New Method for Concurrent Dynamic Analysis and Fatigue

Damage Prognosis of Bridges

Jingjing He1; Zizi Lu2; and Yongming Liu3

Abstract: A new methodology for concurrent dynamic analysis and structural fatigue prognosis is proposed in this paper. The proposed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

methodology is on the basis of a novel small time scale formulation of material fatigue crack growth that calculates the incremental crack
growth at any arbitrary time within a loading cycle. It defines the fatigue crack kinetics on the basis of the geometric relationship between the
crack tip opening displacement and the instantaneous crack growth rate. The proposed crack growth model can be expressed as a set of first-
order differential equations. The structural dynamics analysis and fatigue crack growth model can be expressed as a coupled hierarchical state-
space model. The dynamic response (structural level) and the fatigue crack growth (material level) can be solved simultaneously. Several
numerical problems with single degree-of-freedom and multiple degree-of-freedom cases are used to show the proposed methodology. Model
predictions are validated using coupon testing data from open literature. Following this, the methodology is demonstrated using a steel-girder
bridge. The proposed methodology shows that the concurrent structural dynamics and material fatigue crack growth analysis can be achieved.
The cycle-counting method in the conventional fatigue analysis can be avoided. Comparison with experimental data for structural steels and
aluminum alloy shows a satisfactory accuracy using the proposed coupled state-space model. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592
.0000227. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Fatigue; Cracking; Bridges; Dynamic analysis; Damage.
Author keywords: Fatigue; Crack growth; Prognosis; State-space model; Bridge.

Introduction
Metal fatigue is among the most critical modes for bridge safety.
The fatigue damage prognosis is still a challenging problem despite
tremendous progress made during the past decades. Many fatigue
failures have been observed in the United States Japan, and other
countries since the 1960s (Miki et al. 2003). Traditionally, bridge
fatigue resistance is evaluated by using the S-N curves provided in
the AASHTO specifications and the Eurocodes for bridge fatigue
design [AASHTO 1992; European Committee for standardization
(CEN) 2005]. Miner’s linear damage accumulation rule is the most
widely used for fatigue evaluation of bridges because of its simplic-
ity (Miner 1945). But the life prediction on the basis of Miner’s rule
is often unsatisfactory for fatigue life under variable amplitude
loadings and the influence of fatigue damage on local or global
stress response is not considered (Li et al. 2002, 2001). It has been
proven by several researchers (Agerskov and Nielsen 1999; Zhao
and Haldar 1996) that Miner’s rule is more applicable to the design
of new bridges than to evaluation of the fatigue damage and the
remaining useful life of existing bridges (Agerskov and Nielsen
1999; Li et al. 2002, 2001; Zhao and Haldar 1996). Several studies
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, NY 13699-5710.
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, NY 13699-5710.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Clarkson Univ., Potsdam, NY 13699-5710 (corresponding author). E-mail:
yliu@clarkson.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 29, 2010; approved
on February 1, 2011; published online on August 10, 2011. Discussion
period open until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineer-
ing, Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2012/3-396–
408/$25.00.
have been proposed for bridge fatigue life prediction on the basis of
the S-N curve approach (Kwon and Frangopol 2010; Li et al. 2002;
Schläfli and Brühwiler 1998). However, the method does not di-
rectly associate the fatigue damage with physical mechanisms
and cannot provide measurable quantities for the evaluation of
the fatigue damage (Li et al. 2002).
The proposed methodology is on the basis of the fracture me-
chanics, which assumes that the component contains a crack-like
defect. This is one of the major hypotheses in the damage tolerance
design. There have been a number of researchers performing
fatigue damage analysis and fatigue life prediction for larger struc-
tures through field measurement. The fatigue failures of Tsing Ma
Bridge in Hong Kong were studied by Li et al. (2002, 2001). The
fatigue analysis and life prediction was on the basis of obtained
data from a structural health monitoring system. Calcade et al.
(2002) obtained an experimentally calibrated finite-element model
of the bridge on the basis of intensive studies on Luiz I bridge in
Lisbon, Portugal. Leander et al. (2010) performed a reliability as-
sessment for a steel railway bridge in Stockholm, Sweden using the
field data. However, in these studies, the local information is re-
quired from field measurements or a finite-element model before
the fatigue analysis can be performed. All these studies used the
classical cycle-based fatigue methods and require that the cycle
counting of the local loading spectra is done before the fatigue
analysis can be performed. The classical fatigue analysis methods
separate the mechanical/structural analysis and material damage
analysis into two parts. To the best knowledge of the authors, there
are no concurrent analysis methodologies that exist for structural
response and material fatigue damage. This study aims to develop
a general methodology for coupling the structural dynamic analysis
and the material fatigue prognosis.
Fatigue damage accumulation is a multiscale phenomenon,
which ranges from microstructurally small crack initiation and
propagation to structural failure. Classical fatigue prognosis

396 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 methods are cycle-based, which correlates the cyclic driving force,
e.g., stress or stress intensity factor range, with the number of
cycles (Dubey et al. 1997). The earliest work of cycle-based fatigue
analysis can be traced back to Wohler (1870) and Basquin (1910)
(Schutz 1996). In the 1960s, Paris proposed the fatigue crack
growth model that relates the crack growth rate, da∕dN, and the
stress intensity factor range, ΔK [Eq. (1)] (Paris and Erdogan 1963)
da∕dN ¼ CΔK m ð1Þ
where C and m = fitting parameters and depend on the applied
stress ratio and environment. The Paris’ model makes it possible
to predict the remaining useful life using crack growth analysis,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which is also the most widely used fracture mechanics—based
model. The original Paris model has several limitations. It is only
applicable to crack growth rate in the range of approximately
10
3 mm∕cycle to 10
6 mm∕cycle. The predictions are limited
to fixed stress ratios under constant amplitude loading because
of both the stress ratio effect and crack closure effect are neglected
(Jones et al. 2008; Nguyen et al. 2001; Suresh 1998). Several ex-
tensions and modifications of the Paris model have been proposed,
such as the inclusion of near threshold crack growth (Laird 1979),
crack closure concept (Wolf 1970), stress ratio effect (Gilbert et al.
1995; Gurney 1979), and others. Wolf (1970) observed that fatigue
crack surfaces contact under cyclic tensile loading. This observa-
tion led to the investigation of the plasticity-induced crack closure
concept (Wolf 1970; Newman Jr. and Ruschau 2007). Wolf first
established that the fatigue crack propagation is not only influenced
by the condition ahead of the crack tip, but also by the premature
contact of the crack surfaces behind the crack tip. The fatigue crack
remains closed during a part of loading cycles because it propagates
in the residual tensile plastic deformed zone ahead of the crack tip
(Kujawski 2002). Wolf proposed to use the effective range of the
stress intensity factor (SIF) ΔK EFF instead of ΔK in the Paris
model as
ΔK EFF ¼ K max
K OP ð2Þ
where K max = maximum stress intensity factor; and K OP = stress
intensity factor at the crack opening load. A considerable number
of investigations have been made since Wolf’s discovery (Lee and
Song 2000; Solanki et al. 2004).
Another group of models uses the interaction of the plastic zone
ahead of the crack tip to explain the different crack growth behav-
ior. For example, fatigue crack growth under a variable loading case
has been discussed by Willenborg et al. (1971) and Wheeler (1972).
Wheeler postulated that the crack retardation is because of the
larger plastic zone ahead of the crack tip that is produced by the
overload. A retardation parameter, denoted by ϕR, is introduced that
can be multiplied to any constant amplitude fatigue model. The
crack growth under an overload for Paris’ equation is (Willenborg
1971)


da
¼ ϕR ½CðΔKÞm  ð3Þ
dN retarded
The parameterϕR depends on the stress level, the crack shape, and
the load spectrums. Wheeler assumed that ϕR , once calibrated, can
be used for other load spectrums. However, it has been shown that
the accuracy of prognosis will suffer if different loading spectra are
used with the same ϕR (Manson and Halford 2006; Pitoniak et al.
1974; Suresh 1983). Both Wheeler’s model and Willenborg’s
model are proposed to explain the crack growth retardation induced
by overload, but the concept is different. Willenborg determines the
amount of retardation as a function of the stress intensity factor
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 397
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408
necessary to cancel the effect of the overload plastic zone (Taheri
et al. 2003). Unlike Wheeler’s model, the Willenborg model does
not require an empirical parameter. However, to improve the reli-
ability of the Willenborg model a material constant is introduced
(Fatemi and Yang 1998; Stephens and Wei 1976). The acceleration
effect that has been observed by many researches (Skorupa 1999;
Taheri et al. 2003) has not been included in both models.
The methodologies discussed previously are all cycle based.
Although some of these methodologies have been widely used
in industry and academia, many inherent difficulties exist for the
cycle-based approach. It is impossible to continue reducing the
temporal scales because the smallest time scale is one cycle in
the cycle-based approach. In addition to the temporal scale limita-
tion, many observed phenomena and research activities are required
for the cycle-based model, such as the cycle-counting requirement
and mean stress effect in the conventional cycle-based fatigue
theory (Gilbert et al. 1995). A detailed discussion is given by
Lu and Liu (2010). A real stress time history must be transformed
to a cycle history before the fatigue analysis can be performed. This
is extremely difficult under the nonproportional multiaxial stress, in
which the well-defined cycle history does not exist even under the
constant amplitude loading (Kujawski 2002; Lee and Song 2000;
Newman Jr. and Ruschau 2007). In addition, this makes the con-
current dynamic analysis and multiscale fatigue prognosis very
difficult because the structural/mechanical analysis has to be per-
formed first to get a loading cycle history for the material level
damage analysis. In view of this, a fundamentally different and in-
novative formulation of fatigue damage at a smaller time scale is of
great importance to overcome the inherent difficulties in existing
fatigue analysis methodologies.
Conventional fatigue analysis is classified into two categories:
crack initiation analysis, e.g., S-N curve based or e-N curve based,
and crack propagation analysis, e.g., da∕dN approximately delta K
curve based. One challenging problem is the clear separation of
these two stages is somewhat unclear and depends on particular
applications. The authors have demonstrated that a unified ap-
proach using crack growth analysis and equivalent initial flaw size
concept can be used for both stages and match the final failure time
(Lu et al. 2010; Xiang et al. 2010). The proposed study focuses on
the new formulation of crack growth analysis and does not cover
the equivalent initial flaw size (EIFS) concept. A novel small time
scale fatigue formulation has been recently developed by the au-
thors (Lu and Liu 2010), which is fundamentally different with
the traditional cycle-based approach. It describes the crack growth
kinetics at any arbitrary time on the basis of the geometry at the
crack tip. This model is referred as the “small time scale model”
in this paper hereafter. One of advantages of this proposed small
time scale model is that it can be coupled with structural dynamics
because the crack growth rate can be described as a first-order dif-
ferential equation. This greatly facilitates the fatigue prognosis for
structural systems.
The paper is organized as follows. A brief introduction of
the small time scale model for material level fatigue crack growth
analysis is given first. Next, the proposed small time scale model is
coupled with structural dynamics using the state-space model. Fol-
lowing this, two numerical examples, including single degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) and multiple degree-of-freedom (MDOF)
problems, are used to show the proposed methodology. Detailed
derivation and calculation procedures are discussed. The experi-
mental coupon data for high performance steel (HPS) and alumi-
num alloy from the literature are used to validate the proposed
method. Finally, the proposed methodology is applied to a steel-
girder bridge for demonstration. Several conclusions are drawn
on the basis of the current investigation.
 Small Time Scale Crack Growth Model
The small time scale model is on the basis of the incremental crack
growth at any arbitrary small time increment. Only a brief introduc-
tion is given in this section to show the fundamental basis of the
proposed concurrent structural dynamics and material fatigue crack
growth analysis framework. Detailed derivation and model valida-
tion for the new material fatigue crack growth model is given by
(Lu and Liu (2010).
The small time scale model is developed on the basis of the geo-
metric relationship between the crack tip opening displacement
(CTOD) and the instantaneous crack growth kinetics. The geomet-
ric relationship between CTOD and the instantaneous crack growth
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
kinetics is shown in Fig. 1. The schematic illustration in Fig. 1 is for
a through thickness crack in an infinite plate. Only the tip region is
shown. The geometric correction factor can be added for the stress
intensity factor calculation for different crack configurations [see
Eq. (13)]. For the ease of model illustration, the simplest case
of the through thickness crack in an infinite plate is used to derive
Eqs. (4)–(10), which is also used by Lu and Liu (2010). As shown
in Fig. 1, the crack will extend a distance (da) after a small time
increment (dt), and the crack tip will extend from O to O0 .
Considering the geometry of crack tips at two time points (t and
t þ dt), the crack growth rate da∕dt for an infinitesimal
crack growth is derived as it is shown in Eq. (4), where θ is the
crack tip opening angle (CTOA)
cot θ
da ¼ dδ ¼ Cdδ ð4Þ
2 grow. The crack may not grow during the entire duration of the
Eq. (4) assumes the infinitesimal crack growth. The CTOA changes
from 90° at the very beginning of crack growth to a very small angle
roughly (approximately 4–6°) beyond a certain length until the
final failure (Ma et al. 2003; Newman 2003; Sandor and Richter
1987). The CTOA in the small time scale model is assumed to
be a function of applied load and material properties. The CTOA
is expressed as Eq. (5).
π π ΔK
ΔK TH
θ¼
ð5Þ
2 2 K c
ΔK TH
ΔK TH = intrinsic threshold stress intensity factor; and K c = fracture
toughness. It is assumed according to the experimental observa-
tions (Newman 2003) that the CTOA is 90° when the applied load
is approaching the threshold region, whereas it is 0° when the ap-
plied load is approaching the fracture toughness. The CTOD can be
approximately expressed as Eqs. (6) and (7) using the plastic zone
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of crack tip geometry profiles during
fatigue crack growth
398 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408
model proposed by Irwin (Janssen et al. 2004). Eq. (6) is for elastic-
perfect-plastic material behavior and ignores the hardening effect
(Skorupa 1999)
1 K2
δ¼ ¼ λσ2 a ð6Þ
2 Eσy
π
λ¼ ð7Þ
2Eσy
where E = Young’s modulus; and σy = yield strength. In Eq. (6) σ is
the nominal stress. According to Fig. 1, the crack propagated from
O to O0 during a small time increment. The crack length increment
is da and the CTOD increment is dδ. The CTOD increment dδ is
expressed as Eq. (8)
dδ ¼ λð2σadσ þ σ2 daÞ ð8Þ
Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (4) and dividing on both sides by a
small time increment dt, the instantaneous crack growth rate is
represented as
1 da 2σ dσ
¼ ð9Þ
Cλa dt 1
Cλσ2 dt
The proposed methodology describes crack growth rate in terms
of time scale instead of cycle according to Eq. (9). The crack length
at any arbitrary time can be calculated by direct time integration.
The previous discussion is for the case when the crack starts to
cyclic loading. A general expression considering the nonuniform
crack growth is expressed as
2Cλ
a_ ¼ HðσÞ
_ · Hðσ
σREF Þ · · σ_ · σ · a ð10Þ
1
Cλσ2
where “˙” = time derivative throughout this paper; H = Heaviside
function; and σREF = reference applied stress level at which the
crack starts to grow. Cracks do not grow during the entire duration
of the cyclic loading. For example, a crack does not grow during the
unloading path because of the energy principle. Also, a crack only
starts to grow when the applied loading is beyond a certain stress
level. The crack length needs to be calculated by performing the
integration from the lower integration limit, e.g., the time when
the reference stress level is reached, to the upper integration limit,
e.g., the time when the maximum stress level is reached. The crack
closure model is essentially contained in the calculation of refer-
ence stress level. In this case, the determination of the reference
stress level is critical to perform the integration. The small time
scale model has been validated using the existing experimental
data for various materials under both constant loading and variable
amplitude loadings (Lu and Liu 2010).
There are several advantages for the developed small time scale
model: (1) Comparing with Paris’ model, the proposed small time
scale model does not need cycle counting, e.g., only using the direct
time domain integral, under random variable loadings. Paris’ model
only considers the average crack growth per cycle and cannot
include the detailed mechanisms within one loading cycle,
e.g., nonuniform crack growth kinetics within one cycle as shown
in Eq. (10); (2) the stress ratio effect has been included in the small
time scale model because the direct stress state instead of stress
range is used; and (3) one unique advantage of the small time scale
model is that it can be seamlessly coupled with structural analysis
and has great potential for concurrent structural dynamic analysis
and multilevel, e.g., structural level and material level, fatigue dam-
age prognosis. This capability makes it an ideal model for real-time
 damage analysis and online decision making. Detailed discussion is
given subsequently.
Coupled Structural Dynamics and Fatigue Crack
Growth Analysis
The small time scale fatigue model is time based and can be
expressed as a set of first-order time derivative equations [see
Eq. (10)]. In most cases, fatigue cyclic loading is caused by struc-
tural dynamics. Governing equations for structural dynamics is a
set of second-order time derivative equations. Mathematically, both
material damage and structural dynamics can be expressed using a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
illustration purposeS. The spring is assumed to be a plate specimen
with a center through crack. The material for this specimen is as-
sumed to be aluminum alloy Al7075-T6. The ideal mass-spring-
damper system with mass (1 kg), spring constant assumed to be
identical to specimen Young’s modulus, and viscous damper of
damping coefficient (5 N × s∕m) is subject to an oscillatory force
FðtÞ. The properties of the material and specimen are listed in
Table 1 (Porter 1972). The governing equation of the dynamic
system (Newman 2003) can be express as
m €x þn_x þ kx ¼ FðtÞ ð11Þ

coupled state-space model. The general procedure for the proposed where m = mass; n = damping coefficient; k = stiffness; and
methodology is demonstrated in Fig. 2. First, governing equations x = displacement of the mass. The structural dynamics is generally
for the structural dynamics are built and expressed using a state- described using a second-order time derivative function [Eq. (11)].
space model (Hamilton 1993). Following this, the critical spot It can also be expressed as two first-order time derivative functions
in the structure is identified, and a crack growth equation is asso- and is named as a state-space model (Hamilton 1993). Detailed
ciated with this critical spot. Multiple critical spots can be identi- discussion about the expression of structural dynamics in its
fied, and each of these critical spots can be associated with a crack state-space formulation is beyond the scope of this study. Interested
growth equation. Next, the crack growth equations and structural readers can find details by Hamilton (1993). The proposed small
dynamics equations are coupled together using the state-space time scale model is essentially a first-order time derivative function
model. The coupled state-space equations are solved using time and is better coupled with structural dynamics using the state-space
domain numerical integrations. Material level crack growth and model
structural level dynamic responses are calculated simultaneously.
In Fig. 2, generic functions are used to express the coupled
state-space equations, which may or may not be linear.
Table 1. Dimensions and Material Properties of the Specimen
The previously discussed general procedure is illustrated using
two simple numerical examples. The first example is an SDOF Property name Value
problem. The second example is an extension of the developed Young’s modulus (MPa) 69,600
methodology to an MDOF system. These two simple examples
Yielding stress (MPa) 520
show the detailed simulation procedure before the practical dem-
Width of cross-section (mm) 100
onstration example is performed.
Length of the spring (mm) 1,000
Single Degree-of-Freedom Dynamic System Initial crack size (mm) 6.35
ΔK TH (MPa × m1∕2 ) 0.8
To demonstrate the concept of coupling the small time scale model
K c (MPa × m1∕2 ) 68
with a dynamic system, an SDOF spring-mass system is used for

Fig. 2. General procedure for concurrent structural dynamic analysis and fatigue prognosis in system level

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 399

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 8
>
> x_ ¼ x2 fatigue cyclic loading is controlled by two different types of plastic
>
< 1 zones: forward plastic zone during the loading path and reverse
x_ 2 ¼ ð
k∕mÞx1 þ ð
n∕mÞx2 þ FðtÞ∕m ð12Þ plastic zone during the unloading path. The reverse plastic zone
>
>
>
: x_ 3 ¼ H½ f ðx2 ÞH½gðx1 Þ
σREF  · 1
Cλgðx
2Cλ
f ðx2 Þgðx1 Þx3 after unloading produces a compressive residual stress ahead of
Þ21
the crack tip, which indicates the crack does not grow unless
the compressive residual stress is reversed. The crack begins to
propagate again when the present forward plastic zone size reaches
The derivative for stress (σ) in Eq. (10) is represented as a generic
the previous reverse plastic zone size. An overload produces a
function of x2 , e.g., f ðx2 Þ, and the stress is expressed as a generic
much larger reverse plastic zone compared with that under constant
function of x1 , e.g., gðx1 Þ, which can be easily obtained from
amplitude loadings and makes the crack growth rate slow down in
elasticity. The first two state-space equations (structural level) are
the following cycles, i.e., crack growth is retarded. After the crack
directly coupled with the third equation (fatigue analysis at the
grows beyond the overload affected region, the retardation effect
material level) in Eq. (12). The stiffness coefficient will depend
disappears and the crack growth rate “catches up” to the regular
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on the crack length and is directly coupled with the material level
damage in the proposed heretical state-space model. If the crack
length is small, its effect on the component stiffness is small
and the coupling effect is not significant. For large cracks, e.g., large
enough to affect the compliance of the component, the coupling
effect cannot be ignored.
The crack length is obtained by solving the first-order differen-
tial equations in Eq. (12). A numerical integration method,
i.e., fourth-order Rugga-Kutta algorithm in the current study, is
used to solve the first-order differential equations. For illustration
purposes, an example of variable block loading is shown in Fig. 3.
The block loading consists of 50 cycles of constant loading and
3 cycles of overload loading. Fig. 3(a) shows the external loading
applied on the dynamic system, and Fig. 3(b) shows the nominal
stress history of the specimen. The crack length evolution in the
specimen is shown in Fig. 3(c). As shown in Fig. 3(c), the crack
growth rate will decrease after the overload, which is known as the
retardation phenomena. It is shown in the developed small time
scale model (Lu and Liu 2010) that the crack growth rate under
behavior. As is shown in Fig. 3, the dynamic response of the system
(the local stress) and the crack growth are obtained concurrently.
Therefore, the real-time prognosis for system level is achieved.
Multiple Degree-of-Freedom Dynamic System
The SDOF dynamic system shows the basic concept of proposed
concurrent analysis framework using the state-space model.
In practical situations, a structural system is usually an MDOF sys-
tem. In this section, the proposed concept is extended to the MDOF
system with the help of finite-element discretization. A cantilever
beam problem is used as a demonstration example. The beam is
shown in Fig. 4(a). The material for the MDOF case is assumed
to be aluminum alloy AL2024, as shown in Table 2. The beam
has been divided into 10 elements to solve the dynamic response
(Riera et al. 2004). At the fixed end of the beam, an edge crack over
the entire beam width is assumed. A random force is applied at the
free end of the beam, as shown in Fig. 4(a). Only an opening mode
under bending is considered in this demonstration example, as

0.12 120

0.1 100

0.08 80
Stress(MPa)
Force(kN)

0.06 60

0.04 40

0.02 20

0 0
45 50 55 60 45 50 55 60
(a)
Time(sec) (b) Time(sec)
6.4

6.39
Crack length(mm)

6.38

6.37

6.36

6.35

6.34
0 100 200 300 400 500
(c) Time(sec)

Fig. 3. (a) Block loading spectrum; (b) nominal stress history; (c) crack growth trajectory of first 500 s

400 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 2 .. .. 3
F(t)
L
-0.5
2 3 6 0  0 . 1  0 . 0 7
-1
x_ 1 6 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 7

Force(kN)
-1.5 . . . . . . . . .
6 .. 7 6 .. .. 7
-2 6 . 7 6 0  0 7
6 7 6 0 . 0 1 . 7
D -2.5 6 x_ 20 7 6 .. .. 7
6 7 6  7
-3
67 6    .    . 7
M(t) 0 1 2 6 7 6 .. .. 7
b Time(sec) 6 v_ 1 7 ¼ 6
mk1;1 
k

m1;20 . 0  0 . 0 7
(a) 6 7 6 1;1 1;20 7
6 .. 7 6 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . 7 6 .. . 7
M 6 7 6 . . . . . . . 7
6 v_ 20 7 6 k20;1 .. .. 7
6 7 6 k
0 7
4    5 6
m20;1 
m20;20 . 0  0 . 7
6 20;20
7
a_ 6 .. .. 7
a
4    .    .  5
.. ..
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

D
0  0 . 0  0 . f ðx; vÞ
2 3 2 3
M x1 0  0
(b) 6 .. 7 6 .. .. .. 7
6 . 7 6 . . . 7
6 7 6 7
6 x20 7 6 0  0 7
Fig. 4. MDOF dynamic system of a cantilever beam: (a) cantilever 6 7 6 7
67 6    7
beam diagram and applied force; (b) geometry of the beam segment 6 7 6 1 1 7
×6 7 6  m1;20 7
with crack 6 v1 7 þ 6 m1;1 7 × FðtÞ
6 .. 7 6 . .. .. 7
6 . 7 6 .. . 7
6 7 6 . 7
6 v20 7 6 1  1 7
6 7 6 m20;20 7
4    5 4 m 20;1
   5
a 0  0
Table 2. Dimensions and Material Properties of the Beam
ð15Þ
Property name Value
2 3 2 3
Young’s modulus (MPa) 72,000 y1 x1
6 .. 7 6 .. 7
Yielding stress (MPa) 360 6 . 7 6 7
6 7 ¼ ½I × 6 . 7 ð16Þ
Width of cross section (mm) 100 4 y20 5 4 x20 5
Thickness (mm) 100 y21 a
Length (mm) 1,0000
Density (kg∕m3 ) 2,730 The structural dynamic analysis and fatigue crack growth analy-
ΔK TH (MPa × m1∕2 ) 0.9 sis are performed simultaneously using the coupled state-space
K c (MPa × m1∕2 ) 128 model according to Eqs. (15) and (16). One benefit of the proposed
method is that the coupling effect can be directly solved. The struc-
tural stiffness or compliance depends on the material damage,
e.g., crack length in the fatigue crack growth analysis. For example,
(Guinea et al. 1998) proposed a compliance equation of cracked
shown in Fig. 4(b). The stress intensity factor under this condition
beams under bending. The compliance of the cracked beam can
is expressed in Eq. (13) (Janssen et al. 2004) where a = crack
be expressed as
length; b = width of the beam; σ = local stress for the crack, which
is represented as a function of displacement; and F = geometric 1 h i
correction function C c ðαÞ ¼ c1 ðαÞ þ βc2 ðαÞ þ β 2 c3 ðαÞ ð17Þ
Eb
pffiffiffiffiffiffi where
K I ¼ F × σ πa
a L
F ¼ 1:122
1:40ða∕bÞ þ 7:33ða∕bÞ2
13:08ða∕bÞ3 α¼ ; β¼ ð18Þ
D D
þ 14:0ða∕bÞ4 ð13Þ
0:29 þ 1:39α
1:6α2
c1 ðαÞ ¼
0:378α3 lnð1
αÞ þ α2 ð19Þ
1 þ 0:54α
0:84α2
The structural governing equation is expressed in the matrix format
as Eq. (14) c2 ðαÞ ¼ 1:1α3 lnð1
αÞ

3:22
16:4α þ 28:1α2
11:4α3
þ α2 ð20Þ
½Mn×n f€xg þ ½Nn×n f_xg þ ½Kn×n fxg ¼ FðtÞ ð14Þ ð1
αÞð1 þ 4:7α
4α2 Þ

c3 ðαÞ ¼
0:176α3 lnð1
αÞ

Following the same procedure for the SDOF analysis, the crack
growth rate is the state variable and the displacement and velocity. 8:91
4:88α
0:435α2 þ 0:26α3
þ α2 ð21Þ
The outputs of the state-space model are crack length (y21 ) and dis- ð1
αÞ2 ð1 þ 2:9αÞ
placements at all DOFs. The output variables can be selected from
any state variables from the state-space equations,e.g., velocities where α and β = crack-to-depth ratio and span-to-depth ratio, re-
and displacement. The coupled state-space model can be expressed spectively; and E = Young’s modulus. It is shown that the compo-
as given in Eqs. (15) and (16) nent compliance is a nonlinear function of the crack length. As the

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 401

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 crack length increases, the stiffness reduces. The reduced stiffness
may affect the dynamic response and local loading spectra. Thus,
the crack growth kinetics also change. This coupling effect can be
directly included in the proposed coupled hierarchical state-space
modeling. Results for the cantilever beam example are shown in
Fig. 5 using the existing solution from Guinea et al. (1998)
for the cracked beam problem. For comparison purposes, numerical
predictions with and without coupling effect are shown in
Fig. 5. Solid lines and dash lines are responses without and with
the considered coupling effect between the crack size and element
stiffness, respectively. The displacements for two numerical exam-
ples with and without coupling effect are shown in Fig. 5(a). The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in Fig. 5(c), and the predicted crack lengths are shown in Fig. 5(d).
Fig. 5(c) shows that the dynamic responses of the two cases,
i.e., with and without considering the coupling effect, become dif-
ferent after approximately 20 cycles. Fig. 5(d) shows a large differ-
ence for the two cases for the crack growth and life predictions. For
these cases, ignoring the coupling effect will lead to a large error in
the final life prediction. For complex bridge structures with realistic
loadings, future study is required. For example, when the vehicle
dynamics and wind effects are considered, the damage behavior
might be different because of the complex dynamic effects. If
multiple cracks exist in the bridge structure, their interaction and
dynamic response change is much more complicated. The current

x-axis is the time in term of number of cycles. The y-axis is the
beam end displacement. The initial crack length is 1% of the total
height. As is shown in Fig. 5(a), the dynamic responses of the two
cases are almost identical until the end to the final life, i.e., the large
difference after almost 15.5 kilocycles, in which the crack length is
very long. This is because the initial crack length is very small and
stiffness reduction can be ignored during most of the fatigue life.
Fig. 5(b) shows the crack growth curve of these two examples. The
x-axis is the time in term of number of cycles. The y-axis is the
crack length. It can be clear seen that the crack growth prediction
is almost the same, with slight a difference in the near failure re-
gime. If the fatigue life is the final objective, ignoring the coupling
effect will not lead to a large error for very small initial cracks.
Another example with a larger initial crack is also performed.
The initial crack length is 50% of the beam height. The dynamic
response with and without considering the coupling effect is shown
investigation aims to propose a general methodology for the con-
current coupled analysis, and application to realistic large bridge
structures is beyond the scope of current study. In the later section
of this paper, a preliminary study is shown for a simple bridge
structure for demonstration purposes.
Model Validation and Comparison with Experimental
Data
The previous discussion focuses on the model development, and
this section focuses on the model prediction validation. In this sec-
tion, two different types of material from the literature are chosen:
HPS (Chen et al. 2007) and aluminum alloy Al 7075-T6 (Porter
1972). Both constant loading and block loading with overload have
been considered.

40
100
without coupling effect
30 without coupling effect
with coupling effect
with coupling effect
20 80
Displacement(mm)

Crack length(mm)

10
60
0

-10 40

-20
20
-30

-40 0
15.5 15.55 15.6 15.65 0 5 10 15
(a) Kilocycle (b) Kilocycle

40 90
without coupling effect without coupling effect
with coupling effect with coupling effect
20 80
Displacement(mm)

Crack length(mm)

70
0

60
-20

50
-40
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(c) Kilocycle (d) Kilocycle

Fig. 5. Dynamic system response and crack growth trajectories of the beam problem: (a) displacement responses of the cracked segment with a small
initial crack size; (b) crack growth trajectories with a small initial crack size; (c) displacement responses of the cracked segment with a large initial
crack size; (d) crack growth trajectories with a large initial crack size

402 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 High Performance Steel Table 3. Summary of Experimental Data for HPS

Because of its high yield strength, better weldability, and tough- Load ratio R Specimen Maximum testing
ness, HPS is increasingly being used for new bridges (Chen et al. (Pmin ∕Pmax ) designation load Pmax ðkNÞ
2007; Miki et al. 2002). The HPS experimental data for the ASTM 0 HPS-1 15.0
A709 Grade 70W (485W) plate specimen with edge crack under HPS-2 16.0
different stress ratio are used to validate the proposed method. The 0.5 HPS-3 28.0
experimental data used are taken from Chen et al. (2007). The
HPS-4 26.0
geometry information for the single-edge tension specimen is
shown in Fig. 6. Each specimen is precracked and tested under con-
stant load conditions in accordance to the ASTM-specified proce-
dures. A summary of the collected experimental data is listed in
Table 3. Four specimens are divided into two groups with R ratio used for predictions for other data sets. The calibrated values
for ΔK TH and K c are shown in Table 4.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of 0 and 0.5, respectively. The material properties of the plate spec-

imens are listed in Table 4. The ΔK TH and K c values are required The predictions of the proposed method and experimental data
for crack growth rate calculation in Eq. (5). The ΔK TH and K c are shown by the ΔK versus da∕dN plot. The comparisons are
values are calibrated using the crack growth curve data under shown in Fig. 7. A general satisfactory agreement between the
one stress ratio (Lu and Liu 2010), and the calibrated values are model predictions and experimental observations is observed.

Table 4. Material Properties of the Specimen

Property name Value
Young’s modulus (MPa) 201,200
Yielding stress (MPa) 438
ΔK TH (MPa × m1∕2 ) 0.7
K c (MPa × m1∕2 ) 500
Fig. 6. Specimen geometry Hardening factor 0.7

1.00E-05 1.00E-05
Experimental data R=0 Experimental data
R=0
Crack growth rate(m/cycle)

Small time scale

Crack growth rate(m/cycle)

Small time scale

1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07

1.00E-08 1.00E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
K(MPa m-1/2) K(MPa m-1/2)
(a) (b)
1.00E-05 1.00E-05
Experimental data Experimental data
R = 0.5 R = 0.5
Crack growth rate(m/cycle)

Small time scale Small time scale

Crack growth rate(m/cycle)

1.00E-06 1.00E-06

1.00E-07 1.00E-07

1.00E-08 1.00E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02
(c) K(MPa m-1/2) (d) K(MPa m-1/2)

Fig. 7. Comparison between prediction and experimental data for HPS: (a) load ratio R ¼ 0, maximum testing load 15 kN; (b) load ratio R ¼ 0,
maximum testing load 16 kN; (c) load ratio R ¼ 0:5, maximum testing load 28 kN; (d) load ratio R ¼ 0:5, maximum testing load 26 kN

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 403

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 Some differences are observed for the stress ratio R ¼ 0:5, and ad-
ditional investigations for high stress ratios are required. Because
no variable amplitude loading data are reported, no comparison is
performed.
Aluminum Alloy Al 7075-T6
In this section, experimental data on aluminum alloy Al 7075-T6
specimens reported by Porter (1972) are used to validate the pro-
posed structural system state-space model. The material properties,
e.g., the Young’s modulus, ΔK TH and K c , are listed in Table 1. For
the HPS case, only constant loading is studied. Variable amplitude
loading experimental data are used for Al 7075-T6. Variable
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
amplitude loadings containing a different number of overload
cycles are shown in Fig. 8 where n is number of cycle for constant
loading and m is number of overload loading; both n and m are
indicated in Fig. 9. It becomes constant loading for the m ¼ 0 case.
As discussed in the SDOF example, the crack growth rate will slow
down in the following cycle after overload occurs because of the
larger reverse plastic zone induced by the overload. One constant
loading (m ¼ 0; n ¼ 50) and three variable amplitude loading with
overload cases (m ¼ 1; m ¼ 6; m ¼ 50) have been studied. The
comparison between prediction results and experimental data
has been illustrated in Fig. 9. A good agreement is observed for
the aluminum alloy Al 7075-T6.

Extensive model validation for other metallic materials under

both constant and variable amplitude loadings can be found in
the paper by Lu and Liu (2010).
1 spectrum

n cyclesm cycles
σ2 =103.43 MPa Demonstration Example for Bridge

The proposed methodology is demonstrated in this section for the

σ1 =68.95 MPa concurrent structural dynamic analysis and fatigue prognosis of a
steel bridge. The demonstration bridge used here is a two-span con-
tinuous steel I-girder bridge coming from the third edition of Load
σmin =3.45 MPa
and Resistance Factor released by the National Steel bridge
Alliance (2004). The bridge cross section under consideration is
Fig. 8. Block loading diagram; data from Porter 1972
given subsequently in Fig. 10.

70 70
Experimental data Experimental data
60 Model prediction 60 Model prediction

50 50
Crack length (mm)
Crack length (mm)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 150 200 250
(a) Kilocycle (b) Kilocycle

80 70
Experimental data Experimental data
70 Model prediction 60 Model prediction

60
50
Crack length (mm)
Crack length (mm)

50
40
40
30
30
20
20

10 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 20 25
(c) Kilocycle (d) Kilocycle

Fig. 9. Comparison between small time scale model prediction and experimental data (Porter 1972) for Al 7075-T6 with different loading spectrums:
(a) m ¼ 0, n ¼ 50; (b) m ¼ 1, n ¼ 50; (c) m ¼ 6, n ¼ 50; (d) m ¼ 50, n ¼ 50

404 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Bridge cross section diagram; data from National Steel Bridge Alliance 2004

Four girders are spaced at 3.05 and 1.06 m overhangs, and the Table 5. Material Properties of the Steel Girder
roadway is centered over the girders. The girder elevation for the Property name Value
bridge is shown in Fig. 11(a). The section transitions are provided a
at 30% of the span length (8.23 m) from the interior pier. The girder Component and attachment dead load (kg∕m) 2,333
extending from 0 to 8.23 m on each side of the pier is referred Wearing surface dead loada (kg∕m) 317
to as “interior girder”, and the girder extending from the abutment Moment of inertia for the exterior girder (m4 ) 0.0066
to 19.20 m is referred to as “exterior girders”, as shown in Figs. 11(b) Moment of inertia for the interior girder (m4 ) 0.0082
and 11(c), respectively. The same girder design for both interior Young’s modulus (MPa) 206,840
and exterior girders is used in this paper. The structural steel Yielding strength (MPa) 342
is ASTM A709, Grade 50W. The concrete slab is reinforced with ΔK TH (MPa × m1∕2 ) 0.8
normal Grade 60 reinforcing steel. The detail properties for the steel K c (MPa × m1∕2 ) 198
a
girders are listed in Table 5 (National Steel Bridge Alliance 2004). The weight is equally distributed to all girders.

Fig. 11. Dimension diagrams of girder elevation and girder cross sections (data from National Steel Bridge Alliance 2004): (a) girder elevation;
(b) exterior girder; (c) interior girder

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 405

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Diagrams of crack location and the applied force of the bridge

Field splice joints are reported to have great stress concentration In this demonstration example, the bridge is simplified to a two-
(Leander et al. 2010; Li et al.; Miki et al. 2003; White et al. Minor span continuous beam model. The bridge is divided into 12 seg-
and Derucher 1992). As is shown in Fig. 12, an initial crack be- ments to solve the dynamic response. The sinusoidal force applied
cause of defects is assumed at the bottom flange (initial crack size is shown in Fig. 14(a). It is worth mentioning that the sinusoidal
a ¼ 3 mm), which is also the transition area between the interior force is only for demonstration purposes for the proposed funda-
girder and the exterior girder. The crack will first go through the mental methodology. The research for a more realistic case, includ-
bottom flange and extend to the web finally. The dimension of the ing live load and the influence line, is currently undergoing. In
bottom flange is shown in Fig. 12. For the bottom flange, the crack addition, application with complex large span bridges needs addi-
is approximately under uniform uniaxial loading. A simplified tional study. The dynamic response for this simplified beam-like
crack model is used, as shown in Fig. 13. This simplified crack bridge, i.e., the local stress shown in Fig. 14(b) and the fatigue
model only demonstrates the proposed methodology. Other crack crack growth shown in Figs. 14(c) and 14(d), is calculated concur-
configurations, such as a surface semielliptical crack, can be easily rently. For illustration purposes the first 10-s stress history is shown
used in the proposed study by changing the geometric correction in Fig. 14(b). Fig. 14(c) is the crack growth during a short time
function [see Eqs. (13) and (22)]. The stress intensity factor for this duration, and Fig. 14(d) is the crack growth during a long time du-
loading case (Fig. 13) can be expressed as Eq. (22) (Janssen ration expressed in kilocycles in terms of classical fatigue analysis
et al. 2004). results. It is seen that the crack growth in a short time duration
shows a “zig-zag” pattern, which may be because of small dynamic
loading cycles. In the classical fatigue analysis, the crack growth
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
K 1 ¼ F × σ πa because of dynamic small cyclic loadings is usually ignored, which


2
3 might lead to a nonconservative prediction. In addition, classical
a a a
F ¼ 1:12
0:231 þ 10:55
21:72 fatigue analysis under the variable loading, as shown in Fig. 14(b),
b b b requires cycle counting before the fatigue damage analysis. It is not

4
a possible to perform the concurrent analysis because the limitations
þ 30:39 ð22Þ
b of the classical fatigue formulation, i.e., cycle based.
The focus of the proposed study is to demonstrate the coupled
material fatigue damage and structural dynamics using simplified
structural models and sinusoidal force. For many bridge fatigue
analyses, the fatigue cyclic loading is calculated using the influence
line or surface from moving loads. Dynamic behaviors are usually
ignored if the effect is not large. The proposed general methodlogy
can handle both cases, i.e., static and dynamic analysis. If the dyan-
mic response is ignored, i.e., accelaration and velocity terms are
dropped off, the proposed coupled state-space model can be still
used. In general, all bridge fatigue loadings are caused by dynamic
responses although a simplified moving vehicle load is a good
approximation for some bridges. If vehicle dynamics and wind ef-
fects cannot be ignored, dynamic response has to be considered.
The main objective of the proposed study is to show a general
Fig. 13. Diagram of crack orientation and the nominal stress of the
methodology in which the dynamic behavior could be directly
bottom flange
coupled with the fatigue damage analysis.

406 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 -2000 150

-3000 100

Stress (MPa)
-4000 50

Force (kN)
-5000 0

-6000 -50

-7000 -100

-8000 -150
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Time (sec) (b) Time (sec)

3.06 0.4

3.05

Crack length (mm)

Crack length (mm)

0.3
3.04

3.03 0.2

3.02
0.1
3.01

3 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20 25
(c) Time (sec) (d) Kilocycle

Fig. 14. Dynamic system responses and crack growth trajectories of the bridge: (a) applied force; (b) nominal stress; (c) crack growth trajectory of the
first 50 s (d) crack growth trajectory of the longer time history

Conclusions
In this study, a new methodology for the real-time structural dam-
age prognosis for a bridge is proposed. A small time scale fatigue
crack model at the material level is directly coupled with the struc-
tural dynamics using the state-space model. Compared with the tra-
ditional cycle-based fatigue crack growth model, it is capable of
computing the crack length at any arbitrary time without cycle
counting. This advantage makes it possible to integrate the model
with a dynamic structural system for concurrent analysis. Several
examples are given to demonstrate the proposed concept, and the
model predictions are validated using experimental data for HPS
and aluminum alloy Al 7075-T6. The proposed methodology is
demonstrated using a bridge, and the results for the real bridge case
show the capability of the proposed methodology for real-time
fatigue prognosis. Several conclusions are drawn on the basis of
the proposed study:
1. Concurrent structural dynamic analysis and material fatigue
crack growth analysis can be performed using the proposed
coupled hierarchical state-space model;
2. The proposed model shows a satisfactory accuracy for the high
performance steel used for steel bridges and aluminum alloy Al
7075-T6; and
3. The proposed model can include the coupling effect between
structural dynamics and material damage accumulation. This is
a more general analysis methodology for structural level
damage analysis because the structural damage and structural
dynamic response are usually correlated. The coupling effect
between dynamic response and material crack growth depends
on the initial crack length. In the current investigation (loading
and structural configuration), the coupling effect can be
ignored for very small initial cracks. Further study is requested
for other cases.
The proposed method has several advantages compared with
to traditional fatigue damage prognosis methods. First, the fatigue
prognosis problem can be directly integrated with the health mon-
itoring system using the proposed hierarchical state-space formu-
lation. The measured dynamic response of a bridge can be used to
get the fatigue life without cyclic counting. The real-time fatigue
damage prognosis and health management can be achieved. In
addition, the fatigue crack model used in this paper does not suffer
from the cycle-counting requirements and stress ratio effects
compared with the cycle-based fatigue prognosis approach, which
significantly reduces the experimental calibration work.
Current work focuses on the deterministic analysis. Stochastic
analysis to address huge uncertainties associated with fatigue dam-
age needs further study. This paper aims to describe a general meth-
odology to illustrate the basic concept of concurrent structural
dynamic analysis and fatigue damage prognosis. Practical applica-
tions, including vehicle dynamics and health monitoring data, are
currently ongoing.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was supported by NSF (Award
No. CMMI-0900111, Project Manager: Dr. Mahendra Singh). The
support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
AASHTO. (1992). Standard specifications for highway bridges,
Washington, DC.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 407

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408

 Agerskov, H., and Nielsen, J. (1999). “Fatigue in steel highway bridges
under random loading.” J. Struct. Eng., 125(2), 152–162.
Basquin, O. H. (1910). “The exponential law of endurance test.” Proc., Am.
Soc. Test. Mater., 10(X), 625–630.
Calcada, R., Cunha, A., and Delgado, R. (2002). “Dynamic analysis of
metallic arch railway bridge.” J. Bridge Eng., 7(4), 214–222.
Chen, H., Grondin, G. Y., and Driver, R. G. (2007). “Characterization of
fatigue properties of ASTM A709 high performance steel.” J. Constr.
Steel Res., 63(6), 838–848.
Dubey, S., Soboyejo, A., and Soboyejo, W. (1997). “An investigation of the
effects of stress ratio and crack closure on the micromechanisms of
fatigue crack growth in Ti-6Al-4V.” Acta Mater., 45(7), 2777–2787.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2005). “Design of steel
strucutures-Part 1-9 Fatigue.” Eurocode EN1993-1-9, Brussels,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 12/07/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Belgium.
Fatemi, A., and Yang, L. (1998). “Cumulative fatigue damage and life
prediction theories: A survey of the state of the art for homogeneous
materials.” Int. J. Fatigue, 20(1), 9–34.
Gilbert, C., Petrany, R., Ritchie, R., Dauskardt, R., and Steinbrech, R.
(1995). “Cyclic fatigue in monolithic alumina: Mechanisms for crack
advance promoted by frictional wear of grain bridges.” J. Mater. Sci.,
30(3), 643–654.
Guinea, G., Pastor, J., Planas, J., and Elices, M. (1998). “Stress intensity
factor, compliance and CMOD for a general three-point-bend beam.”
Int. J. Fract., 89(2), 103–116.
Gurney, T. (1979). Fatigue of welded structures, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hamilton, J. (1993). State-space models, Dept. of Economics, Univ. of
California, San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Janssen, M., Zuidema, J., and Wanhill, R. J. H. (2004). Fracture mechan-
ics, VSSD, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jones, R., Molent, L., and Pitt, S. (2008). “Similitude and the Paris crack
growth law.” Int. J. Fatigue, 30(10–11), 1873–1880.
Kujawski, D. (2002). “Utilization of partial crack closure for fatigue crack
growth modeling.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 69(12), 1315–1324.
Kwon, K., and Frangopol, D. (2010). “Bridge fatigue reliability assessment
using probability density functions of equivalent stress range based on
field monitoring data.” Int. J. Fatigue, 32(8), 1221–1232.
Laird, C. (1979). “Mechanisms and theories of fatigue.” Fatigue and micro-
structure, American Society for Metals, International, Metals Park,
OH, 149–203.
Leander, J., Andersson, A., and Karoumi, R. (2010). “Monitoring and en-
hanced fatigue evaluation of a steel railway bridge.” Eng. Struct., 32(3),
854–863.
Lee, S.-Y., and Song, J.-H. (2000). “Crack closure and growth behavior of
physically short fatigue cracks under random loading.” Eng. Fract.
Mech., 66(3), 321–346.
Li, Z., Chan, T., and Ko, J. (2002). “Determination of effective stress range
and its application on fatigue stress assessment of existing bridges.” Int.
J. Solids Struct., 39(9), 2401–2417.
Li, Z. X., Chan, T. H. T., and Ko, J. M. (2001). “Fatigue analysis and life
prediction of bridges with structural health monitoring data—part I:
Methodology and strategy.” Int. J. Fatigue, 23(1), 45–53.
Lu, Z., and Liu, Y. (2010). “Small time scale fatigue crack growth analysis.”
Int. J. Fatigue, 32(8), 1306–1321.
Lu, Z., Xiang, Y., and Liu, Y. (2010). “Crack growth-based fatigue-life
prediction using an equivalent initial flaw model. Part II: Multiaxial
loading.” Int. J. Fatigue, 32(2), 376–381.
Ma, L., Lam, P., Kokaly, M., and Kobayashi, A. (2003). “CTOA of a stable
crack in a thin aluminum fracture specimen.” Eng. Fract. Mech.,
70(3–4), 427–442.
Manson, S., and Halford, G. (2006). Fatigue and durability of structural
materials, American Society for Metals, International, Metals Park, OH
408 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 396-408
Miki, C., Homma, K., and Tominaga, T. (2002). “High strength and high
performance steels and their use in bridge structures.” J. Constr. Steel
Res., 58(1), 3–20.
Miki, C., Ito, Y., and Sasaki, E. (2003). Fatigue and repair cases in steel
bridges, Miki Laboratory, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of
Technology, Tokyo, Japan.
Miner, M. (1945). “Cumulative damage in fatigue.” J. Appl. Mech., 12(3),
159–164.
National Steel Bridge Alliance (2004). Design example 2A: Two-span
continuous straight composite I girder, 3rd Ed., Chicago, 1–70.
Newman, J. (2003). “A review of the CTOA/CTOD fracture criterion.” Eng.
Fract. Mech., 70(3–4), 371–385.
Newman, J. C. Jr. and Ruschau, J. J. (2007). “The stress-level effect on
fatigue-crack growth under constant-amplitude loading.” Int. J. Fatigue,
29(9–11), 1608–1615.
Nguyen, O., Repetto, E., Ortiz, M., and Radovitzky, R. (2001). “A cohesive
model of fatigue crack growth.” Int. J. Fract., 110(4), 351–369.
Paris, P. C., and Erdogan, F. (1963). “A critical analysis of crack propaga-
tion laws.” J. Basic Eng., 85(4), 528–534.
Pitoniak, F., Grandt, A., Montulli, L., and Packman, P. (1974). “Fatigue
crack retardation and closure in polymethylmethacrylate.” Eng. Fract.
Mech., 6(4), 663–666.
Porter, T. (1972). “Method of analysis and prediction for variable amplitude
fatigue crack growth.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 4(4), 717–736.
Riera, J., et al. (2004). “A state-space model of the hemodynamic approach:
Nonlinear filtering of BOLD signals.” NeuroImage, 21(2), 547–567.
Sandor, B., and Richter, K. (1987). Engineering mechanics, statics and
dynamics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Schläfli, M., and Brühwiler, E. (1998). “Fatigue of existing reinforced
concrete bridge deck slabs.” Eng. Struct., 20(11), 991–998.
Schutz, W. (1996). “A history of fatigue.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 54(2),
263–300.
Skorupa, M. (1999). “Load interaction effects during fatigue crack growth
under variable amplitude loading—a literature review. Part II: Qualita-
tive interpretation.” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 22(10),
905–926.
Solanki, K., Daniewicz, S. R., and Newman, J. C. (2004). “Finite element
analysis of plasticity-induced fatigue crack closure: An overview.” Eng.
Fract. Mech., 71(2), 149–171.
Stephens, R., and Wei, R. (1976). Fatigue crack growth under spectrum
loads, ASTM International, Tallahassee, FL.
Suresh, S. (1983). “Micromechanisms of fatigue crack growth retardation
following overloads.” Eng. Fract. Mech., 18(3), 577–593.
Suresh, S. (1998). Fatigue of materials, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Taheri, F., Trask, D., and Pegg, N. (2003). “Experimental and analytical
investigation of fatigue characteristics of 350WT steel under constant
and variable amplitude loadings.” Mar. Struct., 16(1), 69–91.
Wheeler, O. (1972). “Spectrum loading and crack growth.” J. Basic Eng.,
94(1), 181–186.
White, K., Minor, J., and Derucher, K. (1992). Bridge maintenance inspec-
tion and evaluation, CRC Press, New York.
Willenborg, J., Engle, R., and Wood, H. (1971). A crack growth retardation
model using an effective stress concept, Storming Media, Washington,
DC.
Wolf, E. (1970). “Fatigue crack closure under cyclic tension.” Eng. Fract.
Mech., 2(1), 37–44.
Xiang, Y., Lu, Z., and Liu, Y. (2010). “Crack growth-based fatigue life pre-
diction using an equivalent initial flaw model. Part I: Uniaxial loading.”
Int. J. Fatigue, 32(2), 341–349.
Zhao, Z., and Haldar, A. (1996). “Bridge fatigue damage evaluation
and updating using non-destructive inspections.” Eng. Fract. Mech.,
53(5), 775–788.