A Comparative Study

on
Fatigue Categories
in various International Codes
vis-a-vis
New Fatigue Provisions
as per
Draft A&C Slip No. 18 to
IRS Steel Bridge Code
RAVINDRA KUMAR GOEL
C E / Works,
Central Railway, CSTM
Mumbai
Fatigue life evaluation of existing Steel Girder bridges is
becoming more important in view of increased Axle
Loads & their Ageing.
Most of the existing bridges designed in an era when
sufficient knowledge about the fatigue in steel was not
there.
The world over, it is an accepted fact that the fatigue
damage depends on the stress range subjected to the
detail.
Phenomenon is cumulative in nature and takes in to
account the vehicle characteristics, load characteristics
and the configuration of the bridge.
It has also been established that use of high strength
steel is not advantageous in design of steel members
which are governed from fatigue consideration.
I NTRODUCTI ON
Studies have been made by RDSO and IIT, Roorkee to
develop draft provisions in line with prevailing international
practice. The experiences and methodologies followed in
other countries, available in the form of documented
reports/guidelines or specifications were also studied by
RDSO.
Based on the studies of various international codes, RDSO, in
associated with IIT, Roorkee has developed draft provisions
for fatigue assessment of Railway Bridges. These provisions
have been examined and scrutinized by RDSO to judge their
suitability before finally recommending A&C Slip No. 18 to
IRS Steel Bridge Code.
The A&C Slip is likely to be approved by Railway Board
shortly.
CURRENT STATUS ON I NDI AN RAI LWAYS
Fatigue category of a particular connection or
member detail is an indication of its fatigue strength.
Different codes specify the fatigue categories
differently.
The fatigue assessment of a structural detail may
vary widely as the fatigue categories can be chosen
differently by using different codes.
In this study, an attempt has been made to briefly
describe the provisions of other international codes
and suggest a methodology to work out the
equivalent fatigue category according to draft A&C
Slip No. 18 to IRS Steel Bridge Code.
SCOPE OF PRESENT STUDY
PALMGREN MI NER LI NEAR SUMMATI ON MODEL
n
n
i
i
2
2
1
1
N
n
....
N
n
......
N
n
N
n
damage Total + + + + + =
It states that the fatigue damage contribution by
each individual load spectrum at a given stress
level is proportional to the number of cycles
applied at a stress interval, n
i
, divided by the total
number of cycles to failure at the same stress
level, N
i
.
The total damage, in terms of partial cycle ratios or
damage, can be written as
REVI EW OF I RS PRACTI CE FOR
FATI GUE ASSESSMENT
The Existing Steel Bridge Code recommends ratio of
minimum to maximum stress to allow for the effect of
fatigue in design of parts of steel bridges, which are
subjected to repeated fluctuations of stress.
All the details are designed to avoid as far as possible the
stress concentrations likely to result in excessive
reductions of the fatigue strength of members or
connections. Care is also taken to avoid a sudden
reduction of the section of a member or part of a member,
especially where bending occurs.
Stress ratio is the basis to determine permissible stresses,
whereas internationally, stress range based concept is
followed.
Fatigue is a cumulative phenomenon which is not reflected
in the above procedure.
Stress-ratio procedure does not take into account the effect
of all stress ranges experienced by a member.
Material S-N curve forms the basis of all fatigue analysis
and design, which is not the case with the present procedure.
Standard train load is transformed into equivalent uniform
load. Thus, actual variation of stresses in a member due to
passage of train is not accounted for.
SHORT COMI NGS OF I RS APPROACH
SALI ENT FEATURE OF DAFT A&C SLI P
NO. 18 TO I RS STEEL BRI DGE CODE
For the simplified fatigue loading the following procedure
is adopted to determine the design stress spectrum.
The recommended equivalents for train loads shall be
adopted in accordance with existing provisions of IRS
Bridge Rules, including the dynamic impact factor u,
which is calculated as (1.0 + CDA), where CDA is the
coefficient of Dynamic Augment as specified in IRS
Bridge Rules.
The maximum stress o
P,max
and the minimum stress o
P,min
should be determined for a detail or structural
connection. The o
P,max
is for Dead Load + Full Live Load
with dynamic impact factor | whereas the o
P,min
is for
dead load effects only.
The reference stress range Ao
P
for determining the damage
due to the stress spectrum should be obtained from:
The damage ef f ect s of t he st ress range spect rum may be
represent ed by t he damage equivalent st ress range relat ed t o
2 million cycles as
Where,
is the damage equivalence factor, and
u is the dynamic impact factor (1.0 + CDA),
CDA is the coefficient of Dynamic Augment as specified in
Bridge Rules
The value of damage equivalence factor, are specific to
the type of loading and the values are dependent on
loaded length, L.
min , max , P P P
= A
P E
A u = A * *
2 ,
The fatigue assessment shall be carried out by ensuring
the satisfaction of the following criteria:

Ff
*Ao
E,2
s Ao
C
/
Mf
Where,
Ao
C
FATIGUE CATEGORY is the reference value of
the fatigue strength at 2 million cycles

Mf
is the partial safety factor for material

Ff
is the partial safety factor for loads
For railway bridges should be determined from:
=
1
*
2
*
3
*
4
subject to the condition that s
max
where

1
is a factor that takes into account the damaging effect
of traffic and depends on the base length of the longest loop
of the influence line diagram

2
is a factor that takes into account the annual traffic
volume in million tonnes

3
is a factor that takes into account the design life of the
bridge in years

4
is a factor to be taken into account when the bridge
structure is loaded on more than one track

max
is the maximum value taking into account the fatigue
limit and is equal to 1.4
DAMAGE EQUI VALENT
FACTOR
CONCEPT OF FATI GUE CATEGORY &
LOAD MODEL AS PER A&C SLI P NO. 18
t o I RS CODE
Following factors primarily affect the fatigue performance of
a typical connection
i) Type of joint details (Fatigue strength depends on it)
ii) Stress range at the location under consideration.
iii) No. of cycles of stress range
The type of joint detailing is decided keeping in view the
methodology of fabrication to be adopted. Once the type
of joint detail is finalised, the characteristic fatigue
strength is taken from standard S-N curves.
S-N curves used for the purpose are shown in Figure-1.
Fatigue category of an S-N curve indicates its characteristic
fatigue strength i.e. the fluctuating stress range of constant
amplitude which can be safely applied up to 2 million no. of
cycles without causing failure of the member detail or
connection under consideration.
Fat igue st rengt h curves f or direct st ress ranges
FATI GUE CATEGORY
As practically observed, the different components of the
structure, undergoes different number of cycles of
different stress-ranges. Therefore, every connection
detail, over a period of time, is subjected to a stress-range
histogram.
Typical st ress range hist ogram
STRESS RANGE HI STOGRAM
The stress-range histogram, to which the detail is
subject to, is a function of type of trains, frequency of
trains, speed and the GMT etc.
In practical scenario, it is a complex phenomenon of
cumulative fatigue damage, which will be very difficult
to model unless some kind of standard of load-
frequency distribution is assumed.
In order to determine the stress-range histogram, it is
necessary to standardize the load models so that the
cumulative fatigue damage can be adequately
assessed over a period of time.
FATI GUE LOAD MODEL
Load models have been developed for standard loadings
specifying the distribution of train types and their
frequencies with respect to their cumulative GMT i.e.
traffic volume.
These parameters are to be taken as design input for
assessing the fatigue strength of member details or
connections.
Choosing fatigue category for the structural member or
connection and the appropriate fatigue load models are
the two most important parts of any fatigue life
assessment exercise.
STANDARD FATI GUE LOAD MODELS
Given in Part- 10 of British Standard BS 5400 which are
based on the concept of cumulative fatigue
damage.
The methods of fatigue assessment provided in the
code are based on Palmgren - Miners damage
summation model.
Fatigue life assessment is based on the S-N curve
approach.
The code specifies different Fatigue Categories e.g. A,
B, C, D, E, F, G which are to be chosen as per
connection details given in Table -17 of the code. The
code gives specific methodology and tables to
calculate the factors for different design parameters.
REVI EW OF FATI GUE PROVI SI ONS OF BS-5400
REVI EW OF FATI GUE PROVI SI ONS of EURO CODE
The provisions governing the fatigue strength of steel
structures are given in Euro Code EN 1993-1-9: 2002. The
material partial safety factors are chosen depending upon the
consequences of failure of structure. For the choice of partial
factors in the fatigue assessment two reliability concepts are
considered:
(i) Damage tolerant concept and
(ii) Safe life concept
The damage tolerant concept may be applied when load
redistribution between components of structural elements can
occur in case of fatigue damage.
The safe life concept should be applied in case where local
formation of cracks in one component could rapidly lead to
failure of the structural elements or structure.
FATI GUE DESI GN CRI TERI A
The safety verification is done by ensuring that the following
condition is satisfied :
Design stress range < Allowable stress range
(Both for same no. of cycles)
i.e.
Where:

Ff
is the partial safety factor for fatigue loading
is the damage equivalent factor for fatigue which is a
function of following:
a) Span/loaded lengths/Type of loading (
1
)
b) Traffic volume (
2
)
c) Design life (
3
)
d) No. of tracks supported by the member (
4
)
Mf c E 2 Ff
/ s
(i.e.) = (
1
) x (
2
) x (
3
) x (
4
) <
max

2
is the damage equivalent impact factor
Ao
E
is the stress due to design train loads placed
in the most un-favourable position for the element under
consideration.
Ao
c
is the reference value of the fatigue strength to be
taken from S-N curve corresponding to the detail category
of the joint/connection as specified in Table 8 of EN 1993-
1-9:2002 .

Mf
is the partial safety factor for fatigue strength
Both American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 1989) and American
Railway Engineering Association (AREA, 1991) use estimates
for fatigue strength of different steel details based on
experimental data.
S-N represent at ion of f at igue st rengt h
REVI EW OF AREA & ASSHTO PROVI SI ONS
AREA specifications state that fatigue need not be
considered if both live and dead loads result in compressive
stress. It is also specified that for riveted bridges, a simple
check for category C provides a good estimate and category
D provides a reasonable lower bound for crack
development.
Plot s of S-N Curves f or cat egory C & D (AASHTO)
REVI EW OF AREA & ASSHTO PROVI SI ONS (..Cont d.)
Safety factors are specified in different codes for use with
respective S- N Curves.
The overall assessment is dependent on the safety factor
adopted as per specified code.
Therefore any comparison of fatigue category should be
done with due regard to safety factors specified in the
particular code.
The practices followed in different codes are as given
below.
SAFETY FACTORS
NORSOK N-004 provides partial safety factors (design fatigue
factors) which are applied as divisors of unity in the damage
accumulation check.
Their values depend on the combination of, the consequence
of damage for the structure as a whole, and its degree of
access for inspection and repair.
The DFFs are set out in the table below.
Access for Inspection
and Repair
Damage Consequence
Without Substantial
Consequence
Substantial
Consequence
Accessible above splash
zone
1 2
Accessible below splash
zone
2 3
Inaccessible or within
splash zone
3 10
NORSOK N-004
Periodic Inspection and
Maintenance,
Accessibility
Fail Safe
Components
Non Fail Safe
Components
Accessible joint detail 1.00
(1.00)*
1.25
(1.00)
Poor accessibility 1.15
(1.00)
1.35
(1.00)
* ( ... ) value set by UK National Application Document (NAD)
PARTI AL SAFETY FACTORS AS PER EURO CODE - 3
Partial safety factors are applied to the fatigue strength
curves according to the accessibility of the component
during periodic inspection and maintenance, and the
consequences of failure.
Inspection
Non Failure
Critical
Failure Critical
Inspectable
2 5
Not inspectable
5 10
The main body of the standard recommends that for
inspectable, non-failure critical connections, and in lieu of a
more detailed assessment, a safety factor of 2.0 (as a
multiplier on cumulative fatigue damage) should be used.
When it can be justified, a reduced value can be taken, but
only to a minimum of 1.0.
DRAFT I SO/CD 13819-2
Consequence of
Failure
Fail Safe and
Damage Tolerant
Strategy
Safe Life and Infinite
Life Strategy
Loss of secondary
structural parts
1 1.15
Loss of entire
structure
1.15 1.3
Loss of human life 1.3 1.4
No specific recommendations
Outlines statistical considerations for safety and gives
partial safety factors for fatigue resistance based on
consequence of failure and life strategy for the
component, as follows:
I I W RECOMMENDATI ONS
No specific values of safety factors are given in BS
7608:1993.
However, for each class of joint the relationship between
the applied stress range and the endurance is as follows:
logN = log a
0
- d
o
- mlogAo= log a - mlog Ao
where N is the endurance
a
0
is the mean value of the S-N curve constant
d is the number of standard deviations below the mean
o is the standard deviation of logN
m is the inverse slope of the logAo versus logN (S-N) curve
Ao is the stress range
a is value of the S-N curve constant used for
design/assessment purposes.
BS 7608: 1993
Nominal Probability of
Failure (%)
d
50 0

31 0.5
16 1.0
2.3 2.0 #
0.14 3.0
mean line curve
# standard design curve
In particular the values of d are related to the nominal
probabilities of failure as follows:
Thus, the standard design curve would be obtained through
the use of a value of d of 2.0, but as indicated in Annex A of
the document, other values could be taken depending on the
consequential criticality of fatigue cracking.
BS 7608: 1993 .Cont d.
In all codes, there tend to be some form of characteristic
curve, although their derivation may differ from code to
code.
The designer, in using the S-N curves and possibly
making comparisons between fatigue lives derived from
different documents, would not necessarily be cognizant
of these subtle differences.
Such comparisons would therefore include inherent
safety factor differences due to the different derivations
of the characteristic S-N curves.
S-N CURVES I N w.r. t o SAFETY FACTORS
Document Basis for Characteristic/Design S-N Curve
NORSOK
N-004
mean minus two x standard deviation on logN test data
HSE 4th Ed
GNs
mean minus two x standard deviation on logN test data
EURO
CODE 3
75% confidence interval of 95% probability of survival for
logN test data, accounting for standard deviation and
sample size
ISO/CD
13819-2
95% confidence interval of 97.5% probability of survival
for logN test data
API RP2A Lower bound on test data
IIW 95% probability of survival for logN test data, from mean
value two-sided 75% confidence level
BS
7608:1993
mean minus two x standard deviation on logN test data
BASES OF DERI VATI ON OF EACH OF THE
CHARACTERI STI C SETS OF S-N CURVES
MODI FI CATI ONS TO S-N CURVES
Thickness effects
In all the documents the S-N curves provided are based on a
standard thickness t
0
. To account for components that have
thicknesses that are in excess of this, the stress ranges are
changed in the following way:
whereAot is the increased value of stress range
Ao is the original value of stress range
t is the thickness of the component under
consideration
t
0
is the thickness associated with the S-N
curve under consideration
q is a thickness correction exponent.
q
t
|
|
.
|

\
|
A = A
0
1

BS 5400 Part 10
The number of repetitious of failure, N of any stress
range, o
r
is obtained from the following equation
Log
10
N = log
10
k
2
m log
10
o
r
Value of k
2
and m are obtained from the following table-
S-N CURVE RELATI ONSHI PS
Detail class m k
2

0
(N/mm
2
)
W 3.0 0.16 X 10
12
25
G 3.0 0.25 X 10
12
29
F2 3.0 0.43 X 10
12
35
F 3.0 0.63 X 10
12
40
E 3.0 1.04 X 10
12
47
D 3.0 1.51 X 10
12
53
C 3.5 4.23 X 10
13
78
B 4.0 1.01 X 10
15
100
S 8.0 2.08 X 10
22
82
Table 8* :
r
N relationships and constant amplitude non-
propagation stress range values
*Table No. corresponds to the one given in code.
o
0
corresponds to N = 10
7
cycles.
The characteristic S-N curve is designated by the stress range
corresponding to 2 million cycles. The fatigue strength curves
for nominal normal stresses are defined by
log N = log a m * log Ao
R
where,
Ao
R
is the fatigue strength
N is the number of cycles to failure of stress range Ao
R
m is the constant slope of the fatigue strength curves
log a is a constant which depends on the specific segment of
the fatigue curve
A&C SLI P NO. 18 TO STEEL BRI DGE CODE
Fat igue St rengt h Curve
Fat igue St rengt h Curve f or Shear
Detail
Category
Ao
C
(N/mm
2
)
log a for N s 10
8
Stress Range at
Constant
amplitude
Fatigue limit
(N = 5*10
6
)
Ao
D
(N/mm
2
)
Stress Range
at
Cut off limit
(N = 10
8
)
Ao
L
(N/mm
2
)
Limiting
Stress
Range
(N = 10
4
)
Ao
SL
(N/mm
2
)
N s 5 * 10
6
m = 3
N > 5 * 10
6
m = 5
160 12.913 17.056 118 65 936
140 12.739 16.766 103 57 819
125 12.592 16.520 92 51 731
112 12.449 16.282 83 45 655
100 12.301 16.036 74 40 585
90 12.164 15.807 66 36 526
80 12.010 15.551 59 32 468
71 11.855 15.292 52 29 415
63 11.699 15.032 46 25 368
56 11.546 14.777 41 23 327
50 11.398 14.531 37 20 292
45 11.261 14.302 33 18 263
40 11.107 14.046 29 16 234
36 10.970 13.817 27 15 211
Table -1 Numerical values for fatigue strength curves for normal stress
ranges
Detail
Category
At
C
(N/mm
2
)
log a for N s
10
8
m = 5
Stress Range
at
Cut off limit
(N = 10
8
)
At
L
(N/mm
2
)
Limiting
Stress
Range
(N = 10
4
)
At
SL
(N/mm
2
)
100 16.301 46 289
80 15.816 37 231
Table - 2 Numerical values for fatigue strength curves
for shear stress ranges
Analytical Method
Step 1 Take the S-N curve equation of given in other
International Code
(say BS:5400 Part 10 )
Log
10
N = log
10
k
2
m log
10
o
r
Step 2 Substitute the value of coefficients from table-
8 for the fatigue category chosen and re-write the equation
of S-N curve with relevant coefficients e.g. for category D
in BS:5400 Part-10
m = 3.0, k
2
=1.52 x 10
2
, o
0
=53 N/mm
2
So log
10
N = log
10
1.2 x 10
2
3 log
10
o
r
Or log
10
N = 12.18 3 log
10
o
r
DETERMI NATI ON OF CATEGORY EQUI VALENT
TO A&C SLI P NO. 18
Step 3 Find out the o
r
value from above equation,
corresponding to N = 2 million cycle which will be
equivalent fatigue category as per A&C Slip No. 18 to
IRS Steel Bridge Code.
e.g.for the above case
log
10
(2 x 10
6
) = 12.18 3 log
10
o
r
or, 3 log
10
o
r
= 12.18 - log
10
2 x 10
6
= 5.88
Or, log
10
o
r
= 1.96
o
r
= 10
1.96
= 91.25
Fatigue category 90 of A&C Slip No. 18 can be considered
equivalent to category D of BS 5400 Part -10
DETERMI NATI ON OF CATEGORY EQ. TO A&C SLI P NO. 18
(.cont d.)
GRAPHI CAL METHOD
Step 1 Take the plot of S-N curve of other International Code
(Say BS:5400 Part 10) and select the fatigue category , say
Category G.
Step 2 Simply read the value of stress range on y Axis,
corresponding to 2 million cycles on x Axis.
Step 3 compare this value with the Fatigue categories of the
characteristic S-N curves of A&C Slip No. 18 to IRS
Code and select the equivalent fatigue category
nearby.
Graphical Method (contd.)
S.No. BS:5400 Part 10 Euro Code or A&C Slip
No. 18
1 B 150
2 C 125
3 D 90
4 E 80
5 F 71
6 F2 63
7 G 50
8 W 40 or 45
9 S 95
COMPARI SON OF FATI GUE CATEGORI ES OF BS 5400
PART 10 WI TH EURO CODES OR A&C SLI P NO. 18
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fat igue Cat egories Det erminat ion using Dif f erent Codes
Fatigue Categories as per BS:5400 Part 10
Fatigue Categories as per BS:5400 Part 10
Fatigue Categories as per BS:5400 Part 10
S-N Curves are varying in different codes with respect to
standard deviations chosen on test data or the
probability of survival with a specified confidence
interval.
The Different codes prescribe different partial safety
factors on S-N Curves used for fatigue assessment.
These safety factors are to be chosen with respect to the
accessibility of the member detail for inspection and
maintenance and the design approach to be used such
as fail safe or damage tolerant.
Modifications to fatigue categories are to be made with
respect to thickness of the members or connections.
These modification factors are assessed differently in
different codes.
RESULTS & CONCLUSI ONS
Fatigue category of specified S-N Curve of any other
international standard can be found out analytically
or graphically for comparison with draft IRS
provisions given in A&C slip no. 18.
The comparison of fatigue categories of various
codes is shown in Annexure A. It can be noted that
the different codes have different nomenclature for
the fatigue categories. The fatigue categories of BS
5400 part 10 are separately shown in Annexure- B.
RESULTS & CONCLUSI ONS (.cont d)