Informational:

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS An Overview

nsba
National Steel Bridge Alliance
A Division of the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.
Main Menu Home Menu

The National Steel Bridge Alliance has published this document in its continuing effort to enhance the state-of-the-art of steel bridge design and construction in the United States.

Disclaimer
All data, specifications, suggested practices and drawings presented herein, are based on the best available information and delineated in accordance with recognized professional engineering principles and practices, and are published for general information only. Procedures and products, suggested or discussed, should not be used without first securing competent advice respecting their suitability for any given application. Publication of the material herein is not to be construed as a warranty on the part of the National Steel Bridge Alliance - or that of any person named herein - that these data and suggested practices are suitable for any general or particular use, or of freedom from infringement on any patent or patents. Further, any use of these data or suggested practices can only be made with the understanding that the National Steel Bridge Alliance makes no warranty of any kind respecting such use and the user assumes all liability arising therefrom.

Informational:
FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS An Overview
is when cracking occurs due to cyclic loading. Cyclic loading, primarily in tension, can lead to fatigue cracking even if the yield stress of the material, weld metal or fastener is never exceeded. The structural failure occurs when the fatigue crack grows to a sufficient size to cause an unstable fracture. Such fatigueinduced fracture can develop from a minute crack or flaw existing at some mechanical or metallurgical discontinuity or a location of stress concentration. With successive load repetitions, the crack or flaw may grow and propagate through the material until the affected member fractures. The fatigue strength of a connection or detail on a member is governed by three variables: (1) Number of cycles of loading causing tension (2) Range of service load stress (i.e. difference between maximum and minimum stress) (3) Initial size of a flaw or discontinuity. A great deal of research has been carried out regarding fatigue over the past forty years. That research led to bridge specifications categorizing the various joint details which allows engineers to address potential fatigue in the design process. These and other fatigue related AASHTO specifications, when carefully followed, assure a bridge designer that potential adverse impact of fatigue on the safety of the bridge is either eliminated or greatly reduced.

FATIGUE

Charles D. Gorman, P.E.

Senior Structural Consultant Construction Marketing Bethlehem Lukens Plate

Informational:

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

are defined as tension members or tension components of bending members (including those subject to reversal of stress), the failure of which would be expected to result in collapse of the bridge. In general terms, a member or component may qualify as fracture critical if all three of the following conditions exist: (1) Member or component is in tension or subjected to tension (2) Loads or forces have no alternate path to travel but through the member (3) Failure of the member or component would result in collapse of the bridge.

FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS (FCM)

Historical Background
n December 15, 1967, the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West Virginia collapsed without warning and forty-six people lost their lives. The bridge was an eyebar chain suspension bridge with a 700foot center span and 380-foot end spans. The investigation following the failure established that stresses had not exceeded the stress levels for which the bridge was designed. The main cause of collapse was determined to be the brittle fracture of two corrosion cracks at a pinhole in one of the eyebars. The arrangement of the eyebars

was such that fracture of any one eyebar would cause complete collapse of the structure. This failure led to a Federal law mandating biennial inspections of the nations bridges. Over the next ten years, FHWA inspections revealed that a number of bridges had experienced major cracks, fortunately without loss of the structures. As an example, in 1969 the Bryte Bend Bridge near Sacramento experienced large cracks. In May of 1975 the two-girder Lafayette Street Bridge in MinneapolisSt. Paul experienced cracks that initiated at a lateral con-

nection plate and propagated the full depth of the web. Another example was the Quinnipiac River Bridge on I91 near New Haven, Connecticut. In 1973 a crack was discovered that had originated in an unfused butt weld in the interface between a longitudinal stiffener and the web. The crack propagated through a large portion of the web and into the bottom flange. Another fracture occurred in the I-79 Bridge near Pittsburgh at Neville Island in 1977. This crack initiated at a groove weld detail that resulted in the fracture of both the web and the flange. These and a number of

other bridge anomalies that occurred during the sixties and seventies led the Federal Highway Administration, AASHTO, American Welding Society, the steel industry and researchers to review the design, material and fabrication provisions being used at the time. Based on this review, changes or additions to the specifications have been made over the years. As a result, there are now extensive provisions to address fatigue, material toughness requirements, a bridge welding code and the requirement of a Fracture Control Plan.

he AASHTO bridge specification assigns a fatigue category to various types of fabrication details as well as plain material. The categories are generally related to the stress concentrations associated with the detail and the initial flaw sizes related to the fabrication process. The fatigue categories are identified with letters A through F. Category A represents plain material and has the best fatigue resistance. As the categories go from A to F, their resistance to fatigue diminishes. For example, the end of a welded cover plate is a Category E detail. The Standard Specification provides two tables, one for redundant structures and one for non-redundant structures. The LRFD Specification has just one table of allowable stress ranges irrespective of redundancy. Each table lists the allowable stress range for various numbers of cycles of applied load for each of the fatigue categories. It is the

Fatigue Categories T
responsibility of the engineer to evaluate the design to ensure that, for the expected number of cycles of applied loads, the stress range at various joint details does not exceed the allowable for that particular detail. At times, designers chose to use details that permit a higher allowable range than is needed. Generally, these details add extra cost to the structure and provide no increase in reliability. For example, a Category B detail provides no additional value, but requires unnecessary additional cost, when a Category C detail for a crossframe-stiffener connection plate detail is sufficient for the stress-range. According to the AASHTO Bridge Design specification, cross frame connection plates are to be rigidly connected at both the top and bottom flanges to prevent distortion induced fatigue. Two common methods are used: (a) the connection stiffener is fillet welded directly to the flanges, a

Category C detail and (b) the stiffener is welded to a plate or tee (commonly called a tab plate) that is bolted to the tension flange, a Category B detail. The Category C detail is the most economical detail for plate girder bridges. Girder designs that satisfy strength and deflection criteria usually satisfy Category C

Category B detail because of historic reluctance to weld to any tension flange. When Category C stress range limits are met in the design process, the use of a Category B detail adds cost but no increased reliability to the design. If a Category B cross frame connection is

Fatigue cracks do not propagate in bridges that are designed, detailed and fabricated by todays standards. For all practical purposes, if the stress range at a detail is less than the allowable range, unstable crack growth does not occur.
stress ranges at cross frame locations. When necessary, careful placement of diaphragm locations away from the points of maximum stress can often eliminate the need for the tab plate detail. Researchers and AASHTO have endorsed the Category C detail of welding stiffeners to either the compression or tension flange. However, a number of designers use a used at the stiffener to flange location, that requires only a Category C detail, the engineer still needs to evaluate the Category C condition that would also exist at the stiffener to web weld. Likewise the Category C condition at the stiffener to tab plate weld also needs to be evaluated.

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

n order for a member to be classified as fracture critical, the member must be in tension or subject to tensile stress. Members or components that are not subject to tensile stress are not fracture critical. Further, for a bridge member to be fracture critical, it must also be the only load path available. A fracture critical member must be a primary member, the fracture of which would cause collapse of the bridge. This is defined by AASHTO as non-redundant.Tension flange and web plates in one or two-girder bridges may be examples of fracture critical members. However, it is unlikely that a two-girder bridge will collapse despite the failure of one of the flanges. Redundancy is often provided by lateral distribution of loads through the concrete slab, the cross bracing/diaphragms and participation of non-structural elements such as curbs and railing.

Fracture Critical I

he vast majority of bridges do not have fracture critical members. However, it is important to recognize when they exist. AASHTO specifications require the bridge designer to identify and designate Fracture Critical Members (FCM) on the contract drawings. Any member or component that qualifies and is designated as fracture critical must meet a separate set of requirements and special fabrication procedures. These special fabrication procedures need to be included in a Fracture Control Plan (FCP) which is required as a part of the ANSI/AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code.

Fracture Critical or Not

A plate girder bridge with three or more girders is a redundant structure and does not contain members that should be considered fracture critical. For one or two girder bridges, while considered non-redundant, fracture critical requirements are limited to the tension components such as the web and tension flanges. For straight simple span bridges, only the web and the bottom flange would be fracture critical. For trusses, certain tension members may be FCM. The tie of a tied arch is generally considered fracture critical. Any hanger-type members, such as a pin and hanger on a girder bridge or the hanger truss members on a suspended truss, may be fracture critical.

Fracture Control Plan

The Fracture Control Plan (FCP) is defined in Section 12 of the ANSI/AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code, which details provisions regarding the fabrication of bridge members designated as fracture critical. Implementation of the Fracture Control Plan will help to ensure that steel bridges with critical tension components serve a useful serviceable life over the period intended in the original design.
The FCP addresses the following items in detail: Base metal requirements Welding process Consumable requirements Welding procedure specification Contractor requirements Thermal cutting Repair of base metal Straightening, curving and cambering Tack welds and temporary welds Weld inspection Repair welding

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

s discussed earlier, FCM are members or components that are critical to the overall survival of the bridge and are, therefore, non-redundant. Per AASHTO, an example of a redundant structure would be a multi-girder bridge with three or more girders. If one girder cracks, the loads carried by that girder can be transferred to adjacent girders

Redundancy Non-Redundancy A
through the deck and cross frames. Although damaged, the bridge can remain in limited service. The defining of a member as redundant or non-redundant is somewhat ambiguous. Present specifications do not definitively define redundancy. In addition to the question of an alternate load path, internal redundancy is often believed to exist. An example of internal redundancy would be a built-up member with bolts, similar to the riveted members of the past. The justification or basis for built-up member redundancy is that if a crack occurs in one component it is unlikely to propagate into adjacent components. This redundancy definition was used for the tie girder of the Blue Water Bridge tied arch between Michigan and Canada. The tie was designed as a box built up from angles and plates bolted together. The redundancy question is the subject of a number of research studies that should result in definitive specification provisions. The use of threedimensional finite element analysis may resolve the alternate load path issue in the future.

versus

Advantages
n many cases, a two-girder, nonredundant bridge can be fabricated and constructed more economically than a three girder, redundant structure. Applying the Fracture Critical Plan to the two girder scheme Applying the results in a structure Fracture that can be expectCritical Plan to ed to provide a level of safety and the two girder reliability equivalent scheme results to the three girder in a structure structure. A major that can be concern is when Fracture Critical expected to provisions are specprovide a level ified and not justiof safety and fied. As the reliability equivCommentary for alent to the the Fracture Control Plan states, three girder The Fracture structure. Control Plan must not be used indiscriminately by designers as a crutch to be safe and to circumvent good engineering practice. Specifying a member as fracture critical requires stricter fatigue require-

and Disadvantages
and more rigorous inspections. Indiscriminately specifying FCM may increase the cost of a bridge without increasing the reliability.

ments for every fatigue category. These stricter requirements include; increased material toughness, increased mill testing, more restrictive fabrication procedures,

Designer and Fabricator roles regarding fracture critical

esigners and fabricators who review design plans need to investigate members that are designated as fracture-critical. The reviewer should determine if the fracture critical designations are properly limited to tension components. Compression components such as the top flange in a simple span bridge should not be required to meet fracture critical criteria. In many cases it is incorrect for entire members to be designated fracture-critical or for plate girder structures of more than two girders to include fracture-critical material. Even two-girder structures with fracture-critical members may warrant re-evaluation based on past research. pecifying fracture-critical where it is required is the responsibility of the engineer. Specifying fracture-critical cannot be a substitute for good engineering judgement since it adds cost but not reliability to the bridge.

D S

FATIGUE and FRACTURE CRITICAL MEMBERS - An Overview

For additional fatigue and fracture related information, please refer to:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition, Washington D.C., 1996. American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Bridges:The Best of Current Practice, AISC,1985. ANSI/AASHTO/AWS Bridge Welding Code, 1996. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 15; Steel Structures, AREMA. Barsom, J.M.,The Development of AASHTO Fracture-Toughness Requirements for Bridge Steels, American Iron and Steel Institute, February 1975. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Economical Details for Bridges: Cross Frames and Cross Frame Connections Technical Bulletin,TB-315A. Fisher, J.W., Bridge Fatigue Guide, American Institute of Steel Construction, 1977. Fisher, J.W., Fatigue and Fracture in Steel Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, 1984. Fisher, John W., Geoffrey L. Kulak and Ian F.C. Smith, "A Fatigue Primer for Structural Engineers", National Steel Bridge Alliance, May 1998. Miller, D.K., Design Fire: Consider Overall Structural Performance When Specifying Fatigue Details, The Welding Innovation Quarterly,Volume X, No. 2., 1993. National Steel Bridge Alliance,Volume I, Chapter 3, Highway Structures Design Handbook. Rolfe, S.T., J.M. Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures, Prentice Hall, 1977. Salmon, C.G., J.E. Johnson, Steel Structures, Harper Collins, 1990.

Notes:

Visit our web site at www.nsbaweb.org