PSI - Issue 57

Jan Schubnell et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 57 (2024) 112–120 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

114

3

Xi/Yi

Geometrical approximation = weld toe radius = Flanke angle

(a)

Real weld shape

2D-Scan data

SCF( , , …) Solution SCF(Xi,Yi)

…

Y

X1/Y1 X2/Y2

X

= weld toe radius = Flanke angle Articifial weld shape

Xi/Yi

Articifial 2D-data

(b)

SCF(Xi,Yi)

…

Y

X2/Y2

X1/Y1

X

Fig. 1. (a) Approach for the direct determination of SCF from 2D-surface scans, (b) Approach for the determination of SCF based on virtual 2D profiles 2. Data generation and assessment of the stress concentration factor Two different datasets for the development of the ANNs were used in this study. The first dataset is based on simplified models of butt welds. The model geometry is shown in Figure FIXME and based on previous investigations (Dänekas et al. , 2022) with a plate thickness of = 10 mm. The geometrical parameters flank angle , weld toe radius and weld width were varied between 5° to 80°, 0.1 to 5 mm and 7 to 18 mm, respectively. The non-cuboid parameter space shown in Figure FIXME originates from additional limiting equations. DIN EN ISO 5817 limits the weld height ℎ to 1 mm + 0.1 for quality level B. The IIW recommendations (Hobbacher, 2016) suggest a minimal number of five elements on the radius arc, which leads to a limitation for some combinations of smaller radii and angles.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 2. (a) Schematical illustration of the used Finite Element (FE) model for the determination of the SCF, (b) Overview of SCF depending on weld toe radius, flank angle and weld width, (c) histogram of generated SCF based on virtual 2D-profiles