Fatigue Assessment

1/9/2020 Fatigue Assessment - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis
Welcome sharu. [Log out] ↓

Home Page » Forums » Analysis Solutions » CAESAR II » Fatigue Assessment
Forum List My Stuff Calendar Active Topics Search FAQ
New Reply Topic Options Search

Fatigue Assessment #46776 - 01/16/12 07:22 AM
DSB1954UK Go
When performing a Fatigue analysis using Caesar using PD5500 Fatigue Advanced
Member Curve F2 I have a query. Since the general ASME Fatigue curves are
based on Alternating Stress vs Number of cycles and as Caesar Who's Online
Registered:
calculates the Stress Range it is possible to compare the Stress Range
03/23/11 0 registered (), 50
Posts: 46 values directly against the Fatigue curves from ASME. However as the
Guests and 1 Spider
Loc: UK fatigue curves in PD5500 are based on Stress Range vs Number of
online.
cycles and the Caesar Stress Ranges are nominally 1/2 the actual stress
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
range does the input of the fatigue curves from PD5500 have to
manipulated to ensure the Caesar calculated Stress Range (50% of the
January
actual) is compared to a relevant Fatigue curve from PD5500?
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #46783 - 01/16/12 12:25 PM
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
DSB1954UK
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Anyone willing to contribute/answer ?
Member 26 27 28 29 30 31
Registered: Forum Stats

03/23/11
Posts: 46 11722 Members
Loc: UK 14 Forums
Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post 16108 Topics
72200 Posts
Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #46802 - 01/17/12 09:34 AM
Max Online: 191 @ 11/16/19
Dave Diehl 10:39 AM
If you build a fatigue file (.FAT) with a stress multiplier of 0.5, the data
in that file should be stress amplitude. If you build a fatigue file (.FAT) Top Posters (30 Days)
Member with a stress multiplier of 1.0, or, if you enter your fatigue data directly
anubis512 8
in the CAESAR II static input, you should enter stress range data.
Registered: mariog 8
Confirm by reviewing the results.
12/14/99 Richard Ay 6
Posts: 2379
_________________________ Michael_Fletcher 6
Loc: Houston, TX,
USA Dave Diehl Jonathan_B 5
Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post
DSB1954UK
Hi David,
Member I understand the process of inputting fatigue curves. My query is rather
more fundamental. If we analyse a system to B31.3 then the SIF's used
Registered:
03/23/11 for components are half of the actual SIF's and this is well known. So if
Posts: 46 we have a thermal stress range between T1 and T2 calculated we know
Loc: UK the actual stress range in the piping is nearer twice the result given by
Caesar. If we enter the fatigue curve (based on stress range values) to
establish the allowable number of cycles with the Caesar computed
Stress Range, which is less than the actual, surely we get the incorrect
result. As we are dealing with fatigue should we not be using the actual
stress range rather than the Code stress range to enter the Fatigue
curve or does Caesar take this into account internally?
forums.coade.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=72235&Searchpage=1&Main=10403&Words=DNV&Search=true#Post72235 1/8
Dave Diehl
The CAESAR II fatigue file (defining stress AMPLITUDE versus Cycles)
will double the stress value if used in the thermal stress range case. In
Member harmonic analysis, the value used will not be doubled as we are
calculating an amplitude there.
Registered: If you wish to incorporate a stress concentration factor, that's up to you.
12/14/99 I would agree that doubling the SIFs used in B31.3 would better
Posts: 2379
Loc: Houston, TX, approximate the stress to be used in a more detailed fatigue evaluation.
USA If I'mnot confusing enough, let me add that one way you can
accommodate this SIF increase is to cut the stress allowed in half,
instead. You can do this in the FAT file by doubling the stress multiplier
in that file.
Give it a try.
_________________________
Dave Diehl
DSB1954UK
Hi Dave,
Member So if I am interpreting your response correctly if we input a fatigue
curve defined by Stress Range versus Cycles (as per a curve from
Registered:
03/23/11 PD5500) then we should either:-
Posts: 46 a) Apply a stress multiplier of 2 in the FAT file and run with the Caesar
Loc: UK (Code)SIF's
or
b) Double the SIF values and run with the inputted Stress Range vs
Cycles fatigue curve with a stress multiplier of 1.0
in order to do a more detailed fatigue evaluation.
Dave Diehl
There are too many ways that my answer could be misinterpreted.
1) You say "Stress Range versus Cycles". The (ASME) curves we ship
Member with CAESAR II are Stress Amplitude versus Cycles. You can do either
because we also employ a multiplier in that file. That multiplier converts
Registered:
your local unit dimension to CAESAR II native dimension (e.g. MPa to
12/14/99
Posts: 2379 psi). That maultiplier can also be used to move from amplitude to range
Loc: Houston, TX, (or range to amplitude). That multiplier may also include a factor of
USA safety, or, in your case a stress "adjustment".
2) You say in a) "a stress multiplier of 2". Is this to address your
condition (I don't know how to better put this) that the "real SIF" for a
girth butt weld is 2, not 1? If so, then, yes, that doubling effect can be
applied with this multiplier. BUT, I cannot say the number you type in is
"2". Note that for US units, the FAT file contains the value "0.5" is used
so in that case, a value of "2" would quadruple.
3)In b), I guess you could double each and every SIF but your would
have to define all your welds too. In concept, I think it would be OK but
in application it's sloppy and error prone.
I have to again emphasize - give it a try. You will see how your entered
srtess data (range or amplitude) is applied in the static (or harmonic)
analysis. Yes, it's confusing but you can quickly confirm how your
entered data s used by looking at the output. If the output is off, change
that multiplier in the FAT file.
For those of you whoa re still reading this, I show two FAT files below.
Note how the "Stress Multiplier" is used.
Here's out FAT file for low strength steel:
* ASME SECTION VIII DIVISION 2 FATIGUE CURVE

* FIGURE 5-110.1
* DESIGN FATIGUE CURVES FOR CARBON, LOW ALLOY, SERIES 4XX,
* HIGH ALLOY AND HIGH TENSILE STEELS FOR TEMPERATURES NOT
* EXCEEDING 700 F
* FOR UTS <= 80 KSI
*
0.5000000 - STRESS MULTIPLIER (PSI); ALSO CONVERTS AMPLITUDE
TO FULL RANGE
*
10 580000.0
100 205000.0
1000 83000.0
10000 38000.0
100000 20000.0
500000 13500.0
1000000 12500.0
0 0.0
And here's one I built to mimic Markl:
* using Sc=Sh=20ksi with f in Eqn 1a

* will give the following fatigue curve
* use this with multiple sources of strain ranges
*
1.0000000 - STRESS MULTIPLIER (PSI); these are ranges
*
10 36000.0
3000 36000.0
7000 30637.0
10000 28528.0
15000 26306.0
20000 24835.0
50000 20677.0
100000 18000.0
0 0.0
*
_________________________
Dave Diehl
DSB1954UK
Hi Dave,
Member Perhaps I have mis-interpretted your previous response. And I agree the
second approach of doubling the SIF's is a "sloppy" approach but I
Registered:
03/23/11 thought that was a way you were suggesting. Can you advise how you
Posts: 46 would perform a fatigue analysis using Caesar II adopting the approach
Loc: UK of DNV-RP-D101 which proposes PD5500. In particular how would the
curves of PD5500 need to be input to Caesar II as the PD5500 curves
are based on Stress Range vs Cycles? How do we ensure that the
"actual" Stress values (taking into account the correct SIF's not the Code
SIF's) are compared with the correct fatigue curve?
DSB1954UK
Hi Dave,
Member Your response
"You say in a) "a stress multiplier of 2". Is this to address your condition
Registered:
03/23/11 (I don't know how to better put this) that the "real SIF" for a girth butt
Posts: 46 weld is 2, not 1? If so, then, yes, that doubling effect can be applied
Loc: UK with this multiplier. BUT, I cannot say the number you type in is "2".
Note that for US units, the FAT file contains the value "0.5" is used so in
that case, a value of "2" would quadruple."
has me confused a little as you seem to be agreeing initially that a

stress multiplier of 2 will address the shortfall in the SIF's for butt welds(
and more importantly the components in a piping system) but then you
say the number is "2".
If we have a fatigue curve which is in US units and is based on Stress

Range values vs cycles what would you recommend the Stress multiplier
should be to perform a "detailed" Fatigue analysis?
Dave Diehl
For a FAT file in US units that uses stress range (rather than amplitude)
and I want to simply double all SIF's, I would enter 2 for my stress
Member multiplier. Then I would run a simple test to convince myself that
everything is working the way I want it to work.
Registered:
12/14/99 _________________________
Posts: 2379
Dave Diehl
Loc: Houston, TX,
USA
DSB1954UK
Many Thanks Dave for response.
Member
Registered:
03/23/11
Posts: 46
Loc: UK
DSB1954UK
Hi Dave,
Member Since the Fatigue curves provided in Caesar are from ASME Div II which
are based on Stress Amplitude versus Number of cycles and then a 0.5
Registered:
03/23/11 Stress multiplier is applied then the Fatigue data within Caesar is a
Posts: 46 Stress Range versus Number of cycles. Am I right in assuming that
Loc: UK Caesar calculates the stress intensities based on "Code Stress Ranges"
using Code Stress intensification factors? If so then is it correct to
compare these stress Intensities against the Stress Range versus
Number of cycles fatigue data to establish the damage as the Code
requires that "true" stress intensities be utilised.
DSB1954UK
Additionally to my query above I have another question on analysis for
Member fatigue. Can you advise as to whether SIF's should be incorporated into
the piping model at welded attachments such as shoes or trunnions as
Registered:
03/23/11 these are structural discontinuities where I beleive SIF's are justified.
Posts: 46
Loc: UK Hope you have the time to respond to this and my last posting since I
want to ensure the fatigue aspects are covered correctly.
DSB1954UK
Anyone from Intergraph willing to respond to above two posts?
Member
Registered:
03/23/11
Posts: 46
Loc: UK
Dave Diehl
In the static analysis, when one of our .FAT files is used, the amplitudes
entered in teh .FAT are doubled and appear as ranges to go with the
Member typical evaluation of expansion stress range.
On the calculated stress side, CAESAR II will calculate a stress intensity
Registered:
using Code-defined SIFs. There is not stress concentration factor (SCF)
12/14/99
Posts: 2379 used for those local (peak) stresses.
Loc: Houston, TX,
USA _________________________
Dave Diehl
DSB1954UK
Thanks for the partial answer. My real question is as above - Is Caesar
Member approaching the fatigue assessment in the correct manner by using
"Code" stress intensities rather than "true" stress intensities ?
Registered:
03/23/11
Posts: 46 I beleive the Code intent (ASME VIII Div 2) is that "true" stress
Loc: UK intensities should be used. Any comment?
DSB1954UK
Final question to which I hope for a definative answer.
Member
Can you confirm that it is incorrect to analyse a system to ASME B31.3
Registered:
03/23/11 and perform a fatigue analysis using Caesar when the fatigue curves
Posts: 46 used are the Caesar standard ASME Curves with a Stress multiplier of
Loc: UK 0.5 since Caesar is comparing "Code" calculated stress intensities rather
than "True" stress intensities especially for bends and fittings?
DSB1954UK
Please advise of a better way to get direct responses to queries
Member regarding Caesar applications.
Registered:
03/23/11
Posts: 46
Loc: UK
Dave Diehl
I would not expect the fatigue evaluation to be valid when the polished
bar (offered in the CAESAR II .FAT files) data is used without
Member modification...unless I polish the pipe.
_________________________
Registered: Dave Diehl
12/14/99
Posts: 2379
Loc: Houston, TX,
USA
Dave Diehl
How about this from L.C. Peng's book - Pipe stress Engineering - page
445 "By doubling the i value, we have increased the [B31.3] stress to
Member the same level of theoretical stress. ... However, since the i values of
most common piping components are automatically calculated by most
Registered:
computer programs, we may use the original i and just double the
12/14/99
Posts: 2379 calculated stress." But he goes on to say "The i method used by B31 ...
Loc: Houston, TX, assumes that every inch of piping consists of a girth butt weld without
USA identifying the actual girth butt weld locations".
_________________________
Dave Diehl
DSB1954UK
Thanks Dave,
Member First response is a little "light hearted" and I know we cannot use the
"polished bar" fatigue curves directly - but do the majority of Caesar
Registered:
03/23/11 users and there is no warnings in the Caesar documentation about this??
Posts: 46
Loc: UK Your second posting still does not give a definative answer to my last
question but skirts around the issue. As generally the high stress points
are at bends/tees etc it is at these locations which are not checked
correctly in my view by Caesar if you use the caesar .FAT files. Caesar
compares these "Code" stresses (well intensities) which are not "True"
stresses, which you acknowledge, and compares against the fatigue
curve to establish a damage value. Therefore Caesar will underestimate
the damage by not using the "True" stresses in the bends/tees etc.
Can you answer directly my previous posting by either confirming or

disagreeing with the statement?
PKU
Member DSB1954UK,
Registered:
08/18/06 Finally, what have you concluded?
Posts: 78
Loc: Aberdeen Did you get further response from Dave?
sanok7
Member Good questions.
But what is the final answer?
Registered:
05/26/16
Posts: 2
Loc: Spain
Dorin Daniel
Popescu Hi PKU & Sanok7,
Member
In my opinion, Dave's latest response in clear enough for this issue.
Registered:
06/05/00
Posts: 125 As per my understanding, Coade/Intergraph will never provide design &
Loc: Middle East analysis solutions outside of Codes' applicability. Therefore, Dave's
considerations may be regarded as guidelines/recommendations for
fatigue assessment of B31 piping.
Please keep in your mind that B31 Codes and DNV RP D101 just refer to
ASME VIII-2 Part 5 and/or BS PD5500 Annex G in relation with fatigue
assessment, but do not provide "recipes" or specific methodologies for
further action.
At the time of his post, Dave's considerations brought to me the latest

confirmation regarding some doubts I used to have based upon Paulin
Group (PRG) webinars related to fatigue analysis.
So, in my opinion, this approach is the most suitable one to be employed
for B31 piping systems' fatigue assessment.
Of course, there are many other "key" issues the engineer should take
into account for when he/she performs fatigue analysis on B31 piping
piping systems, such as: WHAT KIND OF STRESSES are to be checked
against fatigue Curve? or What Fatigue Curve to use?
The first question is very important in my opinion. I believe that Dave's

approach is mostly applicable for ASME VIII-2 Part 5 "Smooth Bar"
Fatigue Curve. I've seen companies performing fatigue assessment of
B31 piping systems using Caesar II peak stress ranges and PD 5500
fatigue curves (e.g. "D", "E", "F" etc.).
In my opinion, such approach is not quite accurate, since PD 5500
Annex G fatigue assessment methodology is not based on Peak stresses
but rather on secondary stresses (as per ASME VIII-2 classification).
Using "de-rated" PD5500 fatigue curves, the local/peak stress
concentration effects are already considered with respect to weld type,
weld & loading relative orientation etc.
A good option, many times suggested by our distinguished moderators

(Dave and Richard) is to used IGE TD 12 Code within Caesar II
environment for fatigue assessment purpose. If you'd have a look on
IGE TD 12 fatigue analysis methodology, you'll note that IGE-TD12 SIFs
are higher (around 2 times) than the typical B31 SIFs...and Pressure
load SIFs are also provided, which you'll not find generally in common
piping codes...
It just remains the engineer to employ proper judgement and sound

correlations to perform a suitable fatigue assessment.
These are just my thoughts. Any other contribution/clarification would

be welcome.
Regards,
_________________________
Dorin Daniel Popescu
Lead Piping Stress Engineer
Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: Dorin Daniel Popescu] #72334 - 10/25/18 06:35 AM
sanok7
Member Dorin Daniel Popescu, thanks a lot!
Registered:
05/26/16
Posts: 2
Loc: Spain
Search Results
Tweet
Like Sign Up to see what your friends like.
Quick Reply:
HTML is
enabled
UBBCode
is
enabled
Add
Signature
Submit Preview Reply Switch to Full Reply Screen
Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay Hop to: CAESAR II Go
Privacy statement · Board Rules · Mark all read

Contact Us · Home Page · Top
GooG_v2_copy_copy_copy
Generated in 0.083 seconds in which 0.060 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.
Powered by UBB.threads™ 7.5.7

Fatigue Assessment

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

Fatigue Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/9/2020 Fatigue Assessment - Intergraph CADWorx & Analysis

Welcome sharu. [Log out] ↓

New Reply Topic Options Search

Registered: Forum Stats

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47072 - 01/31/12 12:52 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47079 - 01/31/12 05:01 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47081 - 01/31/12 11:56 PM

in order to do a more detailed fatigue evaluation.

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47129 - 02/02/12 09:34 AM

Here's out FAT file for low strength steel:

* ASME SECTION VIII DIVISION 2 FATIGUE CURVE

And here's one I built to mimic Markl:

* using Sc=Sh=20ksi with f in Eqn 1a

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47130 - 02/02/12 12:14 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47176 - 02/06/12 11:51 PM

has me confused a little as you seem to be agreeing initially that a

If we have a fatigue curve which is in US units and is based on Stress

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47183 - 02/07/12 09:32 AM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47188 - 02/07/12 10:42 AM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47302 - 02/17/12 01:05 AM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47351 - 02/21/12 06:05 AM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47364 - 02/22/12 12:04 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47366 - 02/22/12 04:45 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47369 - 02/22/12 11:44 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47435 - 02/27/12 11:50 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47458 - 02/28/12 12:27 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47459 - 02/28/12 01:55 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47462 - 02/28/12 04:05 PM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #47466 - 02/28/12 11:48 PM

Can you answer directly my previous posting by either confirming or

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #52676 - 01/28/13 07:28 AM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #72227 - 09/25/18 05:49 AM

Re: Fatigue Assessment [Re: DSB1954UK] #72235 - 09/26/18 10:03 AM

At the time of his post, Dave's considerations brought to me the latest

The first question is very important in my opinion. I believe that Dave's

A good option, many times suggested by our distinguished moderators

It just remains the engineer to employ proper judgement and sound

These are just my thoughts. Any other contribution/clarification would

Lead Piping Stress Engineer

Like Sign Up to see what your friends like.

Submit Preview Reply Switch to Full Reply Screen

Moderator: Dave Diehl, Richard Ay Hop to: CAESAR II Go

Privacy statement · Board Rules · Mark all read

You might also like