PSI - Issue 75

Georg Veile et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 75 (2025) 184–192 Georg Veile / Structural Integrity Procedia (2025)

185

2

Nomenclature calc

calculated/predicted

experimental Gupta-Fesich

exp GF

FGF FFS FDP FEA FS

Fesich-Gupta-Fesich Fesich-Fatemi-Socie

Fatemi-Socie

Fatigue Damage Parameter(s) Finite Element Analysis

Material parameter

k

maximum

max

normal

n

N Number of cycles NURBS Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines RM Rettenmeier SWT Smith-Watson-Tooper VM von-Mises x,y,z

Direction of vectors in the coordinate system

ε σ γ τ χ Δ

strain in (mm/mm) stress in (MPa) torsion in (MPa) gradient (1/mm) shear strain in (mm/mm)

delta

1. Introduction For the fatigue life assessment of weld joints local concepts are often used due to their prediction capabilities (Braun et al. 2022). In this case, the local weld geometry is modeled by means of a fictive radius of 1 mm (Kaffenberger e Vormwald 2012). Fatigue damage parameters (FDP) are then used to evaluate the highest loaded point determined with finite element analysis (FEA). The FDP used in this work have been described in literature (Veile et al. 2025; Fatemi e Socie 1988; Niederwanger et al. 2020). For this reason, no further explanation is given. All advanced FDP are extensions to the commonly used FDP SWT and FDP FS . = √ ( − ) 2 +( − ) 2 +( − ) 2 +6( 2 + 2 + 2 ) 2 (1) = ∆ 2 (1 + ) (2) =( 1+ 1 ∗ ) ∆ 2 (1 + , ) (3) =( 1+ 1 ∗ ) ∆ 2 (1 + (1 +1 ∗ ) , ) (4) = ∙ ∆ 2 (5)