This paper presents a comparison of fatigue life prediction capabilities among three deterministic and one probabilistic strain–life models. Most existing life prediction models are deterministic even though the fatigue process is stochastic in nature. Therefore, variability in experimental fatigue life data is not statistically justified when the deterministic approach is adopted. In this study, the Coffin–Manson, Smith–Watson–Topper, Morrow, and Weibull regression models through the use of Miner’s rule for damage accumulation process are each compared with the experimental data. Both available in the literature, two sets of experimental data for variable amplitude loading and random loading spectrum were used to explore the prediction accuracies of the models. Simulations were based on models to obtain additional results for different levels of maximum strain. They were conducted to investigate the maximum strain–life behaviour under random loading. Fatigue life comparisons were then performed, and the scatter band for type of load, level of strain amplitude, and each model separately were used for evaluations. The results show that the difference percentage in comparison with experimental data varies, but all the predictions are within the acceptable limit, that is, 50% when the factor of 2 was used. Weibull regression model has the lowest normalized-root-mean square error value (0.07) and thus has highest prediction capability among the models. Therefore, the probabilistic model is a better alternative for strain–life prediction compared with deterministic models.
Deterministic method Fatigue life Probabilistic method Random Strain–life
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Pinto H, De Jesus AMP, Fernandez-Canteli A, Castillo E, Pereira HFSG (2010) Analysis of constant and variable amplitude strain-life data using a novel probabilistic Weibull regression model. J Pressure Vessel Technol 132(6):061401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider CRA, Maddox SJ (2003) Best practice guide on statistical analysis of fatigue data. International Institute of WeldingGoogle Scholar
ASTM (2015) Standard Practice for Statistical Analysis of Linear or Linearized Stress-Life (S-N) and Strain-Life (ε-N) Fatigue Data. ASTM Standard E739-10 (Reapproved 2015). ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/e0739-10r15
Gallegos Mayorga L, Sire S, Correia JAFO, De Jesus AMP, Rebelo C, Fernández-Canteli A, Ragueneau M, Plu B (2017) Statistical evaluation of fatigue strength of double shear riveted connections and crack growth rates of materials from old bridges. Eng Fract Mech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2017.05.039Google Scholar
Correia JAFO, Jesus A, Blasón S, Calvente M, Fernández-Canteli A Probabilistic non-linear cumulative fatigue damage of the P355NL1 pressure vessel steel. In: ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1115/pvp2016-63920
Fernández-Canteli A (1982) Statistical interpretation of the miner-number using an index of probability of total damage. Fatigue of steel and concrete structures. IABSE, ZürichGoogle Scholar