FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2011162582> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2011162582 abstract "ABSTRACT A comparison between the design rules in use in various countries has shown that there is a wide difference between them on such questions as design stresses, the treatment of high tensile steel vis-a-vis mild steel, the question of whether or not a cumulative damage approach should be used in design and on what factors of safety should be adopted. However, published test data exist for many types of detail and the paper quotes the results of a statistical analysis of these data which could form the basis for a universal set of ‘master rules’. It is suggested that all design standards should be related to the same basic data. In the context of offshore structures much additional data are required, particularly reliable information about the fatigue strength of tubular joints and about corrosion fatigue. INTRODUCTION Offshore structures, whether they be floating or fixed platforms, are subjected to loading of an extremely complex nature arising from a variety of sources, but particularly from wave action. The severity, both in terms of magnitude and frequency of application, of these loads varies considerably from one part of the world to another, but in some places at least it can be such that the fatigue strength of these structures has to be treated as a most important design criterion. Thus, in the North Sea several structures are known to have suffered fatigue cracking, sometimes of major proportions and after only a relatively short period in service. In contrast, there is reputed to be no fatigue problem in the Gulf of Mexico.(1) The difference stems from the much more, severe fatigue loading spectrum in the North Sea. In view of the current, and future, large investment in offshore structures and equipment, and the potential cost in terms of lost production, environmental pollution and new capital requirements, which could result from major structural failures, it is pertinent to consider what steps can be taken to reduce the risk of fatigue failure to acceptable levels. Clearly, there is a need for a realistic set of design rules which can readily be interpreted by designers. In the context of offshore structures, fatigue can be taken to mean high cycle fatigue. It is the purpose of this paper to review the current situation regarding high cycle fatigue design rules for welded structures, to suggest ways in which improvements could be made and to point out regions where further research seems to be necessary. EXISTING RULES AND THEIR BASIS Historically, the majority of the design standards relating to high cycle fatigue have been concerned primarily with bridges, and particularly railway bridges." @default.
• W2011162582 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2011162582 creator A5007060543 @default.
• W2011162582 creator A5021622141 @default.
• W2011162582 date "1973-04-28" @default.
• W2011162582 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2011162582 title "On Fatigue Design Rules For Welded Structures" @default.
• W2011162582 doi "https://doi.org/10.4043/1907-ms" @default.
• W2011162582 hasPublicationYear "1973" @default.
• W2011162582 type Work @default.
• W2011162582 sameAs 2011162582 @default.
• W2011162582 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2011162582 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2011162582 hasAuthorship W2011162582A5007060543 @default.
• W2011162582 hasAuthorship W2011162582A5021622141 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConcept C19474535 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConcept C77595967 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConceptScore W2011162582C127413603 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConceptScore W2011162582C19474535 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConceptScore W2011162582C77595967 @default.
• W2011162582 hasConceptScore W2011162582C78519656 @default.
• W2011162582 hasLocation W20111625821 @default.
• W2011162582 hasOpenAccess W2011162582 @default.
• W2011162582 hasPrimaryLocation W20111625821 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W143902315 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W1534799784 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2101319007 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2317559027 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2319218462 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2356344116 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2363413475 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2496235079 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2581519784 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2745334003 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2895179050 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W2977246462 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W3152156008 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W3169079729 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W581674696 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W601726312 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W609126837 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W654265482 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W655803214 @default.
• W2011162582 hasRelatedWork W1590982606 @default.
• W2011162582 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2011162582 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2011162582 magId "2011162582" @default.
• W2011162582 workType "article" @default.