Fatigue-Strength-Reduction

Factors for Welds in Pressure

Carl E. Jaske
CC Technologies Laboratories, Inc.,
6141 Avery Road,
Dublin, OH 43016-8761
e-mail: cjaske@cctlabs.com
Vessels and Piping
Fatigue-strength-reduction factors (FSRFs) are used in the design of pressure vessels and
piping subjected to cyclic loading. This paper reviews the background and basis of FSRFs
that are used in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, focusing on weld joints in
Class 1 nuclear pressure vessels and piping. The ASME Code definition of FSRF is
presented. Use of the stress concentration factor (SCF) and stress indices are discussed.
The types of welds used in ASME Code construction are reviewed. The effects of joint
configuration, welding process, cyclic plasticity, dissimilar metal joints, residual stress,
post-weld heat treatment, the nondestructive inspection performed, and metallurgical fac-
tors are discussed. The current status of weld FSRFs, including their development and
application, are presented. Typical fatigue data for weldments are presented and com-
pared with the ASME Code fatigue curves and used to illustrate the development of FSRF
values from experimental information. Finally, a generic procedure for determining
FSRFs is proposed and future work is recommended. The five objectives of this study were
as follows: 1) to clarify the current procedures for determining values of fatigue-strength-
reduction factors (FSRFs); 2) to collect relevant published data on weld-joint FSRFs; 3)
to interpret existing data on weld-joint FSRFs; 4) to facilitate the development of a future
database of FSRFs for weld joints; and 5) to facilitate the development of a standard
procedure for determining the values of FSRFs for weld joints. The main focus is on weld
joints in Class 1 nuclear pressure vessels and piping. 关S0094-9930共00兲02703-7兴

Introduction ‘‘Fatigue strength reduction factor is a stress intensification factor

Fatigue cracks can initiate and grow in pressure vessels and
piping subjected to cyclic loading if the amplitude and number of
stress fluctuations are sufficiently high. The likelihood of fatigue
damage increases as the magnitude of the local stress increases
and as the inherent fatigue resistance of the material decreases.
Design rules for Class 1 nuclear pressure vessels and piping re-
quire that the possibility of fatigue damage caused by cyclic load-
ing be taken into account. Section III of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code 共ASME Code兲 provides design fatigue
curves that relate the allowable stress-intensity amplitude 共S兲 to
the number of cycles 共N兲.
Welded joints are the most likely sites of fatigue damage in
pressure vessels and piping because they often contain geometric
irregularities that produce local stress concentrations. These ir-
regularities may be details of the joint configuration, normal varia-
tions in the weld profile, or weld flaws. Fatigue strength is the
value of applied cyclic stress corresponding to a certain value of
cyclic life. Also, the weld metal and the heat affected zone 共HAZ兲
of base metal adjacent to the weld may have either lower or higher
fatigue strengths than the normal base metal. Such differences in
fatigue strength are a result of local variations in material compo-
sition and microstructure. All of the above factors can reduce the
local fatigue strength of a welded joint compared with that of the
base metal. To account for reductions in local fatigue strength,
fatigue-strength-reduction factors 共FSRFs兲 and/or stress-
concentration factors 共SCFs兲 are employed in the fatigue design of
Class 1 pressure vessels, while stress indices are employed in the
fatigue design of Class 1 piping.
Fatigue-Strength-Reduction Factor. Article NB-3200 in
Section III of the ASME Code provides the following definition:
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented at the
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Seattle, Washington, July 23–27, 2000, of
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by
the PVP Division, March 1, 2000; revised manuscript received April 17, 2000. Tech-
nical Editor: S. Y. Zamrik.
which accounts for the effect of a local structural discontinuity
共stress concentration兲 on the fatigue strength.’’ Extending this
definition to include weld joints
S f 共 component without discontinutiy or weld joint兲
FSRF⫽
S f 共 component with discontinuity or weld joint兲
(1)
Weld FSRFs can be determined experimentally by fatigue testing
both unwelded and welded specimens or components of the same
configuration.
The nominal weld-joint FSRF is a function of fatigue life. Only
at long lives, where the fatigue curves approach a fatigue limit,
does the FSRF approach a constant value. The FSRF usually in-
creases as a function of fatigue life for pressure vessel and piping
steels, so the FSRF at the fatigue limit can be used as a conser-
vative estimate of the FSRF for shorter fatigue lives. As will be
shown later, a constant FSRF can be employed if the factors that
cause the variation in its nominal value are taken into account.
The ASME Code provides procedures for experimentally deter-
mining FSRFs. However, the cost and time required to perform
fatigue tests on weld-joint specimens and components makes it
desirable to use analytical estimates of FSRFs for typical fatigue
design applications.
Stress-Concentration Factor. Stress-concentration factors
共SCFs兲 are used to estimate FSRFs because fatigue strength is
related to stress amplitude.
S p 共 at notch兲
SCF⫽ (2)
S p 共 away from notch兲
The SCF is determined by elastic analysis. Handbooks contain
SCFs that have been developed for typical discontinuities encoun-
tered in engineering equipment and structures. SCF values can be
readily calculated by means of finite-element stress analysis.
When a SCF is used to estimate a weld FSRF, it is implicitly
assumed that the reduced fatigue strength of the weld joint is

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2000 by ASME AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 297

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 caused by the increased stress at a local discontinuity associated
with the weld. The SCF usually overestimates the geometric
FSRF or what is commonly referred to as the effect of notches on
fatigue strength, especially in the low-cycle fatigue 共LCF兲 regime
where there is significant plasticity at the notch. In the high-cycle
fatigue 共HCF兲 regime, where there is only a small amount of local
plasticity, the SCF is closer to the FSRF than in the LCF regime.
In fatigue design, the SCF is often adjusted to estimate the
FSRF using an empirical relationship that takes the notch sensi-
tivity of the material into account. However, both local properties
of the weld and HAZ metal and residual stresses produced by the Fig. 1 Typical welded joint locations and categories „from
welding process may also affect the fatigue strength of the weld Section III of the ASME Code…
joint. Additional adjustments must then be made to account for
local material properties and residual stresses.
Stress Indices. The design of Class 1 piping is covered by have the desired integrity. The design and fabrication of weld
Article NB-3600 in Section III of the ASME Code. Instead of joints has a direct effect on their fatigue strength.
using the FSRFs applicable to pressure vessels, these piping de-
sign rules employ stress indices. The local value of S p is com-
puted using equations that apply stress indices to the internal pres- Parameters That Affect FSRFs
sure 共K 1 and C 1 兲, moment 共K 2 and C 2 兲, and thermal 共K 3 and C 3 兲 A number of important parameters may influence the FSRFs for
loading. C 1 , C 2 , and C 3 are the secondary stress indices, while welded joints in pressure vessels and piping. They include joint
K 1 , K 2 , and K 3 are the local stress indices. For example, for configuration and weld detail, welding process and practice,
moment loading, the nominal bending stress (S b ) is used to com- amount of cyclic plasticity, dissimilarity of metals joined, residual
pute S p : stress, post-weld heat treatment 共PWHT兲, type and degree of non-
destructive examination 共NDE兲, and local variation of material
S p ⫽K 2 C 2 S b . (3) properties.
For a girth butt weld between items of nominally equal wall thick- Joint Configuration and Weld Detail. Joint configuration
ness, C 2 is equal to 1.0. If this joint is flush, K 2 ⫽1.1. If this joint and weld detail normally have the greatest influence on weld-joint
is as welded, K 2 ⫽1.8. Thus, this K 2 index (C 2 ⫽1.0) for piping is FSRFs because they are the primary factors that determine the
the same as a FSRF for moment loading of a vessel girth butt amount of local stress in a welded joint. Increased local stress at a
weld. constant nominal stress decreases fatigue strength and increases
the FSRF.
Type of Weld. The type of weld can significantly affect the Partial penetration welds have significantly lower fatigue
fatigue strength of a welded joint. The main focus of this study strength than full penetration welds. In fact, as pointed out previ-
was on the fatigue performance of welded joints in Class 1 com- ously, the ASME Code requires use of a FSRF of at least 4 for
ponents that conform to the requirements of the ASME Code. partial penetration welds because of the large SCFs associated
Article NB-3200 provides requirements for design by analysis with such welds.
and, as pointed out previously, defines fatigue strength reduction As shown in Fig. 2, the amount of weld reinforcement can
factor. Excluding bolting, cracklike defects, and certain specific significantly affect the fatigue strength of welded joints 关2兴. Weld
piping configurations, FSRFs greater than five do not need to be reinforcement or overfill refers to the extra thickness of the weld
used. bead compared with the thickness of the base metal. The FSRF
The fatigue performance of welds other than those used in increases as the amount of reinforcement increases. The maxi-
Class 1 components also is covered because a large amount of mum fatigue strength (FSRF⫽1.0) is obtained when the weld is
fatigue data have been developed for weldments used in other ground flush.
applications. Even though the specimens used to develop these Single-V butt welds tend to warp in the direction of the widest
fatigue data do not strictly contain ASME Code welds, the welds part of the V, reducing their fatigue strength, as reported by lida
used in the test specimens are often of comparable quality to and lino 关3兴. For this reason, a double-V configuration is typically
ASME Code welds. For this reason, such data can provide valu- recommended for a welded joint that is subject to cyclic loading.
able guidance on methods for establishing FSRFs.
Welds in Pressure Vessel and Piping Design. Welds are a
key factor in the design of pressure vessels and piping. Most joints
in vessels and pipes are made by welding to avoid the potential
problems that are associated with mechanically fastened joints.
The ASME Code divides welded joints into four categories—A
through D, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Category A includes longitudi-
nal joints, all joints within spheres, and circumferential joints that
connect hemispherical heads to main shells. Category B includes
circumferential joints within the main shell, communicating
chambers, or nozzles and circumferential joints that connect non-
hemispherical formed heads to main shells. Category C includes
joints that connect flanges, Van Stone laps, tubesheets, or flat
heads to the main shell, communicating chambers, or nozzles.
Category D includes joints that connect communicating chambers
or nozzles to the main shell, spheres, or heads; it also includes
joints that connect nozzles to communicating chambers.
Each category of welded joint has different fabrication and ex-
amination requirements, as reviewed in WRC Bulletin 432 关1兴. Fig. 2 Effect of butt-weld reinforcement on fatigue-strength
The requirements are prescribed to ensure that the welded joints reduction factor „from †2‡…

298 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fillet welds and welded socket joints can be susceptible to fa-
tigue damage. When fillet welds are used for transitions between
parts or for seals, they must be ground to provide a smooth sur-
face with transition radii between the weld and base metal. Fillet
welds also can be used to make structural attachments to pressure
vessels, provided that a FSRF of at least four is used if the weld is
subject to cyclic loading. Socket joints should be avoided for ma-
terial and environment conditions that can cause crevice
corrosion.
Welding Process and Practice. The American Welding So-
ciety 共AWS兲 has developed standard terminology for defects that
can be produced by improper welding 关4兴. Such flaws and cracks
will reduce the fatigue strength of a welded joint. Since fatigue
cracking usually starts at a surface, surface-connected flaws and
cracks are normally more detrimental to fatigue strength than im-
bedded ones. Important factors affecting the fatigue strength of
welded joints are incorporated into the AWS design fatigue
curves 关5兴.
The welding process must be controlled to avoid or minimize
the formation of flaws and cracks. Also, the weld must be exam-
ined nondestructively to make sure that significant flaws and
cracks are not present or to make sure that locations that require
repairs are properly identified. Producing sound, fatigue-resistant
welded joints requires the use of proper welding processes and
practices.
Cyclic Plasticity. Cyclic plasticity plays a major role in the
fatigue damage process. Ductile pressure vessel and piping steels
are more tolerant of defects and notches in the LCF regime than in
the HCF regime because local plastic flow tends to reduce the
stress concentrating effects of defects and notches in the LCF
regime. However, these stress concentrating effects are not re-
duced in the HCF regime. Nominal FSRFs tend to be relatively
small at short fatigue lives and increase to larger values at long
fatigue lives. This effect of cyclic plasticity is evident when fa-
tigue curves for different types of weldments are compared; they
tend to converge at short lives and diverge at long lives.
Dissimilar Metal Welds. Welds between ferritic and austen-
itic alloys are called dissimilar metal welds. The fatigue strength
of these welds is affected by the same factors that affect the fa-
tigue strength of other welds. Also, the unique nature of these
welds makes them sensitive to thermal fatigue cracking. Because
ferritic and austenitic alloys have significantly different thermal
expansion and thermal conductivity properties, dissimilar metal
welds experience higher local strain than similar metal welds
when they are subjected to thermal cycling. Fatigue cracks de-
velop in the HAZ of the ferritic base metal of dissimilar metal
welds. Thermal diffusion of carbon at high temperature can re-
duce the fatigue strength of the ferritic material. The complexity
of this problem makes thermal fatigue susceptibility difficult to
characterize by an FSRF. Procedures have been developed for
predicting the creep-fatigue life of dissimilar metal welds 关6兴.
Residual Stress. Residual stress has a major effect on the
HCF strength of welded joints. It acts like a mean stress that
increases both the maximum and minimum values of cyclic stress.
In the LCF regime, residual stress becomes decreasingly impor-
tant as the number of cycles to failure decreases because of the
corresponding increase in the amount of cyclic plasticity. Plastic
deformation mechanically relieves the residual stress, so when the
cyclic stress amplitude is equal to or greater than the cyclic yield
strength, there is no significant effect of residual stress on fatigue
strength.
The ASME Code accounts for residual stress by applying a
mean-stress reduction factor to the design fatigue curve 关7兴. This
curve is reduced in the HCF regime to account for the maximum
effect of mean stress. This approach assumes that the residual
stress will always be as high as the cyclic yield strength.
Heat treatment or special fabrication procedures may reduce the
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
residual stress. If the residual stress can be accurately predicted or
measured, the design fatigue curve can be adjusted to take into
account the effect of the actual level of mean stress and greatly
reduce the conservatism in the HCF regime but will have little
effect in the LCF regime.
Post-Weld Heat Treatment. Post-weld heat treatment
共PWHT兲 is employed to relieve residual stresses and to modify the
material’s microstructure. Relief of residual stresses is important
for welded joints that are subjected to HCF loading, because it can
significantly improve their fatigue strength. Stress relief is less
important for LCF loading than for HCF loading because the cy-
clic plasticity associated with LCF tends to relieve residual
stresses, as discussed previously. Beneficial microstructural
changes from PWHT are usually related to modifications of car-
bides or grain size in the HAZ. The ASME Code provides specific
guidelines for PWHT and exemption from PWHT 关1兴.
Type and Degree of NDE Performed. The NDE flaw accep-
tance criteria affect the fatigue resistance of welded joints. The
nature and severity of indications that are allowed can affect weld-
joint fatigue strength. The type and degree of NDE performed
influences the probability of finding rejectable indications. Both of
these factors should be taken into account in establishing a FSRF
for a welded joint.
The ASME Code requires both radiographic and liquid pen-
etrant or magnetic particle method examinations for most welded
joints. In some cases ultrasonic examination can be used instead
of radiography. Radiographic and ultrasonic examination are
volumetric techniques that can detect internal defects, whereas the
liquid penetrant and magnetic particle methods can detect surface-
breaking defects. Because fatigue cracking often initiates at the
surface, it is important to perform surface NDE on welded joints
that are subjected to cyclic loading. In some cases, fatigue crack-
ing can initiate below the surface. For example, the fatigue crack-
ing of socket joints often initiates at defects in the root pass weld,
and ultrasonic examination should be used to find such defects.
Metallurgical Notch Effect. Local variations in material
properties can cause a corresponding localization of stress or
strain in a component even when no notch or discontinuity is
present. This type of stress or strain concentration is referred to as
a metallurgical notch. Metallurgical notches can develop at a
welded joint because there is often a significant variation in local
materials properties at welds. Depending on local variation in cy-
clic hardening or softening, strain may accumulate in the weld or
HAZ metal. This type of behavior is complex and difficult to
model analytically, so these effects are usually quantified by test-
ing welded joints rather than by analysis. The test results then
reflect both metallurgical and geometric notch effects.
Data on Weld FSRFs
It is a well-established engineering practice to use FSRFs to
account for the effect of notches on fatigue strength 关8兴. Fatigue
curves for notched and unnotched specimens are compared on the
basis of net-section stress, and the FSRF or fatigue-notch factor
(K f ) at the fatigue limit is the ratio of the fatigue limit for un-
notched specimens to that for notched specimens. When a mate-
rial does not exhibit a fatigue limit, the value of K f is determined
at a specific fatigue life, such as 108 cycles to failure.
Because different investigators use different definitions for fa-
tigue failure, it was necessary to make judgements as to which
data were reasonable to compare. For example, in the long-life
regime near or more than 105 cycles to failure, the fracture of
small 6-mm-diam specimens was assumed to give comparable
results to through-wall leakage in pipe specimens with a similar
wall thickness. Although this approach is subject to some error, it
is reasonable to use considering the inherent variability in fatigue
data and the variations in test procedures used by various
investigators.
AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 299

Fig. 3 Neuber constant for fatigue of low-alloy steel „from †9‡…
To minimize fatigue testing, values of K f are often estimated
from values of K t , which can be determined from elastic stress
analysis. The notch sensitivity factor 共q兲 is used to characterize
the effect of notches on a material’s fatigue strength:
q⫽ 共 K f ⫺1 兲 / 共 K t ⫺1 兲 (4)
The value of q can vary from 0 to 1. When there is no effect of a
notch on fatigue strength, K f ⫽1 and q⫽0. The maximum notch
effect occurs when K f ⫽K t and q⫽1. Peterson 关9兴 developed the
following correlation between q and the notch root radius 共r兲 that
is widely used in fatigue design:
q⫽1/共 1⫹a/r 兲 (5)
where a is Neuber’s constant, a material-dependent parameter. For
example, a⫽0.0025 for quenched and tempered steels, a⫽0.01
for annealed and normalized steels, and a⫽0.02 for aluminum
alloys. Peterson 关9兴 developed values of Neuber’s constant for
low-alloy steels as a function of ultimate tensile strength (S u ), as
shown in Fig. 3.
Since the Peterson approach uses K f values based on the fa-
tigue limit or long-life fatigue strength, it applies only to HCF. In
the LCF regime, where stresses exceed the yield strength and K f
is much less than K t , an alternative approach is required. For this
reason, Topper et al. 关10兴 applied Neuber’s rule to LCF of
notched specimens
K t ⫽ 共 K ␴ K ␧ 兲 1/2 (6)
Values of K ␴ and K ␧ are not constant when yielding occurs. To
apply Neuber’s rule to fatigue, Topper et al. 关10兴 used K f in place
of K t and defined K ␴ and K ␧ in terms of stress and strain ranges.
They found that the parameter K f (⌬S⌬eE) 1/2⫽(⌬ ␴ ⌬␧E) 1/2
would correlate the fatigue strength of notched specimens with
that of unnotched specimens, where ⌬S is nominal stress range,
⌬e is nominal strain range, E is elastic modulus, ⌬␴ is local stress
range, and ⌬␧ is local strain range. When the nominal stress-strain
behavior is essentially elastic, K f ⌬S⫽(⌬ ␴ ⌬␧E) 1/2. Topper et al.
关10兴 estimated values of K f using Eqs. 共4兲 and 共5兲. This method
provides a constant FSRF that applies to LCF as well as HCF
because it accounts for the effect of cyclic plasticity.
Van der Zanden et al. 关11兴 used the K f (⌬S⌬eE) 1/2 parameter
to predict the fatigue life of both notched weld-metal specimens
and T-weldment specimens made from a carbon manganese struc-
tural steel. To account for the effect of weld residual stress pro-
ducing a cyclic mean stress under fatigue loading, they modified
the parameter, based on the work of Smith et al. 关12兴, by incor-
porating maximum local stress ( ␴ max) in place of ⌬␴. Monotonic
and cyclic stress-strain curves for the steel were used to compute
the values of ( ␴ max⌬␧)1/2 for their fatigue life predictions. Thus,
simplified inelastic analysis is required to apply this approach to
weldments.
300 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
The determination of FSRFs is generally much more complex
for weldments than for notches. In addition to the effect of stress
concentrations at local details, weld imperfections and residual
stress influence the fatigue behavior of weldments 关13兴. Typical
weld imperfections, such as slag inclusions and porosity, are not
crack-like defects, so they cannot be evaluated using fracture me-
chanics and fatigue-crack propagation data. These imperfections
should be considered as potential sites for fatigue-crack initiation
and accounted for in FSRFs that are developed from fatigue tests
of weld joint specimens or components.
Development of design information on weldments, including
FSRFs, has concentrated on fatigue testing of weldments because
of the inherent complexities involved in analytically predicting
their fatigue behavior. Barsom and Vecchio 关14兴 and Lundin 关15兴
have reviewed much of the available fatigue data for weldments.
Examples of weldment fatigue testing are the studies of Andrews
and Jones 关16兴, Baudry et al. 关17兴, Booth 关18,19兴, Cole and Vittori
关20兴, Higuchi et al. 关21,22兴, Lawrence 关23兴, Nishijima, et al. 关24–
32兴, Radziminski et al. 关33兴, Vaessen et al. 关34兴, Vosikovsky and
Bell 关35兴, and Yagi et al. 关36,37兴. This type of weldment fatigue
data has been used to develop design fatigue curves for highway
bridges 关14兴, offshore structures 关5兴, and Class 2 and 3 nuclear
piping 关38兴. The direct use of weldment fatigue data in this fash-
ion eliminates the need for employing FSRFs in design
calculations.
The ASME Code design fatigue curves for Class 1 nuclear
pressure vessels and piping are based on tests of polished un-
notched specimens 关7,39,40兴, so FSRFs should be employed when
they are applied to the design of weld joints. To evaluate fatigue
design methods, Rodabaugh and Moore 关41兴, Rodabaugh 关38兴,
Koves 关42兴, and Scott and Wilkowski 关43兴 have compared fatigue
data for weldments and welded components with the ASME Code
design fatigue curves. Since the ASME curves incorporate safety
factors, these comparisons do not yield direct measures of FSRFs.
Weldment fatigue-crack initiation data should be compared
with the average fatigue curves from which the ASME design
fatigue curves were developed to obtain direct measures of FS-
RFs. When fatigue lives for weld joints are compared with those
for unnotched polished specimens, it should be kept in mind that
the former values include some amounts of crack growth that are
expected to vary as a function of size and section thickness, while
the latter values include data scatter.
Once a significant fatigue crack initiates, remaining fatigue life
should be based on crack-growth analysis. Maddox 关44兴 showed
that fracture-mechanics methods and fatigue-crack propagation
data can be used to develop fatigue curves for weldments with
lack of penetration defects.
The average fatigue curves that were used to develop the
ASME design fatigue curves for carbon and low-alloy steels 关39兴
and austenitic steels 关7,40兴 and are shown in Fig. 4. The curves for
carbon and low-alloy steels extend to only 106 cycles to failure,
whereas the curves for austenitic steels extend to 1011 cycles to
failure. All of the curves fall close together in the LCF region less
than 104 cycles to failure. Beyond that region, the curves for car-
bon and low-alloy steels fall well below those for austenitic steels.
The curves for carbon and low-alloy steels were lowered in the
region of 105 to 106 cycles to failure (N f ) to include the maxi-
mum effect of mean stress. Beyond 106 cycles to failure or below
375 MPa 共54.4 ksi兲, there are three curves 共A, B, and C兲 for
austenitic steels. Only curves B and C apply to austenitic steel
welded joints.
As reviewed by Rodabaugh 关38兴, the ASME Code fatigue
evaluation methods for Class 2 and Class 3 piping are based on
the Markl’s 关45兴 fatigue testing of SA106 Grade B steel pipe with
girth butt welds. For bending fatigue with failure defined as the
development of a through-wall crack in the carbon steel pipe, he
found that the mean trend of the data for were represented by the
following expression:
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 4 Average fatigue curves used to develop ASME design
fatigue curves †7,40‡
⌬S⫽490,000 N ⫺0.2
f (7)
where ⌬S is stress range in psi and N f is in cycles. In a similar
fashion, Lawrence 关23兴 found that the mean trend of a large col-
lection of fatigue data for AISC Category C weldments 关14兴 were
represented by the following expression:
⌬S⫽394,050 N ⫺0.196
f (8)
Equation 共8兲 has essentially the same slope as Eq. 共7兲, but it has a
smaller coefficient, indicating that the Category C weldments
have lower fatigue strength than the butt-welded pipes.
To account for weldments having different fatigue strengths
when their fatigue curves had the same slope, Markl introduced
the stress intensification factor, i. Using i, the more general form
of Eq. 共7兲 is
i⌬S⫽490,000 N ⫺0.2
f (9)
Then, the fatigue curve for Category C weldments could be ap-
proximated by letting i⫽490,000/394,050⫽1.24.
Markl’s fatigue curve for butt-welded carbon steel pipe 共Eq. 共7兲
and dotted line兲 is compared with the average ASME Code fatigue
curve for Class 1 carbon steel components 共solid line兲 in Fig. 5.
Markl’s curve for welded pipe falls well below the ASME curve
for unnotched base-metal specimens, and the two curves diverge
in the LCF region. This divergence implies that the FSRF varies
as a function of fatigue life. The problem with this comparison is
that the stress amplitudes for the tests of unnotched base-metal
specimens were computed from strain amplitudes, whereas the
Fig. 5 Comparison of Markl’s equation for girth butt-welded
carbon steel pipe with the average ASME Code fatigue curve
for carbon steel
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
stress amplitudes for Markl’s work were computed from the elas-
tic stiffness for tests conducted in displacement control.
FSRFs determined by direct comparison of results in the LCF
range often depend on fatigue life because they include effects of
plasticity. As discussed previously, an alternate approach is to
determine a single FSRF for HCF and account for the effects of
plasticity by analysis. Elastic-plastic analysis can be used to com-
pute strain-based stress amplitudes for Markl’s results, so they can
be compared with the ASME Code fatigue curve. For example,
the ASME Code’s elastic-plastic factor (K e ) can be computed and
multiplied times the nominal stress amplitude to estimate the local
stress amplitude.
(K e ) values were calculated and multiplied times stress ampli-
tudes calculated from Markl’s equation to construct the short-
dashed curve shown in Fig. 5. Also, Markl’s equation was com-
pared with the ASME average curve at 105 cycles, and a FSRF of
approximately 2.0 was found. Applying the FSRF of 2.0 to the
ASME curve gave the long-dashed curve shown in Fig. 5. These
two curves are in good agreement, indicating that the ASME Code
evaluation methods with an FSRF of 2.0 can be used to predict the
fatigue behavior of butt-welded carbon steel pipe.
In design applications, (K e ) values are applied to calculated
values of stress amplitude so that the allowable number of fatigue
cycles can be obtained from the design fatigue curve. In the cur-
rent study, they were applied to fatigue data so a FSRF could be
estimated. The value of 2.0 can be used to evaluate FSRFs for
cases where stress intensification factors have been developed for
other carbon steel weldments, as follows:
FSRF⫽2.0i, for carbon steel (10)
For example, a FSRF for the AISC Category C weldments 共see
Eq. 共9兲兲 is estimated to be 2.0⫻1.24⫽2.48. In estimating FSRFs
from stress intensification factors, one should keep in mind that
the definitions of specimen failure differ 共for example, leak versus
crack initiation兲 for different types of tests. The effects of failure
criteria on fatigue life should be constant or small to utilize this
approach for estimating a FSRF.
Rodabaugh 关38兴 compared the results of fatigue tests of
152-mm 共6-in.兲 diameter piping components of SA106B carbon
steel and Type 304 stainless steel with Markl’s equation. The tests
were performed by the General Electric Company 关46兴 and speci-
men failure was defined as the development of a through-wall
crack. Rodabaugh 关38兴 found that the results for butt-welded car-
bon steel pipe were close to or slightly above Markl’s mean curve.
In contrast, most of the results for butt-welded stainless steel pipe
were slightly below Markl’s mean curve, as shown by the open
circles in Fig. 6. After applying K e values to the data for stainless
steel pipe 共solid circles in Fig. 6兲, an FSRF of 2.50 was applied to
Curve A for austenitic steels to obtain a reasonable correlation
Fig. 6 Comparison of fatigue data for girth butt-welded Type
304 stainless steel pipe with ASME Code fatigue curve and
Markl’s equation
AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 301
 Fig. 7 Fatigue of butt-welded steel plate †24,25‡
with the test data. This FSRF value of 2.50 for butt-welded stain-
less steel pipe is greater than the value of 2.00 developed for
butt-welded carbon steel pipe.
Nishijima et al. 关24,25,29兴 developed fatigue data for butt-
welded plates of carbon steel, low-alloy steel, and stainless steel.
They tested axially loaded specimens made from 20-mm thick
plate and evaluated the effect of stress ratio 共R⫽ratio of minimum
to maximum cyclic stress兲 on fatigue strength. Their data for tests
at R⫽⫺1 共fully reversed loading兲 are compared with the ASME
average curves in Figs. 7 and 8. FSRF values of 2.00 for the
carbon steel and 1.25 for the low-alloy steel provided a reasonable
correlation with the ASME curves for carbon and low-alloy steel
共Fig. 7兲. An FSRF value of 2.50 provided a reasonable correlation
for Type 304-HP stainless steel 共Fig. 8兲. The FSRF value of 2.00
for carbon steel is the same as that for Markl’s data, while the
FSRF value of 2.50 for Type 304-HP stainless steel is the same as
that deduced from the data for butt-welded Type 304 stainless
steel pipe 共Fig. 6兲. Thus, as noted by Rodabaugh 关38兴, butt welds
in stainless steel have larger FSRFs than comparable butt welds in
carbon steel.
Figure 9 presents a modified Goodman diagram of fatigue
strength 共stress amplitude versus mean stress兲 at 107 cycles to
failure for the data of Nishijima et al. 关24,25,29兴. The symbols at
stress amplitudes greater than zero indicate the fatigue data, while
those at stress amplitudes equal to zero indicate the ultimate
strength of the steels. The dotted lines are best fits to the data for
each steel, while the solid lines are Goodman relations for each
steel. The Goodman relation is a straight line between the fatigue
strength at R⫽⫺1 共zero mean stress兲 and the ultimate strength
and is used to adjust the ASME fatigue curves for the maximum
Fig. 8 Fatigue of butt-welded stainless steel plate †29‡
302 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 9 Effect of mean stress on fatigue strength of butt-welded
plates at 107 cycles to failure †24,25,29‡
effect of mean stress. The Goodman relation is a conservative
representation of the data for the carbon steel, but a nonconserva-
tive representation of the data for the low-alloy steel and the stain-
less steel.
The maximum effect of mean stress is estimated to occur when
the stress amplitude plus mean stress equals yield strength for
carbon and low-alloy steels or cyclic yield strength for stainless
steel. The horizontal dashed lines in Fig. 9 indicate these stress
amplitudes. The data for the carbon and low-alloy steel are con-
servatively bounded by the predicted maximum effect of mean
stress, but the data for the stainless steel at R⫽0.5 fall below the
predicted maximum effect of mean stress, indicating that this ap-
proximation is slightly nonconservative for stainless steel.
Higuchi et al. 关21,22兴 evaluated the fatigue strength of small-
diameter 共20 to 50 mm兲, socket-welded pipe joints and developed
FSRFs for those joints. They performed rotating bending fatigue
tests on 20-mm-diam carbon steel and Type 316L stainless steel
joints to develop fatigue curves up to 108 cycles to failure 关21兴.
Also, they performed four-point bending fatigue tests on 20-mm,
25-mm, and 50-mm-diam joints of these same steels to develop
fatigue curves up to 107 cycles to failure 关22兴.
The ‘‘standard’’ fatigue curves for socket weld joints developed
by Higuchi et al. 关21,22兴 are compared with the ASME average
fatigue curves in Figs. 10 and 11. A FSRF of 2.50 was needed to
correlate the results for carbon steel joints with the ASME average
curve 共see Fig. 10兲, while a FSRF of 4.00 was needed for the
stainless steel joints 共see Fig. 11兲. The value for carbon steel joints
is different from that of Higuchi et al. 关22兴 because they based
Fig. 10 Fatigue of carbon steel socket weld joints †21,22‡
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 11 Fatigue of stainless steel socket weld joints †21,22‡
Fig. 12 Full-scale butt-welded pipe fatigue data †43‡
their value of 5.00 on their own fatigue data instead of on the
ASME average fatigue curve. The FSRFs for socket weld joints
are larger than those for butt welds.
Scott and Wilkowski 关43兴 showed that fatigue data for full-
scale carbon steel butt-welded pipe can fall well below the aver-
age ASME fatigue curve for carbon steel. The data that they re-
ported are compared with the ASME curve and Markl’s equation
in Fig. 12. The results are in the region of 105 cycles to failure and
fall well below the ASME curve and Markl’s equation. An FSRF
of 4.00 is required to correlate these data with the average ASME
curve. Scott and Wilkowski 关43兴 attributed this low fatigue
strength to ASME Code acceptable imperfections in the weld
joints that provide sites for crack initiation under cyclic loading.
Generic Procedure for Determining FSRFs
Values of FSRFs can be determined experimentally or analyti-
cally. However, even the analytical approaches usually require an
experimentally based material parameter. Experimental ap-
proaches are based on fatigue testing. Generic procedures for de-
termining FSRFs both experimentally and analytically are given
in WRC Bulletin 432 关1兴.
Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges the support of the Pressure Vessel
Research Council 共PVRC兲 of the Welding Research Council, Inc.
for the research described in this paper.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
References
关1兴 Jaske, C. E., 1998, ‘‘Report No. 1: Interpretative Review of Weld Fatigue-
Strength-Reduction and Stress-Concentration Factors,’’ Fatigue Strength Re-
duction and Stress Concentration Factors for Welds in Pressure Vessels and
Piping, Bulletin 432, Welding Research Council, Inc., New York, NY.
关2兴 Harvey, J. F., 1991, Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels, 2nd ed., Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
关3兴 Iida, K., and Iino, N., 1977, ‘‘Effect of Angular Distortion on Fatigue Strength
of Transverse Butt Welds in High Strength Steels,’’ International Institute of
Welding Paper XIII, pp. 827–877.
关4兴 Anon., 1989, Standard Welding Terms and Definitions, ANSI/AWS A3.0-89,
American Welding Society, Miami, FL.
关5兴 Anon., 1994, Structural Welding Code—Steel, ANSI/AWS D1.1-94, Ameri-
can Welding Society, Miami, FL.
关6兴 Roberts, D. I., Ryder, R. H., and Viswanathan, R., 1985, ‘‘Performance of
Dissimilar Welds in Service,’’ Residual-Life Assessment, Nondestructive Ex-
amination, and Nuclear Heat Exchanger Materials, ASME, PVP-Vol. 98-1,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 55–63.
关7兴 Jaske, C. E., and O’Donnell, W. J., 1977, ‘‘Fatigue Design Criteria for Pres-
sure Vessel Alloys,’’ ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 99, pp. 584–592.
关8兴 Dieter, G. E., 1976, Mechanical Metallurgy, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Inc., New
York, NY.
关9兴 Peterson, R. E., 1974, Stress Concentration Factors, Wiley, New York, NY.
关10兴 Topper, T. H., Wetzel, R. M., and Morrow, JoDean, 1969, ‘‘Neuber’s Rule
Applied to Fatigue of Notched Specimens,’’ J. Mater., 4, pp. 200–209.
关11兴 Van der Zanden, A. M., Robins, D. B., and Topper, T. H., 1972, ‘‘Fatigue Life
Prediction for Weldments with Internal Cavities,’’ Testing for Prediction of
Material Performance in Structures and Components, ASTM STP 515,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 268–284.
关12兴 Smith, K. N., Watson, P., and Topper, T. H., 1970, ‘‘A Stress-Strain Parameter
for the Fatigue of Metals,’’ J. Mater., 5, pp. 767–778.
关13兴 Leshnoff, S., and Riccardella, P. C., 1992, ‘‘Metal Fatigue in Operating
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ EPRI TR-100252, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, CA.
关14兴 Barsom, J. M., and Vecchio, R. S., 1997, ‘‘Fatigue Behavior of Weldments,’’
WRC Bulletin 422, Welding Research Council, Inc., New York.
关15兴 Lundin, C. D., 1988, ‘‘Bibliography on Fatigue of Weldments and Literature
Review on Fatigue Crack Initiation from Weld Discontinuities,’’ WRC Bulle-
tin 333, Welding Research Council, Inc., New York, NY.
关16兴 Andrews, R. M., and Jones, R. L., 1991, ‘‘The Fatigue Performance of Single
Sided Closure Welds in Offshore Structures,’’ Proc. 10th International Con-
ference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. III-B, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 377–383.
关17兴 Baudry, G., Amzallag, C., and Bernard, J. L., 1986, ‘‘Fatigue Behavior of
Heterogeneous Weldments Between Stainless and Low Alloy Steels,’’ Fatigue
Life: Analysis and Prediction, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp.
381–392.
关18兴 Booth, G. S., 1980, ‘‘Constant Amplitude Fatigue Tests on Welded Steel
Joints Performed in Air,’’ European Offshore Steels Research Seminar, The
Welding Institute, Cambridge, UK, pp. III/4-1–III/4-15.
关19兴 Booth, G. S., 1981, ‘‘Constant Amplitude Corrosion Fatigue Strength of
Welded Joints,’’ Fatigue in Offshore Structural Steels, Paper 2, Thomas Tel-
ford Ltd., London, U.K., pp. 5–16.
关20兴 Cole, I., and Vittori, O., 1991, ‘‘TMCP Steels and the Thickness Effect,’’
Proc. 10th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering, Vol. III-B, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY, pp. 331–337.
关21兴 Higuchi, M., Nakagawa, A., Chujo, N., Iida, K., Matsuda, F., and Sato, M.,
1996, ‘‘Effects of Weld Defects at Root on Rotating Bending Fatigue Strength
of Small Diameter Socket Welded Pipe Joints,’’ Pressure Vessels and Piping
Codes and Standards, ASME, PVP-Vol. 338, Vol. 1, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 3–10.
关22兴 Higuchi, M., Nakagawa, A., Hayashi, M., Yamauchi, T., Saito, M., Iida, K.,
Matsuda, F., and Sato, M., 1996, ‘‘A Study on Fatigue Strength Reduction
Factor for Small Diameter Socket Welded Pipe Joints,’’ Pressure Vessels and
Piping Codes and Standards, ASME, PVP-Vol. 338, Vol. 1, The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 11–19.
关23兴 Lawrence, F. V., 1990, ‘‘Coping with Weldment Geometry in Fatigue Design:
Problems and Options,’’ Sixth Annual North American Welding Research Con-
ference, Columbus, OH.
关24兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1983, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Properties for Butt
Welded Joints of SB42 Carbon Steel Plate for Boilers and Other Pressure
Vessels—Effect of Stress Ratio,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 34, National
Research Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关25兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1984, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Properties for Butt
Welded Joints of SPV50 Steel Plate for Pressure Vessels—Effect of Stress
Ratio,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 40, National Research Institute for
Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关26兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1984, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Crack Propagation Prop-
erties for Butt Welded Joints of SB42 Carbon Steel Plate for Boilers and Other
Pressure Vessels—Effect of Stress Ratio,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 41,
National Research Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关27兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1985, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Crack Propagation Prop-
erties for Butt Welded Joints of SPV50 共Si-Mn, 500N/mm2 YS兲 Steel Plate for
AUGUST 2000, Vol. 122 Õ 303
 Pressure Vessels—Effect of Stress Ratio,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 46,
National Research Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关28兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1985, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Properties for Weld and
HAZ Materials of SPV50 共Si-Mn, 500N/mm2 YS兲 Steel Plate for Pressure
Vessels,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 47, National Research Institute for
Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关29兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1986, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Properties for Butt
Welded Joints of SUS304-HP 共18Cr-8Ni兲 Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Plate—
Effect of Stress Ratio,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 53, National Research
Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关30兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1986, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Crack Propagation Prop-
erties for Butt Welded Joints of SUS304-HP 共18Cr-8Ni兲 Hot Rolled Stainless
Steel Plate—Effect of Stress Ratio,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 54, Na-
tional Research Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关31兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1987, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Properties for Weld and
HAZ Materials of SB42 共C-Si, 420N/mm2 TS兲 Carbon Steel Plate for Boilers
and Other Pressure Vessels,’’ NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 57, National
Research Institute for Metals, Tokyo, Japan.
关32兴 Nishijima, S., et al., 1990, ‘‘Data Sheets on Fatigue Properties for Weld and
Base Metals of SUS304-HP 共18Cr-8Ni兲 Hot Rolled Stainless Steel Plate,’’
NRIM Fatigue Data Sheet No. 65, National Research Institute for Metals,
Tokyo, Japan.
关33兴 Radziminski, J. B., Srinivasan, R., Moore, D., Thrasher, C., and Munse, W. H.,
1973, ‘‘Fatigue Data Bank and Data Analysis Investigation,’’ UILU-ENG-73-
2025, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
关34兴 Vaessen, G. H. G., de Back, J., and van Leeuwen, J. L., 1982, ‘‘Fatigue
behavior of welded steel joints in air and seawater,’’ J. Pet. Technol., 34, No.
2, pp. 440–446.
关35兴 Vosikovsky, O., and Bell, R., 1991, ‘‘Attachment Thickness and Weld-Profile
Effects on Fatigue Life of Welded Joints,’’ Proc. 10th International Confer-
ence on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. III-B, The Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 339–362.
关36兴 Yagi, J., Machida, S., Tomita, Y., Matoba, M., and Soya, I., 1991, ‘‘Influenc-
ing Factors on Thickness Effect of Fatigue Strength in As-Welded Joints for
Steel Structures,’’ Proc. 10th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
304 Õ Vol. 122, AUGUST 2000
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
and Arctic Engineering, Vol. III-B. The American Society of Mechanical En-
gineers, New York, NY, pp. 305–313.
关37兴 Yagi, J., Machida, S., Tomita, Y., Matoba, M., and Soya, I., 1991, ‘‘Thickness
Effect Criterion for Fatigue Strength Evaluation of Welded Steel Structures,’’
Proc. 10th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering, Vol. III-B, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, NY, pp. 315–322.
关38兴 Rodabaugh, E. C., 1983, ‘‘Comparisons of ASME Code Fatigue Evaluation
Methods for Nuclear Class 1 Piping with Class 2 or 3 Piping, NUREG/CR-
3243,’’ E. C. Rodabaugh Associates, Inc., Hilliard, OH.
关39兴 Anon., 1969, ‘‘Criteria of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for
Design by Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2,’’ The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
关40兴 English, W. F., Greene, R. L., Hughes, D. A., and Post, R. I., 1978, ‘‘Discus-
sion of Fatigue Design Criteria for Pressure Vessel Alloys,’’ ASME J. Pres-
sure Vessel Technol., 100, pp. 236–238.
关41兴 Rodabaugh, E. C., and Moore, S. E., 1971, ‘‘Phase Report No. 115-10 on
Comparisons of Test Data with Code Methods for Fatigue Evaluation,’’
ORNL-TM-3520, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
关42兴 Koves, W. J., 1988, ‘‘Comparison Pressure Vessel and Piping Criteria,’’ Paper
No. 88-PVP-5, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
NY.
关43兴 Scott, P. M., and Wilkowski, G. M., 1995, ‘‘A Comparison of Recent Full-
Scale Component Fatigue Data with the ASME Section III Fatigue Design
Curves,’’ Fatigue and Crack Growth: Environmental Effects, Modeling Stud-
ies, and Design Considerations, ASME, PVP-Vol. 306, The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 129–138.
关44兴 Maddox, S. J., 1986, ‘‘Fatigue Analysis of Welded Joints Using Fracture Me-
chanics,’’ Fatigue Life: Analysis and Prediction, ASM International, Materials
Park, OH, pp. 155–166.
关45兴 Markl, A. R. C., 1952, ‘‘Fatigue Tests of Piping Components,’’ Trans. ASME,
74, pp. 287–303.
关46兴 Heald, J. D., and Kiss, E., 1974, ‘‘Low Cycle Fatigue of Nuclear Pipe Com-
ponents,’’ ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 96, pp. 171–176.
Transactions of the ASME