See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263466234

Fatigue Design and Structural Hot-Spot Stress Determination for Welded

Joints

Conference Paper · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

0 338

1 author:

Wolfgang Fricke
Technische Universität Hamburg
337 PUBLICATIONS   2,364 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fatigue strength of post-weld improved high strength steel joints for high performance sailing yachts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wolfgang Fricke on 03 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004

FATIGUE DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL HOT-SPOT STRESS DETERMINATION

FOR WELDED JOINTS

W. FRICKE

Ship Structural Design and Analysis

Technical University Hamburg-Harburg
21071 Hamburg, Germany

Abstract. During the past years, several fatigue failures occurred in welded structures such as ships,
offshore structures, bridges, wind energy converters etc., causing high costs for repair and suspended
service. The frequent failures during the first years of service indicate that fatigue has not been thor-
oughly considered during design and fabrication. The paper gives an overview about current fatigue
design procedures and their practical application based on numerical methods as well as developments
to improve the situation. Particularly the structural hot-spot stress approach is well-suited for practical
application because it allows the effects of the structural configuration to be taken into account. How-
ever, comparisons between fatigue tests and analyses show that fatigue life predictions are sometimes
wrong. Especially fabrications effects, which are considered only in a coarse way or not at all, have
shown to be responsible for that. In this connection, the fabrication-related residual stresses play an
important role. Their determination is at present limited, however it becomes clear that the numerical
simulation of fabrication will in future enable not only the welding shrinkage and distortions to be
computed, but also their effects on fatigue strength.

1. INTRODUCTION In spite of powerful computers and effective

Several types of welded metal structures are
subjected to high cyclic loading, which may
cause fatigue cracking. In most cases these
cracks appear at welded joints, owing to the
sharp notches of the weld profile, inherent
weld imperfections and unfavourable residual
stresses. Furthermore, the structural configura-
tion plays a major role by creating an addition-
al stress concentration.
numerical methods such as the finite element
method (FEM) it is still a problem today to
identify all fatigue-prone details in a complex
structure (Fig. 1) and to perform a comprehen-
sive fatigue analysis. This is partly due to the
high effort needed to analyse local stresses at
welds, but also to relatively complicated pro-
cedures for the fatigue analysis.
Consequently, the risk is rather high that fa-
tigue failures occur during the service period at
locations which have not been analysed with
sufficient care. This is illustrated by a fatigue
failure in a containership, which occurred after
a few years in service [1]. Fig. 2 shows a finite
element model of the forebody structure of the
ship. The coarse FEM model was created at the
design stage. The fatigue failure occurred at
the knuckled longitudinal coaming (circled in
Fig. 2) in the elevation of the upper deck.
There, a localized stress peak occurs, which is
only visible in a very fine mesh having been
analysed after the failure occurred (Figs. 2 and
3). Such a mesh refinement was not performed
during the design stage as there was no indica-
tion to the critical “hot-spot”.

Such failures occur frequently in new and un-

Fig. 1 – Steel structure of a large double hull
tanker (cargo tank area)
conventional designs, as these differ from
proven structures, e. g. in geometry, material
and/or loading. Particularly in these cases, ex-
tensive fatigue analyses are necessary, taking
into account the local structural geometry.

1
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
Fig. 2 – Coarse finite element mesh of a
containership (forward part) and mesh re-
finement of the critical area
Fig. 3 – Distribution of longitudinal stresses
in the knuckled area
Local approaches to the fatigue assessment of
welded structures have already a relatively
long history. According to [2], first investiga-
tions were performed in the 1960's by several
researchers, including Peterson, Manson and
Haibach, who related the fatigue strength to a
local stress or strain measured at a certain
point close to the weld toe, for example at a
distance of 2 mm [3]. Although the character-
istic fatigue strength related to this local stress
shows fairly small scatter, it is still affected by
the local notch of the weld toe and, therefore,
not independent from local notch geometry.
Investigations of relatively thick tubular joints
have shown that the local notch effect of the
weld toe affects the stress in the region up to
0.3 - 0.4⋅t away from the weld toe (t = plate
thickness). This resulted in the 1970's in the
development of the well-known hot-spot stress
approach with the definition of reference
points for stress evaluation and extrapolation,
which are located at certain distances away
2
from the weld depending on the plate or shell
thickness. This development, which was re-
viewed a. o. by van Wingerde et al. [4], was
particularly successful for the fatigue strength
assessment of tubular joints due to their com-
plex joint geometry and high local bending of
the tubular walls.
First attempts to apply the approach to welded
joints at plates were already seen in the early
1980's. Remarkable are investigations per-
formed in Japan to analyse the stress concen-
tration due to the local structural geometry of
ship hull details, which were summarized a. o.
by Matoba et al. [5]. The design stress was
obtained from FEM analyses by linearization
of the stress through the plate thickness.
Radaj [6] summarized these and other investi-
gations and defined the structural stress at the
hot spot (weld toe) as the surface stress which
can be calculated in accordance with structural
theories used in engineering. He demonstrated
that the structural stress can be analysed either
by surface extrapolation or by linearization,
e. g. through the wall thickness, in order to
exclude the local non-linear stress peak caused
by the weld toe.
In the early 1990's, Petershagen et al. [7] de-
rived a generalized hot-spot stress approach for
plate structures using Radaj's effective notch
stress approach [6] and applied it to complex
welded structures [8]. Detailed recommenda-
tions concerning stress determination for fa-
tigue analysis of welded components were
given by Niemi [9].
However, several applications showed that the
stress results are still affected by the finite el-
ement meshing and element properties. Addi-
tional recommendations for finite element
modelling and hot-spot stress evaluation were
given by Huther et al. [10] and by Fricke [11],
the latter based on extensive round-robin stress
analyses of several details. An alternative pro-
cedure for the evaluation of structural stresses
has been proposed by Dong [12]. A compre-
hensive IIW-guidance for the structural hot-
spot stress approach is presently under prepa-
ration [13].
In this paper, the current procedures of the
analysis and assessment of structural hot-spot
stresses are reviewed and illustrated by some
examples, showing the possibilities and limita-
tions of the approach. It will be shown that the
fatigue life is strongly affected by fabrication
effects, which have to be rationally considered
in the life prediction.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
2. THE STRUCTURAL HOT-SPOT
STRESS APPROACH
As mentioned above, the basic idea behind the
structural hot-spot stress approach is the con-
sideration of the stress at the welded connec-
tion excluding the local stress peak caused by
the weld toe. This is normally done by measur-
ing or computing the surface stresses at refer-
ence points outside the area affected by the
weld toe and extrapolating them to the weld
toe (Fig. 4). The resulting structural hot-spot
stress σs is then considered to determine the
fatigue life of the welded connection.
Fig. 4 – Local stress increase at a structural
detail (bracket)
It should be kept in mind that the approach can
be applied only to fatigue failures starting from
the weld toe. In welds with incomplete root
penetration, fatigue cracks may also grow from
the root gap, which requires an additional fa-
tigue assessment based, e. g., on the nominal
stress in the weld throat area.
Refs. [13] and [14] recommend linear extrapo-
lation from reference points at 0.4t and 1.0t
distance from the weld toe in normal cases,
i. e. plate structures with thickness t. If, how-
ever, the weld toe considered is not located on
a plate surface, but at a plate edge, the plate
Fig. 6 – Fatigue test results for type a) weld toes [15]
3
thickness is no more a relevant parameter for
the definition of the reference points for stress
evaluation. In this case, absolute distances for
the reference points and quadratic extrapola-
tion are proposed.
This means, that we have to distinguish be-
tween different types of weld toes, which are
shown in Fig. 5:
a) weld toe on the plate surface at the end of
an attachment
b) weld toe at the plate edge at the end of an
attachment
c) weld toe on the plate surface along the
weld of an attachment
The fatigue strength is assessed with design
S-N curves derived from fatigue tests, where
the structural hot-spot stress has been meas-
ured. A recent evaluation of such tests has
been performed by Maddox [15] for type a)
and c) weld toes at steel.
Fig. 5 – Types of weld toes
Fig. 6 shows the results for type a) weld toes
together with the 95% confidence intervals and
the FAT 90 mean and design S-N curves ac-
cording to [14]. The results justify the classifi-
cation of this detail into the FAT 100 class or -
with more conservatism - into FAT 90.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004

Fig. 7 – Fatigue test results for type c) weld toes [15]

Corresponding results for type c) weld toes are Tab. 1 – FAT classes for structural hot-spot
shown in Fig. 7. The fatigue test results indi- stresses at different types of joints [13]
cate that FAT 90 would be appropriate. How-
Joint Description Quality FAT
ever, if the results of non-load carrying and
Butt joint As-welded,
load carrying fillet welds are analysed sepa- NDT 100
rately, it can be seen that the non-load carrying
Cruciform or K-butt
fillet welds (full symbols) show a higher fa-
T-joint with welds, no
tigue strength, which justifies FAT 100. The full penetra- lamellar 100
reason for the different behaviour is seen in a tion welds tearing
more concentrated stress flow around the weld
toe in case of load-carrying fillet welds, which Transverse attachment
non-load not thicker
results in a shorter fatigue life. This local stress
carrying than the 100
concentration does not change the structural fillet welds main plate,
hot-spot stress, so that this has to be considered as-welded
by different FAT classes. Bracket end,
welds either
For type b) weld toes, i. e. at plate edges, com- welded Fillet
parisons between hot-spot and notch stresses in around or not weld(s) 100
[16] have shown that a classification according Cover plate as-welded
to FAT 90 - 100 is appropriate. The lower ends and
class should be used for longer side attach- similar joints
ments (e. g. l > 100 mm). Cruciform
joint with
load-carrying
Table 1 summarizes the FAT classes derived. fillet welds Fillet
The 6th, 7th and 9th case include the more high- weld(s) 90
ly concentrated stress flow at the weld toe, Lap joint as-welded
resulting in the reduced FAT 90 class. In the with load-
carrying
4th and 5th case it is, on the other hand, as-
fillet welds
sumed that only part of the stress in the base Type “b” Fillet or full
plate is transferred through the fillet weld at joint with penetration
the end of a bracket or cover plate, making 100
short attach- weld,
these cases comparable to those with non-load ment as-welded
carrying fillet welds. Type “b” Fillet or full
joint with penetration
90
The FAT classes appear rather high in compar- long attach- weld,
ison with those in the nominal stress approach. ment as-welded
It should, however, be kept in mind that any
additional stress due to axial or angular misa- As misalignment is usually not considered in
lignment was included in the measured hot- numerical stress analyses, stress magnification
spot stress. This means that such stress magni- factors Km should be used in the following
fications have to be taken into account in the cases, where misalignment plays a significant
calculation of structural hot-spot stresses. role (a. o. in the cases in Fig. 8a - c):

4
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
• Butt joints made in shop in
flat position and laser welds Km = 1.10
• Other butt joints Km = 1,25
• Cruciform joints Km = 1.40
• Transverse, one-sided
fillet welds Km = 1,20
In the nominal stress approach, a correspond-
ing stress magnification is already considered
in the FAT classes, so that the approaches are
now compatible (e. g. a transverse stiffener
with non-load carrying fillet welds is FAT 80).
Stress magnifications due to the structural con-
figuration, e. g. the “designed misalignment”
in Fig. 8d, are generally to be considered in the
structural hot-spot stress.
Fig. 8 – Typical misalignments: a) axial
misalignment; b) and c) angular misalign-
ment; d) designed axial misalignment
3. FEM ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL
HOT-SPOT STRESSES
In practice, relatively simple models and
coarse meshes are preferred in order to limit
the computational effort. Basically, two types
of finite element modelling are usual, which
are illustrated in Fig. 9 by the example shown
above:
1. using plate or shell elements which are
arranged in the middle plane of the plates.
The weld is frequently omitted, except in
cases with plate offsets (e. g. doubling
plates, Fig. 11a) or welds close to each
other, where interaction effects occur. In
such cases the weld can be modelled by
vertical or inclined plate elements or by
rigid links (constrained equations). The
plate or shell elements should generally
contain improved in-plane behaviour to
model steep stress gradients.
5
2. using solid elements allowing the weld to
be easily modelled with prismatic ele-
ments. If isoparametric 20-node elements
are applied, one element is sufficient in
thickness direction due to the quadratic
displacement function and linear stress
distribution. In connection with reduced
integration, the linear part of the stresses
can directly be evaluated.
Fig. 9 – Typical finite element models and
stress evaluation paths
The 'classical' way of evaluating the structural
stress at the hot spot is the linear or quadratic
extrapolation from two or three reference
points in a similar way as done experimentally
with strain gauges. The arrows in Fig. 9 show
typical stress evaluation paths. In case of shell
models without weld representation it is rec-
ommended to extrapolate the stress to the
structural intersection point as modelled in
order to avoid stress under-estimation due to
the decreased stiffness of the model [11].
For type a) and c) weld toes, the IIW recom-
mendations [13], [14] propose a linear extrapo-
lation over two reference points, which are
located 0.4t and 1.0t away from the hot spot,
where t is the thickness of the adjacent plate
(Fig. 10.1). The stresses are typically evaluated
at nodal points, so that the length of the first
element is 0.4t and the second 0.6t. A different
stress extrapolation scheme was proposed by
some ship classification societies in connection
with coarser meshes and reference points 0.5t
and 1.5t away from the hot-spot (Fig. 10.2).
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
Fig. 10 – Extrapolation of surface stresses to
the hot-spot (acc. to [13])
At type a) weld toes, the width of the solid
element or the two shell elements in front of
the hot spot should not exceed either two times
the plate thickness t or the attachment width
w (= attachment thickness plus two weld leg
lengths, see Fig. 9).
The situation is different for type b) weld toes,
i. e. at plate edges. As plate thickness is not
relevant for the element size nor the location of
the reference points, fixed reference points are
proposed. Following the proposal in [17] to
apply quadratic extrapolation over three points,
4 mm, 8 mm and 12 mm away from the hot
spot, element lengths of 4 mm or even better
2 mm are required to obtain stresses at nodal
points not affected by the stress singularity
(Fig. 10.3). An alternative proposal with coars-
er meshes was presented in [16], using mid-
side stresses of 10 mm long elements (Fig.
10.4).
An alternative stress evaluation method, which
is particularly suitable for meshes with several
solid elements over the plate thickness, is the
analysis of the linear stress distribution over
plate thickness directly at the weld toe section,
which is supported by some finite element
codes. Dong [12] proposed a special procedure
to derive the linear part of the stress distribu-
tion in the through-thickness direction. The
structural stress is calculated using local stress
outputs from solid elements and enforcing
through-thickness equilibrium for the section
at the weld toe. If shell/plate elements are ap-
plied, the distribution of the structural stress
along the weld toe can be calculated directly
from the nodal forces and moments in the ele-
ments in front of the weld toe. With nodal
forces and moments, greater accuracy may be
achieved compared to procedures using ele-
ment stresses.
6
Results obtained from the surface and through-
thickness stress evaluation are compared in
[18] and [19] for different types of weld. Fur-
ther examples showing the procedures as well
as the limitations are described below.
In case of multi-axial stresses, the largest prin-
cipal stress in a sector of ±60° from the normal
to the weld toe is assessed, if larger than the
stress component normal to the weld toe.
a) Doubling Plate
rigid links or
plate elements
b) Hopper Corner
Fig. 11 – Modelling of eccentricities in plate
element models
4. ROUND-ROBIN FEM ANALYSES
OF DIFFERENT DETAILS
Within a Joint Industry Project, several struc-
tural details were investigated in a round-robin
study [11] by applying different finite element
programs and modelling techniques. Two of
the details are shown here to illustrate the scat-
ter of the analysis results.
The first is a hopper corner model, sketched in
Fig. 12, where the marked weld toe at the
knuckle belongs to type c) in Fig. 5. In total,
13 finite element analyses were performed,
most of them using meshes with element size
t x t. The legend in Fig. 12 gives some indica-
tions about the types of elements used in the
finite element analyses (shell elements with 4
or 8 nodes; solid elements with 8 or 20 nodes
or with higher-order p-elements; the prefix
gives the number of solid elements in thickness
direction and the suffix 'w' indicates the weld
modelled).
The right part of Fig. 12 displays the computed
stresses (based on unit nominal stresses) in
front of the hot spot at read-out points (ROP's)
selected by the participants. The hot spot is the
weld toe or the structural intersection point if
the weld is not modelled.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
The stress values, which are connected by
straight lines, show a relatively large scatter.
Additionally, the mean values of measure-
ments are included, which also showed some
scatter.
The scatter in the calculation is partly caused
by different element types and partly by an
offset in the test model between the intersec-
tion points of the horizontal plate with the
sloped plate and the vertical plate below (Fig.
11b), which was neglected in some calcula-
tions with shell elements.
The left part of Fig. 12 shows the stresses after
linear extrapolation over 0.5t/1.5t and 0.4t/1.0t
and also directly at a point 0.5t away from the
hot spot modelled. The results for the extrapo-
lation over 0.5t/1.5t can be divided into three
groups:
• five relatively coarse shell models yield
the highest results between 2.28 and 2.46;
the offset was neglected in these models
which causes a stress increase by approx.
10 %.
• six relatively coarse shell and solid models
yield results between 1.96 and 2.16; the
shell models consider the offset by the
plate connection, marked by the suffix 'p'
in the legend of Fig. 12.
• two models yield smaller results, i.e. the
model using p-elements ('Solidpw') and a
fine mesh solid model ('2Solid20w(f)');
the p-elements seem to give inconsistent
results, while the fine-mesh model obvi-
ously yields consistent results if the stress-
es are extrapolated over 0.4t/1.0t.
Fig. 12 – Results of round-robin study for hopper corner model [11]
7
If the models neglecting the offset as well as
the model with p-elements are excluded, the
scatter of the results is fairly small, i. e. ±5%
from the mean (2,06 ± 0,10).
Another example from the round-robin study
concerns a specimen with edge gussets, as
sketched in Fig. 13, where the marked weld toe
belongs to type b) in Fig. 5. Again 13 analyses
have been performed. The element size was
governed by the plate thickness t = 10 mm,
except for some finer meshes.
The computed stresses (ref. to nominal stress)
in the right part of Fig. 13 show again a large
scatter, particularly close to the hot spot mod-
elled, where the effect of the stress singularity
is higher than in the first example. Again plot-
ted is the mean of some measurements.
After extrapolation over reference points 5 mm
and 15 mm away from the hot spot modelled,
most of the results are fairly close together,
i. e. between 1.85 and 2.08 (±6%). Smaller
values come again from finer meshes
('Solidpw' with p-elements and fine-mesh
model '2Solid20w(f)') as well as from the mesh
'Shell4(css)' with 4-node shell elements having
only constant stress state (css). These elements
are not able to model the steep stress increase
and should therefore be avoided as recom-
mended before.
The examples show that the extrapolation from
the reference points acc. to the left part of Fig.
10 really requires finer meshing. The use of
different finite element programs, element
types and stress evaluation procedures may
result in a scatter of hot-spot stresses between
±5% and ±10% from a mean value.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
Fig. 13 – Results of round-robin study for hopper corner model [11]
5. EXAMPLE WITH TYPE A)
WELD TOE
The next example is taken from an investiga-
tion of different bracket connections [20]. Fig.
14 shows the test model with a diagonally act-
ing hydraulic cylinder, which produces a com-
bination of axial force, shear force and bending
moment in two horizontal and vertical I-
beams. The flange thickness is t = 20 mm.
Fig. 14 – Test arrangement for the bracket
investigation [20]
Three different versions of 12 mm thick brack-
ets in the frame corner were investigated, see
Fig. 15. In the following, version 1 is consid-
ered in detail, having a rounded face bar (120 x
15 mm) with sniped ends at the bracket toe.
The critical position is the full-penetration
weld at the toe, which exists four times in each
test model.
8
Fig. 15 – Different bracket types and hot-
spot locations
Fig. 16 shows different finite element models
of the critical area based on above described
recommendations, where the element length in
front of the bracket corresponds to the flange
thickness t. Fig. 17 compares the computed
longitudinal stress in front of the hot spot with
measured values. Apart from the measured
stress very close to the hot spot, which is af-
fected by the local notch, the agreement is ac-
ceptable. The stresses computed with the solid
model are above those from the shell model,
however, it was found that the geometry of the
actual weld differed from the nominal values
which influenced the results.
The results obtained from the actual weld ge-
ometry as well as the measured values yield
structural hot-spot stresses which are close to
each other for linear as well as quadratic ex-
trapolation. It should be noted that the shell
model yields slightly smaller values although
their distance from the hot spot refers to the
intersection point modelled and not to the ac-
tual weld toe location.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
Fig. 16 – Shell and solid finite element
models of bracket version 1 with longitudi-
nal stress distribution
Fig. 17 – Stress distribution in front of the
hot spot of bracket version 1
The fatigue tests performed at a stress ratio R =
0 [20] showed that a full penetration weld is
necessary in this case to avoid cracks from the
weld root. However, the cracks did not start
from the weld toe, but from the weld surface.
If failure is defined when the crack reaches the
lower side of the flange (through thickness
crack), the fatigue lives were shown to be
above the FAT 100 S-N curve for all four
bracket toes so that this fatigue class is appli-
cable also to this kind of detail.
9
6. NOTCHED FLAT BAR WITH
TYPE B) WELD TOE
The second example is taken from an investi-
gation of specimens shown in Fig. 18 [21],
which contain a cruciform joint with full pene-
tration welds, where the critical point is locat-
ed at the transition to the rounded edge be-
cause an additional stress concentration occurs
there. Such cases can be found in practice at
stiffener ends with cut-outs for welds.
Two series with plate thickness of 10 and
20 mm were investigated, where the transverse
plate was 20 mm thick.
Fig. 18 – Specimen with type b) weld toes
[21]
Fig. 19 shows the finite element model for the
plate thickness of 10 mm. According to the
above recommendations, the element length is
10 mm as well. The computed structural stress
concentration factor was Ks = 2.2 referring to
the nominal stress in the net section (120 mm x
10 mm). Assuming FAT 100, the nominal fa-
tigue class for this detail would be FAT 45,
where additional stresses due to misalignment
are not yet considered.
Fig. 19 – Finite element model for structural
hot-spot stress determination (1/4-model)
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004

For this case, also the effective notch stress

approach [2], [14] was applied, using an ex-
tremely fine mesh to evaluate the stress in the
fictitious radius of 1 mm at the weld toe, see
Fig. 20. From the highest stress at the edge of
the rounded transition, a fatigue notch factor of
approx. Kf = 5.0 was derived, again referring
to the nominal stress in the net section. The
assumption of FAT 225 for the notch stress
approach [14] yields again a nominal fatigue
class FAT 45 for this detail. So far, the differ-
ent approaches are compatible.

Fig. 21 – Weld toe radii reproduced from

silicon casts

It was not possible to measure residual stresses

in the specimens, so that their beneficial effect
is only assumed here. However, compressive
residual stresses were measured in a similar
case in another investigation [22]. Fig. 22
shows the attachment investigated together
with the results of residual stress measure-
ments and calculations. In the as-welded state
(case 1), substantial compressive residual
stresses of approx. -200 MPa are present at the
plate edge (main plate), while tensile residual
Fig. 20 – Finite element model for effective
stresses are present at the other weld toe on the
notch stress determination (detail)
surface of the base plate.

It is interesting to note that the fatigue tests
performed with pulsating stress (R = 0)
showed a much better fatigue behaviour than
expected from the computations. Based on
nominal stresses, both test series showed char-
acteristic fatigue strengths of FAT 90 and 100,
which were already reduced by a factor of 0.8
according to [14] to account for unfavourable
residual stresses in large structures. Unexpect-
edly the cracks appeared almost simultaneous-
ly at the plate edge and approximately in the
middle of the specimens. Possible causes for
the very high fatigue strength are seen in:
An explanation for the compressive residual
stresses van be found in the longitudinal
shrinkage of the fillet welds at the attachment,
which creates in-plane bending stresses due to
the restraint by the relatively stiff I-beam.
Resulting from this, an unexpected high fa-
tigue strength was observed also in the fatigue
tests [22] with bending of the attachment. Even
with high R-ratio, the observed fatigue life was
far above the predicted life based on the struc-
tural hot-spot stress.

• relatively large weld toe radii at the plate

edge, where values up to 3 mm were
measured,
• favourable compressive residual stresses
at the plate edges.

This means that fabrication effects seem to

play a significant role. The different weld toe
radii are shown in Fig. 21. As the notch factor
is approximately proportional to the squareroot
of the inverse notch radius, an increase by a Fig. 22 – Measured and calculated residual
factor of two or three may result in a 40% or stresses at an attachment (case 1 - as welded;
70% higher fatigue strength. Hence, the worst case 2 - after pre-stress with 0.5 ReH; case 3 -
case assumption can be very conservative. same with 0.85 ReH) [22]

10
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
7. COMPLEX STRUCTURAL DETAILS
WITH DIFFERENT HOT SPOTS
The applicability of the structural hot-spot
stress approach needs also to be validated by
the investigation of complex structural details
with different, competing hot spots, for which
fatigue test data are available. Two such inves-
tigations have been performed in the recent
past with surprising results.
The first investigation concerns the third
bracket version shown already in Fig. 15,
where another critical hot spot exists at the end
of the buckling stiffener (pos. 2) in addition to
the bracket toe. The computed structural hot-
spot stresses in Fig. 23 show that the hot-spot
stress at pos. 2 is about three times higher than
at pos. 1. The measured strains gave similar
results [20]. The high stresses are mainly due
to high local plate bending.
Fig. 23 – Structural hot-spot stresses for the
different bracket toes (solid models, nom.
weld dimensions, linear stress extrapolation)
The load for test model 3 was accordingly re-
duced. However, no crack appeared after the
anticipated fatigue life. The test was continued,
and after a long period the first crack appeared
at one of the four bracket toes (pos. 1). It is
still not fully clear why pos. 2 was not critical.
However, in view with the aforementioned
results, compressive residual stresses might
again be a major reason for this.
The other investigation concerns a comparison
of different intersections between stiffeners
and a transverse web [23], see Fig. 24. This
detail is particularly well-known from tanker
structures. The theoretical and experimental
investigation should answer the question, if the
connection with T-bar (lower part of Fig. 24)
needs additional brackets which were shown to
be necessary for L-bars (upper part of Fig. 24)
due to unfavourable secondary bending.
11
The calculation of the structural hot-spot
stresses showed for lateral loads on the stiffen-
er the values given in Fig. 25. The highest
structural hot-spot stress occurs at the vertical
flat bar connected to the T-bar (89 MPa),
which carries part of the load. The structural
hot-spot stresses at the bracket toes of the L-
bar model are smaller (66 MPa).
Fig. 24 – Intersections between stiffeners
and transverse web [23]
Fig. 25 – Computed structural hot-spot
stresses for the intersections between stiff-
eners and transverse web [23]
Here again, the fatigue tests showed a different
picture. The L-bar model had the shortest fa-
tigue life, while the T-bar model showed a
better fatigue behaviour. In the latter, the first
crack appeared in the flange of the T-bar and
not in the vertical flat bar.
This means that the application of the structur-
al hot-spot stress approach would lead to a
wrong conclusion - with the possible conse-
quence of arranging thousands of unnecessary
brackets in a tanker structure. Again, further
influence factors seem to exist which are not
considered in the structural hot-spot stress ap-
proach, for instance, favourable residual
stresses.
The connection with the T-bar is very similar
to the attachment shown in the previous chap-
ter, where compressive residual stresses were
found at the weld toe on the edge of the at-
tachment.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004

8. PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS The round robin analyses described in 4. have

OF THE STRUCTURAL HOT-SPOT
STRESS APPROACH
The stress computation of several structural
details and the comparison with tests have re-
vealed problems which are discussed in the
following in more detail.
Neglected Influence Factors
Particularly some of the examples described
above have shown that the life prediction can
be wrong compared to fatigue tests. The fol-
lowing influence factors on fatigue, which are
usually neglected or only roughly considered,
play certainly a role:
shown that the related uncertainties are in the
order of ±5% to ±10%. However, not only the
meshing in front of the hot spot, but also in the
vicinity of this area affects the results. This is
illustrated by the bracket example described in
5. As shown in Fig. 26, the meshing of the
bracket itself affects the stresses in the hot-spot
area. A relatively coarse mesh yields an ap-
prox. 15% higher structural hot-spot stress.
This means that an additional scatter in the
finite element results due to the meshing
around the critical area may occur.

• Differences between the assumed and the

actual weld geometry, e. g. increased weld
leg length or weld toe radii in the exam-
ples mentioned in 5. and 6. The influence
of the actual weld geometry can quite well
be taken into account by the effective
notch stress approach, which has been
demonstrated a. o. in [2]. Fig. 26 – Stress distribution in front of the
• Differences between the assumed and the bracket toe for two different meshes of the
actual residual stress. Normally, tensile bracket
stresses up to the yield point are assumed,
which means that in case of compressive Still unclear is the procedure in connection
residual stresses the fatigue life can be with very thick components, e. g. bulbs of pro-
considerably longer. files. Here, a plate or shell model seems to be
• The effect of plate thickness, which has not suitable. But also for solid models it is not
been proven by experiments for butt yet clear how the element size and reference
welds, cruciform joints and transverse points for stress evaluation shall be defined.
stiffeners. However, not much is known One possibility would be the utilisation of the
about this effect in complex structures. attachment width w acc. to Fig. 9.
• The effect of the stress gradient in plate
It can be expected that this will be investigated
thickness direction, which is neglected in
further in the near future. In particular, refined
the structural hot-spot stress and in other
approaches will offer new possibilities in this
approaches, although it affects the fatigue
respect.
life. The stress gradient can, for example,
be considered by fracture mechanics,
Joints with Fillet and Partial Penetration
which was applied e. g. in [12].
Welds
How far these factors affect the life prediction
The examples did only cover cracks starting
was demonstrated in the examples in 7., where
from the weld toe, for which the structural
completely wrong conclusions were drawn
stress approach is applicable. As mentioned
regarding the assessment of the whole detail.
before, cracks at joints with fillet or partial
penetration welds might alternatively start
Modelling Aspects
from the weld root. The fatigue assessment of
such cracks is possible either with the nominal
Differences between the idealized and the ac-
stress in the weld and a corresponding fatigue
tual structure can affect the results as well. For
class (FAT 45 acc. to [14]) or with a refined
instance, plate modelling according to the up-
approach such as the effective notch stress
per part of Fig. 9 yields the same result for
approach or the crack propagation approach.
different weld throat thicknesses. Also the
modelling of plate offsets as shown in Fig. 11
is possible only with limitations.

12
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
In any case, the models shown in Fig. 9 are not
suitable for the determination of the relevant
stress. A complex stress distribution occurs in
particular at fillet-welded attachment ends.
Further investigations about this case are cur-
rently in progress and will be described else-
where.
9. CONCLUDING REMARKS
At present much effort is spent on the determi-
nation of stresses in relatively complex struc-
tures with sufficient accuracy and their as-
sessment with respect to fatigue. The structural
hot-spot stress approach is applied to an in-
creasing extent, however, in several cases with
relatively simple and coarse models. In the
paper, modelling aspects, the stress evaluation
and extrapolation as well as the fatigue as-
sessment are illustrated by several examples.
Also some problems and limitations of the
fatigue prediction with this approach are dis-
cussed. Neglected influence factors and simpli-
fied modelling can cause large deviations from
the actual lifetime.
Another problem is the assessment of cracks
starting from unwelded root gaps, which would
require additional effort in modelling of com-
plex welded structures. Here, practical proce-
dures are under development.
10. REFERENCES
[1] Fricke, W. and von Selle, H.: “Verifica-
tion of the Integrated Fatigue Analysis by
Selected Failure Cases (in German).” In:
„Entwicklungen in der Schiffstechnik“,
Statusseminar 1999, TÜV-Verlag GmbH,
Köln 1999.
[2] Radaj, D. and Sonsino, C.M.: “Fatigue
assessment of welded joints by local ap-
proaches.” Abington Publ., Cambridge,
1998.
[3] Haibach E.: “Fatigue Strength of Welded
Joints from Viewpoint of Local Strain
Measurement (in German).” Report FB-
77, Fraunhofer-Institut für Betriebsfes-
tigkeit (LBF), Darmstadt 1968.
[4] van Wingerde, A.M.; Packer, J.A. and
Wardenier, J.: “Criteria for the fatigue
assessment of hollow structural section
connections.” J. Construct. Steel Res., 35
(1995), pp. 71 - 115.
13
[5] Matoba, M.; Kawasaki, T.; Fujii, T. and
Yamauchi, T.: “Evaluation of fatigue
strength of welded structures - hull's
members, hollow section joints, piping
and vessel joints.” IIW-Doc. XIII-1082-
83, International Institute of Welding,
1983.
[6] Radaj, D.: “Design and analysis of fa-
tigue-resistant welded structures.”
Abington Publ., Cambridge, 1990
[7] Petershagen, H.; Fricke, W. and Massel,
T.: “Application of the Local Approach
to the Fatigue Strength Assessment of
Welded Structures in Ships.” IIW Doc.
XIII-1409-91, International Institute of
Welding, 1991.
[8] Fricke, W. and Petershagen, H.: “Detail
design of welded ship structures based on
hot spot stresses.” In: Practical Design of
Ships and Mobile Units, Eds: Caldwell,
J.B. and Ward, G., Elsevier Science,
1992.
[9] Niemi, E., Ed.: “Recommendations con-
cerning stress determination for fatigue
analysis of welded components.” Abing-
ton Publ., Cambridge, 1995.
[10] Huther, I., Gorski, S., Lieurade, H.P.,
Laborde, S. and Recho, N.: “Longitudi-
nal non loaded welded joints geometrical
stress approach.” Welding in the World,
43:3 (1999), pp. 20 -26.
[11] Fricke, W.: “Recommended hot spot
analysis procedure for structural details
of ships and FPSOs based on round-robin
FE analyses.” Int. J. of Offshore and Po-
lar Engng., Vol. 12 (2002), No. 1, pp 40 -
47.
[12] Dong, P.: “A structural stress definition
and numerical implementation for fatigue
analyses.” Int. J. Fatigue, 23:10 (2001),
pp. 865 - 876.
[13] Niemi, E.: “Structural Stress Approach to
Fatigue Analysis of Welded Components
- Designer’s Guide.” IIW-Doc. XIII-
1819-00/XV-1090-01 (Final Draft), In-
ternational Institute of Welding, 2001.
[14] Hobbacher, A.: “Fatigue Design of
Welded Joints and Components.” Abing-
ton Publishing, Cambridge (UK), 1996.
[15] Maddox, S.J.: “Hot-Spot Stress Design
Curves for Fatigue Assessment of Weld-
ed Structures.” Intl. J. Offshore and Polar
Engng. 12 (2002), pp. 134 - 141.
 9th PORTUGUESE CONFERENCE ON FRACTURE - 2004
[16] Fricke, W. and Bogdan, R.: “Determina-
tion of hot spot stress in structural mem-
bers with in-plane notches using a coarse
element mesh.” IIW-Doc. XIII-1870-01,
International Institute of Welding, 2001.
[17] Niemi, E. and Tanskanen, P.: “Hot spot
stress determination for welded edge
gussets.” Welding in the World, 44:5
(2000), pp. 31 - 37.
[18] Doerk, O.; Fricke, W. and Weissenborn,
C.: “Comparison of Different Calculation
Methods for Structural Stresses at Weld-
ed Joints.” Int. J. of Fatigue 25 (2003),
pp. 359 - 369.
[19] Poutianen, I.; Tanskanen, P.; Martinsson,
J. and Byggnevi, P. : “Determination of
the Structural Hot-Spot Stress using the
Finite Element Method - a Comparison
of Current Procedures.” IIW-Doc. XIII-
1991-03 / XV-1448-03, International In-
stitute of Welding, 2003.
14
View publication stats
[20] Paetzold, H.; Doerk, O. and Kierkegaard,
H.: “Fatigue Behaviour of Different
Bracket Connections.” In: Practical De-
sign of Ships and Other Floating Struc-
tures (Ed. Y.-S. Wu, W.-C. Cui and G.-J.
Zhou), Elsevier 2001.
[21] H. Petershagen: The Hot Spot Stress Ap-
proach - a Case Study (in German).
Schiffbauforschung 39 (2000), Issue 3.
[22] W.S. Kim, D.H. Kim, S.G. Lee and Y.K.
Lee: “Fatigue Strength of Load-Carrying
Box Fillet Weldment in Ship Structure.”
In: Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures (Ed. Y.-S. Wu, W.-C.
Cui and G.-J. Zhou), Elsevier 2001.
[23] Park, J.; Kim, K.B.; Kim, W.S. and Kim,
D.H.: “An Experimental Investigation on
Fatigue Behaviour of Inverted Angle and
T-Type Side Longitudinals in Tankers.”
In: Practical Design of Ships and Other
Floating Structures (Ed. Y.-S. Wu, W.-C.
Cui and G.-J. Zhou), Elsevier 2001.