Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0
i
9
i 1
q
"1#
where S is the stress range at thickness i[ In most of the older rules the value of thickness exponent
q is 9[14[ However\ assessment of recent research data has indicated stronger in~uence of thickness
and in the latest HSE and API:ISO revision for o}shore structures a higher penalty factor of
q 9[29 is given[
2.2. Teciangular ana square hollow-seciion joinis
The considerable knowledge gained regarding the static response of circular hollow!section
joints is unfortunately not directly transferable to rectangular hollow!section joints because of
marked di}erences in the behaviour of the latter 02[ The sti}ness distribution in the ~at sidewalls
is di}erent from that of cylindrical shells and the brace corners near to the chord walls have a
strong in~uence on the maximum stress[ Interest in joints of this type has been con_ned to those
made in steel 03 and recommendations have been made on the selection of hot spot stress
de_nition\ parametric equations for SCFs and on appropriate SN curves for RHS joints 04[ In
contrast\ static stress and fatigue guidance for RHS joints in aluminium are absent in the literature
and little data exists[ Some fatigue test results have been reviewed 05\ but the data are not analysed
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 007
Fig[ 1[ Notch hot spot stress 06[
in terms of local or hot spot stress\ but these data nonetheless indicate that a design hot spot stress
range "FAT value# of 39 MPa would be applicable to welded square hollow!section joints[
2.3. The hoi spoi siress concepi appliea io plaie joinis
Recent fatigue design guidance for welded details in steel ship structures 06\ and similar
guidance for aluminium ships 07\ have in both cases adopted a hot spot stress approach[ This is
due mainly to the geometric complexity of the internal hull structure of modern ships that makes
it di.cult to de_ne nominal stresses[ The guidance favours the maximum local stress at the weld
toe "called the notch stress# over the extrapolated geometric stress described earlier^ see Fig[ 1[ The
e}ect of the local weld geometry is therefore included in the notch stress\ dictating that the same
e}ects are excluded from the SN curve\ which is consequently elevated above that for a butt weld
by a factor of approximately 0[4[
The notch stress concept is attractive in that it is an actual stress\ in contrast to the _ctitious
extrapolated hot spot stress already described[ In both practical and numerical applications\
however\ the notch stress approach is problematic[ The two most important parameters in~uencing
the stress concentration factor for the weld are highly variable along the weld length\ the weld toe
radius\ r\ and the weld angle a\ and these parameters can only be readily described in terms of
statistical distribution[ Therefore\ in a deterministic _nite element analysis the variations in r and
a cannot be modelled\ and some descriptive values "average or maximum# are employed as default
values[ In the DNV rules for welded steel ship structures 07 these default values are r,i 9[04
and a 34> for butt welds\ where i plate thickness[ Similar problems are encountered when the
notch stress is to be determined experimentally from strain gauge measurements since it cannot be
measured directly at the weld because the strain gauge would have to straddle the weld toe[ Instead
an extrapolated hot spot stress is obtained from strain gauges placed at distances of 9[4i and 0[4i
from the weld[ To account for the stress concentration e}ect of the weld the hot spot stress is
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 008
Fig[ 2[ The DNV design SN curves for aluminium ships 07[
multiplied by a default SCF of K
w
0[4 for the weld[ Thus the DNV notch stress approach is
e}ectively the same as the hot spot approach since a factor of 0[4 is _rst applied to the SN curve\
then it is accounted for by multiplying the hot spot stress by the same factor of 0[4[
2.4. Hoi spoi SN curres for aluniniun joinis
In the DNV guidance for welded aluminium ship structures 07 two SN curves are given for
welded joints "three curves including one for welded joints in a corrosive environment#\ as shown
in Fig[ 2[
The applied stress range is the noich siress ranqe as de_ned in Fig[ 1[ Curve I applies to base
material[ The highest curve for welds "Curve II# represents butt welds while the lower curve\ Curve
III\ which also has a steeper slope "n2[26#\ represents _llet welds as low strength "high severity#
joints[ Curve IV is for welds in a corrosive environment[ Since the slope of Curves II and III is
close to the value of n2 in the IIW guidance\ corresponding SN curves\ characterised by their
FAT value "FATstress range at N109
5
# can be obtained from the DNV curves[ The stress
range of curve III at 109
5
cycles is 34 MPa but this includes the K
w
factor of 0[4 so the
corresponding FAT value becomes 34:0[4 29 MPa[ Similarly\ the FAT value of Curve II is
44:0[4 26 MPa[ These curves can now be compared with other curves for aluminium welded
joints based on hot spot stresses[
SN data from a large number of welded aluminium plate specimens with a variety of geometries
and in thicknesses up to 5 mm have recently been collected 08 and analysed in terms of hot spot
stresses obtained either from strain gauge measurements or from _nite element analyses[ The
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 019
Fig[ 3[ SN data for small MIG welded aluminium plate specimens 08[
results plotted as hot spot stresses are summarised in Fig[ 3[ It was concluded that a weld category
curve corresponding to FAT 39 would constitute a conservative hot spot based design curve for
welded aluminium structures[
In the US the Category B curve in the Aluminum Association Design Manual has recently been
proposed 19 for use as a general design hot spot stress based design curve for welded aluminium
joints[ This is the SN curve for longitudinal butt welds[ In Eurocode 8 00 and in BS 7007 10\
the hot spot stress method is mentioned but no advice is given on the choice of SN curve[
The DNV classi_cation note for ships 07 is the only known code that uses the hot spot
stress concept for welded aluminium structures[ However\ by analogy with design codes for steel
structures where the hot spot stress SN curves are nearly identical to the curves for two sided butt
welds\ SN curves for hot spot stress fatigue design can be obtained from other codes[ SN curves
obtained in this way are compared in Table 0[
2[ Finite element analyses
The determination of the state of stress experienced by weldments is critical in design\ but
especially so where the hot spot stress method is used[ Appropriate SCFs are pivotal in analysis
experimental fatigue data for establishing hot spot SN curves and are also critical in terms of
relating structural or nominal stresses to hot spot stresses for use in fatigue design[ The work
reported here is primarily of an exploratory nature and was _rstly aimed at determining the SCF
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 010
Table 0
Possible hot spot stress SN curves for fatigue design of welded aluminium structures
Source Stress range Design Slope\ Comments
at two million category n
cycles\ S
1 mill
"MPa#
Eurocode 8 00 24 Class 24 3[9 Curve for two!sided butt welds
BS 7007 19 24 Class 24 2[1 Curve for two!sided butt welds
IIW 3 21 or 39 Fat 21 or 39 2[9 Curves for two!sided butt welds
Sharp et al[ 19 35 AA Cat[ B 3[64 Various types of welds
Partanen and Niemi 08 35 * 2[9 Various types of welds
Det Norse Varitas 07 29 or 26 Curve III or II 2[26 or 3[21 Fillet or butt welds\ respectively
Kosteas and Gietl\ 0884 05 39 * 2[4 Based on data for hollow section
joints
for welded aluminium RHS T!joints\ Fig[ 4\ under simple membrane and bending loading of the
chord member\ and secondly to establish an SN curve for this joint[
3.1. Deierninaiion of SCFs
Finite element analyses were performed using the I!Deas and Abaqus commecial codes[ Three!
dimensional solid models were used representing a quarter of the test specimen geometry by
employing symmetry planes[ Geometrically linear elastostatic analysis routines were used[ Two
sets of models were used] I!Deas based modelling of parametric variations in local weld geometry^
Abaqus based analyses of the nominal weld geometry to independently verify the SCFs determined[
The two series of analysis separately employed 09!node tetrahedral and 19!node brick elements[
Meshing rules suggested by IIW 11 were employed and the stresses for extrapolation were
also extracted in accordance with these guidelines in order to maintain consistency between FE
predictions and experimental stress analyses[
The following nominal parameters were used for the model] weld toe radius\ r 9[7 mm^ weld
angle\ a 34>^ weld throat size\ a 2 mm^ tube wall thickness\ i 2 mm[ Subjected to pure
bending of the chord member\ a weld toe SCF value of 0[82 was calculated based on extrapolation[
The site of maximum stress along the weld toe is located near to the corner of the brace member
towards the sidewall of the chord[ An entirely separate FE analysis of the same geometry using a
di}erent program and di}erent solid elements produced SCF values of 0[75 in bending and 0[40
under membrane loading[
3.2. Paraneiric siuay
In an investigation of the sensitivity of the calculated SCF to parametric variations in the weld
and section geometry\ the four parameters r\ a\ a and i were systematically varied[ Identical tube
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 011
Fig[ 4[ Specimen dimensions[
geometries were used on brace and chord members in a given analysis and during variation of i
the external dimensions remained constant[ The toe radius\ r\ was varied between 9[22[9 mm^ a
was varied from 2444>^ a ranged between 13 mm^ and i was varied between 12[4 mm[ Statistical
analysis of the resulting distribution of SCF
:
"in this case de_ning the maximum stress at the weld
toe#\ based on both maximum principal stress and axial stress component\ revealed that r and i
have the strongest in~uence\ while the SCF is only a weak function of both a and a[ Examples are
given in Fig[ 5[ Models _tted to the data produced the eqns]
SCF
:
0.689.221a9.62ie
1r
9.22ia\ "2#
SCF
s0
0.069.648a9.787ie
1r
9.05a\ "3#
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 012
Fig[ 5[ Examples of parametric variation of SCF "radius and toe angle#[
with a in radians and i\ r and a in mm[ Equation "2# refers to the axial "Z!direction# stress
component and eqn "3# refers to maximum principal stress at the weld toe[ The bounds investigated
"stated above# strictly apply as limits to these equations[ These models behave in a similar way to
established treatments for transverse _llet welds in plate 12 but\ as the joint under considerations
here is between hollow!sections\ there is strictly no valid basis on which to make a direct com!
parison[ The variation of SCF with both r and i is plotted in Fig[ 6 where it is clear that\ as could
be foreseen\ combinations of small weld toe radius and large weld angle\ weld throat and wall
thickness lead to high SCFs[ In particular\ combinations of r and i have most in~uence[
3[ Fatigue tests
Fatigue testing of T!joint specimens was performed on a series of four specimen groups covering
two weld metals "3932 and 4072#\ and as!welded and improved "toe!ground# weldments[ The
specimen geometry\ Fig[ 4\ is identical to that studied earlier using FE^ however\the unloaded
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 013
Fig[ 6[ SCF as a function of r and i[
brace member was shortened in order to facilitate testing[ The parent material extrusions were
5971[15!T4 aluminium alloy that has speci_ed minimum tensile properties of 189 MPa yield
strength and 239 MPa ultimate tensile strength[ The specimens were loaded in 3!point bending of
the chord member[ All tests were carried out at T9[0 and under constant amplitude conditions
using a 4 Hz sinusoidal waveform[ The nominal stresses were calculated from simple elastic
bending theory for the loaded cross!section[ The hot!spot stresses were determined from a simple
multiplication of the nominal stresses by an SCF of 0[72\ derived from the FE work described
earlier[ A limited number of specimens were instrumented with strain gauges on the chord\ located
close to the anticipated failure site using the IIW guidelines 3 in order to measure the hot spot
strain\ Fig[ 7[ A polynomial curve _tted to the strain data was linearly extrapolated to the weld
toe[ Good agreement was found between the hot spot stresses based on experimental "SCF0[72#
and numerical "SCF0[82# stress analyses[ Endurance data generated in the test programme are
given in Tables 14\ presented in terms of both nominal and hot spot stress ranges\ using an SCF
of 0[72[
The data exhibited no clear dependence on the _ller metal so these data were combined[ Linear
regression analysis of the test data produced the design lines "mean minus two standard deviations#
plotted in Fig[ 8] the corresponding SN constants are noted in Table 5[
Some data are available in the literature 13 for welded T!joints in aluminium hollow pro_les[
Directly relevant data reviewed by Kosteas and Gietl 05 were already expressed as local stress
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 014
Fig[ 7[ Strain gauge locations[
Table 1
Results from fatigue testing of as!welded 4072 _ller metal specimens
Nominal stress Hot spot stress Endurance
range "MPa# range "MPa# "cycles#
091[8 077[2 83[819
74[6 045[7 101[793
74[6 045[7 116[698
74[6 045[7 089[166
57[5 014[4 593[533
57[5 014[4 090[664
57[5 014[4 143[022
57[5 014[4 188[567
57[5 014[4 232[999
40[3 40[3 0068[214
ranges but the Hagstro m and Sandstro m data had to be reevaluated in terms of hot spot stress[
This involved performing an FE analysis on the test geometry used "axial loading of the brace# to
get an SCF value of 3[3[ These data are all plotted in Fig[ 09 based on hot!spot stress range with
the results of the present study for as!welded joints where it is clear that the hot spot stress approach
appears to be performing well in terms of reducing data from di}erent loading con_gurations to
a common basis[
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 015
Table 2
Results from fatigue testing of toe!ground 4072 _ller metal specimens
Nominal stress Hot spot stress Endurance
range "MPa# range "MPa# "cycles#
019[9 108[5 092[150
019[9 108[5 098[075
019[9 108[5 71[953
74[6 045[7 218[867
74[6 045[7 328[130
74[6 045[7 304[113
74[6 045[7 306[681
57[5 014[4 0897[528
Table 3
Results from fatigue testing of as!welded 3932 _ller metal specimens
Nominal stress Hot spot stress Endurance
range "MPa# range "MPa# "cycles#
096[0 085[9 52[969
096[0 085[9 88[069
74[6 045[7 086[939
74[6 045[7 066[359
53[2 045[7 052[039
53[2 006[6 307[329
53[2 006[6 571[119
53[2 006[6 374[599
53[2 006[6 498[779
53[2 006[6 0601[529
Table 4
Results from fatigue testing of toe!ground 3932 _ller metal specimens
Nominal stress Hot spot stress Endurance
range "MPa# range "MPa# "cycles#
026[9 140[1 51[837
017[9 123[1 023[455
019[9 108[5 053[748
019[9 108[5 031[661
74[6 045[7 614[241
74[6 045[7 791[853
74[6 045[7 386[485
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 016
Fig[ 8[ Fatigue test data from welded RHS T!joints[
Table 5
Fatigue test results\ SN constants for mean and design lines
Test series SN curves
Log C S
1 mill
"MPa# n
As!welded\ mean line 02[68 2[76
As!welded\ design line 02[31 58[0 2[76
Toe ground\ mean line 03[64 3[01
Toe ground\ design line 03[35 84[4 3[01
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 017
Fig[ 09[ Comparison of test data with published results\ all are design "mean1 SD# curves[
4[ Proposed design methodology
Based on an evaluation of the published literature\ the following recommendations are made
for the _rst version of a design methodology for welded aluminium space frames made of rec!
tangular hollow section joints]
5.1. Defniiion of hoi spoi siress
Use the IIW 11 de_nition[
5.2. Deierninaiion of hoi spoi siress by sirain gauge neasurenenis
Use the IIW 11 extrapolation procedure
5.3. Finiie eleneni analysis io aeiernine SCFs
Determine stress distribution by three!dimensional analysis\ determine SCFs by linear extra!
polation from two points on the curve in accordance with the IIW procedure[ Use IIW 11
guidance for FEM analysis[
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 018
5.4. Paraneiric fornulae for SCFs
Use equations proposed by van Wingerde et al[ 03 for RHS T! and K!joints as preliminary
guidance[
5.5. Hoi spoi siress aesign SN curre
Use the Partanen and Niemi curve with a stress range at 109
5
cycles of 39 MPa and a slope of
one!third[ This curve is slightly higher than the proposed DNV curves for example when corrected
for the di}erence between hot spot and notch stresses[
5[ Conclusions
Many di}erent de_nitions of hot spot stress range exist and are used in the fatigue design of
welded structures[ The guidance recently published by IIW for derivation of the hot spot stress
from strain gauge measurements and FEM analyses are recommended for use for preliminary
fatigue design of thin walled aluminium structures[
The hot spot stress SN curves for welded aluminium structures in design recommendations
that give speci_c advice are remarkably similar\ apparently converging on a design fatigue stress
range at two million cycles in the region of 2939 MPa[
The hot spot method appears well suited to welded aluminium RHS joints\ however\ the design
database needs to be expanded[ Speci_c parametric equations for SCFs need to be developed "or
adapted from existing methodologies for steel structures#[
Parametric FE analysis of a T!joint con_guration under in!plane bending of the chord showed
that combinations of small weld toe radius and large weld angle\ weld throat and wall thickness
lead to high SCFs[ In particular\ combinations of r and i have most in~uence[
Stress concentration factors determined from strain gauge measurements and FE analysis were
in good agreement[
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of R[ M[ Edvardsen and R[ Trandum both of
whom made contributions to the work reported here as part of their M[Sc[ thesis work[
References
0 Marshall PW[ Design of welded tubular connections[ Basis and use of AWS code provisions[ Amsterdam^ Elsevier\
0881[
1 Radenkovic D[ Stress analysis in tubular joints[ Int[ Conf[ on Steels in Marine Structures\ Paris\ 0870[
2 Gibstein MB\ Moe ET[ Fatigue of tubular joints[ In] Almar!N%ss T\ editor[ Fatigue handbook[ 0874[
3 Hobbacher A[ Fatigue design of welded joints and components[ Recommendations of IIW Joint Working Group
XIII!XV\ IIW Doc[ XIII!0428:XV!734!85[ Cambridge] Abington Publishing\ 0885[
K.H. Macaonala\ P.1. Haaqensen,Enqineerinq Failure Hnalysis 6 (1998) 113130 029
4 HSE\ Guidance on design\ construction and certi_cation[ 3th ed[ "including Feb[ 0884 amendments#[ London\
U[K[] HMSO\ 0884[
5 Efthymiou M[ Development of SCF formulae and generalised in~uence functions for use in fatigue analysis[
Proceedings of the O}shore Tubular Joint Conference[ Surrey\ U[K[\ 0877[
6 HSE\ Stress concentration factors for simple tubular joints] assessment of existing and developing of new parametric
formulae[ HSE Report OTH 80 246[ London] HMSO\ 0889[
7 Stacey A\ Sharp JV[ The revised HSE fatigue guidance[ Proceedings of the 03th International Conference on
O}shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering[ Copenhagen\ Denmark] June 0711\ 0884[
8 API RP1A\ Recommended practice for planning\ designing and constructing _xed o}shore platforms[ 19th ed[
American Petroleum Institute\ 0882[
09 Baerheim\ M[ et al[ Proposed fatigue provisions in the new ISO code for o}shore structures[ Proceedings of the
03th International Conference on O}shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering[ Copenhagen\ Denmark] June 07
11\ 0884[
00 CEN\ Eurocode 8] Design of aluminium structures[ Part 1] structures susceptible to fatigue[ prENV 080!1\ CEN:TC
149SC 8\ 0885[
01 Norsk standard\ NS 2361\ Prosjektering av stalkonstruksjoner[ Beregning og dimensjonering[ 1[ Utg[\ Norges
Standardiseringsforbund\ 0873[
02 van Wingerde AM et al[ Proposed revisions for fatigue design of planar welded connections made of hollow
structural sections[ Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Tubular Structures\ Nottingham\ 0882[
03 van Wingerde AM et al[ Criteria for fatigue assessment of hollow structural section connections[ J Constr Steel
Research 0884^24]601004[
04 van Wingerde AM et al[ The fatigue behaviour of K!joints made of square hollow sections[ IIW Doc[ XIII!0515!
85\ 0885[
05 Kosteas D\ Gietl B[ A comparative analysis of existing test data on welded aluminium tubular joints[ Fatigue and
Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 0885^08]620627[
06 Det Norse Varitas\ Class Note] Fatigue assessment of aluminium structures[ Report No[ LIB!J!99909\ Dec[ 0884^
revised Jan[\ 0885[
07 Det Norse Varitas\ Class Note] Fatigue assessment of ship structures[ Report No[ 82!9321\ revised Sept[\ 0885[
08 Partanen T\ Niemi E[ Hot spot S!N curves based on fatigue tests of small MIG welded aluminium specimens[ IIW
Doc[ 0525!85\ 0885[
19 Sharp ML et al[ Fatigue design of aluminium components and structures[ McGraw!Hill\ 0885[
10 BS 7007\ Structural use of aluminium[ Part 0[ Code of practice for design[ London] British Standards Institution\
0880[
11 Niemi E[ Stress determination for fatigue analysis of welded components[ Cambridge\ U[K] Abington Publishing\
0884[
12 Niu X\ Glinka G[ The weld pro_le e}ect on stress intensity factors in weldments[ Int J Fracture 0876^24]219[
13 Hagstro m J\ Sandstro m R[ Fatigue properties of welded T!joints in thin!walled aluminium pro_les[ Proceedings of
the International Conference 4th Int[ Conf[ on Aluminium Alloys\ ICAA!4\ Grenoble\ 04 July\ 0885[ Materials
Science Forum 0885^106111"2#]061621[