Evaluation of Fatigue Procedures for Welds and Rotating Axes

2005:154 CIV
MA S T ER’S T H E SI S
Evaluation of Fatigue Procedures

for Welds and Rotating Axes
HENRIK MATTSSON
MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME

Mechanical Engineering
Luleå University of Technology

Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical Engineering
Division of Solid Mechanics
2005:154 CIV • ISSN: 1402 - 1617 • ISRN: LTU - EX - - 05/154 - - SE

DET NORSKE VERITAS
RESEARCH REPORT
Report title: DET NORSKE VERITAS AB
Evaluation of fatigue procedures for rotating axles and welds DNV Technology Sweden
Author: Box 30234

SE-104 25 STOCKHOLM, Sweden
Henrik Mattsson Tel: +46 8 587 940 00
Fax: +46 8 651 70 43
http://www.dnv.com
Client: VAT No: SE556537340301
M.Sc. Thesis, Department of solid mechanics, LTU ISSN 1401-5331
Summary:
The first part of this thesis evaluates the fatigue life prediction procedure in British standard 2571-2
appendix C against experimental high cycle fatigue data found in the literature. The safety margin to
the actual endurance limit and the failure probability was calculated. The steel specimens used to
generate the reported fatigue data had different geometries and material properties. The applied stress
states were rotating bending, reversed torsion and a multiaxial stress state.
The predicted failure probability was greater than proposed in the standard. The total failure
probability for the collected data was 32 %, not 10 % as claimed in the standard.
The second part deals with the determination of structural Hot spot stress in welded structures. The
accuracy of two different methods was investigated using finite element analysis. The results obtained
with a recently developed method, the Dong method and the Hot spot stress method suggested by the
International Institute of Welding were compared. The selected comparison case was a round robin
investigation found in the literature.
The Hot spot method gave consistent results for different mesh densities and types of finite elements.
The same robustness was not observed for the Dong method.
RSE R&D Report No.: Date of first issue:

2005/01 March 2005
Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:
2005-03-22 0 37 Unrestricted distribution
Work verified by:
Magnus Dahlberg, Kjell Eriksson Limited distribution within
Det Norske Veritas
Work approved by:
Peder Andersson No distribution without permission from the
Client or responsible organisational unit
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work has been carried out at Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Technology Stockholm Sweden.
The thesis was performed during the second half of 2004 under supervision of Magnus Dahlberg
I would like to thank Magnus at DNV for his support and guidance in this thesis. I would also
like to express my gratitude to Professor Kjell Eriksson at Luleå University of technology.
Finally I would like to thank everybody else who have helped me at DNV, all included.
Page i
REFERENCE TO PART OF THIS REPORT WHICH MAY LEAD TO MISINTERPRETATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.
Table of Content Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................I
NOMENCLATURE............................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 2
2. OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 2
3. FATIGUE................................................................................................................. 3
4. FATIGUE METHODOLOGY IN BS-2571-2 APPENDIX C ................................... 4

4.1 Alternating uniaxial stresses........................................................................ 4
4.2 Stress state factor C1................................................................................... 4
4.3 Size effect C2.............................................................................................. 5
4.5 Notch effect ................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Multiaxial Fatigue....................................................................................... 8
5. COMPARISON AND RESULTS BETWEEN BS AND EXPERIMENTAL

DATA ...................................................................................................................... 9
5.1 Load type comparison ............................................................................... 10
5.2 Comparison between notch and unnotched specimens............................... 11
5.3 The safety factor relative to the material and tensile strength..................... 11
5.3 The safety factor relative to the material and tensile strength..................... 12
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 13
7. STRUCTURAL HOT SPOT STRESS.................................................................... 14

7.1 Hot Spot method ....................................................................................... 14
7.2 Equilibrium equivalent structural stress (Dong method) ............................ 15
7.3 Structural stress for solid FE-models ......................................................... 16
7.4 Shell element procedures in the Dong method........................................... 16
7.5 Work equivalence for distributed loads ..................................................... 16
7.6 Assembling shell element procedure ......................................................... 18
8. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPARING EXAMPLE............................................. 19

8.1 Nominal stress calculation......................................................................... 19
8.2 Boundary conditions of the FE-model ....................................................... 20
9. DESCRIPTION OF THE SHELL MODELS .......................................................... 21
10. STRESS CONCENTRATION RESULTS FOR THE SHELL MODELS ............... 24

10.1 Extrapolation distance for the shell models without the weld
represented................................................................................................ 25
10.2 Mesh Study............................................................................................... 26
Page ii
12. STRESS CONCENTRATION RESULTS FOR THE SOLID MODEL .................. 27
13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 32
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX A GEOMETRY OF FATIGUE SPECIMENS .................................................. 34
APPENDIX B CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL DATA ................................................. 35
APPENDIX C CALCULATED SAFETY FACTORS FOR UNIAXIAL STRESS

STATES, ROTATING BENDING AND REVERSED TORSION ......................... 36
APPENDIX D CALCULATED SAFETY FACTORS FOR A MULTIAXIAL STRESS

STATE, COMBINED ROTATING BENDING AND REVERSED TORSION...... 37
Page iii
NOMENCLATURE
Us Ultimate tensile strength
C1 Stress state factor
C2 Size factor
C3 Surface factor
C lim Fatigue limit factor
kt Theoretical stress concentration
kf Fatigue notch factor
q Notch sensitivity factor
ρ Notch radius
ρ' Empirical material constant
σ min Minimum stress
σ max Maximum stress
σ nom Nominal stress
R Stress ratio
σm Membrane stress
σb Bending stress
τq Shear stress
σs Structural stress
σ hs Structural stress according to Hot spot method
σf Endurance stress limit
σ f ,b Endurance stress limit in bending
τ f ,q Endurance stress limit in torque
σ 1 ,σ 2 ,σ 3 Principal stresses
σe Equivalent stress
U Usage factor
n Safety factor
δ Distance measure from a weld toe
t Plate thickness
a Nominal fillet weld thickness
L Element length
W Mechanical work
N (x) Shape function
F Nodal force
f (x ) Linear force
f1 , f 2 Line forces
m1 , m 2 Line moments
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The majority of mechanical failures are caused by fatigue. Today a lot of demands are required
of fatigue analyses of fatigue loaded structures. The analysing tools and methodologies are
constantly refined due to the ongoing research in the fatigue area.
Rotating axles are one of the most important and a widely used design elements in industrial
applications. Power transmission in different applications and rollers in the manufacturing
industry are examples where rotating axles are used. Another important design element is welds.
Fatigue is a common cause of failure in these elements. The frequent use of these design
elements requires reliable design methodologies.
2. OBJECTIVES
A comparison between experimental high cycle fatigue data for axles and the fatigue
determination procedure in British standard 2573-2 appendix C [1] is done. This comparison
gives a measure of how well the standard predicts fatigue.
A new method for determining structural stress at welds was published by Dong [16]. It was
demonstrated in [17], that the method was mesh size insensitive for a 2D weld structure. The aim
of this work is to check the mesh-size insensitivity hypothesis in the Dong method for a 3D-case.
A comparison example will be chosen from the literature to verify the accuracy of the method.
Verification of the method for both shell and solids models will be done. A comparison will also
be done with the so called Hot Spot method which is a FE-technique suggested by International
Institute of Welding [2].
Page 2
3. FATIGUE
Metal fatigue is a process which gradually causes damage to a material component subjected to
repeated loading. Typical high-cycle fatigue fracture does not involve macroscopic plastic
deformation and fracture occurs only after several thousand or perhaps million stress cycles. The
fatigue damage often initiate in the weakest crystal in the most highly stressed region in a
material component. Above a certain magnitude the crystal will break and the crack will grow to
adjacent crystals. Eventually the remaining area no longer is capable to withstand the load. Final
fracture follows instantaneously. The fracture surface developed by fatigue loading usually has a
characteristic clamshell marks pattern, where the crack has progressed. The pattern appears from
the repeated pressing together of the cracked surfaces. The development of initial fatigue cracks
is most often located to the material surface or in some inhomogeneous material defect.
Most materials show an endurance limit (fatigue limit) which is a stress level below which the
material has a theoretical infinite life see Fig. 3.1. The stress versus the number of cycles number
is called a S-N curve. The fatigue strength is reduced by numerous of factors such as the size of
material volume and surface roughness, stress concentrations, corrosive media and high
temperatures.
Stress
amplitude
700
600
500
Endurance
400 limit
105 106 Cycles
Fig. 3.1 Stress cycle curve S-N curve.
Page 3
4. FATIGUE METHODOLOGY IN BS-2571-2 APPENDIX C
The standard proposes a method for calculating the fatigue life. The calculation method is based
on a modification of an S-N curve Fig. 3.1, with a set of fatigue reducing factors. According to
the standard a component should have a probability of survival of 90 %. Depending on the
service conditions additional safety factors must be considered. These safety factors are not
considered in this thesis.
4.1 Alternating uniaxial stresses
The fatigue reference stress for infinite life is defined as:

σ f = C limU s (1)
Clim = Fatigue limit factor.
Us = Ultimate tensile strength (UTS).
The fatigue limit factor Clim consists of four factors C1 , C 2 , C 3 , K f , defined as:
C1
C lim =
C2 C3 K f
(2)
4.2 Stress state factor C1
The S-N curves for different materials are generated from experimental rotating bending tests.
The specimens used to establish these S-N curves are usually polished, notch free specimens
with small diameter.
The stress state factor C1 is a constant depending on the type of loading. The types of loads are
bending, axial or torsion. After deciding the type of load applied, the stress ratio R is used to
determine the nature of the load see Fig. 4.2.1
R = σ min σ max (3)
Unidirectional bending 0 < σ min σ max ≤ 1 C1=0.85 (3, a, b, c, d)
Reversing bending − 1 < σ min σ max ≤ 0 C1=0.5
Unidirectional torsion 0 < σ min σ max ≤ 1 C1=0.5
Reversing torsion − 1 < σ min σ max ≤ 0 C1=0.3
Page 4
Fig. 4.2.1 Stress versus time curve.
4.3 Size effect C2

Large-size members have lower endurance limits than small specimens see Fig. 4.3.1. A part of
this phenomenon can be explained by the higher probability to find defects in a larger volume of
material. The effect is called size effect and is defined as the ratio between the fatigue limit
obtained with a standard specimen with small diameter, typical 10 mm or less, and a larger sized
specimen. The size effect is also related to the stress gradient effect in Fig. 4.3.2. A larger
volume loaded with the same maximum bending stress as a smaller one, the stress gradient will
decrease. The C2 factor should take this phenomenon into account.
σmax
M M
σmax
M M
Fig. 4.3.1. The size effect according to the standard. Fig. 4.3.2 The gradient effect for
the same maximum stress
distributed over two different
volumes.
Page 5
4.4 Surface factor C3
Initiated fatigue cracks do in general propagate from the free surface of a loaded body. Therefore
the surface finish must be taken into consideration for determination of the fatigue strength. The
standard introduces a surface finish factor C3. Figure 4.4.1 relates to the effect of different
surface finishes. The surface finish is defined as the ratio between the fatigue limit obtained with
an arbitrary surface finish and a mirror polished finish. The mirror polished finish is the special
finish given to fatigue test specimen. This polish is supposed to be free from irregularities.
Fig. 4.4.1. The effect of surface finish on steel.
4.5 Notch effect

Geometrical notches and discontinuities develop locally high stresses. These regions are called
stress concentrations and are defined as:
σ
k t = max (4)
σ nom
The stress concentration is achieved by first calculating the nominal stress σ nom (as if the stress
raiser did not exist). Fatigue cracks usually start at the most highly stressed part of a component.
This is why the damaging action produced by stress concentrations must be considered in fatigue
design. Common stress raisers are grooves, fillets, holes, threads, keyways, etc.
Fatigue tests made with specimens having stress concentrations show a reduction in fatigue
strength. This reduction was usually smaller than the calculated stress concentration kt. To
estimate this reduction a fatigue notch factor was defined:
σ unnotched
kf =
f
(5)
σ notched
f
Note that σ unnotched

f is the nominal fatigue stress at the endurance limit.
To estimate the reduction of strength the standard is based on a factor called notch sensitivity
designated the letter q:
Page 6
k f −1
q= (6)
kt − 1
q is the notch sensitivity factor.
kt is the theoretical stress concentration factor.
kf is the fatigue notch factor.
The value of q can take values ranging between zero and one. As kf approaches the value of kt in
Eq. (6) q approaches unity. This would describe a material which is completely notch sensitive
and would experience the full stress concentration. When stress concentrations has only a small
effect on the fatigue strength kf →1 giving q=0. It was assumed that the notch radius ρ could
describe the notch effect. Appendix C in the standard suggests that an external reference is used
for determining q. In this thesis q from [3] has been used:
1
q= (7)
ρ′
1+
ρ
Putting Eq. (7) equal to Eq. (6) and solve for kf yields:
k f = 1 + q (k t − 1) (8)
ρ' is an empirical constant and a function of the UTS Fig. 4.5.1. The value should be
characteristic for the notch sensitivity for steel material.
ρ is the notch radius.
(ρ’)½ mm½ ρ’ mm
0,8
0,5
0,6 0,3
0,2
0,4
0,1
0,05
0,2
0,01
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 UTS MPa
Fig. 4.5.1. The constant ρ' as a function of ultimate strength for steel.
Page 7
4.3 Multiaxial Fatigue
Components in multiaxial stress states often occur in engineering applications. A combined
stress state of bending and torsion has been investigated in this thesis.
A component subjected to a multiaxial stress state should according to section 7.2.5 in the
standard hold the inequality for a safe prediction of the endurance limit:
2 2
 σ b max   τ q max 
  +  ≤1 (9)
σ  τ 
 f ,b   f ,q 
σbmax is the maximum calculated bending stress.

τqmax is the maximum calculated shear stress.
σf,b is the permissible fatigue stress in reversed bending.
τf,q is the permissible fatigue stress in reversed torsion.
Assuming either unidirectional or reversed loading condition for both bending and torsion, Eq.
(9) may be approximated with:
(σ b max )2 + 3(τ q max )2

≤1 (10)
σ f ,b
The last equation has been derived using Eq. (3) and the von Mises equivalent stress defined as:
σ eq =
1
(σ 1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 (11)
2
Where σ1, σ2, σ3 are three orthogonal principal stresses.
For a pure shear stress state Eq. (1) relates the equivalent stress to a shear stress as:
σ eq = 3τ (12)
Eq. (11) combined with Eq. (9) yields Eq. (10)
Page 8
5. COMPARISON AND RESULTS BETWEEN BS AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Endurance limits determined from fatigue testing experiments were used for comparison.
Experiments that were used in this thesis were found in different sources refs [5-14] see
Appendix C and D. The number of the specimens subjected to different kind of loads types are
summarized in table 1. The collected chemical and material properties are presented and
summarized in Appendix A. All material data was not always given. When the kt factor was not
given ref [4] was used.
Specimens with different surface finish (C3) were not found.
For prediction of the endurance limit in rotating bending, or reversed torsion Eq. (1) was used. In
the multiaxial case Eq. (10) was used. To measure the deviation of the predicted endurance limits
a safety factor was introduced defined as:
σ f ,b
n= (13)
σ b2 max + 3τ q2 max
For n > 1 the standard conservatively predicts the endurance limit meaning that the predicted
endurance limit is less than the actual endurance limit.
The inverse of Eq. (13) is the usage factor defined as:
U =1 n (14)
Thus if, U<1, a conservative prediction of the endurance limit has been calculated.
The endurance limit for the collected data ranged between 106 and 108 cycles.
Table 1. Number of specimen subjected to different loads.

Load type Number of specimens Number of notched specimens Number of different materials
Rotating bending 28 14 12
Torsion 11 0 11
Multiaxial 36 0 6
Total 75 14 28
Page 9
5.1 Load type comparison
The failure probabilities were about 33% for the rotating bending data and multiaxial data and
24% for torsion data see Fig. 5.1.1-3. The three load type contributes to the total failure
probability in Fig. 5.1.4 which was 32.2 % for the total dataset.
Rotating bending data Torsion data
1 conservative 1 conservative
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0
0 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Safety factor, n
Safety factor, n
Fig. 5.1.1. Relative frequency histogram of the safety Fig. 5.1.2. Relative frequency histogram of the safety
factor n for the experimental data in rotating bending. factor n .for the experimental data in reversed torsion.
The mean value of the safety factor is 1.012 and the The mean value of the safety factor was 1.055 with
standard deviation was 0.163. The failure probability standard deviation 0.152. The failure probability was
was 33.4%. 23.9%
Multiaxial data Total dataset
1 conservative 1 conservative
0.4
0.3
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0 0
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Safety factor, n Safety factor, n
Fig. 5.1.3. Relative frequency histogram of the safety Fig. 5.1.4. The relative frequency histogram of the safety
factor n for the experimental data in multiaxial stress factors n for all the collected experimental data. The
state. The mean value of the safety factor was 1.038 mean value of the safety factor was 1.039 with standard
with standard deviation 0.196. The failure probability deviation 0.136. The failure probability was 32.2%.
was 33.3%.
Page 10
5.2 Comparison between notch and unnotched specimens
In Fig. 5.2.1 and Fig. 5.2.2 the failure probability for unnotched and notched specimens are
investigated separately. Specimens with k t < 1.05 were defined as unnotched. Some unnotched
specimens with a large diameter C2>1 were also used in the comparison. The failure probability
was 32.5% and 31.2% respectively. It can be concluded that the prediction method was
consistent i.e. no specific fatigue factor influenced the prediction result significantly more than
any other.
0.4
0.3
Relative frequency
0.2
0.1
0
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Safety factor, n
Fig. 5.2.1. Total dataset of polished, notch free specimens.

Failure probability 32.5%.
1
0.25
Relative frequency
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Safety factor, n
Fig. 5.2,2. Notched specimens in rotating bending.

Failure probability 31.2%.
Page 11
5.3 The safety factor relative to the material and tensile strength
The collected data was divided in to three material groups see Table 2. Both notched and
unnotched specimens were included in each group. One group was represented by carbon steels
with a tensile strength ranging between 300-500 MPa (low carbon, mild steel, St35). The other
carbon steel group, which was the largest represented group in number, had a tensile strength
between 800-1200 MPa (Ck45, medium alloyed steel etc). A third group was represented by cast
irons (Austempered ductile iron ADI and the cast iron material). The resulting failure probability
histograms for each group are presented in Fig. 5.3.1-5.3.3.
Table 2. Three material groups classified by their tensile strength.
UTS [MPa] 300-500 800-1200 Cast iron

Total number of specimens 15 49 11
Number of notched specimens 3 9 2
Stress concentration factor kt ≤ 3.7 ≤ 2.6 ≤ 2.64
Number of notched specimens conservatively predicted n≥1. 0 9 0
Number of unnotched specimens 12 40 9
Number of unnotched specimens conservatively predicted n≥1. 7 28 3
Total failure probability % 48.5 26.4 53.6
0.4 0.4 0.4

Relative frequency
Relative frequency
Relative frequency
0.3 0.3 1
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0 0
0.9 1 1.1 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Safety factor, n Safety factor, n Safety factor, n
Fig. 5.3.1. Frequency histogram of Fig. 5.3.2. Frequency Fig. 5.3.3. Frequency
the safety factor for materials with histogram of the safety factor hisotgram of the safety
UTS ranging from 300–500 MPa. for materials with UTS factor for cast irons. Failure
Failure probability is 48.5 %. ranging from 800–1200 MPa. probability 53.6 %
Failure probability 26.4 %
Page 12
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The methodology for calculating the fatigue limit suggested in BS 2573-2 Appendix C was
evaluated for a total number of 75 experimental data.
Following conclusions are made based on the collected material.
Ø The failure probability was about the same for all load types.
Ø The fatigue life prediction in British standard Appendix C had a failure probability of 32
%, not 10 % as proposed in the standard. A recommended correction factor for predicting
the endurance limit is 1.3.
Ø The prediction for materials in the largest group in number with an ultimate strength
between 800-1200 MPa was more conservative than the prediction for cast iron and
carbon steel with an ultimate strength between 300-500 MPa.
Ø It must be noted, however that the calculated predictions may be dependent on the
accuracy of the given fatigue information in the references.
Page 13
7. STRUCTURAL HOT SPOT STRESS
A Hot Spot is defined as a critical point where a fatigue crack may initiate. For a weld the Hot
Spot is normally located at the weld toe.
The structural stress is defined as the sum of membrane and shell bending stress component at
the plate surface while excluding the non-linear stress peak see Fig. 7.1 The obtained stress is
linear and is defined as:
σs = σm +σb (15)
Fig. 7.1. Decomposition of the local notch stress at a weld toe.
7.1 Hot Spot method

According to [2] the maximum principal stress should be used to calculate the Hot spot stress at
the weld toe. The stresses are extrapolated along the free surface from locations in front of the
weld towards the Hot spot as shown in Fig. 7.1.1. For a quadratic stress extrapolation the stresses
should be determined at 0.4t, 0.9t and 1.4t where t is the plate thickness. According to [15] the
Hot spot stress can then be calculated from:
σ hs = 2.52σ 0.4 t − 2.24σ 0.9 t + 0.72σ 1.4 t (16)
Struct ura l stress
Surfac
e stre
ss
0, 4t
Weld toe 0,9t
Hot spot 1 ,4 t
E x tra
polat
io n poin
ts
Fig 7.1.1 Quadratic surface extrapolation.
Page 14
7.2 Equilibrium equivalent structural stress (Dong method)
The Dong method assumes that the stresses between two reference planes should be in
equilibrium. The structural stress at the weld toe in Fig. 7.2.1 could then be obtained at some
distance δ from the weld toe according to [16]. Recommendation for the distance δ has not been
given. The membrane stress part of Eq. (15) is given by a force equilibrium equation and the
bending part is given by a moment equilibrium equation.
1t
∑ Fx = 0 : ⇒ σm =
t ∫0
σ x ( y ) ⋅ dy (17)
t2  t 1  t t   t 1  t 
t t
∑M A -A = 0:
2  2 2  2 3   2 2  6  ∫0
⇒ σ m + σ b  +  -  σ b   = σ x ( y ) ⋅ y ⋅ dy + ∫ δ ⋅ τ xy ( y ) ⋅ dy ⇒
0
t t
t2 t2
= σ x ( y ) ⋅ dy + δ ∫ τ xy ( y ) ⋅ dy
6 ∫0
σm
+σb (18)
2 0
The moment equation Eq. (18) was taken about section A-A at y=0. Substituting Eq. (17) into
Eq. (18) and solve for the bending stress yields:
6 t t  
t
2 ∫ x ∫
σb =  σ ( y )  − y  ⋅ dy + δ τ xy ( y ) ⋅ dy  (19)
t 0 2  0 
The structural stress in Eq. (15) with the use of Eq. (17) and Eq. (19) becomes:
6 t  
t t t
σ s = σm +σb =
1
∫ σ x ( y ) ⋅ dy + 2 ∫ x
 σ ( y ) − y  ⋅ dy + δ ∫ τ xy ( y ) ⋅ dy  (20)
t0 t 0 2  0 
The interpretation of Eq. (20) is that the structural stress at section A-A could also be obtained at
section B-B if shear stress term is added to the linearized stress at section B-B.
σb A B
Weld
A
δ
B
δ
τm σx(y)
t τxy(y)
x
A B
σm
B
A
Fig. 7.2.1 Section stress components.
Page 15
7.3 Structural stress for solid FE-models
When δ=0 in Eq. (20) the structural stress is evaluated at section A-A in Fig. 7.2.1 According to
[16] the structural stress could be directly evaluated at section A-A if δ (element size) is small or
if the transverse shear stress is small. The stress output is utilized to calculate the structural stress
for FE-models consisting of solid elements. In this thesis analysis were performed in ANSYS
8.1. The integration through the thickness in Eq. (20) was done with ANSYS section routine
where a linear stress distribution is obtained.
7.4 Shell element procedures in the Dong method

The sectional forces and moments (fx, fy, mz) at section B-B in Fig. 7.4.1 are used to calculate the
structural stress at section A-A. Identifying the resulting sectional forces and moments in the
integrands of Eq. (20) and substituting them with the force notations from Fig. 7.4.1 yields:
f x ' 6(m z ' + δf y ' )

σs =σm +σb = + (21a)
t t2
According to the [16] the transverse shear fy' could be neglected for shell elements:
f m
σ s = σ m + σ b = x ' + 6 2z ' (21b)
t t
ld
We δ
y’
A-A fy‘
z’ x’
t
Node
fx‘
mz‘
B-B
Fig. 7.4.1 Unknown section forces for a FE shell element at distance δ.
7.5 Work equivalence for distributed loads

For shell and plate elements the nodal forces from a FE solution are used to obtain the sectional
forces and moments in the Dong method.
Consider the small element with local coordinates x', y' and length L in Fig. 7.5.1. f(x') is a
linearly distributed load and f1, f2 is the intensity [force/l.e] at each end of the element. The finite
element Fig. 7.5.2 F1 and F2 are equivalent nodal forces.
Page 16
f(x’)
y’ y1 y2
f2
f1
L
Node
x’ L x’
F1 F2
Fig. 7.5.1. A small element with Fig.7.5.2. An equivalent FE-element

length L and a linear varying load. with length L and two nodes.
The mechanical work performed by the distributed load in Fig. 7.5.1 is defined as:
L
W = ∫ f (x ')v ( x ' )dx' (22)
0
v(x') is a displacement function. The work done by the nodal forces in Fig. 7.5.2 should be
equivalent to the distributed load in Fig. 7.5.1 which yield:
L
W = ∫ f ( x' )v( x' )dx ' = F1v1 + F2 v 2 (23)

0
A discretized displacement function for the FE-element can be written as:

v( x ') = N 1 ( x ' )v1 + N 2 ( x' )v 2 (24)
N(x') is an interpolation function or shape function. Substituting Eq. (24) into Eq. (23) yields:
L
W = ∫ f ( x' )[N 1 ( x' )v1 + N 2 ( x ' )v 2 ] = F1v1 + F2 v 2 (25)

0
The nodal forces are using Eq. (25):

L
F1 = ∫ f ( x ' ) N 1 ( x ' )dx ' (26)

0
F2 = ∫ f ( x' )N 2 ( x' )dx' (27)

0
The interpolation functions or shape functions were expressed for a linear displacement field in
[16]:
x'
N 1 ( x' ) = 1 − (28)
L
N 2 ( x' ) = x' (29)
The distributed force was varying linearly in [16]. A linear line force function for Fig. 7.5.1 is:
x'
f ( x ' ) = f1 + ( f 2 − f 1 ) (30)
L
Equilibrium should be maintained between the nodal forces in Fig. 7.5.2 i.e Eq. (26) = Eq. (27).
Using this condition yields the resulting line forces:
Page 17
2
f1 = ( 2 F1 − F2 )
L
f 2 = (2 F2 − F1 )
2
(31a,b)
L
The corresponding line moments are obtained by repeating the described procedure for a linearly
varying moment. Similar expressions as Eq. (31a, b) are obtained for the resulting line moments.
m1 = (2 M 1 + M 2 )
2
L
2
m2 = (2 M 2 + M 1 ) (32a,b)
L
7.6 Shell element assembling procedure

A straight line of shell elements is shown Fig. 7.6.1 F1,….,Fn are the nodal forces and n is the
number of nodes. f1,….fn are the line forces. The loads are linearly distributed along the straight
line. The coupling between nodal forces and line forces are established by applying force and
moment equilibrium equations for each element. Solving the resulting equation system Eq. (33)
for line forces and line moments the structural stress in Eq. (21b) can be calculated. Because of
the similarity between Eq. (31) and Eq. (32) the line moments are obtained by replacing the
nodal forces with M1,….,Mn and line forces with m1,…,mn in Eq. (19).
Nodes
L1 L2 Ln
x
x’
(1) (2) (n)
y y’
Fig. 7.6.1. Structural stress calculation in the Dong method for a

straight line of shell elements.
 L1 L1 
 3 6 0 0 K 0 
 
 L1 ( L1 + L 2 ) L2 
 F1     f1 
   6 3 6 0 L 0  
 F2   (L2 + L3 )
 f2 
 L2 L3   M 
 M 
  =  0 6 3 6 0 0   (33)
 M    M 
 F n −1   0 0 O O O 0  f 
   Ln−2 (L n − 2 + L n −1 ) L n −1   n −1 
 F n   M M M 6 3 6   n 
 f
 
 L n −1 L n −1 
 
 0 0 0 0 6 3 
Page 18
8. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPARISON EXAMPLE
A round robin exercise was selected [18] for evaluation the two structural stress approaches. The
geometry and load of the analysed welded structure is presented in Fig. 8.1. The exercise was
independently performed by 12 companies. The participants used the Hot spot method to
evaluate the stress concentration factor at the weld.
00
R1
80
5
10
F=90 kN
125 10
10
100
10
100
850
Fig. 8.1 Geometry and load in the round robin exercise.
8.1 Nominal stress calculation

The nominal stress was estimated by considering an I-beam without a standing plate subjected to
a point load on the middle of the beam.
Reaction forces at the supports:
F
R1 = = 45 kN
2
The nominal stress at the welded toe location is then according to elementary beam theory:
My (45000 ⋅ 290)60
σ nom = = = 113.5 MPa
I 6.9 ⋅10 6
M is the bending moment to at the welded toe. y is the distance between the neutral axis of the
beam and the top surface of the beam. I is the moment of inertia for the beam.
Following the procedure above the nominal stress at the welded root becomes 117.4 MPa.
The maximum stress occurred at the weld toe of the standing plate. The resulting median kt value
from the round robin exercise [18] Fig. 8.1.1 was 1.89 at the weld toe i.e.
σ max = 1.89 ⋅ 113.5 = 214.5 MPa
This value was used to compare the two methods.
Page 19
6
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Fig. 8.1.1. Stress concentration factors result from 12 companies.
8.2 Boundary conditions of the FE-model

The boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 8.2.1. At the symmetry boundary the displacement in
the z-direction was set to zero. Constraint equations were used at the end of the beam to model
the hinge constraint. The load was modelled as a surface pressure at the top of the standing plate.
Fig. 8.2.1. Boundary conditions on the shell model.
Page 20
9. DESCRIPTION OF THE SHELL MODELS
To minimize the error in finite element analyses it is important that the structural stress results
are very little dependent on the weld modelling technique. Four shell models suggested in [15]
were employed. The midfaces of the I-beam and the standing plate thickness were modelled.
Symmetry boundary conditions were used in all models to reduce the size and computer time.
Model 1. Plate connection without modelling the weld

Nominal plate thickness is used without any modifications in the vicinity of the welds. The joint
connection between the standing plate and the I-beam is modelled in common nodes Fig. 9.1.
Fig. 9.1. The standing plate and the I-beam are connected at the same nodes.
Page 21
Model 2. Thicker elements
The joint connection Fig. 9.2 is modified with elements assigned extra thickness to the plate
thickness. The extra thickness is made up of the nominal weld fillet thickness, a.
a 2
T2
t + 2a 2
T2=t+a { } T2=t+a
Standing plate Weld toe
Top surface
of I-beam flange
Fig. 9.2. The left part shows is a side view of the standing plate. The middle figure shows the definition of the
nominal weld fillet thickness, a. All elements in the right figure are assigned thickness T2=t+a.
Model 3. Rigid elements

The elements that join the standing plate and the I-beam are made up of rigid elements Fig. 9.3.
Top surface of
I-beam flange
Rigid elements
Fig. 9.3. The elements that are part of both the standing plate and the I-beam are made rigid.
Model 4. Plate connection with the weld

The weld is modelled with leaning shell elements Fig. 9.4. The leaning shell has the nominal
weld fillet thickness, a.
Page 22
Standing plate
Leaning shell
element
t=a
I-beam flange
t
Fig. 9.4. The upper figure shows the FE-model with leaning shell elements representing the weld. The lower
figure shows the assigned thicknesses to different shell elements.
Page 23
10. STRESS CONCENTRATION RESULTS FOR THE SHELL MODELS
ANSYS shell 63 elements were used in models evaluated with the Dong method. Shell 63 is a
shell with four nodes and linear shape functions. (the methodology was developed on the
assumption of linear relationship between load and displacement). ANSYS shell 93 elements
were used in the models evaluated with the Hot spot method. Shell 93 is a shell that has eight
nodes and quadratic shape functions, with six degrees of freedom at each node. An eight node
element is recommended in [2].
It was not obvious where to obtain the results when the weld is not modelled. The results were
obtained at the plate crossing section (B-B) and at the weld toe section (A-A) in Fig 10.1.
The element mesh in front of the weld toe Fig 10.1 was the same for the four shell models to
avoid a mesh density source of error. The results are presented in table 3.
Standing plate
B
h
at Distance between
tp
po A weld root
ots
H and weld toe
Used elements in
the Dong method
Fig. 10.1. The structural stress is calculated both at section A-A and B-B. The dot marks are the used nodes for
evaluating the principal stresses evaluated with the Hot spot method. The stars shows the selected elements
used in the Dong method.
Table 3. Shell model results

σ Hotspot [MPa] k tHs σ Dong [MPa] k tDong
Model
A B A B A B A B
Plate connection
130 217 1.15 1.85 135 333 1.19 2.92
without the weld
Thicker elements 183 217 1.61 1.91 199 235 2.15 2
Rigid elements 214 (995) 1.89 (8.77) 217 (2442) 1.91 (20.8)
Plate connection
with the weld 230 - 2.03 - 298 - 2.63 -
modelled
The Hot spot stress at section B-B for model 3 marked with parenthesis in table 3 was considered
irrelevant and will not be further evaluated.
Page 24
10.1 Extrapolation distance for the shell models without the weld represented
Using the Hot spot method the extrapolated result at the plate crossing (B-B) agreed better with
round robin exercise than at the weld toe according to Fig. 10.1.1. One exception was the model
with rigid element marked with parenthesis in table 3. The Dong method underestimated the
stress concentration at the weld toe, and predicted too conservative values at the plate crossing
Fig. 10.1.2. Stress concentration factor at weld toe
2,7
2,4
2,1
Section A-A
1,8
weld toe
1,5
1,2
0,9 Section B-B

plate
0,6
crossing
0,3
Plate Thicker Rigid Plate

connection elements elements connection
without modelling
modelling the weld
the weld
Fig. 10.1.1. Hot spot results at section A-A and B-B
Stress concentration factor at weld toe
3
2,7
2,4 Section A-A
2,1 weld toe
1,8
1,5
1,2 Section B-B
0,9 plate
0,6 crossing
0,3
0
Plate Thicker Rigid Plate
connection elements elements connection
without modelling
modelling the weld
the weld
Fig. 10.1.2. Dong results at section A-A and B-B.
Page 25
10.2 Mesh Study
The mesh sensitivity was investigated for the models with and without the weld modelled. The
number of elements along the weld toe on the beam flange varied between 4, 8 and 16 elements
Fig 10.2.1. The results are presented in table 4 and Fig. 10.3.1-2. The results for the plate without
the weld modelled were obtained at the section A-A for Dong and B-B for the Hot spot method.
These locations seemed to agree with the round robin exercise.
The Hot spot results were only slightly influenced when the mesh density varied. Both models
(weld modelled and not) predicted the same stress concentration factor for the finest mesh which
agreed well with the round robin study. The stress concentration factor varied using the Dong
method for the investigated models and did not predict the same value for the finest mesh.
Although the results for the model with the weld modelled was less mesh sensitive.
Table 4. Mesh sensitivity study result.

Elements in front
Model k tHS at section ktDong at section
of weld toe
Plate connection 4 1.85 B-B 2.52 A-A

without the weld 8 1.96 B-B 1.19 A-A
modelled 16 1.98 B-B 1.88 A-A
Plate connection 4 2.03 A-A 2.45 A-A
with the weld 8 1.96 A-A 2.63 A-A
modelled 16 1.98 A-A 2.42 A-A
Fig. 10.2.1. Three different mesh densities. From left 4, 8, 16 elements in front of the weld toe.
Page 26
2,8

2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
H ot s pot
1,4
D ong
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
4 elements in front 8 elements in front 16 elements in

of weld toe of weld toe front of weld toe
Fig. 10.2.2. Results for the shell model with the weld modelled.
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
Hot spot
1,4
Dong
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
4 elements in front 8 elements in front 16 elements in
of weld toe of weld toe front of weld toe
Fig. 10.2.3. Results for the shell model without the weld modelled.
12. STRESS CONCENTRATION RESULTS FOR THE SOLID MODEL

ANSYS solid 95 elements were used in the model. The solid 95 element is a six sided volume
element with 20 nodes or 10 nodes tetrahedral by collapsing its nodes. Each node has quadratic
shape functions and each node has three degrees of freedom. Only one fourth of the beam was
modelled. The same boundary conditions as in the shell model in Chapter 8.2 were applied.
Symmetry conditions in the x direction were also added.
The elements within a distance of 30 mm from the weld toe were modified; see left part of Fig.
12.1. Five meshes were created with the elements edge length in front of the weld toe ranging
from 1 to 5 mm. The results for different element edges are presented in table 5. The results were
obtained in two ways for the Dong method, with and without nodal averaging. To compute the
stress in the node in front of the weld toe the post processors compute an average value between
the lower stress in the weld and the higher stress immediately in front of the weld toe. Selecting
only the elements needed in post processing will avoid the nodal averaged stresses.
Page 27
e
Weld to
Linearization through
beam flange thickness
Hot spot path
Me
dis sh m
ta
nc odif
e ( ica
30 t
mmion
)
Fig. 12.1 The magnified lower figure shows the selected Hot spot path in front of the weld toe and the linearization
through the thickness path in the Dong method. The upper figure is the used FE-model with solid elements. Only a
quarter of the beam is modelled.
Page 28
Table 5. Results from the solid model.
Effect of τxy stress to
Structural stress Total
Dong
No No
Average No average Average Average
average average
1 mm element edge length in front of weld
toe
Hot Spot 2.06 2.06
Dong, δ= 0 2.50 2.04 2.50 2.04
δ= 1 2.30 2.18 0.22 0.21 2.52 2.39
δ= 2 1.92 1.91 0.4 0.4 2.32 2.31
δ= 3 1.77 1.78 0.55 0.56 2.32 2.34
δ= 4 1.67 1.67 0.68 0.69 2.35 2.36
δ= 5 1.59 1.59 0.8 0.8 2.39 2.39
δ= 6 1.51 1.51 0.89 0.9 2.4 2.41
δ= 7 1.45 1.45 0.97 0.98 2.42 2.43
δ= 8 1.39 1.39 1.04 1.05 2.43 2.44
δ= 9 1.34 1.34 1.11 1.12 2.45 2.46
δ= 10 1.3 1.3 1.17 1.18 2.47 2.48
toe
Hot spot 2.06 2.06
Dong, δ= 0 2.32 2.1 2.32 2.1
δ= 2 2.02 1.95 0.4 0.4 2.42 2.35
δ= 4 1.66 1.67 0.68 0.69 2.34 2.36
δ= 6 1.51 1.51 0.89 0.9 2.4 2.41
δ= 8 1.39 1.39 1.04 1.05 2.43 2.44
δ=10 1.3 1.3 1.17 1.18 2.47 2.48
toe
Hot Spot 2.05 2.05
Dong, δ= 0 2.27 2.11 2.27 2.11
δ= 3 1.85 1.81 0.56 0.56 2.41 2.37
δ= 6 1.49 1.5 0.89 0.89 2.38 2.39
δ= 9 1.34 1.34 1.11 1.12 2.45 2.46
toe
Hot spot 1.97 1.97
Dong, δ= 0 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
δ= 4 1.75 1.75 0.65 0.7 2.40 2.45
δ= 8 1.4 1.40 1.08 1.07 2.48 2.47
toe
Hot spot 2.19 2.19
Dong , δ= 0 2.22 2.14 2.22 2.14
δ= 5 1.62 1.59 0.81 0.8 2.43 2.39
δ= 10 1.28 1.29 1.16 1.17 2.44 2.46
Page 29
Figure 12.2 shows that the stress concentration factors were scattered using the Hot spot method.
The method was obviously mesh sensitive.
Extrapolated stress conc at weld toe
1.5
0 5 10 15
Distance from weld toe [mm]
1mm element edge length in front of the weld toe
2mm "-"
3mm "-"
4mm "-"
5mm "-"
Fig. 12.2. Hot spot results for five different mesh densities.
The Dong method with no nodal averaging showed mesh sensitivity at δ=0, see left part of Fig.
12.3. The stress concentration factor increased when the mesh became finer. The average stress
concentration factor was 2.31 at δ=0. The 2 and 3 mm element edge length approached the finest
mesh with 1 mm element edge about 6 mm away from the weld toe.
Dong method no averaging

2,7
1mm element
2,6 edge length
Stress conc entration fac tor at weld toe
Stress concentration at weld toe
2,6
2mm
2,5 2,4
2,4 3mm
2,2
2,3
4mm
2,2
2
2,1 5mm
2 1,8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
δ=0 Distance from weld toe [mm]
Fig. 12.3. Dong results with no nodal averaging for five different mesh densities. The left figure are the Dong results at
δ=0.
Page 30
The Dong method evaluated with nodal averaging is shown in Fig. 12.4. The stress concentration
factor became smaller when the mesh was finer compared to no nodal averaging Fig. 12.3. In
general the method showed stable values at δ=0. The finest mesh showed the best agreement
with the round robin exercise. At the distance δ=5 mm the curves with 1, 2, 3, 5 mm joined
except the curve with 4 mm element edge length. The method is somewhat mesh sensitive.
All curves eventually started to increase linearly at some distance from the weld toe. In this
region the stresses were no longer affected by the weld discontinuity. All meshes showed this
linear behaviour after about two element rows away from the weld toe. The stress concentration
had at the same time become higher. The finest mesh in Fig. 12.4 gave a small stress
concentration factor because the linear part started earlier than the other meshes. Obtaining the
stress concentration at some distance δ away from the weld toe was dependent on the mesh.
Dong method nodal average

2,2
1mm element
S tres s co n cen tra tio n o b ta in ed a t w e ld to e
2,6
edge length
S tre ss co n ce n tra tio n a t w e ld to e
2,15
2mm element
2,4 edge length
2,1 3mm element

2,2
edge length
4mm element
2,05 edge length
2
5mm element
edge length
2 1,8
δ=0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance from weld toe [mm]
Fig. 12.4. Dong results with nodal averaging for five different mesh densities The left figure are Dong results at δ=0.
An explanation to the increased stress concentration with the distance in Fig. 12.3 and Fig. 12.4
is probably due to the beam geometry. The Dong method was developed considering plates.
Page 31
13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions are based on the median result from the round robin exercise.
Shell models
The Dong method results were dependent on how the weld stiffness was modelling.
The Dong method was mesh sensitive for the investigated shell models.
The Hot spot method results were dependent on the extrapolation procedure.
The Hot spot method showed only slight mesh sensitivity for the investigated shell models.
Solid models
The stress concentration factor at the distance δ=0 using the Dong method is dependent on the
nodal averaging procedure during the post-processing. Nodal averaging is less important at a
distance outside the region affected by the weld discontinuity.
The Dong stresses at δ=0 (no contribution of the shear term) showed mesh sensitivity. Nodal
averaging at δ=0 decreased stress concentration and scatter for the finer meshes. Nodal average
stress results from fine meshes agreed with the round robin exercise.
Evaluating the stresses at some distance δ away from the welded toe in the Dong method showed
that the stresses were stabilized about two element rows from the weld toe independently of the
mesh. The obtained stress was slightly increased for courser meshes i.e. the method was mesh
sensitive to some degree.
The Hot spot method showed mesh sensitivity for courser meshes. A good agreement with the
round robin exercise was achieved for finer meshes.
Recommendation
The Hot spot method was robust and gave consequent results using different modelling
technique and elements. The Dong method results seem to be more sensitive to these factors and
the results for different model configurations did not agree to the same extent as the Hot spot
results with the round robin study.
Page 32
REFERENCES
[1] British standard 2573-2. (1980). Rules for the design of cranes part 2: Specification for
classification, stress calculations and design of mechanisms, London.
[2] The International Institute of Welding. (1996). Fatigue of welded joints and components.
Abington Publishing, Cambridge.
[3] Pilkey, W.D. (1974). Peterson’s stress concentrations factors. Wiley, New York.
[4] Sundström, B. (1999). Handbok och formelsamling i hållfasthetslära. Institutionen för
hållfasthetslära, KTH, Stockholm.
[5] Sonsino, C.M. (1993). Zur Bewertung des Schwingfestigkeitsverhaltens von Bauteilen mit
Hilfe örtlicher Beanspruchungen. Konstruktion 45, 25-33.
[6] Qylafku, G. Azari, Z. Kadi, N. Gjonaj, M. Pluvinage, G. (1999). Application of a new model
proposal for fatigue. Int J Fatigue 21, 753-760.
[7] Eleiche, A.M, Megahed. M.M, Abd-Allah. N.M. (2001). The shot-peening effect on the HCF
behaviour of high-strength martensitic steels. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 113,
502-508.
[8] Makkonen, M. (2003). Notch size effects in the fatigue limit of steel. Int J Fatigue 25, 17-26.
[9] Lin, C. K, Lee, W. J. (1998). Effects of highly stressed volume on fatigue strength of
austemperd ductile irons. Int J Fatigue 20, 301-307.
[10] Davoli, P. Bernasconi, A. Filippini, M. Foletti, S. Papadoupoulos, I.V. (2003).
Independence of the torsional fatigue limit upon a mean shear stress. Int J Fatigue 25, 471-480.
[11] Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli, A. (2001). Multiaxial high-cycle fatigue criterion for hard metals.
Int J Fatigue 23, 135-145.
[12] Banvillet, A. Palin-Luc, T. Lasserre, S. (2003). A volumetric energy based high cycle
multiaxial fatigue criterion. Int J Fatigue 25, 755-769.
[13] Papadopoulos, I.V. (1994). A new critetion of fatigue strength for out-of-phase bending and
torsion of hard metals. Int J Fatigue 16, 377-384.
[14] Bush, A. (1984). Notch-size effect in fatigue of steel specimens. Z. Werkstofftech. 15, 338-
348.
[15] Eriksson, Å. Lignell, A.M. Olsson, C. Spennare, H. (2002). Svetsutvärdering med FEM.
Industrilitteratur AB, Stockholm. 148-169.
[16] Dong, P, (2001). A structural stress definition and numerical implementation for fatigue
analysis of welded joints. Int J Fatigue 23, 865-876.
[17] Poutiainen, I. Tanskanen, P. Marquis, G. (2004). Finite element methods for structural hot
spot stress determination- a comparison of procedures. Int J Fatigue 26, 1147-1157.
[18] Katajamäki, K. Lehtonen, M. Marquis, G. (2002) Fatigue stress FEA round robin: Soft toe
gusset on a I-beam flange. Design and analysis of welded high strength steel structures,
Stockholm.
Page 33
APPENDIX A GEOMETRY OF FATIGUE SPECIMENS
R
R
D d D
d
Fig. 1. Smooth specimen
Fig. 2. Fillet groove

specimen
F.ig. 4. V-notched specimen
Fig. 3. Specimen with a key-seat
Fig. 6. U-notched specimen
Fig. 5. Specimen with a 60˚ notch
Page 34
APPENDIX B CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL DATA
C Mn UTS E
Material Ref P (%) S (%) Si Ni Cr Mo σy0,2 σref τref
(%) (%) [MPa] [GPa]
Ck45 [5] - - - - - - - - 790 - 539 -
898-
34CrNiMo8 [8] - - - - - - - - - - 463 -
966
30NiCrMo16 [14] - - - - - - - - 1200 200 950 658 428
37Cr4 [13] - - - - - - - - 830 - 730 - -
39CrNiMo3 [10] 0.338 0.382 0.682 0.007 0.255 0.794 0.761 0.182 856 206 625 - 265
Medium
alloyed [7] 0.3 0.46 0.021 0.011 0.31 2.07 2.07 0.07 1253 - 1185 610 -
(370HB)
Medium
alloyed [7] 0.3 0.46 0.021 0.011 0.31 2.07 2.07 0.07 1471 - 1363 718 -
(420HB)
SAE3140 [10] 0.37 0.75 0.017 0.030 0.178 1.33 0.65 - 793 - - - 303
BSS S65A [10] 0.24 0.57 0.015 0.004 0.20 3.06 1.29 0.54 1000 - - -
386
NiCrMo steel [10] 0.29 0.66 0.013 0.015 0.15 2.55 0.58 0.58 848 - - - 283
0.012- 0.021- 0.15-

St 35 [10] 0.13 0.4 - - - 394 - 245 - 120
0.015 0.024 0.20
42CrMo4 [13] - - - - - - - - 1025 - 888 398 260
34Cr4 [13] - - - - - - - - 795 - 657 410 256
Swedish hard
[11] 0.51 - - - - - - - 704 - - 314 196
steel
Mild steel [11] 0.15 - - - - - - - 518 - - 235 137
Low carbon
[6] - - - - - - - - 500 186 312 218 -
steel
ADI
(austempered [9] 3.59 0.22 0.032 0.013 - - - - 1094 161 914 400 -
ductile iron)
Cast iron [11] 3.87 - - - - - - - 230 - - 96 91
Page 35
APPENDIX C CALCULATED SAFETY FACTORS FOR UNIAXIAL STRESS STATES,
ROTATING BENDING AND REVERSED TORSION
Fig in
Material Ref D d ρ C2 C3 q kt kf σf.ref σf nσ Uσ τ.ref τf nτ Uτ
App.A
a
Ck45 [5] 2 39 25 5 1.13 1.03 0.9 1.4 1.36 290 250 1.16 0.862 - - - -
Ck45 [5] 2 39 25 1.5 1.13 1.03 0.8 2.0a 1.8 245 189 1.296 0.772 - - - -
Ck45 [5] 2 39 25 0.5 1.13 1.03 0.7 2.6a 2.12 182 161 1.13 0.885 - - - -
Low Carbon
[6] 2 12.7 7.62 50 1 1.05 0.94 1.04 1.04 218 229 0.952 1.05 - - -
Steel
Low Carbon
[6] 5 12.7 7.62 0.2 1 1.05 0.5 3.7 2.35 90 106 0.849 1.178 - - - -
Steel
Low Carbon
[6] 5 12.7 7.62 0.4 1 1.05 0.59 2.7 2.0 107 125 0.856 1.168 - - - -
Steel
Low Carbon
[6] 5 12.7 9 1.4 1 1.05 0.73 1.9 1.66 130 151 0.861 1.161 - - - -
Steel
Med Alloy
[7] 1 15 5 27 1 1.1 0.92 1.04 1.04 610 569 1.072 0.933 - - - -
Steel 370HB
Med Alloy
[7] 1 15 5 27 1 1.1 0.99 1.04 1.04 718 669 1.073 - - - -
Steel 420HB 0.932
Med Alloy
[7] 4 10 6.02 1.4 1 1.1 0.84 1.55a 1.46 410 390 1.051 0.951 - - - -
Steel 370HB
Med Alloy
[7] 4 10 6.02 1.4 1 1.1 0.94 1.55a 1.52 470 440 1.068 0.936 - - - -
Steel 420hb
34CrNiMo8 [8] 1 16 10 - 1 1.05 0.94 1.04 1.04 440 430 1.023 0.978 - - - -
34CrNiMo8 [8] 1 32 20 - 1.1 1.05 0.94 1.04 1.04 425 375 1.133 0.883 - - - -
34CrNiMo8 [8] 1 58 38 - 1.2 1.05 0.94 1.04 1.04 370 337 1.098 0.911 - - - -
34CrNiMo8 [8] 1 128 80 - 1.3 1.05 0.94 1.04 1.04 394 316 1.247 0.802 - - - -
37Cr4 [14] 6 5.7 4.7 0.5 1.0 1.01 0.64 2.0a 1.64 275 220 1.25 0.8 - - - -
37Cr4 [14] 6 13.6 11.2 1.2 1.0 1.01 0.69 2.0a 1.69 244 214 1.047 0.955 - - - -
37Cr4 [14] 6 28.3 23.3 2.5 1.1 1.01 0.73 2.0a 1.73 216 190 1.137 0.88 - - - -
a
37Cr4 [14] 6 40.8 33.6 3.6 1.15 1.01 0.79 2.0 1.79 196 176 1.114 0.898 - - - -
ADI [9] 1 12 8 15 1.0 1.08 0.96 1.04a 1.04 400 488 0.82 1.22 - - - -
ADI [9] 6 12 8 2 1 1.08 0.89 1.48a 1.43 349 354 0.986 1.014 - - - -
ADI [9] 4 12 8 0.3 1 1.08 0.76 2.64a 2.25 175 225 0.778 1.285 - - - -
SAE3140 [10] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 303 238 1.273 0.786
S65A [10] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 371 300 1.237 0.808
NiCrMo [10] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 283 85 1.114 0.898
St35 [10] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - 120 118 1.017 0.983
39NiCrMo3 [10] 1 30 16 60 1.05 1.05 0.97 1 1 - - - - 265 233 1.137 0.879
b
42CrMo4 [13] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 398 - 0.777 1.288 260 513 0.846 1.183
34Cr4 [13] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 410 - 1.031 0.97 256 239 1.073 0.932
Swedish
[11] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 314 - 0.892 1.121 196 211 0.928 1.078
hard steel
Mild steel [11] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 235 - 0.907 1.102 137 155 0.882 1.134
Cast iron [11] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 96 - 0.835 1.198 91 69 1.319 0.758
30NiCrMo16 [8] 1 - - - 1 1 - 1 1 658 - 1.097 0.912 428 360 1.19 0.841
a
Stress concentration was taken from the reference.
b
Hollow specimen
Page 36
APPENDIX D CALCULATED SAFETY FACTORS FOR A MULTIAXIAL STRESS
STATE, COMBINED ROTATING BENDING AND REVERSED TORSION
Material [Ref] σf.ref MPa τf.ref MPa δ (˚) σf.ref / τf.ref U n

42CrMo4 [13] 328 157 0 2.09 0.831 1.203
42CrMo4 [13] 233 224 0 0.95 0.883 1.132
42CrMo4 [13] 286 137 90 2.09 0.725 1.379
42CrMo4 [13] 213 205 90 1.04 0.808 1.238
34Cr4 [13] 314 157 0 2 1.045 0.957
34Cr4 [13] 315 158 60 1.99 1.05 0.953
34Cr4 [13] 316 158 90 2 1.05 0.951
34Cr4 [13] 224 224 90 1 1.127 0.887
34Cr4 [13] 380 94 90 4.04 1.04 0.962
34Cr4 [13] 315 158 120 1.99 1.05 0.953
Swedish hard steel [11] 308 63.9 0 4.82 0.93 1.076
Swedish hard steel [11] 255.1 127.5 0 2 0.959 1.043
Swedish hard steel [11] 141.9 171.3 0 0.83 0.934 1.07
Mild Steel [11] 235.6 48.9 0 4.82 0.97 1.034
Mild Steel [11] 187.3 93.6 0 2 0.956 1.046
Mild Steel [11] 101.3 122.3 0 0.83 0.907 1.103
Mild Steel [11] 194.2 97.1 60 2 0.992 1.008
Mild Steel [11] 108.9 131.5 60 0.83 0.975 1.026
Mild Steel [11] 235.6 48.9 90 4.82 0.967 1.034
Mild Steel [11] 208.1 104.1 90 2 1.063 0.941
Mild Steel [11] 112.6 136 90 0.83 1.0 0.992
Cast Iron [11] 95.2 19.7 0 4.83 0.879 1.137
Cast Iron [11] 83.4 41.6 0 2 0.958 1.043
Cast Iron [11] 56.3 68 0 0.83 1.135 0.881
Cast Iron [11] 104.2 21.6 90 4.82 0.963 1.039
Cast Iron [11] 97.1 48.6 90 2 1.117 0.895
Cast Iron [11] 71.3 86.1 90 0.83 1.437 0.696
30NiCrMo16 [13] 337 328 0 1.03 1.1 0.908
30NiCrMo16 [13] 482 234 0 2.06 1.05 0.953
C1, C2, kt, was selected to 1.0 for all multiaxial data (smooth specimens in standard shape).
δ (˚) is the phase difference between shear and normal stresses in the combined bending torsion experiments.
Page 37

Evaluation of Fatigue Procedures for Welds and Rotating Axes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Evaluation of Fatigue Procedures for Welds and Rotating Axes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2005:154 CIV

Evaluation of Fatigue Procedures

MASTER OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME

Luleå University of Technology

2005:154 CIV • ISSN: 1402 - 1617 • ISRN: LTU - EX - - 05/154 - - SE

Author: Box 30234

RSE R&D Report No.: Date of first issue:

4. FATIGUE METHODOLOGY IN BS-2571-2 APPENDIX C ................................... 4

5. COMPARISON AND RESULTS BETWEEN BS AND EXPERIMENTAL

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 13

7. STRUCTURAL HOT SPOT STRESS.................................................................... 14

8. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPARING EXAMPLE............................................. 19

9. DESCRIPTION OF THE SHELL MODELS .......................................................... 21

10. STRESS CONCENTRATION RESULTS FOR THE SHELL MODELS ............... 24

13. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 32

APPENDIX A GEOMETRY OF FATIGUE SPECIMENS .................................................. 34

APPENDIX B CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL DATA ................................................. 35

APPENDIX C CALCULATED SAFETY FACTORS FOR UNIAXIAL STRESS

APPENDIX D CALCULATED SAFETY FACTORS FOR A MULTIAXIAL STRESS

105 106 Cycles

Fig. 3.1 Stress cycle curve S-N curve.

4.1 Alternating uniaxial stresses

The fatigue reference stress for infinite life is defined as:

R = σ min σ max (3)

Unidirectional bending 0 < σ min σ max ≤ 1 C1=0.85 (3, a, b, c, d)

Reversing bending − 1 < σ min σ max ≤ 0 C1=0.5

Unidirectional torsion 0 < σ min σ max ≤ 1 C1=0.5

Reversing torsion − 1 < σ min σ max ≤ 0 C1=0.3

4.3 Size effect C2

Fig. 4.4.1. The effect of surface finish on steel.

4.5 Notch effect

Note that σ unnotched

σbmax is the maximum calculated bending stress.

(σ b max )2 + 3(τ q max )2

Where σ1, σ2, σ3 are three orthogonal principal stresses.

Eq. (11) combined with Eq. (9) yields Eq. (10)

Specimens with different surface finish (C3) were not found.

Table 1. Number of specimen subjected to different loads.

Rotating bending data Torsion data

Multiaxial data Total dataset

Fig. 5.2.1. Total dataset of polished, notch free specimens.

Fig. 5.2,2. Notched specimens in rotating bending.

Table 2. Three material groups classified by their tensile strength.

UTS [MPa] 300-500 800-1200 Cast iron

Number of notched specimens 3 9 2

Stress concentration factor kt ≤ 3.7 ≤ 2.6 ≤ 2.64

Number of notched specimens conservatively predicted n≥1. 0 9 0

Number of unnotched specimens 12 40 9

Number of unnotched specimens conservatively predicted n≥1. 7 28 3

Total failure probability % 48.5 26.4 53.6

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2

Following conclusions are made based on the collected material.

Fig. 7.1. Decomposition of the local notch stress at a weld toe.

7.1 Hot Spot method

σ hs = 2.52σ 0.4 t − 2.24σ 0.9 t + 0.72σ 1.4 t (16)

Struct ura l stress

Fig 7.1.1 Quadratic surface extrapolation.

Fig. 7.2.1 Section stress components.

7.4 Shell element procedures in the Dong method

f x ' 6(m z ' + δf y ' )

Fig. 7.4.1 Unknown section forces for a FE shell element at distance δ.