IntJ Fatigue9 No 2 (1987) pp 119-121

A n e w definition of the rainflow

cycle counting method
I. Rychlik

A new equivalent definition of the rainflow cycle counting method is presented, which
expresses the rainflow cycle amplitudes in explicit analytical formulae. The method
attaches to each maximum of the strain function the amplitude of a corresponding
cycle or two half cycles, which are evaluated independently from each other. This
definition is more convenient for the statistical analysis of rainflow cycle amplitudes
for a random loading process.

Key words: fatigue; rainflow counting; toplevel-up counting; cycle amplitude; random
loading

The rainflow cycle (RFC) counting method, first proposed

by Matsuishi and Endo, 1 is now generally regarded as the
_ _ S <t2 ./"
method leading to the best estimators of 'fatigue life', see
Dowling. 2 Due to the great importance of the RFC counting
method, many different algorithms have been proposed in
the literature) -s However, all these procedures have a compli-
cated 'sequential' structure, which makes them difficult to
apply when their statistical properties are to be studied.
,,
It is well known that the rainflow counting method I
I
corresponds to the stable cyclic stress/strain behaviour of I I I I
a metal in that all strain ranges counted as cycles will form t- t-1 t tl t+
closed stress/strain hysteresis loops, and those counted as
half cycles will not. The range of a closed hysteresis loop Fig. 1 Illustrations of the toplevel-up cycle, with amplitude H(t
is defined by its highest and lowest point, ie by the pair = min(H-(t), H+(t)), defined by Definition 1
of a local maximum and minimum in the strain function
Rules
(see also the section entitled Remarks below).
The method presented here uses this correspondence (a) If H+(t) >>. H-(t)and t- > - T , or H+(t) < H-(t)
explicitly by attaching to each maximum of the strain function and t + < T, then a toplevel-up cycle is defined with
(or stress function) the amplitude of a corresponding cycle an amplitude off
(closed hysteresis loop). This way of defining the rainflow
cycle counting method makes it possible to evaluate the H(t) = min (H-(t), H+(t)) (2)
long-run distribution of the RFC amplitude for a random (b) If the maximum at t is the first or the last y-extremum
loading process; see References 6 and 7. in the interval [ - T , T], o n e half cycle is defined
with an amplitude of either H+(t) or H-(t), respecti-
vely.
(c) In all other cases two half cycles with amplitudes of
D e f i n i t i o n 1 : t o p l e v e l - u p cycle ( T U C ) H +(t) and H-(t) are defined.
counting method For example, in Fig. 2 toplevel-up cycles are attached
Let y(s) be the stress function observed for - T ~< s ~< T. to the maxima at tl, t2 and t3 due to rule (a). Furthermore,
For each localy-maximum one cycle or two half cycles will one half cycle is attached to the maximum at to, and two
be counted, according to the following procedure. half cycles to the maximum at t 4.
Let the maximum occur at time t, and let t + be the We shall now prove that the toplevel-up cycle counting
time for the first up-crossing after t of the level y(t) (or method is equivalent to the rainflow cycle counting method,
t + = T if no such up-crossing exists for t < s < T), and begin by defining the RFC counting method following
and let t- be the last down-crossing before t of the same Collins)
level (or t - = - T if no such down-crossing exists for
- T < s < t). Two ranges originating at (t,y(t)) are now D e f i n i t i o n 2: r a i n f l o w cycle ( R F C )
defined, see Fig. 1; counting method
n - ( t ) = y(t) - min{y(s); t- < s < t} (1)
I: The rainflow cycle counting method is illustrated in Fig.
H+(t) = y(t) - min{y(s); t < s < t +} 3. The strain/time history is plotted so that the time axis

0142-1123/87/02119-03 $3.00 1987 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd

Int J Fatigue April 1987 119
 H - (t4) H+(t4) 7

3 ~- i 9
1

6
8
Time
-T +T
I I t I I I I
to tl t2 t3 t4 Time Fig. 4 Illustrations of the half cycle counting procedure by definition
2:11

Fig. 2 Example of the toplevel-up cycle counting method

H-(t 0) H + ,to}

Strain
H- (t I ) f

--T
III
t3 t2
I I I I
t31 =t2_1 ~ =t1_1 t I =t_l
t~
Y to

to
I
T
I_r
Time

Fig. 5 Illustration of the strain history used to prove the equivalence

of the TUC and RFC counting methods

of the history. This in Fig. 4 half cycles are also counted

I II ii
4 IL I I AI = i ! = H(ta)
-1II
I.-
Fig. 3 Example of the rainflow cycle counting method applied to
the strain history of Fig. 2
is vertically downward, and the lines connecting the strain
peaks are imagined to be a series of pagoda roofs. Several
rules are imposed on rain dripping down these roofs so
that half cycles are defined. Rainflow begins successively
at the inside of each strain peak. The rainflow initiating
at each peak is allowed to drip down and continue except
that, if it initiates at a minimum, it must stop when it comes
opposite a minimum more negative than the minimum from
which it initiated. Similarly, if the rainflow initiates at a
maximum, it must stop when it comes opposite a maximum
more positive than the maximum from which it initiated.
A rainflow must also stop if it meets rain from a roof above.
II: When this procedure is applied to a strain history,
a half cycle is counted between the most positive maximum
and the most negative minimum. In Fig. 4, for example,
a half cycle is counted between the peaks 7 and 8. Assume
that o f these two the most positive maximum occurs first.
Half cycles are also counted between the most positive
maximum and the most negative minimum that occurs before
it in the history, between this minimum and the most positive
maximum occurring prior to it, and so on to the beginning
I = H+(to)
H-(t4) between peaks 6 and 5, 5 and 4, and so on. After the most
negative minimum in the history, half cycles are counted
H (t2) which terminate at the most positive maximum occurring
H(t3)
H+(t4)
subsequently in the history, the most negative minimum
occurring after this maximum, and so on to the end of
the history. Again referring to Fig. 4, half cycles are counted
between peaks 8 and 9, 9 and 10, and so on. The strain
ranges counted as half cycles therefore increase in magnitude
to the maximum and then decrease.
Proof of the equivalence of T U C and RFC
counting methods
Assume that the most positive maximum of the j-stress
function in the interval [ - T, 7] occurs at t. Let {t i}, _ T
~ < . . . < t 2 < t 1 < t o be the times of maxima which
satisfy the condition (b) or (c), and let t~ and t_il be the
time points defined on Fig. 1. Then, for each i > 0, H + ( t i)
/> H - ( t i) and (ti) - = - T, ie t i is the most positive maxi-
mum in the interval [ - T , t~] and til is the most negative
minimum in the interval [ - T, t i], see Fig. 5. By Definition
2:II, the half cycles t ~ tl = tll ~ t 1 ~ t_11 = t~ --*
t 2 --* t_21 = t~ -* . . . . with ranges H - ( t ) , H+(I1), H - ( I 1 ) ,
H + (t 2), H - (t 2). . . . , respectively, are counted. Consequently,
to the maximum at t i one can attach two half cycles, H+(t i)
and H - ( t i ) . The set of half cycles which occur after t o can
be treated in a similar way, and hence the same half cycles
are counted by both procedures.
Since for any maximum at time t, say, which satisfies
condition (a) a full cycle must be counted, we need only
prove that the amplitude of the cycle is H(t) = min(H-(t),
H+(t)).

120 Int J F a t i g u e A p r i l 1 9 8 7

y (s), strain history
)_
s, Time
Fig. 6 Illustration of a strain function in which a minimum is the
lowest point of two cycles
We begin with a maximum such that H+(t) >1 H-(t),
and t - > - T . Since t- > - T , there exists a maximum
at time t*, say - T ~< t* < t - , such that the rain path
started at t* drops down from the minimum at time t-1.
Since y(t*) > ),(t) and j(t_l) I> .Y(6), the rain path started
at the maximum at t is stopped by the rain path started
at t*, and a half cycle with range H-(t) is counted. Observe
that all rain paths started at maxima in the interval (t-,
t) are stopped before or at time t, and the rain path started
at t* cannot be stopped before the time t +.
Next, the rain path started at a minimum at t-1 is
stopped in the interval (6 tO, giving a half cycle with range
H-(t), and the RFC procedure counts a cycle with amplitude
H(t) = min(H-(t), H+ (t)).
We turn now to a maximum such that H-(t) > H+(t)
and t < T. The rain path started at t is stopped at t +,
giving a half cycle with range H + (t). Furthermore, the rain
path started at a minimum at time tl will be stopped by
the rainflow dropping down from the maximum at t, giving
a half cycle with the range H+(t), and a full cycle with
amplitude H(t) = min(H-(t), H+(t)) is counted.
Remarks
We finish with some remarks about the relationship between
the RFC and TUC methods.
The RFC procedure has a complicated 'sequential' struc-
ture, and the amplitude of the cycles and half cycles can
depend on the order in which one initiates the rainflows.
Usually, rainflows begin successively from the first extremum
of the strain function. However, they can also be initiated
from the last extremum, changing the time direction, and
the same cycles and half cycles will be obtained. Thus the
RFC method is time invariant.
The sequential structure of the RFC method is caused
by the fact that it must keep track of those extremes which
have not yet formed a cycle (closed hysteresis loop). Once
Int J F a t i g u e April 1 9 8 7
a cycle has been determined, the maximum and minimum
associated with it can be eliminated from further analysis.
Consequently, a cycle defines uniquely a pair of maximum
and minimum values which are its highest and lowest points,
k what we have extensively used in the definition of the
TUC method.
Since the TUC procedure, which is equivalent to RFC
method, can be started at any maximum, let the RFC
algorithm start at a local maximum at time, say t. By
Definition 2:1, the rainflow initiated at t has a range H+(t).
Next, we change the time direction and start a (new) rainfiow
from the same maximum. The range of this path is H-(t).
Now, if the maximum is a highest point of a cycle (closed
hysteresis loop), the amplitude of this cycle is min(H-(t),
H+(t)) by the TUC method. So the TUC procedure can
be seen as a stationary (independent of the starting point)
and time-invariant RFC procedure.
Finally, note that the TUC procedure, which chooses
max(H-(t), H+(t)) as the amplitude of a cycle, cannot be
equivalent to the RFC procedure since it is possible to have
a strain function with a minimum which is the lowest point
of two cycles see Fig. 6.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to Professor Georg Lindgren for
discussion and valuable comments.
References
1. Matsuishi, M. end Endo, T. 'Fatigue of metals subjected
to varying stress' Paper presented to Japan Soc Mech Engrs
(Jukvoka, Japan, 1968)
2. Dowling, N. E. 'Fatigue predictions for complicated stress-
strain histories" J Mater1 (1972) pp 71-87
3. Downing, S. D. and Socie, D. F. 'Simple rainflow counting
algorithms" IntJ Fatigue4 No 1 (January 1982) pp 31--40
4. Okamura, H., Sakai, S. and Susuki, I. 'Cumulative fatigue
damage u nder random loads" Fatigue Engng Mater and Struct
1 (1979) pp 409-419
5. Socia, D. F. "Fatigue-life prediction using local stress/strain
concepts' Exptl Mech 17 No 2 (1977) pp 50-56
6. Lindgren, G. and Rychlik, I. 'Rain flow cycle distributions
for fatigue life prediction under Gaussian load processes' Star
Res Rep (University of Lund, Sweden, 1986) pp 1-17 to
appear in Fatigue Engng Mater and Struct
7. Rychlik, I. 'Rain flow cycle distribution for a stationary
Gaussian load process" Stat Res Rep 1986:4 (University of
Lund, Sweden, 1986) pp 1-36
8. Collins, J. A. Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design
(Wiley Interscience, New York, NY, USA, 1981 ) pp 282-285
Author
Dr Rychlik is with the Department of Mathematical Statistics,
University of Lund, Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden.
121