| Summary: | Fatigue assessment of welded joints using finite element methods is becoming very common. Research about new methods is being carried out every day that show a more accurate estimation of the fatigue life cycle than the previous ones. Some of these methods are investigated in this thesis for a thorough understanding of the weld fatigue evaluation process.The thesis study presents several methods as candidates for analysis of selected case studies for comparison. The sensitivity of methods towards FE model properties was studied. The ease of implementation for further automatization of the method was highly considered from the early stages of the project. A comparison study amongst feasible methods was then performed after analysis.The selected three case studies provided a wide range of difficulties in terms of geometry and loading and made them suitable for the methods to be evaluated. It should be noted that case studies only with fillet welds were considered during the literature study and analysis. Implementation of some methods on a case study where they have not previously been tested before gave a challenging task during the analysis phase. The proposed method after comparison and ranking of the methods based on several criteria such as accuracy, robustness, etc. was the hot spot stress method. The main advantages of this method are its low computational time, less complexity during both pre- and post-processing, and the ability to work for both solid and shell models.Finally, the report gives a walk-through of several functionalities of the post-processor tool built to enhance workflow for the hot spot based fatigue assessment of welds. Pseudo-codes for some functions of the tool are given for clarity. A summary of the workflow is presented as a flowchart. The outputs of the case studies were then evaluated using the tool and compared with the manual evaluation to check the effectiveness of the tool on different scenarios. The tool shows flexibility in handling different types of weld geometry with good agreement to the results obtained manually but only for welds lying on a flat surface. Some of the advantages of the tool are its capability to handle multiple welds simultaneously and the flexibility to the user in selecting the way the results are presented. Most of the postprocessing steps are automatized, while some require user inputs.
|
|---|
