PSI - Issue 75

Laurent Dastugue et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 75 (2025) 334–343

335

2

Laurent Dastugue et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia (2025)

© 2025 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Fatigue Design 2025 organizers Keywords: FEA; Fatigue Analysis; Standard Application; Simulation Process Improvement; Integration; Democratization; HPC; Data Efficiency 1. Motivation Fatigue analysis is increasingly recognized as an essential component of finite element analysis (FEA), offering insights beyond traditional stress evaluations (see references Bernd et. al. (2022), Dastugue et. al. (2023), Häckh (2021), Heinemeyer (2024), Willmerding et. al. (2019)). While stress results have long served as the cornerstone for structural assessment, they fall short in fully capturing the long-term performance of components under cyclic loading. Fatigue analysis bridges this gap by enabling the prediction of life expectancy and identifying critical areas where damage accumulates over time. Incorporating fatigue evaluations into the standard FEA workflow leads not only to more durable and reliable products but also to a deeper understanding of structural behavior. Despite its clear advantages, fatigue analysis is not yet universally adopted as a standard procedure in everyday FEA workflow. One of the primary goals of this work is to advocate for the democratization of fatigue analysis — to make it as routine and accessible as stress evaluations for every FEA engineer. However, several technical and procedural barriers hinder this broader adoption. Among the most pressing are limitations in model size, which are often constrained by available disk space, especially when dealing with high fidelity simulations. Furthermore, long computation times can discourage iterative design processes, limiting fatigue analysis to later stages of product development when design flexibility is reduced. Finally, the complexity of current fatigue workflows, often involving multiple tools and manual data processing, causes additional effort and increased potential for user errors. To overcome these barriers, there is a clear need for methods and tools that simplify fatigue analysis, reduce computational and storage overhead, and integrate seamlessly into existing FEA workflows. By addressing these challenges, fatigue analysis can become a default part of the simulation toolkit, ultimately enabling engineers to create more robust, reliable, and efficient designs from the earliest stages of development. 2. State of the Art The classical finite element analysis (FEA) workflow typically follows a well-established sequence of four main steps that are repeated in each design loop (see fig. 2): 1. Geometry Creation: The process begins with the creation of the component or system geometry, usually carried out in computer-aided design (CAD) software. 2. Preprocessing: In this stage, the geometry is imported into a preprocessing environment where meshing is performed and relevant physical properties (materials, boundary conditions, loads) are defined, resulting in a finite element model. 3. Solving: The finite element solver processes the model to compute stress, strain, and other relevant results under the applied conditions. 4. Postprocessing: The results from the solver are visualized and analyzed using a postprocessor, allowing engineers to assess performance criteria such as maximum stress or deformation. © 2025 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0) Peer-review under the responsibility of Dr Fabien Lefebvre with at least 2 reviewers per paper