920660 The Development of Accelerated Component Durability Test Cycles Using Fatigue Sensitive Editing Techniques » STRACT A method is proposed to qualify automotive ‘component designs in the laboratory using multiaxial real time load/strain input data acquired in the field. Fatigue damage analysis methods are used to edit the field data to produce an accelerated test cycle that retains all of the damaging real time load histories present in the original test cycle. Use of this procedure can contribute to a significant reduction in product design/development time. INTRODUCTION This paper will describe a method for design * ‘durability qualification of automotive components based on the use of edited multi-axial real time load histories» Fatigue analysis methods are used to access and compare the fatigue damage imposed by the 2us parts of the parent durability test cycle. Non- 19ing portions of the cycle are removed resulting test cycle that can faithfully reproduce the original test cycle in much less time and at greatly reduced expense. An accelerated test cycle such as this, is ot only valuable for the durability qualification of a design but is also useful during the development process. Due to the accelerated nature of this ‘method, decisions can be based on the results of a Significant sample size rather than on one or two tests. Statistical sampling methods can thus be employed. BACKGROUND The purpose for product durability testing is to ‘Subject a manufacturer's product to customer service Prior to public sale. A product, thus tested, will prove to the manufacturer that it will perform as intended for @ prescribed period of time, cycles, or miles. Early automotive manufacturers built and sold their products based on the experience obtained from customer usage of previous generation products. The customer 69 R. E. Canfield and M. A. Villaire Chrysler Corp. provided the service background upon which new products were developed. As product complexity, competition, and customer's expectations increased, successful manufacturers saw the need for product durability testing as a part of their deveiopment process. As the automotive business developed, ‘manufacturers tested their products in the customer's environment. Vehicles were tested on public roads, ‘The results of these test trips were then used as the basis for development of the next generation of products. Manufacturers soon began to develop their ‘own captive proving grounds. They learned that it was very expensive to do all of their testing in the customer's environment. Much of the testing had to be done in areas remote from the manufacturer's facility. With the advent of the proving ground concept, customer's service cycles could be replicated, thus producing an economical base for testing, close to home. Distant road surfaces, grades, anu~sait conditions could be economically included in the service cycle to which completed prototypes were exposed. As technology developed, manufacturers began to look at ways of bringing much of this durability testing into the laboratory. There was significant interest in the durability testing of components prior to the availability of complete prototypes. First, attempts_included_single_axis,_co' Tot correlate with customer service, it did provide some basis for design comparisons early in the development cycle. This soon expanded to include block cycle testing in which blocks of constant amplitude cycles, at each of several amplitudes, could be sequentially imposed based on the: various events included in the service cycle. Improvements in electronic data acquisition and analysis methods introduced several ways of counting the numbers of cycles at the various amplitudes that were present in, the customer or proving ground test schedule. The rainflow cycle counting method which is described in ynstant_amplitude,_ sal_stroking tests, Although this method did"Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis" [1] has become an accepted method for describing a single axis event in terms of cycles and amplitudes. Single axis block cycle testing, based on this method, improved comparative testing, but correlation to the ield test was still not very good. This generated interest in real time testing. Improvements in hydraulic test systems, data acquisition methods, and digital analysis methods have made it possible to acquire ‘multiaxial field data from a test specimen and develop a durability test that can be run repeatedly in the laboratory. Correlation of the laboratory test to the original field test can be very good, provided meticulous care is given to calibration at every step leading to the laboratory test. Particular care must be iven to be certain that accurate and complete system load, stress, and/or strain histories are imposed on the specimen. Equal care is necessary to assure that the specimen constraints are consistent with those imposed in the field. This level of laboratory testing has led to the development of full vehicle road wlation. Although correlation to the field can be very good, and a typical six to nine month proving ground durability test can be accurately simulated in sixty to ninety days, this method of durability testing requires a compiete vehicle which typically does not ‘occur until late in the product development cycle. NEED FOR A BETTER METHOD The automotive engineering community is continually seeking new methods of design qualification that are tess costly, can be carried out more quickly, can be applied early in the design cycle, \d can produce improved correlation with accepted id test criteria. A typical proving ground test may ost as much as $150,000 to $200,000, may require six to nine months, and will provide durability results fon one specific set of specimens. These tests are typically run late in the design cycle when completed prototypes are available. The automotive design engineer needs a means of performing traceable durability tests on particular components of hi a very short period of time. This will make possible the evaluation of multiple design alternatives using a sample size sufficient to permit statistical analysis of the results with assured correlation to field service. Resulting qualified component designs can be achieved months earlier, leading to substantial reduction in product development time. ——_— ‘The application of currently available fatigue analysis methods and fatigue sensitive editing techniques to remove non-damaging portions 9) test can reduce the component test d estimated 1500 hours to as little as Particular simple component. 70 ‘The body of this paper will present, by way of example, an application method for accomplishing this accelerated component laboratory durability test ‘method that can be traceable to accepted field service, It should be noted that this method makes use of estimates based on currently accepted analysis methods each of which could be the subject of extensive research, LABORATORY DURABILITY CYCLE DEVELOPMENT Each component laboratory durability cycle is unique. A front spindle will certainly have a load input history that is very dissimilar to that for a front spring tower. It is noted, however, that right and left components should see similar load inputs. Careful examination of right and left, or mirror image load inputs must be made to assure similarity. Sp ic accepted service cycles may cause mirror image dissimilarities. The responsible engineer must make similar judgements based on the load histories as they are developed. It is, therefore, possible that mirror image components will be treated as dissimilar. This durability method is best applied to a simple component. This is one whose mounting constraints can be accurately defined and simulated in the test fixture. The multiaxial load inputs for such 3 component will be applied at one input point. The ader will see, as we develop the example, that we need to include only damaging sequences for a simple ‘component, thus achieving maximum acceleration of the laboratory test. If the component is complex, including more than one simple component, the final test cycle must include the damaging sequences for each of the simple components. This can result ina much more lengthy test and can lead to a 7st program that does not meet the responsible design engineer's time constraints. Our example will deal with a simple component. Let us presume that the reader is the responsible design engineer for the spring tower shown in Figure |. His task is to qualify a design for service defined by a prescribed proving ground durability course. To accomplish this, he requires an accelerated laboratory durability test that is traceable with respect to fatigue damage, to the proving ground test cycle. The component is constrained to the body at the welds around the base. The triaxial load input is through the top plane where the strut is normally attached. We can visualize that as a prototype is driven over the accepted proving ground course, varying triaxial cyclic loads will by transmitted through the top plane into the spring tower and into the body.Exeerence has shown that tres exposures are the minimum number required foreach sequence, alare quite similar, cata quality is easonabysusured SPRING TOWER itt ofthe twee agree, those two are probably ood andthe three not. Accepted practee would rere COMPONENT that tree more exposures be actured, One exposure to eech segmont. wil, provide” no""baas. for Geterminaion of data accuracy. Statistlans wi aroun thats many an twenty exposures may be VERTICAL necessary. This would be an excellent topic for farther cussion beyond the scope of thie pepe. Once three consistent exposures have been acquired, they can all be used. The transducers must be installed in such a way as to assure triaxial load measurement at the ‘component load input point with minimum mass stiffness alteration. This can be accomplished, many instances, by instrumenting an attaching part. This transducer will also be used later during the laboratory test correlation phase. Close attention must be paid to accurate transducer calibration. Minor ercors can cause significant correlation problems in the laboratory. These errors frequently go unnoticed, We should also acquire correlation strain data FIGURE | ‘at several locations on the component. These aro used during laboratory setup to assure that strain histories produced in the laboratory correlate with Our objective is to produce a laboratory durability test for this specific component that will impose damage traceable to that imposed during the original TEST COURSE a a ENDURANCE SCHEDULE We will first acquire input load histories at the top plane of the spring tower while the complete vehicle C operated over the entire test course. Our test, ourse is represented by the diagram shown in Figure Ul, Note that the entire test includes one pass over access leg "D", twenty laps of loop "A", "B*, and "C”, and one pass over return leg "E*. We will assume, for planning purposes, that each pass over a given Segment will produce identical results. While this is not explicitly true, each pass should produce quite similar results. We can therefore, theoretically, record load input histories for one pass over each of the five segments and scale the quantity of fatigue cycles by ‘the appropriate exposure factor for each sequence: ie. 21 for A, and B; 20 for C; and 1 for D and E. Note that one extra pass over legs A and B are required to exit over leg E as prescribed. Multiple exposures that Produce closely similar, if not identical, results will assure that the data is realistic and reasonably consistent. If the number of exposures is limited to two and the results are dissimilar, we don’t know whether both are wrong or only one is in error. n FIGURE IIP - —problems can be transparent to the u: those measured in the field. Locations of known upscale strain should be selected. It is not necessary to select peak strain locations, however. Since we Probably don’t know the principle strain direction, ood practice would indicate that we should use strain Gage rosettes for these measurements. This will Permit the calculation of peak strain histories and directions should they become of interest. All of the time history data must be digitized prior to any attempts at analysis. Contemporary digital data ‘acquisition methods are readily available to nearly all development laboratories. It is therefore presumed ‘that data digitization is not a problem. Care must be ‘two cadses of data corruption. These are aliasing and amplitude inaccuracy. Both of these Aliasing, or pe II sampling errors, (21 can cause higher frequency _ data to contaminate lower frequency data. Insufficient digitization rates, or type | sampling errors, can also contaminate the data (31, [4] and [5]. This has the effect of eliminating the higher frequency components, as well as corrupting the amplitude integrity. Good “dat ypnna(rovessp 29 ‘sirens vs i ai ats 3049p 0 J9I9 UE "Hp 3H Do abi Fon 2oq opus feuredsuND KN Kem IB uns Satay eae practice, based on the referenced study (61, dictates that data must he digitized at twenty points per ‘eyele—at”the_highest_trequency_of_interst. “adequate digitizing rate can bb determined with of a frequency analysis obtdined prior to the actual digitizing process. ye 5 2 wens Mop ice? DRE in our oxalnple andlansliod tof © our component, can oF ty five jinput load time histories. Gaur ius 25_the time history fe afray for 8 one of the five segmentr-scauired for the complete test. The thes mutually perpendicular, real time load histories shown, preserve amplitude, frequency, and phase relationships from the parent test. We will see, below, that three passes over this segment a The resulting array of time histories recorded for each of the five segments will make up the forty-five time history array. In addition, there can be as many as ninety channels of correlation data. This is based on the assumption that two strain locations are selected, and that each is a three channel rosette. Recall that there are three exposures to each segment, and five 11,000 NEWTONS 11,000 NEWTONS: 11,000 5 NEWTONS ° TIME (SEC) LOADS FOR SEGMENT A | LONGITUDINAL LATERAL VERTICAL 212.7 FIGURE Ii rR7 segments in our example. Although this appears to be a rather large array of data, we must remember that all the correlation data may not be necessary. It is, however, much more economical to acquire all of the data at once, rather than risk having to revisit the test site at a later time. Further discussion will be limited to the primary load histories. We must determine whether our data is ically accurate. This is done by comparing the three presumably identical exposures for each of the five segments in one of the multiaxial directions. ‘Three such exposures are shown in Figure IV. Visual examination indicates the difficulty in defining possible comparative inaccuracies. Figure V illustrates a graphical three dimensional rainflow analysis. comparing the same three ‘successive time histories. Note that the differences in the three exposures are readily apparent as well as very minor. This indicates that all three channels of data are consistently accurate. TIME (SEC) Rainflow analysis is also the first step toward fatigue sensitive editing or removal of the non- damaging segments of the durability test. The rainflow method of cycle counting [1], is a method of reducing time history load/strain.data to form a block cycle histogram that can be used for fatigue damage estimation. It counts and catalogs the sinusoidal half cycles by range, mean, and number of occurrences. ‘The plots in Figure V show the results of this analysis. The test described diagrammatically, in Figure Ml, is summarized for the longitudinal direction, in Figure VI. Presuming that all three exposures to a Specific segment are closely similar, the three exposures can be averaged to produce a typical histogram for each segment, as shown in column four. We also see that the complete field test includes twenty one passes over segments ‘A’ and ‘B'. We can therefore sum the average histograms ‘or segments ‘A’ and ‘8’ and multiply the rest 9 histogram by the appropriate scale factor, in this case, 21. The result would appear in column five. A similar analysis is performed for segments 'C’, 'D’ and ‘E’ ‘The final summation for the complete test is indicated EXPOSURE COMPARISON - SEGMENT A ————_, VERTICAL DIRECTION EXPOSURE #1 EXPOSURE #2 EXPOSURE #3 224.3 FIGURE IV‘We must now estimate the equivalent fatigue RAINFLOW HISTOGRAMS damage that is caused by each of the segments. Equivalent Damage Analysis is a method for estimating - SEGMENT A thie lative level of fatigue damage imposed by the VERTICAL DIRECTION various blocks of fatigue cycles within a histogram and by various segments of a test program where tear esane page each is described by a separate histogram. Damage analyses are based on Miner's Linear Damage Theory EXPOSURE #1 as described in [6]. The three dimensional rainflow summary in Figure Vil, is reduced to a two dimensional rainflow histogram chart in Figure Vill. In. this = presentation, thus reducing the complexity of the histograms upon which | ete the damage estimate is based. All damage estimates * are made relative to a specific SN curve. An S:N curve is a locus of all points of equal estimated fatigue . damage. The slope of this curve is typically specific to a particular material. It is also noted, for the record, that the material properties for the component + ’ 7 are probably not known and that the specific properties will vary from point to point within the + specimen. Its use, here, is to estimate comparative damage imposed on a particular component. We wi ‘therefore use an S-N curve of consistent average slope * for all of our comparative estimates. The exact slope = is not important so fong as the same slope is used for all of the estimates. An S-N slope of -0.146 is used; in this example. The height of the S-N curve that ‘must be used for all analyses is relatively unimportant, as it only affects the comparative magnitude of all indices that are generated. As 2 general rule, it is ‘wise to set the reference level to the maximum load, S685, OF strain amplitude that was measured during “the field data acquisition. Returning orice again to our “Sxapl6; we see in Figure IX a tabulation of equivalent asim taser nesgnt + S360 mite + ero@) damage estimates that have been developed for the ° histogram that appeared in Figure Vill. The first two > C EXPOSURE #3 columns are a reiteration of block cycle data from the rainflow analysis. The third column expresses the number of cycles that occur within each block as a percentage of the total number of cycles that occurred 4 * in the complete test sequence. The fourth column a tabulation of the number of cycles at the reference \ , amplitude that would be required to produce fatigue ys damage equivalent to the damage incurred by the block described in the first and second columns.’ The number of equivalent damage cycles for the first block . is therefore one (1). For the second block, the total damage imposed by two (2) additional cycles of 9500 newtons is equivalent to that imposed by 0.16568 + FIGURE V cycles at the reference level of 14500 newtons. This: analysis is routinely conducted analytically by computer. The total number of equivalent damage cycles for the entire history is obtained by simply epresenting the lateral and vertical elements. damage that is caused by each of the several typical three dimensional rainflow_hist« it segments can be estimated by comparing the (ED!) for Schedule, ts shown in Figure VIL. the segments that are included in the complete test. 7%TEST COURSE ENDURANCE SCHEDULE SUMMARY LONGITUDINAL Tora. PERcenT DAMAGE OAMAGE DaMAge DAMAGE DAMAGE s€@ NDE NDE NDE INE (x2n/m An» exrosuneer o Exrosunes2— avenace -" j Exposuneeo— | xa o 12 cere ear | \ ern 8 ot I avenace =~ | ' ' \ { @x21n 6 (x20 @| ~ average 22 » 222 Gey x20 -2 | Lm [== sumigsrion © 17 thegtarel i im 0 © ' . avenace -"~ » --~ - =I 1 ' i wine ” | avenace -"” > ~~ ---1 100.0000% <= yorA, o @ ° “ o o FIGURE VI ical importance that the EDI of the several segments of interest be calculated relative to the same teference load level. Figure X is a summary of the analysis for the ‘complete test cycle. It includes the damage analyses for each exposure to each of the segments in each of the three directions. It also includes the damage for each segment expressed as a percentage of the total for each component direction. The analysis for each axis is conducted independently, relative to the same reference level. It, therefore, becomes readily apparent that loads in the primary direction may produce apparent damage that is several orders of ‘magnitude more severe than that in the other directions. We must, nevertheless, conduct the analysis and include the most damaging segments from each direction. We cannot accurately and adequately prejudge the overall effect of the relative minor axis load histories, therefore, they must all be included. We can now selectively edit from the test cycle those real time multiaxial data segments that do not contribute significantly to-the damage based on these ‘equivalent damage estimates. It is desireable to 78: eliminate those triaxial segments whose cumulative contribution to the total damage is less than five percent. Note that fatigue sensitivity is evaluated for each load direction independent of the oth Returning to our example, we can examine 2 damage percentage column to select those minor damage segments to be eliminated. For instance, segments C, D, and E in the longitudinal direction contribute to only 1.7 percent of the estimated cumulative damage in that direction and can, therefore, be eliminated without noticeably affecting the damageability of the remaining cycle. Similarly; segments B, C, D, and E in the lateral direction and B, C, D, and E in the vertical direction can be removed, Since segment B must be retained, based on analysis of the longitudinal data, we must reinstate the corresponding lateral and vertical data. The resulting edited histogram is shown in Figure XI. The specimen, subjected to.the input load histories that are included in Figure XI, will experience fatigue damage that is very similar to that imposed in the field. It is important to note that the specimen the laboratory in-a-manner that 10 the constraint imposed by. ~ the comptete prototype.3D RAINFLOW HISTOGRAM RANGE (NEWTONS) MEAN CYCLES 0-500 3200 2 x 33 ai at 2 ‘* a 4 4 4 00 ~ 1000 13 12 20 “ 4 3 i 1000 - 1500 3 o \ S a 6 2 i 1500 ~ 2000 eo % ‘ 3 2 ; 2000 - 2500 2 s " 2500 - 3000 ‘ 2 3 2 3000 - 3800 3 2 3 \ 3500 ~ 4000 ‘ " ° t 4000 4800 2 3 7 { 4800 ~ 5000 3 3 2 5000 ~ 5500 2 2 2 500 - 6000 i 000 — 6500 4 4 4 500 - 7000 2 i 7000 - 7500 3 | 7300 - 6000 3 | 00 - e500 4 00 = 9000 2 9000"- $500, 2 1400014300 3300, i TOTAL CYCLES 9789 FIGURE VI se ce en «ap 9910 WE IAIP isin ann Fob 994 9oU! RewunUD 2H © 2D RAINFLOW HISTOGRAM RANGE (NEWTONS) CYCLES. 0 ~ 500 7a24. ‘500 - 1000 417 1000 - 1500 200 1500 ~ 2000 127 2000 - 2500 3 +2500 - 3000 “a ‘9900 - 3500 32 ‘9500 - 4000 22 ‘4000 - 4500 13 ‘4500 - 5000 ‘5000 ~ 5500 '5500 - 6000 ‘6000 — 6500 6500 - 7000 7900 - 7500 7500 - 8000 8000 - 8500 18500 - 9000, 9000 — 9500 ‘9500 ~ 10,000 10,000 - 10,500 err FIGURE Vil Computer aided design analysis methods, such as Nastran, can be used to evaluate laboratory ‘Specimen constraint quality. A baseline strain ‘distribution diagram of the component, as a part of the complete prototype, can be developed using realistic triaxial load inputs developed earlier in this process. Such a diagram is shown in Figure Xil. A similar analysis, with the component separated from the prototype and with the proposed laboratory fixture constraints, can also be performed. If the laboratory constraint is realistic, the two strain distribution analyses will be very similar, indicating good correlation. Laboratory constraints must be developed to produce good correlation. mfEQUIVALENT DAMAGE ANALYSIS = / PEAK / CUMULATIVE AMPLITUDE vate EQUIVALENT DAMA DAMAGE (NEWTONS) _CYCLES PERCENTAGE DAMAGE CYCLES PERCENTAGE _ PERCENTAGE 14,500 1 €0114% 1,0000E +00 49.4943% 9500 2 0.0227% SBBE=O1, 57.6947% 9000 2 0.0297% wr. 068E-01)) 67.1922% 8500 1 0.0114% one TS46sE—of 74.7884% 8000 1 0.114% 4.1914E-01 80.6054% 7500 3 0.034% 4.0939E-01 86.0997% 7000 3 0.0341% 9.0657E-02 90.4977% 6500 3 0.03941% 6.5682E -02 93.7006% 6000 1 0.114% 4.03946 -02 95.7340% 5500 6 0.0682% 3.0070E -02 97.2232% 5000 8 0.0910% 2.1099E -02 98.2675% 4500, 13 0.1478% 1.45526 02 98.9877% aooo) 22) Q2502%>) —-9.7424E-03, 0.482% 99.4699% 3500 32 Oz 5.7962E-03 0.2869% 99.7568% 3000 49 0.5579% 3.0248E-03 0.497% —99.9065% 2500 78 o.9e71% 4.32016 -03 0.0657% — 99.9722% 2000127 1.4443% 4506304 0.023% © 99,0946% 1500 200 2.2745% 9.8507£-05 0.000% 99.0904 1000 417 4.7424% 1.0758E-05 0.0005% 100.0000% 500 7824 88.9799% 8.4667E-07 0.0000% 100.0000% 8793 100.0000% 2.0204E +00 100.0000% EQUIVALENT DAMAGE INDEX (ED) = 2.0204 / S-N SLOPE = -0.146 NOTE: TOTAL DAMAGE IMPOSED BY THE ABOVE HISTORY / 18 EQUIVALENT TO 2.0204 FULL CYCLES AT A PEAK LEVEL OF 14,500 NEWTONS. / FIGURE IX v / wv tN \ 2 e poo Whe 1 y ‘ . yrseer > ee @ 2 Brew re \oer en?SPRING TOWER LONGITUDINAL ‘SPRING TOWER VERTICAL . Se ese FIGURE x Fy FIGURE Xt |FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS SPRING TOWER ONLY FIGURE XII SUMMARY ‘The development of an accelerated laboratory component durability test, using the method described, will produce a component specific test that is traceable to the accepted field or proving ground durability test. The degree of traceability is dependent on the care that is used in developing the test cycle. ‘The effort required to develop a good accelerated test is considerable and should be considered an investment of today’s resources in future development programs. The use of such a test can be an invaluable aid to the development process. Remember, that with this method, a nine month durability test can be accomplished in several days with the result that design decisions can be based on the results of numerous tests rather than just one or two. REFERENCES 1, J. A. Bannantine, J. J. Comer and J. L, Handrock, "Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis", Prentice Hall, 1990, pp.189-196. 2. J.-L. Taylor, "Computer Based Data Acquisition Systems", Instrument Society of America, 1986, pp 107-109. 3. J.L. Taylor, "Computer Based Data Acquisition, Systems", Instrument Society of America, 1986, pp 103-105. 4. G.C. Grenier, D. J. Eisentord, and G. E. Leese, “Integration of Fatigue Analysis and Laboratory Simulation Requirements in the Field Data Acquisition Process", SAE #870805 5. T. K. Coleman, "Data Sampling Rates 4 Repeatability and How It Affects The Fatigue Life Data Acquisition”, M.I.|.S.M.E. Fellowship Study, Chrysler Motors Corporation Structures Laboratory internal Publication, 1990 6 J. A. Bannantine, J. J. Comer and J. L, Handrock, “Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue Analysis", Prentice Hall, 1990, pp.179-183.deur » Sy? aw? Swen cant -OANt Tse - SNE a0 oO, sue Vasque" L450 =f & \ As £4500 .N “Dek Ko Rem Behe ihew ae Fe ago0N 0,\4b 500 = 14500 LS, Loy a clos w= D2 & = OOD egy (Pee T ele Dogs Var Quse Fer Hooor Ouse NQ QIN 500 " _ UWA Dz >& Dz or? 2 [P= yes ne? ———— ee Ot 000 = Iusoo © ag a? | | | |METROLOGIA — ENGENHARIA MECATRONICA -EXERCICIO. Data: 10/05/2007 Nomes: 1- . 2 3 Uma mola helicoidal foi submetida a uma Forga F que provocando uma deflexao y = 212,843,9- mm (K = 2,19). Sabe-se que a constante de rigidez (k) de molas helicoidais ¢ dada pela equagao: _Gp* = Baen Module de elasticidade ao cisalhamento G = 79 GPa. numero de espiras n = 16 espiras. Diametro da mola D = 38,016 mm (K = 2,01): O diametro do arame da mola (d) foi obtido através de cito medigdes com um micrémetro com resolugao de 0,1 mm. Medigdes (mm): 3,5 - 3,6 - 3,8 - 3,3-3,2-3,5-3,6-3,4. “Estas medig6es foram realizadas em um local com temperatura variando entre 24 29 °C. O paquimetro apresentava uma variagdo térmica de 0,024 mm/°C. A temperatura de referéncia é de 20 °C. A calibragao realizada no micrémetro apresentou os resultados abaixo: Calibracao 0.100 0.075 0.050 0.025 0.000 -0.025 -0.050 -0.075 -0.100 -0.125 -0.180 -0.175 920] ~8- Td a ~A- U (K=2,11) -0.250 0.275 Erros (mm) 00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5.0 Indicag&o (mm) Determine adequadamente o valor da forga F e as incertezas envolvidasc Forga (N) No. Eventos ciclos/event 14500 9500 9000 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 6000 500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 TOTAL 13 49 78 127 200 417 7824 8793 0.0114 0.0227 0.0227 0.0114 0.0114 0.0341 0.0341 0.0341 0.0114 0.0682 0.0910 0.1478 0.2502 0.3639 0.5573 0.8871 1.4443 2.2745 4.7424 88,9799 100,000, Dano 1 0,110456597 0,076271491 0025781471 0,017020507 0,032818309 0,020459199 0,012315317 0,002372617 0,007844282 0,005444781 0,004299583 0,003247476 0,00189264 0,001008265 0,0004604 0,000162584 3,5691E-05 4,62978E-06 7,83363E-07 1,321896594 Dano percent Dano cumulativo 75,64888238 8,35591814 5,769853058 1,950339476 1,287582349 2,482668365 1,547715575 0,931639978 0,179485861 0,593411194 0,411891594 0,325258627 0245667898 0,143176121 0076274091 0,03482878 0,012299203 0,002699987 0,000350238 5,69911E-05 100 75,64888238 84,00480052 89,77465358 91,72499308 93,01257541, 95,49524377 97,04295935 97,97459933 98,15408519 98,74749638 199,15938797 99,4846466 99,7303145 99,87349062 99,94976471 99,98459349 99,99689278 99,99959277 99,99994301 100