2019-04 Fatigue Inspection Guidelines For Steel Bridges

Ministry of Transportation
Highway Standards Branch

Bridge Office Report
Fatigue Inspection
Guidelines for Steel Bridges
BRO-063
Technical Report Documentation
Page
Publication Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges
Title
Author(s) Vince Zingaro, Siebren DeJong
Originating Office Bridge Office, Highway Standards Branch, Ontario Ministry of

Transportation
Report Number BRO-063; ISBN 978-1-4868-3391-7
Publication Date April 2019
Ministry Contact Bridge Office, Highway Standards Branch, Ontario Ministry of

Transportation
301 St. Paul Street, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2R 7R3
Tel: (905) 704-2406; Fax: (905) 704-2060
Abstract These guidelines define the Fatigue Index, which are used as a
screening tool to identify bridges in the provincial bridge inventory
that are more susceptible to fatigue cracking. Based on the
Fatigue Index and other selection criteria, the guidelines provide
a recommended timeline for fatigue inspections over the life of a
bridge. The guidelines include a brief overview of fatigue prone
details and other details that are susceptible to constraint induced
fracture.
Key Words Fatigue inspection; fatigue index; fracture critical; constraint

induced fracture
Distribution Unrestricted technical audience.

Ministry of Transportation
Highway Standards Branch
Bridge Office Report
BRO-063
Fatigue Inspection Guidelines

for Steel Bridges
April 2019
Prepared by
Bridge Office
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
301 St. Paul Street,

St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2R 7R3
Tel: (905) 704-2406; Fax (905) 704-2060
Published
without
prejudice as to
the application
of the findings.
Crown copyright
reserved.
-i-
Table of Contents
1. Overview of Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 1
2. Background..................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Fatigue Inspection Selection Criteria............................................................................................ 2
4. Fatigue Index .................................................................................................................................. 5
5. Fatigue Inspection Frequency ....................................................................................................... 6
6. Fatigue Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 7
7. References ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Appendices
Appendix A: Fatigue Index Commentary ....................................................................................................... 9
Appendix B: Fatigue Evaluation Commentary ............................................................................................. 28
Appendix C: Fatigue Index Calculation Sheet ............................................................................................. 29
Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

- ii -
List of Figures
Figure 1: Distortion-induced Fatigue of Floor Beams..................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Distortion-Induced Fatigue of Girders with Diaphragms ............................................................... 10
Figure 3: Distortion-Induced Fatigue of Horizontal Gusset Plates ............................................................... 11
Figure 4: Cracking and Fractures at Plug Welds ......................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Welded Repair of Previous Stringer Crack (Site No. 03X-0003/B0) ............................................. 13
Figure 6: Intermittent Stitch Welds ............................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7: Cracked Tack Weld with no crack growth into girder flange ......................................................... 14
Figure 8: Fatigue Crack through Stringer Initiating at Tack Weld (Site No. 03X-0003/B0) ........................... 15
Figure 9: Intersecting Welds Susceptible to Constraint Induced Fracture (CIF) .......................................... 16
Figure 10: Fatigue Crack at Coped Stringer (Site No. 03X-0003/BO).......................................................... 16
Figure 11: Cracked Stringer to Floor Beam connection angle ..................................................................... 17
Figure 12: Pin and Hanger Assemblies ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 13: Eye-Bar Members ....................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 14: Welded Web Insert Plates .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Fatigue of Groove Welds without NDT or Partial Penetration Groove Welds ............................. 21
Figure 16: Cracking of Butt Welded Longitudinal Stiffeners ......................................................................... 21
Figure 17: Intersecting Members with Flange Splice Passing Through Girder Web .................................... 22
Figure 18: Two Girder Bridges ..................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 19: Truss Bridges ............................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 20: Arch Bridges ............................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 21: Moveable Bridge......................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 22: Steel Pier Bent............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 23: Floor Beam Hinge Connected at Ends ....................................................................................... 26
List of Tables
Table 1 – Recommended Timing for Fatigue Inspections .............................................................................. 6
Table B1 – Recommended Fraction of Trucks Attributed to Single Lane for Fatigue Evaluation ................. 28

- iii -
Acknowledgements
These guidelines have been revised from a draft document entitled Selection Criteria for Detailed
Fatigue Inspection, which was written in 2005 but not formally published.
The 2005 document was written by Vince Zingaro, and these revised guidelines have been
prepared by Siebren DeJong. Regional Structural Sections have provided reviews and are
gratefully acknowledged.

-1-
1. Overview of Guidelines
1.1. Introduction
The main objective of these guidelines is to identify bridges that are more susceptible to fatigue
damage and therefore require more frequent inspections. A methodology is proposed to calculate
the Fatigue Index of a bridge, which is a numerical score of a bridge’s susceptibility to fatigue
damage. The Fatigue Index can be used to prioritize which bridges are selected for fatigue
inspections. The Fatigue Index presented in these guidelines has been revised from the previous
draft document entitled Selection Criteria for Detailed Fatigue Inspections, released in 2005.
Owners should place a high priority on the inspection and maintenance of fracture critical, non-
redundant bridges because the unique configurations of these structures make failure of certain
members more critical than on other bridges.
Fatigue inspection and evaluation requires specialized expertise to assess where cracking may
occur within a structure and the importance of a given crack. These guidelines focus on the
question of which bridges should be inspected rather than specific inspection practices. Other
relevant publications should be consulted for inspection guidelines [1-5], general reference [2, 6,
7], and guidance on evaluation [8 and 19].
Repair and retrofit alternatives such as hole drilling, grinding, and weld toe improvement
techniques such as Ultrasonic Impact Treatment (UIT) are beyond the scope of these guidelines,
but these topics are covered in reference [9].
2. Background
2.1. Fatigue
Fatigue is a damage mechanism where cracks initiate and grow in a metal component when
subjected to cyclic loads. Fatigue can cause cracking in steel bridges, and the Canadian Highway
Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) requires fatigue assessment when a bridge has fatigue prone
details or physical evidence of fatigue cracking. Alternatively, fatigue prone details may be
monitored by regular inspections to detect and repair fatigue cracks. The CHBDC identifies two
different causes of fatigue cracking: distortion-induced and load-induced fatigue.
Distortion-induced fatigue cracks are caused by out-of-plane movements or forces where they
were not accounted for in the initial design of the bridge. The out-of-plane forces can lead to
cracks on a main member that otherwise has good fatigue details. This commonly occurs at
diaphragm locations where the stiffener is not welded or bolted to the tension flange. As one
girder deflects more than an adjacent girder, a force is imparted through the diaphragm to the
stiffener. This force causes localized out-of-plane bending and cracking of the web plate (known
as web-gap cracking). Distortion-induced fatigue was first recognized as a problem in the 1970’s,
but web gap cracking is common on bridges constructed in the 1980’s before standard details
were improved by providing a positive connection between diaphragm connection plates and the
tension flange of a girder. It has been estimated that 90% of fatigue cracks found on bridges are
caused by distortion-induced fatigue or secondary stresses [10]. Distortion-induced fatigue
stresses are not typically calculated by structural analysis, but the problem is avoided by utilizing
good detailing practices.

-2-
Design provisions for load-induced fatigue are based on research from the late 1960’s and early
1970’s. The CHBDC defines eight different fatigue detail categories (A, B, B1, C, C1, D, E, and
E1), listed in order of decreasing fatigue resistance. Bridge designers must identify which of these
detail categories are present on a bridge and design to ensure that fatigue limit state stress ranges
do not exceed the defined stress range resistance at the design life of the bridge. It should be
noted that fatigue is caused by the entire stress range, including compressive stresses, as long
as a portion of the total dead plus live load stress cycle is tensile. “Modern” design provisions for
load-induced fatigue were adopted in about 1975, with some minor changes since that time.
Since a significant number of steel bridges have experienced fatigue cracking, MTO carries out
periodic fatigue inspections to identify fatigue cracks and poor fatigue details. Estimation of the
remaining fatigue life due to load-induced fatigue is also typically included in the fatigue
investigation. These guidelines describe the Fatigue Index, which can used by MTO to prioritize
which bridges should be inspected for fatigue issues and how frequently this should occur.
2.2. Constraint Induced Fracture

Constraint Induced Fracture (CIF) typically occurs in structures with details where there is tri-axial
constraint. CIF is a fracture mechanism that can result in sudden, brittle fracture of a structural
steel girder, with no prior visible warning sign or cracking. This differs from fatigue cracks, which
are more likely to be identified by inspection prior to fracture.
Examples of CIF-susceptible details include multi-directional welds that either intersect or do not
have sufficient separation from each other. A common location where this can occur is where
transverse and longitudinal web stiffeners intersect or where transverse stiffeners intersect
horizontal gusset plates. The primary risk factor is whether there is adequate separation between
the intersecting welds. If there is at least a 6 mm separation between the weld toes, CIF is not a
concern [13].
CIF has been observed in numerous bridges, but the failure mechanism became better known
after the Hoan Bridge failure in 2000. A suspected CIF occurred in Ontario in 1993 when a nearly
full depth girder crack (over 2 m crack length) was discovered through one of the girders of the
Bay of Quinte Skyway. Similar cracks have occurred without warning in other bridges in North
America in recent years.
While close-up fatigue inspections are not a valid method to prevent CIF (the Hoan Bridge was
inspected several days prior to its failure), fatigue inspections provide an opportunity to identify
problematic details that are susceptible to CIF. All locations with closely spaced or intersecting
welds should be identified in the fatigue inspection report along with a measurement of the gap
(if any) between welds. MTO Bridge Office should be consulted to evaluate whether retrofit
measures are warranted, especially in the case of non-redundant fracture critical bridges.
3. Fatigue Inspection Selection Criteria

The first step in the process of determining which bridges require fatigue inspection is to review
all available information such as drawings, inspection records, and maintenance history to identify
if those bridges:
• are susceptible to out-of-plane distortions;
• are susceptible to Constraint Induced Fracture (CIF);
• have load induced fatigue prone details;
• have fracture critical members;

-3-
• have collision damage, improper heat straightening, or notched holes, etc.;

• have other significant factors such as old material or heavy traffic volumes.
All applicable factors are recorded on the Fatigue Index calculation sheet as shown in Appendix
C. The Fatigue Index can be used to prioritize which structures are selected from the bridge
inventory for periodic inspection and evaluation. While it is possible that bridges with a low Fatigue
Index may also experience fatigue cracking, the Fatigue Index is intended as a screening tool
(along with observations from previous inspections) to help prioritize inspection efforts. The
factors that make up the Fatigue Index are described below, with more detailed descriptions in
Appendix A.
3.1. Factors Affecting the Fatigue Performance of Steel Bridges

3.1.1. Distortion-induced Fatigue
Distortion-induced fatigue is especially prevalent on bridges designed prior to the 1990’s when
design codes did not require a connection between the tension flange of a girder and connection
plates to diaphragms and cross-frames. Skewed and curved bridges and attachments for internal
diaphragms in box girders are especially susceptible to cracking due to out-of-plane distortion.
Another example of distortion-induced fatigue occurs when a floor beam is attached to a vertical
connection plate that is welded to the web of a girder. Depending on the geometry of this
connection, rotation of the floor beam under traffic loads results in high localized stresses in the
web gap at the ends of the vertical connection plate, which may lead to fatigue cracking.
Relevant Factors
• Floor beam attached to vertical connection plate welded to web of a girder but not
connected to the flange.
• Plate girder and box girder bridges where a diaphragm is attached to a stiffener but
there is an inadequate or no connection (welded or bolted) between the stiffener and the
tension flange of girder.
• Frame type intermediate diaphragms that are staggered transversely.
• Skew > 20 degrees.
• Thick web (thick web is stiffer attracting more loading than thin web, see Appendix A1).
3.1.2. Fatigue Prone Details
Fatigue prone details include the more severe load-induced fatigue categories as defined in the
CHBDC as well as other details that have proven to be problematic for fatigue or fracture. Most
critical conditions for fatigue crack initiation are those which involve a combination of flaws and
stress concentrations. Bridge structures, particularly those that are welded, cannot be fabricated
without details that cause some level of stress concentrations. Conditions of stress concentration
are often found in weldments, which are known to be prone to crack initiation. Figure 10.6 and
Table 10.7 in the CHBDC (CSA-S6-14) classify fatigue categories based on their resistance to
fatigue loading.
In general, welded bridge details are more susceptible to live-load-induced fatigue failure than
riveted or bolted details because all welds contain microscopic defects that can grow into fatigue
cracks. Most riveted bridges were constructed prior to the 1960’s, when bolted and welded
connections became common. Typical details that are considered to be fatigue prone include the
following:

-4-
Relevant Factors
• Stringer or girder members with welded cover plates

• Welded Repair details
• Gusset plates welded to web or flange using intermittent (stitch) weld
• Intersecting welds (including less than 6 mm gap between horizontal and vertical welds)
• Coped beam connection
• Stringer to floor beam connection
• Pin and Hanger Assemblies
• Steel Eye-Bars
• Welded insert plate in web
• Partial penetration groove weld or groove welds without NDT verification
• Butt welded longitudinal stiffener
• Intersecting members with flange splice passing through web
• Other fatigue category C, D, E and E1 welded details, including attachments and
discontinuous backing bars. See CHBDC Figure 10.6 and Table 10.7.
3.1.3. Fracture Critical Members
Fracture critical members (FCM) are steel tension members in single load path (non-redundant)
structures whose failure would be expected to result in collapse of a bridge. Tension components
of a bridge member consist of components or attachments of tension members and those portions
of a flexural member that are subject to tensile stress. FCM have all or part of their cross section
in tension. Most cracks in steel members occur near a weld, at a flaw or defect in the base
material, and/or changes in member cross section. After the crack initiates, failure of the member
could be sudden and would lead to the collapse of the bridge in the absence of alternate load
paths (lack of redundancy in the structure). In order for a fatigue crack to propagate, it must be
located in a zone that experiences tensile stresses. Members must be subject to tension in order
to be considered fracture critical.
There are many factors which influence the risk of fracture of a bridge with FCMs, including
• degree of redundancy
• live load member stress
• propensity of the material to crack or fracture
• condition of specific FCMs
• existence of fatigue prone design details
• previous number and magnitude of loads
• predicted number and magnitude of loads.
The steel bridge types listed below are non-redundant and should be considered as more critical
in their need for a fatigue inspection (see Appendix A for details).
• One or two girder bridges

o Single box girder bridges
o Two girder bridges
o Half-Through girder bridges
• Truss Bridges
o Deck truss bridge with 2 trusses
o Through truss bridge with 2 trusses
o Half-Through (Pony) truss bridge with 2 trusses
• Arch or suspension Bridges
• Moveable bridges

-5-
• Bridges with steel pier caps and cross girders

• Bridges with fracture critical floor beams
o Floor beam with no stringers
o Floor beams spaced at greater than 4.3m
o Floor beams with hinged connections at ends.
3.1.4. Other Factors
Fatigue is a concern for both older and newer structures. Older welded structures typically have
more internal flaws, lower consistency of manufacturing, and lower fracture toughness than
modern structures. Older bridges often have poor fatigue detailing and lower weld quality, which
makes them more susceptible to fatigue cracking. A higher fatigue index weight factor is given
for older bridges based on these issues as well as the fact that older bridges have accumulated
more fatigue cycles over their service life. Newer steel has higher fracture toughness and
improved weld quality, but even good quality welds contain defects that are susceptible to fatigue.
Newer bridges are designed to take advantage of higher yield strength, which results in higher
live load stresses. This increases the likelihood that fatigue resistance will govern design and
makes fatigue detailing more critical than in the past. Fisher et al. concluded that modern
structures are generally more susceptible to fatigue cracking than older structures [6].
Trucks are the only vehicles that contribute stress cycles that are large enough to be considered
relevant. Thus, bridges with high Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) are subjected to more
critical load cycles and increase the likelihood of fatigue problems if the bridge has fatigue prone
details.
Relevant Factors
• Fracture toughness specified in material specification referenced on drawings

• Bridges with high average daily truck traffic ADTT
4. Fatigue Index
The Fatigue Index calculation sheet provided in Appendix C records the presence of out-of-plane
distortion-induced fatigue details and fatigue-prone details. Each detail has a different weighting
factor depending on its severity. These weighting factors have been significantly revised from the
2005 Fatigue Index calculation sheet in order to place greater emphasis on details that are either
concerning or have proven to be problematic in the Ministry’s experience.
A simple equation is used to sum up the scores for the various criteria. This sum is then multiplied
by another set of factors that depend on the fracture criticality of the bridge and on the date of
construction and traffic volumes.
The Fatigue Index (FI) is calculated as follows:
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟

𝐹𝐼 = (∑ 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 + ∑ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑒 ) (1 + ∑ 𝐶𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 ) (1 + ∑ 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 )
𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒

-6-
5. Fatigue Inspection Frequency

Table 1 below provides a general guideline to be used to prioritize which structures are selected
for fatigue inspections based on the Fatigue Index. These requirements are based on the
assumptions that the bridge has adequate remaining fatigue life. If the remaining fatigue life is
long and risk of distortion induced fatigue is low, a longer inspection interval may be justified. On
the other hand, a shorter interval is more appropriate if the fatigue life has been exhausted.
Table 1 – Recommended Timing for Fatigue Inspections
Fatigue Index ≥ 50 < 50

ADTT on Bridge
ADTT ≥ 2,000 200 < ADTT < 2,000 ADTT ≤ 200 All
(2 Directional Traffic)
Distortion Induced
≥ 25 < 25 ≥ 25 < 25 All All
Fatigue Score
Age of bridge at first
fatigue inspection (see 15 years 25 years 25 years 35 years
note 1)
Subsequent Fatigue
Not Not
Inspection Interval
5 years 5 years 10 years 10 years Required Required
until 50 yrs age (see
(Note 5) (Note 5)
notes 2-4)
Subsequent Fatigue
Inspection Interval
5 years 5 years 5 years 5 years
after 50 yrs age (see
notes 2-4)
Notes:
1) If cracks are identified during an OSIM inspection, a close-up inspection should be
performed as soon as possible to assess the cracking, regardless of the Fatigue Index
value. Depending on the nature of the cracking, a fatigue investigation of the structure
may be recommended.
2) More frequent inspections may be required based on engineering judgement, which

should consider the degree of structural redundancy, crack history of the bridge and
similar bridges, remaining fatigue life, and the anticipated implications (traffic restrictions
or bridge closure) of potential fatigue cracking.
3) Special care is required if fatigue cracks have been detected. The engineer must assess
whether the cracks pose a risk to structural safety and whether immediate repairs are
required. In general, fatigue cracks should be repaired unless it can be shown that
continued crack growth is not structurally likely or if justification can be made for continued
monitoring. In either case, the cause of cracking should be determined prior to selecting
a rehabilitation or monitoring strategy. The engineer may suggest more frequent
inspections, depending on the type and extent of cracking present, or as a follow-up to re-
inspect details that have been repaired.
4) Less frequent fatigue inspections may be justified if the bridge has adequate remaining
fatigue life and has not experienced distortion induced fatigue cracking after carrying a
large number of truck cycles. See commentary in Appendix A for more information.
5) In cases where the ADTT is low or where the fatigue index is less than 50 (regardless of

-7-
ADTT), the risk of fatigue cracking is considered low, and fatigue inspections are not
required unless there are particular concerns about the fatigue performance of the bridge.
6. Fatigue Evaluation
Results from the fatigue inspection should be provided in a report along with a structural
evaluation for the fatigue limit state, including remaining life calculations. Reference [8]
provides a useful framework for load-induced fatigue evaluation that can be adapted to CHBDC
loading. The 2014 CHBDC adopted bilinear S-N lines, which are anticipated to provide more
realistic fatigue life estimates than the single stress-life (S-N) lines used in earlier versions of the
CHBDC and currently used by AASHTO and reference [8].
Fatigue life calculations rely on a number of factors that affect their accuracy. It is important to
use site-specific ADTT data to estimate the most accurate past, present, and future truck traffic
for the bridge location. Wherever possible, ADTT data should be obtained through the
Ministry’s iCorridor system, which provides the most accurate data on truck traffic for provincial
highways in Ontario. In cases where the bridge carries a municipal roadway, ADTT estimates
must be based on the best available municipal traffic counts.
Fatigue life evaluations have often found negative remaining calculated fatigue life even when the
bridge has not experienced fatigue cracking. This is partly due to conservative assumptions
assumed by bridge codes for fatigue resistance, with a low probability of failure. In many
situations, bridges that were designed to have non-composite decks have unintended composite
behavior. In other cases, conservative estimates of truck traffic or live load distribution result in
overly conservative fatigue life estimates. However, in other cases fatigue life estimates are not
believed to be conservative, such as truss or two-girder bridges carrying more than one traffic
lane [17].
One of the challenges of managing fatigue concerns is that fatigue cracks are not detectable by
inspection until very late in the fatigue life, yet fatigue crack growth accelerates quickly at late
stages of the fatigue life. This leaves a short window of time after detection of cracks to
implement a repair strategy. If no fatigue cracks have been found but the fatigue evaluation
shows exhausted fatigue life, several alternatives can be considered. Depending on the type of
detail with exhausted fatigue life, it may be possible to retrofit or repair [9]. In cases of
exhausted life, fatigue details with well-known fatigue concerns such as welded partial length
cover plates should generally be retrofitted with bolted splice plates or (where appropriate) other
methods to eliminate the risk rather than relying on inspections.
In other cases, it may be reasonable to accept a higher level of risk for an existing structure as
described in reference [8], in conjunction with regular fatigue inspections. This decision should
be made on a case by case basis and take into consideration structural redundancy, the
potential consequences of cracking, and overall highway capital planning.
Due to the conservative nature of fatigue design and evaluation, it may help to gather more
accurate estimates of service stresses or strains through Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) data or by
instrumenting the bridge with strain gauges. The disadvantage of WIM data is that transverse
load distribution must be assumed. Strain gauge instrumentation provides the most direct
measurement of bridge behaviour under service loads and eliminates uncertainties in load
distribution through the bridge. Instrumentation may be considered when there is a significant
concern for fatigue cracking, especially when inspection or retrofit is costly. The bridge Office
should be consulted in such situations.

-8-
7. References
1. Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM), Ontario Ministry of Transportation, St.
Catharines, Ontario, Canada, 2018.
2. Design and Evaluation of Steel Bridges for Fatigue and Fracture - Reference Manual, U.S.
Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration National Highway Institute,
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-16-016, Arlington, VA, 2016.
3. Inspection of Fracture Critical Bridge Members, FHWA Report No. FHWA-IP-86-26, 1986.
4. Manual for Inspecting Bridges for Fatigue Damage Conditions, FHWA-PA-89-022, 1990.
5. Fish, P., Schroeder, C., Connor, R.J., and Sauser, P., Fatigue and Fracture Library for the
Inspection, Evaluation, and Repair of Vehicular Steel Bridges, Purdue University, 2015.
6. A Fatigue Primer for Structural Engineers, National Steel Bridge Alliance, 1998.
7. CSA Standard W59-13, Welded Steel Construction (Metal Arc Welding), Canadian
Welding Bureau, Mississauga, ON. 2013.
8. The Manual for Bridge Evaluation, 3rd Ed, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2018.
9. Connor, R. J., & Lloyd, J. B. (2017). Maintenance actions to address fatigue cracking in
steel bridge structures: Proposed guidelines and commentary. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University.
10. Connor, R. J. and Fisher, J. W. (2006). “Identifying Effective and Ineffective Retrofits for
Distortion Fatigue Cracking in Steel Bridges Using Field Instrumentation.” J. Bridge Eng.,
11(6), 745-752.
11. Parr, M.J., Connor, R.J., and Bowman, M., “Proposed Method for Determining the Interval
for Hands-on Inspection of Steel Bridges with Fracture Critical Members,” J. Bridge Eng.,
15(4), 2009.
12. Fisher, J.W., Jian, J., Wagner, D.C., and Yen, B.T., “Distortion-Induced Fatigue Cracking
in Steel Bridges,” NCHRP Report 336, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
1990.
13. Connor, R.J., Kaufmann, E.J.; Fisher, J.W., Wright, W.J., “Prevention and Mitigation
Strategies to Address Recent Brittle Fractures in Steel Bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 12(2),
2007.
14. Illinois Department of Transportation Circular Letter 2010-09, “Bridges with Gusset Plates,
Fracture Critical Members, or Hoan Details,” Sept 7, 2010.
15. Fisher, J.W. Fatigue and Fracture in Steel Bridges: Case Studies, Toronto, 1984.
16. Manual for Repair and Retrofit of Fatigue Cracks in Steel Bridges, FHWA Report No.
FHWA-IF-13-020, 2013.
17. Bowman, M.D., Fu, G., Zhou, Y.E., Connor, R.J., and Godbole, A.A “Fatigue Evaluation
of Steel Bridges,” NCHRP Report 721, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
2012.
18. Lovejoy, S.C. “Determining Appropriate Fatigue Inspection Intervals for Steel Bridge
Members.” J. Bridge Eng. 8(2), 2003.
19. Moses, F, Schilling, C.G., and Raju, K.S., “Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for Steel
Bridges,” NCHRP Report 299, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1987

-9-
Appendix A: Fatigue Index Commentary

A1. Distortion-induced Fatigue Details
Distortion-induced fatigue cracks typically initiate at the top or bottom web weld toes of transverse
connection plates where the connection plate is not welded to the tension flange of the girder.
When the connection plates are not rigidly attached to one of the flanges, the forces carried by
diaphragm members are transmitted to the diaphragm connection plate and result in out-of-plane
distortion of the unstiffened portion of the girder web (web gap). The web distortion may cause
high localized out-of-plane bending stresses on the web gap and may result in distortion-induced
fatigue cracks.
Distortion-induced fatigue is especially problematic for bridges constructed prior to the 1990’s.
The 1983 OHBDC stated that transverse stiffeners serving as connection plates shall “preferably”
be attached to the girder flanges but stopped short of absolutely restricting problematic detailing.
The 1991 Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC) clearly restricted that connection plates
shall be attached to the flanges. Regardless of the date of construction, drawings should be
reviewed to assess vulnerability to distortion-induced fatigue. Distortion-induced fatigue can also
occur on the flexural compression side, but this is rare because transverse stiffeners have
traditionally been welded to the compression flange.
Distortion-induced fatigue can occur in bridges with floor beams (Figure 1) and girder-type bridges
with diaphragms (Figure 2). The Ministry has found that distortion-induced fatigue cracks are
more common on welded box girder bridges than I-shaped girders, especially those constructed
prior to the 1990’s when detailing practices were improved.
Figure 1: Distortion-induced Fatigue of Floor Beams

- 10 -
The magnitude of out-of-plane distortion is affected by the stiffness of the diaphragm. Therefore,
a frame type diaphragm would have a higher fatigue index score than a rolled channel or I-shaped
diaphragm.
Figure 2: Distortion-Induced Fatigue of Girders with Diaphragms
When bridge skew exceeds 20 degrees or diaphragms are staggered transversely, there is a
higher risk of distortion-induced fatigue cracking. In the precursor to this guideline, (2005 Draft
Selection Criteria for Detailed Fatigue Inspections), the fatigue index assigned a score for thin
web members. This criterion has been removed because thin webs have lower stiffness to out-
of-plane distortion and are therefore capable of accommodating larger out-of-plane distortions
than thick webs.
Another detail that may experience distortion-induced fatigue is horizontal gusset plates (lateral
connection plates) connecting wind bracing members. This web gap is subjected to forces from
lateral bracing members, which can result in a different form of distortion induced fatigue (see
Figure 3). Cracking tends to initiate along the toe of the vertical weld of the transverse stiffener
adjacent to the web gap, and the factors affecting this phenomenon are similar to those affecting
constraint-induced fracture. Reference 12 found that it is desirable to have a positive connection
between the horizontal gusset plate and transverse stiffener and that larger web gaps are less
vulnerable to this type of distortion-induced-fatigue. The report recommended that the gap
between the transverse stiffener and lateral connection plate be at least 4 times the web thickness
or 50 mm, whichever is larger. This type of distortion fatigue appears to be less common than
other types of distortion induced fatigue, so there is currently no scoring item in the fatigue index.

- 11 -
Reference 6 Reference 12
Figure 3: Distortion-Induced Fatigue of Horizontal Gusset Plates
Distortion-induced fatigue cracks commonly occur within the first 2 to 3 decades of a bridge’s life,
depending on truck traffic volume. Bridges carrying truck traffic with ADTT exceeding 1000 have
frequently shown first signs of cracking after less than 20 years of service. If a bridge has been
inspected and not experienced distortion-induced fatigue cracking after carrying at least 45 Million
trucks (approximately 30 years of Class A highway truck traffic), a longer interval between fatigue
inspections may be justified. Since distortion induced fatigue cracks occur at an early age and
load-induced fatigue cracks occur at a later age, a longer inspection interval would apply to the
middle age of a bridge. The bridge must be “old enough” to prove resistance to distortion fatigue
cracking, but as the bridge approaches its calculated fatigue life, a shorter inspection interval is
appropriate.
Retrofits for Distortion-induced Fatigue
A number of different strategies are used to retrofit distortion-induced fatigue cracks. The most
common retrofit strategy is to provide a positive connection between the transverse stiffener
connection plate and the flange. This typically involves bolting built-up connection plates, tee
shapes, or double angles to the tension flange and the stiffener connection plate. Angles should
be at least 19 mm thick to eliminate web gap distortion (although 16 mm may be acceptable based
on some publications). If stiffening angles are less than 16 mm thick, fatigue index items 1.1 to
1.5 should be calculated assuming no connection. The other retrofit technique involves the
opposite approach of “softening” the connection to reduce the out-of-plane bending stress applied
to the web. This can be achieved by loosening bolts to diaphragm members, completely removing
the diaphragms, or increasing the size of the web gap by grinding and removing a portion of the
diaphragm connection plate.
The Ministry has had success with both approaches, but there have been cases where distortion-
induced fatigue cracks have continued to grow after retrofits. If a bridge has been retrofitted to
address out-of-plane distortion effects, the repair should be monitored for a sufficient time after
retrofit to confirm that the issue has been resolved. This applies regardless of whether the
distortion-induced is caused by floor beams, I girders, or box girders.

- 12 -
A2. Load-induced Fatigue Prone Details
A2.1. Stringer or girder members with welded cover plates
Abrupt changes in a section produce stress concentrations that are susceptible to cracking.
Cracks normally initiate at the point where the section changes and propagate into the weaker
section. The termination point of welded cover plates is a common location for this to occur,
and all such locations should be carefully inspected. One or more cracks can initiate from
microscopic flaws or defects at the weld toe of the transverse end weld.
A2.2. Welded Repair Details
Even good quality welds contain flaws that may eventually initiate fatigue cracks (for example
partial penetration, lack of fusion, porosity, inclusions, undercut, micro flaws, and cracking). More
severe flaws and poor-quality welds are especially vulnerable to fatigue. In some situations, the
element was considered a “secondary” attachment with no established weld quality criteria (e.g.,
butt weld splices in longitudinal web stiffeners, which are vulnerable to constraint-induced
fracture).
The profile of a finished weld may have considerable effect on its performance under load.
Unacceptable weld profiles are those that have insufficient throat, excessive convexity, undercut,
overlap, or insufficient leg. These conditions have the effect of producing notches, reduced
effective size, reduced strength of the joints, entrapped slag, all of which may lead to fatigue
cracks.
Weld cracks are the most dangerous of all weld defects. Complete failure or a serious reduction
of strength may result. The smallest cracks or discontinuities can act as serious stress-raisers,
or they may cause local corrosion. External or surface cracks may be classified as longitudinal,
transverse, crater, or “hairline” cracks.
Tack or erection welds are commonly used in construction of riveted or built-up members to
temporarily hold pieces together until bolts, rivets, or permanent welds are in place. Tack welds
produce small stress concentrations in the base metal and are susceptible to cracking. Due to
their temporary nature, tack welds are not quality tested and are more likely than other welds to
contain defects that make them more susceptible to cracking, even in areas of low stress.
Plug welds have been used in the past to fill mis-aligned drilled holes through a member. The
intention was to repair the member to its original cross section, but in practice plug welds are often
poor quality, which can lead to failures. Two prominent examples of plug weld failures are the
Farina Overpass in 1977 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike truss fracture in 2017, which are shown
in Figure 4 below. If plug welds are encountered during inspection, they should generally be
drilled out to eliminate the risk of cracking. Figure 5 shows another type of welded repair that is
vulnerable to fatigue cracking.
For additional information, please refer to reference [7], Section 12 – Cyclically Loaded Structures
– Design and Construction.”

- 13 -
I-57 Farina Overpass Fracture at Plug Weld Delaware River – Pennsylvania Turnpike
(Steel Fatigue Knowledge Base, 2008) truss Fracture at Plug Weld (Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission 2017)
Figure 4: Cracking and Fractures at Plug Welds
Figure 5: Welded Repair of Previous Stringer Crack (Site No. 03X-0003/B0)

- 14 -
A2.3. Gusset plates welded to web or flange using intermittent (stitch) welds
Stitch welds (Figure 6) were used to join bridge elements from the 1950’s to 1970’s. These welds
are more vulnerable to fatigue than continuous welds, but the risk of cracking depends on the
weld location and magnitude of loads carried by the welds. Repairs are not typically justified
unless cracking has been observed. Tack welds are similarly susceptible to fatigue and are
commonly found on bolted or riveted bridge members. In many cases, fatigue cracks grow
through the throat of the tack weld but do not propagate into the base metal of the girder (Figure
7). This is generally a benign situation, although if a crack has grown partially through a tack
weld, it should be monitored to ensure no further propagation into the main member.
Occasionally, fatigue cracks can initiate at the toe of a tack weld and grow into the main member
(Figure 8). This is a more serious concern that may require retrofit or repair.
Figure 6: Intermittent Stitch Welds
Figure 7: Cracked Tack Weld with no crack growth into girder flange
(Site No. 16X-0100/B0)

- 15 -
Figure 8: Fatigue Crack through Stringer Initiating at Tack Weld (Site No. 03X-0003/B0)
A2.4. Intersecting welds in web (horizontal & vertical stiffener intersections)
Fatigue cracks normally occur at the ends of stiffeners, locations where welds of transverse and
longitudinal stiffeners to the web intersect and locations where web stiffeners may be butt-welded
are susceptible to sudden cracking failures known as “constraint induced fracture” (CIF).
Common locations are as shown in Figure 9, as well as in butt welded longitudinal stiffeners.
While CIF is a different damage mechanism than fatigue failure, close-up fatigue inspections
provide an opportunity to identify the undesirable details that may be susceptible to CIF. Even if
no cracking is present, all locations where welds pass within 6 mm of each other shall be
measured and identified as a part of the fatigue inspection.
Details where longitudinal and transverse stiffeners may intersect are most commonly found on
structures where spans exceed 36.5m (120 feet), which may require longitudinal web stiffeners
and/or wind bracing. Typical retrofit strategies include increasing the web gap to reduce
constraint and drilling holes to intercept the weld intersection. New bridge designs should avoid
details that result in constraint when detailing girders.

- 16 -
Reference 14) (Reference 13)
Figure 9: Intersecting Welds Susceptible to Constraint Induced Fracture (CIF)
A2.5. Coped Beam Connection
The use of coped members, such as stringers, floor beams, and diaphragms, is common in older
bridge floor systems. Copes may be flame cut, which results in residual tensile stresses
(approaching yield stress) along the cut edges. It is also common to terminate the flange before
the end connection. When one or both flanges are removed, as in a blocked flange cut, the web
plate has a lower cross section as compared to the entire member. Figure 10 shows an example
of a fatigue crack initiating from a sharply coped stringer in which the top flange was removed.
Figure 10: Fatigue Crack at Coped Stringer (Site No. 03X-0003/BO).

- 17 -
A2.6 Stringer floor beam connection
A related type of cracking develops in the end connection angles. End rotation can deform the
connection angle out-of-plane. This results in cracking of the angle (Figure 11), often at the fillet
or the bolt/rivet line. In some cases, the rivet or bolt heads will crack off if the angle is relatively
thick.
Figure 11: Cracked Stringer to Floor Beam connection angle
A2.7. Pin and Hanger Assemblies
A pin and hanger assembly (Figure 12) is a hinge detail utilizing a hinge connection designed to
allow for expansion and rotation between a cantilevered and suspended span at a point between
supports. Pin and hanger assemblies are usually found in multi-span bridges from the 1970’s
and earlier.
There are two reasons that particular attention must be paid to pin and hanger assemblies.
1. They are prone to deterioration and failure since they are often located beneath deck slab
expansion joints that eventually leak.
2. Pins and hangers are often fracture critical.
The primary elements are the pin and hanger bars since they carry primary loads. The secondary
elements include through-bolts, cap plates, nuts, doubler plates and possible cotter pins on small
assemblies. These secondary elements, though they don’t carry loads still could dislodge and
loosen the connection and cause failure. Pin and hanger assemblies in multi-girder structures
are not technically fracture critical, since multiple load paths are available. However, they do have
the potential for progressive collapse.

- 18 -
(Reference
8)
Figure 12: Pin and Hanger Assemblies
The pins rotate under live load and thermal expansion and tend to wear over time. The hangers
are in tension and are susceptible to fatigue and fracture, especially if the pins become frozen
due to the buildup of corrosion. The small gaps between the components of the pin retainer
mechanism allow dirt and rust buildup that is not easily detected. This condition could cause
unintended fixity, which would cause the pins to seize up and produce in-plane bending stresses
in the hanger and torsional forces in the pin. High out-of-plane impact loads may result when the
mechanism periodically breaks free. Expanding corrosion could also force the hanger plates out
of alignment, and they may fail the cotter pins in the retainer mechanism and “walk” off the pin,
causing catastrophic collapse.
Corrosion adds a degree of fixity to the connection, inducing additional stresses and can create
internal pressures that can push the links of the pins. Pin and hanger assemblies in two-girder
bridges are fracture critical members. Failure of one pin or one hanger will cause collapse of the
suspended span since there is no alternate load path. Pins in pin and hanger connections have
fractured when “frozen” by corrosion.

- 19 -
A2.8. Steel Eye-Bars
An eye-bar (Figure 13) is a tension only member consisting of a rectangular bar with enlarged
forged ends having holes through them for engaging connecting pins.
The configuration of eye-bar connection does not allow for efficient inspection by common visual
techniques. These connections collect water and promote corrosion at the eye-bar head
interfaces and around the pin.
The fewer eye-bars present in a member, the less internal redundancy and the higher the
inspection priority.
Tightly packed eye-bar connection
Figure 13: Eye-Bar Members

- 20 -
An internally redundant eye-bar member will consist of three or more eye-bars. Many eye-bar
members are internally non-redundant, having only one or two eye-bars per member.
Members with only one or two eye-bars should be considered fracture critical members. If
members have three or more eye-bars, they offer some degree of internal redundancy; however,
a failure analysis should be performed to determine if they are also fracture critical.
A2.9. Welded Insert Plate in Girder Web
One way to haunch a rolled beam involves removing the bottom flange from the web, and an
insert plate of the required depth is welded in place during fabrication. Flange plates are then
welded to the bottom of the web plate. It is difficult to achieve full weld penetration at the
intersection between the horizontal and vertical groove welds, which makes this detail vulnerable
to fatigue cracking (Figure 14). A notable example is the Aquasabon River Bridge in Ontario
(Reference 15).
Figure 14: Welded Web Insert Plates
A2.10. Partial penetration groove welds or groove welds not verified by NDT
Welded splices in the tension flanges of girders, partial joint penetration groove welds, and any
intersecting welds could include internal flaws which would produce a stress concentration.
Modern welding standards and non-destructive test (NDT) requirements have reduced the risk of
fatigue cracking of these joints, and therefore joints that have been established by non-destructive
testing are less concerning.

- 21 -
Figure 15: Fatigue of Groove Welds without NDT or Partial Penetration Groove Welds
A2.11 Butt Welded Longitudinal Stiffener
In order to fabricate longitudinal stiffeners, shorter lengths of steel plates are joined by a butt weld.
In the past, the weld between segments of stiffener plates was thought to be less critical than the
weld between the stiffener and the web. In these cases, there was inadequate NDT to verify weld
quality of butt welds joining segments of stiffeners at the time of construction. This increases the
risk of weld flaws that could lead to fatigue cracking (Figure 16). These weld flaws have also
resulted in cases of constraint induced fracture initiating at the weld with subsequent cracking of
the girder web. Similar problems have occurred with segments of back-up bars when the back-
up bars remain in place without adequate NDT of the welds between segments.
Figure 16: Cracking of Butt Welded Longitudinal Stiffeners

(Reproduced from Reference 16)

- 22 -
A2.12 Intersecting Members with Flange Splice Passing Through Web
Figure 17: Intersecting Members with Flange Splice Passing Through Girder Web
A2.13 Weld detail categories D, E, and E1
See CHBDC Table 10.7 and Fig 10.6 for details.
A3: Fracture Critical Structures
A3.1. One or Two Girder Bridges
The main types of fracture critical girder bridges are the single box girder bridge, the two girder
plate girder bridge (both deck and half through girder bridges). The tension flange is a fracture
critical member in these types of structures.
Two Girder Bridge

- 23 -
Two Girder (Half-Through) Bridge
Figure 18: Two Girder Bridges
A3.2. Truss Bridge
Three main types of trusses are the deck truss, the through truss, and the half through (pony
truss). All two truss bridges have fracture critical members for all the primary tension members
in the truss (i.e. the chords and all non-redundant diagonals and verticals).
Figure 19: Truss Bridges

- 24 -
3.3. Steel Arch and Suspension Bridge
Arches are divided into three types: deck, through and tied arch.
Deck Arch Bridge

(Eric Sakowski / HighestBridges.com)
Through Arch Bridge
Tied Arch Bridge
Figure 20: Arch Bridges

- 25 -
Fracture Critical Members
The deck arch bridge has two or more main members. However, the arch is not a tension member
and is therefore not considered fracture critical. The through arch is the main load-carrying
member. Since there are typically only two arch ribs, the structure is non-redundant. However,
the bridge is not classified as fracture critical because the arches are not tension members. The
hangers may be fracture critical, depending on the results of a detailed structural analysis.
A tied arch bridge is a through arch bridge where the horizontal thrust of the arch is resisted by
an arch tie, which connects the ends of an arch together. With only two load paths, the tied arch
is a non-redundant structure, and a failure of the arch tie would result in collapse. Therefore, the
tie is considered a fracture critical member. Like all arch ribs, tied arch ribs are compression
members and are not fracture critical.
Suspension bridges are not common in Ontario. The main cables are non-redundant tension
members making them fracture critical. The hangers may be fracture critical, depending on the
results of a detailed structural analysis.
A3.4. Moveable Bridges
Moveable bridges are subject to significant load reversals, making many members tension
members at some point during the movement of the bridge. All moveable bridges are considered
fracture critical.
Figure 21: Moveable Bridge
A3.5. Steel Pier Caps and Cross Girders
Fracture critical members can also occur in the substructure. This is true in locations were non-
redundant pier caps and cross girders exist.

- 26 -
Figure 22: Steel Pier Bent
A3.6. Fracture Critical Floor Beams
Transverse floor beams of trusses, arch and other bridge types are Fracture critical members if
their failure would lead to significant damage to the bridge. This is true if the floor beams are
spaced far apart (greater than 4.3m) and significant deflection would occur if a floor beam fails, if
stringers do not exist to help redistribute the loads, or if floor beams have hinged connected at
their ends.
Figure 23: Floor Beam Hinge Connected at Ends

- 27 -
4.1 Date of Construction
While newer bridges are also susceptible to fatigue, a higher fatigue index weight factor is given
for older bridges because these structures have experienced a larger number of cycles.
4.2 ADTT
A higher fatigue index weight factor is given for higher truck traffic volume levels, as this has a
direct relationship with expected fatigue performance.

- 28 -
Appendix B: Fatigue Evaluation Commentary

Many different factors can affect the fatigue life of a bridge. Fatigue performance is most
affected by the magnitude of in-service stress ranges. It is common to find that the remaining
fatigue life is negative, suggesting that the detail “should” have cracked when it has not [2].
These situations require judgement to manage the potential risk of cracking.
ADTT values must be accurate and reflect past, present, and future truck traffic volumes that a
bridge will experience over its lifespan. ADTT values should exclude lighter panel, pickup, and
other 2-axle / 4-wheel trucks. ADTT data from iCorridor represents 2-direction traffic and is not
divided into directional splits. In such cases, NCHRP Report 299 [19] recommends taking the
following ratios of total ADTT when calculating the single lane truck traffic volume (similar to the
ratio p in CHBDC 10.17.2.3.1 to calculate ADTTf):
Table B1 – Recommended Fraction of Trucks Attributed to Single Lane for Fatigue

Evaluation
Total Number of Lanes 2-Way Traffic 1-Way Traffic
1 -- 1.00
2 0.60 0.85
3 0.50 0.80
4 0.45 0.80
5 0.45 0.80
6 or more 0.40 0.80
While the fatigue inspection timing recommended in this guideline emphasizes more frequent
fatigue inspections later in the fatigue life, the time interval between fatigue inspections may be
too long for structures with more extreme fatigue loading later in the fatigue life. Reference [18]
outlines how crack growth estimates can be used to establish safer and more rational inspection
timing in order to detect of fatigue cracks. Judgement is required to assess the risk of potential
cracking.

- 29 -
Appendix C: Site #:
Name:
Fatigue Index Calculation Sheet Date:
SCORE
Category
Exists?
Fatigue
Weight
Factor
YES
NO
DISTORTION-INDUCED FATIGUE DETAILS
1.1 Floor beam connection plate not attached to flange 25
Welded plate girder with diaphragm connection plate not attached to flange or with thin retrofit
1.2
connectors (See Note 1) 10
Welded box girder with diaphragm connection plate not attached to flange or connected with thin
1.3
connectors (See Note 1) 35
1.4 Frame type intermediate diaphragms that are staggered transversely (See Note 2) 20
1.5 Skew > 20 degrees (See Note 2) 5
DISTORTION-INDUCED FATIGUE SCORE (subtotal) =
FATIGUE PRONE DETAILS
2.1 Stringer or girder members with welded cover plates 30
2.2 Welded Repair Details 20
2.3 Gusset plates welded to web or flange using intermittent (stitch) welds 5
2.4 Intersecting welds (incl. < 6 mm gap between horizontal & vertical welds) 20
2.5 Coped Beam Connection 15
2.6 Stringer floor beam connection 10
2.7 Pin and Hanger Assemblies 30
2.8 Steel Eye-Bars 30
2.9 Welded insert plate in web 30
2.10 Partial penetration groove welds or groove welds without NDT verification 10
2.11 Butt welded longitudinal stiffener 15
2.12 Intersecting members with flange splice passing through web 20
Other Category E or E1 welds E / E1 30
2.13
Category D welds D 25
FATIGUE PRONE SCORE (subtotal) =
FRACTURE CRITICAL STRUCTURES/MEMBERS
3.1 One or two girder Bridges 1.0
3.2 Truss Bridges 1.0
3.3 Arch or Suspension Bridges with fracture critical members 2.0
3.4 Moveable Bridges 0.5
3.5 Bridges with Steel Pier Caps and Cross Girders 0.2
3.6 Bridges with Fracture Critical Floor Beams 0.2
FRACTURE CRITICAL SCORE (subtotal) =
OTHER FACTORS - SECONDARY CRITERIA
Before 1950 1.0
1950-1975 0.5
4.1 Year of bridge construction
1975-2000 0.2
After 2000 0.0
ADTT ≥ 1000 1.0
ADTT 250 to 1000 0.5
4.2 ADTT of the Highway (2 Direction Traffic)
ADTT 50 to 250 0.2
ADTT < 50 0.0
OTHER FACTORS SCORE (subtotal) =
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫

𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐱 = (∑ 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 + ∑ 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 ) (𝟏 + ∑ 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 ) (𝟏 + ∑ 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬) =
𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞
Note 1: Some retrofits intended to prevent distortion fatigue have proven ineffective because they used “thin connectors” angles, tees, or plates to
provide a positive connection between the flange and the connection plate. When retrofit angles, tees, etc. are less than 16 mm thick, they are
vulnerable to continued cracking.
Note 2: Details 1.4 and 1.5 apply only if details 1,1, 1.2, or 1.3 are also present on the bridge (i.e., connection plate not connected to flange)

2019-04 Fatigue Inspection Guidelines For Steel Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2019-04 Fatigue Inspection Guidelines For Steel Bridges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019-04 Fatigue Inspection Guidelines For Steel Bridges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministry of Transportation

Highway Standards Branch

Author(s) Vince Zingaro, Siebren DeJong

Originating Office Bridge Office, Highway Standards Branch, Ontario Ministry of

Report Number BRO-063; ISBN 978-1-4868-3391-7

Publication Date April 2019

Ministry Contact Bridge Office, Highway Standards Branch, Ontario Ministry of

Key Words Fatigue inspection; fatigue index; fracture critical; constraint

Distribution Unrestricted technical audience.

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines

301 St. Paul Street,

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

2.2. Constraint Induced Fracture

3. Fatigue Inspection Selection Criteria

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

• have collision damage, improper heat straightening, or notched holes, etc.;

3.1. Factors Affecting the Fatigue Performance of Steel Bridges

3.1.2. Fatigue Prone Details

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

• Stringer or girder members with welded cover plates

3.1.3. Fracture Critical Members

• One or two girder bridges

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

• Bridges with steel pier caps and cross girders

3.1.4. Other Factors

• Fracture toughness specified in material specification referenced on drawings

The Fatigue Index (FI) is calculated as follows:

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

5. Fatigue Inspection Frequency

Table 1 – Recommended Timing for Fatigue Inspections

Fatigue Index ≥ 50 < 50

2) More frequent inspections may be required based on engineering judgement, which

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Appendix A: Fatigue Index Commentary

Figure 1: Distortion-induced Fatigue of Floor Beams

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Figure 2: Distortion-Induced Fatigue of Girders with Diaphragms

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Figure 3: Distortion-Induced Fatigue of Horizontal Gusset Plates

Retrofits for Distortion-induced Fatigue

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

A2. Load-induced Fatigue Prone Details

A2.1. Stringer or girder members with welded cover plates

A2.2. Welded Repair Details

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Figure 4: Cracking and Fractures at Plug Welds

Figure 5: Welded Repair of Previous Stringer Crack (Site No. 03X-0003/B0)

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

Figure 6: Intermittent Stitch Welds

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063

A2.4. Intersecting welds in web (horizontal & vertical stiffener intersections)

Fatigue Inspection Guidelines for Steel Bridges BRO-063