1 views

Uploaded by huangjl

save

You are on page 1of 7

H. Mayer

a,

*

, H.L. Stark

a

, S. Ambrose

b, 1

a

University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

b

Welding Technology Institute of Australia, Australia

Abstract

When applying detailed fatigue analysis to welds in pressure vessels, designers encounter practical dif®culties with the methods required

by national standards such as ASME BPV Section VIII Div. 2, BS5500 and AS1210.

This paper discusses the main fatigue design stress parameters, being: (a) the stress intensity range and (b) the principal stress range, and

evaluates these for their validity over the scope of fatigue conditions they are required to predict.

It is concluded that a practical and conservative approach for a given weld detail is to calculate geometric stress parameters at the critical

location, evaluate and select the larger of the two parameters above, and to compare this to a fatigue curve based on undressed welded

specimens. It is further concluded that an additional fatigue strength reduction factor of 2 be superimposed when the principal stress direction

changes signi®cantly. q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Fatigue design; Pressure vessels; Stress intensity range; Principal stress range

1. Introduction

Fatigue design of pressure vessels today, is broadly based

on two national standards, those being the ASME Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code (Section 8 Div. 2, and

Section 3) [1], and BS5500:1997, Annex C [2]. Until

recently the Australian national standard AS 1210

(Supplement 1) [3] has been based on the ASME

Code. Dif®culties in the application in practice of

both the American and British approaches have caused

those responsible for the Australian code to draft a standard

that diverges in important aspects from both the American

and British approaches. It is the purpose of this paper to

raise these differences for discussion.

The ASME approach requires for design, knowledge of

the peak alternating stress intensity, that is the peak local

value (no matter how small the location) of amplitude of

¯uctuation of the Tresca stress intensity (half the

magnitude of ¯uctuation in difference in principal stres-

ses). This is compared with material property data,

based on strain cycling experimental data of plain,

unwelded plate. Of particular note is the requirement

that the ¯uctuations in all three of the principal stresses

need to be known, and those need to be known for the

most localised of peak stress intensity locations. For

machined shapes of known geometry this provides no

insuperable barriers given the advent of ®nite element

analysis (FEA), however for welds, and speci®cally

undressed toes of welds, the designer has little or no

hope of determining such localised peaks given the vari-

able geometry of same. Also for the toes of welds

(which are the most likely of the stress concentrations

to initiate fatigue cracking in practice) there is the further

issue of metallurgical damage coincident with the geometric

stress concentration. Accordingly the material property

approach used in ASME, while readily applicable to de®ned

geometries remote from welds, is not readily applied to weld

details.

By comparison BS5500:1997 Annex C [2] speci®cally

addresses the weld issue and requires knowledge of

the maximum range in principal stress at the weld,

which is then used with fatigue data based on a range

of different weld joint geometries that have been subjected

to uniaxial strain cycling. This weld detail categorisation

approach considers only ¯uctuations in one of the three

principal stresses at the weld. That is, if the largest ¯uctua-

tion in principal stress is across the toe, the principal stress

along the weld is ignored.

Houston [4] applied each of these procedures to a single

example and found these two approaches to differ in fatigue

life estimation by a factor of 50. When Houston's calcula-

tions were repeated using the currently valid rules [1,2], this

factor was reduced to 15.

International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781

0308-0161/00/$ - see front matter q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S0308-0161(00)00069-7

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp

* Corresponding author.

1

Present address: 1A Woods St., North Epping, NSW 2121, Australia.

2. Approaches to component life analysis

2.1. Material property S±N approach

The material property approach has its origins in the early

work carried out by (among others) WoÈhler [5] who inves-

tigated the fatigue behaviour of rail wagon axles. In essence

this approach endeavours to characterise the alternating

stress pattern for comparison with the material property,

fatigue strength.

The material property, fatigue strength, is determined by

testing a number of carefully standardised specimens (typi-

cally small, polished and usually excluding weld metal) to

determine the number of fully alternating (®xed ampli-

tude) cycles of stress (or strain) required to generate

fatigue failure, usually in a speci®ed environment.

While such specimens experience all four stages of fati-

gue, namely crack nucleation, small crack growth, crack

propagation, and complete fracture, because their size is

small the crack propagation stage is usually very short,

and accordingly the data can be regarded as the material

fatigue strength in resisting the formation of cracks. The

relationship is usually presented as a graph of stress ampli-

tude (or stress range) versus number of cycles to failure, the

S±N curve.

To allow application of such data to any given design

situation, allowance must be made for the differences

between the test specimens and the design being consid-

ered. Such factors include difference in Young's Modu-

lus, variable stress amplitudes and ratios, the stress

parameter to be used (e.g. Tresca stress intensity for

multiaxial stresses, or principal stress), mean stress,

overload hardening, size effect, environment, surface

effects, localised peaks in stress intensity due to

geometric stress concentrations and other defects such

as those metallurgical defects associated with welds.

While many of these factors can be incorporated into

the design calculations (using moduli ratio, Miner's rule

etc), the highly variable, localised, and unknown (at the

design stage) stress concentrations, and metallurgical

damage associated with weld toes presents the designer/

stress analyst with severe problems in determining, in prac-

tice, a magnitude of peak stress intensity to take to the S±N

curve.

2.2. Weld detail categorisation S±N approach

The dif®culties in application, to fatigue design of welds,

of the material property S±N approach, and the recog-

nition that any location on a pressure vessel may be

welded (e.g. as a result of repairs) have led to the

recent advent of the weld detail categorisation approach

to fatigue design of pressure vessels (BS5500:1997

Annex C).

In essence this approach relies on experimental fatigue

data determined not from polished specimens of parent

metal but from fatigue testing welded joints. Since there

are a great many different geometries of welded joint

(butt, tee, cruciate, toe shape, etc), a family of S±N curves

is required to represent the range of geometries.

Accordingly such S±N curves include the detrimental

effects of weld toe notches and metallurgical damage,

such that the designer need only determine the nominal

stress range in the vicinity of the weld. This has great prac-

tical merit.

Gurney [6] and Richards [8], early workers in the UK,

introduced this approach for steel structures, with

Gurney [9] proposing a set of design rules for welded

steel joints based on a number of typical weld details

categorised into 8 fatigue classes, each having its own

S±N curve. These S±N curves range from a ground

¯ush butt welded joint (highest fatigue strength, almost

equivalent to the material property curve) to a trans-

verse ®llet welded joint (one third of the fatigue

strength of the ground butt weld). Volumes of joint

fatigue data were published by Oliver and Ritter [10].

Other investigators constructed complete or near

complete pressure vessels, to observe their fatigue beha-

viour. The results of a number of these tests are

presented and discussed in Harrison and Maddox [11].

All joints, except the few constructed into pressure

vessels were loaded essentially uniaxially. After

Harrison and Maddox [11] and Maddox [12] adapted

this approach for pressure vessels, BSI eventually replaced

H. Mayer et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781 776

Nomenclature

s

geo

geometric stress. The local primary plus

secondary stress intensity at a point which,

while including the concentrating effects of

joint geometry, excludes the highly localised

stress concentration of the weld pro®le itself.

(e.g. for a weld toe this is typically determined

by extrapolating to the location of the toe,

those stresses at least one half of a plate thick-

ness away from the toe).

Ds

p

range of alternating principal stress

S

a

amplitude of alternating Tresca stress inten-

sity

S

r

2 £ S

a

2

t plate thickness

Tresca stress intensity largest difference between the

three principal stresses at a point

2

In BS5500 [2], S

r

is the notation used for the maximum range of alter-

nating principal stress, wich is Ds

p

here. Unfortunately, due to the variety

of notations used by the codes around the globe, it was not possible to select

a set of nomenclature consistent with all the relevant publications. Care

should be taken not to confuse the parameters here, or in the published

standards.

the material property approach by the weld detail categor-

isation approach with the publication of BS5500:1997

Annex C.

While the weld detail categorisation approach relieves

some of the designer's problems, there remains in practice

two areas of dif®culty depending on the stress parameter

used. ASME, and similar standards today, specify the

alternating stress intensity. However, BS5500:1997

considers only the largest range in principal stress. Pres-

sure vessels (unlike typical steel structures) are inevita-

bly subject to stresses that vary multiaxially, not

uniaxially, and so for example on the knuckle of a

pressure vessel end, high circumferential compression

can be combined with high axial tension, causing the

variation in stress intensity at that location to be in the

order of twice the variation of maximum principal

stress. It should be noted that although residual stresses

resulting from welding will cause initial stresses in the

vicinity of the weld to be tensile, the multiaxiality of

the variation in stress can still cause the alternating

stress intensity to be signi®cantly larger than the maxi-

mum alternating principal stress. The complex and

rapidly varying distributions of primary plus secondary

stress intensities typical of the multiaxial stressing in

pressure vessels, particularly at the junctions between

component shells, nozzles etc. cause the stress analyst

dif®culty in isolating a magnitude of stress for use with

the stress category S±N curves. Such stresses need to

be close enough to the weld that it represents the stress

in the vicinity of the weld but excludes the highly loca-

lised stress concentrating effect of the weld toe. While

this can be readily done with typical structural steel

members such as beams, which are predominantly

uniaxially stressed, this can be very dif®cult to isolate

from the full ®eld view of aggregate stresses given by

FEA.

3. Comparison of approaches

3.1. Inside corner of the nozzle (crotch corner)

Fig. 1 shows this location and it is of a well de®ned

geometry, remote from welds and as such is amenable to

detailed stress analysis using FEA to establish the actual

peak stresses. This particular vessel was required to be

designed for 5000 cycles (n) of pressure ¯uctuation from

0 to 14.8 MPa internal pressure. At the hot spot on the inner

edge of the nozzle the FEA converged to give the three

principal stresses at the internal pressure of 14.8 MPa as

1404, 214.8, and 214.8 MPa. Ignoring the small correc-

tion for Young's Modulus the following fatigue damage is

H. Mayer et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781 777

Fig. 1. Stress intensity distribution on pad reinforced nozzle in a cylindrical vessel.

predicted:

ASME:

S

a

amplitude of alt: stress intensity

1=2
404 2
214:8 209:4 MPa

Giving N 17; 500 from the ASME curve and

damage U n=N 5000=17; 500 0:29

BS5500:1997 Annex C:

Ds

p

max principal stress range 404 MPa

Giving N 31; 840 from curve C of BS5500:1997 and

damage U 5000=31840 0:16:

It is of particular note that the ASME approach, using

stress intensity, invokes the extremes in principal stress,

but BS5500 only uses the maximum range in principal

stress. In this example, the difference in the stress range

parameter is only about 4%. However, the difference in

life of around 80% is due to the difference in curves.

Further, on the knuckle of a pressure vessel where the

circumferential stress can be compressive of the same

order of magnitude as the axial tensile stress that differ-

ence could be a factor of 2 (i.e. equivalent to a factor

of approximately 8 on life).

3.2. Edge of the compensation plate

The weld toe at the edge of the compensation plate

presents practical dif®culties for FEA; some particular

small radius has to be assumed for the toe to enable the

FEA to converge. Modelling a small radius of curvature

in a large model is dif®cult. The stress results are extre-

mely sensitive to the magnitude of the radius chosen.

This radius at the weld toe is highly variable in a real

weld. For these reasons it is not practical to attempt to

accurately model weld toes using FEA.

What can be done is to ignore those stress results within

approximately half plate thickness of the toe, and deter-

mine the ªgeometric stressº at the location of the weld

toe by extrapolating from the local stress results. In

practice, when plotting the surface stress approaching

the discontinuity, a clear change in trend is visible as

the effects of peak stress become signi®cant, so

enabling extrapolation to exclude peak stress relatively

simply. (extrapolation techniques are given in Ref.

[2,13]). This renders the FEA within half´t of the

weld toe less critical, although it still has to be suf®-

ciently ®nely meshed to give accurate results outside

that region. Such a ªgeometric stressº represents the

primary plus secondary stresses at the location of the

weld toe, but excludes the highly localised stress

concentration of the weld toe. In this case, two points at a

distance of half´t and 2´t from the weld toe were used and

gave the geometric principal stresses of 1300, 1188 and

0 MPa.

ASME:

ASME requires a peak stress, and accordingly the

geometric stress has to be converted to a peak stress

using a stress concentration factor; using a factor of

2.5 (Houston [4]) gives the following result

S

a

amplitude of alt: stress intensity

1=2
404 2
214:8 375 MPa

Giving N 3; 000 from the ASME curve and damage

U 5000=3; 000 1:67

BS5500:1997 Annex C:

Ds

p

max principal stress range 300 MPa

Giving N 38; 518; from curve E (C.3.4.3.2) and

damage U 5000=38; 518 0:13:

Clearly there is signi®cant discrepancy between the

two approaches for the weld toe, which can be traced

to the arbitrary stress concentration factor required to

get a peak stress intensity to take to the ASME curve.

There is no practical alternative route to get a peak

stress intensity for use with the ASME curve using

FEA. Accordingly it is the authors' view that the

BS5500 approach is the better method to assess fatigue

performance at a weld toe.

4. Characterisation of governing stress

Each of the two approaches considered above asks for a

characteristic ¯uctuating stress. The material property

approach requires the maximum alternating stress intensity

amplitude, S

a

, while the weld detail characterisation

approach in BS5500:1997 uses the maximum principal

stress range, Ds

p

.

The typical fatigue test specimen is cycled using uniaxial

stress, or uniaxial strain of ®xed amplitude. The loads on a

real component may well subject that component to: (i)

varying mean stress; (ii) varying amplitude stress; (iii)

multiaxial stress; and (iv) out-of-phase loading, (including

rotating principal axes).

4.1. Tensile alternating stress with lateral compression

The literature contains considerable evidence to the effect

that virtually all fatigue and fracture properties of metals

and components are signi®cantly affected by multiaxial

loading [7,14,15]. The most damaging case being when

tensile stresses normal to a crack plane act in conjunction

with compressive stresses parallel to the crack plane. In such

a multiaxially stressed case the crack opening due to the

H. Mayer et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781 778

tensile stress is assisted by the compressive stress, which

may or may not itself be cycling. An example of such multi-

axial stressing is on the internal surface of a pressure vessel

knuckle, where, particularly if the knuckle radius is small in

comparison with the crown radius, a substantial circumfer-

ential compressive stress accompanies the tensile axial

stress.

The range of alternating principal stress, Ds

p

(BS5500:1997), effectively ignores that lateral stresses are

present, and, in the case of the knuckle, this parameter

would effectively ignore the smaller of the axial tensile

stress or the circumferential compressive stress, and so it

does not account for the fact that fatigue life is reduced by

their combined presence. On the other hand, the alternating

stress intensity S

a

, (ASME, AS1210), increases because of

the presence of the lateral stresses of the opposite sign.

Though it is not entirely clear from the literature, it appears

that S

a

is probably conservative in the case of multiaxial

loading. However, it is clear that Ds

p

, is unconservative

in its treatment of multiaxial stresses of mixed sign.

4.2. Biaxial tension

Here, the same mechanism allows the crack growth to be

inhibited by the presence of the lateral tension. But, because

the stresses on the third principal axis are zero, as is gener-

ally the case on the outside surface of a pressure vessel, the

two parameters are equal to each other, both ignoring the

restraining effects of the lateral tension. Hence, both are

conservative.

4.3. Triaxial compression

In the extreme case where an element is subjected to

¯uctuating hydrostatic pressure, it can be readily theorised

that, given three equal principal stresses, the alternating

stress intensity, S

a

, is zero and, hence, this parameter

predicts no crack growth or associated fatigue damage to

the element. On the other hand, the parameter Ds

p

, the

principal stress range, will equal the range in one of the

principal stresses regardless of the other two being of

equal magnitude, and so it will indicate fatigue damage.

The literature indicates that the use of Ds

p

is probably

conservative in that it ignores the restraining effects of

triaxial compression.

4.4. Triaxial tension

As a direct extension from the biaxial tension case, it is

clear that tension parallel to the crack plane in two direc-

tions will serve to reduce crack opening even more than

tension parallel to the crack plane in only one direction.

Here, the Ds

p

parameter retains the value of the range of

the largest principal stress, irrespective of the magnitude of

the other two principal stresses and, hence, predicts this case

even more conservatively than the biaxial tension case.

The value of the S

a

parameter is less than in the biaxial

tension case, because the shear stress on the element is

reduced. In the limiting case, when all principal stress

components are equal, and proportional throughout the

cycle, S

a

is zero at all times and predicts no crack growth.

However, the tension still opens the crack and, therefore, the

crack will grow, thus making the parameter unconservative

in this limiting case. Since it is not known at which point S

a

becomes conservative, it must be said to be unconservative

in any triaxial tension case.

4.5. Out-of-phase loading

In the case of rotating principal axis directions, that is

when shear and normal stress alternate out-of-phase, crack

growth rates in steel have been observed to increase by a

factor of up to ,2.5 under high cycle fatigue conditions

[16,17]. This represents a reduction factor of ,1.3 on

strength. The effect is much more severe under low cycle

fatigue conditions. Both the ASME and BS5500 approaches

consider only the largest changes in alternating stress to

which an element is subjected, whether or not the loads

H. Mayer et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781 779

Table 1

Performance of design parameters under various loading conditions

are alternating out-of-phase. Hence, this effect is not consid-

ered and both codes may be unconservative in such cases.

4.6. Load state discussion

The conclusions above are collated in Table 1. The table

reveals immediately that both parameters can be

unconservative in some load states. This implies that each

of the two approaches, ASME BPV-VIII-2 and

BS5500:1997 Annex C, can lead to unconservative esti-

mates of fatigue life. Of particular concern is the

BS5500:1997 use of the range of principal stress, Ds

p

,

where tension normal to a crack plane acts in conjunction

with compression parallel to that plane, such as in the

knuckle regions of a vessel.

It is also evident from Table 1, that either one or the other

parameter is conservative in all states of in-phase cyclic

loading, which implies that between the two parameters

conservative estimation of fatigue life can nevertheless be

achieved.

It is a simple exercise to calculate both parameters once

the stresses at the point of interest are known. Hence, to be

conservative, the designer may simply apply the larger (and

more conservative) of the two parameters.

In consideration of out-of-phase loading, a fatigue

strength reduction factor of 2 is proposed.

5. A new approach in AS1210 supplement 1-2000

A revised version of AS1210 was being drafted at the

time of completion of this paper. Among other modi®ca-

tions, a new approach to detailed fatigue analysis is

proposed. This new approach, is based on the arguments

presented in this paper, and is subject to public comment.

Consequently, the published version of AS1210 may vary in

detail from this approach, which is summarised as follows.

There are now two ®lters aimed at removing the need for

fatigue analysis. These two ®lters are much simpli®ed from

the previous code and so minimise design costs for those

cases clearly not in need of detailed fatigue analysis. Where

there is need for detailed fatigue analysis the following

applies.

If there is no structural singularity such as a weld toe, but

simply rolled plate or forging without repair welds, the three

principal stresses are established using elastic analysis at the

location of the peak stressing. Both the maximum range of

principal stress, Ds

p

, and the maximum range of stress

intensity, S

r

, are established for that point. The larger of

these two parameters is then chosen as the design parameter,

and corrected for Young's Modulus (for both material and

temperature). The permissible number of cycles, N, is then

established from a design curve, which is equivalent to

curve C from BS5500 Annex C, so allowing the calculation

of the fatigue damage, U.

If the peak stress region is a weld toe, then the three

principal stresses are established at the location of the

weld toe by extrapolation from the surrounding local stress

analysis results (linear elastic FEA or equivalent) beyond a

perimeter that is half plate thickness from the weld toe. The

procedure is then as before, excepting that a second design

curve, which is equivalent to Curve E from BS5500 Annex

C, is used to determine N.

Curves C and E of BS5500:1997 are the ones being

considered at the time of writing. Slightly different curves

may be used in the published document (to cater for ASME

parent metal).

As an alternative, consideration is being given to present-

ing the fatigue curves in a strain form. The advantages of

such a presentation being that the curves can be presented as

common for all metals and temperatures. Further, such a

strain presentation of the curves enables the practitioner to

use non-linear FEA, and the S±N data can be represented

with two curves only, being one for welded material &

another for non-welded material.

If the detail is poorer in fatigue performance than a weld

toe, such as for example the root of a partial penetration

®llet weld, then the procedure is to use the average stress

determined across the weld throat further applying a stress

concentration factor of 2 to the design stress parameter

before going to curve E.

In those cases where the principal stress directions vary,

that is where the principal stresses ¯uctuate signi®cantly out

of phase, then a further fatigue strength reduction factor of 2

is applied.

6. Conclusion

Practical dif®culties arise for the designer in the fatigue

analysis of welds in pressure vessels. For example, the

geometry of weld toes are effectively singularities for the

purposes of elastic ®nite element stress analysis. Yet, most

national standards, such as ASME, require an elastically

derived peak stress intensity at the highly localised peak

stress location. Other standards, such as BS5500, allow cate-

gorisation of the weld detail, but rely on the range of maxi-

mum principal stress, without apparently taking account of

multiaxial stresses. When calculating the fatigue life of

some components, the two codes differed by a factor on

life of greater than 10.

The major fatigue design stress parameters: (i) the stress

intensity range, S

r

, and (ii) the principal stress range, Ds

p

,

were evaluated for their performance over the scope of fati-

gue conditions they were required to predict, and for their

ability to be calculated.

It was concluded that a practical and conservative fatigue

analysis approach for a given weld detail is to use for the

stress parameter the larger of S

r

and Ds

p

, and to avoid the

dif®culty with the singularity at the weld toe by extrapolat-

ing from the surrounding values to give a geometric stress at

the singularity. The alternating stress parameter so evalu-

ated is compared to one of two fatigue curves. A curve based

H. Mayer et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781 780

on parent material property data is used when the location in

question is free of any welded material, and another curve

based on butt welded, unground specimens, is used when

welded joints may be present at the location at any time in

the vessels life. These details may vary slightly in the ®nal

published AS1210.

It is further proposed, that an additional fatigue strength

reduction factor of 2 be applied where the component

stresses in a multiaxially stressed location ¯uctuate out of

phase signi®cantly.

References

[1] ASME BPV-VIII-2. Boiler and pressure vessel code: section VIII Ð

Rules for construction of pressure vessels: division 2 Ð alternative

design rules. Appendix 5. New York: The American Society for

Mechanical Engineers, 1995.

[2] BS5500:1997. British standard speci®cation for un®red fusion welded

pressure vessels. Annex C. UK: British Standards Institution.

[3] AS1210 Supplement 1-1990. Un®red pressure vessels Ð Advanced

design and construction (supplement to AS1210-1989). Appendix C.

Sydney: Standards Australia.

[4] Houston R. British standards institution boiler and pressure vessel

design criteria. In: Nichols RW, editor. Pressure vessel codes and

standards. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987 (chap. 5).

[5] WoÈhler, A. Versuche uÈber die Festigkeit der Eisenbahnwagenachsen.

Zeitshrift fuÈr Bauwesen, 1860. In: ASM handbook, vol. 19: fatigue

and fracture. OH: ASM International, 1996. p. 15.

[6] Gurney TR. Fatigue of welded structures. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1968±1979.

[7] Beaver PW. Biaxial fatigue and fracture of metals: a review. Metals

Forum, Australia, vol. 8, no. 1, Summer, 1985.

[8] Richards KG. Fatigue strength of welded structures. Cambridge:

Abington Hall, 1969.

[9] Gurney TR. Fatigue design rules for welded joints. The Welding

Institute Research Bulletin 1976;May:115±24.

[10] Oliver, Ritter. Catalogue of S±N curves of welded joints in structural

steel. DuÈsseldorf: Deutscher Verlag fur Schweisstechnick, 1979.

[11] Harrison JD, Maddox SJ. Derivation of design rules for pressure

vessels. The International Institute of Welding Document, XIII-941-

80, 1980.

[12] Maddox SJ. Fatigue design rules for pressure vessels. The Interna-

tional Institute of Welding Document, XIII-1215-86, 1986.

[13] IIW Group XIII-XV. Fatigue design of welded joints and compo-

nents. The International Institute of Welding Document, XIII-1539-

96/XV-845-96, 1996.

[14] Leevers PS, Radon JC, Culver LE, (1977). In: Beaver PW, editor.

Biaxial fatigue and fracture of metals: a review. Metals Forum,

Australia, vol. 8, no. 1, 1985.

[15] Charat IMH, Garrat GG, (1980). J Test Eval JTEVA, 8,9. In: Beaver

PW, editor. Biaxial fatigue and fracture of metals: a review. Metals

Forum, Australia, vol. 8, no. 1, Summer, 1985.

[16] Kanazawa K, Miller KJ, Brown MW, (1977). J Engng Mater Technol

(Trans. ASME, Series H), 99, 222. In: Beaver PW, editor. Biaxial

fatigue and fracture of metals: a review. Metals Forum, Australia, vol.

8, no. 1, Summer, 1985.

[17] Kitagawa H, Yuuki R, Tohgo K., (1979). Fatigue Engng Mater Struct,

2, 195. In: Beaver PW, editor. Biaxial fatigue and fracture of metals: a

review. Metals Forum, Australia, vol. 8, no. 1, Summer, 1985.

H. Mayer et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 775±781 781

- HOT_SPOTUploaded byBob Loblaw
- FatigueUploaded byAshok Dargar
- Fatigue Assessment IJETT-V13P205Uploaded byMehdi
- 4146.1.VincentBonniolUploaded bybooraj007
- C45EUploaded byTrương Định
- 17683Uploaded byAna T
- 4140 SteelUploaded byPurvi Lalka
- 07junesc6meetingattachment2Uploaded byTanpreet Singh
- Hinnant Comments on Div 2 Rewrite SSMUploaded byClaudio Junior
- 81symp07Uploaded byVilas Andhale
- ContentsUploaded byalbejo_r9
- 00089571Uploaded bymsmsoft
- 712731Uploaded bysreekrishnan2
- Fatemi 1988Uploaded byparchekoh
- Fatigue FailuresUploaded bySukendi Tan
- comparação forjado x chapaUploaded bynbs2007
- Nozzle welding design.docUploaded byAlvin Smith
- Для Просмотра Статьи Разгадайте КапчуUploaded bySaut Remanto Samosir
- Thinwalled NotesUploaded byAnthony Van Tejano Sacabin
- Modeling of a Cracked Pipe into a Beam and Prediction of Fatigue Crack PropagationUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Chapter 2Uploaded byvasek28
- MATERIAL TECHNOLOGYUploaded byVarun
- Manual INstron 8505Uploaded byJesús Cantoral
- Borehole Geomechanics and Well DesignUploaded byMourad B. Wassef
- UKOPA-10-0051Uploaded byjohndaghe
- Pressure Vessel CalculatorUploaded byGodwin
- Spe-114231-Ms Fallas en El CasingUploaded byraifelmb
- Shaft CalculationUploaded byksangeeth2000
- fatiguehandbook.pdfUploaded byTien Hong Do
- Deterministic Fatigue AnalysisUploaded byoe07m007

- ABSA Failure Alert IB06-003Uploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Ch 37 Waste Water GEUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Presentation Pvp 2008 Fastener Preload GuidanceUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Torque of Stainless Steel, Non Ferrous TorqueUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Brazed Aluminum HEX Chart 017Uploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- 01 Script Hydrodynamic Layout.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Engineering critical analyses to BS 7910.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- ABSA news 008-V13-Iss1Uploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- 1386_FM Front Page Industrial Burner HandbookUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Flexitallic Joint Integrity CalculationsUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Aluminum Brazed HEX Chart 015Uploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Ethylene Heat Flux John ZinkUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Torque charts and Pump Tutorial 3Uploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- column process design.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- BS 7910.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- pvp1999-vol388.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Causal Factor Chart and Fault Tree TemplateUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- A Step by Step Introduction to FEA.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Fired Heater Checklist fw.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- FEA 107 Validation Experiment.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Causal Factor Chart and Fault Tree Template.xlsUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Tall vertical columns.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Practical Fracture Mechanics.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- mechanical design internals column notes.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Earthquake_Loading_Specified_in_G.docxUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Ethylene-safety-incidents.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Sample6_FEA_Report.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- Behind The Pretty Pictures (Speaker Information).pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo
- SCL_Through_Areas_of_Peak_Stress.pdfUploaded byMas Arman Tewo

- ML11171A342Uploaded byPrasaanna Moni
- Suelo Cemento Parte 2 IMCYCUploaded bytraoken
- BULK07Uploaded byEddie Muñoz
- Strength of MaterialsUploaded bySenthil Kumar
- Curso Sobre RebonamciaUploaded byJj Jj
- Ada 153913Uploaded bytskcbe
- Fatigue Testing and Analysis of ResultsUploaded byAndrei Costache
- Calculo Recipientes a Presion Basado en UNE-En 13445Uploaded byrooober3
- nskUploaded byDorian Cristian Vatavu
- Coke Drum DesignUploaded bykutts76
- fad-08Uploaded byDiego Santos
- Moldeo Por Bolsa de VacioUploaded byRiKrdo Bravo
- Analisis Tecnico-Economico Estructuras vs HormigonUploaded byUlpianoxx1992
- CORROSIVE EFFECTS OF CHLORIDES ON METALS.pdfUploaded byolivo farrera jr
- Dynamic Behaviour Under Wind Loading of Steel ChimneyUploaded byzmtdialog
- El Acero Como Material de ContruccionUploaded byLuigi Ortega
- Fadiga de Materiais e Marcas de Praia.docxUploaded byAndrew Robertson
- X BT Brochure en W3987Uploaded byPaul Robbins
- Ccopps Webinar SlidesUploaded bymfathi1356
- Design Girder Bridge EurocodeUploaded bytomnubi
- CALCULO-UNIONES-ATORNILLADASUploaded bycalvinobeta
- Apunte PavimentosUploaded byEdgar Nuñez Sandoval
- PipingUploaded byMu
- Fracturas Mecanicas en El AceroUploaded bySaul Cubillos Ramirez
- Ejemplo de C_lculo de Esfuerzos en ConductoresUploaded byItalo L Cheuquelaf
- ts404Uploaded bypwkannon
- acm_vol2no1_p008.pdfUploaded byphysicsnewblol
- Report Final 10102011Uploaded byjoejo_s
- Diseño Detallado de PernosUploaded bySergio Andres Garcia Cespedes
- Durability Assessment of Welded Structures Based on Welding Simulation With LS-DYNAUploaded byAmir Iskandar