See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285897692

The application of high strength steels for fatigue loaded structures

Article · January 1993

CITATIONS READS

5 483

2 authors, including:

Jan-Olof Sperle
KTH Royal Institute of Technology and University of Uppsala
20 PUBLICATIONS   159 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Steel-Eco Cycle, Swedish Ironmasters Association, Stockholm View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan-Olof Sperle on 10 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE APPLICATION OF HIGH STRENGTH STEELS
FATI GUE LOADED STRUCTURES
Jan 0lof Sperle, and Tony Nilsson
Swedish
Bor'l
Absrqlrc q
Fatigue is one of the main issues to be handled for
successful use of high strength steels. ln this paper
fatigue strength resul ts from base metal and welded
joints in hot and cold rol led high strength steels
are presented. Low base metal fatigue strength values
for QT-steels in comparison with strip steels initi-
ated an investigation on the influence of microstruc-
ture and surface condition. The results show that the
main reason for the difference in fatigue is probably
a rougher surface rather than differences in residual
stresses, decarbur i zat ion or mi crostructure.
Based on surface roughness measurements and fatigue
results of base metal a relation is presented between
the surface factor, K-, the surface roughness, R_ ,
and the tensile strenqrth. Fatique results on weld8d
joints show that improvements in fatigue strength by
55'75 Z are achieved by TIG-dressing the weld toes.
Comparing test results on welds in strip steels with
I i terature data for thicker plates supports recent
results on a thickness effect to be present down to
5 mm thickness, Tests on spot welded beams indicate
that there is a positive influence of an increased
base metal strength on the fatigue strength, not only
for non-load carrying but also for load carrying
beams.
lntroduction
The recent trend, especial ly in the transport indust-
ry, towards reduced weight, increased performance and
safety as well as a more rational and cost effective
manufacturing has broadened the interest in high
strength steels of good formabi I ity and weldabi I ity.
High strength HSLA cold forming steels are now avai l-
able with yield strength levels up to 750 MPa and are
successfully used for example in trucks, dumpers,
cranes and simi lar structures, The corresponding QT
steels come in strength levels up to 960 MPa. For
automotive appl ications high strength cold rol led,
rephosphorized, microalloyed and dual-phase grades
have been introduced.
0n the basis of yield strength, new types of high
strength steel sheets give a great potential for
weight reduction and cost effective designs. ln prac-
tical design, however, also other factors have to be
cons idered for a successful appl ication of these
steels, e.g. formability, weldability, stiffness,
buckl ing, safety, crash resistance and fatigue.
' HSIÅ Stele:
_ -_Prcessing, Pmperties and Alplicatioas
Edited by Geoffrey Tither end Zhang Shouhu&
The Minemle, Metale & Materials Society, @ 1992
FOR
Steel, Strip Products
änge, Sweden
We can often make up for the loss of stiffness by
changing the shape of the section. Dent resistance
and crash resistance increase with increasing yield
or tens i I e s trength so a reduced th i ckness can be
balanced by an increased strength.
Whi le the fat igue strength of the base metal al so
increases along with the yield strength there is nor-
mal ly no corresponding increase in fatigue strength
for welds with increasing tensi le properties. For
this reason it is necessary to reduce notch effects
and sometimes by other means improve the fatigue
strength of welded joints in order to ful ly benefit
from high strength steels.
This report concentrates on fatigue since it is one
of the main issues to be handled for a successful use
of high strength steels in the transport industry.
Our research work in the fatigue area covers a lot of
fields of which some are reported here. ln the area
of base metal fatigue, steels with different micro-
structures were tested. Some unexpectedly low fatigue
strength results on QT-steels compared to microal loy-
ed strip steels initiated an investigation into the
influence of surface condition (decarburization,
residual stresses and surface roughness) on the fati-
gue strength.
Base metal fatigue tests on mi ld and high strength
steels were carried out, and the results grouped to-
gether with relevant I iterature results form a basis
for a general relation between the fatigue strength
and tensi le properties of the base metal, Considering
this relation and results on the influence of surface
roughness; an engineering approach to the evaluation
of base metal fatigue strength with different surface
qual i ties was establ ished.
Demands for improved corrosion resistance, for examp-
le in trucks, have highl ighted the question of the
fatigue strength of galvanized steel. Fatigue tests
on hot dip galvanized strip steels with different
tensi le strengths and coating thicknesses were there-
fore performed and are reported here.
Since welded joints are often fatigue critical areas
of a structure the fatigue performance of butt and
fi I let welded joints in strip steels was investigated
as wel I as the effect of improving the fatigue
strength by TIG-dressing. Fatigue strength resul ts on
welded joints in strip steels were also compared to
I iterature resul ts on thicker gauges as regards the
35 3
 thickness effect. Fatigue tests on load-carrying and Table I I Tensile properties of the steels tested
non-load carrying spot welded specimens and beams are
being carried out, and a progress report is given at
the end of this paper. Grode No Rrs
Thickness Rm A5 Specimens *
Experimental details mm Mpo Mpo %

Materials HS3IO A 5 447 39 8Ml, BW, FW

313
HS35ON B 5 5r4 36 BMI
346
The chemical compositions and the mechanical propert- HS39O c 5422 5r3 3r BMt
ies of the steels tested are shown in Tables i and HS45O D 5 462 593 2I BMI, BW, FW
Il, respectively. ln these tables only data on steels
which have not been publ ished elsewhere are included.
EHS49O E 5530 604 26 BMI, BW, BWT, FW, Fw.T
EHS 490 F 5 571 704 24 BMt
|4ost of the steels (A-K, M, 0-Q, T-U, thickness l-5, EHS590 G 5634 748 20 BMI
15.mm)_are strip steels produced in a wide hot strip EHS 640 H 5690 767 2I BMI, BW, BWT, FW, FWT
l. Both. high.strength (,rHSrt) steels and extra higir
mi I EHS 690 5714 817 17 BMI
strength (rrEHS'r) steels were included for the strip
I

steels. The high strength strip steels are carbon- EHS640 J 6656 742 23 BMl
manganese steels, often microal loyed with Nb. ln the EHS75O K 5814 899 19 BMt
case of extra high strength steels V or Ti is also EHS690QT L 6848 872 l5 BMr
added to i ncrease the strength. The mi crostructure
normal ly consists of ferrite and smal I amounts of EHS690 M 4724 820 23 BMI
pearlite. For some of the EHS-steels (1, K, H, the
EHS690QT N 4759 871 18 BMr
microstructure was bainitic, obtained ihrough Q)toy- HS35O o 3 ond 15 401 500 34 BMI
in9 by l4n, B or Ti. "t EHS640 P 5 685 750 23 BM2
Some of the steels tested were heavy plate (1, N, R, EHS690 a 6 698 780 23 BM2
S, thickness 4-t5 mm) hot rol led in a reversing piate HS420 R 15 455 545 29 BM3
mili. Steels t, N and S were quenched and tempered EHS9OOQT S l0 l0l0 1030 14 BM3
(QT) after rol I ing, and a martensitic microstructure HS350 T 5 389 477 36 BMI
was obtained.
HS42ON U 5 423 567 34 BMI
Steels A-S were used in the evaluation of the general
relation between fatigue strength and tensi ie pro- * BM:Bose metol, BW:Bult weld, FW:Fillet welded longiludinol ot
perties of the base metal. Some of them were also lochment, BWT:Butt weld, T|G-dressed, FWT:Fillel weld, T|G-dressed
used in the fatigue tests on butt and fi l let welded
joints. The study on the influence of surface condition was
carried out on the extra high strength steels J-N.
Table I Chemical composition (wt-B)
Steels 0-S were uti I ized in an evaluation between the
surface. factor expressing the reduction in fatigue
strength due to different surface qualities and the
Grode NoC Si Mn Al Others surface roughness of the strip.
HS3r0 A O.O7 0.37 o.9l 0.022 o.or3 o.ol5 0.016 _ Steels J-N and T-U were used in the evaluation of the
HS350N B 0.t5 0.32 1.27 o.ot8 o.ol8 0.006 _ Nb influence of R-ratio.
HS390 c 0.08 0.20 0.35 0.030 0.033 0.005 0.03.1 Nb
HS45O D 0.r5 0.30 l.l9 Fat i gue test i ng
0.029 0.023 o.oo7 0.060 Nb
EHS49O E 0.05 0.28 1.& O.O22 o.OO2 o.Ol7 0.088 Nb The geometry and dimensions of the fatigue test spe-
EHS490 F 0.07 0.36 0.46 0.007 o.oil 0.009 0.042 Ti cimens used in the different experiments are shown in
EHS590 G 0.06 0.25 0.43 0.009 o.oo9 o.oo8 o.o3o Ti Figure 1. The fatigue testing was carried out on spe-
EHS640 H 0.lr 0.28 1.57 0.016 o.oo4 0.0t50.066 Nb,V cimens with the mi I I scale on. 0f the three QT-steels
EHS690 | 0.02 0.25 2.86 0.015 0.006 o.oll o.o4t Nb N and S were tested in the shot blasted plus painted
condition and L with the oxide scale from the temper-
EHS640 J O.@ 0.22 1.67 0.@7 o.oo2 o.ol5 o.o3o Nb,V ing process on.
EHS750 K 0.06 0.46 t.65 o.Ol4 o.@3 o.@7 o.ozl Nb,Ti,B
EHS690QT L 0.14 0.49 1.37 o.Ol4 0.002 o.olo 0.048 Nb,Ti,B The fatigue.testing was carried out under pulsating
EHS690 M 0.08 0.35 1.27 o.olt
0.002 0.006 0.058 Nb,Ti tension loading with R=0 on steels A-S and under all
EHS690QT N 0.20 0.72 0.98 0.01ö 0.006 0.008 0.055 Cr,Mo,Ti,B
ternating Ioading, R=-1, on steels J-L and T-U. Three
HS350 0 different fatigue testing machines were used. Al I
0.05 0.t9 0.38 0.020 0.001 o.oo9 0.046 Nb fatigue testing of the 24b mm long (gl,4-t) or 320 mm
EHS640 p 0.07 0.16 t.36 0.012 0.002 0.@7 0.032 Nb,Ti long (FW, FWT) specimens was carried out in a 150 kN
EHS690 Q 0.07 0.32 r.3l 0.0t2 0.004 0.007 0.052 Nb,Ti Amsler resonance type testing machine. The test fre-
HS420 R 0.t3 0.29 1.33 0.0t3 0.@2 0.008 0.029 Nb,Ti quency was approximately 100-lZ0 Hz. The fatigue
testing of the 600 mm (BM-2) specimens was conducted
EHS900QT S 0.t6 0.22 1.43 0.014 0.0o2 0.008 0.056 Nb,V,B,Mo,Cr in either an Amsler about lO0O kN hydraul ic type
HS350 T 0.07 0.0.1 0.37 0.0il 0.00s 0.008 0.035 Nb machine or in a l.,tTS 500 kN servohydraul ic type test_
HS420N U O.ts 0.37 r.34 0.023 0.014 0.008 0.035 Nb

354
 ing machine. The test frequency of these two machines
was 10 Hz.

Thp faqigue strength was determined in the I ife range

l0/-10' cycles. Linear equations of the form log N =
a0 + a1 lo9 S- were f i tted to the I imi ted I i fe re-
sul ts. The endurance I imit was evaluated by experi-
ence, taking into account the runouts.
Table II I Summary of fatigue test results

Grode No Specimen R Fotigue strength (MPo)

sr, lo5 sr, 106 sr,2.ld s1

HS3r0 A BMI 0 335 320 320

BW 0 Q2o) 242 210 2to
FW 0 (420]. 142 r03 80
HS3sON B BMI 0 440 340 340 340
HS390 C BMI 0 440 425 400
HS45O D BMI 0 500 4n 415 415
BW 0 335 2@ 175 175
FW 0 275 I 12 85 60
EHS4gO E BMI 0 555 490 480 480
BW 0 350 233 208 r80
BWT 0 445 390 375 360
FW 0 280 152 128 r00
EHS49O F BMI 0 (630) 425 400 400
EHS590 G BMI 0 630 500 500 500
BW 0 380 250 220 2@
FW 0 275 t45 120 100
EHS640 H BMI 0 ö20 520 490 480
BW 0 370 205 r80 180
BWT 0 430 350 330 330
FWI 0 240 232 (2r0)
EHS690 I BMI 0 660 520 520 520
BW 0 365 2r0 200 200
FW 0 330 130 r00 70
EHS640 J BMI 0 5r0 4@ 400 400
(polished) -l 1030 7%
EHS75O K BMI 0 uo 5r0 510 5 t0
(polished) -l 1200 986
EHS690QT t BMI 0 550 330 330 330
(polished) -l t060 914
EHS690 M BMI 0 600 450 450 450
-l 866 639 600
EHS690QT N BMI 0 600 380 380 380
-l 866 639 ö00
le HS35O o BMI (3 mm) 0 375 370 370
BMI (15 mm) 0 380 370 370
l, 320
EHS640 P BM2 0 600 440 440 440
EHS690 a BM2 0 630 175 475 475
HS 420 R BM3 0 115 355 335
EHS9OOQT s BM3 0 665 110 4@ 400
HS35O T BMI -l 600 500 480 480
HS420N U BMI -l 600 500 480 480

Fatigue strength of base metal

lnfluence of surface condition
For base metal the fatigue strength normal ly in-
creases with increasing static strength of the steel.
Figure 1 - Fatigue test specimens used in the experi- Quenched and tempered steels (QT) have sometimes ex-
ments. a) Base metal (BMl), b) Base metal (BMz), c) hibited unexpectedly low fatigue strength values
Base metal (BM3), d) Burt weld (Bl,J, Bt/T), e) Fi l let compared to strip steels of the same static strength.
weld (F}J, FwT) Fatigue testing of QT-steels and strip steels was

355
therefore performed with the aim of getting an ex- Table lV Results of residual stress and surface
planation of this. roughness measurements
Five different extra high strength steels were in-
cluded in the investigation (Tables I and I l, steels Grode Surfoce re- Surfoce
J-N). Two of the steels were qT-steels, hot rolled in siduol stress roughness
a plate mi ll (L and N) with a martensitic microstruc- MPo Ra Im
ture, and the other three were microal loyed strip
steels with a microstructure consisting of ferrite + EHS640 (J) l5 1.9
ite (J) or bainite (K and M). The fatigue tests
pear'l 't.9
EHS750 (K) 98
were,carried out on unnotched specimens in load con- 't09
trol (Kr=1, R=0). The dimensions of the specimens are EHS690QT (r) 8.0
shown iä Fiqure l. EHS690 (M) 7 2.8
EHS690QT (N) -5 5.9
Results from the fatigue tests are shown in Figure 2.
For the strip steels the endurance I imit increases
with increasing yield strength, as expected. This is It is possible to compensate for different degrees of
not the case for the two QT-steels where the endur- residual stress by using the Haig diagram.
ance I imit decreases with increasing yield strength.
The fatigue strength of the QT-steels is also signi- ln Figure 3 a recalculation to R = 0 was made for the
ficantly lower than that of the microal loyed strip results plotted in Figure 2.
steels, e.g. steel L which has the highest yield
strength shows the lowest endurance I imit.
650

650 500 tr STRIP STEELS

O STRIP STEELS + QT STEELS
g§
600 550
d + QT STEELS
* 5s0
J 500
o
.- 500
; 4s0 o
i 450
f
= q00
f
= qoo -ot"t/ *-
U
U
2 350 -+
i
d
sso c
e
z,
500
B
z roo u
U 250
250
200
200
550 550 750 850 950
550 650 750 850 950
YTELD STRENGTH, Rc (Mpa)
YIELD STRENGTH/ RE (MPA)

Figure 3 - Endurance limit, S,, vs yield stress, R_.

Figure 2 - Endurance I imit, S, , vs yield stress, Ru,
for the strip and qT-steels '
With the intention of finding reasons for the low
fatigue strength values of the QT-steels different
measurements of the steel surface were performed,
i .e.
1 Decarburization
2 Res i dua I stresses
3 Surface roughness
The decarburization was measured in a scanning elec-
tron microscope equipped with a wavelength dispersive
X-ray spectrometer. The results showed that none of
the steels exhibited any significant decarburization.
This factor is obviously not the reason for the diff-
erence in fatigue properties.
The residual stresses in the surface of the steels
were quantified by X-ray diffraction. Before the
measurements were performed the oxide scale was re-
moved by pickl ing, The resul ts obtained are shown in
Table lV. The bainitic strip steel (K) and one of the
QT-steels (L) exhibited tensi le residual stresses of
approx. 100 MPa on the surface. The residual stresses
of the other three steels were small.
The endurance I imit values arb recalculated to R ==O
considering the different residual stresses.
The results show that the residual stresses are not
the main explanation of the low fatigue strength of
the QT-steels. ln the case of QT-steel L the endur-
ance I imit increased by 64 MPa, but this value is
sti I I very Iow in comparision to the results for the
strip stee-ls of the same static strength.
The surface roughness of the steels was measured in
the pickled condition, and the measuring direction
was longitudinal to the test specimen. The roughness
was characterized by the R^-value (roughness aver-
age) , and the resul ts of mEasurements are given in
Table lV. ln Figure 4 the endurance I imits are plott-
ed against the R--values, and this figure demonstrat-
es a very close torrelation between fatigue strength
and surface roughness. The main reason for the lower
fatigue strength values of the qT-steels is therefore
probably a rougher surface rather than residual
stresses or the martensitic microstructure in itself.

356
 650 ed is the calculated basel ine fatigue strength S,* as
defined by Eq. 1. For the not6hEd steels a yield
600 O STRTP STEELS ratio correction ((R /R )/0.75)"'- was included in
+ AT STEELS the calculation of §-;.'since cycl ic softening or
§ lso hardening is more pronåunced in this case (6).
5
500
o-.r 900
; rl5o
?L 800
f
= 400 3 zoo
u
2 350
\*-
L
- 600
d
B :oo
zU iz soo
(9
250 qoo
H
F
a
200
u 300
0 10 (=
9

SURFACE RoUGHNESS, Ra (UM) I

L
zoo

Figure 4 Endurance I irnir, Sar vs surface roughness, 100 srD = 41 R2 = 0,91

R
a 0
sr" = 76,527 + 7,05t17 Re - 0.00035 a"2
Base l ne fat ue st th 100 300 500
i i
700 900
The basel ine fatigue strength S.*, i.e. the fatigue YIELD STRESS/ Re (MPa)
strength of unnotched and perfectly ground and po-
I ished specimens, can be calculated as Figure ! - Calculated basel ine fatigue strength (N =
10b) vs yield stress, I iterature data and test re-
S*=K.KS (I) sul ts shown together. Hot rol led base metal (HRBM) ,
r t rr
cold rolled base metal (CnaN), hot rol led specimens
where S. = the fatigue strength results, K. = the with hole (unll) ana cold rolled specimens with hole
fatigue'streogth reduction factor and K- = the sur- (cnu).
face factor afpl icable to unnotched omi'ldly notched
material. For practical use the basel ine fatigue strength is
mean curve in Figure !
evaluated by using the
In order to get a more rel iable estimation of S*
Ii terature resu I ts were grouped together wi th resu I t5 s*=76.527+1.0547R o.ooo35 Rez (4)
from our own investigations. Both unnotched base re
metal and notched material were used in the evalua- The fatigue strength of unnotched or mildly notched
tion. For the relation. between K, and Ka the fol low- specimens can then be calculated from
ing expression was used
Sr = S;,/(K K.) (l)
r rT
K -l
K- = 1 + t ln this case the mi I I scale is the critical area of
t r *{fr
'
(2)
fatigue crack initiation. With mi ldly notched speci-
mens a maximum K.-factor of approximately 1,1 is
where K. = the strqss concentration factor, r = the understood (1,06-l'.20 depending on strength level) .
notch rådius and /A'= the Neuber constant. For the The reason for this is that, for higher Kr-values,
Neuber constant the following expression was used the critical area of fatigue crack initiatioå changes
to the notch, and with such high K.-values it is pro-
F= t.5123 - o.)15\.10-2 R + o.4459.ro-5 R2 bably not relevant to include the' K--factor for the
m mi I I scale in the calculation of S-.rOne approach in
- 0.2635 . ro-8 Rr3 + o.5o3l . lo-12n,r4 (3) this sitdation would be to use therK -factor for the
corresponding surface in the notch. r
Both hot roiled and cold rolled steels of base metal
and specimens with a hole were included. Fatigue The fatigue strength of mechanical ly notched speci-
strength data from references 1-8 were included. Re- mens can be calculated from
ferences 1 -6 are investigations in Sweden performed
at SSAB Svenskt Stål AB (l-4, 6) and at Volvo AB (5) sr =S*/K.K (5)
while 7 and 8 are Japanese results published by f r yr
Nippon Kokan. A K- factor of 1.1 - 1.35 for the hot (notched specimens)
rolled sheets and' a K factor of 1.04 for the cold
ro I I ed sheets were urEd fo. the base meta I of the whe re Kr. = ( (Re/Rm) /0.7il0 '4
tensi le strenqth R = 400 MPa. As the K factor in-
creases along withmthe tensi le strength å correction The results from the experiments with the notched
for this was incorporated in the calculations (see specimens (f. = 2.4-l.t) indicate that the corre-
next paragraph). sponding K--?actor for the surface in the notch
should not be included in the calculation of S. That
AlI fatigue strength resul ts are plotted versus the is the surface factor K- and the fatigue stren§th re-
yield stress in Figure 5. The fatigue strength plott- duction factor K, for Ihe notch shall not be super-

357
 imposed in this case. With decreasing K" (increased For the EHS-steels Table V also includes va'lues of
radius at the notch) a point wi I I be råached where 1/K. recalculated from the actual tensi le strength to
the surface factor should gradual ly be included, but Rm ! 900 MPa in accordance with Eq. 6.
it is difficult to specify for which K--value this
will occur as this case has not been colered in our Fitting of the values obtained for the EHS-steels,
experiments. recalculated to the tensi le strength 900 MPa, gave
the following relation between 'llKr, Rm and R" for
Relat ion between I /K and surface rouohness the exami ned stee I s
For steels of low strength (a max. tensi le strength 1/Kr = 1-0.000254Rm1n(R" + t) (7)
of 400 t,lPa) the vaIue of the surface factor, K, ior
hot rol led steels is normal ly in the range of [. t to 1/K.-R. curves for tensi le strength values 500, 7OO,
1.35 depending on the surface qual ity of the steel. 900' an-d 1100 MPa together with data on the steels
K- = 1.25 is often used. For cold rolled surfaces the tested are presented in Figure 6. The discrepancy be-
Kr-factor can be estimated to l.04-1.08. As the K - tween the values for the HS-steels (tensile strength
välue increases with increasing static strength 5f 500-545 MPa) and the curve for tensile strength 500
the steel the K--factor is higher for high strength MPa is very small, indicating that the influence of
steels (tensile rstrength ) 400 Mpa) to con- static strength could be wel I described by Eq. /.
ventional mild steels. "orf"i"a
I f the relation between K-, surface roughness and 1,0
static strength could be establ ished for base metal a ,- 0.9
more accurate value for K_ could be used in the cal- Y
culations of S_. ln refefences 9 and l0 such rela- i= o,s
tions are givJn for machined steel surfaces. The
relation in reference IO fol lows fairly wel I the I
F
0,7
expression H o.o
u
1/Kr= t - 0.000142Rm1n(n" + t) (6) u 0,5
L
(n" < to pm)
5 0,t{ e Rp = 500-545 fiPa
o
where R" is..the average surface roughness in o 0.3
, R, = 900 uPa
l_rm and U
Km the fensile strength in t'lpa, q
fr 0.2
ln order to get a relation between 1/K-, surface 3 o,r
roughness and tensile strength for conventional steel L/«" = I - 0,000254 n, . [n(n"+ 11
surfaces with mi I I scale R--values were measured for 0
the EHS-steels J-N, e-Q arid S, and the HS-steels 0
(3 and l5 mm thickness) and steel R. The surface u24681t
roughness was measured in the pickled condition in SURFACE RoUGHNESS, Ra ([,t'l)
order to diminish the influence of the oxide layer.
The EHS-steels J-L were also examined and fatigue Figure 6 - 1/K vs average surface roughness, R", for
tested in the ground cond i t ion (th ickness 3 mm) - in EHS-steel s andrHS-steel s
order to get values for surfaces with low R -values.
Results of the measurements are shown in Tab?e V. Practical impl ications
Table V 1/K_-values together with surface roughness, Although our relations between tensi le properties,
R", and tEnsile strength, R-, for some EHS and surface cond i t ion and fat i gue strength wi I I be sub-
HS-sreel§ ject to further improvement an engineering approach
to the use of the above results is given below.
Ru R4 sr, ld l/Kr t/Kr Different calculation routes are proposed for un-
MPo fm MPo :SrlSr * Rz:900 notched or mildly notched steel where the mill scale
EHS
is the critical area for fatigue crack initiation
(case A) and for mechanical ly noiched steel where the
J ,:,, 4.9 4@ o.u7 0.590 high gross stress concentration factor at the notch
" (ground) 1.0 595 0.963 0.91 6 is the governing pararneter (case B).
K ,: 1.9 510 o.725 0.725
" (ground) 0.8 600 0.853 0.853 A -'rUnnotched'r base_metal, K__(_l.l
L ,:,, 8.0 330 o.459 0.4@
" (ground) 1.0 &5 o.925 o.924
I Determine the base I ine fatigue strength from Fig-
M ure 5 or by
820 2.8 450 0.685 o.64
N 871 5.9 380 0.563 0.555 srx = 16.527 + l.o547Re - 0.00035Re2 (4)
P 7n r.58 450 o.7B o.673
o 7@ 2.13 475 o.74 0.706 2 Measure or estimate the surface roughness, R_, of
s r 030 8.3 44 0.561 0.585 the mill scale surface. lf no values are in fiand
HS the following values can be used as guidance
O(3mm) 500 2.6 375 0.85
" (15 mm) 5@ 2.7 380 0.86
Cold rol led sheet R= -1 .2 un
Hot rolled strip ^a
K= | ,5-2.5
R 545 6.0 355 0.73 Hot rolled plate ^ä
un
K= _6 l{n
Hot rol Ied plate, QT K= a
ijm
ä

358
3 Determine K.- from Figure 6 or by lnfluence of R-ratio
r
K. = 1/(1 - 0.000254Rm1n(Ru + 11; (7) AII fatigue strength data reported so far in this
report represent pulsation tension Ioading, i.e.
4 Determine the stress concentration factor Ka and R = 0. ln order to see if these data could form a
the fatigue strength reduction factor Kr. basis also for the fatigue strength at other R-ratios
(R = -1) the calculated fatigue strength at R = 0 was
5 Determine the fatigue strength S. by compared to the corresponding fatigue test results at
R = -1 for some of the strip steels. Both pol ished
r=
S- s_*/(K-K.)
r r T' (1) base metal specimens (grade J, K, L; ref 1 1) and
specimens with mill scale (grade T, U, M, N) were in-
A direct determination of S- for unnotched steel cluded. The fatigue strength at R = 0 was calcuiated
(K. = 1.0) from the surface'roughness R. can be considering the actual surface roughness (R and K -
cairied out using Figure 7 which is bas8d on the value) on ihe strip surface accordiig to Eq."7. r
f ol I ow'i ng express i on
Tensile properties and fatigue strength results for
K. = 1/(i - 0.000254 (156 + 0.91R.) 1n(Ru + 1)) (B) the grades tested at R = -l are shown in Table Vl to-
gether with the ratio between fatigue strength at
900 R = 0 and the one at R = -'l .

The average value of the ratio S-(R = O)/ S-(n = -t)

800 is here 0.74 which is somewhat lo'wer than th'e rule of
It thumb which says 0,8. Considering the wide scatter
å zoo ,09 the expression S (R = -1) = 1.25S (R = 0) is still
recommended estinl'ate of the fatigue
L strength at ",
R =".tnr".rative
-1 from data derived at R = 0.
I
U
(9
ooo
Table Vl Summary of fatigup strength results at
2 R = -1, N = 10" cycles
ä 500
@
q
qoo No R41 R2 Ra Srl. Sr(R:-l)r!§:9l
K7(Rj Sr(R:0)
E
F MPo MPo pm MPo MPo MPo S7(R:-l)
o
300 HS350 I 389 477 1.5 434 t. 125 386 500 o.77
HS40N U 423 !57 3.0 460 1.289 368 500 o.74

200 EHS690 J 6!$ 742 0.0 618 t.000 618 736 0.84

r{00 EHS690 M 724 820 2.8 657 1.385 471 639 o.74
200 600 800 EHS690QT N 759 871 5.9 675 1.708 395 639 o.62
YIELD STRENGTH, Rc (HPe) EHS750 K 814 899 0.0 703 r.000 703 986 0.71

Figure 7 - Fatigue strength, S- (N = 106 cycles) vs EHS750QT L 84 872 0.0 719 l.m0 719 914 o.79
yield sirength, R^, for differdnt values of the sur-
face roughness, Rae
0ur experimental investigations are carried out under
B - Mechqni cqlll_notched_mqtgrta l load control and mainly under pulsating tension load-
ing with R = 0. For unnotched or miidly notched spe-
I Determine the base line.fatigue strength from Fig- cimens the fatigue strength will then be governed by
ure 5, Figure 7 (Ra = 0), or by the yield strength of the steel since the maximum
fatigue stress is I imited by the yield strength.
Sr* = 76.527 + 1.0547Re - 0.00035Re2
ln the case of alternating loading, R = -1, the maxi-
2 Determine the stress concentration factor K, and mum stress to give fatigue failure is less than the
the fatigue strength reduction factor Kr. yield strength. ln this case it would be expected
that the fatigue strength of the base metal at R = -l
3 Determine the fatigue strength S, by is governed also by the tensiie strength of the
steel. 0ur data on the fatigue strength at R = -1 is,
S. = S.*/(K1Kr.) (5) however, too limited to verify this hypothesis.

where the yield ratio correction
Kr" = ( (Re/Rm)/0.i5)o'4
Calculated values of S- represent mean values. In
design a certain margin'of safety has to be applied.
ln many modern design rules mean value minus two
standard deviations, representing 98 % probability of
Survivai, is used aS design value. Considering the
'ir'dividual standard deviations in the above caliula-
tion process a proper design vaiue would then be 0.6
S" when the fatigue strength is estimated from the
tbnsile properties and the surface roughness of the
steel.
Fatigue strength of hot dip galvanized steels
Hot dip galvanized hot rol led sheets and strips are
increasingly used for trucks and simi Iar appl ica-
tions. To investigate the effect of galvanizing on
the fatigue properties hot rolled steels (5-5 mrn
thickness, large-scale produced) of different
strength levels were fatigue tested. The chemical
compositions and the mechanical properties are shown
in Tables Vl I and Vl I l. The yield strength of the
steels was in the range 290-720 MPa. Beside the
strength level s the S i contents of the stee l s were
also varied (O.Ot-0.22 wt|). The Si content is an im-
portant factor for the thickness of the coatings.

359
 Table Vl I Chemical composition of the steels (wt%) q80

qtl0
O BASE METAL
Grode si Mn N Al Others §
E
+ COATED (PICKLED) %
O COATED (BLASTED)
MS r Si 0.04 0.0r o.28 0.026 0.033 0.006 0.05r o
_J400
MS23S| 0.05 0.23 0.26 0.016 0.016 0.008
HS2Si 0.05 0.02 o.37 0.025 0.0r3 0.008 0.052 Nb F

HS6Si 0.06 0.06 0.43 0.006 0.044 Nb

EHSl9si 0.05 0.19 I .33
0.023
0.017 0.002
0.005
0.0r0 0.045 Nb
1 szo
u
EHS22S| 0. l0 0.22 1.62 0.013 0.002 0.0r6 0.04t Nb+v o
= 280
EHSl6Si O.O7 0.r6 1.36 0.o12 0.002 0.007 0.032 Nb+Ti f
=
a
Table Vl I I Mechanical properties of the stee'ls
fr zuo

200
Grode Rex
MPo
Rn
MPo
A5
Vo
200 100 400 500 600 700 800
YIELD STRENGTH, Re (upa)
MSISi uncooled 29D 396 38
MS23Si uncooled 318 4iI 4l Figure 8 - Endurance Iimit, S, vs yield strength,
HS2Si uncooled 352 159 36 R", for uncoated and coated steäls
cooted 399 44 3l
HS6Si uncooled 377 4l 36
For the steels of the highest strength levels (R^ =
cooted
690 MPa) reductions in fatigue limit by 12-35 Z fiZ Z
408 152 33
I9Si
- grit blasted, 35 % ' pickled) were observed. The
EHS uncooled 534 597 26 fatigue cracks in the hot dip galvanized steels ini-
EHS22Si uncooled 691 781 24 tiated in the brittle intermediate phases of the
EHS I6Si uncooled 685 7fi 23 coatings; No significant correlation was found be-
cooted 719 7fi 23 tween the total thickness of the layer (or the thick-
ness of the individual intermetal I ic phases) and the
fatigue strength.
The hot dip galvanizing was performed at 460 deg. C.
Fatigue strength of welded joints
Before galvanizing the steels were pickled in HCl. ln
one case (fnSZZSi) grit-blasting was also used as As for unwe'lded base metal a Iarge number of cold
pretreatment in addition to pickl ing. The thickness forming steels with a yield strength varying between
of the coatings (total and individual phases) was
measured for the different steels. The total layer 300 and /!0 MPa have been tested under tension fati-
thickness was in the range 80-220 pm. Smal I cracks gue loading with stress ratio R = 0. Butt welded
were observed in the brittle intermetal I ic delta specimens and specimens with longitudinal fillet
layer and in some cases also in the zeta layer. These welded attachments were tested, Figuresld and e, The
cracks were observed before the fa t i gue tes t i ng sheet thickness was ! mm.
started. Such cracks are often observed in hot-dip Al I individual results from the fatigue tests are
galvanized steels and are probably formed during the
cool ing of the sheets after galvanizing.
plotted in Figures 9 and I 1 for butt and fi I let
welds, respectively. Joints in steel with yield
The fatigue tests were carried out on unnotched test strength levels below or equal to 500 MPa are plotted
specimens (K, = t.04, R = 0, load control). The geo- with unfiIled symbols alrd those above 500 MPa with
metry and dimensions of the fatigue test specimens fi I led ones. As expected there was no significant
used are shown in Figure 1 (BM-2). The conclusion difference in fatigue strength between the two
from the fatigue test results which are reported more g roups ,

in detail in ref. 3 was that, for the steels of low
and medium strength levels (YS = 290-535 MPa), there
was no significant influence of galvanizing on the
fatigue properties (see Fig. 8), The fatigue I imit of
the galvanized steels increased in proportion to the
increase in static strength of the base metal in the
same way as did that of the uncoated steels. The
variation in Si-content, e.g. a Si-va'lue wi thin the
Sandelin regime (0.06 wt%) had no influence on this
behav iour.
Since there is no significant influence of base metal
strength on the fatigue strength of gas-metal-arc
welded specimens these results have been evaluated as
to the influence of weld toe improvement by TIG-
dressing as wel I as the thickness (thinning) effect
which has recently been recognized in fatigue.
Li terature resul ts from thicker specimens in the two
welded joints are therefore also considered (12, 13,
14, 15). ln order to make it possible to make a fair
judgement of the significance of the thickness effect
all individual literature results considered here are
plotted in Figures 10 and 12, respectively. All re-
sults on welded joints are then summarized in Figure
l3 and Table lX.

360
 NON-LOAD CARRYING FTLLET WELDED ATTACHMENI

___-J,-----1.]-i = 5 illl
-------------T-
o As WELDED, R-, < 500 I'lPa
:
r
i3 IELBEB;
TIG-DRESSED
å:r
-' ! ?88 ilFa o As WELDED, n5i
TIG-DRESSED '- ) 500 uPa
^
( (
E
E
L
!

-
F
!
F
z
z
E
F
F

f o
F
F

to5 to6 to7 to3 Io4 ro5

NUMBER OF CYCLES, N NUT1BER OF CYCLES, N

Figure 9 - Fatigue strength of butt welded specimens Figure I 1 - Fatigue strength of longi tudinal fi I let
in str[n steels, t = 5 rrn, as welded and TIG dressed, welded attachments in ;trip steel, 5 mm, as welded
N = l0- cycles and TIG dressed, N = 10- cycles

NON-LOAD CARRYING FTLLET WELDED ATTACHMENT

*-fr* E
I '
a'

: [:t § ;88 ilEå] §'LJ2,, s L:l -?88 ilBä)*J' "

o 14
REF
r REF 15
d d
E
=
L L

I
F
-o
F
z z
G G
F F

- =
F F

101 10q 105 106 101 104 105 105 ro7

NUMBER OF CYCLES, N TIUMBER OF CYCLES, N

Figure 10 - Fatigue strength of buq welds in plate Figure l2 - Fatigue strength of longitudinal fi I let
steel, t e 1§ mm, as welded, N = 10- cycles, litera- welded attachrqents in strip steel, t-l 15 mm, as
ture data welded, N = 10- cycles, I iterature results

361
Table lX Summary of fatigue test results on welded 1000
900 FATIGUE STRENGTH OF WELDED JOINTS IN
joints 800 WITH YIELD STRENGTH LEVELS

700
600
Specimen t Fotigu€ str€ngth Sr MPo Std. Slope Sr Joinl 500
dev. SN- ffi-2s closs
mm N=10! tt=1d H=2,td s* curve MPo llw ? 4o(]
5
Bult weld, 5 375 235 20r 0.28 4.8 155 8e-l0o 3oo
os weldod 15 36r 171 137 0.25 3.r 94 8&-100 "l
l-rir-lrr-w-rIn-l
I Irr
itr|
250 pqeqslo_j
Buti weld,
5 /(l0 380 368 z
TlGdressed
r 200
Fillet weld, 52§ t36 r09 0.23 3.1 78 71
os welded t5 267 l13 87 0.15 2.7 67 63 IF- r50
Fillet weld,
TlGdressed
5- 2& 232
100
90
, inlogN 80
70
TIG-dressing 60

A considerable increase in fatigue strength can be 50

achieved by TIG-dressing of the weld toes. Here a 10I{ 105 to6 1
fatigue strength improvement of 55 and 75% for butt NUMBER OF CYCLES, N
an( fillet welds, respectively, is achieved at N =
'l
0" cycl es . The benef i t i ncreases wi th i ncreas i ng
number of cycles to fai lure. For 'load-carrying fi I let Figure 1l Fatigue strength of welded specimens
welds the increase can be less due to change of crack summa ry
initiation point from the toe to the root of the weld
(16). Comparison with I ll,J recommendations

Thickrress effect The absolute levels of the fatigue strength of the

Research on for example off-shore structures has
shown that increasing the plate thickness reduces the
fatigue strength (17, 18, 19). A relationshipi
Str n where S r = fatigue strength
. o\
sr = (t-/ t = thickness
n = constant,0.2-0.3
o for fillet welds and butt welds with t = 15 mm. For
has been presented and proved to be valid for thick-
nesses from l0-15 mm and up.
Being cautious in drawing general conclusions, for
example due to different states of residual stresses,
one can, however, see from Figure 13 that there is
support for the above relation to !e extended to 5 mm
thickness. Evaluation of n at 10u cyc'les gives n =
0.29 for butt welds and n = 0.1/ for fillet welded
attachment.
welds are here compared to recommended values for
des i gn codes ,
ln the llW document 693-81'rDesign recommendations
for cycl ic loaded welded steel structuresrr joint
classes for the joints tested are given as stated in
Table lX. This joint class whigh corresponds to the
mean fatigue strength at 2'l0u cycles -2 standard
deviations is in good agreement with the test results
5 mm butt welds the test results indicate a higher
joint class (C = 150).
Spot welded joints
From tests on gas-metal arc load carrying and non-
load carrying welded specimens we have learned, from
previous paragraphs and elsewhere, that the fatigue
strength of high strength steels determined under
constant ampl itude loading is not higher thån that of
mi ld steels.

Load carrying spot welded shear tension specimens

show no i ncrease i n fat i gue strength wi th i ncreas i ng
yield strength of the base material. For non-load
carrying spot welded specimens such an influence was,
somewhat unexpectedly, found, Figure 14, The reason
for this behaviour is probably that in non-load
carrying spot welds the crack-l ike defect is not
situated perpendicularly to the direction of loading
and does not therefore cause the early start of crack
propagation which normal ly makes the fatigue strength
independent of base metal strength. ln order to in-
vestigate which results are relevant to real struct-
ures both non-load carrying and load carrying spot
welded structural detai ls were tested under constant
ampl itude loading (20).

362
 mild steel, SS ll47
The sheet materials tested were a q00 srREss RATIo R=0
(MS), of deep drawing tYPer a lean al loyed high
strength dual-phase steel, D0C0L 600 (DP 600), with
approximately 152 martensite and a HSLA steel D0C0L
'
350 YP (HSLA 350), microalloyed with Nb. All steel
350
-l-1il-
sheets were processed in a continuous annealing line
BASE I'IATER I AL
-&*
NoN-foAD-cARRY-
with water cooling facilities, giving them high ! ;oo ING SPOT WELDE

strength combined with good formabi I ity and consist- SPEC IMET.I

ant mechanical properties. The dual-phase grade was =L

-.250 I NG
tested in two thicknesses, 0.8 and 1.0 mm, and the I
^Nofl-LoAD"CARRY
SPOT I{ELDED BEAI{
other grades in 1.0 mm only. F
2
( 200
The chemical compositions of the materials tested are
shown in Table X. The tensile properties are given in 5
Table Xl. @
; 150
L
Table X Chemical compositions of materials studied
100 .-rr;r]-
+---l=-+
Grode t Si Mn N Al Olhers 50
mm LOAD-CARRYING SPOT
WELDED SPECII4EN
MS 0.019 0.004 0.18 0.005
1.0 0.008 0.006 0.053
250 300 350 ll00 Lt50 500
200
DP600 0.093 o.t(o o.74 0.073
0.8 0.006 0.008 0.067
YIELD STREIIGTH (l.lPa)
DP600 !.0 0.092 0.175 0.77 0.077 0.006 0.007 0.083
HS|-A350 1.0 0.054 0.2r3 0.55 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.06r Nb
Figure 14 - Influence of base metal strength on the
fatigue strength of spot welded specimens and struct-
ural details
Table Xl Tensi le properties of the steels
Conclusions

From the test results and additional I iterature data

Grode Thickness Ral Rn 436 on the fatigue strength of base metal and welded
mm MPo MPo Yo joints the following conclusions can be drawn.
MS r.0 n5 317 4 1 0ur fatigue test results show that the fatigue
DP600 0.8 373 630 !9 strength of quenched and tempered steels is low in
DP600 1.0 385 u3 21
comparison with the fatigue strength of strip
steels of the same static strength. Examinations of
HSTA35O r.0 117 481 28
the steel surfaces indicate that the main reason
for this is probably a rougher surface rather than
differences in residual stresses, decarburization
Fatigue tests were performed on non-load carrying and or mi crostructure.
load carrying spot welded beams according to Figure
l4 (middle), simulating a side rai I under the front 2 The relation between basel ine fatigue strength'
door of a passenger car. The fatigue tests were carr- 5_*, i.e. the fatigue strength of unnotched and
ied out under alternating four point bending loading p6l ished specimens, and the yield strength of the
with R = -1. material is wel I described by
The nbeam test results expressed as stress range at srt, =76.527 + 1.0547Re - O.OOO35R.2
2.10o cycles are summarized together with the speci- ,
men results in Figure 14. ln order to make it Poss- (sro = 4t MPa, R' = 0.91)
ible to compare the specimens tested at R = 0 with
the beams tested at R = -1 the fatigue strength of The fatigue strength of unnotched or mildly notched
the beams is recalculated to R = 0 by 5-(n = 0)/ specimens (Kf ( 1.1) can be calculated from
r
sr (R = -l) = 0.8.
Sr = Sr*/K-K
rr
The tests on spot welded beams not only confirm that
there i s an inf'l uence of yield strength for non-load and the fatigue strength of notched specimens from
carrying structural detai ls, but indicate also such
an influence for load-carrying beams. The reason for Sr = St*/K-K
t yr
this behaviour might be that the beam is much stiffer
than the corresponding shear tension specimen in where K = ((n Zn )/0.7il0.4
which the rotation of the weld causes a more severe KYr = theesu?face factor
stress concentration. This investigation is sti I I in K; = the fatigue reduction factor
progress, and no final conclusions can be drawn at
this stage. These results do, however, imply that Approximate values for the surface factor, Kr, for
tests on spot welded specimens do not always reflect base metal can be calculated from
the conditions present in a real spot welded struct-
ure. = 1/ (l -
Krma o.o00z54R ln(R + t))

363
 where R is the average surface roughness in pm and M Nagae et al, rrFatigue Properties of High Str.
R- is tBe tensi le strength in MPa. Steel Sheet'r, Tetsu-to-Hagan6, 1982168, 9
m

4 Based on 2 and I above an engineering approach of H Kagawa, M Kurihara,rrReport from IAVD Congress
estimating the fatigue strength is discussed in the on Vehicle and Componentsrr lnt. J. Vehicle De-
paper. sign,1!86

! Comparison between calculated fat igue strength at 9 Engineering Sciences Data Unit (ESDU) , No 74027
pulsating tensi le loading (R = O) and increased
fatigue strength at alternating loading (R = -1) t0 Handbook, Royal Institute of Technology, Stock-
supports the general rule of thumb holm, 1986, 261

K Fredriksson, A Melander,rrFatigue Properties of

rf = -l) = 1.25s
s-(n (R = o) 1l
Microalloyed Hot Rolled Steels with Different
6 There was no significant influence of hot dip gal- Microstructural Combinationsrr Report lM-2\4),
vanizing on the fatigue strength of low and medium Swedish lnstitute for Metals Research
strength steels (YS = 290-535 MPa). For the steels
of the highest strength level (YS = approx. 590 12 J 0 Sperle, rrFatigue Strength of \.lelded Joints
MPa) reductions in fatigue Iimit by tlri Tested under Variable Ampl itude Loadingrr, I ll.l-
Z *"r" Document xl I l-963-80, 1980
observed.

7 Results on welded joints confirm that the fatigue 13 H Trogen, rrFatigue Strength of REM-treated Steel,
in this case does not increase with increasing ten- D0MEX 400 - Base material and butt weld'r, Report
si Ie strength of the base metal. lmprovements in 730956, SSAB Svenskt Stål AB, Borlänge, Sweden,
fatigue strength by 55-75 Z are achieved by TIG- 1 973
dressing the weld toes,
14 Unpubl ished results, SSAB Strip Products, 1990
Comparing the test resul ts on welds in strip steel
with I iterature data for thicker plates supports 15 H Paetzold, H Petershagen,rrThe Effect of Post
recent resul ts that thickness effect is present Weld Explosion Treatment on the Fatigue Strength
down to 5 mm thickness. of Plates with Longitudinal Stiffenersrr, I ll/-
Document Xl I l-1369-90, 1990
Tests on spot welded beams indicate that there is a
positive influence of an increased base metal 16 J 0 Sperle, L Bergqvist,rrlnfluence of TIG-dress-
strength on the fatigue strength, not only for non- ing on the Fatigue Strength of Cover-plated
load carrying but also for load carrying beams. Beams", I lW-Document Xlll-826-77, 1977

Acknow I edgemen ts 17 S Berge,rrThe Plate Thickness Effect in Fatigue

Design - Again, Proc. of the 9th lnt. Conf, of
The authors would like to thank H A Trogen, H Borg 0ffshore Engng. and Arctic Engng, ASl,lE Conf,
and J !Jikström for experimental assistance. Also Houston 1 990
thanks to Lois L Martinez for providing us with sur-
face roughness data on the heavy plate steels and Hrs 18 P J Haagensen, 0 0erjasaeter, rrScale Effects in
I Axelsson for preparing the manuscript. Fatigue Design Data for Welded and Unwelded Com-
ponentsrr, See ref. 17
References
r9 G S Booth,rrThe Fatigue Properties of Plate Weld-
I J 0 Sperle, I'Fatigue Strength of High Strength ed Joints of Various Thicknessesrr, See ref. 17
Dual Phase Steel Sheet", lnt. J, Fatigue, 1985t7,
79-86 J 0 Sperle, M Jonsson, I'Fatigue Strength of Spot
l/elded Beams in High Strength Steelsr', Progress
2 P Korsgren, J 0 Sperle, H Trogen,rrlnfluence of report, I lW-Document Xl I l-1331 -89, 1989
Shearing and Punching on the Fatigue Strength of
Hot Rol Ied Steel Sheetrt, Scand. J. Met. 18(1989),
203-210

T.Ni lsson, G Engberg, H Trogen, rrFatigue proper-

ties of Hot-dip Galvanized Steelsrr, Scand. J.
Met. r8(1989), t60-ztS
J 0 Sperle, rrFatigue Strength of Cold Forming
Steelsrr, Report 790397, SSAB Svenskt Stål AB,
Borlänge 1979 (in Swedish)

S Johansson, "Fatigue Strength of Notched Sheet

of Di fferent Strength Level s. I nfl uence of Work-
and Bake-hardening,,, Report LM-53384, V0LVO AB,
Göteborg, Sweden, l!8/

J 0 Sperle, H Trogen,rrlnfluence of yield Ratio

on the Fatigue Strength of Steel Sheet'r, Scand.
J. Met. 18(1989), 147-154
364

View publication stats