International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

A structural stress definition and numerical implementation for

fatigue analysis of welded joints
*
P. Dong
Center for Welded Structures Research, Battelle, Columbus, OH 43016-2693, USA

Received 10 December 2000; received in revised form 11 May 2001; accepted 12 June 2001

Abstract

A mesh-size insensitive structural stress definition is presented in this paper. The structural stress definition is consistent with
elementary structural mechanics theory and provides an effective measure of a stress state that pertains to fatigue behavior of
welded joints in the form of both membrane and bending components. Numerical procedures for both solid models and shell or
plate element models are presented to demonstrate the mesh-size insensitivity in extracting the structural stress parameter. Conven-
tional finite element models can be directly used with the structural stress calculation as a post-processing procedure. To further
illustrate the effectiveness of the present structural stress procedures, a collection of existing weld S-N data for various joint types
were processed using the current structural stress procedures. The results strongly suggests that weld classification based S-N curves
can be significantly reduced into possibly a single master S-N curve, in which the slope of the S-N curve is determined by the
relative composition of the membrane and bending components of the structural stress parameter. The effects of membrane and
bending on S-N behaviors can be addressed by introducing an equivalent stress intensity factor based parameter using the structural
stress components. Among other things, the two major implications are: (a) structural stresses pertaining to weld fatigue behavior
can be consistently calculated in a mesh-insensitive manner regardless of types of finite element models; (b) transferability of weld
S-N test data, regardless of welded joint types and loading modes, can be established using the structural stress based parameters.
 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Structural stress; Finite element analysis; Welded joints; Fatigue; Notch stress; Stress concentration; Mesh-size sensitivity

1. Introduction approach, nominal stresses with appropriate geometric or

At present, fatigue design of welded structures is
primarily based on a nominal stress or hot spot stress
approach with a series of classified weld S-N curves [1–
4], although a local stress or initiation-based fatigue life
approaches [5,6] provide an alternative method for
fatigue life predictions of welded joints. Without going
into a detailed discussion of the merits of the two differ-
ent approaches, the premise of this paper is that the nom-
inal stress or hot spot stress approach has been well
accepted by major industries, and recommended by
numerous national and international codes and standards
(e.g. [3,4]). A series of S-N curves corresponding to each
class of joint types and loading mode were well docu-
mented in some of the codes and standards. With such an
* Tel.: +1 614-424-4908; fax: +1 614-424-3457.
E-mail address: dongp@battelle.org (P. Dong).
structural stress concentration factor (SCF) for a parti-
cular class of joints must be determined against the cor-
responding S-N curve to calculate fatigue damage. Two
critical issues remain unresolved in this context. First,
both nominal stresses and geometric SCFs cannot be
readily calculated from finite element models due to their
strong dependence on element size at weld disconti-
nuities. Secondly, the selection of an appropriate S-N
curve for damage calculation can be very subjective,
since the weld classifications were based on not only
joint geometry, but also dominant loading mode.
There are numerous on-going international efforts to
address the above two issues. A majority of the effort
has been on developing effective hot-spot stress extra-
polation procedures and an ability to correlate various
available S-N curves (e.g., [7,8]). However, the extrapol-
ation procedures available to date still lack consistency
for general applications [9]. This is in part due to the
fact that extrapolation procedures are based on the

0142-1123/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 2 - 1 1 2 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 5 5 - X
866 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876
assumption that the surface stresses on a structural mem-
ber provides an indication of the stress state at a weld
fatigue prone location, such as a weld toe. This underly-
ing assumption may become questionable if the struc-
tural member is not a dominant load-transfer member in
a joint. Under such circumstances, the surface stresses
at some distance away from a weld toe may not be rel-
evant to the stress state of concern. In addition, a refer-
ence nominal stress in such a structural member may not
be readily identified for conventional SCF calculations.
Among the various extrapolation procedures proposed
in the open literature (e.g., [7,8]), a typical one is based
on a linear extrapolation from stress values at both 0.4t
and 1t from a weld toe [8,9], as shown in Fig. 1, where
t represents the plate thickness of a structural member.
The drawback in such an extrapolation scheme becomes
immediately clear in view of Fig. 1 in which some of
the well-studied joints in the research community are
illustrated. The stress concentration behaviors can be
categorized into two types [10]: one is rather localized
stress concentration behavior (Type I) at weld toe, while
the other is more global in length-scale (Type II). In
order to correlate the fatigue behavior in various joint
types, stress concentration behavior at the weld toe of
various joint types must be captured. However, as shown
in Fig. 1(b), any stress concentration effects in Type I
Fig. 1. Stress concentration behavior in welded joints.
joints cannot be captured in this extrapolation scheme,
resulting in little stress concentration effects from this
calculation. On the other hand, for Type II joints, Fig.
1(b) shows that extrapolation from the two reference
positions (open circles) should provide some indication
of the concentrations at the weld toes. Then, one obvious
question is if such calculation procedures provide a
reliable stress concentration measurement or hot spot
stresses. As discussed in Neimi [9], the results are often
questionable due to the fact that these stresses can be
strongly dependent on mesh-size and loading modes.
To improve the S-N curve approach (using either
nominal stresses or hot spot stresses) for welded struc-
tures, a relevant stress parameter must satisfy the two
basic requirements: (a) mesh-size insensitivity in finite
element solutions; (b) ability to differentiate stress con-
centration effects in different joint types (e.g., butt joints
versus T-fillet cruciform joints) in welded structures. In
the following, such a stress parameter is presented and
the corresponding finite element procedures using both
solid and shell element models are given. The validation
of such a structural stress parameter is demonstrated by
reprocessing a series of existing S-N data for joint types
listed in Fig. 1(a).
2. Structural stress definition and formulation
As discussed in Dong [10] and Dong et al. [11], a
structural stress definition that follows elementary struc-
tural mechanics theory can be developed with follow-
ing considerations:
(a) It can be postulated that for a given local through-
thickness stress distribution as shown in Fig. 2(a)
obtained from a finite element model, there exists a
corresponding simple structural stress distribution as
shown in Fig. 2(b), in the form of membrane and
bending components that are equilibrium-equivalent
to the local stress distributions in Fig. 2(a).
(b) The structural stress distribution must satisfy equi-
librium conditions within the context of elementary
structural mechanics theory at both the hypothetical
crack plane [e.g., at weld toe in Fig. 2(a)] and a
nearby reference plane, on which local stress distri-
butions are known a priori from typical finite
element solutions. The uniqueness of such a struc-
tural stress solution can be argued by considering
the fact that the compatibility conditions of the cor-
responding finite element solutions are maintained at
this location in such a calculation.
(c) While local stresses near a notch are mesh-size
sensitive due to the asymptotic singularity behavior
as a notch position is approached, the imposition of
the equilibrium conditions in the context of elemen-
tary structural mechanics with respect to this regime
 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876 867

a membrane component (sm) and bending component

(sb), consistent with elementary structural mechanics
definition:
ss⫽sm⫹sb. (1)
The normal structural stress (ss) is defined at a location
of interest such as Section A–A at the weld toe in Fig.
2(b) with a plate thickness of t. In the above, the trans-
verse shear (tm) of the structural stress components [to
be calculated based on local transverse stress distribution
from Fig. 2(a)] is not considered in the structural stress
definition in the present discussions. In practice, the
transverse shear component can play an important role in
controlling crack propagation path if the remote loading
imposes a significant transverse shear at the weld toe.
A second reference plane can be defined along Section
B–B in Fig. 3(a), along which both local normal and
shear stresses can be directly obtained from a finite
elements solution. The distance, d, represents the dis-
tance between Sections A–A and B–B (in local x
direction) at the weld toe. For convenience, a row of
elements with same length of d can be used in the finite
element model. By imposing equilibrium conditions
between Sections A–A and B–B, the structural stress
components sb and sm must satisfy the following con-
ditions:

冕
t
1
sm⫽ sx(y)·dy (2)
t
0

冕 冕
Fig. 2. Structural stresses definition for through-thickness fatigue t t
crack. (a) Local through-thickness normal and shear stress at weld toe, t2 t2
(b) Structural stress definition at weld toe. sm· ⫹sb· ⫽ sx(y)·y·dy⫹d txy(y)·dy. (3)
2 6
0 0
should eliminate or minimize the mesh-size sensi-
Eq. (2) represents the force balances in x direction,
tivity in the structural stress calculations. This is due
evaluated along B–B and Eq. (3) represents moment bal-
to the fact that the local stress concentration close
to a notch is dominated by self-equilibrating stress
distribution, as discussed by Niemi [9].

Along this line, the following typical situations are con-

sidered:

2.1. Solid model with monotonic through-thick stress

distributions

As shown in Fig. 2(a), the stress distribution at the T-

fillet weld toe is assumed to exhibit a monotonic
through-thickness distribution with the peak stress
occurring at the weld toe. It should be noted that in typi-
cal finite element based stress analysis, the stress values
within some distance from the weld toe can change sig-
nificantly as the finite element mesh design changes
(e.g., [9]), referred to as mesh-size sensitivity in this
paper. The corresponding statically equivalent structural Fig. 3. Structural stresses calculation procedure for through-thickness
stress distribution is illustrated in Fig. 2, in the form of fatigue crack.
868 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876

ances with respect to Section A–A at y =0. The integral
term on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) represents the
transverse shear force as an important component of the
structural stress definition. It is then follows that if
element size (d) is small or transverse shear is negligible,
the integral representations of sb and sm in Eqs. (2) and
(3) can be directly evaluated at Section A–A in Fig. 3(a).
2.2. Solid model with finite fatigue crack depth
Often, a fatigue crack of a finite depth is used as a
fatigue failure criterion (e.g. [9]), the corresponding
structural stress can be then defined in a similar manner
to that in Fig. 3. In Fig. 4, the depth of the fatigue crack
at failure is assumed to be t1. Without losing generality,
the structural stress procedures [10,11] can be effectively
demonstrated using the example in Fig. 4. Note that for
convenience, the local y coordinate is defined as shown
in Fig. 4(a), different from that in Fig. 3, At a horizontal
cross section of depth t1 from the top surface, both nor-
mal stress (sy) and shear stress (tyx) are present in gen-
eral.
By imposing equilibrium conditions between Sections
A–A and B–B, as well as the horizontal cross section
in between, it can be shown that the structural stress
components (sb and sm) must satisfy the following equa-
tions:

冕 冕
t1 d
1 1
sm⫽ sx(y)·dy⫹ tyx(x)·dx (4)
t1 t1
0 0

冕 冕
t1 t1

t21 t21
sm· ⫹sb· ⫽ sx(y)·y·dy⫹d txy(y)·dy (5)
2 6
0 0

冕
d

⫹ sy(x)·x·dx.
0

Additionally, by considering the bottom element

(spanning t–t1) between Sections A–A and B–B, it can
be shown that
sm⫺sb⫽sm⬘⫹sb⬘ (6)

冕 冕
t⫺t1 d
1 1
sm⬘⫽ sx(y)·dy⫺ t (x)·dx. (7)
t−t1 t−t1 yx
0 0

As in Eqs. (2) and (3), the integrals in the above can be

accurately evaluated using finite element solutions at
cross sections away from the geometric discontinuity.
The structural stress components sb and sm, including
sb⬘ and sm⬘ can then be solved.

2.3. Solid model with non-monotonic through-

thickness stress distributions

In thick section joints and some joint configurations,

Fig. 4. Structural stresses definition for partial thickness (t1) fatigue
crack weld toe. (a) Local normal stress distribution, (b) Structural
stress definition.
non-monotonic through-thickness or in-plane distri-
butions may develop, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The corre-
sponding structural stress definition can be consistently
defined in a similar manner as that in Fig. 4. Note that
the parameter t1 can be determined based on the position
at which the transverse shear stress changes direction, if
there is no specified crack depth as a failure criterion.
Eqs. (4, 5) and (7) can be directly used for structural
stress calculations except a minor modification of Eq.
(6) as follows:
sm⫺sb⫽sm⬘⫺sb⬘. (8)
 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876
Fig. 5. Structural stresses definition for non-monotonic through-
thickness stress distribution.
A special case in this category is that the joint configur-
ation and loading are symmetric with respect the neutral
axis of the horizontal member in Fig. 5 such as Joints
B and C in Fig. 1(a). In this case, the shear stress on the
cross section along the symmetry line is zero as shown in
Fig. 6. Thus, Eqs. (4) and (5) can be directly used to
calculate the structural stress components sb and sm, by
substituting t1=t/2 and tyx=0.
2.4. Shell/plate element models
Shell or plate element models of complex structures
are widely used for performing stress analyses for
fatigue evaluation. The underlying principles of struc-
tural stress calculations are the same between the
869
Fig. 6. Structural stresses procedure for non-monotonic through-
thickness stress distribution: (a) symmetry with respect to plate mid-
thickness (t1=t/2); (b) structural stress definition.
shell/plate and solid element models, while special con-
sideration will be given to shell/plate structural theory
and its finite element implementation. It should be noted
that shell/plate element solutions at geometric disconti-
nuities (e.g., weld toe) converge only to the solutions
described by the corresponding shell/plate theory.
Consequently, the local stresses at a weld toe in actual
structures are forced to obey the shell/plate theory used
in the finite element model and are not the structural
stresses sought in Eq. (1), even though a linear through-
thickness stress distribution is maintained. Two general
methods for structural stress calculations are presented
below:
870 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876
2.4.1. Using stresses and stress resultants
As shown in Fig. 7, stresses and nodal quantities from
shell or plate element models are often defined in a glo-
bal coordinate system (x, y, z), depending on the finite
element codes used. Given the definition of the structural
stress components in Eq. (1), it is the local coordinate
system (x⬘, y⬘, z⬘) that is convenient for calculating the
structural stresses with respect to a weld, with local x⬘
and y⬘ being perpendicular and parallel to the weld direc-
tion, respectively. Consistent with the solid element
model approach (e.g., see Fig. 3), three components of
the stress resultants (sectional forces and moments), i.e.,
fx⬘, fz⬘, and my⬘, at Section B–B in Fig. 7 can be used to
calculate the structural stress components at Section
A–A:
fx⬘ 6(my⬘+d·fz⬘)
ss⫽sm⫹sb⫽ ⫹ . (9)
t t2
In the above, a finite element formulation with six
degrees of freedom at each node is assumed, i.e., six
components of generalized forces at each node (three
translational and three rotational). If stresses in the glo-
bal coordinate system (x, y, z) are used, they must be
transformed to the local coordinate system (x⬘, y⬘, z⬘)
before Eqs. (2) and (3) can be used for the structural
stress calculations.
2.4.2. Using element nodal forces
In some applications, the reference section B–B in
Fig. 7 may not be available. This situation arises if welds
are rather close to each other or load transfer at a weld
of interest is very localized. If the element sectional
forces and moments (with respect to the reference
element in Fig. 7) at Section A–A are available from
a finite element solution, the equilibrium requirements
Fig. 7. Structural stress procedures for a shell/plate element adjacent
to a weld.
described by Eq. (9) are automatically satisfied within
the accuracy of the finite element solutions. In view of
typical finite element procedures in commercial codes,
a general structural stress calculation procedure is
presented below:
With respect to the global coordinate system (x, y, z),
the element stiffness matrix {Ke} can be obtained either
directly from a finite element solution or formulated sep-
arately afterwards. The nodal displacements at a node
within the reference element are typically described in
the form of:
{u}Ti ⫽{uxi, uii, uzi, qxi, qyi, qzi}
where uxi, uyi, uzi represent the three translational dis-
placements in x, y, and z directions at node i and qxi,
qyi, qzi three rotational displacements, respectively. The
subscript i takes 1, 2, …, n, with n being the number of
the nodes in the element. The element nodal force vector,
{Fe}Ti ⫽{Fxi, Fyi, Fzi, Mxi, Myi, Mzi, …}, i⫽1,2,…,n
can be obtained by:
{Fe}⫽{Ke}{u}. (10)
The element nodal forces in the local coordinate system
(x⬘, y⬘, z⬘) can then be computed as
{Fe⬘}⫽{T}{Fe} (11)
where the matrix {T} is the coordinate transformation
matrix built up of directional cosines of angles formed
between the two sets of axes in Fig. 7.
Once the element nodal forces are obtained for the
nodal positions along Section A–A in Fig. 7, the corre-
sponding sectional forces and moments (fx⬘, fz⬘, and
my⬘) can be calculated using appropriate shape functions.
Then, Eq. (9) simply becomes at Section A–A:
fx⬘ 6my⬘
ss⫽sm⫹sb⫽ ⫹ 2 . (12)
t t
Note that transverse shear effects in Eq. (9) are already
taken into account in the finite element solution in this
instance.
3. Numerical examples
The structural stress procedures presented above [e.g.,
Eqs. (2–5, 9) and (12)] can be implemented as post-pro-
cessing procedures to the finite element results for a
structure using commercially available finite element
codes. In what follows, a series of numerical examples
will be presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
structural stress procedures. Some typical joint details
discussed in the open literature are considered here.
 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876
3.1. Plate lap fillet weld
A typical lap fillet joint is shown in Fig. 8(a). A plane
strain eight-node solid element model is used as shown
in Fig. 8(b) and (c), illustrating two representative
meshes with drastically different element sizes at the
weld toes, among those used for mesh-size sensitivity
investigation. Since large element sizes are to be investi-
gated, parabolic elements with reduced integration are
used for this joint, due to shear lock considerations if a
strong bending action is present [11].
As the element size (a/b) varies from a/b=0.16t/0.1t
to a/b=2t/1t, the structural stresses calculated at the weld
toe according Eqs. (2) and (3) remains essentially ident-
ical. Fig. 8(d) summarizes the structural stress based
SCF values calculated with different element mesh sizes.
The SCF values were calculated using the structural
stresses calculated using the present methods normalized
Fig. 8. Structural stress and mesh insensivity–single plate lap joint:
(a) model definition; (b) a representative FE model with fine mesh
(0.16t/0.1t) at weld toe; (c) a representative FE model with coarse
mesh (0.8t/t) at weld toe; and (d) structural stress SCF calculated from
six FE models.
871
with respect to remote nominal stress, i.e., F/A, where
F is remote loading and A the area of loaded member.
It is important to note that once the mesh-size insensi-
tivity is ensured, the structural stress should serve as an
intrinsic stress parameter for a given geometry and
boundary conditions, regardless of numerical procedures
used. Then, it is natural to expect a similar structural
stress value from a shell/plate element model for a geo-
metrically similar joint. Indeed, this is the case, as evi-
denced in Fig. 9. The structural stress values obtained
using the two shell element procedures, i.e., Eqs. (9) and
(12), give the same results. The slightly higher structural
stress values than those obtained by solid element mod-
els reflect, to a large extent, the simple representation of
the fillet weld geometry in the shell model, as shown in
Fig. 9(a). A proper definition of the shell element thick-
ness in the weld area should further improve the shell
element results. Attempts were not made here to optim-
ize some of the detailed modeling issues.
3.2. Double plate lap fillet weld
The double plate lap fillet weld shown in Fig. 10
serves as a special case of the proposed structural stress
definition for non-monotonic through-thickness stress
distributions, as shown in Fig. 5. The calculation pro-
cedures are illustrated in Fig. 6 by imposing the sym-
metry conditions at the base plate mid-thickness, as
Fig. 9. Comparison of structural stresses calculated from both solid
and shell models as a function of element size–single plate lap joint:
(a) model definition; (b) structural stress results.
872 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876
Fig. 10. Structural stress and mesh insensivity–double plate lap fillet
weld: (a) model definition; (b) structural stresses calculated from four
FE models with various mesh-sizes at weld toe.
shown in Fig. 10(a). For this case, shell or plate element
models cannot be not directly used. Instead, plane-strain
solid element models (same as those in Fig. 8) are used
for demonstrating the mesh-size insensitivity in the
structural stress calculations. The structural stress results
based on Eqs. (4) and (5) are shown in Fig. 10(b). The
mesh-size insensitivity can be demonstrated from very
small element size up to a/b=0.4t/0.5t. Unlike the single
plate lap weld, the mesh-insensitivity of the structural
stress results will be limited to less than 1/2t since a
larger element size will not be able to capture the
localized stress distribution in this joint type.
3.3. Rectangular hollow section joint
Fig. 11(a) shows a typical rectangular hollow section
(RHS) joint under the given loading of 1000 N. Four-
node linear shell elements were used with a full inte-
gration scheme. The procedure discussed earlier [Eq.
(9)] is used for calculating the structural stresses at the
weld toe on the vertical member. The results are summa-
rized in Fig. 11(b). The local stress values directly
obtained from the shell element model are also shown
for comparison purposes. Again, the mesh-size insensi-
tivity of the current structural stress procedures is evi-
dent. It should be noted that the curved geometry of the
Fig. 11. Structural stress at weld toe for RHS joint (shell element
model). (a) Stress distribution - Shell Element model, (b) comparison
of local stress and structural stresses.
RHS limits the increase in element sizes along the weld
direction without losing a proper representation of the
actual geometry, particularly at corner positions. The
element size represents the variations in the direction
perpendicular to the weld.
4. Implications and discussions
4.1. Properties of the structural stresses
As discussed in the previous sections, the structural
stress parameter presented in this paper demonstrates
that it can be robustly computed from typical finite
element models used in practice. The mesh-size insensi-
tivity in the structural stress calculations can be generally
maintained using rather coarse mesh (up to multiple
thicknesses) for monotonic through thickness stress dis-
tributions (Fig. 3) and up to 1/2t for non-monotonic
through-thickness distributions such as those shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. In former, other considerations in final
finite element mesh design should be given in practice
since interactions of welds and a proper representation
of structural geometry should be considered. In the latter,
the element size limitation can be removed if the struc-
tural stress based SCF can be used in conjunction with
the structural stresses calculated from shell/plate element
 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876 873

models (nominal structural stresses in this context) in

actual applications.
By its very definition, the structural stress provides a
global stress measure at a location of interest such as
weld toe, which satisfies equilibrium conditions in the
context of elementary structural mechanics. Conse-
quently, the structural stress parameter is solely determ-
ined by joint geometric parameters, such as joint type,
plate thickness (or reference fatigue crack depth), and
weld shape under a given load transfer mode. Once it is
determined in a mesh-insensitive manner, the structural
stress parameter can be viewed as an equivalent struc-
tural stress state with respect to a hypothetical crack
orientation such as a weld toe crack in a simple
geometry. Both the stress concentration and load mode
effects in the actual structure are fully contained in the
structural stress parameter. It should also be noted that
the average transverse shear stress [e.g., Eq. (3)] should
also be viewed as a component of the structural stress
parameter. The effects of the transverse shear component
of the structural stress parameter are currently under
investigation [14] for joints loaded with significant trans-
verse shear loading.

4.2. Correlation between structural stresses and S-N

data

Structural stress calculations were performed for a ser-

ies of selected weld details upon which well-documented
S-N fatigue data can be found from a database at Bat-
telle. These joint configurations are shown in Fig. 1(a)
[Joints (A), (B), (C), (E), and (F)]. For comparison pur-
poses, nominal stress and hot-spot stress extrapolation
procedure based on 0.4t and 1.0t positions [1–4] were
also used with the same finite element models, in
addition to the structural stress procedures discussed in
the above. A relatively small element size (about t/6) at
the weld toe were used in all these calculations due to
the hot spot stress extrapolation requirements, even
though the present structural stress procedures are cap-
able of generating the same results with much coarser
models.
Fig. 12 summarizes the results processed using the
three stress definitions. To facilitate an one-to-one com-
parison, all plots in Fig. 12 are plotted with same length
scale and ranges both for the abscissa and ordinate. As
shown in Fig. 12(a), the nominal stress range versus life
plot shows that each of the joint types essentially retains
its own S-N data trend, as expected. The hot spot stress
based plot in Fig. 12(b) did not provide any noticeable
improvement. Note that some of the data points such as
those for Joint E and Joint F have a lower nominal stress
value (F/A) than 100 MPa and are outside of the plot in
Fig. 12(a), but having higher hot spot stress and struc-
tural stress values than 100 MPa in Fig. 12(b) and (c).
As discussed earlier, due to the highly localized stress
Fig. 12. Comparison of S-N data representations using various stress
parameters published in the literature: (a) nominal stresses; (b) IIW
hot spot stresses (0.4t/1.0t); (c) structural stresses.
concentration behavior in most of the joints (see Fig. 1),
the stress extrapolations from positions at 0.4t and 1t
from weld toe yield essentially the nominal stresses for
almost of all the joint types, except Joint (F). However,
the structural stress based plot in Fig. 12(c) for the same
S-N data shows that the structural stress parameter pro-
vides more effective consolidation of the S-N data from
the different joint types studied. The structural stress
based SCFs (sm and sb values corresponding to unit
remote tension) are listed in the parenthesis following
each legend in Fig. 12(c). The results suggest that the
structural stress parameter can be used to establish the
transferability of the S-N data among the joint types.
Further results will be reported separately [14] for more
874 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876

detailed considerations of various other joint types and using existing solutions such as those given by Tada et
corresponding S-N data. al., [15]. It can be shown that the Mode I stress intensity
factor range for the crack geometry in Fig. 13 can be
4.3. Effects of bending and membrane components expressed as a function of the ranges of the structural
stress components using superposition principle:
With a S-N curve approach, fatigue lives (in cycles)
of welded joints are described as a function of either
nominal or hot spot stress ranges. In the present
approach as shown in Fig. 12(c), structural stress ranges
⌬K⫽⌬Km⫹⌬Kb⫽冑tr ⌬smfm 冋 冉冊 a
tr
⫹⌬sbfb 冉 冊册
a
tr
(13)

are used as a stress parameter to relate to fatigue lives The fm(a/tr) and fb(a/tr) are dimensionless functions of
of the welded joints under remote tension. For all the a/tr for the membrane and bending components,
joints analyzed in Fig. 12(c) under remote tension, the expressed as follows [15]:
bending content (sb) of the structural stresses at weld
toe varies from 0.214 to in Joint A to 0.522 to Joint F,
冪2tan2t
pa

冉冊 冋 冉冊 冉 冊册
normalized by remote tension stress. It is conceivable 3
that the peak surface stress range parameter (sm+sb), a a pa r
fm ⫽ 0.752⫹2.02 ⫹0.37 1⫺sin (14)
although it can be calculated in a mesh-insensitive man- tr tr 2tr pa
cos
ner, may not be adequate to consolidate S-N data from 2tr
drastically different remote loading modes, such as pure
remote tension versus pure remote bending. In such situ-
冪2tan2t .
pa
ations, the corresponding structural stress components
sm and sb will be drastically different as well. The
effects of the membrane and bending effects on S-N
fb冉冊 冋
a
tr
⫽ 0.923⫹0.199 1⫺sin
pa
冉
2tr 冊册
4

cos
pa
r
(15)

behavior can be inferred from fracture mechanics con- 2tr

siderations since stress intensity factor provides an effec-
tive one-parameter characterization of cracking driving
force under linear elastic conditions. A large amount of
published work demonstrates that crack growth rate can
be related to the stress intensity factor (⌬K) range in a
form of the Paris law.
Once a structural stress is available for a joint
geometry in terms of sm and sb in Eq. (1), the calculated
structural stress transforms the actual geometry and load-
ing effects for a given weld detail on to a simple
geometry as shown in Fig. 13, where a represents a
fatigue crack length and tr stands for a reference length
corresponding to the final crack depth at failure. For such
a simple crack geometry in Fig. 13, stress intensity factor
solutions are readily available in the open literature. For
the hypothetical crack plane in Fig. 13, the two structural
stress components serve as an equivalent remote loading
with respect to the hypothetical crack face spanning from
a=0 to a=tr. Then, the corresponding stress intensity fac-
tor solution a for welded joint with structural stress
components of sm and sb can be directly constructed
Fig. 13. Fracture mechanics interpretation of the structural stresses
as fatigue propagation parameter.
For a given combination of ⌬sm and ⌬sb, fm(a/tr) and
fb(a/tr) are functions of a/tr. It should be pointed out that
the K solutions using Eqs. (13)–(15) are strictly valid for
joint types without symmetry with respect to the mid-
plane of the horizontal member in Fig. 1(a), such as
Joints D, G, and G⬘. For joints with symmetry, such as
Joints A–C, E, and F, the K solutions using Eqs. (13)–
(15) should be viewed as an approximation. The
adequacy of the approximation for the current appli-
cations can be justified from the fact that the structural
stress calculations have already taken into account of the
stress gradient effects in the symmetrical joints (A–C,
E, and F). Similar assumptions have been used in various
early publications, e.g., [1,2]. A more refined approach
by incorporating more appropriate functions fm(a/tr) and
fb(a/tr) in place of Eqs. (14) and (15) is given by Dong
et al. [16] for joints with horizontal symmetry.
In typical fatigue testing of welded joints for S-N data
generation, crack size information such as a/tr is often
not available. For S-N data interpretation purposes, as a
reasonable approximation, it may be assumed that a
crack size at the beginning of a test is infinitesimally
small (a/tr苲0) and reaches about a/tr苲1 (complete
separation) at the final failure. (It is recognized that in
most of fatigue tests, a final failure often occurs well
before a/tr=1. More detailed considerations are discussed
in [16].) Then, an effective ⌬K can be defined by con-
sidering an averaged stress intensity factor integrating
over a=0苲tr. The average stress intensity factor range
⌬K can be obtained by integrating the expressions in
Eqs. (14) and (15) over a/tr=0 to 1 as:
 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876 875

a/tr⫽1

⌬K⫽冑tr 冕冋 冉冊
a/tr⫽0
⌬smfm
a
tr
⫹⌬sbfb冉 冊册 冉 冊
a
tr
d
a
tr
.

The following simple expression can then be obtained:

⌬K⫽冑tr(33.17⌬sm⫹11.87⌬sb). (16)

For a given combination of ⌬sm and ⌬sb, Eq. (16) pro-

vides the stress intensity factor based measurement of
their relative contributions to the total ⌬K. Note that Eq.
(16) is rather general since the structural stress compo-
nents already contain the geometry and three dimen-
sional loading effects from an actual welded joint, as
discussed earlier.
Naturally, if ⌬K serves as an effective parameter for
crack propagation behavior, a single ⌬K⫺N log–log plot
should be expected regardless of the relative magnitude
of the membrane and bending components. However, in
a log–log based S-N plot, if ⌬sm and ⌬sb are signifi-
cantly different from those in Fig. 12(c), a slope change
is anticipated since Eq. (1) provides only a peak struc-
tural stress measure at the surface with an equal weight
on both components. To substantiate this augment, two
sets of S-N data for Joints G and G⬘ by Huther et al.
[12] and Maddox [13] were processed using both Eqs.
(1) and (16). Joint G⬘ is the same as Joint G in geometry,
but under horizontal tension instead of pure bending.
The structural stress based SCFs for the bend component
(sb) for Joints G and G⬘ are 1.206 and 0.383, respect-
ively, as indicated in Fig. 14(a), drastically different
from each other. The structural stress based S-N plot is
shown in Fig. 14(a). It can be seen that the two sets of S-
N data exhibit two distinct bands separating membrane-
dominant structural stress from the bending-dominant.
However, if Eq. (16) is used, Fig. 14(b) shows that
the fatigue data from the two drastically different mem-
brane and bending combinations fall into essentially the
same band. Fig. 14(c) summarizes the stress intensity
factor ranges versus cycles at failure for all joints [Joints
A though G in Fig. 1(a) and G⬘]. The results in Fig. 14(c) Fig. 14. Effects of bending and membarane components on S-N
curve slope: (a) structural stress range; (b) stress intensity factor range;
clearly suggest that the S-N data for Joints A through G⬘
(c) stress intensity factor range for joints A–G⬘.
can be effectively consolidated into a single band, even
though both the joint types and loading are significantly
different from one another. In calculating the structural
intensity factor ranges for each of the joint types, Eq.
(16) was used throughout the process once the mesh-
and detailed K solutions were also used [16]. It should
insensitive structural stresses are obtained for all joint
be noted that the structural stress based ⌬K⫺N interpret-
types and loading mode. This can also be viewed as a
ation for fatigue behavior has been successfully used for
validation of the structural stress based transformation
consolidating S-N data of spot welds under drastically
process shown in Fig. 13 and its potential usefulness for
general applications. different loading conditions (e.g., [17,18]), where ⌬K,
Further discussions on the use of the relation in Eq. however, can be expressed in a simple form without
(13) or Eq. (16) and more refined definition of ⌬K para- explicit crack size dependency, as initially proposed by
meters for consolidating existing S-N data be reported Zhang [17]. A recent independent evaluation on its
separately [16], in which structural stresses at notches effectiveness can be found in Gao et al. [19].
876 P. Dong / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 865–876
5. Summary
1. A structural stress definition has been presented as an
effective measure of the stress state at welded joints.
The structural stress parameter in terms of both mem-
brane and bending components is consistent with
elementary structural mechanics theory and can be
readily calculated in a mesh-insensitive manner from
conventional finite element models. Its applications in
characterizing weld toe cracking for a series of joint
types were demonstrated.
2. The structural stress based interpretation of existing
S-N data considered here suggests that transferability
of S-N data among different joint types and loading
conditions can be established.
3. The relative bending to membrane ratio of the struc-
tural stress components calculated at weld toe can
provide additional insight on the S-N curve behavior,
particularly for those joints tested under drastically
different remote loading conditions. A simplified
stress intensity factor range parameter (an integrated
average) proposed in this study has demonstrated its
potential in correlating such S-N curve behaviors in
terms of the membrane and bending effects.
4. The structural stress procedure can be viewed as a
transformation process that maps a complex stress
state at a joint situated in an actual structure subjected
to complex loading mode onto a simple structural
stress state represented by membrane and bending
components. Consequently, stress intensity factors
can be readily calculated using existing solutions for
a simple crack problem for various welded joints once
the structural stress components become available.
References
[1] Hobbacher A. Fatigue design of welded joints and components:
Recommendations of IIW Joint Working Group XIII–XV. Abing-
ton, Cambridge: Abington Publishing, 1996.
[2] Hobbacher A. Basic philosophy of the new IIW recommendations
on fatigue design of welded joints and components. Welding in
the World 1997;39(5):272–8.
[3] Code of practice for fatigue design and assessment of steel struc-
tures. BS7608, British Standards Institution, 1993.
[4] Design of steel structures—Part 1-1. ENV 1993-1-1. Eurcode 3,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1992.
[5] Radaj D. Review of fatigue strength assessment of non-welded
and welded structures based on local parameters. International
Journal of Fatigue 1996;18(3):153–70.
[6] Lawrence FV, Mattos RJ, Higashida Y, Burk JD. Estimating the
fatigue crack initiation life of welds. ASTM STP
1978;648:134–58.
[7] Stress determination for fatigue analysis of welded components.
IIS/IIW 1221-93. Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing,
1993.
[8] Niemi E. Recommendations concerning stress determination for
fatigue analysis of welded components. IIW-1458-92/XV-797-
92, 1992.
[9] Niemi E, Tanskanen P. Hot spot stress determination for welded
edge gussets. IIW XIII-1781-99. 1999.
[10] Dong P. A robust structural stress parameter for characterizing
fatigue behavior of welded joints. SAE Technical Paper Series:
No. 2001-01-0086, Fatigue and Failure of Spot Welds and Weld
Joints, March, 2001.
[11] Dong P, Zhang J, Hong JK. Structural stress calculation scheme.
Battelle’s Patent Application (pending), 2000.
[12] Huther I, Gorski S, Lieurade HP. Longitudinal non-loaded
welded joints geometric stress approach. Welding in the World
1999;43(3):20–6.
[13] Maddox SJ. Influence of tensile residual stresses on the fatigue
behavior of welded joints in steel. Residual stress effects in
fatigue. ASTM STP 1982;776:63–96.
[14] Dong P, Hong JK. A master fatigue damage curve approach for
welded joints. Under preparation, 2001.
[15] Tada H, Paris P, Irwin G. The stress analysis of cracks handbook.
2nd ed. St Louis, MO: Paris Productions, 1985.
[16] Dong P, Hong JK, Cao Z. A mesh insensitive structural stress
procedure for fatigue evaluation of welded structures. Inter-
national Institute of Welding (IIW), IIW Doc. XIII-1902-01/XV-
1089-01, July, 2001.
[17] Zhang S. Stress intensities at spot welds. International Journal of
Fracture 1997;88:167–85.
[18] Zhang J, Dong P, Gao Y. Evaluation of stress intensity factor
based predictive technique for fatigue life of resistance spot
welds. SAE Technical Paper Series: No. 2001-01-0830, Fatigue
and Failure of Spot Welds and Weld Joints, March, 2001.
[19] Gao Y, Chucas D, Lewis C, McGregor IJ. Review of CAE fatigue
analysis techniques for spot-welded high strength steel automo-
tive structures. SAE Technical Paper Seires: No. 2001-01-0835,
Fatigue and Failure of Spot Welds and Weld Joints, March, 2001.