Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr
Abstract
In general, two different approaches to the formulation of the fatigue limit state are considered, the first based on S–N lines in combination
with Miner’s damage accumulation rule, and the second based on fracture mechanics crack growth models and failure criteria. Often, the two
approaches are used sequentially, with S–N being used at the design or preliminary assessment stage and fracture mechanics for more refined
remaining life or inspection and repair estimates. However, it is essential to link the results, and the decisions made, at the design and assessment
stages, and it is therefore important to develop compatible methodologies for using these two approaches in tandem. In doing so, it is essential
to understand and quantify different uncertainty sources and how they might affect the robustness of the results obtained, and the subsequent
decisions made about the structure. The objective of this paper is to highlight parts of recent research at the University of Surrey on the fatigue
assessment of steel bridges. The work includes the development of a probabilistic fracture mechanics methodology for the prediction of fatigue
reliability, using up-to-date crack growth and fracture assessment criteria and incorporating information on inspection and subsequent management
actions.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Crack growth; Fatigue; Fracture mechanics; Inspection; Steel bridges; Structural reliability
1. Introduction particular resistance and load modelling issues but also the
first papers dealing with a complete methodology for fatigue
Over the last twenty years or so, probabilistic methods for reliability evaluation were being produced, including updating
the assessment of fatigue reliability have attracted significant following inspection and repair [1–5]. In the following years,
attention. In the civil engineering field, much of the research, this approach was adopted by offshore operators for estimating
from the mid-80s onwards, was directed towards applications remaining fatigue life, and for determining inspection plans, of
in offshore structures, in particular tubular joints subject ageing structures [6–8].
to stochastic loading. This effort was aided considerably In the past decade, considerable interest has arisen in
by progress in experimental techniques associated with the adapting and implementing these techniques for applications
measurement of crack growth data under laboratory conditions, in metallic bridges, thus focusing on fatigue details found in
and the development of technology aimed at measuring cracks girders and plated structures subjected to traffic loading [9–13].
in actual structures. The characteristics of bridge live loading being substantially
At the same time, advances in probabilistic methods, different from wave loading on offshore structures, led to
especially the concerted effort in developing structural revised formulations for the reliability problem. In parallel with
reliability methods for damage accumulation problems under these developments, improved methods for fatigue and fracture
time-varying loads, made it possible to cast fatigue assessment assessment were actively being pursued for other structures,
problems in a reliability format. As a result, by the late 80s, not e.g. nuclear plants [14] and ships [15].
only had a large number of publications appeared addressing An additional factor, contributing to an increased interest
in fatigue design and assessment, has been the flurry of
activity associated with the development of a new generation
∗ Corresponding address: Department of Civil Engineering, School of
of structural codes, both at national and international level;
Engineering, University of Surrey, GU2 7XH, Guildford, Surrey, UK. Tel.: +44
1483 686 632; fax: +44 1483 450 984. for example, a new European standard for fatigue design [16]
E-mail address: mkchry@surrey.ac.uk (M.K. Chryssanthopoulos). has been prepared, whilst other documents have been updated
and extended in order to incorporate recent developments in to present a case study, pertaining to welded bridge details, in
fracture mechanics assessment methods [17]. The underlying which the proposed procedures are implemented and utilised
philosophy in these regulatory bodies, as well as amongst in support of decision making. As will become evident, much
owners and operators, is increasingly focusing on the need work has been, and is still being, carried out in this area
to introduce probabilistic concepts for fatigue life prediction. stemming from different industrial sectors and applications.
Thus, the development of probabilistic fatigue models, and their Thus, it is considered essential to sift through and process
testing and validation through examples and case studies, could information from experiments and field observations, as well
considerably enhance available guidance documents. In this as to integrate and consolidate the procedures to be followed in
respect, the effort of the Joint Committee of Structural Safety fatigue reliability analysis.
in developing the Probabilistic Model Code [18] is of particular
note. 2. S–N approach
In general, two different approaches to the formulation of
the fatigue limit state may be considered, the first based on An S–N curve is a relation between the stress range under
S–N curves in combination with Miner’s damage accumulation constant amplitude loading and the number of stress cycles to
rule, and the second based on fracture mechanics crack growth failure. The standard S–N curve can be expressed in the form
models and associated failure criteria. Often, as can be seen of:
in some of the references cited above, the two approaches are
N Sm = A (1)
used sequentially, with S–N being used at the ‘design’ stage
and fracture mechanics at the ‘assessment’ stage, in other words where N is the number of stress cycles to failure at a
for new and existing structures respectively. In the former case, constant amplitude stress range S, A and m are the material
the purpose of a fatigue analysis is to determine a design life, parameters. Sometimes a model with two segments is used,
associated with a target reliability, whereas in the latter the having parameters A1 and m 1 , A2 and m 2 . The stress range
objective is to determine inspection intervals or time to repair, level at which the two curves intersect is defined by A1 S0m 1 =
once more linked to target reliabilities. A2 S0m 2 .
It is often desirable to link the results, and hence the Many steels subjected to pure constant amplitude loading
decisions, at the ‘design’ and ‘assessment’ stages. Thus, it is in inert environments exhibit a fatigue limit, i.e. a stress level
important to develop compatible methodologies for using these below which fatigue failure appears to never occur. However, it
two approaches in tandem. Although the majority of engineers is generally accepted that even infrequent overloads (i.e. stress
working in the above mentioned industries are more familiar cycles that exceed the fatigue limit value) may lead to fatigue
with the S–N , rather than the fracture mechanics, approach for damage even though the vast majority of stress cycles are below
fatigue analysis, the latter is increasingly gaining ground as the fatigue limit. In essence, a fatigue limit no longer exists and
fitness-for-purpose criteria are becoming popular with owners every stress cycle is treated as damaging, as determined from
and regulators. the S–N curve(s) [19].
The fatigue process may be regarded as comprising three There are many sources of uncertainty in the fatigue process
stages; crack initiation, crack propagation and final failure. A and its analysis. Wirsching [20] has produced an itemised
fatigue analysis based on S–N curves, the latter being derived list, which includes the fatigue process itself, the extrapolation
from standard fatigue tests, typically lumps all three stages from laboratory test specimens and procedures to details in
into one, though the definition of failure within this context is real structures, the loading conditions, the local environment
not always clear. On the other hand, a fatigue analysis based (temperature, presence of water/humidity etc.), the dynamic
on fracture mechanics is concerned primarily with the second effects, as well as the stress analysis methods used to obtain
stage, though it can be extended to include final failure through estimates of local stress ranges from globally applied forces and
the introduction of appropriate limit state criteria related to displacements.
fracture resistance (which could be expressed in terms of a The uncertainty associated with S–N curves is typically as-
critical crack size). The extent to which a fracture mechanics sessed from laboratory tests on nominally identical specimens
approach can provide comparable information on fatigue life under constant amplitude loading. In a typical fatigue test, the
with that derived from S–N curves will depend, in part, on stress level (i.e. the independent variable) is specified and the
the number of load cycles expended during the initiation stage. cycles to failure (i.e. the dependent variable) are recorded. Un-
A common assumption in fatigue analysis of welded joints der these conditions, it has been observed that the distribution
is that the initiation stage is negligibly small compared to of ln N for a fixed value of S exhibits a variation which is in-
the propagation stage. This is because fatigue cracks develop dependent of S (at least until test results at very low stress lev-
from small defects introduced right from the outset in areas of els are considered), whereas the mean value of ln N varies lin-
stress concentration. The weld toe is considered as a critical early with ln S. In general, the lognormal distribution provides
area in which such cracks are often to be found. Clearly, this a better fit to N than other candidate distributions such as the
assumption needs to be evaluated for the specific prevailing Weibull distribution, though there is no apparent physical or
conditions. mathematical reason for this [20]. Assuming then that in Eq.
The objective of this paper is to highlight the key factors (1) the parameter m is deterministic and that the uncertainty is
that need to be considered in fatigue reliability analysis, and lumped into the second parameter A, it is easily shown that if
M.K. Chryssanthopoulos, T.D. Righiniotis / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 1199–1209 1201
the variable N follows a lognormal distribution with a coeffi- factors. However, as can be evidenced from the literature, it is
cient of variation equal to C N then A is also lognormal with a difficult to establish rigid rules regarding these issues; it is thus
coefficient of variation C A = C N . More general treatment of essential in any analysis, whether deterministic or probabilistic,
the uncertainty in ln S– ln N lines has been undertaken [21] al- to be aware of the idealisations and simplifications adopted,
lowing for joint probabilistic modelling of the material param- and the implications for uncertainty modelling. Straub [25] has
eters m and A, but in many practical applications the simpler reviewed studies pertaining to marine structures under wave
approach outlined above has been adopted. loads and has tabulated uncertainty levels for a factor, which
It should be emphasised that statistical analysis of standard acts as a multiplier on calculated stress ranges.
fatigue tests is a challenging task, as it requires careful In general, structures experience variable loading during
consideration of many factors, such as the merging of data from their life. Thus, fatigue loading is characterised by the number
different sources, influence of different failure criteria adopted of stress cycles and the magnitude of stress range for each
by different laboratories (e.g. ‘visible’ or through-thickness cycle. Moreover, fatigue damage is quantified in terms of the
crack), influence of specimen preparation as well as the contrast Palmgren-Miner rule. According to this rule, each load cycle
between laboratory and field conditions, etc. In recent years, causes fatigue damage proportional to the inverse of the fatigue
effort has been directed towards the development of the new life at that stress range amplitude. Therefore, letting Si be
Eurocode for fatigue [16]. The above, and many other, factors the stress range of the ith cycle, damage may be defined in
were assessed in producing S–N lines for different fatigue accordance with the Palmgren-Miner rule as
details [22]. n
The stress ranges in a fatigue analysis using the S–N
X 1
Dn = (2)
approach should be obtained bearing in mind the location i=1
N (Si )
of the detail within the structure as well as the basis of the
S–N curves used. For example, chord to brace connections in where N (Si ) is the number of cycles to failure at stress level Si .
offshore tubular joints are assessed using the so-called T-curve, It can readily be shown that by introducing a simple linear S–N
for which the ‘hot-spot’ stress range has to be determined. curve, see Eq. (1), Eq. (2) can be written as
The ‘hot-spot’ stress is related to the nominal stress in the 1 Xn
1
brace through empirical stress concentration factors, usually Dn = Sim = ψ L (t) (3)
developed from limited parametric studies using experiments A i=1 A
or finite element analyses of typical geometries. On the other where ψ L (t) may be referred to as the ‘fatigue loading’. In a
hand, for many other fatigue details the corresponding S–N deterministic format the Palmgren-Miner rule simply states that
lines take into account the local stress concentrations created by damage increments, expressed as life fractions, are additive and
the joints themselves or by the weld profile [23]. The relevant independent of sequencing, and that fatigue failure is expected
stress ranges to be used could then be determined from the when such fractions sum to unity (i.e. Dn = 1). Experience
nominal stresses present in the vicinity of the joint. However, if shows that this sum at failure is subject to considerable
the detail is situated in a region of stress concentration resulting uncertainty; for example, analyses undertaken in relation to
from the overall shape of the structure, this must be accounted offshore structures have revealed median values between 0.8
for in estimating the nominal stress. The different approaches, and 1.2, and even wider variations are reported for bridge
adopted in fatigue assessment of welded joints, have been details. Wirsching [20] has suggested that, in the absence of
reviewed by Fricke [24]. specific data for the problem in hand, a lognormal distribution
As far as probabilistic modelling is concerned, the important with a median value of unity and a coefficient of variation of
message from the above is that modelling uncertainties are 0.30 may be adopted for the damage at failure.
involved both in the method for calculating nominal stresses On the other hand, ψ L (t) may be described through
in the vicinity of a fatigue sensitive detail and in the a probability function, whose nature depends on the
estimation of stress concentration factors due to gross and characteristics of the underlying loading process. For some
local discontinuities, or due to deviations from an ideal shape. models the expectation of the mth moment of the arbitrary
The mean value and coefficient of variation adopted for such point-in-time distribution of the stress range is sufficient. In
model uncertainty variables would vary depending on the general, the derivation of the appropriate probabilistic model
type of global analysis procedures (e.g. finite element vs. for ψ L (t) is application specific.
simplified theory), on the characteristics of the local geometry
and of the detail itself, as well as on the factors included in 3. Fracture mechanics approach
the derivation of the relevant S–N curve. Typically, effects
associated with residual stresses, weld profiling, environment 3.1. Crack growth relationships
(e.g. air vs. water), through thickness stress variation (for
a reference plate thickness) and fabrication tolerances are Crack growth is a process not fully understood at the atomic
included in the derivation of any particular S–N curve, whereas level but for which macroscopic observations have been made,
effects associated with post-weld treatment (e.g. grinding), and models have been developed. Crack growth can occur under
difference in plate thickness (from a reference value), global cyclic loading, however, in a hostile chemical environment, it
discontinuities etc. are accounted for through modification can even take place in the presence of statically applied loads.
1202 M.K. Chryssanthopoulos, T.D. Righiniotis / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 1199–1209
Fig. 3. Buried elliptical crack located in a plate of thickness t (The direction of 4. Limit state functions
the applied loading is perpendicular to the indicated plane).
4.1. S–N approach
3.4. Initial defect size
For the S–N approach, the limit state function may be given
As can be seen from Eq. (17), the fracture mechanics by
approach considers the growth of a crack from an initial size to ξ
ψ L (t)
a critical size. The initial crack size distribution is one of the key Tp
g( X̃ , t) = 1 − D = 1 − m
Bscf m
Bglob (19)
inputs in determining fatigue lives through the LEFM methods A TB
presented in the preceding section. It should be emphasised
that the application of LEFM implies that the stress intensity where X̃ is the vector of random variables, t is any point in
factor concept is meaningful in describing crack growth [47]. time, ξ is the thickness correction factor [51], 1 is Miner’s
As reported by Straub [25], recent studies seem to indicate damage sum at failure, T p is the actual thickness of the plate
that 0.1 mm is a reasonable lower bound for the application and TB is the reference plate thickness. In Eq. (19), Bscf and
of LEFM in common metallic structures. Bglob are model uncertainties associated with global and local
In engineering structures, many possible mechanisms lead stress analysis. In the work of Shetty and Baker [3–5] pertaining
to the presence of cracks, arising from material processing or to welded tubular joints for offshore applications, a lognormal
manufacturing factors. Cracks may be classified as buried or distribution is proposed with a mean of unity and a coefficient
surface, and for analysis purposes such cracks are generally of variation of 0.20 and 0.10 for Bscf and Bglob respectively.
idealised as elliptical, semi-elliptical or quarter-elliptical. Fig. 3 Straub [25] reports higher CoV values from published literature
shows schematically an elliptical crack that lies below the pertaining to ships, offshore structures and FPSOs, and mean
surface, and is characterised through the dimensions, a, c and values in the range from 0.7 to 1.0.
s. Surface defects (i.e. s = 0) are usually more dangerous than
4.2. Fracture mechanics approach
embedded defects, particularly in welded structures, because
(a) they are associated with higher Y factors, (b) they are often Using the fracture mechanics approach, the limit state
located at stress concentrations, which further increase Y and function can be formulated as
(c) they are oriented normal to the principal stress. Moreover,
their presence is caused by limitations in workmanship and g( X̃ , t) = ac − a(t) (20)
their initial size tends to be larger than that of embedded
where ac is a limiting crack depth (for example plate thickness)
cracks for the normal range of component thickness. Intentional
and a(t) is the crack depth after a service exposure of time
or unintentional lack of penetration in butt welds form an
t. Starting from an initial crack depth of a0 , the crack depth
exception to this last observation, however, experience supports
a(t) after time t can be calculated using the crack growth
the view that many fatigue cracks in welded structures tend to
propagation models highlighted above. In this case, a(t) is a
grow from an initial surface defect [2,48].
function of random variables such as initial defect size, fatigue
Meaningful statistics on crack frequency, size and location
material properties, uncertainties in service loading, model
are difficult to obtain, due to measuring and sampling issues.
uncertainties, etc. (see Eq. (17)).
That said, in the past twenty-five years there have been
Alternatively, in terms of a fatigue resistance function and
several studies aimed at improving our understanding and
a fatigue loading function, the limit state function can also be
providing quantitative information on relevant crack parameters
expressed as
for different detail geometries used in a range of structural
1 ac
Z
applications (ships, offshore platforms, nuclear etc.). Crack dx
g( X̃ , t) = m Y m M m (π x/Q )m/2
size distributions are typically modelled by exponential or C a0 G a Uam Bsif a ka a
lognormal distributions, whereas the occurrence rate is assumed m
− Bglob m
Bscf ψ L (t) (21)
to be Poisson distributed. Information on crack aspect ratios
(a/c) is very limited, though there have been some attempts where Bsif is a model uncertainty associated with the estimation
to determine the sensitivity of fatigue reliability towards this of the stress intensity factor; in general, this will be influenced
parameter under simplified conditions (e.g. c and a are either by the methods used for determining both Y and Mk factors.
independent or fully correlated). A review of published data on At present, it is suggested to model Bsif as a lognormal variable
initial defect distributions can be found in [2,25,49]. Straub [25] with a mean of unity and coefficient of variation in the range
also addresses the issue of small crack growth, based on the from 0.07 to 0.20. Lower variability may be appropriate if the
1206 M.K. Chryssanthopoulos, T.D. Righiniotis / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 1199–1209
g( X̃ , t) = f (K r , L r ) (22)
where K r is the fracture ratio, L r is a measure of the proximity
to plastic collapse and f (.) is an appropriate interaction
criterion, as for example given in BS7910 [17]. In this approach
failure occurs when a stress cycle occurs that causes the residual
load bearing capacity of the cross section to be exceeded. The Fig. 4. Comparison between the BS 5400 [58] mean and 97.7% probability of
residual load bearing capacity depends on the actual crack size survival lines for class E and their FM for a butt weld counterparts. Also shown
and the interaction between plastic resistance and the brittle in the figure are the results presented in [56] and [57].
fracture. The quantities K r and L r are defined as follows [17]:
5.1. S–N based FM model calibration
K s + K res Sref
Kr = + ρ; Lr = (23) As was previously discussed, one of the greatest uncertain-
K mat Sy
ties related to the fatigue process arises from the initial crack
where K mat is the material fracture toughness, K s is the stress size distribution. This distribution will be a function of the man-
intensity factor for maximum applied stress, K res is the stress ufacturing process and the type of welded detail in question.
intensity factor for residual stresses, Sref (=S Bglob Bscf ) is the Since models describing the fatigue crack growth process (dis-
net section stress (function of the crack size), S y is the yield tributions and their parameters for C, m, K mat etc.) are fairly
stress and ρ is a factor, which accounts for the interaction well established (for example [17,32,52]), it is expedient to
between primary (loading) and secondary (residual) stresses. use the appropriate S–N curve, or alternatively published S–N
The crack size a may be determined from the fatigue data, to calibrate the FM model in terms of the initial defect
crack growth models described above. Different residual stress size. This approach has been used in the past in the offshore
profiles for various cracked geometries and restraint conditions industry [6]. Note that for FM modelling as discussed in Sec-
may be assumed but their use implies that K res would need tion 3.3, whereby a crack possesses both depth and length, this
to be evaluated using either finite element techniques or calibration would have to be carried out in terms of both a0 and
the weight function method. A simplified (and conservative) c0 , or, alternatively, for a0 and (a/c)0 .
method would be to approximate the residual stress field via The limit state function (Eq. (21)) may be readily modified
a linear stress field subtended from the surface and crack tip to cater for the constant amplitude load case and the statistics of
stress values. The corresponding K res can then be obtained the fatigue life at different stress ranges obtained from Monte
by superposition of the tensile and bending solutions for the Carlo simulation. Stress intensity factors for the butt-welded
geometry in question. Further details of this approximation are detail are presented in [53]. Crack growth was modelled based
given by Tada et al. [37]. If the bending solution is not known, on the bi-linear model discussed in Section 3.1 (see Eq. (6))
in which case the previously mentioned procedure cannot be coupled with a fracture resistance model (see Section 4.3).
applied, the residual stress field may be assumed to be uniform. Distribution types and their parameters used for C, K mat etc.
This approach will, in general, yield very conservative results as well as the relevant detail dimensions may be found in [12,
for deep cracks and less conservative results for shallow cracks. 53]. Fig. 4 depicts the results of this type of analysis for a butt-
Clearly, if this approach is followed, the randomness in the welded plate. Also shown in this figure are the results reported
material fracture toughness needs to be considered. Several in [56] and the scatter band reported in [57].
models for fracture toughness have been developed. For The FM results (mean and mean − 2 std.dev.) presented
example, two [11,52,53], three [54] and four [55]-parameter in Fig. 4 were generated by assuming a0 and (a/c)0 log-
Weibull distributions have been used to describe fracture normally distributed with means 0.2, 0.01 and coefficients of
toughness. variation (CoV) of 0.2 and 0.2, respectively. Although these
5. Case studies values are not unique and other distribution types with different
mean–CoV combinations for a0 and (a/c)0 could have equally
To highlight some of the issues discussed previously, a been used to yield similar results, the proposed values compare
number of case studies are presented in this section. The fatigue well with published results in the literature (see [53] for further
reliability problem is here considered in terms of the FM discussion).
approach as this is applied to a butt-welded bridge detail (see It has to be noted that in the absence of specific data on
Fig. 2). initial defect sizes pertinent to the welded detail in question,
M.K. Chryssanthopoulos, T.D. Righiniotis / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 1199–1209 1207
Fig. 5. Basic reliability curve for a butt-welded detail. Fig. 6. Reliability curve for a butt-welded detail following multiple inspections
(no detection).
S–N based calibration of the FM model discussed here forms
a crucial step in a fatigue reliability analysis. Naturally, good
where the bar indicates a conditional event, Ti is the time
correlation between the experimentally based S–N data and
the FM results increases confidence when considering variable at which the inspection takes place and ai is the previously
amplitude loading. mentioned subspace, which is defined as a(Ti ) ≥ ad in the case
of crack detection and a(Ti ) < ad otherwise. The parameter ad
5.2. Fatigue reliability based on inspections is the detectable crack size, which is randomised through the
inspection method’s probability of detection (PoD).
Calibration of the FM model allows the treatment of the Using the modified limit state function of Eq. (24) and
variable amplitude case to proceed. Here the butt-welded detail assuming inspections using the ACFM method whose PoD
is assumed to be located at the mid-span of a 10 m bridge curve is given by [59]
girder. The loading characteristics were obtained by traversing
the BS 5400 Pt 10 Table 11 of vehicles [58] over the span 1
PoD(ad ) = 1 − (25)
and obtaining the relevant bending moment history assuming 1 + e2.2 (a d − 0.7)1.9
an annual vehicle flow of 106 . Bending moment ranges were
derived using the rainflow method and converted into stress leads to the results shown in Fig. 6. The scenario considered
ranges on the assumption that the detail’s S–N design fatigue in Fig. 6 involves multiple inspections at the times at which
life is 120 years. The associated basic reliability curve, obtained the reliability is violated (years 36, 47, 62 and 80) under the
using the limit state function of Eq. (20) is shown in Fig. 5. As assumption of no detection during these four inspections. Note
can be seen in this figure, the detail’s failure probability P f that the first branch of the ‘saw-tooth’ curve is the initial part
at year 120 of continuous operation is approximately 1.5 × of the curve shown in Fig. 5 and that each segment of the curve
10−2 . This compares well with the S–N anticipated failure represents a separate analysis. Fig. 6 demonstrates that in order
probability of 2.3 × 10−2 , which is not surprising in view of to maintain a P f = 10−3 for this detail, using ACFM and
the results presented in Fig. 4. A similar curve could have been assuming that at no stage cracks are detected, a minimum of
obtained using an S–N based probabilistic methodology (see four inspections would need to be carried out throughout the
Section 4.1). However, the great utility of the FM approach is detail’s life.
demonstrated when inspections and/or other types of invasive However, it has to be emphasised that different inspection
action are considered. To illustrate this point it is here assumed scenarios could have been considered if for example the bridge
that following the design and construction of the bridge, the owner had decided that inspections at those specific times were
owner has decided to impose a more stringent requirement on
unsuitable. It also has to be noted that the results of this type of
the detail’s reliability, namely P f = 10−3 . As can be seen
reliability analysis are rather sensitive to the inspection method
in Fig. 5, this requirement is violated at year 36 of operation.
used as well as the inspection outcome. This last point is
Clearly, an inspection is warranted at that time, which may or
highlighted in Fig. 7, whereby the fourth inspection at year
may not lead to crack detection.
80 results in crack detection. Since the failure probabilities
Modifications to the basic reliability problem to cater for a
become unacceptably high leading to a failure probability of
series of n inspections are introduced by considering a subset
of the fatigue crack sizes a(t) to reflect the outcome of these 0.26 at year 120, a decision has to be made regarding the
inspections. Accordingly, the limit state function (Eq. (20)) detail’s operation. Methods that can be used by the bridge
becomes owner in order to maintain the desirable reliability include
" # repair and/or imposition of load restrictions. The way some of
n
\ these techniques may be quantified within an FM-based fatigue
g( X̃ , t) = ac − a(t) a (T ) (24)
i=1 i i reliability analysis is discussed in the next case study.
1208 M.K. Chryssanthopoulos, T.D. Righiniotis / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 1199–1209
5.3. Fatigue reliability based on inspections and invasive play an important role in fatigue and fracture behaviour and to
actions focus attention on those which are of particular relevance to
the case in hand. Fatigue problems, and decisions, are multi-
Once again, for this case study the butt-welded detail is faceted and it is unwise to opt for a ‘one-size fits all’ approach.
selected. Here, however, it is assumed that, following the initial Procedures have been identified, tools exist, required data are
inspection at year 36 a crack is detected. The results of this slowly becoming available, and case studies can be consulted,
analysis are shown in Fig. 8 in the form of triangles. As can be but the need for well thought out benchmarking of analytical
seen, the detail’s fatigue reliability becomes unacceptably low results against experimental databases, careful probabilistic
almost immediately following crack detection (Pf = 2.1×10−2 modelling and clear understanding of the limitations associated
at year 36). It is here assumed that in the light of these results with any approach should not be underestimated.
the bridge owner decides to repair the crack by re-welding
the toe. This type of operation is assumed here to restore the Acknowledgments
crack depth to its as-welded state, in other words, a1 (T1 =
36) = a0 . Subsequent analysis results in the curve denoted in The first author would like to express his sincere thanks
Fig. 8 as ‘Detection & Re-welding’, which leads to a reliability to Prof. Ton Vrouwenvelder, TNO/TU Delft with whom he
violation at year 64. Thus, an inspection would have to be has had the opportunity to collaborate on probabilistic fatigue
undertaken at that time. The remaining two curves reflect the models within the Joint Committee of Structural Safety (JCSS).
two possible outcomes of this inspection i.e. detection and no The case studies presented in this paper have been produced
detection at year 64. Note that in this case, even the latter in the course of a project sponsored by the Highways Agency,
curve leads to violation of the reliability criterion at around year in co-operation with Flint and Neill and TWI. The opinions
104 of operation. At that point the bridge owner may consider expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not
the option of imposing load restrictions on the bridge and/or necessarily reflect those of the sponsors.
preventative repair even though a crack is not detected. The
imposition of load restrictions and a different type of repair, References
namely weld toe grinding, were considered for a different type
of welded detail in [13]. [1] Madsen HO, Skjong RK, Tallin AG, Kirkemo A. Probabilistic fatigue
crack growth analysis of offshore structures, with reliability updating
through inspection. In: Proc. SNAME marine structural reliability
6. Concluding remarks
symposium. 1987.
[2] Kirkemo F. Applications of probabilistic fracture mechanics to offshore
The application of structural reliability techniques to structures. Appl Mec Rev 1988;41(2):61–84.
fatigue related problems in welded steel structures has [3] Shetty NK, Baker MJ. Fatigue reliability of tubular joints in offshore
occupied intensively the engineering community for the past structures: Fatigue loading. In: Proc. 9th offshore mechanics and arctic
twenty years. An appropriate probabilistic framework, and engineering conf. ASME; 1990. p. 33–40.
[4] Shetty NK, Baker MJ. Fatigue reliability of tubular joints in offshore
associated methodology, has by now been established and
structures: Crack propagation model. In: Proc. 9th offshore mechanics and
used in the context of assessment, inspection and repair. arctic engineering conf. ASME; 1990. p. 223–30.
However, it is clear, from reviewing the literature, that [5] Shetty NK, Baker MJ. Fatigue reliability of tubular joints in offshore
considerable differences can still be found on key assumptions structures: Reliability analysis. In: Proc. 9th offshore mechanics and arctic
regarding fatigue and fracture behaviour, the parameters of the engineering conf. ASME; 1990. p. 231–9.
[6] Pedersen C, Nielsen JA, Riber JP, Madsen HO, Krenk S. Reliability based
probabilistic models and the idealised processes adopted for
inspection planning for the Tyra field. In: Proc. 11th OMAE offshore
representing random loading. It is of paramount importance mechanics and arctic engineering conf. ASME; 1992. p. 255–63.
to examine carefully for each application, be it an offshore [7] Hovde GO, Moan T. Fatigue reliability of TLP tether systems considering
node, a ship’s deck or a bridge girder detail, the factors that In: effect of inspection and repair. In: 7th BOSS conference. 1994.
M.K. Chryssanthopoulos, T.D. Righiniotis / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (2006) 1199–1209 1209
[8] Goyet J, Paygnard JC, Maroini A, Faber MH. Optimal inspection and [35] King RN. A review of fatigue crack growth rates in air and seawater.
repair planning: Case studies using IMREL software. In: Proc. 13th Offshore technology report OTR 511. London: Health and Safety
OMAE offshore mechanics and arctic engineering conf. ASME; 1994. Executive; 1998.
[9] Zhao Z, Haldar A, Breen FL. Fatigue reliability evaluation of steel [36] Austen I. Measurement of fatigue crack threshold values for use in design.
bridges. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 1994;120(5):1624–42. BSC Report SH/EN/9708/2/83/B. British Steel Corporation. 1983.
[10] Cremona C. Reliability updating of welded joints damaged by fatigue. Int [37] Tada H, Paris PC, Irwin GR. The stress analysis of cracks handbook. New
J Fatigue 1996;18(8):567–75. York: ASME; 2000.
[11] Lukić M, Cremona C. Probabilistic assessment of welded joints versus [38] Murakami Y. Stress intensity factors handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press;
fatigue and fracture. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 2001;127(2):211–8. 1987.
[12] Righiniotis TD, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Fatigue and fracture simulation [39] Rooke DP, Cartwright DJ. Compedium of stress intensity factors. London:
of welded bridge details through a bi-linear crack growth law. Struct Saf HMSO; 1976.
2004;2:141–58. [40] Hobbacher A. Stress intensity factors of welded joints. Eng Fract Mech
[13] Righiniotis TD. Influence of management actions on fatigue reliability of 1993;46(2):173–82.
a welded joint. Int J Fatigue 2004;26(3):231–9. [41] Bowness D, Lee MMK. Weld toe magnification factors for semi-elliptical
[14] Bullough R, Green VR, Tomkins B, Wilson R, Wintle JB. A review of cracks in T-butt joints. Offshore technology report. OTO 1999 014. HSE.
methods and applications of reliability analysis for structural integrity London. 1999.
assessment of UK nuclear plant. Int J Press Vessel Pip 1999;76: [42] Newman JC, Raju IS. An empirical stress intensity factor equation for the
909–19. surface crack. Eng Fract Mech 1981;15.
[15] Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y. Reliability of maintained ship hull girders [43] Mattheck C, Morawietz P, Munz D. Stress intensity factor at the surface
subject to corrosion and fatigue. Struct Saf 1998;20(3):201–19. and at the deepest point of semi-elliptical surface crack in plates under
[16] EN 1993-1-9. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures, Part 1-9: Fatigue. stress gradients. Int J Fract 1983;23:201–12.
Brussels: CEN/TC250; 2005. [44] Newman JC, Raju IS. Stress-intensity factor equations for cracks in
[17] British Standards Institution. BS7910: Guide on methods for assessing the three-dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and bending loads.
acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures. London. 2000. In: Atluri SN, editor. Computational methods in the mechanics of fracture.
[18] Joint Committee on Structural Safety. The probabilistic model code. New York: Elsevier North Holland; 1986.
Internet Publication. http://www.jcss.ethz.ch, 2001. [45] Elber W. The significance of fatigue crack closure. In: Damage tolerance
[19] Dowling NE. Mechanical behavior of materials. 2nd edition. New Jersey: in aircraft structures. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM
Prentice Hall; 1999.
STP 486. 1971.
[20] Wirsching PH. Probabilistic fatigue analysis. In: Sundararajan C, editor.
[46] Wirsching PH, Ortiz K, Chen YN. Fracture mechanics fatigue model in a
Probabilistic structural mechanics handbook. New York: Chapman and
reliability format. In: Proc. 6th offshore mechanics and arctic engineering
Hall; 1995.
conf. ASME; 1987.
[21] Madsen HO, Krenk S, Lind NC. Methods of structural safety. Englewood
[47] Schijve J. Fatigue of structures and materials. Kluwer Academic
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall Inc; 1986.
Publishers; 2001.
[22] Background Document for prEN 1993-1-9. RWTH. Institute of Steel
[48] Maddox S. Fatigue strength of welded structures. Cambridge: Abington
Construction. 1st Draft. 2002.
Publishers; 1991.
[23] Suresh S. Fatigue of materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
[49] Harris DO. Probabilistic fracture mechanics. In: Sundararajan C, editor.
1991.
Probabilistic structural mechanics handbook. New York: Chapman and
[24] Fricke W. Fatigue analysis of welded joints: State of development. Mar
Hall; 1995.
Struct 2003;16(3):185–200.
[50] Lassen T. Experimental investigation and stochastic modelling of
[25] Straub D. Generic approaches to risk based inspection planning for steel
the fatigue behaviour of welded steel joints. Ph.D. thesis. Denmark:
structures. In: IBK-Bericht Nr. 284. Institute of Structural Engineering.
University of Aalborg; 1997.
ETH Zurich. 2004.
[26] Taylor D. Geometrical effects in fatigue: A unifying theoretical treatment. [51] Guerney TR. Fatigue of welded structures. Cambridge: Cambridge
Int J Fatigue 1999;21:413–20. University Press; 1979.
[27] Paris PC, Erdogan F. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. J Basic [52] Burdekin FM, Hamour W. Partial safety factors for SINTAP procedure.
Eng (ASME) 1963;85:528–34. Offshore technology report. OTO 2000 020. HSE. London. 2000.
[28] Ditlevsen O. Random fatigue crack growth—a first passage problem. Eng [53] Righiniotis TD, Chryssanthopoulos MK. Probabilistic fatigue analysis
Fract Mech 1986;23(2):467–77. under constant amplitude loading. J Constr Steel Res 2003;59(5):867–86.
[29] Lin YK, Yang JN. A stochastic theory of fatigue crack propagation. AIAA [54] Wallin K. The scatter in KIC results. Eng Fract Mech 1984;19(6):
J 1985;23(1). 1085–93.
[30] Zheng R, Ellingwood BR. Stochastic fatigue crack growth in steel [55] Kunin B. A new type of extreme value distributions. Eng Fract Mechs
structures subject to random loading. Struct Saf 1998;20:303–23. 1997;58(5–6):557–70.
[31] McAllister TP, Ellingwood BR. Evaluation of crack growth in miter [56] Keating PB, Fisher JW. Evaluation of fatigue tests and design criteria
gate weldments using stochastic fracture mechanics. Struct Saf 2001;23: on welded details. Washington: Transportation Research Board; NCHRP
445–65. 286; 1986.
[32] King RN, Stacey A, Sharp JV. A review of fatigue crack growth rates for [57] Gurney TR. The basis of the new fatigue design rules for welded joints.
offshore steels in air and seawater environments. In: Proc. 15th OMAE In: Rockey KC, Evans HR, editors. The design of steel bridges. 1982.
offshore mechanics and arctic engineering conf. ASME; 1996. p. 475–85.
[33] Fisher JW, Mertz DR, Zhong A. Steel bridge members under variable [58] British Standards Institution. BS 5400: Part 10. Steel, concrete and
amplitude long life fatigue loading. Washington: Transportation Research composite bridges. Code of practice for fatigue. London. 1980.
Board; NCHRP 267. 1983. [59] TWI Ltd. NDT capability for the detection and sizing of surface-breaking
[34] Fisher JW, Nussbaumer A, Keating PB, Yen BT. Resistance of welded fatigue cracks in welded steel bridges. Rep no 12539/1/01. In: Fatigue
details under variable amplitude long life fatigue loading. Washington: assessment of steel bridge components with existing cracks. Highways
Transportation Research Board; NCHRP 354. 1993. Agency Contract 3/284. 2001.