Fatigue assessment for selected connections

of structural steel bridge components using

the finite elements method
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1922, 150001 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5019154
Published Online: 08 January 2018

Krzysztof Śledziewski

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Calculation methods study on hot spot stress of new girder structure detail
AIP Conference Proceedings 1890, 040020 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005222

Comparative study on the welded structure fatigue strength assessment method

AIP Conference Proceedings 1955, 030029 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5033628

Fatigue life calculations of structural elements by means of equivalent load spectrum and
material properties for LCF and HCF
AIP Conference Proceedings 2028, 020007 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5066397

AIP Conference Proceedings 1922, 150001 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5019154 1922, 150001

© 2017 Author(s).
 Fatigue Assessment for Selected Connections of Structural
Steel Bridge Components Using the Finite Elements Method
Krzysztof Śledziewski1, a)
1
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Lublin University of Technology, Nadbystrzycka 40, 20-618 Lublin,
Poland
a)
Corresponding author: k.sledziewski@pollub.pl

Abstract. Material fatigue it is one of the most frequent causes of steel bridge failures, particularly the bridges already
existing. Thus, the procedure of fatigue life assessment is one of the most relevant procedures in a comprehensive
assessment of load-carrying capacity and service life of the structure. A reliable assessment of the fatigue life is
predominantly decisive for estimation of the remaining service life. Hitherto, calculation methods of welded joints took
into account only stresses occurring in cross sections of whole elements and did not take into account stress concentration
occurring in the vicinity of the weld, caused by geometrical aspects of the detail. At present, use of the Finite Element
Analysis, makes possible looking for more accurate approach to the fatigue design of steel structures. The method of
geometrical stresses is just such approach which is based on definition of stresses which take into account geometry of
the detail. The study presents fatigue assessment of a representative type of welded joint in welded bridge structures. The
testing covered longitudinal attachments. The main analyses were carried out on the basis of FEM and the method of
local stresses, so-called „hot-spot” stresses. The obtained values of stresses were compared with the values obtained in
accordance with the method of nominal stress.

INTRODUCTION
The service life span of used steel bridges depends predominantly upon fatigue which provokes usually
catastrophic failures and corrosion which provokes usually degradation failures. Fatigue is a form of material failure
due to cumulation of micro-damages, in form of scratches and cracks , in case of repeating loads [1], in which each
of them, acting statically does not provoke destruction [2]. Occurring fatigue cracks in welded structures invariably
start increase in the places of stress concentration. Structural fatigue behaviour depends predominantly upon severity
of the notch. Because all joints are inevitably the places of stress concentration, it is quite obvious that fatigue
damages may be expected in the place of any type of structural notches, which are formed the most frequently by
welded joints between bridge elements [3]. These damages cause gradual loss of stiffness of bridge platforms and
quick degradation of insulation and pavements, which provokes in turn decrease in service life of the whole
structure and thus – increase in its maintenance costs [4].
Technological and structural difficulties and disproportionate cost of execution do not allow for total elimination
of all notches in a welded structure, so more that they are not required by resistance factors. Hence, a question
arises, what notches and in which conditions may exist in a welded structure without any fear of cracks during its
service life. Results of many investigations prove that some drawbacks in form of various type of weld defects may
be found in welds without causing any cracks [5]. On the basis of non-destructive tests there may be found defects,
their size and intensity but it is impossible to state quantitatively to which extent they decrease loading capacity of
welded joints [6]. The decision relating to remediation of such defect or leaving it in a structure are based mainly in
principle on practical experience of the results of laboratory tests carried out on test specimens. In this connection,
the procedure of assessment of fatigue life is one of the most essential procedure in a comprehensive assessment of
loading capacity of the structure.

Computer Methods in Mechanics (CMM2017)

AIP Conf. Proc. 1922, 150001-1–150001-10; https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5019154
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1614-7/$30.00

150001-1
 Due to complexity of this question, there are many various ways of determination of fatigue life of welded
points. Well proved methods have their place in a number of standards and recommendations. There should be
mentioned here for instance recommendations of the International Institute of Welding (IIW) [7], American Bureau
of Shipping [8], Japanese [9] or British standards [10] and Eurocodes 3 (EC 3) [11]. It is worth mentioning that the
standpoint for assumptions to each one of these documents says that the results should be conservative and only in
several percent of cases the real fatigue strength may be lower that the calculated stress.
At present, two methods of stress determination and in the next step – determination of fatigue life in welded
joints are the most popular in the engineering world. The first one consists in determination of nominal stresses, the
second one – of strictly local stresses in a potential point of initiation of a crack. The analysis on the basis of
nominal stresses is more frequently chosen, when the welded joint is classified to a group in compliance with
standards being in force [11] and – when stress may be easily determined. The procedures comprise a number of
factors selected in dependence on specific features and service conditions and due to this – calculation procedures
are considerably simplified and standardized. The detailed recommendations have been described in the studies
published by the IIW [7]. There have been laid down several fatigue categories (FAT), which depend upon the type
of a welded joint. Determination of the appropriate fatigue class (FAT) consists in use of the range of nominal
stresses Δσn = FAT (MPa) for the fatigue life Nc = 2·106 cycles. In the majority of cases, structural details are
assessed in the places of higher risk of cracking. Taking this into account, the fatigue life within the range 104-107
may be determined in dependence upon:
m m
 FAT   FAT 
Nf     Nc     2 10 ,
6
(1)
  n  2
 an 
where:
Nf – number of cycles until destruction,
FAT – class of fatigue characteristics [MPa],
m – inclination of fatigue characteristics (in a majority of cases it is recommended to assume the value m = 3),
Δσn – range of nominal stresses [MPa],
σan – amplitude of nominal stresses [MPa].
Such approach, recommended by the IIW [7], assumes that 95% of welded joints will withstand the assumed
fatigue strength. The defined fatigue diagrams are identified by a suitable material strength determined for two
million cycles. The value of this strength is defined by the fatigue class FAT.
A certain simplification consists in determination of hazardous zones beyond the notch areas, defined as nominal
stresses. Such design process, in case of fatigue calculations requires a detailed knowledge within the field of
analysis in compliance with the theory of elasticity or FEM and is exposed to a high risk of error. Moreover, this
method does not take into account any geometrical variance of the classified joints which makes it difficult to use.
All these shortcomings and limitations make the application of the nominal stress method in some cases
complicated, less accurate and less efficient.
The second method is recommended particularly in cases of application of numerical analyses (FEM). The
methodology is called also linearization of stress in critical points. This method takes into account changes in cross
sections and influence exerted by stress concentration in the place of expected rupture, leaving aside at the same
time influence of the weld profile.
The hot spot stress concept was first introduced for the fatigue design of tubular structures decades ago. Over the
years, the advantages of this approach compared to the traditional nominal stress method provoked design
associations to introduce guidelines and instructions regarding fatigue design of plated structures using hot spot
stress as well. By definition, the structural hot spot stress approach (SHSS) designates the basic stress, including
stress concentration effects caused by geometrical variations of the detail at the expected fatigue crack initiation area
(hot spot). SHSS disregards the notch effect caused by the weld profile and comprises all other geometric
parameters. Hence, one hot spot stress S-N curve can be associated to several details.
The results of several three-dimensional FEA have shown that certain instructions regarding the element types
and meshing techniques should be followed in order to obtain comparable results [12].
On the basis of available results of fatigue tests [5] there has been carried out in this study assessment of fatigue
strength of a representative type of welded joints of structural elements in steel bridges. The tests were carried out
with longitudinal attachments. The main analyses were carried out by means of the Finite Elements Method. The
stresses were determined by application both of local stress method, so-called „hot-spot” and nominal stress method.
The results are discussed and compared with the IIW [7], and EC 3 [11] recommendations. The FEA instructions

150001-2
given by IIW are adapted in order to create three-dimensional solid models with fine meshes. Both linear and
quadratic extrapolation methods are exploited in order to obtain hot spot.

STRUCTURAL HOT-SPOT STRESS METHOD (SHSS)

The most conventional procedure to determine the structural hot-spot stress in welded steel structures is using
a finite element analysis. FE models can be constructed with thin/thick shell elements or alternatively solid
elements. Models composed with shell elements are fairly simple to construct. The elements should be positioned in
the mid-plane of the plates in the structural elements – Fig. 1 (a) [13]. The welds are usually not modelled except for
special cases where the results are affected by high local bending, e.g. due to an offset between plates or due to
a small free plate length between adjacent welds such as at lug (or collar) plates.
Solid elements are particularly recommended for modelling complex details. Since the modelling of the welds
with solid modelling is easily incorporated, it is generally recommended to include the welds in FE models with
solid elements – Fig. 1 (b) [13].

(a) (b)
FIGURE 1. Three-dimensional FE modelling (a) Shell model (b) Solid model including weld [13]

For the purpose of fatigue verification with the hot-spot stress method, FE models are generally created
assuming ideal geometry of the structural detail. Possible unintended misalignments and other type of imperfections
are indirectly covered on the resistance side, i.e. in the S-N curves. S-N curves for the hot-spot method are derived
from statistical analysis of test data where imperfections – within specific limits – exist in the test specimens. Other
geometrical imperfections or misalignments outside the range of what is covered by the S-N curves should be
accounted for, either directly in the model, or by employing a relevant stress concentration factor.
The use of the finite element method for determining hot-spot stresses requires good understanding of the
principles of the FEM and the philosophy behind the structural hot-spot stress method. The result from FEA can be
highly mesh sensitive, since the structural hot-spot stresses are often in an area of high strain gradients, i.e. stress
singularities. The stress values obtained from FE programs may also differ depending on element size and type and
whether or not the welds are represented in the model. It is therefore necessary to establish consistent procedures for
the determination of the structural hot-spot stress in welded details, so that a correct correlation is obtained between
calculated stresses and fatigue lives for these details. This modelling and mesh dependency is the main disadvantage
of the structural hot-spot stress approach.
The recommendations provided by the IIW [7] supplies the most comprehensive rules for the application of
structural hot-spot stress method. EC 3 [11] also allows the application of this method for fatigue verification of
welded structures. However, apart from a list of structural details with the corresponding fatigue design curves, EC 3
[11] provides no recommendations or instructions, regarding the application of the method, i.e. modelling and
extrapolation techniques and type of hot-spots points.
One major feature which is always needed in the calculation of the structural hot-spot stress from FE model is
the process of stress linearization. This process is necessary in order to separate the membrane and bending stress
components in the detail from the non-linear stress peak generated by the local weld geometry. Commonly stress
linearization is performed by means of stress extrapolation from specific points at some distance away from the
region affected by high local stress gradients. Usually surface stress extrapolation is employed. In some special
cases, a linearization of stress through the thickness might be needed to obtain more accurate results.

150001-3
 FIGURE 2. Fatigue-critical hot-spot points at weld toes proposed by Fricke [14]

For the sake of determining the structural hot-spot stress, one should distinguish between two types of hot-spots
Fig. 2 [14]: type “a” in which the weld is located on plate surface and type “b” in which the weld is located at
plate edge. The main difference between these two types is seen in the stress distribution through the thickness
of the plate with anticipated cracking. While the stress in Type “a” hot-spots varies substantially through the
thickness of the cracked plate, it is more uniform in Type “b” hot-spots. It follows that a linearization of the
stress in Type “a” details should consider the plate thickness as a parameter, while the linearized hot-spot stress in
Type “b” details is insensitive to the plate thickness.

Linear stress extrapolation

The linear surface stress extrapolation technique involves reading out the nodal stresses at two reference points
and then using these stress values to extrapolate a value for the structural hot-spot stress at the weld toe. This is the
most common procedure to derive the hot-spot stress from FE analysis. The notch stress (nonlinear stress) due to the
weld itself is excluded through the linear extrapolation of surface stress from the two reference points, which should
be located outside the region affected by the local weld geometry. Extensive strain measurements and FE analysis of
welded details show that the non-linear notch stress effects usually diminish a small distance away from the weld
toe. This distance was seen to be a function of the plate thickness, around 0.3t.
Linear surface stress extrapolation can be used for welded details with type “a” or type “b” hot-spots. The
location of the two reference points for stress extrapolation is however different for these two types. The location of
stress extrapolation points is also dependent on the mesh density in FE models.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 3. Linear extrapolation of the hot-spot stress from fine (a) and coarse (b) mesh model [13]

Figure 3 [13] shows the position of stress extrapolation points for type “a” hot-spots s in FE-models with “fine”
respectively “coarse” mesh. The two reference points on the stress curve are located normal to the weld toe. The first
reference point closest to the weld toe is positioned at 0.4t or 0.5t in models with fine respectively coarse mesh.
These values are selected in order to include the effect of detail geometry, but exclude the effect of the notch stress
due to the weld profile as mention before. The second point is positioned at 1.0t or 1.5t from the weld toe, which is
accepted as the point where the effect of geometric features of the detail will diminish.

150001-4
 For fatigue critical points located at the plate edges (type b), the same surface stress extrapolation procedure can
be used, but with different locations for the reference points. Here, the stress is uniform through the thickness of the
plate and therefore the location of the extrapolation points is no longer a function of plate thickness. For linear
extrapolation, it is recommended to use the reference points located at 5 respectively 15mm in front of the weld toe
for coarsely meshed models.
It should be observed that the properties of the finite element model usually influence the derived stresses in the
hot-spot region. Therefore, the mesh – whether coarse or fine – should comply with the rules of stress extrapolation.
For example, FE models with coarse mesh will usually have one quadratic FE element through the thickness of the
plate. The stress extrapolation points are thus found at the element intermediate nodes as shown in Fig. 3 (b) [13].

Quadratic (non-linear) stress extrapolation

In some specific cases, linear extrapolation may lead to non-conservative results and the more accurate method
with quadratic (non-linear) surface stress extrapolation procedure is recommended. A typical example is found in
welded details where the stress distribution is strongly non-linear near the weld toe due to geometric complexities
or/and local loading conditions.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 4. Quadratic stress extrapolation of structural hot-spot stress for type a (a) and type b (b) acc. to IIW [13]

Three reference points are required for obtaining the structural hot-spot stress with quadratic extrapolation. As
for linear extrapolation, the locations of these reference points is different for type “a” and type “b” hot-pots
(Fig. 4 [13]). For “type a” hot-spots, the reference points should be located at 0.4t, 0.9t and 1.5t from the weld
toe, again being dependent on the thickness of the cracked plate. For details with “type b” hot-spots, the reference
points have constant distances; 4, 8, 12mm from the weld toe. Apparently, the above mentioned reference points
require finely meshed FE models. In order to obtain sufficiently accurate stresses at the extrapolation points the
element mesh close to the weld toe must be sufficiently fine and the reference points must be coincident with
element edge nodes. The stress values at the reference points are the surface stresses at the nodes, i.e. nodal
stress (nodal stress values are the averaged values of stress at each element edge nodes).
TABLE 1. Surface stress extrapolation at the weld toe recommended by IIW [7].
Type of Linear extrapolation Quadratic extrapolation
hot-spots
point Fine mesh Coarse mesh Fine mesh Coarse mesh
0.4t and 1.0t 0.5t and 1.5t 0.4t, 0.9t and 1.4t 0.5t, 1.5t and 2.5t
Type a 2.52σ0.4t – 2.24σ0.9t + 1.875σ0.5t – 1.25σ1.5t +
1.67σ0.4t – 0.67σ1.0t 1.5σ0.5t – 0.5σ1.5t
0.72σ1.4t 0.375σ2.5t
– 5mm and 15mm 4, 8 and 12mm –
Type b
– 1.5σ5mm – 0.5σ15mm 3σ4mm – 3σ8mm + σ12mm –

To summarize, Table 1 presents the linear and quadratic surface stress extrapolation rules and formulas for “type
a” and “type b” hot-spot points and for FE models with fine and coarse mesh. These values are consistent with those
given in the IIW [7] recommendations.

150001-5
 FATIGUE LIFE ASSESSMENT OF LONGITUDINAL ATTACHMENTS
Longitudinal non-load-carrying attachments are commonly used in many fatigue loaded structures. The universal
use of this type of attachment has made it one of the most frequent fatigue tested details.
In addition to that, it has been observed that the weld terminations often exhibit a very poor fatigue performance.
Longitudinal non-load carrying attachments have been frequently employed to investigate this matter. On the one
hand, these attachments offer a simple way to create a severe notch of reproducible severity [15] and on the other,
since this detail is usually made symmetrical, the weld distortions caused by bending effects can be disregarded. In
this study, for simplicity, the longitudinal non-load carrying attachments will be referred to as longitudinal
attachments. Figure 5 demonstrates schematics of the most common type of longitudinal attachments [13].

FIGURE 5. Typical longitudinal non-load carrying attachments [13]

On the basis of available results of fatigue tests [5] there has been carried out in this study assessment of fatigue
strength of a longitudinal attachments with rib 60 mm long. The results are discussed and compared with the EC 3
[11] and IIW [7] recommendations. The FEA instructions given by IIW are adapted in order to create three
dimensional solid models with fine meshes. Both linear and quadratic extrapolation methods are exploited in order
to obtain hot spot stress S-N curves. Eventually, an equivalency between these two approaches with reference to the
fatigue strengths of the studied details is established. The finite element analysis program ABAQUS software
version 6.13-4 [16] was implemented for modeling and processing of the results.

Geometry

The fatigue life assessment of longitudinal attachments can be only investigated using three-dimensional FE
models. Therefore, shell or solid FE models can be used in this case. The findings of several investigations, studying
the accuracy of various modeling techniques, have shown the good agreement of solid element models with
experimental measurements [13]. However, the application of these elements with a relatively fine mesh, demands
high computational possibilities in addition to the substantial modeling effort. As the aim of this study is not to
investigate different modeling techniques, solid element models are employed to construct the FE models. In this
way, the inaccuracies attributed to the finite element analysis can be minimized.
The dimension of the test specimen is shown in Fig. 6. The steel plates of thickness (t) of both 16mm are used
as the thickness of the main plate of test specimens. It was assumed that a longitudinal rib is 50 mm high and 60
mm long, whereas the main plate is 300 mm long and 90 mm wide.

(a) (b)

(c)
FIGURE 6. Welded steel joint (all dimensions in millimetre): (a) top view of the specimen, (b) section A-A, (c) section B-B

150001-6
 When using solid models, the weld has to be included in the FE model. This can be achieved by different
techniques. It was previously reported by Akhlaghi [18] that modeling the fillet welds in solid element models by
chamfering two intersecting volumes can cause minor problems at the edges. The ‘extrude’, ‘revolve’ and ‘sweep’
features provided by the part module of the software are other possibilities to model the weld volume. Depending on
the desired final shape of the weld, any combination of the mentioned features can be used.
Figure 7 (a) illustrates a longitudinal attachment geometry in which the weld is modeled by extruding
the attachments to the main-plate applying a draft angle of 45°. As it is apparent, the generated weld shape has
sharp corners. By definition, as long as the weld stiffness is included in the model, the weld shape does
not have considerable effect on the calculated SHSS. However, as the surface stress extrapolation method is
employed to determine the SHSS, the severity of the notch can affect the nodal stresses close to the weld and
consequently the SHSS.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 7. Modeling the weld with (a) sharp corners and (b) round corners in longitudinal attachments

A more realistic weld shape can be generated by using a combination of extrude and revolve features as
shown in Fig. 7 (b). The demonstrated weld volume has been generated by extruding the weld parallel to the
attachment edges and revolve it 90° around the attachment corners. Although, the latter procedure for weld
generation is more time-consuming and cumbersome, it is believed to yield more accurate results. Thus, in this
study, welds with round corners have been generated for the longitudinal attachments with end welds.
Moreover, the gap between the attachment and the main-plate is not modeled.

Material properties

A typical steel with elastic modulus of E = 210GPa and Poisson’s ratio of v = 0.3 was defined and assigned to
the entire geometry including the welds. It should be mentioned that, since elastic material behavior can be assumed
for the fatigue analysis of this kind, only elastic material properties are needed to be defined.

Loading and boundary conditions

As mentioned, elastic material behavior is assumed. Therefore, a linear elastic analysis with stresses linearly
proportional to the applied load can be defined. For the sake of simplicity, two unit stresses equal to 1MPa were
applied on both sides of the specimens. As a result, the actual stresses for each specimen and each loading level can
be obtained by multiplying the analysis results by the actual applied stresses.

FIGURE 8. Loading and boundary conditions for the FE models, identical for both ends

150001-7
 Figure 8 demonstrates the applied loading and boundary conditions for the FE models. It should be noted that,
the boundary conditions are identical for both ends of the specimens. Boundary conditions are chosen in such way to
simulate the real applied boundaries during future laboratory testing.

Partitioning, meshing and element types

The fatigue crack in longitudinal attachments initiates from the plate surface at the weld toe. Therefore the hot
spot can be classified under hot spots type ‘a’.
As it was discussed earlier, both linear and quadratic extrapolation methods can be applied for this kind of hot
spot providing that a fine mesh is constructed. In this study both methods are implemented. Consequently, as for the
SHSS determination the nodal stresses are recommended to be used, the geometry should be partitioned in an
appropriate way. The edges of the partitions should intersect at the desired extrapolation nodes to facilitate
the formation of element’s corners at these points. Figure 9 demonstrates a partitioned geometry utilized to
calculate the SHSS using a linear extrapolation.

FIGURE 9. Partitioned area in front of the weld toe to allow for linear stress extrapolation

The next step is to mesh the partitioned geometry to comply with the minimum requirements of the mesh density
at the hot spot area. The mesh size at areas far from the hot spot does not need to be as fine as in the hot spot area.
Thus, a coarser mesh can be constructed in these areas. However, the transition from a coarse mesh to a fine mesh
should be gradual. This can be achieved by dividing the transition area to several sub-partitions and gradually
change the mesh density. Another alternative is to define element nodes proportionally along the longitudinal edges
in the geometry such that more element nodes are attributed to regions closer to the hot spot.
20-node isoparametric solid elements with reduced integration (C3D20R) are used for the model. In order to
have more control over the element nodes, ‘Structured meshes’ are generated at the areas close to the hot spot.
However ‘Hex-dominated meshes’ can be used for other areas further form the hot spot as this option provides more
flexible nodal placements. This will lead to a reduction in the total number of constructed elements and reduce the
model size considerably in some cases.

Analysis of results
In order to calculate the hot spot stress by extrapolating the surface stress values at certain reference points, the
stress profile in front of the hot spot, i.e. weld toe, has to be obtained. This can be archived by defining a path
perpendicular to the weld toe and extracting the stress field results. Figure 10 demonstrates an example of a defined
path in order to obtain the surface stress profile at the weld toe.
Having the stress profile obtained, the nodal stress values at the reference points can be adopted to calculate the
hot spot stress according to Equations shown in Table 1. It should be noted that Niemi et al. [13] have recommended
to extract the stress values while the stress averaging function of the post-processing software is turned off.
However, it has been confirmed by [18] that the averaging function mainly affects the stresses at the weld toe itself
and does not affect the calculated SHSS. Therefore, in this study, the aforementioned feature was kept active.
Furthermore, since a unit stress (1MPa) was applied to the FE models, the output was interpreted as the structural
hot spot stress concentration factor (Khs). Subsequently, the equivalent hot spot stress (σHs) corresponding to the
actual test stress range (σN) were obtained as follows:
Hs  Khs N . (2)

150001-8
 FIGURE 10. A path defined along the extrapolation points to extract the stress data

The results from evaluating the test results are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Test results of longitudinal attachments.

Nominal stress range Hot spot stress range [MPa]

Test data N
[MPa] Linear extrapolation Quadratic extrapolation
1 1.96E+05 181.3 213.9 217.5
2 2.46E+05 180.2 212.6 216.2
3 3.40E+05 149.8 176.7 179.7
4 4.17E+05 139.9 165.1 167.9
5 4.93E+05 139.9 165.1 167.9
6 7.72E+05 119.9 141.5 143.9
7 9.29E+05 109.4 129.0 131.2
8 1.14E+06 110.7 130.6 132.8
9 1.29E+06 100.3 118.4 120.4
10 1.43E+06 100.3 118.4 120.4

On the basis of the statistical assessment of the test data, there was determined the course of regression curve and
in consequence there was determined standard fatigue for 2-million number of cycles (Nc). The analysis was
carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Eurocode 3. The test data are plotted in Figure 11.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 11. Fatigue test results for longitudinal attachments according to (a) the nominal stress approach and (b) the structural
hot spot stress approach

The fatigue strength for this type of detail is a function of the length of the attached plates (this has been
recognized in both EC 3 and IIW recommendations). On the basis of the obtained results, it may be stated that in
case of longitudinal attachments with L = 60 mm, the recommendations given by EC 3 [11] and IIW [7], on the
basis of nominal stress method are coherent and the assumed category FAT71 is proper one, whereas the

150001-9
recommended fatigue category FAT100, on the basis of the method of local stress seems to be conservative and
should be replaced by the category FAT90.

CONCLUSIONS
In fatigue design codes, a large number of structural details with strength curves corresponding to fatigue loaded
details are given. However, in many cases, the welded details in steel bridge structures are far more complicated
than the basic, common details presented in design codes. It can be difficult sometimes to identify a suitable detail
and using a simplified detail can lead to inaccurate fatigue life estimations. To overcome this problem, a local stress
determination method using the finite element method, which takes account of the stress-raising effects due to the
geometrical changes and complex loading conditions, might provide an accurate estimate of the load effects in
fatigue-critical details.
The results of the studies make it possible to formulate the following conclusions:
 For longitudinal non-load-carrying attachments, the design recommendations based on the nominal
stress method appears to be consistent with the available test data.
 The recommended FAT100 for evaluation based on the hot spot stress approach should be replaced by
FAT90.
 The SHSS approach is a suitable fatigue assessment method only where the evaluated stress is acting
mainly perpendicular to the weld toe. The assessment of other stresses parallel to the weld or shear
stresses should be done using other methods such as the nominal stress method.
 No significant differences were found between linear and quadratic extrapolations in evaluating the hot
spot stress. There were negligible differences between the results achieved.
 The designer should be aware of the limitations set by the finite element model as well as by the
evaluation method of the structural hot-spot stress.

REFERENCES
1. J. Studnicka and J. Jirak, “Durability of steel Bridges in Czech Republic”, in IABSE Symposium 6, Weimar
(2007), pp. 543–548.
2. H. Agerskov and J.A. Nielsen, J. Struct. Engng., ASCE, 125, pp. 152–162 (1999).
3. J.F. Unsworth, Design of Modern Steel Railway Bridges (CRC Press, USA, 2010).
4. T. Siwowski, Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences: Technical Sciences 63, pp. 125–133 (2015).
5. M. Aygül and et al., International Journal of Fatigue 49, pp. 62–72 (2013).
6. J. Bader, Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation of Steel Bridges (ENCE 710, 2008).
7. A. Hobbacher, Recommendation for Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and Components (The International
Institute of Welding: Springer, Berlin, 2016).
8. American Bureau of Shipping. 2003-2010. Guide for the fatigue assessment of offshore structures. ABS
document, Houston.
9. Japanese Society of Steel Construction. 1995. Fatigue design recommendations for steel structures [English
Version]. JSSC Technical Report no. 32, Tokyo.
10. British Standards.1993. Code of practice for fatigue design and assessment of steel structures. BSI document
BS 7608:1993, London.
11. EN 1993-1-9. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures – Part 1-9: Fatigue, CEN, Brussels, 2005.
12. I. Lotsberg, Ships and Offshore Structures 1, pp. 45–54 (2006).
13. M. Al-Emrani, M. Aygül, “Fatigue design of steel and composite bridges”, Report 2014:10, Göteborg, Sweden
2014.
14. W. Fricke et al., Marine Structures 15, pp. 1-13 (2002).
15. T. R. Gurney, Fatigue of Welded Structures (Cambridge U.P., 1968).
16. Abaqus User’s Manual. Version 6.13, USA: Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp, 2012.
17. E. Niemi and et al., Fatigue Analysis of Welded Components: Designer’s Guide to the Structural Hot-spot
Stress Approach (Woodhead Publishing, 2006).
18. F. Zamiri Akhlaghi, “Fatigue life assessment of welded bridge details using structural hot spot stress method,
a numerical and experimental case study”, Master’s thesis, Chalmers university of technology, 2009.

150001-10