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

net/publication/305950405

Need for Fatigue Assessment of Steel Bridges

Conference Paper · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 655

3 authors:

Ajibola Quadri Ayilara M.s. Liew

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    225 PUBLICATIONS   796 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Wee Teo
Heriot Watt University Malaysia
31 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Competency gap in oil and gas for Malaysia View project

Decommissioning of offshore oil and gas facilities: Multi-Criteria Decision Making assessment and international rules of different scenarios View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ajibola Quadri Ayilara on 07 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Conference on Advances in Civil and Environmental Engineering 2015
© Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA Pulau Pinang

NEED FOR FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF STEEL BRIDGES

A.Q. AYILARA*, M. S. LIEW, T. WEE

Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,

Bandar Seri Iskandar, 31750 Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract
The integrity of a structural system (in particular bridges) depends solely on its
ability to support the amount of loadings it was designed for without
compromising its serviceability at any rate. The service load of existing bridges
in Malaysia has increased rapidly in recent years due to the rapid economic
growth of the nation whereas existing bridges have not been strengthened to
support these rise. Heavy truck axle weights 100% higher than their legal load
limits have been recorded. The impact of this on ageing bridges designed to
carry lesser traffic loadings is residual and progressive. Also, bridges have been
found to collapse suddenly without any noticeable warning due to
complications resulting from fatigue. Annual bridge routine inspection guides
are silent on fatigue evaluation procedures whereas significant readings that
indicate the need for fatigue assessment have been recorded during bridge
inspection. Details of steel bridges are subjected to cyclic loadings and under
these loadings fatigue cracks can form at points of manufacturing or
construction defects and areas of discontinuities in the bridge. If left unattended
to, these cracks can propagate into large proportions which may lead to break in
structural members and total bridge collapse. In order to salvage steel bridges
from adverse consequences (such as collapse), this paper presents methods of
evaluating the load carrying capacity of existing steel bridges as well as, a
streamlined framework for the assessment of their remaining fatigue life.
Keywords: Fatigue assessment; Framework, Existing highway bridges; Steel
bridges; Traffic loading; Malaysia.

1. Introduction
Malaysia is one of the major growing economies in Asia with speedy industrial
development which demands a safe and efficient transportation network system
but in some instances, the construction schedule overrides safety regulations and
calamity occurs. Such is the recent collapse of a ramp at Batu Maung Interchange

A-153
A-154 A. Q. Ayilara et al.

section of Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah Bridge (Penang Second Bridge)
during its construction in June 2013. The integrity of a structural system (in
particular bridges) depends solely on its ability to support the amount of loadings
it was designed for without compromising its serviceability at any rate.
There are about 10,000 bridges in Malaysia including culverts [1]. Bridge
safety is taken seriously in Malaysia and the Public Works Department (JKR)
undertakes annual routine bridge inventory inspections [2]. The conditions of the
concrete and steel members, bearings and joints of bridges are visually inspected
for loss of section due to vehicle impact or corrosion as well as the growth of
vegetation and rating 1 to 5 (with 5 being the worst) is assigned for each condition
[3]. If no critical or serious damage is observed no detailed inspections are carried
out [4,5].
When detailed inspections are carried on steel bridges, as in the case of an old
steel truss bridge (constructed 1907) over Sungai Pinang Bridge in the Penang
Island in 2003 [6], corrosion has been the main focus. Which is why during the
investigations carried out on the stay cables of the Penang Bridge in 2005, fatigue
checks were initially ignored until observable vibrations of the cables with an
amplitude of about 50mm and a frequency of 2Hz were recorded in the absence of
any discernible wind during inspection which was due to potentially significant
increase to the live load stress range from traffic [7]. In recent years, vehicular
traffic and service loads on bridges have generally increased beyond the design
capacity of many existing bridges which were designed to carry lesser traffic
loads.

2. Existing Highway Bridge Loading

Bridges are designed to carry transient loadings from vehicle wheel axles and
pedestrians. Axle loadings of heavy goods vehicles and trucks are of high
magnitude and thus have the most significant effects on the serviceability of
highway bridges. The magnitude of dynamic load impact of heavy goods vehicle
axle can be 150% times higher than the mean average dynamic impact of other
vehicle types [8].

2.1. Rise in truck wheel axle weight

Truck loadings in national standards have increased by more than 40% than when
compared to those of the past 40 years and most bridges have not been reinforced
in order to comply with the new codes [9]. The effect of these increased loadings
on existing highway bridges is residual and progressive. It has become necessary
to examine the capacity of existing bridges to carry the increased axle loadings
and their effect on the bridge lifespan.
The common practice by governments in order accommodate and manage the
situation without incurring costs from retrofitting or replacement is to enact road
transport laws specifying legal load limits that restrict the passage of certain types
of heavy goods vehicles on bridges. The Weight Restriction (Federal Roads)
(Amendment) Order 2003 contains the current standard maximum vehicle axle
loadings acceptable in both the Peninsular and East (Sabah and Sarawak)
Malaysia [10]. But this order is not strictly adhered to by many vehicle owners
 A-155

and operators. Weight in motion (WIM) machines located in areas like Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia have recorded many vehicles exceeding their weight
limits. In some cases, weights 100% higher than the permitted legal limit have
been recorded for overloaded heavy goods vehicles [11].
Truck traffic data should be collected through WIM systems that can collect
simultaneously headway information as well as truck weights and axle weights
and axle configurations while remaining hidden from view and unnoticed by
trucks drivers. This is because truck data surveys collected at truck weigh stations
and publicized locations are not accurate, since, they are normally avoided by
illegal overweight vehicles that could control the maximum loads applied on
bridge structures. A year’s worth of recent continuous data is generally
recommended for bridge live load when carrying out assessments [12].

2.2. Standard highway bridge fatigue loading

Recommendations of the British Standards are widely adopted in the construction
industry of Malaysia. Many existing bridges in Malaysia were designed to BS
5400. In considering the impact effect of vehicles on highway bridges in BS
5400-2 (1978), an allowance of 25% on one axle or pair of adjacent wheels was
made in deriving HA loading. However, there has been a significant increase in
the number of heavier vehicles within the all heavy goods vehicle population
since the loading specified in BS 5400-2:1978 was derived. This has led to the
frequent occurrence of convoys consisting of closely spaced, heavy types of
heavy goods vehicles which has resulted in higher loading effects than were
originally envisaged. In an update to BS 5400-2 in 2006, it was found that the
impact effect of an axle on highway bridges can be as high as 80% of the static
axle weight and an allowance of this magnitude was made in deriving the HA
loading [13]. The HB loading is a nominal loading that coexists with the HA
loading for public highway bridges.
The new structural Eurocodes offer increased economy in design over most
existing codes of practice. The new codes give increased economy in many
situations compared to the old British Standard rules because they are based on
recent testing and numerous non-linear finite element parametric studies which
present great opportunities for improving sustainability in design [14]. However,
the axle weights of fatigue assessment vehicles contained in EN 1991-2 (2003)
are higher than those of BS 5400 part 10. An indication that, wheel axle loadings
in Europe have also increased. The situation is the same in other parts of the
world.

2.2.1. Bridge residual load capacity

Precise estimation of the residual fatigue life of bridge components depends on:
the level of consistency of past traffic data, its future projections and using as-
built member information. Specific bridge and traffic data such as; axle load and
spacing, average daily truck traffic (ADTT), influence line diagram of member
under consideration, work specifications followed and the fatigue strength of the
member details or connections govern the fatigue life of a bridge.
A-156 A. Q. Ayilara et al.

Reserved residual load capacity exist in bridges and load testing of bridges is a
viable procedure used to establish the load carrying capacity of in-service bridges.
Highway bridge stress distribution can be obtained by using simplified load
distribution factors which are contained in standards, analysis of the bridge model
using finite element methods or through field measurements [15]. Field
measurements using strain gauges will give the true picture of the traffic patterns
and vehicular loadings but the readings obtained from the field study will most
likely be considerably lower than the values obtainable through analysis owing to
the effect of secondary members and their stiffness’s which are often ignored
during analysis. Field measurements require a great deal of time and expenditures.
The cost implications of this can be avoided through the use of computer aided
analytical tools by simulation.

2.2.2. Steel bridge fatigue failure

About 70 to 90 percent of failures in metallic structures are related to fatigue
fracture [19,26]. Fatigue failures occur in details of steel bridges due to cyclic
stresses developed from recurrent loading and unloading (cycles) of nominal
loads (forces and moments) without the application of any known external load
beyond the design capacity of the failed bridge. The rate of degradation and
subsequent failure depends on the load sequence, amount of developed stresses
and strains, material properties, structural dimensions and thickness, fabrication
technology, temperature of the surroundings and rate of section loss due to
corrosion.
Fatigue failures are residual and progressive. The occurrence of metallic
failure due to fatigue involves four phases which occur sequentially. They are:
initiation of crack at points of stress concentration; progression of crack; crack
propagation and then final rupture. Owing to the number of members in a bridge
structural system, the failure of bridges has always been momentous. Such that,
bridges have been found to collapse suddenly without any noticeable warning due
to complications resulting from fatigue [16]. An exemplary case of bridge failure
due to fatigue in history is the collapse of the bridge over Firth of Tay (Scotland)
in 1879, which killed an estimated 75 people. Globally, about 536 bridge failures
have been recorded between 1209 and 2009 with thousands of lives lost [27]. An
additional 40 incidence of bridge failures have also been recorded within the last
five years, most of which are due to overloading.
Structural health monitoring (SHM) systems using WIM equipments and
strain gauges are used to capture bridge load data in order to forestall such
occurrences. The inclusion of non-destructive tests in the bridge management
system of the JKR to complement visual inspection and assist in assessing the
presence of cracks due to fatigue and corrosion has been proposed [17].
Most fatigue damages in bridges are caused by the passages of single trucks.
These can exceed 100 million in a 50 to 100 year life, but are often much less.
The effective stress range rarely exceeds 35 MPa and usually ranges between 5
and 20 MPa [9]. However, this is enough to cause fatigue fracture over the years
as proven by recent collapses. Thus, many bridges show signs of deterioration
well before the end of their design life, supposedly between 50 to 100 years.
 A-157

In most situations the potential fatigue crack will be located in parent material
adjacent to some form of stress concentration, e.g. at a weld toe or bolt hole. A
single representative prediction model that can be applied to multiple
deterioration mechanisms does not exist. This is because damage propagation is a
complex process that is highly dependent on uncertain parameters that govern the
deterioration process [18].

2.3. Stress cycles and fatigue limits

Steel structures subjected to continuous cyclic stress tend to lose resistance due to
fatigue. Result of fatigue laboratory specimen testing at different stress levels are
presented in logarithm plots of stress (S) against number of cycles (N) called S-N
curve. The S-N curve is divided into two main parts; (a) Low-cycle fatigue with
number of cycle between 1 and 1,000 or even 10,000, which is occurring under
earthquake or possibly in silos and (b) High-cycle fatigue with number of cycles
more than 10,000, which is the case for bridges.

Fig.1. Illustration of steel bridge S-N curve on logarithm scale.

In the last half century, low-cycle fatigue has been known to be a cause of
structural failure in steel structures. However, very limited number of research has
been conducted on fatigue life assessment of steel bridges based on low cycle
fatigue and the lack of such investigations is mainly because most of the fatigue
issues in steel bridges are in the high cycle fatigue regime [19]. The high-cycle
fatigue (HCF) phenomenon is related to components subjected to low stresses
relative to the material’s ultimate strength but very large numbers of cycles (more
than 104 cycles), either due to extremely long service life or very high frequency
loads, or both [20].

2.3.1. Cycle counting and stress spectrum

The stress history of a member is defined as the loading block when a truck
passes over a bridge, and the stress range frequency distribution of the stress
history is obtained by a stress range frequency analysis [21]. The fatigue life of a
specimen depends mainly on the stress range (ǻķ), so that a higher stress range
would result in a lower fatigue life. Bridges experience random sequence loading
histories throughout their lifetime. This pattern of loading is called variable
A-158 A. Q. Ayilara et al.

amplitude loading which cannot be represented by analytical model. For such

loadings, a stress histogram is usually used to simplify the problem [22]. The
rainflow or reservoir method is recommended for stress cycle counting. The two
methods are used to represent variable-amplitude cyclic loading. The rainflow
counting method is generally regarded as the main method for predictions of
fatigue life although for a given stress history rainflow and reservoir cycle
counting methods lead to the same results [23].

2.4. Fatigue assessment of steel bridges

The aim of assessment of any in-service structure is to ascertain that the structure
will function safely over its specified residual service life. It is mainly based on
the results of assessing hazards and load effects to be anticipated in the future, and
of assessing material properties and geometry taking into account the present state
of the structure [24,25].
In assessing an existing steel bridge, account may be taken of a number of
factors that are specific to a bridge and the assessment criteria modified to reflect
these, for example: Bridge specific loading; Bridge specific resistance properties
(material and geometrical) and Consequences of failure [14]. The regions of the
structure subjected to the highest stress fluctuations and/or containing the severest
stress concentrations would normally be checked first. New and existing steel
bridges can be assessed using standards which are generally based on the notion
of nominal stress and standardized S-N curves with corresponding fatigue classes
for a number of typical details. This approach is conservative because contrary to
the increase in amount of loading situations and available structural steel details,
only a limited number of possible cases are included in standards and
recommendations [28].
Fatigue assessment is carried out using either the damage tolerant or safe life
method. Older bridges are designed using safe life methods. Bridges designed to
this method require minimal routine inspections and their design life is often 120
years. The damage tolerant method requires that bridges will be subjected to
regular in-service inspections and maintenance throughout their design life. In
adopting either of these methods in investigating the fatigue life of steel bridges,
there are two main approaches; the use of Wöhler diagrams (S-N curves) and
probabilistic models using finite elements analysis (FEA).It is prescribed to use
FEA for cases involving structural steel details not covered in Wöhler diagrams
[29]. Since history of loadings and category of detail are not required when using
this approach. However, this method is complex and extreme caution must be
observed in its application for cases where secondary stresses play an important
role [25].

2.4.1. Wöhler diagrams

This is a stress-based approach and the concept is that stress change is mainly
responsible for fatigue failure of materials. The detail being investigated must be
free of any crack at the initiation of the assessment. It is applicable in situations
where stresses and strains of the structure have not exceeded the yield strength of
the material. The plastic behaviour of steel under cyclic loading is nonlinear and
history dependent. Manson-Coffin’s rule is usually used to interpret the data
 A-159

obtained [30]. Using a log-log linear approximation, expected fatigue life may be
computed from an S-N curve as suggested by Manson and Coffin as follows:
NSm = K (1)

where N is the number of cycles to failure, S is constant total or plastic strain

amplitude, and K and m are material properties obtained from tests.
Palmgren-Miner linear damage hypothesis is also a commonly accepted
measure for fatigue life estimation using S-N curves. It has been acknowledged as
a simplification that is easy to use in design where detailed loading history is
unknown. But in the case of existing bridges where the detailed loading history is
known, Miner’s rule might provide incorrect results because of its omission of
load sequence effect [31].
k
ni
¦N =D
i =1 i
(2)

where ni is the number of cycles occurring at a stress range magnitude, ǻķ of a

stress spectrum, Ni is the number of cycles corresponding to particular fatigue
strength on the S-N curves and D is the equivalent damage accumulation. When
D < 1, further checks are to be carried out to determine the remaining fatigue life.

2.4.2. Probabilistic models

When the field measured data are used for fatigue condition assessment, there are
uncertainties related to the data and inaccuracies that spring up from data
processing techniques are inherent and hardly avoidable. In view of this, it is
more appropriate to conduct fatigue life evaluation in a probabilistic way than by
deterministic procedures [19]. In highway bridge assessment using probabilistic
models, bridge loading effects are random and can only be realistically described
in terms of probabilities which are derived from statistical analysis of the effects
of traffic models (obtained from vehicle measurements) on theoretical bridge
models [32].
The fracture mechanics approach is a probabilistic model. Fracture mechanic
principles are used to describe the behaviour of planar flaws whilst the assessment
of non-planar flaws is based on experimental S-N data [33]. The best practice in
using the fracture mechanics method is the employment of reliable commercial
finite element programs. FEA is a reliable tool for stress analysis in the linear and
elastic-plastic domain. FEA can be effectively used to describe nonlinear stress-
strain relationships in structural elements with complex geometry as well as in
those cases where loading is complex [34]. As such, FEA is efficient for fracture
mechanics analysis. Stress intensity factor “K” is a key parameter in the
calculation of fatigue damage using fracture mechanics. A widely adopted fatigue
crack growth model is the Paris’ law (Paris-Erdogan law):
da
= C.∆K m
dN (3)
A-160 A. Q. Ayilara et al.

where Į is the crack length, N is the number of cycles to failure, C and m are
material constants and ǻK is the range of stress intensity factor between
maximum and minimum loading (ǻK = Kmax – Kmin).

3.Framework for Fatigue Assessment

Fatigue has become a critical Limit State for engineers in designing a new
structure or in assessing an existing one. Thus, continuous efforts are being made
to have optimal fatigue designs based on improved fatigue assessment procedures.
All temporary or permanent structures must comply with two basic requirements.
They must have enough strength so they do not collapse (ultimate limit states)
and they must behave satisfactorily under services loads (serviceability limit
states). Fatigue is an Ultimate Limit State (ULS) but unlike other ULS which are
always verified using factored loads, fatigue is verified under service loads [9].

3.1. Application of assessment methods

Fatigue assessment of existing steel bridges is to be preceded by the evaluation of
its static strength. Fatigue life verification should only proceed after it has been
established that adequate static strength exists, especially in the evaluation of
older bridges. Initial fatigue assessment process entails: classification of the steel
in consideration at any location; its stress behavioural pattern and concentration
factor(s); the determination of the design approach to be adopted, classification of
the joint and S-N curve designation in the code or standard of practice and obtain
needed fracture mechanics analysis parameters.
Evaluation of fatigue in existing bridges can be carried out through either
practical laboratory experiments or computer-based analysis using finite elements
(simulation). One of four established fatigue assessment procedures can be used
with either of the two approaches. The nominal stress method, hot-spot stress
method and notch stress method are used to evaluate fatigue cracks in the
initiation phase while fracture mechanics is employed in the crack propagation
phase. These four methods are widely accepted fatigue evaluation procedures.
A framework for fatigue assessment of steel bridges is presented in Fig. 2. The
procedure of evaluation has been structured into three sequential phases which
are; pre-assessment, assessment and post-assessment phases. The synopsis of the
order of assessment is outlined with a workflow diagram.
 A-161

Fig. 2. Framework for fatigue assessment of steel bridges.

3.2. Application of assessment methods

The quality of results obtained from the application of any of the four fatigue
assessment methods varies. The best practice is to choose an assessment method
based on the scope of investigation and its proficiency in the area of focus. Table
I shows various scopes of investigations and the applicability of each method
within each scope of study. Also, the level of accuracy and complexity of the four
methods are compared in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the more explicit the
investigation is, the more complex the work involved and the finer the results
obtained.
A-162 A. Q. Ayilara et al.

Fig. 3. Comparison of different fatigue assessment of methods.

Table 1. Application of Fatigue Assessment Methods.

APPLICABILITY OF METHODS
SCOPE OF Nominal Hot-Spot Notch Fracture
INVESTIGATION Stress Stress Stress Mechanics
1 Assessment Approach Global Local Local Local
2 Standard Details Very Good Good Fairly Very Good
Good
3 Special Details Poor Good Good Very Good
4 Tubular Structures Fairly Very _____ Good
Good Good
5 Plates and Shells Fairly Good Good Very Good
Good
6 Complex Structures _____ _____ _____ Good
7 Connection Type Bolt/Weld Weld Weld Any
8 Crack initiation phase Poor Good Very Fairly Good
Good
9 Crack propagation _____ _____ _____ Good
phase
10 Finite Element Not Good Good Very Good
Analysis (FEA) Advised
11 Sensitivity of F.E. Nominal Moderate Very High
Mesh High
12 Complexity of work Nominal Moderate High Very High
done
13 Accuracy of results Moderate Good Good Very Good
 A-163

4. Conclusions
Strength assessment is the most critical periodic assessment for load-carrying
structures of which fatigue assessment is crucial for steel bridges. Investigation of
remaining fatigue life of steel bridges can be conducted using standard S-N
curves or probabilistic models. The numbers of cycles to failure of members and
connections in steel bridges have been established in the HCF region (more than
104 cycles). Bridge loading history can be collected through field measurements
using SHM with WIM systems or by using load distribution factors with finite
element models which are probabilistic. The obtained data are found to be
cumbersome and the number of dynamic strain cycles can be streamlined using
the rainflow or reservoir counting methods.
It has been established that four standardized procedures can be adopted for
the evaluation of load carrying capacity of existing steel bridges subjected to
cyclic stress. The applicability of the various methods with reference to the focus
of this investigation has been shown. Fatigue reliability assessment methods using
Wöhler diagrams and probabilistic models have been presented. Also, an outlined
framework for predicting, detecting and maintaining of fatigue cracks as well as
optimizing the service life of steel bridges has been proposed.

Acknowledgement
The work presented in this paper is fully supported by the Centre for Graduate
Studies, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.

References
1. Ismail, Z.; Ong, A.; and Rahman A. (2012). Serviceability of Concrete
Bridges in Malaysia Focusing on Susceptibility to Atmospheric Chloride
Corrosion. International Journal of the Physical Science, 7(4), 655-659.
2. King, S.; and Mahamud, S. M. (2009). Bridge Problems in Malaysia. Paper
Presented at Seminar on Bridge Maintenance And Rehabilitation in Kuala
Lumpur.
3. Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM) (2001). A Guide for
Bridge Inspection.
4. King, S.; and Mahamud, S. M. (2010). Managing Structural Failure: Bridges
under Surveillance. Paper Presented at UTM/JKR Seminar on Managing
Structural Failure.
5. Idris, S. M; and Ismail, Z. (2007). Appraisal of Concrete Bridges: Some
Local Examples. JURUTERA, Malaysia.
6. Khaw, L.; King, S.; and Mahamud, S. M. (2010). The Assessment and
Replacement of Sungai Pinang Bridge. 8th Malaysian Road Conference,
Kuala Lumpur.
7. Hendy, C. R.; and Sandberg, J. (2007). Replacement of the Stay Cables on
Penang Bridge. ATKINS Technical Journal 1, Highways and Transport,
Atkins Epsom, UK.
A-164 A. Q. Ayilara et al.

8. Buhari, R.; Abdullah, M. E.; and Rohani, M. M. (2014). Predicting Truck

Load Variation Using Q-Truck Model. Applied Mechanics and Materials,
534, 105-110.
9. Morales, M.; and Bauer, D. (2006). Fatigue and Remaining Life Assessment
of Steel Bridges more than 50years Old. 7th International Conference on
Short and Medium Span Bridges.
10. Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (2014). Weight Restriction
Order in Malaysia. Official Website of Malaysian Institute of Road Safety
Research (MIROS), accessed 12th August, 2014.
11. Hassan A. (2013). Overloaded Trucks Wrecking Roads. New Sabah Times,
11 September, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.newsabahtimes.com.my/nstweb/fullstory/71635
12. Sivakumar, B.; Ghosn, M.; and Moses, F. (2008). NCHRP Web-Only
Document 135: Protocols for Collecting and Using Traffic Data in Bridge
Design. Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council,
Washington DC.
13. BS 5400: Part 2 (2006): Specification for loads, British Standards Institution,
London.
14. Hendy, C. R.; Sandberg, J.; and Shetty, N. K. (2010). Recommendations for
Assessment of Eurocodes for Bridges. ATKINS Technical Journal 4,
Highways and Transport, Atkins Epsom.
15. Zhou, Y. E. (2006). Assessment of Bridge Remaining Fatigue Life through
Field Strain Measurement. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Journal of Bridge Engineering, 11 (6).
16. Astaneh-Asl, A. (2008). Progressive Collapse of Steel Truss Bridges, the
Case of I-35W Collapse. 7th International Conference on Steel Bridges,
Portugal.
17. Hamid, R.; Khairullah; and Arashid K. (2011). Reliability Assessment
Methods for Steel Girders in the Bridge Condition Rating. 7th International
Conference on Steel and Aluminium Structures (ICSAS).
18. Kim, S.; Frangopol, D.; and Soliman, M. (2013). Probabilistic Framework for
Optimum Inspection and Maintenance Planning. American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Journal of Structural Engineering, 139 (3).
19. Ye, X. W.; Su, Y. H.; and Han, J. P. (2013). A State-of-the-art Review on
Fatigue Life Assessment of Steel Bridges. Department of Civil Engineering,
Zhejiang University, China.
20. Pollak, R. D. (2005). Analysis of Methods for Determining High Cycle
Fatigue Strength of a Material with Investigation of Ti-6Al-4V Gigacycle
Fatigue Behaviour. PhD Dissertation, No. AFIT/DS/ENY/06-07. Air Force
Inst. of Tech., Wright-Patterson AFB OH, School of Engineering and
Management.
21. Kang, D.H.; Jang, C.; Park, Y.S.; Han, S.Y.; and Kim, J. H. (2012). Fatigue
Reliability Assessment Of Steel Member Using Probabilistic Stress-Life
Method. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, Article ID 649215.
22. Heshmati, M. (2012). Fatigue Life Assessment of Bridge Details Using Finite
Element Method. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
 A-165

23. Maddah, N. (2013). Fatigue Life Assessment of Roadway Bridges based on

Actual Traffic Loads. Doctoral dissertation, École Polytechnique Fédérale De
Lausanne, Switzerland.
24. Joint Committee on Structural Safety (2001). Probabilistic Assessment of
Existing Structures. RILEM Publishing Sarl, ISBN 2-912143-24-1, France.
25. Joint Research Centre; Scientific and Technical Reports (2008). Assessment
of Existing Steel Structures: Recommendations for Estimation of Remaining
Fatigue Life. EUR 23252 EN, ISSN 1018-5593, Printed in Italy.
26. Stephens, R.I.; Fatemi, A.; Stephens, R.; and Fuchs, H.O. (2001). Metal
Fatigue in Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-51059-9.
27. Scheer, J. (2010). Failed Bridges: Cases Studies, Causes and Consequences.
Ernst & Sohn; a Wiley company, ISBN: 978-3-433-02951-0.
28. Al-Emrani, M.; Nilsson, M.; and Lukiü, M. (2009). Bridge Fatigue Guidance:
A European Research Project. Sustainable Infrastructure: Environment
Friendly, Safe and Resource Efficient; Proceedings of IABSE Symposium,
Bangkok, Thailand, Sept. 9-11, 2009, International Association for Bridge
and Structural Engineering (IABSE Report; No. 96).
29. Health & Safety Executive (2004). Review of Low Cycle Fatigue Resistance:
Research Report 207. Failure Control Limited, UK.
30. Lee, K.; and Stojadinovic B. (2004). Low-Cycle Fatigue Limit on Seismic
Rotation Capacity for US Steel Moment Connections. The 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper No. 90.
31. Siriwardane, S.; Ohga, M.; Dissanayake, R.; and Taniwaki, K. (2008).
Application of New Damage Indicator-Based Sequential Law for Remaining
Fatigue Life Estimation of Railway Bridges. Journal of Constructional Steel
Research 64, 228-237.
32. Cooper, D. (2009). Highway Traffic Load Model for Bridge Design and
Assessment. 7th AUSTROADS Bridge Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
33. BS 7910 (2005): Guides to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws
in Metallic Structures, Incorporating Amendment No.1, British Standards
Institution, London.
34. Maksimoviü, S. (2005). Fatigue Life Analysis of Aircraft Structural
Components. Scientific-Technical Review, 55 (1).

View publication stats