Composite probability distribution for fatigue life prediction of API X65 steel via Vickers hardness
Source abstract
Abstract
Accurate prediction of the fatigue life of API X65 steel is crucial in various applications. However, the traditional bootstrap method has inherent limitations, such as a tendency to deviate from the true distribution with insufficient sample sizes, difficulty in identifying extreme statistics, and an inability to generate distributions closer to the original sample. These deficiencies lead to overly conservative S-N curve designs and pose challenges in data collection, particularly for small samples. To address these issues, we propose an improved bootstrap method using a composite probability distribution. This method enhances the sampling range and improves prediction accuracy for parameter uncertainty ranges by considering both small samples and extended virtual samples’ probability distribution. Comparative analysis through Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates the superior parameter estimation of our method for small samples. Our case analysis further explores the relationships between Vickers hardness, tensile strength, surface roughness factor, and intercept constant. The findings led to a novel method for estimating the S-N curve confidence interval of API X65 steel from Vickers hardness. Analysis of fatigue life test data for API X65 steel yielded favorable results, confirming the effectiveness and feasibility of our improved method.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Metallurgy and Material Forming
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai, China
Funding
Class III Peak Discipline of Shanghai-Materials Science and Engineering
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/1056789523116081010.1177/10567895231160810 ↗
2. BS 7608 (2014) Guide to Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Products. London, UK: British Standards Institution (BSI).
3. 10.1007/s10182-017-0317-010.1007/s10182-017-0317-0 ↗
4. DiCicco TJ, Efron B (1996) Bootstrap confidence intervals. Statistical Science 11: 189–228.
5. DNVGL-RP-0005 (2014) Recommended Practice. RP-C203: Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. Oslo, Norway: DNV GL.
6. 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.11029910.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110299 ↗
7. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Springer New York 7: 1–26.
8. FKM-Guideline (2003) Analytical Strength Assessment of Components in Mechanical Engineering. Germany: Forschungskuratorium Maschinenbau (FKM).
9. 10.1177/1056789521102006810.1177/10567895211020068 ↗
10. 10.1007/s00158-019-02356-x10.1007/s00158-019-02356-x ↗
11. 10.1109/JSTARS.2018.287137310.1109/JSTARS.2018.2871373 ↗
12. 10.1177/1056789523119723710.1177/10567895231197237 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.msea.2010.10.08910.1016/j.msea.2010.10.089 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10715010.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107150 ↗
15. 10.1080/00031305.2015.108978910.1080/00031305.2015.1089789 ↗
16. 10.1177/1056789524123397510.1177/10567895241233975 ↗
17. 10.1007/s40430-020-2268-810.1007/s40430-020-2268-8 ↗
18. ISO 18265 (2014) Metallic Materials-conversion of Hardness Values. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
19. 10.1016/j.apm.2019.06.02210.1016/j.apm.2019.06.022 ↗
20. 10.1007/s11269-022-03410-y10.1007/s11269-022-03410-y ↗
21. 10.1115/1.404234410.1115/1.4042344 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.10568510.1016/j.ijmecsci.2020.105685 ↗
23. 10.3901/CJME.2016.0205.02210.3901/CJME.2016.0205.022 ↗
24. 10.1111/ffe.1313310.1111/ffe.13133 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.10718710.1016/j.ress.2020.107187 ↗
26. 10.1007/BF0276300510.1007/BF02763005 ↗
27. 10.1002/mma.512010.1002/mma.5120 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2003.10.00310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2003.10.003 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.mineng.2018.01.01710.1016/j.mineng.2018.01.017 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.07.02010.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.07.020 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.apm.2019.07.00410.1016/j.apm.2019.07.004 ↗
32. Phillips DT (1972) Applied Goodness of Fit Testing. Atlanta, GA: American Institute of Industrial Engineers.
33. 10.1111/ffe.1280410.1111/ffe.12804 ↗
34. 10.1007/s00707-019-02560-210.1007/s00707-019-02560-2 ↗
35. Rick HH (1999) Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications.
36. 10.1016/S0142-1123(00)00026-810.1016/S0142-1123(00)00026-8 ↗
37. 10.1109/LGRS.2017.275274710.1109/LGRS.2017.2752747 ↗
38. 10.1177/105678951561644810.1177/1056789515616448 ↗
39. 10.1111/ffe.1410910.1111/ffe.14109 ↗
40. 10.1080/0361092080210157110.1080/03610920802101571 ↗
41. 10.1177/1056789522114623910.1177/10567895221146239 ↗
42. 10.1109/TIT.1982.105657710.1109/TIT.1982.1056577 ↗
43. 10.1177/105678951771911710.1177/1056789517719117 ↗
44. 10.1520/JTE2016029610.1520/JTE20160296 ↗
45. 10.1111/ffe.1334010.1111/ffe.13340 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.cma.2017.07.02910.1016/j.cma.2017.07.029 ↗
47. Wilcox RR (2005) Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.
48. Wormsen A, Avice W, Fjeldstad A, et al. (2015) Base material fatigue data for low alloy forged steels used in the subsea industry. Part 1: In air S-N data. International Journal of Fatigue 80: 447–495.
49. 10.1016/j.apm.2016.07.00610.1016/j.apm.2016.07.006 ↗
50. 10.1016/j.ress.2015.12.01310.1016/j.ress.2015.12.013 ↗
51. 10.1080/00207721.2018.155276810.1080/00207721.2018.1552768 ↗
52. Xie W, Morgan D (2017) CALPHAD Modeling and ab initio calculations of the Np-U-Zr system. Journal of Condensed Matter 143: 505–514.
53. 10.1016/j.apm.2018.03.04410.1016/j.apm.2018.03.044 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2017.08.02910.1016/j.ymssp.2017.08.029 ↗
55. 10.1016/j.mechmat.2015.01.02010.1016/j.mechmat.2015.01.020 ↗
56. 10.1177/105678951879265810.1177/1056789518792658 ↗
57. 10.1177/1687813222110744110.1177/16878132221107441 ↗
58. 10.1007/s12541-017-0185-210.1007/s12541-017-0185-2 ↗
59. 10.1177/095440971349677210.1177/0954409713496772 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.cma.2020.11302710.1016/j.cma.2020.113027 ↗
61. 10.1111/ffe.1277210.1111/ffe.12772 ↗
62. 10.1177/105678951878603110.1177/1056789518786031 ↗