See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366581834
Investigation of Welded Joints in Finite Element Analysis
Conference Paper · December 2022
CITATIONS READS
5 589
3 authors:
Osman Bahadır Özden Barış Gökçe
Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi
12 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS 44 PUBLICATIONS 265 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Abdullah Erdemir
14 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Osman Bahadır Özden on 25 December 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
ICONSAD’22 21-24 December 2022
Investigation of Welded Joints in Finite Element Analysis
Osman Bahadır ÖZDEN *,1, Barış GÖKÇE2, Abdullah ERDEMİR1
*
:
[email protected], ORCID: 0000-0003-1231-2936
1
: MPG Machinery Production Group Inc. Co., Konya, Turkey
2
: Engineering Faculty /Mechatronics Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
Abstract: Regions with the lowest fatigue life in a welded joint are usually formed at the weld
toe or weld root. It is important to carefully examine the welded joint region, especially for
structures exposed to high moments and forces. While evaluating welded joints in finite element
method (FEM) analysis, it can be evaluated according to International Institute of Welding
(IIW). According to IIW, there are four approaches to evaluate the stresses on the welded joint:
the nominal stress approach, the structural hot spot stress approach, the effective notch stress
approach and the linear elastic fracture mechanics’ approach. In large and complex structures,
modeling of welded joints in FEM analyzes affects the time spent for analysis. Therefore,
preferred approach for modeling and evaluation is important for the time spent. The accuracy
rate, on the other hand, varies according to the chosen approach, and investigations should be
made according to the complexity of the structure being analyzed and the type of stress coming
to the examined region. Although the accuracy rate is closest to the linear elastic fracture
approach, this approach is not preferred because it will require a lot of effort in FEM analysis,
especially in complex structures. In this study, conventional approaches proposed by IIW were
examined while performing welded joints in FEM analysis. These investigations were carried
out in the welded region with the most critical stress on a mobile crane machine. According to
the results of the study, the hot spot stress was found to be 693 MPa and the nominal stress was
515 MPa according to the maximum principal stress in this region.
Keywords: Welded Joints, Hotspot Stress, Finite Element Analysis, Estimation Fatigue Life.
I. INTRODUCTION
ELDED joints are usually the connections with the lowest fatigue life for structures. For
Wthis reason, welded joints are important for a reliable design and durability [1]. Although
many discontinuities occur in the weld pool during welding process, they can be
controlled by non-destructive tests such as penetration test, magnetic particle test, ultrasonic
inspection. All processes applied during the welding process affect the microstructure of the
heat affected zone (HAZ). The structure formed in this region and the discontinuities in the
weld pool affect the mechanical properties of the welded joint [2]. FEM analyzes are carried
out if an experimental method is not possible while performing fatigue calculations of welded
joints. Weld ends and roots of welded joints are examined and performed by FEM analysis [3,
4, 5]. Results may vary according to welded joint modeling techniques [6].
While welded joints are examined and evaluated in FEM analysis, evaluations are made with
the recommendations of standards or institutions such as Eurocode 3, IIW, AWS and SSAB [7,
8, 9]. Due to the consistency of the IIW recommendations in the recently published literature
studies, researches are carried out on these recommendations [10, 11, 12]. As a result of the
studies, it is seen that the IIW recommendations generally give conservative results. In addition,
it is seen that processes such as grinding, TIG dressing and high-frequency impact on the weld
516
2nd International Congress on Scientific Advances (ICONSAD’22)
toe improve the fatigue life.
In this study, the highest stress region on the welded joints of a complex structure was found
and investigated. Effective notch stress method and linear elastic fracture mechanics approach
are not preferred due to high effort in such complex structures, and stress evaluations are carried
out using nominal stress and hot spot stress approach. Welded joint modeling techniques and
evaluation approaches were examined according to IIW recommendations, and hot spot stress
and nominal stress evaluation approaches were used.
II. MATERIAL and METHODS
There are 4 approaches according to IIW recommendations for stress evaluations based on
FEM analysis results in welded joints. These conventional approaches are nominal stress
approximation, hot spot stress approximation, effective notch stress approximation, and linear
elastic fracture mechanics approximation [13, 14]. Among these approaches, it is necessary to
choose the approach according to the weld toe and weld root examinations. In the hot spot stress
approach, the weld root is not examined, but can be studied in other approaches. Ansys FEM
software was used in this study, and nominal and hot spot stress approaches were used for the
evaluation. Accuracy rates may vary according to the chosen approach, and the choice should
be made according to the complexity of the structure analyzed and the effort spent. Figure 1
shows the graph according to the complexity of the structure and the accuracy of the evaluation
approach.
Figure 1. Stress evaluation approaches accuracy and structural complexity.
In addition, the choice of approach may vary according to the weld toe and weld root
examination. There are different FAT classes of approaches when performing fatigue life
calculations. Fatigue life estimates can be made with the Wöhler S-N curve and Basquin
equation according to the FAT values that give the stress amplitude for the 2E+6 cycle.
A. Nominal Stress Approach
The nominal stress approximation is the classical evaluation method that examines the stress
values in the welded joint at a location further away from the weld toe. Shell, solid, beam
modelling technique of FEM can be calculated with this method. In this method, stress
concentrations at the weld toe are not included. Fatigue life estimates are made with the
selection of FAT classes whose stress concentrations have been verified with many samples.
517
2nd International Congress on Scientific Advances (ICONSAD’22)
The existence of many FAT classes and their use in very complex structures cause this approach
to be preferred. However, it is the method with the lowest accuracy rates compared to other
approaches. For the fatigue life estimations of this method, if appropriate classes are selected
from the tables, quite reliable and conservative fatigue life estimations can be made. Other
approaches should be preferred if nonlinear effects of weld ends are desired. Equation 1 should
be used for analytical stress calculations instead of numerical analysis software such as finite
elements.
𝐹
𝜎 (1)
𝐴
B. Hot Spot Stress Approach
The structural hot spot stress approach calculates the stress at the weld toe by extrapolating,
taking stress values from two or three points. In this evaluation approach, there are 9 classes in
the table of FAT classes. In this approach, the stress of the weld root is not examined and only
the weld toe is evaluated. It gives more accurate results than the nominal stress approach, and
more effort is required for weld modeling in complex structures. Figure 2 shows three methods
for measuring hot spot stress in FEM analysis. (a) the method determined by linearizing the
stress values in the thickness direction, (b) the method determined by taking the nodal points in
the thickness direction, (c) the method that calculates the hot spot stress at the weld end by
taking the stresses from the positions on the surface is shown.
Figure 2. For hot spot stress determination; (a) by linearized stress in the thickness direction, (b) by
values taken from the nodes in the thickness direction, (c) by positions over the surface [15].
In order to determine the hot spot stress, it is necessary to determine the locations where the
stress values are taken. The hotspot stress points according to the fine mesh quality are specified
in Equation 2 and 3.
𝜎 1.67𝜎 . 0.67𝜎 (2)
𝜎 2.52𝜎 . 2.24𝜎 . 0.72𝜎 . (3)
C. Effective Notch Stress Approach
In the effective notch stress approach, the weld toe is modeled with a 1 mm radius according
to IIW recommendations and the evaluation is made. In the nominal stress and hot spot stress
approaches, definitions can be made with shell models, and solid modeling is performed in the
effective notch stress approach. For this reason, this approach is carried out with high effort and
is not preferred because it takes too much time for complex structures. In this approach, only
FAT225 fatigue class is included and fatigue life estimates are made according to this value.
Figure 3 shows the weld modeling for the effective notch method.
518
2nd International Congress on Scientific Advances (ICONSAD’22)
Figure 3. Effective notch stress approach weld modeling.
D. Lineer Elastic Fracture Mechanism Approach
It examines the crack formation and propagation process of welded joints in the linear elastic
fracture mechanics’ approach. This approach, which is examined according to stress
concentration and stress density factors, can be used with Paris law and fracture mechanics
approaches for samples in experimental studies. This approach is very difficult to implement
especially in complex structures and is not preferred.
III. RESULTS and DISCUSSION
FEM analyzes of a mobile crane chassis were performed for welded joint stress assessments
in a complex structure. In the analysis, welded joint regions are combined using a technique
called share topology, which uses shell modeling. In addition, bonded contact definitions have
been applied for the parts that are overlap welded. In this structure, the welded region with the
highest stress was examined. Figure 4 shows the FEM analysis results of the structure.
Figure 4. FEM analysis results.
As a result of the analysis, all welded joint regions were examined and the region with the
highest stress was determined. In this region, definitions were made with coarse mesh modeling
and investigations were carried out. Figure 5 shows this detected region.
519
2nd International Congress on Scientific Advances (ICONSAD’22)
Figure 5. Detected welded joint region.
The analysis results, nominal stress and hot spot stress values for the maximum principal
stress values according to the distances in the examined region are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Detected welded joint region stress values.
As a result of the investigations, the nominal stress value for the weld toe was found to be
515 MPa. The hot spot stress value obtained with the two-point fine mesh formulation
(Equation 2) was determined to be 693 MPa. According to the study [1] in the literature for a
non-complex part, it was determined that the hot spot stress value was higher than the nominal
stress value. Likewise, in this study, the hot spot stress value was found to be higher and
evaluations were made.
IV. CONCLUSION
Welded joints are frequently used in many structures and their inspection is important for
structural safety. There are many evaluation approaches for the welded joint in standards or
institutions and literature and technical studies such as AWS, SSAB, DNV, and Eurocode 3. In
520
2nd International Congress on Scientific Advances (ICONSAD’22)
this study, evaluations were carried out according to IIW recommendations, which are
frequently confirmed in the literature. In complex structures, effective notch approach and
linear elastic fracture approach are not preferred because they require a lot of effort. For this
reason, nominal stress and hot spot stress values were investigated in this study. According to
these approaches, an analysis model was prepared and FEM analysis was performed for a
complex structure.
According to the results of the analysis, the welded joint with the highest stress was
determined and this region was examined. Principal stress values up to 88 mm distance were
examined by taking the welding toe as a reference. According to the analysis results, the
nominal stress value was determined as 515 MPa. For the hot spot stress value, the locations
were determined by using Equation 2 and the principal stress values were taken from these
points. According to this equation, the hot spot stress value was found to be 693 MPa. It was
determined that these results provided sufficient safety for the structure examined.
According to the results of this study, when examining the results of FEM analysis in a
complex structure, it is recommended to evaluate using the nominal stress and hot spot stress
approaches. With shell modeling, welded joint definitions called share topology and modeling
of structures are recommended. This methodology is recommended as these approaches will
provide a faster evaluation process for complex structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of “MPG Machinery Production Group Inc.
Co.” in this study.
REFERENCES
[1] A.R. Shahani and I. Shakeri, “Experimental evaluation of fatigue behaviour of thin
Al5456 welded joints”, Wiley Online Library 43(5), 2019, pp. 965–977.
[2] W. Shin, K. Chang, and S. Muzaffer, “Fatigue analysis of cruciform welded joint with
weld penetration defects”, Engineering Failure Analysis 120, 2021.
[3] B. Karabulut and B. Rossi, “On the applicability of the hot spot stress method to high
strength duplex and carbon steel welded details”, Engineering Failure Analysis 128, 2021,
pp. 105629.
[4] A. Campagnolo, F. Belluzzo, H.C. Yıldırım, and G. Meneghetti, “Fatigue strength
assessment of as-welded and HFMI treated welded joints according to structural and local
approaches”, International Journal of Fatigue 155, 2022, pp. 106584.
[5] P. Corigliano, V. Crupi, X. Pei, and P. Dong, “DIC-based structural strain approach for
low-cycle fatigue assessment of AA 5083 welded joints”, Theoretical and Applied
Fracture Mechanics 116, 2021, pp. 103090.
[6] H. Heyraud, C. Robert, C. Mareau, et al., “A two-scale finite element model for the
fatigue design of large welded structures”, Engineering Failure Analysis 124, 2021, pp.
105280.
[7] J. Kuoppa, J. Samuelsson, and J.-O. Sperle, “Design Handbook: structural design and
manufacturing in high-strength steel”, SSAB, 2012.
[8] Eurocode 3: EN 1993-1: Design of steel structures, 2005.
[9] S. Karthik and G. Mahendramani, “Fatigue failure analysis of fillet welded joints used in
Offshore structures using numerical methods”, Materials Today: Proceedings 45, 2021,
pp. 120–122.
[10] M.L. Larsen, J. Baumgartner, H. Bisgaard Clausen, and V. Arora, “Multiaxial fatigue
assessment of welded joints using a principal component-based measure for non-
proportionality”, International Journal of Fatigue 158, 2022, pp. 106731.
521
2nd International Congress on Scientific Advances (ICONSAD’22)
[11] G. Hultgren, R. Mansour, and Z. Barsoum, “Fatigue strength assessment of welded joints
incorporating the variability in local weld geometry using a probabilistic framework”,
International Journal of Fatigue 167, 2023, pp. 107364.
[12] Z. Man, W. Song, J. Xu, et al., “Misalignment effect on the fatigue failure behavior of
load-carrying cruciform welded joints”, International Journal of Fatigue 160, 2022, pp.
106847.
[13] A. Hobbacher, “Recommendations for fatigue design of welded joints and components”,
2016.
[14] B. Jonsson, G. Dobmann, A. Hobbacher, and M. Kassner, “IIW guidelines on weld
quality in relationship to fatigue strength”, 2016.
[15] E. Niemi, W. Fricke, and S.J. Maddox, “Structural Hot-Spot Stress Approach to Fatigue
Analysis of Welded Components”, Springer, 2018.
522
View publication stats
