Static Strength of Cracked Square Hollow Section T Joints

under Axial Loads. I: Experimental

Seng-Tjhen Lie1; Sing-Ping Chiew, M.ASCE2; Chi-King Lee3; and Zheng-Mao Yang4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A series of static strength tests were performed on full-scale precracked square-to-square hollow section welded T joints. These
joints were subjected under brace end axial load until failure using a special purpose designed test rig. An alternating current potential
drop technique was employed to monitor the crack propagation during the tests. In addition, three sets of linear variable displacement
transducers were used to record the crack mouth opening displacements. The tests were performed at room temperature; therefore, the
material is on the upper shelf of the ductile-brittle transition curve where failure occurs in a ductile manner. In all these tests, a stable
ductile tearing was observed with a small tearing region. Based on the yield line theory, the plastic collapse load is estimated, and then
applied to the failure assessment diagram 共FAD兲 of BS7910. The results show that BS7910 Level 2A FAD provides an adequate procedure
for the assessment of cracked square-to-square hollow section T joints.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2006兲132:3共368兲
CE Database subject headings: Axial loads; Cracking; Fractures; Failures; Hollow sections; Joints; Strength.

Introduction significance of defects in fusion welded structures on a fitness-

Most of static strength tests on large-scale tubular joints con-
ducted in the laboratory have failed in a ductile manner 共Klasen
and Wastberg 1997; Cheaitani et al. 1998; Hadley et al. 1998兲.
This is because the material has to pass an acceptance test based
on the crack tip opening displacement 共CTOD兲, which ensures
ductile behavior. Health & Safety Executive 共HSE兲 in the United
Kingdom has used this basic information as the basis for guidance
on static strength of cracked tubular joints 共Department of Energy
1989兲. As more emphasis is placed on the use of the flooded
member detection technique to indicate through-thickness cracks,
the level of in-service inspection is reducing in practice. This
means that tubular joints in a structure may contain a large crack
at the point when the maximum design load is experienced during
its service life.
The BS7910 共BSI 1999兲 provides guidance on assessing the
1
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang Ave., Block N1, # 1C-78, 639789
Singapore 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: cstlie@ntu.edu.sg
2
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang Ave., Block N1, # 1C-78, 639789
Singapore.
3
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang Ave., Block N1, # 1C-78, 639789
Singapore.
4
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang
Technological Univ., 50 Nanyang Ave., Block N1, # 1C-78, 639789
Singapore.
Note. Associate Editor: Marc I. Hoit. Discussion open until August 1,
2006. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on December 7, 2004; approved on
June 17, 2005. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 132, No. 3, March 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2006/3-
368–377/$25.00.
for-purpose basis. The guidance covers both fracture and fatigue
assessments. The fracture treatment is based on the failure assess-
ment diagram 共FAD兲 approach, which originated in the Central
Electricity Generating Board 共CEGB兲 R6 procedures 共Milne et al.
1986兲, and it was further validated extensively using the pressure
vessel data 共Milne et al. 1988兲. Validation of the FAD approach
for assessment of offshore tubular joints was carried out using
analytical studies and experimental test results. These have been
reported by Burdekin 共2001兲, and they were then adopted as the
basis for the assessment of tubular joints in BS7910 共BSI 1999兲.
All of these works were focused on circular hollow section 共CHS兲
joints, and there are very few published works reported in the
literatures on the residual static strength of cracked rectangular
hollow section 共RHS兲 joints.
In practice, many of the fatigue cracks found in welded tubular
structures are part-through cracks. In the CHS joints, the crack is
found to resemble a semiellipse which is perpendicular to the
chord surface 共Pook 1993兲. But for RHS joints, the fatigue crack,
which always initiates from the hot spot stress location at the
corner of the brace, is not symmetric and not semielliptical in
shape. When the crack initiates, the geometry of the joint is not
symmetric, and hence the stress distribution is not symmetric.
Therefore, the crack does not propagate at the same rate at the
two crack tips, resulting in a nonsymmetric crack. Furthermore, it
has been found that the crack does not propagate perpendicular to
the chord surface, but instead propagates as an angle varying from
30 to 60° 共Chiew et al. 2003兲. In order to validate the FAD analy-
sis procedure, and widen its range of application, further experi-
mental tests are required on cracked RHS joints.
In the present study, two identical full-scale square-to-square
hollow section 共SHS兲 T joints under brace end axial load were
tested to failure. The experimental results were then used to in-
vestigate the residual strength of the cracked joints, and to vali-
date the FAD procedure provided by BS7910 共BSI 1999兲.

368 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006

J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Test rig
Test Rig and Loading System
A specially designed test rig as shown in Fig. 1 was used to test
these cracked SHS joints. The rig consists of two servo-hydraulic
actuators which can provide ±1,000 kN load and ±125 mm dis-
placement, respectively. The two actuators apply the loads to the
two ends of the spread beam, and in turn these loads are trans-
mitted to the brace end through the six bolts tightened to the
spread beam as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, a total maximum axial
load of 2,000 kN can be applied to the specimen. The actuators
were controlled using the Instron 8500 controller which can be in
load control or displacement control. The chord ends of the joints
were supported on a pin and a roller respectively placed on the
top of 600 mm⫻ 600 mm concrete supports as shown in Fig. 2,
creating a pinned end support condition at both ends.
Fig. 2. Setup of specimen
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006 / 369
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377
Table 1. Dimensions of the Specimens
Specimen b0 共mm兲 h0 共mm兲 t0 共mm兲 b1 共mm兲 h1 共mm兲 t1 共mm兲
T1 350 350 15 200 200 16
T2 350 350 15 200 200 12
Specimen Details
The specimens were fabricated using BS4360 structural steel of
grade 50D, and they were available from the previous fatigue test
programs conducted earlier 共Chiew et al. 2002兲. Every specimen
contains at least one fatigue surface crack under the weld toe.
These hot finished square hollow section joints dimensions are
given in Table 1, and the mechanical properties of the BS4360-
50D steel provided by the supplier called Corus in the United
Kingdom, are given in Table 2. The weld profile and the specimen
preparation were carried out in accordance with the American
Welding Society 共AWS兲 Structure Welding Code D1.1-2000
共AWS 2000兲 specifications. They were then checked using the
ultrasonic technique to deem the welds’ quality. The two chord
ends were reinforced by stiffeners to avoid the chord end walls
local buckling. The brace end was welded with the 40 mm thick
plate used to connect to the spread beam, and stiffeners are
welded to ensure the strength and even distribution of the applied
load.
Weld and Fatigue Crack Details
The full penetration butt weld is used to connect the brace and
chord members as shown in Fig. 3. The weld width, tw,
was measured after the joint was fabricated, and is tabulated in
Table 3. The fatigue crack length and depth were measured after
the fatigue and static tests, respectively. They are also shown in
Table 3.
Monitoring of Crack Growth
The Alternating Current Potential Drop 共ACPD兲 technique is a
well-established technique 共Dover et al. 1995兲 which can be used
 Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Material Table 3. Weld and Fatigue Crack Details
Charpy Charpy Crack length L Crack depth a Weld width tw
Yield Tensile V-notch V-notch Specimen Cracks 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲
strength strength Elongation temperature energy
1 275 12.7
Material 共N / mm2兲 共N / mm2兲 共A%兲 共°C兲 共J兲
T1 12
BS4360-50D 380.3 529.0 33 −20 170.6 2 125 9.0
T2 1 262 13.6 12
to monitor the crack depth at regular intervals and hence the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

shape of a growing crack in the specimen. The ACPD method is
based on the “skin effect” a characteristic of high-frequency cur-
rent flowing through a ferromagnetic material, whereby the ma-
jority of the current is confined to a thin skin at the surface of the
material. At a frequency of 5 kHz, ferromagnetic mild steel has a
skin depth on the order of approximately 0.1 mm 共Chiew et al.
2004兲. In the crack specimen, the high-frequency current is in-
jected at points on the end face of the specimen on either side of
the crack surfaces, and flows along a path defined by the crack
surfaces. In principle, a linear surface potential gradient should
exist along this current path. A reference potential may be mea-
sured on an uncracked region to define the strength of the poten-
tial gradient. The crack depth can be estimated by normalizing the
cross-crack measurement with respect to the reference measure-
ment 共Lie et al. 2001兲.
In this study, the ACPD crack depth measurements were at
fixed points around the fatigue crack location as shown in Figs. 4
and 5 for specimens T1 and T2, respectively. Because of the
limitation of the channels, only the deepest crack in specimen T1
was monitored during the test. Specially manufactured probes of
0.18 mm diameter and 10 mm length were spot welded on the
chord surface securely. All these probes were connected to the
U10 Crack Microgauge 共TSC 1991兲 which provides the high-
frequency current and phase-sensitive detection. The U10 crack
microgage was connected to an IBM personal computer using the
RS232 serial interfaces, and it was controlled by the Flair soft-
ware 共TSC 1998兲 that provides the automated instrument control,
data storage facilities, and dedicated graphical output under the
Windows environment. During the test, the crack was scanned at
every load step. Fig. 5 shows the setup of the ACPD probes along
the fatigue crack.
Measurement of Crack Mouth Opening
Displacement „CMOD…
the crack mouth opening displacement 共CMOD兲 along the crack.
The locations of the first, second, and third set LVDTs are shown
in Figs. 4 and 5 for specimens T1 and T2. Fig. 6 shows the
arrangement of the three LVDTs. One block and one bracket are
attached to the chord face and brace face, and in turn three LVDTs
are fixed to the bracket. The three LVDTs are in contact with the
block, as shown in Fig. 7, so that the vertical displacement of
points 1 and 2 and the horizontal displacement of point 3 relative
to the brace can be measured accordingly.
In order to transfer the measurements obtained to the crack
mouth opening displacement, an extrapolation approach is
adopted in the test as shown in Fig. 8. If the region between the
crack and the measured point is treated as a rigid body, the
displacements at the measured points are caused by the displace-
ments and rotations of the crack faces. If the displacement
measured by LVDT 1, 2, and 3 are expressed as d1, d2, and l, the
following relationships can be found for:
1. rotation of crack
d2 − d1
␥= 共1兲
L2
2. vertical displacement of crack mouth
dc = d1 − ␥ · L1 共2兲
3. horizontal displacement of crack mouth
lc = l − l⬘ = l − ␥ · h 共3兲
4. and crack mouth opening displacement 共CMOD兲
␦CMOD = 冑d2c + l2c 共4兲
where L1, L2, and L3 = respective distances from the LVDT 1, 2,
and 3 to the weld toe; ␥ = rotation angle of crack face which is
equal to the rotation angle of the chord face; l⬘ = horizontal dis-
placement caused by the block rotation; and h = vertical distance

Three sets of three linear variable displacement transducers

共LVDTs兲 with a stroke capacity of 10 mm were used to measure

Fig. 4. Plane view showing cracks, ACPD probes, and LVDTs

Fig. 3. Weld details 共adapted from AWS 2000兲 location in specimen T1

370 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006

J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Plane view showing cracks, ACPD probes and LVDTs
location in specimen T2
of the LVDT 3 away from the chord face, and can be calculated as
h = h0 + d1 + ␥ · 共L3 − L1兲 共5兲
Measurements of Brace End Axial Load and
Displacement
The brace end displacement was obtained from a LVDT with a
stroke capacity of 50 mm which was calibrated and attached to
the bottom of spread beam in line with the centerline of the brace.
The load was obtained via load cell of the actuators, and the load
was measured using the strain gages attached to the brace to
confirm the load readings.
Static Strength Test
Elastic loading was carried out before the test to check the opera-
tion of the various gages, LVDTs, and the output of the actuator.
The specimen was loaded to 3% of the predicted total capacity,
and then unloaded to ensure that the instrumentation readings
returned to zero. The axial tensile load was applied at the end of
brace using displacement control. The tests were deemed com-
plete when the joint failed completely, which resulted in the loads
Fig. 6. Setup of ACPD probes, and LVDTs along fatigue crack
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006 / 371
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377
Fig. 7. Dimensions of LVDTs before test
taken by the specimens to drop substantially. In most cases, there
was normally a warning signal to show that the load would drop
by a few percent before complete failure occurred.
Test Results and Discussion
Fig. 9 illustrates the load–displacement curves for the static
strength of the two T joint specimens. The curve T1 shows that
the load is related linearly with the displacement up to a load of
600 kN. Subsequently, the slope of the load–displacement curve
changes producing an approximately linear region of up to
824 kN. After this point, there is a plateau, and the load can still
increase slightly up to the maximum load 875 kN before it drops
down as the displacement increases rapidly. The curve T2 also
shows a linear relationship in the elastic region, then the slope of
the curve changes to another linear region up to 899 kN. Unlike
T1, after this point the load drops down to 805 kN, then it in-
creases slightly to 825 kN before it drops down dramatically.
If the twice-elastic-compliance limit 共Cheatani and Burdekin
1994兲 is used to determine the global plastic collapse load of the
joints, it is obvious that the joint failed before the displacement
had reached the deformation limit, which means that the failure of
the joints is fracture dominant even though the material is on the
upper shelf of the transverse curve.
Fig. 10 shows the CMOD at the deepest point calculated from
Eq. 共4兲 versus brace end axial load. Because the displacement of
point 2 is beyond the stroke of the LVDT 2 for specimen T1, the
approximate CMOD under the maximum load is extrapolated
from the last two readings, which may give a value slightly higher
than the real one.
Fig. 8. Dimensions of LVDTs during test
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Load–displacement curves at brace end
Figs. 11 and 12 show the ACPD readings in test for specimens
T1 and T2, respectively. It was found that the stable ductile tear-
ing exists. The ductile tearing initiates under a load much less
than the failure load. The recorded loads are 596 and 783 kN for
spedimens T1 and T2, respectively, and they are shown in Fig. 9.
But the ductile tearing region is small. A peak of load was found
at a point in which the brittle fracture took place and the crack
around the deepest point extended through the thickness of the
chord wall suddenly. It can be assumed that the CTOD of the
deepest point was the critical parameter to assess the integrity of
the cracked T joint. As this load was reached, the crack growth
was very fast, and the load–displacement curve indicated a pla-
teau or a drop. Hence it is reasonable to take it as the failure load.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the first and second crack surfaces of
specimen T1, while Fig. 15 shows the crack surface of specimen
T2 after the T joints had failed. A typical fracture surface is
shown in Fig. 16. This fracture surface indicates that ductile tear-
ing had taken place within a small region enclosing the crack tip
2 which agrees with the ACPD readings. The fracture surface
around the deepest point is shiny and smooth which indicates
brittle cleavage fracture. The cross section of this crack surface at
the deepest point is shown in Fig. 17. It can be seen that the
fatigue crack surface is slightly curved, and a kink is very obvious
at the end of the fatigue crack surface. This means the brittle
fracture is under a mixed-mode condition.
Fig. 10. Load–CMOD curves at deepest point
372 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377
Fig. 11. ACPD readings of specimen T1
Determination of CTOD
From the experimental tests, it is observed that the fatigue crack
surface is slightly curved. Hence, it is reasonable to use the in-
clined secant line to replace the curved crack surface cross section
as shown in Fig. 17. Based on the assumption that the CMOD is
caused by the displacement of the ligament and rotation of the
crack face, the CTOD can be deduced from the CMOD measured
as shown in Fig. 18. The relationship between CMOD and CTOD
is
␦CTOD = ␦CMOD − ␦⬘ 共6兲
where ␦⬘ = dIC · ␥, dIC = inclined crack depth, ␥ can be obtained
from Eq. 共1兲.
Determination of Plastic Collapse Load
The plastic collapse loads for the cracked geometry are evaluated
by reducing the plastic collapse loads for the corresponding un-
cracked geometry on the basis of the net load-bearing area for
axial loading, and the effect of the flaw area on the plastic col-
lapse modulus for bending loads. The correction factor is given
by the equation 共Cheatani and Burdekin 1994兲
冉 冊冉 冊
crack area 1
FAR = 1 − ⴱ 共7兲
weld length*t0 Q␤
where FAR = reduction factor to allow for the loss of load-bearing
cross sectional are due to the presence of the flaw. This equation
was adopted by BS7910 共BSI 1999兲, and was validated by the
experimental and numerical analyses. But all these validations
were based on circular hollow section joints 共Burdekin 2001兲. For
RHS joints, the failure model is expected to be different. There-
fore, a new method should be investigated to calculate the plastic
Fig. 12. ACPD readings of specimen T2
 Fig. 13. First crack surface of specimen T1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Second crack surface of specimen T1
Fig. 15. Crack surface of specimen T2
Fig. 16. Typical crack surface of damaged T joints
Fig. 17. Cross section of crack surface at deepest point
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006 / 373
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377
Fig. 18. Assumed crack deformation at crack tip
collapse load. When the width ratio between brace and chord ␤ is
less than 0.8, normally the failure model of the T joint under
brace end axial loads is chord face yielding 共Packer et al. 1992兲.
The ultimate strength of the uncracked RHS T joint can be de-
rived using the yield line theory 共Wardenier 1982兲. Based on the
yield line theory, an approach was given to predict the collapse
loads of RHS T joints with surface cracks in this study, and it is
validated numerically in Part II of this paper. This approach is
based on the following two assumptions:
1. The yield line pattern stays the same as the uncracked joint
and
2. The thickness of the crack region is t0 − a, where t0 is the
thickness of the chord face, and a is the vertical depth of the
crack under weld toe.
The yield line pattern is shown in Figs. 19 and 20, where the
energy participating in yield lines 1 – 5 remains the same as the
uncracked joint, which is
4 tan ␣
· ␦ · mp
1−␤
2␤ · tan ␣
· ␦ · mp
1−␤
再 4␩
1−␤
冎
+ 4 Cot ␣ · ␦ · m p
Fig. 19. Yield-line failure model
 Pu =
2␴e0 · t20
1−␤
再
tan ␣ +
1−␤
tan ␣
+␩ 冎
−
␴e0 · 关t20 − 共t0 − a兲2兴
2
· 再 lc1
+
lc2
共b0 − b1兲Cot ␣ b0 − b1
冎
共10兲
In accordance with assumption 1, the following relationship
can be obtained from the uncracked joint 共Wardenier 1982兲:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 20. Yield-line pattern

tan ␣ = 冑1 − ␤ 共11兲
Substitution of Eq. 共11兲 into Eq. 共10兲 gives the yield load
␴e0 · t20
Pu = 兵2␩ + 4冑1 − ␤其
2␩ 1−␤
· ␦ · mp
1−␤
␴e0 · 关t20 − 共t0 − a兲2兴
− · 兵lc1 · 冑1 − ␤ + lc2其 共12兲
and 2共b0 − b1兲
in Eq. 共12兲, the first term is the yield load of uncracked joint, and
4共tan ␣ + Cot ␣兲 · ␦ · m p the second one is the reduction of the yield load because of the
introduction of the crack. If there are several cracks, the addi-
respectively. Because of the influence of the crack, the energy that
tional reduction terms that have the same expression need to be
participated in yield lines 2⬘ and 4⬘ is derived as follows:
calculated for different crack depth and lengths. Eq. 共12兲 becomes
yield line 2⬘
␴e0 · t20
Pu = 兵2␩ + 4冑1 − ␤其
2␦ 2␦ 1−␤
共b1 − lc1兲 · · m p + lc1 · · m⬘p 共8兲
共b0 − b1兲Cot ␣ 共b0 − b1兲Cot ␣
␴e0 · 关t20 − 共t0 − an兲2兴 n
− 兺n · 兵lc1 · 冑1 − ␤ + lnc2其 共13兲
yield line 4⬘ 2共b0 − b1兲

where n represent the number of cracks. Considering the influ-

2␦ 2␦
共h1 − lc2兲 · · m p + lc2 · · m⬘p 共9兲 ence of the weld and the chord wall thickness, the width ratio ␤
b0 − b1 b0 − b1 should be
where b1 + 2tw
b0 − 2t0
␴e0 · t20
mp = and the bracing member depth to chord width ratio ␩ should be
4
h1 + 2tw
b0 − 2t0
␴e0 · 共t0 − a兲2
m⬘p = 共Wardenier 1982兲.
4

␴e0 = yield strength of the material.

The energy by the external load Pu is equal to the participating Failure Assessment
energy in the yield lines, which gives
In order to analyze the data obtained from the full-scale experi-
mental tests, the use of FADs is employed in this study for dam-

Fig. 21. CEGB R6 Revision 2 FAD 共adapted from Milne et al. 1988兲 Fig. 22. BS7910 共1999兲 level 1 and level 2A FAD

374 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006

J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377

 Table 5. Results of Lr共Lr = P0 / Pu兲
Plastic
Lc1 Lc2 collapse load Failure load
Specimen Cracks 共mm兲 共mm兲 Pu共kN兲 P0共kN兲 Lr
1 67 217
T1 866.25 824 0.95
2 47 92
T2 1 77 187 928.11 899 0.97
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Level 2—Normal Assessment

Fig. 23. Fracture toughness of BS4360-50D steel 共adapted from
Hancock and Spurrier 1982兲
This level is considered to be the normal assessment route appli-
cable for general structural steel application and makes use of
FAD with no additional safety factors. The assessment lines
are identical to the following equations with different cutoffs for
different materials:

aged RHS T joints. FADs are used to consider failure by linear Kr = 共1 − 0.14Lr2兲关0.3 + 0.7 exp共− 0.65Lr6兲兴 共14兲
elastic fractures as one limiting criteria and failure by plastic col- for Level 2A and
lapse as the second criteria. When performing a structural integ-
rity assessment of a flaw in a stressed structure, an assessment
point is derived from two different calculations and plotted on the
FAD. The structure is deemed unsafe if the point calculated lies
Kr = 冉 E␧ref Lr3␴Y
+
Lr␴Y 2E␧ref
冊 −0.5
共15兲

on the curve or falls outside it, and it is safe if the point is within for Level 2B. The curve for Level 2A assessment is shown in
the curve. The failure assessment curve defined by CEGB R6 is Fig. 22.
shown in Fig. 21 共Kristiansen and Turner 1993兲.
Level 3—Ductile Tearing Assessment

BS7910 This level employs a full tearing instability approach and provides
a more accurate description of ductile materials. The FADs of
The PD6493 共BSI 1991b兲 procedure for the assessment of defects Levels 3A and 3B is the same as these of Levels 2A and 2B, but
in welded components, originally published in 1980 and subse- more material information is needed. The FAD of Level 3C
quently revised in 1991, has been used with some success in the specific to a particular material and geometry is obtained by
industry, and it has been applied to offshore structures 共Burdekin determining the J integral using both elastic and elastic–plastic
2001兲. Its main applications are the fitness-for-purpose assess- analysis of the flawed structure under the loads of interest. The
ment of fabrication and in-service defects, inspection scheduling, Level 3C FAD is the most accurate and complicated, and the
and determination of whether postweld heat treatment is required. assessment curve must be generated separately for different
As a result of The Welding Institute’s work with the British geometry and materials.
Standard Institution PD6493 共BSI 1991b兲 was further revised as
BS7910 共BSI 1999兲 which refines the approaches of the earlier
edition but retains the same principles 共Wiesner et al. 2000兲. Failure Assessment Diagrams
There are three levels of assessment depending on the input
data available, the level of conservatism, and the degree of Because the maximum SIFs or CTOD are found at the deepest
accuracy required. point of the crack, the SIFs or CTOD at this point should be used
to calculate the Kr value. For the surface crack, the region of the
deepest point is always considered under plane strain state. Hence
Level 1—Simplified Assessment the critical fracture toughness must use the plane strain fracture
Level 1 is the screening level introduced into the PD6493 共BSI toughness. To satisfy the plane strain criterion in BS7448 共BSI
1991b兲. It provides a conservative estimate from its use of a sim- 1991a兲, a specimen of more than 150 mm in thickness is required
plified FAD with in-built safety factors and requires conservative for the BS4360-50D steel on the upper shelf. It was not practical
estimates of the applied stress, the residual stress, and the fracture to test such a specimen in practice 共Austin 1999兲. Hancock and
toughness input. The curve for Level 1 assessment is shown in Spurrier 共1982兲 studied the critical CTOD of BS4360-50D steel
Fig. 22. under different thickness and temperature 共Fig. 23兲. In this study,
the ␦c of 2.7 mm for the 60 mm thickness on the upper shelf is
used, and this is considered to be a reasonable approximation. The
calculated values of Kr and Lr are given in Tables 4 and 5, re-
Table 4. Results of Kr共Kr = 冑␦CTOD / ␦IC兲 spectively. Fig. 24 shows the failure assessment diagrams for the
␦CMOD Inclined crack depth ␦CTOD ␦IC specimens using BS7910 Level 2A analysis.
Specimen 共mm兲 ␥ 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 Kr In accordance with the FAD shown in Fig. 24, it can be found
that the Level 2A FAD gives a good assessment for the SHS T
T1 3.96 0.12 17.5 1.86 2.7 0.83
joint under brace end axial loads when the plastic collapse load is
T2 3.41 0.10 21.2 1.29 2.7 0.69
predicted using Eq. 共12兲.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006 / 375

J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 24. Failure assessment of BS7910 共1999兲 level 2A
Conclusion and Discussion
In accordance with the ACPD readings and the fracture surface of
the SHS T joints, it was found that a stable ductile tearing exists,
and the ductile tearing initiation load is much smaller than the
failure load. Although the material is on the upper shelf of the
ductile–brittle transition curve, the dominant failure is still the
brittle fracture around the deepest point, and the ductile tearing
area is very small. From the load–displacement curves, the
cracked joints are found to fail before the plastic collapse. A
modified yield line method may be reasonably used for estimating
the plastic collapse load if ␤ 艋 0.8. This plastic collapse load is
applied in the assessment of the cracked SHS T joints using
BS7910 Level 2A FAD, and this assessment indicates that the
BS7910 Level 2A FAD is suitable for the assessment of SHS T
joints under brace end axial load if ␤ 艋 0.8. After the tests, the
fracture surface was analyzed. A clear kink can be observed at the
end of the fatigue crack surface, which means the fracture is
under a mixed-mode condition. Hence, the mixed-mode fracture
should be considered in the assessment of the SHS T joints.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a ⫽ vertical crack depth;
dc ⫽ vertical crack mouth opening displacement;
d1 ⫽ width of brace;
d0 ⫽ width of chord;
K ⫽ stress intensity factor;
Kr ⫽ fracture ratio using stress intensity factor;
Lr ⫽ ratio of applied load to plastic collapse load;
lc ⫽ horizontal crack mouth opening displacement;
lc1 ⫽ crack length along weld toe parallel to chord
side wall;
lc2 ⫽ crack length along weld toe perpendicular to
chord side wall;
P ⫽ applied load;
Pu ⫽ plastic collapse load;
P0 ⫽ failure load;
tw ⫽ weld width;
t0 ⫽ thickness of chord wall;
t1 ⫽ thickness of brace wall;
␤ ⫽ brace to chord width ratio;
␥ ⫽ rotation angle of crack face;
␦c ⫽ critical crack tip opening displacement;
␦CMOD ⫽ crack mouth opening displacement 共CMOD兲;
␦, ␦CTOD ⫽ crack tip opening displacement 共CTOD兲;
␴e0 ⫽ yield stress of material;
376 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006
J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377
␦r ⫽ fracture ratio using CTOD parameters; and
␩ ⫽ brace height to chord width ratio.
References
American Welding Society 共AWS兲. 共2000兲. “Structural welding code—
Steel.” ANSI/AWS D1.1: 2000, Miami.
Austin, J. 共1999兲. “Measurement of fatigue crack growth in large compact
tension specimens using an AC magnetic field method.” Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 22, 3–9.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1991a兲. “Fracture mechanics tough-
ness tests—Part 1: Method for determination of KIC, critical CTOD
and critical J values for metallic materials.” BS7448, London.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1991b兲. “Guidance on methods for
assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures.”
PD6493, London.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1999兲. “Guide on methods for assess-
ing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures.” BS7910,
London.
Burdekin, F. M. 共2001兲. “The static strength of cracked joints in tubular
members.” Offshore Technology Rep. No. OTO-2001/080, Health and
Safety Executive, London.
Cheaitani, M. J., and Burdekin, F. M. 共1994兲. “Ultimate strength of
cracked tubular joints.” Tubular Structures VI Proc., 6th Int. Symp. on
Tubular Structures, P. Grundy, A. Holgate, and B. Wong, eds.,
Melbourne, Australia, 607–616.
Cheaitani, M. J., Hadley, I., and Burdekin, F. M. 共1998兲. “FAD-based
tearing analysis of new TWI data on the static strength of cracked
tubular double-T joints.” Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Paper No. 2351.
Chiew, S. P., Lie, S. T., Lee, C. K., and Huang, Z. W. 共2004兲. “Fatigue
performance of cracked tubular T joints under combined loads.
I: Experimental.” J. Struct. Eng., 130共4兲, 562–571.
Chiew, S. P., Lie, S. T., Lee, C. K., and Ji, H. L. 共2002兲. “Stress analysis
of square-to-square tubular T-joint under combined loads.” Proc., 7th
Int. Conf. on Steel & Space Structures, Singapore, 199–206.
Chiew, S. P., Lie, S. T., Lee, C. K., and Ji, H. L. 共2003兲 “Fatigue analysis
of square-to-square tubular T-joint with surface crack.” Proc., 10th
Int. Symp. on Tubular Structures, Madrid, Spain, 375–382.
Department of Energy 共DOE兲. 共1989兲. “Static strength of large scale tu-
bular joints, test programme and results.” Offshore Technology Rep.
No. OTH89 543, Health and Safety Executive, London.
Dover, W. D., Dharmavasan, S., Brennan, F. P., and Marsh, K. J. 共1995兲.
Fatigue crack growth in offshore structures, Engineering Materials
Advisory Service 共EMAS兲 Ltd., Chameleon Press, London.
Hadley, I., Dyer, A. P., Booth, G. S., Cheaitani, M. J., Burdekin, F. M.,
and Yang, G. J. 共1998兲. “Static strength of cracked tubular joints: New
data and models.” Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Paper No. 2352.
Hancock, P., and Spurrier, J. 共1982兲. “The influence of stored energy on
the interpretation of fracture test results.” Proc., Int. Conf., Fracture
Toughness Testing-Methods, Interpretation and Application, Vol. 1,
The Welding Institute 共TWI兲, Abington, Cambridge, U.K.,
Paper No. 37.
Klasen, B., and Wastberg, S. 共1997兲. “Failure assessment diagram method
for tubular joints.” Proc., 7th Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conf., Vol. 4, Honolulu, 29–36.
Kristiansen, N. O., and Turner, C. E. 共1993兲. “Defect assessment of
tubular T-joints using R6 failure analysis diagram.” J. Pressure Vessel
Technol., 115, 373–380.
Lie, S. T., Chiew, S. P., Xiang, Z., and Cen, Z. 共2001兲. “Fatigue crack
shapes development of plate-to-plate welded joints.” Exp. Mech.,
41共1兲, 114–121.
Milne, I., Ainsworth, R. A., Dowling, A. R., and Stewart, A. T. 共1986兲.
“Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects.” CEGB
Rep. No. R/H/R 6—Rev. 3 共unrestricted兲. Central Electricity Generat-
 ing Board, Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories, Berkeley, Glos., Great
Britain, U.K.
Milne, I., Ainsworth, R. A., Dowling, A. R., and Stewart, A. T. 共1988兲.
“Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects.” Int. J.
Pressure Vessels Piping, 32, 3–104.
Packer, J. A., Wardenier, J., Kurobane, Y., Dutta, D., and Yeomans, N.
共1992兲. “Design guide for rectangular hollow section 共RHS兲 joints
under predominantly static loading.” CIDECT 3, TÜV-Verlag GmbH,
Köln, Germany.
Pook, L. P. 共1993兲. “Approximation of mixed mode stress intensity fac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UERJ - Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Scotland, U.K., 803–807.
Technical Software Consultant Ltd. 共TSC兲. 共1991兲. ACFM crack
microgauge—Model U10 user manual, Milton Keynes, U.K.
Technical Software Consultant Ltd. 共TSC兲. 共1998兲. FLAIR user manual—
Software Version 1.9, The Open Univ., Milton Keynes, U.K.
Wardenier, J. 共1982兲. Hollow section joints, Delft University Press, Delft
Univ. of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Wiesner, C. S., Maddox, S. J., Xu, W., Webster, G. A., Burdekin, F. M.,
Andrews, R. M., and Harrison, J. D. 共2000兲. “Engineering critical
analyses to BS7910—The UK guide on methods for assessing the

tors for part-through cracks in tubular welded joints.” Proc., 12th Int. acceptability of flaws in metallic structures.” Int. J. Pressure Vessels
Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Glasgow, Piping, 77, 883–893.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2006 / 377

J. Struct. Eng., 2006, 132(3): 368-377