Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Bayesian-based probabilistic fatigue crack growth evaluation

T
combined with machine-learning-assisted GPR
⁎
Dianyin Hua,b, Xiao Sua, Xi Liua, Jianxing Maoa,b, , Xiaoming Shanc,
Rongqiao Wanga,b
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
b
Beijing Key Laboratory of Aero-Engine Structure and Strength, Beijing 100191, China
c
China Aviation Powerplant Research Institute, Zhuzhou 412002, China

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: This paper presents a Bayesian-based calibration method that simultaneously improves the model
Bayesian method accuracy and the computational efficiency for fatigue crack growth (FCG) life prediction on
Uncertainty quantification turbine discs. Uncertainties derived from geometry, material and models are elaborately quan-
Fatigue crack growth tified based on the data from measurements and experiments. A Bayesian approach is used for
Full-scale experiment
uncertainty quantification, where Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm is employed to estimate
Gaussian process regression
posterior distributions. Gaussian process regression (GPR) is introduced to describe the propa-
gation of uncertainties and improve the efficiency in high-dimensional analysis. With the in-
tegrated methodology, uncertainties are embodied in life prediction results of a whole turbine
disc. A full-scale spin test is carried out under low cycle fatigue loading, where three effective
crack samples are generated and monitored. Compared with the experimental results, the mean
values of the predictions are bounded within a factor of ± 2.0, validating the potential usage of
the proposed method in the probabilistic FCG life assessment.

1. Introduction

Gas turbine disc, a critical component of an aero-engine, experiences significant mechanical stresses due to centrifugal loading
and thermal stresses induced by the temperature gradient, thus often suffers fatigue cracking [1]. Damage tolerance assessment
(DTA) has become a required procedure for the life-limited parts (such as the turbine disc) in an aero-engine since the Sioux City’s
catastrophe in 1989. This approach is used to manage crack growth in structures, meanwhile the issue of scattering in nature owing to
aleatory and epistemic uncertainties is addressed [2–6]. Computational-experimental approaches for fatigue reliability assessment
have also been proposed with consideration of multi-source uncertainties [7,8]. Furthermore, during the process of probabilistic
fatigue crack growth (FCG) life evaluation for a full-scale turbine disc, uncertainties involved in different analytical models should be
updated with experiments so as to improve the prediction accuracy.
Generally, the probabilistic FCG life analysis consists of three modules, i.e., statistic finite element analysis (FEA), life calculation
using FCG model, and probabilistic analysis using the surrogate model. In the uncertainty quantification of the turbine disc in this
study, geometry uncertainty is considered during the static FEA process; material uncertainty (scatter in material parameters) and
epistemic uncertainty of the FCG model are coupled and analyzed in the FCG life evaluation process; epistemic uncertainty originated
from the surrogate model is quantified during the probabilistic analysis.

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Energy and Power Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China.
E-mail address: maojx@buaa.edu.cn (J. Mao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.106933
Received 25 October 2019; Received in revised form 7 February 2020; Accepted 13 February 2020
Available online 16 February 2020
0013-7944/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

(1) Geometry uncertainty (aleatory): manufacturing and assembly deviation may cause a discrepancy in stress distribution, which
influences the life predictions. Researchers have pointed out that geometry uncertainty is a noteworthy source that should be
included regarding the effects of inherent variability [9–12]. Previous studies often considered uncertainties through probabilistic
distributions of all geometry parameters. However, the related computational cost is more expensive for a complex structure such
as a turbine disc since there are always dozens of shape control parameters. Accordingly, an applicable criterion is needed to filter
out the most sensitive parameters when quantifying the geometry uncertainty.
(2) Material uncertainty (aleatory): Previous studies [1,9,13–15] have revealed that fatigue crack propagation behaviour exhibits
great scattering induced by the material uncertainty. This kind of uncertainty is attributed to inherent variability [16]. To this
end, a single noise term to characterise the material uncertainty was added into the FCG model [17–19]. This term is generally
determined by specific experimental data. However, this approach based on previous experimental data shows some drawbacks
when subsequent experiments are carried out. Other models to quantify the uncertainties were established only by performing
multiple runs of FEA [20,21], leading to great error from practical tests because they did not take the experimental data into
account. Several methods such as Monte Carlo strategies [22], stochastic expansion methods [23–25], quasi-Monte Carlo
methods [26] are not suitable for this issue because of the limited legacy data or the infeasibility with a discontinuous response
function.
(3) Epistemic uncertainty of the FCG model: Different types of FCG models are available in the literature [27–29]. In this study, the
Paris-Erdogan model is employed since it is widely used in the aero-engine industry [27]. Material uncertainty and epistemic
uncertainty of the FCG model are coupled in the FCG life prediction. These two types of uncertainties can be represented by the
constants in the FCG model C and n. To quantify coupled uncertainties, Bayesian method [30,31] is considered with the support
of new experiments. It should also be allowed in the probabilistic framework to update the model with ever-increasing test data.
To achieve that, information recorded in previous studies is utilized in this Bayesian scheme as a priori.
(4) Epistemic uncertainty of the surrogate model: A well-predictive mapping model serves as an uncertainty propagation network to
reduce the computational cost. Developed surrogate models and machine learning algorithms for this purpose were tested in
many works of literature [32–34]. Gaussian process regression (GPR) method is introduced in this work because this machine
learning approach based on Bayesian inference can not only function as a propagation network but also comprehensively quantify
its own uncertainty with a probabilistic output.

In addition, load variation has been considered another source of uncertainty in some previous works [7,35]. However, it can be
dealt with using stand-alone engine management, which is a crucial branch in engine health management. Therefore, the load
uncertainty is not included in this study.
The present paper focuses on the development of a probabilistic FCG life prediction approach for complex components con-
sidering uncertainty quantification. Geometric complexity, coupled uncertainty in FCG model and machine-learning-assisted GPR
method are discussed respectively. The structure of this work is listed as follows. Section 2 demonstrates the framework of prob-
abilistic FCG life predictions, identifying the main steps. Section 3 gives a detailed description of the proposed methodology, in-
cluding sensitivity analysis, the Bayesian method using MCMC algorithm and the machine learning approach for uncertainty pro-
pagation. Section 4 presents the case study in the context of a GH4169 turbine disc, including the FCG experiments on CT specimens
and the full-scale experiment on a special disc. In the end, some summary remarks of this study are presented.

2. Probabilistic FCG life prediction under uncertainty quantification framework

Considering the multiple types of uncertainties in a life prediction procedure, the probabilistic FCG life prediction framework was
conducted to quantify these uncertainties from their sources to the life prediction results, as shown in Fig. 1. The outside boxes show
that uncertainties are generated from four different sources, and two of them are coupled. These uncertainties are divided into two
groups (aleatory and epistemic) regarding to their intrinsic properties. Inherent variability such as manufacturing deviation and
fluctuation of material FCG properties contributes to aleatory uncertainties, while epistemic uncertainties originate from cognitive
limitations in modelling.
The first loop in this framework (marked by the green box) is to perform deterministic analysis and thus generate training points
for the surrogate model which finally constitutes the propagation network for uncertainties. Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) and a
convergence test are performed during this process. Deterministic analysis of FCG life (marked by two shaded rectangular on the left)
consists of four processes, i.e., (a) geometrical modelling, (b) static FEA, (c) acquisition of FCG model parameters and (d) FCG life
evaluation based on stepwise integral. Iterations should be carried out on a large number of randomly generated samples to obtain
their probabilistic distribution of FCG life.
In the second loop, a machine-learning-assisted GPR model is employed to substitute the repeated FEAs. It is constructed with the
previously yielded training points. This machine learning approach based on Bayesian inference can not only serve as a propagation
network but also comprehensively quantify its own uncertainty with a probabilistic output. Subsequent calculations for the 2nd loop,
marked by the outer blue box, are carried out merely on the GPR model. Along with the calculation of FCG life, several types of
uncertainties are propagated from their sources to the prediction results.
To validate the proposed methodology, full-scale turbine disc FCG life experiments are performed to assess the accuracy of the
predicted results. A case study is presented in the following sections.

2
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 1. Framework of FCG life prediction considering uncertainty from complex geometry, coupled uncertainties in FCG life evaluation and sur-
rogate model uncertainty.

3. Uncertainty quantification throughout analysis procedures

3.1. Uncertainty in static FEA: quantified after geometric sensitivity analysis

For all the structures to be examined, minor changes in geometric features may lead to a significant alteration in stress dis-
tributions, which means a potential increase of life uncertainty. Regarding this, the overall geometric parameters are the points of
penetration to handle the geometry uncertainty. However, when dealing with full-scale components with complex configurations, the
situation changes drastically. In order to quantify the uncertainties involved, massive evaluations are required for every possible
combination of all the geometric variables, which becomes a very expensive undertaking.
Multiple design requirements and weight reduction consideration contributes to complexity in the geometry of advanced aero-
engine turbine discs, as shown in Fig. 2. To overcome the dimensional complexity, more insight into all the configuration parameters

Fig. 2. The geometric complexity of a turbine disc.

3
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

is imperative. In this paper, sensitivity analysis is performed before the quantification process to filter the key parameters that
prominently influence the stress distribution at the critical spot [36]. This is achieved by multiple runs of FEA with controlled
changes in the examined variables. In order to evaluate the significance of the deviations in all the variables, a stress altering factor
(SAF) is defined as
Δσcritical (± 1% in parameteri)
SAF =
Δσcritical (± 1% in the Feature Size) (1)
A certain number of geometric parameters are determined as key parameters according to their influence on static stress dis-
tributions (denoted by SAF). The uncertainty is mainly reflected by the distributions of these filtered variables, whose statistic
characteristics are then quantified by sample measurements.

3.2. Uncertainty in FCG life evaluation: quantified by Bayesian method

Basic parameters functioned in the FCG life evaluation procedure are the C and n of the Paris equation. The fitting process has
indicated that these two parameters are determined intrinsically by 1) the form of the model and 2) the material properties. For this
reason, the distributions of them are specified to represent the coupled material and epistemic uncertainties. A Bayesian method is
employed in this paper to calculate the probabilitic distributions of these two parameters. In order to update the model and quantify
the uncertainties involved, as much as the information yielded by the experiments should be utilized to fill the existing knowledge
gap. For this purpose, the posterior distribution is obtained with the principle of Bayesian inference, based on its prior probability
distribution and the likelihood function of experimental observations.
The calibrated Paris law in logarithmic form is formulated as:
da
log = logC + nlogΔK + ε
dN (2)
in which a is the length of the crack, N is the number of cycles, ΔK is the range of stress intensity factor (SIF). C and n are the model
parameters. ε is the model fitting errors resulting from the unbiased estimation of the variation between the observation and the
model prediction. It is assumed ε ~ N(0,σ2ε), and ε is statistically independent and identically attributed to the same distribution. The
parameters to be calibrated are θ=(C, n).
Based on Bayesian theory, the prior distribution represents information from history data, expert experience and predefined
constraints. When accurate description is unavailable, it may also be non-informative. The likelihood function L(θ) is viewed as a
function of θ with observations Y fixed. It contains the information from experiments, thus providing more insights about un-
certainties and parameter distributions. The knowledge from prior distribution and experimental observations is combined through
the Bayesian formula
f (θ |Y ) ∝ L (θ) π (θ)
m 1 1 da
∝ π (θ)· ∏i = 1 exp (− [log dN − logCmo, i − nlogΔKmo, i )]2 )
(2π )1/2σ 2σ 2 obs, i (3)
where f(θ|Y)is the posterior distribution of the parameter; L(θ) represents the likelihood distribution of the parameter; π(θ) is the
prior distribution; m denotes the number of the observations; subscript obs means observations; subscript mo means model output.
The posterior joint distribution summarizes all the available information and characterizes the uncertainties by the distribution of
the model parameter. However, according to Eq. (3), the direct solution of the expression is typically expensive to manipulate. To
simplify, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) [37,38] method is used to produce a sequence of dependent draws from the posterior
distribution, where the Metropolis scheme [39] is employed as a central algorithm. The steps are listed as follows:

1. Initialization of the Markov chain. Determine the starting value of parameters θ0.
2. Generate θ’k+1 at time t = k, based on the current value θk and a symmetric distribution.
3. Sampling from uniform distribution u ~ Uniform(0,1). If Metropolis acceptance probability
f (Y ) q (X |Y )
α (X , Y ) = min(1, ) >u
f (X ) q (Y |X ) (4)
set θk+1 = θ’k+1; otherwise reject the update (i.e. set θk+1 = θk).

4. Iterate over steps 2–3.

3.3. Uncertainty in surrogate Model: Quantified by machine learning algorithm

In order to reduce the computing cost, substituting the FEAs by a surrogate model is an effective solution. However, the selected
model should be more than a “surrogate” considering the issue of uncertainty quantification. From that point of view, the selected
model functions as a direct connection between the uncertainty sources and the predictions, which means it achieves the propagation
of all the uncertainties.
Consequently, essential requirements lie in multiple aspects: (1) the algorithm should be robust and effective when inputs are

4
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

relatively large in amount; (2) the calculation procedure is evident to reflect the propagation process; (3) the epistemic uncertainty of
the model itself is able to be quantified.
As a supervised machine learning method, Gaussian process regression (GPR) is chosen in this paper, where a Bayesian treatment
is implemented. Existing research demonstrates the feasibility of the GPR-based machine learning algorithm for this problem [6].
Under Bayesian framework, it can make inferences about the relationship between inputs and targets, constituting a network among
parameters. At the same time, it possesses the capability of quantifying the uncertainty from itself by deducing a normally distributed
result from inferences.
The GPR model can be denoted as
f (x) = ϕ (x)T w (5)
where the input vector is denoted as x and the function ϕ(x) is used to represent the mapping function, which projects the inputs into
a high-dimensional feature space. For polynomial regression, it projects input x into the space of powers of x. w denotes the weights.
This model shows a clear relation between the inputs and outputs. A Gaussian Process is a collection of random variables, any
finite number of which have a joint Gaussian distribution. To establish the Gaussian process regression, a Bayesian treatment is
implemented. Usually, a priori over the function f(x) is selected to reflect the preliminary knowledge, and with the observation data
obtained, the posterior distribution over the function f(x) is determined by Bayesian inference, i.e., the new model finally used for
predictions. This process of inference interprets the training of the Gaussian regression model. The prior distribution of the function f
(x) can also be non-informative.
A Gaussian process can be established as
f (x )~GP (m(x ), k (x , x ′)) (6)
where the mean function m(x) and the covariance function k(x, x′) of the Gaussian Process are defined as:
m (x ) = E [f (x )] (7)

k (x , x ′) = E [(f (x ) − m (x ))(f (x ′) − m (x ′))] (8)

In the case of the proposed model, the mean function and the covariance function are
E [f (x )] = ϕ (x )T E [w] = 0 (9)

E [f (x ) f (x ′)] = ϕ (x )T E [wwT] ϕ (x ′) (10)

In this way, a Gaussian process can be expressed by the mean function and co-variance function. The training process can be
interpreted as the adaption of some “hyper-parameters” in these functions. To establish the Gaussian process regression, exact
inference method is employed. This work employs zero mean function and squared exponential (SE) co-variance function.
The isotropic squared exponential (SE) co-variance function for multivariable input has the form [40]
|x − x ′|2
k (x , x ′) = π ℓσp2 exp(− )
2( 2 ℓ)2 (11)
with parameter ℓ defining the characteristic length-scale and parameter σp defining the signal standard deviation. These two are the
only hyper-parameters to be specified. Appropriate values are obtained by optimizing the marginal likelihood, where Gaussian
likelihood is employed to present the probability of observations given the GP (and the parameters). The inputs are parameters from
geometry and the FCG model; the single output is the FCG life.

4. Case study: FCG life prediction for a turbine disc

4.1. Uncertainty quantification during static FEA

A prerequisite to establishing an FCG life prediction procedure is the identification of critical areas under predetermined working
circumstances. FEA is first conducted for this reason and the stress distribution result indicates that cracks from holes under max-
imum hoop stress are critical, as shown in Fig. 3.
The parametric modelling of the turbine disc is the initial step of sensitivity analysis. All the geometric features are covered.
Sampling range of each parameter is set as ± 1% of its standard value. FEA is done for each parameter with the rest controlled as
standard. In the case of this turbine disc, the feature size is represented by maximum radial length (denoted as H7).
All of 48 geometric parameters are randomly divided into four groups in order to improve the efficiency of the sensitivity analysis,
which is performed to determine the critical parameters. Through several attempts on parameter combination and corresponding
sensitivity computation, similar results can be obtained. It is indicated that the number of parameter groups is small enough to
include the correlation between parameters in different groups, and at the same time, it makes the computational cost more ac-
ceptable during sensitivity analysis of a single group.
The result (Fig. 4) shows that four parameters are the decisive factors regarding the maximum stress (illustrated in Fig. 5):

● the radial distance from disc center to center of vent holes (C2)

5
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 3. FEA results of hoop stress and radial stress (unit: Pa).

Fig. 4. The results of sensitivity analysis (normalised by H7).

6
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

W16

H7
C2

W15

Fig. 5. Shape parameters of a turbine disc (partial).

● the radial distance from disc center to bottom of rear surface (H9)
● the axial distance from rear surface of installation flange to that of vent holes (W7)
● the axial distance from rear surface of installation flange to front surface of disc rim (W10)

Then 15 actual turbine discs are gathered to measure these geometric parameters, while other parameters are assumed to be
deterministic. These four parameters are assumed to follow normal distributions and the least square method was used for data
fitting. The obtained statistical properties are listed in Table.1. It is revealed by One-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) [41] test that
all of the geometry parameters follow normal distributions with 95% confidence.

4.2. Uncertainty quantification during FCG life calculation

Research on FCG model parameters for GH4169 superalloy has been carried out, so the prior distribution is specified in this paper
referring to [1,42], as listed in Table.2. However, the reported samples were tested under a series of different conditions (temperature
varies from RT to 550℃). According to the Bayesian theory, the prior distribution from historical experiments can reflect some basic
judgements or rough estimates of the concerned parameters. In order to quantify the uncertainty accurately for a specific condition,
targeted experiments are necessary to give supportive evidence and infer a posterior distribution.
Therefore, new experiments on compact tension (CT) specimens are performed to figure out the characteristic of turbine disc
crack growth behaviour. Fatigue crack growth tests were conducted at a frequency f = 10 Hz, a stress ratio Rσ = 0.1. The tem-
perature is set at 430 °C, in accordance with the service condition acting on the specific zone of the disc. A total of 15 specimens
completed the experiment.
FCG rate da/dN at Rσ = 0.1with respect to SIF range ΔK is plotted in Fig. 6 to illustrate the experimental results. From the
recorded data, parameters of the Paris law, C, n, can be obtained for each sample, which is listed in Table.3.
10 subsamples are randomly selected randomly from the total samples to perform the Bayesian inference, during which the
information from literature and experiments is summarized. Random sequences generated by the MCMC algorithm with acceptance
rate 25% are convergent to the posterior distributions. 500,000 calculated samples are collected and those from preliminary stages
are abandoned. The posterior distributions of parameters in the Paris law are listed in Table.4. Corresponding trace map and sampling
histogram are shown in Fig. 7.
Comparison of the prior distribution with the posterior distribution is plotted in Fig. 8. The prior distribution is obtained through
fitting of historical experiment data. Although there may be a difference in experimental conditions, the prior information is ben-
eficial for uncertainty quantification, providing a rough estimation of the model parameters. From the figure, a clear difference
between the prior and posterior distribution is observed, which reflects the addition of targeted experimental evidence.

4.3. Uncertainty quantification during Gaussian process regression

Training data set is generated by sampling from the design space and computing with the costly numerical model. In order to
build a well-mapped surrogate, Latin Hypercube Design (LHD) is implemented in this paper. Software Isight (version 5.7) was used.

Table 1
Statistical properties of geometric parameters.
CENTER2 H9 W7 W10
Mean μ 77.5 51.1 54.5 43.7
Standard deviation σ 0.155 0.102 0.109 0.087

7
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Table 2
Prior distributions of parameters in the Paris law.
Parameters Distribution type Mean μ Standard deviation σ

C Gaussian 8.76E−10 2.711E−10

n Gaussian 3.69 0.069

Fig. 6. Evaluations of FCG rate for 15 samples.

Table 3
Fitting results of C, n for each sample.
No C(×10−9) n No C(×10−9) n No C(×10−9) n

1 2.1900 3.4097 6 0.0458 4.4307 11 0.0468 4.4123

2 1.3858 3.5542 7 0.0251 4.7023 12 0.0484 4.4831
3 2.4818 3.3692 8 0.2115 4.0714 13 0.2214 4.0167
4 3.0771 3.3791 9 0.3498 3.8840 14 8.3908 3.0633
5 2.5213 3.9298 10 0.6084 3.7242 15 0.3727 3.9244

Table 4
Posterior distributions of parameters in the Paris law.
Parameters Distribution type Mean μ Standard deviation σ

C Gaussian 1.5911E−9 4.5977E−10

n Gaussian 3.5575 0.0920

The advantage lies in three aspects: (1) it fills the design space with fewer samples; (2) it has been proved to be effective for non-
linear fitting; (3) without repetition it reduces the redundant samples.
50 training samples are generated and simulated (the number is determined by under-fitting & over-fitting test) to construct the
Gaussian process regression model, where zero mean function, isotropic squared exponential (SE) co-variance function, Gaussian
likelihood function and exact inference method are employed [18]. Only two hyper-parameters exist in the squared exponential co-
variance function: a characteristic length-scale and a signal standard deviation. In this situation, appropriate settings of the hyper-
parameters are not known as priori, and their values are determined by optimizing the negative log marginal likelihood. The op-
timized values are [−0.4770, 0.3516].
An integrated uncertainty quantification framework is established. With sampling from several uncertainty sources mentioned
before, once the initial and final crack length is entered, the life prediction results can be obtained by the Gaussian process regression
model. Fig. 9 illustrates the uncertainty propagation process achieved by GPR using parallel coordinates. Initial crack length and final
crack length are set as 4.88 mm and 10.91 mm. Each axis is normalized by a specific interval, of which the cumulative probability is
identically 95% to make the parameters comparable. Values are plotted as a series of lines that connected across all the axes. By
sampling from the six inputs (the origin of uncertainties, divided into geometry, material and model), life predictions can be realized
by the GPR surrogate model, while the uncertainties are visualized by parallel coordinates for the connections underlying.
In order to realize the following comparison, we still utilize normal distributions to evaluate the scatter of parameters and
calculated fatigue life. At first, life predictions within the (μ ± σ) interval are filtered and highlighted by green in the parallel
coordinates plot. Corresponding data is illustrated below using histogram plots. Then, the input parameters of corresponding samples

8
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 7. Trace maps and Sampling histograms: (a) The trace map of C; (b) The trace map of n; (c) The sampling histogram of C; (d) The sampling
histogram of n;

are presented by their σ intervals (highlighted by red) and histograms are presented in the same manner. Since all the axes have been
normalized, for specific life prediction intervals, the parameter with more compact distribution suggests a stronger influence of
uncertainties in the results. In our case, as plotted in Fig. 10, the half interval widths (σ) of material and model parameters turn out to
be narrower than those of geometry parameters, indicating a greater impact of parameter C and n on fatigue life of the disc. As for
further validation, the fatigue life interval is changed from μ ± σ to μ ± 0.1σ, as plotted in Fig. 10, similar results are obtained.

4.4. Model validation: Full-scale experiment of rotational turbine disc

To verify the uncertainty quantification method in this paper, a full-scale experiment is carried out with a specially machined
turbine disc. The material and manufacturing process of this turbine disc is the same as the samples in Section 4.2. The vital objective
of the full-scale experiment is to examine the crack growth behaviour in the critical region as suggested in FEA. The typical

9
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 8. Comparison of the prior and the posterior distributions.

Fig. 9. Uncertainty quantification using GPR illustrated by parallel coordinates.

temperature is 430 °C. LCF cyclic loading is implemented. The experiment is performed on a special test rig that would enable the
fatigue failure of the tailored disc by rotating it at the critical speed.
Notches (1.5 mm × 0.5 mm × 1.5 mm) are fabricated before the experiment with different locations but in the same direction
(radial) and equal length, as shown in Fig. 11. The rotational speed is set as 115% of its service speed (maximum 24,140 r/min). The
experiment was first performed without measurements until all the cracks were distinguished. The experimental result shows that
cracks initiated at all the notches, which is compliant with numerical analysis. Once the cracks were observable, the crack lengths

10
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 10. Half interval width (σ) of normalized input parameters vs. half interval width of fatigue life.

Fig. 11. The original and failed parts of the test disc with prefabricated notches.

were measured at set intervals. After 1700 cycles of manipulation, the disc failed into three parts, as shown in Fig. 11. Cracks in
position E, G and J completed the entire FCG process. The crack length data is plotted in Fig. 12.
In order to validate the proposed methodology, the predictive life cycles (NP) are calculated based on the crack length data and
then compared with the experimental observations (NE). During this process, the uncertainty quantification is done by sampling from
uncertainty sources and propagating the uncertainty information to the FCG life prediction results. Monte Carlo method is performed
(using Isight 5.7) to generate samples with different geometric properties and FCG model parameters. These samples are set as inputs

Fig. 12. The crack length data recorded during experiment.

11
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 13. Histograms and normal distribution fitting results of the 1000-sample predictions.

for the GPR model. With assigned crack length data at position E\G\J, FCG life predictions (NP) of the turbine disc under experi-
mental conditions are obtained based on the machine learning algorithm. The result can be interpreted into normal distributions.
Compared to the full-scale experiment results (NE), these results are affected by the uncertainties originated from geometry, material
and the FCG model. Several prediction histograms (Position E/G/J, 500/1000/1500/1700 cycles) are shown in Fig. 13, where NE. is
denoted by red dash lines. The prediction results (NP) are further compared with the observed results (NE) of the full-scale experiment
in Fig. 14.
The outcome of this study case demonstrates the validity of the methods proposed in this paper. Considering the uncertainties
analyzed, the quantification framework is proved to be able to propagate the uncertainties from different sources to the life prediction
results. It is found that the GPR algorithm can offer a satisfactory estimate of the disc FCG life. Compared with the experimental
results, the mean values of the predictions are bounded within a factor of ± 2.0, which accords with the expectation of the model
outputs.

12
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

Fig. 14. Prediction results (NP) versus experimental life (NE) for the turbine disc.

5. Conclusions

A systematic uncertainty quantification approach based on sensitivity analysis, Bayesian inference and Gaussian process re-
gression is established in this paper, aiming at a solution for uncertainty quantification regarding different sources, under the con-
sideration of accuracy and efficiency. A case study is conducted with a full-scale turbine disc FCG experiment, which verifies the
potential advantage in FCG life prediction of the proposed approach.
A stress altering factor is defined in the module of static FEA to evaluate the significance of all the geometric variables. This
method has overcome the dimensional complexity of the structure, gaining more insight into the effectiveness of the geometric
parameters. Efficiency has been improved by reducing the number of input variables.
Bayesian inference is implemented during FCG life calculation process to combine the knowledge from both priori and experi-
mental observations. The posterior distribution is a product of previous research findings and practical gains, offsetting the short-
comings of a single consideration.
As a machine learning method, Gaussian process regression is selected to form the uncertainty propagation network, with its own
uncertainty estimated. Compared with the experimental data of the full-scale test, the predictions are bounded within a factor
of ± 2.0, which validates the applicability of the investigated framework considering FCG life prediction of complex structures.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

D. Hu acknowledges financial support from National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant Nos. 51675024,
51628101 and 51811540406) and Civil Aircraft Major Project (MJ-2018-D-26). J. Mao acknowledges the financial support from
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant No. 51905020), Aerospace Power Foundation (Grant No.
6141B09050378), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2019M650442). R. Wang acknowledges financial support
from the National Science and Technology Major Project (2017-IV-0004-0041).

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.106933.

References

[1] Hu D, Mao J, Song J, Meng F, Shan X, Wang R. Experimental investigation of grain size effect on fatigue crack growth rate in turbine disc superalloy GH4169
under different temperatures. Mater Sci Eng A 2016;669:318–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2016.05.063.
[2] Stephens RI, Fatemi A, Stephens RR, Fuchs HO. Metal Fatigue in Engineering. Eng Comput 2000.
[3] American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM Standard E739; 1991.
[4] Grell WA, Laz PJ. Probabilistic fatigue life prediction using AFGROW and accounting for material variability. Int J Fatigue 2010;32(7):1042–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.12.001.
[5] Wang X, Rabiei M, Hurtado J, Modarres M, Hoffman P. A probabilistic-based airframe integrity management model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2009;94(5):932–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.10.010.

13
D. Hu, et al. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 229 (2020) 106933

[6] Wang R, Liu X, Hu D, Meng F, Li D, Li B. Zone-based reliability analysis on fatigue life of GH720Li turbine disk concerning uncertainty quantification. Aerosp Sci
Technol 2017;70:300–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.08.011.
[7] Zhu SP, Liu Q, Peng W, Zhang XC. Computational-experimental approaches for fatigue reliability assessment of turbine bladed disks. Int J Mech Sci
2018;142–143:502–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.04.050.
[8] Zhu SP, Liu Q, Zhou J, Yu ZY. Fatigue reliability assessment of turbine discs under multi-source uncertainties. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2018;41(6):1291–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12772.
[9] Zhu SP, Huang HZ, Peng W, Wang HK, Mahadevan S. Probabilistic physics of failure-based framework for fatigue life prediction of aircraft gas turbine discs under
uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;146:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.002.
[10] Qian GA, Lei WS, Peng L, Yu Z, Niffenegger M. Statistical assessment of notch toughness against cleavage fracture of ferritic steels. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2018;41(7):1120–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12756.
[11] Qian GA, Lei WS, Niffenegger M, González-Albuixech VF. On the temperature independence of statistical model parameters for cleavage fracture in ferritic steels.
Philos Mag 2018;98(11):959–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435.2018.1425011.
[12] Sankararaman S, Ling Y, Mahadevan S. Uncertainty quantification and model validation of fatigue crack growth prediction. Eng Fract Mech 2011;78:1487–504.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.02.017.
[13] Qian GA, Lei WS. A statistical model of fatigue failure incorporating effects of specimen size and load amplitude on fatigue life. Philos Mag
2019;99(17):2089–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435.2019.1609707.
[14] Zhu SP, Huang HZ, Smith R, Ontiveros V, He LP, Modarres M. Bayesian framework for probabilistic low cycle fatigue life prediction and uncertainty modeling of
aircraft turbine disk alloys. Probabilistic Eng Mech 2013;34:114–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2013.08.004.
[15] Zhu SP, Huang HZ, Ontiveros V, He LP, Modarres M. Probabilistic low cycle fatigue life prediction using an energy-based damage parameter and accounting for
model uncertainty. Int J Damage Mech 2012;21:1128–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789511429836.
[16] Haldar A, Mahadevan S. Probability, Reliability and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design. Bautechnik; 2013.
[17] Liu Y, Mahadevan S. Probabilistic fatigue life prediction using an equivalent initial flaw size distribution. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:476–87. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.06.005.
[18] Makeev A, Nikishkov Y, Armanios E. A concept for quantifying equivalent initial flaw size distribution in fracture mechanics based life prediction models. Int J
Fatigue 2007;29(1):141–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.01.018.
[19] Cross R, Makeev A, Armanios E. Simultaneous uncertainty quantification of fracture mechanics based life prediction model parameters. Int J Fatigue
2007;29:1510–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.10.027.
[20] Sankararaman S, Ling Y, Mahadevan S. Statistical inference of equivalent initial flaw size with complicated structural geometry and multi-axial variable
amplitude loading. Int J Fatigue 2010;32(10):1689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.03.012.
[21] Sankararaman S, Ling Y, Shantz C, Mahadevan S. Inference of equivalent initial flaw size under multiple sources of uncertainty. Int J Fatigue 2011;33(2):75–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.06.008.
[22] Liu JS. Monte Carlo strategies in scientific computing. Springer; 2004.
[23] Ghanem R, Dham S. Stochastic finite element analysis for multiphase flow in heterogeneous porous media. Transp Porous Media 1998;32(3):239–62. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1006514109327.
[24] Eldred MS, Webster CG, Constantine PG. Design under uncertainty employing stochastic expansion methods. 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidiscip Anal Optim. Conf
MAO 2008. https://doi.org/10.1615/intjuncertaintyquantification.v1.i2.20.
[25] Doostan A, Owhadi H. A non-adapted sparse approximation of PDEs with stochastic inputs. J Comput Phys 2011;230(8):3015–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.
2011.01.002.
[26] Niederreiter H. Random number generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo. John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
[27] Paris PC, Gomez MP, Anderson WEP. A rational analytic theory of fatigue. Trend Eng; 1961.
[28] Walker K. The effect of stress ratio during crack propagation and fatigue for 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 aluminum. In: M. Rosenfeld (editor), Effects of Environment
and Complex Load History on Fatigue Life, ASTM International, 1970:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP32032S.
[29] Forman RG, Kearney VE, Engle RM. Numerical analysis of crack propagation in cyclic-loaded structures. J Basic Eng 1967;89(3):459–63. https://doi.org/10.
1115/1.3609637.
[30] Leonard T, Albert JH, Hsu JSJ. Bayesian methods: an analysis for statisticians and interdisciplinary researchers. J Am Stat Assoc 2000;95(450):679–80. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2669420.
[31] Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS. Updating models and their uncertainties. I: Bayesian statistical framework. J Eng Mech 1998,124(4):455–61. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:4(455).
[32] Puertas Arbizu I, Luis Pérez CJ. Surface roughness prediction by factorial design of experiments in turning processes. J Mater Process Technol
2003;143–144:390–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(03)00407-2.
[33] Naskar S, Mukhopadhyay T, Sriramula S, Adhikari S. Stochastic natural frequency analysis of damaged thin-walled laminated composite beams with uncertainty
in micromechanical properties. Compos Struct 2017;160(15):312–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.10.035.
[34] Wang H, Zeng Y, Yu X, Li GY, Li E. Surrogate-assisted Bayesian inference inverse material identification method and application to advanced high strength steel.
Inverse Probl Sci Eng 2016;24(7):1133–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/17415977.2015.1113960.
[35] Zhu SP, Liu Q, Lei Q, Wang Q. Probabilistic fatigue life prediction and reliability assessment of a high pressure turbine disc considering load variations. Int J
Damage Mech 2017;27(10):1569–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056789517737132.
[36] Saltelli A, Annoni P. Sensitivity analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg; 2011.
[37] Gilks R, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice: Interdisciplinary Statistics. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 1996.
[38] Robert CP, Casella G. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods. Springer; 2006.
[39] Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys
1953;21(6):1087–92. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1699114.
[40] Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI. Gaussian processes for machine learning. The MIT Press; 2006.
[41] Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Prentice Hall; 2000.
[42] Hu D, Mao J, Wang X, Meng F, Song J, Wang R. Probabilistic evaluation on fatigue crack growth behavior in nickel based GH4169 superalloy through
experimental data. Eng Fract Mech 2018;196:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.03.019.

14