Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sensitivity Fatigue Assessment
Sensitivity Fatigue Assessment
nd
22
OMAE 2003-37238
SENSITIVITY OF FATIGUE ASSESSMENT TO THE USE OF
DIFFERENT REFERENCE S-N CURVES
Xiaozhi Wang
American Bureau of Shipping
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060, USA
cwang@eagle.org
Zhan Cheng
American Bureau of Shipping
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060, USA
zcheng@eagle.org
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
141
(2)
where C and r are strength parameters determined
from fatigue tests.
The parameters defining S-N curves are listed in
Table 1, in which the first eight curves are for nontubular joints of various classifications and the last one
for tubular joints.
Figure 1: Two-segment S-N curve
NS m = A
142
Log(S)
NOMENCLATURE
NS r = C
m
SQ
1
r
Log (N)
Curve
Class
B
C
NQ
1.011015
4.0
1.021019
6.0
13
3.5
2.591017
5.5
1.5210
12
3.0
15
4.3310
5.0
1.041012
3.0
2.301015
5.0
6.3010
11
3.0
14
9.9710
5.0
F2
4.301011
3.0
5.281014
5.0
2.5010
11
3.0
14
2.1410
5.0
1.601011
3.0
1.021014
5.0
3.0
15
5.0
4.2310
12
1.4610
4.0510
(4)
N<107
Codes
N>107
Log10(A)
m
Log10(A)
DEn (1990)
11.801
15.001
3
& HSE (1995)
Table 3 Parameters of F-curves (in air)
m
5
ABS [1]
HSE [3]
Test Data
HSE [3]-16mm
100
10
DEn (1990)
0.25
HSE (1995)
0.30
tB
22 mm
16 mm
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+
ABS [1]
HSE [3]
Stress Range (MPa)
Parameters
k
1.00E+03
10
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+
143
1000
ABS [1]
HSE [3]
Test Data
HSE [3] 16mm
100
10
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+0
S B = S /(t B / t ) k
(5)
100
10
1.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+0
144
1000
1000
B (ABS [1])
C (ABS)
D (ABS)
C (ABS [1])
F2 ABS)
G (ABS)
W (ABS)
E (ABS)
F (ABS)
100
A (AWS [7])
B (AWS)
100
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS C
20
16
32
AWS B 32
10
B' (AWS)
C (AWS)
D (AWS)
E (AWS)
E' (AWS)
10
1.00E+04
F (AWS)
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS C
20
16
AWS B 35
35
1.00E+04
1.00E+0
1.00E+05
B (AWS [7])
1.00E+06
1.00E+09
1000
B (ABS [1])
1.00E+08
h=0.75
_____________________
t=22mm t=30mm
ABS B
20
16
AWS B 18
18
10
h=1.0
_____________________
t=22mm t=30mm
ABS B
20
16
AWS B 18
18
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
B (AWS [7])
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
1000
D (ABS [1])
E (AWS [7])
1.00E+07
100
10
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS D
20
16
AWS E
6
6
1
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+
145
1000
1000
C (ABS [1])
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS C
20
16
AWS C 10
10
10
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS C
20
16
AWS C 11
11
1.00E+04
Fatigue Life
100
1.00E+05
100
10
C (AWS [7])
1
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS F2
20
16
44
44
AWS D
AWS E
19
19
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS F2
20
16
AWS D
49
49
AWS E
20
20
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
Ground smooth
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1000
E (AWS [7])
E (AWS [7])
G (ABS [1])
10
1.00E+09
1000
100
1.00E+08
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS G
20
16
AWS E
33
33
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS G
20
16
AWS E
35
35
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
100
10
1
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+04
1.00E+09
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+0
1000
1000
D (AWS [7])
F (ABS [1], Attachment length < 150mm, d > 10mm))
100
F (ABS [1])
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS F
20
16
30
AWS D 30
10
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS F
20
16
AWS D 34
34
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
10
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS F
20
16
AWS C 78
78
C (AWS [7])
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+09
146
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
20
16
ABS F
AWS C 65
65
1
1.00E+04
100
10
h=0.75
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
20
16
ABS F2
DEn F
29
23
AWS C
96
96
h=1.0
_____________________
t =22mm t=30mm
ABS F2
20
16
29
23
DEn F
AWS C 114
114
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
C (AWS [7])
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.00E+
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors would like to acknowledge the valuable
comments from John F. Conlon, ABS Consultant,
Professor Paul H. Wirsching, University of Arizona, and
Dr. Richard Yee from Nuclear Safety Solutions Ltd.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper illustrates some of the differences in
fatigue assessment results which can occur when using SN curves recommended by different sources. The recent
ABS S-N curves were produced based on reanalysis of
data used to establish the curves issued in the UK. An
adjustment to the UK S-N data related to thickness has
been modified in the ABS proposal, and this has been
mentioned in this paper.
The UK based curves are wildly employed and may
eventually be the basis of the future ISO criteria
applicable to fixed offshore structures. On the other hand,
the use of API (and AWS) fatigue criteria is expected for
offshore hydrocarbon production structure sited in the US
continental shelf.
4.
5.
6.
7.
147
148