Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
700658
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Dept., The University of Arizona
THE DESIGN QF MECHANICAL COMPONENTS subjected to
fatigue has traditionally utilized the technique
of applying safety factors to strength values
obtained from handbooks or S-N diagrams in order
to establish a design point such as cycles of
life or level of operating stress. However,
safety factors and point estimates of such values
do not adequately account for the variability of
the many parameters involved in the actual design
[1].* This approach is most unsatisfactory in a
situation requiring a component to have a predic
table finite life, as well as the optimization of
weight, size, and cost at a specified reliability.
In particular, when components are subjected to
fatigue under alternating loads, a constant
strength cannot be assumed. Instead, there is
a unique component strength distribution associa
ted with the required cycles of life [2].
Statistical techniques may be used for ana
lyzing components displaying variability in their
design parameters and for predicting their relia
bility [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. By so doing,
the actual variability of the parameters that
control failures are taken into account with
their true effects considered in determining
reliability.
*Numbers in brackets designate References
at end of paper.
ABSTRACT
A method for determining fatigue strength
distributions at specific cycles of finite life,
given cycles-to-failure data, is presented and
applied to steel and aluminum wire fatigue data.
Methods for calculating the reliability designed
659
Distributions of Strength in
Simple Fatigue and
The Associated Reliabilities
Dimitri B. Kececioglu
Richard E. Smith
Sandia Laboratories
Ernest A. Feisted
Rock Island Arsenal, U. S. Army Weapons Command
At least two design approaches of determin
ing the reliability of components subjected to
fatigue are available. First, if tbe operating
stress level is well fixed with no significant
variability of stress, then cycles-to-failure
distributions are needed to determine the compo
nent's reliability for a specified cycles of life,
as shown in Fig. 1. Second, if there is a vari
ability in the operating stress level, then
strength distributions in terms of stress levels
to failure at specific cycles of life are needed
to determine the component's reliability, as also
shown in Fig. 1. This paper will cover the lat
ter case, while a previous paper has covered
the former [4] , and will illustrate the deter
mination of the reliability of a component to be
designed to a specified reliability for a de
sired cycles of life when the level of the maxi
mum alternating operating stress is kept
essentially constant or has a normal or a Weibull
distribution.
Fatigue strength traditionally has been
summarized and presented graphically as an S-N
diagram. The general technique used in obtain
ing strength versus cycles-to-failure data is
to test a few specimens to failure at incremen
tal stress levels, determine the average cycles
to-failure for each stress level, and then to
plot the log of the average cycles-to-failure
versus the log of stress at failure, or strength,
into a part for a specified cycle of finite life
are given and are illustrated for the cases when
the level of the maximum alternating operating
stress is kept essentially constant, or has a
normal or a Weibull distribution.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
as shown in Fig. 2. A more realistic and
reliability-wise useful representation of design
data far fatigue is the distributions of cycles-
to-failure at various alternating stress levels,
as shown in Fig. 3 [5]. Previous work has pre-
sented methods for determining these distribu-
tions and using them to calculate or predict
reliability when components are subjected to
reversed bending, and the maximum operating
Stress level in reversed bending is constant
[2, 4 ] . The variability in the cycles-to-failure
at a given stress level, illustrated in Fig. 1,
can be attributed primarily to the randomness
of the process of crack initiation and propaga-
tion leading to the failure of each component.
It would be desirable to be able to deter-
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, et al.
mine the needed strength distributions at specific
cycles of life, as shown in Fig. 1, by testing
at different maximum alternating stress levels
is such a manner that components would operate
for the specified number of cycles and fail im-
mediately thereafter. One way to obtain such
data is to employ the "staircase method" of test-
ing [11]. However, this requires an a priori
knowledge of the lower tail of the strength dis-
tribution, and this knowledge is usually not
available. Furthermore, the "staircase method"
does not provide the data required to establish
cycles-to-failure distributions, which can be
used to advantage to calculate reliability for
the cases presented in the prior paper [4]. A
different method is presented in this paper,
whereby the data necessary to develop the cycles-
to-failure distributions are generated first,
and these distributions are subsequently conver-
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
Distributions of Strength
ted to stress-to-failure or strength distribu-
tions at specific cycles of life.
METHOD OF DETERMINING STRENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS
Once the cycles-to-failure distributions
are generated as described in the previous paper
[4], distributions at a specific cycles of life
may be determined using a method somewhat simi-
lar to the "probit analysis" of Finney [11]. In
essence, the stress versus cycles-to-failure
graph when analyzed at a specified number of
cycles, N, gives a series of cumulative failure
distributions for each stress level tested, as
shown in Fig. 4. The cumulative failure dis-
tribution function is given by
where f.(N) fj the cycles-to-failure distribution
at the Jj-th stress level, and F.(N) is the cumu-
lative failure probability up to a life of N
cycles for the j-th stress level. Note that Eg.
(1) is truncated at zero for the lower limit be-
cause it is impossible to have negative cycles
of operation. When the cycles-to-failure distri-
butions are known for a sufficient range of
stresses, a cumulative failure probability range
from zero to 100 percent can be obtained for
each stress level as indicated in Fig. 4 [2].
The cumulative failure probability at speci-
fic cycles of life and stress level gives the
proportion of specimens that will fail with a
strength equal to or less than the specific stress
level. This condition is true for all stress
levels; and if, for specific cycles of life, a
plot is made of the cumulative failure probabi-
lity versus stress level, a cumulative histogram
is obtained as shown in Fig. 9. From this a
strength frequency histogram can be calculated.
661
The strength frequency histogram ordinate at the
j-th stress level and at the specific, N, cycles
of life is given by
where F (N) and F . (N) are calculated using Eq. (1)
Once the strength frequency histogram is
obtained, standard statistical techniques can be
used to fit the appropriate distribution to it
and determine its parameters thus obtaining a
strength distribution at specific cycles of life.
To obtain an accurate strength distribution,
an adequate number and a sufficient range of
stress levels are required so that the complete
strength frequency histogram range is covered.
Also, there must be a sufficient number of speci-
mens tested to determine the cycles-to-failure
distributions adequately at each stress level.
All specimens should come from the same population
thus exhibiting similar characteristics. Cycles-
to-failure distributions are usually obtained for
approximately 5 to 8 stress levels for the com-
plete strength range of the specimens, with over
30 specimens tested at each stress level. How-
ever , this would result in a strength histogram
from which only gross indications of the actual
strength distributions could be obtained. To
rectify this problem, additional cycles-to-
failure distributions must be determined, by
interpolation and extrapolation, for stresses
between and outside of the stress levels tested.
A convenient method of obtaining the strength
histograms and distributions for a complete range
of cycles of life is to employ a suitable digital
computer program. A computer program can be PRE
pared that will use the cycles-to-failure distri-
butions of the test data and synthesize, by
interpolation and extrapolation, the additional
distributions. From this expanded cycles-to-
failure data, an array of strength cumulative
probability graphs for various stresses versus
specific cycles of life can be determined using
Eq. (1), and the strength frequency histogram and
polygon can be obtained using Eq. (2).
The computer program may also include the
calculation of the parameters of the strength
distribution, such as the coefficients of skew-
ness and kurtosis, and the Chi-squared goodness
of fit. The computer program may be made suf-
ficiently general so that the strength distribu-
tions at various specific cycles of life may be
determined.
The procedure is best suited for fatigue
data generated at stress levels which are signi-
ficantly above the endurance strength of the
components tested: in other words, for fatigue
data in the portion of the S-N diagram to the
left of the knee, as shown in Fig. 1. For the
strength distributions for specific cycles of
life to the right of the knee, one of the better
fatigue testing methods to use is the "staircase
method" [12, 13]. The data and methods presented
here are for the portion of the S-N diagram to
the left of the knee.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
662
FATIGUE DATA USED
The fatigue data used in this paper and pre-
sented in Tables 1 and 2 were obtained by Corten
and reported previously [14, 15, 16]. They were
also described and analyzed in a previous paper
[4]. The data are for steel and aluminum ro-
tating wire specimens subjected to essentially
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, et al.
pure, reversed bending. The characteristics of
these specimens are given in Table 3.
The test setup used is shown schematically
in Fig. 5. The results were statistically ana-
lyzed [4], and it was concluded that the cycles-
to-failure data at each stress level, for stresses
significantly above the endurance strength, were
best represented by the lognormal distribution.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
Distributions of Strength
Consequently, in this paper, it is assumed that
all of the cycles-to-failure data for each stress
level are lognormally distributed and the method
described previously will be used to determine
the strength distributions at specific cycles of
life, for life to the left of the knee.
DETERMINATION OF STRENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS FROM
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The lognormal cycles-to-failure distribution
data given in Tables 1 and 2 were used in conjunc
tion with an IBM 7072 digital computer Fortran
program to calculate the strength distributions
for a series of cycles of life [2, 17].
The main steps of the program are as fol
lows:
(a)Read into the computer the cycles-to
failure distribution parameters of Tables 1 and
2.
(b)Calculate additional cycles-to-failure
distribution parameters at stress increments of
200 psi by straight-line interpolation between
the values given in Tables 1 and 2.
(c)Calculate the cumulative strength pro
663
bability for each stress level for a series of
log cycles of life.
(d)Calculate the strength frequency histo
grams for each specific cycle of life.
(e)Calculate the strength distribution
parameters for a normal and lognormal distribution
fit. The parameters are the mean, the standard
deviation, and the coefficients of skewness and
kurtosis. Also calculate the Chi-squared good
ness-of-fit values.
(f) Print out all data including the
strength histograms, the strength distribution
parameters for each specific cycles of life, and
the Chi-squared goodness-of-fit values.
The cumulative strength probability graphs
and some of the strength frequency histograms
determined in this manner, for the steel and
aluminum specimens, are given in Figs. 6 and 7,
respectively. The points drawn are for the
stress levels at which there were cycles-to
failure data. This was necessary for the Chi
squared goodness-of-fit test discussed later in
this paper.
The strength distribution parameters so ob
tained for normal and lognormal strength distri
bution fits for the steel specimens are given
in Tables 4 and 5. Similar data for aluminum
specimens are given in Tables 6 and 7. Each
table lists the log10 cycles of life value for
the particular strength distribution under con
sideration, the strength distribution mean and
standard deviation assuming a normal and a log
normal distribution fit, the corresponding
coefficients of skewness and kurtosis, and the
Chi-squared goodness-of-fit values.
It is apparent that as the life of the speci
mens increases, the mean strength decreases, while
the standard deviation appears to increase slight
ly for the steel specimens and significantly for
the aluminum specimens.
Tables 4 and 5, for steel specimens, show
that the coefficient of skewness is generally
negative for most of the strength distributions
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
664
thus indicating that a normal distribution fit is
superior to the lognormal. On the basis of co-
efficient of skewness values, the normal distri-
bution is better than the lognormal for 17 out
of 20 strength distributions. The coefficient of
kurtosis indicates that most of the strength
distributions are near normal with the values
fluctuating around 3.0. On the basis of kur-
tosis, the normal distribution is a better fit
to the strength data for 12 out of 20 strength
distributions.
Chi-squared goodnees-of-fit values were cal-
culated for a comparison of the observed to the
expected frequencies of the strength histogram
where actual data contributed to the strength
distribution. The points plotted in Fig. 6 are
for the tested stress levels which did contri-
bute to the Chi-squared values. The Chi-squared
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, et al.
values show that for the steel specimens the
normal distribution fits the data better than
the lognormal for 14 out of 20 cases.
A similar analysis of the data in Tables 6
and 7, for the aluminim specimens, indicates that
the normal distribution fits the strength data
better than the lognormal distribution in the
majority of the cases. The coefficient of skew-
ness and the coefficient of kurtosis favored the
normal distribution 30 and 31 times, respectively,
out of 43 cases while the Chi-squared goodneess
of-fit value favored the normal distribution 24
out of 43 cases, with the values being identical
for both distributions in 8 cases.
From the previous discussion, it may be seen
that the normal distribution fit to the strength
data was superior to the lognormal for both the
steel and the aluminum specimens. Consequently,
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

Distributions O T oTrenciTn ooo

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
666
only the normal strength distribution data has
been used in this paper for further analysis
and reliability calculations.
The mean strength as well as the plus and
minus 3 standard deviation envelopes of the
strength are plotted versus log10 cycles in
Figs. 8 and 9, for steel and aluminum specimens,
respectively. Reference to these figures indi
cates that the mean strength decreases uniformly
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, et al.
with increasing cycles of life, as expected.
The plus and minus 3 standard deviation enve
lopes increase slightly for the steel specimens
as the cycles of life increase, and significantly
more for the aluminum specimens.
The strength distribution data given in
Tables 4 and 6 can now be used for the reliability
predictions once the distribution of the stress
to which a component is subject is known.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
Distributions of Strengtt
DETERMINATION OF RELIABILITY OF COMPONENTS
SUBJECTED TO FATIGUE LOADS INDUCING COMPLETELY
REVERSED BENDING STRESS
For a mechanical component, reliability is de-
fined as the probability that its strength is
greater than its applied stress [1], or
bb/
Since the specimens analyzed in this paper have
a normal strength distribution whose parameters
vary with cycles of life as shown in Tables 4 and
6, the determination of the reliability of com-
ponents subjected to completely reversed bending
will be given for the following three cases:
(a) constant maximum operating stress level,
s1, in reversed bending;
(b) A variable operating maximum stress
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

668 Dimitri B. Kececioglu, et al.

level which can be represented by a normal dis-

tribution, f N (s);
(c) A variable operating maximum stress
level which can be represented by a Weibull dis-
tribution, f (a).
Case (a) - Figure 10 illustrates the case
where strength is distributed normally and the
operating stress is constant at s1 . Referring
to Fig. 10 and Eq. (3), it may be seen that the
reliability, R, is given by the area under the
normal strength probability density function
from s1 to -H=°, or

Since f(S) is normal, Eq. (4) may be evaluated

from

where <j>(z) is the standardized normal probability

density function, and
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
Distributions of Strength
The reliability is then the percentage of the
area under the standardized normal distribution
from z1 to ∞ and can be found from arma tables
of the standardized normal distribution.
Case (b) - Figure 11 illustrates the case
where the strength and the maximum value of the
operating stress are distributed normally. The
operating stress distribution is assumed not
to change significantly with time, i.e. , the
f (s) at about N 2 « N 1 and the f(s) at about N
are essentially the same distributions. The solu­
tion also assumes that the strength distribution
at N reflects the results of a stress-to-failure
history up to N identical to that represented
by f(s) up to N . Methods for calculating relia­
bilities with other stress histories, such as
with cumulative damage and various stress inter­
actions are under investigation.
Referring to Fig. 11, it may bE seen that
there is a cross-hatched area in the overlapping
region of the two distributions which gives the
unreliability, Q(N ) , and the reliability R(N )
is then given by
Analytically, when the stress and strength dis­
tributions are both normally distributed, the
reliability is given by [1]
669
Using Eq. (8), the reliability is obtained from
the standardized normal distribution area tables
as the area from z1 to ∞ .
It may be seen that with Eq. (8), to deter­
mine the reliability it is only necessary to know
the means and standard deviations of the normal
strength and stress distributions.
Case (c) - Figure 12 illustrates the case
where the strength is normally distributed, and
the maximum value of the operating stress is
Weibull distributed. The stress-to-failure his­
tory described in Case (b) and the limitations
thereupon apply to this case also. The Weibull
distribution has been chosen because it is a
popular and a very versatile distribution. The
prevailing loading situation and the findings of
regression analyses should dictate the selection
of the appropriate distribution to be used. Re­
ferring to Fig. 12, it may be seen that there is
an area in the region of overlap of the two dis­
tributions which is equal to the unreliability,
Q(N ) . The reliability, R(N ) is given by
1 - Q(N ) . When f(S) and f(s) are not both nor­
mally distributed, the reliability may be obtained
from the following reliability equation [1]:
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
670
where fw(s) is the Weibull stress distribution,
W
f (S) is the normal strength distribution, and
Y is the location parameter of the Weibull dis-
tribution.
Equation (9) can be evaluated using the
following Mellin transforms [1]:
The Mellin transform method of evaluating
Eq. (9) is a general one, and can be used with
all combinations of F(s) and fbS), provided
Eqs. (10) and (11) can be evaluated.
Figure 13 shows a plot of F versus G, as
evaluated from Eqs. (10) and (11). The relia-
bility is the cross-hatched area under the curve.
Since fw(s) , in this case, is a Weibull
distribution, a brief discussion of it follows:
The probability density function of the
Weibull distribution is given by
Dimitri B. Kececioglu,etal.
The cumulative Weibull distribution is given
by
The evaluation of F in Eq. (11. may then be
obtained from Eq. (15) also.
The evaluation of G in Eq. (10) would in-
volve looking up values in the area tables of the
standardized normal distribution.
CALCULATION OF RELIABILITY
Illustrative reliability design problems
for the three cases discussed previously are
given neat.
Case (a) - A steel shaft, similar to those
for which the data presented in this paper were
generated, is required to operate at a constant
maximum reversed bending stress of 76,000 psi
for 100,000 cycles. What is its reliability, R?
Case (b) - An aluminum spindle is expected
to operate for 446,700 cycles (log10 446,700 =
5.65). The maximum reversed banding stress is
normally distributed with a mean of 23,000 psi
and a standard deviation of 1,000 psi. What is
its reliability, R?
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018

Distributions of Strength 671

and then the values of G are plotted versus the

values of F, as shown in Fig. 13. The cross
hatched area under the curve represents the
reliability of the shaft, which in this case is
0.992. For a more exact answer, numerical tech
niques may be used in conjunction with a digital
computer (1) .
Sample calculations for row 2 of Table 8 are
Case (c) - A steel shaft is expected to as follows:
operate for 100,000 cycles (log 100,000 = 5.00).
At that number of cycles, its strength is distri
buted normally with S = 79,170.6 psi, and ss =
2,008.3 psi, from Table 4. It is operating in a
stress environment which may be represented by
the Weibull distribution. The minimum value of
the expected reversed bending stress is 70,000
psi, or Y = 70,000 psi. The shape parameter,
ß, of the distribution is 2, and the scale para
meter, ?, is 2,000. What is the shaft's
reliability, R?
The Mellin transform is used to evaluate
Eq. (9) . The equations which must be evaluated
first are

A table, such as Table 8, is constructed by list

ing values of stress in 1,000 psi increments CONCLUSION
beginning with the minimum expected reversed
bending stress value, or 70,000 psi. The values This paper demonstrates that the designer
of G and F are determined for each stress listed. can design specified reliabilities into compo
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Birmingham, Monday, August 20, 2018
672
nents subjected to pure reversed bending fatigue
loading in an environment of either constant
stress or varying stress. It must be pointed
out, however, that this is made possible only
by the generation of statistical data which may
be reduced into strength distributions for vari-
ous cycles of life of the nature given in Tables
4 and 6 and in Figs. 8 and 9, by determining the
applied stress distribution, and by properly using
this data as illustrated by the three cases pre-
sented here to determine the associated relia-
bilities.
Design data of the nature presented in Fig.
2 do not permit the determination of component
reliability, hence, are inadequate to meet today's
needs of designing specified reliabilities into
components. Why design a specified reliability?
Because reliability is the best quantitative
measure of the performance integrity of the de-
signed component. Reliability tells us quanti-
tatively how good or how bad the design is.
Furthermore, the designer may so choose the
material, the stress distribution, and the life
of the component in terms of cycles of operation,
that he can attain the specified reliability.
Through these approaches the designer knows how
much to vary the mean strength and stress, the
variability in stress and strength, or the num-
ber of cycles of operating life to achieve the
required reliability. He can also evaluate the
resulting cost, weight, and other design para-
meters to determine which combinations are op-
timum for a specified reliability.
In closing, it is urged that more design
data of the type presented in this paper be gene-
rated, reduced, and published for the benefit of
reliability engineers and designers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their apprecia-
tion to Dr. H. T. Corten, Professor of Theoretical
and Applied Mechanics, College of Engineering,
University of Illinois, who conducted the com-
prehensive research which resulted in a large
body of aluminum and steel fatigue failure data,
and who generously furnished this data for the
reliability study presented in this paper.
REFERENCES
1. D. Kececioglu and D. Cormier, "Designing
a Specified Reliability into a Component." Pro-
ceedings of SAE-ASME-AIAA Aerospace Reliability
and Maintainability Conference, June, 1964, p. 546i
2. R. E. Smith, "Time Dependent Reliability
of Components Subjected to Simple Fatigue."
Thesis, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.,
1965, 150 pp.
3. M. J. Bratt, G. Reethof, and G. W. Weber,
"A Model for Time Varying and Interfering Stress-
Strength Probability Density Distributions with
Dimitri B. Kececioglu, et al.
Consideration for Failure Incidence and Property
Degradation." Proceedings of SAE-ASME-AIAA Aero-
space Reliability and Maintainability Conference,
June, 1964, p. 566.
4. D. Kececioglu, R. E. Smith, E. A. Felsted,
"Distributions of Cycles-to-Failure in Simple
Fatigue and the Associated Reliabilities." 1969
Annals of Assurance Sciences, Eighth Reliability
and Maintainability Conference, Denver, Colo.,
7-9 July 1969, p.357.
5. D. Kececioglu, M. J. Saroni, H. Broome,
and F. McConnell, "Design, Development, and
Results from Combined Bending-Torsion Fatigue
Reliability Research Machines." Report to NAAA
under grant NGR-03-002-044, July 15, 1969, 57 pp.
6. C. Lipson, N. J. Sheth, and R. L. Disney,
"Reliability Prediction - Mechanical Stress/
strength Interference." Technical Report No.
RADC-TR-66-710 to Rome Air Development Center,
N. Y., March, 1967, 450 pp.
7. J. H. Bompas-Smith, "The Determination
of Distributions that Describe the Failures of
Mechanical Components." New York: Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers, 1969. pp. 343-356.
8. A. M. Freudenthal, "Planning and Inter-
pretation of Fatigue Tests." ASTM, Special
Technical Publication No. 121, Philadelphia, Pa.,
1952, 10 pp.
9. D. Kececioglu and E. B. Haugen, "Inter-
action among the Various Phenomena Involved in
the design of Dynamic and Rotary Machinery and
Their Effects on Reliability." First Technical
Report to Office of Naval Research on contract
N00014-67-A-0209-002, 1968, 379 pp.
10. D. Kececioglu and E. B. Haugen, "Inter-
action among the Various Phenomena Involved in
the Design of Dynamic and Rotary Machinery and
Their Effects on Reliability." Second Technical
Report to Office of Naval Research on contract
N00014-67-A-0209-002, 1969, 241 pp.
11. D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis; A Statis-
tical Treatment of theSigmond Response Curve."
Cambridge University Press, 1947, 318 pp.
12. "Symposium of Statistical Aspects of
Fatigue." ASTM, Special Technical Publication
No. 121, Philadelphia, Pa., 1952., 64 pp.
13. W. J. Dixon, and A. M. Mood, "A Method
for Obtaining and Analyzing Sensitivity Data."
Journal of the American Statistical Association,
Vol. 43, pp. 109-126, 19483, pp. 109-126.
14. H. T. Corten and G. M. Sinclair, "A
Wire Fatigue Machine for Investigation of the
Influence of Complex Stress Histories." ASTM
Proceedings, Vol. 56, 1956, pp. 1124-1137.
15. H. W. Liu and H. T. Corten, "Fatigue
Damage under Varying Stress Amplitudes." NASA
Technical Note D-657, November, 1960, 68 pp.
16. H. W. Liu and H. T. Corten, "Fatigue
Damage during Complex Histories." NASA Tech-
nical Note D-256, Novembe,, 1959, 56 pp.
17. D. D. M. McCracken and W. S. Dorn,
"Numeeical Methods and Fortran Programming."
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964,
457 pp.