27.02.2013 Views

Wind Energy

Wind Energy

Wind Energy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

320 J. Bergers et al.<br />

60.2 Fatigue Tests<br />

It is generally assumed that fatigue strength decreases with an increasing wall<br />

thickness. To estimate the influence of wall thickness more exactly, however,<br />

there are different approaches depending on the national standards and the<br />

type of construction, showing a wide difference in the reduction factor (see<br />

Fig. 60.1).<br />

When using high strength steel, smaller wall thicknesses usually suffice.<br />

Structures with many welds become more economical by thus also decreasing<br />

weld volume and post weld treatment for extending the remaining fatigue life.<br />

According to current standards, the choice of high strength steels with yield<br />

strengths up to 460 MPa is considered as mild steels and therefore no influence<br />

on the fatigue resistance can be taken into account. Fatigue resistance of higher<br />

steel grades is not considered in the standards.<br />

To estimate the influence of yield strength, wall thickness and post weld<br />

treatment on the fatigue strength, various fatigue tests are carried out. It<br />

is known from former investigations at the University of Karlsruhe [7], that<br />

high strength steels up to a yield strength of 1,100 MPa do not show any disadvantage<br />

compared to mild steels regarding the fatigue strength. In several<br />

cases even better results for higher steel grades were achieved. For structures<br />

with low notch effects, high strength steel particularly exhibits better<br />

fatigue strength. One possibility to reduce the influence of the notch form is an<br />

effective post weld treatment, which is also investigated in the fatigue tests at<br />

present.<br />

In Fig. 60.2 results from former investigations on crane specific details<br />

in Karlsruhe, investigations made in Italy [8] and the first results of the<br />

ks-factor<br />

1<br />

0.9<br />

0.8<br />

0.7<br />

0.6<br />

0.5<br />

16<br />

25 71<br />

0.4<br />

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160<br />

*Tubular joints<br />

**Plates<br />

wall thickness t [mm]<br />

Schumacher [5]* 16<br />

Eurocode [4]/GL [3]** 25<br />

Gurney [2]*/**<br />

CIDECT [6]*<br />

Fig. 60.1. Influence of wall thickness according to different standards<br />

( )<br />

t<br />

( )<br />

0.14<br />

( )<br />

t<br />

22 0.25<br />

t<br />

( )<br />

16 0.38<br />

t<br />

0.2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!