Fatigue Life Assessment

William O. Hughes/7735
Mark E. McNelis/7735

July 22, 2004

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 1

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 Introduction: Fatigue Life Assessment
• Vibration of space-flight hardware, from either ground random vibration
testing or launch, fatigues the hardware. Every additional test or
launch reduces the remaining fatigue life of that hardware.
• A methodology to provide guidance on establishing the qualification-
test “demonstrated fatigue life” of a hardware design and estimating
the remaining vibration fatigue life in identically-designed flight
acceptance hardware units was provided in the Lewis Management
Instruction (LMI) 8070.2, March 19, 1993. That methodology may be
used to demonstrate that sufficient useful life remains in the flight
hardware unit for (re)test and subsequent flight.
– This methodology is derived from the “Inverse Power Law Model”
and the “Fatigue Damage Model Based upon the S-N Curve”
• However, the relationship between exposure duration, amplitude and
fatigue damage inflicted on hardware is non-linear and material
dependent, and one needs to use caution in judging the
flightworthiness of hardware exposed to high frequency random
vibration environments.

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 2

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 Notes taken from “Dynamic Environmental Criteria”
NASA-HDBK-7005, March 13, 2001

b
T F  c x
Inverse Power Law Model (time-to-
failure related to rms dynamic loading) Equivalency Equation for two
rms dynamic loads and times

b
N  c S
Special case of the inverse power
law describing the S-N curve
(ignoring the fatigue limit)
N = number of loading cycles to failure

Idealized S-N Curve for Structural Materials S = peak stress

b and c are material constants
Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 3

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 Fatigue Life Assessment Requires
Prototype Hardware Program
• Prototype programs allows an assessment to be
made of remaining “fatigue life”:
– Qualification testing of the qualification hardware establishes
the “test demonstrated fatigue life” for the hardware design.
– The identically-designed flight hardware may confidently be
acceptance tested and launched, if these events do not
extend beyond the previously demonstrated fatigue life.
• Any remaining fatigue life can be “allotted” to additional ground
tests, reflights, etc.
• Protoflight programs have no test demonstrated
fatigue life.
– Unknown remaining fatigue life.

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 4

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 “Vibration Life Section” from LMI 8070.2
• “The following formulation for determining vibration life is offered as
guidance to be used when no alternate or preferred method is known by
the project.”
• “(1) The allowable accumulated duration of acceptance test vibration
and flight vibration of any flight hardware, for which a vibration
qualification test has been performed, shall not exceed 30 percent of the
previously demonstrated capability at the equivalent acceptance test
amplitude. Prior demonstration at amplitudes greater than acceptance
test amplitudes add to the capability in proportion to the time of exposure
and to the ratio of the RMS amplitude raised to the power b, where b is
the inverse slope of stress verses number of cycles fatigue curve (i.e., the
“S-N” curve) for the most fatigue critical material in the item. This
relationship is formulated as:

TA = 0.3 [ TO (GO/GA)b + T1 (G1/GA)b ]

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 5

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 “Vibration Life Section” from LMI 8070.2 (cont.)
TA = 0.3 [ TO (GO/GA)b + T1 (G1/GA)b ]
Where:
TA = Maximum time of flight or laboratory vibration at acceptance test amplitudes allowed on
flight equipment prior to last flight; that is, one flight remains when TA = 0.
TO = Minimum time of vibration at qualification amplitudes previously demonstrated without
fatigue failure on equipment of identical design.
T1= Minimum time of vibration at acceptance test amplitudes previously accumulated on the
same equipment that was subjected to To.
GO= Vibration acceleration qualification amplitude (Grms).
G1= Vibration acceleration acceptance test amplitude (Grms) previously applied to the
demonstration unit for the duration T1.
GA= Vibration acceleration acceptance test amplitude (Grms) to which flight equipment is
subjected and which must not exceed G1.”
b = fatigue exponent
• “(2) This relationship should be applied on a per axis basis and is appropriate only when
the spectral shapes are identical for each vibration acceleration amplitude. If the value of b
is not known, then a value of b = 2.4 shall be used.”
Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 6

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 Example: Fatigue Life Calculation
• Assume Maximum Expected Flight Environment (MEFL) is 3.0 Grms for a flight
launch duration of 0.5 minutes
• Utilizing the Prototype Hardware Program Test Philosophy (the combining of
workmanship test levels with these flight-based levels is ignored for this example):
• Qualification Unit is tested for 2 minutes at 4.23 Grms
(MEFL + 3 dB; 2 minutes/axes)
• Acceptance Flight Unit tested for 1 min at 2.13 Grms
(MEFL – 3dB; 1 minute/axes)
•Then,
TO = 2 minutes, GO = 4.23 Grms,
T1 = 0 (no acceptance level testing on Qualification Unit), G1 = 2.13 Grms,
GA = 2.13 Grms, b = 2.4 (assume copper wire), and:
TA = 0.3 [ 2(4.23 / 2.13)2.4 + 0(2.13 / 3.0)2.4 ] = 0.3 (10.38 minutes)
TA = 3.11 minutes

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 7

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 Example: Fatigue Life Calculation (cont.)
Interpretation of TA= 3.11 minutes:

• Qualification Unit has demonstrated that Acceptance Flight Unit (design)

can survive vibration at the acceptance test level (of 2.13 Grms) for 3.11
minutes.
• Fatigue Life Remaining on Acceptance Flight Unit at acceptance test levels
(after accounting for performing normal acceptance vibration test of flight
unit and launching flight unit) = 0.97 minutes, since:
•Fatigue Life Remaining = TA – 1 acceptance test – 1 flight
= (3.11 – 1.00 – 1.14) minutes = 0.97 minutes
•Since 1 acceptance test = 1.0 minute at the 2.13 Grms acceptance test level

•Since 1 flight (at 3.0 Grms for 0.5 minute) = 1.14 minutes (TAe) at the 2.13 Grms
acceptance level, derived from the (inverse power law) equivalency equation:

TAe=Tf (Gf/GA)b, where TAe= the equivalent acceptance test time for
one flight, Tf= flight duration, Gf=vibration acceleration flight amplitude
(Grms), GA=vibration acceleration acceptance test amplitude (Grms)
Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 8

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial
 Additional Notes on Fatigue Life
• Hardware may have more (unknown) life than
indicated (beyond what was demonstrated in
qualification test)
• The fatigue exponent “b” will vary depending upon the
material under stress. Some possible values include:
b=2.4 for electronic equipment (assumes copper wire)
b=4.0 for complex electrical and electronic equipment items
b=8.0 for un-notched steel and aluminum alloys structures,
under random vibration loading
• Other types of failure modes besides “fatigue based
on S-N curve” are possible (such as first passage
critical threshold failures, or fatigue based on crack
growth).

Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 9

Schlumberger-Private
Random Vibration Testing of Hardware Tutorial