Fatigue assessment without the fudge
Fatigue assessment without the fudge
(OP)
Some new software has been produced that is supposed to eliminate the problems with fatigue classification in FE models and stop the arguments regarding mesh density : http://projects.battelle.org/verity/
Has anyone any experience with this in practice and is it worth looking at?
Has anyone any experience with this in practice and is it worth looking at?
corus





RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
that sounds interesting. I wonder what is the mysterious numerical approach behind the software. Maybe a lattice/particle method ???
however, I think the difficulty when modeling fatigue comes also from the variety of phenomena which concur to the final failure
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
This is not very clear to me: do you mean that the stresses are not intregrated over the element , or the program does not use the concept of stress?
Also:
I was considering that experimental testing is more prone to producing scattered data than the deterministic FE methods.
Other fatigue programs use libraries of experimental data and known analytical solutions, for example:
h
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
I agree that experimental fatigue data has a large amount of scatter, but the methodology that Battelle uses collapses the data to a very narrow scatter band.
There should be a WRC bulletin coming out on this shortly...
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
corus
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
"A structural stress definition and numerical implementation for fatigue analysis of welded joints."
by P. Dong
published in International Journal of Fatigue 23 (2001) p.865–876
It seems that they use a post-processing decomposition of stress field into structural stress components: membrane and bending which have simpler distributions in the cases they present. (Why am I saying "they"??)
However, a relevant quote from this paper:
"It should be noted that in typical finite element based stress analysis, the stress values within some distance from the weld toe can change significantly as the finite element mesh design changes (e.g., [9]), referred to as mesh-size sensitivity in this paper."
No further comment.
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
No you can't eliminiate mesh sensitivity. If you're modelling a weld where two planes intersect at right angles then you won't get mesh convergence to a solution at the intersection.
In design standards for fatigue they normally refer to the nominal stress away from the weld toe. Sometimes this is is obtained by extrapolating results up to the position where the weld toe would occur, and thus eliminating any singularity that might occur from the geometry, picked up a high mesh density at that point. I presume this method relies on a reasonable mesh that can elminate the variation that may occur in results due to the over-zealous or bone idle modeller.
corus
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
corus
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
Since the first problem is company specific (that is, there are many ways to estimate fatigue life of a structure--crack initiation and crack propagation come to mind, though each method has many possible variations and fudge factors associated with it), I will address the 2nd problem only.
Since this appears to be the problem of a singularity at the weld toe, doesn't 'extrapolating back to the weld toe' give you the same result as 'extrapolating back to the crack tip'? In other words, garbage. The only question is the singularity's strength. A crack tip is a numerical singularity--the exact solution is infinite stress at the crack tip. Within Linear Elasticity theory, Williams described the stress field as one proportional to a constant, the Stress Intensity Factor KI and the inverse of the square root of the distance relative to the crack tip--at the crack tip, the stress goes to infinity. Since Therefore, any calculation (with FEM, BEM, etc.) of the 'stress' at the crack tip will be meaningless.
It is possible though with experimental correlation to make some average stress computation with linear elasticity models in FEM/BEM in the neighborhood singularity. Sure would love to see how someone does that, though! Perhaps this Battelle software does just that.
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
Fatigue at a weld is based upon empirical data of test pieces that have been subjected to a simple stress field. The problem with life is that nothing is simple. Unless you're modelling a relatively simple structure with easily identifiable nominal stresses that can be related back to these empirical results then you have problems in assessing the fatigue life. Extrapolating to the weld toe, whilst removing the gemoetric stress concentration factor of the weld, gives a conservative estimate of the nominal stress from which to compare with this empirical data.
corus
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
corus, what is the nature of the stress at the weld toe? Is it singular; that is, the exact solution is infinity? There are many singularities--reentrant corners, bimaterial interfaces, and cracks. Each has a different singularity strength. The weld toe looks from my vantage point to be a reentrant corner. If so, then the exact solution for the stress in infinity, therefore it makes no sense to take stresses away from the corner and extrapolate back to it.
If I have made a bad assumption regarding the nature of the singularity at the weld toe, go ahead and set me straight. But if the exact solution of the stress at the weld toe is infinity, then the extrapolation technique is garbage.
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
corus
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
2000 years of engineering has developed some good solutions, and joining bits of iron by melting them is a technique that has a great deal of practical experience behind it.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
corus
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
The main problem is that the local geometry of a weld is
complex
not known before manufacturing
Due to the complexity one wants to avoid to model the weld in the finite element model, wherefore one wants to stay with simple shell meshes that give the global stiffness of the structure. If one in interested in the fatigue there is a need to get some ideas on the local behavior.
One "old" idea is to use some kind of nominal stress either taken in a given distance of the weld of to extrapolate back to the weld (hot spot appoach) These values than are compared to test data (SN curves) which depend on weld type and loading condition. Clearly to get the stresses in a defined distance from the weld indicates that this approach is highly dependent on the local meshing.
To overcome the second point developments on using a normalized weld structure (R1MS approach) had been undertaken beginning of the 1990ies. In the meantime this approach is the accepted one by the IIW (International Intitude of welding). It shows a small scatter in the used data.
But in principle this would need to use a fine 3D solid model for the complete structure or the use of some kind of substructuring approach. And this is where the force based approaches of Batelle or (more refined) LMS get into the game. The basic idea is to use the element nodal forces and moments in the weld line (of a shell mesh) to back calculate the forces and moments acting on the weld itself which than can be (automatically) used on a solid sub model of the weld.
This can be done for each time step indidually such that the stresses needed for a structural stress approach can be achieved.
See JSAE 20037043 / SAE 2003-01-2772 for details.
drmh
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
One of my favorite references is:
Niemi, Erkki, Stress Determination for Fatigue analysis of Welded Components, Abinton Publishing, Cambridge, 1995.
ISBN 1855732130
Regards
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
HOWEVER: if you build a singularity, infinity will come, followed immediately by crack initiation. As pointed out above, this is not a mesh size problem.
In the 60's it was common to post-grind welds to
1) remove the thermal shrink stress cracks at the toe of the weld, and 2) create a radiused (non-singular) shape which could then be addressed with Peterson's stress concentration factors, or now by sub-modeling.
As for processing real scattered fatigue data into straight lines, it sounds like snake-oil. At least one engine manufacturer envelopes the minimum failure stress data and shifts it to the left by a factor.
Scattered data is, and the only thing you can do to get MINIMUM life is to ignore the optimistic data points.
RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge
the singularity is an artifical one in the stress field modelling a seam weld connection just by connecting shells.
That's in fact the reason to look in the lement nodal forces and moments that have no singularity in the weld line. And yes the singularity is not a mesh size problem.
In the real structure there are continous shapes and there as well are no singularities.
To the scattering issue, again reality is (shoud be) the measure. The failure of a structure and especially a weld is determined by many factors, such that from the point of view of an experiment it is a random process. If you know more about the scattering the better your predictions can be.
So you would not just ignore the optimistic points because they are as important as the pessimistic ones for the estimation of the probability distribution (scattering) of the process. Having collected enough good data you will not geta minimum life (the only strict minimum there is 0) but a reliability of your structure which is much more useful.
Regards