nCode engineer discusses the top 10 common mistakes in fatigue analysis
Product durability is important both to the consumer and the engineer. The consumer who bought the part wants it to last a long time. The engineer who designed it wants it to perform to specification. A number of you know this professionally because it’s something you think about on the job – predicting structural durability.
This need to understand fatigue life has led to powerful analysis tools and processes that allow engineers to predict and manage product life. Engineering software allows us to explore how fatigue life is influenced by a dizzying array of variables – material, loading, manufacturing effects, etc. A clever engineer can use these powerful analysis techniques to satisfy product durability challenges.
But how do we get the right answers? How do we ensure that the analysis we do is worth doing? How do we keep ‘gotchas’ from surprising us?
The answer is this: we need to focus on making the most of fatigue analysis by eliminating common mistakes.
A common mistake is highlighted by the often-asked question:
“Should I use the stress-life or strain-life method for my part?”
These two methods are commonly confused. They seem so similar! After all, aren’t stresses and strains pretty much the same thing – a structural response?
Dig around and you’ll find that the difference comes down to high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue. The stress-life method doesn’t apply to low-cycle fatigue – a regime that is often designed in due to cost and weight challenges.
Watch this 30 minute video in which we’ll steer you clear of common mistakes in fatigue analysis - and talk best practices.