Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Fatigue design of plated structures using finite

element analysis

I. Lotsberg

To cite this article: I. Lotsberg (2006) Fatigue design of plated structures using finite element
analysis, Ships and Offshore Structures, 1:1, 45-54, DOI: 10.1533/saos.2005.0006

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1533/saos.2005.0006

Published online: 08 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 413

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20

Download by: [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] Date: 26 November 2017, At: 13:20
 Fatigue design of plated structures using finite
element analysis
doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006

I. Lotsberg
Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway

Abstract: Finite element analysis is being used by designers for fatigue assessment of structures. It
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017

is therefore important that a proper link between calculated hot spot stress and fatigue capacity is
established, and that guidance on such analysis is included in design standards. This paper presents a
summary of the finite element analyses performed for assessment of hot spot stress with link to one hot
spot S–N curve in the FPSO Fatigue Capacity Joint Industry Project. Recommendations are presented
on how to perform fatigue assessment of plated structures based on finite element analysis combined
with one hot spot S–N curve.

Key words: Fatigue design, plated structures, finite element analysis, hot spot stress S–N curve.

INTRODUCTION THE HOT SPOT STRESS METHODOLOGY

Finite element analysis (FEA) programs have become a
standard design tools in most design offices. By these pro-
grams the stresses from the dynamic loads can be rather
accurately calculated. In a design process these stresses
are assessed against the capacity of the analysed structural
details. The fatigue design of details in plated structures
has mainly been based on a concept of nominal stress ap-
proach until the nineties. The use of more refined FEA
resulted in a need for an assessment procedure based on
a hot spot stress methodology as it was found difficult
to define/derive nominal stresses from fine element mesh
models. In the early 1990, the Classification companies
introduced fatigue assessment procedures based on the
hot spot stress concept also for plated structures. With
construction of Floating Production and Offshore Load-
ing Ships, the need for a reliable fatigue design proce-
dure for plated structures was emphasised and an industry
project was initiated. This paper presents a summary of
finite element analyses performed for assessment of hot
spot stress and derivation of a hot spot stress S–N curve
in the FPSO Fatigue Capacity JIP (Bergan and Lotsberg
2004).
The hot spot stress concept
The hot spot stress concept has a long history in fatigue
design of tubular joints. The same concept is also becoming
part of a fatigue design methodology for plated structures
in ships and FPSOs. The hot spot stress can be directly
derived from the performed FEA, or it can be derived
through use of appropriate stress concentration factors and
the nominal stress from the analysis data.
S–N data based on a nominal stress concept is rather
well defined with respect to failure criterion and associated
nominal stress to be used. However, a practical derivation
of the nominal stress from FEA is considered to be more
difficult. The hot spot stress concept can hardly be out-
lined from a theoretical sound basis. A failure criterion
is no longer so well defined when fatigue test data based
on nominal stress are transferred into one hot spot stress
S–N curve. Also one hot spot stress may be associated with
different stress gradients through the thickness and thus
different fatigue lives. However, with these approxima-
tions in mind the hot spot stress concept is considered to
be an efficient engineering methodology for fatigue analysis
of plated structures.

Methods for hot spot stress derivation

Because of the nature of the stress field at a hot spot re-
Corresponding Author: gion there are questions on how to establish the hot spot
I. Lotsberg stress, see Figure 1. The notch effect due to the weld is
Det Norske Veritas included in the S–N curve and the hot spot stress is de-
NO-1322, Høvik, Norway rived by extrapolation of the structural stress to the weld
Tel: +47 675 79900; Fax: +47 675 79911
Email: Inge.Lotsberg@dnv.com
toe. It is observed that the stress used as basis for such
an extrapolation should be outside that affected by the

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd 45 SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1 pp. 45–54
 I. Lotsberg
Notch stress
Stress
Hot spot stress
Surface stress
Attachment
t/2 3t/2
plate
Hot spot stress
Notch stress
Fillet weld
t stress can be calculated directly from the nodal forces from
Membrane stress
Stress evaluation plane
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017
Nominal stress
Fillet weld
Attachment plate
A A
Figure 1 Schematic stress distribution at a hot spot.
weld notch, but close enough to pick up the structural
stress.
A number of Classification Societies have recommended
derivation of hot spot stress from linear extrapolation using
the stress values calculated at points 0.5t and 1.5t from the
weld toe (or intersection line) from FE analysis with a well
defined mesh size at the hot spot region. This procedure is
found acceptable with respect to accuracy and robustness.
However, it is considered to be time consuming in terms
of engineering time. This is due to manual work involved
in the derivation of the hot spot stress. It is also observed
that engineers perform this different if it is not properly
described in a guideline how to establish the stress at 0.5t
and 1.5t. Some derive these stresses from the Gaussian
stresses and other directly from the nodal stresses. The
procedure for calculation of elements nodal stresses are
not clearly described in the computer programs and this
introduces some uncertainty when unproven programs are
used for hot spot stress derivation. From an engineering
point of view, a simple derivation of the hot spot stress at
a position 0.5t from the weld toe is attractive. It also shows
small scatter in the calculated results (refer, Fricke 2001,
Storsul et al 2004a).
For analysis by shell elements the distance to the stress
read out points is measured from the intersection lines as
the weld is not normally included in the finite element
model. For analysis by solid elements the distance to the
stress read out points is measured from the weld toe.
The hot spot stress methodology implies a linear stress
distribution through the plate thickness in the way that the
finite element modelling is performed:
SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
• One 20-node isoparametric element over the thickness
(second-order displacement function giving linear stress
when calculating its derivative)
• Shell elements that represent axial force and bending mo-
ment over the plate thickness.
In addition, one may calculate the ‘structural stress’
(also denoted geometric stress) from that of a linear stress
distribution through the plate at the hot spot. The hot spot
a FE analysis. This methodology has been presented in the
literature by Dong et al (2001), and the methodology has
been assessed by Doerk et al (2003). For three-dimensional
analysis, an integration (or linearisation) of the stress may
be performed as an alternative. See also Designers Guide by
Niemi (2001).
It is questioned how to consider a varying stress distri-
bution along the elements width, see Figure 1. An alterna-
tive might be to calculate a mean stress over the element
width, e.g., by using solid elements having the width of
the attachment (incl. welds) and taking the average stress
in these elements as proposed by Fricke (2001). The result
will be a function of the element width.
LINK BETWEEN HOT SPOT STRESS AND S– N CURVE
Background
An assessment of hot spot stress S–N curve for plated
structures was performed by Maddox (2001) in this project.
He assessed available fatigue test data at The Welding
Institute. A number of fatigue test data of small-scale test
specimens were derived in the first phase of the FPSO
Fatigue Capacity project by Kang and Kim (2003). The
test data were linked to the hot spot stress methodology
using FEA by Fricke (2001). FAT90 was recommended as
a hot spot stress S–N curve when the hot spot stress from
FEA was derived by linear extrapolation from stresses at
read out points 0.5t and 1.5t from the weld toe or the
intersection line when the weld is not included in the FE
model. Then the hot spot stress is derived at the weld toe
or at the intersection line. FAT80 was recommended as a
hot spot stress S–N curve when the hot spot stress from
FEA was derived from stresses at read out points 0.5t from
the weld toe or the intersection line when the weld is not
included in the FE model.
Fatigue test data from small-scale specimens transferred
into one hot spot S–N curve
The five HHI fatigue tested specimens are shown in
Figure 2. S–N diagrams based on nominal stress were de-
rived based on these test results. Then the hot spot stress
range is obtained as
σHot spot = KσNominal (1)
where K is a structural stress concentration factor for the
considered detail and σNominal is the nominal stress. The
46 doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Table 1 S--N curves
Specimen no Type of stress data
1 Nominal
2 Nominal
3 Nominal
4 Nominal as tested
4 Nominal—Corrected for bending by factor 1.61 on life
5 Nominal as tested
5 Nominal—Corrected for residual stress by factor 2.8 on life
1–5 Hot spot stress S–N curve derived from calculated and measured stress
1–5 Hot spot stress S–N curve derived from fatigue test data
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017
1 3
2 tigue test data for a high mean stress loading is shown in
4 than normally used as reference thickness in the S–N data.
5
Figure 2 Specimens fatigue tested by HHI and analysed by
FE.
K-factors derived from finite element analyses for deriva-
tion of hot spot stress are listed in Table 1.
It should be noted that the finite element modelling
might influence the calculated stress at the hot spot re-
gion. Parameters affecting this are type and size of element
used, and how the stresses are derived from the analysis
(Gaussian stress, nodal stress, etc.). Therefore, the same
procedure for analysis should be used for design as that
used for assessment of a design hot spot stress S–N curve.
Hot spot stress from FE analysis and measurements
Based on the calculated stress through the plate thickness
of the hopper corner detail (specimen number 4), the fa-
tigue test data is reduced by a factor 1.61 in life due to
the actual stress gradient for comparison with one hot spot
S–N curve (Lotsberg and Sigurdsson 2004). The fatigue
test results for specimen number 5 by HHI were explained
by compressive stresses at the hot spot area. Strain mea-
surements showed compressive stresses at the hot spots.
The fatigue tests performed on stress-relieved specimens
showed that stress relieving reduced the fatigue life by a
factor 2.8 (refer, Kim and Lotsberg 2004). Residual stresses
in tension as may be possible after a construction of a more
complex structure might reduce the fatigue capacity fur-
ther. The hot spot S–N curve should be applicable to
welded structures that may be in a state of tensile residual
stress at the considered hot spots. Therefore, the original
fatigue test data for specimen number 5 were reduced by
a factor 2.8 on number of cycles for comparison with one


C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006
Fatigue design of plated structures using finite element analysis
Loga St. dev.
12.200 0.111
11.686 0.125
12.186 0.072
12.123 0.232
11.916 0.232
12.326 0.104
11.879 0.104
12.565 0.167
12.562 0.139
hot spot S–N curve. The resulting S–N curve and the fa-
Figure 3. The design S–N curve corresponds to a stress
range of 98.70 MPa at 2 Mill cycles which is above the
FAT90 design curve. The tested specimens were fabri-
cated from 10 mm thick plates. This is a lower thickness
Thus it is recommended to use the FAT90 curve as a hot
spot S–N curve and use the reference thickness as rec-
ommended by IIW equal 25 mm. Increasing the thickness
from 10 to 25 mm reduces the S–N curve to that of FAT 90
for a rather low thickness exponent equal 0.1. The fatigue
test data from HHI supports the FAT90 curve as a design
hot spot S–N curve. The scatter in the test data including
all five data sets is small. A standard deviation of 0.167 is
calculated. This is low even if it is compared with one of
the data sets such as the hopper corner where the standard
deviation is 0.232. Reference is also made to Table 1.
Hot spot S–N curve based on fatigue tests
An alternative way of assessing target hot spot stress values
is to base the evaluation on the fatigue test data for the five
HHI test specimens. The mean S–N curves for each of
the five details are known in terms of nominal stress S–N
curves, see Table 1. From these, the relative distribution of
K-factors for the different details is known. Thus the main
question is related to how to derive an absolute value of the
hot spot S–N curve. Thus it is sufficient to determine one of
these K-factors. Then the other follows. It is observed that
detail 1 is a well-known detail frequently fatigue tested such
that this detail is considered to be one of the most reliably
categorized details in design standards. It is seen that the
K-factor is equal 1.32 for specimen number 1 from Phase
I based on FE analysis. The same value for this K-factor
was also derived from fatigue design standards includ-
ing this particular detail (refer, Lotsberg and Sigurdsson
2004). The resulting K-factors are listed in the right col-
umn of Table 2. For specimen number 2 a somewhat higher
K-factor value is obtained from the S–N curve than de-
rived from FE analysis. Also for specimen number 3, a
somewhat higher K-factor value is obtained from the S–N
curve approach than that derived from FE analysis. For
specimen 4 a lower K-factor resulted from the S–N data
47 SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
 I. Lotsberg

1000

Hot spot stress range (MPa)

No 1
No 2
No 3
No 4
100
No 5
Mean
Mean minus 2 std
FAT 90

10
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017

10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Number of cycles

Figure 3 Fatigue test results from specimens 1–5 plotted into one hot spot S–N diagram.

Table 2 Target K-factors for HHI specimens where

Specimen no. ref. K-factor from FE
Figure 2 analysis supported
with measurements
1 1.32
2 1.85
3 1.22
4 1.82
5 1.77
than from the FE analysis. This may be due to difference in
failure criteria for the specimens. Failure for this specimen
is defined as crack growth through the thickness. For the
HHI specimens, 1–3 failure is defined as fracture of the
specimens and for HHI specimen number 5 the failure cri-
terion is crack growth equal 20 mm as a mean value along
the two sides. Especially for specimen number 4 there is
significant crack growth before the crack is going through
the plate thickness. An earlier stop in the fatigue testing
would result in a lower nominal S–N curve and hence a
larger K-factor. Thus, it is possible that the target value
should be closer to that analysed and measured of 1.82.
However, to be consistent a target spot value as derived
from the fatigue test data of 1.64 is used for specimen 4.
For specimen 5 a target value of 1.69 came out from the
S–N analysis data. This is somewhat lower than from that
considered to be lower bound FE analysis.
An alternative using least square method to assess tar-
get K-factors is also considered. The quadratic error of
the difference between K-factors from FEA and that from
S–N data is minimized according to the following expres-
sion
∂

5
δ= (KFEi − xki )2
∂ x i =1
K-factor resulting
x = K-factor for detail 1 as k1 = 1.0.
from fatigue S–N
data from the ki = K-factor for considered detail i relative to that for
HHI tests detail number 1.
KFEi = K-factor from FE analysis for detail number i as
1.32 presented in Table 1.
1.96
1.33 By putting δ = 0, a K-factor for detail number 1 equal
1.64 to 1.327 is calculated. This is approximately the same value
1.69
as derived above. This indicates that the derived K-factors
are sound.
It is observed from Table 2 that the difference be-
tween the target K-factor derived from analyses and mea-
surements corresponds well with the K-factors derived
from the fatigue test data from the HHI specimens. The
difference is in the range 0–10%. The largest differ-
ence is derived for the hopper corner detail as discussed
above.
Fatigue test data from full scale test specimens
The hot spot stress design curve is verified by fatigue test-
ing of five full scale test specimens (Lotsberg et al 2001,
2004). Four different connections between side longitu-
dinals and transverse frames were fatigue tested. The fa-
tigue cracks initiated at different hot spot positions. Also
the fatigue cracks grew into different areas. In spite of
this difference the test data in terms of hot spot stress fit
well into one S–N diagram as shown in Figure 4. Crack
growth from a crack size equal 12–50 mm is shown. The
scatter in the test data is small: A standard deviation of
0.17 for a crack size of 50 mm. This standard deviation is
not larger than that is normal for test data from one sin-
gle geometry based on nominal stress. Thus, the fatigue
test data from the full scale test specimens support the
(2) FAT90 curve as a design hot spot S–N curve for plated
structures.

SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1 48 doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 Fatigue design of plated structures using finite element analysis

IIW Mean
1000 FAT 90
IIW Design
FAT 90
Specimen1
Crack 1
Specimen1
Crack 4
Specimen 2
Stress range (MPa) Crack 5
Specimen 2
Crack 6
100 Specimen 3
Crack 1
Specimen 3
Crack 2
Specimen 4
Crack 1
Specimen 4
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017

Crack 3
Specimen 5
Crack 1
Specimen 5
Crack 2
10
10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Number of cycles

Figure 4 S–N data from full scale fatigue tests compared with hot spot stress S–N curve.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS FOR ASSESSMENT OF
METHODOLOGY
Specimens analysed
The specimens selected for finite element analyses are
shown in Figures 2 and 5. In Phase I of the project the ISSC,
HHI 2, HHI 4, HHI 5, and GL doubling plate specimens
were analysed. Thus, there was already a considerable data
base with FE analyses results with mesh size t × t (t =
thickness) (refer, Fricke 2001, Fricke and Säbel 2000). It
was decided to supplement these data with FE analyses for
other element meshes for the same specimens. In addition,
it was decided to perform analyses of a specimen with a
very severe notch at crossing plates where measurements
of strain at the hot spot region were performed in another
project (Lotsberg et al 1998), see Figure 5. This detail was
fabricated with a full penetration weld without shoulder
fillets. This is a detail with a more severe notch than nor-
mally found in ships and FPSO structures with a sound
design. The detail is included due to strong in-plane stress
gradients and will therefore provide valuable information
about the methodology with finite element modelling for
such conditions. The HHI specimen 4 is considered to be
the most severe for out of plane bending.
Target hot spot stress values
Target hot spot stress values are required for assessment of
accuracy of the finite element analyses. The derived target
hot spot stress values for the different specimens are shown
in Table 2. These target hot spot stress values were derived
based on a total assessment of the performed analyses sup-
plemented by measured stress and fatigue test data. The
results from three-dimensional FE analyses where the fillet
weld is included are given a more significant weight than
the other analyses in this assessment. The target values
refer to the CS methodology of deriving hot spot stress
by extrapolation from 0.5t/1.5t to the intersection line for
FE-models with shell elements and to the weld toe for
models with three-dimensional elements. The final target
hot spot stress values for the HHI test specimens 1–5 were
derived from the fatigue test data as explained in section

ISSC (1997) specimen Severe notch detail (SND) DNV (1998)

Investigated
hot spot area

Figure 5 Geometry of specimens analysed.

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006 49 SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
 I. Lotsberg
‘Fatigue test data from small scale specimens transferred
into one hot spot S-N curve.’ A target hot spot stress for
the ISSC detail equals 155 MPa was used based on FE
analysis reported by Olafsrud (2002). The target hot spot
stress value for the GL Doubling plate is the same as used
by Fricke and Säbel (2000): Kg = 1.49. The target hot spot
stress value for the DNV Severe Notch Specimens was
based on a three-dimensional analysis with a fine mesh:
Kg = 3.13. This was in correspondence with that of the
measured stresses.
Accuracy of finite element analyses
The following definition of accuracy is used for presenta-
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017
tion of hot spot stress derived from finite element analyses:
Good: Within +10 and −5% of target value.
Acceptable +: Within +10 and +20% of target value.
Acceptable −: Within −10 and −5% of target value.
Conservative: More than +20% (C).
Non-conservative: Less than −10% (NC).
The following abbreviations are used in tables: ABS:
American Bureau of Shipping; AMT: Aker Maritime Ten-
tech; BLU: Bluewater Engineering; BV: Bureau Veritas;
DNV: Det Norske Veritas; GL: Germanischer Lloyd;
HHI: Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.; ISSC: Interna-
tional Ship Structural Committee; LR: Lloyds’ Register;
UM: Umoe (Now ABB).
A number of different analyses for evaluation of con-
vergence and divergence in hot spot stress have been per-
formed. For assessment of the results the following infor-
mation is given:
• The DNV FE model of HHI 4 with shell elements is
made with width t for element length 0.5t. For model with
three-dimensional elements the width of the elements is t
for length 0.5t and 2t.
• The misalignment at the hopper corner is not included in
the shell models of HHI 4 specimen using 4-node elements
by LR, HHI, and BV (2). (Number 2 in the latter means
4-node element with additional degrees of freedom for
in-plane deformation).
• By DNV, (1) is understood model for HHI 3 with in-
creased thickness. By DNV, (2) is understood model for
HHI 3 where the weld between the doubling plate and the
main plate is modelled by transverse shell elements with
thickness twice that of the plates. Refer also Storsul et al
(2004a).
The results from models with 4-node shell elements
with internal degrees of freedom for proper representation
of in-plane stress are shown in Table 3. Here, a linear
extrapolation of stresses at read out points 0.5t and 1.5t
from the intersection line is used to derive hot spot stress
linked to the FAT90 curve. A mesh size from 0.5t × 0.5t
up to 2t × 2t may be used. Larger mesh sizes at the hot spot
region may provide nonconservative results. However, an
element size of 4t × 4t may be considered acceptable for
fatigue screening of details. The results from the same
models with hot spot stress from read out points 0.5t from
SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
the intersection line are shown in Table 4 for hot spot
stress linked to the FAT80 curve. It is noted that large
4-node elements are acceptable for significant out of plane
bending such as for the hopper corner (HHI 4). Large 4-
node elements are less good for in plane stresses such as
for the ISSC model.
The considered element meshes are in general larger
than that of converged meshes. Also when the mesh size is
such that all the read out points are situated inside the first
element at the intersection point, this will give hot spot
stress values that are somewhat affected by the singularity
at the hot spot. This effect is likely larger for the 4-node
shell elements than the 8-node shell elements. Thus, larger
stresses are derived by the 4-node shell elements than by the
8-node shell elements. It is observed that the methodology
for analysis of the severe notch detail with crossing plates
shown in Figure 5 in general is conservative when it is
modelled with shell elements. This might also be expected
as the stress in the actual connection will be distributed
over a thick crossing plate (thickness = 50 mm). Only its
centre line is represented in the shell FE model.
Similar analyses were performed using 8-node shell el-
ements and 20-node three-dimensional elements. Tables
summarizing the results are presented by Lotsberg (2004).
In general, the scatter in the derived hot spot data is not
considered to be large. Some of the scatter is likely more
due to different techniques used to derive stresses at the
read out points than that due to the analyses themselves.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON FE-MODELLING AND HOT
SPOT STRESS CALCULATION
Modelling
The following guidance is made to the computation of hot
spot stresses with potential fatigue cracking from the weld
toe with local models using the finite element method.
Hot spot stresses are calculated assuming linear material
behaviour and using an idealized structural model with
no fabrication-related misalignment. The extent of the lo-
cal model has to be chosen, such that effects due to the
boundaries on the structural detail considered are suffi-
ciently small and reasonable boundary conditions can be
formulated.
In plate structures, three types of hot spots at weld toes
can be identified as exemplified in Figure 6 (Fricke 2001):
• at the weld toe, on the plate surface at an ending attachment
• at the weld toe, around the plate edge of an ending attach-
ment
• along the weld of an attached plate (weld toes on both the
plate and attachment surface).
Models with thin plate or shell elements or alternatively
with solid elements are normally used. It should be noted
that on the one hand the arrangement and type of elements
have to allow for steep stress gradients as well as for the
formation of plate bending, and on the other hand, only the
50 doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd
 Fatigue design of plated structures using finite element analysis

Table 3 Assessment of hot spot stress by 0.5t/1.5t extrapolation using 4-node shell
elements linked to FAT90
Mesh size
S–N curve: FAT90
Specimen Company 0.5t × 0.5t t×t 2t × 2t 4t × 4t
ISSC NTNU Good Good NC (−17%)
ISSC LR Good
ISSC ABS Acceptable−
ISSC BV(2) Good
HHI 1 HHI Acceptable+
HHI 1 DNV C C Acceptable+
HHI 2 2 LR Good
HHI 2 HHI Good
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017

HHI 2 BV(2) Good

HHI 2 DNV Good Good NC (−15.2%)
HHI 3 HHI Good
HHI 3 DNV (1) Good Good Good
HHI 3 DNV (2) Good Good Good
HHI 4 LR C
HHI 4 HHI C
HHI 4 ABS C
HHI 4 BV (2) C
HHI 4 DNV C C C Good
HHI 5 LR C
HHI 5 HHI C
HHI 5 BV (2) C
HHI 5 DNV C C Good
GL DP LR Good
GL DP BV (2) Good
DNV SND DNV C C C

shown in Figure 6b in connection with 4-noded elements,

which should contain improved in-plane bending modes.
The welds are usually not modelled except for special cases
where the results are affected by high local bending, e.g.,
due to an offset between plates or due to a small free plate
length between adjacent welds such as at lug (or collar)
c plates. Here, the weld may be included by vertical plate
elements having appropriate stiffness or by introducing
b
constrained equations for coupled node displacements. A
c thickness equal 2 times the thickness of the plates may be
a
used for modelling of the welds by transverse plates.

An alternative particularly for complex cases is offered

Figure 6 Different hot spot positions.
linear stress distribution in the plate thickness direction
needs to be evaluated with respect to the definition of
structural stress.
The following methods of modelling are recommended:
• The simplest way of modelling is offered by thin plate and
shell elements which have to be arranged in the midplane
of the structural components, see also Figure 7a.
• Eight-noded elements are recommended particularly in
case of steep stress gradients. Care should be given to pos-
sible stress underestimation especially at weld toes of type
by solid elements which need to have a displacement func-
tion allowing steep stress gradients as well as plate bending
with linear stress distribution in the plate thickness di-
rection. This is offered, e.g., by isoparametric 20-node
elements (with midside nodes at the edges) which mean
that only one element in plate thickness direction is re-
quired. Modelling of the welds is generally recommended
and easily possible as shown in Figure 7b.
Derivation of stress at read out points 0.5t and 1.5t
The element sizes depend on the method of stress eval-
uation. For this reason, the evaluation methods are de-
scribed before summarizing recommendations on element
sizes. The average stress components between adjacent

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006 51 SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
 I. Lotsberg

Table 4 Assessment of hot spot stress from 0.5t using 4-node shell elements linked to FAT80
Mesh size
S–N curve: FAT80
Specimen Company 0.5t × 0.5t t×t 2t × 2t 4t × 4t
ISSC NTNU Good Good Acceptable−
ISSC LR Good
ISSC ABS Acceptable−
ISSC BV(2) Good
HHI 1 HHI C
HHI 1 DNV C C Good
HHI 2 LR Good
HHI 2 HHI Good
HHI 2 BV(2) Good
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017

HHI 2 DNV Good Good NC (−11.5%)

HHI 3 HHI Good
HHI 3 DNV (1) Good Good Good
HHI 3 DNV (2) Acceptable+ Acceptable+ Good
HHI 4 LR C
HHI 4 HHI C
HHI 4 ABS C
HHI 4 BV (2) C
HHI 4 DNV C C C C
HHI 5 LR C
HHI 5 HHI Acceptable+
HHI 5 BV (2) C
HHI 5 DNV C C Good
GL DP LR Acceptable+
GL DP BV (2) Acceptable+
DNV SND DNV Acceptable+ C C

elements are used for hot spot stress derivation. Recom-
mended stress evaluation points are located at distances
0.5t and 1.5t away from the hot spot, where t is the plate
thickness at the weld toe. These locations are also denoted
as stress read out points.
If the element size at a hot spot region of size t × t is
used, the stresses may be evaluated as follows:
• In the case of plate or shell elements, the surface stress may
be evaluated at the corresponding midside points. Thus,
the stresses at midside nodes may be used directly as stress
at read out points 0.5t and 1.5t.
• In the case of solid elements, the stress may first be
extrapolated from the Gaussian points to the surface.
Then these stresses can be interpolated linearly to
the surface centre or extrapolated to the edge of
the elements if this is the line for hot spot stress
derivation.
For meshes with 4-node shell elements larger than t ×
t, it is recommended to fit a second-order polynomial to
the element stresses in the three first elements and derive
stresses for extrapolation from the 0.5t and 1.5t points.
This procedure may be used to establish stress values at
the 0.5t and 1.5t points. For 8-node elements, a second-
order polynomial may be fitted to the stress results at the
midside nodes of the three first elements and the stress at
the read out points 0.5t and 1.5t can be derived.

a b

Figure 7 Stress extrapolation in a three-dimensional FE model. (a) Shell model. (b) Three-dimensional model including
weld toe.

SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1 52 doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Derivation of hot spot stress
Two alternative methods can be used for hot spot stress
derivation:
• A linear extrapolation of the stresses to the hot spot (weld
toe or intersection line) from the read out points at 0.5t
and 1.5t. The principal stress at the hot spot is calculated
from the extrapolated component values.
• The hot spot stress is taken as the stress at the read out
point 0.5t away from the hot spot and multiplied by 1.12.
Mesh size
Shell elements
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017
If 4-node shell elements are used they should contain ad-
ditional internal degrees of freedom for improved in plane
behaviour. For these elements and for 8-node shell ele-
ments a mesh size from t × t up to 2t × 2t may be used.
Larger mesh sizes at the hot spot region may provide non-
conservative results.
Three-dimensional solid elements
Solid modelling is time consuming and more laborious
than shell modelling that is normally the preferred method
when a plated structure is to be analysed. However, solid el-
ements are considered to give more reliable results and are
recommended used in some cases of more complex struc-
tures. For modelling with three-dimensional elements the
dimensions of the first two or three elements in front of the
weld toe should be chosen as follows. The element length
may be selected to correspond to the plate thickness. In
the transverse direction, the plate thickness may be chosen
again for the breadth of the plate elements. However, the
breadth should not exceed the ‘attachment width’, i.e., the
thickness of the attached plate plus 2 × the weld leg length
(in case of type c: the thickness of the web plate behind
plus 2 × weld leg length), see Figure 7b. For 20-node hex-
ahedral elements it is sufficient with one element over the
thickness to pick up a linear stress distribution. For simple
8-node brick elements at least four elements are required
for the same purpose.
In cases where three-dimensional elements are used for
the FE modelling, it is recommended that also the fil-
let weld is modelled to achieve proper local stiffness and
geometry. Reference is made to Storsul et al (2004b). In
general, finite element meshes should be made without
significant distortion of the mesh and width length width
ratio within 1:4. Including the fillet weld will limit the size
of the mesh at the hot spot region. In order to capture the
properties of bulb sections with respect to St. Venant tor-
sion, it is recommended to use several three-dimensional
elements for modelling of a bulb section.
Derivation of effective hot spot stress from FE analysis
At hot spots with significant plate bending one might derive
an effective hot spot stress for fatigue assessment based on
the following equation:
σe,spot = σa,spot + 0.60σb,spot (3)


C Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006
Fatigue design of plated structures using finite element analysis
where
σa,spot = membrane stress
σb,spot = bending stress
The reason for a reduction factor on the bending stress
is load-shedding effect during crack growth. The effect
is limited to areas with a localised stress concentration,
which occurs for example at a hopper corner. However, in
a case where the stress variation along the weld is small,
the difference in fatigue life between axial loading and pure
bending is much smaller. Therefore, it should be noted that
it is not correct to generally reduce the bending part of the
stress to 60%. This has to be restricted to cases with a
pronounced stress concentration.
This procedure is supported by fatigue test data de-
rived under out of plane loading by Kang et al (2002) and
by fracture mechanics analyses (Lotsberg and Sigurdsson
2004).
Limitations for simple connections
It should be noted that the definition of the stress field
through the plate thickness in section ‘Methods for hot spot
stress derivation’ implies that the described hot spot stress
methodology is not recommended for simple cruciform
joints, simple T-joints in plated structures or simple butt
joints that are welded from one side only. Here the nominal
stress approach is considered to be most reliable for analysis
of these connections. It should also be noted that fabrication
tolerances are most important for these joints and need to
be considered in a fatigue assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
A hot spot stress S–N curve for fatigue cracking from
weld toes is derived from small-scale fatigue test data.
This hot spot S–N curve is supported by the fatigue test
data from the full scale specimens. The tested specimens
were analysed by finite elements for derivation of hot spot
stress. This derivation of hot spot stress was linked to a
hot spot stress S–N curve to obtain a consistent fatigue
assessment procedure. Based on the performed work, rec-
ommendations with respect to finite element modelling
of fatigue sensitive structures were made. These recom-
mendations are presented in section ‘Recommendations
on FE-modelling and hot spot stress calculation’.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks the participants of Phase II of the
FPSO Fatigue Capacity JIP for making this work possi-
ble: Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI), Daewoo Shipbuild-
ing & Marine Engineering (DSME), Bluewater, Total,
ConocoPhillips, Shell Deepwater Develop. Systems, Sta-
toil, BP Exploration Operating Company Limited, Petro-
bras, Navion, Bureau Veritas, Det Norske Veritas, Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), MARIN, Technical Univer-
sity Hamburg-Harburg, National University of Singapore,
53 SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
 I. Lotsberg
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and
Shanghai Jiaotong University.
REFERENCES
Bergan PG, Lotsberg I. 2004. Advances in fatigue assessment of
FPSOs. In OMAE-FPSO’04-0012, International Conference,
Houston, TX.
Doerk O, Fricke W, Weissenborn C et al. 2003. Comparison of
different calculation methods for structural stresses at welded
joints. Int J Fatigue, 25:359–69.
Dong P, Hong JK, Cao C et al. 2001. A mesh-insensitive structural
stress procedure for fatigue evaluation of welded structures.
IIW Doc. XIII-1902-01.
Downloaded by [Perpustakaan Nasional Republik Indonesia (PNRI)] at 13:20 26 November 2017
Fricke W. 2001. Recommended hot spot analysis procedure for
structural details of FPSO’s and ships based on round-robin
FE analyses. In Proceedings of the 11th ISOPE, Stavanger.
Also in Int J Offshore Polar Eng, 12(1), March 2002.
Fricke W, Säbel A. 2000. Hot spot stress analysis of five structural
details and recommendations for modelling, stress evaluation
and design S–N Curve. GL Report No FF99.188.A, Rev 02.
IIW. 1996. Fatigue design of welded joints and components. In
Hobbacher A, ed. Recommendations of IIW Joint Working
Group XIII-1539-96/XV-845-96. Cambridge, UK: Abington
Publishing and The International Institute of Welding.
ISSC. 1997. Report of Committee II.1 ‘Quasi-static response’. In
Moan T, Berge S, eds. Proceedings of the 13th International
Ship and Structures Congress, Vol. 1. London: Elsevier
Science.
Kang SW, Kim WS, Paik YM. 2002. Fatigue strength of fillet
welded steel structure under out-of-plane bending.
International Welding/Joining Conference, Korea.
Kang SW, Kim WS. 2003. A proposed S–N curve for welded ship
structure. Welding J, 82(7):161–9.
Kim WS, Lotsberg I. 2004. Fatigue test data for welded
connections in ship shaped structures. In OMAE-
SAOS 2006 Vol. 1 No. 1
FPSO’04-0018 International Conference, Houston,
TX.
Lotsberg I, Sigurdsson G. 2004. Hot spot S–N curve for
fatigue analysis of plated structures. In OMAE-
FPSO’04-0014, International Conference, Houston,
TX.
Lotsberg I, Müsch K, Måseide MO et al. 1998. Tested capacity of
welded connections made of high strength steel. Lisbon:
OMAE.
Lotsberg I. 2004. Recommended methodology for analysis of
structural stress for fatigue assessment of plated structures.
OMAE-FPSO’04-0013, International Conference, Houston,
TX.
Lotsberg I, Askheim DØ, Haavi T et al. 2001. Full scale fatigue
testing of side longitudinals in FPSOs. In: Proceedings of the
11th ISOPE, Stavanger.
Lotsberg I, Landet E. 2004. Fatigue capacity of side longitudinals
in floating structures. In: OMAE-FPSO’04-0015,
International Conference, Houston, TX.
Maddox S. 2001. Recommended design S–N curves for fatigue
assessment of FPSOs. In: Proceedings of the 11th ISOPE,
Stavanger.
Niemi E. 2001. Structural stress approach to fatigue analysis of
welded components, -Designer’s Guide. IIW Doc.
XV-1090-01.
Olafsrud K. 2002. Analysis methods for stress concentration in ship
hull details. Trondheim: NTNU, Department of Marine
Structures.
Storsul R, Landet E, Lotsberg I et al. 2004a. Convergence analysis
for welded details in ship shaped structures. In OMAE-
FPSO’04-0016, International Conference, Houston, TX.
Storsul R, Landet E, Lotsberg I et al. 2004b. Calculated and
measured stress at welded connections between side
longitudinals and transverse frames in ship shaped structures.
In Proceedings of OMAE-FPSO’04-0017, International
Conference, Houston, TX.
54 doi:10.1533/saos.2005.0006

C Woodhead Publishing Ltd