International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

A method of determining geometric stress for fatigue strength

evaluation of steel welded joints
Zhi-Gang Xiao a,
, Kentaro Yamada b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan
b
Department of Environmental Engineering and Architecture, Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University,
Furocho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan

Received 16 October 2003; received in revised form 2 May 2004; accepted 14 May 2004

Abstract

This paper presents a new method for evaluating the geometric or structural stress in welded constructions. The method is based
on the computed stress value 1-mm below the surface in the direction corresponding to the expected crack path. The total stress
distribution along the crack path direction is considered to be the sum of the geometric stress caused by the structural geometry
change and the non-linear local stress produced by the weld itself. Linear elastic fracture mechanics is used to correlate the total
stress based crack propagation life and the local stress based crack propagation life to explain the geometric stress evaluated 1-mm
below the surface. Validity of the method is further verified by analyzing fatigue test results for several typical welded joints repor-
ted in literature. When compared to the surface extrapolation technique for structural hot spot stress evaluation, the proposed
method has the additional advantage in that it is able to account for the size and thickness effect observed in welded joints.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fatigue; Welded joint; Geometric stress; Hot spot stress; Finite element method

1. Introduction Taking advantage of advances in computing capa-

Classification method, also termed nominal stress
method or S–N curve approach, is the basic method
for fatigue strength evaluation of welded joints embo-
died in most of current fatigue design specifications
[1–3]. This method is based on the design nominal
stress, without taking into account explicitly the stress
discontinuity due to the presence of the joint. The
geometry of the joint with its inherent stress distri-
bution is taken into account by grouping joints with a
similar behavior into a single fatigue class [4]. Classi-
fication method is simple to use, but it is difficult to
apply this method directly if the object detail is compli-
cated and incomparable to any classified joints, or the
loadings are complex to make it difficult or impossible
to determine the nominal stress.


Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-52-789-4618; fax: +81-52-789-
3738.
E-mail address: xiao@civil.nagoya-u.ac.jp (Z.-G. Xiao).
0142-1123/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2004.05.001
bility and developments in finite element analysis
(FEA), hot spot stress (HSS) method, also referred to
as structural stress or geometric stress approach, was
developed and first applied to fatigue strength evalu-
ation of tubular joints in offshore structures. Unlike the
nominal stress, the HSS takes into account the stress
concentration at the critical point or hot spot, i.e. the
weld toe where fatigue cracks are expected to initiate
and propagate [5]. The local stress concentrations due
to weld geometry and irregularities at the weld toe are
known to have influence on fatigue strength. However,
they are heavily dependent, in physical models, on the
local weld profile and, in numerical analysis, on the
mesh refinement [6]. Thus, it is preferable to treat these
effects as secondary stress raisers and concentrate on
the primary (and predictable) stress-raising effect of
change in overall joint geometry [4]. The local non-
linear peak stress is usually excluded by extrapolating
surface stresses, as shown in Fig. 1. Since the geometric
effect is incorporated in the HSS, the scatter of fatigue
1278 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
Fig. 1. Hot spot stress (HSS) method.
test data in terms of HSS range will only reflects vari-
ation in the local weld toe geometry, including the
depth of a possible undercut [7]. In principle, the
advantage of the HSS method is that all kinds of weld
details are related to the same hot spot S–N curve by
the HSS, which relates only to the overall geometry of
the welded joints [4]. However, concerning its appli-
cation, two key issues still need to be addressed. One is
the definition of the HSS and how it is obtained from
stress analysis. The other is the choice of HSS design
S–N curves [8]. There are numerous on-going research
efforts to address these issues. Regarding the definition
and the solution of HSS, many proposals given are
based on the surface extrapolation technique (e.g.
[1,9,10]), and attempts to solve HSS or structural stress
in other ways are less made. For the local through-
thickness stress distribution at weld toe, Dong gives an
equilibrium-equivalent structural stress distribution
expressed as the superposition of membrane and bend-
ing components. The structural stress at weld toe is
evaluated from the results of FEA by using principles
of elementary structural mechanics [11]. The calcu-
lation of this stress involves not only normal stresses
but also shear stresses distributed over a reference sec-
tion and sometimes a transverse section, and is thus
more complicated than the surface extrapolation
technique.
In this study, the authors proposed a new method of
determining geometric stress [12,13]. The method is
based on the computed stress value 1-mm below the
surface in the direction corresponding to the expected
crack path. The total stress distribution along the crack
path direction is considered to be the sum of the geo-
metric stress caused by the structural geometry change
and the non-linear local stress produced by the weld
itself, and the latter is thought to be equivalent to the
whole stress of a small sized cruciform joint, i.e., the
reference detail, Fig. 2. By assuming a small initial
crack size, e.g. 0.1 mm, it is shown with theories of lin-
ear fracture mechanics that correlation of crack propa-
gation life can be established between an object detail
and the reference detail by an equivalent geometric
stress, which is close to the stress 1-mm below the
surface in the direction corresponding to crack path.
Validity of the method is verified by analyzing fatigue
Fig. 2. One-millimeter stress method.
test results for several typical welded joints reported in
literature. The fact that the proposed geometric stress
can predict size and thickness effect is shown by ana-
lyzing the fatigue test results of widely dimensioned
non-load-carrying cruciform joints.
2. Stress concentration in weld toe region
Most fatigue cracks in welded joints initiate from
weld toe, i.e. the junction of the weld metal and the
surface of the parent metal, where exists high stress
concentration due to the geometric discontinuity caused
by the weld reinforcement and the welded component,
e.g., an attachment. If a transverse welded joint does
not have an attachment, or the size of the attachment is
relatively small, such as in the case of a transverse butt
weld or a cruciform joint, then the stress concentration
at weld toe is mainly contributed by the weld reinforce-
ment, and the fatigue life of the joint is highly influ-
enced by the weld profile. For example, in the
transverse butt welds, a sudden change of section at the
junction between parent plate and weld metal will result
in a lower fatigue strength, while a minimum of excess
weld metal and a smooth transition at weld toe will
lead to a higher fatigue strength [14].
Fig. 3 shows the stress distribution in weld toe
region along the surface and into the thickness of the
main plate in a non-load-carrying cruciform joint. The
geometries of weld toe, i.e., weld toe angle, h, and weld
toe radius, q, are changed to study their effects on
stress distribution. The stress results are obtained from
the linear elastic FEA of the joint conducted with the
software package COSMOS/M 2.6 [15]. The minimum
size of 4-node plane strain elements used in weld toe
region is 0.05 by 0.05 mm. It is seen in Fig. 3 that the
three models of zero radius (q ¼ 0) have much higher
stress concentration than the other two of non-zero
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293 1279

Fig. 3. Stresses distribution in weld toe region: (a) along surface; (b) through thickness.

radius. It should be pointed out that the stress at weld
toe is theoretically infinite for q ¼ 0, and the finite
values obtained here are only due to the finite element
size. The trend is revealed by comparing stresses of the
three zero-radius models that a large weld toe angle
tends to result in high stress concentration. Another
point shown in Fig. 3 is that, though stress concen-
tration at weld toe is much sensitive to the weld toe
geometries, the stress distribution curves converge in
both directions at a point not far away from the weld
toe. In surface direction, convergence occurs at about
2 mm away from weld toe, while in thickness direction,
the converging point is less than 1 mm away from weld
toe. This indicates that the affecting range of weld toe
geometries is rather localized.
Comprehensive FEA were carried out in Ref. [13],
and it is found that the general profile and the size of
weld reinforcement are less significant in affecting stress
concentration than the geometry of weld toe. Other
findings include that the stress value at weld toe is
highly sensitive to mesh size, especially in the case of
severe weld toe geometry, while the stresses outside the
affecting region of weld (up to 2 mm from weld toe on
surface and 1 mm in depth) are far less affected by the
density of mesh, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Stresses calculated with different mesh size: (a) along surface; (b) through thickness.
1280 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
3. Geometric stress along the expected crack path
As is well known, the stress at weld toe is composed
of two parts. One is the local peak stress due to weld
profile, and the other is the geometric stress or HSS
due to the structural geometry change, such as the
addition of an attachment, as shown in Fig. 1 and
expressed by Eq. (1).
Kt ¼ Kw  Ks
where Kt is the whole stress concentration at weld toe;
Kw, the stress concentration due to weld profile; and
Ks, the stress concentration due to structural geometry
change. At other locations along the expected crack
path, similar relationship also exists, as expressed by
Eq. (2).
Kt ðxÞ ¼ Kw ðxÞ  Ks ðxÞ
where the quantities have similar meanings to those in
Eq. (1) and the coordinate x represents the distance to
the weld toe in the expected crack path. The local
stress along the expected path, Kw(x), is comparable to
the whole stress of a non-load-carrying cruciform joint
with thin attachment and main plate. To give a con-
crete example, the stresses along the initial part of
expected crack path in an in-plane gusset, also referred
to as edge gusset, will be studied in the following.
The in-plane gusset is shown schematically in the
inset of Fig. 5. Ending welds at the end of gusset are
modeled with a leg length of 6 mm, and the weld toe
v
geometry with a 45 angle and a zero radius. The mini-
mum size of the 4-node plane stress elements is 0.05 by
0.05 mm. In in-plane gusset, fatigue cracks usually
Fig. 5. Kt(x) and Ks(x) of 100-mm long in-plane gusset.
develop at the end of gusset and propagate transverse
to the applied stress into the width of the main plate.
The normal stress in the longitudinal direction ry nor-
malized by the nominal tensile stress, labeled as Kt, is
plotted in Fig. 5 along the expected crack path.
It could be seen in Fig. 5 that there is a sharp
increase in stress near weld toe, which is due to the
existence of ending weld. As mentioned earlier, the
ð1Þ local peak stress can be approximated by the stress of a
non-load-carrying cruciform joint with thin attachment
and main plate, thus, according to Eq. (2), the geo-
metric stress along the expected crack path can be
approximated by stress ratio of the in-plane gusset to
the cruciform joint. Here, the cruciform joint in Fig. 4
v
with a 45 angle and a zero radius, which is of the
same weld toe geometry as the in-plane gusset model, is
ð2Þ selected as a reference detail to express the local effect,
and its stresses calculated with fine mesh are plotted
again in Fig. 5. The geometric stress concentration
obtained through division, labeled as Ks, is plotted in
Fig. 5. It can be seen that the geometric stress nearly
follows a linear distribution in the crack path and the
stress gradient is rather small.
4. Fatigue life correlation with theories of linear
elastic fracture mechanics
4.1. Correlation of geometric correction factor
In a weld toe-failed welded joint, the stress concen-
tration in the weld toe region is the actual reason for
the initiation and propagation of fatigue crack. The
local peak stress can be approximated by that of a
non-load-carrying cruciform joint with fairly thin
attachments and main plate. It is the geometric stress
that accounts for the difference of fatigue life between a
certain weld toe-failed joint and the non-load-carrying
cruciform joint. Thus, the correlation of the fatigue life
can be established by geometric stresses between any
weld toe-failed joints and the non-load-carrying cruci-
form joint.
Fatigue life of welded joints is dominated by the
propagation of fatigue cracks, and the propagation
rate is known to satisfy the differential equation of
Paris Law, in which the propagation rate is expressed
as the function of the range of stress intensity factor
(SIF), DK, at the leading edge of the crack, as shown in
Eq. (3).
da
¼ CðDKÞm ð3Þ
dN
where a is crack size, N the number of stress cycles,
and C and m material related constants. The calcu-
lation of SIF for a crack in welded joints is usually
based on the SIF solution of an idealized crack in an
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293 1281

infinite body by modifying that SIF with correction

factors accounting for geometry of the actual crack
and the welded joint and the stress distribution in the
(uncracked) crack path [16]. In Ref. [16], a practical
method was proposed for evaluating the effect of non-
uniform opening stress over the (uncracked) crack path
by using the geometric correction factor, Fg.
Based on the theoretical SIF solution for a central
crack in an infinite plate under the action of two pairs
of splitting forces, the Fg for a crack subjected to dis-
tributed stresses along the crack path can be calculated
by integration, as is shown in Eq. (4).
ð
2 a Kt ðxÞ
Fg ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx ð4Þ
p 0 a 2  x2
where, Kt(x) is the opening stress at a location x in
crack path normalized by the average stress over the
cross-section normal to the applied stress, i.e. the stress
concentration factor (SCF) at the point x. Substituting
Eq. (2) into (4) results in
ð
2 a Kw ðxÞ
Fg ¼ Ks ðxÞ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx ð5Þ Fig. 6. Comparison of Rf(x) and Ks(x) of in-plane gusset.
p 0 a 2  x2
Applying the first mean value theorem to the integral
in the right side of Eq. (5) leads to As an example, the Rf(x) of the previous 100-mm
ð long in-plane gusset is calculated and plotted in Fig. 6.
2 a Kw ðxÞ
Fg ¼ Ks ðnÞ  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx ð0 < n < aÞ ð6Þ Fg(x) and Fgw(x) are calculated by means of numerical
p 0 a 2  x2 integration according to Eqs. (4) and (7) using the
In view of Eq. (4), the right side of Eq. (6) except FEA results of in-plane gusset and reference detail.
Ks(n) can be defined as Fgw, which represents the part
of geometric correction factor at the leading crack edge
contributed by the geometry of weld profile. 4.2. Correlation of fatigue propagation life
ð
2 a Kw ðxÞ
Fgw ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi dx ð7Þ In the above, viewing only the effect of non-uniform
p 0 a 2  x2 opening stress, correlation is established between the
Thus Eq. (6) becomes SIF of an object detail and that of the reference detail
Fg ¼ Ks ðnÞ  Fgw ð0 < n < aÞ ð8Þ in the initial part of crack propagation by Rf, a quan-
tity comparable to geometric SCF but even less varied.
In Eq. (8), the relationship between the whole geo-
With the correlation of SIF being made, the fatigue life
metric correction factor Fg and the local geometric cor-
correlation between an object detail and the reference
rection factor Fgw is established by means of the
detail can be established as follows.
geometric SCF at a certain point in the crack path.
According to [16], if only considering the effect of Fg,
This relationship holds true during the whole process
the range of SIF at crack tip DK can be written as
of crack propagation, that is pffiffiffiffiffiffi
DK ¼ Fg  Drn pa ð12Þ
Fg ðxÞ ¼ Ks ðgÞ  Fgw ðxÞ ð9Þ
where Drn is the range of remote nominal stress.
where g is a point within the interval (0, x) and its
According to Eqs. (3) and (12), the fatigue propagation
location depends on the position of the leading edge of
life Np can be calculated by the following integration.
crack, x, and therefore, the Ks(g) is also a function of ð af
x, and is defined as dx
Np ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffim ð13Þ
Rf ðxÞ ¼ Ks ðgÞ ð0 < g < xÞ ð10Þ ai C  F g ðxÞ  Drn px
It also can be written as the ratio of Fg(x) to Fgw(x) where ai and af are the initial and final size of fatigue
(see Eq. (9)) crack. Substitute Eq. (11) into (13) and rewrite it as
ð af
Fg ðxÞ 1 1
Rf ðxÞ ¼ ð11Þ Np ¼ m   pffiffiffiffiffiffim dx ð14Þ
Fgw ðxÞ ai ½Rf ðxÞ C  Fgw ðxÞ  Drn px
1282 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293

Applying the first mean value theorem to the integral

in the right side of Eq. (14) leads to
ð af
1 1
Np ¼ m   pffiffiffiffiffiffim dx
½Rf ðfÞ ai C  Fgw ðxÞ  Drn px

ðai < f < af Þ ð15Þ

Viewing Eq. (13), it could be seen that the integral in
the right side of Eq. (15) actually corresponds to the
crack propagation life of the reference detail, Npr. Thus
1
Np ¼  Npr ðai < f < af Þ ð16Þ
½Rf ðfÞ m
Referring to Eq. (10), it is clear that a point x can be
located in the interval (0, f), such that
Rf ðfÞ ¼ Ks ðxÞ ð0 < x < af Þ ð17Þ Fig. 7. Fatigue crack propagation in a cruciform joint.
Thus Eq. (16) can be written as
1 can be further simplified. So far the geometric stress
Np ¼  Npr ð0 < x < af Þ ð18Þ
½Ks ðxÞ m has been solved through comparing with (dividing) the
It is indicated by Eq. (18) that correlation of crack stress of the reference detail. The SCF of the reference
propagation life can be established between the object detail at 1-mm in crack path is close to unity, see
detail and the reference detail by using the geometric Figs. 3 and 4, thus the division calculation is not neces-
stress at a certain point in the crack path, Ks(x), sary and the stress at 1-mm in crack path in an object
referred to as equivalent geometric stress in this paper. detail can be taken directly as the geometric stress for
Since the object detail and the reference detail may fatigue life correlation. The geometric stress thus
have different lengths of crack path, the above corre- determined is simply referred to as 1-mm stress.
lation might not be performed through the whole
length of crack path. However, due to the uneven
crack propagation rate, the initial small length of crack 5. Fatigue strength of reference detail
propagation can consume most of fatigue life. Fig. 7
In order to determine fatigue strength of reference
shows the propagation of a weld toe crack in a non- detail, fatigue test results are collected from sources
load-carrying cruciform joint that is calculated accord- [17–20] of as-welded fillet welded non-load-carrying
ing to the fatigue design recommendations of Japanese cruciform joints with comparable dimensions to the
Society of Steel Construction (JSSC) [3]. It could be reference detail, as shown in Fig. 8. To facilitate com-
seen that the propagation of the crack from the initial parison, all the fatigue test data to be cited in this
size ai ¼ 0:1 mm to a depth of 2 mm has taken about paper, in nominal stress range as in Fig. 8 or other
70% of the whole propagation life calculated up to the forms, will be plotted in the same scale and data range.
penetration of main plate. Thus, it can be asserted that
the correlation even in a small length of initial crack
propagation (several millimeters long in typical welded
joints) can result in a satisfying accuracy.
By only considering the effects of non-uniform open-
ing stress on SIF, the propagation lives, Np and Npr,
for a crack from an initial size of 0.1 mm to the size of
10 mm are calculated for the in-plane gusset and the
reference detail under several stress ranges, i.e., 60, 80,
100, 150, and 200 MPa. Other parameters are the same
as those shown in Fig. 7. In each stress range, the
calculations with Eqs. (16) and (17) lead to an
x ¼ 1:3 mm. Viewing the flat stress gradient of geo-
metric stress in Figs. 5 and 6, it can be asserted that a
geometric stress at 1-mm in crack path can result in a
good correlation of fatigue propagation life.
Once the geometric stress for fatigue life correlation
is decided at 1-mm in crack path, the calculation of it Fig. 8. Fatigue test results of non-load-carrying cruciform joints.
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
All the specimens in Fig. 8 were experimented with ten-
sile cyclic loadings with the minimum stress being fixed
at a small value (3.4 MPa for data from [17], 27 MPa
for data from [18], and 16 MPa for data from [19,20]),
and the fatigue life was defined as the number of stress
cycles when test specimen was experimented to rupture
[17,18] or when the thickness-penetrated crack
developed to a length of about 120 mm on plate sur-
face [19,20]. The fatigue strength classes of JSSC are
also superimposed for reference in Fig. 8. The slope of
those curves is m ¼ 3 in the finite life region, and the
fatigue strength at 2-million cycles for the classes JSSC-
D, E, F, G, and H is 100, 80, 65, 50, and 40 MPa,
respectively, and the constant amplitude fatigue limit
(CAFL) is 84, 62, 46, 32, and 23 MPa, respectively [3].
Linear regression analyses are carried out on the test
results of failed specimens with the least square method
by taking log N as dependent variable, and the mean,
mean
2s (s, standard deviation of log N) of
regression analyses are plotted with thick lines in Fig. 8.
Separation is shown in Fig. 8 between different series
of test results. The two series of specimens with the
small widths, 25 and 80 mm, have higher fatigue
strength than the other two series with larger widths,
160 and 200 mm. As the width becomes larger, the
welds get longer, which increases the possibility of hav-
ing more severe weld toe geometries along the length of
fillet weld. Thus, it is more likely to result in lower fati-
gue strength in wider cruciform joints. In most welded
joints, since the stress concentration in the critical
point region is rather localized, the width effect is not
so evident and the test results of the two series with
small widths are used to determine the fatigue strength
of reference details, as shown in Fig. 9. Linear
regression analyses are carried out on test results of
failed specimens with the slope being set at m ¼ 3. The
mean and mean2s are 127 and 102 MPa at 2-million
cycles, respectively. The mean2s is just slightly higher
than the fatigue class of JSSC-D, and almost equals to
Fig. 9. Referential fatigue strength determined with narrow speci-
mens.
1283
the fatigue resistance against the geometric stress speci-
fied by the International Institute of Welding (IIW)
for as-welded fillet welds, i.e. FAT100 (100 MPa at
2-million cycles) [1].
6. Validation with fatigue test results
6.1. Fatigue test results
To validate the proposed method, fatigue test results
are collected for several types of weld toe-failed joints
shown in Fig. 10, and plotted in Fig. 11 in nominal
stress, including in-plane gussets [21–25], out-of-plane
gussets [18,19,26–29], T- and H-attachments (intersect-
ing transverse and longitudinal attachments) [30], and
steel post structures [31,32]. The nominal stress of the
post in bending is calculated at the utmost fiber in ten-
sion or compression at the tip of strengthening gusset,
and the nominal stress for gussets welded to the flange
or web of beams is calculated as the flexural stress at
the locations of interest according to simple beam
theory. All test data are collected of as-welded speci-
mens. The dimensions of significance are listed in the
insets of Fig. 11.
The plate-type specimens were experimented under
tension with the minimum stress being fixed at a value
ranging from 16 to 27 MPa, which results in a positive
stress ratio for each series of specimens, R > 0 (the
stress ratio R is defined as the ratio of the minimum to
the maximum nominal stress). The in-plane gussets
welded to the bottom flange of bending beams
(Fig. 11a) were experimented under R ¼ 0, and the two
series of steel posts marked with the symbol ‘B’ in
Fig. 11e under R ¼ 1 (alternating loading). In most
of the fatigue experiments, copper wires of 0.04 mm in
diameter were adhered to the surface of specimens and
connected to the controlling circuit of test machine to
stop experiment when cracks propagated to a certain
Fig. 10. Schematics of fatigue test specimens: (a) an in-plane gusset;
(b) an out-of-plane gusset; (c) a T-attachment; (d) an H-attachment;
(e) a post structure.
1284 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293

Fig. 11. Fatigue test data: (a) in-plane gussets; (b) out-of-plane gussets; (c) T-attachments; (d) H-attachments; (e) post structures.

position, and fatigue life was defined as the number of
stress cycles when the experiment was stopped by
the cutting of copper wire. Fatigue cracks of in-plane
gussets developed at the toe of ending weld and propa-
gated transverse to the applied stress into the tensile
plate or the bottom flange of beam, and fatigue lives
were defined when crack length was 10 mm [21–24], 35
mm (for 70 mm wide specimens) [25] or 50 mm (for
100 mm wide specimens) [25] . The fatigue life of out-
of-plane gusset was defined when tensile specimens of
small width were ruptured [18,26] or when the thick-
ness-penetrated fatigue crack propagated to a length of
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
100 or 120 mm on plate surface [19,27–29]. Fatigue life
of T- and H-attachments and post structures was
defined when the thickness-penetrated crack developed
to a length of 50–60 mm on plate or post surface
[30–32]. Please refer to the abovementioned sources for
other details of fatigue experiments.
6.2. Finite element analyses
In order to obtain the geometric stress at 1-mm in
crack path, elastic FEA is carried out for all specimens
summarized above. Three-dimensional models are
created for all test specimens except in-plane gussets
welded to a tensile plate, for which 2D models of plane
stress elements are generated. In 2D models, small
elements of 0.05 by 0.05 mm are created in weld toe
region. However, meshes of low density are more pref-
erable for large structures or 3D models. As shown in
Fig. 4, the stress at weld toe is sensitive to mesh size,
but the stress one-millimeter below the surface is less
affected by mesh size, and meshes up to 1 mm can be
used to obtain 1-mm stress with satisfying accuracy.
With this in consideration, 8-node solid elements of
1  1  1 mm in size are used in the region of interest
in 3D solid models. Fig. 12 shows a one-eighth model
of a T-attachment (TN100) and a quarter model of a
post structure. A point to note is that, since the stress
of interest is taken at 1 mm below surface, elements
larger than 1 mm may not be suitable for calculating 1-
mm stress, which will make it necessary to use techni-
Fig. 12. Examples of FEM model: (a) a T-attachment (TN100); (b) a steel post.
1285
ques such as submodelling in the FEA of large scale
structures.
Fig. 13 shows the normalized stress along crack path
(uncracked) of T-attachments and a steel post. Stresses
presented are nodal stresses averaged among elements
sharing the common node except the node at weld toe,
where stresses are not averaged across weld toe. One-
millimeter stresses are listed in Table 1 for most of test
specimens along with two other forms of geometric
stresses, i.e., HSS obtained by extrapolating surface
stress at 0.4t (t, thickness of main plate) and 1.0t [1],
and the structural stresses according to Dong [11]. A
point to note is that the surface extrapolation tech-
nique, in which extrapolating points are decided in
terms of plate thickness, is not suitable for solving HSS
for in-plane gussets since the stress distribution
approaching the weld toe is not relevant to the thick-
ness of main plate in these joints. A tentative method
suggested by Niemi and Marquis [5] of extrapolating
surface stresses from three fixed points at 4, 8, and 12
mm from weld toe is employed in Table 1 to solve HSS
for in-plane gussets.
The method of solving structural stress suggested by
Dong is schematically shown in Fig. 14. For a weld toe
crack of the depth t1, a structural stress composed of
membrane and bending components (rm and rb) is cal-
culated by applying equilibrating conditions to the
block ABDC. The stresses in the reference plane BD,
which is at a small distance, d, away from weld toe,
1286 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293

Fig. 13. Stress distribution in crack path (before the crack appears): (a) T-attachments; (b) a steel post.

and the stresses in the bottom plane CD are obtained
from FEA.
It is found by authors that the calculated structural
stress changes significantly with the location of the ref-
erence plane in 3D models while it is rather stable in
2D models. The reason may lie in that the equilibrating
equations in Dong [11] are derived with 2D models.
For 3D models, the structural stresses in Table 1 are
calculated with the reference plane being taken at
d ¼ 1 mm, which is the closest location to weld toe in
the case of 1 mm mesh size. For in-plane gussets, the
reference plane is taken at d ¼ 0:8 mm. Concerning the

Table 1
Comparison of 1 mm stress with other forms of geometric stresses

Test specimens 1 mm stress HSS (0.4t, 1.0t) Dong’s structural Degree of bending
stress (rm, rb)
In-plane gussets
L–W (mm)a Not applicable
50–200 1.517 (1.032)b 1.644 (1.197, 0.447) 0.272
100–200 1.793 (1.845)b 1.951 (1.354, 0.598) 0.306
200–200 2.164 (2.182)b 2.364 (1.573, 0.792) 0.335
100–70 1.709 (1.745)b 1.307 (1.000, 0.307) 0.235
100–100 1.776 (1.820)b 1.248 (1.000, 0.248) 0.199
Out-of-plane gussets
L–W–T (mm)a
100–60–10 1.312 1.277 1.736 (1.294, 0.442) 0.255
100–80–10 1.369 1.330 1.811 (1.349, 0.462) 0.255
200–200–9 1.610 1.546 2.126 (1.578, 0.548) 0.258
110–150–12 1.364 1.252 1.747 (1.284, 0.463) 0.265
T- and H-attachments
TN50 1.358 1.336 1.797 (1.343, 0.455) 0.253
TN100 1.507 1.460 1.993 (1.482, 0.511) 0.256
TN200 1.663 1.585 2.195 (1.628, 0.567) 0.258
TS100 1.423 1.389 1.883 (1.404, 0.480) 0.255
TS200 1.625 1.554 2.145 (1.592, 0.553) 0.258
HN200 1.380 1.331 1.823 (1.365, 0.457) 0.251
HS200 1.431 1.388 1.899 (1.408, 0.491) 0.259
Post structures
Yamada 1 (22 mm base plate) 1.946 3.182 3.108 (1.334, 1.774) 0.571
Yamada 2 (12 mm base plate) 2.343 3.998 3.913 (1.435, 2.478) 0.633
Nippon Steel 1 (4.5 mm wall) 2.097 4.557 3.527 (1.407, 2.120) 0.601
Nippon Steel 2 (6 mm wall) 2.310 4.586 3.460 (1.381, 2.079) 0.601
a
See the insets of Fig. 11 for the meanings of dimension symbols.
b
HSS stress factors are calculated at three fixed points at 4, 8, and 12 mm from weld toe according to Niemi and Marquis [5].
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
Fig. 14. Structural stress proposed by Dong [11].
depth of crack, t1, the whole thickness of post wall is
considered when calculating structural stresses for steel
posts, in which monotonic stress distribution is ident-
ified through the thickness of post wall, as shown in
Fig. 13b. For other specimens except in-plane gussets,
half thickness of main plate, t/2, is assigned to t1
considering the symmetry of stress distribution. For in-
plane gussets, the crack depth at which fatigue experi-
ment was terminated, is assigned to t1, i.e., 10 mm for
50–200, 100–200, and 200–200 specimens, 35 mm for
100–70, and 50 mm for 100–100 specimens.
It could be seen in Table 1 that 1-mm stresses are
close to corresponding HSS in most cases, however the
HSS evaluated for steel posts are significantly larger
than 1-mm stresses. The quadratic extrapolation
procedure results in a HSS close to nominal stress for
50-mm long in-plane gusset, which suggests that this
solution might not be able to catch the stress-raising
effect of small length in-plane gussets. The structural
stresses evaluated according to Dong [11] are much
larger than the other two evaluations, except the two
in-plane gussets, 100–70 and 100–100, for which large
crack depths are used in the calculation of structural
stress, and the two steel posts experimented with bend-
ing loads.
6.3. Correlation with reference detail by 1-mm stress
On base of FEA, the fatigue test results in Fig. 11
are re-plotted in Fig. 15 in 1-mm stress range, i.e. the
nominal stress range multiplied by the 1-mm stress fac-
tor obtained from FEA. The data range of the refer-
ence detail as shown in Fig. 9 is also superimposed for
1287
comparison. It can be seen that, except the runouts
marked with arrows, i.e., the data for specimens that
did not show fatigue cracks after a certain large num-
ber of cycles of loading, nearly all the re-plotted data
fall within the data range of the reference detail. It
implies that the 1-mm stress can result in a good corre-
lation of fatigue strength between the above mentioned
welded joints and the reference detail.
A point to note is that most of the re-plotted data of
in-plane gusset in Fig. 15a fall within the lower half of
the data range of the reference detail. This may be due
to the fact that fatigue cracks of in-plane gusset
become through-thickness cracks after a small length
of propagation and accelerate propagation afterward,
while the 1-mm stress cannot account for this kind of
change in crack propagation.
The good correlation shows that the reference fati-
gue strengths and the stress 1-mm below weld toe are
suitable for evaluating fatigue strength of above-
mentioned welded joints or structures. A point to note
is that all plate specimens cited above were experi-
mented with axial loading, and the gussets welded to
the flange or web of beams were actually in similar
stress state to their corresponding ones in plate speci-
mens. The degree of bending, which is defined as
the ratio of bending stress (rb) to total structural stress
ðrm þ rb Þ at hot spot, is calculated for plates specimens
and post structures in Table 1, with rm and rb being
evaluated according to Dong’s method. The degree of
bending ranges from 0.199 to 0.335 in plate specimens,
while it is about 0.60 in steel posts. These data imply
that the proposed method of fatigue strength evalu-
ation with stress evaluated 1-mm below weld toe is
valid in the case that membrane stress is dominating or
equivalent to bending stress. Concerning the thickness
of stressed plate, the applicability of this method to
plate thickness down to 4.5 mm is verified by the test
data of post structures. It will also be shown in the
later part of this paper that the proposed method can
work well in the case of thick plates.
However, it should be pointed out that the 1-mm
stress may not be applicable to the cases that bending
stresses are dominant, especially when the thickness of
base plate is small. In such cases, the gradient of both
Ks and Rf (see Fig. 6 for their meanings) may be rela-
tively large, and the equivalent geometric stress for
propagation life correlation (Ks(x) in Eq. (18)) may
differ significantly from the stress 1-mm below weld
toe.
6.4. Comparison with other forms of geometric stress
The HSS values in Table 1 are very close to 1-mm
stresses in most specimens, however, the two stresses
differ significantly in steel posts and 50-mm long in-
plane gussets. Given the good agreement among all test
1288 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293

Fig. 15. Re-plot of fatigue test data in 1-mm stress range: (a) in-plane gussets; (b) out-of-plane gussets; (c) T-attachments; (d) H-attachments;
(e) post structures; (f) all test data.

data plotted in 1-mm stress range, it can be envisaged
that, if plotted in HSS range, there will exist a distinc-
tive separation between the data of steel posts or 50 mm
in-plane gussets and the data of other specimens.
To give a comparison, the previous test data are also
plotted in Dong’s structural stress in Fig. 16. A point
to note is that, the structural stress ranges for some
data of out-of-plane gussets and posts are larger than
400 MPa, and these data are outside the plot. It could
be seen that, most data are distributed between JSSC-C
and JSSC-A except those of in-plane gussets, and the
data of steel posts are evidently higher than other data.
Evident separation is shown between the data of in-
plane gussets and the data of other specimens, which
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293 1289

Fig. 16. Re-plot of fatigue test data in structural stress according to Dong [11]: (a) in-plane gussets; (b) out-of-plane gussets; (c) T-attachments;
(d) H-attachments; (e) post structures; (f) all test data.

might be due to the fact that the equilibrating
equations in Dong [11] are derived with 2D models,
and they may not be accurate for 3D models.
In Fig. 16a, the data of two series of 100-mm long
gussets, 100–70 and 100–100, are evidently lower than
the data of other in-plane gussets. The reason is that a
crack depth up to half width of main plate (35 mm for
100–70, and 50 mm for 100–100) was used in comput-
ing structural stresses in accordance with the definition
of fatigue life for these specimens. If computed to a
1290 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
crack depth of 10 mm, as in the case of other in-plane
gussets, the structural stress factors for 100–70 and
100–100 will be 1.861 (1.277, 0.584) and 1.934 (1.331,
0.603), respectively, with the figures in parentheses
showing the value of membrane and bending compo-
nents. In comparison, the values used for plotting data
as shown in Table 1 are much smaller, with the mem-
brane components even declining to the level of nom-
inal stress. However, on the other hand, a significant
increase could not be expected in the fatigue life if an
in-plane gusset with a 10-mm deep fatigue crack is fur-
ther experimented to a crack depth of 35 or 50 mm,
taking into account the large SIF at crack tip and the
section loss due to a crack deeper than 10 mm. Thus, it
may not be justified to use the actual crack depth to
calculate structural stress when the crack is relatively
deep.
7. Inclusion of size effect in 1-mm stress
It is well known that the size of specimens, especially
the thickness of plate, has evident effects on fatigue
strength in some welded joints [33,34]. The IIW spe-
cifies that the influence of plate thickness should be
taken into account in all cases where cracks start from
weld toe [1], because it is usually considered that thick-
ness effect is due to the stress concentration at the weld
toe or stress gradient around the weld toe. Thicker
plates tend to have a lower stress gradient, and thus
high stresses comparable to that at weld toe will domi-
nate within a longer distance and accelerates the crack
propagation compared with a thinner specimen. Of
course, the increase in plate thickness is accompanied
by longer crack propagation before the final pen-
etration through the thickness, but this is overwhelmed
by the accelerating effect at the initial propagation
stage.
For welded joints with plates thicker than the thick-
ness range in which the fatigue strength was determ-
ined, thickness correction has to be taken into account
when evaluating fatigue strength using nominal stress.
IIW suggests a correction factor as expressed by
Eq. (19) for plates thicker than 25 mm [1].
f ðtÞ ¼ ð25=tÞn ðt > 25 mmÞ ð19Þ
where, the thickness correction exponent n ranges from
0.1 to 0.4, depending on the kinds of welded joints con-
cerned. HSS includes the geometric effect by extra-
polating surface stress to weld toe, but it has the same
shortcoming as the nominal stress of being unable to
include stress gradient around weld toe. Thus, it is
specified by both IIW and JSSC that thickness correc-
tion is necessary in evaluating fatigue strength with
HSS [1,3].
One advantage of 1-mm stress over the geometric
stress at weld toe is that the former relates to the stress
gradient around weld toe. If the stress at weld toe is
kept constant, a large stress gradient will result in a
relative small 1-mm stress, or vice versa. Therefore,
unlike the nominal stress or the HSS, 1-mm stress
should possess the ability of predicting size effect
including thickness effect, to a certain extent at least.
To confirm this argument, fatigue test results are ana-
lyzed on widely dimensioned non-load-carrying cruci-
form joints in the following.
The fatigue test results of as-welded non-load-carry-
ing cruciform joints in references [33,34] are plotted in
Fig. 17. The thickness of main plates, t, ranges from 13
to 100 mm, and the thickness of transverse attach-
ments, T, changes between 3 and 220 mm. The leg
length of fillet weld, b, is between 5 and 16 mm. The
width of the welded joints in Ref. [34] ranges from 46
to 150 mm, and that in Ref. [33] is between 300 and
380 mm. It could be seen that the fatigue strengths of
these welded joints are also widely distributed, ranging
from JSSC-G to JSSC-C. The test results indicate that
the thickness of main plate as well as the dimension of
transverse attachment has effects on fatigue strength.
The general trend is that, a thicker stressed plate and/
or a thicker attachment tend to result in a lower fatigue
strength, and vice versa. A point to note is that, in the
case that both attachment thickness and weld leg are
small, fatigue strength seems not so sensitive to the
thickness of the main plate. This can be seen by com-
paring the data of the three series of specimens having
3-mm thick attachments and 5-mm welds. Though the
thickness of the main plate varies among 13, 25, and
100 mm, much difference is not shown in their fatigue
strengths.
Two-dimensional FEA is carried out for each series
of specimens. One-quarter model is generated by
taking advantage of symmetry, and the weld toe is
v
modeled with a zero-radius and a 45 angle. The
Fig. 17. Fatigue test data of cruciform joints.
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293 1291

minimum plane strain elements around weld toe are

0.05 by 0.05 mm in size. The unwelded zone between
the transverse attachment and the main plate was mod-
eled with a gap of 0.1 mm wide. Compressive gap ele-
ments, GAP [15], are used to connect neighboring
elements along the gap to resist the compression of the
gap.
With FEA results obtained, the 1-mm stress factor,
Ks, is extracted for each specimen, and the fatigue test
results in Fig. 17 are re-plotted in Fig. 18 in 1-mm
stress range. The evident separation between different
series of specimens as seen in Fig. 17 are not shown
anymore in Fig. 18, and most of the re-plotted data fall
within the data range of the reference detail. This
Fig. 19. Re-plot of test data in hot spot stress range with thickness
demonstrates that 1-mm stress can predict size effect correction.
very well. However, it is noted that most of the re-plot
are distributed in the bottom part of the reference data
some series is evident and the wide scatter shown
range. This is due to the difference in width between
among the data in nominal stress is not apparently les-
these welded joints and the reference detail. As
sened. A considerable amount of data are below
explained earlier, wider non-load-carrying cruciform
FAT100, the reference fatigue strength for HSS sug-
joints tend to have lower fatigue strengths. The widths
gested by IIW [1], which implies that HSS may lead to
of the reference details in Fig. 9 are not larger than 80
unconservative estimation for some cruciform joints. A
mm, while most of specimens summarized here are
point to note is that misalignment was not modeled in
much wider. If the re-plotted data are compared with
the previous FEA, however, in non-load-carrying cruci-
data range of the reference details with larger range of
form joints, angular misalignment might exist to some
width as shown in Fig. 8, superimposed in Fig. 18 with
extent due to the welding process. If the effect of mis-
thin dotted lines, then much better agreement can be
alignment can be practically modeled and included in
reached. HSS evaluation, the unconservatism might not be so
HSS factors are also calculated by extrapolating sur- significant as indicated by Fig. 19, if not disappeared.
face stresses obtained from FEA at 0.4t and 1.0t [1].
The calculated HSS are found to be very close to nom-
inal stresses, and if plotted in HSS, the scatter of data 8. Summary and conclusions
shown in Fig. 17 can not be significantly lessened,
which confirms the fact that HSS cannot predict thick- The authors proposed a new method for evaluating
ness effect. For axially loaded cruciform joints, IIW fatigue strength of weld toe-failed joints, which is based
specifies a thickness correction exponent of n ¼ 0:2 [1]. on the computed stress 1-mm below the surface in the
With thickness correction considered according to direction corresponding to the expected crack path and
Eq. (19) (n ¼ 0:2), the test data in HSS range are plot- the data range of cruciform joints.
ted in Fig. 19. It is seen that the separation between The total stress distribution along the crack path
direction is considered to be the sum of the geometric
stress caused by the structural geometry change and
the non-linear local stress produced by the weld itself.
The local stress is thought to be equivalent to the
whole stress of small sized cruciform joints, i.e., the ref-
erence detail. FEA of the reference detail and an object
detail, i.e., an in-plane gusset, demonstrates the local
affecting range of weld, which is not far beyond 1 mm
in the direction of expected crack path, and the linear
distribution of geometric stress.
It is shown with theories of linear fracture mechanics
that correlation of crack propagation life can be estab-
lished between an object detail and the reference detail
with an equivalent geometric stress at a certain point in
crack path. The example of in-plane gusset shows that
Fig. 18. Re-plotted test data of cruciform joints in 1-mm stress the equivalent geometric stress can be located at a
range. point close to 1-mm in the expected crack path. Two
1292 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
factors make it possible to use the geometric stress at a
fixed point irrespective of the size of the welded joints
to correlate fatigue life, i.e., the extremely slow crack
propagation at the initial stage that makes a small
depth of crack propagation (several millimeters) con-
sume most propagation life, and the rather flat distri-
bution of geometric stress over this part of crack path.
Validity of the proposed method is verified by analyz-
ing fatigue test results for several typical welded joints
reported in literature, including in-plane gussets, out-of-
plane gussets, T- and H-attachments, and steel post
structures. The geometric stresses evaluated 1 mm below
weld toe are also compared with HSS solved through
linear extrapolation or quadratic extrapolation of sur-
face stresses and the structural stresses proposed by
Dong [11]. The linearly extrapolated HSS is in good
agreement with 1-mm stress in most cases, while it seems
too large for steel posts. The quadratic solution of HSS
may not be able to catch the geometric effect of small
length in-plane gussets. The structural stress according
to Dong is found to introduce some separation in the
plot of test data between in-plane gussets and other spe-
cimens, and it is also found that the value of this stress is
significantly affected by the crack depth used.
Finally, by analyzing fatigue test results of widely
dimensioned non-load-carrying cruciform joints, it is
demonstrated that the geometric stress evaluated 1-mm
below weld toe has the additional advantage over the
HSS solved with surface extrapolation technique in
that it is able to account for size and thickness effect.
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the Ministry of
Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan,
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), 50109310,
2002. The first author would also like to acknowledge
the scholarship granted by the Japanese government in
the duration of this research.
References
[1] Hobbacher A. Recommendations on fatigue of welded compo-
nents. IIW Document XIII-1539-96/XV-845-96; 1996.
[2] American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). Standard specifications for highway
bridges, 16th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
State Highway Officials; 1996.
[3] Japanese Society of Steel Construction (JSSC). Fatigue design
recommendations for steel structures [English Version], JSSC
Technical Report No. 32. Tokyo: JSSC; 1995.
[4] van Wingerde AM, Packer JA, Wardenier J. Criteria for the fati-
gue assessment of hollow structural section connections. Journal
of Construction and Steel Research 1995;35:71–115.
[5] Niemi E, Marquis G. Introduction to the structural stress
approach to fatigue analysis of plate structures. Proceedings
of the IIW Fatigue Seminar. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute of
Technology; 2002. p. 73–90.
[6] Morgan MR, Lee MMK. Stress concentration factors in tubular
K-joints under in-plane moment loading. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1998;124(4):382–90.
[7] Partanen T, Niemi E. Hot spot stress approach to fatigue
strength analysis of welded components: fatigue test data for
steel plate thicknesses up to 10 mm. Fatigue and Fracture of
Engineering Materials and Structures 1996;19(6):709–22.
[8] Maddox SJ. Status of fatigue design rules for welded structures.
Proceedings of the IIW Fatigue Seminar. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute
of Technology; 2002. p. 1–17.
[9] Huther M, Henry J. Recommendation for hot spot stress defi-
nition in welded joints. IIW Document, IIW-IIS doc XIII 1416-91;
1991.
[10] Yagi J, Machida S, Tomida Y, Matoba M, Kawasaki T. Defi-
nition of hot spot stress in welded plate type structure for fatigue
assessment (First Report). Journal of the Society of Naval
Architects of Japan 1991;169:311–8 [in Japanese].
[11] Dong P. A structural stress definition and numerical implemen-
tation for fatigue analysis of welded joints. International Journal
of Fatigue 2001;23:865–76.
[12] Yamada K, Xiao ZG, Kim IT, Tateishi K. Re-analysis of fati-
gue test data of attachments based on stress at fillet weld toe.
Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE 2002;48(A):1047–54 [in
Japanese].
[13] Xiao ZG. A method of determining geometric stress for fatigue
strength evaluation of welded joints. Doctoral dissertation,
Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya University, Nagoya,
Japan, 2003.
[14] Maddox SJ. Fatigue strength of welded structures, 2nd ed.
Cambridge, England: Abington Publishing; 1991.
[15] Structural Research and Analysis Corp. (SRAC). COSMOS/
M user’s guide. COSMOS/M 2.6 Online Help Documents;
2000.
[16] Albrecht P, Yamada K. Rapid calculation of stress intensity fac-
tors. Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of ASCE
1977;103(ST2):377–89.
[17] Abtahi A, Albrecht P, Irwin GR. Fatigue of periodically over-
loaded stiffener detail. Journal of the Structural Division, Pro-
ceedings of ASCE 1976;102(ST11):2103–19.
[18] Yamada K, Murayama M, Kondo A, Kikuchi Y. Fatiuge
strength of two- and four-year weathered weldments of weather-
ing steels and structural steel. Proceedings of the Japan Society
of Civil Engineers 1983;337:67–74 [in Japanese].
[19] Yamada K, Kato S, Okabe A, Kim IT, Ojio T. Fatigue test of
tensile plate with out-of-plane gussets inclined to applied stress.
Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE 2001;47A:1039–45 [in
Japanese].
[20] Yamada K, Kim IT, Ito K. Fatigue behavior of inclined non-
load-carrying fillet welded joints. Journal of Structural Mech-
anics and Earthquake Engineering, JSCE 2001;682(I-56):383–90
[in Japanese].
[21] Yamada K, Sakai Y, Kikuchi Y. Fatigue of tensile plate with
gussets and stop holes as crack arrest. Journal of Structural
Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, JSCE 1984;341:129–36
[in Japanese].
[22] Yamada K, Sakai Y, Kondo A, Kikuchi Y. Weld repair of
cracked beams and residual fatigue life. Journal of Structural
Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, JSCE 1986;374
(I-6):129–36.
[23] Yamada K, Sakai Y, Kondo A, Kikuchi Y. Fatiuge strength
of tension members with welded gussets and life estimation by
fracture mechanics. IIW Document, IIW Doc. XIII-1024-86;
1986.
[24] Yamada K, Okado N, Tanaka H, Kondo A. Fatigue strength of
tensile plate with side gussets subjected to static transverse load.
Journal of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering,
JSCE 1996;549(I-37):33–42.
 Z.-G. Xiao, K. Yamada / International Journal of Fatigue 26 (2004) 1277–1293
[25] Kondo A, Yamada K. Variable amplitude fatigue tests on in-
plane gussets in long life region. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, JSCE 2002;48A:1039–46 [in Japanese].
[26] Kondo A, Yamada K, Kikuchi Y. Fatigue of 10-year weathered
welded joints of weathering and structural steels. Journal of
Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, JSCE
1994;489(I-27):121–7 [in Japanese].
[27] Kim IT. Fatige of weld joints under combined stress cycles. Doc-
toral dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, Nagoya
University, Nagoya, Japan, 2001 [in Japanese].
[28] Mori T, Uchida D. Fatigue strength of out-of-plane gusset wel-
ded joints repaired by bolting-stop-hole method. Quarterly Jour-
nal of the Japan Welding Society 2001;17(1):94–101 [in
Japanese].
[29] Sakano M, Hozumi M, Shimora T, Mikami I. Long term fatigue
strength of web gusset joint in floor-beam-to-main-girder con-
1293
nection. Steel Construction Engineering, Japanese Society of
Steel Construction 1998;5(18):31–40 [in Japanese].
[30] Xiao ZG, Yamada K. Fatigue strength of tensile plates with
combined attachments. Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE
2003;49A:717–24.
[31] Yamada K, Kondo A, Kobayashi K, Miyamoto S, Araki J.
Fatigue strength of steel lighting pole’s tubular flange joints.
Journal of Structural Engineering, JSCE 1992;38A:1045–54 [in
Japanese].
[32] Nippon Steel Corporation. Technical materials of Nippon Steel
Corporation; 2000 [in Japanese].
[33] Maddox SJ. The effect of plate thickness on the fatigue strength
of fillet welded joints. Cambridge, England: Abington Publish-
ing; 1987.
[34] Gurney TR. The fatigue strength of transverse fillet
welded joints. Cambridge, England: Abington Publishing; 1991.