International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Notch stress intensity factors and fatigue strength of aluminium

and steel welded joints
a,* b
P. Lazzarin , P. Livieri
a
Department of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Stradella S. Nicola 3, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
b
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, 44100 Ferrara, Italy

Received 12 June 2000; received in revised form 21 September 2000; accepted 21 September 2000

Abstract

According to a recent and appropriate definition, stress field parameters, namely notch stress intensity factors (N-SIFs), can be
used to predict the fatigue behaviour of mechanical components weakened by V-shaped re-entrant corners, where the singularity
in the stress distribution makes any failure criterion based on elastic peak stress no longer applicable. Commonly thought of as
parameters able to control the fatigue crack initiation life, N-SIFs are, under certain circumstances, also useful for predicting the
component total fatigue life. The fatigue strength of aluminium welded joints with different geometries and thicknesses are summar-
ised in a single scatter band by using an N-SIF-based approach. The statistical analysis is carried out taking into account experimental
data already reported in the literature, referring to welded joints with a thickness ranging from 3 to 24 mm. Results of steel and
aluminium welded joints are then compared: at high number fatigue life, the relative fatigue strength is slightly greater than 2, in
agreement with the value previously reported in the literature for butt spliced bolted joints. The value of the theoretical exponent
quantifying the scale effect (0.326 against 0.25 suggested by Eurocodes) is discussed.  2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Fatigue; Welded joints; Notch stress intensity factors

1. Introduction anti-symmetric stress fields, supported the N-SIF defi-

Williams [1] was able to demonstrate that in the con-
text of the elasticity theory, the asymptotic stress state
near a re-entrant corner is singular and its degree of
singularity is a function of the only notch opening angle.
The stress field intensity depends on the overall
geometry of the component and the far-field loading. In
the context of a stress field theory, a field parameter
called the “notch stress intensity factor” (hereafter N-
SIF) was explicitly defined by Nui et al. [2] and applied
to the fracture toughness of brittle materials. Afterwards,
the N-SIF concept was used by Boukharouba et al. and
by Verreman and Nie for fatigue crack initiation esti-
mates at notches [3] and weld toes [3,4]. Recently, an
analytical background able to quantify different stress
components, such as the influence of symmetric and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-0444-998-711; fax: +39-0444-
998-888.
E-mail address: plazzarin@gest.unipd.it (P. Lazzarin).
nition [5]. Due to weld geometry, both components are
always present at the weld toe, also under a remote uni-
axial load, and vary from case to case according to the
global geometry of the joint. Thus, two notch stress
intensity factors K N1 and K N2 (for opening and sliding
modes) were determined by means of a finite element
analysis and then plotted as a function of the main geo-
metrical parameters of the joints [5]. So, in the highly
stressed region in the neighbourhood of the weld toe,
stress components can be predicted on the basis of a
linear combination of K N1 and K N2; this could be useful,
particularly along the virtual direction of fatigue crack
propagation (when a well-established linear elastic frac-
ture mechanics approach is used to predict the fatigue
life of the joints [6–9]) and on the surface free edge
(where strain gauges are generally placed in experi-
mental approaches).
It has already been shown in [5,10] that the total
fatigue life of transverse non-load-carrying fillet welded
joints could be efficiently predicted by using only the
K N1 factor, the contribution due to the sliding mode being

0142-1123/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 1 4 2 - 1 1 2 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 8 6 - 4
226 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232

non singular for that type of joint. Note that most of the
weld details classified by Eurocode 3 and other national
standards in force exhibit mean values of the V-shaped
notch opening angles close to 135°. Thus, neglecting the
influence of K N2 in the fatigue failure criterion should be
reasonable in all these cases, while comparing the K N1
of different units (due to variations of the opening
angles) is not [5,10,11]. It was already highlighted [12]
that a precise theoretical link exists (due to Bueckner’s
superposition principle) between the conventional MFLE
stress intensity factor KI and the N-SIFs K N1 and K N2.
The aims of this paper are as follows:

앫 to extend the N-SIF-based approach, previously

applied only to steel weldments, to aluminium
welded joints;
앫 to compare the fatigue strength of steel and alu-
minium welded joints of different geometry on the
basis of the relevant N-SIFs;
앫 to briefly discuss the exponent quantifying the size
effect by comparing theoretical predictions (based
only on Williams’ Mode I singularity) and results of
a statistical re-analysis involving all the experimental
data considered herein. The theoretical penalty
exponent is more penalising than that suggested by
Eurocodes.

Fig. 1. Coordinate system and geometrical parameters for the analy-

ses of the welded joints.

2. Singular stress fields due to sharp corners

Williams [1] stated that, even in a re-entrant V-shaped

corner, as happens in a crack, the Mode I (and often

冦冧 冤冦 冧
Mode II) stress field is singular close to the tip. Then, sJ (1+l1)cos(1−l1)J
in a polar frame of reference (r, J) (see Fig. 1), the stress 1 rl1−1K N1
sr ⫽ (3−l1)cos(1−l1)J ⫹
field is defined within two constants (a1 and a2) and can
trJ
冑2p(1+l )+c (1−l )
1 1 1
(1−l1)sin(1−l1)J
always be written as the sum of the symmetric field, with r=0
stress singularity of the 1/r1−l1 type, and the anti-sym-
metric field, with stress singularity of the 1/r1−l2 type:

冦 冧冥
cos(1+l1)J

冦冧 冦 冧 冦 冧
sJ f1,J(J) f2,J(J) ⫹c1(1⫺l1) −cos(1+l1)J (2)
l1−1 l2−1
sr ⫽l1r a1 f1,r(J) ⫹l2r a2 f2,r(J) (1) sin(1+l1)J
trJ f1,rJ(J) f2,rJ(J)

For Mode II:

where l1 and l2 are, as is well known, the first eigen-
values for Mode I and Mode II, respectively, in Willi-
ams’ equations [1]. Obviously, when l2 is greater than

冦冧 冤冦 冧
1.0, only Mode I is singular. This happens when 2a is sJ −(1+l2)sin(1−l2)J
greater than 102°. 1 rl2−1K N2
sr ⫽ −(3−l2)sin(1−l2)J ⫹
It is possible to present Williams’ formulae for stress
components as explicit functions of the N-SIFs [5]. For trJ
冑2p(1−l )+c (1+l )
2 2 2
(1−l2)cos(1−l2)J
r=0
Mode I stress distributions are:
 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232
冦 冧冥
−sin(1+l2)J
⫹c2(1⫹l2) sin(1+l2)J
cos(1+l2)J
General expressions of the coefficients in Eqs. (2) and
(3) are reported in [5,10]. Since all the series of welded
joints considered in the present analyses will be charac-
terised by an opening angle 2a=135°, it is sufficient to
give here only the parameter values associated with this
particular angle: l1=0.674, l2=1.302, c1=4.153, c2=⫺
0.569.
Two convenient expressions of N-SIFs for welded
joints are the following [5]:
K N1⫽k1snt1−l1
K N2⫽k2snt1−l2
where ki are non-dimensional coefficients analogous to
the theoretical stress concentration factors Kt, sn is the
remotely applied nominal stress and t is the main plate
thickness. Looking at Eqs. (2) and (3), it is worth noting
that when q=0, sr and sq depend only on Mode I distri-
bution while, on the contrary, the trq component is asso-
ciated with Mode II. So, by plotting stress distributions
along the bisector of a particular geometry, there is a
zone in the neighbourhood of the weld toe where the
sij /rli−1 ratios have a constant value (Fig. 2). As a conse-
quence, K N1 and K N2 can be univocally determined since,
on the basis of Eqs. (2) and (3), the intensities of the
stress distributions are ruled just on such parameters. It
is worth noting that only Mode I stress distribution is
singular in Fig. 2 while, in contrast, Mode II stress
components are null when r=0.
As soon as K N1 and K N2 are known, the relevant non-
dimensional coefficients k1 and k2 can easily be com-
puted by means of Eq. (4a,b).
Fig. 2. Plots of stresses along the bisector.
227
Expressions for k1 and k2 have already been reported
for transverse non-load carrying fillet welded joints sub-
jected to tensile stresses [5] or bending stresses [10]. It
is useful to report here such expressions, since most
(3) welded details considered herein refer to just such types
of joints.
Traction:
k1⫽1.212⫹0.495e−0.985(2h/t) (5a)
⫺1.259e−1.120(2h/t)−0.485(L/t)
k2⫽0.508⫺0.797e−1.959(2h/t) (5b)
⫹2.723e−1.126(2h/t)−0.769(L/t)
Bending:
k1⫽0.900⫹0.326e−5.289(2h/t) (6a)
⫺0.474e−3.064(2h/t)−1.420(L/t)
(4a)
k2⫽0.818⫺1.760e−5.356(2h/t) (6b)
(4b)
⫹1.851e −2.982(2h/t)−1.026(L/t)
According to symbols shown in Fig. 1, h is the height
of the weld bead and L the transverse plate thickness.
Estimates based on Eqs. (5a,b) are accurate when 0ⱕ
L/tⱕ3.0 and 0.25ⱕ2h/tⱕ2.5 [5] while limits for Eqs.
(6a,b) are 0.2ⱕL/tⱕ5.0 and 0.25ⱕ2h/tⱕ2.5 [10]. Out of
these geometrical conditions, a finite element analysis
should be carried out, according to the procedures
detailed in [5].
3. Fatigue strength data in terms of N-SIFs
Tables 1 and 2 summarise geometrical and fatigue
strength data related both to steel and aluminium welded
joints, respectively. Those pertinent to steel joints have
already been partly analysed in [5,10].
Table 3 reports materials, welding processes and post-
welding conditions for all the series considered. Original
data are reported in the well-known books by Maddox
[6] and Gurney [7,9] as well as in two papers by Kihl
and Sarkani [13,14]. Most data refer to transverse non-
load-carrying fillet joints; some series, however, con-
sider welded joints of a different type. In all cases, the
nominal value of the notch tip radius is to be considered
null (as the weld toes are always represented by sharp V-
shaped notches in the original papers), while the opening
angle 2a is 135°. The relevant k1 coefficients are sum-
marised in Tables 1 and 2. It is worth noting that the
main plate thickness ranges between 6 and 100 mm in
steel welded joints, and between 3 and 24 mm in alu-
minium welded joints. The variability of the transverse
plates is even more pronounced (3–200 mm).
228 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232

Table 1
Geometrical and fatigue strength properties of steel welded joints (nominal load ratio R⬇0)a

Welded joint geometry ⌬K N1,50% [MPa

Series Load type t [mm] L/t 2h/t k1 ⌬sn,50% [MPa]
[Ref. No.] mm0.326]
N=5·106 N=5·106

St-1 cruciform-nlc [6] T 13 0.769 1.231 1.14 79.5 209.4

St-2 cruciform-nlc [6] T 50 1.000 0.640 1.10 59.6 234.2
St-3 cruciform-nlc [6] T 100 0.500 0.320 0.88 55.5 219.8
St-4 cruciform-nlc [7] T 13 0.231 0.769 0.97 91.7 204.8
St-5 cruciform-nlc [7] T 13 0.769 1.231 1.14 76.7 202.0
St-6 cruciform-nlc [7] T 25 0.120 0.400 0.79 93.9 211.1
St-7 cruciform-nlc [7] T 25 1.280 0.720 1.15 66.0 217.4
St-8 cruciform-nlc [7] T 25 8.800 1.200 1.36 59.7 231.8
St-9 cruciform-nlc [7] T 38 0.342 0.421 0.87 68.7 196.3
St-10 cruciform-nlc [7] T 38 5.789 0.789 1.41 45.5 209.5
St-11 cruciform-nlc [7] T 100 0.030 0.100 0.55 95.7 236.6
St-12 cruciform-nlc [7] T 100 2.200 0.300 1.27 40.1 228.7
St-13 cruciform-nlc [7] B 25 0.120 0.400 0.79 87.9 198.6
St-14 cruciform-nlc [7] B 50 0.060 0.200 0.66 98.1 232.4
St-15 cruciform-nlc [7] B 100 0.030 0.100 0.59b 94.5 248.1
St-16 cruciform-nlc [7] B 100 0.130 0.160 0.68 75.1 230.6
St-17 cruciform-nlc [13] T 6 1.000 0.750 1.11 103.1 205.7
St-18 cruciform-nlc [13] T 19 1.000 0.750 1.11 77.8 226.0
St-19 cruciform-nlc [13] T 25 1.000 0.750 1.11 57.4 182.2
St-20 cruciform-nlc [13] T 11 1.000 0.750 1.11 107.4 261.0
St-21 cruciform-nlc [14] T 11 1.000 0.750 1.11 93.6 227.3
St-22 cruciform-nlc [9] T 6 1.000 2.000 1.20 93.6 201.4
St-23 T-nlc [9] B 6 1.000 2.000 1.07b 111.3 213.5
St-24 cruciform-lc [9] T 6 1.000 2.000 1.45b 98.6 255.8

a
Type of test: T = traction; B = bending. Type of fillet: nlc = non-load carrying fillet weld; lc = load-carrying fillet weld.
b
For the series 1–14, 16–22, k1 has been determined by means of Eqs. (5a)–(6a). In the remaining cases, k1 has been determined by means of
an “ad hoc” finite element analysis.

Table 2
Geometrical and fatigue strength properties of aluminium welded joints (nominal load ratio R⬇0.1)a

Welded joint ⌬K N1,50%

⌬sn,50%
Series geometry [Ref. Load type t [mm] L/t 2h/t Km k1 [MPa
[MPa]
No.] mm0.326]
N=5·106 N=5·106

AL1 cruciform-nlc [8] T 3 1.000 3.000 1.14 1.22 59.3 103.2

AL2 cruciform-nlc [8] T 6 1.000 2.333 1.09 1.21 45.3 97.8
AL3 cruciform-nlc [8] T 12 1.000 1.667 1.08 1.19 40.5 108.6
AL4 cruciform-nlc [8] T 24 1.000 1.708 1.01 1.19 29.1 97.7
AL5 cruciform-nlc [8] T 24 0.250 0.583 1.05 0.91 40.9 105.0
AL6 cruciform-nlc [8] T 12 0.500 1.167 1.25 1.10 38.0 94.1
AL7 T-nlc [17] T 12 0.833 1.333 1.00 0.93b 43.1 89.7
AL8 T-nlc [16] T 12 1.000 1.333 1.00 0.93b 53.0 110.3
AL9 cruciform-lc [16] T 12 1.000 1.333 1.00 1.73b 28.0 108.8
AL10 cruciform-lc [15] T 12 1.000 1.060 1.00 2.07b 26.3 122.5

a
Type of test: T = traction; B = bending. Type of fillet: nlc = non-load carrying fillet weld; lc = load-carrying fillet weld.
b
For the series AL1–AL6, k1 has been determined by means of Eqs. (5a)–(6a). In the remaining cases, k1 has been determined by finite
element analyses.

Fig. 3 summarises steel welded joint data, all referring
to a nominal load ratio R⬇0, in a single scatter band
(mean values ± two standard deviations), of which the
top and bottom lines refer to a probability of survival
equal to 2.3 and 97.7%, respectively. At Nref=5·106
cycles to failure, the mean value of ⌬K N1 is 211
MPa·mm0.326 while the TK scatter index (TK=
K N1,Ps=2.3%/K N1,Ps=97.7%) is 1.85.
As far as the aluminium welded joints are concerned,
six series were reported in a well-documented contri-
 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232 229

Table 3
Steel and aluminium welding material type and welding conditions

Series Material Yield stress [MPa] Welding process Conditions

St-1÷St-3 BS4360:50 360÷398 Manual metal arc welding As-welded

St-4÷St-16 BS4360:50 290÷405 Manual metal arc welding As-welded with spot-heated
St-17÷St-20 HSLA-80 598÷671 Gas metal arc welding (pulse) As-welded
St-21 HSLA-80 ⬇671 Gas metal arc welding As-welded
St-22÷St-24 Steel UTS 515 MPa 412 Metal inert gas As-welded
AL1÷AL6 6061-T6 277÷298 Gas metal arc welding As-welded
AL7 5083-H3 255 Metal inert gas As-welded
AL8, AL9 6061-T651 ⬇250 Metal inert gas As-welded
AL10 Al Zn Mg 1 304 Metal inert gas As-welded

the TK index practically coincides with the steel joint

Fig. 3. Fatigue strength of aluminium and steel welded joints as a
function of Mode I N-SIFactor. Scatter band related to mean values ±
2 standard deviations.
bution due, once again, to Maddox [8]. In this paper, all
figures of the joint geometry are interested by sharp V-
shaped notches, the total fatigue life being thought of as
fatigue crack propagation life. The remaining four series
are due to Jacoby [15], Ribeiro et al. [16] and Meneghetti
[17]. Also, for such series it is not possible to give an
upper bound for the real weld toes, since this information
is not explicitly given in the original papers. All fatigue
tests were carried out with a nominal load ratio R about
equal to 0.1.
Under the hypothesis of log-normal distributions of
the number of cycles to failure, the mean values of
⌬sn,50% have been determined by a least-square method.
One might note that ⌬sn,50% values pertinent to the series
tested by Maddox are slightly different from the values
tabled in [8]. This is because Maddox performed a best-
fitting analysis of fatigue data by imposing a Wöhler
curve slope equal to 4.0 for all the series tested by him.
Maddox’ data also take into account secondary bending
effects, quantified by the experimental coefficient Km,
value (1.80 against 1.85).
Due to the limited number of experimental data con-
sistent with those shown in Fig. 3, for the time being it
is not possible to extend the approach to different nomi-
nal load ratios, with the aim of quantifying the differ-
ences with respect to the R⬇0 case. However, two series
of experimental data reported in [14] and not considered
in Table 1 show that: (a) the mean ⌬K N1 curve goes down
slightly when R=0.33 (with a decrease in strength of
about 5% at 5 million cycles); (b) conversely, the mean
⌬K N1 curve goes up in the presence of negative mean
stresses (R=⫺2), the difference in strength being more
pronounced with respect to the former case. It is natural
to think that these trends will be confirmed, being in
agreement with the results obtained with the conven-
tional nominal stress approach.
Finally, it might be useful to note that the mean
⌬K N1 values for steel and aluminium joints are in a ratio
of 2.1. The same ratio had been shown for butt splice
bolted joints [19] (nominal stress amplitude equal to 88
MPa for steel; 41 MPa for aluminium), where such a
geometry made a comparison still possible in terms of
nominal stresses.
3.1. Size effect
The size effect is predicted by Eq. (2), where the pen-
alty exponent g=1⫺l1 is different from that reported in
the Eurocodes (0.326 against 0.25, where, as far as the
authors are aware, the latter value is empirical in nature).
Due to the availability of experimental data and the
accuracy of the sources considered, we have looked for
the value of the exponent g which minimises q, q being
defined as follows:
q⫽ 冘冋 ⌬snj k1ref tref
⫺
⌬snref k1j tj 冉 冊册 g 2
(7)

determined in [8] by means of strain gauge measure-

ments. For the remaining series in Table 2, Km is equal As reference values, we have chosen t=25 mm for
to unity. Aluminium welded joints show a mean value steel welded joints (and, in particular, the series St-6 has
of ⌬K N1=99 MPa·mm0.326 at 5·106 cycles to failure, while been taken as the reference series) and t=12 mm for alu-
230 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232
minium welded joints (series AL-3). Fig. 4 plots the
ratio q/qmin against g. It is interesting to note that, at least
for the joints considered herein, characterised by a nomi-
nal value of the notch tip radius equal to zero, the scatter
is minimised corresponding to the theoretical value
based on Williams’ eigenvalue for steel, at g=0.30 for
aluminium.
Support for the present analysis is given in a recent
contribution by Macdonald and Haagensen [18] who
emphasise the fact that assessment of recent research
data has indicated the influence of a thickness stronger
than g=0.25, so that in the latest HSE and API/ISO
revision for offshore structures, a higher penalty factor
of g=0.30 is imposed.
4. Further developments of the N-SIF-based
approach and some answers to reviewers
Due to lucky circumstances, the paper was reviewed
by two anonymous referees whose suggestions and care-
ful judgements (both those favourable and those quite
critical) have been greatly appreciated by the authors.
Some problems raised by the referees are intriguing,
needing further investigation to be fully clarified and so
they are surely of interest for many researchers engaged
in fatigue design of components weakened by sharp
stress raisers. For this reason, we have decided to report
faithfully the referees’ opinions here.
Reviewer A wrote that “the conservative assumption
that the weld toe radius is equal to zero is helpful,
because weld toe radius is not easy to measure, needs
time and is affected by a large scatter”. Nevertheless,
“this presentation of the fatigue resistance of the welded
joints is of limited interest” for two reasons:
(a) “it not easy to use the fatigue resistance curve for
a weld toe geometry with an included angle different
from 135°” (in that units for K N1 are no longer
MPa·mm0.326);
(b) “it is not possible to appreciate directly the fatigue
reduction factor in presence of smooth welded joints”.
Fig. 4. Minimum values of q for aluminium and steel welded joints.
Reviewer A also wrote that the discussion “about the
thickness effect is a more interesting contribution. It is
based on the assumption that thickness effect is due to
the stress gradient precisely described by the exponent
of singularity”. In his opinion, the N-SIF-based analysis
implies that:
(c) “the thickness effect depends on the weld toe
angle (so a universal value cannot be accepted)”;
(d) “loading modes have no direct effect (which is
not a true assumption)”.
Only point (d) can be easily confuted. Different
expressions are used in the paper for welded joints sub-
jected to tensile loading and bending loading. This sim-
ply means that loading modes (and not only the global
geometry) influence the intensity of the stress distri-
butions in the neighbourhood of the sharp notch (but not
the degree of singularity [20], which depends only on
2a). When given in terms of nominal stress ranges, the
fatigue strength of welded joints subjected to bending
loads is generally recognised as greater than that exhib-
ited by the same joint under tensile loads. A reduction
of 13% in averaged terms is reported by Hobbacher [21],
a reduction ranging from 0% to 25% is shown in [20].
This scatter is no longer statistically significant if N-SIFs
are used instead of nominal stresses for the simple reason
that N-SIFs include the loading mode effect. Note that
series St-11, 12, 15, 16 in Table 1 (t=100 mm) show a
⌬K N1 value that ranges, for bending and tensile loads,
from 229 to 248 MPa·mm0.326.
Point (c) reflects exactly the authors’ opinion when
the geometry is weakened by sharp V-shaped notches.
However, as soon as a notch with a tip radius r constant
and different from zero is present, the situation becomes
more complex. Obviously, stress distribution due to a
rounded notch does not coincide with that of the sharp
V-notch. A small zone exists in the close neighbourhood
of the notch tip where the stress distribution substantially
depends only on r, so that its features can be considered
to a certain degree “universal”. Moreover, the stress
gradient is not constant but varies as a function of the
distance from the notch tip. Outside this limited zone,
of which the dimensions are about 0.3 r, the influence
of the opening angle becomes important and the stress
gradient coincides with that related to the corresponding
sharp V-shaped notch. The properties of the material
determine whether the fatigue strength is controlled by
the former or the latter zone.
With regard to point (a), the authors agree with the
reviewer. However, it is evident that an opening angle
of about 135° represents the most common geometry and
that small variations of the angle could be tolerated by
engineers engaged in fatigue problems. One should also
note that in a very accurate multi-parameter design
optimisation of load-carrying fillet cruciform joints car-
 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232 231

ried out by Radaj and Zang [22] (see also Radaj and Table 4
Sonsino [23]), the only geometrical parameter con- Stress concentration factor Kt of transverse non-load-carrying fillet
welded joints under tensile loads (in all FE analyses t=20 mm,
sidered constant is the opening angle. Conversely, there 2h/t=1, see Fig. 1). Values of k1 determined according to Eq. (5a))
is no doubt that, from a theoretical point of view, the
complex units of K N1 do not allow a direct comparison r/t L/t k1 Eq. (5a) Kt Eq. (9) Kt FEM
between joints with different opening angle. The prob-
lem, already highlighted by Hasebe et al. [24], can be 0.02 0.5 1.075 3.43 3.83
0.05 0.5 1.075 2.54 2.85
overcome either by introducing a virtual crack at the 0.1 0.5 1.075 2.03 2.30
notch toe [24,12] or by using, perhaps by taking a small 0.2 0.5 1.075 1.62 1.88
step forward, Eqs. (2) and (3) to determine the energy 0.02 1 1.144 3.65 4.02
in a small sector of radius R surrounding the sharp notch 0.05 1 1.144 2.71 3.00
[25]. Such energy is strictly correlated to K N1 and K N2 but 0.1 1 1.144 2.16 2.41
0.2 1 1.144 1.72 1.95
it obviously has the merit to be expressed in Nmm/mm3.
As regards point (b), Hasebe et al. [24] were able to
demonstrate that a precise analytical link exists between
the N-SIF (determined for sharp-V-shaped notches under
Mode I conditions) and the elastic peak stress value of
a rounded V-shaped notch, the notch tip radius being between the N-SIF approach and Radaj’s notch stress
small but different from zero. More precisely, Hasebe et approach for welded joints [26,23], where fatigue predic-
al. wrote [24]: tions can be performed on the basis of sq,max (that is on
K N1⫽limr→0C̃r1−l1sq,max (8) the basis of the theoretical stress concentration factor
Kt), but only after having introduced a precise value of
where symbols of the original paper have been upgraded the fictitious notch tip radius (rf=1 mm in most welded
to current symbols. The parameter C̃ was summarised details of practical interest, but also rf=0.25 mm for
for several notch opening angles in [24]. Eq. (8) makes spot-welded overlap joints made in rolled steels,
it evident that using K N1 or sq,max (after having intro- rf=0.2 mm for cruciform joints in the presence of longi-
duced a small notch tip radius r) results in exactly the tudinal shear loading [23]).
same fatigue predictions. Obviously, in real cases, one Reviewer B “fully agrees with the N-SIF approach”
would use Eq. (8) in the presence of a well-defined value since it “is based on a principle of similitude and over-
of r (for example rf=1, according to Radaj’s fictitious comes problems encountered with predictions using a
weld toe/root radius [26]). By using a complex potential local strain approach and/or an integration of Paris’
function and Neuber’s conformal mapping, an equation relationship”. He has been “convinced for years that this
analogous to Eq. (8) was reported also in [27]: is the best way for predicting the life of welded joint
冑2p[1+l +c (1−l )]
冉 冊
(as-welded) and that it should be included in codes”.
1−l1
1 1 1 q−1 Asking the authors to discuss the fatigue fracture of
K N1⫽ r1−l1sq,max (9)
4 q welded joints and to explain why the approach works,
he helps them by providing the following convincing
⫽1.22·r1−l1·sq,max
explanation: “A severe notch with a very small toe radius
where, on the right side of Eq. (9), a coefficient valid results in a short microstructural initiation life — even
for the 2a=135° case is introduced. In Eq. (9), due to without toe ‘defects’ — and in an immediate crack
the absence of the limit condition r→0, K N1 was not propagation; this explains why the influence of a micro-
thought of as numerically coincident with the value per- structure is weak. Furthermore, most of the life is con-
tinent to the r=0 case. Eq. (9), without upgrading K N1, sumed at short crack depth, within the singularity; that
results in a strong simplification in the peak stress evalu- explains why good correlation is obtained with total
ation, but also some degree of inaccuracy. The problem fatigue life.”
is that of defining this degree of inaccuracy. Table 4 In addition, it might be useful to remember that LEFM
gives a precise idea of the errors for two geometries stress intensity factor KI is analytically correlated to N-
with L/t=0.5 and 1.0. The differences between analytical SIFs [12]. A conventional evaluation of residual life
and finite element results vary from case to case, their from an initial crack value of 0.3 mm (the crack being
mean value being about 10%. Note that some formulae thought of as through the thickness) turned out to be in
summarised in [28], and suitable for estimating peak a ratio of 1:3 to experimental total life, having assumed
stress in cruciform welded joints, are acknowledged as the exponent in the Paris law as being equal to 3.0 [12].
being able to provide a substantially equivalent degree In conclusion, N-SIF is easy to calculate, and plays an
of accuracy [23]. essential role in short microstructural initiation life, short
It is evident that Eqs. (8) and (9) provide a bridging crack life and crack propagation life.
232 P. Lazzarin, P. Livieri / International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) 225–232
5. Conclusions
Notch stress intensity factors (N-SIFs) have been
used, in a single scatter band, to summarise fatigue
properties of aluminium welded joints (cruciform and T
non-load-carrying or load-carrying fillet weld joints).
More precisely, fatigue total life (and not only fatigue
crack initiation life) has been correlated to the relevant
Mode I N-SIFs, i.e. ⌬K N1. Welded joints were character-
ised by a thickness ranging between 3 and 24 mm, able
to put in evidence any scale effect. Fatigue properties of
aluminium welded joints have been compared with those
related to steel welded joints (of which the main plate
thickness varied from 6 to 100 mm). The mean ⌬K N1
values turn out to be in a ratio slightly greater than 2.0,
while the scatter band size (mean value ± 2 standard
deviations) practically coincides.
Taking into account the only singular stress distri-
bution (associated to Mode I fracture), the exponent
quantifying the scale effect penalty is 0.326, which is
quite different from the 0.25 value suggested by the Eur-
ocodes. In the presence of a weld toe radius approaching
zero, a statistical re-analysis of all fatigue data showed
that a value equal to 0.3 was more realistic both for alu-
minium and steel welded joints. It is worth noting that
in some recent standards on off-shore structures, the
exponent 0.3 has already substituted the 0.25 value
present in Eurocodes.
Finally, the link between Mode I N-SIF and the peak
value of the maximum linear elastic stress (determined in
the presence of a small weld toe radius) was discussed.
References
[1] Williams ML. Stress singularities resulting from various bound-
ary conditions in angular corners of plates in extension. J Appl
Mech 1952;19:526–8.
[2] Nui LS, Chehimi C, Pluvinage G. Stress field near a large blunted
tip V-notch and application of the concept of the critical notch
stress intensity factor (NSIF) to the fracture toughness of very
brittle materials. Engng Fract Mech 1994;49:325–35.
[3] Boukharouba T, Tamine T, Nui L, Chehimi C, Pluvinage G. The
use of notch stress intensity factor as a fatigue crack initiation
parameter. Engng Fract Mech 1995;52:503–12.
[4] Verreman Y, Nie B. Early development of fatigue cracking at
manual fillet welds. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
1996;19:669–81.
[5] Lazzarin P, Tovo R. A notch stress intensity factor approach to
the stress analysis of welds. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
1998;21:1089–103.
[6] Maddox SJ. The effect of plate thickness on the fatigue strength
of fillet welded joints. Abington, Cambridge: Abington Pub-
lishing, 1987.
[7] Gurney TR. The fatigue strength of transverse fillet welded joints.
Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing, 1991.
[8] Maddox SJ. Scale effect in fatigue of fillet welded aluminium
alloys. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Aluminium Weldments; Cleveland, Ohio, 1995:77–93.
[9] Gurney TR. Fatigue of thin walled joints under complex loading.
Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing, 1997.
[10] Atzori B, Lazzarin P, Tovo R. Stress field parameters to predict
the fatigue strength of notched components. J Strain Anal
1999;34:437–53.
[11] Dunn ML, Suwito W, Cunningham SJ, May CW. Fracture
initiation at sharp notches under mode I, mode II, and mild mixed
mode loading. Int J Fract 1997;84:367–81.
[12] Atzori B, Lazzarin P, Tovo R. From the local stress approach to
fracture mechanics: a comprehensive evaluation of the fatigue
strength of welded joints. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
1999;22:369–81.
[13] Kihl DP, Sarkani S. Thickness effects on the fatigue strength of
welded steel cruciforms. Int J Fatigue 1997;19:S311–6.
[14] Kihl DP, Sarkani S. Mean stress effects in fatigue of welded steel
joints. Prob Engng Mech 1999;14:97–104.
[15] Jacoby G. Über das verhalten von schweissverbindungen aus alu-
miniumlegierungen bei schwingbeanspruchung. Dissertation,
Technische Hochschule, Hannover; 1961.
[16] Ribeiro AS, Gonçalves JP, Oliveira F, Castro PT, Fernandes AA.
A comparative study on the fatigue behaviour of aluminium alloy
welded and bonded joints. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Inter-
national Conference on Aluminium Weldments, Cleveland, Ohio,
1995:65–76.
[17] Meneghetti G. PhD Thesis, University of Padua; 1998.
[18] Macdonald KA, Haagensen PJ. Fatigue design of welded alu-
minium rectangular hollow section joints. Engng Failure Anal
1999;6:113–30.
[19] Lazzarin P, Milani V, Quaresimin M. Scatter bands summarizing
the fatigue strength of aluminium alloy bolted joints. Int J Fatigue
1997;19:401–7.
[20] Lazzarin P. Effect of bending loads on stress fields and fatigue
strength of welded joints. Riv Ital Saldatura 1999;2(March/April):
137–43 [in Italian].
[21] Hobbacher A. Stress intensity factors of welded joints. Engng
Fract Mech 1993;46:173–82 [and Corrigendum 1994;49:323].
[22] Radaj D, Zang S. Multiparameter design optimisation in respect
of stress concentrations. In: Engineering optimisation design pro-
cesses 1991. Berlin: Springer, 1991:181–9.
[23] Radaj D, Sonsino CM. Fatigue assessment of welded joints by
local approaches. Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing,
1998.
[24] Hasebe N, Nakamura T, Iida J. Notch mechanics for plate and
thin plate bending problems. Engng Fract Mech 1990;37:87–99.
[25] Lazzarin P, Zambardi R. A finite-volume-energy based approach
to predict the static and fatigue behavior of components with
sharp V-shaped notches. Submitted for publication.
[26] Radaj D. Design and analysis of fatigue resistant welded struc-
tures. Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing, 1990.
[27] Lazzarin P, Tovo R. A unified approach to the evaluation of linear
elastic stress fields in the neighborhood of cracks and notches.
Int J Fract 1996;78:3–19.
[28] Iida K, Uemura T. Stress concentration factor formulae widely
used in Japan. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct
1996;19(6):779–86.