Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2018), 31(4): 727–739

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
[email protected]
www.sciencedirect.com

Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering

approach for fatigue damage evaluation
Rui JIAO a, Xiaofan HE a,*, Yuhai LI b

a
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
b
Aviation Industry Corporation of China, Beijng 100022, China

Received 27 July 2017; revised 12 September 2017; accepted 10 December 2017

Available online 15 February 2018

KEYWORDS Abstract Individual aircraft life monitoring is required to ensure safety and economy of aircraft
Fatigue damage; structure, and fatigue damage evaluation based on collected operational data of aircraft is an inte-
Fatigue monitoring; gral part of it. To improve the accuracy and facilitate the application, this paper proposes an engi-
Fatigue test; neering approach to evaluate fatigue damage and predict fatigue life for critical structures in fatigue
Scatter factor; monitoring. In this approach, traditional nominal stress method is applied to back calculate the S-N
S-N curve curve parameters of the realistic structure details based on full-scale fatigue test data. Then the S-N
curve and Miner’s rule are adopted in damage estimation and fatigue life analysis for critical loca-
tions under individual load spectra. The relationship between relative small crack length and fatigue
life can also be predicted with this approach. Specimens of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy and TA15M
titanium alloy are fatigue tested under two types of load spectra, and there is a good agreement
between the experimental results and analysis results. Furthermore, the issue concerning scatter fac-
tor in individual aircraft damage estimation is also discussed.
Ó 2018 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction lead to variations in fatigue damage accumulated in each air-

craft structure.1 If the difference between realistic load history
When an aircraft fleet is put into service, realistic loads experi- and that previously stated is neglected, two problems may
enced by each aircraft vary significantly with different opera- arise:
tional environment such as weather conditions, runway
quality and skill of pilots. Different operational load histories (1) Structural safety may be adversely affected. If the realis-
tic load spectrum is more severe than the designed one,
* Corresponding author. cracks may occur earlier than the repair point of critical
E-mail address: [email protected] (X. HE). locations, thus leading to structural fatigue failure.
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA. (2) The economy of aircraft may also be compromised. If
the realistic load spectrum is mild and the management
of fleet still follows an average damage estimation, the
aircraft may be retired prior to its life span.
Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.02.002
1000-9361 Ó 2018 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
728 R. JIAO et al.

To ensure the safety and economy of aircraft, it is thus nec- compiled based on relevant theories and experience,
essary to implement individual aircraft monitoring when a fleet and the load spectrum for each critical structure can
is put into service. With operational data collected, fatigue life therefore be obtained.
expended and remaining life of aircraft structures can be (3) Regarding the fatigue life of aircraft structures, full-scale
estimated.2 fatigue test data are complete and comprehensive. Dur-
Fatigue monitoring of individual aircraft involves opera- ing the final stage of aircraft structural design, full-scale
tional data collection, load spectrum development, damage fatigue tests are conducted under the predetermined load
estimation, fatigue life prediction and management.3 The exist- spectrum to identify critical locations and obtain perti-
ing literature on it is extensive2,4,5 and plenty of methods have nent crack growth information.
thus far been developed for operational data collection and (4) Realistic load spectra for individual aircraft can be
fatigue life management.6–10 Generally realistic load history developed based on the operational data.
can be accurately monitored using flight parameter-based
method or strain gauges at critical points, complemented by 3. Engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation
fatigue test calibration and data processing.11,12 Pertinent
approaches regarding fatigue damage analysis fall into two
Since reliable load spectra of critical structures can be obtained
categories: fatigue analysis-based method and crack growth
through fatigue monitoring, a stress-based fatigue analysis
analysis-based method;13 however, there are limitations in
model is developed for damage estimation and fatigue life
application of both methods. For fatigue analysis-based
prediction.
method,14–16 empirical parameters are often used to determine
the fatigue quality of structure details, which may result in low
3.1. Issues in traditional nominal stress method
accuracy since those parameters fail to reflect real structural
status. Although crack growth analysis-based methods can
3.1.1. Analysis procedure
improve accuracy, this method is complex to be applied and
the analysis results remain to be validated by fatigue tests as For the traditional nominal stress method, nominal stress
those models cannot appropriately account for load interac- traces are rainflow cycle counted, in which peaks and valleys
tion.17–19 are paired into cycles. For cycles with non-zero mean stresses,
Accurate fatigue damage evaluation for critical structures equivalent fully-reversed stress amplitudes are then determined
in service is the core of fatigue monitoring. To solve the exist- using the constant life curve. The damage for each cycle is cal-
ing problems, a strain-based fatigue crack initiation model is culated with material S-N curve, and the total fatigue damage
proposed in Ref. 20 to calculate fatigue damage accumulated is accumulated with Miner’s rule. In addition, safe life can be
on wing root under individual spectra. Test-analysis correla- calculated by the quotient of fatigue life and fatigue scatter fac-
tions show that this model is suitable for tension dominated tor. The analysis procedures22 are shown in Fig. 1.
load spectra, but the case with significant compressive loading
remains to be refined. Besides, the strip-yield model was 3.1.2. Issues in traditional method
applied to calculate the total life in Ref. 20, with pertinent Factors significantly affecting the accuracy of damage estima-
parameters obtained from test results. However, in the imple- tion are as follows:
mentation of this model, empirical adjustments are needed
when different long spectrum histories are considered. (1) S-N curve parameters of structural details. Based on a
Although the flight-by-flight approach proposed in Ref. 21 series of material S-N curve, the interpolating method
incorporates load sequence and load interaction effects, fur- is used to obtain the S-N curve for realistic structural
ther development and evaluation are required to assess its details, considering material status, loading condition
applicability in predicting fatigue crack growth under untested and surface quality as correction factors. However,
spectra for different materials. Therefore, an accurate, efficient those factors are generally acquired from experience,
and practical approach is required for damage estimation and which may fail to reasonably reflect the real fatigue
fatigue life prediction in fatigue monitoring. In this paper, properties of structural details.
firstly the fatigue analysis model is developed using full-scale (2) Limitation of current cumulative damage theories.
fatigue test data. Then, fatigue test and data analysis are con- Plenty of theories and experimental researches23,24 show
ducted to verify the applicability of this approach. Finally, an that linear cumulative damage theory fails to account
application of the proposed approach is illustrated.

2. Requirements for fatigue monitoring of individual aircraft

Several requirements are needed to conduct fatigue monitoring

for individual aircraft:

(1) Mechanical properties of related materials are obtained,

including the elasticity modulus, yield strength, tensile
strength, S-N curve, etc.
(2) The load spectra for full-scale fatigue tests are definitely
determined. During the aircraft structural development
stage, the load spectra for full-scale fatigue tests are Fig. 1 Analysis procedure for traditional nominal stress method.
Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation 729

for the load interaction in random load spectra, result- There are three parameters in S-N curve, i.e. C, a and A.
ing in inaccurate damage estimation. Besides, current More samples will be required if more parameters need to be
nonlinear cumulative damage theories25,26 remain to be determined, which is often accompanied by less robust compu-
improved. tation results. Therefore, the S-N curve parameters should be
(3) Fatigue scatter factor. A scatter factor of 4 is usually appropriately restrained according to the influence of each sin-
adopted for a fleet accounting for the variation in load gle parameter in fatigue life calculation. However, it is difficult
spectra and structural properties. When the aircraft in to theoretically discuss the influence since the relationship
a fleet is monitored individually, a scatter factor less between those parameters and fatigue life is nonlinear. We
than 4 may be adopted, as the load-time histories of therefore intend to numerically analyze the influence by assum-
the aircraft in service are clear. ing each parameter in S-N curve respectively varies ±5% and
calculating corresponding variation of fatigue life. As greater
3.2. Stress-based fatigue analysis model change of fatigue life indicates more sensitivity of fatigue life
to the parameter, the most sensitive parameter can be
As discussed, the determination of S-N curve parameters for determined.
realistic structural details is significant to improve the accuracy
of life prediction approach. To achieve this purpose, we first 3.3.1. Sensitivity analysis of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy
obtain the fatigue life of critical locations via full-scale fatigue The fatigue life prediction for 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy spec-
tests under the reference load spectrum. Next, the nominal imens under Spectrum 1 with a lower stress level in Section 4.1
stress method is applied to back calculate the S-N curve will be illustrated as an instance, with sensitivity of each
parameters for realistic structural details using fatigue test parameter analyzed.
data. Finally, fatigue life of critical locations under individual
load spectra is predicted using the determined S-N curve. (1) Sensitivity analysis of a
Procedures of the engineering approach are briefly
described in Fig. 2, with details below: Calculate the fatigue life with A and C fixed and a varying
±5%, and the results are shown in Table 1.
(1) By using the reference load spectrum, full-scale fatigue
tests are conducted to obtain fatigue life of critical (2) Sensitivity analysis of A
structures.
(2) The nominal stress-based method is adopted to back cal- Calculate the fatigue life with a and C fixed and A varying
culate the S-N curve parameters to reflect fatigue prop- ±5%, and the results are shown in Table 2.
erties of realistic structural details.
(3) The determined S-N curve and stress-based method are (3) Sensitivity analysis of C
used to evaluate fatigue damage and predict the fatigue
life for critical locations under individual load spectrum. Calculate the fatigue life with a and A fixed and C varying
(4) Given the variation of the structural fatigue property, ±5%, and the results are shown in Table 3.
scatter factors need to be determined to obtain the fati-
gue damage with certain reliability. 3.3.2. Sensitivity analysis of TA15M titanium alloy
(5) Fatigue life expended index is calculated and remaining The sensitivity analysis of TA15M titanium alloy is the same as
life is estimated. that of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy in Section 3.3.1, and the
results are shown in Tables 4–6.
3.3. Determination of S-N curve
3.3.3. Determination of S-N curve
The S-N curve22 can be represented by As can be seen from Tables 1–6, the most sensitive parameter

 is a, followed by C and A. From Eq. (1), we find that a indi-
A
S¼C 1þ a ð1Þ cates the variation rate of fatigue life with the changes of stress
N level, the rate generally being the same under different stress
where C is the fatigue limit, and a and A are shape parameters. levels. Besides, C is the fatigue limit of details, and A is the

Fig. 2 Procedure of fatigue damage evaluation.

730 R. JIAO et al.

Table 1 Analysis results of a of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy.

Parameter A C a t50 (flight hour) Rate of change (%)
Value 98.739 88.600 0.384 25357.4 76.01
0.404 14406.4
0.424 8607.86 40.25

Table 2 Analysis results of A of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy.

Parameter a C A t50 (flight hour) Rate of change (%)
Value 0.404 88.600 93.802 12690.0 11.91
98.739 14406.4
103.676 16254.1 12.83
Note: t50 is the mean value of structural fatigue life.

Table 3 Analysis results of C of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy.

Parameter a A C t50 (flight hour) Rate of change (%)
Value 0.404 98.739 84.170 11352.0 21.20
88.600 14406.4
93.030 18190.7 26.27

Table 4 Analysis results of a of TA15M titanium alloy.

Parameter A C a t50 (flight hour) Rate of change (%)
Value 2700.868 311.634 0.792 18064.30 70.95
0.834 10567.00
0.878 6437.70 39.08

Table 5 Analysis results of A of TA15M titanium alloy.

Parameter a C A t50 (flight hour) Rate of change (%)
Value 0.834 311.634 2565.825 9889.12 6.42
2700.868 10567.00
2835.911 11150.00 5.52

Table 6 Analysis results of C of TA15M titanium alloy.

Parameter a A C t50 (flight hour) Rate of change (%)
Value 0.834 2700.868 296.052 8516.76 19.40
311.634 10567.00
327.212 13028.90 23.30

intercept of S-N curve when C is determined. The main differ- under a certain stress concentration factor Kt. In addition,
ence between realistic details and material lies in fatigue prop- based on the information of previous fatigue tests, the values
erty, which is related with C and A directly. Compared with A, of a and A are basically constant for similar materials with dif-
C is more sensitive and should be determined to reflect the ferent surface qualities. As a result, a and A of realistic struc-
realistic structural status. tures are taken the same as that of corresponding materials
To determine the parameters in S-N curve, a and A are first with the similar Kt.
surveyed. Typical values27 of a and A of different materials are To determine the value of C, back-calculation method is
shown in Table 7. implemented. We select an initial value of C, change it with
As shown in Table 7, the values of a and A are somewhat a certain interval, and calculate corresponding fatigue life of
robust, indicating that stress ratio has insignificant influence critical structures under the reference load spectrum. The value
Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation 731

Table 7 Typical values27 of a and A.

Material Heat treatment status Stress concentration factor Mean stress (MPa) Stress ratio R a A
LY12CZ 2 206 2.36390 44.76002
69 2.54070 65.26036
LY12MCS + T MCS 3 0.39697 197.39732
MCS + 150° 0.47057 193.73952
LY12BCZYU 5 0.50 0.53490 276.91270
0.10 0.55695 236.81250
LD10CS 3 0.50 0.72260 1438.43884
0.10 0.77920 1637.37272
LD4CS 1 0.50 0.49542 200.54716
0.10 0.50098 177.04772
LD4CS 3 0.50 0.39574 67.09437
0.10 0.37867 62.18301
LC9CgS1 3 0.10 0.67613 2101.30439
1 0.66573 1972.11358
Sheet of 7B04 3 0.06 0.48725 375.80070
aluminum alloy 1 0.43985 402.68820
Thick plate of 7B04 5 0.50 0.26785 79.30109
aluminum alloy 0.06 0.26955 77.24056
Bar of 7B04 1 0.50 0.45019 45.96798
aluminum alloy 0.06 0.42153 59.61785
Forged piece of TA15 1 0.50 0.12157 7.45326
titanium alloy 0.06 0.09854 5.03831

of C is determined once the calculated life is equal to the life t50

SF ¼ ð2Þ
experimentally obtained. The analysis details are shown in tP
Fig. 3. In this case, the S-N curve not only reflects fatigue where tP is the service life with a certain reliability level.
property of realistic structures, but also eliminates the calcula- In fleet management28, variations of load spectra and struc-
tion error of Miner’s rule. tural properties are considered when the fatigue life scatter fac-
tor is determined. But in fatigue monitoring, only the variation
3.4. Fatigue scatter factor of structural properties will be considered since the load-time
history of each aircraft can be obtained, which will lead to a
Fatigue scatter factors1 are used to determine the structural lower scatter factor.
safe life and ensure the predefined reliability of the aircraft. Assuming that fatigue life follows the lognormal distribu-
The fatigue scatter factor1 can be defined as tion, we have the following relationship:28

SF ¼ 10uP r0 ð3Þ

where up is the pth percentile of the standard normal distribu-

tion and r0 the standard deviation of logarithmic life.
The reliability level in Eq. (3) corresponds to a survival rate
p equal to 99.9% and confidence level equal to 0.5, with the
influence of specimen number neglected. Regarding the stan-
dard deviation for logarithmic life r0, the US navy28 suggested
0.1 based on statistical analysis of fatigue test data, from which
we can obtain a scatter factor of 2.

3.5. Fatigue analysis procedure

The fatigue analysis procedure22 adopted in this paper can be

briefly described as follows:

(1) Obtain corresponding stress spectra for critical loca-

tions, based on the load spectrum of an individual
aircraft
Fig. 3 Procedure of determination of C. (2) Determine fatigue property for realistic structures
732 R. JIAO et al.

The three-parameter formula shown in Eq. (1) is used to where t0 is the flight hour corresponding to one spectrum block
describe the S-N curve. (per base life period).
The constant life curve is described as (6) Safe life calculation

 With the scatter factor of SF, we have structural safe life as
rm
ra ¼ ra0 1  ð4Þ t50
rs tP ¼ ð9Þ
SF
where ra is the stress amplitude, ra0 the peak value of fluctuat- (7) Remaining fatigue life estimation
ing stress, rm the mean stress, and rs the yield stress of
Fatigue Life Expended Index (FLEI) can be used to illus-
material.
trate the fatigue life consumption at any time te, which is
(3) Cycle-by-cycle fatigue life calculation
denoted as FLEI (te) and can be obtained by
Each stress cycle can be expressed as ðrai ; rmi Þ or ðrmaxi ; Ri Þ,
where rmaxi is the peak stress, and Ri the stress ratio, and the FLEIðte Þ ¼ SF  Dðte Þ  100% ð10Þ
latter is usually used in engineering. Thereinafter, rmaxi will
be referred to ri. where D(te) is the total damage accumulated in service.
According to Eq. (4), upon converting ðri ; Ri Þ into ðri ; R Þ The remaining fatigue life can be calculated by

ri can be written as
1  FLETðte Þ
ð1  Ri Þrs ri LR ðte Þ ¼ ð11Þ
ri ¼ ð5Þ SF  dðFÞ
rs ð1  R Þ þ Si ðR  Ri Þ
where d(F) is the predicted mean damage rate in subsequent
where R is the stress ratio with the same fatigue life of ðri ; Ri Þ, service for critical structures, which is determined by predicted
and ri the corresponding peak stress. individual spectrum.
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (1), we have the fatigue life as

1 4. Verification of proposed approach
CA a
Ni ¼ ð6Þ
ri  C
4.1. Fatigue tests
(4) Fatigue damage evaluation
According to Miner’s rule, fatigue damage for a load spec- 4.1.1. Specimens
trum block can be given by
Specimens are designed and fabricated to simulate structural
Xk
ni details in a critical location of the wing in terms of material,
D¼ ð7Þ geometry and processing quality. The specimens are made of
i¼1
N i
7B04-T74 aluminum alloy and TA15M titanium alloy, with
where k represents the loading series, ni the number of Load i material properties listed in Tables 8–11. The specimen geom-
in one block, and Ni the corresponding mean fatigue life, etry is shown in Fig. 4.
which can be obtained by Eq. (6).
(5) Fatigue life calculation 4.1.2. Load spectra
Mean fatigue life can be obtained using the following Two individual load spectra (Spectrum 1 and Spectrum 2) are
expression: used in the fatigue tests. Fig. 5 shows corresponding accelera-
,
Xk
ni tion exceedance curves and Fig. 6 shows a fraction of each load
t50 ¼ t0 ¼ t0 =D ð8Þ spectrum.
i¼1
N i

Table 8 Chemical composition and mass fraction of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy.

Chemical composition Cu Mg Mn Cr Zn Fe Al
Mass fraction (%) 1.4–2.0 1.8–2.8 0.2–0.6 0.1–0.25 5.0–6.5 0.05–0.25 Bal.

Table 9 Mechanical properties of 7B04-T74 aluminum alloy.

Property Elastic module E (GPa) Poisson ratio l Yield stress rs (MPa) Ultimate strength rb (MPa)
Value 69 0.3 536 598

Table 10 Chemical composition and mass fraction of TA15M titanium alloy.

Chemical composition Al Mo V Zr Si Fe Ti
Mass fraction (%) 5.5–7.0 0.5–2.0 0.8–2.5 1.5–2.5 <0.15 0.15 Bal.
Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation 733

Table 11 Mechanical properties of TA15M titanium alloy.

Property Elastic module E (GPa) Poisson ratio l Yield stress rs (MPa) Ultimate strength rb (MPa)
Value 110 0.33 900 980

Fig. 4 Geometry of specimen.

4.1.3. Test results

Fatigue tests are conducted on a closed-loop servo-hydraulic
controlled testing machine (MTS 880) at room temperature.
Axial loads in the form of sinusoidal wave are applied to spec-
imens with a frequency of 8 Hz. The fatigue tests are con-
ducted under two individual load spectra with different stress
levels, and further details can be found in Table 12.
Fig. 7 shows the typical fracture surfaces with clear marker
bands. An optical microscope with a grating scale is used to
measure the position of each marker band, with the error con-
trolled within 0.01 mm. The number of load cycles correspond-
ing to each marker band is back-extrapolated from that of the
last marker band. When cracks appear on both sides of the
hole, the earlier initiated one is taken as the lead crack,29 cor-
responding to a longer critical crack size. Therefore, the crack
growth data along the radical direction are obtained for the
Fig. 5 Cumulative number of exceedance vs acceleration for two
lead crack in each specimen and plotted in the semi-log coor-
load spectra.
dinate (see Fig. 8).

Fig. 6 Fractions of load spectra.

734 R. JIAO et al.

Three-point Lagrange interpolation is adopted to estimate

Table 12 Details of fatigue tests.
the fatigue life respectively corresponding to specified crack
Material of Specimen Stress Spectrum Effective depth 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 mm. Assuming that crack initi-
specimen No. level number of ation life follows the lognormal distribution, ln(l, r2), we can
(MPa) specimen estimate the median life and the standard deviation as follows:
7B04-T74 aluminum alloy I 53 1 6 8
>
> 1X n
II 47 2 6 >
> l ¼ lg ti
>
> n i¼1
III 44 1 6 >
< sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
TA15M titanium alloy IV 118 1 6
> 1 X n ð12Þ
V 108 2 6 >
> r¼ ðlg ti  lÞ2
>
> n  1 i¼1
VI 102 1 6 >
>
:
t50 ¼ 10l

Fig. 7 Typical fracture surfaces.

Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation 735

Fig. 8 Crack growth (a, t) data for lead cracks.

where t is the fatigue life, n the number of specimen, l the esti- = 98.739, a = 0.404 (stress ratio R = 0.06) for 7B04-T74 test
mated log-mean life used to determine the median life t50, and specimens and A = 2700.868, a=0.834 (R = 0.06) for TA15M
r the standard deviation of lg(t). test specimens.
The distribution parameters estimated using Eq. (12) are When fatigue life corresponds to a specified crack
shown in Table 13, where also shows the mean fatigue life cor- length under Spectrum 1 with 53 MPa for 7B04-T74 and
responding to the specific crack depth. 118 MPa for TA15M, we can respectively obtain the value
of C using back-calculation method. The pertinent param-
4.2. Validation of proposed approach eters are listed in Table 14. Analysis results are shown in
Tables 15 and 16, indicating a good fit between the
The stress concentration factor Kt of test specimen is 2.682 experimental results and the analysis ones, with all errors
derived via finite element analysis. Then the material S-N curve being less than 15% for 7B04-T74 and TA15M test
with Kt being 3 is selected, with relevant parameters27 being A specimens.
736 R. JIAO et al.

Table 13 Statistic results of test life.

Material Spectrum Stress (MPa) Crack depth a (mm) Mean test life t50 (fight hours) Standard deviation r
7B04-T74 1 53 1.0 6474.73 0.09
0.8 6027.12 0.10
0.6 5458.66 0.10
0.4 4720.16 0.11
0.2 3550.59 0.12
1 44 1.0 15328.72 0.08
0.8 14401.95 0.08
0.6 13131.31 0.09
0.4 11219.01 0.09
0.2 8212.06 0.10
2 47 1.0 8443.79 0.11
0.8 8036.90 0.10
0.6 7491.35 0.11
0.4 6599.57 0.10
0.2 5327.01 0.10
TA15M 1 118 1.0 5898.78 0.09
0.8 5625.41 0.09
0.6 5170.34 0.08
0.4 4632.11 0.08
0.2 3562.00 0.06
1 102 1.0 12043.09 0.08
0.8 11658.80 0.08
0.6 10990.05 0.09
0.4 10154.75 0.08
0.2 8725.15 0.06
2 108 1.0 7054.80 0.10
0.8 6782.96 0.11
0.6 6454.30 0.12
0.4 5955.75 0.09
0.2 5004.38 0.10

Table 14 Value of pertinent parameters.

Material of specimen A a C R SF
7B04-T74 aluminum alloy 98.739 0.404 88.600 0.06 2
TA15M titanium alloy 2700.868 0.834 311.634 0.06 2

Table 15 Analysis results of fatigue life for 7B04-T74.

Spectrum Stress (MPa) a (mm) Test life (flight hour) Analysis life (flight hour) Error (%)
1 53 1.0 6474.73 Input
0.8 6027.12
0.6 5458.66
0.4 4720.16
0.2 3550.59
44 1.0 15328.72 15491.80 1.06
0.8 14401.95 14307.10 0.66
0.6 13131.31 12827.90 2.31
0.4 11219.01 10932.90 2.55
0.2 8212.06 8003.12 2.54
2 47 1.0 8443.79 9264.54 9.72
0.8 8036.90 8608.40 7.11
0.6 7491.35 7782.76 3.89
0.4 6599.57 6713.33 1.72
0.2 5327.01 5028.65 5.60
Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation 737

Table 16 Analysis results of fatigue life for TA15M.

Spectrum Stress (MPa) a (mm) Test life (flight hour) Analysis life (flight hour) Error (%)
1 118 1.0 5898.78 Input
0.8 5625.41
0.6 5170.34
0.4 4632.11
0.2 3562.00
102 1.0 12043.09 13840.80 14.93
0.8 11658.80 13051.90 11.95
0.6 10990.05 11760.80 7.01
0.4 10154.75 10287.10 1.30
0.2 8725.15 7552.03 13.45
2 108 1.0 7054.80 7396.69 4.85
0.8 6782.96 7035.16 3.72
0.6 6454.30 6436.17 0.28
0.4 5955.75 5735.10 3.71
0.2 5004.38 4375.93 12.56

Table 17 Crack growth (a, t) data for lead cracks of critical

structure.
Parameter Crack length a (mm) Fatigue life t (flight hour)
Value 0.164 4229.155
0.268 5074.986
0.425 5920.817
0.699 6766.648
1.180 7612.479

5. Application for monitoring a critical structure

After full-scale fatigue test, a teardown inspection of alu- Fig. 10 Status of fatigue life expended.
minum alloy structural details simulated above is performed.
Then, crack length in the locations can be determined using ducted at any specified time. Calculation results are shown in
quantitative fractography. The crack growth data are listed Figs. 10 and 11. Fig. 10 also shows the FLEI of this location
in Table 17, with corresponding stress spectrum (reference from the full-scale fatigue test, in which scattered points
stress spectrum) shown in Fig. 9(a). The individual aircraft located beyond the reference line are proofs of severe realistic
stress spectrum of this structural detail is compiled based on usage, suggesting that missions with benign damage should be
operational data and finite element modeling (Fig. 9(b)). assigned to ensure flight safety. On the other hand, those scat-
The approach presented in this paper enables the calcula- tered points located below the reference line show mild realistic
tion of FLEI and crack size in critical structures to be con- usage, thus allowing assignment of missions with severe dam-

Fig. 9 Relative stress spectrum.

738 R. JIAO et al.

5. Molent L, Barter S, Foster W. Verification of an individual

aircraft fatigue monitoring system. Int J Fatigue 2012;43:128–33.
6. Bond R, Underwood S, Adams Douglas E, Cummins Joshua J.
Structural health monitoring-based methodologies for managing
uncertainty in aircraft structural life assessment. Struct Heal Monit
2014;13(6):621–8.
7. Leski A, Klimaszewski S, Kurdelski M. The fatigue life assessment
of PZL-130 Orlik structures based on historical usage data.
Fatigue Aircr Struct 2009;2009(1):131–9.
8. Branco DDC, Bussamra FLDS. Fatigue life monitoring system for
aircraft to flexibilize operations and maintenance planning. J Aircr
2016;53(5):1298–304.
9. Boller C, Buderath M. Fatigue in aerostructures — Where
structural health monitoring can contribute to a complex subject.
Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 1851;2007(365):561–87.
Fig. 11 Crack length vs time history. 10. Wang YW, Gogu C, Binaud N, Bes C, Haftka RT, Kim NH. A
cost driven predictive maintenance policy for structural airframe
maintenance. Chin J Aeronaut 2017;30(3):1242–57.
age, which is aimed at improving the fleet economy. Besides, 11. Aktepe B, Molent L. Management of airframe fatigue through
the estimated crack length at specified time can provide a ref- individual aircraft loads monitoring programs. International aero-
erence for repair. space congress; 1999 Sep; Adelaide, Australia. Paris, France:
International Astronautical Federation (IAF); 1999. p. 1–14.
12. Molent L. A unified approach to fatigue usage monitoring of
6. Conclusions fighter aircraft based on F/A-18 experience. Proceedings of 21st
congress of the international council of aeronautical science; 1998
This paper proposes an engineering approach for fatigue dam- Sep 13–18; Melbourne, Australia. 1998. p. 1–11.
age evaluation and fatigue life prediction of critical structures 13. Santecchia E, Hamouda AMS, Musharavati F, Zalnezhad E,
based on traditional nominal stress method. With the fatigue Cabibbo M, El Mehtedi M, et al. A review on fatigue life
prediction methods for metals. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2016;2016:1–26.
property of realistic structural details and the calculation error
14. Li Y, Wang Z, Chen YL, Zhang Y, Sun WS. Research on
of Miner’s rule taken into account, the full-scale fatigue test
compiling fatigue load spectrum of individual aircraft and analysis
data are used to determine the S-N curve parameters. Then, of fatigue life based on flight data. Proc IEEE 2012 Progn Syst
the S-N curve and Miner’s rule are used in fatigue life predic- Heal Manag Conf PHM-2012; 2012 May 23–25; Beijing, China.
tion of the same critical locations under individual load spec- Piscataway: IEEE Press; 2012. p. 1–5.
tra. Fatigue tests are conducted for 7B04-T74 aluminum 15. Theil N. Fatigue life prediction method for the practical engi-
alloy specimens and TA15M titanium alloy specimens under neering use taking in account the effect of the overload blocks. Int
two load spectra, and the analysis results well correlate with J Fatigue 2016;90:23–35.
the experimental ones. Besides, the relationship between crack 16. Ma SJ, Hu BR, Liu JZ, Wang LF. Empirical equation of fatigue
length and fatigue life can also be obtained with this approach. limit for metal material. J Mech Strength 2010;32(6):993–6
[Chinese].
The proposed approach has been proved to have high accu-
17. Alves ASF, Sampayo LMCMV, Correia JAFO, De Jesus AMP,
racy, justifying its applicability in fatigue monitoring of indi-
Moreira PMGP, Tavares PJS. Fatigue life prediction based on
vidual aircraft. crack growth analysis using an equivalent initial flaw size model:
application to a notched geometry. Procedia Eng 2015;114:730–7.
Acknowledgements 18. Zhuang W, Molent L. Analytical study of fatigue crack growth in
AA7050 notched specimens under spectrum loading. Eng Fract
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from Mech 2010;77(11):1884–95.
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 19. Correia JAFO, Blasón S, De JesusP, Canteli AF, Moreira PMGP,
11772027), National Key Research and Development Program Tavares Paulo J. Fatigue life prediction based on an equivalent
initial flaw size approach and a new normalized fatigue crack
of China (No. 2017YFB1104003) and Aeronautical Science
growth model. Eng Failure Anal 2016;69:15–28.
Foundation of China (No. 28163701002).
20. Iyyer N, Sarkar S, Merrill R, Phan N. Aircraft life management
using crack initiation and crack growth models — P-3C aircraft
References experience. Int J Fatigue 2007;29(9–11):1584–607.
21. Zhuang W, Barter S, Molent L. Flight-by-flight fatigue crack
1. Liu WT, Wang Z, Sui FC. Individual aircraft life monitoring growth life assessment. Int J Fatigue 2007;29(9–11):1647–57.
technique guide. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press; 2010. p. 22. Liu WT. Design handbook for structural reliability. Beijing:
7–10; 72–6 [Chinese]. National Defense Industry Press; 2008. p. 590–620 [Chinese].
2. Molent L, Aktepe B. Review of fatigue monitoring of agile 23. Gao H, Huang HZ, Zhu SP, Li YF, Yuan R. A modified
military aircraft. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2000;23 nonlinear damage accumulation model for fatigue life prediction
(9):767–85. considering load interaction effects. Sci World J 2014;2014
3. Hoffman Paul C. Fleet management issues and technology needs. (1):164378.
Int J Fatigue 2009;31(11):1631–7. 24. Aid A, Amrouche A, Bachir Bouiadjra B, Benguediab M,
4. Neumair M. Requirements on Future Structural Health Monitor- Mesmacque G. Fatigue life prediction under variable loading
ing Systems. RTO AVT specialists meeting on exploitation of based on a new damage model. Mater Des 2011;32(1):183–91.
structural loads/health data for reduced life cycle costs; 1998 May 25. Huffman PJ, Beckman SP. A non-linear damage accumulation
11–12; Brussels, Belgium. Ottobrunn: RTO MP-7; 1998.p.1-1-9. fatigue model for predicting strain life at variable amplitude
Individual aircraft life monitoring: An engineering approach for fatigue damage evaluation 739

loadings based on constant amplitude fatigue data. Int J Fatigue 28. Hoffman Margery E, Hoffman Paul C. Corrosion and fatigue
2013;48(3):165–9. research — Structural issues and relevance to naval aviation. Int J
26. Lv ZQ, Huang HZ, Zhu SP, Gao HY, Zuo FJ. A modified Fatigue 1997;23(1):1–10.
nonlinear fatigue damage accumulation model. Int J Damage 29. Molent L, Barter S, Wanhill R. The lead crack fatigue lifing
Mech 2015;24(2):168–81. framework. Int J Fatigue 2011;33(3):323–31.
27. Wu XR. Handbook of mechanical properties of aircraft structural
metals: Vol. 1: Static strength fatigue/durability. Beijing: Aviation
Industry Press; 1997. p. 67–293 [Chinese].