Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prepared by the
University of Wales Swansea
for the Health and Safety Executive
HSE BOOKS
© Crown copyright 2002
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Copyright Unit, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Offshore jacket structures are subjected to environmental cyclic loadings that often lead to
fatigue damage, generally in the form of cracks that emanate from the weld toes at the joints.
The prediction of the residual life of a fatigue damaged structure depends on a proper
understanding of the crack growth behaviour, which in turn relies on the facility to determine
stress intensity factors accurately.
With the introduction of Safety Case Regulations, following Lord Cullen’s report on the Piper
Alpha disaster, a Safety Case, which is renewed every three years, is required for each
installation operating in UK waters, to ensure that structural integrity is maintained. The
reassessment of structural integrity is therefore an important issue amongst offshore operators.
Fracture mechanics analysis, using the stress intensity factor, provides the only viable means to
assess the remaining fatigue life of cracked tubular joints. Also, assessing the significance of the
fatigue damage allows expensive in-service inspections to be scheduled effectively, thus
improving safety. The economic benefit of a reliable fatigue crack growth analysis procedure
can thus be significant, as it enables the risk of fatigue failure to be properly evaluated, allowing
expensive repairs of damaged components to be carried out only when necessary. The results of
this research are therefore of interest to offshore oil and gas operators and authorities enforcing
offshore safety regulations.
Despite the common occurrence of weld toe semi-elliptical surface cracks, accurate and
comprehensive stress intensity factor solutions have been lacking. Previous work has mainly
concentrated on plane strain 2-D slices through the crack, but these edge crack solutions are not
valid for surface flaws. Although some 3-D work does exist, many assumptions were often
made, however, when calculating the stress intensity factors and many of the proposed solutions
are of a limited geometric applicability. These deficiencies were recognised during the
development of BS 7910: 1999, which supersedes PD 6493: 1991. The research presented in
this report covers the development and assessment of a new, more comprehensive set of stress
intensity factor solutions for semi-elliptical surface cracks in T-butt joints, and also
demonstrates that they may be used for the fatigue assessment of tubular joints.
To enable the development of a new set of solutions, a very extensive parametric study of
cracked plates and T-butt joints was conducted. In this study, the effects of the weld geometry—
weld angle, attachment footprint width and weld toe grinding—as well as those due to the crack
depth and aspect ratio were investigated. The results from the parametric study were used to
compile a database of weld toe magnification factors, which describe the effect of the welded
attachment on the stress intensity factors relative to the same crack in a plate.
Using the database, estimation equations for the weld toe magnification factor were developed
from multiple, non-linear regression analyses. The accuracy of fit of the equations was assessed
by examining the regression statistics and plotting histograms of the percentage error of the
equation predictions relative to the database values. Visual comparisons were also carried out by
plotting graphs of the equations alongside the database values. The assessment demonstrates
that the equations are a very good fit to the data from which they were derived. With regard to
the validity of the new equations, a discussion of the validity limits is given in this report and
recommendations are made. The resulting equations, used in conjunction with existing plate
solutions, provide new stress intensity factor solutions for cracked T-butt joints.
To assess the new solutions, comparisons were firstly made with some of the more important
existing solutions. Following this, a more detailed investigation was conducted in which the
new solutions were used to predict stress intensity factors for cracks in tubular joints. Due to the
iii
fact that only a limited number of tubular joint stress intensity factors are reported in the
literature, a numerical study of various tubular joint geometries and configurations was initially
performed to generate data for comparison. The comparisons show that for shallow and narrow
cracks—depths of up to 10% of the chord wall thickness and a total width of up to six times the
chord wall thickness—the T-butt joint solutions, in conjunction with the geometric hot spot
stress and degree of bending, can yield stress intensity factors in very close agreement with
those for tubular joints. They also show that the hot spot stress must be evaluated using
quadratic extrapolation to obtain this good agreement because linear extrapolation underpredicts
the actual stress magnitude.
For deep and wide cracks, the new solutions yield conservatively high stress intensity factors.
At the deepest point of the crack, the conservatism is due to the differences in load shedding
between T-butt joints and tubular joints. Whereas the discrepancy at the crack ends was shown
to be due to the intersection stress distribution, which falls away with distance from the hot spot
location—using the stress field local to the position of the crack ends was found to produce
more accurate stress intensity factors.
As a final assessment of the new solutions, they were used to perform numerous fatigue crack
growth calculations, and the resulting fatigue lives were compared with the current design
stress-endurance curve as well as experimental results in a fatigue database. In the first part of
this assessment, the effects of the various input parameters used in fatigue life calculations were
investigated. This showed that the weld angle, weld toe grinding, the degree of bending and the
chord wall thickness all have a particularly marked effect on the calculated fatigue life. When
used to calculate the lives of joints in the experimental fatigue database, the new solutions were
seen to yield conservative results of around half of the experimental lives. Further investigation
demonstrated that this discrepancy was probably due to load redistribution and the intersection
stress distribution in the tubular joints, although it is noted that the crack initiation phase cannot
be predicted by fracture mechanics. The new solutions did, however, perform very well with
regard to capturing trends in the fatigue database, yielding results which significantly reduced
the dependency on the tubular joint loading mode exhibited by results in the database.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council, The Health and Safety Executive and Chevron Oil.
v
vi
CONTENTS
vii
10. COMPARISONS WITH TUBULAR JOINT SIFs 97
10.1 Numerical modelling of cracked tubular joints 97
10.2 Prediction of tubular joint SIFs from T-butt joint solutions 104
10.3 Correlation between tubular joint and T-butt joint SIFs 110
viii
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The use of T-butt joints to calculate stress intensity factors (SIFs) for weld toe cracks in tubular
joints has been proposed by many researchers, including Dijkstra et al. (TNO, Delft), Pang
(Nanyang Technological University), Fu et al. (British Gas), Maddox (TWI) and Burdekin et al.
(UMIST). The reasons for using T-butt joint solutions to approximate tubular joint SIFs are,
first, because tubular joint solutions only exist for a few very basic tubular joint configurations,
and, secondly, because to derive solutions for the many different geometries and configurations
of tubular joint used in practice would require an unmanageable number of analyses.
T-butt joint SIFs are chosen because the geometry of a T-butt joint is in effect an ‘unwrapped’
tubular intersection. Using the uncracked SCF and DOB (degree of bending) at the crack
location in the tubular joint, the SIF for a crack in that joint may be approximated from T-butt
joint solutions as
where Ym and Yb are the shape factors for a crack in a T-butt joint under membrane and bending
loading, respectively, σnom is the nominal stress in the reference brace of the tubular joint and a
is the crack depth. In this approximation, the effect of the weld and the attachment on the crack
is primarily derived from the T-butt joint solutions whilst the tubular joint geometry and
configuration are accounted for in the SCF and the DOB.
The accuracy of the calculated SIF is dependent on two factors. The first is the applicability of
T-butt joint solutions to tubular joints, i.e. how well the T-butt joint simulates the crack plane
conditions experienced by the crack in a tubular joint. The second factor is the T-butt joint
solutions themselves, as those that currently exist are either inaccurate since they are based on
approximations, some of which are incorrect, or only have limited validity ranges. The work
presented in this report aims to solve this second factor by developing new, widely applicable,
accurate equations for the weld toe magnification factor. The weld toe magnification factor,
after Maddox (1975), describes the effect of a welded attachment on a crack and is defined by
Hence, the T-butt joint shape factors in equation (1) may be calculated from
K tubular joint ≈ [Mk m .M m .SCF .(1 − DOB ) + Mkb .M b .SCF .DOB ]σ nom πa (4)
where Mm and Mb are the shape factors for a crack in a plain plate under membrane and bending
loading, respectively.
This report details the development of new equations for the weld toe magnification factor. It
begins with a description of the finite element models used to evaluate the stress intensity
factors for semi-elliptical weld toe cracks in T-butt joint geometries. Details of the parametric
study, in which a database (Appendix A) of weld toe magnification factors was derived, are
1
given. These data were then regressed into equation form, and the development and assessment
of these equations is described in some detail. The resulting new equations are presented, in
their final form, in Appendix B at the rear of this report.
In the final part of the report, the new solutions are assessed, firstly, by comparison with some
of the more important existing Mk factor and SIF solutions. A detailed comparison between
tubular joint and T-butt joint SIFs is then carried out. Finally, the new solutions are used to
perform fatigue crack growth calculations and to predict the lives of tubular joint specimens.
2
2. NUMERICAL MODELLING OF 3-D T-BUTT JOINTS
The starting block in the creation of a 3-D T-butt joint model is a plain plate mesh containing a
semi-elliptical surface crack. To generate this plain plate, the software ABACRACK (1989) is
used. A typical mesh, along with a close-up of the mesh in the region of the crack tip, is shown
in Figure 1. This shows a spider’s web type mesh configuration radiating from the semi-
elliptical crack front. To generate an ABACRACK mesh, an input file must be prepared which
contains 18 parameters controlling the dimensions, grading and other details. The length and
width of the plate, and the width and depth of the crack are normalised by the plate thickness,
which is always unity.
The FORTRAN program ABABUTT, which was developed at Swansea (Bowness, 1996), uses
the plain plate mesh created by ABACRACK and turns it into a T-butt joint. The intermediate
steps in this process are illustrated in Figure 2. Firstly, an attachment of uniform thickness is
added to the top of the plain plate mesh (Figure 2b). (The number of elements through the
thickness of the attachment, the thickness of the first element layer at the weld toe, and the mesh
grading are controlled by user input parameters.) The next stage is to map the attachment to give
the desired attachment thickness and weld profile (Figure 2c). User input parameters govern the
thickness of the attachment and the overall attachment footprint length. To achieve these
dimensions and to maintain the nodal connectivity between the plate and the attachment, the co-
ordinates of the nodes within the plain plate are adjusted. With regard to the weld, the user can
define the global weld angle as well as the radius of the weld toe. Finally, the main plate mesh is
reflected, resulting in a 3-D T-butt joint with a semi-elliptical weld toe crack (Figure 2d).
The unsymmetrical geometry of a T-butt joint causes the crack to curve slightly under the weld
toe as it grows through the main plate (Wildschut et al., 1987). If known, this curvature can be
modelled by ABABUTT. In the work reported here, however, all cracks are modelled
perpendicular to the main plate. Note that ignoring crack curvature does not adversely affect the
calculated SIFs (Bowness and Lee, 1998).
As well as generating the mesh, ABABUTT creates ready-to-run input data decks compatible
with the finite element code ABAQUS (1996), used for the analyses. Also, files necessary for
postprocessing (SIF evaluation) are produced. This fully automated process considerably
reduces the effort required to create numerical models of 3-D T-butt joints, making it possible to
carry out the extensive parametric study that forms the core of this project.
3
(a) quarter plain plate mesh
Figure 1
A typical ABACRACK mesh
4
(a) quarter plain plate mesh from
ABACRACK
(d) reflect the plain plate mesh to form a half T-butt joint
Figure 2
ABABUTT modelling sequence
5
2.2 ANALYSIS
The element type chosen for the analyses was the reduced integration 20-noded brick C3D20R
from the ABAQUS (1996) element library. At the crack front, the brick elements were collapsed
to wedges with the midside nodes placed at the halfway points; the use of the quarterpoint
technique, to force the element to have a 1/√r strain variation, was found previously to have a
negligible effect on the results (Bowness, 1996). This is due to the very fine crack tip meshes
used for the work presented here – the width of the crack tip elements is around 0.01T, or less.
In fact the quarterpoint technique can be detrimental because if the ring of singularity elements
is not optimally sized, the technique will introduce errors into the solution (Harrop, 1982).
Moreover, the results presented later in this report reveal that, for certain crack geometries and
at some of the positions on the crack front, the strain does not vary according to 1/√r.
Each model was analysed under membrane and bending loading. For membrane loading, one
end of the main plate was restrained whilst the other was given a uniform longitudinal
displacement. There are many ways to load a T-butt joint in bending, but the closest to the
conditions experienced at a tubular intersection is thought to be three-point bending where the
attachment is loaded. Thus, the ends of the main plate were restrained and a displacement was
applied to the end of the attachment. A deformed model under bending loading is shown in
Figure 3 along with a close-up of the opened crack. Bending loading for the plain plate was
achieved via pure bending.
The Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio used in the analyses were 210 kNmm-2 and 0.3,
respectively. The elastic finite element calculations were performed using the general purpose
finite element package ABAQUS (1996). For the most refined models which contained around
8500 20-noded brick elements (over 110,000 degrees of freedom), solution times were around
50 cpu minutes using the sparse solver on a SUN Ultra 2170, although more typical models
containing about 2500 brick elements took less than 10 minutes of cpu time.
6
(a) general view of deformed half model
Figure 3
Deformed T-butt joint model under bending loading
7
8
3. SIF AND Mk FACTOR EVALUATION
Several well established procedures exist for evaluating stress intensity factors in arbitrary
cracked bodies. Currently, the most popular method is probably the virtual crack extension,
which is implemented in ABAQUS (1996) to provide estimates of the J-integral. It has the
advantage of being rather insensitive to mesh refinement and is applicable for elastic and plastic
material behaviour. Fu et al. (1993), however, in their 3-D T-butt joint analyses, noted a lack of
path independence in the region where the crack meets the weld toe. They attributed this to the
presence of two stress singularities – one due to the weld toe and the other the crack tip – at this
point, and later, Kristiansen and Fu (1993) recommended the method of displacement
extrapolation for 3-D T-butt joint SIF evaluation. Due to the lack of any clear guidance on SIF
evaluation, SIFs are calculated using both the virtual crack extension and displacement
extrapolation techniques in the work reported here.
As mentioned earlier, cracks in the current work are modelled perpendicular to the main plate.
Since, in reality, cracks curve under the weld toe, this approximation will induce shearing mode
SIFs that may need to be accounted for. Results from the virtual crack extension will
automatically include the effect of shearing modes. With displacement extrapolation, each mode
must be evaluated separately and combined in some way.
In order to apply the displacement extrapolation technique to a semi-elliptical crack, the local
radial (r), normal (n) and tangential (t) directions must be defined for each point on the crack
front. This is achieved by calculating the vectors defining these local directions for the
ABACRACK plain plate mesh; this is quite straightforward as the crack is planar and lies in a
global co-ordinate plane. The radial direction is calculated from the co-ordinates of the nodes on
the radial paths which cross the crack front. The tangential direction is determined from the
derivative of the equation defining the elliptical crack front. The third vector, in the normal
direction, is then simply generated from a cross product of the other two. Using these vectors,
local direction cosines may be calculated, allowing the global displacements from the finite
element analyses to be transformed into local displacements according to
ur l1 m1 n1 U
vn = l2 m2 n2 V (5)
w l m3 n3 W
t 3
where ur, vn, wt are the local radial, normal and tangential displacements, U, V, W the global
displacements and l1, m1, n1 etc. the direction cosines of the local directions with respect to the
global axes.
To evaluate the mixed mode stress intensity factors, the largest displacements in the vicinity of
the crack, obtained from the radial paths up the crack face, were chosen. And due to the
unsymmetrical nature of the problem about the crack plane, radial paths up both the crack faces
were used. The SIF was then taken to be the average of the values calculated for each crack
face. Using the displacements on the crack faces also means that the Westergaard equations, for
the displacements in the vicinity of a crack tip, reduce to
9
KI r
vn = ( 2 − 2 υ) (6)
G 2π
K r
ur = II ( 2 − 2 υ) (7)
G 2π
K r
wt = III (8)
G 2π
for plane strain, where G is the elastic shear modulus (= E/[2(1+υ)]) and all the other
displacements become zero. For plane stress, υ must be replaced with υ/(1+υ) in the equations.
Because these equations are only valid close to the crack tip, results from the first three brick
elements were used for the extrapolation back to the tip. However, results from the collapsed
brick adjacent to the tip were ignored, since at the crack tip the SIFs produced by equations (6)–
(8) are infinite and the next two nodes are prone to numerical errors.
To take into account the shearing mode stress intensity factors, an effective SIF was defined as
2
K III
Keff = K +K +
2 2
(9)
I
(1 − υ2 )
II
This combination, which is used in the treatment of mixed mode SIFs in the CEGB R6 method
(Milne et al., 1986), was found to be adequate in previous work conducted at Swansea
(Bowness, 1996). One final complication, brought about by using equation (9), is that the sign
of Keff will not become negative if the crack closes – this is possible for deep round cracks
where the deepest point lies below the neutral surface. Hence, the sign of Keff is taken to be the
same as that of KI such that
2
KI K III
Keff = K I2 + K II2 +
( )
(10)
KI 1 − υ2
The virtual crack extension technique, implemented in ABAQUS (1996) was used to provide
estimates of the J-integral. In the elastic regime, the SIF may be calculated from the J-integral
value as
10
K = JE (11)
for plane stress. For plane strain, E must be replaced with E/(1-υ2). For each crack front node,
four contours were requested, each representing one ring of crack front elements. Then, using
equation (11), the contour values were converted to SIFs. Each crack front node SIF was then
taken to be the average of those calculated from contours 2, 3 and 4, with the first contour,
which is prone to numerical error, being ignored.
With regard to the use of the plane stress or plane strain form of equation (11), as with
displacement extrapolation, plane strain was used everywhere with the exception of the crack
ends in plain plates. Also, the sign of the J-integral provided by ABAQUS does not change as
the crack closes, so in the same way that the sign of equation (10) is determined from the
opening mode SIF, equation (11) must be calculated as
KI
K= JE (12)
KI
Once the SIFs have been evaluated, it is necessary to non-dimensionalise them with respect to
loading and absolute crack length. These non-dimensional SIFs, or shape factors (Y), are
calculated according to
K
Y= (13)
σ nom πa
where σnom is the nominal stress in the main plate and a is the absolute crack depth. The
calculation of the nominal stress in the main plate in a T-butt joint is a relatively simple task,
requiring only a basic knowledge of statics. When the main plate is cracked, however,
significant differences in the nominal stress may occur depending on how the nominal stress is
computed. For instance, if the T-butt joint is loaded in tension by applied displacement,
knowing the length of the main plate, the strain and hence nominal stress may be computed; this
is effectively an uncracked nominal stress. But a different nominal stress may be calculated if
the reaction, where the displacement is applied, is divided by the plate cross-sectional area; this
nominal stress includes the reduction in stiffness of the plate due to the presence of the crack. A
third nominal stress could also be defined by dividing the reaction by the area of the plate minus
the cracked area – a net section nominal stress.
In this project, all models are displacement loaded and the uncracked nominal stresses are used.
The choice of this method of nominal stress calculation is for consistency with the way the SIF
solutions will be used, i.e. tubular joint SIFs will be approximated by using the uncracked SCF
and DOB (see equation (1)). Hence, with reference to Figure 4, the nominal stress for membrane
loading is
σ nom = Eδ / 2 h (14)
where δ is the applied displacement. With a small L/T, the displacement applied to the end of
the main plate mesh is shared almost evenly between the two halves of the main plate, i.e. the
side with the attachment and the plate side both extend by δ/2, and so equation (14) may be used
11
directly. But when L/T is large, e.g. 2.0 and 2.75, the less stiff plain side of the main plate
extends by more than δ/2, and so the nominal stress must be calculated by using a δ equal to 2
times the extension of the plate half; this may be evaluated from the displacements half way
along the plain plate.
Figure 4
Nomenclature for a half 3-D T-butt joint
For bending loading, assuming the axial stiffness of the attachment is much greater than the
bending stiffness of the main plate, the nominal stress is
However, for the T-butt joints with thin attachments, for example L/T = 0.5, the extension of the
attachment can mean that the displacement at the base of the attachment, i.e. the displacement in
the centre of the main plate, is significantly less than the displacement δ applied to the end of
the attachment. Thus, the nominal stress is less than that calculated from equation (15). The
nominal stress for bending should, therefore, be calculated by using a δ evaluated from the
displacement at the base of the attachment in the centre of the main plate.
To test the accuracy of the methods described above for calculating the nominal stresses, four
uncracked T-butt joints with different attachment footprint widths were analysed under
membrane and bending loadings, to evaluate the stress distributions on the plain side of the
main plate. The results are shown in Figure 5. The SCF was calculated by dividing the actual
stress, obtained from the finite element analysis, by the theoretical nominal stress, computed as
described above. As one would expect, the SCF increases rapidly as the weld toe is approached,
but away from the weld toe the SCF converges on that computed theoretically.
12
3.5
L/T = 0.5
3.0 L/T = 1.25
L/T = 2.0
L/T = 2.75
2.5
Theoretical nominal stress
2.0
SCF
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Distance from weld toe / T
3.5
L/T = 0.5
3.0 L/T = 1.25
L/T = 2.0
L/T = 2.75
2.5
Theoretical nominal stress
2.0
SCF
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Distance from weld toe / T
Figure 5
Distribution of the SCF perpendicular to the crack plane with distance from the weld toe
13
3.4 CALCULATION OF THE Mk FACTOR
Once the shape factors have been calculated, the weld toe magnification factor (Mk) may be
calculated by dividing the T-butt joint Y factor by the plain plate Y factor, according to equation
(2).
14
4. PARAMETER RANGES FOR THE PARAMETRIC STUDY
This section details the choice of T-butt joint and crack geometries covered in the parametric
study.
4.1.1 Crack depth - a/T = 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9
During fatigue crack growth, most of the propagation life is consumed whilst the crack is very
shallow. At this critical stage, the effect of the weld toe is most pronounced, which is reflected
in the rapidly rising Mk factors with decreasing crack depth. Hence, the smallest a/T in the
parametric study was selected to be 0.005, representing a crack of depth 0.25mm in a 50mm
plate. This is in accordance with the initial flaw depth suggested when considering failure at the
weld toe of an otherwise undefective weld (HSE, 1995b). With regard to the deepest crack
depth, a/T = 0.9 is proposed as it is the deepest semi-elliptical crack depth that may be
practicably modelled. The suggested intermediate crack depths are concentrated on where the
gradient of Mk is the highest.
4.1.2 Crack aspect ratio - a/c = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7, 1.0
The proposed crack aspect ratios cover most defect sizes experienced in real tubular joints: from
a semi-circular crack to one where the total width is 20 times the depth.
The attachment footprint widths proposed are consistent with the AWS D1.1-90 (1990)
recommendations for standard flat and toe fillet weld profiles. To derive typical L/T values,
tubular joint τ-ratios of 0.5 and 1.0 were considered with chord thicknesses of 16, 32 and 50mm.
Combinations of τ and T were then input into the equations given in Table 1, which summarise
the AWS prequalified weld size details.
15
Table 1
Attachment footprint length (L) for an AWS prequalified weld
Table 2 shows the calculated values of L and L/T for various local dihedral angles Ψ, i.e.
intersection locations.
Table 2
Calculated attachment footprint widths
16
4.2.2 Weld angle - θ = 30° , 45° , 60° , 75°
The extensive 2-D work of Thurlbeck (1991) showed that the weld angle that produces the most
severe Mk factors is 60°. But because this may not be the case for 3-D geometries, 75° is
proposed as the maximum weld angle. The minimum proposed weld angle is 30°, which should
cover situations where the local dihedral angle is large, for instance at the saddle of a high beta
value joint, where the weld angle is relatively shallow to the chord surface.
The sharp weld toe radius of 0.0 is proposed as the most important value for the parametric
study because it will yield conservative Mk factors. Since it is desirable to be able to quantify
the effect of weld toe grinding on fatigue life, a second weld toe radius was selected. According
to AWS guidance (1990), the entire weld face should be profiled to a minimum radius of half
the brace thickness, which would mean a huge radius of, say, 12.5mm for a τ = 0.5 joint where
the chord thickness is 50mm. A more realistic value would be of the order of the radius of the
rotary burr tool bit used to grind out undercut at the weld toe itself. ρ/T = 0.1 was therefore
investigated, which represents a radius of 5mm with a 50mm thick chord, and also yields
conservative predictions for thinner chords.
The joint dimensions selected for the analyses are as follows: b = 5.0c but ≥ 5.0T, h = b and hatt
= h/2 (these parameters are defined in Figure 4). These values minimise finite geometry (width
and length) effects (Bowness and Lee, 1996 and Bowness, 1996). Another consideration is the
τ-ratio (= t/T) of the T-butt joints, i.e. the thickness of the attachment. For convenience, a τ =
0.5×L/T was used when the weld angle is 30° and 45°, but for the steeper weld angles a τ =
0.8×L/T was necessary, otherwise the weld height, i.e. to the brace weld toe, becomes
unrealistically large. It should be noted that the thickness of the attachment does not affect the
Mk factors.
17
18
5. PARAMETRIC STUDY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 3, overleaf, gives a summary of the parameters covered in the parametric study. In the
table, the ‘base study’ denotes the analyses that were initially performed to investigate the
general behaviour of Mk with crack aspect ratio and depth. To clarify trends in the effect of
crack depth on Mk, it was necessary to perform some additional analyses covering intermediate
crack depths, not proposed in the previous section. In total, the base study comprised 130 T-butt
joint analyses. To facilitate the calculation of Mk, a further 130 corresponding plain plate
analyses were performed. And to ensure that the final value for Mk is as consistent and accurate
as possible, the T-butt joint results were divided by plain plate results computed from identical
meshes (with the attachment removed).
The rest of the analyses cover the effects of the weld angle θ, the attachment footprint width L/T
and a weld toe radius ρ/T :
• Four a/c ratios were analysed (0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0); the value of 0.7 was not included because,
in the base study, it produced results which are very similar to those for a/c = 1.0.
• For L/T = 0.5 and 1.25, four weld angles were analysed (30°, 45°, 60°, 75°).
• For L/T = 2.0 and 2.75, three weld angles were analysed (30°, 45°, 60°); θ = 75° was
discounted because such large attachment footprint widths usually occur when the local
dihedral is large, and hence the weld angle to the chord surface is small.
• The weld toe radius ρ/T = 0.1 was analysed for all the four attachment footprint widths, but
only for a weld angle of 45°; the other weld angles were discounted because the effect of
weld angle is minimised by the large weld toe radius.
• Plain plate analyses were only performed for geometries where the weld angle was 45° and
the weld toe radius was sharp (ρ/T = 0.0). This is because altering the weld angle and toe
radius does not change the main plate mesh, and so the plain plate shape factor Y from the
main plate of the θ = 45°, ρ/T = 0.0 T-butt joint mesh may be used to calculate Mk for other
weld angles and toe radii.
Before the results are presented, the differences between the SIFs calculated using displacement
extrapolation and the J-integral are discussed. The first thing to note is the path dependency
/independence of the J-integrals. As mentioned in Section 3, Fu et al. (1993) found that the J-
integrals were highly path dependent where the crack meets the weld toe, with successive
contours differing by as much as 300%. The results from the current work do not, however,
show any such path dependency. The difference between the successive contours (2, 3 and 4) is
typically between 1 to 5%. The only exceptions to this are those obtained for the shallowest,
widest cracks, which have meshes with elements that are distorted most. For these few
geometries, the maximum difference reached 10%. A possible reason for the problems
experienced by Fu et al. is that they used 15-noded wedge elements at the weld toe and so where
the crack meets the weld toe, the ‘virtual crack extension’ perturbs two different element types
(20-noded bricks as well as the wedges) in the contours used to evaluate J – something not
permitted by ABAQUS, the finite element package used in their analyses.
19
Table 3
Summary of the parameters covered in the parametric study
!
!
#
θ ρ
$
"
m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.7, 1.0 45° 1.25 0.0 110 110 220
Base study m, b 0.8 0.1, 0.2 45° 1.25 0.0 4 4 8
m, b 0.8, 0.85 0.4 45° 1.25 0.0 4 4 8
m, b 0.75, 0.8 0.7 45° 1.25 0.0 4 4 8
m, b 0.6, 0.65, 0.75, 0.8 1.0 45° 1.25 0.0 8 8 16
Effect of m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 30° 1.25 0.0 — 88 88
weld angle on m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 60° 1.25 0.0 — 88 88
L/T = 1.25 m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 75° 1.25 0.0 — 88 88
Effect of m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 30° 0.5 0.0 — 88 88
weld angle on m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 0.5 0.0 88 88 176
L/T = 0.5 m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 60° 0.5 0.0 — 88 88
m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 75° 0.5 0.0 — 88 88
Effect of m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 30° 2.0 0.0 — 88 88
weld angle on m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 2.0 0.0 88 88 176
L/T = 2.0 m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 60° 2.0 0.0 — 88 88
Effect of m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 30° 2.75 0.0 — 88 88
weld angle on m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 2.75 0.0 88 88 176
L/T = 2.75 m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 60° 2.75 0.0 — 88 88
Effect of L/T m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 0.5 0.1 — 88 88
with a m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 1.25 0.1 — 88 88
radiused m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 2.0 0.1 — 88 88
weld toe m, b 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0 45° 2.75 0.1 — 88 88
Effect of θ on m, b 0.01, 0.07, 0.5 0.4 30° 2.0 0.1 — 6 6
radiused weld m, b 0.01, 0.07, 0.5 0.2 60° 2.75 0.1 — 6 6
toe m, b 0.01, 0.07, 0.5 0.1 75° 0.5 0.1 — 6 6
a) J-integral SIFs are larger than those from displacement extrapolation at the deepest point of
the a/T = 0.9 crack in plain plates and T-butt joints, especially under bending loading.
b) At the crack end locations in T-butt joints, the situation is reversed with the J-integral SIFs
being lower than their displacement extrapolation counterparts.
The reason for these differences was revealed by producing a number of log-log plots of the
crack opening displacements against radial distance from the crack tip. Usually, such plots show
a straight line of gradient 0.5, i.e. an r0.5 variation, but for the first case stated above, the
gradient was nearer 0.65 and at the crack ends in T-butt joints, the restraining effect of the
attachment reduced the singularity to about r0.4. Consequently, the displacement extrapolation
results are in error at these locations since this SIF evaluation technique is based on an a priori
assumption of an r0.5 singularity. Therefore, the results presented in the remainder of this work
were all evaluated from J-integrals as no problems were experienced using this technique.
The results derived from the base parametric study are plotted in Figure 6 for the deepest point
of the crack, and Figure 7 for the crack ends where the crack meets the weld toe. Also,
deformed models for membrane loading are shown in Figure 8.
Under membrane loading, as the crack opens, the plain plate deforms upwards at the position of
the crack (Figure 8a). When the attachment is present, the deepest point stress intensity factors
for shallow cracks are magnified by the presence of the notch stress (Figure 6a). However, for
cracks with a/T greater than about 0.2, the attachment restrains the upward and opening
movement at the crack (Figure 8b), causing the Mk factors to fall below unity (Figure 6a). And
because the upward and opening deformation is greater for wider cracks, the lowest Mk is for
a/c = 0.1.
Under bending, in addition to the same upward and opening movement at the crack, there is also
the Poisson effect causing the plain plate to curl up at the sides. For the T-butt joint, the loaded
attachment restrains all of this deformation, constraining the top of the plate to move almost
uniformly upward under the attachment (see Figure 3a). As well as this, the stiffening effect of
the attachment raises the neutral surface relative to its position in a plain plate. These effects
account for the reduction of Mk factors to well below unity at the deepest point (Figure 6b). The
most notable features of the Mk curves shown in Figure 6b are the discontinuities that occur for
the more rounded cracks at large depths. Examining the curve for the round crack (a/c = 1.0)
denoted by the empty circles:
• for a/T = 0.2 to 0.65, the downward trend of Mk with a/T is due to the attachment having a
greater restraining effect on deeper cracks.
• at a/T = 0.65, Mk changes sign when the SIF in the plain plate is positive and the SIF in the
T-butt joint is negative—this is due to the crack faces overlapping because contact modelling
was not employed (see later for further discussion). This case arises because the presence of
the attachment raises the neutral surface relative to the plain plate case.
• around a/T = 0.72, the plain plate SIF is still positive, i.e. the crack is still opening, but its
magnitude is very small. Hence, from equation (2), Mk tends to minus infinity.
21
3.0
a/c=0.1
2.5 a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
a/c=0.7
2.0 a/c=1.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
3.0
2.0
1.0
Mk
a/c=0.1
0.0 a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
a/c=0.4 (regression line)
a/c=0.7
-1.0 a/c=0.7 (regression line)
a/c=1.0
a/c=1.0 (regression line)
-2.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 6
Weld toe magnification factors at the deepest point of the crack
22
7.0
a/c=0.1
6.0 a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
a/c=0.7
5.0 a/c=1.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
7.0
a/c=0.1
6.0 a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
a/c=0.7
5.0 a/c=1.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 7
Weld toe magnification factors at the crack ends
23
(a) plain plate
Figure 8
Deformed models for membrane loading (to the same scale)
• at a/T = 0.73, the plain plate SIF is zero, i.e. the deepest point of the crack and neutral
surface coincide, and so Mk is infinity.
• around a/T = 0.74, the T-butt joint SIF becomes increasingly negative and the plain plate SIF
is negative but small in magnitude. Hence, Mk tends to plus infinity as the negative signs
cancel.
• for a/T = 0.8 to 0.9, the T-butt joint and plain plate SIFs are both negative and similar in
magnitude leading to an Mk of near unity.
Illustration of these explanations may be seen in Figure 9 which shows the plain plate and T-
butt joint shape factors (Y) in the region of the discontinuity – Mk is the solid line divided by the
dashed line. With regard to the crack depth at which the discontinuity occurs for a particular a/c,
this obviously depends on the crack depth where the deepest point SIF in the plain plate is zero
(when the crack depth = the depth of the neutral surface), which is plotted in Figure 10.
Extrapolation of the quadratic regression curve reveals that a discontinuity in Mk will occur at
a/T = 0.91 for a crack of aspect ratio (a/c) 0.2 and a/T = 0.95 for a/c = 0.1. Also, Figure 10
predicts that, with an edge crack (a/c = 0.0), the plain plate Y can never be negative since the
crack front and neutral surface can only theoretically meet when the crack is through thickness
(a/T = 1.0).
With regard to the negative SIFs discussed above, they imply the physically impossible
condition of the crack faces penetrating each other. Such values, on their own, are meaningless
and in these circumstances, the opening mode SIF must be assumed to be zero. They may be
24
used meaningfully, however, for combined membrane and bending load cases as along as the
final SIF, calculated using superposition, is not negative.
0.4
0.2
0.1
Y
0.0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
a/T
Figure 9
Shape factor in the region of the discontinuity (a/c = 1.0)
One final point worthy of note is the sharpness of the discontinuities. For the round crack, Mk
falls to minus infinity quite gradually because the T-butt joint Y turns negative well before the
plain plate Y, i.e. the neutral surface is considerably higher in the T-butt joint than in the plain
plate. As the crack becomes wider (e.g. a/c = 0.4), the discontinuity sharpens with Mk falling
almost instantaneously, indicating that the neutral surface in the T-butt joint is only marginally
higher than that in the plain plate. From these observations, it may therefore be deduced that,
under bending loading, the attachment has a greater effect on rounded cracks than on wider
cracks.
At the crack ends (Figure 7), the Mk factors exhibit similar trends for both membrane and
bending loading. Here, the notch stress dominates and so Mk is always greater than unity, but
Mk is reduced for deeper cracks. The smaller elevation in stress intensity factor for deeper
cracks is a consequence of the reduced effect of the SCF at the weld toe on the larger crack
opening. Mk also shows a large dependency on a/c because, for a rounded crack (large a/c), the
attachment is less able to deform backwards and allow the crack ends to open. This effect is
shown in Figure 11, which shows the flattening effect of the attachment on the crack opening.
Conversely, a wide crack gives the attachment a greater distance to deform backwards, allowing
the crack ends to open more.
25
1.0
2
Depth / T = 0.2395(a/c) - 0.5042(a/c) + 0.9977
2
R = 0.9997
Depth of neutral surface / T
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/c
Figure 10
Effect of a/c on the depth of the neutral surface in plain plates
Attachment side
26
5.4 TYPICAL RESULTS FROM THE MAIN PARAMETRIC STUDY
Due to the large amount of data generated in the parametric study, only a selection of typical
results are shown in this report to illustrate the main effects of the weld toe parameters. The
results are shown in Figures 12–23. In Figures 12–15, the effect of the weld angle θ on the weld
toe magnification factor is demonstrated for membrane and bending loading, at both the deepest
point and the crack end locations. Figures 16–19 show the effect of the attachment width L/T.
Finally, Figures 20–23 show the weld toe magnification factors when the weld toe is radiused.
Note that the effects of the crack aspect ratio a/c have been shown in the previous section.
At the deepest point under membrane loading (Figure 12), an increasing weld angle causes an
increase in Mk for shallow cracks where a/T < 0.04 (Figure 12b). This increase becomes larger
as the crack depth becomes shallower. The effect of the weld angle, however, begins to saturate
for the largest weld angles. The effect of the weld angle on shallow cracks is due to the
increased stress raising effect of steeper weld angles. For intermediate crack depths (0.2 < a/T <
0.7, Figure 12a), the presence of the attachment reduces Mk to below unity (cf. Figure 6a) and
an increasing weld angle results in a further reduction of Mk. For the deepest crack, a/T = 0.9,
the Mk factors, for this particular crack aspect ratio and weld geometry, converge to almost the
same value of about unity. At the deepest point under bending loading (Figure 13), the effect of
the weld angle on Mk for shallow and intermediate depth cracks is more pronounced. For the
deeper cracks, a/T = 0.7 and 0.9, the strange trends in Mk arise because the results for these two
crack depths are on either side of the discontinuity in Mk.
At the crack ends, for both membrane and bending loading (Figures 14 and 15, respectively),
increasing the weld angle results in an increase in the Mk factor over the whole crack depth
range. The effect of the weld angle is greater on shallower cracks than on deeper cracks, and the
increase in Mk for shallower cracks is more pronounced for bending loading. Again, these
effects are as a result of the increased stress raising effect of steeper weld angles.
At the deepest point under membrane loading, for shallow cracks where a/T < 0.2 (Figure 16b),
Mk increases as the attachment footprint width increases. However, beyond L/T = 0.5, the effect
of the attachment footprint width saturates very quickly, resulting in very little increase when
L/T is changed from 1.25 to 2.75. The effect of the attachment footprint width on Mk, results
from the base of the attachment stiffening the top surface of the main plate, which raises the
weld toe notch stress. Over the rest of the crack range (Figure 16a), increasing L/T reduces the
crack opening relative to that in a plain plate, and Mk decreases. At the deepest point under
bending loading, the general trends are the same as for membrane loading, except that the effect
of L/T increases as the crack becomes deeper (Figure 17a).
At the crack ends under membrane and bending loading (Figures 18 and 19, respectively), Mk
increases over the whole depth range as the attachment footprint width widens. This increase is,
again, only significant when L/T changes from 0.5 to 1.25 as the influence of L/T quickly
saturates. For the very shallow cracks (a/T < 0.1, Figures 18b and 19b), a reducing crack depth
does, though, result in a slight increase in Mk as L/T becomes larger, with the exception of the
a/T = 0.005 crack (to be discussed in Section 5.4.4).
27
3.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
3.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 12
Variation of Mk with θ for a/c = 0.2, L/T = 1.25, ρ/T = 0.0
at the deepest point under membrane loading
28
3.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
3.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 13
Variation of Mk with θ for a/c = 0.2, L/T = 1.25, ρ/T = 0.0
at the deepest point under bending loading
29
9.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
8.0
a/c=0.2, theta=45°
a/c=0.2, theta=60°
7.0 a/c=0.2, theta=75°
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
9.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
8.0
a/c=0.2, theta=45°
a/c=0.2, theta=60°
7.0 a/c=0.2, theta=75°
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 14
Variation of Mk with θ for a/c = 0.2, L/T = 1.25, ρ/T = 0.0
at the crack ends under membrane loading
30
9.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
8.0
a/c=0.2, theta=45°
a/c=0.2, theta=60°
7.0 a/c=0.2, theta=75°
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
9.0
a/c=0.2, theta=30°
8.0
a/c=0.2, theta=45°
a/c=0.2, theta=60°
7.0 a/c=0.2, theta=75°
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 15
Variation of Mk with θ for a/c = 0.2, L/T = 1.25, ρ/T = 0.0
at the crack ends under bending loading
31
3.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
3.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 16
Variation of Mk with L/T for a/c = 0.1, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.0
at the deepest point under membrane loading
32
3.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
3.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 17
Variation of Mk with L/T for a/c = 0.1, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.0
at the deepest point under bending loading
33
9.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
8.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.1, L/T=2.0
7.0 a/c=0.1, L/T=2.75
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
9.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
8.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.1, L/T=2.0
7.0 a/c=0.1, L/T=2.75
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 18
Variation of Mk with L/T for a/c = 0.1, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.0
at the crack ends under membrane loading
34
9.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
8.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.1, L/T=2.0
7.0 a/c=0.1, L/T=2.75
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) full crack depth range
9.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
8.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.1, L/T=2.0
7.0 a/c=0.1, L/T=2.75
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a/T
(b) close-up showing trends for shallow cracks
Figure 19
Variation of Mk with L/T for a/c = 0.1, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.0
at the crack ends under bending loading
35
3.0
a/c=0.1
2.5 a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
a/c=1.0
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 20
Variation of Mk with a/c for L/T = 1.25, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.1
at the deepest point under membrane loading
3.0
a/c=0.1
2.5 a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
a/c=1.0
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 21
Variation of Mk with a/c for L/T = 1.25, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.1
at the deepest point under bending loading
36
9.0
a/c=0.1
8.0
a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
7.0 a/c=1.0
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 22
Variation of Mk with a/c for L/T = 1.25, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.1
at the crack ends under membrane loading
9.0
a/c=0.1
8.0
a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
7.0 a/c=1.0
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 23
Variation of Mk with a/c for L/T = 1.25, θ = 45° ,ρ
ρ/T = 0.1
at the crack ends under bending loading
37
5.4.3 Effect of a radiused weld toe
At the deepest point of the crack under both membrane and bending loading (Figures 20 and 21,
respectively), the radiused weld toe is seen to reduce the elevation in Mk for shallow cracks, a/T
< 0.1, when compared to a sharp weld toe (cf. Figure 6). The effect of the radiused weld toe,
which is caused by the reduction in the weld toe notch stress, is to reduce the largest Mk (for a/T
= 0.005) from just under 2.5, for the sharp weld toe, to around 1.6. For the rest of the crack
depth range, a/T > 0.1, the radius of the weld toe has no effect on Mk.
At the crack ends under membrane and bending loading (Figures 22 and 23, respectively), the
radiused weld toe results in a significant reduction in Mk over the whole of the crack depth
range (cf. Figure 7). For the very shallowest crack, a/T = 0.005, Mk is more than halved by the
weld toe radius, from around 6.2, for the sharp weld toe, to about 2.9.
Previous work has indicated that the effect of the weld angle is negligible for a large weld toe
radius (Thurlbeck, 1991). To confirm this, a random selection of geometries were analysed, the
results of which are shown in Table 4. In the table, Mk factors for cracked geometries with weld
angles of 30°, 60° and 75° are compared with those from T-butt joints with a 45° weld angle, as
used for the parametric study. In general, the results do confirm the findings of Thurlbeck, with
most of the differences being less than 5%. A few joints give higher differences of up to 7.6%,
particularly under bending loading, but these differences are small compared to the effect of
changing the weld angle when the weld toe is sharp (cf. Figures 12–15). Hence, the results
derived in the parametric study for the radiused weld toe and weld angle of 45° should be
applicable to other weld angles.
38
Table 4
The effect of weld angle on Mk when the weld toe is radiused
5.4.4 Problems with some of the results for the shallowest crack
Figure 24 shows a close-up of the crack end Mk factors for shallow cracks for a T-butt joint
where a/c = 0.1, θ = 45° and ρ/T = 0.0, loaded in bending. Over most of the crack depth range
the increase in Mk corresponds to an increase in L/T. However, for a/T = 0.005 the Mk factor for
L/T = 2.0 (solid triangle) jumps above that for L/T = 2.75, rather than remaining between the L/T
= 1.25 and 2.75 Mk factors. This problem, which may easily be identified because the result
does not fit in with the general trend of the data, occurs for 9 of the joints analysed. These joints
are listed in Table 5.
39
9.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
8.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.1, L/T=2.0
7.0 a/c=0.1, L/T=2.75
6.0
Mk
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
a/T
Figure 24
Variation of Mk for shallow cracks with L/T, for a/c = 0.1, θ = 45°
and ρ/T = 0.0 at the crack ends under bending loading
Table 5
Mk factor data that do not fit in with the general data trends
The results affected are those for the crack ends under bending loading. No problems were
experienced with the deepest point results. The cause of these anomalous results is thought to be
a lack of adequate mesh refinement; for these particular geometries, it proved to be difficult to
achieve a dense enough mesh at the crack ends especially when one considers that the crack
depth itself is only 1/200th of the main plate thickness. Further refinement was possible, but
some of the analyses were already near to the limits of the computing resources available.
Hence, these results will remain in the database, but will be removed for the regression analyses
and equation fitting discussed in the next section.
40
6. THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW Mk FACTOR EQUATIONS
The spreadsheet program Excel (Microsoft Corporation, 1994) was used to regress the data
generated in the parametric study into the form of equations. Trial equations, which were
functions of the various parameters, were input into the spreadsheet, with an initial guess made
as to the values of the coefficients in the equations. The Solver was then used to minimise the
sum of the residuals (between the data and the equation predictions) squared, by changing the
coefficients in the equations.
Minimising the sum of the residuals squared naturally biases the regression such that the
resulting equation is most accurate in the regions where the magnitude of the data is largest; this
is because the residual is calculated from the numerical difference in values, rather than as a
percentage error. Hence, when the weld toe magnification factor is large, the equation will be a
better fit of the data, with respect to percentage error. This is a desirable attribute, as a large
proportion of the fatigue propagation life is consumed when the weld toe magnification factor is
large.
The new parametric weld toe magnification factor equations were built up, in stages, from the
following four basic functions:
C2
C1
a
• The crack depth to a power
T
C
a 2
• One minus the crack depth to a power C1 1 −
T
a C2
• Exponent of the crack depth to a power C1 exp
T
2
C1 + C2 + C3 +
a a
• Polynomial functions
T T
%
where C1, C2 etc. are coefficients. The first stage in the development of the equations was to
take the finite element Mk factor data for a constant weld angle and weld footprint width. The
equations were then expanded to include the effects of weld angle and, subsequently, the weld
footprint width, by adding the relevant data from the database. The following sections describe,
in more detail, how the new parametric equations were developed. It should be noted that the
weld angle θ used in the regression analyses was in terms of radians to avoid small coefficients.
6.2.1 Mk factor equations for a sharp weld toe at the deepest point of the crack
In the first stage of the development of the deepest point, sharp weld toe equations, the Mk data
for a constant θ (= 30°) and L/T (= 0.5) were assembled. These data were split into the four
smaller sets, one for each a/c value (= 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 1.0), and equation (16) was fitted to each
set.
41
a
A4
A2 + A3
a
a A6
f1 = A1 + A5 exp + A7
T
(16)
T T
Each set of a/c data resulted in a different set of coefficients, A1 to A7. These coefficients were
then plotted to see how they vary with a/c. The graphs revealed that A1, A5 and A6 remain
approximately constant with a/c, whilst the variation of the other coefficients could be described
by the following functions:
A2 = B1 ( a c) + B2 ( a c) + B3
2
A3 = B4 ( a c) 5
B
A4 = B6 ( a c) + B7
A7 = B8 ( a c) + B9 ( a c) + B10 ( a c) + B11
3 2
where the coefficients Bn, i.e. B1 to B11, were calculated by regression. Hence, equation (16), in
conjunction with the functions of a/c, describes the variation of the weld toe magnification
factor with a/T and a/c, for a set of constant θ (= 30°) and L/T (= 0.5).
In the second stage of the equation development, all the Mk data for a constant L/T (= 0.5) were
assembled; this includes the data from stage one, plus the data for different weld angles. To
describe the effect of the weld angle, a new set of data was generated by calculating the
difference between the θ = 30° data, and the corresponding data (same a/T and a/c) for all the
different weld angles. This set of data was then regressed into the following form:
C4
C a
a
f2 = C1 1 − + C3
2
a T
(17)
T T
where
C1 = D1θ2 + D2θ + D3
C2 = D4θ + D5
C3 = D6θ + D7
C4 = constant
Hence, equation (18) describes the variation of the weld toe magnification factor with a/T, a/c
and θ, for a constant L/T (= 0.5).
Mk = f1 + f2 (18)
In the final stage of the equation development, all the Mk data for the relevant crack location
and load case were assembled; this includes the data from stage two, plus the data for different
attachment footprint widths (L/T). To describe the effect of the attachment footprint width, a
new set of data was generated by calculating the difference between the L/T = 0.5 data, and the
corresponding data (same a/T, a/c and θ) for the other attachment footprint widths. This set of
data was then regressed into the following form:
( E2θ2 + E3θ+ E4 ) E6
a2
f3 = E1 + E5 + E7 + E8 + E9
a a a
(19)
T T T T
42
where
E1 = F1θ2 + F2θ + F3
E2 = F4 ( L T ) + F5 ( L T ) + F6 ( L T ) + F7
3 2
E3 = F8 ( L T ) + F9 ( L T ) + F10 ( L T ) + F11
3 2
The final equation for the weld toe magnification factor is therefore
Mk = f1 + f2 + f3 (20)
The Solver was then used to fine tune all of the coefficients An, Bn, Cn, Dn, En and Fn and
minimise the residuals further.
6.2.2 Mk factor equations for a sharp weld toe at the crack ends
In the first stage of the development of the sharp weld toe equations for the crack ends, the Mk
data for a constant θ (= 30°) and L/T (= 0.5) were assembled. Using the same method as utilised
in stage one of the development of the deepest point equations, equation (21) was fitted to the
data
A2 A4
a
f1 = A1 + A3 1 −
a
(21)
T T
A1 = B1 ( c a) + B2 ( c a) + B3
2
A2 = B4 ( c a) + B5 ( c a) + B6
2
A3 = B7 ( c a) + B8 ( c a) + B9
2
In the second stage of the equation development, the Mk data for a constant L/T (= 0.5) were
assembled; this includes the data from stage one, plus the data for different weld angles. To
describe the effect of the weld angle, a new set of data was generated by dividing the data for all
the different weld angles by the corresponding θ = 30° data (same a/T and a/c). This set of data
was then regressed into the following form:
a 2 a C4
C6
a
f2 = C1 C2 C3 + C5 1 −
a
+ + (22)
c c
T T
43
where
C1 = D1θ2 + D2θ + D3
C2 = D4θ2 + D5θ + D6
C3 = D7θ2 + D8θ + D9
C4 = D10 ( a c) + D11 ( a c) + D12
2
Hence, equation (23) describes the variation of the weld toe magnification factor with a/T, a/c
and θ, for a constant L/T (= 0.5).
Mk = f1 f2 (23)
In the final stage of the equation development, all the Mk data for the relevant crack location
and load case were assembled; this includes the data from stage two, plus the data for different
attachment footprint widths. To describe the effect of the attachment footprint width, a new set
of data was generated by dividing the data for all the different attachment footprint widths by
the corresponding L/T = 0.5 data (same a/T, a/c and θ). This set of data was then regressed into
the following form:
where
E1 = F1 ( L T ) + F2 ( L T ) + F3
2
E2 = F4 ( L T ) + F5 ( L T ) + F6
2
E3 = F7 ( L T ) + F8 ( L T ) + F9 ( L T ) + F10
3 2
Interactions between the weld and crack parameters also meant that it was necessary to change
equation (21) such that
44
B4 = G1 ( L T ) + G2 ( L T ) + G3
2
B5 = G4 ( L T ) + G5 ( L T ) + G6
2
B6 = G7 ( L T ) + G8 ( L T ) + G9
2
The final equation for the weld toe magnification factor is therefore
Mk = f1 f2 f3 (25)
The Solver was then used to fine tune all of the constants An, Bn, Cn, Dn, En, Fn and Gn and
minimise the residuals further.
6.2.3 Mk factor equations for a radiused weld toe at the deepest point
In the first stage of the development of the radiused weld toe equations for the deepest point, the
Mk data for a constant L/T (= 0.5) were assembled. Equation (26) was then fitted to the data
A2 A
a 4
f1 = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
(26)
T T T
A1 = B1 ( a c) + B2 ( a c) + B3
2
A2 = B4 ( a c) + B5 ( a c) + B6
2
A3 = B7 ( a c) + B8 ( a c) + B9
2
In the next stage of the equation development, all the Mk data for the relevant crack location and
load case were assembled. To describe the effect of the attachment footprint width, a new set of
data was generated by dividing the data for all the different attachment footprint widths by the
corresponding L/T = 0.5 data (same a/T and a/c). This set of data was then regressed into the
following form:
C2 C4
a
f2 = C1 + C3 1 −
a
(27)
T T
where
45
C1 = D1 ( L T ) + D2 ( L T ) + D3
2
C2 = D4 ( L T ) + D5 ( L T ) + D6
2
C3 = D7 ( L T ) + D8 ( L T ) + D9
2
Mk = f1 f2 (28)
The Solver was then used to fine tune all of the constants An, Bn, Cn and Dn and minimise the
residuals further.
6.2.4 Mk factor equations for a radiused weld toe at the crack ends
In the first stage of the development of the radiused weld toe equations for the crack ends, the
Mk data for a constant L/T (= 0.5) were assembled. Equation (29) was then fitted to the data
A2 A
a
f1 = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
4
a a
(29)
T
T T
A1 = B1 ( c a) + B2 ( c a) + B3
2
A2 = B4 ( c a) + B5 ( c a) + B6
2
A3 = B7 ( c a) + B8 ( c a) + B9
2
In the next stage of the equation development, all the Mk data for the relevant crack location and
load case were assembled. To describe the effect of the attachment footprint width, a new set of
data was generated by dividing the data for all the different attachment footprint widths by the
corresponding L/T = 0.5 data (same a/T and a/c). This set of data was then regressed into the
following form:
a C4
2 C6
a
f2 = C1 + C2 + C3 + C5 1 −
a a
(30)
c c T T
where
46
C1 = D1 ( L T ) + D2 ( L T ) + D3
2
C2 = D4 ( L T ) + D5 ( L T ) + D6
2
C3 = D7 ( L T ) + D8 ( L T ) + D9
2
Mk = f1 f2 (31)
The Solver was then used to fine tune all of the constants An, Bn, Cn and Dn and minimise the
residuals further.
In this section, details of the data used in the regression analyses, and the reasons why some of
the data were not used, are given:
• Deepest point of the crack / Sharp weld toe / Membrane loading — all the data derived in the
parametric study were used in the regression analyses.
• Deepest point of the crack / Sharp weld toe / Bending loading — only the data for crack
depths a/T ≤ 0.5 were used in the regression. This was because Mk was previously found to
be a discontinuous function with a/T (see Section 5.3 and Figure 6). The calculation of Mk
when a/T is greater than 0.5 is discussed in a later section.
• Crack ends / Sharp weld toe / Membrane loading — all the parametric data were used.
• Crack ends / Sharp weld toe / Bending loading — as noted in Section 5.4.4, some of the data
points for the shallowest cracks do not fit in with the general trends of the rest of the data.
These data points, listed in Table 5, were not used in the regression analyses.
• Deepest point / Radiused weld toe / Membrane loading — all the data derived in the
parametric study were used in the regression analyses.
• Deepest point / Radiused weld toe / Bending loading — only the data for crack depths a/T ≤
0.5 were used in the regression to avoid the discontinuity in the Mk data mentioned
previously in this section.
• Crack ends / Radiused weld toe / Membrane loading — all Mk data except those for a/T =
0.005 were used in the regression. This was because the data for the shallowest crack are
often lower than the trend for the rest of the crack depth distribution would predict, as shown
below for the a/c = 0.4 and 1.0 lines in Figure 25. The removal of this data makes the
regression analysis simpler, and the resulting equations, which fit the overall trends, should
be conservative for a/T = 0.005.
47
3.0
a/c=0.1
a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
2.5 a/c=1.0
Mk
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
Figure 25
Variation of Mk with a/c for shallow cracks, L/T = 1.25, θ = 45º, ρ/T = 0.1
at the crack ends under membrane loading
• Crack ends / Radiused weld toe / Bending loading — all Mk data except those for a/T =
0.005 were used in the regression for the same reasons given for membrane loading.
The resulting regression equations for the weld toe magnification factors are given in this
section. Equations (32)–(35) are for the sharp weld toe, and equations (36)–(39) are for the
radiused, or ground (g), weld toe. The subscripts m and b denote membrane and bending
loading, respectively, whilst a and c denote the deepest point and crack ends, respectively. The
weld angle θ is in radians. All equation coefficients are given to five significant figures. NOTE
that these are NOT the final equations — they are given in Appendix B of this report, and
include the recommendations from Section 8.
48
6.4.1 Deepest point of the crack under membrane loading with a sharp weld toe
Mkma = f1 ( Ta , ac ) + f2 ( Ta , θ) + f3 ( Ta , θ, TL ) (32)
where
a
A3
A1 + A2
a
a −0.050966
f1 ( Ta , ac ) = 0.43358 + 0.93163 exp
T
T + A4
T
A2 = 1.3218( a c)
−0. 61153
A3 = −0.87238( a c) + 1.2788
A4 = −0.46190( a c) + 0.67090( a c) − 0.37571( a c) + 4.6511
3 2
−0 .10740
A a
a 6
f2 ( Ta ,θ) = A5 1 − + A7
a T
T T
49
6.4.2 Deepest point of the crack under bending loading with a sharp weld toe
Mkba = f1 ( Ta , ac ) + f2 ( Ta , θ) + f3 ( Ta , θ, TL ) (33)
where
a
A3
A1 + A2
a
a −0.10364
f1 ( Ta , ac ) = 0.065916 + 0.52086 exp
T
T + A4
T
A2 = 0.61775( a c)
−1. 0278
A3 = 0.00013242( a c) − 1.4744
A4 = −0.28783( a c) + 0.58706( a c) − 0.37198( a c) − 0.89887
3 2
A A8
a 6
,θ) = A5 1 − + A7
a
f a
(
T T
2 T
50
6.4.3 Crack ends under membrane loading with a sharp weld toe
Mkmc = f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) f2 ( Ta , ac , θ) f3 ( Ta , ac , θ, TL ) (34)
where
c 2 c c 2 c
A2 + A3 + A4 A6 + A7 + A8
a
f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) = A1 + A5 1 −
a a a a a
T T
a A12
2 A14
a
f2 ( Ta , ac ,θ) = A9 + A10 + A11 + A13 1 −
a a
c c T T
51
6.4.4 Crack ends under bending loading with a sharp weld toe
Mkbc = f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) f2 ( Ta , ac , θ) f3 ( Ta , ac , θ, TL ) (35)
where
c 2 c c2 c
A2 + A3 + A4 A6 + A7 + A8
a
f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) = A1 + A5 1 −
a a a a a
+ A9
T T
a A13
2 A15
a
f2 ( Ta , ac ,θ) = A10 + A11 + A12 + A14 1 −
a a
c c
T T
52
6.4.5 Deepest point under membrane loading with a radiused weld toe
Mk ( g)ma = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , TL ) (36)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a a
1 T c
T T T
A A10
a
f2 ( Ta , TL ) = A7 + A9 1 −
a 8
T T
53
6.4.6 Deepest point under bending loading with a radiused weld toe
Mk ( g)ba = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , TL ) (37)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a a
1 T c
T T T
A A10
a
f2 ( Ta , TL ) = A7 + A9 1 −
a 8
T T
54
6.4.7 Crack ends under membrane loading with a radiused weld toe
Mk ( g)mc = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , ac , TL ) (38)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a c
1 T a
T T T
a A10
2 A12
a
f2 ( Ta , ac , TL ) = A7 + A8 + A9 + A11 1 −
a a
c c T T
55
6.4.8 Crack ends under bending loading with a radiused weld toe
Mk ( g)bc = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , ac , TL ) (39)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a c
1 T a
T T T
a A10
2 A12
a
f2 ( Ta , ac , TL ) = A7 + A8 + A9 + A11 1 −
a a
c c T T
56
7. ASSESSMENT OF THE REGRESSION EQUATIONS
The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the regression equations, presented in the
previous section, are a good fit to the data from which they were derived.
Table 6 contains the statistics relating to the goodness of fit of the regression equations for the
sharp weld toe, and Table 7 is for the radiused weld toe. Note that the statistics relate to the data
used in the regression analyses only.
Table 6
Statistical evaluation of the new Mk factor equations for a sharp weld toe
For the sharp weld toe equations, the maximum percentage overprediction is a little under 8%
whilst the worst underprediction is 5.5%. The mean percentage errors are very close to zero in
all cases, and the worst standard deviation of the percentage error is less than 2%. The high
correlation coefficients further demonstrate that the equations are a very good fit to the data
from which they were derived.
For the radiused weld toe equations, all regression data is predicted to within ± 5.5% and the
mean percentage errors are, again, all very close to zero. The standard deviations of the
percentage errors are all less than 1.5% and the correlation coefficients are very close to unity.
57
Table 7
Statistical evaluation of the new Mk factor equations for a radiused weld toe
Figures 26–29 show percentage error frequency histograms for the sharp weld toe Mk factor
equations relative to the data (Mk(f.e.)) used in the regression analyses. Figures 30–33 show
percentage error histograms for the same equations but only the shallow crack data are included,
i.e. a/T ≤ 0.1. Error histograms for the radiused weld toe equations are given in Figures 34–37.
The percentage error is defined as:
Mk (equation ) − Mk (f.e. )
% Error = × 100 (40)
Mk (f.e. )
In the figures, the error range for each bar is the value given ± 0.5%.
58
300
200
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 26
Error histogram for equation (32) (deepest point / membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
300
Number of data points (Total = 513)
250
200
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 27
Error histogram for equation (33) (deepest point / bending loading / sharp weld toe)
59
200
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 28
Error histogram for equation (34) (crack ends / membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
200
Number of data points (Total = 621)
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 29
Error histogram for equation (35) (crack ends / bending loading / sharp weld toe)
60
250
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 30
Error histogram for shallow cracks where a/T ≤ 0.1 (equation (32))
(deepest point / membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
250
Number of data points (Total = 342)
200
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 31
Error histogram for shallow cracks where a/T ≤ 0.1 (equation (33))
(deepest point / bending loading / sharp weld toe)
61
150
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 32
Error histogram for shallow cracks where a/T ≤ 0.1 (equation (34))
(crack ends / membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
150
Number of data points (Total = 333)
100
50
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 33
Error histogram for shallow cracks where a/T ≤ 0.1 (equation (35))
(crack ends / bending loading / sharp weld toe)
62
80
40
20
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 34
Error histogram for equation (36) (deepest point / membrane loading / radiused weld toe)
80
Number of data points (Total = 144)
60
40
20
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 35
Error histogram for equation (37) (deepest point / bending loading / radiused weld toe)
63
80
40
20
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 36
Error histogram for equation (38) (crack ends / membrane loading / radiused weld toe)
80
Number of data points (Total = 160)
60
40
20
0
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 37
Error histogram for equation (39) (crack ends / bending loading / radiused weld toe)
64
Figures 26–29, for the regression data over the whole crack depth range, exhibit good normal
distributions of error. The equations for the deepest point of the crack are seen to give the
narrowest distributions, confirming the standard deviation values given in Table 6. The
equations for the crack end locations give broader distributions because there is a greater degree
of interaction between the parameters, making it more difficult to fit the equations.
For shallow cracks, the deepest point error distributions (Figures 30 and 31) show that the
equations are an excellent fit to the data; this is particularly important as a significant portion of
the fatigue life is consumed when the crack is shallow, i.e. under the influence of the weld toe
notch stress. At the crack ends (Figures 32 and 33), the error distributions are not as good as
those for the deepest point for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. Nevertheless,
the error distributions still show that the equations are a good fit to the data.
Similarly, the error histograms for the radiused weld toe equations (Figures 34–37) show a good
normal distribution of the percentage error and demonstrate that the equations are a good fit to
the regression data.
As a visual assessment of the accuracy of the equations, Figures 38–41 show typical plots of the
sharp weld toe equations along with the corresponding data from the database. Part (a) of each
figure shows the equation and data over the whole crack depth range, whilst part (b) is a close-
up showing the shallow crack region more clearly. For the radiused weld toe, such plots are
given in Figures 42–45. Many such plots could be reproduced, but for brevity only those for a/c
= 0.2 and θ = 45° are given.
As with the statistical evaluation and error histograms, Figures 38–45 further demonstrate that
the regression equations are a good fit to the data from the parametric study.
65
3.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
2.5 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
2.0 Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) whole crack depth range
3.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
2.5 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
2.0 Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up of the shallow crack region
Figure 38
Comparison of equation (32) and the original data
(deepest point / membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
66
3.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
2.5 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
2.0 Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
a/T
(a) whole crack depth range
3.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
2.5 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
2.0 Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up of the shallow crack region
Figure 39
Comparison of equation (33) and the original data
(deepest point / bending loading / sharp weld toe)
67
8.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
7.0 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
6.0 Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
5.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) whole crack depth range
8.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
7.0 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
6.0 Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
5.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up of the shallow crack region
Figure 40
Comparison of equation (34) and the original data
(crack ends / membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
68
8.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
7.0 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
6.0 Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
5.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) whole crack depth range
8.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
7.0 a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
6.0 Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
5.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
a/T
(b) close-up of the shallow crack region
Figure 41
Comparison of equation (35) and the original data
(crack ends / bending loading / sharp weld toe)
69
2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
1.5 Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 42
Comparison of equation (36) and the original data
(deepest point / membrane loading / radiused weld toe)
2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
1.5 Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
a/T
Figure 43
Comparison of equation (37) and the original data
(deepest point / bending loading / radiused weld toe)
70
3.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
2.5 Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 44
Comparison of equation (38) and the original data
(crack ends / membrane loading / radiused weld toe)
3.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.2, L/T=1.25
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.2, L/T=2.75
2.5 Eqn. L/T=0.5
Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
Figure 45
Comparison of equation (39) and the original data
(crack ends / bending loading / radiused weld toe)
71
72
8. VALIDITY OF THE REGRESSION EQUATIONS
The parameter ranges for the database of weld toe magnification factors are as follows:
As detailed in Section 6.3, not all of the data were used in the regression analyses of some
equations and so the above parameter ranges are not automatically the validity limits of the
equations. Also, the equations may sometimes be required to calculate the weld toe
magnification factor for geometries outside of the above parameter ranges. Hence, in this
section, factors affecting the validity limits of the equations are discussed and then
recommendations for the use of the equations are made.
• Equation (32) for the deepest point / membrane loading / sharp weld toe — For this
equation, all the relevant data in the database were used in the regression and so the validity
limits of the equation should be the same as the parameter ranges stated at the start of this
section.
• Equation (33) for the deepest point / bending loading / sharp weld toe — Only data up to
a/T = 0.5 were used in the derivation of this equation, to avoid the discontinuity in the Mk
function when the plain plate stress intensity factor becomes zero. Therefore, to extend the
validity of the equation to deeper cracks, other provision must be made. Figure 46 shows the
Mk data for depths of a/T > 0.5 but before the discontinuity, i.e. when the plain plate SIF is
positive, for all θ, L/T and a/c. Figure 47 shows the Mk data after the discontinuity, i.e.
when the plain plate SIF is negative.
73
2.0
1.0
0.0
Mk
-1.0
-3.0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
a/T
Figure 46
Mk data for bending loading, all θ, L/T, a/c and 0.5 < a T ≤ discontinuity depth
3.0
2.0
Mk
1.0
0.0
Mk data after discontinuity
Lower bound line
-1.0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
a/T
Figure 47
Mk data for bending loading, all θ, L/T, a/c and a T > discontinuity depth
74
In Figure 46, the Mk factors are mainly less than 1.0, yielding a T-butt joint SIF lower than
that in the plain plate. Hence the upper-bound line in the figure, at Mk = 1.0, will give
conservative T-butt joint SIFs. For the data after the discontinuity, the Mk, in conjunction
with the negative plain plate SIF, acts to reduce the T-butt joint SIF for combined load
cases†. Therefore, a lower bound to the data at Mk = 0.7, as shown in Figure 47, lessens the
amount by which the T-butt joint SIF is reduced, yielding a conservative prediction. Using
these conservative assumptions, the Mk factor for the deepest point of a sharp weld toe
crack under bending loading may be calculated as follows:
To determine whether or not the crack is deeper than the discontinuity depth requires a prior
knowledge of the sign of the plain plate SIF, which is not particularly convenient.
Examining the shape factor Y for plain plates and T-butt joints for cracks deeper than the
discontinuity depth shows that the maximum difference between YT-butt and YPlain plate is
0.0458. This small difference means that the shape factors are in fact quite similar, and so
assuming Mk = 1.0 will not result in a significant error, especially for combined load cases
when the shape factor for membrane loading will usually make this maximum difference
negligible. Thus, the validity ranges recommended are:
• Equation (34) for the crack ends / membrane loading / sharp weld toe — All of the relevant
data were used to derive this equation and so the parameter ranges may be used for the
validity limits.
• Equation (35) for the crack ends / bending loading / sharp weld toe — In the development
of this equation, nine data points were removed from the database, as mentioned previously
in Section 6.3. In Section 5.4.4, the problem with these data was identified as being due to a
lack of mesh refinement. One of these data points (filled triangle at a/T = 0.005) is shown
along with equation curves in Figure 48. In light of the fact that only a small amount of data
were removed, and that the equations are a good fit to the overall trends of the vast majority
of data, the parameter ranges of the data are recommended as the validity limits of the
equation.
†
For a T-butt joint subjected to combined membrane and bending loading, Kcombined = Kmembrane +
Kbending, where Kcombined must be positive. If the geometry of a crack in a plate is such that the
deepest point of the crack closes, Kbending will be negative and the resulting Kcombined will be less
than Kmembrane. Since Kbending = Mk.Kbending (plate), a larger Mk will increase the magnitude of the
negative Kbending for the T-butt joint and, thus, reduce Kcombined still further. Therefore, for
bending loading after the discontinuity, when the plain plate crack is closing, a smaller Mk
results in a larger, more conservative Kcombined.
75
8.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=0.5
a/c=0.1, L/T=1.25
7.0 a/c=0.1, L/T=2.0
a/c=0.1, L/T=2.75
Eqn. L/T=0.5
6.0 Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
5.0
Mk
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
a/T
Figure 48
Comparison of equation (35) and the original data for bending loading (cf. Figure 24)
• Equation (36) for the deepest point / membrane loading / radiused weld toe — All of the
relevant data were used to derive this equation and so the parameter ranges may be used for
the validity limits.
• Equation (37) for the deepest point / bending loading / radiused weld toe — Only data up to
a/T = 0.5 were used in the derivation of this equation, to avoid the discontinuity in the Mk
function when the plain plate stress intensity factor becomes zero. Using similar arguments
to those given for equation (33), Mk = 1.0 may be used as an upper-bound to the data where
the crack is shallower than the discontinuity depth, as shown in Figure 49, and the
maximum difference between YT-butt and YPlain plate is only 0.0425 for cracks deeper than the
discontinuity depth. Thus, the following recommendations may be made:
76
2.0
1.0
0.0
Mk
-1.0
-2.0
Mk data before discontinuity
Upper bound line
-3.0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
a/T
Figure 49
Mk data for bending loading, all L/T, a/c and 0.5 < a T ≤ discontinuity depth
• Equation (38) for the crack ends / membrane loading / radiused weld toe — In the
derivation of this equation, data for a/T = 0.005 were left out of the regression analyses
because some of them showed a sudden drop with decreasing crack depth (see Section 6.3).
If the equation is compared with all the relevant data in the database, the maximum
overprediction is 9.74% and the maximum underprediction is -5.12%. Therefore, the
equation may be extended to the full parameter range without becoming unconservative.
• Equation (39) for the crack ends / bending loading / radiused weld toe — Similar to
equation (38), the maximum overprediction of the equation compared to all the data is
19.41% and the maximum underprediction is -3.27%. Hence, it is again possible to safely
extend the validity of the equation to the full parameter range.
After the equations were regressed, a large number of graphs were plotted, for various
combinations of the weld and crack parameters, to verify that the equations interpolated well
between the parameter values of the data in the database. During this verification, all graphs
were plotted up to a depth of a/T = 1.0. These graphs revealed that the equations are stable
beyond their upper validity limit of a/T = 0.9, producing a smooth extrapolation of the crack
depth trends. An example of the extrapolated trends is shown in Figure 50. Hence, whilst the
accuracy of the equations is not certain beyond a/T = 0.9, they may be used to produce a
sensible extrapolation. The crack depth validity limit may, therefore, be tentatively stated as
follows:
0.005 ≤ a T < 1.0
77
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
a/T
(a) deepest point
3.0
Eqn. L/T=0.5
2.5 Eqn. L/T=1.25
Eqn. L/T=2.0
Eqn. L/T=2.75
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
a/T
(b) crack ends
Figure 50
The extrapolated equation trends to a/T = 1.0, for a/c = 0.2
and θ = 45° (membrane loading / sharp weld toe)
78
8.2.2 The weld angle for the radiused weld toe equations
In Section 5.4.3, the effect of the weld angle was demonstrated to be negligible when the weld
toe radius is 10% of the main plate thickness (ρ/T = 0.1). In the demonstration, weld angles
between 30° and 75° were used and so the equations should be valid for 30 ≤ θ ≤ 75 . To
' '
signify the validity of the radiused weld toe equations for various weld angles, equations (36)–
(39) may be multiplied by f3 (θ) where f3 (θ) = 1.0 .
8.2.3 When should the sharp and radiused weld toe equations be used
The sharp weld toe equations are intended for use with ‘as-welded’ joints. The radiused weld
toe equations are intended for use with joints where the weld toe has been improved by local
machining or grinding, as specified in Section 21.2.13 c) ii) of the 3rd. Amendment of the 1995a
HSE ‘Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction and certification’. They should
not be used otherwise, e.g. for the AWS Concave Improved Profile (ANSI / AWS Structural
welding code, D1.1-90, 1990) where the general profile is concave but the weld toe is still ‘as-
welded’. Of course, the radiused weld toe equations were derived for ρ/T = 0.1, and so they
should not be used if the ground weld toe radius is smaller. Hence, for
The issues investigated in this section have been used to establish the validity limits of the
equations. These limits and recommendations are stated concisely in Appendix B of this report,
along with the final form of the new equations.
79
80
9. COMPARISONS WITH EXISTING Mk / SIF SOLUTIONS
In this section, the new weld toe magnification factor equations are compared with existing
solutions for both Mk and the SIF. The first comparison is with plain plate solutions to illustrate
the effect of the weld toe magnification factors. The new equations are then compared with the
2-D Mk factors from the current British Standards guidance (PD 6493, 1991), and the most
extensive set of 3-D Mk factors (Bell, 1987). Finally, the new equations are used in a
comparison with the only existing parametric SIF equations for tubular joints (Rhee et al.,
1991).
The empirical SIF equation of Newman and Raju (1981) is a well established solution for a
semi-elliptical surface crack in a plain plate, subjected to membrane and bending loading. The
equation, which is applicable to any location along the crack front, is included in PD 6493
(1991).
The purpose of this comparison is to show the effect of a welded attachment on the shape factor
Y, where
K
Y= (41)
σ πa
The comparison is shown in Figure 51 for the deepest point of the crack and Figure 52 for the
crack ends. In these Figures, the T-butt joint shape factors, for θ = 45° and L/T = 1.25, were
calculated from
YT -butt = Mk .M (42)
where Mk is from the new equations for sharp weld toes (see Appendix B), and M is Newman
and Raju’s plain plate solution.
At the deepest point of the crack under membrane loading (Figure 51a), the welded attachment
is seen to increase the shape factor sharply for shallow cracks, which are under the influence of
the weld toe notch stress. For intermediate crack depths (a/T from 0.2 to 0.9), the stiffening
effect of the attachment reduces the shape factor below that of the plain plate. Beyond a/T = 0.9,
the extrapolated new equations predict that the shape factor will again become more severe than
that of the plain plate. For bending loading (Figure 51b), the trends for a/T < 0.5 are the same as
for membrane loading. However, beyond this crack depth, the shape factor for the T-butt joint
jumps up to that for the plain plate, due to the conservative assumption made in Section 8.1, i.e.
that Mk = 1.0 for a/T > 0.5.
At the crack ends for both membrane and bending loading (Figures 52a and b, respectively), the
T-butt joint shape factor is always higher than that in the plain plate. This result is expected
because the crack end location is permanently influenced by the weld toe notch stress, though its
effect is greatest on shallow cracks.
81
4.5
3.0 a/c=0.1
2.5
Y
2.0 a/c=0.2
1.5
a/c=0.4
1.0
a/c=1.0
0.5
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/T
(a) membrane loading
3.0
2.0
1.5
Y
1.0
a/c=0.1
0.5
a/c=0.2
a/c=0.4
0.0
a/c=1.0
-0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/T
(b) bending loading
Figure 51
The effect of a welded attachment on the deepest point
shape factor, for θ = 45° andL/T = 1.25 (sharp weld toe)
82
4.0
3.5
Plain plate
T-butt
3.0
2.5
2.0
Y
1.5 a/c=0.1
a/c=1.0
1.0
a/c=1.0
0.5 a/c=0.1
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/T
(a) membrane loading
4.0
3.5
Plain plate
T-butt
3.0
2.5
2.0
Y
1.5
a/c=0.1
1.0
a/c=1.0
a/c=1.0
0.5
a/c=0.1
0.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
a/T
(b) bending loading
Figure 52
The effect of a welded attachment on the crack end
shape factor, for θ = 45° andL/T = 1.25 (sharp weld toe)
83
9.2 EDGE CRACK Mk FACTORS OF BS 7910
The weld toe magnification factors provided in BS 7910 (1997) which replaces PD 6493 (1991)
were derived from 2-D plane strain slices of weld toe cracks, and so they are strictly only valid
for edge cracks. Nevertheless, they are used here, along with the new equations, to compare the
effect of the attachment footprint width. For the comparison, shown in Figures 53a and b, for
membrane and bending loading, respectively, a crack aspect ratio of 0.1 and a weld angle of 45°
were used in the new equations.
The 2-D Mk factors are generally slightly higher than those from the new equations for
membrane loading (Figure 53a), but this is reversed for bending loading (Figure 53b). With
regard to the effect of L/T, the general trends are the same for membrane loading but the 2-D Mk
factor solutions predict that the magnitude of the effect is larger. For bending loading, the 3-D
Mk factor solutions from the new equations predict a larger L/T effect than the 2-D Mk
solutions, with the 2-D solutions predicting no extra effect when L/T is increased from 1.0 to
2.75.
As well as the points noted in the above comparisons, there are two important differences
between the new solutions and the 2-D edge crack solutions of PD 6493. Firstly, for deeper
cracks (a/T > 0.3), the 2-D Mk factor solutions are unity since the 2-D T-butt joint behaves in
exactly the same way as an edge cracked plate, which from Figure 6 is obviously not the case
for a semi-elliptical weld toe crack. Secondly, the 2-D solutions are not applicable at the crack
ends because they were derived from edge crack models. Despite this, the lack of full 3-D SIF
solutions has meant that 2-D solutions may be used to simulate 3-D T-butt joint crack end
solutions by applying the Mk for a very shallow crack, e.g. a = 0.15mm, to the plain plate crack
end solutions (PD 6493, 1991). The use of a fixed small crack depth, however, yields a high Mk
which is constant with crack depth, whereas Figure 7 shows that 3-D Mk factors exhibit a strong
dependency on crack depth.
84
3.5
PD6493 L/T=0.5
New Eqn. L/T=0.5
3.0 PD6493 L/T=1.0
New Eqn. L/T=1.0
PD6493 L/T=2.75
2.5 New Eqn. L/T=2.75
Mk
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a/T
(a) membrane loading
3.0
PD6493 L/T=0.5
New Eqn. L/T=0.5
PD6493 L/T=1.0
2.5
New Eqn. L/T=1.0
PD6493 L/T=2.75
New Eqn. L/T=2.75
2.0
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
a/T
(b) bending loading
Figure 53
The effect of L/T on 2-D and 3-D Mk factor solutions, for a/c = 0.1 and θ = 45°
(deepest point / sharp weld toe)
85
9.3 3-D T-BUTT JOINT Mk FACTORS OF BELL
The 3-D T-butt joint Mk factors of Bell (1987) were probably the most comprehensive set of 3-
D weld toe magnification factors available, until recent times. Due to difficulties in fitting
equations to the data, Bell presented the data in tabular form. The data are for a range of crack
aspect ratios and weld angles, up to a crack depth ratio of a/T = 0.4, and are valid at the deepest
point of the crack as well as the crack ends. In fact, the work of Bell was probably the first to
show that the weld toe magnification factor is not constant with crack depth at the crack end
location, and also that it is not equal to the elastic stress concentration factor — another
assumption allowed in PD 6493 (1991).
In Figures 54 and 55 for the deepest point and crack ends, respectively, the 3-D weld toe
magnification factors of Bell, for θ = 45° are compared with those from the new equations. In
these comparisons, the Mk factors from the new equations were calculated for a weld angle of
45° and an attachment footprint width (L/T) of 2.0; Bell did not state the L/T used in his work,
and so a value of 2.0 was estimated from his diagrams.
At the deepest point for the crack under membrane loading (Figure 54a), the trends are in very
good agreement, although the new equations predict a higher magnitude for a/T < 0.2. For
bending loading (Figure 54b), the agreement between the two sets of weld toe magnification
factors is very good.
At the crack ends for both membrane and bending loading (Figures 55a and b, respectively), the
general trends with crack depth are in good agreement, but the new equations yield Mk factors
much higher than those of Bell. Also, the new equations show a distinct trend of increasing Mk
with decreasing a/c, whilst Bell’s results show no clear trends at all with a/c. The reasons for the
differences at the crack ends is difficult to pin-point without a detailed knowledge of Bell’s
finite element meshes and analyses. But it is very likely, especially considering the fact that the
work of Bell is over ten years old, that the meshes of Bell were much less refined than those
used in this project, due to computing limitations at the time. Hence, Bell’s meshes were
probably not refined enough to produce a converged solution in the region where the crack front
singularity meets the weld toe singularity.
In Figure 56, the effect of the weld angle on the weld toe magnification factor is examined for
bending loading. In this figure, the comparison is performed for a/c = 0.25 and L/T = 1.25; L/T
= 1.25 was used in the new equations to remain within the validity limits when θ = 70°.
At the deepest of the crack (Figure 56a), the Mk factors from the new equations are slightly
lower in magnitude than those of Bell. However, the trend with weld angle for shallow cracks
(a/T < 0.1) is in very good agreement. At the crack ends (Figure 56b), the weld toe
magnification factors of Bell are, again, very low, especially for the largest weld angle. The new
equations also predict a noticeable trend with weld angle when the crack is 40% of the main
plate thickness in depth, whereas Bell’s data only shows a weld angle trend for a/T < 0.1.
86
2.0
Bell a/c=1.0
1.8 New Eqn. a/c=1.0
Bell a/c=0.5
New Eqn. a/c=0.5
Bell a/c=0.25
1.6 New Eqn. a/c=0.25
Mk
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
(a) membrane loading
3.0
Bell a/c=1.0
2.5 New Eqn. a/c=1.0
Bell a/c=0.5
New Eqn. a/c=0.5
Bell a/c=0.25
2.0 New Eqn. a/c=0.25
Mk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
(b) bending loading
Figure 54
Comparison with the 3-D Mk factors of Bell at the deepest point
of the crack, for θ = 45° andL/T = 2.0 (sharp weld toe)
87
5.0
Bell a/c=1.0
New Eqn. a/c=1.0
4.0 Bell a/c=0.5
New Eqn. a/c=0.5
Bell a/c=0.25
New Eqn. a/c=0.25
3.0
Mk
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
(a) membrane loading
6.0
Bell a/c=1.0
5.0 New Eqn. a/c=1.0
Bell a/c=0.5
New Eqn. a/c=0.5
Bell a/c=0.25
4.0 New Eqn. a/c=0.25
Mk
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
(b) bending loading
Figure 55
Comparison with the 3-D Mk factors of Bell at the crack
ends, for θ = 45° andL/T = 2.0 (sharp weld toe)
88
1.8
Bell 30°
1.6 New Eqn. 30°
Bell 45 °
New Eqn. 45°
Bell 70 °
1.4 New Eqn. 70°
Mk
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
(a) deepest point of the crack
6.0
Bell 30°
5.0 New Eqn. 30°
Bell 45 °
New Eqn. 45°
Bell 70 °
4.0 New Eqn. 70°
Mk
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
(b) crack ends
Figure 56
The effect of weld angle on the weld toe magnification factor under
bending loading, for a/c = 0.25 and L/T = 1.25 (sharp weld toe)
89
9.4 3-D T-BUTT JOINT SIF SOLUTIONS OF BRENNAN ET AL.
In this report, it was hoped that the new equations could be compared with the 3-D T-butt joint
SIF solutions of Brennan et al. (To be published). These solutions are based on Niu and
Glinka’s weight function for the deepest point of the crack, and Shen and Glinka’s weight
function at the surface point (crack ends). The data derived by Brennan et al. were regressed
into equation form by C. Arbuthnot and Associates (1998).
Despite coding the equations very carefully into FORTRAN, and checking them several times,
it was not possible to get realistic SIF values from the four equations. Problems with these
solutions have been noted elsewhere (BS 7910 Draft, 1997), and so no comparison is included
in this report due to the fact that the equations appear to be unreliable.
The SIF solutions of Rhee et al. (1991) are the only parametric SIF equations for tubular joints.
They were derived from three-dimensional finite element analyses of semi-elliptical saddle
cracks in tubular T-joints, and are applicable to axial as well as in- and out-of-plane bending
loading. Equations are provided for the deepest point of the crack and the crack ends.
In this section, the new equations are used to predict tubular joint shape factors (Y), which are
then compared with those from Rhee et al.’s parametric formulae. The geometry of the tubular
T-joint chosen for comparison is as follows:
T = 32mm
β = d/D = 0.5
τ = t/T = 0.5
γ = D/2T = 14.29
which lies well within the validity ranges of Rhee et al.’s equations. The predicted shape factors
from the new equations were calculated from
where Mk is the weld toe magnification factor from the new equations, M the plain plate shape
factor from Newman and Raju (1981) and the SCF and DOB (stress concentration factor and
degree of bending, respectively) describe the uncracked stress field at the location of the crack.
For the T-joint chosen, the SCF and DOB at the saddle were found, from previous work
conducted at Swansea (Bowness, 1996), to be
With regard to the geometry of the weld, the weld angle in the new equations was assumed to be
45°, and L/T was calculated from the AWS D1.1-90 (1990) recommendations for a standard flat
weld profile as 0.674 (see Tables 1 and 2).
To calculate shape factors from the equations of Rhee et al., one must first consider the validity
limits of their equations:
0.05 ≤ a T ≤ 0.8
0.05 ≤ 3c d ≤ 1.2
90
Whilst the crack depth validity limits are given in a conventional form, the crack width has been
non-dimensionalised by the brace diameter. By using the tubular joint geometric ratios, it is
possible to express the crack width validity limits in terms of the more conventional parameter
a/c:
3( a T )
0.05 ≤ ≤ 1.2
2βγ ( a c)
Hence, for β = 0.5 and γ = 14.29, it follows that the crack aspect ratio validity limits of Rhee et
al.’s equations are
0.175 ≤ ( a c) ≤ 4.2
a a
T T
These validity limits are plotted in Figure 57 up to a crack aspect ratio of a/c = 1.0. The validity
limits extend from very wide cracks at shallow depths to more rounded cracks (higher a/c) at
deeper depths, though it should be noted that rounded cracks (high a/c) will only exist for
shallow crack depths, and the high bending stresses in tubular joints results in wide cracks at
high a/T. The equations are valid up to a/c = 3.36 at a/T = 0.8.
The importance of carefully checking the validity limits of the equations of Rhee et al. is
illustrated in Figure 58, which shows the effect of a/c on the shape factors, at the deepest point
of a crack, in an axially loaded T-joint. The curve for a/c = 1.0 shows that this equation can be
highly unstable for cracks shallower than a/T of 0.1. Initially, one might think that the shape
factor curves in the figure are within the crack depth validity limits (a/T between 0.05 and 0.8),
but because the a/c limits are also functions of a/T, they have actually been extrapolated beyond
their limits.
Having established the validity limits, shape factors calculated using the equations of Rhee et al.
are compared with those predicted from the new equations in Figures 59 and 60, for axial
loading and out-of-plane bending, respectively.
91
1.0
0.8
Upper validity limit
Lower validity limit
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
Figure 57
Crack aspect ratio validity limits of Rhee et al.’s
parametric formulae, for β = 0.5 and γ = 14.29
120
Rhee a/c=0.1
100 Rhee a/c=0.2
Rhee a/c=0.4
Rhee a/c=1.0
80
60
Y
40
20
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
Figure 58
Effect of a/c on an axially loaded tubular T-joint, for β = 0.5, τ = 0.5 and γ = 14.29 (deepest
point). Note that the validity limits of the equation have been exceeded.
92
At the deepest point of the crack in the axially loaded T-joint (Figure 59a), the general
agreement is quite good, especially for deeper cracks (a/T > 0.4). For the two widest cracks (a/c
= 0.1 and 0.2), the new equations predict lower shape factors than Rhee et al.’s equations for a/T
of between 0.1 and 0.3, but for crack depths shallower than this, the new equations begin to
increase sharply to values close to those of Rhee et al.. At the crack ends (Figure 59b), the
agreement between the two sets of solutions is poor except, perhaps, for the a/c = 0.2 curve.
To try to account for the poor agreement between the solutions at the crack ends, the data from
which Rhee et al. derived their parametric formulae must be examined. Rhee et al. used the
displacements of the quarterpoint nodes to calculate their SIFs. Since several elements
surrounded the crack tip, they calculated several SIFs for every point along the crack front, one
for each radial line of nodes. Along most of the crack front, the SIFs from different radial lines
were in good agreement, but they observed a large scatter in SIF values where the crack front
meets the weld toe. Rhee (1989) attributed this variation to modelling difficulties stating that
‘solutions evaluated from different crack tip radial lines at a crack tip point should be identical if
the finite element solutions are exact’. Thus, their equations for the crack ends were regressed
from data where ‘the inside solutions were extrapolated, guided by the data distribution at the
location, to obtain the respective SIF solution’ (Rhee et al., 1991). However, the SIF distribution
rises sharply as the crack ends are approached, because of the weld toe notch stress. Hence,
there may be an error in the extrapolation. Also, their statement regarding the agreement of
solutions from different radial lines is not strictly correct because the geometry is unsymmetric,
and so the displacements of the radial lines, and the associated SIFs, will be less on the weld
side of the crack. Their SIFs at this location are, therefore, subject to uncertainty.
For the out-of-plane bending loaded T-joint (Figure 60), the results of the comparison are the
same as for the axially loaded T-joint.
93
9
5
Y
3
Rhee a/c=0.1
New Eqns. a/c=0.1
2 Rhee a/c=0.2
New Eqns. a/c=0.2
Rhee a/c=0.4
1 New Eqns. a/c=0.4
Rhee a/c=1.0
New Eqns. a/c=1.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) deepest point
11
10
7
Y
6
Rhee a/c=0.1
New Eqns. a/c=0.1
5 Rhee a/c=0.2
New Eqns. a/c=0.2
Rhee a/c=0.4
4 New Eqns. a/c=0.4
Rhee a/c=1.0
New Eqns. a/c=1.0
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(b) crack ends
Figure 59
Comparison of shape factors for an axially loaded
tubular T-joint, for β = 0.5, τ = 0.5 and γ = 14.29 (sharp weld toe)
94
7
4
Y
Rhee a/c=0.1
2 New Eqns. a/c=0.1
Rhee a/c=0.2
New Eqns. a/c=0.2
Rhee a/c=0.4
1 New Eqns. a/c=0.4
Rhee a/c=1.0
New Eqns. a/c=1.0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) deepest point
6
Y
Rhee a/c=0.1
4 New Eqns. a/c=0.1
Rhee a/c=0.2
New Eqns. a/c=0.2
Rhee a/c=0.4
3 New Eqns. a/c=0.4
Rhee a/c=1.0
New Eqns. a/c=1.0
2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(b) crack ends
Figure 60
Comparison of shape factors for an out-of-plane bending loaded
tubular T-joint, for β = 0.5, τ = 0.5 and γ = 14.29 (sharp weld toe)
95
96
10. COMPARISONS WITH TUBULAR JOINT SIFs
The purpose of the work presented in this section is to demonstrate that the new T-butt joint SIF
solutions may be reliably used to calculate tubular joint SIFs. To this end, a modelling
procedure for uncracked and cracked tubular joints is first described and then used to evaluate
tubular joint stress fields and stress intensity factors — the stress field data are used as input to
calculate SIFs from the T-butt joint solutions, which are compared with the numerical tubular
joint values. Also, the relative merits of linear and quadratic extrapolation for the evaluation of
the uncracked geometric stress field are investigated.
The starting block for the mesh generation of the most basic of tubular joint geometries — a
quarter T-joint mesh, i.e. utilising two planes of symmetry — is a T-butt joint mesh (the
generation of T-butt joint models is described in Section 2.1). The FORTRAN program
ABAMAP, which was developed at Swansea (Bowness, 1996), performs a series of mappings
on a 3-D T-butt joint to produce the T-joint mesh. The sequence of mappings is shown in Figure
61.
The diameter of the chord is determined by the length of the main plate; by adjusting this length
and the relative position of the attachment (Figure 61a), T-joint models with different chord
diameters and β ratios may be produced. To turn the T-butt joint into a tubular joint, it is first
curved around 90º such that the attachment forms a brace (Figure 61b). The main plate, now a
quarter circle, is then mapped into a square (Figure 61c), which when curved around 90º forms a
segment of the top of the chord (Figure 61d). Finally, the rest of the chord is added resulting in a
quarter tubular T-joint mesh (Figure 61e). The resulting model has refined crack front and weld
toe meshes, and has adjustable α, τ, β and γ ratios as well as the weld angle and toe radius. Input
parameters also allow meshes with different portions of the chord circumference to be
generated. For example, the mesh in Figure 61d models a quarter of the chord circumference,
but for certain joints only an eighth of the circumference is needed (see the following section).
The resulting mesh from the program ABAMAP contains a semi-elliptical crack located at the
saddle of the joint. For certain loadings, however, the hot spot stress occurs at the crown and so
the program FLIPMAP must be used. This program initially flips the T-butt joint mesh such that
the left and the right are swapped, i.e. the crack ends up on the other side of the mesh, and then
performs exactly the same mappings as ABAMAP, resulting in a quarter T-joint with a crown
crack.
All of the other joints modelled in this work began life as quarter T-joints and were then built up
through a series of mappings, reflections and rotations to the basic model. This technique is
illustrated in Figure 62, where the generation of a T-joint with an out-of-plane brace is shown.
One of the two braces is formed by adding together two quarter T-joint meshes – one of the
meshes has an eighth of the chord circumference, whilst the other has one quarter. The chord
length and a further eighth of its circumference are then added to result in a quarter of the
97
desired mesh, with half of one brace and two planes of symmetry. Finally, two of these meshes
may be joined to form the final mesh which utilises one plane of symmetry.
For angled braces such as Y- and K-joints, the FORTRAN program YBRACE may be used to
map the brace of a T-joint to the required angle, as shown in Figure 63.
The final consideration when generating models of more complex joints is the location of the
crack. Because the joints start out as quarter T-joints, a crack mesh always exists at every saddle
(or crown). Thus, in the case of the T-joint with an out-of-plane brace (Figure 62d), there are
four cracks – one at each saddle. To alleviate this problem, the unwanted cracks may be
removed from the model by merging the nodes on the crack faces, leaving one crack in the
desired location. Also, for uncracked analyses, all of the cracks may be closed up in a similar
manner.
10.1.3 Analysis
The element type chosen for the analyses was the reduced integration 20-noded brick C3D20R
from the ABAQUS (1997) element library. As with the T-butt joint meshes (Section 2.2), the
crack front elements are collapsed bricks with the midside nodes remaining at the halfway
points.
The loadings on the models obviously varied with the joint configuration and the loading mode
(details of which follow later). In all cases, the chord end was fixed (encastre) and loadings were
achieved via applied displacements. Symmetry and, in some cases, antisymmetry conditions
were used as appropriate.
The Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio used in the analyses were 210 kNmm-2 and 0.3,
respectively. The elastic finite element calculations were performed using the general purpose
finite element package ABAQUS (1997). The size of the tubular joint models varies enormously
– the largest model analysed was a half multiplanar K-joint (K with an out-of-plane K) which
contained 28,000 brick elements and 400,000 degrees of freedom; the cpu time required to solve
this model was just over 3 hours on a Sun Ultra 2170.
98
(a) adjust main plate length to produce a joint with the desired β ratio
Figure 61
ABAMAP modelling sequence (cont’d overleaf)
99
(d) curve the main plate
around 90º to form the chord
Figure 61
ABAMAP modelling sequence (continued)
100
(a) A mesh with half the brace may be
formed by joining together two quarter T-
joint meshes – one with an eighth of the
chord circumference and the other with a
quarter
Figure 62
Sequence for generating a T-joint with an out-of-plane brace (cont’d overleaf)
101
(c) Join two meshes from part (b) together
Figure 62
Sequence for generating a T-joint with an out-of-plane brace (continued)
102
(a) The initial T-joint
Figure 63
Mapping a brace to an angle
In the T-butt joint parametric study (Sections 3 and 5.2), the J-integral, obtained via the virtual
crack extension, was used to provide reliable estimates of the crack front stress intensity factors.
For the tubular joint models, the same method was used with plane strain conditions assumed
everywhere along the crack front when calculating the SIFs.
To non-dimensionalise the SIFs into shape factors (Y), it is necessary to calculate a nominal
stress such that Y is independent of the loading magnitude. When the joint is axially loaded, the
nominal stress was taken to be the average stress in the reference brace:
σ nom = F A (44)
where F is the reaction force at the end of the brace and A is the brace cross-sectional area. For
in- and out-of-plane bending loading, the nominal stress was taken as the extreme fibre stress:
103
2 Fld
σ nom = (45)
d d 4
4
π − − t
2 2
where F is the reaction force at the end of the brace, l the distance between the brace end and
the crown, d the brace diameter and t the brace wall thickness. For joints with an angled brace,
the lever arm l was calculated as the average distance between the brace end and the crown heel
and toe. Note that for multi-braced axially loaded joints, the reference brace in this work is the
tensile brace, unless otherwise specified.
where a is the crack depth, Mk the weld toe magnification factors, M the plain plate shape
factors, σ the nominal plate stresses, and m and b denote membrane and bending loading,
respectively. Note that in this work, the plain plate correction factors of Newman and Raju
(1981) are used. To approximate tubular joint SIFs from T-butt joint solutions, equation (46)
may be written in the following form:
K tubular joint ≈ [Mk m M m SCF (1 − DOB ) + Mkb M b SCF .DOB ]σ nom πa (47)
where SCF is the stress concentration factor and DOB the degree of bending at the would-be
location of the crack, and σnom is the nominal stress in the reference brace of the joint; all these
quantities are for the uncracked tubular joint. In this equation,
where Y is the predicted tubular joint shape factor (non-dimensional SIF). The SCF in equations
(47) and (48) must be derived from the geometric hot spot stress, which incorporates the effects
of the overall tube geometry and joint configuration but omits the stress concentrating influence
of the weld geometry. This is necessary because the influence of the weld geometry is already
incorporated into the weld toe magnification factors.
In the HSE design guidance (1995a), stress-endurance fatigue design is based on the geometric
hot spot stress calculated by the extrapolation, to the weld toe, of the geometric stress
distribution near the weld toe, as shown in Figure 64. Such a geometric hot spot stress is
consistent with the requirements stated in the previous section.
104
Figure 64
The geometric hot spot stress (HSS)
Guidance on how the extrapolation should be performed, which was formulated from large scale
test results from the ECSC and UKOSRP research programmes, is given in the Background
Notes to the original Department of Energy Guidance (1984). For T-butt joints, it was noted that
the stress distribution along the main plate is linear apart from near to the weld toe, where the
distribution is disturbed and rises rapidly. The research programmes found that a linear region is
also present in some geometries of T- and X-joints, which lead to the guidance that the hot spot
stress should be evaluated by extrapolating this linear region to the weld toe. In particular, the
guidance conservatively recommends the extrapolation of the maximum principal stress rather
than the stress component perpendicular to the weld toe. Figure 65 summarises the extrapolation
recommendations, where B1-4 denote the extent of the influence of the weld toe, A1-4 the extent
of the linear region, r is the brace radius and R the chord radius.
105
Figure 65
The regions of stress linearity from the Background to
the Department of Energy Guidance (1984)
In this work, a Linear SCF was determined in accordance with the above recommendations.
That is, the geometric weld toe stress was obtained by extrapolating the maximum principal
stress distribution, in the region given by Figure 65, to the weld toe, and then non-
dimensionalising the result by the nominal brace stress.
It is noted in the Background to the Department of Energy Guidance (1984) that not all tubular
joint geometries and configurations have a region of stress linearity, especially in Y- and K-
joints. Consequently, some researchers have used non-linear extrapolation with a third strain
gauge rosette positioned equidistant from the second gauge, i.e. further away from the weld toe
than point A in the figure and spaced the same distance from A as B (Smedley and Fisher, 1991).
Also, it is possible that the extent of the influence of the weld toe does not coincide with the
beginning of the region of stress linearity. Figure 5, in Section 3, shows the stress distribution in
T-butt joints with various attachment footprint widths, and from this figure it may be seen that
the influence of the weld toe extends to about 0.25T from the toe. Figure 66 shows the chord
side stress distribution at the saddle of an uncracked tubular T-joint (α = 14, β = 0.5, γ = 18, τ =
0.6, T = 1, d = 18, D = 36). The data points plotted in this figure show a slight oscillation
between corner and midside node values due to the high stress gradient. In part (a), the
distribution has been linearly extrapolated in accordance with the Background to the
Department of Energy Guidance; from Figure 65, A4/T = 1.571 and B4/T = 0.465. In part (b), a
quadratic extrapolation is shown which extends from a third point equidistant from A4, i.e. at
2A4/T–B4/T = 2.677, to 0.25.
106
35
30
Nodal FE data
25 Extrapolation data
Linear extrapolation
20
SCF
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Distance from weld toe / T
(a) linear extrapolation (SCF = 10.71)
35
30
Nodal FE data
25 Extrapolation data
Quadratic extrapolation
20
SCF
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Distance from weld toe / T
(b) quadratic extrapolation (SCF = 12.16)
Figure 66
Chord side stress distribution at the saddle of a tubular T-joint
α = 14, β = 0.5, γ = 18, τ = 0.6, T = 1, d = 18, D = 36)
(α
107
From Figure 66a, the Background to the Department of Energy Guidance does indicate a region
of stress linearity. However, the quadratic extrapolation, shown in part (b), appears to be a better
overall fit to the stress distribution. Also, because the distribution is a good fit up to and
including the data point at 0.25T (the extent of the notch stress in T-butt joints), the extent of the
influence of the weld toe in tubular joints must be less than that given in Figure 65. For this
particular geometry, the quadratic SCF is 13% higher than that obtained linearly, which is more
than double the 5% maximum difference noted in previous work (Smedley and Fisher, 1991).
But in previous work, the extrapolation was performed up to the end of the linear region which
may well yield an unconservative estimate of the actual geometric stress. Hence, quadratic
extrapolation is likely to give a more accurate estimate of the geometric stress at the weld toe
and, thus, better SIFs. For this reason, as well as computing SIFs using a linearly extrapolated
SCF, calculations in this work will also be carried out using a Quadratic SCF, obtained by
extrapolating from a point equidistant from the two locations given in Figure 65 to 0.25T.
σb 1 SCFinner
DOB = = 1 − (49)
σt 2 SCFouter
where σb is the bending stress, σt the total stress (= SCF × σnom), SCFinner the geometric SCF on
the inner surface of the chord under the weld toe and SCFouter the geometric SCF at the weld toe
(= SCF as discussed in the previous section). Unlike at the weld toe, the stress distribution on
the inner surface of the chord is not subject to a rapidly increasing stress gradient, as shown in
Figure 67. Some disturbance due to the weld toe effect will occur because of the need for the
cross-section to self equilibrate, but this is difficult to quantify and is likely to be negligible.
Thus, in this work, SCFinner is taken to be the averaged nodal stress at the node on the inner
surface directly under the weld toe. Even though SCFinner is the same no matter how the SCF at
the weld toe is evaluated, for each uncracked joint geometry and configuration, two DOBs must
be calculated from equation (49): one corresponding to the linear SCF and the other the
quadratic SCF.
108
0
-2
-4
SCF
-6
-8
-10
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Distance from weld toe / T
Figure 67
Chord inner surface stress distribution at the saddle of a tubular T-joint
α = 14, β = 0.5, γ = 18, τ = 0.6, T = 1, d = 18, D = 36)
(α
As well as considering how the uncracked stress field parameters should be evaluated, because
the stress field changes around the intersection of tubular joints, one must also consider the
stresses to be used when applying the SIF equation. The simplest way to evaluate equation (47)
is to use the SCF and DOB corresponding to the location of the deepest point of the crack, for
both the deepest point and the crack ends. Usually, the crack will be centred on the hot spot
location and so the hot spot SCF and DOB will be used. As the crack widens, however, the
crack ends may have moved a considerable distance from the hot spot. This has lead to some
researchers advocating the use of the intersection stress distribution to calculate a local SCF and
DOB corresponding to the actual location of the crack ends (Thurlbeck, 1991). Also, in some
methodologies, the change in the geometry of the weld around the intersection is taken into
account (Thurlbeck, 1991).
In this work, most SIFs are calculated by using the SCF and DOB corresponding to the centre of
the crack, which is usually at the hot spot of the joint. And for some joints, the use of a local
SCF and DOB, derived from the intersection stress distribution, is investigated.
109
10.3 CORRELATION BETWEEN TUBULAR JOINT AND T-BUTT JOINT SIFs
Details of the tubular joint analyses performed for the comparison are given in Table 8. The
joints analysed were chosen to encompass a wide range of configurations, geometries and
loadings. In the table, the geometries are described in terms of the standard tubular joint non-
dimensional parameters as defined in Figure 68 (angles are given in degrees), and the weld
geometry is that at the location of the centre of the crack; crack locations are given in Table 9.
In total, 26 uncracked and 95 cracked tubular joints were analysed.
( ) * ( +
, - . , /
1 2 3 1 4
H I J K L M
5 6 7 5 8
N O P Q R S
T U V W X
Y Z [ [ \ ]
@ A B
= > ?
^ _ _ ` a b c
C D E F G
<
Figure 68
Geometric notation for tubular joints
Typical meshes for each joint configuration and the loadings applied are shown in Figures 69–
76. Also, Figure 77 shows a deformed mesh plot, including a close-up of the opened crack, for
the T-joint with an out-of-plane T.
110
Table 8
Parameter matrix for the uncracked and cracked tubular joint analyses (oop = out-of-plane)
Note that all joints are concentric, i.e. the eccentricity = 0
d
k
l
o
q
l
s
u
v
w
l
x
v
q
z
|
l
u
v
h
h
h
h
h
ef
ge
ij
f
m
j
ne
f
p
mr
t
t
pi
f
m
r
ef
ge
ij
e
r
ef
g
i
p{
}
~
e
t
g
e
if
pm
j
p
}
e
}
v
q
l
u
u
o
s
s
z
|
q
|
q
f
p
e
}
e
e
r
t
i
e
}
f
p
p
{
i
p{
e
m
{
i
p{
e
y
α β γ τ θ ζ φ θ
T1 T Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.6 90 — — 0.93 43 0.01, 0.04, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 18 1
T1 T Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.6 90 — — 0.93 43 0.9 0.1 1 0
T2 T Axial tension 14 0.3 18 0.6 90 — — 0.86 64 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T3 T Axial tension 14 0.7 18 0.6 90 — — 1.17 30 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T4 T Axial tension 14 0.5 8 0.6 90 — — 0.92 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T5 T Axial tension 14 0.5 26 0.6 90 — — 0.93 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T6 T Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.4 90 — — 0.62 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T7 T Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.8 90 — — 1.23 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T8 T Axial tension 14 0.5 18 1 90 — — 1.54 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T9 T IPB 14 0.5 18 0.6 90 — — 0.90 55 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
T10 T OPB 14 0.5 18 0.6 90 — — 0.93 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DT1 DT Axial tension 14 0.7 18 0.6 90 — — 1.17 30 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
TT1 T with oop T Both braces ten. 14 0.5 18 0.6 90 — 90 1.03 33 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
TT2 T with oop T 1 ten., 1 comp. 14 0.5 18 0.6 90 — 90 1.03 33 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DTT1 DT with oop T All braces tension 14 0.5 18 1 90 — 90 1.54 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DTT2 DT with oop T DT ten., oop brace comp. 14 0.5 18 1 90 — 90 1.54 43 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
Y1 Y Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.6 60 — — 0.93 43 0.01, 0.04 1.0 2 1
Y1 Y Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.6 60 — — 0.93 43 0.1, 0.3 0.4 2 0
Y1 Y Axial tension 14 0.5 18 0.6 60 — — 0.93 43 0.5, 0.7 0.1 2 0
K1 K Balanced axial 16 0.5 8 0.6 45-45 0.29 — 1.13 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
K2 K IPB opening moments 16 0.5 8 0.6 45-45 0.29 — 1.13 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
K3 K Balanced axial 14 0.5 18 0.4 45-45 0.29 — 0.76 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
K4 K IPB opening moments 14 0.5 18 0.4 45-45 0.29 — 0.76 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DK1 DK Symm. bal. ax. 16 0.5 8 0.6 45-45 0.29 — 1.13 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DK2 DK Antisymm. bal. ax. 16 0.5 8 0.6 45-45 0.29 — 1.13 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DK3 DK Symm. bal. ax. 14 0.5 18 0.4 45-45 0.29 — 0.76 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
DK4 DK Antisymm. bal. ax. 14 0.5 18 0.4 45-45 0.29 — 0.76 34 0.01, 0.1, 0.5 0.4 3 1
KK1 K with oop K Symm. bal. ax. 14 0.5 18 0.4 45-45 0.29 90 0.76 34 0.1, 0.5 0.4 2 1
KK2 K with oop K Antisymm. bal. ax. 14 0.5 18 0.4 45-45 0.29 90 0.76 34 0.1, 0.5 0.4 2 1
TOTAL 95 26
(a) typical mesh (axial loading)
Figure 69
A typical T-joint mesh and the loadings applied
Axial loading: Quarter model - two planes of symmetry
Bending loadings: Half model - one plane of symmetry
112
(a) typical mesh
Axial
Figure 70
A typical DT-joint mesh and the loading applied
Axial loading: Eighth model - three planes of symmetry
113
(a) typical mesh
Figure 71
A typical T-joint with an out-of-plane T mesh and the loadings applied
Both loadings: Half model - one plane of symmetry
114
(a) typical mesh
Figure 72
A typical DT-joint with an out-of-plane T mesh and the loadings applied
Both loadings: Quarter model - two planes of symmetry
(reference braces are those that form the DT)
115
(a) typical mesh
Axial
Figure 73
A typical Y-joint mesh and the loading applied
Axial loading: Half model - one plane of symmetry
116
(a) typical mesh
Figure 74
A typical K-joint mesh and the loadings applied
Both loadings: Half model - one plane of symmetry
117
(a) typical mesh
Figure 75
A typical DK-joint mesh and the loadings applied
Symmetrical balanced axial loading: Quarter model - two planes of symmetry
Antisymmetrical bal. ax. loading: Quarter model - one symmetry and one antisymmetry plane
118
(a) typical mesh
Figure 76
A typical K-joint with an out-of-plane K mesh and the loadings applied
Symmetrical balanced axial loading: Half model - one plane of symmetry
Antisymmetrical bal. ax. loading: Half model - one plane of antisymmetry
119
(a) deformed mesh plot
Figure 77
Deformed mesh plot of geometry TT1 with an a/T = 0.5, a/c = 0.4 crack
120
10.3.2 Uncracked stress field results
The uncracked stress field results are given in Table 9. For all of the joints, with the exception
of TT1, the stress field is that at the hot spot, which was also the location of the crack in the
cracked joint analyses. For joint TT1, the crack was not located at the hot spot and so the stress
field at the hot spot and the crack location are given. The SCFs and DOBs calculated from
parametric equations are those of Efthymiou (1988) and Connolly et al. (1990), respectively.
Comparing extrapolation methods, it can be seen that the quadratic SCF is between 6 and 24%
higher than that obtained by linear extrapolation, with an average increase of 11%. As regard to
the parametric SCF equations, there is reasonable agreement with the equations, overpredicting
the linear SCF by between 1 and 29%. The DOB equations give better predictions, ranging from
–3 to +6% when compared to the linear DOB.
121
Table 9
Uncracked stress field results
(inner/outer saddle denotes the tension brace saddle nearest to/furthest from the adjacent brace)
Geometry Hot spot or crack Quadratic extrapolation Linear extrapolation Parametric equations Quad/Lin
& load Ref. location if different SCF DOB SCF DOB SCF DOB SCF
T1 HS (saddle) 12.2 0.81 10.7 0.86 11.4 0.84 1.14
T2 HS (saddle) 10.8 0.81 9.79 0.84 9.9 0.83 1.10
T3 HS (saddle) 10.5 0.80 9.09 0.85 10.4 0.82 1.16
T4 HS (saddle) 4.66 0.74 4.22 0.77 5.1 0.81 1.10
T5 HS (saddle) 16.9 0.84 15.7 0.86 16.4 0.86 1.08
T6 HS (saddle) 7.48 0.82 6.96 0.84 7.3 0.82 1.07
T7 HS (saddle) 17.5 0.80 14.6 0.86 15.6 0.86 1.20
T8 HS (saddle) 21.5 0.82 18.9 0.86 20.0 0.87 1.14
T9 HS (crown) 2.98 0.72 2.57 0.75 3.2 0.79 1.16
T10 HS (saddle) 8.60 0.84 7.73 0.88 8.5 0.88 1.11
DT1 HS (saddle) 14.9 0.81 13.0 0.86 16.8 — 1.15
TT1 CL (inner saddle) 5.12 0.62 4.14 0.65 — — 1.24
HS (outer saddle) 5.97 0.80 5.39 0.83 — — 1.11
TT2 HS (inner saddle) 17.6 0.87 15.5 0.92 — — 1.14
DTT1 HS (inner saddle of DT brace) 17.8 0.73 15.3 0.77 — — 1.16
DTT2 HS (inner saddle of DT brace) 32.9 0.85 29.2 0.90 — — 1.13
Y1 HS (saddle) 9.03 0.82 8.05 0.86 9.0 0.87 1.12
K1 HS (crown toe) 2.31 0.74 2.15 0.76 2.6 — 1.07
K2 HS (crown toe) 0.554 0.64 0.516 0.64 — — 1.07
K3 HS (crown toe) 2.77 0.75 2.61 0.77 2.7 — 1.06
K4 HS (crown toe) 0.722 0.65 0.684 0.66 — — 1.06
DK1 HS (crown toe) 2.53 0.75 2.35 0.76 — — 1.08
DK2 HS (crown toe) 2.08 0.73 1.93 0.75 — — 1.08
DK3 HS (crown toe) 3.04 0.75 2.85 0.77 — — 1.07
DK4 HS (crown toe) 2.44 0.75 2.30 0.76 — — 1.06
KK1 HS (crown toe) 1.65 0.77 1.56 0.79 — — 1.06
KK2 HS (crown toe) 3.37 0.74 3.16 0.75 — — 1.07
AVERAGE 1.11
10.3.3 SIF results (using the SCF and DOB from the centre of the crack)
The tubular joint shape factor results and T-butt joint predictions from equation (48), calculated
using the SCF and DOB from the location of the centre of the crack, are presented in Figures
78–107. In each figure, the shape factors calculated from the finite element models are given for
both the deepest point and the crack end locations, along with the predicted Y factors from the
T-butt joint SIF solutions calculated using quadratic and linear SCFs. Figures 78–91 are for
tubular T-joints: Figures 78–80 show the effect of crack depth and aspect ratios, 81–83 the
effect of the τ-ratio, 84–86 the β-ratio, 87–89 the γ-ratio and 90–91 the effect of bending
loadings. Figures 92–107 show the effects of different joint configurations and loadings.
Despite the large variety of joint configurations, geometries and loadings investigated, the
correlation between the predicted and the actual shape factors may be summarised as follows: In
general, the agreement between the actual and predicted Y factors is excellent. Examining the
extrapolation methods, quadratic extrapolation provides higher shape factors which are
generally in better agreement with the actual tubular joint shape factors, especially for shallower
cracks when Y is larger. The agreement, however, deteriorates at the deepest point for deep
cracks (see part (a) of Figures 80, 83, 86, 89, 97 and a/T ≥ 0.5 in the other figures) and at the
crack ends for deep, wide cracks (see part (b) of Figures 80 and 97). For some of the deeper
cracks, the shape factors from the linear SCFs agree best with those from the tubular joints (see
part (a) of Figures 83, 86 and 89), but this good correlation is fortuitous (see below).
To quantify the general observations made in the previous paragraph, the comparisons will now
be examined in more detail:
For good agreement between the tubular joint and the T-butt joint SIFs, the uncracked stress
field parameters used to calculate the T-butt joint predictions must accurately describe the stress
field at the crack location in the tubular joint. When the tubular joint is cracked, the crack
disturbs the stress field causing load redistribution, and so the structural restraint at the plane of
the crack must be similar in both the tubular joint and the T-butt joint if the SIFs are to agree
well as the crack grows larger. However, the geometrical differences mean that the crack plane
restraint and load redistribution will not be the same. Also, because the predictions in this
section were calculated by using the stress field at the centre of the crack location, agreement is
expected to deteriorate at the crack ends of wide cracks due to the varying tubular joint
intersection stress distribution. Thus, to compare the two methods of SCF extrapolation, the data
for shallow and narrow cracks should be used because the most accurate SCF and DOB will
yield the best agreement. Figure 108 shows the ratio of predicted Y to the actual tubular joint Y
for such cracks where a/T ≤ 0.1 for the deepest point data and c/T = (a/T)/(a/c) ≤ 3.0 for the
crack end data.
At the deepest point (Figure 108a), the ratio of predicted to actual shape factors for both linear
and quadratic extrapolation are seen to be roughly normally distributed, but the distribution for
quadratic extrapolation is centred nearer to unity than that for linear extrapolation. In fact, the
mean values are 0.867 and 0.969 for linear and quadratic extrapolation, respectively. At the
crack ends, the results are similar with means of 0.903 and 1.007, respectively. And, as one
would expect, the difference in the means for the two locations corresponds to the average 11%
difference in the SCFs noted in Section 10.3.2. Thus, the linear SCF is unconservative whilst the
quadratic extrapolation procedure produces SCFs which better reflect the actual magnitude of
the uncracked stress field.
123
30.0
Actual (FE)
25.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
35.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 78
Effect of crack depth on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/c = 1.0 (Joint T1)
124
30.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
35.0
Actual (FE)
30.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
25.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 79
Effect of crack depth on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/c = 0.4 (Joint T1)
125
30.0
Actual (FE)
25.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
20.0
15.0
Y
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
35.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 80
Effect of crack depth on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/c = 0.1 (Joint T1)
126
50.0
Actual (FE)
40.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
30.0
Y
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
τ
(a) Deepest point of the crack
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
Y
30.0
20.0
Actual (FE)
10.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
τ
(b) Crack ends
Figure 81
Effect of the τ-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.01 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T6, T7, T8)
127
25.0
Actual (FE)
20.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
15.0
Y
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
τ
(a) Deepest point of the crack
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
5.0 Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
τ
(b) Crack ends
Figure 82
Effect of the τ-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.1 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T6, T7, T8)
128
12.0
Actual (FE)
10.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
8.0
Y
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
τ
(a) Deepest point of the crack
25.0
20.0
15.0
Y
10.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
τ
(b) Crack ends
Figure 83
Effect of the τ-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.5 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T6, T7, T8)
129
25.0
20.0
15.0
Y
10.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
β
(a) Deepest point of the crack
50.0
40.0
30.0
Y
20.0
Actual (FE)
10.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
β
(b) Crack ends
Figure 84
Effect of the β-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.01 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T2, T3)
130
12.0
10.0
8.0
Y
6.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
2.0
0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
β
(a) Deepest point of the crack
25.0
20.0
15.0
Y
10.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
β
(b) Crack ends
Figure 85
Effect of the β-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.1 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T2, T3)
131
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
Y
3.0
Actual (FE)
2.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
1.0
0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
β
(a) Deepest point of the crack
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Y
6.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
2.0
0.0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
β
(b) Crack ends
Figure 86
Effect of the β-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.5 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T2, T3)
132
35.0
Actual (FE)
30.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
25.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
γ
(a) Deepest point of the crack
50.0
40.0
30.0
Y
20.0
Actual (FE)
10.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
γ
(b) Crack ends
Figure 87
Effect of the γ-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.01 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T4, T5)
133
18.0
12.0
10.0
Y
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
γ
(a) Deepest point of the crack
30.0
25.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
γ
(b) Crack ends
Figure 88
Effect of the γ-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.1 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T4, T5)
134
9.0
6.0
5.0
Y
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
γ
(a) Deepest point of the crack
25.0
20.0
15.0
Y
10.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
0.0
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
γ
(b) Crack ends
Figure 89
Effect of the γ-ratio on the correlation between predicted and
actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y) for a/T = 0.5 and a/c = 0.4 (Joints T1, T4, T5)
135
7.0
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
12.0
Actual (FE)
10.0
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
8.0
Y
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 90
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y)
for in-plane bending loading (Joint T9)
136
20.0
Actual (FE)
15.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
Y
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
25.0
Actual (FE)
20.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
15.0
Y
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 91
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular T-joint shape factors (Y)
for out-of-plane bending loading (Joint T10)
137
30.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
40.0
Actual (FE)
30.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
Y
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 92
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DT-joint (Joint DT1)
138
10.0
Actual (FE)
8.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
6.0
Y
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
14.0
12.0
Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
10.0 Predicted (Linear SCF)
8.0
Y
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 93
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a T-joint with an out-of-plane T (Joint TT1)
139
30.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
40.0
Actual (FE)
30.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure 94
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a T-joint with an out-of plane T (Joint TT2)
140
35.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
60.0
50.0
Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
40.0
Y
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 95
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DT-joint with an out-of-plane T (Joint DTT1)
141
70
60 Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
50
40
Y
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
100
90
80 Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
70 Predicted (Linear SCF)
60
Y
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 96
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DT-joint with an out-of-plane T (Joint DTT2)
142
20.0
Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
15.0 Predicted (Linear SCF)
Y
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
30.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 97
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y) for a Y-joint
(Joint Y1) — Note that the data do not form a smooth curve as a/c varies with crack depth
143
5.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
3.0
Y
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
6.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 98
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a K-joint (Joint K1)
144
2.0
Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
1.5 Predicted (Linear SCF)
Y
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
3.0
Actual (FE)
2.5 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
2.0
Y
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 99
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a K-joint (Joint K2)
145
6.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
7.0
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 100
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a K-joint (Joint K3)
146
2.0
Actual (FE)
Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
1.5 Predicted (Linear SCF)
Y
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
3.0
Actual (FE)
2.5 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 101
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a K-joint (Joint K4)
147
5.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
3.0
Y
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
6.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 102
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DK-joint (Joint DK1)
148
5.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
3.0
Y
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
5.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
3.0
Y
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 103
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DK-joint (Joint DK2)
149
6.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
7.0
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 104
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DK-joint (Joint DK3)
150
6.0
Actual (FE)
5.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
7.0
4.0
Y
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 105
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a DK-joint (Joint DK4)
151
3.0
Actual (FE)
2.5 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
2.0
Y
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
3.0
2.0
Y
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 106
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a K-joint with an out-of-plane K (Joint KK1)
152
5.0
Actual (FE)
4.0 Predicted (Quadratic SCF)
Predicted (Linear SCF)
3.0
Y
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(a) Deepest point of the crack
5.0
4.0
3.0
Y
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
a/T
(b) Crack ends
Figure 107
Correlation between predicted and actual tubular joint shape factors (Y)
for a K-joint with an out-of-plane K (Joint KK2)
153
30
Prediction from Linear SCF
Prediction from Quadratic SCF
25
20
Frequency
15
10
0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
Predicted Y / Actual Y
(a) Deepest point of the crack for cracks where a/T ≤ 0.1
45
Prediction from Linear SCF
40 Prediction from Quadratic SCF
35
30
Frequency
25
20
15
10
0
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
Predicted Y / Actual Y
Figure 108
The effect of the SCF extrapolation method on the ratio of predicted
to actual shape factors for shallow and narrow cracks
154
The statistics quantifying the accuracy of the predictions presented in Figure 108 for quadratic
extrapolation are given in Table 10. This table shows that at the deepest point of shallow cracks
and the crack ends of narrow cracks, the T-butt joint solutions may be applied to cracked tubular
joints to produce very good estimates of the SIF, to within ±13%.
Table 10
Statistical evaluation of the T-butt joint equation predictions (quadratic SCF)
for tubular joints with shallow and narrow cracks
For all crack depths and widths, the errors in the SIF predictions (quadratic SCF) are shown in
Figure 109. In this figure, lines corresponding to the mean prediction are also included. At the
deepest point of the crack (Figure 109a), the predictions can be seen to deteriorate with crack
depth with the percentage overprediction increasing steadily between a/T of 0.1 and 0.5, and
more rapidly for even deeper cracks. This effect is due to the differences in the geometrical
restraint between tubular joints and T-butt joints: tubular joints shed load away from the
uncracked ligament under the deepest point of the crack more efficiently than T-butt joints,
resulting in lower SIFs at this location. It also accounts for the fortuitous agreement between the
deepest point shape factors and linear SCF predictions in part (a) of Figures 83, 86 and 89,
noted earlier in this section; for these cases, the underprediction of the linear SCF cancels out
the overprediction, due to load redistribution, of the T-butt joint SIF equations. At the crack
ends, Figure 109b shows a similar trend with increasing crack width. The reasons for this effect
are likely to be a combination of load shedding and, probably more importantly, the changing
intersection stress distribution where the SCF reduces away from the hot spot resulting in lower
SIFs; this second factor is investigated further in the following section.
With regard to the consequences of the poorer correlation between T-butt joint and tubular
joints SIFs for deep and wide cracks, it is difficult to judge whether or not the discrepancies are
significant without performing fatigue calculations (see Section 11). Nevertheless, the accuracy
of the T-butt joint solutions at the deepest point of shallow cracks, where a/T ≤ 0.1, is very
important because a very significant portion of the fatigue life is likely to be consumed when the
crack is shallow and under the influence of the weld toe notch stress. Also, it should be
remembered that the T-butt joint solutions become more conservative with increasing crack
depth and width and will, thus, help to ensure that the fatigue life prediction is safe (low).
155
140
120
% Error in prediction
100 Data
Mean
80
60
40
20
-20
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
160
140
120 Data
% Error in prediction
Mean
100
80
60
40
20
-20
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
c/T
Figure 109
Percentage error in the predicted T-butt joint SIF for all tubular joints
and crack sizes analysed (quadratic SCF)
156
10.3.4 SIF results (using the intersection stress distribution)
The tubular T- and Y-joints, T1 and Y1, were used to investigate the effect of calculating the T-
butt joint SIF predictions with the intersection stress distribution. Figures 110 and 111 show the
distribution of the SCF at the outer and inner surfaces of the chord for T1 and Y1, respectively.
In these figures, the outer surface SCF (= SCF in equation (48)) was obtained by using quadratic
extrapolation, and the inner surface SCF is provided to allow the calculation of the DOB from
equation (49). Also given are regression equations for the SCFs as functions of the non-
dimensional distance from the saddle, i.e. the centre of the crack.
To calculate the predicted local shape factors, equation (48) was applied at the crack ends using
the local SCF and DOB derived from the regression equations. Because the regression equations
are functions of distance around the intersection divided by the chord thickness, the local stress
field parameters may be calculated directly by inputting c/T = (a/T)/(a/c). The results of the
comparison are shown in Figure 112 for the T-joint where results for two different crack aspect
ratios are presented; the comparison for a/c = 1.0 is not included because using the stress
distribution for narrow cracks has a negligible effect on the predicted shape factors. For the Y-
joint, the unsymmetrical nature of the geometry and, hence, the stress distribution means that
the ends of a crack experience different stress fields. Thus, Figure 113 shows results for both
ends of the crack; that nearest to the crown heel and the other nearest to the crown toe.
The results for both of the joints show that the use of the local stress field parameters results in a
major improvement in the predicted crack end Y factors. However, two points must be noted.
Firstly, the extent of this investigation is limited. Secondly, the availability of the intersection
stress distribution, for example from parametric equations, is also limited, and when it is
required, performing the stress extrapolations all around the intersection is usually a very labour
intensive task. Nevertheless, the use of the intersection stress distribution appears to provide a
way of improving the crack end stress intensity factors which were shown in the previous
section to deteriorate for wide cracks (c/T > 3.0).
In Section 10.3.3 it was noted that using linear extrapolation to calculate the SCF provides an
unsafe estimate of the actual geometric stress field. Whilst this is of no consequence for the
stress-endurance design approach, where the design curves are formulated for linear
extrapolation, using a linear SCF for a fracture mechanics fatigue assessment could result in an
unsafe overestimation of the fatigue life. Therefore, when a linear SCF is to be used, for
example from parametric equations, it is recommended that the SCF is factored as follows such
that it is nearer to the actual stress field magnitude:
where 1.11 is the average ratio of the quadratic to linear SCFs derived from Table 9. As noted in
Section 10.2.3, the inner surface SCF is not calculated by extrapolation but the DOB will still
change if the outer surface SCF is factored as above. Using equation (49) and the fact that the
SCFinner remains the same, it may be shown that
157
15
SCFouter = 0.0086(dist/T)3 - 0.1688(dist/T)2 + 0.0358(dist/T) + 12.022
10
5
SCF
SCFouter
SCFinner
Regression (SCFouter)
0 Regression (SCFinner)
-5
Figure 110
Intersection stress distribution for the tubular T-joint T1
(Top surface SCF obtained using quadratic extrapolation)
15
SCFouter = 0.000009(dist/T)5 + 0.000156(dist/T)4 - 0.002988(dist/T)3 -
0.058620(dist/T)2 + 0.364013(dist/T) + 8.513520
10
5
SCF
SCFouter
SCFinner
0 Regression (SCFouter)
Regression (SCFinner)
-5
Figure 111
Intersection stress distribution for the tubular Y-joint Y1
(Top surface SCF obtained using quadratic extrapolation)
158
35.0
Actual (FE)
30.0 Predicted (Saddle stress)
Predicted (Local stress)
25.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) Crack ends for a/c = 0.4
35.0
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
a/T
(b) Crack ends for a/c = 0.1
Figure 112
Effect of using the intersection stress distribution to
predict the crack end shape factors (Y) for joint T1 (quadratic extrapolation)
159
30.0
Actual (FE)
25.0 Predicted (Saddle stress)
Predicted (Local stress)
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(a) Crack end nearest to the crown heel
30.0
Actual (FE)
25.0 Predicted (Saddle stress)
Predicted (Local stress)
20.0
Y
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/T
(b) Crack end nearest to the crown toe
Figure 113
Effect of using the intersection stress distribution to
predict the crack end shape factors (Y) for joint Y1 (quadratic extrapolation)
(a/c = 1.0 for a/T = 0.01, 0.04; a/c = 0.4 for a/T = 0.1, 0.3; a/c = 0.1 for a/T = 0.5, 0.7)
160
11. FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH CALCULATIONS USING THE
NEW SIF SOLUTIONS
In the previous section, the new T-butt joint SIF solutions were compared with tubular joint
SIFs. In this section, the T-butt joint solutions are used to perform fatigue crack growth
calculations to further validate the new solutions, and to demonstrate their applicability to
tubular joints. The procedure for performing the crack growth calculations is first described.
Next, factors affecting the calculated fatigue life, such as the thickness effect, are investigated.
Finally, the solutions are used to predict the lives of 16mm tubular T-joints from the HSE
database (HSE, 1995b).
The basic procedure for performing the crack growth calculations, detailed in this section, is
given in Figure 114. In this procedure, which is implemented in FORTRAN,
• The crack is grown in the width and depth directions using the Paris crack growth law.
• The Paris crack growth constants were taken to be C = 1.8318×10-13 and m = 3.0 which are
mean values for steel in air (PD 6493, 1991 and HSE, 1995b). (Note that these constants
differ slightly from the new recommendations in BS 7910: 1999).
• The whole of the hot spot stress range is considered to be damaging with no account taken
of the threshold SIF, unless otherwise specified.
• The hot spot stress field is applied to the deepest point and the crack ends, unless otherwise
stated.
• A single crack is assumed to exist, unless otherwise stated.
• The weld toe magnification factors for a sharp, as-welded toe are used in the calculations,
except for the investigation into the effect of a ground weld toe.
• The number of cycles is incremented by 10 for the calculation of each increment of crack
growth.
• Failure is deemed to have occurred when the crack grows through the chord wall thickness,
i.e. af = T.
A set of input parameters were used to calculate a ‘base case’, relative to which the effect of the
various factors, investigated in the following sections, may be judged. The input parameters are
as follows:
• T = 16mm, which is the base thickness that was used to derive the HSE design S-N curve
for welded tubular joints in air (HSE, 1995b).
• θ = 43°, which is an average of the weld angles at the crack location for T = 16mm tubular
T-joints in the HSE database (HSE, 1995b) (see Section 11.3).
• L/T = 1.17, which is an average of the attachment footprint widths at the crack locations for
16mm T-joints in the HSE database (see Section 11.3).
161
Input Data
ai = initial crack depth ∆σhs = hot spot stress range
ci = initial crack half width DOB = degree of bending
af = final crack depth (failure criterion) C = crack growth constant
T = chord wall thickness m = crack growth exponent
θ = global weld angle ∆N = increment in the number of cycles
L/T = attachment footprint width
Incrementation
If ∆Ka > 0 then increment crack depth:
[
a = a + ∆N C (∆K a )
m
] NO Are ∆Ka &
If ∆Kc > 0 then increment crack width: ∆Kc ≤ 0 ?
[
c = c + ∆N C (∆K c )
m
]
Increment the number of cycles:
N = N + ∆N YES
NO YES
Is a ≥ af ? Fatigue life = N
Figure 114
Basic procedure for crack growth calculations
162
• ∆σhs = 200Nmm-2
• DOB = 0.81, which is an average of the DOBs at the hot spot locations for 16mm T-joints in
the HSE database (see Section 11.3).
• ai = ci = 0.25mm, which is a typical size for a slag intrusion at the weld toe; the HSE
Background document (HSE, 1995b) states that slag intrusions range from 0.15 to 0.4mm in
depth.
The resulting crack growth rate and shape development curves are shown in Figure 115. The
crack growth rate (Figure 115a) increases with crack depth, resulting in a life of 554,000 cycles
when the crack reaches the internal chord wall. The crack shape (Figure 115b) is initially semi-
circular but the crack very quickly widens, with the final crack being over ten times wider in
total (2c) than it is deep.
To compare the base result with current design practice, it is possible to convert it into an
equivalent S-N curve: The fatigue calculations were carried out using the Paris crack growth
law
da
= C (∆K )
m
(52)
dN
Rearranging the Paris crack growth law and substituting the SIF range, it may be shown that
af
∫
1
N= da
( )
(54)
C [M m Mk m (1 − DOB ) + M b Mkb DOB ]∆σ hs πa
m
ai
af
∫
A 1
N= da (55)
(∆σ hs )m ai
f (a )
where A is a constant and f(a) is a function of the crack depth. For the same initial and final
crack depths, the result of the integral is a constant and, hence,
(∆σ hs )m N = A (56)
which is the equation of an S-N curve. For the base case, substituting the hot spot stress range
and the calculated number of cycles into equation (56) allows the constant A to be calculated as
4.4319×1012; this S-N curve is plotted in Figure 116 along with the mean and design HSE
curves (HSE, 1995a and HSE, 1995b).
163
16
14 Base case
12
10
a (mm)
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
N (million cycles)
1.0
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/T
Figure 115
The fatigue calculation results for the base case
164
1000
∆σhs (Nmm )
-2
100
10
1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7 1E+8
Fatigue endurance, N (cycles)
Figure 116
Comparison of the base case with HSE mean and design S-N curves
As noted in Section 10.3.3, a linearly extrapolated SCF underestimates the actual magnitude of
the geometric stress field at the weld toe by an average of 11%. Hence, because the HSE S-N
curves are based on stress ranges derived from linear extrapolation, the base S-N curve has not
strictly been plotted correctly in Figure 116. For a more realistic comparison, a second curve is
plotted which is denoted ‘linear SCF base case’; the equation, derived by dividing the stress
range by 1.11, is (∆σhs)3N = 3.2309×1012.
Comparing the linear base case with the HSE curves, it can be seen that the fatigue calculations
using the new T-butt joint solutions underestimate the mean curve, and yield a conservative life
that is more in accord with the design curve (mean minus two standard deviations). And, in the
light of the comparisons of the T-butt joint and tubular joint SIFs (Section 10.3.3), this
underestimate is as expected (see the following section for further investigation). Note also that
threshold effects and crack initiation have not been accounted for.
11.2.2 The discrepancy between T-butt joint and tubular joint SIFs
The work in Section 10.3.3 showed that the T-butt joint solutions over predict tubular joint SIFs
at the deepest point for cracks deeper than a/T = 0.1 and at the crack ends for cracks wider than
c/T = 3.0. At the deepest point, load shedding was given as the most probable reason for the
discrepancy. At the cracks ends, the use of the hot spot stress field rather than the intersection
stress distribution was demonstrated to be the most likely cause of the SIF overprediction. In
this section, the effects of these discrepancies on the fatigue life are investigated.
To account for the load shedding, a function was derived from the tubular joint SIF results for
the geometry T1 (Table 8). The data are shown in Figure 117, in which Yactual, from the tubular
joint analyses, has been normalised by the predicted shape factor, YT-butt. Note that Yactual was
165
calculated by normalising the SIF by the brace nominal stress and YT-butt was calculated using
the quadratically extrapolated SCF and DOB. The function, also plotted in the figure, was
calculated by performing a least squares regression analysis on the data:
( ac )
f load shedding (Ta , ac ) = ( f1 (Ta )) 2
f
(57)
where
3 2
a a a
f1 (Ta ) = −1.3116 + 0.59483 − 0.097832 + 1.0000
T T T
a
f 2 (ac ) = 2.1810 + 0.78193
c
1.2
1.0
0.8
Yactual / YT-butt
0.6
a/c=1.0 data
a/c=0.4 data
0.4 a/c=0.1 data
Equation (a/c=1.0)
Equation (a/c=0.7)
Equation (a/c=0.4)
0.2 Equation (a/c=0.2)
Equation (a/c=0.1)
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/T
Figure 117
The effect of load shedding in tubular T-joint T1
Hence, for the base case, where the geometry is similar to joint T1, the deepest point SIFs may
be corrected for load shedding as follows:
To account for the intersection stress distribution, the equations given in Figure 110 were used
to calculate the stress field at the location of the crack ends. Hence, the SIF range may be
calculated from
166
∆K c = [M mc Mk mc (1 − DOBlocal ) + M bc Mkbc DOBlocal ]∆σ local πa (59)
where
SCFouter
∆σ local = ∆σ hs (60)
12.022
1 SCFinner
DOBlocal = 1 − (61)
2 SCFouter
The results of the fatigue calculations using the load shedding and the intersection stress
distribution corrections are shown in Figure 118. Note that, apart from the corrections specified,
all of the input parameters are the same as for the base case. In this figure, four cases are
presented: the base case, the deepest point of the crack corrected only (load shedding), the crack
ends corrected only (local stresses) and both the deepest point and crack ends corrected.
Applying both corrections significantly increases the predicted fatigue life to 922,000 cycles, an
increase of 66% relative to the base case which corresponds to an 18% enhancement in the
predicted fatigue strength, i.e. the increase in the sustainable stress range for a given endurance
or life. The resulting life is also closer to that from the HSE mean S-N curve (∆σhs = 200)
shown in Figure 116. When only the deepest point of the crack is corrected, the crack growth in
the depth direction is retarded resulting in a wider final crack (Figure 118b). This also lengthens
the fatigue life to 671,000 cycles, representing an increase of 21%. With regard to correcting the
crack ends only, the growth rate in the width direction is reduced resulting in a more rounded
crack (high a/c) at failure. The effect on the predicted fatigue life, however, is almost negligible,
with 581,000 cycles representing only a 5% increase in life over the base case. Hence, the main
source of error in using T-butt joint SIF solutions to predict the fatigue life of tubular joints is
load shedding, with the intersection stress distribution making only a small difference. But the
most benefit arises from correcting the T-butt joint solutions for both effects, although the
information required to perform these corrections with any degree of certainty will usually not
be available.
The size of the initial defect used in the base case is about the average size of slag inclusions at
the weld toe (see Section 11.2.1). To assess the sensitivity of the fatigue calculations to the
initial defect size, different initial crack depths and half widths were used with all the other
input parameters remaining the same as the base case. The initial defect dimensions used and
the resulting fatigue lives are given in Table 11.
The effect of increasing the initial crack depth (constant a/c = 1.0) by 12½ times resulted in a
22% decrease in the predicted life. The effect of the initial crack aspect ratio was to lower the
fatigue life by 9% as the initial defect widened from 1.0 to 0.1. It appears, therefore, that the
initial crack dimensions do not unduly affect the predicted fatigue life. Also, Figure 119 shows
that the initial crack aspect ratio only affects the crack shape in the early stages of crack growth,
with all the three cases investigated converging on a preferred crack shape development at only
20% of the chord wall thickness.
167
16
14
12
10
a (mm)
4 Base case
Deepest point only corrected
Crack ends only corrected
2 Deepest point and crack ends corrected
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
N (million cycles)
1.0
Base case
0.8 Deepest point only corrected
Crack ends only corrected
Deepest point and crack ends corrected
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/T
Figure 118
The effect of load shedding and the intersection stress distribution on fatigue life
168
Table 11
The effect of the initial defect dimensions
1.0
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
a/T
Figure 119
Effect of the initial crack aspect ratio on the crack shape development
As well as the size of the initial defects, their number will also influence the predicted fatigue
life. Multiple initiation and crack growth are typical in most welded joints, and tubular joints are
no exception, especially when they are subjected to a corrosive sea water environment. To gain
some insight into the effect of multiple initial defects, a simplified model was adopted in which
a number of equally spaced identical defects are initially grown. The notation for the model is
shown in Figure 120, where three initial defects (nd = 3) are spaced at ds. The defects are grown
until the ends touch, i.e. when c = ds/2, at which point they coalesce into a single defect of
dimensions a = a and c = c×nd. The single crack is then grown until failure. Such a model is in
accord with that proposed by Thurlbeck (1991) and does not take into account any interaction
effects, as the ends of the cracks grow near to one another prior to coalescence. Research,
however, suggests that this approach is conservative as the interaction effects are small and the
cracks are re-characterised on touching, with no account taken of the time required for the
uncracked material between the cracks to grow to depth a (Soboyejo et al., 1990 and Pang,
1993).
169
Figure 120
Notation for the multiple crack model
Using the multiple crack growth model described, two studies are made: In the first, the initial
defect spacing is kept constant, at 10mm, with 2 and 3 initial defects modelled. In the second
study, the number of defects is fixed at 3 whilst three different defect spacings are considered –
5mm, 20mm and 50mm. The results of these investigations are shown in Figure 121 for the
study where the number of initial defects is increased, and in Figure 122 for the study where the
initial defect spacing is increased.
Increasing the number of initial defects from 1 to 3 results in a 12% decrease in the predicted
fatigue life. Prior to coalescence, which takes place at around 175,000 cycles or a/T = 0.1, all of
the defects grow in an identical fashion (Figure 121a). At coalescence, a/c drops dramatically
for the multiple defect cases, with the lowest a/c arising from the case with nd = 3 (Figure 121b).
After coalescence, the wider the crack is, the faster its growth rate due to the higher shape
factors for wider cracks (see Figure 51). At about a/T = 0.6, the crack shapes converge on to the
preferred shape development curve for this geometry and loading, and from this point on, the
gradients of the growth rate curves become similar.
For a changing defect spacing (Figure 122), the initial defects, again, follow the base case with a
single defect prior to coalescence. As one would expect, the smaller the spacing between the
initial defects, the earlier coalescence takes place, which is shown by the increased crack growth
rate and the drop in the crack aspect ratio (Figure 122a and b, respectively). For the largest
initial defect spacing (ds = 50mm), coalescence does not take place until late in the fatigue life
(about 400,000 cycles) and the crack aspect ratio remains low, never managing to converge
back on to the preferred shape development curve. Thus, the growth rate for this case rises
sharply and the predicted life is the lowest of all the cases investigated – 9% lower than that for
ds = 5mm.
170
16
14 Base (nd=1)
nd=2, ds=10
12 nd=3, ds=10
10
a (mm)
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
N (million cycles)
1.0
Base (nd=1)
0.8 nd=2, ds=10
nd=3, ds=10
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/T
Figure 121
The effect of increasing the number of initial defects
171
16
14 Base (nd=1)
nd=3, ds=5
nd=3, ds=20
12 nd=3, ds=50
10
a (mm)
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
N (million cycles)
1.0
Base (nd=1)
0.8 nd=3, ds=5
nd=3, ds=20
nd=3, ds=50
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/T
Figure 122
The effect of increasing the spacing between the initial defects
172
11.2.4 Weld geometry
To investigate the effect of the weld geometry on the predicted fatigue life, three investigations
were carried out: One where L/T was altered, a second where the weld angle was varied and
another where the radiused weld toe Mk factor equations were used.
Figure 123 shows the results of the attachment footprint width investigation in which L/T was
varied from 0.5 to 2.75; the validity limits of the T-butt joint solutions. Note that for tubular
joints, L/T is a function of τ. The results demonstrate the detrimental effect of a large attachment
footprint width on life, with a 25% reduction resulting from changing L/T between the extremes.
Also, the results show that the effect of L/T quickly saturates, with any increase beyond 1.17
having no significant effect; this trend was also noted with the Mk factors (see Section 5.4.2).
16
14 L/T=0.5
L/T=0.75
Base (L/T=1.17)
12 L/T=2.0
L/T=2.75
10
a (mm)
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N (million cycles)
Figure 123
The effect of the attachment footprint width on the predicted fatigue life
The results of the weld angle investigation are shown in Figure 124. As one would expect,
reducing the weld angle reduces the weld toe notch stress. Hence, reducing the global weld
angle from 75° to 30° results in a 36% increase in life. And, similar to L/T, the effect of the weld
angle saturates with only a small difference resulting for angles above 60°.
173
16
14 θ=30°
Base (43° )
θ=60°
12 θ=75°
10
a (mm)
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N (million cycles)
Figure 124
The effect of weld angle on the predicted fatigue life
The final weld geometry investigation examined the effect of a radiused (ground) weld toe. In
this investigation, the effect of using the new ground weld toe T-butt joint solutions is assessed
for two chord wall thickness: T = 16mm and 50mm, with the rest of the input data being the
same as the base case. The results, shown in Figure 125, predict that grinding the weld toe
increases the fatigue life by a factor of 1.6 for T = 16mm and 1.9 for T = 50mm, which
correspond to increases in fatigue strength of 17% and 25%, respectively.
The predicted enhancement in fatigue life from weld toe grinding is large, but it underestimates
the 30% increase in strength (factor of 2.2 on life) allowed in the current UK fatigue guidance
(HSE, 1995b). And experimental investigations have indicated a strength enhancement of 50%
and, in some instances, up to 100% for weld toe grinding (Haagensen, 1982 and 1994). Though,
it must be noted that the experimental results often have a very large scatter.
The most likely reason for the discrepancy between the predicted and the experimental weld toe
grinding results is crack initiation. Grinding the weld toe will remove toe defects such as
undercut, and will also lower the local stresses. Thus, a period of crack initiation will usually be
required before crack growth takes place, which will lengthen the total life considerably. A
fracture mechanics prediction, on the other hand, presupposes the existence of initial defects
resulting in the calculation of a crack propagation life. Hence, the lower strength enhancement
predicted by fracture mechanics is perfectly reasonable.
174
50
40
30
a (mm)
10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
N (million cycles)
Figure 125
The effect of weld toe grinding on the predicted fatigue life
The through thickness stress distribution, quantified by the DOB, is not accounted for in the
current stress-endurance based design approach, but it will obviously have an effect on the
predicted fatigue life. In this investigation, the DOB is varied from 0.0 to 1.0, extremes that
represent membrane loading only and bending loading only, respectively. The results of the
investigation, relative to the base case, are given in Figure 126.
Changing the DOB from 0.0 to 1.0 results in a 154% increase in fatigue life (Figure 126a).
However, for tubular joints, a realistic range for the DOB would be 0.5 to 1.0 (Haswell, 1991,
Thurlbeck, 1991 and Bowness, 1996), although this still corresponds to an 85% increase in life.
Not surprisingly, the DOB also has a significant effect on the crack shape development. Figure
126b shows that a higher DOB results in a wider crack due to the falling stresses and, hence,
lower growth rate in the depth direction.
Three of the factors investigated so far, that influence the predicted fatigue life, are not
explicitly accounted for in the stress-endurance design approach: L/T, θ and the DOB. Thus,
these factors will contribute to the large scatter in the experimental database from which the
design S-N curve was derived. To examine the possible magnitude of scatter that they may
contribute, upper and lower-bound cases were investigated with the following input parameters:
175
16
14
12
10
a (mm)
4 DOB=0.0
DOB=0.5
Base (DOB=0.81)
2 DOB=1.0
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
N (million cycles)
1.0
DOB=0.0
0.8 DOB=0.5
Base (DOB=0.81)
DOB=1.0
0.6
a/c
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a/T
Figure 126
The effect of the DOB on the predicted fatigue life
176
• Upper-bound: L/T = 0.5, θ = 30°, DOB = 1.0
• Lower-bound: L/T = 2.75, θ = 60°, DOB = 0.5
where the rest of the input parameters are the same as the base case. The results for the two
cases are given as S-N curves in Figure 127.
1000
∆σhs (Nmm )
-2
100
10
1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7 1E+8
Fatigue endurance, N (cycles)
Figure 127
The possible effect of L/T, θ and the DOB on scatter in the
experimental tubular joint fatigue database
For the hot spot stress range of 200Nmm-2, the predicted upper and lower-bound lives are
1,034,000 and 388,000 cycles, respectively. Hence, these effects could represent up to a factor
of 2.7 on fatigue life which corresponds to a 38% difference in fatigue strength.
The thickness effect is an all-encompassing term for factors which result in a reduction in
fatigue life when the dimensions of a welded joint are uniformly scaled up. In the HSE fatigue
design guidance (1995a), the thickness effect for joints with a chord thickness above 16mm is
accounted for using
∆σ hs
(∆σ hs )effective =
q
(62)
(
B
T T )
where ∆σhs is the hot spot stress range the joint is subjected to, TB the base chord wall thickness
(= 16mm for tubular joints), T the chord wall thickness of the joint under consideration and q is
the thickness exponent factor which quantifies the magnitude of the thickness effect. The
177
calculated effective hot spot stress range may then be used to calculate the fatigue endurance of
the joint from the design S-N curve, which is based on 16mm joints.
To investigate the thickness effect predicted by the new T-butt joint SIF solutions, three cases
were examined where the chord wall thickness and, hence, the crack depth at failure were
increased. The results of this investigation are given in Table 12 and shown in terms of S-N
curves in Figure 128. Using equation (62), it may be deduced from the results in Table 12 that
the thickness exponent, q, is 0.14, which is considerably lower than the value of 0.3 in the HSE
Guidance (1995a).
Table 12
The predicted effect of thickness on fatigue strength and endurance
1000
∆σhs (Nmm )
-2
100
Base (T=16)
T=32
T=76
10
1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7 1E+8
Fatigue endurance, N (cycles)
Figure 128
The thickness effect predicted by the new T-butt joint SIF solutions
The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and experimentally derived thickness
exponents may be surmised from the various factors that contribute to the thickness effect:
1. The stress gradient effect – for the same hot spot stress range and DOB, the stress gradient
is lower in thicker plates. Thus, the deepest point of a crack of a certain absolute depth will
178
be subjected to a higher stress level in a thicker plate. Note that this implies that the
magnitude of the DOB will influence the thickness effect.
2. The stress intensity factor – the SIF depends on the absolute crack depth ( ∝ πa ).
3. Statistical reasons – there is a higher probability of finding defects in a larger volume of
material. In a tubular joint, this will mean that a larger number of initial defects will be
present in the early stages of crack growth. Also, because the scaled-up version of a tubular
joint will have a larger absolute length of intersection where the stress distribution exceeds a
certain magnitude, the multiple initial defects will grow into fatigue cracks over a longer
length of intersection.
4. Weld toe – even though the dimensions of a tubular joint may be scaled-up, the micro
geometry of the weld toe will be roughly the same no matter what the size of the joint.
Hence, the toe will become relatively sharper as the size of the tubular joint is increased.
In the fracture mechanics fatigue simulation, points 1 and 2 are accounted for but 3 and 4 are
not included and are possible reasons for the discrepancy.
To investigate the statistical thickness effect, some further fatigue simulations were performed
in which the multiple crack growth model from Section 11.2.3 was employed. Using the
intersection stress distribution for the base case tubular joint (Figure 110), the assumption was
made that initial defects would only grow into fatigue cracks if the stress field range was within
10% of the magnitude of the hot spot stress range. From the figure, this means that only the
defects within 2.8T of the hot spot will grow, which corresponds to an intersection length of
90mm (2×2.8×16) for T = 16mm and 426mm for T = 76mm. Making a further assumption that
the average initial defect spacing is 45mm, it follows that the number of initial defects when T =
16mm is 3, whilst there will be 10 initial defects for the joint with a chord thickness of 76mm.
Using these defect numbers and spacings results in predicted fatigue lives of 459,000 and
192,000 for T = 16mm and 76mm, respectively, and a thickness exponent of q = 0.2. So
accounting for the statistical effects goes some way to accounting for the discrepancy between
the predicted and the experimental thickness exponent, but the fracture mechanics calculations
still underestimate the thickness effect. This is consistent with the results from other studies in
the literature.
The final factor affecting fatigue life investigated is the effect of the threshold SIF. For this
investigation, the procedure recommended in BS 7910 (1997) and the HSE background fatigue
document (1995b) was used. In this procedure, an effective loading ratio Reff is first calculated
as
σ y − ∆σ hs
Reff = (63)
σy
where σy, the yield stress of the material, was taken to be 355Nmm-2. Note that equation (63)
was used for all crack depths, thus the conservative assumption was made that the residual
stresses from welding are of yield magnitude through the thickness of the chord wall. From this,
the threshold SIF may be calculated from
179
for units in N and mm. Finally, an effective SIF range may be calculated as
∆K th
∆K eff = ∆K for ∆K ≥ and Reff > 0
Reff
(65)
∆K − ∆K th ∆K th
= for ∆K < and any Reff
1 − Reff Reff
where ∆K is the SIF range as calculated in Figure 114. The effective SIF range may then be
used to calculate the increments in the crack width and depth directions, with account taken of
the threshold SIF.
The results incorporating threshold effects are shown in Figure 129. Also included in this figure
are the S-N curves for the base case and the HSE design curve for 16mm joints (1995b). The
HSE design curve changes gradient at 107 cycles to reflect the constant amplitude fatigue
endurance limit. Similarly, the fracture mechanics calculations including threshold effects
predict an endurance limit at a hot spot stress range of 47Nmm-2. For higher hot spot stress
ranges of up to 300Nmm-2, the predicted threshold effects are negligible and the curve is the
same as that for the base case. But above this stress range, the threshold is seen to enhance the
calculated fatigue life.
1000
∆σhs (Nmm )
-2
100
10
1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7 1E+8 1E+9
Fatigue endurance, N (cycles)
Figure 129
The effect of the threshold SIF on the predicted fatigue life
180
11.2.9 Summary of results
Tables 13 and 14 summarise the results of the fatigue life calculations performed in the previous
sections. Note that the results given in the tables show the effect of the correction or input
parameter under consideration, relative to the base (average geometry and stress field) case, i.e.
the other input parameters are as given in Section 11.2.1.
The results in Table 13 quantify the magnitude of the fatigue life one might expect from the new
solutions with respect to the experimental database. This table also highlights the importance of
tubular joint load shedding and the intersection stress distribution on the predicted life.
However, it also shows that correcting for one of these effects (especially the intersection stress
distribution) produces only a slight improvement in the prediction.
The results in Table 14 give an insight into the relative importance of the various input
parameters used in the fracture mechanics calculations. In particular, they show that the weld
angle, weld toe grinding, DOB and chord wall thickness all have a significant effect on the
fatigue life. Though, it must be noted that the predicted magnitudes of both the thickness and
weld toe grinding effects are lower than those observed experimentally.
Table 13
Comparison of the fatigue life predictions with the mean HSE S-N curve
Table 14
The effect of various input parameters on the predicted fatigue life
181
11.3 COMPARISON WITH THE HSE 16MM TUBULAR T-JOINT DATABASE
From the HSE database of 59 tubular joints with chord wall thicknesses of 16mm (HSE, 1995b),
37 T-joints, subjected to axial, in-plane bending and out-of-plane bending loadings, were
selected. Only T-joints were selected as these are the only joints in the database with sufficient
information to allow the calculation of the approximate weld geometry and DOB. The joint
geometries and other information are given in Table 15. In this table,
Although, the attachment footprint widths and weld angles will not be accurate values for the
joints in the database, they should be representative and give the correct general trends with
tubular joint geometry.
Using the information given in Table 15, several fatigue life calculations were made for each
tubular joint in the database, with each one using more refined input information than the
previous. In the calculations, the whole hot spot stress range was considered to be damaging
irrespective of the loading ratio. The results of the fatigue life calculations and the comparisons
with the experimental life are given in Table 16. In this table,
In the column following the result of each fatigue life calculation, the predicted result divided
by the actual experimental life is given. And at the bottom of the table, correlation statistics are
presented for all of the predictions, and a break down is shown of the prediction averages for the
three different loading modes.
182
Table 15
Tubular T-joints from the HSE 16mm tubular joint fatigue database used in the comparison
Specimen Joint D T α β γ τ ζ Loading R ∆σhs N3 DOB Intersection Local dihedral L L/T θ θ ρ/T
number type (mm) (mm) mode (MPa) location, ρ angle, Ψ (mm) calculated used
98 T 457 15.7 10.2 1 14.6 1.1 0 AX -1 322 144000 0.803 1.5708 180 30.2 1.93 0 30 0
100 T 457 15.8 10.2 1 14.5 1.1 0 AX -1 190 1000000 0.801 1.5708 180 30.4 1.93 0 30 0
104 T 457 16.1 10.2 1 14.2 1.1 0 AX -1 120 6950000 0.798 1.5708 180 31.0 1.93 0 30 0
112 T 457 16.4 10.2 1 13.9 0.6 0 AX -1 204 535000 0.682 1.5708 180 17.2 1.05 0 30 0
113 T 457 16.4 10.2 1 13.9 0.6 0 AX -1 146 1980000 0.682 1.5708 180 17.2 1.05 0 30 0
116 T 457 16.3 10.2 1 14 0.6 0 AX -1 269 369000 0.683 1.5708 180 17.1 1.05 0 30 0
190 T 457 16 8.8 0.5 14.3 0.5 0 AX 0 198 680000 0.818 1.5708 120 10.8 0.67 60 60 0
191 T 457 16 8.8 0.5 14.3 0.5 0 AX 0 179 1000000 0.818 1.5708 120 10.8 0.67 60 60 0
192 T 457 16 8.8 0.5 14.3 0.5 0 AX 0 179 840000 0.818 1.5708 120 10.8 0.67 60 60 0
193 T 457 16 8.8 0.5 14.3 0.5 0 AX 0 105 7500000 0.818 1.5708 120 10.8 0.67 60 60 0
194 T 457 16 8.8 0.5 14.3 0.5 0 AX 0 198 760000 0.818 1.5708 120 10.8 0.67 60 60 0
195 T 457 16 8.9 0.2 14.3 0.4 0 AX -1 123 9000000 0.799 1.5708 102 9.0 0.56 70 70 0
196 T 457 16 8.9 0.2 14.3 0.4 0 AX -1 242 700000 0.799 1.5708 102 9.0 0.56 70 70 0
96 T 457 16.6 10.2 1 13.8 1.1 0 IPB -1 271 290000 0.805 0 90 27.4 1.65 71 60 0
102 T 457 16 10.2 1 14.3 1.1 0 IPB -1 129 10010000 0.807 0 90 26.4 1.65 71 60 0
108 T 457 15.4 10.2 1 14.8 1.1 0 IPB -1 169 729000 0.809 0 90 25.4 1.65 72 60 0
111 T 457 16.2 10.2 1 14.1 0.6 0 IPB -1 225 610000 0.807 0 90 14.6 0.90 74 74 0
114 T 457 16.3 10.2 1 14 0.6 0 IPB -1 144 1800000 0.806 0 90 14.7 0.90 74 74 0
117 T 457 16.4 10.2 0.2 13.9 0.4 0 IPB -1 166 2200000 0.905 0 90 9.8 0.60 76 75 0
81 T 459 17.7 13.9 1 13 1 0 OPB 0 174 1100000 0.833 1.5708 180 31.0 1.75 0 30 0
82 T 459 17.7 13.9 1 13 1 0 OPB 0 267 610000 0.833 1.5708 180 31.0 1.75 0 30 0
83 T 459 17.5 13.9 1 13.1 1 0 OPB 0 132.5 7500000 0.833 1.5708 180 30.6 1.75 0 30 0
84 T 457 16.1 14 1 14.2 0.6 0 OPB 0 306 290000 0.830 1.5708 180 16.9 1.05 0 30 0
85 T 458 16.1 14 1 14.2 0.6 0 OPB 0 178 950000 0.830 1.5708 180 16.9 1.05 0 30 0
86 T 456 16.5 14 1 13.8 0.6 0 OPB 0 131 3600000 0.830 1.5708 180 17.3 1.05 0 30 0
87 T 458 18.3 14 0.3 12.5 0.4 0 OPB 0 166 5100000 0.910 1.5708 107 10.0 0.55 67 67 0
88 T 457 15.9 14 0.3 14.4 0.4 0 OPB 0 365.3 370000 0.911 1.5708 107 8.7 0.55 67 67 0
278 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB 0 352.6 247044 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
279 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB 0 235.3 491642 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
280 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB 0 268 366050 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
281 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 335.3 413590 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
282 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 335.3 309840 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
283 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 350.5 304885 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
284 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 164.8 4326250 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
285 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 379 223050 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
286 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 399.6 223050 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
287 T 457 16 14 0.5 14.3 0.8 0 OPB -1 239 678783 0.880 1.5708 120 17.2 1.08 60 60 0
Table 16 Results of the fatigue calculations
Specimen N3 HSE mean 16mm Prediction / Average geometry Prediction / Calculated Prediction / Calculated Prediction / Calculated Prediction /
number S-N curve N3 & DOB (Base case N3 geometry but N3 geometry & DOB N3 geometry & DOB N3
S-N curve) DOB=0.81 with threshold
98 144,000 262,000 1.82 133,000 0.92 166,000 1.15 164,000 1.14 235,000 1.63
100 1,000,000 1,276,000 1.28 646,000 0.65 804,000 0.80 793,000 0.79 793,000 0.79
104 6,950,000 5,064,000 0.73 2,565,000 0.37 3,168,000 0.46 3,113,000 0.45 3,113,000 0.45
112 535,000 1,031,000 1.93 522,000 0.98 620,000 1.16 530,000 0.99 530,000 0.99
113 1,980,000 2,812,000 1.42 1,424,000 0.72 1,692,000 0.85 1,445,000 0.73 1,445,000 0.73
116 369,000 450,000 1.22 228,000 0.62 271,000 0.73 232,000 0.63 241,000 0.65
190 680,000 1,127,000 1.66 571,000 0.84 585,000 0.86 590,000 0.87 590,000 0.87
191 1,000,000 1,526,000 1.53 773,000 0.77 791,000 0.79 799,000 0.80 799,000 0.80
192 840,000 1,526,000 1.82 773,000 0.92 791,000 0.94 799,000 0.95 799,000 0.95
193 7,500,000 7,558,000 1.01 3,828,000 0.51 3,919,000 0.52 3,957,000 0.53 3,957,000 0.53
194 760,000 1,127,000 1.48 571,000 0.75 585,000 0.77 590,000 0.78 590,000 0.78
195 9,000,000 4,702,000 0.52 2,382,000 0.26 2,376,000 0.26 2,346,000 0.26 2,346,000 0.26
196 700,000 617,000 0.88 313,000 0.45 312,000 0.45 308,000 0.44 309,000 0.44
96 290,000 440,000 1.52 223,000 0.77 204,000 0.70 203,000 0.70 204,000 0.70
102 10,010,000 4,076,000 0.41 2,065,000 0.21 1,923,000 0.19 1,915,000 0.19 1,915,000 0.19
108 729,000 1,813,000 2.49 918,000 1.26 870,000 1.19 869,000 1.19 869,000 1.19
111 610,000 768,000 1.26 389,000 0.64 349,000 0.57 347,000 0.57 347,000 0.57
114 1,800,000 2,930,000 1.63 1,484,000 0.82 1,326,000 0.74 1,320,000 0.73 1,320,000 0.73
117 2,200,000 1,913,000 0.87 969,000 0.44 974,000 0.44 1,097,000 0.50 1,097,000 0.50
81 1,100,000 1,661,000 1.51 841,000 0.76 983,000 0.89 1,016,000 0.92 1,016,000 0.92
82 610,000 460,000 0.75 233,000 0.38 272,000 0.45 281,000 0.46 287,000 0.47
83 7,500,000 3,761,000 0.50 1,905,000 0.25 2,236,000 0.30 2,312,000 0.31 2,312,000 0.31
84 290,000 305,000 1.05 155,000 0.53 185,000 0.64 190,000 0.66 241,000 0.83
85 950,000 1,551,000 1.63 786,000 0.83 940,000 0.99 967,000 1.02 967,000 1.02
86 3,600,000 3,892,000 1.08 1,971,000 0.55 2,337,000 0.65 2,403,000 0.67 2,403,000 0.67
87 5,100,000 1,913,000 0.38 969,000 0.19 918,000 0.18 1,036,000 0.20 1,036,000 0.20
88 370,000 179,000 0.49 91,000 0.25 92,000 0.25 103,000 0.28 201,000 0.54
278 247,000 200,000 0.81 101,000 0.41 94,000 0.38 103,000 0.42 175,000 0.71
279 492,000 672,000 1.37 340,000 0.69 315,000 0.64 346,000 0.70 346,000 0.70
280 366,000 455,000 1.24 230,000 0.63 213,000 0.58 234,000 0.64 236,000 0.64
281 414,000 232,000 0.56 118,000 0.28 109,000 0.26 120,000 0.29 174,000 0.42
282 310,000 232,000 0.75 118,000 0.38 109,000 0.35 120,000 0.39 174,000 0.56
283 305,000 203,000 0.67 103,000 0.34 95,000 0.31 105,000 0.34 175,000 0.57
284 4,326,000 1,955,000 0.45 990,000 0.23 917,000 0.21 1,008,000 0.23 1,008,000 0.23
285 223,000 161,000 0.72 81,000 0.36 76,000 0.34 83,000 0.37 168,000 0.75
286 223,000 137,000 0.61 69,000 0.31 64,000 0.29 71,000 0.32 163,000 0.73
287 679,000 641,000 0.94 325,000 0.48 301,000 0.44 331,000 0.49 331,000 0.49
Overall averages 1.11 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.66
Standard deviation 0.51 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.29
Coefficient of variation % 46 46 49 46 43
Ax average / Overall average 1.20 1.20 1.28 1.21 1.14
IPB average / Overall average 1.23 1.23 1.09 1.09 0.98
OPB average / Overall average 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.82 0.90
The average of the results from the mean HSE S-N curve is 1.11 which indicates that there are
trends in the S-N database with joint type. Further, the differences in the averages for the three
loading modes shows further trends, noted in the HSE background document (1995b), with in-
plane bending loaded joints being over-predicted by 23% and out-of-plane bending loaded joints
under-predicted by 22%, relative to the overall average prediction. Significant experimental
scatter is also evident in the database. For example, the first three joints in the tables (specimen
numbers 98, 100 and 104) are nominally identical geometrically, but are subjected to different
loading magnitudes. Therefore, on an S-N diagram, their fatigue lives should fall in a line which
is roughly parallel to the mean HSE S-N curve, however, the S-N predictions divided by the
actual lives are 1.82, 1.28 and 0.73.
Using the base S-N curve, calculated from the average weld geometry and DOB, the statistical
correlation with the actual fatigue lives is the same as for the HSE mean curve except that the
mean has been shifted to 0.56. The use of the weld geometry with an average value for the DOB
worsens the predictions, but each further refinement to the average base case yields
improvements to the correlation.
The most refined fracture mechanics fatigue life prediction model used, incorporating threshold
effects, gives a mean prediction of 0.66 and a small 3% reduction in the coefficient of variation,
relative to the HSE mean S-N curve. If the correction for linearly extrapolated hot spot stress
ranges were to be applied (Section 11.2.1), the mean prediction would be even lower at around
0.5 of the mean experimental life. Thus, the combined effects of load shedding and the
intersection stress distribution mean that the T-butt joint solutions will always yield
conservative estimates of tubular joint fatigue lives.
Despite the low average of the fatigue life predictions from the T-butt joint solutions, the new
solutions do give excellent results in other ways: the most notable improvement is that the
trends with loading mode are significantly reduced to the range +14% to –10% relative to the
overall average. Examining the averages for in-plane bending, a significant improvement may
be seen to have taken place (1.23 to 1.09) when the calculated weld geometry is incorporated
into the fatigue calculations. This is not too surprising as, unlike the other two loading modes,
the hot spot is located at the crown where the local dihedral angle is smaller than at the saddle
and, consequently, the weld angle is generally higher (see Table 15). Thus, the predicted fatigue
life will be lower. This result also illustrates the advantage of using fracture mechanics as this
effect is very difficult to separate from the experimental scatter in the fatigue database. Also, for
axial loading and out-of-plane bending, the incorporation of the DOB into the fatigue
calculations yields an improvement in the predicted life relative to the average life. Thus, in
spite of the large experimental scatter in the database and the fact that the weld geometry and
the DOB had to be approximated from parametric equations, fatigue life predictions using the
new T-butt joint SIF solutions correlate well with the full scale test results.
185
186
12. CONCLUSIONS
The modelling procedures for plain plate and T-butt joint models containing semi-elliptical
cracks have been discussed, and the implementation of two methods of SIF evaluation –
displacement extrapolation and the J-integral – has been described in detail. Using these
modelling and post-processing procedures, a very extensive parametric study of plain plates and
T-butt joints, which encompasses a variety of crack sizes and attachment geometries, was
performed.
The SIF results firstly revealed that the displacement extrapolation technique should not be used
at the deepest point of very deep cracks and at the crack ends in T-butt joints because of the
breakdown of the √r singularity. The J-integral, which proved to be reliable and remained path
independent even at the crack ends, was therefore used to calculate the weld toe magnification
factors (Mk factors) reported for the parametric study.
Results from the parametric study, presented in the form of weld toe magnification factors,
revealed the two-fold importance of the attachment: it increased the SIF for shallow cracks due
to the notch stress, and reduced the SIF for deep cracks due to its restraining effect. The restraint
provided by the attachment reduced the plate deformation and crack opening, and for bending
loading was seen to raise the neutral surface. At the deepest point of a crack under bending
loading, discontinuities in the weld toe magnification factor data were shown to exist. Also,
typical weld toe magnification factor results have been shown to illustrate the primary effects of
the geometry of the weld, such as the reduction in Mk with a ground (radiused) weld toe.
The database of weld toe magnification factors, generated from the parametric study, has been
regressed into estimation equations for the weld toe magnification factor. The development of
the equations was described, along with details of the data used in each regression. The
equations were then assessed by examining the regression statistics, error distribution
histograms and graphs of the equations along with the regression data. This assessment showed
that the equations are a good fit to the data from which they were derived. Finally, the validity
of the new equations was discussed and recommendations as to the validity limits for the weld
and crack parameters made.
The resulting new solutions for the weld toe magnification factor are given in their final form in
Appendix B at the end of this report.
The new solutions were then compared with some of the more important existing solutions for
the weld toe magnification factor and stress intensity factor. These comparisons show that the
new solutions, in general, agree well with the existing solutions, and where the agreement was
poor, deficiencies in the existing solutions were identified.
To investigate the suitability of the new solutions for the fatigue assessment of tubular joints, a
detailed comparison with tubular joint SIFs was performed. This comparison, firstly, shows that
the evaluation of the hot spot stress via linear extrapolation underestimates the actual hot spot
stress magnitude by about 11%. Further, it was found that a more accurate estimate of the hot
spot stress could be obtained by using quadratic extrapolation. Using the quadratic hot spot
stress and DOB, the T-butt joint solutions were seen to predict SIFs very close to those from
tubular joints for shallow and narrow cracks (a/T ≤ 0.1 and c/T ≤ 3.0). At the deepest point of
deeper cracks, the T-butt joint SIFs were shown to overestimate those from tubular joints, due to
the effects of load shedding. Whereas at the crack ends for wider cracks, the overestimation was
shown to be due to the falling intersection stress distribution, and predicting the crack end SIFs
187
by using the stress and DOB local to the crack end location was seen to yield much better
results.
Fatigue crack growth calculations, carried out using the new solutions, highlighted the effects of
the weld angle, weld toe grinding, DOB and chord wall thickness on the predicted fatigue life.
Finally, the new solutions were used to predict the fatigue lives of tubular T-joints in the HSE
experimental fatigue database. The results show that using the solutions, in conjunction with the
hot spot stress and DOB, result in an underestimate of the fatigue life — the predicted life may
be expected to be approximately half of the experimental tubular joint life. This discrepancy
was shown to be primarily due to ignoring the combined effects of load shedding and the
intersection stress distribution. In general, however, the trends in the predicted fatigue lives with
joint geometry and other details were seen to be superior to predictions from the stress-
endurance approach, with the new solutions significantly reducing the dependency on loading
mode exhibited by the data in the fatigue database.
188
13. REFERENCES
189
Kristiansen, N.O. and Fu, B., 1993. “The free-surface stress intensity factor of surface cracks in
tubular joint models,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Vol. III-B.
Maddox, S.J., 1975. “An analysis of fatigue cracks in fillet welded joints,” International
Journal of Fracture, Vol. 11, No. 2.
Microsoft Excel Version 5, 1994. Microsoft Corporation.
Milne, I., Ainsworth, R.A., Dowling, A.R. and Stewart, A.T., 1986. “Assessment of the
integrity of structures containing defects (R6),” R/H/R6 - Revision 3, CEGB.
Newman, J.C. and Raju, I.S., 1979. “Stress-intensity factors for a wide range of semi-elliptical
surface cracks in finite-thickness plates,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 11, pp.
817-829.
Newman, J.C. and Raju, I.S., 1981. “An empirical stress intensity factor equation for the surface
crack,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 15, No. 1–2, pp. 185–192.
Pang, H.L.J., 1993. “Fatigue crack growth and coalescence of surface cracks,” International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. III-B, ASME.
PD 6493, 1991. “Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion
Welded Structures,” British Standards Institution.
PRETUBE User’s Manual, 1991. Veritas Sesam Systems.
Rhee, H.C., 1989. “Stress intensity factor evaluation from displacements along arbitrary crack
tip radial lines for warped surface flaws,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 32, No.
5, pp. 723–730.
Rhee, H.C., Han, S. and Gipson, G.S., 1991. “Reliability of solution method and empirical
formulas of stress intensity factors for weld toe cracks of tubular joints,” Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. III-B, pp. 441–452, ASME.
Smedley, P. and Fisher, P., 1991. “Stress concentration factors for simple tubular joints,”
Proceeding of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Edinburgh.
Soboyejo, W.O., Knott, J.F., Walsh, M.J. and Cropper, K.R., 1990. “Fatigue crack propagation
of coplanar semi-elliptical cracks in pure bending,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol. 37, No. 2.
Thurlbeck, S.D., 1991. “A fracture mechanics based methodology for the assessment of weld
toe cracks in tubular offshore joints,” Ph.D. Thesis, UMIST.
Wildschut, H., Kuijpers, T.B.A., Snijder, H.H. and Dijkstra, O.D., 1987. “Fatigue crack
development and stress intensity factors in specimens with the shape of weldments,”
Proceeding of the Conference on Steel in Marine Structures, The Netherlands, pp. 871-
883.
190
APPENDIX A – DATABASE OF Mk FACTORS
This appendix contains all of the data generated in the parametric study of 3-D T-butt joints.
The database has been split into five tables as follows:
Page
Table A1 for the deepest point of the crack, membrane loading and a sharp weld toe 192
Table A2 for the deepest point of the crack, bending loading and a sharp weld toe 201
Table A3 for the crack ends, membrane loading and a sharp weld toe 210
Table A4 for the crack ends, bending loading and a sharp weld toe 219
Table A5 for the radiused weld toe 228
191
Table A1
Mk database for the deepest point of the crack under membrane loading
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
ma 0.005 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0349 1.1031 2.4457 2.4363 -0.4
ma 0.01 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0809 1.1033 1.9874 1.9723 -0.8
ma 0.02 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1032 1.1040 1.6220 1.6156 -0.4
ma 0.04 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1413 1.1069 1.3447 1.3422 -0.2
ma 0.07 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1526 1.1148 1.1808 1.1816 0.1
ma 0.1 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1671 1.1270 1.1026 1.1034 0.1
ma 0.2 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.2516 1.1990 0.9805 0.9884 0.8
ma 0.3 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.4021 1.3202 0.9368 0.9324 -0.5
ma 0.5 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.8903 1.7175 0.8881 0.8644 -2.7
ma 0.7 0.1 45 0 1.25 2.4536 2.3401 0.8630 0.8405 -2.6
ma 0.8 0.1 45 0 1.25 2.6051 2.7455 0.8753 0.8634 -1.4
ma 0.9 0.1 45 0 1.25 2.5480 3.2202 0.9433 0.9471 0.4
ma 0.005 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.9979 1.0589 2.4149 2.4158 0.0
ma 0.01 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0275 1.0590 1.9611 1.9519 -0.5
ma 0.02 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0144 1.0595 1.5980 1.5955 -0.2
ma 0.04 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0448 1.0614 1.3273 1.3228 -0.3
ma 0.07 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0779 1.0667 1.1654 1.1636 -0.2
ma 0.1 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0943 1.0749 1.0843 1.0870 0.3
ma 0.2 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.1464 1.1221 0.9786 0.9776 -0.1
ma 0.3 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.2397 1.1986 0.9287 0.9273 -0.1
ma 0.5 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.5039 1.4237 0.8857 0.8747 -1.2
ma 0.7 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.7251 1.7055 0.8859 0.8768 -1.0
ma 0.8 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.7395 1.8477 0.9178 0.9142 -0.4
ma 0.9 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.7713 1.9772 1.0000 0.9976 -0.2
ma 0.005 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.8982 0.9512 2.3945 2.3959 0.1
ma 0.01 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9109 0.9513 1.9379 1.9325 -0.3
ma 0.02 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9066 0.9515 1.5795 1.5770 -0.2
ma 0.04 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9155 0.9525 1.3133 1.3057 -0.6
ma 0.07 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9415 0.9552 1.1560 1.1485 -0.6
ma 0.1 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9531 0.9594 1.0752 1.0738 -0.1
ma 0.2 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9747 0.9834 0.9664 0.9712 0.5
ma 0.3 0.4 45 0 1.25 1.0094 1.0218 0.9304 0.9290 -0.2
ma 0.5 0.4 45 0 1.25 1.1055 1.1317 0.9012 0.8958 -0.6
ma 0.7 0.4 45 0 1.25 1.1828 1.2587 0.9169 0.9185 0.2
ma 0.9 0.4 45 0 1.25 1.2553 1.3575 1.0254 1.0303 0.5
ma 0.005 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7532 0.7925 2.4141 2.3821 -1.3
ma 0.01 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7639 0.7925 1.9273 1.9215 -0.3
ma 0.02 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7656 0.7926 1.5724 1.5694 -0.2
ma 0.04 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7735 0.7930 1.3091 1.3020 -0.5
ma 0.07 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7834 0.7941 1.1541 1.1483 -0.5
ma 0.1 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7877 0.7958 1.0743 1.0761 0.2
ma 0.2 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7975 0.8055 0.9674 0.9809 1.4
ma 0.3 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.8092 0.8211 0.9355 0.9462 1.1
ma 0.5 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.8420 0.8647 0.9200 0.9278 0.9
ma 0.7 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.8484 0.9129 0.9448 0.9579 1.4
ma 0.9 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.9585 0.9452 1.0199 1.0474 2.7
ma 0.005 1 45 0 1.25 0.6497 0.6625 2.3946 2.3989 0.2
ma 0.01 1 45 0 1.25 0.6520 0.6626 1.9305 1.9343 0.2
ma 0.02 1 45 0 1.25 0.6525 0.6626 1.5767 1.5770 0.0
ma 0.04 1 45 0 1.25 0.6545 0.6627 1.3079 1.3040 -0.3
ma 0.07 1 45 0 1.25 0.6591 0.6632 1.1544 1.1464 -0.7
ma 0.1 1 45 0 1.25 0.6609 0.6638 1.0756 1.0727 -0.3
ma 0.2 1 45 0 1.25 0.6649 0.6676 0.9716 0.9775 0.6
ma 0.3 1 45 0 1.25 0.6719 0.6736 0.9409 0.9449 0.4
ma 0.5 1 45 0 1.25 0.6827 0.6904 0.9334 0.9285 -0.5
ma 0.7 1 45 0 1.25 0.6725 0.7093 0.9562 0.9485 -0.8
ma 0.8 1 45 0 1.25 0.7001 0.7171 0.9773 0.9716 -0.6
ma 0.9 1 45 0 1.25 0.7811 0.7223 1.0129 1.0042 -0.9
ma 0.005 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.0349 1.1031 2.1281 2.1404 0.6
ma 0.01 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.0809 1.1033 1.8205 1.8126 -0.4
ma 0.02 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1032 1.1040 1.5472 1.5455 -0.1
ma 0.04 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1413 1.1069 1.3251 1.3200 -0.4
ma 0.07 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1526 1.1148 1.1854 1.1819 -0.3
ma 0.1 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1671 1.1270 1.1140 1.1132 -0.1
ma 0.2 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.2516 1.1990 0.9946 1.0073 1.3
ma 0.3 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.4021 1.3202 0.9480 0.9518 0.4
ma 0.5 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.8903 1.7175 0.8960 0.8796 -1.8
ma 0.7 0.1 30 0 1.25 2.4536 2.3401 0.8690 0.8503 -2.1
ma 0.9 0.1 30 0 1.25 2.5480 3.2202 0.9454 0.9515 0.6
ma 0.005 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.9979 1.0589 2.1063 2.1198 0.6
ma 0.01 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0275 1.0590 1.7996 1.7921 -0.4
ma 0.02 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0144 1.0595 1.5254 1.5253 0.0
ma 0.04 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0448 1.0614 1.3097 1.3006 -0.7
192
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
193
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
194
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
195
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
196
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
197
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
198
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
199
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
200
Table A2
Mk database for the deepest point of the crack under bending loading
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
ba 0.005 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0651 1.0963 2.4960 2.4801 -0.6
ba 0.01 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1059 1.0898 2.0193 2.0067 -0.6
ba 0.02 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1146 1.0770 1.6359 1.6359 0.0
ba 0.04 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.1256 1.0530 1.3349 1.3502 1.1
ba 0.07 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0940 1.0207 1.1515 1.1710 1.7
ba 0.1 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0648 0.9924 1.0569 1.0786 2.1
ba 0.2 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0001 0.9217 0.9674 0.9643 -0.3
ba 0.3 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.9740 0.8772 0.9240 0.9177 -0.7
ba 0.5 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.9755 0.8219 0.8632 0.8365 -3.1
ba 0.7 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.8863 0.7556 0.8094 1.0000 23.6
ba 0.8 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.6968 0.7040 0.7932 1.0000 26.1
ba 0.9 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.2666 0.6360 0.8301 1.0000 20.5
ba 0.005 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0266 1.0523 2.4641 2.4585 -0.2
ba 0.01 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0508 1.0459 1.9891 1.9851 -0.2
ba 0.02 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0238 1.0333 1.6089 1.6143 0.3
ba 0.04 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0294 1.0091 1.3144 1.3286 1.1
ba 0.07 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.0217 0.9753 1.1346 1.1494 1.3
ba 0.1 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.9961 0.9441 1.0378 1.0554 1.7
ba 0.2 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.9043 0.8554 0.8917 0.9140 2.5
ba 0.3 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.8404 0.7813 0.8559 0.8645 1.0
ba 0.5 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.7238 0.6371 0.8060 0.8012 -0.6
ba 0.7 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5050 0.4527 0.7711 1.0000 29.7
ba 0.8 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.3013 0.3376 0.7704 1.0000 29.8
ba 0.9 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.0229 0.2088 0.9041 1.0000 10.6
ba 0.005 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9234 0.9452 2.4449 2.4384 -0.3
ba 0.01 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9309 0.9392 1.9638 1.9650 0.1
ba 0.02 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9137 0.9274 1.5883 1.5943 0.4
ba 0.04 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9002 0.9044 1.2975 1.3086 0.8
ba 0.07 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.8893 0.8711 1.1228 1.1293 0.6
ba 0.1 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.8633 0.8391 1.0263 1.0353 0.9
ba 0.2 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.7584 0.7395 0.8743 0.8894 1.7
ba 0.3 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6616 0.6461 0.8048 0.8218 2.1
ba 0.5 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.4721 0.4540 0.7398 0.7552 2.1
ba 0.7 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.2352 0.2283 0.6965 1.0000 43.6
ba 0.9 0.4 45 0 1.25 -0.1774 -0.0369 0.8126 1.0000 23.1
ba 0.005 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7741 0.7873 2.4775 2.4403 -1.5
ba 0.01 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7798 0.7822 1.9560 1.9668 0.6
ba 0.02 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7706 0.7720 1.5824 1.5961 0.9
ba 0.04 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7593 0.7517 1.2922 1.3104 1.4
ba 0.07 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7361 0.7217 1.1181 1.1312 1.2
ba 0.1 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7075 0.6922 1.0213 1.0371 1.6
ba 0.2 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6069 0.5962 0.8666 0.8912 2.8
ba 0.3 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.5067 0.5015 0.7969 0.8213 3.1
ba 0.5 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.3080 0.3056 0.7028 0.7356 4.7
ba 0.7 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.0810 0.0893 0.4953 1.0000 101.9
ba 0.9 0.7 45 0 1.25 -0.2344 -0.1475 0.8424 1.0000 18.7
ba 0.005 1 45 0 1.25 0.6661 0.6581 2.4473 2.4390 -0.3
ba 0.01 1 45 0 1.25 0.6635 0.6537 1.9630 1.9655 0.1
ba 0.02 1 45 0 1.25 0.6539 0.6448 1.5900 1.5948 0.3
ba 0.04 1 45 0 1.25 0.6382 0.6272 1.2915 1.3091 1.4
ba 0.07 1 45 0 1.25 0.6137 0.6009 1.1171 1.1299 1.1
ba 0.1 1 45 0 1.25 0.5866 0.5747 1.0199 1.0358 1.6
ba 0.2 1 45 0 1.25 0.4938 0.4879 0.8643 0.8899 3.0
ba 0.3 1 45 0 1.25 0.4029 0.4010 0.7898 0.8199 3.8
ba 0.5 1 45 0 1.25 0.2151 0.2227 0.6846 0.7278 6.3
ba 0.7 1 45 0 1.25 0.0287 0.0335 -0.9612 1.0000 -204.0
ba 0.8 1 45 0 1.25 -0.0847 -0.0654 1.0331 1.0000 -3.2
ba 0.9 1 45 0 1.25 -0.2416 -0.1663 0.8574 1.0000 16.6
ba 0.005 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.0651 1.0963 2.0512 2.0343 -0.8
ba 0.01 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1059 1.0898 1.7568 1.7379 -1.1
ba 0.02 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1146 1.0770 1.4911 1.4898 -0.1
ba 0.04 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.1256 1.0530 1.2690 1.2824 1.1
ba 0.07 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.0940 1.0207 1.1270 1.1426 1.4
ba 0.1 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.0648 0.9924 1.0493 1.0679 1.8
ba 0.2 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.0001 0.9217 0.9800 0.9779 -0.2
ba 0.3 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.9740 0.8772 0.9381 0.9410 0.3
ba 0.5 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.9755 0.8219 0.8758 0.8637 -1.4
ba 0.7 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.8863 0.7556 0.8206 1.0000 21.9
ba 0.9 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.2666 0.6360 0.8433 1.0000 18.6
ba 0.005 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0266 1.0523 2.0299 2.0127 -0.8
ba 0.01 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0508 1.0459 1.7346 1.7163 -1.1
ba 0.02 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0238 1.0333 1.4677 1.4682 0.0
ba 0.04 0.2 30 0 1.25 1.0294 1.0091 1.2522 1.2608 0.7
201
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
202
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
203
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
204
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
205
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
206
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
207
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
208
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
209
Table A3
Mk database for the crack ends under membrane loading
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
mc 0.005 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4189 0.3837 6.5149 6.6182 1.6
mc 0.01 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3876 0.3838 5.4874 5.4391 -0.9
mc 0.02 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3843 0.3841 4.3705 4.3884 0.4
mc 0.04 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3780 0.3852 3.5739 3.5316 -1.2
mc 0.07 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3886 0.3884 3.0351 2.9922 -1.4
mc 0.1 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3978 0.3933 2.7268 2.7007 -1.0
mc 0.2 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4196 0.4224 2.2076 2.2223 0.7
mc 0.3 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4486 0.4724 1.9861 1.9962 0.5
mc 0.5 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.5588 0.6449 1.7756 1.7548 -1.2
mc 0.7 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.8552 0.9409 1.5767 1.5973 1.3
mc 0.8 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.0289 1.1495 1.5141 1.5269 0.8
mc 0.9 0.1 45 0 1.25 1.2436 1.4088 1.4485 1.4565 0.5
mc 0.005 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5194 0.5209 5.8850 5.9247 0.7
mc 0.01 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.4846 0.5210 4.9307 4.8785 -1.1
mc 0.02 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.4883 0.5213 3.9582 3.9440 -0.4
mc 0.04 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.4751 0.5224 3.2156 3.1852 -0.9
mc 0.07 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.4996 0.5256 2.7108 2.7085 -0.1
mc 0.1 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5123 0.5304 2.4317 2.4483 0.7
mc 0.2 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5403 0.5590 2.0194 2.0108 -0.4
mc 0.3 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5792 0.6065 1.8039 1.7980 -0.3
mc 0.5 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.7159 0.7561 1.5840 1.5690 -0.9
mc 0.7 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.9999 0.9698 1.4232 1.4237 0.0
mc 0.8 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.1518 1.0940 1.3674 1.3608 -0.5
mc 0.9 0.2 45 0 1.25 1.2917 1.2233 1.3263 1.2990 -2.1
mc 0.005 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6346 0.6618 5.2616 5.2711 0.2
mc 0.01 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6079 0.6618 4.3572 4.3276 -0.7
mc 0.02 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6105 0.6621 3.4866 3.4846 -0.1
mc 0.04 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6005 0.6630 2.8315 2.8101 -0.8
mc 0.07 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6276 0.6656 2.3836 2.3917 0.3
mc 0.1 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6400 0.6696 2.1391 2.1636 1.1
mc 0.2 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6638 0.6928 1.7640 1.7874 1.3
mc 0.3 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6946 0.7312 1.6629 1.6189 -2.6
mc 0.5 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.8081 0.8499 1.4735 1.4673 -0.4
mc 0.7 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.9764 1.0122 1.4044 1.3905 -1.0
mc 0.9 0.4 45 0 1.25 1.1531 1.1878 1.3233 1.3249 0.1
mc 0.005 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7142 0.7294 4.7282 4.7436 0.3
mc 0.01 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6875 0.7294 3.9104 3.8807 -0.8
mc 0.02 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6825 0.7296 3.1657 3.1228 -1.4
mc 0.04 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6849 0.7302 2.5537 2.5369 -0.7
mc 0.07 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7009 0.7320 2.1611 2.1755 0.7
mc 0.1 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7080 0.7347 1.9445 1.9740 1.5
mc 0.2 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7222 0.7508 1.6022 1.6410 2.4
mc 0.3 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7394 0.7773 1.5201 1.5002 -1.3
mc 0.5 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.8116 0.8591 1.3568 1.3969 3.0
mc 0.7 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.8903 0.9712 1.3751 1.3660 -0.7
mc 0.9 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.9884 1.0941 1.3048 1.3446 3.1
mc 0.005 1 45 0 1.25 0.7053 0.7288 4.9099 4.8755 -0.7
mc 0.01 1 45 0 1.25 0.7016 0.7288 3.9520 3.9389 -0.3
mc 0.02 1 45 0 1.25 0.7025 0.7289 3.1850 3.1464 -1.2
mc 0.04 1 45 0 1.25 0.7044 0.7294 2.5490 2.5522 0.1
mc 0.07 1 45 0 1.25 0.7122 0.7306 2.1585 2.1760 0.8
mc 0.1 1 45 0 1.25 0.7153 0.7325 1.9425 1.9609 0.9
mc 0.2 1 45 0 1.25 0.7219 0.7437 1.6006 1.6065 0.4
mc 0.3 1 45 0 1.25 0.7353 0.7621 1.4415 1.4597 1.3
mc 0.5 1 45 0 1.25 0.7759 0.8199 1.3489 1.3579 0.7
mc 0.7 1 45 0 1.25 0.8215 0.9018 1.3646 1.3351 -2.2
mc 0.8 1 45 0 1.25 0.8501 0.9494 1.3335 1.3304 -0.2
mc 0.9 1 45 0 1.25 0.8740 0.9993 1.3023 1.3242 1.7
mc 0.005 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4189 0.3837 5.0647 5.1306 1.3
mc 0.01 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3876 0.3838 4.2691 4.2812 0.3
mc 0.02 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3843 0.3841 3.4780 3.5391 1.8
mc 0.04 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3780 0.3852 2.9687 2.9340 -1.2
mc 0.07 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3886 0.3884 2.5967 2.5503 -1.8
mc 0.1 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3978 0.3933 2.3746 2.3453 -1.2
mc 0.2 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4196 0.4224 1.9867 2.0156 1.5
mc 0.3 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4486 0.4724 1.8089 1.8540 2.5
mc 0.5 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.5588 0.6449 1.6305 1.6456 0.9
mc 0.7 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.8552 0.9409 1.4585 1.4775 1.3
mc 0.9 0.1 30 0 1.25 1.2436 1.4088 1.3489 1.3548 0.4
mc 0.005 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.5194 0.5209 4.5427 4.5926 1.1
mc 0.01 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.4846 0.5210 3.8170 3.8526 0.9
mc 0.02 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.4883 0.5213 3.1767 3.2022 0.8
mc 0.04 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.4751 0.5224 2.6910 2.6706 -0.8
210
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
211
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
212
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
213
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
214
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
215
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
216
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
217
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
218
Table A4
Mk database for the crack ends under bending loading
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
bc 0.005 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4363 0.3831 6.3308 6.3959 1.0
bc 0.01 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4012 0.3825 5.5605 5.4461 -2.1
bc 0.02 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3968 0.3814 4.5251 4.5240 0.0
bc 0.04 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3894 0.3798 3.6880 3.6897 0.0
bc 0.07 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.3991 0.3788 3.1088 3.1297 0.7
bc 0.1 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4071 0.3795 2.7744 2.8286 2.0
bc 0.2 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4229 0.3927 2.3603 2.3383 -0.9
bc 0.3 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.4409 0.4227 2.1406 2.0980 -2.0
bc 0.5 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.5046 0.5318 1.8971 1.8257 -3.8
bc 0.7 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.6733 0.7097 1.6527 1.6530 0.0
bc 0.8 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.7439 0.8267 1.5820 1.5856 0.2
bc 0.9 0.1 45 0 1.25 0.8239 0.9638 1.5134 1.5225 0.6
bc 0.005 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5421 0.5200 5.6613 5.7179 1.0
bc 0.01 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5024 0.5191 4.9877 4.8759 -2.2
bc 0.02 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5054 0.5175 3.9995 4.0491 1.2
bc 0.04 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.4890 0.5149 3.2803 3.3044 0.7
bc 0.07 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5109 0.5123 2.7661 2.8042 1.4
bc 0.1 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5205 0.5112 2.4736 2.5287 2.2
bc 0.2 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5357 0.5186 2.0191 2.0628 2.2
bc 0.3 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.5569 0.5406 1.8553 1.8310 -1.3
bc 0.5 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.6251 0.6192 1.6489 1.5766 -4.4
bc 0.7 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.7610 0.7241 1.4794 1.4301 -3.3
bc 0.8 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.8109 0.7772 1.4225 1.3801 -3.0
bc 0.9 0.2 45 0 1.25 0.8421 0.8248 1.3812 1.3405 -2.9
bc 0.005 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6612 0.6605 5.1798 5.1585 -0.4
bc 0.01 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6304 0.6593 4.4302 4.3628 -1.5
bc 0.02 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6315 0.6570 3.5424 3.5899 1.3
bc 0.04 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6175 0.6528 2.8858 2.9185 1.1
bc 0.07 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6396 0.6477 2.4305 2.4732 1.8
bc 0.1 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6464 0.6438 2.1787 2.2229 2.0
bc 0.2 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6493 0.6396 1.7797 1.8052 1.4
bc 0.3 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6550 0.6470 1.6579 1.6181 -2.4
bc 0.5 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.6926 0.6867 1.4728 1.4481 -1.7
bc 0.7 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.7394 0.7401 1.4292 1.3692 -4.2
bc 0.9 0.4 45 0 1.25 0.7658 0.7773 1.3540 1.3240 -2.2
bc 0.005 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7435 0.7278 4.6884 4.6986 0.2
bc 0.01 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7121 0.7264 3.9701 3.9412 -0.7
bc 0.02 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7042 0.7235 3.2444 3.2353 -0.3
bc 0.04 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7037 0.7180 2.6045 2.6543 1.9
bc 0.07 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7131 0.7106 2.2021 2.2633 2.8
bc 0.1 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7133 0.7041 1.9796 2.0345 2.8
bc 0.2 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.7032 0.6882 1.6209 1.6545 2.1
bc 0.3 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6937 0.6800 1.5311 1.4980 -2.2
bc 0.5 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6943 0.6800 1.3457 1.3823 2.7
bc 0.7 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6859 0.6877 1.3474 1.3449 -0.2
bc 0.9 0.7 45 0 1.25 0.6857 0.6835 1.2942 1.3230 2.2
bc 0.005 1 45 0 1.25 0.7305 0.7272 5.0320 4.9229 -2.2
bc 0.01 1 45 0 1.25 0.7251 0.7256 4.0582 4.0667 0.2
bc 0.02 1 45 0 1.25 0.7236 0.7224 3.2823 3.3082 0.8
bc 0.04 1 45 0 1.25 0.7227 0.7163 2.6037 2.6996 3.7
bc 0.07 1 45 0 1.25 0.7241 0.7076 2.2035 2.2766 3.3
bc 0.1 1 45 0 1.25 0.7208 0.6996 1.9811 2.0261 2.3
bc 0.2 1 45 0 1.25 0.7052 0.6767 1.6227 1.6177 -0.3
bc 0.3 1 45 0 1.25 0.6941 0.6592 1.4514 1.4557 0.3
bc 0.5 1 45 0 1.25 0.6725 0.6354 1.3506 1.3440 -0.5
bc 0.7 1 45 0 1.25 0.6473 0.6178 1.3611 1.3114 -3.6
bc 0.8 1 45 0 1.25 0.6373 0.6076 1.3221 1.3019 -1.5
bc 0.9 1 45 0 1.25 0.6271 0.5946 1.2754 1.2878 1.0
bc 0.005 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4363 0.3831 4.4455 4.4932 1.1
bc 0.01 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4012 0.3825 3.9886 3.9174 -1.8
bc 0.02 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3968 0.3814 3.4213 3.3707 -1.5
bc 0.04 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3894 0.3798 2.9052 2.8719 -1.1
bc 0.07 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.3991 0.3788 2.5234 2.5237 0.0
bc 0.1 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4071 0.3795 2.2960 2.3345 1.7
bc 0.2 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4229 0.3927 2.0413 2.0492 0.4
bc 0.3 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.4409 0.4227 1.8881 1.9222 1.8
bc 0.5 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.5046 0.5318 1.7100 1.7266 1.0
bc 0.7 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.6733 0.7097 1.5172 1.5106 -0.4
bc 0.9 0.1 30 0 1.25 0.8239 0.9638 1.4066 1.3861 -1.5
bc 0.005 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.5421 0.5200 3.8329 4.0032 4.4
bc 0.01 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.5024 0.5191 3.5285 3.5212 -0.2
bc 0.02 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.5054 0.5175 3.0176 3.0497 1.1
bc 0.04 0.2 30 0 1.25 0.4890 0.5149 2.5947 2.6075 0.5
219
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
220
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
221
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
222
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
223
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
224
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
225
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
226
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
227
Table A5
Mk database for the radiused weld toe
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
ma 0.005 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.0243 1.1031 1.4555 1.4443 -0.8
ma 0.01 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.0800 1.1033 1.4130 1.4031 -0.7
ma 0.02 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.1047 1.1040 1.3099 1.3172 0.6
ma 0.04 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.1443 1.1069 1.1733 1.1885 1.3
ma 0.07 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.1558 1.1148 1.0818 1.0824 0.1
ma 0.1 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.1692 1.1270 1.0423 1.0308 -1.1
ma 0.2 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.2526 1.1990 0.9986 0.9723 -2.6
ma 0.3 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.4149 1.3202 0.9720 0.9514 -2.1
ma 0.5 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 1.8967 1.7175 0.9264 0.9310 0.5
ma 0.7 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 2.4518 2.3401 0.8977 0.9251 3.1
ma 0.9 0.1 45 0.1 0.5 2.5409 3.2202 0.9602 0.9551 -0.5
ma 0.005 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 0.9960 1.0589 1.4372 1.4320 -0.4
ma 0.01 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.0359 1.0590 1.4065 1.3921 -1.0
ma 0.02 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.0059 1.0595 1.2864 1.3087 1.7
ma 0.04 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.0359 1.0614 1.1644 1.1826 1.6
ma 0.07 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.0741 1.0667 1.0680 1.0762 0.8
ma 0.1 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.0927 1.0749 1.0240 1.0232 -0.1
ma 0.2 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.1440 1.1221 0.9893 0.9656 -2.4
ma 0.3 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.2406 1.1986 0.9772 0.9501 -2.8
ma 0.5 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.4976 1.4237 0.9457 0.9424 -0.4
ma 0.7 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.7276 1.7055 0.9341 0.9474 1.4
ma 0.9 0.2 45 0.1 0.5 1.7825 1.9772 1.0125 0.9870 -2.5
ma 0.005 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.8971 0.9512 1.4377 1.4260 -0.8
ma 0.01 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.9292 0.9513 1.4043 1.3855 -1.3
ma 0.02 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.9036 0.9515 1.2842 1.3036 1.5
ma 0.04 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.9113 0.9525 1.1614 1.1790 1.5
ma 0.07 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.9397 0.9552 1.0625 1.0705 0.7
ma 0.1 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.9532 0.9594 1.0129 1.0149 0.2
ma 0.2 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 0.9773 0.9834 0.9697 0.9586 -1.1
ma 0.3 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 1.0123 1.0218 0.9676 0.9521 -1.6
ma 0.5 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 1.1156 1.1317 0.9647 0.9627 -0.2
ma 0.7 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 1.1835 1.2587 0.9698 0.9817 1.2
ma 0.9 0.4 45 0.1 0.5 1.2822 1.3575 1.0290 1.0325 0.3
ma 0.005 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6500 0.6625 1.4571 1.4543 -0.2
ma 0.01 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6524 0.6626 1.4028 1.4034 0.0
ma 0.02 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6533 0.6626 1.3050 1.3180 1.0
ma 0.04 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6543 0.6627 1.1743 1.1937 1.7
ma 0.07 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6587 0.6632 1.0741 1.0819 0.7
ma 0.1 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6606 0.6638 1.0212 1.0228 0.2
ma 0.2 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6649 0.6676 0.9676 0.9722 0.5
ma 0.3 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6723 0.6736 0.9635 0.9764 1.3
ma 0.5 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6829 0.6904 0.9742 0.9867 1.3
ma 0.7 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.6819 0.7093 0.9844 0.9887 0.4
ma 0.9 1 45 0.1 0.5 0.7626 0.7223 1.0113 1.0171 0.6
ma 0.005 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.0349 1.1031 1.6503 1.6662 1.0
ma 0.01 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.0809 1.1033 1.6131 1.6042 -0.5
ma 0.02 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.1032 1.1040 1.4959 1.4887 -0.5
ma 0.04 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.1413 1.1069 1.3252 1.3220 -0.2
ma 0.07 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.1526 1.1148 1.1880 1.1817 -0.5
ma 0.1 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.1671 1.1270 1.1120 1.1073 -0.4
ma 0.2 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.2516 1.1990 0.9868 0.9977 1.1
ma 0.3 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.4021 1.3202 0.9409 0.9401 -0.1
ma 0.5 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 1.8903 1.7175 0.8906 0.8764 -1.6
ma 0.7 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 2.4536 2.3401 0.8649 0.8717 0.8
ma 0.9 0.1 45 0.1 1.25 2.5480 3.2202 0.9440 0.9446 0.1
ma 0.005 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 0.9979 1.0589 1.6480 1.6520 0.2
ma 0.01 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.0275 1.0590 1.6074 1.5916 -1.0
ma 0.02 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.0144 1.0595 1.4766 1.4792 0.2
ma 0.04 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.0448 1.0614 1.3165 1.3154 -0.1
ma 0.07 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.0779 1.0667 1.1794 1.1749 -0.4
ma 0.1 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.0943 1.0749 1.0995 1.0992 0.0
ma 0.2 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.1464 1.1221 0.9880 0.9908 0.3
ma 0.3 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.2397 1.1986 0.9355 0.9388 0.4
ma 0.5 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.5039 1.4237 0.8901 0.8871 -0.3
ma 0.7 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.7251 1.7055 0.8888 0.8927 0.4
ma 0.9 0.2 45 0.1 1.25 1.7713 1.9772 1.0005 0.9761 -2.4
ma 0.005 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.8982 0.9512 1.6487 1.6451 -0.2
ma 0.01 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.9109 0.9513 1.6031 1.5841 -1.2
ma 0.02 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.9066 0.9515 1.4728 1.4734 0.0
ma 0.04 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.9155 0.9525 1.3132 1.3114 -0.1
ma 0.07 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.9415 0.9552 1.1783 1.1686 -0.8
ma 0.1 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.9531 0.9594 1.0969 1.0902 -0.6
ma 0.2 0.4 45 0.1 1.25 0.9747 0.9834 0.9800 0.9837 0.4
228
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
229
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
230
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
231
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
232
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
233
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
234
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
235
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
236
L&P a/T a/c θ ρ/T L/T Y plain plate Y Newman & Raju Mk Mk from equation Error (%)
237
238
APPENDIX B – THE NEW Mk FACTOR SOLUTIONS
The validity limits and applicability of the new weld toe magnification factor solutions are as
follows:
( 30 ≤ θ ≤ 75 if 0.5 ≤ L T ≤ 1.25 )
239
Eqn. (B1) – Mk for an as-welded joint: Deepest point: Membrane loading
Mkma = f1 ( Ta , ac ) + f2 ( Ta , θ) + f3 ( Ta , θ, TL )
where
a
A3
A1 + A2
a
a −0.050966
f1 ( Ta , ac ) = 0.43358 + 0.93163 exp
T
T + A4
T
A2 = 1.3218( a c)
−0. 61153
A3 = −0.87238( a c) + 1.2788
A4 = −0.46190( a c) + 0.67090( a c) − 0.37571( a c) + 4.6511
3 2
−0 .10740
A a
a 6
f2 ( Ta ,θ) = A5 1 − + A7
a T
T T
240
Eqn. (B2) – Mk for an as-welded joint: Deepest point: Bending loading
Mkba = f1 ( Ta , ac ) + f2 ( Ta , θ) + f3 ( Ta , θ, TL )
where
a 3
A
A1 + A2
a −0.10364
f1 ( Ta , ac ) = 0.065916 + 0.52086 exp
a T
T + A4
T
A2 = 0.61775( a c)
−1. 0278
A3 = 0.00013242( a c) − 1.4744
A4 = −0.28783( a c) + 0.58706( a c) − 0.37198( a c) − 0.89887
3 2
A A8
a 6
,θ) = A5 1 − + A7
a
f a
(
T T
2 T
Mkba = 1.0
241
Eqn. (B3) – Mk for an as-welded joint: Crack ends: Membrane loading
Mkmc = f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) f2 ( Ta , ac , θ) f3 ( Ta , ac , θ, TL )
where
c 2 c c 2 c
A2 + A3 + A4 A6 + A7 + A8
a
f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) = A1 + A5 1 −
a a a a a
T T
a A12
2 A14
a
, ,θ) = A9 + A10 + A11 + A13 1 −
a a
f a
( a
c c T T
2 T c
242
Eqn. (B4) – Mk for an as-welded joint: Crack ends: Bending loading
Mkbc = f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) f2 ( Ta , ac , θ) f3 ( Ta , ac , θ, TL )
where
c 2 c c2 c
A2 + A3 + A4 A6 + A7 + A8
a
f1 ( Ta , ac , TL ) = A1 + A5 1 −
a a a a a
+ A9
T T
a A13
2 A15
a
f2 ( Ta , ac ,θ) = A10 + A11 + A12 + A14 1 −
a a
c c T T
243
Eqn. (B5) – Mk for a ground weld toe: Deepest point: Membrane loading
Mk ( g)ma = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , TL ) f3 (θ)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a a
1 T c
T T T
A A10
a
, ) = A7 + A9 1 −
a 8
f a
( L
T T
2 T T
f3 (θ) = 1.0
244
Eqn. (B6) – Mk for a ground weld toe: Deepest point: Bending loading
Mk ( g)ba = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , TL ) f3 (θ)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f(a a
1 T c
T T T
A A10
a
f2 ( Ta , TL ) = A7 + A9 1 −
a 8
T T
f3 (θ) = 1.0
Mk ( g)ba = 1.0
245
Eqn. (B7) – Mk for a ground weld toe: Crack ends: Membrane loading
Mk ( g)mc = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , ac , TL ) f3 (θ)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a c
1 T a
T T T
a A10
2 A12
a
, , ) = A7 + A8 + A9 + A11 1 −
a a
f a
( a L
c c T T
2 T c T
f3 (θ) = 1.0
246
Eqn. (B8) – Mk for a ground weld toe: Crack ends: Bending loading
Mk ( g)bc = f1 ( Ta , ac ) f2 ( Ta , ac , TL ) f3 (θ)
where
A2 A
a 4
, ) = A1 + A3 1 − + A5 + A6
a a
f( a c
1 T a
T T T
a A10
2 A12
a
, , ) = A7 + A8 + A9 + A11 1 −
a a
f a
( a L
c c T T
2 T c T
f3 (θ) = 1.0
247
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C0.50 6/02
ISBN 0-7176-2328-9
OTO 2000/077