In design under uncertainty, random distributions are often determined by expensive sampling tests. A key question is whether to invest in more samples or live with a reduced performance by fewer samples due to large uncertainty. The question is particularly difficult to answer when the type of distribution is unknown. This paper investigates the tradeoff between performance and conservativeness in estimating B-basis allowables, using experiments on composite plates with holes. Two approaches that do not require a distribution type are examined: (1) bootstrap confidence intervals and (2) Hanson-Koopmans non-parametric method. Based on the study, it is found that the Hanson-Koopmans method was more conservative than the bootstrap method because the latter penalized allowables for small-size samples. For a small number of samples (less than 29), conservative estimations are preferred over accuracy to account for the large uncertainty. Based on this observation, the bootstrap-assisted Hanson-Koopmans method is proposed to enhance the conservativeness. For the tested cases, the performance penalty using the bootstrap-assisted Hanson-Koopmans method for a small number of samples is found to be substantial.
ToftHSBrannerKMishnaevskyLJr, et al.Uncertainty modelling and code calibration for composite materials. J Compos Mater2013; 47: 1729–1747.
2.
Zhang Y, Schutte J, Meeker J, et al. Predicting B-basis allowable at untested points from experiments and simulations of plates with holes. In: Proceedings of the 12th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Braunschweig, Germany, www.researchgate.net/publication/318909364. (accessed 20 January 2020).
3.
VallmajóOCózarIFurtadoC, et al.Virtual calculation of the B-value allowables of notched composite laminates. Compos Struct2019; 212: 11–21.
4.
NilakantanGObaidAAKeefeM, et al.Experimental evaluation and statistical characterization of the strength and strain energy density distribution of Kevlar KM2 yarns: exploring length-scale and weaving effects. J Compos Mater2011; 45: 1749–1769.
5.
SatheeshRNarayana NaikGGanguliR. Conservative design optimization of laminated composite structures using genetic algorithms and multiple failure criteria. J Compos Mater2010; 44: 369–387.
6.
PichenyVKimNHHaftkaRT. Application of bootstrap method in conservative estimation of reliability with limited samples. Struct Multidisc Optimiz2010; 41: 205–217.
7.
BaeSKimNHJangS. Reliability-based design optimization under sampling uncertainty: shifting design versus shaping uncertainty. Struct Multidisc Optimiz2018; 57: 1845–1855.
8.
BaeSKimNHJangS-G. System reliability-based design optimization using trade-off between uncertainty reduction and design shift. J Mech Des2019; 141: 041403.
9.
MrazovaM. Advanced composite materials of the future in aerospace industry. Incas Bull2013; 5: 139.
YoungDS. Tolerance: an R package for estimating tolerance intervals. J Stat Softw2010; 36: 1–39.
12.
ChakravartiIMLahaRG. Handbook of methods of applied statistics, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 1967.
13.
Rust SW, Todt FR, Harris B, et al. Statistical methods for calculating material allowables for MIL-HDBK-17. Test methods and design allowables for fibrous composites (2nd volume). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 1989.
14.
HandbookM. MIL-HDBK-17-1F: composite materials handbook, volume 1-polymer matrix composites guidelines for characterization of structural materials, Virginia: US Department of Defense, 2002.
15.
HansonDLKoopmansL. Tolerance limits for the class of distributions with increasing hazard rates. Ann Math Stat1964; 35: 1561–1570.
16.
BhachuKS. Effects of measured data uncertainty on damage tolerant design of aircraft structures, Florida: University of Florida, 2015.
17.
CrossRJMakeevAArmaniosE. A comparison of predictions from probabilistic crack growth models inferred from Virkler's data. J ASTM Int2006; 3: 1–11.
18.
BigerelleMIostA. Bootstrap analysis of FCGR, application to the Paris relationship and to lifetime prediction. Int J Fatigue1999; 21: 299–307.
19.
BigerelleMNajjarDFournierB, et al.Application of lambda distributions and bootstrap analysis to the prediction of fatigue lifetime and confidence intervals. Int J Fatigue2006; 28: 223–236.
20.
BhachuKSHaftkaRTKimNH. Comparison of methods for calculating B-basis crack growth life using limited tests. AIAA J2016; 54: 1287–1298.
21.
Romero V, Swiler L and Urbina A. An initial comparison of methods for representing and aggregating experimental uncertainties involving sparse data. In: Proceedings of the 13th AIAA non-deterministic approaches conference, Denver, CO, 4–7 April 2011.
22.
Romero V, Swiler L, Urbina A, et al. A comparison of methods for representing sparsely sampled random quantities. Sandia National Laboratories report SAND2013-4561, September, 2013.
23.
HintonMKaddourA. Triaxial test results for fibre-reinforced composites: the second world-wide failure exercise benchmark data. J Compos Mater2013; 47: 653–678.
24.
HintonMJKaddourASSodenPD. Failure criteria in fibre reinforced polymer composites: the world-wide failure exercise, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004.
25.
Tomblin J and Seneviratne W. Laminate statistical allowable generation for fiber-reinforced composite materials: lamina variability method. USA: Office of Aviation Research and Development, Federal Aviation Administration, 2009.
ASTM International ASTM D5766/D5766M-11. Standard test method for open-hole tensile strength of polymer matrix composite laminates. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2011.
28.
HallettSRGreenBGJiangW-G, et al.The open hole tensile test: a challenge for virtual testing of composites. Int J Fract2009; 158: 169–181.
29.
TomblinJSherradenJSeneviratneW, et al.Advanced general aviation transport experiments. A–Basis and B–Basis design allowables for epoxy–based prepreg Toray T700GC-12K-31E/# 2510 unidirectional tape, Wichita: National Institute for Aviation Research Wichita State University, 2002.
30.
Zhang Y, Meeker J, Schutte J, et al. On approaches to combine experimental strength and simulation with application to open-hole-tension configuration. In: Proceedings of the American Society for composites: thirty-first technical conference, Williamsburg, VA, 19–22 September 2016.
31.
Zhang Y, Haftka RT, Kim N-H, et al. Allocation of samples between exploration and replication for open-hole-tension test. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Composites-30th Technical Conference, East Lansing, MI, 28–30 September 2015.
32.
OsborneJWOverbayA. The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Pract Assess Res Eval2004; 9: 1–12.
33.
StefanskyW. Rejecting outliers by maximum normed residual. Ann Math Stat1971; 42: 35–45.
34.
MooneyCZDuvalRD. Bootstrapping: a nonparametric approach to statistical inference, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1993.
35.
EfronB. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans, New Delhi: SIAM, 1982.
36.
EdwardsDJGuessFMYoungTM. Improved estimation of the lower percentiles of material properties. Wood Sci Technol2011; 45: 533–546.
37.
LeeSMYoungGA. Asymptotic iterated bootstrap confidence intervals. Ann Stat1995; 23: 1301–1330.
38.
LeeSMYoungGA. The effect of Monte Carlo approximation on coverage error of double-bootstrap confidence intervals. J R Stat Soc: Series B (Statistical Methodology)1999; 61: 353–366.
39.
LangfordE. Quartiles in elementary statistics. J Stat Educ2006; 14: 1–27.
40.
DiCiccioTJEfronB. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Sci1996; 11: 189–212.
41.
ZhangYSchutteJFSeneviratneWP, et al.Sampling by exploration and replication for estimating experimental strength of composite structures. AIAA J2017; 55: 3594–3602.
