CACCUL DE U DIlRE D'DTILISATION DES PALES D'HELICOPTERES

OF CALCULATION TO DETERMINE HELICOPTER BLADE LIFE)

(ME~HOD

TECHNICAL NOTE STA/VT NO. 165

JEAN SOlJLEZ LARIVIERE

TRANSLATION BY:
JOSEPH KOCH PROJECT ENGINEER
STIORSXY AIRCRAFT

1. Introduction can be generally applied t o various other p a r t s

subjected t o fatigue load-, such a s the f l i g h t
controls, where the breaking of a p a r t has been
responsible f o r some f a t a l accidents.
Helicopter blades, whirling about the
a x i s of rotation, are subjected t o loads which 1.2 Nomenclature:
vary with azimuth position. These loads a r e
created by the combination of aerodgnamic and
i n e r t i a forces. The aerodynamic forces vary span- .C ,p ,Y Dirferential.
Parameters.

wise and around the azimuth a t d i f f e r e n t frequen- D Damage.

..
cies&, 2 UJ', .. .nW;exciting a combination of E Mathematical expectation.
the various natural modes of deformation of the k Margin t o be considered, expressed
blade i n t h e centrirugal field. The shape of t h e
blade w i l l , therefore, vary with the azimuth. A t
each blade section the loads can be separated
i n standard deviation wits,
a s a function of r and n
k+Margin t o be considered, expessed
.
into:
- a centrifugal force (tension), approxi- t o have t h e r i s k r
10 Common logarithm.
.
in standard deviation units,

- mately constant,
a shear force and a bending moment
varying about the steady load a t
- $? Standard deviation of the normal
law.
....
frequencies of W , 2w, nu.

The progressive replacement of wooden

t Mean value of t h e normal law.
Number of t e s t s .
N Blade endurance a t l e v e l S
blades by metal blades on modern helicopters has (WOHLER curve).
created some c r u c i a l problems with respect t o Probability that.
fatigue life. A s a matter of f a c t , the f r a c t u r e r Acceptable risk.
of some p a r t of the structure or an engine w i l l S Vibratory load.
not be a serious consequence compared t o the &Endurance limit.
destruction of an a i r c r a f t caused by the f r a c t u r e S r F r a c t u r i n g vibratory load.
of a main r o t o r blade. The helicopter blade is S o s t a r t i n g l e v e l of the method of
a s v i t a l a part of the a i r c r a f t as the wing of increasing load.
an airplane. 'b Rate of increase of load in the
method of increasing load.
For safety of the helicopter, it i s x Arbitrary variable obeying the

necessary t h a t the s t a t i c and fatigue strength
of the blade be proven and t h a t its service l i f e
be conservatively established. To determine t h i s
l i f e and also t o substantiate modifications of
the prototype helicopter blades, t e s t i n g methods
and analysis have been developed during the past
few years.
The purpose of t h i s report is t o pre-
sent methods which a r e used, t o discuss them and
t o compare them. It w i l l be seen how s e n s i t i v e
the interpretation of test r e s u l t s is, since we
are r e l a t i v e l y ignorant with regard t o the basic
phenomenon of fatigue. Although we a r e con-
cerned here with helicopter blades, t h i s report
..
normal law.
X Value based on experience from x
X,Inferior l i m i t in search for x
2. Determination of the Auulied Loads;
Blade fatigue in f l i g h t is a function of the
applied loads. Knowledge of these loads ia,
therefore, absolutely necessary t o determine
blade l i f e .
Although it is d i f f i c u l t t o measure the loads
in f l i g h t , because the p a r t r o t a t e s in r e l a t i o n
t o the helicopter, nevertheless it i s currently
being done. The methods w i l l not be discussed
here. It should be simply noted t h a t the pre-
c i s i o n of t h e steady s t r e s s readings (tension and-
bending mormnt) a r e poor, but very acceptable f o r
the vibratory s t r e s s e s ( i n t h e order of a few
percent).
The analysee of t h e f l i g h t records furnish
d i r e c t l y the loads corresponding t o each f l i g h t
condition and t h e i r predominant frequency. Then,
it is necessary t o know the helicopter spectrum
f o r the complete f l i g h t envelope. The d i s t r i -
bution of the f l i g h t spectrum is shown in Ffgure 1.
This has been established on the basis of stan-
The factor of 15% generally applied t o t h e
loads in v i t a l mechanical p a r t s is intended t o
take i n t o account the " s c a t t e r n between parts.
In t h e case of t h i s e n t i r e report, the increase
of 15% should not be applied. (Reference:
French Aircraft Design Specifications 20044).
On t h e other hand, a factor might be applied
t o take i n t o account possible differences in
load d i s t r i b u t i o n between two different a i r c r a f t
of the same type.
~ ~ ~~

dard helicopter operations. In many cases,

c e r t a i n f l i g h t operations w i l l give d i f f e r e n t dls- The correlation between the number of cycles
t r i b u t i o n s of f l i g h t conditions (more or l e s s and f l y i n g time is established from r o t o r t i p
severe), but the influence of these d i s t r i b u t i o n s speed and t h e principal frequency of the load in
is not of primary importance t o blade life. f l i g h t . It is easy t o take i n t o account f l i g h t
Figure 1, therefore, can be u t i l i z e d a s a t y p i c a l conditions where t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n i s not obtained
f l i g h t spectrum, applicable in most cases. Only (Figrrre 2: a case of f l i g h t a t a load-frequency
in the case of a s p e c i f i c mission should Figure 1 of 3~ instead of 4of and two caaes of a r o t o r
be modified. For example: f o r an ASW mission RE74 of 360 instead of 300). It is, therefore,
the hovering time might be 75% of the spectrum, necessary t o increase or decrease the percentage
therefore, a modification of the t a b l e would be proportionally corresponding t o the f l i g h t con-
neceesary. d i t i o n in the column of the applied loads. The
t o t a l percentage of the applied loads i s then
FIGURE 1 no longer exactly 1008, but t h i s is only an
illusion, without importance, due t o the choice
Percent of the numbers of cycles i n r e l a t i o n t o the
3.3 f l y i n g time, and is, therefore, s l i g h t l y incor-
Jump ~;\ke-Off 0.05 r e c t in inverse proportion. The steady load has
Hovering 8 only a s l i g h t influence on blade fatigue, there-
Hovering a t Low Regime 2 fore, it is sufficient t o take a n average value
Level F l i g h t a t Transitional Speed 6 from f l i g h t t e s t s .
Climb a t Take-Off Power 8 Blade Loads
Level F l i g h t at 60% of Cruise Speed 15 1. Helicooter: OE 1230 "Ginnouetten
Level F l i g h t a t 75% of Cruise Speed
Level F l i g h t a t Cruise Speed
15
26 2. Mission: -
Normal Standard d i s t r i b u t i o n
Level F l i g h t a t Maximum Speed 4 3. Results of Loads Measured in Fliaht:
Tight Turn a t Cruising Speed 6
Autorotation 1.9 Flight Load
Recovery from Autorotation 0.1 Condition I m x kg
Power F l a r e
Vortex Ring Condition
1.4
0.1
Landing I
from 120
Approach t o Landing 2.5 Autorota-
Manewer Prior t o Landing 0.5 tion
Landing from Autorotation
- 0.15
look Recovery
from 120
Therefore it i s possible t o establish a t a b l e Autorota-
f o r each helicopter type with a l l the applied tion
loads, similar t o the one presented in Figure 2.
This t a b l e summarizes the loads measured in
f l i g h t and t h e i r distribution.

In the case of the helicopter, the correlation

between the flying time and the number of cycles
I
Turbulent
Condition
Maneuver
Rior to
I 100

100
of vibratory loads is easy t o e s t a b l i s h because Landing
the frequency i s known. Generally, it can be
pointed out t h a t most of the loads a r e concen-
t r a t e d around low values and t h a t the high load
1 ~ e ~~ el il g i t 9o
a t Max. Sceed
conditions diminish rapidly i n frequency of
occurrence a s the loads increase in value. These
cases correspond t o exceptional conditions such Other 89.15
as: v e r t i c a l take-off, autorotation, pull-out, 50 4 300
Conditions
push-over, etc.
4. w o n Between Number of Cvcles 4 blade, running day and night, would be necessary.
Elvine Tir48:
1 hour f l i g h t time - -
4 x 300 x 60 = 72,000 cycl.
1.390 hours
100 m i l l i o n cycles a lo8
72,000
5. Table of Auulied Loads:
Load m x kg 1 I
120 100 90 80
% of . U t i l i z a t i o n 1 0.3 10.6 1 31 6 189.15199.0
6. Steady Load: 3000 kg
3. Methods of "Direct Testine" and of " P a r t i a l
Testing":
3.1 Direct T e s t k Method
The simplest t e s t method t h e o r e t i c a l l y
c o n s i s t s of reproducing on a bench t e s t s t a n d
( t h i s could be a helicopter r o t a t i n g on t h e ground)
a l l the loads considered in t h e Table with some
v a r i a t i o n s , depending on the condition. Assump
t i o n s i n f a t i g u e and the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e
r e s u l t s a r e t h u s reduced t o a minimum and t h e
t e s t hours or number of cycles, accomplished on
t h e bench t e s t stand, a r e converted d i r e c t l y into
f l i g h t time. It i s only necessary t o explore them
statistically 5 and 5.4). We w i l l
show t h a t t h i s "ideal" is p r a c t i c a l l y inaccessible
because of t h e length o f t h e t e s t which it would
be necessary t o run.
I f t h e t e s t i n g i s accomplished on a heli-
copter on t h e ground or on a bench t e s t stand, i n
both caees t h e r a t i o between the bench t e s t stand
time and f l i g h t time are very n e a r l y unity. This
i s evident in the f i r s t case; in t h e second case
it is determined by the r o t a t i o n a l speed of t h e
bench t e s t which is f i x e d i n general by consider--
a t i o n s of blade n a t u r a l frequency. For example:
Predominant blade frequency = 4w' and
Rotor RPM = 300
Therefore, 4 x 300 = 1200 cycles per minute, which
may be compared with a r o t a t i o n a l speed of t h e
bench t e s t stand of 1003 t o 2000 RPM.
When t h e nu'ober of cycles accomplished is
very high, a s it w i l l be i n the case in which we
a r e i n t e r e s t e d , we w i l l s e e l a t e r t h a t "scatter",
which affects f a t i g u e f r a c t u r e s , i s very important
and we must take a l a r g e margin of safety with
r e s p c t t o f l i g h t hours. For example, 10 times
l e s s f l i g h t hours than on the bench t e s t stand
might be a s u f f i c i e n t margin. To be of s i g n i f i c a n t
value, it w i l l be necessary t o t e s t a t l e a s t 4 or
5 elements, and preferably 10; therefore, it w i l l
be concluded t h a t a t l e a s t 50 hours on the bench
t e s t stand on one element a r e necessary t o cover
1 hour of f l i g h t time. To guarantee 1003 f l i g h t
hours with a c e r t a i n type of blade, 50,000 bench
t e s t stand hours or 6 y e a r s on one element of t h e
This i d e a l method is t h u s q u i t e imprac-
t i c a l i n t h i s form. It should be noted t h a t
psychologically an endurance t e s t of a helicopter
r o t o r on the ground should be conducded t o a t
l e a s t e q u a l t h e number of authorised hours of
flight.
I n any case, these t e s t s a r e absolutely
necessary i n order t o prove the s t r e n g t h of other
p a r t s of the helicopter which a r e less c r i t i c a l
than t h e blades, b u t it would be criminal t o
guarantee t h e l i f e of t h e blades on t h e b a s i s of
t h i s t e s t alone.
3.2 P a r t i a l T e s t i n e Method
This method is s i m i l a r t o t h e one above i n
t h a t it reproduces on a bench t e s t stand t h e
loads observed i n f l i g h t . However, t o reduce
t e s t time we introduce t h e assumption of the
knowledge of t h e endurance l i m i t . It is assumed
t h a t when t h e load does n o t exceed a c e r t a i n
l e v e l , its influence is n e g l i g i b l e on blade
fatigue. Therefore, it is possible t o eliminate
a l l t e s t cases where t h e l o a d s a r e below t h i s
l e v e l and reduce t h e t e s t i n g by the same amounif)
Also, t o simplffy t h e load application, we
combine a l l t h e applied loads i n t o two or t h r e e
t e s t l e v e l s which can be applied f o r a c e r t a i n
length of time. A t each t e s t l e v e l , t h e steady
a i r l o a d is t h e meximum aeasured during any of the
flight conditions represented i n t h a t t e s t level.
As in paragraph 3.1, an important margin has
t o be taken i n t o consideration t o account f o r
s c a t t e r , but the number of t e s t hours has t o be
divided by t h e proportion of those cases i n the
a c t u a l helicopter spectrum. Because a well-
designed helicopter blade has in general an
endurance l i m i t above t h e loads observed in
f l i g h t and the proportion of high loads which
generates f a t i g u e i s small, t h e p a r t i a l t e s t i n g
method w i l l r e q u i r e much l e s s t e s t i n g compared t o
t h e d i r e c t t e s t i n g method. If, f o r example, in
'%$ of t h e t o t a l time the l o a d s a r e l e s s than the
endurance l i m i t , t h i s method w i l l require t e n
times l e s s t e s t i n g . Instead of 6 years, 7 months
w i l l be necessary, and with more than one t e s t
stand only a few months w i l l be required. This
method can very w e l l be applied t o the helicopter
of Figure 2, if t h e blade endyurance l i m i t i s
found t o be around 70 or 80 m x kg.
In e f f e c t , it is possible with an appreci-
able degree of s e c u r i t y t o estimate t h a t loads
of the order of 50 m x kg w i l l not a f f e c t blade
f a t i g u e but, on the other hand, the t e s t a c c o e
plished a t 100 and 120 m x kg w i l l give soine
e a r l y f r a c t u r e s and t h e i r s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r r r s -
t a t i o n r i i l l be r e l a t i v e l y easy.
. .. .. . ~.--- .. . - .- .. - .-
(1) Here i s introduced a p a r t of the hypothesis
of cummulative damage which is discussed l a t e r
i n paragraph 4.
 However, t h i s w i l l often present some problems:
(1) I f the applied loads are distributed in a
continuous manner, it may be d i f f i c u l t in a sure
way t o combine some conditions which are close t o
the endurance limit. I n order not t o be too opti-
mistic, it i s necessary t o use a amall margin i n
the considered cases by including in the t e s t some
conditions which a r e s l i g h t l y under the endurance
limit. The percentage of the conditions entered
in the t e s t i n g w i l l increase and therefore the
t e s t w i l l be longer.
(2) I f t h e maximum loads encountered in f l i g h t ,
which a r e generators of fatigue, are not f a r above
the endurance l i m i t (20 t o 30 per cent, f o r ex-
ample), a c e r t a i n number of elements w i l l have an
indefinite l i f e if the t e s t i n g i s stopped a t
70,000,000 cycles, the number a t which it is
judged t h a t the load is l e s s than h endurance
l i m i t of the t e s t part considered.t(l7 This is
due t o the endurance l i m i t dispersion i t s e l f .
However, the a t a t i s t i c a l information furnished by
a t e s t part which has not fractured is very irr-
f e r i o r t o t h a t furnished by a fracture (the lnfor-
mation on dispersion, in particular, is negligible)
and the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the f r a c t w e d and
i n t a c t t e s t elementa i s made much more d i f f i c u l t .
4. Indirect Method Based on Research from the
WOHLER Curve
The d i r e c t method discussed above enables us
t o determine blade l i f e without c a l l i n g upon the
use of fatigue theories. The simplified method
of " p a r t i a l testing" requires knowledge of the
endurance limit. This enables us t o group the
f l i g h t conditions which have loads l e s s than t h i s
l i m i t and t o eliminate them in order t o abbreviate
the t e s t .
The other methods described below w i l l estab-
l i s h some aesumptions on fatigue, but probably
it is better .to make these assumptions even if
they a r e too f a r off, instead of eliminating
voluntarily some f a c t o r s whose influence is con-
siderable (endurance l i m i t dispersion, in par-
t i c u l a r ) as in the method of p a r t i a l testing.
F i r s t , l e t us s t a t e t h i s assumption in
mathematical form:
*
1. Each application of dN cycles a t l e v e l S
creates in the blade an elemental damage:
d.D =
, Where N(S) is the number of cycles necessary t o
produce fractures a t the constant l e v e l S (WOHLER
curve).
2. The blade w i l l break when the damage i s
equal t o 1.
J necessary t o r e l a t e each specimen and the prcba-
(1) Number admitted f o r l i g h t alloys.
It is possible t o add t o t h i s assumption
t h a t of the existence of an endurance l i m i t ;
,
or a l l values S < Soo N(S) is i n f i n i t e
and d m . To explain t h e experimental facts,
which a r e very often contradictory in metal
fatigue, t h i s i s the only simple assumption which
we can use. It Is c e r t a i n t h a t t h i s assumption
is not true. The assumption ignores, in e f f e c t
deliberately, the beneficial influences of loads
s l i g h t l y below or above the endurance l i m i t level,
applied f o r a limited time ("understressing" or
"cverstressing", which produce a c e r t a i n adapta-
t i o n of the material). However, a l l the other
assumptions which have been proposed a r e more
complicated and are no more representative of
a c t u a l experience.
On t h e other hand, we can generally say
t h a t t h i s assumption i s conservative. I f we
apply t h e loads in an a r b i t r a r y fashion, t h e
damage D a t fracture can reach 3 or 4. For
c e r t a i n very particular cases only the damage a t
fracture\drops t o 1 (constant load! and also can
decrease t o 0.5. This is the case of large loads
which open a fatigue crack, followed by some low
loads, which f i n a l l y break t h e blade, once the
crack i s open, and t o give a value of D a t frac-
t u r e smaller than 1.
This assumption enables us t o separate
completely t h e measurement of loads in f l i g h t and
the t e s t t o be accomplished t o measme blade
endurance l i f e on the bench t e s t stand.
The r e s u l t s of these two types of
measurements are combined t o calculate the corres-
ponding damage in o n e hour of f l i g h t , and, there-
fore, the number of f l i g h t hours which w i l l lead
t o I!-1 (fracture).
The endurance in fatigue of an element
can be represented on a WOMER diagram, similar
t o the one i n Figure 3. By entering vibratory
loads on the ordinate and log N on the abscissus,
it is possible t o represent each t e s t point by
these two coordinates.
It is known t h a t the t e s t points group
around a curve with negative slope (WOMW Curve)
with a c e r t a i n dispersion which increases with N.
The aim of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis is t o be able t o
t r a c e a diagram, an "inferior l i m i t " WHLER curve,
i.e., the limiting curve where the probability of
f r a c t u r e is small and constant.
Rigorously, one sees t h a t for each l e v e l
of load we a r e lead t o repeated testing, eimilarly
as in the preceding methods (paragraph 3).
Because there a r e many levels of loads
instead of only one, the t e s t s have t o be more
numerous. Since there w i l l always be only a
limited number of specimens, it is absolutely
b i l i t i e s of fracture a t various load l e v e l s by a
formula having a m i n i m u m number of parameters.
The parameters w i l l , or w i l l not be affected by tb
dispersion, and the t e s t points w i l l be u t i l i z e d
t o estimate them.
4.2.1 Mean Value
The WOlEXR curve i t s e l f i s well
known. I n log N, S, (Figure 3) it has a negative
slope almost l i n e a r , then a knee, and t h e curve
becomes asymptotic t o the l i n e W W .
The linear segment can be represented by
The curved segment by
% w i l l vary, depending upon the
author, from 1/4 t o 1.
It is possible t o combine the two formulae into
one, as:
which is equivalent, depending on whether N i e
amall or large in r e l a t i o n t o ,
t o one or the
other of the above equations. We s h a l l see l a t e r
in paragraph 4.2.4 which formula i s most advan-
tageous.
On t h i s point, the s p e c i a l i s t s '
opinions vary greatly. It i s c e r t a i n t h a t the
dispersion increases with N, i.e., when one
appoaches the endurance limit. There have been
proposed dispersions proportional t o log N or even
constant with log N. This i s c e r t a i n l y wrong in
the bent portion of the curve, in which we a r e
interested, because t h i s assumes t h a t curves with
equal probability of f r a c t u r e w i l l coincide along
the a x i s log N (Figure 4). Therefore, there w i l l
not be any p o s s i b i l i t y of f r a c t u r e f o r some value
of the load below the average value of ,S , and which is the only one affected by the dis-
which is contrary t o experience.
Here we propose t o consider the
dispersion of S a t N constant r a t h e r than on N a t
S constant (Figure 5) and t o assume t h a t the
curves of equal probability of f r a c t u r e form a
family along the axis S. Thie assumption has a t
l e a s t one f e a s i b l e explanation. The principal
reason f o r dispersion w i l l come not from the
material i t s e l f but from i t s fabrication and from
t h e assembly of the blade (tolerance, spline, etc.),
The endurance l i m i t of the material i e well eatst-
lished, but f o r a given nominal s t r e s s l e v e l the
l e v e l of c e r t a i n ~ o i n t sof the blade w i l l be much
higher because ofs s t r e s s concentrations. It has
been observed, in f a c t , t h a t the dispersion of an
assembly i s much greater than t h a t obtained on
small t e s t specimens, the dispersion due t o the
material being masked by t h a t due t o the assembly.
We know t h a t though t h i s assumption is not
-24-
perfectly proven, it is not in contradiction with
experience. It has the further advantage of
simplicity.
4.2.3 Relative Imuortance of Fatieue
Characteristics on Blade Damaee
A supplementary reason may be
added t o the one explained above t o j u s t i f y t h i s
way of understanding the problem of dispersion.
The various parameters which
define the WOHLER curve "Inferior Limit", have a
very different influence on blade l i f e i n service.
For example, take the formula having two para-
meters, such as:
,.
A parameter, such a s 9 ,
influences only the endurance N a t a given l e v e l
S
- and. therefore. i s ~ r o p o r t i o n a lt o the damage
On th%?er hand. a variation
of CC (with constant) influence both the
endurance N a t a given l e v e l S and also the
f l i g h t conditions which enter i n t o the calculation
of damage (variation of the boundary of the
integral). In practice, f o r a WOHLER curve of
form (6), t h e influence of a given r e l a t i v e
variation on the damage is 10 times greater f o r
oC than for 9 (Figure 6). Because we w i l l have
,
t o take a substantial margin on oC due t o the
effect of dispersion on t h i s parameter, it i s
unnecessary t o use a margin on parameters such
as 9 , where we think the t e r m is not surely
affected by t h e dispersion and a l s o where the
influence on dispersion is negligible.
4.2.4 Formulae and Parameter Selection
In conclusion, t h e formula t o be
adopted t o c o ~ e c tth e point of equal proba-
b i l i t i e s of fracture a t l e v e l s of vibratory load
depends f i r s t on one p r i n c i p a l parameter which
moves the curves similarly along the axis S
persion, and a l s o on one or more parameters which
w i l l enable us t o "best f i t " a curve t o the
available t e s t data. These parameters are not
supposed t o be affected by dispersion, and they
a r e calculated t o reduce t o a minimum the dis-
persion on t h e principal parameter.
It is always possible t o write
the formula such t h a t the principal parameter
represents the endurance a t a large number of
cycles, and t h i s parameter is written & and
has f o r a mean value t h e p r a c t i c a l endurance
limit. Therefore, t h e formulae (31, (L), ( 5 ) ,
and (6) can be written as follows:
S=S- - oc-
&8g ~ (7)
Ff we consider t h a t f o r N >I08 the damage
becomes negligible. It can be noted t h a t t h i s
parameter S, can be found even if the
mathematical endurance l i m i t i e zero, a s this
9
itf
case. I n effect, if F1 is greater than 10 or 10
t h e correeponding damage becomes negligible in the
8Um
. .
and it is possible t o t a l k of a p r a c t i c a l endur-
ance limit. This formula (7) represents very
poorly the curved segment which is p r a c t i c a l l y
the only one we are interested in. Therefore, it
has t o be eliminated. It remains f o r us t o
chooee between:
The l a s t one represents in a very
s a t i s f a c t o r y fashion both the l i n e a r segment and
the curved segment. Between these formulas, t h e
choice depend8 principally on the number of tests
which are available. We know, in e f f e c t , t h a t
with r~ measures of a value ( & ) it is neces-
-
sary t o divide the sum of t h e squares of the
e r r o r s by ( n l ) in order t o g e t the theoretic-
a l l y most probable variance. I f the value depends
on a parameter d which is estimated t o be the
best, it is necessary t o divide by ( n 2 ), and
so forth. Each new parameter t o be estimated,
-
therefore, neutralizes one test. There is an
optimum number of parameters t o be taken, which
w i l l increase with the number of available t e s t s .
In t h e case in which we a r e inter-
ested, I think the formula (8) w i l l often be the
most advantageous t o use. With more than 10 tests
there may be advantages in complicating the for-
mula a s in (9). And formula (10) w i l l be reserved
f o r the case where a large number of t e s t s is
available.
4.2.5 R a c t i c a l U t i l i z a t i o n of
Formula (8).
The preceding paragraph has shown
t h a t i n the majority of cases it is advantageous
t o u t i l i z e the simple formula:
S.S, (I+*) 01- N.-c S-
N S - L
& and oC are the two parameters and the
whole observed dispersion on the test points
originates from a dispersion of Soo
number of t e s t s is inoreased, the value con-
.
When the
eidered safe f o r &, increases (between 5@%and
708 of the mean value, paragraph 5). Therefore,
it is easy t o e s t a b l i s h f o r a given helicopter
t h e spectrum, a s a function of the permissible
value of Sa, and with the formula M = loG*
(oc is of the order of lo6). The t e s t s having
given the permissible value of S, and &
it is necessary t o take t h e corresponding, time
, from t h e curve and to multiply by oc .lo (see
Appendix I ) . The calculation of such a curve is
made in Figure 6A f o r t h e helicopter of Figure 2.
The curve FQwe 6B has t o be smoothed, t h e angles
originate from.the f a c t t h a t the loads have been
locallzed a t c e r t a i n levels, t h i s has no phyeical
significance. The graph shows c l e a r l y the
influence of the parameter &e which j u s t i f i e s
considering t h i s t o be the principal parameter.
4.3 Determination of Fatieue Characteristics
The t e s t s aim t o determine the parameters
discussed in paragraph 4.2, i.e., and its disper-
sion, a l s o oc , and eventually jj
Two methods a r e utilized.
, etc ....
4.3.1 Method of Constant Load
The elements a r e tested a s in t h e
definition of the WDHLER curve. I f we p l o t the
,
r e s u l t s on the diagram Sp I and we accept
the formula N
t h e problem consists of finding t h e s t r a i g h t l i n e
( ~ i g u r e(7) which best f i t s the experimental
points, and of determining the mean dispersion of
these t e s t points. The parameters Sot and oC
of the mean s t r a i g h t l i n e are chosen so t h a t the
d i s p r s i o n on Sg is a minimum.
The s t a t i s t i c a l methods explained
l a t e r permit the calculation of t h e safe value of
,
Soo the WDHLER curve "Inferior Limit" is
computed from the same formula:
The segment in which we are
interested i s located between
There is an advantage in s t a r t i n g
w i t h the higher l e v e l s of loads, because the t e s t
is short, and t o f i n i s h with some t e s t s s l i g h t l y
above the endurance limit. It is advisable t o
avoid t e s t s below the endurance l i m i t which run
too long (7 x lu7) and which give much l e s s infor-
mation than the f a i l u r e t e s t cases.
(8) 4.3.2 Method of Increasine Load
This method aims, a s t h o one abov9
t o determine the fatigue c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
material.
The elements are tested by steps
of constant load f o r 4 t4 (100,000 cycles f o r
example ) .
After each of the A N cycles, the
load l e v e l is increased by a constant quantity
AS ( 0 . 1k~/, a f o r example). The r a t i o
, Zr is called the r a t e of increasing
load. These s t e p s a r e a c t u a l l y a r b i t r a r y ; it t o e a s i l y e s t a b l i s h t h e e i m i l a r i t y between each of
is preferable t h e o r e t i c a l l y t o increase t h e load t h e furnished c o e f f i c i e n t s , thanks t o t h e hypo-
continuously in accordance with the formula: t h e s i s of cummulative damage.

4.3.3.1 The advantaees of t h e

method of constant load over t h e method of
The f r a c t u r e load Sr i s noted and entered on a increasine load
diagram a s function of (Figure 8).

According t o the authors of t h e simpler .

(1) The t e s t s and t h e necessary t e s t bench a r e

method, we have t o f i n d a s t r a i g h t l i n e crossing

the axis
The hypothesis of
S O a t the endurance l i m i t Soo . (2) The t e s t i s c l o s e r t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e
WOHLER curve i t s e l f , and it is possible t o t h i n k
t o r e l a t e the t h a t t h e r e s u l t w i l l be more s i g n i f i c a n t .
WOHLER curve.
WOHLER curve, f r a c t u r e following the method above In r e a l i t y , because it i s necessary t o make a
w i l l occur when l a r g e number of assumptions (paragraph 5) t o
a r r i v e a t a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the small
number of t e s t s a t our disposal, t h i s advantage
i s c e r t a i n l y of very l i t t l e importance.

or Z=J&
so N b )
It can be seen t h a t '6
is t h e a r e a between the
a x i s of S and the curve S = I1t.1 ( ~ i g u r e9 ) .
The s t a r k g l e v e l should be be1;w the-endurance
l i m i t . It is, therefore, necessary t o know a t
4.3.3.2 Advantaees of t h e
Method of I n c r e a s i n e Load over the Method of
Constant Load
(1) There a r e no elements which l a s t i n d e f i n i t e l y .
I n t h i s , t h e r e is a very g r e a t advantage. I n
e f f e c t , it is necessary t o have a few t e s t p o i n t s
very c l o s e t o t h e endurance l i m i t . I n the method
of constant load, a good proportion of t h e

t o start from So :0 .
l e a s t i t s order of magnitude before t e s t i n g , or elements eo t e s t e d w i l l go t o 70,000,000 cycles
without breaking. The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s is
very d i f f i c u l t , and t h e information furnished by
Assuming t h a t St :f (E) is
l i n e a r , t h i s amounts t o assuming t h a t t h e WOHTSR
an i n t a c t element is i n f e r i o r t o t h a t furnished
by a f r a c t u r e d element. ( I n p a r t i c u l a r , 100
curve i s l i n e a r i n ,
because t h e above a r e a i n t a c t elements a t any l e v e l of load w i l l f u r n i s h
is, therefore, Nproportional t o the square information on dispersion).
of S,. - S- . It has been seen t h a t f o r t h e
curved segment of t h e WOHLER curve, t h i s assump (2) The method of increasing load i s f a s t e r .
t i o n was as well v e r i f i e d a s any other. This is n o t an i n t r i n s i c consequence of the method.
The number of cycles necessary t o obtain f r a c t u r e
The correspondence between t h e is, in e f f e c t :
curves i s SI. r & ( I +s)
f o r the
N=oc 3- - for constant load,
WOHLER curve, and
s,. = S, +i2Z-~
f o r t h e curve of increasing load. Knowled e of =
3, - S ,
- for increasing load
t h e last curve g i v e s S, and j d
from which we can deduce the WOHLER curve. It is (The symbol 7 i s taken if one starts from
possible t o c a l c u l a t e t h e d i s p e r s i o n on Soo in S, c s, 1.
a manner s i m i l a r t o the one employed i n 4.3.1.
The method of increasing load t h u s f u r n i s h e s t h e This number is t h e r e f o r e t h e o r e t i c a l l y doubled
same parameters a s the method of constant load,
i.e. Sd , eC , and t h e dispersion of S a
I n t h i s method a l s o it i s advantageous t o start
. with the method of increasing load if one seeks
an analogous f r a c t u r i n g level. However, very
o f t e n t h e l e v e l of f r a c t u r e with the method of
with a t e s t a t a high r a t e of increasing load increasing load w i l l be higher, and, on t h e other
from S s 0 i n order t o be able t o f r a c t u r e hand, t h e time l o s t doee n o t come from t h e f a c t
r a p i d l y the f i r s t t e s t elements in order t o t h a t the t e s t s up t o 2 o r 3 m i l l i o n s of cycles
deduce an approximate endurance l i m i t . The sub- w i l l demand 4 or 5, but r a t h e r from t h e number of
sequent elements are t e s t e d a t lower r a t e elements which have t o be t e s t e d i n the neighbor-
s t a r t i n g from a l e v e l s l i g h t l y below t h i s endur- hood of t h e endurance l i m i t and which, due t o t h e
ance l i m i t so a s t o a b b r e v i ~ t ethe t e s t s . dispersion of t h i s l i m i t , w i l l last 70 m i l l i o n
cycles without f r a c t u r e .
4.3.3 Com~arisonof t h e two Methods
The foreign engineers who employ t h i s method
The two methods have the aim of claim a reduction i n t e s t time of 5 or 10 times.
This implies choosing % l a r g e enough, however,
and the dispersion of Sot .
determining t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Soo ,oC
Then it i s possible not t o be t o o convenient, because the form of
of the WOHLER curve is not verified a b o v e s t 2 L . I f p and /\ were known, the problem
would be immediately solved by reading the table.
The dispersion which i s found f o r Soo may be The solution is:
rather inexact. In practice, the method of
increasing load w i l l be e f f e c t i v e l y f a s t e r than
the one of constant load. Its application w i l l
c e r t a i n l y be interesting i f the necessary t e s t and when I affirm t h a t -
bench is not much more expensive than the t e s t

f o r example ) .
bench f o r constant load (up t o twice as expensive,
- -
I am c e r t a i n of my statement. However, i n
5. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis and A are not known; I only have

The t e s t s , which have been accomplished along

one of the methods discussed previously (para-
rel%&ak.
X 7 . Xp.
A.
.. I f t e s t s have given the r e s u l t s
- .X, -.leading t o the mean value and the
variance
graphs 3 and 4) w i l l furnish us the mean value
and the dispersion of a particular a r b i t r a r y In: md e',
variable. We w i l l discuss f i r s t the endurance tl n
l i m i t Soo , but we could discuss also the I know t h a t the best estimates of p and A are
variable N furnished by the d i r e c t method or by . ! ; the best estimation of
I*="krAandis Atherefore
the method of p a r t i a l t e s t i n g with some modifi- p, - m kr ! - h-l
cations (paragraph 5.4). S t a t i s t i c a l . analysis
aims a t determining the value of t h i s a r b i t r a r y But t h i s notion of best estimate i s not
variable.which i s considered t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y s u f f i c i e n t f o r the given problem. It can be
safe, and which can be taken a s the basis f o r the seen, f o r example, t h a t it does not introduce the
calculation of the service life. F i r s t , we dis- number of t e s t s n ; but, it is i n t u i t i v e t h a t
cue8 a known s t a t i s t i c a l problem which w i l l be the knowledge which I have of A), and A i s more
closely referred to. precise when the number of t e s t s is larger. The
t~
$g &
r e a l values and A ma d i f f e r from the experi-
5.1 Basic S t a t i s t i c a l Roblem mentsls value M ; they are located
around tn and i n an area which i s reduced
Having been given an a r b i t r a r y variable
x, obeying the normal law, t e s t s have given me
independent values of t h i s variable XI, X2 Xn; .... .-
when the number o? w
n-I
s is increased. I f I
take Xo m k,,!. v g _ and I affirm t h a t

I seek a value Xo beyond which the r i s k of an

extreme value of the same variable x is small
p,[, C X ~ } < ~

(probability r ) . I have about the same amount of chances t o be

r i g h t or wrong because I know t h a t
I a l s o seek t o evaluate the r i s k of
making an e r r o r by choosing t h i s value Xo.
L I J
and t h a t p -kpA has, with respect t o t h i s
Let us explain a l i t t l e t h i s point of
fl ,
view and why it i s necessary t o consider
probabilities.
estimate value rn-kr
being on one side or the other.
as much chance of

The more I diminish Xo below rn -kt-

-
I assume t h a t x obeys the normal law,
i.e., )A. and h being respectively the mean t h e more the inequality, P, {x < x.,) 6 r
value and the standard deviation of t h i s law, I has a chance of being true. To have some reason-
have for x the d i s t r i b u t i o n law .1 able chance of not being wrong i n writing the
above inequality, I, therefore, have t o take a
value Xo, smaller than the previous one or

and ~ o c m - k f g w i t h k > kr ,i.e.,

.~
This law can be put into t a b l e form, such a s in
- supplement is due t o the imperfection of my
Figure 10A, where we find the margin t o be taken
as a factor kr measured i n standard deviation
u n i t s ( A ) t o have the probability r of
exceeding t h i s margin. (second formula):
t o take f o r the safe value X,, a t some degree of
security r , a margin l a r g e r than the one
s t r i c t l y necessary from the normal law. This
knowledge of p and A and diminisnes
when the number of t e s t s increases. The s t a t i s -
t i c a l methods presented i n the appendix allow U s
t o calculata k a s a function of P and n
The preceding reasoning is taken in a more
.
rigorous fashion. Depending on the of

- .-
The t a b l e gives the r e l a t i o n between
kr and r . d i f f e r e n t functions k(r,n) .
view where we stand, the s t a t i s t i c s furnish
It w i l l be seen
t h a t a t t h i s l e v e l a c e r t a i n degree of arbitra-
t i o n remains. The Table of Figure 11 reproduces
the function k ( r ,n) given by the methoa or
"Coefficient and Confidence" a t 908.
This problem is closely r e l a t e d t o the
one which is given t o us. Two points s t i l l
remain t o be defined f o r its application:
(1) which r i s k P can we judge t o be
acceptable?
(2) Does the variable x obey the normal
law?
5.2 Acceutable Risk
I n the f i x a t i o n of t h e r i s k , it is
necessary t o consider t h e point of view of the
organization responsible f o r helicopter safety.
I n most cases, the government i s responsible f o r
it. The r i s k of seeing a blase break has t o be
very small and constant regardless of the number
of helicopters in service. A t o t a l r i s k of one
in a thousand seems reasonable; f o r each blade
the r i s k has t o be smaller a s t h e number of
f l y i n g helicopters increases.
Example:
Number of blades
in service 10 100 1000 10,000
Tolerated r i s k of
failme on each 10-4 lom5
blade
This point of view seems t o be l o g i c a l
f o r both c i v i l i a n and m i l i t a r y helicopter u t i l i x -
a t i o n in peace time, because a s the number of
helicopters i n service increases, the more a
given individual is l i k e l y t o use a helicopter
and therefore the greater must be the s a f e t y of
each f l i g h t . I n war time, it w i l l be acceptable
t o increase t h i s r i s k t o the point where it
would no longer be negligible with respect t o
other r i s k s encountered during the u t i l i z a t i o n
of the a i r c r a f t . The Table of Figure 11, however,
shows t h a t t h i s r i s k i s not one of the primary
f a c o r s of an allowable l i f e . The increase from
lo-' t o 1 ~ 3 f,o r example, for each a l r c r a f t w i l l
permit doubling blade l i f e in c e r t a i n cases.
5.3 Probability Law of the Endurance Limit
This is c e r t a i n l y the most d e l i c a t e
problem of a l l the calculations. Paragraph 5.1
has shown how it is possible t o t r e a t the problem
f o r a variable which is s u p p s e d t o obey the
normal law. But, which probability law does the
a r b i t r a r y variable Sw obey? No one is capable
of knowing t h i s t o the required operating limits.
I effect, the tolerated r i s k r being
small (10- 'b ,
for example) and the number of t e s t s
n being limited (101, the Table of Figure 11
shows t h a t the values of k can be i n the order
of 6 t o 10. I n reference t o the Table of
Figure 10, it can be observed t h a t the corres-
ponding p r o b a b i l i t i e s of t h simple rmal law
w i l l be i n the order of t o l0-'jtg. To apply
the r e s u l t s of paragraph 5.1, it would be neces-
know the probability law of S, up t o
a t least.
The example of Figure 12 w i l l permit us
t o understand this. The diagram consists of a
graduation of the normal probability law on the
ordinate, and on the abscissus, the endurance
limits of an 5-55 blade element computed from
26 t e s t s . The l a t t e r graduation is logarithmic.
It can be seen t h a t the t e s t d a t a follow very
well a s t r a i g h t l i n e ; but, it can also be under-
below p
near p = lo
.
stood t h a t an extrapolation of t h i s s t r a i g h t l i n e
is already very audacious and t h a t
the graph does not give any answer.
Even if the abscissus were not graduated in l o g L
but i n &+,
or the t e s t data would
s t i l l be a s well in l i n e (if not b e t t e r ) ,
because a l l these graduations can be considered
a s equivalent i n the neighborhood of a mean value,
but our ignorance w i l l be a s e a t on the position
of t h i s curve toward p =lo -IF.
(1) Is the decrease accomplished i n
log S- or I ?
(2) Is there a threshold under which the
probability w i l l become rigourously
zero?
A l l these questions cannot be resolved presently,
and only a deep knowledge of f a t i g u e mechanism
w i l l some day give us a p r i o r i some consideration
t o guide our choice. Experience seems t o be
completely excluded, because a fatigue t e s t w i l l
never be conducted on l 0 l 0 t e s t s .
But, the choice of t h i s function %(Soo),
which i s supposed a p r i o r i t o obey the normal
law, has a primary importance on the r e s u l t s of
our s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The comparison is
accomplished i n Figure 13 between the decreasing
laws, tangent i n the neighbcrhood of the mean
value taken a s 100 f o r a l l . and decreasinr! a s
SL ,
i t s e l f , log S- , A', k r or logarithm
Sa with a threshold a?-5~.
Actually, the normal dispersion on the
logarithm of SOD could be explained by the
superposition of a r b i t r e r y s t r e s s concentrations.
In e f f e c t , we have seen above (paragraph 4.2.2)
t h a t the principal cause f o r dispersion is not
from the material i t s e l f , but from the fabri-
cation and blade assembly. The accidental
scratches, tol_erances, e t c . can create some
s t r e s s concentrations and, therefore, vary the
blade endurance limit. But, the e f f e c t s of
these f a c t o r s are multiplicative, and the normal
law, coming from random, small independent
additive f a c t o r s , makes it possible t o conclude
t h a t the logarithm of S.o has more reason t o
obey the normal law than any other function.
However, we don't have t o delude our-
selves with t h i s point of view. A large number
of f a c t o r s c e r t a i n l y contradict the normal law
on log SIP . The fabrication control, f o r
exemple, eliminates blades where the defects
become too obvious and, therefore, w i l l reduoe t h e
probability of finding very low values of S, . obeys t h e normal law.
There is a l s o a probability of a satur-
a t i o n of s t r e e s concentrations. Figure 12 already
shows t h i s f a c t ; the small values of Soo are
already l e s s frequent than the normal law would
dictate. The normal law in logarithm is, therefore,
c e r t a i n l y pessimistic.
Here, we propose t o operate i n the
following manner:
Apply t h e normal law t o l o g &o and c o r r e c t the
obtained values with t h e following table:
value furnished
by the normal law
in percentage of 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
the mean value
sorrected value
qO 80 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35
i n percentage
This t a b l e may seem very a r b i t r a r y in its form.
We have seen above t h a t any other assumptions were
also perfectly arbitrary. A t l e a s t , t h i s has the
advantage of honesty and w i l l not leave any
i l l u s i o n s with respect t o its value t o any one who
w i l l use it. I n practice, I think, t h i s w i l l be
satisfactory. I n effect, the usu 1 dispersions
(standard deviations)on SOOare 2 lu$ (between
7 and 15%), and the margin t o take is i n the order
of 8 times the dispersion (between 5 and 15). The
safe value of Se w i l l , therefore, be in general
around 60% of i t s mean value and w i l l vary between
5V% and 7 B . The corresponding endurance l i v e s
are reasonable.
These percentages are somewhat similar t o
those encountered in the case of s t a t i c strength
calcillations, although in the case of the f a t i g u e
no experimental r e s u l t s can substantiate t h i s
judgement.
5.1, w a t i o n t o the Direct Method and t o
the Method of " P a r t i a l Testing"
We have u n t i l now discussed the endurance
l i m i t S, and its dispersion furnished by methods
based on the W 9 H L a curve. The s t a t i s t i c a l
analysis f o r the d i r e c t metnods of paragraph 3 is
conducted i n a similar fashion w i t n , however,
some peculiarities.
function r ( N ) .
5.4.1 F i r s t , we have t o determine the
A s f o r S, we can t r a c e an
analogous curve t o the one of Figure 12: r; & g ~
seems t o obey the normal law very well up t o
p r o b a b i l i t i e s of the order of If we admit,
i n effect, t h a t the WOHLER curves of equal
probability are S ;Soo ( l + 5) we can deduce from
.
it a r e l a t i o n between the functions % ( S . s )
and x ( N )
Assun, that x (s-) = ~ C J
k s- r t+,SP-~(l+~
If N is emall with respect
. - - ..
It is seen t h a t log N obeys the normal law.
If irl is l a r g e with respect t o
oC , which i s almost always the case in our t e s t s ,
,s% : &lbes - &/N and it i e L
N
whic should o y t h e normal law.
~fr(Sa): & gL we should
X (N) an intermediate decrease between
which is probably pessimistic and I
a l i t t l e optimistic. N
A s we have seen t h a t
already pessimistic, t h e function X (
should f i n a l l y be the b e s t adapted.
%f: YN
5.L.2 Very often, it happens in the
d i r e c t method t h a t the t e s t elements l a s t indef-
i n i t e l y without fracture. Their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
is very delicate. The s t a t i s t i c a l method, i n
the form which we have discussed, does not permit
us t o take these i n t o account. I n particular,
the mixing of fractured and non-fractured elements
w i l l not permit finding a function such a s k(r,n).
A graphical analysis is, i n any
case, possible with the method of similitude.
Here we propose t o t r y t o determine a mean value
and a standard deviation keeping count of these
non-fractured elements but considering only the
number of f r a c t u r e t e s t s i n order t o apply the
method of the c o e f f i c i e n t of confidence.
Figure l4!3 shows a graduation i n
& .
It can be observed t h a t if it obeys the
normal law and t h a t if the mean value i s high
enough (lo7, f o r example), t h e r e is a c e r t a i n
number of elements which w i l l have an i n d e f i n i t e
life.
The t e s t points located "beyond
i n f i n i t y " a r e not accessible from exparience,
but t h e i r proportions a r e known and t h i s i s
s u f f i c i e n t t o compute the mean value and the
standard deviation.
The calculation w i l l be accom-
plished i n the following manner:
We calculate the m a n value and the standard
deviation of the fractured points a s if they were
alone, then we u t i l i z e t h e t a b l e i n Figure l4A.
I n the f i r s t column appears the
proportion of the t e s t f r a c t u r e s observed.
Column "A" gives the magnification f a c t o r t o
apply t o the obtained standard deviation.
Column "B" indicates how much it w i l l be necessary
t o increase the obtained mean value, i n u n i t s of
t h e standard deviation a s modified by the pre-
ceding magnification factor.
The calculation i s then performed
Ft a manner similar t o the preceding paragraph,
it being understood t h a t t h e number of t e s t s t o
enter i n t h e t a b l e , Figure 11, is t h e number of
f r a c t u r e t e s t s . It can be observed here t h a t the
information given by an i n t a c t element i s very in-
f e r i o r t o t h a t by a fractured element.
It is aleo noted t h a t the f a c t of
obtaining some i n t a c t elements does not a u t h o r i ~ e
us t o increase t h e s a f e l i m i t of u t i l i z a t i o n . On
t h e contrary, most of t h e time t h e magniftcation
of t h e probable dispersion w i l l have greater
e f f e c t s than t h a t of t h e mean value, and t h e f i n a l
r e s u l t w i l l be unfavorable.
5.5 Conclusioq
The various points exposed above leads us
t o e s t a b l i s h t h e small working graph of Figure 15.
Tests having given t h e mean endurance
l i m i t Sso and its standard deviation ( i n percent
of t h e mean value), one e n t e r s t h e t a b l e on the
bottom l i n e , which c a r r i e s the n u h r of blades
in service, one then moves v e r t i c a l l y t o t h e curve
indicating t h e available number of t e s t s , then by
horizontal displacement t o t h e curve indicating
t h e percentage of observed dispersion (standard
deviation i n % of mean), and, f i n a l l y , v e r t i c a l l y
t o f i n d the percentage of mean value of 5, or of
N which one must consider a s safe.
The a r b i t r a r y f a c t o r s which e n t e r i n t o
t h i s method can be summarized a s follows:
(1) Fixing the acceptable t o t a l r i s k (here
1.L"""
This f a c t o r appears i n the number of
of blades (bottom l i n e ) and i t s e f f e c t i s rela-
t i v e l y small.
(2) S t a t i s t i c a l point of view on which we
(*ppndix 11), and Of certitude which
we ask of t h i s s t a t i s t i c (here, confidence f a c t o r
equal t o 90%). The f a c t o r affects t h e position of
t h e safe curve "IS-n" except f o r tl equal t o
i n f i n i t y and is of appreciable importance.
(3) Choice of t h e function % ( ~ ~ o ) w h i c his
supposed a p r i o r 1 t o obey t h e normal law. This
choice determines t h e percentage scale ( u p p r
l i n e ) and is of extreme im~ortance. Examining
Figure 13, a comparison between the chosen
function and some others can be seen.
The problem of s t n t i e t i c a l analysis of
t e s t r e s u l t s is, therefore, d i f f i c u l t and w i l l
necessitate a large amount of a r b i t r a r y assump-
t i o n s and empiricism.
Yet, we think it is preferable t o know
what we are doing and where empiricism is neces-
sary, t o be able eventually t o change our minds
a s t o knowledge of the causes. instead of havine
t o judge only-by "eye". A unique s t a t i s t i c a l
-
approach has the advantage of applying t h e same
degree of s e v e r i t y t o various s t r u c t u r a l elements.
This r e p o r t has presented t h e various t e s t
methods which can be employed t o prove the
fatigue r e s i s t a n c e of a helicopter blade and t h e
s t a t i s t i c a l values on which an estimate of aafe
blade l i f e in service can be based.
This service l i f e is first determined by the
loads t o which t h e blade is subjected i n f l i g h t .
Then, t h e t e s t methods can be divided i n t o two
d i f f e r e n t types, depending on whether we t r y t o
reproduce t h e f l i g h t conditions on the test bench
o r whether we t r y t o evaluate t h e blade strength
i n an independent manner.
The f i r s t typ of method n e c e s s i t a t e s i n
t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n fewer assumptions than t h e
second typ, however t h e eliminated assumptions
a r e not the most adventurous. I n some cases,
t h e grouping of loade may be very tricky.
Furthermore, these methods necessitate t h a t
an a i r c r a f t be flown i n order t o determine i t s
loads, and t h a t t h e bench tests be redone each
time t h e l r loads are modified (the case of an
a i r c r a f t where the take-off gross weight o r the
r o t o r diameter is modified during development).
For those reasons, I think, t h a t the methods
of t h e second type are preferable i n most cases.
These methods make use of our weak t h e o r e t i c a l
knowledge of the fatigue phenomena and, therefore,
necessitate some additional assumptions with
r e l a t i o n t o t h e first methods. But, t h e i r princi-
p a l advantage i s t h a t they a r e independent of t h e
f l t e h t conditions, which minimizes the inconven-
iences mentioned above.
Whatever the t e s t method u t i l i z e d , t h e
s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of these t e s t s is always
very hazardous. This comes about p a r t l y because
the tests are accomplished on a limited
.umber of elements, and e s p e c i a l l y because t h e
t.m
. -ln
.. ~-a..t e- d. -.of
rink
-. . f r.
- - a-.
c t-u-r e- of
- - a blade i .,
n f l- i- e h t
-~
has t o . & extremelv small. b c b a b i l i t i e s a s low
as or 10-lo have i n r e a l i t y l i t t l e physical
significance on the mcroscopic scale, and,
therefore, on numbers of t h i s order it w i l l be
necessary t o reason a r b i t r a r i l y .
This r e p o r t c e r t a i n l y represents only a
s t a r t i n g basis f o r t h e standardizations of l i f e
calculations. Certain s t a t i s t i c a l points are
therefore not very rigorous, and t h e numbers or
diagrams which are presented herein w i l l probably
have t o be "polished" by experience.
Such a s it is, I hope t h a t it w i l l advantage-
ously replace t h e lack of r i g o r i n present cal-
c u l a t ions.
 APPENDIX I If we assume t h a t 3 additional tests have
given the same value of S a and i t s dispersion
(which is the most probable) we w i l l have an
admissible percentage of 58% or 5- 1 69 and
Hel.icoDter "Cinnouette" of F i r n o 2 H = 600, therefore, an endurance l i f e of 300 hours.

From the bench t e s t s a t constant load we If we assume t h a t we have a large number of

have the following r e s u l t s : helicopters i n service and more t e s t s , we reach an
endurance l i f e of 500 hours, which is very l i t t l e .
2 Tests a t UO m x kg - fracture a t A m. This simply proves t h a t the blade a s presently
and 15 m. designed i s not strong enough, and we have t o find
a wey t o reinforce it. A reinforcement of 10% of
2 Tests a t 170 m x kg - frecture a t I m. the mean value of Sd should be s u f f i c i e n t ,
and 1.5 m. because the blade l i f e w i l l be increased 4 times
with respect t o the preceding design.
2 Tests a t 200 m x kg - fracture a t 0.5 m.
The hypothetical t-yps of blade considered
end 1 m.
here i s on tho borderline between a good and a
Having only 6 t e s t cases, we adopt a WOHLER bad blade. I n a general manner, the application
curve: of t n i s method w i l l give the following r e s u l t with
most of the present helicopters: Within about
N,-==* I@, the borderline between a good and a bad
For d i f f e r e n t values o f & ,
we calculate the blade i s reached when the mean endurance l i m i t
values of 5 d corresponding t o the t e s t point by coincides with the l e v e l of the roaximum loads
the formula encountered i n maneuvering f l i g h t . This r e s u l t
seems altogether reasonable.

2
and we adopt the value of which gives the
minimum standard deviation of Ss.r . Methods of E s t i m a t k Parameters
Eere oC = 0.5 x lo6
It has been seen in Par. 5.1 how the problem
The corresponding values of S e are: of ~ a r a m e t e restimation has been presented. An
a r b i t r a r y variable x i s supposed t o obey a c e r t a i n
115.5 125.5- - 113.2 - 127.5 - 100 - prooability law depending on several parameters
(here, the normal law with mean p and standard
133.3
and the mean value of S, is In = 119 deviation A ). Tests having given t o t h i s vari-
able the value XI, X2.. .Xn with m a n value m and
standard deviation 1. Are c e r t a i n values o f p

;-I\.
The standard devintion is:
and A more probable than others, and what sense
I, i s it necessary t o a t t r i b u t e thoae p r o b a b i l i t i e s
of )A. and A ? ( ~ r o b a b i l i t i a sof the causes).

-
and the m i s t probable dispersion:
According t o the point of view where we stand,
we can find various r e s u l t s ; t h i s may appezr
astonishing. This paradoxal aspect comes mainly
(observe t h a t we neutralize one t e s t because we from the f a c t t h a t we i n s t i n c t i v e l y consider p
have a parameter oC independent of S a and A a s a r b i t r a r y variables when they are para-
t o be calculated. We divide, therefore, the meters (which have an unhown value but well
X
standard deviation by determined). The t e s t s
and not on p and A
,
. are accomplished on r,
It i s possible, a s func-
and not @ t i o n s o f p and A t o accomplish a l l the prob-
a b i l i t y calculations which we want on x and on
The diagram of Fig. 15 gives us, for 1.00 functions of Y. (we know t h a t ~ r n + and€k?:Aw,
blades i n service: n = 6 - 1 = 5 and a disper- but the way the problem is presented, an expression
such a s E p- has no sense. )
sion of 11.38, therefore, a percentage of 558 or
6 5 . 5 m x k g f o r a safe value of S, . (1) BAY= METHOD
By t r a n s l a t i n g t h i s value t o the curve of
Fig. 6A, we f i n d H around 400 hours. To obtain The f i r s t point of view, which is inetinc-
the service l i f e , it is necessary now t o multiply tiVely the One cited above.
by
with N -
oC r I
loz-&&
-' (because Fig. 64. i s established
p t e a d of Y ;d
Here d. = 0.5 x 10 from which the 1 e is
po0
. To consider )* and A a s a r b i t r a r y variables
is, therefore, t o a t t r i b u t e t o them a probability
~ n n
L
-..
-.
.
a t e s t - o n p and A .
law a p r i o r i . A t e s t on r is therefore i n d i r e c t l y
Therefore, the theorem of
DAYES allows us t o a t t r i b u t e t o p and h
a probability law a p o s t e r i o r i , depending both on
the lnw a p r i o r i and on the r e s u l t s of experience.
If d~ tP, A) is a p r i o r i the d i s t r i b u t i o n
Jfd~(yc,A).~and P ( p , A , m 1 8 ) d m d e the
probability t h a t t e s t experience gives m
i f the parameters are p,~ n dA ,
t h e law
a p o s t e r i o r i is
- P()I,*.I
dFQ(p,~) 8 )AF(C~I)
JJp(+,~,m,~,dx(w,A)
The choice of the function a p r i o r i is q u i t e
arbitrary.
BAYES assumes t h a t when we don't have any
and A a p r i o r i , it is neceesary t o
a l l valuee of p and A a r e a p r i o r i
equally probable (law of symmetry).
Independently of the f a c t t h a t t h i s intro-
duces some mathematical d i f f i c u l t i e s in the case
where the i n t e r v a l of v a r i a t i o n i s i n f i n i t e
(df (+,A) =O everywhere except a t inf hity),one
sees t h a t t h i s assumption is very arbitrary. I f
we don't know anything a b o ~ ttb and A , we
know nothing of )A' and h also. The resu1.t
i s d i f f e r e n t , depending on whether wf apply the
BAYES method t o p , X orto p , XL
If we don't accept the axiom of BAYES, we
can employ other methods by introducing another
inference d i s t i n c t from the concept of probabil-
ity.
(2) METHOD OF "LIKELIHM)Dn or "Fiduciarv Method"
The inference of t h i s method is a s follows:
EL and A being given, t h e
d i s t r i b u t i o n of m and & : p (
is known.
For the values m ,-! which I have observed,
t h i s is a function of p , A only (times some
f a c t o r ) . ~t is maximum if p 5 m and A :%
(method of maximum "likelihood"). I consider,
therefore, a s impossible the values of
giving t o t h i s function P (wh
termed a s the "likelihood" a value c l e a r l y smaller
than t h i s maxinum. 1 s t us say f o r example, 10, 20
or 100 times.
With t h i s method we a t t r i b u t e t o the assump
t i o n s some "chance", proportional t o those which
give a p r i o r i the observed f a c t . We may consider
e a s i l y t h a t these "chances" have no resemblance
t o p r o b a b i l i t i e s in a c l a s s i c a l sense.
3 Coefficient of Confidence Method
LA and A
beine given. the m o b a b i l i t v
m .fi
law of &. , P(s) is Gown, t i e r e f o r e , the one of
Xi/, and
therefore. the one of m - k t 1
tL=
C,\XLhrn)' and,
I then know
,
the matbekatical expectationvok"-' m k t l r Design, Uevelopment production
and of i t s standard deviation. 'G
I ca? therefore find a number A (which can
be put i n t o t h e form keA such t h a t the
affirmation n k t - r a is exact i n 9 cases
j++-
out of 10 (or 9.5 o r q 9 ) ; from t h i s 1 deduce
t h a t the affirmation
and 1
4:p-krX a m n-I
w i l l be t r u e a s often, and I thus have i n
m-d%
i n a certa
a l m r l i m i t of p - * P A
percentage of cases which I w i l l c a l l
coeff l c i e n t of confidence (908, 95% or 95%). We
note t h a t the " W e r e n c e " given is absolutely
independent of any a p r i o r i law on p and A .
( 4 ) Comparison of the Three Methods
The three rmthods presented above can be
materialized in t a b l e form, similar t o the one of
Figure 11. The t a b l e s a r e d i f f e r e n t , depending
on the method and the c o e f f i c i e n t s introduced.
A deeper numerical study would be necessary
in order t o f i n d under what conditions resemblance
of t h e t a b l e s is maximum. I have noted, f o r
example, t h a t the "likelihood" method gave t h e
same r e s u l t s a s t h a t of the c o e f f i c i e n t of con-
fidence, with three t e a t s f o r 90% and seven t e s t s
. for 998, and t h a t it was more optimistic f a l e s a
t e s t s and vice versa.
Whenever the number of t e s t s i s greater than
or equal t o 2, he B A Y S method i s applicable;
althoughJJd~ p, A ) i s i n f i n i t e , d F being
uniform cver the e n t i r e r a n g e , j j P & ~ ( p , r \ ) is
as (p AS.
convergent because P decre e s q u i t e rapidly
deviate from (n ,l).
Some t r i a l runs have shown t h a t t h i s method
gives, with a uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n of /A. and A ,
r e s u l t s similar t o those other methods and
y i e l d s a coeff i c i e n t of 958.
A s the a s s m p t i o n of )A. and A , with a
uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n , i s c e r t a i n l y pessimistic,
( i t is necessary a p r i o r i t o give a small prob-
a b i l i t y t o points located a t i n f i n i t y ) . A
c o e f f i c i e n t of confidence of the order of 90%
then seems reasonable enough. This i s the one
which has been adopted i n the t a b l e of F i v e 11.
Fatigue -
BARROIS- Resistance B l a fatigue des
c e l l u l e s d'avions. Note
STA/EG/C No 1.4C de J u i l l e t
1955.
TEED - (Vickers-Arstrong Ltd. ).
--
La f a t i g u e des metaux S h e l l
Aviation News NOS 197 198,
199 de 1955.
ALLEN-RICE a t STULEN -
(parsons Corp. ):
and servicing of rotor bl.ades -
The Journal of the Helicogter
Association of Great B r i t a i n
-2
 volume 9 NO 2 - October t the
t.~.-
ha. . ~ m e~c i s-i o n of the calculation is mediocre.
A differek& of 20% or 30% in the endurance l i f e
1955.
i s without phvsical sienificance a s well a s the
Statistics -KENNEDY - A method f o r determining the 75% f a c t o r of F.A.A.

safe-life of an Aircraft ar. L.2.4 - I n practice, f o r the l a s t 4 years,

{he formula (8) is u t i l i z e d almost exclusively in
Wing from Fatigue Test
Results Journal of Royal the form of S :soo( I + !i~ ,
i.e., ) we u t i l i z e a
Aeronautical Society
Vol. 58, page 36 de May 195L.
- diagram graduated in I and S on which we draw
the s t r a i g h t lines. N

HALD - Theory of S t a t i s t i c s , 1952. The value No i s calculated t o make the beat

mean s t r a i g h t l i n e between the t e s t points. Its
RENDALL - Advanced S t a t i s t l c s . precise determination was the object of a study
of Mr. Normand. who has ehown t h a t it was neces-

COMPLWJNTS A LA NOTE 165 STA/VT D'AOUT 1956

(Supplement t o note 165 STA/VT of August 1956)

Note 165 STA/VT w a s the f i r s t important work

i n France t o t r y t o give systematically an analy-
sis of the fatigue test r e s u l t s of helicopter
blades.
r 1 1 I \ -
A t t h a t time, the methods in use were being
developed from empiricism, and such a study had 3 2 z 6 510-
1
= 1 -
1 -
N
1
N
been recognized a s necessary by the "Service 1.- To have t h e l i n e pass through the ce8ter of
Technique Aeronautique". gravity of the t e s t points.
2.- To adjust i t s slope t o annul the correlation
This o r i g i n explains why the note discusses c o e f f i c i e n t between s t r e s s and the dispersion
some methods which probably today appear obsolete. of the elements tested.
I n f a c t , they constitute the b a s i s on which Sud
Aviation and the French o f f i c i a l services estimate Par. 4.3 - The method of increasing load has never
been u t i l i z e d , because of t h e very high c o s t of
(DJIhW, ALOUETTES I1 AND 111, FWLON ....
the l i f e of the v i t a l elements of helicopters
). Some the necessary t e s t bench.
improvements have been accomplished thereto,
notably by by. Ncrmand of Sud Aviation. 5- -
S t a t i s t i c a l Analjsis This i s the most
d i f f i c u l t p a r t of the r e p o r t , but it i s a l s o by
Returning t o the Note 165 S T A ~ Twe , have f a r the most inportant one.
indicated below the p a r t s which appear the most
importnnt and those which are l e s s importent. - Far. 5.1 - This basic problem i o very diffi.cu'lt
with respect t o probability theories hut indis-
- The Table of Figure 1 was extracted a t
t h a t time from a study by the French Test Center
pensable. We u t i l i z e the method of c o e f f i c i e n t
of confidence a t 90%. This method i s very often
(C.E.V. Bretigny). Ue have today aoloe more considered by s t a t i s t i c i a q s a s "well balanced".
modern documents, for example, Table 1 of the In f a c t , it i s asimple t r a n s l a t i o n of the following
"Civil Aeronautical Nanual 6 (Page A-2):' The p r a c t i c a l idea:
differences i n the calculation must be negligible.
"Ten t e s t s are a good number t o define the
Par. 2. l n s t sentence -The dispersion("scatterU)
of the loads between d i f f e r e n t a i r c r a f t appears
bounzary between bad knowledge ( n << 10)
and good knowledge ( n 77 l o ) of e
now t o be an important factor and it w i l l have t o phenomenon".
be necessary in the future t o take t h i s i n t o
account, i n s p i t e of the f a c t t h a t the way of I f we judge, for example, t h a t 5 t e s t s are
doing t h i s i s not very c l e a r yet. s u f f i c i e n t , it w i l l be necessary t o take 80%.

Par. - These are o1.d methods of blade testing. Par. 5.2 and 5.3 -
It is because the r i s k has t o
be negligible t h a t the problem of in r p r e t a t on
They ore not u t i l i z e d any more, and t h i s para-
graph has only a retrospective i n t e r e s t . becomes verv delicate. A r i s k of 10- or 10
~ ~~ ~
% -3
has no physical s i g n i f i c a n c e i n cur thinking, but
Par. 4.2.2 -Here, there is an important remark we a r e forced t o u t i l i z e t h i s i n the calculation.
(See Figure 6). The margin t o take on the loads
is: The reduction of the margin which the appli-
--
1 bportant.
2 D i f f i c u l t t o estimate.
cation of the normal law would require us t o use,
i s arbitrary.
-
3 Of such a g r e a t influence on the r e s u l t
 Let us remind ourselves t h a t in the present -
2 taking the safe curve (working curve) a s
one-third of the mean curve, If we ollly have one
method it means:
t e s t , or 1/2.5 for two t e s t s , and 1/2 f o r 3 t e s t s .
-
1. t h a t the normal law is applied from the
mean value of the strength obtained down t o 70%
This method is somewhat similar t o the one mo-
posed bv F.A.A.. but the f a c t o r s on the a ~ ~ l i e d
of i t s value, in e f f e c t , considering t h i s region loads are much more severe,
t o be well known experimentally and t h a t the
associated p r o b a b i l i t i e s are not "very" small.

2. -
t h a t below 35% of the mean value, the
probability i s rigorously equal t o zero. The
existence of t h i s threshold has some s i m i l a r i t y
t o the F.A.A. r u l e , which eliminates a require-
ment f o r fatigue t e s t s where it can be proven by
calculation t h a t the elements are working a t loads
l e s s than one-third of the endurance l i m i t of
simjlar assemblies (Goodman diagram).
3. -
t h a t between 359 and 70% we apply a l i n e a r
reduction of the margin t o be taken.
It must be s t a t e d t h a t the p r i n c i p ~ ldiffi-
c u l t y i n the endurance l i f e calculation of a
v i t a l element l i e s i n the very small r i s k with
which it i s necessary t o reason.
The smallness of t h i s r i s k forbids us from
giving any value t o endurance t e s t s performed a t
f l i g h t loads, a s well a s from service experience.
For example, i f the calculation has been accom-
r i s k should be in the order of 10- 6 The exper-.
plished in R s u f f i c i e n t l y cautious manner, the

ience i n service of 1,000 blades, which w i l l have

The application of t h i s r u l e and of the co-
e f f i c i e n t of confidence r e s u l t s i n using margins
which are of the order of 4.5 t o 5 , corres-
i
order of 10- t o 10- .
ponding in t e simp17 normal law t o r i s k s of the
It i s curious t o observe
t h a t these r i s k s a r e precisely of the order of
magnitude of those which we seek, i.e., t h a t the
"easiness" procured by the margin reduction
mentioned above i s exactly compensated by the
sllpplementary "severity" coming from the limited
number of t e s t s .
A margin of 3 A has been considered.
This seems t o go too f a r i n the d i r e c t i o n of
"easiness". I n e f f e c t , t h i s deviation of 3
corresponds t o a r i s k of 10-3 f o r a normal prob-
a b i l i t y law. However, such a r i s k does not seem
"very" small t o us and i s within the area of
physical significance. Some fatigue tests e x i s t
having 1,000 specimens, which seem t o show t h a t
the normal dispersion is s t i l l applicable a t these
deviations. I f we want t o apply a margin reduc-
t i o n (with some effective j u s t i f i c a t i o n ) , it w i l l
have t o be accomplished only with greater mul-
t i p l e s of the standard deviation. If blade endur-
ance l i f e i s based on a r i s k of 10-3, it w i l l not
seen astonishing t o have one f a i l u r e in f l i g h t i n
1,000 cases; such a f a c t seems t o us t o be con-
t r a r y t o the philosophy of our method.
behaved i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y fashion, tells us
nothing because such a behavior has a p r i o r i 999
chances out of I,UUU of occurring.
I n t h i s question, the philosophy has t o be
based on a comparison of the e x i s t i n g margin on
the fatigue curve, which is considered a s safe,
(working curve), and the dispersion of the
phenomena.
The preceding probability study shows, it
seems t o us, t h a t t h i s margin should be i n the
order of 4 t o 5, or even more. A s f a r a s the
principle of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis is concerned,
we have t o consider it a s a basically bad prin-
ciple. It would be much b e t t e r t o have some sure
process of inspecting t h e blades and t o be able
t o follow the development of f a t i y e damage i n
service. This would permit us t o u t i l a e a l a r g e
number of blades for a long time instead of
discarding them too early, because of the very
limited number of i d e n t i c a l blades which a r e a t
the lower extremity of the s t a t i s t i c s .
However, a s such methods are not in s i g h t
(having an adequate degree of security), t h e
s t a t i s t l c a l method is the only one a ~ ~ l i c a b l e .
It is b e t t e r t o apply it in some correct manner,
being cautious of t h e a r b i t r a r y portion, r a t h e r
than t o apply nothing a t a l l .

-
This t a b l e summarizes a p r a c t i c a l nethod
and we u t i l i z e it without having any i l l u s i o n s a s
t o the precision which it seems t o give.

I n practice, also, it o f t e r ~ilappns, espec-

i a l l y during a protot-vpe Sevelopment and the
successive m o d l f i c ~ t i o n sof a blade section, t h a t
some conclusions have t o be drawn from a very
small number of t e s t s . I n these cases, we have
the c~lstomof:

-
1 tracing the mean s t r a i g h t l i n e on the
diagram S , t h r u the t e s t p o h t s and
estimating a p r i o r i the slope (or the value N, )
from some past test- of similar parts.
 FIGURE 10A
NORMAL LAW
Factor Robability o f being less than r

0.25 . .~O-O.~ = 0.398

0.48 . . . . . ~ O - O . ~
1:ean curve
= 0.316
0.67. . . . -10-Os6 = 0.251
..... = 0.159
-
1

Dispersion
1.28 .... .lo-' 0.100
Safe Curve
1.85 ..... lo-l.5 = 0.032
"Inferior Linit"
2.32. . .lo-'

3.09 .... -10-3

S, 1
B
4.265 ...
5.2 .... .lom7
FIGURE 4

og N
TABLE w k VLLUES ~mm
IN STW O ~ T I O WITS
H IN tmxcn k IS A
XImXTOH OF ALUMABLE RISK r *Nn -Ei OF I S T B n AmLISHm
-2.5
Emeu4B
$ of the E n d u ~ a n c eLimit
>,ern "el". and S correcten u ~ r m a lrrobability Law
a f t h e no-1 Lax i 7 r u

-
(Veluea in ~ a r e n c h e s i si n d i c a t e d normal l a w )

A Real Standard Dovlatl."

bserued Standard Deviation
Dllf.r.n". between the ras, end .br."rrd
mean value8 Iln standsrd deslation unltsl

-2.0

1.5

Number of Blades in Service

Total Risk. ,&.r

C.nfldence Pactor-POP