Accelerated Fatigue Test For Automotive Chassis Parts Design: An

Overview
Pauline Beaumont, Peugot Citroen
Fabrice Gurin, University of Angers
Pascal Lantieri, ParisTech
Matteo L. Facchinetti, Peugot Citroen
Guy Martin Borret, PhD Peugot Citroen
Key Words: Automotive Chassis parts, Fatigue, Whler, Locati, Staircase, Statistical Estimation, Simulation
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Fatigue strength is of prior concern for automotive chassis
parts design. In a reliability framework, its assessment still
requires long and expensive test campaigns. In particular,
high-cycle endurance tests usually involve several specimens
undergoing million-cycle procedures.
In order to reduce the specimen number (e.g. expensive
prototypes) and to shorten testing procedures (i.e. time-to-
result delay), Accelerated Life Tests (AFT) are developed
under the constraint of the needed high-reliability assessment.
These methods do not involve high frequency load cycling,
but are mainly based on stress magnification and fatigue
damage equivalence.
In this paper, at first a review of the fatigue test
procedures currently used in the automotive industry (e.g.
StrairCase, Locati and StairCase-Locati) is addressed. Thus,
numerical simulations are used in order to assess the
efficiency of these test procedures and compare their
performances.
1 INTRODUCTION
Automotive chassis parts are usually designed with
respect to multiple requirements, such as stiffness, noise and
vibrations, mechanical strength under static and dynamic
loads, wear, etc. Among all these requirements, reliability
under cyclic loads is of prior concern. In this framework, this
paper address metallic parts undergoing high cycle fatigue,
e.g. 10
6
load cycles: the aim of this study is to optimize fatigue
test plans with high-reliability assessment.
Fatigue tests, in which cyclic stresses are applied during a
given number of cycles to failure, are designed to guarantee a
risk of failure lower than a threshold (e.g. failure probability
of 10
-6
) which can be related to fatigue strength during a
reference lifespan (e.g. 10
6
load cycles).
The testing method is supposed to enable to assess the
required performance as determined by a probabilistic
approach: the Stress-strength method [1, 2, 3, and 4] leads to
set the predicted strength distribution taking into account the
stress distribution and an acceptance risk, as shown in figure
1.












Figure 1: Stress-strength method
R
and
R
, target
characteristic of the strength, as a result of the stress
distribution (
C
,
C
) and an acceptance risk
The testing results give an experimental mesure of the
resistance distribution with an average called m
R
, and a
standard deviation called s
R
, which have to be compared with
the required values
R
, and
R
respectively.
Fatigue test procedures currently used at PSA Peugeot
Citron for at least a decade are Locati, StairCase and
StairCase-Locati procedures. At present, they involve some
shortcuts:
Series of test runs can last up to 3 months. As
development and qualification time schedules are hardly
reduced, procedure robustness should be checked as some
hypothesis are not met anymore.
The number of test runs at PSA and its suppliers due to
fatigue tests is very large (e.g. 3.10
8
cycles / year), so that
their reduction would imply cost and delay to be lower.
Finally, the procedures have not been updated for 15
years, while academic researches on accelerate testing
methods have been pursued with success, in particular for
the electronic industry [5].
Hence, in this paper we present the surrent state of PSA
Stress
Strength

C
,
C

R
,
R

C

R
f (Risk)
target































978-1-4577-1851-9/12/$26.00 2012 IEEE
fatigue test procedures (2) then analyze them by numerical
simulations (3-4-5).
2 TESTING METHODS USED AT PSA
2.1 StairCase Method
The StairCase method [6] is a fatigue test procedure used
to calculate the fatigue resistance for a sampling of parts. The
method is based on an iterative principle, several parts are
successively tested. The test on the current part depends on the
result of the previous one, as shown on the following figure:




















Figure 2: StairCase method algorithm
where:
Fd
0
is the first stress level for the first part of the sample
d is the stress step between two consecutive levels.
In the literature there are many ways to estimate the
fatigue limit with the StairCase results [7,8]; at PSA, the
Dixon & Mood method [6] is applied. Thus, the mean and the
standard deviation of the fatigue limit are calculated as
follows:
0
1
2
e
A
m F d
N

= +


1)
2
2
1.62 0.029
e
e
N B A
s d
N

= +


2)
where the latter is applied only if:
2
2
0.3
e
e
N B A
N

> (3)
with:
F
0
: the lowest stress level used in the test
N
e
: total number of the least frequent event (specimen
failed or not) for the overall test
A = in
i
: used in the average calculation
B = i
2
n
i
: used in the standard deviation calculation
i : integer counter identifying the stress level, the 0
level corresponds to F
0

n
i
: occurrence of the least frequent event at the i level
- 1/2 : if the failure is the least frequent event
+ 1/2 : if the failure is the most frequent event
Please note that PSA usually needs 7 parts in order to
identify the fatigue limit mean, whereas the standard deviation
of the fatigue limit is actually not determined with this testing
method.
2.2 Locati Method
The Locati method [9] is usually applied when there are
few specimens, theoretically one is enough. The aim is the
same as StairCases, but the Locati procedure is based on
additional physical hypothesis. PSA uses it to determine the
average and the standard deviation of the fatigue limit with
few specimens (e.g. 3 parts).
The method is based on a damage law (e.g. Miners rule
[10]) and depends on Whler curve model choice (e.g.
Basquin regression [10]).
The principle of such a test campaign is the following: the
first part is tested during L cycles, at an F stress level. At the
end of this step, the level is increased by a stress increment ,
and the same part keeps being stressed during L cycles. This
scheme is used until the failure appears. The fatigue strength
of the part at the reference lifespan N is defined as follows:
1
3 1 2
1 2 3
b
b b b
e
N N N
F F F F
N N N

= + +


(4)
with F
e
the equivalent fatigue strength for that part at N
cycles, N
i
the number of cycles at each F
i
stress level and b the
Basquin parameter.
The test on the following part depends on the strength of
the previous ones. The first stress level for the following part
is:
2 F Fm = (5)
Fm corresponds to the mean of all the previous parts
strength F
e
and also corresponds to the mean of the fatigue
strength at the end of the procedure:
e
m Fm F = = (6)
The standard deviation of the fatigue strength is the
standard deviation of all the equivalent stress F
e
.
This method gives a good approximation of the mean and
the standard deviation of the fatigue limit. Number of cycles L
is chosen as 3.10
5
cycles by PSA. Moreover, it is also used
during a StairCase pattern in order to make all the parts failed
instead of censured data at the end of the StairCase. It gives
further useful information: that is the StairCase-Locati
method.
2.3 StairCase-Locati Method
Each part of the StairCase pattern which has not failed
before the target number of cycles (censured data) can be
carried on with a Locati procedure, without altering the
StairCase results. Basically, its a StairCase procedure and all
the parameters of the Locati are based on the StairCase
procedure:
The first stress level of the Locati (after the StairCase) is
Stress level of the
first part Fd
0

Failure
before N
cycles
No failure
before N
cycles
Stress level of the
next part
=
Stress level of the
current part
+ d
Stress level of the
next part
=
Stress level of the
current part
- d
the level of the StairCase increased by an increment d
The stress step of the Locati is the same as the StairCase
(=d)
When a part doesnt fail after N cycles, it is tested at an
increased stress level during L cycles, and so on with
increased levels until the failure appears. The fatigue limit
distribution is then calculated as the Locati method.
Hence, this leads to a better estimation of the standard
deviation than the StairCases.
3 METHODS ANALYSIS BY NUMERICAL SIMULATION
In order to assess the efficiency of the previous methods,
numerical simulations are built up: this approach provides a
means of comparing them with respect to the quality of the
estimation (convergence and bias) taking into account the cost
(e.g. number of parts) and the time (e.g. number of cycles)
needed for every test plan. Moreover, well check if some
parameters or hypothesis affect the final result in an unreliable
way.
We generate samples, i.e. tests results based on
1. a theoretical fatigue limit distribution (,)
2. some hypothesis such as the number of parts, the a priori
distribution law, the Basquins parameter...
Samples are simulated for the three methods, considering
7 up to 1000 specimens. The computer simulation is designed
to analyze 1000 runs of each procedure, giving 1000 results of
each sample size in order to provide a distribution of
calculated averages and standard deviations.
First, these simulations are made according to ideal test
conditions to check the convergence, which means a starting
stress level equal to the fatigue strength average, and a step
stress equal to the fatigue strength standard deviation. On top
of these, for methods using Locati procedure (Locati and
StairCase-Locati), ideal conditions mean the Basquin
parameter equal to the right hypothetical value.
Secondly, in order to test any bias for each procedure,
results are checked with offset test conditions, that is :
1. the starting stress level is different from the true average
2. the step stress value is different from the true standard
deviation
3. a wrong Basquins parameter value is used.
In the sequel, each chapter relates the application of the
numerical simulation analysis to a testing procedure.
4 THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE STAIRCASE
4.1 Convergence
The StairCase is launched with ideal test conditions, i.e.
setting a priori, the true fatigue strength distribution (i.e.
Normal distribution [=100 ; =8]). The simulation drives a
StairCase protocol, which leads to the calculated fatigue
strength distribution parameters: figure 3 shows the
distribution of the mean estimation obtained for 1000
StairCase simulations.
We can assess the convergence of the method by plotting
the mean of each parameter estimates (mean and standard
deviation) as a function of the sample size (figures 4 and 5).














Figure 3: Mean distribution of 1000 runs of a 1000
sample size StairCase simulation















Figure 4: Error percentage on mean average
estimates as a function of the sample size

Figure 5:







Figure 5. Error percentage on Standard deviation
average estimates function of the sample size
The figures show that the StairCase method is converging
indeed; the error trends toward zero as the sample size
increases, both for the mean and the standard deviation of the
fatigue limit. For very small samples, the method gives
acceptable results for mean estimates only. For a sample size
%
%
mean
of 7, we note an error on the average of the mean estimate
lower than 0.1%, whereas the maximum error for the 1000
simulations is about 10% (figure 6 right side). Considering the
standard deviation estimation we can see a more important
error up to 50% on the 1000 standard deviation average, as
shown on figure 6, left side.














Figure 6: Standard deviation and mean distribution of
1000 runs of a 7 sample size StairCase simulation
Thus, for the standard deviation estimation a more
reliable estimator is supposed to be used.
4.2 Bias
The bias is checked as follows:
1. the effect on the average and standard deviation estimates
of the starting level (different from the true average)
2. the effect of the step stress value (different from the true
standard deviation)
3. the combined effect of the starting level and the step size.
The effect of the starting level
Several stress values were used:
up to by 0,5
init
step
1000 simulation runs are made for each initial stress level.













Figure 7: Box-and-whisker diagrams of average
estimates versus starting stress value for a 7 sample
size
Figure 7 shows the result of a 7 sample size: the average
estimates are represented by box-and-whisker diagrams,
versus Fd
0
values with
init
= 100, and
init
= 8. Here the lower
quartile is 25% and the upper is 75%.
The same analysis is applied to the effect on the standard
deviation estimates, and results are shown in the same way.
We can see that with very large samples (about 500 and
more) the first level of the testing procedure has no effect at
all on the results, both for the mean and the standard deviation.
But for smaller samples there is an impact indeed: the mean is
slightly underestimated when the first level is lower than the
theoretical value, and overestimated when it is greater. For the
standard deviation estimates of smaller samples we can see
that there is the same underestimate no matter what the first
level is.
The effect of step stress value
The starting stress level is set equal to the true fatigue
strength average and several step stresses are used:
d = 3 up to 20 by a unit step
1000 simulation runs are made for each step stress value.
Figure 8 shows the effect of the step stress on the average
estimates for a 20 sample size:















Figure 8: Box-and-whisker diagrams of average
estimates versus step stress for a 20 sample size
To conclude on the step-stress effect, there is not a
noticeable effect on the mean estimation whatever the sample
is large or small. Conversely, on the standard deviation
estimates we observe that for every sample size the standard
deviation estimates increase if the error on the step stress is
about twice the theoretical value. Moreover, for a sample
smaller than 50 the best estimation of the standard deviation is
provided when the step-stress is about twice the theoretical
value of the standard deviation.
The combined effect of the first level and the step stress
Let us now observe the effect of the starting stress level
and the step stress errors. We use the same parameters
variation values as shown before. The results are given in the
form of 3D graphs representing the response surface of the
calculated parameters averages of each 1000 simulations
(Figure 9 & figure 10).
Whatever the first stress level is, the mean of the fatigue
limit is erratic for d values smaller than the theoretical
standard deviation. For small samples (e.g. 7, 20 and 50) we
confirm that there is no effect on the mean estimation as long
init init
Fd 5 , 4
0
=
init init
5 , 4 +
Average
estimates
Step
stress
mean
median

init
histogram
theoritical values ( and )
calculated values (m and s)
Standard deviation mean
Average
estimates
Starting
stress level
mean
median

init
as the starting level is not too far from the theoretical mean
value. But when the first stress level is moving away from the
true value, we can ensure the error is the highest if we choose
too small of a step.















Figure 9: Example on a 7 sample size, the average of
the fatigue limit mean estimates versus d and Fd
0

values















Figure 10: Example on a 500 sample size, the average
of the fatigue limit standard deviation estimates
versus d and Fd
0
values.
For the estimation of the standard deviation, the 3D
analysis shows that for large samples (over 50) there is no
impact on the estimation as long as the step is lower than
twice the theoretical standard deviation. Over this limit the
standard deviation is overestimated, whatever the first stress
level. For smaller samples, we dont observe the same
phenomenon: the estimation is good only for a step value
approximately equal to twice the theoretical standard
deviation. When the step moves away from this value, the
error on the standard deviation estimate increases or decreases
respectively, no matter what the first stress level is.
5 THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE LOCATI
Please note that applying the usual numerical procedure
analysis, the Locati method needs for the Basquin parameter
to be fixed.
5.1 Convergence
The Locati was shown to be a convergent method for the
mean and, in opposition with the StairCase method, it is also
convergent for the standard deviation estimation. The mean
estimates are as acceptable as the StairCase ones (e.g. an
average error less than 0.2%). But the standard deviation
estimation shows that the average error on the 1000
estimations is about 6% for the most critical case with 7
samples, while it is about 50% with a StairCase method.
Moreover, we can see that the standard deviation is always
underestimated, in a bigger way as the sample size decreases.
5.2 Bias
Starting level effect
With a Locati method there is no impact at all of the first
stress level, both on the mean and the standard deviation
estimation, while in a StairCase procedure, for small samples,
we have seen a slight impact.
Moreover, on the standard deviation estimates we still
notice the same underestimation whatever the first stress level
is.
Step stress effect
The step stress size has no impact at all, either on the
mean or the standard deviation estimations, whereas with a
StairCase procedure we have shown that if the step is twice
the theoretical standard deviation we had a better estimation of
it. Here, the underestimation on the standard deviation is the
same no matter the size of the step.
6 THE NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF THE STAIRCASE-
LOCATI
As for the Locati simulation, the StairCase-Locati method
needs for the Basquin parameter to be fixed.
6.1 Convergence
The StairCase-Locati was proven to be a convergent
method for the mean and the standard deviation estimates;
they are as acceptable as the Locati ones. We observe an
average error on the mean less than 0.2% and an average error
on the standard deviation about 7% for the most critical case
with 7 samples.
These results correspond to the Locati ones; in particular
we note the underestimation of the standard deviation as long
as the sample size decreases.
6.2 Bias
Starting level effect
As the Locati results we can observe that there is no
impact at all of the first stress level, both on the mean and the
standard deviation estimation, while we have seen a slight
impact with a StairCase procedure for small samples.
Moreover, on the standard deviation estimates, as the
Locati results observation, we still notice the same
underestimation no matter the first stress level.
Step stress effect
As the Locati results we can see that the step stress size
has no impact at all, either on the mean or the standard

calc
d value
Fd
0
value

Fd
0
value

calc
d value

deviation estimations, contrary to the StairCase estimations.
Here, the underestimation on the standard deviation is the
same regardless of the step size.
7 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
The StairCase-Locati and the Locati methods are found to
be insensitive to the first stress level and the step stress: thus
they seem to be more robust than the StairCase.
The PSA testing methods choice seems to be justified by
this analysis:













Figure 11: Mean (left) and standard deviation (right)
distributions result with the 3 PSA methods for small
sample sizes
In fact the mean and standard deviation calculations by a
StairCase and a StairCase-Locati respectively, give good
estimation results with small samples (e.g. 7 sample size).
To conclude on the quality of estimation with a StairCase-
Locati and Locati testing procedures, a complementary
analysis is expected to further evaluate the Basquin parameter.
Moreover, further work should be done in order to assess
Accelerated Life Tests quality of estimation. A cost function
based on the number of specimens and the number of cycles
required will help to evaluate the most efficient testing
method.
REFERENCES
1. A. Bignonnet, Dimensionnement en fatigue et
conception dans lautomobile , PSA PEUGEOT
CITROEN, internal document, 1999.
2. J.J. Thomas, A. Bignonnet Conception et fiabilit dans
lindustrie automobile , Congrs Franais de Mcanique,
2001.
3. M. Lemaire, Approche probabiliste du
dimensionnement - Modlisation de lincertitude et
mthodes dapproximation , Techniques de lIngnieur,
2008.
4. M. Lemaire, Structural Reliability , ISTE/Wiley, 2009
5. B. Dodson H. Schwab, Accelerated Testing, a
Practitioners Guide to Accelerated and Reliability
Testing , SAE International, 2006.
6. W.J. Dixon, A.M. Mood, A method for obtaining and
analyzing sensitivity data , Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 43 (1948), 109.
7. Y.Z. Zhao, B.Yang, Probabilistic measurements of the
fatigue limit data from a small sampling up-and-down test
method , International Journal of Fatigue 30 (2008),
2094-2103.
8. S.K. Lin, Y.L. Lee, M.W. Lu, Evaluation of the
staircase and the accelerated test methods for fatigue limit
distributions , International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001),
75 - 83.
9. B. V. Boitsov and E. P. Obolenskii, Accelerated tests of
determining the endurance limit as an efficient method of
evaluating the accepted design and technological
solutions in Strength of Materials volume 15, 1983.
10. Lalanne C. Vibrations et chocs mcaniques, Tome 4 :
Dommage par fatigue . Hermes Science Publications,
Paris, 1999.
BIOGRAPHIES
Pauline BEAUMONT, PhD Student in PSA PEUGEOT
CITROEN & LASQUO Laboratory
VVA CC138
Route de Gisy
78140 Vlizy-Villacoublay, FRANCE
e-mail: pauline.beaumont@mpsa.com
Fabrice GUERIN, Ph. D, HdR
I.S.T.I.A - Quality and Reliability department
62 av Notre-Dame du Lac
49000 Angers, FRANCE
e-mail: fabrice.guerin@univ-angers.fr
Pascal LANTIERI, Associate professor, ENSAM ParisTech
2 bd du Ronceray
49100 Angers, FRANCE
e-mail: Pascal.Lantieri@ensam.eu
Matteo L. FACCHINETTI, Guy MARTIN BORRET, PhD
Engineers in Mechanics, PSA PEUGEOT CITROEN
VVA CC138
Route de Gisy
78140 Vlizy-Villacoublay, FRANCE
e-mail: matteoluca.facchinetti@mpsa.com

Standard deviation mean
SC
Locati
SC-Locati