1 views

Original Title: Criterio de fatiga para acero

Uploaded by Paul Renato Montero

- (10) Lim Joo Wee, IEV (2)
- Crane Supporting Steel Structures-Design Guide
- Siri Jack-Up Platform
- A. Hobbacher-Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, Recommendations of IIW Joint Working Group XIII - XV -Woodhead Publishing (1996).pdf
- The 50 Major Engineering Failures
- Penthouse Winter 1993
- Master_Thesis_Residual_Stresses_in_Welds_of_Supersize_Monopiles_for_Offshore_Wind_Substructures.pdf
- Jun Liu, Zhufeng Yue, Xiaoliang Geng, Shifeng Wen, Wuzhu Yan-Long-Life Design and Test Technology of Typical Aircraft Structures-Springer Singapore (2018).pdf
- Fatigue Paper 2
- 1 - Fatigue and Fracture Toughness of Five Carbon or Low Alloy Cast Steels at Room or Low Climate Temperature (1)
- Fatigue Analysis
- Spectral method in multiaxial random fatigue.pdf
- 18
- Fatigue & Creep Problems
- 3D Fatigue Analysis of RC Bridge Slabs
- 98-Khasaba-Aljinaidi-Hamed-Fatigue-2017.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S1350630714000600-main
- corrosion por fatiga caso de estudio
- 7
- 746308

You are on page 1of 17

>e One World Trade Center, Suite 1369, New York, N,Y, 10048

>?

*3 PaPer$ to be presented at Extreme load. R,SPOS, Symposium

~

: Arliston, VA, October 19-20, 1981

;+

co .

5

% ,*L . ,*,,+\+

@

W. H. Munse, University of Illinois, U;bana, IL

a variable Ioadig history

Fatigue criteria are presented for that is expec ed to produce

the design of ship structures. l%e failure in 10 ~ cycles

criteria take into account the ship

s tructure details, the fatigue resis- = Mean constant-cycle stress

tance of specific locations in these N

range for failure at N cycles.

details, the variable loading to which

a ship is subj ected, and the desired Io8 = The maximum stress range ex-

level of reliability (factor of safety) pected to occur once in 108

A design example indicates the simple cycles, based o a Weibull

manner in which the criteria can be distribution.

useti.

w = Characteristic value of S

NOMENCLATURE (Equation 5)

S-N curve L

r = Gamma func tio

Probability density function-

fs(s)

Weibull distribution = Mean s tress of the Weibull

(Equation 2) us

distribution (Equation 3)

Weibull distribution 7)

failure through a life, n 5s

Weibull distribution.

(Equation 9)

= Total uncertainty in fatigue

N

m Negative slope of S-N curve life (coefficient of

variation)

N The mean life necessary to

produce a useful life n with INTRODUCTION

a reliability of L(n)

Fatigue cracking in ships has been

(PF) Probability of failure a serious problem for many years As

= [l-L(n)] noted by Vedeler (1)1 in 1962, ship-

builders in Norway and Sweden cons id-

Reliability factor ered the problem of fatigue in ships

F

(Equation 13) to be of more practical importance for

ordinary ships than the question of

s Stress range brittle fracture, He noted that fa-

tigue cracks were often found in the

Constant-cycle fatigue forepeak region, bottom amidships, at

SD

design stress range for a the bulwark at both ends of the bridge,

useful life n and reliability and in the hatch corners In a recent

L(n) stuciy it has been observed that ships

may also have cracks at crossings of

(sD)all = The maximum allowable frames, longitudinal, and girders ,

fatigue stress range and many other locations (2, 3 and 4)

(Equation 15)

1

Reference numbers are indicated

in parentheses.

&

23.1

Since such cracks may be possible Fatigue Behavior of Weldments

points of initiation for catastrophic

failures and, since the repair of fa- During the nearly 50 years of

tigue cracks can be very costly, it is laboratory studies conducted on weld-

essential that fatigue be given ade- ments , numerous papers , conference

quate consideration i the design of proceedings and books have been pub-

ship structures lished wherein detailed fatigue data

for welds and weldments may be found

In this paper criteria are pz-e- (5-11) Recently, much of this infor-

sented for the fatigue design of ship mation has been re-examined to estab.

structural details along with a brief lish basic S-N relationships for

discussion of the principal parameters numerous types of welded members and

included in the criteria. 2 An example details (12) Nearlv 1500 S-N curves

of the application of these design have beeri p;oduced, &ne example of

crireria is then presented to indicate which is presented in Fig. 1. (This

the simple manner in which the criteria is the S-N curve for axially loaded lon-

can be used to provide a verification gitudinal fdl penetration groove

of the adequacy of a ship in fatigue. welds with the reinforcement intact;

based on stress range; and for mild,

FATIGUE DESIGN PARAMETERS high strength low alloy or quenched

and tempered steels. Identified by

Fatigue design generally consists DAAAXB)

of verifying that the details of a

structure have sufficient resistance The solid line mean regression

to repeated loading to provide a fa- curve (50% reliability) of Fig. 1, as

tigue life equal to or greater than established by a least-square analysis ,

required: a wrifica, tion by checking can be given by,

Drocess To achieve this for shiu

;tructure details , criteria have ~een Log N=log C-mlog SN (1)

deeloped which takes into account,

(a) the basic fatigue behavior of ~;

welded structural details, (b) the or SN = (N) (la)

tYPes Of details found in ship struc-

tures at which cracking has been ob- where,

served, (c) the loading histories to log c = the life intercept of the

which ships may be subjected, and (d) S-N curve

the level of fatigue safety to be in-

cluded in the ship design. N= number of cycles to failure

for a constant cycle stress

There are other factors that can range of SN,

affect the fatigue behavior of a struc-

ture also ; however, their importance m= the negatiw slope of the

or effect is not as great as the effect S-N curve

o f those noted above and to include

them would have greatly complicated the constant-cycle stress

N =

the overall design process. These range for failure at N

neglected factors include, (a) the cycies.

mean stress effect, an effect that is

relatively small for welded details Using such straight-line relation-

and is now neglected in most fatigue ships , the mean fati ue stress ranges

design specifications , (b) the tensile for lives of 105, 10~, 107, 108 cycles,

strength of the steel, another factor have been established for numerous

that is generally neglected in struc- welded members and details , and are

tural fatigue design specifications presented in Table 13, These mean fa-

and considered to have relatively tigue strengths are for the numerous

little effect in long life fatieue. structural fatigue details shown in

and (c) tempera ture, -rate of lo~d Fig. 2.

application, residual stresses, and

size effect, again factors that are For each of the details shown in

Eenerally found to be of secondary Fig. 2, the location at hich the fa-

Zmport anie tigue strength applies is the point

where the greatest *tress concentration

exists and, except as noted, ca be

3

Under random loadings straight-

2 line S-N relationships are found to

The ship design criteria presented extend well beyond the fatigue limits

herein were developed in an investi- often reported for constant cycle

gation conducted at the University of tests (10) Therefore: in this devel-

Illinois and sponsored by tbe Snip opment, the straight-line S-N relation-

Structure Committee, ship has been assumed to extend to 108

cycles or more.

232

200 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! Ill [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 ) 1 1 1 [ Iu J 1 1

1 , 1 I ++~

1 LB,,? TGLFF7CNU L , !, s,,. 5..,, K

m .

60 m.,, .

=-. -

-- =-

-- =---

-.

- --------

._ . ..

4-

1

++tHtH-++ +-++-}+ H

, 5 , 10,!, : , , 5,,,,

CYCLES TO FF!lLL!RE,

IN TH12U5RNC5

Fig. 1. S-N Relationship for a Weldment Containing a Longitudinal Groove

weld in the As-Welded Condition, (Detail No. 3)

considered to be a function of the prin- been identified and will provide gui-

cipal tensile stress at that location. dance in locating the details for which

This location, for example, is at the possible fatigue failure should be

end of the cover plate for detail No. 5, checked (22) AII example of a few of

is at the toe of the butt weld for de- these families and configurations of

tail No. 10, and is at the side of the details is presented in Fig. 3.

hole in detail No. 28.

The locations in Fig. 3 at which

The data in Table I and the dia- fatigue cracking might develop are cir-

grams of Fig. 2 provide the basic fa- cled and identified by the correspond-

tigue information on which the fatigue ~g structural detail number from Fig,

design criteria presented herein are (The basic fatizue resistance for

based. the detail is provi~ed in Table 1)

in ships and not all of the details

After the basic fatigue data had used in the ships surveyed hae exhibi-

been assenbled, the second phase in ted cracks Only the thirty-seven de-

the development of tbe fatigue design tails listed in Table III are those for

procedure was the identification of which cracking was reported and then,

those ship locations at which fatigue some of the details exhibited only a

crackine mizht occur. Two recent re- very limited number of cracks Those

ports o; th~ in-service performance of for which the largest number of cracks

structural ship details (3, 4) have were found are those for which these

served to define possible fatigue criti - fstigue design criteria will be of

cal locations in &hips These-reports svceatest value, However. in design a

catalog and define the types and loca- ?atige evalwition shodd be made-of

tions of details at which failures all details for which fatigue cracking

have occured in a variety of merchant is a possibility,

and Naval vessels.

Ship Loadings

A total of 86 ships were included

in the surveys The details examined To properly evaluate the fatigue

were separated into twelve general adequacy of a ship detail requires a

families (see Table II) and these were realistic estimate of the cvclic stress

in turn divided into 56 zrouDs of 634 history to which the detail-will be sub-

separate configurations. - A ~otal of jected during its lifetime. Since the

6856 failures were found in the 607584 existing full-scale ship loading data

details observed. In the investigation are for a limited length of time. it

on which this paper is based, the loca- has been necessary to-extrapolate the

tions in each of these confi~urations available data to obtain an estimated

at which fatigue might devel~p have lifetime spectrum (13 , 14) Such

233

TASLE I

Mean Fatigue Stress Range for Fatigue Details in Fig. 2

Slope,

(seYIJig, 2) m ~ = 105 ~ = 106 = 107 ~ = 108

1 (F) 4.80 67.1 41.5 25.7 15.9

2 6.05 61,5 42,0 28,7 19.62

3 5.77 44.1 29,6 19.9 13,33

3 (G) 5.94 41.2 27.9 19.0 12.87

4 6.08 41.4 28,3 19,4 13.30

5 3.25 26,4 13.02 6.42 3.16

6 6,08 41.4 28.3 19.41 13.30

4.11 39,8 22.71 12.97 7.41

6.54 55,8 39,2 27,6 19.4

9 9.64 32.6 25,7 20.2 15.92

9(s) 8.85 48 37 28.5 22.0

10 7,44 39.9 29,3 21.5 15,76

1O(G) 9.32 47.2 36.9 28.8 22.49

11 6.13 33.1 22.73 15,62 10.73

11(G) 6.65 29.4 22.5 17.26 13.23

12(G) 5.66 40,8 27,2 18,09 12.05

12 3.98 35,0 19.6 11.00 6.17

13 4.23 48.3 28.0 16.27 9.44

14 7.43 40,6 29,8 21.8 16,03

15 3.48 25,98 13.40 6,91 3.57

4.63 32,8 19.93 12,12 7.37

:! (G) 6.97 32.8 23,6 16.94 12.17

3.73 27,8 15,00 8.10 4.37

17(s) 9.52 28,9 22.7 17.81 13.99

18 4.03 20.30 11.46 6.47 3.65

18(s) 9.22 25.7 20.02 15.60 12,15

19 7.49 23.1 17,00 12.49 9.18

19(s) 7.53 27,5 20,28 14.93 10,99

20 3.94 32.9 18,36 10.23 5.70

20(s) 6.44 28.02 19.60 13.71 9.59

21 3.94 (:;;:) (~M:36) (;;:;3) (5,70)

21(s) 7.36 16.59

22 3.15 39,8 19,16 9,22 4,43

23 3.26 35.7 17.6 8,68 4,28

24 3.26 35.7 17.6 8,68 4.28

25 7.09 33.2 24.0 17.36 12.54

26A 8.53 49.9 38,1 29.1 22.20

25B 3.95 (;::;) (;:::;) (M:j:) (::~:)

26 3,46

27 4.85 22.8 14,17 8.81 5.46

27(S) 4.48 22,8 13.83 8,16 4.88

28 7.74 40,1 29.8 22,11 16.42

28(F) 4.81 (29.4) (18.21) (11,28) (6,99)

29

;;#)

29R2

30 2,83 38~0 16,83 7,46 3,31

234

TABLE I (CONTINUED)

No .1 Slope,

(See Fig. 2) m ~ = 106 7 ~ = 108

n = 105 n=10

31 (20,16) (11.87) (6.99)

;;A

32B

3;48

3.53

(;::g:) (;:i;y) (:;:;) (:;:;)

32c

3.66 21;34 11~38 6;07 3;23

::(s) 10.39 25,5 20,45 16.38 13.12

34 3.66 (21.34) (11.38) (6.07) (3.23)

34(s) 10.39 (:::;) (;;:$:) (1::::) (1::l..)

35 3.55

36 3.95 34.9 19.51 10,89 6.08

36A 3.95 34.9 19,51 10.89 6.08

37

37s

38 3.71 32- 17.2 9;24 4:97

:; (s) 10.23 16.27 13,00 10.37 8.28

39A

39B

39C

40 3.53 (21~50) (11:21) (5;84) (3:04)

41

42 5.02 110,2 69;8 44,08 27;88

43

43A

44

45

46 4:35 (20~16) (11~87) (6:99) (4112)

47

47A

48

48R

49

50

51

52

53

A dash is provided where no data are available

235

-==2- 29( F)-29

29RI (Radi.3 = l14~,to1/2)

29 R2(Rodi. s ,1/2 Iol )

c

w. )

3;(s)-37

C===D> 30A

38( S)-38

32

1 ,, -,

7/- L~ #

c c

1 3

e=

&&J-&.

f3==J-yp-

13

236 _ .

390 39

-... ... .

7 26

38 37 26

20,21

T T

(a) Family No. I(AI) (b) Family No,l(B4)

W_

\ ; 33

25

33s

7

b

25B 2130

Zf(s)

(c) Family No, 2 (c2) (d) Family No. 3( AI)

42

7

36 36

f

m

49 III

Fig. 3. Examples of Configurations in

ship family details (3,4)

Total Total

n ct&Jl, Detail No. o Detail No. of

. No. Crack & Cracks

7 272 32B 2

*+ 9 7 33 36

L@ 51 14

17

7 33s 20

2 34 23

17s 2 34s 17

19 42 36 600

19s 40

r-l

L..

52

/ 21

21s

1300

54

38

40

41

2

11

8

F

26 155 42 7

c3cJ- 47

28

28F

208

222

43

44

75

14

29 9 47 29

/ 29R

53 3

(G) - Designates a ground surface

(S) - Designates shear on weld or 29F 7 48R 25

fastener 50 2

(F) Designates flame-cut edges f.ai-

30 142 51 687

comparison with machined edges

30A 672 52 105

Fig,2, Structural Fatigue-Details (cent

53 8

i--

237

1

~BLE II

Totals Observed

No, Name Details Failures Failures

2 Tripping Bracket 34,o12 1,587 4.67

3 Non-Tight Collar 20,974 33 0,16

4 Tight Collar 20,654 46 0.22

5 Gunwale Connect ion 172 5 2.91

6 Knife Edges o 0

8 Clearance Cutouts 57,307 843 1.47

10 Stanchion Ends 7,090 122 1.72

11 Stiffener Ends 40,729 298 0.73

12 Panel Stiffeners 53,827 788 1,46

)

238

extrapolations , plotted on a semi-log

cumulative distribution basis for large 35 >.

tankers and dry cargo vessels are pre- ...

sented in Fig, 4 and are based on the 30

wave- induced longitudinal bending F

stresses. A complete loading history

should include also the high-frequency

dynamic loadings However, since these

are generally of a relatively small

stress-range and would produce little

damage they have been neglected in the

present study. (The somewhat conserva-

tive previous assumption that the S-N

curve is linear to 108 cycles tends to

compensate for this neglect of the high- 5

frequency stresses. ) Nevertheless, if

it can be demonstrated that the stress t

ranges for the expected high-frequency % f 765432[ o

loadings will not be small (above about - LOG

6 ksi), then they should be included in

(a ) Service Stresses In Large Tankers. (13)

the total loading history,

developed herein requires that the load-

ing history be represented in probabil-

istic terms by a probability distribu-

tion func tion. A variety of distribu-

tion functions were investigated,

including the Beta, Lognormal, Weibull,

Exponential and Sayleigh distributions;

however, the evaluation clearly indica-

ted that the Weibull distribution

would most effectively define existing

ship loading data,

ity distribution function can provide

many shapes to model the loading his-

tory, including those of the Exponential

and Sayleigh distributions , and is given

by: .

exp [-(~)k] (2) Q(x > Xj) TOTAL PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING Xl

fs(s) = $ ($k-1

(b 1 ServiceStressesIn Dry Cargo Vessels,(14)

where:

k = shape parameter Fig. 4. Long-Term Trends in Service

Stresses for Large Tankers and Dry

w = characteristic value of s Cargo Vessels (13,14)

s = stress

us

=wr(l+ l/k) (3)

and the standard deviation is ,

s =

where;

r = Ganuna function

al Weibull distributions (various values

of k) are shown in Fig, 5. These are

similar to the distributions often re-

ported for strain measurements made on

ships at sea, An indication of the ex-

cellent fit of a Weibull distribution

with k = 1,2 and the data obtained from Stress, S

Sea-Lands SL-7 shipboard measurements

(15) is presented in Fig. 6. Fig. 5. General Shapes of Weibull

Distributions

239

The above procedure has been fol-

30 lowed to establish values of k for a

variety of ships for which loading his-

tOry data ~re available.

~elg~en .Ln Table V and ra~g~

These values

from 0.7

Tbe shapes of the functions

20 are presented in Fig, 7 and are similar

to those for the ships shown in Fig. 4.

It should be noted that the larger ships

(tankers and bulk carriers) tend to have

loading shape parameters equal to or

10 greater than 1.0.

tions, the maximum stress-range expected

tO be reached once in a ship, s lifetime

00 of 108 cycles (estimated to be a 20 year

10 20 30 40

life) can be determined from the follow-

s ing equation:

(Max. Peak-to-Trough Stress, kei)

S~08 = w [ln (52000)]1/k (6)

Fig. 6. SL-7 Scratch Gage Data

with Corresponding Iieihull Dis- The predicted values of S~08 for the

tribution (16) ships for which loading history data

are available are give in Table V and

To obtain tieibull distributions range from 10 ksi to 34.1 ksi.

that represent ship loading stress his-

tories, the mean, the standard devia- Random Load Factor

tion and the coefficient of variacian

for the distributions are made equal to In the fatigue design procedure

the corresponding values for the ship presented herein tbe constant-cycle

fatigue stress range in Eq. 1 must be

data. First, the appropriate value of

modified to account for the random load-

che Weibull distribution parameter k

ing represented by the Weibull distribu-

can be obtained from Table IV by making

tion functions This can be done readily

the coefficient of variation for the

Weibull distribution (standard devia- and simply by introducing a random load

factor, c (16).

tionfmean) equal to the coefficient of

variation fcm the his trograms, Next,

the value of parameter w is obtained The random load factor is based on

from the following: the assumption that the stress range

history can be modeled by the two-para-

us meter Weibull distribution function

. (5) with a maximum stress range equal to

r(l + I/k)

S108 and a minim~ stress range equal

to zero and is given by:

TABLE IV

C = (lnN)llk [r(l + m/k)] -l/m (7)

Table of Weibull Shape Parameter

Values and Corresponding This factor, as developed by Ang and

Coefficients of Variation Munse (16) , is based on the ap lication

of Miners linear damage hypot I!

C?SIS to

the random loading represented by the

Weibull Shape Coefficient of Weibull probability density function of

Parameter Variation Eq. 2. A tabulation of the random load

k 6 factors for various values of k and m

are presented in Table VI for a life of

0,5 2,236 108 cycles. (A comparable table could

0,6 1.758 readily be prepared for any other life. )

0.7 1,462

0,8 1,261 Using the random stress factor from

0.9 1,113 Eq. 7 (Table VI) (a factor that corre-

1.0 1,000 sponds to a specific Weibull distribu-

1.1 0.910 tion and S -N curve slope) , and the mean

1.2 0.837 fatigue stress range from Table I for

1.3 0.776 specific detail, one can readily obtain

1,4 0,724 the maximum stress of the variable load-

.

1.5 0.679 ing that can be expected to produce

1,6 0,640 failure at 108 cycles This maximum

1.7 0.605 stress is :

1.8 0.575

1.9 0.547 (smax)N = SN E

2,0 0.523

p.-

240

I.c

0,8

0,6

_s_

s.

0.4

0.2

0

-( -b -> -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Log [1- FS(S)]

TABLE V

Stress Change at

Weibull Probability of

Type of Load EXCe dance

Ship Name of Ship NOtes Shape, k = 10 5 ,S108 (ksi)

California State l~; 1.0 18,0

Mormacs Can 1,5,7 1.3 12.0

Mormacscan 1,5,6 1.0 10,0

R. G. Follis 2,5 0.8 30.0

Esso Malaysia 2,5 0.8 21.8

Universe Ireland 2,3,5, 0.7 18,7

ships

Data from ref. (20)

Data from ref. (21)

Data from ref. (15)

Load history is for wave-induced loading with

dynamic effects filtered.

Load history is for wave-induced loading with

dynamic ef feet included,

Load history based on North Atlantic voyages

Load history based on ,South American voyages.

Load history hased on data collected from eight

SL-7 containerships

241

TABLE VI

2,5 23,12 17.49 13.86 11.39 9.63 8.33 7.33

3.0 19.23 14.96 12.12 10.14 8.69 7.60 6.75

3.5 16.35 13.04 10.77 9.14 7.93 7.00 6.27

4.0 14.15 11.53 9.68 8.32 7,30 6.50 5.86

4.5 12.41 10.31 8.79 7.64 6.76 6,07 5.52

5.0 11.01 9.31 8.04 7.07 6.31 5.71 5.21

5,5 9.87 8.48 7.41 6,58 5.92 5.39 4,95

6.0 8.91 7.77 6.87 6.15 5.58 5.10 4.71

6.5 8.11 7.16 6.40 5.78 5.27 4,85 4.50

7.0 7.42 6.64 5.99 5.45 5.00 4,63 4.31

7.5 6..S3 6.18 5.62 5.16 4,76 4,43 4.14

8.0 6.31 5.78 5.30 4,89 4.54 4.24 3.98

8.5 5,86 5.42 5.01 4.66 4.35 4.08 3.84

9.0 5.46 5,10 4.75 4.44 4.17 3.92 3.71

9.5 5.11 4,81 4.52 4.25 4.00 3.78 3.59

10.0 4.79 4.55 4,30 4,07 3.85 3.65 3.48

Values are based on a life of 108 cycles For any other life N,

the values in this table would be multiplied by:

(,n N)ljk

(18,42)1/k

stress range from Table I that would be

L(n)

expected to produce a fatigue failure -1,08

in the selected detail at N cycles = exp -[~ r(l + nN108)]QN

However, the value so determined is the { 1 (9)

mean value (50 percent level of reliabil - where:

ity) and must be modified by a reliabil- N = mean life to fatigue failure

ity factor (factor of safety) to obtain = total uncertainty in fatigue

an appropriate maximum design stress N

m

value.

R~bility Factor (Factor of Safety) The total uncertainty is a func-

tion of the uncertainly in the mean

The basic relationships for the fa- fatigue strength (Table I) , the uncer-

tigue reliability design criteria devel- tainty in the stress analysis, effects

oped herein have been presented by Ang

of fabrication, workmanship, corrosion,

(17) in his development of reliability etc. The uncertainty in the mean fa-

analysis for design. In this analysis tigue strength (standard deviation

it is recognized that the fatigue life divided by the mean) varies considerably

Of a structural detail is a random vari - from one detail to the next bc aver-

able and assumed that its distribution ages about 0,50 (from 0.2 to 0.8 depend-

can be represented by an approximation ing upon the detail, the amount of data,

to the Weibull distribution (18) h

etc. ) for the details in Table 1, Rela-

this basis , the reliability function tively little is kmwn concerning tbe

(the probability of no failure through other factors, Nevertheless, until

a life n) can be given by: better values can be established it is

recommended that an estimated value of

~ uncertainty of 0.80 be used.

242

To utilize the reliability func- stress for a specified level of relia-

tion in design, the mean life N neces.

bility will be given by:

ary to produce a useful life n with a

reliability of L(n) is obtained from SD = (f) Urn

from the fol lowing: (12)

or

N = nyL

(lo) SD = + lf~ (L)h (lza)

where yL is tbe scatter factor and is L

where:

given by equation 11 (Fig. 8)

= constant cycle design stress

D

range for a useful life ~ and

1,08,

r(l+nN a specified reliability L(n)

~L =

1.08 (11) Designating the Ias t term of equation

(1.2a)as the Reliability Factor, , RF,

N

(PF)

where :

(PF) = the probability of failure

and equal to [1 - L(II)].

In Fig. 8 it can be seen that a 99 per- and the allowable constant-cycle design

cent level of reliability (one percent stress becomes,

probability of failure) , and an uncer-

tainty in life $2N = O.50, would require =SN. RF (14)

a design for a life N equal to about 8 D

times the expected useful life n. The value of RF for three levels of

reliability, various S-N curve slopes,

Under constant-cycle stress range, and uncertainties $2N equal to O.4, 0.6

from equation (la) , the required design or O.8 can be obtained from Table VII.

I04 With the relationships presented

1 1 above a simple fatigue verification or

5 \ I design procedure that takes into ac-

/ count the principal fatigue parameters

~j= r(l+akoa) can now be provided. Table VIII shows

the six steps of the procedure to be

(PP-w // followed to verify the adequacy of a

103 1 ~f=lo-> given ship strueture detail in fatigue.

/ / In step 1 the expected loading his-

5 /[ tory for the ship detail must be estab-

/ lished (the shape factor for the Weibull

// / distribution selected) Some guidance

Y~ can be obtained from Table V, a summary

of the limited data now available. As

/ ,/ more complete data are obtained concern-

102

/ , ing ship loading histories, the values

/ in Table V can be expanded, improved

5 /[ f I and updated to provide the designex

X[ with the best possible guidance.

r / /1

In the second step the ship details

at which the fatigue resistance should

be checked must be identified. The

/i / critical locations in the ship assem-

1/ r 1/ blies , such as shown in Fig, 3, can be

5 .

/ used to identify the critical details

/

in terms of the numerous details shown

// Y / in Fig. 2, (k extensive summary of de-

tails in the twelve families of Table

II are presented in the Reference 22

I

o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1,0 Report)

fin The third step is to obtain, for

the detail, the fatigue strength and

Fig. 8. Relationship Between the slope of the S-N curve (this comes from

Scatter Faccor and the Uncertainty Table I). The fourth step is to obtain

in Fatigue Life and Various Proba- the random load factor from Table VI,

bilities of Failure (17) and the fifth step is to select the

243

TABLE VIII

1. Ship Loading

Distribution Choose a loading shape parameter k,

of the Weibull distribution.

Catalogs the critical details (Figs 2 and 3)

,+ 1

Nean fatigue stress-range,

for detail.

I

Y

Table 6 k-value and m-alue.

Table 6 m-value and ~N-ale for desired leel

of reliability,

(SD)all=SN. c .RF for probability of exceedance

of 10-8.

z

Table VII. The maximum allowable fa- the maximum s tress must not exceed the

tigue stress range, (sD)all 4, is rhen nominal permissible design stress pro-

obtained from the following equation vided by the basic design rules (19)

For detail number 7, at the toe of the

(SD) =SN. L.+ (15) stiffener weld in the web and flange,

the maximum allowable fatigue stress

This relationship, using Table VI, is range is 39.7 ksi for a 20 year life,

based on a desired life of 108 cycles. Similar calculaticms can readily be

For any other life the values, as noted made for details number 37 and 38.

on Table VI, would need to be modified,

SUNMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

A design example for a beam bracket

with four structural details is presen- This paper summarizes a simple de-

ted in Fig. 9. In this instance, the sign procedure that has been developed

Weibull shape factor far the loading to provide for a fatigue strength veri-

history was taken as 1.0, the total c- fication in ship design, The criteria

ertainty in fatigue life as O.80 and provides for:

the desired level of reliability was

assumed to be equal to 90 percent. The (a) A large variety in ship strue -

resulting maximum allowable fatigws ture details.

stress range at the deck-bulkhead inter-

section (detail 39B) is found to be (b) The basic fatigue resistance of

31.8 ksi, This maximum stress-range the numerous elded details.

.1

4.

This maximum allowable stress (c) A distribution function that

range at the point in question, is the can be used to represent the

maximum peak-to-trough stress range ex- long life loading (1o8 cycles-

pected under the most severe sea state 20 years) for various types

and during the entire life of the struc- of ships

ture.

244

Fig. 9. Design Example

(See Fig. 2) (See Table H

39 B 5.9 Est. 4.0 Est. Coef, of Var. -0.80

37 5,0 Est. 3.7 Est, Weibull Dist, k = 1,0

38 4.97 3.71

*

~e - Detail 39B

Reliability Factor = 0.648 (Table 7)

Random Load Factor = 8.32 (Table 6)

Max. Allawable Stress Range = 5.9x 0,648x8.32 = 31.8 ksi

RF = 0.655 [ = 8.17

Max. Allowable Stress Range = 7.41 x 0.655 x 8.17 = 39.7 ksi

i-

245

TABLE VII

Reliability Factors

I Reliability Factors, RF

I R = 90%

I

K = 95% R = 99%

m

N N N

0,40 0.60 0.80 0,40 0,60 0.80 0.40 0.60 0.80

I

2.0 .691 .546 .420 .608 .447 .320 .451 .281 .170

2.5 .744 .616 ,500 .671 .525 .402 .528 .362 .242

3.0 .782 .668 .561 .717 .585 .468 .588 .429 .307

3.5 .810 ,708 .609 .752 .631 .521 .634 .484 .363

4.0 .831 .739 .648 .780 ,669 ,566 .671 .530 .412

4.5 .849 .764 ,680 .8o1 ,699 .603 .702 .569 .455

5.0 .863 ,785 .707 .819 .725 .634 ,727 .602 .492

5.5 ,874 .602 .730 ,834 .746 .661 .748 .630 .525

6.o .884 .817 ,749 .847 .765 .684 .767 .655 .554

6.5 .893 .830 .766 .858 .781 .705 .782 .677 .580

7.0 .910 .841 .781 .867 .795 .722 .796 .696 .603

7.5 .906 ..s51 .794 .876 .807 .738 ,808 .713 .623

8.0 .912 .860 .805 .883 ,818 .752 .819 .728 .642

8.5 .917 .867 ,815 .889 .827 ,765 .829 .742 .659

9.0 .921 .874 .825 .895 .836 ,776 .838 ,754 .675

(d) A random loading factor that the author and not necessarily those

accounts for the randomness of the Advisory Committee of the Ship

of the loading during the life Structure Connnittee under whose guid-

of the structure. ante the investigation on which this

paper is based was conducted.

(e) A reliability factor (Factor of

Safety) that accounts for the KEFEKSNCES

many uncertainties that exist

1. Vedeler, G,,, To What Extent Do

The values of maximum allowable Brittle Fracture and Fatigue

fatigue stress range obtained in the Interest Shipbuilders Today,

design example provides an excellent Houdremont Lecture 1962,

calibration of the procedure and is Sveiseteknikk 1962, No. 3.

considered very reasonable, based on

the history of such details in the 2. GLasfeLd, R. , Jordan, D. , Ken, M. ,

ships at sea. Additional evaluations Jr. , and Zoner, D. Review of

now should be made of those details at Ship Structure Deta~Ls, SSC-266,

which fatigue failures have developed 1977.

to further evaluate and calibrate the

Drocedure. After the rmocedure has 3. Jordan, C. R. , Cochran, C. S. , In-

~een further verified, it should be Service Performance of Structural

possible also to use the procedure to Detail s, SSC-272, 1978,

develop relative fatigue ratings for

the manv details used for shiD struc - 4. Jordan, C. R. and Knight, L. T.,

tures. Further Survey of In-Service

Performance of Structural De-

tails, SSC-294, 1980.

246

5 Munse, W. H. , Fatigue of Welded 17 !mg, A. H-S,, A Comprehend ive

Steel Structures, We ~ng Res earth Basis for Reliability Analysis

Council, New York (1964) and Design, ~, U. S, - Japan

Joint Seminar on Reliability

6 Gurney, T. R, , Fatigue of Welded

~pPrOach in Structural Engineer-

Structures, Cambridge U. Press , ~ng, Tokyo, Japan, May 19?4.

England i968)

18. Fredenthal, A, M, , !,

Prediction of

7 B,W.R.A, , Symposium on the Fatigue Fatigue Failure, ,,J. Appl phy~

Of welded structures, March 29. (Dec. 1960) ~, No, 12,2196-2198

April 1, 1960, Bri Ei~h welding J.

(March-Sept, 1960) 19. A, B,S., Rules for Building and

Classing Steel Vessels, American

8, Muse, W. H. , Stallmeyer, J. E. , Bureau of Shipping, 1979.

and Drew, F. P, , str~wr~l

Fatigue and Steel Railroad 20. Little, R. S. , Lewis, E. V, and

Bridges , PXOC. , AREA Seminar Bailey, F, C., A Statistical

(1968) Study of Wave Induced Bending

Mcments on Large Oceangoing Tank-

9. Symposium on Structural Fatigue, ers and Bulk Carriers , Trans.

J. of the Structural Div. , ASCE SNAME, 1971.

(Dec. 1965) M, No. ST12, 2663-

2797, 21. Lewis , E. V. and Zubaly, R. B. ,

Dynamic Loadings Due to Waves

10. The Welding Ins citute, pProceedings and Ship Motions, ,,SNAME, 1975,

of the Conference on Fatigue of

Welded Structures ,,,July 6.9, 22. Munse, W, H., Investigation at the

1970, The Welding Institute, Univeristy of Illinois - Study

Cambridge, England (1971) of Fatigue Characterization of

Fabricated Ship Details j Project

11 Pollard, B, and Cover, R, J. , SR-1257 , Ship Structure Committee

Fatigue of Steel Weldments, q

Weldin J. , American Welding Soc.

*) ~, No. 11, 544s-

S. A,, Maybe, L, , and Mahini, B, ,

Basic Material Fatigue Properties

for Use in Freight Car Fatigue

Analysis, Civil Engineering De-

partment, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign, March 1981,

in an Oil Tanker under Service

Conditions, ,,Trans , I.N,A, , p,

161, 1938,

Analysis and Interpretation

of Full-Scale Data on Midship

Bending Stresses of Dry Cargo

Ships,, SSC-196, June 1969.

Results of the First Five Data

Years of Extreme Stress Scratch

Gauge Data Collected Aboard Sea-

Lands SL-7 S, SSC-2g6, March

1979,

Practical Reliability Basis for

Structural Fatigue, ,Preprint

No. 2494 presented at ASCE

Nat ional S trnctural Engineering

Conference, April 14-18, 1975,

247

- (10) Lim Joo Wee, IEV (2)Uploaded byKevin Khoo
- Crane Supporting Steel Structures-Design GuideUploaded byNopporn Wiseschat
- Siri Jack-Up PlatformUploaded bynaren_013
- A. Hobbacher-Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, Recommendations of IIW Joint Working Group XIII - XV -Woodhead Publishing (1996).pdfUploaded byMatteoMelai
- The 50 Major Engineering FailuresUploaded byMarius Bodea
- Penthouse Winter 1993Uploaded byJohn M. Cavote
- Master_Thesis_Residual_Stresses_in_Welds_of_Supersize_Monopiles_for_Offshore_Wind_Substructures.pdfUploaded byChristian Ammitzbøll
- Jun Liu, Zhufeng Yue, Xiaoliang Geng, Shifeng Wen, Wuzhu Yan-Long-Life Design and Test Technology of Typical Aircraft Structures-Springer Singapore (2018).pdfUploaded byHarry
- Fatigue Paper 2Uploaded byhazem
- 1 - Fatigue and Fracture Toughness of Five Carbon or Low Alloy Cast Steels at Room or Low Climate Temperature (1)Uploaded byBobby Wong
- Fatigue AnalysisUploaded byaap1
- Spectral method in multiaxial random fatigue.pdfUploaded byAlexander Narvaez Cruz
- 18Uploaded byCarlos Soler
- Fatigue & Creep ProblemsUploaded byazizieh5701
- 3D Fatigue Analysis of RC Bridge SlabsUploaded byMuthuMurugappan
- 98-Khasaba-Aljinaidi-Hamed-Fatigue-2017.pdfUploaded byAbdulelah Al-Ahdal
- 1-s2.0-S1350630714000600-mainUploaded bynagaraju
- corrosion por fatiga caso de estudioUploaded bypedro ylarreta
- 7Uploaded byhamed
- 746308Uploaded byTrong Senior
- Percentile+WorksheetUploaded byjoanna may batarao
- Mould Steels Repaired by Laser WeldingUploaded byWagner Peres
- D4.7 KimUploaded byandand1989
- Damage of Composite MaterialsUploaded bygnanasekar
- Bbr Hiam Cona en Rev4 0619Uploaded byIvona Brnjetić
- 00Basic FEA MaterialUploaded byPraveen Kumar
- Theory of Elasticity - Fatigue.pdfUploaded byLUIS ISAAC LEON PARO
- 19690025326Uploaded byrokhgireh_hojjat
- 1-s2.0-S167498711730172X-mainUploaded byandrea
- R 331 Jan Winkler Final Full ReportUploaded byDoriel Rios Gava

- 1383600861_827__AppPgrI_Hwk2_StrProgrUploaded byPaul Renato Montero
- Modos de fatigaUploaded byPaul Renato Montero
- ShipStr_II_Hmwk1_Probabilistic_Paul_Montero.pdfUploaded byPaul Renato Montero
- Introducción a elementos finitosUploaded byPaul Renato Montero
- resolución de matricesUploaded byPaul Renato Montero
- Marine Engine Aplication & Installation Guide ion SystemUploaded byBORIS
- Eficiencia de La EmbarcacionUploaded byPaul Renato Montero

- Dionisie Fotino - Istoria Generala a Daciei - Tomul I - Traducere de George SionUploaded byvalachus
- Caesar Surgical Safety ChecklistUploaded bydrg. Bobet Evih Hedi I.R., MMR
- FC-00Uploaded by1985chandu1228
- How to Build Your Own Variable Bench Power Supply Using an ATX Power SupplyUploaded byavpanubis
- FISIKAUploaded byaghnia
- Crystal Grid MatrixUploaded byTheMothership
- The Young and the RestlesUploaded byDea Zaryna
- Vocabulary-LeslieUploaded bygrandolph8
- Admin - 6Z0XU_as248inst.pdfUploaded byibm_aix
- Alternative EnergyUploaded bydtuc
- Botany Lecture - Chapter 6Uploaded bycherokee
- Latham Report Constructing the TeamUploaded byjoma87
- Final MCO Working Group ReportUploaded byShira Schoenberg
- coding club flyer 2Uploaded byapi-320999303
- Precautions in Planning and Construction for Trouble Free MaintenanceUploaded byIJSRP ORG
- DIY Power Solar 1Uploaded byhelios888
- Mit15 s50iap15 l1 Intro Poker CourseUploaded bypietrot
- 178824020 lunar 100 sheetsUploaded byapi-237250946
- 06 The Blood of ChristUploaded byJohn S. Kodiyil
- (eBook - Ita - Erboristeria) Libro Delle Erbe (Doc)Uploaded bygarfield3404
- US Federal Reserve: precautionary nov05Uploaded byThe Fed
- Atlas of Natural Cures Aug 2016 UpdateUploaded byParallaxster
- Ammonium MolybdateUploaded bySuto Zoltan
- cep handoutUploaded byapi-269308188
- GilbertUploaded byBrandon
- Global Construction Paints and Coatings.pdfUploaded bySunny Joon
- Gas Fan Convection HeaterUploaded bytylerdurdane
- Xamarin Forms for BeginnersUploaded byManokaran Manivasakan
- MYDINUploaded byAthirah Aziz
- Extended Abstract (Full)Uploaded byIslam Hassan