Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Saldatura Fatica Elementi Finiti Hot Spot
Saldatura Fatica Elementi Finiti Hot Spot
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue
Abstract
Different methods and procedures exist for the computation of the structural hot-spot stress at welded joints. These are either
based on the extrapolation of stresses at certain reference points on the plate surface (or edge) close to the weld toeas known
from experimental investigationsor on the linearization of stresses in the through-thickness direction. Procedures for the application
of both methods to finite element analysis have recently been proposed in the literature. In the present paper, the different methods
are reviewed and applied to four different details in order to compare the methods with each other and to illustrate the differences.
Conclusions are drawn with respect to their accuracy and sensitivity to finite element meshing.
2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Welded joint; Structural stress; Hot-spot stress; Finite element method; Stress analysis
1. Introduction
The crack initiation and early propagation at weld toes
is governed by the local stress distribution around the
weld. Its analysis and assessment with respect to fatigue
has already a rather long history. According to [18], first
investigations were performed in the 1960s by several
researchers, including Peterson, Manson and Haibach, to
relate the fatigue strength to a local stress or strain measured at a certain point close to the weld toe, for example
at a distance of 2 mm [7]. Although the characteristic
fatigue strength related to this local stress shows fairly
small scatter it has been shown e.g. in [1] that it is still
affected by the local notch at the weld toe and, therefore,
not independent from local notch geometry. Investigations of relatively thick tubular joints have shown that
the local notch effect of the weld toe affects the stress
in the region up to 0.30.4t (t plate thickness) away
from the weld toe. This resulted in the 1970s in the
development of the well-known hot-spot stress approach
with the definition of reference points for stress evalu-
0142-1123/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0142-1123(02)00167-6
360
Nomenclature
b
B
F
l
M
SCF
t
applied it to complex welded structures [4]. Detailed recommendations concerning stress determination for
fatigue analysis of welded components were given by
Niemi [12].
However, several applications showed that the stress
results are still affected by the finite element meshing
and element properties. Additional recommendations for
finite element modelling and hot-spot stress evaluation
were given by Huther et al. [9] and by Fricke [6], the
latter based on extensive round-robin stress analyses of
several details. Special considerations have been shown
to be necessary for in-plane notches such as welded edge
gussets, where plate thickness is no more a relevant parameter for the definition of the reference points for stress
evaluation. Niemi and Tanskanen [13] as well as Fricke
and Bogdan [5] proposed alternative procedures for the
hot-spot stress analysis in such cases, using absolute distances for the reference points. A comprehensive IIWguidance for the structural hot-spot stress approach is
currently under preparation [14].
Dong [2] utilized the structural stress definition by
Radaj [17] and evaluated the structural stress directly at
the weld toe position from finite element results by using
principles of elementary structural mechanics. Mesh
insensitivity is claimed and demonstrated by several
examples, however, mainly on 2D basic joints [2], [3].
In this paper, the different methods for structural
stress evaluation are explained in more detail and compared with each other. Afterwards, their application is
illustrated by several 2D and 3D examples, showing the
similarities of the methods and answering the question,
how far mesh-insensitivity can be reached.
It should be emphasized that the structural stress
approach is restricted to the fatigue strength assessment
of weld toes, where cracks start from the surface of the
structure. Cracks starting from the root of not fully penetrated welds are not covered and require a different
assessment procedure.
w
attachment width
x, y, z coordinates
d
distance
s
normal stress
membrane stress
sm
bending stress
sb
t
shear stress
Fig. 1.
361
For type a) and c) weld toes, the IIW recommendations [8,14] propose a linear extrapolation over two
reference points, which are located 0.4t and 1.0t away
from the hot spot, where t is the thickness of the adjacent
plate (Fig. 3.1). The stresses are typically evaluated at
nodal points, so that the length of the first element is
0.4t and the second 0.6t. In case of a coarser mesh with
higher order elements, having lengths equal to t, the
stresses in the surface centres of solid elements or at
mid-side nodes of shell elements may be evaluated and
extrapolated over 0.5t and 1.5t (see Figs. 2 and 3.2),
as proposed by some ship classification societies.
At type a) weld toes, however, the width of the solid
element or the two shell elements in front of the hot spot
should not exceed either two times the plate thickness t
or the attachment width w (=attachment thickness plus
two weld leg lengths).
The situation is different for type b) weld toes, i.e. at
plate edges. As plate thickness is not relevant for the
element size nor the location of the reference points,
fixed reference points are proposed. Following the proposal by Niemi and Tanskanen [13] to apply quadratic
extrapolation over three points, 4 mm, 8 mm and 12 mm
away from the hot spot, element lengths of 4 mm or
even better 2 mm are required to obtain stresses at nodal
points not affected by the stress singularity (Fig. 3.3).
The alternative proposal by Fricke and Bogdan [5]
implies a linear extrapolation of stresses obtained from
the mid-side points of higher-order elements (e.g. isoparametric 8-node shell elements) with 10 mm length and
depth, which means that the stresses are extrapolated
over points 5 mm and 15 mm away from the hot spot
(Fig. 3.4).
Fig. 3.
362
1
1
[s 2sxx,1
sm sxx(z)dz
t
2n xx,0
0
2sxx,n1 sxx,n]
t2
t2
t2
[s
sm sb sxx(z)dzd txz(z)dz
2
6
6n2 xx,0
0
For a shell model, the structural stress can be evaluated directly at the hot spot because the linear stress distribution is already assumed in the elements, see Fig. 5.
In order to avoid inaccuracies due to stress distribution
assumed in the element formulation, the structural stress
is calculated directly from the nodal forces and moments
at the element edge in question.
A multi-linear stress distribution is assumed for several elements along the weld which is derived from an
equation system for the stress values at the element corners.
By using these stresses, mesh insensitivity is claimed
by Dong [2] even for hot spots with high stress singularity, i.e. types a) and b) in Fig. 1.
Fig. 4.
3. Examples
In the following, four examples with different types
of weld toes are described, where the methods mentioned above are applied to derive the structural hot-spot
stress, i.e.
surface stress extrapolation acc. to IIW [8,14], i.e. linearly over 0.4 t /1.0 t for type a) and c) joints and
quadratically over 4 mm /8 mm /12 mm for type b)
joints in connection with element lengths of at least
0.4 t or 4 mm, respectively (Figs. 3.1 and 3.3)
surface stress extrapolation over 0.5 t /1.5 t (5 mm
and 15 mm for type b) joints) in connection with relatively coarse meshes, having elements with quadratic
Fig. 5.
shape function and lengths of 1.0t or 10 mm, respectively (Figs. 3.2 and 3.4)
structural stress evaluation acc. to Dong [2], using
meshes with different element sizes. All calculations
were performed by the authors on the basis of the
references given.
The element type and weld representation have not
been varied within each comparison.
363
Fig. 7. Plate fillet lap joint and results obtained for surface stress
extrapolation.
Fig. 6.
364
Fig. 10. Surface stress and structural stress ratio for one-sided doubling plate.
In order to clarify the reasons for this mesh-sensitivity, the geometry of the one-sided doubling plate has
been varied. For the sake of simplification, a rectangular
doubling plate with constant length (60 mm), but varying
width b has been chosen. The thickness of the doubling
plate is 10 mm. The dimensions of the parent plate are
B 240 mm and t 15 mm.
Fig. 11 shows three models with different ratios b/B,
ranging from 1/12 (shallow longitudinal stiffener) to 1/1
(2D case). The element length in front of the doubling
plate was again varied from 0.4 t to 2.0 t.
Fig. 12 shows the structural stress evaluated at the
centre line according to Dong [2]. It can clearly be seen
that the difference between the results becomes larger if
365
Fig. 12. Structural stress according to Dong [2] evaluated from different meshes of rectangular doubling plates.
366
Fig. 14. Shell and solid finite element models of the bracket with
longitudinal stress distribution.
Fig. 16. Stress distribution in front of the bracket toe and structural
hot-spot stresses for various shell models.
Fig. 17. Stress distribution in front of the bracket toe for two different
meshes of the bracket.
367
according to Fig. 1. The model was investigated experimentally by Kim et al. [10]. It was also included in the
round-robin study [6].
Again, shell modelling with 8-noded elements was
chosen for the present finite element analysis. The weld
was modelled in a simplified way as illustrated in Fig.
18. In this way, the correct weld toe position was kept.
The area in front of the weld toe was modelled in three
different ways by choosing element lengths =2 mm,
=5 mm and =10 mm, respectively.
Fig. 19 shows the computed stress distribution at the
plate edge of the flat bar close to the weld. The force F
was chosen such that a unit nominal stress is acting at
the welded toe. As expected for in-plane notches, the
stress distribution is affected by the stress singularity,
showing increased stresses in the elements adjacent to
the notch. The stress extrapolation yields a stress value
of 1.77 MPa for the fine mesh (quadratic extrapolation)
and 1.68 MPa for the coarse mesh (linear extrapolation),
which means a slight difference between the two
methods. The difference is higher than expected from
the former investigation [5], where only 2D structures
with 135 and 90 corners have been analysed.
Dongs method was applied for an assumed crack
depth of 10 mm, defining the end of the fatigue life for
this specimen. The structural stress computed for the
three meshes in accordance with 2.3 shows only little
scatter, however, the stress is higher that that obtained
from surface extrapolation.
It should be mentioned here that the calculated structural stress is higher than the measured one and that the
corresponding fatigue life prediction has shown to be
very conservative for this example [6].
4. Conclusions
From the application of different structural stress
evaluation methods to four examples of welded plate
Fig. 18. Flat bar welded to an I-beam and modelling of the critical
area around the weld toe.
Fig. 19. Stress distribution in front of the fillet weld and structural
hot-spot stresses for various models.
368
structures, the following conclusions are drawn and recommendations are given:
1. The two alternative methods for surface stress extrapolation (as shown on the right and left side of Fig.
3) yield almost the same results. The first procedure
with reference points 0.4 t / 1.0 t away from the weld
toe (or 4/8/12 mm at plate edges) requires a finer
mesh with element lengths of at least 0.4 t (or 4 mm,
respectively), if higher-order elements are used. However, finer mesh densities are also allowed. The
second procedure with reference points 0.5t /1.5 t
away from the weld toe (or 5/15 mm at plate edges),
which is preferred by several ship classification
societies, requires fixed sizes of higher-order elements
to achieve consistent results.
2. The procedure proposed by Dong [2] for the evaluation of the structural stress directly at the weld toe
shows mesh-insensitivity for 2D problems. However,
in the case of 3D stress concentration, some scatter is
observed in the results evaluated from different mesh
densities. This seems to be due to the neglect of
stresses in the equilibrium equations acting at the
transverse element sides. The scatter increases if the
notch is very localized, as exemplified by the toe of
a bracket oriented in stress direction, which is in practice often very simply modelled by using shell
elements. In case of in-plane notches, i.e. at plate
edges, the structural stress depends on the assumption
of a crack depth, which defines the range of stress linearization.
3. Additional scatter of the stress results is expected due
to the usage of different element types offered by
finite element programs and due to different techniques of modelling the weld, particularly if shell
elements are applied. This scatter is typically between
5% and 10% [6]. In addition, the investigations
have shown that also the meshing outside the stress
evaluation area in front of the weld toe can further
affect the results, so that mesh-insensitivity remains
generally questionable. The analyst should always be
aware of the limitations set by the finite element
model as well as by the evaluation method of the
structural hot-spot stress.
4. The definition of the structural stress is principally
the same in all methods, except for cases with nonmonotonic trough-thickness stress distributions (see
section 2.3). Therefore, the fatigue assessment by SN curves should also be comparable. Niemi [14] recommends for welds at steel FAT 100 for normal cases
and FAT 90 for cases with full-load carrying fillet
welds (example 4) and side attachments longer than
100 mm. The FAT number corresponds to the characteristic fatigue strength reference value of the design
S-N curve at 2 million cycles. The fatigue lives evalu-
References
[1] Atztori G, Meneghetti G. Fatigue strength of filled welded structural steels: finite elements, strain gauges and reality. International Journal of Fatigue 2001;23:71321.
[2] Dong P. A structural stress definition and numerical implementation for fatigue analyses. Int J Fatigue 2001;23(10):86576.
[3] Dong P, Hong JK, Cao Z. A mesh-insensitive structural stress
procedure for fatigue evaluation of welded structures. IIW-Doc.
XIII-1902-01/XV-1089-01, International Institute of Welding,
2001.
[4] Fricke W, Petershagen H. Detail design of welded ship structures
based on hot spot stresses. In: Caldwell JB, Ward G, editors.
Practical design of ships and mobile units. Elsevier Science;
1992.
[5] Fricke W, Bogdan R. Determination of hot spot stress in structural members with in-plane notches using a coarse element
mesh. IIW-Doc. XIII-1870-01, International Institute of Welding, 2001.
[6] Fricke W. Recommended hot spot analysis procedure for structural details of ships and FPSOs based on round-robin FE analyses. Int J of Offshore and Polar Engng 2002;12(1):407.
[7] Haibach E. Fatigue Strength of Welded Joints from Viewpoint
of Local Strain Measurement (in German). Report FB-77, Fraunhofer-Institut fu r Betriebsfestigkeit (LBF), Darmstadt 1968.
[8] Hobbacher A, editor. Recommendations for fatigue strength of
welded components. Cambridge: Abington Publishing; 1996.
[9] Huther I, Gorski S, Lieurade HP, Laborde S, Recho N. Longitudinal non loaded welded joints geometrical stress approach. Welding in the World 1999;43(3):206.
[10] Kim WS, Kim DH, Lee SG, Lee YK. Fatigue strength of loadcarrying box fillet weldment in ship structure. In: Wu Y-S, Cui
W-C, Zhou G-J, editors. Practical design of ships and other floating structures. Elsevier Science; 2001.
[11] Matoba M, Kawasaki T, Fujii T, Yamauchi T. Evaluation of
fatigue strength of welded structureshulls members, hollow
section joints, piping and vessel joints. IIW-Doc. XIII-1082-83,
International Institute of Welding, 1983.
[12] Niemi E, editor. Recommendations concerning stress determination for fatigue analysis of welded components. Cambridge:
Abington Publ; 1995.
[13] Niemi E, Tanskanen P. Hot spot stress determination for welded
edge gussets. Welding in the World 2000;44(5):317.
[14] Niemi E. Structural Stress Approach to Fatigue Analysis of
Welded ComponentsDesigners Guide. IIW-Doc. XIII-181900/XV-1090-01 (Final Draft), International Institute of Welding, 2001.
[15] Paetzold H, Doerk O, Kierkegaard H. Fatigue behaviour of different bracket connectons. In: Wu Y-S, Cui W-C, Zhou G-J, editors.
Practical design of ships and other floating structures (Ed. Elsevier; 2001.
[16] Petershagen H, Fricke W, Massel T. Application of the local
approach to the fatigue strength assessment of welded structures
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
369