Generally an engineering software is validated showing that delivered results are 'same as' available analytical solutions and/or test results.

Many test cases exist and are used since decades to validate the good quality of FEM codes.

Unfortunately, the validation of a computer code performing FEM based fatigue analysis is, in general, not similarly possible

This is  due to multiple reasons.

​

First of all, an unique fatigue analysis method does not exist.

Many approaches have been developed over the years, and many will still be developed in the future. In literature we can find:

• multiple stress-based and strain-based fatigue parameters;

• methods based on PSD inputs;

• multiple critical plane or alternative approaches;

• multiple cyclic plasticity models;

• different damage cumulation models;

• ...

A huge amount of papers are available in literature claiming the goodness of certain methods on the basis of adherence to dedicated experimental data. These highlight the fact some methods could be more appropriate than other depending on the problem being solved (type of geometry, loading modes, …) and/or material parameters (and in some cases also calibration factors) being used.

​

Secondly, when a fatigue solver is used, a defined set of material parameters is adopted. However material fatigue data are characterized by a significant scatter. This means that, even if an ideal unique fatigue analysis parameter/approach would exist, results being produced would be ‘deterministically’ related to the specific material parameters used, therefore comparison with test data will inevitably show an ‘error’ due to the difference between the real material behaviour (of the used test specimen) and the modelled one.

 

Last but not least, the fatigue damage, or life, calculated on the basis of a FEM is strictly dependent on the FEM quality (mesh size, element type and order, boundary conditions, …). This means that two different FE Models of the same structure, solved with the same fatigue solver, using same approach and same material data, will show different fatigue results.

​

It is then obvious that, should we run a round robin asking to multiple laboratories/fatigue experts/universities to perform a (blind) fatigue analysis on a given 'test case' (the same given to all the participants), we would receive all different results (hopefully all in an acceptable error band).

​

Having this in mind, when we created LIFING we tried to create a tool which is ‘analyst friendly’, i.e. with the following characteristics:

• It is based on well described theory (the LIFING Technical Reference provides a level of detail of the performed calculations which is unique) and the result details can be dumped in ASCII files such to allow the analyst to debug step-by-step the calculated life. This is one of the pillars on the basis of which LIFING has been developed.

• It offers the choice of multiple fatigue methodologies, at least the most used ones.

• It is simple to use.

• It is can be easily customized/extended with additional fatigue methods.

 

LIFING doesn’t claim to be the best fatigue analysis tool because none is. LIFING users are those analysts who consider with proper criticism whatever marketing documentation stating, with so-called ‘validations’, that a certain fatigue software is the right one because it delivers results matching with test evidence.

That’s because, as above stated, to declare that a fatigue solver delivers 'accurate results' is a questionable statement. The same software can deliver whatever kind of result, based on the input FEM, fatigue method used, adopted material parameters.

In a nutshell: the ‘best’ fatigue solver in terms of results quality, today, does not exist because a unified and consolidated fatigue methodology does not exist, nor a consolidated methodology to crate a FEM for fatigue analyses exists. 

The ‘best’ solver should be rather judged on the basis of the traceability and correctness (i.e. adherence to documented methodology) of its calculation.

​

Someone says that 'fatigue is not a science...it is an art'.

LIFING, similarly to other codes, is nothing than a tool which helps deploying such an art. The main contributor is the analyst, who must be able to understand the problem, understand what calculation approach is appropriate and set the analysis accordingly.

When a FEM assisted fatigue analysis is performed, the analyst must ensure that calculated results are valid within an acceptable error. This can be done if experimental data, for the problem being analyzed, exist. The analyst can ‘calibrate’ results accordingly and apply appropriate scatter factors to the calculated results.

 

​

The LIFING ‘validation’ presented here must be looked from the perspective outlined above, that is:

• It is not a rigorous mathematical validation because a reference fatigue theoretical solution to be used for validating the implemented algorithms does not exist.

• Calculated results are based on analysis methods which are considered more appropriate, however any of the available methods can be used, which will deliver their own related results (which will be affected by the assumptions and limitations embedded in the method).

• Deviations between analysis and test data results must be judged considering appropriate scatter bands.