Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Metals 09 00723 v2

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 18

metals

Article
Experimental Data Assessment and Fatigue Design
Recommendation for Stainless-Steel Welded Joints
Yang Peng, Jie Chen and Jun Dong *
College of Civil Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210000, China
* Correspondence: dongjun@njtech.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-136-0140-7837

Received: 12 June 2019; Accepted: 25 June 2019; Published: 26 June 2019 

Abstract: Stainless steel possesses outstanding advantages such as good corrosion resistance and long
service life. Stainless steel is one of the primary materials used for sustainable structures, and welding
is one of the main connection modes of stainless-steel bridges and other structures. Therefore, fatigue
damage at welded joints deserves attention. The existing fatigue design codes of stainless-steel
structures mainly adopt the design philosophy of structural steel. In order to comprehensively
review the published fatigue test data of welded joints in stainless steel, in this paper, the fatigue test
data of representative welded joints of stainless steel were summarized comprehensively and the
S–N curves of six representative stainless-steel welded joints were obtained by statistical evaluation.
The comparison of the fatigue strength from existing design codes and fatigue test data was performed,
and the results showed that the fatigue strength of welded joints of stainless steel was higher than
that of structural-steel welded joints. The flexibility of regression analysis with and without a fixed
negative inverse slope was discussed based on the scatter index. It was found that the fatigue test data
of stainless-steel welded joints are more consistent with the S–N curve regressed by a free negative
inverse slope. In this paper, a design proposal for the fatigue strength of representative welded joints
of stainless steel is presented based on the S–N curve regressed by the free negative inverse slope.

Keywords: stainless-steel structure; welded joints; fatigue strength; S–N curves; scatter index

1. Introduction
Stainless steel has outstanding corrosion resistance, an elegant surface effect, and good mechanical
properties. With the improvement of engineering construction standards, the optimal life cycle benefits
are taken into account, as well as the realization of targets to reuse materials for energy conservation
and emission reduction. Therefore, stainless steel is one of the preferred materials for a sustainable
structure, and has wide development prospects in environments with high durability requirements for
materials such as offshore or near the sea [1–3]. The upper tower of Stonecutters Bridge is a composite
structure with a stainless-steel skin. The Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge’s outer reinforcement parts
used duplex stainless steel [4]. The designers of the motorway flyover in Kerensheide, the Netherlands,
took the resulting corrosion risks into account by selecting stainless steel. The pillars of the footbridge
in Reykjavik, Iceland consist of concrete-filled stainless-steel circular hollow sections. The structure
of the Spain Añorga Railway Bridge is completely made from stainless steel [5]. Stockholm Bridge
in Sweden used duplex stainless steel in its renovation. Welding is the main method of connection,
and fatigue is the main design criterion. The repair of defects is very expensive; moreover, it is
difficult to obtain the ideal repair effect [6–9]. Thus, guidelines are needed to avoid fatigue failure of
stainless-steel welded joints.
The fatigue properties of welded joints were tested due to difficulties in reaching a consensus on
the fatigue design rules. The collection of existing fatigue test data is a common practice in classifying
fatigue details. This is, of course, not the most advisable way, given that the costs and the time involved

Metals 2019, 9, 723; doi:10.3390/met9070723 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals


Metals 2019, 9, 723 2 of 18

in testing specimens to simulate real bridge details and loads are considerable. Data representative
of several countries, steel, and manufacturers may be considered so that the natural scatter based on
bridge constructions is included.
The fatigue behavior of stainless-steel welded joints was the subject of substantial research.
Niemi et al. [10,11] studied the fatigue strength of welded joints of austenitic and duplex stainless
steel. They tested the butt-welded specimens and several types of fillet-welded specimens. The results
indicated that the fatigue strength of stainless-steel welded joints was higher than that of the welded
joints of structural steel existing in the fatigue design standard [11]. Razmjoo [12] summarized fatigue
test data of stainless-steel welded joints in 1995. He compared the data with the 95% confidence limits
enclosing the fatigue data obtained from structural-steel welded joints. He found that the fatigue
test data of stainless-steel welded joints fell within the scatter band of the structural-steel welded
joints. Due to data limitation, he suggested that the S–N curves for structural-steel welded joints
could be used to conservatively design stainless-steel welded joints. Branco et al. [13] systematically
investigated the fatigue behavior of stainless-steel welded joints. They compared the fatigue test data
of stainless-steel welded joints with the scatter band of the structural-steel welded joints. The results
indicated that the S–N curves of the structural-steel welded joints could be applied to stainless-steel
welded joints. The International Institute of Welding (IIW) fatigue recommendation [14] S–N curves
were generally more suitable than those in Eurocode (EC)3 Parts 1–9 [15]. They found that the type of
stainless steel did not influence the fatigue strength of stainless-steel welded joints. The specimens
made from gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) have high fatigue strength due to the very favorable
weld profiles and low stress concentration. Metrovich et al. [16] studied the fatigue strength of the weld
in stainless-steel beams. These beams were made from AL-6XN superaustenitic steel; this stainless
steel is popular in the chemical industry. They found that the fatigue strength of the longitudinal fillet
weld and bulkhead attachment was the same as a structural-steel weld and the fatigue strength of
the transverse groove weld was higher than a structural-steel weld. The National Research Institute
for Metals of Japan [17] published fatigue test data of the hot-rolled austenitic stainless-steel and butt
weld. Nakamura et al. [18,19] investigated the fatigue strength of the butt weld and the filled weld
made from austenitic stainless steel in the air and a corrosive environment. The results illustrated that
the negative inverse slope of S–N curves (m = 5–15) regressed from the fatigue test data was much
larger than the Japanese fatigue design standard [20] for the structural-steel welded joints, in which the
negative inverse slope m of the S–N curves in the standard is equal to 3. In the corrosive environment,
the fatigue strength was reduced. The fatigue strengths of the butt weld and the fillet weld in the
corrosive environment were 80% and 66% of the fatigue strength in the air environment, respectively.
Singh et al. [21,22] tested the butt weld and the fillet weld of the austenitic stainless steel, and the
results indicated that the fatigue test data were consistent with the fatigue design standard, BS 5400
Part 10 [23]. Wu et al. [24] studied the butt weld and the fillet weld made from austenitic stainless steel,
duplex stainless steel, and typical structural steel. They found that the fatigue strength of welded joints
made from stainless steel was higher than that of the structural-steel welded joints. The S–N curves
obtained from the fatigue test data of stainless-steel welded joints were quite different from the S–N
curves from the IIW fatigue design recommendation [14]. The negative inverse slope of the S–N curves
and the fatigue strength regressed from Wu’s fatigue test data were substantially larger than those in
the IIW fatigue design recommendation. However, a systematical statistical analysis of the fatigue test
data is absent in these studies. Highly conservative design rules were proposed, owing to the fact that
experimental evidence was not available to justify more favorable rules. The conclusion is based on
the design rules for structural-steel welded joints although the stress–strain curves for stainless steels
exhibit no yielding plateau [25], as well as a low proportional limit [25] and low residual stress [26].
The above research focused on the nominal stress approach. Partanen and Niemi [27] proposed
S–N curves for a hot-spot stress approach based on the fatigue test data of structural-steel and austenitic
stainless-steel welded joints. The fatigue strength that resulted in a fatigue life of two million cycles
was 107 MPa. This value for the fatigue strength was similar to that of the fatigue classification of the
Metals 2019, 9, 723 3 of 18

IIW recommendation [14] and EC3 Parts 1–9 [15]. Jia et al. [28] found that the fatigue strength of duplex
stainless-steel welded joints with a fatigue life of two million cycles was equal to 167 MPa. This was
much higher than the result of Partanen and Niemi. Feng and Young [29] investigated the stress
concentration factor (SCF) of tubular X-joints. They illustrated that the current SCF equations gave
unconservative predicted results, and new SCF equations were proposed. The research on hot-spot
stress approach for stainless-steel welded joints is not sufficient to suggest reasonable fatigue design
rules. Lazzarin et al. [30,31] studied two new approaches for fatigue estimation of stainless-steel
welded joints: a local strain energy density approach and a peak stress method. The results showed
that the local strain energy density approach was not suitable, and the peak stress method could
accurately estimate the fatigue performance of stainless-steel welded joints. Further validation of the
peak stress method should be conducted. Fracture mechanics were used to investigate the fatigue
strength of stainless-steel welded joints [12,21,22,32–34]. The fatigue crack propagation of stainless steel
is influenced by the transformation-induced plasticity (TRIP) effect [35]. The TRIP effect was confirmed
to be beneficial to the fatigue crack growth resistance of stainless steels containing austenite as the main
phase, such as austenitic stainless steels [35]. This TRIP effect was ignored in the fracture mechanics
research for stainless-steel welded joints. After recent developments in the field of stainless-steel
construction, it is necessary to conduct a comparative study on the commonly used design standards.
In the fatigue design standards of steel structures, the IIW recommendation [15] and EC3 Parts
1–9 [14] include stainless steel. The IIW recommendation [15] includes austenitic stainless steel and
EC3 Parts 1–9 [14] include all grades of stainless steel. The fatigue classifications of the six typical
welded joints in EC3 Parts 1–9 [14] and the IIW recommendation [15] are shown in Table 1. There is a
slight difference between these standards. The fatigue strength of the plates with longitudinal edge
gussets in EC3 Parts 1–9 [14] is lower than that in the IIW recommendation [15].

Table 1. Fatigue strength of typical welded joints in the European Eurocode (EC)3 Parts 1–9 and the
International Institute of Welding (IIW) recommendation.

Weld Structure Additional Provisions EC3 Codes [14] IIW Codes [15]
Weld reinforcement less than 10% width 80 80
Butt weld
Weld reinforcement less than 20% width 90 90
Cruciform joints failing
Failing in the weld throat 36 36
in the weld throat
Plates with transverse
/ 80 80
fillet-welded attachments
L ≤ 50 mm 80 80
Plates with longitudinal 50 mm < L ≤ 80 mm 71 71
fillet-welded attachments 80 mm < L ≤ 100 mm 63 63
L > 100 mm 56 50
Plates with longitudinal
L < 150 mm 40 50
edge gussets
Fillet-welded joints with
/ 80 80
longitudinal round pipes
Plates and flats with as-rolled edges 160 160
Machine gas cut or sheared material
140 140
with subsequent dressing
Base metal Material with machine gas cut edges
having shallow and regular drag lines
or manual gas cut material, 125 125
subsequently dressed to remove all
edge discontinuities
Note: L stands for weld length.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 4 of 18

Thus, it is an opportune time to review the fatigue test data of welded joints. In this paper,
the fatigue test data of the welded joints of stainless steel were summarized, and the S–N curve and the
fatigue strength were obtained using a statistical analysis method. This paper discusses the applicability
of a free negative inverse slope regression S–N curve and a fixed negative inverse slope regression S–N
curve using the scatter index, Tσ . The fatigue classification of stainless steel followed that of structural
steels in Eurocode 3 [14] and the International Institute of Welding recommendations [15]; however,
the difference in welding processes and so on between stainless steel and structural steel was not
taken into account. By comparing the fatigue classification of Eurocode 3 and IIW recommendations
with the fatigue test data of stainless-steel welded joints, the applicability of fatigue classification of
structural steel for stainless steel is assessed. In this paper, a design proposal for the fatigue strength of
stainless-steel welded joints is presented.

2. Database for the Evaluation

2.1. Data-Pooling of Experimental Results


Fatigue test data of typical welded joints of stainless steel were collected from Japan [17,18],
India [21], Europe [11–13], and China [24]. Data including a total of 85 butt welds and 45 cruciform
joints failing in the weld throat, 41 plates with transverse fillet-welded attachments, 38 plates with
longitudinal fillet-welded attachments, 38 plates with longitudinal edge gussets, and 10 fillet-welded
joints with longitudinal round pipes were obtained. The specimen thickness, welding procedure,
material type, experimental information, and the fatigue crack initiation position are shown in Table 2.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 5 of 18

Table 2. Fatigue test data for stainless steel.

Material Ultimate Tensile Thickness Stress Ratio, Frequency, f Welding Crack Initiation
Weld Joint Type Data Source Steel Type
Trademark Strength (MPa) (mm) R (Hz) Procedure Position
[17] SUS304 520 Austenitic 20 −1, 0, 0.5 1–10 – Weld toe
[18] SUS304 520 Austenitic 12 0, 0.5 1–5 – Weld toe
S31803 640 Duplex 0.1, 0.5 GTAW Weld toe
[13] 10 10–20
304 L 520 Austenitic 0.1, 0.5 GMAW Weld toe
Butt weld
[21] 304 L 520 Austenitic 6 0 30 GMAW-GTAW Weld toe
316 620 – 0 – – –
[12] 316 L 485 Austenitic 0.1
– – – –
304 L 485 0
S31803 640 Duplex 10 0.1, 0.5 GTAW
Load-carrying cruciform [13] –
304 L 520 Austenitic 10 0.1, 0.5 GMAW Weld root
joint
[24] 1Cr18Ni9Ti 550 Austenitic 7 0.1 – SMAW
S31803 640 Duplex 0.1, 0.5 GTAW
[13] 10 10–20 Weld toe
304 L 520 Austenitic 0.1, 0.5 GMAW
Plates with transverse
fillet-welded attachments Grade1.4301 625.55 Austenitic
8
[11] Grade1.4462 640 Duplex 0.1–0.41 – – Weld toe
Grade1.4436 520 Austenitic 12
S31803 640 Duplex 0.1, 0.5 GTAW
Plates with longitudinal [13] 10 10–20 Weld toe
304 L 520 Austenitic 0.1, 0.5 GMAW
fillet-welded attachments
[24] 1Cr18Ni9Ti 550 Austenitic 7 0.1 – SMAW Weld toe
S31803 640 Duplex 0.1, 0.5 GTAW
Plates with longitudinal [13] 10 10–20 –
304 L 520 Austenitic 0.1, 0.5 GMAW
edge gussets
[24] SAF2205 620 Duplex 7 0.1 – GMAW Weld toe
Fillet-welded joints with
[24] 1Cr18Ni9Ti 550 Austenitic 8 0.1 – GMAW Weld toe
longitudinal round pipes
[18] SUS304 520 Austenitic 12 0, 0.5 1–5 – base metal
Base metal
[21] 304 L 520 Austenitic 6 0 30 MIG Base metal
Note: Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) in the welding process involves manual arc welding, gas metal arc welding (GMAW) involves inert gas shielded arc welding, and gas tungsten
arc welding (GTAW) involves non-consumable electrode gas shielded arc welding.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 6 of 18

It should be mentioned that the fatigue data from the literature should be verified using the
log-normal distribution because of the heterogeneous nature of the database. Statistical examinations
for proving the quality of the data being merged were applied to check if each dataset could be regarded
as part of the same population. Checking that datasets belonged to the same statistical population was
also applied to identify parameters that led to a differentiation in the fatigue category. The details can
be found in Section 2.2.
It is well known that, with the increase of plate thickness, the fatigue life of welded joints will
decrease [36]. Therefore, most fatigue rules include a correction factor, which can reduce the stress
obtained from the design S–N curve when the thickness of the plate exceeds a certain reference value.
The design curve can be directly applied. In the EC3 Part 9 [14] and IIW recommendations [15],
the reference thickness is 25 mm. In Table 1, the thickness of specimens was 6 mm to 12 mm and was
much smaller than the reference thickness. The plate thickness correction cannot be studied due to
limited data. It is well known that the fatigue strength of welded joints is not related to the material
property [36], i.e., the tensile strength. The tensile strength of the duplex stainless steel is much higher
than that of the austenitic stainless steel. Maddox [36] reviewed the current research, and the results
demonstrated that the influence of the material type on the fatigue strength for stainless-steel welded
joints can be neglected. Following the above conclusion and considering the fact that some data did
not include the material strength, the influence of material type was not studied in the present paper.
Stainless steel is a rate-sensitive material; however, a load frequency between 3 and 114 Hz has no
effect on fatigue behavior when the temperature does not increase and there is no corrosion during the
test period [37]. In this paper, the normal distribution of test data under different load frequencies
was tested, and it was found that the test data of different load frequencies still satisfied the normal
distribution. Therefore, the load frequency indirectly affects the fatigue behavior.
The stress ratio does not influence the fatigue strength of the welded joints. Branco et al. [13]
found the same conclusion for stainless-steel welded joints. However, small-scale specimens were
tested in their experiments. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no large-scale specimen (welded
beam) data could be found in the published literature. These should be researched in the future to
reach a solid conclusion.
The different welding procedures produce different weld profiles and imperfections. From a
general view, the weld quality represents the weld profile and imperfections [38]. The weld quality
has a significant influence on the fatigue strength of the welded joints [38]. Branco et al. [13] reported
that there was no difference between the specimens made from gas metal arc welding (GMAW) and
from gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW). The weld quality of these two welding procedures can be
regarded as being the same.
The crack initiation position is related to the weld profile. This should be illustrated in the fatigue
classification category. Except for the load-carrying cruciform joint, the fatigue crack initiation occurs
at the weld toe in the other welded joints, as shown in Table 2.
These fatigue test data summarized in Table 1 can be used to determine the fatigue strength of
the stainless-steel welded joints. The thickness effect can be studied by using thicker specimens and
collecting more beam specimen data in the future.

2.2. Examination of the Log-Normal Distribution


The statistical samples used in regression S–N curves had systematic errors that were too large;
therefore, the consequences would not be credible. As such, it was necessary to judge whether the
systematic error of data could be neglected before regressing the S–N curve.
The fatigue life data, y = log N, were prepared for n specimens for probability plotting by ranking
the data from minimum to maximum values. Each data item was labeled with an order number, i,
as y1 ≤ y2 ≤ . . . ≤ yn . The probability of survival for the ith data item was approximated as follows:

i
pi = 1 − . (1)
n+1
Metals 2019, 9, 723 7 of 18

Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18


Statistical tests for verifying the quality of the data being merged were applied to check if each
sampleStatistical
set couldtests
be for
seenverifying
as part ofthe
thequality of the data being
same population. merged were
The logarithmic applied
fatigue life to check
obeys if each
a normal
sample set could be seen as part of the same population. The logarithmic fatigue life obeys
distribution [39]. As shown in Figure 1, the logarithmic fatigue life was chosen as the abscissa and the a normal
distribution
survival [39]. As was
probability shown in Figure
chosen as the1,ordinate.
the logarithmic
When the fatigue life was
test data chosen
satisfy as the abscissa
the normal and
distribution,
the data
the survival probabilitylinear
are reasonably was on
chosen as the graph
a probability ordinate. When
[39,40]. An the test data
“eyeball” satisfy was
assessment the used
normal
to
distribution, the data are reasonably linear on a probability graph [39,40]. An “eyeball”
determine whether the logarithmic fatigue life data in the normal probability graph followed a linear assessment
was used
trend [40]. to determine whether the logarithmic fatigue life data in the normal probability graph
followed a linear trend [40].
99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(a)
99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(b)
99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(c)

Figure 1. Cont.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 8 of 18
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(d)
99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(e)
99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(f)

Figure 1. Cont.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 9 of 18
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

99.9%

99%

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

1%
4 5 6 7
Logarithmic fatigue life LgN

(g)
Figure
Figure 1.
1.Verification
Verificationofofthe normal
the normal distribution
distributionof fatigue test test
of fatigue data:data:
(a) butt
(a) weld; (b) cruciform
butt weld; joints
(b) cruciform
failing in theinweld
joints failing throat;
the weld (c) plates
throat; with
(c) plates withtransverse
transverse fillet-welded
fillet-weldedattachments;
attachments;(d) (d)plates
plates with
with
longitudinal fillet-weldedattachments;
longitudinal fillet-welded attachments;(e)(e) plates
plates with
with longitudinal
longitudinal edgeedge gussets;
gussets; (f) fillet-welded
(f) fillet-welded joints
joints with longitudinal
with longitudinal roundround
pipes;pipes; (g)metal.
(g) base base metal.

The distribution
The distributionof ofdata
datapoints
pointswas
wasclose
closetotolinear,
linear,which
whichindicates
indicatesthat
thatthe
thedata
data conformed
conformed toto
a
a normal distribution. The collected fatigue test data could be regarded as samples
normal distribution. The collected fatigue test data could be regarded as samples from the same from the same
statistical matrix and were
statistical wereininaccordance
accordancewithwiththethenormal
normaldistribution.
distribution.ItItwas
wasfound
foundthat
thatthe test
the data
test of
data
different
of steelsteel
different types, thicknesses,
types, stressstress
thicknesses, ratios,ratios,
load frequencies, and welding
load frequencies, procedures
and welding still satisfied
procedures still
the normal
satisfied thedistribution. Therefore,Therefore,
normal distribution. these factors indirectly
these factors affected theaffected
indirectly fatigue behavior of the
the fatigue test data.
behavior of
Thetest
the testdata.
data The
collected could
test data be utilized
collected couldto be
regress theto
utilized S–N curve.
regress the S–N curve.

3. Statistical
3. Statistical Re-Analysis, S–N Curves,
Re-Analysis, S–N Curves, and
and Fatigue
Fatigue Strength
Strength

3.1. S–N Curve


3.1. S–N Curve
Taking the stress range log ∆σ as an independent variable and the number of cycles log N as
Taking the stress range log Δσ as an independent variable and the number of cycles log N as
dependent, the mean fatigue S–N curve was obtained by estimating both the negative inverse slope m
dependent, the mean fatigue S–N curve was obtained by estimating both the negative inverse slope
and the intercept log C as follows:
m and the intercept log C as follows:

C C=∆σ
N  log N  log C  m log  ,
m m N ⇒ log N = log C − m log ∆σ,
(2)(2)
n
( yi − y)22
P

i=1 
n

m= yi  y , (3)
n
P i =1
m = n (xi − x)( yi − y) , (3)
  xPn  x  y 
i=1
i i y
i =1
(xi − x)( yi − y)
i=1

 ( yx  y 2 y 
LogC = x + n y, (4)

i
n
xP
i − y)
i i
LogC = x  =1 i=1 (4) y,
 
n 2
i 
where y represents the logarithmic fatigue life and yx represents
y the logarithmic stress amplitude;
y represents the mean of logarithmic fatiguei =1 life and x represents the mean of logarithmic
stress amplitude.
where y represents the logarithmic fatigue life and x represents the logarithmic stress amplitude; y
xk = xm − k(p,1−α,ν) · σ. (5)
represents the mean of logarithmic fatigue life andx represents the mean of logarithmic stress
amplitude.
As shown in Equation (5), the characteristic S–N curve was obtained by translating the mean S–N
curve, and the translation distance was k·σ. ym represents the logarithmic fatigue life of the mean S–N
x  xm  k p ,1 ,    . (5)
curve, and yk represents the logarithmickfatigue life of the characteristic S–N curve. σ represents the
As shown in Equation (5), the characteristic S–N curve was obtained by translating the mean S–
N curve, and the translation distance was k∙σ. ym represents the logarithmic fatigue life of the mean
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18
Metals 2019, 9, 723 10 of 18

S–N curve, and yk represents the logarithmic fatigue life of the characteristic S–N curve. σ represents
the standard
standard deviation
deviation estimatorestimator of the logarithmic
of the logarithmic fatigue life,fatigue
while klife, while k with
is correlated is correlated with of
the probability the
probability of survival ps, degree of confidence α, and degree of freedom γ. The characteristic value
survival ps , degree of confidence α, and degree of freedom γ. The characteristic value for the fatigue
for the fatigue
strength strength
was defined wasa defined
with survivalwith a survival
probability of probability of 95% at confidence
95% at a one-sided a one-sidedlevel
confidence
of 75%level
at
of 75% at 2 × 10 cycles. The IIW recommendation refers to the logarithmic fatigue life of the average
6
2 × 106 cycles. The IIW recommendation refers to the logarithmic fatigue life of the average S–N curve
S–N curve minus two standard deviations, corresponding to a 97.7% survival probability [15]. The
minus two standard deviations, corresponding to a 97.7% survival probability [15]. The characteristic
characteristic S–N curve obtained at k = 2 is lower than the S–N curve calculated by Equation (5) [41].
S–N curve obtained at k = 2 is lower than the S–N curve calculated by Equation (5) [41]. In this paper,
In this paper, the characteristic S–N curve was obtained by referring to the method of IIW
the characteristic S–N curve was obtained by referring to the method of IIW recommendation.
recommendation.
Figure 2 shows the fatigue test data of six typical welded joints and the fitting characteristics of the
Figure 2 shows the fatigue test data of six typical welded joints and the fitting characteristics of
S–N curve. In order to analyze the rationality of applying the fatigue classification of structural steel to
the S–N curve. In order to analyze the rationality of applying the fatigue classification of structural
stainless steel, Figure 2 also shows the fatigue classification curves of structural steel. The negative
steel to stainless steel, Figure 2 also shows the fatigue classification curves of structural steel. The
inverse slope of the characteristic S–N curve regressed freely was obtained from the test data using the
negative inverse slope of the characteristic S–N curve regressed freely was obtained from the test data
least squares regression method; the negative inverse slope of the fixed slope regression S–N curves
using the least squares regression method; the negative inverse slope of the fixed slope regression S–
and fatigue classification curves adopted a value of 3.
N curves and fatigue classification curves adopted a value of 3.
The number of fatigue test data points of the six typical welded joints collected in this paper was
The number of fatigue test data points of the six typical welded joints collected in this paper was
more than 10, which satisfied the conditions and could be regressed freely. For ease of comparison,
more than 10, which satisfied the conditions and could be regressed freely. For ease of comparison,
the regression S–N curves with a fixed slope m = 3 are also given in Figure 2.
the regression S–N curves with a fixed slope m = 3 are also given in Figure 2.

1500
m=8.5 ∆σ2×106=158.5 MPa
m=3 ∆σ2×106=72.1 MPa
Stress range Δσ(MPa)

Reference[13] Duplex steel


Reference[13] Austenitic steel
Reference[17] Austenitic steel
Reference[18] Austenitic steel
Reference[21] Austenitic steel m=3
Reference[12] Austenitic steel m=8.5
Free Slope Regression S-N Curve
m=3 m=3
Forced Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatigue classification 80MPa[14,15]
Fatigue classification 90MPa[14,15]
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N(million)

(a)

Figure 2. Cont.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 11 of 18
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

1500
m=4.2 ∆σ2×106=49.8 MPa
m=3 ∆σ2×106=32.5 MPa

m=4.2
Stress range Δσ(MPa)

m=3

m=3
Reference[13] Austenitic steel
Reference[13] Duplex steel
Reference[24] Austenitic steel
Free Slope Regression S-N Curve
Forced Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatiguel classification 36MPa[14,15]
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N(million)

(b)

1500
m=7.2 ∆σ2×106=159.7 MPa
m=3 ∆σ2×106=91.5 MPa
Stress range Δσ(MPa)

Reference[13] Duplex steel


Reference[13] Austenitic steel
Reference[11] Austenitic steel
Reference[11] Duplex steel m=7.2
Reference[11] Austenitic steel
m=3 m=3
Free Slope Regression S-N Curve
Forced Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatigue classification 80MPa[14,15]
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N(million)

(c)

Figure 2. Cont.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 12 of 18
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

1500
m=4.6 ∆σ2×106=92.4 MPa
m=3 ∆σ2×106=70.1 MPa
Stress range Δσ(MPa)
m=4.6
m=3

m=3
Reference[13] Duplex steel m=3
Reference[13] Austenitic
Reference[24] Duplex steel
Free Slope Regression S-N Curve
Forced Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatigue classification 80MPa[14,15]
Fatigue classification 71MPa[14,15]
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N(million)

(d)

1500
m=3.2 ∆σ2×106=57.7 MPa
m=3 ∆σ2×106=53.9 MPa
Stress range Δσ(MPa)

m=3.2

m=3
Reference[13] Duplex steel m=3
Reference[13] Austenitic steel
Reference[24] Duplex steel
Free Slope Regression S-N Curve
Forced Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatigue classification 50MPa[14]
Fatigue classification 40 MPa[15]
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N(million)

(e)

Figure 2. Cont.
Metals 2019, 9, 723 13 of 18
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

1500
m=6.4 ∆σ2×106=143.9 MPa
m=3 ∆σ2×106=105.5 MPa
Stress range Δσ(MPa) m=6.4

m=3
Reference[24] Austenitic steel m=3
Free Slope Regression S-N Curve
Forced Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatigue classification 80MPa[14,15]
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N(million)

(f)

1500
m=3
m=3 m=6.9 ∆σ 2×10 6 =190.0 MPa
m=3 m=3 ∆σ 2×10 6 =69.3 MPa

m=6.9
Stress range Δσ/MPa

m=3

Free slope regression S-N curve


Fixed Slope Regression S-N Curve
Fatigue classification 160MPa[14,15]
Fatigue classification 125MPa[14,15]
Reference[17] Austenitic steel
Reference[18] Austenitic steel
Reference[outokumpu] Austenitic steel
Reference[outolumpu] Duplex steel
10
104 105 106 107
Number of cycles N/cycle

(g)
Figure2.2.Characteristic
Figure CharacteristicS–N
S–Ncurves
curvesof ofstainless-steel
stainless-steelwelds
weldsand
andclassification
classificationcurves
curvesofofstructural-steel
structural-steel
welded joints: (a) butt weld; (b) cruciform joints failing in the weld throat; (c) plates with
welded joints: (a) butt weld; (b) cruciform joints failing in the weld throat; (c) plates with transverse transverse
fillet-welded attachments;
fillet-welded attachments; (d)
(d) plates
plates with
with longitudinal
longitudinal fillet-welded
fillet-welded attachments;
attachments; (e)
(e) plates
plates with
with
longitudinaledge
longitudinal edgegussets;
gussets;(f)
(f)fillet-welded
fillet-weldedjoints
jointswith
withlongitudinal
longitudinalround
roundpipes;
pipes;(g)
(g)base
basemetal.
metal.

3.2. Scatter Band Analysis


Metals 2019, 9, 723 14 of 18

3.2. Scatter Band Analysis


Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 18
There are inevitable random errors in the fatigue test, which are caused by random changes in
There are inevitable random errors in the fatigue test, which are caused by random changes in
the material properties, random errors in the specimen welding process, and random errors in the
the material properties, random errors in the specimen welding process, and random errors in the
test loading devices and data testing equipment. The ratio Tσ is a parameter that can quantify the
test loading devices and data testing equipment. The ratio Tσ is a parameter that can quantify the
correlation degree between fatigue data and the dispersion of the fitting curve. The scatter index of the
correlation degree between fatigue data and the dispersion of the fitting curve. The scatter index of
S–N the
curves
S–N is an important
curves indicator
is an important of theofquality
indicator of the
the quality of assessment [40,42].
the assessment [40,42].The
Thescatter
scatter index
index 1/Tσ
was derived
1/Tσ was from thefrom
derived following equation:
the following equation:

 p 10%
∆σ
1T  pSS=10%
1/
T= ∆σ
σ
p =90%
(6) (6)
pSS 90%

As shown
As shown in Figure 3, ∆σ
in Figure 3, PS=10% and ∆σ
ΔσPS=10% and ΔσPPS=90%
S=90% areare
thethe
stress ranges
stress corresponding
ranges to two
corresponding to million
two million
cycles
cycles of fatigue
of fatigue lives
lives of of
thethe S–Ncurves
S–N curves with
with aa probability
probabilityofofsurvival of 10%
survival and and
of 10% 90%,90%,
respectively,
respectively,
and aand a confidence
confidence level
level of of
75%75% [40].∆σ
[40]. ΔσPS=10% and ΔσPS=90% were calculated using Equation (7).
PS=10% and ∆σPS=90% were calculated using Equation (7).
m
" 2 1066 #−m
 ps   ps 50%  log(2
2 · 106  (7)
∆σps = ∆σps =50% 10   
10log(2·106 )±k·σ . . (7)
10 ) k
Stress range Δσ(MPa)

p s=10%
p s=50% 1
m
p s=90% 1 ∆σps=10%
m
1
m
∆σps=90%

2·106
Number of cycles N(million)

Figure 3. Scatter indexes.


Figure 3. Scatter indexes.
Table 3 shows the scatter indexes of the fatigue test data. The scatter index of the free slope
Table 3 shows the scatter indexes of the fatigue test data. The scatter index of the free slope
regression was smaller than that of the fixed slope regression. The average scatter index was 1.3 and
regression was smaller than that of the fixed slope regression. The average scatter index was 1.3 and
the standard deviation was 0.5 with free slope regression, while the average scatter index was 1.9 and
the standard deviation was 0.5 with free slope regression, while the average scatter index was 1.9 and
the standard deviation was 0.7 with fixed slope regression.
the standard deviation was 0.7 with fixed slope regression.
When Spindel and Haibach [43] analyzed a large number of fatigue test data points of welded
Table 3. Scatter
joints of structural indexes
steel, the ofindex
scatter the characteristic S–Nslope
1/Tσ of the free curveregression
of a typical
S–Nweld structure.
curve was 1.5, which
is commonly used as an international standard [44,45].
Weld Structure Free Slope Regression Fixed Slope Regression

TableButt weldindexes of the characteristic S–N curve1.4


3. Scatter of a typical weld structure. 2.6
Cruciform joints failing in the weld throat 2.1 3.0
Plates with transverseWeldfillet-welded attachments Free
1.3 Slope Fixed Slope
2.0
Structure
Plates with longitudinal fillet-welded attachments Regression
1.4 Regression
1.6
Butt weld
Plates with longitudinal edge gussets 1.51.4 2.61.6
Fillet-welded joints with
Cruciform jointslongitudinal
failing in theround
weld pipes
throat 1.12.1 3.01.4
Base metal
Plates with transverse fillet-welded attachments 1.31.3 2.02.4
Average value
Plates with longitudinal fillet-welded attachments 1.31.4 1.61.9
Standard deviation
Plates with longitudinal edge gussets 0.51.5 1.60.7
Metals 2019, 9, 723 15 of 18

When Spindel and Haibach [43] analyzed a large number of fatigue test data points of welded
joints of structural steel, the scatter index 1/Tσ of the free slope regression S–N curve was 1.5, which is
commonly used as an international standard [44,45].
The above analysis shows that, for typical welded joints of stainless steel, the scatter index
obtained by free slope regression was smaller than that obtained by fixed slope regression, and was
smaller than the international standard. The free slope regression S–N curve can be used as the basis
for fatigue design.

3.3. Suggestions on Fatigue Strength


Fatigue test data of duplex stainless steel and austenitic stainless steel were included in all welded
joints except for the longitudinal fillet-weld structure. Regression of an S–N curve with a fixed slope of
3 was used to compare the fatigue properties of austenitic stainless steel and duplex stainless steel
within the matching welded joints. It was noted that the fatigue strength of duplex welded joints of
stainless steel was not significantly different from that of austenitic welded joints of stainless steel.
Fatigue classification curves are given in Figure 2 for comparison with the experimental data.
As can be seen from Figure 2, for the butt welds, plates with transverse fillet-welded attachments,
and fillet-welded joints with longitudinal round pipes, the fatigue test data points were significantly
higher than that of the fixed regression S–N curve. Fatigue test data of the cruciform joints failing in the
weld throat, plates with longitudinal fillet-welded attachments, and a rectangular joint plate were close
to the fixed regression S–N curve. The fatigue strength obtained by free slope regression was higher
than the fatigue classification of structural-steel welded joints. The fatigue strength of stainless-steel
welded joints is greater than that of structural-steel welded joints because of the different residual
stress. Yuan [26] verified through experiments that the welding residual stress of a welded beam of
stainless steel was less than that of structural steel. The linear elastic stage of stainless steel is shorter
than that of structural steel, and the tangential modulus decreases rapidly. In materials with non-linear
stress–strain curves, the strain required to achieve an equivalent yield stress is higher than that required
to reach the unique yield point of traditional structural steel. The residual stress of stainless steel is
lower than that of structural steel due to the different constitutive relationship [26]. The heat input of a
stainless-steel weld is lower than that of a structural-steel weld due to the higher electrical resistance
of stainless steel [26]. This is another reason for the low residual stress of the stainless-steel weld.
As demonstrated in the literature [13], the butt weld, fillet-welded joints with longitudinal round pipes,
and plates with transverse fillet-welded attachments had small residual stresses. According to the IIW
recommendation, the fatigue strength at 2 × 106 cycles should be reduced by 20% to demonstrate the
influence of high residual stress. Table 4 shows the reduced fatigue strength. The values are higher
than the fatigue strength recommended in the EC 3 Part 1–9 and IIW recommendations. In summary,
lower residual stress leads to greater fatigue strength of the stainless-steel welded joints than that of
structural steel-welded joints.

Table 4. The fatigue strength of welded joints of stainless steel suggested in this paper.

Cruciform Plates with Plates with Fillet-Welded


Plates with
Butt Joints Failing Transverse Longitudinal Joints with Base
Weld Structure Longitudinal
Weld in the Weld Fillet-Welded Fillet-Welded Longitudinal Metal
Edge Gussets
Throat Attachments Attachments Round Pipes
The negative inverse
8.5 4.2 7.2 4.6 3.2 6.4 6.9
slope of S–N curve
Fatigue strength at
155 45 155 90 55 140 190
2 × 106 cycles (MPa)
Lowering Fatigue
strength at 2 × 106 127 - 128 - - 115 -
cycles by 20% (MPa)

In the literature [22], the fatigue life composition of stainless-steel butt welds and plates with
transverse fillet-welded attachments was analyzed using the fracture mechanics method, where it was
Metals 2019, 9, 723 16 of 18

found that the fatigue crack initiation life could not be neglected. Long fatigue crack initiation life
will cause the S–N curve slope m to be much larger than 3 [46,47]. The negative inverse slopes m of
the S–N curve were 8.5, 7.2, and 6.4 for butt welds, plates with transverse fillet-welded attachments,
and fillet-welded joints with longitudinal round pipes, respectively, which were much larger than 3.
The negative inverse slopes m of the S–N curve were 4.2, 4.6, 3.2, and 6.9 for cruciform joints failing
in the weld throat, plates with longitudinal fillet-welded attachments, plates with longitudinal edge
gussets, and base metal, respectively, which were close to 3. The fatigue strengths of the butt welds,
plates with transverse fillet-welded attachments, fillet-welded joints with longitudinal round pipes,
and base metal were 158.5 MPa, 159.7 MPa, 143.9 MPa, and 190 MPa, respectively. When S–N curves
were regressed freely, the fatigue limit of base metal at 107 cycles obtained from the test data was
150 MPa, and it was within the range of the fatigue limit in the reference [48]. The fatigue strengths of
cruciform joints failing in the weld throat, plates with longitudinal fillet-welded attachments, and plates
with longitudinal edge gussets were 49.8 MPa, 92.4 MPa, and 57.7 MPa, respectively, when S–N curves
were regressed freely.
Based on the above analysis, the fatigue strengths of the six typical welded joints of stainless steel
are suggested in Table 4.

4. Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study are as follows:

(1) For the same representative welded joints, the fatigue strength of welded joints of stainless steel
was greater than that of the structural-steel welded joints, especially for butt welds, plates with
transverse fillet-welded attachments, and fillet-welded joints with longitudinal round pipes.
(2) The scatter index 1/Tσ for the free slope S–N curves was 1.3, and the scatter index 1/Tσ for fixed
slope S–N curves, m = 3, was 1.9. This demonstrates that the scatter band of the free slope S–N
curves is much smaller than that of the fixed slope S–N curves. The free slope S–N curves are
more suitable to represent the fatigue performance of the stainless-steel welded joints.
(3) The accuracy of analysis can be increased by adopting the slope of the S–N curve according to
welding details. Data analysis shows that the slope of the S–N curve is between 3.2 and 8.6.
With the decrease in the stress concentration, the deviation between the negative inverse slope m
and 3 is greater. This is why the IIW recommendation and EC 3 design S–N curves were used to
over-conservatively evaluate the test results.

5. Expectation
The experimental data collected in this paper were all from laboratory specimens, which were
different from the actual sizes of the components. It is necessary to supplement these data by verifying
full-scale tests under a tangible engineering environment.

Author Contributions: Y.P., J.C., and J.D. prepared the figures and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically
revised and approved the final manuscript version.
Funding: This research was funded by the Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China grant number
[51408307] and the Project of Nanjing Gongdajianshe Company grant number [2019RD06].
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wang, Y.; Yuan, H.; Shi, Y.; Gao, B.; Dai, G.X. Application and research status of stainless steel structure.
Steel Struct. 2010, 2, 1–12. (In Chinese)
2. Baddoo, N.R.; Kosmač, A. Sustainable Duplex Stainless Steel Bridges [DB/OL]. 2012. Available
online: http://www.worldstainless.org/Files/issf/non-image-files/PDF/Sustainable_Duplex_Stainless_Steel_
Bridges.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2018).
Metals 2019, 9, 723 17 of 18

3. Beletski, A. Applicability of Stainless Steel in Road Infrastructure Bridges by Applying Life Cycle Costing.
Master’s Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, 1 May 2007.
4. Morgenthal, G.; Sham, R.; West, B. Engineering the tower and main span construction of stonecutters bridge.
J. Bridge Eng. 2010, 15, 144–152. [CrossRef]
5. Baddoo, N.; Francis, P. Development of design rules in the AISC design guide for structural stainless steel.
Thin Walled Struct. 2014, 83, 200–208. [CrossRef]
6. Tsakopoulos, P.A.; Fisher, J.W. Full-scale fatigue tests of steel orthotropic decks for the Williamsburg Bridge.
J. Bridge Eng. 2003, 8, 323–333. [CrossRef]
7. Ya, S.; Yamada, K.; Ishikawa, T. Fatigue evaluation of rib-todeck welded joints of orthotropic steel bridge
deck. J. Bridge Eng. 2010, 16, 492–499. [CrossRef]
8. Aygul, M.; Al-Emrani, M.; Urushadze, S. Modelling and fatigue life assessment of orthotropic bridge deck
details using FEM. Int. J. Fatigue 2012, 40, 129–142. [CrossRef]
9. Sim, H.B.; Uang, C.M.; Sikorsky, C. Effects of fabrication procedures on fatigue resistance of welded joints in
steel orthotropic decks. J. Bridge Eng. 2009, 14, 366–373. [CrossRef]
10. Lahti, K.E.; Hänninen, H.; Niemi, E. Nominal stress range fatigue of stainless steel fillet welds—The effect of
weld size. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2000, 54, 161–172. [CrossRef]
11. Burgan, B.; Baddoo, N.; Gardner, L.; Way, L.; Johansson, B.; Olssen, A.; Sélen, E.; Viherma, R.; Kouhi, J.;
Talja, A.; et al. Development of the Use of Stainless Steel in Construction; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 1999.
12. Razmjoo, G.R. Design Guidance on Fatigue of Welded Stainless Steel Joints. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, 18–22 June 1995.
13. Branco, C.M.; Maddox, S.J.; Sonsino, C.M. Fatigue Design of Welded Stainless Steels; European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
14. Hobbacher, A.F. Recommendations for Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, 2nd ed.; IIW document
IIW-2259-I5 ex XIII-2460-13/XV-1440-13; International Institute of Welding: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
15. Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures—Part 1–9: Fatigue; EN 1993-1-9; European Committee for Standardization:
London, UK, 2005.
16. Metrovich, B.; Fisher, J.W.; Yen, B.T.; Kaufmann, E.J.; Cheng, X.; Ma, Z. Fatigue strength of welded AL-6XN
superaustenitic stainless steel. Int. J. Fatigue 2003, 25, 1309–1315. [CrossRef]
17. NIMS. Data Sheets on Fatigue Crack Propagation Properties for Butt Welded Joints SUS304-HP(18Cr-9Ni) Hot
Rolled Stainless Steel Plate. 1986. Available online: http://smds.nims.go.jp/openTest/en/content/fatiguelist.
html (accessed on 3 September 2018).
18. Nakamura, Y.; Chihiro, I.; Mimura, H. Research on for Fatigue Strength of Austenitic Stainless Steel (Effects
of Stress Ratio and Corrositive Environment). Kou Kouzou Rombunshuu 2009, 16, 55–64. (In Japanese)
19. Nakamura, Y.; Chihiro, I.; Hiroaki, M. Study on fatigue strength of austenitic stainless steel. J. Struct. Constr.
Eng. (Trans. AIJ) 2010, 16, 55–64. (In Japanese)
20. Japanese Society of Steel Construction. Fatigue Design Recommendation for Steel Structures; Japanese Society of
Steel Construction: Tokyo, Japan, 1995.
21. Singh, P.J.; Guha, B.; Achar, D.G.R. Fatigue life prediction for AISI 304L butt welded joints having different
bead geometry using local stress approach. Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 2003, 8, 303–308. [CrossRef]
22. Singh, P.J.; Achar, D.G.R.; Guha, B. Fatigue life prediction of gas tungsten arc welded AISI 304L cruciform
joints different LOP sizes. Int. J. Fatigue 2003, 25, 1–7. [CrossRef]
23. BS 5400-10:1980. Steel Concrete and Composite Bridges, Code of Practice for Fatigue; British Standards Institution:
London, UK, 1980.
24. Wu, B.; Yang, X.; Jia, F.; Huo, L. Experimental study on fatigue strength of welded joint of stainless steel.
Mech. Strength 2004, 26, 321–325. (In Chinese)
25. Yu, W.W.; LaBoube, R.A. Cold-Formed Steel Design, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
26. Yuan, H.X.; Wang, Y.Q.; Shi, Y.J.; Gardner, L. Residual stress distributions in welded stainless steel sections.
Thin Walled Struct. 2014, 79, 38–51. [CrossRef]
27. Partanen, T.; Niemi, E. Hot spot stress approach to fatigue strength analysis of welded components: Fatigue
test data for steel plate thicknesses up to 10 mm. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 1996, 19, 709–722.
[CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 723 18 of 18

28. Jia, F.-Y.; Huo, L.-X.; Wu, B.; Yang, X.-Q.; Jin, X.-J. Evaluation on fatigue strength of duplex stainless steel
welded joints by hot spot stress. J. Tianjin Univ. 2004, 37, 1014–1017. (In Chinese)
29. Feng, R.; Young, B. Stress Concentration Factors of Cold-formed Stainless Steel Tubular X-joints. J. Constr.
Steel Res. 2013, 91, 26–41. [CrossRef]
30. Livieri, P.; Lazzarin, P. Fatigue strength of steel and aluminium welded joints based on generalised stress
intensity factors and local strain energy values. Int. J. Fract. 2005, 133, 247–276. [CrossRef]
31. Meneghetti, G.; Lazzarin, P. The peak stress method for fatigue strength assessment of welded joints with
weld toe or weld root failures. Weld. World 2011, 55, 22–29. [CrossRef]
32. Infante, V.; Branco, C.M.; Martins, R. a fracture mechanics analysis on the fatigue behaviour of sruciform
joints of duplex stainless steel. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 2003, 26, 791–810. [CrossRef]
33. Singh, P.J.; Guha, B.; Achar, D.R.G. Fatigue tests and estimation of crack initiation and propagation lives in
AISI 304L butt-welds with reinforcement intact. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2003, 10, 383–393. [CrossRef]
34. Singh, P.J.; Guha, B.; Achar, D.R.G.; Nordberg, H. Fatigue life prediction improvement of AISI 304L cruciform
welded joints by cryogenic treatment. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2003, 10, 1–12. [CrossRef]
35. Trudel, A.; Lévesque, M.; Brochu, M. Microstructural effects on the fatigue crack growth resistance of a
stainless steel CA6NM weld. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2014, 115, 60–72. [CrossRef]
36. Maddox, S.J. Fatigue design rules for welded structures. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2015, 2, 102–109. [CrossRef]
37. Gurney, T.R.; Saunders, H. Fatigue of Welded Structures, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1979.
38. Maddox, S.J. Status review on fatigue performance of fillet welds. J. Offsh. Mech. Arct. Eng. 2008, 130,
1469–1476. [CrossRef]
39. ISO 12107-2003. Metallic Materials—Fatigue Testing—Statistical Planning and Analysis of Data; ISO: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2003.
40. Schneider, C.R.A.; Maddox, S.J. Best Practice Guide on Statistical Analysis of Fatigue Data; Comission:
XIII-WG1-114-03; Internatinal Institute of Welding: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
41. Baptista, C.; Reis, A.; Nussbaumer, A. Probabilistic S-N curves for constant and variable amplitude. Int. J.
Fatigue 2017, 101, 312–327. [CrossRef]
42. Zhang, Y. Research on Mechanical Properties and Design Method of Stainless Steel Weld Joints. Ph.D. Thesis,
Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China, 20 June 2016. (In Chinese)
43. Spindel, J.E.; Haibach, E. The method of maximum likelihood applied to the statistical analysis of fatigue
data including run-outs. Int. J. Fatigue 1979, 1, 81–88. [CrossRef]
44. Knight, J.W. Some Basic Fatigue Data for Various Types of Fillet Welded Joints in Structured Steel; Welding Institute
Members Report 9/1976/E; The Welding Institute: Cambridge, UK, 1976.
45. Maddox, S.J. Assessing the significance of flaws in welds subjects to fatigue. Weld. J. Weld. Res. Suppl. 1974,
53, 401–409.
46. Atzori, B.; Lazzarin, P.; Meneghetti, G.; Ricotta, M. Fatigue design of complex welded structures. Int. J.
Fatigue 2009, 31, 59–69. [CrossRef]
47. Peng, Y. Fatigue Behavior of Butt Welded Joints between Cast Steel and Rolled Steel Based on Experimental
Study and Fracture Mechanics Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 20 December
2012. (In Chinese)
48. De Finis, R.; Palumbo, D.; Ancona, F.; Galietti, U. Fatigue limit evaluation of various martensitic stainless
steels with new robust thermographic data analysis. Int. J. Fatigue 2015, 74, 88–96. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

You might also like