This paper considers the current fatigue design process and the means of establishing safe lives. The alternative philosophies are discussed together with the required scatter factors. Methods of achieving fail safe designs and the application of crack propagation data are reviewed. Also, since some fatigue designed members will be loaded in a cracked or flawed condition, the theory of fracture mechanics is mentioned. Finally, alternative designs are compared on a weight basis, these leading to different conclusions, depending on the particular function of the structure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
British Civil Airworthiness Requirements (Air Registration Board).
2.
‘Design requirements for service aircraft’, Av. P.970 (Ministry of Technology).
3.
RaithbyK. D.‘A comparison of predicted and achieved fatigue lives of aircraft structures’, Proc. Symp. Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, Paris 1961.
4.
LowndesH. B.jun.MillerW. B.‘The U.S. Air Force weapon systems fatigue certification programme’, Proc. 4th Symp. Int. Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue, Munich, 1965.
5.
TroughtonA. J.HarpurN. F.‘Correlation between test and service experience’, Paper prepared for contribution to the 11th I.C.A.F. Meeting, Sweden, 1969 (May).
6.
StrattonW. K.WhiteR. S.‘The application of fracture mechanics to the fail safety of rotor blades’, J. Am. Helicopt. Soc.196914 (No. 1, January).
7.
TroughtonA. J.McStayJ.‘Theory and practice in fail safe wing design’, Proc. Symp. Current Aeronautical Fatigue Problems, Rome, 1963 (April).
8.
BertodoR.‘Grey cast irons for thermal stress applications’, J. Strain Analysis to be published.
9.
DaftC. H. J.‘Piston strains trials and tribulations’, B.S.S.M. Conference, ‘Measurement of stress under difficult conditions’ 1968.
