HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER

HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

FATIGUE LIFE INVESTIGATION OF STEEL

THROUGH TRUSS BRIDGES

Maha M. Hassan1, Mazhar M. Saleh2 and Hussein H. Abbas3

Assistant Professor, Cairo University, Structural Engineering Department, mahamoddather@eng.cu.edu.eg
2
Professor, Cairo University, Structural Engineering Department, mazharsaleh@eng.cu.edu.eg
3
Professor, Al Azhar University, Structural Engineering Department, habbas@ehaf.com

Abstract
Most of the railway bridges in Egypt are composed of steel components and were
constructed over the last century. During such period of time, fatigue checks were not
obligatory. Hence, many of the bridge members, specially the floor beams, do not satisfy
the new imposed code checks for fatigue. In steel railway bridges, fatigue cracking is a
major safety concern as they are subjected to an extensive level of cyclic loading.
Moreover, in metallic old bridges, fatigue is one of the most common causes of failure.
Maintenance costs of fatigue-induced cracks are usually high. Hence, the accurate
determination of the remaining fatigue life is crucial and has a large impact on bridge
preservation. Most of the railway bridges in Egypt are constructed using rivets. The design
codes and specifications usually deal with welded connections. Data regarding the exact
behavior of riveted members is missing. The current research investigates the fatigue
checks for railway bridges in Egypt according to the new and old specifications. Different
methodologies for determining the remaining fatigue life are reviewed and investigated.
Keywords: Damage Accumulation, Fatigue, Railway, Riveted bridge, Steel bridges.
Introduction
Many of the existing railway bridges in Egypt are built during the last two centuries.
Assessment of these bridges is a pressing issue as the age of some bridges exceeds 100
years. In metallic structures, fatigue is the most common cause of failure (Cremona et al.,
2013). Fatigue failure is usually due to the formation of one or more cracks due to
repetition of loading. Determining the fatigue damage and the remaining fatigue life is a
challenging matter. Meanwhile, such evaluation is indispensable for conducting a reliable
assessment of fatigue damage of steel bridges. Remaining fatigue life depends on many
factors including material properties, previous stress history, expected increase in axle
loads, in addition to environmental conditions. Most of these factors are uncertain and may
considerably vary throughout the service life of the bridge.

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________
Many researchers have investigated the fatigue life estimation through deterministic or
probabilistic methods. Hence, there are several approaches and methodologies for such
estimation. Ye et al. (2014) provided a comprehensive literature review on the different
methods for fatigue investigation and fatigue life estimation that can be employed for
assessment of steel riveted or welded bridges. Imam and Righiniotis (2010) investigated
the new fatigue assessment methodologies, based on local stresses rather than nominal
stresses, for assessing the fatigue of stringer-to-cross girder connections. Al-Emrani (2005)
experimentally investigated the fatigue behavior of double-angle stringer-to-floor beam
riveted connections. These connections are subjected to a considerable moment value
which was not considered in the original design. However, tests showed that their failure is
not brittle fracture.
Generally, accurate estimation of the remaining fatigue life requires exact recording of the
axle weights and volume during the service life of the bridge. In this study, review of the
methods used in fatigue life estimation is presented. Afterwards, the fatigue checks for an
example steel through truss bridge, Mansoura Bridge, is evaluated considering the axle
loads in the new and old Egyptian specifications. In addition, the remaining fatigue life for
the critical members will be investigated and results shall be analyzed.
Fatigue Assessment Methods
Different methods for fatigue assessment and remaining fatigue life determination are
available in the literature. They include stress-life method, strain life method, fracture
mechanics models, and reliability based methods. In the following, focus is given to the
stress-life method and fracture mechanics models.
Stress-Life Method
This method is suitable for fatigue life estimation in case of members or connections
subjected to stresses in the elastic range (Ye et al., 2014). An S-N curve, experimentally
obtained, is used to relate the constant-amplitude stress range, S, and the number of cycles
to failure, N. Tests are repeated at different stress levels and considering different details to
establish the S-N curves.
Most of the design specifications depend on the traditional S-N method for fatigue
evaluation or design (AASHTO, 1990; and CEN, 1992). Such codes and guidelines were
developed for the design of new bridges. Hence, data regarding categorization of the
riveted members and their ability to withstand fatigue are rare. However, the available data
showed that they can be considered category C = 71 N/mm2 (CEN, 1992).
The procedure includes the following:
Time history for the previous stress cycles is derived from the available data on axle
weights and repetitions.

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

Fatigue damage caused by each stress cycle is determined and accumulated using a
suitable damage index (Miner, 1945; Mesmacque et al., 2005; Liang and Chen,
2014) and cycles extracted from suitable S-N curve (Figure 1)
The remaining fatigue life is estimated based on the previous load histories and the
expected future loads.
The above calculations are considered alongside observations from field visual
inspection of the studied members or connections.

m=3

m=5

5x106

1x108

Figure (1): C71 SN curve (CEN, 1992)

Fracture Mechanics Models
This approach focuses on estimating the crack growth rate through the crack size and state
of stresses around the crack area. The magnitude of stress near a crack tip is estimated
considering the initial crack size and shape through linear elastic fracture mechanics.
Formulas are used to predict the time intervals required for crack propagation. For a given
crack length ao, the critical crack length (acrit) is determined. Accordingly, the maximum
number of cycles for a studied members is determined. Hence, the remaining fatigue life
can be estimated. The most common formula to determine the maximum permissible
number of load cycles is (Paris et al., 1961):

da
m
C p .K p
dN

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________
K Fe Fw Fs Fg a

Where Cp and mp are material constants, K is the stress intensity factor, Fe is crack shape
correction factor, Fw is width correction factor, Fs is free surface correction factor, Fg is
stress gradient correction factor, and is the applied stress range. The number of load
cycles (N) can be determined by integrating Equation 1 while considering the crack length
(a):
ai 1 ai
N= ii crit
0
3
Cp [ ai 1 Y (ai 1 , T ) ai Y (ai , T )]

Where Y(a,T) is a modified geometrical correction function.

Fatigue Assessment: Case Study
Fatigue assessment of an old riveted through truss bridge is performed through visual
inspection, fatigue stress range evaluation, and remaining fatigue life determination. In the
following, details of each stage are evaluated and discussed.
Bridge Description
Mansoura Bridge (Figure 2) was constructed in 1913. The bridge is a railway bridge over
the Nile River near Mansoura City. The bridge is a four span riveted bridge with double
lane tracks having N type through truss with variable depth. The total length of the bridge
is 280 m and has two cantilever sidewalks. The open timber floor is supported upon a floor
beam system conveying the loads to the main trusses. Assessment of the bridge was carried
out during March-October 2015 and included visual inspection activities, material tests,
load tests, modeling, fatigue assessment, and rehabilitation practices. During visual
inspection phase, no cracks were reported at the different locations or near the rivet heads.

Figure (2): Mansoura Bridge, 1913

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________
Fatigue Investigation in Old and New Specifications
The Egyptian code for the design of steel structures and buildings (ECP 201-2003) imposes
limits on the tensile stresses due to live loads in different members. These limits depend on
the detail category and type of the structural element. The design loads for railway bridges
has been changed in the last released edition of the code. Figure 3 shows the design train
axle loads and properties considering the old and new specifications (ECP 201-2003 and
ECP 201-2011). In addition, the impact factor calculations have been modified in the new
specification. A comparison of the impact factor calculations for different bridge elements
in Mansoura Bridge is listed in Table 1. As can be seen, differences are present due to the
difference in calculating the loaded length (L) which is the main parameter affecting the
value of the impact factor. This leads to differences in the value of the straining actions
used to check the fatigue stresses reaching 60% for the floor beams.
80 tons Wagon
Infinite Number

20 20

1.75

20 20

5.50
12.00

100 tons Locomotive

80 tons Tender

20 20 20 20

25

25

100 tons Locomotive

80 tons Tender

25 12.5 12.5

20 20 20 20

25

25

25 12.5 12.5

1.75 3.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75 3.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
8.40
10.50
8.40
10.50

a. Train Type D (ECP 201-2003)

Distributed Load
Infinite Length

Distributed Load
Infinite Length
25

8 t/m
0.80

25

25

25

1.60 1.60 1.60

8 t/m
0.80

b. Standard Load Details (ECP 201-2011)

Figure (3): Comparison of Design Loads in the Old and New Egyptian Specifications
Table (1): Comparison of Impact Factor Calculations
Element

Length (m)

Continuous Stringer
Cross Girder
Bottom Chord Member

5.29
7.60
70

SHM21

Impact Factor (I)

ECP 201-2003
ECP 201-2011
0.75
0.30
0.61
0.31
0.15
0.10

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________
Afterwards, the stress ranges due to the applied live loads are calculated and compared to
the allowable values specified in the ECP 205 2007 as shown in Table 2. As can be seen,
the stringer does not satisfy the Egyptian code fatigue requirement considering both the
new and old train loads. It is also observed for the cross girder that while the impact load
calculations considering the old specifications is larger than the new specification;
however, the resulting stress range is higher for the new specification by about 60%. This
is attributed to the heavier train loads in the new specification. Hence, secondary beams
might be viewed unsafe and needs strengthening or replacement if evaluated considering
such increased loads.

Table (2): Comparison of Applied Fatigue Stress Ranges

Element
Continuous Stringer
Cross Girder
Bottom Chord Member

Allowable Stress
Range (t/cm2)
0.49
1.12
1.12

Actual Stress Range (t/cm2)

ECP 201-2003
ECP 201-2011
0.79
0.82
0.56
0.9
0.23
0.41

Fatigue Life Estimation

Records on loading history were obtained from the Egyptian National Railways (ENR).
SAP2000 software program was used to construct a 3-D model for the bridge (Figure 4).
Table 3 summarizes the received data. The bridge was constructed on 1913. Hence, the
calculations are made considering 102 years. Figure 5 shows the axle loads and
characteristics of the considered train types. Figures 6 through 8 show the response of
different structural elements of the bridge to a passing tourist train. As can be seen, one
passage of the train yields several cycles for the straining actions of the floor beams:
stringer and cross girder. Meanwhile, the axial load variation in the bottom chord member
has one large peak and successive approximately constant value afterwards. This is
expected since the floor beams are influenced by the axle loads in their province and
consequently each successive axles may cause an independent loading cycle. Hence, the
floor beams are usually subjected to increased number of cycles compared to the main truss
members for the same loading event.
The straining actions for selected members were extracted from the models considering the
different trains types listed in Figure 4. Afterwards, the loading history was considered and
used to approximate the accumulated damage.

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________
Table (3): Total No. of Trains Data (1907-2015) (ENR)
Train Type
Year
Tourist

Special

Cargo

1918 - 1939

56817

158855

89203

1940 - 1962

59400

166076

93258

1963 - 1966

14600

32120

8760

1967 - 1973

40880

56210

10220

1974 - 1981

35040

70080

11680

1981 - 2015

120780

265716

289872

Figure (4): Mansoura Bridge FE Model

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________
54 tons Wagon
Number of Wagons = 10

132 tons Locomotive

22 22 22

2.00 2.00

22 22 22

13.5 13.5

2.00 2.00

2.50

7.65
21.65

132 tons Locomotive

14.70
24.50

13.5 13.5

22 22 22

2.50

2.00 2.00

22 22 22

7.65
21.65

2.00 2.00

Tourist Train Type

54 tons Wagon
Number of Wagons = 12

132 tons Locomotive

22 22 22

2.00 2.00

7.65
21.65

22 22 22

13.5 13.5

2.00 2.00

2.50

132 tons Locomotive

13.5 13.5

22 22 22

2.50

2.00 2.00

14.70
24.50

22 22 22

7.65
21.65

2.00 2.00

Special Train Type

132 tons Locomotive

22 22 22

2.00 2.00

7.65
21.65

85 tons Wagon
Number of Wagons = 20

22 22 22

21.25 21.25

2.00 2.00

2.50

6.08
12.56

132 tons Locomotive

21.25 21.25

22 22 22

2.50

2.00 2.00

22 22 22

7.65
21.65

Cargo Train Type

Figure (5): Axle Loads for Different Considered Train Types

SHM21

2.00 2.00

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

Figure (6): Loading Cycles for Stringer due to Tourist Train Passage

Figure (7): Loading Cycles for Cross Girder due to Tourist Train Passage

SHM21

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

Figure (8): Loading Cycles for Bottom Chord Member due to Tourist Train Passage
Table 4 lists the accumulated damage for the floor beams and bottom chord truss members
according to the procedure specified by CEN, 1992. The stress ranges for the stringer beam
reaches about 50% of section capacity. This lead to high values of ni/Ni exceeding 1,
which means that the section has reached its full fatigue life. The stresses in the truss
members were low except for the diagonal members. During the visual inspection phase,
the fatigue-critical members were inspected for cracks in base metal and around rivet
heads. Such defect was not detected through the initial or the detailed inspection practices.
This shows that, depending on the assumptions made in the used method, floor beam
elements, especially stringers, are subjected to larger stress cycles and are expected to need
strengthening and replacement works sooner than the other members.
Table (4): Damage Accumulation Calculation for Different Members (1913 2015)
Structural Element

Locomotive

Stringer
Wagon

SHM21

Train Type
Tourist
Special

Type
i
(t/cm2)
ni
Ni
ni/Ni
i
(t/cm2)
ni
Ni
ni/Ni

10

Cargo

0.69

0.69

0.69

655034
2179003
0.30

1498114
2179003
0.69

1005986
2179003
0.46

0.34

0.34

0.64

3275170
41840044
0.08

8988684
41840044
0.21

10059860
2730644
3.68

ni/Ni

5.43

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

Locomotive

Cross Girder
Wagon

Bottom Chord
Member

Diagonal Member

---

---

i
(t/cm2)
ni
Ni
ni/Ni
i
(t/cm2)
ni
Ni
ni/Ni
i
(t/cm2)
ni
Ni
ni/Ni
i
(t/cm2)
ni
Ni
ni/Ni

0.42

0.42

0.42

655034
14545889
0.05

1498114
14545889
0.10

1005986
14545889
0.07

0.21

0.21

0.36

3275170

0.00

8988684

0.00

10059860
31439398
0.32

0.20

0.19

0.30

327517

0.00

749057

0.00

502993
78231282
0.006

0.67

0.60

0.76

327517
2380020
0.14

749057
3313991
0.23

502993
1630663
0.31

0.54

0.01

0.67

CONCLUSIONS
Several fatigue models are available for determining the remaining fatigue life of steel
elements. In this research, an overview over the methods usually employed in steel riveted
structures is discussed. Afterwards, fatigue assessment of an old riveted through truss
bridge is investigated for the key elements in the bridge. Calculations using the old and
new axle loads introduced in the Egyptian code for loads are compared and differences are
highlighted. Damage accumulation for the considered case study is examined. It was found
that floor beam elements, stringers and cross girders, are subjected to larger stress cycles
than the remaining elements due to train passage. Hence, they are more likely to have
reached their fatigue life based on the available fatigue estimation methods in codes.
Accordingly, accurate fatigue life methods are needed, especially for the secondary floor
elements, in order to specify the required repair or rehabilitation practices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to the EHAF Consulting Office for
the financial and technical support of the first phase of an inspection campaign including
over 75 railway bridges. The authors also would like to acknowledge the support provided
by the Egyptian National Railways (ENR).

SHM21

11

HOUSING & BUILDING

NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER
HBRC-ISHMII
2nd International Conference on
Bridge Testing, Monitoring & Assessment

________________________________________________________________________

References
1. Cremona, C., Eichler, B., Johansson, B., and Larsson, T. (2013). "Improved Assessment
Methods for Static and Fatigue Resistance of Old Metallic Railway Bridges" J. Brdg.
Eng., ASCE, 18, 1164-1173.
2. Ye, X.W., Su, Y.H., and Han, J.P. (2014). A state-of-the-Art Review on Fatigue Life
Assessment of Steel Bridges. Math. Prob. In Eng., 113.
3. Imam, B.M., and Righiniotis, T.D. (2010). "Fatigue Evaluation of Riveted Railway
Bridges through Global and Local Analysis" J. Constr. St. Res., 66, 1411-1421.
4. Al-Emrani, M. (2005). "Fatigue Performance of Stringer-to-Floor-Beam Connections in
Riveted Railway Bridges" J. Bridge Eng., ASCE, 10, 179-185.
5. AASHTO (1990). Guide Specifications for Fatigue Evaluation of Existing Steel
Bridges, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,Washington, DC, USA.
6. CEN, Eurocode 3 (1992). Design of Steel Structures, Part 19: Fatigue, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
7. Miner, M.A. (1945). Cumulative damage in fatigue Journal of Applied Mechanics,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 159164.
8. Mesmacque, G., Garcia, S., and Amrouche ,A. (2005). Sequential law in multiaxial
fatigue, a new damage indicator Int. J. Fatigue 27 (4) (2005) 461467.
9. Liang, Y.J., and Chen, W. (2014). Bridge Fatigue Life Prediction using Mittag-Leffler
Distribution J. Fatigue and Fracture of Eng. Mater. and Struct., 37 (3), 255264.
10. Paris, P.C., Gomez, M.P., and Anderson, W.E. (1961). A Rational Analytics Theory of
Fatigue J. Trend in Eng., 13, 914.
11. ECP 201-2011 (2003). The Egyptian Code of Practice for Loads and forces in
structural works and buildings, Housing and Building Research Center, Building and
Physical Planning, Giza, Egypt.
12. ECP 201-2011 (2012). The Egyptian Code of Practice for Loads and forces in
structural works and buildings, Housing and Building Research Center, Building and
Physical Planning, Giza, Egypt.
13. ECP 205-2007 (2007), The Egyptian Code of Practice for Steel Construction Load
and Resistance Factor Design, Housing and Building Research Center, Building and
Physical Planning, Giza, Egypt.

SHM21

12