Abstract
The need and benefits of individual aircraft fatigue monitoring are now well established. There are broadly two fatigue damage methods employed for this purpose, namely, crack growth and stress (or strain)-life. The crack growth methods tend to provide a relative comparison between an aircraft’s usage and a baseline usage, while the strain-life methods provide a measure of the amount of fatigue life consumed against that (generally) demonstrated through a fatigue test. In this article, a new crack growth–based tracking method is described that also includes a measure of the certified fatigue life consumed. The damage model is compared against the results of an extensive coupon fatigue test programme for aluminium alloy 7050-T7451.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
