Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0
9
6
0
1
1
1
0
2
5
.
6
2
9
.
6
0
R
o
l
l
M
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
4
0
2
.
5
1
0
6
2
1
6
0
2
5
9
5
3
6
.
0
4
3
.
3
5
x
1
0
8
0
.
0
0
5
1
3
2
0
2
1
9
0
3
5
.
2
5
8
.
4
0
O
n
-
O
f
f
1
6
.
2
x
1
0
4
0
1
5
0
0
0
2
5
.
0
3
x
1
0
5
0
.
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G
-
A
-
G
C
y
c
l
e
<
2
>
1
6
.
2
x
1
0
4
0
2
5
9
5
0
4
3
.
3
1
x
1
0
4
6
.
2
-
1
5
0
0
2
1
9
0
-
4
0
.
0
5
8
.
4
2
x
1
0
4
3
.
1
(
n
/
N
)
<
5
>
8
.
9
1
5
6
.
2
2
5
n
/
N
T
e
s
t
P
r
e
s
s
<
6
>
-
1
5
0
0
1
5
0
0
-
4
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
4
x
1
0
4
3
.
1
2
5
n
T
e
s
t
<
7
>
2
.
4
9
x
1
0
5
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 19 -
B.3 REQUIREMENTS:
B.3.1 Step 1, Determine Manufacturers Design Requirements:
Obtain from the aircraft manufacturer a definition of the load cycles (in terms of the fluctuations of
hydraulic pressure) that the component experiences during normal operation, the number of times
each load cycle is repeated during one flight, and the number of flights in the aircraft lifetime. For
components that experience reversing loads, this requires definition of pressures on either side of
the piston.
B.3.2 Step 2, Determine the Ground-Air-Ground Pressure Cycle:
Determine the maximum peak-to-peak pressure variation that occurs during one flight using the
data from Step 1.
TABLE B2 - Aircraft Manufacturers Data for the Example Chosen
Duty Conditions Manifold/Cylinder Detail Rod/Rod End Detail
One life = 62,000 flights 7075-T6 Aluminum AISI 4340, H.T. to 200 ksi
3000 psig design pressure K
t
= 3 in control pressure K
t
= 3 in threads
Flight segments pressure fluctuations pressure fluctuations
- controls check approx 2/flt 750/2250 psi -1500/1500 psi
- cruise
1
approx 435/flt 1980/2050 psi 960/1100 psi
- roll
1
approx 40/flt 2160/2595 psi 320/2190 psi
- on/off approx 1/flt 0/1500 psi -
NOTE: Large load offset from neutral during flight cycles.
TABLE B3 - G-A-G Cycle for the Example Chosen
Pressure Range Component Element
0 to 2595 psig Manifold
-1500 to 2190 psig Rod End
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 20 -
B.3.3 Step 3, Determine the Stress Cycle:
Select a stress/pressure ratio consistent with the materials and type of construction used in the
component. Refer to the notes at the conclusion of this appendix for suggestions related to making
this selection.
Apply the ratio K to the pressures from Steps 1 and 2 and to define the stress cycle for each flight
segment.
B.3.4 Step 4, Determine the Life Cycle Expectancy:
Identify a curve in MIL-HDBK-5C that most closely relates to the material and condition being
analyzed. See Figures B1 and B2 related to example chosen. Determine from the intersection of
lines representing minimum stress and maximum stress, using the results for each segment in
Step 3, the life cycle expectancy (N) in cycles for each segment.
TABLE B4 - Stress/Pressure Ratio for the Example Chosen
Component Element Stress Pressure K Factor
Manifold 50,000 psi 3000 psi 16.7
Rod End 80,000 psi 3000 psi 26.7
TABLE B5 - Stress Cycle for the Example Chosen
Flight
Segment
Manifold
Pressure
(psi)
min
Manifold
Pressure
(psi)
max
Manifold
K
Manifold
Stress
(ksi)
min
Manifold
Stress
(ksi)
max
Rod End
Pressure
(psi)
min
Rod End
Pressure
(psi)
max
Rod End
K
Rod End
Stress
(ksi)
min
Rod End
Stress
(ksi)
max
Controls Chk. 750 2250 16.7 12.5 37.5 -1500 1500 26.7 -40.0 40.0
NOTE: See Table B1 for data on remainder of flight segments.
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 21 -
FIGURE B1 - Example - Typical Constant Life Diagram, 7075T6 Aluminum Alloy
Data from MIL-HDBK-5C Figure 3.7.3.1.8(D) Detail Omitted for
Clarification of Example
TABLE B6 - Life Cycle Expectancy for the Example Chosen
Flight Segment
Manifold
Stress
(ksi)
min
Manifold
Stress
(ksi)
max
Manifold
MIL-HDBK-5C
Manifold
N
Rod End
Stress
(ksi)
min
Rod End
Stress
(ksi)
max
Rod End
MIL-HDBK-5C
Rod End
N
Controls Chk. 12.5 37.5 Figure B1
5 x 10
4
-40.0 40.0 Figure B2
4 x 10
4
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 22 -
FIGURE B2 - Example - Typical Constant Life Diagram, AISI 4340 Notched Bar Data
from MIL-HDBK-5C Figure 2.3.1.1.8(C) Detail Omitted for
Clarification of Example
B.3.5 Step 5, Calculate n/N and n/N:
Use the data from Steps 1 and 4, where n = cycles in one operational life and N = stress life cycle
expectancy for each flight segment. Calculate the arithmetic sum of the segment results.
TABLE B7 - n/N, n/N for Example Chosen
Flight Segment Control Check Cruise Roll On-Off G-A-G
n 1.25 x 10
5
2.7 x 10
5
2.5 x 10
6
6.2 x 10
4
6.2 x 10
4
N/A
Manifold N 5 x 10
4
5 x 10
8
3 x 10
5
1 x 10
4
N/A
Manifold n/N 2.5 0 0.005 0.21 6.2 8.915
Rod End N 4 x 10
4
-- 2 x 10
4
N/A
Rod End n/N 3.125 0 0 -- 3.1 6.225
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 23 -
B.3.6 Step 6, Calculate n/N for Test Pressure:
The pressure fluctuations used in conducting the test per Category II should be the best
representation of the service expected in the component using only one set of minimum/maximum
pressures. For most components this is the design operating pressure (0 to 3000 psi for a 3000 psi
system). However, if the operational cycle has reversing loads, the test should be conducted with
reversing loads.
B.3.6.1 n/N for Test of the Example Chosen: Inspection of Table B1 shows the rod end is subjected to
reversing cycles. The controls check segment was selected as the test condition although the
G-A-G segment could serve the same purpose. Using the controls check for the rod end N = 4 x
10
4
. The pressure application during testing is to alternate 1500 psi impulses to the head end
and rod end of the cylinder with the actuator mounts restrained to hold the piston at near mid
position.
B.3.7 Step 7, Calculate n for Testing:
Perform the following calculation:
(Eq. B1)
where:
ref = the data form the segment used in Step 6 to define the test conditions.
B.3.7.1 n for Test of the Example Chosen:
(Eq. B2)
B.4 NOTES:
The method of analysis for calculation of equivalent cycles has several differences from conventional
fatigue analysis.
B.4.1 In Step 3, somewhat unrealistic high stress levels may be assumed without compromising the
analysis. Since the "error" is contained in all elements of the calculation and the total damage,
(n/N), is divided by the reference cycle damage (n/N ref), the "error" tends to cancel out.
B.4.2 Damage values (n/N) exceeding 1.0 are acceptable for the reasons given in B.4.1 above.
Experience has shown that inaccuracy due to assumptions is minimal when (n/N) is in the range
of 0.2 to 5.0. Any value of (n/N) greater than 10.0 should not be used.
n
t est
(n/N)
n/N
ref
----------------- n
ref
=
n
t est
(n/N)
n/N
ref
----------------- n
ref
(6.225)
3.125
------------------- 1.25 10
5
2.49 10
5
= = =
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 24 -
B.4.3 The ratio of pressure to stress in Step 3 (K) should be assumed as high as is permitted by B.4.2
above. This improves the ability to read S-N curves and, hence, to distinguish among load cases.
Even with high assumed stress levels, some fatigue load cases will still have very high allowable
lives and so, will by analysis, do no fatigue damage. The cruise flight segment for the example
illustrates this condition.
B.4.4 Once a pressure to stress relationship (K) is assumed, it MUST be held constant throughout the
analysis. If a problem occurs which requires changing the assumption, the entire analysis must be
repeated.
B.4.5 Although comparative analyses can be performed using any reputable S-N curve, the basis of the
S-N curve must be examined carefully before performing a fatigue analysis and predicting the
absolute life of parts. Some considerations are:
a. The S-N curve selected should be based on a given stress concentration factor. The curve
used shall represent the closest stress concentration factor (either higher or lower value) in
published data to the condition being examined.
Material processing effects should also be considered e.g., fatigue life degradation due to:
1. Surface coatings-chrome plate, anodize, etc.,
2. Electro-discharge machining recast layers,
3. Electro-chemical or similar surface material removal processes and
4. Metal working/machining or heat treatment induced tensile residual stresses.
Where appropriate, because of high loading in a pressure vessel situation, steps should be
taken to mitigate these effects, i.e., by mechanically removing recast layers, shot peening
before application of certain coatings and by proper sequencing of manufacturing machining,
heat treating and processing operations.
Conversely, beneficial effects due to compressive residual surface stresses induced into
components via such processes as shot peening, thread rolling, cold expansion, coining, roller
burnishing, autofrettage, etc. or resulting from carburizing, nitriding, etc. should be
acknowledged as favorable (life enhancing) in the fatigue analysis.
b. The test specimens used to generate the S-N curves are often fabricated with extremely
smooth surface finishes in the test section. These finishes are much smoother than is
reasonable for many production parts.
Efforts should be made in production to control or eliminate any machine tool marks, notches,
nicks, dings, grind tears, etc. which will adversely impact fatigue life. In addition, care should be
taken to eliminate all unforeseen stress risers by proper deburring. Where applicable, contact
wear (i.e. fretting) fatigue should be taken into account. The analysis can compensate for some
of these factors by increasing the calculated stress concentration factor.
SAE ARP1383 Revision B
- 25 -
B.4.5 (Continued):
Components should be stress relieved (relaxed) during heat treatment and properly baked for
embrittlement relief after chromium, cadmium, or any other plating which introduces hydrogen
into the part.
c. The material properties of the test specimens are often significantly higher than the minimums
that can exist in production.
Material section thickness/size effects and temperature reduction factors should be applied
when fatigue calculations are made.
d. Nearly all S-N curves represent typical test lives. They have not been constructed to
statistically reflect higher reliability than typical. Probability determinations for reliability must
consider the confidence factor in the probability. For example: if it is the objective to evaluate a
component to 95% reliability with 95% confidence by testing one unit, the number of cycles
required in testing is four lifetimes.
B.4.6 Sources such as Joseph E. Shigley and Larry D. Mitchell, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
DESIGN, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1983 discuss ways of accounting for the above in
performing detail life prediction analysis, otherwise known as fatigue analysis.