PSI - Issue 57

Alberto Visentin et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 57 (2024) 524–531 Alberto Visentin et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000 – 000

530

7

‘Q’ by exploiting a quarter of the joint has been adopted to evaluate the fatigue data according to the PSM (Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 4, both CA and VA fatigue data re-analyzed in terms of equivalent peak stress are in a good agreement with the proposed PSM fatigue design scatter bands for structural steel welded joints. Most importantly, the same fatigue design scatter bands can be adopted to assess both CA and VA fatigue failures. Moreover, the results obtained by means of automated PSM analyses match the results found with manual application of the PSM (Campagnolo et al. 2022). Percent differences are always below 10% and account for the different mesh patterns generated by the FE programs adopted to perform the analyses, i.e. 3D 10-node tetrahedral pattern in Ansys® Mechanical, 2D 4-node harmonic pattern in Ansys® Mechanical APDL, respectively.

Figure 4 . Fatigue strength assessment of partial penetration tube-to-flange welded joints (Witt et al. 2000; Yousefi et al. 2001) according to the PSM. Comparison between fatigue strength results obtained by the manual application of the PSM (Campagnolo et al. 2022) and the present automated PSM tool. Comparison between the fatigue design scatter band and experimental fatigue data for (a) pure bending (λ = 0) and (b) pure bending and combined bending and torsion (λ > 0) .