FATIGUE LIFE ASSESSMENT OF STEEL BRIDGES

Ravindra Kumar Goel1

Dinesh Kumar 2

(Presented in IPWE Seminar on Bridge Design, Construction, Rehabilitation &

Maintenance at Chennai, Jan, 2006)

ABSTRACT

The paper presents a study of existing provisions of Indian Railway Standard

Steel Bridge Code and the BS-5400, Part-10 in respect of fatigue design of
Railway Bridges. The fatigue design concepts of the two codes have been
discussed and the observed short comings of IRS Steel Bridge Code have been
listed. Provisions of, BS-5400 Part-10 which are based on S-N curve approach
are found quite elaborate, covering different loadings, loading situations, route
GMT, class of connection etc. The design provisions for Railway Bridges given
in BS-5400 have been briefly discussed in this paper and the assessment of
fatigue life of IRS bridges has been done using the simplified method given in the
code. Standard type RU Loading adopted in BS-5400 is found heavier in
comparison of IRS Loading, therefore the fatigue life assessment made is
expected to be on conservative side. The limitations and the assumptions of the
study are discussed and the areas of future research have been identified.

INTRODUCTION

The Code of Indian Railway Standards for Steel Bridge recommends method to
allow for the effect of fatigue in design of parts of steel bridges, which are
subjected to repeated fluctuations of stress. These fluctuations may cause
fatigue failure of members or connections at lower stresses than those at which
they would fail under static load. Such failures are primarily due to stress
concentrations introduced by the constructional details. Thus 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.

________________________________________________________________________
1
Director, Bridges & Structures Directorate, Research Designs & Standards
Organization, Indian Railways, Manak Nagar, Lucknow-226001
2
Section Engineer/Design, Research Designs & Standards Organization, Indian
Railways, Manak Nagar, Lucknow-226001

148
 To allow for the effect of fatigue the allowable working stress is determined
from the Appendix G of IRS Steel Bridge Code for wide range of constructional
details. The code covers mild and high tensile steel fabricated or connected by
welding, riveting or bolting. The allowable stress P depends on the ratio of
minimum stress min to maximum stress max, number of repetitions of stress
cycle N, the method of fabrication and the type of connection. In determining
the ratio min/max gross area is considered. The code classifies the
constructional details into seven classes i.e. Class A to Class G according to type
of steel, type of fabrication and connection. All the details are designed such that
the stress induced under design loads are within the allowable limits.

The allowable stresses are the principal stress at the point under
consideration. Thus in the design of girder the combined effect of both bending
and co-existent shear stress is considered and the bridge members are generally
designed for 10 million cycles of stresses produced under the design load.
Concept of EUDL (Equivalent Uniformly Distributed Load) is used to determine
the maximum bending moment and maximum shear force for the type of IRS
loading. The EUDL for maximum bending moment and maximum shear force
depends upon the span and the dynamic augment increases with speed. IRS
Bridge Rules gives tables for determination of EUDL for maximum bending
moments and shear forces alongwith the co-efficient of dynamic augment for
maximum speed of 160 kmph.

SHORT COMINGS OF IRS APPROACH

1. There is no rational basis for adopting counts of 10 million number of cycle

to determine the allowable stress levels.
2. Fatigue is a cumulative phenomenon; this is not reflected in the above
procedure.
3. Stress-ratio procedure does not take into account the effect of all stress
ranges experienced by a member.
4. Material S-N curve forms the basis of all fatigue analysis and design
which is not the case with the present procedure.
5. 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.

DESIGN PROVISIONS OF BS-5400

BS-5400 part 10 is a comprehensive code which is based on the concept of

cumulative fatigue damage. The code concerns with the fatigue design
methodology for highway and railway bridges and take into consideration the
various drawbacks of IRS approach. 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 wherein the number

149
of cycles to failure is dependent only on stress range and not on maximum stress
values. For fatigue assessment of Railway bridges the methodology has been
given in the code. The methodology for determination of stress range has been
described for welded and non-welded details and a simplified procedure has
been given for determining the limiting value of the maximum range of stress for
the specified design life for two different types of standard loadings. The code
specifies different factor k1, k2, k3, k4 & k5 for design parameters such as design
life, multiple cycle of stress loading, type of standard loading, annual GMT and
multiple lane loading respectively. The code gives specific methodology and
tables to calculate the factors for different design parameters.

Calculation of Limiting Stress Range, T

The constant amplitude non-propagating stress range, 0 for the

constructional detail is chosen appropriately on the basis of Table 17 & Table 8
of the code. The limiting stress range T can now be calculated for RU loading
as under:
T = k1. k2. k3. k4. k5. 0 ..(1)

Check for Design Adequacy

The design adequacy of the given detail is now checked as per Clause
9.2.2.2 and Clause 9.2.2.3 of the code. Where Rmax (Maximum Stress Range)
does not exceed T, i.e Rmax T, the detail may be considered to have a fatigue
life in excess of the specified design life. Where Rmax is more than T, we have
following two options:
1. The detail may be assessed by more precise procedure given in Clause
9.3 of the code.
2. The detail may be strengthened so as to reduce Rmax or it should be
designed to a higher class.

STANDARD TYPE LOADINGS

RU Loading
This loading allows for all combination of vehicles currently running or
projected to run on railways in Europe including United Kingdom and is to be
adopted for the design of bridges carrying main line railways of 1.4m gauge and
above. RU loading consists of four 250 kN concentrated loads preceded and
followed by a uniformly distributed load of 80 kN/m. The arrangement of this
loading is as shown in Fig.1

RL Loading
Nominal type RL loading consists of a single 200 kN concentrated load
coupled with a uniformly distributed load of 50 kN/m for loaded length up to
100m. For loaded lengths in excess of 100m the distributed a nominal load shall
be 50 kN/m for the first 100m and shall be reduced to 25 kN/m for lengths in

150
excess of 100m, as shown in Fig.2. Alternatively two concentrated nominal loads,
one of 300 kN and the other of 150 kN, spaced at 2.4m intervals along the track,
shall be used on deck elements where this gives a more severe condition.
These two concentrated loads shall be deemed to include dynamic effects. RL
loading is a reduced loading for use only on passenger rapid transit for use only
on passenger rapid transit railway systems on lines where main line locomotives
and rolling stock do not operate. This loading is apparently of an exclusive type
and not matching with any of IRS type of loading.

80 KN/m 250 250 250 250 80 KN/m

0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.8

m m m m m
No limitation No limitation

Fig.1 RU Loading

200 kN
50 kN/m
25 kN/m 25 kN/m

100m
No limitation No limitation

Fig.2 RL Loading

COMPARISON OF RU LOADING WITH IRS-MBG LOADING

A comparison of EUDL values of Bending Moment as per RU loading was

made with corresponding values for IRS-MBG loading (Table-1). It is found that
the EUDL values as per RU loading are on higher side as compared to IRS-MBG
loading.

151
 Table 1. EUDL for RU Loading and IRS MBG Loading

EUDL for maximum B.M. in kN

Span %age
SNo. (including dynamic augment)
in m difference
RU Loading IRS MBG loading
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 1 1000 980 2.04
2 2 10.07 980 2.76
3 3 1089 980 11.12
4 4 1351 1162 16.25
5 5 1541 1391 10.79
6 6 1652 1523 8.50
7 7 1817 1608 13.00
8 8 1951 1688 15.56
9 9 2066 1750 18.04
10 10 2171 1817 19.51
11 11 2268 2078 9.14
12 12 2359 2195 7.47
13 13 2447 2317 5.60
14 14 2531 2415 4.81
15 15 2613 2497 4.64
16 16 2694 2566 4.98
17 17 2773 2623 5.72
18 18 2851 2699 5.63
19 19 2927 2772 5.58
20 20 3003 2864 4.87
21 22 3153 3049 3.42
22 24 3301 3231 2.17
23 26 3447 3403 1.28
24 28 3592 3573 0.52
25 30 3736 3741 -0.15

FATIGUE LIFE ASSESSMENT OF STANDARD GIRDERS

The S-N curve based approach of BS-5400 has been tried on exiting design
of standard girders. The stresses calculated during the analysis and the cross
sections provided in the existing design have been used to workout the fatigue
life of the members provided. Following assumptions have been made during
this study -
1. Maximum stress range calculated as the difference of dead load stress
and the maximum stress likely to come in the member with DL &live load
with impact and occasional load.

2. The stresses due to load combination with occasional load have been
taken into consideration to find out the maximum stress range. This

152
 combination rarely occurs in practice, therefore the analysis can be
considered on conservative side.
3. Material properties are assumed to be as per Table-8 of BS-5400 and 0
value has been taken to be corresponding to detailed classification D of
this table.
4. The fatigue life of standard spans has been assessed by calculating the
design life factor k1. This factor has been worked out as Rmax/(0 x k3x k4)
and fatigue life calculations have been done by inversion, using the
equations given in Clause 9.2.3 of BS-5400 Pt.10 by taking fatigue life as
minimum of following:

120
Fatigue Life m
..(2)
k1
or
120
Fatigue Life m2
(3)
k1

Where m = 3.0 taken from Table-8 for detailed Class D.

5. It is pre-assumed that the loading event produces only one cycle of stress
and hence k2=1.0
6. Value of RU loading factor k3 has been taken from Table-4 of the code
considering the case of medium traffic loading, corresponding to the base
length (L) of the influence line diagram for detailed class D.
7. Value of GMT factor, k4 is assumed as 1.0 for GMT of 18 to 27 million
tonnes. For GMT other than this, the value of k4 have been taken from
Table-5 of the code.
8. Single lane loading has been assumed, hence value of lane factor, k 5 is
taken as 1.0.

Based on above assumptions, the design calculations for assessment of

fatigue life of standard plate girder spans are given in Table-2 for standard
annual GMT of 27 to 18. Table-3 gives the fatigue life assessment for different
annual GMTs on the route.
The fatigue life assessment has also been done for open web girder bridges
and the fatigue life of different members is found different based on the base
length (L) of the influence line diagram for that member. Table 4 (a), (b) & (c)
gives the typical calculations for assessment of fatigue life of various members of
30.5m, 45.7m & 61.0m span standard open web girders conforming to MBG
loading.

153
 Table 2. Fatigue Life Assessment of Standard Plate Girders for standard GMT

Stress (N/mm2) Stress RU

Dead Dead load Fatigu
Drawing A Range L' loading
Std. Span load +I.L. + L.L k1 e Life,
No. (mm2) pmin pmax Rmax (m) factor,
(kN) (kN) years
(N/mm2) k3
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
12.2 MBG B-1528 158.2 2531.18 43100 6.1 98.0 91.9 13.1 1.92 0.903 163
18.3 MBG B-1529 243.6 3108.6 46900 10.2 131 120.8 19.4 2.19 1.040 99
24.4 MBG B-1555 504.2 3939.5 77000 12.6 98.5 85.9 25.6 2.19 0.740 296
12.2 HM B-16002 158.2 0.2955.4 43800 5.7 106.5 100.7 13.1 1.92 0.990 123
24.4 HM B-16001 57.62 5076.5 94100 11.6 102.6 90.9 25.6 2.19 0.783 249
Table 3. Fatigue Life Assessment for Different GMTs

12.2 MBG 18.3 MBG 24.4 MBG 12.2 HM 24.4 HM

GMT Drg. No.B-1528 Drg. No.B-1529 Drg. No.B-1555 Drg. No.B-16002 Drg.No.B-16001
Route GMT factor, Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue Fatigue
k4 k1 life, k1 life, k1 life, k1 life, k1 life,
years years years years years
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
42-27 0.89 1.014 111 1.168 55 0.831 209 1.112 70 0.880 176
27-18 1.0 0.903 163 1.040 99 0.740 296 0.990 123 0.783 249
18-12 1.13 0.799 235 0.920 154 0.655 427 0.876 178 0.693 360
12-7 1.27 0.711 334 0.819 218 0.582 606 0.779 253 0.617 511
7-5 1.42 0.636 466 0.732 305 0.521 847 0.697 354 0.551 714
<5 1.6 0.564 667 0.650 437 0.462 1212 0.619 506 0.489 1021

154
Table 4(a) Assessment of Fatigue life of various members of standard OWG 30.5m span for
standard GMT
(Welded Through Type ,MBG loading, BA-11462)

2
0(N/mm ) =53 m=3
2
Dead load Stress ( t/cm ) RU k1 =
+I.L. + L.L Stress Design
Dead load A L' loading Rmax
Member + Occ. 2 DL+IL+LL Range 2 Life
(t) (cm ) 2 (m) factor, N/mm Rmax/
Load DL +Occ Rmax (t/cm ) (years)
k3 0*k3
(t) load

L0-L1 10.35 123.74 114.54 0.090 1.080 0.990 31.926 2.46 98.996 0.759 274
L1-L2 10.44 110.63 114.54 0.091 0.966 0.875 31.926 2.46 87.472 0.671 397
L2-L3 18.65 166.28 132.95 0.140 1.251 1.110 31.926 2.46 111.042 0.852 194
L0-U1 -19.67 -133.74 146.48 -0.134 -0.913 -0.779 31.926 2.46 -77.874 0.597 563
U1-L2 11.38 87.66 87.71 0.130 0.999 0.870 25.54 2.19 86.968 0.749 285
L2-U3 -3.9 22.77 70.67 0.050 0.322
0.713 19.16 2.19 60.460 0.521 517
-3.9 -50.4 77.34 -0.050 -0.652
U1-U2 -16.57 -106.19 124.52 -0.133 -0.853 -0.720 31.926 2.46 -71.972 0.552 713
U2-U3 -16.77 -108.67 124.52 -0.135 -0.873 -0.738 31.926 2.46 -73.803 0.566 662
U1-L1&
U3-L3 4.22 63.32 80.6 0.052 0.786 0.733 10.642 1.92 73.325 0.721 321

Stringer 4.13 140.29 174.2 0.030 1.036 1.006 5.321 1.53 100.600 1.241 41
X-girder 2.86 50.59 234 0.064 1.161 1.097 5.28 1.53 109.740 1.353 26

155
Table 4(b) Assessment of Fatigue life of various members of standard OWG 45.7m span for standard GMT
(Welded Through Type ,MBG loading, BA-11482)

2
0(N/mm ) =53 m=3
Dead load 2
Stress ( t/cm ) Stress
+I.L. + L.L k1 = Design
Dead A Range L' RU loading Rmax
Member + Occ. 2 DL+IL+LL 2 Rmax/ Life
load (t) (cm ) Rmax (m) factor, k3 N/mm
Load DL +Occ 2 0*k3 (years)
(t/cm )
(t) load

L0-L1 21.7 176.55 132.28 0.164 1.335 1.171 47.24 2.46 117.062 0.898 166
L1-L2 21.9 159.16 132.28 0.166 1.203 1.038 47.24 2.46 103.765 0.796 238
L2-L3 48.57 304.52 238.9 0.203 1.275 1.071 47.24 2.46 107.137 0.822 216
L3-L4 48.71 312.76 238.9 0.204 1.309 1.105 47.24 2.46 110.527 0.848 197
L0-U1 -38.5 -205.84 223.2 -0.172 -0.922 -0.750 47.24 2.46 -74.973 0.575 631
U1-L2 27.02 150.57 117.78 0.229 1.278 1.049 38.38 2.46 104.899 0.805 230
L2-U3 -16.6 -104.99 91.28 -0.182 -1.150 -0.968 32.48 2.46 -96.834 0.743 293
5.8 -32.6 91.28 0.064 -0.357
U3-L4 1.012 26.67 2.19 98.160 0.846 181
5.8 67.09 84.13 0.069 0.797
U1-U2 -36.91 -184.17 149.17 -0.247 -1.235 -0.987 47.24 2.46 -98.720 0.757 276
-
U2-U3 -37.46 -190.53 149.17 -0.251 -1.277 -1.026 47.24 2.46 102.614 0.787 246
-
U3-U4 -50.81 -257.79 201.06 -0.253 -1.282 -1.029 47.24 2.46 102.944 0.790 244
U1-L1& 5.09 67.61 78.6 0.065 0.860 0.795 11.81 1.92 79.542 0.782 251
U3-L3
Stringer 3.00 148.31 183.1 0.040 1.111 1.071 5.905 1.53 107.090 1.321 30
X-girder 2.68 55.86 253.5 0.016 1.112 1.096 5.28 1.53 109.640 1.352 27

156
 Table 4(c) Assessment of Fatigue life of various members of standard OWG 61m span for standard GMT
(Welded Through Type, MBG loading, BA-11582)

2
0(N/mm ) =
m=3
53
2
Dead load Stress ( t/cm ) Stress
Design
Dead +I.L. + L.L + A Range L' RU loading k1 =
Member 2 Rmax Life
load (t) Occ. Load (cm ) DL+IL+LL Rmax (m) factor, k3 2 Rmax/
2 N/mm (years)
(t) DL +Occ (t/cm ) 0*k3
load

L0-L1 42.2 271.5 229.92 0.184 1.181 0.997 63 2.46 99.730 0.765 268
L1-L2 42.2 302.08 229.92 0.184 1.314 1.130 63 2.46 113.031 0.867 184
L2-L3 90.5 530.88 402.08 0.225 1.320 1.095 63 2.46 109.525 0.840 202
L3-L4 90.5 542.65 402.08 0.225 1.350 1.125 63 2.46 112.453 0.862 187
L0-U1 -63.8 -311.57 299.6 -0.213 -1.040 -0.827 63 2.46 -82.700 0.634 470
U1-L2 46 223.45 151.09 0.304 1.479 1.174 54 2.46 117.447 0.901 164
L2-U3 -27.4 -153.21 127.6 -0.215 -1.201 -0.986 45 2.46 -98.597 0.756 277
U3-L4 9 91.74 115.19 0.078 0.796
0.997 36 2.46 147.680 1.133 268
9 -42.7 127.6 0.071 -0.335
U1-U2 -72.5 -318.83 243.6 -0.298 -1.309 -1.011 63 2.46 -101.121 0.776 257
U2-U3 -72.5 -316.25 243.6 -0.298 -1.298 -1.001 63 2.46 -100.062 0.767 265
U3-U4 -96.5 -415.54 324 -0.298 -1.283 -0.985 63 2.46 -98.469 0.755 279
U1-L1 & -13.8 90.18 98.69 -0.140 0.914 1.054 15.75 2.19 105.360 0.908 160
U3-L3
Stringer 8.15 166.74 180 0.057 1.183 1.126 7.875 1.71 112.565 1.242 41
X-girder 6.08 68.63 288 0.104 1.218 1.114 5.5 1.53 111.400 1.374 25

157
CONCLUSION

1.0 From maximum bending moment consideration the equivalent uniformly

distributed loads as per RU loading for medium traffic are found heavier as
compared to the corresponding EUDL for IRS MBG loading. The provision of
BS-5400 Part 10 for RU loading can be conveniently adopted for assessment of
fatigue life of plate girders designed for IRS loading. The assessed fatigue life of
existing IRS plate girders is found between 99 to 296 years for standard GMT of
18 27 million tonnes. Fatigue life of girders is affected by the average annual
GMT of the route quite significantly. For very low GMT routes (less than 5 GMT)
the fatigue life is found increased by about four times the fatigue life on standard
GMT routes. Therefore, for economical design of bridges, the route GMT should
be considered an important design parameter. The renewal of existing plate
girders, designed as per IRS Steel Bridge Code, can also be planned
economically keeping in view the assessed fatigue life with respect to the GMT of
the route.

2.0 The fatigue life analysis of different members of open web girder bridges
reveals that the stringers and cross girders are having fatigue life much shorter to
other members. Thus there is a need to rationalize the design of these
members.

LIMITATIONS AND AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH

1. Above study has been conducted for assessing the fatigue life of plate
girder bridges based on stress range concept of BS-5400 with D class of
connections. Actual fatigue life of connection is not assessed which may be
some what on lower side. Stress concentration factors for various type of
connections need to be established for better assessment.
2. The material S-N curve given in BS-5400 has been used in the study
assuming that the material characteristics of the Indian Steel (IS-2062) are the
same. The results need to be verified by testing on steel actually used in
fabrication of girders.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledges the support provided by Executive

Director (B&S), RDSO for undertaking this study. The assistance provided by
Shri R. K. Sharma, Section Engineer and Smt. Suman Verma, P.A. of B&S Dte.,
RDSO/ Lucknow is also thankfully acknowledged.

APPENDIX 1. REFERENCES

1. British Standard. (1980). BS:5400 Steel, Concrete and Composite

Bridges, Part 10, Code of Practice for Fatigue. British Standards
Institution, London.

158
2. British Standard (1980). BS-5400 : Steel, Concrete and Composition
Bridges, Part 2, Specification for Loads. British Standards Institution,
London.
3. Indian Railway Standard. (1962). Code of Practice for the Design of
Steel/Wrought Iron Bridges (Steel Bridge Code). Research Designs &
Standards Organisation, Ministry of Railways, Lucknow (U.P.).
4. Indian Railway Standard. (1986). Bridge Rules. Research Designs &
Standards Organisation, Ministry of Railways, Lucknow (U.P.).
5. Office of Research & Experiment. (1976). Statistical distribution of axle
loads and stresses in railway bridges. Report No. ORE D-128/RP5,
International Union of Railways, Paris.
6. Ravi, G. and Ranganathan, R. (1991). Critical study of fatigue design of
bridges as per BS:5400-Part 10. International symposium on Fatigue and
Fracture in Steel and Concrete Structures, Structural Engineering
Research Centre, Madras, India.
7. Gupta, R.K. and Goel, R.K. (2005), Review of Fatigue Provision of
BS:5400 for Design of Railway Bridges No. 312-313, Vol Lx1, Feb-May,
2005, Indian Railway Technical Bulletin, Research Design Standard
Organisation, Lucknow
8. UIC Code. (1994). Loads to be considered in Railway Bridge Design.
Leaflet No. 776-1, International Union of Railways, Paris.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

A = area of cross section;
k1-k5 = coefficients in simplified assessment procedure as adopted in BS-5400
Part-10;
N = no. of repetitions to failure of stress r;
o = constant amplitude non-propagating stress range (r at N=107);
pmax = maximum value of principal stress;
pmin = minimum value of principal stress;
r = range of stress (stress range);
Rmax = maximum stress range (pmax - pmin);
T = limiting stress range under standard loading.

159