Fatigue crack propagation analysis for multiple weld toe cracks

in cut-out fatigue test specimens from a girth welded pipe

John H. L. Panga,b, Hsin Jen Hoha,b*, Kin Shun Tsanga,b,
Jason Lowc, Shawn Caleb Kongc, Wen Guo Yuanc
a
Maritime Institute @NTU, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
b
School of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University,50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
c
DNV GL Laboratory, 158A Gul Circle Singapore 629616, Singapore

ABSTRACT

Multiple fatigue cracks are prevalent in welded structures. Current fatigue assessment

codes procedures employ various simplifications in the treatment of multiple cracks that

result in over-conservative life predictions. In this work, crack coalescence and fatigue crack

closure were incorporated into established models of fatigue life estimation. The model was

verified by fatigue tests of cut-out welded steel pipes subject to four-point fatigue bending. A

large number of starting weld toe cracks were determined from the experiments, with 12 to

22 cracks used in the fatigue life prediction of the fatigue tested pipes. The crack closure is

shown to predict more accurate results compared to the threshold stress intensity factor

approach.

Keywords: multiple cracks; fatigue; recharacterization; welded structures; crack closure.

*Corresponding author: Tel.: +65 6790 5564

E-mail address: hjhoh@ntu.edu.sg (Hsin Jen Hoh)
1. Introduction

Offshore pipelines and risers function to transport oil and gas over long distances, and

are formed by welding together pipe segments. The presence of multiple cracks close to the

weld toe increases the pipes’ susceptibility to fatigue failure. There is extensive literature on

fatigue crack growth analysis for a single crack, while the fatigue assessment of structures

with multiple surface cracks requires modelling multiple surface cracks, their coalescence

and crack shape development.

The fatigue assessment of single cracks is generally based on linear elastic fracture

mechanics. However, various approaches are employed for the fatigue assessment of multiple

surface cracks. Fitness-for-service codes [1-3] assume non-interacting crack propagation,

followed by recharacterization of multiple or complex flaws into cases with available

solutions by combining multiple cracks into a single crack of maximum dimensions when

certain proximity conditions are met. However, the predicted life is overly conservative

because it excludes interaction and coalescence [4]. The NIIT (no interaction, immediate

transition) method simplifies the recharacterization of the code procedures, with immediate

transition to a single crack when two adjacent crack tips come into contact. The prediction

was still conservative as the coalescence stage is not considered [5]. The most accurate

approach is that of a step-by-step finite element method [4, 5], as the interactions before and

during coalescence are considered. However, this method is time-consuming and resource-

intensive.

Improvements to the abovementioned procedures have been proposed. Konosu and

Kasahara [6] suggested empirical interaction factors to the ASME code Section XI [3].

Kamaya [7, 8] concluded that multiple cracks of various shapes can be recharacterized as a

single crack with the same area. This agrees with an earlier study by Murakami and Nemat-

Nasser [9].
 There is also a lot of research detailing fatigue assessment of welded structures based

on fatigue laws, which applies to structures with a single dominant crack. The most basic

form is the Paris law [10], given by

d𝑎
= 𝐶(Δ𝐾)𝑚 (1)
d𝑁

where 𝑎 is the crack depth; 𝑁 is the number of cycles; Δ𝐾 is the stress intensity factor (SIF)

range, while 𝐶 and 𝑚 are constants. An early study on the use of linear elastic fracture

mechanics to predict the remaining fatigue life of welded joints was conducted by Maddox

[11], while assessment of total life of welded structures has been conducted by Baumgartner

and Waterkotte [12]. Lemos et al. [13] studied the effect of aqueous saline environments with

varying carbon dioxide partial pressures on the fatigue life of X65. Other researchers [14-16]

have also studied the effects of the various environments on the fatigue endurance of offshore

steels. Zhang and Maddox [17] conducted full-scale testing under variable amplitude loading.

There has been less attention on the modelling multiple cracks, their coalescence and

crack shape evolution. Hence, the objectives of this work are to develop a method to assess

the fatigue life of welded structures with multiple initiated surface cracks, by incorporating

crack coalescence and fatigue crack closure.

2. Multiple fatigue crack propagation simulation

The algorithm of the multiple fatigue crack propagation is shown in Fig. 1. The input

requires information on the crack, material and fatigue parameters. Crack data would include

the crack initiation sites, initial and final depth sizes, and crack aspect ratios. Material

properties required are the yield stress and ultimate tensile stress. Fatigue parameters, such as

𝐶 and 𝑚 from the Paris law related to the fatigue propagation law are required in this stage as

well.
 START

INPUT:
· Crack data: distribution, initial
dimensions ai, ci, final depth af
· SIF and Mk-factor equations
· Applied stress range Δσ
· Test specimen width W and thickness t
· Fatigue law equation and parameters
· Simulation parameters: step size

Initialize cycle count, iteration.

Yes
amax ≥ af

No

Propagate cracks independently using

SIF, Mk-factor and fatigue law. OUTPUT:
Increase iteration count. a/c vs a/t
S-N
Crack shape

No
Any adjacent cracks touching?

Yes

Recharacterize dominant crack into a END

coalesced crack.

Fig. 1. Algorithm for multiple crack propagation.

An effective SIF range, Δ𝐾eff is commonly used in place of Δ𝐾 to improve Paris law:

d𝑎
= 𝐶(Δ𝐾eff )𝑚 (2)
d𝑁

Several different forms of Δ𝐾eff have been suggested. A threshold SIF (𝐾th ) was introduced

to explain non-propagation at lower stress levels, leading to Δ𝐾eff (with weld toe

magnification factors 𝑀k to account for welded geometry) in the form of

Δ𝐾eff = 𝑀k Δ𝐾 − 𝐾th (3)

The 𝐾th given in the BS7910 code [1] takes the form
 63 for 𝑅 ≥ 0.5
Δ𝐾th = { (4)
170 − 214 𝑅 for 0 ≤ 𝑅 < 0.5

given in units of N/mm3/2. However, for small cracks initiated, the values 𝑀k Δ𝐾 may not

exceed 𝐾th , leading to non-propagating cracks or inaccurate predictions.

Another widely accepted concept is the fatigue crack closure [18, 19], which was

developed to explain how stresses below a crack opening stress, 𝜎op of the fatigue cyclic load

can be ineffective in propagating the crack. Some works showed that the large-crack

threshold could be attributed to an increase in crack-closure behavior as load is reduced [20,

21]. The effective stress intensity factor is related to the crack closure parameter 𝑈 by

Δ𝐾eff = 𝑈 ∙ 𝑀k Δ𝐾 (5)

where 𝑈 is defined by Elber [19] as

𝜎max − 𝜎op
𝑈= (6)
𝜎max − 𝜎min

Codrington and Kotousov [22] employed the distributed dislocation technique to

determine a crack closure model for plates of finite thickness, relating 𝑈 to load ratio

𝑅 = 𝜎min ⁄𝜎max by

𝑈 = 𝐴 + 𝐵 ∙ 𝑅 + 𝐶 ∙ 𝑅2 (7)

where the coefficients are

𝐴 = 0.446 + 0.266 ∙ 𝑒 −0.41𝜂

𝐵 = 0.373 + 0.354 ∙ 𝑒 −0.235𝜂 (8)

𝐶 = 0.2 − 0.667 ∙ 𝑒 −0.515𝜂

for which the constraint factor 𝜂 is

 Δ𝐾
𝜂= (9)
(1 − 𝑅)𝜎flow √ℎ

varying between plane stress (𝜂 → ∞) and plane strain (𝜂 → 0) for different values of half-

thickness ℎ. The flow stress, 𝜎flow is commonly taken to be an average of 𝜎Y and UTS.

In the algorithm (Fig. 1), the cracks are first checked against the final crack depth

criteria. If no crack depth exceeds the final crack depth, crack propagation is carried out by

the number of cycles based on the step size set. All adjacent cracks are then checked for

overlaps. If no overlap is detected, the final crack depth is checked again. When overlap is

detected, the new coalesced crack is represented by a crack with an area equivalent to the

sum of the two original cracks [7, 8], by constraining the new width as a sum of the two crack

widths. This enables the coalescence stage of multiple fatigue crack growth to be considered.

This new crack will replace the larger of the two original cracks, while the smaller crack is

removed. After all overlapping cracks have coalesced, the final crack depth criterion is re-

evaluated. If the criterion is met, the program outputs data and ends.

In this analysis of multiple fatigue crack propagation, all cracks were assumed to

initiate at the same time. The interaction between multiple cracks [23, 24] was not

considered, with a single crack SIF used for a more conservative prediction.

3. Experimental setup and results

Welded X65 offshore pipes were cut into fatigue coupons (𝑡 = 25.4 mm, 𝑏 = 100

mm), where the radius of the pipe was ignored. The large width 𝑏 specified allows multiple

fatigue crack growth and coalescence. The four-point bending (𝐿 = 240 mm, 𝑙 = 120 mm) is

setup such that tensile stresses occur at pipe outer surface with weld cap (Fig. 2).
 𝑙
𝑃 ⁄2 𝑃 ⁄2

𝑡
𝑏
𝐿

Fig. 2. Four-point bending fatigue test setup

1000
Stress range / MPa

Current experiment (2015)

Lemos et al. (2011)

100
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Number of cycles

Fig. 3. Stress-life curve for X65 steel.

The stress-life curve is shown compared to literature [13] in Fig. 3. Slightly improved

fatigue life was obtained due to the superior weld process used. The weld profile is shown in

Fig. 4.
 Fig. 4. Profile of the girth weld.

In an attempt to view the crack shape, striation marking following the method of

Schijve [25] was adopted. However, using a load ratio of 1.4, no fatigue cracks were

observed even after a significant number of cycles, which could be attributed to crack closure

[21].

4. Simulation Setup and Results

Information on the number and position of the cracks were obtained by analyses of

the fracture surfaces. A range of 12 to 22 cracks were observed by identifying the ratchet

marks, and the locations of each crack initiation site were recorded in Table 1. Traditionally,

typical weld toe defects have been known to be 0.15 to 0.4 mm deep [14]. Hence,

conservative values of initial crack depth (𝑎 = 0.1 mm) and aspect ratio (𝑎/𝑐 = 0.25) were

assumed.
 Table 1. Crack initiation sites identified from surface of fractured samples.

Stress range Number of Final crack Distance of crack initiation sites

𝚫𝝈/ MPa cracks depth / mm from edge / mm
13.9 17.6 20.3 24.1 29.9
292.5 12 18.6 36.9 47.6 57.2 63.1 68.2
71.7 75.7
11.1 18.9 25.5 28.9 32.9
35.8 38.4 41.1 43.7 48.2
320 20 17.5
52.1 53.9 55 57.6 61.6
69.5 77.4 80.3 84.5 89.2
9 16.3 21.5 27.4 33.2
337.5 14 16.25 39.1 45.4 49.5 51.9 56.5
61.4 68.8 78.5 84.8
13.2 18.8 24 26.4 28.8
32.2 36.5 40.9 44.7 49
382.5 22 19.4 54.8 59.6 62.7 66.6 70.7
75.7 80.3 83.9 87.7 90.4
92.5 94.5
9.5 16.2 25.3 32.5 34.3
36.9 42.3 47.7 51.8 56.4
450 18 13.3
60.6 64.7 67.5 68.8 70.9
77.3 85.8 93.3

For the X65 steel, yield strength and ultimate tensile strength were obtained via

relation to hardness [26] (𝜎Y = 550 and UTS = 633 MPa). The following fatigue law

constants were used: 𝐶 = 1.5 × 10−13 for mean curve 𝑅 = 0.1 [27], and 𝑚 = 3. In

comparison, the BS 7910 standard [1] gives the design values of 𝐶 = 5.21 × 10−13 and 𝑚 =

3. For the crack closure parameter 𝑈, at the crack surface, the ℎ in equation (9) is assumed 3

mm based on the weld dimensions. At crack depth, 𝑈 varies as the crack grows Δ𝐾 is given

by Δ𝜎√𝜋𝑎, where ℎ is 50 mm. Values of the closure parameter 𝑈 used are shown in Fig. 5.
𝑈 𝑈

Crack depth 𝑎 Crack width 𝑐

(a) U at crack depth (b) U at crack surface

Fig. 5. Range of crack closure parameter 𝑼 in analysis.

The SIFs of plain plates obtained by Newman and Raju [28] are used in the analysis,

while the 𝑀k factors were obtained by finite element analyses procedure similar to that of

Hoh et al. [29] applied to a single crack in a welded plate. The 𝑀k factors at the crack surface

𝑀k,c and at the crack depth 𝑀k,a are given by

𝑀k,a = 0.03901(𝑎⁄𝑡)−0.6289 + 0.8914

(10)
𝑀k,𝑐 = 0.262(𝑎⁄𝑡 )−0.4547 + 0.6922

1000
Stress range / MPa

Experiment (2016)
Crack closure & equivalent area, C = 1.5x10-13
Threshold SIF, C = 1.5x10-13
Threshold SIF, C = 5.21x10-13 (BS7910)
100
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Number of cycles

Fig. 6. Stress-life curves for X65 steel.

 Based on the fatigue tests (Fig. 6), at the highest load range 450 MPa, (82 % of yield

stress), failure occurred at 130 thousand cycles, and at the lowest tested load range 225 MPa,

fatigue limit was reached at two million cycles. In comparison, the baseline provided by the

BS7910 design curve predicts a fatigue life of about 10 % of the actual life. Using the mean

curve data constants 𝐶 = 1.5 × 10−13 [27] with the threshold SIF improves accuracy, but

only half the actual life is reflected. When the crack closure is employed with the mean curve

constants, the prediction becomes closer to the tested fatigue life compared to the threshold

SIF approach. Considering the equivalent area during crack coalescence increases predicted

fatigue life significantly for lower fatigue life, but becomes less significant as the fatigue life

increases. At higher loads, the inclusion of the coalescence phase becomes significant as the

fatigue life is shorter. At lower loads, the fatigue life of the coalesced crack becomes the

dominant factor in the fatigue life.

 Table 2. Comparison of fracture surfaces.

Stress
range 𝚫𝝈/ Predicted surface Experimental fracture surface
MPa

(a) 292.5

(b) 320

(c) 337.5

(d) 382.5

(e) 450

The predicted fracture surfaces are also shown to match the actual fracture surfaces

(Table 3). The asymmetry in the fracture surface is captured correctly in most cases, and the

inclusion of corner cracks (or cracks close to the corner) would improve the predictions.

In Table 3, each crack is identified by a unique colour. When crack coalescence

occurs, the coalesced crack will assume the colour of the dominant crack. Thus, as the cracks

propagate deeper only the colour of the dominant crack would remain. The crack colours are

also used in Fig. 6 such that each line represents the change in crack aspect ratio over depth

for a particular crack. As coalescence occurs, two lines representing two different cracks

would merge into a single line, assuming the colour of the dominant crack. Hence the growth

and coalescence of the cracks can be traced.

 (a) Δ𝜎 = 292.5 MPa (b) Δ𝜎 = 320 MPa

(c) Δ𝜎 = 337.5 MPa (d) Δ𝜎 = 382.5 MPa

(e) Δ𝜎 = 450 MPa

Fig. 7. Crack aspect ratio (𝒂⁄𝒄) against crack depth (𝒂⁄𝒕) for multiple fatigue crack
propagation.

The coalescence of cracks shown in Fig. 7 is complicated and can be interpreted by

considering Fig. 8 and Table 3, which considers the 12-crack coalescence sequence under the

Δ𝜎 = 292.5 MPa load (Fig. 7a and Table 2a). Fig.8a zooms in on the crack aspect ratio vs

crack depth ratio growth, Fig. 8b shows the number associated with each crack, while Table 3

shows the predicted crack propagation step-by-step.

 Under this load, the cracks initiate at 𝑎/𝑐 = 0.25 and the aspect ratio increases with

crack depth ratio 𝑎/𝑡 (Table 3a). One pair of cracks (C2 and C3) coalesce at 𝑎/𝑡 of 0.026

(point A in Table 3b), with C2 assumed dominant since both are equal. Subsequently, C10

and C11 merge (point B), with C10 assumed dominant.

Crack C2 then merges with C1 and C4 (C2 dominant, point C in Table 3d), while C10

merges with C12 (C10 dominant, point D in Table 3e). C10 subsequently merges with C9

(point E), and then with C8 (point F), with C10 emerging dominant. C2 then merges with C5

(point G) followed by C6 (point H in Table 3i), C2 prevailing.

𝑎/𝑐

0.4

D I
B
0.2 A E G
F H J
C

0 0.1 0.2 𝑎/𝑡

(a) Crack aspect ratio against crack depth (zoom-in from Fig. 6a).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(b) Predicted fracture surface, showing crack numbers (from Table 2a).

Fig. 8. Coalescence of multiple cracks in fatigue for 𝚫𝝈 = 292.5 MPa.

 Table 3. Details multiple crack propagation for 𝚫𝝈 = 292.5 MPa.

Max Crack aspect ratio vs

Predicted fracture surface
𝒂/𝒕 crack aspect ratio

Cracks 2 and 3 about to merge

(a) 0.025

Cracks 2 and 3 merge

(b) 0.035 A

Cracks 10 and 11 merge

(c) 0.0485 B

Cracks 1, 2 (coalesced) and 4 merge

(d) 0.0495 C

D Cracks 10 (coalesced) and 11 merge

(e) 0.075

Cracks 9 and 10 (coalesced) merge

(f) 0.1 E

Cracks 8 and 10 (coalesced) merge

(g) 0.11 F

Cracks 2 (coalesced) and 5 merge

(h) 0.114 G

Cracks 2 (coalesced) and 6 merge

(i) 0.2 H

Cracks 7 and 10 (coalesced) merge

(j) 0.24 I

Cracks 2 (coalesced) and 10 (coalesced) merge

(k) 0.4 J

At this depth of 𝑎/𝑡 = 0.2, three cracks remain: C2 (coalesced), C10 (coalesced) and

C7 (which has been growing independently so far). C10 will then dominate C7 (point I in
Table 3j), and prevail over C2 (point J). The single coalesced C10 crack will then grow to

from 𝑎/𝑐 of 0.2 to 0.35 and fall back to 0.3 before fracture, as seen in Figure 8a.

5. Conclusion

In this work, an improved fatigue life analyses for multiple cracks was developed by

considering the crack coalescence stage and fatigue crack closure. The fatigue assessment

approach developed was verified by four-point fatigue bending tests of cut-out welded steel

pipes. A large number of starting weld toe cracks (12 to 22) were modelled in the fatigue life

prediction of the fatigue tested pipes. The predicted remaining fatigue life show similar trends

to the experimental test results. The fatigue crack closure is shown to predict more accurate

results compared to the threshold stress intensity factor approach. The analysis provides

details of the fatigue growth of each crack and its coalescence history.

Acknowledgements

Support for the research under Project SMI-2014-OF-09 sponsored by Singapore

Maritime Institute is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] BS 7910:2013. Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic
Structures. London, British Standards Institution: 2013.
[2] API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007. Fitness-For-Service. American Petroleum Institute (API),
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME): 2007.
[3] Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI: Rules for inservice inspection of nuclear
power plant components New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME):
1995.
[4] X.B. Lin, R.A. Smith, Fatigue growth analysis of interacting and coalescing surface
defects, International Journal of Fracture, 85 (1997) 283-299.
[5] W.O. Soboyejo, J.F. Knott, M.J. Walsh, K.R. Cropper, Fatigue crack propagation of
coplanar semi-elliptical cracks in pure bending, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 37 (1990)
323-340.
[6] S. Konosu, K. Kasahara, Multiple fatigue crack growth prediction using stress intensity
factor solutions modified by empirical interaction factors, Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, Transactions of the ASME, 134 (2012).
[7] M. Kamaya, Growth evaluation of multiple interacting surface cracks. Part I: Experiments
and simulation of coalesced crack, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 75 (2008) 1336-1349.
[8] M. Kamaya, Growth evaluation of multiple interacting surface cracks. Part II: Growth
evaluation of parallel cracks, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 75 (2008) 1350-1366.
[9] Y. Murakami, S. Nemat-Nasser, Growth and stability of interacting surface flaws of
arbitrary shape, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 17 (1983) 193-210.
[10] P. Paris, F. Erdogan, A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws, Journal of Basic
Engineering, 85 (1963) 528-533.
[11] S.J. Maddox, Assessing the significance of flaws in welds subject to fatigue, Welding
Journal, 53 (1974).
[12] J. Baumgartner, R. Waterkotte, Crack initiation and propagation analysis at welds -
Assessing the total fatigue life of complex structures, Materialwissenschaft und
Werkstofftechnik, 46 (2015) 123-135.
[13] M. Lemos, C. Kwietniewski, T. Clarke, C.J.B. Joia, A. Altenhofen, Evaluation of the
fatigue life of high-strength low-alloy steel girth welds in aqueous saline environments with
varying carbon dioxide partial pressures, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance,
21 (2012) 1254-1259.
[14] C.M. Holtam, D.P. Baxter, Fatigue performance of sour deepwater riser welds: Crack
growth vs. endurance, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE, 2011, pp. 317-326.
[15] O. Vosikovsky, Fatigue crack growth in an X65 line-pipe steel in sour crude oil,
Corrosion, 32 (1976) 472-475.
[16] O. Vosikovsky, Effects of stress ratio on fatigue crack growth rates in X70 pipeline steel
in air and saltwater, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 8 (1980) 68-73.
[17] Y.H. Zhang, S.J. Maddox, Fatigue testing of full scale girth welded pipes under variable
amplitude loading, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 136 (2014).
[18] W. Elber, Fatigue crack closure under cyclic tension, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2
(1970) 37-45.
[19] W. Elber, The significance of fatigue crack closure, ASTM Special Technical
Publication, (1971) 230-242.
[20] J.C. Newman Jr, E.P. Phillips, M.H. Swain, Fatigue-life prediction methodology using
small-crack theory, International Journal of Fatigue, 21 (1999) 109-119.
[21] J.C. Newman Jr, 4.08 - Modeling of Fatigue Crack Growth: Numerical Models, in:
Comprehensive Structural Integrity, 2007, pp. 209-220.
[22] J. Codrington, A. Kotousov, A crack closure model of fatigue crack growth in plates of
finite thickness under small-scale yielding conditions, Mechanics of Materials, 41 (2009)
165-173.
[23] A. Carpinteri, R. Brighenti, S. Vantadori, A numerical analysis on the interaction of twin
coplanar flaws, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 71 (2004) 485-499.
[24] P.E. O'Donoghue, T. Nishioka, S.N. Atluri, Multiple surface cracks in pressure vessels,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 20 (1984) 545-560.
[25] J. Schijve, The application of small overloads for fractography of small fatigue cracks
initiated under constant-amplitude loading, International Journal of Fatigue, 70 (2015) 63-72.
[26] S.H. Hashemi, Strength-hardness statistical correlation in API X65 steel, Materials
Science and Engineering A, 528 (2011) 1648-1655.
[27] R.N. King, A. Stacey, J.V. Sharp, Review of fatigue crack growth rates for offshore
steels in air and seawater environments, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering - OMAE, 1996, pp. 341-348.
[28] J.C. Newman Jr, I.S. Raju, An empirical stress-intensity factor equation for the surface
crack, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 15 (1981) 185-192.
[29] H.J. Hoh, J.H.L. Pang, K.S. Tsang, Stress intensity factors for fatigue analysis of weld
toe cracks in a girth-welded pipe, International Journal of Fatigue, 87 (2016) 279-287.