ADVANCEMENTS IN CODAL PROVISIONS FOR FATIGUE DESIGN OF

RAILWAY STEEL BRIDGES

Ravindra Kr. Goel*

(Presented in National Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering organized by

IIT/Roorkee at Roorkee, March, 2005)

Abstract

Fatigue is considered an important aspect while designing the dynamically

loaded structures. This is particularly important in steel railway bridges where
dynamic loads are quite high in comparison to static loads. Normally fatigue is
critical at the joints and more so with welded connections. Residual stresses and
stress concentrations at the joints control the stress levels to be adopted in the
design. Therefore, the connection details are the most important part of any
fatigue assessment for railway steel bridges. This aspect has drawn the attention
of structural engineers and there has been increased awareness to design the
steel bridges with respect to fatigue effects at connections. A lot of work has
been done in this regard by European Community under the Euro Code
Programme. The behavior of connections under dynamic loading has also been
studied in details and the codal provisions have been drafted in a scientific and
rational manner. The paper attempts to highlight the important advancement
made in this area for design of railway steel bridge.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Railway steel bridges are subjected to high dynamic loads and the check
of members for failure against the fatigue is critical and it affects the
overall cost of the bridge. Fatigue check is carried out for loads that are
normally less than the maximum design loads. Normally fatigue is critical
at the joints and more so with welded connections. Residual stresses and
stress concentrations at the joints control the stress levels to be adopted
in the design. Therefore, the connection details are the most important
part of any fatigue assessment for railway steel bridges. This aspect has
drawn the attention of structural engineers and there has been increased
awareness to design the steel bridges with respect to fatigue effects at
connections. A lot of work has been done in this regard by European
Community under the Euro Code Programme. The behavior of
connection under fluctuating stresses has been studied in detail along with
other aspects and the provisions have been drafted for design of steel
structures. The paper attempts to discuss the important provisions related
with fatigue design of steel railway bridges.

______________________________________________________________________

* Director/Steel Bridges-I, Bridges & Structures Directorate, Ministry of Railways, RDSO, Lucknow (UP)-226011.

160
2.0 IRS PROVISIONS VIS A VIS EURO CODE

2.1 As per IRS code, as on date, fatigue strength is based on the ratio of
minimum stress and the maximum stress the member undergoes. When
welded connections are involved, residual stresses also play an important
role. The actual analysis of stresses becomes very difficult as location and
type of weld also become important. It is for this reason that all
international codes have changed over their design approach to what is
known as stress range concept from the stress ratio concept.

2.2 Presently, IRS Code stipulates that all members of the truss and floor
system should be designed for 10 million cycles of fatigue loading.
However, for a given traffic volume it is well known that the stringers are
subjected to greater number of cycles of loading than the chord members.
Hence IRS provisions lacking in rationality are conservative for the design
of chord members. However, as per Euro code, this difference in the
cycles of loading is accounted for by using different influence lengths for
different members. The Euro Code is written based on limit sate concept
as against the working stress concept of IRS Steel Bridge.

2.3 The design approach in Euro Code is based on S-N curve. The
quantitative relationship relating fatigue failure to stress range and no. of
cycles is used for the fatigue assessment of a category of the structural
detail. The fatigue resistances given in the code apply only to structures
with normal atmospheric action and sufficient corrosion protection.

3.0 EURO CODE PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING FATIGUE STRENGTH

3.1 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.

3.2 For the choice of partial factors in the fatigue assessment two reliability
concepts are considered:

(i) Damage tolerant concept and

(ii) Safe life concept

3.2.1 The damage tolerant concept may be applied when load redistribution
between components of structural elements can occur in case of fatigue
damage.

3.2.2 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.

161
3.2.3 Structures that are designed to EN 1993-1-10 and which are subjected to
regular maintenance are deemed to be damage tolerant.

3.2.4 A pre-requisite of the damage tolerant concept is the existence of a

mandatory inspection program that provides that if a crack is detected, the
part will be repaired or replaced. The provisions for inspection program
are specific to member nations and are to be specified by the concerned
nation as National Annexure. The National Annexure may also give the
choice of the reliability concept and numerical values for partial safety
factors for fatigue strength i.e. f.

Table 3.1 partial safety factors for fatigue strength Mf

Consequence of failure
Safety concept
Low consequence High consequence
Damage tolerant concept 1.00 1.15
Safe life concept 1.15 1.35
* Table No. corresponds to EN 1993-1-9 : 2002

4.0 GENERAL DESIGN METHOD

4.1 The fatigue assessment, in general stress range verification, shall be

carried out according to EN 1992, EN 1993, and EN 1994.

4.2 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. Ff 2E c / Mf

Where:

Parameters for Design stress range

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)
162
 d) No. Of tracks supported by the member (4)
(i.e.) = (1) x (2) x (3) x (4) < 1.4

2 is the damage equivalent impact factor

E is the stress due to design train loads placed in the most un-
favourable position for the element under consideration.

Parameters for allowable stress Range

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

5.0 FATIGUE STRESS SPECTRA

5.1 Simplified procedure of fatigue stress range assessment has been

described below -

(1) For the simplified fatigue loading as specified, the following procedure
may be used to determine the design stress range spectrum.

(2) The maximum stress P,max and the minimum stress P,min should be
determined for a detail by evaluating influence areas.

(3) The reference stress range p for determining the damage effects of
the stress range spectrum should be obtained from:
p = | p,max - p,min |

(4) The damage effects of the stress range spectrum may be represented
by the damage equivalent stress range related to 2 106 cycles:
E2 = 2p

where, is the damage equivalence factor

2 is the damage equivalent impact factor.

(5) For railway bridges the value of 2 should be obtained from the code,
EN 1991-2.

5.2 As an alternative to the procedure given above, fatigue stress spectra may
be obtained from the evaluation of stress histories from fatigue load
vehicles as specified in EN 1991-2 and EN 1993-1-9.

163
6.0 DYNAMIC FACTOR (2, 3)

6.1 The dynamic factor takes into account, the dynamic magnification of
stresses and vibration effects in the structure. However, it does not take
account of resonance effects for which dynamic analysis needs to be
carried out to calculate impact values.

Figure 1 Load Model 71 and characteristic values for vertical loads

6.2 For load model 71 given in figure-1, the dynamic factor is taken as 2 or
3 depending upon the quality of track maintenance.

(a) For carefully maintained track:

1.44
2 0.82
L 0.2

with: 1.00 < 2 < 1.67

(b) For track with standard maintenance:

2.16
3 0.73
L 0.2

with 1.00 < 3 < 2.0

Where, L is determinant length, i.e. the length associated with and to

be appropriately taken as per the Euro Code.

7.0 FATIGUE ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fatigue assessment shall be made as follows:

c
Ff E2
Mf

164
7.2 The damage equivalence factor for railway bridges up to 100m span
should be determined as follows:

= 1 2 3 4

where 1 factor for different types of girder that takes into account the
damage effect of traffic and depends on the length of the influence
line or area, loading type factor

2 factor that takes into account the traffic volume, GMT factor

3 factor that takes into account the design life of the bridge, design life
factor

4 factor to be applied when the structural element is loaded by more

than one track, lane factor

7.2.1 1 may be obtained from Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 of EN 1993-2:2004.
These tables are reproduced below for illustration.

Table 9.3*: 1 for standard rail traffic

L Type1 Type2 Type3 Type4 Type5 Type6 Type Type8 ECMix

0.5 1.38 1.27 1.31 1.50 1.62 1.65 1.69 1.65 1.60
1.0 1.38 1.27 1.31 1.50 1.62 1.65 1.69 1.65 1.60
1.5 1.38 1.27 1.31 1.50 1.62 1.65 1.69 1.65 1.60
2.0 1.37 1.26 1.31 1.49 1.35 1.46 1.53 1.64 1.46
2.5 1.17 1.23 1.28 1.46 1.29 1.39 1.44 1.60 1.38
3.0 1.05 1.19 1.25 1.42 1.25 1.35 1.4 1.56 1.35
3.5 0.94 1.02 1.12 1.16 1.12 1.18 1.17 1.40 1.17
4.0 0.81 0.82 0.96 1.00 1.15 1.08 1.05 1.20 1.07
4.5 0.77 0.73 0.88 0.91 1.14 1.07 1.04 0.97 1.02
5.0 0.86 0.69 0.80 0.86 1.16 1.07 1.05 0.93 1.03
6.0 0.97 0.63 0.79 0.79 1.12 1.07 1.07 0.78 1.03
7.0 0.98 0.57 0.79 0.82 0.96 1.04 1.07 0.79 0.97
8.0 0.92 0.55 0.77 0.83 0.85 1.01 1.06 0.73 0.92
9.0 0.88 0.56 0.74 0.83 0.77 0.96 1.05 0.68 0.88
10.0 0.85 0.56 0.72 0.83 0.66 0.91 1.04 0.65 0.85
12.5 0.79 0.55 0.73 0.78 0.52 0.89 1.00 0.60 0.82
15.0 0.75 0.56 0.73 0.77 0.51 0.81 0.91 0.59 0.76
17.5 0.74 0.56 0.73 0.68 0.53 0.72 0.80 0.58 0.70
20.0 0.74 0.55 0.68 0.66 0.55 0.72 0.70 0.58 0.67
25.0 0.76 0.59 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.69 0.68 0.60 0.66

165
Table 9.4*: 1 for express multiple units and underground and for rail traffic
with 25 t axles

Express multiple Rail traffic with 25 t axles

units and
underground
L Type9 Type10 Type5 Type6 Type11 Type12 25t Mix
0.5 0.97 1.00 1.62 1.65 1.83 1.79 1.65
1.0 0.97 1.00 1.62 1.65 1.83 1.79 1.65
1.5 0.97 1.00 1.62 1.65 1.83 1.79 1.65
2.0 0.97 0.99 1.35 1.46 1.81 1.78 1.64
2.5 0.95 0.97 1.29 1.39 1.56 1.74 1.55
3.0 0.85 0.94 1.25 1.35 1.51 1.69 1.51
3.5 0.76 0.85 1.12 1.18 1.21 1.57 1.31
4.0 0.65 0.71 1.15 1.08 1.04 1.30 1.16
4.5 0.59 0.65 1.14 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.08
5.0 0.55 0.62 1.16 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.07
6.0 0.58 0.63 1.12 1.07 1.10 0.87 1.04
7.0 0.58 0.60 0.96 1.04 1.15 0.77 1.02
8.0 0.56 0.60 0.85 1.01 1.14 0.71 0.99
9.0 0.56 0.55 0.77 0.96 1.13 0.67 0.96
10.0 0.56 0.51 0.66 0.91 1.12 0.64 0.93
* Table No. corresponds to the one given in code.

NOTE 1 The underlined values in Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 give the envelope of
all the train types shown in Annex-F of EN 1991-2 (such as freight trains,
passenger trains and high-speed trains in any combination) and cover the worst
effect for a given span. The values given for mixed traffic correspond to the
combination of train types given in Annex F of EN 1991-2.

NOTE 2 1 for express multiple unit, underground and rail traffic with 25 t axles
are given in Table 9.4.

NOTE 3 For lines with train type combinations other than those taken into
consideration (specialized lines for example), the National Annex may directly
specify values of 1 as demonstrated in Table 9.3 and Table 9.4.

7.2.2 In determining 1 the critical length of the influence line or area should be
taken as follows, unless a more accurate determination is made:

a) for moments:

for a simply supported span, the span length, Li;

for continuous spans, in midspan sections, see Figure-2, the span
length Li of the span under consideration;

166
 for continuous spans in support sections, see Figure-2, the mean
of the two spans Li and Lj adjacent to that support;
for cross-girders supporting rail bearers (or stringers), the sum of
the two adjacent spans of the rail bearers (or stringers)
immediately adjacent to the cross-girder;
for a deck plate supported by only cross-girders or cross-ribs (no
longitudinal members) and for those supporting cross-members,
the length of the influence line for deflection (ignoring any part
indicating upward deflection), taking due account of the stiffness
of the rails in load distribution. For cross members spaced not
more than 750 mm apart, this may be taken as 2 cross-
member-spacing + 3 m.

b) for shear for a simply-supported span (and, as an approximation,

for a continuous span):
for the support section (Fig.2) the span under consideration Li ;
for the midspan section (Fig.2) 0.4 the span under consideration
Li ;

c) in other cases:
the same as for moments.

Fig. 2 : Location of midspan or support

section
7.2.3 2, 3 & 4 should be obtained from Table 9.5, 9.6 & Table 9.7 of EN
1993-2:2004 respectively. These tables are reproduced below for
illustration.

Table 9.5: 2*

Traffic per year 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50

[106 t/track]
2 0.72 0.83 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.10 1.15

Table 9.6: 3*

Design life [years] 50 60 70 80 90 100 120

1 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04

167
 Table 9.7: 4*

1/1+2 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50

1 1.00 0.91 0.84 0.77 0.72 0.71
1 is the stress range at the section to be checked due to load model 71on one
track;

1+2 is the stress range at the same section due to load model 71 according to EN
1991-2 on any two tracks.
* Table No. corresponds to the one given in code.

7.2.4. The value of should not exceed max which is equal to 1.4.

7.3 Combination of damage from local and global stress ranges

Where the stress verification in a member is due to the combined effects of

flexure of the bridge (global effects) and flexure of the internal elements (local
effects), the combined effects E2 should be as follows:

E2 = loc loc loc + glo glo glo

in which the suffix loc refers to local effects and glo refers to global effects.

8.0 FATIGUE STRENGTH

8.1 For the fatigue strength assessment of bridges, the appropriate fatigue detail
categories are to be chosen and accordingly the values of c and c are to be
read from the fatigue strength curves shown as fig. 7.1 & 7.2 in EN 1993-1-9.
These curves have been reproduced below as Fig. 3 & Fig.4.

Fig. 3 Fatigue strength curves for direct stress ranges

168
 Fig. 4 Fatigue strength curves for shear stress ranges

8.2 Fatigue strength categories c for nominal stresses are given in different
tables(Table 8.1 to 8.10) for different types of connection details. Table 8.1 of
the code for un-welded details has been shown below for illustration.

8.3 The detail categories are designated by number which represents in N/mm2, the
reference value c or c for the fatigue strength at 2 million cycles.

8.3 The reference value c or c for the fatigue strength at 2 million cycles have
been calculated with a 75% confidence level of 95% probability of survival for log
N, taking into account the standard deviation and the sample size and residual
stress effect.

9.0 FATIGUE STERNGTH MODIFICATION

9.1 For non welded details or stress relieved welded details, the mean stress
influence on the fatigue strength may be determined by adding the tensile portion
of the stress range and 60% of the modulus compressive portion
of the stress range.

9.2 The size effect has to be taken into account as given in table 8.1 to 8.10. The
fatigue strength then calculated as -

c,red k5 c

169
 Table 8.1* : Non-welded details

* Table No. corresponds to the one given in code.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It can be seen that the provisions of Euro code are based on a
comprehensive and detailed study which takes into account the type of
connection, location of joint, type of weld, type of loading, dynamic effects,
no. of lanes, traffic density, design life, differential loaded lengths etc.

170
10.2 The effect of various factors has been studied in detail and tables have
been derived to easily work out the effect of different factors. However,
these tables are specific to the type of loadings and the standard train
composition being used in Euro Nations.

10.3 The member nations have been delegated the right to determine the
values of critical parameters within the broad framework of the Euro
Codes. This has enabled the member nations to use the codes with
variations as per the practical conditions prevailing in their country.

10.4 The provisions of Euro Code are based on Limit state of Design and there
are frequent cross references with other codes of practices therefore, it
may not be practicable to adopt the provisions selectively. Detailed study
is required to understand the philosophy behind the design practices
suggested. Study is also required to prepare a national annexure for
Indian conditions for the fatigue parameters prescribed in Euro Codes.

11. REFERENCES

11.1 EN 1993-1-8 : 2002, Euro Code 3, Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.8
Design of joints

11.2 EN 1993-1-9 : 2002, Euro Code 3, Design of Steel Structures, Part 1.9 :
Fatigue strength of steel structures.

11.3 EN 1993-2 : 2004, Euro Code 3, Design of Steel Structures, Part 2 :

Steel Bridges.

171