×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Fatigue assessment without the fudge
2

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?

corus

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

corus,

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

This has previously been known as the "structural stress" method.  For FEA, it uses forces as opposed to stresses, lessening the reliance on a particularly fine mesh.  The method is based on thousands of cross-industry fatigue tests, and the "mysterious numerical approach" is actually a method for reducing the scatter in the fatigue data.  I have seen the data presented by Battelle, and it is impressive how the data has been collapsed to a rather thin line with small ±.

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

Therefore, the mysterious numerical method is still FE method.

Quote (TGS4):


For FEA, it uses forces as opposed to stresses, lessening the reliance on a particularly fine mesh.

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:
http://www.swri.edu/4org/d18/mateng/matint/NASGRO/default.htm

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

The method is based on nodal forces.

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

(OP)
The technical papers appear to be worth looking at, but why is this only related to welds and not unwelded structures such as within the material or at the edges - away from welds, etc.

corus

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

I took a quick look at their latest paper:

"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

Shouldn't "mesh size sensitivity" be eliminated by obtaining numerically converged FE solutions?

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

Prost - yes it should !

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

(OP)
prost,
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

If two planes are intersecting at right angles, if I get your description correctly, this is what some call a 'reentrant corner'--this is a numerical singularity; therefore the stresses will never converge because the exact solution is infinite. No amount of fudge factoring will change the nature of the exact solution.

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

I am curious why extrapolating to the weld toe is even necessary? Is there a bi material interface (that is, is the material of the weld modeled as some other material different from the plates you are welding?)? Are the materials elasto-plastic? Or some other nonlinear material? I will have to do some more research on modeling of welds with FEA to understand what is really going on. The Verity method at Battelle appears to me an empirical correlation (that is, based on test results) applied to FEA results to smooth the FEA results which will show infinite stresses if there is a geometric or material singularity.

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

(OP)
prost - In a non-uniform stress distribution it's difficult to ascertain the nominal stress needed for fatigue assessment. One way around the problem is to plot the stress distribution up to where the weld is, and then apply some linear interpolation to the results, or basically just guess, at what the nominal stress is at the toe without the effect of the geometry of the weld.  This guessing, or fudging, is something I hoped that this method would reomve.

corus

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

I understand then that there are two problems here--1) calculation of fatigue life in a non uniform stress field--such a calculation normally requires the estimation of some stress parameter such as von Mises stress, and 2) calculation of the required 'stress parameter' at the weld toe.

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

(OP)
No, extrapolating back to the weld toe isn't the same as extrapolating back to a crack tip of infinite stress. You would have had to have had a crack-tip model to produce such garbage using a totally inappropriate method for estimating the nominal stress.
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

Here's my reasoning:

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

(OP)
Another way of looking at the stress at a weld toe is to consider it as a peak stress, as defined in many design standards. The practice in these standards is to seperate the peak stress that occurs at stress concentrations (or non-linear thermally induced stresses) from the primary stresses by using linearisation methods. These primary stresses can be thought of as being the nominal stresses at the weld. You could consider the extrapolation to the weld toe as a kind of linearisation method to remove the peak stress caused by the singularity. It'd be difficult to describe the method as garbage as it is a design standard method, and presumably proven to work.  

corus

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

I'd argue forward from the real-world observation that welds work, rather than saying here is a linearised approximisation to a weld and Omigod it fails.

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

(OP)
I'm not sure what Greg is referring to, but to avoid confusion, the linearisation refers to the stress distribution up to the point at which the weld toe would occur, and not the representation of a weld by a straight line.

corus

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

Do you have any references that explain method of extrapolating the stress at the weld to avoid the effect of the singularity?  I've seen some discussion in a DNV standard that refers to a hot-spot technique but its based on thin material, that is, the weld stress is extrapolated based a distance of 0.5xtk and 1.5xtk of the plate.

RE: Fatigue assessment without the fudge

Let me just give an idea on the difficulties in weld assessment and the ideas to solve them.

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

HookedOnHalo,
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

The submodel approach is a good one, and solves the problem of meshing a large frame with grain-of-sand elements.    
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

marine59,

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

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources