See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284347105

Fatigue assessment of orthotropic steel deck in existing road bridge

Conference Paper · September 2015

CITATION READS

1 583

3 authors:

Tomasz Siwowski Aleksander Kozlowski

Rzeszów University of Technology, Poland Rzeszów University of Technology
108 PUBLICATIONS   398 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maciej Kulpa
Rzeszów University of Technology
20 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

OptiDeck View project

Research on the hybrid FRP composite - concrete bridge girder View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tomasz Siwowski on 22 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fatigue assessment of orthotropic steel deck in existing road bridge

T. Siwowski1,A. Kozłowski2 and M. Kulpa3

ABSTRACT

The ECCS procedure has been used for the fatigue assessment of the existing steel bridge with
the orthotropic deck, built in the late 70’s of the 20 th century. The investigation comprised
accurate FEM calculation with the use of updated values for loads and resistance, as well as
quantitative NDT inspection. To update the values of variable actions a refined load model was
applied. The updated information on material resistance was used and actual fatigue resistance
ΔσC was assumed in damage accumulation calculation. The fatigue tests were carried out for
two most critical deck details. Test specimens were cut out of the existing orthotropic deck at
the locations where the FEM analysis showed the possible highest stress ranges. The assessment
revealed that the bridge had got very long service life. However, several uncertainties in the
applied procedure, both on “load” and “resistance” site, has been finally presented.

Introduction

Bridges with orthotropic steel decks have been built worldwide over the past 60 years due to
their advantages, such as small weight, high strength, a few deck joints, durability, rapid
construction, life-cycle economy [1]. This type of structure has been developed since 1950.
However, a number of these bridges have suffered fatigue fractures. The fatigue issue
concerning orthotropic decks was realized about thirty years ago when the first fatigue failures
were found [2]. Due to the higher wheel loads and the increased traffic, bridges are now more
subject to fatigue loading than in the past. Furthermore, the detailing of the welded connections
and the execution of welding was not always carried out in the most optimal way. This has
resulted in fatigue cracks in orthotropic steel bridges during their service life. Although cracks
are found at many locations, they usually do not threaten the performance of the bridge
immediately. Repairs, however, generate additional expenses as bridge decks are large areas
thus include many spots to be repaired

In case of the existing steel bridges with orthotropic decks there are numerous
approaches how to estimate their remaining fatigue life [3], [4], [5]. A classification system of
assessment levels is presented in the joint JRC-ECCS report [6], which offers the
recommendations to provide technical insight on the way the existing steel structures could be
assessed. This procedure has been used for the fatigue assessment of the existing steel bridge
with the orthotropic deck, built in the late 70’s of the 20th century. The main results of the
fatigue assessment of orthotropic steel deck have been presented in the paper.

1
Professor, Dept. of Roads and Bridges, Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszow, 35-959 Poland
2
Professor, Dept. of Building Structures, Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszow, 35-959 Poland
3
Assistant, Dept. of Roads and Bridges, Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszow, 35-959 Poland

Siwowski T, Kozłowski A, Kulpa M. Fatigue assessment of orthotropic steel deck in existing road bridge.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Steel Bridges, 2014.
 The existing bridge

In Poland steel bridges with orthotropic decks have been designed since early 70’s of the 20th
century. Among the others, there is the Grot-Rowecki Bridge across the Vistula River in
Warsaw, built in 1977-81. It is the widest bridge in Warsaw (2 x 18.5 m), located along the
north by-pass of the town, characterized by heavy traffic intensity. The steel bridge with the
orthotropic deck has the total length of 646 m and consists of two independent structures: the
north and the south bridges. The superstructure is a seven-span continuous beam with the span
lengths of 75, 90, 90, 90, 120, 120 and 60 m respectively, looking from the west. The two
biggest spans over the Vistula River have the box cross-section, the remaining are two-girder
plated structures (Fig.1a). The constant depth of all girders is 4.1 m. The deck of both bridges
hosts 4 traffic lanes (3 x 3.5 m + 3.0 m) and one sidewalk (1.6 m).

Figure 1. The Grot-Rowecki Bridge across the Vistula river in Warsaw: (a) general view;
(b) the orthotropic deck.

The orthotropic bridge deck consists of steel plates stiffened with closed trapezoidal
longitudinal stiffeners and T-shaped cross-beams (Fig.1b). The thickness of the deck plate
varies from 12 mm in the middle to 28 mm in the support areas of the spans. The trapezoidal
stiffeners are made of cold-formed 8-mm plate and continuously go through the webs of cross-
beams. The axial distance of the stiffeners is 600 mm and their depth is 178 mm. The cross-
beams are made up of 12-mm web with the depth of 850 mm and bottom flanges with 20 x 400
mm cross-section. They are placed every 2500 mm along the bridge.

The bridge is a key element of the traffic network of both Warsaw and Poland. This
is the busiest local Polish bridge and the part of strategic DK-8 national road. Recently the
decision has been made to alter the Warsaw section of the DK-8 into S-8 expressway, which
requires the modernization (widening and strengthening) of the bridge. Before the final
technical solutions are approved, the comprehensive assessment of the technical condition had
to be carried out. One of the most important parts of this evaluation was the thorough fatigue
assessment of the orthotropic steel deck. The main goal was to check if the remaining fatigue
life of the existing deck will be at least 25 years without the need of extensive repairs or
strengthening.

The fatigue assessment procedure

The fatigue assessment procedure can be divided into four phases: preliminary evaluation,
detailed investigation, expert investigation and remedial measures [6]. The aim of preliminary
evaluation (phase I) is to remove the doubts about the structure safety using fairly simple
methods and identify critical details or parts of the structure. This is performed by gathering
information on the structure from drawings and design computations, carrying out site
inspections, etc. The detailed investigation (phase II) is supposed to update the information and
carry out refined assessment only for those details or members where safety is not provided.
This is done by means of quantitative inspections (e.g. with easy to use, low-tech NDT
methods) and the use of updated values for loads, resistance as well as more accurate models.
In case of more serious problems concerning risks or costs related to the conclusions and
proposals reached in phase II, expert investigation (phase III) should be performed to verify a
decision carefully. Further assessment with specific tools (high-tech NDT methods, fracture
mechanics, probabilistic methods, etc.) can also be carried out to help make a decision. Finally,
remedial steps (phase IV) should be proposed to have a structure fit for service with sufficient
safety. Two first phases of this procedure have been applied in case of the bridge.

Preliminary evaluation

In order to identify the construction details which are critical due to fatigue, apart from the
visual inspection of the structure, the calculations were conducted, as it is done when a new
structure is designed using Eurocodes, and conservative assumptions were made when the
information was doubtful or none. According to the relevant publications [2], [5], [6], the
intensive study of the available documents, i.e. drawings and calculations, and the site visit
with visual observation and qualitative inspection [7], the critical regions were chosen for
preliminary evaluation of the deck (Fig.2).

Figure 2. Critical details of the deck chosen for preliminary evaluation.

For welded joints in the orthotropic deck the values of ΔσC were applied according to
Eurocode 3-1-9 [8]. Fatigue safety coefficient γFf = 1,0 according to Eurocode 1-2 [9] and
partial factor γMf = 1,15 for high consequences of failure according to Eurocode 3-1-9 [8] were
also applied (fatigue assessment was undertaken using damage tolerant method).

For the calculation of stress ranges in the chosen details, the part of the orthotropic deck
with the length of 13.0 m was modelled, comprising 5 spans of longitudinal stiffeners supported
on 6 cross-beams. A beam and shell elements in FEM Sofistik-code environment were used for
modelling. Using 3-D structural model of the orthotropic deck, the inner forces and
corresponding maximum and minimum stresses in all relevant details were calculated and
followed by establishing stress ranges applied for the fatigue evaluation. The Fatigue Load
Model No.3 (FLM 3) according to Eurocode 1-2 [9] was used to generate stress ranges in the
details under consideration. Equivalent damage coefficients λ1 - λ4 according to Eurocode 3-2
[10] for the bridge were determined as follows: λ1=2,55 (maximum value), λ2=0,57 (annual
traffic volume), λ3=0,90 (service life) and λ4=1,00 (effects of other lines).
 Table 1 shows the fatigue safety calculations (μfat) for selected critical details. This
way two critical details of the deck were determined with the fatigue safety level μfat < 1,0: the
fillet weld connecting the deck to trapezoidal stiffener (no.1 in Fig.2) and the splice joint in
stiffener, full penetration butt weld with steel backing plate (no.4 in Fig.2). Once the critical
construction details were known, the detailed investigation of the remaining fatigue life could
be done.

Table 1. Fatigue safety calculations (ΔσE,2, μfat) for selected critical details.

Fatigue
Detail Δσp λ ΔσE,2 ΔσC μfat safety
1 57.2 74.9 71 0.70 no
2 yes
33.4 1.31 43.8 80 1.35
3 yes
4 40.0 52.4 50 0.71 no

Detailed investigation

Phase II usually comprises more accurate calculation with the use of updated values for loads,
resistance, as well as more accurate numerical models along with quantitative inspection with
easy to use, low-tech NDT methods. Both calculation and inspection were applied in case of
the bridge under consideration. To update the values of variable actions in phase II, a more
refined load model is necessary. This load model should be composed of the different types of
lorries crossing the bridge. One example of such a load model for road bridges is given in
Eurocode 1-2 [9], i.e. Fatigue Load Model No.4 (FML 4). The set of 5 equivalent lorries for
FLM 4 is described. Each standard lorry is defined by the number of axles and the axle spacing,
the equivalent load of each axle and the wheel contact areas and the transverse distances
between wheels.

To apply FML 4 model the number Nobs of heavy vehicles (maximum gross vehicle
weight more than 100 kN) estimated per year and per slow lane of the bridge is required. The
exemplary numbers of heavy vehicles Nobs are given in Eurocode 1-2 [9] in relation to the
traffic category. Moreover, three traffic types are defined in Eurocode 1-2 [9], namely long,
medium or local traffic, giving the percentage of each lorry for the relevant traffic type. These
are used with the traffic category Nobs and give the total number of each individual lorries per
year. Indicative number of heavy vehicles expected per year and per slow lane was assumed as
for traffic category 1, i.e: motorways with 2 or more lanes per direction with high flow rates of
lorries. It means Nobs = 2x106 per year and per slow lane. According to the road administration’
records this is the most similar to the number of heavy vehicles which crossed the bridge
annually. The percentage of each standard lorry in the traffic flow was selected as for long
distance traffic, which means hundreds of kilometers (strategic DK-8 national road).

For detailed fatigue assessment the structural model had to be also enhanced. The
refined 3-D model of the deck was prepared (Fig.3). The 12.5 m long part of the deck (five
spans of the stiffeners) with the width of 14.5 m (comprising 23 stiffeners), supported on two
webs of main girders, was modelled. Only shell elements were used for modelling. The
smallest deck thickness of 12 mm was assumed. The crossing of each individual lorry of FLM
4 along the longitudinal axis of the model was considered for calculations with the step of every
0.30 m. The transverse wheel load distribution at tyre centre according to Eurocode 1-2 [9] and
the pavement thickness of 0.10 m were also taken into account.
Figure 3. The updated FEM model applied in phase II of fatigue assessment.

The calculations of phase II normally take the form of damage accumulation

calculation according to the linear Palmgren-Miner damage rule. For critical construction
details the stress ranges ∆σi resulting from crossing the bridge by each lorry of FLM 4 were
calculated, using the refined 3 D model of the deck. The exemplary stress flow in the detail
no.4 due to crossing of the third lorry of the FLM 4 is shown in Fig.4. The number of cycles
occurring at each stress range magnitude γFf Δσi of a stress spectrum was calculated on the basis
of estimated Nobs and with the reservoir counting method for producing a stress-range spectrum
from a given stress history. In Fig.5 the stress spectrum for detail no.4 estimated in this way is
presented.

Figure 4. The stress flow in the detail no.4 due to crossing of the third lorry of the FLM 4.

Figure 5. Stress spectrum for detail no.4 estimated for FLM 4.

 Fatigue testing

For the fatigue assessment of existing welded structures the detail categories ΔσC given in
Eurocode 3-1-9 [8] should be used, if the weld geometry on the structure is close to the ones
produced today by manual arc welding. If not, specific fatigue tests need to be carried out. In
our case the fatigue tests were carried out for both critical details. Test specimens were cut out
of the existing orthotropic deck (Fig.6). The updated information on material resistance was
used and actual fatigue resistance ΔσC was assumed in damage accumulation calculation.

Figure 6. Fatigue test specimens: (a) detail no.1; (b) detail no.4.

Detail no.1 was the fillet weld connecting the deck slab to the trapezoidal stiffener
(Fig.2). In this case the fatigue assessment is based on the direct stress range from bending in
the deck slab. Therefore the main point of interest was the fatigue strength of the deck slab
under the bending stress imposed by wheel loading. Testing was carried out on full-scale one-
stiffener specimens. The specimens consisted of a 300-mm-long single stiffener with its
accompanying deck slab 700 mm wide (Fig.6a). Twelve test specimens were cut out of three
different parts of the deck (always 12 mm thick), located on three relevant spans of the bridge
and along the slow lanes of the deck.

The test involved one mode of fatigue loading at the frequency of 5 Hz, i.e. on the deck
at the stiffener centre-line, with the specimen supported symmetrically (Fig.7a). Using the test
specimen and method of loading shown in Figure 7a approximation of the actual loading
conditions was achieved. The load value F and relevant stresses in the vicinity of fillet weld
was evaluated on the basis of the FEM calculations using the numerical model of specimen
validated against the strain measurement done before fatigue tests. The stress ratio at the weld
toe in the deck slab was assumed as R=0.1 with constant amplitude loading.

Figure 7. Detail no.1 under testing: (a) loading scheme; (b) typical fatigue failure.
 The series of 6 specimens was tested at the stress ranges Δσ between 160 and 220 MPa.
All specimens failed in the weld as a result of fatigue crack propagation from the weld root
through the stiffener (Fig.7b). No run-outs were observed. The results of the test showed that
the fillet weld joining the longitudinal trough stiffener to the deck slab subject to transverse
bending failed by fatigue crack propagation from the weld root through the stiffener. The
results of the tests of a fillet weld connecting the deck slab to the trapezoidal stiffener are shown
in Table 2.

Table 2. Results of fatigue testing of the detail no.1.

Δσ Fmin Fmax ΔF Number of cycles

No.
[MPa] [kN] [kN] [kN] N
1 160 1.09 10.9 9.8 2.763.055
2 170 1.16 11.58 10.42 1.652.000
3 180 1.22 12.25 11.02 2.233.811
4 190 1.29 12.93 11.64 1.313.332
5 200 1.36 13.61 12.25 889.523
6 220 1.49 14.97 13.48 636.615

Detail no.4 was the splice joint in a stiffener, full penetration butt weld with steel
backing plate (Fig.2). In this case the fatigue assessment is based on the direct stress range Δσ
in the stiffener. Testing was carried out on small strip specimens cut out of the full-scale splice
joint. This was a tensile fatigue test on a butt-jointed plate, 600 x 90 x 12 mm thick (Fig.6b).
These test specimens were cut out of four different parts of the deck, located on four relevant
spans of the bridge and along the slow lanes of the deck.

The small strip specimens were loaded in tension at a frequency of 5 Hz. The stress
ratio at the weld in the stiffener bottom plate was assumed as R=0.1 with constant amplitude
loading. The series of 7 specimens was tested at the stress ranges Δσ between 120 and 200
MPa. Most specimens failed in the weld as a result of fatigue crack propagation from the weld
root through the plate (Fig.8b). One run-out was observed at Δσ = 120 MPa. The results of the
tests on a penetration butt weld with steel backing plate in stiffener are shown in Table 3.

Figure 8. Detail no.4 under testing: (a) loading scheme; (b) typical fatigue failure.

The fatigue results are presented in S-N diagrams including the current relevant
classification according to Eurocode 3-1-9 [8] (Figs 9 and 10). Since the test data were used to
determine the appropriate detail category for a particular construction detail, the value of the
stress range ΔσC corresponding to the value of NC = 2 million cycles was calculated for a 75%
confidence level of 95% probability of survival for log N. For details no.1 and no.4 the stress
ranges were established experimentally as ΔσC = 158,8 MPa and 101,0 MPa, respectively

Table 3. Results of fatigue testing of the detail no.4.

Δσ σmin σmax Number of cycles

No.
[MPa] [MPa] [MPa] N
1 120 13.3 133.3 5.000.000
2 125 13.85 138.85 2.029.651
3 130 14.4 144.4 753.060
4 140 15.6 155.6 593.422
5 160 17.8 177.8 209.464
6 180 20 200 567.058
7 200 22.2 222.2 44.414

Figure 9. S-N diagram for the detail no.1 against the relevant curve from Eurocode 3-1-9 [8].

Damage accumulation calculation

The damage accumulation calculation for two details under consideration took into account
updated values for loads and resistance. For critical construction details the stress ranges ∆σi
resulting from crossing the bridge by each lorry of FLM 4 were calculated, using the refined
3-D model of the deck. The number of cycles occurring at each stress range magnitude γFf Δσi
of a stress spectrum was calculated on the basis of estimated Nobs. Thus the stress history for
the selected deck details was established. NRi was determined using updated material resistance
information, i.e. the actual S-N curves based on fatigue testing. In Table 4 the service life
estimation for the detail no.1 was shown, including 33 years of up-to-date service and
additional 25 years required by the administration. The damage accumulation calculation
accounts – for comparison – the S-N curve according to Eurocode 3-1-9 [8] and the curve
established with fatigue testing. The practically unlimited service lives for both deck details
were obtained: 7,80E+02 and 1,80E+02 years for detail no.1 and no.4, respectively. However,
using the standard S-N curve in both cases the service life was exhausted.
Figure 10. S-N diagram for the detail no.4 against the relevant curve from Eurocode 3-1-9 [8].

Table 4. Damage accumulation calculation for the detail no.4 and the 33 years time period.

Service life estimation

Number of cycles According to [8] Based on fatigue tests
Stres ranges
in a year Endurance Endurance
Δσi ni / Ni ni / Ni
ni Ni Ni
(a) (b) (a) / (b) (c) (a) / (c)
2 2,00E+06 ∞ 0 1,11E+16 1,80E-10
5 3,00E+05 ∞ 0 9,89E+13 3,03E-09
7 1,30E+06 ∞ 0 1,75E+13 7,45E-08
10 1,00E+06 ∞ 0 2,78E+12 3,60E-07
23 3,00E+05 2,62E+07 1,15E-02 3,79E+10 7,91E-06
26 1,00E+06 1,42E+07 7,04E-02 2,02E+10 4,96E-05
27 3,00E+05 1,18E+07 2,54E-02 1,66E+10 1,81E-05
29 4,00E+05 8,24E+06 4,85E-02 1,15E+10 3,48E-05
30 3,00E+05 6,95E+06 4,32E-02 9,64E+09 3,11E-05
35 2,00E+05 3,83E+06 5,22E-02 4,36E+09 4,59E-05
36 9,00E+05 3,52E+06 2,56E-01 3,77E+09 2,39E-04
37 1,30E+06 3,25E+06 4,00E-01 3,27E+09 3,97E-04
40 1,00E+06 2,57E+06 3,89E-01 2,19E+09 4,57E-04
Linear damage cummulation in a year:
1,30E+00 1,28E-03
Dd = Σ ni / Ni
Fatigue life (in years):
7,72E-01 7,80E+02
TS = 1 / Dd
Remaining fatigue life (in years)
exhausted 747
after 33 years of service

The damage accumulation calculation revealed that the most critical details of the
deck had got very long service life in terms of fatigue (Dd «1,0). It means that in these details
fatigue cracks could not be initiated and propagated. The inspection carried out by means of
magnetic particle inspection (MT) as well as ultrasonic testing (US) confirmed this result.
 There are several uncertainties in the applied procedure for fatigue assessment, both on
“load” and “resistance” site, for example:
 the determined stress spectra in bridge elements are based on FLM 4 and corresponding
traffic data according to Eurocode 1-2 [9], not on actual traffic measurements;
 the extrapolated traffic data into the past as well as into the future is very rough;
 the actual fatigue resistance ΔσC for both details is established from the fatigue testing of
small number of specimens;
 the real condition of the deck as well as the composite action of surface layer in reducing
strains were not accurately taken into account in FEM model used for fatigue calculation.
One way in which these uncertainties may be clarified explicitly is the use of probabilistic
methods, which can be employed in conjunction with either the classification method (used
herein) or the fracture mechanics method [6].

Conclusions

The applied approach of fatigue assessment of the existing orthotropic deck follows the
principles and application rules in the Eurocodes. In the case presented in the paper, calculation
and supplementary testing were performed for two details, which were estimated to be the most
critical for fatigue according to preliminary evaluation. However, the detailed assessment
showed that the remaining fatigue life of the studied details is practically unlimited. As there
are several uncertainties in the applied procedure for the fatigue assessment, some further
measures were necessary. Since quantitative investigation using NDT revealed that no cracks
were found, the adapted final solution could have resulted in no further measures. The
orthotropic deck of the Grot-Rowecki Bridge has been considered safe with the required
remaining life of at least 25 years.

References

1. Troitsky MS. Orthotropic Bridges - Theory and Design. James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation,
Cleveland: 1987.
2. Kolstein MH. Fatigue Classification of Welded Joints in Orthotropic Steel Bridge Decks. Delft University of
Technology: The Netherlands, 2007.
3. Battista RC, Pfeil MS, Carvalho EML. Fatigue life estimates for a slender orthotropic steel deck. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 2008; 64 (1): 134–143.
4. Aygül M, Al-Emrani M, Urushadze S. Modelling and fatigue life assessment of orthotropic bridge deck
details using FEM. International Journal of Fatigue 2012: 40 (7): 129–142.
5. Maljaars J, Dooren F, Kolstein H. Fatigue assessment for deck plates in orthotropic bridge decks. Steel
Construction 2012: 5 (2): 93-100.
6. Kühn B et al. Assessment of Existing Steel Structures: Recommendations for Estimation of Remaining Fatigue
Life. JRC Scientific and Technical Report No.43401: Luxembourg, 2008.
7. Zobel H, Karwowski W, Mossakowski P, Wróbel M. Pomosty ortotropowe niektórych mostów drogowych
po wieloletniej eksploatacji. Inżynieria i Budownictwo 2009: 65 (6): 306—311 (in Polish).
8. EN 1993-1-9. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 1-9: Fatigue. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels: 2005.
9. EN 1991-2. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels: 2003.
10. EN 1993-2. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. Part 2: Steel bridges. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels: 2006.

View publication stats