Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
International
Journalof
Fatigue
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue
Abstract
Two forms of the rainow cycle counting algorithm for fatigue damage prediction are shown to be equivalent, namely the three-point
algorithm as presented by Bannantine et al. [Bannantine JA, Comer JJ, Handrock JL. Fundamentals of metal fatigue analysis. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1990], and the four-point algorithm as presented by Amzallag et al. [Amzallag C, Gerey JP, Robert JL,
Bahuaud J. Standardization of the rainow counting method for fatigue analysis. Int J Fatigue 1994;16:287293]. While it can be demonstrated by example that the same result is obtained by the two algorithms, no generalised proof of their equivalence has previously
been presented. The proof is built on several identied properties of the four-point algorithm, including that certain modications to
the stress series being analysed do not alter the outcome.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fatigue analysis; Rainow method; Cycle counting methods; Damage; Load histories
1. Introduction
Metal fatigue is of critical importance in parts subject to
dynamic loads because it can result in sudden catastrophic
failure at nominal stress levels well below the yield stress.
The phenomenon of fatigue was rst examined in detail
in the 1800s. Thomas Woehler conducted the rst fatigue
test in 1852 [1] which lead to the discovery of the fatigue
limit; the stress range below which fatigue does not occur
in steel. The typical shape of an SN curve, which relates
fatigue life (number of cycles to failure) to stress range
for a constant amplitude test, was claried in 1910 by Basquin [2]. The linear damage rule, rst suggested by Palmgren in 1924, states that the amount of damage caused by
a stress cycle is independent of the order in which the stress
cycles occur [2]. This rule is not strictly accurate as tests
have shown that the residual compressive stress at the
crack tip caused by a tensile overload can temporarily
0142-1123/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.03.006
548
method for estimating the fatigue damage for a given hysteresis loop is incorporated into both algorithms; it is the
method of identifying the hysteresis loops (i.e. the method
of counting cycles) that diers.
In this paper, a general proof that the two algorithms
are equivalent is provided. The two algorithms are rst
dened in Section 2. In Section 3, some properties of the
four-point algorithm which are used to form the proof
are dened. Section 4 contains the proof of equivalence
of the two algorithms. It is rst shown in Section 4.1 that
the outcome of the four-point algorithm is not changed
by rearranging the stress series prior to analysis. Sections
4.2 and 4.3 show that after these manipulations, the two
sets of criteria for identifying hysteresis loops are equivalent. These two sections assume that there is only one overall maximum stress peak in the original series. By including
additional manipulations to the stress series, Sections 4.4
and 4.5 expand on the previous sections to give a generalised proof of the equivalence of the two algorithms without
any assumptions about the stress series being analysed.
2. Denition of rainow counting algorithms
Rainow cycle counting algorithms are methods for
comparing measured stress data of varying amplitude with
constant amplitude stress data. They identify closed hysteresis loops in stressstrain space and provide a mechanism
for dealing with open hysteresis loops. Rainow algorithms
may be described in terms of the pagoda analogy [2,5,6],
however this form of the algorithm will not be presented
here.
In the following subsections, the three and four-point
algorithms will be described with reference to the arbitrary
stress signal of Fig. 1, shown in stressstrain and stress
time spaces. The unmodied stress series is shown in
Fig. 1a and b, while the rearrangement of the same series
required in the three-point algorithm is shown in Fig. 1c
n
2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;>
;
:
:
GOTO 2
2
Fig. 1. Arbitrary stress series in stressstrain and stresstime spaces; (a, b)
unmodied and (c,d) modied.
9
9
n0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
pass 1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
if at end of s and pass 1 GOTO 3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
if at end of s and pass 2 STOP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
n n 1; assign next stress value to sn
>
>
>
=
>
>
if n <4 GOTO 1
>
>
>
>
calculate X n ; X n1 and X n2
>
>
>
>
crit
>
>
>
if X n < X n1 or if X n2 < X n1 GOTO 1 >
>
=
>
>
>
store X n1 for later fatigue damage calculation
>
:
>
>
>
>
>
>
remove X n1 sn 1; n 2 from stress
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
sequence so that sn becomes sn 2; n n 2 >
>
>
;
>
>
GOTO 2
>
9>
>
>
>
n0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
pass 2
=
>
>
>
>
repeat s sequentially and delete one or two data
>
>
dbl
>
>
>
>
points if necessary to maintain the maxmin sequence >
>
>
;>
;
GOTO 1
549
550
Fig. 2. Sequential steps of the (a) three- and (b) four-point algorithm, in stressstrain space.
Stress
Stress
Three-point, closed
loop if X1 X2
551
Four-point, closed
loop if X1 X2 X3
s[n-3]
s[n-3]
s[n-1]
s[n-1]
s[n-1]
X3
X2
Strain
s[n]
s[n-2]
X1
X2
X1
s[n-2]
s[n-2]
s[n]
s[n]
Time
Fig. 3. Closed hysteresis loop in: (a) stressstrain space and (b, c) stresstime space, showing criteria for detection.
552
8
where n* can be either the maximum or minimum (B or A,
respectively, in Fig. 5). Note that if the residue has two maximums, n* must be the overall minimum which will be located
between the two maximums, and vice versa.
Proof. Firstly it is noted that every sub-sequence of an
increasingdecreasing sequence must also satisfy (8). Furthermore, (8) is mutually exclusive of the denition of a satisfying sequence in Property 3.1 (5), (see Fig. 3). Thus, no
satisfying sequence can be found in an increasingdecreasing sequence since the rst pair of stress ranges is decreasing and the next is increasing. Therefore, there can be no
closed hysteresis loops in an increasingdecreasing sequence. This is evident in Fig. 5a. Furthermore, if (8) is
not satised there must be a sequence of three consecutive
f4p1 sna ; . . . ; nb ;
11
553
Stress
s[n-3]
Stress
s[n-3]
s[n-1]
s[n-1]
s[n+1]
Strain
s[n-2]
s[n+2]
s[n+1]
s[n-2]
s[n]
s[n]
s[n+2]
Time
Stress
Stress
s[n-3]
s[n-3]
Stress
s[n-3]
Stress
s[n+1]
Strain
s[n-1]
Strain
s[n+1]
s[n-2]
s[n+2]
s[n-3]
s[n-1]
s[n]
s[n]
s[n+2]
s[n+2]
s[n-2]
s[n+2]
Time
Time
Stress
s[n-3]
Stress
s[n-3]
Strain
s[n+2]
s[n+2]
Time
Fig. 4. Demonstration of uniqueness of closed hysteresis loops: (a) initial series, (b and c) alternative intermediate steps, and (d) remaining points.
B
Stress
Stress
Strain
A
Time
12
554
Stress
Stress
Strain
Time
alternative order, analyse endpoint bounded sequence first
normal order
Stress
Stress
Stress
Stress
Strain
Strain
Time
Time
Stress
Stress
Strain
Time
Fig. 6. Demonstration of the independence of an arbitrary end-point bounded sequence (indicated by dashed lines).
13
Proof. This property can be inferred directly from the definition of f4p2( ) in Appendix. The two lines of pseudocode
are equivalent to (12). h
Remarks. It is noted that based on this property, the fourpoint algorithm may be redened as
f4p s f4p1 s f4p1 dblres :
14
15
555
1; . . . ; N
0
or N 1 and
p 1 or 2;
17
18
556
Fig. 7. Removal of outer stress values from the repeated residue, as per Eq. (16).
Property 4.1
f4p s f4p rearrs :
19
1; . . . ; N 0 ; p; . . . ; im r ; im r 1:
20
Based on Property 3.5, the hysteresis loops contained within the two end-point bounded sequences forming rearr(s[ ])
could be extracted by f4p1(rearr(s[ ])), leaving a residue of
three points,
f4p1 rearrs &simin f4p1 rearrs f4p1 ressimax ;
resim r ; im r 1; . . . ; N 0 ; p; . . . ; im r ; im r 1
rearrres &resimin ;
23
21
24
The second term, f4p1(res[ ]&s[imin]) identies a single hysteresis loop. The same hysteresis loop would be identied
by a second pass analysis of the residue. Thus,
f4p1 rearrs &simin f4p1 rearrs
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.9
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.10
f4p rearrs
4.3
4.5
(18)
26
because [s[imax],s[imin],s[imax]] is the residue from f4p1(rearr(s[ ])). Therefore, (19) holds and the result of the fourpoint algorithm does not change if, at the start, the stress
Table 1
Equivalence of three and four-point criteria
n
1, 2
3
3
4
4
5+
5+
n<q
n < 4,s[1] > s[3]
s[1] = s[3]
s[4] > s[2]
s[4] 6 s[2], four-point criterion satised because
s[1] > s[3]
s[neven] > s[n 2] or s[nodd] < s[n 2]
s[neven] 6 s[n 2] or s[nodd] P s[n 2], four-point
criterion satised because s[neven 3] > s[n 1] or
s[nodd 3] < s[n 1], otherwise both criteria would
have returned TRUE at n 1 and s[n 2,n 3]
would have been removed
crit(q, n, s 0 [ ])
returns
3p
4p
F
F
T
F
T
F
F
Fa
F
T
F
T
F
T
a
The same hysteresis loop is identied in the second pass of the fourpoint algorithm over the last three points. This condition only arises for
the last three points.
q3;n
critq; n; s0 AND n P q
557
;
27
q4;n
holds for all values of n that will be encountered by the algorithm in analysing rearr(s[ ]), except when the last three
available points are being considered. In this case, the second
pass of the four-point algorithm is equivalent to the threepoint algorithm. It is assumed that there is only one peak
equal to the maximum stress in the original series.
Proof. Several dierent cases need to be considered to
show that this property holds under all possible circumstances. For conciseness and clarity, the reasons for the
equivalence of the criteria are listed in Table 1 according
to the number of stress values that have been input (minus
those removed after the identication of hysteresis loops).
This is the number n in the left-hand column. For direct
comparison, the two columns on the right show the outcome of the two sets of criteria. If four or more points have
been input, the criteria either both return true or both return false, depending on the stress values. For the general
case involving ve or more points the reasons for equivalence, expressed as a comparison of the stress values, depend on whether n is even or odd.
As an example of one case from the table, consider the
case where ve points have been read in. This case is
detailed in the last two rows of the table, which begin with
n = 5+. The variable n is odd, so the second example given
in each explanation in the second column applies. If
s[5] < s[3] both sets of criteria will return F (false) because
28
Proof. Property 3.6 (14) shows that the four-point algorithm f4p( ) can be dened in terms of f4p1( ). The denitions of f4p1( ) and f3p( ) in Appendix show that, apart
from rearranging the points at the start of the algorithm,
the only difference between these two algorithms is the criteria and logic for applying them. Thus, it is sufcient to
show that the criteria and logic for applying them are
equivalent and (28) follows directly from Property 4.2
(27). Therefore, the four-point algorithm is equivalent to
the three-point algorithm when applied to rearr(s[ ]). h
Remarks. Properties 4.1 (19) and 4.3 (28) combine to give
the proof that is sought (18), but only under the given
assumption of a single maximum. This assumption is relaxed
in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. In addition to the identication of
558
the same hysteresis loops (28), the hysteresis loops are also
identied in the same order. The order of identication
does not alter the estimated fatigue, however manipulating
the input so that the hysteresis loops are identied in the
same order facilitates the present proof.
The same reasoning can be used to show that the algorithms are equivalent when analysing a peakvalley
sequence beginning and ending with the overall minimum.
4.4. Breaking the series at intermediate maximums
So far it has been shown that the two algorithms are
equivalent when applied to an original series of points with
only one value equal to the overall maximum stress. For
completeness, it still needs to be proven that the same result
is produced when the algorithms are applied to a series of
points with multiple stress values equal to the maximum.
When rearranged, such a series will have a maximum on
each end and a number of intermediate maximums. It will
rst be proven that the four-point algorithm output remains
the same if the (rearranged) stress series is broken into separate sequences at each intermediate global maximum:
Property 4.4
f4p rearrs
29
Proof. When the stress series is broken at each intermediate maximum, the maximum appears at the end of one sequence and at the beginning of the next and the sequences
are analysed separately. Each broken section consists of
two end-point bounded sequences (see Property 3.5)
which remain unchanged. Thus, all hysteresis loops with
a peak that is not the maximum stress will still be identied
in the same way in the rst pass of the four-point algorithm
over each of the new sequences.
Once these hysteresis loops have been removed, there is
one valley remaining in each broken section. One hysteresis
loop is identied for each such valley (see Property 3.10).
The only remaining peaks for them to be paired with are
the maximums. Thus, no hysteresis loops are omitted or
introduced because no valleys are omitted or added by
break( ), and the loops that are identied must be of the
same magnitude, so (29) holds. h
4.5. General equivalence after breaking series
When the stress series is broken as described in Section 4.4, the two algorithms again analyse the series and
identify hysteresis loops in the same order because the
two sets of criteria for identifying hysteresis loops are again
equivalent:
Property 4.5
X
f4p break i rearrs f3p rearrs :
i
30
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Cooperative Research Centre for
Mining and the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP) for nancially supporting this research.
Denition/description
s[ ]
s0[ ]
q
n
res[ ]
out[ ]
rearr(s[1,. . ., N])
crit(q, n, s 0 [ ])
f(q, s[ ])
f3p(rearr(s[ ]))
f4p(s[ ])
559
Function/
variable
Denition/description
f4p1(s[ ])
f4p2(res[ ], out[ ])
dbl(res[ ])
f4pa(s[ ])
break(rearr(s[ ]))
References
[1] Weibull W. Fatigue testing and analysis of results. Pergamon Press;
1961.
[2] Bannantine JA, Comer JJ, Handrock JL. Fundamentals of
metal fatigue analysis. Englewood Clis (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1990.
[3] Matsuishi M, Endo T. Fatigue of metals subjected to varying stress.
Presented to Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fukuoka, Japan,
1968.
[4] Amzallag C, Gerey JP, Robert JL, Bahuaud J. Standardization of the
rainow counting method for fatigue analysis. Int J Fatigue
1994;16:28793.
[5] Dowling NE. Fatigue failure predictions for complicated stressstrain
histories. J Mater 1972;7(1):7187.
[6] Rychlik I. A new denition of the rainow cycle counting method. Int
J Fatigue 1987;9(2):11921.
[7] Downing SD, Socie DF. Simple rainow counting algorithms. Int J
Fatigue 1982;4(1):3140.