RELIABILITy-BASED METHOD FOR FATIGUE EVALUATION

OF RAILWAY BRIDGES

By Daniel H. Tobias, l Associate Member, ASCE, and Douglas A. Foutch,2 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: A newly developed method for the fatigue evaluation of riveted railway bridges is presented in
the paper. The data that were collected during a large-scale bridge instrumentation program along with the
fatigue resistance test database compiled at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, were used exten-
sively during the formulation of the method, or fatigue model. The fatigue model is based on reliability theory
due to the high degree of scatter in all fatigue strength tests and the uncertainty associated with estimating
fatigue loadings. Fatigue strengths and loadings are both described by probability distributions. The probability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of failure is calculated using these two sets of distributions and a performance function that is a modified form
of Miner's damage law. Several parametric studies were conducted using the new fatigue evaluation method.
The studies give a broad view of the potential remaining lives of shorter-span railway bridges subjected to unit
train loadings.

IINTRODUCTION
A large portion of the existing railway bridge infrastructure
im North America is of riveted steel construction. Many of
tillese bridges are still in service and most were constructed
plrior to World War II. Some were built before 1900. Generally,
plroblems with fatigue in riveted railway bridges has been in-
tlrequent (Fisher et al. 1987). However, concern in the industry
ii, growing because many riveted railway bridges are ap-
p,roaching or exceeding their assumed design lives of about 80
years (Foutch 1987). Compounding this problem for older rail-
way bridges is a current and probable future loading environ-
ment that is quite different from that assumed when these
hridges were designed. The historical Cooper E type loading
employed for design had comparatively heavy steam loco-
motives with a smaller uniform trailing weight (Clark 1984).
Conversely, current trailing weights, for example, unit com-
modity consists, can regularly cause stress levels that are
higher than those produced by today's locomotives (Tobias
1994). Increases in allowable loads are also expected in the
near future. With these types of trailing weights, the number
of stress cycles that can potentially cause fatigue damage is
much greater than for historical loadings. Furthermore, the
current American Railway Engineering Association (AREA)
code procedure for evaluating bridges in fatigue is difficult to
implement and realistic tests on the fatigue strength of riveted
members have only begun to be conducted over the last 10-
15 years.
A research program with a primary goal of developing a
modern method for the fatigue evaluation of railway bridges
was established in 1988. Participating researchers were from
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), the
Association of American Railroads (AAR), and Clemson Uni-
v,ersity (CU). The first step, or Phase I of the research effort,
was a large-scale bridge instrumentation program, which mea-
sured the current loading environment and its effects on typical
main and secondary structural members. The first phase lasted
albout five and a half years. A database of the current loading
spectra from several significant types of freight was compiled,
'Pres., Structuredyne Consultants, Inc., 511 North Elm St., St. Joseph,
IL 61873.
2Prof., Civ. Engrg. Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
311298 Newmark Lab., 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801.
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 1997. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on February 29, 1996. This paper is part of the Jour-
nul of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 2, No.2, May, 1997. ASCE, ISSN
1084-0702197/0002-0053-0060/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No.
1~!755.
along with the response spectra for five typical riveted railway
bridges. A loading spectrum for a type of freight describes the
most probable range of load distribution for a rail car. A re-
sponse spectrum represents the most likely stress range distri-
bution for a bridge member or detail. The term spectrum (plu-
ral spectra) is analogous to a probability distribution(s). This
information was used extensively in Phase II when this new
fatigue evaluation methodology, or fatigue model, was for-
mulated. The data from the bridge instrumentation program
were primarily used for development of a technique to deter-
mine fatigue loadings. The structural steel fatigue test database
compiled at UIUC was utilized during the development of a
method for quantifying the fatigwe strength of riveted bridge
members (Munse 1992). The UIUC database includes nearly
all of the fatigue tests ever conducted on steel members. The
instrumentation program focused mainly on riveted plate
girder bridges and the fatigue stress cycles produced at center
span. Consequently, the fatigue model focuses on evaluation
of these types of structures at this location. However, the de-
veloped model can be expanded to include all types of railway
bridges and details.
BACKGROUND AND PHILOSOPHY
Due to the high degree of uncertainty associated with eval-
uating bridges in fatigue, the developed methodology is based
on reliability theory. There has always been a great deal of
scatter in the data characterizing the fatigue strengths of var-
ious details. The future prediction and past estimation of the
number and magnitude of stress range cycles that any partic-
ular detail in a bridge will undergo is also very difficult. Bas-
ing a fatigue evaluation method on reliability theory allows
for the inclusion of the uncertainties associated with strengths,
bridge responses, and loadings. These inclusions allow fatigue
endurance predictions to be more qualified and give a broader
idea of the potential lives of bridges.
In this light, any method for predicting the useful life of
railway bridges should be viewed in certain contexts. Exact
life predictions are not possible or practical at this juncture.
This fact may not change in an amount of time where older
bridges will be affected. However, when a reasonable evalu-
ation method is applied to a large number of bridges, a ranking
of the structures most susceptible to fatigue damage at pre-
scribed time intervals can be obtained. Rankings like this can
be an important bridge management tool for planning future
bridge maintenance and inspection intervals as well as replace-
ment schedules. When the fatigue evaluation method is reli-
ability-based, these rankings can take more useful forms. This
is primarily true because a bridge engineer can determine what
level of probability of safety is acceptable for a given level of
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/53

J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60

 uncertai~ty. In ~e final sections and subsections of this paper
parametric studies are presented, which further illustrate the
usefulness of a reliability-based fatigue evaluation method for
railway bridges. The beginning sections give a number of the
important details about how this particular method is formu-
lated. These descriptions deal with how a single bridge is eval-
uated in fatigue.
FORMULATION OF FATIGUE MODEL
Overview
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
There are three primary tasks involved in the fatigue model:
(1) the calc~lation of fatigue loadings for each type of freight
to c~oss a bndge; (2) the determination of fatigue strengths for
a bndge; and (3) an evaluation of these two variables to es-
timate re?'laining life. Fatigue strengths and fatigue loadings
are descnbed by probability distributions. The distributions are
~valuated using a performance function. A performance func-
tIOn allows for the calculation of failure probabilities for en-
gineeri~g problems with multiple random variables (loading
and resistance). The developed method for the determination
of fatigue.loadings is the most computationally complex aspect
of the fatigue model. The calculation of fatigue strength and
the method used to evaluate the performance function are gen-
erally more straightforward.
. Fig. 1 illustrates how a bridge is evaluated in fatigue for a
smgle type of freight loading. The solution is shown in a stan-
dard SoN diag~am format. The fatigue loading distribution,
fNL(S,.)[n~(Sre)] IS shown to the left of the fatigue strength line.
The fatigue ~trength or resistance distribution, fNR(Sre)[nR(Sre)],
plots to the nght of the loading distribution. The terminologies
used to express the fatigue resistance and strength distributions
ar~ particul~ to reli~bility notation. Thefterms indicate prob-
~blhty-denslty functions and the subscript terms designate fa-
tigue loading and fatigue resistance at equivalent constant am-
p~itu~e ~atig~e loading Sr~. The mean value of the strength
~lstnbutlOn he~ on the fatigue strength line. Fatigue strength
lmes are prescnbed by the AREA code as categories A through
E' for particular details. The development of these categories
was based on research conducted on welded details. The as-
sumption that the mean strength for riveted details coincides
with established fatigue strength lines is thought to be reason-
able. Also, the AREA code has recently introduced a new bi-
lin~ar fatigue strength line approach for some riveted bridges,
which closely approximates mean strength levels. This ap-
proach will be discussed further in a later section. The level
of each distribution along a fatigue strength line is governed
by the equivalent constant amplitude stress range, Sre, calcu-
lated from the response spectrum that a type of freight pro-
duces from many bridge crossings. The response spectrum is
superimposed on the SoN diagram. The Y-axis represents stress
range and the X-axis represents the number of stress range
. ~
Fatigue Strength
Line
Cycles to Failure (Log Scale)
FIG. 1. Simplified Graphical Solution for Fatigue Evaluation of
a Bridge
54/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997
J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60
leo
J
FIG. 2. Generalized Flowchart of Fatigue Model for Evaluation
ofa Bridge
cyc.les. The probability of failure is represented by the overlap
regIOn and IS calculated using the performance function. For
multiple types of freight-loading a bridge, the solution process
is similar.
A generalized flowchart that presents a more detailed outline
of the three primary tasks in the fatigue model is shown in
Fig. 2. Each of the three main tasks are outlined in dashed
lin~s. As sh?wn in the figure, the subflowchart for calculating
fatigue loadmgs for each type of freight to load a bridge is the
most complicated. Fatigue loadings are difficult to calculate
because they are functions of other probability distributions.
As shown in Box G, Monte Carlo train simulation techniques
are employed to calculate response spectra and fatigue loading
distributions.
Bridge Evaluation and Performance Function
The performance function used for fatigue evaluation is
given by a modified form of the Palmgren-Miner damage law
(Miner 1945)
~ NL(Sre i )
x-LJ >0 (I)
i_I NR(Srei )
where NL(Srej) and NR(Sre) = random variables described ear-
lier for fatigue strength and fatigue resistance. A bridge is eval-
uated in. fatigue for freight types 1 through n. Freight types
are conSidered separately for ease of computing fatigue load-
ings. The x term is a number between 0 and 1. It is used to
specify an assumed amount of accumulated damage. The value
of x can also be calculated for a bridge using this fatigue
model by employing historical records of revenue traffic that
have crossed the bridge. When the left-hand side of (1) be-
comes less than or equal to 0, a bridge is regarded as failed
in fatigue. The equivalent constant amplitude stress range, Sre,
~or the response spectrum produced by a freight-type loading
IS well known and given by the following (Manual 1996):
Sre = [(-
1 )
I-J-N"
2:.-1 (N ,S7)
n
M
] 11m
(2)
where variable m = inverse negative slope of a fatigue resis-
tance line; and I-J-N" = total number of cycles in a response
spectrum. In AREA provisions as well as other design codes
the common value used for m is 3. This value comes mainly
from research conducted on welded steel details. As shown in
Fig. 1, N M , and Si are the number of cycles and the average
stress range of an individual bar in a response spectrum, re-
spectively. Eq. (2) is also commonly referred as the root-mean-
cube (RMC) stress range.

An exact solution for (1) is not practical or possible because
it is nonlinear and multidimensional. Instead, an iterative ap-
proximate method is employed (Rackwitz 1976). The primary
formula used in this method is
x- -
/001
~~
N R, -
~4sd3 = 0
H,~,f3
where iih, and SL, = average and standard deviation, respec-
tively, of the number of stress range loading cycles for freight
type i. The probability distribution used for fatigue loadings
is Gaussian. iii';, and s';, represent the equivalent normal av-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
erage and standard deviation of fatigue resistance cycles at
Sre/. The standard accepted distribution used to describe fa-
tigue resistance is lognormal. The ~ terms are direction cosines
for the distance 13 to the most likely failure point on a multi-
planar surface. In the iterative solution technique, a convergent
value for 13 is obtained and the following is used to determine
the probability of failure Pi
PI = I - <1>(13)
Specification of Fatigue Resistance
The following equation gives a lognormal distribution,
which describes fatigue resistance in the notation of this fa-
tigue model:
1 - [loglO(nR) - ARf
f4 nR) = y'2;nR'R m(lO) exp 2'~
There is a distribution with identical variance ('~) at each in-
finitesimal point along a fatigue resistance line in a standard
SoN diagram. The expected value of each probability distri-
bution describes a fatigue resistance line and is given by the
AR term. N R is a notation simplification for NR(Sre/). The fa-
tigue resistance line and variance are specified by the engineer.
The current standard lines used for the expected resistance of
riveted members in railway bridges is AREA Category C or
D and in severe circumstances, such as when a member is
severely corroded, Category E is warranted (Box N of Fig. 2)
(Manual 1996). Category C can be used to evaluate existing
bridges if the engineer is able to verify that the fasteners are
tight and there is a normal level of clamping force. For more
general riveted members, Category D should be specified. Var-
iance should be estimated based on fitted lognormal distribu-
tions from fatigue strength tests (Box P of Fig. 2). In this
study, a reasonable value for 'R
was researched. The scatter in
nearly all available fatigue resistance tests conducted on riv-
eted details was examined. From this review, a value of 0.21
for 'R is recommended.
The specification of a "Fatigue Shift Line" (FSL), as noted
in Box a of Fig. 2, is also suggested for riveted members and
is currently implemented in one form in the AREA code. A
flatter sloped FSL intersects and controls over an established
AREA fatigue strength line after a riveted member has been
subjected to a large amount of stress range cycles. This re-
search program and recent others have produced evidence that
riveted members exhibit stronger behavior in high cycle-low
stress range fatigue than other types of construction. One of
the most important studies was conducted at Lehigh University
(Zhou et al' 1995). In the study, 20 fatigue resistance tests
were conducted on full-scale riveted members at low stress
ranges. These tests constitute about half of all realistic fatigue
strength tests ever conducted on riveted members. After close
scrutiny of the data, an "FSL for Category C beginning at a
stress range of 52.75 MPa (7.65 ksi) and extending to a new
fatigue limit of 41.37 MPa (6 ksi) at 100,000,000 cycles was
recommended. This line is currently incorporated into the
AREA code and is only applicable to members where the holes
J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60
100 ,--.::::::----r==,--------;=====:==:==3
(3)
10 +--~~~~~-.----~~~~~
IE+06 IE-+<J7 IE-+<J8
Cycles to Failure (N)
FIG. 3. AREA Code ~N Diagram for Existing Bridges for Gen-
eral Riveted Members
have either been subpunched and reamed or drilled, and the
rivets are tight. The code has also been changed with respect
to general riveted members. The Category C fatigue strength
(4) line can now be specified for Category D details with constant
amplitude stress ranges between 41.37 Mpa (6 ksi) and 62.06
MPa (9 ksi).
The current AREA code SoN diagram for existing riveted
bridges is presented in Fig. 3. The figure shows Categories C
and D resistance lines, the new FSL for Category C, and the
transition line from Category D to Category C at 62.06 MPa.
Also shown in the figure is the new assumed fatigue limit of
41.37 MPa. The previous fatigue limit was 48.27 MPa (7 ksi).
(5)
The slope of these lines is -1/3 while the slope of the new
Category C FSL has a much flatter slope of -119.5. The flatter
slope is a recognition that riveted members with smooth holes
and tight fasteners exhibit stronger behavior under high cycle
fatigue loadings. The transition region from Category D to
Category C at 62.06 MPa acknowledges the same for general
riveted members. These recognitions, however, do not address
the AREA code provision, which prescribes that a fatigue limit
may not be considered when as little as 0.1 % of the stress
range cycles a member is subjected to are greater than the
fatigue limit (Fisher et al. 1983). Other research suggests that
fatigue cracks may develop if only 0.01 % of stress range cy-
cles exceed the fatigue limit (Fisher et al. 1993). If a fatigue
limit does not exist for some general riveted members the ex-
tension of established fatigue resistance lines at the current
sharper slope of -113 is probably conservative.
Calculation of Fatigue Loadings
A Gaussian distribution is used to characterize fatigue load-
ings from different types of freight
1 -(nL - /LNY
fNL(nL) =V~ exp 2 2 ; -00 < nL < 00 (6)
2'lT(TNL
(T NL
The NL term is shorthand notation for NL(Sre;). Eqs. (7) and
(8) are used to calculate the mean and standard deviation of a
normal distribution describing fatigue loadings from a type of
freight
/LNL = /LN/LN,,; (TNL = T~/L~,,)112 (7,8)
The terms JLN and (TN are the estimates of the mean and stan-
dard deviation of the number of million gross metric tons
(MGMT) of a type of freight to load a bridge. These estimates
are necessarily based upon past records and future projections
by the engineer. The term JLN" is the average number of cycles
of loading for each MGMT. The JLN" variable can be shown
to be essentially deterministic (Tobias 1994) and is the sum-
mation of all loading cycles in a normalized response spec-
trum. It is usually calculated but can be measured in the field.
The standard deviation of a normalized response spectrum,
(TN", contributes very little to (TNL , so it is ignored when deter-
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/55
 mining fatigue loadings. The level of a fatigue loading distri- TABLE 1. Statistics for Normal Distributions Fitted to Car
bution is governed by the equivalent constant amplitude stress Loading Data
range, Sre, of a response spectrum. Maximum
Response spectra are calculated using a developed Monte KS value cumulative
Carlo train simulation algorithm that is best implemented on tor 20% distribution Average Standard
a computer. The method was verified using the measured re- signifi- difference car load deviation
sponse spectra for two of the plate girder bridges that were Freight type cance normal (kN) (kN)
tested in Phase I of this research program. The generalized (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)
flowchart for determination of fatigue loadings was shown in (a) Unit commodity
Primary Box 1 of Fig. 2 and a generalized flowchart for the
Coal hopper 0.168 0.086 1,181 89
train simulation algorithm is presented in Fig. 4. Boxes A-G Coal hopper (91 t) 0.172 0.069 1,133 79
in Fig. 2 show the main variables in the train simulation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Coal hopper (100 t) 0.168 0.147 1,253 43

method, and Fig. 4 is a more specific representation of the Ballast hopper 0.310 0.133 1,232 37
algorithm. Boxes 1-3 and A-E describe how a simulated train Potash hopper 0.346 0.179 1,218 29
is first "built" in a geometric sense. The engineer first spec- (b) Intermodal
ifies normal distributions for the occurrence rates of each pos- Four-axle intermodal 0.178 0.070 634 151
sible type of locomotive and rail car for a type of freight. Other Autorack 0.202 0.059 813 70
pertinent variables such as car and locomotive dimensions are Five-pack intermodal 0.091 0.Q75 1,828 595
also assigned. The occurrence rates and random sampling tech- Two-axle intermodal 0.222 0.067 326 95
niques are then used to determine the overall train configura- (c) Mixed freight
tion. The number of cars chosen for a train is constant at 100. F-o-u-r--ax-le-m-.-x-ed-fr-e-ig-h-ta '-'-0-.I-4-1-' 1356; 1,0621 91; 181
It was found that the error produced by using 100 cars per
train was minimal. The specification of locomotive occurrence (d) Locomotive
rates should be based on the average number of locomotives Six-axle locomotive 98
per 100 cars in a freight type and the kinds of locomotives Four-axle locomotive 86
used in practice on specific railroads. For example, certain
railroads today are beginning to employ the new more pow-
erful AC locomotives in place of the more standard DC lo-
comotives. In this case, a lower average number of locomo-
TABLE 2. Statistics for Lognormal Distributions Fitted to COY
tives would be specified per 100 cars. Axle Loading Data
In the second main aspect of the algorithm, loads and impact
factors for each locomotive and freight car are sampled (Boxes Maximum
4-6 and F-I, Fig. 4). The random sampling techniques that KS value cumulative
are employed are similar to the ones used when building a for 20% distribution Average Standard
train. The main difference is that the engineer specifies loading signifi- difference axle deviation
spectra and the possible variation of the axle loads in a par- Freight type cance normal COY of COY
ticular car or locomotive. Overall car loads are sampled first (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Unit commodity
Coal hopper 0.310 0.182 0.051 0.026
Coal hopper (91 t) 0.310 0.196 0.043 0.024
Coal hopper (lOOt) 0.310 0.191 0.064 0.023
Ballast hopper 0.424 0.157 0.053 0.026
Potash hopper 0.372 0.132 0.071 0.035
(b) 1ntermodal
Four-axle intermodal 0.210 0.148 0.134 0.103
Autorack 0.270 0.198 0.052 0.024
Five-pack intermodal 0.218 0.070 0.242 0.068
Two-axle intermodal 0.238 0.165 0.101 0.084
(c) Mixed freight
Four-axle mixed freight I 0.214 I 0.134 0.070 0.054
(d) Locomotive
Six-axle locomotive 0.032
Four-axle locomotive 0.039
Note: The average and standard deviation for COVs are dimensionless.

and divided by the number of axles in a car to obtain average

axle loads. Coefficients of variation (COY), which describe
how axle loads vary in individual cars, are sampled next. The
average axle loads and CaYs are then used to assign the final
axle loads for each car in a simulated train. The loading spectra
and COY distributions for various freight types measured in
Phase I serve as benchmark measurements. The main statistics
of these distributions are given in Tables I and 2. It was con-
cluded that normal distributions fitted to each set of loading
spectra data and lognormal distributions fitted to the COY data
are good models for each measured freight type. Tables 1 and
FIG. 4. Generalized Flowchart of Train Simulation Algorithm 2 also give the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for

56/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997

J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60

 goodness of fit at the 20% significance level. This data can be
used for calculating the fatigue loadings of today. The data
can be extrapolated for expected future allowable load in-
creases.
A constant value of impact as prescribed by the AREA code
(reduced from the basic design value) can be applied to the
calculated axle loads or more realistic values may be assigned.
The AAR conducted a test program in the 1950s that measured
impact in 37 girder spans (AREA 1960). More than 1,800
trains were run over the bridges at speeds ranging from just a
few km/h to over 160 km/h (100 mph). The spans of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bridges ranged from 9.1 m (30 ft) to 42.7 m (140 ft). These
test runs provided a large database of some of the most real-
istic impact measurements to date and were grouped into six
primary categories in this study: (1) 9.1-18.3 m span ballasted
deck girders; (2) 9.1-18.3 m span open deck girders; (3)
18.3-27.4 m span ballasted deck girders; (4) 18.3-27.4 m
span open deck girders; (5) 27.4-42.7 m span ballasted deck
girders; and (6) 27.4-42.7 m span open deck girders. The data
in each category were also further subgrouped by the speed
of test train in five equal increments of 32.3 km/h (20 mph).
The overall best-fit probability distribution for the data was
found to be lognormal. The fitted distributions for ballasted
deck spans ranging from 9.1 to 18.3 m are shown in Fig. 5.
Use of these distributions to sample for impact for individual
car or locomotive impacts in simulated trains will give a more
accurate overall fatigue life evaluation. The statistics for the
other five categories are presented elsewhere (Tobias 1994).
The final task in the simulation method is to run the train
over a bridge and generate a history of moment or stress versus
distance traveled (Box 7, Fig. 4). The response spectrum for
this train crossing is generated by subjecting the stress or mo-
ment history to the rainflow algorithm (Downing and Socie
1982). After numerous simulations, a normalized response
spectrum is obtained. The normalization to the number of cy-
cles per MGMT or English million gross tons (MGT) is rec-
0.20 9.1 to 18.3 m Spans
Ballasted Decks
~O.IS
J 0.10
O.OS
128.7-160.9 kmIh
......__-.....-~
0.00 ~---+--=::::::;::::""';;~~
o 10 20 30 40
Impact (%)
FIG. 5. Lognormal Distributions Fitted to Impact Data for
Spans Ranging between 9.1 and 18.3 m
r=-:--:-~--=-::----:---=------;.;;-::-r=====::::;-]
2000
Freight: 100 Metric Ton
Unit Coal
~ 1500 Bridge: 12.2 m Span
~
It 1000
J!
~
U 500
o ~_F"P_ _~~""
637 8S4 1071 1288
746 963 1180
Moment Range (kN-m)
FIG. 6. Comparison of Measured and Calculated Response
Spectra for a Bridge in Vonore, Tenn.
J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60
TABLE 3. Average IX per Train Crossing for Five Instrumented
Bridges
Plate girder Span Average
bridge location (m) ex
(1 ) (2) (3)
Blacksburg, Va. 24.4 0.89
Milledgeville, III. 15.2 0.82
Milledgeville. Ill. 22.9 0.71
Chana, III. 18.3 0.81
Vonore, Tenn. 12.2 0.63
Nole: ex is dimensionless.
ommended. The accuracy of a calculated spectrum is depen-
dent on the number of simulations and the final calculated
probability of failure according to one method (Shooman
1968). The method is illustrated as follows:
%err= 200
R -pt
--
nPt
where %err = percent error in a fatigue failure probability
(9)
calculation. As the number of simulations (n) and the proba-
bility of failure (Pt) become greater, the percent error (%err)
declines. The probability that the actual error is less than that
calculated by (9) is 95%. A visual inspection comparing the
difference between a measured response spectrum and one cal-
culated using the train simulation algorithm is also a good way
to judge the accuracy of the method. Fig. 6 shows one of these
comparisons for one of the instrumented bridges from phase
1. The measured spectrum is for 62 trains with l00-t coal hop-
pers and the calculated spectrum is from 500 simulations. As
the figure illustrates, the two spectra are quite similar.
Generally, if a response spectrum is calculated, the equiv-
alent constant amplitude stress range will be overestimated.
This is true because, typically, calculated time histories have
greater stress ranges than measured ones even if the charac-
teristics of the trains to cross a bridge are well known. Mea-
sured responses are less than calculated ones because the track
structure probably acts somewhat compositely with a bridge
as trains cross over it. Standard structural methods do not ac-
count for this effect. The ratio of a measured Sre and calcu-
lated Sre is commonly referred to as IX. The adjustment of Sre
by a factor of ( l (Box K, Fig. 2) is the last step when deter-
mining the level of fatigue loading and resistance distributions
on an S-N diagram. Table 3 presents the average ( l per train
crossing for the five plate girder spans that were instrumented
in Phase I. Generally, each individual bridge will have a
unique value of (l, so testing is necessary for an accurate de-
termination. In lieu of testing, values for ( l prescribed by the
AREA code can be used. The values of ( l specified by the
code are: (1) 0.70 for spans longer than 30.5 m (100 ft); (2)
0.80 for spans between 22.9 (75 ft) and 30.5 m; and (3) 0.85
for spans less than 22.9 m.
PARAMETRIC STUDIES
Background
Several of the most important parametric studies conducted
using the proposed fatigue model are presented in this section.
The studies were conducted to provide a broad idea of how
much longer riveted girder bridges may last, to study the ef-
fects of important variables on fatigue life, and to illustrate
the usefulness of a reliability-based method. Fatigue damage
accrues more rapidly in shorter bridges than longer bridges
because they are loaded and unloaded by car trucks rather than
cars. For this reason a simply supported bridge with a span
length of 12.2 m (40 ft) was chosen as a benchmark bridge
for these studies. Generally, if a longer span was chosen the
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/57
 calculated probable fatigue lives would be greater. The op- 100 r----------=:::::===t
Bridge: 12.2 m Span
posite is true for spans shorter than 12.2 m. The other bench- Trucks: 11.43 m ex
mark was choosing 91-t unit coal trains as the basic loading.
Unit trains carrying heavy loads probably have the greatest
potential to cause significant fatigue damage in railway
bridges. The effect of fatigue category, weight of freight type,
car dimensions, and employment of an FSL were among the
. Category'
variables studied.
An open deck plate girder bridge was chosen for the bench-
mark studies. The section modulus for each girder was as-
sumed to be 21,630,000 mm3 This section modulus is about
CandD
... ~. .. . t Category
C FSL
.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

15% greater than what would be required for a Cooper E80 0+-....,...::'-+---=-t!-.....--t------t--.....--4----!
loading with full impact. In all studies 45.4 MGMT of freight o 10 20 30 40 so 60
were considered to be crossing the bridge per year with a Years
standard deviation of 5 MGMT. Some railway bridges are FIG. 7. Probable Remaining Life for a Bridge SubjeCted to
loaded by a significantly larger amount of freight per year than Loadings from 91-t Unit Coal Trains
what was selected for these studies. Half of the bridge's useful
life was assumed to be previously used up, which meant that 100 ,--------::::::;;;;;;;.....- - - - - ,
the variable x in the basic performance function [(1)] had a Bridge: 12.2 m Span
value of 0.5. In most studies, a coal hopper car with center to
center (c-c) truck spacing of 11.43 m was used. The specified
l 80 ........ ~ _ ~~j}.43mex .

loading distributions were the ones shown in Tables I and 2. ~

'il 60 ..Category
C FSL
..
Generally, the standard deviation in the lognormal distribution
""
"0
describing fatigue resistance, ~R from (6), was specified as the
recommended value of 0.21. The value for a was chosen as
0.85, which is prescribed by the AREA code for 12.2-m spans.
f 40
..................... From ......
~ Fig. 7-------'"
The fitted lognormal distributions describing impact loadings ~ 20
presented in the previous section were used to sample for im-
pact. The number of train simulations used to calculate re- 0+-..........t:...t---t!-.....--t-----..,t--.....--4--.....--!
sponse spectra was 1,600. This ensured that at the 50% failure o 10 20 30 40 so 60
probability level there is a 5% error level according to (9). Years
FIG. 8. Probable Remaining Life for a Bridge SUbjected to
Results Loadings from 91-, 100-, and 114-t Unit Coal Trains
Fig. 7 presents the life in years versus probability of failure
for 91-t unit coal trains crossing the 12.2-m span. The figure 100 ,--------::::===-----,
Bridge: 12.2 m Span
gives the results for AREA Categories C and D, and the AREA
80 . Trucks: 13.72mex
Category C FSL. Also indicated are the number of years at ~ l;R =0.21
which a 50% failure probability is achieved. The a-corrected Category /
Sre was 46.20 MPa (6.70 ksi), which is between 62.06 and 60 .. C and D _- .
41.37 MPa (9-6 ksi). Consequently, the AREA Categories C
and D fatigue strength lines coincide in this region, which is .................................. From _ .
just above the fatigue limit. The expected remaining life at the
~Fig.7-...--........
50% probability level was about 48 years for the Category C
FSL and 20.5 years for Categories C and D. The benefits of
smooth hole construction and tight rivets is clearly shown in
0+-4---I----.-+1---+---t--.....--4----I
these results (Category C FSL). General riveted members (Cat-
egory D) and members where the fasteners are only verified o 10 20 30 40 so 60
Years
to be tight (Category C) are shown to have less than half the
expected life of Category C FSL bridges. This type of figure FIG. 9. Probable Remaining Life for a Bridge Subjected to
is also instructive because it gives a kind of deterioration curve Loadings from 91-t Unit Coal Trains with Increased c-e Truck
Spacing
for the bridge as it ages. Under 91-t coal train loadings the
bridge may last as long as 60 more years for Categories C and
D and significantly more than 60 for the Category C FSL. such as those that carry toxic cargo, a higher level of safety
The results in Fig. 8 show the potential effects of heavier may be desired. For this example, if the engineer specifies a
unit freight trains crossing the bridge. For the first two years 10% probability of failure as a criterion for bridge repair or
the bridge is loaded by 91-t coal trains and for the next two replacement. the expected life ranges between about 10 and
years the bridge is subjected to l00-t coal trains. It is loaded 11 years.
by 114-t coal trains thereafter. Fig. 8 shows that there is a The effects of increasing the c-c truck dimension from 11.43
marked decrease in probable fatigue life from the first study to 13.72 m is presented in Fig. 9. The bridge is again loaded
for the heavier loadings. The calculated remaining life at the by 91-t coal trains at the rate of 45.4 MGMT per year. At 50%
50% probability level for Categories C and D was 15 years, probability of failure the expected remaining life is about 13.5
and for the Category C FSL it was about 16 years. The de- years for Categories C and D. These values are lower than for
terioration rate is also accelerated. The figure shows that the the first study just as the deterioration rate is higher. The
bridge has a near 100% failure probability after 45 years. The equivalent constant amplitude stress range for this loading was
adjusted Sre for the loo-t trains was 50.68 MPa (7.35 ksi) and 52.88 MPa (7.67 ksi) so a fatigue shift line was not employed.
for the 114-t trains it was 56.33 MPa (8.17 ksi). For this anal- As allowable loads are increased, the c-c truck spacing for
ysis, the Category C FSL was only able to be specified for the freight cars also tends to increase. As truck spacing increases,
91- and 100-t trains. For some important bridge structures, the magnitude of the stress range cycles a bridge is subjected
58/ JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997

J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60

 100 bridge is evaluated in fatigue using the two sets of probability
Bridge:
12.2 mSpan distributions and a performance function that is a modified
t 80 Trucks:
11.43 m e-c
form of Miner's damage law. Several parametric studies using
the fatigue model were presented. The studies illustrated the
~
i~ 60 efficacy of a reliability-based method for fatigue evaluation. It
'CJ also gave a broad idea of the potential remaining lives of riv-
eted railway bridges under unit train loadings. The benchmark
~ 40
or standard study consisted of subjecting a 12.2 m (40 1) span

~ 20
open deck plate girder bridge to loadings from 91-t unit coal
trains at the rate of 45.4 MGMT per year. Half of the bridge's
life was assumed to be used up prior to the study. Subsequent
0 studies employed variations of some important variables to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 study their effects. Some conclusions from the parametric

Years
FIG. 10. Probable Remaining Life for a Bridge Subjected to
Loadings from 91-t Unit Coal Trains with Low and Recom-
mended Variance in Fatigue Strength
100 . , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : : =
Bridge:12.2 m Span
,....,
Trucks: 11.43 m e-c
t 80
["R = 0.21
Category
~ C FSL~_
i 60
~
'CJ
~ 40 - Category -
CandD
~
20 ---~- -- ------ ---- ----
0+-...,....e=-+-_4=--.-t----+---+-...J;----+~
o 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Years
FIG. 11. Probable Remaining Life for a Bridge Subjected to
Loadings from 91-t Unit Coal Trains with No Variance in Car or
Axle Loadings
to also increases. This is because there are more near and total
unloadings of the bridge.
The effects of considering very little or no variance in fa-
tigue resistances as well as car and axle loadings are shown
in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively. Fig. 10 plots the remaining
life in years versus probability of failure when 'R
= 0.01 and
when 'R = 0.21, the recommended value. The expected re-
maining life at the 50% probability level is the same as the
first study but the deterioration rate is markedly increased
when very little variance is considered in the fatigue resistance
probability distribution. If no variance was considered, the de-
terioration to expected failure in fatigue would be instantane-
ous at the 50% probability level. This is the current method
employed by AREA. Fig. 11 presents the remaining life in
years versus probability of failure for 91-t coal trains when no
variability in car or axle loads is considered. Both Categories
C and D, and the Category C FSL, are shown to overpredict
expected remaining life in the figure compared to the first
study. The Category C FSL had the largest overprediction of
about 55 years, which is almost 15% higher than the 48-year
estimation from the first study.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A new method for the fatigue evaluation of riveted girder
railway bridges was pres~nted in this paper. Growing concern
in the railway industry about an aging bridge population along
with an ever-increasing loading environment prompted the de-
velopment of the method, or fatigue model. Due to the high
degree of uncertainty surrounding the determination of fatigue
strengths of riveted details and fatigue loadings, the fatigue
model is based on reliability theory. Both fatigue resistances
and loadings are characterized by probability distributions. A
studies include:
1. Bridges with subpunched and reamed or drilled rivet
holes with tight fasteners have the potential to last much
longer than structures where these conditions cannot be
verified. The benchmark 12.2-m-span bridge was shown
to have an expected remaining life of 48 years compared
to just over 20 years for the same bridge without smooth
rivet holes and tight clamping force under 91-t coal train
loadings.
2. As allowable freight car loads increase, the remaining
life of shorter-span bridges may decrease significantly.
The benchmark span was subjected to loadings from
91-, 100-, and 114-t unit coal trains, and was shown to
have an expected life of only 16 years compared to a
life ranging between about 20 and 48 years for the first
study.
3. When the center-to-center (c-c) truck spacings of unit
freight cars increase, the equivalent constant amplitude
stress range, Sre, increases and the probable remaining
life of shorter-span bridges decreases. The 12.2-m span
was shown to have an expected remaining life of 13.5
years when subjected to 91-t coal train loadings in which
the freight cars had c-c truck spacings of 13.72 m. The
standard cars had c-c truck spacings of 11.43 m.
4. The consideration of variance in fatigue resistances has
a marked effect on the deterioration rate of bridges. If
no variance is considered, a bridge will be assumed to
have failed in fatigue at the 50% probability level. When
a reasonable amount of variance is considered, based on
fatigue strength tests, a more realistic picture of the po-
tential remaining life of a bridge is gained. In the stan-
dard study, the bridge was shown to have an expected
remaining life ranging between 60 and well over 100
years at the 100% failure probability level.
5. If variance in car and axle loadings is not taken into
account, the expected remaining life of railway bridges
will probably be overestimated by current methods. The
12.2-m-span bridge had a predicted life as much as 15%
greater than the benchmark study when variance in load-
ings was not considered.
6. The standard and subsequent parametric studies focused
on a bridge with a relatively short span subjected to
heavy loadings. If a longer span or lighter loadings were
considered, the estimated fatigue lives would increase.
The opposite is true for shorter-span bridges with even
heavier loadings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for this research was provided by the National Sci-
ence Foundation (NSF) and the AAR. The NSF grant numbers are
CES87-l7706 and CMS940-2224. The assistance and support of CSX
Transportation. the Burlington Northern Railroad (now the Burlington
Northern-Sante Fe), and Norfolk Southern Railroad during Phase I is
also acknowledged. The findings and conclusions presented in this paper
are solely those of the writers and do not necessarily represent those of
the sponsors.

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING / MAY 1997/59

J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60

 APPENDIX I. REFERENCES
American Railway Engineering Association (AREA). (1960). "Summary
of tests on steel girder spans." Proc., Am Railway Engrg. Assn., Vol.
61, Committee 30, Washington, D.C.
Ang, A. H.-S., and Tang, W. H. (1984). Probability concepts in enginer-
ing planning and design: Vol. II-basic principles. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, N.Y.
Downing, S. D., and Socie, D. F. (1982). "Simple rainflow counting
algorithms." Int. J. Fatigue, (Jan.), 31-40.
Fisher, J. w., Nussabaumer, A., Keating, P. 8., and Yen, B. T. (1993).
"Resistance of welded bridge members under variable amplitude long- PI = probability of failure;
life fatigue loading." Transp. Res. Board, NCHRP Rep. No. 354, Nat.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by VISVESVARAYA NATL INST OF TECH on 03/30/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
= inverse negative slope of fatigue resistance line;
= number of fatigue loading cycles;
= estimate of mean number of fatigue loading cycles;
= number of cycles in individual response spectrum his-
togram bar;
number of fatigue resistance cycles;
estimate of equivalent normal mean fatigue resistance
cycles;
n number of freight types to load a bridge;
n number of train simulations;
S = stress range in individual response spectrum histogram

Res. Council, Washington, D.C.

Fisher, J. w., Yen, B. T., Wang, D., and Mann, J. E. (1987). "Fatigue bar;
and fracture evaluation for rating riveted bridges." Transp. Res. Board, Sre = equivalent constant stress amplitude;
NCHRP Rep. No. 302, Nat. Res. Council, Washington, D.C. SL estimate of standard deviation of fatigue loading cycles;
Foutch, D. A. (1987). "National workshop on railway bridge research sZ = estimate of equivalent normal standard deviation of fa-
needs: summary report. University of IlJinois at Urbana-Champaign, tigue resistance cycles;
Oct. 28-29." AAR Rep. No. R-7JD, Assn. of Am. Railroads, Chicago, x = fraction of bridge's fatigue life that has been expended;
Ill. (l correction factor for response spectrum;
Manual for Railway Engineering. (1996). American Railway Engrg. ~ most likely failure point on multiplanar failure surface;
Assn., Washington, D.C. ,~ variance of number of fatigue resistance cycles;
Miner, M. A. (1945). "Cumulative damage in fatigue." J. Appl. Mech., AR expected value of number of fatigue resistance cycles;
12, 159- 164.
Munse, W. H. (1992). "Estimating the remaining life of riveted railway fJ-N = engineer's determination of mean number of MGMT of
bridges." Rep.. Study Conducted for AAR, Assn. of Am. Railroads, freight loading per year;
Chicago, Ill. fJ-N
L
= mean number of fatigue loading cycles;
Rackwitz, R. (1976). "Practical probabilistic approach to design." Bull. fJ-N
M
mean number of fatigue cycles of loading per MGMT;
112, Comite European du Beton, Paris, France. ~t direction cosine for fatigue loading cycles to most likely
Shooman, M. L. (1968). Probabilistic reality: an engineering approach. failure point;
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y. U = direction cosine for fatigue resistance cycles to most
Tobias, D. H. (1994). "A method for the fatigue evaluation of riveted likely failure point;
steel girder railway bridges," PhD thesis, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana- engineer's determination of standard deviation of
Champaign, Urbana, Ill. MGMT of freight loading per year;
Zhou, Y. E., Yen, B. T., Fisher, J. W., and Sweeney, R. A. P. (1995).
aN = standard deviation of number of fatigue loading cycles;
"Examination of fatigue strength (Sr-N) curves for riveted bridge L

members." Proc., 12th Annu. Bridge Conf, Engineer's Soc. of Western and
Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, Pa. <1>( ) = standard normal cumulative-density function.

APPENDIX II. NOTATION

Subscripts
The following symbols are used in this paper:
= freight type; and
f( ) = probability-density function; = histogram bar in response or loading spectrum.

60 I JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING I MAY 1997

J. Bridge Eng., 1997, 2(2): 53-60