Finite Element Analysis of Steel Beam under

Fatigue Loading

Dissertation submitted to
Visvesvaraya National institute of technology, Nagpur
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
the degree

Master of Technology
in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering
by
Aamir usmani
(MT21SDE021)

Under the guidance of

Dr. A.Y. Vyavahare

Department of Applied Mechanics

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
Nagpur 440010 (India)
2022-2023
Finite Element Analysis of Steel Beam under
Fatigue Loading

Dissertation submitted to
Visvesvaraya National institute of technology, Nagpur
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of
the degree

Master of Technology
in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering
by
Aamir usmani
(MT21SDE021)

Under the guidance of

Dr. A.Y. Vyavahare

Department of Applied Mechanics

Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology
Nagpur 440010 (India)
2022-2023
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am profoundly thankful to Dr. A. Y. Vyavahare, Associate Professor in the Applied

Mechanics Department at Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur, for his
exceptional guidance and unwavering support throughout the duration of this project.
My heartfelt appreciation also goes to Dr. L. M. Gupta, Head of the Department of Applied
Mechanics, for consistently providing me with valuable support and encouragement. I am
equally grateful to all the esteemed faculty members of the department for their significant
contributions and insightful recommendations.
I would like to extend my sincere acknowledgment to Mr. Ravi Dwivedi and Mrs. Prachi
Mishra, Research Scholars in the Department of Applied Mechanics, for their invaluable
assistance and unwavering support throughout the project.
I owe a deep debt of gratitude to my parents and friends for their prayers and unwavering
motivation, which have played a pivotal role in my journey. Finally, I express my heartfelt
gratitude to the Almighty for granting me the strength and determination to successfully
complete this project.

Aamir Usmani
(MT21SDE021)
 ABSTRACT

The aim of this project is to conduct a finite element analysis (FEA) of a plate girder under
fatigue loading. Plate girders are commonly used in bridge construction and are subjected
to cyclic loading that can cause fatigue failure over time. FEA is a powerful tool for
analyzing the stress and strain distribution in structures, and can be used to predict the
fatigue life of a plate girder.
The project will involve creating a 3D model of a plate girder and applying cyclic loading
to simulate the fatigue conditions. The FEA software will then be used to analyze the stress
and strain distribution in the girder, and to predict the fatigue life based on established
fatigue criteria.
The project will also include a literature review of existing research on fatigue analysis of
plate girders, and a comparison of the results obtained from the FEA analysis with
experimental data from previous studies. The aim is to validate the accuracy of the FEA
approach and to provide insights into the factors that influence the fatigue life of plate
girders.
The results of this project will be useful for bridge designers and engineers who need to
ensure the long-term durability and safety of plate girder structures under cyclic loading
conditions. The FEA approach can provide a cost-effective and efficient means of
assessing the fatigue life of plate girders, and can be used to inform design decisions and
maintenance schedules for bridge structures.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Typical Plate girder 1

Figure 2.1 Fatigue cracks in a) the front of a soleplate, b) the web of a main 2
girder joined to a gusset plate of lateral bracing, c) the upper end of
a vertical stiffener. ( Koto et al., 2019)
Figure 2.2 Finite-element models: (a) stress-strain relationship; (b) full girder 3
model; (c) three-corrugation model; and (d) single-corrugation
model (Ibrahim et al. 2006)
Figure 2.3 Fatigue-life diagram for the Centre crack .( Singh et al. 2012) 4

Figure 2.4 Target section of fatigue crack. (Kyung et al. 2011) 5

Figure 2.5 Fatigue crack of Sample Bridge. (Kyung et al. 2011) 5

Figure 3.1 S – N Curve for Normal Stress 8

Figure 3.2 S – N Curve for shear Stress 9

Figure 3.3 Fatigue strength curves for direct stress ranges 9

Figure 3.4 Fatigue strength curves for shear stress ranges 10

Figure 3.5 S – N Curve for Normal Stress 10

Figure 3.6 S – N Curve for shear Stress 11
Figure 3.7 Stress Range versus Number of Cycles 11

Figure 4.1 Constant amplitude cycling and the associated nomenclature. 15

Case (a) is completely reversed stressing, 𝜎𝑚 = 0; (b) has a nonzero
mean stress 𝜎𝑚 ; and (c) is zero-to-tension stressing, 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0

Figure 4.2 Stress versus life (S-N) curves from rotating bending tests of un- 16
notched specimens of an aluminum alloy. Identical linear stress
scales are used, but the cycle number are plotted on a linear scale in
(a), and on a logarithmic one in (b).

Figure 4.3 Rotating bending S-N curve for unnotched specimens of a steel 16
with a distinct fatigue limit.

Figure. 4.4 Different type of Fatigue Life Theories 18

Figure 5.1 The side view of the beam and the position of the notch 23
Figure 5.2 Boundary Conditions 24

Figure 5.3 Fatigue Life 24

Figure 5.4 Fatigue Damage 25

Figure 5.5 Safety Factor 25

Figure 5.6 Equivalent Alternating Stress 26

Figure 6.1 Cruciform assembly and specimen extraction 27

Figure 6.2 Schematic Diagram of Test Setup of Cruciform bending 29

specimens from Gomez et al. (2008)
Figure 6.3 Meshing and Loading condition of FEM 29

Figure 6.4 Deformation contour of FEM 30

Figure 6.5 Load Vs Deformation Curve 30
Figure 7.1 Gantry girder dimension 34
Figure 7.2 Crane girder 34
Figure 7.3 Mesh used in model 35
Figure 7.4 Loading and Boundary condition 35
Figure 7.5 Fatigue Life 36
Figure 7.6 Safety Factor 36
Figure 7.7 Gantry girder dimension 37
Figure 7.8 Crane girder 37
Figure 7.9 Mesh used in model 38
Figure 7.10 Loading and Boundary condition 39
Figure 7.11 Fatigue Life 39
Figure 7.12 Safety Factor 40
Figure 7.13 Gantry girder dimension 41
Figure 7.14 Crane girder 41
Figure 7.15 Mesh used in model 42
Figure 7.16 Loading and Boundary condition 42
Figure 7.17 Fatigue Life 43
Figure 7.18 Safety Factor 44
Figure B.1 Details of the crane 47
Figure C.1 Details of the crane 55
Figure C.2 Gantry girder 55
Figure D.1 Details of the crane 58
Figure D.2 Gantry girder 58
Figure E.1 Details of the crane 63
Figure E.2 Gantry girder 63
Figure F.1 Details of the crane 65
Figure F.2 Gantry girder 65
Figure G.1 Details of the crane 70
Figure G.2 Gantry girder 70
Figure H.1 Details of the crane 73
Figure H.2 Gantry girder 73
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Different Indian codes for evaluation of fatigue strength 17

Table 3.2. Different country codes and standards for Fatigue strength calculation 18
Table 3.3 Different country codes and standards for Fatigue strength calculation 23

Table 4.1 Mean stress equations for different fatigue life theories 29
Table 4.2. Coefficients for Surface-Factor Equation 31
Table 4.3 Reliability factor for different reliability occurrence 32
Table 5.1 Correlation and error analysis 37
Table 6.1 Comparison of Proposed Method with Test Data from Gomez et al. 39
(2008)
Table 6.2 Average Measured Material Properties for Base and Weld Metals 39
Table 7.1 Fatigue Life calculation using different methods 48
Table 7.2 Fatigue Life calculation using different methods 51
Table 7.3 Fatigue Life calculation using different methods 55
 CONTENTS

Sr. No Title Page No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2
3. CODAL PROVISIONS FOR FATIGUE 6
3.1 Different nation codes 6
3.2 Methods to estimate the fatigue life of structural joints:- 6
3.2.1 Using S-N curves 6
3.2.2 Using Equations 6
3.3 S-N curves as per different standards for normal stress and shear stress 8
4. FATIGUE FAILURE OF MATERIALS 14
4.1 Historical overview 14
4.2 Definitions and concepts 15
4.3 Fatigue strength of materials 19
4.4 Estimated s-n diagram 21
5. VALIDATION OF FATIGUE MODEL 22
5.1 Aim 22
5.2 Finite element model of cantilever 22
5.3 Boundary conditions 22
5.4 Element description 22
5.5 Results and conclusion 26
6. VALIDATION OF FILLET WELD GROUPS 27
6.1 Description 27
6.2 Experimental Data Used for Finite-Element Simulation 27
6.3 Validation of Finite-Element Simulation 28
6.4 Load Vs Deformation Curve 30
7. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS 31
7.1 Overview 31
7.2 Finite Element Method 31
7.3 Advantages and Limitations 31
7.4 FEA Applications 31
7.5 Finite Element Analysis Process 31
7.5.1 Problem Statement 31
7.5.2 Pre-processing 31
7.5.3 Element Types and Meshing 32
7.5.4 Loading and Constraints 32
7.5.5 Solver Setup and Solution 32
7.5.6 Post-processing and Results Interpretation 32
7.6 Elements used in FE Analysis 32
7.6.1 One-Dimensional Elements 32
7.6.2 Two-Dimensional Elements 33
7.6.3 Three-Dimensional Elements 33
7.6.4 Specialized Elements 33
7.7 Finite Element Analysis of Plate girder 33
7.7.1 Problem Statement 33
7.7.2 Finite Element Model 34
7.7.3 Element Types and Meshing 34
7.7.4 Loading and Constraints 35
7.7.5 Analysis and Results 35
7.7.5.1 Fatigue Life 35
7.7.5.2 Safety Factor 36
7.8 Finite Element Analysis of Plate girder with Weld on only one side of 37
the web
7.8.1 Problem Statement 37
7.8.2 Finite Element Model 37
7.8.3 Element Types and Meshing 38
7.8.4 Loading and Constraints 38
7.8.5 Analysis and Results 39
7.8.5.1 Fatigue Life 39
7.8.5.2 Safety Factor 40
7.9 Finite Element Analysis of Plate girder with intermittent Weld 41
7.9.1 Problem Statement 41
7.9.2 Finite Element Model 41
7.9.3 Element Types and Meshing 41
7.9.4 Loading and Constraints 42
7.9.5 Analysis and Results 43
7.9.5.1 Fatigue Life 43
7.9.5.2 Safety Factor 44
8. CONCLUSIONS 45
ANNEXURE- A 47
ANNEXURE- B 48
ANNEXURE- C 56
ANNEXURE- D 59
ANNEXURE- E 64
ANNEXURE- F 66
ANNEXURE- G 71
ANNEXURE- H 74
References 79
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
Fatigue in metals refers to the phenomenon of crack initiation and propagation caused by repetitive
loading. The fatigue strength of a steel connection is primarily influenced by three key factors: the
applied stress range, the number of load cycles, and the specific details of the connection. The
stress range represents the mathematical difference between the maximum and minimum stresses
experienced at the connection, largely attributed to fluctuations in live loads. In the design of cost-
effective steel plate and box girders, thinner webs are often employed, thereby necessitating a
careful consideration of buckling issues.
Plate girders find extensive application in bridges and industrial buildings. The basic configuration
of a plate girder involves the fusion of two flange plates with a web plate, forming an "I" section,
as depicted in Fig. 1.1 Consequently, stiffeners are often introduced to reinforce the webs of plate
girders, facilitating the utilization of thinner webs.

Fig 1.1 Typical Plate girder

Analyzing fatigue crack growth is of utmost importance in ensuring the structural reliability under
cyclic loading conditions. While traditional strength-based theories primarily focus on predicting
the fatigue life of components, they often overlook the presence of defects, irregularities, and
discontinuities that can arise during manufacturing or application. Consequently, fracture-based
numerical simulations have gained significant traction as a valuable approach to quantify and
predict the fatigue life of components, specifically when considering the influence of these defects
and discontinuities.

1
Ensuring accurate evaluation of fracture parameters, specifically stress intensity factors (SIFs),
holds great significance in the analysis of life cycle design through simulation. Various methods,
including boundary element, mesh-free methods, finite element method (FEM), and finite
difference method (FDM), are employed for simulating structures with cracks. Among these
methods, FEM has emerged as a prominent numerical approach for fatigue fracture analysis. Over
the years, numerous advancements have been made in FEM, making it the most suitable method
for analyzing the asymptotic stress fields at the crack tip.
1.2. Fatigue failure
Fatigue failure is a type of structural failure that occurs under cyclic or repeated loading
conditions. It is a progressive and gradual process that leads to the initiation and propagation of
cracks within a material, ultimately resulting in the failure of the structure or component. Fatigue
failure is a significant concern in engineering and can affect a wide range of materials, including
metals, composites, and even some non-metallic materials.
When a material is subjected to cyclic loading, such as alternating stress or strain, it experiences
repeated fluctuations in internal forces. These cyclic loads can be caused by various factors,
including mechanical vibrations, thermal expansion and contraction, or repeated loading and
unloading. Over time, these cyclic loads can induce microscopic damage within the material, even
if the applied stresses are well below the material's ultimate strength.
Fatigue fracture can be categorized into three distinct stages: crack initiation, crack propagation,
and final rupture as shown in Fig.1.2.

Fig.1.2. Stages of Fatigue failure

2
Regardless of the number of cycles involved, both high-cycle and low-cycle fatigue failures
generally follow a similar three-step process. The first stage involves crack initiation, followed by
stage II which encompasses crack propagation, and ultimately culminating in stage III,
representing the ultimate failure of the component as shown in Fig.1.3.

Fig.1.3. Fatigue failure

As the cracks propagate, the material experiences localized stress concentrations at the crack tip.
These stress concentrations can cause the cracks to grow more rapidly, leading to the second stage
of fatigue failure known as crack propagation. The rate of crack growth is influenced by factors
such as the stress range, the stress concentration factor, and the material's fatigue properties,
including its fatigue strength and crack growth rate.
If the crack continues to propagate without detection or intervention, it can eventually reach a
critical size known as the critical crack length. At this stage, the structure's integrity is
compromised, and catastrophic failure can occur. This is the final stage of fatigue failure, known
as fracture or failure.
The factors influencing fatigue failure are numerous and complex. The fatigue life of a material is
influenced by its intrinsic fatigue properties, including its fatigue strength, fatigue limit, and
fatigue crack growth rate.

3
1.3. Fatigue in welded steel beam
Fatigue in welded steel beams is a significant concern in structural engineering, particularly in
applications where the beams are subjected to cyclic loading or dynamic forces. Welded steel
beams are commonly used in various structures, including bridges, buildings, and industrial
facilities, where they are exposed to fluctuating loads and vibrations.
Fatigue failure in welded steel beams occurs due to the repetitive application of cyclic loads,
leading to the initiation and growth of cracks within the weld or adjacent regions. Welded joints
are particularly vulnerable to fatigue because the welding process can introduce stress
concentrations, residual stresses, and microstructural changes that can affect the material's fatigue
resistance.
The fatigue behavior of welded steel beams is influenced by several factors. One key factor is the
design and quality of the weld itself.
Improper weld design, inadequate weld size or penetration, poor weld quality, and welding defects
such as undercutting, porosity, or lack of fusion can all contribute to stress concentrations and the
initiation of fatigue cracks.
The material properties of the steel used in the beam, such as its yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength, and toughness, also play a crucial role in fatigue resistance. Different steel grades have
different fatigue properties, and the selection of an appropriate grade is essential to ensure
sufficient fatigue strength.
The applied loadings, including the magnitude, frequency, and duration of cyclic loads, are critical
in determining the fatigue life of welded steel beams. High-stress amplitudes, frequent load cycles,
and prolonged exposure to cyclic loading can accelerate crack initiation and propagation, reducing
the fatigue life of the beam.
Environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and corrosive environments, can also
affect the fatigue behavior of welded steel beams. Exposure to aggressive environments can
accelerate crack growth and decrease the fatigue life. Therefore, protective measures such as
proper coatings, corrosion prevention techniques, and regular maintenance are important to
mitigate the effects of environmental factors.
To address fatigue in welded steel beams, engineers employ various strategies. Proper design
considerations, including weld size, geometry, and reinforcement, are crucial to distribute stresses
evenly and minimize stress concentrations. Quality control measures during the welding process,

4
such as proper welding procedures, pre-weld and post-weld heat treatments, and non-destructive
testing, are important to ensure the integrity of the weld.
In addition, fatigue analysis and assessment techniques, such as stress analysis, strain gauging,
and finite element analysis, can help predict the fatigue life of welded steel beams and identify
critical locations prone to fatigue failure. Regular inspections, structural health monitoring
systems, and maintenance programs can aid in the early detection of fatigue cracks and enable
timely repairs or reinforcement to extend the service life of the beams.
In conclusion, fatigue in welded steel beams is a significant concern due to the cyclic loading and
dynamic forces they experience. Proper weld design, high-quality welding practices, appropriate
material selection, consideration of environmental factors, and effective fatigue analysis and
monitoring are essential to ensure the fatigue resistance and long-term performance of welded
steel beams in structural applications.
1.4. Objective of the Research
The objective of the research is to investigate and analyze the behavior of steel beams subjected
to cyclic loading conditions and understand their fatigue performance using Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) techniques. This study aims to enhance the understanding of the fatigue behavior
of steel beams and develop reliable predictive models using FEA techniques. The findings from
this research can help improve the design and assessment of steel beams subjected to cyclic
loading, leading to more efficient and durable structural solutions.
1.4.1 Scope
The scope of the research includes following areas:
Fatigue Life Prediction: The primary objective is to accurately predict the fatigue life of steel
beams under cyclic loading. This involves studying the initiation and propagation of fatigue cracks
in the beam's material and assessing the remaining service life. The FEA model will be used to
simulate the cyclic loading conditions and analyze the stress distribution, crack formation, and
growth within the beam.
Stress Analysis: The research aims to analyze the stress distribution within the steel beam during
cyclic loading. FEA allows for detailed stress analysis, considering factors such as load magnitude,
frequency, and the number of cycles. By understanding the stress levels and variations, critical
locations where fatigue cracks are likely to initiate can be identified.
Structural Response Evaluation: The research seeks to evaluate the structural response of steel
beams under cyclic loading. This includes analyzing the beam's deflection, deformation, and
5
Damage. By studying the dynamic behavior of the beam, potential areas of concern, such as
excessive displacements, can be identified, which may affect fatigue performance.
Parametric Study: The research aims to conduct a parametric study by varying different
parameters that can influence the fatigue behavior of steel beams. This include the beam's
geometry, material properties, weld design, loading conditions. The objective is to understand the
sensitivity of these parameters on the beam's fatigue life and identify optimal design
considerations.
Validation and Comparison: The research aims to validate the FEA results by comparing them
with experimental data or established fatigue prediction methods. This involves assessing the
accuracy and reliability of the FEA model in predicting fatigue behavior. By validating the model,
confidence can be gained in using FEA as a tool for fatigue analysis and design optimization.
Overall, the objective of the research is to enhance the understanding of the fatigue behavior of
steel beams and develop reliable predictive models using FEA techniques. The findings from this
research can help improve the design and assessment of steel beams subjected to cyclic loading,
leading to more efficient and durable structural solutions.

6
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
A comprehensive literature review was conducted to examine the impact of fatigue loading on the
structural behavior of plate girders. The investigation also identified key factors that influence the
strength and performance of plate girders. Furthermore, the preferred analytical approach for
assessing the performance of these girders was identified and understood.
2.2. Review of Literature
2.2.1. Philbrick Jr. et al. (1995)
The behavior of two through-plate girder railway bridges was thoroughly investigated in order to
develop an improved approach for fatigue assessment. The bridges were equipped with
instrumentation to measure member strains and deflections during the passage of a work train.
These recorded measurements were then utilized to calibrate a parametric study, which involved
modeling the bridge structure and applying the relevant loading conditions.
Based on the findings of this study, two key conclusions were derived:
(1) The response of plate girders is predominantly influenced by axle spacing rather than axle
loads.
(2) The accurate assessment of maximum stresses and the determination of the number and
magnitude of stress cycles heavily rely on considering track structure interaction and the continuity
of the bridge floor system during the analysis process.
2.2.2. Koto et al. (2019)
In their study, Koto et al. aimed to investigate the monitoring of local damage caused by fatigue
in plate girder bridges. The objective of their research was to develop a method for effectively
detecting and assessing fatigue-induced damage in the bridge structures using vibration-based
techniques.
Fatigue is a critical phenomenon that affects the structural integrity of bridges over their
operational lifetime. It is characterized by the progressive growth of cracks due to cyclic loading,
which can eventually lead to catastrophic failure if not detected and managed in a timely manner.
The authors conducted their research by focusing on the vibration characteristics of plate girder
bridges. They utilized advanced vibration-based techniques to monitor and identify the presence
of local damage, such as fatigue cracks, in the bridge structure. Through their study, Koto et al.

7
analyzed the changes in vibration properties caused by the development of fatigue cracks. They
investigated various vibration parameters, including natural frequencies, mode shapes, and
damping ratios, to identify any anomalies associated with the presence of fatigue damage.
To validate their approach, the authors performed experimental tests on a plate girder bridge
instrumented with sensors to capture vibration data. They subjected the bridge to controlled
loading conditions, simulating the cyclic loading typically experienced in real-world operational
scenarios.
The results obtained from the vibration analysis provided valuable insights into the relationship
between fatigue-induced damage and the corresponding changes in vibration characteristics. The
authors established correlations between the detected vibration anomalies and the severity and
location of the fatigue cracks.

Fig 2.1 Fatigue cracks were observed in three distinct locations: a) the front of a soleplate,
b) the web of a main girder connected to a gusset plate of lateral bracing, and c) the upper
end of a vertical stiffener (Koto et al., 2019).

The study by Koto et al. contributes to the field of bridge health monitoring by introducing a
vibration-based approach for the detection and assessment of local damage due to fatigue. Their
research offers a non-destructive and cost-effective method to identify potential areas of concern
and prioritize maintenance and repair activities.

8
2.2.3. Ibrahim et al. (2006)
In their study, they have investigated the fatigue behavior of corrugated-web plate girders through
an experimental approach. The objective of their research was to understand the fatigue
performance of these structural elements and provide valuable insights for their design and
analysis.
The authors recognized the significance of corrugated-web plate girders in various engineering
applications due to their structural efficiency and potential cost savings. However, the fatigue
performance of such girders has not been extensively studied, warranting further investigation.
The research methodology employed in the study involved subjecting corrugated-web plate
girders to cyclic loading to simulate fatigue conditions. The girders were instrumented to measure
the strains and deflections during the testing. The experimental data collected were then analyzed
to evaluate the fatigue behavior and performance of the girders.
Through their experimental study, Ibrahim et al. aimed to provide valuable insights into the fatigue
life and failure mechanisms of corrugated-web plate girders. They examined the influence of
various parameters, such as the amplitude of loading, stress range, and number of cycles, on the
fatigue performance of the girders.
The results of the study indicated that corrugated-web plate girders exhibit good fatigue resistance,
with the fatigue life of the girders significantly influenced by the stress range and number of
cycles. The authors also observed the initiation and propagation of fatigue cracks during the
testing, providing valuable information on the failure mechanisms of these girders under cyclic
loading conditions.
Fig 2.2(a) depicts the relationship utilized, where the linear elastic region exhibits a modulus of
elasticity of 200 GPa. Beyond the yield point, a modulus of elasticity of 2,000 MPa is employed
until reaching the ultimate strength, assuming plastic flow occurs. Additionally, Figure 2.2(b–d)
showcases the finite element mesh for the full-girder model, the three-corrugation model, and the
single-corrugation model, respectively.

9
 Fig 2.2 Finite-element models: (a) stress-strain relationship; (b) full girder model; (c)
three-corrugation model; and (d) single-corrugation model (Ibrahim et al. 2006)
2.2.4. Dexter et al. (2004)
They presented an overview of materials selection, design, and detailing of steel girders for fatigue
and fracture limit states. The historical context of the fracture control plan for bridges is presented.
A discussion of the fracture toughness of structural steel and weld metal is presented. Fatigue of
cover plate details and distortion-induced cracking are discussed. Methods of dealing with
variable-amplitude loading are then compared to test data.
Mainly he found out two conclusions: -
i) The fatigue design procedures in the LRFD specifications are based on control of the stress
range and knowledge of the fatigue strength of the various details. Using these specifications, it is
possible to identify and avoid details expected to have low fatigue strength.
ii) A significant proportion of cracking in steel bridges is due to out-of-plane distortion in web
gaps at connection plates for cross frames, diaphragms, or floor beams.

2.2.5. Singh et al. (2012)

In their study, Singh et al. focused on the numerical simulation of fatigue crack growth using the
extended finite element method (XFEM). The objective of their research was to develop an
efficient computational approach for analyzing fatigue crack propagation, which is a critical
phenomenon affecting the structural integrity of materials.

10
Fatigue crack growth is a progressive phenomenon that occurs under cyclic loading conditions,
leading to structural failure over time. Traditional numerical methods for simulating fatigue crack
growth often involve remeshing, which can be computationally expensive and time-consuming.
The extended finite element method (XFEM) offers an alternative approach by incorporating crack
discontinuity directly into the finite element analysis. Singh et al. conducted extensive numerical
simulations to investigate the applicability and effectiveness of the XFEM in predicting fatigue
crack growth behavior. They analyzed various aspects of the method, including crack growth
initiation, propagation, and coalescence of multiple cracks, to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the XFEM's capabilities in capturing the complex nature of fatigue crack growth.
Through their simulations, the authors demonstrated the ability of the XFEM to accurately predict
the evolution of fatigue cracks and their growth rates. They also compared the XFEM results with
experimental data, validating the effectiveness of the method in capturing the essential
characteristics of fatigue crack propagation.
Additionally, Singh et al. discussed the advantages and limitations of the XFEM compared to
traditional numerical approaches. They highlighted the ability of the XFEM to handle complex
crack geometries and discontinuities without the need for remeshing, which significantly reduces
computational costs and simplifies the modeling process. However, they also acknowledged
certain challenges, such as accurately capturing crack tip singularities and efficiently handling
large-scale simulations.
The research conducted by Singh et al. contributes to the field of fatigue crack growth analysis by
demonstrating the capabilities of the extended finite element method. Their findings provide
valuable insights into the numerical simulation of fatigue crack growth and offer a promising
computational approach for assessing the structural integrity of materials under cyclic loading
conditions.
The use of the XFEM in fatigue crack growth analysis has practical implications for various
engineering disciplines, including aerospace, automotive, and structural engineering. The ability
to accurately predict and simulate fatigue crack propagation can aid in the design and maintenance
of structures, ensuring their reliability and safety.
Overall, Singh et al.'s study on the numerical simulation of fatigue crack growth using the extended
finite element method provides significant contributions to the understanding and modeling of
fatigue behavior. Their research highlights the potential of the XFEM as an efficient computational

11
tool for assessing fatigue crack growth, paving the way for further advancements in fatigue
analysis and structural integrity assessment.

Fig 2.3 Fatigue-life diagram for the Centre crack.( Singh et al. 2012)
The fatigue life and SIF values obtained by both re-meshing and XFEM are presented in Fig. 2.3

2.2.6. Kyung et al. (2011)

In their study, Kyung et al. focused on the evaluation of fatigue cracks at welded joints in steel
plate girders. The objective of their research was to investigate the behavior of fatigue cracks and
develop a reliable evaluation method for assessing the structural integrity of welded joints
subjected to cyclic loading.
Fatigue cracks are a common concern in welded joints, as they can significantly reduce the
strength and serviceability of steel structures. Detecting and evaluating fatigue cracks in welded
joints is crucial for ensuring the safety and longevity of steel plate girders used in various
engineering applications.
Kyung et al. conducted a comprehensive study to evaluate fatigue cracks at welded joints in steel
plate girders. They performed experimental tests and numerical simulations to analyze the crack
initiation, propagation, and critical crack length in different joint configurations and loading
conditions.
Through their experimental investigations, the authors obtained valuable data on the fatigue crack
growth behavior, including crack initiation sites, crack growth rates, and crack path trajectories.
They also conducted fractographic analyses to understand the underlying mechanisms of crack
initiation and propagation in the welded joints.

12
In addition to the experimental tests, Kyung et al. employed numerical simulations using finite
element analysis (FEA) to complement their experimental findings. The FEA models were used
to predict stress distributions and fatigue crack growth rates, allowing for a deeper understanding
of the factors influencing crack development in welded joints.
Based on their experimental and numerical results, the authors proposed an evaluation method for
assessing the fatigue life of welded joints in steel plate girders. This method considered factors
such as stress concentration, notch sensitivity, and the effect of welding defects on fatigue crack
initiation and propagation.
The research conducted by Kyung et al. contributes to the understanding of fatigue crack behavior
in welded joints of steel plate girders. Their findings provide valuable insights into the factors
influencing fatigue crack growth and offer a reliable evaluation method for assessing the structural
integrity of welded joints under cyclic loading.
The study's outcomes have practical implications for the design and maintenance of steel plate
girders, particularly in industries such as construction, bridges, and infrastructure. The ability to
accurately evaluate fatigue cracks in welded joints aids in ensuring the safety and reliability of
steel structures, leading to improved performance and longevity.
Overall, Kyung et al.'s study on the evaluation of fatigue cracks at welded joints in steel plate
girders provides significant contributions to the field of structural engineering. Their research
enhances the understanding of fatigue crack behavior and offers a reliable method for assessing
the structural integrity of welded joints, contributing to safer and more durable steel structures.
In this analysis, the sample place of fatigue inspection in plate Girder Bridge is the welded joint
between upper flange and vertical stiffener where the eccentricity occurs due to the train load as
shown in Fig 2.4

Fig.2.4. Target section of fatigue crack. (Kyung et al. 2011)

13
2.2.6. Koksal.et.al (2013)
In their study, Köksal et al. aimed to perform a fatigue analysis of a notched cantilever beam using
Ansys Workbench software. The objective of their research was to investigate the fatigue behavior
of the beam subjected to cyclic loading conditions and analyze the effects of the notch on its
fatigue life.
Fatigue analysis plays a vital role in the design and assessment of structural components, as it
helps predict the structural integrity and durability of materials under cyclic loading. Notched
geometries, such as the one considered in this study, introduce stress concentration points that can
significantly affect the fatigue life of the component.
The authors conducted their research by employing Ansys Workbench, a widely used finite
element analysis (FEA) software package. FEA allows for the numerical simulation of complex
structural behavior, providing insights into the stress distribution, deformation, and fatigue
response of the analyzed component.

Köksal et al. developed a finite element model of the notched cantilever beam in Ansys
Workbench, considering the material properties, loading conditions, and boundary conditions.
They applied cyclic loading to the beam and investigated the stress distribution and deformation
patterns around the notch.
Through their fatigue analysis, the authors evaluated the fatigue life of the notched cantilever
beam. They employed appropriate fatigue criteria and utilized the stress-life approach, also known
as S-N curve, to estimate the number of fatigue cycles required for failure.
The results obtained from the fatigue analysis provided valuable insights into the effects of the
notch on the fatigue behavior of the cantilever beam. The authors examined parameters such as
stress concentration, stress intensity factors, and the relationship between applied cyclic loads and
the resulting fatigue life.
The study by Köksal et al. contributes to the field of fatigue analysis by demonstrating the
application of Ansys Workbench software for evaluating the fatigue behavior of notched
structures. Their research provides engineers and researchers with a practical approach to analyze
and predict the fatigue life of similar components under cyclic loading.
The findings of this study have significant implications for the design and optimization of
structural components exposed to cyclic loading conditions. Understanding the fatigue behavior

14
of notched geometries helps in improving the reliability and durability of engineering structures,
leading to enhanced safety and cost-effectiveness.
In conclusion, the research conducted by Köksal et al. on the fatigue analysis of a notched
cantilever beam using Ansys Workbench software provides valuable insights into the fatigue
behavior of notched structures. Their study demonstrates the application of FEA techniques for
predicting the fatigue life of such components, contributing to the field of structural engineering
and facilitating more informed design decisions.

15
 CHAPTER 3

CODAL PROVISIONS FOR FATIGUE

3.1 Introduction

i) Indian standard provides different codes for calculation of fatigue strength for concrete
and steel structures as shown in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 Different Indian codes for evaluation of fatigue strength
CODES REFERENCES
IRC 24 Steel Bridges
IRC 22 Concrete Composite Bridges
IRC 112 Concrete Bridges
IS 800 Steel structure

ii) European standard specifies EN 1193-1-1:9 for calculation of fatigue strength for concrete
and steel structures both.
iii) Australian or New Zealand standard specifies AS/NZS 4100:1998 for calculation of
fatigue strength for concrete and steel structures both.
iv) American standard specifies AISC 360-2010 for fatigue analysis of steel bridges.
3.2 Methods to estimate the fatigue life of structural details: -
i) Using S-N curves
ii) Using Equations

The most simplest approach to estimate the fatigue life of structural joints and elements involves
the utilization of S-N curves in conjunction with detail categories assigned to basic joints. These
detail categories are specified differently in various standards, with each category being identified
by a numerical value representing the normal fatigue stress range (ffn) at a specific number of
stress cycles. In the case of estimating fatigue life, IS-800 provides the ffn value at 5 million cycles,
while AS-4100 and EN1993-1-9 provide the ffn value at 2 million cycles. AISC360, on the other
hand, presents the value using alphabets. The detail categories outlined by these standards cover
non-welded joints, welded details in built-up sections, welded details in hollow sections, and bolts.
Table 3.2 presents a classification of some of these details. The uncorrected fatigue strength of the
standard detail for the normal and shear stress range as per different standards are discussed below
in Table 3.2.

16
 The partial safety factor for loads, denoted as γfft, is specified as 1.0 according to IS-800. Table
3.3 presents the values for the partial safety factor for fatigue strength, denoted as γmft, as per IS-
800. However, AISC360 does not include provisions for partial safety factors.
To determine the design fatigue strength, the uncorrected fatigue strength is considered, which is
determined as the minimum value obtained from the fatigue strength calculated using the S-N
curve and the equation. The resulting value is then multiplied by the capacity reduction factor and
divided or multiplied by the appropriate partial safety factor. The equations for design fatigue
normal stress and shear stress, as per different standards, are provided in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2. Different country codes and standards for Fatigue strength calculation

Description Construction detail ffn value (N/mm2)

IS- EN1993- AS4100 AISC360
800 1-9
Rolled and extruded
products
i) Plates and flats(1)
ii) Rolled sections (2)
iii) Seamless tubes (3)
118 160 160 A
Sharp edges, surfaces
and rolling flaws to be
removed by grinding in
the direction of applied
stress.
Bolted connections
(4) and (5): Stress range
calculated on the gross
section and on the net
section.
Material with gas-cut
or sheared edges with
no draglines
103 90 140 B
(6): All hardened
material and visible
signs of edge
discontinuities to be
removed by machining
or grinding in the
direction of applied
stress.

17
Welds loaded in shear
Fillet welds
transmitting shear.
Stress range to be 67 80 80 F
calculated on weld
throat area.

Bolts in shear
Shear stress range
calculated on the minor
diameter area of the 83 100 100 G
bolt.

3.3 S-N curves as per different standards for normal stress and shear stress
Figures 3.1 to 3.6 illustrate the S-N curves for normal stress and shear stress according to various
standards.
1) IS 800 (Indian standard)

Fig 3.1 S – N Curve for Normal Stress (IS 800)

18
 Fig 3.2 S – N Curve for shear Stress (IS 800)

2) EN1993-1-9 (European standard)

Fig 3.3 Fatigue strength curves for direct stress ranges (EN1993-1-9)

19
 Fig 3.4 Fatigue strength curves for shear stress ranges (EN1993-1-9)

3) AS4100 (Australian standard)

Fig 3.5. S – N Curve for Normal Stress (AS4100)

20
 Fig 3.6 S – N Curve for shear Stress (AS4100)

4) AISC360 (American standard)

Fig 3.6 Stress Range versus Number of Cycles (AISC360)

21
 Table 3.3 Different country codes and standards for Fatigue strength calculation

Country Standard Normal stress range Shear stress range

India IS 800- when 𝑁𝑆𝐶 ≤ 5 𝑋 106 5

√5 𝑋 106
τf = τfn
3 𝑁𝑆𝐶
2007 √5 𝑋 106
ff = ffn ff , τf = design normal and
𝑁𝑆𝐶

when 5 𝑋 106 ≤ 𝑁𝑆𝐶 ≤ 108 shear fatigue stress range of the

5
√5 𝑋 106 detail, respectively, for life
ff = ffn 𝑁𝑆𝐶
cycle of 𝑁𝑆𝐶 , and
ffn , τfn = normal and shear
fatigue strength of the detail for
5 𝑋 106 cycles, for the detail
category (see Table 26).

Europe EN 1993- σ𝑅𝑚 NR = σ C 𝑚 2 x 106 with m 𝑅𝑚 NR =  C 𝑚 2 x 106

1-9 = 3 for NR ≤ 5 x 106 with m = 5 for NR ≤ 5 x 108

σ𝑅𝑚 NR = σ C 𝑚 5 x 106 with m

= 3 for 5 x 106 ≤ NR ≤ 5 x 108
where,
σ R, R = Uncorrected normal and
shear fatigue stress of the detail
respectively, for NR load cycles
σ C , C = Reference value of
normal and shear fatigue strength at
NC = 2 million cycles σ D = Fatigue
limit for constant amplitude stress
ranges at the number of cycles = 5
million

22
Australia AS4100- 𝑓f3 = 𝑓r3n X 2 X 106 𝑓f5 = 𝑓rs
5
X 2 X 106
1998 𝑛𝑆𝐶 𝑛𝑆𝐶
When 𝑛𝑆𝐶 ≤ 5 𝑋 106 When 𝑛𝑆𝐶 ≤ 108
𝑓f5 = 𝑓55 X 108 𝑓f = uncorrected normal or
𝑛𝑆𝐶 shear fatigue strength
6 8
When 5 𝑋 10 < 𝑛𝑆𝐶 ≤ 10 𝑓rn , 𝑓rs = Detail category
Where 𝑛𝑆𝐶 = Number of stress cycles. reference normal and shear
𝑓5 = Detail category fatigue strength fatigue strength at 2 million
at cut off limit (108 Cycles) cycles

America AISC 360 𝐶𝐹 X 220 𝐶𝐹 X 11 X 108 0.167

𝐹𝑆𝑅 = 𝐹𝑆𝑅 = ( )
𝑛𝑆𝑅
-2010 𝑛𝑆𝑅
When 𝑛𝑆𝑅 ≤ 108 When 𝑛𝑆𝑅 ≤ 108

Detail Constant

where, Category 𝐶𝐹

𝐹𝑆𝑅 = Allowable fatigue stress range A 250 X 108

for normal or shear stress B 120 X 108

C 44 X 108

𝑛𝑆𝑅 = Number of stress range D 22 X 108

fluctuation in design life E 11 X 108
E’ 3.9 X 108
𝐶𝐹 = Constant for the respective F 150 X
fatigue category G 1010
3.9 X 108

23
 CHAPTER 4

FATIGUE FAILURE OF MATERIALS

4.1HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The study of fatigue failure of materials has a rich historical background that spans several
centuries. The understanding of fatigue failure has evolved significantly over time, leading to
advancements in material science, engineering design, and safety practices.
The phenomenon of fatigue failure was first observed in the early 19th century during the
development of railway systems. Engineers noticed that metal components subjected to repeated
loading and unloading over time exhibited unexpected failures at stress levels below their ultimate
strength. These failures occurred even when the applied loads were well within the permissible
limits based on static strength calculations. This led to the recognition of a new failure mode
known as fatigue failure.
In the late 19th century, August Wöhler, a German engineer, conducted pioneering studies on the
fatigue behavior of materials. He performed experiments on railway axles and springs,
systematically subjecting them to cyclic loading until failure. Wöhler observed that the number of
loading cycles required to cause failure decreased as the stress amplitude increased. This laid the
foundation for the concept of fatigue life and the development of S-N curves, which represent the
relationship between stress amplitude and the number of cycles to failure.
Further advancements in the understanding of fatigue failure came in the early 20th century with
the development of fracture mechanics. Scientists such as A.A. Griffith and G.R. Irwin contributed
to the understanding of crack propagation and the role of stress concentration in fatigue failure.
Their work led to the introduction of concepts like stress intensity factor and the critical crack
length, which provided insights into the initiation and propagation of fatigue cracks.
In the mid-20th century, significant progress was made in characterizing the fatigue behavior of
different materials and developing design guidelines to mitigate fatigue failure. Extensive research
was conducted on a wide range of engineering materials, including metals, polymers, and
composites. Empirical relationships and mathematical models were developed to predict the
fatigue life of components based on factors such as stress amplitude, mean stress, and material
properties.

24
With the advent of computer-aided design and numerical simulations, researchers gained more
sophisticated tools for studying fatigue failure. Finite element analysis (FEA) and other
computational methods allowed for detailed investigations into stress distribution, crack
propagation, and the effects of different loading conditions on fatigue life.
In recent years, the focus has expanded to include advanced materials and structures, such as
aerospace alloys, high-strength composites, and additive manufacturing components. Researchers
continue to explore new techniques for assessing fatigue life, including non-destructive testing
methods and the integration of multiscale modeling approaches.
Overall, the historical journey of studying fatigue failure has brought about significant
advancements in materials science, engineering design practices, and safety regulations. These
developments have helped improve the reliability and durability of structures, machinery, and
other critical components, ensuring safer and more efficient systems in various industries.
4.2. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPT
1) Cyclic Loading
Constant amplitude stressing, as depicted in Fig 4.1, is a commonly encountered scenario in
practical applications and numerous fatigue tests conducted on materials. In this situation, cycling
occurs between fixed maximum and minimum stress levels.

Fig.4.1 Constant amplitude cycling and the associated nomenclature.

Case (a) is completely reversed stressing, 𝝈𝒎 = 0; (b) has a nonzero mean stress 𝝈𝒎 ;
and (c) is zero-to-tension stressing, 𝝈𝒎𝒊𝒏 = 0 (Mechanical Behavior of Material by
Norman E. Dowling)

25
The stress range, 𝛥𝜎 = 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 , is the difference between the maximum and the minimum
values. Averaging the maximum and minimum values gives the mean stress, 𝜎𝑚 .
The mean stress may be zero, as in Fig. 4.1(a), but often it is not, as in (b). Half the range is called
the stress amplitude, 𝜎𝑎 , which is the variation about the mean. Mathematical expressions for these
basic definitions are
𝛥𝜎 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝜎𝑎 = = (4.1)
2 2
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝜎𝑚 = (4.2)
2
Some authors use the term alternating stress and has the same meaning as stress amplitude. It is
also useful to note that
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜎𝑚 + 𝜎𝑎 (4.3)
𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝜎𝑚 − 𝜎𝑎 (4.4)
The signs of 𝜎𝑎 and 𝛥𝜎 are always positive, since 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 >𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 , where tension is considered
positive. The quantities 𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝜎𝑚𝑖𝑛 , and 𝜎𝑚 can be either positive or negative.

2) Stress Versus Life (S-N) Curves

When a test specimen made of a material or an engineering component is exposed to cyclic stress
of sufficient severity, it undergoes the formation of a fatigue crack or other forms of damage,
eventually resulting in complete failure. Upon repeating the test at a higher stress level, the number
of cycles required for failure decreases.
To characterize the fatigue behavior of the material or component, tests are conducted at various
stress levels, and the outcomes can be plotted on a stress-life curve, also known as an S-N curve.
Typically, the amplitude of stress or nominal stress, denoted as σa or Sa, is plotted against the
number of cycles to failure, Nf, as illustrated in Figures 4.2 and 4.3.
A set of fatigue tests can be conducted to establish an S-N curve, where all tests are performed
either at zero mean stress or at a specific non-zero mean stress level represented by σm.
The number of cycles required for failure exhibits a rapid and wide-ranging change with stress
level, often spanning several orders of magnitude. To accommodate this variability, cycle numbers
are typically plotted on a logarithmic scale. This approach overcomes the limitation of linear plots,
as demonstrated in Figure 4.3, which compares the same S-N data plotted on both linear and
logarithmic scales for Nf. In linear plots, accurately reading cycle numbers for shorter life spans
becomes challenging. It is common to employ a logarithmic scale for the stress axis as well.

26
 Fig 4.2 Stress versus life (S-N) curves from rotating bending tests of unnotched
specimens of an aluminium alloy. Identical linear stress scales are used, but the
cycle number are plotted on a linear scale in (a), and on a logarithmic one in (b).
(Mechanical Behavior of Material by Norman E. Dowling)

Fig 4.3 Rotating bending S-N curve for unnotched specimens of a steel with a
distinct fatigue limit. (Mechanical Behavior of Material by Norman E. Dowling)

When S-N data approximate a straight line on a log-linear plot, an equation can be fitted to
mathematically represent the curve and provide a quantitative representation.

𝜎𝑎 = C + D log 𝑁𝑓 (4.5)

27
In this equation, C and D are fitting constants. For data approximating a straight line on a log–log
plot, the corresponding equation is

𝜎𝑎 = 𝐴 𝑁𝑓𝑏 (4.6)

This second equation is often used in the slightly different form

𝜎𝑎 = 𝜎𝑓′ (2𝑁𝑓 ) (4.7)

The fitting constants for the two forms are related by

𝐴 = 2𝑏 𝜎𝑓′ , B = b (4.8)

The constants used in Equations 4.5 and 4.6 are determined by fitting test data obtained from un-
notched axial specimens subjected to fully reversed loading (σm = 0). It is important to highlight
that Eq. 4.6 has gained widespread acceptance, and the values of σf and b for σm = 0 are commonly
listed as material properties.
During short fatigue lives, the presence of high stresses can lead to plastic strains. However,
Equation 4.6 remains applicable for uniaxial test data obtained from un-notched specimens, except
when significant strains are involved. In such cases, it becomes necessary to consider the
amplitudes of true stress denoted as σa'. Additionally, the constant σf often approximates the true
fracture strength σf' determined from tension tests. Notably, for ductile materials, σf' tends to
exceed the engineering ultimate strength σu.
In certain materials, particularly plain-carbon and low-alloy steels, a distinct stress level exists
below which fatigue failure does not occur under normal conditions. This behavior is depicted in
Figure 4.3, where the S-N curve appears to flatten and asymptotically approach the stress
amplitude denoted as Se. These lower limiting stress amplitudes are referred to as fatigue limits
or endurance limits. For test specimens without notches and possessing a smooth surface finish,
they are represented as σe and are often considered intrinsic material properties.
The term "fatigue strength" is employed to designate the stress amplitude value derived from an
S-N curve at a specific desired life. For instance, the fatigue strength at 105 cycles corresponds to

28
the stress amplitude associated with Nf = 105. Other terminologies associated with S-N curves
include high-cycle fatigue and low-cycle fatigue. The former characterizes situations involving
extended fatigue life where the stress level is sufficiently low to prevent yielding effects from
dominating the behavior. The point at which high-cycle fatigue initiates varies depending on the
material but typically falls within the range of 102 to 104 cycles. In the low-cycle range, the broader
strain-based approach becomes particularly valuable as it focuses on the specific implications of
plastic deformation.
Figure 4.4 illustrates different fatigue life theories, providing a visual representation of their
characteristics. Additionally, Table 4.1 presents the mean stress equations for various fatigue life
theories.

Fig. 4.4 Different type of Fatigue Life Theories

Table 4.1 Mean stress equations for different fatigue life theories
S.No Fatigue Life Theories Mean Stress Equations
I) Gerber (1874) 𝜎𝑎 𝜎𝑚 2
+( ) =1
𝑆𝑒 𝑆𝑒
ii) Goodman (1899) 𝜎𝑎 𝜎𝑚
+ =1
𝑆𝑒 𝑆𝑢
iii) Soderberg (1930) 𝜎𝑎 𝜎𝑚
+ =1
𝑆𝑒 𝑆𝑦
iv) Morrow (1960) 𝜎𝑎 𝜎𝑚
+ =1
𝑆𝑒 𝑆𝑓

29
4.3 FATIGUE STRENGTH OF MATERIALS
i) Corrected Fatigue Strength

ii) Uncorrected Fatigue strength

The determination of the material's endurance strength involves referring to it as the uncorrected
endurance strength or uncorrected fatigue strength, denoted as Se' or Sf' respectively. The
uncorrected endurance strength is obtained through standardized testing procedures. However, it
is important to recognize that the specimen's geometry and the conditions under which the original
test data were collected may differ from real-world applications. Therefore, it becomes necessary
to consider the variations between test conditions and real-life scenarios.
To address these differences, researchers establish correction factors based on the known
disparities between experimental conditions and real-life application situations. These correction
factors aim to account for variations such as load factor, environmental factors (e.g., temperature),
reliability factor, size factor, and surface factor. By multiplying these factors with the uncorrected
endurance strength (Se' or Sf') using equations 4.9 and 4.10, the corrected endurance strength (Se)
is obtained. This correction process allows for a more accurate estimation of the material's
endurance strength under real-life operating conditions.
i) Loading factors (𝐶𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 )
ii) Temperature factor (𝐶𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 )
iii) Reliability factor (𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑏 )
iv) size effects (𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 )
v) Surface effects (𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 )
𝑆𝑒 = 𝐶𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝐶𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 𝐶𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑏 𝑆𝑒 ′ (4.9 )
For steels,
𝑆𝑒 ′ = 0.5 𝑆𝑢𝑡 (4.10)
i) Load factors (𝑪𝑳𝒐𝒂𝒅 )
The rotating beam bending test data is obtained by applying a bending load. If real-world
application is also subjected to the bending load, then load factor to be 1. But if the real-world
application is using axial load factor, then load factor should be 0.7.
 Bending : 1.0
 Axial Load : 0.7

30
  In case of pure Torsion , we calculate effective stress(Von – Mises) and that will
be used as bending stress with 𝐶𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 1
ii) Size factor (𝑪𝑺𝒊𝒛𝒆 )
The reason behind including this size factor is because the rotating beam bending test uses a
cylindrical specimen size of 8 mm diameter. However, the real-life scenario uses different sizes
of the components. The component size need not be 8 mm all the time. A larger size specimen is
expected to have a greater number of cracks compared to the smaller size specimen and the failure
phenomena is not going to be same as the 8 mm diameter size. Hence, to account for this difference
in size when compared to rotating beam bending test, size factor is used.
 The specimen size in rotating beam test is about 8 mm diameter
 If the part size is larger than this, strength reduction factor should be used
 Large parts fill at lower stress due to high probability of flow being present in larger stress
reason
 For d ≤ 8 mm , 𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 1
 For 8 m < d ≤ 250 mm , 𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 1.189 𝑑 −0.097
 For d > 250 𝑚𝑚 , 𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 0.6
 For axial loading case 𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 1 as the failure in axial loading is independent of cross
sectional area
Size factor for non-circular cross sections and non-rotating round bars
An equivalent diameter is obtained by creating the volume of the material stressed above 95% of
its maximum stress with the similarly stressed volume of a rotating beam specimen
since , lengths are the same we can consider areas in place of volume Stress varies linearly across
the diameter of a rotating beam specimen.
𝐴95 represents the area that is subjected to 95 percent or more of the maximum stress and
calculated as;
𝑑2 −(0.95 𝑑)2
𝐴95 = 𝜋 [ ] = 0.0766 𝑑 2 (4.11)
4

The equivalent diameter different cross-sections

𝐴
95
𝑑𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣 = √0.0766 (4.12)

31
iii) Surface factor ( 𝑪𝑺𝒖𝒓𝒇 )
The surface factor is different for different materials, and known to be dependent on ultimate
strength of the material. There is also an empirical relation available to compute 𝐶surf.
𝑏
𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 = 𝐴 𝑆𝑢𝑡 (4.13)
𝐴 and 𝑏 are given here for different surface finishes. If the units are in MPa, use this 𝐴 and 𝑏; if
your units are in kpsi, use this 𝐴 and 𝑏. The coefficients for Surface factor equation for different
surface finish is given in table 4.2
Table 4.2. Coefficients for Surface-Factor Equation
𝑺𝒖𝒕 (in MPa )
Surface Finish A b
Ground 1.58 -0.085
Machined or Cold-rolled 4.51 -0.265
Hot-rolled 57.7 -0.718
As -forged 272 -0.995

If by doing such a calculation, you get 𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 > 1, then you have to use 𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 = 1. You should not
increase the endurance strength. Only if it is less than that, then you will take 𝐶𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓 equal to
whatever is obtained from this calculation.
iv) Temperature Factor (𝑪𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑 )
The rotating beam bending tests are done at room temperature, and hence correction should be
made for service conditions. After following these procedures for steels, but for other materials,
similar expressions should be available.
Corrections should be made for the service conditions
 For T ≤ 450° C, 𝐶𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 = 1
 450° C <T≤ 550° C , 𝐶𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝 = 1- 0.0058(T-450)
Note: - The above criteria are based on steels and hence not valid for other metals.
v) Reliability Factor(𝑪𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒃 )
The reported strength data in the literature are not definitive as they have a range. There is a
standard deviation or an error bar associated with the strength data i.e., there is always some
scatter.

32
In order to account for the inherent variability in the system, it is necessary to consider the
reliability factor. By increasing the desired level of reliability, it becomes crucial to achieve a more
precise prediction for the durability of the component. As the reliability level is heightened, the
reliability factor decreases, necessitating a corresponding decrease in the endurance strength of
the material. This adjustment ensures a higher level of confidence in the design.
Reliability Factors for 𝑺𝒅 = 0.08μ
Reliability factor for different reliability occurrence is given in table 4.3
Table 4.3 Reliability factor for different reliability occurrence

Reliability (in %) 𝑪𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒃

50 1.00
90 0.897
99 0.814
99.9 0.753
99.99 0.702
99.999 0.659

This is the data given for reliability factors and please note that this is given for standard deviation
of 0.08𝜇, as the endurance strength of steels has a standard deviation of 8 percent of their mean
value. Based on that, these reliability factors have been obtained.

4.4 ESTIMATED S-N DIAGRAM

While Estimating the S-N diagram, actual concern is the HCF regime which is known to be active
between 103 and 106 cycles primarily for steels, and for other materials it is beyond 106 cycles.
The stress amplitude corresponding to 103 cycles is denoted by 𝑆𝑚 which is nothing but material
strength at 103 cycles.
If the loading is bending, then 𝑆𝑚 = 0.9 𝑆𝑢𝑡 .
If the loading is axial, then 𝑆𝑚 = 0.75 𝑆𝑢𝑡 .
Correction factors are applied only to 𝑆𝑒′ . If the material exhibits a knee or an endurance limit,
then the corrected 𝑆𝑒 is plotted at 106 , not the uncorrected one. If there is no knee, corrected 𝑆𝑓 ,
which is the fatigue strength is plotted at 5 × 108 cycles. The equation of the line is 𝑆 = 𝑎Nb is
true from 𝑆𝑚 to 𝑆𝑒 or 𝑆𝑓 , while 𝑎 and 𝑏 are obtained by plugging in the boundary conditions.
This is the standard procedure for plotting an estimated S-N diagram.

33
 CHAPTER 5

VALIDATION OF FATIGUE MODEL

5.1AIM
To evaluate the accuracy of finite element approach, FE models of Cantilever beam with notch is
created and results are compared with reference paper. The Cantilever model chosen for this
purpose was from “Fatigue Analysis of a notched cantilever beam using ansys workbench” by
N. Sinan Köksal, Arif Kayapunar and Mehmet Çevik(2013).

5.2 FINTE ELEMENT MODEL OF CANTILEVER

A 3D finite element model of a Cantilever beam with notch at Centre is modelled and analyzed
by using SOLID187 element using ANSYS. The chosen material for the beam is structural steel,
characterized by an elasticity modulus of 200 GPa, a Poisson's ratio of 0.3, and a yield strength of
250 MPa. The numerical model utilized in the analysis consists of a total of 24,954 elements, with
99,420 nodes. The cantilever beam being studied is prismatic in shape, with dimensions of 1000
mm in length, 100 mm in width, and 75 mm in height. The side view of the beam, along with the
location of the notch, is depicted in Figure 5.1.

Fig.5.1 The side view of the beam and the position of the notch (Koksal.n.sinan et al)

5.3BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
The prismatic Cantilever with notch is modelled and boundary condition was applied on the both
face of the beam. From one side , Fixed Support is applied while from other side a load of 10 KN
was applied which can be seen from fig 5.2. When performing fatigue analysis to determine stress
life, several factors are taken into account, including the type of loading, the effects of mean stress,
corrections for multiaxial stress, and the fatigue modification factor. In our study, we assume a
zero-based constant amplitude loading condition with proportional loading and a load ratio of 0.

34
5.4 ELEMENT DESCRIPTION
For the validation model, the Solid Element SOLID187 is employed. This element consists of
eight nodes, with each node having three degrees of freedom in the translation along the x, y,
and z directions. A mesh size of 8 mm is utilized throughout the model, while a finer mesh of
5.16 mm is employed around the notch to ensure the best aspect ratio for accurate calculations.

Fig.5.2 Boundary Conditions

1) Fatigue Life
By utilizing Ansys, the fatigue life is calculated, and the outcome is depicted in Figure 5.3. Fatigue
life signifies the remaining lifespan for the given fatigue analysis, indicating the number of cycles
the component can endure before experiencing failure due to fatigue. It is noted that the beam's
minimum fatigue life is determined to be 86137 cycles under a 10 kN load, which aligns with
expectations as this value corresponds to the location of maximum stress.

Fig 5.3. Fatigue Life

35
2) Fatigue Damage
Figure 5.4 illustrates the fatigue damage of the beam, which is calculated as the ratio of the design
life to the available life for 1*106 cycles of fatigue life under a 10kN load. Values exceeding 1
indicate failure occurring before reaching the design life. The highest damage is observed at the
notch tip, with a value of 11609.

Fig 5.4 Fatigue Damage

2) Safety of Factor
Figure 5.5 presents the fatigue factor of safety at a design life of 1*10^6 cycles. In this scenario,
values below one indicate failure occurring before reaching the design life. The minimum value
of 0.599, which is the critical region, is once again observed at the tip of the notch.

Fig.5.5. Safety Factor

36
4) Equivalent alternating Stress
In a stress life fatigue analysis, the concept of "equivalent alternating stress" is employed to
represent the stress that is used to reference the fatigue S-N curve, taking into account various
factors such as fatigue loading type, mean stress effects, multiaxial effects, and other
considerations in the fatigue analysis. It can be considered as the final calculated parameter before
determining the fatigue life. In our study, we have computed the equivalent alternating stress, and
the results are depicted in Figure 5.6. As shown in the figure, the maximum value of 143.73 MPa
is observed at the tip of the notch.

Fig 5.6 Equivalent Alternating Stress

5.4RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The outcomes of the re-simulation mentioned earlier have been compared with the investigations
carried out by N. Sinan Koksal. The findings from N. Sinan Koksal's study are presented in Table
5.1. The local stress life approach, which relies on the S-N curve, has been implemented in the
analysis utilizing ANSYS Workbench.
Table 5.1 Correlation and error analysis
Parameter value Koksal et al. Current analysis Error(%)
Min. fatigue life 90,700 86137 5.03
Max. damage 11,025 11609 5.03
Min.safety factor 0.60824 0.599 1.48
Max. equivalent alternating stress 141.72 143.73 1.39

37
 CHAPTER 6

VALIDATION OF FILLET WELD GROUPS

6.1. Description

The strength of fillet weld groups subjected to out-of-plane eccentricity is influenced by intricate
interactions involving weld yielding and bearing between the connected components. In order to
characterize the strength of such connections, a model has been developed based on insights
gained from advanced finite-element (FE) simulations. These simulations incorporate precise
measurements of weld profiles, consideration of multiaxial plasticity, and simulation of contact
and gapping phenomena that significantly impact the response of the connections. By
incorporating these factors, the developed model provides a more comprehensive understanding
of the behavior and strength of fillet weld groups under out-of-plane eccentric loading.
6.2. Experimental Data Used for Finite-Element Simulation

The accuracy and reliability of the finite-element (FE) simulations utilized in this study are
established through their development and validation based on the work conducted by Gomez et
al. in 2008. The Gomez et al. study is highly regarded for its precise measurements of weld profiles
and material properties, making it a valuable reference for this research
To provide an overview of the Gomez et al. experiments, Table 6.1 presents a comprehensive test
matrix that outlines key experimental data and corresponding model predictions. The table
highlights the parameters investigated in the study, including the nominal leg dimension of the
weld (8 mm and 13 mm), the magnitude of load eccentricity (76 mm, 140 mm, and 216 mm), the
plate width (also equal to the bearing thickness) (32 mm, 44 mm, and 64 mm), and the type of
weld filler metal used
In addition, Table 6.2 provides a concise summary of the material properties for both the weld and
base metal, along with pertinent details of the welding procedure. These properties play a critical
role in accurately capturing the behavior and response of the fillet weld groups under
consideration.
By incorporating the insights and data obtained from the Gomez et al. (2008) study, the developed
FE simulations offer a robust and validated framework for analyzing the strength and performance
of fillet weld groups subjected to out-of-plane eccentric loading.

38
Three replicates were tested for each parameter set specified in Table 6.1. These replicates were
obtained by cutting samples from an assembly consisting of three plates made of A572 Grade 345-
MPa steel. The plates were welded together in a cruciform configuration, as illustrated in Figure
6.1. This configuration was chosen to ensure the representation of real-world welding scenarios
and to provide reliable data for analysis and comparison.

Fig. 6.1 Cruciform assembly and specimen extraction (Gomez et al.)

Table 6.1 Comparison of Proposed Method with Test Data from Gomez et al. (2008)

39
Table 6 2 Average Measured Material Properties for Base and Weld Metals (Gomez et al.)

6.3. Validation of Finite-Element Simulations

A 3D finite element model of Fillet Weld Groups Loaded with Out-of-Plane Eccentricity is
modelled and analyzed by using Brick element SOLID185 using ANSYS. The Contact between
the Larger Plate and smaller plate has been modelled using contact wizard of ANSYS. Fig. 6.2
schematically representation the test setup.

Fig.6.2 Schematic Diagram of Test Setup of Cruciform bending specimens from Gomez et
al. (2008)
The FE models employed in the analysis consider large deformations and utilize isotropic von
Mises plasticity to accurately represent the material behavior. Nonlinear hardening properties are
determined based on experimental data obtained from uniaxial stress and strain tests conducted on
tension coupons of both the weld metal and base metal. By incorporating these properties, the
models can capture the nonlinear response and plastic deformation of the materials.
To account for the influence of load transfer, contact modeling is utilized between the central plate
and the large plate. This is crucial because the bearing between these plates plays a significant role
in determining how the loads are transferred within the structure. By accurately modeling the
contact behavior, the simulation can capture the forces and interactions between the plates,
providing a realistic representation of the load transfer mechanism.
Considering the complex nature of the problem, including large deformations, plasticity, and the
influence of bearing, the FE models are designed to accurately simulate the behavior of fillet weld
groups subjected to out-of-plane eccentricity. This comprehensive approach allows for a thorough
analysis of the structural response, ensuring a reliable assessment of the strength and performance
of the welded connections.

40
The Finite Element model has been shown in fig.6.3 in which Meshing and Loading condition has
been shown. As the model is symmetric about its axis, hence symmetric boundary condition has
been given instead of modelling full model.

Fig.6.3. Meshing and Loading condition of FEM

The deformation contours of the model after analysis has been shown in the fig.6.4 where we can
see the maximum and minimum points of deflection.

Fig.6.4 Deformation contour of FEM

41
6.4. Load Vs Deformation Curve
Load deformation curves from FE simulation (Kanvinde et al) and FEA has been plotted and it is
used to validate FEM model for further investigations as shown in fig.6.5.

Fig.6.5 Load Vs Deformation Curve

42
 CHAPTER 7

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

7.1 Overview
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computational method used to analyze and solve complex
engineering problems. It is based on the concept of dividing a complex system or structure into
smaller, simpler subdomains called finite elements. By applying mathematical equations and
numerical techniques to these elements, engineers can simulate and understand the behavior and
performance of the entire system.
7.2 Finite Element Method
The Finite Element Method (FEM) is the mathematical formulation behind finite element analysis.
It involves dividing a continuous domain into finite elements, where each element is represented
by a set of mathematical equations. These equations are then solved to obtain approximate
solutions for the behaviour of the system under investigation.
7.3 Advantages and Limitations
FEA offers several advantages, such as the ability to handle complex geometries, simulate real-
world conditions, and provide detailed insight into the behaviour of structures and systems.
However, it also has limitations, including the need for careful mesh generation, assumptions
made in the modelling process, and computational resources required for large-scale problems.
7.4 FEA Applications
FEA finds applications in various engineering disciplines, including structural analysis, heat
transfer, fluid flow, electromagnetics, and multiphysics problems. It is widely used in industries
such as aerospace, automotive, civil engineering, and biomechanics to optimize designs, evaluate
performance, and ensure structural integrity.
7.5. Finite Element Analysis Process
7.5.1. Problem Statement
Before performing FEA, it is crucial to clearly define the problem statement. This includes
identifying the objective, boundary conditions, loads, material properties.

43
7.5.2. Pre-processing
The pre-processing phase involves preparing the model for analysis. This includes geometry
creation or import, defining material properties, applying boundary conditions, and creating a
suitable mesh that accurately represents the geometry and captures critical details.
7.5.3. Element Types and Meshing
In FEA, various element types are available, such as beams, shells, solids, and specialized
elements for specific applications. The meshing process involves dividing the geometry into finite
elements and generating nodes at element intersections. Proper element selection and mesh quality
are crucial for accurate results.
7.5.4. Loading and Constraints
The loading conditions and constraints must be defined accurately to simulate real-world
scenarios. This includes applying forces, moments, pressures, thermal loads, and constraints such
as fixed supports or prescribed displacements. The loading should be consistent with the problem
statement and relevant engineering standards.
7.5.5. Solver Setup and Solution
Once the model is prepared, the analysis setup involves selecting appropriate solver settings, such
as solution methods, convergence criteria, and numerical parameters. The solver solves the system
of equations derived from the finite element model to obtain the structural response, such as
displacements, stresses, strains, and other desired quantities.
7.5.6. Post-processing and Results Interpretation
After the analysis is complete, post-processing involves visualizing and interpreting the results.
This may include generating contour plots, deformation animations, stress distributions, and
extracting specific values or quantities of interest. Results are evaluated against relevant criteria
and standards to ensure the structural performance meets requirements.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) utilizes different types of elements to represent various aspects of
the analyzed system. The choice of element type depends on the geometry, physics, and behavior
of the problem at hand. Here are some commonly used elements in FE analysis:

44
7.6. Elements used in FE Analysis
7.6.1. One-Dimensional Elements:
 Rod/Bar Elements: Used for linear and nonlinear analyses of slender structures subjected
to axial loads.
 Beam Elements: Ideal for modelling beams and other slender structures subjected to
bending and axial loads.
 Truss Elements: Used for analysing truss structures and idealized representations of axial
load-carrying members.
7.6.2. Two-Dimensional Elements:
 Plane Stress/Strain Elements: Used for analyzing structures subject to plane stress or plane
strain conditions.
 Plate Elements: Ideal for modeling thin plates and shells subjected to bending, membrane,
and shear stresses.
 Shell Elements: Appropriate for modeling structures with shell-like geometries, such as
tanks, pressure vessels, and car bodies.
 Membrane Elements: Used for analyzing structures subject to membrane forces, such as
fabric membranes or inflated structures.
7.6.3. Three-Dimensional Elements:
 Solid Elements: Used for analyzing 3D structures subjected to various loading conditions.
These elements represent the volume and can handle complex material behavior.
 Tetrahedral Elements: Four-faced polyhedron elements suitable for modeling irregular-
shaped volumes.
 Hexahedral Elements: Eight-faced brick-like elements used for modeling regular-shaped
volumes.
 Wedge Elements: Used for modeling structures with a wedge-like geometry, such as ship
hulls or turbine blades.
7.6.4. Specialized Elements:
 Axisymmetric Elements: Designed for axisymmetric problems, such as rotating bodies or
cylindrical geometries.
 Contact Elements: Used to model contact interactions between components or surfaces.
 Coupled Field Elements: Enable the coupling of different physics domains, such as
structural mechanics with thermal or fluid flow analysis.
45
7.7. Finite Element Analysis of Plate girder
7.7.1. Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life
of the weld details under different operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of
the girders 20 times per day, carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects.
Additionally, the dead weight of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of
varying loads, the analysis is conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and
when it returns carrying a load of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.
7.7.2. Finite Element Model
A 3D finite element model is developed to analyze a gantry girder using the SOLID186 element
in ANSYS software. The gantry girder is constructed from structural steel material with specific
properties: an elasticity modulus of 200 GPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.3, and a yield strength of 250
MPa.The length of the gantry girder is 6000 mm, and its overall dimensions and configuration are
depicted in Figure 7.1. Crane girder’s details are shown in Figure 7.2

Fig.7.1. Gantry girder dimension Fig.7.2. Crane girder

46
7.7.3. Element Types and Meshing
There are typically five types of Elements used in FE Analysis:-
I) SOLID186
II) SOLID187
III) CONTACT174
IV) SURF154
V) TARGE170
The gantry girder is modelled as seven different solid bodies where the top and bottom flanges
and web are modelled as solid plates while weldings between the flange and web are modelled as
triangular wedge. The connection between Flange, web and Weld has been done using the Node
merge application of ANSYS. The elements used for merging is CONTACT174.
A fine mesh of 10 mm size has been made using hex dominant method, and finer mesh around
welds are created. The total Number of elements is 85827 and the Number of nodes is 481749.
A pictorial representation of mesh has been shown in fig.7.3.

Fig.7.3. Mesh used in model

7.7.4. Loading and Constraints
There are two wheel loads of 30.5 kN each with wheel base distance of 2.28 m. The wheel are
placed such that it gives maximum Bending moment. The gantry girder is simply supported as
shown in fig.7.4.

47
 30.5 kN 30.5 kN

Fig.7.4. Loading and Boundary condition

7.7.5. Analysis and Results

7.7.5.1. Fatigue Life
Using ANSYS software, the fatigue life of the gantry girder is calculated, and the results are
depicted in Figure 7.4. Fatigue life refers to the estimated duration in terms of cycles until the
gantry girder experiences failure due to fatigue. It represents the available life for the given fatigue
analysis. The analysis reveals that the maximum fatigue life of the gantry girder amounts to
687,680 cycles under a wheel load of 30.5 kN. This maximum fatigue life value is reached at the
location where the highest stress concentrations occur, as anticipated.

Fig.7.5. Fatigue Life

7.7.5.2. Safety Factor
Figure 7.5 presents the fatigue factor of safety at a design life of 1*106 cycles. In this context,
values below one indicate that failure is anticipated before reaching the design life. The minimum
value of the fatigue factor of safety is observed at the junction between the lower flange and the

48
web, measuring 0.258. This critical region exhibits a higher vulnerability to fatigue failure,
indicating the need for further analysis and potential design modifications to enhance the structural
integrity and fatigue resistance in this specific area.

Fig.7.6. Safety Factor

The same problem has been solved using Indian code (IRC 24) code and Euro code (en 1993.1.2),
calculation given in Annexure and results has been tabulated here:-
Table 7.1. Fatigue Life calculation using different methods

S.No Method Fatigue Life

1 Indian code (IRC 24) 682534 Cycles
2 Euro code (en.1993.1.9) 617014 Cycles
3 FEA 687680 Cycles

49
7.8. Finite Element Analysis of Plate girder with Weld on only one side of the
web.
7.8.1. Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders and longitudinal fillet weld is only on one side of the
web. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life of the weld details under different
operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of the girders 20 times per day,
carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight
of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of varying loads, the analysis is
conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when it returns carrying a load
of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

7.8.2. Finite Element Model

A 3D finite element model is developed to analyze a gantry girder using the SOLID186 element
in ANSYS software. The gantry girder is constructed from structural steel material with specific
properties: an elasticity modulus of 200 GPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.3, and a yield strength of 250
MPa.The length of the gantry girder is 6000 mm, and its overall dimensions and configuration are
depicted in Figure 7.1. Crane girder’s details are shown in Figure 7.2

Fig.7.7. Gantry girder dimension Fig.7.8. Crane girder

50
7.8.3. Element Types and Meshing
There are typically five types of Elements used in FE Analysis:-
I) SOLID186
II) SOLID187
III) CONTACT174
IV) SURF154
V) TARGE170
The gantry girder is modelled as seven different solid bodies where the top and bottom flanges
and web are modelled as solid plates while welding between the flange and web are modelled as
triangular wedge. The connection between Flange, web and Weld has been done using the Node
merge application of ANSYS. The elements used for merging is CONTACT174.
A fine mesh of 10 mm size has been made using hex dominant method, and finer mesh around
welds are created. The total Number of elements is 78783 and the Number of nodes is 435413.
A pictorial representation of mesh has been shown in fig.7.8.

Fig.7.9. Mesh used in model

7.8.4. Loading and Constraints
There are two wheel loads of 30.5 kN each with wheel base distance of 2.28 m. The wheel are
placed such that it gives maximum Bending moment. The gantry girder is simply supported as
shown in fig.7.9.

51
 30.5 kN 30.5 kN

Fig.7.10. Loading and Boundary condition

7.8.5. Analysis and Results
7.8.5.1. Fatigue Life
Using ANSYS software, the fatigue life of the gantry girder is calculated, and the results are
depicted in Figure 7.4. Fatigue life refers to the estimated duration in terms of cycles until the
gantry girder experiences failure due to fatigue. It represents the available life for the given fatigue
analysis. The analysis reveals that the maximum fatigue life of the gantry girder amounts to
556000 cycles under a wheel load of 30.5 kN. This maximum fatigue life value is reached at the
location where the highest stress concentrations occur, as anticipated.

Fig.7.11. Fatigue Life

52
7.8.5.2. Safety Factor
Figure 7.5 presents the fatigue factor of safety at a design life of 1*10^6 cycles. In this context,
values below one indicate that failure is anticipated before reaching the design life. The minimum
value of the fatigue factor of safety is observed at the junction between the lower flange and the
web, measuring 0.38. This critical region exhibits a higher vulnerability to fatigue failure,
indicating the need for further analysis and potential design modifications to enhance the structural
integrity and fatigue resistance in this specific area.

Fig.7.12. Safety Factor

The same problem has been solved using Indian code (IRC 24) code and Euro code (en 1993.1.2),
calculation given in Annexure and results has been tabulated here:-
Table 7.2. Fatigue Life calculation using different methods

S.No Method Fatigue Life

1 Indian code (IRC 24) 520964
2 Euro code (en.1993.1.9) 463636
3 FEA 556000

53
7.9. Finite Element Analysis of Plate girder with intermittent Weld
7.9.1. Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders and intermittent fillet weld is on both side of the
web. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life of the weld details under different
operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of the girders 20 times per day,
carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight
of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of varying loads, the analysis is
conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when it returns carrying a load
of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

7.9.2. Finite Element Model

A 3D finite element model is developed to analyze a gantry girder using the SOLID186 element
in ANSYS software. The gantry girder is constructed from structural steel material with specific
properties: an elasticity modulus of 200 GPa, Poisson's ratio of 0.3, and a yield strength of 250
MPa.The length of the gantry girder is 6000 mm, and its overall dimensions and configuration are
depicted in Figure 7.1. Crane girder’s details are shown in Figure 7.2

Fig.7.13. Gantry girder dimension Fig.7.14. Crane girder

54
7.9.3. Element Types and Meshing
There are typically five types of Elements used in FE Analysis:-
I) SOLID186
II) SOLID187
III) CONTACT174
IV) SURF154
V) TARGE170
The gantry girder is modelled as seven different solid bodies where the top and bottom flanges
and web are modelled as solid plates while weldings between the flange and web are modelled
as triangular wedge. The connection between Flange, web and Weld has been done using the
Node merge application of ANSYS. The elements used for merging is CONTACT174. A fine
mesh of 10 mm size has been made using hex dominant method, and finer mesh around welds
are created. The total Number of elements is 6308 and the Number of nodes is 42491.
A pictorial representation of mesh has been shown in fig.7.14.

Fig.7.15. Mesh used in model

55
7.9.4. Loading and Constraints
There are two wheel loads of 30.5 kN each with wheel base distance of 2.28 m. The wheel are
placed such that it gives maximum Bending moment. The gantry girder is simply supported as
shown in fig.7.15.

30.5 kN 30.5 kN

Fig.7.16. Loading and Boundary condition

7.9.5. Analysis and Results
7.9.5.1. Fatigue Life
Using ANSYS software, the fatigue life of the gantry girder is calculated, and the results are
depicted in Figure 7.4. Fatigue life refers to the estimated duration in terms of cycles until the
gantry girder experiences failure due to fatigue. It represents the available life for the given fatigue
analysis. The analysis reveals that the maximum fatigue life of the gantry girder amounts to
184670 cycles under a wheel load of 30.5 kN. This maximum fatigue life value is reached at the
location where the highest stress concentrations occur, as anticipated.

Fig.7.17. Fatigue Life

56
7.9.5.2. Safety Factor
Figure 7.5 presents the fatigue factor of safety at a design life of 1*106 cycles. In this context,
values below one indicate that failure is anticipated before reaching the design life. The minimum
value of the fatigue factor of safety is observed at the junction between the lower flange and the
web, measuring 0.29. This critical region exhibits a higher vulnerability to fatigue failure,
indicating the need for further analysis and potential design modifications to enhance the structural
integrity and fatigue resistance in this specific area.

Fig.7.18. Safety Factor

The same problem has been solved using Indian code (IRC 24) code and Euro code (en 1993.1.2),
calculation given in Annexure and results has been tabulated here:-
Table 7.3. Fatigue Life calculation using different methods

S.No Method Fatigue Life

1 Indian code (IRC 24) 171322
2 Euro code (en.1993.1.9) 151924
3 FEA 184670

57
 CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSIONS
8.1. General
In this study, fatigue analysis of three plate girders with different weld configuration and detail
category has been carried out. There are two wheel loads each of 30.5 kN has been applied at the
point of maximum bending moment. Figures 7.1-7.18 show the estimated fatigue life and safety
factor for each plate girder with different weld configuration. The analysis demonstrates how
changing weld configuration and corresponding detail category can change fatigue life and safety
factor of the plate girder. The findings of this investigation shows weld configuration has
substantial effects on fatigue life of plate girder.
8.2. Conclusions
1. The fatigue life of a plate girder decreases as its detail categories decrease, primarily due to a
decrease in the normal and shear fatigue strength of the detail.
2. The comparative analysis of fatigue life, evaluated using IRC code, Euro code, and Finite
Element analysis, suggests that the fatigue life values provided by the IRC code are closer to the
results obtained from Finite Element analysis.
3. Various design parameters, such as section properties, weld details, and loading conditions, has
an impact on the fatigue performance of plate girders
4. The study validates the accuracy and reliability of finite element models in simulating the
fatigue response of plate girders.
5. The study presents a reliable methodology for predicting the fatigue life of plate girders using
finite element analysis.
8.3. Future Scope

1. Residual Stress Analysis

Incorporation of residual stress analysis in FEA to account for the presence of residual stresses
induced during manufacturing processes, such as welding. Residual stresses can significantly
influence the fatigue life of plate girders and should be accurately captured in the analysis.
2. Experimental-Computational Integration
Improved correlation between experimental data and FEA results through validation and
verification. Developing advanced experimental techniques to capture fatigue behavior, such as
58
full-scale testing or structural health monitoring, and integrating these data with FEA models can
enhance the accuracy and reliability of the analysis.

59
 ANNEXURE- A

Problem Statement
In a factory setting, an overhead crane is equipped with a gantry girder that spans 6 meters and is
supported at each end. The specific girder section utilized is ISMB 400. The crane has a maximum
capacity of 150 kN, and the gantry girder experiences a reactive force equal to 80% of the total
load. This force is treated as a concentrated load applied to the girder. The crane operates for 200
days per year, with 8 hours of operation per day. At this load level, the crane performs a maximum
of three movements per hour. The intended design life for the building is 50 years. The objective
is to determine if the gantry girder's fatigue life meets the required criteria.
Solution: -
Step I : No. of stress cycles

No. of Stress cycles = 3 x 8 x 200 x 50 = 2,40,000 cycles

Step II : Detail Category and Fatigue Strength

From IS 800 , Table 26

Detail category for I section is 118 Mpa.
Referring Fig 23 SN Curve for given Detail category and number of cycles
Uncorrected Fatigue strength = 450 Mpa

Design Fatigue Strength = Uncorrected Fatigue strength / partial safety factor against fatigue failure
Assuming Fail safe and poor Accessibility
partial safety factor against fatigue failure, γmft = 1.15
Design Fatigue Strength = 450 / 1.15 = 391.304 Mpa

Step III : Actual Stress range

Minimum Stress on Gantry girder will be when no loading is applied
Hence fmin = 0 Mpa
Maximum stress will be when loading is applied
fmax = M / Z

60
For Simply supported beam with load at centre
Max. Moment = P L / 4 = (150*1000*0.8)*(6000)/4
= 180 x 106 Nmm

For ISMB 400

Section Modulus , Z = 1022.9 X 103
fmax = 180 x 106 / 1022.9 X 103
= 176 Mpa < 250 Mpa
Stress Range = fmax -fmin = 176 - 0 = 176 Mpa < 391.304 Mpa Hence SAFE

Step IV : Shear Force

For Simply supported beam with load at centre

Max Shear Force = P / 2 = (150*1000*0.8) / 2
= 60000 N
Shear Stress = SF / (d. tw) = 60000 / (400 x 8.9 )
= 16.85 Mpa < 67 / 1.15 = 58.26 Mpa

As per clause 13.2.2.3 of IS 800 ,

Fatigue assesment is not required.

61
 ANNEXURE- B

Problem Statement
This case involves a fatigue analysis performed on an existing design to evaluate the fatigue life
of crucial welded connections. The specific details of the crane system can be seen in Figure B.1.
The crane's trolley operates on rails that are supported by two box girders. These girders are
equipped with diaphragms placed at regular intervals along their length. Within these girders,
certain welded connections have been identified as critical, and they are labeled as numbers 1 to
5 in the inset sketch.

Fig.B.1. Crane details

The crane traverses the entire length of the girders 20 times per day while bearing a load of 15
tons (150 kN), accounting for dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight of the trolley is 1
ton (10 kN). The analysis is conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when
it returns with a load of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days each year, resulting in the
accumulation of the following cycles annually:20 x 200 times a load of 150 kN
 10 x 200 times trolley returns empty
 10 x 200 times trolley returns with a load of 70 kN

62
The fatigue categorization of weld descriptions according to Eurocode 3, Part 1.1 is outlined
below:
Weld EC3 Category Description
1 EC 100 The manual fillet weld connecting the longitudinal web to the bottom
flange, specifically used for closing the welds of the box section, has
a throat size of 4 mm.
2 EC 80 The transverse manual fillet weld, located at the bottom edge of the
diaphragm to web connection, is used for joining these components
together.
3 EC 80 The transverse manual fillet weld, located at the top edge of the
diaphragm to web connection, is used for joining these components
together.
4 EC 112/ The web to top flange longitudinal manual T-butt weld, positioned
EC 71 under the crane rail, is employed to connect the web and top flange
components together.
5 EC 80 Welded stud bolt used for fastening the rail

Solution: -
Given Values: -
Top Flange Bf 650 mm W1 150 kN
tf 10 mm W2 70 kN
hw 500 mm Wdead 10 kN
tw 10 mm Ls 15 m
Bottom Flange Bf 500 mm h 520 mm
tf 10 mm

I. Stress
Calculations

Calculation of Moment of Inertia and Section modulus

Atf 6500 mm2

Abf 5000 mm2
Aw 5000 mm2

63
The distance from the centroid of each element to the bottom
flange is measured to determine their respective positions.

Ytf 515 mm
Ybf 5 mm
Yw 260 mm

Element Area A Y* AY AY2

Top Flange 6500 515 3347500 1723962500
Bottom Flange 5000 5 25000 125000
Webs 10000 260 2600000 676000000
Total 21500 5972500 2400087500

The position of neutral axis can be calculated as

Ycg = 277.7906977 mm

The moment of inertia can be calculated as:

Iweb 104166666.7 mm4

Itop flange 54166.66667 mm4
Ibottom flange 41666.66667 mm4

Total1 = 2400087500 mm4

Total2 = 1659104942 mm4

MOI = 949411724.8 mm4

The section modulus can be calculated as:

Ztop 3919798.768 mm3

Zbottom 3417723.245 mm3

64
II. Calculation of moment inertia and section modulus

The participation of the crane rail is neglected in the analysis. The highest bending stresses occur
at the mid-span when the trolley is also positioned at the mid-span. As the trolley traverses from
one end of the girders to the other, the bending moment caused by the live load varies from zero
to its maximum value and then returns to zero. It is assumed that the load is evenly distributed
between the two girders. The maximum bending moment range per girder is calculated as follows:
(𝑊1 + 𝑊𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 ). 𝐿𝑠
𝛥𝑀 =
2.4

𝛥 𝑀 = 300 𝑘𝑁. 𝑚

The stresses can be determined by applying the principles of simple bending theory,
𝛥𝑀.𝑌
Bending 𝛥𝜎(𝑦) = 𝐼

Point 1 Y1 250 mm Δσ (y1) 79 Mpa

Point 2 Y2 167.7907 mm Δσ (y2) 53.02 Mpa
Point 3 Y3 232.2093 mm Δσ (y3) 73.37 Mpa
Point 4 Y4 232.2093 mm Δσ (y4) 73.37 Mpa
Point 5 Y5 242.2093 mm Δσ (y5) 76.53 Mpa

The bending stress ranges are tabulated below

Weld Bending Stress range

1 78.99628585 Mpa
2 53.01936766 Mpa
3 73.37468969 Mpa
4 73.37468969 Mpa
5 76.53454113 Mpa

65
 III. Assessment for the trolley carrying the full load of 150 kN

According to Euro code 3, Ni may be calculated as follows:

3
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
5
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷 𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 > 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = { ∞ } 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 <
𝛾𝐹𝑓

In accordance with Eurocode, the following categories and characteristic values are assigned to
each welded detail:
100 74 40
80 59 32
𝛥𝜎𝐶 = 80 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐷 = 59 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐿 = 32 𝑀𝑃𝑎
112 83 45
( 80 ) (59) (32)

79
53
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = 73 𝑀𝑃𝑎
73
(77)

𝑁1 = 1.67 x 106

𝑁2 = 2.8 x 106

𝑁3 = 1.057 x 106

66
𝑁4 = 2.941 x 106

𝑁5 = 9.31 x 106
1.67 x 106
2.8 x 106
Let 𝑁150 = 1.057 x 106
2.941 x 106
( 9.31 x 106 )

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:
4 x 103
4 x 103
𝑛150 = 4 x 103
4 x 103
(4 x 103 )

The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:
𝑛150
𝐷150 = ( )
𝑁150

2.395 x 10−3 418

1.428 x 10−3 700
𝐷150 = 3.786 x 10−3 Fatigue Life150 = 264
1.36 x 10−3 735
( 4.296 x 10−3 ) (233)

iv. Assessment for the trolley returning empty

The weight of the empty trolley is 10 kN, which is significantly less compared to the fully loaded
trolley weighing 160 kN. As a result, the bending stress ranges caused by the passage of the empty
trolley are only 1/16 of those experienced by the full trolley. These stress ranges are all below the
threshold of 10 MPa. According to the cutoff limits defined by category EC 36, the minimum
value for direct stress ranges (𝛥𝜎𝐿 ) is 14 MPa. Considering this value, the applied stress ranges
𝛥𝜎𝐿
caused by the empty return trolley are all below 𝛾 and can be disregarded.
𝑚𝑓

67
v. Assessment for the trolley returning carrying load of 70 kN

In this scenario, each detail undergoes half the number of stress range cycles compared to the full
trolley, as the stress ranges are proportional to the load ratio of 80/160. These cycles need to be
evaluated individually to determine their cumulative damage ratio (n/N) per year.

39.498
26.51
𝛥𝜎𝑖
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = ( ) 𝛥𝜎𝑖 = 36.687 𝑀𝑃𝑎
2
36.687
(38.267)
2.574 x 107
6.089 x 107
𝑁1 = 2.574 x 107 Let 𝑁70 = 1.199 x 107
6.609 x 107
(9.715 x 106 )
𝑁2 = 6.089 x 107

𝑁3 = 1.199 x 107

𝑁4 = 6.609 x 107

𝑁5 = 9.715 x 106

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:

2 x 103
2 x 103
𝑛70 = 2 x 103
2 x 103
(2 x 103 )

68
The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:

7.771 x 10−5
𝑛
3.285 x 10−5
𝐷70 = (𝑁70 ) 𝐷70 = 1.667 x 10−4
70
3.026 x 10−5
( 2.059 x 10−4 )

1
Fatigue Life =
𝐷

12869
3044
Fatigue Life70 = 5997
3304.
( 4857 )

69
vi. Assemblage of the calculated damage and determination of the fatigue
life

The damage contributions from different loading cases for the same detail are combined. The
cumulative damage ratio (n/N) from each loading case is summed up according to Palmgren-
Miner's Rule, which is used for design purposes.
𝑛
∑ =1
𝑁
The Total Damage can be determined as

0.0024
0.0014
𝐷= 0.0039
0.00139
( 0.0045 )

Therefore;

Total Fatigue Life = Fatigue Life70 + Fatigue Life150

13287
31145
Fatigue Life = 6261
33778
( 5090 )

70
 ANNEXURE- C

Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life
of the weld details under different operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of
the girders 20 times per day, carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects.
Additionally, the dead weight of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of
varying loads, the analysis is conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and
when it returns carrying a load of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

Fig.C1 Details of Crane Fig.C2. Gantry girder

Solution: -

Top Flange Bf 200 mm W1 150 kN

tf 20 mm W2 70 kN
hw 320 mm Wdead 5 kN
tw 8 mm Ls 11.4 m
Bottom Flange Bf 140 mm h 355 mm
tf 15 mm

71
Step I : No. of stress cycles

No. of Stress cycles = 2,00,000 cycles

Step II : Detail Category and Fatigue Strength

From IS 800 , Table 26

Detail category for I section is 92 Mpa.
Referring Fig 23 SN Curve for given Detail category and number of cycles
Uncorrected Fatigue strength = 300 Mpa

Design Fatigue Strength = Uncorrected Fatigue strength / partial safety factor against fatigue failure

Assuming Fail safe and poor Accessibility

partial safety factor against fatigue failure, γmft = 1.15

Design Fatigue Strength = 300 / 1.15 = 226.84 Mpa

Step III : Actual Stress range

Area 9660 mm2

Moment of Inertia, I 202839783 mm4
Centroid from Bottom, yb 227.87267 mm2
Centroid from Top, yt 132.12733 mm2
Section Modulus Bottom, Zb 890145.28 mm3
Section Modulus Top, Zt 1535184.2 mm3

Maximum Bending Moment 80400000 Nmm

fmax 90.32233 Mpa < 250 Mpa
Stress Range 90.32233 Mpa < 226.84 Mpa

Hence, This is Safe.

72
Step IV : Shear Force

Total Vertical Shear force 65350 N

For Simply supported beam with load at Centre

Shear Force 32675 N
Shear stress 11.50528 MPa
Fatigue Life (n) 682534.6 Cycles

73
 ANNEXURE- D

Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life
of the weld details under different operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of
the girders 20 times per day, carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects.
Additionally, the dead weight of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of
varying loads, the analysis is conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and
when it returns carrying a load of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

Fig.D1 Details of Crane Fig.D2. Gantry girder

Solution: -

Top Flange Bf 200 mm W1 150 kN

tf 20 mm W2 70 kN
hw 320 mm Wdead 5 kN
tw 8 mm Ls 11.4 m
Bottom Flange Bf 140 mm h 355 mm
tf 15 mm

74
I. Stress Calculation
Calculation of Moment of Inertia and
Section modulus

Area 9660 mm2

Moment of Inertia, I 202839783.4 mm4
Centroid from Bottom, yb 227.87 mm2
Centroid from Top,
yt 132.12 mm2
Section Modulus Bottom, Zb 890145.28 mm3
Section Modulus Top, Zt 1535184.164 mm3

ΔM= 80400000 Nmm

Point 1 Y1 132.12 mm Δσ (y1) 52.37 Mpa

Point 2 Y2 112.12 mm Δσ (y2) 44.44 Mpa
Point 3 Y3 212.87 mm Δσ (y3) 84.37 Mpa

The bending stress ranges are tabulated

below:

Weld Bending Stress range

1 52.37 Mpa
2 44.44 Mpa
3 84.376 Mpa

75
 II. Assessment for the trolley carrying the full load of 150 kN

According to Euro code 3, Ni may be calculated as follows:

3
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
5
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷 𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 > 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = { ∞ } 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 <
𝛾𝐹𝑓

In accordance with Eurocode, the following categories and characteristic values are assigned to
each welded detail:
80 68 45
𝛥𝜎𝐶 = (112) 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐷 = (90) 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐿 = (65) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
100 85 60

52.37
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = (44.44) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
84.38

𝑁1 = 4.11 x 106

𝑁2 = 3.79 x 107

𝑁3 = 1.15 x 106

4.11 x 106
Let 𝑁150 = (3.79 x 107 )
1.15 x 106

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:
4000
𝑛150 = (4000)
4000
76
The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:
𝑛150
𝐷150 = ( )
𝑁150

0.000972 1028
𝐷150 = (0.000105) Fatigue Life150 = (9492)
0.00345 282

iv. Assessment for the trolley returning empty

The weight of the empty trolley is 10 kN, which is significantly less compared to the fully loaded
trolley weighing 160 kN. As a result, the bending stress ranges caused by the passage of the empty
trolley are only 1/16 of those experienced by the full trolley. These stress ranges are all below the
threshold of 10 MPa. According to the cutoff limits defined by category EC 36, the minimum
value for direct stress ranges (𝛥𝜎𝐿 ) is 14 MPa. Considering this value, the applied stress ranges
𝛥𝜎𝐿
caused by the empty return trolley are all below 𝛾 and can be disregarded.
𝑚𝑓

v. Assessment for the trolley returning carrying load of 70 kN

In this scenario, each detail undergoes half the number of stress range cycles compared to the full
trolley, as the stress ranges are proportional to the load ratio of 80/160. These cycles need to be
evaluated individually to determine their cumulative damage ratio (n/N) per year.
26.18
𝛥𝜎𝑖
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = ( ) 𝛥𝜎𝑖 = (22.22) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
2
42.18

1.316 x 108
8
𝑁1 = 1.316 x 10 cycles Let 𝑁70 = (1.215 x 109 ) cycles
3.701 x 107
𝑁2 = 1.215 x 109 cycles

𝑁3 = 3.701 x 107 cycles

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:

77
 2000
𝑛70 = (2000) cycles
2000

The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:

𝑛70
1.518 x 10−5
𝐷70 = (𝑁 ) 𝐷70 = ( 1.64 x 10−6 )
70
5.4 x 10−5
1
Fatigue Life =
𝐷

65839
Fatigue Life70 = (607522) cycles
18510
vi. Assemblage of the calculated damage and determination of the fatigue
life

The damage contributions from different loading cases for the same detail are combined. The
cumulative damage ratio (n/N) from each loading case is summed up according to Palmgren-
Miner's Rule, which is used for design purposes.
𝑛
∑ =1
𝑁
The Total Damage can be calculated as

0.00099
𝐷 = (0.00011)
0.00351

Therefore;

Total Fatigue Life = Fatigue Life70 + Fatigue Life150

66868
Fatigue Life = (617014) cycles
18799

78
 ANNEXURE- E
Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders and longitudinal fillet weld is only on one side of the
web. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life of the weld details under different
operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of the girders 20 times per day,
carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight
of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of varying loads, the analysis is
conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when it returns carrying a load
of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

Fig.E1 Details of Crane Fig.E2. Gantry girder

Solution: -

Top Flange Bf 200 mm W1 150 kN

tf 20 mm W2 70 kN
hw 320 mm Wdead 5 kN
tw 8 mm Ls 11.4 m
Bottom Flange Bf 140 mm h 355 mm
tf 15 mm

79
 Step I : No. of stress cycles

No. of Stress cycles = 2,00,000 cycles

Step II : Detail Category and Fatigue Strength

From IS 800 , Table 26

Detail category for I section is 66 Mpa.
Referring Fig 23 SN Curve for given Detail category and number of cycles
Uncorrected Fatigue strength = 250 Mpa
Design Fatigue Strength = Uncorrected Fatigue strength / partial safety factor against fatigue failure
Assuming Fail safe and poor Accessibility

partial safety factor against fatigue failure, γmft = 1.15

Step III : Actual Stress range
Area 9660 mm2
Moment of Inertia, I 202839783 mm4
Centroid from Bottom, yb 227.87267 mm2
Centroid from Top, yt 132.12733 mm2
Section Modulus Bottom, Zb 890145.28 mm3
Section Modulus Top, Zt 1535184.2 mm3

Maximum Bending Moment 80400000 Nmm

fmax 90.32233 Mpa < 250 Mpa
Stress Range 90.32233 Mpa < 189.03 Mpa

Step IV : Shear Force

Total Vertical Shear force 65350 N
Shear Force 32675 N
Shear stress 11.50528 MPa
Fatigue Life (n) 520964 Cycles

80
 ANNEXURE- F
Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders and longitudinal fillet weld is only on one side of the
web. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life of the weld details under different
operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of the girders 20 times per day,
carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight
of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of varying loads, the analysis is
conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when it returns carrying a load
of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

Fig.F1 Details of Crane Fig.F2. Gantry girder

Solution: -

Top Flange Bf 200 mm W1 150 kN

tf 20 mm W2 70 kN
hw 320 mm Wdead 5 kN
tw 8 mm Ls 11.4 m
Bottom Flange Bf 140 mm h 355 mm
tf 15 mm

81
I. Stress Calculation
Calculation of Moment of Inertia and
Section modulus

Area 9660 mm2

Moment of Inertia, I 202839783.4 mm4
Centroid from Bottom, yb 227.87 mm2
Centroid from Top,
yt 132.12 mm2
Section Modulus Bottom, Zb 890145.28 mm3
Section Modulus Top, Zt 1535184.164 mm3

ΔM= 80400000 Nmm

Point 1 Y1 132.12 mm Δσ (y1) 52.37 Mpa

Point 2 Y2 112.12 mm Δσ (y2) 44.44 Mpa
Point 3 Y3 212.87 mm Δσ (y3) 84.37 Mpa

The bending stress ranges are tabulated

below:

Weld Bending Stress range

1 52.37 Mpa
2 44.44 Mpa
3 84.376 Mpa

II. Assessment for the trolley carrying the full load of 150 kN

According to Euro code 3, Ni may be calculated as follows:

82
 3
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
5
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷 𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 > 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = { ∞ } 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 <
𝛾𝐹𝑓

In accordance with Eurocode, the following categories and characteristic values are assigned to
each welded detail:

80 68 45
𝛥𝜎𝐶 = (100) 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐷 = (85) 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐿 = (60) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
100 85 60

52.37
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = (44.44) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
84.38

𝑁1 = 4.11 x 106

𝑁2 = 2.85 x 107

𝑁3 = 1.15 x 106

4.11 x 106
Let 𝑁150 = (2.85 x 107 )
1.15 x 106

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:

4000
𝑛150 = (4000)
4000

83
The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:

𝑛150
𝐷150 = ( )
𝑁150

0.000972 1028
𝐷150 = ( 0.00014 ) Fatigue Life150 = (7132) 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
0.00345 282

iv. Assessment for the trolley returning empty

The weight of the empty trolley is 10 kN, which is significantly less compared to the fully loaded
trolley weighing 160 kN. As a result, the bending stress ranges caused by the passage of the empty
trolley are only 1/16 of those experienced by the full trolley. These stress ranges are all below the
threshold of 10 MPa. According to the cutoff limits defined by category EC 36, the minimum
value for direct stress ranges (𝛥𝜎𝐿 ) is 14 MPa. Considering this value, the applied stress ranges
𝛥𝜎𝐿
caused by the empty return trolley are all below 𝛾 and can be disregarded.
𝑚𝑓

84
v. Assessment for the trolley returning carrying load of 70 kN

In this scenario, each detail undergoes half the number of stress range cycles compared to the full
trolley, as the stress ranges are proportional to the load ratio of 80/160. These cycles need to be
evaluated individually to determine their cumulative damage ratio (n/N) per year.

26.18
𝛥𝜎𝑖
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = ( ) 𝛥𝜎𝑖 = (22.22) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
2
42.18

1.316 x 108
8
𝑁1 = 1.316 x 10 cycles Let 𝑁70 = ( 9.13 x 108 ) cycles
3.701 x 107
𝑁2 = 9.13 x 108 cycles

𝑁3 = 3.701 x 107 cycles

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:

2000
𝑛70 = (2000) cycles
2000

The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:

𝑛70
1.518 x 10−5
𝐷70 = (𝑁 ) 𝐷70 = ( 2.19 x 10−6 )
70
5.4 x 10−5

1
Fatigue Life =
𝐷

65839
Fatigue Life70 = (456503) cycles
18510

85
vi. Assemblage of the calculated damage and determination of the fatigue
life

The damage contributions from different loading cases for the same detail are combined. The
cumulative damage ratio (n/N) from each loading case is summed up according to Palmgren-
Miner's Rule, which is used for design purposes.

𝑛
∑ =1
𝑁
The Total Damage can be calculated as

0.00099
𝐷 = (0.00014)
0.00351

Therefore;

Total Fatigue Life = Fatigue Life70 + Fatigue Life150

66868
Fatigue Life = (463636) cycles
18799

86
 ANNEXURE- G
Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders and intermittent fillet weld is on both side of the
web. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life of the weld details under different
operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of the girders 20 times per day,
carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight
of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of varying loads, the analysis is
conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when it returns carrying a load
of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

Fig.G1 Details of Crane Fig.G2. Gantry girder

Solution: -

Top Flange Bf 200 mm W1 150 kN

tf 20 mm W2 70 kN
hw 320 mm Wdead 5 kN
tw 8 mm Ls 11.4 m
Bottom Flange Bf 140 mm h 355 mm
tf 15 mm

87
Step I : No. of stress cycles
No. of Stress cycles = 2,00,000 cycles

Step II : Detail Category and Fatigue Strength

From IS 800 , Table 26
Detail category for I section is 59 Mpa.
Referring Fig 23 SN Curve for given Detail category and number of cycles
Uncorrected Fatigue strength = 220 Mpa

Design Fatigue Strength = Uncorrected Fatigue strength / partial safety factor against fatigue failure
Design Fatigue Strength = 191.304 MPa
Assuming Fail safe and poor Accessibility
partial safety factor against fatigue failure, γmft = 1.15

From Equation
Design Fatigue Strength = 172.52 Mpa

The design fatigue strength is obtained from the uncorrected fatigue strength which is the minimum of
fatigue strength calculated from S-N curve and from the equation, multiplied by the capacity reduction
factor and divided / multiplied by the partial safety factor.

Design Fatigue Strength = 166.35 MPa

Step III : Actual Stress range

Area 9660 mm2

Moment of Inertia, I 202839783 mm4
Centroid from Bottom, yb 227.87267 mm2
Centroid from Top, yt 132.12733 mm2
Section Modulus Bottom, Zb 890145.28 mm3
Section Modulus Top, Zt 1535184.2 mm3

Maximum Bending Moment 80400000 Nmm

fmax 90.32233 Mpa < 220 Mpa
Stress Range 90.32233 Mpa < 166.35 Mpa

88
Step IV: Shear Force
Total Vertical Shear force 65350 N

For Simply supported beam with load at Centre

Shear Force 32675 N
Shear stress 11.50528 MPa
Fatigue Life (n) 171322 Cycles

89
 ANNEXURE- H
Problem Statement
The objective of this study is to perform a fatigue analysis on an existing design in order to assess
the fatigue life of critical weld details. The design under consideration is a crane trolley that
operates on rails supported by two gantry girders. It is important to note that there are no stiffeners
present along the length of the gantry girders and intermittent fillet weld is on both side of the
web. The analysis focuses on evaluating the fatigue life of the weld details under different
operating conditions. The crane trolley traverses the length of the girders 20 times per day,
carrying a load of 15 tons (150 kN), which includes dynamic effects. Additionally, the dead weight
of the trolley itself is 0.5 ton (10 kN). To capture the influence of varying loads, the analysis is
conducted for two scenarios: when the trolley returns empty and when it returns carrying a load
of 7 tons (70 kN). The crane operates for 200 days per year.

Fig.H1 Details of Crane Fig.H2. Gantry girder

Solution: -

Top Flange Bf 200 mm W1 150 kN

tf 20 mm W2 70 kN
hw 320 mm Wdead 5 kN
tw 8 mm Ls 11.4 m
Bottom Flange Bf 140 mm h 355 mm
tf 15 mm

90
I. Stress Calculation
Calculation of Moment of Inertia and
Section modulus

Area 9660 mm2

Moment of Inertia, I 202839783.4 mm4
Centroid from Bottom, yb 227.87 mm2
Centroid from Top,
yt 132.12 mm2
Section Modulus Bottom, Zb 890145.28 mm3
Section Modulus Top, Zt 1535184.164 mm3

ΔM= 80400000 Nmm

Point 1 Y1 132.12 mm Δσ (y1) 52.37 Mpa

Point 2 Y2 112.12 mm Δσ (y2) 44.44 Mpa
Point 3 Y3 212.87 mm Δσ (y3) 84.37 Mpa

The bending stress ranges are tabulated

below:
Weld Bending Stress range
1 52.37 Mpa
2 44.44 Mpa
3 84.376 Mpa

91
 II. Assessment for the trolley carrying the full load of 150 kN

According to Euro code 3, Ni may be calculated as follows:

3
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
5
𝛥𝜎
(𝛾 𝐷 )
𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝐷 𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = 5. 106 [ ] 𝑖𝑓 > 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 ≥
𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 𝛾𝑚𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑓
{ }
𝛥𝜎𝐿
𝑁𝑖 (𝛥𝜎𝑖 ) = { ∞ } 𝑖𝑓 𝛾𝐹𝑓 𝛥𝜎𝑖 <
𝛾𝐹𝑓

In accordance with Eurocode, the following categories and characteristic values are assigned to
each welded detail:
80 68 45
𝛥𝜎𝐶 = (80) 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐷 = (68) 𝑀𝑃𝑎 𝛥𝜎𝐿 = (45) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
80 68 45

52.37
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = (44.44) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
84.38

𝑁1 = 4.11 x 106

𝑁2 = 9.35 x 106

𝑁3 = 3.79 x 105

4.11 x 106
Let 𝑁150 = (9.35 x 106 ) 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
3.79 x 105

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:

92
 4000
𝑛150 = (4000) cycles
4000

The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:

𝑛150
𝐷150 = ( )
𝑁150

0.000972 1028
𝐷150 = ( 0.00042 ) Fatigue Life150 = (2337) 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠
0.01055 95

iv. Assessment for the trolley returning empty

The weight of the empty trolley is 10 kN, which is significantly less compared to the fully loaded
trolley weighing 160 kN. As a result, the bending stress ranges caused by the passage of the empty
trolley are only 1/16 of those experienced by the full trolley. These stress ranges are all below the
threshold of 10 MPa. According to the cutoff limits defined by category EC 36, the minimum
value for direct stress ranges (𝛥𝜎𝐿 ) is 14 MPa. Considering this value, the applied stress ranges
𝛥𝜎𝐿
caused by the empty return trolley are all below 𝛾 and can be disregarded.
𝑚𝑓

v. Assessment for the trolley returning carrying load of 70 kN

In this scenario, each detail undergoes half the number of stress range cycles compared to the full
trolley, as the stress ranges are proportional to the load ratio of 80/160. These cycles need to be
evaluated individually to determine their cumulative damage ratio (n/N) per year.

26.18
𝛥𝜎𝑖
𝛥𝜎𝑖 = ( ) 𝛥𝜎𝑖 = (22.22) 𝑀𝑃𝑎
2
42.18

1.316 x 108
8
𝑁1 = 1.316 x 10 cycles Let 𝑁70 = ( 2.99 x 108 ) cycles
1.21 x 107
𝑁2 = 2.99 x 108 cycles

93
𝑁3 = 1.21 x 107 cycles

Considering that the crane travels the length of the girders 20 times per day and operates for 200
days per year, the following can be calculated:

2000
𝑛70 = (2000) cycles
2000

The damage per year for each welded detail can be calculated using the following equation:

𝑛70
1.518 x 10−5
𝐷70 = (𝑁 ) 𝐷70 = ( 6.68x 10−6 )
70
1.65 x 10−4

1
Fatigue Life =
𝐷

65839
Fatigue Life70 = (149586) cycles
6065

vi. Assemblage of the calculated damage and determination of the fatigue

life

The damage contributions from different loading cases for the same detail are combined. The
cumulative damage ratio (n/N) from each loading case is summed up according to Palmgren-
Miner's Rule, which is used for design purposes.

𝑛
∑ =1
𝑁

94
The Total Damage can be calculated as

0.00099
𝐷 = ( 0.0004 )
0.0107

Therefore;

Total Fatigue Life = Fatigue Life70 + Fatigue Life150

66868
Fatigue Life = (151924) cycles
18799

95
 REFERENCES

1. AISC(American Institute for Steel Construction).2010 American Standard For

Specification For Structural Steel Buildings. ANSI/AISC 360-10,Chicago, Illinois :AISC.
2. AS(Australian Standard).1998 Australian Standard for Steel Structures. AS 4100-1998 ,
Homebush, NSW 2140:AS.
3. BIS(Bureau of Indian Standard).2007 Indian Standard Code of Practice for General
Construction In Steel structure.IS 800-2007, New Delhi, India: BIS
4. CEN (European Committee for Standardization) .2005 . Design of Steel Structures. EN
1993-1-9, Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
5. Dexter, R. J., W. J. Wright, J. W. Fisher. “Fatigue and Fracture of Steel Girders.”
https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE1084-070220049:3278.
6. Ibrahim, S. A., W. W. El-Dakhakhni, and M. Elgaaly. 2006. “Fatigue of Corrugated-Web
Plate Girders: Experimental Study.” J. Struct. Eng., 132 (9): 1371–1380. American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2006)132:9(1371).
7. Köksal, N.S., Kayapunar, A., Çevik, M., 2013. Fatigue Analysis of a Notched Cantilever
Beam Using Ansys Workbench. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Mathematical and Computational Applications. Manisa, Turkey, 111–118.
8. Koto, Y., T. Konishi, H. Sekiya, and C. Miki. 2019. “Monitoring local damage due to
fatigue in plate girder bridge.” J. Sound Vib., 438: 238–250. Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2018.09.009.
9. Kyung, K. S., J. E. Park, S. S. Jun, and J. G. Kim. 2011. “A study of the evaluation of
fatigue crack at welded joint for steel plate girder.” Procedia Eng., 1543–1548.
10. Singh, I. V., B. K. Mishra, S. Bhattacharya, and R. U. Patil. 2012. “The numerical
simulation of fatigue crack growth using extended finite element method.” Int. J. Fatigue,
36 (1): 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.08.010.
11. Kanvinde, A.M. et al. (2013) “Fillet weld groups loaded with out-of-plane eccentricity:
Simulations and new model for strength characterization,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, 139(3), pp. 305–319.

96