Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of fracture mechanics to welds with crack origin at the weld toe: a review Part 1: Consequences of inhomogeneous microstructure for materials testing and failure assessment

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Welding in the World Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This two-part paper provides an overview on the state-of-the-art in the application of engineering fracture mechanics to weldments. This, of course, cannot be exhaustive but is limited to butt and fillet welds with crack initiation at weld toes. In the present first part, the authors briefly focus on the susceptibility of welds to cracks and other defects. Following this, they discuss in more detail the consequences of material inhomogeneity across the weld for fracture mechanics. Inhomogeneity causes scatter in fracture toughness and strength mismatch effects both of which have to be considered in fracture toughness testing, crack driving force determination, and fracture assessment of welded components. Part 2 of the paper series will add a discussion on welding residual stresses and questions of applying fracture mechanics to residual as well as total lifetime estimation of welds under cyclic loading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Departing from this rule, there might be cases such as weld craters or significant undermatching where the crack would be initiated at different positions.

Abbreviations

a :

Crack length (crack depth for surface cracks)

B :

Specimen thickness (fracture mechanics specimen)

C:

Half crack length at surface (semi-elliptical crack)

CTOD:

Crack tip opening displacement

da/dN:

Fatigue crack propagation rate

E :

Modulus of elasticity (Young’s modulus)

f(Lr):

Plasticity correction function (monotonic loading)

F(x):

Cumulative probability

F Y :

Yield or limit loads

H :

Width or half width of the weld strip (strength mismatch consideration)

HV:

Hardness according to Vickers

J :

J-Integral

J mat :

Fracture resistance, monotonic loading (general term), Eq. (2)

J 0.2;BL :

Resistance against stable crack initiation (monotonic loading)

J 0.2 :

Resistance against stable crack initiation (alternative definition)

K :

Stress intensity factor (K-factor)

\( {K}_c^J \) :

Monotonic fracture resistance (formally derived from J-integral)

K 0 :

Scale parameter in 3-parameter Weibull distribution

K mat :

Fracture resistance, monotonic loading (general term), Eq. (2)

K max :

Maximum K-factor in the loading cycle, cyclic loading

K min :

Shift parameter in 3-parameter Weibull distribution

K min :

Minimum K-factor in the loading cycle, cyclic loading

K r :

Ordinate of the FAD diagram (= K/Kmat)

L r :

Ligament yielding parameter (monotonic loading)

L r max :

Maximum Lr (plastic collapse limit)

m :

Shape parameter in 3-parameter Weibull distribution

M :

Strength mismatch ratio (commonly σYW/σYB)

N :

Number of loading cycles

N :

Number of specimens in a statistical test set

N c :

Number of loading cycles up to fracture

P :

Failure probability

R :

Loading ratio (= σmin/σmax or Kmin/Kmax)

R eL :

Lower yield strength (materials showing a Lüders’ plateau)

T p :

Peak temperature during welding

U :

Energy dissipated in monotonic fracture mechanics test

W :

Specimen width or half width (fracture mechanics specimen)

Δa:

Crack extension

δ 5 :

Definition of the CTOD

ε a :

Strain amplitude (=½ Δε)

ΔK:

K-Factor range (Kmax − Kmin), cyclic loading

ν :

Poisson’s ratio

σ a :

Stress amplitude (= ½ Δσ)

σ app :

Applied stress

σ max :

Maximum stress in the loading cycle, cyclic loading

σ min :

Minimum stress in the loading cycle, cyclic loading

σ ref :

Reference stress (reference stress approach, FAD)

η p :

Geometry function in monotonic J-integral testing

σ :

Stress

σ 0 :

Reference yield stress

σ Y :

Yield strength, general (either ReL or Rp0.2)

σ m :

Hydrostatic stress

\( {\sigma}_Y^{\prime } \) :

(Stabilized) Cyclic yield strength

σ YB :

Yield strength of base metal

σ YW :

Yield strength of weld metal

ASTM:

American Society for Testing and Materials

bcc:

Body-centered cubic (lattice)

BM:

Base metal

BS :

The British Standards Institution

c :

Critical

CG:

Coarse grain (HAZ)

FAD:

Failure assessment diagram

fcc:

Face-centered cubic (lattice)

FG:

Fine grain (HAZ)

h :

Stress triaxiality

HAZ:

Heat-affected zone

IIW:

International Institute of Welding

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

M(T):

Middle crack tension (fracture mechanics specimen)

NASGRO:

Computer program for fatigue crack propagation, provided by NASA

OM:

Strength overmatching (σYW > σYB)

R-curve:

Crack resistance curve

TTT:

Temperature-time-transformation (diagram)

UM:

Strength undermatching (σYW < σYB)

WM:

Weld metal

References

  1. Zerbst U (2019) Application of fracture mechanics to fusion welds with crack origin at the weld toe – a review. Part 2: welding residual stresses. Residual and total live assessment. Subm to Weld World this issue

  2. Schulze G, Krafka H, Neumann P (1992) Schweißtechnik. Werkstoffe – Konstruieren – Prüfen. VDI Verl., Düsseldorf, in German

  3. Otegui JL, Kerr HW, Burns DJ, Mohaupt UH (1989) Fatigue crack initiation from defects at weld toes in steel. Int J Press Vess Piping 38:385–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-0161(89)90048-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schork B, Kucharczyk P, Madia M, Zerbst U, Hensel J, Bernhard J, Tchuindjang D, Kaffenberger M, Oechsner M (2018) The effect of the local and global weld geometry as well as material defects on crack initiation and fatigue strength. Eng Fract Mech 198:103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Verreman Y, Nie B (1991) Short crack growth and coalescence along the toe of a manual fillet weld. Fatigue Fracture Engng Mat Struct 14:337–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.1991.tb00663.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Madia M, Zerbst U, Beier HT, Schork B (2018) The IBESS model – elements, realisation and validation. Eng Fract Mech 198:171–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Signes EG, Baker RG, Harrison JD, Burdekin FM (1967) Factors affecting the fatigue strength of welded high strength steels. Br Weld J, March 1967:108–116

  8. Zerbst U, Ainsworth RA, Beier HT, Pisarski H, Zhang ZL, Nikbin K, Nitschke-Pagel T, Münstermann S, Kucharczyk P, Klingbeil D (2014) Review on the fracture and crack propagation in weldments – a fracture mechanics perspective. Eng Fract Mech 132:200–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zerbst U, Madia M, Klinger C, Bettge D (2019) Defects as a root cause of fatigue failure of metallic components. Part I: basic aspects; part II: types of defects – non-metallic inclusions; part III: types of defects – cavities, dents, corrosion pits, scratches. Engng Failure Anal 97:772–792, 98:228–239 and 97:759–776

  10. Toyoda M (1989) Significance of procedure/evaluation of CTOD test of weldments. International Institute of Welding (IIW); Document X-1192-89, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00269042

  11. Kucharczyk P, Madia M, Zerbst U, Schork B, Gerwin P, Münstermann S (2018) Fracture-mechanics based prediction of the fatigue strength of weldments. Material aspects. Eng Fract Mech 198:79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. BS 7448 (1997) Fracture mechanics toughness tests. Part 2: method for determination of KIc, critical CTOD and critical J values of welds in metallic materials, British Standards Institution, London

  13. ISO 15653 (2010) Metallic materials – method for the determination of quasistatic fracture toughness of welds, International Organisation for Standardization (ISO), DOI: https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2018.pb.0018.1806

  14. Landes JD, Shaffer GH (1980) Statistical characterisation of fracture in the transition regime. ASTM STP 700:368–383, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

  15. BS 7910 (2005) Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. The British Standards Institution (BSI) Standards Publ, London

  16. BS 7910 (2013) Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. Including Amendment (2015) and Corrigenda I-2. The British Standards Institution (BSI) Standards Publ, London

  17. ASTM E 1921-10 (2010) Standard test method for determination of reference temperature, T0, for ferritic steels in the transition range. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wallin K (2002) Master curve analysis of the “Euro” fracture toughness dataset. Eng Fract Mech 69:451–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Romano S, Maneti D, Beretta S, Zerbst U (2016) Semi-probabilistic method for residual lifetime of aluminothermic welded rails with foot cracks. Theoretical Appl Fracture Mech 85, Part B:398–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2016.05.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wallin K, Nevasmaa P, Laukkanen A, Planman T (2004) Master curve analysis of inhomogeneous ferritic steels. Eng Fract Mech 71:2329–2346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zerbst U, Schödel M, Webster S, Ainsworth RA (2007) Fitness-for-service fracture assessment of structures containing cracks. A workbook based on the European SINTAP/FITNET procedure. Elsevier. Amsterdam et al

  22. Jutla T, Garwood SJ (1987) Interpretation of fracture toughness data. Metal Construction 19:276R–281R

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pisarski H (2017) Treatment of fracture toughness data for engineering critical assessment (ECA). Weld World 61:723–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-017-0475-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. BS PD 6493 (1980) Guidance on some methods for the derivation of acceptance levels for defects in fusion welded joints. British Standards Institution (BSI), London

  25. Zerbst U, Madia M (2018) Analytical flaw assessment. Eng Fract Mech 187:316–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dawes, MG, Pisarski HG, Squirrell SJ (1989) Fracture mechanics tests on welded joints. ASTM STP 995:191–213, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Philadelphia

  27. Dos Santos J, Çam G, Torster F, Isfan A, Riekehr S, Ventzke V, Koçak M (2000) Properties of power beam welded steels, Al- and Ti-alloys: significance of strength mismatch. Weld World 44:42–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Çam G, Koçak M, Dos Santos J (1999) Developments in laser welding of metallic materials and characterization of the joints. Weld World 43:13–25

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schwalbe KH, Kim YJ, Hao S, Cornec A, Koçak M (1997) EFAM ETM-MM 96 – the ETM method for assessing the significance of crack-like defects in jiints with mechanical heterogeneity (strength mismatch). GKSS Research Centre, Report GKSS 97/E/9, Geesthacht, Germany

  30. Schwalbe KH, Heerens J, Zerbst U, Pisarski H, Koçak M (2002) EFAM GTP 02 – the GKSS test procedure for determining the fracture behaviour of materials. GKSS Research Centre, Report GKSS 2002/24, Geesthacht, Germany

  31. Junghans E (1998) Anwendung des Engineering Treatment Model für Mismatch (ETM-MM) auf Schweißverbindungen mit Berücksichtigung von Schweißnahtgeometrie und Werkstoffverfestigung, PhD Thesis, TU Hamburg; in German

  32. R6, Revision 4 (2014) Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects. EDF Energy, Barnwood, Gloucester, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2019.rb.0020.1905

  33. Kim YJ, Kim JS, Schwalbe KH, Kim JY (2003) Numerical investigation on J-integral testing of heterogeneous fracture toughness testing specimens: part I – weld metal cracks. Fatigue Fracture Engng Mat Struct 26:683–694. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00676.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Paredes M, Ruggieri C (2012) Further results in J and CTOD estimation procedures for SE(T) fracture specimens – part II: weld centreline cracks. Eng Fract Mech 89:24–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Koo JM, Huh Y, Seok CS (2012) Plastic h factor considering strength mismatch and crack location in narrow gap weldments. Nuclear Engng Des 247:34–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kim YJ (2002) Experimental J estimation equations for single-cracked bars in four-point bend: homogeneous and bi-material specimens. Eng Fract Mech 69:793–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Heerens J, Hellmann D (2003) Application of the master curve method and the engineering lower bound toughness method to laser beam welded steel. J Test Eval 31:215–221

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sumpter JDG (1999) Fracture toughness evaluation of laser welds in ship steels, in European Symposium on Assessment of Power Beam Welds (ASPOW), Geesthacht, Germany, GKSS Reserarch Centre Geesthacht, Paper 8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-235

  39. Koçak M, Kim YJ, Çam G, dos Santos J, Cardinal N, Webster S, Kristensen J, Borggre K (1999) Recommendations on tensile and fracture toughness testing procedures for power beam welds. in European Symposium on Assessment of Power Beam Welds (ASPOW), Geesthacht, Germany, GKSS Research Centre, Paper 9

  40. Toyoda M (2002) Transferability of fracture mechanics parameters to fracture performance evaluation of welds with mismatching. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4:117–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/pse.98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Thaulow C, Hauge M, Zhang ZL, Ranesta O, Fattorini F (1999) On the interrelationship between fracture toughness and material mismatch for cracks located at the fusion line of weldments. Eng Fract Mech 64:369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Koçak M, Çam G, Riekehr S, Torster F, Dos Santos G (1998) Micro tensile test technique for weldments. IIW Document SC X-F-079-98

  43. Oeser S, Fehrenbach C, Burget W (2000) Ermittlung lokaler Werkstoffkennwerte in Schweißverbindungen als Grundlage für numerische Bauteilanalysen. Proc. Werkstoffprüfung 2000, Bad Nauheim, Germany, DVM: 189–194, in German

  44. Zhang ZL, Hauge M, Thaulow C, Ødegård J (2002) A notched cross weld tensile testing method for determining true stress strain curves for weldments. Eng Fract Mech 69:353–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tu S, Ren X, Nyhus B, Akselsen OM, He J, Zhang Z (2017) A special notched tensile specimen to determine the flow stress-strain curve of hardening materials without applying the Bridgman correction. Eng Fract Mech 179:225–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Scheider I (2000) Bruchmechanische Bewertung von Laserschweißverbindungen durch numerische Rissfortschrittssimulation mit dem Kohäsivzonenmodell, PhD Thesis, Univ. Hamburg-Harburg: GKSS-Report GKSS 2001/3

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), D-12205, Berlin, Germany

    U Zerbst

Authors
  1. U Zerbst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U Zerbst.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zerbst, U. Application of fracture mechanics to welds with crack origin at the weld toe: a review Part 1: Consequences of inhomogeneous microstructure for materials testing and failure assessment. Weld World 63, 1715–1732 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-019-00801-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-019-00801-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation