Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Eurocode 9 to estimate the fatigue life of friction stir welded aluminium panels
Meysam Mahdavi Shahri a,, Torsten Hglund b, Rolf Sandstrm a
a
b

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, KTH, Brinellvgen 23, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
Division of Structural Design and Bridges, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Brinellvgen 23, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 21 November 2011
Revised 1 June 2012
Accepted 27 June 2012
Available online 3 August 2012
Keywords:
Friction stir welding
Fatigue assessment
Eurocode 9
Nominal stress

a b s t r a c t
Eurocode 9 is a standard that covers the design of building and engineering structures made from
wrought and cast aluminium alloys. A part of the Eurocode 9 handles the design of aluminium structures
susceptible to fatigue. Eurocode 9 has data for aluminium alloys and welded structures for conventional
welding methods (fusion welding) except for friction stir welding processes. The present study compares
fatigue test results from friction stir welded joints with fatigue curves of traditional fusion welded joints
which are presented in Eurocode 9. The results are in reasonable agreement with experimental data and
FEM predictions. This suggests that Eurocode 9 can be used for estimating the fatigue strength of friction
stir welded joints.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Friction stir welding (FSW) is a low heat input solid state welding technology especially suitable to low melting point metals,
such as Al and Cu [1]. The application of the FSW technology in
aerospace, automotive and shipbuilding industry is seen to provide
superior joint integrity. As the temperature remains below the
melting point, residual stresses are low. In addition, the absence
of ller material in the weld gives limited risk of porosity formation and a smooth surface of the weld resulting in good fatigue
properties [2,3]. Conventional fusion welding of aluminium alloys
results in solidication cracking and higher residual stresses compared to FSW. Using ller material and shielding gas results in
rather different fatigue properties of fusion welding components
compared to FSW ones.
Several studies have been conducted on friction stir welded butt
joints, demonstrating that they have fatigue strength close to that
of the base material, and generally higher than the strength of the
joints obtained with traditional welding techniques [49].
Nowadays FSW is widely used. Often, aluminium proles are
welded together to form large panels used in engineering structures where fatigue is an important design criteria. Eurocode 9
[10] is a standard for fatigue assessment of aluminium structures
and weldment based on nominal stresses. Eurocode 9 includes data
for aluminium alloys and welded structures for conventional welding methods but not for the FSW procedure. In the present paper
the capability of Eurocode 9 for estimating the fatigue life time

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 87906544; fax: +46 8 207681.

E-mail address: meysamms@kth.se (M. Mahdavi Shahri).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.039

of FS welded extruded aluminium proles is investigated. The

present study compares experimental fatigue data of friction stir
welded joints with fatigue curves of fusion welded joints in Al
6005.
In previously published papers by the present authors [11,12]
fatigue assessment of FS welded hollow panels has been performed
using nite element method (FEM) stress analysis and the theory
of critical distance method (TCD). The critical distance method
has been proposed for fatigue assessment of a notch component
or a body containing a crack. The method is associated with averaging stress around a notch or taking stress at a distance from the
notch root and the average stress is used for fatigue life prediction.
The procedure of using TCD method is explained in aforementioned references by author.
In the present study Eurocode 9 is used for prediction of fatigue
life at the failure locations (both for base metal and weld material).
These predictions are compared with FEM computation in this study.

2. Experimental
2.1. Materials and welding
The proles used in fatigue tests were made of extruded aluminium 6005A in the T6 (articially aged) condition. Chemical
composition and mechanical properties of the alloy are shown in
Tables 1 and 2. The tensile properties were measured on samples
from the studied prole according to the standard EN
10002-1:2001. These proles are used as oors in trains and deck
panels in shipbuilding, as well as some application as military
bridges.

308

M. Mahdavi Shahri et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

Table 1
Chemical composition (in wt.%).

6005A actual
6005A nominal

Si

Fe

Cu

Mn

Mg

Cr

Zn

Ti

Al

0.61
0.50.9

0.21
<0.35

0.07
<0.30

0.15
<0.50

0.54
0.40.7

<0.01
<0.30

<0.01
<0.20

0.02
0.10

Bal
Bal

Table 2
Mechanical properties of 6005A.

6005A T6 actual
6005A T6 typical (AluSelect)
6005A T6 nominal

Yield strength (MPa)

Tensile strength (MPa)

Elongation (%)

Youngs modulus (GPa)

253
260
min 225

280
285
min 270

10
13
8

69.5
69.5

Friction stir welding technique was used to join these proles at

the facilities of Sapa Technology in Sweden. The studied proles
are shown in Fig. 1 before and after friction stir welding. Two main
proles with different weld geometries (geometry of extruded proles around the weld location) are investigated. The two weld
geometries are:
1. hourglass shape,
2. half overlap (truss, diagonal ribs).
Two series of hourglass shape were produced (we call these series A and B). Two series of half over lap was also produced (series C
and D).
Proles were welded with two welding heads operating from
top and bottom sides of the panels. Therefore each panel contains
weld nuggets both on the top and the bottom side at the centre

part of the panel. Two welding procedures were used. In the rst
one, simultaneous welding of the top and the bottom side (series
B, C, D were welded in this way) was performed. The second procedure involved welding rst on the bottom and then on the top
side (series A). A Summary of the welding procedure for each series
is shown in Table 3. Welding parameters such as rotation speed,
traverse speed, tilt angle were similar for all series. In a previously
published paper [11], welding procedure and clamping conditions
are explained.
2.2. Fatigue testing
Sections of 100 mm width were prepared for fatigue testing.
3-Point bending was used in the fatigue tests. This method is employed since it produces more stress at the centre part of the panels where the weldment is located. Constant amplitude fatigue

Fig. 1. Extruded aluminium proles. Proles are welded from top and bottom side; (a) before welding; (b) after welding; (1) is hourglass shape prole and (2) is halfoverlap
(truss, diagonal ribs).

309

M. Mahdavi Shahri et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

Table 3
Summary of fatigue testing conditions and welding procedure for each test series.
Series

Type of prole

Welding procedure

Applied load range (kN)

Loading setup

Failure location

A
B
C
D

Hourglass
Hourglass
Halfoverlap (truss)
Halfoverlap (truss)

NS
S
S
S

1423
2123
812
49

Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.

Weld
Base metal
Base metal
Weld

2a
2a
4a
5a (NC)

NS: Not simultaneously welded on the top and bottom side; S: simultaneously welded on the top and bottom side; NC: non-centrally loaded.

tests were performed in a servo-hydraulic testing machine

equipped with an actuator of 250 kN load capacity. A sinusoidal
loadtime function was used with ratio R = Fmin/Fmax set to 0.1
where Fmin and Fmax are the applied minimum and maximum
forces on the proles. Series A and B were loaded in a similar
way, this is shown in Fig. 2a. Fig 3a shows the weld location for
hourglass prole. Series C was loaded with loading support on
the weld centreline but series D was loaded eccentrically; this is
shown in Figs. 4a and 5a. Eccentric loading produces a shear force
at the weld, resulting in a higher stress concentration at the weld
interface notch. The load ranges used for the different series is
shown in Table 3.

failed in the weld. The fatigue crack initiated from the sharp interface notch and propagated to the weld area. Thus complete fracture occurred in the weld. No samples of series B failed in the
weld. Initiation site was at the vicinity of a blunt notch in the base
metal and all samples of series B failed at the same position. Two
series of half overlap (truss, diagonal ribs) were also tested. For a
centrally loaded prole (series C) failure occurred in the base metal
and for non-centrally loaded proles failure occurred in the weld
(series D). Failure locations are shown in Figs. 4a and 5a. Experimental fatigue limit (fatigue strength at 2 million cycles) for each
series is presented in Table 4. Failure locations, corresponding local
stresses and testing setup (including size of the span) are fully explained in [11].

2.3. Fatigue testing results and failure locations

3. Eurocode 9
Two series of hour glass shape proles were fatigue tested.
Although the same loading conditions were used for series A and
B, fatigue failure occurred at different positions (see Figs. 2a and
3a) resulting in different fatigue strengths. All samples of series A

The European Standard Eurocode 9 for fatigue design of aluminium structures estimates the fatigue life on the basis of the nominal stress applied to the joint. The nominal stress is dened based

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. (a) Series B: Hourglass shape panel and loading system, failure occurred in angular rib by tension force DN. (b) Detail type 1.6 (Eurocode 9) was used for fatigue
assessment.

310

M. Mahdavi Shahri et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. (a) Series A: Same prole and loading system as series B but failure occurred in the interface notch at weld location. (b) Detail type 1.6 (Eurocode 9) was used for
fatigue assessment.

on beam theory. Nominal stresses normally include two components, bending stresses and axial stresses in the section.
After determination of the nominal stress, a detail category
needs to be chosen from Eurocode 9 in order to estimate the fatigue life. Eurocode 9 presents different geometries of welded and
non-welded structures. When doing fatigue assessment the category which is most similar to actual structure should be chosen.
The geometrical similarity, stress direction, and failure location
are the parameters that need to be considered to choose the right
category.
Each detail category introduces a reference stress Drc which is
the value of fatigue strength at 2  106 cycles. Fatigue life can then
be predictedusing the
 following equation:

Ni 2  106

Drc 1
Dri ab

m1

4.1. Nominal stress for series A and B

For series B failure occurred in the ribs therefore the tensile
load, DN, in the ribs must be calculated, see Fig. 2a. DN can be easily calculated by resolving the applied force DF in the h direction.
Consequently the nominal stress can be obtained when the thickness t and width b are known. The same procedure was applied for
series A, but this time failure occurred in the weld. So the tensile
load DN applied on the weld was calculated, when the weld thickness w and width b are known nominal stress can be calculated, see
Fig. 3b.
4.2. Nominal stress for series C and D

where Ni is the predicted number of cycles to failure at stress range

Dri; Drc, the reference value of fatigue strength at 2  106 cycles,
depending on detail category; Dri, the range of calculated nominal
stress from beam theory; m1, the inverse slope of the Dr  N curve,
depending on detail category; a, the partial factor allowing for
uncertainties in the loading spectrum and analysis and b is the partial factor for uncertainties in materials and execution.
4. Results
Nominal stress was calculated in the section where failure occurred for series A, B, C, D. This is shown in Figs. 2b5b.

For series C and D the tensile load DN was obtained. But a bending moment (DM) also exists in the failure location. The bending
moment calculated for series C and D is shown in Figs. 4b and
5b. The stress produced by the bending moment was added to
the axial stresses in order to get the total applied nominal stress:

DN DM  6

bt
b  t2
In order to verify the calculated nominal stresses they were compared with FEM stress computation in [11]. Maximum stress
around the stress concentration location in FEM is divided by stress
concentration factor Kgt. This is indeed the theoretical value for
nominal stress. For series A and B the difference between the FEM

M. Mahdavi Shahri et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

311

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. (a) Series C: Half overlap shape panel and loading system, failure occurred in a blunt notch but not weld interface. (b) Detail type 1.6 (Eurocode 9) was used for fatigue
assessment.

value and the calculated one is less than 5% but for series C and D
this reaches up to 15% and 20%.
The next step is choosing the proper detail category from Eurocode 9 in order to estimate fatigue life time. Table 5 shows the detail category chosen for the different series. The reason for
choosing the detail categories shown in Table 5 is explained in
the following discussion section. Detail categories are illustrated
in Figs. 2b5b for each series.
Inserting values from Table 5 into Eq. (1) gives an estimated fatigue life (Ni) for the corresponding calculated nominal stress range
(Dri). a was chosen equal to one since loading was performed with
constant amplitude. Also no partial factor for uncertainties was
considered (b = 1).
Fig. 6 shows the predicted fatigue life using Eurocode 9 for all
series. These results are compared with experimental fatigue life
in term of nominal stress. As can be seen in Fig. 6 there is good
agreement between the experimental and predicted fatigue life
for series B, C and D. The predicted life is slightly conservative
i.e. they are not greater than experimental data.

For series A the deviation of the experimental data and prediction was rather large. The predicted life is longer than the experimental data. This will be analysed in the discussion.

5. Discussion
In the nominal stress approach a nominal section is used. Since
notch effects are not taken into account they have to be included
on the strength side. This approach of course requires that a suitable cross section can be identied in the structure that is to be
investigated. The denition of nominal stress is simple: it is the
average stress, calculated by beam theory but at a closer look,
problems emerge. The rst problem is determining the nominal
stress in a cross section. For complex loading and structural complexity this is not always easy. Secondly a detail category similar
to the loaded structure should be identied for life estimation.
The problem arises when the loaded structure is not exactly the
same as the detail category within the Eurocode 9. Also variations

312

M. Mahdavi Shahri et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. (a) Series D: Half overlap shape panel and loading system, failure occurred in weld interface. (b) Detail type 1.6 (Eurocode 9) was used for fatigue assessment.

Table 4
Experimental and predicted fatigue strength at 2 million cycles.
Series

Experimental fatigue limit (kN)

TCD prediction (kN)

Eurocode 9 prediction (kN)

Deviation from experiment for TCD/Eurocode 9 (%)

A
B
C
D

12.43
21.74
7.71
3.62

127.7
21.1
7.78
4.8

377
18.43
7.09
3.28

+90/+96
3/15
+1/8
+24/9

within the detail in dimensions, welding procedures, etc. may not

be covered in the detail category, resulting in less precision in the
prediction.
However, the nominal stress strategy can be used simply with
no need of FEM computation. Therefore it is extremely cost effective and time saving. Predicted fatigue strength at two million cycle by Eurocode 9 for series A, B, C, D in this paper have been
compared with predicted fatigue limit using FEM and theory of
critical distance [12]. Prediction for both methods gives a reasonable result within the range of experimental data, Table 4. Predictions with Eurocode 9 are conservative in all case (negative error
sign) while TCD is non-conservative for all series (positive error

Table 5
Chosen detail categories for series A, B, C, D. (EN-1999-1-3:2007(E)).
Series

A
B
C
D

Detail type

7.4.1
1.6
1.6
13.3

Detail category

Drc

m1

45
100
100
32

4.3
7
7
4.3

sign). Predicted data for series A give a big error for both Eurocode
9 and TCD. Eurocode 9 and TCD both predict the fatigue limit in

M. Mahdavi Shahri et al. / Engineering Structures 45 (2012) 307313

(a) 1000.0

Halfoverlap (angular truss)

Experiment-Series C
Prediction-Euro Code 9-Series C

Stress Range, MPa.

Experiment-Series D
Prediction-Euro Code 9-Series D

100.0

10.0
10000

(b) 1000.0

1000000

Number of cycle to failure

100000000

Hourglass

13.3 or 13.4. For both categories 13.3 and 13.4 the failure location
is in the weld, 13.3 corresponding to full penetration and 13.4 presenting the case with a root crack. They roughly give a good estimation and the predicted results are conservative when detail
category 13.3 and 13.4 are used.
For series A the most similar geometry joint is detail category
7.5 which is a butt weld with initiation site at the weld root (partial
penetration) i.e. the weld root defect will propagate as under tension, although the case is different for the hourglass shape in loading. For the loaded hourglass shape prole there is no tension at
the root crack (this can be seen through FEM computation). This
is due to sufcient thickness of the weld and a compression moment applied on the crack face at the weld root which induces almost no tension to the weld root crack. So detail category 7.4.1 (full
penetration butt weld without backing) was used for prediction of
series A. However using this category overestimates the fatigue
strengths (see Fig 6) as residual stresses is not taken into account.
Fig. 6 shows the prediction both for detail category 7.5 and 7.4.1.
6. Conclusion

Experiment-Series B
Prediction-Euro Code 9-Series B
Experiment-Series A
Prediction-Euro Code 9-Series A

Stress Range, MPa.

313

Prediction-Euro Code 9 (partial penetration)-Series A

100.0

 Eurocode 9 has been used to predict the fatigue life time of FS

welded aluminium proles.
 Prediction results from Eurocode 9 are conservative in all case,
the deviations from the experiment fall between 8% and 15% of
experimental results.
 Both the critical distance method and Eurocode 9 do not provide accurate prediction when high tensile residual stresses
appear in the weld.

Acknowledgments

10.0
10000

1000000

100000000

Number of cycle to failure

The authors would like to thank the Sapa Technology Ltd. for
nancial support and providing the test materials and welding.
Also the authors would like to thank SIS Frlag AB in Sweden.
The gures in the paper are reproduced from SS-EN 1999-13:2007 with SIS Frlag AB permission.

Fig. 6. Experimental and predicted fatigue life for series A, B, C, D.

References
hourglass shape prole for welded region to be much higher than
radii location in base metal. It has been shown elsewhere [12] that
the reason for the weld failure in series A is excessive residual
stresses around the crack tip due to improper clamping and welding procedure. These residual stresses were formed due to local
plastic deformation around the crack tip by improper clamping
load during the production. This should be noted that these residual stresses are different from those formed due to welding heat
and therefore they are not accounted in SN curves of Eurocode
9 and must be taken additionally into account. On the other hand
in Eurocode 9 only enhancement of fatigue strength can be done
and when the tensile residual stresses are not negligible (like the
case here) the use of enhancement factor is not allowed.
As mentioned above the detail category needs to be chosen
properly in order to get a reasonable estimation of fatigue life.
The best category to choose is the one which is similar to the
loaded structure in geometry, loading, stress direction, initiation
site, etc.
For series B and C failure occurred in the base metal at the stress concentration and the detail category can be chosen in a straightforward
way. Detail category 1.6 (from EN 1999-1-3) is the most suitable in this
case, because it presents the failure in the base metal and in the vicinity
of a blunt corner which is the case in series B and C.
Series D resembles a llet weld (or T joint, with two perpendicular welded plates) which can be compared with detail category

[1] Mishraa RS, Ma ZY. Frictions stir welding and processing. Mater Sci Eng R
2005;R50(12):178.
[2] Lomolino S, Tovo R, Dos Santos J. On the fatigue behaviour and design curves of
friction stir butt-welded Al alloys. Int J Fatigue 2005;27(3):30516.
[3] Midling OT, Oosterkamp LD, Bersaas J. Friction stir welding aluminium process
and applications. In: Seventh international conference INALCO98, Cambridge,
UK; April 1998.
[4] Thomas WM, Johnson KI, Wiesner CS. Friction stir welding recent
developments in tool and process technologies. Adv Eng Mater
2003;5(7):48590.
[5] Matrox SJ. Review of fatigue assessment procedures for welded aluminium
structures. Int J Fatigue 2003;25:135978.
[6] Dickerson TL, Przydatek J. Fatigue of friction stir welds in aluminium alloys
that contain root aws. Int J Fatigue 2003;25:1399409.
[7] Bussu G, Irving PE. The role of residual stress and heat affected zone properties
on fatigue crack propagation 2024-T351 aluminium alloys. Int J Fatigue
2003;25:7788.
[8] Lomolino S, Tovo R, Dos Santos J. On the fatigue behaviour and design curves of
friction stir butt-welded Al alloys. Int J Fatigue 2005;27:30516.
[9] Juriic C, Dalle Donne C, Dressler U. Effect of heat treatment on mechanical
properties of friction stir welded 6013. In: Third international symposiums on
friction stir welding, September 2728 2001, Kobe (JP).
[10] Eurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures Part 13: Structures susceptible
to fatigue, EN 1999-1-3.
[11] Mahdavi Shahri M, Sandstrm R, Osikowicz W. Critical distance method to
estimate the fatigue life time of friction stir welded proles. Int J Fatigue
2012;37:608.
[12] Mahdavi Shahri M, Sandstrm R. Inuence of fabrication stresses on fatigue
life of friction stir welded aluminium proles. J Mater Process Technol
2012;212:148894.