Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Nicholas Zettlemoyer
John W. Fisher
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Transportation
Bureau of Materials, Testing and Research
Leo D. Sandvig - Director
Wade L. Gramling - Research Engineer
Kenneth L. Heilman - Research Coordinator
Project 72-3:
OF WELDED DETAILS
by
Nicholas Zettlemoyer
John W. Fisher
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Office of Research
Bethlehem,
Pe~nsylvania
January 1979
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
I.
2.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Evaluation Approaches
2.1
2.1.1
Analytical Models
2.1.2
2.2
3.
iv
12
14
2.2.1
Green's Function
14
2.2.2
Typical Results
16
2.2.3
Prediction
16
STRESS INTENSITY
21
3.1
21
3.2
.' 3.3
21
3.1.2
22
3.1.3
23
27
27
ii
3.4
4.
29
3.4.1
3.4.2
35
3.4.3
38
3.4.4
Variation at
30
= 0)
Typic~l
Details
39
41
4.1
43
4.2
46
49
.6.
TABLES
51
7.
FIGURES
58
8.
NOMENCLATURE
81
REFERENCES
85
5.
iii
ABSTRACT
The
results of an analytical study of the fatigue behavior of welded stiffeners and cover plates were compared with the test data reported in NCHRP
Reports 102 and 147.
In this study" a
lower bound crack shape relationship was utilized which was derived from
cracks that formed at the weld toes of full size cover-plated beams.
iv
1.
1.1
INTRODUCTION
It is well known that geometric stress concentration plays a significant role in fatigue crack growth at welded details.
In fact, the
Hence, in order to
analytically predict the fatigue life of a detail, one must account for
The coverage
However, the basic techniques employed in the study could have been
extended to any type of detail, even those which dontt involve welding.
Besides stress concentration, fatigue life prediction also necessitates an understanding of the influence of crack shape on growth
rates.
Also,
-1-
Clearly, inclusion of
da _
dN - C(M)
(1)
where LiK is the range of stress intensity factor and C and n are based
on material properties.
= C1
da
(LiK)n
following form:
-2-
=[~ ]
= AS r -n
S -n
r
(3)
1.
C can
be taken as constant' for typical bridge steels (A36, A441, A514). (10,11)
Initial crack size, a., is known approximately for some welded details(31,36)
1.
Henc~,
aK
= CF
~~
~TCa
= F s F wF e F g.
-;t(
.,.jna
(4)
is the car-
rection associated with a free surface at the crack origin (the front
free surface), F accounts for a free surface at some finite length of
.
w
crack growth (also called the back surface or finite width correction),
-3-
and F
While in fracture
b e sma 11 .
(22,23,30,37)
by the detail
c~used
corrects for a more local condition than the nominal stress (strength
represents an arbitrarily
selected stress range (usually the nominal maximum value at the detail).
Therefore, F
(23,32,34,35)
Cracks normally
emanate from weld toes(9,lO) near which varying degrees of stress concentration exist.
othe~
-4-
Fillet-welded connections
Therefore,
Numerical
1.3
Evaluation Approaches
Based on Eq. 2 life prediction involves summing the cycle lives for
increments of crack growth.
be known for each increment.
mining F
analyses.
nece~sitates
The
Thus, K can be found and compared, if desired, with some base K for a
specimen lacking the influence of a stress gradient (i.e., F
The ratio of the two stress intensity factors yields F
= 1.0).
These elements
-5-,
Both of the above methods can be very expensive and require extensive
time.
which requires only one stress analysis for a given detail geometry.
Bueckner and Hayes showed thatlt can be found from the stresses in the
crack free body which act on the plane where the crack is to later
exist. (8,16).
po~sible
to describe
simply adjusted to suit the stress distribution along that plane with'
the crack absent.
to an incremental area.
evaluated.
Since
. . .
(7 9 10 12)
actual tests have prov1ded 1nformat10n on crack patha, " ,
method
thre~
-6-
1.4
holes. (6)
Further, the
Gurney
However,
no general formulas were developed and the accuracy at very small crack
sizes was not known.
the joint.
The Green's
,
.
(28 35)
who successfully estimated Bowie's results, and others . . '
Albrecht developed
an
approach to F
Later,
-7-
singulari~y
-8-
condition.
2.
2.1
2.1.1
Analytical Models
In
both cases the detail was assumed to exist on both sides of the
beam web which, therefore, marks a plane of symmetry.
Uniform
from Fig. 1.
and 1.00 T .
The three
0.96 T .
f
value.
-9-
was held constant and the weld size was assumed constant along the
cover plate edge.
cp
same as for the stiffener detail and the cover plate thickness was
taken as 0.64 T , 1.44 T , and 2.0 T .
f
f
f
Both of the
dimensionally.
detail~
of investigation was only of sufficient accuracy to provide reasonable input to a more local, two-dimensional stress analysis.
For
~tress
analysis effort.
for elastic analysis only; Young's modulus was set at 29,600 ksi
and Poisson's ratio was taken to be 0.30.
A three-dimensional
'coarse mesh, using brick elements, was established for each detail
and subjected to uniform stress.
-10-
Nodal
Finally, the
Figures 3 and 4 show the coarse meshes used for each detail.
The dashed lines are intended to indicate how the variable cover
plate thickness and/or weld leg dimension were effected.
In all
Figures 5 and 6 show the fine and ultra fine meshes which were
common to both detail investigations.
along the border were known from the prior analysis; displacements
at newly created nodes at the boundary were found by linear interpolation between known values.
-11-
singularity condition.
somewhat removed from the toe become stabilized and the distance to
stabilization decreases with decreasing mesh size.
Since the
thickness (0.78 in.), the minimum mesh size was 0.001 in.
Several
tion values on either side of the node line down from the weld toe
in the ultra fine mesh.
2.1.2
The SCF values for each stiffener and cover plate geometry
analyzed are plotted in Fig. 7.
stiffener weld size, but decreases for increasing cover plate weld
size.
~
d -carrylng
.
~ ~
(14)
carrYlng
an d Ioa
cruel~ f arm JOlnts.
Apparently, a
-12-
Stiffeners:
SCF
(i )+ 3.963
(5)
(6)
= 1.621
log
Cover Plates:
SCF
= -3.539
log
The standard errors of estimate, s, for Eqs. 5 and 6 are 0.0019 and
0.0922, respectively.
Each K curve
t
Unfortunately, most
-13-
2.2
2.2.1
Green's Function
K=cr~*~
dQ
(7 )
Since a ~ is
the stress intensity for a through crack under uniform stress, the
stress gradient correction factor, F , at crack length a is:
g
F g = J(2 /
o
K
t
- - - - dQ
2 l
-
(8)
Va i
Fg
= IT
t
---dA
2 _)..2
Va
-14-
(9)
where ex
= a/T f
(10)
For such a
--8SCF
=1
+ 2A
+ B
2
2 + 4C
3rr
3 + 3D a 4
(11)
Fg
= It2
[arCSin
-15-
(~ ) -
(1)
arcsin
(:j)]
(12)
in which K
tj
2.2.2
to
crack length a.
Typical Results
details.
Both the F
Each decays to a
In general,
the separation of the two curves at any point other than the origin
depends on detail geometry.
Figure 10 presents F
and cover plate details.
below those for stiffeners since the SCF values are higher.
It is
also apparent that details with similar SCF often have different
decay rates.
curve is related to a
2.2.3
Prediction
-16-
equation as:
for
One
--L =
SCF
(13)
respe~tively.
An average cover
0.4348.
is also available.
curve (Fig. 9)
There-
The elliptical hole shape determines the maximum stress concentration factor.
SCF = 1 + 2 ~
h
-17-
(14)
detail (Egs. 5 and 6), the correlated hole shape can be determined.
size.
order to predict F
In
Such
(15)
+ sinh(2f1) {COSh(2 f1 ) +
cosh(2)') -
~} ]
( cosh(2f1)-1 ) 2
in which
value of
-18-
The elliptic
cosh(y)
= [~
cosh(I1)
= {I
(16)
i} cosh(y)
(17)
----
--~---
For any given geometry and assumed value of crack length, a, the
stress concentration factor, K , is known if g is known.
t
Further,
Stiffeners:
t- =
-0.002755 + 0.1103
(i ) - 0.02580 (i )
f
f.
(18)
2
+ O. 6305
Cover Plates:
= 0.2679
.~
+ 0.07530
(i )-
0.08013
(if) 2
(19)
2
T .
p
+ 0.2002 log ( Tc ) + L391(;i)- 11.74
f
-19-
(;i)
f
curves are in close agreement and cross over each other twice.
-20-
3.
3.1
STRESS INTENSITY
3.1.1
The
Fe
1
= E(k)
1-k cos
2] 1/4
~
(20)
= n12.
For this
particular position:
1
= E(k)
-21-
(21)
Hence, F
3.1.2
The
Furthermore, inclusion of
t~e
Table 2 shows
this variability for the types of crack shapes and stress distributions of interest at welded stiffener and cover plate details.
If a through crack exists and the stress is uniform over the crack
"length,
F s is 1.122.
.
crack tip, F
is 1.210.
-22-
crack origin, F
is 1.300.
decreases from the crack origin more rapidly than the linear con-
at
The solution
Fs for
3.1.3
When the
However, F
also is quite
-23-
in Fig. 13.
If the rollers on
= Q* [ ~a
tan
(~a)
Q=
] 1/2
(~a) ]
(22)
a
a = -w
The coefficient, Q,
?y
-24-
This
= 1.0.
~ith
bending show
Since the
For example, at a
= 0.6
through cracks found in Refs. 34 and 34 were divided by the associated front surface corrections (Table 1) to isolate the back
surface correction factors.
-25-
Fatigue
limited by virtue of the girder web and/or the attachment itself. (7)
Hence, the no bending corrections are considered to be most applicable in typical bridge structures.
(23)
= 0).
estimated
how F w varies for crack shape ratios and a values between
.
zero and 1.0.
His results essentially agree with Table 2 when alb equals zero,
but vary nonlinearly to almost 1.0 for any
1.0.
circular crack.
Never-
value slightly above 1.0 when a is large and alb = 1.0 is not
-26-
3.2
= 0).
,g
Moreover, it is worthwhile
varies with crack shape and such variance should be taken into
Table 4 has been developed using through, and circular crack Green's
functions for a crack in infinite solid. (1,35)
values for F
The table
sh~ws
that the
The
limiting ratio, Y, for a concentrated load at the crack origin is estimated to be 0.548.
3.3
"
" l severlty
" "1ncreases. (14)
stress concentrat10n
or" d
eta1
One
-27-
a/w.
turn, a/b.
and, in
growing in that direction) can cause different crack shapes to occur. (37)
Also, study has shown that cracks begin at several sites along a trans, (10 37)
verse weld toe, but eventually they coalesce.
'
Coalescence occurs
These measure-
the available crack shape variation equations for growth at the toe of a
transverse fillet weld.
single crack shape to crack depth that are in marked disagreement with
each other.
b = 0.132 + 1.29
(23)
(24)
The multi-
pIe crack data in Ref. 10 suggested the following crack shape relationship:
3.284 a
1.241
(25)
= 5.462
1.133
(26)
All four of the crack shape relationships are plotted in Fig. 16 and
compared with the data for full scale cover-plated beam details.
intersection of Eqs. 23 and 26 is near a crack depth of 0.055 in.
The
These
two equations are employed for use at all transverse "welds , regardless of
detail geometry, pending further studies.
3.4
Figure 17 shows
the type ,of distribution which is common to any stress concentration region.
This distribution may be separated into uniform and variable constituents.
Since stress intensity is linear in'stress, cr, superposition applies provided the crack displacement" mode is unchanged. (34,35)
-29-
K , for two "sub" stress distributions which sum to the total stress disv
I
tribution.
approximates the stress intensity for the actual crack shape at any crack
depth.
3.4.1
Using the correction factors of Art. 3.1 (no bending) the stress
intensity for uniform stress can be written as:
where
C't
KtC't
1.122
2) ]1/2
* Ktet * cr & * [sec (1Tll
(27)
= a/T f
= flange thickness
at rosition
is 1.0.
t OJ
-30-
The cor-
reet intermediate value depends on the shape of the actual stress concentration factor decay curve (K
As a increases, F
near 1.300.
"where
sl
(28)
value of
18b.
~ represents that
equals the slope of a hypothetical straight decay line from SCF to a."
The lower limit of
Thus,
=~=~
a/2
a
(29)
Proper resolution of Eq. 29 depends on knowledge of the concentration f'actor decay curve which varies for each detail geometry.
range of
(30)
where
~
C,
P = constants.
=~.
t 2P
c2 S
where
~.
+ ~ ~ P _ . eP -1 + 1 =
c S
DS
-32-
(31)
Thus,
sI
defined.
similar to F
sI
(32)
where
(33)
where G
Hence,
(34)
-33-
= F g - KtCt
(35)
(36)
(37)
(F
'i (
ga
-K
tCt
= [F 81 '(~C
~k
'(t(
cr
(1.122-F s1*C)
~na i(
secGa) ] 1/2.
where
= F ta
g
-34-
X]
(38)
~=
(39)
SCF
For average stiffener and cover plate geometries, d and -q are given
By combining Eqs. 30 and 39, X becomes:
in Table 1.
(40)
1 + 1 aP
c
-3.4.2
= 1)
= 1.025
(41)
to be 1.0.
-35-
is assumed
F s2
= 1.145
- 0.06
is represented by F
*~
s2
(42)
Y'g
= F'g
(43)
- K
ta
Kv
= Fs2 *
Adding K to K
v
* ~IT * a ~
(F gt -Kta )
(44)
crack shape.
~kK
tCl
~k~+F
It
s2
'!~
(F' - K )
g tel
-36-
(45)
* ~n * a .Jna
gCi
(46)
F'
= FJ
where
However, it
The Y
two parts.
where
Y'
=W
= 0.548
"i'::
y' + (l-W)
+ 0.226
"itC
y"
(47)
Y" = 1.000
W = weighting factor of variable stress subdistribution
Factor W may be based upon the ratio of the two shaded areas
under the concentration decay curve in Fig. 19.
w=
-37-
(48)
w= a
dJ\
1 +
1 +
.!
l\P
- 1
.!
(4,9)
riP
The integral in the numerator can be evaluated numerically; therefore, factor W is easily obtained.
K =
3.4.3
F s2
46
Y + (1.02S-F s2 )
[sec(~a)
r/
X
~k
;~ 2
7t
(50)
These are henceforth termed the combined stres_s gradient and back
free surface correction factors, respectively.
It is also apparent
(F
= 1.0
-38-
Therefore,
use of the normal elliptical integral (Art. 3.1.1) for the combined
crack shape correction is warranted.
~)
+ ba ..'.-
F82
* {F 81
*Y+
'i~
C + (1.122-F
(1.025-F 82 )
81
-/<C)
1(
X}
(51)
*X
1\
3.4.4
-39-
for stiffeners.
decays as a increases.
the half-circle.
plate details.
-40-
4.
0,
= -C
10
C = 2.0*101
where
10
C = 3.6*102
1.u.
kip
1
L
(l\Kj)n
j=l
11/2
mean
cycles
in. 11 / 2
kip
(52)
t1a.
J
..,
upper bound
(Ref. 39)
cycles
6.a
Eq. 2.
-41-
[ i
-1/2 - a -1/2 ]
f
(53)
where
= final
crack size
Since stress range is cubed and both crack lengths have a square root
sign attached, error in the nominal stress range is much more important
than errors in the initial and final crack sizes.
Lik~wise,
error in
Even
Experimental work
more recent study terminated fatigue life with fracture, although this
life was close to that found using a generalized yielding condition. (7)
Both definitions of failure generally cause a
a .
i
impor~ance
of
a~.
1.
that a
-42-
for a test specimen where the crack surface is exposed after failure (a
is usually clearly evident).
established lower and upper limits of initial crack size for weld toes of
a stiffener or cruciform joint at about 0.003 in. and 0.02 in., respec-
tively. (31,36)
i~tensity
and
infor~tion
on initial
their lives are compared with those found under actual fatigue test conditiona..
Since stiffener and cover-plated beams had welds that were perpen-
t~at
4.1
One particular series (in this case the SGB-SBB combined series)
weld size was closer to 0.25 in. rather than the 0.1875 in. dimension speci-
fied.)
mate
~pproach,
-43-
i~
data points for the 'given series and stress range (TableE-3 of Ref. 10).
Logarithmic average means that variable N is assumed log-normally distributed (base 10) and the mean is approximated by the average logarithm of
the data points.
fully penetrated the flange and was growing in a through crack configuration.
Since the life estimates are based on cycle life for growth through
the flange, 96 percent of the actual life found by the logarithmic average
is recorded.
Four estimated lives were derived from the stress intensity relation-
Tab'le 5, -it is seen that the theoretical results all provide life estimates
that are conservative.
The
res~lts
pared with the results of regression analyses of all of the test data.
It
is probable that Eq. 25 represents a more reasonable crack shape relationship for transverse stiffener details.
severe condition.
The mean equation for all stiffeners (not just those con-
-44-
(54)
log (.96N)
(55)
The mean equation for Type 3 stiffeners only (all series) is:
(56)
log (.96N)
= 10.5772
- 3.505 log S
(57)
Eq. 54 and 56 or 55 and 57 are normally quite close due to the adjustment
provided by the equation constants (Fig. 21}.
Regardless, equating n
Since both of the above regression equations are ba.sed upon the
specific series under study here, close agreement between predicted and
actual cycle life is expected and, indeed, found (Table 6 and Fig. 20).
However, it is also fruitful to compare the value at the (approximate)
upper 95 confidence limit.
-45-
regres-
= 10.7820
(58)
- 3.505 log Sr
The large separation between the upper confidence limit and the
mean value emphasizes the wide variability of experimental data.
This
4.2
eWE-eWe
slightly different flange thickness, Table D-2 of Ref. 9, and was therefore omitted from the combination.)
Thus, using the logarithmic average of the twelve available data points
(Tables F-2 and F-3
o~
million cyclese
The life estimates for the average and maximum initial -crack sizes
and crack growth rates are given in Table 6 and Fig. 22.
-46-
The estimates
given in Table 6 bound the average life N t for both crack growth rates.
ac
The results plotted in Fig. 22 are compared with the results of regressian analyses of all of the test data.
log N
(59)
Incorporation of the 96 percent life for crack growth through the flange
modifieds Eq. 59 as' follows:
(60)
For the specific stress range in Table 6, it can be seen that the estimated life from Eq. 60-(by chance) precisely equals the actual life for
the particular series being studied.
log
(~96N)
= 9.2743
=
3.095 log S
+ 28
(61)
to exist between the predicted fatigue life and the experimental results.
-47-
The minimum and maximum life estimates correlate well with the lower and
upper confidence limits of the test data.
fatig~e
-48-
Finite element
studies were used to develop the stress concentration factor decay curves
for stiffener and cover plate details.
These correc-
tion factors were used together with a lower bound crack shape relationship to estimate the fatigue life of transverse stiffeners welded to the
flange and cover-plated beams with transverse end welds using the Paris
power law.
experienced between the predicted fatigue life and the experimental test
data.
When extreme conditions of initial crack size and crack growth rate
were assumed, the predicted life fell near or below the lower confidence
limit of the test data.
-49-
were used, the predicted life was between the mean and upper confidence
limits.
-50-
6.
TABLES
-51-
TABLE 1
Decay Constants of Approximate Stress Concentration and
Stress Gradient Correction Factor Curve Formulas
Kti\
SCF
1
= -1-+-_-1-A-P
ga ,...,
1
SCF = -1-+-.!-Clq
d
IV
I
I
Constant
Stiffener
Cover
Plate
0.3546
0.1159
0.1543
0.3838
0.3602
0.1473
0.2487
0.4348
-52-
CRACK
SHAPE
STRESS
DISTRIBUTION
6~~
r~
'I
1.122
1.025
1.210
1.085
I
lJl
W
I
~
1.300
Table 2
rv
1.145
STRESS
DISTRIBUTION
NO BENDI:NG
g:rn
_ a _
1T
[sec ( i)]
-- 1
1/2
a
a=-
--.....
ITa
* ['"2
1
,
* ['IT~
lJl
BENDING
-..-..~
~
I
Table 3
* rsec
. 1/2
sin ('IT2a)]
[sec ('ITa)]
- - 1/2
2
[3.523/2 (1 - a)
4.351/2 + 2.13
(1- ct)
1 [cos ('I"2
Ta)]1/2
~ 1.30
net
[sec (2)]
1/2
(1- a)
CRACI{
SIIAPE
STRESS
DISTRIBUTION
1.0
I
In
~)
J~
(J)
,-
:3J
&,Z
E
~
VI
RATIO
1eOOO
1.000
1.000
0.363
0.281
0.774
- I
lAO I
"" 0.548
Table 4
TABLE 5
*X
[secr~ )]1/2
Crack Shape, F
1
E(k)
r"
Stress Gradient, F
~1/2
~ec (rr~)J
-56-
TABLE' 6
Detail
Stiffener
Fillet-Welded
to Flange
[ksi]
18.4
T [in]
f
0.50
Z [in]
cp
[in]
0.25
N
act*
1.346
C=2*10
-10**
C=3.6*10- 10**
1.304
0.724
(a =-O.OO3 11 )
i
0.919
~
est *
(a =0.003")
1
(Ref. 10,
Series SGB-SBB)
est *
0.511
(a. =0.02" )
(a.=O.02")
0.492
(a.==1.003 11 )
0.274
(a.=.003")
0.430
(a.=0.02)
(a.=.02)
3-
ln
........
I
Coverplate with
Transverse
End Weld
16.0
(Ref. 9,
Series CWB, ewC)
0.393
0.25
0.55
0.356
0.239
1
7.
FIGURES
-58-
3.53 Tf
Fillet Weld
Flange
----Fatigue
Crack
a) Section
rWeb ~
Point of Interest
II
Flange Tip
b) Plan View
Fig. 1
-59-
L/2
~JI
Tf
Flange
i-
_ Symmetry Zweb
Wcp/Z .
=2.88 Tf I
Fatigue Crack
<t
- - -
Cover Plate
Point of Interest
Flange
Wf/2
=4.32
. a) Section
0\
u~.
~
Fillet Weld
!:
3.85 Tf
Tf
Flange Tip
b) Pion View
Fig. 2
6 0.3205 Tf
0.6410 Tf
f',
:3 a 0.3205 Tf
0.1795 Tf
0.8205 Tf
r"'1',
t-+~
I- -!. -',...,...,......,....-r-.....--.....-.--......-----....----
I- -t-- r--r--t-~-t---+---+--
I I
I I
L ..L _
................
-.....---------_-&l_----I.. . . .
---I~___'
a) Sect ion
Point Of Interest
r.,.-
'~
I I
I- -t - ........---t-..................-~-...-..+-..........--+----.....
I I
I I
.1-
I I
J- t - t - - t - - t - - t - - - t - - - t - - -.............--+------I
6 00.6410 Tf
I I
I- -+- ~_+__+_-t------+----+----...............- - - - I
. I I
~ -I. - t--+-t--+--+----+-...................~.....................,
I ~
I- i - ..................................-~............-..+-........--+-~.....
0.4744 Tf
I I
L ..L _
..........-.............
........-..-..........-..----.1_---'
b) Plan View
...
Fig. 3
-+
..
-61-
II-.~
3@
I~ -I
O.3205Tf
O.1795Tf
O.8205Tf
- .
__ ~@o.3205111~@o.6410Tf __
II @ O.6410Tf
~--
- --,.. - -_.
- -I--~
I
I~ -I
- I--I-- I- - I.... -I
~ - I-
,.-.
--
~-
--
~~
-~
-' ~,
~
"
a.Section
I
Q'\
4@
O.6410Tf
4@
O.3205Tf
-+--
-+- -+-
-t-
-I
-t-
1 - ...-.
--I
-.1 -
-t-
---+-
I --
--I - - ~
to-
....-
--t-
.........
-+-
- I --t- 1-4-
O.6410Tf
b. Plan View
Fig. 4
I -t....-....
--+-
--I
--. --
-+-- - -
-04
- - 1---
+-- - -
0.3205 Tf.
~'"
-1-
"
3@ 0.0256Tf
0.3205 Tf
-I
O.3205Tf
1'\f"
r'\
f'
7@0.0128Tf
5@ 0.0256Tf
6@0.05J3Tf
0.8205Tf
5@0.1026 Tf
4@0.0513 Tf 6@0.0128Tf
I'"
.. 4+l1. \-1
:3 @ 0.0256 Tf
Fig. 5
3@0.051:3Tf
-1
. 5@ 0.0256 Tf
~63-
I....
3@ 0.Of28Tf ~~ 3@ 0.0128Tf ~
-~~
.~
,
3@
0.00641l
f r
-hr4@
O.0032-nfIr
'"
3@
0.0128Tf
~
"'"
.l
10@
0.00r3Tf
r'lIo.
""-
- .....
4@
0.00321if
-rJ
4@
O.OI28Tf
5@
0.00641lf
U
.... """!'"
3@
0.0064Tf
1'"
Fig. 6
Ultra
Fi~e
-1-
10@
O.0013Tf
--I-
4@
0.0032Tf
3@
0.0064Tf
..,.... . -I'"
4@
0.0032Tf
. -I
-64-
Tcp/Tf
9
0.6410
1.4360
\\
8
\
\
""
2.0000
"
.........
Cover Plates
--- -- -----
SCF
5
..
- --
4
Stiffeners
:3
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Z/Tf
Fig. 7
-65-
Surface
SCF ,
3.651
6.040
ll/~::::==r=====--,--0.1
Stiffener
Cover Plate
T
; ; =0.6410
0.2
0.3
Tf
0.4
0.5
, 0.6
~f =0 64/0
0.7
(Both Details) .
0.8
0.9
,-
Fig. 8
-66-
SCF
Fg
0\
""-J
l.ol------..:::::.......-;:;:::::::===~----======
o
, Lor
Fig. 9
0.5,-
Detail
CP
CP
I l r CP
ST
ST
0.41-
0.3
/1111
Z/Tf
0.3205
0.64 J 0
0.6410
0.6410
0.3205
Tcp/Tf
SCF
0.641 0
0.2000
0.6410
7.198
7.0 14
6.040
3.651
3.161
Fg
SCF
I
0\
co
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.8
o/Tf
Fig. 10
1.0
.~
SC~
SCF2
SCF2
=SCF3
a
I
Q'\
\0
Kt
SCF = F (h/g)
a~
Ellipse Shape
b. Ellipse Size
Fig. 11
SCF
Tf
=0.641
Tcp
Tf =0.641
OI
Fg Ellipse Correlation
Tf =0.00128
Greenls Function
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
i/Tf or a/Tf
Fig. 12
Comparison of K
and F
1.0
a
a = ..Q
I
-.J
t-J
[sec (~a
)]"'2
2
(-rQ
[ -tan
va'
2
)]
~2
(17 20 22 23)
'
DID
co=o
a
w
=..9.w
I
.......,
N
CEIIJ
[sec (1T;)]
Fig. 14
2
1/
co=o
[;0 ton (20)] ~2
4
Q
:3
.0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
-73-
OJ mm
10
00
oN
oo
::0
l:>
Q 0.6
(J)
I
'-J
~
..
00
:r:
~ 0.4
.
a
"cr
__ a-P-
A\rQl
\)
00
o
_~
0.8
00
- -- --0
).
.........
1)
0
"
"
/". /'"
""'-...----~o
b = 1.08800.946
_r b =0.1321 + 1.290
. . . . - . __ ----.1..----
--
--::--
"".,~
b=3.28401.241
- - ---
".
0.2
b =5.4620 1133
0.2
0.1
0. In
0.3
0.4
o Measurements at stiffeners
a
a= Vi
-_.
Kta; (T
x= w.t.
Kta
-a-
[SCF-Kta] lEa-
-.....J
In
a
w
Ku
Kv
Fig.
~7
SCF
Kt
SCF
Kt
Kta
a
( b) '" evaluation based on chord slope
Fig. 18
-76-
SCF
w = v
Au
Fig. 19
-77-
0.9
0.8
Stiffener
b =0.1321 + 1.290
0.7
0.6
Fig. 20
600
. I
-10
400t
C=2x10
3001-
(J)
--t
in 11/2
kip3cycles
. . I
10
C=3.6x 10-
Qi! 0.003in
OJ
200
= 0.02in
in 11/2
kip 3 cycles
-150
OJ :: O.OQ3in
A 0i
= 0.02in
..........
::0
rr1
Ul
.........
(J)
95 % Confidence Limits
A ----[] ....
--i
::0
fl1
(J)
::0
lOa
en
.):>
I
'"I
\0
(J)
ITl
s= 0.1024
(Ref. 10)
G)'
s:
50-
-0
10
);>
(j)
f11
2
10 _
106
10
107
CYCLE LIFE
Fig. 21
:0
';II::'
(I)
600 I
I I I
C=2xIO- IO
400
300
in 1~2
.
kip3cycles
0i :: O.003in
(J)
-t
:::0
.......,
en
w
::0
1001-
......
...
.......
..........
):>
Qi = O.02in
I' j
I I I I
-10
C=3.6xI0
I:J
IY2
k I~
I
Ip cyces
O
[] OJ :: 0.003in
t::. Qi =0.02 in
(J)
-t
-........
o
I
............
(J)
10
G>
ITI
-0
::0
rn
U>
I
<Xl
50
501-
--to
--- ..........
..........
15
2
10 5
10 6
CYCLE LIFE
Fig. 22
107
Fatigue Life E$timates for Cover Plates with Transverse End Welds
::0
J>
2
(j')
rt1
A
-.
II)
84l
NOMENCLATURE
a
a.
1.
= initial
crack size
= number
= combined
= stress
= stress
E(k)
= complete
= crack
e
g
Ft
g'
= stress
= stress
= stress
-81-
NOMENCLATURE
(continued)
Fg
t
= stress
sI
= plastic
= front'free
s2
F
w
= back
= major
li
= strain
=1
- (a/b)2
= stress
= range
log
= logarithm to base 10
-82-
NOMENCLATURE
(continued)
= attachment
= crack
= fatigue life
Q
s
S
r
SCF
length
factor
cp
= flange thickness
= cover plate thickness
= plate
= ratio
= flange width
= ratio
stress distribution
-83-
NOMENCLATURE
(continued)
yt
= nondimensionalized
~
= value
distance,
~/Tf
or
or a/w
hole perimeter
~/w
at a
= stress
= angle
-84-
1.
I>
REFERENCES
2.
3.
D.C., 1973.
4.
-85-
5.
6.
Bowie, O. L.
~~IAL
CRACKS
7.
December, 1977.
8.
Bueckner, H. F.
-86-
9.
Sc~ences
10.
11.
~ashington,
D.C., 1974.
Fisher, J. W.
12.
Frank, K. H.
THE FATIGUE STRENGTH OF FILLET WELDED CONNECTIONS
Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh U., Bethlehem, Pa., October 1971.
13.
I~
N.
-87-
14.
Gurney, T. R.
15.
January 1972.
16.
Hayes, D. J.
A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF BUECKNER'S FORMULATION FOR DETERMINING STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS FOR CRACKED BODIES
International J. Fracture Mech., Vol. 8; No.2, June
1972, p. 157.
17.
18.
-88-
19.
Irwin, G. R.
20.
Irwin, G. R.
FRACTURE
Handbuch der Physik, Vol. VI, Springer, Berlin, Germany,
1958, p. 551.
21.
Kobayashi, A. S.
22.
Maddox, S. J.
23.
Maddox, S. J.
1975, p. 221.
-89-
24.
Neal, D. M.
25.
Neuber, H.
KERBSPANNUNGSLEHRE
2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1958, pp. 5256.
26.
27.
August~
1971.
28.
-90-
29.
Randall, P. N.
~TP
410,
p. 88).
30.
Rice, 'J. R.
31.
32.
Sih, G. Co.
Pa., 1973.
33.
34.
35.
36.
~THODS
37.
Zettlemoyer, N.
STRESS CONCENTRATION AND FATIGUE OF WELDED DETAILS
Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh U., Bethlehem, Fa., October
1976.
38.
-92-
39.
-93-
10.
ACKNOWLEDG:MENTS
The
authors wish to acknowledge the help of Dr. George R. Irwin and Hans
Hausammann for valuable
discus~ions
and assistance.
Appreciation is also due Mrs. Ruth Grimes who typed the manuscript and
Mr. John Gera and Mrs. Sharon Balogh for preparation of the figures.
-94-