength and endurance were conducted. On the basis of the results of these stud
ies, in addition to (1), (2), and (5), new equations for calculating the fatigue strength considering the main
reduction factors were proposed:
o o σ –1
σ a ≤ σ –1 /n σ , σ a = 
, (6)
o 1 o
n σ ( K σ σ a )  + ψ σ σ m
εσ

where σ–1 is the endurance limit on the basis of 106 cycles in a completely reversed stress cycle with the
asymmetry parameter rσ = σmin/σmax = –1, nσ is the endurance limit margin, Kσ is the effective stress con
o
centration factor, ψσ is the coefficient of sensitivity to the stress cycle asymmetry (0.1 ≤ ψσ ≤ 0.3), σ m is
o
the mean cycle stress σ m = (σmax – σmin)/2, and εσ is the coefficient of sensitivity to the absolute cross
sectional dimensions (1 ≥ εσ ≥ 0.7) that reflects a decrease in the fatigue strength with increasing cross

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

366 MAKHUTOV

sectional dimensions as compared with the crosssectional dimensions of the laboratory specimen (F0 =
25–80 mm2 to the crosssectional dimensions of the component F = 1.5 × 104 mm2).
The effective stress concentration factor Kσ included in (6) is related to the theoretical concentration
factor ασ by the expression
K σ = q σ ( α σ – 1 ), α σ = σ max k /σ n , (7)

where ασ is the theoretical concentration factor that determines the excess of the maximum elastic stresses
in the concentration area σmaxk over the nominal σn and qσ is the coefficient of sensitivity to the stress con
centration (0 ≤ qσ ≤ 1).
Experiments using laboratory specimens, mockups, and fullscale machine and structure members
showed [6] that, with the increasing static strength (σys and σu), the ratio σ–1/σu decreases to 0.4–0.5 for
structural steels and light alloys and the sensitivity coefficients qσ, ψσ, and εσ in expressions (6) and (7)
increase.
Numerous studies of the shape of the stress cycle diagram σa–N, the Wohler curve, that correlates the
amplitudes of the failure stresses σa and the endurance N proved the possibility of applying the exponential
expression
mσ
σa N = Cσ , (8)

where mσ and Cσ are the characteristics of the material that, to a considerable degree, depend on the static
strength (σys and σu). For steels, the magnitude of σσ is increased from 0.08 to 0.15 when σu increases from
450 to 1500 MPa.
If knowing the calculated and experimental values of mσ, σa, and Cσ, the endurance N—the cyclic life
for a laboratory specimen—can be found according to expression (8):
1/m σ
N = ( C σ /σ a ) . (9)

By analogy with (1) and (5), the cyclic life of a loadbearing member during operation will be
o
N ≤ [ N ] = N/n N , (10)

where [N] is the allowable number of the loading cycles and nN is the lifetime/endurance margin.
In the calculations of the cyclic strength according to (6) and (10), the quantity nN is assumed to be in
the range from 3–5 to 10–20.
Intensive development of Siberia and the country’s northern regions with the extremely low climatic
temperatures from –50 to –60°C, and the introduction of new cryogenic technology applied to temper
atures from –196 to –269°C that started during the Great Patriotic War, and was carried on in the post
war period, necessitated conducting basic research in lowtemperature strength and cold resistance. In the
IMASh of the USSR Academy of Sciences, such studies were conducted under the guidance of Professor
o
G.V. Uzhik [6]. It was suggested that the first principal local stress σ 1max in the loadbearing member dur
ing operation, which does not exceed the tear strength Str
o
σ 1max ≤ S tr /n tr (11)

where ntr is the tear strength margin (ntr ≥ nu), should be considered as a criterion characteristic of the low
temperature strength.
To further develop wellknown failure models [6], it was suggested that Str should be defined by the
results of static tensile tests of samples with sharp notches considering the redistribution of the principal
o
stresses upon local plastic deformation. The same approach was applied to defining σ 1max . The signifi
cance and applicability of expression (11) were determined by the fact that, with the decreasing tempera
ture tmin and the increasing stress concentration ασ, the tear strength could be assumed to be constant.
The development of power, oilgas, chemical, and aeronautical engineering in the 1950s–1970s
demanded substantiation of hightemperature strength and creep of the machines. Developments in this
sphere were carried out in the IMASh, Moscow State University, and the Siberian Branch of the USSR
Academy of Sciences under the guidance of Academician Yu.N. Rabotnov [7].

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

 A CRITERION BASE FOR ASSESSMENT 367

Summarizing a vast amount of domestic and foreign information on the results of studying longterm
strength and creep showed that, when varying the time τ and the temperature t, the same approaches could
be applied as were applied to fatigue. Similar to (1), (5), (6), (8), and (10), we can write:
t
o σ mτ o
στ ≤ ls , στ τ = Cτ , τ ≤ [ τ ] = τ ls /n τ , (12)
n ls

o
where σ τ is the nominal stress in a critical point of the calculated crosssection upon longtime operation;
t
σ ls is the longterm strength at the temperature t; nls is the longterm strength margin (nls ≤ nu); mτ and Cτ
are the material’s characteristics; τo is the operation time; [τ] is the allowable endurance; and nτ is the
endurance margin (nτ is comparable with nN).
Calculations according to (12) require considering not only plastic deformations ep but also creep
deformations eτ. The experiments done first with metal materials and then with composites showed that,
for practical calculations of the strength at a longterm hightemperature loading, equations of state could
be used that correlated the stresses σ with the deformations ep and eτ for the given τ and t and that followed
from the theories of flow and aging
σ ψ = { e p, e τ, τ, t }. (13)

The proposition of Rabotnov and L.M. Kachanov that developing and dispersed failures ψ that weaken
the cross section σψ = σn/(1 – ψ) and depend on σ, t, and τ should be introduced into state equation (13)
was of great scientific and practical significance.
The methods and facilities of hightemperature metallography, the foundations of which were laid in
the IMASh in works by Professor M.G. Lozinskii [8], as well as of the microphysics and micromechanics
of generation and evolution of microstresses and microdamage laid down in works by Professors B.M.
Ravinskii and V.G. Lyuttsau [9, 10] in the 1960s–1980s had great scientific and applied importance for
study of the longterm and the cyclic strength.
These studies are being intensively developed at present. The results of these works are the basis for
considering the effects of the kinetics of such structural constituents as the grain sizes d and the sizes of
their fragments dfr, numbers Nmd and the nature of microdefects, microirregularities hm and residual
microstresses σrm in the equations of state and in basic mechanical properties:
{σys, σu} = {d, dfr, Nmd, hm, σrm}. (14)
In the 1970s–1080s, the issues of the reliability of machines and structures under various loading con
ditions assumed a great importance in research conducted in the IMASh. The probabilistic analysis of
strength and endurance at static and cyclic loading became the subject of research in the laboratories of
Academicians S.V. Serensen [5], N.G. Bruyevich [11], V.V. Bolotin [12], and Professor V.P. Kogaev [13].
According to the static theory of strength (W. Weibull, N.N. Afanasyev, and N.S. Streletskii) based on
the decisive role of the weakest link, researches carried out in the IMASh [5, 13] showed that the spread
in the strength characteristics σaν and in the endurance Nν depended on the relative stress gradient G that,
to a considerable degree, depended on the amplitude of the maximum stresses σamax, the theoretical con
centration factor ασ, the cross section F, and the constant of the fatigue limit variation σ –1ν :

{ σ aν, N ν } = { σ amax, α σ, F, σ –1ν }. (15)

An intensive increase in the operational impacts ρo, to, and τo in the second half of the 20th century in
new branches of machine building, civil engineering and defense industries such as aviation, missile tech
nology, atomic and thermal power engineering, heavyduty processing equipment, and highspeed trans
port involved a scientific substantiation of reductions in margins of strength nys, nu, and nσ and endurance
nN and nτ at static, cyclic and longterm loads. It necessitated solving nonlinear boundaryvalue problems
for regions of maximum stresses, studying equations of state in nonlinear representation, and a detailed
analysis of the accumulated current damage in the kinematicdeformation representation on the basis of
unconventional force and deformationfailure criteria. Developments made in the IMASh in this areas
[5, 14–17] were then pioneering work, now they are generally accepted. On their basis, the state equations
that correlated the current stresses σ and deformations e for the given loading conditions were written in

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

368 MAKHUTOV

the form of generalized deformation curves that depended on the material’s properties and the loading
parameters N, τ, and t:
(0) (0)
{ σ, e } = { σ , e , N, τ, t }, (16)
where σ(0) and e(0) are the stresses and the deformations of the initial loading at N0, τ0, and t0.
The applicability of linear and powerlaw dependencies σ–e and σ(0)–e(0) for engineering propositions
was shown:
(0) (0)
σ = Ee, σ = Ee at σ ≤ σ ys ; (17)

m (0) (0) m0
σ = σ ys ( e/e ys ) , σ = σ ys ( e /e ys ) , (18)
where m and m0 are the current hardening exponent and the hardening exponent at the initial loading,
respectively.
In the general case, m0 depends on the σys/σu ratio and m on m0, N, t, and τ. Instead of the curves of
the plastic highcycle fatigue in form (8) in the force representation of [σ], the fatigue curves in the elas
toplastic domain at σa > σys (lowcycle region) in the deformation representation were proposed:
me
ea N = Ce , (19)
where me and Ce are the material’s characteristics that depend predominantly on the strength σys and the
plasticity et (et = ln(1 – ψt)–1, where ψt is the contraction of the crosssectional area of the specimen under
a static tension).
In this connection, the stress margin nσ in (6) was replaced by the deformation margin
o
e a = e at /n e , (20)
o
where e a is the deformation amplitude in the most heavily loaded area during operation, eat is the breaking
(ultimate) strain amplitude for the given endurance No.
Investigations of regularities of a cyclic elastoplastic fracture were summarized in [18, 19].
Since the 1960s, great attention has been paid to development of mechanics of deformation and frac
ture under static, dynamic, cyclic and longterm loadings in basic studies of fracture criteria and pro
cesses. Investigations in nonlinear fracture mechanics and of deformation criteria of fracture based on
classical works on linear fracture mechanics became the main line of research in the IMASh.
Interpolation analytical solutions to boundaryvalue problems for the elastoplastic deformation stage
in the zones of structural stress concentration and cracks [15] enabled derivation of the generalized depen
dencies
{ K σ, K e } = { α σ, σ n /σ ys, m }, (21)

{ K Iσ, K Ie } = { K I, σ n /σ ys, m }, (22)

where σn/σys is the relative nominal stress; m is the material’s hardening exponent in the nonlinear domain
that is included in expression (18); ασ is a theoretical stress concentration factor in the elastic domain;
KI is the stress intensity factor in the elastic domain that depends on σn, the way of loading, and the crack
size l; Kσ and Ke are the stress and deformation concentration factors in the case of elastoplastic deforma
tions (Kσ ≤ ασ and Ke ≥ ασ); and KIσ and KIe are the stress and deformation intensity factors in the case of
elastoplastic deformations.
Expressions (21) and (22) are valid for the static, cyclic, longterm, and dynamic loadings, which fact
is determined by the variability of the value of m upon changes in the loading modes.
At the given values of σn and σys and the calculated and experimental values of Kσ, Ke, KIσ, and KIe,
the local deformations emax k and stresses σmax k are defined in the concentration zones and in the crack
zones by

⎧ σn ⎫ ⎧σ ⎫
 ( K e, K Ie ) ⎬,
e max k = ⎨  σ max k = ⎨ n ( K σ, K Iσ ) ⎬. (23)
⎩ E σys ⎭ ⎩ σ ys ⎭

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

 A CRITERION BASE FOR ASSESSMENT 369

Expressions (23) that determine the local stressandstrain state in the concentration and crack zones,
as well as expressions (15), (16), and (8)–(12) enable defining the strength, the crackgrowth life, and sur
vivability by the deformation criterion at the crackgrowth stage or the stage of complete failure:
{ dl/dN, dl/dτ } = { K Ie, C l, m l, K Iec }, K Ie ≥ K Iec , (24)
where dl/dN and dl/dτ are the velocities of the cracks l by the number of cycles N or by the loading time
τ; Kec is the critical value of the deformation intensity factor; and Cl and ml are the material’s crackgrowth
resistance characteristics at a static or a cyclic loading.
By analogy with expressions (5), (6), (10)–(12), and (20), marginal flaw sizes and crackgrowth resis
tance nl and nK are introduced in order to calculate the strength and endurance when determining the sur
vivability:
o o K Iec
l ≥ l c /n l , K Ie ≤ 
 (25)
nK
where l o is the crack size in the structural components during operation that is defined by flaw detection
o o
techniques; K Ie is the deformation intensity factor at given l o and σ n ; and lc and KIec are the critical size
of the crack and the deformation intensity factor that are determined by calculations or experimentally in
the presence of cracks.
If the parameters that comprise expressions (21)–(25) are determined considering their spread and the
magnitudes of the variation constants, then, by analogy with (15), the spread of the critical characteristics
o
lc, l o, KIec, and K Ie and the reliability parameters can be found by the stage of crack propagation.
In the IMASh, the lifetime and survivability of metal and ceramic structural materials, machine com
ponents, and structures considering elastoplastic deformations were investigated in [5, 14–19] and in [19]
as applied to composite materials.
Scientific fundamentals, methods, and facilities for enhancement of strength, lifetime, reliability, and
survivability have been systematically developed for the most heavily loaded machine components and
structural members on the basis of the entire system of criteria, margins, and design expressions (1)–(25)
[3–19].
It had become clear by the end of the 20th century that a continuous sophistication of objects of the
civil engineering and defense industry, enhancement of their operational parameters and reliability had
resulted in the fact that all kinds of damage, failure, and breakdowns at all stages of their lifetime as a result
of not meeting the condition of achieving the set margins n in expressions (5), (6), (10), (11), (12), (20),
and (25) could lead to grave consequences such as huge loss of life, destruction of engineering systems and
infrastructures, and harm to the environment. This had been proven by a series of the severest human
made emergencies and catastrophes in atomic, thermal and hydraulic power plants, aero and astronau
tical installations, and in civil engineering projects. In this regard, the IMASh initiated launching a new
state scientificengineering Safety of the People and Security of NationalEconomy Projects Program
Considering Risks of Natural and HumanMade Catastrophes [20]. Implementing the Safety Program,
the IMASh developed the theory of humanmade catastrophe risks in 1991–2002 [19–22]. The risks that
depend on the time τ and are defined by the probabilities P(τ) of failure, breakdowns, emergencies, catas
trophes, and damage U(τ) caused by them were introduced into calculations:
R ( τ ) = { P ( τ ), U ( τ ) }. (26)
Basic developments [21] of complex problems of strength, lifetime, reliability, survivability, security,
and risks in connection with a quantitative assessment of R(τ) considering probability parameters (the
constant of variation ν in expressions (1)–(25) enabled writing the security conditions by the risk criteria
R(τ) through the margins nR (nR ≥ 1):
o
R ( τ ) ≤ [ R ( τ ) ] = R c ( τ )/n R , (27)
where R(τo) is the risk according to (26) for the given operation phase of the object (τ = τo); [R(τ)] is an
acceptable risk; and Rc(τ) is a critical (unacceptable) risk that is defined by the generalized data on emer
gencies and catastrophes.
The loss of human lives or health and economic losses were proposed as the defining parameters of
losses U(τ) and risks R(τ). The first case deals with individual risks and the second with economic ones.
Since the quantity P(τ) is usually expressed by the probability or frequency of emergencies and cata

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

370 MAKHUTOV

strophic occurrences (1/year) and U(τ) by the ratio of the number of the killed or injured people to the
number of the people in the emergency catastrophestricken area, the individual risks R(τ) are evaluated
in units of [1/year]. If the losses U(τ) are measured in economic units such as rubles, dollars, and Euros,
the unit of measuring the economic risks R(τ)) will be [rub/yr].
For the severest humanmade accidents and catastrophes, the magnitudes of P(τ) are 10–1–10–3 1/yr,
the total economic losses amount to 106–1010 rubles, and the risks R(τ) for critical and strategic objects
reach 105–107 rub/yr.
Expressions (1)–(27) enable a complex analysis of strength, lifetime, survivability, and security of
machinery for traditional mass, largescale, and serial production when the main damage of loadbearing
members is determined by operational processes that occur in the machines. As the level of their novelty
grows, their designs become more and more complicated, and their working parameters and scale increase
with a simultaneous reduction in the number of newly built and operating devices, it becomes necessary
to analyze not only individual machines but also machine complexes and complicated manmachine sys
tems that include operators and personnel and operate in various natural environments.
o o
For these complexes, the operational impacts P o, M f , M t , and Qo in expression (1) are determined not
only by the abovementioned operation processes, but also by anthropogenic and natural factors. This
determines trends towards increasing probabilities P(τ) of critical states in complicated machine complexes
and man–machine systems and of associated losses U(τ) in expressions (26) and (27). Then, the risks R(τo)
will be evaluated considering the listed damaging and injurious factors determined by the device itself, a
technological factor T, by man, a human factor H, and by the natural environment, a natural factor NE:
o
R ( τ ) = { R T ( τ ), R H ( τ ), R NE ( τ ) }. (28)
According to expressions (26)–(28), new substantiation requirements for development, building,
operation, and removal from service of machines, machine complexes, and man–machine systems using
the criteria of acceptable risks [R(τ)] are being devised. Considering (1)–(28), the risk margins nR become
related to the entire margin system in expressions (5), (6), (10)–(12), and (20):
n R = { n ys, n u, n σ, n e, n N, n τ, n md, n tr, n l, n K }. (29)
In such a representation, this basic scientific problem was covered in works conducted in the IMASh
over the last decades [19–21] as well as in the unique 40volume publication Security of Russia [22].
Systematic developments applied to nuclear power plants operating watermoderated reactors were
performed by the IMASh jointly with a number of organizations [23]. They are being carried out presently
as applied to astronautic equipment [24], railroad transport [25], hydropower engineering, trunk pipe
lines, and offshore platforms [19]. All technosphere objects were subdivided into four major groups [21,
22]: engineering regulation facilities (ERF) including mass machines and equipment, hazardous produc
tion facilities (HPF) including commercial machines and production complex equipment, facilities cru
cial for national security (NSF) including the most significant smallscale manufacturing projects of
industries and regions, and unique crucial strategic facilities (CSF) for civil engineering and the defense
industry that determine the level of the country’s national security and technological selfsufficiency.
Considering the results of previous research, a generalized strength–lifetime–survivability–coldresis
tance–heatresistance–security curve can be constructed for engineering systems of the ERF, HPF, NSF,
and CSF groups (see Fig. 1).
This curve presents the basic set of operational impact parameters such as temperatures t, time τ, the
number of cycles N, and stressandstrain states of the objects (stresses σ and deformations e). These
parameters yield a sequential set of hazardous conditions such as damage, failure, breakdowns, emergen
cies, and catastrophes. For objects of increased potential hazard level (groups NSF and CSF), along with
standard situations that comply with the contemporary norms and regulations according to expressions
(1)–(25), analysis must also involve nonstandard design, beyonddesignbasis, and hypothetical situa
tions that comply with the new requirements of (25)–(29). At present, when switching from standard to
nonstandard situations, the calculations and substantiation of strength, lifetime, survivability, and security
in terms of stresses based on the strength of materials, the theory of elasticity, linear mechanics of defor
mation and fracture are replaced by calculation of deformations on the basis of the theory of plasticity, of
creep, and nonlinear mechanics of deformation and fracture.
In perspective, the most complicated problem of securing the machinery of groups NSF and CSF
against severe catastrophes is to be solved by 2030 using the strategic risk criteria R(τ), [R(τ)], and Rc(τ)
according to (25)–(28) (see Fig. 2).

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

 A CRITERION BASE FOR ASSESSMENT 371

−270...+ 1000° −60...+ 600° −60...+ 20° Temperature, °C

100 s–40 h 10 h–100 h 10 h–100 h Endurance
Statics and dynamics Risk and
Lowcycle fatigue security
Design considering emergencies and catastrophes

Hypothetical
Mechanics of
Catastrophes catastrophe

Conventional designing
Nonlinear
Fatigue fracture

New analysis and design techniques

mechanics
[e]
Stiffness Vibrations Linear
and
Beyonddesignbasis

analysis pulsations fracture

mechanics
Theory of
[σ] thermalfatigue
Emergencies
Stress life
analysis Creep
theory
Damage
Space engineering Theory of
Atomic machinebuilding Automobiles plasticity
Power engineering Agricultural Failures
Defense engineering equipment Theory of
Design

Civil aviation Processing elasticity

equipment Fatigue
Computational techniques Pipelines theory
Experimental mechanics Experimental mechanics Strength of
materials
0 2 4 6 8
10 10 10 10 10 N, cycle
10−1 100 102 104 106 τ, h Lifetime

10−1 100 101 102 l, mm Survivability

Fig. 1. Generalized strength–lifetime–survivability–coldresistance–heatresistance–security curve for engineering systems.

Building of systems
Secu for security
Traditional research area

2030 VIII of NSF objects

rity
Acceptable risks of failures,
2010 VII Risk emergencies, and catastrophes
New research area

1990 VI Safety Security management

1980 V Survivability Crackgrowth resistance
1970 VI Reliability Failure resistance
1960 III Lifetime Endurance
1940 II Stiffness and stability Retention of
dimensions and shape
1920 I Strength Indestructibility
lopment

Research
Deve
stages

Years Basic requirements Practical result

areas

Fig. 2. Hierarchical structure of approaches and criteria for securing strength, lifetime, survivability, and safety of
machinebuilding facilities.

The security level is defined by the difference between R(τ) and [R(τ)]. The set security level can be
achieved in combination with sets of obligatory measures that are characterized by the calculated costs Z(τ):
{ R ( τ ) – R [ τ ] } = m Z Z ( τ ), (30)

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

372 MAKHUTOV

where mZ is the effectiveness ratio of costs Z(τ) spent to reduce the forming risks R(τ) to the level of the
acceptable risks [R(τ)].
According to (27), (29), and (30), the quantity mZ (mZ ≥ 1) is related to the risk margins nR and the set
of the strength, lifetime, and survivability margins.
Development and improvement of traditional (1938–2013) and new (2013–2030) methods for solving
a complex of interrelated problems on the basis of fundamental studies and applied works made jointly
with research, design, and technological organizations, operators, supervisory and control state bodies,
considering advanced foreign experience, are of the greatest significance for research projects that will be
undertaken in the IMASh in the future. Till 2020–2030, the IMASh must hold its position as the leading
institute in both the Department of Power Engineering, MachineBuilding, Mechanics, and Control Pro
cesses, and in the Russian Academy of Sciences in general. Engineering science as an interdisciplinary sci
ence of machines will remain a scientific base for further development of machinebuilding in this country
in the near future.

REFERENCES
1. Voprosy mashinovedeniya. Sbornik statei, posvyashchennyi shestidesyatiletiyu akademika E.A. Chudakova (Engi
neering Science Problems. Collection of Articles Dedicated to 60th Anniversary of Academician E.A. Chuda
kov), Oding, I.A., Ed., Moscow: Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Inst. Mashinoved., 1950.
2. Artobolevskii, I.I., Nauchnoe nasledstvo. Zhizn’ i nauka (Scientific Heritage. Life and Science), Moscow:
Nauka, 2005.
3. Prigorovskii, N.I., Metody i sredstva opredeleniya polei deformatsii i napryazhenii (Methods and Means for
Detecting Stress and Deformation Fields), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1982.
4. Oding, I.A., Dopuskaemye napryazheniya v mashinostroenii i tsiklicheskaya prochnost’ metallov (Permissible Ten
sions in Machinery Manufacturing and Metals Cycle Strength), Moscow: Mashgiz, 1962.
5. Serensen, S.V., Izbrannye trudy (Selected Works), vol. 1: Prochnost’ materialov i elementov konstruktsii pri stat
icheskom nagruzhenii (Strength of Materials and Structure Elements under Statistical Loading), vol. 2: Ustalost’
materialov i elementov konstruktsii (Fatigue of Materials and Structure Elements), vol. 3: Kvazistaticheskoe i ust
alostnoe razrushenie materialov i elementov konstruktsii (Quasistatical and Fatigue Failure of Structure Materials
and Elements), Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1985.
6. Uzhik, G.V., Soprotivlenie otryvu i prochnost’ metallov (TearingOff Resistance and Metals Strength), Moscow:
Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1960.
7. Rabotnov, Yu.N., Mekhanika deformiruemogo tverdogo tela (Mechanics of Deformed Solid), Moscow: Nauka,
1979.
8. Lozinskii, M.G., Vysokotemperaturnaya metallografiya (HighTemperature Metallography), Moscow: Metal
lurgiya, 1965.
9. Rovinskii, B.M. and Lyuttsau, V.G., Internal microtensions relaxation in resting metal, Zh. Tekh. Fiz., 1957,
vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 345–349.
10. Lyuttsau, V.G., Modern theory of structure mechanism for deformation aging and its role in fracture under low
cycle fatigue, in Strukturnye faktory malotsiklovogo razrusheniya metallov (Structure Factors of Metals Low
Cycle Fracture), Moscow: Nauka, 1979, pp. 32–48.
11. Bruevich, N.G. and Sergeev, V.I., Osnovy nelineinoi teorii tochnosti i nadezhnosti ustroistv (Foundations of Non
linear Theory of Devices Accuracy and Reliability), Moscow: Nauka, 1976.
12. Bolotin, V.V., Resurs mashin i konstruktsii (Lifetime of Machines and Structures), Moscow: Mashinostroenie,
1990.
13. Kogaev, V.P., Raschety na prochnost’ pri napryazheniyakh, peremennykh vo vremeni (Strength Calculation under
TimeVarying Tensions), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1993.
14. Shneiderovich, R.M., Prochnost’ pri staticheskikh i povtornostaticheskikh nagruzheniyakh (Strength under
Static and ReStatic Loadings), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1968.
15. Makhutov, N.A., Deformatsionnye kriterii razrusheniya i raschet elementov konstruktsii na prochnost’ (Deforma
tion Criteria for Fracture and Strength Calculation for Structure Elements), Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1981.
16. Gusenkov, A.P., Prochnost’ pri izotermicheskom i neizotermicheskom malotsiklovom nagruzhenii (Strength under
Isothermal and NonIsothermal LowCycle Loading), Moscow: Nauka, 1979.
17. Romanov, A.N., Razrushenie pri malotsiklovom nagruzhenii (Fracture under LowCycle Loading), Moscow:
Nauka, 1988.
18. Prochnost’ pri malotsiklovom nagruzhenii (Strength under LowCycle Loading), Serensen, S.V., Makhutov,
N.A., and Gadenin, M.M., Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 1975–2006.
19. Prochnost’, resurs, zhivuchest’ i bezopasnost’ mashin (Strength, Lifetime, Survivability and Safety of Machines),
Makhutov, N.A., Ed., Moscow: Knizhnyi dom “LIBROKOM,” 2008.

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013

 A CRITERION BASE FOR ASSESSMENT 373

20. GNTP “Bezopasnost’.” Concept and Work Results for 1991–1992, in Itogi nauki i tekhniki (Science and Tech
nique Results), Makhutov, N.A., Gratsianskii, E.V., Gadenin, M.M., et al., Eds., Moscow: VINITI, 1993,
vols. 1, 2.
21. Makhutov, N.A., Prochnost’ i bezopasnost’: fundamental’nye i prikladnye issledovaniya (Strength and Safety:
Fundamental and Applied Researches), Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2008.
22. Bezopasnost’ Rossii. Pravovye, sotsial’noekonomicheskie i nauchnotekhnicheskie aspekty (Security of Russia.
Law, SocialEconomical and ScientificTechnical Aspects), Frolov, K.V. and Makhutov, N.A., Eds., Moscow:
Znanie, 1997–2013, vols. 1–40.
23. Issledovaniya napryazhenii i prochnosti yadernykh reaktorov (Nuclear Reactors: Stresses and Strength
Research), Makhutov, N.A. and Gadenin, M.M., Eds., Moscow: Nauka, 1987–2009.
24. Makhutov, N.A., Rachuk, V.S., Gadenin, M.M., et al., Prochnost’ i resurs ZhRD (Strength and Lifetime of Liq
uidPropellant Jet Engine), Moscow: Nauka, 2011.
25. Fundamental’nye issledovaniya dlya dolgosrochnogo razvitiya zheleznodorozhnogo transporta. Sb. tr. chlenov i
nauchnykh partnerov ob”edinennogo uchenogo soveta OAO “RZhD” (Fundamental Researches for LongTerm
Development of Railway Transport. Collection of Works of Members and Scientific Partners of Joint Academic
Council of Russian Railways), Lapidus, B.M., Ed., Moscow: Intekst, 2013.
26. Makhutov, N.A., Problems of accidents in power engineering (by considering an accident at SayanoShushen
skaya hydropower plant), in Tr. Ekspertnogo soveta MChS Rossii (Works of Expert Council of Emercom of Rus
sia), Vorob’ev, Yu.L., Tsalikov, R.Kh., Puchkova, V.A., and Akimov, V.A., Eds., Moscow: Vseross. Nauch.Issl.
Inst. Protivopozharn. Oborony, 2010, pp. 294–305.

Translated by O. Lotova

JOURNAL OF MACHINERY MANUFACTURE AND RELIABILITY Vol. 42 No. 5 2013