International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Analytical methodology for predicting fatigue life distribution of

fuselage splices
Min Liao *, G. Shi, Y. Xiong
Structures, Materials and Propulsion Laboratory, Institute for Aerospace Research, National Research Council Canada, Ottawa,
Canada K1A 0R6

Abstract
Methodologies to predict fatigue life distribution of fuselage splices, measured as the number of cycles to visible cracks, were
developed in this work. Modeling procedures using three dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) analysis were developed to
obtain the stress state at the rivet hole. Contact surfaces, which include friction effects, were used to simulate the rivet to hole and
skin to skin interactions. The squeezing force (SF) resulting from the riveting process and the coefficient of friction (CF) used for
the contact surfaces were taken as random variables. Analytical expressions for local stress as a function of the squeezing force
and coefficient of friction were developed using a response surface technique along with limited FE analyses. Based on the calculated
local stresses, a strain-life approach was employed to predict fretting fatigue crack nucleation at the rivet hole. A Monte Carlo
simulation was developed, which integrated the two random variables into the models, to determine the fatigue life distribution to
visible cracks. Results from the simulation showed that the predicted fatigue life distribution correlated very well with the existing
test data. Further sensitivity studies indicated that the squeezing force has a stronger influence on the life distribution than the
coefficient of friction. Crown Copyright 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crack nucleation; Riveted joints; Finite elements; Fretting fatigue; Sensitivity

1. Introduction
Aircraft fuselage splices are fatigue critical structures
and multiple site damage (MSD) has been recognized as
a safety issue that needs to be addressed in the structural
integrity assessment of aging aircraft. Although extensive investigations have been carried out on MSD in
fuselage splices by academia, industry, and government
laboratories, the knowledge about the onset of MSD,
usually measured as the number of cycles to visible
cracks, is still inadequate. The onset of MSD among
similar components subjected to similar loading can
have a large variability [13]. This variability is attributed to the inherent uncertainties in manufacturing,
loading, geometry and material properties [24], which
can be best described using a statistical distribution. This
distribution is one of the most important parameters of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-613-990-9812; fax: +1-613-9527136.

E-mail address: min.liao@nrc.ca (M. Liao).

safety, reliability and risk analysis of fuselage splices in

aging aircraft [5,6].
The fatigue life prediction of components largely
depends upon an accurate determination of the local
stress distribution. For fuselage splices, the local stress
is strongly affected by the rivet to hole and skin to skin
contacts, friction, clamping, and secondary bending
effects [4]. Further investigations [7,8] have revealed
that the coefficient of friction (CF) for the contact surfaces and the squeezing force (SF) used in the riveting
process have significant influences on the local stress at
the hole. In several past investigations [711], three
dimensional (3-D) and nonlinear finite element (FE)
methods coupled with contact surface functions were
applied to determine the local stress in fuselage splices.
Due to the complexity of the geometrical configuration
and loading conditions, accurate FE modeling for fuselage splices is still under development.
From the teardown examinations of fuselage splices
from service and laboratory specimens [1113], MSD
cracks are mainly nucleated at two locations. Some
cracks are nucleated at the intersection of the countersink
and the hole shown as location A in Fig. 1, and the crack

0142-1123/01/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 2 - 1 1 2 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 2 7 - X

S178

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

2. Specimen configuration and test data

Fig. 1.

Crack nucleation locations at rivet hole.

nucleation is due to high local stress. The majority of

cracks are nucleated at the faying surface of the outer
skin, a short distance away from the hole periphery
shown as location B in Fig. 1, and the crack nucleation
is due to fretting fatigue. Further investigations concluded that fretting fatigue in riveted lap joints is potentially a major cause of crack nucleation in aircraft skin
structures [12,14]. Although fretting fatigue in riveted
lap joints is substantially a multiaxial fatigue issue, a
strain-life approach using the SmithWatsonTopper
(SWT) model and uniaxial fatigue properties have been
applied successfully to predict the life of fretting fatigue
crack nucleation [15,16].
The Institute for Aerospace Research of the National
Research Council Canada (IAR/NRC) in collaboration
with Carleton University has, for several years, investigated the fatigue characteristics of fuselage splices containing MSD and corrosion. Both modeling and testing
work have been conducted on corroded and uncorroded
MSD specimens. The initial objective of this work was
to develop engineering approaches to predict the fatigue
life distribution of the uncorroded MSD specimens to
visible cracks. This objective was subsequently
expanded to include corrosion effects. Three dimensional nonlinear FE modeling was carried out to obtain
the residual stress caused by the squeezing force of the
riveting process and the local stress resulting from the
in-plane load. Along with the FE analyses, the response
surface technique was applied to derive analytical
expressions for the local stress at the rivet hole. The
SWT model was used to predict the life of a fretting
fatigue crack and subsequent growth to a visible crack
was predicted using the crack growth rate program,
AFGROW. Finally, the fatigue life distribution of the
splices to visible cracks was obtained using Monte Carlo
simulation. The existing test data were used to verify
the predictions and sensitivity studies were conducted to
examine the effects of uncertainties on the life distribution.

Specimens were constructed of two 0.040 in (1.0 mm)

sheets of 2024-T3 clad aluminum with three rows of
5/32 in (4.0 mm) 2117-T4 rivets (MS20426AD5-5), Fig.
2. Also shown in this figure is the countersink geometry
that forms a knife-edge in the outer panel of the splice.
Fatigue tests, which were carried out in a previous
IAR/NRC program in collaboration with Carleton University [17], used constant amplitude loading with a load
ratio of 0.02 and a frequency of 8 Hz. The failure mode,
as shown in Fig. 2, has invariably been MSD at the rivet
holes in the upper rivet row of the countersunk skin
(outer skin).
The specimens were manufactured in small batches at
different times and each specimen was riveted using an
automatic riveting machine. The machine was controlled
in displacement in order to produce the required driven
head dimensions [17]. It was found that residual stress
differences were induced during the riveting process due
to the hole tolerances [7]. Therefore, the potential

Fig. 2.

IAR/NRC lap joint specimen configuration [17].

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

Fig. 3.

S179

Crack nucleation on faying surface due to fretting fatigue [18].

sources for the scatter in the test results for skin splices
are riveting, manufacturing, and material itself.
From the fractographic examinations [18], cracks typically originated at the heavily fretted area around the
rivet holes a short distance away from the holes as
shown in Fig. 3. The length at visible crack is approximately 1.27 mm (0.05 in) measured from the edge of
the hole, at which point the crack has just emerged
beyond the rivet head on the outer skin. The fatigue life
data to visible cracks were taken from the central four
holes of the top row of rivets, which resulted in a sample
size of 37.
3. Finite element analysis and development of
response surface
3.1. Finite element model
Using symmetrical boundary conditions, a local 3-D
FE model was generated using MSC/PATRAN for the
MSD specimen as shown in Fig. 4. Contact surface func-

tions provided by ABAQUS were used to simulate the

contacts between the rivet to hole and skin to skin interfaces. The geometrical nonlinearity caused by the finite
deformation and finite slide between contact surfaces
were analyzed using these functions. Material nonlinearity was taken into account by using an isotropic hardening model and Von Mises yield criterion. The nonlinear stressstrain relation of 2024-T3 clad aluminum in
T-L direction was extracted from [19].
To model more accurately the stress state in a lap
splice, a two step procedure was applied in the FE analysis. In step 1, only the squeezing force was applied to
each rivet, which was subsequently unloaded until 2%
of its maximum level. In step 2, one cycle of the constant
amplitude in-plane loading was applied to determine the
final stress state in the lap splice.
The result from the finite element analysis is shown
in Fig. 5. The maximum principal stress was located at
the upper rivet row hole on the faying surface of the
outer skin, which is consistent with the fatigue critical
site found in test. Additional FE analyses were carried
out to determine the influence of the squeezing force and
coefficient of friction.
3.2. Development of response surface

Fig. 4.

Finite element model for lap joint.

The response surface technique, which was originally

developed by Box and Wilson [20], was employed to
determine the highly nonlinear relationship among the
local stress, squeezing force, and coefficient of friction.
In conjunction with the two step FE analysis, two
response surfaces were developed for the residual stress
(maximum principal stress) as a function of the squeezing force and coefficient of friction and the maximum
principal stress as a function of the coefficient of friction,
respectively. The response surface for residual stress

S180

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

Fig. 5.

FE analysis results (unit, Ksi): maximum principal stress and global deformation (without rivets).

(maximum principal stress) was obtained from the

results of Step 1 FE analysis as follows:
sres(sf, cf)22.69190.0129083sf8.81107sf 2
20.7883cf12.737cf

(1)

where sf is the squeezing force (3000 lbsf5000 lb), cf

is the coefficient of friction (0.3cf0.7). The response
surface for the maximum principal stress was obtained
from the results of Step 2 FE analysis:
smax(cf)38.89217.93271cf5.33571cf 2

(2)

where 0.3cf0.7. Figures 6 and 7 show the resulting

surface and curve from Equations (1) and (2), respectively. The maximum principal stress resulting from the
combined loads of the squeezing force and the in-plane
loading is given by:

Fig. 7. Response surface for maximum principal stress caused by inplane loading.

smax(sf, cf)smax(cf)sres(sf, cf)

(3)

which was used for predicting the fatigue life.

4. Fatigue life distribution to visible cracks

4.1. Fretting fatigue life prediction

Fig. 6.
eting.

Response surface for residual (max. principal) stress after riv-

The SmithWatsonTopper (SWT) equation, which

was first proposed by Smith et al. in 1970 [21] and incorporated both cyclic strain range and maximum stress,
was used to predict the fretting fatigue life in this work.
Socie [22] first successfully applied this equation to correlate crack nucleation observations in multiaxial fatigue
(tension and torsion) tests of AISI Type 304 stainless

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

steel tubular specimens. Also, Szolwinski, Harish, and

Farris [15,16] applied this equation to fretting fatigue
problems in both standard fretting specimen and riveted
lap joints. The SWT equation is expressed by:
smax

e (sf )2

(2Nf)2bsf ef (2Nf)b+c
2
E

(4)

where smax is the maximum principal stress which can

be obtained from Equations (1)(3); e/2 is the strain
amplitude simply determined by [15]:
e 1n2

s
2
E max

(5)

where E and n are elastic modulus and Poisson ratio,

respectively; sf , ef , b, and c are 121.1 Ksi (843 MPa),
0.174, 0.096, 0.644, respectively, which are obtained
from unaxial strain fatigue tests [23].
Miners linear accumulative damage rule was used to
determine the number of cycles to reach a specific crack
length. From the uniaxial strain fatigue tests for which
the parameters sf , ef , b, and c were determined [23], the
crack length aN was defined as 0.5 mm (0.02 in). Standard crack growth rate analysis was then used to grow
this 0.5 mm (0.02 in) crack to the visible crack length
of 1.27 mm (0.05 in).

S181

4.3. Monte Carlo simulation

Based on the above models, a Monte Carlo simulation
procedure was developed to obtain the fatigue life distribution to visible cracks. The squeezing force and coefficient of friction were taken as random variables to
simulate the variability in riveting and manufacturing. A
basic fatigue life distribution was used to represent the
material inherent uncertainty. First, random squeezing
force and coefficient of friction were generated from different assumed distributions. Using the response surface
functions, the local stress was determined by substituting
the random squeezing force and coefficient of friction
into Equations (1)(3). Then, the fatigue life to visible
cracks was calculated using the fretting fatigue life
model and crack growth analysis. Note this fatigue life
was used as the mean value of the basic fatigue life distribution under this local stress. Finally, the fatigue life
distribution to visible cracks were obtained by aggregating all samples from the basic fatigue life distributions
under different local stress levels. The Monte Carlo
simulation procedure is presented in a flowchart in
Fig. 8.
A type-I extreme value distribution of the smallest
values (Gumbel-Type distribution) was used for the
squeezing force represented by [27]:

F(sf; a, b)1exp exp

sfa
b

4.2. Crack growth analysis

Since accurate solutions for stress intensity factors for
corner cracks at countersink rivet holes under the combination of by-pass tension, bearing, and bending loading
are still not available, Newmans solutions [24] for corner cracks at a straight rivet hole under the same loading
were used. The Hartman T method [25], along with the
AGARD short long crack growth rates for 2024-T3
aluminum alloy sheet [26], was used to calculate the
crack growth life using the AFGROW software package.
The by-pass tension, bearing, and bending stress ratios,
which are requested in AFGROW, were obtained from
the FE analysis. The results from the analysis determined
that the number of cycles to grow a crack from 0.5 mm
(0.02 in) to 1.27 mm (0.05 in) was 26,361.
Therefore, the fatigue life to visible cracks is the sum
of the fatigue life to a crack length of 0.5 mm (0.02 in)
and the crack growth life from this crack length to a
visible crack length of 1.27 mm (0.05 in). Generally, the
crack nucleation life shows significantly more scatter
than the crack growth life[4,5]. Hence, the crack growth
life was treated as a deterministic variable for simplifying the analysis in this work. The existing work showed
that this simplification had almost no influence on the
risk analysis results of fuselage splices [6].

Fig. 8.

Schematic flowchart of Monte Carlo simulation.

(6)

S182

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

where a is the location parameter and b the scale parameter of a Type-I extreme-value distribution. Since the
actual squeezing force was not known for these specimens an initial value (assumed) for the mean (m) and
coefficient of variation (c.v. or h) were entered into the
Monte Carlo simulation and the prediction was compared to the test results.
A normal distribution was used for the coefficient of
friction represented by:
F(cf, m, s)1f

cfm
s

(7)

where m and s2 are the mean and variance of a normal

distribution, respectively. Since there is also no information regarding the statistical characteristics of the
coefficient of friction, an initial mean (m) and coefficient
of variation (h) were input into the simulation and the
prediction was compared to the test results.
The basic fatigue life distribution was assumed to be
lognormal. It should be pointed out that the basic fatigue
life distribution represents only the scatter of the material
inherent uncertainty. Therefore, the fatigue life data from
Shimokawas tests [28], which were conducted on 2024T4 under very carefully controlled manufacturing, loading, and environment conditions, was employed to determine the basic fatigue life distribution. Using the test
results in [28], two linear relations, which represent the
relationship between the mean and standard deviation of
logarithm life, were fitted and presented in Fig. 9. From
these relations, once the mean of the logarithm life is
calculated, the standard deviation of the logarithm life
is easily obtained and the basic fatigue life distribution
is determined.

5. Verification and sensitivity study

5.1. Test verification
Using trial-and-error, the Monte Carlo simulation
gave the best predicted results as compared to the test
results with a type-I extreme value distribution for the
squeezing force with m=3520 lb, and h=5%, while the
coefficient of friction was assumed as a normal distribution with m=0.5, h=5%. Table 1 presents the comparison between the predicted and test results. It should be
noted that the mean of the squeezing force obtained in
this work is close to the direct test measurement made
by Muller [7]. For Mullers test, forced controlled riveting was used to build lap joints that are similar to the
MSD specimen used in this work, which results in a
squeezing force of 3147 lb for a driven head diameter
of 6.10 mm (0.24 in). Figure 10 graphically illustrates
the fatigue life distribution comparison between the prediction and test results. A KolmogorovSmirnov (KS)
goodness-of-fit test was also carried out to determine
quantitatively how well the predictions fit the test results.
The KS test statistics [29], Dn=0.1575, is smaller than
the critical value of 0.183 at the significance level of
15%, which indicated that the predictions fit the test
results very well.
It should be addressed that the distribution of squeezing force used in the prediction was not obtained from
test. The reason is that the squeezing force could not
be measured from the displacement controlled riveting
process of this work. For further verification of the methodologies, the distribution of the squeezing force from
test is desirable, and the riveting process with force measuring capability can be expected to provide the distribution of the squeezing force. At this stage, there is no
information regarding the distributions of the squeezing
force as well as coefficient of friction in riveted lap
joints, some sensitivity studies are necessary to understand how the assumed distributions of the squeezing
force and coefficient of friction could affect the prediction.
5.2. Model sensitivity study

Fig. 9.

Basic fatigue life scatter versus mean fatigue life.

The sensitivity study was conducted to understand

how the distribution models of squeezing force and coefficient of friction will affect the predicted results and to
determine the appropriate distribution for these parameters. Normal, lognormal and type-I extreme value distributions were all tested. The best predicted results were
obtained from using a type-I extreme value distribution
for the squeezing force and a normal distribution for the
coefficient of friction, Fig. 11. Also, the results showed
that the squeezing force is more sensitive to the distribution model than the coefficient of friction.

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

S183

Table 1
Numerical comparisons between prediction and test results
Squeeze force (SF)

Distribution
Mean
c.v.a
a

Type-I
3520
5%

Coefficient of friction
(CF)

Normal
0.5
5%

Fatigue life distribution

Prediction

Test

Error

Lognormal
271807
33.9%

Lognormal
271724
34.6%

0.031%
2.136%

c.v.=Coefficient of variation.

ai

T
X i

Xi
T

(9)

where, X i is the mean of Xi, and T =T(X 1, X 2, . . ., X n). The

sensitivity factor indicates the contribution of the uncertainty associated with parameters Xi to the uncertainty
of target T. Usually, the dependence of T on Xi, as shown
in Eq. (8), is highly complex, but a Monte Carlo simulation can provide a numerical evaluation to ai. Table 2
presents the different sensitivity factors for the mean
(target 1) and c.v. (target 2) of the fatigue life distribution with respect to the parameters of the mean and
c.v. of the squeezing force, the mean and c.v. of the
coefficient of friction, as well as the standard deviation
of the basic fatigue life distribution. Table 2 indicates
quantitatively that the mean of the squeezing force is the
most sensitive parameter to the mean and c.v. of the
fatigue life distribution, followed by the mean of the
coefficient of friction, c.v. of the squeezing force, standard deviation of the basic fatigue life distribution, and
c.v. of the coefficient of friction. These sensitivity factors provide useful directions to the fatigue design of
fuselage splices.

Fig. 10. Distribution of fatigue life to visible cracks.

6. Conclusions

Fig. 11.

Model sensitivity to fatigue life distribution.

5.3. Parametric sensitivity study

A study was carried out to identify the parametric sensitivity in terms of their contributions to the predicted
results. The sensitivity factor, which was defined by Shinozuka in 1976 [30], was used to represent the parametric sensitivity. Give a target as a function of parameters Xi:
TT(X1, X2, . . ., Xn)
then, the sensitivity factor is given by:

(8)

Methodologies, which used 3-D nonlinear FE analysis, strain-life approach and crack growth analysis, were
developed to predict the fatigue life distribution to visible cracks of fuselage splices. The inherent uncertainties
in riveting, manufacturing, and material properties were
quantitatively simulated using a Monte Carlo simulation.
The squeezing force obtained from this work is close to
that determined experimentally in work carried out by
other researchers [7]. The results of this paper indicate
that the methodologies could be used to predict the
fatigue life distribution of fuselage splices. For further
methodology refinement and validation, the riveting process with force measuring capability is required to provide direct measurement of the squeezing force.
The sensitivity studies carried out to examine the
effects of inherent uncertainties on the fatigue life distri-

S184

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

Table 2
Parameter sensitivity factor
No.

Parameter

Mean of SF

c.v. of SF

Mean of CF

c.v. of CF

Standard deviation of BFLDa

Change in
(5%, 0%, +5%)

Mean life

3344.0
3520.0
3696.0
0.0475
0.0500
0.0525
0.4750
0.5000
0.5250
0.0475
0.0500
0.0525
0.0577
0.0608
0.0638

202439
271807
371740
270579
271807
273099
292148
271807
254798
271774
271807
271849
271464
271807
272170

Sensitivity
factor

6.2287

0.0927
1.3741

0.0028

0.0260

C.V. of life

27.41%
33.85%
43.26%
32.47%
33.85%
35.24%
35.89%
33.85%
32.12%
33.72%
33.85%
33.99%
33.25%
33.85%
34.47%

Sensitivity
factor

4.6827

0.8188
1.1143

0.0796

0.3618

BFLD=Basic fatigue life distribution.

bution indicated: (1) the squeezing force has a stronger

influence on the life distribution than the coefficient of
friction, and (2) the scatter in the squeezing force and
coefficient of friction have a stronger influence on the
life distribution than that of material properties.

Acknowledgements
This work has been carried out under IAR Program
303 Aerospace Structures, Project 46FQJ0F24,
Reliability Analysis and Risk Assessment of Aerospace
Structures. The financial assistance received from DND
Defense Research and Development Canada is gratefully
acknowledged. Thanks to Mr Graeme Eastaugh for providing the raw data of the MSD tests. Thanks also to
Mr Nicholas Bellinger and Mr Jerzy Komorowski for
insightful discussions.

References
[1] Steadman D, Carter A, Ramakrishnan R. Characterization of
MSD in an in-service fuselage lap joint. In: Proceedings of the
Third Joint NASA/FAA/DoD Conference on Aging Aircraft,
Albuquerque (NM), 1999.
[2] Pelloux R, Warren A, OGrady J. Fractographic analysis of
initiation and growth of fatigue cracks at rivet holes. In: Atluri
SN, Sampath SG, Tong P, editors. Structural integrity of aging
airplanes. Springer-Verlag, 1991:293308.
[3] Wang GS. Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of the
initiation of wide spread fatigue damage for SMAAC test panels.
FFA TN 2000-11, The Aeronautical Research Institute of
Sweden, Stockholm, 2000.
[4] Schijve J. Multiple-site-damage fatigue of riveted joints. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Structural Integrity of
Aging Airplanes, Atlanta, GA. Atlanta Technology Publications,
1992:27.

[5] Berens AP, Hovey PW, Skinn DA. Risk analysis for aging aircraft, vol. 1-Analysis, WL-TR-91-3066. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1991.
[6] Liao M, Xiong Y. A risk analysis of fuselage splices containing
multi-site damage and corrosion. Journal of Aircraft
2001;38(1):1817.
[7] Muller RPG. An experimental and analytical investigation on the
fatigue behavior of fuselage riveted lap joints. Ph.D. thesis, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1995.
[8] Szolwinski MP, Farris TN. Linking riveting process parameters
to the fatigue performance of riveted aircraft structures. Journal
of Aircraft 2000;37(1):1307.
[9] Hahn GT, Iyer K, Rubin CA, Bastias PC. Three dimensional
analysis of fatigue and fretting conditions in aluminum alloy riveted lap joints. In: Proceedings of the First Joint
DoD/NASA/FAA Conference on Aging Aircraft, Salt Lake,
UT, 1997.
[10] Segerfrojd G, Wang GS, Palmberg B, Blom AF. Fatigue behavior
of mechanical joints: critical experiments and statistical analysis.
In: The Proceedings of ICAF97, 1997.
[11] Harris CE, Piascik RS, Newman JC. A practical engineering
approach to predicting fatigue crack growth in riveted lap joints.
NASA/TM-2000-210106, 2000.
[12] Piascik RS, Willard SA. The growth of multi-site fatigue damage
in fuselage lap joints. In: Proceedings of the Second Joint
NASA/FAA/DOD Conference on Aging Aircraft, Williamsburg,
VA, 1998.
[13] Connor ZM, Fine ME, Achenbach JD. Fatigue crack initiation
and propagation on hidden surfaces: riveted joints of alclad 2024.
In: Proceedings of the First Joint DoD/NASA/FAA Conference
on Aging Aircraft, Salt Lake, UT, 1997.
[14] Hoeppner DW, Eillot CB, Moesser MW. The role of fretting
fatigue on aircraft rivet hole cracking. Technical Report
DOT/FAA/AR-96/10, FAA, 1996.
[15] Szolwinski MP, Farris TN. Observation, analysis and prediction
of fretting in 2024-T351 aluminum alloy. Wear 1998;221:2436.
[16] Harish G, Farris TN. Effect of fretting contact stresses on crack
nucleation in riveted lap joints. In: Proceedings of the 39th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, Long Beach, CA; AIAA-98-1746, 1998.
[17] Eastaugh GF, Simpson DL, Straznicky PV, Wakeman RB. A special uniaxial coupon test specimen for the simulation of multiple

M. Liao et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) S177S185

[18]

[19]

[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]

site fatigue crack growth and linkup in fuselage splices. AGARDCP-568, 1995.
Estaugh GF, Straznicky PV, Krizan DV, Merati AA, Cook J.
Experimental study of the effects of corrosion on the fatigue durability and crack growth characteristics of longitudinal fuselage
splices. In: Proceeding of the Fourth DoD/FAA/NASA Aging
Aircraft Conference, St. Louis, MO, 2000.
Newman JC, Dawicke DS, Sutton MA, Bigelow CA. A fracture
criterion for widespread cracking in thin-sheet aluminum alloys.
ICAF93 1993:443-467.
Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. JR Statist Soc 1951:B13.
Smith KN, Watson P, Topper TH. A stressstrain function for
the fatigue of metals. Journal of Materials 1970;5(4):76778.
Socie D. Multiaxial fatigue damage models. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 1987;109:2938.
Boller C, Seeger T. Materials Data for Cyclic Loading, Part D:
Aluminum and Titanium Alloys. New York: Elsevier, 1987.
Newman JC, Harris CE, Shivakumar KN. Fatigue-life prediction

[25]
[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]
[30]

S185

of riveted lap-splice joints using small-crack theory. ICAF97

1997:523-552.
Harter JA. AFGROW User Guide and Technical Manual. Air
Force Research Laboratory, OH, USA. 1999.
Newman JC, Edwards PR, Zocher H. Short-crack growth behaviour in an aluminum alloy an AGARD cooperative test programme. AGARG Report. AGARD-R-732. 1988.
Mann NR, Schafer RE, Singpurwalla ND. Methods for Statistical
Analysis of Reliability and Life Data. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1974.
Shimokawa T, Hamaguchi Y. Relationship between fatigue life
distribution, notch configuration, and SN curve of a 2024-T4
aluminum alloy. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 1985;107:21420.
Lawless JF. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.
Shinozuka M. Development of reliability-based aircraft safety
criteria: an impact analysis vol. I, Modern analysis, incorporated. Technical report, AFFDL-TR-76-31. 1976.