International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

State-of-the-art review of peak stress method for fatigue strength assessment T

of welded joints
Giovanni Meneghetti , Alberto Campagnolo
⁎

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In the fatigue design framework of welded structures, the peak stress method (PSM) is a rapid engineering, FE-
Fatigue based technique for estimating notch stress intensity factors (NSIFs). This review provides a theoretical back-
Welded joints ground and applies the PSM to assess the fatigue strength of arc-welded joints made of aluminium alloys or
Peak stress method (PSM) structural steels, which are subjected to uniaxial and multiaxial fatigue loads. Because two fatigue design curves
Strain energy density (SED)
are available for each class of materials, a criterion for selecting the appropriate curve depending on the local
Coarse mesh
biaxiality of the stress state is established.

1. Introduction
In the fatigue design framework of welded structures made of alu-
minium alloys and structural steels, current international standards and
recommendations [1–3] suggest several methods, namely nominal
stress, hot-spot stress, notch stress, and linear elastic fracture mechanics
(LEFM) approaches. All methods assume a linear elastic material be-
haviour. More specifically, the nominal stress approach involves solid-
mechanics-based stress calculations and does therefore not consider any
local stress concentrations. The fatigue assessment of the analysed joint
is performed by comparing the nominal stress with the relevant design
category, which depends on the overall geometry and loading condi-
tion. The hot-spot stress approach involves a linear stress extrapolation
at the weld toe, which can be realised by post-processing a finite-ele-
ment (FE) model or by performing strain gauge measurements. It is
worth noting that hot-spot stress includes structural stress concentra-
tion effects; therefore, this method requires fewer fatigue design curves
than the nominal approach. Moreover, the notch stress approach [3]
involves the modification of the weld toe and weld root geometries by
an introduction of a fictitious 1 mm notch radius in place of the actual
weld toe and weld root profiles [4,5]. The LEFM-based approach [3] is
based on the range of the stress intensity factor (SIF) acting on the tip of
a propagating crack; it is used as the crack driving force in the Paris’
law.
For fatigue assessments of welded structures subjected to multiaxial
loadings, design codes and recommendations [1–3] suggest interaction
equations according to which the equivalent design stress composes the
normal and shear stress components related to the fatigue strength
relevant to pure axial and torsion loading, respectively. More specifi-
cally, Eurocode 3 and 9 suggest the use of an equivalent stress range
based on the Palmgren–Miner linear damage summation rule [1,2],
whereas the IIW recommendations [3] suggest the use of an equivalent
stress range based on the Gough–Pollard multiaxial criterion.
According to literature, criteria based on local quantities such stress,
strain, or strain energy are considered reliable for fatigue assessments of
welded structures, particularly for complex joint geometries or loading
conditions [4,6–8]. The most widely applied criteria in technical lit-
erature are based on the notch SIFs (NSIFs) [9,10], averaged strain
energy density (SED) [11,12], notch stress approach [4,5,13,14], cri-
tical plane models [6,7,15,16], and theory of critical distances (TCD)
[7,16–21]. A recent comprehensive comparison of several multiaxial
criteria for the fatigue design of welded structures was presented in
[22].
Regarding local approaches based on NSIFs, the peak stress method
(PSM) [23–28] is a rapid engineering FE-oriented tool for readily
evaluating the NSIF parameters with 2D or 3D coarse FE analyses. The
theoretical background of the NSIF and averaged SED local approaches
will be summarised in the next section. The objectives of the present
review paper are as follows:
• summarising the PSM and its 2D and 3D applications for arc-welded
joints made of aluminium alloys and structural steels, which are
subjected to both uniaxial and in-phase as well as out-of-phase
multiaxial fatigue loadings.
• introducing a criterion for selecting the proper PSM-based fatigue
design curve for a certain class of materials based on the local

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: giovanni.meneghetti@unipd.it (G. Meneghetti).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105705
Received 4 April 2020; Received in revised form 9 May 2020; Accepted 12 May 2020
Available online 25 May 2020
0142-1123/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Nomenclature cylindrical coordinate system

σθθ,θ=0,peak linear elastic opening (mode I) peak stress calculated at
a reference dimension for selecting the maximal FE size d notch tip by FE analysis based on PSM
for PSM application τnom nominal shear stress
cwi coefficient accounting for mean stress effect of i-th loading τrθ,θ=0,peak linear elastic in-plane shear (mode II) peak stress cal-
mode (i = 1, 2, or 3) culated at notch tip by FE analysis based on PSM
d average FE size of adopted mesh pattern τrz, τθz out-of-plane shear stress components in cylindrical co-
e1, e2, e3 coefficients for calculating W̄ as function of 2α and ν ordinate system
E Young’s modulus of material τθz,θ=0,peak linear elastic anti-plane shear (mode III) peak stress
fw1, fw2, fw3 coefficients for calculating σeq,peak calculated at notch tip by FE analysis based on PSM
K1, K2, K3 NSIF parameters relevant to opening, sliding, and tearing
loading modes Abbreviations
K FE ,K FE ,K FE non-dimensional NSIF parameters based on PSM
R0 size of structural volume in which the SED is averaged EBW Electron beam welding
r, θ, z coordinates of cylindrical reference system FCAW Flux-cored arc welding
W̄ averaged SED FE Finite element
FEM Finite-element method
Symbols GMAW Gas metal arc welding
GTAW Gas tungsten arc welding
2α opening angle of considered sharp notch LEFM Linear elastic fracture mechanics
Δ range of cyclic quantity (maximum minus minimum) MAG Metal-arc active gas
ϕ phase angle between combined fatigue loadings MIG Metal-arc inert gas
λ1, λ2, λ3 stress singularity degrees relevant to opening, sliding, and NSIF Notch stress intensity factor
tearing loading modes PSM Peak stress method
Λ nominal biaxiality ratio, i.e. τnom/σnom SAW Submerged arc welding
λ local biaxiality ratio defined according to PSM SED Strain energy density
ν Poisson's ratio of material SIF Stress intensity factor
σeq,peak equivalent peak stress based on PSM SMAW Shielded metal arc welding
σnom nominal normal stress TCD Theory of critical distances
σrr, σθθ, τrθ normal and in-plane shear stress components in

biaxiality of the stress state. The criterion is validated against ap- of mode I, II, and III singular stress fields:
proximately 330 and 1300 experimental fatigue results relevant to 1
K1 = 2 ·lim[( ) = 0 ·r
1]
aluminium and steel joints, respectively. r 0 (1a)

K2 = 2 ·lim[( ) 1
= 0 ·r
2]
r 0
r
(1b)
2. Theoretical background
K3 = 2 ·lim[( 1
z ) = 0 ·r
3]
(1c)
2.1. Notch stress intensity factors (NSIFs) r 0

These equations are based on a cylindrical coordinate system

According to the local approach for fatigue design based on the NSIF
parameters [4,9,10], the worst-case geometry is assumed for the weld
toe and weld root of the joint; they consist of a sharp V-notch with null
tip radius (ρ = 0) and opening angles of 135° and 0°, respectively
(Fig. 1). Owing to the assumption of a sharp V-notch geometry, external
loads generate singular stress fields at the weld toe and weld root. In the
framework of linear elasticity, the NSIF parameters quantify the in-
tensity of these stress distributions and are therefore useful parameters
for assessing the fatigue strength of sharp V-notches [8]; similarly, SIFs
are useful for assessing the fatigue strength of sharp U-shaped notches
[29,30]. It is worth noting that NSIFs are local stress parameters.
Therefore, they can be used to estimate the lifetime spent to initiate and
propagate a fatigue crack inside a small material volume ahead of the
V-notch tip; the NSIFs are the leading terms that control the stress
fields.
Fig. 1a shows an example of a typical partial-penetration tube-to-
flange welded detail subjected to multiaxial bending and torsion fatigue
loadings; Fig. 1b presents the mode I, II, and III stress components at the
weld toe, while the local stresses acting on the root side are not ex-
plicitly presented in the figure.
Regarding mode I and II loadings, Williams [31] first derived ana-
lytically the linear elastic local stress distributions ahead of the tip of
sharp V-notches. Afterwards, Qian and Hasebe [32] derived the sin-
gular stress fields under mode III loading, and Gross and Mendelson
[33] defined the NSIF parameters with Eq. (1) to quantify the intensities
centred at the V-notch tip; the z-direction is tangential to the notch tip
line, the θ-direction originates from the notch bisector line and r is the
radial direction. The linear elastic local stress components σθθ, τrθ, and
τθz close to the notch tip (r → 0) and along the notch bisector line
(θ = 0) are calculated, as shown in Fig. 1b. Moreover, parameters λ1,
λ2, and λ3 are the stress singularity degrees [31,32] that depend on the
opening angle 2α of the V-notch. Values of λ1, λ2 and λ3 referred to
certain opening angles, namely 2α = 0°, 90°, 120°, and 135°, have been
reported in Table 1. It is worth noting that mode II stresses are not
singular at notch opening angles of 2α > 102° [31,34]; therefore, λ2 is
not listed in Table 1 for 2α = 120° and 135°.
2.2. Averaged strain energy density (SED) approach
Lazzarin et al. [11,12,35] introduced a local approach for the fa-
tigue strength assessment of notched components, which assumes that
the average value of the SED calculated within a material structural
volume is the damage parameter. The following assumptions on the
structural volume were made:
• its size depends on the material;
• it encloses the stress singularity locations of the structure; dealing
with welded joints, weld roots, or weld toes (see Fig. 1c);
• it has a circular shape with radius R [35], as shown in Fig. 1c.
0

2
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Fig. 1. (a) Assumptions of the NSIF-based approach in fatigue design of welded joints referring to a partial-penetration tube-to-flange welded joint under combined
bending and torsion fatigue loading. The sharp V-notch opening angle 2α is typically 0° at the weld root and 135° at the weld toe. (b) Cylindrical reference system
(r,θ,z) centred at the weld toe and local stress components. (c) The structural volume of radius R0 centred at the weld toe or at the weld root according to the averaged
SED approach.

Table 1
Parameters depending on the notch opening angle 2α.
2α (°) λ1 (a) λ2 (a) λ3 (a) Aluminium ν = 0.33(b) Steel ν = 0.3(b)

e1 e2 e3 e1 e2 e3

0 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.125 0.337 0.423 0.134 0.341 0.414

90 0.545 0.909 0.667 0.138 0.168 0.318 0.146 0.168 0.310
120 0.616 – 0.750 0.124 – 0.282 0.130 – 0.276
135 0.674 – 0.800 0.113 – 0.265 0.117 – 0.259

a
Values from [12].
b
Values calculated under plain strain conditions.

3
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

For a partial-penetration tube-to-flange joint subjected to multiaxial e1 K1

2
e2 K2
2
e3 K3
2

bending and torsion loadings (Fig. 1a), a mixed mode I + II + III W̄ = c w1 + c w2 + c w3

loading condition is generated at the weld root; at the weld toe, mixed
mode I + III loading occurs, and mode II is not singular for
2α = 135° > 102°. At the weld root, the averaged SED can be written
as a function of the ranges of the NSIF terms, namely ΔK1, ΔK2, and ΔK3
[12]:
E R 10 1 E R 10 2 E R 10 3 (2)
Eq. (2) assumes that the strain energy contribution of higher-order,
non-singular stress terms are negligible; E represents the material
modulus of elasticity, and the parameters e1, e2, and e3 depend on the
sharp notch geometry and material, through the opening angle 2α and
Poisson’s ratio ν. The values of e1, e2, and e3 [12] referred to some
opening angles, namely 2α = 0°, 90°, 120°, and 135°, and to the

Fig. 2. FE models to apply the PSM according to Eqs. (4a)-(4c) for a partial-penetration tube-to-flange welded joint under combined bending and torsion loading
using: (a) 2D 4-node plane elements, (b) 3D 8-node brick elements, (c) 3D 4-node or (d) 3D 10-node tetra elements. For the geometry and loading conditions under
consideration the most effective strategy to apply the PSM is reported in (a).

4
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo
Poisson’s ratios ν = 0.33 (aluminium alloys) and 0.3 (structural steels),
as shown in Table 1. Furthermore, R0 is the structural volume size,
which Lazzarin et al. determined by equating the averaged SEDs at 5
million loading cycles evaluated from experimental tests of two master
cases [11,36]: (i) ground arc butt-welded (i.e. unnotched welded ma-
terial) and (ii) cruciform arc-welded joints exhibiting failures at the
weld toe (2α = 135°) or weld root (2α = 0°) (i.e. notched welded
material). More in detail, R0 was calibrated for arc-welded joints
Fig. 2. (continued)
5
International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705
subjected to mode I loading and made of
• aluminium alloys, R is 0.12 mm for joints that exhibit failures at the
0
weld toe and weld root;
• structural steels, R is 0.28 or 0.36 mm for joints that exhibit failures
0
at the weld toe or weld root, respectively. To be safe, Lazzarin at al.
[11] suggested to calculate the averaged SED by adopting a struc-
tural volume size R0 = 0.28 mm, regardless of the notch opening
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Fig. 2. (continued)

angle and loading mode. In addition, Fischer et al. [37,38] proposed 1 + R2i
if stress relieved and 1 Ri 0,
a slightly different size (i.e. R0 = 0.32 mm) after evaluating mis- (1 R i) 2

alignment effects. c wi (R i) = 1 R2i

if stress relieved and 0 Ri < 1,
where i
(1 R i) 2

Finally, parameters cwi account for the mean stress effect and de- 1 if as welded for any R value
pend on the load ratio Ri of the i-th mode of the loading (i = 1, 2, or 3) = 1, 2, or 3. (3)
[10]:
Concerning as-welded joints, international standards and re-
commendations [1,3] suggest that their fatigue strength does not de-
pend on the load ratio R, at least for R ≥ -0.25 and residual stresses are

6
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo
tensile and medium–high in comparison to the yield strength of the
base material. In this context, Lazzarin et al. [11,12] suggested to use
cw = 1 when as-welded joints are investigated, regardless of the re-
sidual stress state. In contrast to the case of as-welded joints, Eq. (3)
must be used for stress-relieved joints; as an example of its significance:
cw is 1 and 0.5 for pulsating (R = 0) and fully reversed (R = − 1)
loadings, respectively.
Eq. (2) does not consider the phase shift between the different
loading modes. However, several multiaxial fatigue results generated
by shifting the torsional (mode III) load with respect to the axial/
bending (mode I) load components have been re-analysed
[12,27,28,39]. According to the results, the influence of the phase shift
can be distinguished, although it is not remarkable. This result was also
observed in a recent comparison of the TCD and SED approaches for the
multiaxial fatigue strength assessment of notched components [40].
Therefore, the experimental data seem to support the use of the SED
approach based on its original formulation [12], which does not con-
sider the phase shift between the different applied loadings. For a
proper calculation of the range of the averaged SED as a function of the
time-history of the local stresses, the reader is referred to [41].
More details about the averaged strain energy density approach can
be found in the extensive reviews by Berto and Lazzarin [42,43].
3. Peak stress method (PSM)
The PSM is a numerical tool for a rapid estimation of the NSIF terms
K1, K2, and K3. It considers the opening, in-plane shear, and out-of-
plane shear peak stresses calculated with a linear elastic FE analysis
with a coarse mesh, as shown in Fig. 2 (tube-to-flange joint). A non-
dimensional coefficient was defined for each loading mode [23,25,26]:
K1
K FE =
, = 0, peak · d
1 1
K2
K FE =
r , = 0, peak · d
1 2
K3
K FE =
z, = 0, peak · d
1 3
where σθθ,θ=0,peak, τrθ,θ=0,peak, and τθz,θ=0,peak are the peak stresses
defined in a local cylindrical coordinate system centred at the node at
the V-notch tip; z-direction is tangential to the notch tip line; the θ-
direction originates from the notch bisector line and r is the radial di-
rection. The subscript ‘θ = 0’ highlights the direction along which local
stresses must be evaluated; as an example, σθθ,θ=0,peak means that the
opening stress acts in normal direction with respect to the notch bi-
sector, as shown in Fig. 2a. Parameter d in Eq. (4) is the average size of
the FEs; typically, the FE analyst has to input d before running the free
The PSM based on TETRA elements: weld toe side
(a)
16 FE 14 FE 12 FE
10 FE
X Z
Y Y
International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705
mesh generation algorithm of the employed numerical software.
The estimation of the NSIF terms is advantageous when using the
PSM based on Eq. (4) because (i) coarse FE meshes can be employed
and (ii) only the linear-elastic peak stresses calculated at the notch tip
are necessary instead of the complete set of stress distance numerical
results required by Eq. (1). Moreover, the parameters K*FE, K**FE, and
K***FE in Eq. (4) depend on the (i) element type and formulation, (ii)
FE mesh pattern, and (iii) procedure employed by the numerical soft-
ware to extrapolate stresses at nodes [44].
The NSIF approach and the averaged SED concept and its relation to
the PSM have been reviewed thoroughly by Radaj [45,46].
3.1. Calibration of parameters K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE
The calibration of the parameters K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE was
performed with several 2D and 3D FEs and commercial FE codes.
In [23,25,26], the 2D PSM (see example in Fig. 2a) has been cali-
brated for 4-node quadrilateral plane elements (PLANE 182 with K-
option 1 set to 3 of Ansys® element library) and for harmonic elements
(PLANE 25); the resulting coefficients K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE are 1.38,
3.38, and 1.93, respectively. In a Round Robin Project [44], the para-
meters K*FE and K**FE were calibrated with 2D FEs available in six
commercial numerical codes other than Ansys®: Abaqus®, Straus7®,
MSC® Patran/Nastran, LUSAS®, HyperMesh/OptiStruct/HyperView®,
and HyperMesh/Ls-Dyna/HyperView®.
Afterwards, the PSM was extended to 3D FE models discretised with
8-node brick elements of the Ansys® element library (SOLID 185 with K-
option 2 set to 3), and it was demonstrated that the K*FE, K**FE, and
K***FE values previously derived with 2D 4-node plane elements (i.e.
1.38, 3.38, and 1.93, respectively) are still valid [24]. It might be dif-
ficult to apply the PSM based on 8-node brick elements to complex 3D
(4a) structures because the regular mesh patterns required by brick elements
could not be applicable to complex 3D geometries. Therefore, a main
model must be analysed first by employing a free mesh of tetra ele-
(4b) ments; subsequently, a submodel with simple geometry can be meshed
with brick elements and analysed with the PSM (see example in Fig. 2b
and next section for more details).
(4c)
However, 3D modelling of large-scale structures is growing rapidly,
thereby pushing the need for more and more efficient, and time-saving
fatigue strength assessment methods. In this context, the 3D PSM has
been recently accelerated: the coefficients K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE have
been calibrated with 4-node [47] and 10-node [48] tetra elements
(SOLID 285 and SOLID 187 of Ansys® element library, respectively),
which are more efficient than brick elements for discretising complex
3D joint geometries with free meshing techniques. Therefore, the PSM
can be directly applied to the free-meshed main model, and an addi-
tional submodel is unnecessary (see Fig. 2c and 2d in comparison to
Fig. 3. Details of the FE model to apply the
3D PSM based on 4-node or 10-node tetra
elements (see the full models in Fig. 2c and
(b)
d). (a) Number of finite elements (# FE)
sharing each node located along the weld
toe line. Figures (a) and (b) highlight also
the different sizes and shapes of finite ele-
ments sharing the nodes belonging to the
weld to line.
X
Z
7
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Fig. 2b).
The deficiency of a tetra element mesh is its typical irregularity, i.e.
each node belonging to the notch tip line can be shared by a different
number of elements with significantly different sizes and shapes (see
Fig. 3). Owing to the different number of elements sharing each node,
the evenness of stress averaging from one FE node to another is de-
stroyed. Consequently, the peak stress can vary along the notch tip line
although the NSIFs are constant there. This deficiency was overcome by
defining an average peak stress value [48], which smoothens the peak
stress distribution along the notch tip line. More specifically, the peak
stress was defined as the moving average of peak stresses calculated at
three adjacent vertex nodes; therefore, the peak stress at node n = k is
defined as follows:
ij,peak,n= k 1 + ij,peak,n=k + ij,peak,n= k+1
¯ij,peak,n=k =
3 (5)
n= node
Accordingly, the PSM-parameters K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE have
been calibrated for 4-node [47] and 10-node [48] tetra elements by
inserting the average peak stresses according to Eq. (5), i.e. ¯ , = 0, peak ,
¯r , = 0, peak , and ¯ z , = 0, peak instead of the peak stresses σθθ,θ=0,peak,
τrθ,θ=0,peak, and τθz,θ=0,peak into Eq. (4). Two additional remarks have to
be made: the PSM based on tetra elements requires that peak stresses
acting on nodes at a free surface of the analysed structure are neglected
[47,48] because their values can be affected by the distorted mesh
pattern (Fig. 2c and 2d). Furthermore, only peak stresses calculated at
vertex nodes of tetra elements must be used in Eq. (5); therefore, peak
stresses at mid-side nodes must be neglected when adopting 10-node
tetra elements (Fig. 2d).
Table 2 summarises the PSM coefficients K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE
calibrated with 4-node plane, 8-node brick, 4-node tetra, and 10-node
tetra elements of the Ansys® element library, which have been called
Plane-4, Brick-8, Tetra-4, and Tetra-10 for the sake of brevity, respec-
tively.
3.2. Range of PSM applicability
The PSM parameters K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE have been calibrated
under the following conditions (Table 2).
3.2.1. Notch opening angles
A range of notch opening angles has been considered:
• for mode I and III loadings: 2α has been varied between 0° and 135°,
which represent typical opening angles at the weld root and weld
toe [23,24,26,44,47,48].
•
for mode II loading: only 2α = 0° [25,47,48] and 90° [49] have
been investigated because they are the typical cases of a weld root
without or with a gap (i.e. g in Fig. 4a); the notch opening angle
2α = 135° has not been considered because mode II stresses are not
singular in this case.
3.2.2. FE mesh pattern
When 4-node plane or 8-node brick elements are adopted, the FE
mesh pattern in the proximity of the notch tip must satisfy the following
conditions (see also Fig. 2a and b): the number of elements sharing the
node located at the singularity point must be 4 when 2α ≤ 90° (e.g. at
the weld root 2α ≅ 0°) and 2 when 2α > 90° (e.g. at the toe side
2α ≅ 135°). The mesh patterns in Fig. 2a and b satisfy these conditions;
moreover, they were automatically generated by the free mesh gen-
eration algorithm available in ANSYS® FE code, after only the ‘global
element size’ parameter d without additional input parameters or spe-
cial settings was used as input. However, some cases have been

Table 2
Summary of parameters K*FE, K**FE and K***FE and mesh density a/d requirements to apply the PSM with Ansys® [23–26,47–49].
Loading FE analysis PSM parameters 2α = 0° 2α = 90° 2α = 120° 2α = 135° a – root side° a – toe side°

2D/3D FE type#

Mode I 2D Plane-4 K*FE 1.38 ± 3% min{l, z} t

Eq. (4a) 3D+ Brick-8 (a/d)min 3
FE at notch tip^ 4 4 2 2
Tetra-4 K*FE 1.75 ± 22%
(a/d)min 3
FE at notch tip^ not to be checked
Tetra-10 K*FE 1.05 ± 15% 1.21 ± 10%
(a/d)min 3 1
FE at notch tip^ not to be checked

Mode II 2D Plane-4 K**FE 3.38 ± 3% 2.62 ± 10% – – min{l, z} –

Eq. (4b) 3D+ Brick-8 (a/d)min 14 10 – –
FE at notch tip^ 4 4 – –
Tetra-4 K**FE 2.65 ± 15% 2.90 ± 10% – –
(a/d)min 3 1 – –
FE at notch tip^ not to be checked
Tetra-10 K**FE 1.63 ± 20% 2.65 ± 10% – –
(a/d)min 1 1 – –
FE at notch tip^ not to be checked

Mode III 2D Plane-4 K***FE 1.93 ± 3% min{l, z} t

Eq. (4c) 3D+ Brick-8 (a/d)min 12 – – 3
FE at notch tip^ 4 – – 2
Tetra-4 K***FE 2.50 ± 15%
(a/d)min 5
FE at notch tip^ not to be checked
Tetra-10 K***FE 1.37 ± 15% 1.70 ± 10%
(a/d)min 3 3
FE at notch tip^ not to be checked

+
‘Full graphics’ option of Ansys® code must be activated when calculating peak stresses according to 3D PSM.
#
FE of Ansys® code: Plane-4 = PLANE 182 (K-option 1 set to 3) or PLANE 25, Brick 8 = SOLID 185 (K-option 2 set to 3), Tetra 4 = SOLID 285, Tetra 10 = SOLID
187.
^
number of finite elements which share the node at the notch tip.
°
l, z, t are defined in Fig. 4.

8
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

(a1)
weld root weld toe (b) weld root weld toe
z
z Mb
g=0
2l 2t
t F
F 2l
Mb

(a2) (c) weld toe

weld toe
weld root
z Mb
g z t
F l F
t
2l weld root
Mb

(d) (e)
weld toe
weld root
z weld toe
Mb
F z
2l 2t
l t

weld Mb Mt
root
F

Fig. 4. Geometrical parameters (l, z, t) required to define the size a (see Table 2) for (a) non-load-carrying fillet-welded T-joint without (a1) or with (a2) root gap g,
(b) double-sided partial-penetration butt joint, (c) single-sided partial-penetration butt joint, (d) load carrying fillet-welded cruciform joint, (e) partial-penetration
tube-to-flange welded joint.

reported in which the automatic free-mesh generation algorithm
available in ANSYS® failed to create the standard mesh patterns in
Fig. 2a and b. In that case, the problem was readily fixed by clearing the
wrong mesh, changing slightly the global element size d, and re-starting
the mesh generation [44].
However, there are no standard mesh patterns to comply with for
the PSM based on 4-node or 10-node tetra elements; therefore, the 3D
PSM based on tetra elements is easier to apply than the 3D PSM based
on brick elements. In this case, slightly larger scattering of K*FE, K**FE,
and K***FE must be accepted, i.e. ± 10% to ± 22% for tetras ( ± 3%
to ± 10% for bricks; Table 2).
3.2.3. Mesh density ratio a/d
The K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE values in Table 2 are valid when the
minimal mesh density ratio a/d is satisfied, where a is the reference
dimension in Table 2. The minimal value of a/d depends on the adopted
FE type, loading mode, and notch opening angle. As an example, Fig. 2
shows the FE mesh of the PSM applied to a partial-penetration tube-to-
flange joint, which is subjected to combined bending and torsion
loadings; in this case, the mixed mode I + II + III stresses occur at the
weld root, while only mixed mode I + III stresses act on the weld toe.
To analyse both locations with a single FE model, the maximal adop-
table FE size d must be determined with Table 2 and by considering the
most demanding mesh density requirement between the weld toe and
weld root for the given loading modes. Regarding the example in Fig. 2,
the maximal FE sizes d for different FE types are as follows:
• 4-node plane (Fig. 2a) or 8-node brick elements (Fig. 2b): the
minimal mesh density ratio a/d is determined by mode II at the weld
root, i.e. a/d = 14; therefore, d = a/14, where a is the depth of root
face l.
• 4-node tetra elements (Fig. 2c): the most demanding mesh density
requirement is mode III at the weld root, i.e. a/d = 5; therefore
d = a/5, where a is the depth of root face l.
• 10-node tetra elements (Fig. 2d): the mesh density is determined by
modes I and III at the root side, i.e. a/d = 3; therefore d = a/3,
where a = l.
Finally, Fig. 4 presents some typical welded details and the defini-
tion of the geometrical parameters t, z, and l, which are used to define
the reference dimension a.
3.3. Evaluation of peak stresses by FE analyses according to PSM
The PSM has been applied to re-analyse more than 30 different joint
geometries of arc-welded details made of aluminium alloys
[23,27,50,51] or structural steels [23,25–28,39,50–57] and subjected
to pure axial, pure bending, pure torsion, and multiaxial fatigue load-
ings. Table 3 details the joint geometries and FE analyses with the PSM
for different types of FE models:
• For plane geometries under axial or bending loadings (see geome-
tries (1)–(8) in Table 3), a 2D free mesh pattern of 4-node quad-
rilateral plane elements (PLANE 182 with K-option 1 set to 3 of

9
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Table 3
Joint geometries and loading conditions reanalysed according to the PSM in Refs. [23,25–28,39,50–54,56,57].

(continued on next page)

10
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo
Table 3 (continued)
Ansys® element library) has been employed; the resulting mesh
pattern is similar to that in Fig. 2a.
• For axis-symmetrical welded joints under bending, torsion, or
combined loadings (geometries (30)–(33) in Table 3), a 2D free
mesh pattern of 4-node quadrilateral harmonic elements (PLANE 25
of the ANSYS® element library) has been adopted, as shown in
Fig. 2a.
• For more complex welded details (geometries (9)–(29) and
(34)–(36) in Table 3), 3D FE analyses according to the PSM and
based on brick elements have been conducted. First, an FE model of
the entire joint geometry has been analysed by employing a main
model, and a submodel of the critical locations of the joint (i.e. the
weld toe or weld root) has been created by exploiting the sub-
modelling technique available in Ansys® code. The main model has
been discretised with a 3D free mesh pattern of 10-node tetra ele-
ments (SOLID 187 of Ansys® element library), as shown in the ex-
ample in Fig. 2b. Subsequently, to define the submodel, the main
model has been cut at a distance from the critical location equal to
11
International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705
one main plate or tube thickness. The 3D mesh pattern of the sub-
model (Fig. 2b) has been obtained by generating a 2D free mesh of
4-node quadrilateral PLANE 182 elements with the global size d;
next, the 2D mesh pattern has been extruded along the weld toe or
weld root line by setting the extrusion step size equal to the global
element size d and employing 3D 8-node brick elements (SOLID185
with K-option 2 set to 3).
• As an alternative approach, 3D joint geometries can be analysed by
adopting the PSM based on either 4-node (SOLID 285 of Ansys®
element library) or 10-node (SOLID 187) tetra elements, which do
not require submodels; in fact, the PSM is directly applicable to the
main model in this case, as shown in the examples in Fig. 2c and 2d,
respectively. The calibration of the PSM based on tetra elements is
recent [47,48]; this strategy has been applied to analyse only geo-
metries (34)–(36) in Table 3.
Two remarks have to be made here:
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

• Peak stresses σ θθ,θ=0,peak, τrθ,θ=0,peak, and τθz,θ=0,peak in Eq. (4) are
defined in a local cylindrical coordinate system with its origin at an
FE node located along the V-notch tip profile; the z-direction is
tangential to the notch tip line, the θ-direction originates at the
notch bisector line, and r is the radial direction. When a 2D or 3D
PSM is adopted for rectilinear weld toes and weld root lines, the
definition of a single cylindrical coordinate system is sufficient for
calculating peak stresses at all nodes of the weld toe and weld root.
However, in the most general case of 3D joint geometries with
curvilinear weld toes and weld root lines, a dedicated local cylind-
rical coordinate system must be defined at each node because the z-
direction must change from node to node to ensure tangency to the
notch tip line.
• To apply the 3D PSM with the Ansys® FE code, the ‘FULL graphics’
option must be activated to evaluate the peak stress in the post-
processing environment.
Consequently, the adoption of 2D FE models is preferable when
possible because they combine a rapid solution and post-processing
with very good result accuracy; in fact, the scattering of the PSM
parameters K*FE, K**FE, and K***FE is reduced, i.e. of the order of ±
3% in most cases; there is only one exception: at 2α = 90° and under
mode II, the deviation is ± 10%. When 3D FE models are necessary,
tetra elements seem to be preferable because they accelerate the mesh
preparation and avoid submodelling, although they introduce a slightly
larger deviation of the PSM parameters than brick elements. Finally,
among tetra elements, 10-node tetra are more convenient than 4-node
tetra because the former allows the analyst to adopt coarser FE meshes.
In fact, the mesh density ratio a/d is 1–3 for 10-node tetra and 3–5 for
4-node tetra (see Table 2). Typically, more refined FE meshes of 4-node
tetra result in a longer computation time.
3.4. Equivalent peak stress for fatigue design
According to Eq. (2), the averaged SED can be expressed as a
function of the NSIF terms K1, K2, and K3, which the PSM can rapidly

Fig. 5. Master curves for fatigue design of welded joints made of aluminium alloys according to the PSM and subjected to (a) pure axial or (b) multiaxial loadings.
The scatter bands were calibrated in Refs. [23,27] on weld toe failures of joints tested in the as-welded conditions: (a) cruciform or T joints (see (1)-(3) in Table 3)
under pulsating (R = 0) axial loading, (b) tube-to-flange and tube-to-tube (see (30) and (31) in Table 3) under alternating (R = −1) bending-torsion loading.

12
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

estimate with Eqs. (4a)–(4c). Therefore, the averaged SED can be re- model; however, the equivalent peak stress defined in Eqs. (6a) and
written as a function of the relevant peak stresses. Moreover, by in- (6b) is independent of the FE size d owing to the multiplication of the
troducing the SED value of an equivalent uniaxial plane strain state (i.e. peak stresses by the relevant fwi parameters. Remarkably, when the toe
eq, peak /2E ), the equivalent peak stress can be defined as in side is analysed, mode II stresses are always non-singular because
W = (1 2) 2

Eqs. (6a) and (6b) [27,28,58]: 2α ≅ 135° > 102°; therefore, the relevant contribution in Eqs. (6a) and
(6b) vanishes.
eq, peak

= c w1· fw21 · 2
+ c w2·fw2 2 · 2
+ c w3· fw23 · 2
, = 0, peak r , = 0, peak z, = 0, peak 4. Fatigue design curves according to PSM
Plane 4 or Brick 8, (6a)
The equivalent peak stress (Eq. (6)) has been adopted in
eq, peak [23,25–28,39,50–57] to re-analyse experimental fatigue data presented
= c w1· fw21 · ¯ 2 , + c w2·f w22 · ¯r2 , + c w3· fw23 · ¯ 2z , in [6,25,52–54,59–111], which are relevant to arc-welded details made
= 0, peak = 0, peak = 0, peak
of aluminium alloys or structural steels subjected to pure axial/pure
Tetra 4 or Tetra 10. (6b) bending, pure torsion, or multiaxial in-phase and out-of-phase fatigue
Eq. (6a) is valid for 4-node plane or 8-node brick elements, while loadings.
Eq. (6b) is valid for 4-node or 10-node tetra elements, which require the In the next sections, the master curves for the fatigue design for
average peak stresses defined in Eq. (5). Parameters fwi (where i = 1, 2, aluminium and steel arc-welded joints will be presented; afterwards, a
3 represent the loading mode) of Eqs. (6a) and (6b) account for the criterion for selecting the appropriate fatigue design curve for a given
stress averaging inside the material-structural volume with size R0 class of materials as a function of the local biaxiality of the stress state
(Fig. 1c), which is R0 = 0.12 mm for aluminium joints and will be introduced.
R0 = 0.28 mm for steel joints [27,28]:
1 1 4.1. Arc-welded joints made of aluminium alloys
2e1 d
fw1 = KFE · ·
1 2 R0 (7a)
Fig. 5a presents the master fatigue design scatter band, which was
1 2 fitted on approximately 90 fatigue results from literature and concerns
2e2 d
fw2 = KFE · · only weld toe failures (2α ≅ 135°) [23]. The test data were generated by
1 2 R0 (7b)
testing welded details under as-welded conditions and pulsating (R ≈
2e3 d
1 3 0) pure axial loadings. The analysed joints were T- and load-carrying or
fw3 = KFE · · non-load-carrying fillet-welded joints (i.e. geometries (1)–(3) in
1 2 R0 (7c)
Table 3). The main plate thickness T was between 3 and 24 mm, and the
According to Eqs. (4a)–(4c) and (7a)–(7c), the peak stresses and base material was a 5000- or 6000-series aluminium alloy with a yield
coefficients fwi are functions of the average FE size d employed in the FE stress of 250–304 MPa (see [99,108–110] in Table 4). It is worth

Table 4
Materials, welding processes and testing conditions of aluminium welded joints, which have been previously analysed using the PSM in Refs. [23,27,50,51].
Ref. Joint Main Material Yield Welding Testing Load type° Λ = τnom/σnom Load Phase Failure λ Eq. (11)
geometry* thickness stress process condition# Eq. (8) ratio shift ϕ location^
[mm] [MPa] R [°]

Maddox [99] (1) 3–24 6061-T6 277–298 GMAW AW A 0 0 – WT 0

Meneghetti [108] (2) 12 5083-H3 255 MIG AW A 0 0 – WT 0
Ribeiro et al. (2), (3) 12 6061-T651 250 MIG AW A 0 0 – WT 0
[109]
Jacoby [110] (3) 12 Al Zn Mg 1 304 MIG AW A 0 0 – WT 0
Pirsic [111] (1) 6 5083 250 MIG AW B 0 0 – WT 0
Da Cruz et al. (4) 3 AlMgSi1, T6 245 TIG AW A 0 0 – WT 0
[59]
Meneghetti et al. (2) 12 5083 H321 250 – AW A 0 0.1 – WT 0
[60]
Voutaz et al. [61] (9) 11 6082 260 TIG AW B 0 0.1 – WT 0
Macdonald (10) 3 6082-T5 290 – AW B 0 0.1 – WT 0
Haagensen
[62]
Haagensen Oma (4) 6 5083-H22 250 – AW A 0 0.1 – WT 0
[63] 8
(11) 8
Sonsino et al. (5) 5–25 AlMg4.5Mn 175 GMAW SR A 0 0,-1 – WR 0
[64]
Brandt et al. [65] (6) 5 AlMg4.5Mn 175 GMAW SR A 0 0,-1 – WT 0

Kueppers Sonsino (30) 10 6082 T6 315 TIG AW B 0 −1 - WT 0

[66] MIG T ∞ - ∞
B+T 0.58 0, 90 0.42
Costa et al. [67] (31) 3 6060 T6 215 – SR B 0 0,-1 - WT 0
T ∞ - ∞
B+T 0.33–6 0 0.10 ÷ 32

* See Table 3. All joints have un-machined welds.

#
AW = as-welded, SR = stress-relieved.
°
A = axial, B = bending, T = torsion.
^
WR = weld root, WT = weld toe.

13
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

mentioning that the original scatter band reported in [23] was provided
in terms of Δσθθ,θ=0,peak, which was calculated at the weld toe with FE
analyses, where 4-node plane elements having a global element size of
d = 1 mm were adopted. Conversely, the scatter band in Fig. 5a has
been converted to the equivalent peak stress with Eq. (6a) and fw1
calculated with Eq. (7a) by using K*FE = 1.38, ν = 0.33, e1 = 0.113,
λ1 = 0.674, R0 = 0.12 mm, and d = 1 mm; consequently, fw1 is 1.387.
According to Fig. 5a, the design curve can be applied to any mode I
loading case (axial or bending).
Fig. 5b shows the master scatter band, which was fitted on the fa-
tigue data of aluminium arc-welded joints subjected to in-phase and
out-of-phase combined bending and torsion loadings [27]. More spe-
cifically, the scatter band was defined by combining the endurable
stress range at 2 · 106 cycles derived under pure axial loading and the
inverse slope k obtained under pure torsion loading. This definition of
the design scatter band for multiaxial loadings is consistent with that of
Lazzarin et al. and the averaged SED approach [12]. The equivalent
peak stress range at 2 · 106 cycles valid for aluminium joints under pure
axial or bending loadings is presented in Fig. 5a: the resulting
Δσeq,peak,A,50% is 123 MPa (50% survival probability); the inverse slope
of the design scatter band of aluminium welded joints subjected to pure
torsion loading was experimentally derived by Lazzarin et al.; the result
was k = 6.5 [10]. This scatter band agrees well with approximately 30
fatigue results from literature and regards only weld toe failures
(2α ≅ 135°) generated by testing welded details under as-welded con-
ditions and alternating (R = −1) bending-torsion loadings. The welded
details were tube-to-flange and tube-to-tube welded joints (i.e. geo-
metries (30) and (31) in Table 3); the tube thicknesses T were 10 and
3 mm, respectively, while the base material was 6000-series aluminium
alloy with a yield stress between 215 and 315 MPa (see [66,67] in
Table 4).
Finally, Fig. 5a and b present the scatter index Tσ = 1.80 for sur-
vival probabilities of 2.3% to 97.7% (i.e. the mean value ± two
standard deviations), which is close to Tσ = 1.50 for the survival

Fig. 6. Master curves for fatigue design of welded joints made of structural steels according to the PSM and subjected to (a) pure axial or (b) pure torsion loadings.
The scatter bands were calibrated in Refs. [26,56] on weld toe failures of joints: (a) as-welded cruciform or T-joints (see (1)–(3) in Table 3) under pulsating (R = 0)
axial or bending loading, (b) stress-relieved tube-to-flange joints (see (30),(32) in Table 3) under alternating (R = −1) torsion loading.

14
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Table 5
Materials, welding processes and testing conditions of steel welded joints, which have been previously analysed using the PSM in Refs.
[23,25,26,28,39,51–54,56,57].
Ref. Joint Main Material Yield Welding Testing Load type° Λ = τnom/σnom Load Phase Failure λ Eq. (11)
geometry* thickness stress process condition# Eq. (8) ratio shift ϕ location^
[mm] [MPa] R [°]

Maddox [68] (1) 13–100 BS4360:50 360–398 MAW AW A 0 0 – WT 0

Gurney [69] (1) 13–100 BS4360:50 290–405 MAW AW A 0 0 – WT 0
25–100 B
Kihl Sarkani (1) 6–25 HSLA-80 598–671 GMAW AW A 0 0 – WT 0
[70,71]
Gurney [72] (1), (3) 6 Steel UTS 412 MIG AW A 0 0 – WT 0
(2) 515 MPa B
Balasubramanian (3) 8 ASTM 517F 690 SMAW AW A 0 0 – WR 0
Guha [73]
Infante et al. [74] (3) 10 Duplex 2205 527 TIG AW A 0 0 – WR 0
Singh et al. [75] (3) 6 AISI 304 L 297 GTAW AW A 0 0 – WR 0
Guha [76] (3) 12.5 C-Mn steel 280 MIG AW A 0 0 – WR 0
Yamaguchi et al. (3) 10 SM41 294 – AW A 0 0 – WR 0
[77] HT60 490
Ouchida and (3) 16–32 SM41 263 – AW A 0 0 – WR 0
Nishioka [78]
Macfarlane (3) 12.7 BS15 252 – AW A 0 0 – WR 0
Harrison [79]
Lassen et al. [80,81] (1) 25–32 C steel 250–416 SMAW SR A 0 0.3 – WT 0
SAW
FCAW
Meneghetti [25] (7) 10 S355 355 MAG AW A 0 0.1 – WT 0
(8) WT 0
WR 5876
Fricke Feltz [82] (7) 12 S355 355 MAG AW A 0 0 – WT 0
(8) WT 0
WR 18–79
Meneghetti et al. (12) 12.5 – – – AW B 0 0.1 – WT 0
[83]
Chiew et al. [84] (13) 10–16 S355J2 355 – AW A,B 0 0 – WT 0
Chiew et al. [85] (14) 25.4 API 5L 302 – AW A,B 0 0 – WT 0
Gandhi Berge [86] (15) 4–12.5 API 2H 355 MAW AW A 0 0 – WT 0
Schumacher (16) 8–20 S355J2 355 FCAW AW A,B 0 0 – WT 0
Nussbaumer
[87]
Fricke Doerk [88] (17) 12 – – – AW A 0 0 – WR 0.17–0.20
Fricke Doerk [88] (18) 12 – – – AW A 0 0 – WT 0
WR 2.70
Fricke et al. [89,90] (19) 10 S235JRG2 235 MAW AW A 0 0.5 – WR 0
MAG B
Kang Kim [91] (20)–(22) 10 Grade A 235 FCAW AW A 0 −1 – WT 0
Meneghetti et al. (23)–(27) 8 S355 355 MAG AW A 0 0.1 – WR, WT 0
[52]
Petershaghen [92] (6) 20 St 52–3 – SAW AW A 0 0,-1 – WT 0
Hentschel et al. (6) 10–20 St 38 – MAG AW A 0 0.2 – WT 0
[93] MAW
Yakubovskii (6) 16 St 3 – MAW AW A 0 0 – WT 0
Valteris [94] 15 HSND EBW
15G2AFD MAW
Takahashi et al. (28) 12 JIS SM400B 283 MAG AW A 0 0 - WT 0
[95,96] (29) bi-A 0, 180

Amstutz et al. [97] (30) 7.7 StE 460 520 – SR T ∞ 0,-1 – WT ∞

Seeger Olivier (32) 8 St 35.29 240 MAG SR T ∞ −1 – WT ∞
[98,100] StE 770 770
WR
Meneghetti et al. (30) 10 S355JR 355 MIG SR, AW T ∞ −1 – WR ∞
[53]
Razmjoo [101] (33) 7 BS 4360-50E 415 SMAW AW A 0 0 - WT 0
T ∞ - WR, WT ∞
3.2 A 0 - WT 0
A+T 0.5–2.94 0, 90 0.26–8.95
Siljander et al. (32) 9.5 A519 tube 414 tube MIG SR B 0 0,-1 - WT 0
[102] A36 flange 250 T ∞ - ∞
flange B+T 0.14–1 0 0.02–1
Yousefi et al. [103] (30) 8 StE 460 520 MIG SR B 0 0,-1 - WT 0
T ∞ - ∞
B+T 1 0, 90 1.14
Sonsino [6,104] (30) 10 StE 460 520 MAG SR B 0 −1 - WT 0
T ∞ - ∞
B+T 0.58 0, 90 0.38
(continued on next page)

15
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Table 5 (continued)

Ref. Joint Main Material Yield Welding Testing Load type° Λ = τnom/σnom Load Phase Failure λ Eq. (11)
geometry* thickness stress process condition# Eq. (8) ratio shift ϕ location^
[mm] [MPa] R [°]

Bertini et al. [105] (32) 10 S355 JR 360 – AW T ∞ 0,-1 - WR ∞

B+T 0.88–3.25 0 WT 0.06–0.88
Frendo Bertini (32) 10 S355 JR 360 – AW B+T 0.88–3.25 0,-1 90 WT 0.05–0.73
[106]
Meneghetti et al. (34) 8 S355 JR 355 MIG SR, AW B+T 0.38 0.1 0 WT 0.41
[54] (35) 11.25 S355 J2 MIG SR 1.15 −1 WR 11.4
Shams Vormwald (36) 2 E355 + N, 355 GMAW SR A 0 0,-1 - WR 35.25
[107] S340 + N 340 T ∞ - 2.34
A+T 0.99–1.55 0, 90 3.32–4.64

* See Table 3. All joints have un-machined welds.

#
AW = as-welded, SR = stress-relieved.
°
A = axial, B = bending, T = torsion.
^
WR = weld root, WT = weld toe.

probabilities of 10% to 90% and single test series reported by Haibach
[112].
4.2. Arc-welded joints made of structural steels
Fig. 6a shows the master fatigue design scatter band, which was
fitted on approximately 180 fatigue results from literature and regard
only weld toe failures (2α ≅ 135°) [56]. These data were generated by
testing as-welded joints under pulsating (R ≈ 0) pure axial or bending
loadings. The considered details were T- or cruciform fillet-welded
joints ((1)–(3) in Table 3); the main plate thickness T was between 6
and 100 mm, and the base material was structural steel with a yield
stress of 250–690 MPa (see [68–72] in Table 5).
Fig. 6b shows the master fatigue design scatter band fitted on ap-
proximately 20 experimental data from literature, which regard only
weld toe failures (2α ≅ 135°) [26]. The results originate from welded
joints tested under stress-relieved conditions and pure torsion loading
with the nominal load ratio R = −1. The joints were full-penetration or
fillet-welded tube-to-flange specimens ((30) and (32) in Table 3); the
tube thickness T was 8–10 mm, and the employed structural steels had
yield stresses between 240 and 520 MPa (see [6,98,100,102–104] in
Table 5).
It is worth mentioning that the 2.3–97.7% scatter index Tσ of the
scatter bands in Fig. 6a and b is equal to 1.90, which is only slightly
higher than that of the scatter bands of the aluminium welded joints
(Fig. 5a and b).
4.3. Criterion for selecting master fatigue design curve
According to [54,55], the proper master curve for the fatigue design
of arc-welded joints should be selected based on the relative contribu-
tions from the local shear and local normal stresses [54,55]. For nom-
inal stresses, the biaxiality ratio Λ between the shear and normal
stresses can be defined as follows:
nom
= [23,27,50,51] for aluminium joints and according to that in
nom (8)
where the axial, bending, and torsion nominal stresses are calculated
for the main loaded plate or tube:
F experimental results of each test series were compared with the PSM-
= for axial loading,
nom
A (9a)
Mf
nom = for bending loading,
Wf (9b)
Mt
nom = for torsion loading,
Wt (10)
where F, Mf, and Mt are the applied axial load, bending, and torsional
moment, respectively; A, Wf, and Wt are the section area and section
moduli, respectively.
To be consistent within the adopted local approach for the fatigue
design, the local biaxiality ratio λ was defined as the ratio between the
SED contributions due to mode II/III shear and mode I stresses [54,55];
λ can be expressed as a function of the peak stresses:
c w2· fw2 2 · 2
+ c w3·f w23 · 2
=
r , = 0, peak z, = 0, peak
for Plane 4 or Brick 8,
c w1·f w21 · 2
, = 0, peak
(11a)
c w2· fw2 2 · ¯r2 , = 0, peak + c w3·f w23 · ¯ 2z, = 0, peak
= for
c w1·fw21 · ¯2 , = 0, peak
Tetra 10 or Tetra 4. (11b)
The case λ = 0 corresponds to a pure local mode I stress state,
whereas λ → ∞ represents a local mode II + III shear stress state; λ
values between 0 and ∞ imply mixed mode opening-shear stress con-
ditions.
The PSM-based master curves of Figs. 5 and 6 are compared in
Figs. 7 and 8 for approximately 330 and 1300 experimental fatigue
results of aluminium welded joints (Fig. 7) and steel welded joints
(Fig. 8), respectively. The original experimental results of arc-welded
joints made of aluminium alloys originate from
[59,60,108–111,61–67,99], while those of steel joints originate from
[6,25,73–82,52,83–92,53,93–98,100–103,54,104–107,68–72] (Tables
4 and 5). In addition, the tables include details about the geometries,
materials, welding processes, and testing and loading conditions. The
experimental results were generated by fatigue testing on as-welded
and stress-relieved joints under pure axial/pure bending, pure torsion,
and multiaxial in-phase and out-of-phase loading conditions. Nominal
load ratios R of −1 to 0.5 and several nominal biaxiality ratios Λ ac-
cording to Eq. (8) were considered. Moreover, the weld root and weld
toe failures were included. The original experimental results were
converted in terms of equivalent peak stress according to the PSM in
[23,25,26,28,39,51–54,56,57] for steel joints.
In this study, the experimental results were classified as a function
of the local biaxiality ratio λ defined in Eq. (11). In particular, the
based master curves in Figs. 5 and 6 for the respective material. The
classification in Figs. 7 and 8 guarantees the best agreement between
the experimental results and theoretical estimations and provides a
criterion for the selection of an appropriate reference fatigue design
curve. The results are listed in Table 6, which does not cover welded
joints with main plate or tube thicknesses below 3 mm for aluminium
joints and below 2 mm for steel joints because they have not been
analysed. By considering technical literature, the effect of the joint

16
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Fig. 7. Fatigue assessment of toe and root failures in welded joints made of aluminium alloys tested in as-welded or stress-relieved conditions (see details in Tables 3
and 4) according to the PSM: (a) λ = 0 and T ≥ 5 mm, (b) λ > 0 or 3 mm ≤ T < 5 mm. The design scatter bands were calibrated in Refs. [23,27] and are reported
in Fig. 5a and b, respectively.

thickness T on the fatigue curves was analysed in detail by Sonsino et al. ratios are equal. Hence, results of joint (3) must be included in Fig. 8a,
[113]; they reported that the inverse slopes k of fatigue curves of axial/ while those of joint (8) must be included in Fig. 8b. The agreement
bending and shear/torsion loadings are typically in the ranges 3–5 and between the experimental results and proposed fatigue design curves
5.4–6.5 for aluminium thin joints with T < 3 mm and in the ranges (Fig. 8a and b) support the criterion based on the local biaxiality ratio λ
3–6 and 5–8 for steel thin joints with T < 5 mm, respectively. (Eq. (11)) for the selection of the proper master design curve.
Figs. 7 and 8 and Tables 4 and 5 indicate that the governing para-
meter for selecting the proper PSM-based master curve is the local
5. Conclusions
biaxiality ratio λ (Eq. (11)) and not the nominal one (Λ; Eq. (8)). As an
example, steel welded details with geometries (3) [78] and (8) [25] in
In fatigue design of welded joints, the PSM is an engineering FE-
Table 3 were compared; such joints have main plate thicknesses of at
oriented technique for evaluating readily the NSIFs at the weld toe and
least 10 mm and fail at the weld root. According to Table 5, both joint
weld root, which are idealised as sharp V-notches with a null tip radius.
geometries were subjected to a nominal biaxiality ratio Λ = 0 because a
In more detail, the linear elastic, opening, sliding, and tearing peak
pure axial load was applied. However, a different biaxiality of the stress
stresses calculated at the V-notch tip with coarse FE analyses proved to
state occurred at the crack initiation point: the weld root of geometry
be linked to mode I, II, and III NSIFs, respectively, provided that certain
(3) was subjected to pure mode I loading (i.e. λ = 0), whereas the weld
conditions of the applicability of the PSM are satisfied, as reported in
root of geometry (8) was subjected to practically pure mode II loading
the present paper. As long as the fatigue strength criterion based on the
(i.e. λ → ∞). Therefore, the criterion based on λ suggests the use of
NSIF-dependent averaged SED is adopted, the PSM design stress (i.e.
different PSM-based design curves although the nominal biaxiality
the equivalent peak stress) can be expressed as a combination of the

17
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705

Fig. 8. Fatigue assessment according to the PSM of weld toe and weld root failures in welded joints made of structural steels tested in as-welded or stress-relieved
conditions (see details in Tables 3 and 5) according to the PSM: (a) λ = 0 and T ≥ 2 mm, (b) λ > 0 and T ≥ 2 mm. The design scatter bands were calibrated in Refs.
[26,56] and are reported in Fig. 6a and b, respectively.

previously presented opening, sliding, and tearing peak stresses. distribution of the equivalent peak stress; a remarkable application
Developed in the past ten years, the resulting PSM exhibits the fol- is when there is competition between the weld toe and weld root
lowing main capabilities and features: fatigue failures;
• The fatigue life of 2D and 3D arc-welded joints made of aluminium
• 2D and 3D linear elastic FE analyses are supported by the method alloys or structural steels subjected to uniaxial or combined in-phase
for a range of FE types and commercial FE software packages, the and out-of-phase multiaxial loadings can be estimated; the PSM was
reference one being Ansys®; validated against a database of fatigue data consisting of approxi-
• The crack initiation point can be identified by analysing the mately 330 and 1300 experimental fatigue results for aluminium

Table 6
Criterion for selecting the reference PSM-based fatigue design curve for arc-welded joints.
Class of materials T [mm] λ Eq. (11) PSM- master curve Δσeq,peak,A,50% [MPa] k Tσ

Aluminium alloys T ≥ 5 mm λ =0 Fig. 5a 123 3.8 1.80

T ≥ 5 mm λ > 0 Fig. 5b 123 6.5 1.80
3 mm ≤ T < 5 mm λ ≥0
Structural steels T ≥ 2 mm λ =0 Fig. 6a 214 3 1.90
T ≥ 2 mm λ > 0 Fig. 6b 354 5 1.90

18
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo
welded joints and steel welded joints, respectively, including as-
welded and stress-relieved joints with nominal load ratios of −1 to
0.5;
•
For a given class of welded materials and joint geometry, the fatigue
resistance depends primarily on the relative contributions from the
local shear and local normal stresses; therefore, a criterion for se-
lecting the proper fatigue design curve was provided based on the
biaxiality of the local stress state. In addition, the relevant endurable
stresses and slopes of the master curves for adoption in the fatigue
design of welded joints were presented (see Table 6).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – part 1–9: Fatigue. CEN; 2005.
[2] Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures - Part 1-3: Structures susceptible to
fatigue. CEN; 2011.uns.
[3] Hobbacher AF. Recommendations for Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and
Components. IIW Collection. Springer International Publishing; 2016. doi:10.
1007/978-3-319-23757-2.
[4] Radaj D, Sonsino CM, Fricke W. Fatigue assessment of welded joints by local ap-
proaches. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2006.
[5] Fricke W. International Institute of Welding. IIW recommendations for the fatigue
assessment of welded structures by notch stress analysis: IIW-2006-09. Woodhead
Pub; 2012.
[6] Sonsino C. Multiaxial fatigue of welded joints under in-phase and out-of-phase
local strains and stresses. Int J Fatigue 1995;17:55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0142-1123(95)93051-3.
[7] Susmel L. Multiaxial notch fatigue. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2009.
[8] Radaj D, Vormwald M. Advanced methods of fatigue assessment. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30740-9.
[9] Lazzarin P, Tovo R. A notch intensity factor approach to the stress analysis of
welds. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 1998;21:1089–103. https://doi.org/10.
1046/j.1460-2695.1998.00097.x.
[10] Lazzarin P, Sonsino CM, Zambardi R. A notch stress intensity approach to assess
the multiaxial fatigue strength of welded tube-to-flange joints subjected to com-
bined loadings. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2004;27:127–40. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1460-2695.2004.00733.x.
[11] Livieri P, Lazzarin P. Fatigue strength of steel and aluminium welded joints based
on generalised stress intensity factors and local strain energy values. Int J Fract
2005;133:247–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-005-4043-3.
[12] Lazzarin P, Livieri P, Berto F, Zappalorto M. Local strain energy density and fatigue
strength of welded joints under uniaxial and multiaxial loading. Eng Fract Mech
2008;75:1875–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.10.019.
[13] Karakaş Ö, Morgenstern C, Sonsino C. Fatigue design of welded joints from the
wrought magnesium alloy AZ31 by the local stress concept with the fictitious
notch radii of rf=1.0 and 0.05mm. Int J Fatigue 2008;30:2210–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.05.017.
[14] Karakaş Ö. Consideration of mean-stress effects on fatigue life of welded magne-
sium joints by the application of the Smith–Watson–Topper and reference radius
concepts. Int J Fatigue 2013;49:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.
11.007.
[15] Carpinteri A, Spagnoli A, Vantadori S. Multiaxial fatigue life estimation in welded
joints using the critical plane approach. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:188–96. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.03.024.
[16] Susmel L. Three different ways of using the Modified Wöhler Curve Method to
perform the multiaxial fatigue assessment of steel and aluminium welded joints.
Eng Fail Anal 2009;16:1074–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2008.05.
016.
[17] Taylor D, Barrett N, Lucano G. Some new methods for predicting fatigue in welded
joints. Int J Fatigue 2002;24:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(01)
00174-8.
[18] Susmel L. Modified Wöhler curve method, theory of critical distances and
Eurocode 3: a novel engineering procedure to predict the lifetime of steel welded
joints subjected to both uniaxial and multiaxial fatigue loading. Int J Fatigue
2008;30:888–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.06.005.
[19] Susmel L. The Modified Wöhler Curve Method calibrated by using standard fatigue
curves and applied in conjunction with the Theory of Critical Distances to estimate
fatigue lifetime of aluminium weldments. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:197–212. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.04.004.
[20] Karakaş Ö, Zhang G, Sonsino CM. Critical distance approach for the fatigue
strength assessment of magnesium welded joints in contrast to Neuber’s effective
stress method. Int J Fatigue 2018;112:21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.
2018.03.004.
[21] Karakaş Ö. Application of Neuber’s effective stress method for the evaluation of the
19
International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705
fatigue behaviour of magnesium welds. Int J Fatigue 2017;101:115–26. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.10.023.
[22] Pedersen MM. Multiaxial fatigue assessment of welded joints using the notch stress
approach. Int J Fatigue 2016;83:269–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.
2015.10.021.
[23] Meneghetti G, Lazzarin P. Significance of the elastic peak stress evaluated by FE
analyses at the point of singularity of sharp V-notched components. Fatigue Fract
Eng Mater Struct 2007;30:95–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2006.
01084.x.
[24] Meneghetti G, Guzzella C. The peak stress method to estimate the mode I notch
stress intensity factor in welded joints using three-dimensional finite element
models. Eng Fract Mech 2014;115:154–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfracmech.2013.11.002.
[25] Meneghetti G. The use of peak stresses for fatigue strength assessments of welded
lap joints and cover plates with toe and root failures. Eng Fract Mech
2012;89:40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.04.007.
[26] Meneghetti G. The peak stress method for fatigue strength assessment of tube-to-
flange welded joints under torsion loading. Weld World 2013;57:265–75. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40194-013-0022-x.
[27] Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Rigon D. Multiaxial fatigue strength assessment of
welded joints using the Peak Stress Method – Part I: Approach and application to
aluminium joints. Int J Fatigue 2017;101:328–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijfatigue.2017.03.038.
[28] Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Rigon D. Multiaxial fatigue strength assessment of
welded joints using the Peak Stress Method – Part II: Application to structural steel
joints. Int J Fatigue 2017;101:343–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.
03.039.
[29] Smith RA, Miller KJ. Prediction of fatigue regimes in notched components. Int J
Mech Sci 1978;20:201–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7403(78)90082-6.
[30] Atzori B, Lazzarin P, Meneghetti G. Fracture mechanics and notch sensitivity.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2003;26:257–67. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-
2695.2003.00633.x.
[31] Williams ML. Stress singularities resulting from various boundary conditions in
angular corners of plates in tension. J Appl Mech 1952;19:526–8.
[32] Qian J, Hasebe N. Property of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions for an interface V-
notch in antiplane elasticity. Eng Fract Mech 1997;56:729–34. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0013-7944(97)00004-0.
[33] Gross B, Mendelson A. Plane elastostatic analysis of V-notched plates. Int J Fract
Mech 1972;8:267–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00186126.
[34] 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.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018497.
[35] Lazzarin P, Zambardi R. A finite-volume-energy based approach to predict the
static and fatigue behavior of components with sharp V-shaped notches. Int J Fract
2001;112:275–98. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013595930617.
[36] Lazzarin P, Lassen T, Livieri P. A notch stress intensity approach applied to fatigue
life predictions of welded joints with different local toe geometry. Fatigue Fract
Eng Mater Struct 2003;26:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.
00586.x.
[37] Fischer C, Fricke W, Rizzo CM. Review of the fatigue strength of welded joints
based on the notch stress intensity factor and SED approaches. Int J Fatigue
2016;84:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2015.11.015.
[38] Fischer C, Fricke W, Rizzo CM. Fatigue tests of notched specimens made from butt
joints at steel. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2016;39:1526–41. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ffe.12473.
[39] Campagnolo A, Vormwald M, Shams E, Meneghetti G. Multiaxial fatigue assess-
ment of tube-tube steel joints with weld ends using the peak stress method. Int J
Fatigue 2020:105495https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105495.
[40] Hu Z, Berto F, Hong Y, Susmel L. Comparison of TCD and SED methods in fatigue
lifetime assessment. Int J Fatigue 2019;123:105–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJFATIGUE.2019.02.009.
[41] Sonsino CM, Łagoda T. Assessment of multiaxial fatigue behaviour of welded joints
under combined bending and torsion by application of a fictitious notch radius. Int
J Fatigue 2004;26:265–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(03)00143-9.
[42] Berto F, Lazzarin P. A review of the volume-based strain energy density approach
applied to V-notches and welded structures. Theor Appl Fract Mech
2009;52:183–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2009.10.001.
[43] Berto F, Lazzarin P. Recent developments in brittle and quasi-brittle failure as-
sessment of engineering materials by means of local approaches. Mater Sci Eng R
Reports 2014;75:1–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mser.2013.11.001.
[44] Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Avalle M, Castagnetti D, Colussi M, Corigliano P,
et al. Rapid evaluation of notch stress intensity factors using the peak stress
method: Comparison of commercial finite element codes for a range of mesh
patterns. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2018;41. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.
12751.
[45] Radaj D. State-of-the-art review on extended stress intensity factor concepts.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2014;37:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12120.
[46] Radaj D. State-of-the-art review on the local strain energy density concept and its
relation to the J -integral and peak stress method. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2015;38:2–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12231.
[47] Campagnolo A, Roveda I, Meneghetti G. The Peak Stress Method combined with
3D finite element models to assess the fatigue strength of complex welded struc-
tures. Procedia Struct Integr 2019;19:617–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.
2019.12.067.
[48] Campagnolo A, Meneghetti G. Rapid estimation of notch stress intensity factors in
3D large-scale welded structures using the peak stress method. MATEC Web Conf
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo
2018;165. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201816517004.
[49] Visentin A. Automated fatigue strength assessment of V - notch structures ac-
cording to the peak stress method. University of Padova; 2020.
[50] Meneghetti G. The peak stress method applied to fatigue assessments of steel and
aluminium fillet-welded joints subjected to mode I loading. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct 2008;31:346–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2008.
01230.x.
[51] Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Berto F. Fatigue strength assessment of partial and
full-penetration steel and aluminium butt-welded joints according to the peak
stress method. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2015;38:1419–31. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ffe.12342.
[52] Meneghetti G, Marini D, Babini V. Fatigue assessment of weld toe and weld root
failures in steel welded joints according to the peak stress method. Weld World
2016;60:559–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-016-0308-x.
[53] Meneghetti G, De Marchi A, Campagnolo A. Assessment of root failures in tube-to-
flange steel welded joints under torsional loading according to the Peak Stress
Method. Theor Appl Fract Mech 2016;83:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tafmec.2016.01.013.
[54] Meneghetti G, Campagnolo A, Babini V, Riboli M, Spagnoli A. Multiaxial fatigue
assessment of welded steel details according to the peak stress method: Industrial
case studies. Int J Fatigue 2019;125:362–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.
2019.04.014.
[55] Campagnolo A, Meneghetti G, Babini V, Riboli M, Spagnoli A. Multiaxial fatigue
assessment of welded steel details according to the peak stress method based on
tetra elements. MATEC Web Conf 2019;300:19002. https://doi.org/10.1051/
matecconf/201930019002.
[56] Meneghetti G, Lazzarin P. The Peak Stress Method for Fatigue Strength Assessment
of welded joints with weld toe or weld root failures. Weld World 2011;55:22–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03321304.
[57] Meneghetti G, Guzzella C, Atzori B. The peak stress method combined with 3D
finite element models for fatigue assessment of toe and root cracking in steel
welded joints subjected to axial or bending loading. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2014;37:722–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12171.
[58] Campagnolo A, Meneghetti G, Babini V, Riboli M, Spagnoli A. Multiaxial fatigue
assessment of welded steel details according to the peak stress method based on
tetra elements. MATEC Web Conf 2019;300. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
201930019002.
[59] Pinho da Cruz JA, Costa JD, Borrego LF, Ferreira JA. Fatigue life prediction in
AlMgSi1 lap joint weldments. Int J Fatigue 2000;22:601–10. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0142-1123(00)00023-2.
[60] Meneghetti G, Tovo R, Patricolo M, Volpone M. Experimental analysis of the fa-
tigue strength of welded structural details in aluminium alloy. In: Proc. 26th AIAS
Natl. Conf., Catania (Italy); 1997. p. 393–400 [in Italian].
[61] Voutaz B, Smith IF, Hirt MA. Fatigue behaviour of aluminium beams with welded
attachments. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Steel Alum. Struct. ICSAS, Istanbul, Turkey;
1995. p. 213–20.
[62] Macdonald KA, Haagensen PJ. Fatigue design of welded aluminum rectangular
hollow section joints. Eng Fail Anal 1999;6:113–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1350-6307(98)00025-9.
[63] Haagensen PJ, Oma S. Fatigue life improvement of welded aluminium joints by
peening techniques. In: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Joints Alum. Ina., Munich, Germany;
2001. p. 1–14.
[64] Sonsino CM, Radaj D, Brandt U, Lehrke HP. Fatigue assessment of welded joints in
AlMg 4.5Mn aluminum alloy (AA 5083) by local approaches. Int J Fatigue
1999;21:985–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(99)00049-3.
[65] Brandt U, Lawrence FV, Sonsino CM. Fatigue crack initiation and growth in
AlMg4.5Mn butt weldments. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2001;24:117–26.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00372.x.
[66] Kueppers M, Sonsino CM. Critical plane approach for the assessment of the fatigue
behaviour of welded aluminium under multiaxial loading. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater
Struct 2003;26:507–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00674.x.
[67] Costa JDM, Abreu LMP, Pinho ACM, Ferreira JAM. Fatigue behaviour of tubular
AlMgSi welded specimens subjected to bending-torsion loading. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct 2005;28:399–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.2005.
00875.x.
[68] Maddox SJ. The effect of plate thickness on the fatigue strength of fillet welded
joints. Abington, Cambridge: Abington Publishing; 1987.
[69] Gurney TR. The fatigue strength of transverse fillet welded joints. Abington,
Cambridge: Abington Publishing; 1991.
[70] Kihl D, Sarkani S. Thickness effects on the fatigue strength of welded steel cruci-
forms. Int J Fatigue 1997;19:311–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(97)
00041-8.
[71] Kihl DP, Sarkani S. Mean stress effects in fatigue of welded steel joints.
Probabilistic Eng Mech 1999;14:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-
8920(98)00019-8.
[72] Gurney TR. Fatigue of thin walled joints under complex loading. Abington,
Cambridge: Abington Publishing; 1997.
[73] Balasubramanian V, Guha B. Fatigue life prediction of shielded metal arc welded
cruciform joints containing LOP defects by a mathematical model. Int J Press
Vessel Pip 1999;76:283–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-0161(98)00137-9.
[74] Infante V, Branco CM, Martins R. A fracture mechanics analysis on the fatigue
behaviour of cruciform joints of duplex stainless steel. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater
Struct 2003;26:791–810. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00681.x.
[75] Singh PJJ, Achar DRRG, Guha B, Nordberg H. Fatigue life prediction of gas
tungsten arc welded AISI 304L cruciform joints with different LOP sizes. Int J
Fatigue 2003;25:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-1123(02)00067-1.
20
International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705
[76] Guha B. A new fracture mechanics method to predict the fatigue life of welded
cruciform joints. Eng Fract Mech 1995;52:215–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-
7944(95)00004-F.
[77] Yamaguchi I, Terada Y, Nitta A. On the fatigue strength of steels for ship struc-
tures. IIW Annu. Assem. IIW Doc. XIII-425-66; 1966.
[78] Ouchida H, Nishioka A. A study of fatigue strength of fillet welded joints. IIW Doc.
XIII-338-64; 1964.
[79] Macfarlane DS, Harrison JD. Some fatigue tests of load carrying transverse fillet
welds. Br Weld J 1965;12:613–23.
[80] Lassen T. The effect of the welding process on the fatigue crack growth. Weld J
1990;69:75S–81S.
[81] Engesvik K, Lassen T. The effect of weld geometry on fatigue life. In: Proc. Third
Int. OMAE Conf., Houston, Texas: 1988. p. 440–46.
[82] Fricke W, Feltz O. Fatigue tests and numerical analyses of partial-load and full-load
carrying fillet welds at cover plates and lap joints. Weld World 2010;54:R225–33.
doi:10.1007/BF03263508.
[83] Meneghetti G, Marigo M, Righetto F. The local approach combined with a FE
modelling technique for fatigue analysis of a steel tubular fillet-welded joint. In:
Proc. Int. Conf. CAE Comput. Technol. Ind. TCN CAE, Lecce (Italy): On CD Rom;
2005.
[84] Chiew S-P, Lee C-K, Lie S-T, Ji H-L. Fatigue behaviors of square-to-square hollow
section T-joint with corner crack. I: Experimental studies. Eng Fract Mech
2007;74:703–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.06.022.
[85] Chiew S-PP, Lie S-TT, Lee C-KK, Huang Z-WW. Fatigue performance of cracked
tubular T joints under combined loads. I: experimental. J Struct Eng
2004;130:562–71. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130: 4(562).
[86] Gandhi P, Berge S. Fatigue behaviour of T-joints: square chords and circular
braces. J Struct Eng 1998;124:399–404.
[87] Schumacher A, Nussbaumer A. Experimental study on the fatigue behaviour of
welded tubular K-joints for bridges. Eng Struct 2006;28:745–55. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.003.
[88] Fricke W, Doerk O. Simplified approach to fatigue strength assessment of fillet-
welded attachment ends. Int J Fatigue 2006;28:141–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijfatigue.2005.04.008.
[89] Fricke W, Kahl A, Paetzold H. Fatigue assessment of root cracking of fillet welds
subject to throat bending using the structural stress approach. Weld World
2006;50:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03266538.
[90] Fricke W, Kahl A. Fatigue assessment of weld root failure of hollow section joints
by structural and notch stress approaches. In: Packer JA, Willibald S, editors.
Tubul. Struct. XI, London: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006. p. 593–600.
[91] Kang S, Kim W. A proposed S-N curve for welded ship structures. Weld J
2003;82:161–9.
[92] Petershagen H. Fatigue tests with hyperbaric dry butt welded specimens. IIW
Annu. Assem. IIW Doc. XIII-1445-92; 1992.
[93] Hentschel K, Berger P, Rossler K, Schmidt M. Weld geometry as a factor controlling
the fatigue strength of butt welded joints. Weld Int 1990;4:494.
[94] Yakubovskii VV, Valteris IJI. Geometrical parameters of butt and fillet welds and
their influence on the welded joints fatigue life; 1989.
[95] Takahashi I, Ushijima M, Takada A, Akiyama S, Maenaka H. Fatigue behaviour of a
box-welded joint under biaxial cyclic loads. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
1999;22:869–77. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.1999.00224.x.
[96] Takahashi I, Takada A, Ushijima M, Akiyama S. Fatigue behaviour of a box-welded
joint under biaxial cyclic loading: effects of biaxial load range ratio and cyclic
compressive loads in the lateral direction. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2003;26:439–48. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00645.x.
[97] Amstutz H, Storzel K, Seeger T. Fatigue crack growth of a welded tube-flange
connection under bending and torsional loading. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2001;24:357–68. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00408.x.
[98] Seeger T, Olivier R. Tolerable and allowable shear stresses at fatigue loaded
welded joints. Stahlbau (in Ger) 1987;8:231–8.
[99] Maddox S. Scale effect in fatigue of fillet welded aluminium alloys. In: Proc. Sixth
Int. Conf. Alum. Weldments, Cleveland, Ohio: 1995. p. 77–93.
[100] Seeger T, Olivier R. Slope and knee-point of the S-N curve of shear loaded fillet
welds. Stahlbau (in Ger) 1992;61:137–42.
[101] Razmjoo G. Fatigue of load-carrying fillet welded joints under multiaxial loadings.
In: Abington, editor. TWI REF. 7309.02/96/909, Cambridge, UK; 1996.
[102] Siljander A, Kurath P, Lawrence F. Non proportional fatigue of welded structures.
In: Mitchell M, Landgraf R, editors. Adv. fatigue lifetime Predict. Tech. ASTMSTP
1122, Philadelphia, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1992. p.
319–38.
[103] Yousefi F, Witt M, Zenner H. Fatigue strength of welded joints under multiaxial
loading: experiments and calculations. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
2001;24:339–55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2001.00397.x.
[104] Sonsino CM, Kueppers M, Gaeth N, Maddox SJ, Razmjoo GR. Fatigue behaviour of
welded high-strength components under combined multiaxial variable amplitude
loading. Darmstadt (Germany): 1999. doi:LBF-FB-218(1999).
[105] Bertini L, Cera A, Frendo F. Experimental investigation of the fatigue resistance of
pipe-to-plate welded connections under bending, torsion and mixed mode loading.
Int J Fatigue 2014;68:178–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.05.005.
[106] Frendo F, Bertini L. Fatigue resistance of pipe-to-plate welded joint under in-phase
and out-of-phase combined bending and torsion. Int J Fatigue 2015;79:46–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.04.020.
[107] Shams E, Vormwald M. Fatigue of weld ends under combined loading. Int J
Fatigue 2017;100:627–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2016.12.020.
[108] Meneghetti G. Metodologie di analisi e progettazione dei giunti saldati. University
of Padua; 1998.
G. Meneghetti and A. Campagnolo
[109] Ribeiro A, Goncalves J, Oliveira F, Castro P, Fernandes A. A comparative study on
the fatigue behaviour of aluminium alloy welded and bonded joints. In: Proc. Sixth
Int. Conf. Alum. Weldments, Cleveland, Ohio; 1995. p. 65–76.
[110] Jacoby G. Uber das verhalten von schweissverbindungen aus aluminiumlegier-
ungen bei schwingbeanspruchung. Hannover: Technische Hochschule; 1961.
[111] Pirsic T. Experimentally based method for fatigue life prediction of aluminium
welded joints. In: Proc. 7th Int. Fatigue Conf.; 1999. p. 1309–14.
21
International Journal of Fatigue 139 (2020) 105705
[112] Haibach E. Service fatigue-strength – methods and data for structural analysis.
Dusseldorf: VDI; 1989.
[113] Sonsino CM, Bruder T, Baumgartner J. S-N lines for welded thin joints — sug-
gested slopes and FAT values for applying the notch stress concept with various
reference radii. Weld World 2010;54:R375–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03266752.