Fatigue Analysis of Welding Seams in Automotive

FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF WELDING SEAMS IN
AUTOMOTIVE STRUCTURES
Csaba Halszi*, Dr. Christian Gaier, Helmut Dannbauer,

and
Klaus Hofwimmer
MAGNA Powertrain Engineering Center Steyr GmbH & CO KG
Department of Structural Analysis
Steyrer str. 32
St.Valentin 4300
Austria

) .
.(
.
ABSTRACT
For lightweight automotive structures, the stiffness and the fatigue behavior is
greatly influenced by the properties of the joints. The joining technology used and the
number and locations of the joints are of high importance for both engineers and cost
accountants. An overview of common computational procedures including European
and national standards is given for the assessment of the fatigue behavior of thin sheet
structures with arc welds. The influence of the quality and the size of finite shell
elements on the fatigue result are investigated, and it is shown how this influence can
be minimized.
Key words: Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Methods and Tools, Fatigue and
Stiffness Analysis.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

e-mail: csaba.halaszi@ocs.steyr.com
Paper Received 29 March 2006
December 2006 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 2C 63
C. Halszi, C. Gaier, H. Dannbauer, and K. Hofwimmer
FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF WELDING SEAMS IN AUTOMOTIVE STRUCTURES
INTRODUCTION
The reduction of the vehicle weight is a basic requirement for the development of new cars, trucks, and buses at least
since the drastic raise of fuel prices in the seventies. Nevertheless, there is the general tendency in the opposite direction.
The reasons for this contradiction are, on the one hand, additional features for more comfort and safety as well as
increased motor torque. On the other hand, the potential for mass savings in the basic structure is not enormous.
Vehicles have to withstand dynamical loads and their components have many arc welds, spot joints, and notches.
Several technological treatments with positive or negative influence on the lifetime usually are applied. The stiffness and
the operating strength of sheet metal parts of bodies are strongly influenced by the properties of their joints. The joining
technology used the design, and the position of the welding seams, as well as the number and the location of the spot
joints have a significant technical and economical impact. This becomes clear from the fact that in fatigue testing of car
bodies more than 90% of the cracks originate from joints [1, 2], which is mainly due to the considerably lower dynamic
loading capability of welding seams and spot joints compared to the base material. Therefore, especially for lightweight
structures, the joining technology plays a key role. An optimum use of the material capabilities is only possible with
optimized weld or spot joint design of a structure. This only becomes practicable by assessing the joints and welding
seams in an early phase of the development process.
How can engineers handle all important fatigue influences during the development process? On the one hand, a very
good method is to perform fatigue tests with components or total vehicles. Many influences can be considered without
any mathematical model; nevertheless the results have absolute accuracy. Unfortunately, experimental tests give only
poor information about low stressed areas, so it is very expensive and time consuming to minimize a components mass
based on experiments.
Therefore, computational lifetime simulations, mainly based on the finite element method (FEM), are state of the art to
reduce or even avoid testing loops, prototyping, and therefore development time and costs (virtual prototyping).
Nevertheless, release tests are still unavoidable before serial production starts.
Extensive standards and a large number of publications offer a multitude of assessment methods for evaluating the
impact of dynamic loading on the fatigue life of a structure. Most of them are based on nominal stresses. Welding seams
are classified according to their geometry, their shape, and their loading. Meanwhile, however, the Finite Element
Method is a standard analysis tool for structural analysis with respect to stress and strain distributions. Structures which
are analyzed are often welded like the body of a car or a vehicle chassis. When assessing finite element (FE) results of
such structures with respect to fatigue life, the use of the classical methods yields the following difficulties:
There is no usable standard for the fatigue assessment of welding seams for a general FE model.
Different models for each welding seam lead to different stress results.
The complex mechanical reality has to be coded into a simplified structural model by the user. The correct modeling
is especially difficult for welding seams, when taking into account their geometry, shape and loading.
Adjoined shell elements in two planes normal to each other are often used to simulate welding seams. They can have
completely different stress states. When post-processing for example a T-joint modeled with shell elements, the
stresses of all planes are averaged at the nodes leading to averaged stresses which may be as low as half of the stress
in one plane. Therefore, stresses at the welding seam nodes may not be appropriate for fatigue evaluation.
Usually global coordinates are used to evaluate stresses. For welding seams, however, the stress components
crosswise and along the welding seam are of importance.
A high-quality assessment of the FE results for the whole structure with respect to fatigue life requires an extensive
amount of time when using the classical, manual methods.
64 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 2C December 2006
At the Engineering Center Steyr (ECS), concepts for fatigue life analysis have been developed during the last two
decades, which give a solution to the problems described above. The concepts have been coded in the user-friendly
software FEMFAT [3], allowing a fast, efficient, and high-quality assessment of the fatigue life of FE structures with or
without welding seams and spot joints.
A LITTLE THEORY FOR FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF WELDING SEAMS

In the field of fatigue assessment of welding seams several approaches have been developed in the recent years. These
approaches can be classified as follows [13]:
Procedures based on SN curves (stress-life approaches)
o Nominal stress approach
o Structural hot spot stress approach
o Effective notch stress approach
Procedures based on crack propagation
Direct experimental approach by fatigue testing of components or entire structures.
The procedures based on SN curves are the most suitable methods for FE based fatigue life prediction of welded
structures because of their simplicity in face of procedures based on crack propagation.
NOMINAL STRESS APPROACH

The nominal stress approach proceeds from the nominal stress amplitudes (or ranges) in the critical cross-section and
compares them with the nominal stress SN curve of a constructional detail, which were determined by tests. The
nominal stress is calculated under consideration of the macrogeometric stress raising effects of the component in the
vicinity of the joint but disregarding the local stress raising effects of the welded joint.
Figure 1. Nonlinear stress distribution in a beam-like component
The nominal stress can be determined using either elementary theories of structural mechanics or FEM modeling.
Using FEM, meshing can be simple and coarse. All stress raising effects of the structural detail of the welded joint
should be excluded [13 15].
The nominal stress approach is widely used because of its simplicity. However, some problems of this approach have
to be mentioned. The fatigue resistance curves have to be determined for each constructional detail. If there are many of
them, the concept can be inefficient. The number of constructional details can be reduced if the nearly similar ones are
considered as the same. However, an enormous reduction of the diversity can lead to an increase of the uncertainty
[14, 15].
Another problem of this concept is a possible varying of the stresses in the cross-section of the component.
Macrogeometric notch effects in the vicinity of the welded joint should be considered as well.
Therefore, this method should be used if the welded joint can be compared to a classified constructional detail and if
the determination of the nominal stresses is possible [14, 15].
STRUCTURAL STRESS APPROACH

The structural or geometric stress approach includes all stress raising effects of a structural detail excluding all stress
concentrations due to the local weld profile itself [13].
The structural stress approach is recommended for welded joints where there is no clearly defined nominal stress due
to complicated geometric effects, and where the structural discontinuity is not comparable to a classified structural detail
[14, 15].
Determination of structural stress can be done either by measurement or by calculation. In general, analysis of
structural discontinuities and details to obtain the structural stress is not possible using analytical methods. Thus, FEM
analysis is mostly applied [13].
The structural stress approach has more variants. The most practicable ones are the following [15]:
The structural hot spot stress approach for thick wall sheets.
The structural stress approach for thin wall sheets of the vehicle engineering. This concept uses stresses of shell
elements of an FEM analysis.
The structural stress concept of Haibach. This concept defines a real structural stress in a defined spacing from the
transition of weld toe, depending on the sheet thickness. This concept can be applied for thick and thin walled sheets
as well.
The structural hot spot stress can be determined using reference points and extrapolation to the weld toe at the hot spot
in consideration. The relevant structural stress can be obtained in two ways [13, 15]:
Linear or quadratic extrapolation of the stresses at the plate surface to the weld toe
Linearization of the stress through the plate thickness at the weld toe.
Figure 2. Definition of structural hot spot stress
The structural stresses are compared to universal fatigue resistance curves. These are SN curves for different butt
welds and fillet welds. As a first approximation, nominal stress SN curves of an appropriate constructive detail can be
used as well. However, these SN curves result in a rather conservative assessment [15].
The structural hot spot stress method is limited to the assessment of the weld toe. However, it may be extended to the
assessment of hot spots on a fillet weld root. In this case, structural hot spot stress on the surface is used as an indication
and estimation of the stress for the spot in consideration. The SN curves or structural hot spot stress concentration
factors used for verification in this case depend largely on geometric and dimensional parameters and are only valid
within the range of these parameters.
The structural stress approach for thin walled sheets (t 3 mm) proceeds from a FE-model with shell elements.
The structure is meshed with 2D shell elements, where the elements representing the welding seam have to have the
double thickness of the thinner sheet of the joint. The element length should be about 5 mm in the seam direction.
The element stresses of these seam elements will be evaluated [13].
Two SN curves are available for aluminum and steel sheets, respectively, for fatigue assessment. The so called
flexible SN curves are used in case of mostly bending load conditions and the stiff SN curves are used for mostly
axial load conditions.
NOTCH STRESS APPROACH

The notch stress approach is applied, if the weld root has to be assessed or if there is no use extrapolating the structural
stress to the weld toe.
There exist three variants of the notch stress approach [15]:
The so called R1MS concept with 1 mm effective notch radius
The concept with 0.05 mm effective notch radius for thin walled sheets (t 3 mm)
The concept of micro support effect.
THE RADIUS 1 MM MEAN SPREAD CONCEPT R1MS

Based on a concept presented by Radaj [11], Koettgen, Olivier, and Seeger developed an approach which allows the
prediction of mean value and spread width of the dynamic strength limits of welding seams (see [8]). During 41 test
series (about 400 single tests) for different joint geometries, load configurations, plate thickness (8 to 80 mm) and stress
relations component SN curves were determined. All specimens were annealed.
Figure 3. Submodels for numerical determination of notch factors
Afterwards the corresponding linear notch stresses with respect to the stress concentration factors at the crack-
endangered cross sections were recalculated numerically for each test series. In doing so, the geometry of root and toe of
the weld seam was made with a notch radius of r = 1 mm. The modeled weld climb angles, which have a big influence
on the notch stress at the toe of the welding, approximately corresponded to the average of each individual test series.
Figure 4 shows the notch stress fatigue limits calculated from the experimentally determined component strength using
the above described models with r = 1 mm. In spite of the different joint geometries a uniform value of the notch stress
fatigue limit with little scatter results (225 MPa for steel and 70 MPa for aluminum). This conclusion is valid both for a
constant stress ratio R = 1 and R = 0. The values given in Figure 4 were verified and confirmed for other joint types
using the SN curve catalogue of the DVS (see [9]). Thus it can be stated, that for any weld joint geometry loaded with
normal stress the fatigue strength of root and toe can be predicted using the described model.
Figure 4. Survival probability [%] against fatigue strength [N/mm2]
NOTCH STRESS APPROACH WITH THE EFFECTIVE NOTCH RADIUS OF 0.05 MM FOR THIN
WALLED SHEETS
This concept was developed for fatigue assessment of spot welds and later it was applied for fatigue assessment of
laser welded joints of steel and aluminum structures comprised of thin walled sheets. An SN curve for steel and
aluminum is determined, respectively [15].
NOTCH STRESS APPROACH BASED ON MICRO SUPPORT EFFECT

This notch stress approach is based on Neubers micro support effect theory. According to this theory, the effective
notch radius (rf ) is obtained as follows:
r f = rreel + s ,
where rreel is the real notch radius, s is a factor for multiaxiality, and is a material-dependent substitute structural length,
respectively. The application of this concept requires accurate information about the microstructure in the vicinity of the
joint and the associated substitute structural length. The determination of this parameter demands high effort therefore
this concept is not applicable for engineering problems [15].
FRACTURE MECHANICS CONCEPT

The concept of fracture mechanics is applied for assessment of cracks and of crack-like imperfections of welded joints
assuming the existence of an initial crack. Although the theory is simple and clear, the application of it is quite difficult.
The method needs the exact notch stress in the vicinity of the crack, and it requires the calculation of the stress intensity
factor K. The stress intensity is calculated using the membrane stress and the plate bending stress together with
correction functions Y defined in the literature for a diversity of welded joints:
K = a ( mem Ymem M k, mem + ben Yben M k, ben ) .
The effect of the nonlinear stress peak is considered by the Mk-factor.
Figure 5. Nonlinear stress distribution in the vicinity of a welding seam
The crack propagation is calculated by numerical integration of the crack propagation law:
da da
= C0 K m if K K th then =0.
dN dN
The concept of fracture mechanics is proved to be an especially useful tool for assessment of imperfections of safety
relevant welded joints, if these imperfections are detected. The real problem of the calculation is caused neither by the
definition of the correction functions or by knowing of the material parameters but by the inaccuracy of the non-
destructive tests [13 15].
FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF WELDING SEAMS BASED ON FE ANALYSIS

Problem Description
The following questions and difficulties arise in connection with fatigue assessment based on Finite Elements:
How do you model welding seams in a FE structure?
How can essential parameters of a welding seam like the type of the seam, the orientation of the seam, the seam ends
etc. be recognized in the FE structure?
How fine has the mesh to be discretized for good results?
How do you assess the computed FE stresses respectively FE strains of welding seams?
How can singularities be handled? They appear for example at the ends of welding seams and are strongly
influenced by the local mesh discretization.
How can the fatigue assessment of the welding seams be automated?
Demands for a FE Based Welding Seam Assessment with Respect to Fatigue Life
The following demands for a concept to systematically and automatically assess FE welding seams with respect to
fatigue life were deduced from the problems described above:
Finite Element modeling guidelines with respect to pre-processing tools for welding seams.
Recognition of all welding seams of a possibly complex and complete FE model.
Classification of different types of welding seams.
Determination of the welding seam orientation in space.
Computation of the structural stress components crosswise and along the welding seam.
Fatigue assessment of the local welding seam region, including relevant welding seam notch factors at the root, the
seam ends, or at seam crossings.
Openness for any extension with respect to joint shape and welding seam configuration.
Should be easy-to-use and cause as little cost as possible.
Assessment Concept for Welding Seams

To make it easily applicable, the welding seam assessment concept has been integrated in a fatigue life software
package [3]. It is based on four key issues:
1. Finite Element welding seam modeling guidelines for shell models.
2. Databases for welding seam notch factors and SN curves.
3. Recognition and classification of all local welding seam areas in the whole structure.
4. Automated assessment based on the mean value dispersion concept according to FKM guidelines [10]
The Finite Element welding seam modeling guidelines were developed to instruct a FE user how to realize welding
seams within a complete structural model so that they can be assessed in an automated manner. The guidelines mainly
give rules for setting attributes to nodes and elements representing the local welding seam. Different attributes, like
material labels and node colors, serve to distinguish the orientation, the geometry and the type of welding seam. An open
scheme permits the extension of the guidelines to new, not yet included types of seam shapes or welding seam
configurations. The welding seam itself is not modeled. Instead, the seam sheet metals are represented by shell elements.
In the following the shell elements which border on the welding seam are called welding seam elements or simply
seam elements. The size of these elements may vary widely, as only the basic stresses (nominal stresses) will be
Figure 6. Fatigue assessment procedure for welded structures
computed in the seam elements. A possible way to automatically correct the stresses based on the characteristic of the
stress curve and the element size is supplied. The contents of the seam elements material tables as well as their thickness
are the same as those of the associated sheet metal.
The ends of the welding seams are especially weak points. The reason for this fact is the additional notches due to the
end of the welding seam. Besides, there is usually an additional negative effect due to Finite Element stress singularities.
To disregard such unrealistically high stresses, the following measures are taken:
1. The definition of the welding seam ending/starting (for instance node color 101) is applied to the end of the
welding seam in the FE model. (Step 1 and 3.)
2. Element size is recommended to be 2 times the sheet thickness if the automatic stress correction is not used.
If different sheet thicknesses are joined together, the smaller one is recommended to be used. (WELD-database is
developed based on this situation.)
Figure 7. Definition of the welding seam end/start
The additional effort in model preparation is limited to associating certain node and element attributes with the
welding seams
The stress state of the welding seam is determined from FE results of the stress state in the seam elements using local
seam coordinates. The notch factors for a computation of the comparable fictitious seam notch fatigue strength are filed
in a welding seam database, covering most widely used seam types. This database has been made for the sake of
efficiency, as the costly process of creating and analyzing sub-models with respect to SN curves and local notch factors
is done only once. Depending on the type of welding seam, notch factors for at most 3 load cases at 4 assessment
locations per sheet connected to the welding seam are stored. These are, if existing, the heat affected zone notches
(undercuts) at the transition and the root region for the top or bottom side of the sheet panel. The notch factors are
associated with the stress normal and parallel to the welding seam in the plane of the sheet panel. The SN curves used
for linear damage accumulation are adapted to the actual loading case by interpolation [3].
MINIMIZATION OF SHELL ELEMENT SIZE INFLUENCE

The finite element models of welded components like car and truck frames, body in white structures, rail vehicle
bogies etc. were mostly built up with thin shell elements. For assessment of welding seams commonly the stresses of the
elements adjacent to the seam will be used. In this case the used stresses depend strongly on the size of the elements.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of the normal stresses perpendicular to the seam line of an overlap joint for 4 different
element sizes (10 10 mm, 5 5 mm, 2.5 2.5 mm, and 1.25 1.25 mm). On one hand the peak stress at the joint depends
on the element size, on the other hand in a certain distance from the joint the stress is nearly the same for all mesh
densities.
At the ECS a method for automatic stress correction of welding seams was developed and integrated in a fatigue
software. The users have the possibility to define a certain distance from the joint line. As a default the minimum sheet
thickness is used, which is approximately the position of the weld toe between welding seam and heat affected zone.
In reality, a fatigue crack initiates at this position or at the weld root, for which a fatigue analysis is performed too. The
algorithm interpolates the assessment stresses from the surrounding elements (see Figure 9).
The stresses of the elements marked with X in Figure 9 are used for evaluation of the current weld element. The
weighted average stress components are calculated using the following relationship:
n
i , j

i =1
di
j = n
(5)
1
i =1
di
j stress component for the

evaluation of the current weld
element (transverse, longitudinal,
and shear component).
i, j j stress components (transverse,
longitudinal, and shear components
with regard to the local weld
coordinate system) of the
i elements at the assessment point.
d i distance of the element center of
element i from the assessment
point.
n number of elements utilized for
the evaluation of the current weld
element at the assessment point.
This procedure works for both linear
and quadratic shell elements as well as for Figure 8. Stress distribution at overlap joint for different element sizes
weld seam start/end. Thus the method
provides the possibility to use a constant
assessment distance from the joint
independently from the element size.
Another possibility to reduce the
element size influence is to use a grid
point force dependent approach as for
example the equilibrium-equivalent
structural stress approach according to
Dong et al. [12].
EXAMPLES
Applications to a multitude of structures
during almost a decade show, that this
approach is highly suited to pre-optimize
welded structures like car and truck
frames or bogies. Figure 9. Automatic stress correction for welding seams
Truck Cross Member
Figure 10. Fatigue analysis of a truck cross member
Figure 10 shows the stress input and the results of the welding seam fatigue analysis, the structural model and a detail
of the welding seam respectively, for a truck cross member joint. Several loops were performed on the level of design
and finite element analysis (FEA) respectively fatigue analysis to optimize location and number of the welding seams in
the holes with respect to fatigue. The pre-optimized prototype was successfully tested in the sequel.
Rear Axle Subframe

In this example a multi axial
fatigue simulation of a closed rear
axle subframe was performed.
Seven load channels with
measured load time histories were
used. Nonlinear bearing behavior
was considered by separating the
loading in positive and negative
direction. The positions of the
weldings were defined within the
FE model using node colors or
displacement coordinate system
labels. The seam type was
determined using particular
element material labels according
to modeling guidelines. With this
FE model linear stress analyses
were performed for each unit load
case. In Figure 11 the maximum
Mises stress values of the
dominant channel (loading in
longitudinal direction) are shown. Figure 11. Maximum v.Mises stresses of a rear axle subframe (critical load case)
The stress results of the unit load cases were combined using the measured load time histories for evaluation of the
fatigue life. Parent material and weldings were assessed simultaneously in one computation run. The structural stresses at
the welded joints coming from the stress analyses were extrapolated to notch stresses by using notch factors from a
database. In this database different notch factors for many joint types were stored in addition to SN curve data and
Haigh diagrams. The notch factors were obtained either from submodel analysis or experimental results.
Figure 12 shows the damage values (inverse of fatigue life) of one multi axial loading cycle. In spite of high stresses in
larger areas the damage results are focusing on the weld joints.
The benefits of this method are:
No care must be taken of the detailed geometry of the welding seam in complex structures.
Assessment of welds and parent material simultaneously.
Independence from the mesh density using the automatic stress correction.
Assessment according to different normative standards possible.
Open database (adjustable by the user) for FE weld seam notch factors, SN curves and Haigh diagrams.
Figure 12. Damage distribution for multi-axial loading for one load cycle
TRUCK CABIN
As another example for fatigue life analysis of a multiaxially dynamically loaded component, the fatigue assessment of
a truck cabin was performed. The FE model was generated based on the computer aided design (CAD) model of the
cabin including spot and arc weldings (a total of 900 000 nodes). The arc welding seams were modeled according to the
modeling guideline described in the former sections.
As boundary condition unit loads were applied at both front bearing points in longitudinal, vertical, and transverse and
at both rear bearing points in vertical and transverse direction. For these 10 unit load cases linear inertia relief stress
analysis were performed, where the external forces were set in equilibrium with inertial forces. The linear stresses
provided this way and the gravity loadings were scaled and superposed by load history data of a rough road test.
These superposed stresses were used for a fatigue analysis of the welding seams. In Figure 13 the damage distribution of
a critical area of the truck cabin can be seen at the lower corner of the front windshield.
Figure 13. Critical area with welding seam at the corner of the windshield
The high damage at the welding seam was confirmed by experiment (see Figure 14). The crack started at the weld
seam and continued in the base material. Based on the fatigue analysis and on the experimental results the design of the
cabin was improved.
Figure 14. Test results of the truck cabin

CONCLUSION
An overview has been given over some common methods and standards for the assessment of welding seams.
The starting points are FE models which are easily adapted according to guidelines for welding seams. The fatigue
assessment is based on notch factors and SN curves stored in databases. Generally, the elements surrounding the actual
joint are used to assess the welding seam. It has been shown, how the influence of the mesh quality and the element size
can be minimized. The realization of the concepts within the user-friendly, reliable fatigue software codes allows a fast
and efficient assessment of the operating strength of such structures. It is suitable for structures which are pre-optimized
with respect to fatigue in an early phase of the design process. They require less tests leading to shorter development
phases, higher quality, and therefore lower costs.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Singh, G. Schmid, and S. Gao, Leichtbau durch optimierte Fgetechnik, DVM Meeting Bauteil 91, Berlin, Germany,
1991, p. 239.
[2] S. Singh and G. Schmid, Dnnblechkonstruktionen und ihre Eigenschaften Prfverfahren und ihre Aussagekraft, Special
Meeting of the SLV-Munich on Fgen von Aluminium im Dnnblechbereich, Ingolstadt, Germany, 1993, p. 17.
[3] FEMFAT Developers, FEMFAT Version 4.5 Users Manual. St. Valentin, Austria: Engineering Center Steyr, 2004.
[4] Design of Steel Structures, EUROCODE 3 Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. ENV 1993-1-1, Berlin: Beuth
Verlag GmbH, 1993.
[5] Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures, British Standard 7608, 1993.
[6] Cranes; Principles for Steel Structures, Stress Analysis, DIN 15018. Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH, 1984.
[7] German Rail Standard DS 952, Germany.
[8] V.B. Koettgen, R. Olivier, and T. Seeger, Schwingfestigkeitsnachweis fr Schweissverbindungen auf Grund rtlicher
Beanspruchungen, FKM Forschungshefte, 143 (1989).
[9] V.B. Koettgen, R. Olivier, and T. Seeger, Schwingfestigkeitsnachweis fr Schweissverbindungen auf Grund rtlicher
Beanspruchungen, DVS-Berichte, 133 (1991), p. 75.
[10] FKM-Richtlinie, Festigkeitsnachweis, Forschungsheft, 183-2 (2003).
[11] D. Radaj, Gestaltung und Berechnung von Schweikonstruktionen, Ermdungsfestigkeit. Dsseldorf, Germany: DVS, 1985.
[12] P. Dong and H. Kyuba, Equilibrium-Equivalent Structural Stress Approach to Fatigue Analysis of a Tubular Joint,
International Institute of Welding IIW/IIS Doc.XIII-1993-03; XV-1149-03, 1993.
[13] A. Hobbacher, Recommendations for Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components. International Institute of Welding, IIW
Document XIII-1965r14-03 / XV-1127r14-03.
[14] A. Hobbacher, Sicheres Bemessen nach den aktualisierten IIW-Empfehlungen zur Schwingfestigkeit, DVS Berichte Band,
236 (2005), pp. 111.
[15] C.M. Sonsino and M. Kaner, bersicht ber Konzepte zur Schwingfesten Bemessung von Schweiverbindungen, DVS
Berichte Band, 236 (2005), pp. 1223.

Fatigue Analysis of Welding Seams in Automotive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatigue Analysis of Welding Seams in Automotive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF WELDING SEAMS IN

Csaba Halszi*, Dr. Christian Gaier, Helmut Dannbauer,

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

Paper Received 29 March 2006

FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF WELDING SEAMS IN AUTOMOTIVE STRUCTURES

A LITTLE THEORY FOR FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF WELDING SEAMS

NOMINAL STRESS APPROACH

Figure 1. Nonlinear stress distribution in a beam-like component

STRUCTURAL STRESS APPROACH

Figure 2. Definition of structural hot spot stress

NOTCH STRESS APPROACH

THE RADIUS 1 MM MEAN SPREAD CONCEPT R1MS

Figure 3. Submodels for numerical determination of notch factors

Figure 4. Survival probability [%] against fatigue strength [N/mm2]

NOTCH STRESS APPROACH BASED ON MICRO SUPPORT EFFECT

FRACTURE MECHANICS CONCEPT

K = a ( mem Ymem M k, mem + ben Yben M k, ben ) .

The effect of the nonlinear stress peak is considered by the Mk-factor.

Figure 5. Nonlinear stress distribution in the vicinity of a welding seam

FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF WELDING SEAMS BASED ON FE ANALYSIS

Assessment Concept for Welding Seams

Figure 6. Fatigue assessment procedure for welded structures

Figure 7. Definition of the welding seam end/start

MINIMIZATION OF SHELL ELEMENT SIZE INFLUENCE

j stress component for the

Truck Cross Member

Figure 10. Fatigue analysis of a truck cross member

Rear Axle Subframe

Figure 14. Test results of the truck cabin

You might also like