Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Bayesian-Informed Fatigue Life Prediction for Shallow Shell Structures Cover

Bayesian-Informed Fatigue Life Prediction for Shallow Shell Structures

Open Access
|Jul 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Graphical illustration of the EIFS concept as an model calibration parameter compared to the physical parameter IFS (Sankararaman et al., 2011).
Graphical illustration of the EIFS concept as an model calibration parameter compared to the physical parameter IFS (Sankararaman et al., 2011).

Figure 2.

a) The geometry of the shallow shell fuselage window structure. b) FEA results indicating the stress concentration location with ϕ = 29.24°.
a) The geometry of the shallow shell fuselage window structure. b) FEA results indicating the stress concentration location with ϕ = 29.24°.

Figure 3.

BEM mesh of the structure: a) coarse mesh used in the low-fidelity model; b) fine mesh used in the high-fidelity model. The DRM points are indicated by red crosses; c) detailed view of the crack tip region for both meshes, along with the definition of the crack initiation angle α.
BEM mesh of the structure: a) coarse mesh used in the low-fidelity model; b) fine mesh used in the high-fidelity model. The DRM points are indicated by red crosses; c) detailed view of the crack tip region for both meshes, along with the definition of the crack initiation angle α.

Figure 4.

Prediction errors of the Co-Kriging model compared to the true values generated from DBEM for a) Keff and b) N.
Prediction errors of the Co-Kriging model compared to the true values generated from DBEM for a) Keff and b) N.

Figure 5.

a) Schematic of the adaptive grid sampling strategy, showing the progressive subdivision of the trial space into regions with higher posterior probability; b) Comparison of the inferred EIFSD at the end of each refinement step.
a) Schematic of the adaptive grid sampling strategy, showing the progressive subdivision of the trial space into regions with higher posterior probability; b) Comparison of the inferred EIFSD at the end of each refinement step.

Figure 6.

Convergence of the EIFSD mean and standard deviation from Bayesian inference with different ntrial of the trial space.
Convergence of the EIFSD mean and standard deviation from Bayesian inference with different ntrial of the trial space.

Model errors of the Co-Kriging predictions for Keff and N, compared to the test dataset_

ModelRRSE (%)MAPE (%)MAERMSER2
Keff4.6130.6210.0511MPam 0.0511{\rm{MPa}}\sqrt m 0.065MPam0.065{\rm{MPa}}\sqrt m 0.998
N12.37678.0356.887×104 cycles1.112×105 cycles0.985

Convergence results of the inferred mean and standard deviation from Bayesian inference, along with the associated computational cost in terms of CPU time_

CPU time
Modelθμerror (%)θσerror (%)Bayesian (s)MCS (hrs)
True EIFSD8.470×0.424××
ntrial = 308.5520.9680.50318.97.881.15
ntrial = 608.4400.3540.4064.0279.464.59
Adaptive (27 steps)8.4650.0590.4015.2075.122.21

Details of the shell structure parameters and the random variables used in the EIFS inference_

ParameterDescriptionDistributionMeanCOV
W2Inner widthLognormal0.468 m0.01
L2Inner lengthLognormal0.273 m0.01
R2Inner radiusLognormal0.127 m0.01
hThicknessLognormal0.01 m0.01
RKRadius of curvatureLognormal2.73 m0.01
αCrack initiation angleLognormal29.24°0.05
PDomain pressureLognormal7.1 Psi0.04
CParis law constantLognormal1.60×10(11)(m/cycle)(MPam)m1.60 \times {10^{( - 11)}}{{({\rm{m}}/{\rm{ cycle }})} \over {{{\left( {{\rm{MPa}}\sqrt m } \right)}^m}}}0.1
mParis law exponentLognormal3.590
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fas-2024-0001 | Journal eISSN: 2300-7591 | Journal ISSN: 2081-7738
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 15
Published on: Jul 7, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2025 Mengke Zhuang, Nicolas O. Larrosa, Julian D. Booker, Christopher E. Truman, published by ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.