A comparison of reliability and conventional estimation of safe fatigue life and safe inspection intervals

Both the conventional and reliability analyses for determining safe fatigue life are predicted on a population having a specified (usually log normal) distribution of life to collapse under a fatigue test load. Under a random service load spectrum, random occurrences of load larger than the fatigue test load may confront and cause collapse of structures which are weakened, though not yet to the fatigue test load. These collapses are included in reliability but excluded in conventional analysis. The theory of risk determination by each method is given, and several reasonably typical examples have been worked out, in which it transpires that if one excludes collapse through exceedance of the uncracked strength, the reliability and conventional analyses gave virtually identical probabilities of failure or survival.