EuropeanCommission

IarhnIraIsIaaIrasaarrh
Steelproductsandapplicationsforbuilding,constructionandindustry
App||cat|onofh|gh-strengthstee|p|atesto
we|deddeckcomponentsforsh|psand
br|dgessubjectedtomed|um/h|ghserv|ce
|oads
S.Budano
CSM
Via di Castel Romano 100, -00128 Rome
M.Kuppers,H.Kaufmann
FraunhoferLBF
Bartningstra3e47,D-64289Darmstadt
A.M.Meizoso
CEIT
P.deManuelLardizabal,15,E-20018SanSebastian
C.Davies
CorusUK
SwindenTechnologyCentre,Moorgate,RotherhamS603AR,UnitedKingdom
ContractNo7210-PR/313
1July2001to30June2005
F|na|report
Directorate-GeneralforResearch
2007 EUR22571EN
LEGALNOTICE
NeithertheEuropeanCommissionnoranypersonactingonbehalfoftheCommission
isresponsiblefortheusewhichmightbemadeofthefollowinginformation.
AgreatdealofadditionalinformationontheEuropeanUnionisavailableonthelnternet.
ltcanbeaccessedthroughtheEuropaserver(http://europa.euj.

Cataloguingdatacanbefoundattheendofthispublication.

Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities,2007

lSBN92-79-05007-7

lSSN1018-5593

EuropeanCommunities,2007
Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged.

P||nted|n/0xemoo0|g

PRlNTEDONWHlTECHLORlNE-FREEPAPER
EuropeD/recI/saserv/ceIohe/pyouf/ndanswers
IoyourquesI/onsabouIIheEuropeanUn/on
Freephonenumber(*j:

(*jCertainmobiletelephoneoperatorsdonotallowaccessto00800numbersorthesecallsmaybebilled.



FINAL SUMMARY

High grade strength plate steels were used to improve their applications in EU obtain advantages to the
overall stiffness of the decks as well as their fatigue resistance. The yield strengths of the steels were in
the range 4601100 MPa.

The application of these products were focalised to design and to produce conventional and sandwich
panels in ship as well as for bridge application.
In order to met the objectives the project were articulated in the follow tasks:
- To define the procedures to design, by geometrical parametric inputs, conventional and sandwich
decks.
- To investigate the fatigue behaviour of the shape of welding joints, by specimens, and to compare
the results to Eurocode 3.
- To identify the methods for manufacturing heavy sandwich panels and the related welding
procedure for laser joints.
- To manufacture conventional panels directly in shipyards in order to obtain industrial products as
reference.
- To manufacture sandwich panel by laser welded joints. Two grades of steel plates (460 and 1100
MPa) were selected.
- To test the conventional and sandwich panels in order to compare with EC3 and to verify the
improvement of their reduction of weight, the increasing both of the stiffness and the fatigue
behaviour


Materials

In order to manufacture conventional and sandwich decks the selection of plates were done in term
both of thickness and of grade.

The plates was delivered by Fincantier (Italian shipyards) and produced by ThyssenKrupp Nirosta
GmbH (Germany) and from Corus (UK)


Steel Grade YS
[MPa]
Thickness [mm] Supplier
355 8
560 16
690 8
690 12
690 16
690 30
1100 8
355 2
FINCANTIERI
(TKS)
355 8
460 8
690 8
355 2
CORUS



3

Design

Conventional decks, with upper skin of th=16mm, and grades S560 and S690 MPa were designed by
FEA. The parameters used to optimise the weight and the stiffness was: bulb area (web thickness and
height) and web numbers. The minimum deflection obtained applying a medium load was: thickness
= 10mm, height=275mm, number of web number N=3. A number of 11 conventional decks (in
particular 5 were in grade S560 and 6 in grade 690 and reinforced bulb in grade S355) were
manufactured ready to submit under fatigue tests. The dimension of each the conventional panel was:
length L= 3000mm, width W=1500 mm, height H= 275mm, weight P=800kgm.
Sandwich decks were designed by 2D. After the valuation of the results the design was improved by a
3D FEM.

The objective of the model was to minimize the buckling of the
corrugate elements as well as the deflection of the panel. The
parameters used to obtain the expected results were: the shape and
the size of the corrugate element in term of: thickness, web/plate
angle, wave length and height.


Optimised dimensions of the sandwich decks were obtained also
taking into account the manufacturing problems to weld, by laser
plant, the internal corrugate elements to upper and lower skin
plates.

The dimensions of the corrugate internal parts are reported in the sketch on the right, where the
thickness of the sheet S355was th=2mm and the upper plates (S1100) and lower plates (S355) was
th=8mm.

Welded Joints

All the shapes (figures) of the welded joints useful to manufacture conventional and sandwich decks
were manufactured in order to investigate their fatigue resistance and compared with the requirements
of Eurocode 3.

For conventional decks MAG, SAW and SMAW welding procedure were considered as well as butt
and T-Butt joint. Welded joint plates of dimension 1000x1000mm were manufactured directly in
shipyard in order to test true industrial production.

Specimens of with W100mm and length L500mm were machined from welded plates and submitted
under fatigue tests. Fatigue tests were carried out in constant and variable amplitude in order to obtain
both the Whler and Ganer curves.

Moreover the notch effect of the welded line was evaluated as well as the real damage. All test data
clearly are on the safe side. Compared to the experimental data derived from the tests, Eurocode3
seams to be conservative.

For sandwich decks laser welding procedure was defined and two shape of spare welded joints
specimens were investigate as follows::

Laser welded joints were cut from welded plates manufactured in four series with different grade of
upper and lower plates:
TypeA:RD1100/RD355 (Series 2)
TypeA:RD355/RD355 (Series 3)
TypeB:RD355/RD355 (Series 4)
TypeB:RD1100/RD355 (Series 1)

4


First Material specification describes thick plate material plate material (th=8mm), second material
description describes corrugate thin sheet material (th=2mm). Type B specimens are specimens
welded from the thick plate side to the thin sheet. For Type A specimens the thin sheet is welded to
the plate from the thin sheet side.

These specimens were submitted under axial loading with constant and variable amplitude in order to
derive Whler and Ganer curves as well as the real damage.

The results lead to define appropriate FAT classes for laser welded specimens Type A and Type B,
as these details are not listed in Eurocode tables.

Possible classification for Type A was:
FAT 36 : Transverse butt weld, welded from one side without backing, full penetration (t <
12,5mm)

Possible classification for Type B was
FAT 50 : Transverse butt weld, welded from one side with remaining backing, full penetration

The comparison shown a significant better fatigue behavior than given by Eurocode.
Compared at N = 2e6, the factors are
Type A: 138 MPa/ 50 MPa = 2.8
Type B: 182 MPa / 36 MPa = 5.0


Manufacturing decks

Conventional decks were manufactured directly in shipyard by industrial procedures. These solution
was very important to have also a standard reference in term of weld quality (conventional FCAW)
and, as consequence, the reference of the mechanical characteristics of the deck. The dimension of
conventional decks were: length L= 3000mm, width W=1500 mm, height H= 275mm, weight
P=800kgm.

Sandwich decks manufactured by laser weld.
The main problems met to manufacture sandwich decks were:
- to minimise the distortion, during the welding process, of the upper and lower plate;
- to obtain welded line without defect;
- to perform the weld in transparency from plate to corrugate sheet;
- to optimise the manufacturing process I term of production time and quality.
After to have resolved these problem decks with length L= 3000mm, width W=1500 mm, height H=
108mm, weight P=720 kgm were manufactured.

Fatigue tests on the decks

According to the suggestion reported to Eurocode3 fatigue tests were carried out by a new testing
machine specially designed to apply concentrate bending load, up to 1000kN, at the centre of the
panel. Three point bending load have been applied to simulate service fatigue loading and the test set-
up included special support to replicate the service operation for heavy concentrated loads, the
dimensions of special support was 550x250mm
The tests were scheduled to have results in term of stiffness, fatigue life, and to monitor the site of the
crack initiation of the deck. A total of 22 full scale fatigue tests were carried out.





5


Final Results and Conclusions

The comparison of the overall characteristics, summarised in the above tables of the two configurations
of the decks/panels, conventional and sandwich, indicates better performances of the sandwich panel in
term of weight (-11%), stiffness (+25%) and a decreasing of the fatigue limit (-30%) Overall
advantages shall be evaluated taking into account many other parameters like manufacturing costs,
maintenance costs etc..


Deck shape Weight [kg] Stiffness [kN/mm] Fatigue limit [MPa]
Conventional 800 29 184*
Sandwich 720 52 157*

=140MPa is the maximum fatigue performance at 2 10

6
cycles indicated in EC3-fatigue
Panels: results comparison


Deck shape Weight Stiffness kN/mm Fatigue limit [MPa]
Conventional +11% -44% Winner
Sandwich Winner Winner -17%
Panels: results comparison
6

TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.0 FINAL SUMMARY 3


2.0 INTRODUCTION 9


3.0 OBJECTIVES 13


4.0 MATERIALS 13


5.0 CONSORTIUM AND ACTIVITIES 19


6.0 DESIGN CODE 21
6.1 Optimization of conventional decks 21
6.2 Design of Sandwich Panel 33


7.0 WELDING PROCEDURES 57
7.1 Standard welds 57
7.1.2 Manufacturing of the Conventional Panels 63
7.2 Laser welding 66
7.2.1 Manufacturing of the Sandwich Panels 73


8.0 FATIGUE TESTS ON SPECIMENS 81
8.1 Butt weld 81
8.2 T-Joint 104
8.3 Laser joints High steel grade 116
8.4 Laser joints Medium steel grade 127


9.0 FATIGUE TEST ON CONVENTIONAL AND SANDWICH PANELS 131


10.0 CONCLUSIONS 139


11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 140
7



2 INTRODUCTION

In the recent past, various research activities have been undertaken to increase knowledge about the
design of marine structures. In particular these components have been considered also in advanced
research activities for marine structures supported by the U.S. Office of Naval Research obtaining
direct application to the design and efficient use of reliable and affordable sandwich structures.
Today, light and reliable structures become increasingly important for modern ship. In fact the modern
passenger ship with large public spaces, like theatres, atriums, restaurant or car decks without any
supporting steel structures call for new structural concept and design solution. Higher outfitting
standards and for demand for faster ships are additional factors which require and increased use of
lightweight structures.
Using first principle design and FE-calculation, the optimum material properties and scantling can be
defined for particular application and load case
New shipbuilding material, like aluminium, composite and high grade tensile steels are one way to
make ship structures lightweight structures
However, advanced materials also call for new manufacturing, in particular joining techniques.
Moreover, structural design must be modified in order to efficiently exploit the material properties.
Conventional arc welding techniques can lead to significant heat distortion in thin structures. The heat
input can locally destroy the properties of advanced materials and cause fatigue problems. Compared to
arc welding processes, laser beam welding offers a number of advantages for the manufacturing of
metallic structures. The benefits include an appreciable decrease of heat distortion, high processing
speed and a constant good weld properties. On the other hand, the required edge tolerance, high
investment cost, limited experience on long term behaviour of laser structures, lacking acceptance rules
and other factors still limit the application in shipbuilding and bridges./1/
Ship decks have traditionally been constructed using plates stiffened by welded bulb-flat sections.
Since the mid 1980s, the shipbuilding industry has been interested in the potential for laser welding
/2/3/. The main drivers for this were originally:
control of distortion; rectification of cumulative distortion has been identified as a significant
proportion of fabrication costs in modern shipbuilding,
cost reductions arising from the ability to weld from one side only;
turning over large fabricated panel assemblies is slow, expensive, and disruptive to other shipyard
operations.

At an early stage, researchers in the shipbuilding sector recognised the potential that laser welding
offered for the practical achievement of novel forms of lightweight stiffened construction. Patents (e.g.
European Patent EP0238603) were taken out in the UK for a form of laser-welded steel-sandwich using
a relatively light-gauge trapezoidal corrugated steel core. The weight reduction potential, together with
other benefits such as resistance to projectile impact, made this technology of particular interest in
warships. In the early 1990s, the US Navy employed this form of laser-welded construction for the
addition of an antenna platform on the USS Mount Whitney, with a reported weight-saving (excluding
consequential reductions in ballast) of some 10 tonnes /4/.
Other European activities are also in progress to design and to manufacture steel structures for
example, the Advanced Composite Sandwich Steel Structures consortium supported by the Fifth
Framework Program of the European Community for RTD as well as ECSC activity carried out to
define for Steel Bridges the criterion Design of orthotropic steel decks./4/ However, even where
these activities consider the development of sandwich structures for large specific requirements defined
by the automotive, rail, and marine-industries they are oriented towards the manufacture of structures
submitted to light loads.
The thrust of the above mentioned researches included: fracture and fatigue in metals; mechanics of
materials (including composite materials); wave propagation and quantitative non destructive
evaluation; structure reliability; and advanced structures.
9

The activities related to these research fields shall be focused on understanding deformation, damage
initiation, damage growth and failure in the material and structures subjected to complex loading
conditions (static, dynamic, cyclic, multi-axial) in severe environments (moisture, sea water,
temperature, pressure). Physically based quantitative theories and models with predictive capabilities
will be established.
The program includes areas related to; constitutive behaviour, failure modes, failure criteria, and the
assessment of structural integrity of naval structures.
Regarding the components conventional deck geometry and a sandwich construction was analysed. The
first conventional design will use a traditional bulb profile.
Plate thickness of 8 mm and 16mm were be used to represent different parts of a structure where
loading conditions may vary, for example, the upper, intermediate and lower decks of a large vessel.
The demand for reduced weight and structural efficiency is common to most transport and structural
fabrication sectors and, through the use of higher strength steels in thinner sections, can lead to higher
stresses being placed on the structure in service.
The sandwich structures were incorporate L shaped thin wall profiles joined to the outer skin plates by
high energy laser weld. Two profile geometries were considered and the panel details, including outer
skin and brace thickness, were finalised when the results from the initial FE analyses and numerical
design calculations.
Regarding the materials from last 10 years many ECSC projects have been carried out in order improve
steel market by new generation of high-strength structural steels. In particular steel makers offer
quenched and tempered special structural steels for steel constructions with heavy loads.
These steel can be used for many welded constructions not only for structures submitted to static load
as vessels, penstocks, pipelines but also for structures submitted to greater fatigue loads as transport
vehicles, mobile cranes bridges and ships.
These high strength steel plates have met good expectation from the structure designers for many
reasons: good weldability properties, stiffness improvement of the structures, fatigue behaviour, as well
as to reduce the weight and to increase the safety of the welded structures.
As mentioned good utilization of these steel are for bridges where the increase of the traffic intensity
put forward higher fatigue loading and in shipyards where greater and greater performances for
passenger, cargo and military ships are required.
Quenched and tempered steel heavy plates are available in different grades from R
eH
=550 MPa up to

y
=1100 MPa. Typical thickness range are from 3 to 100mm.
Minimum impact energy is present at temperature -40 -60C.

Steel makers, as TKS (ThyssenKrup Stahl), produces the families of these steels:


Family grade (TKS [N-A-XTRA]) R
eH
=550 MPa, R
eH
=620 MPa, R
eH
=690 MPa
Typical chemical composition is:


(heat analysis % weight)
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo
0.20 0.80 1.6 0.020 0.010 1.5 0.60

In term of tensile properties these are:
R
eH
(MPa) R
m
(MPa) A% Impact energy (J) T= -20C
L - T
550 640-820 16 30-27
620 700-890 15 30-27
690 770-940 14 30-27

10

Family grade (TKS [XABO 890 / 960)]) R
eH
=890 MPa, R
eH
=960 MPa
Typical chemical composition is:

(heat analysis % weight)
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni V
0.18 0.5 1.6 0.020 0.010 1.5 0.60 2.0 0.1
The steel has a fine-grained microstructure.

In term of tensile properties these are:

R
eH
(MPa) R
m
(MPa) A% Impact energy (J) T= -40C
L - T
890 940-1100 11 30-27
960 980-1150 10 30-27


Family grade (TKS [XABO 1100)]) R
eH
=890 MPa, R
eH
=960 MPa
Typical chemical composition is:
(heat analysis % weight)
C Si Mn P S Cr Mo Ni V
0.20 0.5 1.7 0.020 0.005 1.5 0.7 2.5 0.12
The steel has a fine-grained microstructure.


In term of tensile properties these are:

R
eH
(MPa) R
m
(MPa) A% Impact energy (J) T= -40C
L - T
1100 1200-1500 8 30-27


In term of weldability the manufacturers specify general rules for welding, these steels are weldable
both manually and automatically. The manual arc welding and the gas shielded arc welding procedures
are preferably used. It is specifically stated, that with presently available welding consumables equal
strength properties in the weld compared to the base material cannot always be achieved. Moreover
laser beam welding, which present advantages because of its flexibility, high welding speeds and
favourable influence on the heat-affected zone, is finding increasing use alongside conventional
methods, particularly for thin gauges plates. I.e. by this weld technology it is possible to perform a
weld- joint of 10 mm thick plate at speed of 100 cm/min by 12kW laser unit.
These quenched and tempered steel are a new certainty for designer and steel construction engineers
but it is necessary to exploiting the possibility to optimising the design to gain advantages in steel
constructions in term of costs, weight, prolonged lifetime and safety.
Regarding the rules to design steel bridges ECSC project /4/ pointed out the effort done in EU to
optimise the design the components and the dimensions of road bridges with orthotropic steel decks in
order to define the effect of a particular loading on a particular detail. As well as a calibrated truck was
used to determine the static and the dynamic influence lines.
CSM, LBF, TKS, DILLINGER gave many efforts to optimise Welding Parameters Specification to
manufacture different welded joint geometries manufactured by quenched and tempered steel plates
useful to manufacture orthotropic deck structures. Fatigue performances of many geometries of welded
joints have been determined and validated to Eurocode III Fatigue of Welded Components /5/6/
Obtained results are comfortable and useful for future application considering that ENV 1993-2
research results showed that for most welded details [as defined in Eurocode III and validate for
quenched and tempered steel plates] the stress range in the steel bridge decks are small enough to give
an acceptable fatigue life if special attention is paid to the detailing with regard to fatigue.
In any case the assessment of the bridge is strictly related to shortcoming in design and execution /4/
11

The result of the fatigue verification, carried out in /1/ analysing the traffic on the bridge with traffic
category 1 of ENV-3, shoved that the fatigue strength of the studied details of the orthotropic deck
structure is sufficient for a fatigue life of 100 years if the quality of weld is good /4/
This last consideration will be focalised analysing the result obtained in this project.
12

3 OBJECTIVES

The objective of the project was to define the procedures to design developing a parametric model and
to manufacture heavy panels using standard welding procedure as well as laser welding. High strength
plate steels grade were used to improve their applications in EU obtain advantages to the overall
stiffness of the decks as well as their fatigue resistance.
These panels are useful to assembly heavy loaded structures like ship decks as a typical example which
can be extrapolated to other applications such as highway bridge decks, ship hulls and superstructures.
Both types of panel had incorporate higher strength steels to minimise plate thickness and overall
weight. The yield strengths of the steels were in the range 4601100 MPa.
The project work plan incorporates Finite Element and numerical modelling work to optimise the panel
designs for subsequent testing and the development of a generic panel design methodology.
Experimental work included characterisation of individual welded joints (conventional and laser
welded) by metallography, mechanical property and fatigue testing together with fatigue testing of
representative panels under both conventional fatigue cycling and dynamic (crash-fatigue) loading
using a test machine specially developed by CSM.


4 MATERIALS

Four grades of steel plates will be considered in the project: (S355 MPa) standard grade, medium grade
(S460 MPa - S560 MPa), medium/high grade (S 690 MPa) and high strength (S 1100 MPa). In order to
cover a wide range of potential applications, including main and secondary ship decks, highway bridge
decks etc. and different levels of in-service stresses all four steels with plate thickness from 8 mm up to
16 mm Moreover 30 mm thickness plate was considered just to investigate the problems due to apply
the weld processes to very high thickness plates useful in shipyard constructions.
Two medium grade and medium/high grade (560 MPa and 690 MPa) steels were used for the
investigation into sandwich panels with skin thickness 2 mm. These graded were initially considered to
perform the Finite Element calculation and numerical modelling.

Steel Grade YS
[MPa]
Thickness [mm] Supplier
355 8
560 16
690 8
690 12
690 16
690 30
1100 8
355 2
FINCANTIERI
355 8
460 8
690 8
355 2
CORUS

The medium and medium/high grade plates for sandwich panels were supplied by Corus Group (UK)
and the higher strength steel material also used for bulb-stiffened panels (conventional panels) were
delivered by Fincantieri and purchased from ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH (Germany) who are
specialists to manufacture this class of steel plates.
These procedure assured the plates were effectively industrial products and not particular samples.
13

Standard fabrication, welding processes and parameters were applied by Fincantieri Shipyard to
manufacture the conventional panels whilst sandwich panels were manufactured by Corus UK using
laser welding technique.

Steel Plate Grade S690. (Thickness 30mm)
Plates of steel grade S690 with thickness 30mm were considered as first part of this project. For this
steel base material was characterized in term of mechanical, metallography parameters and welding
procedures were determined.
Chemical composition and mechanical properties determined for the considered steel grade S690 are
reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Material
C
[%]
S
[%]
N
[ppm]
Mn
[%]
Si
[%]
P
[%]
Al
[%]
Cr
[%]
0.16 <0.005 80 1.17 0.56 0.018 0.054 0.45
Ni
[%]
Mo
[%]
V
[%]
Cu
[%]
Nb
[%]
Ti
[%]
Ca
[%]
B
[ppm]
S690
0.33 0.32 0.048 0.078 0.029 <0.05 0.0016 <=5
Table 1 Steel grade S690 - Chemical Composition

Mechanical properties of steel grade S690 were determined in accordance with EN 10002 Part 1 using
full thickness rectangular test specimen machined at 0 related to RD.

Material
Thickness
[mm]
Yield Strength
0.2% [MPa]
Tensile Strength
[MPa]
Elongation A
[%]
Reduction of area
Z [%]
S690 30.3 800 875 18 49
Table 2 Steel grade S690 - Mechanical Properties in RD
Displacement controlled CTOD fracture toughness tests according to BS 7448:Part1:1991 were carried
out on three point bend rectangular cross section specimens with crack tip line perpendicular to plate
surface (TS-L crack plane orientation). Two different temperature test temperatures were investigated
in order to determine the temperature influence on the toughness of the base material. The results are
reported in Table 3.

Material Specimens I.D. Temperature [C]
CTOD [mm] Result type
HY/100/1 -10 0.388 c
HY/100/2 -10 0.124 c
HY/100/4 +23 0.576 m
S690
HY/100/3 +23 0.725 m
Table 3 Steel grade S690 Result of CTOD fracture toughness on Base Material

Both CTOD data dispersion and the brittle appearance of the fracture (resulted of type c according to
BS) for the lower temperature means that T=-10C is in the range of the transition temperature.
Charpy V tests were carried out according to EN 10045-1:1992 on test specimens machined from
plates of steel grade S690 both for LT and for TL orientation. The tables 4 and 5 summarised the
results of Charpy V tests. The values both of the absorbed energy and the fracture surface appearance
vs temperature are showed in Figures 1 and 2.
14

0
50
100
150
200
250
-200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50
Testing temperature [C]
A
b
s
o
r
b
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

[
J
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
B
r
i
t
t
l
e


f
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
%
]
Absorbed Energy
Brittle fracture surface
Specimens orientation

Figure 1 Charpy V data on specimens orientation TL

Id.
Specimens
Energy absorbed
[J]
Brittle fracture surface
[%]
Test Temperature
[C]

2 230 0 23
1 160 40 -40
4 111 50 -50
5 94 60 -60
6 42 85 -80
3 26 90 -100

Table 4 Result of Charpy V tests on specimens orientation TL




15

0
50
100
150
200
250
-200 -175 -150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50
Testing temperature [C]
A
b
s
o
r
b
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

[
J
]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
B
r
i
t
t
l
e


f
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

[
%
]
Absorbed Energy
Brittle fracture surface
Specimens
orientation LT

Figure 2 Charpy V data on specimens orientation LT

Id.
Specimens
Energy absorbed
[J]
Brittle fracture surface
[%]
Test temperature
[C]

4 230 0 23
10 174 25 0
9 121 30 -20
1 110 60 -40
2 110 60 -40
3 110 60 -40
5 64 80 -60
6 50 85 -60
7 34 95 -80
8 28 95 -80
12 36 95 -100
11 10 100 -140

Table 5 Result of Charpy V tests on specimens orientation LT



16

The results shows high toughness of S690 steel plate at room temperature (upper shelf) with Charpy
energy greater than 200J and the FATT localised in the range 50C and 25C for L and T orientation
respectively.
Samples for metallographic examination were taken from plate steel grade S690 with thickness 30mm,
as expected, typical martesite microstructure is shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3 - Microstructure of Base Material Steel Grade S690

Steel Plates
Grade S690 S550QL (th 16mm) S1100QL (th 8mm)
All the steel plates considered were purchased by Fincantieri following the ordinary shipyard
purchasing procedures and produced by ThissenKrupp Stahl.
High strength steel plates considered are classified by TKS as: N-A-XTRA and XABO.
Effective chemical composition and mechanical properties determined for the considered grade steel
plates grade are reported in Table 6 and Table 7.
Mechanical properties were determined in accordance with EN 10002 Part 1 using full thickness
rectangular test specimens machined at 0 and 90 related to RD

17


Materials Thic
k.
mm
C Si Mn P S N
(pp
m)
Al Cu Mo Ni Cr V Nb Ti B
(ppm
)
16 0.1
8
0.2
2
0.8
9
0.01
2
<0.00
2
<10 0.68 0.02
8
0.02
2
0.03
3
0.31 <0.0
05
0.02
8
0.009 25
S690QL
(N-A-XTRA M
70)
30 0.1
6
0.5
6
1.1
7
0.01
8
<0.00
5
80 0.05
4
0.07
8
0.32 0.33 0.45 0.04
8
0.02
9
<0.05 <=
5
S550QL
(N-A-XTRA M
56)
16 0.1
7
0.2
1
0.8
9
0.01
2
<0.00
2
38 0.07 0.03
0
0.02
2
0.03
4
0.31 <0.0
05
0.02
8
0.009 20
S1100QL
(XABO1100)
8 0.1
7
0.2
2
0.9
1
0.01
5
0.002
1
15 0.04
0
0.02
7
0.60 1.94 0.31 <0.0
05
0.02
6
0.005 <=5
Table 6 - Chemical Composition % in mass of used steels

Materials
Thicknes
s in mm
Position of
Specimens and
Rolling direction
Yield
Point
HIGH R
eH
[Mpa]
Yield
Point
LOW R
eL
[Mpa]
Yield
Strength
0.2%
[MPa]
Tensile
Strength
[MPa]
Elongatio
n A [%]
Reduction
of area Z
[%]
Longitudinal 708 696 - 757 20 47
16
Transverse 722 718 - 771 21 51
S690QL
(N-A-XTRA
M 70)
30 Transverse - - 800 875 18 49
Longitudinal - - 1171 1351 11 38 S1100QL
(XABO1100
)
8
Transverse
- -
1159 1346 11 39
Table 7 - Mechanical Properties of used steels




18



5 CONSORTIUM AND ACTIVITIES

Distribution of the tasks among the participants
This project was carried out is in co-operation between the Centro Sviluppo Materiali S.p.ACSM-
Rome (Italy), Fraunhofer-Institute For Structural Durability-LBF-Darmstadt (Germany), Centro de
Estudios e Investigaciones Tcnicas de Guipzcoa (CEIT)San Sebastian (Spain) and CORUS
Research Development & Technology-Rotherham (UK). A fist support of Fincantieri (Italy) to select,
to manufacture standard panels with the steel made in ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH (Germany) was
received.

Centro Sviluppo Materiali S.p.ACSM-Rome (ITALY)
Experimental activities performed at CSM were:
Selection of steels.
The three steels, with thickness 830 mm were selected:
Steel grade S355
Steel grade S560
Steel grade S690
Steel grade S1100
Panel manufacturing.
Heavy standard panels were manufactured supported by Fincantieri shipyard. Heavy sandwich panels
assembled by laser weld were manufactured.
Fatigue testing.
High performance fatigue testing machine was designed and manufactured in order to carry out fatigue
tests on heavy panels.
Fatigue tests to qualify and to verify the design criteria of all panels were carried out.

The management of the project has performed.

Fraunhofer-Institute For Structural Durability-LBF-Darmstadt (GERMANY)
LBF was interest in the task determining the fatigue behaviour of three steel sheets with thickness 830
mm
Steel grade S355
Steel grade S560
Steel grade S690
Steel grade S1100
The results were compared with the appropriate design codes, including Eurocode 3.
Moreover the investigation was involved S-N curves obtained both in constant and variable amplitude
loads (Gaussian Spectrum). Real damage sums D
real
approach was provided too.
The experimental activity was completed by:
Metallographic analysis
Hardness measurements
Fracture surface examination by scanning electronic microscope.
The welding procedures GMAW to particular steel qualities and thickness were defined.

Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones Tcnicas de Guipzcoa (CEIT)San Sebastian (SPAIN)
CEIT was interested to define the procedure to design and to optimised FE methodology for the
analysis of sandwich panels in terms of loads (spread and concentrated) and geometrical details (plate
and profile thickness, spacing,). The results of the fatigue tests carried out on the panels were used as
feedback to optimise the design code of the panels.
The activity was completed by fractographic analysis of sandwich panels, including optical and
Scanning Electron Microscopy to identify:
the failure mechanism

the harder or softer zones in the welded joints which might control the crack initiation,
19


the stress concentration zone,
any crack nucleation at inclusions,
the path of crack propagation
fracture modes.


CORUS Research Development & Technology-Rotherham (UNITED KINGDOM)
The design, the manufacturing and the fatigue tests of standard and sandwich panels characterised by
lower weight and medium steel grade were carried out.
Two medium grade steel were used.
Steel grade S355
Steel grade S460
Steel grade S690
This task included the fatigue characterisation of two steel sheets on specimens approximate sandwich
with thickness with thickness as definite by FEA:
Steel grade S355
Steel grade S460
Steel grade S690
The welding procedure laser to particular steel qualities and thickness has been defined too.

Steel production: Fincantieri, Corus Group, and the ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH.
The steel makers and Fincantieri Italian shipyard provided to deliver the steel plates in Grade S355,
Grade S460, Grade S560, Grade S690, Grade S1100. These procedure has guaranteed the materials
were the same used in the industrial field.
Most of GMAW welding procedures were defined directly in the shipyards as well as the
manufacturing welded joints useful to extract the specimens for fatigue tests.
Moreover shipyards manufactured, according to the design code, two shapes of conventional panels
later used for fatigue tests.
High grade sandwich panels, designed by CEIT, were manufactured by CSM and tested.
Steel plates in medium grades was produced by CORUS as well as the manufacturing of the medium
grade sandwich panels and the tests.
20




6 DESIGN CODES

6.1 Optimization of conventional decks
Conventional decks, reinforced with bulb profiles, have been optimized by using different number of
reinforcing bulbs: from 2 to 5 bulbs. The sections having always the same area and, thus, all the decks
examined had the same weight. The thickness of the web (from 4 to 10 mm) for the reinforcing plate
and heights changes to keep a constant weight for the complete deck. Less than 2 reinforcing bulbs (a
single one) resulted in a height of the reinforcement bulb profile larger than the height for the
transverse supports, and are not analyzed.
Calculations were carried out using a Finite Element Code: Cosmos Design Star in linear elastic
regime. These are 3D computations. The load is applied always, uniformly distributed, on a rectangular
section at the middle of the deck (0.5 0.25 m, in the transverse and longitudinal directions,
respectively). Two heavy transverse reinforcements support the deck, with a span of 2.8 m. The
transverse supports are formed by a plate of 258 mm in height by 6 mm in thickness with and end plate
of 12 mm height and 150 mm in the longitudinal direction. The plate of the deck is always 16 mm
thick. The distance among the reinforcing profiles varies with the number of profiles (n); the spacing
between them being:


n
span
mm 1500
= Eq. (1)

the wide of the deck is 1.5 m. The first and last profiles are located at one half of the span from the
deck sides.
Table 8 summarizes the studied geometries and the height of the different profiles for the different
number of web thicknesses in the profiles. As shown in Table 8 some limits are fixed to the height of
the reinforcement that should not be larger than the height of that for the transverse supports (258 mm).
Another limitation was imposed in the thickness of the web of the reinforcing profiles: it should not be
much smaller than the thickness of the welds connecting the web with the deck plate. Otherwise
failures will take place on the webs instead of through the welds.
The geometry of the bulbs is slightly modified to gently joint with its web plate. Note that the web
thickness is changed, so and stress concentration will appear otherwise.
Welds at the connection among the webs of the reinforcement and the deck plate is assumed to be a
triangular, at both sides, with 5 mm in the transverse direction (x) and 5 in the depth direction of the
deck (y). The longitudinal direction of the deck is z.
The mesh is formed by tetrahedral elements of 10 nodes. Typically 67112 elements are used to mesh a
deck (with 3 bulb reinforcement profiles), with 132643 nodes and 389508 degrees of freedom.
The first concern is about the maximum equivalent stress (von Mises stress) that appears on the
different decks. As it will be shown later, we are analyzing quite a large deck and little details are
rather important, for example the connection between the transverse and longitudinal reinforcements.
At the moment let us forget about these constructive details and concentrate on the most important
stresses, other than those localized at little regions close to stress concentrations. So, the first analyses
will be carried out passing the longitudinal reinforcement through some windows in the transverse
supports. Table 9 summarized the largest equivalent stress that is located at the bottom of the central
bulb(s) in all analyzed cases.
Table 10 shows the maximum deflections of the decks under the distributed load of 70 kN. Maximum
deflections take place: either at the center of the deck plate or at the central profile. The situation
depends on whether a profile is located directly under the distributed load (an odd number of profiles)
or in between two symmetric profiles (even number of profiles). The minimum maximum deflections
21


are obtained with and odd number of profiles, so the load is applied directly over one of them and the
additional deflection produced in the deck plate is relatively small.
Figures 4 to 11 shows the distribution of the von Mises stress and the exaggerated deflections of the
different computed decks. Because of symmetry, just one half of the deck is represented in Figures 4 to
11 and 16.
Concerning brittle fracture the most important parameter is probably the maximum principal stress.
They are shown in Table 11.
The most important problem at the welds between the deck plate and the reinforcement is the shear
stress at the welded section:
yz
. Table 12 summarizes the maximum shear produced at the welds. The
maximum shear is produced at the weld of the central profile(s) at about on fourth of the deck length.
Finally body loads were introduced (the effect of the gravity and its own weight, in addition to the
external and distributed applied load). Also the longitudinal reinforcements were welded to the
transverse supports at their webs and at the back of the bulbs side. These constructive details needs
farther considerations, but for a first analyzed Table 13 shows the maximum equivalent stress (von
Mises stress) and deflections for the different geometries being considered. Note that the stresses and
displacement are values at the middle of the deck, then far from the connections to the transverse
supports, and stress concentrations.
On the constructive details
In order to increase the total stiffness of the deck it was proposed to fully weld the longitudinal
reinforcements to the transverse ones. Two options were analysed: fully welding the longitudinal to the
transverse profiles and only welding the longest side of the bulb to the transverse reinforcement (semi-
welded). In all the geometries the maximum deflection is shown to be reduced to about one half in
comparison with the unconnected construction (also in Table 13), but a large stress concentration is
introduced at the weld between both reinforcements. In particular at the weld at the sharp corner of the
bulb profile connected to the transverse supporting plates. Figures 10 and 11 compares the maximum
deflection obtained for longitudinal reinforcements semi-welded to the transverse, and fully welded for
both sides, respectively. It is clear that the maximum deflection is reduced very little between both
options. On the other hand Figs. 15 and 16 compare the maximum equivalent (von Mises) stresses for
the unconnected and fully welded construction, respectively. It is quite obvious that a large stress
concentration has been introduced at the connection between both kinds of reinforcement and should
be avoided, because fatigue cracks will nucleate at these constructive details.
Because the minimum deflection were obtained for a 3 bulbs construction, fully welded to the
transverse reinforcements, but a large hot spot appears at the weld between both elements (683 MPa), it
was decided to add triangular plate pieces to connect the bottom of the bulbs to the transverse
reinforcement (60 60 5 mm). The maximum deflection is still reduced to 3 mm, but the hot spot
moves to these additional consoles, reaching 715 MPa, see Figs. 16 and 17.
Remarks
An odd number of profiles results in smaller maximum deflections. So, they are stiffer, but that is
because the distributed load is located directly on the middle of one of the longitudinal reinforcements.
On the other hand, the stresses are smaller for an even number of profiles. The smaller the number of
profiles and the larger the heights of them the better results are obtained.

Constructive details are most important to avoid stress concentrations. It is recommended to pass
longitudinal reinforcements through windows cut at the web of the transverse supports, to eliminate
stress concentration at a possible connection between both kinds of reinforcements (hot spots). The
reduction in stiffness may be assumable (about twice the maximum displacement in comparison with
the connected constructions), and the maximum stresses are very significantly reduced.

22


No buckling was detected by Cosmos Design Star for all the analyzed conventional deck geometries.

The optimum geometry for minimum stresses (195 MPa), and higher fatigue performance, is obtained
for only two reinforcing profiles, nearly as height as the transverse supports (see Fig. 11), passing
through cuts at the transverse reinforcements.

On the other hand, minimum deflections (maximum deck stiffness) are obtained for three reinforcing
profiles, as shown in Fig. 4. For two reinforcements, the distributed load is applied at the plate,
between both reinforcements, resulting in large deflections of the plate. For the case of three
reinforcements, the load is applied on top of the middle one, reducing the maximum deflection.
Minimum deflections are obtained by fully welding the longitudinal bulbs to the transverse
reinforcements (to about one half of the deflection in comparison with the loose construction), but then
stress concentrations appear as hot spot at the weld between both elements (683 MPa). Adding
triangular plate connections at the bottom of the bulbs to the transverse reinforcements, the maximum
deflection is reduce to only 3 mm, but the hot spot is even larger (715 MPa) and it is produced at the
additional connecting consoles.


Number
of webs
Web
thickness
4 mm

5 mm

6 mm

7 mm

8 mm

9 mm

10 mm
2 - - 245 210 184 163 147
3 245 196 163 140 122 109 -
4 166 133 111 95 83 75 -
5 147 118 98 84 - - -
Table 8 - Height of the different profiles (in mm) for the different number of bulb profiles
and thicknesses for the web of the profiles.



Number
of webs
Web
thickness
4 mm

5 mm

6 mm

7 mm

8 mm

9 mm

10 mm
2 - -
3 448 486 523 -
4 396 450 495 534 -
5 - - -
Table 9 - Maximum equivalent stress (von Mises) for the different number of bulb profiles
and thicknesses for the web of the profiles, in MPa.





23



Number
of webs
Web
thickness
4 mm

5 mm

6 mm

7 mm

8 mm

9 mm

10 mm
2 - -
3 11.53 13.78 16.19 -
4 12.91 16.38 20.12 24.00 -
5 - - -
Table 10 - Maximum deflections (in mm) for the different number of bulb profiles and
thicknesses for the web of the profiles.


Number
of webs
Web
thickness
4 mm

5 mm

6 mm

7 mm

8 mm

9 mm

10 mm
2 - -
3 -
4 393 445 492 534 -
5 - - -
Table 11 - Maximum principal stress (in MPa) for the different number of bulb profiles
and thicknesses for the web of the profiles.



Number
of webs
Web
thickness
4 mm

5 mm

6 mm

7 mm

8 mm

9 mm

10 mm
2 - -
3 92 108 112 -
4 71 81 85 94 -
5 - - -
Table 12 - Maximum shear stress (in MPa) at the welds between the deck plate and its
reinforcements, for the different number of bulb profiles and thicknesses for the web of
the profiles.


24


Number of bulbs Thickness Heigth Bulb area Maximum vM stress Unconnected Semi-welded Fully welded
mm mm mm
2
MPa mm mm mm
2 6 245,00 1470,0 195,00 13 7,25 6,21
2 7 210,00 1470,0 196,00 7,53 7,31
2 8 183,75 1470,0 198,00 8,40 8,17
2 9 163,33 1470,0 212,00 9,07 9,01
2 10 147,00 1470,0 232,00 9,78 9,82
3 4 245,00 980,0 242,96 4,07
3 5 196,00 980,0 270,40 4,56 4,16
3 6 163,33 980,0 294,21 5,57 5,49
3 7 140,00 980,0 308,00 11,52 6,54 6,81
3 8 122,50 980,0 330,51 13,78 7,99 8,28
3 9 108,89 980,0 353,69 16,19 9,31 9,68
4 4 165,98 663,9 250,39 5,51
4 5 132,78 663,9 281,79 12,91 7,21 7,23
4 6 110,63 663,8 310,21 16,38 9,06 9,25
4 7 94,81 663,7 319,00 20,12 10,77 11,45
4 8 82,96 663,7 360,00 24,00 13,01 13,80
4 9 73,74 663,7 383,00 15,10
5 4 147,00 588,0 280,70 5,60
5 5 117,60 588,0 308,00 7,32 7,41
5 6 98,00 588,0 334,00 9,24 9,61
5 7 84,00 588,0 350,00 11,01 11,92
Maximum deflection for different constructions

Table 13 - Summary of the obtained results, including body load, and different connections
of the bulbs to the transverse supports.



Figure 4 - 3 bulbs with 7 mm thick web plates.
25



Figure 5 - 3 bulbs with a thickness of 8 mm for the web plate.

26



Figure 6 - 3 bulbs of 9 mm thickness web plates.

Figure 7 - 4 bulbs of 5 mm thickness.
27



Figure 8- 4 bulbs of 6 mm thickness webs.
Figure 9 - 4 bulbs with 7 mm thickness web plates.
28



Figure 10 - 4 bulbs of 8 mm thickness web plates.
Figure 11 - 2 bulb reinforcement profiles of 6 mm thickness web plates. The webs are welded
to the transverse support and considering body loads.
29



CONVENTIONAL DECK, semiwelded
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Web THICKNESS (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

D
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
O
N

(
m
m
)
2 bulbs
3 bulbs
4 bulbs
5 bulbs
Figure 12 - Maximum deflection produced at conventional deck. Longitudinal reinforcements
being unconnected to transverse supports.

CONVENTIONAL DECK fully welded
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Web THICKNESS (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

D
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
O
N

(
m
m
)
2 bulbs
3 bulbs
4 bulbs
5 bulbs
Fig. 13 - Maximum deflection produced at conventional deck. Longitudinal reinforcements
being fully welded to transverse supports.

30


CONVENTIONAL DECK, unconnected
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Web THICKNESS (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

v
o
n

M
i
s
e
s

S
T
R
E
S
S

(
M
P
a
)
2 bulbs
3 bulbs
4 bulbs
5 bulbs
Fig. 14 Maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress produced at conventional deck. Longitudinal
reinforcements being unconnected to transverse supports.

CONVENTIONAL DECK fully welded
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Web THICKNESS (mm)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

v
o
n

M
i
s
e
s

S
T
R
E
S
S

(
M
P
a
)
2 bulbs
3 bulbs
4 bulbs
5 bulbs
Fig. 15 - Maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress produced at conventional deck. Longitudinal
reinforcements being fully welded to transverse supports.

31




Fig. 16 - Maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress produced at conventional deck. Longitudinal
bulb reinforcements are fully connected to transverse supports and additional
triangular plates are introduced at the bottom of the bulbs.


Fig. 17- Detail of Fig. 16 showing where the hot spot is produced.


32


6.2 Design of Sandwich Panel
PANEL SANDWICH OPTIMISATION
2D MODEL DESCRIPTION
In support of FEM work, a 2D model has also been developed. It is coded in Matlab 6.0. The 2D
model simplifies the distribution of the applied load along 1 or 2 parallel lines across the deck, as
shown in Figure 18. A couple of line loads are used to best simulate a rectangular situation of imposed
displacements.








EI
FL
deflection
48
3
=














( )
( )
2 2
2 2
96
g Lg L
EI
g L F
deflection +

=




Figure 18 - Geometry, applied loads and equations for the maximum deflections of a simply supported
sandwich panel, for a 2D simplification of the applied loads.
The geometry details and nomenclature used for the panel sandwich section are detailed in Figure 19.




F
F/2
F/2
1.
g
33


W
b
t
H

tw



Figure 19 - Nomenclature used for the panel sandwich deck construction.


Figure 20 shows the loading condition for a simply supported beam and the rudiments about the
bending moments and shear stresses developed. Particularly, maximum bending moments and shear to
work out the maximum tensile and shear stresses at different locations.

The equations used to compute de panel section area are shown in Figure 21. A lot of care has been
taken to account for a close-form formulation, because the purpose is to scan through the parameters in
finding their optimum values, so a very precise formulation is required. The formulation will be taken
through also the extreme values. Accurate results are also required for also these extreme cases, so the
formulation takes into account every little geometrical detail.

+ +

+ + =
w
w w w
t
t t H
b
t
t W area
tan sin
2
2 Eq. (1)

So, the weight of the sandwich plate becomes

+ +

+ + =
w
w w w
t
t t H
b
t
t WL weight

tan sin
2
2 Eq. (2)

where:

tan
2
sin
w w
t H t
b

+ + = Eq. (3)

is one half of the trapezoidal wave length for the web, L is the length of the sandwich plate and is the
steel density (7850 kg/m
3
).

34


x
V shear loads
V
max
= F/2
x
M bending
moments
M
max
= F(L-g)/4
L
g
F/2 F/2
F/2
F/2
x
y

Figure 20 - Diagrams for the shear stresses and bending moments for a simply supported beam in
bending, under the action of two concentrated loads [Young, 1989] /8/
The figure 21 shows the equations used to compute the areas for the trapezoidal corrugated core
sandwich plate.
The figure 22 shows the inertia moments about their own centroids of the different region in which the
sandwich section has been decomposed.
The figure 23 summarizes the distance from these centroids to the neutral line.
The inserted equations in Fig. 21 show the different areas (the complete section was divided in simple
geometrical elements):
For the bottom rectangular plate: A
bottomplate
= 2Wt
For the rectangular region of core plate in contact with the bottom plate: A
corebottom
= W b t
w
/
For the core parallelogram at the centre= A
corecentre
= W tw (H-2t
w
)//sin(alfa)
For the core circular section: A
corecircular
= 2 W alfa t2
w
/
And for the core triangular wedge: A
corewedge
= 2 W t
w
cos(alfa)/ /2/sin(alfa)
and they are straight geometrical computations
In Figure 23 the inserted equations stands for the moment of inertia for the different pieces with respect
to their own gravity centres (their own inertias).
Finally in Figure 22 the inserts show the distance from their gravity centers to the neutral plane.
So, the total inertia of the section is computed as the sum of their own-inertias plus their areas
multiplied by the distances in Fig. 22 squared (Steiner theorem).

For example Eq (4), inertia due to the bottom plate
35


Their own inertia, from Fig 23: 2 W t
3
/ 12
Area, from Fig 21: 2 W t
Distance, in Fig 22: (H+t)/2

( )

+ + =

+
+ =
2
2
2
3
plates skin
3 2 2
2
12
2 t H
t Wt t H
Wt
Wt
I Eq. (4)

( )

+ =

+ =
2
2
2
3
steps weld
3 4 2 12
w
w w w
w
w
t H
t Wbt t H
bt
W bt W
I

Eq. (5)

( )
sin 12
2
3
webs
w w
t H t W
I

= Eq. (6)

b

W
t
t
w

H
w
t b
W

Wt 2
) 2 (
sin
w
w
t H
t W

2
2
2
w
t
W

cos
sin 2
1
2
w
w
t
t W

Figure 21 - Moments of inertia through centroids for the trapezoidal core sandwich plate construction.

36


b

W
t
t
w

H
2
w
t H
2
t H +
0

3
sin 2
1
2
w
t
H
cos
3
1
2
w w
t t
H
+

Figure 22- Equations used to compute the areas for the trapezoidal corrugated core sandwich plate.

b

W
t
t
w

H
12
3
w
t b W

12
2
3
t W
( )
3
2
sin 12
1
w
w
t H
t W

9
sin 16
cos sin
8
2
2 4
w
t W
( )
3
cos
sin 36
1
2

w
w
t
t W


Figure 23 - Distances from centroids to the Neutral Plane for the trapezoidal core sandwich plate
construction.

+ =
2
2 2 2
sectors circular
3
sin 2
1
2 9
sin 16
cos sin
4

w
w w
t
H t Wt
I Eq. (7)
37



( )

+ + =
2
2
3
triangles
cos
3 2 tan
cos
sin 18

w
w
w
w
w
t
t
H t
t
t W
I Eq. (8)

and the total inertia

triangles sectors circular webs steps weld plates skin
I I I I I I + + + + = Eq. (10)

For the computation of the shear stress at the weld, the first moment for the top skin is

+
=
2
t H
Wt Q
skin
Eq. (11)

The maximum shear stress will appear at the centre of the web plates, the first moment of one half of
the section is

( )

+ +

+ =

sin 8
2
cos
3 2 tan 3
sin 2
1
2 2
2
max
w w
w
w
w w
w w
skin
t H t
t
H t
t
H
t
t H
b
Wt
Q Q Eq. (12)

2D MODEL RESULTS
Once that all the necessary equations have been detailed described, it is possible to work out some
useful results for the optimisations of the sandwich panels. Table 14 summarizes typical data for the
computations of sandwich panel constructions.
The figure 24 summarizes the panel weight versus the angle of the web plates. Two different thickness
are considered for the web plate: 2 and 3 mm.
The figure 25 shows the panel weight versus the angle of the web plates for a varying weld step
between the web plate and the skin plates.
The figures 26 and 27 show the maximum vertical deflection for different thickness of the web plate
and different weld steps between the web and skin plates, respectively.
The figures 28, 29 and 30 summarize the specific plate stiffness for the two load configurations been
considered (single and twin line loads), for different widths of the web plates, different angle between
web and skins, and different steps at the web/skin contact.
The figure 31 shows the maximum longitudinal stresses at the skin plates for different contact widths
between web and skin plates. The figure 32 shows the maximum longitudinal stress at the web plate (at
the top and bottom regions).
The figure 33 shows the shear stresses that appear at the top and bottom region of the web plates (that
are most important for fatigue life of the sandwich panel). Figure 34 shows the absolute maximum
shear stresses at the web (at the neutral plane).
Buckling was computed using Bleich [1952] equations. The figure 35 shows the maximum vertical
load (compression load) to produce buckling of the web plates versus the web/skin angle.
The figure 36 shows the number of web waves across a panel of 1.5 m width. Less than 1 wave results
in asymmetric sandwich plates and they will not be considered.

38


Finally the figures 37 and 38 summarize the optimisation for two applied loads (700 and 1000 kN)
considering the 3 available strength for the skin plates (1000, 460 and 355 MPa). The stars show the
optimum designs, the lines the limiting criteria. The detail of the importance of these figures is the
follow.

Figures 37 and 38 show two loading cases for a sandwich deck construction. Figures represent different
stresses as a function of the core-web/skin-plates angles, from 0 to 100 (90 resulting in a core
perpendicular to both skin plates). The vertical axis represents stresses in MPa, but now different lines
and symbols represent different stresses. Horizontal green dashed lines represent material properties
(the top plate can be manufactured in different kind of steels with different yield points, in the Figures
3 typical yield stresses are considered (1000, 460 and 355 MPa); these represent material limits
because of yield; and should be compared to the actual applied stresses.
Black lines stands for different stresses (a different load produces different black lines). The open
triangles stands for the von Mises stress, the design point (angle for the web) should keep this stress
below the appropriate green dashed line (material choice for the top plate) if this criteria is not satisfied
(for smaller angles) yielding will result.
The crosses represent maximum shear (at the center of the web) it is usually not a problem, anyway this
shear should be compared to about one half of the green dashed lines (usually the web is built in a very
soft steel, 355 MPa). So, in practice these crosses should never be above 176 MPa.
The solid black line stands for the maximum principal stress, sigma1, and it is represented because
buckling is computed as a function of this maximum principal stress at the top of the web. The red thin
solid line stands for the buckling limit; represented as a function of sigma1 (sigma1 should stand below
this red line to avoid buckling, critical sigma1).
As a general rule, the smaller the angle the smaller the total deck weight. Now, all these criteria should
be satisfaied simultaneously. In figure 37, the 3 stars show the best choices for the 3 kind of materials
for the top plate. For a very soft one, the first problem is yielding, so about 88 degrees are required as a
minimum for the web/skin angle.
For an intermediate strength top plate the limit is once more yielding, but now the angle can be
increased to 48.
For a highest strength the buckling condition is much more critical than buckling and the design angle
should be kept above 37.
In figure 38 a larger load is applied and now there is no possible design for the softer top plate (angles
larger than 97 resulting in web collisions, and for smaller angles yielding will be produced), and the
two remaining stars show the optimum designs for the intermediate (96) and highest strength (42) top
plates.

39


Parameter Symbol Units Value
Thickness of upper plate ttop m 0,008
Thickness of lower plate tbot m 0,008
Web thickness tw m 0,002
Welding step b m 0,025
Web angle alfadeg degrees 45
Vertical distance between plates H m 0,09
Panel width W m 1,5
Panel span between suports L m 2,8
alfa alfa rad 0,785398175
sin(alfa) sina s/d 0,707106789
cos(alfa) cosa s/d 0,707106773
tan(alfa) tana s/d 1,000000023
Wave length landa m 0,113828425
Number of waves nwave s/d 13,17772778
Top plate inertia m^4 0,000028876
Lower plate inertia m^4 0,000028876
Step plate inertia m^4 1,27582E-06
Webs inertia m^4 1,9756E-06
Rounded corner inertia m^4 8,08885E-08
Triangles m^4 9,9617E-08
Total Inertia I m^4 6,11839E-05
Area area m^2 0,027958409
Weight kg 614,525834
Young modulus of elasticity E Pa 2,1E+11
Load F N 100000
Maximum vertical deflection I m 0,003559395
Specific stiffness I 1/kg/m 0,457176266
Load length g m 0,25
Maximum vertical deflection II m 0,003518099
Specific stiffness II 1/kg/m 0,462542695

Table 14 - Input data for the computation of panel sandwich constructions. In yellow the parameter that
the user can modify. The results of the computations are shown in white.


40


Figure 24 - Panel weight versus the angle of the web to skin plates. Two different thickness are
considered for the web plate: t
w
= 2 and 3 mm.

Figure 25 - Panel weight versus the web/plate angle, for various step widths at the web/skin contacts, b.
Web plate thickness, tw = 2 mm.
Sandwich panels
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web/plate angle (degrees)
W
e
i
g
h
t

(
k
g
)
tw = 2 mm
tw = 3 mm
b = 20 mm
30
40
41


Figure 26 - Maximum vertical deflection for the panel sandwich versus the web/plate angle.






















Figure 27 - Maximum vertical deflection versus the web/plate angle, for different step width of the
web/skin contacts, b. tw = 2 mm, F = 100 kN.
Sandwich panels
0
0,0005
0,001
0,0015
0,002
0,0025
0,003
0,0035
0,004
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web/plate angle (degrees)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
tw = 2 mm
tw = 3 mm
b = 20 mm
30
40
42


Figure 28 - Specific plate stiffness versus the web/plate angle. Two web plate thickness are considered
(tw = 2 and 3 mm).
Sandwich Panel
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web/plate angle (degrees)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

(
m
*
k
g
)
-
1
tw = 2 mm
tw = 3 mm
( )
( )
2 2
2 2
96
g Lg L
EI
g L F
Deflection +

=
F/2
F/2
L
g

Figure 29 -. Specific plate stiffness versus the web/plate angle, for the load distributed along two lines
of load.


Sandwich Panel
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Web/plate angle (degrees)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

(
m
*
k
g
)
-
1
tw = 2 mm
tw = 3 mm
EI
FL
deflection
48
3
=
43



Figure 30 - Specific panel stiffness versus the web/plate angle. The results for different contact widths
between the core plate and the skin are shown.

Figure 31 - Maximum longitudinal stress versus the web/plate angle for different contact widths
between the core plate and skins.
b = 20 mm
30
40
b = 20 mm
30
40
44



Figure 32 - Maximum longitudinal stress at the web plate, for different widths of the web/skin contact,
b. The red line stands for the web-buckling limit [Bleich, 1952].


Figure 33 - Shear stress near the top of the web plate versus the web/skin angle, in blue lines. Red lines
stand for the web-buckling limit according to Bleich /7/.
b = 20 mm
30
40
buckling
b = 20 mm
b = 20 mm
b = 100 mm
b = 100 mm
buckling
45


Figure 34 - Maximum shear stress at the web centre (at the neutral plane), for different widths for the
skin/web welding contacts.


Figure 35 - Vertical web buckling load versus the web/skin angle, for different widths for the web/skin
welding contacts.

y
= 230 MPa (
y
460 MPa)

y
= 177.5 MPa (
y
= 355 MPa)
b = 20 mm
b = 100 mm
46





Figure 36 - Number of web waves across the composite sandwich plate (W = 1.5 m), for different
widths of the skin/web contacts.
47

y
= 1000 MPa

y
= 460 MPa

y
= 355 MPa
Buckling
1c

Von Mises yield
Max. Shear mid-web

1
top web


Figure 37 - Summary of the sandwich stresses for an applied load of 700 kN. The stars show the
optimum designs for the three skin plate strengths. Dashed lines, in green, stand for the
yield stress of the three skin plates being considered.

48



Figure 38 - Summary of the sandwich stresses for an applied load of 1000 kN. The two stars show the
optimum design for 1000 and 460 MPa skin plates. Dashed green lines stand for the yield
stress of the three skin plates being considered.

y
= 1000 MPa

y
= 460 MPa

y
= 355 MPa
Buckling
1c

Von Mises yield
Max. Shear mid-web

1
top web
49


3D ANALYSIS
Also 3D calculations have been made for the sandwich decks to compare the obtained results with the
theoretical calculations in 2D.

To achieve quite good results in a fast way Cosmos DesignStar software has been used.
It is finite element software that lets the user import geometry from 3D cad software easily. So the
sandwich decks have been modeled using Pro Engineer 2001. The model is shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39. Sandwich deck modeled with Pro Engineer 2001 software.

The model in Figure 39 is a parametric model. This means that changing a discrete number of
parameters the geometry of the deck changes immediately. With the desired geometry Cosmos
DesignStar imports directly the geometry of the model. With traditional finite elements software the
geometry of the model used to be defined by points, in a much more difficult way.

With the geometry imported, just few more things have been defined to get the expected results. A
material has to be applied to the geometry. The boundary conditions must be introduced to the model.
And a mesh has to be created.
The material applied to the models used in these calculations has the properties as reported in table 15:


50



Table 15 - Material properties used in the Finite Element computations.

The boundary conditions are the supplied by CSM. These means that the sandwich during the test will
rest on two supports with a span of 1,8 m. The load will be placed in a central square of 550 x 250 mm.
Also symmetries have been introduced to the model.

And finally, the mesh. Just introducing a value to indicate if a fine mesh or a coarse one is desired, and
if there is no problem (usually the automatic meshing method has trouble with complicated geometries
with one dimensions much smaller than other, like this one) Cosmos DesignStar will create one after a
time of calculations.

With everything defined a static study is defined and the calculations launched. For a first comparison,
calculations for three different decks have been done. The calculated decks have angles of 90, 82 and
74.5.
In the next figures from 40 to 47 displacements and Von Mises stresses are shown for the three
different cases.


Figure 40 - Deformation on the 90 sandwich deck.
51




Figure 41 - Front view of the deformation on the 90 sandwich deck.

Figure 42 - Von Mises stresses in the 90 sandwich deck.

52



Figure 43 - Front view of the Von Mises stresses in the 90 sandwich deck.

Figure 44 - Front view of the deformation on the 82 sandwich deck

53



Figure 45 - Von Mises stresses in the 82 sandwich deck


Figure 46 - Front view of the deformation on the 74,5sandwich deck.


54



Figure 47 - Von Mises stresses in the 74,5 sandwich deck

Remarks
The neck for the laser welds between the web and skin plates should be at least twice the thickness
of the web plates. In such a manner, failures will takes place at the web plates close to the skin
plates.
Yield at the top and bottom regions of the web plate is the most important design consideration for
the softer plates. Conversely, web buckling under compression load is the most important concern
for the highest strength plate.
The 2D computations do not agree with the results obtained in 3D Finite Element Computations.
The main discrepancy is found in the effect of the web/skin angle. Further work is being done in the
Finite Element computations to clarify the reasons for such discrepancy.
2D modelling was performed for a span of 2.8 m. After the setup of the testing machine it was
modified for a common span with the conventional deck (L = 1.8 m).



55




7 . WELDING PROCEDURES

7.1 Standard welds
Steel grade 690QL (N-A-XTRA M 70), THICKNESS 30 MM
Three welding processes have been defined for Butt-Joint with plate thickness t=30mm, width
w=1000mm and steel grade 690QL, Table 16 report the and procedure consumables. The orientation of
the weld position has been perpendicular to the rolling direction.

Steel grade
Type of
weld
Procedure Consumable Weld material
Root
N-A-XTRA 70
Filler
MAG
Shield gas (M21)
80% Ar-20%CO
2

ESAB OK Autrod 13.13
Diameter d=1.2mm
Root
N-A-XTRA 70
Filler
SAW Flux UV 421 TT
Union S 3 NiMoCr
Diameter d=4mm
Root
N-A-XTRA 70
Filler
SMAW -
Electrode SH Ni 2K 100
Diameter d= 2.5,3.25,4 mm
Table 16 Welding conditions - Procedure and Consumables

Data of the welding procedures referred to the considered welding techniques, largely used in
shipyards to produce components welded assembled by steel plates, are summarized in Table 17, Table
18 and Table 19 for MAG SAW and SMAW welding techniques respectively.

Weld shape: V 60 Preheat Temp. Tp=130C
Layers [run] I [A] U [V] V [cm/min] Q [J/cm]
root(1) 160-190 16-18 13.5 12830
filler (10) 240-260 22-24 35 9850
filler (11) 240-260 20-22 25 12100
filler (21) 230-250 20-22 32 9500
Table 17 Typical welding Parameters- Butt Welds- MAG Process


Plate Thickness: 30 mm Welding Procedure:
SAW
Weld shape: V 60
Preheat Temp. Tp=130C
Layers
[run]
I
[A]
U
[V]
V
[cm/min]
Q
[J/cm]
root(1) 420 27 32 21262.5
filler (2-9) 420 27 32 21262.5
filler (10-17) 420 30 45 16800
Table 18 Welding Parameters- Butt Welds- SAW Process


57


Plate Thickness: 30 mm Welding Procedure:
SMAW
Weld shape: V 60
Preheat Temp. Tp=130C
Layers
[run]
I
[A]
U
[V]
V
[cm/min]
Q
[J/cm]
Electrode
[mm]
root(1) 90-110 18-22 13 9230 2.5
filler (11-12) 160-180 22-26 22 11127 4
filler (22) 160-180 22-26 22.5 10880 4
Table 19 Welding Parameters- Butt Welds- SMAW Process

Preliminary tests e the manufactures of the joints have been carried out directly in Ficantieri shipyards
Riva Trigoso Genoa- Italy.
Each welding technique has been characterised by mechanical tests and non-destructive examination of
the welded joints. In order to carry out mechanical tests, specimens have been machined from welded
plates according to Rina (Italian Naval Register) Rules 2002 (Pt D, Ch 5, Sec 4).


Non destructive examination
Non destructive examinations have been carry out to validate the joints as required in shipyards
during manufacturing processes. As effect of the presence out hydrogen and the subsequent cold
cracking has been verified by non destructive examination carried out both by fluorescent penetrant
inspections and by X-ray. In all examined cases any flaws on the weld have been highlighted.
Transverse tensile tests
Specimens for the tensile tests have been machined at 90 of RD and transverse respected to the
welded line. The tensile strength obtained from tests are comparable with the tensile strength
properties of the material base (tensile strength of base material grade S690 is equal to 875 MPa).
The location of the fracture in all cases have been outside the fillet weld.
Impact tests
Charpy V-notch impact test specimens have been taken 2 mm below the surface of the plate. Two
sets of Charpy V notch specimens have been taken, (each set including 3 specimens), as followed:
One set with notch located in HAZ
One set with notch located in HAZ+2mm
According to the rules the tests have been carried out at the temperature equal to T=40C. In any
case the average value for the impact tests for each set of tests has been found very higher than
47J, lover toughness accepted value indicated by Rina Rules for welded joints.
Hardness measurements
Hardness measurements, HV10, have been carried out on the macro section of the welded zone. The
measurement have been carried out at 2mm under both the plate surfaces. Test hardness have been
carried out in welded joint manufactured by each welding process. For each welded process the
hardness in the welded material results higher than in base material. Peak value of hardness
occurred in heat effect zone (HAZ).

58


Steel grade S690QL and S550QL, THICKNESS 16 MM
The welding process SAW have been defined for Transverse Joint with plates thickness t=16 mm e
grade S690QL and S550QL joined both with plates thickness 8.0 mm grade S355M. The orientation of
the weld position has been perpendicular to the rolling direction.
The welding parameters were defined in shipyards by preliminary tests.
There are the same reported in table 20.
After welding the joints quality have been examined. The example about the shape of welded joins are
showed in Figure 31, this weld is not fully penetrated according to shipyard manufacture processes.


Figure 31 S550QL(N-A-XTRA M 56)T Joint Thickness: 16mm 5X

Also the microstructure of a transverse welded joint has been examined. Details of the base material,
the HAZ and the welded zone are shown in Figure 49 and Figure 50

Samples for metallographic examination have been taken from plate steels grade S550QL (th=16mm),
S690QL (th=16mm) and S1100QL (th=8mm), typical martesite microstructure due to QT heat
treatment is shown in Figure 51.
59


Microstructure of a T-Joint S550QL(N-A-XTRA M 56)Weld SAW - (t= 16 mm)
DX 50X DX 100X Intercritical


50X SX 100X Intercritical

Figure 49














60




Microstructure of a T-Joint S690QL(N-A-XTRA M 70)Weld SAW - (t= 16 mm)
DX 50X DX 100X Intercritical C

SX 50X SX 100X Intercritical C

Figure 50












61




Microstructure of Base Material
S550QL(N-A-XTRA M 56) 100X S690QL(N-A-XTRA M 70) 100X S1100QL (XA


S550QL(N-A-XTRA M 56) 500X S690QL(N-A-XTRA M 70) 500X S1100QL (XA
Figure 51
Hardness measurements, HV10, have been carried out by a macro section. Also in this case the
measurements have been carried out at 2mm under both the plate surfaces.
Hardness values obtained measurements are the follow
:Hardness measurement on S690Ql welded with S355M:
BM (S690QL): max. 260 HV10
HAZ (S690QL): max. 243 HV10
FZ: max 260 HV 10
HAZ (S355M): 213241 HV 10
BM (S355M): 176213 HV 10
1. Hardness measurement on S550QL welded with S355M:
BM (S550QL): max 263 HV 10
HAZ (S5500QL): max 266 HV 10
FZ: 143266 HV 10
HAZ (S355M): 217251 HV 10
BM (S355M): 174217 HV 10


62


7.1.2 - Manufacturing of the Conventional Panels
Full size conventional panels manufacturing using steels grade S690QL (N-A-XTRA M 70) and
S550QL (N-A-XTRA M 56), have been assembled have been assembled in Fincantieri shipyard in
Riva Trigoso (Genoa - Italy)
The dimension of the panel is reported in the figure 52.
The quotes in red are referred to the first design and the manufacturing of just some panels.
The tests carried out on these first panel suggested to perform the revision of the design in order to
increase the fatigue life of these convention panel.
Afterwards a new release of the conventional panel was issued and the new quotes are reported in
black, and 11 new conventional panels were manufactured in the shipyard..
Plate with 16mm thickness (in particular 5 were in grade S560 and 6 in grade 690) and traditional
reinforced bulb (grade S355) have been used to represent different parts of a structure where loading
conditions may be different.
The weight of each the conventional panels was P=800kg.

63



F
i
g
u
r
e

5
2



T
h
e

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
y

o
f

p
a
n
e
l

i
s

s
h
o
w
n

o
l
d


64


Traditional FCAW welding technique carried out, in Figure 53 and 54 are showed the course of
actions: phase one fastening of interior reinforced with plate, and phase two welded in continues
process with welding torch.



Figure 53 - Welding process phase one, fastening of interior reinforced.



Figure 54 - Welding process phase two, continues welded.
65


7.2 - Laser welding
Specimen Preparation
Laser welding activity have been carried out in order to prepare joint specimens and sandwich panels.
As reported 2 shape of sandwich panels were manufactured: standard and heavy by different steel plate
grades.
Welding tests carried out on 8 mm thick S355, S460 or S690 with different overlap
configurations with 1.9 mm thick S355
The join specimens have manufactured taking into account the suggestions/results obtained from the
design in order to meet the best fatigue performance of the welded joints. Laser full penetration and
laser stake weld joints were prepared for specimens and tested in fatigue.
A first set of 27 joints with size 100x500 for S-N fatigue specimens have been obtained from the 690
plate to core material. This completes the S-N material matrix requirement.
The sketch of the laser weld joints are reported in the figures 55 and 56.
In tables 21 and 22 are reported laser weld parameters used to assembly plates of grade

Where possible, square edges of the fatigue specimens were chamfered to minimize the risk of
premature fatigue failure by fatigue cracks initiating at the edges of the specimen.


8.0
1.9
3.0
4.0
2.5
8.0
1.9
3.0
4.0
2.5


Figure 55 - Laser Stake Weld Core to Plate (all dimensions in mm)



1.9
8.0
8.0
1.8
3.4
1.9
8.0
8.0
1.8
3.4


Figure 56 - Full Penetration Laser Butt Weld Plate to Core (all dimensions in mm)
66



Laser Power 6 kW
Focal Length 509 mm
Working Distance 530 mm
Gas Species Helium
Gas Flow Rate 110 l/min
Weld Length 1 m
Weld Speed 1000 mm/min

Table 21- Core to Plate Stake Weld Parameters

Laser Power 15 kW
Focal Length 509 mm
Working Distance 520 mm
Gas Species Helium
Gas Flow Rate 110 l/min
Weld Length 1 m
Weld Speed 900 mm/min

Table 22 - Plate to Core Full Penetration Weld Parameters



Welding tests carried out on 8 mm thick S355 and S1100 with different overlap configurations
with 2 mm thick S355
According to experience of CSM lab, full penetration deep bead on plate laser runs on the single sheet
of 8 mm is normally providing good results, either in terms of morphology or of metallurgical quality
(no relevant defect may be found).
However when full penetration welding has to be obtained on 8+2 mm a sharp tendency to develop into
excessive penetration, melt material drop through, materials ejections, is finally resulting in localised or
extended underfilling. In these conditions a satisfactory response from fatigue tests is unlikely to be
obtained. This bad behaviour seems more evident on S1100, while S355 seems less prone to this
behaviour.
Thus decision was taken towards limiting the penetration in order to avoid for what possible a drop
through of the material.
The final panel configuration found was: 355 plate, 355 reinforcement, 1100 plate. By reverting the
order it is possible to weld the 355 reinforcement to the 1100 plate, and in doing this full penetration has
no sense (about 5 mm of penetration are expected with the selected parameters). The other necessary
joint is 355 plate to 355 reinforcement: in order to reduce defects parameters allowing an irregularly full
penetration have been selected, after some trials reported in the table below.
The trials carried out at the different laser welds parameters, as reported in tables 23 and 24, are
reported in figures 1,2,3.
The defect have been classified according to UNI EN ISO 131919-1 Electrons and Laser beam welded
joints- Guidance on quality level for imperfections Steel.
Afterwards, the blanks selected to extract the specimens for fatigue tests were resulted of Quality D
(quality level for weld imperfections D=moderate).
67

i
t
e
m

u
p
p
e
r

s
h
e
e
t

l
o
w
e
r

s
h
e
e
t

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
e

r
o
o
t

n
o
t
e

1

S
3
5
5

t
=
8

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

P

=

1
1

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

f
u
l
l

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l
,

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
l
y

d
e
e
p

w
i
t
h

w
e
l
d
i
n
g

p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s

(
4
0
2
*
)

e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
y

w
i
d
e

w
i
d
t
h
,

b
u
t

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

d
r
o
p
s

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
1

2

S
3
5
5

t
=
8

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

P

=

1
1

k
W

v

=

1
.
1

m
/
m
i
n

f
u
l
l

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l
,

l
e
s
s

p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
,

(
4
0
2
,

6
0
2
*
)

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

d
r
o
p
l
e
t
s

n
a
r
r
o
w
e
r

r
o
o
t
,

b
u
t

p
e
r
i
o
d
i
c

d
r
o
p
l
e
t
s


F
i
g
u
r
e

6
2


3

S
3
5
5

t
=
8

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

P

=

1
1

k
W

v

=

1
.
2

m
/
m
i
n

i
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y

f
u
l
l

(
5
1
1
)
*

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l

s
t
i
l
l

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
v
e
r
y

l
o
c
a
l
i
s
e
d

d
e
f
e
c
t
)

(
2
0
2
)
*

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

s
i
n
g
l
e

p
o
i
n
t
s
,

t
e
n
d
e
n
c
y

t
o

d
r
o
p
l
e
t
s


4

S
3
5
5

t
=
8

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

P

=

1
1

k
W

v

=

1
.
2

m
/
m
i
n

i
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y

f
u
l
l

(
5
1
1
)
*

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l

s
t
i
l
l

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

(
v
e
r
y

l
o
c
a
l
i
s
e
d

d
e
f
e
c
t
)

(
2
0
2
)
*

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

s
i
n
g
l
e

p
o
i
n
t
s
,

t
e
n
d
e
n
c
y

t
o

d
r
o
p
l
e
t
s

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

5
8

6
3

-

6
4

5

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

S
3
5
5

t
=
8

P

=

5

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,

s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*


F
i
g
u
r
e

5
7

6

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

S
3
5
5

t
=
8

P

=

5

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,

s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*


F
i
g
u
r
e

6
5


T
a
b
l
e

2
3

-

L
a
s
e
r

W
e
l
d

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

-

U
p
p
e
r

s
k
i
n

a
n
d

L
o
w
e
r

s
k
i
n


S
3
5
5


*
T
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s
,

i
.
e
.

(
6
0
2
)
,

a
r
e

r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

I
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

I
S
O

6
5
2
0

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

4
0
1

S
h
r
i
n
k
i
n
g

c
a
v
i
t
y

a
n
d

c
r
a
c
k
e
r

p
i
p
e

4
0
2

I
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

5
1
1

I
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

f
i
l
l
e
d

g
r
o
o
v
e

6
0
2

W
e
l
d

s
p
a
t
t
e
r


68

i
t
e
m

u
p
p
e
r

s
h
e
e
t

l
o
w
e
r

s
h
e
e
t

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
e

r
o
o
t

n
o
t
e

7

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

P

=

1
1

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

i
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y

f
u
l
l

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l
,

r
a
t
h
e
r

e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
,


i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

b
y

d
r
o
p
l
e
t
s

(
4
0
2
,

6
0
2
)
*

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

s
i
n
g
l
e

p
o
i
n
t
s
,

t
e
n
d
e
n
c
y

t
o

d
r
o
p
l
e
t
s

(
6
0
2
)
*

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
6


8

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

P

=

1
1

k
W

v

=

1
.
1

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,


s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*

n
o

f
u
l
l

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

a
n
y

p
o
i
n
t

(
4
0
2
)
*

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

5
9

-

6
7

9

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

P

=

5

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,


s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t

a
t

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e


1
0

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

P

=

5

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,


s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t

a
t

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e


1
1

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

P

=

5

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,


s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t

a
t

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e


1
2

S
3
5
5

t
=
2

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

P

=

5

k
W

v

=

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

P
a
r
t
i
a
l

(
4
0
2
)
*

g
o
o
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,

r
e
g
u
l
a
r
,


s
m
a
l
l

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

(
6
0
2
)
*

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t

a
t

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e

F
i
g
u
r
e
s

6
0

-

6
8


T
a
b
l
e

2
4

-
W
e
l
d

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
-

U
p
p
e
r

s
h
e
e
t

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8

o
r

S
3
5
5

t
=
2
a
n
d

L
o
w
e
r

s
h
e
e
t

S
3
5
5

t
=
2
o
r

S
1
1
0
0

t
=
8


*
T
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

i
n

t
h
e

b
r
a
c
k
e
t
s
,

i
.
e
.

(
6
0
2
)
,

a
r
e

r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

I
m
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
o
n

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

I
S
O

6
5
2
0

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

4
0
1

S
h
r
i
n
k
i
n
g

c
a
v
i
t
y

a
n
d

c
r
a
c
k
e
r

p
i
p
e

4
0
2

I
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

5
1
1

I
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

f
i
l
l
e
d

g
r
o
o
v
e

6
0
2

W
e
l
d

s
p
a
t
t
e
r


69



















F
i
g
u
r
e

5
7



















F
i
g
u
r
e

5
8

































F
i
g
u
r
e

5
9




















F
i
g
u
r
e


6
0


t
e
s
t

9
-
1
2

t
e
s
t

1
-
4

t
e
s
t

7
-
8

t
e
s
t

5
-
6

70

C
o
u
p
l
i
n
g

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
:

S
3
5
5

8

m
m

o
n

S
3
5
5

2

m
m

O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
:

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l
i
n
g

\


T
e
s
t

1

(
r
o
o
t
)

1
1

k
W

a
t

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

r
e
g
u
l
a
r

b
u
t

e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e

T
e
s
t

2

(
r
o
o
t
)

1
1

k
W

a
t

1
.
1

m
/
m
i
n

i
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e

(
d
r
o
p
s
)

T
e
s
t

3
-
4

(
r
o
o
t
)

1
1

k
W

a
t

1
.
2

m
/
m
i
n

i
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

s
t
i
l
l

T
e
s
t

3
-
4

(
f
a
c
e
)



1
1

k
W

a
t

1
.
2

m
/
m
i
n

l
o
c
a
l
i
s
e
d

f
a
c
e

d
e
f
e
c
t
s

T
e
s
t

5
-
6

(
f
a
c
e
)

5

k
W

a
t

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

N
o

f
a
c
e

d
e
f
e
c
t

M
e
a
n
s
:

r
e
d
u
c
e

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
p
e
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
:

d
e
f
e
c
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

h
o
w
e
v
e
r

w
e
l
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
s

s
t
i
l
l

p
o
o
r

M
e
a
n
s
:

r
e
d
u
c
e

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

p
o
w
e
r

R
e
s
u
l
t
:

n
o

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

d
e
f
e
c
t

(
n
o

f
u
l
l

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
)













F
i
g
u
r
e

6
1

















F
i
g
u
r
e

6
2























F
i
g
u
r
e

6
3
























F
i
g
u
r
e

6
4

























F
i
g
u
r
e

6
5


71

C
o
u
p
l
i
n
g

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
:

S
1
1
0
0

8

m
m

o
n

S
3
5
5

2

m
m

O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
:

a
v
o
i
d

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l
i
n
g


T
e
s
t

7

(
r
o
o
t
)

1
1

k
W

a
t

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

i
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

s
t
i
l
l

d
r
o
p
s

a
t

r
o
o
t

s
i
d
e
,

f
a
c
e

u
n
d
e
r
f
i
l
l
i
n
g

T
e
s
t

8

(
f
a
c
e
)

1
1

k
W

a
t

1
.
1

m
/
m
i
n

n
o

f
u
l
l

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

s
o
m
e

s
p
a
t
t
e
r
s

a
t

f
a
c
e


T
e
s
t

9
-
1
2

(
f
a
c
e
)

5

k
W

a
t

1
.
0

m
/
m
i
n

N
o

f
a
c
e

d
e
f
e
c
t

M
e
a
n
s
:

r
e
d
u
c
e

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

s
p
e
e
d

R
e
s
u
l
t
:

d
e
f
e
c
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

l
i
m
i
t
e
d

h
o
w
e
v
e
r

w
e
l
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
s

s
t
i
l
l

p
o
o
r

M
e
a
n
s
:

r
e
d
u
c
e

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

p
o
w
e
r

R
e
s
u
l
t
:

n
o

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

d
e
f
e
c
t

(
n
o

f
u
l
l

p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
6

F
i
g
u
r
e

6
7



F
i
g
u
r
e

6
8

W
e
l
d
i
n
g

t
e
s
t
s

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

o
u
t

o
n

8

m
m

t
h
i
c
k

S
3
5
5

a
n
d

S
1
1
0
0

w
i
t
h

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

o
v
e
r
l
a
p

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

2

m
m

t
h
i
c
k

S
3
5
5
.

D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

l
a
s
e
r

w
e
l
d
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

b
l
a
n
k
s

f
o
r

s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s


72


7.2.1 Manufacturing of the Sandwich Panels
Medium grade steel sheets
Upper skin: 8 mm Grade S460 Full Penetration Laser Butt Weld Plate to Core
Lower skin: 8 mm Grade S355 Laser Stake Weld Core to Plate
Core 1.9 mm Grade S 355

For these grade of steel the panel fabrication method is described below.
3 core elements are fitted together on the lower, S355 skin.
Two 0.5tonne weights are placed across the panel to ensure good fit-up of skins and core
elements. This is shown schematically in Figure 69
A series of 6 off 20mm long tack welds, using parameters in table 1, are performed at 750mm
intervals along the core land centerlines and working around the weights. This minimises
distortion of the panel during the main laser weld runs.
Note that the 3 cores are tacked together at the same time as being tacked to the S355 skin.
The weights are removed and the core is then fully laser welded to the S355 lower skin using
parameters already given in table 25. Note that the tack welds are consumed by the full laser
weld run.
The upper skin (S355, S460 or S690) is placed on the fully welded core & lower skin.
Again, two 0.5tonne weights are placed across the panel to ensure good fit-up of skins and
core elements. This is shown schematically in Figure 70
A series of 6 off 20mm long tack welds, using parameters already given in table 26, are
performed at 750mm intervals along the core land centerlines and working around the weights.
This minimises distortion of the panel during the main laser weld runs.
The weights are removed and the skin is then fully laser welded to the S355 core using
parameters already given in table 2. Note that the tack welds are consumed by the full laser
weld run.




Tack weld
0.5T Weight
Tack weld
0.5T Weight


Figure 69 - Weighted and Tack Welded Core to Lower Skin


73


Tack weld
0.5T Weight
Tack weld
0.5T Weight


Figure 70 Weighted and Tack Welded Upper Skin to Core

Full size panel manufacturing using S460 upper and S355 lower plates were manufactured successful.
A number of practical difficulties have been overcome which have prevented panel manufacture. The
fully fabricated 3m x 1.5m panel is sown in Figure 71.



Figure 71. Fully fabricated 3m x 1.5m HISTESHIP panel



74


Core Tolerances
Successful attachment of the upper skin to the core requires very flat plates and close control of core
tolerances. Despite the plates being specially levelled, difficulty in maintaining close contact with the
core over the 3m length of panel has been experienced. Additionally, variations in core height of as
little as 1mm cause poor fit-up between core lands and upper plate. On the fabricated panel, one of the
core waves had a height of 88 mm rather than the 90mm required and resulted in no penetration of the
weld into the core for approximately 1.5m along the panel length.
A diagram of the lack of penetration at the out-of tolerance core is shown in Figure 72.

2mm 2mm


Figure 72. Out of tolerance core height.
75


Core Joining
The core is formed in conveniently sized, handleable sections and these sections are joined together
and stake welded to the lower skin in one operation. Most of the core joints were successfully welded
(an example is shown in Figure 73), however, it is possible to underfill the weld if the core sections are
separated by more than 2mm.



Figure 73- Core joint to lower skin, partial penetration weld.
76


General Welding
Care should be taken during weld start and stop so as not to introduce discontinuities which could be
susceptible to fatigue.
Generally, partial penetration welds joining core to lower skin were of good quality, however, the full
pen welds joining the upper skin to the core occasionally suffers from underfill as shown in Figure 74.



Figure 74 - Underfill due to unstable welding conditions.

Welding Distortion
The final fabricated panel exhibited lateral curvature due to weld metal shrinkage on the upper skin full
penetration welds. the extent of curvature is shown in Figure 75.

7.5mm
1500mm
7.5mm
1500mm


Figure 75 - Extent of lateral panel curvature due to weld metal shrinkage

Attachment of the panel to a structure would tend to pull the panel flat and lead to increased mean
stresses transverse to the welds. This could have a deleterious effect on fatigue life.
No noticeable longitudinal curvature of the panel was observed but this is likely due to the significantly
increased panel stiffness in the longitudinal direction.

77


High grade steel sheets
Upper skin: 8 mm Grade S1100 Laser Stake Weld Core to Plate
Lower skin: 8 mm Grade S355 Full Penetration Laser Butt Weld Plate to Core
Core 2.0 mm Grade S 355

The welding procedure to join upper skin to core and lower skin to core have been inverted respect to
the manufacturing process of sandwich made in medium grade steel sheet.
This procedure was chosen after the trial tests in order to obtain the best quality level of the weld
between the core and the upper skin. In this case we obtained full penetration weld from core to the
internal surface of upper skin and also to have a smooth external surface.
In figure 76 is reported the photo of the joint, where the low level imperfection term D = moderate
weld imperfection is evident. In the same figure there is the sketch of the core to weld.
Laser weld parameters selected to manufacture panel sandwich with higher grade steel plate are
selected from the tables 24 item 12 for upper skin to core and table 23 item 6 for lower skin to core.



Figure 76. Laser weld joint. Quality lever symbol D=moderate weld imperfection.
On the right the sketch to the core to weld



The plant and the tools used to clamp the skins and the core are reported in the figures 77 and 78.
By this system the distortions of the plates and, as consequence, the sandwich panel was minimised. A
total of 10 sandwich panels laser welded have been manufactured.
The weight of each sandwich panel was: P=780kg.
The overall dimension of the sandwich panels are:
Length = 3000 mm
Width= 1500 mm
Height= 106 mm
Distance between the supports=1800mm.
A part the total height all dimensions are the same of the conventional panel as well as the system to
apply the load during the fatigue tests. This was the prerogative to have the direct comparison of the
overall characteristics of the two geometries of panels considered.





78



Figure 77 Laser weld plant used to manufacture sandwich by high grade steel plates


Figure 78 Laser weld plant used to manufacture sandwich by high grade steel plates
79





8.0 FATIGUE TEST ON SPECIMENS
8.1 - Butt welds
Specimen features
Butt welds are produced in three series, the F, AS and E series, welded respectively according to Gas
Metal Arc Welding (MAG), Submerged Arc Welding (SAW) and Shielded Metal Arc Welding
(SMAW): assessing the influence of welding procedure on fatigue behaviour is the main intent of the
analysis. Specimens material is the steel grade S690QL (N-A-XTRA M70).
Ideal geometry and dimensions of butt welds (Type C) are illustrated in Figure 79: specimens are full
penetration butt welded, and present no significant distortion due to welding operations, except the E
specimens, that are bent with respect to the weld axis by angles up to 5 (see Figure 80).
Butt welds are obtained from long welded metal sheets, cutting specimens in the orthogonal direction
to the weld seam. Since not all the specimens pertaining to a same series derive from a single metal
sheet, the original metal sheets have been distinguished and named according to the relevant specimens
(F1-F9 and F10-F21, AS1-AS12 and AS13-AS18, E1-E9 and E10-E21).

Fatigue test procedure
Pure bending fatigue tests have been performed on butt welded specimens in order to derive Whler
and Ganer curves.
The test rig for pure bending tests is shown in Figure 81: the bending moment applied to the specimen
depends exclusively on the load generated by the hydraulic cylinder (the lever is approximately
constant). The thin elements attached to the clamps allow the structure to adapt to the real specimen
geometry, avoiding that static stresses arise due to clamping.
Butt welds have been subjected to pulsating load, in constant and variable amplitude loading
conditions; variable amplitude loading tests have been conducted according to the Gauss load sequence
shown in Figure 82 (sequence length of 50441 cycles). Frequencies between 4 Hz and 25 Hz have been
set depending on stress amplitude and test type.
All specimens have been smoothened on lateral surfaces, so that cracks have always nucleated inside
the width.
The failure criterion (and thus fatigue life assessment) has been associated to the relative stiffness,
which is the ratio between the current and the initial specimen stiffness: most fatigue tests have been
interrupted at 90% of relative stiffness.
It has to be noted that relative stiffness measured by fatigue machine fluctuates considerably around the
mean value, consequently tests cant be interrupted until values significantly lower then 100% are not
reached (between 95% and 70%). At this stage the crack is generally extended to the whole specimen
width and crack propagation is extremely quick, thus strong variations in relative stiffness produce
quite small variation in terms of operating life. It can be stated that relative stiffness under 90%
practically corresponds to complete rupture.
The failure criterion here adopted is evidently not able to assess the crack initiation life. A simple crack
growth observation has been performed to indicatively evaluate the two phases of fatigue life. It has
been found that, for endurances around 300000 cycles, the technical crack initiation (width and
thickness of a technical crack equal to 1 mm and 0.5 mm) occupies about 20% of the total life, thus
crack propagation in medium-cycles fatigue range is largely predominant.
Specimens showing no visible cracks at 10 million cycles have been considered as run-out without
failure, and eventually retested at higher stress levels, marked as retested run-out
81



Steel Grade S690QL (N-A-XTRA M70)
Dimensions:
T: 30 MM
W: 100 MM
L: 500 MM














Figure 79 - Geometry and dimensions of butt welds.








Figure 80 - Distortion due to welding process in E series specimens.
L
W
T
82









Figure 81 - The test rig for pure bending tests



546
202
197
296
5
8
9

83



1
0
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
4
6
8
1
0
2
2
4
6
8
1
0
3
2
4
6
8
1
0
4
2
4
6
8
0 5
1
0
1
5
2
0
2
5
3
0
3
5
4
0
4
5
5
0
5
5
6
0
6
5

R
P
R
a
n
g
e

P
a
i
r

L
C
L
e
v
e
r

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
H
0

=

5
0
4
4
1
F
i
g
4
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
_
G
a
u
s
s
_
l
o
a
d
s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
.
O
P
J
L
o
a
d

S
e
q
u
e
n
c
e

'
g
r
0
_
5
e
4
'
B
i
l
d

_
_
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
L o a d L e v e l
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

C
f

L
2

L
3

L
4

L
5

L
6

V
2

V
4

V
6

V
3

V
5


F
i
g
u
r
e

8
2

-

G
a
u
s
s

l
o
a
d

s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e

f
o
r

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

t
e
s
t
s
.


84


Fatigue test results
Test results for butt welds are shown in Figure 83. All curves refer to 50% probability of failure
(Pf)and for every one a scatter band T=1:1.35 is assumed.

Whler curves are expressed in terms of nominal stress amplitudes. The slope k=3.5 is attributed to
every curve in the high and medium cycle fatigue range and derives from a linear regression in log-log-
scale. The knee point is fixed at 2 millions cycles and a slope of k=21.85 (10%decrease per decade) is
assigned after the knee point to consider possible failures in this region.

Ganer curves are expressed in terms of the maximum nominal stress amplitude of the load sequence;
they are characterized by the constant slope k=3.5.

Before the tests execution a different name has been assigned to each notch composing the weld (for
simplicity bottom-left, bottom-right, top-left and top-right). With this method it is possible to evaluate
if cracks occur on the compressive loaded side or on the tensile loaded side of the specimen (evidently
a pulsating bending moment generates, with respect to the nominal stress ratio, R=0 conditions on one
side, and R= conditions the other side); this distinction also allows to identify precisely number of
cracks and failure sites, and to set the same loading conditions on analogous specimens (always bottom
side in tension and top side in compression, or vice versa).
It has to be noted that such names have been arbitrarily chosen, therefore they make no reference at all
to the actual position of the specimen in the test rig.

Table 27 and 28 indicate for each specimen the general test features. As expected, under constant as
well as under variable amplitude loading specimens generally tend to fail on the tensile side,
predominantly due to one single crack.

If considering E specimens tested in constant amplitude loading conditions, near the knee point
ruptures occurr on the compressive side due to one single crack; on the other hand, for higher load
levels more simultaneous cracks, both on the tensile and on the compressive side, lead to ruptures.
Since at least one crack is always present on the compressive side of E specimens, the relevant SN-
Curve refers to the R= conditions.
85




Figure 83 - S/N curves for butt welded specimens in terms of nominal stress
86


Crack initiation site Nominal
stress
amplitude
Cycles to
rupture
S
p
e
c
.

N
o
.

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.

T
e
s
t

#
)

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

s
i
d
e


S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

[MPa] Nr, r
F15 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 250 41635
F20 (2) F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 250 34059
F11 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-right 0 200 432000
F21 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 150 155625
F19 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 100 533000
F16 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-right 0 80 2150000
F18 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 80 1725000
F14 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 70 2675000
F17 F10-F21 CA bottom bot-left 0 70 1550000
F20 (1) F10-F21 CA bottom ----- 0 60 run out
AS18 (2) AS13-AS18 CA bottom Bot-left, bot-right 0 250 65000
AS15 AS13-AS18 CA bottom bot-left 0 250 50000
AS11 (2) AS1-AS12 CA top top-left 0 250 220000
AS17 AS13-AS18 CA bottom bot-left 0 200 115000
AS16 AS13-AS18 CA bottom bot-left 0 150 250000
AS12 AS1-AS12 CA top base material 0 125 1150000
AS11 (1) AS1-AS12 CA bottom ----- 0 125 run out
AS18 (1) AS13-AS18 CA bottom ----- 0 100 run out
AS14 AS13-AS18 CA bottom bot-left 0 100 1700000
AS13 AS13-AS18 CA bottom bot-left 0 90 2000000
E13 E10-E21 CA top top-left, top-right, bot-left 0 250 148253
E15 E10-E21 CA top Top-right, bot-left 0 200 265000
E17 E10-E21 CA top Top-right, bot-left 0 175 215000
E21 E10-E21 CA top top-right, bot-right 0 150 465000
E16 E10-E21 CA top bot-left 0 125 1250000
E20 E10-E21 CA top bot-right 0 100 2000000
E19 E10-E21 CA top bot-right 0 100 3000000
E18 E10-E21 CA top bot-left 0 90 2250000
E14 E10-E21 CA top bot-left 0 85 1450000
E12 E10-E21 CA top ----- 0 80 run out

Table 27- Test features of butt welds in constant amplitude loading conditions.


87


Crack initiation site Nominal
stress
amplitude
Cycles to
rupture
S
p
e
c
.

N
o
.

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.

T
e
s
t

#
)

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
s
s

s
i
d
e


S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

[MPa] Nr, r
F4 F1-F9 VA bottom bot-left 0 360 947500
F7 F1-F9 VA bottom bot-left 0 360 808000
F3 F1-F9 VA bottom bot-left 0 300 1704000
F6 F1-F9 VA bottom bot-left 0 300 1283000
F2 F1-F9 VA bottom bot-left 0 250 4617200
F5 F1-F9 VA bottom bot-left 0 250 2746000
AS5 AS1-AS12 VA top top-right 0 520 633054
AS7 AS1-AS12 VA top Top-right, top-left 0 520 274539
AS2 AS1-AS12 VA top top-right 0 430 1255000
AS8 AS1-AS12 VA top top-right 0 430 734653
AS4 AS1-AS12 VA top top-right, bottom-right 0 360 5330075
AS6 AS1-AS12 VA top top-right 0 360 1587005
E5 E1-E9 VA bottom Bot-right, bot-left 0 360 1061000
E1 E1-E9 VA bottom Bot-right, bot-left 0 360 1093000
E6 E1-E9 VA bottom bot-left 0 300 1700000
E3 E1-E9 VA bottom bot-left, bot-right, top-left 0 300 2505000
E4 E1-E9 VA bottom bot-left 0 250 3212000
E7 E1-E9 VA bottom bot-right 0 250 3232000


Table 28 - Test features of butt welds in variable amplitude loading conditions.


88


Notch factor analysis
A local stress analysis has been carried out in order to interpret the different behavior with respect to
crack initiation sites.
Two specimens per series have been selected at random in order to evaluate the geometrical features of
each weld notch. The weld profile has been measured at several locations along the weld seam and for
each location notch radius and the notch angle have been measured. The statistical distribution of such
parameters has been carried out collecting all data.
The Anthes, Kttgen and Seeger formula for butt welds subjected to pure bending was used to evaluate
the notch factor:

+ +
+ + +
=

2830 , 3 sin 3491 , 0 2919 , 0

r
t

3
sin 689 , 0
2
sin 737 , 1 sin 207 , 1 181 , 0 1
2070 , 0
r
t
156 , 0 1
welds butt
t
K

(13)

where t, r and are the wall thickness, the notch radius and the notch angle.
Notch factors have been also assessed through a finite element analysis. A plane cross sectional model
of the butt weld was used. Quadratic elements have been adopted having dimension r/20 in the highly
stressed area. The FEM analysis shows a good agreement with the formulas above: differences for both
types of geometry are lower then 10%.
Diagrams for r and as a function of probability of occurrence have been carried out for each series,
and are reported from Figure 84 to Figure 89. Notch radius distributions are particularly irregular due
to the weld angle: the more the angles are small, the more defining, and so measuring, the notch radius
is difficult.
Evidently such distributions and the test results suggest that notches pertaining to the same weld have
generally dissimilar features and so have to be considered separately; this observation fully justifies
the measuring method adopted. Weld seam profile, independently from welding technique, has to be
taken into account in the correct evaluation of fatigue behaviour.
Figure 90, 91 and 92 show the notch factor distributions for F, AS and E series respectively. The notch
factor value corresponding to the probability of occurrence of 10% has been considered as the fatigue
performance limiting value.
For all the series ruptures occur at the side where the highest notch factors have been measured: at 10%
probability of occurrence for both F and AS series the maximum notch factor is reached at the bottom-
left notch (Kt=3,77 and Kt=3,12 respectively), for E series at the bottom notches (Kt=3,19); for this
series no difference has been detected between the left and right notches.
Since fatigue strength of E series is comparable to the others, evidently the mean stress sensitivity of
butt welds is nearly negligible in the R> region, thus crack initiation sites are decided by the local
notch factor value only. This behavior presumes a very severe residual stress state in the weld zone.
The unusual failure behaviour at higher load levels could have different explanations, the easiest one
being related to the uncertainties in notch factor evaluation: specimens E13, E15, E17 and E21 could
without difficulty have different geometrical features with respect to the others (it has to be
remembered that only two E specimens have been measured, and both have not been tested).
The distortion of E series specimens could also play a role. As pointed out above, the E series
specimens are quite distorted around the weld axis (up to 5) due to the welding procedure; since the
stress flux lines inside the specimen tend to follow the shortest path, evidently weld notches on one
side are less stressed (so on the other side theyre more stressed) with respect to the no distortion
condition.
The influence of the curvature on the notch factors has been investigated through a plane FEM model
reproducing the butt weld cross section; r/20 has been adopted as minimum element size in the highly
stressed regions. The actual test configuration of the E specimens and a curvature equal to 5 have been
taken into account: in this conditions the top-right and the bottom right notch factors are respectively
+5% higher and -10% lower then the ideal situation, thus such notch factors are closer if the actual
89


shape of the specimens is considered. Figure 93 shows the FEM results for two equal notches in terms
equivalent stresses of acc.to von Mises (in plane stress conditions such a stress is equal to the first
principal stress in the tensile area, and to the third principal stress in the compressive area): the top and
bottom highly stressed areas evidently experience different stress levels (the reference value of the
notch factor is 3.20).
Since the weld geometry is measured in the actual condition, the distortion is already taken into
account, thus the curvature effect can be perhaps better considered as a fictitious increment and/or
decrement of the nominal stress.
In Figure 94 the SN curves are shown in terms of local stress amplitude, that is obtained multiplying
the nominal stress amplitude for the stress concentration factor related to the initiation notch. The three
original SN curves in terms of nominal stresses can be evidently transformed to one common curve (the
local fatigue strength ranges between 278 MPa and 287 MPa for R=0). In the knee point area the
scatter is high, mainly due to the SMAW series, which is scattered in itself.


90





F
i
g
u
r
e

8
4

-

N
o
t
c
h

r
a
d
i
u
s

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
A
G

S
e
r
i
e
s
.







F
i
g
u
r
e

8
5

-

N
o
t
c
h

a
n
g
l
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
A
G

S
e
r
i
e
s
.




F
i
g
u
r
e

8
6

-

N
o
t
c
h

r
a
d
i
u
s

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
A
W

S
e
r
i
e
s
.





91




F
i
g
u
r
e

8
7
-

N
o
t
c
h

a
n
g
l
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
A
W

S
e
r
i
e
s
.








F
i
g
u
r
e

8
8

-

N
o
t
c
h

r
a
d
i
u
s

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
M
A
W

S
e
r
i
e
s
.




F
i
g
u
r
e

8
9

-

N
o
t
c
h

a
n
g
l
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
M
A
W

S
e
r
i
e
s
.


92




F
i
g
u
r
e

9
0

-

N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
A
G

S
e
r
i
e
s
.








F
i
g
u
r
e

9
1

-

N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
A
W

S
e
r
i
e
s
.





F
i
g
u
r
e

9
2

-

N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

S
M
A
W

S
e
r
i
e
s
.



93




Figure 93 - Local equivalent stress acc. to Von Mises calculated by FEM.

94


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
M
A
G
:




G
a
s

m
e
t
a
l

a
r
c

w
e
l
d
i
n
g
S
A
W
:





S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d

a
r
c

w
e
l
d
i
n
g
S
M
A
W
:


S
h
i
e
l
d
e
d

m
e
t
a
l

a
r
c

w
e
l
d
i
n
g
2
8
7
_
_
P

=

5
0

%
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

C
F
i
g
1
6
_
F
a
t
_
t
e
s
t
_
l
o
c
a
l
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J
F
a
t
i
g
u
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

B
u
t
t

w
e
l
d
s
F
i
g
.

8
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
5
L o c a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
,
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
,

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:

S
6
9
0
Q
L
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:

B
u
t
t

w
e
l
d
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:

3
0

m
m
L
o
a
d
:

B
e
n
d
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
:

R

=

0

C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

C
A
.M
A
G
M
A
G

C
A
.S
A
W
S
A
W

C
A
.S
M
A
W
S
M
A
W

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
4

-

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

b
u
t
t

w
e
l
d
s

i
n

t
e
r
m
s

o
f

l
o
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
.


95


respectively the actual endurance and the endurance expected
Test results and Eurocode3: comparison
The real damage sum has been calculated for butt welds subjected to variable amplitude loading tests.
Such calculation has been performed according to the procedure illustrated in Figure 95. Partial
damages are evaluated starting from the relevant Whler curve, and summed up to cover the actual
operating life of the specimen.
Values of Dreal are reported in Table 29: The fact that the real damage is significantly higher then 1
has strongly to be noted.
Such a result is expressed differently in Figure 96 where the Ganer curves (Pf=50%) are calculated in
order to obtain D=1; for damage calculations Whler curves slope after the knee point is assessed by
Haibachs recommendation for welded steel:
1 k 2 k = '

(14)
Evidently the specimens endure longer then expected making reference to a damage sum equal to one,
even if E series is quite close to the relevant Ganer curve.
In Figure 97 test results and curves suggested by Eurocode3 (latest version available: April 1992) are
shown and compared.
Eurocode3 design curves are ideally divided into three segments according to fatigue life ranges: for
normally loaded welds, up to 5 million cycles the slope is k=3, between 5 million cycles and 100
million cycles the slope becomes k=5, after 100 million cycles the inclination becomes null (cut off
limit). Every curve is so completely determined if the FAT Class is known: the FAT Class corresponds
to the nominal stress range at 2 million cycles, and its value in MPa depends on the weld geometry and
loading. Design curves refer to 2,3% of probability of rupture, i.e. 2 standard deviations less then the
mean value; it has also to be noted that Eurocode3 expresses Whler curve in terms of nominal stress
range , and not nominal stress amplitude.
Butt welds pertain to the FAT90 Class, so fatigue strength in terms of nominal stress amplitude at 2
million cycles is 45 MPa. In Figure 97 fatigue strength of Eurocode3 design curve is not exactly 45
MPa, but 43 MPa, since Eurocode3 suggests the following multiplying factor in order to take into
account the thickness effect:

25 0
25
,
t
R
j
R.t
j

=

(15)

Whler curves obtained by tests refer to 2.3% probability of rupture in order to perform the
comparison. Clearly the SN curve suggested by Eurocode3 is well suitable to be used for safe design of
butt welds in consideration.
Figure 97 shows the Ganer curves for the three specimens series and for Eurocode3 as well: each one
is evaluated for D=1, and refers to 2.3% of probability of rupture. Derived slopes are k=3.6 and k=3
respectively.
The results illustrates above are condensed in Figure 98, 99 and 100: for each diagram the abscissa and
the ordinate are for a damage sum equal to 1.
If D=1 is the underlying design condition, Eurocode3 provides very conservative results.
96



M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
S
-
N
-
C
u
r
v
e
a
n
d
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

L
i
f
e

(
s
c
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
)
D I A 4 7 8 4 e
i

=

1
:

s
t
e
e
l
,

a
l
u
m
i
n
i
u
m
i

=

2
:
c
a
s
t
a
n
d

s
i
n
t
e
r
e
d

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
e
x
p
e
r
.
s
.
s
p
e
c
r
e
a
l
r
e
a
l
.
s
p
e
c
s
c
a
l
c
.
N
L
D
D
D
D
L
N

=
.
c
a
l
c
N
k
'

=

2
k

-
i
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
)
W
o
e
h
l
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
G
a
s
s
n
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
s
l
o
p
e
k
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
u
m
o
f

t
h
e
s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
:
n
1
n
2
n
3
n
4
L
s
N
k
.
S
p
e
c
n
1
i
i i
D
N n
=

=
1
2
3
4
N
1
N
2
N
3
N
4
m
a
x
,
a

S t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a
,
a

k

(
k
n
e
e
p
o
i
n
t
)
C
y
c
l
e
s
N
,

N
k
'

=

k


F
i
g
u
r
e

9
5

-

P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e

f
o
r

a
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

d
a
m
a
g
e

s
u
m

97



Nominal
stress
amplitude
(ideal)
Cycles to
rupture
Real
Damage
Sum
S
p
e
c
.

N
o
.

S
h
e
e
t

N
o
.

T
e
s
t

#
)

S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

[MPa] Nr, r
F4 F1-F9 VA 0 360 947500 3,33
F7 F1-F9 VA 0 360 808000 2,84
F3 F1-F9 VA 0 300 1704000 3,14
F6 F1-F9 VA 0 300 1283000 2,36
F2 F1-F9 VA 0 250 4617200 4,42
F5 F1-F9 VA 0 250 2746000 2,63
AS5 AS1-AS12 VA 0 520 633054 4,47
AS7 AS1-AS12 VA 0 520 274539 1,94
AS2 AS1-AS12 VA 0 430 1255000 4,54
AS8 AS1-AS12 VA 0 430 734653 2,66
AS4 AS1-AS12 VA 0 360 5330075 10,29
AS6 AS1-AS12 VA 0 360 1587005 3,06
E5 E1-E9 VA 0 360 1061000 1,41
E1 E1-E9 VA 0 360 1093000 1,45
E6 E1-E9 VA 0 300 1700000 1,16
E3 E1-E9 VA 0 300 2505000 1,71
E4 E1-E9 VA 0 250 3212000 1,09
E7 E1-E9 VA 0 250 3232000 1,10

Table 29 - Real damage sums for butt welds.
98


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
k

=

3
.
7
k

=

6
k

=

3
.
8
k

=

3
.
7
1
0
0 9
0
_
_
P

=

5
0

%
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

C
F
i
g
1
8
_
D
_
c
a
l
c
_
b
u
t
t
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J






r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)






r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
t

a

h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

(
b
r
o
k
e
n
)
G
a
s
s
n
e
r

C
u
r
v
e
s

(
D
=
1
)

a
n
d

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
e
s
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
F
i
g
.

x
x
x
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
7
6
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
5
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
,
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
,

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:

S
6
9
0
Q
L
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:

B
u
t
t

w
e
l
d
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:

3
0

m
m
L
o
a
d
:

B
e
n
d
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
:

R

=

0

T
e
s
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

(
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
)

C
A
.
M
A
G

C
A
.
S
A
W

C
A
.
S
M
A
W

T
e
s
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

(
G
a
u
s
s
,

L
s
,
G

=

5

1
0
4
)

V
A
.
M
A
G

V
A
.
S
A
W

V
A
.
S
M
A
W

h
l
e
r

a
n
d

G
a
s
s
n
e
r

(
D
=
1
)

C
u
r
v
e
s

M
A
G

S
A
W

S
M
A
W


F
i
g
u
r
e

9
6

-

G
a

n
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

D
=
1
.

99


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
2
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
k

=

3
,
6
k

=

6
k

=

3
,
5
k

=

3
4
3
6
0
k

=

5
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
6
9
0
Q
L
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
B
u
t
t

w
e
l
d
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
3
0

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
:
R

=

0

C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

a
n
d
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
G
a
u
s
s
,

L
s
,
G

=

5

1
0
4
)
L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
e
s
t
s
:

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

C
A
.
M
A
G
V
A
.
M
A
G

C
A
.
S
A
W
V
A
.
S
A
W

C
A
.
S
M
A
W
V
A
.
S
M
A
W

h
l
e
r

a
n
d

G
a

n
e
r

(
D
=
1
)

C
u
r
v
e
s
M
A
G
S
A
W
S
M
A
W
E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3
7
9
7
1
_
_
P

=

2
,
3

%
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

C
F
i
g
1
9
_
D
_
c
a
l
c
_
b
u
t
t
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J






r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)






r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
t

a

h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

(
b
r
o
k
e
n
)
E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3

(
D
=
1
)

a
n
d

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

T
e
s
t

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
F
i
g
.

x
x
x
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
3
2
M
P
a
k

=

3
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
,
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
,

N
r


F
i
g
u
r
e

9
7

-

G
a

n
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

D
=
1
.

100


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D

=

1
,

P
f

=

5
0
%


M
A
G
C y c l e s e x p e c t e d f o r D = 1
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D

=

1
,

P
f

=

5
0
%



S
A
W
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7

D

=

1
,

P
f

=

5
0
%
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
R
e
a
l

d
a
m
a
g
e

s
u
m

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

W

h
l
e
r

C
u
r
v
e
s

(
P
f

=

5
0
%
)



S
M
A
W

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
8

-

A
c
t
u
a
l

e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
.

101


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
D

=

1
,

P
f

=

2
,
3
%


M
A
G
C y c l e s e x p e c t e d f o r D = 1
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D

=

1
,

P
f

=

2
,
3
%



S
A
W
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

<

1

D

=

1
,

P
f

=

2
,
3
%
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
R
e
a
l

d
a
m
a
g
e

s
u
m

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

W

h
l
e
r

C
u
r
v
e
s

(
P
f

=

2
,
3
%
)



S
M
A
W

F
i
g
u
r
e

9
9

-

A
c
t
u
a
l

e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

102


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
D

=

1
,

P
f

=

2
,
3
%


M
A
G
C y c l e s e x p e c t e d f o r D = 1
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D

=

1
,

P
f

=

2
,
3
%



S
A
W
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
D
r
e
a
l

<

1

D

=

1
,

P
f

=

2
,
3
%
D
r
e
a
l

>

1
D
r
e
a
l

<

1
R
e
a
l

d
a
m
a
g
e

s
u
m

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3

(
P
f

=

2
,
3
%
)



S
M
A
W

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
0

-

A
c
t
u
a
l

e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n


103


8.2 - T-joints

Specimen features
T-joints are analyzed in order to establish fatigue behaviour of the steel grades S550QL (or N-A-XTRA
M56) and S690QL (or N-A-XTRA M70). so respectively have been produced. Both series, M56 and
M70, are welded according to submerged arc welding (SAW) technique. Figure 101 illustrates the ideal
shape and dimension of T-joints. Those specimens show no distortion due to welding process; a lack of
penetration up to 3 mm inside the weld is commonly observed, as shown by Figure 102. Each series of
specimens has been taken from only welded metal sheet.
Steel Type 1:S550QL (N-A-XTRA M 56) and S690QL (N-A-XTRA M 70)
Steel Type 2: 355M (XABO 355)

Dimension: T=16 mm t=8 mm W= 100 mm L=500 mm














Figure 101 T-joint geometry and dimensions.























Figure 102 - Lack of penetration inside the T-joint.
L
W
T
t
2
x
T
Steel type 1
Steel type 2
104




Fatigue test features
T-joints have been subjected to pure bending fatigue tests in constant amplitude loading conditions.
Whler curves have been derived for R=0 and R=0.5; in particular for M70 series an additional Whler
curve has been evaluated for R=-1 and two tests have been performed in R=- conditions to investigate
the mean stress sensitivity. The test rig used for T-joints is the same as in Figure 81. Tests have been
interrupted for relative stiffness values comprised between 70% and 95%, according to stress amplitude
and type of material. Lateral surfaces of specimens have been smoothed in order to avoid crack
nucleation on the edge.
Fatigue test results
Figure 103 and 104 show the results of the fatigue tests performed on T-joints. Whler curves are
calculated assuming a slope k=3.25 before the knee point, that is fixed at 2 million cycles; in the ultra-
long fatigue region the slope k=21,85 is assumed. All the curves refer to the 50% of failure
probability, and have a scatter band =1:1,35. The same method used for butt welds is adopted for
T-joints, thus the two weld notches have been distinguished and marked (left and right). T-joints have
been loaded this way that the weld toes have always experienced a tensile stress state during the whole
load cycle. Table 30 reports about the fatigue tests features: for M56 series cracks have predominantly
been located at the left notch, while M70 specimens have been indifferently broken at both sides. M70
series shows a higher resistance at 2 million cycles then the M56 series.
Notch factor analysis
A local stress analysis has been performed in order to interpret the different behaviours with respect to
crack initiation sites. The same procedure introduced for butt welds has been adopted for T-joints: two
specimens selected at random from both series have been measured in order to obtain the geometrical
features of each weld notch and to evaluate statistically weld angle, weld radius and notch factor. The
Anthes, Kttgen and Seeger formula for transverse stiffeners subjected to pure bending has been used
to calculate the notch factor of T-joints:


6
5
sin
4
sin
3
3
2
1
0
int
p
r
t

p
m
p
r
t
m m
s jo T
t
K

+ + + =

(15)
where t, r and are parameters of wall thickness, the notch radius and the notch angle. A finite element
analysis has confirmed that such a formula is well suited for T-joints notch factor evaluation too. With
finite element calculations the influence of the lack of penetration on the notch factor at the weld toe
has been investigated: as expected, such an imperfection doesnt produce any effect, since it is
disposed parallel to the stress flux lines; situation radically changes for load carrying stiffeners.
Diagrams for r, and thus for Kt, as a function of probability of occurrence have been developed for
each series and are reported in Figure 105 to Figure 110. The notch factor value corresponding to the
probability of occurrence of 10% has been considered to be responsible for fatigue ruptures. Again, the
statistical distributions demonstrate how the two notches composing the weld cannot be considered to
be equal. For both series the notch factor of the left side is the highest (7,71 and 8,04 for M56 and M70
respectively). Test results with respect to crack initiation locations prove this difference for series M56.
Failures occurring at the right notch for M70 series can be explained only by irregularities in notch
factor values. Whler curves of M56 and M70 series have been expressed in terms of local stress
amplitude in Figure 111: A higher fatigue performance of steel grade S690QL is evident here.
105



Crack
initiation
site
Nominal
stress
amplitude
[MPa]
Cycles to
rupture
S
p
e
c
.

N
o
.

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

T
e
s
t

#
)


S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

[MPa] Nr, r
Remarks
12' S550QL CA left 0,5 200 70.000 retested at a higher level (broken)
10 S550QL CA right 0,5 140 82.300
11 S550QL CA right 0,5 118 191.202
9 S550QL CA left 0,5 90 344.700
13 S550QL CA left 0,5 80 905.000
14 S550QL CA left 0,5 70 1.936.000
15 S550QL CA left 0,5 65 1.170.000
12 S550QL CA - 0,5 60 10.000.000 run out (without failure)
16 S550QL CA left 0,5 60 1.892.000
7 S550QL CA left, right 0 200 61.092
1 S550QL CA left 0 150 131.239
4 S550QL CA left 0 100 283.285
6 S550QL CA left 0 80 715.252
2 S550QL CA left 0 70 1.800.523
3 S550QL CA left 0 60 1.532.197
5 S550QL CA left 0 50 4.077.745
8 S550QL CA - 0 50 10.000.000 run out (without failure)

Table 30 - Test features of M56 T-joints.


106


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
5
8
S
A
W
:





S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d

A
r
c

W
e
l
d
i
n
g
6
2
P

=

5
0

%
T

=

1

:

1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

D
F
i
g
2
5
_
F
a
t
_
t
e
s
t
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J






r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)






r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
t

a

h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

(
b
r
o
k
e
n
)
S
N
-
C
u
r
v
e
s

f
o
r

S
5
5
0
Q
L

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s

(
M
5
6
)
F
i
g
.

x
x
x
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
2
5
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
5
5
0
Q
L

(
M
5
6
)
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
T

-

j
o
i
n
t
W
e
l
d
i
n
g
:
S
A
W
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
e
s
t
s
:
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
.
N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

(
1
0
%
)
K
t

=

7
.
7
1

R

=

0
R

=

0
.
5

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
3

-

W

h
l
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
s

f
o
r

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s

(
M
5
6

S
e
r
i
e
s
)
.

107


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
#
]

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
n
d

W

h
l
e
r
c
u
r
v
e
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

R

=

-

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

m
e
r
e
l
y

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
1
1
2
#
]
7
1
S
A
W
:





S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d

A
r
c

W
e
l
d
i
n
g
6
8
P

=

5
0

%
T

=

1

:

1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

D
F
i
g
2
6
_
F
a
t
_
t
e
s
t
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J






r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)






r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
t

a

h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

(
b
r
o
k
e
n
)
S
N
-
C
u
r
v
e
s

f
o
r

S
6
9
0
Q
L

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s

(
M
7
0
)
F
i
g
.

x
x
x
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
6
4
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
2
5
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
6
9
0
Q
L

(
M
7
0
)
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
T

-

j
o
i
n
t
W
e
l
d
i
n
g
:
S
A
W
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
e
s
t
s
:
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
.
N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

(
1
0
%
)
K
t

=

8
.
0
4

R

=

0
.
5
R

=

0
R

=

-
1
R

=

-

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
4

-

W

h
l
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
s

f
o
r

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s

(
M
7
0

S
e
r
i
e
s
)
.

108




F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
5

-

N
o
t
c
h

r
a
d
i
u
s

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
5
6

S
e
r
i
e
s



F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
6

-

N
o
t
c
h

a
n
g
l
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
5
6

S
e
r
i
e
s



F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
7

-

N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
5
6

S
e
r
i
e
s



109



F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
8

-

N
o
t
c
h

r
a
d
i
u
s

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
7
0

S
e
r
i
e
s


F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
9
-

N
o
t
c
h

a
n
g
l
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
7
0

S
e
r
i
e
s



F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
0

-

N
o
t
c
h

f
a
c
t
o
r

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

M
7
0

S
e
r
i
e
s


110


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
S
A
W
:





S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d

a
r
c

w
e
l
d
i
n
g
_
_
P

=

5
0

%
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

C
F
i
g
3
3
_
F
a
t
_
t
e
s
t
_
l
o
c
a
l
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J
F
a
t
i
g
u
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

T
-
J
o
i
n
t
s
F
i
g
.

8
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
2
5
L o c a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
,
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
,

N
r
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
T

-

J
o
i
n
t
W
e
l
d
i
n
g
:
S
A
W
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
e
s
t
s
:
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
5
5
0
Q
L
R

=

0
R

=

0
,
5

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
6
9
0
Q
L
R

=

0
R

=

0
,
5

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
1

-

W

h
l
e
r

c
u
r
v
e
s

o
f

T
-
j
o
i
n
t

i
n

t
e
r
m
s

o
f

l
o
c
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e


111


Test results and Eurocode3: comparison
In Figure 112 and 113 the test results and the design curve suggested by Eurocode3 for T-joints are
shown and compared. All curves refer to 2,3% probability of failure. T-joints can be classified with
FAT80 Class, so that fatigue strength of design curve at 2 million cycles is 40 MPa (in terms of
nominal stress amplitude). The different slopes are the same introduced for butt welds (for normal
stresses, 3, 5 and respectively). All test data clearly are on the safe side. Compared to the
experimental data derived from the tests, Eurocode3 seams to be conservative.

Mean stress sensitivity
A Haigh diagram shows the influence of mean stresses on the endurable stress amplitudes. Figure 114
illustrates the Haigh diagrams for T-joints. Diagrams refer to the endurable stress amplitudes at 2
million cycles (Pf = 50%). As it is obvious from the diagrams, for both, M56 and M70 series,
superposed mean stresses play a very small role on fatigue strength and the mean stress sensitivity is
nearly M = 0. This behaviour presumes a quite high tensile residual stress state in the weld. In presence
of such a static stress state plastic deformation easily occurs during the first loading cycles, after that
actual mean stress reaches a lower value approximately constant and independent on the initial state.
Things change radically in the R<-1 region: in this case the negative effect of the initial static stress is
balanced by compressive stress due to the load, so the bigger is the mean stress the higher is the fatigue
strength. Tests conducted with R=-conditions demonstrate the gain to be sensible.
112


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
k

=

5
k

=

3
2
9
4
0
S
A
W
:





S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d

A
r
c

W
e
l
d
i
n
g
5
4
P

=

2
,
3

%
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

D
F
i
g
3
4
_
F
a
t
_
t
e
s
t
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J






r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)






r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
t

a

h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

(
b
r
o
k
e
n
)
F
a
t
i
g
u
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

T
-
J
o
i
n
t
s

a
n
d

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
F
i
g
.

x
x
x
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
5
1
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
2
5
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
6
9
0
Q
L

(
M
7
0
)
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
T

-

j
o
i
n
t
W
e
l
d
i
n
g
:
S
A
W
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
e
s
t
s
:
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

R

=

0
R

=

0
.
5

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
2

-

T
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

M
7
0

S
e
r
i
e
s

a
n
d

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

113


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
2
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
2
9
4
0
k

=

5
k

=

3
S
A
W
:





S
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d

A
r
c

W
e
l
d
i
n
g
4
9
P

=

2
,
3

%
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

D
F
i
g
3
5
_
F
a
t
_
t
e
s
t
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
.
O
P
J






r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)






r
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

a
t

a

h
i
g
h
e
r

l
e
v
e
l

(
b
r
o
k
e
n
)
F
a
t
i
g
u
e

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

T
-
J
o
i
n
t
s

a
n
d

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
F
i
g
.

x
x
x
L
B
F

2
8
0
1
8
6
M
P
a
k

=

3
.
2
5
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a , n
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:
S
5
5
0
Q
L

(
M
5
6
)
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
T

-

j
o
i
n
t
W
e
l
d
i
n
g
:
S
A
W
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
e
s
t
s
:
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

R

=

0
R

=

0
.
5

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
3

-

T
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

M
5
6

S
e
r
i
e
s

a
n
d

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e
3
:

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

114


0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
M
P
a
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:
T

-

j
o
i
n
t
W
e
l
d
i
n
g
:
S
A
W
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:
1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
T
e
s
t
s
:
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

S
5
5
0
Q
L

(
M
5
6
)
R = -1
R

=

0
.
5
R

=

0
M
P
a
M
e
a
n

s
t
r
e
s
s

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

f
o
r

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s
N

=

2

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

c
y
c
l
e
s
T

=

1

:

1
.
3
5
N o m i n a l s t r e s s a m p l i t u d e
a

0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
N

=

2

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

c
y
c
l
e
s
T

=

1

:

1
.
3
5
S
6
9
0
Q
L

(
M
7
0
)
R

=

0
.
5
R = -1
M
P
a
R

=

0
M
e
a
n

s
t
r
e
s
s

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

f
o
r

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

m
e
a
n

s
t
r
e
s
s

m

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
4

-

M
e
a
n

s
t
r
e
s
s

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

f
o
r

T
-
j
o
i
n
t
s
.

115


8.3 - Laser joints High steel grade
o Specimen features
Laser welds are cut from welded plates and were produced in four series.
Type A: RD 1100 / RD 355
(Series 2)
Type A: RD 355 / RD 355
(Series 3)
Type B: RD 355 / RD 355
(Series 4)
Type B: RD 1100 / RD 355
(Series 1)
First Material specification describes thick plate material, second material description describes thin
sheet material. Type B specimens are specimens welded from the thick plate side to the thin sheet,
for Type A specimens the thin sheet is welded to the plate from the thin sheet side, see Figure 115.
All nominal stresses refer to the thickness of the thick plate.
o Fatigue tests
Originally also for laser welded joints it was planed to carry out tests under bending load, but as the
specimens are very flexible under bending with resulting high displacements and low frequencies
fatigue tests have been performed under axial loading in order to derive Whler and Ganer curves.
The specimens have been subjected to pulsating load under constant and variable amplitude loading
conditions with a load ratio of R = 0. Variable amplitude loading tests have been conducted according
to the Gauss load sequence shown in Figure 82 (sequence length equal to 50442 cycles, same sequence
as for butt welds and T-joints) with frequencies between 5 Hz and 30 Hz, depending on the load level.
Failure criterion is rupture. Specimens presenting no visible cracks at 5 million cycles (10 million
cycles under variable amplitude loading) have been considered as run out without failure and in case
of constant amplitude loading retested at higher stress levels. Affected tests are marked.
o Fatigue test results
Test results for laser welded joints are shown in Figure 116 and 117. All curves refer to a 50%-
probability of failure and a scatter typical for welded joints is assumed. As it can be seen from the
diagram in Figure 116 and 117., there is no significant difference in fatigue performance between RD
355 and RD 1100 under constant amplitude loading. Therefore a common SN-curve is given for welded
joints of both materials, RD355 and RD1100 under constant amplitude loading as well as under
spectrum loading. It has to be noted, that scatter of results is bigger for specimens Type B, where the
whole thickness of 8mm has to be penetrated by the weld to fix the thin sheet on the back side. One
specimen with remarkable shorter life till rupture showed obvious weld defects at the welding. Whler
curves are expressed in terms of nominal stress range. The slope k = 7.0 is applied to the curves and
derives from a linear regression in the log-log graph; the knee point is fixed to 2106 cycles. After the
knee point the SN-curve is continued with 10% reduction per decade (k=22) to consider possible
failures in the high cycle region.
The slope of k = 3.25 like for butt welds and T-joints seems to be inappropriate for the laser welded
sheets.
Results of Ganer tests are expressed in terms of the maximum nominal stress range of the load
sequence; they are shown with a constant slope of k = 7.0 in accordance with the slope of the Whler
curves. Details of the tests on laser welded joints are listed in Table 31 to 34.
116


S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
-
N
o
.

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

(
t
h
i
c
k

/
t
h
i
n

p
l
a
t
e
)

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
[
m
m
]

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]

T
e
s
t

#
)
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

R
,

R _

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
n
g
e

S

[
M
P
a
]

C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e


N
r
,

N
_
r

R
e
m
a
r
k
s

S
3
_
C
_
1

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
5
,
8
0

C
A

0

2
6
0

1

4
1
0

9
9
6

S
3
_
C
_
2

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
3
0

C
A

0

3
4
0

2
0
2

9
3
1

S
3
_
C
_
3

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
1
0

C
A

0

3
6
0

1
4
6

0
5
7

S
3
_
C
_
4

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
6
,
8
0

C
A

0

3
2
0

4
1
3

3
0
3

S
3
_
C
_
5

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
8
,
6
0

C
A

0

2
8
0

5
9
9

8
3
7

S
3
_
C
_
6

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
6
0

C
A

0

2
2
0

6

0
0
0

0
0
0
R
u
n
-
o
u
t

S
3
_
V
_
1

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
0
,
0
5

V
A

0

4
4
0

3

9
0
8

6
5
0

#
)

C
A

=

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
;



V
A

=

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
,

G
a
u
s
s

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
,

L

s
,
G

=

5

1
0
4
;



T
a
b
l
e

3
1

-

T
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

L
a
s
e
r

W
e
l
d
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s

T
y
p
e

A

(
R
D

3
5
5

/

R
D

3
5
5
)

117



S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
-
N
o
.

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

(
t
h
i
c
k

/
t
h
i
n

p
l
a
t
e
)

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
[
m
m
]

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]

T
e
s
t

#
)
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

R
,

R _

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
n
g
e

S

[
M
P
a
]

C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e


N
r
,

N
_
r

R
e
m
a
r
k
s

S
2
_
C
_
1

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
5
,
1
5

C
A

0

2
8
0

3
7
0

9
6
1

S
2
_
C
_
2

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
1
,
1
0

C
A

0

3
4
0

1
8
1

8
0
9

S
2
_
C
_
3

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
6
,
9
5

C
A

0

2
6
0

3
5
3

2
5
8

S
2
_
C
_
4

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
8
,
8
0

C
A

0

3
2
0

1
7
5

2
1
7

S
2
_
C
_
5

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
8
0

C
A

0

2
2
0

5

0
0
0

0
0
0
R
u
n
-
o
u
t

S
2
_
C
_
5

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
8
0

C
A

0

3
6
0

1
3
8

8
2
1
R
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

r
u
n
-
o
u
t

S
2
_
C
_
6

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
8
,
7
0

C
A

0

2
4
0

4
0
5

2
1
1

S
2
_
V
_
1

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
0
0

V
A

0

4
0
0

9

0
0
5

6
4
0

S
2
_
V
_
2

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
8
,
3
0

V
A

0

4
0
0

1
1

2
0
0

3
7
7
R
u
n
-
o
u
t

S
2
_
V
_
3

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
2
0

V
A

0

5
0
0

1

5
6
6

5
2
0

S
2
_
V
_
4

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
2
5

V
A

0

4
4
0

3

7
6
1

2
8
2

S
2
_
V
_
5

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
0
,
4
0

V
A

0

5
0
0

6

5
9
2

3
8
7

#
)

C
A

=

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
;



V
A

=

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
,

G
a
u
s
s

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
,

L

s
,
G

=

5

1
0
4
;




T
a
b
l
e

3
2
-

T
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

L
a
s
e
r

W
e
l
d
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s

T
y
p
e

A

(
R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5
)

118



S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
-
N
o
.

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

(
t
h
i
c
k

/
t
h
i
n

p
l
a
t
e
)

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
[
m
m
]

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]

T
e
s
t

#
)
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

R
,

R _

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
n
g
e

S

[
M
P
a
]

C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e


N
r
,

N
_
r

R
e
m
a
r
k
s

S
4
_
C
_
1

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
8
,
6
0

C
A

0

2
6
0

1
4
2

7
6
7

S
4
_
C
_
2

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
1
,
5
0

C
A

0

2
7
1

8
6

0
0
0

S
4
_
C
_
3

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
0
,
2
0

C
A

0

2
4
0

2
8
2

8
5
0

S
4
_
C
_
4

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
2
,
2
0

C
A

0

2
0
0

1

0
8
2

2
2
0

S
4
_
C
_
5

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
6
,
7
0

C
A

0

2
2
0

5
6
2

1
6
8

S
4
_
C
_
6

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
6
,
0
5

C
A

0

1
8
0

7
1
0

3
3
4

S
4
_
C
_
7

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
0
,
5
0

C
A

0

1
7
0

9
6
6

2
1
2

S
4
_
V
_
1

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
4
0

V
A

0

4
0
0

1

5
1
5

6
3
1

S
4
_
V
_
2

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
1
,
3
0

V
A

0

1
7
0

3

0
7
0

0
7
7

S
4
_
v
_
3

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
3
0

V
A

0

4
0
0

2

5
5
9

7
7
3

S
4
_
V
_
4

R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
0
0

V
A

0

3
4
0

3

8
6
2

5
5
0

#
)

C
A

=

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
;



V
A

=

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
,

G
a
u
s
s

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
,

L

s
,
G

=

5

1
0
4
;



T
a
b
l
e

3
3

-

T
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

L
a
s
e
r

W
e
l
d
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s

T
y
p
e

B

(
R
D
3
5
5

/

R
D
3
5
5
)

119


S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
-
N
o
.

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

(
t
h
i
c
k

/
t
h
i
n

p
l
a
t
e
)

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
[
m
m
]

W
i
d
t
h

[
m
m
]

T
e
s
t

#
)
S
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
t
i
o

R
,

R _

N
o
m
i
n
a
l

s
t
r
e
s
s

r
a
n
g
e

S

[
M
P
a
]

C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e


N
r
,

N
_
r

R
e
m
a
r
k
s

S
1
_
C
_
1

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
8
0

C
A

0

2
6
0

3
0
6

5
2
4

S
1
_
C
_
2

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
9
,
9
0

C
A

0

2
0
0

1
5
7

2
0
3
W
e
l
d

d
e
f
e
c
t
s

S
1
_
C
_
3

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
5
,
0
0

C
A

0

2
4
0

3
0
5

0
8
9

S
1
_
C
_
4

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
6
,
3
0

C
A

0

2
2
0

2
1
9

5
7
1

S
1
_
C
_
5

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
0
,
5
0

C
A

0

2
0
0

9
4
7

1
8
8

S
1
_
C
_
6

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
8
,
0
0

C
A

0

1
8
0

1

2
1
8

6
3
7

S
1
_
C
_
7

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
8
,
8
5

C
A

0

1
7
0

1

9
6
7

0
3
5

S
1
_
V
_
1

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

1
0
0
,
1
0

V
A

0

4
0
0

1

9
4
1

4
5
5

S
2
_
V
_
2

R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5

8
,
0
0

9
7
,
6
5

V
A

0

3
4
0

3

2
1
0

0
2
0

#
)

C
A

=

c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
;



V
A

=

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
,

G
a
u
s
s

s
p
e
c
t
r
u
m
,

L

s
,
G

=

5

1
0
4
;



T
a
b
l
e

3
4

-

T
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

o
f

L
a
s
e
r

W
e
l
d
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s

T
y
p
e

B

(
R
D
1
1
0
0

/

R
D
3
5
5
)



120




F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
5

-

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

g
e
o
m
e
t
r
y

o
f

l
a
s
e
r

w
e
l
d
s

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

A

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

T
y
p
e

B

5
0
0

m
m
1
0
0

m
m

121


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
F
i
g
u
r
e
R
u
n
-
o
u
t
R
e
t
e
s
t
e
d

r
u
n
-
o
u
t
T
y
p
e

A
T
s

=

1
.
2
5
T
s

=

1
.
3
5
S
N
-
C
u
r
v
e
s

f
o
r

L
a
s
e
r
-
w
e
l
d
e
d

P
a
n
e
l
s

(
R
D

1
1
0
0

a
n
d

R
D

3
5
5
)
2
3
0

M
P
a
A
x
i
a
l

L
o
a
d
i
n
g
L
o
a
d

r
a
t
i
o

R

=

0
R
D

3
5
5

(
T
e
s
t

s
e
r
i
e
s

3
)

C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
R
D

1
1
0
0

(
T
e
s
t

s
e
r
i
e
s

2
)


C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
k
5
0
%

=

7
,
0
D
a
t
e
i
:

F
i
g
3
8
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
_
t
y
p
e
A
.
o
p
j
P
s
:
1
0

%
5
0

%
9
0

%
S t r e s s r a n g e S / S [ N / m m ]
C
y
c
l
e
s

N
R

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
6

-

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

t
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

l
a
s
e
r

w
e
l
d
e
d

j
o
i
n
t
s

T
y
p
e

A

122


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
F
i
g
u
r
e
P
s
:
1
0

%
5
0

%
9
0

%
S
N
-
C
u
r
v
e
s

f
o
r

L
a
s
e
r
-
w
e
l
d
e
d

P
a
n
e
l
s

(
R
D

1
1
0
0

a
n
d

R
D

3
5
5
)
T
y
p
e

B
T
S

=

1
:
1
.
3
5
*
)

w
e
l
d

d
e
f
e
c
t
s
*
1
7
5

M
P
a
A
x
i
a
l

L
o
a
d
i
n
g
L
o
a
d

r
a
t
i
o

R

=

0
R
D

3
5
5

(
T
e
s
t

s
e
r
i
e
s

4
)

C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
R
D

1
1
0
0

(
T
e
s
t

s
e
r
i
e
s

1
)

C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

l
o
a
d
i
n
g
k
5
0
%

=

7
,
0
D
a
t
e
i
:

F
i
g
3
9
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
_
t
y
p
e
B
.
o
p
j
T
S

=

1
:
1
.
3
5
T
S

=

1
:
1
.
2
5
S t r e s s r a n g e S / S [ N / m m ]
C
y
c
l
e
s

N
R

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
7

-

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

t
e
s
t

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

l
a
s
e
r

w
e
l
d
e
d

j
o
i
n
t
s

T
y
p
e

B


123


o Damage sum calculation
The real damage sum has been calculated for laser welds subjected to variable amplitude loading acc.
to the procedure illustrated in Figure 95.
Values of Dreal are :
Type A: Dreal = 0.86
Type B: Dreal = 1.03
Calculations were carried out for one stress level for Ps = 50 %. As the slope of Whler and Ganer
curve are the same, the damage sum is independent from the stress level.
o Comparison with Eurocode 3
It is difficult to define appropriate FAT classes for laser welded specimens Type A and Type B, as
these details are not listed in Eurocode tables.
Possible classification for Type A is
FAT 36 : Transverse butt weld, welded from one side without backing, full penetration (t <
12,5mm)
Possible classification for Type B is
FAT 50 : Transverse butt weld, welded from one side with remaining backing, full penetration
The FAT class corresponds to the nominal stress range at 2 million cycles with a probability of survival
of Ps = 97.7 %. Experimental SN-curves for Ps = 97.7 % were calculated starting from the SN-curve
for Ps = 50 %, see Figure 118 and 119.
The comparison shows a significant better fatigue behavior than given by Eurocode.
Compared at N = 2e6, the factors are
Type A: 138 MPa/ 50 MPa = 2.8
Type B: 182 MPa / 36 MPa = 5.0
Due to different slopes of the SN curves and the FAT classes, the factors are not constant.
o Notch factor analysis
In contrary to the analysis for butt welds or T-joints, a local stress definition for specimens Type A
and specimens Type B, is hardly possible as a geometrical notch factor can not be defined for this
geometry and weld detail. Higher fatigue resistance of Type A and Type B welded joints, compared to
Eurocode values, shall be explained with lower local notch factor obtained by laser welding technique.
The lower fatigue performance compared to the plain plate is mainly caused by weld defects and the
metallurgical notch at the weld and the heat affected zone.
124


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
5
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
3
6

M
P
a
P
s

=

9
7
.
7

%
P
s

=

5
0

%
E
x
p
.

S
N
-
c
u
r
v
e
E
C

3

/

F
A
T

3
6
P
s

=

9
7
.
7
%
E
C

3

/

F
A
T

5
0
P
s

=

9
7
.
7
%
1
8
2

M
P
a
5
0

M
P
a
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

w
i
t
h

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e

3
T
y
p
e

A
D
a
t
e
i
:

F
i
g
4
0
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
_
t
y
p
e
A
.
o
p
j
S t r e s s r a n g e S / S [ N / m m ]
C
y
c
l
e
s

N
R

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
8

-

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

T
y
p
e

A

w
i
t
h

E
C
3

125


1
0
4
1
0
5
1
0
6
1
0
7
5
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
3
6

M
P
a
1
3
8

M
P
a
5
0

M
P
a
P
s

=

9
7
.
7

%
P
s

=

5
0

%
E
x
p
.

S
N
-
c
u
r
v
e
E
C

3

/

F
A
T

3
6
P
s

=

9
7
.
7
%
E
C

3

/

F
A
T

5
0
P
s

=

9
7
.
7
%
F
i
g
u
r
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

w
i
t
h

E
u
r
o
c
o
d
e

3
T
y
p
e

B
D
a
t
e
i
:

F
i
g
4
1
_
2
8
0
1
8
6
_
t
y
p
e
B
.
o
p
j
S t r e s s r a n g e S / S [ N / m m ]
C
y
c
l
e
s

N
R

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
9

-

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

T
y
p
e

B

w
i
t
h

E
C
3


126


8.4 - Laser joints Medium steel grade
Specimens were machined from laser welded joints. The detail of steels and sizes are reported (figures
55 and 56)
Fatigue testing of specimens has been conducted under the following conditions:
Constant amplitude axial loading in air at ambient temperature.
Stress ratio, R equal to 0.1
Test frequency of 10Hz.
Results indicate that for all welds, fatigue endurances exceed the BS7608 design classification B,
indicating a high integrity welded joint for the stress ranges under consideration.
Plate to core welded specimens exhibit a slightly lower S-N fatigue life than the core to plate welds,
possibly due to the influence of a geometric stress concentration due to underfill on the plate when a
full penetration weld is made, this is because molten weld metal tends to run through into the core due
to gravity. One possibility for minimising this effect is to use a hybrid technique where a metal filler
wire is used in conjunction with the laser and compensates for the underfill. Figures 120 to 124 show
the results of the S-N tests for each of the 4 combinations of plate strength and weld type. Results
obtained, indicate a shallower slope than that of the B design classification and suggests that where the
applied stress range exceeds 350MPa, the S355 core to S355 plate stake weld and the S690 plate to
core butt weld may not exceed the class B mean minus 2 standard deviations design criteria.
Additionally, figure 123 shows a single low S-N result of 75000 cycles at a stress range of 250MPa and
is the result of fatigue crack initiation from the chamfered edge of the S690 plate rather than at the
weld. Figure 124 shows all S-N data plotted on the same graph. The vast majority of S-N failures
initiated at the laser weld throat on the plate/ sheet interface.

S-N Fatigue Test Results R=0.1
S355 core to plate (partial pen.)
y = 1292.1x
-0.1105
R
2
= 0.988
100
1000
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
Endurance N, cycles
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

S
r
,

M
P
a


Figure 120 - Axial S-N Fatigue Results for S355 Core to S355 Plate Partial Penetration Weld
Specimens
127



S-N Fatigue Test Results R=0.1
S355 plate to core (full pen.)
y = 3291.3x
-0.188
R
2
= 0.8537
100
1000
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
Endurance N, cycles
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

S
r
,

M
P
a


Figure 121 - Axial S-N Fatigue Results for S355 Plate to S355 Core Full Penetration Weld Specimens


S-N Fatigue Test Results R=0.1
S460 plate to core (Full pen.)
y = 4022.9x
-0.2051
R
2
= 0.6786
100
1000
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
Endurance N, cycles
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

S
r
,

M
P
a

Figure 122 - Axial S-N Fatigue Results for S460 Plate to S355 Core Full Penetration Weld Specimens


128


S-N Fatigue Test Results R=0.1
S690 plate to core (full pen.)
y = 1006.7x
-0.094
R
2
= 0.6703
100
1000
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
Endurance N, cycles
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

S
r
,

M
P
a


Figure 123- Axial S-N Fatigue Results for S690 Plate to S355 Core Full Penetration Weld Specimens

S-N Fatigue Test Results (All Data)
100
1000
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Endurance N, cycles
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

S
r
,

M
P
a
BS7608 Class B Mean
BS7608 Class B Mean -2SD
S355 core to plate (partial pen.)
S355 plate to core (f ull pen.)
S460 plate to core (f ull pen.)
S690 plate to core (f ull pen.)
n.f.

Figure 124 - Axial S-N Fatigue Results for All Welded Specimens

129







9.0 FATIGUE TEST ON CONVENTIONAL AND SANDWICH PANELS
Fatigue tests on panels have been carried out for both the typologies of panels.
Conventional panels of the core to S690QL (th16mm) and S550QL (th16mm) plate.
Sandwich panels of core S1110 (th8mm)upper and S355 (th8mm)lower plates.
High performance testing machine with capability 1000 KN in fatigue have been utilized to carry out
fatigue tests. Figure 125 shows the photos of the system during a fatigue tests of conventional panels
and sandwich panel The panels have been subjected to pulsating load in constant amplitude in R=0.1
with 5HZ frequency conditions in according to FEA. Three point bending load have been applied to
simulate service fatigue loading and the test set-up included special support to replicate the service
operation for heavy concentrated loads, the dimensions of special support are 550x250mm. The
information obtained from FEA regarding the highest stressed zones will be used to replicate the stress
distribution as closely as possible during the tests. Measurements of the stiffness of the panels have
been made before e during the test.

Figure 125 Fatigue testing machine with capability 1000 KN
Test results for each type of the panels, conventional and sandwich are reported in Tables 35 and 36
respectively as well as the Whler curves are reported in the graphs of the figures 126 and 127. The
typical rupture of the conventional panels are shown in Figures 128, where, as expected, the cracks
start in the bulb where it is the maximum value of the bending. In conventional panels the presence of
the cracks were detected by the measure of the compliance. The presence of the cracks resulted related
to the decrease of the compliance. The measure of the stiffness carried out before to start the fatigue of
two configuration of panels analysed are reported in fig. 129.
More difficulties were met to determine the presence of the cracks in the sandwich panels. In fact in
these panels the value of the compliance remained constant also after an important damage of the
panel. The fatigue cracks were detected along the welding lines between the core and the lower skin.
The compliance remained constant because compression load remains not affected by the separation of
the core with the lower skin. In other hands, the core support the compression loads also when a
significant part of one or more welded lines are separated. The cracks were detected from the noise
generated by the panel. This was yielded by the friction between the core and the skin after that the
weld line is broken.



131


In order to verify the advantages between conventional panels and sandwich panels, the following
parameter analysed in the project are and reported and compared in the table 37.

Panel Upper
skin
Th.
[mm]
Span
[mm]
Applied
load
Rectangul
ar section
[m]
Weight
[Kg]
Stiffnes
s
[kN/mm
]
Load
fatigue.
Limits at 2
10
6
cycles
F
max
[kN]
R=0.1
Stress fatigue.
Limits at 2 10
6

cycles

max
[MPa]
R=0.1
Fatigue limit
Stress range

Conventio
nal
Fig. 42
16 1800 0.5 x 0.25 800 29 62 205 184
Sandwich
Fig. 76
8 1800 0.5 x 0.25 720 52 83 175 157
Tab. 37 Comparison of the performances obtained from conventional panels and
sandwich.


The comparison of the overall characteristics of the panels reported in table 37 indicates better
performances of the sandwich panel in term of weight (-11%), stiffness (+25%) and a decreasing of the
fatigue limit (-30%). Overall advantages shall be evaluated taking into account many other parameters
like manufacturing costs, maintenance costs etc.

The fatigue behaviour of these panels have also greater than the requirements to design orthotropic
steel decks /4/. EC3-fatigue detail category requires joints 140 that is with maximum fatigue
performance greater than > 140MPa.

Both the considered panel can be useful for these applications. Moreover the advantaged in the use of
steel plates with high strength grades can assure good protection against accidental overloads which
can produce local o spread plastic deformation whet the overload is over than the limit elastic of the
used steel.

132



N I.D. Panels Material Fmax (kN) Stroke (mm) Cycles Notes
1 1 M56 300 11 47.903 Failure
2 3 M56 150 4.7 248.565 Failure
3 T2 M56 200 - 34.651 Failure
4 T3 M56 100 - 99.000 Failure (former dimension)
5 T4 M56 60 - 3.000.000 Not failure
6 T5 M56 70 1.980.000 Failure
7 T6 M70 80 3.000.000 Not failure
8 T1 M70 150 45.112 Failure
9 T8 M70 300 - 17.050 Failure
10 T9 M70 250 80.803 Failure
11 T10 M70 100 450.000 Failure
12 T11 M70 90 900.000 Failure
Table 35.Fatigue results on conventional panels

N I.D. Panels
Material
upper/lower
F
max
(kN) Stroke (mm) Cycles Notes
1 1 1100/355 100 2.000.000 Not failure
2 2 1100/355 120 600.000 Failure
3 3 1100/355 160 88.756 Failure
4 4 1100/355 140 2.000.000 Failure
5 5 1100/355 160 500.000 Failure
6 6 1100/355 150 628.000 Failure
7 7 1100/355 200 110.000 Failure
8 8 1100/355 190 234.000 Failure
9 9 1100/355 70 3.000.000 Not failure
10 10 1100/355 300 44.780 Failure
Table 36 - Fatigue results on sandwich panels
133


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
1
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
F
o
r
m
e
r
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n

r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5

C
S
M

T
E
M


G
r
a
f
i
c
o

f
a
t
i
c
a

p
i
a
n
a
l
i
.
O
P
J
6
2
P
s

[
%
]
1
0
5
0
9
0
k

=

3
.
0
L o a d [ k N ]
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:

S
t
e
e
l


G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
a
n
e
l
s
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:

1
6

m
m
L
o
a
d
:

B
e
n
d
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
:

R

=

0
.
1
S
y
m
b
o
l
s

M
5
6



M
5
6

M
7
0



M
7
0

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
2
6

-

B
e
n
d
i
n
g

S
-
N

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
a
n
e
l
s


134


1
0
4
2
4
6
8
1
0
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
6
2
4
6
8
1
0
7
1
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0

r
u
n

o
u
t

(
w
i
t
h
o
u
t

f
a
i
l
u
r
e
)
T

=
1
:
1
.
3
5

C
S
M

T
E
M


f
a
t
i
c
a

p
i
a
n
a
l
i

S
a
n
d
w
i
c
h
.
O
P
J
8
3
P
s

[
%
]
1
0
5
0
9
0
k

=

3
.
0
L o a d [ k N ]
C
y
c
l
e
s

t
o

r
u
p
t
u
r
e

N
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
:

S
t
e
e
l


G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
:

S
a
n
d
w
i
c
h

p
a
n
e
l
s
T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
:

8
m
m
L
o
a
d
:

B
e
n
d
i
n
g
R
a
t
i
o
:

R

=

0
.
1
S
t
e
e
l

g
r
a
d
e

U
p
p
e
r
1
1
1
0

a
n
d

L
o
w
e
r
3
5
5


F
i
g
u
r
e

1
2
7
-


B
e
n
d
i
n
g

S
-
N

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

s
a
n
d
w
i
c
h

p
a
n
e
l
s


135



I
.
D
.

P
a
n
e
l
s

T
1


I
.
D
.

P
a
n
e
l
s

T
2


I
.
D
.

P
a
n
e
l
s

T
3





I
.
D
.

P
a
n
e
l
s

T
1


I
.
D
.

P
a
n
e
l
s

T
2


I
.
D
.

P
a
n
e
l
s

T
3


F
i
g
u
r
e

1
2
8


T
y
p
i
c
a
l

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

z
o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
a
n
e
l
s



136



C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
a
n
e
l

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

a
t

0

C
y
c
l
e
s

y

=

2
9
,
0
0
6
x

+

1
7
8
0
,
6
-
3
5
0
-
3
0
0
-
2
5
0
-
2
0
0
-
1
5
0
-
1
0
0
-
5
0 0
5
0
-
7
2
-
7
0
-
6
8
-
6
6
-
6
4
-
6
2
-
6
0
S
t
o
k
e

(
m
m
)
L o a d ( k N )


S
a
n
d
w
i
c
h

p
a
n
e
l

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

a
t

0

C
y
c
l
e
s

y

=

5
2
,
3
1
1
x

+

7
1
,
2
1
8
-
1
4
0
-
1
2
0
-
1
0
0
-
8
0
-
6
0
-
4
0
-
2
0 0
-
4
,
5
-
4
,
0
-
3
,
5
-
3
,
0
-
2
,
5
-
2
,
0
-
1
,
5
-
1
,
0
-
0
,
5
0
,
0
S
t
o
k
e

(
m
m
)
L o a d ( k N )

F
i
g
.

1
2
9

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

o
f

s
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

o
u
t

b
e
f
o
r
e

t
o

s
t
a
r
t

t
h
e

f
a
t
i
g
u
e

t
e
s
t
s
.


A
t

l
e
f
t
:

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

p
a
n
e
l
.


A
t

r
i
g
h
t

S
a
n
d
w
i
c
h

p
a
n
e
l

137




10.0 CONCLUSIONS
The activities was carried out to point out investigate the advantages to use high strength steels , from
S355 up to S1000, to design and to manufacture welded panels for ship application or, more in general,
to manufacture decks for bridges.
In particular the activities were focalised to design, to manufacture and to test under fatigue loads
conventional panels and sandwich panels.
Parametric FE-calculation has been developed in order to have an useful and quick tool to optimize the
design of the decks changing the most important geometrical parameters like the bulb reinforced parts
as well as the geometry of the core in the sandwich panels.
Conventional panels have been manufacture directly in the shipyards as to obtain results of real
components not manufactured in the lab.
Good attention was dedicate to define the shape of the seam laser weld both for laser stake weld and
core to plate in term of penetration and width.
However manufacturing difficulties were encountered to realise welded large welded without a large
quantity of spatters.
During the manufacturing a right compromise was found in order to obtain a moderate weld
imperfection (Level symbol D) and good fatigue behaviour of welded joints.
Different shape of welded joints have been prepared.
In order to verify the fatigue resistance of the details present in the conventional panels, butt and T-
joints have been prepared by MAg, SAW and SMAW welding techniques.
Whler curves obtained by tests refer to 2.3% probability of rupture in order to perform the
comparison.
Clearly the SN curve suggested by Eurocode3 is well suitable to be used for safe design of butt welds
in consideration.
Also the Ganer curves obtained for the three specimens series considered and for Eurocode3 as well:
each one is evaluated for D=1, and refers to 2.3% of probability of rupture. Derived slopes are k=3.6
and k=3 respectively.
Actual endurance and expected endurance comparison have been considered.
The results obtained shown a damage sum equal to 1.
If D=1 is the underlying design condition, Eurocode3 provides very conservative results.
According to the design specifications all series of laser welded joints were prepared, matching plate
steels for upper skin, core and lower skin. For these applications plate steel of grades S355, S460 and
S1100 have been prepared to simulate laser stake weld and core to plate.
Assuming the joints type A class 50 (transverse butt weld, welded from one side with remaining
backing, full penetration)and type B (transverse butt weld, welded from one side without backing, full
penetration (t < 12,5mm)) class 36, their fatigue resistance results 2.8 times and 5.0 times greater than
Eurocode 3, respectively.
The comparison of the overall characteristics, summarised in tables 37 and 38 of the two configuration
of the panels, conventional and sandwich, indicates better performances of the sandwich panel in term
of weight (-11%), stiffness (+25%) and a decreasing of the fatigue limit (-30%) Overall advantages
shall be evaluated taking into account many other parameters like manufacturing costs, maintenance
costs etc..
Deck shape Weight [kg] Stiffness [kN/mm] Fatigue limit [MPa]
Conventional 800 29 184*
Sandwich 720 52 157*

=140MPa is the maximum fatigue performance at 2 10

6
cycles indicated in EC3-fatigue
Table 37 Panels: results comparison

Deck shape Weight Stiffness kN/mm Fatigue limit [MPa]
Conventional +11% -44% Winner
Sandwich Winner Winner -17%
Table 38 Panels: results comparison


139


The fatigue behaviour of these panels have also greater than the requirements to design orthotropic
steel decks. In fact EC3-fatigue detail category requires joints 140 that is with maximum fatigue
performance greater than > 140MPa.
Both the considered panel can be useful for these applications. Moreover the advantaged in the use of
steel plates with high strength grades can assure good protection against accidental overloads which
can produce local o spread plastic deformation when the overload is over than the limit elastic of the
used steel.


11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. F. Roland , T. Reinert Laser welded sandwich panels for the shipbuilding industry. Jos L. Meyer
GmbH (Meyer Werft) Papenburg Germany - RINA - Bericht 99

2. A.Y.J. Ulfvarson Superstructures of large ships and floating offshore platforms built in FRP
sandwich Sandwich Construction 1 1
st
Int. Conf. on sandwich construction 1989. 469, 483

3. J. Ramussen , J. Baartrup Rational design of large sandwich structures - Sandwich Construction 1
1
st
Int. Conf. on sandwich construction 1989. 485, 509.

4. M. H. Kolstein, A Bruls. Eurocode 3 Part 2 Steel Bridges Design of orthotropic steel decks.
(contract 7210-ZZ/568) EUR 118866 EN 1999

5. S. Riscifuli et. Alii High strength steel in welded state for lightweight construction under high and
variable stress peack (contract 7210-MC/404,111) EUR 19998EN 2001.

6. G. Demofonti Laser welding in ship construction CSM Report 8281R 1994

7. F. Bleich, Bucling strength of metal structures, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York
(1952)

8. W. C. Young, Roarks Formulas for Stress & Strain, 6th edt., Mc-Graw-Hill, Inc., New York
(1989).
140
EuropeanCommission
EUR22571-Steelproductsandapplicationsforbuilding,constructionandindustry
App||cat|onofh|gh-strengthstee|p|atestowe|deddeckcomponentsfor
sh|psandbr|dgessubjectedtomed|um/h|ghserv|ce|oads
S.B0dano,M.K0ooe|s,H.Ka0fmann,A.M.Me|zoso,C.Dav|es
Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities
2007-140pp.-2129.7cm
Technicalsteelresearchseries
lSBN92-79-05007-7
lSSN1018-5593
Price(excludingvATjinLuxembourg:EUR25