Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
P FPS
I
O
J
i ty
Fa t
ig
u e Ca p a c
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Scope of document 4
1.2 Criticality of fatigue cracks in FPSOs 4
1.3 The fatigue process and significant factors influencing fatigue in FPSOs 5
1.4 Significant hot spot areas in FPSO's 5
1.5 Loads to be considered for fatigue analysis 6
2 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Definition of stresses 7
2.1.1 Nominal stress 7
2.1.2 Structural stress or hot spot stress 8
2.1.3 Definition of stress concentration factor 10
2.1.4 Stress for analysis of fillet welds and partial penetration K-welds 11
2.1.5 Stress for analysis of base material 13
2.1.6 Effect of mean stress 13
2.2 The Palmgren-Miner fatigue damage accumulation rule 13
2.3 Definition of Design Fatigue Factors 14
2.3.1 Design Fatigue Factor 14
2.3.2 Implied probability of fatigue cracks 14
4 HYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 22
4.1 Introduction 22
4.2 Still water Model - Mass distribution 22
4.2.1 Still-water model 22
4.2.2 Mass Model 22
4.3 Hydrodynamic Model 23
4.4 Hydrodynamic Analysis 23
4.5 Intermittent wetting 24
Page i
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................... 25
5.1 Modelling 25
5.1.1 Strategy 25
5.1.2 Full Ship Model 27
5.1.2.1 Model 27
5.1.2.2 Boundary conditions 27
5.1.3 FE Model of cargo holds (3 holds model) 27
5.1.3.1 Three holds model 27
5.1.3.2 Boundary conditions and end loads 28
5.1.4 Sub-modelling 29
5.1.5 Stiffener Model 29
5.1.5.1 Explicit modelling, using plate elements of appropriate size. 29
5.1.5.2 Modelling by beam elements 30
5.1.5.3 Analytical approach 31
5.1.6 Stress Concentration Model 31
5.2 Loading 31
5.2.1 Overview of load transfer 31
5.2.2 Wave pressure loads 33
5.2.3 Intermittent wetting pressure 33
5.2.4 Internal fluid pressure loads 34
5.2.5 Inertia loading 34
5.2.6 Dynamic equilibrium 34
5.2.7 Still Water loads 34
5.2.8 Wave pressure loads; component method and deterministic analysis 35
5.2.8.1 Deterministic Analysis 35
5.2.8.2 Component method 35
5.3 Analysis 35
5.3.1 Verification 35
5.3.2 Results 36
5.4 Long term distribution of stresses and calculation of fatigue damage 37
5.4.1 Metocean conditions 37
5.4.2 Response spectrum 37
5.4.3 Spectral moments 38
5.4.4 "Short-Term" stress distribution 39
5.4.5 "Long-Term" stress distribution (Spectral analysis) 39
5.4.6 "Long-Term" stress distribution (Deterministic Fatigue analysis) 40
5.4.7 Calculation of fatigue damage 40
5.4.7.1 Numerical integration 40
5.4.7.2 Closed Form Approach 41
5.4.7.3 Summation and fatigue life 41
5.4.7.4 Evaluation 41
5.4.8 Description of waves as Swell and Wind Seas 41
5.4.9 Structures supporting loads from Mooring system or risers. 42
5.4.10 Analysis of fatigue due to loading/unloading process 42
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
9 REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 73
Appendix A Effect of tolerances
Appendix B Mean stress effects
Appendix C Design of cut-outs in plated structures
Appendix D Intermitting wetting pressure and internal fluid pressure
Appendix E Damage (Closed form)
Page iii
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
1 INTRODUCTION
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
categories of hull structure elements. The fatigue life, is, in particular, related to the
magnitude of the dynamic stress level, the number of load cycles, the corrosiveness of the
environment and the magnitude of stress concentration factors for the structural details.
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
design of the connection to supporting girder webs and bulkheads. In general asymmetrical
profiles will have a reduced fatigue life compared to symmetrical profiles unless the reduced
efficiency of the asymmetrical profile is compensated for by an improved design for the
attachment to transverse girder webs and bulkhead structures.
Structural elements in the cargo area being of possible interest for fatigue evaluation are listed
in Table 1-1.
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
2 DEFINITIONS
Page 7
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Nominal stresses are usually associated with well-defined stress components e. g., directional
stresses or shear stresses.
Nominal stresses are derived from beam element models or from global coarse mesh FE
models. Stress concentrations resulting from the gross shape of the structure, e.g. shear lag
effects, are included in the nominal stresses derived from coarse mesh FE models (provided
that the model contains several elements between the longitudinal bulkheads and the ship
sides). Reference is also made to Chapter 5.
When nominal stress is used for fatigue analysis it has to be combined with appropriate stress
concentration factors, ref. Section 2.1.3, before the stress is used together with the S-N curves
defined in Chapter 8.
A nominal stress approach is considered to be efficient for fatigue analysis of butt welds with
transition in thickness and for cruciform joints. This is explained more in detail in Appendix
A. Reference is also made to Chapter 8 for definition of S-N curves to be used for these
connections.
Page 8
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Notes:
1) In many case, the principal stress is approximately the same as the stress perpendicular
to the weld.
2) In some particular situations, the direction of principal stresses may not be stable over
a wave cycle; then the range of normal stress is to be evaluated for a set of directions
within 60° of the normal to the weld toe, to find the maximum.
3) When stresses are outside of this range, the detail is treated as a longitudinally loaded
weld, see section 8.2.
σt/2 σ3t/2
t/2 3t/2
Distance from hot spot
Region effected by
the notch stress
Page 9
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
σ nominal σ nominal
σ nominal * K
A A
σ nominal
60°
60°
σ nominal A σ nominal A
A-A
The relation between the hot spot stress range to be used together with the hot spot stress S-N-
curve and the nominal stress range is thus
∆σ hot spot = K g ∆σ nominal (2.2)
Page 10
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
All stress risers (excluding the localised stress concentration due to the weld profile itself)
have to be considered when evaluating the hot spot stress. This can be done by multiplication
of K-factors arising from different causes.
As an example, for the weld shown in Figure 2-2 a), the relevant hot spot stress for fatigue
design would be the nominal tensile stress times the stress concentration due to the attachment
(σhot spot = Kg attachment σ).
For the weld shown in Figure 2-2 b), the stress concentration factor for the local geometry
must in addition be accounted for, resulting in a relevant hot spot stress equal to σhot spot = Kg
attachment Kg holeσ, where Kg hole is the stress concentration factor due to the hole.
Besides, as the hot spot stress is usually calculated on the basis of an idealised, perfectly
aligned structure, any possible misalignment needs to be taken into account separately. This is
normally necessary for butt joints, cruciform joints and transverse fillet welds depending on
loading, see also Appendix A.
The resulting K-factor to be used for calculation of hot spot stress is derived as
K = K g K te K tα K n (2.3)
where
Kg = stress concentration factor due to the gross geometry of the detail considered
Kte = additional stress concentration factor due to production tolerance (eccentricity) (normally
used for plate butt weld connections and cruciform joints only. See also section below)
Ktα = additional stress concentration factor due to angular mismatch (normally used for plate
connections only).
Kn = additional stress concentration factor for asymmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded panels,
applicable when the nominal stress is derived from simple beam analyses. The value of this
factor may be significant and should be included in the analysis, ref. /3/ and /25/.
For fatigue design of butt welds and cruciform joints it may be most efficient to use the
concept of nominal stress, see section 2.1.1. Then stress concentration factors not accounted
for in the S-N data need to be included in the stress range to be entered into the nominal stress
S-N curve. For butt welds and cruciform joints the following equation can be used for
derivation of this stress range:
∆σ nomS − Ncurve = K te K tα ∆σ nominal (2.4)
where Kte and Ktα are stress concentration factors due to eccentricity and angular mismatch
exceeding the tolerances included in the S-N curve. Reference is also made to Appendix A.
2.1.4 Stress for analysis of fillet welds and partial penetration K-welds
It should be noted that cracks may also start from the root of fillet welds or partial penetration
K-welds (if used).
Page 11
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
For potential cracks in the weld throat (growing from the weld root) of load-carrying fillet-
welded joints, the relevant stress range is the maximum range of nominal shear stress in the
weld metal. Reference is also made to Chapter 7.
The relevant stress range for potential cracks in the weld throat of load-carrying fillet-welded
joints and partial penetration welded joints may be calculated as:
See Figure 2-3 for explanation of stress components. (σw is denoted engineering shear in
some countries).
The stresses are mean values over the throat thickness (nominal values). It is difficult to
derive this stress from a finite element analysis even with the fillet weld included in the
model. Therefore an alternative approach is recommended for derivation of the engineering
stress in the fillet weld, see section 7.3.
The total stress fluctuation (i.e. maximum compression and maximum tension) should be
considered to be transmitted through the welds for fatigue assessments. See also section 7.
σ τ
τ
Throat
section τ p
σnp
Page 12
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
nk
1 k
m (2.6)
D = ∑ i = ∑ ni ⋅ (∆σ i ) ≤ η
i =1 N i a i =1
where
D = accumulated fatigue damage
a = intercept of the design S-N curve with the log N axis
m = negative inverse slope of the S-N curve
k = number of stress blocks
ni = number of stress cycles in stress block i
Ni = number of cycles to failure at constant stress range ∆σi
η = usage factor
Page 13
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
considered details are evaluated in terms of improvement of local geometry to reduce its
stress concentration. At an early design stage it is considered more cost efficient to prepare for
minor geometric modifications than to rely on methods for fatigue improvement under
fabrication and construction, such as grinding and hammer peening.
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Design Fatigue Factor (DFF)
1.00
0.90
0.80
Accumulated probability
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time in service (years)
Figure 2-5 Accumulated probability of fatigue crack as function of service life for (20
years design life and statistical scatter in S-N data only)
Page 15
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
3.1 Introduction
A procedure for fatigue assessment of fatigue strength requires determining:
• the long term distribution of stresses resulting from the action of the cyclic loads applied
on the structure,
• the fatigue capacity of the structure, characterised by S-N curves.
A spectral analysis methodology based on linear frequency domain analysis is the reference
fatigue analysis approach for FPSOs.
Linear spectral analysis can be used for analysis of global ship response (due to global wave
loads). Also most of the local structural responses (due to local pressure) can be assumed
linear for the range of wave heights that are giving the largest contribution to fatigue damage.
In some areas, the local response is not linear: this is the case of side shell longitudinal
stiffener close to water line, due to intermittent wetting effect. This can be addressed (see
section 4.5) through a suitable linearisation of the pressure history or by post-processing of
the result of linear analysis.
Effects from other load effects such as slowly varying response, or the Loading-Unloading
cycles may be important in some environments and should be included if it influence the
fatigue life. Reference is made to section 5.4.8 and 5.4.10.
Other fatigue analysis may also be used such as the deterministic (One Wave) approach or the
“Component stochastic analysis”. A brief overview of these approaches is given below in
section 3.3.
Simplified fatigue analysis methods may be combined with advanced analysis. Different
methods may be used at different stages in the design loop, or for verification of a fatigue
design. Reference is e. g. made to ref. /5/ and /6/.
Page 16
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
The response spectrum of stresses at each location is obtained by the technique of spectral
analysis. The "short-term" distribution of stresses is obtained by statistics over short-term sea
states and condition of vessel. Long-term distribution of stresses is then obtained by
summation, over the wave scatter diagram at vessel site of the "short term" distributions.
• Fatigue damage
The fatigue damage at given locations in the structure is determined from the long-term
distribution of stress ranges by the Miner sum and appropriate S-N curve. The Damage can
also be calculated by summation of fatigue damage for each short-term response.
Several models linked to these activities have to be prepared: Static (still-water) model
corresponding to the loading condition being analysed (draught, weight distribution),
Hydrodynamic Model, Structural Model. The objective is to apply to the structural model the
loads obtained from the hydrodynamic model. Therefore, special attention has to be paid to
the consistency between these models and the interfaces between hydrodynamic and structural
model for the transfer of loads.
Full SFA approach (see Figure 3-3) thus requires the following steps:
• Calculation of RAO’s of loads (end loads, pressure fields), in frequency domain;
• Calculation of hot spot stress RAO at location of interest (from FE model), for each wave
loading;
• Calculation of short stress distributions for each vessel condition and sea state in the wave
scatter diagram representing the wave environment at vessel site.
Then:
• Calculation of fatigue damage using Miner Rule
• summation of the "short-term" damages over all sea states and vessel conditions
Or:
• Calculation of the long term stress distributions by summation of the short term
distribution over all sea states and vessel conditions
• Calculation of fatigue damage using Miner Rule, from the long-term stress distribution.
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
¾ Calculated stresses that are assumed having the same reference probability as loads
¾ a Weibull shape parameter taken from the dominating load long term distribution.
These steps correspond to those of the Rule approach for trading ships except for the
calculation of the load parameters. Instead of values specified in rules, loads are taken from
the actual wave conditions of the vessel at site.
Deterministic approach may be used to get approximate evaluation of stresses and of fatigue
damage, that will be generally conservative.
STRESSES
(frequency domain) DAMAGE
Figure 3-1 Methodology for Fatigue Analysis of FPSO hull based on full spectral
analysis (SFA)
« One Wave »
DAMAGE
STRESSES
Figure 3-2 Methodology for Fatigue Analysis of FPSO hull based on deterministic (one
wave) analysis
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 19
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Note: In most cases, the cyclic internal pressure is not inducing much fatigue in comparison
with the effect of external (wave induced) pressure. This might however need an assessment
in some particular conditions.
Thus, the number of loading conditions will depend on
• the objectives of the analysis
• the effort and time which are allocated
• the criticality on the results.
Full SFA is requiring a substantial computational effort. At the other end, deterministic
analysis may provide useful tools for a more comprehensive scanning of vessel loading
conditions and for screening analysis of significant hot spot areas.
3.4.2 Wave heading
The range of headings to be considered depends on the type of vessel mooring.
For a trading ship (e.g an FPSO before conversion) or a spread moored vessel, the range of
headings has to cover 360°.
When the vessel is turret moored, the heading of interest is the relative wave/vessel heading
that can be generally taken as [-90°, 90°] from "head sea".
The heading interval is often taken as 45°, in relation with commonly available directional
information. This is however not sufficient to catch the directional response of
vessel/structure to wave (e. g. horizontal wave bending moment) and precludes the use of
directional spectrum to describe waves.
A heading interval in the range of 15° to 22° will be adequate to get accurate directional
response using directional spectrum.
In case of turret moored, where the data to evaluate a distribution of relative heading is
generally not available, a simplification would consist to consider a single off-head heading,
and taking damages only from the windward side of the vessel.
Page 20
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Hydrodynamic Model
3D FE Model of 3 Holds
HYDRODYNAMIC RESPONSE
R LOADS
•Wave Pressure
•Wave pressure
A
•Relative Wave Elevation
•Intermittent Wetting Pressure
O
•Accelerations
s •Inertia loads
Damage
Figure 3-3 Flow chart for Full Spectral Fatigue Analysis of FPSO hull
Page 21
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
4 HYDRODYNAMIC ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
The objective of the hydrodynamic analysis is to provide RAOs (response to a harmonic wave
with unit amplitude) of vessel motions, resulting accelerations, wave pressures on hull and global
wave loads such as bending moments and shear forces.
For each draught corresponding to each loading condition, a hydrodynamic model of the wet
surface is built, in order to evaluate the parameters mentioned above.
The corresponding mass distribution is to be defined.
The modelling strategy will depend on the overall arrangements and capabilities of software for
hydrodynamic analysis, for structural analysis and on available interfaces routines.
The hydrodynamic analysis is performed by means of the 3D 1st order diffraction-radiation
method (linear potential theory).
Page 22
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 23
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 24
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
The purpose of the structural analysis is to determine the transfer functions (i.e the response on
regular waves) of nominal stress (or hot spot stress) or stress components /3/ at every locations
of interest of the FE model.
5.1 Modelling
5.1.1 Strategy
The structural model has to catch the structural response:
a. Hull girder loads (Wave bending moments and shear forces acting on "hull girder"
section),
b. Overall Hull Deformation not included in a), such as shear lag, differential displacement
between longitudinal bulkhead(s) and side shell,
c. Global deformations of cargo holds primary framing,
d. Local response (e.g. stiffener) to local loads and the effect of the above.
The structural model may be a full ship model (Figure 5-1) or includes several cargo holds
(generally 3) centred on the area of interest for the analysis.
In the latter case, the following methods can be used for the modelling of the rest of vessel in
order to get an overall balance of loads of the model:
• Ends loads (from the non-modelled end parts of the vessel) applied to the 3-hold model
Figure 5-2
• Hybrid model (Figure 5-3) composed of the 3-hold model and hull girder models of vessel
end parts, connected at both ends of the 3-hold model
Page 25
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
A new built FPSO is assumed to be provided with an efficient corrosion protection system. All
finite element models may therefore be based on gross scantlings (i. e. nominal plate and bracket
thickness).
Guidance on structural modelling may also be found in Appendix F of /4/.
Page 26
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 27
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
The central area shall include the central hold and a few frames fore and/or aft of central hold
transverse bulkheads, so as to cover bulkhead stringers and adjacent frames on one end at least.
In the coarse mesh part of the model, element size may be taken as one or two elements per
frame spacing, in the longitudinal direction, and one element per stiffener spacing, in the
transverse direction.
An alternative is to use a coarse mesh model for this 3 holds model, and fine mesh sub-models
(see 5.1.4) in areas where stresses are to be obtained.
Typically, the following arrangements of boundary conditions and end loads are used:
• The 3 holds model is fixed at one end. To ensure equilibrium, shear forces and bending
moments (vertical and horizontal) are applied at the other end at either a support node with
joints constraints or as loads on the section.
• Two support nodes are introduced, one at each end-section of the model, and located on the
centreline, at the elevation of the neutral axis of the structural model.
• Joint constraints are applied between these support (master) nodes and the nodes of the end-
sections. The model is simply supported through these nodes
• Global hull girder loads are applied to the master nodes along the degree of freedom that are
not defined as supports (typically the Hull girder bending moments at each end and the axial
force at one end).
The second arrangement is more convenient, both to specify end loads and to limit the impact of
eventual unbalance (see 5.2.6)
When a hybrid model is used, master nodes in both end-sections are fitted as above, and the
beams representing fore and aft parts of the hull girder are connected to these master nodes. The
end loads are thus automatically applied in the analysis.
Page 28
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
5.1.4 Sub-modelling
When necessary (see 5.1.2.1 and 5.1.3.1 above), fine mesh models corresponding to one or
several parts of a coarser mesh model (e.g. one transverse frame or a stringer with adjacent
structures) have to be prepared.
Element size is typically in the order of one stiffener spacing in all directions so as to include
three elements at least in the web height of primary framing. Such element size will lead to three
or more elements between web-frame. This will be sufficient to catch effective flange/shear lag
effect for web-frame (see also 5.1.5 below for stiffener modelling).
In brackets of primary framing, several elements have to be included (at least three in smaller
bracket).
Notes:
A. Guidance on element size is based on four nodes elements. Using higher order elements may
permit somewhat coarser meshing.
B. In order to get correct deformations and resulting stresses in small or slender parts such as
web frames or bracket quoted above, when using 4-node elements, elements with improved
in plane bending (i.e. elements with constant (in-plane) shear or additional (internal) degrees
of freedom) should be used.
Boundary of the sub-model should coincide with areas of the parent model where
displacements/forces are correct and be located "far enough" of analysed area to avoid undue
constraints onto a finely meshed part.
All loads (local pressures, inertia loads) acting on the corresponding part of the coarser model is
to be applied in a manner consistent with the fineness of this sub-model.
Page 29
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 30
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Frame or
bulkhead
Flat
bar
L
Bracket
2
L
3
Side
Shell
5.2 Loading
5.2.1 Overview of load transfer
The loads to be applied to the structural model are the dynamic loads resulting from wave
actions and vessel motions.
In hydrodynamic analysis, the loads acting on the whole vessel are described and resolved to get
the vessel motions.
Page 31
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
where
X: vector of motions (6 components)
M: mass matrix of the vessel including solid mass and liquid in tanks
Ma: hydrodynamic added-mass matrix of the vessel
B: hydrodynamic linear damping matrix
QD : quadratic (roll) damping & ⋅X
QD 4 = C ⋅ X &
4 4
In structural analysis, the load components corresponding to each term of this equation have to
be distributed over the model.
These loads may be split into the following terms:
• Solid mass and liquid in tanks submitted to accelerations, resulting in inertia forces and
&& ) ;
internal fluid pressures ( M X
• Incident, diffracted and radiated wave pressure and hydrostatic restoring force, resulting in
external pressure on hull ( M a X&& + B X
& + K X − F) ;
• Roll damping effect ( C X & X & ) , that is generally not taken into account in the load
4 4
Wave pressures and inertia loads obtained from the hydrodynamic analysis are transferred from
the hydrodynamic model into the structural model. So, hydrodynamic and structural models have
to be consistent, both in geometry (see 5.2.2) and in the description of mass (see 4.2 above).
Under the assumptions of a linear spectral analysis (see 3.2), overall loading for each wave
frequency is harmonic, and can be described by real and imaginary (cos and sin) parts, i.e. the
snapshots of loads at two instants over one period. Generally, structural resonance is not
anticipated, and these two load cases can be resolved by static analysis.
Depending on particulars of the structural analysis software, the whole loadings have to be
assembled, then resolved, or all parts can be resolved as “elementary load cases”, then the result
assembled by summation. When an elementary loading is a function of a single intensity
parameter, a “unit load case” can be defined.
Page 32
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Note: for pressure description in the component and deterministic methods, see 5.2.8 below)
Page 33
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Alternatively, the intermittent wetting correction can be entered as separate loading for later
combination (see Appendix D).
The modified pressure or the correction can be limited to the area of interest and the linear
pressure is used for the rest of the vessel. This will limit loads unbalance due to e. g. intermittent
wetting effect on shaped vessel ends.
5.2.4 Internal fluid pressure loads
Cargo and ballast tanks of the 3 holds model (or the area of interest) are loaded by internal fluid
pressure calculated from accelerations in tank.
A quasi-static approximation is used, under the assumption of small movements of the vessel
where the pressure is defined based on the intensity and angular variations of the total
acceleration (including gravity). In this approach, eventual resonant motion or sloshing effect is
neglected. (See D9 in Appendix D)
For tanks outside the area of interest, modelling by solid mass will generally be sufficient.
5.2.5 Inertia loading
The inertia loading is generated from the accelerations of the vessel acting on the steel mass of
the vessel, and other masses (e.g. topsides equipment).
The steel mass on the modelled part of the vessel is distributed through plate and beam elements
by means of adjusted density. When a hybrid model is used, the accelerations acting on ends
(modelled by hull girders) are applied to the masses associated to these parts.
Mass of topsides modules can be introduced as distributed mass on beam elements with no
rigidity.
5.2.6 Dynamic equilibrium
Dynamic equilibrium at each frequency is checked by comparing total load on structural model
with the results of hydrodynamic analysis.
In the case of a 3 holds model, total loads have to be equal to the difference between force values
calculated at end sections of the model from the hydrodynamic analysis.
The condition of dynamic equilibrium requires consistent mass distributions between
hydrodynamic and structural models.
Some unbalance may exist for some wave frequency (e.g. around roll natural frequency) in case
of off head wave due to some loads terms (e.g. roll quadratic damping see 5.2.1). This can reflect
on several components of total loads due to coupling between vessel motions. However, the
effect of such unbalance may be often considered as negligible when the resulting stresses are
moderate and the frequency is far enough from the range leading to maximum response.
5.2.7 Still Water loads
Generally, still water loads need not to be described.
However, for some structural details (e.g. at bulkheads), analysis in considering the combination
of wave loads and the loading/unloading loads has also to be studied (see 5.4.10 below)
Page 34
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
5.3 Analysis
5.3.1 Verification
Model and results should be verified at each step of analysis, as quoted in the above, , to ensure
that the derived results are reasonable. Simplified methods and/or experience from similar
analysis may be used for such assessment. The checklist below gives a summary of aspects to be
considered in verifications (see also 5.4.7.4 below).
• Hydrodynamic model:
- Mesh size/shape
- Buoyancy (COB, volume, trim)
- Mass data (COG, roll/pitch radius of gyration)
- Mass distribution (induced Still water bending/shear)
- Transfer functions (all relevant transfer functions are correctly described and seem
physical)
Page 35
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
• FE- models :
- Mesh size/shape
- Plate thickness
- Material parameters
- Boundary conditions
- Mass distribution/balance
- Mesh density/shape
- Actual section values (area, section modulus) of the model
- Load application and load sums
• Structural analysis :
- Load transfer (pressures, acceleration, load sums)
- Global/local displacement patterns/magnitude
- Global section forces (compared to hydrodynamic analysis)
- Stress level and distribution
- Sub model boundary displacements/stresses
5.3.2 Results
From analysis, RAO of stresses are obtained.
A sufficient number of frequencies and headings is to be analysed to get meaningful RAO’s for
spectral integration (see 5.4.3 below): Generally, 30 to 35 frequencies will be adequate. 20 is a
minimum. For headings reference is made to 3.4.2 above.
Generally, unitary amplitude loading is used, then RAO of stress at any location is the
corresponding amplitude of stress.
When calculation is made for a finite amplitude wave, RAO of stresses is defined as:
SA SR (8)
RAO = =
A H
with:
SA = amplitude of stress variation
Page 36
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
2
Sσσ (ω H S , Tz , θ W ) = RAO σ ( ω θ w .Sη η (ω H S , TZ ) (9)
Page 37
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
where
Sηη (ω H S , Tz , θ W ) is short crested wave spectrum
Assuming that the stress process is stationary and gaussian, the statistical parameters of the stress
process can be described below from the spectral moments:
• RMS (Root mean square): RMS = m o
m0
• Mean zero-upcrossing period of stress cycle: Tz = 2 ⋅ π⋅
m2
• ( ν Z = 1/ TZ is then the mean zero-crossing frequency)
The following observations can be made concerning the integration of spectral moments:
To obtain m0 (the intensity of the response), integration over a range of frequency based on the
energy in the wave spectrum (typically 0.45 to 2.2 the mean zero-crossing frequency of the wave
spectrum) would be sufficient.
However, a larger range is required in many cases, toward high frequencies, to get accurate
enough estimate of m2, and thus avoid to underestimate the number of cycles. This implies
generally an extrapolation of the stress response towards high frequencies.
Note:
A bandwidth parameter ε of the stress process can be defined, that is depending on the moment
m4. However a difficulty arises with m4, due to the current formulation of wave spectra (e.g. P-
M or JONSWAP), that have a m4 infinite : Some local response will exhibit same property, and
the calculated of the response will be spurious : therefore, the use of ε (e.g. in a bandwidth
correction) should be avoided.
Page 38
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
∆σ 2 (12)
Pe (∆σ ) = exp(− )
8 m0
Note:
The narrow band assumption is realistic when wave loads do not induce significant resonant
response of the structure. The effect of corrections to account for bandwidth has been checked
for offshore structures, and found not so large compared with other uncertainties in fatigue
assessment such as uncertainties in loading, S-N data and Miner rule. Therefore, it is
recommended that any “wide band correction” be ignored.
5.4.5 "Long-Term" stress distribution (Spectral analysis)
The long-term stress distribution is the sum of the short-term distributions, weighted by the
probability of occurrence of each loading state, considering the number of stress cycles in this
loading state.
The number of exceedance “ne” of the stress range level ∆σ over reference duration Dref is given
by:
n e (∆ σ ) = D ref ⋅ ∑P ijk ⋅ Pe ijk ( ∆ σ ) ⋅ ν ijk (13)
i , j ,k
where:
Pijk Probability of occurrence of the loading state (ijk)
Peijk(∆σ) Probability of exceedance of the stress response (range ∆σ) to each loading state (ijk)
νijk Average zero-crossing frequency of the stress response to each loading state (ijk)
The probability of exceedance of the stress range level ∆σ is then given by:
ne (∆σ ) (14)
Pe (∆σ ) =
NT
where NT is the total number of stress cycles in the reference duration Dref , given by:
Note: Alternatively, a long-term stress distribution is established in the same way for each
loading condition (see 5.4.7.3 below).
Page 39
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
⎛ ⎛ ∆σ ⎞
h
⎞ (16)
ne ( ∆σ ) = N T ⋅ exp⎜⎜ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜⎝ q ⎟
⎠
⎝ ⎠
The shape parameter h is estimated. h can be taken from the long term distribution of the
dominant wave effect (e.g. RWE for side shell stiffeners).
The scale parameter q is given by
∆σ 0 (17)
q=
(− ln p0 )
1/ h
with:
∆σ 0 = stress range value at the reference probability of exceedance po
N T = total number of stress cycles in the reference duration Dref ; NT is usually taken equal to
108 for 20 years.
5.4.7 Calculation of fatigue damage
Fatigue damage using Miner Rule may be obtained by numerical integration or by means of
"closed form" equations where applicable.
The damage can be calculated directly from the long term distribution of stresses or calculated
for each short term distribution, then summed over all loading states.
5.4.7.1 Numerical integration
The stress distribution is converted into a histogram.
A minimum of 40 to 50 classes at least are to be used, taking into account that only a limited part
of these classes will effectively contribute to the damage and to limit numerical inaccuracy e.g.
around change in slope of the S-N curve. 100 or 200 classes are typically used to eliminate such
problem and get results that are consistent with analytical integration in the close form approach.
The damage is given by:
i =c (18)
ni
D=∑
i =1 Ni
where:
c: number of classes
ni : number of cycles of stress ranges ∆σi in class i
Ni : number of cycles to failure at constant stress ranges ∆σi
Page 40
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
DLT = ∑ Pk ⋅ Dk (19)
k
where Dref is the reference duration for which DLT have been calculated.
FL can be compared with the target design life, taking into account the relevant DFF (see
sections 2.2 and 2.3).
To perform the summation of damage, the distribution of draughts has to be specified based on
particular vessel operating profile.
Generally a limited number of loading conditions (draughts) is considered for the analysis, and
an interpolation of the damage over draughts is therefore necessary.
5.4.7.4 Evaluation
The results have to be thoroughly evaluated with respect to the assumptions/simplifications that
have been made in the course of the analysis and revisit some of them if necessary.
For this evaluation, it will be useful to identity the loading states that contribute the most to
fatigue damage (draught, heading, Hs/Tp combination)
An alternative is to do a sensitivity study on the assumptions made for the calculation (e.g.
spectral peakness, directional spreading, draught distribution).
5.4.8 Description of waves as Swell and Wind Seas
In some areas of the world, the wave conditions are better described as a combination of (long
distance) swell and (local) wind seas, resulting in fatigue damages (from each) having possibly a
similar magnitude.
The response from swell and waves may be calculated separately from the RAO’s of stresses,
and combined by the “combined spectrum” method:
Page 41
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
In the “combined spectrum” method, the two response spectra are added together, and the
response addressed as in the 5.4.2 to 5.4.4 above.
The standard deviation of the combined stress process is given by
2
s C = s1 + s 2
2 (21)
where s1 and s 2 are the standard deviations of the two stress processes.
The up-crossing rate of the combined stress process through the mean level is given by
1 2 2 (22)
νC = s1 ν12 + s 2 ν 22
sC
Page 42
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
of the stress at any location of interest, from which stress ranges can be extracted by Rainflow
counting, by starting from the maximum (or the minimum) stress over a full cycle.
Attention should be given that changes in the sequence can significantly alter the stress ranges
(e.g. whether two adjacent tanks are filled and emptied in reverse order or in same order would
change the count from two stress cycles to a single one with double amplitude).
When the sequence is not well defined, it might then be more appropriate to extract maximum
and minimum stresses at each location from a series of design “strength check” loading
conditions.
c) Combination with wave cycle
Due to the superposition of (slowly varying) still water stress cycles and wave cycles, the
damage at a given location is given, following the principle of Rainflow counting, by the sum of:
• the damage due to wave cycles alone,
• the damage due to the envelope of still water plus wave cycles, that may be taken as the
damage due to still water, with stress range(s) equal to the sum of the still water range(s) and
the wave stress range with a return period of one or two days.
d) Note:
Still water stresses might lead to high hot spot stresses at some details:
When in compression, a beneficial effect can be expected in parent material (see section 2.1.6)
When it tension, high local stresses may induce tearing in combination with fatigue crack
propagation. This should be avoided by proper detailing.
Page 43
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
The hot spot stress can be calculated directly from the nodal forces from a FE analysis. The
nodal forces can be calculated from the element stiffness matrix and the corresponding nodal
displacement (and rotations for shell elements). Whether this feature is available or not depends
on the actual computer program that is used.
For three-dimensional analysis an integration (or linearization) of the stress may be performed as
an alternative. For shell elements the stresses are normally presented as membrane stress and
surface stress (membrane + bending) at the Gaussian points.
The “structural stress” or the hot spot stress can be calculated as follows:
σG = σm +σb (6.1)
where
σ m = membrane stress
σ b = bending stress
The membrane stress at a section through the thickness at the hot spot is calculated as
1
t (6.2)
t ∫0
σm = σ y ( x) dx
6
t (6.3)
σ b = 2 ∫ σ y ( x) x dx − σ m
t 0
Page 45
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Notch stress
Stress
Attachment
plate t/2 3t/2
Hot spot stress
Notch stress
Fillet weld
Membrane stress
Figure 6-1 Schematic stress distribution through plate thickness at a hot spot
Nominal stress
Fillet weld
Attachment plate
A A
Ref Figure 6-1
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 47
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Extrapolated
hot spot stress
Intersection
line
A
B
0.5 t 1.5 t
Hot 4 3 4 3
spot
1 2 1 2
Gaussian integration
point
Figure 6-3 Example of derivation of hot spot stress for 8-node shell elements
Models with thin plate or shell elements or alternatively with solid elements are normally used.
It should be noted that on the one hand the arrangement and type of elements have to allow for
steep stress gradients as well as for the formation of plate bending, and on the other hand, only
the linear stress distribution in the plate thickness direction needs to be evaluated with respect to
the definition of structural stress.
Page 48
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
procedure may be used to establish stress values at the 0.5 t and 1.5 t points.
For 8-node elements a second order polynomial may be fitted to the stress results at the mid-side
nodes of the three first elements and the stress at the read out points 0.5 t and 1.5 t can be
derived.
c
b
c
a
Page 50
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 51
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 52
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
0 t 2t 3t 4t 5t 6t
Distance from hot spot
Figure 6-7 Derivation of hot spot stress for element size larger than t x t
where
∆σ a , spot = membrane stress
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
along the weld is small, the difference in fatigue life between axial loading and pure bending is
much smaller. Therefore it should be noted that it is not correct to generally reduce the bending
part of the stress to 60 percent. This has to be restricted to cases with a pronounced stress
concentration.
6.5 Expected accuracy of finite element analysis for hot spot stress analysis
Linear finite element analysis provides rather accurate hot spot stresses provided that the
recommendations with respect to finite element modelling and read out of stresses are followed.
Reference is made to /9/. Quite a number of different analyses by different finite element
programs and users provided hot spot stress results that were “good”. “good” was defined to be
in the region -5 to +10 % of target hot spot stress value. A number of analyses were within
“acceptable” that was defined as being within -10 to -5 and +10+ to +20 of the target hot spot
stress. The methodology was not allowed to provide more non-conservative results than
approximately 10% below target. However, it was accepted that methodology for some types of
specimens provided results more conservative than +20% of target. See also ref./9/.
6.6 Validation of computer programs and finite elements for fatigue analysis
6.6.1 General
In this project a number of finite elements and computer programs have been validated for a
number of different structural details. See also refs. /10/ and /11/.
If other programs are used for hot spot stress analysis it is recommended to test out the program
as well as the user on well known details and verify the results against proper target values.
Page 54
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 55
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
10
9
8
Crack depth (mm)
7
6
5
4
3 PureMembrane
2 SCF=1.8
1 Pure Bending
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Normalised Time
Figure 6-9 Crack growth curves for same hot spot stress with different stress gradients
Page 56
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Girder
Page 57
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Figure 7-2 shows the forces and the reference areas used for derivation of the local nominal weld
throat stresses (or reference stress) to be used together with the S-N curve. The stress is assumed
to be derived from a fine mesh finite element analysis using a “hot spot stress finite element
model” in a section at the fillet weld being investigated. The element stresses in the elements at
the fillet welds are used for calculation of forces that are being transferred through the fillet
welds. Even if three-dimensional elements are used for the analysis it is recommended to follow
this procedure as it is difficult to derive reliable reference stresses directly from the stress
analysis of the fillet welds.
Page 58
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
200
A R=30 A
A-A
Page 59
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
a a
t t
a a
t/2 a
Element at Element at
a section t end of t
B-B bracket
le t
σ1 + σ 2 + σ 3 + σ 4 σ 1 + 3σ 2 + 3σ 3 + σ 4
Floc section = le t Floc end = t2
4 16
Figure 7-2 Methodology for calculation of local forces for fillet weld
Page 60
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
All these potential regions for fatigue cracking should be assessed in a design with use of
appropriate stress concentration factors for holes with reinforcement.
Page 61
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
a)
σn
α Fatigue crack initiating from the weld toe for
σ1 thicker insert tubular. The principal stress σ1 is
the crack driving stress.
45°
b)
c)
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
of the weld toe location (or the D-curve following DNV – RP- C203 (2001)).
If the angle between the principal stress and the normal to the weld toe is larger than 60o the
fatigue life with a stress component parallel with the weld together with an appropriate S-N
curve that depends on the welding process should be used, ref. IIW (1996), see also Chapter 8.
Page 63
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
tr
tp
r r
A A H A A
tr tr
A-A
σ1 θ
r r r
A A A A A A
tr tr tr
c) Principal stress at the d) Shear stress in the plate e) Stress normal to the weld
45° position at 45° position
Figure 7-4 Type of stress and positions for stress calculation at a tubular through a plate
Potential fatigue cracking parallel to the weld toe, ref Figure 7-3b:
For stresses normal to the weld the resulting hot spot stress to be used together with the D curve
is obtained with SCF from Appendix 3 of DNV-RP-C203. Then the hot spot stress is derived as
σ = SCF σ (7.3)
Hot spot Nominal
Potential fatigue cracking from the weld root, ref. Figure 7-3c:
Page 64
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
The relevant stress range for potential cracks in the weld throat of load-carrying fillet-welded
joints and partial penetration welded joints may be calculated from:
(7.4)
∆σ w = ∆σ ⊥2 + ∆τ ⊥2 + 0.2 ∆τ 2//
The stress components in the fillet weld is shown in Figure 7-5.
At some locations there are stress in the plate perpendicular to the fillet weld, σ n , see Figure
7-3b, and a shear stress in the plate parallel with the weld τ // p , see Figure 7-3d.
The 45o position is the region selected for assessment.
Equilibrium of plate in section parallel with the weld gives:
τ // 2a = τ // p t p (7.5)
where
τ // = shear stress in the weld as shown in Figure 7-5
τ // p = the shear stress in the plate as shown in Figure 7-3d
a = throat thickness of weld
tp = plate thickness
The shear stress in the weld is then obtained from eq. (7.3) as
τ // p t p (7.6)
τ // =
2a
Equilibrium of plate in section normal to the weld (See Figure 7-6) gives:
(7.7)
(τ ⊥ + σ ⊥ ) 1 2 2 a = σ n t p
2
And assuming a reaction force on the weld throat in the direction of σn then gives:
σn tp (7.8)
τ⊥ =σ⊥ =
2 2a
Then from eq. (7.2), (7.4), and (7.6) the fillet weld is designed for a combined stress obtained as
t (7.9)
∆σ w = ∆σ n + 0.2∆τ // p
2 2
2a
where
t = plate thickness
a = throat thickness for a double sided fillet weld.
The resulting stress range shall be used together with the W3 curve (= FAT36 in IIW for air
environment).
The total stress range (i.e. maximum compression and maximum tension) should be considered
to be transmitted through the welds for fatigue assessments.
Page 65
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
σ = σz
τ = τyz
τ = τxy
τ
σ
τ
Throat
section y
x
σ τ
tp σn
Fillet weld
a
Page 66
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
h T
t P
L
Page 67
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
The following assessment is made: r/tp = 20, tr/tp = 0.75. Then from DNV-RP-C203:
Figure 4 SCF = 2.17 applies to position Figure 7-3a.
Figure 6 SCF = 0.15 applies to position Figure 7-3c and weld root.
Figure 8 SCF = 1.07 applies to position Figure 7-3b and weld toe.
Figure 10 SCF = 0.46 applies to position Figure 7-3b and weld root.
Figure 12 SCF = -0.75 applies to position Figure 7-3b and weld toe.
The C-curve or FAT125 applies to position Figure 7-3a.
The D-curve or FAT90 applies to weld toes of Figure 7-3b.
The W3-curve or FAT36 applies to weld root of Figure 7-3c.
Check of fatigue cracking at the Figure 7-3a position:
∆σ = ∆σ0 x SCF = 199.6 x 2.17 = 433.13 MPa which is just within the acceptable value of 445.5
MPa for a C detail, ref. DNV-RP-C203 Table 2.14-2.
Check of fatigue cracking at the Figure 7-3b position:
∆σ = ∆σ0 x SCF = 199.6 x 1.07 = 213.57 MPa which is well within the acceptable value of 320.8
MPa for a D detail, ref. DNV-RP-C203 Table 2.14-2.
Thus the fatigue life of weld toe is acceptable.
The required throat thickness is calculated as follows. From DNV-RP-C203 Table 2.14-2 a
maximum stress range of 128.2 MPa for a W3 detail (Weibull shape parameter = 0.90).
Then from equation (6):
σ no min al SCF t p 199.6 * 0.46 * 20 211.71
τ⊥ =σ⊥ = = =
2 2a 2 2a a
Page 68
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
8 S-N CURVES
where
a = constant relating to mean S-N curve
s = standard deviation of log N.
The fatigue strength of welded joints is to some extent dependent on plate thickness. This effect
is due to the local geometry of the weld toe in relation to thickness of the adjoining plates. It is
also dependent on the stress gradient over the thickness. The thickness effect is accounted for by
a modification on stress such that the design S-N curve for thickness larger than the reference
thickness reads:
⎛ ⎛ t ⎞
k
⎞ (8.3)
log N = log a − m log⎜ ∆σ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ t ref ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where
tref = reference thickness equal 25 mm for welded connections.
t = thickness through which a crack will most likely grow. t = tref is used for thickness less
than tref.
k = thickness exponent on fatigue strength as given in Table 8-1, Table 8-2 and Table 8-3.
Thickness effects are mainly used for welded joints and not for the base material, ref. also /2/.
(However, there is also a thickness effect factor used for cast joints and bolts).
Page 69
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 70
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 71
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
1000
Air
100
10
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
Number of cycles
Figure 8-1 S-N curve D as function of environment (hot spot stress S-N curve)
Page 72
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
9 REFERENCES
/1/ Lotsberg, I.: Phase II Summary Report. DNV Report 2003-0579. June 2003.
Also Bergan, P. G. and Lotsberg, I.: Advances in fatigue Assessment of FPSOs.
OMAE-FPSO’04-0012. Int. Conf. Houston.
/2/ DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures. October 2001.
/5/ Kuo, J.-F., Lacey, P. B., Zettlemmoyer, N. and MacMillan, A.: Fatigue Methodology
Specification for New-Built FPSO. OMAE Paper no 3016, Rio de Janeiro, June 2001.
/6/ Na, J. H., Lee, I. H., Sim, W. S. and Shin, H. S.: Full Stochastic Fatigue Analysis for
Kizomba ‘A’ FPSO-Hull Interface Design. Proceedings 22nd Int. conf. on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun Mexico, June 2003.
/7/ IACS Part A Shipbuilding and Repair quality standard for New Construction.
/8/ Hobbacher, A.: Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components. IIW. XIII-1539-96/
XV-845-96.
/9/ Lotsberg, I.: Assessment of Hot Spot Stress Methods for finite Element Analysis. DNV
Report No. 2002-0556 April 2003.
Also: Lotsberg, I. (2004b), “Recommended Methodology for Analysis of Structural
Stress for Fatigue Assessment of Plated Structures”. OMAE-FPSO'04-0013, Int. Conf.
Houston.
/10/ Fricke, W. (2001). Recommended Hot Spot Analysis Procedure for Structural Details
of FPSO’s and Ships Based on Round-Robin FE Analyses. Proc. 11th ISOPE,
Stavanger. Also International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering. Vol. 12, No.
1, March 2002.
/11/ Fricke, W. and Säbel, A.: “Hot Spot Stress Analysis of Five Structural details and
Recommendations for Modelling, Stress Evaluation and design S-N Curve. GL Report
No FF99.188.A, Rev 02, June 2000.
/12/ Lotsberg, I. and Larsen, P. K. (2001). Developments in Fatigue Design Standards for
Offshore Structures, ISOPE, Stavanger.
/13/ Lotsberg, I and Lindberg Bjerke, S.: Tested Fatigue Capacity of Fillet Welded
Specimens. DNV Report No. 2002-3124. April 2003.
And: Lotsberg, I. (2003), “Fatigue Capacity of Fillet Welded Connections subjected to
Axial and Shear Loading”. IIW Document no XIII-2000-03 (XV-1146-03). Also to be
published in Journal of Fatigue.
/14/ Lotsberg, I: Fatigue Capacity of Fillet Welded Penetrations. DNV Report No. 2002-
0255. October 2002.
Also: Lotsberg, I. (2004a), “Fatigue Design of Welded Pipe Penetrations in Plated
Page 73
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
Page 74
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS FPS
IP
O
J
Report No: 2003-0582, rev. 02
i ty
Fa t
TECHNICAL REPORT ig
u e Ca p a c
September 1995.
/32/ Lotsberg, I. and Sigurdsson, G. (2004), “Hot Spot S-N Curve for Fatigue Analysis of
Plated Structures”. OMAE-FPSO'04-0014, Int. Conf. Houston.
/33/ Kim, W.S. and Lotsberg, I. (2004), “Fatigue Test Data for Welded Connections in Ship
Shaped Structures”. OMAE-FPSO'04-0018. Int. Conf. Houston.
/34/ Lotsberg, I. and Rove, H., “Stress Concentration Factors for Butt Welds in Stiffened
Plates”. OMAE New Orleans, (2000).
- o0o -
Page 75
Reference to part of this report which may lead to misinterpretation is not permissible.
FatiguedesignrecommendationsRev02October2004.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
APPENDIX
A
EFFECT OF TOLERANCES
Page A-1
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
δ δ (1)
N σ nominal t
σb =
M
= 2 = 2 =3δ σ
2 nominal
W W t t
6
and the stress concentration frequently referred to at an unstiffened plate weld joint is obtained
from the definition given in the introduction as
σ nominal + σ b δ (2)
SCF = = 1+ 3
σ nominal t
Page A-2
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
a)
b)
t
Notch region
A-A
Static system:
N
Deflected shape:
N
Bending moment:
σ σ δ
The following equation applies for eccentricity with shift in neutral axis due to eccentricity of
plates in addition to shift in neutral axis due to joining of plates with different thickness:
Tolerances are important for calculation of stress concentration factors for butt welds and
cruciform joints. It is not quite obvious what tolerances are accounted for in the S-N data, as
eccentricities were not measured for most of the test data that are used as a basis for derivation of
the design S-N curves that are used today. In IIW (1996) it is stated that an eccentricity of 0.10t
is included in the test data for butt welds and 0.15t for cruciform joints for the S-N curves to be
used for these connections based on a nominal stress approach, ref. 2.1.1. In testing of cruciform
joints the transverse plate is free in terms of boundary conditions. In a real structure it is
restrained with respect to rotation in a similar manner as the two other plates. Therefore this
corresponds to a tolerance of 0.3t that is accounted for in the S-N data for cruciform joints. This
is in the range that normally is being accepted as a fabrication tolerance for cruciform joints.
For butt welds an effective eccentricity in equations 2, 3 and 4 can be calculated as
δ = δ max fabrication code − 0.1t (6)
The maximum value of eccentricity in the IACS construction standard is the minimum of 0.15t
and 3 mm for butt welds and t/3 for cruciform joints.
Thus when the IACS standard is fulfilled with respect to these tolerances mainly butt welds at
connections with different plate thickness such as shown in Figure 10 need to be investigated
with respect to additional stress resulting from eccentricity. Then an effective eccentricity from
equation (6) is used for calculation of stress concentration factor to be multiplied with the
nominal stress before the design S-N curve is entered.
t2
t1
eδ
Page A-4
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
g ≤ 2 mm
- o0o -
Page A-5
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
APPENDIX
B
MEAN STRESS EFFECTS
Page B-1
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
• In specimen no 2, the loaded condition (empty ballast tanks) leads to compressive stresses at
the hot spots (neglecting the residual stress). (R = - ∞).
The test results from specimens 1 and 2 are presented in terms of reduction factors on
compressive stress in Figure B-2. It is shown that the effect of mean stress in these tests is larger
than that given in the DNV CN 30.7 (2001), ref. /3/, for fatigue assessment.
Most design standards for land and offshore structures allow for mean stress effects for base
material and some for Post Weld Heat Treated (PWHT) structures. The Japanese Society of Steel
Construction is one of few standards that include a beneficial effect of compressive mean stress
in fatigue assessment in addition to the aforementioned classification companies.
A different practice with respect to mean stress effects have developed in the ship industry as
compared with the offshore industry. One reason for this is difference in material strength used
in the two industries. A typical material yield strength for offshore structures is in the range 350
– 500 MPa. The material yield strength used in ships is in the range 235-320 MPa. A lower yield
strength in ship structures implies that local yielding a hot spots will more likely occur than if a
higher material yield strength is used and that residual tensile stresses are removed during early
service life. Thus, it is considered acceptable to include some beneficial effects from
compressive load cycles when a fatigue assessment of a ship is performed. Also the consequence
of a fatigue crack is traditionally viewed different in a sailing ship compared with an offshore
platform as a repair can easily be performed after each 5-year survey in a dock.
2
Specimen no
Figure B-1 Comparison of the fatigue lives obtained from specimens in the loaded and
ballast conditions for the same load range
Page B-3
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
1.2
Reduction factor on stress range
1
Compressive stress
at hot spot
0.8
Curve for design used by one
Classification Company
0.6
0.4
Full scale fatigue
test result
0.2
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Mean stress per stress range
Figure B-2 Reduction factor on stress range from test compared with a design curve
- o0o -
Page B-4
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
APPENDIX
C
DESIGN OF CUT-OUTS IN PLATED STRUCTURES
Page C-1
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
C.1 Geometry
The following hole geometries are considered see also Figure C-1:
1) Circular cut-out with diameter = 600 mm
2) Rectangular cut-out 600 x 800 mm with rounded corner R = 300 mm
3) Rectangular cut-out 600 x 1200 mm with rounded corner R = 300 mm
For the three cut-out geometry six different edge reinforcements is applied, see Figure C-2. The
reinforcement details are described below, see also Figure C-2:
(A) Cut-out alone (no reinforcement) (Figure C-2 (A))
(B) Cut-out with inserted plate (15 mm thick, 300 mm wide) around the edge (Figure C-2
(B))
(C) Cut-out with double side reinforcement 50 mm away from the edge (Figure C-2 (C))
(D) Cut-out with single side reinforcement 50 mm away from the edge (Figure C-2 (D))
(E) Cut-out with double side reinforcement 100 mm away from the edge (Figure C-2 (E))
(F) Cut-out with single side reinforcement 100 mm away from the edge (Figure C-2 (F))
Stress concentrations factors are presented for the hot-spots marked in Figure C-2.
Page C-2
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
For geometry (D) and (F), the maximum stresses of the bottom or the top surface in the 20 mm
plate at the cut-out edge are given in the plots. For the other geometry the stresses are
symmetrical about the mid-plane of the plate.
C.2 Applied stresses
The following stresses has been considered:
• longitudinal stress, σx
• transverse stress, σy
• shear stress, τ
The stresses in the longitudinal and the transverse directions are applied separately but are
combined with shear stress. The shear stress is varied between zero and up to the value of the
normal stress.
C.3 Stress Concentration Factor Definition
The definition of the stress concentration factors presented for cut-outs are the maximum
principal stress divided by the nominal normal stress, σx or σy, (not the nominal principal stress).
The maximum principal stress in the hot-spot is selected as the maximum of | σ1| and | σ2|.
The stress concentration factor (Kg) is then:
K g , x( y ) =
(
max σ 1 ; σ 2 )
σ x( y )
Page C-3
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
C4 Results
In general, stress concentration factors are given at 5 points (see Figure C-2) except for the cases
shown in Figure C-2 (A) and (B).
The following should be noted:
• Maximum principal stresses are parallel to the weld toe (hot-spots 2 to 5) with only one
exception:
for double reinforcement and point 2 (see Figure C-2,(C) and (E), the maximum principal
stress is normal to the weld toe.
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
K g= σ 1max /σ x
A1
4.50
B1
4.00 C1
D1
3.50 E1
F1
3.00
2.50
2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Page C-4
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
K g = σ 1max /σ x
A1
4.50 B1
C1
4.00 D1
E1
3.50 F1
3.00
2.50
2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-4 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σx and τ
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
K g = σ 1max /σ x
A1
5.00 B1
C1
4.50 D1
E1
4.00
F1
3.50
3.00
2.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-5 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σx and τ
Page C-5
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
7.50
6.50
5.50
K g = σ 1max /σ y
A1
4.50 B1
C1
D1
3.50 E1
F1
2.50
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/σy
Figure C-6 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σy and τ
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
K g = σ 1max /σ y
A1
4.50
B1
4.00 C1
D1
3.50 E1
F1
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σy
Figure C-7 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σy and τ
Page C-6
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
K g = σ 1max / σ x
B2
3.50 C2
D2
E2
3.00
F2
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-8 Circular Cut-out Ø = 600 mm, σx and τ, stresses for C and E are normal to the
weld
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
K g = σ 1max /σ x
4.00 B2
C2
3.50
D2
E2
3.00
F2
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-9 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σx and τ
Page C-7
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
K g = σ 1max /σ x
B2
4.00
C2
D2
3.50
E2
3.00 F2
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-10 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σx and τ
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
K g = σ 1max /σ y
4.00 B2
C2
3.50 D2
E2
3.00 F2
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σy
Figure C-11 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σy and τ
Page C-8
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
K g = σ 1max /σ y
4.50
B2
4.00
C2
3.50 D2
E2
3.00
F2
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σ y
Figure C-12 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σy and τ
4.50
4.00
K g = σ 1max / σ
3.50
B3
C3
3.00 D3
E3
F3
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
K g = σ 1max / σ
B3
3.50 C3
D3
3.00 E3
F3
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σ x
Figure C-14 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σx and τ
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
K g = σ 1max /σ x
4.50
B3
4.00 C3
D3
3.50
E3
3.00 F3
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σ x
Figure C-15 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σx and τ
Page C-10
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
K g = σ 1max / σ y
4.00
B3
C3
3.50 D3
E3
3.00 F3
2.50
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σ
Figure C-16 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σy and τ
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
K g = σ 1max / σ y
B3
4.50
C3
4.00 D3
E3
3.50
F3
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σ y
Figure C-17 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σy and τ
Page C-11
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
3.00
2.80
2.60
2.40
K g = σ 1max /σ x
2.20 C4
D4
2.00
E4
1.80 F4
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
3.50
3.30
3.10
2.90
2.70
K g = σ 1max /σ x
2.50 C4
D4
2.30 E4
F4
2.10
1.90
1.70
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-19 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σx and τ
Page C-12
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
4.00
3.50
3.00
K g = σ 1max / σ x
C4
D4
2.50
E4
F4
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σ x
Figure C-20 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σx and τ
3.50
3.00
2.50
K g = σ 1max /σ y
C4
D4
2.00
E4
F4
1.50
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σy
Figure C-21 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σy and τ
Page C-13
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
4.00
3.50
3.00
K g = σ 1max /σ y
2.50 C4
D4
E4
2.00 F4
1.50
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σy
Figure C-22 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σy and τ
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
K g = σ 1max / σ x
2.60
C5
2.40
D5
2.20 E5
F5
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
4.00
3.50
3.00
K g = σ 1max / σ x
C5
D5
2.50 E5
F5
2.00
1.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-24 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σx and τ
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
K g = σ 1max / σ x
3.00
C5
2.80 D5
E5
2.60
F5
2.40
2.20
2.00
1.80
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σx
Figure C-25 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σx and τ
Page C-15
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
K g = σ 1max / σ y
2.60
C5
2.40 D5
E5
2.20
F5
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σy
Figure C-26 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 800 mm, σy and τ
4.00
3.50
3.00
K g = σ 1max /σ y
2.50 C5
D5
E5
2.00 F5
1.50
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
τ/ σy
Figure C-27 Rectangular Cut-out with Rounded Corners: 600 x 1200 mm, σy and τ
- o0o -
Page C-16
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
APPENDIX
D
INTERMITTING WETTING PRESSURE AND INTERNAL FLUID
PRESSURE
Page D-1
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
CONTENT
D.1 Introduction 1
D.2 Pressure Model 1
st
D.2.1 Linear theory (3D 1 order diffraction-radiation) pressure 2
D.3.2 Modified pressure to include intermittent wetting 4
D.3.3 Time history of pressure 4
D.3.4 Pressure Range 5
D.3.5 Notes 5
D.3 Analysis of Local Pressure 6
D.3.1 Time domain analysis 6
D.3.2 Frequency domain and statistical analysis 6
D.3.3 Statistical distribution 7
D.4 Pressure Model for FE Analysis 7
D.4.1 Linearisation of pressure loading 8
D.4.2 Simplified (cylindrical) correction 9
D.4.3 Extent of intermittent wetting foot print 10
D.9 Internal fluid pressure in tanks 12
D.9.1 Model 6
D.9.2 Implementation 6
D.9.3 Notes 7
Page D-2
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
D.1 Introduction
The pressure model to account for the intermittent wetting is first presented.
An outline of the methods for the analysis of local pressure and the resulting stresses and damage
is given, and the methods for the implementation of this pressure model into a 3D FE based
spectral analysis are described.
An overview of the problem of intermittent wetting and the background to the present
recommendations is given in /30/ and /28/.
According to the linear potential theory, the linear hydrodynamic pressure, at any point on vessel
hull below the waterline at rest is composed of two parts:
• A purely hydrodynamic part, associated with the time derivative of the velocity potential Φ,
that can be decomposed into three components :
- incident wave,
- diffraction by vessel hull (at rest)
- radiation components resulting from vessel motions
• hydrostatic variation due to ship motions
The two later term being obtained after solving of the equation of motions.
Notes:
a) pressures are obtained from the analysis as the pressure p1 (x,y,z,ω), for a wave of unit
amplitude with a circular frequency ω.
The pressure in waves of finite amplitude A is then given by:
p( x, y, z, t ) = A ⋅ ℜe {p1 ( x , y, z, ω) ⋅ e − iωt }
Page D-1
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
The pressure in irregular waves will be then obtained by summation over all wave
components, taking respective phases into account.
• In the wave crest, a hydrostatic pressure variation is assumed between instant water surface
(z= ~
p 0 > 0) and mean waterline (see Figure D-1).
• In the wave through, total pressure is set to zero when the sum of hydrodynamic pressure and
hydrostatic pressure is negative (see Figure D-2).
Page D-2
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
Page D-3
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
Pressure History
pa
Wave Profile
where Zmin and Zmax define the foot-print of the area that is affected by the effect of intermittent
wetting.
Z max
Z max Zmax Zmax
z=0
Z min RANGE Maximum
~
total pressure
( p o > 0) 2 ⋅ Z min
Zmin Zmin
Hydrostatic pressure
(a ) (b) (c)
Figure D-4 Total Pressure (a), pressure range (b) and mean pressure (c)
Page D-4
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
Besides, for the purpose of frequency domain analysis, and subsequent statistical analysis, the
actual pressure signal in the intermittent wetting area (as shown in Figure D-3) is approximated
by an harmonic variation with same pressure range (pa) (see Figure D-5).
pa
In a given section, this pressure variation is in phase with ~p z i.e. almost in phase with ~
p 0 : the
relative wave elevation.
As shown on Figure D-4c, the mean pressure includes an additional term upon hydrostatic
pressure. This term will be generally omitted for fatigue analysis where mean load is not
described.
D.2.5 Notes
1) the pressure ~
z
p (and similarly the pressure range) can be also written as
~
p = ~p ⋅ f ( z ) where f(z) is a decay function.
z 0
In analytical work, this decay have been often taken as the same (exponential) decay as
the incident wave : this assumption is not always valid (see /30/), and is not necessary
when the actual pressure field is available from the results of linear sea-keeping
analysis.
2) The lower bound of the intermittent wetting area Zmin is given by an implicit equation, and is
thus depending on wave frequency. Taking Zmin = - Zmax , or a constant value, is often
considered, but result in a unrealistic pressure jump in the area between these two points,
with a discontinuity at the -Zmax level (see e.g. fig. 3 in /27/)
Page D-5
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
• the additional stiffener bending stresses due to the relative displacements of stiffeners
support points, induced by global deformations of vessel cargo hold framing (having a
prevailing contribution for e.g. stiffener’s connections at transverse bulkheads).
This will generally assume in addition that the stresses induced by global hold deformation are
not dependent on intermittent wetting. This assumption is valid for FPSO in mild conditions,
where the footprint of IWE is a few stiffener spacing, but becomes inaccurate in harsher
conditions.
This combination can be performed provided separate RAO’s for each contribution are available.
The remarks above are thus applicable to this approach.
The pressure variation at any point, as specified in §D.2.4 is harmonic, and, for the purpose of
stiffeners local strength evaluation, can be treated by the spectral method, from which short term
or long term statistics of pressure local stress response can be made, and the resulting damage
evaluated.
The derivation of short-term local stress response, leading to closed form expressions of the
damage, has been proposed in refs. /26/ and /27/, based however on the simplifications quoted in
D2.5 above.
In these approaches, the combination of the local effect of pressure with stresses induced by the
hull girder bending moments is made analytically. The combination with global hold
deformations is not addressed.
Thus these models are more relevant for Rule based evaluations than in the context of a full FE
based spectral analysis.
The equations in §D.3.4 can be also used also to derive the long-term distribution of local stress
ranges from the pressure range calculated by linear analysis, as illustrated in Figure D-6 below.
The resulting fatigue damage can be obtained by e.g. numerical integration, with however same
limitations as above.
Page D-6
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
p( z ) ; z=0
p( z ) ; z positive
p( z ) ; z negative
Pressure range
|Z|
Page D-7
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
This is actually equivalent to fixing the upper and lower bounds Zmax and Zmin of the intermittent
wetting area to those in regular waves of height H. The amplitude of pressure at any point along
hull is then a harmonic signal proportional to selected wave height H*, with a range:
⎧H *
⎪ 2 [~p 0
−z ] for 0 < z < Z max
⎪
~ ⎪H *
∆P(z) = ⎨ [~p z
− z] for Z min < z < 0
⎪ 2
⎪H *. ~
pz for z < Zmin
⎪
⎩
H * ~0 H * ~z
with Zmax = p , and Zmin given by −z = p
2 2
1) The modified pressure range can also be written as the sum of the 3D hydrodynamic pressure
and an “intermittent wetting correction”(see Figure D-7 below for illustration), such that:
~
∆P = ∆p lin + ∆p corr
The pressure range of the intermittent wetting correction is then:
Page D-8
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
Note:
This loading is in phase with ~
p z i.e almost in phase with ~
p 0 : the RWE in the section under
consideration.
z z z
Z max
Free
surface 1/2
RWE
-1/2
RWE
Z min
Wave
pressure
Around these instants, the intermittent wetting correction will be almost constant over the area
and can be modelled by a cylindrical pressure distribution with following properties:
• Pressure variation is harmonic,
• The intensity of pressure variation follows same diagram as in §D.5 above, in the vertical
direction, but is identical in all sections, with a constant phase,
This modelling is approximate but can be solved as a single unitary loading, provided Zmax and
Zmin are taken the same for all frequencies.
The correction on stresses resulting from the “intermittent wetting correction” can be used to
correct RAO of stresses, considering an intensity of the correction proportional to RWE at each
frequency:
RAO corr = RAO + RWE ⋅ σ iwc
Where σ iwc is the stress resulting from this loading, with the appropriate sign (most often, the
correction is a reduction).
Page D-9
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
However, in this approach, the intermittent wetting correction tends to be overestimated for short
waves, as the length-wise variations of pressure are not included. This can be avoided by
evaluating a decay of the stress correction, based on wavelength.
2) Note
In Rules, pressure diagrams are defined for a crest and a trough situation of the area of interest.
(see e.g. references /3/ and /25/ )
The resulting pressure range diagram, as illustrated in Figure D-8, thus includes the effect of
intermittent wetting.
As this Rule-based pressure diagram is usually modelled as cylindrical, there is consistency
between the above “cylindrical correction” and the Rule-based pressure diagram.
0.5 S
0.75 S
~ 0.8 S
0.5 S
Page D-10
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
z z z z
Zmax Zmax
Free
surface
½ RWE - ½ RWE
Wave -Zmax
pressure Zmin
2a
1) For a short term analysis on a given sea state, selecting Zmax as the significant RWE, i.e. H as
the significant height Hs of the sea state, will provide a representative profile of the pressure
around waterline for the evaluation of global cargo-hold deformation and of around-waterline
stiffener bending. /30/
Zmin is then obtained as defined in D.4.1, but Zmax and Zmin will both depend on wave frequency
and on Hs. A practical simplification will be to consider a single Hs.
2) For the application of a cylindrical correction, it will be practical to consider a single value of
Zmax, i.e. of the RWE :
Zmax, may be taken from the long term distribution of the relative wave elevation, as the value
with a probability of exceedance in the range of 10-3 to 10-5 .
The same assumption is implicit in the Rule-based pressure diagram of the simplified method.
Then, Zmin can be selected based on Zmax and the pressure decay at the frequency for which RWE
is maximum.
Z
In Rule diagrams, the ratio min is taken as 0.75.
Z max
3) Note
The effect of intermittent wetting correction depends on the selected footprint.
Its effect is most often a reduction of stresses with respect to those given by the First order
Diffraction-Radiation. Then, selecting a large footprint might be non-conservative.
It is also worth noting that large correction might go beyond the scope of a spectral fatigue
analysis.
Page D-11
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
O is a point where the (total) pressure at the free surface is assumed invariant and equal to
po (see below).
* stand for scalar product,
r
ΓM is the (translational) acceleration of a reference point M (see below), taking into account
the angular variation of gravity direction versus the vessel axis.
r
With the assumption of small movements of the vessel, the components of ΓM , in vessel axis,
are :
ΓMX = (− g ψ + γ X )
ΓMY = ( g φ + γY )
ΓMZ = (g + γ Z )
with:
γ x , γ y , γ z : accelerations of tank's reference point M, obtained from the motion analysis,
φ, ψ : roll and pitch angle.
D.9.2 Implementation
The total pressure loading can be split in elementary loading cases : one for the still water
loading (that will be generally omitted), and one for each of the three components of the dynamic
acceleration of point M, as illustrated on Figure D-10.
• Dynamic pressure is applied to tank boundaries, up to the level of liquid surface at rest
(linear approximation),
• O is the centre of the free-surface,
• M is then the Metacentric point of the Volume of liquid. (the transverse metacentric point
may be used).
v
In both cases, the integration of pressure over tank boundaries gives F = ρ ⋅ V ⋅ ΓM , following the
law of Archimedes, and the line of action of F will be passing by the point M.
Then, the resulting inertia load will be equivalent to that of a concentrated mass at point M.
This will be consistent with the mass model, where tanks is described by a mass and the Centre
of Volume of the tank and a “free surface correction” of the vertical position of the Centre of
Gravity of the vessel is made for partially filled tank (as in Stability calculations).
D.9.3 Notes
In this model, the accelerations γ x , γ y , γ z in M are combining both translational and rotational
accelerations of vessel cog (or motion reference point), but the effect of the accelerations
induced by rotational motions around point M are not considered.
In the case of a tank with substantial internal partitioning (as usual side hull ballast tank), it
would be more appropriate to apply this model to a series of sub-set of the tank.
Then pressures will appear on internal walls that will better distribute the total inertia load.
There will be however a difficulty if openings in these walls are modelled.
2L 1
2L 2
H Z
Height of
liquid
X
Y
Page D-13
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
γX γy γ
‘ z
(in Z-X plane) (in Z-Yplane) (in Z-X plane or Z-Y plane)
Z Z Z
X Y Y
L1 L2
H H
- o0o -
Page D-14
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
APPENDIX
E
DAMAGE (CLOSED FORM)
Page E-1
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
Closed form expressions of damage considering a Rayleigh or Weibull distribution for the stress
range are given below for two cases: one slope and two slopes S-N curve:
a) “Rayleigh “ distribution
Dref ⋅ ν Z ⋅ 2( 2 Sd )
m
⋅ Γ(1 +
m
2
)
D =
a
with:
Dref Reference duration
νZ Average zero-crossing frequency of the stress response
Sd Standard deviation of the stress process (RMS)
m, a : S-N curve parameters of the single slope S-N curve
Γ : Gamma function
b) “Weibull “ distribution
m
NT ⋅ q ⋅ Γ( 1 +
m
)
D = h
a
with:
NT Total number of stress cycles in the reference duration Dref (5.4.5)
h Weibull shape parameter of the stress distribution
∆σ 0
q Weibull scale parameter of the stress distribution given by: q =
p0 ) (− ln 1/ h
a) “Rayleigh “ distribution
(
Dref ⋅ ν Z ⋅ 2 2 Sd )
m1
⋅ µ ⋅ Γ(1 +
m1
2
)
D =
a1
with:
Dref Reference duration
νZ Average zero-crossing frequency of the stress response
Page E-2
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
⎧ ⎛ m1 ⎞ ⎛a ⎛ m ⎞⎞ ⎫
⎨ γ ⎜1 + ; κ ⎟ −⎜⎜ 1 ⋅ (2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ Sd ) m2 − m1 ⋅ γ ⎜1 + 2 ; κ ⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎬
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ a2 ⎝ 2 ⎠⎠ ⎭
µ = 1 .0 − ⎩
m
Γ ( 1+ 1 )
2
2
⎛ SQ ⎞
κ =⎜ ⎟
⎜ 2 ⋅ 2 ⋅ Sd ⎟
⎝ ⎠
SQ : Stress range at change of slope on the S-N curve
Γ: Gamma function
γ: Incomplete Gamma function as given in table 4-V /25/ or by the following
x
−t
formula: γ (a + 1 , x ) = ∫ t ⋅ e
a
dt
0
b) “Weibull “ distribution
m1
NT ⋅ q ⋅ µ ⋅ Γ( 1 +
m
)
h
D =
a1
with:
NT Total number of stress cycles in the reference duration Dref (5.4.5)
h Weibull shape parameter of the stress distribution
∆σ 0
q Weibull scale parameter of the stress distribution given by: q =
(− ln
p0 )
1/ h
⎧ ⎛ m1 ⎞ ⎛ a1 ⎛ m ⎞⎞ ⎫
⎨ γ ⎜1 + ; κ ⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⋅ (q ) ⋅ γ ⎜1 + 2 ; κ
m1 − m2
⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎬
⎝ h ⎠ ⎝ a2 ⎝ h ⎠⎠ ⎭
µ = 1.0 − ⎩
m
Γ (1 + 1 )
h
h
⎛ SQ ⎞
κ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ q ⎠
Page E-3
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02
DET NORSKE VERITAS/BUREAU VERITAS
Γ: Gamma function
γ: Incomplete Gamma function (see above)
- o0o -
Page E-4
Report No. 2003-0582, rev. 02