Ccopps Webinar Slides PDF

World Centre for Materials Joining Technology
Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

CCOPPS Webinar
Wednesday 21st May 2008
15:00 – 16:00 BST
Steve Maddox Jim Wood

g Institute ((TWI))
The Welding y of Strathclyde
University y
Agenda
• Introduction and Relevant CCOPPS Activity
Jim Wood
• Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

Steve Maddox
• Q&A Session
Steve Maddox & Jim Wood
• Closing Remarks
Jim Wood
Industry Needs Survey
• Findings relevant to this webinar:

– FEA use is increasing as is complexity of models
– Interfacing with codes of practice seen as issue
– Happy with facilities in commercial codes in general
(exception is weld modelling and assessment + automation
of the analysis process)
– Non-European Codes are used often by most respondents.
•P
Preliminary
li i reportt available
il bl for
f download
d l d from
f
http://www.ccopps.eu/
Agenda
Jim Wood

Steve Maddox
• Q&A Session
• Closing Remarks
Jim Wood
Fatigue design of welded pressure vessels

• BS PD 5500 Annex C,• Detailed fatigue assessment
EN 13445-3 and - use of design curves
ASME VIII, Division 2 - classification of weld details
(new structural - stress concentrations
stress approach) - fatigue life improvement
• Fatigue failure in • Simplified assessment methods
pressure vessels • Fatigue assessment of welding
• Fatigue design data imperfections
• Stresses used in • Future needs
fatigue design
Effect of welding on fatigue resistance

400
Stress 300
range, 200
MPa 100
50 R=0
Grade 50
structural steel
10
105 106 107 108
Cycles
Fatigue cracking in a welded joint

Fatigue
F ti cracking
ki
from weld root
X
Fatigue failure in plate at toe
((from p
pre-existing
g sharpp flaw at X))
Key features of welds and welded joints

• Sharp
p section changes
g - High
g SCF
• Local discontinuities - Crack initiation sites
• High tensile residual stresses - Maximum mean stress
effect, compressive
Consequences: stresses damaging
• Relatively low fatigue strength,
strength
• dominated by fatigue crack growth
• and controlled by full applied stress range
range.
• Fatigue life not increased by use of higher strength
material
Fatigue failure in pressure vessels

Sources of stress
Fatigue loading concentration and hence
fatigue cracking
• Pressure fluctuations • Joints (welds, bolts)
• Temperature changes • Geometric discontinuities
• Temperature (
(openings,
i nozzles,
l ends,
d
differentials supports)
• External mechanical • Temporary attachments
loading
• Vibration
Fatigue failure from weld details

Fatigue cracking from inside of
butt weld between a cylindrical
shell and a flat end
Fatigue cracking from nozzle

weld toe
Fatigue design process

Compare number of repetitions (ni ) of stress range Sri
which vessel or part of vessel must withstand in its service
life with the number (Ni ) withstood by representative
specimens at same stress in fatigue
f tests, such that:
n1 n2 n3 ni
+ + + etc
t =Σ ≤ 1 .0
N1 N2 N3 Ni
N values obtained from relevant design S-N curves
Basis of fatigue design data and

assessment method for welded joints
• BS PD 5500 and EN 13445 adapted from nominal stress-based fatigue
rules for welded structures (bridges, offshore structures, etc)
• Thus, grid of S-N curves each applicable to one or more particular weld
detail, chosen on the basis of a classification system
• In g
general,, curves related to structural stress range
g
• For potential fatigue failure from weld toe, structural stress range at toe
(hot-spot structural stress range) may be used
• New ASME VIII uses only hot-spot structural stress calculated in a
specific way and converted to a fracture mechanics–based parameter
called the ‘Equivalent structural stress range parameter’
Fatigue design curves for weld details in

BS PD 5500 and other UK Standards
5
E = 2.09 x 10 N/mm
2
• Applicable to any
of metals covered
Stress Class 5
Sr N = constant
b PD 5500
by 5500, on
range
Sr
D
E
7
for N > 10 cycles basis of relative E
F
N/mm
2
F2
G
values
3
Sr N = constant
W • For thickness
7
for N < 10 cycles e > eref, where eref
=22mm allowable
=22mm,
stress 0.25
⎛ e ⎞
= Sr . ⎜ ref ⎟
7
10
⎝ e ⎠
Endurance N, cycles
y
Weld detail classification in BS PD 5500
Classification depends on:

• welded joint geometry
• direction of loading
• crack initiation site
• methods of manufacture and inspection
Stresses used in BS PD 5500

for fatigue design
• Structural (primary + secondary) stress range
• Principal stress (not stress intensity) used directly
• Nominal stress for simple details (e.g. attachments,
seam welds)
• Nominal stress x SCF for structural details, or
• Hot
Hot-spot
spot structural stress at any weld toe (Higher
design curve than those used with nominal stress)
• Net section of load-carrying
load carrying fillet welds
Fatigue design S-N curves for weld

details in EN 13445
Class
Class = fatigue
strength in N/mm
6
2 •Currently
100
at 2 x 10 cycles
applicable only
Stress
90
80
5
Sr N = constant
for N > 5x10
6
to steel
range 71
Sr 63
56
cycles •For thickness
2 50
N/mm 45
40
e > 25mm
25mm,
32 allowable stress
3
Sr N = constant 0.25
6
for N < 5 x 10 cycles ⎛ 25 mm ⎞
= Sr . ⎜ ⎟
6 6
⎝ e ⎠
2x10 5x10
Endurance N,
N cycles
Stresses used in EN 13445 for

fatigue design
• Structural (primary + secondary) stress range
• Option
O to use principal or equivalent stress range
• Nominal stress for simple details (e.g. attachments,
seam welds)
ld )
• Structural stress at any weld toe (Hot-spot stress)
• Net section of load-carrying fillet welds
Weld detail classification in EN 13445

EN 13445 offers choice
Ring stiffener
of using equivalent
stress or principal stress.
Since equivalent stress
s 80 has no direction, a
as
Cl consequence is that the
Vessel shell lowest detail Class must
Hoop stress be assumed.
Longitudinal Thus,, the joint
j shown
stress would be designed as
Class 71 Class 71.
Fatigue design curves from ASME VIII

1500
• Applicable
pp to any
y of
ASME 'Master' fatigue design curves
metals covered by
ΔSess
1000
ASME on basis of
-0.222 relative E values
MPa/mm
500 Mean - 2 SD • Stress parameter
400
300
depends on plate
thickness,
200
Mean - 3SD
M membrane/bending
(normal design curve)
stress ratio and
100
applied stress ratio
(Not units of stress)
50
3 4 5 6 7 8
• No other thickness
correction required
10 10 10 10 10 10
Endurance, cycles
Basis of fatigue design curves

• Regression analysis of S S-N
N data obtained from tests
on actual welded joints
• ≈2.5%
≈2 5% probability of failure (mean – 2 standard
deviations of log N [SD]):-
BS PD 5500 design curves; included in ASME
ASME.
• ≈ 0.1% probability curves (mean - 3SD):-
BS PD 5500 simplified design methods; all EN 13445
design curves for weld details; generally required for
ASME
S
Application of design curves for

weld details
• No effect of applied mean stress in PD 5500 and
EN 13445; mean stress correction in ASME
• No effect of material tensile strength
• No effect of welding process
• May need to be reduced to allow for corrosive
environment; no specific guidance in BS PD
5500 or EN 13445 but penalty factors specified
in ASME
Stresses used in ASME VIII Div. 2 for

fatigue design of welded joints
• Structural (primary + secondary) stress range based on
through-thickness stress distribution obtained by numerical
analysis
y
• Structural equivalent stress range parameter (a function of
material’s fatigue crack propagation properties (m=3.6),
applied structural stress range (Δσ)
(Δσ), material thickness (t),
(t)
membrane to bending stress ratio and applied stress ratio):
Δσ
ΔSess = 2 −m 1
t ess .I .fM
2m m
Generalized stress parameter (Maddox, 1974)

da / dN = C( ΔK ) m , ΔK = YΔσ πa , Y = f ( a / t & crack front shape a / 2 c )
af
t d ( at ) m ( m2 −1 )
∴ ∫ = I = C Δσ t N
ai
(Y πa ) m
t
t
m
⎡ ⎛ ( m2 −1 ) ⎞
1
m ⎤
t
i .e ⎢Δσ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ . N = 1 = cons tan t
⎢ ⎜ I ⎟ ⎥ C
⎢⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦
or (Δσ ) * m
.N = a cons tan t ,
1
⎛t 2 −1 ⎞
m m
where ' Generalize d stress parameter

p ' Δσ = Δσ ⎜ * ⎟
⎜ I ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Δσ
or Δσ * = 2 −m 1
( cf M ASME ΔSess )
t 2m
.I m
ASME Equivalent structural

g parameter
stress range p ΔSess
Based on:
• Structural stress (presumably assumed to allow for
SCF factor Mk normally applied to stress intensity
factor))
• Fatigue life mainly growth of a pre-existing crack
p
• Implicit assumptions
p made about initial flaw size
and shape
p
• Specific fatigue
g crack ggrowth rate relationship
p
Hot-spot structural stress approach
Fatigue
crack
k “Hot
Hot-spot
spot”
Hot-spot stress = structural stress
at weld toe.
It includes all stress concentrating
effects except the local notch effect
of the weld toe
toe.
Hot-spot structural stress from
through-thickness stress distribution
Actual stress Structural stress
σhot-spot
t τm
τ(y) σx(y)
σm σb
Methods for calculating the hot-spot

structural stress
· Using surface stresses (e.g. measured):
Surface stress extrapolation (SSE)
· Using through-thickness stress distribution
(e.g. from numerical analysis):
- Through-thickness integration (TTI)
- Nodal forces (NF) method
Hot-spot stress developments in British Standards

• Current TWI joint-industry project aims to produce guidance on hot-spot
str ct ral stress approach for incl
structural inclusion
sion in British Standard fatig
fatigue
e
design rules (initially BS 7608)
• Comparison of the three methods of calculating hot-spot stress (SSE,
TTI and NF) from FEA
• Solid and shell elements, examination of sensitivity to mesh size
• Case studies on range of structural components
• All methods mesh sensitive but mesh sensitivity least for simple welded
joints in plates under unidirectional loading
• Findings so far indicate that nodal force method most mesh sensitive of
the three when applied to structural component
• Mesh insensitivity of the ASME method may be for a restricted set of
possible mesh types and weld meshing options.
Fatigue data expressed in terms of hot-

spot stress range (SSE method)
500
400
300
Hot-spot
stress range
at weld toe
200
2
N/mm
Cl
Class E
Pressure vessels - nozzles

100 Plate welded components
90
95% confidence
fid i t
intervals
l
enclosing data
60
4 5 6 7 7
10 10 10 10 3x10
Endurance, cycles
Comparison with mean – 2SD S-N

curves derived from ASME VIII
500
Pressure vessel data
Hot-spot 400 Structural specimen
stress or component data
range 300 Mean ± 2SD
at
weld toe
2 200
N/mm
BS PD 5500
Cl
Class E
ASME VIII, Div.2

100 R ≤ 0, t ≤ 16mm
90 lower: all membrane
upper: all bending
60
4 5 6 7 7
10 10 10 10 3x10
Endurance cycles
Endurance,
Comparison with mean – 3SD S-N curves

derived from ASME VIII
500
Pressure vessel data
Hot-spot 400 Structural specimen
stress or component data
range 300 Mean ± 3SD
at
weld toe
2 200
N/mm
EN 13445
Class 71
Class 63
100 ASME VIII, Div.2

90 R ≤ 0, t ≤ 16mm
lower: all membrane
upper: all bending
60
4 5 6 7 7
10 10 10 10 3x10
Endurance cycles
Endurance,
Misalignment as a source of stress concentration
Bending stresses due

to misalignment
Same guidance on calculation of SCF is given in
PD5500 and EN 13445
Treatment of weld details subject to

g
combined or multi-axial loading
ΔσL = Maximum change in σL
σL
Δ H = Maximum change in σH
Δσ
σ45
σH
Δσ45 = Maximum change in σH45
Principal stresses then calculated
from ΔσL, ΔσH, and Δσ45
Same approach in PD5500 and EN 13445. Current research

should provide better method for out-of-phase loading.
ASME ttreatment
t t off weld
ld details
d t il subject
bj t
to multi-axial loading
0 .5
⎡⎛ 2
⎞ ⎛ Δλ ⎞
2⎤
1 ⎢⎜ Δσ ⎟ + 3⎜ ⎟ ⎥
ΔSess =
F ( δ ) ⎢⎜ t 2 m .I m1 .f ⎟ ⎜ 22−mm m1 ⎟ ⎥
2 −m
⎢⎣⎝ ess M ⎠ ⎝ t ess .I ⎠ ⎥⎦

Where:
F in-phase
For i h lloading
di ((principal
i i l stress
t di
directions
ti remain
i constant
t t
throughout loading cycle), F(δ) = 1
while
For out-of-phase loading (principal stress directions change during
loading cycle), F(δ) = function of applied normal and shear stresses and
out-of-phase angle, or conservative value of 1/√2
Elastic-plastic (E-P) conditions

BS PD 5500 & EN 13445: Stress
range
For stress ranges > twice yield:
E-P strain obtained directly from analysis and Design S-N curve
Corrected
converted to stress for
or plasticity
Stresses from design S-N curves reduced by
factor that depends on load source
(mechanical or thermal) and stress range
/ yield. 3
10
4
10
5
10 10
6 7
10
8
10
Endurance N, cycles
ASME VIII, Div. 2:
For every case:
E-P strain obtained directly from analysis (Neuber’s rule & material’s
cyclic stress-strain
stress strain properties) and converted to stress range
Fatigue life improvement methods
• BS PD 5500 and EN 13445 allow weld toe

grinding
i di and d corresponding
di iincrease iin d
design
i
classification
• ASME VIII accepts weld toe grinding, TIG
dressing or hammer peening. Equivalent
structural stress parameter design curves
increased accordingly
accordingly, with greatest benefit in
high-cycle regime
Assessment of welding flaws

Guidance given in BS PD 5500 and EN
13445 on flaw assessment based on
fitness-for-purpose:
• Reference to BS 7910
• Specific recommendations on:
1. Planar flaws not acceptable
2. Buried flaws - inclusions,, porosity;
p y;
3. Deviations from design shape -
misalignment, peaking, ovality.
ASME seems to accept planar flaws since
equivalent structural stress parameter
can be calculated for cracks up to 10% of
section thickness
Fatigue design of pressure vessels -

future needs
• Parametric hot-spot SCFs for pressure vessel
details
• Elastic-plastic fatigue
• Effect of environment (corrosive, elevated
temperature, hydrogen)
• Closer link between design and fabrication quality
• Experimental methods for design (draft for EN
13445 now available)
Thank you for your attention

Agenda
Jim Wood

Steve Maddox
• Q&A Session
• Closing Remarks
Jim Wood
Agenda
Jim Wood

Steve Maddox
• Q&A Session
• Closing Remarks
Jim Wood

Ccopps Webinar Slides PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ccopps Webinar Slides PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Centre for Materials Joining Technology

Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

Steve Maddox Jim Wood

• Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

Industry Needs Survey

• Findings relevant to this webinar:

• Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

Fatigue design of welded pressure vessels

Effect of welding on fatigue resistance

Fatigue cracking in a welded joint

Key features of welds and welded joints

Fatigue failure in pressure vessels

Fatigue failure from weld details

Fatigue cracking from nozzle

Fatigue design process

Basis of fatigue design data and

Fatigue design curves for weld details in

Weld detail classification in BS PD 5500

Classification depends on:

Stresses used in BS PD 5500

Fatigue design S-N curves for weld

Stresses used in EN 13445 for

Weld detail classification in EN 13445

Fatigue design curves from ASME VIII

Basis of fatigue design curves

Application of design curves for

Stresses used in ASME VIII Div. 2 for

Generalized stress parameter (Maddox, 1974)

where ' Generalize d stress parameter

ASME Equivalent structural

Hot-spot structural stress approach

Methods for calculating the hot-spot

Hot-spot stress developments in British Standards

Fatigue data expressed in terms of hot-

Pressure vessels - nozzles

Comparison with mean – 2SD S-N

ASME VIII, Div.2

Comparison with mean – 3SD S-N curves

100 ASME VIII, Div.2

Misalignment as a source of stress concentration

Bending stresses due

Treatment of weld details subject to

Same approach in PD5500 and EN 13445. Current research

⎢⎣⎝ ess M ⎠ ⎝ t ess .I ⎠ ⎥⎦

Elastic-plastic (E-P) conditions

Fatigue life improvement methods

• BS PD 5500 and EN 13445 allow weld toe

Assessment of welding flaws

Fatigue design of pressure vessels -

Thank you for your attention

• Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

• Fatigue of Welded Pressure Vessels

You might also like