Requirement for Fatigue Assessment With the design of a vessel to ASME Section VIII, Division 1, UG-22(e) suggests that

one should consider fatigue. With no specific guidance given in Div 1, what is the general approach that others have adopted. I am loathe to go to Div 2 but if that is what it must be sobeit. However I seem to recall a general statement made concerning when one should consider fatigue or not. Can anyone give me their experience? 3 days ago Like CommentFollow Flag More patel sajit likes this 4 comments

Follow Ali Ali Alishahi Robert, ASME VIII-1 does not provide guidance as to when / and how the designer needs to consider fatigue in the design. There is not even a general statement in the Code to address these questions. Fatigue, like several other issues, is covered by U-2(g). Whatever method is selected to demonstrate adequacy and safety of the design, the designer needs to ensure it is acceptable to the AI (if the vessel is to be U-stamped, of course). So, you can use ASME VIII-2 or any other method, if it is as safe as the Code and acceptable to your AI. ASME VIII-1 allowable stresses are usually lower than those used by ASME VIII-2 (specially in case of CS and low alloy steels). As a result, one would expect lower secondary and peak stresses in ASME VIII-1 vessels, as long as they are properly designed. So, it may be too conservative to use ASME VIII2 screening criteria to determine if an ASME VIII-1 vessel requires detailed fatigue analysis. Where allowable stresses for Div.1 & 2 are close (e.g. in case of austenitic stainless steels), ASME VIII-2 criteria may be used with more realistic conservatism. Design criteria given by AS1210 2010 are very close to ASME VIII-1 & 2 (depending on the construction class). So, I have used the AS1210 table 1.6 in the past arguing that AS1210 is as safe as ASME VIII-1 (on a case by case basis). Also the logic used by ASME B31.3 may be utilised in some cases by some modifications. ASME B31.3 applies a smaller safety factor against tensile strength as opposed to ASME VIII-1. If the number of cycles is less than 7000, ASME B31.3 treats ordinary piping as non-cyclic. It should be noted that the 7000 threshold is applicable when through thickness stress distribution is not significant (i.e. low and moderate pressure systems with rather thin walls). Different criteria is applied in case of thick/high pressure components. Where appropriate, the "f" factor may be applied to adjust the threshold for the difference between safety factors.

An older method considers 75MPa as endurance limit. So, according to this method, if K x Sa does not exceed 75MPa, fatigue will not be an issue. K is the FSRF and Sa is the stress amplitude (refer Pressure Vessel Design Handbook by Bednar). The designer may use one of the above alternatives (or any other methods deemed reasonable) and place restrictions on the weld design: the use of full penetration welds, the use of integral reinforcements, weld toe dressing and restricting/ or grinding weld reinfocement, specifying concave fillet welds and full RT/UT (if it is not OTT). By doing so, majority of ASME VIII-1 vessels may be exempted from detailed fatigue analysis. 3 days ago Like

Follow Robert Robert Frith Thanks Ali and that was a very comprehensive and well thought out response. It basically confirms my thinking albeit I would like to hear from others as well as I believe this is a important point to bring out. As you rightly say AS1210 has specifically addressed it which is quite brave really; mind you it does use the words "recommended" so there is still the onus on one to think it though. Personally with carbon steels I have fallen behind the membrane stress and if it is of order of 50MPa, I deem fatigue to be a non-event. If you think about it, this is enormously conservative and would cover even poor weld details. Anyway, I am interested to hear from others as to their thoughts. 2 days ago Like

Follow Christopher Christopher Wright P.E. There's a very useful paper on the topic: 'Design of Pressure Vessels for Low Cycle Fatigue' by B. F. Langer. It was published in the ASME Transactions: Journal of Basic Engineering in September 1962. Like me, it's old but still pretty sound. You can probably find a copy in any good university library. Or buy a copy from ASME if you enjoy throwing money around.

Langer's work is a treasure--practical, to the point and based on solid first principles. You won't find much better. 1 day ago Like

Follow Ali Ali Alishahi My pleasure. And thank you for sharing your viewpoints.

Likewise, I am very keen to hear others experience and expert opinion on the subject.

It is fare to say that a 50Mpa general membrane stress amplitude is very conservative in most cases. Though, in some cases it might be non-conservative, I'd imagine. So, its application should be reviewed with caution.

The following paragraphs may seem rudimentary to you, but may be worth mentioning to ensure I am aligned with your line of thought:

a- Restricting the membrane stress can normally be effective when pressure cycles are to be dealt with. But in some cases thermal cycles and secondary stress range are onerous. Also in some other cases the source of cyclic load is from external nozzle loads (e.g. nozzle loads due to FPSO cyclic piping loads). In such cases, the local bending and peak stresses may not be controlled by restricting the membrane stress.

b- If there exist a few poor weld details at the same time, they may lead to a significant reduction in the fatigue strength. For instance, if the welds are partial penetration, a FSRF of 4 or larger need to be used for the weld root. If the depth of lack of penetration exceeds 1/5 of the thickness, a larger FSRF is recommended. If the weld is a single V, it tends to wrap towards the open end of V which further reduces the fatigue strength of the weld. Multiplying all the reduction factors would result in an overall FSRF of ~4.5 or greater. Assuming the nominal membrane stress is 50Mpa, the stress amplitude to be used with ASME fatigue curve should be approx. 225Mpa. This limits the allowable number of cycles to less than ~ 20,000 cycles.

c- Similarly, an indicative figure for FSRF for the welds with exessive reinforcement which receive visual inspection and spot RT could be as large as 3.5. This limits the fatige life of the welded component with a general membrane stress of 50MPa to somewhere between 20,000 to 30,000 cycles.

To sum up my thoughts: welds are one of the most important weak points of a structure and their quality and type play an important role in their fatigue strength. Therefore, it would appear that any limit on the stress should be accompanied with proper supervision on the weld design/quality in order to be able to safeguard against fatigue failure more effectively.