The difference in findings likely reflects the different fatigue tools used, with this study using a multi-dimensional tool compared with the FACIT-fatigue, a uni-dimensional tool.
Ten volunteers performed non-fatigued and fatigued landings on two days using different fatigue protocols.
covering 26 different fatigue factors.
Different fatigue damage levels were considered.
Different fatigue endurance models are employed for fatigue life estimation.
Fatigue life of AZ31B was examined using different fatigue parameters.
Secondly, the specimens were tested under fatigue loads with different fatigue amplitudes.
Each feature has a different damage sensibility to different fatigue evolution stages.
The whole fatigue domain is divided into six zones that include different fatigue regimes.
In addition, different fatigue analysis techniques in commercial fatigue analysis packages are reviewed and compared.
In conclusion, fatigue alters landing performance and different fatigue protocols result in different performance changes.
