International Journal of Steel Structures

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1242–1251 | Cite as

A Methodology for Fatigue Reliability Assessment Considering Stress Range Distribution Truncation

  • Jun Yong Park
  • Yeun Chul ParkEmail author
  • Ho-Kyung Kim


Not all loads contribute to fatigue crack propagation in the welded detail of steel bridges when they are subjected to variable amplitude loading. For fatigue assessment, therefore, non-contributing stress cycles should be truncated. However, stress range truncation is not considered during typical fatigue reliability assessment. When applying the first order reliability method, stress range truncation occurs mismatch between the expected number of cycles to failure and the number of cycles obtained at the time of evaluation, because the expected number of cycles only counts the stress cycles that contribute to fatigue crack growth. Herein, we introduce a calibration factor to coordinate the expected number of cycles to failure to the equivalent value which includes both contributing and non-contributing stress cycles. The effectiveness of stress range truncation and the proposed calibration factor was validated via case studies.


Fatigue reliability assessment Linear elastic fracture mechanics Steel bridge Fatigue Fatigue limit state 



This research was partially supported by a Grant (17SCIP-B128568 2) and a Grant (18SCIP-B119963-03). Both Grants were funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation of the Korean government. Partial support was from the BK21 PLUS research program of the National Research Foundation of Korea.


  1. Ahn, S. S. (2014). KEC’s current status and strategies of bridges. In Proceeedings of 2014 Korea concrete institute conference (pp. 11–17) (in Korean).Google Scholar
  2. ASCE. (2017). ASCE 2017 infrastructure report card. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  3. Barsom, J. M., & Rolfe, S. T. (1999). Fracture and fatigue control in structures: Applications of fracture mechanics (3rd ed.). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowness, D. & Lee, M. M. K. (2002). Fracture mechanics assessment of fatigue cracks in offshore tubular structures. Offshore technology report 2000/077. HSE.Google Scholar
  5. BSI. (2015). BS 7910: Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. London: British Standard Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, N.-Z., Wang, G., & Guedes Soares, C. (2011). Palmgren–Miner’s rule and fracture mechanics-based inspection planning. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 78(18), 3166–3182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engesvik, K. M., & Moan, T. (1983). Probabilistic analysis of the uncertainty in the fatigue capacity of welded-joints. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 18(4), 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FHWA. (2012). Bridge inspector’s reference manual. Arlington: Federal Highway Administration.Google Scholar
  9. Hwang, E. S., Nguyen, T. H., & Kim, D. Y. (2013). Live load factors for reliability-based bridge evaluation. Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(3), 499–508. Scholar
  10. JCSS. (2011). JCSS Probabilistic model code. Joint Committee on Structural Safety.
  11. Leander, J., & Al-Emrani, M. (2016). Reliability-based fatigue assessment of steel bridges using LEFM—A sensitivity analysis. International Journal of Fatigue, 93, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee, Y. J., & Cho, S. (2016). SHM-based probabilistic fatigue life prediction for bridges based on FE model updating. Sensors (Basel), 16(3), 317. Scholar
  13. Lukic, M., & Cremona, C. (2001). Probabilistic assessment of welded joints versus fatigue and fracture. Journal of Structural Engineering-Asce, 127(2), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maljaars, J., & Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M. (2014). Probabilistic fatigue life updating accounting for inspections of multiple critical locations. International Journal of Fatigue, 68, 24–37. Scholar
  15. Moan, T., & Song, R. X. (2000). Implications of inspection updating on system fatigue reliability of offshore structures. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering-Transactions of the Asme, 122(3), 173–180. Scholar
  16. Newman, J. C., & Raju, I. S. (1981). An empirical stress-intensity factor equation for the surface crack. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 15(1–2), 185–192. Scholar
  17. Norris, S. N., & Fisher, J. W. (1981). The fatigue behaviour of welded web attachments. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 1(2), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Paris, P., & Erdogan, F. (1963). A critical analysis of crack propagation laws. Journal of Basic Engineering, 85(4), 528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Park, J. Y., & Kim, H. K. (2014). Fatigue life assessment for a composite box girder bridge. International Journal of Steel Structures, 14(4), 843–853. Scholar
  20. Riahi, H., Bressolette, P., Chateauneuf, A., Bouraoui, C., & Fathallah, R. (2011). Reliability analysis and inspection updating by stochastic response surface of fatigue cracks in mixed mode. Engineering Structures, 33(12), 3392–3401. Scholar
  21. Righiniotis, T. D., & Chryssanthopoulos, M. K. (2004). Fatigue and fracture simulation of welded bridge details through a bi-linear crack growth law. Structural Safety, 26(2), 141–158. Scholar
  22. Soliman, M., Frangopol, D. M., & Kim, S. (2013). Probabilistic optimum inspection planning of steel bridges with multiple fatigue sensitive details. Engineering Structures, 49, 996–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yamada, K., & Nagatsu, S. (1989). Evaluation of scatter in fatgue life of welded details using fracture mechanics. Structural Engineering/Earthquake Engineering, 6(1), 13–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Steel Construction 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Institute of Construction and Environmental Engineering, Seoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations