T-18 NCHRP 12-81 Fatigue On The Serviceability

Evaluation of Fatigue on the
Serviceability of Highway Bridges
Update on NCHRP Project 12-81

AASHTO T-18 Meeting
Austin, TX
July 10, 2012
Project Team Members

Mark D. Bowman, Prof. of Civil Engr., Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN
Gongkang Fu, Prof. of Civil Engr., Illinois Institute of Technology,
Chicago, IL
Ed Zhou, URS Corp., Program Manager, Bridge Evaluation,
Testing & Retrofit, Hunt Valley, MD
Robert J. Connor, Assoc. Prof of Civil Engr., Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN
Amol Godbole, Graduate Research Assistant, Purdue Univ., West
Lafayette, IN
NCHRP 12-81 Panel Members

Mr. Barton J. Newton (Chair), California DOT
Dr. Sreenivas Alampalli, New York DOT
Ms. Laura M. Amundson, Parsons Brinkerhoff
Dr. Lian Duan, California DOT
Mr. Hussam Z. Fallaha, Florida DOT
Mr. Thomas K. Koch, North Carolina DOT
Mr. Keith L. Ramsey, Texas DOT
Dr. James A. Swanson, University of Cincinnati
Dr. William Wright, Virginia Tech University
Mr. David B. Beal, NCHRP
Dr. Waseem Dekelbab, NCHRP
Primary Objective
Revise and update Section 7 Fatigue

Evaluation of Steel Bridges of the AASHTO
MBE
Section 7 Items to Improve

Improved methods utilizing reliability-based approach to assess
the fatigue behavior and aid bridge owners in making

appropriate operational decisions
Guidance on evaluation of retrofit and repair details used to
address fatigue cracks
Guidance for evaluation of distortion induced fatigue cracks
Guidance for the evaluation of tack weld induced fatigue cracks
Guidance for field evaluation procedures
Adjustment of truck loading factors to account for multiple lane
loading
Project Status
Draft Final Report September 2011
Panel Member Comments December 2011
Revise & Submit Final Report January 2012
Final Editorial Stage Ongoing
Riveted Members (7.2.1)

Riveted members currently allowed to be Category
C per MBE (versus Category D in LRFD)

Concerns expressed about Category C rating for
riveted members in poor condition
Exception added in Sect. 7.2.1 to account for poor
condition of riveted connections:
The exception is for riveted members of poor physical

condition, such as with missing rivets or indications
of punched holes, in which case Category D shall be
used.
Tack Weld and Riveted Members

MBE does not provide direct
guidance on the evaluation of

tack welded members.
Tack Welds are widely used in
bridges with built up
sections.
Classified as Category E in
LRFD
Considerable cost to remove by
grinding
Tack Weld Tests
Tack Weld Specimen
Tack Weld Test Setup
Tack Weld Specimen Cracks
Test Results Comparison

Comparison of Test Results with AASHTO Mean Fatigue Curves
(For Net Section Stress)
Stress Range (ksi)
100
10
1
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
Number of Loading Cycles

Category B Mean Curve
Category C Mean Curve
Test Results
Test Results (Runouts)
Category D Mean Curve
Tack Weld Summary

All tests lie above category D mean curve, and fit
category C curve
All tests exceed category C design curve
Details with tack welds may be classified as Category
C detail
Current category E rating for tack welds is too
stringent
Tack Weld Evaluation (7.2.1)

Tack weld evaluation spelled out in Sect. 7.2.1:
Tack welds may be evaluated based upon the requirements

of Category C, given in LRFD Design Table 6.6.1.2.3-1.
Estimating Stress Ranges (7.2.2)

Equation for Effective Stress Range Modified
Delete existing equation and add:
(f)eff = RpRsf
Rp = The multiple presence factor, calculated as described in
Article 7.2.2.1 for calculated stress ranges, or 1.0 for
measured stress ranges
Multiple Presence Factor for Fatigue

Important to consider for trusses and two girder bridges
with multiple lanes.
Use WIM data to study truck patterns in several states.
Critical factors include number of lanes, ADTT, and span

length.
Equation with these factors ranges from 1 to 1.10 for various
conditions. Increases stress range accordingly.
Measuring Stress Ranges (7.2.2.2)

Definition of fi in Eq. 7.2.2.2-1 slightly modified to
avoid underestimation of effective stress range caused by

truncation effects when measured stress range histograms are
used
fi > (fTH )/2
Determining Fatigue-Prone Details (7.2.3)

Rs eliminated from Equation 7.2.3-1
Refer to effective stress range as defined in 7.2.2 for
appropriate factored loading
Infinite-Life Check (7.2.4)

Modify the three possible combinations to account for the
correct load factor for (f)max used in Equation 7.2.4-1
Use Rp times Fatigue I Load Combination (infinite life) for use
of fatigue truck
Use 2.0 (f)eff ;for calculated stress ranges with fatigue truck
determined by WIM along with Rs = 1
Use larger of maximum (fi ), 2.0(f)eff , or other suitable
value; for measured stress ranges use Rs=1
Estimating Finite Fatigue Life (7.2.5)

Introduce an additional fatigue life level
Minimum, Evaluation 1, Evaluation 2, Mean
Modify the finite life Equation 7.2.5.1-1
where:
Y = Total fatigue life of the detail in years
g = estimated annual traffic-volume growth rate
a = present age of detail
RR A
a 1
g (1 + g ) + 1
log
3
365n [ ( ADTT ) SL ]PRESENT ((f )eff )
Y=
log(1 + g )
Estimating Finite Fatigue Life (7.2.5)

Modify (ADDT)SL to use present number of trucks per day
rather than average over fatigue life

Eliminate Figure C7.2.5.1-1
Provide new Table 7.2.5.1-1 to add Evaluation 2 Life and
modify the RR values
Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.6)

Method for providing a relative evaluation of the fatigue serviceability of a
structural detail eliminate remaining life to measure serviceability

Dimensionless qualitative measure
Recommended Actions Based on the Fatigue Serviceability Index
Introduce Equation 7.2.6.1-1
Y a
Q=
GRI
N

Y a
Q=
GRI
N
where:
a = Bridge age in years
Y = Total fatigue life of the detail in years
N = Greater of Y or 100 years
G = Load Path Factor
R = Redundancy Factor
I = Importance Factor

The load path factor, G:
Table 7.2.6.1-1 Load Path Factor G
Number of Load Path Members
1 or 2 members
0.8
3 members
0.9
4 or more members
The redundancy factor, R:

Table 7.2.6.1-2 Redundancy Factor R
Type of Span
Simple
0.9
Continuous
Importance Factor, I:
Table 7.2.6.1-3 Importance Factor I
Structure or Location
Importance Factor, I
Interstate Highway
Main Arterial State
Route
Other Critical Route
Secondary Arterial
Urban Areas
0.90
Rural Roads
Low ADTT routes
1.00
0.95

Table 7.2.6.2-1 added for recommended actions based on the
Fatigue Serviceability Index, Q:
Fatigue Rating and Assessment Outcomes
Fatigue Serviceability
Index, Q
1.00 to 0.50
0.50 to 0.35
0.35 to 0.20
0.20 to 0.10
0.10 to 0.00
Fatigue Rating
Excellent
Good
Moderate
Fair
Poor
< 0.00
Critical
Assessment Outcome
Continue Regular Inspections
Increase Inspection Frequency
Assess Frequently
Consider Retrofit,
Replacement or Reassessment
Negative Life Options

Current bridge age exceeds predicted life with no apparent
fatigue damage (Unrealistic and inaccurate assessment?)
Eliminate use of negative life or remaining life terms and
instead refer to fatigue serviceability index:
Re-label Section 7.2.7 to Strategies to Increase Fatigue
Serviceability Index
Increase Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.7)

Art. 7.2.7.2.1 Select alternate (increased) risk level.
Current Spec (Minimum, Evaluation, Mean) life option.
New spec will add one more level (Min, Eval 1, Eval 2,
Mean).
Art. 7.2.7.2.2 More accurate data. Retain options to
assess bridge through modification of Rs by refined
analysis, site truck WIM data, or field evaluation.
Art. 7.2.7.2.3 Truncated Fatigue Life Distribution. Modify
probability distribution using present age to re-compute

fatigue life if satisfactory performance is demonstrated.
Modify Probability Distribution (7.2.7.2.3)

Use present age to modify probability distribution and re-
compute fatigue life

Virtually eliminates negative life prediction
Method only works based upon no cracking from field
data & information
Truncated Distribution (7.2.7.2.3)

Equations added for each of the fatigue life levels for a modified
estimate. All based upon mean life estimate.

Example for minimum fatigue life:
Yminimum = 2.19Ymean exp{0.73-1[0.039(1-P)+P]-0.27}
where
Yminimum = updated minimum life in years
Ymean = mean life in years without updating
-1 = inverse of standard normal variable cumulative probability
function
P = probability of fatigue life being shorter than current age before
updating
Distortion-Induced Fatigue Evaluation (7.3)

Additional language added to denote cause of distortion
induced cracking
Art 7.3.1 Language added to discuss need to assess
distortion-induced cracking
Art 7.3.2 Retrofit Options noted
Softening retrofit
Stiffening retrofit
Fracture-Control for Older Bridges (7.4)

Re-wording of existing requirements
Commentary notes re-worded. Constraint-induced fracture
mentioned.
Alternate Analysis Methods (7.5)

Option added for use of fracture mechanics or hot-spot stress
analysis to determine finite life in lieu of Y in Article 7.2.6

Commentary language added to note when such case may be
considered.
Questions?
Multiple Presence Factor (7.2.2.1)

Equation for Multiple Presence of vehicles provided:
Rp = 0.988 + 6.87(10)-5(L) + 4.01(10)-6(ADTT) +

0.0107/(nL) >= 1.0
Where L = span in feet
ADTT = avg. trucks/day for all directions and all lanes
nL = number of lanes
Fatigue Serviceability
Example
Bridge Details
Welded plate girder with partial-length welded cover plate
Evaluation 1 Life used to assess the bridge fatigue serviceability
Bridge Age = a = 45 years
[(ADTT)SL]PRESENT = 2,350
feff = 3.75 ksi for 70-ft simple span girders
Traffic growth = 2% = 0.02; n = 1
RR = 1.2 due to Category E detail; A = 11.0(10)8 ksi3
RR A
a 1
g (1 + g ) + 1
log
3
n
ADTT
f
365
(
)
((
)
)
[
SL ]PRESENT
eff
Y=
log(1 + g )
Y = 44 years
Fatigue Serviceability Index

No. load paths (girders) = 4; so G = 1
No. spans =1 (simple span); so R = 0.9
N = larger of (100 or Y) = 100
Interstate Bridge; so I =0.9
Q = [(Y-a)/N]GRI = [(44-45)/100]*1*0.9*0.9 = -0.01
From Table 7.2.6.2-1 the fatigue rating is Critical. In this case
there is no cracking noticed after a thorough inspection, so it
is decided to reassess the fatigue serviceability.
The procedure outlined in 7.2.7.2.3 will be used.
Updated Fatigue Life Evaluation

Welded plate girder with partial-length welded cover plate
Equations added for each of the fatigue life levels for a modified
estimate. All based upon mean life estimate.

Example for Evaluation 1 fatigue life:
Yeval1 = 2.19Ymean exp{0.73-1[0.074(1-P)+P]-0.27}
where
Yeval1 = updated minimum life in years
Ymean = mean life in years without updating
-1 = inverse of standard normal variable cumulative probability
function
P = probability of fatigue life being shorter than current age before
updating
Updated Fatigue Life Evaluation

For Category E mean life RR = 1.6, and Ymean = 53.1 years
P = probability of fatigue life being shorter than current age before updating
P = probability per Eq. 7.2.7.2.3-5 gives P = 0.176

Example for Evaluation 1 fatigue life:
Yeval1 = 2.19Ymean exp{0.73-1[0.074(1-P)+P]-0.27}
where
Yeval1 = 2.19(53.1)exp{0.73-1[0.074(1-0.176)+0.176]-0.27}
Yeval1 = 53 years
updated FSI value
Q = (53-45/100)(1)(0.9)(0.9) = 0.06
The detail now has a rating of poor with an assessment outcome of assess
frequently
Section 7 of MBE
Considered as being overly conservative
Negative remaining lives obtained for some bridges with
satisfactory service history.

Factors contributing to this conservatism include overestimated load distribution factors, ignoring unintended
composite action, and use of design (min) S-N curves
Un-conservative factors include assumption of single lane
loading
Users of specification may not have resources to perform
detailed analysis or measurements.
Research Goals
Assess the fatigue performance of details with fit-up tack welds
left intact to determine the need and methods to retrofit such

details.
Develop effective methods to assess and design effective retrofit or
repair procedures for details susceptible to distortion-induced
cracking.
Evaluate current use of S-N curves with a linear extension below
CAFL for long life behavior with multiple slope S-N curves used
by foreign countries.
Develop the Fatigue Serviceability Index concept to assess the
serviceability of the fatigue limit state
Revise Section 7 of the Manual with Commentary and Examples.
Finite Element Analysis
Finite Element Model

of the tack weld specimen
Sections along which

stresses are measured
Finite Element Analysis
Stress Distribution in Specimen for 3, 2 and 0 Tack Welds respectively
Tack Weld Tests

17 Specimens in Test Matrix
No. of Tack
Welds
Tack Weld
Position
Tack Weld
Length
No. of Specimens Tested at Sr Value
20 ksi
12 ksi
<1-in
<1-in
<1-in
3 (MP)
<1-in
>1-in
12 ksi
2
3
2 (FT)
Tack Weld
Tests
Summary of Test Results (With Net Section Stresses)
1
TW-3LN-12-1
Elapsed Cycles
(* denotes runouts)
5,253,000*
TW-3LN-12-2
5,103,000*
12
No cracks
TW-3LN-12-3
6,316,000
12
Crack at weld toe spreading into bolt hole
TW-3LN-20-1
1,066,000
20
TW-3LN-20-2
843,000
20
TW-3LN-20-3
1,294,000
20
Crack at weld toe just starting to spread into plate thickness
TW-3LL-12-1
6,223,000*
12
No cracks
TW-3LL-12-2
6,243,000
12
TW-2LN-12-1
8,324,000
12
10
TW-2LN-12-2
8,259,000
12
11
TW-2LM-12-1
7,061,000
12
12
TW-2LM-12-2
6,507,000
12
13
TW-2LM-12-3
7,400,000
12
14
TW-3LF-12-1
7,667,000*
12
Crack at weld toe, crack length 21/32 inch

Two cracks; one remaining at weld toe and the other spreading
inch into plate thickness
Three cracks; Two cracks spreading into bolt hole and the other
spreading inch across plate width.
Two cracks; one spreading into bolt hole and the other spreading
1/8 inch across plate width.
No cracks
15
TW-3LF-12-2
7,546,000*
12
No cracks
16
TW-2TN-12-1
5,513,000
12
17
TW-2TN-12-2
7,570,000 *
12
No cracks
S.No.
Specimen
Stress (ksi)
Specimen Condition
12
No cracks
Tack Weld Tests
Specimen TW-3LL-12-2 Weld Cracks

( 3 Long Welds)
Specimen TW-2LM-12-1
Weld Cracks
(2 Modified Position Welds)
Specimen TW-3LN-12-3 Weld Cracks

( 3 Normal Welds)
Specimen TW-3LN-20-2
Weld Cracks
(3 Normal Welds at 20 ksi)
Tack Weld Tests

Simple lap connection involving a
pair of plate members attached to

a test central plate.
Outer splice plates tack welded in
place and lightly bolted to the
central plate.
Bolts tightened to approximate
the clamping force of a
comparatively sized rivet.
Comparison of Test Results with AASHTO Design Fatigue Curves

(For Net Section Stress)
Stress Range (ksi)
100
10
1
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08

Category B Design Curve
Category C Design Curve
Test Results
Comparison of Test Results with AASHTO Mean Fatigue Curves

(For Gross Section Stress)
Stress Range (ksi)
100
10
1
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07

Category C Mean Curve
Category D Mean Curve
Test Results
Category E Mean Curve
1.00E+08
Comparison of Test Results with AASHTO Design Fatigue Curves

(For Gross Section Stress)
Stress Range (ksi)
100
10
1
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07

Category C Design Curve
Category D Design Curve
Test Results
Category E Design Curve
1.00E+08
Tack Weld Summary

The number and length of the tack welds not does not seem
to have a very significant effect on the fatigue life.

Modified position tack weld tests cracked a little sooner than
normal position, but same general behavior
No cracking for fully tightened bolt specimens - bolts draw
away stress from the weld toe.
Tack weld test results:
All lie above category D mean curve
Current category E rating for tack welds is too stringent
Details with tack welds may be classified as Category C detail

Variation of (Y-a)/N with Remaining Life
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
Bridge Age 0
0.7
Bridge Age 10
0.65
Bridge Age 20
0.6
0.55
Bridge Age 30
0.5
Bridge Age 40
0.45
Bridge Age 50
0.4
Bridge Age 60
0.35
Bridge Age 70
0.3
0.25
Bridge Age 80
0.2
Bridge Age 90
0.15
Bridge Age 100
0.1
0.05
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Remaining Life (Years)

Influence of G, R, I factors on the FSI (Bridge Age 35 years)
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
4 Girder, 2 Span, Rural Bridge
FSI
0.6
0.55
4 Girder, 2 Span, Interstate Bridge
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Remaining Life (Years)
Distortion-Induced Cracking
Widespread phenomenon
About 90% of all fatigue cracking
is the result of out-of-plane

distortion at fatigue sensitive
details. (Connor and Fisher
(2006))
Retrofit Options
Hole drilling (softeneing)
Attachments (stiffening)
Background
Subsequent study by Fisher et al (1990) found that a positive
attachment was necessary for retrofit for higher stresses.

Connor and Fisher (2006) presented general guidelines for
evaluation and retrofit of details susceptible to out-of-plane
distortion fatigue. The study recommended use of heavy backto-back angles or comparable WT sections with four bolts in
each leg
Distortion Tests
Retrofit Finite Element Analysis
Flange Thickness Web Thickness
(inch)
(inch)
3/8
3/8
1/2
1/2
5/8
5/8
3/4
3/4
1
Retrofit Model
Retrofit Shear Failure
Retrofit Flexure Failure
Distortion Tests
Flange Thickness more influential than Web Thickness on the Retrofit Stiffness
Load vs Deformation
Load vs Deformation
16
35
12
30
10
25
Load (kip)
Load (kip)
14
8
6
4
20
15
10
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Deformation (in)
F 0.500 W 0.375
F 0.500 W 0.625
F 0.500 W 0.500
F 0.500 W 0.750
Load vs. Deformation

for Constant 1/2 Flange Thickness
0.3
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Deformation (in)
F 0.375 W 0.500
F 0.500 W 0.500
F 0.750 W 0.500
F 1.000 W 0.500
F 0.625 W 0.500
Load vs. Deformation

for Constant 1/2 Web Thickness
0.3
Distortion Tests
To study the effectiveness of various retrofit attachments
after distortioninduced cracking has occurred in the web

gap
Total of 13 test specimens:
7 specimens having 1.5 inch web gap with WT retrofit
3 specimens having 0.75 inch web gap with double angle
retrofit
3 specimens having 0.75 inch web gap with single angle retrofit
Distortion Tests
Test Matrix of WT Specimens
WT Retrofit
Flange
Thickness (in)
Distortion 0.01 in
Web Gap
0.75 inch
0.5
X
X
0.75
Web Gap
1.5 inch
X
X
X
X
X (RH)
X (RH)
X (B)
X (B)
Distortion 0.02 in
Web Gap
0.75 inch
Web Gap
1.5 inch
X
X
X
X
Distortion Test Setup
Distortion Tests
Web-to-Flange weld crack

in Specimen DT-D2-WG1-WT050
Specimen DT-D1-WG1-WTRH075
Stiffener-to-Web Weld Cracks
0.75 inch thick WT Retrofit with

Drilled Retrofit Hole for Specimen
DT-D1-WG1-WTRH075
0.5 inch thick WT

Retrofit for Specimen
DT-D2-WG1-WT050
Distortion Test Summary

All WT, DA, and SA retrofit tests completed
All WT and DA retrofit details examined effective in
arresting or slowing crack growth

Retrofit holes did not experience crack re-initaition
WT flange thickness most effective parameter for controlling
displacement; greater than 5/8-in flange thickness best
SA thickness needs to be greater to control displacement and
control retrofit cracking
Distortion Tests
Test Matrix for Distortion Tests
(Completed Tests shown in yellow)
Connection
Type
Detail Thickness
t1 =
(Flange Thickness)
WT
DA
t2 = 3/4
(Flange Thickness)
t2 = 3/4
t3 = 7/8
SA
t3 = 7/8
t4 = 1
Differential Distortion, 0.01 in
Differential Distortion, 0.02 in
Web Gap, g1 =
3/4
Web Gap, g1 =
3/4
Web Gap, g2 =
1 1/2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X (RH)
X (RH)
X (B)
X (B)
Differential Distortion, 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Web Gap, g2 =
1 1/2
X
X
X
X
Differential Distortion, 2
X
X
X
X
Pseudo-Displacement Control
Web Gap Distortion vs Cycles
0.014
0.012
Distortion (inch)
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0.00E+00
2.00E+05
4.00E+05
6.00E+05
8.00E+05
Cycles
1.00E+06
1.20E+06
Distortion Tests
Distortion Test Results
Specimen
DT-D1-WG1-WT050
DT-D1-WG1-WT075
DT-D2-WG1-WT050
DT-D2-WG1-WT075
DT-D2-WG1-WTRH075
DT-D1-WG2-WT075
DT-D1-WG1-WTB075
Result
No Increase in Crack Length After Retrofit
Cracks Increased in Length After Retrofit
Force (kip)
Force Vs Web Gap Distortion

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
LVDT1 (South Side)

LVDT2 (North Side)
2
4
6
8
Displacement (milli inches)
10
Force Vs Web Gap Distortion Plot for Specimen DT-D2-WG1-WT075
WT Retrofit
S-N Curve Development

Foundation underlying fatigue evaluation of steel bridges in Manual.
Developed primarily based on constant amplitude cyclic loading fatigue test
data.
Advancement in understanding long-life fatigue behavior under lowmagnitude and variable-amplitude cyclic loading
NCHRP Report 354: partial length cover plates, web attachments,
and transverse web stiffeners
Supports the conservative straight-line extension of the fatigue resistance
curves
NCHRP Report 336: transverse connection plate test results plotted
using both the AASHTO and Eurocode S-N Curves specified for this
detail
Both the Eurocode S-N curve and the AASHTO S-N Curve seem to perform
reasonably well
AASHTO S-N curve is simpler to use with a linear slope
S-N Curve Development

Stress Range (ksi)
100
10
1
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
Cycles to crack
Test Results
Eurocode Category 80
AASHTO Category C

T-18 NCHRP 12-81 Fatigue On The Serviceability

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T-18 NCHRP 12-81 Fatigue On The Serviceability

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Fatigue on the

Serviceability of Highway Bridges

Update on NCHRP Project 12-81

Project Team Members

NCHRP 12-81 Panel Members

Revise and update Section 7 Fatigue

Section 7 Items to Improve

the fatigue behavior and aid bridge owners in making

Riveted Members (7.2.1)

C per MBE (versus Category D in LRFD)

The exception is for riveted members of poor physical

Tack Weld and Riveted Members

guidance on the evaluation of

Tack Weld Tests

Tack Weld Specimen

Tack Weld Test Setup

Tack Weld Specimen Cracks

Test Results Comparison

Stress Range (ksi)

Number of Loading Cycles

Category C Mean Curve

Test Results (Runouts)

Category D Mean Curve

Tack Weld Summary

Tack Weld Evaluation (7.2.1)

Tack welds may be evaluated based upon the requirements

Estimating Stress Ranges (7.2.2)

Multiple Presence Factor for Fatigue

Critical factors include number of lanes, ADTT, and span

Measuring Stress Ranges (7.2.2.2)

avoid underestimation of effective stress range caused by

Determining Fatigue-Prone Details (7.2.3)

appropriate factored loading

Infinite-Life Check (7.2.4)

correct load factor for (f)max used in Equation 7.2.4-1

Use Rp times Fatigue I Load Combination (infinite life) for use

Estimating Finite Fatigue Life (7.2.5)

Modify the finite life Equation 7.2.5.1-1

Estimating Finite Fatigue Life (7.2.5)

rather than average over fatigue life

Provide new Table 7.2.5.1-1 to add Evaluation 2 Life and

modify the RR values

Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.6)

structural detail eliminate remaining life to measure serviceability

Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.6)

Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.6)

The redundancy factor, R:

Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.6)

Fatigue Serviceability Index, Q:

Fatigue Rating and Assessment Outcomes

Negative Life Options

Increase Fatigue Serviceability Index (7.2.7)

probability distribution using present age to re-compute

Modify Probability Distribution (7.2.7.2.3)

compute fatigue life

Truncated Distribution (7.2.7.2.3)

estimate. All based upon mean life estimate.

Yminimum = 2.19Ymean exp{0.73-1[0.039(1-P)+P]-0.27}

Distortion-Induced Fatigue Evaluation (7.3)

Fracture-Control for Older Bridges (7.4)

Alternate Analysis Methods (7.5)

analysis to determine finite life in lieu of Y in Article 7.2.6

Multiple Presence Factor (7.2.2.1)