Damage tolerance — where it appears
Named by 3 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Designed to be found in time
A fatigue design that promises a detail will not crack is making a claim about a hundred years of traffic. A damage-tolerant one assumes it will crack, and sets the inspection interval from how long a crack takes to grow from the smallest size anybody can find to the largest the section can survive.
The loops a crack grows on
A Miner sum reduces a hundred years of traffic to a number and throws away everything below the cut-off — on this bridge, a third of the vehicles doing exactly none of the damage. Integrate the same spectrum as a crack instead and that third grows thirty-seven per cent of the crack, because a cut-off is a statement about a constant-amplitude test and a crack's threshold is a length rather than a stress. The two calculations disagree about the life by a third and about which vehicles matter entirely.
The rule that points sideways
Every fatigue code puts the same detail in a thicker plate into a lower category, by a factor of (25/t) to the power 0.2, and explains nothing. It is a strange rule: a detail's strength made to depend on a dimension at right angles to the crack. Integrate a crack through a weld toe's own stress field and the rule falls out — same form, same sign, and an exponent of 0.13 against the design code's 0.2. Remove the toe's magnification and the effect reverses.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Crack growthFatigueStress intensityDetail categoryInspectionSpectrumConstraintCut-off limitFractureFracture toughnessFree bodyMiners rule