You are on page 1of 39

EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL FATIGUE STRENGTH INVESTIGATION OF A WELDED STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT WITH DIFFERENT APPROACHES

SERKAN BIRINCI M.Sc. International Production Management Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke, TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH 15 September 2008

15 September 2008

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Main Aim
To assess the fatigue strength of four different structural details by applying different fatigue assessment methods Comparison of these methods according to the applicability for a specific detail

15 September 2008 Page 1

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Failure
The progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to a cyclic loading.

Steps of Crack Formation

Crack Initiation Crack propagation Final Fracture

Major Influences on Fatigue Strength

Local Parameters of Geometry : Toe Radius, Weld Angle and Surface Crack Depth Loading : Fluctuating and Repeating Material Type Fusion Process, Residual Stresses Stress Concentration Effects : Key way, Hole and Non-welded Root Gaps
15 September 2008 Page 2 Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen Serkan Birinci Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Assessment Approaches

Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach

15 September 2008 Page 3

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Assessment Approaches


Nominal Stress Classes

Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method


[MPa]

Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach


Number of Cycles (N)

15 September 2008 Page 4

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Assessment Approaches

Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method Local Approaches -

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method


Linear Stress Extrapolation According to Xiao and Yamada

Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach

15 September 2008 Page 5

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Assessment Approaches

Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method Local Approaches -

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method


Linear Stress Extrapolation According to Xiao and Yamada

Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach

15 September 2008 Page 6

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Assessment Approaches

Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach
RADIUS 1 mm

15 September 2008 Page 7

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Fatigue Assessment Approaches

Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method


KI = .a .Y

Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach

KIC = Fracture Toughness KI = Stress Intensity Factor

15 September 2008 Page 8

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Relation Between Stresses

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Methods


Nominal Stress Method Local geometry properties not evaluated But included in detail classes and S-N curves Omits the detail classes Captures the local macro geometric effects Excludes the notch effect Includes the effect of local weld toe geometry

Structural Stress Method

Cover Plate

Effective Notch Stress Method -

Base Plate

n = Nominal Stress kmax = Maximum Notch Stress smax = Maximum Structural Stress
KI = Stress Intensity Factor

15 September 2008 Page 9

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Specification of Specimens

4 cases ( each of 10 Specimens ) Size : 300 mm 50 mm 12 mm Weld Throat Length (a) : 3 mm and 7 mm Loading Type : Load Carrying and Non-Load Carrying

Lw

Lc / 2

a
F

T T/2

SECTION A-A

15 September 2008 Page 10

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Specification of Experiment

The Applied Repeated Nominal Stress 90 MPa 120 Mpa for 3 mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld Joint 120 MPa 170 Mpa for 3 mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld Joint 120 MPa 210 Mpa for 7 mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld Joint 150 MPa 200 Mpa for 7 mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld Joint Frequency : 30 Hz Stress Ratio, R = 0

15 September 2008 Page 11

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Observed Crack Formation


3 mm a-Length Load Carrying Fillet Weld ROOT CRACK ROOT CRACK 3 mm a-Length Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld TOE CRACK

7 mm a-Length Load Carrying Fillet Weld TOE CRACK

7 mm a-Length Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld TOE CRACK

15 September 2008 Page 12

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Observed Crack Formation

Weld root crack in 3 mm load carrying fillet weld joint

15 September 2008 Page 13

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Test Results for Nominal Stress Method


1000 S - N RESULTS OF THE FATIGUE TEST

2 Stress Range (NN/mm2) Stress Range ( / mm )

P=10%

100

P=50% P=90% P=97.7% 3mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Root 7mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Toe 3mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Root and Weld Toe 7mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Toe
54.7

10 1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

Number of Cycle ( N )
15 September 2008 Page 14 Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen Serkan Birinci Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Investigated Variables

Weld size Loading type

3 mm throat length 7 mm throat length Load carrying weld Non-load carrying weld

Effect of contact analysis in FEM program (ANSYS)

Assumptions for FEM Model


Assumption of specimen Flank angle of 135 Weld Toe Radius 1 mm Throat thickness of 3 mm and 7 mm Assumption of FEM model Plane stress condition 90 MPa Nominal Stress Restraints applied end of the main plate
Serkan Birinci Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

15 September 2008 Page 15

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Linear Extrapolation


0T

a) Coarse Mesh

b) Finer Mesh

c) Coarse Mesh Refined


AXIAL STRESS

d) Finer Mesh Refined

3 mm and 7 mm throat thickness are insensitive to non-linear peak stress

0T

0,4 T

1,0 T
( mm )

15 September 2008 Page 16

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Linear Extrapolation


LINEAR STRESS EXTRAPOLATION AT THE WELD TOE
108000 L3_Non-Load Carrying Coarse Mesh L7_Non-Load Carrying Coarse Mesh L3_Non-Load Carrying Coarse Mesh Refined L7_Non-Load Carrying Coarse Mesh Refined L7_Non-Load Carrying Finer Mesh L3_Non-Load Carrying L7_Non-Load Carrying L3_Load Carrying L7_Load Carrying 106000 104000 102000 100000 98000 96000 94000 92000 90000 88000 1 0.8 0.6 DISTANCE (T) 0.4 0.2 0

7 mm load carrying

AXIAL STRESS

3 mm load carrying

15 September 2008 Page 17

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Xiao and Yamada

Notch Stress Modeled 1 mm mesh size Modeled

1 mm

1 mm

15 September 2008 Page 18

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Xiao and Yamada


1000

Structural Stress at 1 mm Depth ( Mpa )

WHLER S-N CURVE FORMED WITH AXIAL STRESS X

Notch Stress Modeled

100
R=0

FAT 100

3mm Non-Load Carrying without contact analysis, Ks= 1.21,Weld Toe Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying with contact analysis, Ks= 1.27,Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying without contact analysis, Ks = 1.34,Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying with contact analysis, Ks = 1.24,Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying without contact analysis, Ks = 1.19,Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying with contact analysis, Ks = 1.16,Weld Toe Crack

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Number of Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008 Page 19

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Xiao and Yamada


1000

Structural Stress at 1 mm Depth (Mpa)

WHLER S-N CURVE FORMED WITH PRINCIPAL STRESS 1

Notch Stress Modeled

100
R=0

FAT 100

3mm Non-Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.37, Weld Toe Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.46, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying, without contact analysis,Ks = 1.63, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying, with contact analysis,Ks = 1.42, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks = 1.31, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks = 1.25, Weld Toe Crack

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Number of Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008 Page 20

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Xiao and Yamada


1000

Structural Stress at 1 mm Depth (Mpa)

WHLER S-N CURVE FORMED WITH AXIAL STRESS X

1 mm mesh size Modeled

100
R=0

FAT 100

3mm Non-Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.06, Weld Toe Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.11, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.20, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.12, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.10, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.07, Weld Toe Crack

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Number of Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008 Page 21

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Xiao and Yamada


1000

WHLER S-N CURVE FORMED WITH PRINCIPAL STRESS 1


Structural Stress at 1 mm Depth (Mpa)

1 mm mesh size Modeled

100
R=0

FAT 100

3mm Non-Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.20, Weld Toe Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.26, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.50, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.27, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying, without contact analysis, Ks= 1.23, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying, with contact analysis, Ks= 1.16, Weld Toe Crack

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Life Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008 Page 22

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Structural Hot Spot Stress Method by Xiao and Yamada Notch Stress Modeled 1 mm mesh size Modeled

All compared parameters of notch stress modeled mesh give higher values than 1 mm mesh size model. Not having 1 mm fictitious radius causes increased stresses at the plate edge of 1 mm mesh size model, and correspondingly causes decreased stresses. Xiao and Yamada SHS Stress Approach highly sensitive to mesh size at the weld toe. All the stress values of contact analysis used 1 mm mesh size model are higher than without contact analysis used.

15 September 2008 Page 23

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Effective Notch Stress Method

Notch Stress Modeled

R1
Fictitious notch radius rf = 1 mm Fictitious radius rf = 1 mm

R1

All principal stresses were taken from the points in where the crack formation occurred in the real test specimen.

15 September 2008 Page 24

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Effective Notch Stress Method


1000

FAT 225 (m=3)

R=0

100
3 mm Load Carrying Fillet with contact analysis Kf = 7.50, Weld Root Crack 3 mm Load Carrying Fillet without contact analysis Kf = 6.38 , Weld Root Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying with contact analysis, Kf = 3.50, Weld Toe Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying without contact analysis Kf = 3.40, Weld Toe Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying with contact analysis, Kf = 3.73, Weld Root Crack 3mm Non-Load Carrying without contact analysis Kf = 2.28, Weld Root Crack 7mm Load Carrying wih contact analysis, Kf = 3.27, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Load Carrying without contact analysis Kf = 3.96, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying wih contact analysis, Kf = 2.76, Weld Toe Crack 7mm Non-Load Carrying without contact analysis Kf = 2.96, Weld Toe Crack

1.E+07

10 1.E+05

1.E+06
Number of Cycle ( N )

Design assign curve with FAT 225 Highest Kf value obtained 3 mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld Lowest Kf value obtained 3 mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld The contact analysis result of 3 mm fillet weld higher than the without contact analysis The contact analysis result of 7 mm fillet weld lower than the without contact analysis

15 September 2008 Page 25

Effective Notch Stress Range (Mpa)

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Effective Notch Stress Method With Contact Analysis

Maximum Stress at the Weld root

Maximum Stress at the Weld Toe

Without Contact Analysis

3 mm fillet weld with the contact analysis conducts bending forces from the weld toe to weld root Contact effect increases the effective notch stress in the weld toe

15 September 2008 Page 26

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

FRANC2D crack growth program used to evaluate Contact life of 3 mm throat With the fatigue thickness Load carrying and Non-Load carrying weld model Analysis Plane stress assumption To prove the accuracy of program, a test was done with a very simple specimen with 0.5 mm and 1.0 mesh size. Then,result compared with analytical result.
a0 = 0.1 mm a = 0.1 mm P = 90 Mpa C = 5.2110-13 KIC = 2245 [N/mm3/2] m = 3.0 (1) (2)

KI = .a .Y
N= 1 1 1 m / 21 m / 21 C m (m / 2 1) m / 2 Y m a 0 ae
m

N =

1 1 1 (3) m/2 m m / 21 m / 21 C ( m / 2 1) Y (a ) ac ( ac + a )
Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

15 September 2008 Page 27

Serkan Birinci

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Mode I SIF graphs calculated by FRANC2D program and by analytically not insensitive to mesh size

With Contact Analysis


MODE I SIF HISTORY

SIF of 1 mm mesh size test model resulted nearly %10 higher value than 0.5 mm mesh size test model
KI

900.000

FRANC2D
700.000

ANALYTICAL

500.000

300.000

100.000

0.000 -100.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

Crack Length

15 September 2008 Page 28

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Fatigue life graphs calculated by FRANC2D program and by analytically fatigue life time increased nearly %40, due to 1mm mesh size
NUMBER OF CYCLES vs. CRACK LENGTH
1.800E+06 NUMBER OF CYCLES ( N )........

With Contact Analysis

1.400E+06

FRANC2D

ANALYTICAL
1.000E+06

6.000E+05

2.000E+05

0.000 -2.000E+05

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

CRACK LENGTH ( mm )

15 September 2008 Page 29

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Fatigue life and SIF graphs of 3 mm Load and Non-Load carrying Fillet Weld

With Contact Analysis

Non-Load Carrying Weld


15 September 2008 Page 30 Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen Serkan Birinci

Load Carrying Weld


Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Conclusions

When the weld throat thickness of the specimens increases, the crack formation passes from weld root to weld toe The applicability of Structural Hot Spot (SHS) method by Linear Stress Extrapolation is relatively easier than other methods Weld Size variation causes inconsistent results, the SHS method is sensitive to mesh size The effects of weld size variation is most clearly seen in Effective Notch Stress Method, and least seen Xiao and Yamada SHS Stress Method The obtained principal stresses in Xiao and Yamada SHS Stress Method are higher than axial stresses All compared parameters of notch stress modeled mesh in Xiao and Yamada SHS Stress Method result higher stress values than 1 mm mesh size model Xiao and Yamada SHS Stress Method is highly sensitive to mesh size at the weld toe FRANC2D is sensitive to mesh size, and uses numerical integration to calculate fatigue life. Therefore, correct mesh size of the model is important.

15 September 2008 Page 31

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Future Works

Stress distribution with the variation of the local shape of the weld, the weld toe radius, flank angle and the mesh size by Xiao and Yamada Method Exact mesh size with the calculation of FRANC2D for the 7 mm load carrying and non-load carrying fillet weld

15 September 2008 Page 31

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

15 September 2008 Page 32

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Test Results for Nominal Stress Method ( Separated)


10000 S - N RESULTS OF THE FATIGUE TEST Load Carrying 3mm a-length Weld Root 1000
Stress Range ( Mpa )

100

R=0
3mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Root P=10% P=50% P=90% P=97.7%

40.1

10 1.E+04

1.E+05 Life Cycle ( N )

1.E+06

1.E+07

15 September 2008

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Test Results for Nominal Stress Method ( Separated)


1000 S - N RESULTS OF THE FATIGUE TEST Non-Load Carrying 3mm a-length Weld Toe

Stress Range ( Mpa )

100
75.3 R=0

3mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Toe P=10% P=50% P=90% P=97.7%

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Life Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Test Results for Nominal Stress Method ( Separated)


1000 S - N RESULTS OF THE FATIGUE TEST Non-Load Carrying 3mm a-length Weld Root

Stress Range ( Mpa )

100
68.8 R=0

3mm Non-Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Toe P=10% P=50% P=90% P=97.7%

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Life Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Test Results for Nominal Stress Method ( Separated)


1000 S - N RESULTS OF THE FATIGUE TEST Load Carrying 7 mm a-length Weld Toe

Stress Range ( Mpa )

100
82.4 R=0

7 mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Toe P=10% P=50% P=90% P=97.7%

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Life Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Experimental Setup

Results

Conclusion

Test Results for Nominal Stress Method ( Separated)


1000 S - N RESULTS OF THE FATIGUE TEST Non-Load Carrying 7 mm a-length Weld Toe

Stress Range ( Mpa )

100
75.4 R=0

7 mm Load Carrying Fillet Weld - Crack at Weld Toe P=10% P=50% P=90% P=97.7%

10 1.E+05

1.E+06 Life Cycle ( N )

1.E+07

15 September 2008

Serkan Birinci

Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH

Konstruktion und Festigkeit von Schiffen

You might also like