Fracture and Crack Propagation in Weldments.

A Fracture Mechanics Perspective

Uwe Zerbst, BAM Berlin

Outline

Specific aspects of weldments

Determination of fracture toughness

Determination of the crack driving force

Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Outline

Specific aspects of weldments

Determination of fracture toughness

Determination of the crack driving force

Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Misalignment
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
to cracking
Weld imperfections

Figure according to Gagg, 2005

ISO 5817: Arc welded joints in steel - Guidance on quality levels
for imperfections

26 different types of weld imperfections

Can be assigned to distinct groups from the perspective of mechanical integrity

(a) Cracks and crack-like imperfections

have to be avoided or – if they occur – are immediately subject to
fracture mechanics analysis

(b) Material imperfections which act as crack initiation sites

of paramount importance for fatigue strength and fatigue life analyses

(c) Geometric discontinuities

increase the local stresses, affect crack initiation, propagation and final failure

(d) Imperfections which probably are of no effect on fracture or fatigue life

Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to Cracking
microstructure
Material inhomogeneity
Reason: Inhomogeneous cooling & TTT behaviour

HAZ regions Figure according to Toyoda, 1998

Consequence
Toughness scatter

Specific requirements
on toughness testing

identification of
specific micro-
structure

number of test
specimens

Figure according to Toyoda, 1998

Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure
Strength mismatch

Unintended and intended

mismatch

Usually in steel:
moderate overmatching

Cases of undermatching:
aluminium, high strength steels

Pronounced mismatching:
laser & electron beam welding

M = σ YW σ YB

W = Weld metal
B = Base plate
Strength mismatch
Effect on crack driving force

Effect on crack path deviation

UM
OM
Figures: Dos Santos et al., Koçak

Factors affecting the mismatch effect

Crack location (weld metal, fusion line etc.)
Mismatch ratio (σYW /σYB)

Global constraint interdependency
(W-a)/H

Residual stresses
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Welding residual stresses
Reason:
inhomogeneous cooling

constrained shrinking

solid state phase transformations

External restraint

macro-residual stresses (residual stresses of the

first kind); vary within the cross section over a
distance much larger than grain size

Internal forces and moments are in equilibrium with Figure according to

respect to any cross section and axis respectively Leggatt, 2008
Welding residual stresses
Scatter and uncertainty in simulation and measurement

Figures according to
Bouchard, 2008
Welding residual stresses
Dependency on location along the weld

Figures according to Hosseinzadeh and Bouchard,

2011; (b) Bouchard, 2008
Further effect: Stop-start features
Welding residual stresses
Residual stress profiles

Individual determination

Compendia (upper bound curves

to literature data)

Membrane stress (as-welded:

max. value: yield strength)

Post weld treatment: σp + σr ≥ σY

Membrane stress (yield strength at

annealing temperature + correction
for ratio of E modules at room &
annealing temperatures

Mechanical post weld treatment

Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Misalignment
Welding residual stresses

Types of misalignment:
(a) Axial misalignment between flat plates
(b) Angular misalignment between flat plates
(c) Angular misalignment in a fillet welded joint

Consequence:
Notch effect/local bending stress

Strong effect of fatigue life and

shallow crack propagation

Effect on long crack fatigue

propagation and (sometimes)
on failure load
Outline

Specific aspects of weldments

Determination of fracture toughness

Determination of the crack driving force

Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Fracture toughness determination
Modifications compared to testing of non-welded material

Specimen geometries most appropriate

for weldments, e.g., shallow cracked
bend specimens

Weldment specific aspects of specimen
preparation such as the introduction of
the notch, minimisation of residual
stresses and misalignment

Generation of a straight crack front

Validity criteria ISO 15653

Required number of test specimens

Strength mismatch effects for testing
in the net section yielding range
Fracture toughness determination: Scheme

According to ISO 15653

Fracture toughness determination
Adapted testing
Perform test as much as possible representative with respect to the component
in service. Relevant factors and parameters are:

Welding process including filler material

Base plate composition

Joint thickness

Preheat and interpass temperatures

Heat input

Detailed welding procedure

Joint configuration

Restraint Hydrogen release heat treatment

Postweld treatment prior to testing can be necessary
when the time between welding

Time between welding and testing
and the beginning of service is

Environment much longer than those between

Test temperature welding and testing.
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking
microstructure
Fracture toughness determination
Specific features because of inhomogeneous
microstructure, metallography
HAZ testing: Pre and post test
metallographic examination

In steel: crack tip no more distant

than 0.5 mm from target microstructure

Crack front should sample either 15%

or at least 7 mm of the HAZ microstructure
ISO 15653

Both within the central 75% of the specimen thickness
Fracture toughness determination
Specific features due to inhomogeneous
microstructure: Weakest link approach (1)

Randomly distributed small regions of low toughness (“weak links”) across the ligament;
in weldments: HAZ brittle zones

During load increase, when stress peak is shifted into the ligament to the location of
the nearest “weak link” the whole specimen (or component) fails

Due to the random distribution of the “weak links”
in the ligament area the distance of the
first one from the crack tip varies from
specimen to specimen and so does the
work necessary to shift the stress peak
to the “right” position

fracture toughness scatter

Fracture toughness determination
Specific features due to inhomogeneous
microstructure: Weakest link approach (2)

The longer the crack front the higher the

probability of a “weak link” next to it

Toughness scatter becomes smaller
for longer crack fronts but lower bound
remains constant

Same lower bound toughness can be
determined by using few specimens
with large crack fronts or by using
many specimens with short crack fronts

Usually: 3-Parameter Weibull distribution; e.g., Stage 2 and 3 Options of SINTAP Master
Curve approach
Fracture toughness determination
Specific features due to inhomogeneous
microstructure: Weakest link approach (3)

BS 7910: Minimum of 12 valid HAZ tests for ductile-to-brittle transition

Figures according to Toyoda, 1998

Fracture toughness determination
Pop-in behaviour

Pop-in: Discontinuity in the load versus displacement curve in the fracture mechanics test
displacement suddenly increases and
load decreases

Different reasons:

Limited cleavage fracture propagation + arrest

Out-of-plane slits

Other reasons Fig.: Dos Santos
et al., 2001

Criteria: > 4 (2) % of (W-a) crack propagartion

Load drop more than x %

Increase in compliance

Problem: When is a pop-in event

component relevant?
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure
Fracture toughness determination
Specific features because of strength mismatch

ISO 15653: Error in J integral or CTOD (standard equations) due to mismatch

less than 10% as long as

Weld metal testing:

CTOD tests: 0.5 < M < 1.5
J integral tests: 0.5 < M < 1.25

M > 1.5 or 1.25: overestimation of J or CTOD

M < 0.5 underestimation

HAZ testing: Error ± 5% for J and -20% to +10% for CTOD as long as

0.7 < M < 2.5

K2 U
Else mismatch specific ηpl function in J= + ηpl
E B (W − a)
Fracture toughness determination
ηpl function for strength mismatch (EFAM , Schwalbe et al.)

Some additional solutions in the literature

Fracture toughness determination
Definition of weld width H for other than prismatic welds

Proposals:

(a) H = average of 2H1 and 2H2

(b) equivalent H, Heq, on the basis of

the shortest distance between the
crack tip and the fusion line along
the slip lines emanating from the
crack tip

However: Systematic investigation

still missing.
Fracture toughness determination
Effect of strength mismatch on constraint and toughness

According to Toyoda, 2002

Complex issue: Various constraint parameters

Damage mechanics simulation (e.g. GTN)

According to Kim (Schwalbe et al., 1996)

Fracture toughness determination
Effect of strength mismatch on toughness
and crack path deviation

Electron beam weld, steel

Kocak et al., 1999

Probability of crack path deviation

decreases with longer crack front Laser beam weld, steel
Heerens & Hellmann, 2003
Stress-strain curves

Micro tensile tests

e.g., Kocak et al., 1998

BS 7448: Estimation from hardness

Base plate : Rp0.2B = 3.28 HV − 221 for 160 < HV < 495
Weld metal : Rp0.2W = 3.15 HV − 168 for 150 < HV < 300
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Fracture toughness determination
Specific features because of residual stresses

Considered at applied side

(crack driving force in component)

Specimen if possible residual

stress free (but not realistic)

Specimen preparation
in order to generate
straight crack front

From left to right:

- Local compression
- (Reverse
bending)
- High R ratio
test
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Misalignment
Fracture toughness determination
Specific features because of misalignment

Deformation of specimen wings in order to avoid bending

However, no plastic deformation within a distance B from weld
Outline

Specific aspects of weldments

Determination of fracture toughness

Determination of the crack driving force

Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure
Crack driving force and
fracture assessment

Crack path simulation by damage
mechanics methods, e.g., GTN model
Local parameters for at least base plate,
weld metal and HAZ

Conventional fracture mechanics

(finite element based and analytical) Negre et al., 2004

Lower bound toughness or R curve

or probabilistic analysis

}
Effect of mismatch and residual stresses
on R curve or toughness scatter!
Mismatch corrected limit load
(crack path deviation)

Again: When are pop-in events component

relevant?
Crack driving force: R6 type assessment

FAD approach CDF approach

-2
K r = f ( Lr ) J = Je ⋅  f (Lr )

K r = K K mat Je = K 2 E′

Example. Option 1B analysis (no Lüders‘ plateau)

-1 2
f (Lr ) = 1 + 0.5 ⋅ L2r  ⋅ 0.3 + 0.7 ⋅ exp ( −µ ⋅ L6r ) 0 ≤ Lr ≤ 1

f (Lr ) = f (Lr = 1) ⋅ Lr (
N−1) 2N
1 ≤ Lr ≤ Lr max

Lr max = 0.5 ⋅ (Rp0.2 + Rm ) R eL 

N = 0.3 ⋅ 1 − (Rp0.2 Rm ) Lr = F FY = σref σ Y

 0.001(E Rp0.2 )
µ = min 
0.6
Replace FY by FYM
Mismatch corrected limit load FYM
Example

Conservative option:
FYM determined as FY based on the lower yield
strength of base plate and weld metal

Individual determination
FYM solutions as functions of global geometry,
mismatch ratio M and (W-a)/H

Limit states:

long crack a and/or wide weld (large H) short crack and/or narrow weld (small H)

plastic zone mainly in weld metal plastic zone mainly in base plate

FY based on σYW gives good estimate FY based on σYB gives good estimate
(e.g. laser or electron beam weld)
Mismatch corrected limit load FYM
Examples

UM OM
Fracture analyses including mismatch: Examples
Fc = 569 kN

M = 1.5

Fc = 589 kN

Fc (homogenous) = 550 kN
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Primary and secondary stresses
Primary stresses σp:

Arise from the applied mechanical
contribute to

load, including dead weight or plastic collapse
inertia effects

Secondary stresses σs:

Result from suppressed local
do not contribute

distortions, e.g., during the
welding process, or are due
to thermal gradients

Self-equilibrating across the
structure, i.e., net force and
bending moment are zero
to plastic collapse
K factor determination is based
on both primary and secondary
stresses but only the primary
stresses are taken into account
for the limit load FY,

However: Secondary stresses can act like primary stresses in the crack carrying section

Treatment as primary conservativ

Crack driving force due to primary
and secondary stresses

Primary stresses only

 a 
n

K = πa ⋅ ∑  σn ⋅ fn ⋅   
n 


 T  

x 
σ ( x ) = ∑  σn ⋅   
n }

n   T  

Primary + secondary stresses

Interaction factor V

Small scale yielding:

K = Kp + Ks
However: because of rather high
σs in as-welded structures
K > Kp + Ks Lr ∼
<1
and because of stress relief
K < Kp + Ks Lr ∼
>1
Although secondary stresses don‘t
contribute to plastic collapse they
contribute to ligament yielding

KIp + V ⋅ KIs
FAD approach: K r =
K mat
p s
K = K + V ⋅K 2
1  KIp + V ⋅ KIs 
CDF approach: J = ⋅  
E′  f (Lr ) 
Determination of V
Plasticity corrected
„K factor“ for se-
condary stresses

Kps
V= s
⋅ξ
K
Fit function to finite
K factor for
element results
secondary
stresses

Different options for determining K s

p
(
Kps Kp Lr ) 0 0.02 0.04 …

e.g., plastic zone corrected K: Lr

0
K ps = ( aeff a ) ⋅ K s ( a ) 0.01
2 0.02
1 K (a) 
s
3 plane strain
aeff =a+ ⋅  β=  0.03
2βπ  σ Y   1 plane stress
……
Fracture analyses including residual stresses
Example: Residual stress profile

Transverse residual stresses (compendium)

2 3
z z z
σRT σ*Y ( z t ) = 1 − 0.917 ⋅   − 14.533 ⋅   + 83.115 ⋅  
t t t
4 5 6
z z z
−215.45 ⋅   + 244.16 ⋅   − 93.36 ⋅  
t t t
Fracture analyses including residual stresses
Example: Critical load for stable crack initiation

Reduction in critical load: ca. 25%

Fracture analyses including residual stresses
Example: Fatigue crack propagation and residual lifetime

No effect on ∆K

But on R = Kmin/Kmax

Effect on crack closure behaviour

Reduction in
residual lifetime:
ca. 25%

Simplified assumption:
R > 0.5 (BS 7910)
Fracture analyses including residual stresses

Ongoing discussion on
less conservative deter-
mination of V factor

This workshop

Including solutions

Without elastic follow-up

Large elastic follow-up

for application to short crack propagation problems

Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects

Susceptibility
Inhomogeneous to cracking Strength mismatch
microstructure

Residual stresses
Misalignment
Fracture analyses including residual stresses
Misalignment
Example:

Angular distorsion

Butt weld

clamped

σs 3y  tanh (β 2 )  3 α ⋅ ℓ  tanh (β 2 )  Solution for bending stress σs

=  = ⋅  
σm t  β 2  2 t  β 2  refered to membrane stress σm
12
2 ⋅ ℓ  3 σm  Alternativ: Finite element stress distribution
β= (rad!)
t  E 
Outline

Specific aspects of weldments

Determination of fracture toughness

Determination of the crack driving force

Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Initial defects in engineering alloys

Frequently: Inclusions at or
close to surface are
crack initiaton sites

Further crack initiation sites:

Crack initiation at inclusions in steel (42CrMoS4)

Primary phases
(Figs. Pyttel)

Pores/cavities

Corrosion pits

Surface roughness
(scratches)

Welding defects
 Weld discontinuities and defects

Distinguish between geometrical dis-

continuities (considered at applied
side) and material defects

Applied side Material

Initial crack size and

- Misalignment - Slag lines
geometry (multiple cracks)
- weldment geometry - Pores
- Undercuts - Lack of fusion
Usually excluded
- Overlap - Cracks

Specified by
weldment
quality Steel 350WT
system Crack initiation in WAZ
0.3 mm deep surfacerdefect
(Josi, 2010)
 Example: Weldment quality grades: VOLVO
Group Weld Quality Standard 181-0004, 2008
Discontinuity VD (normal quality) VC (high quality) VB (post weld treated)

Overlap < 0,5 mm < 0,1 mm not permissable

Lack of fusion not permissable not permissable not permissable

Transition > 0,25 mm > 1 mm > 4 mm

radius

Undecut < 0,05 t (max 1 mm) < 0,025 t (max 0,5 mm) not permissable
inadequate < - 0,2a (max 2 mm) smaller not permissable smaller not permissable
weld thickness

Misalignment < 0,1 t (max 2 mm) not permissable not permissable

Single Pore 0,4 t (max 4) 0,3 t (max 4) 0,2 t (max 2)

0,3 t (max 3) 0,2 t (max 2) 0,1 t (max 1)
Pores cluster 6% / 3% 4% / 2% 2% / 1%
Contributions to fatigue life

Contribution to overall lifetime Nt:

- Crack initiation Ni

- short crack growth Ns

- long crack growth Nl

N t = Ni + N s + Nl
Polak (CSI, 2003):

Crack initiation stage Ni at smooth, nominally defect-free surfaces:

- less than 5-20% of overall lifetime Nt

- even less for existing initial defects

Allows to treat defects as initial cracks in a fracture mechanics model

Specifica of mechanically short cracks
Long crack growth Short crack growth
(a > 0,5 mm, 2c > 1 mm)
∆K concept not applicable

Alternatives:

„plasticity corrected“ K
(e.g., plastic zone size corrected)

∆J-Integral

∆CTOD

Gradual built-up of plasticity-induced

crack closure effect:
Fracture and Crack Propagation in Weldments.
A Fracture Mechanics Perspective

Specific aspects of weldments

Determination of fracture toughness

Determination of the crack driving force

Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Uwe.zerbst@bam.de