Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Workbench Environment
Klaus-Dieter Schoenborn
ANSYS Service @ CADFEM GmbH, Germany
Abstract
Fatigue analysis of welded joints often requires the handling of large structures, since typical weld seams
are small details in large assemblies. FE models deduced from the global structure require idealization and
are not well suited for fatigue concepts that are based on the local stress state. The model of the global
structure is used to locate hot spots and to transfer the applied loads to a local deformation. The analysis
concepts proposed by the IIW and other organizations require a very detailed and specific representation of
the welded joints. ANSYS Workbench preprocessing capabilities combined with ANSYS submodeling
technology allow demonstrating a fast and reliable workflow. The ANSYS Workbench Fatigue tool
performs the high cycle fatigue life calculation.
Introduction
Over the last decades, numerous concepts have evolved for Fatigue analysis of welded assemblies. The
traditional approach is to analyze the fatigue life based on the nominal stress concept. This concept derives
the stress state at the weld seam according to a beam theory approach. The Forces and Moments acting on a
certain cross section are divided by the section properties to yield the nominal membrane and bending
stress. This approach however is limited. The stress state is defined according to a nominal cross section
and the fatigue properties are taken from tabulated geometric constellations, the FAT classes. Complicated
geometries often do not allow defining a nominal cross section and the stress state is often not just a pure
combination of membrane and bending stress. Also, the geometric constellation of the structure might not
fit into one of the FAT classes. In the recent years, other concepts have been developed to address those
limitations.
The extrapolation concept proposed by the IIW and other institutes derives the stress state from a numerical
FE stress result and thus eliminates the need to define a nominal cross section. The stress is evaluated at
certain distances away from the weld and then extrapolated towards the critical spot. Thus there is no need
to model the weld seam itself. The evaluated stress state is not limited to membrane and bending stress. The
IIW approach is well proven and supported by a large amount of test data, thus being widely accepted in
the industry and by the certification authorities. However, the preprocessing effort imposed on the analyst
to follow those concepts may be quite substantial, since they require a very distinct type of Shell or Solid
modeling.
The effective notch stress concept offers a different approach to analyze the stress state at the weld seam.
This concept is based on a volumetric representation of the weld seam geometry. The representation differs
among concepts, the most prominent being the R1MS concept. The process starting from CAD Geometry
to the determination of fatigue life requires extensive preprocessing and computing resources. The required
number of DOF may largely exceed those for the nominal stress or the extrapolation concept, but it offers a
quick and comprehensible workflow to the analyst.
With this model the singularity is removed from the stress solution and the stress state now may be
evaluated directly from the FE solution. Naturally, an effective notch stress concept imposes tight
constraints on the element size to minimize the discretization error. The R1MS concept recommends using
at least 10 Elements on the 1 mm radius arc to achieve reliable stress results. The resulting stress is
correlated to the expected life by means of a fictitious weld seam material. The material data is based on
the result of a large quantity of fatigue test results on different geometry configurations. It consists of a log
stress - log N curve, called the FAT 225 class [2]. The value of 225 refers to a 5% failure probability at 2
million cycles when the notch stress is equal to 225 Mpa. Figure 2 shows the log N log stress curve for
FAT 225. Any mean stress that might be present is ignored, since the fatigue test results showed that a
positive mean stress does not have a high impact on the fatigue life. This is due to the fact that the
components are usually sharp notched and high residual stresses reside in the material adjacent to the weld
seam.
1000 N/mm
FAT225
100 N/mm
10 N/mm
1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09
log ( N)
Figure 2. FAT 225 log N log stress curve used for the R1MS Concept.
With respect to Workbench, this curve may be introduced as a new set of material data in the engineering
data tab and used as a basis for fatigue life calculation in the fatigue module (Figure 13).
Step 3: analyze the global model results and identify critical spots
The full model gives a general impression on the structural deflection. The structural result is saved and
maintained in an RST file on the Hard disk drive. The global solution is needed for interpolation of the
submodel boundary conditions. It is also used to find the location of critical spots in the structure.
Evaluation of the global stress state will not lead to a reliable location, since the solution has a lot of
singular stresses and therefore the local mesh density drives the local stress. Therefore, looking at the stress
value is not an effective method. Workbench now offers a graphical representation of the sum of nodal
forces that is transferred through a contact interface. A sample of this plot is shown in Figure 6. This plot is
easy to interpret and offers a reliable way of determining critical locations.
Figure 7: Submodel geometry of a critical structural detail. Weld seam modeling is done
according to the R1MS concept
Figure 8:Submodel mesh used for the location of critical spots inside the submodel.
The submodel is inserted as a separate branch in the project tree below the global model and meshed with
default mesh settings (see Figure 8), This intermediate step is taken to analyze the local stress state since
the critical spot inside the submodel is still unknown.
Figure 9. Submodel mesh detail using the sphere of influence feature in DS.
Step 6: analyze the submodel solution and calculate the fatigue life
The effective notch stress may now be read from the submodel and compared against the FAT 225 material
data. The useable life calculation may be done by inserting a Simulation fatigue tool into the submodel
branch.
Conclusion
ANSYS Workbench offers an effective way to determine the useful life of large welded assemblies The
combination of Workbench Geometry handling and meshing capabilities, the ANSYS Submodeling
algorithm and the R1MS effective notch stress concept form a quick, robust and accurate method for
fatigue analysis on large 3 dimensional structures.
Figure 14. Useable life of approx. 114.000 cycles calculated with the Design simulation
fatigue tool
References
[1] ANSYS advanced analysis techniques guide Chapter 9 submodeling
[2] European Standard prEN 1993-1-9 EUROCODE 3 Design of steel structures Part 1.9 Fatigue
[3] International Institute of Welding IIW document XIII-1965-03 / XV-1127-03 Recommendations
for fatigue design of welded joints and components, A. Hobbacher, University of applied sciences,
Wilhelmshaven