Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Estimation of the maximum allowable lack of penetration defects in

circumferential butt welds of structural tubular towers
S. Cicero ∗ , R. Lacalle, R. Cicero
Dpto. Ciencia e Ingeniería del Terreno y de los Materiales, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Cantabria, Spain

article info abstract

Article history: This paper analyses the structural integrity of structural tubular towers (i.e., towers of wind turbines and
Received 19 November 2008 floodlight towers) with lack of penetration defects on their circumferential butt welds. The methodology
Received in revised form presented is particularised to the analysis of the lack of penetration defects detected in certain sections of
11 February 2009
several wind towers after the construction process. It is also analysed how such defects affect the fitness
Accepted 17 March 2009
Available online 7 April 2009
for service of the towers during their theoretical lifespan (20 years). The methodology (based on the use of
Failure Assessment Diagrams, FAD) can easily be extrapolated to the assessment of other types of defects
Keywords:
or towers. Its main hypotheses consist of establishing that the defects behave as internal cracks with
Tubular tower certain geometries and also that fracture and fatigue are the key processes affecting the structural integrity
Lack of penetration of the towers. Then, the resulting allowable crack size, corresponding to the lifespan of the tower, for the
Fracture different sections analysed and for the different crack geometries considered is determined.
Fatigue © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sensitivity analysis

1. Introduction
This paper presents a methodology for the structural integrity
assessment of tubular towers containing lack of penetration
defects on the butt welds of their circumferential sections.
In most cases, when the towers have large dimensions, these
structures are made up of several stretches (manufactured in plant)
which are, simultaneously, composed of different rings. The joints
between the rings are generally made using butt welds, while the
joints between the stretches composing the tower are performed
through butt welds or, alternatively, through a system of flanges
and bolts. In any case, the welding process requires a strict and
exhaustive quality control in order to avoid any kind of defects
threatening the structural integrity of the tower, particularly in
those welds performed in situ when the stretches are joined
through welding processes.
Unfortunately there are situations where the defects are
not avoided. In such cases, the structural consequences of the
defects are not straightforward, making it necessary to perform
a structural integrity assessment of the towers considering the
presence of such defects.
There are some characteristic examples of structural tubular
towers. Perhaps the towers of wind turbines (wind towers) and
∗ Corresponding address: Departamento de Ciencia e Ingeniería de Materiales,
Universidad de Cantabria, Av/Los Castros s/n, ETS Ingenieros de Caminos, 39005,
Santander, Spain. Fax: +34 942201818.
E-mail address: ciceros@unican.es (S. Cicero).
flood light towers (see Fig. 1) are among the most representative.
Generally, these towers are made up of several stretches or
modules (cylinder or cone trunk shaped) which are individually
carried to the final location (i.e., wind farm, stadium . . . ) and then
joined.
Starting from the steel sheet reception in the production centre,
the whole manufacturing and construction process of the towers
consists (in many cases) of the following steps:
(1) Shaping: the sheets (usually from 20 to 40 mm thick) are
inserted in a machine that shapes the rings using a system
of rollers. In this case, only one sheet per section was used,
leading to just one longitudinal joint per ring.
(2) Welding: The longitudinal joints are welded (submerged arc
welding, SAW) through double V type butt welds, obtaining
the corresponding rings. Then, the rings are joined performing
circumferential welds (also using SAW techniques and double
V type butt welds). As a result, primary cylinder/cone trunk
shaped stretches of different lengths are obtained. The number
of rings joined depends on the length of the stretches
(generally varying from 10 to 30 m in the case of wind towers).
Fig. 2 shows a scheme of a double V type butt weld, before
and after the welding process. No defects were found on the
longitudinal welds, so the analysis performed here is only
referred to the circumferential ones.
(3) Surface treatments (i.e., shoot peening, painting . . . ), drying and
assembly of the auxiliary equipment (flanges, ladders . . . ).
(4) Transport from the centre of production to the final location
(i.e., wind farm).

0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.03.013
2124 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131
Fig. 1. Flood light tower used in a football stadium.
Fig. 2. Longitudinal section of double V butt welds performed in the joints between
rings and, occasionally, between stretches. (a) Extremes of the rings being joined
after their preparation and before the welding; (b) Final joint.
(5) Erection of the tower by joining the different stretches or
modules which are placed one on top of the other (using lattice
cranes).
As a consequence of this manufacturing and construction
process, a large amount of welds are generated on the towers
and, in spite of the quality controls that can be applied, different
types of defects may arise (lack of penetration, pores, inclusions,
misalignment . . . ). The special precautions taken during the SAW
process (in terms of heat input, speed, etc.), together with the
shoot peening post-treatment, ensure that the welds obtained
have negligible residual stresses for structural integrity assessment
purposes.
As mentioned above, a methodology is here proposed for
the structural integrity assessment of towers containing lack
of penetration defects, which can be easily extrapolated to
other types of defects (i.e., pores) or towers (non-tubular). The
methodology is applied to the analysis of a case study consisting
of the structural integrity assessment of several wind towers
containing lack of penetration defects that were detected after the
construction process and before entering in service.
2. Proposed methodology
The towers considered in this paper are generally tall (up
to 100 m) and, in many cases (i.e., wind farms) are exposed
to extremely demanding conditions. Also, they are generally
constructed following the steps mentioned above. All of this
means that these structures have specific circumstances and
characteristics (geometries, materials, loads . . . ) that allow a
common methodology to be established for their structural
integrity assessment. In a general case, the different steps proposed
here for this assessment are the following:
(a) Definition of the geometry of the tower: Basically, the height
of the tower and the diameter and thickness of the different
sections.
(b) Material properties: Tensile properties and fracture toughness
of base material, Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and weld material.
Special caution should be taken to prevent the mismatch
phenomenon (differences in yield strengths between the base
material and the weld metal greater than 10%). In such cases, a
specific mismatch analysis has to be considered [1–7].
(c) Structural and stress analysis, determining forces, moments and
stresses on the sections where the defects may appear.
(d) Welds inspection using adequate inspection techniques (i.e.,
ultrasonic, magnetic particles, eddy current . . . ).
(e) Definition of the defects in the different sections: Type (crack,
notch, pore . . . ) and dimensions.
(f) Definition of the different processes or mechanisms affecting the
structural integrity of the tower: Generally, random loads caused
by the wind or variable loading caused by the blades (in the
case of wind towers) generate stress variation on the different
sections of the tower. Therefore, fatigue and fracture are the
key processes in these types of structures, but under certain
circumstances, such as offshore wind towers, other processes
such as Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) should be considered.
Here it is stressed that, in a general case, the combination of
defects and loads of a structure made from a certain material
then determines the integrity of the structure.
(g) Fracture analysis: Once the material properties, the geometry
of the sections and the characteristics of the defects are
known, critical crack sizes (those causing the failure) can
be obtained using a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) [1–3,
8], that simultaneously analyses fracture and plastic collapse
processes. In the cases where the defects are considered
to behave as notches (and not cracks), different corrections
(i.e., [9,10]) can be applied in order to avoid the excessive
conservatism obtained when notches are analysed as cracks.
Also, in cases with mismatch condition, fracture analysis
requires a special treatment that can be performed using
specific methodologies proposed in some structural integrity
procedures [1–7,11,12].
For tubular towers (circumferential sections) the solutions
for the stress intensity factors and the limit loads are straight-
forward for many types of defects (i.e., through thickness crack,
internal circumferential crack, external circumferential crack,
embedded crack . . . ) in most of the different assessment proce-
dures (i.e., [1–3,11]).
The critical sizes obtained are then compared to those
defined in step (e). If they are bigger than these, actions
(repair, substitution . . . ) are required. If not, the analysis has
to consider the possible subcritical crack propagation caused
by the variable stresses acting on the tower (step (h)) or other
mechanisms (step (i)).
(h) Fatigue analysis: Considering the initial defects defined in (e)
and the stress variations determined in (c), the evolution of
the crack sizes caused by the fatigue process is determined
using adequate tools (i.e., Paris law [13], Forman–Mettu
equation [14] . . . ). In order to ensure the structural integrity of
the towers, the resulting crack size at the end of their lifespan
should be lower than the critical sizes obtained in step (g).
 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131
Fig. 3. Flowchart summarising the methodology proposed for the structural
integrity assessment of the towers with lack of penetration defects.
(i) Analysis of other failure mechanisms: Although fracture and
fatigue are the key mechanisms in these types of structures,
there are other processes or situations (SCC, Local Thin Areas,
buckling . . . ) that may be affected by the initial defects
generated in the construction of the towers. If so, specific
analysis would be required [1].
(j) Sensitivity analysis: Given that some of the inputs considered
in the analysis (loads, stresses, fracture toughness . . . ) are not
deterministic, sensitivity analyses may be required in order to
check how the variations in the inputs considered affect the
result obtained.
Once the allowable crack sizes are determined, two main
possibilities may occur:
- The allowable crack sizes are larger than those detected in the
structure. In such cases, there is no need to take any remedial
action.
- There are some allowable crack sizes that are smaller than
those detected in the structure. In such cases, remedial actions
(i.e., removal of the damaged welded zone and subsequent
rewelding) are required. The number and the size of the defects
determine the feasibility of the repair, both in economical and
technological terms.
This methodology (summarised in the flowchart shown in
Fig. 3) is applied below to a case study in order to illustrate more
clearly the different steps explained above.
2125
Table 1
Dimensions of the analysed circumferential sections.
Section Diameter (mm) Thickness (mm)
S1 4000 36
S2 3865 35
S3 2630 21
3. Case study
A number of lack of penetration type defects were detected
on several (and identical) wind towers after the construction of
the towers and before entering in service, with the consequent
uncertainty for the owner, given that the defects could put at
risk the integrity of the structures during their expected lifespan
(20 years). Each tower is made up of four stretches or modules
(cone trunk shaped) which are individually carried to the wind
farm and then joined in situ by means of circumferential flanges
placed on the extremes of the modules and a numerous set of bolts.
The stretches were manufactured in plant from a number of plates
following the process explained in Section 1.
The analysis consists of the fracture and fatigue assessment of
three circumferential welded joints, which repeatedly presented
deficiencies, determining the maximum allowable lack of penetra-
tion defects in such a way that the structural integrity of the towers
is not jeopardized. For this purpose the methodology presented in
this paper has been used together with the newly developed FIT-
NET FFS Procedure [1–3].
3.1. Geometry of the tower and material properties (Steps (a) and (b))
Table 1 gathers the dimensions of the circumferential sections
(S1, S2 and S3) of the 80 m high towers analysed, placed
(respectively) on the first, second and third stretch, as shown in
Fig. 4. These sections were judged by the owner as the critical ones
in terms of the structural integrity of the towers. Section S1 is made
of S355J2 steel [15], S2 is made of S235J0 steel [15] and, finally, S3
is made of S235JR steel [15], all of them being non-alloy structural
steels. Table 2 shows the corresponding mechanical properties
(C and m are the material constants in the Paris law), that can
be considered applicable for both the base material and the weld
(no mismatch analysis is required). The Paris law provided is a
lower bound value of the actual ones, including the effect of the
R ratio. Therefore, the integration of this law is made by using the
stress variations without any consideration of the mean stress.
Before the welding process, the edges of the rings being joined
were machined and prepared as shown in Fig. 5, in order to perform
double V butt welds (Fig. 1). The welds were developed from both
the inner and the outer surface of the final tower.
3.2. Structural and stress analysis (Step (c))
The loads acting on the towers have an evident random
component which mainly arises from the random nature of wind
loads. Wind effects were determined following [16] and then
the corresponding loading conditions for the tower, designed
according to [17], can be inferred. The resulting acting loads
(caused by wind and the rotation of the rotor blades) were obtained
as a Markov matrix (supplied by the owner), distinguishing
bending moment range, mean bending moment and number of
cycles for each type of cycle. The compression arising from their
own weight is not considered. This constitutes a conservative
assumption, given that it provides higher tensile stresses than
the actual ones. As an example, Table 3 gathers part of the loads
in Section S1. It should be noted that these loads are defined as
operational stability loads, which represent operation of the wind
farm over a service life of 20 years.
2126 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the different materials.
Section Material [15] Yield stress (σy , MPa) Ultimate tensile stress (σu , MPa) Charpy T27J (◦ C) ∆Kth (MPa m1/2 ) C (da/dN in m/cycle) m

S1 S355J2 345 470 −20

S2 S235J0 225 360 0 8.8 6.89E−12 3
S3 S235JR 225 360 20

Table 3
Markov matrix gathering the load spectrum in Section S1.
Range (N m) Mean (N m) Cycles

650 000 −21 450 004 42

650 000 −4 550 004 10
650 000 −3 250 004 290
... ... ...
1 950 000 97 49 997 6 142 800
1 950 000 11 049 997 11 987 665
1 950 000 12 349 997 13 771 145
... ... ...
4 550 001 17 549 998 757 051
4 550 001 18 849 998 2 075 812
4 550 001 20 149 998 3 223 629
... ... ...
11 050 001 5 849 997 30
11 050 001 7 149 997 12
11 050 001 9 749 997 98 892
... ... ...
16 250 001 5 849 997 9
16 250 001 7 149 997 67 380
16 250 001 9 749 997 71 040
... ... ...
55 250 004 −1 950 004 150
56 550 004 −3 250 004 120
56 550 004 −1 950 004 150

Table 4
Maximum tensile stresses in the different sections analysed.
Section Maximum tensile stress (MPa)

S1 175
S2 177
S3 161

Fig. 4. Sketch representing the structure of the case study.

Fig. 6. Scheme of lack of penetration defects found on the butt welds of the towers.

The maximum tensile stresses (pure bending) in the three

sections are shown in Table 4. These stresses arise from the so-
called extreme loads, which correspond to the operation of the
wind farm over a service life of at least 50 years. It should be noted
that these maximum stresses are moderately higher than those
that would be obtained from Table 3 and were provided by the
owner.

3.3. Weld inspection and definition of defects (Steps (d) and (e))

NDE techniques (ultrasonic inspection) were used by the owner

Fig. 5. Geometry of the machined edges of the sections joined by circumferential
butt welds (dimensions in mm).
in order to detect possible defects on the different welds. The
lack of penetration defects was systematically detected in three
sections (S1, S2 and S3). Fig. 6 represents a scheme of this type of
defect.
 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131 2127

Failure C
Assesment
1.0 Line B

A = Acceptable Condition
B = Limiting Condition
C = Unacceptable Condition
Kr
A

0 1.0
Lr=F/Fy Lrmax

Fig. 8. Scheme showing the FAD methodology [1]. F : applied load; Fy : plastic
collapse load; Lmax
r : maximum permitted value of Lr ; Kr : fracture ratio of applied
Fig. 7. Geometry of cracks analysed [2]. 2c = 5 mm, π R/2, π R y 2π R. elastic K value to Kmat (material toughness).

The definition of the geometry of the detected defects was not is defined from the proof stress (here Rp ), the ultimate tensile
straightforward and did not present any general characteristics strength (Rm ) and Young’s modulus (E):
in terms of length or depth. Also, interactions between adjacent
−1/2
f (Lr ) = 1 + 0.5L2r S Lr ≤ 1
defects were not ruled out. For these reasons, the defects were
idealised as embedded and circumferential (see Fig. 7) with f (Lr ) = f (1)Lr(N −1)/2N 1 ≤ Lr ≤ Lmax
r
(1)
2c values of 5 mm, quarter, half and whole circumference, 2a f (Lr ) = 0 Lr ≥ Lmax
r

being the unknown value to be obtained in steps (g)–(i). These where

assumptions cover the defect geometries detected in the welds.    
E
Moreover, in most cases these kinds of defects are notches, µ = min 0.001 ; 0.6 (2)
with lower stress concentrations than those in cracks [9,10,18–23], Rp
but the uncertainty about the corresponding notch radius and
  
Rp
the possibility of microcracks arising from the notch tip after N = 0.3 1 − (3)
Rm
the welding process make it advisable to consider that these
Lmax = 0.5 1 + Rm /Rp .


defects behave as cracks. This assumption is conservative for both r (4)
fracture [9,10,22,23] and fatigue (it does not consider possible On the other hand, the situation of the component in the FAD is
crack initiation times, just crack propagation) assessments, so the defined by the coordinates Kr (relation between the applied stress
results obtained correspond to lower bound estimations of the intensity factor, KI , and the material fracture resistance, Kmat ) and
performance of the towers. Lr (relation between the applied load, F , and the plastic collapse
load, Fy ). Fig. 8 clarifies the FAD methodology (Eqs. (5) and (6)):
3.4. Mechanisms affecting structural integrity of the towers (Step (f)) KI
Kr = (5)
Kmat
Given the nature of the wind towers (which are mainly
subjected to variable loading) and the type of defects considered F
Lr = . (6)
(cracks), fracture and fatigue processes were identified as the Fy
major causes of concern. It was also considered that other For KI calculations, the formulation proposed in the FITNET FFS
mechanisms like SCC, corrosion or buckling, had no possible and Procedure [1–3] (case A.4.2.3. in Annex A [2]) has been used. As
reasonable relation with the defects found in the welds. mentioned above, four circumferential crack extensions have been
considered in each section: 2c = 5 mm, quarter, half and whole
3.5. Fracture analysis (Step (g)) circumference (see Fig. 7).
The fracture toughness of the different materials at the most
The fracture analyses were made using the Failure Assessment severe working conditions (−40 ◦ C) has been estimated using the
Diagram (FAD) methodology proposed in [1] and maximum Master Curve Approach [27] and the corresponding Charpy values
allowable crack sizes (2aall , see Fig. 7) were obtained for the (in terms of T27J ) [1]. For this purpose, Eq. (7) (corresponding to
Eq. 5.43, chapter 5, in FITNET FFS Procedure) has been used, which
different hypotheses of crack geometry. Every cracked component
provides a conservative estimation of the fracture toughness,
subjected to a certain load can fail due to a fracture mechanism, due
Kmat , from the corresponding Charpy T27J . This equation provides
to a plastic collapse mechanism or, finally, due to a combination
the fracture toughness of the material within the Transition
of both mechanisms (fracture and plastic collapse). The FAD
Zone (between Lower Shelf and Upper Shelf) in certain steels
methodology [1,8,24–26] allows all these three possible situations
(i.e., ferritic). The chosen failure probability was Pf = 1% and the
to be assessed with a single comprehensive tool. results are shown in Table 5.
Once the tensile properties of the material are known, the
Kmat = 20 + 11 + 77 exp 0.019 T − T27J + 3 ◦ C
 

Failure Assessment Line (FAL) can be defined, which determines
the region corresponding to safe conditions in the component  0.25  0.25
25 1
(area within the FAL and the coordinate axes defined below). Here, × ln . (7)
FAD Option 1 in FITNET FFS Procedure (Eq. (1)) for discontinuous B 1 − Pf
yielding material has been used (given that the materials used in The yield load considered (in this case the load is a bending
the towers usually show the Lüders strain during yielding), which moment) for each of the three sections and for every crack size
2128 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131

Table 5 1.2
Estimation of fracture toughness from Charpy values.
Section Material [15] Charpy T 27J (◦ C) Thickness, B (mm) Kmat (MPa m1/2 ) [1] 1
S1 S355J2 −20 36 39.3
S2 S235J0 0 35 34.3
0.8
S3 S235JR 20 21 32.3
2c=5 mm
2c = 1/4 circumference

Kr
1.2 0.6 2c = 1/2 circumference
2c = whole circumference

0.4
1

2c=5 mm
0.2
0.8 2c = 1/4 circumference
2c = 1/2 circumference
2c = whole circumference
0
Kr

0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

2a = 5 mm
2a = 10 mm Lr
0.4
2a = 2 mm
Fig. 11. FAD analysis in section S3.

0.2
Table 6
Critical crack sizes (2ac ) in Sections S1, S2 and S3 for the four crack extension (2c)
0 hypotheses (mm).
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Section 2c = 2c = 2c = 2c =
Lr 5 mm 1/4 circ. 1/2 circ. whole circ.

S1
Fig. 9. FAD analysis in section S1. 17.5 17.5 17.5 13.2
Thickness: 36 mm
S2
7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4
1.2 Thickness: 35 mm
S3
5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Thickness: 21 mm
1

0.8 Table 7
Crack sizes (2ath ), below which there is no fatigue propagation (mm).
2c=5 mm Section 2c = 2c = 2c = 2c =
Kr

0.6 2c = 1/4 circumference 5 mm 1/4 circ. 1/2 circ. whole circ.

2c = 1/2 circumference
2c = whole circumference
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lr
Fig. 10. FAD analysis in section S2.
hypothesis, has been the one that produces the beginning of
yielding in the net section (cracked area not considered). This
assumption is conservative, given that it considers the yielding in
the extreme ligament and not the yielding of the whole section.
Once the inputs (tensile properties, fracture toughness and
yield load) are defined, the FAD methodology can be applied. Four
FAD assessments were made for each section (corresponding to the
four crack geometry hypotheses), and three types of crack depth
(2a, see Fig. 7) were considered in each FAD: 2 mm, 5 mm and
10 mm (covering the size range of the defects found). Figs. 9–11
gather the FAD assessment in circumferential Sections S1, S2
and S3, respectively. Each of these figures shows the situation
of the corresponding section under 12 different crack geometry
hypotheses (4 values of crack extension (2c) × 3 values of crack
length (2a)) and for the bending moments corresponding to the
maximum stresses shown in Table 4.
Table 6 shows, for each combination of section and crack
extension hypothesis (2c), the corresponding critical crack size
(2ac ) obtained from Figs. 9–11 (intersection of the different 2c lines
with the FAL). Larger cracks than those gathered in Table 6 would
S1
4.3 3.0 3.0 2.9
Thickness: 36 mm
S2
4.0 2.9 2.9 2.8
Thickness: 35 mm
S3
7.3 4.2 4.1 3.8
Thickness: 21 mm
1 1.2 1.4
produce the fracture–plastic collapse of the corresponding wind
tower for the maximum stresses foreseen during its lifespan.
3.6. Fatigue analysis (Step (h))
Once the critical crack sizes for the different hypotheses (and
for fracture–plastic collapse mechanisms) have been obtained,
it is necessary to obtain those initial cracks in the tower that
would propagate under fatigue processes during its lifespan.
Previous fracture–plastic collapse assessment is focussed on the
application of a certain load (bending moment) in the component
containing some specified defects. However, subcritical fatigue
crack propagation is produced when the stress intensity factor
variation, ∆KI , is higher than the material fatigue threshold, ∆Kth
(see Table 2). In such a case, the towers would not fail at the
initial stage, but critical conditions could be achieved during their
lifespan due to the fatigue crack propagation.
Table 7 gathers, for each section and crack extension (2c), the
crack size (2ath ) for which the stress intensity factor variation, ∆KI ,
reaches the material fatigue threshold, ∆Kth , when the section is
subjected to the corresponding maximum stress variation. Crack
sizes below these values would never produce fatigue propagation,
given that they would always produce stress intensity factor
variations lower than the fatigue threshold. Therefore, the values
 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131
Table 8
Final crack sizes (2af ) at the end of the lifespan of the towers (mm). Bold characters
correspond to those situations where 2ath causes the structural failure before the
lifespan finishes.
Section 2c = 2c = 2c =
5 mm 1/4 circ. 1/2 circ.
S1
5.9 13.3 15.5
Thickness: 36 mm
S2
5.4 >2ac >2ac
Thickness: 35 mm
S3
>2ac >2ac >2ac
Thickness: 21 mm
in Table 7 can be considered as acceptable, as they are lower than
the critical ones (no fracture–plastic collapse failure) and also, they
would never cause subcritical fatigue crack propagation.
However, the values shown above are lower bound values of
the tolerable crack sizes ensuring the structural integrity of the
towers during their lifespan, as they have been obtained adding
different conservative assumptions (loads, material properties,
defect nature . . . ) and also because it is possible to have larger
cracks causing subcritical fatigue crack propagation that does not
reach the critical values during the 20 years of lifespan (failure
would occur from the 20th year onwards). This is the reason why
in the case where these crack sizes exist on the different sections,
it is necessary to analyse the crack propagation process during
the in-service life of the towers. With this goal, the Paris law
of the material (Eq. (8)) has been integrated (taking 2ath as the
initial crack size) introducing all the cycles considered in the design
(i.e., Table 3) and the corresponding final crack sizes (2af ) have
been obtained, as shown in Table 8.
da
= C (∆K )m .
dN
As a conservative assumption, the integration has been performed
considering the most critical sequence of cycles, from lowest stress
variations to the largest stress ones. In fact this consideration is
highly conservative, given that only the highest stress variation
would produce crack propagation for the considered initial
crack sizes. However, it was decided to proceed thus given the
uncertainty concerning the dimensions of the existing lack of
penetration defects (the exhaustive detection of the defects and
the determination of their dimensions was performed after the
analysis presented here) and, in particular, given the critical
consequences (economic losses, safety risks . . . ) that premature
failures would have for the owner.
Then, there will be crack propagation if the initial crack sizes
(the lack of penetration defects) are larger than those values
shown in Table 7. Moreover, such a propagation will be critical
(fracture–plastic collapse failure before the expected lifespan) in
those cases shown in bold letters in Table 8 (2af > 2ac ). In
such cases, crack sizes above the corresponding 2ath would not
guarantee the structural integrity of the towers during the lifespan
(then, 2ath is the maximum tolerable lack of penetration defect). In
the other cases, the maximum tolerable defect would be the one
causing the failure at the end of the lifespan (at the end of the 20th
year) and can easily be calculated by the iterative integration of the
Paris law (until the initial crack, 2a0 , producing 2ac at the end of the
lifespan is obtained).
In summary, Table 9 gathers the maximum tolerable defects
(2amax ) for the different hypotheses. Smaller defects than these
would ensure the structural integrity of the towers during their
entire lifespan. The values in bold characters correspond to
situations in which the limiting conditions are provided by the
fatigue threshold (2amax = 2ath ); those in italics are limited
by crack propagation (where 2amax > 2ath ) and correspond
to situations in which there is propagation during the whole
2129
Table 9
Maximum tolerable lack of penetration defects (2amax ) in the wind towers (mm).
Bold characters correspond to situations conditioned by the fatigue threshold; those
in italics are limited by crack propagation; the underlined value is conditioned by
fracture–plastic collapse.
2c =
whole circ. Section 2c = 2c = 2c = 2c =
5 mm 1/4 circ. 1/2 circ. whole circ.
>2ac
S1
4.9 3.1 3.1 2.9
Thickness: 36 mm
>2ac
S2
4.8 2.9 2.9 2.8
Thickness: 35 mm
>2ac
S3
5.9 4.2 4.1 3.8
Thickness: 21 mm
lifespan (reaching the critical size at the end of the lifespan);
finally, the underlined value is a particular case in which the
limiting condition is the fracture–plastic collapse (no fatigue
influence). This singularity arises from the arbitrary increase
(additional safety margin) considered in the maximum stresses
shown in Table 4. These increased stresses were used to establish
the fracture–plastic collapse critical condition, while the fatigue
analysis was performed from the values gathered in Table 3
(without any additional safety margin).
3.7. Sensitivity analysis
The results obtained in the previous sections were obtained
after several conservative assumptions, so they can be considered
as conservative estimations of the maximum allowable lack of pen-
etration defects. However, as mentioned above, the hypothetical
premature failure of the towers would cause critical economic con-
sequences for the owner of the wind farm (and could also inflict
(8) severe damage on people). This makes it advisable to analyse the
influence of the different inputs on the obtained results.
As seen in the Fracture Analysis of this paper, the failure in the
different sections would be mainly caused by a plastic collapse
mechanism, given that the lines representing the different crack
hypotheses intersect the right part of the FAL (which, in principle,
corresponds to such a mechanism [1]). Therefore, variations in the
considered fracture resistance of the materials would not have
relevant consequences on the results. Furthermore, the fracture
resistance values taken in the assessment correspond to a 1%
failure probability, something that adds an additional security
margin onto this consideration, given that higher Kmat values
would reduce the corresponding Kr value, Lr (and then plastic
collapse) being even more predominant.
Concerning the tensile properties, which determine the plastic
collapse load, in steel structures there is generally overmatching
(the yield stress of the weld is higher than the yield stress in
the base material), something that increases the yield load [1].
For the case analysed, there was negligible overmatching and,
as a conservative assumption of the tensile properties, this was
not considered (providing an additional safety margin). Moreover,
tensile properties are subjected to small scatter if compared to
fracture toughness [1] and the material was properly certified.
For all these reasons, it does not seem reasonable to assume
the existence of any great uncertainties regarding the tensile
properties, the values considered being sufficiently conservative.
Therefore, there are no major reasons to perform a sensitivity
analysis of the results regarding the mechanical properties of the
material, given that the fracture toughness values do not affect the
final results and given that both the fracture toughness and the
tensile properties have been demonstrated to be conservative (and,
in the case of tensile properties, affected by small scatter).
In contrast, the effect on the results caused by variations
in both the fatigue loads shown in Table 3 and the maximum
stresses shown in Table 4 (considered in the fracture–plastic
2130 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131

S3: 2c = whole circ.

S3: 2c = 1/2 circ.

S3: 2c = 1/4 circ.

S3: 2c = 5mm

S2: 2c = whole circ.

S2: 2c = 1/2 circ. Loads 10% increased

Design loads

S2: 2c = 1/4 circ. Loads 10% reduced

S2: 2c = 5mm

S1: 2c = whole circ.

S1: 2c = 1/2 circ.

S1: 2c = 1/4 circ.

S1: 2c = 5mm

2a max(mm)

Fig. 12. Maximum tolerable lack of penetration defects (2amax ) in the wind towers for the different hypotheses of applied loads (mm).

collapse analysis) is not so evident. Therefore, it is necessary to Table 10

Maximum tolerable lack of penetration defects (2amax ) in the wind towers (mm).
establish some arbitrary variations in such loads and perform
Loads 10% increased.
the analysis shown above. To this end, all calculations were
Section 2c = 2c = 2c = 2c =
repeated considering a 10% increase in the applied loads and also
5 mm 1/4 circ. 1/2 circ. whole circ.
a 10% reduction in them. Tables 10 and 11 show the maximum
S1
tolerable defects obtained for the two new hypotheses of the 4.2 2.5 2.4 2.3
Thickness: 36 mm
applied loads. Again, the values in bold characters correspond to S2
situations limited by the fatigue threshold (2amax = 2ath ), those 3.2 2.4 2.3 2.2
Thickness: 35 mm
in italics are limited by crack propagation (being 2amax > 2ath ) S3
4.4 3.4 3.3 3.1
and the underlined values are particular cases dominated by the Thickness: 21 mm
fracture–plastic collapse of the section.
Finally, Fig. 12 compares the maximum tolerable defects (2amax ) of wind towers given the great development of wind energy in the
for the different loads considered (10% increased, design load and last decade.
10% reduced). Despite the quality controls implemented during the manufac-
The sensitivity of the results can be appreciated. The 10% vari- turing and construction processes, the existence of different types
ations considered in the applied loads produce higher variations of defects on these kinds of structures is quite likely. In such cases,
in the tolerable defects, varying (approximately) between 15% and it is necessary to perform structural integrity analyses in order to
30%. Generally, the 10% reductions in the considered loads pro- evaluate how the existing defects affect the integrity and the per-
duce higher variations in the resulting tolerable defects than those formance of the towers.
obtained when the loads are increased by 10%. This analysis, to- This paper proposes a general methodology for the structural
gether with the assumptions considered for obtaining the applied integrity assessment of tubular towers containing lack of pene-
loads, can be used by the owner-designer to take the corresponding tration defects. The analysis has been particularised to the case
decisions. of a given set of wind towers with lack of penetration defects on
certain sections. Fracture and fatigue have been considered as the
4. Conclusions major causes of concern and some conservative but reasonable hy-
potheses (i.e., defects behaving as cracks) have been established.
Tubular towers constitute a singular structure typology and The structural integrity assessment has been performed using the
their use is being more and more widespread, especially in the case FITNET FFS procedure and the corresponding lack of penetration
 S. Cicero et al. / Engineering Structures 31 (2009) 2123–2131 2131

Table 11 [4] Schwalbe K-H, Koçak M, editors. Mis-matching of welds. In: Proceedings
Maximum tolerable lack of penetration defects (2amax ) in the wind towers (mm). of the international conference Mis-Match’93, ESIS 17. London: Mechanical
Loads 10% reduced. Engineering Publications; 1994.
[5] Schwalbe K-H, Koçak M, editors. Mis-matching of interfaces and welds.
Section 2c = 2c = 2c = 2c =
In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference Mis-Match’96. Germany:
5 mm 1/4 circ. 1/2 circ. whole circ.
GKSS Research Centre Publications; 1997.
S1 [6] Seib E, Koçak M. Fracture analysis of strength undermatched welds of thin-
6.1 3.8 3.8 3.5 walled aluminium structures using FITNET procedure. IIW Doc. X-1577-2005.
Thickness: 36 mm
S2 [7] Cicero S, Yeni Ç, Koçak M. Fracture analysis of strength undermatched Al-Alloy
6.0 3.7 3.7 3.4 welds in edge cracked tensile panels using FITNET procedure. Fatigue Fract Eng
Thickness: 35 mm
Mater Struct 2008;31(9):738–53.
S3
7.4 5.1 5.0 4.6 [8] Anderson TL. Fracture mechanics: Fundamentals and applications. 2nd edition
Thickness: 21 mm
Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995.
[9] Cicero S. Evaluación de la integridad estructural de componentes sometidos a
condiciones de bajo confinamiento. Ph.D. thesis. Santander (Spain): University
tolerances have been determined for the different defect geome- of Cantabria; 2007.
tries considered. These values can be assumed to be conservative [10] Cicero S, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Álvarez JA. Structural integrity assessment of
and ensure the lifespan considered in the initial design. components subjected to low constraint conditions. Eng Fract Mech 2008;75:
3038–59.
Moreover, a sensitivity analysis has been performed, as the final [11] SINTAP: Structural integrity assessment procedures for European industry.
step in the structural integrity assessment, in order to determine Brite-Euram Project no. BE95-1426, Contract no. BRPR-CT95-0024. Final
how variations in the different inputs can affect the final results. report; 1999.
[12] Schwalbe K-H, Kim Y-J, Hao S, Cornec A, Koçak M. EFAM ETM-MM 96: The
All this analysis, together with precise measurements of ETM method for assessing the significance of crack-like defects in joints with
the existing defects, will allow the owner-designer to take the mechanical heterogeneity (strength mismatch). GKSS Report 97/E/9. GKSS
corresponding decisions (basically, to repair or not to repair). Forschungszentrum; 1997.
[13] Paris PC, Gomez MP, Anderson WP. A rational analytic theory of fatigue. Trend
Given the accumulated conservatism caused by the different Eng 1961;13:9–14.
assumptions considered in the analysis, and also considering that [14] Forman RG, Mettu SR. Behaviour of surface and corner cracks subjected
the design loads are defined based on the site conditions (obtained to tensile and bending loads in a Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Ernst HA, Saxena A and
McDowell DL (editors). Philadelphia: Fracture mechanics 22th symposium 1
in situ using instrumentation devices and including extreme
American society for testing and materials. ASTP STP1131; 1992. pp. 519–646.
events), the final recommendation to the owner, and for the case [15] EN 10025: Hot rolled products of structural steels. 2004.
study being analysed, is to compare the detected defects with those [16] IEC 61400-SER, Wind turbine generator systems - ALL PARTS. 2008.
equivalent values (in terms of crack extension hypothesis, (2c)) [17] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. 1997.
[18] Creager M, Paris C. Elastic field equations for blunt cracks with reference to
gathered in Table 9 (obtained prior to the sensitivity analysis). The stress corrosion cracking. International Journal of Fracture 1967;3:247–52.
rest of the values gathered in Tables 10 and 11 (including those [19] Niu LS, Chehimi C, Pluvinage G. Stress field near a large blunted V notch and
obtained in the sensitivity analysis) can be taken as a reference, application of the concept of notch stress intensity factor to the fracture of very
brittle materials. Eng Fract Mech 1994;49:325–35.
also showing the coherence between the loads considered and the [20] Pluvinage G. Fatigue and fracture emanating from notch; the use of the notch
allowable crack sizes obtained. If the detected defects are larger stress intensity factor. Nucl Eng Des 1998;185:173–84.
than those gathered in Table 9, repairs are required if the structural [21] Fenghui W. Prediction of intrinsic fracture toughness for brittle materials
from the apparent toughness of notched-crack specimen. J Mater Sci 2000;
integrity of the towers has to be ensured. 35:2543–6.
[22] Kim JH, Kim DH, Moon SI. Evaluation of static and dynamic fracture toughness
References using apparent fracture toughness of notched specimens. Mater Sci Eng A
2004;387–389:381–4.
[1] Kocak M, Webster S, Janosch JJ, Ainsworth RA, Koers R, editors. FITNET fitness- [23] Taylor D, Cornetti P, Pugno N. The fracture mechanics of finite crack extension.
for-service (FFS) procedure- Volume 1. Geesthacht, Germany: GKSS Research Eng Fract Mech 2005;72:1021–38.
Centre; 2008. [24] Dugdale DS. Yielding in steel sheets containing slits. J Mech Phys Solids 1960;
[2] Kocak M, Hadley I, Szavai S, Tkach Y, Taylor N, editors. FITNET fitness-for- 8:100–4.
service (FFS) annex - Volume 2. Geesthacht, Germany: GKSS Research Centre; [25] Burdekin FM, Stone DEW. The crack opening displacement approach to
2008. fracture mechanics in yielding materials. J Strain Anal 1 1966;144–53.
[3] Kocak M, Laukkanen A, Gutiérrez-Solana F, Cicero S, Hadley I, editors. FITNET [26] Harrison RP, Loosemore K, Milne I. R6: Assessment of the integrity of structures
fitness-for-service (FFS) case studies and tutorials – Volume 3. Geesthacht, containing defects, CEGB report R/H/R6; 1976.
Germany: GKSS Research Centre; 2009. [27] Wallin K. The scatter in KIC results. Eng Fract Mech 1984;19:1085–93.