Summary Fatigue Test Report

OB_TG1_R026 rev. 0

B
MAT LAD
I
T

ES

OP

Confidential

TG 1
Olaf Krause
Christoph Kensche

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 2 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Change record
Issue/revision

date

Pages

Summary of changes

01.04.06

All

New document

OPTIMAT BLADES

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 3 of 38
Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Table of contents
1
2
3
4
5

Introduction.........................................................................................................4
Materials ..............................................................................................................4
Laminates ............................................................................................................4
Specimens ...........................................................................................................5
Test program.......................................................................................................6
5.1
5.2
5.3

Test program ........................................................................................................... 6

Testing conditions.................................................................................................... 6
Testing procedures.................................................................................................. 6

Results achieved in Phase 1 ..............................................................................7

6.1
Constant amplitude testing ...................................................................................... 7
6.1.1
UD2, R=-1 ........................................................................................................ 7
6.1.2
MD2, R=-1........................................................................................................ 8
6.1.3
MD2, R=0.1...................................................................................................... 9
6.1.4
MD2, R=0.5.................................................................................................... 10
6.1.5
MD2, R=-0.4................................................................................................... 11
6.1.6
MD2, R=-2.5................................................................................................... 12
6.1.7
MD2, R=10..................................................................................................... 13
6.1.8
MD2, R=2....................................................................................................... 14
6.2
Variable amplitude testing ..................................................................................... 14
6.2.1
Simple block tests .......................................................................................... 14
6.2.2
Repeated block tests...................................................................................... 17
6.2.3
Load spectra tests .......................................................................................... 19

Results achieved in Phase 2 ............................................................................19

7.1
Constant amplitude testing .................................................................................... 19
7.1.1
MD4, R=0.1.................................................................................................... 19
7.2
Variable amplitude testing ..................................................................................... 20

Comparison of results......................................................................................21
8.1
Constant amplitude testing .................................................................................... 21
8.2
Variable amplitude testing ..................................................................................... 28
8.2.1
Simple block tests .......................................................................................... 28
8.2.2
Repeated block tests...................................................................................... 33
8.2.3
Load spectra tests .......................................................................................... 37

9 Summary and Conclusions..............................................................................37

10
References .....................................................................................................38

OPTIMAT BLADES

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 4 of 38
Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

1 Introduction
This report describes the extensive fatigue testing campaign accomplished at DLR laboratory
within Task Group 1 of the OPTIMAT BLADES project and illustrate its basic results. Fatigue testing had to be performed during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the 52-month project.
Testing in Phase I concentrated on detailed material characterization of a reference material
by establishment of several S-N curves using constant amplitude testing and the formulation
of a detailed Constant Life Diagram (CLD). For better understanding and improvement of
lifetime prediction methodologies the influence of alternating load sequences and load spectra were investigated by variable amplitude testing.
The shorter Phase 2 concentrated on constant amplitude testing of an alternative material to
investigate the effects on lifetime prediction.

2 Materials
Two reference materials of glass fiber reinforcement were supplied by LM Glasfiber A/S for
the project. The first one is a single-layer unidirectional material of non-woven glass rovings
from PPG with a minor amount of off-axis reinforcement. The second one is a biaxial material
made of non-woven glass rovings from PPG as well. The build-up consists of two layers arranged in +45 and -45 direction and stitched together with a polyester yarn.
These reference materials were used in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project. For infusion of
the reference material, in Phase 1 the epoxy resin Prime 20 with slow hardener from SP Systems was used and in Phase 2 the resin LM-E6. The laminates used in Phase 1 are mentioned as reference material, these in Phase 2 as alternative material.
Detailed information about the materials is given in [1].

3 Laminates
Two standard laminates, a unidirectional laminate (UD) and a multidirectional laminate (MD)
are basis of the experimental work in all Task Groups of the whole project.
The lay-up of the UD laminate consists of 4 layers of the UD reference material with laminae
thickness of 0.88 mm yielding to a total nominal thickness of 3.52 mm.
The lay-up of the MD laminate consists of 5 layers of the biaxial reference material (45)
inter-spaced with four layers UD. Thickness of the 45 -layers is 0.61 mm and for the UD
0.88 mm as before. Total nominal thickness of the MD laminate is 6.57 mm.
Laminates are fabricated by infusion of the dry laminate package with epoxy resin by vacuum
assisted resin transfer moulding. After initial curing at room temperature laminates are postcured at 80C for 4 hours.
In Phase 1 and Phase 2 the same lay-up was used for the laminates. The multidirectional
laminate used in Phase 1 is named MD2, these of Phase 2 MD4.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 5 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

4 Specimens
Two geometries are used in general for the standard Optimat specimen made of the two
laminates. The geometries for the standard UD specimen and the standard MD specimen
are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. The UD specimen is used for 0 and 90
lay-up as well.

25

55

35

55

145

Figure 1: Optimat Blade specimen (UD)

25

55

40

55

150

Figure 2: Optimat Blade specimen (MD)

The only difference between the two OPTIMAT standard specimens is the increased gauge
length for the MD material and the higher thickness of the laminate.
All experimental work described in this report was accomplished with the OPTIMAT standard
specimens.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 6 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

5 Test program
5.1

Test program

The test types used within the experimental work are given in this section. An overview of the
selected types of tests is given in Table 1. In the description for each of these tests the test
method, used laminate, and specific testing conditions are given. Fatigue testing at DLR
concentrated on the MD material. A detailed overview and explanation of the tests is given in
the detailed plans of action (DPA) for the two phases of the project ([2],[3]).

Types of tests
#

Test method

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Fatigue, T-T (R=0.1)

Fatigue, T-T (R=0.1)
Fatigue, T-T (R=0.5)
Fatigue, T-C (R=-0.4)
Fatigue, T-C (R=-1.0)
Fatigue, T-C (R=-1.0)
Fatigue, T-C (R=-2.5)
Fatigue, C-C (R=2.0)
Fatigue, C-C (R=10.0)
Fatigue, load spectra
Fatigue, block test

Geometry
(OB Definition)
MD2, MD4
R400
UD2
R300
MD2
R400
MD2
R400
MD2
R400
UD2
R300
MD2
R400
MD2
R400
MD2
R400
MD2
R400
MD2
R400
Laminate

Testing
condition
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry
RT, Dry

Table 1: Overview of test types

All test results were reported in the official database, OptiDat.

5.2

Testing conditions

All tests were accomplished under ambient conditions in a non-air-conditioned lab.

5.3

Testing procedures

Since several laboratories were involved in the experimental work of the project, the tests
had to be accomplished as comparable as possible. Therefore a set of testing specifications
([4], [5]) was established to avoid different test results due to a deviating accomplishment of
the tests.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 7 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

6 Results achieved in Phase 1

6.1

Constant amplitude testing

Constant amplitude testing within Phase 1 took much more time than expected. The reason
for that was the delayed start of the testing programme because some preliminary test programmes were necessary to fix the geometry of the specimen. Additionally much lower testing frequencies than foreseen could be used, because significant heating could be observed
during the first tests. For these reasons the testing programme could not be completely fulfilled.
79 valid results of 85 tested specimens could be reported with in total 94.655.717 load cycles
requiring 4950 hours of testing time.
The results of the constant amplitude tests are given in the following paragraphs. The detailed test results including the most important information are listed in the relevant tables. In
cases where no strain measurement was available, strain was calculated by the average
modulus obtained with the data of all static tests available in OptiDat. In these cases the
value is marked with *) and the values of the relevant average modulus given, 26.89 GPa
for tensile modulus and 27.80 GPa for compressive modulus. The data points and S-N
curves are shown in the corresponding figures. S-N curves were derived using two methods,
linear regression and the method of Sendeckyj, which is based on a two-parametric Weibull
distribution. Generally the statistical evaluation showed no significant differences comparing
these methods. The fatigue slopes are usually almost the same. Differences can be seen, if
only a small number of results was available and for load cycle numbers below 5.000 to
10.000. But there is no pure fatigue present at these high loads, so the difference in these
loading regimes is of less importance.

6.1.1 UD2, R=-1

The UD material was tested as a benchmark to compare the results obtained at these labs
which are focusing on testing of the UD material. 10 specimens were tested at R=-1 using
the same stress levels and testing frequencies which were used at the University of Patras
(UP) for establishment of the S-N curve.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

GEV206-R0300-0117
GEV206-R0300-0118
GEV206-R0300-0120
GEV206-R0300-0123
GEV206-R0300-0119
GEV206-R0300-0122
GEV206-R0300-0121
GEV206-R0300-0115
GEV206-R0300-0116
GEV206-R0300-0114

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

Load
[kN]
28.03
24.81
24.86
24.64
20.49
20.14
19.80
16.68
16.77
17.01

Stress
[MPa]
300.0
260.0
260.0
260.0
210.3
210.0
210.0
180.0
180.0
180.0

Table 2: Overview of test results UD R=-1

Strain
[%]
0.81
0.71
0.70
0.71
0.59
0.57
0.57
0.49
0.50
0.48

Cycles
6753
25565
40605
30712
135051
167968
214983
675361
658702
682835

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]
37.72
37.82
37.28
37.27
38.03
38.07
37.23
37.32
36.34
36.38
37.46
37.51
37.56
37.67
37.77
38.23
37.44
37.01
38.15
38.05

f
[Hz]
1.52
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.13
3.13
3.13
4.32
4.32
4.32

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 8 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve UD-Data
R=-1
1000
900
800

Applied Stress [MPa]

700
600
500
400
300
200
Test Results
Mean ValueSendeckyj

100

Mean Value Linear regression

0
0

Log N

Figure 3: UD2 R=-1

6.1.2 MD2, R=-1

At R=-1 in total 18 specimens of the MD material were tested with 15 valid results. The results showed very low scatter. The testing frequencies had to be chosen very low to avoid
overheating of the specimens. Nevertheless, temperatures up to 40C could be measured on
the surface of the specimen. Some specimens showed a slightly buckling behavior. In almost
any case failure occurred due to tensile loading of the specimen.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

GEV207_R0400_0708
GEV207_R0400_0129

-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1

GEV207_R0400_0124
GEV207_R0400_0120
GEV207_R0400_0118
GEV207_R0400_0117
GEV207_R0400_0116
GEV207_R0400_0115
GEV207_R0400_0114
GEV207_R0400_0113
GEV207_R0400_0112
GEV207_R0400_0111
GEV207_R0400_0110
GEV207_R0400_0109
GEV207_R0400_0108

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

17.32
31.20

103.77
184.98

0.39 *)
0.72

596635
48942

26.8926.78

27.80
26.18

4.39
1.37

42.81
31.32
33.47
42.32

250.01
185.03
200.00
250.01

1.02
0.70
0.78
1.01

1534
59468
16291
2608

26.03
27.37
27.02
26.00

24.99
26.77
26.37
25.09

0.75
1.37
1.17
0.75

31.44
21.00
28.98
22.42

184.98
124.39
175.00
134.99

0.75
0.48
0.66
0.52

57038
2098460
109901
735186

25.80
26.82
27.67
26.90

25.02
26.46
26.98
26.46

1.37
3.00
1.53
2.57

22.25
25.22
41.59
37.54
22.70

134.99
150.00
250.03
224.98
134.98

0.49
0.57
1.01
0.90
0.52

655532
481189
2074
8234
637851

28.28
27.32
25.97
26.36
26.60

27.90
26.83
25.13
25.48
26.15

2.57
2.08
0.75
0.93
2.57

Table 3: Overview of test results MD2 R=-1

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]

f
[Hz]

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 9 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=-1
700

600

Applied Stress [MPa]

500

400

300

200

Test Results

100

Mean ValueSendeckyj
Mean Value Linear regression
0
0

Log N

Figure 4: MD2 R=-1

6.1.3 MD2, R=0.1

At R=0.1 in total 16 specimens of the MD material were tested with 15 valid results. The results showed very low scatter. For all specimens failure was initiated by the debonding of the
tabs and fracture occurred in or nearby the load introduction. This is an obvious evidence
that the design of the specimen is not able to avoid significant stress concentration.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

E_tens
[GPa]

f
[Hz]

GEV207_R0400_0541
GEV207_R0400_0123
GEV207_R0400_0294
GEV207_R0400_0130
GEV207_R0400_0119
GEV207_R0400_0126
GEV207_R0400_0296
GEV207_R0400_0121
GEV207_R0400_0133
GEV207_R0400_0127
GEV207_R0400_0125
GEV207_R0400_0132
GEV207_R0400_0293
GEV207_R0400_0295
GEV207_R0400_0128

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

55.97
27.22
32.84
32.74
32.85
42.48
43.86
43.80
43.91
50.72
62.76
66.56
65.86
65.52
68.29

343.06
159.99
194.98
195.00
195.27
249.98
259.97
259.99
260.02
299.99
375.02
389.99
390.00
390.02
400.00

1.28 *)
0.63
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.03
1.20
1.52
1.62
1.55
1.56
1.64

3058
5167411
1023212
1550777
1529500
72213
42577
57647
71242
13591
1548
1177
1028
995
771

26.89
28.80
27.50
28.07
27.87
27.20
27.24
27.06
27.49
27.19
27.43
27.36
28.49
27.32
27.21

2.11
9.04
6.10
6.10
6.10
3.70
3.42
3.42
3.42
2.57
1.65
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.45

Table 4: Overview of test results MD2 R=0.1

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 10 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=0.1
900

800

700

Applied Stress [MPa]

600

500

400

300

200
Test Results
Mean ValueSendeckyj

100

Mean Value Linear regression

0
0

Log N

Figure 5: MD2 R=0.1

6.1.4 MD2, R=0.5

At R=0.5 in total 8 specimens of the MD material were tested with 8 valid results. The results
showed noticeable scatter. This could possibly explained by the fact, that the specimens
were cut from different plates. The specimens of one of these plates (87) showed also poor
behavior in other tests. Failure was randomly distributed in the tab area and the gauge area.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

E_tens
[GPa]

f
[Hz]

GEV207_R0400_0741
GEV207_R0400_0539
GEV207_R0400_0538

0.1
0.1
0.1

35.10
45.05
44.87

213.58
276.58
274.42

0.79
1.03
1.02

13287026
72890
82582

26.89
26.89
26.89

7.50
3.35
3.35

GEV207_R0400_0740
GEV207_R0400_0537
GEV207_R0400_0534
GEV207_R0400_0739

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

44.25
57.82
57.82
57.48

272.31
355.02
355.02
352.31

1.01
1.32
1.32
1.31

852309
10840
8738
47983

26.89
26.89
26.89
26.89

3.35
2.10
2.10
2.10

GEV207_R0400_0535

0.1

44.60

274.39

1.02

79300

26.89

3.35

Table 5: Overview of test results MD R=0.5

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 11 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=0.5
700

600

Applied Stress [MPa]

500

400

300

200

Test Results

100

Mean ValueSendeckyj
Mean Value Linear regression
0
0

Log N

Figure 6: MD2 R=0.5

6.1.5 MD2, R=-0.4

At R=-0.4 in total 12 specimens of the MD material were tested with 12 valid results. The
results showed noticeable scatter. This could possibly explained by the fact, that the specimens were cut from different plates. Fracture occurred in all cases in the part of the load cycle in which tensile loading is applied to the specimen.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

GEV207_R0400_0709
GEV207_R0400_0281
GEV207_R0400_0457

-0.4
-0.4
-0.4

15.81
35.82
35.97

95.44
210.00
213.86

0.36 *)
0.79
0.79

39393907
62379
103657

26.89
27.60
27.07

27.80
27.80
27.97

7.90
1.80
1.80

GEV207_R0400_0458
GEV207_R0400_0459
GEV207_R0400_0460
GEV207_R0400_0461

-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4

40.10
47.25
54.93
25.22

239.82
279.91
330.27
150.38

0.90
1.05
1.26
0.56

36849
14519
2265
2308278

26.75
26.68
26.20
26.83

26.46
26.42
25.75
26.98

1.45
1.03
0.76
3.63

GEV207_R0400_0547
GEV207_R0400_0548
GEV207_R0400_0561
GEV207_R0400_0562

-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4

27.30
29.77
25.81
35.58

168.21
183.51
159.66
225.00

0.58
0.64
0.75
0.78

116481
69767
10863
13070

29.03
28.76
29.51
28.82

29.23
28.78
27.80
28.83

3.11
2.61
1.80
1.80

GEV207_R0400_0566

-0.4

40.00

249.98

0.88

7567

28.33

28.23

1.45

Table 6: Overview of test results MD2 R=-0.4

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]

f
[Hz]

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 12 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=-0.4
800

700

Applied Stress [MPa]

600

500

400

300

200
Test Results
100

Mean ValueSendeckyj
Mean Value Linear regression

0
0

Log N

Figure 7: MD2 R=-0.4

6.1.6 MD2, R=-2.5

At R=-2.5 only 4 specimens of the MD material were tested with 4 valid results. Due to the
small number of tests no conclusions can be drawn. Fracture occurred in all cases in the part
of the load cycle in which tensile loading is applied to the specimen and was located in the
tab area. Since no sound statistical evaluation is possible with this limited number of results,
the curves can only be taken as a trend.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

GEV207_R0400_0530
GEV207_R0400_0726
GEV207_R0400_0529
GEV207_R0400_0533

-2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-2.5

48.80
41.13
44.32
24.44

299.98
249.95
275.00
150.36

1.12 *)
0.93 *)
1.02 *)
0.56 *)

3050
93144
2755
3322798

Table 7: Overview of test results MD2 R=-2.5

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]
26.89
26.89
26.89
26.89

27.80
27.80
27.80
27.80

f
[Hz]
1.06
1.53
1.26
4.25

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 13 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=-2.5
700

600

Applied Stress [MPa]

500

400

300

200

Test Results

100

Mean ValueSendeckyj
Mean Value Linear regression
0
0

Log N

Figure 8: MD2 R=-2.5

6.1.7 MD2, R=10

At R=10 in total 17 specimens of the MD material were tested with 15 valid results. The scatter of the results is low. Some specimens showed buckling behavior, but severity of buckling
was minor in comparison to these specimens which showed buckling at R=-1.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

E_compr
[GPa]

f
[Hz]

GEV207_R0400_0313
GEV207_R0400_0314
GEV207_R0400_0306
GEV207_R0400_0307
GEV207_R0400_0310
GEV207_R0400_0308

10
10
10
10
10
10

41.72
58.63
50.17
49.94
46.39
53.95

249.98
350.00
299.97
299.99
274.99
325.00

0.94
1.34
1.12
1.12
1.03
1.21

10173865
917
4206
16743
231071
2303

28.02
28.47
28.85
28.22
28.58
28.32

3.70
1.89
2.57
2.57
3.06
2.19

GEV207_R0400_0311
GEV207_R0400_0312
GEV207_R0400_0301
GEV207_R0400_0302

10
10
10
10

44.48
56.34
49.37
44.66

264.98
337.14
294.09
269.01

0.99
1.30
1.11
1.01

4744812
1540
20876
735964

28.54
27.99
28.16
28.42

3.20
2.08
2.40
3.04

GEV207_R0400_0304
GEV207_R0400_0303
GEV207_R0400_0300
GEV207_R0400_0565

10
10
10
10

56.09
49.33
48.89
44.32

339.45
293.64
297.73
277.86

1.27
1.09
1.15
0.95

1986
53888
27302
876261

28.75
28.71
27.65
31.13

1.95
2.54
2.54
3.04

GEV207_R0400_0298

10

44.87

271.48

0.99

74741

28.69

3.04

Table 8: Overview of test results MD2 R=10

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 14 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=10
450

400

350

Applied Stress [MPa]

300

250

200

150

100
Test Results
Mean ValueSendeckyj

50

Mean Value Linear regression

0
0

Log N

Figure 9: MD2 R=10

6.1.8 MD2, R=2

No specimens were tested at R=2 due to the lack of time.

6.2

Variable amplitude testing

Variable amplitude testing consisted of 3 types of testing. The first two test types are block
tests, which represented a very simplified load sequence. The third type is a real load spectra test. The philosophy of block testing is explained in detail in [2].

6.2.1 Simple block tests

In the simple block tests, the specimens were tested at a certain loading condition up to 50%
of their nominal fatigue life representing the first block. In the second block the loading condition changed and the specimens were tested until fracture.
60 simple block tests were accomplished with in total 8.673.750 load cycles requiring 682
hours of testing time. 57 of these tests could be declared a valid test. Detailed information is
given in the following table. In cases where no strain measurement was available, strain was
calculated by the averaged modulus extracted from OptiDat. In these cases the value is
marked with *) and the values of the relevant average modulus given, 26.89 GPa for tensile
modulus and 27.80 GPa for compressive modulus. The initial strain at the beginning of the
second block was calculated using the modulus determined at the beginning of the test (if
applicable) or the corresponding averaged modulus of OptiDat.
During 15 tests the specimen failed in the first block, that means before reaching 50% of the
nominal lifetime. This occurred especially in these tests using R=-1 in the first block.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 15 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Load

Block 1
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

[%]

[Hz]

-1

46.28

278.96

1.06

0.63

-1

46.37

280.23

1.04

0.63

349

349

27.59

26.35

-1

30.62

184.70

0.68

1.44

25000

-1

46.31

279.35

1.03

0.63

236

25236

27.61

26.88

GEV207_R0400_0286

-1

30.53

183.90

0.71

1.44

25000

-1

46.17

278.11

1.03

0.63

217

25217

27.93

25.85

GEV207_R0400_0287

-1

30.44

182.76

0.68

1.44

25000

-1

46.04

276.42

1.01

0.63

354

25354

27.87

27.03

GEV207_R0400_0288

1b

-1

39.47

234.09 0.87 *)

0.84

2500

-1

30.52

181.01 0.67 *)

1.44

65975

68475

26.89

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0289

1b

-1

38.94

236.30 0.88 *)

0.84

2500

-1

30.40

184.48 0.69 *)

1.44

54168

56668

26.89

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0290

10

49.20

299.55

1.03

2.55

25000

0.1

44.65

271.85

0.93

3.34

38340

63340

26.89

29.11

GEV207_R0400_0291

10

49.24

296.82

1.06

2.55

25000

0.1

44.69

269.39

0.96

3.34

26347

51347

26.89

28.05

GEV207_R0400_0292

0.1

44.76

268.57

0.96

3.34

25000

10

49.32

295.93

1.05

2.55

456019

481019

28.08

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0317

-1

30.52

183.68

0.70

1.44

5896

5896

26.88

26.05

GEV207_R0400_0318

1b

10

53.49

320.19

1.15

2.18

2500

10

44.62

267.10

0.96

3.15

42621

45121

26.89

27.90

GEV207_R0400_0319

-1

30.64

183.35

0.64

1.44

25000

1b

0.1

56.46

337.86

1.19

2.11

1732

26732

27.81

29.17

GEV207_R0400_0320

1b

10

53.53

318.73

1.17

2.18

2500

10

44.65

265.85

0.98

3.15

66419

68919

26.89

27.19

GEV207_R0400_0432

1b

0.1

55.88

339.40

1.28

2.11

2500

-1

30.32

184.15

0.70

1.44

10814

13314

26.43

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0433

0.1

44.65

264.86

1.00

3.34

25000

1b

0.1

56.26

333.73

1.26

2.11

2939

27939

26.39

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0434

0.1

44.73

259.72

0.98

3.34

25000

1b

0.1

56.40

327.48

1.23

2.11

2166

27166

26.59

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0435

-1

30.52

184.12 0.68 *)

1.44

25000

1b

0.1

56.26

339.40

0.68

2.11

852

25852

27.83

27.23

GEV207_R0400_0436

1b

10

53.00

309.96

1.18

2.18

2500

-1

30.51

178.43

0.68

1.44

75765

78265

26.89

26.41

GEV207_R0400_0437

1b

10

53.28

312.14

1.17

2.18

2500

-1

30.55

178.98

0.67

1.44

92914

95414

26.89

26.58

GEV207_R0400_0438

1b

10

53.05

323.65

1.28

2.18

2500

-1

30.42

185.59

0.73

1.44

33128

35628

26.89

25.30

GEV207_R0400_0439

1b

0.1

55.97

343.59 1.28 *)

2.11

2378

2378

26.89

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0440

10

49.26

289.77

2.55

25000

1b

10

53.30

313.53

GEV207_R0400_0441

0.1

33.01

203.09 0.76 *)

6.1

500000

1b

0.1

56.20

345.76 1.29 *)

Coupon-ID

Level

GEV207_R0400_0282

GEV207_R0400_0283
GEV207_R0400_0285

1.11

Cycles

Level

Load

Block 2
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

443

[%]

f
[Hz]

Cycles

Total
Cycles
443

1.20

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]
26.75

25.73

2.18

8990

33990

26.89

26.16

2.11

1225

501225

26.89

27.80

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 16 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Coupon-ID

Load

Block 1
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

-1
-1

30.56
39.09

179.50 0.67 *)
231.34 0.88

1.44
0.86

10

49.22

288.90

1.05

2.55

9922

0.1

44.52

266.19

1.05

3.34

Level

GEV207_R0400_0442
GEV207_R0400_0443

2
1b

GEV207_R0400_0444
GEV207_R0400_0445

[%]

f
[Hz]

Load

Block 2
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

10

53.38

313.53 1.13 *)

1b

0.1

56.08

335.31

1b

10

52.90

314.00

Cycles

Level

25000
943

1b

25000

GEV207_R0400_0446

10

48.90

290.26

1.11

2.55

25000

GEV207_R0400_0447

1b

10

52.97

313.57

1.31

2.18

2383

[%]

f
[Hz]

Cycles

Total
Cycles

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]

2.18

3545

28545
943
9922

26.89

27.47

1.32

2.11

631

25631

25.45

27.80

1.20

2.18

1439

26439

26.89

26.20

2383

26.89

23.96

26.89
27.24

27.80
26.75

GEV207_R0400_0448

10

49.14

287.61

1.07

2.55

8694

8694

26.89

26.90

GEV207_R0400_0449

1b

0.1

56.44

333.33

1.30

2.11

2500

1b

10

53.40

315.37

1.23

2.18

1594

4094

25.55

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0450

1b

0.1

56.33

329.40

1.30

2.11

2500

0.1

44.71

261.45

1.03

3.34

52694

55194

25.36

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0451

1b

10

53.15

310.75

1.16

2.18

2500

10

49.12

287.18

1.07

2.55

8561

11061

26.89

26.83

GEV207_R0400_0452

1b

10

53.28

314.47

1.12

2.18

2500

10

44.44

262.30

0.94

3.15

1612701

1615201

26.89

28.01

GEV207_R0400_0453

1b

0.1

56.13

331.59

1.21

2.11

2500

1b

10

53.11

313.75

1.15

2.18

392

2892

27.31

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0454

1b

0.1

55.72

331.31

1.28

2.11

2500

0.1

44.23

262.99

1.02

3.34

61662

64162

25.87

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0455

1b

0.1

56.22

330.87

1.29

2.11

2500

0.1

44.62

262.60

1.03

3.34

9919

12419

25.56

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0456

0.1

44.57

266.17

0.95

3.34

25000

10

49.10

293.23

1.04

2.55

146217

171217

28.16

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0462

1b

-1

39.12

233.42

0.91

0.84

811

811

26.32

25.52

GEV207_R0400_0463

1b

10

53.07

316.84

1.11

2.18

2500

1b

0.1

56.08

334.81

1.18

2.11

6483

8983

26.89

27.29

GEV207_R0400_0464

1b

10

53.30

314.93

1.18

2.18

2500

10

49.26

291.06

1.09

2.55

34844

37344

26.89

26.80

GEV207_R0400_0465

10

44.56

263.45

0.98

3.15

500000

1b

10

53.43

315.90

1.17

2.18

15913

515913

26.89

27.02

GEV207_R0400_0466

1b

10

53.59

316.79

1.18

2.18

2500

1b

0.1

56.64

334.82

1.24

2.11

4863

7363

26.89

26.92

GEV207_R0400_0467

1b

-1

39.12

233.42

0.92

0.84

805

805

25.80

25.37

GEV207_R0400_0468

-1

30.61

181.39 0.67 *)

1.44

25000

1b

10

53.38

316.32 1.14 *)

2.18

1928

26928

26.89

27.80

113

26.89

26.26

-1

30.72

181.13

1.44

87683

90183

26.30

27.80

GEV207_R0400_0469

10

53.00

313.04

1.19

2.18

113

GEV207_R0400_0470

1b

0.1

56.62

333.83

1.27

2.11

2500

GEV207_R0400_0471

1b

-1

39.22

233.11

0.95

0.86

1155

1155

25.80

24.65

GEV207_R0400_0536

0.1

33.08

203.12 0.76 *)

6.1

164898

164898

26.89

27.80

0.69

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 17 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Coupon-ID

Load

Block 1
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

[%]

[Hz]

0.1
-1
-1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

55.97
30.23
38.75
32.88
33.01
55.53
56.20

343.06
183.36
234.85
198.48
198.47
340.48
349.85

1.28 *)
0.70
0.87 *)
0.74 *)
0.74 *)
1.27 *)
1.30 *)

10

44.30

280.26 1.01 *)

Level

GEV207_R0400_0540
GEV207_R0400_0704
GEV207_R0400_0706
GEV207_R0400_0742
GEV207_R0400_0743
GEV207_R0400_0744
GEV207_R0400_0745

1
2
1b
1
1
1
1b

GEV207_R0400_0754

Load

Block 2
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

[%]

[Hz]

0.1
10

32.88
52.70

0.75 *)
1.20

6.1
2.18

31820
3393

1b
1b
3

0.1
0.1
0.1

55.97
56.20
32.62

201.53
319.65

337.86
337.90
200.01

1.26 *)
1.26 *)
0.74 *)

2.11
2.11
6.1

4274
3699
2356519

1b

10

53.11

335.98 1.21 *)

2.18

61323

Cycles

Level

2.11
1.44
0.86
6.1
6.1
2.11
2.11

2500
25000
1868
500000
500000
2500
2274

3
1b

3.15

500000

Cycles

Total
Cycles

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]

34320
28393
1868
504274
503699
2359019
2274

26.89
27.07
26.89
26.89
26.89
26.89
26.89

27.80
26.31
27.80
27.80
27.80
27.80
27.80

561323

26.89

27.80

Table 9: Overview of simple block tests MD2

6.2.2 Repeated block tests

In the repeated block tests, the specimens were repeatedly tested at each loading condition up to 1% of their nominal fatigue life each.
27 repeated block tests were accomplished with in total 3.945.128 load cycles requiring 427 hours of testing time. 26 of these tests could be
declared a valid test. Detailed information is given in the following table. For measurements of strain and modulus the same remarks are valid
as mentioned in the paragraph before.

Coupon-ID

Level

GEV207_R0400_0542

0.1

GEV207_R0400_0543
GEV207_R0400_0544
GEV207_R0400_0545
GEV207_R0400_0546

1
1b
1b
1b

0.1
-1
-1
10

Load

Block 1
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

Load

Block 2
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

Cycles

Level

55.97 345.72 1.29 *) 2.11

346

0.1

32.88 203.09 0.76 *) 6.1

56.20
39.14
39.22
53.28

308
412
550
6850

3
3
3
3

0.1
-1
-1
10

33.01
22.47
22.52
44.44

345.76
240.33
242.22
324.63

[%]

1.29 *)
0.89 *)
0.90 *)
1.17 *)

[Hz]

2.11
0.86
0.86
2.18

203.09
137.97
139.08
270.77

[%]

0.76 *)
0.51 *)
0.52 *)
0.97 *)

[Hz]

Cycles

Total
Cycles

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]

60000
60346 26.59
6.1 60000
60308 26.89
2.57 80000
80412 26.89
2.57 105910 106460 26.89
3.15 1370004 1376854
-

27.80
27.80
27.80
27.80
27.80

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 18 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Coupon-ID

GEV207_R0400_0697
GEV207_R0400_0698
GEV207_R0400_0699
GEV207_R0400_0700
GEV207_R0400_0702
GEV207_R0400_0703
GEV207_R0400_0705
GEV207_R0400_0707
GEV207_R0400_0710
GEV207_R0400_0711
GEV207_R0400_0715
GEV207_R0400_0716
GEV207_R0400_0746
GEV207_R0400_0747
GEV207_R0400_0748
GEV207_R0400_0750
GEV207_R0400_0751
GEV207_R0400_0752
GEV207_R0400_0753
GEV207_R0400_0755
GEV207_R0400_0756

Level

1b
2
2
2
1b
2
2
1b
1b
1b
1b
1b
1
2
1b
2
1b
1b
1b
1b
1b

10
-1
-1
-1
0.1
10
10
-1
10
-1
10
-1
0.1
-1
-1
-1
10
0.1
0.1
10
10

Load

Block 1
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

[%]

[Hz]

52.77
30.19
30.31
30.30
55.91
48.79
48.52
38.91
52.62
38.75
53.32
39.00
55.97
30.30
38.90
30.20
52.79
55.77
55.91
52.98
53.11

314.92
183.34
183.33
180.61
337.90
295.45
295.48
233.11
321.14
234.85
316.34
237.38
351.16
186.16
239.17
189.65
329.67
356.22
355.12
330.19
331.25

1.20
0.71
0.69
0.69
1.26 *)
1.15
1.12
0.87 *)
1.16 *)
0.87 *)
1.21
0.87
1.31 *)
0.66
0.85
0.66
1.24
1.32 *)
1.32 *)
1.19 *)
1.19 *)

2.18
1.44
1.44
1.44
2.11
2.55
2.55
0.86
2.11
0.86
2.18
0.86
2.11
1.44
0.86
1.44
2.18
2.11
2.11
2.18
2.18

Table 10: Overview of repeated block tests MD2

Cycles

Level

36100
60500
13000
11500
2074
20000
31000
1200
8100
1150
5500
5250
300
38000
1700
21500
17050
650
550
2600
1700

2
1b
1b
1b
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
1b
2
1b
2
2
2
1b
1b

10
10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-1
10
-1
10
-1
0.1
10
-1
10
10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

Load

Block 2
Stress Strain

[kN]

[MPa]

[%]

[Hz]

48.77
52.64
55.86
55.84
44.38
44.29
44.04
22.34
43.89
30.25
44.48
30.44
32.88
52.83
30.37
52.67
48.79
44.27
44.38
56.00
56.13

291.05
319.67
337.87
332.84
268.22
268.18
268.20
133.84
267.86
183.33
263.90
185.28
206.29
324.59
186.72
330.75
304.69
282.76
281.89
349.01
350.08

1.11
1.24
1.28
1.27
1.00 *)
1.04
1.02
0.50 *)
0.96 *)
0.68 *)
1.01
0.68
0.77 *)
1.15
0.66
1.16
1.15
1.05 *)
1.05 *)
1.30 *)
1.30 *)

2.55
2.18
2.11
2.11
3.34
3.34
3.34
2.57
1.76
1.44
3.15
1.44
6.1
2.18
1.44
2.18
2.55
3.34
3.34
2.11
2.11

Cycles

Total
Cycles

361048
6324
1251
1123
20500
19959
30718
231757
162000
11833
1100018
52867
59029
4133
17256
2403
170500
6781
5432
2587
1695

397148
66824
14251
12623
22574
39959
61718
232957
170100
12983
1105518
58117
59329
42133
18956
23903
187550
7431
5982
5187
3395

E_tens E_compr
[GPa]
[GPa]

26.45
26.77
26.51
26.89
26.58
27.13
26.89
26.89
27.63
26.89
28.82
28.49
28.89
26.89
26.89
26.89
26.89

26.29
25.07
26.14
25.75
24.87
25.56
27.80
27.80
27.80
26.10
26.98
27.80
27.62
27.73
28.30
25.52
27.80
27.80

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 19 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

6.2.3 Load spectra tests

Since DLR concentrated due to severe software problems on the accomplishment of block
tests and the general delay in the project, only a very limited number of load spectra tests
could be done. 7 tests were done with the WISPER load spectra, from which 5 valid test results could be obtained.
Coupon-ID

Load spectra

Load
[kN]

Stress
Loading rate
Passes
[MPa]
[(kN/mm)/s]

GEV207_R0400_0532
GEV207_R0400_0738

Wisper
Wisper

53.75
53.43

330.02
324.98

1.25
16.66

14.38
14.38

GEV207_R0400_0528
GEV207_R0400_0725
GEV207_R0400_0527

Wisper
Wisper
Wisper

53.62
53.20
45.70

334.69
322.12
286.38

1.43
3.64
7.28

14.38
14.38
16.92

Table 11: Overview of test results WISPER load spectra

7 Results achieved in Phase 2

7.1

Constant amplitude testing

Due to the significant delay in Phase 1 of the project, only a very limited number of tests with
the alternative material could be accomplished in Phase 2. The variable amplitude testing
had completely to be skipped, for constant amplitude testing only the establishment of one
single S-N curve was possible.

7.1.1 MD4, R=0.1

At R=0.1 in total 10 specimens of the MD alternative material were tested with 10 valid results. The results showed very low scatter. For all specimens failure was initiated by the
debonding of the tabs and fracture occurred in or nearby the load introduction.
Initial strain and tensile modulus were not directly determined. For strain calculation the tensile modulus available in OptiDat was used.
Coupon-ID

R-Ratio

Load
[kN]

Stress
[MPa]

Strain
[%]

Cycles

E_tens
[GPa]

f
[Hz]

GEV307_R0400_0050
GEV307_R0400_0049
GEV307_R0400_0048
GEV307_R0400_0047
GEV307_R0400_0046
GEV307_R0400_0045
GEV307_R0400_0044
GEV307_R0400_0043
GEV307_R0400_0042
GEV307_R0400_0041
GEV307_R0400_0051

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

57.00
45.68
33.31
57.09
45.08
57.07
45.19
45.49
33.43
33.38
26.55

334.84
267.78
194.34
327.94
266.57
334.84
269.82
268.59
199.38
194.08
156.86

1,18 *)
0,94 *)
0,68 *)
1,15 *)
0,94 *)
1,18 *)
0,95 *)
0,94 *)
0,70 *)
0,68 *)
0,55 *)

6408
64868
1946304
6754
51634
7356
42044
46507
956059
1377528
11116738

28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47
28.47

2.11
3.34
6.10
2.11
3.34
2.11
3.34
3.34
6.11
6.10
9.68

Table 12: Overview of test results MD (alternative) R=0.1

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 20 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data (alternative)

R=0.1
900

800

700

Applied Stress [MPa]

600

500

400

300

200
Test Results
Mean ValueSendeckyj

100

Mean Value Linear regression

0
0

5
Log N

Figure 10: MD4 (alternative) R=0.1

7.2

Variable amplitude testing

No variable amplitude testing was performed in Phase 2.

OPTIMAT BLADES

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 21 of 38
Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

8 Comparison of results
In the following two paragraphs the results achieved at DLR are compared to the results of
the other labs to get some information about the comparability of results obtained in different
labs using various test rigs. The comparison can only be done for the test results achieved
within Phase I of the project.

8.1

Constant amplitude testing

The following figures show all S-N curves for which DLR contributed data points. Obviously
no significant difference in comparison to the results of the other labs could be seen. Therefore the results obtained in different labs using various test rigs are comparable and can be
pooled.
This can also be shown by comparing the parameters of the statistical evaluation. Comparing
the parameters for the evaluation according Sendeckyj, there can differences be seen for the
shape parameters and , as well as for parameter C. The first of them, , is a measure for
the scatter and varies naturally for a different set of test results. The equivalent static
strength is represented by , and is strongly influenced by the value of C. For C<1, the curve
flattens when the applied stress reaches the equivalent static strength. C=1 is the classical
power law definition, and for C>1 the curve is very steep. These 3 parameters are generally
strongly dependent of the set of test results used for the evaluation. Additionally a numeric
procedure is used to optimise the values which can yield differences too. The fatigue slope S
is not that sensitive, if a sufficient number of test results is used for the evaluation.
For the available data it can be shown that the fatigue slope S determined with the test results of all labs, is generally very close to that value determined with DLR-data only. The
same trend can be observed using a simple linear regression for modelling the S-N curve.
Additionally, the fatigue slopes determined using the Weibull method of Sendeckyj and linear
regression are pretty close. This offers the possibility to use a simple linear regression, which
is basically available in common spreadsheet tools, instead of a complex numeric tool for
determination of Weibull parameters. Nevertheless, the Sendeckyj model is more suited for a
more correct representation of the physical behaviour of the material, especially for low numbers of load cycles. But this region is generally of less importance of fatigue analysis.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 22 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve UD-Data
R=-1
600

500

Applied Stress [MPa]

400

300

200

100

Test results other labs

Test results DLR
Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 11: UD2, R=-1 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

14.2389
50.5413

565.5472
935.4774

C
0.0300
1.0000

S
0.1000
0.1229

Linear regression
K
b
840.1382
0.1146
752.8464
0.1021

Table 13: UD2, R=-1 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 23 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=-1
600

500

Applied Stress [MPa]

400

300

200

Test results other labs

100

Test results DLR

Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 12: MD2, R=-1 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

11.6051
25.8556

529.4275
518.2620

C
1.0000
0.5000

S
0.1004
0.1024

Linear regression
K
b
480.5506
0.0961
596.4077
0.1111

Table 14: MD2, R=-1 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 24 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=0.1
700

600

Applied Stress [MPa]

500

400

300

200
Test results other labs
Test results DLR

100

Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 13: MD2, R=0.1 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

26.9797
59.4094

649.7263
659.5317

C
0.2500
0.2188

S
0.0950
0.0961

Linear regression
K
b
728.3801
0.0954
773.3295
0.0992

Table 15: MD2, R=0.1 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 25 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=0.5
800

700

Applied Stress [MPa]

600

500

400

300

200
Test results other labs
Test results DLR
100

Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 14: MD2, R=0.5 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

14.3996
14.2471

698.2247
672.0000

C
0.9976
0.5000

S
0.0732
0.0727

Linear regression
K
b
718.0875
0.0789
638.5436
0.0671

Table 16: MD2, R=0.5 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 26 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=-0.4
600

500

Applied Stress [MPa]

400

300

200

Test results other labs

100

Test results DLR

Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 15: MD2, R=-0.4 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

12.3454
9.7399

537.7059
729.000

C
0.0750
0.5000

S
0.1080
0.1184

Linear regression
K
b
672.8423
0.1075
652.0004
0.1068

Table 17: MD2, R=-0.4 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 27 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=-2.5
600

500

Applied Stress [MPa]

400

300

200

Test results other labs

100

Test results DLR

Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 16: MD2, R=-2.5 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

10.3374
12.4929

522.4943
458.0000

C
1.0000
0.2000

S
0.0640
0.0685

Linear regression
K
b
530.3740
0.0699
595.2585
0.0873

Table 18: MD2, R=-2.5 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 28 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

S-N-Curve MD-Data
R=10
450

400

350

Applied Stress [MPa]

300

250

200

150

100
Test results other labs
Test results DLR

50

Mean Value Sendeckyj

0
0

Log N

Figure 17: MD2, R=10 Comparison to other labs

Sendeckyj
All Labs
DLR

18.4125
35.9900

413.4960
425.0000

C
1.0000
1.0000

S
0.0281
0.0326

Linear regression
K
b
399.3984
0.0274
413.8855
0.0316

Table 19: MD2, R=10 Comparison to other labs (statistical evaluation)

For the constant amplitude tests of the MD alternative material at R=0.1, no results of other
labs were available for comparison.

8.2

Variable amplitude testing

8.2.1 Simple block tests

For the simple block tests the comparison of the DLR results to those of WMC show that
there is obviously large scatter, which makes an analysis more difficult. Furthermore the
number of test results for each test type is low. Generally there is no clear difference between the results, but tests at WMC seems to have a slightly longer lifetime. For the tests of
type A, the lifetime achieved at WMC is definitely higher than for DLR tests. But this can possibly be explained by the fact, that the specimens were made of very different plates (plate
176 for WMC, plates 79/80 for DLR). Additionally tests of type A have R=10 as R-ratio for
both blocks, that means pure compressive loading. These tests show typically more scatter.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 29 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Simple Block Tests Type A

1E+07
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
1E+06

1E+05

1E+04

1E+03

1E+02

1E+01

1E+00
1

Test

Figure 18: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type A Comparison to WMC lab

Simple Block Tests Type B

700.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
600.000

500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0
1

2
Test

Figure 19: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type B Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 30 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Simple Block Tests Type E

70.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0
1

Test

Figure 20: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type E Comparison to WMC lab

Simple Block Tests Type F

600.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0
1

3
Test

Figure 21: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type F Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 31 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Simple Block Tests Type G

120.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0
1

Test

Figure 22: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type G Comparison to WMC lab

Simple Block Tests Type H

600.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0
1

4
Test

Figure 23: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type H Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 32 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Simple Block Tests Type I

10.000
Test Results WMC
9.000

Test Results DLR

8.000
7.000

6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
1

Test

Figure 24: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type I Comparison to WMC lab

Simple Block Tests Type J

600.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
500.000

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0
1

3
Test

Figure 25: MD2, Simple Block Tests Type I Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 33 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

8.2.2 Repeated block tests

Repeated Block Tests Type A
1.200.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
1.000.000

800.000

600.000

400.000

200.000

0
1

Test

Figure 26: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type A Comparison to WMC lab

Repeated Block Tests Type C

70.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0
1

2
Test

Figure 27: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type C Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 34 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Repeated Block Tests Type D

350.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0
1

Test

Figure 28: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type D Comparison to WMC lab

Repeated Block Tests Type E

25.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR
20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0
1

2
Test

Figure 29: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type E Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 35 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Repeated Block Tests Type F

180.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR

160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0
1

Test

Figure 30: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type F Comparison to WMC lab

Repeated Block Tests Type G

16.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0
1

2
Test

Figure 31: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type G Comparison to WMC lab

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 36 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

Repeated Block Tests Type H

80.000
Test Results WMC
Test Results DLR

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0
1

Test

Figure 32: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type H Comparison to WMC lab

Repeated Block Tests Type I

10.000
Test Results WMC
9.000

Test Results DLR

8.000
7.000

6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
1

Test

Figure 33: MD2, Repeated Block Tests Type I Comparison to WMC lab
For the repeated block tests the same observations can be made as for the simple block
tests.

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 37 of 38

OPTIMAT BLADES

Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

8.2.3 Load spectra tests

For the limited number of load spectra tests no clear statement can be made concerning the
comparability of results. Additionally the tests show large scatter. Therefore it can be assumed that there is no significant lab influence on the results.
WISPER Load Spectra Tests
MD
400

350

Applied Stress [MPa]

300

250

200

150

100

Test Results other labs

50

Test Results DLR

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Spectrum passes

Figure 34: MD2, Wisper Comparison to other labs

9 Summary and Conclusions

An extensive experimental program containing constant and variable amplitude tests was
accomplished within the frame of the OPTIMAT BLADES project. Constant amplitude tests
were performed to characterize the fatigue behaviour of the investigated material and as input for a detailed analysis of lifetime prediction methodologies. For this purpose these fatigue
tests were performed at multiple R-ratios. The comparison of the results achieved at DLR
with the results of other labs show a good agreement. Therefore the data of all labs can be
pooled and the reliability increased.
The influence of different loading sequences and load spectra was investigated with numerous variable amplitude tests. Unfortunately these tests showed large scatter which made a
reliable analysis very difficult. The lab-to-lab comparison of these results can therefore be not
exact and should be taken as a trend.

OPTIMAT BLADES

OB_TG1_R026 rev.0
Page 38 of 38
Last saved 15.04.2006 20:57

10 References
[1] Torben K. Jacobsen, Reference material (Optimat) - Glass-Epoxy material, LM Glasfiber
A/S, doc. OB_SC_R001 rev. 1, 29.01.2003
[2] Ch.W. Kensche et al., Detailed plan of action Task Group 1, DLR, doc. OB_TG1_O002
rev. 6, 23.07.2004
[3] Ch.W. Kensche et al., Detailed plan of action for Phase 2, Task Group 1, DLR, doc.
OB_TG1_O006 rev. 0, 12.09.2005
[4] Olaf Krause and Theodore P. Philippidis, General Test Specification, DLR, doc.
OB_TC_R014 rev. 5, 07.09.2005
[5] Olaf Krause, Test specification for load spectra tests, DLR, doc. OB_TG1_R021 rev. 2,
22.07.2005