Calculation sheet

Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet

FWJ1 0 2012/05 1 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini









Index:


1. Abstract................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Cruciform fillet welded joint under traction load ....................................................................... 2
Global approach.................................................................................................................. 2
Local approach.................................................................................................................... 3
3. Cruciform butt welded joint ...................................................................................................... 6
Global approach.................................................................................................................. 6
Local approach.................................................................................................................... 6
4. Conclusion an remarks............................................................................................................ 7






Calculation sheet
Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet
FWJ1 0 2012/05 2 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini


1. Abstract
The aim of this job is to verify some common types of welded joints under fatigue loads. The verifications
are carried out using the global method based on the nominal stress and two methods based on local
approach. The first one is widely used on steel structures verify but the most of times is difficult to
calculate the nominal stress in weld throat or in a parent material. So the local approach is more
convenient but it needs a finite element model of the parts with a correct mesh size.
For example of applications of the various methods we will consider a cruciform joints subjected only a
tractions load on the vertical plates. The horizontal plate is continuous and the vertical plates are welded
to the first one by fillet weld or but weld. The thickness of the plates are 10 mm for verticals and 12 mm
for the horizontal. The load N is intended at the fatigue limit state and its value varies from 0 to maximum
that creates a tensile stress, far from the welds, equal to 100 MPa.


fig. 1-1
2. Cruciform fillet welded joint under traction load
Is possible to evaluate the fatigue strength of the joint using two different approaches: global approach,
based on nominal stress, and local approach that depends from the local maximum principal stress. For
the second route is necessary to build a finite element model that makes possible to evaluate the
principal stress on the root of the fillet weld because the fatigue crack in this case, with high probability,
starts from the weld throat
Global approach
Because of a tensile stress of 100 MPa, at the weld throat there is only stress perpendicular to the throat.
This stress is equal to:
100 l
100 MPa
2a l

o = =

where a is the weld throat and equals to 5 mm.
Calculation sheet
Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet
FWJ1 0 2012/05 3 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini


From EN 1993-1-9 the fatigue resistance at 2x10
6
cycles is equal to 36 MPa with a slope of 3. So the
fatigue assessment for 2x10
6
cycles of life leads at this result:
Ff E2
c Mf
100
3, 472 1
/ 36 / 1, 25
Ao
= = >
Ao

So the welded components life is equal to:
3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 47776
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles.
Referring to Fatigue recommendations IIW 1823-07 the fatigue resistance at 2x10
6
cycles is the same
of EN 1993-1-9 (FAT 36 detail N 414). Also the Recommended practice DNV-RP-C203 furnish the
same limit at 2x10
6
cycles.
For the standards or recommendations is necessary to perform the weld toe verify but this is less
demanding. In this case the fatigue resistance at 2x10
6
cycles is 63 MPa (with standard misalignments):
Ff E2
c Mf
100
1,984 1
/ 63 / 1, 25
Ao
= = >
Ao

3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 256048
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles.
Local approach
In this case is necessary to build a finite element model with a fictitious notch to evaluate the fatigue
strength at the weld root. For the fatigue assessment at the weld toe is possible to proceed by notch
stress approach or by structural stress approach (hot-spot). IWW recommendations prescribes to
performs, at the weld toe, both verifications.
Because of double symmetry FE model is depicted on next figure.


fig. 2-1
Calculation sheet
Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet
FWJ1 0 2012/05 4 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini




For IIW recommendations the mesh size at the notch must be at least of the notch radius using
parabolic elements. Modeling a 1 mm radius the mesh at the notch is 0,25 mm. Researchers use to build
finite elements model with hexahedron elements (20 node brick) but many FE software doesnt have this
kind of solid elements on library. So it is necessary to use tetrahedral elements (10 nodes). The results
are quite close.
From FE analysis are obtained the results depicted on next figures. By notch stress approach the first
principal stress reaches the maximum at the weld root.


fig. 2-2

Using notch stress approach IIW considers only a one FAT class equals to 225 MPa at 2x10
6
cycles
but doesnt consider effects due to misalignment. For nominal stress approach the permissible
misalignment is up to 15% of the transverse plate thickness. So, considering the same limit, the FAT
class must be reduced to:
{ }
max
m
e
k min 1, 40;1 2,5 min 1, 40;1, 45 1, 4
t

= + = =
`
)

c,red
225
160,7 MPa
1, 4
Ao = =
So the fatigue assessment for 2x10
6
cycles of life leads at this result at the weld root:
Ff E2
c Mf
460, 4
3,581 1
/ 160,7 / 1,25
Ao
= = >
Ao

the welded components life is equal to:
3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 43545
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles
At the weld toe:
Calculation sheet
Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet
FWJ1 0 2012/05 5 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini


Ff E2
c Mf
371
2,886 1
/ 160,7 / 1,25
Ao
= = >
Ao

3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 83220
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles

Performing structural stress analysis at the weld toe with fine mesh (2 mm) the structural stress is equal
to:
hs
1,67 99,74 0,67 99,22 100 MPa o =
The FAT class is 90 MPa but is necessary to consider misalignment effects. For the nominal stress
approach is already covered a magnification factor of 1,45 instead 1,05 for structural hot spot approach.
So the FAT class must be reduced:
c,red
90 1,05
67,5 MPa
1, 4

Ao = =
The fatigue assessment for 2x10
6
cycles of life leads at this result at the weld toe:
Ff E2
c Mf
100
1,852 1
/ 67,5 / 1, 25
Ao
= = >
Ao

3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 314928
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles


fig. 2-3

Calculation sheet
Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet
FWJ1 0 2012/05 6 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini


3. Cruciform butt welded joint
Global approach
In this case to perform fatigue assessment is necessary to evaluate the nominal stress on the loaded
plate. In the same late hypothesis the nominal stress is equal to 100 MPa and the FAT is equal to 71
MPa for IIW Recommendation, 63 MPA for DNV-RP-C203 and 80 MPa for EN 1993-1-9. For the last
standard is necessary to evaluate the modified nominal stress. Proceeding with FAT class equals to 71
MPa is obtained:
Ff E2
c Mf
100
1,761 1
/ 71/ 1,25
Ao
= = >
Ao

3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 366500
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles.
Local approach
For butt welds IIW Recommendation prescribe to model the flank angle at 60.


fig. 3-1

From FE analysis is obtained a peak stress of 219,4 MPa. So the fatigue assessment gives the following
results:
Ff E2
c Mf
219, 4
1,707 1
/ 160,7 / 1,25
Ao
= = >
Ao

3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 402381
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles.
Performed structural stress analysis we obtain the same result for hot spot stress. The FAT class grows
to 100 MPa and taking into account misalignments, is obtained:
Calculation sheet
Subject Job Rev. Date Sheet
FWJ1 0 2012/05 7 of 7

ING. ANDREA STARNINI
Fatigue assessment of welded joints
Compiled ing. Andrea Starnini


Ff E2
c Mf
100
1,667 1
/ 75 / 1,25
Ao
= = >
Ao

3
6 c
E2 Mf
2 10 432000
| | Ao
=
|
Ao
\ .
cycles.
4. Conclusion an remarks
For fatigue assessment of welded joints the designer has to take into account various types of variables:
Effective or presumed misalignments
Weld dimensions
Plates thickness
Weld imperfections (Undercut, shape imperfection, volumetric discontinuities, etc. )
Post-welding treatments
Temperature

Misalignments may be introduced directly to finite element model performing local approach assessment.
For simple geometry isnt not complicated but for complex geometry it may cause several problems like
lose of planes of symmetry and the modifications of the original CAD model.
So is more convenient introducing corrections factors into fatigue assessment reducing the FAT class or
increasing stress. Finally know-how may help designers to choose the right method to apply or what is
the result to be adopted.
The next table summarizes the results obtained before in terms of cycles to failure.

Fillet weld
Nominal stress Notch stress Hot-spot stress
Weld root 256048 83220 314228
Weld toe 47776 43545 /
Butt weld
Nominal stress Notch stress Hot-spot stress
Weld toe 366500 402381 432000

High difference is found in assessment at weld root for fillet weld where notch stress approach gives a
too conservative result. In general the hot-spot stress approach is the less conservative for fatigue
assessment at the weld toe.