The Effects of Classification of Misalignment-Induced Stresses in Engineering Critical Assessments of Welded Joints With Some Misalignment

In the ECA of a structure or component such as a pipeline girth weld, the bending stress component arising from misalignment across the weld is often classified as primary, partly because standards such as BS 7910 and API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 do not give definitive guidance on this subject. This approach may be over-conservative as the σmis is localised. In order to obtain a more realistic assessment of the structural integrity of structures containing misalignment, it is necessary to understand the conservatism or non-conservatism in an ECA associated with the classification of σmis. To address the above concerns, systematic investigations were carried out of surface cracks in a plate butt-weld including some misalignment, external circumferential surface cracks and external fully circumferential cracks in a misaligned pipe connection. FEA of these cracked welded joints with some misalignment (typically from 1mm to 2mm) was performed to calculate crack driving force and plastic limit load. The results from FEA were compared with the existing solutions of KI and σref in BS 7910 generated by assuming three options of treating the σmis. The three options were: (1) classification of σmis wholly as primary stress; (2) 15% of σmis as primary and 85% of σmis as secondary stress; and (3) classification of σmis wholly as secondary stress. Variations in parameters (eg misalignment, crack size, loading, weld overmatch and base material properties) were taken into account in order to determine the effects of these parameters on plastic limit load and crack driving force. The implication of different classifications of σmis in terms of ECAs of misaligned welded joints was revealed by conducting BS 7910 Level 2B assessments with the use of a FAD. It was found in this work that for the cases examined, use of the σmis as entirely primary bending in an ECA was over-conservative, and even treatment of σmis as entirely secondary bending was generally shown to be still conservative, when compared with the assessments based on FEA solutions. Furthermore, caution should be exercised in using the solutions of KI and σref given in the existing BS 7910 for crack-containing structures subjected to a bi-axial or tri-axial stress state. A non-conservative estimate may result from the use of these solutions which have been derived based on a uniaxial stress condition.