Abstract

AbstractThere is an abundance of nonlinear fatigue damage accumulation models but a lack of verification and comparison to experimental datasets. First, an extensive two‐level block loading experimental fatigue dataset is reprocessed according to current standard practice. Next, four nonlinear damage accumulation models and the Palmgren–Miner linear damage rule are critically compared using a range of statistical metrics. For the considered dataset, the Palmgren–Miner rule consistently performs worst and the damage curve approach is found to perform significantly better than the other nonlinear models. This study shows that the current practice of performance verification of new fatigue damage accumulation models in literature is too limited which enables cherry‐picking of verification datasets to improve perceived performance. Future fatigue damage accumulation models should be verified much more rigorously to both readily available and new experimental datasets.

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.