Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 163–171 | Cite as

Probabilistic fatigue damage prognosis using maximum entropy approach

  • Xuefei Guan
  • Ratneshwar Jha
  • Yongming Liu
Article

Abstract

A general framework for probabilistic fatigue damage prognosis using maximum entropy concept is proposed and developed in this paper. The fatigue damage is calculated using a physics-based crack growth model. Due to the stochastic nature of fatigue crack propagation process, uncertainties arising from the underlying physical model, parameters of the model and the response variable measurement noise are considered and integrated into this framework. Incorporating all those uncertainties, a maximum relative entropy (MRE) approach is proposed to update the statistical description of model parameters and narrow down the prognosis deviations. A Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation is then employed to generate samples from updated posterior probability distributions and provide statistical information for the maximum relative entropy updating procedure. A numerical toy problem is given to demonstrate the proposed MRE prognosis methodology. Experimental data for aluminum alloys are used to validate model predictions under uncertainty. Following this, a detailed comparison between the proposed MRE approach and the classical Bayesian updating method is performed to illustrate advantages of the proposed prognosis framework.

Keywords

Maximum relative entropy Fatigue crack growth Uncertainty Markov Chain Monte Carlo Bayesian method Model updating 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caticha, A., & Giffin, A. (2006). Updating probabilities. In A. M. Djafari (Ed.), Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering, AIP Conference Proceedings, 31, 872.Google Scholar
  2. Caticha A., Preuss R. (2004) Maximum entropy and Bayesian data analysis: Entropic prior distributions. Physical Review E 70(4): 046127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Foreman R. G., Kearney V. E., Engle R. M. (1967) Numerical analysis of crack propagation in a cyclic-loaded structure. Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of American Society of Mechanical Engineers 89: 459–464Google Scholar
  4. Giffin, A., & Caticha, A. (2007). Updating probabilities with data and moments. In K. Knuth (Ed.), Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering, AIP Conference Proceedings, 954, 74.Google Scholar
  5. Hastings W. K. (1970) Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov Chains and their applications. Biometrika 57(1): 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jaynes, E. T. (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 106, 620–630 and 108, 171–190.Google Scholar
  7. Jaynes E. T. (1979) Where do we stand on Maximum Entropy. In: Levine R. D., Tribus M. (eds) The Maximum entropy formalism. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, pp 15–119Google Scholar
  8. Kotulski Z. A. (1998) On efficiency of identification of a stochastic crack propagation model based on virkler experimental data. Archives of Mechanics 50(5): 829–847Google Scholar
  9. Kullback S., Leibler R. A. (1951) On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22(1): 79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Madsen H. (1997) Stochastic modeling of fatigue crack growth and inspection. In: Soares C. G. (eds) Probabilistic methods for structure design, collection solid mechanics and its applications. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 59–83Google Scholar
  11. Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A. W., Rosenbluth M. N., Teller A. H., Teller E. (1953) Equations of state calculations by fast computing machine. Journal of Chemical Physics 21(6): 1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ostergaard, D. F., & Hillberry, B. M. (1983). Characterization of the variability in fatigue crack propagation data. In J. M. Bloom, & J. C. Ekvall (Eds.), Probabilistic fracture mechanics and fatigue methods: Application for structural design and maintenance, ASTM STP 798 (pp. 97–115). American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  13. Paris P. C., Erdogan F. (1963) A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of American Society of Mechanical Engineers 85: 528–534Google Scholar
  14. Perrin, F., Sudret, B., & Pendola, M. (2007). Bayesian updating of mechanical models–Application in fracture mechanics. In 18ème Congrès Français de Mécanique, CFM 2007, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  15. Skilling J. (1988) The axioms of maximum entropy. In: Erickson G. J., Smith C. R. (eds) Maximum entropy and Bayesian methods, in science and engineering, vol. 1. Kluwer, Netherlands, pp 173–187Google Scholar
  16. Tarantola, A. (2005). Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Philadelphia, USA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 3600 University City Science Center.Google Scholar
  17. Tseng C., Caticha A. (2008) Using relative entropy to find optimal approximations: An application to simple fluids. Physica A 387: 6759–6770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Virkler D. A., Hillberry B. M., Goel P. K. (1979) The statistical nature of fatigue crack propagation. ASME Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 101: 148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Walker, K. (1970). The effect of stress ratio during crack propagation and fatigue for 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 aluminum. In Effects of environment and complex load history on fatigue life. ASTM STP 462 (pp. 1–14). American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  20. Zhang R., Mahadevan S. (2000) Model uncertainty and Bayesian updating in reliability-based inspection. Structure Safety 22(2): 145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringClarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA

Personalised recommendations