Fatigue in welded-steel structures

Here are some basic principles and methods for predicting the durability of welded
structures that bear fluctuating loads.
Mar 3, 2014 Todd Palmer, Engineering Group Leader, Taylor Machine Works, Louisville,
Miss. | Machine Design

Fatigue life is a key concern in welded-steel frames for mobile equipment that experience large and
varying dynamic loads.

For engineers who design welded-steel structures subject to dynamic loading, fatigue life is
normally a top priority. Whether welding together a few relatively simple parts or
fabricating large, complex structures, weld fatigue is likely to be the most-common failure
mode if the part or structure is subjected to fluctuating stresses.

In fact, on the very first page of his classic work, Fatigue of Welded Structures, T.
R. Gurney gets right to the point, stating that an estimated 90% of all failures in
engineering components are due to fatigue. Therefore, heading off potential fatigue
issues is always beneficial, both for manufacturers and users.
Although fatigue may be of concern for stationary equipment such as power
generators or machine tools, it is particularly important when designing and
fabricating steel frames for mobile equipment such as agricultural, construction,
mining, and material-handling machines. Thats because mobile equipment
experiences larger magnitude and much-more unpredictable dynamic loadings.
This may also be the case with structures that, on the surface, appear to be static.
Classic examples are bridges subject to varying loads from crossing vehicles; and
buildings that see variable wind loads and cyclic occupant traffic.

Steel considerations
When considering fatigue analysis of steels, it is important to note a critical
distinction between two broad classes of steels:
Class 1. High-quality, clean steels with precision machined and
polished surfaces. These steels are usually high strength and typically not
welded. In fact, most of these steels do not have chemical or mechanical properties
suitable for welding. Typical material classifications include some of the higher
strength SAE steels such as 4140, 4340, and 52100. Transmission components like
gears, shafts, and bearings are good examples of products made from this class of
steel.
Class 2. Mill rolled, formed, and flame-cut shapes. Fabricated-steel plates,
bars, tubes, wide-flange beams, and other shapes are typically made from lowerstrength steels. These steels have been metallurgically designed with chemical and
mechanical properties that foster good weldability. Typical examples are the ASTM
classes of steels, such as A36, A572, and A514.
While parts made from either class of steel can (and do) suffer fatigue failures, the
theoretical methods used to predict their fatigue lives are vastly different. For Class
1, material tensile strength heavily influences fatigue life. Up to a limit of about
200,000 psi, the higher the tensile strength, the longer a components predicted
service life. For Class 2, fatigue life is completely independent of material strength,
as will be discussed later.
Another basic fatigue property that makes steel unique compared to most other
metals is its apparent endurance limit. One of the foremost authorities on steel
alloys (and other materials) is ASM International, based in Materials Park, Ohio.
In their Handbook Series, Volume 1: Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and
High-Performance Alloys, the article Fatigue Resistance of Steels defines this
characteristic as:

Common stress-range conditions are shown in the three sinusoidal curves.

Fatigue limit (or endurance limit) is the value of the stress below which a material can
presumably endure an infinite number of stress cycles, that is, the stress at which the SNdiagram becomes and appears to remain horizontal.

However, a word of caution is in order when associating endurance limit with

welded steels. Although some data do seem to indicate an infinite life by
extrapolation, particularly for Class 1, this is somewhat open to interpretation for
Class 2 because there tends to be a substantial number of microscopic flaws (where
fatigue cracks initiate) in and around welded joints. Also, no significant amount of
testing has been done beyond about 10 million cycles for large-scale welded
structures.

Fatigue background
Due to the severe nature of fatigue failure, much research has been conducted over
the past few decades in an effort to both predict service life and reduce the number
of failures.
One group behind much of this work is the Transportation Research
Board,headquartered in Washington, D. C. It is one of six major divisions of
the National Research Council a private, nonprofit institution administered
by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The TRBs National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report
102,Effect of Weldments on the Fatigue Strength of Steel Beams, defines fatigue

as the initiation and propagation of microscopic cracks into macroscopic cracks by

the repeated application of stresses. These stresses individually are not large
enough to cause static failure, but if the macroscopic cracks are allowed to increase
in size, structural failure of the member will result from the reduction in effective
load-carrying area of the cross section.
Anyone who has ever experienced a structural fatigue failure certainly understands
just how abruptly this phenomenon can occur. In fact, this is the main distinction
between static and fatigue failure. Static failures are often easy to detect because
theyre accompanied by obvious plastic deformations. Consequently, they often do
not proceed to the point of catastrophic failure.
Fatigue failures, on the other hand, usually happen suddenly and often
catastrophically. This is why manufacturers of equipment subject to fatigue usually
instruct users and maintenance personnel to periodically inspect and perform
nondestructive tests to check for fatigue cracks. These tests can range from simple
visual inspections to more-extensive tests, such as ultrasonic imaging.
Although it is beyond the scope of this article, several weld-improvement
techniques have been shown to lengthen fatigue life. Mechanical examples include
shot-peening and other cold-working techniques that introduce compressive
stresses into the outer surfaces of weld joints.
Another example is thermal stress relieving, in which relatively small parts or
structures are heated in an oven to a predetermined tempering temperature, and
then slowly cooled. These and other techniques mitigate or relieve residual
stresses commonly produced during welding.

Coefficients for different fatigue categories are an aid in calculating a welded joints sensitivity to applied
stresses.

It is also important to remember that the fatigue life of welded structures is independent of
material strength. In fact, in some cases, higher-strength steels such as class A514 prove to
be less fatigue resistant than lower-strength steels like A36. This most likely stems from the
relative weldability of these materials: A514 is more difficult to weld than A36. Tests show
that fatigue cracks initiate at some initial discontinuity in the weldment and tend to grow
perpendicular to the applied stress. Some examples of typical discontinuities or weld
defects are porosity, inclusions, incomplete fusion, trapped slag, trapped hydrogen, and
high-hardness gradients (usually from inadequate preheat).

Quantifying fatigue data

Thanks to extensive research by multiple organizations in several countries over the
past 40+ years, the relationship between fatigue life and stress range has been
firmly established. For example, NCHRP Report 286: Evaluation of Fatigue Tests
and Design Criteria on Welded Details, defines fatigue life, N, as:
N = A/SrB = ASr -B
or
log N = log A Blog Sr
where N = life in cycles, Sr = stress range (not stress magnitude) in ksi, A = fatigue
detail category coefficient, and B = the slope of the fatigue curve.

Heres a closer look at these parameters:

Fatigue curve slope (B). Based on regression analysis of the aforementioned
research test data, the exponent B was found to be approximately 3.0. (More details
can be found in NCHRP Report 286.)
In practical terms, these findings suggest that fatigue life is inversely proportional
to the cube of the stress range. Thus, even a slight change in stress range can
profoundly affect life. For example, increasing the stress range by only 10% will
reduce predicted life by 25%. Doubling the stress range will reduce life by a factor of
eight!
Stress range (Sr). Stress range, by definition, is simply the difference between the
maximum and minimum stresses:
Sr = Smax Smin.
In fatigue analysis, the stress range is always cyclical. A typical illustration of this
concept is shown in the Typical stress ranges graphic, where some possible
stress-range conditions are represented by three sinusoidal curves. In each case, the
stress range is identical (40 ksi), but stress magnitudes vary substantially (from
20 to 60 ksi). The figures also illustrate the two different types of stress ranges:

Pulsating: Smax and Smin are both tensile (or both compressive).

Alternating: Smax is tensile and Smin is compressive.

A good example of a pulsating stress range can be found in the frames of moving
off-highway equipment. Navigating the machine and its load over various obstacles
or rough ground introduces vertical, lateral, and longitudinal accelerations and
that generates pulsating stress ranges throughout the frame members. This is
represented by the first curve.
A bridge-crane beam is another example of a member subjected to variable loading
that produces a pulsating stress range. As a load is placed on the hook, stress in the
beam ranges from zero to the Smax corresponding to that load. When the load is
removed, stress returns to zero. This constitutes one load cycle, such as the one
shown in the second curve.
The classic example of a fully alternating stress range (the third curve) is a rotating
shaft under a bending load, such as an agricultural tractor rear-wheel axle shaft.
Althoughquantitatively, a pulsating stress range may have the same magnitude as
an alternating stress range, qualitatively, alternating stress ranges in welded

structures (especially fully alternating, where Smax = Smin) tend to be more severe.
Theyre more likely to cause fatigue cracks to propagate.
Again, this is a major distinction between static and fatigue failures. Static failures
only occur at stresses at or above the materials yield strength. Fatigue failure, on
the other hand, can happen at a stress range with small-magnitude stresses. In fact,
the average stress magnitude for the fully alternating case is zero.
Finally, when calculating stress range, it is important to use global stress values
(such asMc/I or P/A type stresses), not local stress-concentration values, such as
those present at a welded discontinuity. Thats because most research correlating
fatigue life and stress range has focused on realistic geometrical discontinuities.
The intent was that calculated stresses be nominal stresses determined by
appropriate analysis methods, not localized hot-spot stresses (a notch effect, for
example) that finite-element analysis might uncover.
Fatigue detail category coefficient (A). To establish the relationship between
fatigue life and welded joint detail, seven basic fatigue categories have been
established: A, B, B, C, D, E and E. Each is based on actual test-to-failure of
specific joint types and geometries. These range from plain as-rolled material away
from any welds (Category A) to abrupt geometric and metallurgical gradients that
create severe stress concentrations (Category E). See the sidebar, Classifying
fatigue resistance, for more information and examples.
Thus, the coefficient A in the NCHRP equations is strictly based on the welded-joint
detail and geometry. Values for A for each category are listed in the Fatigue
category coefficients table.

Fatigue life
Two common expressions relate cycle life and stress range. The first is
from NCHRP Report 286:
N = A/(Sr)3
and the second from American Welding Society AWS D1.1-2006:
N = Cf /(Fsr)3.
N = number of cycles; Sr and Fsr = allowable stress range (ksi); and A and Cf are
fatigue detail category coefficients. Although the nomenclature differs, it is obvious

these two equations are identical. An alternative, perhaps more user-friendly

form of equation is:
N = (Q /Sr)3
where, Q = (A/106)1/3 = (Cf /106)1/3 = allowable stress range for 1 million cycles.
In this case the coefficient Q is derived directly from the AWS Cf coefficient and
effectively represents the stress range at which a specific joint would have a
predicted life of 1 million cycles. See the Fatigue category coefficients table and
the Design stress range curves for specific details.
One challenge for engineers applying this equation lies in specifying the correct
fatigue category and coefficient. One of the best resources for pairing joint details
with the proper fatigue category is AWS D1.1, Table 2.4: Fatigue Stress Design
Parameters, which contains seven sections with about 80 illustrative examples.

The stress range curves using coefficient Q show the stress range versus life (in millions of cycles) for
the various categories of joint details.

Intuitively, it is obvious that some joints resist fatigue better than others. A joint with welds
parallel to the applied stress is usually much less fatigue sensitive than one with welds
transverse to the applied stress. Also, the more abruptly a section changes, the more severe
the fatigue class. Of course, if the section change is in a low-stress-range area, a low-fatigue
category may be acceptable.

Consider these examples. A beam with upper and lower flanges connected by a web
welded with continuous, longitudinal fillet welds is Category B. If a cross member
were attached to the upper flange with transverse full-penetration groove welds, the
more gradual the section change, the better the fatigue category (from Category B
with a 24-in. radius down to Category E with a 2-in. radius). If, however, a relatively
small bracket were welded to the top flange of this beam, the category could drop
drastically from B down to E or even E, and it does not matter whether the bracket
is load bearing or not. As welded-structures expert, Omer Blodgett, once said,
There are no secondary members in welded design.

Classifying fatigue resistance

To aid in designing bridges, the American Assn. of State Highway and Transportation
Officials(AASHTO) developed a classification system for load-induced fatigue. Each
category indicates the relative fatigue strength of certain types of welded constructions;
different designs in the same category have about the same stress concentrations and
comparable fatigues lives. Here are a few examples:
Category A includes plain base-metal material with rolled or cleaned surfaces, away from
welds, rivets, and bolts. This category has the best fatigue resistance.
Categories B and B encompass welded structural details such as longitudinal continuous
welds in built-up plates and shapes. Category B has constructions similar to those in B that are
more sensitive to fatigue.
Category C includes transverse stiffeners, short attachments (less than 2 in.), transverse groove
welds where the reinforcement has not been removed, and connections with a gradual transition
radius (6 to 24-in. radius).

Category D includes welded short attachments (2 to 4 in.) and connections with more-abrupt
transition radii (2 to 6 in.).
Categories E and E welds have the lowest fatigue strength. A few examples include
intermittent fillet welds, welds at the ends of partial-length beam cover plates, longer
attachments (more than 4 in.), and connections with a sharp transition radius (less than 2 in.). Of
all the different welded constructions, those in those in Categories E and E are the most
susceptible to fatigue crack growth.