Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

LUGLIO 2005

ING/ 139

ON FATIGUE DAMAGE COMPUTATION IN RANDOM LOADINGS WITH


THRESHOLD LEVEL AND MEAN VALUE INFLUENCE

DENIS BENASCIUTTI, ROBERTO TOVO


Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit degli Studi di Ferrara, via Saragat 1, 44100 Ferrra, Italy

REPORT DEL DIPARTIMENTO DI INGEGNERIA N. 139


Luglio 2005

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit degli Studi di Ferrara


via Saragat 1, 44100 Ferrara
tel. +39 532 973800, fax. +39 532 974870

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

INDEX
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Preliminary defintions ................................................................................................................... 1
3. Formulae for damage computation................................................................................................3
3.1. Theoretical formulae for damage computation ................................................................... 3
3.1.1.
Narrow-band approximation............................................................................ 4
3.1.2.
TB method ....................................................................................................... 4
3.2. Damage formulae including a threshold level SL ................................................................ 5
3.2.1.
Narrow-band approximation............................................................................ 6
3.2.2.
TB method ....................................................................................................... 6
3.3. Effect of mc on damage ....................................................................................................... 7
3.3.1.
Narrow-band approximation............................................................................ 8
3.3.2.
TB method ....................................................................................................... 8
3.4. Effect of mc and mr on damage............................................................................................ 8
3.4.1.
TB method ....................................................................................................... 9
4. Probability of threshold crossing occurrence ................................................................................ 9
4.1. Poisson approximation ...................................................................................................... 10
4.2. Linear combination ........................................................................................................... 11
4.3. Overall probability of threshold crossing.......................................................................... 12
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 12
6. References ................................................................................................................................... 12
1. INTRODUCTION
The classical time-domain approach for estimating the fatigue damage in random loadings is based on counting methods and damage accumulation rules (e.g. rainflow count and linear damage accumulation rule).
On the opposite, the frequency-domain approach models the irregular loading as a random process, described in the frequency-domain by a power spectral density (PSD), and it characterises the statistical variability of rainflow counted cycles by means of a probability density function, since the fatigue damage under
the linear rule is easily calculated from the cycle distribution.
The existing frequency-domain methods compute the fatigue damage by referring to amplitude or amplitude-mean probability density functions defined over infinite domains, i.e. cycles having an infinitely large
value of its peak or valley are virtually possible. In addition, very often such methods estimate the fatigue
damage usually neglecting the influence of the mean stress of each rainflow counted cycle and then only focusing on the statistical variability of the amplitudes.
However, a more physically meaningful approach we should account for the existence of a threshold
level for the systems (actually representing a ultimate static strength or simply a limit state condition for the
system functionality), and also we should provide a more reliable damage prediction by including the influence of the mean stress of counted cycles, since it is well-known the more damaging effect of cycles with a
positive mean stress.
The present report proposes a theoretical framework developed to formulate suitable criteria for fatigue
damage assessment, which estimate the fatigue damage by including the existence of a system threshold
level, and that further include the effect on fatigue damage of mean stresses of counted cycles. This paper
presents two approaches are proposed with an increasing complexity: the first one evaluates the effect of the
global mean stress value of the random loading, mc (constant), while the second also includes the effect of
the random mean stress component mr of rainflow cycles, evaluated in respect to mc (see Figure 1)
2. PRELIMINARY DEFINTIONS
Let X (t ) be a stationary random process with mean value mc (see Figure 1) and power spectral density
(PSD) S ( ) , characterised by the set of spectral moments [6]:

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)
+

i = i S ( ) d

(1)

and bandwidth parameters:

1
0 2

1 =

2 =

2
0 4

(2)

If X (t ) is Gaussian, the mean upcrossing rate 0 and the rate of peak occurrence p are:

0 =

1
2

2
0

p =

1
2

4
2

(3)

Further, if process X (t ) is Gaussian with mean mc , its probability density of peaks is given as:
pp (u ) =

1 22
2 X

( u mc ) 2
2 X2

(1 22 )

(u m )
+ 2 2 c e
X

( u mc ) 2
2 X2

(u m )
c
2

2
X 1 2

(4)

The probability density of valleys is symmetrical to that of peaks in respect to mc , that is


pv ( v) = pp (2mc v) . The cumulative distribution function of peaks finally is:
um
c
Fp (u ) =

2
X 1 2

( u mc )

e 2 X2 2 (u mc )
2

2
X 1 2

(5)

Each fatigue cycle counted in a random loading can be described by its peak u and valley v (being always
u v ), or equivalently by its amplitude s and mean m :
s=

uv
2

m=

u+v
2

(6)

Counted cycles are clearly random events and should be characterised in a probabilistic sense. A simple way
to describe the statistical variability of counted cycles is to define a joint probability density function (PDF),
say h(u , v) , depending on peak u and valley v levels; note that h(u , v) is defined only for u v . The corresponding distribution function (CDF):
u

H (u, v) =

h ( x , y ) dx dy

(7)

then gives the probability to count a cycle with peak lower or equal to level u and valley lower or equal to
level v .
In the engineering field we are more familiar with other probability densities, as the amplitude-mean PDF
(obtained from h(u , v) through a simple variable change):
p ( s , m) = 2 h ( m + s , m s )

(8)

and the amplitude PDF (i.e. the marginal distribution associated to p( s, m) ):


+

p( s) =

p( s, m) dm

(9)

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

In our analysis we are mainly interested in estimating the distribution of rainflow cycles; note that the rainflow count is a "complete counting method" and therefore its distribution must satisfy the following completeness condition [9]:
u

p p (u ) = hRF (u , v) dv

+
p ( v ) = h ( u , v ) du
RF
v
v

(10)

Another cumulative distribution often used in the fatigue analysis of random loadings is the count intensity
(u , v) , which gives the number of rainflow cycles with peak equal or higher than u and valley equal or
lower than v [8].
The count intensity related to the joint distribution hRF (u , v) is:
+ y = v

RF (u, v) = p

RF ( x,

y ) dx dy

(11)

x =u

3. FORMULAE FOR DAMAGE COMPUTATION


3.1.

Theoretical formulae for damage computation

Each rainflow cycle counted in X (t ) is characterised, besides its amplitude s , also by a mean value m ,
equal to the sum of the global mean value component mc (constant) and the random mean stress component

mr , evaluated in respect to mc (see Figure 1).


If the fatigue behaviour is characterised by the S-N relation s k N = C , defined for m = 0 , the fatigue
damage rate under the linear rule (neglecting the mean value m of rainflow cycles) is:
a
DRF
= p

+ k

p RF ( s ) ds

(12)

where p RF ( s) is the probability density of amplitudes; the damage in Eq. (12) does not consider the statistical variability of the mean stress m of rainflow cycles and it also represents a completely theoretical formula, since it integrates the amplitude distribution p RF ( s) over an infinite domain.

Figure 1: Amplitude

s , global mean value mc and random mean stress component m r of a counted cycle.

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

In order to obtain a fatigue damage estimate, which includes also the statistical variability of mean stress
m of rainflow cycles, it is necessary to update Eq. (12) by using the amplitude-mean joint probability density p RF ( s, m) , as:
a, m
DRF

= p

+ + k

p RF ( s, m) dsdm

(13)

The formulae presented above show that the fatigue damage depends on the statistical distribution of
counted cycles through p RF ( s) or p RF ( s, m) distributions.
3.1.1. Narrow-band approximation
If X (t ) is Gaussian, distribution p RF ( s) is Rayleigh and the fatigue damage is [1]:

DNB =

0
C

20

1 +
2

(14)

where ( ) is the gamma function:

(a ) = u a1 e u du

(15)

We know that in wide-band processes p RF ( s) is not Rayleigh and taht Eq. (14) gives a conservative damage
estimate, therefore we need other methods which give a more accurate estimation of p RF ( s) [1].
3.1.2. TB method
A linear combination is used to estimate the rainflow cycle distribution:
hRF (u , v) = b hLC (u , v) + (1 b) hRM (u , v)

(16)

where b is a suitable weight depending on the process PSD and approximated as [1]:
bapp =

( 1 2 ) [1.112 (1 + 1 2 ( 1 + 2 ) ) e 2.11
( 2 1 )2

+ ( 1 2 )

(17)

and where hLC (u , v) and hRM (u , v) are the joint distributions associated to the level-crossing counting:

p p (u ) p v (u ) (u + v 2mc ) + p v (u ) (u v)
hLC (u , v) =

p p (u ) (u v)

if u > mc
if u mc

(18)

and the range-mean counting:


hRM (u, v) =

e
2

u 2 +v2
40 22 (1 22 )

2 2 0 2

( u v)2

1 2 22

40 22 (1 22 ) 2 22

mc ( mc u v )
2 0 (1 22 )

uv

40 (1 22 )

(19)

A linear combination similar to Eq. (16) can be used also for estimating the joint amplitude-mean distribution p RF ( s, m) , using the distribution associated to the level-crossing counting:

pp ( s ) pv ( s) ( m mc ) + pv ( m) ( s)
pLC ( s, m) =

p p ( m) ( s )

and to the range-mean counting:

if s + m > mc
if s + m mc

(20)

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

p RM ( s, m) =

1
2 0 (1 22 )

(m mc )2

s2

2
s
2 2 0
e
0 22

2 0 (1 22 )

(21)

which are both symmetric in respect to m = mc .


The above formulae are derived from those presented in [1] by including the symmetry in respect to the
global mean value mc .
A linear combination is also used for the damage:
(22)

DTB = bDLC + (1 b) DRM

where DLC is the damage from the level-crossing counting (which is equal to DNB [1]) and DRM is the (approximated) damage from the range-mean counting, see [1].
3.2.

Damage formulae including a threshold level SL

All the above formulae assume that amplitudes and mean values are defined over an infinite domain. However, a more realistic model should consider the existence for process X (t ) of a threshold level S L (being
S L the corresponding symmetric negative value), which could indicate an ultimate static strength or simply a limit state condition for the system.
This threshold level divides the domain of amplitudes (and mean values) into two distinct regions (see
for example Figure 2). Therefore, the damage can be expressed as:
(23)

DRF, thr = DRF,in + DRF,exc

in which DRF,exc is the damage of cycles, having a maximum and/or minimum greater than S L .
The formula for damage calculation which accounts for S L is obtained from Eq. (13):
S L mc
a
DRF,
thr = p

sk
p RF ( s ) ds + p
C
S

mc

( S L mc ) k
C

p RF ( s ) ds

(24)

Note that the maximum allowable amplitude (i.e. the limit of integration for amplitudes) is S L mc and
that all amplitudes greater than this limit its are transformed into S L mc .

s
SL

mc

-S L

SL

Figure 2: Schematic representation of the level curves of the function

m
p RF ( s, m) .

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

If we refer instead to the joint amplitude-mean distribution p RF ( s, m) , we note that the domain defined
by m + s S L actually corresponds to rainflow cycles for which the process X (t ) crosses the threshold
level S L , see Figure 2.
Therefore, as done in the previous formula, we have to distinguish between rainflow cycles inside the nocrossing domain and rainflow cycles associated to a threshold crossing occurrence.
Consequently, the formula for damage computation depending on the amplitude-mean joint distribution
p RF ( s, m) and accounting for the threshold level S L is the sum of two contributions:
a, m
a,m
a, m
DRF,
thr = DRF,in + DRF,exc

(25)

a, m
in which DRF,
in is the damage corresponding to rainflow cycles for which m + s < S L (no threshold crossing):

a,m
DRF,
in =

p 0
C S
L

SL + m

SL SL m

s k p RF ( s, m)ds dm +

s
0

p RF ( s, m)ds dm

(26)

a, m
while DRF,
exc is the damage for rainflow cycles with m + s S L (threshold crossing), which are trans-

formed into cycles with the same mean value m and amplitude s = S L m :
a,m
DRF,
exc

p 0
=
C S
L

(S L + m)

SL

p RF ( s, m)ds dm +

SL +m

( S L m) k p RF ( s, m)ds dm

SL m

(27)

In both equations, the first integral term refers to cycles with m < 0 , while the second to cycles with m > 0 .
3.2.1. Narrow-band approximation
The damage of the narrow-band approximation including the threshold level S L specialises as:

D NB,thr

k
0
k (S L mc
=
2 0 1 + ,

C
2
20

)2

+ ( S L mc

(SL mc )2
e 2 0

(28)

where ( , ) is the incomplete gamma function:


x

(a, x) = u a1 e u du

(29)

3.2.2. TB method
a
a,m
This method can give two damage estimates: DTB,
thr , depending only on amplitudes, and DTB, thr , depending

on amplitudes and mean values.


Referring only to amplitudes, we apply Eq. (24), obtaining:
a
a
a
DTB,
thr = b DLC, thr + (1 b ) DRM, thr

(30)

where the damage contribution from the level-crossing is given explicitly as:

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)
a
a
a
DLC,
thr = DLC, in + DLC, exc

(S L mc )2
k
+ (S L mc ) e 20

p 2
k
k (S L mc
=
2 0 1 + ,

C
2
2 0

)2

(31)

and it is obviously equal to DNB,thr given for the narrow-band approximation, see Eq. (28), since p 2 = 0 ,
while the damage contribution from the range-mean counting is given as:
a
a
a
DRM,
thr = DRM, in + DRM, exc

k
p
k (S L mc
2 22 0 1 + ,
=


C
2
2 22 0

)2 + (S

mc

(S L mc )2
2
e 2 2 0

(32)

Referring instead to the amplitude-mean joint distribution, we apply Eqs. (25)-(27):


a, m
a, m
a, m
DTB,
thr = b DLC, thr + (1 b) DRM, thr

a, m
a, m
a, m
a, m
= b DLC,
in + DLC, exc + (1 b ) DRM, in + DRM, exc

p 0 S L + m k
b
s p LC ( s, m) dsdm +
C S 0
L

SL SL m

s k p LC ( s, m) dsdm +

SL + m
0

+ (1 b)
dm s k p RM ( s, m) dsdm +

0
SL

SL SL m

(33)

s k p RM ( s, m) dsdm

a, m
The damage contribution, DLC,
thr , associated to the level-crossing counting is the same given in Eq. (31),
while the damage contribution associated to the range-mean counting is given by the following integrals:

thr
DRC,
in

p 2 22 0

=
C 2 0 (1 22 )

SL

(m mc )2
e 2 0 (1 2 )

SL

thr
DRC,
exc =

k (S m )2
dm
1 + , L
2
2
2 0 2

(34)

SL

k
(S L m ) e
2
C 2 0 (1 2 )

(m mc )2

2 0 (1 22 )

(SL m )2
2 0 22

dm

SL

which can be solved by numerical integration.


3.3.

Effect of mc on damage

The dependence of damage on mc is obtained by inserting the Haigh correction in Eq. (24):
a
DRF,
mc

S m
p L c
=
C 0

S L mc

p RF ( s) ds +

1 I (mc ) mc S L
1 I (mc ) mc S L

[ 1 PRF ( S L ) ]

(35)

in which PRF ( s ) is the cumulative distribution function of amplitudes. The indicator function ( I ( x) = 1 if
x 0 , I( x) = 0 elsewhere) is used to specify that the mean value correction is applied only when mc > 0 .

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

The formula for the correction of mc , Eq. (35), even if approximated, is easily applicable to all existing
spectral methods (e.g. narrow-band approximation, TB method [1, 2], Dirlik method [3], Zhao-Baker
method [10]) which provide an estimate of the amplitude distribution pRF ( s ) .
The error given by the proposed formula in neglecting in the damage estimate the random mean stress
component mr depends on the relative importance of this component in respect to the global mean value
component mc . Such error should diminish when the frequency bandwidth of process X (t ) decreases,
since in narrow-band processes fatigue cycles are virtually symmetric respect to m c , and all have mr 0 .
3.3.1. Narrow-band approximation
Writing explicitly Eq. (35) using a Rayleigh distribution for pRF ( s) gives:
D NB,mc

k (S m
20
0
c
1 + , L
=

2
20
C 1 I ( mc ) m c S L

)2 +


e
1 I ( mc ) mc S L


S L mc

(S L mc )2
2 0

(36)

3.3.2. TB method
We refer to the damage of the TB method calculated in terms of amplitudes:
a
a
a
DTB,
mc = b DLC,mc + (1 b ) DRC, mc

(37)

a
a
in which DLC,
mc and DRM,mc are the damage of the level-crossing and range-mean countings, computed as a
a
a
function of amplitudes; in particular, DLC,
mc coincides with DNB,mc given in Eq. (36), while DRM,mc , com-

puted according to the distribution p RM ( s ) derived from Eq. (21), is:


a
DRC,
mc

3.4.

p
=
C


2 22 0

k (S L mc
1 I ( m ) m S 1 + 2 , 2 2
c
c
L
2 0

)2 +


e
1 I ( m c ) mc S L

S L mc

(SL mc )2
2 220

(38)

Effect of mc and mr on damage

The theoretical damage estimation could be further improved by inserting in formulae also the influence of
the random mean stress component m r . The formulae for damage computation, given in Eq. (25)-(27), expressed as a function of p RF ( s, m) , are modified by inserting the Haigh correction for cycles with m > 0 .
The formula of the rainflow damage depending on p RF ( s, m) then is:
a,m
a,m
a,m
DRF,
m = Din ,m + Dexc,m

(39)

in which Dina,,mm is the damage calculated for cycles with m + s < S L :


m
D ina,,m

p 0
=
C S
L

SL +m

s pRF ( s, m)ds dm +

SL SL m

pRF ( s, m) ds dm

1 m SL

a,m
while Dexc
,m is the damage calculated for cycles with m + s S L :

(40)

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

p 0
=
C S
L

a,m
D exc
,m

(S L + m)

SL

pRF ( s, m) ds dm +

SL + m

S Lk pRF ( s, m) ds dm

SL m

(41)

The Haigh correction is applied to cycles with m > 0 . The previous formulae are applicable only to those
methods which provide an estimate of the joint distribution pRF ( s, m) [1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9].
As an example, in the following section we apply the formula to the TB method.
3.4.1. TB method
The rainflow damage can be written as:
a, m
a, m
a, m
DTB,
m = b DLC,m + (1 b) DRC, m
k
S L S L m
p 0 SL +m k

s
b
p LC ( s, m) dsdm +
=
s p LC ( s, m) dsdm + b
C S 0
1 m S L
0 0
L
SL + m

+ (1 b)

SL

dm

S L S L m

s k p RC ( s, m) dsdm + (1 b)

1 m SL

(42)

p RC ( s, m) dsdm

in which the first two terms are the damage of the level-crossing, which is equal to the damage DNB,mc given
in Eq. (36), while the other two are the damage associated to the range-counting and given as:
m
m
a,m
DRC
,m = DRC,in + DRC,exc

(43)

m
in which DRC,
in is the damage of the range-counting cycles associated to the condition m + s < S L :
k

m
DRC,in

p 2 22 0

=
C 2 0 (1 22 )

SL

(m mc )2

2 0 (1 22 )
k (S m )2
e

dm
1 + , L
2
(1 I (m) m S )k 2

2
0 2

(44)

SL

m
while DRC,
exc is the damage of the range-counting cycles associated to the condition m + s S L :
SL

m
DRC,
exc

S m
p
L

=
1 I ( m) m S
2

L
C 2 0 (1 2 )

(m mc )2

2 0 (1 22 )
e
e

(S L m )2
2 0 22

dm

(45)

SL

The above integrals can be solved by numerical integration.


4. PROBABILITY OF THRESHOLD CROSSING OCCURRENCE

In the preceding sections, we computed a fatigue damage also for all rainflow cycles associated to a threshold occurrence, i.e. cycles in which the maximum and/or minimum exceeds the threshold S L . Another
possibility is to discard all such cycles from the fatigue damage computation and to compute the probability
P f that such cycles will produce an immediate fracture of the system.
Let P 1f be the probability of occurrence of a threshold crossing of the level S L for a single rainflow
cycle counted in X (t ) . This probability can be computed by integrating the hRF (u , v) distribution outside
the domain u S L and v S L .

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

The threshold levels S L and S L are assumed symmetric; if process X (t ) is assumed Gaussian, it is
symmetric and therefore its distribution hRFC (u , v) is also symmetric. Then the probability of threshold
crossing occurrence for a single rainflow cycle can be computed as:
P1f

= 2

+ v = S L

v =u

hRF (u , v) du dv

u = S L v =

hRF (u , v) du dv

(46)

u = S L v =

By means of the "completeness condition", see Eq. (10), and by symmetry, we can use the probability density of peaks, by writing the first integral in terms of the cumulative distribution function of peaks, Fp (u ) :
P1f = 2

+ v = S L

pp (u ) du

u =SL

hRF (u , v) du dv

(47)

u = S L v =

Note that the second integral gives the probability of threshold crossing for the joint event u S L and
v S L . This probability can be expressed in terms of the rainflow count intensity, see Eq. (11):

RF (S L , S L )
p

P1f = 2 1 Fp ( S L )

(48)

The expression given in Eq. (48) is exact and it gives the probability that a single rainflow cycle will produce a threshold crossing.
However, even if Eq. (48) has general validity, it can not be solved explicitly, since we do not know the
analytical expression of the rainflow count intensity RF (u , v) .
In the following sections two possible approximations are proposed; to simplify all proposed equations,
we will assume that m c = 0 .
4.1.

Poisson approximation

The approximation of the rainflow count intensity based on the Poisson convergence of the level upcrossing
spectrum is [4]:
Pois
RF
(u , v)

(u ) ( v)
(u ) + ( v)

(49)

where ( x ) is the upcrossing spectrum. This approximation is valid for u >> 0 and v << 0 .
We define the rainflow cumulative probability associated to the rainflow count intensity RF (u , v) as:
Pois
qRF
(u , v) =

Pois
RF
(u , v)
(u ) ( v )

p
p ( (u ) + ( v) )

(50)

In a Gaussian load, the upcrossing spectrum is given by the Rices formula [2]:

x2
( x) = 0 exp
2
2 X

(51)

and therefore the approximate rainflow cumulative probability is:


Pois
(u , v )
qRF

2
u
v2

+
exp
exp
2
2 2
X
2 X

(52)

since 2 = 0 p .
Calculating the cumulative distribution for u = S L and v = S L gives:

10

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)

Pois
qRF
(SL , SL )

2
2e

(53)

S L2
2 X2

Consequently, the explicit expression for the probability of fracture (for 1 rainflow cycle) is:
P1f

SL

= 2 1

X 1 2

4.2.

L
2 SL
e 2 X2
2

X 1 2

2 exp( S 2 2 2 )

L
X

(54)

Linear combination

In the TB method, we used a linear combination to estimate the distribution hRF (u , v) , see Eq. (16). Similarly, a linear combination can be used to estimate the cumulative distribution q RF (u , v) :
lin
q RF
(u , v) = b q LC (u , v) + (1 b) q RM (u , v)

(55)

where the cumulative distributions for the narrow-band approximation and the range-mean count are, respectively [2]:
v2
u 22

2
2

q LC (u , v) = 2 e X I ( u + v ) + e X I( (u + v) )

(56)

and:
v2
2

q RM (u , v) = 2 e 2 X

2
u v (1 2 2 )

2
2

2
1
+ e X v u (1 2 2 )

2
2

2 2 X (1 2 )
2 2 X (1 2 )

(57)

Calculating the cumulative distribution for u = S L and v = S L gives:

qLC ( S L , S L ) = 2 e

S L2

(58)

2 X2

and:
qRM ( S L , S L ) = 2 e

S L2
2 X2

2
2

1 S L (1 2 ) + S L (1 2 )

2
2

2 X (1 2 )
2 X (1 2 )

(59)

By using the fact that ( x) = 1 ( x) , we have:


qRM ( S L , S L ) = 2 2 e

S L2
2 X2

1 S L (1 2 )

2 X (1 2 )

(60)

The final formula for the cumulative distribution then is:


lin
qRF
(S L ,

SL ) = 2 e

S L2
2 X2

S (1 2 )

L
2

b + 2(1 b) 1

(
1

X
2
2

Consequently, the explicit expression for the probability of fracture (for 1 rainflow cycle) is:

11

(61)

Dipartimento di Ingegneria, Universit di Ferrara


Report n. 139 (luglio 2005)
S2

L2
2 SL
S

e 2 X

L
P 1f = 2 1
2

2
2

X 12
X 12

S2

S (1 2 )
L2


L
2
2 e 2 X b + 2(1 b) 1

2 X (1 2 )

4.3.

(62)

Overall probability of threshold crossing

In the hypothesis that rainflow cycles are independent, the probability of survival after N cycles is simply
the product of probabilities:

Ps = 1 P1f

(63)

For example, the number of rainflow cycles for which there is a probability of survival of 50% then is:
Nf =

ln (Ps )
= 0.693 ln P1f 1
ln 1 P1f

(64)

5. CONCLUSIONS

This report provides an analytical framework for the frequency-domain damage assessment of a random
process X (t ) , which includes the effect of a threshold level and the effect of mean stress values on the fatigue damage computations. Approximate approaches for evaluating the effect of the mean value on the fatigue damage are presented. The rainflow cycles counted in a given random process X (t ) have a mean value
stress m = m c + m r , which is the sum of the global mean value m c (constant) of process X (t ) , and the random mean stress component m r evaluated in respect to m c . The first approach considers only the effect of
the global mean value m c and it is applicable to all such spectral methods existing in the literature which
provide an estimate only of the amplitude distribution of rainflow cycles (e.g. narrow-band approximation,
Dirlik method, Zhao-Baker method). The second approach evaluates the effect of both m c and m r mean
values, based on the joint distribution pRF ( s, m) and it has been explicitly applied to the TB method.
6. REFERENCES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Benasciutti D., Tovo R. Spectral methods for lifetime prediction under wide-band stationary random
processes. Int. J. Fatigue, 2005, 27(8): 867-877.
Benasciutti D., Fatigue analysis of random loadings. PhD Thesis, Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara (Italy), March 2005.
Dirlik T. (1985) Application of computers in fatigue analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick, UK.
Johannesson P., Thomas J. Extrapolation of rainflow matrices. Extremes, 2001, 4(3): 241-262.
Lindgren G., Broberg K.B. Cycle distributions for Gaussian processes exact and approximate results.
Extremes, 2005, 7(1): 69-89.
Lutes L.D., Sarkani S. Stochastic analysis of structural and mechanical vibrations, Prentice-Hall, 1997.
Nagode M., Klemenc J., Fajdiga M. Parametric modelling and scatter prediction of rainflow matrices.
Int. J. Fatigue, 2001, 23: 525-532.
Rychlik I. Note on cycle counts in irregular loads. Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater. Struct., 1993, 16(4),
377-390.
Tovo R. Cycle distribution and fatigue damage under broad-band random loading. Int. J. Fatigue, 2002,
24(11): 1137-1147.
Zhao W., Baker M.J. On the probability density function of rainflow stress range for stationary Gaussian processes. Int. J. Fatigue, 1992, 14(2): 121-135.
12