Proof testing was a useful supplement to conventional nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of space shuttle main engine (SSME) components. Since many of these components involve thin sections and high toughness materials, such as Inconel 718, conventional single-cycle proof test logic is not applicable due to the propensity for stable crack growth during the proof tests. Experience with five-cycle proof testing of SSME components is summarized and a framework is outlined for understanding multi-cycle proof testing using the fracture mechanics concept of a resistance curve. Extreme value statistics are also used to propose an empirical approach to compare the advantages and disadvantages of single- versus multi-cycle proof testing. The importance of the initial flaw size distribution and specimen thickness in such a comparison is also discussed.


    Access

    Access via TIB

    Check availability in my library


    Export, share and cite



    Title :

    A comparison of single-cycle versus multi-cycle proof testing strategies


    Contributors:


    Publication date :

    1988-09-01


    Type of media :

    Conference paper


    Type of material :

    No indication


    Language :

    English




    Single-Cycle Versus Multicycle Proof Testing

    Hudak, S. J., Jr. / Mcclung, R. C. / Bartlett, M. L. et al. | NTRS | 1992


    Multi-Target Single Cycle Instrument Placement

    Pedersen, Liam / Smith, David E. / Deans, Matthew et al. | NTRS | 2005


    Multi-Target Single Cycle Instrument Placement

    L. Pedersen / D. E. Smith / M. Deans et al. | NTIS | 2005


    US Transient Cycle Versus ECE R.49 13-Mode Cycle

    Frankle, Gerhard J. / Cornetti, Giorgio M. / Stein, Hans J. et al. | SAE Technical Papers | 1988


    Load-Life Cycle Testing

    Dibert, Clair G. / Fairhurst, William M. | SAE Technical Papers | 1962