Fatigue Performance of Repair Welds

Kelly, Barbara Ann
Fatigue
Performance of
Repair Welds
June 1, 1997
FATIGUE PERFORMANCE OF REPAIR WELDS
by
Barbara Ann Kelly
AThesis
Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee
of Lehigh University
in Candidacy for the Degree of
Master of Science
III
Civil and Environmental Engineering
.Lehigh University
May 7,1997
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed jointly by the Center for Advanced
Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) at Lehigh University, under the
direction of Dr. Robert J. Dexter, Senior Research Engineer, and the Navy Joining Center
(NJC) at Edison Welding Institute, under the direction of Jeffrey S. Crompton. The project
was sponsored by the Ship Structure Committee and the author appreciates the patience
and guidance of the Project Technical Committee. The author is particularly grateful for
the patience, support, and direction provided by Dr. Dexter.
The author would also like to thank Professor John W. Fisher, Director of the
ATLSS Center, Rong Huang of Chevron Shipping Company, and Bruce R. Somers of
Concurrent Technologies Corporation for providing valuable guidance in defining the
scope of the research project. Eric Kaufmann, Manager of the Welding Laboratory at
ATLSS performed fractography and provided valuable advice. David Schnalzer
performed most of the repair welding at ATLSS. John Hoffner, Larry Heffner, Steve
Leonard, Roger Moyer, Ed Tomlinson, Todd Anthony, and other ATLSS technicians
provided assistance throughout the laboratory testing. The photographs were taken by
Richard Sopko. Robert Connor, an ATLSS Research Assistant, provided invaluable
assistance in instrumentation, testing, and preparation of figures. The author would also
like to thank Gilbert Idhaw for his assistance in the preparation of figures and overall
support. Kenneth Gilvary initiated the background research for the project. Undergraduate
research assistants included Ben Graybeal, Huston Dawson, Andrew Edwards, and Greg
Jorgensen. The author is particularly grateful to all of those who responded to our survey,
who are too numerous to mention here.
Finally, the author would like to thank her parents, Mary Diane and James, and
brothers, Alex and Jeff, for all of their support.
1ll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. vi
LIST OF FIGURES Vll
ABSTRACT 1
1.0 IN"TRODUCTION 2
2.0 BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO FATIGUE RESISTANCE OF
REPAIR WELDS 7
2.1 Repair Welds in Ship Structures 8
2.2 Repair Welds in Other Welded Structures 9
2.2.1 Weld-Toe Surface Crack Repairs 9
2.2.2 Repair of Through-Thickness Cracks 12
2.3 Fatigue-Sensitive Details in Ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 S-N Curves Used for Fatigue Assessment 18
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS 31
3.1 Design of Test Specimens 31
3.2 Test Setup 32
3.3 Static Calibrations 33
3.3.1 I-Beam Static Tests and Results 33
3.3.2 Static Tests of Spliced Details and Results 35
3.4 Fatigue Test Setup and Procedures 36
IV
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 59
4.1 Groove Welds that are Transverse to the Primary Stress 59
4.1.1 Fatigue Test Results 59
4.1.2 Fracture Mechanics Assessment Basedon Measured Initial Discontinuities
................................................. 66
4.1.2.1 Unacceptable Defects 67
4.1.2.2 Acceptable Macroscopic Discontinuities 69
4.1.2.3 Microscopic Weld Toe Discontinuities 72
4.2 Weld-Access Holes 73
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 113
6.0 REFERENCES 117
Appendix A 123
Appendix B 154
VITA 155
v
/
Table 2.1
Table 4.1
LISTOF TABLES
Cross-reference for S-N curves 20
Summary of fracture mechanics analysis of discontinuities 77
VI
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7
Figure 2.8
Figure 2.9
Figure 2.10
Figure 2.11
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
LIST OF FIGURES
Schematic of peening tool applied to toe of transverse fillet weld 20
Typical cross section of peened weld 21
Fatigue-sensitive detail at the intersection of longitudinal stiffeners
with transverse web-frames or bulkheads 22
Fatigue-sensitive detail at the brackets at the intersections of web
frames with bulkheads 23
Fatigue-sensitive detail at the hatch openings 24
Fatigue-sensitive detail at butt welds and weld-access holes in
longitudinals 25
Insert plate in shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Doubler plates 27
Renewal of part of a longitudinal stiffener 28
Addition of small dressing beads to improve fillet weld contour 29
AASHTO S-N curves used for fatigue assessment 30
Schematic of built-up welded I-beam specimens 40
Photo of cross-section of two-sided welds with reinforcement 41
Photo of cross-section of one-sided welds with backing bar left
in place 41
Photo of cross-section of one-sided welds made without a
backing bar 42
Photo of weld-access hole with fillet weld terminated short of the
edge of the hole 43
Photo of weld-access hole with fillet weld wrapped around inside
of the edge of the hole 43
Photo of beam in test fixture 44
Closer view of beam in test fixture 4 ~
Vll
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 3.12
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.14
Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19
Figure 3.20
Figure 3.21
Figure 3.22
Figure 3.23
Figure 3.24
Figure 3.25
Figure 3.26
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Photo of test beam and connection to spreader beam 45
Test beam connected to spreader beam 46
Pretensioned bolts connecting test beams to supports 46
Photo of hydraulic actuators and load cells 47
Personal computer used to c o n t ~ o l the actuator 48
Typical strain gage layout 49
Typical strain gage layout 50
Comparison of measured and theoretical flange stress as a function
of applied load 51
Comparison of measured and calculated stress along flange length .. 52
Comparison of measured and calculated stress along depth of
member 53
Photo of a typical splice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Photograph of a typical crack at the weld toe of a butt weld 54
Typical crack at wrap-around fillet weld at the weld-access hole 55
Typical crack at detail in which the fillet weld is terminated short
of the weld-access hole 55
Photograph during repair procedure after crack was arc gouged 56
Photograph during repair procedure after backing bar was tack
welded to flange 56
Photograph of welder grinding the edges of the repair weld flush 57
Resulting condition after repairing a crack which propagated
the entire width of the flange 58
S-N curve showing the fatigue data for the original two-sided welds,
with reinforcement, with edges ground flush 78
S-N curve showing the fatigue data for the original two-sided welds,
with reinforcement, without edges ground flush 79
S-N curve showing the fatigue data for original one-sided welds
viii
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
_/
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.11
F i g u r ~ 4.12
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.14
Figure 4.15
Figure 4.16
Figure 4.17
made without a backing bar, with edges ground flush 80
made without a backing bar, without edges ground flush . .'........ 81
Photograph of crack at the root of an original one-sided weld
made without a backing bar with the edges ground flush 82
Photograph of crack at the root of an original one-sided weld made
without a backing bar without the edges ground flush 87
Photograph of a fracture surface of a crack in a one-sided weld
made without a backing bar, without edges ground flush 83
Cross-section of a cracked one-sided weld made without a backing
bar wJ!!1 edges ground flush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
with backing bar left in place with edges ground flush 85
with backing bar left in place, without edges ground flush 86
S-N curve comparing all of the original butt welds with edges
ground flush against the original butt welds without the edges
ground flush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
S-N curve of all the original one-sided welds comparing the butt
welds with the backing bar left in place to the butt welds made
without the backing bar 88
.
Photograph of fracture surface of a crack in an original one-sided
weld with backing left in place 89
Photograph showing the lack of fusion at the backing bar typical
of an original one-sided weld with the backing bar left in place ..... 90
S-N curve comparing the fatigue data for all the original two-sided
welds to all original one-sided welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
S-N curve comparing the two types of steel for all the original welds 92
S-N curve comparing the two types of steel for the repair welds .... 93
IX
Figure 4.18
Figure 4.19
Figure 4.20
Figure 4.21
Figure 4.22
Figure 4.23
Figure 4.24
Figure 4.25
Figure 4.26
Figure 4.27
Figure 4.28
Figure 4.29
Figure 4.30
Figure 4.31
Figure 4.32
Figure 4.33
Figure 4.34
Figure 4.35
Figure 4.36
Figure 4.37
S-N curve comparing all the original butt welds to the repaired butt
welds : 94
S-N curve comparing all the original butt welds to the first repairs
of butt welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
S-N curve comparing all the original butt welds to the second repairs
of butt welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
S-N curve comparing the multiple repairs at one location 97
S-N curve comparing multiple repairs at another single location 98
S-N curve comparing full length repair welds to partial length
repair welds 99
S-N curve comparing repair welds on beams with 9 mm flange
thickness to beams with 25 mm flange thickness 100
S-N curve comparing the two types of steel for all of the original
welds 101
S-N curve comparing the two types of steel for the repair welds '" 102
Photograph of the fracture surface with large discontinuities 103
Sketch of edge crack idealization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Photograph of a fracture surface of a repair weld 104
Sketch of semi-elliptical surface crack idealization 104
Photograph of the fracture surface of a one-sided weld with a
discontinuity near the backing bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Photograph of the fracture surface of a one-sided weld
made a discontinuity 105
Photograph of the fracture surface of a repair weld . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106
Photograph of the fracture surface of a weld that was repaired
four times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Sketch of embedded elliptical crack idealization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Photograph of the fracture surface of a repair weld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Photograph of the fracture surface of a one-sided weld made
x
without a backing bar ~ 108
Figure 4.38 S-N curve showing the fatigue data from fillet welds approaching
weld-access holes and compares the results for welds which
were terminated 9.5 mm short of the weld-access holes to the welds
which were wrapped around the inside of the weld-access hole ... 109
Figure 4.39 Sketch of continuous weld suggested by Hajime Kawano of
Mistsubishi Heavy Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Figure 4.40 S-N curve comparing the original wrap-around fillet welds to the
repair wrap-around fillet welds at weld-acces holes 111
Figure 4.41 S-N curve showing the fatigue data for the cracks which appeared
atthe top of the weld-access hole 112
Xl
ABSTRACT
Fatigue cracks are not unusual in ship structures. There is a need to predict the
fatigue life of the typical weld repairs. The few experiments that have been conducted
show that weld repairs are essentially equivalent to new welds, but there is aneed for more
data. Fatigue tests were conducted on full-scale welded beams with a variety of butt welds
in the flanges and weld-access holesin the webs. The results show that the fatigue strength
of various types of butt welds corresponds to the AASHTO/AWS Category D S-N curve,
regardless of the type of steel, whether they are two-sided or one-sided welds, with and
without backing, and with and without the edges ground flush. A fracture mechanics
analysis, based on typical measured discontinuity sizes, confirms that these welds should
be Category D, unless stringent non-destructive evaluation (NDE) is performed. Weld-
access holes may also be characterized as Category Ddetails. Continued testing after vee-
and-weld repairs of the fatigue cracks indicate that vee-and-weld repairs of through-
thickness cracks have the same fatigue strength as the original new butt welds, even after
repairing the same location up to four times. The fatigue strength of weld-access holes can
also be nearly restored with repair welds of cracks. The S-N curves resulting from these
~
tests provide a basis for calculations of the remaining fatigue life after repair.
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A fatigue design procedure for steel bridges was developed through research
sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) [1,2,3]. This fatigue design procedure is based on control of the nominal
stress ranges and knowledge of the fatigue strength of the structural details. The fatigue
strength is defined as the allowable nominal stress range for a particular number of cycles
and is given in terms of an S-N curve.
The fatigue resistance of a weld detail, for example a butt weld splice in a girder
flange, is essentially the same regardless of the type of structure. Fatigue resistance is
independent of the type of steel [2,3,4] and the weld process [5,6]. Therefore, the fatigue
design procedure developed for steel bridges is applicable to a wide variety of structures
[4]. This same procedure and the same nominal stress based S-Ncurves can also be found
in the American fustitute for Steel Construction (AISC) "Manual of Steel Construction"
[7], the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) "Manual for Railway
Engineering" [8], and the American Welding Society (AWS) "Structural Welding Code"
[9]. Eurocode 3 [10] and the British Standard 7608 [11] use similar provisions but have
different names for the S-N curves which describe the fatigue strength of various details.
American Bureau of Shipbuilding (ABS) guidelines [12], the U.K. Health and Safety
Executive [13], and other groups in the marine industry use S-N curves from the British
Standards.
Most structures are designed for fatigue by checking the stress range at critical
details. Until recently, most ships were not explicitly designed for fatigue. fustead, the
2
allowable peak stress was reduced in an attempt to avoid extensive fatigue cracking
[14,15]. Consequently, many ships, particularly cOIll)1lercial bulk carrier and tanker ships,
exhibit extensive fatigue cracking [16,17,18]. Among the details which exhibit cracking
on ships are: 1) the intersection of longitudinal stiffeners with transverse web frames or
bulkheads; 2) brackets at the intersections of web frames and girders with bulkheads; 3)
hatch openings; 4) butt welds in stiffeners and girders; and, 5) weld-access holes in
stiffeners and girders. These critical details are discussed in detail in Section 2.3.
Because of the highly redundant nature of ship structure, these fatigue cracks are
typically not a threat to structural integrity [14,19,20,21,22]. Therefore, the detection and
repair of occasional fatigue cracks may be tolerated as a part of routine maintenance.
Repairs are often made by arc-gouging a vee-shaped weld preparation along the length of
the crack and welding. Unfortunately, fatigue cracks are frequently repaired without
sufficient consideration of the performance subsequent to the repair. Poorly designed or
executed repairs can lead to quick reinitiation of fatigue cracks at the location of the repair.
In some cases individual ships have been reported to have thousands of cracks. In these
cases, the repair costs may be staggering. Therefore, there is a need for a method to assess
the performance, primarily the remaining fatigue strength, of repair welds.
The research described in this report was an initial effort to address this need. The
objectives of this research were to:
1. summarize the current knowledge regarding fatigue life of repair techniques;
2. survey the industry to prioritize the details which would be beneficial to fatigue
test;
3
3. obtain fatigue data on repair welds.
Specifically, fatigue tests were conducted on full-scale welded beams with a variety of butt
welds in the flanges and weld-access holes in the webs. The tests establish the original
fatigue strength of these details and the remaining fatigue strength after the cracked
specimens are repaired in various ways. The lower bound of the test data for a particular
detail is equated to an S-Ncurve. The S-Ncurves resulting from these tests provide a basis
for calculations of the remaining fatigue life after repair which will enable more confident
scheduling of inspection and repair.
The fatigue test data provided in this report show that vee-and-weld repairs have
the same fatigue strength as ordinary butt welds in new construction, even if the base metal
has previously undergone millions of stress cycles. In other words the repair welds reset
the clock on the fatigue life of the repaired details. In order to explain why repair welds are
as good as original welds, it is necessary to note that there are three different regions of a
repair weld: the base metal, the weld metal, and the heat-affected zone (HAZ). Most
cracks start at the weld toe at the fusion line between the weld and the heat-affected zone
(HAZ). This material has been completely remelted or at least reheated into austenite and
transformed back into a new ferritic micro structure. Therefore, the material in the vicinity
of the origin of the fatigue cracks is all "new".
However, because only limited fatigue test data on repair welds had previously
been available, ~ h e r e was uncertainty among regulators regarding the adequacy of weld
repairs. The vee-and-weld type repair, in some cases, has been treated as only a temporary
repair which eventually required more substantial replacement of an entire panel as a
4
permahent repair. In many cases, this substantial replacement is unjustified because the
weld repair will result in an adequate fatigue life, at least as long as the original detail.
The primary emphasis of the research reported herein was the fatigue strength of
typical vee-and-weld repairs. This report does not explain in detail how to perform weld
repairs and does not make a judgement of the relative merit of various types of repair
welds or weld processes. As it turns out, the choice of repair weld technique has little
influence on the resulting fatigue strength. This result is not surprising considering the
,
fatigue strength of new welds is also independent of the type of weld process [5,6,23].
Therefore, the choice of repair weld configuration, procedures, weld process, and filler
metal is determined by other considerations such as weldability and fracture toughness.
These considerations are not discussed.
The issue of the best type of repair for specific situations is n o ~ e s s e d , although
the data provided in this report may be useful in evaluating such situations. The issue of
repair weld quality is also not addressed in this report. The test results showed the quality
of repair welds and new welds to be comparable in this study. Non-destructive evaluation
(NDE) of the new welds and the repair welds was limited to visual inspection.
Nevertheless, there were only a few cases of premature fatigue failures among the nearly
300 test data. These premature fatigue failures were found to be attributable to weld
defects or, in the case of the repair welds, incomplete removal of the initial fatigue crack.
However, the frequency of occurrence of such premature failures was approximately equal
among the new welds and the repair welds. Therefore, the conclusions of this research are
only valid if the quality of the repair welds is comparable to the quality of new
5
construction.
There is anecdotal evidence that the quality of repair welds in shipyards is not
always as good as new construction. Of course, this is highly dependent on the particular
shipyard. Quality problems with repair welds in service may account for the suspicion of
lower fatigue strength for repair welds. The problem of repairweld quality must be solved
through adequate quality control measures. Although the issue of repair weld quality is
critical, it was not the intent of this research to study weld quality. Rather, it was intended
to determine if there was any inherent difference in the fatigue strength of repair welds and
new welds, given a specific level of quality. It is believed that the weld quality issues can
be separated from the issue of the inherent fatigue strength of the repair welds.
The following section provides background on fatigue and repair welding. Section
3 presents the test procedures. A discussion of the fatigue test results and fracture
mechanics assessment based on measured initial discontinuities is then presented in
Section 4. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are provided. Abibliography of
relevant literature is presented in Appendix A. The industry survey is presented in
AppendixB.
6
2.0 BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO FATIGUE RESISTANCE OF REPAIR
WELDS
Aliterature search was conducted to find information on repair welds in various
structures, especially fatigue test data, and to identify ship structural details which are most
commonly repaired and the typical repair weld configurations. A recent Ship Fracture
Symposiumsponsored by the Ship Structure Committee had a workshop on repair welding
of ships where many of these issues were discussed, including background references and
specifications. Through contacts with Professor C. Miki (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
and Professor H. Petershagen (University of Hamburg, Institute for Schiffbau), a
bibliography prepared by the International Institute of Welding (IIW) committee on repair
welding was obtained [24]. Several relevant research reports by the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) of the Transportation Research Board also
contained extensive bibliographies [25,26]. These bibliographies and the reference lists
of the publications which were obtained were the primary sources of references. To
supplement these sources, the Engineering Index was also searched back to 1989.
Abibliography of the literature relevant to the fatigue resistance of repair welds in
ships was prepared and is presented in Appendix A. The major categories of references
summarized in the bibliography include: fatigue of ships, surveys of fatigue cracking in
ships; specifications for the inspection and repair of welds on ships; and weld repair of
fatigue cracks in various welded structures.
In addition to the literature search, a survey was conducted of over 50 shipyards,
ship owners, operators, regulators, surveyors, universities, consultants, and other agencies
7
with an interest in ship repair in the U.S.A., Europe, and Asia. The survey distributed is
presented in Appendix B. Apreliminary version of the bibliography was distributed with
the survey to show the types of references of interest. Survey recipients were requested
to identify any additional references relevant to fatigue tests of repair welds that were not
listed, in an attempt to further expand the reference base.
The survey results were discussed in detail in a project interim report [27]. The
primary result of the survey was the identification and prioritization of critical repair weld
details for which it would be useful to have fatigue test data. There are several interesting
research programs ongoing which are related to the fatigue strength of ship structural
details [28,29] but not necessarily repair welds.
2.1 Repair Welds in Ship Structures
After reviewing the literature and the survey results, it was concluded that no
fatigue test data are available for ship repair welds. There is also no guidance on the
expected fatigue strength of repair welds in various international rules and guidelines for
construction of ships. Many of these, such as American Welding Society (AWS) "Guide
to Steel Hull Welding", [30] have rules governing repair welds, but none discuss resultant
fatigue strength of repair welds.
The Tanker Structure Co-operative Forumhas published several books which show
pictorials of the types of cracks which commonly occur in tankers and the suggested
repairs [31,32,33]. These books were very helpful in identifying typical cracked details
and the repair weld configurations. However, these books from the Tanker Structure Co-
8
operative Forum also do not address the expected fatigue strength of the weld repairs.
2.2 Repair Welds in elded Structures
Although there were few data on the fatigue strengtp of ship repair welds, there
were some limited data available for other welded steel structures. As discussed in the
introduction, the fatigue resistance of a welded detail does not depend on the type of
structure in which the detail is located, aside from the variation in stress range for
the two structures. Therefore, the following general discussion of the repair of fatigue
cracks is applicable to ship weld details as well. For the purposes of discussion, fatigue
crack repair techniques can be categorized as: 1) weld-toe surface crack repairs; 2) repair
of through-thickness cracks; and, 3) modifying the connection to reduce the cause of the
cracking. The expensive option of substantial renewal of a panel of the structure is
essentially similar to new construction and is presently accepted as a permanent repair.
Therefore, substantial renewal of the structure is not discussed further.
2.2.1 Weld-Toe Su:-rface Crack Repairs
Weld-toe surface crack repairs include grinding, hammer peening, Gas Tungsten
Arc (GTA) remelting of the weld toe. These techniques are used for improvement of the
fatigue strength of uncracked welds as well as repair techniques. There are many
references which disGuSS and provide data on the effect of these procedures as
improvement techniques [34,35,36,37,38]. One study by Fisher et al (NCHRP 206) [26]
investigated the effectiveness of these techniques to repair shallow surface cracks.
9
Techniques studied included grinding the weld toe, air-hammer peening the weld toe, and
GTA remelting the weld toe. These methods were applied to the ends ef cover plates in
full-scale welded girders, but the results can be generally extended to any weld toe region
subject to normal in-plane stresses, including most types of welded attachments and
tubular joints.
In the NCHRP 206 study, weld toes were ground in a very local region to remove
small weld toe cracks. The cracks appeared as a fine line and the grinding was continued
until the fine line was no longer visible without magnification. The results of these tests
were mixed, and the technique was judged to be ineffective. From analysis of the failed
specimens, it was apparent that the crack tips had not been removed and had reinitiated.
This grinding did not attempt to change the profile of the weld by grinding the
entire weld surface, tapering, or feathering the weld toe. The stress concentration of the
weld toe was not significantly altered. More extensive grinding of such cover plate details
have been shown to be effective, e.g. Graf [39] or Yamada and Albrecht [40]. However,
such extensive grinding is considered overly expensive as a retrofit technique.
Air-hammer peening works primarily by inducing a state of compressive residual
stress near the weld toe. The residual stress lowers the effective tensile stress range on
cracks or crack-like defects. Because the benefit of peening is derived from lowering the
effective tensile stress range, it has been found to be most effective when conducted under
dead load. ill this case, the peening only needs to be effective against live load. Thus, air-
hammer peening is best suited as a retrofit technique, rather than in new construction.
For cracks which have propagated from normal in-plane stress fields, air-hammer
10
peening can be a successful repair as long as the crack depth does not exceed the zone of
compressive stress. Experiments'm NCHRP 206 demonstrated that a fatigue crack up to
3 mm in cover-plated details can be arrested by peening provided the stress range does not
exceed 41 MPa. Peened beams with crack depths larger than 3 mm usually show no
measurable increase in life.
Aschematic of the cover plate weld detail and the peening tool is shown in Figure
2.1. Figure 2.2 shows a section through a typical peened weld toe. Hausmmann et al [41]
studied the effect of air pressure and number of passes on the resulting deformation and
associated residual stresses. Best results were obtained with lower pressures and greater
number of passes. Diminishing improvement in deformation was obtained for pressures
above 280 kPa or more than six passes. A depth of plastically deformed grains greater
than 0.5 mm was consistently obtained. The depth of compressive residual stress extends
from two to four times the depth of plastically deformed grains.
Peening is also useful for improving the fatigue performance of welds without
detectable fatigue cracks. Experiments have shown that the fatigue strength is increased
by at least one detail category, i. e. the fatigue life is approximately doubled. The benefit
of peening in the case of welds without detectable defects is also primarily due to residual
stress. For example, Harrison [42] found that welds that were stress relieved after peening
had no significant increase in fatigue life. It might be expected that the peening operation
would derive some benefit from blunting or eliminating many crack like defects at the
weld toe such as slag intrusions. However, the peening operation also introduces
numerous lap-type defects. The depths of these defects range from 0.05 to 0.25 mm, i.e.
'\"
11
the same order of depth as typical weld toe slag intrusions. Unfortunately, like the slag
intrusions, these defects also serve as a site for crack initiation, thereby negating the
benefit of blunting the weld toe defects. Even greater improvement is reportedly obtained
when the peening operation is followed by light surface grinding, which apparently
removes many of these lap-type defects.
2.2.2 Repair of ThroughThickness Cracks
The most common type of repair on ships is the repair of through-thickness cracks
greater than 50 mmin length. Through-thickness cracks are repaired by arc-gouging a vee-
shaped weld preparation along the crack path and welding, usually using the shielded
metal arc weld (SMAW) process. Although there are no fatigue test data for such ordinary
ship repair welds, there are some data on underwater welds intended for marine structures
[43,44,45]. Underwater welds have special properties and are therefore not relevant to
ordinary welds in air. Also, underwater welds are the subject of another Ship Structure
Committee project and therefore are considered outside the scope of this project.
Only three sources of data on the fatigue strength of repair welds for through-
thickness cracks were found, two of which were studies performed at the Welding Institute
(TWl) and the third at the University of Pisa. The first study at TWI involved fatigue tests
on plates with longitudinal and transverse fillet welded attachments [46]. The specimens
were cycled until fatigue cracks propagated. The cracks were then removed by grinding
and rewelded from one side in the flat position. This research focused on two types of
cracks, part-through thickness cracks and through-thickness cracks. Weld improvement
12
techniques were also investigated. The repairs were tested both in the as-welded condition
and an improved condition by grinding the weld toe to a depth just below the original plate
surface.
The results of this study showed that the fatigue strength of the repair welds for
both part-through and through-thickness cracks was comparable to the fatigue strength
anticipated from the original joints provided the fatigue crack was completely removed.
The second study at TWI was conducted for the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP 321). It involved fatigue testing of full-size girders until a
fatigue crack propagated [25]. The crack was then repair welded, either in the laboratory
or outdoors and overhead, and fatigue tested again. The specimens were stiffened I-beams
fabricated from A588 Grade B steel. There were two types of specimens. The first had
a flange cover plate detail and partial depth web stiffeners. The second type contained a
transverse groove weld in the tension flange with a weld-access hole at the location of the
butt weld, and holes drilled in the web. The specimens were tested in three point bending.
The results of this portion of the test program showed that if the fatigue crack can
be completely removed there is no deterioration in the fatigue strength, regardless of the
condition in which the weld was made (in the laboratory or outdoors). The scope of
NCHRP 321 also involved an investigation of multiple repairs in one location. To do this,
plate specimens containing a groove weld were fabricated from A36 steel. The weld was
then back gouged in the same position and rewelded. This process was repeated up to
three times. Fracture toughness testing was then carried out by Charpy Vnotch tests on
the weld metal. Comparing the results of the fracture toughness tests on the multiple
13
repair welds to the tests conducted on original welds showed that there were minimal
toughness reductions in the heat-affected zone of a weld repaired multiple times.
The research conducted at the University of Pisa investigated repair techniques for
fatigue cracks which are common at welded stiffener to stiffener connection on orthotropic
steel decks [47]. Full-size details were fatigue tested in three point bending. The
specimens were cycled until fatigue cracks propagated and then repaired using one of two
repair techniques: 1) replacing the damaged portion of the stiffener a new section of
stiffener attached by groove welds wi. a backing bar left in place; or 2) drilling the tip of
the crack and building up the section of the stiffener by welding a cover plate over the
damaged area. The repairs were fatigue tested and the results showed that the specimens
repaired with first technique had a fatigue life equivalent to AASTHO Category D. This
agrees with the findings from the fatigue tests on butt welds with a backing bar left in
place, as you will see discussed in Section 4.1. The second repair technique had a fatigue
life which was slightly better than the first. This was due to a reduction in stress range
caused by the addition of the cover plate which increased the area in the cross section.
For through-thickness cracks which not only have propagated through the plate
thickness but also away from the local stress concentration, hole drilling has proven an
effective retrofit [48]. Holes essentially blunt the tip of the crack, reducing the stress
concentration. The size of the hole must satisfy the relationship
where p is the radius of the hole, mm, K is the stress intensity factor assuming the crack
14
size a for edge cracks (to the edge of the hole) and 2a for two-ended cracks (defined from
the edges of the two holes at the two ends of the crack), and fly is the yield strength of the
plate, MPa. If this relationship is not satisfied, the crack will most likely reinitiate from
the edge of the hole. The validity of this retrofit has been studied in the laboratory on full-
scale welded beams subjected to variable amplitude loading up to 90 million stress cycles.
Slightly better resistance to reinitiation can be obtained if bolts are inserted in the
holes and tightened so as to introduce some local compression around the hole. Other
methods attempt to cold work the hole to introduce some beneficial residual stress state
around the hole and crack tip [49].
The hole size required by this equation is reasonable for small stress ranges. For
example, for a steel with a yield strength of 350 MPa and a two-ended crack geometry, the
equation requires a hole radius about five percent of the crack length 2a for a stress range
of 35 MPa. However, the dependence on stress range is strong. For the same conditions,
the hole radius must be 20 percent of the crack length for a stress range of 70 MPa. For
example, to arrest a crack 125 mm in length, two holes each 50 mm in diameter are
required. Thus 100 mm of the 125 mm crack length is the holes themselves. For much
higher stress ranges, the entire crack must be removed using a hole saw. Care must be
taken that the hole is not a critical stress concentration in the member.
Hole saws may also be used to isolate a fatigue crack so that it does not extend
from a secondary component into the main girder. Such a technique was used to retrofit
the defective groove welds in longitudinal stiffener. A large number of bridges have been
retrofitted by installing saw-cut holes in the girder web.
15
Although some disagree with the effectiveness in certain applications [50], stop-
holes have been used successfully for cracks formed under distortion-induced stress ranges
in bridge girders. For distortion induced cracks, stop-holes are more effective that weld
repairs, since cracking relieves the distortion-induced stress ranges, thereby reducing the
driving force for subsequent crack extension. Weld repairs restore the distortion-induced
stress ranges and will crack again, typically more quickly than the original cracking.
2.3 Fatigue-Sensitive Details in Ships
In addition to the Tanker Structure Co-operative Forumbooks, several other reports
summarize surveys of service repair and inspection of ships that indicate the types of
details in other types of ships which are prone to fatigue cracking [16,17,18,51]. This
information was used to determine the types of details which should be used for fatigue
tests of weld repairs. Some examples of common fatigue-sensitive details are: 1) the
intersection of longitudinal stiffeners with transverse web frames or bulkheads (Figure
2.3); 2) brackets at the intersections of web frames and girders with bulkheads(Figure
2.4); 3) hatch openings (Figure 2.5); 4) butt welds in stiffeners and girders (Figure 2.6);
and,S) weld-access holes in stiffeners and girders (Figure 2.6)
The three ship structural details shown in Figures 2.3 to 2.6 were selected as
candidates for fatigue testing. The preliminary selection was based upon the results of a
workshop held at the National Academy of Science in March 1995, which was chaired by
Rong Huang, Chevron Shipping Company, and recorded by Robert Dexter [52].
This selection was described to the recipients of the survey for their comments and
16
for any additional details. The survey requested prioritization of critical structural details
and repair procedures considering:. 1) details which are most frequently in need of repair;
2) repairs which have significant uncertainty in their fatigue strength; and, 3) the potential
benefit that could result if a simplified repair method could be shown to have adequate
fatigue strength.
The results of the survey indicated that all three details were rated with relatively
high priority, and a few alternative details were suggested. The alternative details
included: 1) insert plate in shell, shown in Figure 2.7; 2) doubler plates, shown in Figure
2.8; 3) renewal of part of a longitudinal stiffener, shown in Figure 2.9; and 4) the addition
of small dressing beads to improve fillet weld contour, shown in Figure 2.10. The details
on the survey results and excerpts from certain responses were provided in a project
interim report dated 9 November 1995 [27].
The program of testing for this project was refined and prioritized based on the
results of the survey. All three of the originally proposed fatigue-sensitive details were
rated highly. Since fatigue life is so highly variable, significant numbers of test data are
required to obtain reasonable results. Therefore, it was decided to conduct fatigue tests on
specimens containing butt welds and weld-access holes, simulating details similar to that
shown in Figure 2.6. These more simple butt weld details can produce test data most
efficiently.
The tests on butt welds provided a means to compare the different types of repair
welds, such as single-sided or double-sided repair welds, welds with or without the
backing bar removed, welds with or without reinforcement, and welds with or without the
17
terminations or edges ground flush. Testing of ordinary butt welds also allowed a
comparison of the repair welds to the original welds under baseline conditions without
additional stress concentrations as would exist if the other types of details would have been
chosen. By repairing each crack multiple times, it can be shown that the fatigue life of a
good quality repair weld is statistically distributed about the same as the fatigue life of the
original weld. To be sure the results were widely applicable, two different types of steel
were used in these experiments: 1) a Thermomechanically Controlled Process (TMCP)
steel typical of modern shipbuilding; and, 2) a typical Carbon-Manganese ship steel.
The fatigue strength of longitudinal fillet weld terminations at the weld-access
holes were also studied. Cracks which grew from these weld-access holes also provide a
means to investigate the effectiveness of stop-holes and weld repairs.
2.4 S-N Curves Used for Fatigue Assessment
Welded details are typically grouped into categories of details with similar fatigue
strength. The lower bound of the test data for a particular detail is equated to an S-Ncurve
usually about two standard deviations of the logarithm of the cycles to failure below the
mean line. An S-N curve gives the fatigue strength to be used in design or in assessment
of a new repair weld as a function of the number of cycles of applied load. In the nominal-
stress approach, there are many S-N curves which correspond to different detail categories.
The effect of the local stress concentration is reflected in the fatigue detail category. As
mentioned in the introduction, the nominal-stress fatigue design approach for welded
details has been adopted by American Association of State Highway and Transportation
18
Officials (AASHTO) [1], American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) [7], American
Railway Engineering Association (AREA) [8], and the American Welding Society (AWS)
[9], and is widely used in the design of civil engineering structures. These groups use
approximately the same set of S-N curves, which are shown in Figure 2.11.
As previously discussed, American Bureau of Shipbuilding (ABS) guidelines [12],
the U.K. Health and Safety Executive [13], and other groups in the marine industry use S-
N curves form the British Standards (BS 7608) [11]. The results of this research can be
applied just as well for users of the BS S-N curves. The BS S-N curves can be associated
approximately with the AASHTO S-N curves. For example, the British Category DS-N
curve for a butt weld is essentially the same as the AASHTO Category C S-N curve for a
butt weld. Table 2.1 shows the equivalent Eurocode 3 and BS 7608 S-N curves for each
AASHTO S-N curve.
19
AASHTO Eurocode 3 BS 7608
A 160 B
B 125 C
B' 100 D
C 90 D
D 71 F
E 56 G
E' 40 W
Table 2.1 Cross-reference for S-N Curves (Nearest Curve at 2 x 10
6
cycles).
CoY..
Plate -
Flanoe -
A-A
(mm)
Figure 2.1. Schematic of Peening Tool
Applied to Toe of Transverse Fillet Weld.
20
Figure 2.2. Typical Cross Section of Peened
Weld. (4/75/30)
/
21
r INTENTIONAL SECOND EXPOSURE
Figure 2.2. Typical Cross Section of Peened
Weld. (4/75/30)
21
..",..
..",..
_..,.,
...,.,
",......,.,..-",..
r .
!~ Side Shell ~
I
I
I
I
Side
Longitudinal ",.. .
...""".,. ..
",.....,.,
.,.,..
L
.,.,..
..
.............
.-",....",.. I
..---- .
",...-",.. '1
..
"''-,'", Trilnsverse:
Xtlulkhead !
. \
.
I
"
..'.
"
-.'..
Vertical Bulkhead
Stiffener
96-E01 i
Figure 2.3. Fatigue-sensitive detail at the intersection of longitudinal stiffeners with
transverse web-frames or bulkheads.
22
LONGI11JDrNAL
BULKHEAD
TRA.NSVERSE
\VEB
\
TRIPPING
BRACKET
I I I
I I I
--'--1-1- T -1- -1-1
I I I I : f I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
T T T T T
LONGITUDrNAL
BULKHEAD
T R A ~ S V E R S E
\VE3
TRIP?rNG
BRA. CKET
FR..-\C11JRE /
Figure 2.4. Fatigue-sensitive detail at the brackets at the intersections of web frames
with bulkheads.
23
Figure 2.5. Fatigue-sensitive detail at the hatch openings.
24
INTENTIONAL SECOND EXPOSURE
Figure 2.5. Fatigue-sensitive detail at the hatch openings.
24
Transverse Web Frame
Erection
Butt Weld
Cracks at Cope
Hole Opening
Welded Butt
Cracked
Welded Butt
Fractured
Completely
Figure 2.6. Fatigue-sensitive detail at butt welds and weld access holes in
longitudinals.
25
LongH::udlneAl s1::lf f ner
TrQnsverse
Insert ple. te spo.ns between longitudino.ls

o.nd o.buts tro.nsverse fro.Me
Insert plQte QlvlAts c.:-,ej longl"t:AcHne.l
on two sides with rQdlus In cne corner.
Ins;:-r-l:: pleA-l::I;' wl-l::h -l::rOl..llolesc;,:e WI;'ld
In':;;:-rs;:-c1::lons o.nd rIAnOU1::S,
300fT1fT1 cllQfT1eter hole cut QnCi new fT1llci steEl
groove welded,
She!.l rrCActure cut out (CAPi=rOx, 200 x
400 x rec-tCAngulCAr clOl.,,;Gler ple. -l::e weldecl
In-ternCAlly CAncl =I.o-t we!.clecl
TrQnsvers;
I
CD LonGltucllno.ls
X
.,-....,
_....;....:-_--L- /
_i_X_'----!--I
I I
Figure 2.7. Insert plate in shell. (insert.dgn)
26
CRACK SEQUENCE
1. FLANGE CRACK
2. WEB CRACK
SIDE
SHELL
II
11
:: ...
II ""
JI
'1"'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
II '\
II CD !
It
II

(I. .
" f
. ,. I
l
REPAIR METHOD
A. DRILL 1/2" STOP HOLE
B. 8" WX 1/2" T DOUBLER, LENGTH AS REQUIRED
C. 8" WX 1/2" T DOUBLER, WITH 4" BEND
FLANGE, LENGTH AS REQUIRED
D. 1" DIAMETER BOLT, 4"LONG
-'-':-
Figure 2.8. Doubler plates. (doubler.dgn)
27
CD
FLA:IGE CRACK
CD
\-IEB CRAC KS
G) 1st SIDE SHELL CRACK (LEAK)
0
2 nd SIDE SHELL CRACK (NO LEAK)
Side
Shell
610mm
?
r
l
VII
II
II
/I
II
II
II
-..
JII
- - - - - - -,' I . I;
I !i
i ;,
I
r r
I
!.
'''; E 5 !:: S E R: (1 ,) '1 0:< c : '"c. '
r' SLO:
( 5 e
'I 3 0 -::::: C': ..l.. -::!i:: r:::;::?:- (5 ': j __
Figure 2.9. Renewal of part of a longitudinal stiffener. (renew.dgn)
28
Figure 2.10. Addition of small dressing beads to improve fillet
weld contour. (dressing.dgn)
29
AASHTO Curves
100
1000-r-------------------------,
ro
en
C1.
Q)
Q) O'l
O'l C
c ro
ro
100
a:
a:
10
en
en
en
en
Q)
Q)

-
l-
Cf)
+-'
Cf)
10
104 105 10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
Figure 2.11. AASHTO S-N Curves used for fatigue assessment.
30
3.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS
As explained in the previous section, based on the conclusions from the industry
survey and literature review, it was decided to fatigue test built-up welded I-beams
featuring butt welds and repair butt welds, and weld-access holes in way of the butt welds.
3.1 Design of Test Specimens
Nine built-up welded I-section specimens were fabricated at Edison Welding
Institute similar to the drawing shown in Figure 3.1. All beams were 3350 mm in length,
152 rnm in width, and had a depth of 381 mm. The webs of all of the I-sections were 9
mmthick plates made of ASTM A36 steel produced in China. The flanges on six of these
beams were made of ASTM A131 (ABS) Grade AH-36 steel plates produced by
Bethlehem Steel Corporation at the Burns Harbor, Indiana plant. Four of these AH-36
flange plates were 9 mm thick, while the remaining two were 25 mm thick. The flanges
on the last three beams were made from 9 mm thick API-2W (TMCP) steel plates
produced by Kawasaki Steel Corporation at Mizushima Works in Kurashi, Japan.
Each specimen contained six butt welds. The types of original butt welds studied
include: 1) two-sided weld with reinforcement, with edges ground flush; 2) two-sided
weld with reinforcement, without edges ground flush (run out tabs left in place or edges
of weld not ground smooth); 3) one-sided weld with backing bar left in place, without
edges ground flush; 4) one-sided weld with backing bar left in place, with edges ground
flush; 5) one-sided weld made without a backing bar (open root), without edges ground
31
flush; and 6) one-sided weld made without a backing bar (open root), with edges ground
flush. Figures 3.2 through 3.4 shows photos of the cross section of each different type of
weld. All original butt welds were made by shielded-metal arc welding (SMAW) process
using E701O-G electrodes for the root passes, E7018 for the fill, and E7028 for the cap.
The electrodes were manufactured by Lincoln Electric Company.
The beams were designed to include the six butt welds within the constant-moment
region of the beam, three welds on each flange. The welds were spaced at 305 mm, to
assure that a crack in one location would not affect the other welds. Also in order to
increase the independence of these welds, the welds were staggered between the top and
bottom flanges so that in any given cross section there would be no more than one butt
weld.
The web of each beamwas attached to both flanges by two 8 mmlongitudinal fillet
welds. Weld-access holes 50 mm in diameter were thermally cut in the web of the beam
at the location of each butt weld. For half of the weld-access holes, the longitudinal fillet
welds were terminated between 8 to 16 mm from the edge of the hole. Figure 3.5 shows
a typical "stop-short" detail at the weld-access hole. In the other half, the longitudinal
fillet weld was wrapped around the inside of the weld-access hole, as shown in Figure 3.6.
3.2 Test Setup
The I-beams were tested in the four-point bending fixture illustrated in Figures 3.7
through 3.13. Four-point bending was desired because the theoretical constant moment
region between the load points would allow multiple welds to be tested on one specimen.
32
The specific details of this test fixture had been developed and refined in past projects at
ATLSS [23]. The test beams are bolted onto roller bearings at either end which are
supported by a frame bolted to the laboratory floor. The beam is also bolted to roller
bearings connected to a spreader beam at the two load points. The bolts used in connecting
the beamto the supports and the spreader beamwere pretensioned to allow the fatigue test
to run at a zero mean load, which is typical of ship structure loading. The spreader beam
transfers load from a 490 kN hydraulic actuator. Load was measured with a load cell just
below the actuator swivel head. The actuator was run in load control using a computer-
controlled servo-hydraulic system.
3.3 Static Calibrations
3.3.1 I-Beam Static Tests and Results
Strain gages were installed on each specimen to verify the actual stress range of the
beam during a static test. The static tests were conducted by applying the load in small
. increments up to the same levels that would be used in the fatigue test. The fatigue tests
were to be performed under reversal loading (zero mean stress) that is typical of ship
loading. Therefore, the static loads were applied incrementally to the maximumload in one
direction, then back to zero load, then to the minimum load (in the other direction), and
then back to zero in several cycles. The strain was recorded at each increment by a
personal computer (P.C.) based data acquisition system. Stress was calculated from the
uniaxial strain by simply multiplying by the elastic modulus.
Strain gages were located in various places on the beam. Figures 3.14 and 3.15
33
show typical strain gage layouts for the beams which were used to conduct the static tests.
On the first few beams, gages were installed along the length of the beam both inside and
outside of the theoretical constant moment region. Figure 3.16 shows the stress measured
from strain gages located on the flanges within the constant moment region typical of the
beam specimen as a function of load. The different series in this graph represent the
theoretical stress calculated from beam bending equations and the measured stress for
several different load excursions. The results show good agreement between the
calculated and measured stress. Since there is no drift over the several load excursions,
these results were repeatable. The good agreement confirms that the beam and the loading
fixtures are behaving as anticipated, and that the peak load applied during the fatigue tests
produces the stress range expected.
Figure 3.17 shows the theoretical stress and the stress calculated from the strain
data approximately at the maximumcyclic load applied during the fatigue tests along the
length typical of the beam specimen. The shape of the graph verifies that the constant
moment region does exist between the two load points. There is good agreement between
the theoretical and measured stress.
Strain gauges were also located at various depths in one cross section. Figure 3.18
shows the measured and theoretical stress along the depth, typical of the beam specimen
at approximately the same load as the maximum cyclic load. The results show a linear
gradient through the depth of the beam. The point at which this line crosses zero shows
the location of the neutral axis. Again, there is good agreement between the measured and
theoretical stress.
34
Strain gauges were also installed in a pattern approaching the a weld. These strain
10 these gauges showed that there was no significant measurable stress gradient
approaching the weld up to 6 mm from the weld toe.
3.3.2 Static Tests of Spliced Details and Results
Doubler plates and C-clamps were used as a temporary repair when a crack
developed in order to allow the testing to continue until there were at least three cracks on
one specimen. Figure 3.19 shows a photos of a typical splice. Strain gauges were installed
in a pattern approaching the a weld. The strain in these gauges was measured before and
after the welds had cracked and after the temporary splices had been installed. Strain gage
measurements made more than 100 mm away from any crack did not show any significant
change as a result of the crack. It was concluded that the cracking or splicing of one weld
did not have any effect on the stress ranges in the other welds on board the specimen.
Ideally a doubler plate splicing the flange would carry all of the load no longer
able to be carried by the flange. At any given butt weld location there are three probable
areas from which a crack would propagate, the butt weld itself and the toes of either fillet
weld termination at the weld-access hole of that butt weld. It was necessary to investigate
whether the stress range at the toes of the fillet welds at the weld-access holes was
significantly affected by the splice.
. These measurements varied depending on whether a crack was present in the web
at the apex of the weld-access hole. If there was no such web crack, the stress range within
the spliced region (other than in the immediate vicinity of the crack) was approximately
35
the same as the stress range without a splice. Therefore, cycles were assumed to
accumulate on the details at other locations even when there was a crack which was
spliced nearby. If the web was cracked at the apex of the weld-access hole, then there was
a significant reduction in the measured stress ranges within the spliced region. In this case,
the cycles during the time the detail was spliced were not counted.
3.4 Fatigue Test Setup and Procedures
All tests were conducted at a frequency of three Hertz with a zero mean load and
a constant-amplitude cyclic load. Load reversal about a zero mean stress is realistic for
ship structural details. Previous studies [23] have established that the effect of mean stress
is not significant, however. The peak maximum and minimum load range was selected
such that the flanges were subjected to a nominal stress range of 120 MPa. For example,
for the specimens with a 9 mm thick flange, the total load range was from plus to minus
100 kN. As discussed above, the stress range in the flange was verified in the static tests.
The specimens were run continuously, accumulating up to 250,000 cycles per day.
The beams were visually inspected at regular intervals for cracks. The visual inspection
included spraying a fast-drying cleaner solvent on areas where fatigue cracks were
expected, such as along the butt welds, at the toes of the fillet welds, and at the apex of the
weld-access holes. In the presence of a crack the cleaner would be observed pumping in
and out of the crack while the remainder would dry on the surface.
The cracks were often examined further using the complete dye penetrant
procedure. Adye penetrant test involves using a cleaner to free the surface from dust, dirt,
36
or debris. The surface is then sprayed with a dye and given adequate time to allow the dye
to seep into any cracks or surface defects. The dye is wiped clean after sufficient time and
a developer is sprayed onto the area to assist the dye to weep out of any cracks it seeped
into, and thereby clearly exposing the crack.
When a crack was observed, the date, time, location, number of cycles, and surface
length was recorded. Cracks were allowed to propagate until failure. Failure was
considered to be a through-thickness crack more than half of the width of the flange. If the
crack was caughtbefore failure, the specimens would be visually inspected frequently until
the crack propagated to failure.
As explained earlier, splices were used as a temporary repair for cracks in the
flanges. A splice, such as shown in Figure 3.19, is made of doubler plates above and
below the flange which are clamped to the flange with many c-clamps in the area of the
crack. When a crack developed in the web, typically at the apex of the weld-access hole,
the tip of the crack was determined from a dye penetrant test. A25 rom hole was drilled
at the tip of the crack to relieve the stress concentration and postpone or prevent the growth
of the crack. Both splicing and hole drilling, usually a combination of the two, allowed
testing to continue until the specimen had at least three or four cracks.
Butt welds typically cracked at the weld toe or in the heat-affected zone as shown
in Figure 3.20, regardless of weld type. Very few cracks initiated at the edge of a weld
with run-out tabs left in place.
Cracks at the wrap-around of the fillet welds at the weld-access holes typically
propagated from the toe of the fillet weld at the point where the fillet weld wrapped around
37
the inside of the weld-access hole and grew across the width of the flange. This type of
crack is shown in Figure 3.21.
The detail in which the fillet weld is terminated short of the weld-access hole
produced a similar type of crack, as can been seen in Figure 3.22, in that the crack grew
across the width of the flange, but initiated from the toe of the termination. Web cracks
initiated after the flange had failed at the apex of the weld-access hole and grew towards
the neutral axis.
Repair welds were made in situ and depending on the location on the specimen,
some repairs were made overhead. All cracks in the flanges were repaired by arc gouging
the crack, (Figure 3.23) and welding using a backing bar (Figure 3.24). The backing bar
was then removed and the weld was back gouged and rewelded. The edges were ground
flush as seen in Figure 3.25. This is the repair procedure that the welder was most
comfortable with. Since there was no variation in fatigue strength for various butt weld
types among the new welds, it was not thought to be important to vary the repair weld
procedure systematically.
Most cracks propagated the entire width of the flange. Therefore the repairs were
full-length weld repairs, meaning that the repair weld was the same length as the original
weld. Some cracks were long enough to be considered failure, but never reached the entire
width of the flange. In this case partial-length repairs were made.
When the crack had initiated from a fillet weld termination at the weld-access hole,
the repair weld was a bit more complicated. The repair was both a groove weld across the
flange along with a repair of the fillet weld. Figure 3.26 demonstrates the resulting
38
condition. In the case of the detail where the fillet welds stop short of the weld-access
hole, the weld-access hole had to be enlarged to the crack before the repair weld could be
made. Regardless of what type of termination detail was present before the crack, the
repair could only wrap around inside the weld-access hole.
Web cracks and small cracks in the flanges were often repaired temporarily by
drilling a stop-hole. Usually this was enough to last for several hundred thousand cycles,
until several other cracks had appeared and the beamwas taken down for repairs. The web
cracks were eventually arc gouged between the weld-access hole and the stop-hole and
welded. The repair was a U-preparation and the weld was made from one side and then
back gouged and rewelded from the other side. After welding, the edge of the weld at the
access hole was ground flush and a slightly larger stop hole, 38 mm in diameter, was
drilled to remove the edge condition of the weld.
After the specimen was weld-repaired, the beams were returned to testing. Some
details were cracked and repaired more than four times.
39
I
I
vtseom
I 305
305rrrn
50 rrrn dlo. (Typ.)
J if
mm
1295rrrn 1448rrrn
I
I
I
;
v
VI
V
I
I
- - -
Weld Ac.cess Hole J
I
I
10rrm--H-
Figure 3.1. Schematic of built-up welded I-beam specimens. (beam.dgn)
40
BEAM: A1A-1
WELD: #1
WELD TYPE: A
Figure 3.2. Photo of cross-section of two-sided welds with reinforcement.
(8/9611-2)
Figure 3.3. Photo of cross-section of one-sided welds with backing bar
left in place. (8/9611-7)
41
BEAM: A1A.. 1
WELD: #1
WELD TYPE: A
Figure 3.2. Photo of crosssection of two-sided welds wilh reinforcement.
(8/96/1-2)
BEA : 1 -1
ELD: #3
ELD TYPE: C
Figure 3.3. Photo of cross-section of one-sided welds with hacking bal"
left in place. (8/96/1-7)
-1-1
Figure 3.4. Photo of cross section of one-sided weld made without a
backing bar. (8/96/1-12)
42
BEAM: A 1 A - 1 ~ 1 -
WELD: #6 "
WELD TYPE: F
Figure 3.4. Photo of cross section of one-sided weld made without a
backing bar. (8/96/1-12)
Figure 3.5. Photo of weld-access hole with fillet weld terminated short of
the edge of the hole. (6/96/3-7)
Figure 3.6. Photo of weld-access hole with fillet weld wrapped around
inside of weld access hole. (6/96/19-4)
43
I
I
J
Figun.' 3.5. Photo of weld-acce.'is hole ",vjih fillet \veid terminated short of
the edge of the hole. (6/96/-',-7)
,I
Figure 3.6. Photo of weld-access hole with fillet weld wrapped around
inside of weld access hole. (6/%/19--+)
Figure 3.7. Photo of beam in test fixture.
(5/96/45-12)
44
Figure 3.7. Photo of beam in test fixture.
(5/l)()/'+5- 12)
Figure 3.8. Closer view of beam in test fixture. (5/96/46-1)
Figure 3.9. Photo of test beam and connection to spreader beam.
(5/96/46-10)
45
Figure 3.8. Closer vicw 01' hcam in tcst fixture. ( ) / 9 ( ) / ~ f ( ) - I)
miji-- ~ ~
~ .
Figure 3.9. Photo of test hcam and conncction to spl"cadcl" hcam.
()/96N6-10)
Figure 3.10. Test beam connected to spreader beam. (7/96117-24A)
Figure 3.11. Pretensioned bolts connecting test beams to supports.
(5/96/46-4)
46
Figure 3.10. Test beam connected to spreader heam. (7/LJ6/ 17-2-1.\)
48
0
48

48
@
~ .
',,--/
~
~ .
@
j ~
(;-";,
,
-
1
"""'.
Figlll'e 3.11. Pretcnsioned holts connecting test heams to supports.
(5/
l
)OIeto-et )
46
Figure 3.12. Photo of hydraulic actuators and
load cells. (5/96/46-7)
47
Figure 3.12. Photo of hydraulic actuators and
load cells. (5/96/J,6 7)
J,7
Figure 3.13. Personal computer used to control
the actuator. (5/9646-2)
48
"-
Figure 3.13. Personal computer used to control
the actuator. (:'i/%-J.6-2)
\
II
II
Strain Gage (Typ.)
::... II
I
I
VlkBeam
l' -0"
Strain Gage (Typ.)
304.8rrm
~
304.8rrm
4' -3"
4' -g"
1295.4rrm
1447.8rrm
-
-I
-
I
I
I
I
d Access Hole ( T Y P . I ~
~ .
.
Wei
Figure 3.14. Typical strain gage layout. (gage.dgn)
49
!.-.
lit
::.
[Strain Gage !Typ. J
~ w e l d Access Hole (Typ.)
Note Top Flange Strain Gage Layout
Shown, Bottom Flange Similar
I
I
V4; Beam
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3.15. Typical strain gage layout. (gage.dgn)
50
"-
~
~
.
~ t - - . .
...............
~
~
............
~
~
~
K
-......:
100
50
-CI:l
a.
~
........-
0
(/J
(/J
Q)
'-
- Cf)
-50
-100
-150 -100 -50 0 50
Load on Actuator (kN)
100 150
Figure 3.16. Comparison of measured and theoretical flange stress as a function
of applied load. (A1A-1\gage1112)
51
60
50
-Cd
a. 40
~
........
~ 30
~
Ci5 20
~ -""'"'
/
--
f-.--'
~
/
"-
/ ~
~
~ ~
//
"'"
v/
"\I'\. /
/
"
10
o
o 500 1000 1500 2000
Distance (mm)
2500 3000
- Calculated Stress - Measured Stress
Figure 3.17. Comparison of measured and calculated stress along flange length.
(TIA-I\length)
52
~
i.:'-...
~
~ ........
~
"""'"
k:::,..
~
~
I ~
~
"'"
~
~
~
""'"
~
0.2
0.1
-
E
E
.........
.c 0
.....
0-
Q)
o
-0.1
-0.2
-60 -40 -20 0 20
Stress (MPa)
40 60
- Calculated Stress - Measured Stress
Figure 3.18. Comparison of measured and calculated stress along depth of
member. (T1A-I\depth2)
53
Figure 3.19. Photo of a typical splice. This test beam has three sets of
splices temporarily repairing cracks. (1/97/12-9)
Figure 3.20 Photograph of a typical crack at the weld toe of a butt weld.
(6/96/20-8)
54
Figure 3.19. Photo of a typical splicc. This test brarn has three sets of
splices temporarily repairing cracks. (I Ill] / 12-9)
t
Figure 3.20 Photognwh of a typical crack at the weld toe of a hutt weld.
(6!96/20-8 )
Figure 3.21. Typical crack at wrap-around fillet weld at the weld-access
hole. (6/96/20-6)
Figure 3.22. Typical crack at detail in which the fillet weld is terminated
short of the weld-access hole. (2/97/1-1)
55
BEAl-1: 11A-2
FILLET WELD NEAR &.
DATE: 6/8/96 '
CYCLES: 8432
4
1
STRE" RA .
" NGE: 95.27 MP,I
Figure 3.21. Typical crack atwrap-armmd fillet vveld at the weld-access
hole. (6/96/20-6)
Figure 3.22. Typical crack at detail in which the fillet weld is terminated
shOl"t of the weld-access hole. (2/97/1-1)
Figure 3.23. Photograph during repair procedure after crack was arc
gouged. (5/96/49-8)
Figure 3.24. Photograph during repair procedure after backing bar was
tack welded to flange. (5/96/49-12)
56
Figure 30230 Photograph during repair procedure at'tel- crack ,vas arc
gouged,
Figure 30240 Photograph during repair procedure after hacking bar was
tad, welded to f1angeo (:'i/96/-l-9-12)
Figure 3.25. Photograph of welder grinding the
edges of the repair weld flush. (5/96/53-9)
57
Figure 3.25. Phoiognlph of "elder gl'inding the
edges of the repair weld flush. (:'i/
l
)6/:'U-
l
))
Figure 3.26. Resulting condition after repairing a crack which propagated
the entire width of the flange. The repair consists of both a wrap-around
fillet weld and a butt weld. (7/96/8-2)
58
Figun: 3.26. Resulting condition after repairing a crack which pn)pagated
the entire width of the flange. The ,"epair consists of hoth a \\Tap-anHlnd
fillet weld and a butt weld. (7fl)6/S-2)
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Groove Welds that are Transverse to the Primary Stress
4.1.1 Fatigue Test Results
Two-sided butt welds are groove welds that are gouged and welded from the
second side, with the weld reinforcement left in place. AWS [9] and AISC [7] classify the
fatigue strength of two-sided butt welds that have been 100 percent ultrasonically tested
as Category C. The fatigue strength for two-sided welds that are not subjected to UT are
not given in either of these codes. British Standards Institute PD 6493 [53] has quality
levels with unique S-N curves. Previous research at the ATLSS Center at Lehigh
University [54] indicates that with worst-case buried weld defects (including incomplete
penetration from not back gouging, porosity, slag inclusions, and hydrogen cracks) up to
20 mm in diameter, butt welds are at worst Category E fatigue strength.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show the fatigue data for the original two-sided welds, with and
without the edges ground flush, respectively. As mentioned previously, these welds were
not subjected to UT, and therefore have a lower quality level and an associated lower
fatigue strength than Category C recommended by AWS for two-sided welds that are
subjected to UT. From Figures 4.1 and 4.2, it can be seen that the AASHTO Category D
line is a lower bound to the data regardless of the edge condition. For reasonable quality
butt welds that are not inspected, Category D seems reasonable since Category E is the
fatigue strength for the worst-case quality welds.
BS 7608 [11] and Eurocode 3 [10] give the fatigue strength of one-sided welds
made with or without a backing bar as the equivalent of AASHTO Category D, if complete
59
penetration is assured. In general one-sided groove welds are not addressed by AISC [7],
AASHTO [1], and AREA [8]. One sided welds made without any backing are prohibited
according to AWS D1.1 (Section 9.12.2). "For dynamically loaded structure," AWS D1.1
requires "steel backing of welds that are transverse to the direction of computed stress" be
removed (Section 3.13.3). Since all types of one-sided welds are not allowed, AWS does
not give the fatigue strength of such welds.
Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the results of one-sided welds without backing, with and
without edges ground flush. One-sided welds without backing refer to welds made with
an open root. This type of weld is known to have notches at the weld's root due to
inadequate penetration as a result of the open root. Typically cracking initiated from the
root. This can be seen in the photographs of cracks which occurred in these welds and
photographs of the fracture surface of such a crack, shown in Figure 4.5 through 4.7. It
can be further observed in Figure 4.8. This photograph shows a cross-section of a cracked
one-sided weld. You will notice in the cross section, that another crack was growing out
of the opposite side of the root but had not yet reached through the thickness. Though the
cracks initiated from a condition that is due to the open root, it can be seen that the
Category D line is also a lower bound for the one sided welds without backing.
The fatigue data for one-sided welds with backing bars left in place, with and
without edges ground flush, respectively are shown in Figures 4.9 and 4.10. Again it can
be seen that the Category Dline is a lower bound for one-sided welds with backing left in
place. Therefore the fatigue strength for all of the one-sided welds is Category D, as
expected based on Eurocode and BS 7608 guidance.
60
Figure 4.11 compares all of the original butt welds grouped according to whether
the edges were ground flush. If there were an effect, it would be expected that it would be
favorable to grind the edges flush. Both type of data appear to belong to the same
distribution, i.e., there does not appear to be any systematic trend in the data. Throughout
the entire test program, only one crack appeared to have initiated at a run out tab that was
not removed. This occurred well over one million cycles, which is better than most welds
with the edges ground flush. It appears that the edge condition is not important with
respect to the fatigue strength of the butt weld. Therefore, in applications where it is
expensive to grind the edges flush, consideration could be given to not grinding the edges
since no improvement in fatigue performance occurs. However, in cases where there is
a stress range gradient and the maximum stress range occurs at the edge of the weld, it is
still a good idea to grind the edges of the weld flush.
The fatigue data for all of the original one-sided welds is shown in Figure 4.12.
This S-N curve compares the welds with backing bars left in place to the one-sided welds
made without backing. The welds without backing attempted to get melt-through or
reinforcement at the weld root. The angle at the toe of this root reinforcement is difficult
to control and in many cases it was steeper than allowable in AWS specifications. The
cracks typically initiated at this toe reinforcement in the one-sided welds without backing.
In looking at the fracture surfaces of cracks in welds with backing bars, such as that
shown in Figure 4.13, it was common to find that the cracks initiated from the backing bar.
The small lines from the side with the backing bar are essentially many small cracks in
different planes which eventuallyjoined together to form the main crack. Even though the
61
cracks initiate from the backing bar, many data points representing original welds with the
backing bar left in place exceed that of the welds without the backing. Therefore, it
appears that the fatigue strength of all one-sided welds is about the same regardless of
whether the backing bar is removed.
It should be noted that a crack of a one-sided weld with backing left in place was
not included in the data. This weld cracked at unusually low cycles due to a large weld
defects and was clearly an outlier from the rest of the data. This weld had very poor fusion
at the backing bar as can be seen by the black line closest to the backing bar in Figure 4.14.
This lack of fusion at the backing bar is a common problem, therefore if it is known that
the backing is to be left in place, care must be taken to assure proper fusion at the backing
bar.
Figure 4.15 compares the fatigue data for all the original two-sided welds to all
original one-sided welds. All of these data seem to have a similar distribution, therefore
no significant difference between two-sided welds without UT and one-sided welds is
observed.
Presumably, if the two-sided welds are carefully inspected and weld defects are
repaired, the fatigue strength could be taken as Category C compared to the original
classification as Category D details. However, this adds considerable expense and may
not be necessary if there are other more severe types of details which control the fatigue
design. Ships, for example, are full of bracket-end details and other details where there
is intersecting structural elements which are typically Category E details. These details
will always crack before splice welds in plating and other butt welds without additional
62
stress concentrations.
From the fatigue tests, it was found that all of the original butt welds have
approximately the same Category D fatigue strength. The lack of sensitivity to the type
of butt weld greatly simplified the rest of the test program since it was not necessary to test
a variety of repair welds types. This finding also simplifies specification of repair welds
and original welds because the weld type can be changed to suit individual circumstances
without affecting the fatigue strength, provided good complete penetration is assured.
Figure 4.16 shows all the original welds grouped according to the two types of steel
used in the flanges. Similarly, Figure 4.17 shows all of the repair welds grouped according
to the flange steel. As expected from previous testing, the type of steel did not make any
difference in the fatigue strength of the original or repair welds.
The fatigue data from all the original butt welds compared to the repaired butt
welds is shown in Figure 4.18. All of the repaired butt welds are two-sided welds with the
edges ground flush. Although a few of the data from the repair welds were slightly below
the Category Dline, the majority of the data show a similar distribution of performance.
Some of the repair welds were made out of position so the slightly poorer life of a few of
the repairs can be rationalized. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no significant
difference between the expected remaining fatigue life of repair weld and the expected
fatigue life of a weld in new construction of equivalent quality. In other words, if it can
be assured that the entire crack is removed, the fatigue life of a butt weld is completely
restored by the gouging and re-welding repair.
Figures 4.19 and 4.20 shows the same data, comparing the original ~ e l d s to either
63
the first or second repair respectively. These figures shows that the repair welds,
regardless of the number of times repaired, have the same djstribution as the original weld.
The multiple cycle repairs were performed primarily on the TMCP steel, which some
agencies suspected to exhibit degraded performance after multiple repairs. There is no
evidence to support this suspicion from the data.
Figure 4.21 shows the data for multiple repairs at one location. The repair data are
separated according to the sequence of the times the detail was repaired. At this one
location, the life of the third repair was on the low end at only 300,000 cycles in
comparison to approximately 500,000 cycles on the first and second repair. However, the
detail was repaired a fourth time and the life of this repair was over 1.1 million cycles.
The low result for the third repair was anomalous and may have been due to incomplete
removal of the crack or due to a severe weld defect. Since the crack was repaired, the
fracture surface could not be examined.
Figure 4.22 also shows multiple repairs at one location and confirms that the repair
welds performas well, if not better than the original or previous repair weld. It is therefore
concluded that multiple cycles of repair are not detrimental to the fatigue strength of
TMCP steel. However, there are other practical limitations on the number of repairs, e.g.,
after three or four repairs at the same location the residual stress increases and weldability
problems arise, such as magnetization.
Figure 4.23 compares full length repair welds to partial length repair weld. As
explained earlier, full length repair welds refer to repairs of cracks which propagated the
full width of the beam. This means that the repair weld ended on the run out tab or an
64
extension of a backing bar. Partial length repair welds were performed on surface cracks
or through-thickness cracks which had only propagated part of the way across the flange.
In this case, the weld preparation was gouged out just beyond where the tip of the crack
was indicated from the dye penetrant test. As can be seen from Figure 4.23 there is no
difference in fatigue strength between partial length and full length repair welds, as long
as it can be assured that the entire crack is removed during the repair. Therefore in cases
where a crack is discovered in aportion of a very large weld such as in a seamin the shell,
it is not necessary to remove the entire length of the original weld. Also, this validates the
results for repairs of cracks which have propagated into the plating, where the partial-
length repair will terminate in an open area of the plating, such as the case in Figure 2.7.
This termination of a butt weld in plating is also used in many insert plate repairs.
Figure 4.24 compares repair welds on beams with flange thickness of 9 rom to
beams with flange thickness of 25 rom. The distribution of data is similar for both
thickness of steel and therefore shows that there is no thickness effect in the range of
typical ship plate thicknesses. If there were an effect, it would be expected to degrade the
fatigue strength of the butt welds in the thicker plate. This effect is due to at least two
phenomena: 1) the greater probability of larger weld defects in the thicker welds; and, 2)
the crack will spend a higher proportion of the fatigue life in the tensile residual stress
zone near the weld toe in the thicker weld. Surprisingly, the fatigue strength of the original
"new" welds in the 25 rom thick flanges tended to be better than the fatigue strength of the
original welds in the 9 rom thick flanges. It is possible that the quality level of the welds
in the thicker plate was better, since these welds were made much later in the research
65
project.
4.1.2 Fracture Mechanics Assessment Based on Measured Initial Discontinuities
Each AASHTO Category has an associated constant-amplitude fatigue limit
(CAFL) which was defined based on experimental observations. By definition, if the
nominal stress range is kept below the CAFL (also called the threshold stress range), the
detail should last an infinite number of cycles. The CAFL for a given initial crack or flaw
) can be calculated using simple principles of linear-elastic fracture mechanics [55]. The
threshold stress range can be calculated using the following equation:
where: L1K
TH
is the stress intensity factor for threshold values, 3 MPa mY' ;
L1(JTH is the threshold stress range, CAFL, MPa;
a is the initial crack or discontinuity size, in meters;
F terms are correction factors, specifically:
Fe is the factor which takes into account crack shape;
F
s
is the factor applied if the crack originates at a free surface;
Fw is a finite width correction; and,
F
g
is a factor which accounts for the effect of nonuniform stresses.
A value of 3 MPa m ~ is commonly used for the threshold stress intensity factor of
structural steels [56]. The equation presented above can be used to verify the CAFL for
a fatigue crack which initiated from a measurable discontinuity.
66
After the specimens were retired from testing, some of the cracks were cut out and
the fracture surfaces were examined to determine the site of fatigue crack initiation. The
initial discontinuities associated with the site of crack initiation were then measured and
idealized as initial cracks. The above equation can then be used to calculate the threshold
stress range based on the typical largest measured initial crack size.
As can be seen in Figures 4.25 and 4.26, the fatigue data appear to have a bimodal
distribution; Le., the majority of the data lie in two distinct groups. One cluster of data lies
between the S-N curves for Category C and Category D. Inspection of the fracture
surfaces indicate that these fatigue cracks initiated from relatively large macroscopic
discontinuities. The other group of data is well above the S-N curve for Category C.
Inspection of the fracture surfaces indicate that these fatigue cracks initiated from very
small (less than 0.25 mm) weld-toe discontinuities. Presumably, if all the welds had been
thoroughly inspected by UT, then the large macroscopic discontinuities would have been
screened out and all of the fatigue cracks would ave initiated from small weld-toe
discontinuities. In this case, the fatigue strength of the butt welds could be taken as
Category C, consistent with AWS Dl.l [9]. A few data points clearly do not belong to
either group and are taken to be outliers.
4.1.2.1 Unacceptable Defects
Out of the 294 data from the fatigue tests only nine data points were considered
outliers, four of which were original welds and five were repair welds. As mentioned
previously, non-destructive evaluation methods, other than visual inspection, were not
67
used to find initial defects or flaws. Most of the defects identified as the site of fatigue
crack initiation for these outliers were surface defects. Such a defect would have been
identified and repaired if a dye penetrant test was performed on the weld prior to loading.
The outliers cracked prematurely at unusually low cycles due to unusually large
weld defects. For example, the fracture surface shown in Figure 4.27 is from a repair weld
which lasted 279,930 cYcle(y0r Category D, a life of 410,500 cycles would be expected
for a stress range of 120 M ~ This fatigue crack has many different discontinuities, but
appears to have initiated at the karkened area near the edge of the flange. This darkened
area is due to exposure of that surface to extreme heat indicating a possible hydrogen
crack. The discontinuity in the fracture surface can be idealized as a edge crack of depth,
a, as shown in Figure 4.28. The darkened area was measured to be 6.4 mm deep. Using
F
s
equal to 1.12 for afree surface crack, all other F factors equal to 1.0, and an initial crack
size, a, equal to the depth of the discontinuity in meters, the threshold stress range is found
to be 19 MPa. This threshold stress range is well below the CAFL of 49 MPa for Category
D and is near the CAFL for Category E'.
Figure 4.29 shows a photo of a repair weld with a relatively low fatigue life of
173,235 cycles, which is approximately 42% of the expected life of Category D for the
given stress range. In examining the fracture surface, the crack appears to have initiated
at the slightly darkened area at the weld toe near the center of the flange. This darkened
area was measured to be 8.7 mm in length and 1.6 mm in depth. This discontinuity can
be idealized as a semi-elliptical surface crack with length 2c and a depth a as sketched in
Figure 4.30.
68
The F factors for asemi-elliptical surface crack can be found in PD 6493 [53]. The
equation for threshold intensity-factor for a semi-elliptical surface crack in PD 6493 is as
follows:
where M
m
and cI> are determined graphically and all other variables are as defined earlier.
The crack shape factor Fe is essentially equal to the reciprocal of the elliptic integral, cI>.
M
m
takes into account both the finite width correction, F
w
' and the free surface correction,
For the outlier shown in Figure 4.29, with alB equal to 0.17 and al2e equal to 0.18,
M
m
is determined graphically to be 1.125. For an ale equal to 0.37, cI> is 1.133. Using
these factors, F
g
of 1.0, and an initial depth of 1.6 mIn, the threshold stress range is found
to be 43 MPa, which is just below Category D threshold stress range.
The fracture mechanics evaluation of the outliers, which were clearly evident from
the statistical distribution of the fatigue data points, shows that large defects' must be
identified and eliminated through methods of simple non-destructive evaluation.
4.1.2.2 Acceptable Macroscopic Discontinuities
Disregarding the outliers, the group of data which lies between the S-N curves for
Category C and Category Drepresents the welds which lasted the lowest number of cycles
and define the lower bound of AASHTO Category D. These welds would presumably
69
have measurable discontinuities which would relate to the CAFL of Category D. Some
of these welds were identified and discontinuities were measured.
Figure 4.31 shows a photo of the fracture surface of a one-sided weld with a
backing bar left in place, with edges ground flush. This weld is an original weld with the
shortest fatigue life (disregarding outliers) of 446,792 cycles, which just over the number
of cycles expected for Category D. A blackened area can be seen near the backing bar
indicating lack of fusion with the backing bar. As mentioned previously, this is common
to find in welds with a backing bar left in place. This discontinuity was measured to be
0.8 mmthick for the length of the weld. Because the discontinuity is throughout the length
of the weld, this initial discontinuity can be idealized as an edge crack. For an initial crack
size of 0.8 mm, F
s
equal to 1.12 for a free surface crack, and all other F factors equal to
1.0, the threshold stress range is found to be 53 MPa. The CAFL for Category D of 49
MPa is a suitable lower bound and therefore verifies the conclusion that such a weld is an
AASHTO Category D detail.
The fracture surface of a one-sided weld made with an open root, with edges
ground flush is shown in Figure 4.32. This weld is another original weld with a rather
short fatigue life of 480,534 cycles. The crack appears to have initiated at the darkened
area at the root near the center of the weld. This inital crack can be idealized as a semi-
elliptical surface crack 6.4 mm in length and 1.6 mm in depth. For such an initial crack
size, with alB equal to 0.17 and a/2e equal to 0.25, M
m
is 1.1. For an ale equal to 0.5, (/J
is 1.21. Using these factors, all other F factors equal to 1.0, and an initial crack depth of
1.6 mm, the threshold stress range is calculated to be 47 MPa, which is near the CAFL for
70
CategoryD.
Figure 4.33 "is a photo of a fracture surface in which the discontinuity causing
initiation may also be idealized as a semi-elliptical edge crack. In this case, the crack
occurred after 697,915 cycles in a repair weld. The discontinuity was measured to be 5.6
mm in length and 0.8 mm in depth. Again, using the graphs in PD 6493, M
m
is determined
to be 1.11 for an alB of 0.08 and a12e of 0.14. For an ale of 0.29, ep is 1.09. Using these
factors, along with an F
g
of 1.0, in the threshold intensity factor equation with an initial
flaw size of 0.8 mrn, the threshold stress range is found to be 59 MPa, which is between
the CAFL for Category C and D.
The fracture surface of a repair weld with a fatigue life of 619,365 cycles is shown
in Figure 4.34. This fatigue life appears to be average in comparison to the other repair
welds. There are a few different flaws on the fracture surface of this repair weld, but the
largest flaw can be idealized as an embedded semi-elliptical crack, as sketched in Figure
4.35. For an embedded semi-elliptical crack with 2a1(2a+2p) equal to 0.2 and a12c equal
to 0.11, M
m
is found to be 1.02. ep is 1.06 for an ale of 0.21. With F
g
equal to 1.0 and an
initial flaw size of 0.6 mm, a threshold stress range of 72 MPa, is calculated. This
threshold stress range is just above the CAFL for Category C.
In general, fracture mechanics assessment of the fatigue cracks which initiated
from a measurable discontinuity produced reasonable threshold stress range results. These
threshold stress ranges agreed with the AASHTO Category Dfound from the fatigue tests.
71
4.1.2.3 Microscopic Weld Toe Discontinuities
For the examples presented above there were measurable discontinuities which
could be identified as the site of initiation for the fatigue crack. When the discontinuities
are measurable, linear-elastic fracture mechanics reasonably predicts the CAFL of the
fatigue test data. However, linear-elastic fracture mechanics does not work very well for
small values of a. This can be seen in calculating the threshold stress range for the fracture
surfaces shown in Figures 4.36 and 4.37. These repair welds lasted 1,623,346 and 638,566
cycles, respectively, which is greater than Category C, as expected for weld toe
discontinuities. These fracture surfaces show no single measurable discontinuity. In both
instances, the crack seems to have had multiple sites of initiation, which is indicated by
the many tiny cracks that can be seen growing from the weld toe. These tiny cracks
eventuallyjoined together to form the final fatigue crack. The discontinuities that initiated
these tiny cracks can only be detected with a microscope. Typical weld toe discontinuities
were studied at Lehigh University and found to be 0.02 mm in size for SMAW [57].
The multiple small initiations in Figure 4.36 can be idealized as a semi-elliptical
surface crack with a length of 38.1 mm, which is the length where the tiny cracks can be
seen, and a depth of 0.02 mm as established by the typical flaw size at the weld toe for this
welding process. For an alB value of 0.002 and al2c value of 0.00052, M
m
is 1.125 and
([> is 1.0. Using these two factors along with an F
g
of 2.5 because of the stress
concentration at the weld toe, the threshold stress range is found to be 134 MPa.
In Figure 4.37, the tiny cracks can be seen across the length of the weld. In this
case, the multiple small initiations can be idealized as an edge crack with an initial crack
72
size equal to the typical weld toe flaw size for this welding process. Using an F
s
equal to
1.12 for "a free surface crack, F
g
of 2.5 because of the stress concentration at the weld toe,
and all other F factors equal to 1.0, the threshold stress range is found to be 135 MPa.
The threshold stress ranges calculated in these two examples larger than, but
reasonably consistent with the CAFL for AASHTO Category C, which is 70 MPa.
In general, when the defect size was microscopic, the fracture mechanics approach
to calculating the threshold stress range for the fatigue crack proved to be less effective.
The threshold stress range calculated from the threshold intensity factor equation predicted
a CAFL well above the fatigue limit corresponding to the AASHTO Category D found
through fatigue testing.
The examples using fracture mechanics to assess the fatigue limit presented above
are summarized in Table 4.1.
4.2 Weld Access Holes
Cracks often occur at the ratholes or weld-access holes in the longitudinals [58].
This was the type of cracking discussed by Rolfe et. al. [59] for TAPS trade tankers.
Because the shell is cracking, these are obviously critical cracks. The continuous fillet
welds joining longitudinals to the shell are not fatigue critical, however the terminations
of these welds at weld-access holes or drain holes is often critical. In the AASHTO [1],
AISC [7], AWS [9], and AREA [8] codes, details with terminations of longitudinal fillet
welds are Category E details. (AISC specifications also require that the longitudinal fillet
welds stop short of the edge of the access hole.) However, the British code BS 7608 [11]
73
indicated that weld-access holes are the equivalent of Category D details.
. Figure 4.38 shows the results from cracks which occurred at the edges of weld-
access holes and compares the results for welds which were terminated 9.5 mm short of
the weld-access holes versus welds which wrapped around the inside of the weld-access
hole. Both termination details have a definite stress concentration at the toe where the
fillet weld either ends or wraps around the inside of the access hole. It was expected that
in comparing the two details, the wrap-around fillet welds would have a lower fatigue life.
This was expected because in the case of the wrap-around fillet welds, not only do you
have the weld toe as an area from which a crack is likely to initiate, but there is also a stop-
start area where the welder made the fillet weld as far around the web at the access hole
and then had to pick up the rod and start again from the other side of the beam.
However, contrary to expectations, Figure 4.38 shows that the data are equally
distributed for both the wrap-around and stop-short details, and the fatigue strength is
consistent with Category D. Therefore there appears to be no difference between
termination details at the weld-access hole.
Though the data show no difference between the termination detail, it is still
believed that it is preferable to terminate the fillet weld short of the weld-access hole. This
recommendation is made because it is difficult to assure that there are no discontinuities
at the point where the weld was stopped and started from the other side. However, in the
special case of biaxial loading if there are tensile stress ranges perpendicular to the fillet
weld, such as vertical stress ranges in the web, the welds that stop short create a notch and
should be avoided.
74
If a wrap-around weld is used, the weld-access hole should be of sufficient size so
. that the weld toe of the fillet weld does not coincide with the butt weld or the heat-affected
zone of the butt weld. Just recently, an alternative detail for access and drain holes was
explained by Hajime Kawano from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). The MHI detail,
i
shown in the sketch in Figure 4.39, is continuous fillet welds which continue past the edge
of the hole as just weld beads on the plate. The fillet welds run right over the groove weld
and reinforcement.
Figure 4.40 compares the original wrap-around fillet welds to the repair wrap-
around fillet welds. The wrap-around repair welds seem to have slightly lower average
fatigue life than the original wrap-around welds. This is due to the fact that the cracks
propagated into the flanges, and therefore the repairs also include some partially gouged
out and re-welded part of the flange. Thus, it is difficult to establish a direct comparison
between the performance of the repair weld and the original weld. In any case, the
Category D line is a suitable lower bound for all the weld-access hole details.
Figure 4.41 shows the results for cracks which appeared at the apex of the weld-
access hole. These web cracks only occurred after the cracking of the flange. When the
flange was completely severed, the stress range increased substantially on the web at the
apex of the weld-access hole. The stress range plotted in Figure 4.41 is the nominal stress
range at that location from the neutral axis if the flange is fully intact. Therefore, the data
appear to give a fatigue strength below Category D and may therefore represent an overly
conservative estimate of performance. Also, the fatigue life depends somewhat on the life
of the associated butt weld. Therefore, these data cannot be used directly. However, a
75
useful relative comparison can be made in the life of the web cracks that were repaired.
In this case, the original condition was of base plate with a flame-cut edge while the repair
was a groove weld in the web terminated at a 25-mm diameter hole that was drilled to its
final diameter after the welding. It would be expected that the repairs would have lower
fatigue strength because of the addition of the weld repair compared to the presence of
uniform metal in the original detail. However, it can be seen that the repairs are no worse
than the initial condition.
76
Figure a c Type of Crack Cycles to %of Calc.
# Idealization Failure Minirnrn CAFL
(rnrn) (mrn) Expected (MPa)
Life
4.27 6.4 N/A Edge 279,930 68 19
Outliers
4.29 1.6 4.35 Semi-elliptical 173,235 42 43
Edge
4.31 0.8 N/A Edge 446,792 109 53
Macroscopic
. 4.32
1.6 3.2 Semi-elliptical 480,534 117 47
Discontinuities
Edge
(Category D)
4.33 0.8 2.8 Semi-elliptical 697,915 170 59
Edge
4.34 0.6 2.8 Embedded 619,365 151 72
Elliptical
Weld-Toe 4.36 0.02 19.05 Semi-elliptical 1,623,346 198 134
Microscopic Edge
Discontinuities
(Category C)
4.37 0.02 N/A Edge 638,566 78 135
Table 4.1. Summary of fracture mechanics analysis of discontinuities.
77
2-Sided, w/Reinf, w/Edges Ground Flush
1000..---------------------,
!:> AH36
o API-2W
100
Q)
0>
@ 100
a:
en
en
Q)
....
-
Cf)
en
~
Q)
0>
C
co
a:
10 en
en
Q)
....
-
Cf)
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
r Indicates no crack
10 +---'----'--J.....J-l...J...J....L.i----'----'---'--'-'-.w..y..--'---'---'--L.l....1...L.Lf----'--'-'-..............l..J.I-----'
10
4
Figure 4.1. S-N Curve showing the fatigue data for the original two-sided welds,
with reinforcement, with edges ground flush. (welda.set)
78
2-Sided, wi Reinf., w/o Edges Grnd Flush
1000
t::.
AH-36
0
APl2W
100
m
a..
(J)
~
~
Q)
Q)
C>
0>
C
C
100
m
m
a:
a:
10
(J)
(J) (J)
(J) Q)
Q) ~
~
-
-
(j)
(J)
10 -!-----'--'-.L...L..J-W-Lj-----'---'---'L-J.....L..J....L..l.f_--'---'---'---'-'-'-'-4-_...J...-.L.....J......L...1.-L.J....L.t----'
104 10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
Figure 4.2. S-N curve showing the fatigue data for the original two-sided welds,
with reinforcement, without edges ground flush. (weldb.set)
79
1-Sided, w/o Backing, w/Edges Grnd Flush
,. Indicates no crack
1000
/::,
AH-36
0
API-2W
100
~
0-
en
~
~
CD
Q)
C>
0)
C
C
100
en
~
a:
a:
10
en
en en
en
CD
Q) ~
lo...
-
-
(f)
Cf)
10 +-----'----'-.L....J-J.-l....U...f-----'-...L....J.--'-'-.l....U.f-_-'--..L.......l.....J.....W..J...L+-_-'----'L........1-.L...J....L..'-'+-----J
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
Figure 4.3. S-N curve showing the fatigue data for original one-sided welds made
without the backing bar, with the edges ground flush. (weldf.set)
80
1-Sided, w/o Back, w/oEdges Grnd Flush
1000,--------------------------,
t::. AH-36
o API-2W
100
Q)
0)
~ 100
0:
en
en
Q)
'-
.....
Cf)
"w
~
Q)
0)
c
ro
0:
--------------------------c
5
10 ~
---- ------------------- ~
.....
____ _ ~ Cf)
10 +---'---'-..1-1-U-J.J.-!---'--'--I-J.-J....L.J..1..if---'--....L........l.-'-'-J...J.-.e+--'---'--'---'-'-'-'-'-!-----'
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
Figure 4.4. S-N curves showing the fatigue data for original one-sided welds,
made without a backing bar, without the edges ground flush. (weIde.set)
81
"-
Figure 4.5. Photograph of crack at the root of an original one-sided
weld made without a backing bar with the edges ground flush.
(7/96/11-7)
,....,.....,...."...,....,=
Figure 4.6. Photograph of crack at the root of an original one-sided weld
made without a backing bar without the edges ground flush. (5/96/54-1)
82
FigUl'e 4.5. Photograph of crack at the foot of an original one-sided
weld made without a backing bar \\ith thc' edges ground nush.
(7/9611 1-7)
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ; : - : - c ~
Figure 4.6. Photograph of crack at the root of an original one-sided weld
made without a backing bal' "ithout the edges ground flush, L'i/
l
)61S-t-1 )
l> -,
n.-:,.
Figure 4.7. Photograph of a fracture surface of a crack in a one-sided
weld made without a backing bar, without edges ground flush. Note that
the root of this particular weld is nearest to the web. (6/96/10-14)
83
B[/\t'i Ai!\
WElD
DI\ 11.; i
CYC!.FS:).j
STPfS5 I i'lP,\
Figure 4.7. Photograph of a fractm-e su.-face of a crack in a one-sided
weld made without a backing bar, without edges ground flush. Note that
the root of this particular weld is nearest to the web. (6/06/ IO-l-J.)
03
BEAM': AlA.of
WELD: #5
W E L ~ TYPE: E
Figure 4.8. Cross-section of a cracked one-sided weld made without a
backing bar, with edges ground flush. Notice the crack on the right side
of the root which was not yet through thickness. (8/96/1-10)
84
B
~ : .
JC',
WELD: #5
YiELD TYPE: E
Figure 4.8. Cross-section of a cracked one-sided weld made without a
hacking bar, with edges ground flush. Notice the crack on the dght side
of the root which was not yet through thickness. (8/96/ I-I 0)
84
1-Sided, wi Backing, wi Edges Grnd Flush
1000
b.
AH36
0
API-2W
100
ro
en
(L
~
.::.
Q.)
Q.) O'l
O'l C
C
100
ro
ro 0:
0:
10
en
en
en
en
Q.)
Q.)
....
.....
....
Cf) .....
Cf)
.r- Indicates no crack
10 -!---'----'-.J-L-Jc...w....L.+-----'--J.......J-J...J....w....Lf---'---'---'--'--'-'u...<+--'--'---'-.1...J....l..J-<+----'
104 105 106 10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
Figure 4.9. S-N curve showing the fatigue data for original one-sided welds with
backing bar left in place with edges ground flush. (weldd.set)
85
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
1-Sided, w/Backing, w/o Edges Grnd Flush
1000
l!.
AH-36
0
API-2W
100
ro
0- en
~
oX:
Q)
Q)
C'l
C'l
C
C
100
co
ro
a:
a:
10
en
en en
en Q)
Q) l-
I-
-
-
(J)
Cf)
10 +-----'---L-.1...-1-Ju...J....l.t------'---'--'--'-'-.L..U-t---'---'---'--'--'-'..J....l.f---'--'---'-J...J....I...J...L.j---J
10
4
Figure 4.10. S-N curve showing the fatigue data for original one-sided welds with
backing bar left in place, without edges ground flush. (weIde. set)
86
Original Welds vs. Second Repair Welds
1 0 0 0 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~
[; Original Welds
o Second Repair Weld
Q)
0>
@ 100
a:
en
en
Q)
l-
-
(f)
10 .j---'---'--'-'-.J...J....WL+---'---'--'--'-.L..J....l..JL+-----'-----'--'-'-l...J...W+------'-----'--'--'-.L..J....l..J+__----'
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
100
en
.:s:.
Q)
0>
C
m
a:
10
en
en
Q)
l-
-
(f)
Figure 4.20. S-N curve comparing all of the original butt welds to the second
repairs of butt welds. (compof_2.set)
96
Multiple Repairs at One Location
1000,------------------------,
6 Original Weld
... Repair Weld #2
o Repair Weld #1
Repair Weld #3
o Repair Weld #4
100
(1)
0>
@ 100
a:
en
en
(1)
....
-
Cf)
en
~
(])
C>
c
ro
a:
__________________________C 10 en
en
(])
....
-
(J)
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
10 -!----'----'---'-'-I...J....L..l-!---'----'--'-'-J....J....U-!---'----'----'-I...J....L..l+--'----'--'-'-.u....L.J+---J
10
4
Figure 4.21. S-N curve comparing the multiple repairs at one location. (#4reps.set)
97
Multiple Repairs at One Location
1000,--------------------------,
6 Original Weld
A Second Repair Weld
o First Repair Weld
Third Repair Weld
Q)
C>
ffi 100
CC
(J)
(J)
Q)
l-
+-'
(J)
~ Indicates no crack
10 -l----'---'---'--'-....L..J....l-'+------J'----'---'-'-'-'-.L.I.f---'--.L......J...-'-'-'"""'-'-t----'---'---'--'--'--'-'--Y'------'
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
100
(J)
~
Q)
C>
C
S
CC
10 (J)
(J)
Q)
l-
+-'
(J)
Figure 4.22. S-N curve comparing multiple repairs at another single location.
(#5reps.set)
98
Full Length vs. Partial Length Repairs
1000,.-----------------------,
t. Full Length Repairs
o Partial Length Repairs
100
ro
0.. en
~
~
Q)
Q)
0>
0>
C
C
100
ro
ro
cr:
cr:
en
10
en
en
en
Q)
Q) ....
....
-
-
Cf)
Cf)
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
10-l----'-----'-..J........L....L..J....L..,+-----'-----'-..J........L....L..J....L..'+-----'-----'-..J........L....L..J....L..'+-----'-----'--'-'-..L..J....L..,+-----l
10
4
Figure 4.23. S-N curve comparing full length repair welds to partial length repair
welds. (length.set)
99
9 mm VS. 25 mm Flange Repair Welds
1000-,--------------------------,
/:, 9 mm Flange
o 25 mm Flange
Q)
C>
@ 100
a:
en
en
Q)
l-
-
U)
10 .J---'-----'-..J......J....J...J....L..J,+------'-----'-..J......J.....w...J-J,+----'-----'--'--'-J...J....L..J,+---'--'--'--'-.J....J...J...Lf-----'
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Number of Cycles
100
en
~
Q)
C>
C
(\j
a:
10 en
en
Q)
l-
-
U)
Figure 4.24. S-N curve comparing repair welds on beams 9 mm flange thickness
to beams with 25 mm flange thickness. (inchrep.set)
100
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
Original Welds
1000
t::.
AH36
0
API2W
100
ro
0..
CJ)
~
~
Q)
Q)
0>
0>
~ ~ . C
C
100
ro
ro
a:
a:
CJ)
10
CJ)
CJ)
CJ)
Q)
Q) ....
....
-
-
(f)
(f)
10.j-----'-----'--'--'-.1-L.1-'-f------'-----'--'--'-.LJ...1..l.j-----'-----'--'--'-J...J...J-l.j-----'-----'--'--'-.L..J....L.J'-f-----.J
10
4
Figure 4.25. S-N curve comparing the two types of steel for all of the original
welds. Notice the bimodal distribution. (origout.set)
101
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
Repair Welds
1000
t,
AH36
0
API2W
100
ct1
0.. (J)
~
~
Q)
Q)
0)
0)
~ C
C
100
ct1
ct1
a:
a:
(J)
10
(J)
(J)
(J)
Q)
Q)
"-
....
-
-
(J)
(J)
Figure 4.26. S-N curve comparing the two types of steel for the repair welds.
Notice the bimodal distribution. (repout.set)
102
Figure 4.27. Photograph of the fracture surface with large discontinuities.
Notice the darkened area near the edge of the flange. (5/97/1-7)
01 V
-
Figure 4.28. Sketch of edge crack idealization. (edge.dgn)
103
'. '.' I
..
4.27. Photograph of the fracture surface with lan-ge discontinuities.
Notice the darkened area near t he edge of the flange. (5/97/ i -7)
---.-
.. ----.. -.---__
Figure 4.28. Sketch of edge crack idealization. (cdgc.dgnl
lin
BEAM: AlA3
WELD: #6
DATE: 9112196
CYCLES: 173235
STRESS RANGE: 120.71.lPa
Figure 4.29. Photograph of a fracture surface of a repair weld. Notice the
dark grey area at weld toe near the center of the flange. (2/97/7-7A)
2c
B
Figure 4.30. Sketch of semi-elliptical surface crack idealization.
(semiedge.dgn)
104
Wrap Around Fillet Welds at Access Holes
1000..------------------------,
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
6 Original Welds
o Repair Welds
Q)
O'l
~ 100
a:
en
en
Q)
....
-
(J)
10.j-----'---'-..J.......J..J-W..'+-----'---'-..J.......J..J-W..,+-----'---'--'--'--'-l....L..,+----l..-'---'--'-.J....W.J..j------J
10
4
100
en
~
Q)
O'l
C
('(j
a:
10 en
en
Q)
....
-
(J)
Figure 4.40. S-N curve comparing the original wrap-around fillet welds to the
repair wrap-around fillet welds at weld-access holes. (compwrap.set)
111
\
Cracks From Top of Weld-Access Hole
1000,------------------------,
6. Original Steel
o Repair Welds
100
(l)
Ol
@ 100
a:
en
en
(l)
....
+-'
(J)
en
~
(l)
Ol
C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C CO
a:
-- 9 10 en
en
(l)
....
+-'
(J)
10
6
10
7
Number of Cycles
Figure 4.41. S-N curve showing the fatigue data for the cracks which appeared at
the top of the weld-access hole. (compweb.set)
112
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A literature search and industry survey were carried out to identify ship structural
details which are frequently in need of repair, prioritize typical repair weld details for
testing, and gather any available data on the fatigue perfonnance of repair welds. Large-
scale fatigue tests were carried out on welded built-up I beams with a variety of butt welds
in the flanges and weld-access holes in the webs. Almost 300 fatigue cracks were
generated at these details. Most of these cracks were repaired and cracked again,
sometimes several times. The conclusions from this research are as follows.
1. Only three previous studies were identified where large-scale fatigue tests were
conducted on repair welds. These studies were on particular details which were
not necessarily relevant to ship structure.
2. Three ship structural details were identified as having the greatest need for fatigue
testing of repair welds: 1) longitudinal to transverse web frame details; 2) bracket
toe details; and, 3) butt welds and associated weld-access holes. Butt welds and
weld-access holes were chosen for testing because this detail was the least cost to
test and a large statistical sample of data could be generated.
3. Butt welds typically develop cracks at the toe of the weld reinforcement. The
fatigue strengths of various types of butt welds that are not ultrasonically-tested are
all AASHTO Category D, regardless of the type of steel, whether they are two-
113
sided or one-sided welds, with and without backing, and with and without the
edges ground flush.
4. Weld-access holes typically develop cracks at the termination of the longitudinal
fillet welds. The fatigue strength of the weld-access holes, regardless of the type
of termination detail, is AASHTO Category D.
5. Splice plates attached with C-clamps and drilled holes at the tips of fatigue cracks
make excellent temporary repairs which can last for the equivalent of several
months of ship operating time.
6. Repair welds have a fatigue strength which is the same as that of the original welds
of the same configuration. Therefore if a crack is completely removed, a full-
penetration repair weld completely restores the fatigue life of a cracked butt weld.
The cyclic loading prior to a repair apparently has no effect on the fatigue life of
the repair.
7. Repair welds on 25 mm thick flange beams have a fatigue strength which is the
same as that of the repair welds on 9 nun thick flange beams. Therefore, within
the range of common ship plate thicknesses, there is no observed thickness effect
on the fatigue strength of butt weldsincluding repair welds.
114
8. Multiple cycles of repair, up to four repairs, did not have any detrimental effect on
the restored fatigue strength, even on the Thermomechanically Controlled Process
(TMCP) steel.
9. Fracture mechanics analysis using the threshold stress intensity factor and
measured discontinuities, adequately predicts the Constant Amplitude Fatigue
Limit (CAFL) for butt welds.
Further data are required to broaden the scope of this research. For example, full-
scale fatigue tests should be conducted on large models of the other two ship structural
details which were ranked high in importance, i.e.: 1) longitudinal to transverse web-
frame connection; and, 2) bracket toe details. The original fatigue strength of these details
is not well known and the fatigue strength of various repairs should be determined,
including: 1) only drilling a stop hole; 2) typical weld repairs; and, 3) modifying the detail
to upgrade the fatigue strength.
It is known from studies on bridges that hole drilling is an effective way to arrest
fatigue cracks and is considered to be a superior alternative to weld repairing the crack.
In the tests reported herein, hole drilling was also found to be effective, providing the hole
diameter was large enough. Despite the experimental evidence of the effectiveness and
the obvious economic advantage, there is significant resistance to drilling stop holes
without welding which results from a mindset that cracks must be welded. A systematic
study of the effectiveness of hole drilling in various details should be carried out to
115
develop quantitative guidelines for hole drilling and to establish confidence in this
technique in the ship industry.
Guidelines and examples for design of fatigue-resistant ship repairs and a method
for calculating the remaining fatigue life after repair should be prepared.
116
6.0 REFERENCES
[1] AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, First Edition,
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
[2] Fisher, l.W., Frank, K.H., Hirt, M.A., and McNamee, B.M., Effect of
Weldment on the Fatigue Strength of Steel Beams, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 102,
Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C.,1970.
[3] Fisher, l.W., Albrecht, P.A., Yen, B.T., Klingerman, D.l., and
McNamee, B.M., Fatigue Strength of Steel Beams with Welded
Stiffeners and Attachments, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 147, Transportation Research Board,
[4] Maddox, S.1., Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures, 2nd Edition,
Abington Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 1991.
[5] Petershagen, R., and Zwick, W., Fatigue Strength of Butt Welds Made
by Different Welding Processes, llW-Document XllI-I048-82, 1982.
[6] Petershagen, R., The Influence of Undercut on the Fatigue Strength of
Welds - A Literature Survey, Welding in the World, Vol. 28, No. 7/8,
pp.29-36, 1990.
[7] American Institute of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor
Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Second Edition,
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Chicago, 1994.
[8] AREA Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 15: Steel Structures,
American Railway Engineering Association, 1996.
[9] American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code - Steel,
ANSIIAWS D1.1-96, AWS, Miami, 1996.
[10] ENV 1993-1-1, "Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures - Part 1.1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings", European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels, April 1992.
[11] BS 7608, "Code of Practice for Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel
Structures", British Standards Institute, London, 1994.
117
[12] American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for Fatigue Strength Assessment
of Tankers, ABS, New York, June 1 9 9 ~ .
[13] UK Health & Safety Executive (formerly the UK Dept of Energy),
Fatigue Design Guidance for Steel Welded Joints in Offshore
Structures, H.M.S.O., London, 1984.
[14] Petershagen, H., Fatigue Problems in Ship Structures, Advances in
Marine Structures, Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 281-304,
1986.
[15] Malakhoff, A., Packard, W.T., Engle, A.H., and Sielski, RA., Towards
Rational Surface Ship Structural Design Criteria, Advances in Marine
Structures - 2, C.S. Smith and RS. Dow, (eds), Elsevier Applied
Science, London, pp. 495-528, 1991.
[16] Liu, D., and Thayamballi, A., "Local Cracking in Ships- Causes,
Consequences, and Control", Proceedings: Workshop and Symposium
on the Prevention of Fracture in Ship Structure, March 30-31, 1995,
Washington, D.C., Marine Board, Committee on Marine Structures,
National Research Council, 1996.
[17] Jordan, C.R and Krumpen, R.P., Jr., Design Guide for Ship Structural
Details, SSC-331, Ship Structure Committee, Washington D.C., 1985.
[18] Antoniou, A.C., A Survey of Cracks in Tankers Under Repair, PRADS-
International Symposium on Practical Design in Shipbuilding, Tokyo,
October 1977.
[19] White, GJ. and Ayyub, B.M., Reliability-Based Fatigued Design for
Ship Structures, Naval Engineers Journal, pp. 135-149, May 1987.
[20] Jordan, C.R and Krumpen, RP. Jr., Performance of Ship Structural
Details, Welding Journal, pp. 18-28, January, 1984.
[21] Clarke, J.D., Fatigue Crack Initiation and Propagation in Warship Hulls,
Advances in Marine Structures - 2, C.S. Smith and RS. Dow, (eds),
Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 42- 60, 1991.
[22] Rolfe, S.T., Hays, K.T., and Henn, A.E., "Fracture Mechanics
Methodology for Fracture Control in VLCC's", Ship Structures
Symposium '93, November 16-17, 1993, Arlington VA, available from
SNAME, Jersey City, NJ, 1993.
118
[23] Fisher, J.W., et. al., "Development of Advanced Double Hull Concepts,
Phase I.3a, Structural Failure M o d ~ s : Fatigue", Final Report for
Cooperative Agreement N00014-91-CA-0001, Vo1.3a, TDL 91-01,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, March 1993.
[24] "Reference List: Repair," International Institute of Welding, July 1995.
[25] Gregory, E.N., Slater, G., and Woodley, C.c., "Welded Repair of Cracks
in Steel Bridge Members" National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 321, Transportation Research Board, October 1989.
[26] Fisher, J.W., Hausammann, H., Sullivan, M.D., and Pense, A.W.,
"Detection and Repair of Fatigue Damage in Welded Highway Bridges"
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 206,
Transportation Research Board, June 1979.
[27] Dexter, RJ., and Kelly, B.A. "Methodology to Establish the Adequacy
of Weld Repairs", Interim Report Project No. 17556, submitted to Ship
Structure Committee, Edison Welding Institute, November 1995.
[28] Paliy, a.M., "Experimental Results on the Fatigue Life of Structural
Details", Lloyd's Register Ship Division Seminar: Detail Design-The
Key to Success or Failure of Ships, Lloyd's Register Ship Division,
London, July 26, 1995.
[29] "Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures", DNV Technical Report No.
93-0432, August, 1994.
[30] ANSI!AWS D3.5-85, Guide for Steel Hull Welding, American Welding
Society, Miami, 1985.
[31] Guidance Manual for the Inspection and Condition Assessment of
Tanker Structures, issued by: International Chamber of Shipping and
Oil Companies International Marine Forum, on behalf of Tanker
Structure Co-operative Forum, published by Witherby and Co. Ltd.,
London, England, 1986.
[32] Condition Evaluation and Maintenance of Tanker Structures, Tanker
Structure Co-operative Forum, published by Witherby & Co. Ltd.,
London, England, 1992.
[33] Guidelines for the Inspection and Maintenance of Double Hull Tanker
Structures, issued by: Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum, published
by Witherby and Co. Ltd., London, England, 1995.
119
[34] Watkinson, E, Bodger, P.H., and Harrison, J.D., "The Fatigue Strength
of Welded Joints and Methods for Its Improvement", Proceedings.
Conference on Fatigue of Welded Structures, The Welding Institute,
1971.
[35] Fisher, J.W., and Dexter, RJ., "Weld Improvement and Repair for
Fatigue Life Extension", Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference
(OMAE), 20-24 June 1993, Salama et al Eds., ASME, Vol. ill, Part B,
Materials Engineering, pp. 875-882, 1993.
[36] Fisher, lW., and Dexter, RJ., "Weld Improvement for Fatigue Life
Extension," AWSIWIC International Conference on Fatigue, Toronto, 9-
10 May, pp. 82-87, 1994.
[37] Booth, G.S., "A Review of Fatigue Strength Improvement Techniques,"
Improving the Fatigue Performance of Welded Joints, Welding Institute,
pp.5-1O.
[38] Knight, lW., "Improving the Fatigue Strength of Fillet Welded Joints
by Grinding and Peening," Welding Institute Report, 81l976/E, 1976.
[39] Graf, 0., "Versuche uber das Verhalten von Genietten und
Geschweissten Stossen in Tragern 130 ASW ST37 bei oftmals
Wiederholter Belastung," Der Stahlbau, Berlin-Wilmersdorf, Germany,
January 1977.
[40] Yamada, K. And Albrecht, P., "Fatigue Behavior of Two Flange
Details," Journal of the Structural Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 103, No. ST4, April 1977.
[41] Hausammann, H., Fisher, J.W., and Yen, B.T., "Effect of Peening on
Fatigue Life of Welded Details," ASCE Proceedings. W. H. Munse
Symposium on Behavior of Metal Structures - Research to Practice,
1983.
[42] Harrison, J.D., "Further Techniques for Improving the Fatigue Strength
of Welded Joints," British Welding Journal, Volume 13, No. 11, 1966.
[43] Dexter, R.J., Norris, E.B., Shick, W.R., and Watson, P.D. "Performance
of Underwater Weldments", Report SSC-335, Ship Structure
Committee, September 1990.
120
[44] Grubbs, K. and Zanis, C., "Underwater Repair Procedures for Ship Hulls
(Fatigue and Ductility of Underwater Wet Weld)", Report SSC-370,
Ship Structure Committee, May 1993.
[45] Proceedings, International Conference on Underwater Welding, March
20-21, 1991, New Orleans, LA., American Welding Society, Miami, FL,
1991.
[46] Wylde, lG., "The Fatigue Performance of Repaired Fillet Welds", The
Welding Institute, Abington, Cambridge, England, May 1983.
[47] Caramelli, S., Croce, P., Froli, M., and Sanpaolesi, L., "Repair
Techniques for the Rehabilitation of Fatigue Cracked Orthotropic Steel
Bridges," Proceedings IABSE Workshop: Evaluation of Existing Steel
and Composite Bridges, Lausanne, pp. 161-169, 1997.
[48] Fisher, lW., Barthelemy, B.M., Mertz, D.R., and Edinger, lA., Fatigue
Behavior of Full Scale Welded Bridge Attachments, Transportation
Research Board, NCHRP 227, 1980.
[49] Fisher, J.W., and Mertz, D.R., "Hundreds of Bridges, Thousands of
Cracks", Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 5, No.4, 1985.
[50] Lai, L.L-Y, "Fatigue Cracks at Stringer-Floorbeam Connections",
Building an International Community of Structural Engineers, Vol. 1,
Proceedings of Structures Congress XN, April 15-18, 1996, Chicago,
IL, Eds. S. K. Ghosh and J. Mohammadi, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, N.Y.
[51] Jordan, c.R., and Cochran, C.S., In-service Performance of Structural
Details, SSC-272, Ship Structure Committee, Washington, D.C., 1978.
[52] Committee On Marine Structures Marine Board, Prevention of Fracture
in Ship Structure, March 30-31, 1995, Washington, D.C., Commission
on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council,
[53] British Standards Institute, Guidance on the Methods for Assessing the
Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures, PD 6493: 1991,
Published by the British Standards Institution (BS!), 1991.
[54] Kober, G.R., Dexter, R.I., Kaufmann, E.J., Yen, B.T., and Fisher, J.W.,
"The Effect of Welding Discontinuities on the Variability of Fatigue
Life", Fracture Mechanics, Twenty-Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1220, F.
121
Erdogan and Ronald J. Hartranft, Eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 553-545, 1994.
[55] Dexter, R.J. and Fisher, IW., "Fatigue and Fracture," Steel Design
Handbook: LRFD Method, edited by A.R. Tamboli, McGraw Hill,
New York, N.Y., pp. 8-1 to 8-53, 1997.
[56] Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T., Fracture and Fatigue Control in
Structures, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
1987.
[57] Reynolds, J.P., "The Effect of Welding Process on the Occurrence of
Weld Toe Microdiscontinuities in HSLA 80 Steel," Lehigh University,
1993.
[58] Basar, N.S., Jovino, V.W., "Guide for Ship Structural Inspections",
SSC-332, Ship Structure Committee, August 2, 1990.
[59] Rolfe, S.T., Hays, K.T., and Henn, A.E., "Fracture Mechanics
Methodology for Fracture Control in VLCC' s", Ship Structures
Symposium '93, November 16-17, 1993, Arlington, VA., available from
SNAME, Jersey City, NJ, 1993.
122
Appendix A
123
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Repair Welds on Ships.
II. General References on Repair of Similar Welded Steel Structures.
m. Specifications, Guides, and Standards Relevant to Repair of Ships.
IV. Surveys of Cracking and Damage in Ships.
V. General References on Fitness for Purpose of Defective Welds.
VI. General References on Fatigue of Ships.
VII. General References on Fatigue of Similar Welded Steel Structures.
124
I. Repair Welds on Ships.
"Proceedings: Workshop and Symposium on the Prevention of Fracture in Ship
Structure"
March 30-31, 1995
Washington, D.C.
Convened by the Marine Board
Committee on Marine Structures
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
DRAFT June 19, 1995
Meeting Minutes for Workshop Session 4:
"Fabrication and Repair"
Rong T. Huang and Robert J. Dexter
Chevron Shipping Company
555 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
papers presented in Workshop 4:
"Substantial Repairs and Maintenance of Hull Structure"
Kuniaki Ishida
Principal Naval Architect/Ship Repairing Division
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Company Ltd.
Shinnakahara-cho Isogo-ku
Yokohama 235, Japan
"Fabrication"
Young-Min Lee
Samsung Heavy Industries
Korea
"Bulk Carriers Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and Repair of Hull Structure"
International Association of Classification Societies Ltd. .
London, England
125
"Fatigue Life Estimation for Repaired Ship Critical Structural Details"
Ma, Kai-tung & Bea, Robert G.
14th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE)
VolumellI
Materials Engineering
pp 193-202
Copenhagen, Denmark
June 1995
"Welding in the World"
Jounal of the International Institute of Welding
Extending the Life of Welded Structures
Volume 32, 1993
Portevin Lecture
Session 1: Design and Choice of Materials for Long Life
"Design of Welded Structures to Avoid Fracture and Plastic
Collapse"
A. M. Clayton
AEA Technology Risley Warrington
United Kingdom
Session 2: Industrial Examples
"Stress Analysis and Fatigue Life Prediction of Ship Structures"
H. Petershagen
Institut fur Schiftbau der Universitat Hamburg
Hamburg, Germany
"Life Assessment and Extension for Bridge and Building
Structures"
F. M. Burdekin
UMIST
Manchester, United Kingdom
Session 5: The Assessment of Any Flaws Found In Service
"A Review of Methods for Fitness for Purpose Evaluation of
Defected Parts in the Field of Extended Plasticity"
D. Francois
Ecole Centrale de Paris & Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique C.E.
Saclay, France
126
Session 6:
"Structural Integrity Significance of In-Service Inspection
R ~ s u l t s "
S. Reale and L.Tognarelli
Dipartimento di Meccanica e Tecnologie Industriali
Firenze, Italy
"The Philosophy of When to Repair"
P. S. Godfrey
Sir William Halcrow & Partners
London, United Kingdom
Repair and Maintenance
"Repair and Maintenance - Some Examples from Offshore and
Oil Industry Plany"
R. H. Bond
BP International
United Kingdom
"Some Examples from Bridges and Frame Structures Including
Repair Welding Under Load"
LeZeng
Bao Shan General Steel Works &
Tongji and Jiao University
Shanghai, P R China
&
Pei-DeLing
Shanghai Chemical Engineering Design Institute
PRChina
"A Probabilistic Structure Life Prediction System for Container Ship Repair and
Inspection"
International Journal ofPressure Vessels & Piping,
Volume 50, (1992) pp. 297-315.
Sire, R. A., Kokarakis, 1. E., Wells, C. H., and Taylor, R. K.
Failure Analysis Associates Inc.,
149 Commonwealth Drive
P.O. Box 3015
Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA
127
"Repair Life Estimation for Fatigue Cracks in Ship Critical Structural Details"
Bea, Robert: G., Principal Investigator
Ma, Kai-tung, Doctoral Graduate Student Researcher
Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.
January 1994
"Repair Management Systemfor Fatigue Cracks in Ship Critical Structural Details"
Transaction of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME)
Volume 103
1995
"Repair of Damage to the Guided Missile Frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58)"
Landau, James R. and Lardie, Stephen J.
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
601 Pavonia Avenue
Jersey City, New Jersey 07306
Presented: Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers
New York, N.Y.
November 15-18, 1989
"Repair Management Systemfor Fatigue Cracks in Ship Critical Structural Details"
Research Report SMP-ill
Department of Naval Architecture & Offshore Engineering
University of California at Berkeley
November 1994
"The Ship Structural Maintenance Projects, 1990-1995"
Report to Ship Structure Committee, Washington, D.C.
Bea, Robert G.
Department of Naval Architecture & Offshore Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.
August 1995
128
"Performance of Underwater Weldments"
SSC-335
RJ. Dexter, E.B. Norris, W.R. Schick, P.D. Watson
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
San Antonio, TX 78284
Ship Structure Committee
September 5, 1990
"Proceedings, International Conference on Underwater Welding"
ISBN # 0-87171-358-6
Lee Kvidahl, C.E. Grubbs, R. Holdsworth, SJ. Ibarra,
T. Reynolds, T. West, B. Wood. (eds)
New Orleans, Louisiana
March 20-21, 1991
Published by American Welding Society
Miami,FL
"Underwater Repair Procedures for Ship Hulls (Fatigue and Ductility of Underwater
Wet Welds)"
SSC-370
K. Grubbs, C. Zanis
CASDE Corporation
2800 Shirlington Road. Suite 600
Arlington, Virginia 22206
Ship Structure Committee
May 1993
129
II. General References on Repair of Similar Welded Steel Structures.
"Fatigue Life Prediction of Repaired Welded Structures"
Journal of Constructional Steel Research,
Volume 28, (1994) pp. 187-195.
Castro, J. T. P. and Freire, 1. L. F.
Mechanical Engineering Department
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, 22453-900, Brazil
and Vieira, R. D.
Mechanical Engineering Department
CEFET-RJ and StrainLab Stress Analysis
Rio de Janeiro, 22453-900, Brazil
"The Investigation and Repair of Defective Joints on the Kinsale Alpha Platform"
Murphy, Fergal
Marathon Petroleum
Ireland Ltd.
and Smith, B. L.
SLP Engineering
London
Paper OTC 7148, Presented at 25th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference
Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
May 3-6, 1993
"On Re-Setting the Fatigue Clock on Older Semisubmersible Vessels"
Wade, Bruce G.
International Design, Engineering and Analysis Services, Inc.
San Francisco, California, USA
Presented: Fourth (1994) International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference
Osaka, Japan
April 10-15, 1994
Published by:The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
130
"Detection and Repair of Fatigue Damage in Welded Highway Bridges"
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 206
Fisher, John W., Hausammann, Hans, Sullivan, Michael D., and Pense, Alan W.
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, Pa. 18015
Published by: Transportation Research Board
June 1979
"Effect of Peening on Fatigue Life of Welded Details"
Hausammann, H., Fisher, 1. W. and Yen, B.T.,
ASCE Proceedings, W. H. Munse Symposium on Behavior of Metal Structures -
Research to Practice
1983.
"The Fatigue Strength of Welded Joints and Methods for Its Improvement"
Watkinson, F., Bodger, P.H., and Harrison, J.D.,
Proceedings, Conference on Fatigue of Welded Structures,
The Welding Institute
1971
"Weld Improvement for Fatigue Life Extension"
Fisher, J.W. and Dexter, R.I.
AWSIWIC International Conference on Fatigue,
Toronto
9-10 May, 1994
"Field Experience with Repair of Fatigue Cracks"
Fisher, 1.W., and Dexter, R.I.
AWSIWIC International Conference on Fatigue
Toronto
9-10 May, 1994.
"Further Techniques for Improving the Fatigue Strength of Welded Joints"
Harrison, J.D.,
British Welding Journal,
Volume 13, No. 11
1966
131
"TIG Dressing to Improve Fatigue Properties in Welded High-Strength Steels"
Millington, D.,
Metal Construction and British Welding Journal
Volume 5, No.4,
April 1973
"Welded Repair of Cracks in Steel Bridge Members"
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 321
Gregory, E. N., Slater, G., and Woodley, C. C.
Abington, Cambridge, England
Published by: Transportation Research Board
October 1989
"Improving the Fatigue Performance of Welded Joints"
G.S. Booth, PJ. Haagensen; SJ. Maddox, M.H. Ogle; D. Webber, C.C.Woodley
Abington Hall Abington Cambridge CB16AL
1983
"Engineering Aspects of Repair"
C.C. Woodley, Dept. of Eng. at the Welding Institute
Repair and Reclamation
R.E. Dolby, K.G. Kent, eds.
September 24-25, 1984
"Repair by Welding"
E.N. Gregory, Head, Service and Advisory Section in the Welding Institute
R.E. Dolby, K.G. Kent
132
"The Design and Manufacture of Welded Structures for the Surface Mining Industry"
B. Powers
Harnischfeger Corporation
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
"Inspection, As'sessment of Repair of Welded Structures and ComponentsII
Tenth Annual North American Welding Research Conference
Columbus Ohio
October 3-5, 1994
"Friction Stud Welding for Underwater Repairs"
Tom McGaughy and Mark Kirk
Edison Welding Institute
Columbus, Ohio
John Myers
Battelle Memorial Institute
Columbus, Ohio
"Inspection, Assessment of Repair of Welded Structures and ComponentsII
Columbus Ohio
October 3-5, 1994
"Inspection, Assessment and Repair-Past, Present and Future"
John W. Fisher
ATLSS Center
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA
"Inspection, Assessment of Repair of Welded Structures and Components"
Columbus Ohio
October 3-5, 1994
"Overview of Weld Repair Techniques"
Richard L.Jones
TWI
Cambridge, UK
"Inspection, Assessment of Repair of Welded Structures and Components"
Columbus Ohio
October 3-5, 1994
133
"The Fatigue Strength of Welded Repairs"
E. N. Gregory
Abington Hall
Abington, Cambridge, England
G. S. Booth
Edison Welding Institute
1100 Kinnear Road
Columbus, Ohio
Bridge Research in Progress
pp.203-205
"Proceedings of the National Science Foundation and Iowa State University
Symposium"
Des Moines, Iowa
Co-Directors: F. W. Klaiber, and W. W. Sanders
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
"Studies on Repair Welding in Japan"
Kohsuke Horikawa and Hiroyuki Suzuki
OSAKAUniversity
Transactions of JWRI
Volume 14, Number 2
pp.375-383
December 1985
"Repair Welding on Bridges in Service Condition"
Kohsuke Horikawa, Hiroyuki Suzuki, and Kesanori Imi
OSAKAUniversity and Nippon Steel Corporation
Transactions ofJWRI
Volume 12, Number 1
pp. 149-155
1983
"Experimental Study on Repair Welding to Steel Bridges under Loading"
Kohsuke Horikawa, Hiroyuki Suzuki, and Masato Tanaka
OSAKAUniversity and Tokyo Steel Rib and Bridge Construction Company, Ltd.
Transactions of JWRI
Volume 14, Number 1
pp.177-184
1985
134
"Methods for Assessing Advisability of Repair Welding. Bridges in Service"
I. Imoto -
Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries KK
Welding Internationa.f
Volume 5, Number 11
pp. 856-859
1991
"TIG Arc Remelting as a Repair Method for Steel Railway Bridges (Japan)"
Y. Masuda and K. Sakamoto
IABSE Periodica Series C
IABSE Structures C-47/88
Number 4
pp. 74-75
November 1988
"Test of Welding Technique for Repair of Steel Highway Bridges"
ISBN # 0-309-03659-3
T. Matsumoto and S. Motomura
Proceedings, 2nd Bridge Engineering Conference
Volume 1
Minneapolis, Minnesota
pp. 157-163
September 1984
"Examination and Repair of Bridge Structures"
A. W. Pense, R. Dias, and 1. W. Fisher
Lehigh University
Welding Journal
Volume 63, Number 4
pp. 19-25
April 1984
Presented at: 64th AWS Annual Meeting
Philadelphia, PA.
April 25-19 1984
135
"Fatigue Cracking in Welded Crane Runway Girders: Causes and Repair
Procedures"
Harold S. Reemsnyder and David A. Demo
BethlehemSteel Corporation
Iron and Steel Engineer
pp.52-56
April 1978
"Recommendations for Repairs and/or Strengthening of Steel Structures"
Welding in the World
Volume 26, Number 11/12
pp.292-306
1988
"Fatigue Strength of Repaired Magnesium Alloy Castings By TIG Welding"
A. Bendis, 1. Hrdina, and 1. Teichman
Welding International
Volume 3, Number 9
pp.817-821
1989
"Manual Metal Arc (MMA) Repair Welding Procedures for BS11 Railsteel"
ISBN # 0-85300187-1
G. Byrne, R. Brook, and T. L. Brooks
Paper 15
pp. 135-143
Abington, Cambridge CB1 6AL, UK
1986
Proceedings of Conference
London, UK
136
"Fatigue Strength Assessment ofScallops an Example for the Application of Nominal
and Local Stress Approaches"
Fricke, W.
Germanisher Lloyd
Hamburg, Germany
&
Paetzold, H.
Institut fur Schiffbau.
Hamburg, Germany
Marine Structures 8
pp.423-447
Elsevier Science Limited
Great Britain
1995
Marine Technology and SNAME News
The Society of naval Architecture and Marine Engineers
Volume 32, Number 1
January 1995
148

Fatigue Performance of Repair Welds

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fatigue Performance of Repair Welds

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kelly, Barbara Ann

Insert ple. te spo.ns between longitudino.ls

Potrebbero piacerti anche