Fatigue Assessment of Offshore STRUCTURES (April 2003) : Commentary On The Guide For The

COMMENTARY ON THE GUIDE FOR THE
FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE

STRUCTURES (April 2003)
JANUARY 2004
American Bureau of Shipping
Incorporated by Act of Legislature of
the State of New York 1862
Copyright 2004
American Bureau of Shipping
ABS Plaza
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060 USA

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ABS

COMMENTARY ON THE GUIDE FOR THE FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
.
2004 iii
Foreword
This Commentary provides background, including source and additional technical details, for the
ABS Guide for the Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures, April 2003, which is referred to herein
as the Guide. The criteria contained in the Guide are necessarily brief in order to give clear
descriptions of the fatigue assessment process. This Commentary allows the presentation of
supplementary information to better explain the basis and intent of the criteria that are used in the
fatigue assessment process.
It should be understood that the Commentary is applicable only to the indicated version of the Guide.
The order of presentation of the material in this Commentary generally follows that of the Guide. The
major topics of the Sections in both the Guide and Commentary are the same, but the detailed
contents of the individual Subsections and Paragraphs will not typically correspond between the
Guide and the Commentary.
In case of a conflict between anything presented herein and the ABS Rules or the Guide, precedence
is given to the Rules or the Guide. This Commentary shall not be considered as being more
authoritative than the Guide to which it refers.
ABS welcomes comments and suggestions for improvement of this Commentary. Comments or
suggestions can be sent electronically to rdd@eagle.org.


ABS

.
2004 v

COMMENTARY ON THE GUIDE FOR THE
FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE
STRUCTURES (April 2003)
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 Introduction ............................................................................ 1
1 General Comments................................................................1
2 Basic Terminology .................................................................1
3 The Deterministic Method and the Palmgren-Miner
Rule to Define Fatigue Damage ............................................2
4 Application of the Palmgren-Miner (PM) Rule .......................2
5 Safety Checking with Respect to Fatigue..............................3

TABLE 1 Deterministic Stress Spectra........................................2
TABLE 2 Tubular Joints: Statistics on Damage at Failure,
( Lognormal Distribution Assumed)............................3
TABLE 3 Plated Joints: Statistics on Damage at Failure,
( Lognormal Distribution Assumed)............................3

SECTION 2 Fatigue Strength Based on S-N Curves General
Concepts................................................................................. 5
1 Preliminary Comments...........................................................5
2 Statistical Analysis of S-N Data .............................................6
3 The Design Curve..................................................................6
4 The Endurance Range...........................................................7
5 Stress Concentration Factors Tubular Intersections ..........8

TABLE 1 Details of the Basic In-Air S-N Curves ......................7

FIGURE 1 An Example of S-N Fatigue Data Showing the
Least Squares Line and the Design Line
[HSE(1995)] .................................................................5
FIGURE 2 The Design S-N Curve for the ABS-(A) Class D
Joint..............................................................................8
FIGURE 3 Weld Toe Extrapolation Points for a Tubular Joint ......9

vi ABS

.
2004
SECTION 3 S-N Curves............................................................................ 11
1 Introduction ..........................................................................11
2 A Digest of the S-N Curves Used for the Structural
Details of Offshore Structures..............................................11
3 General Comparison............................................................13
4 Tubular Intersection Connections........................................13
4.1 Without Weld Profile Control ...........................................13
4.2 With Weld Improvement ..................................................14
5 Plated Connections..............................................................15
6 Discussion of the Thickness Effect ......................................16
6.1 Introduction......................................................................16
6.2 Fatigue Test Data on Plated Joints .................................17
6.3 Design F-Curves with Thickness Adjustment ..................17
6.4 Thickness Adjustments to Test Data and Their
Regressed S-N Curves....................................................18
6.5 Discussion.......................................................................18
6.6 Postscript.........................................................................18
7 Effects of Corrosion on Fatigue Strength.............................30
7.1 Preliminary Remarks .......................................................30
7.2 A Summary of the Results...............................................30
7.3 The Summaries...............................................................30

TABLE 1 Coverage of the Two Main Sources of S-N curves
Used for Offshore Structures .....................................13
TABLE 2 AWS-HSE/DEn Curves for Similar Detail Classes ....15
TABLE 3 Parameters of Plate Thickness Adjustment for
Plated Joints...............................................................17
TABLE 4 Parameters of Plate Thickness Adjustment for
Tubular Joints.............................................................17
TABLE 5 Parameters of F-curves .............................................17
TABLE 6 Details of Basic Design S-N Curves HSE(1995) .......31
TABLE 7 Life Reduction Factors to be applied to the Lower
Cycle Segment of the Design S-N HSE Curves ........31
TABLE 8 Life Reduction Factors to be Applied to the Lower
Segment of the Design S-N DNV Curves ..................32

FIGURE 1 API, DEn, and ABS S-N design Curves for Tubular
Joints; Effective Cathodic Protection; No Profile
Control Specified........................................................14
FIGURE 2 F-Curves with Thickness Adjustment and Test
Data; 16 mm Plate .....................................................19
Data; 20 mm Plate .....................................................19
Data; 22 mm Plate .....................................................20
Data; 25 mm Plate .....................................................20

ABS

.
2004 vii
Data; 26 mm Plate .....................................................21
Data; 38 mm Plate .....................................................21
Data; 40 mm Plate .....................................................22
Data; 50 mm Plate .....................................................22
Data; 52 mm Plate .....................................................23
Data; 70 mm Plate .....................................................23
Data; 75 mm Plate .....................................................24
Data; 78 mm Plate .....................................................24
Data; 80 mm Plate .....................................................25
Data; 100 mm Plate ...................................................25
Data; 103 mm Plate ...................................................26
Data; 150 mm Plate ...................................................26
Data; 160 mm Plate ...................................................27
Data; 200 mm Plate ...................................................27
FIGURE 20 Test data with DEn(1990) Thickness Adjustment
and their Regressed S-N Curves
(All Thicknesses)........................................................28
FIGURE 21 Test Data with HSE(1995) Thickness Adjustment
(All Thicknesses)........................................................28
FIGURE 22 Test Data with DNV(2000) Thickness Adjustment
(All Thicknesses)........................................................29
FIGURE 23 Regressed S-N Curves and Design F-curves............29

SECTION 4 Fatigue Design Factors ....................................................... 35
1 Preliminary Remarks............................................................35
2 The Safety Check Expression .............................................35
3 Summaries of FDFs Specified by Others ............................36

viii ABS

.
2004
SECTION 5 The Simplified Fatigue Assessment Method..................... 39
1 Introduction ..........................................................................39
2 The Weibull Distribution for Long Term Stress
Ranges.................................................................................39
2.1 Definition of the Weibull Distribution................................39
2.2 A Modified Form of the Weibull Distribution for
Offshore Structural Analysis............................................40
3 Typical Values of the Weibull Shape Parameter for
Stress...................................................................................41
3.1 Experience with Offshore Structures ...............................41
3.2 Experience with Ships .....................................................41
4 Fatigue Damage: General....................................................41
4.2 General Expression for Fatigue Damage ........................41
5 Fatigue Damage for Single Segment S-N Curve.................43
5.1 Expression for Damage at Life, N
R
..................................43
5.2 Miners Stress..................................................................43
5.3 The Damage Expression for Weibull Distribution
of Stress Ranges.............................................................44
6 Fatigue Damage for Bilinear S-N Curve ..............................44
7 Safety Check Using Allowable Stress Range......................45
8 The Simplified Method for Which Stress is a Function
of Wave Height ....................................................................46
8.1 The Weibull Model for Stress Range; Stress as a
Function of Wave Height .................................................46
8.2 The Weibull Model for Stress Range; Stress as a
Function of Wave Height; Considering Two Wave
Climates ..........................................................................47
9 The Weibull Distribution; Statistical Considerations ............48
9.2 Estimating the Parameters from Long-Term Data;
Method of Moment Estimators.........................................48
9.3 Estimating the Parameters from Long-Term Data;
Probability Plotting...........................................................49
9.4 Another Representation of the Weibull
Distribution Function........................................................51
9.5 Fitting the Weibull to Deterministic Spectra.....................53
9.6 Fitting the Weibull Distribution to the Spectral
Method ............................................................................53

TABLE 1 Data Analysis for Weibull Plot....................................50
TABLE 2 Deterministic Spectra.................................................53

FIGURE 1 A Short Term Realization of a Long-Term Stress
Record........................................................................39
FIGURE 2 Probability Density Function of s................................42
FIGURE 3 Characteristic S-N curve............................................43
FIGURE 4 Bilinear Characteristic S-N curve...............................44
FIGURE 5 Weibull Probability Plot ..............................................50

ABS

.
2004 ix
FIGURE 6 Long Term Distribution of Fatigue Stress as a
Function of the Weibull Shape Parameter .................51
FIGURE 7 Long-Term Stress Range Distribution of Large
Tankers, Bulk Carriers, and Dry Cargo Vessels
Compared with the Weibull ........................................52
FIGURE 8 Probability Density Function of Stress Ranges of
the i-th Sea State.......................................................54

SECTION 6 The Spectral Based Fatigue Assessment Method............ 55
1 Preliminary Comments.........................................................55
2 Basic Assumptions...............................................................55
3 The Rayleigh Distribution for Short Term Stress
Ranges.................................................................................56
4 Spectral Analysis; More Detail .............................................57
5 Wave Data ...........................................................................57
6 Additional Detail on Fatigue Stress Analysis; Global
Performance Analysis..........................................................58
7 The Safety Check Process ..................................................59
7.1 General Considerations .................................................. 59
7.2 The Stress Process in Each Cell ..................................... 59
8 Fatigue Damage Expression for Wide Band Stress ............61
8.1 Preliminary Comments.................................................... 61
8.2 Definitions ....................................................................... 61
8.3 The Equivalent Narrow Band Process ............................ 62
8.4 The Rainflow Method ...................................................... 63
8.5 A Closed Form Expression for Wide Band
Damage .......................................................................... 63
9 The Damage Calculation for Single Segment S-N
Curve ...................................................................................65
10 The Damage Calculation for Bi-Linear S-N Curve...............66

TABLE 1 A Sample Wave Scatter Diagram..............................58

FIGURE 1 Fatigue Assessments by Spectral Analysis
Method .......................................................................56
FIGURE 2 Realizations of a Narrow Band and Wide Band
Process (Both Have the Same RMS and Rate of
Zero Crossings) .........................................................61
FIGURE 3 Segment of Stress Process to Demonstrate
Rainflow Method ........................................................63

SECTION 7 Deterministic Method of Fatigue Assessment .................. 67
1 General ................................................................................67
2 Application to a Self-Elevating Unit......................................67

TABLE 1 Deterministic Stress Spectra......................................67
TABLE 2 Wave and Other Parameters to be Used in the
Fatigue Assessment ..................................................68

x ABS

.
2004
SECTION 8 Fracture Mechanics Fatigue Model .................................... 69
1 Introduction ..........................................................................69
2 Crack Growth Model (Fatigue Strength) ..............................69
2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Range .........................................69
2.2 The Paris Law .................................................................69
2.3 Determination of the Paris Parameters, C and m.............70
3 Life Prediction ......................................................................71
3.1 Relationship Between Cycles and Crack Depth ..............71
3.2 Determination of Initial Crack Size, a
i
..............................72
3.3 Determination of the Failure (Critical) Crack
Length, a
c
........................................................................72

TABLE 1 Paris Parameters for Structural Steel ........................71

FIGURE 1 A Model of Crack Propagation Rate versus Stress
Intensity Factor Range...............................................70

SECTION 9 References............................................................................ 73

ABS

.
2004 1

S E C T I O N 1 Introduction
1 General Comments
For over a half century, ABS has been involved in the development of fatigue technology, starting in
1946 with the formation of the Ship Structure Committee (SSC) for the specific goal of addressing
avoidance of serious fracture in ships. The SSC, with strong financial support from ABS, has
executed several fatigue research projects. Over the years, ABS has also provided support to
numerous joint industry/agency fatigue projects in addition to independent investigators for their own
in-house projects.
The current state of the art in fatigue technology represents worldwide contributions of a large
numbers of investigators from government agencies, professional organizations, classification
societies, universities and private industry, most notably petroleum companies. ABS has synthesized
this body of knowledge to provide fatigue design criteria for marine structures. This document
provides a review of the most relevant literature, describes how ABS criteria were established and
compares ABS criteria with those of other organizations.
Because welded joints are subject to a variety of flaws, it is generally expected that fatigue cracks will
start first at the joints. Therefore, the focus of this document will be on the joints, but the general
principles and some of the fatigue strength data will apply to the base material.
2 Basic Terminology
N
T
(or T) = Design life; the intended service life of the structure in cycles (or time)
N
f
(or T
f
) = Calculated fatigue life; the computed life in cycles (or time) of the structure
using the design S-N curve
D = fatigue damage at the design life of the structure
= maximum allowable fatigue damage at the design life of the structure
FDF = fatigue design factor; FDF 1.0
The FDF accounts for:
i) Uncertainty in the fatigue life estimation process
ii) Consequences of failure, i.e., criticality
iii) Difficulty of inspection

Section 1 Introduction

2 ABS

.
2004
3 The Deterministic Method and the Palmgren-Miner Rule to
Define Fatigue Damage
Fatigue assessment in the Guide relies on the characteristic S-N curve to define fatigue strength under
constant amplitude stress and a linear damage accumulation rule (Palmgren-Miner) to define fatigue
strength under variable amplitude stress.
Fatigue stress is a random process. Stress ranges in the long-term process form a sequence of
dependent random variables, S
i
; i = 1, N
T
. For purposes of fatigue analysis and design, it is assumed
that S
i
are mutually independent. The set of S
i
can be decomposed and discretized into J blocks of
constant amplitude stress, as illustrated in Section 1, Table 1.
TABLE 1
Deterministic Stress Spectra
Stress Range
S
i

Number of Cycles
n
i

S
1
n
1

S
2
n
2

S
3
n
3

.
.
S
J-1
n
J-1

S
J
n
J

Applying the Palmgren-Miner linear cumulative damage hypothesis to the block loading of Section 1,
Table 1, cumulative fatigue damage, D, is defined as:
=
=
J
i
i
i
N
n
D
1
........................................................................................................................... (1.1)
where N
i
is the number of cycles to failure at stress range S
i
, as determined by the appropriate S-N
curve. Failure is then said to occur if:
D > 1.0 ................................................................................................................................. (1.2)
4 Application of the Palmgren-Miner (PM) Rule
The PM rule is a simple algorithm for predicting an extremely complex phenomenon, i.e., fatigue
under random stress processes. Results of tests, however, have suggested that the PM rule is a
reasonable engineering tool for predicting fatigue in welded joints subjected to random loading.
Statistical summaries of random fatigue tests have been reported by the UK Health and Safety
Executive [HSE(1995)]. Let be a random variable denoting damage at failure and let
i
denote
damage at failure in a test of the i-th specimen in a sample of size, n.
i
will depend on how the
constant amplitude S-N curve is defined, e.g., as a median (best fit) curve through the center of the
data or a design curve on the safe side (lower) of the data. The sample mean and standard deviation
of can be computed from the random sample (
i
; i = 1, n). An empirical distribution can be fitted as
well.

Section 1 Introduction

ABS

.
2004 3
A limited number of tests on tubular joints is available. In HSE(1995), a lognormal distribution is
assumed for . Statistics computed from the data presented are summarized in Section 1, Table 2. It
is noted that the scatter is quite broad, and it is likely that the wide distribution is largely a result of
the inherent scatter in fatigue data and not the suitability of the PM algorithm. For reference
purposes, the probability of being less than the reference curve is also presented in Section 1, Table
2.
TABLE 2
Tubular Joints: Statistics on Damage at Failure,
( Lognormal Distribution Assumed)
Median,
~

COV, C

Percent less than S-N curve
Best fit curve 1.41 0.98 34
Design curve 4.42 0.98 3.5

For plated joints
*
, there is a relatively large database. Again, a lognormal distribution for is
assumed, and the statistics are presented in Section 1, Table 3.
TABLE 3
Plated Joints: Statistics on Damage at Failure,
( Lognormal Distribution Assumed)

Median,
~

COV, C

Percent less than S-N curve
Best fit curve 1.38 0.70 33
Design curve 4.44 0.70 1.5
5 Safety Checking with Respect to Fatigue
The safety check expression can be based on damage or life. While the damage approach is featured
in the Guide, either approach below can be used.
Damage
The design is considered to be safe if:
D .................................................................................................................................... (1.3)
Where
= 1.0/FDF......................................................................................................................... (1.4)
Life
N
f
N
T
FDF....................................................................................................................... (1.5)

*
Note: In the Guide, to conform to practice, the two general categories of structural details are referred to as tubular (really
meaning tubular intersection) details and non-tubular details. In the context of the HSE (1995), the non-tubular details
are referred to as plate or plate type details. The plate terminology will be used in this Commentary.


ABS

.
2004 5

S E C T I O N 2 Fatigue Strength Based on
S-N Curves General Concepts
1 Preliminary Comments
This Section introduces general concepts related to the S-N curve-based method of fatigue
assessment. The next Section contains detailed information regarding S-N curves.
For the stress-based approach to fatigue, the S-N curve defines fatigue strength. An example of S-N
data and a design curve are shown in Section 2, Figure 1. Each point represents the cycles to failure N
of a specimen subjected to constant range stress S. Log(N) is plotted versus Log(S). Section 2, Figure
1 presents the results of fatigue tests on tubular joints where failure is defined as first through wall
cracking.
FIGURE 1
An Example of S-N Fatigue Data Showing the Least Squares Line
and the Design Line [HSE(1995)]
1000
100
10
10 000 100 000 1 000 000 10
7
10
8
Fatigue Endurance, N (Cycles)
H
o
t

S
p
o
t

S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e
,

S

(
M
P
a
)
+
+
+
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
++
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+
+
Least
Squares
Line
Design
Line
Best Fit S-N Line Through 16 mm Data
Design Line for 16 mm Data
Experimental Data for 16 mm Thick Tubular Joints

Section 2 Fatigue Strength Based on S-N Curves General Concepts

6 ABS

.
2004
A design curve is defined on the safe (lower) side of the data. Note that an implicit fatigue design
factor is thereby introduced. For purposes of safety checking, the design S-N curve defines fatigue
strength, but one should keep in mind that there is a large statistical scatter in fatigue data (relative to
other structural design factors) with cycles-to-failure data often spanning more than two orders of
magnitude.
2 Statistical Analysis of S-N Data
The design curve is established as follows: First, it is noted that when S-N data are plotted in a log-
log space, the data tend to plot as a straight line, as suggested in Section 2, Figure 1. A linear model
can be employed, the form of which is:
log(N) = log(A) m log(S) ................................................................................................... (2.1)
Base 10 logarithms are generally used. A and m are empirical constants to be determined from the
data. A is called the fatigue strength coefficient and m is called the fatigue strength exponent. The
parameter m is the negative reciprocal slope of the S-N curve, but for convenience, it is often referred
to simply as the slope. Another component of the model is the standard deviation of N given S,
denoted as (N|S), or simply, . This parameter describes the scatter in life.
To estimate A, m and , the least squares method can be employed, thus providing parameters (A and
m) to define the median S-N curve, i.e., a curve that passes through the center of the data. Note that S
is the independent variable and N is the dependent variable. It is assumed that log(N) has a normal
distribution, which means that N will have a lognormal distribution.
For many welded joint fatigue data, the parameter m is approximately equal to 3.0. Therefore, for
convenience and consistency, a fixed value of m = 3 is assumed and least squares analysis is then
employed to estimate A and . Let A and denote the estimates. For the sample data of Section 2,
Figure 1:
m = 3
log(A) = 12.942
= 0.233
The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of cycle life N is required for a reliability
analysis. The form for the COV is:
C
N
= 1 10
) 434 . 0 /
2
(
........................................................................................................ (2.2)
For the example:
C
N
= 0.58, or 58%
3 The Design Curve
The design S-N curve is defined as the median curve minus two standard deviations on a log basis.
Thus, the basic S-N curves are of the form:
log(N) = log(A) m log(S)
where
log(A) = log(A
1
) 2
N = predicted number of cycles to failure under stress range S


ABS

.
2004 7
A
1
= constant relating to the mean S-N curve
= standard deviation of log N
m = inverse slope of the S-N curve
The relevant values of these terms are shown in the table below for the ABS In-Air S-N curves for
plate-type (non-tubular) details.
The in-air S-N curves have a change of inverse slope from m to m + 2 at N = 10
7
cycles.
TABLE 1
Details of the Basic In-Air S-N Curves
A
1
Standard deviation
Class A
1
log
10
log
e
m log
10
log
e
A
B 2.343 10
15
15.3697 35.3900 4.0 0.1821 0.4194 1.01 10
15

C 1.082 10
14
14.0342 32.3153 3.5 0.2041 0.4700 4.23 10
13

D 3.988 10
12
12.6007 29.0144 3.0 0.2095 0.4824 1.52 10
12

E 3.289 10
12
12.5169 28.8216 3.0 0.2509 0.5777 1.04 10
12

F 1.726 10
12
12.2370 28.1770 3.0 0.2183 0.5027 0.63 10
12

F
2

1.231 10
12
12.0900 27.8387 3.0 0.2279 0.5248 0.43 10
12

G 0.566 10
12
11.7525 27.0614 3.0 0.1793 0.4129 0.25 10
12

W 0.368 10
12
11.5662 26.6324 3.0 0.1846 0.4251 0.16 10
12

If cycles to failure were lognormally distributed, then a specimen selected at random would have a
probability of 2.3% of falling below the design curve.
There may be confusion over this probability compared to those mentioned previously in Section 1,
Tables 2 and 3. Different random variables are being referred to. In Section 1, Tables 2 and 3, the
random variable is delta, the damage at failure. The statistics for delta are computed for both the best-
fit curve and the design curve. Note that the fatigue test results are based on random stresses. The
title of the column in the tables labeled, Percent less than S-N curve could have been alternatively
labeled, Percent of specimens that had lives below the S-N curve.
The basic S-N curves are established from constant amplitude tests. Assuming a lognormal
distribution for life, the design curve is that curve below which 2.3% of the specimens are expected to
fall. So, random fatigue test results are being compared to constant amplitude test results. It would
not necessarily be expected that the results would be the same, but it is gratifying to see that the
results are so close.
4 The Endurance Range
Test data are much more limited in the range beyond 10
7
cycles. It appears that there may be an
endurance limit near this point, i.e., a stress below which fatigue life would be infinite. However, a
more prudent extrapolation of the S-N curve into the high cycle range involves a change in slope. For
in-air structure, the slope (actually the negative reciprocal slope) beyond 10
7
cycles is:
r = m + 2 ............................................................................................................................. (2.3)
While defined by engineering judgment, this form seems to have performed well for an extended
period of time. This algorithm is used by DEn(1990) and others, but ISO(2000) specifies the knee of
the curve at 10
8
cycles.


8 ABS

.
2004
As an example, consider the ABS-(A) class D curve.
FIGURE 2
The Design S-N Curve for the ABS-(A) Class D Joint
10
100
1000
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
Cycles to Failure, N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e
,

S

(
M
P
a
)

For plate joints that are cathodically protected, HSE(1995) specifies the knee at 10
6
cycles. For joints
exposed to free corrosion, most organizations do not specify an endurance limit, i.e., the S-N curve is
extrapolated into the high cycle range without a change in slope.
5 Stress Concentration Factors Tubular Intersections
A major theme of the presentation in Section 2 of the Guide is that the fatigue assessment should
employ applicable stress concentration factors (SCFs) and the appropriate S-N curve. For a tubular
joint, the S-N curves recommended by DEn(1990)/HSE(1995) and API RP2A are meant to be used
with SCFs obtained for the hot-spot locations at the weld toe.
The SCF equations referenced in the Guides Appendix 2 are meant to have precedence. However,
allowance is made (Guide Subsection 3/5.5) to also use, as appropriate, the parametric equations
referenced in the API RP2A when it is permitted to use the APIs tubular joint S-N curves (e.g.,
structure sited on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, subject to US Minerals Management Service
Regulation).
Where conditions are such that the recommended parametric SCF equations cannot be applied
confidently, then the SCFs can be obtained experimentally or numerically via finite element analysis.
In either case, it is necessary to have a stress extrapolation procedure to weld toe locations that is
compatible with the S-N curve. This is directly analogous to the extrapolation procedure for non-
tubular details given in the Guide.
The DEn provided guidance, as shown in Section 2, Figure 3, on the specific locations where the
stresses should be obtained for extrapolation to the hot-spot locations at the weld toe.


ABS

.
2004 9
FIGURE 3
Weld Toe Extrapolation Points for a Tubular Joint
r
t
Line 2. Line 1.
Brace.
A
2
B
2
a
0.65(rt)
0.5
A
1
B
1
a
0.65(rt)
0.5
A
3
a B
3
0.4(rtRT)
0.25
Line 3.
a
B
4
A
4
Line 4.
5
Chord.
R
T
a = 0.2(rt)
0.5
, but not smaller than 4 mm.


ABS

.
2004 11

S E C T I O N 3 S-N Curves
1 Introduction
In the offshore industry, fatigue assessment and design are based primarily on S-N curves to define
strength. These curves define the integrity of both plate-type details and tubular welded joints under
oscillatory loading. ABS has performed a comprehensive review of fatigue test results and fatigue
strength models employed for steel structural details for the purpose of defining the ABS
requirements.
For the sources of design S-N curves, documents from three organizations, API (2000), AWS(2002),
DEn (1990)/HSE(1995), are commonly cited by designers and analysts in the offshore industry.
Agencies and organizations that provide structural design criteria for welded joints use these S-N
curves and variations thereof. In order to gain a perspective on current practice, a digest of the S-N
curves cited in various design criteria documents is provided in Subsection 3/2 below.
The approach used in the ABS Guide for the classification of details, the S-N curves and adjustments
made to the curves, may be referred to as a hybrid of the DEn(1990) and HSE(1995) criteria. The
ABS Guide criteria uses:
The classification of details and basic S-N curves from the DEn(1990), which is almost identical
to that found in HSE(1995) for plate-type details [a comparative description of DEn(1990) and
HSE(1995) is given below in Subsection 3/2ii)].
For plate-type details, the thickness adjustment applies when t > 22 mm using t
ref
= 22 mm and
exponent of 0.25, and for tubular intersection details, the thickness adjustment applies when
t > 22 mm using t
ref
= 32 mm and exponent of 0.25.
The HSE(1995) Environmental Reduction Factors (ERFs), which is akin to Corrosiveness in
the ABS Guide are for plate type details: 2.5 where effective Cathodic Protection (CP) is provided
and 3.0 for Free Corrosion (FC) conditions, and for tubular intersection details, the ERFs are 2.0
for CP and 3.0 for FC conditions.
2 A Digest of the S-N Curves Used for the Structural Details
of Offshore Structures
i) DEn (1990), Gurney (1979); A suite of eight curves for plated joints. Change in slope at 1E7
cycles, used successfully for many years by DEn and other criteria based on DEn
ii) HSE(1995). Citations and comparisons to HSE and DEn criteria are difficult. The version of
the fatigue criteria contained in the DEn Guidance Notes that was issued in 1990 was
labeled the 4
th
Edition. It is referred to here as DEn(1990). Following DEn practice,
changes to an edition were issued as amendments to that edition. Revision of the fatigue
criteria in the 4
th
Edition was planned for publication in the 3
rd
amendment of the DEn
Guidance Notes in 1995. At the same time, the DEn was undergoing organizational
change, and the HSE became its successor organization. The document planned for release

Section 3 S-N Curves

12 ABS

.
2004
was relabeled, and is referred to here as HSE(1995). There were changes in the details of
the criteria presentation between what had been planned as the 3
rd
amendment of the
Guidance Notes, 4
th
Edition in 1995 and the superseding HSE(1995) document. However,
immediately after the HSE(1995) fatigue criteria were issued, it was withdrawn along with all
of the other DEn Guidance Notes.
For information, the essential features of the HSE(1995) fatigue criteria compared to
DEn(1990) are as follows.
The guidance provided on the classification of structural details and the assigned S-N
curve to each class remained the same (see Appendix 1 of the Guide showing the
classifications using the sketches of the various structural details and loading). Changes
included in HSE(1995) were added guidance related to tubular member details and a
change in the W S-N curve.
Also, in the detail classification guidance (for plate type details), it was planned to replace
mention of the individual (8) S-N categories with one S-N curve, the P curve that was
equivalent to the D curve in DEn(1990). Then, the detail classes would be related to
the P curve by a classification factor.
The basic S-N curve for tubular intersection details was revised. In DEn(1990), the T
curve is close to the D. The revised HSE(1995) T curve (in air) is higher than the 1990
T curve. However, the application of Environmental Reduction Factors (EFRs) and a
revised thickness adjustment might produce significant reductions from the basic case.
In the DEn(1990), no reduction to an (in air) S-N curve is called for when effective
Cathodic Protection is present. Based on additional testing, it was deemed necessary to
include in HSE(1995) penalties for the Cathodic Protection (CP) case and to increase the
penalties for the Free Corrosion case. For plate type details, the penalty factors are 2.5
and 3.0 for (CP) and (FC), respectively. For tubular intersection details, the respective
penalty factors were 2.0 and 3.0. (The specific details of how these are applied are
discussed in Subsection 3/7.)
Another planned, significant change between HSE(1995) and DEn(1990) concerns the
adjustment to the S-N curves for thickness. The limiting thickness (above which
adjustments are to be made), and the exponent and reference thickness in the adjustment
equation were all affected.
iii) ABS (2001) Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. Since the original introduction in
1994, the criteria for fatigue strength in these Rules employ the DEn (1990) curves.
iv) Eurocode 3 (1992). Uses a suite of 14 curves, with initial segments having slopes of 3.0.
Beyond 5E6 cycles, the slopes are 5.0 for the curves up to 1E8 cycles, beyond which the
curves are flat (endurance limit).
v) IIW (1996). In general application, a suite of 14 S-N curves is presented. Each has an
endurance limit at 5E6 cycles, after which the curve is flat. For marine application to be used
together with Palmgren-Miner summation, another suite of 14 S-N curves that basically
matches the Eurocode 3 curves is recommended: Beyond 5E6 cycles the curve has a slope of
5 and the curve has a cut-off limit at 1E8. The concept of a FAT class defines the joint detail.
vi) DNV (2000); RP-C203 for offshore structures. Uses a suite of 14 curves [as in iv) and v)]
that also incorporate the HSE(1995) curves. This reference also has S-N curves that reflect
FC and CP conditions. It also has a curve for tubular joints, in-air and for CP and FC
conditions in seawater.
vii) ISO/CD 19902 (2000). The ISO draft standard appears to be based on DEn(1990), but the
basic 2-segment S-N curves have a change of slope at 1E8 cycles, which is not the same as
DEn(1990). S-N curves are also provided for tubular intersection details and cast steel tubular
joints.


ABS

.
2004 13
viii) API (2001 a & b). RP2A (both WSD and LRFD) has S-N curves for tubular intersection
joints. Defines X and X curves for joints with and without weld profile control, respectively.
Cites ANSI/AWS D1.1- for plate joints.
ix) API RP2T(1997). Cites RP2A for definition of S-N curves.
3 General Comparison
Section 3, Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the S-N design curves of DEn(1990)/HSE(1995)
and API/AWS relative to environment, cathodic protection, and weld improvement.
TABLE 1
Coverage of the Two Main Sources of S-N curves
Used for Offshore Structures
Detail Type Corrosion Condition
API (2000)
Notes 1&4 AWS D1.1
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
Notes 2&3
In-Air -
Cathodic Protection - Tubular
Intersection
Free Corrosion in the
Sea Water
-
In-Air -
Cathodic Protection - -
Note 5

Non-Tubular
(Plate)
Free Corrosion in the
Sea Water
- -
Notes:
1 & 2 Fatigue life enhancement via Weld Improvement techniques is explicitly
permitted:
--in API RP2A by weld profiling
--in DEn/HSE by weld toe grinding
3 DEn/HSE is the basis of the ABS criteria
4 API RP 2A treats corrosion differently from the other codes. API RP 2A uses one
curve with different endurance limits to represent the three corrosion cases (in-air, in
seawater with free corrosion, and in seawater with cathodic protection). DEn/HSE
use three curves to represent the three cases.
5 While AWS does not address modification of S-N curves for CP, API RP2A
specifies an endurance limit at 2 10
8
cycles for plate type details.
4 Tubular Intersection Connections
4.1 Without Weld Profile Control
A summary of the API and HSE(1995) having no weld profile control is presented as follows.
API RP 2A(2000) uses the X curve for the following three corrosion cases with various endurance
limits:
In the air, endurance limit = 2 10
7
cycles
Cathodic protection, endurance limit = 2 10
8
cycles
Free corrosion in sea water, no endurance limit


14 ABS

.
2004
HSE(1995) defines a T curve and its derivatives for the three corrosion cases:
In-air,
Cathodic protection, (CP)
Free corrosion in sea water, (FC)
The ABS Guide specifies a T curve and recognizes three corrosion cases:
In-air, (A)
Cathodic protection, (CP)
Free corrosion in sea water, (FC)
Section 3, Figure 1 presents the S-N curves for the CP case for tubular joints for: HSE (1995) T with
CP, API RP2A the X curve, and the ABS T (CP) curve, as provided in the ABS Guide. The latter is
based on the use of the DEn(1990) T curve, which is adjusted as recommended in HSE (1995).

FIGURE 1
API, DEn, and ABS S-N design Curves for Tubular Joints; Effective
Cathodic Protection; No Profile Control Specified
10
100
100
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
Cycles to Failure, N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)

T' (HSE 1995)
T (CP) (ABS)
X' (API, 2001)

4.2 With Weld Improvement
A summary of the API and HSE/DEn S-N curves for joints of tubular members having weld
improvement is presented in the following.
API RP 2A(2000) uses the X curve for the following three corrosion cases with various endurance
limits:
In-air, endurance limit = 10
7
cycles
Cathodic protection, endurance limit = 2 10
8
cycles
Free corrosion in seawater, no endurance limit.


ABS

.
2004 15
The crediting of weld profile control (i.e., concave weld profile) and other fatigue strength
enhancements are not mentioned in the Guide for use with the ABS S-N curves. The main reason for
this is to discourage (however, not ban) the use of such a credit in design. In this way, the credit will
be available if needed in the future [say, if design changes occur after structural fabrication begins and
even later in the structures life should reconditioning or reuse be considered]. Out of necessity and in
a limited, particular circumstance, the Guide (in its Appendix 3) allows the use of the API X curve,
which requires weld profile control and NDE. In practice, when using the ABS S-N curves, a credit
of 2.2 on life may be permitted when suitable toe grinding and NDE are provided. Credit for an
alternative life enhancement measure may be granted based on the submission of a well-documented,
project-specific investigation that substantiates the claimed benefit of the technique to be used.
5 Plated Connections
For plated connections, API RP2A cites the ANSI/AWS D1.1-92 [AWS(1992)] S-N design curves.
The S-N curves of the newer AWS(2002) document are essentially the same as AWS(1992). The
AWS and DEn (1990) curves are compared below. Both references use sketches to help the designer
in the selection of a details classification.
The comparison is not exact. Observations that contrast the two main reference sources are:
i) DEn has eight classes or categories of joint types. AWS has six.
ii) DEn is more discriminating in the number of joint types or details.
iii) There are differences in the definition of the detail category.
iv) DEn employs a thickness adjustment (see Subsection 3/6). There is no thickness adjustment
in the AWS criteria.
v) Except for free corrosion in seawater, AWS specifies a stress endurance limit in the high
cycle range. DEn changes to a shallower slope.
vi) Overall, there is no direct correspondence of categories, but there are a few that are similar.
These are summarized in Section 3, Table 2.

TABLE 2
AWS-HSE/DEn Curves for Similar Detail Classes
Detail Class ANSI/AWS(1992) DEn(1990)
Base or parent material A B
Full penetration butt welds,
Groove welds
B C
Parent material at the end of butt welded attachments C (L < 50 mm)
D (50 < L < 100)
E (L > 100)
F (L < 150 mm)
F2 (L > 150 mm)
Parent material of cruciform T-joints C F
Load carrying fillet welds transverse to the direction of
stress (parent material)
E F (d > 10 mm)
G (d < 10)
Load carrying fillet welds transverse to the direction of
stress (weld material)
F W


16 ABS

.
2004
For conditions of effective cathodic protection (CP):
i) API specifies a stress endurance limit on the AWS curves at 2 10
8
cycles.
ii) The DEn CP curves have a break at 10
6
cycles. The slope to the left is m; to the right, it is
m + 2). The DEn curves are lowered from the in-air curves by a factor of 2.5 on life, again
maintaining the break point at 10
6
cycles.
For conditions of free corrosion, both curves have no endurance limit or slope change in the high
cycle range, i.e., the low cycle curve with a slope of 3.0 is continued into the high cycle range. In
addition, the DEn curves are lowered by a factor of 3.0 on life.
6 Discussion of the Thickness Effect
6.1 Introduction
The ABS-recommended thickness adjustment (size effect) is based on studies of fatigue test data as
well as models used by others. A summary of this study is presented below.
The basic S-N design curve has the functional form:
log
10
N = log
10
A mlog
10
S................................................................................................. (3.1)
where N is cycles to failure, S is stress range, and A and m are respectively, the fatigue strength
coefficient and exponent.
The size effect in fatigue in which larger sections tend to be weaker is manifest in welded joint fatigue
by a thickness adjustment. In API, HSE/DEn and other codes, the effect of plate thickness is
addressed by a similar adjustment formula:
S
f
=
q
R
t
t
S

|
|
.
|
\
|
t > t
o
...................................................................................................... (3.2)
S
f
= S t t
o
...................................................................................................... (3.3)
where
S
f
= allowable stress range,
S = allowable stress range from the nominal S-N design curve,
q, t
R
= parameters (t
R
is the reference thickness),
t
0
= thickness above which adjustments should be made,
t = actual thickness.
A thickness adjusted S-N curve can be constructed by substituting S
f
of Equation 3.2 into
Equation 3.1 when t > t
0
.
log
10
(N) = log
10
(A) m log
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
q
R
t
t
S ............................................................................ (3.4)
The parameters q and t
R
are determined empirically. For plated joints, Section 3, Table 3 summarizes
these parameter values from the references: DEn (1990), HSE (1995) and DNV (2000). (Size effect is
not considered in ANSI/AWS D1.1.)


ABS

.
2004 17
TABLE 3
Parameters of Plate Thickness Adjustment for Plated Joints
Parameters DEn (1990) HSE (1995) DNV (2000)
q 0.25 0.30 0.0 0.25
depending on detail
classification;
0.25 for F-curve
t
R
22 mm 16 mm 25 mm

These values do not depend upon the environment, i.e., they are the same for the in-air, cathodic
protection and free corrosion curves.
The objective of this section is to compare the three parameter sets with the test data on plated joints
that were used in reviewing the thickness effect by HSE (1995) and to recommend the algorithm to be
used by ABS in the Guide.
For reference, the tubular joint parameters are also given in Section 3, Table 4.
TABLE 4
Parameters of Plate Thickness Adjustment for Tubular Joints
Parameters API (2000, 1993) HSE (1995) DNV (2000)
q 0.25 0.30 0.25 for SCF < 10.0
0.30 for SCF > 10.0
t
R
25 mm 16 mm 32 mm

6.2 Fatigue Test Data on Plated Joints
An analysis was undertaken of data from tests on as-welded T-butt and cruciform joints that belong to
the F classification [HSE(1995)]. The specimens varied in thickness from 16 mm to 200 mm. There
are a total of 146 specimens in which 125 specimens have equal main plate and attachment thickness.
Stress ranges in the tests varied from 56 MPa to 341 MPa and only four specimens had a fatigue life
exceeding 10
7
cycles.
6.3 Design F-Curves with Thickness Adjustment
The parameters of the basic F-curves used in the three codes are shown in Section 3, Table 5. The
F-curves in DEn (1990) and HSE (1995) are identical, but with different thickness adjustment
formulae. The DNV (2000) F-curve is slightly less conservative than the other two.
TABLE 5
Parameters of F-curves
N < 10
7
N > 10
7

Codes
log
10
(A) m log
10
(A) m
DEn (1990) 11.801 3 15.001 5
HSE (1995) 11.801 3 15.001 5
DNV (2000) 11.855 3 15.091 5


18 ABS

.
2004
The design F-curves with thickness adjustment (Equation 3.4) are plotted in Section 3, Figures 2
through 19. In ascending order, each curve has a different thickness. The test data for each thickness
are plotted. The HSE (1995) F-curve of 16 mm thickness (i.e., without thickness adjustment) is also
plotted in figures where it is appropriate for reference. These series of figures demonstrate the general
detrimental effect of increasing plate thickness. There exist relatively large safety margins between
the test data and design curves, with the HSE (1995) curve having the largest gap.
6.4 Thickness Adjustments to Test Data and Their Regressed S-N Curves
For a different viewpoint, the adjustment of Equation 3.2 is applied to the data and then compared to
the basic curves (without the thickness adjustment).
In this analysis, only data for specimens with equal main plate and attachment thicknesses were
included because HSE used the same strategy in their study on thickness effect. Data with fatigue
lives longer than 10
7
cycles were also excluded due to the small sample size, i.e., insufficient data to
regress the curve segment for N > 10
7
. With the adjusted data, quasi-design S-N curves were
produced. These curves were constructed by taking the least squares line and shifting it two standard
deviations (on a log basis) to the left. The adjusted data, (the quasi-design S-N curves,) and the basic
F-curves, without thickness adjustments, are plotted together for comparison. The results for DEn
(1990), HSE (1995) and DNV (2000) are shown in Section 3, Figures 20 through 22, respectively.
The comparison across the codes is demonstrated in Section 3, Figure 23. The conclusion stated
previously is justified. There are relatively large safety margins between the regressed S-N curves and
design curves, with HSE (1995) curve having the largest margin.
6.5 Discussion
In reviewing the commentary document [HSE (1992)] that supports the HSE Fatigue Criteria [HSE
(1995)], it is found that with the thickness adjustment of HSE (1995), all test data locate above the P
curve [i.e., D-curve in DEn (1990)], while the test specimens were as-welded T-butt and cruciform
joints that belong to F-curve of joint classification. This gap indicates that HSE (1995) thickness
adjustment formula is too conservative. Perhaps, in recognition of the possible excessive conservatism
for particular details, a clause is included in HSE (1995) so that alternative adjustments may be used if
they are supported by results from experiments or from fracture mechanics analyses.
A statement that the basic 16 mm P-curve is equivalent to the 22 mm D-curve in DEn (1990) is found
in a commentary paper on the HSE (1995) [Stacey and Sharp (1995)]. Therefore, one may ask why it
is necessary to make a thickness adjustment to joints with a 22 mm thickness.
In a commentary paper of DNV RP-C203 [Lotsberg and Larsen (2001)], a similar study was
conducted and a conclusion is that use of the F-curve for this detail with reference thickness 16 mm is
conservative.
6.6 Postscript
Due to the discrepancy between the thickness adjustment formulae, there is a question as to how the
thickness adjustment formula of HSE (1995) was derived. It is speculated by the authors of this
Commentary that the algorithm was obtained by borrowing the form for tubular joints, or by using a
curve other than the F-curve as the target curve for regression analysis, or perhaps using some other
procedure. The origin of the algorithm is not documented in HSE (1992). Thus, the procedure used to
derive the thickness adjustment formula of HSE (1995), particularly the choice of 16 mm as basic
thickness, is not clear.


ABS

.
2004 19
FIGURE 2
F-Curves with Thickness Adjustment and Test Data; 16 mm Plate
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data

FIGURE 3
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data


20 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 4
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data

FIGURE 5
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995)-16mm


ABS

.
2004 21
FIGURE 6
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 7
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


22 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 8
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 9
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


ABS

.
2004 23
FIGURE 10
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 11
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


24 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 12
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 13
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


ABS

.
2004 25
FIGURE 14
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 15
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


26 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 16
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 17
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


ABS

.
2004 27
FIGURE 18
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm

FIGURE 19
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn(1990)
HSE(1995)
DNV(2000)
Test Data
HSE(1995) 16mm


28 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 20
Test data with DEn(1990) Thickness Adjustment
and their Regressed S-N Curves (All Thicknesses)
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn F-Curve without Thickness Correction
Test Data with Thickness Correction
Regressed S-N Curve

FIGURE 21
Test Data with HSE(1995) Thickness Adjustment
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
HSE F-Curve without Thickness Correction
Regressed S-N curve


ABS

.
2004 29
FIGURE 22
Test Data with DNV(2000) Thickness Adjustment
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DNV F-Curve without Thickness Correction
Regressed S-N Curve

FIGURE 23
Regressed S-N Curves and Design F-curves
10
100
1000
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09
N
S
t
r
e
s
s

R
a
n
g
e

(
M
P
a
)
DEn F-Curve without Thickness Correction
HSE F-Curve without Thickness Correction
DNV F-Curve without Thickness Correction
Regressed S-N Curve with HSE Thickness Correction
Regressed S-N Curve with DEn Thickness Correction
Regressed S-N Curve with DNV Thickness Correction


30 ABS

.
2004
7 Effects of Corrosion on Fatigue Strength
7.1 Preliminary Remarks
ABS recommendations for considering the effects of corrosion on fatigue strength are based on a
review of corrosion effects published in specifications, guidance and recommended practice
documents relating to marine structures. A digest of the corrosion requirements relative to fatigue is
presented for each of several documents in 3/7.3, below. There is no particular significance to the
ordering of the documents presented.
7.2 A Summary of the Results
A review of the requirements suggests only that fatigue strength is reduced in the presence of free
corrosion. One approach is providing separate S-N curves for in-air and free corrosion conditions.
Another is to specify a reduction factor on in-air life when operating in a corrosive environment.
It is generally thought that effective cathodic protection restores fatigue strength to in-air values.
However, both HSE and DNV specify a reduction of the in-air curves for CP joints exposed to
seawater. Moreover, for DNV ship requirements, factors are provided for reduction of in-air S-N
curves for those cases where cathodic protection has become ineffective later in life.
Some documents provide no adjustments for corrosive environments.
ABS archives contain results of corrosion studies on marine structures. These results suggest: (1) it is
very difficult to characterize corrosion in a general, useful engineering context, and (2) there is
enormous statistical variability in corrosion rates.
7.3 The Summaries
API RP2T [API(1997)]
No specific reference to corrosion requirements.
API RP2A [API(2000, 1993)]
i) For all non-tubular members, refer to ANSI/AWS D1.1-92 (Table 10.2, Figure 10.6). No
endurance limit should be considered for those members exposed to corrosion. For
submerged members where cathodic protection is present, the endurance limit is set at 2 10
8

cycles.
ii) The S-N curves are the X and X curves. These curves assume effective cathodic protection.
For splash zone, free corrosion or excessive corrosion conditions, no endurance limit should
be considered.
Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components [IIW (1996)]
The basic fatigue requirements presented assume corrosion protection. If there is unprotected
exposure, the fatigue class should be reduced. The fatigue limit may also be reduced considerably.
Offshore Installations: Guide on Design, Construction, and Certification, [HSE (1995)]
This document defines basic design curves for plates (P curve) and for tubular joints (T curve). A
classification factor is applied to the P curve to account for different joint types. There are three sets
of the basic curves: (1) in-air, (2) seawater with corrosion protection, and (3) free corrosion. (3) is
lower than (2) and (2) is lower than (1).
The S-N curves are defined in Section 3, Table 6.


ABS

.
2004 31
TABLE 6
Details of Basic Design S-N Curves HSE(1995)
Class Environment
Log
10
A
m S
Q
(N/mm
2
) N
Q
(cycles)
P Air 12.182 3 53 10
7

P 15.637* 5**
P Seawater (CP) 11.784 3 84 1.026 10
6

P Seawater (CP) 15.637* 5**
P Seawater (FC) 11.705 3
T Air 12.476 3 67 10
7

T 16.127* 5**
T Seawater (CP) 12.175 3 95 1.745 10
6

T Seawater (CP) 16.127* 5**
T Seawater (FC) 12.000 3
* Fatigue strength coefficient (C; see Section 5, Figure 4) beyond N
Q

** Fatigue strength exponent (r; see Section 5, Figure 4) beyond N
Q

The parameters of Section 3, Table 6 can be translated into reduction factors to be applied to life in
the lower life segment of the in-air S-N curves. These factors are defined in Section 3, Table 7.

TABLE 7
Life Reduction Factors to be applied to the Lower Cycle Segment of the
Design S-N HSE Curves
Tubular
Joints
Plated
Joints
Cathodic Protected 2.0 2.5
Free Corrosion 3.0 3.0

ISO CD 19902, International Standards Organization [ISO/CD 19902 (2000)]
This is a draft document.
Basic in-air S-N curves are defined for tubular joints, cast joints and other joints.
Joints with cathodic protection. The basic in-air curves apply for N greater than 10
6
cycles. If
significant damage may occur with N less than 10
6
cycles, a factor of 2 reduction on life is
recommended.
Free corrosion. A reduction factor of 3 on life is required. There is to be no slope change at 10
8
cycles.
Note: The editing panel found these statements confusing, so they have requested a re-write.
RP-C203 Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Structures, Det norske Veritas [DNV (2000)]
There are 14 S-N curves, each representing a joint classification. These S-N curves are specified
separately for: (1) in-air, (2) seawater with cathodic protection, and (3) seawater with free corrosion.
In-air. The S-N curves have a break at 10
7
cycles with a slope of m = 3 in the low cycle range and
m = 5 in the high cycle range.


32 ABS

.
2004
Cathodic protection. The S-N curves in the low cycle range are reduced by the factor of 2.5 on life
for both tubular and plated joints. The curves have a break at 10
6
cycles.
Free Corrosion. The S-N curves in the low cycle range are reduced by the factor of 3.0 on life for
both tubular and plated joints (see Section 3, Table 8). There is no break in the curves, i.e., m = 3 for
all values of S.

TABLE 8
Life Reduction Factors to be Applied to the Lower Segment
of the Design S-N DNV Curves
Tubular
Joints
Plated
Joints
Cathodic Protected 2.5 2.5
Free Corrosion 3.0 3.0

Eurocode 3 Design of Steel Structures, BSI Standards, 1992 [Eurocode 3, (1992)]
No specific reference to corrosion.
Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures, Classification Notes No. 30.7, Det norske Veritas,
[DNV (1998)]
A factor is specified for reduction of in-air curves for those cases where cathodic protection is
effective for only a fraction of the life.
BS 7608 Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures, British Standards Institute
[BS 7608 (1993)]
For unprotected joints exposed to seawater, a factor of safety on life of 2 is required. For steels
having a yield strength in excess of 400 MPa, this penalty may not be adequate.
ABS Design Curves; Guide on the Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures
The ABS in-air curves for both plated and tubular members are those given in DEn(1990). The basis
for this choice is: (1) the history of successful practice, (2) worldwide acceptance, and (3) relatively
conservative performance in the high cycle range.
The API (2000) curves are permitted as an alternative for application in the Gulf of Mexico based on
the history of successful practice and their mandated use by U.S. Regulatory Bodies.
Adjustment for thickness (see Equations 3.2 and 3.3)
For plated details: q = 0.25; t
R
= 22 mm
For tubular details: q = 0.25; t
R
= 32 mm; This applies for thicknesses greater than 22 mm.
The following adjustments to the in-air curves for corrosion were subsequently recommended by the
HSE(1995), these were adopted by ABS.
Tubular Details
With CP. A penalty factor of 2.0 on life applied to the low cycle segment of the in-air S-N curve
and no penalty on life applied to the high cycle segment of the in-air S-N curve.
Free corrosion. A penalty factor of 3.0 on life applied to the low cycle segment of the in-air S-N
curve and continuation of the obtained curve to the high cycle range.


ABS

.
2004 33
Plated Details
With CP. A penalty factor of 2.5 on life applied to the low cycle segment of the in-air S-N curve
and no penalty on life applied to the high cycle segment of the in-air S-N curve.
Free corrosion. A penalty factor of 3.0 on life applied to the low cycle segment of the in-air S-N
curve and extrapolation of the obtained curve to the high cycle range.
The following adjustments to the in-air curves for corrosion are recommended for the API X and X
curves.
Tubular joints
CP; endurance limit at 2 10
8
cycles.
FC; no endurance limit.


ABS

.
2004 35

S E C T I O N 4 Fatigue Design Factors
1 Preliminary Remarks
The purpose of a fatigue design factor is to account for uncertainties in the fatigue assessment and
design process. The process includes operations of estimating dynamic response and stresses under
environmental conditions. The uncertainties include the following:
Statistical models used to describe the sea states
Prediction of the wave-induced loads from sea state data
Computation of nominal element loads given the wave-induced loads
Computation of fatigue stresses at the hot spot from nominal member forces
Application of Miners rule
Fatigue strength as seen in the scatter in test data, where a typical coefficient of variation on life is
approximately 50-60%.
Environmental effects on fatigue strength, e.g., corrosion
Size effects on fatigue strength
Manufacturing, assembly and installation operations
In addition to uncertainties, the fatigue design factor should also account for:
Ease of in-service inspection of a detail
Consequences of failure (criticality) of a detail
While reliability methods promise the most rational way of managing uncertainty, the concept of a
factor of safety on life [referred herein as a fatigue design factor (FDF)], maintains universal
acceptance.
2 The Safety Check Expression
The safety check expression can be based on damage or life. While the damage approach is featured
in the Guide, either approach below can be used and are exactly equivalent.
Refer to Subsection 1/2 for terminology. Subsection 1/5 is repeated here for reference.
Damage.
D .................................................................................................................................... (1.3)
where
FDF
0 . 1
= ............................................................................................................................ (1.4)

Section 4 Fatigue Design Factors 4

36 ABS

.
2004
Life.
N
f
(FDF) (N
T
) ................................................................................................................... (1.5)
Fatigue design factors specified in relevant documents are summarized in this section.
3 Summaries of FDFs Specified by Others
The following is a summary of factors of safety on life that have been extracted from documents
relevant to marine structural fatigue. The safety factors by themselves do not tell the whole story and
may not address all of the issues raised above. However, it is instructive and helpful in the
development of the Guide to review those factors that have been published in relevant documents.
It should be noted that safety factors associated with free corrosion and CP are not included in these
factors and should be applied separately.
API RP2T [API (1997)]
General structure. In general, it is recommended that the design fatigue life of each structural
element of the platform be at least three times the intended service life of the platform.
Tendons. high uncertainties exist The component fatigue life factor of ten is considered a
reasonable blanket requirement.
API RP2A [API (2000, 1993)]
In general, the design fatigue life of each joint and member should be at least twice the intended
service life of the structure (i.e., FDF = 2.0).
Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, [IIW (1996)]
For fatigue verification, it has to be shown that the total accumulated damage is less than 0.5, i.e.,
FDF = 2.0.
ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, Part 5, The American Bureau of
Shipping [ABS (2001)]
No safety factor specified, i.e., an implied factor of safety on life of 1.0. However, since computed
stress is based on net scantlings, the nominal FDF is greater than 1.0.
Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification, UK Department
of Energy [DEn (1990)]
No specific value given. In defining the factor of safety on life, account should be taken of the
accessibility of the joint and the proposed degree of inspection as well as the consequences of failure.
ISO CD 19902, International Standards Organization [ISO CD 19902 (2000)]
In lieu of more detailed fatigue assessment, the FDF can be taken from the following table:
Failure Critical Inspectable Uninspectable
No 2.0 5.0
Yes 5.0 10.0

Section 4 Fatigue Design Factors 4

ABS

.
2004 37
RP-C203 Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Structures, Det norske Veritas [DNV (2000)]
Design fatigue factor from OS-C101, Section 6, Fatigue Limit States
Design Fatigue Factor (DFF) (Table A1 of DNV-OS-C101 Design of Offshore Steel Structures,
General (LRFD Method), Section 6)
The following DFFs are valid for units with low consequence of failure and where it can be
demonstrated that the structure satisfies the requirement for the damaged condition according to the
Accidental Limit State (ALS) with failure in the actual joint as the defined damage.
DFF Structural element
1 Internal structure, accessible and not welded directly to the submerged part.
1 External structure, accessible for regular inspection and repair in dry and clean conditions.
2 Internal structure, accessible and welded directly to the submerged part.
2 External structure, not accessible for regular inspection and repair in dry and clean conditions.
3 Non-accessible areas, areas not planned to be accessible for inspection and repair during operation.

Eurocode 3 Design of Steel Structures, BSI Standards [Eurocode 3, (1992)]
This document lists safety factors on stress. These are converted to FDF in the following table.
Inspection and access
Fail safe
(a)

Components
Non fail safe
(b)

components
Periodic inspection and maintenance (accessible
joint)
1.00 1.95
Periodic inspection and maintenance (poor
assessibility)
1.52 2.46
Notes:
(a) local failure of one component does not result in failure of the structure
(b) local failure of one component leads rapidly to failure of the structure

Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures, Classification Notes No. 30.7, Det norske Veritas
[DNV (1998)]
Accepted usage factor is defined as 1.0 (FDF = 1.0)
BS 7608 Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures, British Standards Institute
[BS 7608 (1993)]
The standard basic S-N curves are based on a mean minus two standard deviations.... Thus, an
additional factor on life, i.e., the use of S-N curves based on the mean minus more that two standard
deviations should be considered for cases of inadequate structural redundancy.


ABS

.
2004 39

S E C T I O N 5 The Simplified Fatigue
Assessment Method
1 Introduction
The simplified fatigue assessment method employs the Weibull distribution to model the long-term
distribution of sea states. In fact, other distributions could be used, but the Weibull is standard
practice in the marine industry. In this Section, the Weibull distribution is defined and described.
Expressions for fatigue damage at the design life N
T
of the structure are derived. Also, the allowable
stress range approach to safety checking is derived.
Statistical considerations associated with the Weibull distribution are provided in Subsection 5/9.
2 The Weibull Distribution for Long Term Stress Ranges
2.1 Definition of the Weibull Distribution
A segment of a long-term stress record at a fatigue sensitive point is shown in Section 5, Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
A Short Term Realization of a Long-Term Stress Record
time, t
S
t
r
e
s
s
,

S
(
t
)
S
i
S
i+1

Section 5 The Simplified Fatigue Assessment Method

40 ABS

.
2004
The stress range, S
i
, for the i-th trough and peak is defined. Stress ranges, S
i
, i = 1, n, form a sequence
of n dependent random variables. In the linear damage accumulation model, this dependency is
ignored. Thus, it will be assumed that S
i
, i = 1, n is a random sample of independent and identically
distributed random variables.
Let S be a random variable denoting a single stress range in a long term stress history. Assume that S
has a two-parameter Weibull distribution. The distribution function is:
F
s
(s) = P(S s) = 1 exp
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
r
s
s > 0 .................................................................... (5.1)

where and are the Weibull shape and scale parameters, respectively. The shape parameter is
predetermined from a detailed stress spectrum analysis or by using historical, empirical data (see
Subsections 5/3 and 5/9).
The parameters in terms of the mean and standard deviation of S are:
08 . 1
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
S
S

|
.
|
\
|
+
=
1
1
S
............................................................................... (5.2)
where
S
and
S
are the mean and standard deviation of S respectively. The expression for is
approximate, but for engineering purposes, very close to the exact. (x) is the gamma function defined
as:
(x) =

0
1
dt e t
t x
.............................................................................................................. (5.3)
The gamma function is widely available in mathematical analysis programs, e.g., MatLab, and also in
some programmable calculators.
2.2 A Modified Form of the Weibull Distribution for Offshore Structural Analysis
The magnitude of stresses is defined by . However, for design and safety check purposes, it is
convenient to represent in terms of the long term stress spectra as described in the following.
Define a reference life, N
R
. This could be a time over which records are available, e.g., three years. It
could also be chosen as the design life N
T
.
Define a reference stress range S
R
which characterizes the largest stress anticipated during N
R
. The
probability statement defines S
R
:
R
R
N
S S P
1
) ( = > ................................................................................................................ (5.4)
S
R
is the value that the fatigue stress range S exceeds on the average once every N
R
cycles.
From the definition of the distribution function, F
S
(S
R
) = P(S S
R
), it follows from Equations 5.1 and
5.4 that:
( )

/ 1
ln
R
R
N
S
= .................................................................................................................... (5.5)
The parameter, , is a measure of the amplitude of S(t) and will be independent of the length of time
N
R
considered.


ABS

.
2004 41
In the special case where N
R
is taken as the design life N
T
, the corresponding stress range S
T
is defined
by Equation 5.4. The fatigue stress range S will exceed S
T
on the average once every N
T
cycles.
Thus, S
T
can be interpreted as a maximum stress applied during the design life and may be used for
static design. S
T
is sometimes called the once-in-a-lifetime stress. Using the Weibull formulation,
as described in Subsection 5/6, the fatigue strength can be formulated in terms of maximum allowable
stress and a safety check expression based on stress can be derived.
3 Typical Values of the Weibull Shape Parameter for Stress
3.1 Experience with Offshore Structures
The Weibull shape parameter for stress, S typically varies between 0.7 to 1.4, depending on the
dominant period of the structural response and the considered wave environments. For example, Gulf
of Mexico fixed platforms experience = 0.7, whereas the same platforms in the North Sea would
have > 1, maybe as high as 1.4 if the platform is slender and experiences significant dynamics. API
RP2A separates the long-term distribution into components, hurricane waves and operational sea
state. = 1.0 is used for both.
In general, in the absence of data, one might choose a suitable value based on experience from the
fatigue analysis of similar structures.
3.2 Experience with Ships
Ships operating mainly in the Northern or Southern oceans will generally have a Weibull shape
parameter, > 1, maybe as high as 1.3 or a little more. However, there are cases where < 1 (see
Section 5, Figure 7).
Part 5 of the ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels provides an empirical algorithm for
the shape parameter (long term stress distribution parameter) that depends upon the length of the
ship and also the location of the detail in the ship.
4 Fatigue Damage: General
This Subsection provides detail on the fatigue damage expressions that are used in the Guide.
Considered are both the single segment and the bi-linear S-N curves which are used to describe
fatigue strength in design criteria documents.
4.2 General Expression for Fatigue Damage
Assume that a statistical model, e.g., Weibull, has been fit to stress range data. Let S be a random
variable denoting stress range. The probability density function of S is shown in Section 5, Figure 2.


42 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 2
Probability Density Function of s
Stress, s
s
i
f(s
i
)
f
S
(s)
s

An expression for damage is derived in the following.
Consider a small increment of s of width s at stress level s
i
, as shown in the figure. The number of
cycles to failure at stress level s
i
as obtained from the S-N curve defining fatigue strength is:
N
i

= N(s
i
). ............................................................................................................................. (5.6)
The number of cycles of applied stress at level S
i
is:
n
i

= N
R
[f
s
(s
i
)s] ................................................................................................................... (5.7)
where N
R
is any reference life. The term in brackets is the fraction of the total cycles associated with
s
i
. Substituting Equation 5.7 into Equation. 1.1 (the basic damage expression of the PM rule defined in
Subsection 1/3), it follows that the damage at reference life N
R
is:

=
) (
) (
i
i s R
R
s N
s s f N
D ......................................................................................................... (5.8)
where the summation is taken over the whole sample space of s. In the limit as s 0, the
summation becomes an integral.
=
0
) (
) (
s N
ds s f
N D
s
R R
............................................................................................................. (5.9)
Equation 5.9 is the damage at life N
R
. This expression will be used in the following to derive closed
form expressions for damage.


ABS

.
2004 43
5 Fatigue Damage for Single Segment S-N Curve
5.1 Expression for Damage at Life, N
R

Assume that the single segment S-N curve, as shown in Section 5, Figure 3, defines the fatigue
strength.
FIGURE 3
Characteristic S-N curve
Log(N)
L
o
g
(
S
)
NS
m
= A
1
m

The analytical form of the S-N curve is:
N(s) = As
-m
......................................................................................................................... (5.10)
Damage becomes, from Equation 5.9:
ds s f s
A
N
D
m R
R

=
0
) ( ....................................................................................................... (5.11)
But the integral is by definition the expected value of S
m
.
ds s f s S E
m m
=
0
) ( ) ( ......................................................................................................... (5.12)
Thus the expression for damage at any arbitrary life N
R
can be written:
A
S E N
D
m
R
) (
= .................................................................................................................. (5.13)
5.2 Miners Stress
In the special case where s is constant amplitude:
E(S
m
) = S
m
.......................................................................................................................... (5.14)
Given E(S
m
) from a random stress process, Equation 5.14 is used to define s
e
as:
S
e
= [E(S
m
)]
1/m
.................................................................................................................... (5.15)
S
e
can be thought of as an equivalent constant amplitude stress which produces the same fatigue
damage as the random stress process. S
e
is called Miners stress.


44 ABS

.
2004
Using S
e
, damage at any life N
R
for the single segment S-N curve can be written as:
A
S N
D
m
e R
R
= ..................................................................................................................... (5.16)
5.3 The Damage Expression for Weibull Distribution of Stress Ranges
The expression for damage is derived from Equations 5.11 and 5.12. It is necessary to determine the
probability density function for the Weibull distribution. The probability density function is
f
s
(s) = dF
s
/ds, where F
s
is defined in Equation 5.1.
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

r
r
s
s s
s f

exp ) (
1
s > 0 .................................................................. (5.17)
Upon substituting Equation 5.17 into Equation 5.12, it follows that:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = 1 ) (
m
s E
m m
........................................................................................................ (5.18)
where (.) is the gamma function defined in Equation 5.3.
The general expression for damage at life N
R
is obtained by substituting Equation 5.18 into
Equation 5.13. Damage at the design life N
T
is obtained by letting N
R

= N
T
.
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
m
A
N
D
m T
........................................................................................................ (5.19)
The fatigue safety check is:
FDF
D
0 . 1
.......................................................................................................................... (5.20)
6 Fatigue Damage for Bilinear S-N Curve
The bilinear S-N curve, as shown in Section 5, Figure 4, is specified in the Guide for in-air and
cathodic protection. Fatigue damage for the case of Weibull-distributed stress and the bilinear S-N
curve is addressed in this Subsection.
FIGURE 4
Bilinear Characteristic S-N curve
Log (N)
L
o
g
(
S
)
NS
m
= A
NS
r
= C
1
m
1
r
S
Q
N
Q


ABS

.
2004 45
Fatigue strength is given as:
N(s) = As
m
for s > s
Q
N(s) = Cs
r
for s < s
Q
..................................................................................... (5.21)
The basic damage equation is given by Equation 5.9. For the bilinear case, Equation 5.9, damage at
reference life N
R
, becomes:

+ =
Q
s
s
m R
Q
s
s
r R
R
ds s f s
A
N
ds s f s
C
N
D ) ( ) (
0
.................................................................. (5.22)
Upon integration of Equation 5.22 and after some reduction, the expression for damage at the design
life N
T
, for the two-segment case of Section 5, Figure 4 is derived [Wirsching and Chen (1988)].
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ = z
r
C
N
z
m
A
N
D
o
r
T
m
T
, 1 , 1
................................................................... (5.23)
(z,a) and
o
(z,a) are incomplete gamma functions (integrals z to and 0 to z, respectively). For
reference, these functions are available in MatLab.
dt e t a z
t
z
a
=
1
) , ( ..................................................................................................... (5.24)
dt e t a z
t
z
O
a
o

=
1
) , ( ................................................................................................... (5.25)
1 + =
m
a ........................................................................................................................... (5.26)
1 + =
r
b ............................................................................................................................ (5.27)
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
Q
s
z ......................................................................................................................... (5.28)
The safety check expression of Equation 5.20 is applied.
7 Safety Check Using Allowable Stress Range
A safety check expression can also be developed in terms of the once-in-a-lifetime stress range, S
R
.
First, consider the single segment S-N curve. Let D = (1/FDF). From Equation 5.5, can be
expressed in terms of S
R
. Substituting D and into Equation 5.19 and solving for S
R
, it follows that:
( )
( )
m
T
m
R
R
m
N FDF
N A
S
/ 1
/
1
ln
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
......................................................................................... (5.29)
This is actually the maximum allowable stress range that would be permitted once on the average
every N
R
cycles, and as such would be interpreted as fatigue strength. The prime is included to
distinguish it from stress. The fatigue stress is S
R
and is the computed fatigue stress that will be
exceeded once on the average every N
R
cycles.


46 ABS

.
2004
The safety check expression is:
S
R
S
R
............................................................................................................................... (5.30)
In practice, it is most likely that N
R
will be taken as the design life N
T
so that stress and strength (S
R

and S
R
) will refer to N
T
.
If S
R
has been computed, the strength (maximum allowable stress range) S
S
at any other life N
S
can
be computed using Equation 5.5.
/ 1
ln
ln
(
=
R
S
R S
N
N
S S .......................................................................................................... (5.31)
Now consider the bilinear S-N curve (Section 5, Figure 4 and Equation 5.23). Let D = (1/FDF).
From Equation 5.5, can be expressed in terms of S
R
. Substituting D and into Equation 5.23 and
solving for S
R
, it follows that:
( )
( )
m
o
m r
T
m
R
R
C z
r
A z
m
N FDF
N
S
/ 1
/
/ , 1 / , 1
ln
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
....................................... (5.32)
Again, the prime superscript is used to denote strength. The strength modification of Equation 5.31
will apply.
The safety check expression of Equation 5.30 would apply.
8 The Simplified Method for Which Stress is a Function of
Wave Height
8.1 The Weibull Model for Stress Range; Stress as a Function of Wave Height
Another refinement of the simplified method is a model in which: (a) the long term distribution of
wave heights H is known (or assumed), (b) H is assumed to have a Weibull distribution, and (c) the
fatigue stress range S is related to H by the power law. Such a model is presented in API RP2A
[API(2000, 1993)] and described in the following. This model is not presented in the Guide. It
appears here only for reference.
API RP2A [API(2000, 1993)] defines a damage model based on Weibull wave heights. This model
was based on an earlier work by Nolte and Hansford (1976). Consider the random instantaneous
ocean wave elevation process as a sequence of waves. Let H be a random variable denoting the
height, i.e., the vertical distance from the trough to the following peak, of a single wave.
It is assumed that stress range S is proportional to the wave height H that produces that stress.
S = C
h
H
g
............................................................................................................................. (5.33)
where C
h
and g are empirical constants. If H is Weibull, then S will also be Weibull (from basic
probability theory). To compute Miners stress:
S
e
m
= E(S
m
) = E(C
h
m
H
gm
) = C
h
m
E(H
gm
)............................................................................ (5.34)


ABS

.
2004 47
From Equations 5.5 and 5.18, it follows that:
( ) ( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =

1 ln
/
gm
N H H E
gm
R
mg
R
gm
......................................................................... (5.35)
where is the Weibull shape parameter of H. H
R
is a wave height that is exceeded on the average
once every N
R
cycles (analogous to S
R
of Equation 5.5). Damage can be computed by substituting
Equations 5.34 and 5.35 into Equation 5.16.
) (
gm m
h
R
H E C
A
N
D = ......................................................................................................... (5.36)
8.2 The Weibull Model for Stress Range; Stress as a Function of Wave Height;
Considering Two Wave Climates
Assume that there are two distinct wave climates in a region, one characterized as the usual wind-
generated seas and the other the exceptional cyclonic storm seas of a hurricane (e.g., Gulf of Mexico).
Both are assumed to have Weibull distributions. The parameters are:
H
o1
= design wave height for the period of wave climate 1
H
o2
= design wave height for the period of wave climate 2
N
1
= number of wave cycles for the period of wave climate 1
N
2
= number of wave cycles for the period of wave climate 2
1
= Weibull shape parameter for wave heights for wave climate 1
2
= Weibull shape parameter for wave heights for wave climate 2
1
= as needed, a calibration factor for wave climate 1
2
= as needed, a calibration factor for wave climate 2
Damage at life n is equal to the sum of the damage in each wave climate.
( )
1
Y Y
A
N
D
o
R
+ = ............................................................................................................... (5.37)
where
N
R
= N
1
+ N
2
...................................................................................................................... (5.38)
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =

1 ln
1
1
/
1 1
2
1
gm
N H
N
N
Y
gm mg
o
R
............................................................................. (5.39)
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =

1 ln
2
2
/
2 2
2
2
gm
N H
N
N
Y
gm mg
o
R
............................................................................ (5.40)


48 ABS

.
2004
9 The Weibull Distribution; Statistical Considerations
The Weibull distribution is commonly used to describe long term wave height and long term stress
range processes. Statistical considerations of the Weibull distribution are presented below for
reference. Specifically, parameter estimation and probability plotting are described. Also, the
operations of fitting the Weibull distribution to deterministic and spectral models are presented.
9.2 Estimating the Parameters from Long-Term Data; Method of Moment
Estimators
Given a long-term measured history, the stress ranges S
i
,
i = 1, n are recorded. It is assumed that the
observations in this random sample are independent and identically distributed, i.e., all dependencies
are ignored. It must be emphasized that this history be representative of the entire service life.
The parameters can be estimated using the method of moments. Compute the sample mean and
standard deviation.
=
=
n
i
i
S
n
S
1
1
....................................................................................................................... (5.41)
( )
2 / 1
1
2
1
1
(
(
=

=
n
i
i S
S S
n
s .............................................................................................. (5.42)
S and s
S
are estimates for
s
and
S
. From Equation 5.2, the method of moment estimators for and
are:
08 . 1

|
.
|
\
|
=
S
s
S
.................................................................................................................... (5.43)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
1
S
..................................................................................................................... (5.44)
While the more complicated maximum likelihood estimators are generally considered by
mathematicians to be of higher quality, extensive and unpublished Monte Carlo simulation by
Wirsching has demonstrated that the performance of the two estimator types to be essentially
identical.
Example. An illustration of a Weibull statistical analysis for which the sample size, n = 25. The
random sample:
S = (12.5377 9.8050 8.2736 12.3759 11.0321 14.6142 21.6679 9.4326 17.2867
4.3187 24.5273 5.7944 5.5171 17.1173 13.2568 3.7245 0.8759 17.8508
4.7251 6.1859 11.7465 5.9809 8.6302 2.3726 26.4654)
Using Equations 5.41 and 5.42, the sample mean and standard deviation are, respectively, S = 11.04,
s
S
= 6.83. Substituting these values into Equations 5.43 and 5.44, the method of moment estimates for
and are:
36 . 12
68 . 1 = =


ABS

.
2004 49
9.3 Estimating the Parameters from Long-Term Data; Probability Plotting
A probability plot involves a transformation that allows the distribution function to be plotted as a
straight line. Consider the distribution function of Equation 5.1. Taking the log of both sides twice
results in:
ln[ln(1 F
S
)] = ln s ln .......................................................................................... (5.45)
Let
Y = ln[ln(1 F
S
)]
X = ln s ............................................................................................................................... (5.46)
The result is a linear relationship in which is the slope of the plotted line and ln is the
y-intercept.
Given the random sample, the distribution function is estimated in the following manner:
i) The sample is ordered, smallest to largest. S
(i)
denotes the i-th smallest value.
ii) The estimate of the distribution function corresponding to S
(i)
is:
n
i
F
i
5 . 0
= ....................................................................................................................... (5.47)
F
i
and S
i
are translated into Y
i

and X
i
using Equation 5.46. The points are plotted on rectangular paper.
If the data follow a linear trend, it is suggested that the Weibull distribution is a reasonable model.
This decision is purely subjective.
A straight line can be fitted through the points. The least squares estimators of and are then:
~
= slope of Y-X line ....................................................................................................... (5.48)
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
~
intercept -
exp
~ y
................................................................................................... (5.49)
Example: Consider the random sample as given above. The following table provides the details of
the preparation of the data for plotting. X
i
and Y
i
are computed using Equation. 5.46.


50 ABS

.
2004
TABLE 1
Data Analysis for Weibull Plot
i S
(i)
F
i
= (i 0.5)/n Y
i
X
i

1 0.88 0.02 -3.90 -0.13
2 2.37 0.06 -2.78 0.86
3 3.72 0.10 -2.25 1.31
4 4.32 0.14 -1.89 1.46
5 4.73 0.18 -1.62 1.55
6 5.52 0.22 -1.39 1.71
7 5.79 0.26 -1.20 1.76
8 5.98 0.30 -1.03 1.79
9 6.19 0.34 -0.88 1.82
10 8.27 0.38 -0.74 2.11
11 8.63 0.42 -0.61 2.16
12 9.43 0.46 -0.48 2.24
13 9.81 0.50 -0.37 2.28
14 11.03 0.54 -0.25 2.40
15 11.75 0.58 -0.14 2.46
16 12.38 0.62 -0.03 2.52
17 12.54 0.66 0.08 2.53
18 13.26 0.70 0.19 2.58
19 14.61 0.74 0.30 2.68
20 17.12 0.78 0.41 2.84
21 17.29 0.82 0.54 2.85
22 17.85 0.86 0.68 2.88
23 21.67 0.90 0.83 3.08
24 24.53 0.94 1.03 3.20
25 26.47 0.98 1.36 3.28

Y versus X is shown in Section 5, Figure 5.
FIGURE 5
Weibull Probability Plot
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
y = -4.01 + 1.59x
X = ln(S)
Y = ln(-ln(1-F
S
))


ABS

.
2004 51
As shown in the figure, the slope is 1.59 and the y-intercept is 4.01. Thus, the least squares
estimators from Equations 5.48 and 5.49 are:
59 . 1
~
=
45 . 12
59 . 1
01 . 4
exp
~
=
(
=
Some observations:
i) The data plot is nearly a straight line on Weibull paper. This suggests that the Weibull is a
reasonable model for the random variable, S. This does not mean that nature actually chose
the Weibull.
ii) The method of moment estimators and least squares estimators are in relatively good
agreement. The difference is due to the randomness in the process.
iii) For large sample sizes, the maximum likelihood estimators are minimum variance unbiased
estimators. However, method of moment estimators have been found to be insignificantly
different from maximum likelihood.
iv) When the data do not plot as a straight line, the Weibull model might be a poor choice and the
analyst must exercise engineering judgment regarding the possible choice of another
distribution. Another indication that the Weibull model might be inappropriate would be poor
agreement between method of moment and least squares estimators.
9.4 Another Representation of the Weibull Distribution Function
For fatigue purposes, the long-term Weibull distribution of fatigue stresses is often described
graphically as shown in Section 5, Figure 6.

FIGURE 6
Long Term Distribution of Fatigue Stress as a Function
of the Weibull Shape Parameter
1 10 100 1000 10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
= 1.4
= 0.7
= 1.0
Number of Exceedances
S/So


52 ABS

.
2004
Section 5, Figure 6 is another graphical representation of the distribution function. Let N
T
be the total
number of stress cycles in the design life. Let n be the number of values of the stress range during the
service life that exceed the value, s, i.e., the number of exceedances of S by stress level, s. Then, for
any value of S selected at random, the probability of exceeding the value s is simply equal to n/N
T
.
P(S > s) =
life design in ranges stress of number total
exceed which of values of number s S
=
T
N
n
=
1 P(S s) = 1 F
S
(s) ...................................................................................................... (5.50)
By combining Equations 5.1, 5.4 and 5.50, the following equation, a restatement of the distribution
function, is obtained.
T
T
T
N
n
N
S
S
=
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
ln exp

.............................................................................................. (5.51)
where n is the number of exceedances of the fatigue stress of stress level S. Section 5, Figure 6 is a
plot of (S/S
T
) versus n for the case where N
T
= 10
8
and for three values of .
An example of the use of this plot for marine structures is shown in Section 5, Figure 7.

FIGURE 7
Long-Term Stress Range Distribution of Large Tankers, Bulk Carriers,
and Dry Cargo Vessels Compared with the Weibull
10
2
10
3
10
2
1
2
10
422
10
5
10
66
10
7
10
8
= N
T
Number of Exceedances, N Cycles
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

S
t
r
e
s
s

-

R
a
n
g
e

(
S
/
S
o
)
W.H. Munse
"Fatigue Characterization of
Fabricated Ship Details for Design".....
SSC-318 (1983)

A crude method for estimating the Weibull shape parameter, , is to plot observed stress data on the
figure as shown and then choose that value of which provides the curve matching the experimental
data. The method of moments estimator for is recommended.


ABS

.
2004 53
9.5 Fitting the Weibull to Deterministic Spectra
A deterministic spectra defined over the service life (Section 5, Table 2) provides the stress
information for computing fatigue damage and executing a safety check. However, a Weibull
distribution can be fitted to this deterministic spectra. One reason for doing this is to develop
information on the Weibull shape parameter working towards characteristic values for various
structure types.
TABLE 2
Deterministic Spectra
Stress
Range
Number of
Cycles
s
1
n
1

s
i
n
i

s
k
n
k

Note that: (1)
=
i S
n N , and (2) there are n
i
values of s
i
. Thus, the random sample is generated as:
S = (n
1
values of s
1
plus n
2
values of s
2
plus n
i

values of s
i

plus n
k
values of s
k
.
) ................................................................................................... (5.52)
The method of moment estimators, as described above in 5/9.2, are used to estimate and .
9.6 Fitting the Weibull Distribution to the Spectral Method
While the spectral method provides definition of fatigue stresses for analysis, the Weibull parameters
can be extracted from the spectra. As in the case of the deterministic method, a random sample is
constructed.
In the spectral method, the long-term stress process is discretized into J short term stationary sea
states. Consider the i-th sea state. The stress ranges in this sea state will have a density function, e.g.,
as shown in Section 5, Figure 8.


54 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 8
Probability Density Function of Stress Ranges of the i-th Sea State
Stress, s
S
m
f
i
(S
m
)
f
i
(s)
s

If the stress process is assumed to be Gaussian and narrow band, then S will have a Rayleigh
distribution. However, this is not a necessary assumption to execute this process.
To construct the random sample of stress ranges, divide the sample space into M small increments.
One such increment of width, s, is shown in the figure. The continuous distribution of S is
transformed to a discrete distribution of M constant amplitude stresses. One of those stresses, s
m
, is
shown at the center of the interval.
The following definitions lead to the number of cycles of S
m
.
T
S
= service life
i
= % of time in the i-th sea state
T
i
=
i

T
S
= time in the i-th sea state
i
= center frequency of the stress process in the i-th sea state
N
i
=
i

T
i
= number of cycles in the i-th sea state
n
m
= [f
i
(s
m
) s]
N
i

= number of cycles of s
m

The contribution to the random sample is n
m
cycles of s
m
. Then,

Repeat the above for all of the intervals of the i-th sea state
Repeat for all sea states
Pool all of the values of S and use the method of moments

ABS

.
2004 55

S E C T I O N 6 The Spectral Based Fatigue
Assessment Method
1 Preliminary Comments
The spectral fatigue analysis is a systematic approach to develop a rational, first-principle approach
whereby the dynamic loads and the wave environments are explicitly considered. The essence of the
spectral fatigue analysis method is to model the long-term random sea state process as several short-
term stationary Gaussian processes, each defined by the wave spectral density function. The fraction
of time that each short-term process acts is specified. A frequency response function relating the
wave spectral density and the spectral density of fatigue critical components, and including the
structural dynamics, is developed. The fatigue stress spectral density is computed. If the process can
be assumed to be narrow band (a conservative assumption), the stress ranges will have a Rayleigh
distribution and a closed form expression for fatigue damage contributed by each of the short-term
processes can be used.
A summary of the process of fatigue assessment by the spectral fatigue analysis method is provided in
Section 6, Figure 1.
2 Basic Assumptions
Basic assumptions in spectral fatigue analysis are:
i) The global performance analysis and the associated structural analysis are assumed to be
linear. Hence, scaling and superposition of stress range transfer functions due to unit wave
height are valid.
ii) Non-linearities due to non-linear motions and wave loadings are treated by the equivalent
linearization.
iii) Structural dynamic amplification, transient loads and effects such as springing and ringing are
insignificant and, hence, use of quasi-static finite element analysis is valid.
iv) Short-term stress processes are assumed to be stationary Gaussian.
v) Short-term stress processes are also assumed to be narrow band so that the stress ranges have
a Rayleigh distribution. (If a decision is made that the stress process must be treated as wide
band, a correction to the narrow band assumption is provided.)
vi) The linear damage accumulation rule (Palmgren-Miner) applies.
A fundamental limitation of the spectral method is the assumption of linearity, i.e., items 1 and 2
above. Thus, the spectral method may not be appropriate in those cases where non-linearities are
considered to be important, e.g., TLP tendons.

Section 6 The Spectral-based Fatigue Assessment Method

56 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 1
Fatigue Assessments by Spectral Analysis Method
PERFORM FREQUENCY DOMAIN ANALYSES OF
SHORT-TERM FATIGUE STRESS PROCESSES
direction seakeeping analysis for ships
global finite element analysis
local finite element analysis
frequency response functions for fatigue stresses
spectral density functions for fatigue stresses
DEFINE THE LONG-
TERM DESIGN WAVE
ENVIRONMENT
DERIVE SHORT-TERM
DISTRIBUTIONS OF
STRESS RANGE
CALCULATE AND SUM
SHORT-TERM FATIGUE
DAMAGES
SAFETY CHECK
EXPRRESSION FOR
FATIGUE
DEFINE
OPERATIONAL
PROFILE
DEFINE THE
FATIGUE CRITICAL
STRUCTURAL
DETAILS

3 The Rayleigh Distribution for Short Term Stress Ranges
The long term (non-stationary) sea state is modeled by several short-term stationary sea states. It is
assumed that the short term processes are Gaussian and narrow band. Thus, the distribution of the
peaks is Rayleigh [Wirsching, Paez, and Ortiz (1995)]. The Rayleigh distribution is a special form of
the Weibull distribution having parameters:
= 2.0 = 2 2 ................................................................................................. (6.1)
Thus, it follows from Equation 5.19 that damage at the any reference life N
R
is:
( ) |
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
2
2 2
m
A
N
D
m
R
R
.............................................................................................. (6.2)
This expression forms the basis of the damage expression for the spectral method.


ABS

.
2004 57
4 Spectral Analysis; More Detail
Under the previously stated assumptions, a more detailed description of the spectral analysis method
is provided in the following:
i) Characterization of Sea Environment. The sea environment is represented by the number of
occurrences of various sea states, each defined by a set of spectra. A two-parameter
(significant wave height H
S
, zero up-crossing period, T
Z
) wave-scatter diagram shall be used
to characterize the sea states (See Section 6, Table 1 for example). All sea state spectra are
defined by the wave spectrum relationship such as the Pierson-Moskowitz relationship. Wave
direction probability is included in the sea environmental characterization.
ii) Global Performance Analysis. Waves of appropriate frequencies, heights and directions are
selected. The response and the loading of the structure are computed for each wave condition.
iii) Structural Analysis. A global structural analysis is performed to determine the applied loading
or displacement for the critical structural details (load transfer function per unit wave
amplitude as a function of frequency). The local structural analysis is performed to determine
the stress transfer function (per unit wave amplitude as a function of wave frequency) at each
location of interest in the structural detail.
iv) Stress Concentration Factor (SCF). The geometric SCF is accounted for in the fatigue
assessment. The SCF can be determined either by parametric equation or by fine mesh FEA.
v) Hotspot Stress Transfer Function. As needed the stress transfer function is multiplied by the
SCF to determine the hotspot stress transfer function.
vi) Long-term Stress Range. Based on the wave spectrum, wave scatter diagram and hotspot
stress response per unit wave amplitude, the long-term stress range is determined. This is
done by multiplying the ordinate of the wave amplitude spectrum for each sea state by the
ordinate squared of the hotspot stress transfer function to determine the stress spectrum. The
stress range distribution is assumed to follow a Rayleigh distribution. The long-term stress
range is then defined through a short-term Rayleigh distribution within each sea state for
different wave directions.
vii) S-N Classification. For each critical location considered in the analysis, S-N curves are
assigned based on the structural geometry, applied loading and, when applicable, welding
procedure and quality.
viii) Fatigue Life. Estimation of fatigue damage (or life) using the Palmgren-Miner Rule and
subsequent comparison with design requirements.
5 Wave Data
The basis of the spectral fatigue approach lies in the wave environment data that are contained within
the wave scatter diagram that is to be used. Clearly, physically measured wave data is the most
reliable form. In lieu of the physical measurement data, visually observed wave data and some well
compiled authoritative sources, e.g., ABSWAVE, BMT Global Wave Statistics, Walden Data, etc.
can be used.
The wave data should be available in scatter diagram form which consists of M number, of cells
that contain the probability of occurrence of specific sea states. Any cell will effectively contain
three data items, namely
i) The significant wave height, H
s
, (typically in meters),
ii) The characteristic wave period, T
Z
, (in seconds) and
iii) The fraction of the total time that the wave condition exists, p
i
.


58 ABS

.
2004
Wave data are characterized as a wave scatter diagram, an example of which is shown in Section 6,
Table 1.
TABLE 1
A Sample Wave Scatter Diagram
Wave Period (sec)
5s 7s 9s 11s 13s 15s 17s

Sum Over
All
Periods
0.0-0.75 20.91 11.79 4.57 2.24 0.47 0.06 0.00 0.60 40.64
0.75-1.75 72.78 131.08 63.08 17.26 2.39 0.33 0.11 0.77 287.80
1.75-2.75 21.24 126.41 118.31 30.24 3.68 0.47 0.09 0.56 301.00
2.75-3.75 3.28 49.60 92.69 32.99 5.46 0.68 0.12 0.27 185.09
3.75-4.75 0.53 16.19 44.36 22.28 4.79 1.14 0.08 0.29 89.66
4.75-5.75 0.12 4.34 17.30 12.89 3.13 0.56 0.13 0.04 38.51
5.75-6.75 0.07 2.90 9.90 8.86 3.03 0.59 0.08 0.03 25.46
6.75-7.75 0.03 1.39 4.47 5.22 1.93 0.38 0.04 0.04 13.50
7.75-8.75 1.09 2.55 3.92 1.98 0.50 0.03 0.02 10.09
8.75-9.75 0.54 1.36 2.26 1.54 0.68 0.20 0.04 6.62
9.75-10.75 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.40
10.75-11.75 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.34
11.75-12.75 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.22 0.06 0.01 0.48
12.75-13.75 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.22
13.75-14.75 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.11
W
a
v
e

H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)

14.75-15.75 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08
Sum Over All Heights 118.97 345.43 358.72 138.59 29.05 5.63 0.92 2.69 1000.00

The long-term sea state is discretized as a set of M short-term sea states as shown. Each sea state,
which is assumed to be a stationary Gaussian process, contributes to the total fatigue damage.
The numbers in each cell (divided by 1000) define the joint probability of occurrence of H
s
and T
z
,
denoted as p
i
. The fraction of the total time each cell is acting is defined by

p
i
, i = 1, M.

For a more refined analysis, wave directionality can be accounted for. Each of the M cells can be
subdivided into discretized wave direction. The probability distribution of wave direction needs to be
defined.
Fatigue damage is computed for each of the M cells and summed to compute total damage.
6 Additional Detail on Fatigue Stress Analysis; Global
Performance Analysis
In order to translate wave data into fatigue stresses, it is necessary to construct a frequency response
function, and to do this, it is necessary to perform a motion response analysis. This analysis should be
based on six-degree-of-freedom global motion models with full simulation of the mass properties of
the operating platform or ship. For a TLP, the global performance model may be uncoupled from
the tendons and risers, meaning that the responses of these components are not included in the model,
although the static stiffness must be included.
The analysis should be conducted in the frequency domain based on panel model diffraction loads or
strip theory to determine the hydrodynamic loads, stiffness matrix at the quasi-static offset position in
the environment, and full spectral definition of the sea states. A suitable range of wave frequency,
number of frequency points and wave headings shall be used in the analysis. Ideally, for ship type
structure, the following are suggested:


ABS

.
2004 59
i) Frequency range: 0.20 to 1.80 rad/sec
ii) Frequency Increment: 0.05 rad/sec
iii) Wave headings: 0 to 360 degrees in 15 degree increments
The global motion analyses will serve as the basis for load development in FEA, discussed later. The
actual interface from the global analysis to the structural analysis consists of six loading components
for each analyzed wave period and direction: the real and imaginary applied unit amplitude wave
diffraction and radiation loads, the associated inertial loads and the other cyclic loading, e.g., TLP
tendon dynamic reactions. The successful interface of these load components, as discussed above, is
dependent on a consistent geometry and mass model between the motion and structural analyses and
consistent generation of the loading components in the motion analysis. Consistent modeling can be
obtained by interfacing the model geometry directly from the motion analysis wherever possible.
Consistent mass can be obtained by interfacing with the same weight control database for both the
motions and structural analyses, when available.
7 The Safety Check Process
7.1 General Considerations
As a general reference to random processes for the following discussions, see Wirsching, Paez, and
Ortiz (1995).
7.2 The Stress Process in Each Cell
Fatigue stresses are to be established by the following process:
i) Determine the stress transfer function, H
(|), for a particular location of interest in the

structural detail for a particular load condition. This can be done in a direct manner, whereby,
the structural analysis is carried out at every frequency and heading for which the spectral
analysis is intended to be carried out and the resulting stresses are used to generate the stress
transfer function explicitly.
ii) For each of the M cells or short-term sea states, generate a stress spectra, S
(|H
s
, T
z
, ), by
linearly scaling the wave spectral density, S
(|H
s
, T
z
), in the following manner:
S
(|H
s
, T
z
, ) = | H
(|)|
2
S
(|H
s
, T
z
)........................................................................... (6.3)
iii) For each of the M cells or short-term sea states, calculate the spectral moments. The n-th
spectral moment,
n
, is calculated as follows:
n
= ( )

0
, , d T H S
Z S
n
................................................................................................. (6.4)
Most fatigue damage is associated with low or moderate seas. Therefore, confused short-crested sea
conditions should be considered.
Confused short-crested seas result in a kinetic energy spread which is modelled using the cosine-
squared approach, (2/)cos
2
. Generally, cosine-squared spreading is assumed from +90 to 90
degrees on either side of the selected wave heading. Applying the wave spreading function, the
spectral moment may be modified as follows:
n
= ( )
+ =
=
|
.
|
\
|
0
90
'
90
' 2
, , cos
2
d T H S
Z S
n
...................................................................... (6.5)


60 ABS

.
2004
Often, the correction for short crested seas is ignored, leading to conservative damage estimates.
iv) Using the spectral moments, compute: (1) the RMS
i
, (equal to the standard deviation for a
zero mean process), (2) rate of zero crossings (equivalent frequency) f
oi
, and, if the decision
is made to include a wide band correction, (3) rate of peaks f
pi
, and (4) the spectral width
parameter for each of the M cells. Let
ni
be the n-th spectral moment of the i-th cell. General
reference for the following discussion is Wirsching, Paez, and Ortiz (1995).
RMS
i i 2
= ........................................................................................................................... (6.6)
Rate of Zero Crossings (equivalent frequency)
The rate of zero crossings (in Hertz) for the i-th cell is:
oi
i
oi
f
2
2
1
= ................................................................................................................... (6.7)
The expression for f
oi
is based on a stress spectral density that is a function of (rad/sec) per
Equation 6.4. If the spectral density function is in terms of f (Hertz), then the factor (1/2) should be
missing. See Subsection 6/8.
If the decision is made to also apply the wide band correction factor, the following must be computed.
Ignoring this factor produces conservative results.
Rate of Peaks
The rate of peaks (number per second) for the i-th cell is:
i
i
pi
f
2
4
= ............................................................................................................................ (6.8)
The expression for f
pi
is based on a stress spectral density that is a function of (rad/sec) per
Equation 6.4. If the spectral density function is in terms of f (Hertz), then the factor (1/2) should be
missing. See Subsection 6/8.
Spectral Width Parameter
The spectral width parameter is an index of the spectrum, i.e., the stress spectral density function. For
the i-th sea state:
2
1
i i
= 0 <
i
< 1.0................................................................................................. (6.9)
where
i
is the irregularity factor defined as:
pi
oi
i
f
f
= 0 <
i
< 1.0............................................................................................... (6.10)
A process can be assumed to be narrow band if
i
will be close to 1.0 (say 0.95) and
i
close to
zero.
i
becomes smaller as the process becomes more wide band. The spectral shape will differ with
each sea state and, thus,
i
must be defined for each sea state.


ABS

.
2004 61
8 Fatigue Damage Expression for Wide Band Stress
8.1 Preliminary Comments
As a general reference, consider Wirsching, Paez, and Ortiz (1995).
The expression for damage used by ABS is based on the assumption of a narrow band stress process
in which the stress ranges have a Rayleigh distribution. However, the stress process will, in general,
be wide band. A rainflow correction factor, an index of the wide band spectrum, is applied to the
narrow band equation for damage to form a damage expression for wide band stress. For the i-th sea
state, the rainflow correction factor is denoted as
i
and the frequency of loading is taken to be f
oi
.
Realizations of a narrow band and a wide band process are shown in Section 6, Figure 2. Each has
the same RMS and rate of zero crossings.
FIGURE 2
Realizations of a Narrow Band and Wide Band Process
(Both Have the Same RMS and Rate of Zero Crossings)
One cycle
Narrow band
process
Wide band
process
time
Stress
S

For the narrow band process, stress cycles are easily identified and the application of Miners rule is
straightforward. While it is not immediately obvious how to identify individual stress cycles in a
wide band process, the rainflow algorithm provides a formal method for stress cycle counting. 6/8.4
describes the rainflow method and presents a closed form expression for computing damage based on
a correction factor applied to the equivalent narrow band process.
8.2 Definitions
The spectral density function of the stress process, S(t), is given as W
S
(f) where frequency, f, is in
Hertz.
An index of the frequency spectrum of the stress process, S(t), is the irregularity factor:
p
o
f
f
= 0 < <1.0....................................................................................................... (6.11)


62 ABS

.
2004
where f
o
is the rate of zero crossings of S(t) with positive slope and f
p
is the rate of peaks of S(t). In
terms of moments of the spectral density function of S(t):
o
o
f
2
=
2
4
=
p
f .................................................................................................. (6.12)
where the moments of the spectral density function, W
S
(f), are defined as:
=
0
) ( df f W f
S
j
j
........................................................................................................ (6.13)
An alternate index is the spectral width parameter:
2
1 = ....................................................................................................................... (6.14)
For a narrow band process, = 1.0 and = 0. For values close to 1.0, the process has an approximate
narrow band appearance. As decreases, the process becomes more wide-band, but there is no
formal definition of as to what defines a wide band stress.
Finally, note that the standard deviation (or RMS, root mean square if the process has a zero mean) is:
o
= ........................................................................................................................... (6.15)
8.3 The Equivalent Narrow Band Process
Consider a stationary Gaussian narrow band process. The damage at any cycle life n (see Equation
6.2) is (the subscript NB denotes narrow band stress damage):
( ) |
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
2
2 2
m
A
n
D
m
NB
............................................................................................. (6.16)
D
NB
can be written in terms of frequency and time. To compute damage at time t note that the
number of cycles is:
n = f
o
t ................................................................................................................................. (6.17)
where f
o
is the rate of zero crossings or equivalent frequency of the process.
Thus, D
NB
becomes:
( )
( ) |
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
2
2 2
m
A
t f
D
m
o
NB
......................................................................................... (6.18)
An approximation to damage under wide band stresses can be made by assuming that the damage is
the same as that caused by a narrow band stress having the same RMS, , and rate of zero crossings,
f
o
. This is called the equivalent narrow band process. Thus, for a wide band process, and f
o
are
computed from the spectral density function and Equation 6.18 is used to compute the damage.
The equivalent narrow band damage model provides a conservative estimate, but generally by less
than a factor of 10% on damage or life, depending upon the shape of the stress spectral density, and
the slope of the S-N curve.
However, it is generally considered that the rainflow method [Dowling (1972)] is the most accurate of
several models for counting stress cycles in a wide band process.


ABS

.
2004 63
8.4 The Rainflow Method
Consider the segment of stress of Section 6, Figure 3. Rotate the picture 90 as shown. The method
as originally presented will be summarized.
FIGURE 3
Segment of Stress Process to Demonstrate Rainflow Method
S(t)
2
3
4
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t
1
5
3
2
4
S(t)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t
S
1
S
2

i) Imagine each trough has a water source and water flows downward from off of the roofs.
ii) The water path is interrupted when the path passes a trough which is more negative (e.g., 5)
than the original (e.g., 1). This path defines stress range S
1
as shown. Note that the mean
value of this stress cycle is also defined.
iii) A path, e.g., starting at point 3, ends when it hits another path as shown. This defines another
stress range S
2
.
iv) The same process is pursued throughout the length of the available record.
v) The process can be repeated by considering the peaks as water sources. The stress cycles
generated by the peak process should match the cycles of the trough generated process.
The result of rainflow counting is a random sample, S
i
; i = 1, P, where P is the number of peaks in
the process. Then:
=
= =
P
i
m
i
m m
e
S S E S
1
) ( ....................................................................................................... (6.19)
For additional information on the rainflow method, see Fatigue Design Handbook (1988) and BS
7608 (1993) for the reservoir method, equivalent to the rainflow.
8.5 A Closed Form Expression for Wide Band Damage
To estimate rainflow damage, models which employ a modified form of the equivalent narrow band
process have been developed, as described here. Three models have been proposed in the literature.
The initial model was presented by Wirsching and Light (1980). IN ADDITION, Two other models
were presented by Ortiz and Chen (1987) and Lutes and Larson (1990). The three models give
comparable results for the parameters of interest of welded joints. The models are based on the form:
D = D
NB
........................................................................................................................... (6.20)


64 ABS

.
2004
where , called the wide band correction factor, is a function of the indices of the spectral density
function and also the slope of the S-N curve, m. Thus, plays the role of a correction factor to narrow
band damage.
The following expressions for rainflow damage is based on the assumptions:
i) The S-N curve, NS
m
= A is defined down to S = 0, i.e., there is no break in the curve.
ii) The rainflow method defines fatigue stress cycles.
iii) Mean stress is not a factor in welded joint fatigue. Mean stress associated with each cycle is
ignored.
Wirsching and Light (1980)
i
= a(m) = [1 a(m)](1
i
)
b(m)
........................................................................................ (6.21)
where
a(m) = 0.926 0.033m....................................................................................................... (6.22)
b(m) = 1.587m 2.323....................................................................................................... (6.23)
Ortiz and Chen (1987)
m
k
= ............................................................................................................................. (6.24)
where
2
2
+
=
k o
k
k

................................................................................................................. (6.25)
and
m
k
0 . 2
= .............................................................................................................................. (6.26)
Lutes and Larson (1990)
( )
+
=
o
m
m
2 /
/ 2
.................................................................................................................. (6.27)
Example: Consider a wide-band stress process defined by its spectral density function:
W
S
(f) = 0.05 0 < f < 20 Hz
0 otherwise
For the models described above, the following moments are calculated using Equation 6.13:
0
= 1.0
2
= 133.32
4
= 32,000
k
=
2/m

= 4.424
k+2
= 804.51
The rate of zero crossings and the rate of peaks are computed by Equation 6.12:
f
o
= 11.55 f
p
= 15.49
The irregularity factor and the spectral width parameter are given computed by Equations 6.11 and
6.14:
= 0.745 = 0.667


ABS

.
2004 65
The three rainflow correction factors are:
= 0.839 (Wirsching and Light) Equation 6.21
= 0.843 (Ortiz and Chen) Equation 6.24
= 0.806 (Lutes and Larsen) Equation 6.27
9 The Damage Calculation for Single Segment S-N Curve
Damage will be calculated in terms of the design life, N
T
(cycles) or T (time)
Consider a single sea state. Let n
i
be the number of cycles in this sea state over the service life. The
damage produced by this sea state is given by Equation 6.28, a restatement of Equation 6.2.
( ) |
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
2
2 2
m
A
n
D
m
i
i
i
.............................................................................................. (6.28)
Total damage can be written in terms of N
T
(cycles) or T (time) as follows. The number of cycles in
the i-th sea state can be expressed as the product of the time in the i-th sea state times the equivalent
frequency.
n
i
= (p
i
T) f
oi
....................................................................................................................... (6.29)
p
i
is the fraction of time in the i-th sea state. Note that units of time must be compatible. If f
oi

is in
Hertz, then T must be in seconds.
Thus, when the wide band correction is applied, the damage in the i-th sea state is derived from
Equation 6.28 as:
( )
( ) |
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
2
2 2
m
f
A
T p
D
m
i oi i
i
i
................................................................................. (6.30)
The total damage at the design life is the sum of the damages in each of the M sea states.
( )
i i oi i
M
i
m
p f
m
A
T
D
=
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
1
1
2
2 2 .............................................................................. (6.31)
An alternative form can be derived in terms of N
T
by noting that:
o
T
f
N
T = ............................................................................................................................. (6.32)
where f
o
is the average frequency over the service life. This is calculated as:
=
=
M
i
oi i o
f p f
1
................................................................................................................... (6.33)
Then total damage over the design life is:
( )
i i oi i
M
i
m
o
T
p f
m
Af
N
D
=
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
1
1
2
2 2 .......................................................................... (6.34)
The safety check expression is then:
FDF
D
0 . 1
.......................................................................................................................... (6.35)


66 ABS

.
2004
10 The Damage Calculation for Bi-Linear S-N Curve
For fatigue strength defined by the bilinear curve of Section 5, Figure 4, damage in the i-th sea state
can be derived from Equation 5.23. Note that the Raleigh distribution is a special form of the Weibull
distribution with parameters as defined by Equation 6.1. Making the substitution of parameters,
damage for the i-th sea state is:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i
m
i i
r
i i
z a
A
N
z b
C
N
D , 2 2 , 2 2
0
+ = ............................................................ (6.36)
where
1
2
+ =
m
a ........................................................................................................................... (6.37)
1
2
+ =
r
b ............................................................................................................................ (6.38)
2
2 2
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
i
Q
S
z
................................................................................................................... (6.39)
This damage expression is reformulated by making the following substitutions:
m = r m ......................................................................................................................... (6.40)
(a,z) = (a)
0
(a,z) ....................................................................................................... (6.41)
m
Q
S
C
A
=
1
.......................................................................................................................... (6.42)
The latter is derived by writing Equations 5.21 at the common point (N
Q
, S
Q
). The gamma functions
are defined by Equations 5.3, 5.24, and 5.25. After making the above substitutions, using Equation
6.36 and applying the wide band correction, damage in the i-th sea state is:
( )
( )
i
m
i oi i
i
i
m
f
A
T p
D |
.
|
\
|
+ = 1
2
2 2 ............................................................................. (6.43)
where
( ) ( )
( ) a
z b
z
z a
m
i
i o
i
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
,
1
,
1
0
2 /
............................................................................... (6.44)
The total damage over the design life is obtained by summing over all M sea states:
( )

=
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
M
i
m
i i oi i i
m
p f
m
A
T
D
1
1
2
2 2 .......................................................................... (6.45)
As in the single segment case, T can be replaced by N
T
/f
o
.
The safety check is defined by Equation 6.35.

ABS

.
2004 67

S E C T I O N 7 Deterministic Method of Fatigue
Assessment
1 General
In the deterministic method of fatigue assessment, the long-term distribution of stresses is defined by
what is known historically as block loading. The long-term distribution of stress ranges is
decomposed (either by analysis or by signal processing equipment) into blocks of constant amplitude
stresses with a corresponding number of cycles. Section 1, Table 1, repeated here, illustrates
deterministic stress spectra. The choice of J blocks is arbitrary.
TABLE 1
Deterministic Stress Spectra
Stress Range
S
i

Number of Cycles
n
i

S
1
n
1

S
2
n
2

S
3
n
3

.
.
S
J-1
n
J-1

S
J
n
J

Applying the Palmgren-Miner linear cumulative damage:
=
=
J
i
i
i
N
n
D
1

And the safety check expression is:
FDF
D
0 . 1
............................................................................................................................ (7.1)
2 Application to a Self-Elevating Unit
Typically, the fatigue assessment of a self-elevating drilling unit (MODU) is approached on a
deterministic basis. The lack of specific knowledge of the conditions in which the unit will operate
during its service life indicate the use of the deterministic approach, which can produce notional,
comparative results.

Section 7 Deterministic Method of Fatigue Assessment

68 ABS

.
2004
A format for a deterministic fatigue assessment method for a self-elevating unit that may be suitable
for Classification is the weather box method. In this deterministic method, the expected wave
conditions that the unit will be exposed to during its life are split into a finite number of regular wave
height/period combinations. The minimum acceptable number of combinations would normally be
five, but more would be preferable. The unit is then assessed under these conditions for a number of
different headings and water depths. An acceptable set of assessment parameters is given in
Section 7, Table 2.
TABLE 2
Wave and Other Parameters to be Used in the Fatigue Assessment
Item Number of Cases
Number of wave height/period combinations At least 5 over a realistic range for anticipated areas
of operation
Wave steepness (Wave length divided by height) Should normally be in the range of 12 to 15
Number of water depths Normally 3 over a realistic range would be
acceptable
Number of weather approach directions Normally 8, but 3 may be possible with symmetry
Leg fixity conditions 2: Pinned for upper leg, high fixity for lower leg

The calculation method can be summarized as:
Determine the wave/water depth/direction combinations for study.
Calculate the wave load ranges on the self-elevating unit for each of the chosen combinations.
Given the magnitude of most of the waves that inflict significant fatigue damage, it is usually
acceptable to use a linear wave theory.
Determine a suitable Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) for each wave/period and water depth
combination. It is anticipated that the Single Degree of Freedom approach (SDOF) would be
used.
Apply the wave loads and suitable inertial loads to a detailed structural model of the unit and
calculate the stress ranges throughout the structure.
Increase stress ranges by a suitable Stress Concentration Factor (SCF), which is determined from
either a finite element analysis or suitable parametric equations. It is often adequate to use a
single SCF for each member end at the joint, and to effectively assume that the most highly
stressed material is always the same, regardless of loading details. Alternatively, if a more
conservative yet representative fatigue life is desired, then it is acceptable to keep track of the
location of all of the stress ranges around each joint.
Use Palmgren-Miner rule to sum the fatigue damage from each of the individual water
depth/wave direction combinations.
Repeat for changed foundation fixity, if warranted by preliminary estimates using simplified
techniques.

ABS

.
2004 69

S E C T I O N 8 Fracture Mechanics Fatigue Model
1 Introduction
While ABS specifies the S-N curve method for fatigue assessment, the fracture mechanics fatigue
model is commonly used to assess remaining life after a crack is discovered. This model is useful for
evaluating crack growth and for inspection planning, but it also could be employed for design
purposes. A Section in the Guide is provided for basic reference to the fracture mechanics fatigue
model. The intent of this Commentary Section is to provide some background and supporting
information.
The essence of the fracture mechanics approach is that there is a pre-existing crack or flaw.
Subsequent sub-critical crack growth occurs under oscillatory stress. The goal of analysis is to
estimate the number of stress cycles until the crack grows to such a size that instantaneous fracture
occurs. A secondary goal, important for developing inspection and repair strategy, is to estimate the
crack depth for a given cycle life.
2 Crack Growth Model (Fatigue Strength)
2.1 Stress Intensity Factor Range
The fracture mechanics model for fatigue strength is based on crack growth data. As shown in
Section 8, Figure 1, the strength model is a relationship between the crack growth rate, da/dN (N is the
number of cycles and a is the depth of the crack) and the stress intensity factor range, K.
a S a Y K ) ( = ................................................................................................................. (8.1)
where Y(a) is the geometry factor and S is the stress range. A constant amplitude stress process is
assumed.
As the name implies, the geometry factor depends upon the geometry in the neighborhood of the
crack and the direction and type of loading. Catalogs of Y(a) are available. For example, tables of
Y(a) are included in IIW (1996), BSI 7910 (1999), BS 7608(1993), and API 579 (2001).
2.2 The Paris Law
A simplified description of the crack growth process is shown in Section 8, Figure 1.
The relationship between da/dN and K is generally observed to be a sigmoid curve on a log da/dN
versus log K plot. At low values of K (Region I), the rate of growth falls off rapidly to a threshold
stress intensity factor, K
th
, below which no significant crack growth will occur. At high values of K
(Region III), when the maximum stress intensity factor in the cycle approaches the critical stress
intensity factor for failure under static load, the rate of crack growth accelerates rapidly.
There is a quasi-linear central portion (Region II). For engineering purposes, it is usually sufficiently
accurate to ignore the existence of the threshold and assume that the linear relationship applies for all
values of K from zero to failure.

Section 8 Fatigue Strength Based on Fracture Mechanics

70 ABS

.
2004
FIGURE 1
A Model of Crack Propagation Rate versus Stress Intensity Factor Range
da
dN
K
th
Upper knee
typically
about 10
-3
in/cycle
Lower knee
typically
about 10
-7
in/cycle
REGION I
Low Crack
Growth Rate
REGION II
Governed by
Paris Equation
da
dN
= C(K)
m
K
REGION III
High Crack
Growth Rate

Historical crack growth data has indicated that the Paris law is generally a reasonable model for the
linear central portion.
m
K C
dN
da
) ( = .................................................................................................................... (8.2)
where C and m are the Paris coefficient and exponent, respectively, as determined from crack growth
data.
2.3 Determination of the Paris Parameters, C and m
Crack growth data are widely published. The Paris parameters C, m depend on the material and the
applied conditions, such as stress ratio, environment, test frequency and waveform in the crack growth
test. Whenever possible, data relevant to the particular material under service conditions should be
used and, where any doubt exists concerning the influence of the environment, such data should be
obtained. If the available data are sufficient to define C and m, the chosen values should correspond to
the mean plus two standard deviation of log da/dN.


ABS

.
2004 71
Gurney (1979) published an empirical form for the parameters of the Paris equation. The general
relationship for the median curve for steels is:
( )
m
E
C
4 . 895
4 315 . 1
= (N, mm units) ...................................................................................... (8.3)
For other units, the conversions are:
C (ksi units) = 0.0394 (34.75)
m
C (N, mm units)
C (ksi units) = 39.37 (1.1)
m
C (MPa units)
Most of the data on crack growth in structural steels and welds indicate that a default slope of m = 3.0
is reasonable. Crack growth rates that are found in relevant engineering literature are presented in
Section 8, Table 1. Values are listed for structural steel in-air, except where indicated.
TABLE 1
Paris Parameters for Structural Steel
C (N,mm units) corresponding to m = 3.0 Notes
3.66E-13 Gurney (1979); median value of Equation 8.3 is
multiplied by 2.0 to account for scatter [BS 7608(1993)]
3.00E-13 Upper bound to many published data for welds and HAZ
in which crack growth was the striation mechanism
[BS 7608(1993)]
6.00E-13 Normal crack growth accompanied by cleavage or
microvoid coalescence.
[BS 7608(1993)]
2.30E-12 Steels operating in a marine environment.
[BS 7608(1993)]
6.74E-13 Maddox (1974); upper bound for weld material
2.17E-13 Barsom (1971); upper bound for A36 steel
3.00E-13 Department of Energy Review Panel (otherwise
undocumented)
1.00E-12 In seawater; Department of Energy Review Panel
(otherwise undocumented)
These values are provided only for reference purposes.
3 Life Prediction
3.1 Relationship Between Cycles and Crack Depth
The analysis objective is cycles to failure, or alternatively, the crack size associated with a given life.
In doing so, it is assumed that the real flaws can be idealized as sharp-tipped cracks.
Integration of Equation 8.2 gives the number of cycles, N, required for a crack to propagate from an
initial size, a
i
, to a crack depth a:
dx
x x Y
C
NS
a
i
a
m m
m
=
2 /
) )( (
1 1
.............................................................................................. (8.4)
When a = a
c
, the critical crack depth, failure is assumed, and N would be cycles to failure.
Note that this form is identical to the characteristic S-N model of Chapter 3, NS
m
= A. The fatigue
strength coefficient, A, will be equal to the right hand side of Equation 8.4.


72 ABS

.
2004
3.2 Determination of Initial Crack Size, a
i

This Section provides information for those special cases where the fracture mechanics model would
be employed for design.
The fracture mechanics model critically depends upon the value of the initial flaw size a
i
. It is
therefore important that a
i
is not underestimated. When a crack is discovered by one of the inspection
methods, its measurement is subject to uncertainty and it is important for the analyst to account for the
uncertainty.
In the context of design, an assumption of initial crack size must be made. From the codes:
[DNV(2000)] For surface cracks starting from transition between weld/base material, a crack depth of
0.5 mm (e.g., due to undercuts and microcracks at bottom of the undercuts) may be assumed if no
other documented information about crack depth is available.
[BS 7608(1993)] For normally flaw-free welded joints failing from the weld toe, it is recommended
that a
i
be in the range 0.10 mm to 0.25 mm unless a larger size is known to be relevant.
With regard to flaw shape, also from BS 7608 (1993) In the absence of definite information of the
shape of the initial flaws, it is also recommended that, for joints/details with welds transverse to the
direction of stress, the flaw at the weld toe is assumed to be long and continuous, i.e.:
0
2
=
c
a
i
................................................................................................................................. (8.5)
At the ends of longitudinal welds, however, it would be realistic to assume that the initial flaw is a
semi-elliptical in shape with:
1 . 0
2
=
c
a
i
............................................................................................................................... (8.6)
The initial crack size to be used in the calculation shall be evaluated in each case, taking into account
the defect size for various weldments, geometries and the inspection accuracy.
Because life is sensitive to the assumed value of a
i
, it is important that a
i
not be underestimated.
3.3 Determination of the Failure (Critical) Crack Length, a
c
.
The analyst has will use judgment with regard to the choice of a
c
. Each of the following failure
modes should be considered carefully in making this choice:
i) Unstable brittle fracture
ii) Yielding of the remaining section
iii) Leakage
iv) Stress corrosion
v) Instability
v) Creep

ABS

.
2004 73

S E C T I O N 9 References

1. ABS (2001a) Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels, (2001), American Bureau of
Shipping, Houston, TX
2. API 579 (2001), API Recommended Practice for Fitness for Service, (2000) The American
Petroleum Institute, Houston, TX
3. API (2001a), RP2A-WSD: Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
Working Stress Design, The American Petroleum Institute, Houston, TX
4. API (2001b), RP2A-LRFD: Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
Load and Resistance Factor Design, The American Petroleum Institute, Houston, TX
5. API (2001c), RP2T, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Tension
Leg Platforms, The American Petroleum Institute, Houston, TX
6. AWS (2002); Structural Welding Code-Steel, American Welding Society Specification
ANSI/AWS D1.1M, 18th Edition
7. Barsom, J.M. (1971), Fatigue Crack Propagation in Steels of Various Yield Strengths, Journal
of Engineering for Industry, ASME, Vol 7, No. 4
8. BSI 7910 (1999), Guidance on Methods of Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion
Welded Structures, Health and Safety Executive (HSE), British Standards Institute
9. BS 7608 (1993), Code of Practice for Fatigue Design and Assessment of Steel Structures, British
Standards Institution, 2 Park Street, London, W1A 2BS
10. DEn (1990); Offshore Installations, Guidance on Design, Construction, and Certification,
Department of Energy, UK, 4th Edition, London, HMSO
11. DNV (2000) Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures, RP-C203, Det Norske
Veritas, Hovik, Norway
12. DNV (1998), Fatigue Assessment of Steel Structures, Classification Notes No. 30.7, Det Norske
Veritas, Hovik, Norway
13. Dowling, N.E., (1972), Fatigue Failure Predictions of Complicated Stress-Strain Histories,
Journal of Materials, ASTM, Vol. 7, No.1
14. Eurocode 3, (1992); Design of Steel Structures, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, Belgium
15. Fatigue Design Handbook, AE-10, (1988), Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA
16. Gurney, T.R., (1979), Fatigue of Welded Structures, 2nd Ed, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York
17. HSE (1995), Offshore Installations Guidance on Design, Construction, and Certification, Third
Amendment to Fourth Edition, Health and Safety Executive British Standards Institute London
18. IIW (1996); Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components, Report XIII-1539-96/XV-845-96,
The International Institute of Welding, Abington Publishing, Cambridge, England

Section 9 References

74 ABS

.
2004
19. ISO/CD 19902 (2000). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Offshore Structures Fixed Steel
Structures, Section A16, International Standards Organization. (Draft Document)
20. Lotsberg, I. and Larsen, P. K. (2001), Developments in Fatigue Design Standards for Offshore
Structures, ISOPE 2001, Stavager, Norway
21. Lutes, L. and Larson, M.L., (1990), Improved Spectral Method for Variable Amplitude Fatigue
Prediction, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 116, pp 1149-1164
22. Maddox, S.J. (1974), Assessing the Significance of Flaws in Welds Subject to Fatigue, Welding
Journal 53, No. 9
23. Nolte, K.G. and Hansford, J.E., (1976), Closed Form Expressions for Determining the Fatigue
Damage of Structures Due to Ocean Waves, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC Paper 2606,
24. Ortiz and Chen (1987), Fatigue Damage Prediction for Stationary Wide Band Stresses, 5th
International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering
(ICASP), June 8-12. Vancouver, BC, Canada
25. Stacey, A. and Sharp, J. V. (1995) The Revised HSE Fatigue Guidance, 1995 OMAE Volume
III, Material Engineering, ASME
26. Wirsching, P.H. and Light, M.C. (1980), Fatigue Under Wide Band Stresses, Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol 106, pp 1593-1607
27. Wirsching, P.H. and Chen, Y.N. (1988), Considerations of Probability Based Fatigue Design for
Marine Structures, Marine Structures, 1, pp. 23-45
28. Wirsching, P.H., Paez, T.L., and Ortiz, K., (1995), Random Vibratons, Theory and Practice,
Wiley Interscience

Fatigue Assessment of Offshore STRUCTURES (April 2003) : Commentary On The Guide For The

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fatigue Assessment of Offshore STRUCTURES (April 2003) : Commentary On The Guide For The

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

COMMENTARY ON THE GUIDE FOR THE

FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE

s > 0 .................................................................... (5.1)

(|), for a particular location of interest in the

S-ar putea să vă placă și