How coupon and element tests reduce conservativeness in element failure prediction

Structural elements, such as stiffened panels, are designed by combining material strength data obtained from coupon tests with a failure theory for 3D stress field. Material variability is captured by dozens of coupon tests, but there remains epistemic uncertainty due to error in the failure theory, which can be reduced by element tests. Conservativeness to compensate for the uncertainty in failure prediction (as in the A- or B-basis allowables) results in a weight penalty. A key question, addressed here, is what weight penalty is associated with this conservativeness and how much it can be reduced by using coupon and element tests. In this paper, a probabilistic approach is used to estimate the conservative element failure strength by quantifying uncertainty in the element strength prediction. A convolution integral is used to efficiently combine uncertainty from coupon tests and that from the failure theory. Bayesian inference is then employed to reduce the epistemic uncertainty using element test results. The methodology is examined with typical values of material variability (7%), element test variability (3%), and the error in the failure theory (5%). It is found that the weight penalty associated with no element test is significant (20% heavier than an infinite number of element tests), and it is greatly reduced by more element tests (4.5% for 5 element tests), but the effect of the number of coupon tests is much smaller.

[1]  Donald B. Paul,et al.  AIRFRAME STRUCTURES TECHNOLOGY FOR FUTURE SYSTEMS , 2000 .

[2]  Torgeir Moan,et al.  Methods of reliability model updating through additional events , 1990 .

[3]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Being Conservative with a Limited Number of Test Results , 2008 .

[4]  Jw Lincoln,et al.  USAF Experience in the Qualification of Composite Structures , 2001 .

[5]  Taiki Matsumura,et al.  Modeling the Effect of Structural Tests on Uncertainty in Estimated Failure Stress , 2010 .

[6]  Ramana V. Grandhi,et al.  A Bayesian approach for quantification of model uncertainty , 2010, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[7]  Kyung K. Choi,et al.  Reliability-based design optimization with confidence level under input model uncertainty due to limited test data , 2011 .

[8]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Effects of Structural Tests on Aircraft Safety , 2010 .

[9]  D. B. Owen FACTORS FOR ONE-SIDED TOLERANCE LIMITS AND FOR VARIABLES SAMPLING PLANS , 1963 .

[10]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Quantification of margins and uncertainties of complex systems in the presence of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[11]  R. E. Wheeler Statistical distributions , 1983, APLQ.

[12]  M. Evans Statistical Distributions , 2000 .

[13]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Reliability Estimation Including Redesign Following Future Test for an Integrated Thermal Protection System , 2011 .

[14]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Accounting for Future Redesign in the Optimization of an Integrated Thermal Protection System , 2012 .

[15]  S. Rahman Reliability Engineering and System Safety , 2011 .

[16]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Bayesian risk-based decision method for model validation under uncertainty , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[17]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Challenge Problems : Uncertainty in System Response Given Uncertain Parameters ( DRAFT : November 29 , 2001 ) , 2001 .