Analysis of Fatigue Life in Two Weld Class Systems: Master Thesis in Solid Mechanics

Analysis of Fatigue Life
in Two Weld Class Systems
Master Thesis in Solid Mechanics
Niklas Karlsson, Per-Henrik Lenander
LITH-IKP-EX--05/2302--SE
November 2005
i
Master Thesis in Solid Mechanics
Niklas Karlsson, Per-Henrik Lenander

Analysis of Fatigue Life in Two Weld Class Systems
LITH-IKP-EX--05/2302--SE
Department of Mechanical Engineering

Linkping University
SE-581 83 Linkping, Sweden
Printed in Sweden by UniTryck, Linkping, 2005
ii
iii
iv
Abstract
In current welding standards, there is a lack of connection between acceptance limits and
fatigue life. In an ideal standard there should be a clear and consistent connection, assuring
that a certain welding class always implies a certain fatigue life of the welded joint. Volvo
Construction Equipment is currently involved in reworking the company welding standard
STD5605,51, aiming at introducing such a fatigue connection in the standard.
The objective of this thesis work is to provide the basic data for reworking the standard, i.e. to
calculate fatigue lives for the defect types in the current welding standard. To extend the
study, the corresponding ISO standard ISO5817 is studied as well.
For the fatigue life calculations, FEM (finite element method) and LEFM (linear elastic
fracture mechanics) are used. A few other methods are briefly described and quantitatively
compared.
The results show a very scattered acceptance limit dependence for the fatigue lives in the
different defect cases. This implies that the acceptance limits in most cases need to be revised.
Furthermore, some cases should be removed from the standard and some cases from the ISO
standard could be included in the Volvo standard.
v
vi
Preface
This thesis has been performed as the final assignment for the examination as Master of
Science at Linkping University. The thesis work was initiated by and carried out at Volvo
Articulated Haulers in Bras, Sweden, between June and November of 2005.
The intention is to provide a foundation for further work on reviewing the companys welding
standard. Finite element modelling and calculation of the fatigue lives of all applicable defect
types included in the Volvo standard, as well as in the corresponding ISO standard, has been
performed.
Applied theories and methods are thoroughly described in theory chapters, but the reader is
assumed to have basic knowledge in solid mechanics.
We would like to thank the following people at Volvo Articulated Haulers in Bras, who have
all contributed to our thesis work: Our supervisor M.Sc. Bertil Jonsson, for invaluable
support; weld auditor Stefan Stlberg, for hands-on experience on the shop-floor; Quality
engineer Stig Malmqvist, for sharing his expertise on welding standards; everybody at
Helfordonsgruppen, for a memorable time.
We would also like to thank our examiner Prof. Tore Dahlberg at the Division of Solid
Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkping University, for reading and
commenting the entire thesis, and our opponents Mr Mats Andersson and Mr Mattias
Danielsson for their valuable opinions.
Bras in November 2005
Niklas Karlsson
Per-Henrik Lenander
vii
viii
Notations
The following constants, functions and variables are used in this thesis. The constants,
functions and variables not listed here are explained in the text. Throughout the thesis
variables are written in italic and constants in plain text.
Variables, functions and symbols

A Acceptance limit (in STD5605,51)
a Crack length
C Material parameter
C FAT-value in the (Swedish BSK)
c Crack length
f rk Stress range (in the Swedish BSK)
h Acceptance limit (in ISO5817)
KI Stress intensity factor in mode I
K Ic Fracture toughness in mode I
K eff Effective stress intensity factor
Kt Stress concentration factor
K I Stress intensity range in mode I
K th Threshold value
m Slope
N Number of cycles
n Material parameter
nt Number of cycles (in the Swedish BSK)
t Sheet thickness
R Radius
W Sheet width
z Utilization factor (in the Swedish BSK)
Angle
Angle
Q Probability factor (in IIW)
t Thickness factor
Poissons ratio
Stress
nom Nominal stress
geo Geometrical stress
hs Hot spot stress
notch Notch stress
UTS Ultimate strength
FL Fatigue limit
Y Yield limit
Stress range
Shear stress
ix
x
Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... v
Preface ..................................................................................................................................... vii
Notations .................................................................................................................................. ix
Contents.................................................................................................................................... xi
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The company .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Objectives....................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Procedure........................................................................................................................ 1
1.4.1 Restrictions............................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Outlines of the report...................................................................................................... 2
2 Fatigue life calculation ..................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Basic theory on LEFM ................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Loading of cracks .................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Stress intensity factor ............................................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Paris law .............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.4 Requirements......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.5 Plane stress versus plane strain ............................................................................ 7
2.2 Other methods ................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.1 Type of fracture ..................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 S-N curves ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2.3 The Swedish standard.......................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 The nominal stress method.................................................................................. 11
2.2.5 Example of the nominal stress method................................................................ 12
2.2.6 Comparison with the Swedish standard .............................................................. 13
2.2.7 Problems with interpreting the standard ............................................................ 13
2.2.8 The Hot spot method ........................................................................................... 15
2.2.9 Example of the Hot spot method ......................................................................... 16
2.2.10 The effective notch method.................................................................................. 18
2.2.11 Example of the notch method .............................................................................. 18
2.2.12 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics..................................................................... 20
2.3 Comparison of methods ............................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Advantages with LEFM....................................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Disadvantages with LEFM.................................................................................. 21
3 Procedure and methods ................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Modelling ..................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Basic modelling ................................................................................................... 23
3.1.2 Boundary conditions ........................................................................................... 23
3.1.3 Influence of boundary conditions........................................................................ 25
3.2 Meshing........................................................................................................................ 26
3.2.1 Achieving a meshable model ............................................................................... 26
3.2.2 Elements .............................................................................................................. 27
3.2.3 The crack tip........................................................................................................ 27
3.2.4 The box ................................................................................................................ 29
3.2.5 The centre lines ................................................................................................... 30
3.2.6 Remaining parts of the model.............................................................................. 31
3.2.7 Meshing problems ............................................................................................... 31
xi
3.2.8 Convergence........................................................................................................ 32
3.2.9 Macros................................................................................................................. 33
3.3 Postprocessing.............................................................................................................. 34
3.3.1 How stress intensity factors are calculated in ANSYS ........................................ 34
3.3.2 Numeric integration ............................................................................................ 36
3.4 Verification of integration method ............................................................................... 38
3.4.1 Approximation with upper and lower summations ............................................. 40
3.4.2 Spline values integrated in Excel ........................................................................ 41
3.5 Analytical case for an internal crack ............................................................................ 42
3.5.1 Crack growth rate ............................................................................................... 43
3.5.2 Algorithm............................................................................................................. 44
3.5.3 Discussion about integration limits..................................................................... 44
3.5.4 Comparison with AFGROW................................................................................ 46
4 Weld auditing.................................................................................................................. 47
4.1 Overall on weld auditing .............................................................................................. 47
4.2 Review of previous weld audits ................................................................................... 47
4.3 Weld audit on a rear frame ........................................................................................... 49
4.3.1 Profile projector measuring of silicone impressions .......................................... 49
4.3.2 Comments ............................................................................................................ 50
5 Compilation of STD5605,51 .......................................................................................... 51
5.1 About the standard ....................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Modelling ..................................................................................................................... 52
5.3 Results .......................................................................................................................... 52
6 Compilation of ISO5817 .............................................................................................. 145
6.1 About the standard ..................................................................................................... 145
6.2 Modelling ................................................................................................................... 145
6.3 Results ........................................................................................................................ 145
7 Study of sheet thickness dependence .......................................................................... 221
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 221
7.2 Studied geometry - STD5605,51 Case 20.................................................................. 221
7.2.1 Requirements..................................................................................................... 222
7.3 Modelling ................................................................................................................... 223
7.3.1 Dimensions ........................................................................................................ 224
7.4 Influence of sheet length ............................................................................................ 224
7.5 Results ........................................................................................................................ 226
7.6 Comments on the results ............................................................................................ 230
7.6.1 The thickness effect............................................................................................ 231
7.6.2 Effect of absolute acceptance limits .................................................................. 231
7.6.3 Sheet length ....................................................................................................... 231
7.6.4 The bending case............................................................................................... 231
7.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 232
7.8 Theory and calculations on the thickness effect......................................................... 232
8 Conclusions and discussion ......................................................................................... 237
8.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 237
8.2 General discussion...................................................................................................... 237
8.3 Proposals for revising the standards........................................................................... 238
8.3.1 Primary proposal for guidlines ......................................................................... 239
8.3.2 Secondary proposal for guidelines.................................................................... 239
8.3.3 Other proposals for STD5605,51 ...................................................................... 239
8.3.4 Other proposals for ISO5817............................................................................ 239
xii
8.4 Discussion for STD5605,51 ....................................................................................... 239
8.4.1 Cases which could be added or removed from STD5605,51 ............................ 240
8.4.2 Recommendations for achieving proposals for STD5605,51............................ 241
8.5 Discussion for ISO5817 ............................................................................................. 242
8.5.1 Cases which could be added or removed from ISO5817 .................................. 242
8.5.2 Recommendations for achieving proposals for ISO5817.................................. 243
8.6 Recommendations for further studies ........................................................................ 244
References ............................................................................................................................. 247
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 249
Appendix B diagrams for STD5605,51............................................................................ 251
Appendix C diagrams for ISO5817 ................................................................................. 271
xiii
xiv
1 Introduction 1
1 Introduction
1.1 The company
The thesis work was carried out at Volvo Articulated Haulers in Bras, 30 kilometres
northeast of Vxj in southern Sweden. It has recently been merged with Volvo Wheel
Loaders into Volvo HLBL (Hauler Loader Business Line), which is a part of Volvo
Construction Equipment.
In the Bras factory articulated haulers are designed and manufactured. An articulated hauler
is most commonly used to transport gravel and rocks in rough terrain during road and
building construction, but also other applications are available. Volvo CE markets articulated
haulers in a payload range of 25 to 40 tons. In Bras the 650 employees currently produce
over 2 000 machines yearly. There is also a factory situated in Pederneiras, Brazil. Volvo CE
has approximately 40% of the world market for articulated haulers.
1.2 Background
The background of this thesis is the ongoing efforts to review the Volvo company welding
standard, STD5605,511 [1]. An important objective of this is to achieve a clear and consistent
connection between the acceptance limits in the standard and the fatigue lives of the welded
structures.
The welding standard contains descriptions of a number of possible weld defects, with limits
for the accepted dimensions of the defects for each welding class. In the Volvo standard, four
welding classes, A to D, can be used for assigning suitable requirements when designing a
weld joint. They also contain additional designations, for example U for fatigue loaded welds.
Reworking the welding standard requires a large amount of quantitative data on current
fatigue lives to be calculated. This thesis was initiated to produce all this data as well as
additional knowledge on fatigue life issues for weld joints.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of the thesis work is to provide life calculations for all interesting defect
types, in all welding classes, both for the Volvo standard STD5605,51 and for the
corresponding ISO standard ISO5817 [2]. The ISO standard is studied in order to take
advantage of possibly useful features. The fatigue life data is presented in tables and
diagrams, and also thoroughly commented in the text.
As an effect of the extensive work on modelling and calculating all cases, a lot of knowledge
of various factors affecting the fatigue life has been achieved and will be presented in the
report. The influence of sheet thickness and bending loads will be separately investigated.
It is the authors objective to provide general recommendations for how the standards could
be revised; primarily for the Volvo standard, but since ISO5817 has also been thoroughly
reviewed, it will be discussed as well.
1.4 Procedure
A specified set of interesting defect cases in the two standards are being investigated. For
each case the geometry is modelled, stress intensity factors are obtained, and finally the
fatigue life is calculated.
1
Previously STD5605,51 was called 5.501E. It is now also known as STD181-0001. Throughout this work the
Volvo CE weld standard will be referred to as STD5605,51
2 Analysis of Fatigue Life in Two Weld Class Systems
For a normal type of defect (a few exceptions exist), the weld joint geometry with a defect
of the current type and an initial crack is modelled in the FE programme ANSYS. A macro is
then used to let a crack propagate in certain steps into the model. For every crack length the
FE problem is solved and the stress intensity factors are calculated. The results are used to
determine the stress intensity factor as function of crack length for the particular case. Then
this function is used when calculating the fatigue life by use of fracture mechanics
(integration of Paris law). The life is assumed to be finished when the crack reaches half the
sheet thickness.
All steps of the procedure are described thoroughly in the following chapters.
In a few cases, especially for some internal defects, special methods for estimating the crack
propagation have to be applied. This is further discussed in theory chapters and case
descriptions.
1.4.1 Restrictions
It should be emphasised that all results in this report are theoretical, based on the exact
conditions that are given in the description of each case. In reality, for example, geometries
are never perfect, material quality varies and loading conditions can be very complex.
All geometries have been modelled in 2-D. Thus, the depth direction is not considered,
except in the analytical case used for internal cracks.
An important restriction is that an initial crack length of 0.1 mm is assumed. This means that
no life during the crack initiation phase is taken into account.
All calculations are performed on 10 mm thick sheets. Applying the results to other
thicknesses can not be done without consideration. This is investigated and discussed in
Chapter 7.
Occasionally it is commented in the report that some issue is not fully investigated
(normally due to lack of time or due to the problem lying outside the scope of this work). In
these cases conclusions are based on reasonable assumptions, given in the text.
1.5 Outlines of the report
In Chapter 2, basic theory on methods for fatigue life calculation is presented. The focus lies
on LEFM (linear elastic fracture mechanics), which is used in this thesis. This is followed by
a brief description of a few other methods for fatigue calculations and a comparison of all the
methods for two particular cases.
The procedure of work used in the thesis is thoroughly described in Chapter 3; modelling, FE
analysis and integration of Paris law. An analytical solution method used for internal cracks
is also described.
An introduction to weld auditing is given in Chapter 4.
Chapters 5 and 6 contain the results, descriptions and comments for all cases that have been
calculated, for Volvo STD5605,51 and for ISO5817 respectively. For each of the standards a
short introduction is followed by a compilation of the results. Detailed information on each
defect type is then presented in a commentary page followed by one data sheet per welding
class for the defect.
Chapter 7 describes a special study of the sheet thickness effect on the fatigue life,
investigating the applicability of the results on different sheet thicknesses.
1 Introduction 3
Conclusions and discussion are presented in Chapter 8. The authors give their
recommendations for how the standards could be reworked to obtain a better connection
between welding class and fatigue life. A few other important observations and conclusions
are also provided, as well as suggestions for further research in the area.
Appendix A contains the MATLAB program for calculating stress intensity factors for the
analytical case with an elliptical inner crack.
In Appendices B and C, tables and diagrams of results for STD5605,51 and ISO5817 can be
found respectively.
2 Fatigue life calculation 5
2 Fatigue life calculation

This chapter contains theory on LEFM as well as other methods for predicting the fatigue life
of a structure subjected to cyclic loading. There is also a comparison between the four
methods brought up in this chapter.
2.1 Basic theory on LEFM
In order to calculate the number of cycles to fracture, Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
(LEFM) is used. When using LEFM one assumes that the stresses at the crack tip tend to
infinity. The theory in this chapter is taken from the reference Failure, Fracture, Fatigue An
Introduction [3].
2.1.1 Loading of cracks
A crack can be loaded in three different ways, see Figure 2.1.
Mode I Mode II Mode III
Figure 2.1. Three different modes a crack can be loaded in.
In Mode I the crack is opened. Mode I is the most dangerous way to load the crack because
this loading case generates the greatest stress intensity of all loading cases.
In Mode II and III the crack is sheared in two different planes.
2.1.2 Stress intensity factor
The stress intensity factor is defined as
K I = nom f a
where 0 is the nominal stress, a the crack length, and f is a function of geometry and
loading. Numerous analytical cases have been derived giving the f-function. Some of them
can be found in, for example, Formelsamling i hllfasthetslra, reference [4].
The range of the stress intensity factor can be calculated as
K I = K I max K I min
where
K I = K I max if K I min 0
K I = K I max K I min if K I min > 0
K I = 0 if K I max 0
The stress intensity range KI is used in Paris law when calculating the number of cycles to
failure, see Equation (2.1).
Stress intensity factors in the same mode can be added by superposition, i.e.,
K Itotal = K IA + K IB + K IC + ...
If a crack is loaded in several modes at the same time an effective stress intensity factor, K eff ,
can be calculated as
4
2
K eff = K I2 + K II2 + K III2
+1
where
= 3 4 for plane strain
3
= for plane stress
1 +
and is Poissons ratio.
There are also other suggestions for calculating the effective stress intensity factor.
2.1.3 Paris law
When plotting the logarithm of the crack propagation rate versus the logarithm of the range of
the stress intensity factor, the following graph is achieved (Figure 2.2).
da
log
dN
0 log K I
log K th log K Ic
Figure 2.2. The crack propagation rate versus the stress intensity range.
For K I < K th the crack is so short or the load so small that the crack will not propagate.
This implies that K th is a threshold value for crack growth.
When K I = K Ic the length of the crack or the nominal stress is so large that fracture will
occur momentarily at plain strain. Therefore K Ic is the critical value for crack growth.
The linear part of the curve in Figure 2.2, between K th and K Ic , is described by Paris law
and it is used when calculating the number of cycles to failure for a component.
Paris law describes the increment of the crack growth for every cycle, i.e. the crack
propagation rate or the increment in length per cycle. The crack propagation rate is a function
of the stress intensity range, K I . One has
da
= C (K I )
n
(2.1)
dN
where a is the length of the crack, N is the number of cycles, and C and n are material
constants.
When calculating the life, one has to integrate Paris law, which is a separable differential
equation. Since K I is a function of the above mentioned f-function and the f-function
usually is very difficult to integrate analytically, a numerical integration technique is normally
preferred.
2.1.4 Requirements
The following requirements must be fulfilled in order to use LEFM at plane strain for the final
fracture.
a final 2
K Ic
t 2.5
W a Y
final
If these requirements are not fulfilled, a non-linear model or a linearized non-linear model
must be used, for example the Irwin approach or the Dugdale model.
2.1.5 Plane stress versus plane strain
In this thesis, plane stress conditions are assumed. This was given as one of the basic
conditions for the work. In reality, plane stress or plane strain is determined by the
dimensions of the structure. Assuming plane stress conditions gives a more conservative
result.
The reason why plane stress ( zz = 0 ) is used instead of plane strain ( zz = 0 ), is that plane
stress gives a larger affected zone around the crack, i.e. plane stress is the worst case. It would
be correct to assume plane strain conditions since the material is considered to have an
infinite depth. Plane stress is present at thin structures.
2.2 Other methods
Four different methods for calculating the life of welded structures are investigated. The
methods are the nominal stress method, the hot spot method, the effective notch method, and
linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). Theory on all methods except LEFM are taken
from the reference Svetsutvrdering med FEM [5]
All methods in this chapter use data from the International Institute of Welding (IIW) [6] for
calculating the life of the weld. Data from IIW are based on real welded structures which have
been exposed to cyclic loading. Values from these tests have been plotted in an S-N-diagram
and a FAT value (FATigue) of the stress for sustaining 2 million cycles has been calculated.
This FAT value gives a failure probability of 2.3% for the weld.
Two examples are used when describing the methods. Both are taken from IIWs Fatigue
designs for welded joints and components [6]. The first example is a transverse butt weld,
Case 213 (see Figure 2.3) and the second example is a cruciform joint, Case 413 (see Figure
2.4).
t crack R
Figure 2.3. Case 213, transverse butt weld.
t
crack
t 0.15t
R
Figure 2.4. Case 413, cruciform joint.
Both cases are modelled with a transition radius R = 1 mm. This is the smallest radius which
can be expected for a normal weld without any subsequent machining [5].
A comparison with the Swedish standard is performed.
2.2.1 Type of fracture

In Case 413, with the cruciform joint, a crack could propagate both from the weld toe and
from the root. All calculation will be made on cracks propagating from the toe.
A toe crack is advantageous because it can more easily be detected with the eye and steps to
repair the weld can be taken before fracture.
To detect a root crack some kind of instrument, for example ultrasound, must be used. This is
a much more time consuming process and a toe crack is therefore favourable.
2.2.2 S-N curves
In an S-N curve, also known as a Whler curve, the logarithm of the stress is plotted versus
the logarithm of the number of cycles (see Figure 2.5).
log
log UTS
slope m
Constant amplitude
fatigue limit
log FL
slope for varying amplitude
log N
0
Figure 2.5. S-N curve.
August Whler found that the stress amplitude described the fatigue life better than the
maximum stress. The stress amplitude is defined as
max min
a =
2
The stress range is defined as
= max min
For welds it is a more appropriate approach to use the stress range for fatigue analysis.
For stresses above the ultimate strength, UTS , the component fractures immediately while for
stresses below the fatigue limit, FL , the component has a theoretical infinite life at constant
amplitude loading.
is used instead of a for welds. The reason for this is that residual stresses close to the
yield limit Y can be expected in both tension and compression when the metal cools in the
weld. This means that if, for example, compressive stresses are applied to a weld where the
residual stress is near the yield limit in tension, the weld will endure a positive stress range
even though weld is loaded in compression. The root for fillet welds often have negative
residual stresses while toe cracks have positive residual stresses, but this may vary.
A conservative approach when calculating the fatigue life of welds, is thus to use the stress
range .
When the residual stresses are known, correction factors for compensating the worst case
scenario can be found in, for example, [6]. The correction factors are functions of the stress
ratio, which is defined as
min
R=
max
These correction factors are greater than one and are multiplied with the FAT-value in order
to receive a longer fatigue life. This may be used for the ground material and to some extent
on simple welds. The correction factors are not used for complex structures.
To calculate the number of cycles to failure, the straight line with slope m can be used. The
equation
log N = m log + log C
gives the life
C
N= C = m N
m
The IIW uses a FAT-value of the stress which has been selected so that a certain component
should sustain 2 million cycles before failure. This gives the following equation for
calculating the number of cycles to failure for a certain range of the stress:
C = FAT m 2 10 6
FAT m 2 10 6 = m N
C = N
m
m
FAT
N = 2 10
6
(2.2)

Equation (2.2) makes it possible to use the tested cases in the IIWs handbook [6] to calculate
the life of a component.
2.2.3 The Swedish standard
The Swedish BSK [7], [8] (translated: Regulations for Steel Constructions) standard uses the
same methods as the IIW standard. The following equation can be found in [7]
1/ 3 3
2 10 6 C
f rk = C n t = 2 10 6 (2.3)
nt f rk
When Equation (2.3) is compared to (2.2) one can see that it is the same equation, only the
notations differ. N is the same as nt , f rk equals and C corresponds to the FAT-value.
Fatigue lives for a number of cases, as for the IIW standard, have been tested. The major
difference is that the Swedish standard also deals with three different welding classes from A
to C, where class A gives the longest life. However the descriptions of the classes are vague,
without any actual acceptance limits. This makes it difficult to define which class the
component belongs to. Therefore the predicted number of cycles may differ a lot, depending
on which class is chosen.
The BSK also offers the opportunity to predict the fatigue life for varying stress amplitude
with a special equation which takes the new slope of the curve into consideration, see Figure
2.5.
The BSK can only be used to evaluate the fatigue life for nominal stresses, i.e. it does not
support the hot spot and effective notch methods.
2.2.4 The nominal stress method
In the nominal stress method the nominal stress, nom , is used to calculate the life of the
welded structure. This is a simple method which usually can be carried out with only
handbook results if the geometry is simple. For more complex structures the nominal stress is
often hard to find in an FE model.
To be able to use the nominal stress method the current structure must be similar to one of the
structures available for the method. Misalignments and defects must lie within the weld
classes.
The nominal stress is defined as the global stress, for example the stress applied far away
from the weld in Case 213 and 413, and is mostly perpendicular to the weld. If the structure is
not loaded solely in tension, for example when there is a bending moment present, the
nominal stress can be extrapolated to the weld toe, see Figure 2.6.

nom
x
0
Figure 2.6. The nominal stress, nom , extrapolated from the true stress at the surface.
For evaluation of fatigue life with nominal stress a large number of cases with associated
FAT-values are available from the IIW, [6].
2.2.5 Example of the nominal stress method
The following first principal stress curve is achieved for Case 213 and 413 (see Figure 2.7 and
2.8). Both cases have a transition radius of 1 mm.
Nominal method for Case 213

220
Start of transistion radius
200 End of transistion radius
180 nom
160
1st principal stress [MPa]
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x [mm]
Figure 2.7. Nominal method for Case 213 in IIW.

Nominal method for Case 413
300
End of transistion radius
250 nom
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
x [mm]
Figure 2.8. Nominal method Case 413 in IIW.
Since there is no bending moment here, the nominal stress is equal to the applied stress, i.e.
104 MPa for Case 213 and 82 MPa for Case 413. The FAT-value is 80 MPa for Case 213
respectively 63 MPa for Case 413 but both these values have been multiplied with a factor of
1.3 ( Q ) to achieve 50% probability of failure instead of 2.3% which is the case for the FAT-
value.
The life for the welded structure can be calculated with the modified Equation (2.2) as
3
Q FAT
N nom = 2 10 6 (2.4)
nom
which gives a life of 2 106 cycles for both Case 213 and 413.
2.2.6 Comparison with the Swedish standard
If the Swedish BSK [7], [8] standard is used with welding class B on similar cases the fatigue
life (Equation 2.3 with probability factor as in Equation 2.4) becomes 1.40 10 6 for Case 213
(Case 12 WB in [7]) and 1.40 10 6 for Case 413 (Case 30 WB in [7]) i.e., the fatigue life is
about 30% lower than for the IIW. The BSK standard is in general more conservative than
IIW.
An interesting notation can be made when predicting the life for Case 213. Two cases are
available in the BSK; Case 12, which is used here, deals with rewelded root, while Case 11
does not. The differences between the welds are might seem small for an untrained eye and if
Case 11 is used, with the same welding class, the fatigue life becomes 2.85 10 6 cycles
instead of the 1.40 10 6 cycles it was for Case 12, i.e., more than twice the life. This is quite
remarkable and describes the difficulties with predicting fatigue life.
The achieved results illustrate the problems with predicting the life of welded structures. Even
though almost the same fatigue data have been used, interpretation of the data leads to
different results due to different approaches.
2.2.7 Problems with interpreting the standard
There is no straightforward description in the Swedish BSK standard of how the standard
should be interpreted. This could cause some problems. As an example the fatigue life for
Case 413 will be calculated. The easy way is to use the nominal stress at the edges. Then enter
f rk = 82 MPa ( ) in Equation 2.3. This gives for the life 1.40 10 6 for Case 30 WB [7], as
mentioned above. Another way to calculate the stress range is described below. This method
of solving fatigue problems was developed at Bombardier in Kalmar, Sweden, by Per-Olof
Danielsson [9] and Anders Lindstrm. The first step is to make a free-body diagram of the
cruciform joint in Case 413, see Figure 2.9.
t a

nom
nom

Figure 2.9. Free-body diagram of the cruciform joint in Case 413.

Note that the possible misalignment has been disregarded.
The following stresses can be derived

: =
nom t 82 10
: = = = 58 MPa
2 2a 2 2 5
When the stresses, ( rd ) and ( rd ) are known, these can be used to calculate the
utilization factor for multiaxial stress state, which can be calculated with the following
equation
2 2

z= + 1.1
, allowed , allowed

, allowed = 56 MPa ( f rd ) for Case 30 WB [8] and , allowed = 0.6 , allowed ( f rvd ). Both
, allowed and , allowed are multiplied with the factor Q = 1.3 for 50% probability of
failure, which gives
2 2
58 58
z= + 2.18
1.3 56 1.3 0.6 56
The corresponding uniaxial stress can now be calculated as
z 2.18
f rk = C = 56 111 MPa
1.1 1.1
This stress is considerably higher than the nominal stress, nom = 82 MPa. Now the fatigue life
can be calculated as
3 3
C 56
nt = 2 10 6 = 2 10 0.25 10 cycles
6 6
f rk 111
which is considerably lower than the 1.40 10 6 cycles achieved by use of nominal stress. This
is a very conservative way to calculate the life but enlighten the problems which arises when
there are almost no instructions given to the user of the standard.
If the probability factor, Q , is inserted when the number of cycles are calculated instead of
in the utilization factor, z, as described below
2 2
58 58
z = + 2.01
56 0.6 56
z 2.01
f rk = C = 56 102
1.1 1.1
3
QC
3
1.3 56
n t = 2 10 6 = 2 10 0.72 10
6 6
f
rk 102
the fatigue life becomes almost three times as high. Again this confirms the difficulties with
predicting the life.
2.2.8 The Hot spot method
The Hot spot method was originally designed to be used within the offshore industry using
measured strains. This made the method applicable in situations were no stresses had been
calculated. Later, FE-analysis have been used to calculate the stresses near the weld and
predict the life of a given structure.
This method can be used where the local geometry disturbs the nominal stress or where no
IIW case describes the particular structure. In practice, only one S-N diagram is needed for
most welds regardless of the defects in the geometry.
Disadvantages with the hot spot method are that only toe cracks can be evaluated. The stress
needs to be almost perpendicular to the weld, the density of the mesh must be fine close to the
weld toe, and all geometrical defects near the toe must be modelled. Another disadvantage is
that the method is not accurate for thick plates.
The Hot spot is the toe of the weld. A Hot spot stress or a geometrical stress is extrapolated
from points on the 1st principal stress curve close to the weld (see Figure 2.10).
Extrapolation points
hs
0 x
0.4t
1.0t
Figure 2.10. The Hot spot stress, hs , linear extrapolation.
Different equations are used to extrapolate the stress. The following equation describes linear
extrapolation.
nom = 1.67 0.4t 0.671.0t (2.5)
where 0.4t is the stress at 0.4 times the thickness from the toe, etc. The first extrapolation
point, 0.4t , has been chosen since the stress here is not affected by the weld toe geometry.
2.2.9 Example of the Hot spot method

The same example as for the nominal stress gives the following graphs for Case 213 and 413
(see Figure 2.11 and 2.12).
Hot spot method for Case 213

220
200
180 hs
160

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x [mm]
Figure 2.11. The hot spot method for Case 213.
Hot spot method for Case 413

300
250 hs
200
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
x [mm]
Figure 2.12. The hot spot method for Case 413.
According to [6] the FAT value for flat butt welds is the same as used for the nominal stress
method i.e., 80 MPa, while it should be 100 MPa for fillet welds with crack at toe ground.
With these FAT values the equation
3
Q FAT
N hs = 2 10 6
hs
gives a life of 1.90 10 6 cycles for Case 213 and 9.16 10 6 for Case 413. The reason why the
fatigue life for Case 413 is remarkably long is that the FAT value is relatively large compared
to the extrapolated hot spot stress.
In both examples the 1st principal stress has decreased to a value close to the nominal stress at
the distance 0.4t from the toe.
2.2.10 The effective notch method
In the effective notch method the notch is replaced by a radius of 1 mm more than the real
case. For a welded condition all notches are modelled with a radius of 1 mm (see Figure 2.13)
implying that the real radius is zero.
radii
Figure 2.13. All notches modelled by a radius.
The FE-model or a handbook with the radii gives the stress concentration at the notch and the
stress is then used to calculate the life in the same way for the nominal stress method as for
the hot spot method.
The effective notch method is advantageous if root cracks are to be evaluated or if different
geometries are to be compared.
Disadvantages are that the method has not been verified for thicknesses less than 5 mm and
the stress must be perpendicular to the weld. Since the stress must be perpendicular to the
weld, the 1st principal stress is commonly used in order to simulate the worst case scenario.
2.2.11 Example of the notch method
The maximum stress at the notch in both Case 213 and 413 is given in Figures 2.14 and 2.15
respectively.
Notch method for Case 213

220
200 End of transistion radius
180 notch
160

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
x [mm]
Figure 2.14. Effective notch stress, notch , for Case 213.
Notch method for Case 413
300 Start of transistion radius

notch
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
x [mm]
Figure 2.15. Effective notch stress, notch , for Case 413.
Note that only the toe notch is considered in Case 413.

For the effective notch method only one FAT-value is available in [3] for modelled radii of 1
mm. This single FAT-value, 225 MPa, does not treat possible misalignment.
The same equation as in previous examples
3
Q FAT
N notch = 2 10 6
notch
gives the life 5.45 10 6 cycles for Case 213 and 1.97 10 6 cycles for Case 413.
2.2.12 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
Theory about LEFM was given in chapter 2.1 (Basic Theory). How LEFM is applied for Case
213 and 413 is given in chapter 3 (Procedure and methods).
2.3 Comparison of methods
All four methods described above are compared qualitatively in Figure 2.16.
Accuracy Working effort
LEFM
Notch method
Hot spot method

Nominal stress method
0 Complexity
Figure 2.16. The diagram describes a qualitative comparison of accuracy and model
complexity for the four methods.
Figure 2.16 is taken from Modelling and Fatigue Life Assessment of Complex Fabricated
Structures by Marquis and Samuelsson [10] and describes the accuracy in calculated life
compared to the complexity of the model for the four above described methods. Example of
complexity could be whether or not it is a simple 2D model of a fillet weld or an advanced 3D
model of the rear frame in an articulated hauler. It can be seen in Figure 2.16 that LEFM is a
very accurate method which also requires a lot of work while the other, simpler methods, are
ranked depending on accuracy as the notch, hot spot and nominal stress method. The nominal
stress method is the least accurate. The notch method gives relatively good result at a lower
working effort. The nominal stress method can not always be used at very complex structures
since it requires non disturbed nominal stresses [5].
Results for all four methods are shown in Table 2.1 and 2.2 below.
Table 2.1. Results for Case 213.

Effective Fracture
Nominal Hot spot
Notch Mechanics
Life (cycles): 2 106 1.90 106 5.45 106 1.48 106
% of 2 106 cycles: 100% 95% 273% 74%
Table 2.2. Results for Case 413.

Effective Fracture
Nominal Hot spot
Notch Mechanics
6 6
Life (cycles): 2 10 9.16 10 1.97 106 0.90 106
% of 2 106 cycles: 100% 458% 99% 45%
As can be seen in the tables, the hot spot method have a life close to the expected 2 million
cycles for Case 213 while it divert extremely much for Case 413. This result must be
questioned. The reason why the life it is extremely long is that the prescribed FAT value for
fillet welds is very high compared to the extrapolated hot spot stress.
The effective notch method seems to agree for Case 413 while it diverts a lot for Case 213.
This is because the stress concentration is quite small compared to the FAT value, which
results in a longer life. Also this result must of course be questioned.
Fracture mechanics gives a shorter life than all the other methods. When using fracture
mechanics and Paris law the life has been integrated from an initial crack length of 0.1 mm.
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is not applicable on small cracks, which is a
problem since most defects have values below 0.1 mm. To be able to use fracture mechanics
one has to assume that there is a known crack which is not too small.
If one does not want to assume that there is a crack from the beginning other methods must be
used during the initial stage of the formation of the crack, before LEFM can be used.
However in reality there are always flaws and pores which serves as initial cracks.
2.3.1 Advantages with LEFM
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) will be used to evaluate the life of the welded
structures in the Volvo CE standard STD5605,51 and in the ISO 5817 standard. The reason
why LEFM is chosen instead of the other methods is that the conditions change from the
initial stage as the crack grows down into the material, and LEFM offers a chance to catch
these changes. All the other methods look only upon the initial state. This may result in a too
simplified picture of reality because all cases in the welding classes have to be compared with
only two cases from the IIW.
For example, if the stress concentration is the same for an undercut (see Chapter 5,
STD5605,51 Case 6) as for a penetration bead (see Chapter 5, STD5605,51 Case 12) and the
effective notch method is used, both cases will get the same life. This, however, may give a
totally wrong picture of the reality since the crack in the case with the undercut may grow 3
mm while the crack in the penetration bead can grow 5 mm before reaching half the thickness
of the material. The extra 2 mm which the crack in the penetration bead can grow results in a
longer life. However, this will not be seen in the results if, for example, the effective notch
method is used.
2.3.2 Disadvantages with LEFM
When LEFM is used several different FE-simulations must be performed in order to have
enough points to describe the curve to be integrated in Paris law. When using any of the three
other methods to calculate the life, only one FE-simulation has to be performed. Thus, LEFM
needs more working effort.
Another problem which arises is to mesh the area around the crack. Relatively small elements
must be used to get a good result. Small elements results in many elements, which further
results in larger models and longer simulation times. Another problem is the transition region
between relatively small element near the crack tip and larger elements far away, which often
contains badly shaped elements that are not desirable. Badly shaped elements are rectangular
elements which have a large quotient between the long and short side or contain large blunt or
small sharp angles.
One further disadvantage with LEFM is that a curve of the achieved results from the FE-
simulation must be approximated and later integrated numerically. Errors can occur in both
these steps.
Though there are some disadvantages with LEFM, especially the many extra simulations and
the more time-consuming steps, the advantages of more geometry dependent and accurate
results outweigh the disadvantages.
3 Procedure and methods 23
3 Procedure and methods

This chapter contains description about the overall analytical and FE modelling, which gives
the stress intensity factors. There is also information about how the stress intensity factors
with corresponding crack length are integrated numerically in order to determine the fatigue
life.
3.1 Modelling
In this chapter questions about the modelling of the crack and the rest of the geometry will be
discussed.
All cases in the Volvo CE standard STD5605,51 and the ISO5817 are modelled in the FE-
program (Finite Element) ANSYS [11], [12], except a handful of cases which are solved
analytically.
3.1.1 Basic modelling
In ANSYS, like in most FE-programs, the geometry is built by use of keypoints, which are
placed in space. Lines are drawn between the keypoints and the lines are used to create areas.
Areas are the highest order in 2D simulations. If 3D modelling is performed, the areas are
used to build up volumes.
To model the crack a small cut in the geometry is performed. This means that there is a
relatively small distance between the points at the opening of the crack. In all models (in this
study) the growth of the crack is perpendicular to the horizontal sheet. Crack growth is
simulated by moving the crack tip keypoint into the material.
3.1.2 Boundary conditions
Both for transverse butt welds and for cruciform joints three types of boundary conditions are
tested. One way is to apply stress, , in both ends see Figure 3.1. To prevent the model from
performing rigid body motions one point in the middle of the model is locked in both degrees
of freedom. To prevent the model from rotation, one more point is locked in the x-direction.
0 0
0 x
Figure 3.1. Natural boundary conditions for a butt weld.
Another set of boundary conditions was tested, for the left side and the right side respectively.
One end of the model was supported in the x-direction and stress was applied at the other end.
To prevent the model from rigid body motion, one node on the side where the model is
supported in the x-direction is also locked in the y-direction (see Figure 3.2 and 3.3).
0 x
Figure 3.2. Left side of the welded sheet is supported.
0 x
Figure 3.3. Right side of the weld is supported.
Results for all three types of boundary conditions are given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Results for different boundary conditions.

K_eff [MPa(mm)]
Crack length [mm]: Natural: Left side locked: Right side locked:
0,0000 0,00 0,00 0,00
0,0025 19,92 19,82 19,92
0,0050 28,13 27,87 28,13
0,0100 39,50 39,48 39,50
0,0200 54,83 54,63 54,83
0,0400 74,59 74,55 74,59
0,0800 98,67 98,72 98,67
0,1600 125,77 126,32 125,77
0,3200 158,98 158,77 158,98
0,6400 203,56 204,93 203,56
1,2800 279,48 280,22 279,48
2,5600 456,16 456,51 456,16
5,1200 1182,89 1183,06 1182,89
Max difference: - 0,9% 0,0%
As can be seen in Table 3.1, the types of boundary conditions do not influence the results very
much. The maximum difference compared to the boundary conditions in Figure 3.1 is around
0.9%. Henceforth boundary conditions given in Figure 3.1 will be used.
Reaction forces at the supports have been controlled for all types of boundary conditions. For
the boundary conditions selected for further use, the reaction forces were negligible both in x-
and the y-direction. For the other types of boundary conditions, the total reaction force was
the same as the applied force in the x-direction, while it was negligible in the y-direction as
expected.
3.1.3 Influence of boundary conditions
The geometry is modelled with a 200 mm long horizontal sheet. Boundary conditions are
applied at the ends of this sheet. To study the effects of the boundary conditions and to
investigate the influences of bending at the crack, the model has been prolonged 100 mm at
one end at the time, see Figure 3.4 and 3.5. The results are presented in Table 3.2 below.
Figure 3.4. Left end prolonged.
Figure 3.5. Right end prolonged.

Table 3.2. Results when one end of the sheet is prolonged.

K_eff [MPa(mm)]
Crack length [mm]: Original: Elongated left: Elongated right:
0,0000 0,00 0,00 0,00
0,0025 19,92 19,82 19,92
0,0050 28,13 27,87 28,13
0,0100 39,50 39,48 39,50
0,0200 54,83 54,63 54,83
0,0400 74,59 74,55 74,59
0,0800 98,67 98,72 98,67
0,1600 125,77 126,32 125,77
0,3200 158,98 158,77 158,97
0,6400 203,56 204,93 203,55
1,2800 279,48 280,22 279,48
2,5600 456,16 456,51 456,16
5,1200 1182,89 1183,06 1182,89
Max difference: - 0,9% 0,0%
As can be seen in Table 3.2 the boundary conditions in the original model have no decisive
effect on the result and can be used further on without complications. The maximum
difference according to boundary conditions in Figure 3.1 is around 0.9%.
3.2 Meshing
Meshing of the model turned out be one of the largest challenges in this work. How the
meshing problems were solved is described in this chapter.
3.2.1 Achieving a meshable model
A model with a crack can be difficult to mesh because the elements must be relatively small
near the crack tip. In order to get around that problem the total area of the sheet is divided into
smaller areas.
Since the elements around the crack tip must be relatively small and it is extremely time
consuming to use these small elements on the whole model small-size elements are used
around the crack and larger elements are used far away from the crack. Problems may occur
in the transition area between smaller and larger elements. Badly shaped elements i.e.,
rectangular elements that have a large ratio between the long and the short side or elements
with large blunt or small sharp angles, are often generated.
Dividing a complex area into more simple areas makes the model easier to mesh. It also
makes it possible to choose a different element size on a specified area. This method is used
to create a fine mesh around the crack tip. This is done by creating a box around the crack tip,
see Figure 3.6., containing small elements.
crack opening
crack tip
Figure 3.6. Four areas create a box around the crack tip.
There is also an area division from the crack tip vertically through the material, see Figure
3.6. This facilitates the meshing.
3.2.2 Elements
The elements used when meshing the models are plane stress eight node serendipity elements
and six node triangular elements. Each node has two degrees of freedom; one in the x- and
one in the y-direction.
3.2.3 The crack tip
When meshing the model, relatively small elements are preferred close to the crack tip. Pie
elements are created around the tip (see Figure 3.7 ).
3 5
crack tip
2 4
Figure 3.7. Pie elements around the crack tip.

To obtain stresses going to infinity at the crack tip, the side nodes on the triangular pie
elements are moved to the quarter point of the element towards the crack tip.
Figure 3.8 shows an actual ANSYS plot of the crack tip elements.
0.5 10 3 mm
crack tip
Figure 3.8. Screenshot from ANSYS of the crack tip.
The first two rows of elements around the crack tip have the length 0.5 10 3 mm.
3.2.4 The box

The box around the crack consists of four areas. The element length is 2 10 3 mm in the box.
An ANSYS plot over the box can be seen below (Figure 3.9).
crack tip
Figure 3.9. The mesh in the box around the crack tip. Screenshot from ANSYS.
The mesh in the box is of high quality with no badly shaped elements.
3.2.5 The centre lines

The centre line and the crack surfaces are divided into two lines outside the box. The part of
the line nearest to the box receives a gradually decreasing node density while the remaining
part of the lines get an element side length of 0.1 mm (see Figure 3.10).
gradually
increasing
element size
0.1 mm
Figure 3.10. The centre line below the box.
The same situation is applied to the two crack surfaces above the box.
One could say that the size and number of elements near the crack tip is overkill but for many
cases the crack is set to move from 0.1 mm down to 5 mm. In order to build a general macro
which can take care of the entire crack growth, this solution was regarded as a straightforward
method.
3.2.6 Remaining parts of the model

The remaining lines of the model get an element size of 1 mm. This is shown in Figure 3.11.
crack tip
Figure 3.11. The global model is meshed with larger elements.
3.2.7 Meshing problems

Problems with badly shaped elements, i.e. rectangular elements with a large ratio between the
long and the short side or elements with large blunt and small sharp angles between the sides,
appears in the transition area between the box and the global mesh. Smaller element size and
gradually larger elements on the centre lines is one way of solving the problem. Another way
is to create more areas around the crack and gradually increase the element size further away
from the crack in these areas. This is however time consuming to carry out.
The chosen solution, as described above, is a relative fine mesh on the centre lines which
moves the problem to the mesh generator. On some geometries so called guiding lines are
drawn in the immediate surroundings to the crack. This helps the mesh generator to create
good elements.
Although large efforts have been made to control the mesh, sometimes some bad elements
appear around the box. One example of this is shown in Figure 3.12, where the light grey
elements are badly shaped.
Figure 3.12. The light grey elements are badly shaped.
When using a smaller element side length on the global areas, 0.2 mm instead of 1 mm, the
badly shaped elements disappear. The calculation time however is about 10 to 20 times longer
and the calculated stress intensity factors improve less than 1.5%. Since more than 100
geometries are to be calculated the coarser mesh is used to save time.
3.2.8 Convergence
In order to guarantee convergence, the two prior test examples - the transverse butt weld and
the cruciform joint (Case 213 and 413) - are calculated with the above mentioned mesh and a
mesh that has half the element size on all elements except the crack elements.
Results in Table 3.3, for Case 213 and Table 3.4, show that the solution has converged. As
mentioned before, lack of time is the main factor for choosing the coarser mesh, because over
one hundred geometries are to be calculated. The calculation time increase 10 to 20 times
with the finer mesh, and that justifies the decision to use the coarser mesh.
Table 3.3. Convergence results for transverse butt weld, Case 213.
K_eff [MPa(mm)]
Crack length [mm]: Coarse mesh: Finer mesh: Deviation:
0,0000 0,00 0,00 0,00%
0,0025 19,92 19,77 0,74%
0,0050 28,13 27,86 0,97%
0,0100 39,50 39,02 1,22%
0,0200 54,83 54,17 1,23%
0,0400 74,59 73,99 0,81%
0,0800 98,67 98,43 0,25%
0,1600 125,77 126,75 0,77%
0,3200 158,98 159,85 0,55%
0,6400 203,56 204,32 0,37%
1,2800 279,48 279,68 0,07%
2,5600 456,16 456,26 0,02%
5,1200 1182,89 1183,02 0,01%
Table 3.4. Convergence results for cruciform joint, Case 413.

K_eff [MPa(mm)]
Crack length [mm]: Coarse mesh: Finer mesh: Deviation:
0,0000 0,00 0,00 0,00%
0,0025 26,32 26,56 0,90%
0,0050 37,18 37,43 0,69%
0,0100 52,11 52,48 0,71%
0,0200 72,44 72,94 0,69%
0,0400 98,99 99,73 0,75%
0,0800 131,58 132,55 0,74%
0,1600 167,51 168,73 0,73%
0,3200 203,79 205,04 0,61%
0,6400 243,29 245,09 0,74%
1,2800 303,09 304,72 0,54%
2,5600 431,45 433,52 0,48%
5,1200 947,84 949,44 0,17%
3.2.9 Macros
After the geometry has been modelled, all of the remaining work - crack growth, area
subdivision, meshing, solving and calculation of stress intensity factors - is the same for all
models. Therefore generic macros are developed for ANSYS.
When the crack has propagated a small distance into the material, a generic macro looks the
same for any geometry. The differences between different geometries occur in the beginning
of the crack growth, when geometrical differences like undercuts, transition radii, sharp
transitions and flat sheets affect the area subdivision. Therefore all the macros with the above
mentioned geometries look basically the same and differ only for the initial state of the crack.
The advantage of the macros are that they need only three keypoints as input and then
automatically move the crack tip into the geometry, divide it into areas and put the correct
mesh size on all lines. After solution, the stress intensity factors are calculated and written to a
file containing the results for all the steps during the crack growth. The macros also save the
meshed models for each crack depth, making it possible to review the mesh afterwards.
3.3 Postprocessing
This chapter deals with how the ANSYS calculates the stress intensity factors and how the
results from the ANSYS are treated in order to calculate the fatigue life.
3.3.1 How stress intensity factors are calculated in ANSYS
There are various ways to calculate the effective stress intensity factor for a crack, for
example the J-integral, energy release rate, nodal displacement near the crack, etc.. The latter
is used to calculate the stress intensity factors in ANSYS.
Paris and Sih [13], derived the displacement near a crack for each mode. The equations below
describe the total displacements and have been compiled in the ANSYS, Inc Theory Reference
[14].
u =
KI r
(2 1) cos cos 3 K II r (2 + 3)sin + sin 3 + (r ) (3.1 : 1)
4G 2 2 2 4G 2 2 2
v =
KI r
(2 1)sin sin 3 K II r (2 + 3)cos + cos 3 + (r ) (3.1 : 2)
4G 2 2 2 4G 2 2 2
2 K III r
w = sin + (r ) (3.1 : 3)
G 2 2
where u , v , w are displacements and r, are the coordinates in the two local
coordinate system given in Figure 3.13 below.
Figure 3.13. Local coordinate systems at crack front. Picture taken from ANSYS, Inc Theory
Reference [14].
Further K I , K II and K III are the stress intensity factors for the three different modes, and
3 4 for plane strain or an axisymmetric case

= 3
1 + for plane stress
G is the shear modulus, i.e.

E
G=
2(1 + )
where E is Youngs modulus and is Poissons ratio. (r ) are terms of order r or higher.
The stress intensity factors are interesting when r 0 and = 180, therefore the given
angle is inserted into equations (3.1:1-3) and the higher order terms are neglected. It gives
K II r
u = (1 + ) K II = 2 G u (3.2 : 1)
2G 2 1+ r

v =
KI r
(1 + ) K I = 2 G v (3.2 : 2)
2G 2 1+ r
2 K III r w
w = K III = 2G 2 (3.2 : 3)
G 2 r
In all equations (3.2:1-3) the following limit values must be evaluated

lim
r 0
r
where is either u , v or w . This is done by using the 5 nodes in the path in ANSYS,
mentioned above, see Figure 3.7 and 3.14.
Figure 3.14. (a) displays the crack tip for a half-crack model, while (b) displays the crack tip
for a full crack model, which is used in this study. Picture taken from [14].
The following curve is fitted for v .

v(r )
v(r ) = r (A + Br ) = A + Br (3.3)
r
The displacement of the crack tip node is said to be zero, while the known displacement in
points K and J are used to determine the constants A and B. The limit value becomes
v(r )
lim = lim(A + Br ) = A (3.4)
r 0
r r 0
The same thing is performed for mode II and III, which gives corresponding constants.
Combining Equation (3.4) and Equation (3.2) finally gives the stress intensity factors below.
GA I
K I = 2 1 + (3.5 : 1)

GA II
K II = 2 (3.5 : 1)
1+
K III = 2GA III 2 (3.5 : 1)

3.3.2 Numeric integration

As described above, the macros create a result file with the effective stress intensity factor.
The results are transferred to the calculation program MATLAB [15]. In MATLAB the
effective stress intensity factor is plotted as a function of the crack length and a curve is
approximated with cubic splines [16].
The advantage of using splines is that the slope of the curve is the same for the incoming and
outgoing line of each point. This gives a smoother curve.
Efforts were made to fit a curve with different degrees of polynomial functions. Degree 3
gave the best curve fit but the problem was that the curve did not go through the origin. This
is very important when calculating the life of a structure (i.e. when performing the numeric
integration) since a great deal of the life refers to small crack lengths. Therefore the curve
fitted to the points needs to be more exact for small crack lengths. It is not so important when
the crack has grown over, say, approximately 2 mm for a 10 mm sheet, since the crack
propagates rapidly at this stage and not many percent of the life is left. This is why splines are
chosen to approximate the curve; they give a better curve at small crack lengths.
One other effort that was made to better describe the curve at small crack lengths was to use a
geometrical series for the crack length when calculating the stress intensity factor. This means
that many stress intensity factors were calculated for small crack lengths and only a few for
longer crack lengths. The series used was
2 m 1
a= [mm], m = 1, 0, 1, 2, 3,..., 10
100
i.e., 12 stress intensity factors were calculated for each model. Ten integration points were
used below 1 mm and only 3 points above 1 mm. The extra point comes from the stress
intensity factor being zero when the crack length is zero. Figure 3.15 displays the stress
intensity factor as a function of crack length for Case 213.
Keff (a)
40
35
30
25
Keff [MPa(m)]
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a [mm]
Figure 3.15. The stress intensity factor as a function of crack length for Case 213.
The lines in Figure 3.15 at 0.1 mm and 5 mm mark the integration limits. Numerical
integration in MATLAB with Simpson quadrature [16] for this case gives a life of 1.48 10 6
cycles. The dots in Figure 3.15 mark the crack lengths where the stress intensity factor has
been calculated. The splines are based on these points.
To rule out the possibility of errors in life due to too few points for longer cracks, a test with
one value for each half mm was carried out. This means that 9 integration points instead of 3
are used (see Figure 3.16). A comparison of the curves and lives shows that differences in life
are negligible.
Keff (a)
40
35
30
25
Keff [MPa(m)]
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a [mm]
Figure 3.16. The difference between many (squares) and fewer (dots) integration points for
longer cracks.
The dotted curve and the boxes in Figure 3.16 display the previous results, which were
presented in Figure 3.15. The solid curve and the squares in Figure 3.16 display what happens
if more integration points are used for longer crack lengths. Between 1 and 5 mm in crack
lengths, the small difference between the two curves gives a difference in life of 0.2% only.
3.4 Verification of integration method
The life is calculated using Paris law. This is done numerically by use of the function
K eff (a ) .
In order to verify the use of splines to approximate the K eff (a ) -curve and the numerical
integration technique, a few different approximations are made in Excel [17]. All data is taken
from Case 213 and can be found in Table 3.5 below.
Table 3.5. Data from Case 213, ANSYS results

a [mm]: Keff [MPa(m)]:
0.0000 0.00
0.0025 0.63
0.0050 0.89
0.0100 1.25
0.0200 1.73
0.0400 2.36
0.0800 3.12
0.1600 3.98
0.3200 5.03
0.6400 6.44
1.2800 8.84
2.5600 14.43
5.1200 37.41
The values in Table 3.5 are plotted together with the approximated splines in Figure 3.17.
Keff (a)
40
Integration points
35 Curve approximation with splines
Curve with straight lines
30
25
Keff [MPa(m)]
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
a [mm]
Figure 3.17. Plotted data from Case 213.
As can be seen in Figure 3.17, the difference between the spline approximated curve and the
straight line curve becomes greater for larger crack depths.
No integration point is available for the crack length 0.1 mm, which is used as start defect
when integrating with Paris law. However there is a point at a = 0.08 mm which will be used
in the verification of the calculated life.
MATLAB gives the life 1.60 10 6 cycles when Simpson quadrature [16] is used to integrate
the life over the interval 0.08 a 5.12 mm.
3.4.1 Approximation with upper and lower summations
Paris law gives
N ac
1
dN = C (K )
0 ai
n
da
I
1
The curve f (a ) = is to be integrated numerically in the interval of
C (K I (a ))
n
0.08 a 5.12 mm. Since there is not the same distance between any of the integration
points, the integration is done with both over and under sums. The fatigue life is then
approximated with the average of the over and under sums. In Figure 3.18 f (a ) is described.
f (a )
f (a ) based on spline values

f (a ) with straight lines between
the integration points
upper sum
lower sum
0 a
ai1 ai ai+1
Figure 3.18. Upper and lower summations.
The upper sum becomes

n
1
Nu = (ai +1 ai )
C (K I )i
n
i =1
and for the lower sum

n
1
Nl = (ai +1 ai )
C (K I )i +1
n
i =1
An approximation of the fatigue life is

Nu + Nl
N=
2
This is the same as a Riemann integral. If this is done for integration points 0.08 a 5.12
mm, the fatigue life becomes 1.78 10 6 cycles compared to 1.60 10 6 cycles for the spline
approximation. It should be mentioned that this method overestimates the fatigue life since
the spline based curve always will have less or equal values than the average line. However it
shows that the value calculated with splines in MATLAB is approximately good.
3.4.2 Spline values integrated in Excel
A spline curve for K (a ) is created in MATLAB. The distance is 0.001 mm in crack length
between each point which builds the curve, so from 0 mm to 5.12 mm it contains more than
5 000 integration points. The crack length vector and the corresponding stress intensity factor
vector is transferred to Excel and integrated as a Riemann integral, according to
n
1 a ai 1
N = i +1
C (K I )i
n
i =1 2
Description of the Riemann integral can be found in Figure 3.19.
f (a )
f (a) based on splines
0 a
ai-1 ai ai+1
Figure 3.19. Approximation with Riemann sums.

The approximation with Riemann sums gives 1.60 10 6 cycles i.e., the same as with the
Simpson quadrature in MATLAB, which means that the integration method is verified.
3.5 Analytical case for an internal crack
A few cases in the Volvo STD5605,51 standard handle internal defect. These cases are;
internal crack (Case 25), lack of fusion (Case 26) and lack of penetration (Case 27). When the
defect is set to have a maximum length in the depth direction, the analytical case for an
elliptical buried flaw in a flat plate from [18] can be used. Descriptions of the case can be
found in Figure 3.20 and 3.21.
2W
2c
t

2a
Figure 3.20. An internal elliptical crack under tension.
t 2a
2c
Figure 3.21. Denotations for the crack.
This case, taken from [10], is programmed in Matlab [7]. The Matlab program can be found
in the Appendix A. The stress intensity factor is calculated as
a
KI = m F
Q
where F can be calculated as
2a
2
2a
4

F = M 1 + M 2 + M 4 gf f w
t t

i.e., F is a function of the angle , which means that K I can be calculated at an arbitrary
position along the crack tip. In these cases K I will be calculated for the angle 0 ( K Ic ) and
90 ( K Ia ), i.e. where the two extreme values of the stress concentration factor K t can be
expected. Further
c 2a
f w = sec
2W t
0.05
M2 = 1.5
a
0.11 +
c
0.29
M4 = 1. 5
a
0.23 +
c
4
a a
2.6 2
t t
g = 1 cos
a
1+ 4
c
The following conditions apply depending on in which direction, a or c, the ellipse is larger.
For a c 1 :
1.65
a
Q = 1 + 1.464
c
1/ 4
a 2
f = cos 2 + sin 2
c
M1 = 1
For a c > 1 :
1.65
c
Q = 1 + 1.464
a
1/ 4
c 2
f = sin 2 + cos 2
a
c
M1 =
a
3.5.1 Crack growth rate
The crack growth is not the same in the a-direction as in the c-direction. To calculate the next
crack length the following equation is used
da
ai +1 = a i + dN M
(3.6)
c = c + dc M
i +1 i
dN
where M is a dimensionless constant. Paris law was given in Chapter 2:
da
= C(K Ia )
n
(2.1)
dN
Paris law (2.1) can be inserted into (3.6:1) and the corresponding for (3.6:2), which gives
ai +1 = ai + C(K Ia )n M
(3.7)
ci +1 = ci + C(K Ic )n M
The next crack lengths which the program uses to calculate the stress intensity factors in the
a- and c-directions, depend on the stress intensity factor in the given direction. The constant
M determines the resolution i.e., how many integration points that will be used. The greater M
is, the fewer integration points.
The stress intensity factors and corresponding crack lengths are later integrated with Paris
law, in the same way as described in Chapter 3.3.2, in order to achieve the fatigue life.
3.5.2 Algorithm
The Matlab program is based on the following algorithm:
1. Start lengths of the crack in the a- and the c-direction ( ai and ci ) are given from the
acceptance limits in the weld classes.
2. ai and ci are used to calculate (K Ia )i and (K Ic )i .
3. The new crack lengths, ai+1 and ci+1 , are calculated based on (K Ia )i and (K Ic )i
4. The interruption criterion is checked. In this case the crack is set to grow up to a given
length in the a-direction. If the criterion is fulfilled, all necessary stress intensity factors have
been calculated and the fatigue life can be integrated, if not, the program starts over from 2.
The interruption criterion is based on the length in the a-direction. The crack grows faster in
this direction, and in all other cases in the standard the fatigue life has been integrated from
the initial crack length until the crack length is half of the sheet thickness. Therefore the
calculations are interrupted when the crack length a is half the sheet thickness.
3.5.3 Discussion about integration limits
It can be discussed whether the crack should be integrated to half of the sheet thickness in the
a-direction. The sheet often has a larger depth in the c-direction, implying that lots of the
fatigue life is left after the crack has reached the surface in the a-direction. This can be seen if
the crack length is plotted versus the number of cycles. For cracks with the same depth as the
sheet, the curve tends rapidly towards infinity when half of the sheet is left in the a-direction,
implying that the rest of the life is negligible (see Figure 3.22).
acrack(N)
10
2acrack [mm] 6
0
0 2 4 6 8
N [-] x 10
5
Figure 3.22. Crack length a(N) for an infinitely deep crack. STD5605 Case 27 D.
For an internal elliptical crack the same curve goes more slowly towards infinity at the same
crack length, basically because the crack can grow a very long distance in the c-direction (see
Figure 3.23).
acrack(N)
10
8
2acrack [mm]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
N [-] x 10
5
Figure 3.23. Crack length a(N) for an internal elliptical crack. STD5605 Case 27 C.
However, in order to be consistent compared to other cases, the fatigue life is integrated to
half of the thickness also for this case.
3.5.4 Comparison with AFGROW

AFGROW [19] is a freeware program used by the United States Department of Defence and
the aircraft industry to validate and predict the fatigue life of new and old structures. The
program is developed within the United States Air Force.
Many elementary cases are available in the program and one of its strengths is that the fatigue
life for a large number of load spectra can be calculated. There are also five different material
models to choose between, with lots of material parameters to use.
The elliptical internal crack is defined in AFGROW and is here used together with the Walker
equation, to confirm the values from the MATLAB program.
Comparison with AFGROW for a sheet with thickness t = 10 mm and width W = 1000 mm
gives the same result for a crack which grows from a = 1 mm and c = 5 mm to a = 4.6 mm.
The fatigue life becomes 1.4 million cycles. The curves from AFGROW and MATLAB have
been plotted in Figure 3.24.
acrack(N)
10
8
2acrack [mm]
0
0 5 10 15
N [-] x 10
5
Figure 3.24. The points from from AFGROW coincide with the curve from MATLAB.
As can be seen in Figure 3.24, the data points from AFGROW coincide with the curve
generated with the MATLAB program i.e., the values from the MATLAB program are
confirmed.
4 Weld auditing 47
4 Weld auditing
This chapter is an introduction to weld auditing in Volvo CE. Audits are performed to reveal
problems in the manufacturing process in order to improve the quality of for example welds.
It is also important to discover defects on welds of high criticality in order to prevent
disastrous failures.
4.1 Overall on weld auditing
In Volvo CE, welded parts are regularly being audited regarding the requirements in the
company welding standard STD5605,51. For every audit a record is written, listing all defects
that are revealed. Every defect is classified in one of the categories (1), (2) and (3), where (1)
denotes a defect which is against safety requirements, (2) is a defect that has to be reworked
and (3) does not have to be reworked.
4.2 Review of previous weld audits
In order to get a picture of normally occurring defects, a number of weld audit records from
February and March were studied. A total of 15 audits were examined, of which the six
audited A-stays all together contained only one defect. Results are presented in Table 4.1-4.2
and Figure 4.1.
Table 4.1. Studied audit records.
No. of
No. of
Object objects defects Month
A-stay 6 1 March
Body 1 20 Feb/March
Front frame 3 22 Feb/March
Rear frame 5 45 Feb/March
Table 4.2. Compilation of occurring defects.
Defect A-stay Body Front frame Rear frame Total

Lack of fusion 2 2 4
Non-filled weld 1 1 2
Excessive penetration 1 1
Hole 1 1
Leg deviation 1 5 6
Throat deviation 8 2 9 19
Sharp transition 6 7 10 23
Undercut 6 4 9 19
Weld missing / too short 1 3 4
Overlap 4 5 9
1 20 22 45 88
Category
1 (Security) 1 1 2
2 (Re-work) 1 17 18 34 70
3 (No re-work) 3 3 10 16
1 20 22 45 88
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
e
p
n
t
d
on
on
t
cu
or
rla
ol
io
el
tio
tio
si
iti
sh
er
H
w
at
tra
ve
fu
ns
vi
vi
nd
d
oo
O
ne
lle
de
de
tra
of
/t
-fi
pe
ck
at
rp
on
g
Le
La
ro
a
e
n
Sh
N
iv
si
Th
ss
is
m
ce
d
Ex
el
W
Figure 4.1. Rate of each defect.

4 Weld auditing 49
As seen above, an average object (apart from A-stays) has a number of defects of the order of
ten.z The vast majority are of category 2, i.e. they have to be reworked. Defects against safety
requirements (category 1), normally referring to joints of higher consequence classes, are
luckily not very common.
Especially three types of defects are frequent; throat deviation, sharp transition and undercut.
The most common defect is the sharp transition. This depends on most welds having the
additional designation U, fatigue requirements, where smooth transitions are required.
4.3 Weld audit on a rear frame
As a part of this work, the authors had the opportunity to take part in a weld audit of a rear
frame. During the audit, discovered imperfections were discussed with the experienced weld
auditor, and silicone impressions of listed defects and other interesting features were made.
Figure 4.1. A sharp transition has been marked for making a silicone impression.
4.3.1 Profile projector measuring of silicone impressions

For measuring the outer geometrical properties of a weld joint, a silicone impression of the
weld can be cast. In this study, a two-phase silicone (polyvinylsiloxane) impression material,
originally for dental use, was applied. The two phases (base and catalyst) are automatically
mixed in the tip of the dispensing device, and the material sets within a few minutes.
When the impression has set, a thin slice of it is cut out for further examination in the profile
projector. The projector provides a ten times magnification of the profile, which also can be
moved in x and y directions on the screen. Measuring scales on the screen make it possible to
estimate distances with 0.1 mm accuracy. Angles can be measured by turning a screen with
indicator lines, while the integrated measuring equipment provides the turned angle with high
accuracy.
After the weld audit, the authors studied a number of the silicone impressions in the profile
projector, as commented below.
4.3.2 Comments
The profile projector measuring illuminated a few of the difficulties involved in measuring of
weld geometries. The legs and throat lengths are quite easy to measure with sufficient
accuracy, but when it comes to angles and radii problems arise.
The angle between the sheet and the weld surface is easy to measure with the projector
equipment the problem is where it should be measured. If the intention is to measure the
angle after the transition (as in this study), then the question is where the transition ends.
This is in most cases far from obvious.
An even more difficult property to estimate is the nature of the transition. Determining
whether the transition is sharp or even is a central issue, as even transition is required in
welding classes used for fatigue loaded joints. (Even is the term used in STD5605,51.
Smooth would be more correct.) Normally, the even transition is interpreted as a 1 mm
radius, but as the curve is always more or less jagged, it is often impossible to decide if there
is a radius. Furthermore, features as small as this can vary a lot along the weld. If a nearby
cross-section is chosen for examination, the results can be completely different.
Thus, measuring of weld dimensions demands more than just measuring one cross-section. To
obtain reliable figures, several samples have to be examined and the whole weld has to be
inspected to make sure that the picked samples are representative.
5 Compilation of STD5605,51 51
5 Compilation of STD5605,51
This chapter contains overall information on the Volvo CE STD5605,51 weld standard. Also
results and some detailed conclusions and recommendations from all calculated cases in the
standard are presented in diagrams, tables and on result sheets.
5.1 About the standard

The STD5605,51 [1] is the welding standard used in the Volvo CE company. It is not applied
in the Volvo Cars company. The standard was developed during the 80s and has its origin in
the Swedish steel norm, StBK-N2 [20].
The standard contains four different welding classes, from A to D, where A has the highest
quality and D the lowest. The welding classes C and D can be assigned an additional
designation U (short for the Swedish word Utmattning, fatigue) for structures which are
subjected to fatigue loading. Without the designation U, classes C and D are used only for
static loading.
Designation U is not needed for classes A and B, since they already contain requirements
necessary for fatigue loading. However both A and B are rarely used; class B does exist for
some parts, for example hydraulic cylinders, but class A is practically never used within
Volvo CE.
A few other parameters come with the standard and can be seen in Figure 5.1, below.
Number of weld elements

Antal delsvetsar
Dimension referring to weld cross-section
Mtt som avser svetsens tvrsnitt
Spacing
Delning
Arrow line
Hnvisningsslinje a1.5 5 x 20 (10)
135-D-F [3]
Consequence class (see STD 5060,3)
Konsekvensklass (se STD 5060,3)
Elementary symbol Welding process (see STD 5605,5)

Reference line Grundsymbol Svetsmetod (se STD 5605,5)
Referenslinje
to welds, which at breakdown could lead to immediate stand-still of the vehicle. Finally, class
[3] apply to welds, which at failure could lead to loss of performance and require repair, but
no immediate stand-still. When a defect is found in a weld of consequence class [1] or [2] at
the weld audit, there are certain routines within Volvo CE to catch the errors and make sure
they are not repeated.
5.2 Modelling
All transverse butt welds in the standard with the requirement not permitted for a certain
welding class have been modelled as Case 6A in the STD5605,51 standard, i.e., IIW Case 213
but without the transition radius of 1 mm. The corresponding cases for fillet welds have been
modelled as IIW Case 413, but with the difference that a 4 mm transition radius has been used
for welding class A, a 1 mm transition radius has been used for classes B, CU and DU, and a
sharp transition has been used for class C and D.
Other comments on modelling are given in Chapter 3, and in the result sheets for all cases
(Chapter 5 and 6).
5.3 Results
Results with pictures and diagrams for each case and welding class can be found on the
following pages. All results are also compiled in Figure B.1-B.18 and in Table B.1-B.2, in
Appendix B.
An overview of the results can be found in Figure B.1. It shows large scatter in the results.
However, patterns can be discerned, for example, some cases have nearly no difference in life
between the welding classes, while some show large differences. A rough grouping of the
cases can be seen in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Influence of acceptance limits on the fatigue life for a certain welding class.
Large influence Some influence No influence
Butt welds Fillet welds Butt welds Fillet welds Butt welds Fillet welds
6 20 3 22 11 21
7 27 23 12
8 24 25
13 26
14
In Figure B.2 and B.3 the transverse butt welds and fillet welds have been separated.
For the butt welds in Figure B.2, Case 3, 11 and 12 differ a lot since there are nearly no
difference in life between almost all the welding classes. However the lack of differences in
Case 3 depends on that no sharp transitions are permitted for the additional designation U.
Case 25, 26 and 27 are internal defects and are very hard to compare with the remaining cases
for butt welds.
Figure B.3, with only fillet welds, show just a little agreement. Case 23 and 24 could be
separated from the remaining fillet welds since these cases are guidelines for all fillet welds
and not real defects. Case 23 and 24 are modelled with a radius of 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm for DU,
CU, B and A respectively. This has been done to study the influence of different radii and is
not based on the requirements, except for welding class A.
Case 21 show only small variations in fatigue life between the different welding classes,
while Case 20 and 22 show influence from the acceptance limits on fatigue life.
Since welding class A is barely ever used and C and D are meant only for static loading, B,
CU and DU could be separated and can be seen in Figure B.4-B.6. These figures reflect what
has been said above for the overall results in Figure B.1-B.3 - the classes used for fatigue
loaded joints are not more consistent than other classes when it comes to fatigue life.
If the ratio of B and CU and of CU and DU is plotted (Figure B.7) one can see that the ratio of
B and CU lies between 1 to 2 for almost all the cases, which shows that there is a little bit of
consistency in the standard. But the ratio of CU and DU is very scattered, between 1 and 8,
with nearly no pattern. Case 25-27 have been left out due to above mentioned differences.
Figure B.8 shows the maximum, minimum, average, and median life for each welding class.
Preferably these four values should be equal, but due to the present standard they vary a lot.
One can see that for many welding classes there is a factor ten or more between the minimum
and maximum value. Welding class D and DU appears the most scattered. There is almost a
factor of 100 between maximum and minimum in these classes.
It is also possible to see in Figure B.8 that the average life for each class is always longer than
the median. This shows that there are a few cases with long fatigue lives, which increase the
average life. In other words, if these cases with unreasonably long fatigue lives are reworked
the average and median lives coincide.
Further, all four values; maximum, minimum, average and median, are lower in welding class
C compared to CU and in D compared to DU. This is expected since the additional
designation U should give the structure a longer fatigue life. It can also be seen that there is a
stair with longer life in A than B, B than C and so on, for all welding classes, something
which could also be expected. However if also the additional designation U is regarded, one
can see that the trend that welding class DU have longer life for the maximum, average and
medium value, than class C. This shows that transition radii and smooth notches in general
give longer lives even though the defect (acceptance limit) may be larger, which is usually the
case between class DU and C.
In Figure B.9-B.12 the fatigue life in percent of 2 million cycles has been plotted as a function
of the acceptance limit, for different sets of cases (mainly 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 20) and classes. The
reason why these cases are chosen are that the acceptance limit has a major impact on the
fatigue life, as described above and presented in Table 5.1. An exponential trendline has been
fitted to the points in all four diagrams. Note that there might be coincident (overlapping)
points in the diagram. In Figure B.11, also an exponential trendline is fitted to the points. One
can see that the trendlines fit the scattered points relatively well, except for small acceptance
limits i.e., around 0.5 mm for Figure B.9-B.11. Equations for the trendlines can be found in
each diagram.
The trendline could serve as a tool when setting new acceptance limits. For example, if the
desired life in a certain welding class has been decided, the acceptance limit can be read from
the curve. Of course this might not give the exact life for the certain case, but it will at least be
possible to get a hint of the size of the desired acceptance limit.
It is not possible to create an appropriate trendline for all the calculated data, since it is too
scattered and many of the acceptance limits for different defects do not have any influence on
the fatigue life.
In Figure B.13-B.18, results for each welding class can be found. These results also confirm
large scatter in the results.
STD5605,51 Case 3
Incomplete root penetration
l
Requirements and results

D C B A
A 0.2t, but max. A 0.1t, but max. Not permitted Not permitted
2 mm. 1 mm
L 100 mm l t but max.
25 mm
0.11 106 cycles 0.35 106 cycles 2.48 106 cycles 2.48 106 cycles
6% of 2 106 cycles 18% of 2 106 cycles 124% of 2 106 cycles 124% of 2 106 cycles
With additional designation U:
2.48 106 cycles 2.48 106 cycles

124% of 2 106 cycles 124% of 2 106 cycles
140%
A B CU DU
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
C
20%
D
0% 1
Modelling and comments

All classes have been modelled the same way with a crack growing from the lower surface.
The fatigue lives have been integrated from initial cracks which correspond to the acceptance
limits.
The additional designation U tolerates no sharp transitions and therefore the life of CU and
DU is the same as for A and B, where no incomplete root penetration is permitted.
The results show that C and D have considerably shorter life than the other classes. This is
because the initial crack is longer.
Conclusions and recommendations
This case shows that most of the life for the structure lies in the growth of the first millimetre
of the crack. After a few tenths of a millimetre nearly no life is left and the crack grows
rapidly.
This case does not supply so much additional information to the standard. Since no sharp
transitions are allowed in CU and DU and incomplete root penetration is not permitted for A
and B, the acceptance limits cannot be reworked for A and B, because then CU and DU will
have a longer life than A and B and this is not wanted. C and D are meant only for static
loading.
Geometrically Case 3 is the same as Case 8 in the STD5605,51 standard but the two cases
does not have the same acceptance limits for welding class B. Since the cases are similar and
it could be hard for others than experts to see the differences between incomplete root
penetration (Case 3) and root concavity (Case 8), it is recommended that these two cases are
united into one case. It is not consistent to allow a different acceptance limit, which is the case
for welding class B, when the cases are so similar.
Further, it should be mentioned that the additional designation U implies a full penetration.
STD5605,51 Case 3 A, B, CU and DU

Description: Requirements and results:
Not permitted
initial crack = 0.1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 2.48 10 6 cycles

N f = 124% of 2 10 6 cycles
l
Modelling and boundary conditions: Modelling:
A = initial crack
Stress intensity factor as a function of crack length: Crack length as a function of number of cycles:
Keff(acrack) acrack(N)
40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 3 C
A 0.1 t, but max. 1 mm, l t but max. 25 mm.
A = 1 mm, l = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.35 10 6 cycles
l
N f = 18% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack
Keff (acrack) acrack(N)

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 3 D
A 0.2 t, but max. 2 mm. L 100 mm
A = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.11 10 6 cycles
l
N f = 6% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 6
Undercut

D C B A
Permitted locally if Permitted locally if Permitted locally if Not permitted
A 0.2t, but max. A 0.1t, but max. A 0.05 t, but max.
2 mm 1 mm 0.5 mm.
l 25 mm
0.13 106 cycles 0.42 106 cycles

90%
A
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% B
30%
C CU
20%
10% D DU
0% 1

The undercut has been modelled as a notch with a radius of 1 mm for CU and DU, and as a
crack for B, C and D, where the acceptance limit is the same as the initial crack, see details on
the following pages.
CU and DU have only a little bit longer lives compared to C and D. This suggests that it is not
the smooth transition but the amount of material between the crack tip and the centre of the
sheet that has the primary influence on the life. Of course the crack initiation stage and the
number of cycles until the 0.1 mm initial crack has been formed have not been taken into
account for classes CU and DU. Therefore, almost the same effective stress intensity factor is
achieved for C as for CU and for D as for DU. This leads to almost the same fatigue life for
the additional designation U as for C and D (without U).
As have been said before, B, C, and D reveal that lots of the life lies within the first tenths of a
millimetre for the crack.

Undercut has proven to be of great interest when studying defects which may affect the
fatigue life of welded joints. There is absolutely no recommendation to delete this case from
the standard.
STD5605,51 Case 6 A
Undercut
Not permitted
l initial crack = 0.1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.58 10 6 cycles

N f = 79% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 6 B
Undercut
Permitted locally if A 0.05 t, but max. 0.5 mm. l 25 mm
l A = 0.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.73 10 6 cycles

N f = 37% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 6 C
Undercut
Permitted locally if A 0.1 t, but max. 1 mm.
l A = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.37 10 6 cycles

N f = 18% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 6 CU
Undercut
l A = notch depth + initial crack = 0.9 + 0.1 = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.42 10 6 cycles

N f = 21% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack
60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 1 2 3 4 5
N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 6 D
Undercut
l A = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.11 10 6 cycles

A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 6 DU
Undercut
l A = notch depth + initial crack = 1.9 + 0.1 = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.13 10 6 cycles


R1
initial crack
100 6
80 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0
0 2 4 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 5 10 15
N [-] 4
x 10
7. 8.
STD5605,51 Case 7
and 8
Non-filled weld (7)
Root concavity (8)

D C B A
A 0.2t, but max. A 0.1t, but max. A 0.05t, but max. Not permitted
2 mm. 1 mm 0.5 mm.
0.13 106 cycles 0.45 106 cycles

180%
A
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60% B
40%
C CU
20% D DU
0% 1

Case 7, non-filled weld and Case 8, root concavity, looks almost the same. Therefore they are
modelled the same way with a crack growing from a flat metal sheet for B, C and D. For
classes CU and DU a notch with radius 1 mm, with a small crack at the bottom, has been
modelled. This is almost the same modelling as for Case 6 (undercut), something which is
reflected in the results. Therefore, for a discussion about the results, the reader is refered to
Case 6.
Conclusions and recommendations are the same as in to Case 6.
STD5605,51 Case 7 and 8 A

7. Non-filled weld 8. Root concavity
The weld reinforcement shall be removed and the
surface machined to the level of the parent metal
nom = 104 MPa
N = 3.25 10 6 cycles

N f = 163% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 7 and 8 B

A 0.05 t, but max. 0.5 mm.
A = 0.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.92 10 6 cycles

N f = 46% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 7 and 8 C

A 0.1 t, but max. 1 mm
A = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.40 10 6 cycles

N f = 20% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 7 and 8 CU

A 0.1 t, but max. 1 mm
A = notch depth + initial crack = 0.9 + 0.1 = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.45 106 cycles

N f = 22% of 2 106 cycles

R1
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 7 and 8 D

A 0.2 t, but max. 2 mm.
A = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.11 10 6 cycles

A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 7 and 8 DU

nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.13 10 6 cycles


R1
initial crack

100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
b
STD5605,51 Case 11
Weld reinforcement

D C B A
A 1.5 + 0.15b. A 1.5 + 0.1b. A 1.5 + 0.05b. The weld rein-
Overlap is permitted Overlap is not Overlap is not forcement shall be
to a small extent permitted permitted removed and the
surface machined to
the level of the parent
metal
1.70 106 cycles 1.76 106 cycles

180%
A
160%
140%
120%
100% B CU DU
C D
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 1

Welding classes B, C and D have been modelled with a sharp transition. The results show a
decreasing life for case B, C and D.
CU and DU have been modelled with a transition radius of 1 mm. This is reflected in the
results. One can see that the height of the weld reinforcement does not play a major role.
Instead, the transition radius evens out the differences between the models and almost the
same life is achieved for CU and DU.
Weld reinforcement is not a big problem for the fatigue life of a transverse butt weld.
The results show that the difference from A = 3 mm, for welding class D, down to A = 2 mm,
for class B, does not affect the fatigue life noticeable. Therefore it is recommended, from a
fagtigue point of view, that this case is deleted from the standard. With the present acceptance
limit, this case has no influence on the life.
It is not recommended, however, to entirely delete the case from the standard since some kind
of limitation of the weld reinforcement could be important for reasons of appearance or for
technical reasons (too large weld reinforcements could interfere with other parts etc.).
However, it should be clear that the weld reinforcements have no influence on the fatigue
properties.
Further, the requirement for welding class D Overlap is permitted to a small extent should
be replaced by something more concrete with a length in actual figures. Otherwise the
requirement could be widely interpreted.
STD5605,51 Case 11 A
Weld reinforcement
The weld reinforcement shall be removed and the surface
b machined to the level of the parent metal
nom = 104 MPa
N = 3.25 10 6 cycles

N f = 163% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 11 B
Weld reinforcement
A 1.5 + 0.05 b. Overlap is not permitted.
b A = 2 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.73 10 6 cycles

N f = 86% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 11 C
Weld reinforcement
A 1.5 + 0.15 b. Overlap is permitted to a small extent.
b A = 2.5, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.63 106 cycles

initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Weld reinforcement
A 1.5 + 0.1 b. Overlap is not permitted.
b A = 2.5 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.76 10 6 cycles

N f = 88% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 11 D
Weld reinforcement
b A = 3 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.56 10 6 cycles

N f = 78% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Weld reinforcement
b A = 3 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.70 10 6 cycles

N f = 85% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
A = initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 12
Penetration bead c

D C B A
A 1.5 + 0.3c A 1.5 + 0.2c A 1.5 + 0.1c The penetration bead
shall be removed and
the surface machined
to the level of the
parent metal
1.76 106 cycles 1.77 106 cycles

140%
A
120%
100% CU DU
B C D
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 1

The penetration bead is modelled approximately as the weld reinforcement in Case 11.
Comments on the modelling are given in Case 11.
In order to get the right proportions between the weld reinforcement and penetration bead the
measure C in the figure, which describes this case, is set to 3 mm (after measuring the
proportions in the figure).
The results in Case 12 show that the height of the penetration bead plays an even smaller role
for the fatigue life than the height of the weld reinforcement in Case 11.
The penetration bead is not a large problem for the transverse butt weld.
The recommendation for the penetration bead is, from a fatigue point of view, to delete the
case from the standard. The acceptance limits have no large impact on the fatigue life, even
though the acceptance limits vary from A = 2.4 mm in class D to A = 1.8 mm in class B.
It is not recommended to delete the case from the standard entirely since some kind of
limitation of the penetration bead is important for reasons of appearance as well as for
technical reasons (too large penetration beads could interfere with other parts etc.). However,
it should be clear that the penetration bead has no influence on the fatigue properties.
Penetration bead
The penetration bead shall be removed and the surface machined
to the level of the parent metal
nom = 104 MPa
c N = 2.48 10 6 cycles

N f = 124% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack
40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
N [-] 6
x 10
Penetration bead
A 1.5 + 0.1 c
A = 1.8 mm, C = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
c N = 1.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 85% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Penetration bead
A 1.5 + 0.2 c
A = 2.1 mm, C = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
c N = 1.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 84% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Penetration bead
A 1.5 + 0.2 c
A = 2.1 mm, C = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
c N = 1.77 10 6 cycles

N f = 89% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
R1

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Penetration bead
A 1.5 + 0.3 c
A = 2.4 mm, C = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
c N = 1.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 84% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Penetration bead
A 1.5 + 0.3 c
A = 2.4 mm, C = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
c N = 1.76 106 cycles

Nf = 88% of 2 106 cycles
initial crack
R1

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 13
Edge displacement, one side welding

D C B A
A 1.5 + 0.25t, but A 0.15t, but max. A 0.1t, but max. A 0.1t, but max.
max. t or 4 mm 3 mm 2 mm 2 mm
1.9% of 2 106 cycles 16% of 2 106 cycles 30% of 2 106 cycles 30% of 2 106 cycles
0.04 106 cycles 0.34 106 cycles

2.1% of 2 106 cycles 17% of 2 106 cycles
35%
A B
30%
25%
20% CU
C
15%
10%
5% D DU
0% 1

The top side of the weld has been modelled with a radius, see Figure 5.2.
A
x
r-A
r
crack
Figure 5.2. The radius is derived from the known distances A and x.
The radius becomes

x 2 + A2
r=
2A
where x is constant and x = 10 mm, i.e. the gap between the sheets before welding.
The lower side of the weld has been modelled to resemble the picture in the standard (see the
top right side of this result sheet. A line fillet with a radius of 2 mm has been used.
A, B, C and D have been modelled with a sharp transition, while CU and DU have been
modelled with a transition radius of 1 mm.
Class A and B have the same acceptance limits and therefore the same results.
As can be seen in the results, CU and DU have only insignificantly longer life than C and D.
Boundary conditions
Two types of boundary conditions are available for this case, see Figure 5.3 and 5.4.
crack
Figure 5.3. Boundary conditions for generating the results.

The arrow indicates the direction of rotation.
crack
Figure 5.4. Boundary conditions which gives longer fatigue life.

The arrow indicates the direction of rotation.
Boundary conditions according to Figure 5.3 causes the sheets to perform a counter-clockwise
rotation, which opens the crack. There are both a bending moment and an uniaxial tension
which contributes to the crack growth. This results in a considerably lower fatigue life
compared to the boundary conditions in Figure 5.4. In Figure 5.4 the tension causes a
clockwise rotation on the sheets which results in a bending moment closing the crack. The
crack would not grow if the uniaxial tension was not high enough to overcome the bending
moment and open the crack.
Placement of the crack

As can be seen in Figures 5.2-5.4, the crack is placed on the top side of the metal sheet. The
way the lower side of the weld is modelled would generate a larger stress concentration, since
on the lower side there is a steeper angle towards the sheet, probably resulting in shorter
fatigue life if boundary conditions according to Figure 5.4 are used. It is, however, hard to tell
what the geometry would look like on the lower side of the weld because it depends on the
size of the misalignment, how much melt metal will flow down, etc.. Therefore the crack is
set to grow from the top side of the weld, although it might seem wrong in this particular case.
The additional designation U does not affect the results significantly for C and D.
The life becomes drastically shorter with such a large misalignment as A = 4 mm, which is the
case in D. This is probably because A is relatively large compared to the thickness of the
metal sheets (t = 10 mm). If the thickness where 25 mm, the influence on the fatigue life
would probably be smaller. Of course, the thicker the sheets are, the harder it is to join them
without any misalignment and then the tolerance towards misalignment could then be greater,
because the misalignment probably has less influence on the life. It should be recommended
to increase the thickness dependence for the acceptance limits, in this case, or tightening of
the requirements in some other way.
If only geometrical issues are dealt with this case could be united with Case 14, since they
look almost the same and also generates approximately the same fatigue life for the same
acceptance limits. However if full penetration is not assumed, it is not appropriate to unite the
two cases. In case of thicker sheets, full penetration might be harder to achieve for Case 13.
The standard is, however, not consistent in the way that the requirements are lower in a some
of the welding classes for Case 14 and not for all. If it is harder to achieve full penetration in
Case 13, the requirements ought to be harder for all the welding classes in this case.
Note that the conclusions above only apply to matters of fatigue strength, and not to
constructional issues. Limits for dimension deviations must of course be considered as well.
There should be a corresponding case for fillet welds (cruciform joints) since this type of
defects have a large impact on the fatigue life.
STD5605,51 Case 13 A and B

Edge displacement, one-sided welding
A = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.60 10 6 cycles

N f = 30% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa(m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
A = 1.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.32 10 6 cycles

N f = 16% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
A = 1.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.34 10 6 cycles

N f = 17% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
A 1.5 + 0.25 t, but max. t or 4 mm.
A = 4 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.04 10 6 cycles

N f = 1.9% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
A 1.5 + 0.25 t, but max. t or 4 mm.
A = 4 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.043 10 6 cycles

N f = 2.1% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 14
Edge displacement, double-sided
welding

D C B A
A 1.5 + 0.25t, but A 0.2t, but max. A 0.15t, but max. A 0.1t, but max.
max. t or 5 mm 5 mm 3 mm 2 mm
1.9% of 2 106 cycles 9% of 2 106 cycles 16% of 2 106 cycles 30% of 2 106 cycles
0.04 106 cycles 0.20 106 cycles

2.1% of 2 106 cycles 10% of 2 106 cycles
35%
A
30%
25%
20%
B
15%
C CU
10%
5% D DU
0% 1

Both the upper and the lower side of the weld have been modelled with the same radius that is
described for STD5605,51 Case 13.
A, B, C and D have been modelled without a transition radius, while CU and DU have been
modelled with a transition radius of 1 mm.
For further comments, boundary conditions, etc., the reader is referred to the corresponding
part for Case 13.
Conclusions and recommendations are the same as in Case 13. These cases are very similar.
welding A 0.1 t, but max. 2 mm
A = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.60 10 6 cycles

N f = 30% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
A = 1.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.32 10 6 cycles

N f = 16% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
A = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.18 106 cycles

Nf = 9% of 2 106 cycles
initial crack

80 6
5
60
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
40 3
2
20
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
A = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.19 10 6 cycles

N f = 10% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

80 6
5
60
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
40 3
2
20
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
welding A 1.5 + 0.25 t, but max. t or 5 mm
A = 4 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.04 106 cycles

N f = 1.9% of 2 106 cycles
initial crack
100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
welding A 1.5 + 0.25 t, but max. t or 5 mm
A = 4 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.044 10 6 cycles

N f = 2.3% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 20
Undercut
t

D C B A
Locally A 0.2t, but Locally A 0.1t, but Locally A 0.05t, but Not permitted
max. 2 mm max. 1 mm max. 0.5 mm.
l 25 mm
0.20 106 cycles 0.54 106 cycles

80% A
70%
60%
50% B
40%
30% CU
20% C
DU
10% D
0% 1

In classes B, CU and DU the undercut has been modelled as a notch with a transition radius of
1 mm, while in C and D it has been modelled as a crack (see the following pages).
There is a significantly longer life for CU than for C and also the life of DU is noticeably
longer than for D.
Undercut has proven to be of great importance when studying defects which may affect the
fatigue life of welded joints. Therefore this case is important in the standard.
Undercut
Locally A 0.05 t, but max. 0.5 mm. l 25 mm
A = notch depth + initial crack = 0.4 + 0.1 = 0.5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.91 10 6 cycles

N f = 45% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack
40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
Undercut
Locally A 0.1 t, but max. 1 mm.
A = 1 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.34 10 6 cycles

N f = 17% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack
40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm]
N [-] x 10
5
Undercut
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.54 10 6 cycles

N f = 27% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack
50 6
5
40
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
Undercut
A = 2 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.13 10 6 cycles

A = initial crack
Crack length as a function of number of cycles: Stress intensity factor as a function of crack length:
40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 5 10 15
N [-] x 10
4
Undercut
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.20 10 6 cycles

N f = 10% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack
80 6
5
60
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
40 3
2
20
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 21
Leg deviation

D C B A
A 2 + 0.2a A 2 + 0.2a A 1.5 + 0.15a A 0.5 + 0.15a
0.89 106 cycles 0.89 106 cycles

6 6
90%
A
80%
70%
60%
50% B CU DU
40% C D
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

In order to achieve the largest stress intensity and the shortest life, the crack has been placed
at the end of the shorter leg. Figures of where the crack is placed can be seen in the result
sheets for this case.
C and D have the same acceptance limits and therefore the results for classes C/D and CU/DU
are the same. According to standard, B has been modelled with a transition radius of 1 mm,
while A has been modelled with a radius of 4 mm. This, combined with the tight acceptance
limits for A, leads to a significantly longer life than for B.
It is remarkable that the difference in life is so small for welding class B and CU/DU (about
0.8%). A = 2.25 mm for class B and A = 3 mm for classes CU/DU while the transition radius
(1 mm) is the same for both classes.
The same phenomenon can be seen in STD5605,51 Case 12, the penetration bead, where the
size of the defect for this type of geometries does not seem to play a major role for the fatigue
life. The phenomenon is discussed in Chapter 8.
From a fatigue point of view C and D could have higher acceptance limits than at present CU
and DU essentially have the same lives as B. However, at this stage the length of the deviated
leg does not affect the life of the joint substantially and therefore the leg could be very long
and still have sufficient life. Thus the acceptance limits should not be relaxed too much (if at
all). The current acceptance limits for C and D might intentionally have been set identically
just to avoid too long legs.
The present acceptance limits have no influence on the life and therefore, from a fatigue point
of view, this case could be removed from the standard.
limitations for the leg deviation is important for reasons of appearance as well as for technical
reasons. However, it should be clear that the leg deviation has no influence of the fatigue
properties.
Leg deviation
A 0.5 + 0,15 a
A = 1.25 mm, a = 5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 1.62 10 6 cycles

N f = 81% of 2 10 6 cycles
R4
initial crack

30 6
25 5
[MPa(m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
eff
10 2
K
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Leg deviation
A 1.5 + 0.15 a
A = 2.25 mm, a = 5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.90 10 6 cycles

N f = 45% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 21 C and D

Leg deviation
A 2 + 0.2 a
A = 3 mm, a = 5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.72 10 6 cycles

N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 21 CU and DU

Leg deviation
A 2 + 0.2 a
A = 3 mm, a = 5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.89 10 6 cycles

N f = 45% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 22
Throat deviation

D C B A
Locally -0.2a Locally -0.1a Throat must not be Throat must not be
less than specified less than specified
(from Case 24 DU) (from Case 24 A)
0.53 106 cycles 0.69 106 cycles

80% A
70%
60%
50% B
40% CU
C
30% DU
D
20%
10%
0% 1

C and D have been modelled with a sharp transition, while CU and DU have been modelled
with a transition radius of 1 mm. The weld has equally long legs, i.e. both legs have been
shortened correspondingly to the throat. In reality, throat deviation often occurs because of
one leg being shorter.
A and B, which have no deviation, have not been modelled especially for this case, since they
are identical to Case 24 A and DU. (Transition radii 4 mm and 1 mm, respectively.)
The acceptance limits for C and D could be more generous. Currently, the lives for these
cases are not that much shorter than for the ideal throat in class B. However, the influence on
toe/root crack propagation is an important issue, as discussed below.
When the throat gets smaller, the risk for a root crack increases. Normally it is favourable to
have the crack at the toe side, were it can be detected before failure. A weld joints that is
designed to fail at the toe side first might consequently fail from a root crack instead if the
throat becomes too small [5]. This has to be considered when reviewing the acceptance limits
for throat deviation.
Furthermore, a too small throat should always be handled with precaution. The model used
has its crack in the sheet, and the only effect of the deviated throat is a somewhat higher stress
intensity around the crack tip. On the other hand, a crack directly in the weld could have
serious consequences if the weld is substantially weakened by throat deviation.
Throat deviation
Locally -0.1 a
a = 5-0.5 mm = 4.5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N= 0.59 10 6 cycles

N f = 30% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
Throat deviation
Locally -0.1 a
a = 5-0.5 mm = 4.5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 34% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
Throat deviation
Locally -0.2 a
a = 5-1 mm = 4 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N= 0.45 10 6 cycles

N f = 23% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
Throat deviation
Locally -0.2 a
a = 5-1 mm = 4 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.53 10 6 cycles

N f = 26% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] x 10
5
STD5605,51 Case 23
r
Connecting radius, fully penetrated
T-weld joint

D C B A
Even transition r 4 min
- - 2.92 106 cycles 3.11 106 cycles

2.54 106 cycles 2.74 106 cycles

6 6
180%
A
160% B
CU
140% DU
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 1

The welding classes contain only the following requirements:
B: Even transition
A: r 4 mm
In order to get more useful results, the following dimensions are used in this study:
D: r 1 mm
C: r 2 mm
B: r 3 mm
A: r 4 mm
Since the geometries, as specified above, are modelled with even transitions, C and D
practically correspond to CU and DU.
The initial crack is situated at the point with the highest stress concentration on the transition
radius.
The geometry is different from all other cruciform joints, since the joint is fully penetrated.
This means that there is no slit between the sheets, and it implies that the force can flow
straight through the joint. Furthermore, there is no throat except for the material within the
connecting radius. This implies an even less deviation of the force flow. This has an obvious
effect on the results. In the normal case with no penetration, the force has to flow around the
slit, and then concentrating towards the surfaces (where the initial crack is). Here, the force is
more uniformly distributed over the cross section, and that gives a lower stress intensity factor
for small crack lengths. Approaching half the thickness, the stress intensity exhibits more
normal values, as compared to other cases.
The low stress intensity for small cracks results in long life. However, considering the
significant geometrical differences, the fatigue lives are difficult to compare with other cases.
The test with the transition radii 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm shows very insignificant differences
between welding classes. The recommendation for this case is to keep the current acceptance
limits, i.e. 4 mm for A and even transition, interpreted as 1 mm, for B. (C and D then, as
today, have a 90 degrees sharp transition but can of course be assigned additional designation
U when needed.)
It would be suitable to clarify in the standard that even transition denotes a certain radius,
for example 1 mm.
One interesting result from this case is the almost perfectly linear relation between the life and
the transition radius. This supports the results in Case 24, where there is a similar relation for
fillet welds. Quantitatively, Case 24 is of more importance since it applies to the same
geometry as in other cases in this study.
Connecting radius. Fully penetrated T-
weld joint r 4 min
nom = 82 MPa
r N = 3.11 10 6 cycles

N f = 155% of 2 10 6 cycles
R4
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
weld joint Even transition
r = 3 mm is used
r nom = 82 MPa
N = 2.92 10 6 cycles

N f = 146% of 2 10 6 cycles
R3
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
weld joint No requirements in welding class
r = 2 mm is used
r nom = 82 MPa
N = 2.74 10 6 cycles

N f = 137% of 2 10 6 cycles
R2
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa(m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
Connecting radius. Fully penetrated T-weld
joint No requirements in welding class
r = 1 mm is used
r N = 3.14 10 6 cycles

N f = 157% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
A = initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 24 r
Connecting radius, fillet weld

D C B A
Even transition r 4 min
- - 1.27 106 cycles 1.47 106 cycles

0.90 106 cycles 1.08 106 cycles

6 6
80% A
70% B
60% CU
50% DU
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

The welding classes contain only the following requirements:
B: Even transition
A: r 4 mm
In order to get more useful results, the following transition radii are used in this study:
D: r 1 mm
C: r 2 mm
B: r 3 mm
A: r 4 mm
This means that an even transition is used only for classes corresponding to the additional
designation U.
Comments on crack location
In order to obtain the "worst case", i.e. the shortest life, for geometries with smooth transition
between weld and sheet, the initial crack was placed at the point that had the highest stress
concentration when no crack was present. In the original models the crack was placed right
above the point where the tangents of the weld and parent material intersect. This was
considered a decent approximation.
In most cases this resulted, as expected, in shorter life. In all this cases the initial crack was
moved to a higher x-value. However, in Case 24 for welding classes A, B and CU the highest
stress concentration, and thus the place for the initial crack, was situated at lower x-coordinate
values than in the original models.
This resulted, somewhat surprisingly, in longer life. After all, if the crack grows from the
point with the highest stress it could be expected to give approximately the shortest life, as in
the other cases. But apparently there are some geometrical characteristics that make the stress
concentration at the crack tip increase considerably slower for a crack at a lower x - value.
Because of this, one can doubt if the x-coordinate for the maximum stress which the FE-
program provides is correct. There is, however, no indication of any error in the FE-model.
It can be discussed whether it is correct to use the results from the models with the initial
crack at the current locations. They obviously imply longer life than in the worst case. On the
other hand, the initial crack is situated at the point where it is most likely to start growing.
Despite the results in this case, putting the initial crack at the point with the highest stress
concentration still seems to be the best idea for a general procedure. Neither in the cases with
better (more probable) results is it known for sure how close they are to the actual minimum
life.
As in Case 23, the relation between life and transition radius is very obvious. Increasing the
radius by 1 mm prolongs the life with approximately 0.2 106 cycles for these radii. (It should
be noticed that this result probably can not be extrapolated towards r = 0, as it is likely to
deviate from linearity for small radii.)
The recommendation for this case, as for Case 23, is to keep the current acceptance limits, i.e.
4 mm for A and even transition for B. And again, to clarify in the standard that even
transition denotes a certain radius, for example 1 mm.
Another opinion is that Cases 23 and 24 maybe should not be defect types in the standard,
because they are fundamental requirements of the weld. If they are to be kept in the standard,
to be consistent they could be named for example Insufficient connecting radius in stead of
just Connecting radius which is a requirement but not a defect.
Possibly the whole issue of sharp/even transitions and connecting radii could be dealt with in
a separate section of the standard.
Finally, the illustration in the standard is somewhat misleading. It looks more like one large
connecting radius between the two sheets than connecting radii between sheet and fillet weld.
r = 4 mm
nom = 82 MPa
r
N = 1.47 10 6 cycles

N f = 74% of 2 10 6 cycles
R4
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
r = 3 mm
nom = 82 MPa
r
N = 1.27 10 6 cycles

N f = 64% of 2 10 6 cycles
R3
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
r = 2 mm
nom = 82 MPa
r
N = 1.08 10 6 cycles

N f = 54% of 2 10 6 cycles
R2
initial crack

30 6
25 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
20 4
acrack [mm]
15 3
10 2
5 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
r = 1 mm
nom = 82 MPa
r
N = 0.90 10 6 cycles

N f = 45% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 25
Crack
l

D C B A
Inner crack with A Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted
0,2t but max. 4 mm,
and l t is permitted.
Crack which reaches
the surface or crack in
the heat-affected zone
is not permitted
90%
A B C
80%
70%
60%
50% D
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

In welding class A, B and C internal cracks are not permitted. Therefore all these classes have
been modelled as a transverse butt weld without a transition radius.
Comments on modelling of the analytical case for welding class D are given in Chapter 3.
The calculated fatigue life do not say much about the real fatigue life in reality since the life is
only calculated to half the thickness of the sheet and the crack can in real life continue to
grow in the depth direction of the plate after the crack has reached the surface.
It is hard to draw any extensive conclusion when only one case has been calculated with the
interior defect. Internal cracks are not wanted since they are hard to detect before they have
reached the surface. When the crack has reached the surface it might in some cases be too late
to do anything about it.
Crack Inner crack with A 0.2 t but max. 4 mm, and l t is permitted.
Crack which reaches the surface or crack in the heat-affected zone
is not permitted.
A = 2 mm, l = 2c = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N= 0.92 10 6 cycles

N f = 46% of 2 10 6 cycles
l

2W
2c t 2a
t

2c
2a
Analytical case [18]

Denotations according to analytical case.

12 10
10 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
8
2acrack [mm]
6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 10 15
2acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 26
Lack of fusion
l

D C B A
A 0,2t, but max. 4 Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted
mm, and
l t is permitted. Lack
of fusion must not
reach the surface
90%
A B C
80%
70%
60%
50% D
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

In welding class A, B and C lack of fusion is not permitted. Therefore all these classes have
been modelled as a transverse butt weld without a transition radius.
Comments on modelling of the analytical case for welding class D are given in Chapter 3.
The calculated fatigue life do not say much about the real fatigue life in reality since the life is
only calculated to half the thickness of the sheet and the crack can in real life continue to
grow in the depth direction of the plate after the crack has reached the surface.
It is hard to draw any extensive conclusion when only one case has been calculated with the
interior defect. Internal cracks are not wanted since they are hard to detect before they have
reached the surface. When the crack has reached the surface it might in some cases be too late
to do anything about it.
Lack of fusion A 0,2 t, but max. 4 mm, and
l t is permitted. Lack of fusion must not reach the surface.
A = 2 mm, l = 2c = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.92 10 6 cycles

N f = 46% of 2 10 6 cycles
l

2W
2c t 2a
t

2c
2a


10
12
10 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
2acrack [mm]
8 6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15
x 10
STD5605,51 Case 27
l

D C B A
A 0,2t, but max. 4 A 0,2t, but max. 2 A 0,1 t, but max. 2 Not permitted
mm. In-complete root mm. mm.
penetration must not l 2 t, but max. 50 l 0,4 t, but max. 20
occur closer than 100 mm. Incomplete root mm. Incomplete root
mm to the end of the penetration must not penetration must not
weld or the crossing occur closer than 100 occur closer than 100
points respectively mm to the end of the mm to the end of the
weld or the crossing weld or the crossing
point respectively point respectively
6 6 6 6
31 % of 2 10 cycles 36 % of 2 10 cycles 147% of 2 10 cycles 79% of 2 10 cycles
160% B
140%
120%
100%
A
80%
60%
C
40% D
20%
0% 1

Welding class B and C have been modelled with the analytical case described in Chapter 3.
The crack in class D is assumed to have an infinite depth and has therefore been modelled in
ANSYS.
Since incomplete root penetration is not permitted for welding class A, it has been modelled
as a transverse butt weld without any transition radius.
When studying the lives for welding class C and D, which both has the same integration
limits in the a-direction (see coming pages for details and pictures), one can draw the
conclusion that it does not seem that the extension in the c-direction matters so much for the
fatigue life. Welding class C has a limited extension in the depth direction which is 20 mm
while D has an infinite depth. However, a crack with a limited extension in the c-direction can
continue to grow after the crack has broken the surface in the a-direction. This means that the
fatigue life is not finished when the crack has broken the surface but is dependent on the
extension of the sheet in the c-direction.
Internal cracks are not favourable since they are hard to detect before they have reached the
surface. When the crack has reached the surface it might in some cases be too late do anything
about it.
Incomplete root penetration A 0,1 t, but max. 2 mm. l 0,4 t, but max. 20 mm. Incomplete
root penetration must not occur closer than 100 mm to the end of
the weld or the crossing point respectively.
A = 1 mm, l = 4 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 2.95 10 6 cycles

l N f = 147% of 2 10 6 cycles

2W
2c t 2a
t

2c
2a


10 10
8 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
2acrack [mm]
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
x 10
Incomplete root penetration A 0,2 t, but max. 2 mm. l 2 t, but max. 50 mm. Incomplete root
penetration must not occur closer than 100 mm to the end of the
weld or the crossing point respectively.
A = 2 mm, l = 20 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.73 10 6 cycles
l
N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles

2W
2c t 2a
t

2c
2a


10
15 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
2acrack [mm]
6
10
4
5
2
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
x 10
Incomplete root penetration A 0,2 t, but max. 4 mm. Incomplete root penetration must not
occur closer than 100 mm to the end of the weld or the crossing
points respectively.
A = 2 mm, l = infinite
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.61 10 6 cycles
l
N f = 31% of 2 10 6 cycles
A = initial crack

10
30
25 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
2acrack [mm]
20 6
15
4
10
5 2
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8
x 10
6 Compilation of ISO5817 145
6 Compilation of ISO5817
This chapter contains overall information on the CEN ISO5817 weld standard. Also results
and some detailed conclusions and recommendations from all calculated cases in the
standard are presented in diagrams, tables and on result sheets.
6.1 About the standard
ISO5817 [2] is the European standard for fusion welded joints and was adopted in 2003 by
CEN European Committee for Standardization (French: Comit Europen de
Normalisation). The members of CEN are in general the members of the European Union.
The ISO5817 standard has three different welding classes i.e., B, C and D, where B has the
best quality and D the worst. Unlike the Volvo STD5605,51 [1] standard, the ISO5817 does
not have any additional designation for fatigue loading. However, in some of the cases
smooth transition is required.
Compared to the STD5605,51 standard, the ISO5817 standard is more vague in its
descriptions. For example, the designation short imperfections is commonly used but there
is no figure on the size of a short imperfection i.e., a short imperfection can vary a lot
depending on who is assessing the weld. The same applies to smooth transition and locally
permitted. When modelling the cases in the standard smooth transition has been translated
to a radius of 1 mm and short imperfections and locally permitted have been modelled as
an infinite imperfection, since no numbers are available. This is the worst case scenario.
Further, the ISO5817 standard contains a few cases which are not available in the
STD5605,51 standard, for example overlap (also known as cold lap) and angular
misalignment.
6.2 Modelling
All transverse butt welds in the standard with the requirement not permitted have been
modelled with Case 6A in the STD5605,51 standard, i.e., Case 213 without the transition
radius of 1 mm. Case 213 with the transition radius of 1 mm has been used when smooth
transition is required. Corresponding cases for fillet welds with the requirement smooth
transition have been modelled with Case 413, while ISO5817 Case 1.20B has been used if
smooth transition is not prescribed.
Further comments on modelling are given in Chapter 3 and in the result sheets for each case
and class.
6.3 Results
Results with pictures and diagrams for each case and welding class can be found on the
following pages. All results are also compiled in Figure C.1-C.11 and in Table C.1-C.2, in
Appendix C.
An overview of the results can be found in Figure C.1. It shows large scatter in the results.
However, patterns can be discerned. For example, some cases have nearly no difference in life
between the welding classes, while some show large differences. Heavy grouping of the cases
can be seen in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Influence of acceptance limits on the fatigue life for a certain welding class.
Large influence Some influence No influence

Butt welds Fillet welds Butt welds Fillet welds Butt welds Fillet welds
1.14 - 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.10
1.17 2.12 1.11 1.12
3.1 one 2.13 1.12 1.16
3.1 db. 1.13 1.20
3.2 1.21
2.13
As can be seen in Table 6.1 especially the acceptance limits for the fillet welds have very little
influence on the fatigue life. It can also be seen in Table 6.1 and Figure C.1 that there are only
five cases out of 19 calculated where the acceptance limits have a major impact on the fatigue
life. This is quite remarkable. In other words, fatigue properties have not been thoroughly
evaluated when the standard was written. The same conclusion can easily be drawn when
looking at Figure C.2 and C.3 for transverse butt welds and fillet welds respectively. The poor
fatigue properties are most clearly seen in Figure C.3 for fillet welds, where no class show the
desired pattern of a gradually decreasing life with a gradually decreasing welding class.
In a few cases the undesirable pattern can be explained by the fact that the defect for classes B
and C are not permitted. They have therefore been modelled with Case 213 or 413, which
give the same lives for both B and C.
The ratios between B and C and C and D have been plotted in Figure C.5. Many cases have
the ratio one between the classes while a few cases show a different pattern. A ratio of one
between the welding classes simply means no difference in fatigue life between the welding
classes. The deviant value for Case 2.12, lack of fusion, depends on an internal defect where
the initial crack is 4 mm. Thus, the crack can only be integrated 1 mm before half the
thickness has been reached. This results in the short fatigue life and large ratio between
welding class C and D.
Case 1.14, 1.17 (fillet weld), 3.1 (one-sided and double sided welding) and 3.2 can be lifted
out from the standard along with Case 1.7 (fillet and butt weld). The results for these cases are
plotted in Figure C.4. Case 2.12 and 2.13 are left out because they are internal defects. The
cases presented in Figure C.4 have a connection between the acceptance limits and the fatigue
life, something which separates them from the rest. If the ratios between the welding classes
are plotted for these cases, see Figure C.6, one can see that many of the cases have a ratio of
1.5-2.5 between B and C. The ratio between C and D varies more. Half of the cases have a
ratio of about 1 to 2 while the other half have a ratio of about 2.5 to 3.5.
It should be said that the same pattern as described above was found in STD5605,51. Many
cases had a ratio of approximately 2 between B and CU (compared to B and C in ISO5817)
The ratio between CU and DU varied a lot (compare with C and D in ISO5817).
In Figure C.7 the maximum, minimum, average and median value for each welding class has
been plotted. The results are more less scattered than for the STD5605,51 standard i.e., the
maximum and the minimum value in each welding class do not differ more than a factor of
ten. This is true if the maximum value in welding class D is disregarded. The maximum value
in welding class D comes from Case 1.13, overlap (or coldlap), where the defect is a
horizontal crack which makes a 90 turn before growing vertically into the material. In
welding class B and C, this type of defect is not permitted and Case 213 without the transition
radius gives much shorter life than the cold lap. This makes it hard to compare this case with
the others and the deviating large maximum value can be disregarded when studying Figure
C.7.
Further, if the maximum value in welding class D is disregarded, the maximum, minimum,
average and median value decreases when moving from welding class B to D, something
which is expected, since a higher class ought to give a longer life.
Cases 1.7, 1.14, 1.17, 3.1 and 3.2 all show influence from the acceptance limits on the fatigue
life. The lives of these cases have been plotted versus the acceptance limit in Figure C.8. An
exponential trendline has been fitted to the points and the equation for the line is fitted in
Figure C.8.
The trendline could serve as a tool when setting new acceptance limits. For example, the
acceptance limit can be read on the curve if the desired life in a certain welding class has been
decided. Of course this might not give the exact life for the certain case, but it will at least be
possible to get a notion about in what hundred the desired acceptance limit might be. Similar
more extensive data can be found in Figure B.9-B.12 for the STD5605,51. These data can be
a great help if new acceptance limits are to be set.
It is not possible to create an appropriate trendline for all the calculated data, since they are
too scattered and many of the acceptance limits for different defects do not have any influence
on the fatigue life.
In Figure C.9-C.11, results for each welding class can be found. These results also confirm
large scatter in the results.
ISO5817 Case 1.7 (fillet weld)

Undercut

D C B
Smooth transition is Smooth transition is Smooth transition is
required. required. required.
h 0.2 t, but max. 1 mm h 0.1 t, but max. 0.5 mm h 0.05 t, but max. 0.5
mm
0.54 106 cycles 0.91 106 cycles 0.91 106 cycles
27% of 2 106 cycles 45% of 2 106 cycles 45% of 2 106 cycles
50% B C
45%
40%
35%
30% D
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

The geometry is, unlike as shown in the figure, modelled with only the undercut in the
horizontal sheet. (Even if there were an undercut in the vertical sheet as well, it is uncertain if
it would have any significant effect on the stress flow because the joint is solely horizontally
loaded.) This means that here the undercut is modelled the same way as the undercut in Volvo
STD5605,51.
An interesting difference from the Volvo standard is that smooth transition is required for all
classes. (Note that the ISO standard uses the term smooth instead of even.) The smooth
transition is modelled as a 1 mm radius.
Welding classes B/C and D are identically the same as B and CU in the Volvo standard. (For
thicknesses up to 5 mm B, C and D correspond to B, CU and DU, but for the 10 mm sheet
modelled here, the ISO standard limits the undercut depths.)
The maximum depth restrictions make ISO5817 less useful when 10 mm sheet is commonly
used (in for example articulated haulers). The fatigue life results show that the acceptance
limits in the Volvo standard, which are thickness depending up to 10 mm, gives a good
relation between lives for the different welding classes. Furthermore the Volvo standard is
more flexible, as it is possible to choose additional designation U or not.
ISO5817 Case 1.7 B and C (fillet weld)

Undercut
Smooth transition is required.
Class B: h 0.05 t, but max. 0.5 mm
Class C: h 0.1 t, but max. 0.5 mm
h = notch depth + initial crack = 0.4 + 0.1 = 0.5 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.91 10 6 cycles

N f = 45% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
5
ISO5817 Case 1.7 D (fillet weld)

Undercut
h 0.2 t, but max. 1 mm
h = notch depth + initial crack = 0.9 + 0.1 = 1 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.54 10 6 cycles

N f = 27% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

50 6
5
40
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20
2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
5
ISO5817 Case 1.7 (butt weld)

Undercut

D C B
required. required. required.
h 0.1 t, but max. 0.5 h 0.05 t, but max. 0.5
mm mm
6 6 6
40%
B C
35%
30%
25%
D
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

The geometry is, unlike as shown in the figure, here modelled with only one undercut (one of
the tow shown in the figure). This means that it is modelled the same way as the undercut in
Volvo STD5605,51. (A double-sided defect may lead to slightly different results because the
stress flow through the geometry will change, but that is not investigated here.)
As for the fillet weld undercut, smooth transition is required for all welding classes. This
distinguishes the B classes, where the Volvo STD5605,51 does not require smooth transition
for butt welds.
The acceptance limit for welding class B is identical to class B in the Volvo standard.
Like in the undercut case for fillet weld, the Volvo standard provides a more useful scale for
classifying the requirements on a certain weld. (See also comments on Case 1.7 fillet weld.)
ISO5817 Case 1.7 B and C (butt weld)

Undercut
Class B: h 0.05 t, but max. 0.5 mm
Class C: h 0.1 t, but max. 0.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.72 10 6 cycles

N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

50 6
5
40
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20 2
10 1
0
0 0 2 4 6 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 N [-] 5
x 10
acrack [mm]
ISO5817 Case 1.7 D (butt weld)

Undercut
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.42 10 6 cycles

N f = 21% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack
60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 1 2 3 4 5
N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.9

Excess weld metal

D C B
required required required
h 1 mm + 0.25b but max. h 1 mm + 0.15b but max. h 1 mm + 0.1b but max.
10 mm 7 mm 5 mm
h = 3.5 mm, b = 10 mm h = 2.5 mm, b = 10 h = 2 mm, b = 10 mm
mm
100% B
D
90% D
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

This case is identical to the STD5605,51 Case 11, weld reinforcement. The only identical
acceptance limits are B (ISO) and CU (Volvo). The slight difference in life between these two
classes is probably due to some minor differences in the modelling of the weld reinforcement.
The accepted reinforcement heights for B, C and D are 2, 2.5, and 3.5 mm for the ISO
standard and 2, 2.5, and 3 mm for the Volvo standard i.e., they are quite similar. In ISO5817
though, smooth transition is required for all classes.
For both standards the results show that even large weld reinforcements (several millimetres)
do not shorten the life considerably, implying that the acceptance limits are of no substantial
importance. Therefore, from a fatigue point of view, the case could be deleted from the
standard.
limitation of the weld reinforcement is important for reasons of appearance as well as for
technical reasons (too large weld reinforcements could interfere with other geometry etc.).
However, it should be clear that the weld reinforcement has no influence on the fatigue
properties.
ISO5817 Case 1.9 B

Excess weld metal (butt weld)
Smooth transition is required
h 1 mm + 0.1b but max. 5 mm
h = 2 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.85 10 6 cycles

N f = 92% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.9 C

h = 2.5 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.76 10 6 cycles

N f = 88% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.9 D

h = 3.5 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.68 10 6 cycles

N f = 84% of 2 10 6 cycles
R1
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.10

Excessive convexity

D C B
5 mm 4 mm 3 mm
h = 3.5 mm, b = 10 mm h = 2.5 mm, b = 10 mm h = 2 mm, b = 10 mm

35% B C D
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

Sharp transition is used between the weld and the sheet metal.
This case has no counterpart in the Volvo STD5605,51. Interesting in this case is the effect
the convexity might have on the angle between the weld and the parent material. A larger
convexity implies a higher angle, which makes the joint more exposed to fatigue.
However, the required heights of the convexities (the same as for weld reinforcements) do not
have any effect on the life. The differences are so small it differs less than 1000 cycles
between C and D that no reasonable changes of the acceptance limits could give any
meaningful results.
From a fatigue point of view the acceptance limits have no influence on the life. Therefore
this case could be removed from the standard if only fatigue properties are considered.
ISO5817 Case 1.10 B

Excessive convexity (fillet weld)
h = 2 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.66 10 6 cycles

N f = 33% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.10 C

h = 2.5 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.66 10 6 cycles

N f = 33% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.10 D

h = 3.5 mm, b = 10 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.65 10 6 cycles

N f = 33% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10

Excess weld metal

D C B
5 mm 4 mm 3 mm
h = 4 mm, b = 3 mm h = 2.8 mm, b = 3 mm h = 1.6 mm, b = 3 mm

90% B C D
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

This case corresponds to STD5605,51 Case 12, penetration bead. It is modelled with a sharp
transition.
There is practically no difference at all between the classes.
Since the acceptance limits obviously have no influence on the life, this case could be deleted
from the standard if only fatigue properties are considered.
limitation of the penetration bead is important for reasons of appearance as well as for
technical reasons (too large penetration beads could interfere with other geometry etc.).
However, it should be clear that the penetration bead has no fatigue properties.
ISO5817 Case 1.11 B

Excess penetration
h = 1.6 mm, b = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 85% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.11 C

Excess penetration
h = 2.8 mm, b = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 85% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.11 D

Excess penetration
h = 4 mm, b = 3 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.69 10 6 cycles

N f = 85% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10

Incorrect weld toe

D C B
90 110 110

40% B C D
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

All welding classes have been modelled with a sharp transition. The weld reinforcement has
been kept the same but the part in front of the crack opening has been modelled as a 0.1 mm
straight line with the correct toe angle, , relative to the sheet (see Figure 6.1).
initial crack
0.1 mm
Figure 6.1. Modelling of the transition at the weld toe.
This case could provide interesting information about the influence of the transition angle on
the fatigue life, especially since there is no corresponding case in STD5605,51. However, the
acceptance limits for this case give no significant differences at all, even though the angle
difference of 20 degrees between the classes is a seemingly distinct difference that could have
been expected to have a noticeable effect on the results.
Obviously, this kind of angular difference does not affect the life. (This is principally the
same result as obtained in case 1.10, where the increased angle depends on the convexity.)
It was discussed whether the choice of initial crack has any substantial effect on the life. The
ANSYS results showed the angle affects the stress intensity factors more for shorter cracks.
However, for an initial crack of 0.0025 mm the difference in life will still be only a few
percent.
As the toe angle is generally considered an important factor for determining the life of the
joint, the results in 1.12 are remarkable. With the current acceptance limits the case is of no
interest and could be removed from the standard. However, that the angle has so little impact
on the life is definitely a result must be considered. Possibly the differences would be more
significant for smaller angles, even if there are no indications of this in case 1.12 neither for
butt nor fillet weld.
Finally it can be noticed that the name Incorrect weld toe is a bit misleading. This case
deals only with the issue of the angle at the transition, and hence should be named something
more appropriate.
ISO5817 Case 1.12 B and C

Incorrect weld toe fillet weld
110
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.75 10 6 cycles

N f = 37% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.12 D

Incorrect weld toe fillet weld
90
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.74 10 6 cycles

N f = 37% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10

Incorrect weld toe

D C B
90 110 150

80% B C D
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

All welding classes have been modelled with a sharp transition. The weld reinforcement has
been kept the same but the section close to the crack opening has been modelled as a 0.1 mm
straight line with the correct toe angle, , relative to the sheet (see Figure 6.2).
initial crack
0.1 mm
Figure 6.2. Modelling of the transition at the toe.
The transition between the weld reinforcement and the sheet metal is a singular point. I.e., the
finer the mesh the larger stress is obtained. The stress goes towards infinity at a sharp corner.
Therefore there is no need to evaluate any stress concentration at the transition. In real life
there will never be a sharp transition but there is always a transition radius. Since the crack
initiation phase is not studied, no investigation will be performed on how much longer life
there is in this phase.
This case could provide interesting information about the influence of the transition angle on
the fatigue life, especially since there is no corresponding case in STD5605,51. However, the
acceptance limits for this case give no significant differences at all, even though the difference
in angle between 90 and 150 degrees is seemingly distinct and could have been expected to
have noticeable effects on the results.
Obviously, this kind of angular deviation does not affect the life. (This is essentially the same
result that is obtained for weld reinforcements and penetration beads.)
It was discussed whether the choice of initial crack has any substantial effect on the life. The
Ansys results showed the angle affects the stress intensity factors more for shorter cracks.
However, for an initial crack of 0.0025 mm the difference in life will still be only a few
percent.
As the toe angle is generally considered an important factor for determining the life of the
joint, the results in 1.12 is remarkable. With the current acceptance limits the case is of no
interest and could be removed from the standard. However, the angle having so little impact
on the life is definitely a result that ought to be further investigated. Possibly the differences
would be more significant for lower angles, even if there are no indications on this in case
1.12 neither for butt nor fillet weld.
Finally it can be noticed that the name Incorrect weld toe is a bit misleading. This case
deals only with the issue of the angle at the transition, and hence should be named something
more appropriate.
ISO5817 Case 1.12 B

Incorrect weld toe butt welds
150
N = 1.47 10 cycles
6

N f = 73% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.12 C

110
N = 1.45 10 6 cycles

N f = 72% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.12 D

90
N = 1.45 10 cycles
6

N f = 72% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.13

Overlap

D C B
h 0.2b Not permitted Not permitted
h = 2 mm, b = 10 mm

140% D
120%
100%
B C
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 1

Class B and C are the same as IIW Case 213 without a transition. Welding class D is special
in the way it has been modelled.
An overlap or a cold lap is obtained when melted metal flow over but do not fuse with the
sheet. Instead a horizontal crack is created. When the weld is loaded the crack starts to turn
vertically down into the material. To model this the equation
3K 2 + K K 2 + 8K 2
= arccos II I I II (6.1)
K I + 9K II
2 2

[21] is used. The equation describes the kink angle the crack will grow with. Equation (6.1)
combines the stress intensity factors in mode I and II ( K I and K II ) to calculate the angle.
Step 1
Starting condition is that the crack, or the overlap, is horizontal (see Figure 6.3).
overlap
initial crack
Figure 6.3. The horizontal initial crack.
First the stress intensity factors are calculated for the initial crack (they become almost equal
in mode I and II). The stress intensity factors are then used in Equation (6.1) to calculate the
angle, at which the crack will continue to grow. In this case the angle becomes 1 = 54 .
Step 2
The FE-model is rebuilt and the crack is chosen to become 0.1 mm longer in the 1 = 54 .
The increment of the crack does not follow any given equation but is chosen freely. The
model now looks like in Figure 6.4.
overlap
1 = 54
crack tip
Figure 6.4. The crack has turned down into the sheet.
The stress intensity factors are once again calculated. Now K I becomes approximately
twice the size of K II , because the crack is loaded more in mode I now. If these values are
inserted into Equation (6.1) the angle becomes 2 = 36 . This means that the crack has now
turned tot = 1 + 2 = 54 36 = 90 , i.e. it is now moving vertically down. The crack is

once again set to grow with an increment of 0.1 mm (this time vertically, see Figure 6.5).
Then a general macro can take care of the remaining calculations of the crack growth. The
stress intensity factors for mode I and II are calculated and combined using Equation (6.1).
The life is then integrated, but this time the overlap is taken into account when calculation the
life.
overlap
1 = 54
2 = 36
crack tip
Figure 6.5. The crack has turned 90 and is now propagating vertically.

Results show a longer life for an overlap/coldlap than for classes B and C where no overlap is
allowed. This probably depends on the fact that the crack does not grow vertically from the
start, and it thus takes longer time for the crack to reach half the thickness.
However, overlaps may lead to cracks which are not visible to the human eye. They can only
be detected by for example ultrasound or x-ray. It is also difficult to know how much of the
overlap that actually lacks fusion. Therefore overlaps are hazardous to deal with and
acceptance limits should be restrictive. The safest solution is of course not allowing any
overlap at all, but that may be unnecessarily restrictive. Possibly, overlaps could be prohibited
for fatigue loaded joints (additional designation U in the Volvo standard).
More studies ought to be conducted on the modelling and computation of overlaps. In this
case the increment of the crack was set to 0.1 mm. For example, the influence of the
increment length should be evaluated, but that is not within the scope of this study.
ISO5817 Case 1.13 D

Overlap
h 0.2b
h = 2 mm, b = 10 mm
h = initial crack = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 2.63 10 6 cycles

N f = 132% of 2 10 6 cycles
h = initial crack

40 8
30 6
Keff [MPa (m)]
acrack [mm]
20 4
10 2
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.14

Sagging / Incompletely filled groove

D C B
Smooth transition required Smooth transition required Smooth transition required
h 0.25t but max. 2 mm h 0.1t but max. 1 mm h 0.05t but max. 0.5 mm

60%
B
50%
40%
30%
C
20%
10% D
0% 1

All welding classes have been modelled as a notch, with a transition radius of 1 mm. The
same model is used in Case 1.17.
As can be seen the amount of missing material in the weld has huge impact on the fatigue life.
Much of the life lies within the first tenths of one millimetre of the crack growth.
This case very well demonstrates influence of the acceptance limits on the fatigue properties.
ISO5817 Case 1.14 B

Sagging, incomplete filled groove
Smooth transition required
h 0.05t but max. 0.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.98 10 6 cycles

N f = 49% of 2 10 6 cycles

R1
initial crack

50 6
5
40
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20
2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.14 C

h 0.1t but max. 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.45 106 cycles


R1
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.14 D

h 0.25t but max. 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.13 10 6 cycles


R1
initial crack

100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.16

Excessive asymmetry of fillet weld
(excessive unequal leg length)

D C B
h 2 mm + 0.2a h 2 mm + 0.15a h 1.5 mm + 0.15a

40%
B C D
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

The crack has in all welding classes been placed at the steepest transition. No class has been
modelled with a transition radius, since there is no requirement of a smooth transition.
As can be seen there are nearly no differences in the results. There is neither any larger
difference between class B and D, welding class B has 2.25 mm as acceptance limit, while D
has 3 mm. Compared to the life of a model with no leg deviation (IIW Case 413 without
misalignment), which has a life of 38% of 2 million cycles, the difference is negligible.
The results above compared to the case with correct legs shows that leg deviation does not
have a major impact on the fatigue life. From this point of view the case could be removed
from the standard.
ISO5817 Case 1.16 B

Excessive asymmetric of fillet weld (excessive
unequal leg length) h 1.5 mm + 0.15a
h = 2.25 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.72 10 6 cycles

N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack
40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.16 C

unequal leg length) h 2 mm + 0.15a
h = 2.75 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.72 10 6 cycles

N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm]
N [-] x 10
5
ISO5817 Case 1.16 D

unequal leg length) h 2 mm + 0.2a
h = 3 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.72 10 6 cycles

N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10

Root concavity

D C B
required. Short required. Short required. Short
imperfections: imperfections: imperfections:
h 0.2t, but max. 2 mm h 0.1t, but max. 1 mm h 0.05t, but max. 0.5 mm

60%
B
50%
40%
30%
C
20%
10% D
0% 1

All welding classes have been modelled with a notch with a transition radius of 1 mm. The
same model is used in Case 1.14.
As can be seen the amount of missing material in the weld has a huge impact on the fatigue
life. Much of the life lies within the first tenths of one millimetres of the crack growth.
This case very well demonstrates fatigue properties of the acceptance limits.
ISO5817 Case 1.17 B

Root concavity
Smooth transition is required. Short imperfections:
h 0.05t, but max. 0.5 mm
N = 0.98 10 6 cycles

N f = 49% of 2 10 6 cycles

R1
initial crack
50 6
40 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20
2
10
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
acrack [mm] 0 2 4 6 8 10
N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.17 C

Root concavity
h 0.1t, but max. 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.45 106 cycles


R1
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.17 D

Root concavity
N = 0.13 10 6 cycles


R1
initial crack

100 6
5
80
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
60
3
40
2
20
1
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.20

Insufficient throat thickness

D C B
Short imperfections: Short imperfections: Not permitted
h 0.3 mm + 0.1a, but h 0.3 mm + 0.1a, but
max. 2 mm max. 1 mm

45%
40% B
35%
30%
C D
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

With a throat of 5 mm the acceptance limits for welding class C and D become the same, i.e.
0.8 mm. Class B is the same as IIW Case 413 without any transition radius.
In this case it could be recommended to review the requirements for welding class C and D.
The throat has to be more than 7 mm if there should be any difference between the acceptance
limit for C and D. Not many applications have throats greater than 7 mm. It is reasonable that
there should be a difference between class C and D for sensible throat thicknesses.
Other conclusions are essentially the same as for STD5605,51 Case 22; the limits could be
relaxed to some extent, but the risks with a smaller throat should be considered. (See Case 22
for further discussion.)
ISO5817 Case 1.20 B

Not permitted
N = 0.76 10 6 cycles

N f = 38% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.20 C and D

Short imperfections:
h 0.3 mm + 0.1a, but max. 2 mm
h = 0.8 mm
N = 0.51 10 6 cycles

N f = 25% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.21

Excessive throat thickness

D C B
Unlimited. h 1 mm + 0.2a, but max. h 1 mm + 0.15a, but
4 mm max. 3 mm
h = 2 mm h = 1.75 mm
- 1.59 106 cycles 1.48 106 cycles

90%
C
80% B
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

This case is modelled without any transition radii. The throat has been changed to correspond
to the acceptance limits.
As expected the life is increased when the throat is increased, since the throat is transmitting
the load through the sheet metals.
Excessive throat thickness may at first sight appear only positive, but if the throat is increased
in one part of the construction, the stress distribution might change and other welds in the
structure may fail instead. This could lead to shorter life for the overall construction. For
example, it might be favourable that one part of the construction fails first in order to reduce
the damages. If there is an excessive throat thickness in that part of the construction, another,
more vital, part of the structure may fail first, causing a worse scenario with larger damages.
Furthermore, it is not economical to make thicker welds than necessary. Because of this, a
general limit for excessive throat thickness (1 mm for example) is recommended to be
introduced.
ISO5817 Case 1.21 B

h 1 mm + 0.15a, but max. 3 mm
h = 1.75 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 1.48 10 6 cycles

N f = 74% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 1.21 C

h 1 mm + 0.2a, but max. 4 mm
h = 2 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 1.59 10 6 cycles

N f = 80% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
acrack [mm] N [-] 6
x 10
ISO5817 Case 2.12

Lack of fusion (incomplete fusion)
- Lack of side wall fusion

D C B
Short imperfections Not permitted Not permitted
permitted, but not breaking
of the surface
h 0.4s, but max. 4 mm
h = 4 mm, s = 10 mm

90%
B C
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% D
0% 1

Classes B and C are the same as IIW Case 213 but without the transition radius since lack of
fusion is not permitted. Therefore, classes B and C have been modelled as a crack growing at
the transition between the excessive weld and the sheet metal.
Class D has been modelled as an internal crack in the material. It has been set to grow equally
in both directions for each cycle and the life has been integrated from 4 mm to 5 mm.
It is not obvious in the standard how the defect is to be modelled. At first glance it looks like a
crack from the surface and deep down into the material. However, the case has been
interpreted as an internal crack since breaking of the surface is not permitted.
This case is principally the same as for STD5605,51 cases 25/26/27. The crack is placed in
the middle of the sheet metal i.e., symmetrically extended around the centre line. However,
in the STD5605,51 standard many of the cases require a finite depth of the crack. Therefore
an analytical case has been used for finite depths.
Further, a model with the crack displaced towards one side would probably lead to a worse
case, as the crack then reaches the surface much faster.
This geometry is also the same as in Case 2.13, lack of penetration, with the exception of the
crack there being placed straight below the weld reinforcement instead of beside it. It is
remarkable that the acceptance limit is 4 mm for Case 2.12, while it is only 2 mm for Case
2.13, when the defects in Case 2.12 and 2.13 (butt weld) are very similar.
The disadvantage with internal cracks is that they cannot be detected with the eye, but instead
other methods, for example ultrasound, are needed. There is a great risk of fracture before the
crack is detected, and even if detected, it is harder to repair the crack. Cracks from the surface
are more easily detected and can be repaired before they lead to fracture.
Since internal cracks are not favourable, it is not recommended to set new acceptance limits
without further investigation.
ISO5817 Case 2.12 D

Lack of fusion (incomplete fusion)
Short imperfections permitted, but not breaking of the surface
h 0.4s, but max. 4 mm
h = 2 mm, s = 10 mm
initial crack = 4 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.11 10 6 cycles

initial crack

10
30
25 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
2acrack [mm]
20 6
15
4
10
2
5
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
x 10

Lack of penetration

D C B
permitted
h 0.2a, but max. 2 mm
h = 1 mm
6 6 6
40%
B C
35%
30%
25%
20%
D
15%
10%
5%
0% 1

Welding class D has been modelled with a small triangle of lacking material at the root of the
weld. Imperfections are not permitted for classes B and C, these classes have been modelled
as IIW Case 413 without any transition radius. In this case the crack is set to grow from the
root.
In welding class D, the initial crack is pointing in vertical direction from the top corner of the
small triangle of lacking penetration, see Figure 6.6. In class B and C the crack grows from
one end of the slit between the two sheets, which have not been fused.
initial crack
slit
Figure 6.6. Placement of the initial crack in welding class D
The crack growth direction is calculated with the equation

3K 2 + K K 2 + 8 K 2
= arccos II I I II (6.1)
K I2 + 9 K II2

[21] which has previously been used in Case 1.13. However, one problem arises; the Equation
(6.1) can only turn in one direction because K I is always greater than zero in this case. The
x
reason why K I > 0 is that the crack is never closed and further, 0 arccos 180 . The
r
crack strives to be loaded solely in mode I and the problem is that Equation (6.1) is unstable if
the crack turns too much. For example, if the value = 5.6 is received and is rounded
down to = 6 , then K II might grow more than K I , resulting in a greater change of angle
for the next step. In the end this leads to an unrealistic result. This proves to be the case when
Equation (6.1) is used for several steps in the crack growth process. After a few steps the
crack has turned almost parallel to the horizontal tension. This is unrealistic and therefore the
process is stopped. In order to overcome this problem, Equation (6.1) is used as long as the
angle is decreasing with each step. When a calculation results in greater change in angle than
the previously calculated angle, the process is stopped, and the crack is assumed to continue
growing in the direction of previously calculated angle until half of the throat has been
reached.
The crack is set to grow with an increment of 0.1 mm for the first steps. In the first step the
crack makes a turn of about 20. In the second step the turning angle has decreased to about 0-
5, and in the following step the angle starts to grow again. The process is stopped at the
second step, see Figure 6.7.
Step 2
Path after Step 2
Step 1
slit
Desired path according

to Equation (6.1)
Figure 6.7. Step 1 and 2 which lead to the final crack growth direction.
As can be seen in Figure 6.7 the desired crack growth direction from Equation 6.1 is
unrealistic.
Other ways of modelling this case should be tested before drawing any extensive conclusions.
There are other equations for predicting the crack path. Possibly there are equations that can
correct the crack path if it is turning too much. Due to lack of time no further investigations
will be carried out in this thesis work.
Since the fatigue life is less than half in welding class D compared to B/C one can draw the
conclusion that lack of penetration have a large impact on the results.
The question, whether or not the crack should grow from the root, is once again brought up.
As said before, root cracks are not favourable since they are hard to discover before failure.
ISO5817 Case 2.13 B and C

Lack of penetration
Not permitted
initial crack is the slit between the sheets
N = 0.71 10 6 cycles

N f = 36% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

12 3
10 2.5
Keff [MPa (m)]
8 2
acrack [mm]
6 1.5
4 1
2 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 2 4 6 8
5
ISO5817 Case 2.13 D

Lack of penetration
Short imperfections permitted
h 0.2a, but max. 2 mm
h = 1 mm
nom = 82 MPa
N = 0.29 10 6 cycles

N f = 14% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

15 3
2.5
Keff [MPa (m)]
10 2
acrack [mm]
1.5
5 1
0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10

Lack of penetration

D C B
permitted
6 6 6
90%
B C
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
D
30%
20%
10%
0% 1

Class D has been modelled as an internal crack in the material. It has been set to grow equally
in both directions for each cycle and the life has been integrated from 2 mm to 5 mm.
Since the lack of penetration is not allowed for welding classes B and C, these cases have
been modelled with STD5605,51 Case 6 A. This implies a surface crack growing at the
transition between the excessive weld and the sheet metal.
In this case the internal crack has considerably shorter life than a surface crack
The disadvantage with internal cracks is that they cannot be detected with the eye, but instead
need other methods for detection. For example, ultrasound or x-ray could be used. There is a
great risk of fracture before detection of the crack, and even if detected, it is harder to repair
the crack. Cracks from the surface are more easily detected and can be repaired before they
cause fracture.
As long as methods to evaluate internal cracks are not frequently used in weld auditing,
acceptance limits for internal defects are of little use since they cannot be measured. It is
recommended to remove internal defects from the fatigue part of a new standard until they
have been investigated more carefully.
ISO5817 Case 2.13 D

Lack of penetration
Short imperfections permitted
h = initial crack = 2 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.61 10 6 cycles

N f = 31% of 2 10 6 cycles
h = initial crack

10
30
25 8
Keff [MPa (m)]
2acrack [mm]
20 6
15
4
10
2
5
0 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 4 6 8
2acrack [mm] N [-] x 10
5
ISO5817 Case 3.1

Linear misalignment, double-
sided welding

D C B
h 0.25t, but max. 5 mm h 0.15t, but max. 4 mm h 0.1t, but max. 3 mm

35%
B
30%
25%
20%
C
15%
10%
D
5%
0% 1

Comments on modelling are referred to STD5605,51 Case 14.
Conclusions in general are referred to STD5605,51 Case 14.
A slight difference between the ISO and Volvo standards, is that in ISO5817 the acceptance
limits for one-sided and double-sided welding are the same for all welding classes. In
STD5605,51, the limits are tighter for one-sided welding in some classes. Strictly
geometrically the cases are principally the same, implying that the acceptance limits ought to
be the same in both cases. However there could be other considerations, for example a higher
risk of lack of penetration in one-sided welds.
ISO5817 Case 3.1 B

Linear misalignment, double-sided
welding h 0.1t, but max. 3 mm
h = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.60 10 6 cycles

N f = 30% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.1 C

h = 1.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.32 10 6 cycles

N f = 16% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.1 D

h = 2.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.12 10 6 cycles

initial crack

80 6
5
60
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
40 3
2
20
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.1

Linear misalignment, one-
sided welding

D C B
h 0.25t, but max. 5 mm h 0.15t, but max. 4 mm h 0.1t, but max. 3 mm

35%
B
30%
25%
20%
C
15%
10%
D
5%
0% 1

Comments on modelling are referred to STD5605,51 Case 13.
Conclusions in general are referred to STD5605,51 Case 13.
A slight difference between the ISO and Volvo standards, is that in ISO5817 the acceptance
limits for one-sided and double-sided welding are the same for all welding classes. In
STD5605,51, the limits are tighter for one-sided welding in some classes. Strictly
geometrically the cases are principally the same, implying that the acceptance limits ought to
be the same in both cases. However there could be other considerations, for example a higher
risk of lack of penetration in one-sided welds.
ISO5817 Case 3.1 B

Linear misalignment, one-sided
h = 1 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.60 10 6 cycles

N f = 30% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa(m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.1 C

h = 1.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.32 10 6 cycles

N f = 16% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

60 6
50 5
Keff [MPa (m)]
40 4
acrack [mm]
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.1 D

h = 2.5 mm
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.12 10 6 cycles

initial crack

80 6
5
60
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
40 3
2
20
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 4
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.2

Angular misalignment

D C B
4 2 1

60%
B
50%
C
40%
30% D
20%
10%
0% 1

Two different ways of modelling this case have been tested. In the first the initial crack was
placed on the right side of the weld reinforcement (Figure 6.8) and in the second, the crack
was placed on the left side (Figure 6.9). The two different ways of placing the crack was
tested for welding class D and gave totally different results. When the crack was placed on the
left side 1.31 106 cycles was achieved. The crack on the right side resulted in a fatigue life of
0.56 106 cycles i.e., less than half of the number of cycles. The reason why there was such a
huge difference can be seen in Figure 6.8 and 6.9.
high bending stress
initial crack
Figure 6.8. The initial crack on the right side.

high bending stress
initial crack
Figure 6.9. The initial crack on the left side.
The angular misalignment results in bending stresses at the fixed right side of the structure.
These bending stresses decline towards the left end of the structure in Figure 6.8 and 6.9. This
results in higher stresses if the crack is placed on the right side of the weld reinforcement,
which further leads to higher stress intensity factors and a shorter life.
Neither of the ways of modelling this case is wrong - it depends on the situation in real life.
Here, the worst case i.e., the initial crack on the right side is chosen when modelling the rest
of the classes.
From a fatigue point of view, the acceptance limits for classes C and D could probably be
relaxed to some extent. However, an angular misalignment of 4 degrees (current class D) or
even more would be devastating for the overall structure for many designs. This is why
fatigue considerations might not be limiting. There are no particular recommendations for this
case.
ISO5817 Case 3.2 B

1
nom = 104 MPa
N = 1.03 10 6 cycles

N f = 52% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

40 6
5
30
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
20 3
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.2 C

2
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.83 10 6 cycles

N f = 42% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

50 6
5
40
Keff [MPa(m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
ISO5817 Case 3.2 D

4
nom = 104 MPa
N = 0.56 10 6 cycles

N f = 28% of 2 10 6 cycles
initial crack

50 6
5
40
Keff [MPa (m)]
4
acrack [mm]
30
3
20
2
10
1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
acrack [mm] N [-] 5
x 10
7 Study of sheet thickness dependence 221
7 Study of sheet thickness dependence

This chapter contains a study of different sheet thicknesses for undercut on a fillet weld. Since
only one sheet thickness has been used in all previous calculations, it was decided to
investigate the overall impact of different thicknesses. In order to further extend this study,
also the influence of a bending moment was investigated.
7.1 Introduction
The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the sheet thickness on the fatigue life. The
study is performed on a range of thicknesses from 5 to 40 mm for one particular case in
STD5605,51; Case 20, undercut (fillet weld).
An important objective is to review the applicability of the 10 mm results on other sheet
thicknesses. As the thickness 10 mm is used throughout the whole work, it is very important
to know to what extent these results are valid for other thicknesses, which factors that affect
this, and how they can be considered.
Along with variation in thickness, also the throat thickness was varied. This was done so that
the ratio between the throat thickness and the sheet thickness was 0.5, i.e., a t = 0.5 . The
same ratio has previously been used for all cases in both standards investigated. However, this
leads to an unrealistic throat thickness for the thicker sheets. For example, the throat is 20 mm
for a 40 mm thick sheet.
In order to examine how the fatigue life is affected by other loads than tension (worst case),
also a bending stress is investigated.
7.2 Studied geometry - STD5605,51 Case 20
The parameter study is conducted on Case 20 in the STD5605,51 standard. Case 20 is a
cruciform joint with an undercut (see Figure 7.1).
t notch
Figure 7.1. Cruciform joint subjected to tension.

Two types of load conditions are tested; one with uniaxial tension (see Figure 7.1) and one
with a bending moment applied on both ends (see Figure 7.2). In both cases the same
boundary conditions are applied, see Figure 7.1 and 7.2.
t notch
Figure 7.2. Cruciform joint subjected to bending.
The maximum stress at bending, as well as the stress at pure tension, is the same as the FAT-
value for the corresponding Case 413 in IIW [6], i.e., = 82 MPa.
7.2.1 Requirements
According to the STD5605,51 standard, the requirements according to Table 7.1 apply to
undercuts for cruciform joints,.
Table 7.1. Requirements for Case 20 in STD5605,51.

D C B A
Locally A 0.2t, but Locally A 0.1t, but Locally A 0.05t, but Not permitted
max. 2 mm max. 1 mm max. 0.5 mm.
l 25 mm
Note that the maximum value in classes C, D and B are reached already for a thickness of 10
mm. This means that for t > 10 mm, the relative measure of the acceptance limit decreases
with increasing thickness.
7.3 Modelling
The undercut is modelled differently depending on the welding class. In Figure 7.3 the notch
area in Figure 7.1 and 7.2 is described for each welding class.
Since undercut is not permitted for welding class A, this class has been modelled with an
initial crack of 0.1 mm at the transition radius. According to the standard, welding class A
should have a transition radius of 4 mm. The initial crack has been inserted at the place where
the stress concentration has its maximum. This means that the initial crack has been inserted
at different places depending on if the structure is subjected to bending or tension.
A B C
R4 R1 R1
A
initial crack initial crack A = initial crack
CU D DU
R1 R1 R1
A A
initial crack A = initial crack initial crack
Figure 7.3. Modelling of the undercut for each welding class.
Classes B, CU, and DU have been modelled as a notch with the transition radius 1 mm. The
depth of the notch is the acceptance limit A minus the initial crack length of 0.1 mm.
Classes C and D have been modelled the same way, i.e. with an initial crack starting after the
end of the transition radius. The accepted measure A has served as the length of the initial
crack.
The reaction forces at the supports are checked for each model and type of boundary
conditions. Results show that the reaction forces are very small, below 1 10 5 N, and can
therefore be neglected.
The same model is used both during bending and tension.

7.3.1 Dimensions
Six different thicknesses are tested: 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 40 mm. Each thickness and each
welding class has been subjected to both tension and bending, resulting in 72 different
simulations.
The throat thickness is always half of the sheet thickness. (This is in fact not fully appropriate
for thicker plates, where weld preparation is often used resulting in other throat thicknesses.)
7.4 Influence of sheet length
The distance h between the edges (see Figure 7.1 and 7.2) is 100 mm for the thicknesses 5,
10, 15 and 20 mm. For the thicknesses 30 and 40 mm it is not possible to use this distance,
since the weld toe ends up close to or outside the edge of the sheet. In these cases the ends of
the sheets were prolonged to give a distance of 25 mm from weld toe to the end of the sheet.
The models represent only a small section around the weld joint. Since the applied load is
uniform over the cross-section at the end of the sheet, the distance between the weld toe and
the sheet end may have considerable effect on the results. Therefore it is of interest to
investigate how long the horizontal sheets in the model have to be, not to affect the results.
I.e., the same stress distribution through the joint should be obtained, as if the load was
applied far away from the joint.
A special study of this was carried out for the thickness t = 30 mm, welding class DU, for
both bending and tension. Sheet lengths giving distances between 5 mm and 125 mm from
weld toe to sheet end were tested. The results are plotted in Figure 7.4 and 7.5.
Keff (a) for different distances from edge to weld, for bending
3500
5 mm
10 mm
3000
15 mm
125 mm
2500
Keff [MPa(mm)]
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15
Crack length, a, [mm]
Figure 7.4. Stress intensity factor as a function of crack length for different sheet thicknesses
(bending).
The results show that the length of the horizontal sheet has a negligible influence on the stress
intensity factors when the distance is 25 mm or more from the weld toe. However, it can be
seen that the length of the horizontal sheet has an influence on the stress intensity factors for
distances up to around 20 to 25 mm at bending.
Keff (a) for different distances from edge to weld, for tension
6000
5 mm
10 mm
5000 15 mm
125 mm
4000
Keff [MPa (mm)]
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15
Crack length, a, [mm]
Figure 7.5. Stress intensity factor as a function of crack length for different sheet lengths
(tension).
The results at tension are similar to the results at bending. The sheet length affects the stress
concentration at the crack tip when the distance from weld to end is less than approximately
25 mm. However the differences for small cracks are negligible. Only at a crack depth of
about 0.5 mm significant differences appear. Because of the small differences in stress
intensity factor for small cracks, the differences in life are quite modest compared to the
bending case. Thus it, would not have any large influence if the sheets were modelled a bit
too short.
The conclusion of the sheet length study is that the modelled sheet lengths, giving a distance
of 25 mm or more between weld toe and sheet end, are sufficient for both bending and
tension. (As mentioned above, models with thicknesses 30 and 40 mm have been prolonged to
obtain a distance of 25 mm from weld to sheet end. The 20 mm thickness model has a
distance of approximately 26 mm from weld to end, and thinner sheets will have even longer
distances.)
It should be noticed that the case reviewed is welding class DU, which has the largest defect.
Thus it is most probably the case that demands the longest sheets to give correct results.
Smaller defects may not demand these sheet lengths.
Another conclusion is that the modelled sheet length used in the entire report - 100 mm from
end to end, giving a distance of 38 mm from weld to end - is by far on the safe side.
7.5 Results
The results of the parameter study are presented in Table 7.2-3 and Figure 7.6-11 below.
Table 7.2. Fatigue life [106 cycles]; bending.
Welding Sheet thickness [mm]

class 5 10 15 20 30 40
A 6.52 6.10 5.24 4.57 3.80 3.26
B 4.32 3.07 2.99 2.85 2.57 2.30
C 2.46 1.79 1.94 1.95 1.87 1.75
CU 2.67 1.92 2.09 2.11 2.02 1.86
D 1.09 0.80 1.13 1.27 1.36 1.34
DU 1.02 0.87 1.20 1.35 1.44 1.39
Table 7.3. Fatigue life [106 cycles]; tension.
Welding Sheet thickness [mm]

class 5 10 15 20 30 40
A 2.59 1.47 1.15 0.94 0.73 0.60
B 1.64 0.91 0.78 0.69 0.56 0.48
C 0.55 0.34 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.32
CU 0.97 0.54 0.54 0.51 0.44 0.39
D 0.21 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.24
DU 0.34 0.20 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.29
Fatigue life as a function of thickness - welding class A
Bending
6 Tension
5
Number of cycles x 106 [-]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sheet metal thickness [mm]
Figure 7.6. Results for welding class A.
Fatigue life as a function of thickness - welding class B

4.5
Bending
Tension
4
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 7.7. Results for welding class B.

Fatigue life as a function of thickness - welding class C
Bending
2.5 Tension
Number of cycles x 106 [-] 2
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 7.8. Results for welding class C.

Fatigue life as a function of thickness - welding class D
1.6 Bending
Tension
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 7.9. Results for welding class D.

Fatigue life as a function of thickness - welding class CU
Bending
Tension
2.5

2
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 7.10. Results for welding class CU.
Fatigue life as a function of thickness - welding class DU
Bending
1.6
Tension
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 7.11. Results for welding class DU.

7.6 Comments on the results

This section focuses on the results for tension, as this is the same load case that is used in the
rest of the report. The factors affecting the results are discussed below. The results for
bending are generally similar to the tension results, but deviate in some aspects. This is
discussed at the end of this section.
Results for all welding classes are plotted in Figure 7.12 and 7.13 for the tension and bending
cases respectively.
Life as function of sheet thickness (tension)
3,0
2,5
A
Life [1e6 cycles]
2,0 B
C
1,5
CU
1,0 D
DU
0,5
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Thickness [mm]
Figure 7.12. Results for tension, all welding classes.
Life as function of sheet thickness (bending)
7,0
6,0
A
5,0
Life [1e6 cycles]
B
4,0 C
3,0 CU
D
2,0 DU
1,0
0,0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Thickness [mm]
Figure 7.13. Results for bending, all welding classes.

7.6.1 The thickness effect

The thickness effect, primarily depending on the higher stress gradient in the crack growth
direction for thicker sheets, is the reason for the general downward slope of the life curve
towards larger thicknesses. (In some classes, especially D/DU, this effect is only vaguely
visible.) The effect can be estimated with handbook equations.
The thickness effect is particularly apparent in welding class A, with no defect allowed, were
the effect can clearly be seen. For the other classes, other factors are superimposed on the
thickness effect, making it harder to evaluate.
See the last section of this chapter for further theory, calculations, and discussion on the
thickness effect.
7.6.2 Effect of absolute acceptance limits
In the current case, STD5605,51 Case 20, as in many other cases, there is an absolute
maximum value of the defect size. In this case the acceptance limits imply that the defect
depth is the same for all sheets with t 10 mm (see Table 7.1 above).
This means that for thicknesses below 10 mm the defect is proportional to the thickness, but
for thicknesses of 10 to 40 mm the defect is identical for all, i.e., the defect is relatively
smaller for larger thicknesses.
As an effect of this, the life curve decreases considerably from 5 to 10 mm due to the
thickness effect. It then makes a sharp turn for thicknesses over 10 mm.
This phenomenon is visible for classes with large allowable defects. The effect actually
overrides the thickness effect, especially for thicknesses 10 to 20 mm, resulting in increasing
life for thicker sheets.
The reason for this is obvious. In, for example, welding class D, a maximum undercut of 2
mm is allowed. Thus, for a 10 mm thick sheet, the crack has to grow 3 mm - from 2 mm to 5
mm (half the thickness) while it in a 15 or 20 mm thick sheet the crack has to grow 5.5 or 8,
mm respectively. This increases the number of cycles for crack growth more than the
thickness effect decreases it.
7.6.3 Sheet length
The modelling of the sheets was initially suspected to have substantial effect on the results.
However, as described earlier, the sheet lengths have been proven sufficient. For both bending
and tension, there has to be a minimum distance of about 20 to 25 mm between the weld toe
and the sheet end in order not to affect the results. This is fulfilled for all models.
It should be noticed, though, that it is always important to model sufficiently long sheets.
7.6.4 The bending case
Generally, the results for bending and tension are similar. The interaction between the
thickness effect and the absolute acceptance limits is the same. The lives are substantially
longer for the bending case, since in that case the stress decreases with the depth.
An interesting result is that the additional designation U has less effect for bending than for
tension. This is due to the different stress distributions. For bending, the effect of the U
requirement is almost negligible, while it for thin sheets in tension almost doubles the life.
Another remarkable result is the small difference in life between 5 and 10 mm for class A.
Since theses cases could be expected to give results in accordance with the thickness effect,
the 5 mm sheet should have considerably longer life. There is no obvious explanation for this.
The magnitude of the thickness dependence at bending should be further investigated, but this
is not done in this report. However, the thickness effect, judging from the 5 and 10 mm
results, seems to be somewhat smaller for bending than for tension.
7.7 Conclusions
An important objective of the thickness study was to investigate the applicability of the results
from 10 mm sheets on other thicknesses. Since the thickness 10 mm is used throughout the in
this work, it is very important to know to what extent these results are valid for other
thicknesses.
The main conclusion is that it is necessary to be cautious when applying a result to another
thickness. The two counteracting effects described above makes the thickness dependence
look different from case to case.
Under certain circumstances it is possible to quantify the thickness effect. This, however,
requires that thicknesses have proportional geometrical properties. For example, if two
models with different thicknesses have a defect of the same depth, this will distort the result
of the thickness effect.
Handbook rules seem to be useful for calculating the thickness effect. Though, before using
such, the choice of method and parameter settings should be further investigated. (In this case,
tref = 15 mm and n = 0.25 in Equation 9.1 appear to give reliable results for class A.)
Due to the absolute acceptance limits for many defect types, it is often difficult to generalize
the results to larger thicknesses. As the results in this parameter study show, the life for
thicknesses 15 and 20 mm is often longer than that for 10 mm. However, this totally depends
on the combination of defect type and acceptance limits, and varies from case to case.
7.8 Theory and calculations on the thickness effect
The thickness effect is a combination of three factors a statistic factor, a technological factor
and a geometrical factor [5]. The first two are not considered in this study.
The statistic effect is due to the higher probability of a defect in a larger volume (i.e. in a
thicker sheet). The technological effect depends on thicker sheets having lower strength than
sheets of the same material that has been mechanically machined (forged, rolled) to a thinner
thickness. Finally, the geometrical effect depends on a higher stress gradient in the crack
growth direction for larger thicknesses [5].
In this study, the material in the models is ideal (homogenous and identical for all
thicknesses) implying that the first two factors have no effect. The geometrical effect, though,
is a natural consequence of the modelled geometry. This effect is one important explanation
to the results in the parameter study.
When considering the thickness effect in real-life fatigue life calculations, a thickness factor
t for the allowed stress range can be used:
n
t
t = ref (7.1)
t
In Equation 7.1 t is the thickness, while the parameters tref (reference thickness) and n are
obtained from some suitable handbook. Different standards use the thickness factor
differently. For example, in the IIW recommendations it is used only to reduce the allowed
stress range for sheet thicknesses larger than tref, while in BSK 99 [8] it is used in the opposite
way, i.e., to increase allowed stress for thinner sheets (tref = 25 mm in both standards). A
thickness factor can also be used for both thinner and thicker plates (see below).
It should be noticed that this applies to toe cracks, when the crack propagates through the
sheet. For cracks through the weld (root cracks), the thickness effect is less investigated, but it
is probably smaller (partly because there is no technological effect) [5].
In [5] is given one example of a method to calculate the thickness factor. It can be used for
sheets both thinner and thicker than the reference thickness t ref , which for this method is 15
mm. For fillet welds the exponent n is recommended to be 0.15 for 4 < t 15 mm and 0.25
for t > 15 mm.
The thickness factor, intended for increasing the allowed stress range, can also be used to
calculate a longer life for the original stress range. If the thickness factor t is multiplied with
the allowed stress range, the same life as for the reference thickness is obtained. But the life is
inversely proportional to the third power of the stress, and thus (for identical stress) the factor
in life is 3t . The thickness factors and the life factors (compared to t ref = 15 mm), for the
thicknesses used in this parameter study are listed in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4. Thickness factor t (see Equation 7.1) and life factor as the function 3t .
Life factor
t n t (= t 3)
5 mm 0.15 1.18 1.64
10 mm 0.15 1.06 1.20
15 mm 0.15 1.00 1.00
20 mm 0.25 0.93 0.81
30 mm 0.25 0.84 0.59
40 mm 0.25 0.78 0.48
The life factor for each thickness compared to tref = 15 mm, as obtained from the results in
this parameter study, are shown in Table 7.5 for all welding classes. These factors are also
plotted in Figure 7.14.
Table 7.5. Normalized life factors computed from the results in the parameter study.
Life factor for welding class Theoretical value

Thickness A B C CU D DU from Table 7.4
5 mm 2.25 2.10 1.50 1.81 1.04 1.24 1.64
10 mm 1.28 1.16 0.93 1.00 0.68 0.72 1.20
15 mm 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
20 mm 0.82 0.88 0.99 0.94 1.14 1.09 0.81
30 mm 0.63 0.72 0.93 0.83 1.23 1.11 0.59
40 mm 0.53 0.61 0.87 0.73 1.22 1.04 0.48
Fatigue life as function of thickness (tension)
2,5
A
2
B
Normality
1,5 C
CU
1 D
DU
0,5
Theoretical
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Thickness [mm]
Figure 7.14. Plot of results from table 7.5.
As can be seen in Figure 7.14 and Table 7.5, the life factors in a few cases correlate very well
to the values obtained by computing backwards from the design recommendations. This is
the case especially for thick sheets in welding class A. This is expected, since A is the ideal
case without defect and therefore has the expected stress gradient causing the thickness effect.
In other cases the defects may modify the stress distribution, possibly affecting the magnitude
of the thickness effect. Furthermore, as discussed above, the effect of the absolute acceptance
limits for t 10 mm has a very large impact on the lives in some cases.
The deviation for thinner sheets in class A suggests that the value of n might be slightly
incorrect (or maybe just conservative, in order to be on the safe side). If n = 0.25 is used also
for 4 < t 15 mm, the thickness factors will give life factors that correlate well to the results
obtained from the parameter study.
An interesting observation is that the ratio in life between thicknesses 5 and 10 mm is

approximately the same for all welding classes, i.e. for the whole range of defect sizes (0-0.2
t). Since the defect is proportional to the thickness for thicknesses 5 and 10 mm, this implies
that for the thickness effect calculation to be valid, the whole geometry should be scaled by
the same factor as the thickness.
It can also be noted that the results correlate well with the handbook rule, despite the fact that
the statistical and technological effects, dealing with material properties, are not considered.
This may be interpreted as these two factors having little influence, and thus the geometrical
factor playing the major role in the thickness effect. However, this limited study does not
support any extensive conclusions on this.
8 Conclusions and discussion 237
8 Conclusions and discussion

This chapter contains the conclusions of the thesis work, both general and specific for each
standard. Proposals for revising the standards are presented as well as detailed
recommendations for each standard. The chapter is completed with proposals for further
work.
8.1 Conclusions
The main conclusions on the studied welding standards are the following:
Today, both STD5605,51 and ISO5817 show large scatter in the results and there is no
general relationship between the acceptance limits and the fatigue life.
It would be possible, however not easy, to create a general standard.
In addition, a few general conclusions can be drawn:

The angle between weld and sheet does not have any significant influence on the fatigue
life.
Internal defects ought to be excluded from a general standard.
Arbitrary denotations, for example locally permitted, smooth transition etc. should be
avoided and replaced by numbers.
These conclusions are thoroughly discussed in the following section. After this, a few
proposals for revising the standards are presented, followed by discussions and
recommendations for each standard based on the proposals.
8.2 General discussion

A remarkable discovery was made concerning fatigue life of cracks in corners with a
transition angle between the sheet and the weld, see Figure 8.1.
initial crack
Figure 8.1. The transition angle between weld and sheet.
In Case 1.12, incorrect weld toe, in the ISO5817 standard the acceptance limit is defined as an
angle between the sheet and the weld. For transverse butt welds there is almost no difference
in fatigue life for angles (see Figure 8.1) between 30 and 90. For fillet welds the angle can
vary between 70 and 90, and it gives only one percentage point in difference in fatigue life.
This variation in angle is not so large for the fillet weld. In Case 1.20 B the transition angle is
45. If the result for Case 1.20 B is comperad to the results in Case 1.12, one can see that the
transition angle is of no interest of the fatigue life for sharp transitions when the 0.1 mm
initial crack is present. This is also reflected in many other cases, for example weld
reinforcement, penetration bead and leg deviation.
This conclusion is confirmed by for example Martinsson in Fatigue Strength of welded
cruciform joint with cold laps [23]. In the article, the fatigue life is calculated on different
geometries for different initial cracks.. The geometries have different stress concentration
factor K t , for no initial crack available. For a 0.1 mm initial crack there are nearly no
differences in fatigue life. One can see that the longer initial crack is, the less is the impact on
the fatigue life.
This can be explained by the fact that once the crack is there, the crack propagation is
governed by the stress intensity factor at the crack, and the stress concentration due to the
transition angle plays a minor role.
It is possible that the transition angle has an effect during the crack initiation phase, and that
the life is shorter for larger angles during this stage. This should be the case because the stress
concentration factor increases with an increasing transition angle, under the condition that
there is a transition radius present between weld and sheet, which there always is in real life.
If, on the contrary, there is a sharp transition the stresses goes towards infinity for a singular
point in the FE-model. The crack initiation phase, which could give a larger difference in life
for different angles, is not included in this study.
All internal defects are too difficult to deal with. Internal defects should be avoided since
they cannot be detected with the human eye, but require some kind of other method for
detection, for example ultrasound or x-ray. The internal defects may result in cracks which
reach the surface and causes failure before they have been detected and taken care of.
Therefore it is the standpoint of this work that the internal defects are excluded from the
standard.
Another aspect why internal defects are hard to include in a general standard is that it is
difficult to predict the life of internal cracks with a limited extension in the length direction of
the weld. Once they have reached the surface, they can still grow in the length direction, thus
making it hard to find reasonable integration limits. If these defects are included, theory and
reality might divert too much from each other and the standard will be useless from that point
of view. Possibly, it could be better to have internal defects in a special section in the
standard, and then omit fatigue properties.
All vague denotations, for example locally permitted, permitted to a small extent, short
imperfection, smooth transition etc., must be changed to give real information in the
standard. If the standard is to be consistent, important factors influencing for the fatigue life
can not be replaced by notations which can be interpreted arbitrarily.
8.3 Proposals for revising the standards
The whole idea of setting new acceptance limits is that there should be a clear relation
between the fatigue life and the acceptance limits. This is very important both from design
and from production aspects.
Below a few proposals for guidelines are presented which can be used when modifying the
standard. It is meant that only one of the proposals for guidelines is carried out when revising
the standard. The proposals could perhaps not always be realized, but they should be the goal
for the revised standard.
8.3.1 Primary proposal for guidlines

The primary proposal for a new standard should be that a certain defect for both butt and fillet
welds should have the same acceptance limit. This makes it easier when welds are inspected
during the manufacturing process. Further, general fatigue lives should be given i.e., all
welding classes have a fixed life. Since butt welds and fillet welds have different fatigue
properties (fillet welds have shorter lives than butt welds) the fatigue life depend on the stress
level at a given acceptance limit.
It can be mentioned that the primary guideline could be implemented relatively easy without
making too many new FE simulations. The reason is that the acceptance limits for a given
defect already today are almost the same for butt welds as for fillet welds. Old FE results can
be scaled easily in order find the correct stress level if the acceptance limits are not changed.
This is a very cost effective way to alter the standard but it has the disadvantage that very low
stress levels will be achieved for certain cases.
8.3.2 Secondary proposal for guidelines
The secondary proposal for a new standard should be that, regardless of case, each welding
class has a given fatigue life. No difference should be made between transverse butt welds
and cruciform joints. It should be possible for the design engineer or the production engineer,
etc. to look into the standard when examining a weld and say this defect will reduce the
fatigue life of this component by 34%, which means that it will last for 1.2 million cycles at
this given stress level, for example.
The secondary proposal is much more difficult to achieve than the primary proposal since
many new FE simulations must be carried out in order to find the new acceptance limits.
Another disadvantage is that the acceptance limit which applies to a certain fatigue life might
get a decimal value, for example 1.73. It would be more convenient to deal with even
numbers such as 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0.
8.3.3 Other proposals for STD5605,51
If the primary and secondary proposals turn out to be too difficult to achieve, it could at least
be reasonable to change the standard so that the same ratio between the welding classes
designed for fatigue loading is obtained. In for example the STD5605,51 standard, class B,
CU, and DU, should have the same ratio between B and CU, as between CU and DU.
Welding class A is disregarded due to its academic nature since there are nearly no useful
numbers available,
It could also be possible to have a given fatigue life for welding class B, CU and DU and to
disregard the other classes. In this case it might be necessary to separate butt welds and
cruciform joints.
8.3.4 Other proposals for ISO5817
If the primary and secondary proposals turn out to be too difficult to achieve, it could at least
be reasonable to change the standard so there is the same ratio between the welding classes
i.e., there should be the same ratio between B and C as between C and D.
8.4 Discussion for STD5605,51
The results show that data on the fatigue life for the welding classes in the STD5605,51 is
scattered. This makes it hard to draw comprehensive conclusions and to determine a general
fatigue life for each welding class. However should be impossible to unite at least the
majority of welding classes to a general description of the fatigue life. If this is done,
questions will arise whether or not some of the cases should be deleted from the standard or
completely revised.
Some of the scattered data depend on only limitations when modelling several cases. This is,
for example, because of the additional designation U requiring smooth transitions, that in
some cases require completely different modelling of the different classes. In, for example
Case 3, incomplete root penetration, welding classes C and D have been modelled with a
crack according to the acceptance limits, i.e. 1 mm for C and 2 mm for D. Classes CU and
DU however was modelled only with the initial crack length 0.1 mm, since it was considered
impossible to have an smooth transition in a defect of this type. This resulted in very long
lives for classes CU and DU, while C and D got significantly shorter lives. The standard must
be revised, or the additional designation must be dropped, for cases like these if conformity is
to be reached.
The standard is inconsistent in the sense that Case 24 state that cruciform joints should have
transition radii for welding class A (r = 4 mm) and B (r = 1 mm), while there is no
corresponding requirement for transverse butt welds. This means that butt welds can never be
assigned fatigue requirements in a higher welding class than CU!
In order to emphasize the transition radius requirements for welding classes A and B it is
recommended to move Case 24 from its current position as the last case for cruciform joints
and place it either in the beginning of the standard or first among the cruciform joints.
Similarly, a new case or some other type of definition ought to be introduced for transverse
butt welds.
8.4.1 Cases which could be added or removed from STD5605,51
A few cases in the standard do not have no influence on the fatigue life. This is easy to see
when studying Figure B.1-B.3. If only fatigue properties are to be considered these cases
could be removed from the standard. If these cases are kept in the standard then it should be
clear that a higher welding class does not give a noticeable change in fatigue life.
Some suggestions of cases that should be added to the standard are now given.
Cases which do not exist in the standard
Linear misalignments for transverse butt welds are included in the standard, but there are no
corresponding cases for fillet welds. As can be seen for Case 13 and 14, misalignment has a
major effect on the fatigue life for transverse butt welds. A butt weld without any defect and
transition radius, has a fatigue life of 1.58 million cycles, which corresponds to 79% of 2
million cycles (Case 6A in STD5605,51). For Case 13 and 14 the corresponding fatigue life
of welding class A is only 30%. From the fatigue point of view the effect of misalignment
would probably be a large threat for fillet welds as well.
Another case which does not exist in the standard is angular misalignment obtained when
the sheets connected by the weld do not lie in the same plane, see Case 3.2 in the ISO5817
standard, Chapter 6. Results from Case 3.2 show that this defect affects the life, since the
introduction of bending aggravates the situation for the crack. Therefore it is suggested that
angular misalignments for both transverse butt welds and fillet welds are added to the
standard.
One case that could be considered added to the standard is cold lap or overlap, see Case 1.13
in the ISO5817 standard, Chapter 6. Even if this case is not fully investigated here. Just one
simulation of a horizontal crack turning vertical. Further studies with variations of the turning
angle and crack growth length must be conducted before it can be decided whether or not this
case should be included.
It could be difficult to fit cold laps into a general standard, because of the long lives. If
included it could be placed among the cases which do not affect the fatigue life. Further, it is
worth raising the question whether or not the size of the cold lap matters? Maybe it does not.
A cold lap of 1 or 2 mm seems to give the same fatigue life. However further studies have to
answer this question.
Cases which could be removed
Case 11, weld reinforcement, Case 12, penetration bead and Case 21, leg deviation, all deal
with an angle between weld and sheet. As has been said above, the angle between the two
surfaces does not affect the fatigue life noticeably when there is an initial crack present. These
cases could be deleted from the standard if fracture mechanics with a known initial crack of
0.1 mm is regarded. However, before deleting these cases, the fatigue life in the crack
initiation stage should be further investigated. Note that these three cases have an impact on
the fatigue life but it is not the size of the defect but rather the initial crack that reduces the
life.
Case 3, incomplete root penetration and Case 8, root concavity are very similar. Therefore it
is recommended to join these cases into one case i.e., remove either Case 3 or Case 8. Maybe
the name should be changed to something that describes the new case better.
8.4.2 Recommendations for achieving proposals for STD5605,51
Many parameters could be changed in order to achieve the stated proposals. This is not as
easy as just, for example, changing the depth of a certain acceptance limit in order to get the
wanted fatigue life. It is not only the design engineers wishes that are to be satisfied. In many
cases the production engineers have an opinion on whether or not it is possible to produce a
weld of a certain quality in a reasonable amount of time. Longer production times will end in
economical drawbacks.
If any of the proposals below are to be achieved, Case 11, 12 and 21 must be either deleted
from the standard or moved to a section in the standard which does not deal with fatigue
properties. Deleting these cases might be disadvantageous from a production technical point
of view. From a fatigue point of view the acceptance limits must be changed so much that the
defects will be unreasonably large. For example, Case 12, the penetration bead, which already
now has a relatively long life in all welding classes, can vary between 1.8 mm and 2.4 mm in
the acceptance limits, for B respectively D. If the acceptance limits are to be changed to fulfil
the primary proposal, the fatigue life of Case 12 must be reduced dramatically, something
which will lead to an unreasonably large penetration bead. The same thing applies to Case 11,
weld reinforcement and Case 21, leg deviation.
Another thing that should be done in order to achieve the goals is to remove Cases 25-27.
Their geometries give lives that divert too much from remaining cases. The large differences
in life depend on the defects being internal cracks, while in all other cases the crack grows
from the surface into the material. Another reason for setting these cases aside is that internal
defects are dangerous since they can not be detected with the human eye, but need other
detection methods, for example ultrasound. Therefore internal defects should not be compared
to surface defects.
Below some comprehensive suggestions will be made in order to achieve the proposals above.
More detailed descriptions can be found for each case on the pages to come.
Primary proposal for guidelines
The undercut is the only defect which exists both for butt and fillet welds, and this case has
the same acceptance limits i.e., no changes have to be done in order to achieve the same
acceptance limits for butt welds and fillet welds. Of course some acceptance limits might
have to be changed if they dont affect the fatigue life as wanted. Achieved results from the
FE simulations could easily be scaled in order to achieve the correct stress level for a given
fatigue life and acceptance limit.
Secondary proposal for guidelines
Case 3, incomplete root penetration, needs major reworking for welding classes B, CU and
DU, but it has some values which fit with the remaining cases. Further Case 22, throat
deviation, needs extensive rework since the fatigue life is far too long and this case diverts too
much from the other cases. Finally, Case 23 and 24, which both deal with the transition
radius, are not ordinary cases but rather guidelines to the other cases since they have no real
defects. Therefore they should be excluded when working for achieving the primary
guideline.
All other cases need minor revision.
Other proposals for guidelines
Since welding classes B, CU, and DU are all meant for fatigue loading, these classes are
interesting to study more deeply. When plotting the ratio of fatigue life between B and CU,
and between CU and DU (Figure B.7), one can see that the ratio between B and CU lie
between 1 and 2 for all cases. It could be relatively easy to modify the acceptance limits to
achieve a common ratio for these two classes. The ratio should of course should be greater
than 1, preferably around 1.5-2.
It is more difficult to find consistency when studying the ratio between CU and DU. The
values are very scattered. If possible, the ratio should be the same or almost the same as the
ratio between B and CU.
8.5 Discussion for ISO5817
A first glance at the results in Figure C.1 reveals that in about half of the cases there is no
noticeable difference in fatigue life between different welding classes. This is quite
remarkable from a fatigue point of view, since one expects that a higher welding class will
give a longer life. It seems that no theoretical studies have been carried out when setting the
acceptance limits but they have been set empirically or from other points of view, for example
production aspects. Below follows a discussion about what could be done in order to achieve
better fatigue properties for ISO5817.
8.5.1 Cases which could be added or removed from ISO5817
Since the acceptance limits in many of the calculated cases have no influence on the fatigue
life, these cases could be removed from the standard if only fatigue properties are to be
considered. Maybe these cases should be kept in the standard from production aspects, but
then it should be clear that a higher welding class does not give a noticeable change of the
fatigue life.
Maybe some cases should be added to the standard since they may have a considerable
influence on the fatigue life.
Cases which do not exist in the standard
Angular and linear misalignments for transverse butt welds are available in the standard but
there are no corresponding cases for fillet welds. As can be seen for Case 3.1 and 3.2 both
angular and linear misalignment have a major effect on the fatigue life for transverse butt
welds. A butt weld without any defect and transition radius have a fatigue life of 1.58 million
cycles, which is 79% of 2 million cycles (Case 6A in STD5605,51). For Case 3.1, the life of
welding class B is 30% while it is 52% for the same class in Case 3.2. The effect of
misalignment would probably have a large impact on the fatigue life for fillet welds as well.
Cases which could be removed
Case 1.9, excess weld metal (or weld reinforcement) and Case 1.11, excess penetration (or
penetration bead) have proven - both in the ISO5817 and the STD5605,51 standard - to be
useless from a fatigue point of view. The average life is very long and it does not differ much
between the different classes. If a general life for each welding class should be set, the defect
would be so large that it would probably not be tolerated from a production point of view.
Thus, from a fatigue point of view the defect could be excluded from the standard.
Case 1.10, excessive convexity, Case 1.12, incorrect weld toe and Case 1.16, excessive
asymmetry of fillet weld (excessive unequal leg length or leg deviation) all deal with an angle
between weld and sheet. As stated above (Chapter 8.1), the angle does not affect the fatigue
life noticeably when there is an initial crack present. This means that these cases could be
deleted from the standard if an initial crack of 0.1 mm is presumed. However, before deleting
these cases the fatigue life in the crack initiation stage should be investigated. Note that these
three cases have an impact on the fatigue life but it is not the size of the defect but the initial
crack which reduces the life.
Case 1.21, excessive throat thickness, should not be adopted in the standard since the life
becomes longer with a worse welding class. This is impossible to fit with any of the
guidelines for a new standard.
Case 2.13, lack of penetration for a transverse butt weld, should be removed from the
standard since internal defects are not possible to handle. Internal defects cannot be
discovered by the human eye before breaking of the surface. This might lead to unexpected
failures. Another undesirable factor is that it is hard to determine the integration limits for an
internal crack which do not have an infinite length in the depth directions. The crack could
continue growing after breaking the surface. This means that many cycles might remain and
this fact makes it hard to determine the fatigue life for a structure with this defect.
Uncertain cases
Calculations on Case 1.13, overlap (or coldlap), show that this type of defect gives a longer
life than might have been expected. However, this case is not fully investigated after just one
simulation of a horizontal crack turning vertical. Further studies with variations of the turning
of the crack must be conducted before it can be decided whether or not this case belongs in
the standard.
Case 2.13, lack of penetration for a fillet weld, could with changed acceptance limits easily
be included in a revised standard. However with internal defects the crack might grow from
the root. This is dangerous because such cracks are hard to discover before failure. Therefore,
this case should perhaps be brought out into a special section of the standard, and the defect
should not be permitted for any welding class.
8.5.2 Recommendations for achieving proposals for ISO5817
Cases recommended to be removed above should be removed in order to make it possible to
achieve the recommendations for a new standard. Results for all the cases which remain (after
removing also the uncertain cases) can be found in Figure C.4.
Primary proposal for guidelines

A part of the primary prosal is already implemented in the ISO5817 i.e., the same acceptance
limit apply for both butt and fillet welds. Only Case 1.12, incorrect weld toe and Case 2.13,
lack of penetration, show some differences but these cases have already been decided to be
dropped from the fatigue part of the standard. The acceptance limits in Case 1.12 does not
have any impact on the fatigue life and Case 2.13 is an internal defect. Apart from these two
cases, new acceptance limits have to be decided. If old acceptance limits are used, it will be
easy to scale the results from the FE simulation conducted in this study. This will give the
correct stress level for a given fatigue life.
Secondary proposal for guideline
If the secondary proposal of a clear-cut standard are to be achieved, all the remaining cases,
Case 1.7, 1.14, 1.17, 1.20, 3.1, and 3.2, need some minor revision according to below.
Case 1.7, undercut, in order to create a wider range in fatigue life needs to relaxe the
maximum requirement in welding class B and C. Also the acceptance limits need rework.
Case 1.14, sagging or incompletely filled groove and Case 1.17, root concavity, need minor
revision regarding the acceptance limits.
Case 1.20, insufficient throat thickness, can not have the same acceptance limit in welding
class C and D. The only difference is on the maximum deviation. Except from this, only
minor revision needs to be done.
Case 3.1, linear misalignment, needs only minor revision regarding the acceptance limits.
Case 3.2, angular misalignment, the acceptance limits can be increased i.e., greater angles
can be tolerated in order to reduce the fatigue lives. However, this might be incompatible with
production aspects.
Other proposals for guidelines
The cases mentioned above already have a good ratio between welding class B and C and
between C and D. This as can be seen in Figure C.5 and C.6.
A ratio of 1 depends on badly set acceptance limits. This could easily be adjusted in order to
get better ratios. A ratio of 1.5 to 2.5 between B and C and between C and D is possible to
achieve, with only some minor changes of the acceptance limits.
If all cases were included it would be impossible to set acceptance limits which would give
the same ratio between all the welding classes In some cases the angle between weld and
sheet does not matter for the life.
8.6 Recommendations for further studies
Investigation of the number of cycles needed in the crack initiation phase. This cannot be
done with LEFM. As proved in this study. After the 0.1 starting crack has been initiated the
fatigue life varies only a little for large variations of the angle between the sheet and weld.
Cold laps or overlaps ought to be studied more carefully before being added or removed
from the standards.
Investigation of new cases which could be added, for example linear misalignment and
angular misalignment for fillet welds.
Investigation of internal cracks to determine if it is possible to change the acceptance limits

in order to fit them into the standards. This requires that, for example, integration limits in
Paris law are investigated.
Proposals for a new standard require many simulations before new acceptance limits can be
determined. Different sheet thicknesses should be investigated. This is an extensive task that
also need input from production engineers.
References 247
References
[1] Volvo Group Standard (1989). 5.501E Welding Manual Design and Analysis
(contains the STD5605,51 standard also referred to as STD181-0001). Gothenburg,
Sweden: Volvo
[2] Comit Europen de Normalisation (2003). ISO5817:2003, Welding Fusion-welded

joints in steel, nickel, titanium and their alloys (beam welding excluded) Quality
levels for imperfections. Brussels, Belgium: CEN
[3] Dahlberg T and Ekberg A (2002). Failure, Fracture, Fatigue an Introduction. Lund,
Sweden: Studentlitteratur. ISBN 91-44-02096-1
[4] Sundstrm B et al. (1999). Handbok och formelsamling i hllfasthetslra (in

Swedish). Stockholm, Sweden: Institutionen fr hllfasthetslra KTH.
[5] Eriksson and Lignell A-M, Olsson C, Spennare H: Svetsutvrdering med FEM (in
Swedish). Stockholm, Sweden: Industrilitteratur. ISBN 91-7548-636-9
[6] Hobbacher A et al. (1996). Fatigue design and welded joints components. Cambridge:
The International Institute of Welding. ISBN 1-8557-3315-3
[7] Holm L, Mrtensson A, et al. (1987). Bestmmelser fr stlkonstruktioner, BSK (in

Swedish). Stockholm, Sweden: Statens planverk och AB Svensk Byggtjnst.
ISBN 91-7332-328-4
[8] Gransson L, kerlund S et al. (2001). Boverkets handbok om Stlkonstruktioner,

BSK 99 (in Swedish). Karlskrona, Sweden: Boverket. ISBN 91-7147-527-3
[9] Per-Olof Danielsson, Lic. Eng. Volvo CE, previously Bombardier Transportation in
Kalmar, Sweden
[10] Marquis G and Samuelsson J (2005). Modelling and Fatigue Life Assessment of
Complex Fabricated Structures, Symposium on Structural Durability, in Darmstadt, 9-
10 June 2005. Darmstadt, Germany
[11] ANSYS Version 8.1. SAS IP, Inc
[12] ANSYS Version 9.0. SAS IP, Inc
[13] Paris P.C. and Sih G.C. (1965). Stress Analysis of Cracks. Fracture Toughnesss and
Testing and its Applications STP 381: 30-85
[14] ANSYS (1995). ANSYS Theory Reference, seventh edition. USA: SAS IP, Inc
[15] MATLAB Version 7.0.1.24704 (R14) Service Pack 1. The Mathworks, Inc
[16] Eldn L and Wittmeyer-Koch L (2001). Numeriska berkningar analys och

illustrationer med MATLAB. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. ISBN 91-4402-0074
[17] EXCEL Version 10.4302.4219 SP-2. Microsoft Corporation
[18] Newman J.C. and Raju I.S. (1986). Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in
Three-Dimensional Bodies Subjected to Tension and Bending Loads. Computational
Methods in the Mechanics of Fracture Chapter 9. Hampton, USA: Elsevier Science
Publishers B.V.
[19] AFGROW Version 4.0009e.12. http://afgrow.wpafb.af.mil/index.php

access date 2005-11-03
[20] von Essen W et al. (1981). Byggsvetsnorm utgva 2, StBK-N2 (in Swedish).
Stockholm, Sweden: Statens stlbyggnadskommitt. ISBN 91-7332-126-5
[21] Volvo Corporate Standards (2004). STD105-0001 Critical Characteristics for

Design Products. Gothenburg, Sweden: Volvo
[22] Richard H.A. (2001). In: CD-ROM Proceedings of ICF10. Honolulu, USA.
[23] Martinsson J. (2002). Fatigue Strength of welded cruciform joint with cold laps. Proc.
Design and Analysis of Welded High Strength Steel Structures, pp. 163-185, in
Stockholm June 2002. Stockholm, Sweden: EMAS
Appendix A 249
Appendix A
%Function which calculates stress intensity factors for analytical case
function [a dK_eff c dK_I_c] = invandig_spricka(a_start,a_end,c_start)
%=========== Constants ===========

W = 1e99; %Sheet depth
t = 10; %Sheet thickness
t = t/2;
C = 5e-12; %Constant in Paris' law

n = 3; %Constant in Paris' law
sigma = 104; %Tension [MPa]
a = a_start;
c = c_start;
delta_M = 10;
fi_0 = 0; %Angle in c-direction

fi_90 = 90; %Angle in a-direction
fi_0 = (fi_0*pi)/180; %Transformation into radians
fi_90 = (fi_90*pi)/180; %Transformation into radians
i = 1;
while a(i) <= a_end
f_w(1,i) = sqrt(sec( ((pi*c(i))/(2*W)) * sqrt(a(i)/t) ));
if a(i)/c(i) <= 1
Q(i,1) = 1 + 1.464*(a(i)/c(i))^1.65;
M_1(i,1) = 1;
f_fi_0(i,1) = ( (a(i)/c(i))^2*cos(fi_0)^2 + sin(fi_0)^2 )^(1/4);

f_fi_90(i,1) = ( (a(i)/c(i))^2*cos(fi_90)^2 + sin(fi_90)^2 )^(1/4);
else
Q(i,1) = 1 + 1.464*(c(i)/a(i))^1.65;
M_1(i,1) = sqrt(c(i)/a(i));
f_fi_0 = ( (c(i)/a(i))^2*sin(fi_0)^2 + cos(fi_0)^2 )^(1/4);

f_fi_90 = ( (c(i)/a(i))^2*sin(fi_90)^2 + cos(fi_90)^2 )^(1/4);
end
M_2(i,1) = 0.05/( 0.11 + (a(i)/c(i))^(3/2) );

M_3(i,1) = 0.29/( 0.23 + (a(i)/c(i))^(3/2) );
g_0(i,1) = 1 - ( ( (a(i)/t)^4 * sqrt(2.6 - 2*(a(i)/t)) )*abs(cos(fi_0))

) /
(1 + 4*(a(i)/c(i)) );
g_90(i,1) = 1 - ( ( (a(i)/t)^4 * sqrt(2.6 - 2*(a(i)/t))

)*abs(cos(fi_90)) )
/ (1 + 4*(a(i)/c(i)) );
F_a(i,1) = ( M_1(i) + M_2(i)*(a(i)/t)^2 + M_3(i)*(a(i)/t)^4 ) * g_90(i)

*
f_fi_90(i) * f_w(i);
F_c(i,1) = ( M_1(i) + M_2(i)*(a(i)/t)^2 + M_3(i)*(a(i)/t)^4 ) * g_0(i)
*
f_fi_0(i) * f_w(i);
dK_I_a(i,1) = sigma * sqrt((pi*a(i))/Q(i)) * F_a(i);

dK_I_c(i,1) = sigma * sqrt((pi*a(i))/Q(i)) * F_c(i);
a(i+1) = a(i) + C*dK_I_a(i)^n*delta_M;

c(i+1) = c(i) + C*dK_I_c(i)^n*delta_M;
i = i + 1;
end
dK_I_a = dK_I_a/sqrt(1000);
dK_I_c = dK_I_c/sqrt(1000);
a = a(1:end-1)'/1000;
c = c(1:end-1)'/1000;
dK_eff = dK_I_a;
Appendix B 251
Appendix B diagrams for STD5605,51

Appendix B 253
Appendix B 255
Appendix B 257
Appendix B 259
Appendix B 261
Appendix B 263
Appendix B 265
Appendix B 267
Appendix B 269
Appendix C 271
Appendix C diagrams for ISO5817

Appendix C 273
Appendix C 275
Appendix C 277
Appendix C 279
Appendix C 281

Analysis of Fatigue Life in Two Weld Class Systems: Master Thesis in Solid Mechanics

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis of Fatigue Life in Two Weld Class Systems: Master Thesis in Solid Mechanics

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Analysis of Fatigue Life

in Two Weld Class Systems

Master Thesis in Solid Mechanics

Niklas Karlsson, Per-Henrik Lenander

Niklas Karlsson, Per-Henrik Lenander

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Printed in Sweden by UniTryck, Linkping, 2005

Bras in November 2005

Variables, functions and symbols

2 Fatigue life calculation

Mode I Mode II Mode III

Figure 2.1. Three different modes a crack can be loaded in.

Figure 2.3. Case 213, transverse butt weld.

Figure 2.4. Case 413, cruciform joint.

2.2.1 Type of fracture

slope for varying amplitude

Figure 2.5. S-N curve.

Nominal method for Case 213

Figure 2.7. Nominal method for Case 213 in IIW.

Figure 2.8. Nominal method Case 413 in IIW.

Figure 2.9. Free-body diagram of the cruciform joint in Case 413.

The following stresses can be derived

Figure 2.10. The Hot spot stress, hs , linear extrapolation.

2.2.9 Example of the Hot spot method

Hot spot method for Case 213

1st principal stress [MPa]

Figure 2.11. The hot spot method for Case 213.

Hot spot method for Case 413

Figure 2.12. The hot spot method for Case 413.

Figure 2.13. All notches modelled by a radius.

Notch method for Case 213

1st principal stress [MPa]

Figure 2.14. Effective notch stress, notch , for Case 213.

Notch method for Case 413

300 Start of transistion radius

Figure 2.15. Effective notch stress, notch , for Case 413.

Note that only the toe notch is considered in Case 413.

Accuracy Working effort

Hot spot method

Table 2.1. Results for Case 213.

Table 2.2. Results for Case 413.

3 Procedure and methods

Figure 3.1. Natural boundary conditions for a butt weld.

Figure 3.2. Left side of the welded sheet is supported.

Figure 3.3. Right side of the weld is supported.

Table 3.1. Results for different boundary conditions.

Figure 3.4. Left end prolonged.

Figure 3.5. Right end prolonged.

Table 3.2. Results when one end of the sheet is prolonged.

Figure 3.7. Pie elements around the crack tip.

Figure 3.8. Screenshot from ANSYS of the crack tip.

3.2.4 The box

3.2.5 The centre lines

Figure 3.10. The centre line below the box.

3.2.6 Remaining parts of the model

Figure 3.11. The global model is meshed with larger elements.

3.2.7 Meshing problems

Figure 3.12. The light grey elements are badly shaped.

Table 3.4. Convergence results for cruciform joint, Case 413.

3 4 for plane strain or an axisymmetric case

G is the shear modulus, i.e.

In all equations (3.2:1-3) the following limit values must be evaluated

The following curve is fitted for v .