Open Access Journal

ISSN : 2394-2320 (Online)

International Journal of Engineering Research in Computer Science and Engineering (IJERCSE)

Monthly Journal for Computer Science and Engineering

Open Access Journal

IInternational Journal of Engineering Research in Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IJERMCE)

Monthly Journal for Mechanical and Civil Engineering

ISSN : 2456-1290 (Online)

A State-of-the-Art Review on Fatigue Analysis of Steel Bridges

Author : Sushank Dani 1 L.M.Gupta 2

Date of Publication :24th January 2018

Abstract: Fatigue is a localized and progressive cumulative damage accumulation due to continuous cyclic movement on a structure. The effects due to this can be dangerous as compared to conventional static load. On bridges, fatigue occurs due to the passage of vehicular load. In railway steel bridges, there are structural members with low dead load stresses but high live load stresses due to movement of wagons and locomotives. These high live load stresses cause a decrease in strength well below the design stresses. This, in turn, reflects the reduction in useful life of the bridge. Here, live load stresses are assessed for different members and details of bridges. Various analytical methods suggested such as nominal stress method, Hot spot stress method, Effective notch method, etc. The results of these methods are compared with the field measurement data obtained from strain gauges or structural health monitoring methods. The nominal stress method has been mentioned in various codes like BS 5400: 1980 (Part X), Steel Bridge Code, RDSO, etc. While the hot spot stress method depends on the finite element analysis of bridges. It finally concludes with the calculation of stress concentration factors for a particular detail. The failure due to fatigue does not depend upon the maximum stress, but on the stress range (absolute difference of maximum and minimum stresses) and the number of cycles corresponding to that stress range also called as stress history. Using the S-N curve and Palmgren-Miner’s cumulative damage rule, the damage assessment for each moving load is calculated followed by useful life estimation of a structure. This is a brief methodology for nominal stress method. The revised fatigue Appendix ‘G’ in Steel Bridge Code, RDSO has incorporated this method in addition to geometrical stress method (or hotspot stress). The nominal stress method is widely used for fatigue evaluation and design of steel bridges, but the hot spot stress method is more accurate and effective. Though the field measurement data presents most accurate information for determining the fatigue life of the structure, the above said two methods can be applied successfully to fatigue analysis and design. The main objective of the study is to find the difference in methodologies for assessment of fatigue and its application on railway steel bridges. Recently, a number of studies have been started on the use of probability concept in fatigue life determination of bridges. Though, these require combined basic of reliability and probability so they are more dependent on experimental and statistical data. Based on the above analysis, a predefined maintenance and inspection schedule can also be prepared. This schedule depends upon the service life of each structural member or details

Reference :

    1. Z. Hashin and A. Rotem, "A Cumulative Damage Theory of Fatigue Failure," Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 147 - 160, 1978.
    2. BS 5400. Steel, concrete and composite bridges: part 10: code of practice for fatigue, London: British Standards Institute, 1980.
    3. Steel Bridge Code. Indian railway standard code of practice for the design of steel or wrought iron bridges carrying rail, road or pedestrian traffic, Lucknow: Research designs and standards organization, 2015.
    4. A. Hobbacher, Recommendation for fatigue design of welded joints and components, Wilhelmshaven, Germany: International Institute of Welding, 2003.
    5.  D. Radaj, C. M. Sonsino and W. Fricke, Fatigue Assessment of Welded Joints by Local Approaches, 2nd ed., Abington, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2006.
    6. P. Dong, "A structural stress definition and numerical implementation for fatigue analysis of welded joints," International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 23, no. 10, p. 865–876, November 2001.
    7. Z. G. Xiao and K. Yamada, "A method of determining geometric stress for fatigue strength evaluation of steel welded joints," International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 26, no. 12, p. 1277–1293, December 2004.
    8.  I. Poutiainen, P. Tanskanen and G. Marquis, "Finite element methods for structural hot spot stress determination—a comparison of procedures," International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 26, no. 11, p. 1147–1157, November 2004. 
    9. T. Chan, Z. X. Li and J. M. Ko, "Fatigue analysis and life prediction of bridges with structural health monitoring data — Part II: application," International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 55–64, January 2001.
    10. G. Zhang and B. Richter, "New approach to the numerical fatigue-life prediction of spot-welded structures," Fatigue & Fracture of EngineeringMaterials & Structures, vol. 23, no. 6, p. 499–508, March 2000.

Recent Article