The need and benefits of individual aircraft fatigue monitoring are now well established. There are broadly two fatigue damage methods employed for this purpose, namely, crack growth and stress (or strain)-life. The crack growth methods tend to provide a relative comparison between an aircraft’s usage and a baseline usage, while the strain-life methods provide a measure of the amount of fatigue life consumed against that (generally) demonstrated through a fatigue test. In this article, a new crack growth–based tracking method is described that also includes a measure of the certified fatigue life consumed. The damage model is compared against the results of an extensive coupon fatigue test programme for aluminium alloy 7050-T7451.
MIL-STD-1530C. Department of Defense standard practice: aircraft structural integrity program (ASIP).
2.
MolentLAktepeB. Review of fatigue monitoring of agile military aircraft. Fatigue Fract Eng M2000; 23: 767–785.
3.
MolentLAgiusJ. Agile military aircraft. In: BollerCChangFFujinoY (eds) Encyclopedia of structural health monitoring. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. DOI: 10.1002/9780470061626.shm137
4.
NATO. Future airframe structural lifing: methods, applications and management. RTO technical report no. TR-AVT-125 4December2008. Neuilly, France: NATO Research and Technology Organisation.
5.
De JongeJBvan LummelCWJ. Development of a crack severity index (CSI) for quantification of recorded stress spectra. NLR-TR-86049, 13May1986. Amsterdam: National Aerospace Laboratory.
6.
LeeHParkSKimH. Estimation of aircraft structural fatigue life using the crack severity index methodology. J Aircraft2010; 47(5): 1672–1678.
7.
Aeronautical Systems Center Engineering Directorate. Methodology for determination of equivalent flight hours and approaches to communicate usage severity. EN-SB-09-00, June2009. Dayton, OH: Wright-Patterson AFB.
8.
WhitePMongruDS. A revised fatigue damage tracking algorithm for RAAF F/A-18 A/B aircraft. DSTO-TR-3074, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
9.
MurakamiYMillerKJ. What is fatigue damage? A view point from the observation of low cycle fatigue process. Int J Fatigue2005; 27: 991–1005.
10.
MolentLBarterSAWanhillRJH. The lead crack fatigue lifting framework. Int J Fatigue2011; 33: 323–331.
11.
BarterSAMolentLWanhillRJH. Typical fatigue-initiating discontinuities in metallic aircraft structures. Int J Fatigue2012; 41: 11–22.
12.
MolentL. Fatigue crack growth from flaws in combat aircraft. Int J Fatigue2010; 32: 639–649.
13.
MolentLBarterSA. A comparison of crack growth behaviour in several full-scale airframe fatigue tests. Int J Fatigue2007; 29: 1090–1099.
14.
StoneMSwiftT. Future damage tolerance approach to airworthiness certification. In: 10th international committee on aeronautical fatigue (ed MaenhautA), Brussels, 16–18 May 1979.
15.
SchijveJ. Significance of fatigue cracks in micro-range and macro-range, fatigue crack propagation. ASTM STP 415, Am. Soc. Testing Mats., 1967, p. 415. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
16.
SchijveJ. Fatigue prediction and scatter. Fatigue Fract Eng M1994; 17: 381–396.
17.
ParisPCGomezREAndersonWE. A rational analytic theory of fatigue. Trend Eng1961; 13(1): 9–14.
18.
ParisPCErdogenF. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J Basic Eng: T ASME1963; 18: 528–534.
19.
MolentLOgdenRPellR. F/A-18 FS488 bulkhead fatigue coupon test program. Technical Report DSTO-TR-0941, February2000. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
20.
HuynhJMolentLBarterS. Experimentally derived crack growth models for different stress concentration factors. Int J Fatigue2008; 30(10–11): 1766–1786.
21.
MolentLSunQGreenAJ. Characterisation of equivalent initial flaw sizes in 7050 aluminium alloy. Fatigue Fract Eng M2006; 29: 916–937.
22.
PellRAMazeikaPJMolentL. The comparison of complex load sequences tested at several stress levels by fractographic examination. Eng Fail Anal2005; 12(4): 586–603.
23.
LowakHde JongeJBFranzJet al. MiniTwist, a shortened version of TWIST. Technical Report MP79017, 01May1979. Amsterdam: National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR.
24.
WhitePBarterSMolentL. Observations of crack path changes caused by periodic underloads in AA7050-T7451. Int J Fatigue2008; 30: 1267–1278.
BurchillMBarterSAmsterdamE. Improved predictions for combat aircraft fatigue life from a novel testing program. In: 15th Australian international aerospace congress (AIAC15), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 25–28 February 2013.
27.
BarterSBurchillMJonesM. Improving the prediction of small crack growth in 7XXX aluminium alloys. In: 28th ICAF symposium, Helsinki, 3–5 June 2015.
28.
ElberW. The significance of fatigue crack closure. In: Damage tolerance of aircraft structures (Special Technical Publication no. 486), Toronto, ON, Canada, 21–26 June 1970, pp. 230–242. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
29.
Gray IIIGTWilliamsJCThompsonAW. Roughness-induced crack closure: an explanation for microstructurally sensitive fatigue crack growth. Metall Trans A1983; 14: 421–433.
30.
NewmanJCJr. FASTRAN II – a fatigue crack growth structural analysis program. Technical Memorandum 104159, February1992. Washington, DC: NASA.
31.
Wright-PattersonAFB. AFRL/VASM AFGROW reference manual (version 4.0), 2003. Dayton OH: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base AFRL/VASM.
32.
KujawskiD. Utilization of partial crack closure for fatigue crack growth modeling. Eng Fract Mech2002; 69: 1315–1324.
33.
HarterJA. Comparison of contemporary FCG life prediction tools. Int J Fatigue1999; 21: S181–S185.
34.
VasudevenAKSadanandaKLouatN. A review of crack closure, fatigue crack threshold and related phenomena. Mat Sci Eng A: Struct1994; 188(1–2): 1–22.
35.
SkinnDAGallagherJPBerensAPet al. Damage tolerant design handbook. Dayton, OH: University of Dayton Research Institute, 1994.
36.
SchijveJ. Internal fatigue cracks are growing in vacuum. Eng Fract Mech1978; 10: 359–370.
