Selection Methodology of High-Cycle Fatigue Analysis Approach for Damage Estimation in Welded Structural Joints

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to provide a summarized general guideline to aid decision making of choosing the type of fatigue analysis approach, best suited for modelling and evaluating high-cycle fatigue damage in welded structural joints. It describes how addition of stress concentration and stress direction information into fatigue assessment methodology affect simulated fatigue damage accumulation results and when it is beneficial or necessary to use a particular fatigue damage estimation approach. The focus is on stress-life curve based approaches, particularly when deciding between variants of nominal, hot-spot or multiaxial fatigue assessment approaches for evaluating fatigue damage within welded joint structures. Evaluation is illustrated through application of proposed methodology to choose and perform fatigue assessment for a non-conventional load-bearing tubular joint structure within a floating lemniscate crane upper arm, which has been observed of being prone to aggressive crack propagation within its welds. Damage within the structure is estimated using two non-optimal fatigue analysis approaches to verify applicability of proposed selection methodology. Results are then summarized through comparative assessment and findings are discussed based on what leads to result changes within each fatigue damage analysis approach.

Keywords

Fatigue analysis / Multiaxial fatigue / Hot-spot fatigue / Methodology / Welded joints

References

[1] Amzallag C, Gerey JP. Standardization of the rainflow counting method for fatigue analysis. Fatigue, 1994, 16: 7

[2] Blodgett C. Design of welded structures, 1966, Columbus, USA: James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation

[3] Cao JJ, Yang GJ, Packer JA, Burdekin FM. Crack modeling in FE analysis of circular tubular joints. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1998, 61: 17

[4] Corigliano P, Crupi V (2022) Review of fatigue assessment approaches for welded marine joints and structures. Metals, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/met12061010

[5] DNVGL-RP-C203 (2020) Fatigue design of offshore steel structures

[6] Feng L, Qian X. A hot-spot energy indicator for welded plate connections under cyclic axial loading and bending. Engineering Structures, 2017, 147: 598-612

[7] Fricke W. Fatigue analysis of welded joints: state of development. Marine Structures, 2003, 16(3): 185-200

[8] Fuštar B, Lukačević I, Dujmović D. Review of fatigue assessment methods for welded steel structures. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018, 2018: 1-16

[9] Gagg C, Lewis P. In-service fatigue failure of engineered products and structures — Case study review. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2009, 16: 1775-1793

[10] Hobbacher AF. Recommendations for Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, 2016, 2nd ed., Cham, Switzerland: Springer

[11] ISO ISO 19902:2020, 2020, London: International Organization for Standardization

[12] Kam JCP, Dover WD. Mathematical background for applying multiple axes random stress histories in the fatigue testing of offshore tubular joints. International Journal of Fatigue, 1989, 5: 8

[13] Liu R, Ji B, Wang M, Chen C, Maeno H (2015) Numerical evaluation of toe-deck fatigue in orthotropic steel bridge deck. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-5509.0000677

[14] Lotsberg I. Fatigue Design of Marine Structures, 2016, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press

[15] NEN (2018) en13001-3-1. Delft: Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut

[16] Van Lieshout PS. On the assessment of multiaxial fatigue resistance of welded steel joints in marine structures when exposed to non-proportional constant amplitude loading (PhD Offshore and Dredging Engineering), 2020, Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology