T8 - Fatigue Analysis - v2

Chapter 8
Fatigue Analysis
8.1. Fatigue Concept

8.2. Fatigue Approaches in History
8.3. The Fatigue Design Philosophy
8.4. Fatigue Analysis
8.5. Fatigue in Aeronautics
Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis
Table of Contents → Detailed 8.1
◼ 8.1. Fatigue Concept

◼ 8.1.1. Definitions
◼ 8.1.2. Historical Background
◼ 8.2. Fatigue Approaches in History
◼ 8.3. The Fatigue Design Philosophy
◼ 8.4. Fatigue Analysis
◼ 8.5. Fatigue in Aeronautics
2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 2

8.1.1. Definitions
◼ What is fatigue?
◼ It is the weakening materials suffer when they are under cyclic
loading.
◼ Even at Loads levels (stresses) well below the nominal material
strength (ultimate strength limit), structural damage may appear and
grow within the material.
◼ Fatigue is a major concern for Structural Design.
◼ Experts admit that a high percentage of structural failures in the
world occurs due to some type of fatigue.
◼ Fatigue Life (𝑁𝑓 ): (ASTM definition)
◼ It is defined as the number of cycles of a specified load profile a
specimen may endure before fatigue failure occurs (damage
appears and grows to a critical size).

8.1.1. Definitions
◼ Fatigue limit or fatigue strength:
◼ It is the stress value below which fatigue does not appear.
◼ This limit applies for some materials, mainly metallic ones.
◼ Fatigue is a phenomenon that is inherent to any structure.
◼ Everybody has experienced and even taken advantage of it!

8.1.2. Historical Background
◼ First fatigue studies date back to the 1830’s.
◼ Before that, fatigue, as a design concept, was unknown:
◼ Structures were assumed to be subjected to static loads.
◼ Usually oversized in such a way that there was little room for fatigue.
◼ If, eventually, fatigue failure did occur, it was not identified.
◼ Perception changed with the beginning of the railway era:
◼ Light but highly resistant structures were required.
◼ The train axles loads (cyclic) led to the first serious studies.
◼ The famous train accident of Versailles (1842, Meudon,
France) gave place to a detailed investigation.
◼ The axle fatigue was identified as the root cause.
◼ Hereafter, all axles were to be tested for fatigue.

8.1.2. Historical Background
◼ The studies by Wöhler (1850-70) identified that the load
cycles were even more relevant than the actual load.
Figure 8-1
◼ Soon after that, the micro-cracks caused by fatigue were

first observed.

◼ 8.2.1. Infinite Life & Safe Life
◼ 8.2.2. De Havilland Comet 1
◼ 8.2.3. Fail-safe
◼ 8.2.4. F-111
◼ 8.2.5. Damage tolerant
◼ 8.2.6. DAN AIR 707-321C
◼ 8.2.7. Fatigue on aging A/C
◼ 8.2.8. B737-200 Aloha Airlines
◼ 8.2.9 Final Remarks

8.2.1. Infinite Life & Safe Life
◼ Conceptually speaking, there are four different approaches
to fatigue design
◼ Infinite life
◼ Safe life
◼ Fail-safe
◼ Damage Tolerant.
◼ Infinite or unlimited life: (oldest approach).
◼ Stresses or strains below the fatigue limit, fatigue will never occur.
◼ It leads to heavy, oversized designs.
◼ It has never been applied to aeronautical designs.
◼ Still used for parts that endure millions of loads cycles without
inspections or replacement.
◼ Example: the valve springs of an engine.

◼ Safe life: similar to Infinite life, including:
◼ A safe life interval is defined for the affected structures.
◼ During this period → no significant fatigue damage.
◼ After this period → parts must be inspected and/or replaced.
◼ It has been the standard fatigue design criterion from the beginning
of the all-metal A/C era.

◼ Up to 1954, the Safe life concept seemed sufficient:
◼ Oversized structural design of previous A/C (mainly WWII)
◼ During war, unexpected A/C losses were not investigated.
◼ The era of the commercial flights started after WWII, before that A/C
barely accumulated flight hours.
◼ The post war era meant a great change in aviation:

◼ Commercial A/C fleets with increasing service hours.
◼ More optimized and lighter structures.
◼ Materials with higher specific resistance, but worse or less known
fatigue behaviour.
◼ All these factors and innovations came together for fatigue to make
its bitter apparition.

8.2.2. De Havilland Comet 1
◼ DH106 was to be the sad protagonist of the rise of fatigue
design in aviation:
◼ It first flew in 1949 and was introduced by BOAC (British Oversees
Aircraft Corporation) in 1952.
◼ It was a highly advanced aircraft that came 5 to 8 years earlier than
its most direct competitors (Boeing 707 & Sud-Aviation Caravelle).
◼ Main characteristics:
◼ 4 turbojets engines De Havilland Comet 1
◼ Top performances at the time
◼ Pressurized cabin, great windows
◼ Reduced noise
◼ Between 1953 and 1954 three fatal
losses occurred, finally resulting in the
grounding of the entire fleet.
Figure 8-2

◼ 1953, May the 2nd: flight BOAC-783 (G-ALYV, 1952 airframe hours)
from Calcutta to Delhi. A/C crashed during severe thunderstorm,
structural failure suspect.
◼ 1954, January the 10th: flight BOAC-781 (G_ALYP, 3681 airframe
hours from Rome to London. A/C exploded in flight.
◼ After this second accident, Comets were grounded indefinitely.
BOAC de Havilland DH-106

Comet 1, G-ALYP, departs
London (1952, May the 2nd).
First regularly-scheduled
revenue passenger flight for a
jet airliner.
Figure 8-3
◼ Investigation:
◼ The wreckage of the A/C were recovered for investigation (first great underwater
recovery actions).
◼ The examination of the corpses indicated possible depressurization in flight
(ruptured lungs and skull fractures).
◼ A full scale fuselage model similar to the Comet was set up and pressurized until
rupture. Test dummies proved decompression theory.
◼ Suspicions were put into engine turbine blades. Turbines were reinforced (among
other improvements) to avoid future depressurization in case engine blows up.
◼ Even if the official investigation was still ongoing, BOAC obtained
permit to fly for DH-106 fleet of Mach the 23rd.
◼ 1954, April the 8th: flight South African Airlines – 201, operated by
BOAC (G-ALYY, 2704 airframe hours) from Rome to Cairo. A/C
exploded in flight.
◼ Entire Comet fleet lost airworthiness certificate until both
similar accidents were cleared.

◼ Investigation (cont.):
◼ BOAC donated G-ALYU for investigation.
◼ Fight 781 investigation showed that depressurization started on upper fuselage.
◼ G-ALYU was placed into a huge water (Figure 8-3) tank and pressurization
cycles were applied.
◼ After ~3000 flights (1231 in flight, 1825 in test), the forward scape hatch showed
fatigue cracks (Figures 8-4 & 8-5).
◼ Detailed analysis of G-ALYP wreckage showed fatigue cracks around the
Automatic Direction Finding window (ADF) (Figure 8-6).
◼ This had happened even if the fuselage would have been designed to endure up
to 50% overpressure.

G-ALYU test rig
Figure 8-4
G-ALYU test rig fuselage crack
Figure 8-5
Figure 8-6

Figure 8-7

◼ The final inquiry determined the following probable causes for the G-
ALYP accident, making them extensive to the G-ALYY (hull not
recovered:
◼ Stress levels far above the estimated ones, due to inadequate mathematical
model of stress in complex structures.
◼ Squared windows, frame cut-outs for stringers without crack-stoppers and
countersunk bold riveting creating knife edges. All these design leaks created
local high stresses that allowed undetected, fast crack growth.
◼ High loads resulted in FATIGUE FAILURE.
◼ The reports also pointed out the possibility of manufacturing cracks.
Figure 8-9
Figure 8-8

De Havilland Comet 1
The Comet was eventually
produced until 1964, reaching
the Type 4 version, but its
initial advantage was lost.
112 A/C were sold, compared
with the 282 Caravelles and
the 1010 B707.
It flew until RAF Hawker
Siddeley NIMROD.
Figure 8-10
De Havilland Comet 4
2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis Figure 8-11 20

8.2.3. Fail-safe
◼ Lessons learnt from DH-106:
◼ Safe life proved unreliable due to limitations of fatigue analyses.
◼ Safety cannot be guaranteed on a Safe life basis, unless imposing
uneconomically short lives on major structures’ components.
◼ Fail-safe: it starts from Safe life design, including:

◼ A Fail-safe life interval is defined for the affected components.
◼ During this period →
◼ A crack may be initiated but cannot propagate beyond a critical length.
◼ Residual strength should not decrease below the critical level.
◼ After this period → parts must be inspected (cracks should be easily
detectable) and/or replaced.

8.2.3. Fail-safe
◼ Fail-safe: (cont):
◼ Structures have to grant provisions of alternative load paths together
with crack containment features.
◼ Structures have to be inspectable in service.
◼ Extensive fatigue & residual strength testing (full scale) mandatory.

8.2.4. F-111
◼ Previous fatigue approaches do not account for possible
initial damage.
◼ It can be derived from production, corrosion or service.
◼ These flaws severely affect fatigue life.
◼ This problem was first observed on the F-111 (General
Dynamic Company, 1964).
◼ The F-111 is a fighter and attack A/C that incorporated
highly innovative solutions: General Dynamic F-111
◼ First A/C with variable geometry

(swing wing).
◼ High strength steel for main
airframe components.
Figure 8-12
8.2.4. F-111
◼ On December 22nd 1969, one year after entering into service, F-111
A1-94 experienced catastrophic failure of its left semi-wing. A 3.5[g]
pull-up manoeuvre was being performed at failure, being the load
factor less than half the design value.
◼ Investigation:
◼ It determined that the failure was initiated at a pre-existing manufacturing flaw in
the lower plate of the left semi-wing pivot (Figure 8-12).
◼ The flaw, which was of considerable size (23.4 x 5.9 [mm]), originated due to a
forging fold in the high strength steel.
◼ It went undetected though the inspections. Only limited fatigue growth occurred
in service before overload and failure.
◼ Although this accident might have been considered as a single isolated failure,
an increasing number of flaws in this program were being found.
◼ This fact, together with early and widespread cracking in the Lockheed C-5A
wing boxes, led the USAF to abandon it previous fatigue approach (Safe-life
combined with exhaustive full scale testing).
◼ F-111 program was stopped until a solution could be found.

8.2.4. F-111
◼ Investigation:
Figure 8-13
8.2.4. F-111
◼ The F-111 program was recovered after the definition of the so-
called cold proof test, based on:
◼ The A/C basic structure was not accessible.
◼ The lack of the necessary non-destructive inspection techniques.
◼ Cold proof testing:
◼ It allows evaluation of the current structural integrity in a global manner, as well
as predicting a period of safe life until next test.
◼ The test relies on fracture mechanisms (developed during the 60’s), knowing
that, at low temperatures, materials reduce their fracture toughness.
◼ If the A/C component does not fail at low temperatures (ca. -43°C), no larger
critical crack size is expected.
◼ Results are highly reliable.
◼ These test are very expensive and they demand the A/C to be out-of-service
temporarily.
◼ Tests must be repeated several times.
◼ It causes a terrible over cost to the program, limiting the international
sales and program development.
8.2.5. Damage tolerant
◼ Lessons learnt from F-111:
◼ Structures need to be classified as inspectable and non-inspectable
in service.
◼ Inspectable structures can be qualified as Damaged tolerant (Fail-
safe or slow flaw growth) structures. The initial damage must grow
slowly and not reach critical size between inspections.
◼ Non-inspectable structures may still be qualified as Damaged
tolerant, not reaching critical size during the design service life.
The damage tolerant classification is provided to an inspectable or

non-inspectable structure that have demostrated not reaching
critical size between inspections or during design life service
under Damage Tolerant approach and analysis.

DAMAGE TOLERANT:
8.2. Fatigue Approaches in History - Inspectable Structures: Initial

damage/crack will not reach the critical
size between inspections.
8.2.5. Damage tolerant - Non-Inspectable Strcuture: A crak
will not growth reaching the critical
size during design service life.
◼ By 1978 the FAA updated the civil regulations, including

Damage Tolerance concepts:
◼ FAR 25.571 in the USA and CS 25.571 in Europe
At the end damage tolerant philosofy is
an extension of fail safe phisolosfy but
including more strict requirements in
terms of residual strength analysis,
crack growth analysis and inspection
and maintenance programs.
Figure 8-14
8.2.6. DAN AIR 707-321C
◼ DAN AIR 707-321C air freighter was the first modified
Boeing 707 of that class:
◼ On May 1977, it lost the entire right HTP just before landing in
Lukasa international airport.
◼ The A/C entered into service in 1963 and converted to a freighter in
1976.
◼ By the time of the accident, a total of 47621 airframe flight hours
were accumulated (design life was 60000 and 20 years service) and
16723 landings.
◼ It was thus a ‘geriatric’ A/C.

8.2.6. DAN AIR 707-321C
◼ Investigation:
◼ A fatigue crack was found in the rear spar of the failed right hand side of the HTP
(Figure 8-14).
◼ It started from a fastener hole subjected to higher loads than expected in design.
◼ This damage alone was not sufficiently large as to cause catastrophic failure.
◼ B-707 was design for Fail-safe operation, being this damage undetected.
◼ After several flights with this damage, the fracture grew through the entire rear
spar.
◼ The front spar should have sufficed to hold the tail for a normal flight, but severe
gusty conditions during the approach caused the final outcome.

8.2.6. DAN AIR 707-321C
◼ Investigation:
Figure 8-15
8.2.7. Fatigue on aging A/C
◼ Lessons learnt from DAN AIR 707-321C:
◼ A/W authorities reconsidered the fatigue problems on aging A/C →
supplementary inspections to prevent old A/C from becoming fatigue
critical.
◼ Importance of full scale testing even for modifications:
◼ As it happened, B707-300 tail were enlarged with respect to the original design.
◼ Material change from aluminium to stainless steel for a large part of the top skin
attached to front and rear spars.
◼ This modified the stress paths within the structure and, in line with this, the
associated life estimations.
◼ However, at that time, such modifications did not require a full scale testing.
◼ Post crash fatigue full scale testing reproduced the observed service
failure.

8.2.8. B737-200 Aloha Airlines
◼ Boeing 737-200 of Aloha Airlines:
◼ 1988, April the 28th: flight 243 from Hilo to Honolulu. A/C explosive
decompression during climb out at cruise altitude of 24000[ft].
◼ The A/C, manufactured in 1969, accumulated, at the time of the
accident, 89860 flight cycles and 35496 flight hours.
◼ The primary damage consisted of the total separation and loss of a
major portion of the upper crown skin and other fuselage structure
(including longerons).
◼ Fortunately, the damage did not result in the disintegration of the
entire structure.
◼ The crew managed an emergency landing in Maui.
◼ There were 8 serious injuries and one fatality.

Figure 8-17
Figure 8-16
Figure 8-18
◼ Investigation:
◼ Due to the short distance between destinations (Figure 8-18), the maximum
pressurization differential was not reached in every flight (equivalent full cycles
lower than 89680 flight cycles.
◼ The A/C was 19 years old, operating with long term access to warm, humid,
maritime air.
170Km
140Km
200Km
Figure 8-19
◼ Investigation:
◼ Finally, the NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the
failure of the maintenance program to detect the presence of significant
disbonding and fatigue damage.
◼ It ultimately led to the failure of the lap joint at stringer S-10L and the separation
of the upper fuselage.
◼ Basic Explanation of the structural problem:
◼ Adjacent fuselage panels are longitudinally joined by overlapping the edges of
the upper and lower panels (about 3[in] overlap).
◼ On the early B737 the skins were bound together by using an adhesive and by
three rows of rivets.
◼ Fuselage pressurization loads were intended to be transferred through the
adhesive, not through the rivets.
◼ Due to manufacturing flaws, some zones has degraded adhesion, thus
susceptible the corrosion, while others were not bound at all. That led to in-
service corrosion due to moisture.
◼ Corrosion also affected to the hot bonded tear straps.

◼ Basic Explanation of the structural problem (cont.):
◼ The loss of the skin splice integrity meant that pressure loads were transferred
through the rivets.
◼ Rivets had countersunk heads running through the entire upper skin, resulting in
knife edges and causing stress concentration, which led to Multi-Side-Damage
(MSD) fatigue.
◼ Additionally, there were small damages that went undetected due to an
inadequate maintenance problem.
Figure 8-20 Figure 8-21

8.2.9. Final Remarks
◼ Lessons learnt from Aloha Airlines:
◼ It brought full recognition of the terrible consequences of corrosion
combined with fatigue.
◼ Corrosion is one of the main causes of Widespread Fatigue Damage
(WFD), concentrated on:
◼ One single element → MSD – Multiple Side Fatigue Damage.
◼ Adjacent structural elements → MED – Multiple Element Fatigue Damage.
◼ Severe corrosion can dramatically reduce the damage tolerance
capability (residual strength reduced).
◼ Corrosion control must be set-up, leading to inspection calendar-
based (not only flying hours).
◼ Inspection programs must be adapted to the A/C mission.

8.2.9. Final Remarks
◼ Final remarks on the history of the evolution of fatigue
related to regulation:
◼ A lot has been learnt and improved since 1954.
◼ But at a terrible life and economical costs.
◼ Literature suggests that fatigue is behind 50%-90% of the fatal
accidents (not only in aviation, of course).
◼ Still today many airlines and air service companies do not comply
with the regulations and maintenance programs.
◼ The introduction of new materials (such as CFRP) opens the door
the further uncertainty.
◼ As the fleets and designs grow older new accidents occur revealing
new unexpected flaws in the Fail-Safe Damage Tolerant design
approach.



8.3. Fatigue Design Philosophy
◼ These slides summarizes the design philosophies
described in accordance with the evolution of CS 25.571.
◼ Three options:
◼ Safe Life
◼ Fail safe
◼ Damage Tolerant
Figure 8-22
◼ The goal is always the same:
The catastrophic failure due to fatigue, corrosion or accidental damage

(discrete source) must be avoided throughout the A/C operational life.
◼ For that, all main components of the A/C must be evaluated.

Safe Life: A safe life interval is imposed
8.3. Fatigue Design Philosophy for fatigue affected structures, during
that interval no significant fatigue
should be experience after that interval,
inspection or replacement.
◼ Safe Life evaluation:

◼ Applicant to show that damage tolerant approach is impractical.
◼ Structure must be shown (test & analysis) to withstand service life
without nucleating detectable cracks. Infinite Life?
◼ Appropriate (and generous) Safe-life scatter factor to be applied.
Figure 8-23

8.3. Fatigue Design Philosophy
◼ Damage Tolerant (Fail-safe) evaluation:
◼ Determine the probable locations of failure (analysis, test &
experience in-service).
◼ Consider Multiple Side Damage wherever it might occur.
◼ Residual strength to withstand design loads.
- In case of detectable crack, fail safe
approach is applied and critical crack
size must not be achieved between
inspection periods.
- For the case of non-detectable

crack, it must not growth to critical size
during component service life
(damaged tolerant)
Figure 8-24


◼ 8.4.1. Stress Life Method. High-cycle fatigue
◼ 8.4.2. Strain Life Method. Low-cycle fatigue
◼ 8.4.3. Fatigue Life Prediction

8.4.1. Stress Life Method. High-cycle fatigue.
◼ Stress Life Method:
◼ Most common fatigue analysis method.
◼ It is meant for metal structures.
◼ Composite fatigue is far more complex.
◼ Stresses remain in the elastic zone.
◼ Applicable to high-cycle fatigue.
It means that it is carried out to prove the
◼ It establishes the Safe life design criterion. Safe life desing criteria.
◼ It is used as well to estimate the remaining life of a structure

subject to a load spectrum
◼ It combines:
◼ A counting method (e.g. Rainflow counting by Endo and Matsuishi).
◼ A damage accumulation method (e.g. the Palmgren-Miner rule).

◼ High-Cycle Fatigue:
◼ It involves a large number of cycles (𝑁 > 105 ) and a stress levels
within the material’s elastic range. Elastic
Relatively "Low" stress levels -
Range.
◼ Despite that, plastic deformation may occur at the crack tip, once started.
◼ High-cycle fatigue data is usually presented in stress (𝑆) versus
number of cycles to failure (𝑁).
◼ The Fatigue Limit is a key element in the S-N curves. It
depends (among others) on: The fatigue limit, is the stress level below which
an infinite number of loading cycles can be
applied to a material without causing fatigue
◼ The static tensile strength (TS): failure
◼ ↑TS → ↑Fatigue limit (see Figures 8-25 & 8-30)

◼ ↑TS → ↓Fracture toughness
◼ ↑TS → ↑Environmental sensitivity.
◼ Notching & Corrosion dramatically reduce the Fatigue limit
◼ Material Hardness increase the Fatigue Limit (up to a certain limit,
see Figure 8-26)
Figure 8-26
Figure 8-25

◼ The Wöhler S-N curve is the basis of the Stress life method:
◼ It plots alternating stress (𝑆𝑎 ) vs. cycles to failure (𝑁) (Figure 8-27).
◼ It is usually obtained by means of cyclic loading tests at constant
stress values.
Typical 𝑆 − 𝑁 curve of a
metallic material.
The arrows indicate that
the coupon did not break
at this stress level. Results
receive a statistical post-
process, as the coupons
do present variation of
cycle number to failure at
a given stress level.
It sketches the number of cycles
that are requiered for the structure
to break under a constant cyclic Figure 8-27
loading.

◼ S-N curves are significantly affected by the load bias
(tension/compression) → 𝑆𝑚
Figure 8-28
Figure 8-29
◼ In a nutshell, the main parameters driving the S-N curves are:
𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛
8.1 𝑆𝑚 = 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = - Therefore it is suggested than SN curves
2 depends on the maximum and minimum
load applied during the constant cycle
𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛 loading and the direction of the load
8.2 𝑆𝑎 = 𝐴𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = (compression or tenssion).
2
𝑆𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑎 - Tension load cycles are more critical
than compression ones, it means than for
8.3 𝑅 = 8.4 𝐴 = a load value, tension will provide lower
𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆𝑚 allowed number of cycles until break than
compression loads.

◼ Example: S-N curves for aluminium and steel.
◼ 1045 Steel: (Fe-0.5C-0.6Mn) Medium tensile alloy, presenting a
clear fatigue limit (𝑆𝑓 ) at 310[MPa].
◼ 2014-T6 Aluminium: copper light alloy with no appreciate fatigue
limit.
Figure 8-30
◼ Final fatigue failure usually involves three main phases:
Figure 8-31
◼ The number of cycles for a crack to nucleate can range from a few
to the entire life, depending on the stress level and material.
◼ The endurance of a specimen is highly sensitive, among others, to:
◼ The surface condition.
◼ The residual stress state.
◼ The presence of inclusions that act as stress concentrators.

8.4.2. Strain Life Method. Low-cycle fatigue.
◼ Strain Life Method:
◼ Fatigue under high loads.
◼ The total strain amplitude can be
divided into elastic and plastic strain
components.
◼ Both the elastic and the plastic strain vs.
cycles curves can be approximates by
straight lines.
◼ At large strain → plastic strain component
is predominant.
◼ At small strain → elastic strain component
is predominant.
◼ Low-Cycle fatigue, as collapse occurs
at a cycle number well below 105 .
The largest the strain
("deformation") the lower the
Figure 8-32
number of cycles structure can
withstand until failure.

8.4.2. Strain Life Method. Low-cycle fatigue.
◼ Low-Cycle Fatigue:
◼ Cyclic loading within the elastic regime:
◼ Stress and strain are directly related through the
elastic modulus.
◼ Cyclic loading that produces plastic strain:
◼ The response is more complex and forms a
hysteresis loop.
◼ The stress-strain response of the metal
can change during cycling, either
hardening of softening. Depending on the value of the
cyclic load amplitude.
Figure 8-33

8.4.3. Fatigue Life Prediction
◼ Stress Life Method for Fatigue Life Prediction:
◼ Fatigue test data is usually obtained under simple conditions:
◼ Constant amplitudes and constant frequencies.Basis of Stress Life Method
◼ Loading conditions affecting real structures are normally fluctuating
loads, which variables levels and frequencies.
◼ Such complex spectra have to be evaluated via these tests of
constant amplitudes and frequencies.
◼ Cumulative damage theories consider fatigue as damage
accumulation until crack nucleation.
Real spectrum experienced by

a structure with differen load
amplitudes and frequencies.
Figure 8-34

◼ Sequential steps for Fatigue Life Prediction:
Figure 8-35

◼ Counting Method:
◼ Target: compare the effect of variable-amplitude loads histories
against data obtained by single constant amplitude tests.
◼ It must account for each significant cycles from peak to valley, trying
to capture as many different ranges as possible.
◼ The resulting loads/stress spectrum is thus a representation of the
statistical distribution of the characteristic stress amplitudes as a
function of time/cycles.
◼ Different counting methods may result in very different
fatigue results.
◼ Next slides elaborate on the popular Rainflow counting
method.

◼ Rainflow Counting Method (Endo & Matsuishi):
◼ Originally called ‘Pagoda Roof Method’, coming from the analogy
between the load history (rotated 90º clockwise) and a pagoda roof.
◼ Idea: water flows down from the roof.
◼ Process description (Figure 8-36 & 8-37):
"Next peak is larger

than the initial one"

◼ Step-by-step procedure: Cycle Max Min Range Mean
◼ Locate the peaks and the valleys. A-D-I 25 -14 39 5.5
B-C-B' 14 5 9 9.5
◼ Rearrange the load history to start from the
E-H-E' 16 -12 28 2
highest peak (or the lowest valley).
F-G-F' 7 2 5 4.5
◼ Rotate the load history 90º clockwise.
◼ The rain flows down unless:
Peaks
1. The next peak is ≥ the initial one, or

2. A previous rain flow is encountered.
◼ Repeat up to the last peak.
◼ The rain flows down unless:
The next valley is ≤ the initial one, or
Valleys
1.
2. A previous rain flow is encountered.
◼ Repeat up to the last valley.
◼ The result is: Figure 8-38

◼ Every part of the load history is counted only once.
◼ A simplified spectrum can be established (Figure 8-38).

◼ Palmgren-Miner Linear Damage rule: Damage accumulation method
◼ In 1945 Miner developed a linear damage accumulation rule that

had been proposed first by Palmgren in 1924.
◼ Rule hypotheses:
◼ The fluctuating stress can be described by stress cycles.
◼ A spectrum of amplitudes of stress cycles can be defined.
◼ Such spectrum ignores the actual sequence of load cycles,
something that may be important.
Figure 8-39
Fluctuating spectrum can be described as
an spectrum of amplitude of stress cycles
with different alternating stresses.
◼ Given a load spectrum of k different alternating stresses 𝑆𝑎𝑖 (1≤i≤k),

this linear rule states that:
◼ Each stress 𝑆𝑎 𝑖 has an associated number of cycles to failure 𝑁𝑓𝑖 .
Number of cycles that
◼ Each of the stress levels contribute with 𝑛𝑖 cycles to the spectrum. the structure is supposed
to be subjected to Sai.
1
◼ The damage caused by one cycle is defined as 𝐷 = .
𝑁 𝑓𝑖
◼ Failure (fatigue crack initiation) will occur when:

𝑘
𝑛𝑖
8.5 ෍ =𝐶
𝑁𝑓𝑖
𝑖=1
◼ Constant 𝐶 is a material dependent value that is determined
experimentally, varying between 0.7 and 2.2.
◼ For design a value of 1 (100% damage) is assumed at failure.

Non conservative approcches,
◼ The Palmgren-Miner rule is linear… very risky hipothesis.
◼ All cycles of a given magnitude do the same amount of damage,

regardless whether they occur early or late in the structure’s life.
◼ Non-interactive rule: the damage caused by 𝑆𝑎 1 does not affect the
damage caused by 𝑆𝑎 2 .
◼ It does not account if the structure or specimen is notched.
◼ These assumptions are known to be faulty, even though the
rule is widely used.
◼ The industry tries to improves the results by correcting the
estimation by means of factors, such as:
◼ Scatter Factor
◼ Stress Factor


◼ 8.4 Fatigue Analysis
◼ 8.5.1. Introduction
◼ 8.5.2. Loads Spectra
◼ 8.5.3. Stress Spectra & Fatigue Life
◼ 8.5.4. Fatigue Quality Index
◼ 8.5.5. Scatter Factor

8.5.1. Introduction
◼ To ensure that an A/C operates safely in service, the
structure is designed for the next four failure modes:
◼ Static ultimate strength.
◼ Fatigue life of the structure (Safe-life, crack initiation).
◼ Fatigue life of the damaged structure (Fail-safe, Damage tolerant).
◼ Static residual strength of the damaged structure (Damage
tolerance).
◼ Next slides describes briefly how the Safe-life analysis is
done.
◼ The other are left for dedicated structure courses.

8.5.2. Loads Spectra
◼ Defining the Fatigue Mission is key for design:
◼ Fatigue analyses start with the definition of the A/C (fleet) usage:
◼ A/C missions: short-range, long-range, training, combat…
◼ Mission phases: ground, climb, cruise, landing, low-level flight…
◼ Mission segments: take-off run, aerial delivery, steep descent…
◼ Information of similar A/C or customer needs are of prime importance.
◼ Time histories of the convenient flight parameters need to be set

◼ Capturing the proper Fatigue Mission is fundamental:
Figure 8-41
Figure 8-40

◼ The Fatigue Mission is the source of the Fatigue Loads
Spectra, in terms of:
◼ Frequency distributions of events to produce incremental loads.
◼ Statistical Data (ESDU, MIL-Spec…)
◼ Similar A/C In-Service experience
◼ Fatigue unit loads.

◼ Fatigue Mission Profile Data:
Figure 8-44
◼ Fatigue loads are calculated using a parametric
approximation: It means to calculate the loads
that aicraft will withstand during
mission profile at steady state
◼ Calculate mission profile steady state (1-g conditions). conditions.
◼ Obtain load increments due to several conditions e.g.:

◼ Ground Operations.
◼ Transitional manoeuvres between airborne and ground.
◼ Pilot airborne manoeuvres (incl. military conditions).
◼ Gusts.
◼ The objective is to obtain an approximation of the load against the
desired parameter.
◼ If the effect is non-linear, several breakpoints may be needed.
◼ E.g. sink rate at landing
◼ This allows us to obtain A/C loads at any point of the fatigue
mission.

Figure 8-45

◼ Ground-Air-Ground (GAG) Cycle:
◼ It is the most common load cycle endured by an A/C.
◼ Maximum stress range of the combined loads is taken as a
measured of the GAG cycle.
◼ Short range flights → GAG load cycles become more relevant.
◼ Long range flights → fewer GAG load cycles.
Figure 8-46-a
2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis Figure 8-46-b 70
8.5.3. Stress Spectra & Fatigue Life
◼ FEM allows translating loads to stresses for each specific
structure.
◼ A stress spectrum can be established from the loads one
(using the appropriate counting method).
Figure 8-47
8.5.3. Stress Spectra & Fatigue Life
◼ Using the adequate S-N curves (obtained for the proper 𝑆𝑚
and 𝑆𝑎 stresses), the Fatigue Life of a component can be
established (using the convenient accumulation method).
Figure 8-48

8.5.4. Fatigue Quality Index
◼ Also known as 𝐾 , it represents the ‘Fatigue Quality’
achieved in the final structure design of a component.
◼ It is mainly defined by:
◼ Stress concentration.
◼ Load concentration.
◼ Fretting fatigue, corrosion.
◼ Surface finish.
◼ Damage.
◼ Minimum value is usually 4.0,

standard is 4.5.
◼ S-N curves are adapted to the
adequate 𝐾 value.
Figure 8-49
8.5.5. Scatter Factor
◼ Scatter Factor:
◼ The idea is to account for any local,
undetected effect that may have not
been considered in the S-N curves.
◼ It improves reliability of the tests.
◼ It reduces the calculate fatigue life, the
time interval of crack growth or
verification testing of a Safe-life
structure.
◼ CS-25 and FAR-25 impose a 3.0
minimum scatter factor, unless the
applicant proves differently.
Figure 8-50
References
1. R. J. H. Wanhill
Milestone Case Histories in Aircraft Structural Integrity.
NLR-TP-2002-521.
2. Civil Aircraft Accident
Report of the Court of Inquiry into the Accidents to Comet.
G-ALYP; January 1954 & Comet G-ALYY; April 1954.
3. FAA Lessons Learned Homepage
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/index.cfm
4. D. Howe
Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout.
Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd.
5. M. Chung-Yung Niu
Airframe Structural Design.
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company.
6. CS-25 EASA and FAR-25 Regulations.

Back-up Slide: Fatigue Analysis Example
◼ Example. Application to steel beam.
❑ The test have shown the median life of a certain beam model operating
under high frequency is:
❑ 3*108 cycles under 1kN load
❑ 4*107 cycles under 2kN load
Estimate the beam fatigue life if the load is 1kN during 90% of the time and
2kN during 10% of the time.
If the total applied cycles is n, then the cycles at 1kN are 0.9*n and the cycles at
2kN are 0.1*n.
The total damage would be:

𝑛1 𝑛2 0.9𝑛 0.1𝑛
𝐷= + = 8 + 7 = 5.5 ∙ 10−9 𝑛
𝑁𝑓1 𝑁𝑓2 3 ∙ 10 4 ∙ 10
The failure is expected to occur at D=1 thus the life is:
1
𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 = 𝑛 = −9
= 1.812 ∙ 108 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
5.5 ∙ 10
76

T8 - Fatigue Analysis - v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T8 - Fatigue Analysis - v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 8

8.1. Fatigue Concept

◼ 8.1. Fatigue Concept

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 2

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 3

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 4

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 5

◼ Soon after that, the micro-cracks caused by fatigue were

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 6

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 7

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 8

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 9

◼ The post war era meant a great change in aviation:

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 10

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 11

BOAC de Havilland DH-106

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 13

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 14

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 17

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 18

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 19

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis Figure 8-11 20

◼ Fail-safe: it starts from Safe life design, including:

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 21

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 22

◼ First A/C with variable geometry

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 24

The damage tolerant classification is provided to an inspectable or

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 27

8.2. Fatigue Approaches in History - Inspectable Structures: Initial

◼ By 1978 the FAA updated the civil regulations, including

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 29

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 30

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 32

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 33

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 36

Figure 8-20 Figure 8-21

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 38

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 39

◼ 8.1. Fatigue Concept

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 40

The catastrophic failure due to fatigue, corrosion or accidental damage

◼ For that, all main components of the A/C must be evaluated.

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 41

◼ Safe Life evaluation:

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 42

- For the case of non-detectable

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 43

◼ 8.1. Fatigue Concept

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 44

◼ It is used as well to estimate the remaining life of a structure

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 45

◼ ↑TS → ↑Fatigue limit (see Figures 8-25 & 8-30)

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 47

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 48

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 49

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 51

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 52

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 53

Real spectrum experienced by

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 54

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 55

2020 AADC2 - Chapter 8: Fatigue Analysis 56