Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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 Failure
The progressive and localized structural damage that occurs when a material is subjected to a cyclic loading.
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
Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach
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
Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method
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
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
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
Global Approaches Nominal Stress Method Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach
RADIUS 1 mm
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
Local Approaches Structural Hot Spot Stress Method Effective Notch Stress Method Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Approach
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
Cover Plate
Base Plate
n = Nominal Stress kmax = Maximum Notch Stress smax = Maximum Structural Stress
KI = Stress Intensity Factor
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
3 mm throat length 7 mm throat length Load carrying weld Non-load carrying weld
Introduction
Theoretical Background
Experimental Setup
Results
Conclusion
a) Coarse Mesh
b) Finer Mesh
0T
0,4 T
1,0 T
( mm )
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
7 mm load carrying
AXIAL STRESS
3 mm load carrying
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
1 mm
1 mm
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
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+07
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
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+07
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
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+07
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
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+07
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Serkan Birinci
Introduction
Theoretical Background
Experimental Setup
Results
Conclusion
Mode I SIF graphs calculated by FRANC2D program and by analytically not insensitive to mesh size
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
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 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 )........
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 )
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 life and SIF graphs of 3 mm Load and Non-Load carrying Fillet Weld
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.
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
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
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
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
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+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
Introduction
Theoretical Background
Experimental Setup
Results
Conclusion
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+07
15 September 2008
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
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+07
15 September 2008
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
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+07
15 September 2008
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
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+07
15 September 2008
Serkan Birinci
Prof. Dr. -Ing. Wolfgang Fricke , TUHH Prof. Dr. -Ing. Uwe Weltin, TUHH Dipl. -Ing. Olav Feltz, TUHH